Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05181994aCOD~ ENFO~CEM~N~ BOARD l~.Y 1~ 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS AT 2:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. NICOLINI CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS MR. METCALF VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER ATTORNEY LULICH EXCUSED: MR. NEGLIA MR. GENERAZIO ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY LEADETH SMITH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS READ OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1994. ROLL CALL: MR. METCALF YES MR. NICOLINI YES VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER YES CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS YES MOTION CARRIED. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, STATED WE ARE BRINGING THREE OLD CASES BACK TO THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THE FINE FOR A LIEN. THIS IS NOT A HEARING. THE FLORIDA STATUTE STATES THAT AFTER YOU HAVE FOUND SOMEONE IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THAT UPON FINDING OF NON-COMPLIANCE, THAT THE CITYMAY RECORD THE ORDER AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE CREATING A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY, BUT WE ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE STATUTE TO FIRST COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF THAT FINE. THE CITY HAS THAT ON THREE SEPARATE CASES FOR THIS MEETING. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING.- MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 2 CASES 92-6345.~ 92-6348, 92-6418, 92-6436 HERBERT STUR~ RICHARD TORPY STATED THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF NON- COMPLIANCE THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED ON JUNE 25, 1992. HOWEVER, THERE WAS AN APPEAL PENDING ON THAT MATTER AND THE CITY HAD DETERMINED THAT RATHER THEN GO BACK TO THE DATE THAT THE FINE COULD HAVE STARTED THAT WE WOULD WAIT AND BEGAN THE FINE RUNNING AND ISSUED AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE AFTER THE APPEAL HAD BEEN RESOLVED BY THE COURT AND IN FACT THE CITY'S POSITION HAD BEEN UPHELD. IN THAT REGARD, AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS FILED WITH THE CITY DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1993, WHICH WOULD BE THE EFFECTIVE DATE THE FINE BEGAN TO RUN. THERE WAS A REINSPECTION ON MAY 18, 1994 AND THE PROPERTY IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THERE IS A TOTAL OF 239 AT $100.00 PER DAY FOR A TOTAL OF $23,900.00. THE CITY REQUESTS A MOTION FROM THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THIS FINE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO RECORD THE ORDER AND AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE, THEREBY CREATING A LIEN. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER TO CERTIFY THE LIEN AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS ASKED THE BOARD ATTORNEY, STEVEN LULICH, IF HE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THIS OVER. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THIS WAS A STANDARD PRACTICE UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT THIS WHERE THE BOARD MIGHT WANT TO REVISIT IT. THIS IS JUST FOR CERTIFICATION THAT THE BOARD ACCEPTS THE AFFIDAVIT OF NON- COMPLIANCE AND WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO PLACE A LIEN. ROLL CALL: MR. METCALF YES MR. NICOLINI YES CHAIRMANi'tGILLIAMS YES VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER YES CASES 93-8571 TRAVIS & JANET HOLLAND MOTION CARRIED. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, STATED WITH REGARD TO CASES 93-8571 A CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 20, 1993 REQUIRING COMPLIANCE FOR A RV NOT DISCONNECTED FROM ELECTRIC, WATER OR T.V. BY OR BEFORE THE 23RD OF OCTOBER, 1993. AN AFFIDAVIT' OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 27, 1993. A REINSPECTION WAS DONE ON APRIL 15, 1994 AND FOUND THE PROPERTY TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. THE CITY IS ASKING FOR A FINE TO BE IMPOSED IN THIS CASE FROM OCTOBER 24, 1993 THROUGH APRIL 15, 1994 OF 173 DAYS AT $50.00 PER DAY WITH A TOTAL FINE OF $8,650.00. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD r R~GULAR MEETING - MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOSTENBADER THAT THE DISCUSSION. MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN BOARD DISAPPROVE THE CERTIFICATION FOR MR. METCALF'S REASON IS THAT THERE IS NEARLY SIX MONTHS DELAY BETWEEN DATES. WHY DID THE CITY WAIT SO LONG WITHOUT TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT THE CERTIFICATION ENDS THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE DAILY FINE IS ACCUMMULATING. THE REASON WHY THE CITY ASKS FOR THAT IS THAT YOU CAN NOT FILE A LIEN UNLESS YOU HAVE A SUM CERTAIN. YOU CAN NOT HAVE A RUNNING LIEN, MUST HAVE A TOTAL AMOUNT. IN OUR ORDER THAT THE BOARD SIGNS, THE ORDER SAYS THE RESPONSIBILITY IS UPON THE PERSON BEING FINED TO NOTIFY WHEN THEY HAVE REACHED COMPLIANCE. BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, STATED THAT WE WERE GOING THROUGH OUR RECORDS AND THESE WERE STILL OUTSTANDING. INSTEAD OF LEAVING THESE ON THE BOOKS FOREVER, WE VERIFIED THAT IT WAS COMPLIED WITH. NORMALLY WE DO NOT GO OUT TO VERIFY UNTIL THE RESPONDENT OR THE DEFENDANT DOES CALL US. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED UP TO THE TIME A FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FILED THAT THE RESPONDENT COULD PETITION THE BOARD FOR A REDUCTION OF THE FINE. THIS BOARD DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE A FINE. ROLL CALL: MR. METCALF YES MR. NICOLINI NO CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS NO VICE CHAIRMAR KOSTENBADER NO MOTION DENIED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER TO ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IN CASE# 93-8571. ROLL CALL: MR. METCALF NO MR. NICOLiNI YES CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS YES VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER YES MOTION CARRIED. CODE ENFORCemeNT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - MAY 18 PAGE 4 C..ASE# 93-8933 JAMES MALONE THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, STATED THIS BOARD ENTERED AN ORDER ON JANUARY 19, 1994 REQUIRING COMPLIANCE FOR TOO MANY RVS ON A LOT. THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WAS SET FOR FEBRUARY 3, 1994. ON FEBRUARY 10, 1994 A REINSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY OCCURRED AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED AND THE PROPERTY WAS STILL IN VIOLATION. ON APRIL 15, 1994 AN INSPECTION DID OCCUR AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED. THE PROPERTY IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE. AS A RESULT THERE ARE 71 DAYS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE. THE FINE WAS $25.00 PER DAY WITH A TOTAL OF $1,775.00. A MOTION WAS MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI TO ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. ROLL CALL: MR. METCALF MR. NICOLINI CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS ViCE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER YES YES YES YES MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS: NONE BOARD ATTORNEY REQUEST AN~.REpORTS: NONE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: BRUCE COOPER STATED THAT IF THE BOARD WISHES TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES IN THE ORDERS, WE CAN MAKE IT CLEARER AND PUT AN ADDITIONAL NOTE IN THE ORDER THAT IT IS THE RESPONDENT'S REQUIREMENT TO RESPOND TO US ONCE THE VIOLATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED. FAILURE TO DO SO COULD RESULT IN A FINE FOR EVERYDAY THAT THEY FAILED TO DO THAT. HE HAS NO PROBLEM ON A 30 DAY BASIS REVIEWING THE CASES. GENERAL,DISCUSSION: VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER STATED THAT THE BOARD HAD DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE AND FELT THESE FINES WERE LEFT TO RUN TOO LONG. STAFF SHOULD RECHECK THESE CASES EVERY 30 DAYS. BRUCE COOPER STATED IT SHOULD BE IN THE ORDER. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD T.REGULAR M~G - MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 5 ATTORNEY LULICH STATED IF THE BOARD FELT THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO CUT THE TIME SHORT, IT CAN BE DONE BY AN ORDER. HE SUGGESTS IT TO BE DONE PROCEDURALLY WHICH WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT INSTEAD OF AN ORDER. INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT IN EVERY ORDER, THE BOARD COULD INSTRUCT STAFF TO DEVELOP A PROCEDURE. WHEN THE BOARD ASKS STAFF TO REINSPECT EVERY 30 DAYS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THEM_AN HOURS DOING THAT. IF YOU ISSUE AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OR COMPLIANCE, YOU HAVE EFFECTIVELY STOPPED THE LIEN FROM RUNNING. THE BOARD WOULD BE PREDETERMINING THE FINE. BRUCE COOPER STATED HE WOULD COME UP WITH A PROCEDURE. HE STATED STAFF WILL REVIEW ON A 30 DAY BASIS BUT WILL STILL PUT THE BURDEN ON THE RESPONDENT TO CONTACT US WHEN IN COMPLIANCE. RICHARD TORPY STATED IT IS NOT LIKE THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. THEY RECEIVE A VERBAL WARNING, WRITTEN NOTICE, NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING AND A COPY OF THE ORDER STATING THAT THEY WERE FOUND IN VIOLATION. HE IS ADVISING MR. COOPER'$ OFFICE NOT TO IMPOSE A POLICY THAT THE BOARD IS REQUESTING BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT TO CREATE A BURDEN ON THE CITY'S STAFF THAT IS NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS WELCOMED MRS. SMITH AS THE NEW CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. PUBLIC INPUT: MR. HERBERT STURM OF 549 SAUNDERS STREET STATED THAT ATTORNEY LULICH IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO HIS OPINION, THE STATE STATUTE INDICATES THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ORDER IMPOSING A FINE MAY BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND THEREAFTER SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN. ONCE YOU RECEIVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OFFICER, YOU ARE THEN AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ORDER AND NOT UNTIL THAT TIME. AN ORDER THAT SAYS A FINE IS LEVIED THE SAME TIME THAT THE ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS ISSUED IS NOT LEGAL. HE IS STATING ALL THE CERTIFICATION THAT WAS DONE AT THIS MEETING WILL NOT STAND UP IN A COURT OF LAW. ATTORNEY