Loading...
02-01-1996 Regular Meeting• • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING February 1, 1996 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday, February 1, 1996, at Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 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, Code Compliance Director Richard Trumble, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Amos Pierre, Code Enforcement Officer Frank Lubien, Planning and Zoning Director Mark S. Ulmer, Esq., Village Attorney 1. Opening Statement Chairperson Asmus read the Opening Statement and announced that the Board would deal with cases that had a representative present. The remaining cases would be heard in the order they were listed on the Agenda. 2. Approval of Minutes Member Burch moved to approve the Minutes of January 4 , 1996. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. HEARING 3. CASE NO. 4759 Weathertight and Watertight Structures 34 NW 96 Street Owner: G.S. Pickard Section 12-128. Weathertight and watertight condition. Every structure used for human habitation shall be so maintained that it will be weathertight and watertight. Exterior walls, roofs and all openings around doors, windows, chimneys and all other parts of the structure shall be so maintained as to keep water from entering the structure and to prevent undue heat loss. Damaged • materials must be repaired or replaced. All parts of the structure that show evidence of • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 2 dry rot or other deterioration shall be repaired, replaced and refinished to be in conformity with the rest of the structure. Window panes permitting entrance of water shall be replaced. Officer Pierre reported that the garage on the property did not have a roof. On November 6, 1995, a Notice of Violation was issued. On December 6, 1995, a continuance was given to the owner as he was actively pursuing bidders to do the roof work. Officer Pierre stated he reinspected the property on January 8, 1996, and no permit had yet been pulled. Mr. Nelson asked Officer Pierre when the pictures of the property were taken. Officer Pierre stated January 31, 1996. Mr. Sid Pickard, Jr., 869 NE 98 Street, was present to speak on behalf of the violation. Mr. Pickard stated he was one-fifth owner of the property at 34 NW 96 Street. He stated he wanted to sell the house but one of owners would not sign to sell. He was trying to keep the property up and had decided to rent it. The money from the rent proceeds will be used to repair garage roof. Mr. Pickard said he had received a contract today to repair the roof for $1,400. He stated he understood the roofer would need to pull a permit before any repair work could be done. Chairperson Asmus asked if the contractor had given an estimate of how long it would take to complete the work. • Mr. Pickard stated approximately thirty days. Mr. Nelson asked if the garage was secured from neighborhood children. Mr. Pickard stated he would change the hook lock to a padlock. Member Hegedus moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 12-128 of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $180 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within thirty days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4. CASE NO. 4789 Unauthorized Construction/Alterations 8851 Biscayne Boulevard Owner: ANJ Future Investments, Inc. 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 • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 3 value; and on any remodeling or alteration job of any value; without first obtaining a permit therefor from the building department. Mr. Joseph Lahout, 8851 Biscayne Boulevard, stated this was his business address and he was present to speak on behalf of the violation. Mr. Nelson stated Mr. Lahout would be testifying on other cases on the Agenda this evening. Mr. Lahout was the license holder of the property and Mr. Kahrizi, also in attendance, was the owner of the property. Mr. Lahout advised his contractor was supposed to be present but had not yet arrived. Chairperson Asmus asked if the job had been completed. Officer Trumble stated the case went before Planning and Zoning last week and Mr. Lubien was present as a witness. Officer Trumble stated there were three violations on the Agenda. The first violation was installation of a concrete pad in the rear of the laundry mat. Member Herrera asked why three violations were written. Mr. Nelson replied a separate violation was needed for each charge as each were under a different Section of the Code. Mr. Nelson asked Officer Trumble if a permit had been pulled. Officer Trumble replied it had not. Officer Trumble stated he was present on December 17, 1995, when Mr. Lahout acknowledged the concrete pad had been installed without a permit. Mr. Nelson reported no plans were submitted and no permit had been pulled. Mr. Lahout stated he had hired a contractor on December 18, 1995, to do the work and to pull any permits needed. He said the pad had been laid approximately two to three years ago and he did not understand why a violation had been written. Mr. Nelson stated Mr. Lahout had a propensity for unauthorized construction. Mr. Lahout said when he received the violation, he immediately hired a contractor. Mr. Lahout was asked if the contractor he had hired was the contractor who had laid the pad initially. He stated it was not. Mr. Nelson advised there were two other cases, Nos. 4791 and 4788, and the initiation of these cases resulted in this violation being found upon inspection. He stated Mr. Lahout was at a disadvantage without his contractor present but staff was willing to proceed. