Loading...
01-04-1996 Regular MeetingCODE REGULAR MEETING • January 4, 1996 • A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday, January 4, 1996, at Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Herrera at 6:31 P.M. Present: Also Present: Barry Asmus, Chairperson Prospero G. Herrera, II, Vice Chairperson Margaret Burch, Member Ivor Hegedus, Member John Sydow, Member Douglas Garber, Member William Nelson, Community Affairs Director Richard Trumble, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Amos Pierre, Code Enforcement Officer Mark S. Ulmer, Esq., Village Attorney L APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Burch moved to approve the Minutes of December 7, 1995. Member Hegedus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vice Chairperson Herrera noted for the record that Chairperson Asmus had not yet arrived. II. OPENING STATEMENT Vice Chairperson Herrera read the .Opening Statement. Mr. Ata Kahrizi (Case No. 4785) submitted his name to the Recording Secretary. HI. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH The Recording Secretary administered the Oath to all who would be giving testimony. IV. HEARING CASE NO. 4785 Unauthorized construction/alteration 650 NE 88 Terrace Owner: Viking Motel Tenant: Motel Viking Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting . January 4, 1996 Page 2 • Section 6-4(a). Required.; Permits - Applications generally. No person shall erect or construct or proceed with the erection or construction of any building or structure, nor add to, enlarge, move, improve, alter, convert, extend or demolish any building or structure, or any group of buildings and/or structures under one (1) or joint ownership whether on one or more lots or tracts of land; or cause the same to be done where the cost of the work is one hundred dollars ($100) or more in value; and on any remodeling or alteration job of any value; without first obtaining a permit therefor from the building department. Mr. Trumble reported that in November 1995, he, Mr. Nelson, and various inspectors inspected the property. A letter was submitted to Mr. Kahrizi. The violation before the Board was the nonworking electrical switch on the south side of the motel and no permit had been pulled to correct the violation. He stated the gas and electric had been tumed off at the property with people still occupying some of the rooms. (Vice Chairperson Herrera noted for the record that Chairperson Asmus had entered the meeting and the Chair would be turned over to him upon completion of this case.) Mr. Kahrizi, representative for Motel Viking, stated that substantial work was being done on the property. He reported that FP&L had closed the motel's account and no one could reopen it but he. Mr. Kahrizi said that painting work currently in progress would take another two weeks and then the electric could be turned back on. Member Burch inquired about the people living on the premises. Mr. Kahrizi stated two people had been moved out yesterday and anyone living there now was not supposed to be. The building was undergoing complete renovation and it was not suitable for tenants yet. He advised that all work should be completed within 60 days. Member Garber asked what needed to be done to tum on the electric. Mr. Kahrizi replied that since the motel account had been closed, he would have to call FP&L to have the electric turned on and pay the necessary deposit. Also there were some lights on the outside of the motel which were not waterproof and his electrician' would need to remove them. Member Sydow asked why Mr. Kahrizi had not yet pulled a permit for the electrical work. Mr. Kahrizi stated that the same day the violation was written, the power was turned off. This was necessary in order to pressure clean and paint the building. He was now waiting upon his electrician to pull the necessary permit to do the electrical work immediately after the building was fully painted. Mr. Nelson asked if he could clarify the issue before the Board. Mr. Kahrizi had been before the Board on a roofing violation which had been complied with. He stated Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting • January 4, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Kahrizi had notified him that he had had a difficult time obtaining finances to do the renovations to the motel. When the money became available, the roof work was done. Mr. Nelson advised that several more violations were given during a recent reinspection. Most were now in compliance. The electrical violation was given for open outlets on the outside of the building which could be dangerous to people living in the motel. He stated Mr. Kahrizi had been warned to get the electrical work done and, to date, had not done so. Instead he had the power turned off. With all the outside open electrical outlets, should the power be turned back on, this would present a life safety issue. Chairperson Asmus asked when Mr. Kahrizi was originally cited