07-25-1995 Minutes MINUTES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
HELD ON July 25, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sills called the regular meeting of the Ocoee Board of Code Enforcement to order
at 7:35 p.m. in the commission chambers of City Hall and led in the pledge of allegiance.
Member Alexander led in prayer. The roll was called and a quorum declared present.
PRESENT: Chairman Sills, Vice Chairman Carlsson, Members Alexander, Chestney, Lenko,
Shagner, and Alternate Member Santo. Also present were Attorney Cool, City
Attorney Rosenthal, City Manager Shapiro, Building Official Flippen, Code
Enforcement Officers Braddy and Simon, Fire Inspector Clement, Deputy Clerk
Seaver and Clerk/Stenographer Lewis.
ABSENT: Member Barnett (unexcused) and Alternate Member Linebarier (excused).
APPROVALS
This item consisted of the Minutes of the June 27, 1995 Code Enforcement Board meeting.
Member Lenko asked for an amendment on pages 9, Case No. 95-74, Paul Ray Parker, and
said that the minutes state that "Chairman Sills said that Member Lenko had prior personal
knowledge as a driveby and she will abstain from voting." Ms. Lenko asked that the record
show that she would not abstain from voting, that she was disclosing site driveby, and the vote
should be changed to 7-0. Member Lenko, seconded by Member Alexander, moved to
approve the Minutes of the June 27, 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.
95-72, JEAN LEPAGE THOMAS
6/16/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:6/19/95 6/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:6/27/95
6/19/95 SOV *Repeat Violation 6/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-350
6/27/95 Order of Continuance- Date:7/25/95 6/28/95 Letter Submitted
6/29/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date: 7/25/95 6/29/95 POS - Delivery to Bobbie Boeh
6/30/95 Medical Record Submitted
At the request of Chairman Sills, Code Enforcement Officer Simon was sworn in by Deputy
Clerk Seaver. Code Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-72 referenced the
property at 510 Hill Avenue. During the week of June 3-4, 1995, Officer Simon had observed
the accumulation of various objects being stored again on the 510 Hill Avenue property. The
Board had previously heard the case for violation of Chanter 115-2. Creation Prohibited: "No person
shall dump or cause to be dumped or place or cause to be placed on any lands or premises within the City any
nuisance and menace to public health." On June 6, 1995, Officer Simon had spoken with the tenant,
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
Mr. Mulcahy, referencing garage sales, and the storing and accumulation of more objects. She
had informed Lester Boeh, the agent for the property owner, that the property needed to be
cleaned, and the potential for a repeat violation status. She met with Mr. Mulcahy on June 8,
1995, and the property had been cleaned on the outside parameter of the fence. Officer Simon
briefed the Board on the history of the case, and a discussion ensued on the continual violations
by the tenant. The original citation was made on June 16, and they were given until June 19,
1995 to comply.
Attorney Cool stated that, in looking at the City Attorney's memo, the City had cited the wrong
section of the Code as being violated. Vice Chairman Carlsson asked if the City could re-cite
the respondent under 115-3 if the Board desired to table the case. Attorney Cool said that they
could always be re-cited if the property is still in violation. Chairman Sills said that the Board
had heard testimony from the Code Enforcement Officer that it was in compliance as of 7/20.
Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Shagner, reference Case No. 95-72 Jean
LePage Thomas being represented by Bobbie Boeh, that due to the fact that it was cited under
the wrong City statute, that the case be dismissed. Motion carried 7-0. (Vote was taken later
but given here for clarity sake.)Attorney Cool recommended that the Board give the respondent
time to speak.
Bobbie Boeh, 2253 Boy Scout Road, Apopka, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver, and
stated that she did not understand what was happening. The Board was saying the case was
dismissed but she had started eviction proceedings for non-compliance on this tenant.
Member Chestney reminded Ms. Boeh that Mr. Mulcahy had been before the Board several
times, always for the same thing. He said that neighbors were complaining, that the man defied
the law and made a mockery of the system. The Board was trying to protect the citizens. There
were a lot of good citizens in the City who did a lot of work in keeping their places looking
nice. He strongly urged Ms. Boeh to take the steps necessary in making Mr. Mulcahy to keep
the property clean.
Chairman Sills then asked for the vote on the motion, and the vote was taken here. Vice
Chairman Carlsson explained to Ms. Boeh that if she were cited again, that it would be as a
repeat offender.
95-74, PAUL RAY PARKER (1505 Jemima Avenue)
6/5/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:6/16/95 6/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:6/27/95
6/19/95 SOV 6/20/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P315-759-348
6/27/95 Order of Continuance- Date:7/25/95 6/29/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon stated that the Board could not hear Case No. 95-74. She had
been scheduled to hand deliver the NOH to Mr. Parker but he had left work early. The Board
kiker 2
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
had already heard the case on the property owner. Ms. Simon said that they had been in
compliance prior to the June meeting. It was at the request of the Board that the City bring it
back for a repeat offender status. Member Lenko asked if the tenant had been cited properly
under Chapter 115, Article I, and Vice Chairman Carlsson said that he was being cited under
Chapter 165-3. Ms. Simon said that it is a junk vehicle, and not trash. Member Chestney,
seconded by Member Lenko, moved that Case No. 95-74, referencing Paul Ray Parker be
dismissed. Motion carried 7-0.
95-76, KATHRYN L. ANDREWS
6/1/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:6/16/95 6/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:6/27/95
6/19/95 SOV 6/20/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P315-759-351
6/27/95 Order of Continuance- Date:7/25/95 6/29/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/14/95 POS - Delivery
Code Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-76 was in reference to the property
at 1101 Ridgefield Avenue. On May 14, 1995 Ms. Simon had observed Toyota vehicles in the
yard with over grown grass and leaves on them. The vehicles appeared inoperable and had not
been moved in a while. Two of the vehicles had no licenses tags. On June 1, 1995 an NOCV
was sent to the property owner, Kathryn L. Andrews, as identifed by Orange County Tax
Records, for violation of Chapter 165-3 Prohibited Acts (a): "No person shall abandon or keep any junk
vehicle on any public property or any private property within the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee." Ms.
Andrews had been given until June 10, 1995 to bring the property into compliance. A re-
inspection of the property on June 16, 1995 produced a status of non-compliance. An SOV and
an NOH were sent to Ms. Andrews, via restricted delivery, for the June Board meeting. Due
to non-proof of service at that time, the case was not heard and had been continued to this Board
meeting. On July 14, 1995, Officer Simon had hand delivered an NOH to Ms. Andrews for
this Board meeting. She also had spoken with Ms. Andrews at that time. Two vehicles had
been moved from the property but one vehicle remained. Ms. Simon had informed Ms.
Andrews that she must appear before the Board to request an extension. A re-inspection on July
25, 1995 produced a status of non-compliance.
Kathryn Andrews, 1101 Ridgefield Avenue, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver, and said
that the car had no tag because it was without insurance. The car was inoperable, and Ms.
Andrews said that she had explained to Officer Simon that her son planned to fix the car. Vice
Chairman Carlsson asked how long it would take to purchase a tag and repair the vehicle, and
Ms. Andrews said that she had no idea how long it would take to repair the car but she could
purchase the tag herself. Ms. Andrews said that she would not have the funds until after
August 1, and asked the Board to give her until the first week of August. Vice Chairman
Carlsson seconded b Member Chestne moved to find Ka n L. Andrews Case No. 95-
76, in violation and give her until August 4, 1995 to come into compliance or be fined $25 a
day thereafter. Motion carried 6-0. Member Alexander said that she would rather not vote
as she knew Ms. Andrews, and abstained from voting.
err 3
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
95-77, CLAYTON A. PADGET
6/12/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:6/28/95 6/29/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
6/29/95 SOV 4/18/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-386
Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. At the request
of Chairman Sills, Code Enforcement Officer Braddy was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver,
and said that Case No. 95-77 referenced property at 604 Starke Lake Circle. Mr. Padget was
cited for violation of Chapter 51-21 Building Construction: Permit Required: "Installation of wood fence
without a building permit." Chapter 115-1:Conditions Constitutini a nuisance: Chapter 115-2: "Trash and debris
throughout the yard." On May 5, 1995, Ms. Braddy had observed a fence being erected while
driving by the property. Stopping to check on the fence, she had found trash strewn throughout
the yard. The residents spoke only Spanish and any attempt to communicate failed. The
property was owned by Clayton A. Padget, as identified by Orange County Tax Records, but
he rented the property. On June 12, 1995, an NOCV was sent to the respondent and he was
given until June 19, 1995 to pull a building permit and to clean the trash and debris. Upon re-
inspection on June 19, 1995, the construction of the fence had stopped but the debris remained.
