Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Master_11/19/1999 co��c TEQIJESTA POLICE DEPARTMEIVT , C �FiC F R •�•. �' 357 Tequesta Drive ? TfOUES�P Post Office Box 3273 FLA Stephen J. Allison Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 Chief of Police Phone: (�61) 57�-6210 Fax: (561) 57�-6218 VIL.LAGE OF TEQLTESTA SPECIA� MAST�R CODE ENFORCEI�IENT HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1999 PRESEIVT: Special Master Alan J. Ruf; Code Enforcement Officer Police Sgt. John Irovando, Attorney for the Village af Tequesta Betty Resch, Recording Secrefiary Betty Laur. Meeting was ca�led to order at 11:02 A.M. Violation Hearings: Case IVo. 98000001819� W.A. � Hattie I. Siegel 498 Dover Road Tequesta, Florida 33469 Legal: JUPITER IN THE PINES SEC B LT 6 BLK 15 6Q-42 -015-0060 Nature of Violation: Violation of Code of Ordinances of the Viliage of Tequesta, Florida, Chapter 10, liealth and Sanitation, Article II. Weeds, Undergrowth and Other Plant Life, Sec. 10-17, Excessive Accumulation Prohibited; Declared a Public Nuisance., Pages No. 581, 5�2s Violation of Code of Ordinances ofi the • Village of Tequesta, Florida, Chapter 1 Q, Health and Sanitation, Article II. SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 2 Weeds, Undergrowth, and Other Plant Life, Sec. 10-18. Unlawful growth enumerated. (B), pages No. 582, 583. �olation of Code of Ordinances of the �Ilage 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). Special Master Alan Ruf announced this was the continued time and date agreed to by the attomeys for the parties, and that he had issued an order to that effect. Special Master Ruf reported that Attarney Fafcon had faxed a letter that morning to his office, to the office of the Mayor, and to the office of the prosecutor, indicating that he still believed there were procedural shortcomings. Special Master Ruf stated that at last Friday's hearing, which had been continued until today, Attorney Falcon had expressed agreement via telephone that if the Circuit Court dismissed the action that he and the Siegels would appear before the Special Master. Special Master Rufi stated it was his understanding that A hearing had been held last Friday at 3:30 in the afternoon and questioned Attorney Resch as to the results of that hearing. Attorney for the Village Betty Resch responded the Village's motion to dismiss had been granted with leave to amend and 20 days to re file a new petition. Attomey Resch stated the motion to dismiss had been granted and to date she had received no notice from Village Attomey Randolph that he had filed anything further. Attorney Resch stated she had received a letter from Attorney Falcon that morning, and had provided Special Master Ruf with a copy. Attorney Resch stated her position was that if Attorney Falcon had objections to this hearing it would behoove him to enter it into the record of this hearing which was set for 11 a.m., and faxing letters to her, Special Master Ruf, and the Mayor of Tequesta did not preserve his right or give him any new rights not to attend this hearing. Attorney Resch commented that Attorney Falcon had said if he and the Siegels appeared they would be subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Special Master; however, going before the Special Master and arguing your position face-to-face would not deny the other parties rights to respond accordingiy. Attorney Resch requested that her letter from Attorney Falcon dated November 19, 1999 be entered into the record. Attorney Resch stated she had Village Manager Tom Bradford present SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 3 to testify in regard to proceedings in regard to meetings and the content of the Charter and the content of the Code of Ordinances of the Village of Tequesta. Attorney Resch requested that he be able to testify and also requested that although Mr. Falcon had chosen not to attend that in an abundance of caution he be telephoned. Special Master Ruf stated he would allow the letter faxed by Mr. Falcon to be entered into the record. Special Master Ruf referred to the minutes of the November 12, 1999 hearing and stated he had questioned Mr. Falcon very carefully about what might happen if there was a dismissal and leave to file or redraft a complaint and what he might do regarding an appeal. Special Master Ruf commented it had seemed quite clear that if there was a dismissal he and his clients would appear. A telephone call was placed to Mr. Falcon, whose answering machine responded. Special Master Ruf left a message that it was ten after 11 a.m. and discussion of the hearing scheduled to take place today had begun, and of Mr. Falcon's letter faxed earlier today. Special Master Ruf stated that if Mr. Falcon would like to participate, to preserve on the record, he asked him to call 561-575�228, and stated he was inclined to proceed on the basis of the representation made by Mr. Falcon to Mr. Ruf that Mr. Falcon would not seek any additional delays by way