for the electrical violation. Mr. Trumble replied it was November 22, 1994. Mr. Nelson provided a letter written to Mr. Kahrizi dated November 22, 1994, which outlined 13 electrical violations at the motel. The letter was reviewed by the Board. Mr. Kahrizi stated this letter concerned violations of electrical switches which had been complied with. The issue before the Board now was not electrical switches but the electrical plugs. With the electric turned off, the plugs were useless. Mr. Kahrizi stated again that his electrician was going to remove these plugs on the exterior of the motel. Chairperson Asmus asked which of the 13 items in the letter were still not in compliance. Mr. Trumble stated the item which was highlighted. Chairperson Asmus read the item, "switch not weatherproof on exterior of south building". He asked Mr. Kahrizi how long it would take him to bring the electrical work into compliance. Mr. Kahrizi stated less than 5 days. He would have his electrician pull the permit tomorrow. He also reminded the Board that there was no public safety danger at the motel because no one could authorize the power to be turned back on but he. Chairperson Asmus moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 6-4 of the Miami Shores Village Code and an administrative fee of $185 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Member Burch seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1. • CASE NO. 4076 Unauthorized construction/alteration 925 NE 92 Street Owner: Xose F. Alvarez -Alfonso, Elise Masciovecchio Section 6-4(a). Required.; Permits - Applications generally. No person shall erect or construct or proceed with the erection or construction of any building or structure, nor add to, enlarge, move, improve, alter, convert, extend or Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting January 4, 1996 • Page 4 demolish any building or structure, or any group of buildings and/or structures under one (1) or joint ownership whether on one or more lots or tracts of land; or cause the same to be done where the cost of the work is one hundred dollars ($100) or more in value; and on any remodeling or alteration job of any value; without first obtaining a permit therefor from the building department. • • Mr. Trumble stated this case was before the Board last month. The violation was for unauthorized roof repair. Repair of the roof had begun but was abandoned. Mr. Alvarez -Alfonso, an out of town owner, had told Code Enforcement in a letter to Mr. Tom Benton he was awaiting insurance money to pay for the repairs. Mr. Trumble reported the Board had tabled .this case for one month. Mr. Alvarez -Alfonso had not called the Village nor complied with the violation. Member Burch moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 6-4 of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $185 be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 4707 Hedge/fence beyond limits 925 NE 92 Street Owner: Xose F. Alvarez -Alfonso, Elise Masciovecchio Section 518 (A). Fences, walls and hedges. Fences, walls and hedges may be located within any yard, including the margining thereof, subject to the following requirements: (1) maximum height: five (5) feet in any required front yard facing US Highway No. 1 and three and one-half (3 1/2) feet in any required front yard elsewhere; in any required side yard or rear yard, five (5) feet. Mr. Trumble stated this violation concerned high hedges in the back yard of the property. He reported Mr. Alvarez -Alfonso had written a letter to Mr. Benton asking for a continuance which was granted. The letter stated the cable company had taken two feet of his yard and he wanted to move the fence back to the property line. This would comply with the violation as the hedges would be in his yard after moving back the fence and not hanging out into the alley. Mr. Trumble stated he had spoken with Mr. Benton who said nothing could be done until the fence was moved to see if this solved the overhanging hedge problem. • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting January 4, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Nelson advised in order for Southern Bell to correct the problem, asphalt needed to be removed and the cable relocated. The fence could then be moved back. This was the reason Mr. Benton was asking for an additional continuance. Vice Chairperson Herrera moved for a continuance until the next scheduled Board Meeting. Member Garber seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NOTE: It was brought to the Board's attention that the administrative fee of $185 charged in Case Nos. 4785 and 4706 was incorrect. The Administrative fee is always $180 and the necessary change should be made to the above two cases. CASE NO. 4752 Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior 298 NW 91 Street Owner: Prince and Patricia Manley Section 12-133. Depreciation of surrounding property. The exterior of every structure shall be so maintained