Loading...
03-07-1985 Regular Meeting• cJd Liami cihorescillage F L OR ID A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MARCH 7, 1985 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on March 7, 1985, 7:30 p.m., at the Village Hall, with the following members present: Barry K. Asmus, Chairman Arthur H. Taylor Donald L. Bednar Kenneth Cutchens Franklin E. Grau Santos Rivero Julie A. S. Williamson Also present: Frank LuBien, Code Enforcement Director Jack Wilson, Code Enforcement Inspector 1. MINUTES Mr. Taylor moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 7, 1985, as written, seconded by Mr. Bednar and carried unanimously. • 2. HEARING, CASE NO. 84-2328-105 (Continued from Nov. Meeting) M. COOK, 360 N. E. 105th ST. A/C NOISE AND REED SCREEN Mr. LuBien refreshed Members on the facts behind the violation, as a noisy A/C compressor at theside of the house. The reed screen has been resolved. Other modification to baffle the sound has not been satisfactory to the neighbor or to the Code Enforcement Director. Mr. LuBien presented a diagram illustrat- ing the problem as it exists, and suggested the unit be moved to the back, with a CBS wall approximately five feet high to hide the unit and to baffle sound. This is merely a suggestion, but hopefully this would project the noise away from the abutting neighbor. In discussion,oznd in reply to questions from Members, Mr. LuBien stated, he has discussed the matter with both parties. There is nothing in the Ordinance to dictate where a unit should be located, but it does refer to noise nuisance (which is the issue here), and when a unit is to be placed between buildings, the Code Enforcement Director requests a letter of approval from the adjoin- ing neighbor before issuing the permit. Extensive discussion continued. Mr. Wilson: and Mr. LuBien were sworn in to testify for the duration of this meeting. • • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -2- 3/7/85 Mr. John Hadsall, Attorney representing Ms. Cook and Ms. Cook were both sworn in. Mr. Hadsall stated that Ms. Cook placed a reed screen up to baffle the sound before the December 1984 meeting, this was removed when it was found to be in violation. There has been no professional decibel reading taken. The noise levelis being judged by Mr. LuBien and the neighbor. Mr. Hadsall had an estimate of the cost of moving the unit is $2,200.00. He stated that should the neighbor be unhappy with this change the problem could be recreated. This statement was rebuffed by Mr. Bednar and thenretracted by Mr. Hadsall. Ms. Cook testified, the unit was in the same place when she purchased the house five years ago. Upon removal of the reed screen, she had a wooden cover built over the unit which has been unsatisfactory, as a baffle to the neighbor, and has resulted in less efficiency of the unit itself. She further noted that, the neighbor has complained on occasion regarding other matters. The members in much discussion concurred that, it may benefit Ms. Cook to engage an Air Conditioning Engineer, to study the noise problem, and determine a solution. Mr. Bednar moved to table the issue for thirty days, allowing Ms. Cook time to take other steps necessary to solve the noise problem, and Mr. LuBien time to evaluate, seconded by Mr. Grau. Mr. Cutchens offered an amendment that, Ms. Cook return to the next meeting with her proposal on how she intends to correct the problem. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Bednar and Mr. Grau, and the amended motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Grau suggested to Ms. Cook, that she involve her neighbor in the solution, so that the problem can be resolved amicabily. 3. HEARING, CASE NO. 85-2115-115 SJONNIE & KARLEEN PREECE, 80 N. W. 92nd ST. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SWIMMING POOL Members reviewed photographs as Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violation, as failure to maintain swimming pool. Upon inspection today the situation remains the same. Mr. Preece, after being sworn in, testified the problem was created by tree roots causing a crack in the pool. He stated the tree has been cut down and now he can get on with the.job of repairing, and maintaining the pool. Discussion followed. In reply to Mrs. Williamson's question, Mr. Preece stated that he could, certainly, have the problem corrected in one month. Mrs. Williamsonmoved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law that the violation of Ordinance No. 422-80 exists, and if the condition is not corrected in thirty days, a fine of $50.00 per day be assessed, seconded by Mr. Taylor. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -3- 3/7/85 Mr. Bednar offered an amendment that a Administrative Cost of $100.00 be imposed, and further that $50.00 per day assessed if the violation is not corrected in thirty days. The amendment was accepted by Mrs. Williamson and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Preece again stated that he could have the problem corrected in thirty days. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Asmus advised Mr. Preece that, there is a $100. Administrative fee and that he should notify Mr. LuBien immediately upon compliance, to avoid the $50.00 per day assessment. 4. HEARING, CASE NO. 85-2679-116 ANTOINE & MARIE TOUSSAINT, 174 N. W. 102nd ST. PARKING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE Facts behind the violation, as recited by Mr. LuBien are, a flat bed truck in excess of 3/4 ton, was observed parked in front. Notice was sent, and the owner stated that he only had a pick up truck. The violation has resulted in damage to the yard and fence. Members reviewed photographs. Mr. LuBien further stated that, he had lengthy conversation with Mr. Toussaint, who replied that he has taken the notice seriously, and does intend to cooperate fully. Mr. LuBien then noted that, as of this morning, inspection revealed the fence has been repaired. Mr. Wilson also noted that the truck has been removed. After being sworn in, Mr. Toussaint testified, he bought the house only six weeks ago and was not aware df the code prohibiting the truck parked there. He further assured Members the truck was re- moved the same day the pictures were taken. Mr. Asmus explained the Miami Shores Village Code to Mr. Toussaint, and the purpose and importance for such Ordinances. Following discussion, Mr. Bednar moved to find that Mr.. Toussaint is in compliance, and an Administrative fee of $50.00 be assessed, seconded by Mr. Rivero. Mrs. Williamson offered an amendment that the Administrative fee be reduced to. $25.00, which was accepted by Mr. Bednar and Mr. Rivera. The motion passed by a roll call vote of 6-1, with Mr. Cutchens dissenting. Mr. Asmus explained the decision to Mr. Toussaint and thanked him for his interest and prompt action he had taken in the matter. 5. HEARING, CASE NO. 85-2709-117 LESS REDDICK, JR. & TUPREME RASHEED, 89 N. W. 106th ST, FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY AND OTHER VIOLATIONS Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violation to Ordinances #518 (a), 10-2, 11-1, and 12-43, and the difficulty in serving notice of the violations. Memebers viewed photographs of the violations. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 3/7/85 Mr. Reddick, after being sworn in, stated that, he has been out of town a great deal, but upon receipt of last Thursdays notice, he has attempted to correct all the problems. Also he stated that his brother has been living at the house. Mr. LuBien noted that, after making contact with Mr. Reddick, re- medial action was taken, and as of today the work is about 95% completed. Mrs. Williamson inquired if the remainder of work could be completed in two or three weeks, to which Mr. Reddick was most affirmative. She then informed him that, should he ever leave town again and leave his brother in the house, that he must instruct his brother of the importance of these notices. Mrs. Williamson then moved, in light of the fact that..all violations have not been completely corrected, that aline of $50.00 per day be assessed if all violations are not corrected in thirty days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutchens. Following further discussion the motion carried by a 6-1 roll call vote with Mr. Cutchens dissenting. 6. HEARING, CASE NO. 85-2637-118 CARLOS & LEONOR RONDON, 67 N. W. 109th ST. UNPAINTED FASCIA REPAIRS Mr. LuBien recited the facts behind the violation, as noted on the Affidavit. In August 1984, the house was reroofed, and repairs made to the fascia. In October the repairs had not been.painted, and the remaining portion was peeling. There was no response or action to the notices sent. Mr. LuBien further noted that inspection today revealed a completely repainted house. Discussion followedconcerning the absence of Carlos and Leonor Rondon. Mr. LuBien presented a signed receipt for Notice of Hearing, and noted that he had no conversation regarding his current finding of compliance. Mr. Rivero moved to send the Rondons a notice of compliance and.impose an Administrative.fee of $150.00, (this because he felt there is no excuse for no one to show up for this hearing), seconded by Mr. Taylor. The motion passed with the following roll call vote: Mr. Cutchens No Mr. Taylor Yes Mrs. Williamson Yes Mr. Bednar No Mr. Grau No Mr. Rivero Yes Mr. Asmus Yes • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -5- 3/7/85 7. APPEAL OF FINE, CASE NO. 84-2211-090 OREN NORTON, 189 N. W. 92nd St. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Mr. Morton and his daughter, Lynn were sworn in. Lynn testified that she does not live in the house, but had seen the first notice last June with the list of items to be corrected. The house was painted in August, with her father's very limited income. In September the yard was cut and cleaned up, and the overgrown hedge was corrected. By early January all the violations were corrected, and now a gardner has been engaged for regular maintenance. Lynn further noted, she and her father were unaware of any Administrative.cost or fine imposed, and that Mr. Morton would be unable to pay on his limited income. Mr. Morton testified that,;the had responded to every notice and had attended each meeting at which his case was heard. He noted he is appealing the fine on the basis that he did comply as his health and finances allowed. Further that, he was not informed of an Administrative cost or fine until he was served notice of the lien. Mr. Asmus read from the minutes of meetings of September 1984, and October 1984 to support the Board's position that both the fine and the Administrative cost was made very clear. Much discussion continued. • Mr. Rivero moved to deny the Appeal, at this time, seconded by Mr. Cutchens. Mrs. Williamson stated, considering the extenuating circumstance, and because she has serious reservations about the actual understand- ing of parties involved, and also because Mr. Morton is now in com- pliance, she would like to consider a reduction of the fine. Mr. LuBien advised Members the lien at this time is $75.00 Adminis- trative cost and accumulated fine is $3,000.00. Mr. Bednar called the question and the motion carried with the following roll call vote: Mr. Cutchens Yes Mr. Taylor No Mrs. Williamson No. Mr. Bednar Yes Mr. Grau Yes Mr. Rivero Yes Mr. Asmus Yes Mr. Asmus advised Mr. Morton and his daughter, Lynn to contact Mr. LuBien to work out a payment plan and start reducing the lien, don't wait for foreclosure before action is taken. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -6- 3/7/85 8. APPEAL OF FINE, CASE NO 84-2197-104 DOMINIC NICOLAU AND GREGORY MARBURGH, 1110 N. E. 104th ST. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Mr. LuBien called Members attention to the minutes of the previous meeting, at which time the problem was discussed at length. Also he enclosed in Members packets a copy of the Building Permit applica- tion, on which Dominic Nicolau identifies himself as the owner and licensed contractor. Also he included other papers which strengthed his position of how and to whom notices were sent. Mr. LuBien further informed Members of his meetings and conversations with Mr. Marburgh. As of inspection this morning, all._the work is still not complete, the house is painted and the front. yard cleaned up, there remains considerable debris in the back yard and it remains unsightly. The fine remains in effect. Mr. Marburgh was sworn in.. He stated that he wishes to divorce Mr. Nicolau from himself and this issue. He claimed the permit was issued to Mr. Nicolau in error, as he rents the house with the option to buy and does not own it. He further noted that, it was the issuance of this permit which created all the problems. Further, he was advised, by his attorney, that any action he might now take, will jeopardize any Civil action he might take against Mr. Nicolau and the Village. Much discussion continued. In reply to query from Mr. Bednar, Mr. Marburgh stated he, himself, would be willing, as owner of the property to do all.the work as required to be in compliance, but he feels no responsibility for incomplete work caused by the issuing of this permit. He feels he must protect himself in the event of Civil Action. Mr. Bednar outlined the problem and clarified responsibility of the issue for Mr. Marburgh. Following continued discussion Mr. Ctuchens moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Mr. Taylor, for discussion purposes only. In reply to Mrs. Williamsons request. for restatement of the fine as it now exists, Mr. LuBien replied, he did not have exact figures, however the $20.00 per day fine has been going since January 1, 1985. Further discussion took place concerning the unsightly condition of the rear yard, and if this was an issue on previous notices or later. Mr. Taylor withdrew his second to the motion., since Mr. Marburgh stated he is not appealing the fine but wants the Board to divorce him from Mr. Nicolau and the permit issued. Mr. Margurgh further noted he wants all notices relating to the property sent directly to him at his Pompano Beach address. Mr. LuBien advised members no action is required of the Board unless 1111 they wish to express by vote their feeling on the issue to Mr. Marburgh. • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -7- 3/7/85 Following further discussion, Mr. Rivero seconded the motion made by Mr. Cutchens to deny appeal, and the motion passed with the following roll call vote: Mr. Cutchens Yes Mr. Taylor No Mrs. Williamson No. Mr. Bednar Yes Mr. Grau Yes Mr. Rivero Yes Mr, Asmus Yes Mr. Asmus clarified the problems outstanding and what has been resolved and suggested he remedy the unresolved issue. 