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Lahout if he wanted to wait for his contractor. Mr. Lahout chose to wait and continue the hearing when his contractor arrived. 5. CASE NO. 4807 Unauthorized Construction/Alterations 149 NW 101 Street Owner: Mairi Callam • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 4 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. John Oliver-Callam, 149 NW 101 Street, was present and Ms. Dolores Godwin, 150 NW 101 Street, was present as a possible witness, if needed. Officer Pierre stated the violation was for unauthorized construction of a new bathroom. He stated the property was zoned single family. Officer Pierre stated Mr. Oliver-Callam was contacted on December 4, 1995, due to a complaint. On December 5, 1995, Mr. Oliver-Callam visited Mr. Lubien and acknowledged the bathroom renovation, a kitchen renovation and painting of his house. The kitchen and painting had been resolved. The bathroom renovation consisted of a window, tile and wallpaper. Officer Pierre stated he had asked Mr. Oliver-Callam to submit a signed • affidavit acknowledging the unauthorized construction. No affidavit was received. An Order to Correct was issued on December 8, 1995. Mr. O,'iver-Callam called after receiving the Notice and set up an appointment on January 17, 1996, for Code Enforcement and Mr. Lubien to visit the property. The property was inspected and Mr. Lubien asked Mr. Oliver-Callam to submit plans as to when the addition was made. Mr. Oliver-Callam promised to deliver the plans within a week. Officer Pierre stated this had not yet been received. Mr. Nelson asked if Mr. Pierre had conducted other research pertinent to the matter. Officer Pierre reported tax assessment records, dated August 8, 1995, showed this property to be a three bedroom, one bath residence. Upon inspection, the home had two bathrooms. Mr. Oliver-Callam stated when he was asked to submit a survey to Mr. Lubien within a week's time, it was not made clear to him that if he did not he would have to face the Board. He reported the Notices to Correct instructed him to stop all work and obtain a permit immediately, and contact Building and Zoning to inspect. Mr. Oliver- Callam said he had complied with all the requirements. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Nelson what was still outstanding on this violation. Mr. Nelson stated Mr. Oliver-Callam was present because he wanted to • speak on his on behalf and dispute the requirement of having to submit a plan. He said the dispute was if the bathroom had been a part of the home purchase or if Mr. Oliver- • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 5 CaIlam had put in the addition. Officer Pierre reported no permit had yet been pulled to correct this violation. Mr. Oliver-Callam said that was incorrect. Chairperson Asmus requested Mr. Lubien check to see if a permit had been pulled or not. Mr. Oliver-Callam advised that when he had come to get the permit, the Clerk advised him he could put all information on one permit which he had done. Mr. Nelson stated that what Mr. Oliver-Callam was requesting had to be approved with Building and Zoning as do all building permits. Only the Building and Zoning Director could determine if what Mr. Oliver-Callam wanted to do could be done with the pulling of one permit or he would need more than one permit to cover all renovations. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Lubien if he had received the plans which he had requested. Mr. Lubien said he had not. He stated Officer Pierre was now checking the permits to see what had actually been applied for and what had been approved. Chairperson Asmus recommended deferring the completion of this case until all the facts were in. Mr. Oliver-Callam agreed to wait. 6. CASE NO. 4806 Business from Residence 10627 NE 10 Place Owner: Dixie Williams (deceased 6/11/95)/Mr. Pace (current owner) Schedule of Regulations - BUS. Business from Residence. Conducting or operating a business from residence is prohibited. Case and desist conducting or operating business from residence. Remove director listing or other advertising. Mr. Nelson requested Chairperson Asmus to read a letter from John G. Pace and Associates, Realtors, to Officer Trumble. The letter stated the above property belonged to Mr. Pace now. Mr. Pace stated no real estate business was being done from this house. He had moved some records into the house only. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Pace who was actually living in the house now. Mr. Pace replied he was living there, and he also had an apartment at the Commodore Apartments. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Pace if Ms. Rachel Rivers, Ms. Williams' secretary, worked at the house. Mr. Pace stated she went to the home almost every day to look through records concerning past indebtedness. Chairperson Asmus asked Code Enforcement how this violation was brought to their attention. Officer Trumble stated by an anonymous complaint of heavy traffic • coming and going from the residence. He reported that upon inspection of the • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 6 property he saw desks and employees in the house. Officer Trumble advised Mr. Pace to apply for a permit, but Mr. Pace did not want to do this. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Pace why he had refused applying for a permit as this residence had an office set up. Mr. Pace said it was a residential set up and not a business set up. When asked how many desks were in the living area, Mr. Pace replied there were three in the living and dining areas. He also stated files were in one bedroom and in the garage. These files had been moved when he closed his office at 151 Street and Biscayne Boulevard. Mr. Pace advised that he had a check with him to pay for the permit. Chairperson Asmus told Mr. Pace that this permit should have been obtained before coming before the Board and being cited with a violation. Mr. Pace remained adamant that he had not been doing any real estate business from this residence. Village Attorney Ulmer stated Mr. Pace should be asked to whom this residence belonged and if it was this person's homestead. Mr. Pace stated the house belonged to him, he lived in the Commodore Apartments, and often went to the house to take naps. This residence was not his primary residence. Mr. Nelson asked that the Board move to have this business removed from this residence. Village Attorney advised the violation dealt with Section 221 of the Zoning Code, and a real estate brokerage was considered to be a home professional office which needed a permit. This could be done if the residence was Mr. Pace's primary homestead, if a certain percentage of the building was occupied as an office, and if no employees worked at the residence other than those living in the home. Village Attorney Ulmer advised that the Board could not do anything other than to acknowledge that there was a violation. Chairperson Asmus stated an occupational license would not correct the violation as it was not Mr. Pace's primary residence, and, even if it was, he was in violation because he had outside employees working at the house. Therefore, Mr. Pace must cease all business operations from the residence because what he had been doing was illegal in Miami Shores. Member Burch moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to the Schedule of Regulations of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $180 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days, a $25 a day shall be levied. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pace asked if he could make this residence his primary homestead. • Chairperson Asmus stated he would still be in violation because he hired outside employees. Mr. Pace stated he could not do all the work himself. Chairperson Asmus Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 7 suggested he move into a commercial business address. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Pace to contact Code Enforcement when he had completed removing his business operations from the residence. 7. CASE NO. 4807 was recalled. Mr. Nelson called Mr. Lubien to the stand. He reported Mr. Oliver-Callam had stated when he applied for his permit, he had put down all the renovations he wanted to do on one application. Mr. Lubien advised that on Mr. Oliver-Callam's application he stipulated replacing cabinets in the kitchen, replacing wallpaper in the kitchen, adding a tile border, changing wallpaper and medicine cabinet in bathroom. He stated he had received a complaint that Mr. Oliver-Callam had added a bathroom to the building without plans. Mr. Lubien stated an inspection had revealed a second bathroom. Mr. Oliver-Callam said the bathroom was there when he purchased the home. Mr. Oliver-Callam stated this violation came about because of a neighbor's complaint. Chairperson Asmus wanted it stated in the record that the Board would not get into arbitrating neighbor -to -neighbor disputes. Mr. Oliver-Callam stated that he had not understood the time factor involved in submitting plans to Building and Zoning, but • he did have the plans with him now. Chairperson Asmus asked him to give the plans to Mr. Lubien. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Nelson if the two other violations had been corrected. Mr. Nelson stated they were and that Mr. Oliver-Callam had been generally helpful to Code Enforcement. Chairperson Asmus determined there had been a misunderstanding between Mr. Oliver-Callam and Building and Zoning over the conditions of the permits issued. Mr. Nelson agreed. He suggested a 30 -day extension would be in order. Member Burch moved to table this Case for 30 days. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. Chairperson Asmus called for discussion. Mr. Hegedus said a violation did exist and the Board was giving Mr. Oliver-Callam 30 days in which to comply and he would not be charged the administrative fee. If the Board chose to take this option, it would not have to rehear the Case in 30 days. Chairperson Asmus said this could also be done, or it could be dismissed after the 30 day period was up. Mr. Nelson stated this was a clear violation of unauthorized construction. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 8. CASE NO. 4824 Inoperable Vehicle on Premises 52 NW 111 Street Owner: Willie May Sapp • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 8 Section 13-1. Inoperable vehicle on premises . It is prohibited to maintain a vehicle not in provable operating condition and not stored in a garage. Officer Pierre reported two inoperable vehicles were parked in the rear of the property. Pictures were passed to the Board for review. He stated he had issued a Notice of Violation on January 3, 1996. Ms. Jewel Daulphin, 52 NW 111 Street, stated her husband was supposed to have removed the vehicles but he had not returned from a trip out of the country. She advised she would have gotten the cars removed but she had been sick. Since she worked in Fort Lauderdale, she had been staying there. Ms. Daulphin said she would have the cars removed by this weekend. Member Burch moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 13-1 of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $180 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days, a $25 a day shall be levied. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed, 5-1. 9. CASE NO. 4827 Pet Limitation and Control 290 NE 103 Street Tenant: Mr. and Mrs. Martinez Section 5-22. Pet Limitation and Control. No more than three dogs and/or four cats over six months may be kept. Dogs and cats shall not engage in frequent or habitual barking, meowing, etc. Remove excessive pets, restrain pets from being noisy, or keep enclosed in building. Officer Trumble stated he heard about a barking dog by a complaint from Mrs. Furchett who lives across the street from Ms. Martinez at 300 NE 103 Street. Mrs. Furchett was advised to keep a log concerning the annoyances of the barking dog. Mr. Nelson passed a copy of a letter from Mrs. Furchett to each Board member. Mrs. Furchett stated her husband would explain what had been going on. She presented the log she had kept to the Board. Mr. Nelson asked Officer Trumble if he had ever heard the dog bark. He stated he had on one occasion when he went by the residence on January 5, 1996. When he visited the owners at home on January 20, 1996, the dog did not bark. Pictures of the dog were passed to the Board. • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Furchett stated the Martinez's had moved into the house at the end of November 1995. He reported the dog barked from the first day of his arrival. Mr. Furchett stated he did not do anything about this in the beginning as he thought the barking would stop as soon as the dog became acclimated to his new surroundings. This did not happen. He said his wife spoke with the Martinez's, but the dog kept on barking. Mrs. Furchett went to file a complaint with Officer Trumble who asked her to wait to see if the dog would get used to the area. After two weeks there was no difference in the barking. Mrs. Furchett filed a complaint and Officer Trumble acted on her behalf Mr. Furchett said he did not know of anything the Martinez's had done to try to stop the dog from barking. He stated other neighbors were bothered by the barking dog also. Mr. Martinez stated her dog is not out at night. She leaves for work at 8:00 A.M. and returns home at 6:00 P.M. The dog is outside during the day only. She asked how one could control when a dog barks. Her house is located on a corner lot with a lot of pedestrian activity. One of the reasons they bought the dog was for protection. Ms. • Martinez felt her dog barked no more than any other dog. She mentioned other dogs in the neighborhood which also barked. Chairperson Asmus asked Ms. Martinez if she had thought about putting the dog in the kitchen or bathroom with a dog gate when she was gone from the home. Ms. Martinez explained one of the reasons they had purchased the house was so that the dog could go outside. Chairperson Asmus stated this was fine but not for eight hours a day, every day. He explained he had neighbor's with dogs who were kept inside. He said he could still hear the barking through closed windows but it was muffled and not that much of a problem. Chairperson Asmus stated the dog was probably no more than 15 pounds or so. Ms. Martinez agreed. He said he had had a dog this size which he kept in the kitchen with dog gates. The dog was fine. He suggested this as a possible solution for Ms. Martinez's dog. Also, the log stated the Fuchetts had heard the dog barking outside at 5:00 A.M. Chairperson Asmus said the Village Code had rules about doing things "before 7:00 A.M...." He said the dog had become a nuisance and something had to be done to correct the situation. Mr. Furchett wanted it on record that he runs early in the morning and the dog is outside barking before 7:00 A.M. Also, the dog is barking until 10:00 or 11:00 P.M. at • night. If necessary, he would come back with neighbors as witnesses. • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 10 Vice Chairperson Herrera stated a case similar to this had come before the Board about four years ago, and he felt the Board should research this case and the outcome before making any decisions. Mr. Nelson said if the Board was uncomfortable with the evidence presented, Mr. Furchett had stated he would return with witnesses. Ms. Martinez could also bring witnesses on her behalf. Chairperson Asmus asked Ms. Martinez what she thought she could do to remedy the situation. She said she did not know, but would go home