Loading...
CEB_07-22-97_MinThe Code Enforcement Board of the City of Longwood, Florida met on July 22. 1997 at 7:30 P.M. Present: Butch Bundy, Chain Ernest Tolos George Valkenburg Lynette Dennis Staff: Amy Goodblatt, CEB Attorney Russ McLatchey, Acting City Attorney Cathy Price, Code Enforcement Officer Lisa Martin, Recording Secretary Ms. Goodblatt swore in those people who were testifying in the cases on the agenda. 1. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Bundy. 2. Roll Call The Secretary called the roll. There was a quorum. Mr. Bundy advised that Ms. Addision's absence was excused due to illness. 3. Approval of Minutes - May 27, 1997 Ms. Goodblatt offered some corrections. She said that the agenda stated the last meeting was June 24 and should have read May 27, 1997. Also in regard to the meeting minutes she said that there was a discrepancy regarding the decision of the Board in the Flowers case (CEB 97 -05 -020). She said that the actual recommendation was not a $50 fine as stated but just that they be treated as repeat offenders. Mr. Vallcenburg said that he thought the $50 fine would be incurred if the violation was repeated and Mr. Bundy agreed to this. Mr. Tolos made the motion to accept the May 27, 1997 minutes with amendments noted and Mr. Valkenburg seconded the motion. Unanimous voice vote. 4. Public Hearings: CEB 97 -07 -025 Kenneth V. Richards Lot 2, Block I, Pinta Place Columbus Harbor SID Ms. Price presented the case. stating that this particular lot had been an ongoing problem for years and that the owner had been very uncooperative with the City. When a complaint was received in April of this year a letter was sent out requesting that the lot be mowed by May 9, 1997. On May 15, a call was received requesting an extension by Mr. Richards because the property was going to be developed. Proof of change of ownership was requested and never provided. On June 11, 1997 a floor plan was submitted for approval by the City. Notice of Hearing was mailed out on July 11, 1997 and signed for on July 14. 1997. Ms. Price noted that she had taken a picture on the day of the hearing and the lot was no more than 1/3 mowed and the brush was left where it fell. She said that the growth was 5 or 6 feet high. Ms. Price recommended that Mr. Richards be given five days to complete the cleanup on the property (July 28) or a fine of $150 per day be incurred until the lot was in compliance. She requested further that the repeat offender clause be invoked should the lot become overgrown again and that a fine of $500 per day be incurred to assure compliance. Ms. Goodblatt had a question about the signature on the certified letter receipt. since it was not signed for by Mr. Richards himself Ms. Price advised the Board that the Post Office had stated that they couldn't request the receiver to write down what their position at the office was but the signature line states " addressee or agent" thus the signer is stating that they are either the addressee or agent. Ms. Goodblatt said that if Mr. Richards was present for the meeting it would waive the service requirements since Notice was mailed to his office, rather than to his home address. Ms. Goodblatt then proceeded to read FS 162.12 regarding proper service which states that the Notice shall be provided to the alleged violator by Certified Mail. Return Receipt Requested. by hand delivery by the Sheriff or other person designated by the local governing body or by leaving the notice at the person's usual place of residence with any person residing there who is fifteen years of age or older and advising them of the contents. The Board was in agreement that proper service had been made. The public hearing was closed and Ms. Goodblatt asked that the CEO's recommendation be changed from five days after the meeting to five days after receipt of the Final Orders and the Board agreed. Ms. Dennis made the motion to find Mr. Richards to be in violation of City Code, Chap. 12, 12 -2(1), in that the violation did occur or existed, proper service was made by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested on July 11, 1997 and the evidence showed that the property was overgrown. She also moved to give the Respondent five days to comply after receipt of Final Orders to bring the property into compliance or a penalty of $150 per day be imposed and would continue for each and every day of non - compliance. Mr. Valkenburg seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tolos made an amendment to the motion, asking to change the date of receipt from July 11. 1997 (when Notice was mailed) to July 14, 1997 (date receipt was signed for). CEB 97 -07 -026 Norman Ihrig, Jr., Property Owner Paul Ihrig, Agent for P.O. (Son) Chester I Mozuch, Tenant 377 -37 E. Orange Avenue Tax L.D.# 32- 20- 30- 300 -009N -0000 Ms. Price stated that this case came about as a result of a complaint received about a large boat being parked in front of the house. Ms. Price said that there was a question as to how to cite the boat since the front doors of the duplex face what would be the extension of Oak St. yet addresses on Orange Avenue which is the street that the side of the house faces. After the boat was parked there for several months it was no longer an issue of how the house addressed but the fact that if the boat remained onsite it would have to be screened from all sides as required by See. 618.6B(2). Correspendence was mailed out to the property owner in North Carolina who, in turn. requested his son who resides locally to act as his agent and Paul Ihrig contacted Ms. Price asking what the possibility was of parking it on the property and requested the Codes for same. These were faxed out to him as his intent was to park it behold the building which would be on the West side of the duplex. Ms. Price recommended that the Board find Mr. Mozuch to be in violation of Sec. 618.6B(2), not impose a fine because the property was in compliance as of July 21, 1997, but requested the repeat of ender clause be invoked as she felt that the violation would occur again. Mr. Bundy asked Mr. Mozuch. the tenant, if he wished to speak. Mr. Mozuch advised that the boat was on the property due to the fact that he was waiting on an estimate to be done by Nationwide Insurance. He stated