Loading...
09-05-1996 Regular Meeting• CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Village of Miami Shores, Florida September 5, 1996 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday, September 5, 1996, at Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M by Vice Chairman Herrera. Present: Barry Asmus, Chairperson Prospero G. Herrera, II, Vice Chairperson Ivor Hegedus, Member John Sydow, Member Douglas Garber, Member John Patnik, Member Absent: Margaret Burch, Member (vacation) Also Present: William Nelson, Code Compliance Director Richard Trumble, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Amos Pierre, Code Enforcement Officer Mark S. Ulmer, Esq., Village Attorney S I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • It was moved and properly seconded to approve the Minutes of August 1, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. II. HEARING Case No. 4612 (Request for Relief) Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior 103 NW 103 Street Owner: Realko Investment & Associates, Inc. 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. Ms. Gloria Romero, Project Director from DEEDCO (Dade Employment & Economic Development Corporation, Inc.), testified that her company was in the process of purchasing the property from HUD for renovation and resale. Negotiations were at a standstill due to the fact that a lien of $7,880.00 was attached to the property. Ms. Romero advised a representative from HUD was scheduled to be present but had not yet arrived. • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 2 Village Attorney Ulmer advised State Statute allowed this Board the power to reduce fines. He suggested the Board consider reducing the fine provided all Code violations were brought into compliance within a set time after DEEDCO acquired the property. Chairman Asmus moved to defer this case until the HUD representative arrived. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. (Note: Chairman Asmus was able to make this motion as Vice Chairperson Herrera was presiding. Upon passing of the motion, Vice Chairman Herrera passed the gavel to Chairman Asmus.) Case No. 5047 Levy Fines: Non-compliance Failure to obtain an occupational license 9959 Biscayne Boulevard Owner: Eliecer & 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. Officer Trumble reported no occupational license had been pulled, and the property owners were not present to testify. Mr. Hegedus moved that an administrative fee of $180 be assessed and a fine of $30 per day retroactive to August 11, 1996, for non-compliance shall be levied. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Case No. 5053 Levy Fines: Non-compliance Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior 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 es 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. • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 3 Officer Trumble stated the violation was for an inoperable garage door, a neighborhood "eye sore." Mr. Joe DiMayo, 323 NE 91 Street, Miami Shores, FL, Mr. Staninski's uncle, was present to testify. He showed pictures that the garage door was in compliance as of this date. There was some discussion as to why the garage door, if in compliance, was still ajar. Mr. DiMayo said it was slightly open to allow his leashed dog to go in and out of the garage. Mr. Hegedus moved that an administrative fee of $180 be assessed and a fine of $20 per day retroactive to August 31, 1996, for noncompliance shall be levied. If the Code Enforcement Officer determines that the violation has been brought into compliance by visiting the property tomorrow, there will be no daily fine of $20 levied. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2. Mr. Patnik and Chairman Asmus opposed the motion. Case No. 5029 Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior 249 Grand Concourse Owner: Elizabeth Khoury Crocker 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. Nelson stated the homeowner was in Texas and asked Chairman Asmus to read a letter she had sent to the Board requesting a 30 day continuance to comply. Officer Trumble reported the house needed to be painted and some chattahoochee stone needed to be replaced. He said a continuance had previously been given. Mr. Hegedus 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 shall be assessed. The violation is to be corrected within 30 days. Should the violation not be corrected within 30 days, the Board shall have the right to levy a fine of $0 - $250 per day until the violation is brought into compliance. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2. Mr. Garber and Mr. Sydow opposed the motion. • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 4 Case No. 5050 Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior 246 NW 93 Street Owner: Arrington Wells 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 Pierre stated the house had mildew and needed to be painted. The owner reported financial difficulty and had been given additional time to comply. Mr. Garber 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 shall be assessed. The violation is to be corrected within 30 days. Should the violation not be corrected within 30 days, the Board shall have the right to levy a fine of $0 - $250 per day until the violation is brought into compliance. Mr. Patnik seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Case No. 5054 Non -family occupancy 920 NE 99 Street Owner: Robert C. Miller Tenant: Miami Bridge, an HRS Group Home Section 216. Non -family occupancy. A family is any number of persons related by blood or marriage; or not more than two persons not related by blood or marriage. Officer Trumble reported the house was being rented to Miami Bridge as a Group Home, and the area was zoned for single family dwellings. Mr. Miller said State law allowed group homes with six or fewer clients in a residential setting. He stated the clients were' obeying all the laws and should be allowed to stay. Village Attorney Ulmer asked for the HRS license for the Group Home. Ms. Connie Williams, representative from HRS, said Miami Bridge held an HRS license, but the Group Home did not. Also there were six clients and one staff person residing at the home. The occupancy of seven people (not related through blood or marriage) and no individual HRS license made the Group Home illegal at this location. • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Garber moved for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists to Section 216 of the Miami Shores Village Code and that an administrative fee of $180.00 be assessed. The violation is to be corrected within 30 days. Should the violation not be corrected within 30 days, the Board shall have the right to levy a fine of $0 - $250 per day until the violation is brought into compliance. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Case No. 5058 Unauthorized construction/alterations 1161 NE 98 Street Owner: Donald M. Eisenman Section 6-4(a). Required Permits - Applications generaliv. 