The existing fence had not been removed. In a telephone call on June 29, 1995, Mr. Padget had
informed Officer Braddy that he would talk to the renter and ask that they pull the permit for
a proper fence. On June 29, 1995 an NOH and an SOV were sent to Mr. Padget who signed
the POS on June 30, 1995. After receiving the NOH, Mr. Padget called Ms. Braddy again
saying that he had talked with the renters. There was still no response. A drive by of the
property on July 21, 1995 revealed it to be still in non-compliance. A re-inspection on July 25,
1995 produced a status of compliance. Attorney Cool said, like the previous case the Board
had heard, that this is the owner of the property, therefore it appears that the owner had been
cited under the wrong Code section as far as the trash is concerned, and he would recommend
that that portion of the violation be dismissed. Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner,
moved that Clayton A. Padget, Case No. 95-77, be found in non-compliance of Cha•ter 51-21
as of June 19 1995 but in com.fiance as of Jul 25 1995 and that no fine be assessed- and
that the citations regarding Chapter 115-1 & 2 be dismissed. Motion carried 7-0.
95-79, GRINER AUTO SALES
6/12/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:6/28/95 6/29/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
6/29/95 SOV 7/11/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P315-759-388
Code Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-79, Griner Auto Sales, as
identified by Orange County Tax Records, referenced the property at 2330 W. Colonial Drive.
On April 13, 1995, the Ocoee Fire Department had made their annual inspection at Griner Auto
Sales, finding numerous violations. The manager had been given until April 27, 1995 to come
into compliance. On May 15, 1995, a re-inspection of the property produced a status of non-
compliance. A copy of the violations had been given to Officer Braddy requesting Code
Enforcement action. Upon receiving the request on May 15, 1995, Ms. Braddy inspected the
property and sent the respondent an NOCV for violation of City Code Chapter 165-4. B & C:
Vehicles Abandoned: "Keeping of junk vehicles,parts and pieces of vehicles throughout the premises on overgrown
grass area." Tall grass grew behind the buildings, and flammable products, tires and trash, gas
4
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
cans, debris were stored on the roof. Chapter 115-1 Conditions Constituting a Nuisance: Chapter 115-2
Creation Prohibited: "Keeping of vehicle parts and miscellaneous trash and debris throughout the premises on
overgrown grass area, the roof of buildings, stacked behind the building,piled in the parking area,piled in front
of the building." There were piles on top of piles of junk that had been observed on top of the
buildings causing a hazard of the roof caving. Also, a light fixture, on and lit, hangs by the
wires from a pole by the road. Chapter 108-33 Minimum Requirements for Commercial. Business and
Industrial Structures; A: General Maintenance: "Not providing parking for customers; blocking of means of
ingress/egress; storage of flammable; storage of tires and trash; storage of gas cans; debris stored on the roof;
miscellaneous trash and debris; overgrown grass; hanging electrical wiring on exterior lights." Cars were
parked wall to wall on the property. The public used a decel (deceleration) lane on City right-
of-way for parking that created a hazard on SR50. There were no alternative parking spaces for
customers even though "No Parking" signs had been posted by the Police Department. Auto
parts and buses were strewn all over the property, blocking access for the Fire Department in
case of a fire. Storage for miscellaneous car parts was behind the buildings, including car parts
strewn in the tall grass. Officer Braddy said that while it was an automobile business and the
owner had the right to have untagged vehicles, junk parts and half auto bodies were a hazard
to the property. The property owner was given until June 16, 1995 to bring the property into
compliance, and a re-inspection on June 17, 1995 produced a status of non-compliance. On June
29, 1995, an NOH and an SOV were sent to the owner of record, Griner Auto Sales at 2330 W.
Colonial Drive. On June 30, 1995, P.M. Douglas signed for the NOH and SOV as verified by
POS on July 11, 1995. A re-inspection on July 25, 1995 found the property in non-compliance.
There had been no attempt by Mr. Griner to contact the City in this matter.
Fire Inspector Clement was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver, and stated that the case had
been turned over to her upon the Fire Department's annual inspection. On April 13, 1995,
Inspector Clement had observed gasoline cans lying around the upholstery shop and bowing
shelves. Upon a re-inspection on April 27, 1995, the gas cans on the back had been cleaned,
the shelves had been repaired, and the tire storage had been removed. A pathway had been
made where items were against the building, adding to the fire load of the building. The buses
were still there. Inspector Clement said that closing traffic lanes on SR50 would be the biggest
hazard, should there ever be a fire. Also, fire or emergency vehicles could not get near the
place.
Vice Chairman Carlsson asked if there would be enough parking if the respondent got rid of
30 vehicles, and Officer Braddy said that cutting down on the cars would help. Member
Shagner asked if anything had been done to correct the electrical equipment. Ms. Braddy said
that the hanging light fixture worked, but it was a potential danger. There were two separate
buildings on the property.
Virgil Gary Griner, 11460 W. Colonial Drive, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver, and
said that he owned the property but leased it to Paul Koncannon of Koncannon Auto Ranch.
The City had petitioned Griner Auto Sales when the business name was Griner Auto Sales, Inc.
Lor 5
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
and his address was not 2330 Highway 50. Member Shagner said if that were true then the
City had cited the wrong people, and asked Mr. Griner why he had not notified the City about
it. Mr. Griner said that the mail had sat on his desk when he was in business, and he had not
picked it up. When he saw the mail, the case had already been in default by the first time. He
expressed concern over the danger of the property being all blocked, and said that maybe the
City could help him get what he needed done to the property.
Mr. Griner said that the name Koncannon Auto Ranch was on the outside of the building, and
they did have a license for that address. He then presented photographs for Board review, and
Chairman Sills informed Mr. Griner that if the Board looked at the pictures, they would be held
as evidence. Mr. Griner had no objections.
In response to Member Shagner, Mr. Griner guessed that Mr. Koncannon's name was on the
occupational license. Member Shagner asked if the City could verify the name on the license.
Chairman Sills asked if the Board was perjuring it self by hearing this case as Mr. Griner had
stated that he does not own the property and that he did not have a business license. Attorney
Cool said that it is up to the Board to make those findings of facts. Mr. Cool said that Mr.
Griner had stated that he individually owned the property, and that he had not been individually
cited. He had been cited under Griner Auto Sales. It was up to the Board to make the fording
of the facts as to whether the correct party has been cited. After hearing testimony from
everyone that speaks here tonight, and if the Board found as a matter of fact that the incorrect
party has been cited, then the correct path to take would be to dismiss the case so it could be
recited under the correct party.
Vice Chairman Carlsson asked for verification on 1) who owned the property, 2) Mr. Griner's
home address, and 3) who was Mr. Griner leasing the property to. Mr. Griner said that he was
Virgil Gary Griner, living at 4813 Polo Court, he owned the property and rented it to Paul
Koncannon, Koncannon Auto Ranch. Mr. Carlsson also asked if Mr. Koncannon's address was
2330 W. Colonial, and Mr. Griner said that it was 11460, that the City had changed it. He had
learned of the change after the second notice. Member Lenko said, and Attorney Cool
confirmed, that she believed that the City would end up dismissing the case, that the City would
have to recite it.
Code Enforcement Officer Braddy said that the current occupational license as of June 13
listed Griner Auto Sales at that location.
Chairman Sills said for the record that license no. 91-01146 is made out to Griner Auto Sales,
Incorporated, and had been renewed as of 6/19/95. Vice Chairman Carlsson. seconded by
Member Alexander reference Case No. 95-79 Griner Auto Sales address showin. as 2330
W. Colonial Drive but it is actually 1440(or something like that) 11460 W. Colonial Drive, case
be dismissed as the wrong owner was cited and the occupant is not correct. Officer Braddy
6
coy Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
said that the City would like time to research for certification from the Orange County Tax
Rolls, and requested a continuance to the next meeting. Vice Chairman Carlsson withdrew the
motion, but Attorney Cool recommended that they go ahead and vote on the motion. Motion
defeated 0-7. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member Chestney, reference Griner
Auto Sales, Case No. 95-79, at 11460 W. Colonial Drive be continued at the request of the City
until the Au. st 22 1995 meetin.. Motion carried 7-0.
