CEB_03-23-04_Min. ,, ',"' ' ', . ,' ,-#L.L CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD , ; 2; , : '-: 7 1 City Commission Chambers ii~t-.;. --175 W. Warren Avenue Longwood, FI 32750 MINUTES March 23,2004 7:00 P.M. Present:
Luis Alvarado, Member Laura Moehlenkamp, Member John "Bob" Lomax, Chair Andrew McGarry, Member Jack Greenhalgh, Member Also Present: Richard Taylor, City Attorney Amy Goodblatt, Board
Attorney Bonnie Howington, Code Compliance lnspector Cathy Price, Code, Compliance lnspector Butch Yelvington, Lieutenant Absent: Les Simmonds, Member (Excused) 1. CALL TO MEETING TO
ORDER/ROLL CALL: John "Bob" Lomax, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Recording Secretary called the roll. Board Member Les Simmonds was unable to attend the meeting.
John "Bob" Lomax, Chair said Les Simmonds was an excused absence. The Board has an open seat, and will find a replacement. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the February 24, 2004
meeting were presented. Mr. McGarry moved, seconded by Ms. Moehlenkamp. Amy Goodblatt, Board Attorney m?ade a point and discussed it with the code board on CEB 04-02-350 the minutes
look like an error because we went off record for a couple of minutes. There was a finding of adjudication of guilt to the tenant only, There was a penalty also imposed and the minutes
don't reflect that. The penalty and Amy's minutes and the order reflect that the trailer had to be timely removed or screened and brought into compliance or a fine of $25 a day would
be imposed 10 days after of final orders. Amy Goodblatt checked with Ms. Price this afternoon and the notes of the code office reflect that, the way the minutes read now that there was
a finding and no penalty imposed. CEB 03-23-0411
Chair "Bob" Lomax asked for a motion, Moehlenkamp motioned to amend the minutes, seconded by Mr-Mcgarry. The Chairman "Bob" Lomax asked if there was any discussion. The amendment was
carried by a unanimous voice vote. 3. REPORTS-CASE UPDATES: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. CEB-04-02-354 Township Plaza Assoc. Ltd. Alvin Leitman, Owner 1018 W. SR 434 Longwood, FI 32750
Code Compliance Inspector Cathy Price reported that Township plaza is now in compliance, however we have received multiple complaints about the appearance of the property, high grass
and trash all over. Its very unsightly we have delt with Mr. Leitman before, he is in Jacksonville beach, he has a property manager, we haven't gotten very much cooperation from them.
The property is now in compliance. It had been sited for trash and debris and high grass. There is a drainage ditch that is always over grown and always a lot of trash by it. All the
trash and the barrels have been moved. This is the back of the building 950 building, all kinds of trash behind the businesses and high weeds and grass, today it was all clean. Mr. Leitman
had personal problems, he was in California and his brother was dieing he got called to the northeast where another brother had died and so he has had some personal problems but historically
we have not had cooperation with this property. Once again it is clean today but my recommendation that this property was in violation and that a $ 50 dollar a day fine if it should
come a repeat violation. Ms. Price suggests that a hefty fine should be imposed if it becomes a repeat violation. Ms. Goodblatt has 2 questions: Ms. Price was the property in compliance
by the date set in compliance January 28, 2004? Ms. Price: No it wasn't They were sited for a third allegation allowed use of required parking spaces. Ms. Price That has been resolved
in the mean time. Mr-Greenhalgh had a point of clarification that was a good question that we established that it was not in compliance by the time they were given. So therefore what
we are requesting is that we fine them guilty of not complying by the date given. But there is no fine to be imposed at this time because they are in compliance, as far as an amount
that would be determined at the time we come back in for a repeat violation and we can't determine that today. We have to consider what happens today to the time we come back on a repeat
violation to determine how much it would be. CEB 03-23-0412
Chair, "Bob" Lomax accepting the motion to close the public hearing portion of this case. Ms. Moehlenkamp motioned, Mr. McGarry Seconded. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr.
McGarry Motioned based on the evidence and the testimony I heard I move to fine the respondent guilty of violating Longwood city code chpt.12-2-1 and city code chpt. 12-2-2, as a matter
of law. I ask that the board find the fact that the property was not in compliance by the required time of January 28,2004. 1 further move to ask the city to write as good as letter
as they have on January 14, 2004 to Mr. Leitman and in strong terms mention the compliant that you have mentioned in the public part of the meeting. Ms. Moehlenkamp seconded the motion.
