Loading...
Minutes 02-21-01MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2'1, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Christopher DeLiso, Chair Patti Hammer, Vice Chair Robert Foot Dick Lambert James Miriana Enrico Rossi Sarah Williams Dee Zibelli, Alternate ABSENT Thomas Walsh, Alternate Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator Inspectors: Courtney Cain Luney Guillaume Vestiguerne Pierre Ski p Lewis Mike Melillo Pete Roy Willie Webb Rich Laverdure CALLTO ORDER Chairman DeLiso called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 200'1 MEETING Chairman DeLiso called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2001 meeting. Motion Vice Chair Hammer moved to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2001 meeting. Mr. Foot asked for assurance that the Code Compliance Department had read the minutes and were satisfied with them, and Inspector Roy said yes. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Pete Roy stated there were additions and deletions to the Agenda as follows: A. Page B. Page C. Page D. Page 5 (Case No. 00-2559), Ron Washam (complied) 6 (Case No. 00-2602), Paul Bushee (complied) 7 (Case No. 00-3545), Florin Burdusel (complied) 11 (Case No. 00-2329), John Smith Est (removed) Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Case No. 96-5124, N.E. 3rd Street, Lien Reduction case reviewed by City Commission at end of Agenda Motion Mr. Lambert moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. III. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES AND INTRODUCTION Chairman DeLiso requested that Mr. Blasie call the roll. Mr. Blasie asked all persons who were present to state they were "here" when their name was called. IV. NEW BUSINESS Chairman DeLiso stated that this Board follows Florida State Statutes and is a quasi-judicial Board. Anyone who would be testifying before the Board must be sworn in. There is a plea system in place and when taking the podium a person should state their name and address. If you feel that a violation does exist on your property, but you need more time for compliance, the Board usually grants the requested time. At that time, you should plead "no contest" and state how much time you need. However, if you feel that a violation does not exist on your property, you can plead "not guilty". In that instance, the City will put on their case and you will put on your case. The Board will then make a determination if in fact a violation dOes exist on the property. If a violation does exist, you will be given a reasonable amount of time to bring the property into compliance. Once the property complies, you do not need to reappear before this Board. If, however, the property does not comply within the requested time, you would have to reappear before the Board for a fine certification. Chairman DeLiso requested that the Recording Secretary administer the oath to all persons who would be testifying at the meeting. A. CASES TO BE HEARD Case #00-2128 Property Address: Violations: Boynton West Condo Association 3010 S.W. 14t~ Place Landscape Maintenance Required. PT3- LDR. Ch 7.5-11. Section 5B; Re-stripe parking spaces. Replace all missing or dead landscaping. Sod required in swales and islands and maintained weed-free. Remove ail unregistered vehicles from property. Maintain all parking spaces free of any storage items. Restore handicap parking per Code. 2 Meeting Minutes ..... Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Inspector Roy stated that the property was originally cited on September 28, 2000 for violations of the Landscape Regulations. The property owner of record is the Boynton West Condo Association, Inc. It was discovered by routine inspection and service was accomplished by posting. The City recommended 30 days. Mark Baker, 3020 S.W. 14th Place, one of the owners of the Condo Association, pled no contest and asked for 90 days. Chairman DeLiso stated that they had been cited in September and nothing had been done. Mr. Baker was aware of that and said they had done some things but were not quite completed yet. He said that finding sod had been difficult. Chairman DeLiso suggested the Board allow Mr. Baker 45 days to come into compliance. Mr. Baker stated that there were multiple owners and that it had been hard to get in touch with everyone. Inspector Roy stated he would like to see both buildings (another building, different case) done at the same time so he thought 60 days would be more appropriate. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2128, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law that Boynton West Condo Association is in violation of Code Sections PT3-LDR, Chapter 4 Section 11, and PT3-LDR Chapter 7, Section 5.B of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violations on or before April 16, 2001. If the Respondents do not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Vice Chair Hammer seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2510 Property Address: Violations: Tilda Jenkins 11 N,W. 28th Avenue Ch15-Art. IX-15-120(D)1 Inclusive Appearance Private Property Inspector Guillaume stated that the property was originally cited on September 28, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. He stated that the violation was discovered through routine inspection and that service was by posting. Tilda Jenkins, 11 N.W. 28th~ Avenue, pled No Contest, Ms. Jenkins said that the problem stemmed from the fact that there was a middle school bus stop on her property and that the youth constantly trashed her fence and property. They had broken her mailbox and damaged her sprinkler system, Ms. Jenkins had left several messages with the School Board about the problem but had no response to date. Ms. Jenkins wanted the School Board to fix the fence and move the bus stop to another location. Chairman DeLiso asked Inspector Roy if the City could step in and contact the School Board to assist Ms. Jenkins? Inspector Roy said they could make a ca for her. 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Mr. Rossi stated that another case had come up about sod and he wanted to know if the Code Compliance Department had set up any criteria for how the cases would be treated in the interests of uniformity. This comment referenced the drought and the shortage of sod. Inspector Roy said that they were treating the cases arising during the drought with more leniency. Chairman DeLiso stated that if new sod was put in, it was acceptable to water it Monday through Friday from 4:00 to 8:00 a.m. Chairman DeLiso suggested that the item be tabled until an answer could be obtained from the School Board. If the youth at the bus stop are tearing down Ms. Jenkins' fence, then the School Board should repair it. Ms. Jenkins also commented that she had a manual sprinkler system in her yard and that the youth had also broken the pipe for this. Because of it, the sprinkler system is not able to come on.. She had not replaced it because she had been out of work for some time. Chairman DeLiso suggested that Ms. Jenkins contact Octavia Sherrod at Community Redevelopment about assistance. Chairman DeLiso asked Ms. Jenkins if she owned the home and she stated that she did. Mr. Lambert said that based on the pictures, they were looking at the entire lawn, not just the part that the youth would have access to. Ms. Jenkins said she had it treated a couple of times for chinch bugs but that the whole lawn needed to be replaced. Mr. Foot said that the responsibility remained with Ms. Jenkins to resolve her problems. Mr. Foot suggested the Board table the case for sixty days to make certain she does take action on her own whether the School Board helps or not. Chairman DeLiso said the Board could table it for thirty days and have her come back with a status report. Chairman DeLiso hoped that Ms. Jenkins would have the situation under control by the April meeting. Motion Mr. Foot moved that Case No. 00-2510 be tabled until April 19, 2001. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2808 Property Address: Violations: Alexander Nathaniel 229 N.E. 11th Avenue Chapter 15-Article IX-15-120(D)(E)2A & D1 Inclusive; SBC 1997 Edition 104.1.1; Section 13- 16 and Section 15-16 of BBC of Ordinances. Occupational License is required for rental property; install sod, remove all loose trash, debris, replace fascia boards, obtain permit for driveway. Inspector Webb stated that the property was originally cited on October 19, 2000 for Community Appearance code issues and for an occupational license for rental property, permit for driveway, and a house number requirement. It was discovered through a routine neighborhood inspection. Service was obtained by certified mail. 4 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February21,2001 Angel Alexander, 826 S.W. 5th Avenue, Delray Beach, stated she was the ex-wife of Alexander Nathaniel. She was representing Mr. Nathaniel as he was critically ill with cancer and had been for two years. The property was being turned over to her daughter. She said the lawn had been resodded but some homeless people were sleeping on her property. She said she had another half a pallet of sod to put down and she had to do the fascia boards. She asked for more time so she could complete the w°lk. Molion BaSed on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2808, Mr. Lambert moyed that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law that Alexander Nalhaniel is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(E)2A, Standard Building Code 1997 Edition 104.1.1, Section 13-16 and Section 15-16 of Boynton Beach Co~le of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violations on or before May 14, 2001. If the Respondents do not Comply with this Order, a ripe in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Divlsion to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2591 Property Add ress: Violations: Geraldine McDuffie 1510 N.W. 3rd Street Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1 .D; Remove, repair or register the green Camaro. Install grass in bare spots or get a permit to widen driveway. Mr, viol by, da~ Ch; Co~ Mo Melillo stated that the property had originally been cited on October 4, 2000. The ations were discovered through a routine inspection and service was accomplished ;ertified mail. The owner of record, Geraldine McDuffie, was present. · aldine McDuffie, 1510 N.W. 3rd Street, pled no contest. Ms. McDuffie asked for 90 s to bring the property into compliance. She did not have any extra money to do it. ~irman DeLiso asked Ms. McDuffie if she was going to try to obtain relief from nmunity Redevelopment, and she stated that she was. ~ion Ba.,~ed on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2591, Mr. Lambert moyed that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of aw that GerakJine McDuffie is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1D of Boynton Be~ch Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct theviolations on or before May 14, 2001. If the Respondents do not comply with this Orc~e,r, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent was further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code 5 Meeting Minutes - Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3224 Property Address: Violations: Maria Salas 902 S.E. 3rd Street Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)l, inclusive; and Section 13-16 of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances Inspector Lewis reported that the property was originally cited on November 14, 2000. Sodand sod needs to be planted in dead areas of the yard, but the other violations are satisfactory. The property owner of record was Maria Salas and she was present. Mr. Lambert asked for status of the other violations. Inspector Lewis reported that staff believed it was a rental but apparently her son was living in the house. He further stated that they had trimmed the overgrowth and all that remained was to put some sod in bare areas. This really originated from the previous owner, before the drought. Eduardo Salas, 902 S.E. 3rd Street and his mother, Maria Salas, 909 S.E. 3rd Street pled no contest and asked for as much time as possible because of the drought and because of the problems they inherited when they got the property. It was in very bad shape. For the past two weekends some work had been done and it looked better. Chairman DeLiso advised Mr. Salas that he could obtain sod and water it Monday through Friday from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Mr. Salas said that their sprinkler system was not working also. They had been trying to fix it and the water pump was also not working. He needed to get expert help because his experience did not extend to this kind of work. Mr. Salas asked if the case could be deferred to June or July. Chairman DeLiso asked what size yard was involved and Inspector Lewis responded that it was quite large, and that it was a corner lot. He shared a picture with the Board. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3224, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law that Eduardo Salas is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1 inclusive of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Mr. Foot moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before July 17, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent was further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 6-1, Mr. Lambert dissenting. Mr. Lambert brought up the fact that on some similar cases, the Board had allowed 30, 60, or 90 days and then this one was given until July? Chairman DeLiso said that the lawn was extremely large in area and that each case had to be taken on its own merits. 6 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Mr. Foot agreed with Mr. Lambert that the Board was not being consistent. Mr. Lambert believed that most people were not losing their lawns due to the water restriction and that twice a week for watering would be quite sufficient for any lawns. Chairman DeLiso said he would also have to do a lot of prep work prior to putting sod down. Mr. Lambert said they had the opportunity to water their lawns and chose not to. Inspector Lewis stated that the yard was dead when they bought it and the drought has not helped the situation. Vice Chair Hammer said that each case had to be considered on an individual basis. Mr. Lambert asked why the City was citing these people? Chairman DeLiso said it was because they were old cases. Mr. Salas said that it was not a matter of their not wanting to keep it up. It was an inherited problem. Case #00-3504 Property Address: Violations: Marie Celine Jean 411 W. Ocean Avenue B.B.C. of Ordinances, Section '13-16, Occupational License required for the rental property Inspector Lewis reported that property had originally been cited on December 21,2000 for lack of an occupational license for the rental property. The owner of record is Marie Celine Jean who was present. Celine Jean, 411 W. Ocean Avenue pled no contest and asked for four months so she could get the air conditioner fixed because she was not working and needed to save to get it done. Chairman DeLiso thought it was an occupational license? Inspector Lewis did an inspection and there were things that needed to be fixed. She fixed everything except the air conditioner and this must be operable. When she bought the house, it was already in without a permit. The outlets need to be replaced. Mr. Foot asked if it were the law in Boynton that a person must have an air conditioner in rental property? Inspector Lewis said that it only required that if a rental unit had such a unit, it had to be in working order. Inspector Lewis said he could not sign off on the occupational license because of the Code violation. Chairman DeLiso asked if she took the air conditioner out, if she would be in compliance? Inspector Roy said that was correct but that she did not wish to do that. Mr. Foot asked if the unit was occupied? Inspector Lewis said l~he tenant had some complaints but most of them had been satisfied. Mr. Foot asked abeut the outlets? Inspector Lewis stated it was not a safety problem, but they did not work. Ms. Williams asked if it were legal to have an occupied dwelling rented without an occupational license? Chairman DeLiso responded that it was not legal in the City of Boynton Beach but that it was not a safety hazard. Ms. Williams asked Ms. Jean if she would be able to fix it in 90 days and Ms. Jean responded that she would not have enough time to save up the money in 90 days. 7 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 MotiOn Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3504, Ms. Williams moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law that Marie Celine Jean is in violation of Code Section 13-16 of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Ms. Williams moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before June 20, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent was further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. A. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS (PREVIOUSLY TABLED) Case #00-416 Church of our Savior 2011 So. Federal Highway Inspector Pete Roy stated that this case had gotten a notice of violation on February 28, 2000 for Part 3 of Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Section 11 and Part 3, Chapter 21-1, Section 15 - Site to be Maintained per Plan and Sign Removal Required. It came before the Code Compliance Board on May 17, 2000 and a representative did appear. A proposed fine was set at $25.00 per day if there was no compliance by September 18, 2000. The property came into compliance on the date of this meeting for 156 days of non-compliance. Inspector Roy introduced the representative of the Church of our Savior, Judy Arning. Judy Arning, 1232 North "L" Street, Lake Worth came to the podium to answer questions. Chairman DeLiso asked her why the Church had taken 156 days to comply? Ms. Arning stated that they had signed a contract with an electrical contractor to replace the only remaining problem, which was the lightpost and the fixture. The contract was signed before they came to the meeting in October. They went to three different suppliers to get that pole. The pole finally had to be manufactured because it was not a standard pole face and it was not completed until today. Everything was put in and everything is working. Inspector Roy stated that the respondents had worked with the Code inspectors and had come to every meeting. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-416, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, that the Respondents, Church of our' Savior, were in violation of Code Section Part 3 of Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Section 11 and Part 3, Chapter 21-1, Section 15, subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board's Order of May 17, 2000. Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find that the Respondents failed to comply with this Board's Order, and that this Board impose and certify no fine or administrative costs. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Meeting Minutes Code Com pliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Case #00-2183 Shelter Solutions, Inc. 404 N.W.7th Court inspector Webb reported that the notice of violation had been issued on August 31, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. Respondent put pavers in a swale area. The Board hearing was November 15, 2000 and respondent did appear. A compliance date of December 18, 2000 or $25.00 per day was set and the property is not yet in compliance, for 65 days of non-compliance. Inspector Webb introduced a representative of Shelter Solutions, Inc. Daniel Fuchs, 404 N.W.7th Court, stated that he had come to every meeting. He said that the delay was receipt of an engineer's report, which he expected to receive this week or next. Mr. Fuchs said that the concerns were with Don Johnson and Ken Hall in the City. He had to hire an engineer to make sure that the City was satisfied with the drainage. Mr. Fuchs asked the City to table it one more time to allow him to receive the engineer's report to finalize the situation. Mr. Foot stated that the Board could consider another tabling which could be advantageous in keeping the pressure on. Mr. Lambert questioned the length of time it was taking to rectify the matter. Mr. Fuchs said that it had been purchased under a FHA program and that all mail was going to the mortgage company, Shelter Solutions, in Georgia. Mr. Lambert asked what an engineer had to do with it? Inspector Webb stated that this had come from Mr. Don Johnson's office in the Building Department. Mr. Fuchs said the swale matter had been resolved. The only thing that was holding up compliance was that the Building Department wanted him to have two feet on the property line to have a permeable system such as stone. He needed the engineer's report to go to Don Johnson. Motion Mr. Foot moved that Case No. 00-2183 be tabled until the Code Compliance Board Meeting to be held on March 21 ,'2001. Vice Chair Hammer seconded the motion that carried 6-1, Mr. Rossi dissenting. A discussion ensued about the status of the fine. Mr. Fuchs said he did not have any documentation that stated he was currently being fined, nor did Shelter Solutions. He had been to every meeting. Chairman DeLiso stated that he was being fined but that a lien was not being put on his property. Mr. Fuchs said he would take it up with Mr. Biasie because he told Mr. Fuchs that he was not being fined. Mr. Fuchs said he had been sent no bill or documentation and Mr. Blasie assured him he had not been fined yet. Mr. Fuchs asked for documentation on the fine. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Blasie if he had sent a letter to Mr. Fuchs documenting the fine? Mr. Fuchs said he had received that letter. Mr. Blasie said the City sent Mr. Fuchs a letter stating he was not in compliance-and the letter was done on December 20, 2000. Chairman DeLiso asked if it stated that there would be a fine of $25.00 per day. Mr. Blasie said they sent him a non- 9 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 compliance affidavit and a Code Enforcement Court Order. Mr. Fuchs asked Mr. Blasie if he recalled their conversation in the Chambers at the last meeting when he could not attend due to a family health problem and Mr. Blasie said he would speak to the Board and table this one more time? And now, suddenly, the City was telling him there were fines since he last spoke to Mr: Blasie, which contradicted what Mr. Blasie had told him. Mr. Blasie responded that the Board had tabled it and Chairman DeLiso said that the fine still accrued. Chairman DeLiso said when he comes back before the Board the following month, they would take all this into consideration. He told Mr. Fuchs that he might not get a fine. Mr. Fuchs agreed but stated he did not have any documentation about the fine. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Blasie to provide Mr. Fuchs with a copy of the appropriate documentation. B. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS Case #00-1894 H.B. Realty, Inc. Hazelton Whitley 2450 N.W. 2"d Street Inspector Guillaume reported that the notice of violation in this case was July 27, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code and an Occupational License requirement. At the December 20, 2000 Code Compliance Board hearing respondent did appear. At that time a compliance date of January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day was set by the Board. The property was not in compliance for a total of 37 days of non- compliance to date. Hazelton Whitley, 371 N.E.27 Court, Boynton Beach, came to the podium to answer questions and respond to the Board. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Whitley if there were a contract on the house? Mr. Whitley responded that it was listed but there was no contract yet. Chairman DeLiso asked if there was a reason he was trying to sell it and it was not in compliance? Mr. Whitley said that they were having a hard time getting the renter to cooperate. They had set appointments with him but had not been able to get in to see him yet. Selling the property was an option that would allow them to get in the house. Chairman DeLiso asked why he would not allow them in the house? Mr. Whitley said there was a language problem and he needed an interpreter. Chairman DeLiso asked what language and Mr. Whitley responded, Creole. Mr. Whitley said the Code Enforcement officer went with him and they could not get in. The tenant had been given notice that he would have to vacate the premises as soon as they had a contract. Chairman DeLiso asked if the entire case revolved around an occupational license? Inspector Guillaume stated there were some other things like a mattress in the yard and some trash. Chairman DeLiso stated that he had to get into the property 'n order to get an occupational license signed off. Mr. Whitley said the property was being sold. Chairman DeLiso stated he still needed to get an occupational license to rent the property. Mr. Whitley said they were no longer interested in renting the property, they were selling it. He asked if the Board could give them enough time to evict the tenant? Chairman 10 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 DeLiso asked if the tenant could be removed in 30 days? Mr. Whitley did not think that would be enough time because he would have to go through the formal eviction process. Chairman DeLiso asked Inspector Guillaume if he had gone to the property? Inspector Guillaume replied that he had and that he had gotten in but he had not been able to meet with Mr. Whitley. Mr. Whitley said he had told him he could go out to the property, but he did not know he was going to inspect the property. Chairman DeLiso asked Inspector Guillaume if the property had passed the inspection? Inspector Guillaume responded that it did not and Chairman DeLiso asked what was wrong with it? Inspector Guillaume responded that it had no smoke detectors and that there was trash and debris in the yard. Chairman asked if Inspector Guillaume had contacted Mr. Whitley to tell him it had not passed and why? Inspector Guillaume said that he and Mr. Whitley were supposed to meet at the property but they never met. Mr~ Whitley said that the date they chose to go there he had been there but Inspector Guillaume had not. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Whitley if he would evict the tenant and clean up the property if the Board tabled the case for sixty days? Mr. Whitley commented that he was being fined and that the fines would cost him more than the rent he was getting from the tenant. Mr. Whitley said he would go ahead and start the eviction process. Chairman DeLiso stated that if they planned to rent it in the future, it had to brought up to Code, cleaned up, and an occupational license would have to be obtained. Respondent reiterated that they had no intentions of renting the property any further once it was sold. Motion Mr. Foot made a motion to table Case No. 00-1894 until the Code Compliance Board meeting of April 18, 2001. Vice Chair Hammer seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #No. 98-3509 Barbara A. Watson 141 S.E. 25th Avenue Inspector Roy stated that this case had a notice of violation date of October 1, 1998 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. He also stated that this was a two-part Order. The first part came before the Code Compliance Board on August 18, 1999 and Ms. Watson was present. The compliance date was set at September 14, 1999 with a proposed fine of $25.00 per day. The property complied on February 14, 2000 for a total of 152 days of non-compliance. Ms. Watson had made application with Community Redevelopment and was working with them all along to get the lawn fixed. Finally the case was settled and Community Redevelopment did put the lawn in but there were delays due to the governmental processes. The second part of the Board Order was for rotted wood in the driveway. The 15roposed fine was set at $25.00 per day with a compliance date of February 15, 2000. The property came into compliance on January 14, 2001 for a total of 336 days of non-compliance. She was in the hands of Community Redevelopment and there were some problems with a contractor who reneged on a bid, requiring the bidding process to be started again. This was in no way Ms. Watson's fault and it was all being handled through Community Development. Ms. Watson was present and offered an opportunity to speak. She declined but thanked everyone. Inspector Roy said the City recommended no fine or administrative costs in this case. 11 Meeting Minutes ' ~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 98-3509, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, that the Respondent, Barbara Watson, was in violation of Code Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(E)2 and SBC, 1997 Edition, 104.1. subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board's Orders of August 18, 1999. Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find that the Respondent failed to comply with this Board's Orders, and that this Board impose and certify no fine or administrative costs. Vice Chair Hammer seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. C. LIEN REDUCTIONS Case No. 94-800 Kerry Larkin, 4475 Cycad Lane 610 Industrial Avenue Mr. Biasie stated that the original notice of violation on this property was given on March 14, 1994 for Section 13-6 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Occupational License Required. There was a Code Compliance Board hearing date of October 18, 1995 at which the Respondent did not appear. The Code Department had a receipt showing that Respondent's office had received notice of the meeting. A series of meetings and negotiations with the City pertaining to a punch list of some 13 items ensued. At the Board's October 18, 1995 meeting a compliance date of December 19, 1995 or $50.00 per day was ordered by the Board. The property complied on May 5, 1998, a date Mr. Blasie had gotten from the Occupational License Department. The Respondent and his lawyer stated that the date should have been May 8, 1997, twenty- two days after the April 16, 1997 meeting in which the fine was set. Mr. Blasie stated that the Respondent had moved his auto booty repair shop a few buildings down the street and needed to transfer his occupational license to the new property. In the process, he applied to erect a shed on the property. At that time, the City had a list of things that it wanted done before it would issue a Certificate of Occupancy or the Occupational License. Many meetings ensued between the City and the Respondent, Mr. Kerry Larkin. The meetings eventually included Mr. Larkin's lawyer, Mr. Resnick, to assist him to resolve the outstanding issues. The City Manager at the time, Carrie Parker, postponed the issue for a year and a half to allow resolution of the issues. According to Mr. Resnick, the original list of thirteen issues had been either complied with, eliminated altogether, or instructions given to obtain compliance as a result of their working with the City. Some of the items required action on the part of the City in concert with Respondent. Very little documentation exists on this case from the earlier time period and most of the key City players are no longer with the City. Mr. Robert Resnick, attorney for respondent, 301 Crawford Boulevard, Boca Raton, referred to a letter that was in Ms. Carrie Parker's possession (City Manager at the time), that had a quote from Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director, stating that he was sorry it had taken so long to get back to Respondent but that Respondent did not have to do certain things on the list. The original list had issues such as a drainage permit, landscape permit, irrigation, environmental review permit signoff, and other minor items. 12 Meeting Minutes ~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Mr. Kerry Larkin, testified that he had not received notice of the October 18, 1995 meeting nor had he received notices of other meetings. He had a problem in the administrative section of his office and had to fire the secretary due to this and other problems. There had been one fine certification hearing in which Respondent had appeared and the issue had been tabled because they were close to working out the remaining issues. Mr. Resnick stated that he wrote the Board a letter asking if it could be tabled once more and the Board agreed. The fine certification hearing was scheduled for April 16, 1997 and a notice was sent to Respondent in regular mail. He did not receive it. He had worked continuously with the City to resolve the outstanding issues and said he would definitely have come to the meeting if he had received a notice. His attorney, Robert Resnick, also stated that he had not received any notification of the April 16, 1997 meeting. Mr. Larkin continued to work on the property, bringing it into compliance and obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy on May 8, 1997. Mr. Larkin recently applied for a loan to make an addition to his building and discovered the $43,000 lien on the property. He was unaware of the $1498 in inspection fees due. Mr. Resnick asked the Board to consider the facts and either waive or reduce the fine to something that would be fair under the circumstances. Ms. Williams asked Mr. Resnick what he would consider to be a fair fine? Mr. Resnick replied that they would consider the cost of the inspection fees, $1498, to be fair. Motion Based on testimony presented in Case No. 94-800, Ms. Williams moved that the Board find as a matter of fact that the Respondent was in violation of Code Section 13-6 subsequent to the date of compliance provided in the Board's Order of October 18, 1995 and moved that this Board find that the Respondent failed to comply with the Board's Order and that this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $1,498.00. Mr. Lambert interjected that this was not a Certification. Mr. Foot asked to be allowed to make a substitute motion. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 94-800, and having been advised 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 find that the fine instituted in Case No. 94-800, by virtue of this Board's Order of October 18, 1995, be reduced to $1100 plus administrative costs of $1498. This order is not final until the expiration of the time of appeal expires under Ordinance 01-07, which is seven days. Mr. Foot explained that $1100 represented $50.00 a day for the 22 days they knew what had to be done and did not get their act together. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. Chairman DeLiso requested the Recording Secretary to poll the vote. 13 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 The motion carried 4-3, Ms. Williams, Vice Chair Hammer, and Chairman DeLiso dissenting. B. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATION Case #00-1943 Ali's Majestic Service Bojaco Realty Corp. P.O. Box 290307 Davie, FI 33329 302 W. Boynton Beach Blvd. Inspector Lewis reported that the notice of violation was dated August 2, 2000 for an Environmental Review Permit. At the Code Compliance Board hearing of October 18, 2000 respondent did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine of January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day was set by the Board. The property complied on February 9, 2001 for 24 days of non-compliance. Chuck Gino, a representative of Royal Petroleum, Inc., 3169 South Peninsula, Daytona Beach, FI appeared and asked that the Board eliminate the fine. Mr. Gino said they had been done by December, 2000 but thero had been a misunderstanding about the final inspection date. It took them 18 months to get the permit to start the work. Inspector Lewis stated that Respondent had sent a letter stating when the contractor would be finished. All the permits had to be finalled before the permit could be issued. Inspector Lewis suggested no fine in this case. Mr. Foot asked what the environmental issue had been? Inspector Lewis said it was for auto repair and the building needed to be upgraded. Mr. Foot asked if there were safety or health problems? Inspector Lewis affirmed that the property was in compliance and that there were no outstanding problems. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1943, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, that the Respondents, Bojaco Realty Corp., c/O Ali's Majestic Service, was in violation of Part 3 of Land Development Regulations, Environmental Review Permit, subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board's Order of October 18, 2000. Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find that the Respondents failed to comply with this Board's Order, and that this Board impose and certify no fine or administrative costs. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case No. 00-1256 Art Krell 6117 Edwards Road Pompano Beach, FI 33063 521 N.E. 2nd Street Inspector Webb reported that the property had been given notice of violation on May 17, 2000 for violation of Section 13-16 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Occupational License Required. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and respondent did not appear. A compliance date and proposed 14 Meeting Minutes ~ '~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 fine were set by the Board as January 10, 2001 or be fined $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied with a total of 42 days of non-compliance to date. Art Krell, 6117 Edwards Road, Pompano Beach, FI stated that the certified mail notifying him of the December 20, 2000 meeting was sent to the wrong address. He said he did get the correct address on the letter notifying him of the fine. He did not understand this. Chairman DeLiso asked what the respondent wanted the Board to do? Mr. Krell said he wanted to have a trial and Chairman DeLiso responded that he was no longer in that phase of the matter. Inspector Webb stated that the Code Department had done everything in its power to get the address correct, but that the file contained many addresses for Mr. Krell and they were not able to determine the correct one to use. Mr. Blasie reported that Mr. Krell had sent a letter stating that he had paid his money for an occupational license but that he could not get anyone to come out and do an inspection. He said he knew everyone was busy and he trusted that the Code Department would do the fair thing and reschedule his hearing. He said the property was an investment and not a business. He basically stated that "if you can't inspect, don't punish me and let's reschedule". Mr. Blasie stated he had gotten a letter from City Manager