Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Special Master_Tab 03_09/03/1991 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA '�,;, BUILDING DEPARTMENT " Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 FAX: (407) 575-6203 V I L L A G E O F T E Q U E S T A C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T B O A R D W O R R S H O P M E E T I N G M I N U T E S J O N E 2 4� 1 9 9 1 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Code Enforcement Board held a workshop meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday June 24, 1991. The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Frank at 5:40 P.M. Code Enforcement Board members present were: Chairman William Frank, Vice Chairman Paul Brienza, William Sharpless, Tim Goldsbury, Mitchell Miller, Tom Mortati and Jeffrey Vorpagel. Steve Kennedy, Code Enforcement Officer, Scott Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and John C. Randolph, Village Attorney, were also in attendance. II. VILLAGE ATTORNEY - OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: HISTORY, LEGISLATION, PROCESB. Village Attorney Randolph stated he had met with Village staff to discuss common problems which face Code Enforcement Boards and things to be done to improve overall procedures. History: After the Amendment to the Florida Constitution did away with municipal courts, which were perceived by some to be "kangaroo courts", there seemed to be a hiatus - the police department would have to give citations and go to County Court to prove up the citations. This was not only a time-consuming process, but usually no real satisfaction was achieved. . County Courts did not have an appreciation for municipal codes. It was perceived that there were some municipal codes that needed to be dealt with, hence the legislature perceived of the Code Enforcement process. This process was set up so as to allow peers of residents within the community to attempt to address the concerns of the municipality. Code Enforcement Board Workshop Meetinq Minutes June 24, 1991 Paqe 2 ------------------------- The real purpose of the Code Enforcement Board has been an opportunity for peers to deal with peers. Ninety percent of the time the problems are resolved simply by way of citation from the Code Enforcement Officer, or a Notice to correct the violation. Thereby, court appearances are avoided. The problems lie in the matters that are not resolved. Though this portion is a small percentage, it is that small percentage that comes to the attention of the Board and the people in the community. The Code Enforcement Board legislation provides a procedure whereby non-compliance situations can be dealt with. Leqislation: The Code Enforcement Board Ordinance provides that the Board may fine a person up to $250 per day if that person has not complied with the direction of the Code Enforcement Officer by the time that case comes to hearing. Normally, the Board would make a determination first as to whether or not there is a violation of the Code. Then, a recommendation would come from the Code Enforcement Officer as to what a reasonable time would be to correct that violation. The Board would then impose a fine, based upon the severity of the offense, for each day the violation continues past that certain time. The Board also has the opportunity to impose up to a$500 per day fine for a repeat violation. Before this aspect was written into the legislation, the Board would have to go through the entire process again if someone repeated a violation of which they had been previously found guilty. Today, if a person is a repetitive offender, the Board can find a violation, even if the situation has been corrected by the time it reaches the Board. The advantage of the new Legislation is that a certain period of time in which to correct the situation does not have to be given on the second violation. The Notice of Violation should merely state the , date set for appearance before the Code Enforcement Board for that violation and a fine would take place from the Notice of Violation forward. Pursuant to State Statute and Village Code the Code Enforcement Officer does have to give a reasonable opportunity to rectify the situation. He cannot just go out and issue a fine. If the Code Enforcement Officer determines there is a threat to public safety, he can cite the violator immediately and tell them to appear at the next Code Enforcement Board meeting. This procedure should be used with caution, and not done on a whim. Code Enforcement Board Workshop Meetinq Minutes June 24, 1991 Paqe 3 ------------------------- Process: The types of things that come before the Code Enforcement Board are continuing-type violations which relate to zoning, subdivisions, health and sanitation, etc., where the Board would have the authority to abate such a violation. Chairman Frank suggested the Board meet one additional time per month simply for setting hearing dates, in order to bring violations before the