Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04202005 CEB HOME OF PEUCAN ISLAND 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 (772) 589-5330 . Fax (772) 589-5570 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2005 1. Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. with a pledge to the flag. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Charles Ed Dodd Ronald Van Buskirk Carl Anderson Eva Schofield Fred Clement Howard Brauer (a1t) Absent: Leon Griffin Excused: City Attorney Rich Stringer Hank Buchanan Also Present: Code Enforcement Officer Growth Management Director Growth Management Manager Code Enforcement Board Secretary Antoine Van Meir Tracy Hass Jan King Shirley Lynch 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting 03/16/05 The minutes were approved as written by a voice vote 6-0 Please note, Alternate Member Howard Brauer will be voting at this meeting because of the absence of a board member 4. Additions & Deletions- There was none 5. NOTICED HEARINGS: A. VIOLATION HEARING- CASE #2004-23470 Sebastian Harbor Ltd/Hurricane Harbor Restaurant . SECTION 54-5-18.7 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE-Expiration, transferability and enension- Site plan approval sball expire 12 montbs after final approval, if construetion bas not been started as evidenced by steady and continuous progress, including the pouring of footings by said termination date. Code Enforcement Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 20f6 . SECTION 54-5-18.2(e) LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE- Conformance with land development regulations, required. AIl buildings, structures, or uses shall he erected. altered. installed. and maintained in full conformity with the provisions of the land development regulations and approved site plans. Mr. Norbert Kreyer, President of Sebastian Harbor, Ltd. was represented by his attorney, Warren Dill. Mr. George Dannen, contract purchaser of Hurricane Harbor was also present- Chairman Dodd swore in Officer VanMeir who then testified on the case and showed pictures of the property (Exhibit AI through AI5), the unfinished parking area, the grease trap, the lack of landscaping, the incomplete retention area, the silt fence that is deteriorated in some areas, and the partially covered deck He presented other pictures of a pipe coming out from under the deck going into the river, and discarded debris under the deck area He stated this case was originally presented to the Code Enforcement Board at their October 15, 2004 meeting. At that meeting, the Code Enforcement Board found the respondents in violation of Section 54-4--18.7 of the Land Development Code of the City of Sebastian. Ordering a re-submittal of their site plan to the city and giving them ninety (90) days from the time the site plan is approved to complete the required work If the work is not completed within that time frame, a one hundred and fifty dollar ($150) a day fine will be assessed to each respondent until the property comes into compliance. After being sworn in by tbe Chairman, Tracy Hass testified on the time lapse. He stated there was no re-submittal of the site plan, that the city has the approved 3/12/04 site plan. He commented that the improvements were started but Sebastian Harbor, Ltd has done nothing since 3/12/04. He stated they are required to have asphalt at 1-1/2" thickness, and the asphalt that is there is not that thick Sebastian Harbor, Ltd. had one year to commence the improvement work, which they did, but they have not completed the required work Mr. Hass stated he spoke to the City Anorney, Rich Stringer, who commented that technically the site plan has not expired- normally one would have 18 months to complete the site plan, but no permits are needed on this application, therefore they do not necessarily have to show continual progress. He stated in reviewing the code, his initial interpretation was that the site plan had expired. Howard Brauer questioned if the Code Enforcement Board hadn't asked that the City Attorney he present at this meeting Chairman Dodd replied in the affirmative. Mr. Dill, Attorney for Sebastian Harbor Ltd., and Mr. George Dannen were sworn in by the Chairman. Mr. Dill stated his client is not in violation of the site plan- that it is the City's interpretation. He submitted Exhibit Bl, a part of the Land Development Code 54-4-18.7 eXplaining that they do not have a phased site plan and there is no time limit within which they have to finish the improvements. All they have to do is to start construction within twelve months and demonstrate that by continuous activity which, Mr. Dill feels they have done. After a question by the Chairman as to why Sebastian Harbor did not re-submit a site plan, Mr. Dill answered by stating that he has gone to the city on numerous occasions and talked with them about the outstanding issues and that there is no time limit specified in the Code Enforcement Board's Order to submit the site plan. He stated his client has