Loading...
CEB_06-23-98_MinF� City of Longwood Code Enforcement Board City Commission Chambers 175 W. 'Darren Avenue Longwood, FL 32750 MINU TES OF MEETING June 23, 1998 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Bundy 2, ROLL CALL Members present: Haywood Bundy. Chairman John Maingot Jolk Lynette Dennis Ernest Tolos Cheryl Melvin Staff Present; Amy E. Goodblatt, Esquire, CEB Attorney Richard Taylor, City of Longwood Attorney Cathy Price, Code Enforcement Officer John Groenendaal, Code Enforcement officer Carol D. Hoben, Recording Secretary 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 25 1998 MEETING Mr. Maingot advised that the minutes of the May 25, 1998 meeting omitted mention of Ms. Addison's resignation and the election of Mr. Maingot as 'dice Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. A motion was made by Mr. Tolos to amend the minutes of the May 25, 1998 meeting. Motion was seconded and carried by unanimous vote. r 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Attorney Taylor swore in all parties who would give testimony. A. William and Cheryl Park, Park Plaza - CEB 98 -06 -013 Chairman Bundy called the first case, CEB 98 -06 -013, William and Cheryl Park. Code Enforcement officer, John Groenendaal, presented the facts of the case: there was a problem at the Park Plaza property with dead branches and debris from the storms in February; trash, debris and tall grass around the dumpster; inoperable vehicles at the rear of the building; and the visibility of the dumpster. Most of the clean up has been done, but the dumpster is still not screened from view. The City recommends a $25.00 administrative fee and a requirement to enclose the dumpster. [Photographs were entered into evidence.] Testimony by Mr. Park, who indicated that he intended to fence the entire rear of the property. to discourage unauthorized dumping. He did not want to install a fence around only the dumpster because it would not be strong enough. Discussion by the Board as to what violations occurred and the timeframe for coming into compliance. Motion was made by Ms. Dennis to charge the Respondent an administrative fee of $25.00, and to find the Respondent guilty of violating Longwood City Code Chapter 12, 12 -2(2) and Land Development Code 24 -53.06 as required by CUP05 -97 and 24- 23.07, and that he be required to enclose the dumpster. Mr. Maingot stated that a specific timeframe should be mentioned, specifically, ten ( 10) working days from June 24, 1998, in which to erect the fence. Motion was amended by Ms. Dennis, seconded and carried unanimously. B. Keith D. and Donna A. McMahan - CEB 98 -06 -014 Chairman Bundy called the next case. Cathy Price advised the Board of the facts of this case: Mr. McMahan seems to have an on -going vehicle repair business on his property; there were vehicle parts spread over the entire rear of the property; there were multiple inoperable vehicles parked on the property; there were campers parked in the front of the property. The owners were cited with these violations in April and some improvements have taken place. The rear of the yard has been cleared of vehicle parts and debris; most of the inoperable vehicles have been removed, however, two still remain; the campers have been removed, or moved to the rear, but currently there is a boat in the front yard. The City recommends a $75.00 administration fee and that the owners be found in violation and that the repeat offender clause be invoked. The owners should be required to completely clean up the property within one week of receipt of an order. Mr. McMahan gave testimony that one of the vehicles is inoperable, but the second one is running and is registered. The auto parts have been eliminated and there is no oil spilled on the property. The remaining camper has been put behind a fence. Mr. McMahan stated that he was not aware that having the boat in the front yard constituted a violation, since he was not cited for that. He claimed lie was no longer running a (vehicle repair) shop. [Photographs were introduced into evidence by Mr. McMahan.] CAOFFtCE %PWIMI =ffi Z.10 W.V(jTESVVAZ98 Ms. Price questioned Mr. McMahan about the "operable" vehicle, since it was in the yard for several months with a flat tire and had not been moved. Mr. McMahan insisted that it was operable and was being sent to Wisconsin in a few days. Chairman Bundy closed the public hearing portion. Attorney Coodblatt advised the Board that Mr. McMahan was never notified that the boat was