Loading...
06-04-2015 Regular Meeting J CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES Thursday,June 4,2015 The meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday June 4, 2015, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.by Chairman,Robert Vickers. Roll Call. Present: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Barry Asmus,John Patnik,Robert Smith,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers Will everyone that is going to testify tonight please raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In Attendance Anthony Flores, Supervisor,Code Enforcement Mike Orta,Officer,Code Enforcement Richard Sarafan,Village Attorney Mariana Gracia,Recording Secretary FIRST HEARING Summary Adjudication for 1St Hearings: Case(s): 10-14-13323;2-15-13648;2-5-13690;2-15-13693;2- 15-13714;2-15-13715;2-15-13743;3-15-13773;3-15-13774;3-15-13824;3-15-13840;4-15-13874;4-15-13875;4- 15-13974;4-15-13984;4-15-14007;4-15-14009;5-15-14031;5-15-14052;5-15-14054;5-15-14057; 5-15-14058. The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that Affidavits of Non-Compliance and evidence of violation exists in each of the files. MOTION: I move for summary adjudication of all such cases to include a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists as charged in the respective notice of violations issued therein and that,in each such case, the offending party shall correct the violation within time period specified and immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. In each such case,if the violation is not brought into compliance within such time period, the Code Enforcement Officer may report this fact back to the Board in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations at which time a fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator. In the respective daily amounts specified in Staffs recommendations for tonight's hearing, retroactive to the original compliance deadline. Further,with respect to each such case,costs in the amounts specified in Staffs recommendations for tonight's hearings are hereby assessed in order to recoup the Village's expenses in prosecuting the violations to date." Moved by Manny Quiroga,seconded by Rod Buenconsejo Motion: Passed Unanimously Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Barry Asmus,Robert Smith,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers. With respect to case 5-15-14082 Motion for finding of fact in conclusion of law that a violation did exist and is now being corrected but for purposes of any event a repeat violation the existence will be noted in the records. Moved by Barry Asmus,seconded by Rod Buenconsejo Motion: Passed Unanimously Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Barry Asmus,Robert Smith,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers. PENALTY HEARING Summary Adjudication for Penalty Hearings: Case #'s: 10-14-13384; 1-15-13615; 2-15-13665; 2-15- 13739;3-15-13760;3-15-13764;3-15-13779;3-15-13780;3-15-13786;3-15-13846;3-15-13847;3-15-13848;4-15- 13862;9-14-13180. The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that Affidavits of Non-Compliance and evidence of violation exists in each of the files. Motion: I move that, in each case currently remaining on the penalty docket for tonight's hearing, each respective violator be ordered to pay the daily fine previously adjudicated and authorized to be imposed against them by prior order of the Board, retroactive from the day the violation was to have been corrected, that upon recording,the Board's Order in this regard will constitute a lien on the property of the violator. Moved by Robert Smith,seconded by Manny Quiroga Vote: Passed Unanimously Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Barry Asmus,Bob Smith,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Case(s): 6-10-7239 Owner: Rio&Luz Giardinieri Address: 691 NE 94`h Street Luz Giardinieri was present to testify. Ms. Giardinieri testified that she had corrected the violation many times. Then had a driveway installed. She assumed by having fixed the violation it was done. She did not know she had to call the City to let them know. The Board asked questions. Officer Orta testified that Ms. Giardinieri does maintain the property. Motion: I move that upon receipt of$800.