Loading...
09-05-1985 Regular Meeting• • • aian i c ore 9 llage F L OR 10 A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING September 5, 1985 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village code Enforcement Board was held on September 5, 1985.. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., at the Village Hall, by Chairman Asmus, with the following members present: Barry K, Asmus, Chairman Richard Groden Franklin E. Grau Santos Rivero Arthur H. Taylor Julie A.S. Williamson Absent: Angela Daley Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Code Enforcement Jack Wilson, Code Enforcement Inspector 1. MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of August 1, 1985 were -approved, by a motion made by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Rivero, and carried unanimously. 2. HEARING, CASE NO. 85-2659-130 THOMAS D. PORTER, 186 N. E. 106th ST. UNLAWFUL FENCE Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violation of Sec 5-3, work with no permit, and 518 (a), construction of wood fence in excess of height limitations. He noted construction of the un- lawful fence was observed on 8/18/83. Notice:was sent, work stopped, for a time, and. then resumed and completed. Final notice was sent 10/29/84. Owner responded with a request for -a variance. Action on the violation was with -held pending amemd- ment to allow 6' fences. Owner was notified the amendment failed, and compliance was expected. There has been no response or action to comply. Members reviewed photographs as Mr. Asmus explained the informal hearing procedure. Steven DeLuca, attorney and client Thomas Porter were sworn in. Mr. LuBien and JackoWilson, Code Enforcement Director & Inspector were also sworn in. Mr. Deluca noted the appeal for variance before the Planning & Zoning Board on April 25, 1985 was continued to May 23, 1985 to observe determination of the Frank Schafer Case. Mr. DeLuca re- quested time certain of 60 days to prepare a case and exhaust the appeal process. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -2- 9/5/85 In response to query, Mr. LuBien stated the amendment for 6' fences was defeated, and Mr. Schafer's request for a variance was denied by both the Planning & Zoning Board and by Council. Much discussion followed. Mr. Groden admonished that Mr. DeLuca was waiting to act, observing the outcome of the Schafer case, the request waa denied, and the subsequent appeal has been denied, so that time has lapsed, where noi.action was taken, and now the same process will be repeated in this case. Mr. Groden then moved to find Mr. Porter in violation and further, if he does not comply in 60 days, a:fine of $10.00 per day will be assessed. Seconded by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Rivero offered an amendment,`to allow 60 days for compliance, and then a fine of $50.00 per day be levied. This amendment was accepted by Mr. Groden but seconded by Mr. Grau since Mr. Taylor refused. The amendment carried with a 5-1 roll call vote with Mrs. Williamson dissenting. Mr. Grau then offered an amendment that the violation be corrected in 10 days following Council adjudication,;or 60 days maximum, whichever comes first. The amendment was -accepted and passed unanimously by roll call vote. Discussion continued. The final motion which carried unanimously by a roll call vote, is that: Mr. Porter is in violation, compliance must be met in 60 days maximum, or 10 days following Council determination, whichever comes first, and further that a fine of $50.00 per day will be levied at this time. 3. HEARING - CASE NO. 85-2167-131 FRANK C. SCHAFER, 1399 N. E. 104th St. UNLAWFUL FENCE Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violation of Sec 5-3 and 518 (a) of the Code. Mr. Schafer's request was denied by the Planning & Zoning Board and Village Council. However, he is now in compliance. Mr. Schafer was at the meeting and requested to be heard. After being sworn in, Mr. Schafer stated, he had, in good faith, hired a fence company to install the fence which was too high. He then paid $485. to the fence company to cut it to regulation, it was still several inches high and the Company came out and sawed off the top. He was very upset over the shoddy chain saw workmanship. Following a brief discussion, Mrs. Williamson moved to issue form 4A, seconded by Mr. Grau and carried unanimously. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -3- 9/5/85 Mr. LuBien requested to move to Case #6 since neither 14 Mrs. Jamison nor #5 Mr. Barreto attended; the meeting. 6. HEARING -CASE NO. 85-2921-134 BORIS POLLISKY, 130 N. W. 92nd ST. PARKING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE A taxi cab was observed parked in front yard, a violation of the Schedule of Regulations. Notices were sent, but no immediate action was taken. The taxi cab has not been observed in over a month. Mr. & Mrs. Pollisky they were not aware notice was received notice was received on Miami Beach. Discussion followed. were sworn in. Mrs. Pollisky stated that, the taxi cab was a violation and when a it was moved to the rear. When the final the cab was left at the Central Cab...garage Mike Bokisier is also a taxi driver who works with Mr. Polissky. He was sworn in and testified that he picks Mr. Polissky up each day and takes him home after work from the Central Cab garage. The taxicab is not kept at the home at all. Following discussion, Mrs Williamson moved to file form`4A, seconded by Mr. Grau and carried unanimously. 