Loading...
Minutes 10-23-03 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD LIEN REDUCTION MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 AT 3:00 P.M. Present Chris DeLiso, Chairman (arrived at 3:05 p.m.) Robert Foot JamesMiriana Dave Rafkin Enrico Rossi Kathleen Carroll, Alternate Kathy Cook, Alternate Absent Michele Costantino, Vice Chair I. Call to Order Motion Dr. Rafkin nominated Mr. Foot as Chair Pro Tem. unanimously carried. Mr. Foot called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes None III. Approval of Agenda Motion David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Scott Blasie, Code Administrator Motion seconded by Ms. Cook and Mr. Miriana moved to approve the agenda. Motion unanimously carried. IV. Swearing in of Witnesses and Introduction The Recording Secretary administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. (Chairman DeLiso arrived at 3:05 p.m.) seconded by Dr. Rafkin and Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 V. New Business A. Lien Reductions Case #02-88 Jerry McAdoo 411 NE 2nd Street Mr. Blasie presented the case. The property was originally cited on January 14, 2002 for violation of the City's Community Appearance Code. Mr. McAdoo did appear at the March 20, 2002 hearing. A compliance date of September 19, 2002 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. The property complied on October 8, 2003 for a fine in the amount of $9,575, plus administrative costs of $922.21. Mr. Blasie noted that the violation was for grass only and presented photos to the respondent and then to the Board. The photos were taken today and in January, March and October 2002. Attorney Allen Martincavage was present on behalf of Mr. McAdoo. Attorney- Martincavage stated that they were not disputing the photos. He explained that the property has been in compliance for a long time, but Mr. McAdoo did not notify the City to inspect the property. Attorney Martincavage said that there was also some problem with the address of the property, because there are two addresses on the property. Dr. Rafkin asked the respondent if he resided at the property. Mr. McAdoo stated that he used to live there. He has been renting it for the past year and one-half and has only been renting one-half of the property. He explained that he is the sole caretaker for his mother, who was bedridden for almost a year and one-half. As a result, he was unable to bring the property into compliance as soon as he would have liked to. Mr. Blasie noted that the respondent spent approximately $3,000 to put in a driveway. Mr. McAdoo stated that the driveway was installed at his mother's property, which is separate from the cited property. Mr. Foot noted that even though the property looks good now, when it was not in compliance, it was a detraction to other properties in the neighborhood. He suggested a fine in the amount of $1,500, which is a little less than 10% of the total fine and included administrative costs. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 02-88, and having been advised that the respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Sections 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 02-88 by virtue of this Board's order of March 20, 2002 to an amount of $1,500.00, including administrative costs. Motion seconded by Dr. Rafkin and unanimously carried. Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 Mr. Blasie explained that after the Board's order is signed and certified, there is a seven-day appeal period whereby either the applicant and/or any City Commissioner could appeal the finding. The seven-day appeal period does not begin until the Board order is signed and the minutes have been distributed to the City Commission. Anyone desiring further assistance should contact Mr. Blasie's office. Attorney Martincavage asked to waive the appeal rights so that the fine could be certified so that they could finalize it as soon as possible. Attorney Tolces explained to Attorney Martincavage that he could not waive the Commissioner's rights to put it on the agenda. Mr. McAdoo explained that he has a financial problem, and he has to care for his invalid mother. He stated that the reason he was in this situation in the first place was financial because of his responsibility for his property and his mother's property. As a result of the Board's ruling, he is back to square one, where he has to come up with money that he does not have. Chairman DeLiso informed Mr. McAdoo that he has the right to appeal to the City Commission. Case #96-4637 Albert & Lorraine V. Griffin 151 NE 18th Avenue Mr. Blasie explained that this was the first case of two for the same property. The violation address is 151 NE 18~ Avenue and the property owners of record are Albert and Lorraine V. Griffin. The property was originally cited on August 28, 1996 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. No one appeared at the February 19, 1997 Code Compliance Board Hearing. A compliance date of March 18, 1997 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. The property complied on October 15, 2003 for a total fine of $60,000, plus administrative costs of $922.21. Mr. Blasie pointed out that in the agenda packet there is a letter to himself and Ms. Bellino from the applicant, explaining her position, together With copies of receipts for work done at the property. Ms. Griffin stated that she did not receive the notices from the time the property was cited all the way through the year 2000. During that time, the Palm Beach County records had her address at the Boynton Beach address. However, in her letter, she stated that she changed the address back in 1990. Mr. Blasie is not disputing this. Photos taken today and on September 10, 1999 and July 16, 1999 were presented to the respondent and then to the Board. Ms. Griffin was very distraught. She pointed out that she has resided in New York since June 22, 1990. She and her husband purchased the house in 1974 and took in over 54 foster children at that house and were honored by the Governor of the State at that time. 