in violation, so he cannot be found guilty of violating LDC Section 24 -23.09 with regard to the boat. Ms. Dennis stated that Mr. McMahan is now aware that the boat is in violation. Discussion ensued as to whether clean up was accomplished in a timely fashion. Motion was made by Ms. Dennis to find the Respondents guilty of violating Land Development Code 24 -23.07 for having two inoperable vehicles on the property, and that they be required to come into compliance within ten business days from June 24, 1995, and that a fine of $75.00 per day be imposed if not remedied by that time. Also, an administrative fee of $75.00 is to be charged. Motion was seconded by Mr. Tolos. Mr. Maingot stated that the Respondents should also be required to move the boat to the back yard. Ms. Dennis declined to amend her motion and it was carried by the majority, with Mr. Maingot's one opposing vote. B. David A. and Nancy H. LeNAS - CEB 98 -06 -015 Ms. Price advised the Board that these property owners had come into compliance. C. Laura Falls - CEB 98--06 -021 ApIk Ms. Price advised the Board that this property owner had come into compliance. D. Alvin Leitman and Barry Revels, Township Plaza Association, Ltd. - CEB 98 -06 -016 John Croenendaal advised the Board of the facts of this case: Mr. Leitman and Mr. Revels were advised in a letter dated May 21, 1998 of the many violations, including two unenclosed dumpsters surrounded by debris and rotting fruits and vegetables, the retention and drainage ditch overgrown with vegetation, trash and debris behind the building, and tenants with illegal signage. The Respondents were given an extension of time, since the owner was in the process of refinancing the property. [Photographs were introduced into evidence]. Some clean up has taken place, however, the ditch is still not cleaned out. The City recommends finding the Respondents guilty of violating City Code Chapter 12, 12 -2(2) and Land Development Code 24- 53.06, imposing a $25.00 administrative fee, and allowing the Respondents two weeks after service of final order to have the drainage ditch and the dumpster area cleared of all debris and to have the dumpsters properly screened, with a fine of $ 100.00 per day per violation imposed if not completed by that time. Testimony by Mr. Revels: The shopping center refinancing has been completed, and they can now proceed with the clean -up process, which has already been started. The dumpsters will be screened, possibly with a chain link fence with inserts, which would be stronger than a stockade fence. C OFFICEi14TWIN GICD)M_' .WIXUMVU;VEQa 3 Chairman Bundy closed the public hearing portion, and a discussion ensued. It was agreed by the members that the property owners were guilty, but seemed sincere about remedying the violations. Ms. Dennis made a motion to find the Respondents guilty of violating City Code 12,12 -2(2) and LDC 24- 53.06, to give them two weeks from issuance of final order to come into compliance or be fined $100.00 per day per violation, and to assess them a $25.00 administrative fee. Motion was seconded by Mr. Tolos. Mr. Maingot recommended the Respondents be given 30 days to clean up the drainage ditch and 15 working days for erecting the fence. Ms. Dennis' motion stood as stated and passed, with Mr. Maingot's one opposing vote. E. Jorge N1endoza, AB5 Gable - CEB 98 -06 -017 John Groenendaal presented the facts of this case: two banners were put up on the wall of the business without a sign permit. Mr. Mendoza communicated to Mr. Groenendaal that he would comply, and he subsequently applied for a permit, which has been approved. The City recommends a $25.00 administrative fee. Attorney Goodblatt advised that LDC 24- 60.03(c) is the wrong citation for this case, and that it should be LDC 24- 60.04(c). The CEB needs to make a specific finding that although the Notice of Hearing contained the wrong citation number, die Respondent was properly served and received proper notice because the violation was described in the notice. Motion was made by Mr. Maingot to find the Respondent guilty of violating LDC 24- 60.04(c), that the Respondent was given proper notice of the correct code section because the notices all �' described the proper violation, that service was properly made, and that an administrative fee of $25.00 be imposed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Tolos and carried unanimously. (Mr. Mendoza arrived late and this matter had further discussion later in the meeting.) F. Kimberly