Loading...
11-02-1989 Regular Meetingkauuifk041IA CODE ENFORCEMENT, .BOARD MEETING November 2, 1989 The Miami. S ores Vtl1.age.Code.Enforcement Board;regular meeting was held on November 2, 1989..at 7:35 P,M. at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order'by Chairman,. Barry Asmus, with the following members present: Barry K. Asmus, Chairman Owen Henderson, III Richard.A, Colangelo Charles M. Custin Royal.D. LaBarre Arthur'H, Taylor John L. Stokesberry Also present: 'Frank LuBien,. Director of Code Enforcement Robert Rodriguez, Code Enforcement Inspector Jack [Nilson, Code. Enforcement Inspector 1. MINUTES - October 5, 1989 The minutes of the meeting of October. 5, 1989 were approved, as distributed, by a motion made by Mr. Stokesberry, seconded by Nr. Taylor, and carried by unanimous vote. Cases were heard on the basis of order on the agenda and those people present for their case. 2. REQUEST FOR RELIEF. CASE NO, 000521 MAINTAINING A NUISANCE 381 NE 98th ST OWNER: MICHELLE ALDERMAN Ms. Alderman was sworn in. Mr, LuBien, Mr. Rodriguez, and. Mr. Wilson were also sworn in for their testimony for the evening. The case was introduced by Mr. LuBien. Mr. Rodriguez presented the facts of the ease citing -the violations sent and their order. Ms. Alderman explained. that working two Jobs madeit difficult to pick up certified mail. She had received the Notice of Dearing. A letter request- ing appeal of fines was enclosed in Members packet. Ms.,Alderman states the violation and steps'.taken to correct same.. 1n -a telephone call to the office on 9/1/89 she stated, the violation would be corrected Labor Day week- end, and_she said it was. In reply to query from, Mr. Asmus, Mr. LuBien statedthe notice of violation was sent 7/3/89, with a compliance due date of 8/3/89. Code Enforcement Board Hearing was 9/7/89 and the fine of $50.00 per day never commenced, because the violation was::corrected within the 30 days allotted by the. Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Stokesberry explained that the Administrative fee would be assessed whether she is or is not present at the meeting. Certified mail has been determined to be proper notification of a violation .and on these basis CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -2- 11/2/89 the request for relief ie denied, seconded by Mr.. Taylor and passed by unanimous roll call vote. 3. REQUEST FOR RELIEF, CASE NO 000533 UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION 130 NE 98 STREET OWNER: JOSE GRASSO Mr..- Grasso .was sworn in.. Mr. LuBien'it.troduced the case,,which was presented by Mr.'Rodriguez. It was noted that Mr. Grasso had paid his Administrative fee of $110.00 on October 17, 1989. A fine'of $750.00 is the appeal amount. Also he is now in compliance., but was not so by the date due. Mr. Grasso stated, he, was unable toattend the meeting and his wifes re- quest for continuance was denied, The pool is a pre fab, above ground pool, and he was not aware that it was a violation. Mr. LuBien noted a continuance was denied because .it was requested Just prior to the day the $50.00 fine was to go into effect, also the pool is unlawful • and a permit could not be issued. The suggestion of a letter. requesting a variance to the Planning & Zoning. Board was not forthcoming. Following all the testimony, Mr. Colangelo moved that the $110.00 Administrative fee paid, rennin, but the $750.00 fine be reduced to $375.00.. Mr. Taylor seconded. the motion which passed by 5-2 vote, with Mr. Henderson and Mr. Asmus voting No. Nr. Asmus explained the action of Members and their position. 4, HEARING, CASE NO 000700 UNSIGHTLY FASCIA, SOFFIT HOUSE EXTERIOR 1032 NE 98th STREET OWNER: NELSON B. ALDERMAN HUNT lir. Hunt was sworn in. The case was introduced.by Mr. LuBien, and presented by Mr. Rodriguez. Members reviewed photographs taken by Mr. Rodriguez., who stated.:that the date of the original citation was. August 31., 1989 with. a:compliance due date of September 30., 1989. On October 3, 1989 he met with Mr. Hunt who explained that a contractor would be out to help.. do. the work several weeks later. At this time Mr.. Rodriguez observed that some. work was done, the exterior still needed paint, and Mr. Hunt was not, at that time in compli- ance. Today C11/2/891 he is in compliance. Mr. Hunt stated that Mr. Rodriguezrs testimony has: changed since this after- noon. There seemed to be disagreement as to whether hewas in compliance on September 30, 1989. Mr. Hunt objected to notes read by Mr. Rodriguez. Photographs taken by Mr. Rodriguez (with the polaroid camera) on 10/5/89, showing the painting needed were reviewed by Members. The two photographs taken By Mr. Hunt were of a different elevation, these also were reviewed. • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -3- 11/2/89 In reply to Mr. Asmus request, who did the work or for a bill or paid receipts indicating work:was done by September 30:,, 1989, Mr. Hunt objected, and further stated he has no paid receipts.. Mr. Hunt also.claimed he re- ceived no