and speak with her husband. It was pointed out to her that she could take Chairperson Asmus' suggestion and put the dog in the kitchen with a dog gate. The house had a garage and a laundry room. Either of these rooms could be set up to accommodate the dog during the day. Member Hegedus said he felt very uneasy during this hearing. He advised his dog barked when it was outside, and this never posed a problem. Ms. Martinez had the right to have a dog at her home as a pet for her daughter and also for protection. He felt however the Board voted, they would be separated in their decision. Member Burch stated that since Ms. Martinez was away from her home all day during the week, she did not know what the dog did or did not do. Member Sydow cautioned Ms. • Martinez in letting the dog stay outside when no one was home. Someone could easily snatch the dog. Mr. Sydow indicated he may abstain. Village Attorney Ulmer reported that all members must vote on this issue. No one could abstain. It was not the place for the Code Enforcement Board to decide whether or not there should be an ordinance for barking dogs. The City Council had already decided there should be. He read a portion of the ordinance which stated it was unlawful for anyone to keep a dog which frequently and habitually barked. The Board must decide, based on the evidence, if there was a dog which habitually barked. If so, a decision must be made based on that evidence. Member Garber asked what "frequently" meant. He also asked if the barking the Fuchetts heard always came from this dog. Mrs. Furchett said the Martinez dog was the dog that she was complaining about. Of course there were other dogs in the neighborhood which barked, but that barking was intermittent and not habitual. Member Garber asked if she was confident she could distinguish the barking of the Martinez dog with other dogs. Ms. Furchett replied she definitely could. Member Hegedus moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 5-22 of the Miami Shores Village Code and an administrative fee of $180 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within thirty days, a $25 • a day fine shall be levied. Member Burch seconded the motion. Chairperson Asmus called for any discussion. Member Garber again stated his uneasiness about what was Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 11 frequent, habitual barking. Even looking over the log, he said he was not convinced the entries constituted what the ordinance called unlawful. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 4-2. 10. CASE NO. 4788 Unauthorized Construction/Alterations 8851 Biscayne Boulevard Owner: ANJ Future Investments, Inc. Tenant: Miami Shores Coin Laundry 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. Nelson stated this was a violation of remodeling the laundry without first obtaining a permit. He passed out pictures for review. Mr. Nelson stated that on December 17, 1995, Mr. Lahout said he had enlarged the coin laundry without a permit. Mr. Lubien acknowledged that major exterior renovations were done without permit. He stated Planning and Zoning had approved the plans submitted with some reservations but no permit had been obtained. Mr. George Dusharnes, President of Construction Code Consulting Corporation, said he had been retained by Mr. Lahout to resolve the problem. He said he had met with Planning and Zoning and was told what was must be done. Mr. Dusharnes said he drew up preliminary plans. The plans were at Planning and Zoning because changes were made. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Dusharnes if he was the original contractor. He said he was not, but he knew what the Village required and he had a contract to do the work. 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 an administrative fee of $180 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within thirty days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote • was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Asmus called for any discussion. Mr. Dusharnes advised thirty days did not give him enough time to resolve • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 12 the problem. He asked for at least sixty days to reconstruct the job. Chairperson Asmus replied that sixty days had already been given since the violation was cited. Mr. Nelson suggested that Code Enforcement would advise the Board in thirty days at the next Board meeting what progress had taken place to correct the violation. It was determined the violation was issued to get a permit within thirty days, not that the work had to be done within thirty days. The work must be completed within 180 days after the permit was pulled. Village Attorney Ulmer advised the Board could begin the $25 a day fine immediately and not wait the thirty days because a violation had occurred. Member Garber stated thirty days to pull a permit was too long and recommended no more than five days should be given. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 11. CASE NO. 4791 Violation of Schedule of Regulations 8851 Biscayne Boulevard Owner: ANJ Future Investments, Inc. Tenant: Miami Shores Coin Laundry Mr. Nelson stated this violation represented interior renovations without a permit and passed pictures to the Board for review. An excessive number of washing machines were installed which caused flooding in the laundry and in the street. He reported he had received numerous complaints on the flooding. Mr. Nelson advised that Mr. Lahout said he would turn off some of the washing machines which he had done, however, flooding was still evident. He said the violation was that interior renovations had been done without a permit leading to a flooding problem. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Lahout what other renovations he had done. He said plumbing and electrical. Mr. Nelson asked him about the video machines. Mr. Lahout said he had put in two or three video machines by just plugging them in. He said he enlarged the interior of the coin laundry to accommodate 18 new washing machines. Member Hegedus moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 70 of the Miami Shores Village Code and an administrative fee of $180 shall be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within thirty days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 12. CASE NO. 4789 was recalled. • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Nelson reiterated the violation was for an unauthorized concrete slab which was found upon investigation from complaints of flooding to Code Enforcement. 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 an administrative fee of $180 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. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 13. CASE NO. 4856 650 NE 88 Terrace Owner: Viking Motel Tenant: Motel Viking Section 12-30. Duties of Village Attorney Section 12-34. Power in emergency situations - issuance of order without notice of hearing Section 12-35. Same -Direct Actions by Village to abate hazards. Mr. Nelson stated a Notice of Violation had been issued to Mr. Atta Kahrizi, owner of Motel Viking, for unauthorized occupancy of five of the motel rooms because the rooms did not have electric nor other utilities which were required by Code. Chairperson Asmus asked Mr. Kahrizi why he had not removed these people ("squatters") from the premises as he had been asked to do at the last Code Enforcement meeting. Mr. Kahrizi stated he had been removing them. He advised he had started with eighteen illegal residents and had just five left. He reported he had had to call the police because some of these people started a riot, threatened the manager, sabotaged the motel office, and broke several windows. Mr. Nelson reported the Miami Shores Police Department could not remove these people, and that it must be done by the Metro Dade Police which Mr. Kahrizi had known for some time. Mr. Kahrizi stated he would have the remaining five people out within seven days. Village Attorney Ulmer briefed the Board on Section's 12-30, 12-34 and 12-35. He then advised Mr. Lubien had determined the condition of the property with the habitants living there was a hazard and an immediate danger to them. He had the authority to issue an order to vacate which could be served on these people pending the Board's approval. Village Attorney Ulmer stated the Village could also take legal action and seek an injunction if these people were trespassers. He suggested Mr. • Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 14 Kahrizi take legal action and sue each person in a summary procedure and have them evicted. He also suggested the Board approve Mr. Lubien's action and authorize himself as Village Attorney to file suit, if necessary, against the property owner and the people still living on the premises if these people were not out in ten days. Further, fines should begin running after the ten day period. Village Attorney Ulmer wanted it made clear to Mr. Kahrizi thatif the Village decided to take legal action, he would ultimately be paying for it and it would probably be more expensive. Member Burch moved to approve Mr. Lubien's action and that a violation of Section 12-34 of the Miami Shores Village Code exists. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Member Garber moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 12-126 of the Housing Section of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $180 be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within 10 days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Member Burch seconded the motion. Chairperson Asmus called for discussion. Member Hegedus asked for clarification. Village Attorney Ulmer advised that since this was a violation of allowing occupants in an uninhabitable building, Mr. Kahrizi must either get the occupants out or make the • building habitable. Member Hegedus said what they were voting on did not correspond with the case. Village Attorney Ulmer advised the Board could not take action on Section 12-126 because it did not correspond to the violation and it should be withdrawn. Member Garber withdrew his motion and Member Burch withdrew her second. Village Attorney Ulmer recommended he consult with the Village Manager to pursue legal action in accordance with Section 12-30 to abate the nuisance within 10 days. Member Burch moved to approve the recommendation of the Village Attorney. Member Garber seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Member Burch moved to dismiss Case No. 4856 as it pertained to Section 12- 126. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 15 14. CASE NO. 4855 Maintaining a Nuisance 650 NE 88 Terrace Owner: Viking Motel Tenant: Motel Viking Section 10-5. Maintaining source of noxious odors or gas. disturbing noise. or other nuisance. It shall be unlawful to maintain any source or cause of noxious odor or gas or of any loud, disturbing noise or other nuisance, or to cause the same to exist. Officer Trumble reported a violation was written on January 16, 1996, for the pool as a breeding place for mosquitoes and algae. Mr. Nelson passed pictures of a covered pool and pump house and said the nuisance must be removed and the pool treated with chemicals. Mr. Kahrizi advised that Goss Pool Service had been treating this pool for the past two years, and that he had plans to completely remove the pool and use the area for a garden. Chairperson Asmus asked how the pool was covered and was it secure. Mr. Nelson reported that it was secured by a hinge and could be easily opened. Anyone could lift the cover and fall in. He added there was only partial railing around the pool which provided little protection. Mr. Kahrizi explained when the illegal tenants sabotaged the motel office they also pulled down the parts of the pool fence leaving it exposed and accessible. Chairperson Asmus stated there were two issues involved here. One was the pool nuisance and the other was the interior nuisance of illegal occupants. Mr. Kahrizi stated he had pulled a permit in November 1995 to redo the pool area and this allowed him six months to get the job done. Chairperson explained the if a health hazard was present, as it appeared there was, he did not have six months to do the work. The hazard must be alleviated immediately. Member Garber asked the Village Attorney if a nuisance and a hazard were the same. The Village Attorney replied the test for each was interchangeable. Member Garber moved for a 30 days continuance. Member Hegedus seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Chairperson Asmus stated he was not in favor of a continuance because the pool was a health hazard and that something had to be done immediately to make sure no one could open the door to the pool area. Officer Trumble advised the Board was now discussing two separate cases, one of pool water and the other with safety hazards. Only the pool was the violation in this case. The motion did not pass • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 16 Member Burch moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 10-5 of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $180 be assessed. If the violation is not corrected by showing proof of chemicalization within 10 days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Member Sydow seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 4-2. 15. CASE NO. 4854 General Unsightliness 650 NE 88 Terrace Owner: Viking Motel Tenant: Motel Viking 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. Officer Trumble reported the violation was written on January 16, 1996, for the pool which had a deteriorating cover and the pool safety barrier was missing in places. Mr. Nelson reported Mr. Kahrizi had plans to either completely renovate the pool or remove it, but the plans had not been submitted. Mr. Kahrizi stated the cover on the pool was secure. Chairperson Asmus stated his concern was the area between the coping and the deck area where a small child could accidentally fall into and not be able to get out. Mr. Kahrizi advised demolition of the pool would be completed within 30 days. Mr. Nelson stated this could be considered an alteration and was subject to the normal Village approval process. Mr. Kahrizi stated the pool would be filled in with probably a garden replacing it. Mr. Nelson also stated the pool needs to be removed, not filled in. Vice Chairperson Herrera moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 10-1 of the Miami Shores Village Code and the administrative fee of $180 shall be waived. If the violation is not corrected with 25 days, a $25 a day fine shall be levied. Member Garber seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 17 16. CASE NO. 4794 Unauthorized construction/alterations 150 NW 101 Street Owner: Dolores Godwin Officer Pierre requested dismissal as the permit had been issued. Member Burch moved for dismissal. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 17. CASE NO. 4707 Hedge/fence beyond height limitations 925 NE 92 Street Owner: Xose F. Alvarez -Alfonso Staff requested dismissal. Vice Chairperson Herrera moved for dismissal. Member Burch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 18. CASE NO. 4847 Unauthorized storage of materials 9204 NE 10 Avenue Owner: Betty Wright Staff requested dismissal. Member Burch moved for dismissal. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 19. CASE NO 4849 Inoperable vehicle on premises 10528 NW 2 Avenue Owner: Edner Etienne Staff requested dismissal. Member Garber moved for dismissal. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting February 1, 1996 Page 18 GOOD AND WELFARE 20. Code Enforcement Board Rules and Regulations Chairperson Asmus asked that all Board members review the draft of the new Rules and Regulations. Discussion of the proposed Rules and Regulations would take place at the next schedule Board meeting. 21. Adjoumment Member Burch moved for adjournment. Vice Chairperson Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.