Loading...
08-01-1996 Regular Meeting• • • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE OF MIAMI SHORES August 1, 1996 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday, August 1, 1996, at Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chairman Asmus Present: Also Present: Barry Asmus, Chairman Prospero G. Herrera, II, Vice Chairman Margaret Burch, Member Ivor Hegedus, Member John Sydow, Member Douglas Garber, Member John Patnik, Member Richard Trumble, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Amos Pierre, Code Enforcement Officer Mark S. Ulmer, Esq., Village Attorney I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Burch moved to approve the Minutes of July 9, 1996. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. Mr. Garber asked that the Recording Secretary amend the Minutes to reflect a sentence acknowledging Board discussion concerning the gravel versus blacktop on soil and drainage issues Code Enforcement was dealing with in the community. The Recording Secretary stated she would amend the Minutes as requested. Ms. Burch rescinded her motion and Vice Chairman Herrera rescinded his second. Ms. Burch moved to approve the Minutes of July 9, 1996, as corrected. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. II. HEARING CASE NO. 5035 Unauthorized construction/alterations - Installation of skylights over atrium without first obtaining a permit. 1250 NE 94 Street Owner: Gerard es Myrto Fabius • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Page 2 Section 6-4(a). Reguired 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. The homeowners were present to testify on their own behalf. Ms. Fabius stated she had moved into the house in January 1996 and did not know she needed to obtain a permit to remove a tree from her atrium and install skylights. (Note: This case and the next case, CASE NO. 5036, are for the same residence. CASE NO. 5036 deals with enclosing a garage without a permit. Discussion on both violations was held during the hearing of this case.) Chairman Asmus explained the process of submitting plans to Planning and Zoning, obtaining approval and securing a permit to Mrs. Fabius. He said because she had enclosed her garage without first obtaining a permit, there was a possibility Planning and Zoning would require her to tear down the enclosure. Mrs. Fabius said she had requested a permit and had shown pre -plans to Mr. Lubien who told her she would need to come before this Board. She said she is working to come into compliance. Note: Chairman Asmus sought the advice of Village Attorney Ulmer at this point in the proceedings concerning the Due Process issue the Board had discussed at length in its last meeting. Village Attorney Ulmer was not present at the last meeting and could not advise the Board on the issues of Due Process, administrative fees and fines. The Board had determined that whatever the Village Attorney recommended the Board would adopt and use in all future cases. Village Attorney Ulmer commented as follows: He said the Council had agreed to an updated computer system to handle assessing fees and fines to homeowners who were brought into violation in more than one area at any one time. This would allow the Board to go ahead and make changes to the way it now assesses fees and fines. This case was an ideal example for the new system as it pertained to a violation wherein the homeowners agreed they were in violation and were taking steps to comply. He said a finding of guilty at this stage and no assessing of fines gives the homeowners 30 days to go through the process of correcting the violation without being charged a fine. If after 30 days they were not in compliance, they would be brought back to the Board for assessment of fines. He advised the Board they could, at this point, assess costs (administrative fees). To determine these costs, the Board would need to hear testimony from Code Enforcement concerning what it actually cost • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Page 3 the Village to handle each individual case, on a case by case basis. The Board then had the power to assess costs to recoup what it had cost to bring the violator to the Board. This would, of course, create additional paperwork for Code Enforcement. To help with this, Code Enforcement should devise a formula by which each case could be judged and assessed costs by that formula. An "average" cost could be determined and assessed if Code Enforcement could testify to what the costs were. This would be subject to cross-examination by the violator to determine if in fact these costs applied to him or her. Chairman Asmus returned to CASE NO. 5025. He asked Officer Trumble if he could testify as to the costs incurred in bringing this case to the Board. Officer Trumble said he could not. Village Attorney Ulmer said this hearing was to determine whether or not these homeowners were guilty of a violation. He recommended assessing of costs be deferred until Code Enforcement could determine what they should be. Ms. 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. If the violation if not corrected within sixty days, the Board would then consider assessing costs and fees. Note: Officer Trumble stated Code Enforcement had no way yet of dealing with changes to assessing costs and fees because the new computer program had not yet been installed. He said having this case returned in 60 days for review would necessitate assigning it a new case number. At that time, the Board could determine what costs and fees were appropriate to assess. Ms. Burch rescinded her motion. Ms. 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 the Code Enforcement Department determine and notify the Board of costs. In 60 days this case will be brought back before the Board to assess administrative costs. If the violation is not corrected within the sixty days, the Board would then consider levying a daily fine. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Page 4 CASE NO. 5036 Unauthorized construction/alteration - Garage enclosue without first obtaining a permit. 1250 NE 94 Street Owner: Gerard & Myrto Fabius 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. Mrs. Fabius was told she would have to appear before Planning and Zoning to get approval for the plans to enclose her garage even though the work had already been done. Ms. 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 the Code Enforcement Department determine and notify the Board of costs. In 60 days this case will be brought back before the Board to assess administrative costs. If the violation is not corrected within the 60 days, the Board would then consider levying a daily fine. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. Ms. Burch rescinded her motion and Vice Chairman Herrera rescinded his second. Ms. 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 $180 be assessed. If the violation is not corrected within sixty days, the Board would then consider levying a daily fine. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. During discussion, Mr. Garber questioned whether the Village had fallen short of its duty of notifying new homeowners of the Village's rules and regulations and the Village Code. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6 to 1. Mr. Garber opposed the motion. • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Page 5 CASE NO. 5038 Commercial vehicle in residential zone - Commercial white van "Eglesia Bautista De Wynwood" parked on front yard 188 NW 104 Street Owner: Francisco G. Quinonez Mr. Quinonez was present to testify on his own behalf. He stated five and a half weeks ago the magnetic blocks he was using to cover the letters on the van were stolen. Chairman Asmus suggested he get magnetic blocks with letters on them to use and then take the blocks into the house at night. Mr. Quinonez said within two days he would park the van in Hialeah. Mr. Hegedus moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to the Schedule of Regulations and that assessment of an administrative fee be deferred until the next Board Meeting. If the violation is not corrected within five days, levying of a daily fine shall be considered when the administrative fee is assessed. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 5043 Unauthorized storage of materials - Refrigerator stored on front porch 9136 North Miami Avenue Owner: Joseph Carlo Bien Aime Staff requested dismissal. Ms. Burch moved for dismissal. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 5046 Business from residence - Business from residence is not a permitted use 9959 Biscayne Boulevard Owner: Owner/ occupant Tenant: Eliecer 85Rosaida Figueredo Officer Trumble reported he advised the tenants it was illegal for them to run a business from the house. The homeowner could apply for an occupational license, but not a tenant. The tenants agreed to remove • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Page 6 their signs and shut down. Officer Trumble stated he called their office and it appears the business is still operating. Mr. Garber moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to the Miami Shores Village Schedule of Regulations and that the administrative fee and fines be assessed at the next Board Meeting. The violation is to be corrected within five days. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 5047 Failure to obtain an occupational license - Renting of house without first obtaining an occupational license 9959 Biscayne Boulevard Owner: Owner/ occupant Tenant: Eliecer 86 Rosaida Figueredo Section 14-17. Required; Hours for retail sales. No person shall, within the limits of the village, engage nor manage any business, occupation or profession without first having paid the amount of license tax required by this chapter and without first having obtained a village occupational license therefore issued for an applying to the current occupational license year, or fractional part thereof, during which such business, occupation or profession is commenced, carried on or engaged in. Such occupational license shall be applied for and obtained before the commencement of any such business, occupation or profession, and annually thereafter on or before October 1 or each year as long as such business, occupation or profession Is carried on. Provided, nevertheless, that the retail sale of consumer goods between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. is prohibited. (See CASE NO. 5046, above). Tenants running a business from a rented house without an occupational license. Mr. Garber moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 14-17 of the Miami Shores Village Code and that the administrative fee and fines be assessed at the next Board Meeting. The violation is to be corrected within ten days. Ms. Burch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CASE NO. 5052 Boat on premises - Boat in front yard 1175 NE 105 Street Owner: Michael R. Clarke Staff requested dismissal. . Ms. Burch moved for dismissal. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Pagel CASE NO. 5053 Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior Garage door in inoperable condition 323 NE 91 Street Owner: Gregory L. Staninski 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. Officer Trumble passed a picture of the violation and stated he had received several complaints from neighbors on the condition of the garage door. Homeowner refuses to comply. Ms. 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 that the administrative fee and fine be assessed at the next Board Meeting. The violation is to be corrected within thirty days. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion on Formulating Administrative Fees (Costs) Chairman Asmus recommended Code Enforcement devise some type of timetable to be used when calculating costs. The Board discussed using the current $180.00 administrative fee as an average cost to levy, but determined this was defeating the purpose. Village Attorney Ulmer advised the Attorney General's Opinion of February 1995 said costs could not be determined by a schedule but by testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. Officer Trumble stated it would be almost impossible to keep track and log every telephone call, every visit, every discussion. Mr. Hegedus offered an example of averaging costs to obtain a fee. Chairman Asmus requested Code Enforcement to come up with some basic fees so that the cases heard at this meeting could be assessed costs and fines (if necessary) at the September Board Meeting. He asked that these cases be heard first with new cases immediately • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting August 1, 1996 Page 8 thereafter. He offered to meet with Code Enforcement and help determine charges. Chairman Asmus requested Code Enforcement to update the Board at the September Meeting on the status of the new computer program and when it would be operational. Chairman Asmus requested that Mr. Nelson and Village Attorney Ulmer meet to discuss restructuring the language of the motions so that the Board would have standard verbiage to guide them when making motions. Mr. Garber asked if the Village knew every time a property changed hands. Office Trumble replied affirmatively but said notification usually took a good deal of time. Mr. Garber asked if this notification was through correspondence mailed directly from the Village to the new homeowner. Officer Trumble said a "Welcome Lady" visited and presented the new owners with a welcome basket. Mr. Garber suggested that an official notice be added to the first garbage bill, or another vehicle, to inform the new owners of the Village's Code and compliance laws. Chairman Asmus requested this question be given to Mr. Nelson to handle so that miscommunication between the Village and new homeowners could be alleviated. Mr. Garber said if this Board was going to hold homeowners accountable, the Village should make certain information was given to the homeowners instead of what appeared to be the current hit or miss situation. IV. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Burch moved to adjourn. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Asmus adjourned the meeting at 7:40 P.M. smus, Chairperson of Ann Ragone, ecr tart'