Loading...
CEB_05-28-96_MinThe Code Enforcement Board of the City of Longwood, Florida met on May 28,1996 at 7 :30 P.M. Present: George Valkenburg, Chairman Haywood Bundy, Vice Chairman Janis Soyer Louis DiFiore Dana Addison Absent: Lynette Dennis, excused Staff: Amy Goodblatt, CEB Attorney Richard Taylor, City Attorney William F. Culbertson, B.O. Cathy Price, Code Enforcement Officer Linda Olsen, Secretary 1. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 :35 P.M. by Chairman Valkenburg. 2. Roll Call The Secretary called the roll. There was a quorum. 3. Approval of Minutes April 30,1996 Mr. Bundy motioned to accept minutes as written, seconded by Ms. Soyer. Motion carried by unanimous vote. 4. Public Hearings CEB 96 -05 -004 Ramona Paulino, dba Oasis Cuban Restaurant Philip Huet, Prop. Owner 295 S. CR 427 Longwood, FL 32750 Ms. Price presented the case. Ms. Price responded to a complaint that an 80 year old tree had been removed after Ms. Paulino had been told that she could not do so. Ms. Paulino's reason for wanting to remove the tree was because she felt that it impeded visual access to her sign and to her business. Since the removal of the tree,Ms. Paulino has installed several lighted brick columns and planted palm trees, between the columns. She failed to get the required electrical and building permits per City Code Section 5 -19. The palm trees used as replacement are not allowable, per Section 809.9 of the Zoning #495. Ms. Price stated that the purpose of the Arbor Ordinance is to protect our existing trees and require replacement in cases where it is necessary to remove trees, such as in new construction. Section 809.11, the penalty section of the Arbor Ordinance, allows for the doubling of the permit fee in such cases where a permit would be issued and also states that appropriate remedial action may include but not be limited to doubling the normal landscape tree requirement, the placement of up to 20' high stock and /or a two for one replacement ratio, showing how serious these violations are condsidered to be. Ms. Price recommended that Ms. Paulino and Mr. Huet be required to replace the tree removed by two other oak trees at least 15' in height and maintain these trees to ensure that they remain healthy, extend 30 days to replace them and, if not replaced within that time frame, be fined $200 per day /per person as long as the violation exists. Motion was made by Ms. Soyer to find the respondents in violation of the City of Longwood Zoning Ordinance #495, Sections 809, 809.2, 809.4 (A -4), 809.9, give them 30 days to bring the property into compliance or a maximum penalty of $250 per day be imposed and continue for each and every day of non - compliance. She suggested that two 15' oak trees be installed and that the trees must also be properly maintained so that they would not die. Seconded by Mr. DiFiore. Motion carried by a 3 - 2 vote, Ms. Addison and Mr. Valkenburg voting "no ". CEB 96 -05 -005 Donald Jackson, Owner 718 West Court Longwood, FL Ms. Price presented the case. Mr. Jackson was originally cited on July 28,1995 regarding a large shed or accessory building that had been built in his rear yard without a permit. (City Code, Section 5 -19). He applied on August 1,1995 but his application was denied. Mr. Gosline, the Qity Planner who reviewed the application, wrote Mr. Jackson a letter advising that the shed was located within a 7 1/2 foot easement. Sheds are not allowed to be constructed within any easements. In addition, R -1 Zoning districts are limited to 40% coverage in buildings and paved surfaces. This criteria was already exceeded on Mr. Jackson's property without the shed. A letter was sent to Mr. Jackson giving him until October 25,1995 to remove the shed or the matter would be referred to the Code Board. On October 6,1995 Mr. Jackson requested an extension until January 1996 to do paperwork to place the shed on his property in Sanford, but never did. Ms. Price recommended that Mr. Jackson be required to remove the shed within 10 days of this meeting or be fined $125 per day as long as the violation exists. A permit could not be issued for the shed, since he has already exceeded the allowable Impervious Surface Ratio. Mr. Jackson was present and stated that the problem was resolved because the shed was taken down on May 27, 1996. Motion was made by Ms. Addison to defer the verdict until the next scheduled meeting and that Ms. Price check that the shed is, in fact, down. Seconded by Mr. Bundy. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CEB 96 -05 -006 Daniel and Lisa Littlefield, Owners 829 Raven Ave. Longwood, FL Mr. Culbertson, Building Official, presented this case. Mr. & Mrs. Littlefield were issued a stop work order for starting work on a roof structure. On or about July 30, 1992 permit # 14809 was issued for framing a roof over an existing structure which was already started and paid an $85 fine, Permit # 14810 was issued to the Littlefields on July 30,1992 for a complete re -roof to an existing building and to apply new shingles to the new roof structure. On August 24,1992 the Littlefieds requested a framing inspection which failed because there was no access to inspect the roof members for proper anchorage, nailing, connectors, etc. A rejection slip was left and a reinspection fee of $10 was to be paid for this reinspection. To date the fee has not been paid nor has a reinspection been called for. On February 6,1995 a letter was written to the Littlefields advising them to pay the proper fee and to update their permits which had expired. No contact with the City has been made by them since this letter. On October 17,1995 a second letter was sent to the Littlefields and,again, no response. Since there has been more then ample time for the Littlefields to respond to the letters, by contacting t h e City and make the necessary access for the framing inspection. Mr. Culbertson recommended that a fee of $125 /day fine should be given until they comply with this request. Mr. Littlefield stated on August 24,1992 he called for an inspection. An inspector went out but he (Mr. Littlefield) was not there. His wife was at home. Mr. Littlefield stated that the inspector did not go into the attic or crawl back to see the cutout, stating that it was too hot up there. He felt that he shouldn't have to pay for the reinspection because of the weather and also because he is not done with the work. He stated that there is a crawl space between the attic and the new structure but the inspection would have to crawl through the attic to get to the space. He stated that the opening complies with Code, being 2' x 3'. Motion was made by Mr. DiFiore that the respondent be found in violation of Section 1708.7 of the 1988 Standard Building Code and further moved to give the respondent one week to apply for all permits, comply with the inspections and complete the construction according to the permits or a penalty of $250 per day would be imposed and would continue for each and every day of non - compliance. Seconded by Ms. Soyer. Motion carried by a 3 -2 vote, Mr. Valkenburg and Ms. Addison voting "no ". 5. Old Business A. CEB 96 -04 -002 George and Patricia Klele B. CEB 96 -05 -003 Wayne Underwood Both cases came into compliance within several days of the last meeting. 6. New Business A: None 7. Adjournment Motion was made to adjourn by Mr. Valkenberg, seconded by Ms_ Addison. Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Linda E. Olsen CEB Secretary