of further action in the Circuit Court or the Appeals Court; and if the motion to dismiss was granted by the Circuit Court judge, he had suggested he and his clients would participate in this hearing; therefore, he welcomed Mr. Falcon to call back at anytime over the next few hours and he would be happy to take Mr. Falcon's call. The Special Master noted two corrections to be made to the minutes of the November 12, 1999 hearing: (1) that his name was spelled "Ruf' rather than "Ruff'; and (2) on page 3 in the sentence "Attorney Resch reported Mr. Falcon had stated to her on the telephone that he was in fact not going to participate in the court hearing" needed to be changed to "code hearing". Attorney Resch agreed. Special Master Ruf announced that signing of the minutes would be deferred to the end of this hearing to allow Attorney Resch time to read them. The Special Master confirmed with Attorney Resch that the Village was ready to proceed even though Mr. Falcon had made additional procedural objections by letter. Attorney Resch stated she did not believe Mr. Falcon's letter faxed this morning preserved issues but should be raised by him at this hearing; however, in order to head off appellate issues later she believed it would be in the best interests of the Village to put on the record how this matter was set. Special Master Ruf advised Attorney Resch to take whatever steps she felt necessary SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 4 to produce as complete a record as possible. Village Manager Bradford was sworn in and testified he had been Village Manager of Tequesta for thirteen and some odd years and that last week he had had a conversation with Village Attorney Randolph regarding the appointment of Mr. Ruf as Special Master for the Siegel case, which resulted in Village Manager Bradford meeting with the Mayor to advise him of Mr. Randolph's opinion that a special meeting of the Village Council was needed to be held regarding the appointment of Mr. Ruf as the Special Master. Village Manager Bradford reported that the Mayor had agreed with the need to conduct a special meeting, gave his approval to conduct such a meeting and requested Mr. Bradford to proceed. Mr. Bradford indicated that three Councilmembers were also contacted and advised of the need for a special meeting; and they had approved of proceeding with a special meeting.. Village Manager Bradford testified that Tequesta Charter, Section 2.09 provided that the Mayor or two Councilmembers could call a special meeting and that all Village Councilmembers must concur to call an emergency meeting; therefore, Mr. Falcon's letter had contained an incorrect statement in regard to the requirements of calling a special meeting. Special Master Ruf questioned Village Manager Bradford regarding the special meeting held on the preceding evening, and asked if he had, when questioned by Hattie Siegel, responded that the charter did not matter. Village Manager Bradford stated that he had never said the charter did not matter. Special Master Ruf questioned whether at the special meeting Mrs. Siegel had objected to the appointment of the Special Master, to which Village Manager Bradford responded that she spoke in regard to the legitimacy of the process. The Tequesta Charter Section 2.09, Miscellaneous Powers; Meetings was entered into evidence. Special Master Ruf requested the Clerk mark the exhibits for potential future use and stated that at the end of the hearing a statement would be taken from the Clerk as to how they had been marked, so that there would be no question what had been received into evidence. Code Enforcement Officer Sgt. John Irovando was sworn in and testified he had been with the Village 21 years, was assigned to the patrol division, and was also fleet manager, supervisor of the day shift, and supervisor of the code enforcement section of the police department. Sgt. Irovando testified he had ascertained at the beginning of his investigation and again the morning of November 19, 1999 through the property appraiser's office that the owners of the property at 498 Dover Road, parcel control number 60-42-40-25-fJ6-015-0060, Jupiter in the Pines, Section B, Lot 6, Lot 15, were W. A. and Hattie I. Siegel, SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 5 and that the status was non-exempt for homestead. Sgt. Irovando testified he was first involved in this investigation August 22, 1998, and had observed the violations from the street and from adjacent properties with permission of the adjacent property owners, and had found violation of Chapter 10, of Health and Sanitation, in that there existed excess accumulation of unattended growth of weeds and other plant life. Sgt. Irovando reported that there was tar paper and building bricks in front, a violation of the Standard Housing Code 1998 Edition which had been adopted by the Village of Tequesta. Sgt. Irovando testified that he had taken four Polaroid photographs on 8/22/98 which accurately reflected