Loading...
02-07-1985 Regular Meetings aiami cShores illage F L OR ID A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1985 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on February 7, 1985, 7:30 p.m., at the Village Hall, with the following members present: Barry K. Asmus, Chairman Arthur H. T:ay.lor Julie A. S. Williamson Donald L. Bednar Franklin E. Grau Santos Rivero Kenneth Cutchens - Absent Also present: Frank LuBien, Code Enforcement Director Jack Wilson, Code Enforcement Inspector 1. MINUTES Mr. Rivero moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 6, 1984, as written, seconded by Mr. Bednar and carried unanimously. Mr. LuBien called members attention to a copy of letter, included in their packet, which the Chairman was directed to address to Council, at the last meeting. 2. HEARING, CASE NO. 84-2328-105 (Continued from November meeting) M. COOK, 360 N. E. 105th St. A/C NOISE AND REED SCREEN Mr. LuBien noted the facts behind the violation are, a complaint that a noise nuisance existed, as a result of an air conditioner compressor located at the side of the house and a reed screen attached to the fence to baffle the noise. The reed screen has been removed. Ms. Cook at the December 6, 1985 meeting, stated that she had taken several steps to alleviate the problem. Members concurred, the ultimate determination as to compliance must rest with the evaluation of the Code Enforcement Officer. The case, at that meeting was postponed to allow the inspector additional time to re-examine the situation. Mr. LuBien stated, he had visited the premises seven or eight times, at different times of day, but had no response, and has not had an opportunity to check noise level. Also, he received a call today from Ms. Cook's attorney, Mr. John Hadsall, stating that she is in New York and requested a continuance. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -2- 2/7/85 Mr. Bednar moved to postpone the hearing to the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and the motion carried with the following roll call vote: Mr. Taylor Yes Mr. Asmus Yes Mr. Bednar Yes Mr. Grau Abstain (Arrived during discussion) Mr. Rivero Yes, Mrs. Williamson arrived at this point. 3. HEARING, CASE NO. 84-2595-112 DINORAH & EDWARD GONCZAROW, 290 N. W. 92nd St. INOPERATIVE VEHICLE The facts behind the violation as cited by the Code Enforcement Director, an inoperative vehicle, (no valid license and in dis- repair) parked or stored in the parkway in a residential zone. Notices were sent, but there has been no response or action. Mr. LuBien also noted that he has a certified receipt verifying notification of this hearing was delivered. In reply to Mr. Bednar's query, Mr. LuBien stated, the first notice was sent on October 2, 1984, the vehicle disappeared briefly, and then reappeared. Neither Dinorah nor Edward Gonczarow were present. Following discussion, Mr. Bednar moved for Finding of Fact that the violation exists, and Conclusion of Law that, it is a violation of Ordinance 14-43. Further ordered that an Administration fee of $100.00 be imposed, and in addition, $10.00 per day if the violation continues after thirty days from today. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 4. HEARING, CASE NO. 84-2521-113 ENSIGN BANK Mildew On Building, Unlawful Carport Mr. Wilson, Mr. LuBien, and Mr. John Mazor were sworn in. Mr. LuBien noted this case is a violation of Schedule of Regulations, 225, and 12-43. He stated that, excessive mildew on the house, and unlawful structure were observed on August 9, 1984. Notices were sent and response from Louis E. Hathaway, III, from New York, representing Ensign Bank, requested additional time to solve the problems. Mr. LuBien further advised the Board that, as of inspec- tion today 90% of the work has been completed. Mr. Jeffrey R. Mazor, Attorney representing the Bank apologized for the delay in compliance, citing the change of Bank ownership and the fact that, the Bank inherited the property through foreclosure proceeding. Discussion followed. • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -3- 2/7/85 Mr. Bednar moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law that the violation exists according to the Code as specified, and that an Administrative fee of $100.00 be assessed and in addition.$25.00 per day, if the violation continues after thirty days from today. Mr. Rivero seconded the motion. Mr. Grau offered an amendment to assess an Administrative fee of $250.00, this was rejected by Mr. Bednar. The question was called, and the motion carried with a 5-1 vote, with Mr. Grau dissenting. 