VICE CHAIRMAN CARLSSON, SECONDED BY MEMBER SHAGNER, MOVED THAT ITEM J, CASE
No. 95-84 JAMES L. AND/OR DIANNE L. KELLEY BE MOVED TO THE NEXT CASE ON THE
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
95-84, JAMES L. AND/OR DIANNE L. KELLEY
6/5/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/18/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/18/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P315-759-396
Code Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-84 referenced the property at
1507 Jemima Avenue. On June 5, 1995, an NOCV was sent to the property owners, as
identified by Orange County Tax Records, James L. and/or Dianne L. Kelley for violation of
City Ordinance, Chapter 165-3 Prohibited Acts(a): "No person shall abandon or keep any junk vehicle on any
public property or any private property within the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee." A junk vehicle, white
truck without a current license tag, had been observed in the rear yard. Chapter 115-1 Article L:
Ikair "No person shall dump or cause to be dumped or place or cause to be placed on any lands or premises within the
City any nuisance and menace to public health, safety and welfare." Miscellaneous trash and debris had
been observed in the yard. Officer Simon said that they are the owner/occupier, as they also
reside there, and had been cited under the Chapter 115-1 Article I. The property owners were
given until July 15, 1995 to bring the property into compliance. The Kelleys had complied with
Chapter 115 by the compliance date but had contacted Ms. Simon and requested an extension
on the Chapter 165-3. On July 17, 1995 a re-inspection of the property produced a status of non-
compliance. On July 18, 1995, an SOV and an NOH were sent to the property owner by the
Board Clerk, via restricted delivery, to this Board meeting. A re-inspection of the property on
July 25, 1995 produced a status of non-compliance. Officer Simon said that the Kelleys were
cooperating with the City, that they will have the tag by the weekend.
James Kelley, 1507 Jemima Avenue, was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Seaver, and stated that
he was the owner of the white vehicle and was getting it ready for a tag. A new motor had been
put in the vehicle, and everything was running when he had found that the radiator was busted.
Vice Chairman Carlsson asked how long the respondent needed to comply, and Mr. Kelley
said that it would be July 28 before he would have the money to buy the tag. It was more
expensive than first thought. Vice Chairman Carlsson seconded b Member Chestne
moved to find James L. &/or Dianne L. Kelley, Case No. 95-84, in compliance with Chapter
115, Article I and in non-com r Hance of Cha.ter 165-3 (a), and give them until Jul 31, 1995
to corn el or be fined '15 a da thereafter. Motion carried 7-I.
7
Lir Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
95-80, DAN WOMACK
7/3/95 NOCV -Re-inspection Date:7/7/95 7/11/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/11/95 SOV 7/11/95 POS -Mail Cert #P615/759/389
Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy said that Case No. 95-80 referenced the property at 312 Lee
Street. The Board had been presented a copy of a letter from Mr. Womack's office informing
the tenant of an eviction notice on his property. Officer Braddy asked that the Board hear the
case should Mr. Womack be found as a repeat violator. Upon returning for a Minimum
Housing re-inspection on July 3, 1995, approximately 10 separate beds were made up
throughout the house. The beds made her aware that there was an excessive number of people
allowed in the dwelling, according to Minimum Standard Ordinance, and there had been only
a few at the original inspection. The inspection on June 28, 1995 found them in violation of
Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code:108-23 General
Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of Structures: "(X)MINIMUMDWELLING SPACE REQUIREMENTS:
1)Required space in dwelling unit. Every dwelling unit shall contain at least one hundred fifty (150)square feet of
floor space for the first occupant thereof and at least one hundred (100) additional square feet of floor area per
additional occupant. The floor area shall be calculated on the basis of the total area of all habitable rooms. 2)
Required space in sleeping rooms. In every dwelling unit, every room occupied for sleeping purposed by one (1)
occupant shall contain at least seventy (70) square feet of floor space, and every room occupied for sleeping
purposes by more than one (1)occupant shall contain at least fifty (50)square feet of floor space for each occupant
thereof" There was inadequate space, the house base was a maximum of 900 square feet total.
(1116, The respondent was given until July 3, 1995 to comply by removing the additional family.
Upon speaking with neighbors, there were two separate families with an extra brother or sister,
here and there, that were living in the residence. A re-inspection on July 7, 1995 produced a
status of non-compliance. On July 11, 1995 an SOV and an NOH were sent to the owner by
the Clerk of the Board for the July 25, 1995 meeting. Upon receiving the SOV and the NOH,
the owner contacted Ms. Braddy stating he had started an eviction process. Discussion ensued
about the eviction process. Member Lenko, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find
Dan Womack Case No. 95-80 in violation of Chas ter 108 Minimum Standards Code: Article
II: 108-23 X, Sections 1 and 2, and be given until August 22, 1995 to bring the property into
compliance or be fined $100 a day thereafter. Motion carried 7-0.
95-81, LAWRENCE KENNY
7/3/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/7/95 7/11/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/11/95 SOV 7/11/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-390
No one was present to represent the case. Code Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that
Lawrence Kenney, Case No. 95-81, was the renter of 312 Lee Street. The respondent had
been sent an NOCV on July 3, 1995 for violation of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards
Code:Article II HousinM Minimum Standards Code:108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior
of Structures: "(X)MINIMUM DWELLING SPACE REQUIREMENTS: 1)Required space in dwelling unit. Every
dwelling unit shall contain at least one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor space for the first occupant thereof
and at least one hundred (100) additional square feet of floor area per additional occupant. The floor area shall
be calculated on the basis of the total area of all habitable rooms. 2)Required space in sleeping rooms. In every
dwelling unit, every room occupied for sleeping purposed by one (1) occupant shall contain at least seventy (70)
(1110, 8
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
..• July 25, 1995
square feet of floor space, and every room occupied for sleeping purposes by more than one (1) occupant shall
contain at least fifty (50) square feet of floor space for each occupant thereof." No compliance had been
made, and an NOH and an SOV had been sent on July 11, 1995. Proof of Service was received
on July 12, 1995. To date, the property remained in non-compliance. Member Lenko,
seconded by Member Chestney, moved to find Lawrence Kenney, Case No. 95-81, in violation
of Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Article II, 108-23 X. Sections 1 and 2, and that they be
given until August 22, 1995 to come into compliance or be fined $100 a day thereafter. Motion
carried 7-0.
95-82, JULIA ARGENTINA PALMA
7/3/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/7/95 7/11/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/11/95 SOV 7/11/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-391
Code Enforcement Officer Braddy asked the Board to continue Case No. 95-82, in reference
to the property at 1100 Oakwood Lane, due to non-Proof of Service. Discussion ensued about
the violations being on the NOCV but they had been omitted from the SOV. Officer Braddy
said that Chapter 158-30 was still in non-compliance and was the only one cited. Attorney Cool
said that the pool was the only one that was in non-compliance. There appeared to be some
extra verbiage in the SOV. Although the City had not received Proof of Service, Officer
Braddy asked that Case No. 95-82 be dismissed. Member Lenko, seconded by Member
Alexander, moved that Case No. 95-82, Julia Argentina Palma, be dismissed at the request of
the City. Motion carried 7-0.
95-83, TIMOTHY P. &/OR NORA DOWDY
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/18/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/18/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-395
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-83 referred to the property at 803
Apricot Drive. Officer Simon said that on July 7, 1995, an NOCV was sent to the property
owner, Timothy P. and/or Nora Dowdy, as identified by Orange County Tax Records, for
violation of City Code, Chapter 153-1 Permit Required: "It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon
any streets, roads, alleys, highways, or right-of-way thereof within the City and lay any conduits, pipes, poles or
wires or make any obstruction or any excavation without having first secured from the City a written permit
authorizing the same ." The observation had been that a basketball goal had been erected in the
right-of-way. Mr. and Mrs. Dowdy had been given until July 17, 1995 to bring the property
into compliance. A re-inspection on July 17, 1995 produced a status of non-compliance. The
basket had been removed from the pole that was still erected in the right-of-way. On July 18,
1995 an SOV and an NOH were sent to the owner by the Clerk of the Board for the July
meeting. A re-inspection on July 25, 1995 produced a status of compliance.
Member Lenko questioned the particular citation, and Officer Simon left the meeting at 9:15
p.m. for verification.
9
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
RECESS 9:16 - 9:30 p.m.
Upon review of the City Code, Officer Simon returned to the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and
recommended that the case be dismissed. Vice Chairman Carlsson. seconded by Member
Sha. er moved at the re I uest of the Ci that Case No. 95-83 Timoth P. &/or Nora Dowd
be dismissed. Motion carried 7-0.
95-85, DONALD M. SELF AND/OR LILLIAN A. SMITH
6/1/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/18/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/18/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P315-759-392
Chairman Sills said that for the record that no one was present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-85 referenced the property at 913
Marlene Drive. The City had not received Proof of Service and asked that the case be
continued to the next meeting. Member Shaver, seconded by Vice Chairman Carlsson,
moved that Case No. 95-85 Donald M. Self&/or Lillian A. Smith in violation of Chapter 165-
3 be continued until the August 22. 1995 due to non-Proof of Service. Motion carried 7-0.
