Loading...
CEB_04-27-04_MinApril 27, 2004 Present: Also Present: :, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOAR43 . %-' City Commission ~hamb& 175 W. Warren Avenue Longwood, FI 32750 MINUTES 7:00 P.M. Luis Alvarado, Member Laura Moehlenkamp, Member John "Bob" Lomax, Member Andrew McGarry, Member Jack Greenhalgh, Member Les Simmonds, Member Richard Taylor, City Attorney Amy Goodblatt, Board Attorney Butch Yelvington, Lieutenant Cathy Price, lnspector Bonnie Howington, lnspector Wendi Smith, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO MEETING ORDEWROLL CALL: John "Bob" Lomax, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Recording Secretary Called the roll. All Respondents that wanted to speak at the meeting were sworn in. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 23, 2004 meeting were presented. Mr. McGarry motioned for approval and Mrs. Moehlenkamp seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. REPORTS-CASE UPDATES: NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. CEB 04-04-365 Julio & Carmen Gavilance 1 192 Lam bert Ln. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Comp?liance inspector Bonnie Howington reports that the respondents were cited with a violation of city code chpt.22, 22-32 commercial vehicles. The Gavilance's were originally cited on 02-20-04. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. Code Compliance lnspector Howington answered questions from the board members. Mr. Gavilance spoke on behalf of the respondent. CEB 04-27-0411 Commissioner Sackett spoke on behalf of the Harbor Isle Homeowner's association. The public hearing portion of this case was closed. Mr. Simmonds made the motion to close the public hearing portion; Mr. Greehalgh seconded the motion made by Mr. Simmonds. Mr. Simmonds motioned based on the evidence and the testimony I have heard I move to find the respondents guilty of violating City Code Chpt. 22, 22-32 Commercial Vehicle violation. In support of this motion I ask that the board find these facts occurred commercial vehicle wrecker parked on the street, was notified by the Code enforcement officer, the officer issued a notice of violation 02-20-04 to comply by 02-27-04. Upon re inspection 03-29-04 this was not in compliance. I further move to give the respondent 10 days from the date of service to bring this into compliance, $50 per day will be imposed for each and everyday of non compliance. The city requests no administrative fees. Ms. Moehlenkamp seconded the motion made by Mr. Simmonds. Mr. McGarry would would like to discuss, I have to agree personally with the motion that the respondents are guilty of the charge, and the violation, but 1 would not think that we would have to give them any time to come into compliance and I would personally think this should be no penalty. That's my personal opinion on that. Offer that to the board, to consider. Mr. Alvarado, I kind of agree with that, that's why my follow up question with Ms. Howington 1 just wanted to see where their level of correspondents and their cooperation was with the city. Typically in situations like this a lot of people wait way to long to contact the city and just blow them off, before they try and remedy the situation. I feel that they have showed good citizenship in the fact that they did work with the city and try and get everything done in a timely fashion. Mr. Greengalh my opinion is that they did come into compliance, however with the possibility of them coming back on the street again. Is very possible and at this point I think that a motion revised to not allow any time, and to issue a penalty of a resonable amount of $25 a day for each and every day that that truck may sit in the street. Ms. Goodblatt stated that you can not impose a penalty with out some time to come into compliance. I think what we are kinda hearing is the city is asking for a finding of guilty so if they come back again they will be a repeat offender, they want a finding of guilt. The order would read that they have to be in compliance with that particular rule. But you can't issue them a penalty with out some time to come into compliance. The statue does not permit that. Mr. Bob Lomax, Chair, stated that from his understanding the respondents were in compliance as of this time. They were not in compliance by the date which was CEE 04-27-0412 required. The city is looking for a guilty verdict. As a repeat offender if it should happen again. To have that on the record. Mr. Simmonds. Thank you for the clarification I would like to revise my motion to find the respondent guilty. Ms. Moehlenkamp amended her second. The motion was carried by roll call vote. B CEB 04-04-366 Applewood Dr. LLCIKingsley & Emily Grant 104 Applewood Dr. Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance lnspector Bonnie Howington stated that she cited this business for violation of city code chpt. 22, 22-28 which is inoperable vehicles, and city code chapter 12.5 outdoor storage. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. Ms. Grant was present on behalf of the respondent. The public hearing portion was closed. Ms. Moehlenkamp made the motion and Mr. Simmonds seconded the motion made by Ms. Moehlenkamp. A unanimous voice vote carried the motion. Ms. Moehlenkamp made the motion, based on the evidence and the testimony I have heard I find the respondents guilty of violating city code code chpt.22.22-28 inoperable vehicle, and city code chpt.12.5 outdoor storage. As a matter of law cited originally on 7-31-03 because of litigating circumstances this did not come to the board before now, they are in compliance and they will be noted as repeat violators if it happens again. Mr. Simmons seconded the motion made by Ms. Moehlenkamp. The motion was carried by roll call vote. C CEB 04-04-367 Shannon Maurent & David Alvarado 61 0 Rosedale Ave Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance lnspector Howington states that 610 Rosedale was cited for violating LDC, Article 5 Section 5.3.1 .Swimming pool. City Code chpt.12, 12-2-1 Grass and weeds over l o ' , City code 22 Section 22-28 Inoperable Vehicles. They were originally cited for the swimming pool violation on 11 -21 -03. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. Code Compliance lnspector Howington answered questions asked by the code board members. Ms. Maurent the property owner spoke on behalf of the respondent. A motion to close the public hearing portion was made by Ms. Moehlenkamp and Mr. McGarry seconded the motion. A unanimous voice vote carried the motion. CEB 34-27-0413 Mr. Greenhalgh would like to make the motion based on the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard, I move to find the respondents guilty of violation LDC, Article 5 Section5.3.1 Swimming pool violation and city code chpt.22, 22-28 inoperable vehicles. In support of this motion I ask the board find these facts existed upon which these violations are based, no absolute evidence that the pump is working at this point. There is no evidence that the vehicle has been removed. I further move that we give the respondent 10 days to provide the city with evidence that the pump is working. And to bring this into compliance, at this point can we impose a fine or penalty. Ms. Goodblatt asked after the ten days. Mr. Greenhalgh stated, after the 10 days, a fine of $10 a day and each and everyday, until the property is brought into compliance. Mr. McGarry seconded the motion made by Mr. Greenhalgh. The motion was carried by roll call vote. Secretary asked is that per violation, for the $10 a day? Mr. Greenhalgh-Greenhalgh-That per violation for the $ 10 a day, from date of receipt. D CEB 04-04-368 Ronald & Linda McLaughlin 104 Shady Lane Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance lnspector Howington cited this property for violation of LDC Article 5 section 5.3.1 Swimming Pool Violations, improper fence enclosing a pool. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. Code Compliance lnspector Howington answered questions asked by the board members. Mr. McLaughlin spoke on behalf of the respondent. Ms. Moehlenkamp made the motion to close the public hearing portion and Mr. McGarry seconded the motion made by Ms. Moehlenkamp. Mr. Alvarado made the motion, Based on the evidence that I have seen and the testimony I have heard I move to find the respondents guilty of violation city LDC, 5.3.1 as a matter of law in support of the motion I ask that the board find these facts occurred the notice of violation was on 3-22-04 to comply by 3-29-04 on reinspeectio on 04-06-04 the property was still out of compliance, when the officer went back out 4-1 9-04 Mr. McLaughlin refused to sign the notice of hearing on 4-20-04 the property was posted and 04-27-04 the property was in compliance. 1 further move to give the respondents, since they are in compliance no time to bring the property back into compliance and no administrative cost and no fines at this time, and any future violations should be treated as repeat violators. Ms.Moehlenkamp seconded the motion made by Mr. Alvarado. The motion was carried by roll call vote. CEB 04-27-0314 F. CEB 04-04-370 L.B. and Doris Michael1 Central Auto Parts 400 S. HWY 17-92 Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance lnspector Price cited this property on February 1 7'h 2004. The property is in violation of City code chapter 12, 12-2 Subsection 2, accumulations of trash and debris and LDC Article 5 Section 5.4.12 outdoor storage. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. Code Compliance lnspector Price answered questions asked by the board members. Chuck Anderson district manager of the business spoke on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Michael the property owner was present. Mr. McGarry made the motion to close the public hearing, and Mr. Simmonds seconded the motion made by Mr. McGarry. A unanimous voice vote carried the motion. Mr. McGarry would like to make the motion, based on the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard I find the respondents guilty of violation Longwood city code chpt. 12, section 12-2 and Longwood line development code article 5 sections 5.4.12 as a matter of law and support of this motion I ask the board find these facts occurred, and that is the trash and debris is screened and the outdoor storage is not screened by a masonry fence. I further move to give the respondent the mission to work with the city to establish a date for when the . property will come into compliance. So we can monitor the progress. From the date that is projected that the respondents be given 5 days further that the property is in compliance, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed, and will continue each and everyday that the property is not in compliance. Ms. Moehlenkamp seconded the motion made by Mr. McGarry. Ms. Goodblatt asked if its going to take 90 days after date of permit issued its going to be hard to issue a $200 a day fine. Is this enforceable, this might be a little vague. I understand where you going. Mr. Taylor states that my understanding was that they were going to extend the building. Mr.McGarry states there is a length of time which is undetermined at the time, to decide when the property should come into compliance. Because the nature of the property the permit has to be pulled drawings have to be submitted. They CEB 04-27-0415 need to work with the city and give them a date of completion. Mr. McGarry would like to amend his motion to continue to find the respondent guilty of violation the code. I would like to make the motion read that the respondents come to the city with a site plan with in 30 days. That they come into compliance within 8 months after the date of notice of order. Ms. Moehlenkamp would like to amend her second. Mr. Greenhalgh seconded the motion made by Mr. McGarry. The motion was carried by roll call vote. G. CEB 04-04-371 PDQ Time Square LLDl M K Holding, Inc. 851 S.R. 434 Longwood, FI 32750 Code Compliance lnspector Price cited this property for violations of LDC, Article X, Site plan criteria; Article 111, 3.3.3 Arbor Permit Requirements and Article VI, Sign Permit Criteria. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. Code Compliance lnspector Price answered questions from the board members. Denise Brown the property manager spoke on behalf of the respondent. Ms. Moehlenkamp made the motion to close the public hearing portion, and Mr. Simmonds seconded the motion. A unanimous voice vote carried the motion. Mr. Alvarado states based on the evidence I have seen and the testimony I have heard I move to find the respondents guilty of violation Longwood land development code LDC, article 10, the approved site plan. LDC article 3.3.3. Arbor permit. I move to ask the board to find that these facts occurred. I give the respondents 30 days to bring the property within compliance or a fine of $25 a day will be imposed for each violation. No administrative fee's asked for. Ms. Moehlenkamp seconded the motion made by Mr. Alvarado. Ms. Moehlenkamp-I say we should give her a couple of week's lee way to come into compliance. Mr. Alvarado amended his motion and gave her 45 days from receipt of the order to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Moehlenkamp stated I amend the second. The motion was carried by roll call vote. H. CEB 04-04-372 Jane Ryan 303 McClintock Longwood, FL 32750 Code Compliance lnspector Howington Howington cited this property for violation of LDC, Article V, Section 5.3.1 Swimming Pool Violation. Additional testimony was given regarding the case. CEB 04-27-0416