Loading...
CEB_06-27-95_MinThe Code Enforcement Board of the City of Longwood, Florida met on June 27, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. Present: Dana Addison, Chairman Butch Bundy Janis Soyer Ernest Tolos Louis DiFiore George Valkenburg Amy Goodblatt, CEB Attorney Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathy Price, Code Enforcement Officer Linda Olsen, Secretary 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Addison. 2. ROLL CALL 3 . The Secretary called the roll. All members were present except for Mrs.Dennis, who was unable to attend the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 24, 1994 Mr. Bundy made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Soyer. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. CEB 95 -06 -78 Kenneth Richards Lot 2, Pinta Place Columbus Harbor SID Mrs. Price presented this case. She said that the lot was overgrown, and minimal effort had been made to comply since the original letter, dated January 10, 1995, was sent. Ms. Price presented pictures, marked Exhibit 1, showing the amount of overgrowth still on the property as of the inspection made that day. The pictures showed overgrowth and piles of debris deposited at the rear of the lot. She stated that part of the property was mowed but compliance was only partial. Due to previous problems with this same property, Mrs. Price recommended that the Board find Mr. Richards in violation and impose a fine of $50.00 if compliance was not met by July 5, 1995. The property owner, Mr. Richards, was not present at the meeting. Mr. Valkenburg made the motion to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Mr. Bundy. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. After minimal discussion, Mr. Valkenbury made the motion to find the Defendant in violation of City Code, Chapter 12, 12 -2(1) and to give Mr. Richards five (5) days to comply or a penalty of $50 per day would be imposed and would continue for each and every day in non - compliance. In case of non - compliance, the Board would authorize the office of legal affairs to begin any lien and foreclosure procedures. Motion seconded by Mr. DiFiore. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. The swearing in of Mr. Simons and Mr. Wipperfurth took place at this time. B. CEB 95 -06 -79 Karl Wipperfurth d /b /a DIW Ltd. Partnership 408 Winding Oak Lane Oak Villa S/D Mr. Wipperfurth was sent a letter of violation on May 9, 1995 for operating a business from his home. Mrs. Price stated that she had contacted Seminole County Occupational Licensing to determine whether Mr. Wipperfurth's business was licensed with them and was told that he had been licensed since 1992. Mr. Wipperfurth did not contact the Code Enforcement Officer after having been notified of the necessity to apply for a home office license thus Mrs. Price had the Longwood Police Department serve Notice of Hearing to Mr. Wipperfurth. This notice was received and signed for by Robyn Wipperfurth, Karl Wipperfurth's wife, on June 16, 1995 at 6:45 P.M. This notice prompted Mr. Wipperfurth to contact the City Occupational Licensing Office on the day of this hearing and asked if he would have to appear if he applied for the license. When advised that he would be required to pay arrears for the previous years since 1992 he chose to appear before the Board. Mrs. Price stated that she had reason to cite Mr. Wipperfurth previously for large carpet -type rolls around his carport and different business related materials and that she had recently seen multiple items that had been delivered "in error ", per Mr. Wipperfurth. Mrs. Price recommended that Mr. Wipperfurth be given seven days to apply for a home office license or to be fined $25.00 per day as long as he remained in violation of the home office license requirement. Mr. Wipperfurth was then called forward by Chairman Addison. Mr.Wipperfurth stated that he was originally licensed with the City under the name of Wipp, Inc. in 1991 when he first moved his mobile home into Oak Villa subdivision. Wipp, Inc. was a mobile home business. When Oak Villa failed to develop as a mobile home community he went to work in the bar and restaurant business for e-everal years. While he felt that it wasn't necessary to continue his City license he did continue to carry his Seminole County license but stated that he did not run a business from his home at all. On May 9, 1995 he stated that a large shipment of roofing materials (12,000 lbs.) was delivered to his home "by mistake" and he told Mrs. Price that he would have the materials removed from his home by May 15th. He said Mrs. Price asked him if he had a license for his business and he replied "yes ". However she called him later and said that he had a Seminole County license but not a City license. He further added that in the roofing business all that is required to get licensed is proof of an occupational license and he had one, referring to the County license. He said that