Board more quickly than a 60-day process. Due Notice for a public hearing is 15 days. III. QUESTIONS� DISCUSSION AND ANSWERS REGARDING BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS. Attorney Randolph stated the Board needed to work at becoming more precise in regard to the presentation and exact nature of the violation by the Code Enforcement Officer and to the actions taken by the Board itself. Lengthy video tapes showing the violation are not really necessary. The testimony of the Code Enforcement Officer, certified Notice of Violation, and any others who would testify should be substantiation enough. A positive recommendation from the Code Enforcement Officer should be supported by the Board. The amount of the fine and the finding should be in one simple motion. Dividing the motions - i.e., a finding of guilt and then discussion of a fine - creates some awkwardness. Attorney Randolph suggested that fines, in the past ($25.00 per day), have been too low. He reminded the Board they have the right to go up to $250/day, and $500/day for repeat offenders, and that the object is to get the job done. A $100/day fine for standard violations and $250/day for violations that are more flagrant would seem more appropriate. He reminded the Board that the fine takes place only after the offender has ignored two warnings - 1) after being cited by the Code Enforcement Officer; and 2) after the Board gives a, finding of guilt. Code Enforcement Board Workshop Meetinq Minutes June 24, 1991 Paqe 4 ------------------------- Attorney Randolph reminded the Board that they are operating in a quasi-judicial capacity and must work with the Codes and Ordinances which are on the books - not decide whether these Codes and Ordinances are vague. It is the responsibility of the Village Council to correct any vague Codes and/or Ordinances. For instance, if the Code Enforcement Officer has cited someone for excessive accumulation, it is not the job of the Board to question what is "excessive accumulation", without arguing whether or not that Ordinance is vague. Attorney Randolph commended the Board on reacting strictly to what they are supposed to be doing and not reacting to concerns of the public. He reminded the Board again they are operating in a quasi-judicial capacity where they are simply to listen to the Prosecutor (the Code Enforcement Officer) and react on that basis. Attorney Randolph also suggested that the Code Enforcement Board meetings needed to be run more efficiently. IV. QUESTIONS, DISCUS3ION AND ANSWERS REGARDING VILLAGE STAFF CONCERNS. Chairman Frank asked how aggressive he should be about returning a meeting to order when it appears to have gotten out of hand. Attorney Randolph stated there first should be the reading of the case number, all who will be giving testimony should be sworn in, then the presentation of the Code Enforcement Officer and any witnesses he may have, with no interruptions. The cited party should then be allowed to come forth. At that point the Board should ask for the Code Enforcement Officer's recommendation and go into executive session and make a motion. Mr. Randolph suggested the written procedures be revised to reflect this order. A lot of discussion during the presentation is not necessary. A debate ` between the Board and the audience should not be allowed to take place. Mr. Bradford asked if filing a lien is the only recourse for collecting fines. Attorney Randolph answered that payment of the fine can be demanded through a Notice to the property owner, with an explanation that, in the event the fine is not paid, the matter will be taken before the Code Enforcement Board to determine whether a lien should be filed. Code Enforcement Board Workshop Meetinq Minutes June 24, 1991 Paqe 5 ------------------------- At that point the Board would authorize the Attorney to file a lien. The next step would be to foreclose against that lien within three months, for up to a period of 20 years. Attorney's fees can be made a part of that lien. The Board does have the right to waive liens, or reduce a fine or a lien. Chairman Frank reminded the Board that the collecting of liens recorded against a property could almost ensure collection if a property owner is trying to sell his property and the potential buyer is made aware that those liens must be satisfied. V. OTHER ITEM3 FOR DI3CUSSION There were no other items for discussion. Code Enforcement Board Aorkshop Meetinq Minutes June 24, 1991 Paqe 6 ------------------------- VI. ADJOIIRNMENT Vice Chairman Brienza moved to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Sharpless seconded that motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Bharpless - for Tim Goldsbury - for Jeffrey Vorpaqel - for Mitchell Miller - for Tom Mortati - for Paul Brienza - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, ��Z,�iw Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST: Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ' �;, BUILDING DEPARTMENT � Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 FAX: (407) 575-6203 V I L L A G E O F T E Q U E S T A C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T B O A R D M E E T I N G M I N U T E S J U L Y 2, 1 9 9 1 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Code Enforcement Board held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Tuesday, July 2, 1991. The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Frank at 7:30 P.M. Code Enforcement Board members present were: Chairman William Frank, William Sharpless, Mitchell Miller, William Treacy, Jeffrey Vorpagel and Vice Chairman Paul Brienza. Steve Kennedy, Code Enforcement Officer, Scott Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Attorney Pam McNierney filling in for Village Attorney John C. Randolph, were also in attendance. Attorney McNierney explained procedures for the benefit of the audience: The Code Enforcement Officer will present the evidence on behalf of the Village, then any witness and/or violators have an opportunity to rebut and put up a defense with a time limited to approximately 10 minutes for each case. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Scott Ladd, Clerk of the Board, mentioned that the terms of three Boardmembers (William Treacy, William Sharpless, and Tim Goldsbury) were about to expire and it was necessary to discover whether they would be willing to serve another term. Tim Goldsbury was not present. William Treacy and William � Sharpless were in attendance and agreed to serve another term. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 2 -------------------------- Boardmember Treacy moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Boardmember Sharpless seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpagel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES (June 4, 1991) Boardmember Sharpless moved to approve the above-referenced Meeting Minutes as submitted. Boardmember Treacy seconded the motion. The vote was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpaqel - for The motion was passed and adopted and the June 4, 1991 Meeting Minutes were approved as submitted. IV. SWEARING IN OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Steve Kennedy, Code Enforcement Officer, was sworn in by Scott Ladd, Clerk of the Board. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 3 -------------------------- V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Case No. 91-05: W.A. & Hattie I. Sieqel, 498 Dover Road, Tequesta. Violation of Chapter 10, Article II, Health and Sanitation, section 10-17 and 10-18 as adopted by Ordinance 196, Villaqe Code of Ordinances. 2) Case No. 91-08 - W.A. & Hattie I. Sieqel, 498 Dover Road, Tequesta. Violation of Chapter 6, Article II, Section 6-22, Model Countywide Administrative Code for Buildinq, Section 103.1.1(5), Permits, as adopted by Ordinance 395, Villaqe Code of Ordinances. Since the two above cases involved the same property and owners, the Board decided to take both cases simultaneously. W.A. & Hattie Siegel were sworn in. The CEO explained that case 91-05 was continued from last month regarding the excessive accumulation of dead plant life. Case 91-08 involves a structure erected (with approximate measurements of 12-16 feet long, 6 feet high, and 3-4 feet in width) without a building permit which contains an excessive accumulation of dead plant life. The CEO showed a video taken on May 10, 1991 depicting the excessive accumulation of dead plant life and the structure which was built without a building permit. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the Siegel�s on June 18, 1991. Mr. Siegel contended that the CEO previously informed him that a permit was not necessary to build a compost bin. The CEO contested that and stated further that a structure of this sort could not be built without a building permit. Mr. Siegel presented seven Exhibits into evidence: Exhibit 1- Letter dated May 13, 1991 to Mr. W.A. Siegel from the CEO - Notice of Violation. Exhibit 2- Letter dated May 18, 1991 to CEO from W.A. Siegel rebutting Notice of Violation Exhibit 3- Letter dated May 23, 1991 to Mr. Wilburt Siegel from CEO in answer to letter of rebuttal dated May 18, 1991. Exhibit 4- Letter dated May 31, 1991 to CEO from Wilburt Siegel requesting a copy of the Code being violated. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 4 -------------------------- Exhibit 5- Letter dated June 5, 1991 to CEO from Wilburt A. Siegel accusing the CEO of obstructing justice and requesting a cancellation of the violation and upcoming Hearing. Exhibit 6- Letter dated June 18, 1991 to W.A. & Hattie I. Siegel from Scott Ladd, Clerk of the Code Enforcement Board re-affirming Notice of Violation and ordering the Siegel's to appear before the Code Enforcement Board for Hearing on July 2, 1991. Exhibit 7- Picture of compost bin dated May 4, 1991. Mr. Siegel read a lengthy dissertation which he called "Calendar of Events" depicting events of allegations against his property in chronological order. Hattie Siegel inquired as to the Motion to Dismiss which she had presented and an Affidavit with Exhibits. Attorney McNierney stated she was in receipt of an Affidavit regarding Cases 91-05 and 91-08 and a Motion to Dismiss for Case No. 91- 08 from Mrs. Siegel. Attorney McNierney read these into the Record. The Board acted on Counsel's determination at the last Code Enforcement Board Meeting that due process had been served and the Motion to Dismiss was denied. Boardmember Sharpless moved to deny the Motion to Dismiss. Boardmember Vorpagel seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpagel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Hattie Siegel presented into evidence a taped recording of a conversation she had with the CEO on April 29, 1991, where she claimed the CEO informed her no permit was necessary to build a compost bin. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 5 -------------------------- Hattie Siegel stated that since the Ordinance which created the Code Enforcement Board has not yet been codified, she felt the cited violations of Section 10-17 and 10-18 were out of order. Attorney McNierney stated it does not matter whether the Ordinance has or has not yet been codified. It was passed by the Village Council; therefore, the Ordinance is a valid law within the Village of Tequesta. Everyone is notified when these Ordinances are passed, which constitutes sufficient notice. Though Mrs. Siegel continued to contest the validity of the Code, Chairman Frank informed her it was not the Board's position to qualify the Codes, but to see that they are enforced. Mr. Siegel asked to have Scott Ladd sworn in, so that he might question Mr. Ladd. Attorney McNierney swore in Mr. Ladd. Mr. Siegel asked Mr. Ladd if he remembered informing Mr. Siegel some time ago regarding the legality of a compost bin. Mr. Ladd stated he did not recall that. Mr. Ladd further explained that the Village has no Codes on composting, though one is presently in the works, and reminded Mr. Siegel that he was cited for failure to pull a permit for a structure. Mr. Ladd continued to explain that the present structure that Mr. Siegel has standing in his yard is an illegal structure and is in violation of the Building Code. If he were to submit for a Permit, that Permit would be denied. Mr. Siegel accused the CEO and the Clerk of the Board of previously lying to him. The CEO recommended that in Case No. 91-05, the Siegels be found in violation of Chapter 10, Article II, Health and Sanitation, Section 10-17 in that an excessive accumulation of dead plant life exists on the property, and that five days be given to come into compliance with a$100 per day fine for each day thereafter until compliance is met. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 6 -------------------------- Boardmember Treacy moved to find a violation of Section 10- 17, an excessive accumulation of dead plant life, with five days to come into compliance with a$100 per day fine for each day thereafter until compliance is met. Boardmember Sharpless seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpaqel - aqainst The motion was therefore passed and adopted. The CEO recommended regarding Case No. 91-08 that the Board find a violation of Building Code Section 103.1.1(5) exists, that the structure was built without a permit and further recommends that the structure be dismantled within five days with a$100 per day fine for each day thereafter that compliance is not met. Boardmember Vorpagel moved to accept the Code Enforcement Officer's recommendation. Boardmember Treacy seconded the motion. Boardmember Sharpless suggested that the motion be amended to allow 30 days to come into compliance. Boardmember Vorpagel amended his motion accordingly. Boardmember Treacy seconded that amended motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpaqel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 7 -------------------------- 3) Case No. 91-09 - Stephen C. Sheaffer, Victoria A. Sheaffer, 57 Golfview Drive, Tequesta. Violation of Chapter 6, Article V, Standard Housinq Code, Section 305.2, 305.3.2, and 305.11.1, as adopted by Ordinance 395, Villaqe Code of Ordinances. The CEO explained that since the property owner has refused Notices of Violation in the past, a Police Officer hand- delivered the Notice of Violation on April 26,1991, and introduced into evidence a Police Report dated April 26, 1991 stating the Notice of Violation was hand-delivered to Mr. Sheaffer. The Report reflects that Mr. Sheaffer read the Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation gave 60 days to come into compliance. Notice of Hearing was sent on June 18, 1991, which was not accepted by Mr. Sheaffer. An attempt was made to hand-deliver Notice of Hearing to Mr. Sheaffer on July 1, 1991. Mr. Sheaffer personally refused to take the Notice of Hearing from the CEO. On July 2, 1991 Mr. Sheaffer came into the Building