95-86, EDITH JACKSON
7/12/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/18/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/18/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Mail - Cert#P315-759-393
Chairman Sills said for the record that no one was present to represent this case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-86, Edith Jackson, as identified by
Orange County Tax Records, referred to property at 1800 Adair Street. The respondent was
sent an NOCV for non-compliance of Chapter 115-2 Creation Prohibited: "Keeping of vehicle parts and
miscellaneous trash and debris throughout the premises on overgrown grass area, the roof of buildings, stacked
behind the building,piled in the parking area,piled in front of the building" The observation had been that
of large amount of trash and debris, metal objects, and various other objects piled in the front
side yard. Ms. Simon said that the property owner is the occupant, referencing Chapter 115-2,
who was given until July 17, 1995 to bring the property into compliance. A re-inspection on
July 17, 1995 produced a status of non-compliance, and on July 18, 1995, an NOH and an SOV
were sent to the property owner by the Clerk of the Board, via restricted delivery on July 20,
1995, to the July Board meeting. A re-inspection on July 25, 1995 produced a status of non-
compliance. In response to Vice Chairman Carlsson, Officer Simon said that there had been
no contact by the respondent, nor any improvement to the property. The City had received
numerous complaints about the violations. Member Chestney moved to find Edith Jackson,
Case No. 95-86 in violation of Cha I ter 115-2 Creation Prohibited as of Jul 17 1995 and
fined $25 a day thereafter. Attorney Cool said that the fine must start at a given date.
Member Chestney asked that the fine begin as of July 26, 1995. Discussion ensued on
"reasonable time", as the motion only gave one day notice of the fine. Vice Chairman
Carlsson said that the respondents are normally given 5-7 days, in order for the City to get the
Notice out. He also said that, given the facts of the violation and non-cooperation with the City,
that he would give a $50-$100 fine. The motion died for the lack of a second. Member
10
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
Lenko, seconded by Member Shaver, moved to find Edith Jackson, Case No. 95-86, in non-
compliance of Chapter 115-2, and be given until August 1, 1995 to come into compliance or be
fined $100 a day thereafter. Motion carried 7-0.
95-87, WILLIAM E. &/OR VIRGINIA C. STUMPF
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/18/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/18/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-394
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Simon testified that Case No. 95-87 referred to the property at 701
Broadway Drive. Officer Simon said that on July 7, 1995, an NOCV was sent to the property
owner, as identified by Orange County Tax Records, William E. &/or Virginia C. Stumpf, for
violation of City Land Development Code, Article VI 6-4(H)5-b: Not more than one camping or travel
trailer or hauling 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 forty-eight (48)hours unless it is located behind the front yard building line. City Code
Chapter 115-Article I: "No person shall dump or cause to be dumped on any lands owned by them any nuisance
or menace to public health." The observation had been that of miscellaneous trash and debris in the
yard, and several boats on hauling trailers. The respondents were given until July 17, 1995 to
bring the property into compliance, and a re-inspection on that date produced a status of non-
compliance with both violations. On July 18, 1995 an SOV and an NOH were sent to the
owner, via restricted delivery by the Clerk of the Board, for the July meeting. Officer Simon
said that a re-inspection on July 25, 1995 produced compliance with City Code Chapter 115,
Article I for the trash and debris. Several boats on hauling trailers remained, and the
respondents were still in non-compliance with the Land Development Code Article VI 6-4 (H)
5-b. Attorney Cool said that the documentation in the case did not refer to the violation
specifically as a Land. Development Code violation. He recommended that, in the future, the
City cite whether the violation is from the Land Development Code or the City Code of
Ordinances. The respondents had made no contact with the City. Member Lenko, seconded
b Member Sha. er moved to find William E. &/or Vir•inia C. Stum I f Case No. 95-87 in
non-com.liance of Cha,ter 115-Article I as of Jul 17, 1995 but in compliance as of Jul 25.
1995 and that no fine be assessed on that count• also that the res.ondent be found in violation
of Article VI 6-4 H 5-b of the Land Develo.ment Code and be •iven until Au. st 1 1995 to
brin• the 'ro e e into com.liance or be fined '400 a da thereafter. Motion carried 7-0.
95-88, HERMILA BARRAGAN
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-404
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-88 referred to the property at 70 E.
Circle Key Drive. Officer Braddy said that a Minimum Housing Inspection had been done on
January 27, 1995, and a letter stating the violations had been sent on February 8, 1995 to the
owner. The respondent were given until April 8, 1995 to comply, and a re-inspection produced
11
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
a status of non-compliance. Also, there had been no contact for a re-inspection. On July 7,
1995, an NOCV was sent to the property owner, as identified by Orange County Tax Records,
Hermila Barragan, for violation of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II
Housini Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities: "Install
operable smoke detectors to all sleeping areas."108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and Outlets;
108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical systems: "Install blanks in the electrical panel box. Replace all
missing or broken receptacle or switch plates. Install a cover on the exterior electrical panel." 108-23 General
Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of Structures: "Seal all holes in exterior walls, in shower area and
around the hot water heater." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements: Standard Plumbini Code 1204.1 Protection of
Potable Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code:Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards
to Public Health, Safety and Welfare; Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: Ms. Barragan was given
until July 17, 1995 to come into compliance. Failing to comply, an SOV and an NOH were
mailed to the owner of the property on July 19, 1995 and receipted by POS on July 21, 1995.
A re-inspection on July 25, 1995 found the property to be in compliance. Officer Braddy
would like to deem the respondent as a repeat violator. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by
Member Alexander moved to find Hermila Barra.an Case No. 95-88 in non-com'Hance of
Chaster 108 Minimum Standards Code. Article II Housin. Minimum Standards Code: 108-19
Minimum Standard for Basic E•ui.ment 108-21 Minimum Re s uirements for Electrical Li.hts
etc., 108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems, 108-23 General Requirements for
Exterior and Interior Structures 108-24 Sanitation Re s uirements 1204.1 Standard Plumbin
Code Chaster 108 Minimum Standards Code. Article IV Public Nuisances: 108-35 Public
Nuisances and find the res.ondent in non-com s liance as of Jul 17 1995 but in COM fiance
as of Jul 24 1995 and that no fine be im s osed at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
95-89, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/20/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy stated that a Minimum Standard Compliance had been made on
the property at 86 Buck Key Court on March 2, 1995, and found in violation of City Code,
Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum
Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities: "Install operable smoke detectors to all sleeping areas. Install a
cover for piping in the wall under the kitchen sink." 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and
Outlets;108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical systems: 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and
Interior of Structures: "Seal all holes in flooring and weak flooring. (SW corner in the first bedroom) (Hole in
flooring at rear door)Weatherstrip all exterior doors." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements: Standard Plumbing Code
1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow:Install backflow preventors on all exterior hose bibs. Chapter
108 Minimum Standards Code; Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health, Safety and Welfare;
Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances. A letter mailed on March 2, 1995 gave the respondent 60
days in which to comply. Compliance was not met, and on May 2, 1995 an NOCV had been
mailed on July 7, 1995 to Mr. Harper, owner of the property according to the Orange County
Tax Rolls, giving him until July 17, 1995 to correct the violations. Mr. Harper had not
corrected the violations by that date, and an SOV and an NOH were hand delivered by Officer
Braddy on July 19, 1995. A re-inspection on July 25, 1995 produced a status of compliance.
css, 12
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
Member Lenko seconded b Vice Chairman Carlsson moved to find Dean Ha .er Case No.
95-89 in violation of Cha'ter 108 Minimum Standards Code- Article II Cha.ter 108-19 108-
21, 108-22, 108-23, 108-24 Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1, Chapter 108 Article IV, and
Cha,ter 108-35 as of Jul 17 1995 but in com,liance as of Jul 25 1995 and that no fine be
assessed at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
95-90, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present the case. Code Enforcement
Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-90 referred to the property at 74 N. Circle Key.
Officer Braddy said that an inspection had been made on April 7, 1995, and a letter had been
mailed on April 27, 1995, giving Mr. Harper until June 27, 1995 to comply with the following
violations: City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing Minimum Standards
Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; 108-21 Minimum Requirements for
Electrical Lights and Outlets; 108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: "Install any missing or
broken receptacle or switch plate covers." 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of
Structures: "Repair or replace all torn or missing screens. Install handrails to front and rear door. Replace
flooring in 2nd bedroom closet, bathroom and under the hot water heater. The flooring is rotted and very weak.
Weather-strip all exterior doors." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements: Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection
of Potable Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article IV Public Nuisances or
Hazards to Public Health. Safety and Welfare; Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building.