his office is in Orange County but he has a warehouse in Sanford. When questioned by Mr. DiFiore how long he had the warehouse in Sanford, Mr. Wipperfurth stated "since the 15th of May ". When questioned by Ms. Addison if he had done any work in the City of Longwood Mr. Wipperfurth said "yes" but it was not done under his business but under the name of Stuart Douglas Harvey, the roofing contractor. When asked if he supplied the materials for roofers or does the roofs himself Mr. Wipperfurth said he does mobile home roofs mainly but works with Sears as a sales force for roofing contractors. He said that Sears makes the sale and then his company does the work. He said that he has been doing this work for the last 6 to 8 months. Chairman Addison called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Valkenburg and seconded by Mrs. Soyer. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. After some discussion Mr. Valkenburg made the motion to find Mr. Wipperfurth in violation of Zoning Ordinance #495, Section 601 and require Mr. Wipperfurth to apply for a current City occupational license within five days, negating the requirement to pay any license or penalty fees for previous years. Motion seconded by Mrs. Soyer. Motion carried by 4 -2 voice vote, with Mr. Bundy and Mr. Tolos voting "no ". Mr. Tolos then made a motion to check into any further Code violations regarding Mr. Wipperfurth's property and Mr. DiFiore seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. C. CEB 95 -06 -84 Mitchell Simons d /b /a Agriculture Services & Supply, Tenant & Mildred and Walter Judge, Owners 2160 A So. Hvy. 17 -92 Mrs. Price advised that this case came to her attention as a result of complaints from some Columbus Harbour and area residents. The complaint was that a pallet business was loading and unloading pallets in the street and parking vehicles and trailers on the right -of -way, which was not only unsightly but also a very dangerous practice. Mrs. Price said that she went to the business and spoke to Mr. Simons in great length about what he could and could not do on the property. She said that she knew that he understood and felt that he would comply but more calls came in and she then became aware that there was going to be a problem as the violations became blatant. Every time that she visited the site Mr. Simons or one of his workers would say that the truck had only been there a minute or would be leaving right away. To further suit their needs this company also removed the "no parking" signs which had been placed on the right -of -way. She then requested Public Works to replace the signs and took a picture when they were replaced. (Pictures were then entered as Exhibit #1) Mrs. Price asked the Board to note the trailer parked in between the "no parking" signs stating that this was the type of cooperation she received from Mr. Simons and his workers. Mrs. Price stated that she also spoke to Mrs. Judge, the property owner, in regard to Mr. Simons' business and violations. Mrs. Judge advised that she would speak to Mr. Simons in regard to his violations but several weeks went by and there was no change. The pallets were now being stored in the right -of -way and the property was now stocked to the fence line with broken pallets, trash and good pallets. Prior to this overstocking, the loading and unloading in the street was a convenience to the driver and Mr. Simons but now it was a necessity due to the inaccessibility to the property due to overstocking. Only a small niche remained open for storage of the forklift. In February 1995 a letter outlining all of the violations was sent to Mr. Simons at the address given on his occupational license application. The letter was returned. stamped "no such number ". Mrs. Price said that she continued to take pictures of on -going violations and also called the Police Department whenever there was something parked in the street or right -of -way. Despite this, Mr. Simons changed nothing regarding the violations. There was total lack of concern. On May 31, 1995, a second letter was sent to Mr. Simons' business address, Certified /Return Receipt requested and also copied to the property owners. The receipt was returned for the Judge's letter but Mr. Simons letter was returned, this time stamped "addressee unknown ". Mrs. Price stated that she finally hand delivered the same letter to Mr. Simons' yard manager. The violations cited were City Code Chapter 12, 12 -1(4), rendering dangerous for passage or unlawfully obstructing any public street due to the use of the street for loading and unloading and the the r /way for storage of pallets and vehicles, Zoning Ordinance #495, Section 507.4A, disallowing any use of the required front, rear and side setbacks, Section 620.2C and 507.4E(3), requiring outside storage to be screened from the street or abutting property by a wall, dense hedge or ornamental fence no less than 6" higher than the materials stored. Since 507.4E states that