Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-1996 Minutes MINUTES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON January 23, 1996 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sills called the regular meeting of the Ocoee Board of Code Enforcement to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall and led in the pledge of allegiance. Member Linebarier led in prayer. The roll was called and a quorum declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Sills, Vice Chairman Carlsson, Members Chestney, Linebarier, Santo, Shagner, and Alternate Members Holmes and Skiles. Also present were Attorney Feeney, Building and Zoning Plans Examiner Washington, Code Enforcement Officers Braddy and Simon, Deputy Clerk Seaver and Clerk/Stenographer Lewis. ABSENT: Member Lenko (excused). APPROVALS This item consisted of the Minutes of the November 28, 1995 Code Enforcement Board meeting. Member Shagner asked for a correction on page 6, Case No. 95-110, that the Notice of Dismissal should read 10/16/95 rather than 10/16/96. Member Santo, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to approve the Minutes of the November 28, 1995 Code Enforcement Board meeting as amended. Motion carried 7-0. COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS None HEARINGS OF STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICES OF HEARING - The description of the violation(s) and the dates of inspection(s) will be given at the beginning of each case. Code representation: NOCV - Notice of Code Violation; NOH - Notice of Hearing; SOV - Statement of Violation(s); and POS - Proof of Service. 96-01, CURTIS AND VALERIE M. BOWMAN 11/9/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:12/7/95 10/31/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:1/23/96 1/10/96 SOV 10/31/95 POS - Mail Cert#P597-456-632 Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. At the request of Chairman Sills, Code Enforcement Officers Braddy and Simon were sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver. Code Enforcement Officer Simon said that Case No. 96-01 referred to the property at 225 Franklin Street. On November 7, 1995, she had spoken with Fire Inspector Raymie Clements regarding a complaint from adjoining residents about problems on residents at the Cross Roads Adult Care Facility. Inspector Clements had informed Officer Braddy that she had filed a complaint with a State agency, ACLF (which governs these types of facilities), that Cross Roads residents were coming to the church, getting on the bus and revving its engine. There had been various other complaints. Officer Simon said that on November 8, 1995, Pastor Burgess had spoken with her about the problems that he was having with the residents at the Cross Roads Facility. A search was made of the Occupational Licenses files and the records revealed that the facility did not have a City Occupational License to be in business. On November 9, 1995, an NOCV had been hand delivered to the property owner as identified Code Enforcement Board Meeting timw January 23, 1996 by Orange County Tax Records, Curtis and Valerie M. Bowman, at the Cross Roads - Franklin Street address, for violation of City Code, Chapter 119-2 Engaging in business without a license: "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any business, occupation or profession within the City without a license issued hereunder or upon a license issued upon false statements made by any person or in his behalf. In any prosecution under this section, the fact that such person is conducting such business shall be prima facia evidence of a violation hereof;" The property owner had applied for an occupational license for an adult congregate living facility on July 12, 1995. The property owner had also obtained a State license, and had been conducting business since August, 1995. Officer Simon said that when she had arrived at the facility, Mr. Baldwin had not been present. He was on the telephone with the volunteer that was there, and Officer Simon had explained to Mr. Baldwin about the NOCV and he had understood what she was delivering. The NOCV was hand delivered to the volunteer. The business did have a state license that was in effect and posted on the premises. The only other person present at the time was a 17 year old resident who was residing there in exchange for cleaning services. The facility was housing eight (8) HRS adult care patients at that time. After questioning the two (2) volunteers in reference to neither one of them having any type of First Aid or CPR training, or any informed paid staff, Ms. Simon had contacted the State of Florida agency for health care administration to file a complaint on the lack of staffing that was on site in her presence. She called back for several days, and finally on November 16, 1995, she had spoken with a supervisor about the complaint. It took the State two (2) weeks, and several phone calls before they had responded to her complaint. Based on the information that they had given to her, Officer Simon had contacted Cross Roads and advised them that their lativo application had been denied due to fact that they did not meet State staffing requirements. Upon that complaint, the State then re-inspected the facility, and on December 7, 1995, after the State inspection, Ms. Spivey. representative with the State informed her that they were still not in compliance. On December 19, 1995, Ms. Spivey