been working with the city. He reiterated Sebastian Harbor, Ltd is not in violation of the site plan that the site plan is still in effect. Mr. Dill stated that legally, there is no basis for his client to be in front ofthe Code Enforcement Board. He stated his client never received a notice for the second meeting in October of 2004. He went to the Code Enforcement Office, looked through the record, and spoke to Officer VanMeir. Officer VanMeir stated to Mr. Dill that there was no proof of mailing of that meetings notice. Mr. Dill discussed the hurricanes and the damage done to the work that had been completed already. He stated that Hurricane Harbor has been there for many years and Code Enforcement Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 3 of 6 there has always been a sand parking lot across the street. He explained that a tour boat operator wanted to use the docking facilities for that business necessitating more parking, the paving of the lot, etc. Approximately three or four months after the tour boat business began, it left the area which reduces the size of the parking needed for the restaurant. Further, because of the hurricanes, his client has lost a lot of seating inside the restaurant. He feels that they do not need all the parking spaces that the site plan shows. Mr. Dill suggested the City's engineering department felt his client wasn't moving fast enough with the improvements and that initiated the code action. He commented on the pictures ofthe site presented by the Code Enforcement Officer, stating that the last half of the presentation was not about the site plan issue and that the pipe coming out from under the restanrant to the river is the drip for the ice maker and has nothing to do with a code violation. Me Dannen stated the pipe removes the water that constantly runs around the icemaker; it is not the condensation from the icemakee Chairman Dodd asked Mr. Hass if the site plan indicated that the parking lot needed to be complete before the deck work began? Mr. Hass stated there are two decks, the deck on the north side ofthe property and one on the east side. The deck on the north side was completed many years ago and there waf. an agreement that limited the uw of that deck based on the lack of parking on the site. The restaurant was permitted to use the deck or the big banquet room in the interior of the building, but not both of them at the :>ame time. The deck on the east side of the building was done with a separate building permit, did not increase the :>eating area, so the restaurant was not required to provide any additional parking for that area. Mr. Ha:>s stated Hurricane Harbor was to have completed the parking area before they started operating the restaurant at its full capacity. Chairman Dodd asked about the completion of the parking lot and if it was a capacity issue? Mr. Hass answered in the affirmative. The Chairman asked Mr. Dannen what the seating capacity numbers are now compared to what they were before the hurricanes. Mr. Dannen stated that they had 175 seats, now they have between 145 to 150 seats in the restaurant. ***(amended @ 5/18/05 meeting) Cbairman Dodd asked Mr<. Dannen if be was at the September< 2004 meeting. Mr<. Dannen stated that he was. Chairman Dodd asked Mr. Dannen if he was told that tbe case would be held over to the October 2004 meeting due to a lack of quorum. Mr. Dannen stated tbat be was told it would be held over, but did not attend the October meeting because he was not notified in writing. *** A discussion followed on the written information that was presented to the Code Board from Mr. Norbert at the Octoher, 2004 meeting. Chairman Dodd stated he wanted to clarify that the interested parties were given an opportunity to be present at the October meeting. Mr. Dill countered that his client wrote the letter before the October meeting in response to either the discussion at the September meeting or the notice to he at the September meeting. Ronald Van Buskirk mentioned the date of the letter is dated October I, 2003. Me Dill explained Me Norbert might have put the wrong year on the letter. Ronald VanBuskirk stated Mr. Norbert was in agreement with the Code Enforcement Board and was looking to submit a new site plan. Mr. Dill reported there is nothing that states Hurricane Harbor has to complete the site plan hefore they can uw the deck. He started a chronology of events: the site plan was initially approved in June 2003, revised in March 2004. The City considered that a modification of the site plan not a revision. He stated it was revised in March 2004, to address issues raised by the City. If the City had considered that his client submitted a modification of the site plan in March, his client would have had another year under City ordinance to complete the site plan. Me Hass stated that the City did not consider it a revision, as what was presented in the original plan was not consistent with land development regulations- the city conditioned the approval ba:>ed on the re-submittal