Loading...
11-03-1988 Regular Meeting• • cihores9ill2ge L. o R 1 D A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING November 3, 1988 The Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board. Meeting was called to order by Chairman;Asmus, on November 3, 1988 at 7:30 P.M., at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The following members were present: Barry K. Asmus, Chairman Richard A. Colangelo Owen Henderson III Royal D. LaBarre John L. Stokesberry Absent: Charles M. Custin William Schroeder Also present: Jack Wilson, Code Enforcement Inspector Herb Kay, Code Enforcement Inspector Frank LuBien, Director of Code Enforcement Mr. LuBien introduced Mr. Herb Kay, the new Code Enforcement. Inspector. ii::. Mr. Kay was formerly with South Miami and Hollywood. Code Enforcement, and also a State Inspector out of Ft. Myers. Members expressed pleasure at meeting Mr. Kay. 1. MINUTES - October 6, 1988 The minutes of the meeting of October 6, 1988 were approved, as written, by a motion made by Mr. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Colangelo, and passed unanimously. 2. BURGLAR ALARM APPEAL EUGENE W. Knupp 141 N. E. 104th ST. Mr. LuBien included in: Member'. s_packet a copy of the letter from Mr. Knupp requesting this appeal, copy of a letter.he had written to Honeywell Protec- tion Service concerning the false alarms, a print out from the Deputy Village Clerk of the times and dates of the alarms, and a copy of the Ord. Sec 3-21 pertinent to the alarms. Mr. Asmus explained to Mr. Knupp that he isentitled to this appeal process, but it is his responsibility to prove that the alarms were, in fact, not falsOlarms, but legitimate calls based on attempted forced entry. Mr. Knupp was sworn in. He stated that he was out of the country when three of the alarms were registered in one day, and.his.daughter turned the system off when she was finally contacted. Mr. Krupp further stated he is aware of false alarm danger to police. Honeywell has admitted the system is faulty and it will be replaced, however, their contract negates any payment for fines. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -2- 11/3/88 His only alternative is to sue them which.would leave him without service for an extended period of time. Mr.. Knupp.arlmitted the system was faulty, and he is pleading for a reduction of the fine. Mr. LuBien advised this Board must determine if, in.fact, the alarms were false, the appelant has the right to appeal..the.fines to Mr.,:Johnson, the Village Manager. This Board cannot gran.t:relief,. as. the appelant has re- course with the installing company. Mr. Thomas Hurst, (the next app.eal.on the agenda);- gave his interpretation of the false alarm Ordinance.. In reponse to query from Mr. Stokesberry, Mr. LuBien answered -that fines pertaining to false: alarms°are different from other fines emposed. Mr. Henderson moved to deny the appeal:, seconded by Mr. Colangelo and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Asmus recommended.: to Mr. Knupp that heappeal: the dollaramount of the fine to Mr. Johnson, taking with him all pertinent information showing that proper action is taken tocorrect the situation. 3. BURGLAR ALARM APPEAL THOMASL. HURST 822 N. E. 96th ST. A copy of the letter fromMt. Hurst requesting this appeal was included in Member'°s packet. Mr. LuBien noted:he had:not-received a:,draft of the alarms for Mr. Hurst. Mr. Hurst was sworn•. in. He read from Sec 3-17,,definition of false alarm, and gave his interpretation of: Sec 3-21., It is his theory that the Code Enforcement Board must determine whether or not there was a false alarm,,the definition, he stated, points out that a false alarm is not one that includes an .extraordinary circumstance not reasonably subject to the control of the alarm user. Further he stated,he did have a faulty: system, and his installer was present to testify that the panel has been replaced.. He further feels the fine is punitive and the Members should have compassion on the user. Mr. Asmus advised Mr..Hurat that the Village Manager must put all the pieces together, and makethe final determination. . Also it was noted that Code Enforcement makes (throughthe minutes) written findings available to the Village Manager, this gives him a little something to base his decision. Patrick Williams, installer for Master..Tec.Security System: explained the basic system, his findings upon inspection, which would reduce the number of false alarms to 12, and replacement of the panel. Upon cross examination by Mr. Hurst, Mr. Williams further stated the systemwas first installed in December 1987, approximately the first week in January 1988 a chip had to be replaced. Problems continued from January to June 1988 at which time the entiregut panel was replaced. In September 1988 there were three faulty alarms,. caused by a glass breakage defector, making all a result of faulty equipment with the exception of threeor four which might be atributed to family members misuse. Mr. Asmus advised Members that this Board makes. no. determination as to what constitutes a false alarm, but as to whether or not it.was a legimate alarm, that is other than malfunction of equipment. • • • CODE ENLORCEMENT BOARD -3- 11/3/88 Mr. Stokesberry moved to: -deny the a¢.peal, on all:but.one alarm, which may have been the result of an attempted break in. The motion was seconded by Mr. LaBarre, and passed by a Ye I!ous roll call vote. Mr. Hurst was advised. to take all. information., a copy of receipts of all work. -done on the system, police department information:, nd.;whatever other information may be'pertinent to his case to the Village Manager. 