Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Miscellaneous_06/24/1991_Code Enforcement Board v � VILLAGE OF �'EQUESTA � ,;, 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 U 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, PROCESS. 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 Meeting 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. Legislation: 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 5tate 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 Page 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 suqh 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. QUESTION3, DI3CUSSION AND ANSWER3 REGARDING BOARD MEMBER CONCERN3. 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 f ine 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, DI3CUSSION 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. w � Code Enforcement Board Workshop Meetinq Minutes June 24, 1991 Paqe 6 ------------------------- VI. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Brienza moved to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Sharpless seconded that motion. The vote on the motion was: Chairman William Frank - for William Sharpless - for Tim Goldsbury - for Jeffrey Vorpagel - 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, U�Z�'� Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST: ,,�.� �`. �'a��� Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: 9-� - ��/