Number of: 54-3 Display required: responsibility for posting; design requirements: "Install 3"house numbers
visible from the street." An NOCV had been mailed on July 7, 1995, giving the respondent until
July 17, 1995 to come into compliance. The property was in non-compliance on July 17, 1995,
and an SOV and an NOH were hand delivered by Ms. Braddy on July 21, 1995. A re-
inspection on July 25, 1995 produced a status of compliance with all of the violations. Member
Shagner seconded b Member Lenko moved to find Dean Harper, Case No. 95-90, in non-
com.liance as of Jul 17 1995 for Cha'ter 108• Article II: 108-19 108-21 108-22 108-23
108-24 Standard Plumbin. Code 1204.1 Chaster 108 Minimum Standards Code. Article IV:
108-35 Cha s ter 54 Buildin. 54-3 Dis•la re.uired and find them in com•liance as of Jul 25
1995,, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
95-91, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-91 referred to the property at 114
Cockles Key Court. Officer Braddy said that on March 6, 1995 the property was inspected
and found to be in violation of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing
Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; 108-21 Minimum
Requirements for Electrical lights and Outlets;108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: "Replace
any missing or broken receptacles or switches." 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of
Structures: "Seal all holes in flooring. (under kitchen sink) (at rear door) (in rear bedroom closet) Install a
err 13
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
r,.. July 25, 1995
handrail to the steps at rear door. Seal around plumbing stack in roof of mobile home. Properly tied down mobile
home, (ties are broken)." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements: Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable
Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to
Public Health. Safety and Welfare;Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building. Number of:
54-3 Display required:responsibility for posting;design requirements: "Install 3"house numbers visible from the
street." The property was in non-compliance as of May 14, 1995, and an NOCV was sent on
July 7, 1995, giving Mr. Harper until July 17, 1995 to comply. A re-inspection on July 17,
1995 produced a status of non-compliance, and an SOV and an NOH were hand delivered by
Ms. Braddy on July 21, 1995 to this Board meeting. Upon re-inspection on July 25, 1995 the
property had come into compliance. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member
Chestne moved to find Dean Ha •er Case No. 95-91 114 Cockles Ke Court in non-
com•Hance as of July 17, 1995 of Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code: Article II, Cha•ter
108-19 108-21 108-22 108-23 108-24 Standard Plumbin. Code 1204.1 Chatter 108 Article
IV Cha•ter 108-35 Public Nuisances Cha•ter 54 Cha•ter 54-3 and find them in corn•fiance
as of Jul 24 1995 and that no fine be im•osed at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
95-92, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Code Enforcement Officer Braddy said that the Board had received a Notice of Dismissal in
Case No. 95-92, referencing property at 33 Coquina Key Drive.
95-93, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-93 referenced the property at 97 Deer
Key Court. Officer Braddy said that on February 24, 1995 the property had been inspected
for Minimum Standard Code, and had been found to be in violation of City Code, Chapter 108
Minimum Standards Code;Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic
Equipment and Facilities; "Install smoke detectors to all sleeping areas." 108-21 Minimum Requirements for
Electrical Lights and Outlets; 108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: "Replace all missing or
broken futures, receptacles and switches." 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of
Structures: "Repair all holes in flooring (bathroom). Install handrail to steps." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements:
Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter 108 Minimum Standards
Code;Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health. Safety and Welfare;Enforcement: 108-35 Public
Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building, Number of: 54-3 Display required: responsibility for posting; design
requirements: "Install 3"house numbers visible from the street." A re-inspection on May 2, 1995 found
the property in non-compliance, and an NOCV was sent on July 7, 1995 giving them until
July 17, 1995 to come into compliance. A re-inspection on July 17, 1995 found the property
still in non-compliance and an SOV and an NOH were hand delivered by Officer Braddy on
July 21, 1995. Ms. Braddy did a walk through re-inspection on July 25, 1995 and found the
property in compliance. Member Chestney, seconded by Member Shagner, moved to find
Dean Harper Case No. 95-93 in non-compliance as of July 17. 1995 of Chaster 108 Minimum
,,, 14
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
Standards Code• Article II• Cha eters 108-19 108-21 108-22 108-23 108-24 Standard
Plumbin. Code 1204.1 Cha iter 108 Minimum Standards Code• Article IV Cha.ter 108-35
Chatter 54 54-3 and be found in comliance as of Jul 25 1995 and that no fine be im$osed.
Motion carried 7-0.
95-94, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-94 referred to the property at 37 Eagle
Key Court. On January 6, 1995 the property had been inspected for Code Compliance, and
Mr. Harper had been found in violation of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code;Article
II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; "Install
operable smoke detectors to all sleeping areas." 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and Outlets;
108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: "All outside receptacles must be GFI and protected." 108-
23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of Structures: "Repair all missing or torn screens. Repair
all broken or non-operable windows. Seal all holes in flooring; (holes under sink, in bedroom closet, in master
bedroom, in bathroom);Re-secure porch room to trailer or remove. Secure connector on hot water heater." 108-24
Sanitation Requirements:Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter
108 Minimum Standards Code; Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health. Safety and Welfare;
Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building. Number of:54-3 Display required: responsibility
for posting; design requirements: "Install 3"house numbers visible from the street." The respondent had
been given until April 8, 1995 to come into compliance. A re-inspection found the property not
in compliance, and an NOCV was sent on July 7, 1995, giving them until July 17, 1995 to
comply. A re-inspection on July 17, 1995 found the property in non-compliance, and an a SOV
and an NOH were hand delivered to Dean Harper by Ms. Braddy on July 19, 1995. Upon re-
inspection on July 25, 1995, the property had come into complete compliance. Vice Chairman
Carlsson seconded b Member Chestne moved to find Dean Ha ter Case No. 95-94
reference 37 Ea.le Ke Court in non-corn s liance as of Jul 17 1995 of Cha s ter 108 Article
II, Chapters 108-19, 108-21, 108-22, 108-23, 108-24 Standard Plumbin' Code 1204.1, Chatter
108 Article IV, Cha s ter 108-35 Cha s ter 54: 54-3 and find them in compliance as of Jul 25,
1995, and that no fine be imposed at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
95-95, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-95 referenced the property at 38 Eagle
Key Court. On March 17, 1995 a Minimum Standard Inspection had been made on the
property. A letter sent on March 25, 1995 gave the respondent until May 25, 1995 to comply
for the violations of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing Minimum
Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; "Install operable smoke
detectors to all sleeping areas." 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and Outlets; 108-22
15
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
cir July 25, 1995
Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of
Structures: "Repair rotted flooring in bedroom near hot water heater. Install new flooring under hot water heater."
108-24 Sanitation Requirements:Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow:
Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health. Safety and
Welfare; Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building. Number of: 54-3 Display required:
responsibility for posting; design requirements: "Install 3" house numbers visible from the street." The
respondent had not complied as of May 25, 1995, and an NOCV was sent on July 7, 1995,
giving them until July 17, 1995 to comply. Still in non-compliance on July 17, 1995, Mr.
Harper was hand delivered an SOV and an NOH by Ms. Braddy on July 21, 1995. Upon re-
inspection on July 25, 1995 the property was found in compliance. Member Chestney,
seconded b Alternate Member Santo moved to find Dean Ha ser Case No. 95-95 in non-
compliance as of July 17, 1995 of Chaster 108 Minimum Standards Code• Cha eters 108-19,
108-21 108-22 108-23 108-24 Standard Plumbin l Code 1204.1 Cha s ter 108 Article IV
Chas ter 108-35 Cha I ter 54 and Chas ter 54-3 and be found in com.liance as of Jul 25 1995
and that no fine be imposed. Motion carried 7-0.
95-96, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-96 referenced the property at 40 Eagle
Key Court. On January 9, 1995 a Minimum Standard Inspection had been made on the
property, and the respondent had been given until April 7, 1995 to comply with the violations
of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code;Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19
Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; "Repair all water leaks in laundry area." 108-21
Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and Outlets;108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems:
"Replace broken receptacle in laundry area." 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of
Structures: "Repair awning where leaks are. Repair skirting." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements: Standard
Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code;
Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health. Safety and Welfare; Enforcement: 108-35 Public
Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building, Number of: 54-3 Display required: responsibility for posting; design
requirements: "Install 3"house numbers visible from the street." On April 7, 1995 the respondent had
not complied, and an NOCV was sent regular mail to Dean Harper on July 7, 1995 giving them
until July 17, 1995 to comply. On July 17, 1995 the property was in non-compliance, and an
SOV and NOH were hand delivered by Ms. Braddy to Mr. Harper on July 21, 1995. Upon
re-inspection on July 25, 1995 the property was found to be in compliance. Member Chestney,
seconded b Member Alexander moved to fmd Dean Ha ser Case No. 95-96 40 Ea.le Ke
Court in non-compliance as of July 17, 1995 of Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code;
Chapters 108-19 108-21 108-22, 108-23 108-24 Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1, Chapter 108
Article IV Chaster 108-35 Cha s ter 54 and Chaster 54-3 and fmd them in com s liance as of
Jul 25 1995 and that no fine be im•osed at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
16
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
95-97, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-97 referenced the property at 161
Mobile Lane. On January 23, 1995 an inspection had been made on the property and Mr.
