HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 5D_4/12/1990 . I I)) i v' i;_ VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA :•.`{' ' Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ='-:i��� ti Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 •''; FAX: (407)575-6203 ' i3 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 6 , 1 9 9 0 I . The Tequesta Village Code Enforcement Board held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Tuesday, February 6, 1990. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 P.M. by Chairman William Frank. Board members present were: William Frank, Dr. Charles Foelsch, Paul Brienza, William Sharpless, William Treacy, Timothy Goldsbury and Gordon Ritter. Clerk of the Board, Scott D. Ladd, and Code Enforcement Officer, Steve Kennedy were present. Also in attendance was Tim Monaghan, Esq. , sitting in for Village Attorney, John C. Randolph, Esquire. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice-Chairman Goldsbury moved to modify Agenda, allowing Mayor Capretta to address the Board as the first item of business. Boardmember Sharpless seconded that motion. The vote was: Chairman William Frank - for Dr. Charles Foelsch, Jr. - for Tim Goldsbury - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. III . Mayor Capretta addressed the Board, formally welcoming them as a Code Enforcement Board, and expressing the Village's appreciation for their service on that Board. The Mayor reminded.othe .Board':t.tiat in their duties of enforcing the Village Codes, they=.should always feel free to approach the Village Council about the need to modify any of . those Codes. He encouraged the Board to give the Council "feedback", perhaps reporting quarterly, regarding Code Enforcement Board ,•activities. . Mayor Capretta gave the Board some comparisons for guidelines of their operations:. i.e.', Boynton Beach Code Enforcement Board and Delray Beach Code Enforcement Board. He shared with the Board that though Boynton Beech has. a good Code �L Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 2 Enforcement program and were very active, they got few results. Delray Beach Code Enforcement Board, on the other hand, has been much more effective. The difference between the two is ' that Delray understands the purpose of Code Enforcement, i .e. , get results and get them quickly. Boynton Beach has problems with getting the job done. For example, if Boynton Beach has a problem with someone not cutting the grass according to their Codes, they have difficulty collecting any fines they impose and the grass problem is not resolved. Delray Beach, having the same problem, may have the same difficulty collecting fines imposed, but in the meantime takes the initiative to hire someone to cut the grass, thereby alleviating some of the problem. Mayor Capretta reiterated that the object of the Code Enforcement Board is to "get results" . He also encouraged the Board to clean up the Code Enforcement cases as soon as possible, allowing little to no backlog. Mayor Capretta also reminded the Board they need to be sure of who the owner of sites in violation are before citing a violation. IV. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES A) Code Enforcement Board Meeting of January 16, 1990: Boardmmember Treacy moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Boardmember Sharpless seconded that motion. The vote was: Chairman William Frank - for Dr. Charles Foelsch, Jr. for Tin Goldsbury - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and the Minutes were adopted as submitted. ; Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 3 • V. PUBLIC HEARING A) Attorney Monaghan outlined for the Board the Public Hearing Procedures and presented the Board with a typewritten list of those procedures (see attached) . The Attorney suggested to the Board they outline at each meeting for those in attendance the procedures the Board will be following, since most of those appearing before the Board because of a violation may feel a bit intimidated. This helps to put those in attendance at ease. B) Swearing In of Code Enforcement Officer: The Clerk of the Board swore in Steve Kennedy, Code Enforcement Officer. C) Case No. 90-001 , Bobby Rubino dlbJa Jupiter's Place For Ribs, 243 U.S. Highway One, South: Violation of Ordinance # 201 , Section 11-25 of the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances, engaging in business without the required occupational license. Code Enforcement Officer, Steve Kennedy, explained a re-issue of Notice of Violation had taken place, and on January 18, 1990 compliance was achieved, in that the Occupational License Fee was paid, in addition to a 25% late fee as a penalty. Boardmember Foelsch moved that no further action be taken on case no. 90-001 . Boardmember Sharpless seconded that motion. The vote was: Chairman William Frank- for Dr. Charles Foelsch, Jr. for Tim Goldsbury for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. • Code Enforcement Board _ Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 4 D) Case No. 90-002, Pantlin & Associates d/b/a County Line Plaza, 500 U.S. Highway One, North: Violation of Ordinance # 361 , Section III, of the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances, failure to comply with Village Ordinance requiring screening of all dumpsters. Code Enforcement Officer Kennedy explained the intent of Ordinance #361, which is a beautification Ordinance to screen dumpsters from off-premise view. Mr. Kennedy presented, for the Board's review, a videotape of the above-referenced site in violation. Mr. Kennedy pointed out that this is clearly a violation of Ordinance #361 , and that no representatives from Pantlin & Associates was in attendance ' this evening. A response, dated January 22, 1990, was received from Pantlin k Associates regarding the Notice of Violation, proof that Notice was received. Mr. Kennedy recommended that if compliance