HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-1996 Minutes MINUTES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
HELD ON November 26, 1996
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Carlsson called the regular meeting of the Ocoee Code Enforcement Board to
order at 7:34 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall and led in the pledge of allegiance.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier led in prayer. The roll was called and a quorum declared
present.
PRESENT: Chairman Carlsson, Vice Chairman Linebarier, Members Chestney, Holmes,
Lenko, Shagner, and Alternate Members Godek and Skiles. Also present were
Attorney Feeney, Senior Plans Examiner Washington, Code Enforcement Officers
Conyers, Dyer, and Simon, Deputy Clerk Cronnon, and Clerk/Stenographer
Lewis.
ABSENT: Member Santo (excused).
APPROVALS
This item consisted of the Minutes of the October 22, 1996 Code Enforcement Board meeting.
Chairperson Carlsson said that the motion on page 5, Case No. 96-58, should read 5-1 rather
than 5-1. Also, the first paragraph on page 8 should read "The property owner was given a
Liv Compliance Order of October 1, 1996..." rather than "...was given on the Compliance Order
until October..." Member Holmes said that Member Santo had not been listed on the
present/absent list even though she had been present for the meeting. Member Lenko,
seconded by Member Holmes, moved to approve the Minutes of the October 22, 1996 Code
Enforcement Board meeting as corrected. Motion carried 7-0.
COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
Franklin D. Stevens, 42 Shell Key Court, expressed frustration about grass growing around
City right-of-way ditch lines while paying a monthly fee to handle stormwater and drainage.
Also, there were cracked sidewalks in the trailer park, coolers or sheds were in the yards,
mosquitos were bad, and a neighbor had placed a roof over a porch deck without consequences
yet he had been required to remove such a roof. Chairperson Carlsson cautioned Mr. Stevens
that information about a property in violation could jeopardize the case if it were brought before
the Board, and suggested that he report these concerns to the City.
PUBLIC HEARINGS OF NEW CASES PURSUANT TO NOTICES OF HEARING - The
following cases as written in these minutes will use abbreviations to describe the violation(s) and
the dates of inspection(s) 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.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier seconded b Alternate Member Skiles, moved, at the request
of the Cit to continue a.enda items E 96-107 Pedro Ordaz G 96-109 Premier Proserties
-
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
(J) 96-112, Delfino Puerta, (M) 96-117, Katherine Burns, (0)96-119, Randy Lubin, (P) 96-120,
Dr. James Ferndinand, (R) 96-122, Gordon Scott Camp, (S) 96-123, Melba Brown, (U) 96-128,
Sonja Green, (V) 96-129, Richard McGilligan, (KK) 96-144, Elizabeth Pedrick, and (NN) 96-
147, Elizabeth Pedrick due to Non-Proof of Service. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier, seconded by Member Shagner, moved, as the people were here
to represent the cases, that Case No. 96-137_Tom Eldridge, Case No. 96-140, Dan Boothe, and
Case No. 96-146, Betty Hiles be moved to the top of the list. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier, seconded by Member Shagner, moved and requested that Case
No. 96-81, Deborah J. Higgins which had been left off the agenda due to a clerical error, be
placed before item E, under Other Business. Motion carried unanimously.
At the request of Chairperson Carlsson, Code Enforcement Officers Conyers, Dyer, and
Simon were sworn in by Deputy Clerk Cronnon.
96-137, TOM ELDRIDGE
10/29/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-560
Code Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-136 referred to the property
located at 57 W. Circle Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had
observed miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard, and the skirting needed to be repaired or
replaced. On October 29, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the owner as identified by the Orange
County Tax Records, Tom Eldridge, for violation of Chapter 115-2 Creation Prohibited: "No person
shall dump or place or cause to be placed on any lands or premises within the City any nuisance and menace to
public health." Also, 108-23. General requirements for the exterior and interior of structures: "(B&C)
Skirting." The respondent was given until November 12, 1996 to come into compliance. On
November 18, 1996 a re-inspection revealed that the property remained in non-compliance. On
November 20, 1996, Mr. Eldridge had called to say that everything had been completed and a
re-inspection on November 26, 1996 found the property to be in compliance.
Tom Eldridge, 57 W. Circle Key Court, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Cronnon, and said
that he had tried the best that he could (to come into compliance). He apologized to the Board
and said that every time he attempted to clean it, that kids would start fights with his children
and write profanity on the property. Problems still persisted even though he had called the
police.
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find Tom Eldridge, Case No. 96-
137 in non-com.Hance of Cha,ter 115-2 Creation Prohibited and 108-23 B&C : Skirtin
as of November 12, 1996 but in compliance as of November 21, 1996, and that no fine be
assessed at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
2
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
L November 26, 1996
96-140, DAN BOOTHE
11/13/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-565
Code Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-140 referred to the property
located at 104 Security Circle. Officer Conyers said that on June 28, 1996 the property was
inspected for Code Compliance with the Minimum Standards Code as requested by Cathy
Pickim. On July 2, 1996, a letter was sent to the respondent informing him of those violations.
Mr. Conyers advised Mr. Boothe that he should arrange for a re-inspection within 60 days of
the date of the letter. On November 13, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as
identified by Orange County Tax Records, Dan Boothe, for violation of "108-12 Minimum Standards
Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice pursuant to this section
may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may independently or concurrently
take such other enforcement action as may be permitted by law, statutes or ordinance." The respondent was
given until November 18, 1996 to come into compliance. On November 11, 1996, Mr.
Conyers called and spoke with Mr. Boothe's wife who said that she would tell him what the
violations were, and would have him call Mr. Conyers. Later that week, Mr. Boothe had
stopped by the City to say that everything was completed. Mr. Conyers informed the
respondent that he must call for a re-inspection. No one had called by November 19, 1996 with
such a request, and on November 20, 1996, an SOV and NOH for this Board meeting were sent
to the respondent via restricted delivery by the Board Clerk. There had been no re-inspection
as of this meeting date.
