Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Miscellaneous_05/01/1990_Code Enforcement Board � VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ' ,;, BUILDING DEPARTMENT � Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive � Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-622Q + 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� R D M E E T I N G M I N li T E S M A Y 1, 1 9 9 0 I. The Tequesta Village Gode Enforcement Board held a regularly scheduled meetir�� at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, May 1, 1990. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman William Frank. Board members present were: Chairman Frank, Charles Foelsch, k Sharpless, William Treacey, Gordon Ritter and Paul Brienza. Timothy Goldsbury was out of town and therefore not in attendance. Clerk of the Board, Scott D. Ladd, and Code Enforcement Officer, Steve Kennedy were present. a�so in attenda.nce was Tim Monaghan, Esq., sitting �n f��� Vi�_�a�e _->:1 ��r,z C. �'.�::uolph, Fsqaire. II . APPRCti�,1L OF PREV IOL"S MEETItiG �II'�'L1TES ( Code Enfarcement Board Meeting :�1�nutes of April 3, 1990) Vice-Chairman Brienza moved that the abo�-e-.referenced Minutes be approved as submitted. Boardmember Foelsch seconded the motion. The vote on the motion wa,s: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Vice Chairman Brienza - for Charles Foelsch - for the motior. therefore passed and was adopted. III. SWEARING IN OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. The Clerk of the Board swore in Steve kennedy, Code Enforcement Officer. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes y 1, 1990 rage 2 --------------------- IV. UNFINISHED $USINESS A) None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Swearing In of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-003. Sandra J. MeKay and William L Richards, 391 Seabrook Road (Ma�ik Market). Violation of Ordinance No. 355, as Amended, Section No. XII, Sign Regulations, Subsection N, Paragraph 2, failure to remove all business signs related to a discontinued business within 10 days of closing of said business. There were no representatives in attendance on behalf of the above- referenced case. Officer Kennedy explained this case came into compliance, and the signs were removed, right after the last Code Enforcement Board meeting. He presented a photograph showing that the busines was in fact in compliance. His recommendation was that since compliance was achieved, the Board dismiss the case. Boardmember Treacy moved that the case be dropped since compliance was achieved. Boardmember Foelsch seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the mation therefore passed and was adopted. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes ' 1, 1990 �age 3 --------------------- B) Swearing in of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-004, Lighthouse Plaza Associates, Ltd , c/o Roebling of New York_, Inc., 177-207 Tequesta Drive, (Lighthouse Plaza) Violation of Appendix A, Zoning, Sec X(P) as adopted bY Ordinance No. 361, Village Code of Ordinances. Failure to properly screen all dumpsters from public view, from public streets or from abutting properties. There were no representatives for Roebling in attendance. The Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) explained this case involved the screening of dumpsters from view as indicated. Proof of receipt of notice was made a matter of record, as well as a letter from the property owners which also indicates receipt of notice. To date, compliance has not been achieved. The CEO showed a video of the area in violation. A Boardmember asked how long these dumpsters had been in violation. The CEO explained he had been on board for four months, and all of that time, these dumpsters have been in violation. He further explained the above-referenced Ordinance was only passed recently (April 28, 1988}, with an 18-month amortization, which ran out approximately six months ago. Boardmember Sharpless asked what the nature of the letter from the landowner was in reference to? The CEO read the letter: "Dear Mr. Ladd: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 4, 1990 concerning the captioned shopping center. On March 28, 1990, I spoke with Steven Kennedy of your office concerning the screening of dumpsters. Mr. Kennedy kindly sent me copies of the Dumpster Enclosure Specifications. He agreed to meet with our representative, Mr. Bill Hamilton, on the premises. Since there is a problem concerning these dumpster enclosures, due to underground water lines, and meters, and the lot lines being close to the alley way, please arrange for a meeting at the site so that you can advise us of the proper way to handle this situation. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Marilyn Saks, Roebling of New York." The CEO explained he did meet with Mr. Hamilton. At this meeting, suggestions were made to Mr. Hamilton on ways to bring the dumpsters into compliance without a lot of difficulty. To date, Mr. Hamilton has indicated he has met with a fence contractor who had a proposal of cost to erect the screening. This information has been forwarded to Marilyn Saks, along with the information that funds were needed up front in order to get the work done. Mr. Hamilton indicated to the CEO that the likelihood of this happening in the near future was not good. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes M 1, 1990 P� 4 --------------------- The CEO recommended that Roebling be given 21 days to come into compliance, with a$25.00 fine per day for each day thereafter that they do not come into compliance. Boardmember Treacy moved that the facts presented prove a violation exists. Boardmember Ritter seconded that motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. Boardmember Foelsch moved that Roebling be given 21 days to come into compliance, after which time, a$25.00 per day fine will ensue until compliance is met. Boardmember Treacy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. C) Swearing In of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-005 Charles E. Curtis 220 U.S. Hi hwa One North (Cologne Motel). Violation of Appendix A, Zoning, Sec. X{P} as adopted by Ordinance No. 361, Village Code of Ordinances. Failure to properly screen all dumpsters from public view, from public streets or from abutting properties. The CEO explained that after this was set for hearing at the last Code Enforcement Board Meeting, the owner came into compliance by erecting a three-sided enclosure. He presented photographs of the enclosure. He recommended to the Board that this case be dismissed. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes M - 1 , 1990 � e 5 -------------------- Boardmember Sharpless moved that the above-referenced case be dismissed since it has come into compliance. Vice-Chairman Brienza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. D) Swearing In of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-006, Howard P Milhauser, c/o Capital Management Associates,_ Inc., 285 U.S Highwav One (Lord Chumlev's Restaurant Village Square Shopping Center). Violation of Ordinance No. 355, as Amended, Section No. XII, Sign Regulations, Subsection N, Paragraph 2, failure to remove all business signs related a discontinued business within 10 days of closing of said business. The CEO reported he had some correspondence with Mr. Milhauser. He further reported it is the Village's position that Lord Chumley's is out of business, not currently operating on a day-to-day basis. He showed a video of the area in violation. Mr. Milhauser, representative for the owner, asked the CEO if he had had opportunity to meet with a representative of the property, go through the restaurant, and if so, were the lights and phones on, serving dishes available so that the restaurant could re-open if they desired to? The CEO answered stating he met with Lynne Milhauser who escorted him through the restaurant, displaying its current condition. The CEO agreed the restaurant appeared to be ready to operate. The Clerk of the Board swore in Mr. Milhauser. Mr. Milhauser stated that the Lessee was current in their rent monies, paying a substantial sum, always on time, never late. The lease will go until July 31, 1998. They are a tenant in good standing. Mr. Milhauser explained the tenant was developing a change in concept that would re-establish the Lord Chumley's Restaurant as a successful restaurant. He further explained to the Board that this was hardly an abandoned shop. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes ay 1, 1990 _ age 6 -------------------- Attorney Monaghan explained that the Ordinance reads: "...when a business or service using an identification or advertising sign is discontinued, all signs and sign structures relating to the business or service shall be removed by the owner of the property on which the sign is located within 10 days from the date of discontinuance. If such business or service is bankrupt, the Village, after proper notice, shall have the sign removed." This defines discontinuance of the business. Mr. Milhauser explained the tenant has a current occupational license and has paid all rents to date. There is nothing in the lease which states tenant cannot take a vacation, or make a change in his business, can't re- evaluate their business purpose, or even close up for 3-4 months. Attorney Monaghan stated an alternative interpretation of "discontinued" would be if the business or service is not transacting business on a daily basis. He explained to the Board that the issue before them is whether or not the business has been discontinued. The CEO explained to the Board that it is the Village's position that because Lord Chumley's Restaurant is not operating on a daily basis, they are therefore out of business. The signs then, considered to be obsolete, should be removed. The Village believes a violation does, in fact, exist. He recommended the signs be removed within 21 days, with a fine to ensue on a daily basis of $25.00 per day until compliance is achieved. Boardmember Ritter asked Mr. Milhauser how long the restaurant had been closed. Mr. Milhauser answered it had been closed since November 30, 1989. He continued that the best way he knew of to run someone out of business is to cause them unnecessary hassle, especially when the property in question is being properly maintained. He stated he did not think it would make the Village look any better to have a blank front to the building, creating an eyesore, when expectations of re-establishment of the business is pending. If the Village chooses to find a violation and have the signs removed, they would be discouraging a real, live tenant who has made the decision to pay nearly $84,000/year in rent to preserve their right to be able to adjust their business concept and menu. Chairman Frank asked if there was a planned date the restaurant would re-open for business, and if they do re-open, would it be under another name? Mr. Milhauser had no answer. He was not aware of their intentions. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes �y 1, 1990 _ age 7 -------------------- Boardmember Ritter stated he felt these sign Ordinance could perhaps promote problems for business owners. Since rents are not in arrears and occupational licenses are maintained active, he feit a violation should not be found. It appeared to him the business owners intent was to re-establish the business. Boardmember Treacy stated it was his feeling the business owner should be given a chance to get back into business, and if the sign was removed it might discourage them from doing so. Boardmember Foelsch moved that Lord Chumley's Restaurant is not in violation of the Sign Ordinance. Boardmember Treacy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. Ej Swearing In of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-007, Howard P. Milhauser, c/o Capital Management Associates, Inc., 221-289 U.S. Highwav One, South, (Village Square Shopping Center). Violation of Appendix A, Zoning, Sec. X(P) as adopted by Ordinance No. 361, Village Code of Ordinances. Failure to properly screen all dumpsters from public view, from public streets or from all abutting properties. The CEO showed a video tape showing the nature of the above- referenced violation, showing there are four dumpsters unscreened and in public view. He explained he had met with Lynne Milhauser and discussed methods of compliance. Howard Milhauser asked the CEO if Seaview Road was in Tequesta? The CEO explained it was in unincorporated Palm Beach County. Mr. Milhauser asked if these dumpsters could be viewed from any street that was in Tequesta. The CEO answered no. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 1990 Page 8 -------------------- Mr. Milhauser explained that the back of Village Square is a very narrow area. The dumpsters are placed at the back doors of the merchants who operate there. If the dumpsters were in different locations, it would be inconvenient for the merchants to empty their trash. Why would the Village want to create unnecessary burdens for tenants? The Village also would have to go out on a private road, outside Village limits, to view the dumpsters. Screening of the dumpsters would create narrow passage to an already narrow aisle. The CEO recommended that 21 days be given for compliance, with a $25.00 per day fine after that point until compliance is met. Attorney Monahagn explained that the Ordinance pertains to the dumpsters, and not the streets from which the dumpsters can be viewed. Boardmember Ritter asked if there had been any complaints from the people in Waterway Village concerning these dumpsters. Scott Ladd responded there have been many and, in fact, these people have voiced a lack of desire to be annexed into Tequesta because situations such as this are not taken care of. Boardmember Sharpless moved that the dumpsters are in violation. Boardmember Treacy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - against Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. Boardmember Treacy moved that there be given 21 days to bring all dumpsters into compliance, with a$25.00 fine daily thereafter until compliance is met. Vice-Chairman Brienza seconded the motion. Boardmember Sharpless asked if Mr. Milhauser had any further comments. Mr. Milhauser answered he felt 21 days was not enough time to do anything properly. Boardmember Sharpless asked that the motion be amended to reflect more time for compliance. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 1990 Page 9 -------------------- Boardmember Treacy amended the motion to allow 35 days to bring all dumpsters into compliance, with a$25.00 per day fine after that point until compliance is met. Vice-Chairman Brienza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - against Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. Mr. Milhauser stated he had been asked several times to visit the Village Hall to make comments regarding Village Codes, and asked if that would be allowed now on the Agenda. Attorney Monahagn informed Mr. Milhauser that if his desire was to comment on changing some of the Village Codes, that would be done before the Village Council, not the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Milhauser answered that he was presently looking at 8 people on the Board whom 36 local merchants would have an opportunity to vote for, and therefore would like to share his comments with the Code Enforcement Board. Attorney Monaghan explained the Code Enforcement Board is "appointed". The "elected" officials would be the Village Council. Any comments relative to enforcement would be voiced to this Body - any comments on policy changes would be voiced before the Village Council. F) Swearing In of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-008, Gary Robinson, 399 North Cvpress Drive. Violation of Appendix A, Zoning, Sec. X(P) as adopted by Ordinance No. 361, Village Code of Ordinances. Failure to properly screen all dumpsters from public view, from public streets or from all abutting properties. The CEO explained the above-referenced case came into compliance subsequent to the last Code Enforcement Board hearing. He recommended this case be dismissed. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 1990 Page 10 -------------------- Boardmember Treacy moved that Case No. 90-008 be dismissed since it has come into compliance. Boardmember Sharpless seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. G) Swearing In of Defendants, Witnesses and Others. Case No. 90-009, Patrick Hodapp, 387 Seabrook Road. Violation of Chapter 10, Article II, Health and Sanitation, Sec. 10-17 and 10-18 as adopted by Ordinance No. 196, Village Code of Ordinances, excessive accumulation of dead plant life. Grass, weeds and undergrowth exceeds 12" in height and rubbish, trash and debris exists. The CEO showed a video tape of the area in violation showing that dead plant life and debris do exist in excess of twelve inches. He further explained he had spoken with the owner, Patrick Hodapp, as well as having a return receipt in hand proving receipt of notice of the violation. Mr. Hodapp informed the CE� he had inherited the house, and is now in the process of selling it. The CEO spoke with the realtor involved and found the house is, in fact, under contract to be sold, with a closing set for May 10. The CEB recommended that with a closing date of May 10, the owner be given 15 days to come into compliance, with a$25.00 daily fine after the 15 day period until it is brought into compliance. Boardmember Foelsh asked that since the closing is scheduled to take place within 10 days, would the situation be null and void at 15 days? Attorney Monaghan answered that the violation runs with the property, no matter who the owner is. The procedure in the past has been to proceed against the owner as if there is no closing. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 1990 'age 11 -------------------- Chairman Frank suggested the Title Company involved be notified so the new owner would automatically be notified. The Title Company is liable for any problems. Boardmember Treacy moved that there is a violation and that 15 days be given to come into compliance, with a$25.00 fine for every day thereafter until compliance is met. Boardmember Foelsh seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for Charles Foelsch - for William Sharpless - for William F. Treacy - for Gordon Ritter - for Paul Brienza - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. VI. PRESENTATION OF NEW GASES TO SET FOR HEARINGS: There were no new cases. VII. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VIII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Vice Chairman Brienza asked if Case No. 90-006 (Lord Chumley's Restaurant) could be brought up again if there should be another violation. Attorney Monaghan answered it could be brought up again. ,. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 1990 �,g e 12 -------------------- IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Res ectfully submitted, c.— � � ��� Fran Bitters Recording Secretary TTEST: �ce�`" �D. � Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: �=��-q