advised her that Cross Roads now had appropriate staffing with the appropriate training and were now in compliance with the State requirements. Also, on December 19, 1995, Ms. Simon had advised Mr. Baldwin the status of his license, and that he must come to the City and pay for his 1995-96 license, as well as half the year of 1994-95, because he was in operation before October, the marking of the 1995-96 fiscal year. On January 10, 1996, an SOV and NOH for this Board meeting had been sent to the property owner via restricted delivery by Deputy Clerk Seaver. On January 10, 1996, Mr. Baldwin had still not obtained a license for the facility that he was operating on Franklin Street. On January 17, 1996, Mr. Baldwin contacted the City and Ms. Simon said that she had reiterated to him the need to pay for the license. On January 19, 1996, Mr. Baldwin paid for the Occupational License, and had come into compliance. Member Linebarier expressed concern about the State issuing a license to operate such a facility while the City had found the violations. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Santo, moved to find Curtis and Valerie M. Bowman, Case No. 96-01, 225 Franklin Street, in non-compliance of City Code, Chapter 119-2 as of November 10, 1995 but in compliance as of January 19, 1996, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried 7-0. 2 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 96-02, CROSS ROADS ADULT CARE 11/9/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:12/7/95 10/31/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:1/23/96 1/10/96 SOV 10/31/95 POS - Mail Cert#P597-456-632 Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code Enforcement Officer Simon said that Case No. 96-02 referred to the business owned by the respondents in Case No. 96-01, and the property at 225 Franklin Street. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find Cross Roads Adult Care, Case No. 96-02, 225 Franklin Street, in non-compliance of City Code, Chapter 119-2 as of November 10, 1995 but in compliance as of January 19, 1996, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried 7-0. 96-03, CHARLES E. N. DAVIS 11/21/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:1/9/96 1/10/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:1/23/96 1/10/96 SOV 1/11/96 POS - Mail Cert#P597-456-634 Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code Enforcement Officer Simon said that Case No. 96-03 referred to the property at 1903 Lauren Beth Avenue. After receiving a complaint about the storing of junk vehicles, Officer Simon said that an investigation found several trucks without tags, and a temporary structure that had been erected, without a permit, in the rear yard. On November 21, 1995, a Statement and an NOCV had been sent to the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, Charles E.N. Davis, for violation of City Code, Chapter 165.3 No person shall keep any abandoned or junk vehicle on any public property or any private property within the corporate limits of the City. This had been sent for the untagged vehicle. Also, "Chapter 51-21 It shall be a violation of this Article for any person to do any building construction, repair work,alteration, or any remodeling of any building, or to demolish any building within the scope of this Article without first obtaining a permit, therefore, from the Building Department." The respondent had been cited for Chapter 51-21 because of the temporary structure that had been erected without a permit. The property owner had been given until December 6, 1995 to bring the property into compliance. On January 9, 1996, Officer Simon had attempted to do a re-inspection of the property, however, the property had been posted "No Trespassing." Officer Simon said that the signs were posted in a manner that she would have violated the signs in order to gain entrance to the rear yard, and she had not entered the property. On January 10, 1996, an SOV and NOH for this Board meeting were sent to the property owner via restricted delivery by Deputy Clerk Seaver. No re-inspection of the property could be done as Mr. Davis had not complied with the original Notice that stated that the burden rests upon the respondent to request a re-inspection or to determine whether the property had been brought into compliance. Upon receiving the SOV and NOH, Mr. Davis had contacted the City and scheduled a re-inspection on January 23, 1996 that revealed the property had been brought into compliance. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Chestney, moved to find Charles E. N. Davis, Case No. 96-03, 1903 Lauren Beth Avenue, in non-compliance of City Code, Chapter 165-3 and Chapter 51-21 as of December 6, 1995, but in compliance as of January 19, 1996, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried 7-0. Officer Simon said that she had informed the respondent about "repeat violations." 3 Code Enforcement Board Meeting Nifty January 23, 1996 96-04, DARTHA TAWARI 11/10/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/10/95 1/10/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:1/23/96 1/10/96 SOV 1/11/96 POS - Mail Cert#P597-456-635 Code Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 96-04 referred to the property at 905 Flewelling Avenue. On May 12, 1995, Officer Braddy said that the building and premises had been inspected for Code compliance as requested by Penny Christian, had been found in non- compliance with the Minimum Standard Codes of the City. On June 20, 1995, a letter of Compliance had been mailed, giving the respondent 60 days to comply with the violation of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code;Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities: (I): "Install a smoke detector." (A) "Master bath base of toilet is leaking. The sink in the bathroom is not properly draining. The kitchen sink is leaking under the cabinet. The faucet is dripping." 