In response to Vice Chairperson Linebarier, Attorney Feeney said that there were two things
that the respondent must do to come into compliance: 1) to correct all the code violations, and
2) to call for a re-inspection. Discussion ensued about why the Officer had not broken down
the violations individually rather than using 108-12 (D) as a broad net for several violations.
Member Lenko expressed concern about using this method, and asked that the Code
Enforcement Officers cite all sections of the Code for specific violations so that the Board could
find those that are in a repeat violation status. Mr. Conyers then testified about each violation
in correlation to the Code.
Dan Boothe, 1094 N. Lakewood Avenue, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Cronnon, and stated
that he could not enter a person's place (his tenant) without their permission. He said that he
would contact the tenant to schedule an appointment for a re-inspection, that all the violations
had been corrected.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier, seconded by Member Holmes, moved to find Dan Boothe, Case
No. 96-140, in non-compliance of 108-12 Minimum Standards Code (D) as of November 18,.
1996, and be given until December 6, 1996 to come into compliance or be fined $100 a day
thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
3
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
ftliw November 26, 1996
96-146, BETTY HILLS (rather than HILES)
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/19/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-571
Chairperson Carlsson said that the respondent, prior to the meeting, had corrected her name
as Hills rather than Hiles (Clerk's Note: Ms. Hills stated that her name was now Stevens). Ms. Hills gave
permission to proceed with this hearing. Code Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case
No. 96-146 referred to the property located at 42 Shell Key Court. Officer Conyers said that
on September 9, 1996, he had observed miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard (windows,
cooler, etc.), and the skirting needed to be repaired or replaced. On November 6, 1996, an
NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, Betty Hills,
for violation of Chapter 115-2 Creation Prohibited: "No person shall dump or place or cause to be placed on
any lands or premises within the City any nuisance and menace to public health." Also, 108-23. General
requirements for the exterior and interior of structures: "(B) Skirting." The respondent was given until
November 15, 1996 to come into compliance, and on that date a re-inspection revealed that the
trash had been picked up but the skirting had not been repaired or replaced. The property
remained in non-compliance. Also, re-inspections of the property on November 19 and 26, 1996
produced a status of non-compliance.
Betty Hills, 42 Shell Key Court, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Cronnon, and testified that
there had been no front skirting on the trailer during 81/2 years that she had lived at the property.
Some skirting was down but it had been put back the same day they had received the letter.
Officer Conyers disclosed that the City had received an RSVP complaint about conditions in
the trailer park which was then inspected for possible violations. Ms. Hills explained financial
difficulties in correcting the problem. With permission from Ms. Hills, Dan Boothe said that
he would put skirting around her trailer.
Discussion ensued about the trash and debris. Member Chestney, seconded by Member
Shagner, moved to find Betty Hills, Case No. 96-146, reference Chapter 115-2 and Chapter
108.23 which is in compliance, and be given until December 31, 1996 on Chapter 108.23 to
come into compliance on Chapter 108.23 or be fined $50 a day thereafter. (No action was
taken.)
Lengthy discussion ensued about the date given for the Chapter 115-2 violation and when the
respondent had come into compliance, and Officer Conyers said that the respondent had been
given until November 15, 1996 to come into compliance and the re-inspection date had been
November 19 rather than the 15th. As the motion had been read and re-read several times,
Clerk Stenographer Lewis inquired about the Board's action, and Carlsson said that the motion
was withdrawn and so was the second.
Member Chestney, seconded by Member Shagner, moved that Betty Hills, Case No. 96-146,
Betty Hills, be found in non-compliance of Chapter 115-2 as of November 15, 1996 but in
4
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
compliance as of November 19, 1996, and that no fine be imposed, and be found in non-
compliance of Chapter 108.23 as of November 15, 1996, and be given until December 31, 1996
to come into compliance or be fined $50 a day thereafter.
Discussion ensued once again about the dates, and the vote on the motion was taken at this time
during the meeting. Motion carried 5-2. Vice Chairperson Linebarier and Alternate Member
Skiles expressed their objections and voted "nay." Officer Conyers said that the City was
dismissing the Chapter 115-2 violation in Case No. 96-146.
MEMBER LENKO, SECONDED BY MEMBER SHAGNER, MOVE TEMPORARILY TO ITEM V. OTHER
BUSINESS, TO HEAR 1)D. 96-99, PAMELA A. ERICKSON, AND 2)E. 96-81, DEBORAH J. HIGGINS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RECESS - 8:49 - 8:59 P.M.
96-99, PAMELA A. ERICKSON - 742 Licaria Drive
10/11/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:9/27/96 10/11/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:10/22/96
10/11/96 SOV 10/15/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-823
10/22/96 Compliance Order:10/29/96 or $100 per day
11/21/96 Affidavit of Compliance
Chairperson Carlsson said that Ms. Erickson was requesting a waiver of the fines imposed in
this case. Code Enforcement Officer Simon testified that the Board had issued an Order of
Compliance in Case No. 96-99 (non-compliance of Chapter 51-21) effective October 29, 1996.
On November 4, 1996, the respondent had pulled a permit for the already erected fence.
Pamela Erickson (Young), 742 Licaria Drive, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Cronnon, and
said that she was unaware of the non-compliance until she received the certified mail on
October 16, 1996. Ms. Erickson testified about the difficulties she had experienced in applying
for a permit which had been denied. On October 4, 1996, she had changed the permit to what
had been necessary to meet (the requirements). In response to Chairperson Carlsson, Ms.
Erickson said that she had applied for a permit on October 21, 1996 which had been denied
on October 30. Member Holmes informed the respondent about homeowner association rules
and suggested that she check with her subdivision association before taking on future projects.
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Chestney, moved that Pamela Erickson, Case No. 96-
99, was in compliance as of November 4, 1996, and that no fine or lien be imposed. Motion
carried unanimously.
96-81, DEBORAH J. HIGGINS
9/11/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:9/13/96 9/16/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:9/24/96
9/16/96 SOV 9/16/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-606
Chairperson Carlsson said that due to a clerical oversight, the City had asked that Case No.