that the only place to park the boat is on the south side of the house (between the house and Orange Avenue). He said that the boat is presently in an RV storage facility, still waiting for an insurance claim to be completed. Mr. Ihrig asked if it was acceptable for his tenant to erect a fence on the existing concrete slab at the entrance to the duplex. He understood that it was not acceptable for the boat to be parked on the Orange Avenue side as this had been deemed to be the actual front of the house. Due to the concern about where the actual "front" of the building is it was difficult to advise Mr. Mozuch what options he had for parking. Mr. Valkenburg and Ms. Goodblatt suggested that he get a Letter of Determination from the City so that future problems didn't arise in regard to this same issue. Mr. Valkenburg made the motion to find the Respondent guilty of having violated Section 618.6B(2), service having been made properly, and that no fine be imposed but should the violation recur a fine of $50 per day be imposed and continue for each and every day that the violation occured. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. CEB 97 -07 -027 Edward L. Locke 188 Fourteenth Ave. Longwood, FL 32750 Lots 1 -6, BLK 9, PB 5 PG 27 Entzminger's Add, No 1 Ms. Price introduced the case and advised tine Board of the violations on the property. Mr. Locke had multiple vehicles, (Chapter 22, 22 -28), several RVs and trailers, (Sec. 618.6B(4). boats and campers not screened as required. (Sec. 618.6B(2), and a lot of miscellaneous outdoor storage distributed over the entire property, (Sec. 501, Appendix "A "). Ms. Price advised that the Notice of I learing was hand delivered by the Longwood Police Department and that little had been done to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Price said that the complaint was generated by a backdoor neighbor who wasn't aware of all the violations until Mr. Locke removed the large bushes at the back of his property. Because the neighbor's property is higher than Mr. Locke's the bush removal gave them visual access that they hadn't had prior to that. After much discussion regarding the violations. Mr. Bundy asked for the City's reconirnendation. Ms. Price advised that she wanted to give Mr. Locke two weeks after receipt of the Final Orders to show proof that the vehicles are operable or remove them and to remove all of the outdoor storage. Mr. Locke took the stand and Mr. Valkenburg asked him how long he thought it would take to clean the yard up. He said about a week. He went on to explain the history of his vehicles, what he had disposed of and what remained on the property. He said that he needed to keep the vehicle lift because he couldn't get out of the wheelchair and the lift afforded him the opportunity to continue to work on his own vehicles. Donna Manzullo, his niece, was sworn in at that point and told the Board that the lumber and wood would be moved out to Mr. Locke's camp in Volusia County. She said that he works on things and has things spread out so that he can more easily access them, because of his confinement to his wheelchair. Ms. Goodblatt then asked if Mr. Locke would allow the City access to the property so that he could be advised exactly what needed to be removed, stored inside, and/or disposed of He invited the City to walk around his place and what he was told to do, he would do. The motion was made to find Mr. Locke guilty of violating City Code, Chapter 22. 22- 28. Section 618.6B(2), Appendix "A ", Section 620.2A, Appendix "A ". Service was properly made on Mr. Locke by Carl Renfro of Longwood Police Department. These determinations were made because there were 6 -8 vehicles on the property that were not operable as defined by City Code, the RV is not screened with an opaque fence, dense hedge or wall and there is a multitude of outdoor storage, such as tires. metal, lumber, firewood, batteries and other items. The Respondent was given 14 days to come into compliance or a penalty of $50 per day, per violation, would be imposed. In addition, the City would be given immediate access to the property by Mr. Locke for them to make a list of violations referencing the outdoor storage but including the other violations cited, or failure to provide immediate access or refusal would constitute an immediate violation of the order, subjecting him to the penalties assessed by the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Locke agreed to comply with all recommendations within thirty days of receipt of the list. In the event that the items are not brought into compliance within the given period of time, the City reserves the right to assess the cost to bring the property into compliance, including but not limited to removing these items f from Mr. Locke's property. Mr. Va kenburg moved to accept the order in full and Mr. Tolos seconded the motion. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Another motion was made to find Mr.Locke guilty of Section 501. Appendix "A ". and not guilty o l' Chapter 12. 12 -1(3) and (6). Service was properly made by hand delivery to Edward Locke on July 15, 1997 by Longwood Police Department. A commercial vehicle lift exists by a carport wlch is not an enclosed building. The Board finds although this is not a nuisance as defined by City Code but the lift may constitute a use which requires a permit or variance from the City in order to maintain it on residential property. Two weeks was given to apply for a permit to enclose the lift or a variance and 30 additional days from refusal of the permit or variance or failure to apply in which to remove the lift or a fine of $50 per day to continue for each day of non - compliance, cost to repair for City to remove the vehicle lift would be assessed if order was not complied with. Motion made by Mr. Valkenburg to accept the motion as outlined by Ms. Goodblatt and Mr. Tolos seconded the motion. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: Ms. Goodblatt advised that she would like to have a work session to acquaint everyone with the recently adopted Land Development Code. The tentative date was for August 12, 1997 at 7:30 P.M. 7. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 P.M. R pectfully subnuue , Lisa Martin, Recording Secretary