the condition of the property. The four photographs were taken into evidence. Sgt. Irovando reported he and the Village Attorney on 8/27/98 had visited the property and discussed legal enforcement of the violations. Sgt. Irovando reported he had videotaped the property as well as the surrounding community on 8/29/98. The videotape, taken of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood on 8/27/98 was shown, and also a segment taped on 9/4/98 of the front swale area at 498 Dover Road, which was Village right-of-way, after the overgrowth had been cleared by the Village. Sgt. Irovando reported the Village was still maintaining the swale area. Special Master Ruf inquired if Sgt. Irovando was testifying that it was the obligation of the Village to maintain the swals area between edge of pavement and the property line, to which Sgt. Irovando responded that at this time the overwhelming majority of property owners of the Village of Tequesta maintained the right-of-way; however, there was at this time no ordinance mandating that they maintain the right-of-way. Sgt. Irovando reported that on 9/1 /98 he prepared a notice of code violation for the violations described and gave the Siegels 30 days from receipt of the notice to correct the violations. Sgt. Irovando produced a signed certified mail receipt signed by Hattie I. Siegel and a copy of the notice of code violation, which were entered into evidence. Sgt. Irovando reported on 9/3/98 he met with Mr. Rich Hanzel of Rood Landscaping, who had cleared the swale area for the Village; and Mr. Hanzel had had 14 years landscaping experience as Landscape Maintenance Department Manager for Rood Landscaping. Mr. Hanzel had informed Sgt. Irovando there was a mixture of torpedo grass and weeds with no apparent containment; and that there was no daubt in his experience that such overgrowth created conditions for rats and vermin. Sgt. Irovando testified on 9/8/98 he had spoken with Kathryn Shepherd, real estate agent who had handled real estate sales in the Tequesta area since 1989. Ms. Shepherd viewed the property at 498 Dover Road and submitted a report regarding the economic impact to surrounding neighbors. The report was received October 8, 1998 and stated that due to the unusual lawn ornamentation at 498 Dover Road that neighboring properties would be affected in a negative way. A copy of the SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 6 report and a statement of Ms. Shepherd's qualifications were submitted into evidence. Sgt. Irovando reported he had received numerous documents from the Siegels referred to as motions, which he had forwarded to Special Master Paulette Torcivia, who had been the Special Master sitting at that time. Sgt. Irovando reported on October 21, 1998, after not being contacted by the Siegels and with no compliance after the 30 days given, he had sent via certified mail a Notice of Special Master Hearing set for November 19, 1998 at 10 a.m. to W. A. and Hattie I. Siegel. A copy of the Notice of Special Master Hearing and a certified mail receipt signed by W.A. Siegel were submitted into evidence. Sgt. Irovando reported that on November 5, 1998 he prepared another Notice of Violation for the property at 498 Dover Road in which was outlined the sections of the Standard Housing Code in violation: 101.6 Maintenance, and 307.6 Care of Premises, which dealt with the tar paper and cement blocks spread over the front lawn; and stated that this notice of violation was hand delivered personally by him to Hattie I. Siegel at 498 Dover Road on 11 /5/98. A copy of the Notice of Violation and a computer entry generated by the Police Department showing the times that Sgt. Irovando was at 498 Dover Road were entered into evidence. Sgt. Irovando reported he had asked Leslie A. Cook, Chair of the Community Appearance Board, to view the property as an expert in landscaping. Mrs. Cook provided a written report on 11/17/98 in which she offered suggestions for improvement, which Sgt. Irovando read into the record, and which was submitted into evidence. Sgt. Irovando pointed out that according to the minutes of the November 17, 1998 Community Appearance Board meeting, the letter had been discussed. Sgt. Irovando reported that hearings were scheduled and canceled during the course of these events; and that Special Master Paulette Torcivia had acted on a motion to recuse on ldovember 19, 1999; however, there was no hearing for the Siegel case on that date. Attorney Resch read into the record the Village of Tequesta Code Enforcement Order dated January 25, 1999 signed by Special Master Paulette Torcivia. Sgt. Irovando enumerated the following violations served in November 1998, which were the same in violation today: Nature of Violation: 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, 10-17, 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). Sgt Irovando SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 7 reported he had viewed the property many times since