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and Outlets; 108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical systems: "The electrical receptacle on the porch must be GFI and the wiring must be protected. All exterior electrical receptacles must also be on a GFI circuit and must have a weather-proof cover. Protect dryer receptacle. Replace any missing or broken receptacle or switch place covers. Remove all wiring in the garage area. (It is not to code, no permit pulled). Install blanks in the electrical panel." 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of Structures: (0): "Repair all missing and torn screens." (I, J.L:) "All windows must be in working condition." (D:) "Repair all holes in the exterior wall(where wiring goes through wall)." Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow: "Install backflow preventors on all exterior hose bibs." Officer Braddy said that on the first part of November, 1995, the tenant, Penny Christian, had contacted about the plumbing and other problems with the house. An inspection, arranged and made on November 10, 1995, revealed that the violations had not been corrected. A courtesy letter, stating the property had been re-inspected and an NOCV, had been sent via regular mail to Dartha Tawari, owner of record, at 460 Lake Kathryn Circle, Casselberry, FL 32718 on November 10, 1995. Since that time, Officer Braddy said that Ms. Christian and Mr. Tawari had contacted her on numerous occasions. On January 10, 1996, an SOV and NOH to this Board meeting were mailed via certified, restricted delivery, with a POS signed by Dartha Tawari on January 13, 1996. As of January 23, 1996, the property remained in non-compliance. A re-inspection on November 10, 1995 found the property to be in non-compliance. In response to Vice Chairman Carlsson, Officer Braddy said that the owner had stated that the owner would not allow him entrance to the property. Officer Braddy said that the tenant had not been cited as under Minimum Housing, that these (violations) were existing conditions prior to the tenant moving in. As the public inspector for water, she said that before the water can be turned on it must be inspected and will go back to the owner in all cases. In response to Chairman Sills, Attorney Feeney said that the Board could determine which testimony to hear first, the tenant or the property owner. Penny Christian West, and Christopher C. West, 905 Flewelling Avenue, were sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver. Ms. West presented 25 photographs, labeled as Exhibits 1 - 25, and briefed the Board as they reviewed each exhibit. Officer Braddy had closely examined the „ 4 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 photos to verify the violation in this case. Ms. West said that she had taken the photographs shortly after submitting a notice of repair on December 25. In response to Chairman Sills' inquiry as to whether the property owner was allow entrance into the property to make the needed repairs, Ms. West testified that Mr. Tawari came faithfully every month to collect his rent, and came straight to the door. She said she had statements from other people who were aware that the house was falling apart, that she, on numerous times, had contacted Mr. Tawari about fixing the place. In December, there had been septic in the bathtub and kitchen sink. They had ended up paying for the repair and were taking it up in Court. On December 27, 1995, they had mailed a 7-day Notice to Dartha and Charlie Tawari that they would be withholding the rent, and Mr. Tawari had in turn, given the tenant a 5-day (notice). They had answered the Court with the Code violations, the pictures, the accusation being non-payment of rent for December, the bank statements where they had paid, and at this time they were waiting for mediation. Ms. West said that they had been contacting the owner since they had moved to the property in April. They had receipts for septic overflow calls. Mr. West said that the owner had finally sent a plumber but it had not taken care of the problem. Member Chestney inquired about the electrical problems, and Ms. West said that nothing had ever been done. There had been contact with the property owner about every Code violation. Ms. West explained that one bedroom window had been damaged in the hurricane (August 1, 1995), and AllState had come out, stating with Mr. Tawari present, that they were going to pay for the window and for the damage to the roof. It still had not been repaired. Member Chestney asked the City how the (house) property met the Minimum Standard Code to get the water, etc. turned on originally, and Officer Braddy said that unless a house is condemnable the City turns the water on and gives the applicant a time frame to come up to Code. The respondents, in this case, had been given 60 days after the first citation which was June 20 to August 20, 1995, and from August 