B. CEB-04-02-356 Vello & Helve Kruber, Property Owners 486 Freeman St. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Bonnie Howington report that Property Owner's at 486 Freeman St. are
in violation of City Code Chapter 22 section 22-33. That requires trailers to be stored in the garage garage or inside of his yard and be hidden by a 6 foot solid fence wall or a dense
hedge. They were to comply by January 28,2004 and re-inspection was done on February 10, 2004 the trailer was still in the driveway. Notice of Hearing was properly served at that time.
The Notice of Hearing was served by officer Martin of Longwood Police Department. ON March 7, 2004 at 10:58 a.m. The property was inspected today and it was in compliance. We ask that
the respondents be found guilty of having violation city code22-22-33 and we do not ask that a fine be imposed at this time. Ms. Moehlenkamp asked that the compliance was sent on January
21, 2004 and was supposed to come into compliance on January 28,2004, is that correct. Ms. Howington said yes, and you went out and it was still not in compliance. Ms.Howington went
out on February 10, 2004 and it was not in compliance at that time. Mr.McGarry asked was you able to determine the date that it did come into compliance or is this just the latest picture.
Ms. Howington talked to Ms. Kruber and her daughter comes in to the office and she stated that they moved the trailer on January 22, 2004. And they gave the location of the trailer as
344 Notre dames in Altamonte Springs. Chair, "Bob" Lomax accepted the motion to close the public hearing portion of this case. Ms. Moehlenkamp made motion, and Mr. Greenhalgh Seconded.
Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. CEB 03-23-0413
Mr. Alvarado made a motion, based on the evidence that I have seen and the testimony I have heard I move to find the respondent guilty of violation city code chpt. 22-23 in support of
the motion I asked the board to find these facts occurred notice of violation was issued on January 21, 2004 in which the date to comply was clearly stated as January 28, 2004 upon reinspeectio
on February 8, 2004 the property was still out of compliance on February 10, 2004 the property was again out of compliance and the notice to appear was served by officer Lisa Martin
on March 7,2004. The city has stated that the property is now in compliance but this case should be treated as repeat offender in future in fractions. Ms. Moehlenkamp Seconded the move.
C. CEB-04-02-357 Brian 0' Donnell 537 Wildmere Ave. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Cathy Price re ported th at Mr. O'Donnell was in Violation of City Code chpt.22-33 a
trailer in the yard. It was parked in the driveway and it was sited on January 31, 2004 to comply upon receipt. "I had been there the day before and the trailer had already been there
24 hours, I sited it for being parked between the house and the street, for more than 24 hours in a seven day period." The reason I only gave a 24 hour was because the trailer had also
been sited on January 12,2004 for the same reason. There was no communication or contact nothing, between when the property was sited and when we came to the meeting February 24, 2004.
Mr. O'Donnell came to the meeting; he had a personal emergency and asked if the case could be continued. The Notice of Hearing was served on March 7,2004 by officer Jammes, of the Longwood
Police Department, at 1050 a.m. Ms.Moehlenkamp asked they were sited on 1-12-04 and it had been there for 24 hours already and they came in to compliance. On the 30' of January it was
parked in the side again and when I went back on the 31'' 1 issued a Notice of Violation and gave them 24 hours to comply. Mr. Alvarado asked did you server the Notice on January 30?
ON the 3lSt you gave them 24 hours to comply by. Re-inspection was on February 24. 2004 and they were in compliance. Mr. O'Donnell property owner of 537 Wildmere ave. stated that when
he was found aware of the Notice he wasn't aware of the city code. Then he moved it out of his driveway and parked in on the side of his house. He immediately moved the trailer and it
is parked at his office. He's asking for forgiveness. CEB 03-23-0414
Mr. Alvarado made a motion, based on the evidence that I have seen and the testimony I have heard I move to find the respondent guilty of violation city code chpt. 22-23 in support of
the motion I asked the board to find these facts occurred notice of violation was issued on January 21, 2004 in which the date to comply was clearly stated as January 28, 2004 upon reinspeectio
on February 8, 2004 the property was still out of compliance on February 10, 2004 the property was again out of compliance and the notice to appear was served by officer Lisa Martin
on March 7, 2004. The city has stated that the property is now in compliance but this case should be treated as repeat offender in future in fractions. Ms. Moehlenkamp Seconded the move.
