Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7B_1/13/2000 !� ooLIcE TEQUESTA POLICE DEPARTMENT J//r e 357 Tequesta Drive Post Office Box 3273 Stephen J. Allison ` ;2 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 p �� Chief of Police Phone: (561) 575-6210 Fax: (561) 575-6218 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 1999 PRESENT: Special Master Alan J. Ruff; Code Enforcement Officer Police Sgt. John Irovando, Attorney for the Village of Tequesta Betty Resch, Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Meeting was called to order at 11:10 A.M. A. Approval of Minutes None B. Fine Imposition Hearings: None C. Violation Hearings: Case No. 980000018198 W.A. & Hattie I. Siegel 498 Dover Road Tequesta, Florida 33469 Legal: JUPITER IN THE PINES SEC B LT 6 BLK 15 60-42-40-25-06-015-0060 Nature of Violation: Violation of Code of Ordinances of the • SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 12, 1999 Page 2 Village of Tequesta, Florida, Chapter 10, Health and Sanitation, Article II. Weeds, Undergrowth and Other Plant Life, Sec. 10-17, Excessive Accumulation Prohibited; Declared a Public Nuisance., Pages No. 581, 582. Violation of Code of Ordinances of the Village of Tequesta, Florida, Chapter 10, Health and Sanitation, Article II. Weeds, Undergrowth, and Other Plant Life, Sec. 10-18. Unlawful growth enumerated. (B), pages No. 582, 583. Violation of Code of Ordinances of the Village of Tequesta, Florida, Chapter 6, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article V. Housing, Sec. 6-81. Code- Adopted. Sec. 6-82. Same Amendments, pages No. 365, 366. (101.6 Maintenance; 307.4 Care of Premise). Respondents W. A. And Hattie I. Siegel were not present at the hearing. Betty Resch, Attorney for the Village, announced she was present to represent the Village in Code Enforcement Case 9818198, 498 Dover Road, and that the owners of the property were W. A. and Hattie I. Siegel. Sgt. Irovando telephoned Adam Falcon, the attorney for W. A. and Hattie I. Siegel, at his Chicago, Illinois number, and got his voice mail. Special Master Ruff left a message stating he had begun the hearing and was anxious for Attorney Falcon to join by telephone, and asked Mr. Falcon to call back as soon as possible. Special Master Ruff inquired whether Attorney Resch had had any indication that Attorney Falcon would not be available by phone, to which Attorney Resch responded she had spoken to Attorney Falcon early that morning, and left a message for him the previous day. Attorney Resch explained there had been a hearing in Circuit Court scheduled for 8:45 and her message had been for him to call at 10 a.m. for today's hearing. Attorney Falcon had left a message for Attorney Resch the previous evening stating in fact the hearing in Circuit Court-- on the Village's motion to dismiss his complaint for declaratory relief--was SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 12, 1999 Page 3 scheduled for 10 a.m. today--the same time as this hearing, which Mr. Falcon had asserted was the only court hearing time available to Judge Kathy Cole. Attorney Resch reported that she had attended the court hearing, that the Village of Tequesta and Mr. and Mrs. Siegel had been present at the court hearing, and that Mr. Falcon was going to testify by telephone. That hearing was postponed to 3:30 p.m. that afternoon. Attorney Resch reported Mr. Falcon had stated to \ ' her on the telephone that he was in fact not going to participate in the . C OC- hearing based on his theory there was no jurisdiction--unless the court granted the Village's motion to dismiss his complaint, and then he would participate. Attorney Resch reported she had informed Mr. Falcon that because of the conflicting time of the court hearing and this special master code enforcement hearing, this hearing had been re-scheduled for 11 a.m., as well as the services of the Special Master and the witnesses, and Mr. Falcon had been informed that Attorney Resch would be calling him at 11:00 a.m. Attorney Resch stated that Mr. Falcon and the Siegels were aware of this hearing and if Mr. Falcon felt this hearing should not go forward that was the decision of the Special Master. Attorney Resch stated she had every witness present, that this was a code enforcement matter, and through her experience with code enforcement matters it was her belief that Mr. Falcon's motion to have this turned into a Circuit court case would be unsuccessful. Attorney Resch stated that this was a code enforcement case and the Village of Tequesta had the authority to rule on code enforcement cases. Attorney Resch stated it was the position of the Village of Tequesta that Mr. Falcon had notice of this hearing and was choosing not to participate and not even to argue for a continuance. The telephone rang at this point in the hearing at 11:16 a.m. and Mr. Falcon was on the line. The call was placed on speaker phone. Mr. Falcon stated his first question was whether Hattie Siegel and W. A. Siegel were present at the hearing. Attorney Resch responded that they had been in court that morning and had had proper notice of this hearing but had apparently chosen not to attend. Mr. Falcon stated his understanding that the Village had chosen to go forward with this hearing this morning and that the reason he and the Siegels would not participate in this hearing was they maintained jurisdiction of this matter was properly within the realm of the Circuit Court and he had made this telephone call to clarify any confusion. Attorney Resch questioned Mr. Falcon as to whether he was aware of any court order that would stop this hearing from going forward, to which Mr. Falcon responded he was not aware of injunctive relief from the Circuit court, and that jurisdiction was an issue that could be appealed at any time and that he had asked Village Attorney John Randolph to provide to the court in writing that the Village did appoint Alan Ruff as Special Master, which SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 12, 1999 Page 4 had not been received. Mr. Falcon stated that he had received a transcript of the Village meetings for a year back and there was no evidence in the transcript of the Village Council meetings that the Village Council had appointed Mr. Ruff. Mr. Falcon stated he understood the Village was going to proceed with this hearing this