Loading...
08-03-1989 Regular Meeting• iami cShores91lIage F L OR ID A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING August 3, 1989 The Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board regular meeting was held on August 3, 1989 at 7;35.P44, at the Niami Shores Villa$e Hall. The meeting was called to order by Chairman; emus, withthe following members present: Barry. K, Asmus, Chairman Richaxd`.A, Colangelo Royal. LaBarre John L, Stokesberry Arthur H. Taylor Absent: Owen Henderson Charles M. Custin Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Code Enforcement Robert Rodriguez, Code Enforcement Inspector Jack Wilson, Code Enforcement Inspector 1. MINUTES - JULY 6, 1989 The minutes of the meeting of July 6, 1989 were approved, as distributed, by a motion made by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Stokesberry, and carried by unanimous vote. • 2. HEARING, CASE NO. 000265 HARRIETTE LEFLER, 9353 NE 9 AVE Mr. LuBien stated this case had been continued from several months ago, to this meeting, but the computer did not show it on the agenda. Mrs. Lefler was sworn in. Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. LuBien also were sworn in for their testi- mony for :the ,evening . Mr. LuBien noted that about 80 to 90% of the scraping is complete, the job is still not completed. In response to query, he indicated that proper permit was obtained. Work has been in progress for about 90 days. Mrs. Lefler noted it is a. very difficult job. Old .paint must be scraped to bare wood, paint remover and a small sander are used. She hopes the work can be completed in about thirty more days. Mr. Stokesberry made. a motion that, since work is in progress, and permits are in place, this case be continued another 30 days., and a report be given at the next meeting, The motion was seconded by Mr. LaBarrel and, passed by unanimous roll call vote, • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 3, APPEAL, CASE NO 00.0391 NORMAN SALZBERG, 471 NE. 103 ST -2- 8/3/89 Mr. LuBien advised Members this. is a case of an unlawful. fence, which Mr. Salzberg refuses to remove,, H.e. has applied for variance to the Planning & Zoning Board, and.in.three times before th.em,,has failed to provide .proper documentation requested by itst' Members., The violation should have been corrected by June 4, 1989.., Mr. Fann.and the attorney on the Planning & Zoning Board explained to.Mr,. Salzberg he cannot build a fence and hedge on property he does.. not own.. Proof of who owns the land 13" beyond his property line has notbeen established. Mr. Salzberg _was sworn in. He read his letter requesting appeal (which was included in Members' packet), and also a previous. letter,from_.his.attorney.. He further stated he answered each request of the Planningg.& Zoning Board, and each. time they asked for additional documents, and postponed decision. Mr. Salzberg further stated, he understands landscaping needs no permit, and he is building a hedge. Members . reviewed ,photographs of the violation, Mr. Asmus explained, this Board has nothing to do -with the Planning.& Zoning Board or Village Council. The Code Enforcement Board determines violations of the Code, and must enforce. it if there is an:infraction. Mr, Colangelo moved to grant Nr.. Salzberg a.thirty day extension, seconded • by Mr. Taylor. • In discussion, Mr. LuBien explained that the Planning& Zoning Board ruled that Mr,.Salzberg's petition was flawed. Mr.. Salzberg noted he did plan to be on the Planning & Zoning Board:Agenda of August 24, 1989. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Mt..Taylor Yes Mr. Colangelo Yes Mr. Stokesberry No Mr. LaBarre Yes Mr. Asmus No 4. HEARING, CASE NO 000547 HEDGE/FENCE BEYOND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 1284 NE 92 ST, OWNER: G GERARD KAUPER Mr.. Rodriguez.explained, the citation wasissued.on July 21., 1989, Mr:,'Kauper has tried. to comply but the hedge at the front, though it has been cut, remains too high at 4' in the. front. Members reviewed photo taken of the violation. Mr., Kauper,was.sworn in. He stated hehas had the same faithful gardner for four years.,. The property is always kept in good:shape, and he was not aware of a.violation, 'Upon receiving notice of violation,' he called his gardner and instructed.him to comply with: whatever the inspector wished. • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -3- 8/3/89 The hedges on the side. were_ cut below. the 7' maximum for side yard, Th.e hedge in .question in front of. the house. line covers.an.anchor.fence with a sprinkler system on .top,, which. was in .place when he bought the property in 1980, Mr, LuBien stated, he had not checked if a variance or permit was issued, also stating it was not unusual at that time to have a.4( fence in the front yard. Mr. Taylor moved to table the case to allow time for the case to be re- searched, :Motion was seconded by Mr. Colangelo, and passed by unanimous roll call vote. 5. HEARING, CASE NO 000461 UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION/ALTERATIONS 1118 NE 105 ST OWNER EUGENE W. DRODY, JR.. Mr. LuBien explained this is a: violation of a basketball backboard at the front of the house. It is scheduled on the Planning & Zoning Board Agenda for August 10, 1989. Mr. Drody was sworn in. He,,. then noted he was not aware this is a viola- tion since there are approximately 31 basketballcourts in Miami Shores Village. Also he has had it up since he moved into the house several years ago. Mr.. Taylor moved to grant thirty days extension, since this is scheduled for the Planning & Zoning Board agenda, seconded by Mr. Stokesberry, the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. 