notice of this meeting, but rather happened to see it posted in Village Hall. Further, he noted. the Administrative fee imposed by the Board is against the law,a point which he made at a previous meeting. Mr. Asmus then requested, in response to Mr. Hunt, that the note read by Mr. Hunt be made a part of these minutes. QNo copy was forthcoming);, "In June 1989 I was before this. Board fora hearing -for a prior hearing which assessed Administrative cost, or charges or Administrative fine, where there was no violation, by order of the Board. I stated that I felt that it was unlawful under the law and I was supported by the Attorney General opinion, and proceeded to read opinion, this Board did not allow me to.finish.. This Board denied my request and in August I found my notice of appeal, and my appeal in September 1989 against Miami Shores Village and against this Board. Since the above filings..it has become apparent that the resident in question has become the object of an unreasonable multi- plicity of citations in what might be termed intentional retaliation with wreeklessness of intent, truth, and facts." Mr. Hunt further noted, he has additional photos which he did not show, which he states indicate selective harassment and selective persecution. Discussion continued between Mr. Asmus and Mr. Hunt. continued his diatribe. Mr. Stokesberry moved for Finding of Fact that on September 30, 1989 the violation did exist, Conclusion of Law this was a violation of Sec 12-133 of the code of Miami Shores Village, ordered that an Administrative fee of $110,00 be assessed, and there be no fine since he is now in compliance. The motion was seconded -by Charles Custin, and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Asmus explained the action. of the Board to Mr. Hunt. 5. HEARING, CASE NO 000762 HEDGE/FENCE BEYOND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 1020 NE 98th STREET OWNER: MARINA M. WINCKLER Mr. LuBien read the letter dated November 1, 1989 from Ms.. Winckler, stating she would be out of town for this hearing, but is in compliance. Mr. Rodriguez presented the facts in the case.. stating that,, compliance had not been net by October 5, 1989. As of inspection today, it is OK. After brief discussion, Mr. Custin moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the violation to Sec 518CA) did exist, ordered that $110.00 Admin- istration fee be. assessed, motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor,::an.d passed by unanimous roll call vote, 6 HEARING? CASE NO, 000758. HEDGE/FENCE BEYOND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 1040, NE 105th. STREET OWNER.; WILLIAM FISCH`CLEONARD NEW OWNER1 • The case was introduced by Mr. LuBien, and presented by -Mr. Rodroguez. CODE. ENFORCEMENT BOARD -4- 11/2/89 Mr.' Leonard was not present at the meeting. It was noted that he had just moved into the house. when he. was cited, but Mr. Rodriguez had no way of knowing this. As of today (11/2/891 compli- ance bas been net, but there remains some dispute as to who the hedge belongs to. Mr. Leonard did not attend this meeting. Brief discussion took place concerning who owns the hedges and what portion is in compliance. Mr. Custin moved. that based.on the cirevr tance.this case be extended to the next meeting, Mr, Colangelo.seconded the motion, which,passed by a unanimous vote.- 7. ote. 7. HEARING,. CASE NO 000767 INOPERABLE. VEHICLE ON PREMISES 10055 BISCAYNE BLVD. OWNER; PATRICK DENTI.CO Mr, LuBien introduced. the case, Mr. Rodriguez presented the facts. As of October 5, 1989 Mr. Dentico was not in compliace. On Nov 2, 1989 the car was seen parked in the rear of 1110 NE 101s4treet, still without a tag. It is believed this house may be in foreclosure.' Mr. Woland, attorney representing the Denticoe and Mr.. & Mrs. Dentico were sworn in. There was considerable discussion and claims of slander between Mr. Asmus and Mr. Woland. For the record, Mr. Woland objected to the make up of the Board being in contradiction of the Attorney Generals opinion 072-6.4. Mr. Woland then crossed examined Mr. LuBien, at length., as to the validity of the citation. There was considerable discussion as to whether lack of a current tag con- stitutes an operable vehicle. An attempt was made to interpret Sec 13-1 of the Miami Shores Village Code, Considerable discussion continued between Nr. Asmus and Mr. Woland. A. copy of the letter Mr. Woland addressed to Bt.:Rodriguez,was made a partof the record of this meeting. Following. continued discussion, Mr. Stokesberry moved that in light of the testimony heard, one red sports car having no.=.tag is currently a violation, this is -the Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, this is a violation of Sec 13-1 of the Miami Shores -Village Code of Ordinances, ordered that an Administrative fee of $110.00 be assessed, and if:not corrected in 30 days a fine of $25.00 per day will be levied, motion was seconded by Mr. LaBarre, and passed by 6-1 vote, with Mr. Taylor dissenting. 