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 In 1985, her marriage disintegrated and she divorced and moved to New York in 1990. When she moved she rented the house out, but when she came back seven months later, the people that she had rented it to destroyed her house. She comes back every six months or so to check on her house. Ms. Griffin said that she had changed her forwarding address at the Post Office and the Court House. She did not know that she had liens on her property until a realtor contacted her in May of this year. She was surprised to find out that she had a lien on her property since she was never informed of this. She did note that a friend telephoned her sometime in 1997 or 1998 to inform her that there was a notice on her house, and she thought it was because her roof was cuding. She had a new roof placed on her house for approximately $3,500. Because Ms. Griffin was unable to proceed for a period of time, Chairman DeLiso recommended that the members read her letter that was included in the agenda packet. Ms. Griffin complained that no one every notified her at her New York address that there was a lien on her property. When she realized that the house was in disrepair, she spent over $12,000 to repair the property. Chairman DeLiso asked the applicant if she was going to continue renting the property and she responded that the she does not rent the property. It had been vacant and she was saving it as her retirement house. Chairman DeLiso recommended that Ms. Griffin come down and inspect the property on a regular basis to avoid this happening again. Ms. Griffin said that her daughter has been living there since August. Mr. Foot asked Ms. Griffin how she received her tax notices and she responded through the mail in New York. She could not understand why she never received notice of the liens since she received other mail in New York. Mr. Miriana inquired why the applicant did not notice that her house was in disrepair when she came down periodically. She stated that she did not have the money at the time, since she is a single mother trying to raise her children. She did make some repairs each time she came down and kept the grass mowed. She also had a real estate company that was supposed to stay on top of the repairs for the property, but she discovered that they were cheating her, so she had to fire them. Mr. Blasie noted that his office had her mailing address as Boynton Beach as late as 2000. The records now indicate that her mailing address is in New York, which was done sometime between February 2, 2002 and now. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 96-4637, and having been advised that the respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in 4 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 Sections 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Dr. Rafkin moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 96-4637 by virtue of this Board's order of February 19, 1997 to an amount of $730.15, including administrative costs. Mr. Blasie pointed out that the amount of the fine assessed by Dr. Rafkin is for administrative costs in the next case. The administrative costs for the current case are $922.21. Dr. Rafkin amended his motion to change the amount of the fine to $922.21, including administrative costs. Motion seconded by Ms. Cook. Mr. Foot felt that the amount of the fine was insufficient and that the applicant has not kept up with her responsibilities for real estate ownership. Mr. Foot recommended that the motion be amended to a larger amount. Dr. Rafkin felt that $922.21 was an appropriate fine considering the amount of money the respondent has put into the property and how good it now looks. Mr. Miriana felt that the fine should be at least $1,000 and that the property had been neglected for a long time. Mr. Foot pointed out that the City has not stated that they made a mistake in this situation in giving the respondent proper notice. Dr. Rafkin asked Mr. Blasie to address this. Mr. Blasie noted that there are documents in the file that as of February 2, 2002, the County Property Appraiser had the respondent's mailing address at the violation address. In terms of knowing about the lien, there is a document in the file indicating that an inquiry was made in 1998. Ms. Griffin stated that the document in 1998 referred to the roof, which she fixed as soon as she could. She was not aware that she had to contact the Code Office after the roof was replaced. The only way she learned about this violation was because a friend told her there was a notice on her house. Ms. Griffin said that she could not afford to pay a $6,000 fine because she is putting two girls through college, plus herself. If she had known about the pdor hearings, she would have attended them. She confirmed that she was never notified of any hearings. Vote The Recording Secretary called Miriana, and Rossi dissenting.) the roll. The motion carried 4-3 (Messrs. Foot, Case #99-824 Lorraine V. Griffin 151 NE 18th Avenue Mr. Blasie pointed out that this is the same property and deals with trash, debris and the roof, plus an occupational license. Attorney Tolces reported to Mr. Blasie that Ms. Griffin had corresponded with the Legal Department in 1998 and at that time the City Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 was informed that Ms. Griffin was living in New York. This case was cited subsequent to receiving that notification. However, the Code Office still had the mailing address in Boynton Beach. Therefore, there may be an issue because the City did find out in 1998 that she was in New York. However, future mailings did not go to her in New York. Mr. Foot inquired if this constituted proper notice to the City for a change of address. Attorney Tolces responded that under the Statute, the City looks to the address on the tax rolls. However, if you are posting notice on property and received information that the owner of the property does not reside there, there should be an additional step taken to provide notice to where the property owner resides. Attorney Tolces did not think that it strictly provided for notices to go to the address listed on the tax rolls and if the City was aware of where the respondent resided, they were obligated to send the notice to that other address. Dr. Rafkin inquired why the Code Office was not notified of the New York address. Mr. Blasie noted that it was another City Department that had been contacted by telephone and he was not sure if the Code Office was provided with this. Attorney Tolces pointed- out that it was an email from Ms. Griffin that contained her phone number. Attorney Tolces noted that the Code Office complied with the requirements of the Statutes with respect to the second case. Due to the fact that the Board raised the communications issue in the prior case and it was not an issue, he thought he would bring this to the attention of the Board to clarify the fact that it may be an issue with respect to this case. Mr. Blasie also stated that there were other entities that had placed liens on the property