Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 8D_1/16/1992 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA 044 At; w" a BUILDING DEPARTMENT ✓�Q 4*.i�F �11� Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive N1 `f�' AlW,74 • Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 . ®�®®1 co. � FAX: (407) 575-6203 414r4 N. 3 MEMORANDUM: TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager ^' FROM: Scott D. Ladd, Building Official DATE: January 10, 1992 SUBJECT: Results of Code Enforcement Board Meeting of 1-7-92 Tom, attached is a copy of the section of minutes for the above subject meeting with regard to the Board action taken on the Siegels. As you can see from the minutes, the Board recommended the Village Attorney proceed with foreclosure on the liens and also recommended that the Village Council consider seeking iniunctive relief. You may want to place this Board recommendation on an upcoming agenda for discussion and direction by the Village Council. • • • SDL/jms Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes January 7, 199E Pegs 4 Boardmember Goldsbury`moved to dismiss Case No. 92-01, without prejudice, and that the Board retain jurisdiction to revisit -this case if compliance is not met. Vice Chairman Brienza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: William Frank - for Paul Brienza for Tim Goldsbury - for William Treaoy - for Gordon Ritter - for Mitch Millar - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. VII. PRESENTATION OP NEW CASES TO SET FOR HEARING There were no new cases to be set for hearing. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 91-05 and 91-08: P.A. & Hattie I, Siegel, 498 Dover Road, Tequesta. Consideration to Authorize the Village Attorney to Foreclose on Liens. Attorney aurgens explained to the Board that they had five options in making their decision; 1. Entertain a motion to recommend that the Village Attorney foreclose and execute the lien currently on the property, and for the Board to recommend to the Village Council to seek court relief through mandatory injunction to address the on-going violation/ 2 . Pursue the lien option only; 3. Not pursue the lien, but pursue Circuit Court action to bring the property up to Code/ 4. Do nothing. Defer/ or Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes January 7, 1992 Page s 5. Entertain a motion ,to defer for one month, recommending that the Village Attorney write to the property owners informing them they have until the next Cods Enforcement Board meeting to either satisfy the lien problem and address what has to be corrected to meet compliance, or the Village will execute on the lien and take appropriate court action. The CEO explained that much correspondence has already taken place between the Village and the property owners. The property owners contend that due process of law has not been satisfied and that they are not in violation of Village Codes. Boardmember Treacy moved that the Board recommend that the Village Attorney foreclose and execute the lien currently on the property, and that the Board to recommend to the Village Council to seek court relief through mandatory injunction to address the on-going violation. There was no second. A ox Boardmember Ritter asked�foreclosd and execution of a lien is handled. Attorney 3urgens explained that the Village would get a Judgment against the property giving the Village the ability to foreclose. Sometimes by filing foreclosure and pursing a lien that is accruing on a property, property owners will have a change of mind and address the problem, at which time settlement out of court may be possible. In this case, in order for the Village to collect the fine which has accrued, it is necessary to go to court and get an Order to collect those monies. The Order will also award attorneys fees and court costs which will also be paid by the alleged violator. The other matter to be seriously considered is the recommendation to the Village Council that they entertain the idea of going for Circuit Court injunctive relief. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes January 7, 1992 Page 6 Boardmember Ritter moved that the Board recommend that the Village Attorney pursue the foreclosure action to attempt to collect on the lien and that the Board also recommend that the Village Council consider appropriate court action to attempt to bring the property into compliance with Village Codes. Vice Chairman Brienza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: William Frank for Paul Brienza - for Tim Goldsbury - for William Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Mitch Miller - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. IX. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters before the Board. iraisich iir,k 0066. 471 *,,, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA .I1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT .., . �11..,,, t, �9r Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive `4c�' c. + Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 FAX: (407) 575-6203 MEMORANDUM: TO: Code Enforcement Board Members FROM: Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board Sok DATE: December 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Agenda Item VIII - Code Enforcement Board Liens Case 91-05 and Case 91-08 This matter has been placed on the agenda pursuant to F.S . 162.09 and Village of Tequesta Ordinance No. 416 which allow for the Code Enforcement Board to authorize the Village Attorney to foreclose on liens after three months from the filing of any such lien. In both of these cases, liens were effectively filed on October 2, 1991 . Three months will expire on January 2, 1992, at which time, total fines of $31, 100. 