8. HEARING, CASE NO 000852 GENERAL UNSIGHTLINESS 90 NE 101st Street OWNER.: MAX PRASCHNIK Mr, LuBien introduced the casewhich was presented by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez noted that Mr.. Praschnik is now in compliance, but was not so by the due date. Mrr. Praschnik was sworn.in. He stated he had never received notice of the violation. • • • FRANK WOLLAND ATTORNEY AT LAW September .26, 1,989 Robert Rodriguez Code Enforcement Officer Miami Shores Village 10050 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami Shores, Florida Re: Code Enforcement Board Case No. 000767 & 000768 86 N.E. 79th STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33138 TELEPHONE (305) 756-8795 Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Please be advised that I represent James Dentico, who resides at 10055 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. This will acknowledge receipt of your notices of violation under cover of September 20, 1989. With regard to the red sports car, please be advised that contrary to your notice the vehicle is in proveable operating condition. Please accept this letter as a written invitation to you, and to any member of the Code Enforcement Board who is interested that the vehicle is in operating condition, and we will be happy to operate it for you or any member of the Board upon request. With regard to the green truck, please be advised that the truck is not presently parked at my client's property, and has not been so parked for the past several days. The truck was on the property for several days last week loading and unloading construction materials. You will note that there is an outstanding building permit on this property, and it is a normal event in such cases for construction type trucks to be upon the premises. This vehicle is not permanently parked on the premises, as I am sure a daily inspection of the property would reveal, should you choose to do so. I trust and hope that based upon the above facts you will consider that the violations alleged in your Citation have been corrected, and accordingly you should treat this letter as notice that the alleged violations have been corrected in accordance with the language of the Notice furnished by your office. -1- $ • • • If such is not the case I would appreciate your so advising me, in writing. Thank you for your attentio► to the above, Very truly cc: Josephi e Church, Secretary Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board -2- • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -5- 11/2/89 Mr. LaBarre moved for Finding of Fact., and Conclusion of Law, there was a violation of Sec 10-1 of Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinance, ordered that an Administrative fee of $110..00:be, assessed., and .that there be no fine, seconded._by Mr.:Taylor, and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Jr. Asmus explained the action of the Board to Mr. Praschnik. 9. HEARING., CASE NO 000838 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE 142 NW 100th TERR OWNER: JEJMADELLE BEAIJGELUS/PIERRE LALLEMAND The case was introduced by Mr.. LuBien, Mr. Wilson presented the facts. After being sworn in, Mr.. Pierre Lallemand noted that his friend from Haiti had given him the vehicle which, is not a taxi., He has removed the light on top and the inside meter. Mr. Asinus.explained., though the light on top and the meter have been removed, the colors and the phone number indicate it is a taxicab'. and it is illegal until; painted. Mr. Stokesberry moved for Finding of Fact the'violation.does exist, Con- clusion of Law, this is a violationof the Schedule of Regulations, and ordered that an Administrative fee of $110.00 be assessed, and $25.00 per day if the violation is not corrected in 30 days, the motion was seconded by Mr. Colangelo, and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Asmus explained the action of the Board to Mr. Lallemand. 10. HEARING, CASE NO.000851 COMMERCIAL_ VEHICLE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1059 NE 104th :ST OWNER: WILLIAM L, MC CAUSLAND The case was introduced by Mr. LuBien, and presented by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. McCausland was sworn in. He stated he owns the company, and the truck represents his livelihood, and he comes and goes as he sees fit at his own residence. Mr. McCausland stated he does followprocedure and moves the vehicle whencited, but he asserted that the Code Enforcement Officer follows him when he comes home, and cited him,when he saw the vehicle with the motor running. Mr. Rodriguez objected to this accusation. Mr. Taylor moved for:Finding of Fact and Conclusion of:Law the violation did exist to the Schedule of Regulations, ordered that Administrative fee of $1.10.00 be assessed, and no fine levied, seconded by Mr. Henderson. Mr. Stokesberry clarified that the vehicle was cited in response to a complaint,-` and the dates of the violation. The motion failed by the following vote: Mr. Taylor Yes Mr. Henderson Yes Mr. Colangelo No Mr. Stokesberry No Mr. LaBarre No Mr. Custin No Mr. Asmus