Harper had been given until April 8, 1995 to comply with the violations of City Code, Chapter
108 Minimum Standards Code;Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for
Basic Equipment and Facilities; 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights and Outlets; 108-22
Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of
Structures: "Seal all holes in flooring. Weatherstrip all exterior doors." 108-24 Sanitation Requirements:
Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow: Chapter 108 Minimum Standards
Code;Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health, Safety and Welfare;Enforcement: 108-35 Public
Nuisances: Chapter 54 Building, Number of: 54-3 Display required: responsibility for posting; design
requirements: 'Install 3" house numbers visible from the street." On April 8, 1995, the property was
still in violation, and an NOCV was mailed on July 7, 1995, giving Mr. Harper until July 17,
1995 to comply. The property had not complied by July 17, 1995, and an SOV and an NOH
were hand delivered to Dean Harper by Ms. Braddy on July 21, 1995. A complete walk
through of the property on July 25, 1995 revealed that the property had come into compliance.
Alternate Member Santo seconded b Vice Chairman Carlsson moved to find Dean Ha ser
Case No. 95-97 in non-com•fiance as of Jul 17 1995 of Chaster 108 Minimum Standards
Liv Code• Cha eters 108-19 108-21 108-22 108-23 108-24 Standard Plumbin. Code 1204.1
Chaster 108 Minimum Standards Code• Chaster 108-35 Chaster 54• Chaster 54-3 and fmd
them in coin•fiance as of Jul 25 1995 and that no fine be im•osed at this time. Motion
carried 7-0.
95-98, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-98 referenced the property at 89 Sand
Dollar Key Drive. Officer Braddy said that a Minimum Standard Inspection was completed
on March 2, 1995, and Mr. Harper was given until May 2, 1995 to comply with the violations
of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code;Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: 108-19
Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lixhts
and Outlets;108-22 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Systems: 108-23 General Requirement for the Exterior
and Interior of Structures: "Repair all torn and missing screens. Seal all holes in flooring. (In the rear bathroom
around the bathtub, the floor is very weak;must be re-supported). Install handrails to front and rear steps." 108-24
Sanitation Requirements:Standard Plumbing Code 1204.1 Protection of Potable Water Supply-Backflow:Chapter
108 Minimum Standards Code;Article IV Public Nuisances or Hazards to Public Health, Safety and Welfare;
Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: Chapter 54 Buildinse, Number of:54-3 Display required: responsibility
for postinae; design requirements: "Install 3"house numbers visible from the street." On May 2, 1995 the
property was not in compliance, and on July 7, 1995 an NOCV was sent giving the respondent
until July 17, 1995 to comply. On July 17, 1995 the property remained in non-compliance, and
17
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
an SOV and an NOH were hand delivered to Mr. Harper on July 21, 1995 for this Board
meeting. A re-inspection on July 25, 1995 found the property had come into compliance.
Member Lenko, seconded by Member Chestne_y, moved to fmd Dean Ha I-r, Case No. 95-98,
in non-com s liance of Cha.ter 108• Article II Cha I ters 108-19 108-21 108-22 108-23 108-24
Standard Plumbin. Code 1204.1 Cha•ter 108 Article IV: Chas ter 108-35 Chas ter 54: Chas ter
54-3 as of Jul 17 1995 but in coin.fiance as of Jul 25 1995 and that no fine be assessed
at this time. Motion carried 7-0.
95-99, DEAN HARPER
7/7/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:7/17/95 7/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:7/25/95
7/19/95 SOV 7/21/95 POS - Delivery
Chairman Sills said for the record that there was no one present to represent the case. Code
Enforcement Officer Braddy testified that Case No. 95-99 referenced the property at 68 Sand
Dollar Key Drive. Officer Braddy said that on March 22, 1995 the property was inspected for
Minimum Standard Compliance and the respondent had been given until May 25, 1995 to
comply to the violations of City Code, Chapter 108 Minimum Standards Code; Article II Housing
Minimum Standards Code: 108-19 Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities; "Install two (2)
working smoke detectors to each end of the sleeping area". 108-21 Minimum Requirements for Electrical Lights
and Outlets; A)Receptacle and Fixtures Required; GFI: "Replace all broken receptacles in 1st bedroom. Install
fixture and switch plate covers where missing." B) Stairway Lighting. 108-22 Minimum Requirements for
Electrical Systems;All Electrical Outlets and Fixtures, All Wiring and Equipment shall be installed and maintained
and connected in accordance with NEC 1993: "Enclose the electrical panel box wiring". 108-23 General
Requirement for the Exterior and Interior of Structures:D)Exterior Walls: "Repair/re-support all weak walls in
front bedroom". I) Windows: "Replace all non-operable window;"J)Windows to be Glazed; L)Openable; M)
Exterior Doors;N)Door Frames: "Install hardware to the front door. Repair the rear door to allow access to the
exterior. This door cannot be blocked". 0)Screens: "Install all missing screens and repair all torn screens." P)
Protective Treatment for Wood;Masonry; To ensure water and air tightness: "The wall in the living room where
the a/c is located must be sealed wlfrom the exterior. Daylight can be seen on the sides of the a/c." R) Interior
Floors, walls and ceilings; 1) Floor Rodent proof; 2)Floor surface impervious; "Replace flooring in hallway
where the washing machine is located. There is a large hole where the exterior ground can clearly be seen." T)
Railings for Interior and Exterior Stairs: "Install railing to front and rear steps." 108-24 Sanitation
Requirements: A)Sanitation;B)Cleanliness: "The interior of this mobile home is very nasty. Roaches are found
everywhere. Food left over from months of not cleaning is everywhere. This must be cleaned and maintained in
a sanitary manner." D)Care of Premises: Weeds; Trash;E)Extermination: "Must have an exterminator remove
all the bugs from this mobile home." Article IV Public Nuisances or hazards to Public Health, Safety and
Welfare;Enforcement: 108-35 Public Nuisances: "Clean up all trash and debris in the front yard." Chapter 54
Building, Number of: 54-3 Display required: responsibility for posting;design requirements: "Install 3"house
numbers visible from the street." On May 25, 1995, the property was in non-compliance, and an
NOCV was mailed to Mr. Harper on July 7, 1995, giving him until July 17, 1995 to come into
compliance. On July 17, 1995 the property was still in non-compliance, and an SOV and an
NOH were mailed to Mr. Harper on July 21, 1995. The respondent had complied with Chapters
108-19, 108-21, 108-22, 108-23, 108-35, Article IV Public Nuisances, and Chapter 54. Mr.
Harper had not complied with Chapter 108 Sanitation Requirements, Sanitation Cleanliness A,
B, D, and E. Officer Braddy said that she had been covered in roaches when walking on the
(lb,,. 18
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
premises. Food had been strewn all over the floor. Member Shagner expressed concern about
the children living in these conditions, and asked about notification to HRS. Officer Braddy
said that this had the first time she had been allowed to enter the residence. She also said that
a letter from Donald P. Sluder, Attorney for Dean Harper, Inc. had been presented to the Board,
stating that the tenant had been notified of his responsibility to bring the violations into
compliance or be given the statutory notice to "Quit and Vacate".
Discussion ensued on the uncleanliness at the property. Officer Braddy said that the City could
not cite the tenant as the ordinance under the Minimum Standard Inspection states that the
property will be given 60 days in which to comply, or Code action would take place. Attorney
Cool said that the City may want to look at citing the tenants in certain situations. Vice
Chairman Carlsson seconded b Member Chestne moved to find Dean Ha s-r Case No.
95-99 at 68 Sand Dollar Ke Drive find him in non-corn,liance as of Jul 17 1995 of Cha s ter
108 Minimum Standards Code• Article II Housing Minimum Standards Code: Section 108-19
108-21 108-22, 108-23 D. I. J, M, O, P, R, and T Chaster 108 Minimum Standards Code.
Article IV Public Nuisances: 108-35 Cha I ter 54 Number of: 54-3 and in com.liance as of Jul
25. 1995. also find him in non-corn.liance as of Jul 17 1995 of Article 108-24 A B D and
E and to come into corn'Hance b Au st 1 1995 or be fined '100 a da thereafter. Motion
carried 7-0.
Vice Chairman Carlsson said that he knew the Code Enforcement staff had been overwhelmed,
and Officer Braddy and her colleagues had done an excellent job.
OTHER BUSINESS
VICE CHAIRMAN CARLSSON SECONDED BY MEMBER SHAGNER AT THE RES UEST OF THE CITY
MOVED TO HEAR ITEM E UNDER ARTICLE V - OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE ITEM D. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
95-36, ELIZABETH PEDRICK (81 Siesta Key Court)
3/14/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:3/27/95 4/14/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:4/25/95
4/14/95 SOV 4/18/95 POS - Betty Pedrick
4/25/95 Compliance Order - 5/23/95 or $200 per day thereafter
5/23/95 Affidavit of Non-Compliance 5/23/95 Order Imposing Fine& Lien(to begin 5/24/95)
5/24/95 Affidavit of Compliance($0.00 Fine)
An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board for this case.