the violations were cited since he passed the property at least once a day, and the violations still existed today. Sgt. Irovando reported he had taken four color Polaroid photographs on 10/8/99 and finro on 10/21/99, �rvhich were received into evidence. Sgt. Irovando reported that on 11/16/99 he had spoken wifh David French, 367 Riverside Drive, whose his back yard was adjacent to the Siegels' back yard and that the overgrowth of weeds in Mr. and Mrs. Siegels back yard had pushed out the slats in the fence dividing the properties, and Mr. French and his wife were concerned for their children because of the fence being pushed out. Sgt. Irovando reported he had also spoken with Mr. Wade Griest, the southerly neighbor; and to Mr. and Mrs. William Dennis , 466 Tequesta Drive, the northem neighbors. Both Mr. and Mrs. Griest and Mrs. and Mrs. Dennis reported they had seen rats on prior occasions coming and going on this property. A five-minute recess was taken. The videotape viewed earlier in this hearing was entered into evidence. The ViHage called George Gentile, George G. Gentile Landscape Architects and Planners, to testify. Mr. Gentile's credentials were accepted. Mr. Gentile testified he had observed the property three times and had observed construction debris in the front, unkept yard around the house with an abundance of exotic invasive plant materials, torpedo grass, and mother-in-law tongue, and reported he had taken digital pictures. Mr. Gentile testified the Siegel property did not meet the xeriscape concept, which was a low water use concept and a process of landscaping appropriately to minimize consumption of water. Mr. Gentile testified that while some of the invasive vegetation on the property may seem to thrive without water, those plants were extracting all the water they could from the subsurface areas and were therefore actually consuming more water, which was damaging to other areas of the Siegels' yard, possibly to neighboring yards, and to the swale area of the Village of Tequesta. Mr. Gentile explained that the invasive vegetation overtook and killed everything else because it was extracting all the nutrients and all the water in the soil. Mr. Gentile testified that the type of overgrowth on the property encouraged rodentS, and although he did not observe any rodents they thrived in such overgrown areas. Mr. Gentile described some of the plants growing on the property which kept birds out. Mr. Gentile testified that black tar paper and building blocks were dangerous because of the potential of being picked up in a windstorm and being flung into neighboring properties causing injury to the general population. Mr. Gentile testified he was somewhat familiar with the Building Code which had SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 8 been violated and was less familiar with the public nuisance sections of the Tequesta code. Special Master Ruf granted a few minutes for Mr. Gentile ta review the code sections of the violations. Mr. Gentile reviewed Section 10.17 and testified that in his opinion there was a violation of 10.17 for excessive accumulation, unattended growth of weeds, being within 100' of any improved or unimproved property of the Village, being a breeding place for such wildlife as rodents and other animals not appropriate for urban areas, and stated he felt the condition of the yard also threatened the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Gentile reviewed Section 10.18 (b) and stated his opinion that the property was in violation of Section 10.18 (b) because there was rubbish, trash, debris, dead plants, and it was very unsightly to adjacent residences. Mr. Gentile stated his opinion that the property was in violation of Standard Housing Code Section 6-81 and 82, where the Village of Tequesta had adopted the Standard Housing Code, Section 101.6 Maintenance because there were materials stored and left in the area that posed a health, safety and welfare hazard. Mr. Gentile also agreed that Section 307.4 Care of Premises of Article 5 of the Standard Housing Code was in violation because of storage of building materials and similar items on a residential property. Mr. David French, 367 Riverside Drive, was sworn in and testified he had lived at that address for three months but was familiar with the property previously since his mother-in-law had lived there many years. Mr. French testified his mother-in-law had installed a 6' high privacy fence along the back which was the same fence that was coming apart at the bo�tom now because of the weeds behind it. Mr. French stated there had been rats in his yard that came from the Siegel property which had been observed by his wife. Mr. French testified his 5-year-old autistic son was not verbal and if he were bitten by a rat could not tell anyone. Mr. French testified he had five children ranging in age from 2 to 12 years old. Mr. French expressed concern regarding any rodents or animals living in the underbrush, and stated he believed