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. Officer Trumble reported a wooden deck was built in the back of the property without a valid permit. He said the homeowner advised the deck was present when he purchased the home, and all that was clone was to add new wood to the top of the deck. Mr. Garber 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 $180.00 shall be assessed. The violation is to be corrected within 30 days. Should the violation not be corrected within 30 days, the Board shall have the right to levy a fine of $0 - $250 per day until the violation is brought into compliance. Mr. Patnik seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Case No. 5073 Inoperable vehicle on premises 323 NE 91 Street Owner: Gregory L. Staninski 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 Trumble reported the tag on the vehicle expired in June 1996, and no current tag replaced it. Mr. DiMayo, Mr. Staninki's uncle, said he had • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 6 the current tag and registration in his possession, but had not actually put the new sticker on the license plate. Mr. Patnik 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 $180.00 shall be assessed. The violation is to be corrected in one day Should the violation not be corrected in one day, the Board shall have the right to levy a fine of $0 - $250 per day until the violation is brought into compliance. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Case No. 5074 Lack of off-street parking 145 NW 95 Street Owner: Michael and Dawn Elvis Schedule of Regulations - LSP. Lack of Off -Street Parking Vehicles must be parked on driveway or other approved off-street parking area(s). Officer Trumble reported this was an ongoing problem and several citations had been written in the past. The homeowners, Mr. And Mrs. Elvis, said they were in the process of removing these tenants and had hired an attorney. Mr. Garber 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 $180.00 shall be assessed. The violation is to be corrected within 30 days. Should the violation not be corrected within 30 days, the Board shall have the right to levy a fine of $0 - $250 per day until the violation is brought into compliance. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Since removing these tenants could take considerably longer than 30 days, Chairman Asmus recommended Mr. and Mrs. Elvis return to the next Board Meeting and/or submit a status report. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Case No. 4612 (continued) Vice Chairman Herrera moved to return to Case No. 4612. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Maria Macega, HUD representative, stated HUD had taken possession of the property on 11/15/95. No notices of any liens had ever been • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 7 received by HUD. Village Attorney Ulmer advised if proper notice had not been given, the violation would be invalid. At this time, Village Attorney Ulmer asked for a brief recess to meet with Ms. Macega. Chairman Asmus recessed the meeting at 8:20 P.M. Chairman Asmus reconvened the meeting at 8:35 P.M. Village Attorney Ulmer reported it appeared HUD had never received proper notice and was offering to settle the lien for $1,180.00. He recommended the Board reduce the outstanding lien fee to $1,180.00, accept the HUD offer with settlement to be paid within 30 days, and a Release of Lien issued exchange for the settlement payment. Mr. Patnik moved to accept the $1,180.00 as settlement of the lien. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Garber moved to reduce the outstanding lien and accept the HUD settlement of $1,180.00 contingent upon Village Attorney Ulmer executing a Release of Lien and finalizing the agreement. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS A. New Policies regarding Fees and Fines Mr. Nelson presented objectives for establishing new policies for assessing administrative fees. He stated the computer programmer needed specific information to formulate the program. Village Attorney Ulmer advised he had reviewed the Florida Statutes and had found the method the Board was using to assess the administrative fee and levy fines was incorrect. He said Florida statutes required when a case is first brought before the Board and found guilty, an administrative fee is to be set and a date for compliance. The administrative fee must be based upon testimony of what it actually cost to bring the case before the Board. If the case comes into compliance on or before the date set (30 days), no further action is taken. If the case does not come into compliance, the case will be heard sixty days after the first hearing and the • • • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 8 violator notified of same by letter. However, noncompliance fines would be assessed 30 days after the initial hearing and begin the 31st day and accumulate until the violation was brought into compliance. He said Florida Statutes does not require that a notice be given for the second hearing. However, he recommended Code Enforcement continue to send the notice. Village Attorney Ulmer said nonpayment of an administrative fee cannot be attached to property as a lien as could nonpayment of daily fines. Village Attorney Ulmer explained how the Village could collect on liens. He recommended that foreclosure proceedings be initiated against certain properties which were eligible. He felt if the Village took strong action it would be noticed throughout the community and property owners with outstanding liens would begin paying up rather than suffer possible foreclosure proceedings. Mr. Garber moved that Village Attorney Ulmer prepare and submit a list of criteria for rehearing cases for Board review and action by the next Board Meeting. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sydow moved that the first hearing of a case be for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists, an administrative fee be assessed, a date for compliance (usually 30 days) be stipulated, and a rehearing date set for 30 days after the date Code Enforcement brings the case back to the Board for noncompliance (the next Board Meeting) for assessing fines at the Board's discretion with such fines retroactive to the first day of noncompliance. Village Attorney Ulmer said a motion was not necessary. Mr. Sydow withdrew his motion. The Board discussed methods of arriving at administrative fees and costs. Chairman Asmus said he would work with Mr. Nelson and Ms. Varney to work out a fair and acceptable formula. Mr. Nelson reviewed what a few other municipalities charged for fees and had an actual higher collection rate. Since the Village had a large percentage of outstanding administrative fees, he suggested the Board consider assessing a lower administrative fee of $50 - $75. Village Attorney Ulcer reminded the Board the administrative fee was to recoup the costs of bringing a particular case to trial and read the Statute. • Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting September 5, 1996 Page 9 Chairman Asmus moved that Code Enforcement prepare calculations for assessing fines on a fully loaded cost per hour basis and bring this to the next Board Meeting for review. Mr. Sydow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Code Enforcement Board Vacancies During the meeting, Mr. Hegedus bid the Board farewell and said he was not going to apply to serve for another year. He thanked everyone and expressed his gratefulness for the opportunity of serving the community through the Code Enforcement Board for the past three years. The Board discussed how to handle notice of Board vacancies. It was determined that a list of qualifications should be posted. IV. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Garber moved to adjourn. Vice Chairman Herrera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Asmus adjourned the meeting at 10:08 P.M. Carol Ann Ragone,