C. CEB-04-02-357 Brian 0' Donnell 537 Wildmere Ave. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Cathy Price reported that Mr. O'Donnell was in Violation of City Code chpt.22-33 a trailer
in the yard. It was parked in the driveway and it was sited on January 31, 2004 to comply upon receipt. "I had been there the day before and the trailer had already been there 24 hours,
I sited it for being parked between the house and the street, for more than 24 hours in a seven day period." The reason I only gave a 24 hour was because the trailer had also been sited
on January 12,2004 for the same reason. There was no communication or contact nothing, between when the property was sited and when we came to the meeting February 24, 2004. Mr. O'Donnell
came to the meeting; he had a personal emergency and asked if the case could be continued. The Notice of Hearing was served on March 7,2004 by officer Jammes, of the Longwood Police
Department, at 10:50 a.m. MsMoehlenkamp asked they were sited on 1-12-04 and it had been there for 24 hours already and they came in to compliance. On the 30'" of January it was parked
in the side again and when I went back on the 31'' 1 issued a Notice of Violation and gave them 24 hours to comply. Mr. Alvarado asked did you server the Notice on January 30? ON the
31" you gave them 24 hours to comply by. Re-inspection was on February 24, 2004 and they were in compliance. Mr. O'Donnell property owner of 537 Wildmere ave. stated that when he was
found aware of the Notice he wasn't aware of the city code. Then he moved it out of his driveway and parked in on the side of his house. He immediately moved the trailer and it is parked
at his office. He's asking for forgiveness. CEB 03-23-0414
Chair "Bob" Lomax asked for a motion to close the public hearing portion of this case. Ms. Moehlenkamp moved, and it was seconded by Mr. McGarry. Motion was carried by a unanimous voice
vote. Ms. Moehlenkamp made motion, based on the evidence and the testimony that I have heard I find the respondent not guilty on violating city code chpt.22-22-23. Mr. McGarry seconded
the motion. D. CEB-04-03-358 Thomas F. II & Melissa D. Howe, Property Owners 51 8 Tiberon Cove Rd. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Bonnie Howington, reports that the property
owners were sited on February 12, 2004 for have a commercial Vehicle parked in there drive way. This is a van that has writing on both sides of it and it exceeds the 6sq. ft of signing.
It's a violation of city code chpt. 22-32 which requires that commercial vehicles be stored in a building or in the side of the yard and be screened on all sides of the 6 foot solid
fence or a dense hedge. This is the 7" time that they have been sited for having a commercial vehicle. It seems that every time before a code meeting they come into compliance where
the van is not there. They were to be in compliance by February 19,2004 and a re-inspection was done on February 26, 2004 and the vehicle was in the drive way. A photo was taken and
inserted into the file. Inspected the site today and the photo showed that the vehicle was parked in the driveway. We request that these respondents be found guilty of having violating
city code chpt. 22-32 and we also request that they be given 24 hours to comply or be fined $50 be imposed for each and everyday the violation. Notice of Hearing was served to Melissa
Howe on March 7, 2004 at 8:25 p.m. by Officer Grimm, of the Longwood Police Department. Mr. Thomas Howe property owner, stats that's the photo that was taken today was not true and that
the van is parked there today. He said he's not a wealthy man he has to have a commercial vehicle to be able to transport product that they sell. It's not feasible to share a vehicle
with his wife; they both work on opposite sides of the town. "I can't get it in the garage it's to tall, what are my options that I have." Can I just cover it up, what can be done? "I've
tried to find the code, and I have checked it online and I can't find it, can I access it through the internet." Mr. Chairman stated that he can come down to city hall and receive a
copy of it, and when you were served there is a code number on there. You can call and request it be sent to you. Chair, "Bob" Lomax asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Ms.
Moehlenkamp made the motion and Mr.Greenhalgh seconded the motion Motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote. CEB 03-23-0415
Mr.McGarry made the n~otionb, ased on the evidence I've seen and testimony I have heard I move to find the respondent guilty of violating Longwood city code chpt.22 sec 22-33 commercial
vehicles, as a matter of law in support of this motion I ask that the board find these facts accrued upon which the violation is based. The fact is that the violation is cited as we
heard in testimony and was not in compliance either by the date of 2-19-04 when it was first in required to be in compliance and on 2-26-04 on further evidence of testimony was given
was not in compliance and is not in compliance as of this date, based on testimony. I further move to give the respondent one week from the date of service of order to bring the property
into compliance or a penalty of $ 50 a day will be imposed and it will for each and everyday of non compliance. Is the city asking for any cost? Answer: No Sir. Chair, "Bob'' Lomax asked
for a motion. .. Ms. Moehlenkamp seconded the motion of Mr. Mc Garry. Motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote. E. CEB 04-03-359 Daniel B. & Kathleen J. Bowen, Property Owners 112
Silver Cluster Ct. N. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Cathy Price, reports that the property owners were cited on January 28, 2004 for Violation of There boat was written
on January 28, 2004 to comply my February 4, 2004 upon re-inspection the property was not incompliance and was scheduled for this code board meeting. There has been no contact with the
property owner with regards to the violations, "I did go by today to take a picture and the boat is gone." The property is in compliance. I have cited this before and the boat has been
moved and it has come back. Ms.Moehlenkamp: you cited them on 1-28-04 to come into compliance by 2-04-04. When did you go back and re-inspect it. Ms Price: On 02-04-04 and the boat was
still there. Mr. Alvarado: Notice of hearing was delivered by officer who? Ms. Price: Forrest Price on 03-06-04 6:00 p.m. Daniel Bowen Property owner stated that they first he knew about
it was when the officer came and gave him the notice. It was in the evening and the next day he took it back and put it in the storage lot where we keep it." I don't know how the first
original notice was issued, if the lady would like to tell me who she gave the notice to."
Mr. Mc Garry: That evening you were talking about, the notice that when you first heard about it, was that the 61h of March? Mr. Bowen: The day the police officer came out, yes, I was
in the back of the house, and my wife took the notice. Mr. Mc Garry: Was it the specific notice of hearing that you found out about it or was it some other evening that you heard about
it. Mr. Bowen: I don't know who she served it to, whoever she said she served it to: she didn't give it to me, or my wife. Ms. Goodblatt: Have you been cited previously for having a
boat in your yard on this property. Mr. Bowen: In 2000, and at that time I was storing my boat in the yard, and I put my boat in the storage lot on 434, where there is in door storage.
Ms. Moehlenkamp: What happened, why isn't the boat stored there now? Mr. Bowen: I was just using it and I thought that it would be easier to leave it at the house, so I can go out on
the weekends. Chair "Bob" Lomax shall I accept a motion to close the public hearing portion. Ms. Moehlenkamp made that motion and Mr. Mr.Greenhalgh seconded the motion. Motion was carried
by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Alvarado wants to present a motion, based on the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard I find the respondent guilty of violation Longwood
city code chpt. 22 sec 22-33 in support of the motion I ask that the board find these facts occurred and notice of violation was issued on 1-28-04 to comply by 02-04-04. The re-inspection
of the property was conducted on 02-04-04 and again the property was not in compliance. Notice of Hearing was delivered by Officer Price on 03-06-04. The property is in compliance as
of today, so for future business I ask that city treat the property as a repeat violator. No fines, excuse me what is your recommendation Ms. Price Ms. Price: That the respondent be
a repeat violator. Mr. Alvarado: No fine as of today or administrative cost but in the future be treated as a repeat violator. Mr. Mc Garry seconded the motion made by Mr. Alvarado.