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released. Moved by Barry Perl,seconded by Robert Smith Vote: Denied(Yes=3,No=4,Abstain=0) Yes: Barry Perl,Robert Smith,Robert Vickers No: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Asmus,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga Case(s): 12-11-9317; 12-07-3292 Owner: Camille Denis C/O Erica Whittler Address: 10330 NW 2 Avenue Erica Whittler was present to talk on behalf of her Client Dr. Camille Denis. Ms. Whittler testified that the liens were caused by his deceased ex-wife. Ms. Whittler said that Dr. Denis had fixed all the violations immediately after getting access to the property soon after his ex-wife passed away. It cost him$250,000.00 to make the repairs. Ms. Whittler estimated the property was worth approximately $230,000.00. Ms. Whittler gave the details of all the repairs done to the property. The Board asked questions. Ms. Whittler testified that he made the repairs because he wanted to bring the property into compliance. The Board asked question to Staff. Officer Flores testified that the condition has improved. The Board discussed the title issue. Motion: Motion that upon payment of$7,500.00 payable within 90 days that the liens be released. Moved by Robert Smith,seconded by Barry Perl Vote: Passed(Yes=4,No=3,Abstain=0) Yes: Bob Smith,Barry Perl,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers No: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Asmus,John Patnik Case(s): 1-13-10818; 1-13-10819 Owner: Camille Denis Address: 234 NE 99 Street Dr. Camille Denis was present to testify. He testified that he never received the certified mail. The Board asked questions. Officer Flores testified that he had communicated to Dr. Denis about the violations. Officer Flores said he communicated with Dr. Denis several times. The Board asked questions. Offer amended to$1,500.00 payable within 60 Days. Failed for lack of Motion Case(s): 4-10-7046 Owner: Andrea Coulton Ganes& Craig Ganes Address: 10669 NE 10 Place David Kohn, attorney for Ms. Ganes was present to testify. Attorney Kohn handed out packages he had made for the Board to see. The attorney proceeded to explain what the packages included. He explains the process that should be followed to notify a property owner. He made his allegations as to what had been mailed but never delivered. He alleged that his Client was never properly notified. He claimed that people are not properly notified. Mr. Sarafan asked questions and gave facts included in the file. Officer Flores testified as to the Affidavit on file. The Board asked questions. Officer Flores testified that the property was posted and Ms. Ganes received it. Mr. Kohn continued to present his case. The Board asked questions regarding the Florida Statute that was quoted. Mr. Sarafan clarifies that this is not an appeal. Andrea Gaines was present. The Board asked questions. Mr.Kohn testified that Ms. Ganes was not aware of the lien until she was going to sell the property. The Board asked questions. Ms. Gaines testified that she did not receive notice. Mr. Sarafan asked questions. Ms. Gaines testified that she had received the posting on her door. When she became aware of the violation she immediately corrected it. Offer amended to $1,500.00 payable within 30 days Failed for lack of Motion Case: 8-11-8877 Owner: Craig Jeske Address: 116 NE 97`h Street Mr. Craig Jeske was present to testify. He testified that he had put up a fence to cover the view from his neighbor's buried dogs. He cited his lack of understanding of the process for the lien. He would have corrected it had he known before. The Board asked questions. Officer Mike Orta testified that the property is always kept up. The Board asked questions. Mr. Jeske testified that he pulled the permit late because he forgot about it. Motion: I move that upon receipt of $500.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released on the property. Moved by Manny Quiroga,seconded by Rod Buenconsejo Vote: Approved Unanimously(Yes=7,No=0,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo, Barry Perl, Barry Asmus, Robert Smith, John Patnik, Manny Quiroga, Robert Vickers. Case: 7-14-12933; 7-14-12932 Owner: Steven B.Dolchin for Kenneth D. Dixon Trust Address: 10317 NE 2"d Avenue Attorney Steven B. Dolchin was present to testify. He testified he is present on behalf of the Trustee of the Patrick Dixon Trust. Mr. Dolchin testified that Patrick Dixon passed away in 10/3/2013. In 1991 he bought the house that had a screened porch. He testified that Mr. Dixon's wife advised him that they had not received notification of the lien. Mr. Dolchin explained the process they had to go through to get title of the property. He testified that they had addressed the issues regarding the screened porch. He testified as to the dried lawn and some stumps near the driveway. Mr. Dolchin explained at length as to what had been done to correct the violations and how much the trust had paid. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dolchin testified that the Seller had paid the liens at closing.The Board asked questions. Mr. Dolchin said that the monies will go to Charities. The Board read the list of Charities. Mr. Sarafan explains the process for the refund to be made. The Board asked questions. Motion: I move that the amount of$15,397.50 be refunded to the Kenneth D.Dixon Trust. Moved by Rod Buenconsejo,seconded by Manny Quiroga Vote: Passed(Yes=6,No=1,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Robert Smith,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers No: Barry Asmus Case: 1-13-10775; 1-13-10772 Owner: 561 The Wall Investments LLC Address: 561 NW 113th Street Joel Key was present to testify. Mr. Key testified that they bought the property on foreclosure. They had a lien search done. At which point they found out about the liens. He had an eviction done on March 31, 2015. He testified that they pulled the permits after Officer Flores spoke to him. They would like to better the property to be rented. The Board asked questions. Mr. Key said that because the property belonged to Miami- Dade unincorporated area the liens did not show in Miami Shores. Officer Flores testified that most of the houses in this area do not have a file. The Board asked questions. Mr. Key testified that on March 3, 2015 the police had gone to the property. He testified that it December 29, 2015 is when they issued title. The Board asked questions. Officer Flores testified that Mr. Key took care of the violations as soon as he was aware of them. Motion: I move that upon receipt of$3000.00 payable within 30 days that the liens on this property be released Moved by Barry Perl,seconded by Rod Buenconsejo Vote: Passed(Yes=6,No=1,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Robert Smith,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers No: Barry Asmus Case: 7-12-10124 Owner: John Pegg Address: 333 NE 103rd Street John Pegg was present to testify. He said that he was not aware that there was a lien. The contractor did not follow due diligence. Mr. Pegg said he did not get notification of the lien. The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan confirmed that there was a delivery from the post office. Mr. Pegg testified that the contractor did not get the final for the permit. Motion: I move that upon receipt of$500.00 payable within 90 days that the liens on this property be released Moved by Rod Buenconsejo,seconded by Robert Smith Vote: Passed(Yes=4,No=3,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Robert Smith,Robert Vickers No: Barry Asmus,John Patnik,Manny Quiroga Cases: 7-14-12940; 7-14-12941; 7-14-12943;7-14-12871 Owner: Capital Investments LLC Address: 435 NW 111`h Street Attorney Earl Skip was present to testify. He said that his client purchased the property in May of last year. He read into the record an email correspondence from Officer Flores in August 5. He testified that they were reasonable diligent in getting the violations fixed. Officer Flores testified that the property was in full compliance. Attorney Skip read into the record a letter from the third contractor. The major violations being the lack of permit, Officer Flores testified that he had been working with Mr. Skip's client. The Board asked questions. Motion: I move that upon receipt of$3,800.00 payable within 30 days that the lien on this property be released Moved by Rod Buenconsejo,seconded by Barry Perl Vote: Passed(Yes=5,No=2,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Robert Smith,Manny Quiroga,Robert Vickers No: Barry Asmus,John Patnik Case: 5-14-12702 Owner: Osvaldo J. Costa Address: 450 NE 105 Street Mr. Osvaldo Costa was present to testify. He testified that no one wanted to fix a little leak in the roof. He looked for someone to fix the roof. He was able to get someone to fix the leak. The Board asked questions. Motion: I move that upon receipt of$1,455.00 payable within 30 days that the lien on this property be released Moved by Rod Buenconsejo,seconded by Robert Smith Vote: Passed(Yes=5,No=1,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo,Barry Perl,Robert Smith,Manny Quiroga,Barry Asmus,John Patnik No: Robert Vickers Case: 6-13-11481 Owner: Cliffs on Third Ave.,LLC Address: 300 NE 1015`Street Motion to hear the Request by Barry Pearl,seconded by Rod Buenconsejo J ' Approved Unanimously Yes: Rod Buenconsejo, Barry Perl, Barry Asmus, Robert Smith, Manny Quiroga, John Patnik, Robert Vickers Deborah and Stephen Clifford were present to testify. Ms. Clifford testified that she was not benefiting from this transaction. She spoke about the previous owner of the property she just bought. The previous owner had Alzheimer. She testified that the previous owner was now in a nursing home. Ms. Clifford testified that the money will be going to the care of this previous owner. Mr. Clifford testified that every penny will go to the care of this lady. The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan explains that at the closing the money was put in escrow. The Board asked questions. Attorney Walters testified about the guardianship account. He said there is an escrow agreement which was set aside at closing. Motion: I move that upon receipt of$3,000.00 payable within 60 days that the lien on this property be released 'Moved by Manny Quiroga,seconded by Rod Buenconsejo Vote: Passed(Yes=6,No=1,Abstain=0) Yes: Rod Buenconsejo, Barry Perl,Robert Smith,Manny Quiroga,John Patnik,Robert Vickers No: Barry Asmus MINUTES Code Enforcement Board May 7,2015 minutes were approved as amended. Moved by Barry Asmus- Seconded by Rod Buenconsejo Approved