95-57, RICHARD &/OR HAZEL M. THIBODEAU (102 Security Circle)
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#P882-518-500
4/25/95 Order of Continuance(5/23/95) 5/5/95 Rec'd Back P882-518-500 - Unclaimed- Does not
5/23/95 Order of Continuance- 6/27/95 reside there.
5/25/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:6/27/95 6/18/95 Proof of Posting
6/27/95 Violation Order 6\27/95 Compliance Order - 7/3/95 or fined $100 a day
,,. 19
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
thereafter.
An Affidavit of Compliance was presented to the Board for this case.
95-73, ED MULCAHY
6/16/95 NOCV - Re-inspection Date:6/19/95 6/19/95 NOH - Board Meeting Date:6/27/95
6/19/95 SOV *Repeat Violation 6/20/95 POS - Mail Cert#P315-759-349 Rec'd 6-20-95
6/27/95 Board Ordered Fine - $250 a day from 6/19/95
Member Chestney, seconded by Vice Chairman Carlsson, moved to issue Order Imposing
Fine and Lien against Ed Mulcahy, Case No. 95-73, referencing 510 Hill Avenue. Motion
carried 7-0.
DISCUSSION ON CODE INTERPRETATIONS
Paul Rosenthal, Ocoee City Attorney, responded to issues that had arisen at the last Board
meeting regarding Case No. 95-57. He said that City Manager Shapiro had asked that he look
at various provisions of the City Code that the Board had discussed at the last meeting and
advise Mr. Shapiro regarding those Code provisions. Providing the members with a copy,
Attorney Rosenthal briefed the Board on the issue and points listed in his memorandum dated
July 25, 1995 to City Manager Shapiro (Attached to these minutes as Exhibit "A").
Mr. Rosenthal gave the Board an overview of what he saw as he had looked at the Code
provisions. In summary, he said that the Board should have a full public discussion of the Code
interpretation issues raised in connection with Case No. 95-57 and the possibility of requesting
that the City Commission replace the Board Attorney. As to the specific Code interpretation
issues, he agreed with the initial concerns raised by Mr. Cool, but disagreed with his final
recommendations to the Board. In order to strengthen the ability of the City to seek enforcement
against property owners, tenants/lessees and vehicle owners, he recommended that the Code be
amended to address some of the concerns initially raised by Mr. Cool. In the future, Attorney
Rosenthal advised that the Board Attorney should be requested to discuss with the Building
Official and City Attorney any enforcement problems experienced by the Board.
Discussion ensued about improvements in Chapter 115 and Chapter 165 in areas where the City
was not citing the Minimum Standards Code. Member Lenko said that Mayor Vandergrift had
recommended that the Code Enforcement Board recommend to the City Commission that they
create a Code of Ordinances Review Board.
Attorney Cool apologized for the confusion at the last meeting, and explained the problem areas
with some of the Code. He said that everyone should understand that this was intended to
clarify the issues that were discussed at the last meeting.
Vice Chairman Carlsson thank the City Attorney Rosenthal for drafting the memorandum and
Attorney Cool, and said that the experience had been an education for all of them.
,,,, 2 0
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
cir July 25, 1995
DISCUSSION REGARDING BOARD COUNSEL
City Attorney Rosenthal explained that a memo relating to Code issues had been signed and
circulated by four (4) members of the Board, that had raised concerns about the matters arising
at the last Board meeting, and suggesting to Mr. Flippen that the City Commission should either
consider retaining a new Board attorney or at least looking into the issues that had been raised
in the memo. There had also been a memo from Mr. Carlsson raising questions regarding the
procedure that was followed.
City Attorney Rosenthal advised the Members about circulating a memorandum addressing any
matter related to Board business, to be signed by more than one person, and cautioned them of
the Sun Shine Law. He said that any of them, as individuals, could address a memorandum to
the Building Official, the City Manager, or any member of City staff.
Having spoken with Mr. Sills, Mr. Cool, and Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Rosenthal said that he had
advised Mr. Shapiro that he would not recommend that the City Commission take any action on
the memorandum, unless there was action taken by the Board at a public forum and that was the
reason the item had been placed on the meeting agenda. The fact of the memorandum did not
prevent the Board from taking action with respect to Board counsel if the majority of the Board
deemed that appropriate. Any action taken is purely advisory to the City Commission. Any
final decision would be up to the City Commission.
Attorney Cool said that he felt that he had done a good job in working with the Board over the
last eight (8) years. He was not happy with the way this issue had been handled by some of the
Board members, and for that reason, he had decided to resign as Attorney for the Board.
Chairman Sills said that he had enjoyed working with Attorney Cool. Vice Chairman
Carlsson said that he had known Attorney Cool for eight (8) years, having been on the Board
as long as Mr. Cool who had been a considerable help to him. Member Shagner said that she
was sorry that it had come to anything like this. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by
Member Sha' er moved that the Board acce,t Mr. Ike Cool's resi•nation as the Cit Code
Attorney, with regret. City Attorney Rosenthal explained that the motion should be directed,
with recommendation, to the City Commission. Vice Chairman Carlsson amended his motion,
and Member Lenko changed the second. Vice Chairman Carlsson, seconded by Member
Lenko moved to recommend that the Ci Commission accept the resignation of Attome Cool,
with regret. Motion carried 6-1. Member Chestney objected and voted "nay". He requested
that Attorney Cool withdraw his resignation.
COMMENTS
City Manager: None
Code Enforcement Officers: None
Police Department: None
cre 21
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
July 25, 1995
BOARD MEMBERS
Member Alexander apologized to Attorney Cool and said that she had gotten involved
unknowingly. Attorney Cool had been a great asset to the Board, and she had enjoyed working
with him. She said that the Board must get a lot more strict on the repeat violators. Discussion
ensued on methods of tracking repeat violators.
Member Chestney: None
Vice Chairman Carlsson said that Mr. Cool's announcement of resignation had caught him by
surprise, and he then thanked him for the eight (8) years of serving the Board. Mr. Carlsson
also thanked the girls and Don on a good job.
Member Shagner said that she was sorry to see Attorney Cool leave. She had been on the
Board almost four years and she will miss him. She said that he had done a lot for the City.
Member Lenko thanked Attorney Cool, and said that she had enjoyed knowing him personally.
Alternate Member Santo spoke in appreciation of the hard work of the Clerk and the Code
Enforcement Officers, Mr. Flippen's time, Mr. Rosenthal, and the City Manager's time at the
meeting. Ms. Santo said that she was new on the Board but it had been nice knowing Attorney
Cool.
Chairman Sills thanked City Attorney Rosenthal for helping (as an advisory) in this situation,
and again thanked Attorney Cool.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
APPROVED:
Attest:
Sherry Seaver, Deputy Clerk Sill s, C irmat r5:Ali9-43
Judie Lewis, Clerk/Stenographer
,,, 2 2
EXHIBIT "A"
•
FOLEY & LARDN ER
III NORTH ORANGE AvENUE. SUITE '800
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32901
-ELEPMONE .4071 423-7656
FACSIMILE 14071 348-1743
TAMPA. FLORIDA MAILING ADDRESS MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN
.:ACK$ONVILL E. FLORIDA POST OFFICE BOX 2193 MADISON. WISCONSIN
-ALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA WASHINGTON. D.C.
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA ORLANDO. FL. 32802-2193 ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS
MEMORANDUM
To: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager
From: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq. , City Attorney
(qcr
Date: July 25, 1995
Re: Code Enforcement Board Issues
This is in response to your memorandum of July 6, 1995,
regarding various Code Enforcement Board issues. In response to
your memorandum, I have reviewed the documents attached thereto and
the applicable provisions of the Ocoee City Code. I have also
spoken with Board Chairman Jim Sills and met with Ike Cool. This
memorandum sets forth the results of my review.
Concerns have been expressed regarding certain verbal opinions
rendered by Board Attorney Ike Cool in connection with the Board's
consideration of Case No. 95-57 at its meeting of June 27, 1995.
The case involved the citation of an absentee property owner for
violations Section 165-3 (junk vehicles) and Section 115-2 (trash)
of the Code. A tenant of the property had previously been cited
for the same violations and found to be in violation of Section
165-3 . In that proceeding the tenant acknowledged ownership of the
junk vehicle.
Mr. Cool initially advised the Board that it could not find
the property owner in violation because the owner of the junk
vehicle had already been found to be in violation. Mr. Cool also
initially indicated that in connection with accumulations of trash
(i) the City could not find the property owner in violation if the
tenant admitted ownership of the trash, and (ii) the City would
need to look to responsibility under the lease to determine the
violation in a landlord-tenant situation. Later in the meeting,
Mr. Cool indicated he believed that the junk vehicle was on public
property when providing his opinion and that the City could proceed
against the property owner if the tenant's vehicle was located on
private property. His indicated rationale was the need to have a
nexus between the violation and the property and that a sufficient
nexus existed in Case No. 95-57.