LULICH ASKED CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS IF THIS IS THE SAME MR. STURM THAT LOST THE APPEAL TO THE CITY. CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS STATED THAT IS CORRECT. MR. STURM STATED SOMETIME AGO MR. LULICH TOLD THE BOARD WHEN MR. STURM MADE REFERENCE TO AN ORDINANCE, THAT THE BOARD MAY GIVE MR. STURM'S ADVISE LITTLE OR NO MERIT. HE WOULD LIKE THAT STATEMENT RETRACTED, MR. LULICH TO APOLOGIZE AND TO iN FACT TELL THE BOARD THAT WHAT HE SAYS MEANS AS MUCH AS MR. LULICH'S STATEMENTS AND MR. TORPY'S STATEMENTS. CODE ENF. ORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - MAY 18f 1994 PAGE 6 MR. STURM STATED THE AMENDED ORDER IS NOT LEGAL. THE ORDER STATED THAT FOR ANY REASON YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE STATE OF TIME, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CODE INSPECTOR IMMEDIATELY. MR. STURM HAD SENT A MEMORANDUM TO ROBERT NICHOLSON DATED JULY 1, 1992 STATING THAT HE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE AMENDED ORDER WHICH REQUIRES REMOVING EVERYTHING DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOS THAT WERE TAKEN ON MAY 20, 1992. THE PHOTOS DEPICTED THE HOUSE, SHED AND BARN. MR. STURM ASKED THE BOARD IF THEY WERE AWARE OF THIS MEMO. ON 9/16/92 THE BOARD ISSUED AN ORDER TO STAY AN ORDER. THAT ORDER WAS THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE. HE WAS ASKING IF THAT ORDER STAYED, HOW CAN THE BOARD CERTIFY A LIEN ON A STAYED ORDER. MR. STURM STATED THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS STATED THAT THE FINES ARE NOT LEGAL, THE BOARD ATTORNEY HAS STATED THE FINES ARE NOT LEGAL AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS STATED THE FINES ARE NOT LEGAL. THE ORDER ISSUED A FLAT FINE. THE $100.00 PER DAY FINE IS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE BOARD IS NOTIFIED OF NON-COMPLIANCE. THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL YET THE ORDER SAYS REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. THE ORDER STATED TO REMOVE EVERYTHING DEPICTED IN THE PICTURES WHICH INCLUDED THE HOUSE, BARN, SHED, CAR AND THE BOAT, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE. THE ORDER WAS AMENDED AFTER MR. STURM FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL. HE STATED IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THE AMENDED ORDER WAS NOT VOTED ON BY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE ORDER WILL BE STAYED UNTIL THE JUDGE OF THE COURT ISSUES A MANDATE OR UNTIL THE BOARD DOES SOMETHING. HE STATED THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER AND HE HAS MISLEAD THE BOARD. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THIS iS PUBLIC INPUT TIME AND THE BOARD HAS THE CHOICE TO RESPOND OR TO MEDITATE ON ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN TOLD TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A CHOICE TO DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE AND NON-RESPONSES ARE AS GOOD AS A RESPONSE. MR. METCALF DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS BEING ASKED TO RESPOND TO. MR. STURMASKED IF MR. METCALF EVER SAW A MEMORANDUM TO ROBERT NICHOLSON STATING THAT MR. STURM COULD NOT COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE AMOUNT OF TIME ALLOWED. MR. METCALF HAD NO RESPONSE. RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, STATED THAT MR. STURMMADE SOME COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE LIEN THAT WAS IMPOSED. UNDER CHAPTER 162.09, IN ORDER TO CREATE THE LIEN, IT VERY SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU JUST RECORD A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSING A FINE AND IT MAY BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION BUT FOR FORECLOSURE. HE ALSO STATED IF A FINDING OF A VIOLATION OR REPEAT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - MAY 18,__~994 PAGE 7 VIOLATION HAS BEEN MADE, A HEARING SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER IMPOSING A FINE. MR. STURM STATED THAT THE ORDER IS STILL STAYED. THE CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSED HIS APPEAL THEREBY ENDING THAT CASE. MR. STURMALSO HAD STATED THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE SINCE MR. COOPER AND MR. TORPY WERE OUT OF TOWN IN OCTOBER. ATTORNEY TORPY STATED IF HE WAS IN COMPLIANCE AT THAT TIME AND THE CITY LET IT SIT FOR ANOTHER 3 OR 4 MONTHS, HE PROBABLY WOULD AGREE WITH HIM. HOWEVER, MR. STURM IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE BASED ON OUR INSPECTION. WE DID NOT BEGIN THE FINE TO RUN FOR OVER ALMOST 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER WE COULD BEGIN IT TO RUN AND WE CUT IT OFF EVEN THOUGH MR. STURM IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE. ATTORNEY TORPY JUST WANTED THE BOARD TO KNOW OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY HAS DONE TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE MR. STURM INSPITE OF THE SITUATION HE HAS PLACED HIMSELF INTO. ADJOURN: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF MAY 18, 1994 AT 2:50 P.M.. ROLL CALL: MR. METCALF MR. NICOLINI CHAIRMAN GILLIAMS VICE CHAIRMAN KOSTENBADER YES YES YES YES MOTION CARRIED. Minutes approved at the _~~ ~ , 1994 Meeting. Gerry Ku~9~,' Code Enforcement Board Secretary