CEB 03-23-0417
H. CEB 04-03-362 Michael J. & Susan G. Pfenning, Property Ov~ncrs 502 E. Orange Ave Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Bonnie Howington, reports that the property owners run
a landscaping business and they bring tree debris and etc home in a trailer and they dump it in the back yard. She said the neighbors are calling complaining about having problems with
rodents. "I visited the cited; the back yard was a mess." There were a lot of trees and debris and etc in the yard the grass was very high and very trashy and debris in it. There is
a spa upside down." I issued them a notice of violation for trash and debris city code chpt. 12 sec 12-2(2) High grass and weeds city code chpt. 12 sec 12-2(1) and for the trailer at
the time was parked in the front yard city code chpt. 22 sec 22-33 they were given until November 6, 2003 to comply." On November the 5Ih Ms. Pfenning came into the office and talked
to the supervisor and stated that she has hired someone to clean up the yard, but she needed more time. The chief agreed and said she could have a 10 day extension." I went back out
on December 2"* and I talked to the property owner and she stated that she has not gotten all of the violations into compliance; she stated that she was waiting on public works to keep
the chipper fixed so that they could come back out and finish what they had started." "I had no idea what she was talking about." She contacted the city administrator and he had sent
some people to do some work out there. "I e-mailed Tom Smith who is in charge of the crew and asked him what there work was and the time frame they were expected to finish so we can
get this case into compliance." He e-mailed me back January 4Ih and stated that they had done everything they were going to do. A notice of hearing was sewed on March 6" by Officer Martin
of the Longwood Police Department. "I went back out today and the property has been cleaned up quite a bit the spa is still out there, and there is still some tree debris in the back
yard, basically a trailer trailer load." There is one large stump in the back yard. It's a great improvement from what it was. Like I said the trailer was not scene on the property at
this time. The high grass has been taken care of and the trailer has been taken care of. A little tiny bit of trash and debris is left in the back yard. Ms.Moehlenkamp: When was she
cited? Ms.Howington: Originally on October 30Ih Ms. Moehlenkamp: To come into compliance by November 6" and she came in on November 5Ih and asked for an extension, how long of an extension
did you give her? Ms. Howington: She was given a 10 day extension CEB 03-23-0418
Ms: Howington: I didn't go back out till December 2"d which she advised me that she was waiting on public works to come back out there. Ms. Moehlenkamp: Had anything been done at that
time? Ms. Howington: A lot of the stuff had been chopped up and the tree had been taken down and some of the debris had been all the way. Ms. Pfenning stated that her neighbored lives
around the corner from her and his tree took out all three fences and it was like 60 foot tall and it fell in my back yard. I am a single mom. It's clean at this time. The spa is not
mine. It belongs to a man that has passed away across the street. I don't' know what to do with it. The whole back yard is clean. Ms. Moehlenkamp: When did you come into compliance?
Ms. Pfenning: It's been clean after Mr. Drago helped me clean up the back yard with Ms. Smith. I have been taking it away and dumping it at 17-92 and I have been paying for the dumping
because I have no choice but I don't have anymore money to dump. But it's all clean except for that stump and I can't remove it by myself. There is no way I can move it, it's huge. Ms.
Moehlenkamp: Did the tree grow there? Ms. Pfenning: No, The tree fell, it missed my window, and I was sleeping with my little boy. Mr. Taylor: Who resides at the residence besides yourself?
Ms. Pfenning: Me my son and my roommate. That has been helping me with everything. Mr. Taylor: What's the name of the roommate? Ms. Pfenning: Juan Garcia Mr. Taylor: Do the two of you
run a landscaping business? Ms. Pfenning: I have a self employed landscaping business, which barely pays my mortgage, I do get hrs help, and everything else I have since I'm a single
mom and I don't get any child support. Mr. Taylor: You do have a home occupational license? CEB 03-23-0419
Ms: Pfenning: Yes I do Chair "Bob" Lomax shall I accept a motion to close the public hearing portion. Ms. Moehlenkamp made that motion and Mr. Greenhalgh seconded the motion of Ms. Moehlenkamp.
Motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote Ms. Moehlenkamp made a motion, based on the evidence and the testimony I have heard I find the respondent guilty of violating Longwood city
code chpt. 12 sec.12-Z(1). Based on the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard I support this motion by being served on a notice on October Sofh and did not come into compliance
until this month. If this happens again it will be a repeat violator. Mr. Mc Garry seconded Ihe motion made my Ms. Moehlenkamp. F. CEB-04-03-360 James F. & Marie A. Behr, Property Owners
446 Longwood Circle Longwood, F132750 Code Compliance Inspector Bonnie Howington reports that they property owners were cited for having trailers in the side yard that were not screened.
They were cited on 02-10-04 to comply by 02-1 7-04. The property was re-inspected on 02-19-04 and both trailers were still there." I was in the area on 02-25-04 and there was one trailer
there and the other one was gone." "I checked the record and they have been cited 5 times since 2000 for the same type of violation each time complying prior coming to the code board."