96-81, Deborah J. Higgins, be placed on the agenda. Code Enforcement Officer Simon
5
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
testified that the reason for including this case on the agenda was to present the Affidavit of
Compliance. On October 28, 1996, Officer Simon testified that she had deemed the property
had come into compliance. On October 24, 1996, she had spoken with Ms. Higgins who had
advised her that she would be unable to come into compliance by October 25. On October 28,
1996, Ms. Higgins had called for a re-inspection. A re-inspection found the property in non-
compliance on October 29, 1996 due to a remaining range wire. The respondent had been
advised about contracting an electrician as the respondent had signed a homeowners form stating
that she lived at the residence and would be doing the work herself. Officer Simon said that
the respondent was allowed to have the work completed under the existing permit and advised
that a contractor was needed to pull the range wire. On October 30, 1996, Ms. Higgins called
Mr. Hendrix (electrical inspector) and received an inspection. The property had come into
compliance, and that Ms. Higgins had asked for a letter (in writing) stating that the property was
in compliance. A copy of that letter was submitted as evidence as part of the court case file,
as well as the Affidavit of Compliance.
Discussion ensued about the amount of fine for 27 days that had accumulated to approximately
$6700. Officer Simon said that on September 24, 1996, the Board had issued an Order of
Compliance for corrective action to be taken by October 1, 1996. Corrective action had been
taken on October 28, 1996 as per the Affidavit of Compliance. She said that she would be
presenting testimony if the Board decided to re-hear the case.
Deborah J. Higgins, 323 Hormigas Street, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Cronnon, and
apologized for not having the plumbing and electrical permits that she should have had a long
time ago, and for renting out a room in her home that had been disclosed as a second kitchen.
She said that her sole purpose in addressing the Board today was to state the reasons why the
fine should be rescinded, and to throw herself at the mercy of the court (Board). Ms. Higgins
presented a copy of her request for rescinding the lien (See Exhibit "A").
Officer Simon detailed the process of the case since July 18, and said that approximately four
(4) years ago Ms. Higgins had discussed putting on this addition and making it a multi-family
residential unit. Officer Simon said that Building Official and Zoning Official could give
testimony to that affect. Attorney Feeney said that there were two steps to be taken: the Board
can decide to re-hear or not re-hear the case. If the Board decided not to re-hear the case, the
fine stood as imposed. If they decided to re-hear the case, then, they can hear testimony at
length as was necessary, and then they could either decide to continue with the existing fine,
reduce the fine, or eliminate the fine. Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved
to re-hear Case No. 96-81, Deborah J. Higgins, and to accept prior testimony that had just been
presented to the Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Higgins stated that she was requesting a continuance as her attorney was unable to attend
the meeting (tonight). She said that she was only asking for a reduction of fine, not to re-hash
6
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
the whole case. Attorney Feeney said that he did not think that it was necessarily unreasonable
to set a date where everyone could have time to prepare (for a re-hearing). Vice Chairperson
Linebarier, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to continue the case for the re-hearing until
the January, 1997 meeting. Attorney Feeney cautioned the Board before it voted about a 90
day limit before the City could file a lien and foreclose. The request for re-hearing would not
hold that 90 days and if for some reason the Board decided to not reduce the fine, once the 90
days from the violation was found, there could be a lien filed against the property and it could
be foreclosed. He suggested that the City hold off in filing the lien until after the re-hearing in
January, and pointed out that the 90 day period would not start in the third week in January.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier asked for a copy of the Certificate of Compliance and the Fine
and Lien. Deputy Clerk Cronnon said that it had been filed on October 30 but the City had
not received the Fine and Lien from Recording in Orange County. The Certificate of
Compliance had been submitted as evidence tonight.
Vote was taken at this time during the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Higgins
requested a copy of the tape of her testimony tonight.
96-85, ELIZABETH S. SALTERS (Repeat Violation)
8/9/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:9/16/96 9/17/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:9/24/96
9/17/96 SOV 9/17/96 POS - Certified#P150-535-598
9/24/96 Order of Continuance:Meeting Date-10/22/96
10/17/96 Hand Delivery:Meeting Date-10/22/96 10/25/96 Hand Deliver:Meeting Date:11/26/96
Chairman Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 96-85 referred to the property located at
801 Sullivan Avenue, and said that the City would like to continue this case until the January
meeting.
96-90, JEFFREY A. & MARGARET BRATCHER
9/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:9/27/96 10/10/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:10/22/96
10/10/96 SOV 10/11/96 POS - Certified#P150-535-638
10/22/96 Order of Continuance 10/25/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
10/25/96 Notice of Posting
Chairman Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-90 referred to the property located at
1213 Russell Drive, and said that on August 13, 1996, he had observed a yard overgrown and
the fence in need of repair. On September 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner
as identified by Orange County Tax Records, Jeffrey A. & Margaret Bratcher, for violation of
Chapter 115-5 Excessive weed orkrass growth: "No person shall allow or permit excessive growth of weeds, grass,
undergrowth or other dead or living plant life (collectively referred to herein as "weed or grass growth")on property
owned, rented, leased or controlled by such person, etc..." Also, Chapter 108-23 (Q,) Accessory structures:
"Garages, storage building and all other accessory structures shall be maintained and kept in good repair and sound
structural condition." The property owner was given until September 20, 1996 to come into
compliance. On September 27, 1996 a re-inspection revealed that the property remained in non-
7
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
compliance. On October 10, 1996, an SOV and NOH were sent to the respondent but the City
had non-Proof of Service at the last Board meeting, and the case was continued until this
meeting. Officer Conyers said that Ms. Bratcher had informed Deputy Clerk Cronnon on
October 22, 1996 that the home was in bankruptcy and she no longer owned it. Deputy Clerk
Cronnon confirmed this statement. Officer Conyers said that postings were made on
October 25, 1996 at City Hall and on the property. He had later spoken with Ms. Bratcher who
said that the mortgage was held by Chase Mortgage Company, Columbus, Ohio. On
November 26, 1996, the property was re-inspected again and revealed that it remained in non-
compliance. A computer check on November 25 and 26, 1996 of the Orange County Property
Appraiser's office showed that the property was still in the name of the Bratchers.