4. HEARING - CASE N0. 85-2848-132 VIRGINIA JAMISON, 1290 N. E. 103rd St. VARIOUS VIOLATIONS Members reviewed photographs, as Mr. LuBien outlined violations of Sec 11-1 and 12-43. He advised Members that in his conversa- tion with Mrs. Jamison,she states she is not in violation and has no intention to appear. Mr. LuBien then read a letter which was just delivered to him by courier from Mrs. Jamison. In the letter Mrs. Jamison stated, she is physicial unable to attend this meeting and requested and entension to allow time for a follow up letter and sworn statements. She then added -::that she does not feel she is in violation of any sections of the Code. In reply to query Mr. LuBien recommended that it has been the policy to grant extensions when requested, however, the violations continue and he strongly urged Members drive by the house and observe the contition. Much discussion followed. Pressure cleaning does leave an un- sightly condition, the house needs paint. The possibility of having Public Works clean up the yard and maybe the Mayor's Task Force assistance to Mrs. Jamison was discussed. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 9/5/85. Mrs. Williamson made a motion to give Mrs. Jamison additional time to comply, by continuing this case to the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Taylor for discussion, which continued. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Mr. Groden No. Mr. Taylor No Mr. Asmus Yes Mrs. Williamson Yes Mr. Grau No Mr. Rivero No. Mr. Taylor then moved to find that a violation exists, and that if not corrected in 45 days a $10.00 per day fine be assessed, seconded by Mr. Groden. An amendment offered by Mr. Grau, to increase the fine to $50.00 per day after 45 days was accepted by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Groden, and carried by a 5-1 roll call vote, with Mrs. Williamson dissenting. 5. HEARING - CASE NO. 85-2899-133 RAUL J. BARRETO, 72 N. E. 104th St. INOPERATIVE VEHICLE - PARKING VIOLATIONS Members reviewed' photographs, the latest taken on August 29th, as Mr. LuBien outlined the facts of violation to the Schedule of Regulation and 14-43. Mr. LuBien advised Members that, this is the third case brought against Mr. Barreto, he has never attended a meeting nor paid a fine, ignoring all notices and returning certified notices unclaimed. After brien discussion, Mr. Groden moved to find Mr. Barreto in violation, as stated, and that if he is not in compliance in thirty days a fine of $50.00 per day be levied. Mr. Taylor 2nd. In light of the contempt of Mr. Barreto, Mr. Rivero offered an amendment to increase the fine to $75.00 per day after 30 days. This amendment was accepted by Mr. Groden and Mr. Taylor. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 7. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-2791-135 MICHAEL PAHL, 83 N. E. 100th St. UNPAINTED HOUSE - UNLAWFUL PAVEMENT Members reviewed photographs as Mr. LuBien outlined the facts behind the violations of Schedule of Regulations, 5-3 and 12-43. He stated that deterioration ofthe property was observed on 5/23/83. Notices were sent, the owner advised that he had just purchased the property and was in the process of rehabilitation. Other notices were sent and more promises made. Progress was slow and intermitant. Owner signed a statement that the violations would be corrected by 6/30/85. The structures remain unpainted and the unlawful pavement not removed, at the present time. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -5- 9/5/85 Mr. Rivero moved to go to the next step, seconded by Mr. Grau and carried unanimously. 8. AFFIDAVIT. OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-2803-136 PAYPAC CORPORATION, 10627 N. E. 10th Place INCOMPLETE ROOF The facts behind the violation as outlined by Mr. LuBien, incomplete roofing was observed on 2/25/85. Dixie:,Williams responded to the notice, requesting additional time. On April 9, 1985 a final notice was sent. After seven months, the con- dition remains unchanged. Mrs Williamson made a motion to go to the next step, seconded by Mr. Groden and carried unanimously. 9. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 85-3073-137 SJONNIE A. PREECE, 80 N. W. 92nd St. OVERGROWN AND UNSIGHTLY YARD Mr. LuBien noted that an overgrown and unsightly yard was observed, notices were sent and the front yard was cut, the remaining side and rear yards were untouched. Members viewed photographs of the violation. At. LuBien further gave each Member a copy of the Certificate of Title transfer, indicating that the V.A. has forclosed on the property. He recommended that this case be withdrawn and start the process again. He noted that he had received this notice of foreclosure after the agenda was mailed. Much discussion followed. Mr. Rivero moved to table this case for 30 days, to allow. time for the V.A. to be notified of the violation, giving them an opportunity to respond. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried 4-2 vote. Mr. Grau & Mrs. Williamson dissenting. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.