This case was served on James Behr on March 6" at 3:58 p.m. by Officer Martin of the Longwood Police Department. "I received a call on 03-15-04 from Mr. Behr he states that the trailers
were being repaired for his father, and he is now taking them back to New York." The inspection was done today and there is no trailer was found on the property. The property is now
in compliance. Since the violation has been corrected we request that the respondent be found guilty of having violated city code chpt. 22 sec 22-33. But at this time no fine is in request
however if the same violation occurred, we think they should be delt with as repeat violators. Ms. Moehlenkamp: When were they cited before for these trailers? Where they the same trailers
or do we know? Ms. Howington: I don't know if they were the same trailers or not. They had been cited 5 times since 2000. Mr. Alvarado: Who is the officer that made the delivery? CEB
03-23-0411 0
Ms. Howington: Lisa Martin of the Longwood Police Department Chair "Bob" Lomax shall I accept a motion to close the public hearing portion. Ms. Moehlenkamp made that motion and Mr. Greenhalgh
seconded the motion of Ms. Moehlenkamp. Motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote Mr. Alvarado made a motion, based on the evidence and the testimony I have heard I move to find the
respondents guilty of violating city code chpt. 22 sec 22-33 in support of this motion I ask the board to find these facts occurred, notice of violation was issued on 02-10-04 to comply
by 02-1 7-04 notice of hearing was delivered by officer Martin, on 03-06-04 the property consequently came into compliance and is now in compliance but at the time of the notice the
property was out of compliance. I ask that the city treat this property as a repeat violator for future cases. Mr. Mc Garry seconded the motion made by Mr. Alvarado. CEB 04-03-631 Lloyd
D. & Maureen Castille, Property Owners 101 Pineda St. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance Inspector Bonnie Howington reports that, the property owners of this house were remolding. When
I first got the call, I didn't realize they were in the city. "I did check and I issued a stop work order and a notice of violation and advised them that a permit was required for remodeling
of the house, there were new windows and doors and plumbing etc." Peter and Richard Kornbluh were at the location when I arrived there. While we were there the property owner came on
site and stated that this was his wife's project and he stated that she started out just doing a few things and it had been a rental house and it progressed it got more extensive and
more involved I advice that the required of all phases were issued a notice of violation to him and I gave him the stop work order to him. Later in the day our supervisor and the building
officer did an inspection and agreed that all permits should be obtained from the building department. On December the 1 7th of 2003 1 went to the property to issue a notice of non compliance
and I met Mr. Castille on site and he stated that he was just returning from a funeral of his mother in law who had passed away. He stated that his wife had been with her this whole
time, and that was the hold up so of course we agreed to extend it to after the first of the year. On January the 7th I received a call from Mr. Castille advising that he had met with
Frank and his wife was talking to an engineer in regards for a deck he put on the back of the house for a wheel chair ramp. "I asked Mr. Castille about the permits for remolding and
everything and he said that the building officials had told him that if there were any drastic changes that he needed to pull permits so I got back with CEB 03-23-0411 1
the building official and he asked if that was correct and apparently he made, there was a lack of communication some where." Frank did contact Mr. Castille and advised him that he needed
to pull permits for the work that had already been done. The supervisor at that time Chief Carbonell stated gives 2 weeks extension and then re check it. On January 21, 2004 we mailed
a pre-notice, it was a pre-notice of hearing to the property owner, I got a call from Richard Phillips on February the 4'h of 2004 Mr. Phillips stated that he was with Phillips construction
company and he was advising me that he was going to be the
general contractor for this job, that he has been hired by the Castille's and he wanted to know what was all required. "I told him at that time he needed to get permits for the work
that had been done and that all phases of the work he did permits also." "I advised him he needed to contact the building department and talk to Frank the building officials." "On February
the 9Ih 1 got a call from Frank the building official stated he had talked to Mr. Phillips that day about the property and Mr. Phillips advised Frank that he had been contacted to do
the renovations and he was in the process of getting the plans drawn up for submittal, I told Frank I would check with him before preparations began for the March code meeting." "I didn't
hear anything form Mr. or ivlrs. Castille after that, we had no conversations with them I haven't had any conversation with the contractor. We have had no contact what so ever." A notice
of hearing was mailed regular mail March eth and it was signed by Maureen Castille on March the loth. On March the loth before I got the green card back I also sent the notice of hearing
to the property owners. Today I went to the building department and talked to building official, no one had heard from the Castile's and there has nothing been submitted. Ms. Moehlenkamp:
Have they stopped work on the house? When did they stop? Ms. Howington: Yes they have stopped; when we got out there it was basically all done. Mr. Mc Garry: If I may, you went through
a long set of events that had occurred with specific dates from the first notice of violation of 11 -26-03 to the present time. In during all that time there were extensions here and
there reports of contact being made to the city and even a contractor contacting the city with questions here and there in early February and I didn't hear you say till just recently
I wanted to hear it again that even as of today no permit has been pulled, is that correct? Ms. Howington: That is correct. I went to the building department today and nothing has been
submitted, I also talked to the planning division and no plan had been submitted. CEB 03-23-04112
Maureen Castille stated that what Ms. Howington has stated is factual; except for I hadn't actually done any work on the property since August. My mother was ill; she had an acute illness
and has passed. I have had lots of things going on in my life and I ask your understanding forgiveness and patients. I have my plans that did go to the city of Longwood to get started.