that was in compliance. He further commented that this was the re- submittal as required by the original approval. Chairman Dodd asked if the City was moving ahead under the June 5, 2003 approval date for the site plan. Mr. Hass replied in the affirmative. Code Enforcement Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 4 0[6 Mr. Dill agreed with that June 5, 2003 date. What Mr. Dill does not agree with is the decision of the City that the site plan expired on June 5, 2004. He said that Mr. Hass stated today that the site plan did not expire, and it should not have been brought to the City Code Enforcement Board in September, 2004. He went on to state that on November 10, 2004, his client received the Order from the Code Board. He received a call from his client on that date and asked that Mr. Dill work with the City to resolve the matter. Mr. Dill spoke with Mr. Hass, on November 16, 2004; he then met with Mr. Hass on November 22, 2004 and discussed the status ofthe situation. On November 23,2004, Mr. Dill met with Code Enforcement Officer, Antoine VanMeir, and discussed the situation with him. On January 11, 2005, he spoke to his client about satisfying the concerns of the City. On January 13,2005, his client came to Sebastian and spoke with Mr. Dill to discuss the issues; at that time he told Mr. Dill that he spent fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) on that property. He handed out Exhibit B-2 that shows a total payment of forty-nine thousand five hundred dollars ($49,500). (Mr. Dill discussed an exhibit of cancelled checks supporting the payments, which the secretary did not receive to be placed in the record as an exhibit). He stated the overall site plan cost was approximately one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), and that this expenditure was one half the site plan cost. Mr. Dill stated his client has plans to submit to the City, before the end of this year, to redevelop the west side ofIndian River Drive, with condominiums, a restaurant and parking below. He commented that, therefore, all that was spent and everything that will be spent is money wasted. Mr. Dill stated on January 24, 2005, he met with Tracy Hass and Jan King discussing the site plan, and he thought he had a tentative agreement with what was needed to be done to satisfY the City. He passed out Exhibit B-3, a letter he wrote on January 25, 2005 to Tracy Hass as Growth Management Director referencing the items discussed at that meeting and confirming that his client agreed to complete those improvements. Mr. Dill also referred to the sign permit application that is before the City. Chairman Dodd asked the secretary to get clarification as to whether someone was notified that this agenda item was carried over to the October, 2004 meeting. The Secretary will look through the record and report back to the board. Ronald Van Buskirk stated the Code Board is here to get dates of when Sebastian Harbor, Ltd. will file a revised site plan and asked when this site plan will expire. Mr. Dill replied that it would never expire because there are no building permits required. Mr. Dill spoke to City Attorney, Rich Stringer, on March 7, 2005, regarding giving assurance to the city that the improvements agreed upon at the January 24, 2005 meeting, would be done by a certain time. He stated tbat the city never got back to him about a completion date. The next time he heard from the city was the notice to appear before the Code Board. He stated he realizes there must be a completion date on the agreed improvements. Chairman Dodd stated he doesn't see anything in the letter that needs a response from the City. He feels that it is the courts that will decide if the finding is valid or not, that a person must do something about an Order, not just dismiss it. He asked why someone did not come back to the board to tell them that the Order was being questioned? He asked why no progress has been made, not on the legal issue, but he asked where the intent is. The Chairman stated that it bothers him that the Finding has been disregarded. He asked again why someone didn't come back before the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Dill feels that there is no procedure for his client to come back to the Code Enforcement Board and that the Finding was based on the presentation by the City without his client being able to present his case. Ronald VanBuskirk stated that was not determined yet. Chairman Dodd stated that they were told in September that this item would be placed on the October meeting agenda. Mr. Dill said if he made his presentation perhaps the decision of the board might have been different in October 2004. Mr. Dill asked Code Officer Code Enforcement Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 50[6 VanMeir if there was proof of mailing. Officer VanMeir replied that he had no proof of mailing for the October meeting in his file but there is proof that Mr. Dill's client was in attendance at the September meeting. Mr. Howard Brauer