unanimously NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be on July 2,2015 ADJOURNMENT June 4,2015 Code Board meeting was adjourned 1/2, Anthony Flores,Code Enforcement Supervisor Robert Vickers,Chairman RESOLUTION NO. ZOIS—i A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. WHEREAS, in accordance with Village Code Section 2-81(d) the Code Enforcement Board, from time to time, entertains applications known as Requests for Relief, which seek to modify, reduce or satisfy fines imposed in accordance with Chapter 2 Article IV of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, Village Code Section 2-81(d)(2) provides that a Code Enforcement Lien may only be modified and reduced "when unusual and exceptional circumstances exist that would make it inequitable to enforce such lien to full the extent of its accrual"; and WHEREAS, the Code Enforcement Board finds it useful and appropriate to adopt certain policies and procedures as Rules of the Board in order to both streamline the processing and determination of such applications before the Board and to clearly and accurately reflect the basis of the Boards decisions in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Code Enforcement Board that the following provisions and procedures are hereby adopted as part of the Rules of the Code Enforcement Board of Miami Shores Village, Florida: 1. Individual applications heard under the Request for Relief section of the Board's agenda may be determined by way of any of the following procedural mechanisms: a. After hearing the application from the applicant, a Motion to Approve the application (with or without conditions) is made, seconded and passed by the requisite vote in accordance with the law. Such an approval shall be deemed and shall constitute a finding of fact by the Board that sufficient unusual and exceptional circumstances exist that would make it inequitable to enforce the subject lien(s) to the full extent of its accrual; b. After hearing the application from the applicant, a Motion to Deny the application is made, seconded and passed by the requisite vote in accordance with the law. Unless otherwise specified as part of the motion, such a determination shall be deemed and shall constitute a finding of fact by the Board that the evidence presented in support of the application (including such testimony as the Board deemed to be credible under all of the circumstances) was not sufficient to establish the existence of unusual and exceptional circumstances that would make it inequitable to enforce the applicable lien(s)to the full extent of its accrual; c. After hearing the application from the applicant, either the Chair calls for a motion thereupon and no such motion is forthcoming from any Board member in attendance (such that the application is thus deemed denied) or a motion to approve the application is made but no member of the Board in attendance seconds such motion (such that the application is thus deemed denied). In each of these circumstances the denial of the application shall be deemed and shall constitute a finding of fact by the Board in all respects identical to the finding of fact detailed in subparagraph (b) above. +, a 2. While the Board may consider any Motions for Reconsideration properly brought by a Board member in accordance with the provisions of Robert's Rules of Order, no Applicant shall be entitled to seek Rehearing or Reconsideration before Board regarding any adjudication by the Board of a Request for Relief. While the Board, in its discretion, may hear and determine successive different applications from the same Applicant in the form of subsequent Requests for Relief addressed to the same lien(s) (i.e. proposing resolution thereof in amounts different from any and all previously proposed amounts or for different reasons than previously sought), these shall be considered as new requests for relief and shall not constitute rehearings of any prior adjudications. 3. The Board may consider a Motion for Rehearing directed to any final adjudication of any Notice of Violation case (which "final adjudication" occurs either when the Board enters an order determining that the violation as charged does not exist or when the Board makes its determination in the penalty phase to impose a fine and enters its Order which, upon recordation, will become a lien on the subject property). All such Motions for Rehearing shall be made in a writing delivered to the Clerk of the Board within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of entry of such final adjudication, and the contents of such a motion shall be strictly limited to the presentation of new evidence or argument not previously presented to the Board. No other motions for rehearing shall be deemed authorized under these Rules. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD on Mf�q 7 , 2015. TTEST: Chair o t nforcement Board LL . - Clerk to the Code Enforcement Board proved as to-form r Village Attorney 2