To start getting my permitting and I was there on Friday and I didn't identify myself of who I was, I asked for the information and I actually asked to see Frank, I understand to be
in compliance I need to have a plumber to do the plumbing work and an electrician to do the electrical work. I haven't done any sewer hook up. The city of Longwood, I have applied for
water to come into the property. The sewer is to the septic system later. So I haven't done anything like that. I just ask for your patients and understanding and forgiveness, the gentleman
name of Russ Bennett has just given me the plans on Thursday because he was sick all of February, I'm a little nervous. I do have plans. This is my survey which I just got back on Friday
from Altamonte survey, so I'm working on it. I want to be in compliance, since my husband and I have purchased the property we have been happy to remove the 200 chickens on the property
the vehicles the engines the refrigerators and I think the property is looking pretty good. Considering how it looked before. 1 do want to have a beautiful place, its important to me.
I want to comply its just taking me time. I ask for your compassion. Mr. Mc Garry: All of the plans that you have, the violation is for not having permits. What are your plans for getting
the permits? Ms. Castille: It is simple and yet in reading this there is quit a bit of detail to go through. I want to make sure I have everything in line because I don't' want worse
problems. Mr. Mc Garry: Do you have or know how far along you are on the steps to completing the check list for documentation to getting the permits? Ms. Castille: I'm hoping to apply
for the permit in under 2 weeks and maybe even next week. but I can't promise that. But what if I fail. So I would like to say I would hope to have a permit in hand by the end of the
month. Ms. Goodblatt: All of the work was done in August. Who did the work for you? Ms. Castille: I have a small business, and I employee people I pay there workers comp and there insurance.
1 direct them to do whatever I want. CEB 03-23-0411 3
Ms. Goodblatt: What type of business is it? Is it a construction business? Are you a licensed contractor? So you know as a contractor you need permits. Ms. Castille: I have a license,
this started out as a repair. Mr. Taylor: You are a license Contractor of Florida? Mr. Castille: We are a license sub contractor we work under a general contractor. This is a private
resident and I do intend to occupy the resident. Ms. Moehlenkamp: Did you have to have to site plan before you pulled the permit? Ms. Castille: Yes, I had to have a site plan and I have
a site plan Chair "Bob" Lomax to accept a motion to close the public hearing portion. Ms. Moehlenkamp made the motion and Mr. Mc Garry seconded the motion made by Ms. Moehlenkamp. Motion
was carried by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Mc Garry made a motion, by the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard I move to find the respondents guilty, of violating city
code sect 104.1 .I and Longwood city code chap. 5 sect 5-1 64 adoption of building code as a matter matter of law. In support of this motion I ask the board to find that these facts
occurred on which the violations are based a notice of violation was originally given on 11-26-03 with instructions to comply by 12-03-03, which was subsequently extended 3 times. Until
February 91h when Phillips construction was in contact with the city of Longwood. And that even as we speak today on 03-23-04 there is still no permit pulled, and that makes the respondents
guilty. I further remove to hear the respondents 3 weeks from the date of service the order to bring the property into compliance. That is to obtain a building permit. Or a penalty of
$ 50 a day will be imposed. It will continue for each and everyday of non compliance. Does the city ask for any administrative cost? No administrative cost has been asked to be assets
against the respondents. Mr., Greenhalgh seconded Mr. Mc Garry's motion. Motion failed. Chair "Bob" Lomax passed the gable, if I may. I would like to put a similar motion on there. I
would like to to see a longer period of time. Added prior to it. 3 weeks plus another 10 days getting It. May or may not be enough time to get a permit with everything that is required.