The Board then proceeded to find the property owner in
violation of Section 165-3 for having an untagged car on the
property. After a somewhat confusing discussion, the Board found
the property owner in violation of Section 115-2 as of 4/14/95, but
in compliance on 6/27/95 as to the trash originally cited.
Finally, questions were also raised regarding enforcement issues
related to mobile homes, but I could not identify a clear response
in the transcript of the meeting.
Mr. Cool's advise led four Board members to sign a memorandum
dated June 28, 1995 to Don Flippen requesting that the City
Commission consider replacing the Board Attorney or, at least, seek
an independent legal opinion. In a memorandum dated July 4, 1995,
Mr. Carlsson raised concerns regarding compliance with Board policy
and the Sunshine Law.
In my opinion, the City would have difficulty defending the
actions taken in Case No. 95-57 if an appeal were brought. The
reason for my opinion is as follows: (i) as to the junk vehicle,
the provisions of Sections 165-3 and 165-7 make it difficult to
cite the property owner when direct contact is made with the owner
of the vehicle and a person other than the property owner admits to
keeping the vehicle on private property, and (ii) as to trash, the
provisions of Section 115-3 should have been cited, rather than
Section 115-2, in order to cite a property owner. I concur with
the initial concerns raised by Mr. Cool, but disagree with his
final recommendations to the Board. Also, I do not agree with Mr.
Cool's conclusion that ownership of the trash or the terms of a
landlord-tenant lease are relevant to the determination of a Code
violation. Further, I do not agree that the determination of a
"nexus" between a junk vehicle and the real property provides a
basis for finding a violation of Section 165-3. Set forth below is
the basis for my opinion.
Junk Vehicles. Chapter 165 of the Code regulates junk and
abandoned vehicles. Section 165-3.A of the Code provides as
follows:
"No person shall keep any abandoned or junk vehicle on
any public or anv private property within the corporate
limits of the city, except on private property as
provided in Section 165-5. " (Emphasis added]
This Code provision provides a basis for citing the owner of the
junk vehicle, the owner of the private property on which the junk
vehicle is located, and, if applicable, the lessee of the private
property if such person is "keeping" a junk vehicle on such
property. Section 165-3.A must also be read in conjunction with
Section 165.7 which requires that the Code Enforcement Officer
attempt to make direct contact with the Property owner or tenant
(as opposed to property owner and/or tenant) where the abandoned or
junk vehicle is located and "issue said person a notice to remove
2
the vehicle" . The Code Enforcement Officer also has the option to
make contact with the owner of the vehicle. In such case, Section
165-7 then provides as follows:
"If direct contact is not made with the property owner
or owner of the vehicle, the property owner shall be
notified in compliance with Section 7-6H of Chapter 7 of
the Code. " [Emphasis added]
It is my opinion that if contact is made with the owner of the
vehicle and a person other than the property owner admits to
keeping the vehicle on private property, then there does not appear
to be a strong basis to cite the property owner for a violation of
Section 165-3.A. I agree with Mr. Cool's initial conclusion and
disagree with the reasons indicated for changing that opinion.
However, I have also concluded that the Code provisions do not
clearly address these circumstances and that Section 165-7 is
difficult to apply in these circumstances.
If the City wants to cite the owner of property on which a
junk vehicle is located, notwithstanding the fact that the City has
determined that the property owner does not own the junk vehicle
and is not personally "keeping" the vehicle on his property, then
Section 165-7 of the Code should be amended and the following
should be added to Section 165-3 :
"No person shall permit any abandoned or junk vehicle to
be kept on private property owned, rented, leased or
controlled by such person. "
This is similar to the terminology used for excessive weed and
grass growth and would provide a basis to cite the property owner,
the tenant and the owner of the junk vehicle.
Dummina of Trash. Section 115-2 of the Code provides as
follows:
"No person shall dump or cause to be dumped or place or
cause to be placed on any lands or premises within the
city any nuisance and public menace to public health,
safety and welfare". [Emphasis added]
The above Code provision is directed towards the person who creates
the nuisance and menace to public health, safety and welfare (i.e.
the person who dumps the trash) and not, towards the owner of the
property on which the nuisance or menace is placed. Section 115-3
of the Code is directed towards the owner of the property on which
the nuisance or menace (i.e. , trash) is located. No express Code
provision allows a tenant or lessee to be cited for accumulation of
trash unless it can be shown that they dumped or caused the trash
to be dumped on the leased property. In my opinion, in order to
prosecute a person for a violation of Section 115-2 the City should
3
(111,
show that such person dumped or caused the trash to be dumped on
the property. A prosecution under Section 115-3 only requires the
City show that the cited person owns the property and has allowed
trash to be dumped on such property and has failed to remove the
trash after notice from the City.
In connection with Case No. 95-57, I have noted that the only
Section 115-2 was cited. In the future, property owners should
also be cited under Section 115-3. This conclusion is unrelated to
the ownership of the trash or the lease terms addressing
maintenance of leased property. In Case No. 95-57 it appears from
the record that the trash was not placed on the property by the
absentee owner and therefore, in my opinion, there does not appear
to be a basis to find a violation.
In order to broadened the scope of Chapter 115 and eliminate
the need for determining who placed the trash on the property or
who owns the trash, it is recommended that the following be added
to Section 115-3:
"No person shall permit any nuisance and menace to public
health, safety, and welfare to be maintained or continued
on property owned, rented, leased or controlled by such
person".
Again, the above terminology is similar to the Code provisions
firr relating to excessive weeds and grass.
Mobile Homes. Additionally, several Board members raised
questions regarding how the situation in Case No. 95-57 differs
from a mobile ' home with broken windows. With respect to the
enforcement of Chapter 115 and 165, there is no difference between
property with a permanent structure and property with a mobile
home. However, proper citation to Section 115-3 should allow
enforcement against owners of property on which a mobile home is
located who allow the continuation of nuisance and menace to
public, health, safety and welfare.
Minimum Standards Code. It should also be noted that Chapter
108, the Minimum Standards Code, provides opportunities for Code
enforcement. Section 108-3 defines "owner" to include the fee
title owner to the real property and/or the holder of title to a
mobile home and/or the person having charge, care or control over
any structure, including mobile homes, as owner, lessee, or as an
authorized agent. All such persons are jointly and severally
liable. Also, Section 108.27 of the Code makes both the owner of
the mobile home and the owner of the land liable for violations.
For example, Section 108-24.D of the Code provides as follows:
"It shall be the duty and responsibility of every such
owner and occupant to keep the premises of such
residential property clean and to remove from the
4
(11. premises all such abandoned items listed above. . . upon
notice pursuant to this chapter. "
Abandoned motor vehicles and trash are specifically referenced in
Section 108-24.D. I would suggest that the City revisit the
opportunity to cite violations under Chapter 108 in addition to
other Code provisions.
Sunshine Law. Finally, concerns have been raised regarding
compliance with Board policy and the Sunshine Law. I concur with
those concerns. Based upon my review of the transcript in Case No.
95-57, it does not appear that the Board discussed at the meeting
the possibility of requesting that the City Commission replace the
Board Attorney. To the best of my knowledge, such action has not
been discussed at a public meeting of the Board. As a general
statement, the Board and its individual members cannot take action
or recommend that the City Commission take action by circulation of
a memorandum signed by two or more Board members. The only way to
cure the effects of the memorandum is to take final action in the
Sunshine and for such action to be more than ceremonial acceptance
of decisions reached out of the Sunshine. In order to assure full
compliance with Board policy and the Sunshine Law, it is my
recommendation that the City Commission take no action on this
matter unless and until it receives a recommendation from the Board
which is taken at a public meeting after full discussion and an
opportunity for the Board Attorney to present his views on the
4111, subject. At my request, Chairman Sills and Mr. Flippen have placed
this item on the agenda for consideration at the July 25, 1995
meeting of the Board.
In summary, the Board should have a full public discussion of
the Code interpretation issues raised in connection with Case No.
95-57 and the possibility of requesting that the City Commission
replace the Board Attorney. As to the specific Code interpretation
issues, I agree with the initial concerns raised by Mr. Cool, but
disagree with his final recommendations to the Board. In order to
strengthen the ability of the City to seek enforcement against
property owners, tenants/lessees and vehicle owners, I recommend
that the Code be amended to address some of the concerns initially
raised by Mr. Cool. In the future, the Board Attorney should be
requested to discuss with the Building Official and City Attorney
any enforcement problems experienced by the Board.
PER:dcb
cc: S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor
City Commission
Code Enforcement Board
Ike Cool, Code Enforcement Board Attorney
Don Flippen, Building Official
C.NWPS DOCSNOCOOMEMOS END(.'HOLZA17RlASIDE18Q7(IPF1aii
5