Department Office to speak with the CEO, and asked the CEO to tell the Board he did not intend to appear at the Hearing. Attorney McNierney stated it appears that the violator has received Notice of Hearing, and therefore it would be correct to proceed with the Hearing. The CEO explained that Mr. Sheaffer's residence is rapidly deteriorating, with little to no maintenance being done. The roof, which is very old, is starting to leak, and perhaps beyond its useful life. There remains in the back wall of the house a hole, open to the outside, where there was once an air conditioner; the garage portion of the roof has large holes through which the sky can be seen; the facia and soffit are displaying signs of deterioration (because the roof is leaking); much of the facia and soffit are rotted; the garage door is falling apart. The CEO recommended that the Board � find Mr. Sheaffer in violation of all the Codes cited in the Notice of Violation, give him 30 days to complete repairs, with a$250 per day fine thereafter until compliance is met. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 8 -------------------------- Vice Chairman Brienza moved to adopt the Code Enforcement Officer's recommendation. Boardmember Treacy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpaqel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. 4) Case No. 91-10 - Donald G. & Wanda F. Blauvelt, 83 Golfview Drive, Tequesta. Violation of Appendix A, Zoning, Section X(E)(5) as adopted by Ordinance 355, as amended, Villaqe Code of Ordinances. On June 18, 1991 the CEO noticed that this property's front section of the fence, which surrounds the pool, was missing. Finding that to be an emergency, the CEO approached the property owner, Wanda Blauvelt, on June 18, presenting her with a copy of the Code Section being violated. Mrs. Blauvelt indicated she understood the violation. On June 25, 1991 a Notice of Hearing was hand-delivered to Mrs. Blauvelt. At that time Mrs. Blauvelt explained she had made arrangements to have that fence section replaced. A fence contractor has been contacted, and a permit for that repair has been issued by the Village Building Department. The job is expected to be done on July 3, 1991. It was Mrs. Blauvelt's desire not to appear at tonight's Hearing, but hand-delivered a letter to the CEO which was read into the Record by the Clerk of the Board. The letter explained Mrs. Blauvelt's contract with Pickett Fence Company to reinstall the missing section of her fence, and further explained the fence was previously removed to allow access of equipment to excavate and replace damaged � septic lateral lines, damaged landscaping and sprinkler system. She requested a waiver for one additional week from July 2, 1991 to allow for completion of the repairs and requested a waiver for her personal appearance at the Hearing of July 2, as well as waiving of any fines or additional fees. Code Enforcement Board Meetinq Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 9 -------------------------- The CEO felt compliance would be met by July 3, 1991 and recommended that the Board find the Blauvelt's to be in violation, with 7 days to complete repairs and a$100 per day fine until compliance is met. Boardmember Treacy moved to adopt the Code Enforcement Officer's recommendation. Vice Chairman Brienza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpagel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VI. PRE3ENTATION OF NEW CASE3 TO SET FOR HEARINGS: 1. Case No. 91-11: Romanovich, Jai=o A. & Zaida, Anqulo, 48 River Drive, Tequesta. Violation of Chapter 10, Health and Sanitation, Article II, Section 10-17 and 10- 18, as adopted by Ordinance 196, Village Code of Ordinances. 2. Case No. 91-12: Laduca, Joseph, 50 Golfview Drive, Tequesta. Violation of Chapter 10, Health and Sanitation, Article II, Section 10-17 and 10-18 as adopted by Ordinance 196, Village Code of Ordinances. The CEO recommended that the above-referenced cases be set for Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on August 6, 1991. Boardmember Sharpless moved that the above-referenced cases be set for Hearing on August 6, 1991 at 7: 3 0 p. m. Boardmember , Vorpagel seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Bharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpaqel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 2, 1991 Paqe 10 -------------------------- VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. I%. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters before the Board. IXe ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Treacy moved to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Brienza seconded that motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William Treacy - for Mitchell Miller - for Paul Brienza - for Jeffrey Vorpagel - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \ C��/��� .- Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST: Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: