Loading...
05-07-1992 Regular Meeting• • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING MAY 7, 1992 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held. on May 7, 1992 at 7,3Q P aM, at the Miami Shores Village. Hall,. The meeting was called to order by fir, John Stokesberry, Vice Charman, with the following members present; John. L, Stokesberry, Vice Chairman Barry R., Asmus, Chairman (Arrived. 7:40P,M,) Margaret Burch Thomas J, Caldwell Owen. Henderson III Daniel B. Owens, John L, Patni 4. Jr Also present; Frank LuBien, Director of Code Enforcement Pierre Roche, Code Enforcement Inspector Richard Trumble, Code Enforcement Inspector 1. MINUTES APRIL 2. 1992 Theminutes of the meeting of April. 2, 1992 were approved, as written, by a motion made by Mrs, Burch, seconded by NX, Henderson and passed unanimously. 2. HEARING, CASE NO, 002536 GENERAL UNSIGHTLINESS 51 N. E. 9.9th ST OWNER; M R.S a ARTHUR J. HABERS IN Mr. LuBien, Mr. Roche, and Mr, Trumble were sworn in for their testimony of the evening. Mregabersin also was sworn. in, Mr. Roche noted correction date was January 29, 1992 and Mrs. Habersin still is not in compliance,. Pictures of the violation were reviewed by Members. Mrs. Habersin told of her broken arm and all the problems she's had to get workmen, She told of the estate of her husband'beingtied up and the letter from the attorney offering to help her. Members asked her questions, How did it get so bad? Do you want us to table this another eight months? What do you think is fair? It was noted Tits, Habersin .had come before the Board prior for the same unsightly condition and the. Boy Scouts had cleaned up her property, Mrs, Habersin requested the Board might write a letter to a potential wor and'was told, this is not proper, she ultimately is responsible for clean up. Mr. LuBien noted it was requested this item be on•.the agenda as a repeat violator and a: real problem, Mr, Caldwell made a motion for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, a violation does exist to Sec 10-1, ordered that $110,00 Administrative fee be assessed and $10.00 per day fine levied if the violation is not corrected in thirty days, Mr. Henderson seconded the motion which passed by.a 6/1 roll call vote, Mr, Asmus abstained, (He was not present for beginning of discussion):. II • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REG MTG -2- 5/7/92 3. HEARING, CASE NO 002623 FAILURE TO OBTAIN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 55 NE 100th ST OWNER; FLORIDA REAL ESTATE SERVICES Mr. Roche reported that occupant paid him $37,50 todaywhich brings the ownerinto compliance as di today, The correction date was March..27, 1992. Mr. Henderson moved for Finding of. Fact and Conclusion of Law a viola- tion did exist to Sec 14-17. The violation has been corrected and the case dismissed, Mr, Stok..esberry seconded the notion which passed unanimously. 4. HEARING, CASE NO. 002625 FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 93 NW 97th ST TENANT; PAUULINE S, IRBY, OWNER: THE NEIGHBORS GROUP Mr. Roche stated the violation. was issued March 13, 1992 and was to be corrected by'Narch 28, 1992, An occupational license still has not been obtained, and no representative was at -this meeting. Mrs. Burch moved for Finding of Fact a violation does exist, Conclusion of Law it is a 'violation .of Sec 14-17, ordered that an Administrative fee of $110,00 be assessed and then if a license isnot obtained in 30 days a fine. of $25.00 per day will be levied, The motion was seconded by Stokesbexry and passed unanimously, 5. HEARING, CASE NO. 002635 UNLAWFUL OUTDOORS'USE 28 N 111th ST OWNER; FRANCOEUR CLERISSON Mr, Roche reported tha.twashing machine is the rear yard has not been moved, The violation was written on March 18, 1992 with a correction date of April 2, 1992, The machine has not been removed, and there was no rep- resentative at the meeting, Members reviewed a picture of the violation, Mr, Owens moved for Finding. of Fact and Conclusion of Law a violation exists to Sec 502 of the zoning code, Ordered that a $110,00 Administrative fee be assessed and if not corrected in 30 days a fine of $25,00 per day will become effective, The motion was seconded by Mr. Henderson and.passed unanimously,. 6, HEARING, CASE NO, 002638 IMPROPER TREATMENT OF REFUSE 10326 NW 1st AVE OWNER: CAROLYN J. FERNANDEZ Members looked at pictures of the violation as Mr, Roche reported the compliance date was April 8, 1992 and there has been no change, Mrs. Burch moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law a violation exists to Sec.9-2(B)(C) of Miami Shores Zoning Code of Ordinances, Ordered that an Administrative fee of $110,00 be assessed and if the violation is not corrected in 30 days a $25,00 per day fine will be levied, Mr, Patnik seconded the motion which passed unanimously, • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REG MTG -3- 5/7/92 7. HEARING, CASE NO 002655 INOPERABLE VEHICLE ON PREMISES 148 NW 96th St, OWNER; EDITH FERNANDEZ Mr. Roche reported be mane no progress in getting the vehicle moved from the Swale area, ldembers reviewed pictures of the violation, Mr. Stokesberry made a motion for Finding.of Fact and Conclusion of Law, a violation exists to Sec 13-1 of the Zoning code, ordered that $110,00. Administrative fee be assessed and $25,OO.per day levied if not corrected in 30 days, The motion was seconded by Mr. Owens, and passed unanimously. 