08-04-1988 Regular Meeting•
•
•
Miami crhores91Ilage
F L OR ID A
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
August 4, 1988
The Miami. Shores Village Code Enforcement Board Meeting was called to order
by Mr. Barry Asmus, on August 4, 1988, at 7:40 P.M., at the Miami Shores Village
Hall. The following members were present: -
Franklin E. Grail, Chairman
Barry K, Asmus
Charles M. Custin
Richard A. Colangelo
Owen Henderson III
William Schroeder
John L. Stokesberry
Also present: Frank LuBien,, Director of Code Enforcement
1.. MINUTES - July 7, 1988
The minutes of the meeting of July 7, 1988 were approved, as written, by a
motion made by Mr. Stokesberry, seconded -by Mr. Henderson, and. passed by
unanimous vote.
2. BURGLAR ALARM APPEAL
KEN LANGE
70 N. E. 96th ST.
Mr. Lange was sworn in. Mr. LuBien also was sworn in for - all his test;cmony
of the evening,
Members received in their packet a letter from Mr. Lange requesting this
appeal, since he was unable to attend last months meeting. Other information
was. included in last months packet.
Mr. Lange stated the alarm did not malfunction. It was late in the evening,
the alarm did go.off, and --the police:were called, but at that particular time
they could find no evidence of forced entry. He later discovered... sneaker
prints in front of•and on the garage door. He -had to operate the.automatic
door manually until -it could be repaired. This made the alleged malfunction
traceable. In reply toque Mr. Lange stated he did not call the police
again, but it was necessary to have,the door repaired. The door is automatic
and tied into the alarm system. He did not have receipts.
.After brief discussion, Mr. LuBien advised, the Board has a charge to determine
if in fact the alarm did go off, and if there is sufficient cause to believe
there was an. attempted. burglary. After this Board. makes, a decision, Mr. Lange
then appeals to the Village Manager.
Mr. Grau.arrived at this paint.
Following further discussion, Mr.. Schroeder made a motion to find that there
was cause to suspect burglary and the appeal be granted. Motion seconded
by Mr.. Stokesberry, and passed by the following roll call vote:
•
•
•
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING -2- 8/4/88
Mr.Colangelo Yes
Mr. Henderson Yes
Mr, Schroeder Yes
Mr. Stokesberry Yes
Mr. Custin Yes
Mr, Asmus Yes
Mr. Grau Abstain
The gavel was.turned overto.Mr, Grau, Chairman.
Case #3 was postponed to later in the meeting.
4. APPEAL CASE NO. 88-4836-210
JOSEPH -IORIO
425 N. E. 93rd ST.
A copy of the letter addressed to Mr. Johnson requesting this appeal of
the $110. Administrative fee was.. enclosed in Members packet.
Mr. LuBien produced copies of notices sent and never returned. He stated
the hedgeviolation has been corrected.
Mr. Iorio.was present and very irately claimed he had not been notified of
this appeal until_ yesterday. He also objected to the Administrative fee
of $110.00 assessed at. a Hearing at which he was not notifiedTof or present
at. Mr, Iorio claimed he was being. unfairly.harrassed.
Mr. LuBien advised that Hearing notifications are processed by regular mail
(which was not returned), and certified mai (dated 4/11/88, with correct
address) which was returned unclaimed. Only the lastcourtesy agenda notice
was addressed incorrectly, returned, and subsequentlyilhadd/lelivered.
Mr. Asmus explained,. the Administrative cost of $110.00 is noted on his
Noti.ce.of Hearing,, to cover the expense to.bring.a case to this point.
Mr,.Iorio:made further angry remarks concerning this assessment.
Mr. Schroeder moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Mr. Asmus, and passed by
unanimous roll -call vote.
Mr. Grau explained the action of the Board for Mr. Iorio.
5. HEARING, . CASE NO. 88..4902-219
PATRICK DENTICO, 10050.BISCAYNE BLVD.