20, 1995 forward the respondent was in violation. Dartha Tawari, and Madowacharya Tawari, 460 Lake Kathryn Circle, Casselberry, FL 32718, were sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver. Attorney Feeney said that the respondents were entitled to present their case with some flexibility granted from the Board in the matters that they saw fit, as long as it was reasonable and appropriate. He then explained the process to the respondent and the Board. Ms. Tawari said that she and Mr. Tawari were owners of the property. Officer Simon testified that the Orange County Tax Records revealed that the property was in the name of Ms. Tawari, alone. For the record, Mr. Tawari agreed that while the Tax Records refer to Ms. Tawari as the owner of record, that it was o.k. to proceed with the testimony. Ms. Tawari testified that the tenants had refused them access to the house, and Officer Braddy had advised her to get a policeman to go with them to the property. Ms. Tawari also said that ,, 5 Code Enforcement Board Meeting ., January 23, 1996 the West's have three or four big dogs, snakes, and all sorts of pets in the house, that they were destroying the property outside, the kids played ball, breaking the windows (the neighbor next door had seen the incident), and it was costing her thousands of dollars to bring the house back up to par. She expounded on personal matters, and Attorney Feeney said that it may be helpful to the respondents to understand that the powers of the Code Enforcement Board were limited. They did not have the power, neither does the City Code Enforcement Officer to get the Tawari's access to the property. To the Tawari's, Attorney Feeney said that in their own interest, that this Board was considering whether or not their home was currently in compliance with the Minimum Standard Codes. Ms. Tawari (or Ms. West?) submitted two letters as evidence that plumbers had been hired concerning the problem. Mr. Tawari stated that the Wests had signed the lease to protect his house, and the pictures showed what they had done to it. He had been cursed and been ordered out of the house by Mr. West. Mr. Tawari also said that Mr. West had a mean, violent temper. Member Linebarier explained to Mr. Tawari that all the Board was interested in at this meeting was exactly what had been printed in the Statement of Violations. The Board had to determine if and when these could be repaired, etc. In response to Member Linebarier, Mr. Tawari said that these conditions were not apparent when the West's had rented the house. Everything had been repaired whether it was new screens, receptacle cover, the plumbing or all that was necessary to be done. Officer Braddy explained once more that she had done her inspection on May 12, 1995, at the time that the tenant had moved in, and that those violations had been found at that time. Member Chestney said that Officer Braddy's statement had told him that the violations were there before this couple had moved into the property, and they had not been corrected since that time. Mr. Tawari said that that was wrong. A lengthy discussion ensued about the violations. Ms. Tawari said that she had received the Notice via registered mail on January 25, and she had not received anything before that date. Officer Braddy said that she had received one particular piece of mail back which was the most current thing in November but the prior mail had not been returned to the City. Robert Bagley, 905 Flewelling Drive, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver, and testified that he had no experience of inspecting homes, and that he was not a qualified housing inspector. In response to Vice Chairman Carlsson's inquiry about his seeing the property prior to the West's moving in, Mr. Bagley said that he had been there on several occasions and the electrical plates had not been missing. The landlord had been remodeling the house, putting in new cupboards, lighting, switch plates (at the property in violation), and Mr. Tawari had repaired anything that Mr. Bagley had asked repaired at his home, responding promptly. Upon moving into his place, he said that Mr. Tawari had also asked to be notified about any problems so they could be rectified. ,,• 6 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 Alternate Member Holmes questioned the respondents about their rental agreement and the maintenance on the septic drain fields, Mr. Tawari said that if there was a septic damage that he would fix it. In response to Vice Chairman Carlsson, Mr. Tawari said that it would take two (2) months to fix the violations but he wanted the tenants out of the house first. For the record, Vice Chairman Carlsson said that the tenants had said that the property owner could enter the house. Member Chestney, seconded by Vice Chairman Carlsson , moved to find Dartha Tawari, Case No. 96-04, in non-compliance of Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standard for Basic Equipment (I), (A), 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights, etc., 108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems, 108-23 General Requirements for Exterior and Interior of all Structures (0), (I), (J), (L), and (D), also, Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1, as of November 25, 1995, and be given until February 2, 1996 to come into compliance or be fined $200 per day thereafter. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. and Ms. Tawari wanted to continue discussing the case but were escorted from the hearing by City police officers. 96-05, ELIZABETH S. SALTERS 1/9/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:1/11/96 1/12/96 NOH Board Meeting Date:1/23/96 1/12/96 SOV 1/12/96 POS - Mail - Cert #P597-456-637 Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 96-05 was in reference to the property at 801 Sullivan Avenue. On January 9, 1996, Officer Simon had sent the property owner as identifed by Orange County Tax Records, Elizabeth S. Salters, an NOCV for violation of Chapter 165-3 Prohibited Acts: "No person shall keep any abandoned or junk vehicle or any public property or any private property within the corporate limits of the City." This violation had been for the storage of an inoperable and untagged vehicle to the side of the property and behind a privacy fence. Since the property owner and property are repeat violators, Ms. Salters had been given one (1) day to come into compliance with the ordinance. On January 11, 1996, the resident, "Chuck," had called, advising that he had just received the letter (which had been dated January 10), and Officer Simon had explained to him what happens as a repeat offender, and that he was not entitled to a great time span to come into compliance. Chuck had informed Officer Simon that he would remove the vehicle from the property on the following day. Upon re-inspection on January 15, 1996 the property was found to be in compliance. As of January 12, 1996, an SOV and NOH to this Board meeting had been sent to the respondent via restricted delivery. The re-inspection had not been made on January 12, and she could not verify compliance on that date. They were repeat offenders and had a standing $300 fine. Officer Simon explained that a standing lien meant that the property had come into compliance and the fine had stopped accruing. {ATTORNEY FEENEY INTERRUPTED THE MEETING, AND SAID THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THE Law 7 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 RESPONDENT IN THE CASE No. 96-04 HAD REMOVED SOME OF THE EVIDENCE(THE PHOTOGRAPHS) FROM THE LAST HEARING, ONLY ONE(1)OF 24 PHOTOS REMAINED. FOR THE RECORD, THE BOARD CLERK DID RETRIEVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.} Member Chestney, seconded by Member Santo, moved to find Elizabeth S. Salters, Case No. 96-05, in non-compliance of Chapter 165-3 and be fined $100 a day up until compliance on January 12, 1996. Attorney Feeney said that apparently there had been some testimony that the officer gave them until the 10th to comply, she did not need to give any time to comply, she had given them a day which had been within her discretion, but it may be prudent to actually fine him for the two (2) days, from the 10th to the 12th. Member Chestney said that he would amend that (motion) from January 10 through January 12, and be fined $100. Member Linebarier said that he would like to amend the motion, in a repeat violation, he would like to... Clerk Stenographer Lewis inquired about there being two different amendments, and Vice Chairman Carlsson said that it was because there had been an error in the motion. Attorney Feeney said that he thought by unanimous approval, they amended Mr. Chestney's motion, and now they was a second proposed amendment being offered. (Clerk's Note: How is the court suppose to know how to charge for this lien? There are two (2) motions with conflicting amounts.) Discussion ensued about the increase as the respondent had already failed to pay the fine on the first offense as a repeat offender. Member Linebarier, seconded by Vice Chairman Carlsson, moved to amend the motion to $200 per day, (a total) of $400 for the two (2) days. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Sills said that they would now vote on the first motion. The voting varied between a 3-4, and Clerk Stenographer Lewis requested a roll call which resulted, this time, with a unanimous "nay" vote. Discussion ensued as to whether this vote was for the first amendment, second amendment, or the original motion. Chairman Sills said that this had been the vote for the first amendment which was defeated unanimously. Chairman Sills asked for a vote on the motion. Vice Chairman Carlsson said that we vote no, right, because we did on the second amendment, we voted yes on the second amendment. He explained to the Attorney that the Board had voted yes on the second amendment, unanimously no on the first amendment, and now they were down to ... Attorney Feeney said that they were down to the main motion as amended by the second amendment, so they would vote yes. The vote was taken here for the main motion as amended by the second amendment, motion (rov 8 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 carried 7-0. Member Linebarier, seconded by Vice Chairman Carlsson, moved to issue an Order Imposing Fine and Lien against Elizabeth S. Salters, Case No. 96-06. Motion carried 7-0. CHAIRMAN SILLS ANNOUNCED THAT MAYOR VANDERGRIFT WANTED TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT AT THIS TIME DURING THE MEETING. Mayor Vandergrift explained that the City had one of the strongest Codes around but in hearing the discussion during this meeting, that he would like to recommend that the Board look into tightening the Code. He said that there was a 60 day notice that if you buy a home, you had 60 days to fix the problems in that home but many homes are purchased to rent, the water is turned on in the name of the property owner while repairs are being made. If these properties were bought as rental houses, which was how the trailers parks are getting around the City, then the Code should be changed that no one could live in it before that 60 days or the problems were solved. Discussion ensued about owner/occupant/tenant, time frame for repairs, or allowing City inspectors back on the property after the elapse of the 60 days. Action presented here by the Board was taken during the COMMENTS but has been included loirw here for clarity. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Chestney, moved that the Code Enforcement Board have the Code Enforcement attorney look into revising the Code that refers to the 60 day period for owner/occupants, and investors, that it be reduced down to zero (or whatever the attorney comes up with), and return with a report at the February or March Board meeting. Motion carried 7-0. 96-06, GROUND TEK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA 1/15/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:1/15/96 1/15/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:1/23/96 1/15/96 SOV 1/15/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-594 Code Enforcement Officer Simon said that Case No. 96-06 referred to the property at 860 Maguire Road, and that the City was requesting a dismissal in this case. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Chestney, moved to dismiss Case No. 96-06, Ground Tek of Central Florida, at the request of the City. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS 95-58, BARBRA BALL 4/4/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:4/14/95 4/14/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:4/25/95 4/14/95 SOV 4/18/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P882-518-501 4/25/95 Compliance Order:5/2/95 or $100 a day 5/2/95 Affidavit of Non-compliance thereafter 5/23/95 Order Imposing Fine & Lien:To begin 5/3/95 11/28/95 Motion for Re-Hearing - Re:Reduction of Fines Deputy Clerk Seaver said that Case No. 95-58 was before the Board because Mr. Holmes had asked for a re-hearing, requesting a reduction of the fine. The documentation had been provided, as requested by the Board, in the November, 1995 meeting. In response to Member 9 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 Linebarier, Ms. Seaver said that the amount of the fine was $1750, according to Member Lenko's statement at the last meeting. Attorney Feeney said that technically that this had been a request for a re-hearing but there had been no one present to convince the Board that there was any reason to re-hear the case. They had submitted some evidence to the City that basically suggested that Mr. Holmes had apparently sold the property, retained a mortgage, sold the property to Ms. Ball, and for whatever reason, he had decided to foreclose on the mortgage or attempt to foreclose. Mr. Holmes had received a deed from her that had been executed on August 11, 1995. He said that the dates were very important. Prior to that, Ms. Ball had been found in several violations of the City Code, and there had been an Order Imposing Fine and Lien that was to begin May 3, 1995, well before Mr. Holmes received this deed. That Order was eventually recorded on August 16 which would have been five (5) days after Mr. Holmes or his lawyer, whoever had received and executed a deed from Ms. Ball back to Mr. Holmes, but that deed had not been recorded until September 21, 1995. Attorney Feeney said that in Florida, that we were, basically, a recording State. Whoever records first, wins. The City recorded its lien on August 16, 1995, and Mr. Holmes did not record his deed back to him until September 21, 1995, and Attorney Feeney said that meant, as far as he was concerned, that the City wins. Even if Mr. Holmes did not actually have any notice that there a problem with Code Compliance on the property, there had been what the law considers constructive notice. Mr. Feeney explained the "gap" period in a title search. From the City's perspective, Attorney Feeney said that his advise to the City attorney would be that the lien is valid. That did not mean that there was ample reason for this Board to reduce the fine. The Board was not there, philosophically, to collect money or to punish people, it was there to bring people into compliance. This Board had the power to consider what he knew, what he should have known, what he did, or whether he had acted reasonably. They could reduce the fine if they wanted but to do that they must do two things; 1) The Board would have to find that there was a reasonable reason to have a re-hearing or a re-decision about the fine, and 2) the Board must then have a discussion, having a hearing, and consider any new evidence, and then decide whether or not to reduce the fine. How they hear it, which did not necessarily apply but they would have to change their decision, it meant that they were going to re-consider their decision. He suggested that the Board might decide, based on this evidence, to invite Mr. Holmes to come to a re-hearing or apply to a re-hearing. Last time there had not been any evidence that Mr. Holmes was actually the owner. They were now comfortable that he is the owner, that he is the real party of interest. The Board was also comfortable from their standpoint that the lien affected him so