Yes • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -6- 11/2/89 Mr. McCausland was admonished not to make the same mistake again, We are giving you a break by waiving the, Administrative fee. Mr. Stokesberry ex- plained that the complaint was from a citizen, and he was cautioned to comply after this. 11. HEARING, CASE NO, 000777 GENERAL UNSIGHTLINESS 158 NW 94th St OWNER; ROSS JOHNSON Mr. LuBien introduced the case which was presented by Mr. WLIsot...:;Neither Mr. Johnson nor a representative was present. Members reviewed photographs taken by Mr. Wilson of the violation, Mr. LaBarre moved for Finding of Fact and., Conclusion of Law, the violation to Sec 10-1 does Rxist, ordered. that $110.00 Administrative costs be assessed, and $25.0.0 per day, if the violation is not corrected in 30 days. Mr. Stokesberry seconded the notion which passedby a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Taylor dissenting. 12. HEARING, CASE NO 000812 and CASE NO 000813 13. INOPERABLE VEHICLE ON PREMISES LACK OF OFF STREET PARKING 103 NW 103rd. Street OWNER KELLY JACK The case was introduced by Mr. LuBien and presented by Mr. Wilson, who stated he has no pictures of the violation. He noted he is very pleased by the response. Kelly Jack is now in compliance, though not on time. The lawn has been mowed, hedges cut, vehicles removed, and no sign of an off street parking violation. Mr. Jack was not at the meeting. Mr. Taylor moved for Finding of Fact, and Conclusion of Law, all the viola- tions to Sec 13-1 and the Schedule of Regulations have been corrected, ordered that $110.00 Administrative cost be charged for both cases combined, (one fee for both cases), seconded by Mr. Stokesberry and passed unanimously. 14. HEARING CASE NO 000859 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE 9313 NW 2nd COURT OWNER; ELENA CUPP TENANT, ELENA SALLY CUPP The case was introduced. by Mr. LuBien and presented by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson stated, the lettering is not entirely visible .in the picture Members reviewed. He calledattention to the meeting of September 7, 1989, and the picture of the same vehicle which disappeared. for a time, hut has returned.. It is parked there intermittently, especially on most weekends, this is a, recurring violation. 411 Ms Cupp was not at the meeting. • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. -7- 11/2/89 Mr. Custin moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the violation does exist, ordered that $.110.00 Administrative. fee be assessed, and.$25.00 per day if the violation is not corrected in 30 days.,. The motion was seconded by Mr, Colangelo, .and. carried unanimously. 15. REQUEST FOR RELIEF, CASE•N0 000146 UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION/ALTERATION 10.130 N MIAMI AVENUE OWNER: JOHN MUMFORD Mr. LuBien introduced the. case. Neither Mr. Mumford nor a representative was at the meeting. Mr. Wilson made a brief statement concerning an emergency may have taken place at the address, No.action was taken. 16. DISCUSSION: Mr. Stokesberry requested to address the Boardon a matter that he noticed had come up several time in the past four or five months. Members have been extremely lenient in compassionate cases, where people claim financial and/ or physicial hardship to remain out of compliance. In some cases he is sure that a hardship does exist, in many cases however, he is equally convinced that the owner is merely circumiaenting the ordinance or attempting to main- tain.a status quo. Members of this Board have enough work trying to determine if there has been a violation, and if so, the owner of the property has been notified, and that due process has taken place. Mr. Stokesberry further noted, Members are not in a position to judge each hardship case. He suggested=_that other bodies or the Code Enforcement Task Force Committee might take care of such cases. He requested, for the record, that Code Enforcement Board sanction a call for a meeting of that group to address this problem. Members concurred with Mr. Stokesberry, that one such case is too many. Mr. LuBien noted that the. Code Enforcement Task Force Committee is no longer in effect. Staff cannot make decisions asto hardship, it is unfair and in poor judgement, and it isnot. fair to request financial statements. We cannot make these decisions. There was considerable give andtake concerning the situation and alternative action whichmight take place. The purpose of Code Enforcement is to enforce the code, hardship not withstanding. Action should be taken andthen if necessary referred to the Mayor's Task Force. Mr. Stokesberry strongly feels that to allow a violation to exist because of claimed hardship is an abrogation of responsibility.Hof Members of this Board. AN After further discussion, Mr. Taylor reported on the Habersin hardship case, it has been a probate case for about 4 years duration, but judging from the taxes paid there is money some place. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9.:30 P.M. Llif ✓ cre ry