is not achieved within 21 days from the date of Official Notice, a $25.00 per day fine would be appropriate, since this violation is not a life-safety matter. BRIENZA: Did you speak to anyone there? OFFICER: I telephoned Pantlin & Associates today at their West Palm Beach Office, and talked with the secretary there, to inquire if anyone would be in attendance this evening at this hearing. I left a message, to which there was no response. SHARPLESS: Was there any correspondence before this item appeared on the Agenda? OFFICER: I was not the original Officer who filed a Notice of Violation. There are copies of letters in the file written to Pantlin & Associates from the original Officer, one of which is dated November 27, 1989. This letter was signed for receipt by Pantlin & Associates on November 28, 1989. The letter clearly states the violation and is proof Pantlin & Associates have been aware of the violation for some time. There is a copy of another letter in the file regarding the same issue dated June 29, 1989. TREACY: Is there a Manager or caretaker on the premises of the facility at the violation site? Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 5 OFFICER: I talked with the man at Bressler's Ice Cream in an attempt to discover who I could contact about this problem. He gave me the same Pantlin . & Associates telephone number I have used in the past. I don't believe there is an on-site Management Office. SHARPLESS: You have telephoned them? OFFICER: I telephoned them today, and previous phone calls have been made to them. BRIENZA: Are the dumpsters normally put in by the owner of the facility or by the tenants? OFFICER: I would assume they are contracted by the tenants. However, I am not certain. I don't believe the Code addresses who is responsible for installing the dumpsters, only that they need to be screened. SHARPLESS: Why do you recommend a $25.00/day fine? Will that really get their attention if, in the past, they have ignored Notices of Violation? OFFICER: I chose $25 .00/day because I feel higher fines should be reserved for more safety or life-threatening violations. The Board has the power to set whatever fine they wish - $25.00/day is merely my recommendation. TREACY: Suppose compliance is not achieved after 21 days. Is the fine still $25.00? ATTORNEY: That fine is a daily fine - $25.00/day will accrue after the 21-day deadline. FOELSCH: Is there any way the Code might say these must be screened on three sides, but if they are screened on two ends, that suffices? Is there any screening from the point of view of the beautification side? OFFICER: As I understand the Ordinance, the dumpsters have to be screened on three sides, with the fourth side left open for access by the sanitation company. L_� Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 6 ATTORNEY: Doesn' t it say, three-side screening such that it is not visible from public view? In order to comply with the screening "from public view from public streets" it is necessary to screen on three sides, one of those sides being the side that faces the street. OFFICER: The Code says "to be reasonably accessible for trash collection by sanitation vehicles" . Given the confines of the arrangement of the buildings, some very large vehicles may be required to take a 90 degree turn in a very confined area. That's why the Ordinance provides for 'reasonable' access. CLERK: There are methods by which the applicant can screen properly under the Ordinance. It may be the dumpsters may have to be relocated away from the back of the building, actually facing internally to the center, with the screening behind it, as with the one located behind Winn-Dixie. That could be called a properly screened area. Approach could be made from interior, to the rear parking lot, and it effectuates screening on three sides from all public right-of- ways. What has happened is that the tenants have simply contracted for a dumpster which merely got dumped at their back door to the path of least resistance to remove trash from the stores. They have also been placed in required parking spaces. The Plaza is currently non-conforming concerning parking spaces - they are operating under a variance for parking. Dumpsters cannot be placed in a parking space. These are issues that will have to be resolved when permit is applied for at the Building Department. There are designated locations for the dumpsters. RITTER: Mayor Capretta suggested the Board should strive for results. It appears we are dealing with a bureaucracy and we can't really get an individual's attention at Pantlin & Associates. OFFICER: By introducing to you these letters in the file with their dates, back as far as June, 1989, there is proof Pantlin & Associates has been aware of the violation for 6-7 months. There is also a letter from Mark Pantlin in the file dated June 29, 1989, acknowledging the problem. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 7 RITTER: Is it possible to ask the sanitation company to remove the dumpsters since they are in violation? ATTORNEY: It is not clear to me that the Board would have the authority to order the dumpster contractor to remove the dumpster. That would be intereferance with a contractural relationship. I would not advise you to interefere with that relationship. The Board does not want to remove dumpsters - only have them screened. The violation is one of the owner, not the tenant. GOLDSBURY: Is the owner aware that he needs a permit? CLERK: Once discussions for evidence are closed, and discussion is moved to the Board, I can clear that up for you. SHARPLESS: Can the Code Enforcement Officer read the letter he was referring to? OFFICER: Sure. The letter I referred to is dated June 20, 1989, signed by Mark Pantlin, and addressed to the Village of Tequesta to the attention of Eugene Hoover, the former Code Enforcement Officer. It reads as follows: "Your June 16, 1989 letter was received and