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find Jeffrey A. & Margaret
Bratcher, Case No. 96-90 in violation of Chapter 115-5, and Chapter 108-23 (Q) Accessory
structures: as of September 27, 1996, and be given until December 3, 1996, to come into
compliance or be fined $100 a day thereafter. Vice Chairperson Linebarier expressed concern
about the bankruptcy situation. Attorney Feeney said that he thought the staff was under the
impression that the respondent just mis-used words, and meant foreclosure rather than
bankruptcy. There was no actual notice that there was a bankruptcy. He said that the City must
check with the Bankruptcy Court in Orange County before the City could make any effort to
collect on a fine.
In response to Member Holmes, Deputy Clerk Cronnon said that this was a first time offender
rather than a repeat offender. Vote was taken at this time in the meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
96-104, XL HOMES INC.
10/21/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:10/23/96 10/29/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
10/29/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-826
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 96-104 referred to the property located at
Silver Star @Silver Bend Entrance. Officer Simon said that the City had received several
complaints from Aristocrat Homes about a construction sign that had been erected in the right-
of-way belonging to XL Homes. Aristocrat wanted to erect a sign next to a sign that XL had
in the right-of-way, and Officer Simon had advised them that they could not erect a sign there.
An inspection at the subdivision revealed that several violations existed of the sign ordinance.
After contacting XL Homes, Officer Simon gave the respondent until October 18, 1996 to bring
their sign into compliance with the "sign ordinance." She had advised Aristocrat Homes of the
same information, and Aristocrat had complied by removing their signs. After a re-inspection
on October 23, 1996 produced a status of non-compliance, a NOCV was sent to XL Homes Inc.
for violation of "Article VIII, 8-2, (A): "Building permit required; No person shall erect, alter, repair or
relocate any sign without first obtaining a building permit for such work from the Building and Zoning Official
of the City of Ocoee. No permit shall be issued until the Building and Zoning Official determines that such work
Loy 8
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
is in accordance with the requirements contained in this Section." The respondent was given until
October 18, 1996 to remove the sign. On October 23, 1996, a re-inspection revealed that the
property remained in non-compliance. On October 29, 1996, an SOV and NOH for this Board
meeting were sent to the respondent via restricted delivery by the Board Clerk. A telephone
conversation had taken place with XL Homes, and on November 22, 1996, XL Homes had
applied for permitting. With the appropriate information the permit was approved by Officer
Simon with the restriction that the two signs at the entrance should be joined together to make
one sign. The respondent was happy with that and informed her that they would make the
proper corrections on the signage. A re-inspection on November 26, 1996, revealed that the
property remained in non-compliance.
In response to Member Holmes's concern about the lack of an exact physical address, Attorney
Feeney said that the fine could be imposed on any property owned by the respondent within the
City. Member Shagner, seconded by Vice Chairperson Linebarier, moved to find XL-Homes
Inc., Case No. 96-104, in non-compliance of Land Development Code, Article VIII, 8-2 (A) as
of October 23, 1996, and be given until December 6, 1996 to come into compliance or be fined
$250 a day thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
96-105, XL HOMES INC.
10/21/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:10/23/96 10/29/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
10/29/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-817
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 96-105 referred to the property located at
Cassingham Circle, and that the evidence, with the exception of the location, was the same as
in Case No. 96-104. Vice Chairperson Linebarier, seconded by Member Lenko, moved to
accept the testimony presented in Case No. 96-104, XL-Homes Inc., (to be applicable to Case
No. 96-105) with the exception of the location of the sign. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier, seconded by Member Lenko, moved to find XL-Homes Inc.,
Case No. 96-105, in non-compliance of Land Development Code, Article VIII, 8-2 (A) as of
October 23, 1996, and be given until December 6, 1996 to come into compliance or be fined
$250 a day thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
96-108, WOMACK RENTAL
11/07/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/18/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/18/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-647
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-108 referred to the property located
at 486 Kindling Court. Officer Conyers said that on August 19, 1996, the above address was
inspected for Code compliance with the City's Minimum Standards Code as requested by Amy
Smith. On November 7, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by
Orange County Tax Records, Womack Rental, for violation of "108-12 Minimum Standards Codes
(D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice pursuant to this section may be
referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may independently or concurrently take such
9
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
other enforcement action as may be permitted by law, statutes or ordinance." On September 3, 1996, a
letter had been sent informing Womack Rental of the above mentioned violations, and advising
them to arrange a re-inspection within 60 days of the date of the letter. The respondent was
given until November 15, 1996 to come into compliance. On November 18, 1996, no one had
called for a re-inspection, and it was given to the Clerk to process for Board action. However,
a re-inspection of the property on November 26, 1996 revealed that it was in compliance.
Member Shagner, seconded by Member Lenko, moved to find Womack Rental, Case No. 96-
108, in violation of 108-12 Minimum Standards Code (D) as of November 15, 1996 but in
compliance as of November 26, 1996, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried
unanimously.
96-110, DEAN HARPER
11/07/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/18/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/18/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-645
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-110 referred to the property located
at 80 Sand Dollar Key. Officer Conyers said that on August 30, 1996, the property was
inspected for Code compliance with the Minimum Standards Code as requested by Lester Keller.
The respondent had failed to have a Minimum Standards re-inspection as notified in a
September 3, 1996 letter, and was advised to arrange a re-inspection within 60 days of the date
of the letter. On November 7, 1996, an NOCV was sent to Dean Harper for violation of "108-
12 Minimum Standards Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice
pursuant to this section may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may
independently or concurrently take such other enforcement action as may be permitted by law, statutes or
ordinance." The respondent was given until November 15, 1996 to come into compliance. On
November 18, 1996 no one had requested a re-inspection, and it was given to the Clerk to
process for Board action. Officer Conyers said that on November 20, 1996, Jeff May called
for a re-inspection. The re-inspection revealed that the property had complied with all the
violations with the exception of the weather stripping around the back door and the fence needed
to be safed up. On November 26, 1996, a re-inspection found the property had come into
compliance. Member Shagner, seconded by Member Lenko, moved to find Dean Harper,
Case No. 96-110, in violation of 108-12 Minimum Standards Code (D) as of November 15,
1996 but in compliance as of November 26, 1996, and that no fine or lien be imposed at this
time. Motion carried unanimously.