stated he needs the City Attorney present at this meeting. Chairman Dodd stated there are two issues that need to be resolved before he can proceed, first is if the respondents were notified of the October meeting, second is the actual finding from the October meeting, when that finding was to set activities in motion and when those activities were to take place. He motioned to hold this issue to the next meeting asking City Attorney Stringer to he at that meeting. He tben withdrew the motion for further discussion. Fred Clement asked about two items, the retention pond and the silt fence, he feels these are code violations that need immediate attention. Ronald Van Buskirk spoke about the waste oil being an environmental hazard issue. Mr. Dannen stated he would have it moved by tomorrow. Chairman Dodd stated he saw many conditions in the pictures that he considers code issues. Eva Schofield commented on the minutes from October meeting, referencing the previous owner being under contract to complete the work. Mr. Dill stated Sebastian Harbor, Ltd is doing the work. Mr. Dill addressed the Chairman about the estimate and proof of payment of a deposit that his. client did, on his. own, trying to res.olve the is.s.ue. Mr. Dill was. told the next meeting would be on May 18, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Dill stated he would be in attendance. Ronald VanBuskirk stated the Chairman can call a meeting at any time, and perhaps the City Attorney has a conflict on the third Wednesday of the month, that may be the problem of why he's not here. Mr. Dill stated he would be working with the City between now and the next meeting to try to resolve all the issues so they don't have to come before this board again. He feels this can be res.olved between the city and his client. Officer VanMeir agreed with Mr. Dill. He stated that a new notice will be issued listing what has been done and not done at Hurricane Harbor and will addres.s it at the next meeting as a new case. Chairman Dodd stated this. cas.e will be carried over to the next meeting and if Officer VanMeir has a new case to bring forward, he can do that. Officer VanMeir commented that Mr. Dill stated to him at the November 23, 2004 meeting in OfficerVanMeir' s office, that he was not concerned with the due process. Chairman Dodd asked that clarification about the notification to the October meeting be sent out with the packet for the next meeting; the second thing he's concerned about is that the Finding by the board was disregarded. He further stated that the Code Board cannot change the City's ordinances. He thinks the intent issue is very large and the pictures and the apparent disregard for many of the City ordinances bothered him. Mr. Dannen stated that paving was put down prior to the hurricanes. He said they had a problem with the company, Tim Rose, who wouldn't finish the job. He has Citizens Insurance and didn't get any money for the hurricane damage up to this point. He stated he paid for the repairs himself. He agreed he wasn't focused on the parking lot, but getting the restaurant up and running. Chairman Dodd has no issue with the damage to the parking lot due to the hurricanes but he sees many things that could have been done. Howard Brauer discussed the lawn cutting and why it wasn't done on a regular basis. He also discussed trying to do a little on the problems and not finishing anything. Chairman Dodd MOTIONED in reference to case #2004-23470, finding the respondents in violation of the city codes 54-4-18.7 and 54-4-18.2(e), to postpone decision on any impact of the violations until the May 18, 2005 meeting and that the board rehear the case, second by Fred Clement. Ronald Van Buskirk stated it is very important that the city attorney attend the next meeting and ifhe cannot attend then the meeting should be postponed until the next month. Code EnfOICeJl1ent Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 6of6 ROLL CALL VOTE: Chairman Charles Ed Dodd Eva Schofield Ronald Van Buskirk Fred Clement Carl Anderson Howard Brauer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Motion carried 6-0 Chairman Dodd asked Mr. Hass to attend the next meeting and to document any meetings or discussions between now and the next meeting relating to the issues before the Board and to inform the Board as to the results of those meetings. Fred Clement made the suggestion that we have verbally told them of the next meeting and that the secretary will mail out notice of the meeting. 7. CHAIRMANS MATTERS- There were none 8. MEMBERS MATTERS: Carl Anderson stated he is concerned that our city attorney wasn't here. He stated that the code board is a citizens group and need legal guidance in these cases. He stated the intent of this firm is important. Chairman Dodd agreed with the concern that the city's attorney wasn't here. 9. CODE OFFICER MATTERS: There were none There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 3:25 P.M. Approved at the ~ i!dJ; 2t?, 2t?a5 Code Enforcement Board meeting. ~~