5. HEARING, CASE NO. 84-2543-114 R. D. SHOUCAIR JEAN W. AND ROBERT C. HANNA, 897 N. E. 91st Terr. UNSIGHTLY YARD Mr. LuBien cited the facts of violation to Ordinance 11-1, as an overgrown and unsightly yard, first observed in April 1980. Since that time the condition has occured intermittently. Mr. Robert C. Hanna, former husband of Jean Hanna and cousin of Robert D. Shoucair was sworn in. Mr. Hanna declared that he does not live on the property, nor is he a legal owner. Owners of record are Jean Hanna and Robert D. Shoucair, his cousin, whose interests he is representing. Mr. Hanna further advised the Board that he has had the lawn cut and the yard cleaned up at his own expense, and he assured members that he will see to it that the lawn will be maintained regularly, at the risk of being arrested for trespassing. This he feels is to his cousins benefit, since the house is for sale it should be maintained to bring a fair price. In reply to Mr. Grau, Mr. LuBien noted, he had not been out to in- spect today. Mr. Henry Dunick, 901 N. E. 91st Terr., was sworn in. Mr. Dunick stated, he is a neighbor, has never seen Mrs. Hanna. The yard, since he moved into his home in March 1984 has been cut only twice and after Mr. Hanna had a man working all day today, the yard looks immeasurably better. Mr. Hanna stated, there Is no one living on the property at the present time, he took the precaution of changing the locks to avoid break-ins and the property is listed 'for sale'. Lengthy discussion followed concerning rights and ownership of the house as awarded in divorce decree. Mr. Hanna supplied a current address for Jean Hanna, part owner of the property, and name and address of her attorney. Mr. Grau noted that, though Mr. Hanna and Mr. Dunick.attest, that the citation has been satisfied and violations remedied, it has not been inspected by the Code Enforcement Officcw.- Mr. Asmus explained, that the expense of time and staff incurred by Miami Shores Village in bringing violators to this point must be covered, and its not fair that the taxpayer should bear this expense. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 2/7/85 Mr. Grau noted, in sight of the fact, this is an unusual situation, he moved for Finding of Fact, and Conclusion of Law, that the violation of Ord. 11-1 existed at the time of the last inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer, that an Administrative fee of $100.00 be imposed, and further that $25.00 per day be assessed, if the violation is not corrected after thirty days. Motion was seconded by Mr. Bednar. Discussion continued. Since the violation has continued intermittently since 1980, Mr. Bednar offered an amendment that the Administrative cost be raised to $300.00, and further that $25.00 per day be assessed after thirty days. Mr. Grau accepted the amendment. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mrs. Williamson in further discussion, acknowledged to Mr. Hanna, that the Board has a sense of hesitation in this matter, in that he may be the person who ultimately will bear the brunt of the ruling, while he is not the one legally responsible for it. The costs should be borne otherwise. She further advised Mr. Hanna that he may think about. legally going back to the court, to file a motion, to retrieve monies or fine. He should be reimbursed from funds upon sale of the house. 6. APPEAL OF FINE, CASE NO. 84-2211-090 OREN MORTON, 189 N. W. 92nd St. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS The violations of the Code in this case are Sec. 11-1, and 518. Specifically cited by Mr. LuBien, as peeling paint, mildew, junk car, overgrown and unsightly yard, and hedges in excess of height limitations and extending beyond property line. At the hearing of September 6, 1984, the Code Enforcement Board, based on the evidence, ruled that non-compliance continues, and that Mr. Morton should pay Administrative costs of $75.00, and in addition, $25.00 per day if compliance is not satisfied by 10/8/84. After this order certain items were taken care of, over a period of time. As of January 21, 1985 the yard remained overgrown and unsightly. The $75.00 Administrative cost has not been paid, and the total fine imposed to date is $2,675.00, and continues. Mr. LuBien noted he.sent a notification of lien, and last week he received a phone call from Lynn, Mr. Morton's daughter, stating that, he did not understand the order, and she requested an appeal hearing. Mr. LuBien made an inspection of the property on Monday, which he found to be cleaned up, putting the property in compliance on February 3, 1985, at which time the fine ceased. By this time the fine had accrued to $3,000.00. Mr. Morton was sworn in to state his position. He advised the Board that there is no way possible he could pay such a fine, stating that he lives on a fixed income, and is just unable to allow for such extras. • 