Loading...
CEB_10-26-99_MinCity of Longwood Code Enforcement Board City Commission Chambers 175 W. Warren Avenue Longwood, FL 32750 MINUTES OF MEETING October 26, 1999 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 Cheryl Melvin Ernest Tolos John Lomax APNIN Staff Present: Amy E. Goodblatt, CEB Attorney Cathy Price, Code Enforcement officer Daniel Spak, Code Enforcement officer Carol D. Hoben, Recording Secretary Chairman Bundy announced that his term as Chairman had expired prior to the October meeting, and he turned the meeting over to 'Elite - Chairman. John Maingot. Mr. Maingot called the meeting to order. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1999 MEETING The minutes of the August 24, 1999 meeting were approved by unanimous vote. 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The floor was opened for nominations. Ernest Tolos nominated John Maingot for Chairman, seconded by Cheryl Melvin. John Maingot nominated John Lomax for Chairman, seconded by Mr. Bundy. Motion made and seconded to close the nominations. A vote was held, with three votes for Mr. Maingot and two votes for Mr. Lomax , electing 5- AU Dom 1 9'.f1AVTEMW&v&her John Maingot the new Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. New Chairman Maingot requested nominations for Vice - Chairman. Cheryl Melvmn nominated Mr. Lomax, seconded by Mr. Bundy. Mr. Tolos nominated Cheryl Melvin, with no second. Motion was made and seconded to close the nominations. John Lomax elected as new Vice - Chairman, with Mr. Tolos abstaining from vote. Chairman Maingot offered his thanks and appreciation to each and every member of the Board and for the privilege of serving with them, and made a promise to work to the best of his ability in the future. 4, PUBLIC HEARINGS Attorney Ooodblatt announced that since there was no City attorney present, the City could elect not to proceed. The Code Enforcement officers chose to proceed. Attorney voodblatt swore in all parties who would give testimony. A. CEB 99 -10 -053 Roy Day, Property owner & Daniel Beck, Tenant 744 E. Church Avenue Code Enforcement officer Daniel Spak gave the following testimony: On May 25 a complaint was filed about a shed being installed on this property without a permit. On May 27" Mr. Spak inspected the property and saw two sheds, one old and one new, and he left a Notification of Code 'violation. On June 30' and July 13` letters were sent to Mr. Day informing him of the violation and the necessity of obtaining a permit. Mr. Day did not respond. On October 14' a Notice of I-3earing was served on Mr. Day, the property owner, but officer Moran was unable to serve the tenant, Mr. Beck, as he was no longer a resident at the property. Mr. Day had not been in contact with the Code Enforcement Officers. He did apply for a permit with the Planning Department, but was denied. The Board questioned Mr. Spak about the size of the sheds and permit fees. Mr. Spak informed the Board that the sheds were approximately 10'x14' and he did not know the cost of a building permit. He could find no permit for the old shed and, in fact, only one out building is permitted on any property. He recommended no administrative fee and suggested allowing the owner 30 days to take down one of the buildings and one week to apply for a permit on the other building. Code Enforcement officer Cathy Price told the Board that she had spoken with the owner and he intended to apply for a permit and that the buildings were installed by tenants. [Mr. Spak introduced into evidence letter from Longwood Police Department indicating that the tenant, Mr. Beck, was no longer a resident on the property.] Property owner was not present to testify. ApPh s -uttn mtsut91Mr.YtfMI99:Ocxi)btr 2 Haywood Bundy moved to close the public hearing portion of this case, seconded by Cheryl Melvin. Discussion ensued about what happens when a property is served y PP P P y owner and fails to conform. Attorney Goodblatt advised that a notice of demolition can be served on the owner and the cost assessed to him, if he is not in compliance within a certain number of days. If he does not pay the demolition bill, it can become a lien against the property. Alternatively, the matter can be tabled until the next Code Enforcement meeting or an order can be entered allowing the owner a certain time to come into compliance or be fined. Chairman Maingot asked for a motion. Mr. Tolos made a motion to table this matter until such time as the Code Enforcement Board can communicate with Mr. Day and perhaps assist him in resolving this matter before coming before the Board again. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lomax and passed by unanimous vote. B. CEB 99 -10 -054 Barbara Bole, Property Owner 315 Loch Lomond Avenue Ernest Tolos informed the Board that although this property abuts his property, he could still be impartial. Chairman Maingot duly noted these comments. Code Enforcement officer Daniel Spak gave the following testimony: On July 8` a complaint was filed that the pool was green and attracting mosquitoes and devaluing property values. On July 13` Mr. Spak went to the property, but was unable to access the pool area because of plastic fencing. He left a Notification of Code Violation citing the owner with a violation of Section 101.6 of the Standard Housing Code. Barbara Bole contacted Mr. Spak to discuss the situation. Ms. Bole got an estimate from a pool company of the work required, which she showed to Mr. Spak. Mr. Spak told the Board that he last spoke with Ms. Bole on August 13 and that the matter should be taken care of soon due to the obvious health and safety issues. The City recommended no administrative fee, just a fine if not in compliance by a specified date. Testimony by Barbara Bole: Mr. Spak came by the property on September 13` not August 13 ". Mr. Ariza, of Ariza Pool, prepared a work order but due to the possible hurricane, did not come by the property. On September 18` Mr. Ariza gave an estimate for a new pump, cleaning, etc., but the work could not commence until the trees were trimmed. Sun State Tree Service trimmed the trees. The next day the City started a drainage project behind the property. On September 25 arrangements were made for Ariza to start work on October 11, however, this did not take place because the City project was not complete. On October 25 h Ariza commenced work on the pool and will also install a new pump and filter system. Ms. Bole informed the Board that she would take this matter seriously, and she apologized to her neighbors. Chairman Maingot asked to have the written estimates introduced into evidence. [Arita S- uu Dwamma i 119 MIAr=1WOember 3 quotation of work, Paquette letter describing work being done for the City on the drainage structures, and nine photographs of the drainage project and the initial draining of the pool were introduced into evidence.] Ms. Bole agreed to allow someone from Code Enforcement to inspect the pool. Ms. Price informed the Board that Ms. Bole had always been cooperative. Mr. Lomax made a motion to close the public hearing portion of this case, motion seconded by Mr. Tolos. Mr. Lomax made a motion that because the property owner had made every effort to comply and be cooperative, that she be given until the next Board meeting to come into compliance. Mr. Bundy concurred if the motion was amended to allow access to the pool area. Motion was amended and passed by unanimous vote. Ms. Bole was advised to continue to be in touch with the Code Enforcement officers, who would report back to the Board. Mr. Spak stated he would work with her toward that goal. C, CEB 99 10-055 Erick G. Solera, Property owner Celina Valencia, Tenant 744 Meadowlark Court Testimony by Cathy Price: original complaint was filed for having a vehicle on the property and an overgrown yard. Property is occupied by a tenant and the owner resides in California. On July 15` Ms. Price went to the property, but no one came to the door. Subsequently, the vehicle was removed, but the outdoor storage remained. Ms. Price r� requested compliance by September 29 Photographs were taken on September 25 h because a neighbor was concerned about the hurricane blowing around loose objects. On October 14" the tenant, Ms. Valencia, was served, and she later carne into the office to talk about the case. The City administrator requested another inspection of the property, which was done, and they found the grass had been cut, but the vehicle was back. [Four photographs were introduced into evidence, two of the front yard and two of the rear.] On October 25` the Fire Marshall inspected the property and found the storage in front to be a hazard . Mr. Spak testified that the debris was still in the yard, as was the vehicle. The owner was informed of this by certified mail. The tenant did not realize that the outdoor storage was unacceptable and was informed that it had to be stored in a shed. The outside storage consists of toys, garbage cans, plant pots, wood pallets, and other objects. Tenant has cut the grass, but was informed that if it happens again she will be a repeat offender. The City recommends allowing two weeks to clear the property. Discussion ensued about the photographs and what objects have been removed. Testimony by tenant: Ms. Valencia testified that she was away during all of June and July and thought her neighbor was taking care of everything on the property. She was not aware of any problems until she returned, when her landlord advised her of it. She was further delayed by the hurricane season. She indicated that she had taken care of everything, including the yard work, and was still in the process of moving things out of the front yard, which would require another week or two. r Mr. Maingot asked Ms. Valencia whether she understood what was required of her to ` bring the property into compliance, and Attorney odblatt further explained to her that �' p she could not store any items in the yard. Ms. Valencia responded that she thought she needed to get rid of whatever she did not need because she did not have room to store items. The Board discussed sending someone from Code Enforcement to the property to explain to the tenant what needs to be done, perhaps storing items in the small shed on the property. Ms. Valencia said she was trying to fix up the porch, and that it is difficult since she has five children and their pet rabbit is on the porch. Motion made by Mr. Bundy, seconded by Mr. Tolos, to close the public hearing portion of the meeting. Discussion: Mr. Lomax suggested someone from Code Enforcement go by the property and explain what needs to be done. Mr. Spak said he had been there the day before and explained it to her. Ms. Goodblatt advised that the Board cannot rule on a future intention, just on a current situation. Mr. Spak again reiterated to the tenant that everything except a few outdoor toys must be removed from the property. Mr. Lomas made a motion to find the Respondent guilty of violating LDC. Section 24-- 25.13 for outside storage. Service of the initial notification was properly made on July 7, 1999 and service of the Notice of Hearing was properly made. Three weeks from date of service Respondent is to be in compliance or a fine of $20.00 per day will be imposed until the property is brought into compliance. Motion seconded by Mr. Bundy. Attorney Goodblatt questioned whether it would apply only to the tenant, and Mr. Lomax said it would apply to both the owner and to the tenant. Mr. Spak explained that the tenant was informed that she was guilty of having high grass. Motion amended to include violation of City Code, Chapter 12, 12 -2(1 ). Motion seconded by Mr. Tolos and carried unanimously. Mr. Bundy advised that one of the Code Enforcement officers should stop by the property to check on the progress, and Mr. Maingot suggested bringing someone fluent in Spanish to translate, if necessary. Again, clarification was made to the tenant to ensure her understanding. The Board agreed that Ms. Valencia should receive something in writing. 5. OLD BUSINESS CEB 99 -06 -045 Howard C. Richmond Mr. Tolos and Attorney Goodblatt discussed how this was allowed to be brought before the Board again. Ms. Goodblatt advised that since three members had voted against and one to rescind, the Board cannot re -vote if four people are voting. A discussion ensued about the Board's concerns about record keeping. Mr. Maingot suggested that Nis. Goodblatt make a formal request to the proper authorities in the City that the Board be provided with copies of the newest rules and amendments. The City rules supercede Roberts Rules. Ms. Goodblatt explained that because there are three sets of rules, there uu Dr►c�emarrs 119�Id1.�'tITE51991ortnDrr 5 is confusion when making decisions, and also the Florida Statues need to be considered. Mr. Bundy made a motion that Attorney Goodblatt submit a formal request to the City for � ty a copy of the rules. Motion seconded by Mr. Tolos and carried unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the date for the November Code Enforcement Board meeting. Motion made by Mr. Tolos to have the meeting on November 30` Motion seconded by Ms. Melvin and carried by unanimous vote. Attorney Goodblatt reported on the seminar that she attended with Dan Spak and Cathy Price: There are some significant changes to the Florida Statutes. A) Service - now service may be made on a manager of a property, it does not have to be on the owner; B) Transient vio - the Code Enforcement Board does not have to give reasonable notice to or allow reasonable time to comply to itinerant or transient violators: C) Mail Service - If mail comes back unclaimed or the owner has moved without giving a forwarding address, as long as service has been made by posting, then it is considered proper service. Attorney Goodblatt reported that the City commissioners have chosen not to attend a Code Enforcement Board meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned by Chairman Maingot at 8:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol D. Hoben Recording Secretary November 19, 1999 S_ uta 6