the back yard was worse than the front. Michelle Hartsock, wife of David French and mother of the children, was sworn in and testified that around Christmas time of 1998 her mother had called her to bring a camcorder to record a rat on the fence. Ms. Hartsock testified her yard was open and clean, and the rat ran along the fence. Wade Griest, 494 Dover Road, was sworn in and testified he had lived there 25 years and the Siegels already lived next door when he moved there. Mr. Griest testified he had erected a fence between the two properties to block the view, SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 9 and that he had seen an iguana, snakes, rats, and racoons on the property. Mr. Griest reported he had taken a picture of a rat on the property in 1995. Mr. Griest testified he desired to maintain the fence but the Siegels had planted a climbing vine on their side that he had to trim at the top to keep it from his side, and was able to view the back yard of the Siegels' property from a ladder when he was trimming the vine. Mr. Griest reported that the back yard contained a dog house with a Beware of Dog sign, although the Siegels did not own a dog; and that he had last observed the back yard during the past week, which appeared to be a jungle and contained rubbish, rubbish bins and other junk. Mr. Griest reported he had seen rats in the front yard and when asked by Attorr�ey Resch whether he felt endangered he replied he did not appreciate it. Mr. Griest commented that he was a graduate of the real estate course and a Realtor had expressed an opinion that other homes in the area should be depreciated 10%- 15% because of this property and suggested that if an appraisal were done that much should be deducted from the price. Mr. Griest testified that this situation had been long and drawn out and the taxpayers resented paying the expenses of the situation and the time spent on it; and that Mr. and Mrs. Siegel were away for months at a time and the property received no care; and that they were really not Tequesta residents. Mr. Griest commented other homeowners were trying to improve their property and that this property detracted from that. Mr. Griest cammented he had other pictures as well. The photograph of a rat at the bottom of the bird feeder taken by Mr. Griest was taken into evidence. Mr. Griest testified that the Siegels tried to appear as old and poor although they owned 2 or 3 other properties in Jupiter as well as their home in Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Griest was unable to estimate the number of months spent in residence here because it varied according to the times they had to be here for court appearances, plus they had rented their properties at various times. Mr. Griest testified that the Siegels had been here most of the time since they were cited in August 1998 unti( the present. Mr. Griest testified that the Siegels' automobile license plates were South Carolina plates and that this residence was kind of a second home for them. Mr. Griest testified the Siegels were here for a year when they had rented out their Charleston home, but that was an exception. Russell Von Frank, 489 Dover Road, was sworn in and testified that approximately two months ago he had been on his way to visit Mr. Griest and observed what he first believed to be a small cat running toward the overgrowth on the Siegel property, but it was in fact a rat. Attorney Resch stated the Village rests. SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARiNG MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 10 Speci�l Master Ruf asked the clerk to read the iist of exhibits taken into custody and requested that Attorney Resch loak over the minutes of the November 12, 1999 hearing. Recording Secretary Betty Laur read into the record the following exhibits: No. 1 Notice of Special Village Council Meeting Thursday, November 18, 1999, 7 p. m. No. 2 Excerpt from Village Council Meeting minutes of January 14, 1999. No. 3 Excerpt from Tequesta Code Section 2.09 Miscel/aneous Powers; Meetings. No. 4 Four Polaroid photographs t�ken 8/22198. No. 5 Notice of Code Violation dated 9/1 /98. No. 6 Report Re: 498 Dover Road re: Saleability of Adjoining Properties by Cathy Shepherd, GRI. No. 7 Qualifications of Cathy Shepherd, GRI No. 8 Notice of Special Master Hearing dated October 20, 1998. No. 9 Notice of Code Violation dated 11/5/98. No. 10 Letter firom Leslie Cook, Chairperson of Community Appearance Board dated November 17, 1998. No. 11 Four Polaroid photogr�phs taken 10/8/99. No. 12 Two Polaroid photographs taken 10/21/99. No. 13 Videotape marked: Copy of 8mm Videntape Ref. Case #980000018198 (Copied 10/31 /98 J.I. #1105) No. 14 Photo of rat at bottom of bird feeder dated June 11, 1995. End of Exhibits SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 11 Special Master Ruf stated he would grant another ten minutes for Attorney Resch to review the minutes of the November 12, 1999 hearing and asked for her recommendation