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -5- 2/7/85 He further stated that his daughter was not present because she had classes, and understood that the appeal hearing was for Friday evening. Discussion followed concerning the absence of Mr. Morton's daughter and the importance of her presence at the hearing. Mr. Bednar moved to continue the appeal to the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Rivero, and carried unanimously by a roll call vote. 7. APPEAL OF FINE, CASE NO. 84-2570-110 CHARLES C. HAYEK, 9495 N. Miami Ave. GARAGE WAREHOUSE AND WORKSHOP Mr. LuBien recalled that Mr. Hayek was operating warehouse for woodwork equipment and material, and a workshop in his garage in the residential zone. The order of the Code Enforcement Board at the hearing on November 1, 1984 was to remove all materials relating to the workshop and to cease operations therein by December 3, 1984. Also Mr. Hayek was ordered to pay Administrative costs of $150.00 and in addition $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after the specified date. Mr.. LuBien further noted that following inspection of the property, and on January 22, 1985, he sent Mr. Hayek an Affidavit of Compliance with the Schedule of Regulation as of 12/24/84, also he sent a copy of the Lien showing the total fine accrued was $500.00. Mr. Hayek had paid the Administrative fee, and requested this hearing to appeal the fine. Following his swearing in, Mr. Hayek noted he sent a letter to Mr. LuBien on September 23, 1984 stating the fact, the workshop is a hobby, he did not anticipate the problem to reach this point. Mr. Asmus noted that in telephone conversation with Mr. Hayek, he advised him to talk with Mr. 'Forney and Mr. LuBien to try to resolve the matter, that he was not using the garage as a commercial operation, but as a hobby workshop. Much discussion continued, concerning the length of time it took to comply, Mr. Hayek's letter of 9/84, and the mysterious conflict with the Code Enforcement Director, and the fact that no new evidence is presented to justify or support appeal. Mr. LuBien stated that so far as he is concerned, there is no conflict of personalities and that he holds no malice, he is simply doing his job, and if a personality conflict exists it is on Mr. Hayek's part only. Mr. Rivero moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and carried unanimously by a roll call vote. Mr. Rivero was excused to leave the meeting at this time. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -6- 2/7/85 8. CASE NO. 84-2197-104 DOMINIC NICOLAU, 1110 N. E. 104th St. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Mr. LuBien informed the Board that, though this item is listed on the agenda as a report from previous meeting, Mr. Marburgh, owner of the property had come down from Pompano and requested to be heard, for the purpose of appeal. Mr. LuBien further stated that, violations of Sections 5-3, 11-1, and 12-43 of Miami Shores Code of Ordinances continue to exist. The order of the Board has been recorded with Dade County Clerk. There is nothing in Member's packet on this case, and in his opinion, an appeal, at this time is out of order. If the Board is going to hear the case at this time, he wishes the Court Reporter to get it on record. ' Mx. Gregory Marburgh was sworn in. He stated that he is the owner of the property, he rented the house to Dominic Nicolau, with the option to buy. Mr. Marburgh is protesting because he claims not to have received copies of the violations, also that a permit was issued to Dominic Nicolau, not the rightful owner of the property. He further noted that he receives rent regularly and has no reason to come down and check on the property. Mr. LuBien advised the Board that notices were sent to address of record, 110 N. E. 104th St. until March of 1984 when notice was sent to Gregory & Robin Marburgh at the above address and was re- turned, no response. Mr. Nicolau upon receipt of these notices, should have informed Mr. Marburgh. Subsequent copies were sent to Gregory Marburgh at 1000 South Ocean Blvd, Pompano Beach, FL 33062. Much discussion ensued. Mr. Bednar avised Mr. Marburgh that as the owner, he has a respon- sibility to see that the premises is properly taken care of. Mr. Wilson informed members that, following the hearing, he and Mr. LuBien met with Mr. Nicolau and. Mr. Marburgh at the house site. At that time Mr. LuBien pointed out the violations and steps to correct the problems. The property still is not in compliance. Mr. Bednar requested to know, what has been done, and what work needs to be done. Mr. Nicolau, upon being sworn in, stated he is in compliance, as of this afternoon, and inspection was called for. It was noted by the Secretary, inspection was not called in until after 4:30 p.m. today, and Mr. LuBien had already left the office for the day. Discussion continued. Members concurred,. Mr. Nicolau was given sixty days to comply instead of the usual thirty days, the property continues to be in violation, and the fine continues to accrue. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -7- 2/7/85 Mr. Marburgh again protested the fine, stating he wants to comply, and he wants relief from the fine as it accumulates. Much discussion continued. Mr. Taylor moved to table the matter to next.month to allow Mr. LuBien to inspect for compliance, as claimed by Mr. Nicolau, and report back to the Board, since this item was not on the agenda. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Willamson. Mr. Asmus informed Members that all the facts have just been heard and that it would be ludicrousto repeat this, scene next month. Mr. Bednar offered a suggestion that, the order of the Code Enforcement Board remain in effect, when compliance is met, Mr. LuBien will place the item on the agenda for the next meeting, at which time the Board, already .apprised of the facts, may decide if the compliance should speak for itself, and determine if there should be an adjustment based on the circumstance. It would also allow Mr. LuBien time to review all the records from March 1984, to the present date, to determine if proper notification was sent to Mr. Marburgh. Mrs,Williamson concurred that, this is exactly what Mr. Taylor intends, by the motion to table this item. Certainly, the Board does not want to hear repetitive testimony over what has been heard today. The question was called, and the motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 9. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-2115-115 SJONNIE & KARLEEN PREECE, 80 N. W. 92nd St. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SWIMMING POOL Mr. LuBien noted the facts behind the violation, in December 1981, following inspection of a complaint, it was confirmed that the swimming pool was not properly maintained.. Notice was sent, and the pool cleaned. The cycle has been repeated several times since. At the present time, it appears that it has been some time since any maintenance, and the pool is in very poor .condition. Members reviewed photographs of the violation. Mr. Bednar moved to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Grau, and carried unanimously. 10. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE N0.85-2679-116 ANTOINE & MARIE TOUSSAINT, 174 N. W. 102nd St. PARKING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE As Members reviewed photographs, Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violation, as a flat bed truck in excess of 3/4 ton, was being • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -8- 2/7/85 parked in the front. Notice was sent, and the owner stated that, he only had a pick up truck. Mr. LuBien also noted the violation continues, and has resulted in damage to the yard, and fence causing an unsightly condition. Mr. Taylor moved to go to the next step, seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and passed unanimously. 11. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO 85-2709-117 LESS REDDICK, JR. & TUPREME RASHEED, 89 N. W. 106th St'. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY AND OTHER VIOLATIONS Mr. LuBien advised the Board that a complaint was received and inspection confirmed several violations to Sections 10-2, 11-1, and 12-43. Failure to provide proper garbage containers. Hedge in excess of height limits and extending over sidewalk. Failure to maintain rear yard. Peeling paint on fascia. Mr. LuBien also noted that the final notice was returned unclaimed. Hand delivery was attempted, but not accepted. Mr. Taylor moved to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and passed unanimously. 12. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-2637-118 CARLOS & LEONOR RONDON, 67 N. W. 109th St.:i UNPAINTED FASCIA REPAIRS As members reviewed photographs, Mr. LuBien,cited the facts behind the violation. In August 1984 the house was reroofed witi}ta permit,out and repairs were made to fascia. In October the repairs had not been painted, and remaining portion was peeling.. Notices were sent, but there has been no response or action. Mr. Grau moved to go to the next step, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and carried unanimously. 13. Mr. LuBien reported that the case concerning Nelson D. Alderman. Hunt dated 10/4/84, the filed lien will be one year old February 14, 1985, cumulative fine is $5,000.00 plus. He reported, he will be taking the proper action regarding the matter. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.