a fence cannot exceed six feet in the required rear or side yard, Mr. Simons outdoor storage could not exceed 5 1/2 feet. Mrs. Price stated that presently the storage is between 6' and 12' in height. In speaking to Mrs. Judge, the property owner, Mrs. Price stated that Mr. Simons acknowledged receipt of the letter delivered to his yard manager, and said that there was nothing that the City could do about this problem. Mrs. Price said that Mrs. Judge mentioned concern about responsbility for Mr. Simons' violations and has repeatedly asked him to comply so that there would be no problems. Mrs. Price reiterated that after multiple visits to Mr. Simons's business by the Police Department he continued to operate his business from the r /way. Recommendation: Mrs. Price recommended that Mr. Simons be found guilty of the violations as cited, be given until July 10, 1995 to resolve all of the issues or be fined $100 per day, per violation as long as any of the violation exists. Chairman Addison then called Mr. Simons forward. Mr. Simons said that neither the previous City Planner nor the Fire Marshal had any problem with what he was doing. He said that he felt it was the business next to him (north of him) that had gotten him in trouble. He said that he never parked his truck on the street but that he has loaded on the street and said that he "trimmed" his business down due to the prevailing situation. He also said that there has never been trash, other than the piles of wood that they stack and use. He said that he has a dumpster service that comes in "every so often" to empty the dumpster. He said that the loading and unloading in the street does not apply to him. The tractor probably has parked in the street but "most of the time" someone stands guard for traffic. He claimed that there were inconsistencies in the violations as cited (per his sister), but was uncertain as to what she meant. He said that a lot of times pallets are dropped on the r /way for repairs and felt that it was stupid for the driver delivering to park in the middle of the street but he (Mr. Simons) "didn't know where he was going to load the truck ". He said that he felt "uncomfortable" discussing the matter with the City when he heard of AJ's tragedy and he had told his guys to "chill out" before "this lady" has him in jail. He said that sometimes his guys go off and work and he has another person come in who doesn't understand the "ramifications" or all the "Code things ". Mr. Taylor then questioned the information as stated on Mr. Simons' license application and the number of employees stated, as Mr. Simons advised earlier that he has 28 people working for him. Mr. Simons said that this number included his children and the children of his manager and two contractors. Mr. Taylor said the business is clearly an industrial use in a commercial area and shouldn't have been there to begin with. When questioned by Mr. Taylor, Mr. Simons admitted that the pallets are normally stacked higher than 6', that pallets are normally within the 25' setback area and have been stacked in the road r /way on a regular basis but said that he was not aware of his trucks being loaded in the street while acknowledging that it had happened in the r /way. Mr. Valkenburg then asked what Mr. Simons could do to assure that these violations would be eliminated. Mr. Simons said that he and another man have been backing the truck into the yard and hand loading the pallets onto the truck. When Mr. DiFiore asked Mr. Simons if he had outgrown the property due to having built his business up since its inception in 1993, Mr. Simons replied that he only uses 2/3 of the property. Mr. Tolos then made a motion to close the public hearing and Mr. Valkenburg seconded the motion. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. After some discussion Mr. Valkenburg made the motion to find the respondent guilty of the violations as cited by the Code Enforcement Officer. He ordered that the property be brought into compliance within three working days or a penalty of $100 per day, per violation for each and every day of noncompliance be imposed upon both tenant and property owner. In case of non - compliance, the Board authorized the Office of Legal Affairs to begin lien and foreclosure proceedings. Mr. DiFiore and Mrs. Soyer seconded the motion. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. 5. OLD BUSINESS: Mrs. Goodblatt requested that Code Board minutes reflect the Board's request to be provided with copies of changes made by the City to comply with the current Florida Statutes. 6. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Tolos stated the the Board needed to elect a Vice - Chairman, however, the Board chose to wait until Ms. Dennis was present. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bundy and seconded by Ms. Soyer. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15. P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda Olsen Recording Secretary