4. HEARING, CASE NO. 88-5162-228 MICHAEL DORSEY,, 546 N. E. 92nd ST. COMMERCIAL. VEHICLES Mr. LuB.ien recited the: facts behind the violation .as_a commercial vehicle being parked on and around the,premises, activit stopped in response to notices sent, only to begin again. Mr. Michael Dorsey and Mr. Wilson were sworn. in. Mr. Wilson explained: that. he had.aeft his card.and requested:a return:call. He had conversation with:Mr.. Dorsey,. whom. he•felt:had not -previously under- stood the severity of the situation. The. commercial vehicles. have•now been removed and Mr. Dorsey. was repentant,. stating there will be no more violations. Mr. Dorsey stated he owned a,tow.truck, and.an =1& wheeler which he kept at his residence in violation. They .are:now stored in a warehouse which he has rented. He stated he understands the. Administrative :fee., but appealed for no fine, and wants to start over with a clean slate. Mr. Stokesberry moved for Finding of Fac.t.and.:Conclusion::ofLaw that the parked.commerciai vehicles were ;a violation to the Schedule of Regulations, that an Administrative fee of:$110.00.be assessed, and should the violation reoccur there will be a fine of $50..00 per day. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henderson, and passed by unanimous roll,eall vote. 5. HEARING, CASE NO. 88-5180-229 JOHN F. & LISA MILLER, 9700 No Miami Ave. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE Mr. LuBien related the facts behind the violation. A:commercial vehicle was being stored on the premises, there has been no response to notices. Mr. John Miller was sworn in.. He stated he did.not understand the law. He was in New York and returned to discover his daughter ha.d signed for a certified letter instructing him ;to appear.: The truek:is still on the premises, but he will move it as soon as he findi a place t.ostore it. Mr. Asmus explained, no commercial vehiclesmay:. be stored on the premises of Miami. Shores Village. He further explained the Administrative costs to Mr. Miller. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 11/3/88 Mr. Stokesberry moved for Finding of Fact, the commercialvehicle being stored on the premises is a violation, Concludion'of Law, ;the section of the code violated is the Schedule of Regulations, ordered; that a:L$110.00 Administrative fee -be assessed .and a fine of .$50.00 perday; levied if the truck is not moved in ten days. Further there.will:be a fine $50.00 per day 1f the truck is seen there again. Mr. Colangelo seconded the motion which passed by a unanimous roll call vote. 6. HEARING CASE NO. 88-5198-230 JOSE LUIS SANTANA, 301 N. E.:96th ST. MILDEW & PEELING PAINT The facts behind the violation were read by-.Mr.:LuBien. He. then reported some work has been done, but Mr. kant.s notin full, compliance. Mr. Santana was sworn in. There was.somequestion as to his understanding the proceedings, or his ab-ility.to defend himself. It was:determined that he could understand since part of the workhas been:.comp.ieted. He stated he does not know what else is expected of him. Mr. LuBien agreed to meet Mr. Santana at the premises at 11,•00.A.M., on Ffiday, November 4th, and explain the continued violation. Mr. Henderson made'a motion for Finding of Fact the violation does exist, and. Conclusion of Law.the.Sec of the code violatedsis 12-133, ordered that $110.00 Administrative fee be assessed. -and a fine of.$25 00 per day will be levied if the violation is not corrected.in ten days. The motion was seconded by..Mr. Stokesberry which passed by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Asmus explained the actiontaken by the Board to Mr. Santana. 7. REPORTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING A. CASE NO. 88-5068-227 W. DAVID CRAVEN, 934 N. E. 98th ST. INFINISHEDiNEW RESIDENCE Mr. LuBien reported that the Mortgage;. Co. has.covered:_:the pool. Also, other work ordered by the Code Enforcement°Board has been taken care of. The Mortgage company. is expected to repurchase the property on December 1, 1988, and will' finalize about December 10th. Mr. Asmus announced that hewill be absent from the,D.ecember meeting. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8.30 P.M. cre /ary