with respect to what sanctions she would ask on behalf of the Village. Special Master Ruf stated that as required by Tequesta Code he would make an oral finding and within ten days he would provide the Village and the parties a written copy of his order, which could be embellished from his oral ruling. At 1:05 p.m., Special Master Ruf announced a recess and that the hearing would reconvene at 1:15 p.m. At 1:15 p.m. the hearing reconvened. Attorney Resch stated she agreed with Special Master Ruf s change on page 3 of the minutes #rom court to code. Attorney Resch requested that the Recording Secretary change the spelling of his name and make the correction on page 3. Attorney Resch pointed out that in reading the minutes it was clear that Mr. Falcon had agreed with the Special Master that if the Village's motion to dismiss was granted he would submit to the Special Master's jurisdiction, and the Village's motion was granted but Mr. Falcon changed his mind. Attorney Resch read the following code violations into the record: Notice of Code Violation dated 9/1/98 in violation of Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances Section 10.17. Notice of Code Violation dated 9/1/98 in violation of Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances Section 10.18 (b) and (e). Notice of Code Violation dated 11/5/98 in violation of Standard Housing Code adopted by the Village of Tequesta Section 101.6 and 307.4. Attorney Resch requested the Special Master issue an order finding the Siegels in violation of the four sections cited and giving 30 days to comply or if not complied within the 30 days to impose a fine of $100 per day plus administrative costs, and that the order specifically remind the Siegels it is their responsibility to notify the Village of Tequesta when they feel they have achieved compliance and also to offer on the record that the Village of Tequesta is prepared upon receipt of a phone call stating compliance to have Mr. Gentile, Landscape Architect, give his official opinion as to whether the property is in compliance in accordance with the codes. Attorney Resch stated that essentially what the Siegels were being asked to do was to remove the tar paper and blocks and replace with appropriate ground cover; and also to remove the excessive growth to eliminate the rat problem. Special Master Ruf questioned whether the penalty was to be cumulative or a finding with respeet to each violation. Attorney Resch stated SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 12 there were four violations and the Village was asking for a cumulative amount of $100 per day to run until all four violations were complied. Special Master Ruf requested to hear the Village's position with respect to the maximum fine of $250 per day, especially in light of the testimony of Mr. French and Ms. Hartsock with respect to their concem for the health and safety of #heir children, and stated that his initial reaction was that the amount of fine the Village had requested was too low. Attorney Resch responded that the Village of Tequesta rarely came across this type of situation and $100 initial fine was what they had asked in the past, however, they would be delighted with a higher fine. Special Master Ruf stated he would accept the Village's recommendation but felt it was extremely moderate. A 3-minute recess was granted for Attorney Resch to confer with Sgt. Irovando and Village Manager Bradford, after which Attorney Resch requested a total fine of $250 per day. Special Master Ruf asked whether the Village believed it would take 30 days to remove the tar paper and the cement blocks from the front yard, to which Attorney Resch responded that an appropriate replacement would need to be installed and the Village was willing to allow 30 days from today's date, and requested that a definite date be set. Special Master Ruf stated he was required to do several things, and because of the nature of the litigation that had gone on for some time this might take longer than normal. Special M�ster Ruf stated he was required to make findings of fact, to reach conclusions of la�v, and then to offer sanctions which he believed appropriate under the testimony he had heard and seen. Findings of Fact Respondents W. A. and Hattie I. Siegel did not appear, however, there was finding of proper notice. The Attorney for the Respondents did not appear. The Special Master heard testimony from Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford; Sgt. John Irovando, reviewed videotape taken on August 29, 1998 and September 4, 1998; reviewed and admitted into evidence several documents and photographs; heard testimony of George G. Gentile, a licensed Landscape Architect, listened to testimony of David Frank, Michelle Hartsock, Wade Griest, and Russell Von Frank. The Special Master found that in fact the evidence substantiated the evidence of excessive accumulation and unattended undergrowth on the subjeet property, and that it is reasonable based on