Mr. Holmes certainly had a standing to complaint because he was going to be affected if they did not take action. The Board did not have an obligation to re-hear the case but they had the ability to invite Mr. Holmes or his representative to come in and talk to the them. In response to Member Linebarier, Deputy Clerk Seaver said that the property had been into compliance before the November meeting. Vice Chairman Carlsson said that a letter should be sent to Mr. Holmes saying that the Board had reviewed the paper work and he would be 10 Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 given until February 16, 1996 to file for a re-hearing. There was enough evidence to show that Mr. Holmes was the property owner. Member Linebarier asked that the City provide the Board with a Certificate of Compliance in this case. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Chestney, moved that Garfield Holmes, referencing Case No. 95-58, would be given until February 16, 1996 to file a Motion For Re-hearing, and that the Board would entertain such a motion and possibly grant him a re-hearing at the February 27, 1996 Code Enforcement Board meeting: and a copy of the letter should be sent to Mr. Garfield's attorney. Motion carried 7-0. 95-148, CONNIE J. PELTONEN (167 W. Silver Star Road) 10/5/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:10/19/95 10/31/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/28/95 10/31/95 SOV 10/31/95 POS- Mail Cert#P597-456-631(Card rec'd 11/1/95) 11/28/95 Compliance Order: Due 12/18/95 or 12/18/95 Affidavit of Compliance $25 a day An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board in this case. 95-152, THOMAS S. EDGINGTON (1210 Russell Drive) 10/24/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/16/95 11/17/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/28/95 11/17/95 SOV 11/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-601 11/28/95 Compliance Order: 12/18/95 or 12/18/95 Affidavit of Compliance $25 a day An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board in this case. 95-153, VERNON A. AND/OR IRENE M. WELCH (1400 Adair Street) 11/03/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/16/95 11/17/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/28/95 11/17/95 SOV 11/20/95 POS - Mail Cert #P882-518-602 11/28/95 Compliance Order:Due 12/18/95 or 12/18/95 Affidavit of Compliance $25 a day An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board in this case. 95-154, RESENDIZ, ILDEFONSO AND ROSA (203 Mac Street) 11/3/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/17/95 11/17/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/28/95 11/17/95 SOV 11/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-600 11-28-95 Compliance Order:Due 12/15/95 or 12/15/95 Compliance Order $100 a day An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board in this case. In response to Member Linebarier, Code Enforcement Officer said that the respondents had complied on time, that there had been an typographical error on the date. COMMENTS City Manager: None Code Enforcement Officer Braddy thanked Attorney Feeney for his assistance during the meeting. Code Enforcement Officer Simon: None Now Police Department: None Deputy Clerk Seaver: None 11 tior Code Enforcement Board Meeting January 23, 1996 BOARD MEMBERS Member Santo hoped that everyone had a nice, prosperous New Year, and that she was looking forward to the rest of the year with the Board. Member Chestney - None Vice Chairman Carlsson agreed with Mayor Vandergrift about the 60 day term, and the action taken by the Board that has appeared earlier in these minutes. Vice Chairman Carlsson also agreed with comments made by Member Linebarier. Alternate Member Holmes suggested that everyone "root" for the Stealers! He asked if there were instructions to people about appearing or testifying before the Board in a case. Member Shagner said that she hoped everyone had a happy New Year, and that it is very successful for us. Member Linebarier said that he did not think that the Board members were getting the paperwork to sufficiently close out their files. He said that he thought the City should be filing Fines and Liens a little faster. Citing an example, he requested a copy of the Order Imposing Fine and Lien on the following cases: Cases No. 95-41, 95-42, 95-115, 95-116, 95-119, 95- 120, 95-143, 95-146, and 95-147. Deputy Clerk Seaver suggested that Member Linebarier speak with Building and Zoning Official Flippen about the problem. She said that she would be happy to provide copies of those having been recorded to Mr. Linebarier. Alternate Member Skiles: 1) Thanked Code Enforcement Officer Braddy for being a stalwart and cool in the face of a verbal attack received earlier in the meeting. He said that Ms. Braddy had appeared very professional and had represented the City very well. 2) Expressed agreement with Vice Chairman Carlsson's request (under comments). 3) Wished everyone a happy New Year! Attorney Feeney commended the Board on doing a great job in handling the difficult cases during this meeting. Chairman Sills: 1) Said that it was good working with Attorney Feeney. 2) Thanked Clerk Stenographer Lewis for a fine job on the minutes. 3) Extended a happy New Year to everyone. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. APPROVED: Attest-1 1;Ai � -' � f1 e Sh-. Seaver ireputy Clerk J' Sills, Cha' an • Jxi a Lewis, Cler enographer 12