INSUFFICIENT PARKING SPACES - OVERSIZE BOAT
Mr. LuBien recited.the facts behind the violation of insufficient parking
spaces, inoperative:vehicles, and a boat in excess. of 20' in length.
Inspections confirmed these complaints. Anattorney responded to the first
notice thatthe violation would be corrected, but there has been no response
or action. Mr. LuBien further stated thatsince the Hearing notice went out,
the attorney has been in touch with him.to.determine what must be done to
comply. The matterhas been discussed at length, Mr. Dentico has made
application. for a -variance to put>paving.on his property, to accomodate the
vehicles which do not comply with law, this paving requires a variance.
•
•
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
-3- 8/4/88
The boat is still there also, Mrs.. Dentico id start one of the vehicles
for Mr. Wilson, Inspector, however the car remains inoperable, since it has
no valid license tag, and cannot be driven around the streets. without. same.
Board Members reviewed photographs of the violations,
Mr. Frank Woland, Attorney representing James. and Jane Dentico, and Patrick
Dentico were sworn in.
Mr. Woland first voiced objection to the fact, the Board.has no.attorney, he
objected to other procedures, citing various -.Florida. Statues. He objected
to Mr. LuBien testifying as to what the Village Attorney_saidF He requested
a reply to his objections.
Mr. Schroeder responded, the Board's objectives areclearcut, and if
Mr. Woland is not happy with the procedures there are means available to
pursue it. Mr.. Grau agreed this is the consensus of the Board, and asked
Mr. Woland to proceed.
Mr. Woland then stated the violator should be notified of all,_violations,
and hearings, and have the opportunity to appearatthese times when fees &
finesare assessed.
Mr. Grau explained to Mr. Woland this is the Hearing and he is being given
the opportunity to voice his objections, and defend his case. Mr. Grau
noted our procedure is much linent than the City of Miami:. and our sister
cities. When Mr. Woland commented on other cases, Mr. Grau admonished him
that the accusations are: not true,and he should get on with the case and
solve the issue at hand. The Chair is trying to accomodate him, but we are
a quasi-judicial body with certain procedures we must follow..
Mr. Woland.then declared, he doubted that an Administrative fee is legal.
He was denieda request to cross examine Mr. LuBien, at this time. He
continued his debate_ -on unrelated matters, and claimed he is being denied
fundamental due prowess.
Mr. Schroeder moved to deny further objections to procedures by Mr. Woland,
and requested the case proceed. Motion was seconded by Mr.. Asmus, and
passed unanimously.
Mr. LuBien in response to query from. Mr. Woland, announcedhe sends copies of
every code violated along with the notice of violation and will be glad to
furnish additional copies to Mr. Woland. He further stated Mr. Woland's
procedures are perfectly normal in a Court of Law,. and he does have. the
opportunity to appeal theedecision of the Board through the Circuit Court. He
should.confjne__his comments to -the violations as cited or the, Board proceed
and issue an order. Mr. LuBien noted there is a potential capacity for
parking 4 vehicles in the garage and driveway., Mr. LuBien objected to the
line of questioning, Mr. Woland told him today ofsix vehicles owned by
the Denticos.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
-4- 8/4/88
Mr. Woland continued his dlscussion,, he was advised by Mr, Grau that every
courtesy is being extended to him, we must proceed from this point, there
isa violation, a partial violation or.no violation:at all, we should proceed
along these lines.
Looking at. the photographs and in response to Mr. Woland, James Dentico
stated he had.four vehicles parked on the grass and it is his understanding
thiels ok. He claimed he never:received notices, this is a violation of
Schedule,of Regulations. Further he and:Mr..Woland stated, the fact that a
car has no, valid.. license does not make it inoperable,. -The boat was moved
this morning to across the stree,g he stated.
Mr. Asmus asked.Mr. Dentico why, when he received notices in March he is in
violation.. and pictures taken in June testify to this, the boat was not moved
until August? Also why are five cars parked on the grass-, as.,shown in the
photographs, if he has sufficient parking spaces for seven cars in driveway?