9. Affidavit of Violation, CASE NO. 85-2713-119 CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN., 1240 N. E. 103rd ST. INOPERATIVE VEHICLE Mr. LuBien stated the facts behind the violation as -inoperative vehicle was observed and notices were sent. He was advised by Chase Federal that they do not own the vehicle and were not re- sponsible for it being there or moving it. Members reviewed photographs of the abandoned vehicle. Mr. Grau moved to go to the next step, seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and carried unanimously. 10. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE. NO. 85-2752-120 MTQUEL & ELSA RODRIGUEZ, 149 N. W. 105th ST. PEELING PAINT ON FASCIA Facts behind the violation as recited by Mr. LuBien is peeling paint on the fascia. Notices were sent, but there has been no response or action. Photographs were reviewed by Members. Mr. Grau made a motion to move to the next step, seconded by Mr. Rivero, and passed unanimously. 11. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-2753-121 ELI & WILLIA BOYD, 17 N. W. 105th ST. INOPERATIVE VEHICLE Photographs reviewed by the Board were taken on February 27, 1985. Mr. LuBien stated the facts behind the violation, is an inoperative vehicle, there has been no response or action to notices sent. Inspection today revealed that the car has been removed. Mrs. Williamson moved to find for compliance, and no violation exists, seconded by Mr. Taylor, the motion carried unanimously. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -8- 3/7/85 12. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-2357-122 WILLIAM & LILLIANA MC CAUSLAND, 1059 N. E. 104th ST. INCOMPLETE EXTERIOR PAINTING Members reviewed photographs as Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violation as, incomplete exterior painting observed on June 1, '84. Notices were sent. Owner responded that there was a problem with the painter and requested an extension. Several extensions were granted, but nine months later, conditions are unchanged. Mr. Taylor made a motion to move to the next step, seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and carried unanimously. 13. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 852757-123 KENNETH C. FABEL, 195 N. W. 110th ST. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND INOPERATIVE VEHICLE Photographs were reviewed by the Members as Nr..LuBien stated the facts behind the violation as, peeling paint, commercial vehicle (flat bed truck), and inoperative vehicle (pick-up), observed. Notices were sent and the peeling paint was corrected. There has no action on the other violations. Mr. LuBien further noted that the flat bed truck has now been re- moved. The inoperative vehicle remains. He contacted the Real Estate agent who has a sign on the property, and through this agent was able to contact the attorney who represents the owner, and mailed copies of the notices to him. Mr. Taylor made a motion to go to the next step, seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and carried unanimously. 14. REPORTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS BY MR. LUBIEN A. CASE NO. 84-2595-112 DINORAH & EDWARD GONCZAROW, 290 N. E. 92nd ST. INOPERATIVE VEHICLE - IN COMPLIANCE B. CASE NO. 84-2521-113 ENSIGN BANK, 725 N. E. 96th ST. MILDEW ON BUILDING, UNLAWFUL CARPORT - IN COMPLIANCE C. CASE NO. 84-2543-114 R. D. SHOUCAIR JEAN W. & ROBERT C. HANNA, 897 N. E. 91st TERR. UNSIGHTLY YARD - IN COMPLIANCE. Also Mr. LuBien received a letter from Mrs. Jean Hanna, in which she requests all communication concerning her property be sent, hereafter, to her attorney. • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -9- 3/7/85 D. CASE NO. 83-1775-068 NELSON B. ALDERMAN HUNT, 1032 N. E. 98th ST. LIEN WAS ONE YEAR OLD ON FEBRUARY 14, 1985 Mr. LuBien stated that this case and the lien is over one year old and he needs approval. to refer this case to the Village Attorney. He further stated, in reply to query from Mr. Asmus:that, the last notice sent to Mr. Alderman.Hunt was on October 24, 1984 and on the bottom of the notice was a note.statingythis lien will be one year. old Feb. 14, 1985. All previous notices of notification of lien indluded the same notation, and all notices have been sent both by regular mail and by certified mail. Mr. Cutchens moved to turn this issue over to the Village Attorney for appropriate action, seconded by Mrs. Williamson, and the motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.. ' (� � ,S cr ary