Towers, Kids at Play, Inc. - CEB 98 -46 -018 Ms. Price advised the Board that the City is not going to proceed on this case. G. Kevin Drayer, On The Rocks - CEB 98 -06 -019 John Groenendaal presented the facts of this case: The property owner was allowed 30 days to have a portable sign and banner, but he did not remove them after the 30-day period. On June 15, 1998 the Respondent applied for a sign permit. The property owner intends to leave the banner up until the permanent sign is installed. The City recommends a $25.00 administrative fee, and a fine of $50.00 per day if the banner is not taken down within three days from the service of a final order. The citation should be amended to LDC 24- 60.04(c) Testimony by Kevin Drayer: When lie applied for his occupational license, he was informed that he could have a temporary sign for one or two months, and that the City would cooperate with him on this issue. After receiving the May 19 letter, he informed John Groenendaal that he was working on it. Mr. Drayer said that lie had paid a sign contractor $500, and that the contractor C_ IOM M wr*T,%Vl 4 would pull the permit. Mr. Drayer intends to keep the temporary banners up until that time the permanent sign Drayer was questioned is installed. Mr. Dra as to whether he had informed Mr. Groenendaal of the contract with the sign company. Mr. Drayer responded that he had not shown the sign contract to anyone because lie did not think there was a problem, based on what he was told when he obtained his occupational license. He stated he would not pay an administrative fee and would appeal, if found guilty. Chairman Bundy closed the public hearing portion of this case and discussion ensued. Mr. Tolos stated that it was incumbent upon the property owner to notify the City that the sign contractor was going to pull a permit. Attorney Taylor said that the City would have cooperated, had it been informed, and both Attorney Taylor and Attorney Goodblatt agreed that Mr. Drayer could not plead ignorance. Ms. Dennis made a motion that the Respondent was properly served, that he be found guilty of violating LDC 24- 60.04(c), that an administrative fee of 525.00 be assessed, and that a fine of $50.00 per day be imposed, commencing three days after service of the final order. Motion was seconded by Mr. Tolos. Mr. Maingot clarified the motion stating that the imposition of the line of $50.00 per day within three days of the final order applied to taking the banner down. Motion carried unanimously. H. David Levison, Equipment Outlet, Inc. - CEB 98 -06 -020 John Groenendaal presented the facts of the case: The property owner was notified by hand - delivered letter dated May 19, 1998, that he was required to obtain a sign permit for the banners on the wall of his business. Some time after June 10 the banners were removed. The City AW recommends a $25.00 administrative fee. [Photograph taken on June 10, 1998 was entered into evidence]. Ms. Dennis advised the Board that the citation should be LDC 24- 60.04(c) and not LDC 24- 60.03(c). Testimony by Mr. Levison: The permanent signs were taken down due to damage from the tornado a few months ago. Subsequently, the temporary banners were put up, while awaiting new, permanent signs. Mr. Levison said that his manager contacted Lt. Yelvington and was told that there was no problem with the banners, and that the City would accommodate the merchants on Hwy. 17 -92, since there is construction on the road and it is effecting business. Mr. Levison stated he did not feel that there is a clear distinction between a banner and a sign. He requested that all charges against him be dropped because the citation on the Notice of Hearing was wrong. Chairman Bundy closed the public hearing portion of this case. Attorney Goodblatt advised the Board that there is a clear definition of temporary and permanent signage at the end of LDC 24 -62. Ms. Dennis stated that a violation definitely occurred. Mr. Maingot queried Ms. Goodblatt as to the Board's status regarding citing the wrong citation. Ms. Goodblatt advised that the Respondent could make an argument on such grounds, but that judges frequently allow amendments to correct such errors. A judge could ask whether sufficient notice was given and if so, then the Board would be within its rights. Mr. Bundy stated that the City was giving some latitude to Hwy. 17 -92 business owners. Ms. Price added that the State of Florida has told business owners that they are allowed to put up signs. APW C10MCME 4"ZV61 