In response to statement from Jane Dentico that no notice was, sent and she
didn't know of the Hearing, Mr. LuBien produced certified mall return receipt,
addressed to Patrick Dentico and signed by Jane Dentico. (This was receipt
P 606 761 982). Also, he produced a receipt dated July.16, 1988 signed by
Jane Dentico. Mr. Grau.noted that notice was received by:the Denticos, and
notification was made by the Village in the usual and customary manner.
Mr. Grau summarized the violations as first cited on March 21,,1988 have been
well covered this evening. In responseto query, -Mr. LuBien•a.dvised Members
the Denticos have been repeatedly cited for the roofing truck, the boat both
here and at the previous location, and the cars. James:Dentico replied to
Mr. .Grau that he has appeared before. the Board.on.other matters, in spite of
objections from Mr. Woland.
Following continued discussion, Mr. Asmus moved -€or Finding of Fact, an over-
size boat was. being stored on the premises.. Conclusion of Law,. this 'Was a
violation of Sec 501(r)(1) of Miami Shores Vialage,.Code of.ardinances.
Ordered that an Administrative fee of $110.00:be assessed and form 4A be
executed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schroeder. Mr. Woland continued
to question Mr..LuBien. Mr. Schroeder offered an amendment to -levy a fine
of $50.00 per day if the boat returns. Mr. Asmus accepted the: amendment, and
the vote was called. The amendment passed by a unanimous roll call vote, the
motion also passed unanimously by roll call vote.
Mr. Schroeder moved. for Finding of Fact, vehiclesare being parked on lawn
due to insufficient number of off street parking spaces. Conclusion of Law,
this is a violation of Schedule of Regulations, AppendixA. Ordered that if
the cars are not removed in 15 days there will be_a fine of $25.00 per day
per vehicle levied. Motion was:seconded by Mr. Asmus. Discussion took place
concerning the request for variance to add paving, to be heard.by the Planning
& Zoning Board on August 25th. The vote was called, and the motion carried
by a unanimous roll call vote.
3. APPFAT, CASE NO. 88-4983-218.
LAUREN & EGERTON ANDERSON.
9130 N. E. 10th AVE.
Mr. LuBien noted this is an appeal to the $.110..00 Administrative fee.
Mrs_ Anderson talked with Mr. LuBien theday..following the hearing, she had
misunderstood the date, therefore requested this appeal. To refresh Members
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
-5- 8/4/88
memory regarding.this•case, Mr. LuBien commented notices were sent to
Mr. Gilbert, the prior owner of the property.,..concerning a boatparked in
the front. The. Andersons did respond to notices.which they received, and
the boat was removed prior to Hearing.
Mr. & Mrs. Anderson .were sworn in. Mr. Anderson stated he very recently
purchased the house, and did not know the boat was illegally parked in the
front, since he had no room .to.park in the rear, the boat was sold at a loss.
He is requesting the $110.00 Administrative fee,be waived, because of the
expenses of purchase of a new home, Mrs. Andersonas:pregnancy, and the sale
of the boat at a loss.
Following further discussion clarifying: datesand times by Mr. Grau,
Mr. Schroedermade a motion to grant the appeal to waive the fee as the
purpose of the Board is to get violations corrected as.soon :as possible,
and a loss was taken on .the sale of the boat, the motion was seconded by
Mr. Colangelo, andpassed by 4/3 roll call vote as follows:
Mr, Colangelo Yes
Mr. Henderson Yes
Mr, Schroeder Yes
Mr'. Asmus No
Mr. Stokesberry No
Mr. Custin Yes
Mr. Grau No
Mr. Grau explained, this is a courtesy gesture on the part of the Board, and
Mr. Anderson should not have other violations.
6. HEARING, CASE NO. 88-4952-220
KATHLEEN MC KELVY, 444 N. E. 93rd ST.