with reasonable attractiveness so as not, in the case of excessive scaling or paint or excessive mildew, to cause a substantial depreciation in property values in the immediate neighborhood. The exterior surfaces shall be kept free from materials, objects and conditions which will have an adverse effect on adjacent premises. Mr. Pierre reported this violation was for a structure not in harmony with other homes in the area. He passed a picture for the Board to review. Mr. Pierre stated he had made three attempts to have the owner paint the property, but nothing had been done to date. Member Burch moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 12-133 of the Miami Shores Village Code and an administrative fee of $180 be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Member Hegedus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 4751 Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior 9190 NW 1 Avenue Owner: Clemencia Charles • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting January 4, 1996 Page 6 Section 12-133. Depreciation of surrounding property. The exterior of every structure shall be so maintained with reasonable attractiveness so as not, in the case of excessive scaling or paint or excessive mildew, to cause a substantial depreciation in property values in the immediate neighborhood. The exterior surfaces shall be kept free from materials, objects and conditions which will have an adverse effect on adjacent premises. Mr. Pierre requested a dismissal as a permit was issued. Member Burch moved for dismissal. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 4774 General unsightliness 1155 NE 104 Street Owner: Alexander Rosato Section 10-1. Property to be maintained in safe, clean and sightly condition. • It shall be the duty of all owners of lots, parcels and tracts of land within the village to keep such property in a safe, clean and sightly condition and to remove therefrom all surplus grass, weeds and other growth and all trash and rubbish and to fill in all excavations and depressions thereon. Mr. Trumble requested a dismissal as the case had been referred to Public Works for cleanup. Member Burch moved for dismissal. Member Hegedus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 4779 Unlawful roofing materials 225 NW 92 Street Owner: Reynald Emile and Eliphete Fede Section 225. Masonry construction. Construction of all exterior walls and all structural elements of a building shall be of stone, cement or cement products, brick or tile, and as further detailed in Chapter 27 of the South Florida Building Code. All roofs with inclines of not less than two and one- half (2 1/2) inches per foot and all mansard facies shall be of the following materials: (1) clay tile; (2) white concrete tile; (3) solid colored cement tile which color is impregnated with the same color intensity throughout; (4) thick butt or variegated slate. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting • January 4, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Pierre requested a dismissal as a permit had been issued. Member Burch moved for dismissal. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Nelson to discuss what progress had been made on the drafted Code Enforcement Board Rules and Regulations. Mr. Nelson introduced Mr. Mark Ulmer, the new Village Attorney, to the Board. Village Attorney Ulmer stated he was very impressed with how efficiently the Board worked together in handling the cases brought before them. He advised that although he was not required to attend the Code Enforcement Board Meetings, he would attend the next few meetings and then be available to attend and advise, as needed, in any future legal matters. Village Attorney Ulmer requested he be given a copy of the Agenda and attachments prior to each meeting. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Nelson to initiate contact with Village Attorney Ulmer should he be required to attend a meeting. • Mr. Nelson asked Village Attorney Ulmer if he would advise as well as prosecute at a meeting. Village Attorney Ulmer stated that by law he could not do both: He asked the Staff to be the prosecutors and he would be the advisor to the Board. Village Attorney Ulmer stated his approval to adopt formal Rules and Regulations. He had reviewed the draft and stated he wanted to review the Village Ordinances and Florida Statutes on two issues in the draft which concerned him. He would be prepared to bring any comments to the next meeting. Chairperson Asmus asked Village Attorney Ulmer if the Board should defer further action on the Rules and Regulations until the next meeting. Village Attorney Ulmer stated they should. Chairperson Asmus asked the Board Members to review their copy of the drafted Rules and Regulations prior to the next meeting. If any member had anything to input, it should be given to Mr. Nelson no later than January 16, 1996. A vote would be taken at the February meeting to adopt the Rules and