acknowledged. Please be advised that I will authorize my contractor to install the screens per your letter and all approvals. Upon completion I will advise you accordingly. " Discussions for evidence were closed and discussions were moved to the Board for further review. CLERK: The Building Department has been working for a long time with Mr. Pantlin, and numerous telephone conversations have taken place with him. This letter which was just read is acknowledgement of a violation of a long time ago. He was going to have a contractor come in, properly screen the dumpsters, yet nothing happened. Hence, subsequent letters and telephone calls occurred which were unanswered. County Line Plaza is presently in violation of their Site Plan Approval, in that certain dumpster locations appear on the Site Plan to receive the two yard dumpsters. Those are there, and filled. Now, additional dumpsters are being required by the tenants, and everyone wants them at their 1 Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 8 back door. What is hoped to be accomplished by the fine and declaration is to force the owner to come to the Building Department to discuss ramifications. The Building Department will then have to get into much deliberation, which the Code Enforcement Board will not have to be involved in, due to the fact of the parking spaces being utilized by dumpsters, the proper location of dumpsters, additional dumpsters that need to be acquired, etc. A fine of $25 .00/day accumulating daily should force someone to come in and sit down with us to resolve the issue. CHAIRMAN: Do you feel this avoidance is intentional.? ATTORNEY: In a sense it is intentional. They have been Noticed, they have acknowledged they are in violation, yet now they are not returning calls, etc. CLERK: Except, in the early days of this issue , he dd respond. At the time , he had a contractor on site who was doing renovations for the stores and was going to utilize that contractor to do the screening. Nothing was ever heard again about it . SHARPLESS: I believe this does constitute a violation. I believe it is clear from the videotape that these dumpsters are not screened on three sides and not screened from public view. We have seen Ordinance * 361, and it is clear that compliance is not being met. It is also clear the owner is responsible. Boardmember Treacy moved to approve the recommendation of the Code Enforcement Officer of a $25.00 per day fine to ensue if compliance is not achieved 21 days from date of Notice. Boardmember Sharpless seconded that motion. The vote was: Chairman William Frank - for ' Dr. Charles Foelsch, Jr. for Tim Goldsbury - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. • Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 9 For the Record, the Clerk noted that on page 1196 of the Code of Ordinances Book, there is a new section P, "Location and Screening of Dumpsters" . TREACY: This Ordinance mentions gates on enclosures. Are those required? CLERK: Gates or doors are not required. But, if they are installed, they must meet the requirements of the franchise provider and be closed when not in use. The type of gate, swing, and clearances must meet the franchise opening sizes as requested by the sanitation company. The Building Department has a drawing of that. If a gate is not provided, then there is only the requirement to screen on three sides, and specifically from public view. VI. PRESENTATION OF NEW CASES TO SET FOR HEARINGS There were no new cases to set for hearing. VII. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business . 7 Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 10 VIII . ANY OTHER MATTERS Boardmember Brienza asked the Attorney if the Board was obligated to publish their hearing notices. The Attorney answered he did not believe so - he had not done that in the past. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST: 3e(Wr 424t& Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: 2-Z'•90 •e PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD I . Chairman Calls Public Hearing to Order II . Attorney Outlines Public Hearing Procedures for Audience III . Swear In Village Code Enforcement Officer (By Clerk of the Board) Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you will present tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? IV. Presentation of Cases (Follow this procedure for each case on the Agenda) Item 1. Clerk reads Statement of Violation(s) and Request for Hearing. Item 2. Code Enforcement Officer presents case (cites allegations, ordinance violated and presents evidence. (video tape, photos, maps, etc. ) Item 3. Cross-Examination (questions), if any, of Code Enforcement Officer by property owner. Item 4 . Swear in property owner and property owner 's witnesses, if any. (by the Clerk of the Board) Item 5. Property owner presents his position and witnesses, if any. Item 6. Cross-examination of property owner and witnesses by Code Enforcement Officer. Item 7 . Recommendations of Code Enforcement Officer regarding deadline for compliance and fine for noncompliance if Board determines a violation. Item 8. Questions of Code Enforcement Officer and property owners by Board and opportunity for property owner to address proposed fine and deadline for compliance. Item 9. Chairman closes presentation of evidence. V. Deliberation by 'Code Enforcement Board. This is the opportunity for the Board to discuss the evidence and recommendations . Any motion made to either find a violation to exist or that one does not exist should include reasons to support the decision. If a violation is found, the motion should also include a date certain for compliance and the amount of the fine, if any, up to $250.00 per day, if deadline is not met. VI . Announce Decision as an Oral Order (Chairman Explains the motion to the property owner) NOTE: Code Enforcement Officer should insure that a timely written order is subsequently issued.