96-111, JOAO DA SILVA
11/07/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/18/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/18/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-842
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-111 referred to the property located
at 2714 Springfield Drive. Officer Conyers said that on August 30, 1996 the property was
inspected for Code compliance of the Minimum Standards code as requested by Richard Harvey.
On September 3, 1996, a letter was mailed to the respondent of the violations, advising him to
schedule a re-inspection within 60 days of the date of the letter. On November 7, 1996, an
NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, Joao Da
10
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
Silva, for violation of "108-12 Minimum Standards Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and
manner specified in the notice pursuant to this section may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the
City, at its options, may independently or concurrently take such other enforcement action as may be permitted
by law, statutes or ordinance." The respondent was given until November 15, 1996 to come into
compliance and to call for a re-inspection. Officer Conyers said that on November 18, 1996,
after no contact, it was given to the Clerk to process for Board action. A re-inspection had been
scheduled for November 26, 1996 but no one appeared for the appointment. The property
remained in non-compliance.
There were several violations under this particular Code, and Attorney Feeney said that he
would like future citations to show the specific section of the Minimum Standards Code that had
been violated. Officer Conyers said that the respondent was in violation of 108-23 (P), Protective
treatment. "All exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and
decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment. All siding shall be weather-resistant and watertight.
All masonry joints shall be sufficiently maintained to ensure water-and air tightness. " The rear door did not
seat properly, and it needed a threshold and weather proofing. Member Shagner, seconded by
Member Lenko, moved to find Joao Da Silva, Case No. 96-111, in non-compliance of 108-12
Minimum Standards Code (D) as of November 15, 1996, and be given until December 3, 1996
to come into compliance or be fined $150 a day thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued about the cases and specific violations. Attorney Feeney explained that
people were being cited because they had not called for a re-inspection.
96-113, FLORIDA QUALITY
11/07/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/18/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/18/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-844
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-113 referred to the property located
at 1891 Leslie Ann Lane. Officer Conyers said that on August 19, 1996, the property was
inspected for Code compliance with the Minimum Standards Code as requested by David T.
LeRoy. The respondent had failed to have a Minimum Standards re-inspection as notified in a
September 3, 1996 letter advising them to arrange a re-inspection within 60 days of the date of
the letter. On November 7, 1996, an NOCV was sent to Florida Quality Homes & Investments
for violation of "108-12 Minimum Standards Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner
specified in the notice pursuant to this section may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its
options, may independently or concurrently take such other enforcement action as may be permitted by law,
statutes or ordinance." Also, "108-19 (1). Smoke detector systems." The respondent was given until
November 15, 1996 to come into compliance and call for a re-inspection. On November 13,
1996, a re-inspection revealed that the property remained in non-compliance. Officer Conyers
said that the tenant had said that she would contact the owner about making the corrections
immediately and then call for a re-inspection. There had been no call requesting a re-inspection,
and on November 18, 1996 it was given to the Clerk to process for Board action. On
November 25, 1996, a re-inspection revealed that the property had come into compliance.
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find Florida Quality Homes &
Investments, Case No. 96-113, in non-compliance of 108-12 Minimum Standards Code (D) as
11
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
(iv November 26, 1996
of November 15, 1996 but in compliance as of November 25, 1996, and that no fine be
assessed. Motion carried unanimously.
96-116, DEAN HARPER
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/18/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/18/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-841
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-116 referred to the property located
at 86 Sundial Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on July 20, 1996, the property was
inspected for Code compliance of the Minimum Standards Code as requested by Irene Iyala.
The respondent had failed to call or have a Minimum Standards re-inspection as notified in a
August 20, 1996 letter. On November 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as
identified by the Orange County Tax Records, Dean Harper, for violation of "108-12 Minimum
Standards Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice pursuant to
this section may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may independently or
concurrently take such other enforcement action as may be permitted by law, statutes or ordinance." Also, for
"108-23 (B), Skirting." The respondent was given until November 13, 1996 to come into
compliance and call for a re-inspection. There was no request, and on November 18, 1996, it
was given to the Clerk to process for Board action. On November 20, 1996, Jeff May, an
employee of Dean Harper scheduled a re-inspection for November 22, 1996. Officer Conyers
said that he and Mr. May waited for the tenant who never arrived. The inspection could not be
conducted and the property remained in non-compliance. A re-inspection on November 26,
1996, found the property had come into compliance. Member Shagner, seconded by Member
Lenko, moved to find Dean Harper, Case No. 96-116, in non-compliance of 108-12 Minimum
Standards Code (D) as of November 13, 1996 but in compliance as of November 26, 1996, and
that no fine or lien be imposed at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
96-121, ALICIA ROCNA
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/18/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/18/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-577
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-121 referred to the property located
at 110 Coquina Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on July 31, 1996, the property was
inspected for Code compliance with the Minimum Standards Code as requested by Alfonso
Torres. The respondent had failed to have a Minimum Standards re-inspection as notified in a
August 7, 1996 letter. On November 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as
identified by the Orange County Tax Records, Alicia Rocna, for violation of "108-12 Minimum
Standards Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice pursuant to
this section may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may independently or
concurrently take such other enforcement action as may be permitted by law, statutes or ordinance." Also, for
violation of"Chapter 54-3,Display required responsibility for posting design requirements:(A)Building numbers,
(1) Residential Building." On August 7, 1996, a letter was sent informing the respondent of the
above violations and advising Ms. Rocna to call for a re-inspection within 60 days of the date
of the letter. The respondent was given until November 13, 1996 to come into compliance with
this Code and to call for a re-inspection. No request was made and it was given to the Clerk
12
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
Cor November 26, 1996
on November 18, 1996 to process for Board action. A re-inspection on November 26, 1996
found the property remained in non-compliance. Member Lenko, seconded by Member
Shagner, moved to find Alicia Rocna, Case No. 96-121, in non-compliance of 108-12 Minimum
Standards Code (D) as of November 13, 1996, and be given until December 3, 1996 to come
into compliance or be fined $250 a day thereafter. Chairperson Carlsson expressed concern
about the time frame due to the holiday and mail service. Member Lenko, seconded by
Member Shagner, moved to amend the date in the motion to December 6, 1996. Motion
carried unanimously.