PAINTING VIOLATION
Mr. LuBien read the feats behind the violation, complaint was received and
inspection confirmed that the house and garage were being painted without a
permit., with a color not in harmony with -the surrounding property. Following
receipt of notice, the owner applied to the Planning & Zoning:Beard for a
color approval, and,was denied. A final notice was s.ent,but there has been
no further action. Further, Mr. LuBien showed Members a swatch of the color
sample he received this evening.
Mr. & Mrs. .(McKelvy):Whitney were sworn in. Mr.. Whitney reiterated the
Planning & Zoning Board denied the original color request and recommended he
tone the color down by mixing 1 gal white to 5 gal ofcolor, he mixed one to
three. Mrs. McKelvy is under a doctors care and he works in Stuart, making
it all -.very difficult to comply.
Mr, LuBien advised Members, as a. .courtesy, he will put this on the agenda
for Planning & Zoning. Boardapproval, next Thursday, August'ilth.
In response to query, Mr. Whitney voted it will take him two weekends to
complete the job, provided approval is granted.
Mr, Asmus made a. motion, seconded. by Mr. Henderson, and 3 amendments were
tagged on. Mrs, Mckelvy requested appeal of the Administrative fee of
$110.00. Mr. Asmus withdiew the original. motion, and moved.` for Finding of
Fact, and_ Conclusion of Law., a violation exists to Section 6.4 & 523 of the
Miami Shores Village Code.. Ordered that $110.00 Administrative fee be
assessed and be effective and coupled with a fine. of. $25.00 per day, if the
violation is not corrected in 45 days. Mr. Henderson seconded the motion
which passed by unanimous roll call vote.
•
•
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
-6- 8/4/88
Mr.
Grau explained to.Mr. Whitney that Planning & Zoning will determine
approval or disapproval. of the dolor on Thursday.evening,.he should then
obtain. a permit on Friday, and get the house painted within the time
allocated.
7. HEARING, CASE NO. 88-5002-221
JOHN VAN ZYCK,. 254 N. E. 101st ST.
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN DRIVEWAY
Members reviewed photographs., as Mr. LuBien read the facts behind the
violation to Sec 20-17, a deteriorated and potentially dangerous driveway.
Also he stated a permit has since been obtained and,violation.corrected as
of July 12, 1988.
Mr. VanZyck was sworn in and confirmed Mr. LuBien's statement.
Mr. Asmus moved that the violation has been brought into compliance, that
dorm 4A be executed, and there be no Administrative.fee. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Schroeder, and carried unanimously.
8. HEARING, CASE NO. 88-5005-222
EDWARD DU BOIS III, 680 GRAND CONCOURSE
UNTRAILERED BOAT
Members reviewed the.. photographs, as..Mr... LuBien.recited the fact, that there
had been no. action, nor. response to notices concerning an untrailered boat
extending into the alley ,right--of-way.. Today inspection revealed, the boat
is gone.
Mr. DuBois was sworn in. He stated when the boat.was removed from the
trailer, he had no idea. how.difficult it would be..to get it back on the
-trailer. He did not know this was a violation. He did receive notices of
May 9. and May 20th.
Mr. Schroeder's motion to file compliance form. 4A and waive Administrative
fee, died. for lack. of a second.
Mr. Asmus moved for Finding of Fact, and:Conclusion of Law., the untrailered
boat was a violation. of Sec-50.1(r).(1).(v) and Schedule of Regulations, since
it has.now been removed form. 4A be filed and Administrative fee of $110.00
be assessed. Mr. Henderson seconded the motion which passed bya 6/1 roll
call -vote, with Mr. Schroeder voting No.
Mr. Asmus was excused at this point.,(9:20 P.M.).
9. HEARING, CASE NO. 88-5013-223
F & J TRADING CO., INC. 969 N. E. 92nd St.
PEELING PAINT - OVERGROWN & UNSIGHTLY
As Mr. LuBien read the facts behind the violation, Members reviewed photo-
graphs, shown at the time Affidavit of Violation -was introduced. There had
been no response nor action to notices sent. Since that time a portion of the
premises seen from. the street was painted, the -yard was cut once, but as of
inspection this morning it was.again in poor condition.
