Loading...
07-19-1984 Regular Meetingv • kliami Jhores 9' lage F L OR ID A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING JULY 19, 1984 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on July 19, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Village Hall, with the following members present: Julie A. S. Williamson, Chairman Barry K. Asmus Donald L. Bednar Kenneth Cutchens Franklin E. Grau Santos Rivero Arthur H. Taylor Also present: Frank LuBien, Code Enforcement Director Jack Wilson, Code Enforcement Inspector 1 MINUTES Mr: Bednar moved to approve, as written, the minutes of the meeting of June 7, 1984, seconded by Mr. Asmus, and carried unanimously. 2. HEARING, .CASE: NO. 84-2168-085 DOROTHY M. SMITH, 122 N. E. 105 ST. UNLAWFUL REED SCREEN Members of the Board reviewed photographs, as Mr. LuBien out- lined facts behind the violation. The unlawful reed screen, though cut to a five foot height limit, remains in place. Mr. LuBien further noted that at the time this was first pre- sented to the Board there was a question with regard to the reed screen itself, since there is no reference made in the code addressing this material, (reed screening). And as there is no reference to reed screening being permitted; therefore, it is not permitted. The Schedule of Regulations is cited as the code in violation. Mr. LuBien read from the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of May 24, 1984, regarding the discussion and unanimous opinion of the Board that reed screening is non -conforming, inharmonious, and not allowed. Mrs. Williamson explained the procedure of the Code Enforcement Board and the informality of the hearings as compared to litiga- tion in a Court of Law. She explained that the Board's intent is to identify and determine that a violation exists and a course of action to remedy the situation. • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -2- 7/19/84 Mr. Simon Ferro, Attorney representing Mrs. Dorothy Smith, after being sworn in, stated that the question here is, if Mrs. Smith is in violation of the code, and whether there is applicable law pertaining to the fence, alleged to be in violation. Mr. Ferro further stated that since the reed screen had beencut to five foot height limitation, there is no other complaint with the fence, and he wished the case dismissed. As a point of clarification,:.Mr...Ferro felt the law is a new law, beingenforced retroactively. In his opinion, the fence is not ratty looking, inharmonious or in poor condition, at this time, therefore it is not a problem. Mr. Bednar pointed out that this is not a new ordinance or law as referred to, the reading from the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board Meeting is clearly aninterpretation of an existing Ordinance. The issue remains an inharmonious, material type, even though the screen has been cut back.. To support this statement, Mrs. Williamson.read.the Ordinance #270 of the code, referring to Buildings and Quality of Buildings. Others supporting the owner in discussion, Mr..Tom Lee, Margaret Lee, Raymond Smith, Dorothy Smith, and Jim Smith, were sworn in. Mr. Lee stated that he had come in to discuss the problem with Mr. LuBien and was.advised.that the screen should be cut backto the 5' height limit, and opinion concerning screening is forthcoming. He stated that he was unableto secure any copy of Ordinance actually addressing reed screening. Mr. Raymond Smith remarked that, if they. are so aesthetically objectionable, why wouldn't the screen be mentioned specifically.in..the code. Mrs. Smith stated that shehad not had a conversation with Mr. LuBien, but upon receipt of the:notice, she did cut the fence back. It is her poinion the screen is not unsightly, as it is new. Considerable discussion followed. All members of the Board agreed that the:reed screening is material or building product violation as fencing. Mr. Bednar moved, that on the basis of Mrs. Smith's opinion being adverse to the Board and the code is not explicite (as to material), the reed screen remains in violation; and in view of the circum- stance surrounding the issue, no.Administrative fee be accessed. Further, if the, screen is n.ot.removed.in thirty (30) days; a fine of $10.00 per day will be imposed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Rivero. Mr. Asmus offered an:.amendment, to the motion, that no Administra- tive fee be imposed, and if the screen is not removed in thirty days a $25.00 per. day fine will be accessed, seconded,by Mr. Taylor. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Bednar and Mr. Rivero. Theamendment passed by.a roll call vote, with Mr. Grau dissenting. The motion carried unanimously,,as amended. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -3- 7/19/84 3. HEARING, CASE NO. 84-2148-086 WILLIAM RIDINGER, 142 N. E. 111th ST. UNLAWFUL REED SCREEN This case of violation was outlined by Mr. LuBien, as members reviewed photographs of the violation. Mr. L-uBien stated that the reed screen was observed and that notices were sent on March 13, 1984 and again on March 27. Mrs. Ridinger came to Village Hall on March 29 to protest that a violation existed. The unlawful reed screen remains. Mrs. Ridinger, present to defend the reed. screen, stated that the reed screen has been used for the past ten years, but that it has been replaced every two..years. Mrs. Redinger further stated that it had:been approved by Mr. Bradford, the former building inspector. She also indicated that upon her visit to Village Hall tea talk.with Mr. LuBien, she was advised that since there is such a difference of opinion.. regarding this material, he would like to have a official opinion, from the Planning and Zoning Board, no action on her part is necessary until that time. Mr. Bednar, advised that the height of the reed screen, is now, as it was then, in violation, and approvalis not true/ The appropriate opinion of the Code Enforcement Board is in -agreement with the opinion of the Planning & Zoning Board, regarding use of this material, this then isthe position this Board takes. Mr. Asmus moved for Finding -of -Fact and Conclusion of Law that the reed screen is in violation, that no Administrative fee be accessed; however, if the screen is not removed.in thirty (30) days, a fine of $25.00 will be, imposed for each day it remains in place. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bednar. Mrs.Williamson suggested that a notice regarding reed screening being in violation of the Schedule of Regulation, be placed in the next issue.of the. Village News. Mr. Bednar recommended that this material be identified as being in violation -in the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Rivero was recognized for calling the question. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 4. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2135-089 UNION OIL, 8700 BISCAYNE BLVD. UNSIGHTLY, WITH PEELING PAINT, CONCRETE LOUVER FENCE Mr. LuBien citing facts behind violation are unsightly concrete louver fence, withpeeling paint, and damaged and missing louvers was observed. on June 6, 1983. Notices.were sent and some work was done, but the fence and surrounding area remain in poor condition. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 7/19/84 Mr. Grau moved to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Mr. Rivero, and carried unanimously. 5. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2211-090 OREN MORTON, 189 N. W. 92 ST. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Mr. Lunen outlined the various facts behind the violation. Mr. Rivero moved to.proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Asmus, and carried. unanimously. 6. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2231-091 ALEJANDRO.DE'CASTRO, 42 N. E. 103 ST. PEELING PAINT, UNSIGHTLY YARD Following review of the facts behind the violation by Mr. LuBien, Mr. Grau moved, to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Asmus, and passed. unanimously. 7. AFFIDAVIT OF. VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2253-092 RALPH GAJUS, JR., 375 N. W. 111 ST. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Violations asobserved by Mr. LuBien were: oversized motor home with utility trailer, junk inoperative automobile, empty boat trailer in front yard, boat in rear (not on.trailer), mildew and peeling paint on fascia of house. Members reviewed photographs of violations. Mr. Grau moved to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Taylor, the motion carried unanimously. 8. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2262-093 WILLIAM J. HEFFERNAN, 161 N. E. 106 ST. FENCE HEIGHT VIOLATION Followingreview of the photographs,.and outline of the violation by Mr. LuBien, a motion was made by.Mr. Grau to move to the next step, seconded by Mr. Taylor, the. motion carried unanumously. 9. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2267-095 NANCY RIEMAN, 330 N. E. 104 ST. PEELING PAINT Following review of the facts behindthe violation and photographs presented by Mr. LuBien, Mr. Graumoved to proceed.to the next step, seconded by Mr. Rivero, the motion carried. unanimously. In reply to Mr. Bednar's query, Mr. LuBien. stated that, only occasionally does he have dialogue withthese violators. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -5- 7/19/84 10. AFFIDAVIT. OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2276-095 ® HANS MUELLER, 174 N. E. 106 ST. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS • Nr. LuBien stated..that the following violations. were observed, intermittent some weretoff & on) since 4/18/84: construction of wood wall in side yard, parking boat in front.yard, placing 'for sale' sign in automobile. Notices, were sent and there was temporary compliance, but violations continue. Mr. LuBien passed photo- graphs of the violations. Mr. Grau made a motion to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Asmus, and carried unanimously. 11. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2335-096 CHARLES DE LUCCA, 190 N. W. 97th ST. DEAD TREE Mr. LuBien passed photographs. of the dead tree for the Board to review. He.stated that, upon a complaint, a dead tree was observed in the rear yard. Notices were sent, but there has been no response or.action.other than slight trimming. A motion was made by Mr. Taylor, to move to the next step, seconded by Mr. Cutchens, and carried unanimously. 12. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 84-2340-097 ERNEST RENZETTI, 10395 N. E. 12 AVE. INSUFFICIENT OFF-STREET PARKING Members reviewed photographs, as. Mr. LuBien cited the facts behind the violation, asnoted in the Sechdule of.Regulations. (Specifically cited .for insufficientoff street parking, and inoperable vehicle.) Mr. Bednar observed that the photographs do not show non-com - pliance to support the case, and suggested, that other photo- graphs should be taken. Mr. Bednar moved,to postpone this case for thirty (30) days, seconded by Mr. Rivero, and carried unanimously. 13. REPORTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: A. CASE NO. 84-2113-084 JAMES F. JONES, JR., 520 N. E. 107 St. PEELING PAINT AND MILDEW Mk. LuBien reported that Mr. James F. Jones, Jr. had come in to Village to pay the Administrative fee of $110.00 accessed. B. CASE NO. 84-2250-087 BENJAMIN PEREZ, 10658 N. E. 10 COURT "FOR SALE" SIGN ON CAR The car is gone and so is Mr. Benjamin Perez. Mr. LuBien stated there is no trace, this case is closed. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -6- 7/19/84 C. CASE NO. 84-2288-088 RAUL J. BARRETO, 72 N. E. 104 ST. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Mr. LuBien reported that Mr...Barreto.is now in compliance. In reply to a query from Mr. Rivero, regarding an update on the FELIX AT;ILES-FIGUEROA case, Mr. LuBien stated that Mrs. Figueroa has not been. in to.pay.the.administrative fee which was imposed, he has not:had any contact with her. Mr. LuBien noted that he has prepared a form and will be mailing it very shortly. A motion was made by Mr. Grau to.forego the Augustmeeting, and to hold the next meeting on the first Thursday in September, (Sept. 6), seconded by Mr. Taylor, and. carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. (- i& %' S ret