morning. Special Master Ruff stated he had not yet decided whether to go forward, and to that extent would listen to argument from Counsel for the Village, and Mr. Falcon could stay or not. Mr. Falcon responded this was all covered by Ordinance 2-92, subparagraph B, which provides that the Special Master must be appointed by the Village Council and the last Special Master, Paulette Torcivia, was- specifically appointed by the Village which was a pattern that the Special Master was appointed by the Village Council, and stated his belief that had not been done in the case of Mr. Ruff, and at the last Village Council meeting the Mayor had not even heard Mr. Ruff s name. Attorney Resch objected to that as here say, and stated her response was that in light of Mr. Falcon's contention that everyone was working in cahoots there was good impartiality on the part of Mr. Ruff because nobody knew him. Attorney Resch stated the Village Council had delegated authority to Mr. Randolph to hire a Special Master for this proceeding, which had been done, and it was the Village's position that Mr. Ruff was properly here and that the Village Council had the authority to delegate their authority to find someone to hear this case. Attorney Resch stated it was also the position of the Village that the owners were properly noticed of this hearing and that there did not exist at this point any court order barring this hearing from going forward, and if this hearing did go forward and if an order finding the Siegels in violation was made that it could be properly appealed in the Circuit court of appeals and that the issue of jurisdiction could be properly raised there. Mr. Ruff inquired regarding the contention he had not been properly appointed or designated by the Village Council. Attorney Resch responded the Village would provide minutes indicating the Village Council had delegated the authority to retain a Special Master to Village Attorney John C. Randolph. Mr. Falcon responded there could be no delegation of authority where an statute existed, for which his case law was ADY vs. American Honda, 675 Southern Second, 577 at page 579; and although that case was a motor vehicle case that the general rule from that case was that where a statute exists there must be direct compliance, therefore. only the Village Council could appoint the Special Master, and that had not been done. Mr. Falcon stated his second point was that this was all going to be over at 3:30 that afternoon because at that time the court would decide whether it did or did not have jurisdiction, and if the Siegels lost in Circuit court there would be jurisdiction on the Special Master level. Debate ensued whether the judge SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 12, 1999 Page 5 would immediately issue an order. Mr. Ruff questioned Mr. Falcon as to the thrust of his suit in Circuit Court and the thrust of the hearing scheduled for 3:30 that afternoon. Mr. Falcon responded the nature of the action in Circuit court was declaratory relief action stating that Hattie Siegel's rights under F.S. 162 were in doubt and needed adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Falcon stated the reason this was filed in Circuit court was that upon examination of the minutes the Village Council had never appointed the Special Master in this case, and added that in the past when the Village had prosecuted Hattie Siegel they had always filed in Circuit Court for a declaration of public nuisance and it had only been in the past couple of years John Randolph had drafted 2-92 which creates the Special Master and provides that code enforcement hearings are heard before a Special Master. Special Master Ruff stated Mr. Falcon had raised in his pleading that Mr. Ruff was not properly appointed, to which Mr. Falcon responded, yes. Special Master questioned the thrust of the Village's motion. Mr. Falcon responded that the Village had filed a motion with three points: that the Special Master does have jurisdiction; that a matter could not be filed in Circuit court seeking appellate review, which the Siegels were not doing; and that what the Siegels said was ambiguous and requested clarification and wanted some paragraphs renumbered. Mr. Falcon stated his belief that the most germane point of the Village was their assertion that Circuit court did not have jurisdiction but possibly the Special Master had jurisdiction, while the Siegels' argument was that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction rather than the Special Master because he was not properly appointed and that was what would be heard that afternoon. Mr. Ruff questioned whether Mr. Falcon was telling him if Mr. Falcon's declaratory action suit was dismissed that he would then submit to the jurisdiction of the Village's Special Master. Mr. Falcon responded he had had an 8:45 a.m. hearing set in October, hoping to get all this out of the way prior to November and now the 3:30 hearing would have to be heard. Mr. Ruff stated there were several options: that the Court could dismiss the complaint and give a period of time to re-draft the complaint which Mr. Falcon might take as an opportunity to contest the jurisdiction of the Village and still be unwilling to attend a hearing before Mr. Ruff; or Mr. Falcon could take an appeal which would cause even longer delay. Mr. Ruff questioned whether if the Village was successful then a quick hearing could be held with Mr. Falcon appearing and resolve it on the merits or whether Mr. Falcon felt he had to await the outcome of this aftemoon's decision. Mr. Falcon responded they could agree that if the Circuit SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 12, 1999 Page 6 Court dismissed the action then he and the Siegels would appear before the Special Master. It was determined that all parties could be available for a hearing before the Special Master on Friday, November 19, 1999 at 11 a.m., to be contingent upon the results of the hearing at 3:30 that day. Mr. Falcon agreed to dispense with notice of the November 19, 1999 hearing. Special Master Ruff issued an Order of Continuance. D. Status Hearings: None E. Fine Reduction Hearings: None F. Foreclosure Authorization: None The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Coo- - or - • ent Officer Police " • . John Irovando APPROVED: , 42 3 Y9 Special Master • Date'A ro� pved