tiCDff MW1 ti'I ZTJU.tiF— 9d 5 Ms. Dennis made a motion that service was properly made on the Respondent and that he be found g uil ty of violating DC 24 -60.04 and that a $25.00 administrative fee be assessed. Motion was g � c } seconded and carried unanimously. I. David Keaton, The Herb Sbop - CEB 98 -06 -022 Cathy Price presented the facts of this case: This business owner has not had a City occupational license for two years. He did not apply for one, even after being contacted by the occupational licensing clerk. After receipt of the Notice of Hearing, Mr. Keaton provided Ms. Price with a copy of his occupational license application. Attorney Goodblatt advised the Board that notices for occupational licenses are sent out August 1, to be paid by September 30, of each year. The fines assessed for non - compliance are 10% for the month of October and 5 % for each additional month, up to a total of $250.00 if more than 150 days have passed, in addition to court costs. Ms. Price said that the occupational fee is approximately $70.00 per year, and the City recommends that he pay all the applicable fees. The business owner was notified in September and again in January by the occupational licensing clerk. Attorney Taylor said that the City cannot shut a business down for not having an occupational license, that the fee is like a tax. Mr. Keaton produced a receipt [introduced into evidence] from the Sanford Herald, showing that the fictitious name advertisement will be published for the requisite amount of time and thereafter he will apply for his occupational license. ArIk Chairman Bundy closed the public hearing portion of this case. Mr. Bundy recommended to the Board that Mr. Keaton be required to come into compliance and that a time limit be set for him to obtain his occupational license. Mr. Maingot made a motion to find the Respondent guilty of violating Longwood City Code Section 10 - and 10 -3(c), that service was properly made on the Respondent, and that lie be granted 60 days within which to achieve his proper licensing, and, failing that, he should keep the City advised of any problems he encounters as they occur. He is to pay to the City any outstanding and applicable fines, as determined by the occupational licensing department, and that an administrative fee of $25.00 be imposed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Dennis and carried unanimously. K. Robert J. Goetz, Arrow Incentive & Premium, Inc. - CEB 98 -06 -23 Ms. Price presented the facts of this case: This business owner was cited for failure to renew his City occupational license. He has subsequently paid for it, [copy of Mr. Goetz's check was entered into evidence], and the City recommends that a $25.00 administrative fee be imposed. A discussion ensued, and it was agreed that Mr. Goetz did not renew his occupational license in a timely fashion. Mr. Maingot made a motion to f old the Respondent guilty of violating Longwood City Code Section 10 10 -1 and 10 -3(c ), that the Notice of Hearing was properly served, and that an administrative fee of $25.00 be imposed. Motion was seconded by Ms. Dennis and carried unanimously. C-10FRM %7K7V611M Z20WJNVMVUhW 4e 6 L. Jorge TNIendoza, ABS Cable - CEB 98 -05 -017 (CONTINUATION) At this time, Mr. Mendoza of ABS Cable arrived, having been delayed in traffic due to smoke on 1-4. Attorney Goodblatt summarized the Board's Findings for Mr. Mendoza. Mr. Mendoza testified that due to the ongoing construction on Hwy. 17 -92, his business has declined, and that a neighboring business owner mislead him by telling him that the City would be more lenient about temporary signs. He said he would cooperate by paying the administrative fee, but lie would like some help from the City. Attorney Goodblatt directed him to attend the next City Commission meeting. Ms. Dennis proposed that the City had been reasonable and the fee should stand. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. George and Lynda Webster - CEB 98 -05 -011 Ms. Price advised that Mr. Webster did not repair the fence around the pool, and the City had to do the repairs. Lt. Yelvington will advise the City of the cost to do this. Attorney Goodblatt informed the Board that the property is in foreclosure. 7. NEW BUSINESS O There was no new business. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Code Enforcement Board Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol D. Hoben Recording Secretary July 6, 1998 AVNh C.' :DFF7CF RPiiZ31�61 +CDN�2�LV1.4'[1f�IU.�� 93 7