that reflect the Boynton Beach address. Ms. Griffin did not understand what Attorney Tolces was talking about. Attorney Tolces responded that he was explaining to the Board that it was her responsibility to provide accurate information concerning her mailing address to the County and the City's ability to rely on that information. Mr. Foot noted this case also involved an occupational license. Mr. Blasie stated that the license became moot when the house was empty, and Ms. Griffin closed it up. Further, he has no occupational license information in his file. Ms. Griffin stated that her house has been empty for a long time. Mr. Foot inquired if Ms. Griffin furnished an address when she corresponded with the City. Mr. Blasie responded that she only furnished a telephone number. Mr. Foot inquired why Ms. Griffin would respond with the Legal Department and Mr. Blasie stated that at that time it was probably due to a notice of mortgage foreclosure in 1999. Ms. Griffin said that she corresponded with the City because someone had posted notices on her house and her friend called her up to inform her of this, which was sometime around 1998. As soon as she could come up with the finances, she fixed the roof in August 1999. 6 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 Mr. Blasie reported that there is a photograph in the file that shows the new roof was in place in September 1999 and the Board's order for this case stated that she had to comply by August 16, 1999. Therefore, sometime between August and September, the roof was done. The occupational license did not apply at this point because the house was empty. Therefore, the only violation outstanding was for the grass, which was for the other case. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-824, and having been advised that the respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Sections 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Dr. Rafkin moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 99-824, by virtue of this Board's order of July 21, 1999, to an amount of $0.00, including administrative costs. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-824, and having been advised that the respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Sections 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 99-824, by virtue of this Board's order of July 21, 1999, to an amount of $1,730.15, including administrative costs. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana. Motion carried 6-1 (Ms. Cook dissenting). Case #97-1554 Patricia F. Girtman/Victor Acosta 311 NE 16th Ave. Mr. Blasie stated that the current property owner is Victor Acosta, but when the case was processed, Patricia F. Girtman owned it. The property was originally cited on August 4, 1997 for violation of the Community AppearanCe Code. The case came before the Board on June 18, 1997 and no one appeared. A compliance date of August 18, 1997 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. The property complied on October 20, 2003 for a fine of $56,300, plus administrative costs of $730.15. Mr. Blasie thought that the applicant purchased the property with the lien on it and has made the repairs. Victor Acosta, P.O. Box 426, Deerfleld Beach, Florida 33443 assumed the podium. Mr. Blasie presented photos to the respondent and then to the Board. Mr. Blasie stated that the first picture was taken on May 19, 1997 and the applicant acknowledged that this was the condition of the house when he purchased it. The other picture was taken today. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Acosta how he purchased the property and he said he purchased it from a company that buys houses. Chairman DeLiso asked him if he did a 7 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 title search. He said that he did a title search after he fixed the house to refinance it and no lien was discovered at that time. This was done by the NationsBank. Mr. Blasie asked when he purchased the property and he stated in 1997. Ms. Cook inquired why it took him six years to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Acosta stated that he tried to refinance the property again in 2002 and it was at this time that he found out that there was a lien on the property. At that point he went to the Code Office and spoke with Ms. Bellino and when he found this out, he painted the house, put down new grass and brought everything into compliance. Chairman DeLiso inquired if the respondent was selling the property and he stated that he was renting it under Section 8 and had no plans to sell it. Mr. Miriana inquired when the applicant purchased the home, and Mr. Acosta thought it was sometime in 1997. Mr. Foot pointed out that the lien was recorded on October 8, 1997. Mr. Acosta also responded that the lien was not in his name, but in someone else's name. Chairman DeLiso inquired how the applicant could refinance the property if- there was lien on file. Attorney Tolces inquired if the property was foreclosed on prior to Mr. Acosta purchasing it. Mr. Blasie pointed out that the applicant purchased the property in April 1998. Attorney Tolces asked Mr. Acosta from whom he purchased the property, and he responded from an investment company out of Ft. Lauderdale. Attorney Tolces said that he would have to do some research to see if the property had been foreclosed upon, and if it has been foreclosed, the lien would have been wiped out. If that were the case, this would eliminate the purpose of having a lien reduction hearing. Attorney Tolces requested that Mr. Acosta supply the City with copies of recorded deeds prior to when he acquired the property so that the City could determine how the property was transferred. Chairman DeLiso informed the applicant that if the records show that the property was a foreclosure, there would be no need for him to come back before the Board. Attorney Tolces told Mr. Acosta to have the title company that did the title search for the refinancing company to forward a "chain of title" for the property to Mr. Blasie. Attorney Tolces explained that the "chain of title" must show who acquired the property prior to him. He recommended that the title company search back to around 1994-1995. If the title company has any questions, have them contact Mr. Blasie. Motion Mr. Foot moved to table Case #97-1554 to November 20, 2003. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana and unanimously carried. Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida October 23, 2003 V. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (October 27, 2002)