Member Shagner, seconded by Member Skiles, moved to amend the date given to the
respondent to comply to December 6, 1996 (rather than December 3, 1996), in Case No. 96-
111, Joao Da Silva. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Linebarier, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to amend the compliance
date for Case No. 96-90, Jeffrey A. & Margaret Bratcher, from December 3, 1996 to
December 6, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
96-124, MARIA SALCEDO
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-580
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-124 referred to the property located
at 31 Harbor Key Court. Officer Conyers said that on July 22, 1996, the property was
inspected for Code compliance with the Minimum Standards Code as requested by Maria Florez.
The respondent had failed to have a Minimum Standards re-inspection as notified in an
August 1, 1996 letter to arrange a re-inspection within 60 days of the date of the letter. On
November 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by Orange County
Tax Records, Maria Salcedo, for violation of "108-12 Minimum Standards Codes (D): "Any violation
not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice pursuant to this section may be referred to the Code
Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may independently or concurrently take such other enforcement
action as may be permitted by law, statutes or ordinance." Also, Officer Conyers testified that the
respondent had failed to comply with "108-19 (F)Kitchen Facilities, (1) C&D.." The respondent was
given until November 13, 1996 to come into compliance and to call for a re-inspection. No
request for re-inspection had been made and it was given to the Clerk on November 18, 1996,
to process for Board action. A re-inspection on November 25, 1996, revealed that the property
remained in non-compliance. Officer Conyers said for the record that the respondent was still
in violation of "(108-23 (R) Interior Floors, walls, and ceilings." For the record, they were in non-
compliance of these in the original violations.) Attorney Feeney said that the Board was not
finding them in violation of the specific section cited but they were finding that the respondent
had not had a successful re-inspection. Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved
to find Maria Salcedo, Case No. 96-124, in non-compliance of 108-12 Minimum Standards Code
(D) as of November 13, 1996, and be given until December 6, 1996 to come into compliance
or be fined $200 a day thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
13
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
VICE CHAIRPERSON LINEBARIER, SECONDED BY MEMBER SHAGNER, MOVED THAT THE BOARD
STIPULATE AS TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 108.12, AND THAT ALL OF THESE THAT WERE
CITED UNDER THE MINIMUM STANDARDS CODE ARE THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MINIMUM
STANDARD RE-INSPECTION (THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DID NOT NEED TO READ ALL THE
DATA AND THAT THE BOARD WAS STIPULATING THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THAT MEANT).
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
96-130, REMAX
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-573
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-130 referred to the property located
at 2703 Nan Drive. Officer Conyers said that on July 24, 1996, the property was inspected
for Code compliance with the Minimum Standards Code as requested by John Cuean. He then
gave testimony as to the specific citations. The respondent had failed to have a Minimum
Standards re-inspection as notified in an August 6, 1996 letter advising them to arrange a re-
inspection within 60 days of the date of the letter. On November 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent
the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, Remax, for violation of "108-12
Minimum Standards Codes (D): "Any violation not corrected in the time and manner specified in the notice
pursuant to this section may be referred to the Code Enforcement Board of the City, at its options, may
independently or concurrently take such other enforcement action as may be permitted by law, statutes or
ordinance." Officer Conyers said that among others, they were also in violation of "108-19 (I)
Smoke detector systems." The respondent was given until November 13, 1996 to come into
compliance and to call for a re-inspection. Mr. Conyers said that Doug Campbell had called
to express his unhappiness and dis-satisfaction about the violations. Mr. Campbell had also
contacted Building and Zoning Official Flippen on November 12, 1996 to discuss this matter.
There had been no call requesting a re-inspection, and on November 18, 1996 it was given to
the Clerk to process for Board action. On November 25, 1996, he and Official Flippen had re-
inspected the property and found it had come into compliance. Member Shagner, seconded by
Member Lenko, moved to find Remax, Case No. 96-130, in non-compliance of 108-12
Minimum Standards Code (D) as of November 13, 1996 but in compliance as of November 25,
1996, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
96-133, JAMES E. & NANCY M. WIGGINS
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-558
Chairman Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-133 referred to the property located
at 106 E. Circle Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had observed
miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard, along with a few trailers being stored on the property
(one that was not behind the front building line). On November 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent
to the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, James E. & Nancy M.
Wiggins, for violation of Article VI 6-4 (H) 5-b: "Not more than one camping or travel trailer or hauling
411110, trailer per family living on the premises shall be permitted, and said trailer shall not exceed twenty-four (24)feet
in length or eight (8)feet in width;and further provided that said trailer shall not be parked or stored for more than
14
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
forty eight (48)hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line. A camping or travel trailer, or camper
vehicle, shall not be occupied either temporarily or permanently while it is parked or stored in any residential
district, except when it is located in an authorized mobile home park" Also, Chapter 115-3. Creation Prohibited:
"B)?No person shall allow to be dumped,placed, accumulated or otherwise located on lands or premises owned
by such person within the City any nuisance and menace to public health, safety and welfare, etc..." The
property owner was given until November 14, 1996 to come into compliance. Re-inspections
on November 14, 15, and 26, 1996 found the property remained in non-compliance. However,
a re-inspection on November 26, 1996 found that the property had been brought into
compliance. Member Shagner, seconded by Member Lenko, moved to find James E. &
Nancy M. Wiggins, Case No. 96-133 in non-compliance of Article VI 6-4 (H) 5-b, and Chapter
115-3 Creation Prohibited as of November 14, 1996 but in compliance as of November 26,
1996, and that no (fine or) lien be imposed at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
96-138, ELIZABETH PEDRICK
10/29/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-561
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-138 referred to the property located
at 57 W. Circle Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had observed
miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard, and the skirting needed to be repaired or replaced.