testimony heard that the area is infested with rodents and vermin or may become a breeding place for such, and that the evidence supports finding a threat to public safety, welfare, and may reasonably cause disease and adversely affects and impairs the economic value of adjacent properties. All of those things violate Code Section 10.17. The SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 13 Special Master's finding of fact in respect to that: The code of the Village declares the property then to be a public nuisance. This is a iegislative and quasi judicial finding, and under the separation of powers of the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, since a violation had been found which is a public nuisance the Village could pursue that. The Special Master found that based on testimony he had heard that there is rubbish, trash, debris, dead trees, and or unsanitary and unsightly conditions which violate Section 10.18(b)(e). The Special Master also found that with respeet to Section 101.6 of the Standard Housing Code there is a maintenance of an unsafe and unsanitary conditions so there is also violation of 101.6 of the Code. The Special Master found that with respect to testimony he had heard that this property violates Code Section 307.4 in that there are improper building materials, rubbish, and similar items on the property. The Special Master found that the Village of Tequesta had sustained its burden of proof and had convinced him by substantial competer�t evidence that each of the violations had been upheld by the evidence. Conclusion of Law: Special Master Ruf stated he had heard and seen enough evidence to conclude there was a violation of each and every code section cited to the homeowner and found proper notice to Respondents. Special Master Ruf stated that certainly from everything he had seen the Siegels and their attorney were well aware there would be a hearing on the merits that day and based on testimony of Sgt. Irovando the Siegels were the owners of the property in question. The Special Master stated it was his intention to consider each violations separately and to impose an individual fine for each violation. 1. The Special Master found that the Respondents, owners of the property W.A. and Hattie I. Siegel, had violat�d Code Section 10.17 and had had proper notice of this hearing. Respondents were given until December 21, 1999 to comply with Code Section 10.17 and if not complied by that date, a $250.00 per day penalty until complied would be imposed based upon the threat to public health and safety ta the adjoining owners. 2. The Special Master found that the owners of the property W.A. and Hattie I. Siegel, had violated Code Section 10.18 (b) and (e). Respondents were given until December 21, 1999 to comply with Code Seetion 10.18 (b) and (e) and if not complied by that date, a$250.00 per day penalty until complied S�'ECIAL MASTER CODE ENF�RCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 14 would be imposed. 3. The Special Master found that the owners of the praperty W.A. and Hattie I. Siegel, had violated Standard Housing Code Section 307.4. Respondents were given until December 21, 1999 to comp(y with Standard Housing Code Section 307.4 and if not complied by that date, a$250.00 per day penalty until complied would be imposed. 4. The Special Master found that the owners of the property W.A. and Hattie I. Siegel, had violated Standard Housing Code Section 101.6. Respondents were given until December 21, 1999 to comply with Standard Housing Code Section 101.6 and if not complied by that date, a$250.00 per day penalty until complied would be imposed. 5. The Special Master requested that the Village of Tequesta provide him with an Affidavit of Costs no later than 10 a.m. November 29, 1999 and stated he would reserve with respect to Administrative Costs until he received the Affidavit. 6. The Special Master imposed responsibility upon the Respondents to notify the Village of Tequesta as each violation was complied so that the appropriate Code Enforcement Officer as well as any consultants for the Vil[age would have an opportunity to view the premises and to certify compliance. 7. Pursuant to Section 2.96, the Special Master found that the violation presented a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and therefore informed the Village that at its option it may make all reasonable repairs required to bring the property into compliance and charge the violators with all reasonable costs of repairs. Special Master Ruf stated that was his ruling. Special Master Ruf announced that his written order would be issued no later than close of business on Monday, November 29, 1999. The hearing was adjourned at 1:43 P.M. SPECIAL MASTER CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MINUTES November 19, 1999 Page 15 Respectfully submitted, ���� � Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: � � . Code E ment Officer Police Sgt. Jahn Irovando APP D: / � `? Spec� ast Date ppr ed