•
CODE ENFORCEMENT. BOARD.
-7- 8/4/88
There was no representative of.F. & J., Trading present.
Mr. Schroeder moved for Finding of Fact.tlhe violations exist, Conclusion
of Law, these items violate Sec 10-1, &.12-133 of the Village Code, and
ordered that Administrative cost of..$110.,00 be assessed, and.if compliance
is not met in 30 days a -fine of $25.00 .per day will go into effect. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Henderson, and.passed unanimously.
10. AFFIDAVIT OF: VIOLATION, CASE .NO. 88-4778-224
JUDITH WILLIAMS,-. 86.N, E. 95th ST.
MILDEW AND STAINS ON HOUSE & AWNINGS
Mr. LuBien stated inspection confirmed a -complaint :there was excessive
stains and mildew on the building and awnings. There has been an exchange
of, correspondence and phone calls in response to notices. Some,work was
done but the job remains unfinished. Members reviewed photos,, as Mr. LuBien
further stated the boat.parked in the front is a part of,the violation as
noted in previous notice,
Mr. Stokesberry made amotion to proceed to the next step, seconded by
Mr. Henderson, and carried unanimously.
11. AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION, CASE NO. 88-5035-225
NOEL & URVA LE EBANKS, 262 N. W. 111th TERR.
UNLAWFUL PARKING
Mr. LuBien read the facts behind the violationto the Schedule of Regulations,
• as Members reviewed photographs.
Mr. Stokesberry moved to proceed to the next step, seconded by Mr. Colangelo
and carried unanimously.
12. AFFIDAVIT OF -VIOLATION, CASE NO. 88-5106-226
JEAN & JENNER PHILIZAIRE, 10904 N. W. 2nd AVE.
UNLAWFUL PARKING, UNSIGHTLY YARD, INOPERABLE VEHICLE
Members reviewed photographs, as MY—LuBien read the faets behind the
violations. Overgrown and.. unsightly yard, inoperable. vehicle, and vehicles
on the lawn.
Mr. Stokesberry motioned to proceed to the next step, seconded by. Mr. Colangelo
and passed unanimously..
13. REPORTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. CASE NO, 88-4870-216
RICHARD. S. BESADE, 1110 N. E. 100th ST.
BOAT IN FRONT YARD
Theiboathas been irernoved...from.=the.front yard, and Mr. Besade has
c,4sa• ;paid the. $200,00 Administrative cost imposed.
B. CASE NO. 88-4938-217
FELIX ATILRS FIGUEROA, 262 N. E. 103rd ST.
OVERSIZE. BOAT
The oversize boat has been removed, and Mrs. Figueroa has paid
$100.00 of the $200.00 Administrative fee imposed.
•
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -8- 8/4/88
C. WILLIAM E. GILBERT/ANDERSON, 9130 N. E. 10th AVE.
BOAT IN FRONT YARD
Boat in the front yard has been sold,and the Administrative fee
assessed was waived in appeal:tonight (8/4/88),
14. OTHER .ACTION - COMMENTS
Mr. LuBien advised Members concerning.opinlon from. Mr, Fenn, Village Attorney:
Can action be taken against a violator when a,permit is in force?
It is the opinion of Mr. Fenn that actiontaken for an existing.violation has
nothing to do with.the-fact a.permit is in force, (Permit is good for six
months and violation .could conceivably exist this long)... One.has nothing to
do<with the other.
Mr. Schroeder inquired concerning the Hedge Height Letter.sent to all
residents. Response by compliance, and inquiry were discussed. Also discussed
was the proposed Landscape Ordinance which allows for a.7'- hedge on side and
rear yard. The possibility this becomes a referendum issue, and the fact it
will take about.two months for the Landscape Ordinance to become -law, and
hopefully resolve the question. Mr. LuBien noted he has been ordered by the
Village Manager to proceed with citations.
Mr. Grau welcomed Mr. Richard Colangelo as a new member to the Board.
• There being no further business, the meeting. adjourned at 9:45.P.M..
•
ecr ary