00 will have accumulated. In each case the violation still exist, the fine continues to run at $100.00/day, and it is not anticipated that the property owners intend to comply. You should be advised that in an action to foreclose on a lien the prevailing party is entitled to recover all cost, including a reasonable attorney's fee that it incurs in the foreclosure. It appears that, from the stance that has been taken by the property owner, this foreclosure will be contested. Additionally, the act of foreclosure will not serve to alleviate the violations except to the extent that it may encourage the property owner to come into compliance or in the event the the action leads to the property being sold to a new party who will properly maintain the property. Another available option to the Village is to seek a mandatory injunction against the property owner to have the circuit court require them to bring the property into compliance with Village Codes. Seeking this route would not preclude the Village from also moving forward with a foreclosure action, however, it should be emphasized that the Board's role is limited to authorizing the foreclosure and does not include authorizing seeking a 'mandatory injunction. SDL/sak cc: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager John C. Randolph, Village Attorney JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & ` - I4•. , '. A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS \ FLAOLER CENTER TOWER 506 SOUTH FLAOLER DRIVE S \f, ELEVENTH FLOOR •cs4. 10, � I LARRY B ALEXANDER MARK S.KLEINFELD P.O.DRAWER E A HENRY P.LIUEHTHAL. VINCENT J ALTINO MICHAEL T.KRANZ WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33402. 475 y G 1502•1 STEPHEN J AUCAMP JOHN M. I ROOK p, 1 ARRY ALLISON JOHNSTON T.:FORGE H BAILEY JOHN BLAIR MOCRACKEN (407)859-3000 co ��W �, 1 J KEVIN C.BEUTTENMULLER SCOTT L.MoMUILEN A MICHAEL D BROWN PAMELA A.McNIERNEY FAX (407)532.1454 _,A' `G4 A.BRUCE JONES RUTH P CLEMENTS TIMOTHY E.MONAGHAN ` SCOTT M.COLTON OUT RABIDEAU 190.-1p9 JOYCE A.CONWAY JOHN C.RANDOLPH �-'/ �� PAUL C.WOLFE MARGARET L.COOPER PAULA REVENE '� BYRON R.CORNWELL ANDREW ROSS �•r^I_ 1933•1991 REBECCA 0.DOANE STEVEN J.ROTHMAN 'V I 111 ` •RETIRED CHRISTOPHER S.DUKE PETER A.SACHS WRITER'S DIRECT LINE: MARTIN FLANAGAN JOEL T.STRAWN WILLIAM A.Farm LORI E HANDELSMAN SIDNEY A.STUBBS,JR. SCOTT O.HAWKINS ALLEN R.TOMUNSON OTHER LOCATION THORNTON M.HENRY JOHN S.TRIMPER PETERS.HOLTON MICHAEL P.WALSH SI N.E.FOURTH AVE. J A JUROENS H.ADAMS WEAVER OELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA f9N7 December 16, 1991 Mr. Thomas G. Bradford Village Manager Village of Tequesta Post Office Box 3273 Tequesta, Florida 33469 RE: Village of Tequesta/Wilburt A. Siegel 498 Dover Road Our File No. 13153. 1 Dear Tom: . You have asked that I prepare a list of options available to. the ' Village relating to the situation at 498 Dover Road. The options, '. - as I see them, are as follows: 1. In the . event the property is now in compliance with Village ...` Codes, there is no present action to be taken. This,-.however;<= .;:: does not preclude the Village from foreclosing . on 'the ie „�E which`has been accumulating against this property as'.a re'stYlt.r4, . of the Code Enforcement Board violation. The Village:::*ay:r�= ; _.r- foreclose on this -lien within three months of its filing `A� - Please be advised that pursuant to state - statutes and- the ,k�, FX_. Village ordinance, the Village may not foreclose a ie Eton i real property which is homestead. Further, you .shou3y ��be�' advised that in an action to foreclose on a lien the14 :W. prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs, ;includi;ng,. -, • a • reasonable attorney's fee, that it incurs • foreclosure. It appears from the stance that has been.takenT_ by the property owner that this foreclosure will be contested.',7'E:,- _. Mr. Thomas G. Bradford December 16, 1991 Page 2 2 . The act of foreclosure will not serve to alleviate conditions which currently exist at the property except to the extent that it may encourage the current property owner to come into compliance or in the event the foreclosure leads to the property being sold to another who will properly maintain the property. Therefore, if indeed there still exists a violation of the Village Codes and if said violation is one which can be corrected by the Village entering the property pursuant to Ordinance No. 429, the Village may act pursuant to the terms of such ordinance to correct ,that condition. This may be done in addition to the foreclosure proceedings and the property may be liened for the costs incurred by the Village in correcting the problem. In the event this method is chosen, the Village should be aware that the Siegels have indicated that the Village would be unlawfully trespassing on their property. Therefore, in addition to the possibility that the Siegels will challenge the foreclosure action, it appears, at least from their statements, that the Siegels may also challenge the Village as to its right to come onto their property to correct a violation of Village Codes. In considering this option, the Village should take into consideration that action pursuant to Ordinance No. 429 will not result in alleviating the structural violation which has alleged to exist on the property. That violation will continue to accumulate a fine until removed or the Village may force its removal by appropriate court action further described in Paragraph 3 below. 3 . In the event the Village feels that a nuisance exists on the property and that this nuisance is one which is a public nuisance for reasons of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Village, the Village may seek a mandatory injunction against the Siegels to have the court . require the Siegels to bring the property into __ compliance with Village Codes. This method is one which could be chosen as an alternative to taking action undermOrdiriaice 429. In that same action, the Village could seek :the:removal ., of the alleged structural violation which the Segels,: have = failed to remove. Seeking this route would not "preclude,yt•.lie :`:`y' Village from also moving forward with a foreclosure-_act on JONES , FOSTER , JOHNSTON & STUBBS , P . A . Mr. Thomas G. Bradford December 16, 1991 Page 3 Considerations relating to this property have been long and involved. The Code Enforcement Officer has the best first hand information relating to the history of this property and his input should be considered in whatever route is chosen to be taken by the Village. I would be happy to provide any more information which you may desire in this regard. Sincerel hn C. Randolph JCR/ssm JONES , FOSTER , JOHNSTON & STUBBS , P . A .