Regulations. Member Burch had a question concerning the "two consecutive absences" as written in the drafted Rules and Regulations. Chairperson Asmus read Article VI, Section 4.b. He clarified that if any member missed two out of any three meetings (and • the two missed meetings did not have to be consecutively missed), the member would forfeit his or her position on the Board if that member had not received permission from Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting • January 4, 1996 Page 8 the Board Chairperson in advance to be absent. Village Attorney Ulmer stated this was in the Village Code and Florida Statutes and was not an issue which could be waived. A member could be excused from a meeting if the member had a valid reason. Village Attorney Ulmer also advised the Village Code required that appointees to the Board consist of a certain number and, as much as possible, of certain professions or expertise. This was required so that the Board would have the knowledge necessary to be "judge and jury over the trial of each violator" and be in a position to rule fairly. Mr. Nelson reported that the Recording Secretary was keeping a running total of who was in attendance at each Board Meeting and it is reflected in the Minutes. This list would be available at each meeting. Chairperson Asmus stated he would like to have the list available for any member potentially at risk. Mr. Nelson advised this would be done as soon as the wording in the Rules and Regulations was finalized. Village Attorney Ulmer stated that the "two out of three absences" statement was valid. However he questioned the "25% of the previous twelve (12) or fewer meetings" statement and said this was not in the Village Code nor the Florida Statutes. • Chairperson Asmus stated the 25% dealt with a member missing 3 meetings in a year, which he believed were far too many meetings to miss. Village Attorney Ulmer advised that the Village Council appointed the Code Enforcement Board Members and removed Board Members, unless a member missed two out of three consecutive meetings which automatically removed him or her. Thus if the Board adopted the 25% rule, it would be putting itself in the place of the Village Council in removing a Board Member, which the Board could not do. Member Garber asked if the Board could recommend to the Village Council that a member be removed. Village Attorney Ulmer stated they could do that. Chairperson Asmus asked staff to add this wording to the Rules and Regulations. • Chairperson Asmus asked Village Attorney Ulmer if there were any other concems he had with the drafted Rules and Regulations. Village Attorney Ulmer replied this was the only concern which struck him. He stated, upon his appointment as Village Attorney, he reviewed the Village Code and Ordinances for the Boards which he thought he might be required to attend. This was when the 25% rule caught his attention as not being appropriate. Chairperson Asmus referred back to Village Attorney Ulmer's previous statement that the composition of any Board should consist of a certain number and of certain professions. He asked if these were qualifications for this Board. Village Attorney Ulmer replied that this rule came out of the Florida Statutes which stated that to the • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting • January 4, 1996 Page 9 • greatest extent possible the Village Council shall appoint members to the different Village Boards from certain professions. These professions were listed in the Florida Statutes as well as the Village Code. These professions recommended for the Code Enforcement Board were an architect, a businessman, an engineer, a general contractor, a subcontractor, and a realtor, but should not be limited to these professions if no such qualified persons were available. Preference, however, should be given by the Village Council to any applicant possessing one of the above qualifications. Chairperson Asmus strongly suggested the Village Council be apprised of these qualifications as he felt they were not. VL. ADJOURNMENT Member Burch moved for adjournment. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, smus, 'Chairperson Carol Ann Ragone, Re rd' g Secretary • December 29, 1995 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONS Mr. Lance A. Harke c/o Steel Hector & Davis 41st Floor 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131-2398 Dear Lance: 10050 N SECOND AVENUE MIAMI SHORES. FL2R'CA 33138-2382 TELEPHONE ,305' '95-2204 FAX (305' '5€•8972 On behalf of the Miami Shores Code Enforcement Board, I accept your letter of resignation dated November 29, 1995. We understand this was not an easy decision for you to make, but one which was necessary due to your extensive business travel. Thank you for your service to the community while a member of the Board, and also for your offer to serve from time to time should a special need arise. Sincerely, Barry . Asmus, Chairperson Miami Shores Code Enforcement Board