On October 29, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by Orange County
(1160, Tax Records, Elizabeth Pedrick, for violation of Chapter 115-2 Creation Prohibited: "No person shall
dump or place or cause to be placed on any lands or premises within the City any nuisance and menace to public
health." Also, 108-23. General requirements for the exterior and interior of structures: "(B&C)Skirting." The
respondent was given until November 12, 1996 to come into compliance. On November 15,
1996 a re-inspection revealed that the property remained in non-compliance. On November 20,
1996, Mr. Eldridge, who owns the trailer, called to inform him that everything had been
completed. On November 21, 1996, a re-inspection revealed that the property had come into
compliance. Member Shagner, seconded by Member Lenko, moved to find Elizabeth Pedrick,
Case No. 96-138 in non-compliance of Chapter 115-2, Creation Prohibited, and 108-23 (B&C):
Skirting, as of November 12, 1996 but in compliance as of November 21, 1996, and that no fine
or lien be imposed at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
96-139, FERNANDO & MARIA RODRIGUEZ
10/29/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/18/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-562
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-139 referred to the property located
at 9 Pine Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had observed
miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard, and a broken window on the home. On October 29,
1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records,
Fernando&Maria Rodriguez, for violation of 108-23. General requirements for the exterior and interior
of structures: "(.1) Windows to be glazed. Every window sash shall be fully supplied with glass window panes or
an approved substituted which are without open cracks or holes" Officer Conyers said that the City was
dismissing the Chapter 115-3 violation. The respondent was given until November 12, 1996 to
15
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
come into compliance. On November 15, 1996 a re-inspection revealed that the trash had been
removed but the windows still needed to be repaired. The property was in non-compliance. On
November 26, 1996, a re-inspection found the property remained in non-compliance. Member
Shagner seconded b Member Lenko, moved to find Fernando & Maria Rodriquez, Case No.
96-139 in non-compliance of Chapter 108-23 (J) Windows to be glazed, as of November 12,
1996 and be .iven until December 6 1996 to come into corn.Hance or be fined '450 a da
thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
96-142, DEAN HARPER
11/12/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/19/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-567
Chairman Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-142 referred to the property located
at 84 Buck Key Court. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had observed
miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard including tires, bricks, and piles of leaves. The
skirting also needed to be repaired or replaced. On November 12, 1996, an NOCV was sent
to the property owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, Dean Harper, for violation
of Chapter 108-23. General requirements for the exterior and interior of structures: B & C) "Skirting."
Officer Conyers said that the City was dismissing the Chapter 115-3 violation. The respondent
was given until November 18, 1996 to come into compliance. On November 18, 1996 a re-
inspection revealed that the skirting needed repair but everything had come into compliance.
On November 19, 1996, a re-inspection found the property in non-compliance with the violation.
However, a re-inspection on November 26, 1996 found the property had come into compliance.
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find Dean Harper, Case No. 96-142
in non-com.liance of Cha.ter 108-23 B&C : Skirtin. as of November 18 1996 but in
compliance as of November 26, 1996, and that no fine be assessed. Motion carried
unanimously.
96-143, THE RAY HARPER TRUST AGREEMENT
11/12/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/19/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-568
Chairman Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-143 referred to the property located
at 73 N. Circle Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had observed
broken windows in the home. On November 12, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property
owner as identified by Orange County Tax Records, The Ray Harper Trust Agreement, for
violation of 108-23. General requirements for the exterior and interior of structures: "(I): Windows." The
respondent was given until November 18, 1996 to come into compliance. On November 18,
1996 a re-inspection was conducted and found that the property was in non-compliance. On
November 19, 1996, a re-inspection of the property revealed that the respondent was still in non-
compliance. On November 26, 1996, the property was found to be in compliance. Member
Sha' er seconded b Member Lenko moved to find The Ra Ha •er Trust A.reement Case
No. 96-143 in non-compliance of 108-23 (I): Windows, as of November 18, 1996 but in
compliance as of November 26, 1996, and that no fine and lien be imposed at this time. Motion
16
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
November 26, 1996
carried unanimously.
96-145, ELIZABETH A. CASSIDY
11/06/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:11/19/96 11/19/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:11/26/96
11/19/96 SOV 11/20/96 POS - Mail Cert#P882-518-570
Chairperson Carlsson said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Conyers testified that Case No. 96-145 referred to the property located
at 41 W. Circle Key Drive. Officer Conyers said that on September 9, 1996, he had observed
miscellaneous trash and debris in the yard, and the skirting needed to be repaired or replaced.
On November 6, 1996, an NOCV was sent to the property owner as identified by Orange
County Tax Records, Elizabeth Pedrick (Cassidy?), for violation of 108-23. General requirements
for the exterior and interior of structures: "(B) Skirting." Officer Conyers said that the City was
dismissing the Chapter 115-2 violation. The respondent was given until November 15, 1996 to
come into compliance. On November 15 and 18, 1996 a re-inspection was conducted and the
property was found to be in non-compliance. On November 19, 1996, a re-inspection found that
most of the trash had been removed but the skirting had not been repaired or replaced, and the
property remained in non-compliance. A re-inspection on November 26, 1996 revealed that the
property remains in non-compliance. In response to Member Lenko, Officer Conyers said that
the respondent was the owner of the mobile home. Member Shagner, seconded by Member
Lenko, moved to find Elizabeth A. Cassidy, Case No. 96-145 in non-compliance of Chapter
108-23 (B): Skirting, as of November 15, 1996, and be given until December 6, 1996, to come
into compliance or be fined $100 a day thereafter. Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
96-53, BASE OPERATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.