6. HEARING, CASE NO 000459 UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION/ ALTERATIONS 10619 NE 10 PL, OWNER: LAVONNE A. SCREIB Mr. LuBien indicated Mrs. Scheib installed theunlawful structure beyond the front of her house line, without a permit. The basketball backboard was removed but no other action has been taken. Mrs. Sheib stated the pole is in concrete, she did remove the backboard as the violation notice requested. Mr. Stokesberry moved for. Finding of Fact, the violation exists, Conclusion of Law, this is a. violation of Sec 6-4 of Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances,, ordered. that An Administrative fee of $110,00 will be assessed, and if not corrected in thirty days, a $20.00 per' day fine will be levied, Mr. LaBarre seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerningother basketball hoops, goals and courts and posts in Miami Shores, Mr., LuBien noted thisbis not the first violation of its kind brought before the Board: and proably will not be the last. Th.e vote was called and the motion.carried by a unanimous roll call vote, Mr, Asmus advised Mrs, Scheib to notify the Village as soon as she has complied. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 8/3/89 7. HEARING, CASE NO 000503 GENERAL UNSIGHTLINESS - 561 NE 101 ST., OWNER: DELBERT H. NOEL Mr. Rodriguez noted he had received numerous complaints concerning this violation. Mr. Rodriguez tried to work with Mr..Noel in removing the junk in the yard, but more junk. continued to reappear, He first cited:Kr. Noel on June 21, 1989, some work was done,. but Mr, Noel. is still not in compliance. There is a marked.improvement, but much. work remains to be done. Mr. Noel after being sworn in, stated he was not aware what he is doing Ccan collecting) is a violation. A number of people and organizations collect the cans for him,andthey are donated to a good:cause. His daughter and, son -in law:will return from out of the.cohn.try,in two weeks, and will help him to clean up around. Mr. Taylor moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law,the violation exists to Sec 10-1 of Miami Shores Village,Code of Ordinances, further to grant a thirty day extension, and.report back at the next meeting, the motion was seconded by M±. :Colangelo, and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Asmus advised Nr. Noel to get with Mr. Rodriguez, and finish the clean up before thirty days, 8. HEARING, CASE NO 000505 UNLAWFUL SIGN ON PREMISES 8900 BISCAYNE BLVD OWNER: JOHN MILITANA TENANT: CASTLE BURGER FAST FOOD Mr. LuBien advised,Members this is an unlawfully stored sign, It had been taken down, but is still on the property laying against a wall. Mr. Militana after being sworn in stated, the sign belongs to. Castle Burger Fast. Food,, the former owner of the business, it was removed. today at noon. The violation notice came addressed to Castle Burger, and he gave the letter to them, he was -not aware of the violation until he received' a copy of this agenda. Mr. Rodriguez noted he spoke with a person there and was»told that Mr. Militana is in charge of the operation. He passed down a photograph for Members to review. Mr. Stokesberry moved for.Finding of Fact, the sign was in violation, Conclusion of Law,.. this.. was a violation. of 504{b.).(2) of Miami`Shores Village Code of Ordinances, ordered_that $110,00 Administrative cost be assessed, and since the violation has been corrected, a fine is waived. Mr, Colangelo seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous roll call vote. 9. CASE NO 000512 MAX PASCHNIK, 90. NE 101 STREET It was not understood why Mr, & Mrs* Pas,chnik,were at the meeting, They were not on the agenda. They responded immediately to a violation notice to obtain a fence permit. The violation has been corrected. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -5- 8/3/89 10, HEARING,CASE NO 000522 MAINTAINING A NUISANCE 28 NW 111 St, OWNER: ESTATE OF AUGUSTA,D HEARN TENANT: AGUSTA D HEARN Nr. Wilson advised Members that this property is vacant. The property is well maintained, but he has had numerous complaints of cats under the house, and prowling the neighborhood,in neighbors carports and on the cars, Betty Jenson was. at the meeting, she stated, there are three grown children who supposedly own the house, she knows nothing of them, The neighbor next door feeds the cats which doesn't help the situation, There was discussion about the Humane Society or•.the Village setting traps to catch the cats and charging the owner, this was determined to be an unsatisfactory solution as the owner could state the cats are not theirs, Mr, Wilson stated he has seen cats around but doesn't know who they belong to, It was also noted that the outside of the house must be secured to comply with the minimum housing code, Mr. Taylor moved to send a notice indicating failure to secure the outside of the house. Motion was seconded by Mr. Colangelo, and carried by a uanaimous vote. 11. HEARING, CASE N0 000520 GENERAL UNSIGHTLINESS 795 NE 5 ST , OWNER: SCHEFFEL H. WRIGHT Mr. Rodriguez noted June 30, 1989 as the date the violation notice was sent. The violation should have been corrected by July 15, 1989. On July 18, 1989 inspection revealed compliance had not been met, but it was corrected on subsequent inspection on July 31, 1989. Mr. Stokesberry moved for Finding .of Fact, a violation, did exist, Con- clusion of Law this is a violation of Sec 10-1 of the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, ordered that $110.00 Administrative cost be assessed, and since compliance is met the fine be waived. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous -roll call vote. 12. HEARING, CASE NO 000529 GENERAL. UNSIGHTLINESS 699 NE 92 ST , OWNER: DONALD C SMITH TENANT: MIAMI SHORES APTS. Mr. LuBien advised the Board, this is a case where the septic tank lid in the front yard is exposed. Mr. Rodriguez had the citation sent on July 10, 1989, He has been in con- tact with Mr, Smith who advised him that he.will take care of the situation, as of this date•he is,still not in compliance, Members viewed photo of the violation. • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -6- 8/3/89 Mr. Colangelo moved for.Finding of Fact, a violation does exist, Conclusion of Law, this is a.violation of 10-1 of Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, ordered that an Administrative cost of ,$110,00 he assessed, and a fine of. $100..0.0 per, day if the violation is not corrected in 30 days. The motion was aeconded,by Mr, LaBarre, and carried by unanimous roll call vote. 13, HEARING, CASE NO 000543 GENERAL; UNSIGHTLINESS. 380 NE 91 Street OWNER; GLENN VAN BALEN TENANT; ANTOINETTE F. KOSTINE:C Mr. Rodriguez reported that Mr. VanBalen was in constant contact with the Village upon receiving notice of his violation. The situation became difficult, because he is in Illinois taking care of several sick family members.. He did comply by the date specified. Mr. Stokesberry moved to close the case, seconded by Mr. LaBarre, and passed by unanimous vote. 14. APPFAT,, CASE NO 000420 B.P. OIL 9500 N E 2 AVE Mr. LuBien noted that the letter requesting, appeal of the $110.00 Administrative fee was enclosed in Members' packet. Also that he had conversation with Mr. Smith, July 19, 1989. Mr. Smith says he contracted with a firm on June 5, 1989 to do the work which -was delayed because of so much rain. The fence had been removed and the property cleaned up on July 7, 1989. A maintenance check will be made on a monthly basis. Mr. Colangelo moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Mr. Stokesberry, and passed unanimously. 15. DISCUJSSION - GRANTING' CONTINUANCE Mr. LuBien noted that when Mr. Johnson was the Village Manager he sent a memo stating that it is not the Building Official's duty to issue contin- uance to violators. It was his position, due to pressure from Council, that only the Code Enforcement Board could make this decision. This has created some real problems. Further, Mr..LuBien proposed that the Code Enforcement Board support the concept that the Building Official or Director of Code Enforcement be given discretionary authority to examine each case on an individual basis, and determine when an extension might be appropriate. Patience on our part can take care of.many problems, and.,code enforcement .is;what.we are about. There arefrom time to time extenuatingcircmlmstance. He also made mentionof: the functioned the. Code Enforcement Board, and the idea that hearing of;cases on appeal are a courtesy. Mr, LuBien further noted, that he had talked this over with Gail Macdonald, the interim Village Manager, who suggested that he present_.the concept to the Board for in put, • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -7- 8/3/89 Mr. Stokesberry prefaced his motion, to support Mr, LuBien,'to grant extensions, It is his opinion.that the purpose of Code Enforcement is to gain compliance, not to punish,tho Village, homeowner., though accession - ally we must be tore forceful, Further, it is his firm opinion that, this Board;. affirm the position that., the Code. Enforcement Director be given the latitude to grant continuance in extenuating circmustances, and that the only action, is to have Mtr.,,LuBien,at the end of each meeting, present any cases granted extension, so that the Board can oversee the operation, Mr, Stokesberry also stated, he has .complete confidence in his ability to do so in a manner of consistency,, fairness, and integrity. This would be hancieled as a post audit function, and should. the Members ever feel the previlege is abused, it can be amended, Further, Mr, Stokesberry that at least two cases were presented this evening, which if extension d� was granted, they would have been resolved, and compliance met. • Mr.. Colangelo fully agreed, stating, all points are very well taken, time span has been tightened considerably. Mr,. Colangelo seconded the motion made by Mr. Stokesberry, In continued discussion, abuse and accusations of Mr.-LuBien being bias, or unfair were mentioned, Mr. Taylor agreed that he is for voluntary compliance, and has no objection to support of the concept. Appeals also were discussed, hearing these cases are a courtesy. The question was called, and the motion made by Mr. Stokesberry, to support Mr. LuBien's concept to grant extension passed by a unanimous roll call vote. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.