The plans, the site plans, the contractors that are involved. I also feel that at this point that $ 50 a day might be a little more than I would want to do. So I would CEB 03-23-0411
4
propose that a similar motion reducing the fine to $ 25 a day and extending the time to 4 weeks from date of service. Which would give about 5-6 weeks time to get a building permit?
Mr. Greenhalgh seconded the motion made by Mr. Lomax. Ms. Moehlenkamp passed the gable back Chair "Bob" Lomax stated that concludes the cases for the night. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 6:
OLD BUSINESS: 7: NEW BUSINESS: Lt. Yelvington told the board last time he would bring some information about what we are doing with codes and some of the changes that have been implemented,
I put together a quick packet for you, and so you can review this. Feel free to read it over at your convienance and give me a call if you have any questions, or we can discuss this
next time. Also I've got some additional information for the attorney. Cathy came back from a continuing education with some disturbing information about a case. Involving the city down
south. That went to 3" district appeal down in Miami. They ruled that you can't place a lien on a piece of property that is homestead. So I'm going to ask the attorney to take a look
at that, and see if it's going to impacted us. It may or may not. If it does impact us are we going to have to for go all of the liens on that we currently have on homesteaded properties.
Mr. Taylor: It's always been that under our content sect 4 of the Florida constitution you can under the statue of the code that follows that you can not lien homestead or foreclose
on a homestead. You can still record your final judgment you can levy on there yacht you can levy there commercial property, that doesn't stop you from recording a lien, a lien covers
anything in the public records that is lein able. Now when they go to sell the house they are going to have to prove, and do whatever they have to do to show that the lein didn't attach.
Ms. Goodblatt: The other things is, we talked about the case that did come down, before we lien a property the city has to come to us give notice that we are going to impose a lien and
that the fine is going to run. We haven't had those kinds of matters come before us recently. One of the first questions I would ask before we go there. Is this homestead property because
in terms of collections and you can record a judgment you can go to there bank account and take money out of there bank account and take money out of there bank account with a judgment
properly following the rules and procedures. So we don't tend to lien property very often. Here in this board. I haven't seen a case come before us in the last 5 months. We CEB 03-23-0411
5
have been asked to record a lien on anything. But if there is a list I would like to see it. I would like to see the case. If it is a 3dca case we aren't bound by it because we are in
the 5" district. Mr. Taylor: We need to read it, the order in that case had that they were in violation for high grass and weeds and we impose a lien of such and such against lot 10
block B of green archer. Then I think we have a problem. Lt. Yelvington: That's my concern Ms. Goodblatt: But your also only liening the sited property, and in most instances we are
drafting our orders as to the sited property, now again this goes back into the enforcement side of what we are doing, and if someone comes back to us and says the fine needs to run,
technically you are suppose to come back to us and say lets start running the fine, and give notice to people that are running the fine and that did not come into compliance by a certain
date the fine is now running and get permission for the fine to run and then come back again and say its its been 3,4 months we now want to record a lien. The board can say no we are
going to just record a judgment. Record a certified copy of the order. Lt. Yelvington: I'll provide you with a copy, and you can review it and I would like to get your opinion on it.
It's a significant impact. Ms. Goodblatt: I would be interested in knowing how many liens we have, if that case has presidential value and per haps Mr. Taylor and 1 will talk about it.
How many liens we actually have recorded right now, against residential property. I would be surprised if we had any. Mr. Taylor: Review the wording, its says on homestead we hear by
impose a lien on that property, if we are just saying that 112 elms street has high grass and weeds we are imposing a fine against Mr. and Ms. Jones for $ 50 a day recorded, I don't
see a problem with that. Scheduled election of officers for the board. Ms. Moehlenkamp would like to nominate Bob Lomax as chair, Mr. Greenhalgh seconded Ms. Moehlenkamp. Mr. Mc Garry
made a nomination for Ms. Moehlenkamp for Vice Chair, Mr. Lomax seconded the nomination. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Chair John 8:25 p.m. 1 --Mend; S~Y\;+-h Recording Secretary "Bob" Lomax adjourned
the m t i n g at r. 7-J&-d~ob" Lomax, chair