6/19/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/02/96 7/08/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/23/96
7/08/96 SOV 7/08/96 POS - Mail Cert#P150-535-655
7/23/96 Compliance Order:7/30/96 or $50 per day 8/21/96 Affidavit of Non-Compliance
8/27/96 Order Imposing Fine & Lien:8/27/96 10/14/96 Request for Re-hearing:10/22/96
11/21/96 Affidavit of Compliance
An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board for this case. Discussion ensued about
a re-hearing, and the status of the lien and fines. Member Lenko said that the respondent must
come before the Board for consideration in a reduction of the fine and lien. Code Enforcement
Officer Simon said that Base Operation Management Services Inc. must request another
inspection. Attorney Feeney said that it would be appropriate to notify Mr. Griffin that if he
still wanted a re-hearing that he must write a new letter to the Board and request it.
Discussion also ensued about the number of days a respondent was given to request a re-hearing.
Officer Simon explained the Hearing Rule on this issue, and said that she had requested the
Board under that section to foreclose on the Dean Harper fine (a couple of meetings ago). She
said that the City forecloses on a fine and lien that has been filed that has not been paid.
96-98, SHERMAN K. FLYNN
10/10/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:9/27/96 10/10/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:10/22/96
17
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
tkir November 26, 1996
10/10/96 SOV 10/15/96 POS - Certified#P882-518-823
10/22/96 Order of Continuance:Meeting Date-11/26/96
10/29/96 POS - Certified- P882-518-819 11/21/96 Notice of Dismissal
A Notice of Dismissal was presented to the Board for this case.
96-97, KHEWATTE PERSAUD
10/10/96 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:9/27/96 10/10/96 NOH - Board Meeting Date:10/22/96
10/10/96 SOV 10/15/96 POS - Certified#P150-535-823
A Notice of Dismissal was presented to the Board for this case.
In response to Vice Chairperson Linebarier, Deputy Clerk Cronnon said that she would place
a call to Orange County Recording to find out why the liens in several cases had not been
returned to the City. Code Enforcement Officer Simon explained the filing process to the
Board.
Chairperson Carlsson announced the notice from City Manager Shapiro to the Board Members
regarding the Sexual Harassment Workshop.
COMMENTS
Chairman Carlsson wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday.
City Manager: Absent
Code Enforcement Officer Simon said that she had planned to introduce Jeff Dyer, the new
Code Enforcement Officer, who had left earlier in the meeting. She also announced that the
City was reviewing the paperwork and procedures process. They were busier and must become
more efficient by stream lining some areas.
Code Enforcement Officer Conyers wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!
Police Department: Detective Simon encouraged the Board to create more structure and some
consistency in imposing the amount of fine. Discussion ensued about why the fines varied.
Attorney Feeney said that the Board had discussed this before at length. The Board could
consider as many variables as it wanted that relate to the case but they must consider the gravity
of the offense, whether any action is taken by the violator to correct it, and the record of the
violator in committing previous offenses. Those were the three things that they must consider
and anything else that was reasonably related may be considered.
Deputy Clerk Cronnon said that she had attended a seminar held by Pat Dellacona for the City
of Orlando, and that she had gained a lot of knowledge about new forms that would speed up
the process of the meetings. A sample packet will be included with the January meeting packet.
BOARD MEMBERS
Member Holmes inquired about the security (for the meetings), and Code Enforcement Officer
Simon said that this had been addressed with the City Manager who had decided that the City
could not afford it at this time. The inspectors will contact Building and Zoning Official Flippen
if they thought that they were anticipating a problem.
Mr. Holmes also addressed a letter that he had received a few weeks after the last meeting, and
18
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
(rw November 26, 1996
said that he had made some comments regarding Plans Examiner Jim Washington. At that time,
he had not known the stature of Mr. Washington's position as the No. 2 person in the Building
Department. He had thought that he was just somebody behind a desk who only looked at plans.
He said that he was publicly apologizing to Mr. Washington for questioning his authority and
wisdom regarding electrical matters. He also wished everybody have a nice holiday season!
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to cancel the December meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Lenko also said that she had read a newspaper article about all the cities getting together
to streamline codes so that they could take it into an Orange County Court. Officer Simon said
that the Tri-City area, Winter Garden, Ocoee, and Apopka, was making an effort to petition the
Circuit Court about hearing and recognizing Ordinance cases. The City of Orlando was already
on a citation system that was separate from the State Statutes.
Member Shagner wished everyone a Happy Holiday!
Member Chestney wished everyone a Happy Holiday!
Attorney Feeney cautioned the Board about getting in the habit of saying that people were found
in non-compliance, and encouraged them to use the term "violation."
Alternate Member Skiles: None
Alternate Member Godek wished everyone a Happy Holiday, and thanked everyone for making
an effort in cleaning the trailer park.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:19 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
Attest:
ejv J
Athena Cronnon, Deputy Clerk Frd4-4?-rt •
Carlsson, Chairman
.c.�J
e Lewis, Cler tenographer
a:\wp60\ceb112696.M/N4/jfl
19
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR• COMMISSIONER
OCOee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
Y
�y •�/Op i a CITY OF OCOEE SCOTT ANDERSON
v (4_5_
150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT A.GLASS
f+�. 44, OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761 2258 JIM GLEASON
y (407)656-2322j�, CITYMANAGER'� OF G00V ELLIS SHAPIRO
February 25, 1997
During the meeting of November 26, 1996, the Code Enforcement Board was presented with
a list of cases that were being dismissed at the request of the City:
96-118, Madowacharya Tewari
96-131, Roger Freeman
96-132, Sabina Tovar
96-134, Harold & Etta McPhearson
96-135, Linda Howell
96-136, Elizabeth Pedrick
96-141, Betty Pedrick
As the list was presented to the Board prior to the meeting, there was no discussion regarding
these cases. This page for the record is being attached to the minutes of the November Board
meeting.
/ .
ii
J ie Lewis, C er Stenographer
L