8. HEARING, CASE NO 002662 FAILURE TO.OBTAIN AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 955 NE 98th ST OWNER: JUDY MITCHELL Mr. Trumble reported Ms. Mitchell still hasnot obtained a lieense for rental property. The violation continues, Mrs. Burch moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law a violation does exist to Sec 14-17, ordered that an Administrative fee of $110,00 be assessed, and $25,00 per day fine be levied if not corrected. in 30 days, Mr. Henderson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 9.. HEARING, CASE NO. 002664 LACK OF OFF STREET PARKING 65 NW 95th St. OWNER: MR &.MRS B. SEON M00RE .Mr. Roche showed .Members pictures, as he reported on the violation, Mr. Moore was present and reported that he had a contract with Situps Corp., to do'the work, and Sims did obtain a permit on May 1, 1992. • Mr.. Stokesberry moved for Finding.of Fact and Conclusion of Law a violation exists, ordered that the work shall be completed in 30 days or a $25.00 per day fine will become effective, the motion was seconded by Mr. Caldwell and passed.unanimously, Nr. Asmus explained the Boards decision for'Mr, M000re and advised him to call the contractor and advise him of the 30 day compliance stipulation, 10. HEARING, CASE NO 0Q2665 LACK OF ORS STREET PARKING 53 NV 95th St, OWNER; LOUIS & HILDEGARD PIPITONE • Mr. Roche noted he had given the owner a 45 daycontinuar,ce, Mr. Pipitone was present and stated be had advised the tenants of the violation without success. There -are 6 people living in the house and four or five cars parked there., Adriana Graces a daughter who lives in the house reported she lives in the house with her parents and 4 brothers, they have four cars and park where they can for the lack of driveway parking. The garage is converted to a bedroom, Members concurred this is a dispute between the owner and his tenants, but the violation cannot continue. Mr. Stokesberry moved for Finding of. Fact and Conclusion, of Law that a violation exists to the Schedule of Regulations of,Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, Ordered that a $110,00 .Administrative fee be assessed and if not corrected in 30 days.,a fine of $25,.00 per day will go into effect, Mr. Patnik seconded the motion which passed by a unanimous roll call vote, • • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REG MTG -4- 5/7/92 11. HEARING, CASE NO 002630 HEDGE/FENCE BEYOND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 1102 NE 105th St OWNER; ANTHONY M. GENOVA Mr. Trumble reported these are new homeowners, but he did make the wife aware of the violation., Mr. Genova reported he did not know a permit was required and put the fence (which was requested by his neighbor) up according. to the exact fence three doors away, Also according to 30 or 40 homes in Miami Shores with 6t high fence. Mr. Genova was advised.he could give the addresses of the violation to the inspector and they: will be checked on, Also that he could apply for a variance but chances for obtaining a variance are.ssim to none. Mr. Cladwell moved for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law a violation exists to Sec 518(A), there will be no Administrative fee assessed, but the violation must be corrected .in 30 days or a $IQ.00 per day fine will go into effect. Mrs, Burch seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote, 12. REQUEST FOR RELIEF, CASES NO 2443 & 1712 UNSIGHTLY HOUSE EXTERIOR INOPERABLE VEHICLE 189 NW 99th ST OWNER; STEVE VALDELAMAR Included in Members packet was a copy of the letter from Mr. Valdelamar requesting relief, Customer inquiry of the violation case history and a print- out of the two cases in violation,. Nr. Valdelamar noted he is not working due to an injury, his wife does not work and he has four children, He is on. Workers. Compensation and unable to pay the fines accumulated. In response to query, he reported the upkeep of the property had been done by. the older children, Mr. Henderson moved to waive the $1,785..0.0 fine levied on Case//002443 only, The Administrative fee assessed on Case .1/001712 remain, The motion was seconded by Mr, Caldwell and carried by.a 6/1 vote. Mr, Asmus voted No. Members action was explained to Mr.. Valdelamar by.Mr, Asmus. Mr. Patnik advised Mr, Valdelamar that the Swale area in front of his home also must be maintained. The meeting adjourned at 8;45 P,M,