Bressner on August 17, 2000 saying the Mayor had gotten a letter frorh Mr. Krell. Mr. Bressner asked Mr. Blasie to send him a copy of the Code Enforcement Department's letter to Mr. Krell by August 31, 2000. On August 22, 2000 Mr. Blasie sent a letter to Mr. Krell, copying the City Manager, Kurt Bressner, which responded to Mr. Krell's request to remove his case from the August 16, 2000 Code Compliance Board agenda. He told him that this was his second request for a postponement. He stated he understood that Mr. Krell had paid the fees associated with the occupational license. Mr. Blasie recommended that he take care of the matter as soon as possible and send a written request for inspection to the Code Department with a specific date and time to meet for the inspection. Mr. Blasie told Mr. Krell that when he called the number he was given, no one answered the phone and there was no way to leave a message. He said he had made repeated attempts, personally, to call Mr. Krell and believed that the Code Department had made more than a good faith effort to contact him.. He advised Mr. Krell to contact Mike Melillo in the Code Department at 742-6836 and to copy him on the letter requesting an inspection. Mr. Blasie said this was not the first instance of the Code Department not being able to contact Mr. Krell. Mr. Krell stated he was told that correspondence was sent to where your tax statements were sent. He stated that he did move. He reiterated his contention that the letters advising him of the penalty were received but not the other correspondence. He said you have to have grass in front of your house. The City dug up his yard, he said, and put down two truckloads of sugar sand and they were arguing about what date they did it. He said the City wanted him to have a driveway but would not give him a sidewalk. He said he sent the mayor a letter and said he would be glad to pull a permit if the City gave him a sidewalk. Mr. Blasie said that the sidewalk issue had nothing to do with the occupational license issue that Mr. Krell was here to discuss. Mr. Krell responded that it was part of the list of what had to be done and that the City required a driveway. Mr. Blasie said if the Board 15 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 wanted to give him a short extension of time, Mr. Melillo could inspect the property tomorrow. Chairman DeLiso asked for pictures, if available. The Board examined some pictures of the property. Chairman DeLiso said the Board had an opportunity to either table or certify. Mr. Lambert asked if the respondent could explain why the Board should table the matter?. Mr. Lambert asked the respondent if he understood the proceedings? He said it was not a matter of giving the respondent more time to comply. He asked the respondent if he had any intentions of complying in the next 30 days? Mr. Krell stated I can't put in the driveway. When asked why not, Mr. Krell responded, "the expense of it". Motion Based on the testimony and presented in Case No. 00-1256, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find that Art Krell has violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day which shall accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Foot added plus administrative costs to the motion. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion that carried 7-0. CHAIRMAN DELISO CALLED FOR A RECESS AT 8:50 P.M. AT 8:55 THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED., B. CASES TO BE HEARD Case #00-3552 Property Address: Violations: James & Joyce Wiggins 50 Miner Road Section 13-16 of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Occupational License Required for Rental Units Inspector Guillaume reported that the violation was discovered by a routine inspection. Service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 30 days. Chairman DeLiso said he thought the case had been thrown out recently and the Respondent said they had family living in the property. Inspector Guillaume said the niece was paying the mortgage. Mr. Foot said we did not know at the time that money was being paid. Mr. Blasie said that at that point the Code Department decided not to pursue the case because there was some question as to whether that would be considered rent or not. Mr. Blasie reconsidered it after reading the minutes, where it clearly stated that the niece was living there and paying for it. Mr. Blasie made the determination that this was rent. If the Wiggins were not paying the mortgage, someone else was and that was a form of rent. That is why the Code Department brought the case back before the Board. Chairman DeLiso asked Inspector Guillaume to elaborate on the details of the case. Inspector Guillaume stated that the Wiggins' needed an occupational license because 16 Meeting Minutes ' Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 the niece was paying the mortgage, which was considered to be rent. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Blasie to read the Code section that applied. Mr. Blasie quoted the Code as follows: "Every rental unit used for residential living purposes in the City must be licensed. This includes rental property of four units or less including single family residential units, condominiums, and mobile homes." There was no provision which stated that if a family member was paying the mortgage that an occupational license was not necessary. Joyce Wiggins, 1328 Lantana Road, pled not guilty. She said the last time she came she said her niece was staying in the house. She said they were paying the mortgage. They were in the process of selling the house to the niece. She came to Code Compliance to ask what she needed to do about it. They told her she would'have to submit a letter and get it notarized that the niece was staying in the house until the house was changed to her name. Mr. Miriana asked if they were in the process of making a contract? Ms. Wiggins said they had not started a contract yet. Ms. Wiggins said they had to have someone live in it for reasons of security. Ms. Wiggins reiterated to the Board that her niece was not paying her any money to stay in the house. Mr. Foot asked if the niece had ever paid the mortgage for her in the past? Ms. Wiggins said her niece paid it one time when they got in a bind. Motion Vice Chair Hammer moved to dismiss the case. Mr. Blasie said they based their case on what Ms. Wiggins had said under oath and that was that her niece was staying there and paying the mortgage, if that is not the case and she was informed of the alternatives, she needs to give the City an affidavit saying she is not renting the property. Ms. Wiggins said she could do that. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Mr. Lambert did not believe it should be dismissed because she had not done what she agreed to do at the last meeting. Ms. Wiggins said they dismissed the whole thing. Chairman DeLiso said it was dismisSed because they could not prove that the niece was paying the mortgage. City Attorney Igwe asked if the case was dismissed on the record? Chairman DeLiso said it was dismissed. City Attorney Igwe said that it should stay dismissed. Mr. Foot asked to see the minutes. Mr. Blasie said he had reviewed them and it did not say anything about Ms. Wiggins having to produce an affidavit. The motion carried 7-0. D. STAFF'S STATUS REPORT Chairman DeLiso asked the Recording Secretary to administer the oath to Mr. Blasie as he was not present earlier in the meeting. 17 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February'21,2001 Case No. 00-2858 Property Address: Violations: Bruce and Cheryl Black 321 SW 1st Avenue 105.12 Impact of Construction; Boynton Beach Amended Ordinance 99-16; Permit #00-2053; See copy of red tag dated October 3, 2000 Mr. Blasie stated that the Inspector of record was Skip Lewis. The Blacks had erected a fence abutting a neighboring property. The fence was permitted, finalled, and at some point after that, the Building Department and the Development Department issued a red tag for Impact of Construction. The red tag stated there was impact of construction due to an elevation change in the property between Mr. Black and the adjoining property with evidence of some type of runoff. It was acknowledged that there was some kind of runoff; however, the Blacks had a lot of testimony about the neighbor damaging the neighbor's side of the fence so Mr. Black could not remedy the situation. Mr. Blasie was there to report and ask for the Board's consideration in dismissing the case. He went out to the Black's residence last Friday at their request because the neighbor had done more damage to their side of the fence. There is a police report and although Mr. Black does not have it with him, he did call the police and they did come out. Mr. Blasie got on a stepladder and looked over the fence. It appeared that the neighbor was taking something like a sledge hammer and basically, pulverizing the concrete around two of the fenceposts, or at least two of the fenceposts, to the point where there is not anything holding them there. They had also apparently taken a shovel or some other instrument and excavated around the posts and under the fence so that there would be nothing Mr. Black could do to make it work. If he wanted to fix it tomorrow, it seems the neighbors are working just as hard as he is to "unfix" it. The Blacks fear that the fence will ultimately lose its structural integrity if we get a high wind or a storm, it may blow over. That could definitely happen. There is ongoing civil litigation, which the Board heard about at the last meeting. Staff's recommendation is that the case be dismissed and let the Civil courts take their course. Hopefully, possibly through restraining orders or some other way, the Blacks will be able to get their fence fixed. Motion Mr. Lambert moved to dismiss the case. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. C. LIEN REDUCTIONS Case No. 97-3029 Wadell White/Anthony McCray 548 N.W. 45th Drive Delray Beach, FI 33445 431N.W. 6m Avenue Mr. Blasie stated that the property owner at the time of the violation was Mr. Wadell White at 345 N.E.9th Avenue. The applicant for the reduction is Mr. Anthony McCray of Delray Beach. It was originally cited August 18, 1997 for violations of the Community Appearance Codes, Standard Building Code, and Chapter 15-16 of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Respondent appeared at the October 15, 1997 hearing and a date 18 Meeting Minutes · f Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 for compliance was set for December 15, 1997 or a fine of $50.00 per day if not in compliance by that date. It came into compliance on October 9, 2000 for 1,028 days of non-compliance, which amounted to $51,400 plus administrative costs of $1,018.24. No one appeared at the date of fine certification. The violation involved trash and debris on the property, an unpermitted swimming pool, house number, roof repair, repaint home, repair driveway, mow the yard, trim all the trees and shrubs. They are in compliance now. Mr. Blasie submitted photographs taken during the period of violation and two photographs showing compliance. The case had been on the agenda before and Respondent did appear at one of the meetings, but got paged and had to leave for work so the case was delayed. Anthony McCray, 548 N.W. 45th Drive, Delray Beach, FI 33445, stated that his uncle owned the house and that he was not in good health and asked Mr. McCray to help him. He thought he could fix the house up and get it presentable. His uncle told him his lawyer was taking care of the pool situation. He asked for leniency. The place was out of compliance for quite a while but he did work hard and spent a lot of money and time to get things right on the property. Mr. McCray had pictures to show what the property was like now. Mr. Foot asked who the owner was now? Mr. McCray stated that he was and had been since October of 1998. Mr. Lambert asked Mr. Blasie if some of the violations were taken care of right away or was everything two and a half years old? Mr. Blasie said he would have to see the photographs to be sure. Chairman DeLiso said that overall the property looks pretty good? Mr. Blasie said it looked great. On his lien reduction inspection there was nothing that needed to be done. There was an animal control issue with some dogs in the back yard but that was taken care of right away. The property is in good shape. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 97-3029, 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, Ms. Williams moved that this Board find that the fine instituted in Case No. 97-3029, by virtue of this Board's Order of October 15, 1997, be reduced to administrative costs of $1,018.24. This order is not final until the expiration of the time of appeal expires under Ordinance 01.07, which is seven days. Vice Chair Hammer seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Case No. 96-5727 Tony & Marsha Harvey 224 N.W. 7th Court Mr. Blasie stated that the Harveys had two lien reduction cases on the same property (Case 96-5727 and Case 00-649) and that he would take one case at a time. Mr. Blasie stated the property was originally cited on November 1, 1996 for violations of the Community Appearance Code and Unregistered Vehicles. It came before the Board 19 Meeting Minutes - Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 on January 15, 1997 and they did appear. A compliance date of April 15, 1997 was set or $25.00 per day. It came into compliance February 9, 2001 and the total fine was $34,875.00. No one appeared at the fine certification hearing on June 18, 1997. The administrative costs were $730.15. The case involved a fence that needed repair and a bus that was parked on the side of the house. There had been another issue pertaining to Community Appearance but that had complied before the case went to the Board's January 15, 1997 hearing. There was a bus and also an unlicensed car and, according to his testimony, Mr. Harvey was restoring it. At the time, Kevin Artis was Chairman of the Code Compliance Board and he advised Mr. Harvey he still had to have a tag and insurance and Mr. Harvey said he would do that within 90 days. Tony Harvey, 224 N.W. 7th Court, Boynton Beach said he took care of the bus after he came to the January 15, 1997 Code Board meeting. He had problems getting title to the car, a 1958 Studebaker. He just got the title and at the last meeting they gave him 90 days to comply. He got the tag in October but continued to be fined for the tag because the tag was not on the car. The tag was not on the car because it had been stolen from the car and Mr. Harvey had put a paper tag with the correct tag number in the window of the car. As to the fence he called and said he had torn the fence down in the back and left a little piece by the shed to screen his property from the Church on the adjacent land. Inspector Webb told him that should be okay but asked about the car. Mr. Harvey said the tag should be coming soon. He did not understand why he was getting a fine for the fence because the fence was mostly torn down. Mr. Blasie said the last inspection of record was November 15, 1997 at which time the violations still existed. On June 9, Inspector Roy's report said that the fence was still in disrepair and the unlicensed Studebaker was still there. After November 15, 1997 they did not have any status for the property. Mr. Harvey spoke to someone in Code Compliance about the fence and they said it was okay. He did not know about the fines from 1996 until he tried to sell some property and discovered the liens. He had maybe gone two weeks past the time he was given, but he did get the title, insurance, and tags for the car in October. Mr. Harvey showed the Board his registration for the car. Mr. Blasie said before he could get the lien reduction he still had one unlicensed car at his property. He said he found the tag that had been stolen but he made a paper tag for the car and kept the real tag in his house to protect it. Mr. Blasie said he had to spend about $900 to put sod in the yard. Mr. Harvey was asked if he had a sprinkler system and he replied yes. Mr. Blasie said it was important to note the lag between their last inspection date of November 10, 1997 and the compliance date of February 9, 2001, which was the date he went out to see the property. Compliance was anywhere between their last inspection on November 10, 1997 and February 9, 2001. Mr: Rossi asked Mr. Blasie to give a figure closer than the 1395 days of non-compliance stated in the case? Mr. Blasie could not answer that. His testimony was that he thought he had it done by October and we have Inspector Roy's comments from November 10 and November 11, 1997. We believed we had done all we could do about the case and stopped checking on it. 20 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Ms. Zibelli commented that it appeared that the respondent was supposed to notify the Code Compliance Department upon bringing the property into compliance and they had not done so. Mr. Blasie said that was correct and they did not appear at the fine certification hearing. Mr. Foot asked Mr. Harvey when he had come into compliance? Mr. Harvey said the fence had come down right away but they had given him 90 days on the car. He asked about leaving a small piece of the fence and he was told it was okay. Mr. Foot reiterated his question about the compliance date and Mr. Harvey said, after some discussion, that he had gotten the tag for the Studebaker in October 2000. Mr. Foot asked Mr. Harvey if he had called the City to notify them of his compliance? He replied that he had called and told someone the fence was taken down but that he would need a couple of more weeks to get the tag for the Studebaker. Mr. Blasie showed some more pictures to Mr. Harvey and the Board. The pictures had been taken on July 14, 2000. Mr. Harvey said that was what he had torn down. Mr. Blasie commented that it was three years later and that it was the same fence that he had been g~ven a violation for in 1996. Mr. Harvey replied that the original violation had been to repair the fence and that it was not falling down like it appeared in the picture shown by Mr. Blasie. Mr. Blasie said Mr. Harvey was saying that sometime between October of 1997 and July of 2000, he had fixed the fence and it had gotten into the state of disrepair shown in the picture. Mr. Foot suggested that the Board think of at least administrative costs in this case. It would appear that the City had done its job in the situation. It would appear that the respondent did not ask for the reinspection back in 1997 to have his compliance recorded. He may have had conversations about the problems with the car and fence but it seems he did not comply with the order issued at that time to get a reinspection. I believe that he does deserve to pay a fine for quite a few days. It was his problem in not calling Code Compliance to come out and look at the property. He may even have been in compliance by the scheduled date but he did not let the City know. Mr. Foot believed that 30 days of $25.00 per day should be considered plus the $730 administrative costs. Mr. Lambert was thinking of reducing it 10% or a 90% reduction plus administrative costs. Chairman DeLiso said Mr. Lambert was in the ballpark. Chairman DeLiso said there were a lot of things Mr. Harvey could have done to prevent this situation and he did not choose to do so. Mr. Foot verified with Mr. Lambert that the total would be approximately $4200 and Mr. Lambert replied that was so. Ms. Williams did not support this. Mr. Miriana thoughtthe administrative costs of $730 would be more than sufficient and that the Board was not out to "get" people. Ms. Williams thought that would be more appropriate. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 96-5727, and having been advised that the Respondents had 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. Lambert moved that this Board find that the fine instituted in Case No. 96-5727, by virtue of this Board's Order of January 15, 1997, be reduced to $3,487.50 plus administrative 21 Meeting Minutes "~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 costs. This order is not final until the expiration of the time of appeal expires under Ordinance 01-07, which is seven days. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. For discussion, Chairman DeLiso said he would support a fine of $3,400 total and that they were sending a message with the $3400. Vice Chair Hammer stated that she believed they were sending a message with $1,000. Ms. Williams thought that would be more appropriate. Ms. Zibelli stated that if they allowed thi-ngs to go on for everyone for three years at a time, no area would be brought up to Code. Under further discussion, Chairman DeLiso said he would support the $3400 total and that would include the second, related case, 00-649. Chairman DeLiso advised he would not support the administrative costs and asked Mr. Lambert if he wanted to change his motion and he did not. Chairman DeLiso asked the Recording Secretary to poll the vote. The motion failed 4-3 with Chairman Deliso, Vice Chair Hammer, Mr. Miriana, and Ms. Williams dissenting. Chairman DeLiso gave an opportunity for someone from the dissenting side to amend the motion. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 96-5727, and having been advised that the Respondents had complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Sections 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Ms. Williams moved that this Board find that the fine instituted in Case No. 96-5727, by virtue of this Board's Order of January 15, 1997, be reduced to $730.15. This order is not final until the expiration of the time of appeal expires under Ordinance 01.07, which is seven days. The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 96-5727, and having been advised that the Respondents had 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 find that the fine instituted in Case No. 96-5727, by virtue of this Board's Order of January 15 1997, be reduced to 10% of the fine, $3487, disregarding the administrative costs. This order is not final until the expiration of the time of appeal expires under Ordinance 01-07. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. Chairman DeLiso asked the Recording Secretary to poll the vote. The motion carried 5-2, with Mr. Miriana and Ms. Williams dissenting 22 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Case No. 00-649 Tony & Marsha Harvey 224 N.W. 7th Court Mr. Blasie stated that this was the second case for the same respondents and same property as the previous case, Case No. 96-5727. The property was cited on March 27, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code, to repair the fence, remove all loose trash and debris and remove all unregistered or inoperable vehicles from the proPerty. There was a Code Compliance Board hearing on July 19, 2000 and Mr. Harvey did appear. There were two Orders on the property. The first had a compliance date of August 1, 2000 or $25.00 per day and the second had a compliance date of September 18, 2000 or $25.00 per day, and the Respondent did not comply by either date. Chairman DeLiso asked if the Respondent was in compliance now? Mr. Blasie said he was now in compliance. Mr. Foot said there were two fines to consider; the one on page 64 for $4,775 and the one on page 64E for $3575. He said there was a fine of some $8,000 plus administrative costs at issue. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-649, 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, Vice Chair Hammer moved that this Board find that the fine(s) instituted in Case No. 00-649, by virtue of the Board's Orders of July 19, 2000, be reduced to no fine or administrative costs. This order is not final until the expiration of the time of appeal expires under Ordinance 01-07. Mr. Lambert asked for clarification because it was the same person, the same property and he wondered if it was for something that had not been fixed from the previous case? Mr. Blasie said they were for cases at two different times and that the more recent one had more violations than the previous case. Vice Chair Hammer stated that she thought they had agreed to the $3487 fine on the prewous case with no fine on this case? Chairman DeLiso said he would support that. Mr. Foot said that as he got into this case the Board was looking at less innocence on Mr. Harvey's part. This was not the first time that the City had cited Mr. Harvey. He appeared here in July and we saw the situation with other cases. He did not know that he could claim no awareness of what was happening in this case. He thought they would be overlooking the needs of the community when they waived any kind of fines in connection with the later violations. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chairman DeLiso said that $3400 should get somebody's attention to the point that they would not want to come back before the Board. Mr. Foot verified that 23 Meeting Minutes ~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 the motion pertained to the entire case 00-649, including both pages and both Orders and he was advised that it did. Chairman DeLiso asked the Recording Secretary to poll the vote. The motion passed 4-3, Messrs. Foot, Lambert, and Rossi dissenting. A. CASES TO BE HEARD (PREVIOUSLY TABLED) Case #00-2056 Property Address: Violations: City National Bank of FI Tr 2309 N. Congress Ave 37 PT 3 of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Section repair all lights in parking lots to Site Maintenance Plan 11, Inspector Cain reported that this case had been tabled previously. The original notice of violation was August 15, 2000 for PT3 of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Section 11, repair all lights in parking lots to Site Maintenance Plan. The complaint was discovered through a complaint from a neighbor. Service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2056, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that City National Bank of FI Tr is in violation of Code Section No. PT 3 of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Section 11. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $75.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. The motion carded 6-1, Vice Chair Hammer dissenting. B. CASES TO BE HEARD Case #01-101 Property Address: Violations: T. J. Cunningham 717 N.E. 10th Avenue Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, 104.1.1, obtain permit for fence comply with City Ordinances to Inspector Pierre reported that the case was originally cited on January 22, 2001 for not obtaining a permit for a fence. The violation was discovered by routine inspection and service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 15 days. 24 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2056, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that T. J. Cunningham is in violation of Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, 104.1.1, obtain permit for fence. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the respondent correct the violations on or before March 13, 2001. If the respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Vice Chair Hammer seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3344 Property Address: Violations: John W. Field, Jr. 30348 E. Palm Drive Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D).lB and Section 10-2 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances; Repair fence and remove trash, debris and overgrowth. Inspector Laverdure reported that the property was cited on December 1, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The violation was discovered by routine inspection. Service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 10 days on the trash and 30 days on the fence. He suggested that because he did not believe they would move the trash in 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3344, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that John W. Field, Jr. is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1B and Section 10-2 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation of the trash, debris and overgrowth by March 1, 2001 and repair the fence by March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana and carried 7-0. Case #00-3345 Property Address: Violations: John W. Field, Jr. 3320 E. Atlantic Drive Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)lB and 1DD; Need sod and grass in yard and define driveway. Inspector Laverdure reported that this property was cited on December 1, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The violation was discovered by routine inspection and service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 30 days. 25 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Vice Chair Hammer asked if Mr. Field was remodeling these two homes (previous case)? Inspector Laverdure said they did not know who Mr. Fields was. His name was obtained from a check that he paid taxes with two years ago. When they sent certified mail to his address it came back signed. They plan to investigate further with Mr. Fields' plans. The first case he presented was an abandoned house. The second one had people living in it. Ms. Zibelli stated that if she recalled correctly, he was renting those homes and probably did not have an occupational license. Inspector Laverdure was aware of that and the Code Department planned to pursue the matter. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3345, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that John W. Field, Jr. is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)lB and I.D of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation by March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2645 Property Address: Violations: Mariano Desimone 2007 S. Federal Highway Part 3, Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7.5-11. Section 5B; Landscape maintenance required. Inspector Roy reported that this property was originally cited on October 4, 2000 for violation of Part 3 of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7.5-11 Section 5B.The violation was discovered through routine inspection and service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2645, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Mariano DeSimone is in violation of Part 3, Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7.5-11. Section 5B. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation by March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3361 Property Address: Joseli & Mildred A. Davila Vacant lot in 3400 block of S.E. 1st St. 26 Meeting Minutes -~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Violations: Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, 104.1.1; fill permit required for dirt on lot. Inspector Roy stated that this property had been cited on November 29, 2000 for violation of the Standard Building Code, filling in a lot without a permit. The owners of record are Joseli and Mildred Davila. The violation was discovered by routine inspection and service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 10 days. Mr. Lambert asked what they were doing there? Inspector Roy showed him a picture. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3361, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Joseli & Mildred A. Davila are in violation of Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, 104.1.1. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation by March 1, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2517 Property Address: Violations: Anita Hinojosa 111 N.E. 27a Avenue Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) lA Storage of unlicensed/inoperable vehicle is not allowed on residential property. Inspector Guillaume reported that this property was cited on October 26, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The owner of record is Anita Hinojosa. The violation was discovered by routine inspection and service was accomplished by hand-carry. The City recommended 30 days. Mr. Foot asked if this had been the first violation within a year on this property? Inspector Guillaume did not recall. Mr. Foot said he believed there had been a previous violation. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2517, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Anita Hinojosa is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1A. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation by March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. 27 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Case #00-3341 Property Address: Violations: Robert J Boone/Lynn K. Phifer 415 N.W. 7th Ct. Chapter 15, Article IX.15-120(D)lD; storage of unlicensed/inoperable vehicles on residential property is not allowed. Inspector Webb reported that this property was cited on November 30, 2000 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. The violation was obtained by a routine inspection and service was obtained by posting. The City recommended 10 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3341, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Robert J. Boone and Lynn K. Phifer are in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1D. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violation by March 1, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3468 Property Address: Violations: Robert R. Pavese 915 N.W. 10th St. BBA 105-12, Chapter 8, Article 3, SBC, 1997 edition, 103.1, 103.3, 104.1.1, 104.4.3 and 104.7.2; Impact of Construction, Excavation & Fill Requirements, Powers & Duty Building Official, Red Tag from December 1, 2000, Stop Work order, permit when required, special foundation permit, and work prior to permit issuance. Inspector Webb reported that the property was originally cited December 20, 2000 through a Red Tag from the Building Department. Service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 10 days. Mr. Miriana asked what work had been performed before getting a permit? Inspector Webb believed it was that they poured a foundation for a house either before they started working or before they picked the permit up. Assistant City Attorney Igwe remarked that ten days was insufficient time. Inspector Webb said he was only going by what the red tag required. Chairman DeLiso agreed. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3468, Ms. Williams moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Robert Pavese is in violation of Code Section BBA 105-12, Chapter 8, Article 3, SBC, 1997 28 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 edition, 103.1, 103.3, 104.1.1, 104.4.3 and 104.7.2. Ms. Williams moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by M. Foot and carried 7-0. Case #01-121 Property Address: Violations: Robert & Bernadette McClure 1258 N.W. 13th Avenue SBC, 1997 edition, 104.1.1; permit needed for canopy or remove it. Inspector Webb reported that this property was originally cited on January 23, 2001 for violation of the Standard Building Code. The violation was discovered through a complaint from the Homeowners Association. Service was obtained by certified mail. They called and requested that it be tabled due to Mrs. McClure's being in the final stages of pregnancy. Mr. Lambert asked if she had planned to present her case? Inspector Webb said that she did. Motion Mr. Lambert moved that Case No. 01-121 be tabled until the March 21, 2001 meeting of the Code Compliance Board. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1162 Property Address: ViOlations: Joanne E. Loudin 1536 N. Seacrest Blvd. Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) inclUsive; de'weed asphalt driveway and keep weed-free. Inspector Melillo reported that the case had originally been cited December 21, 2000 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. Service was by posting. The violation was discovered by a routine inspection of the neighborhood. The driveway had big holes in it and weeds. The City recommended 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1162, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Joanne Loudin is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) inclusive. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the 29 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3402 Property Address: Violations: Isabel J. Miguel 2210 N.E. 3rd Ct. Chapter 15, Article IX.15-120(D) inclusive; Remove, repair and/or register 2-dr green Camaro. Install grass in bare spots or get a permit to widen driveway. Inspector Melillo reported that the property was first cited on December 6, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The violation was discovered through a routine neighborhood inspection and the service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3402, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Isabel J. Miguel is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) inclusive. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be 'mposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3413 Property Address: Violations: Dianne C. Morrison 2214 N.E. 4th Ct. Chapter 15, Article IX.15-120(D inclusive; Remove all trash and debris. Install grass where bare spots occur. Inspector Melillo reported that the property had originally been cited on December 7, 2000 for a violation of the Community Appearance Code.. The violation was reported by a complaint from Animal Control. Service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommended 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3413, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Dianne C. Morrison is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) inclusive. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. 30 Meeting Minutes - Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Case #00-3414 Property Address: Violations: Lakendra S. Giddings 2206 N.E. 4th Ct. Chapter 15, Article IX-'I5-120(D) inclusive Remove, repair and/or register all motor vehicles; De-weed and define driveway. Inspector Melillo reported that the property had been cited on December 7, 2000 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. The violation was reported by a complaint from Animal Control. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3414, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Lakendra Giddings is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) inclusive. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2167 Property Address: Violations: Oscar Brito 816 S. Seacrest Blvd. Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(E)2A & (D)I inclusive. Paint peeling fascia board on the house. Remove stored items from yard. New fence requires a building permit. Inspector Lewis reported that this property was originally cited on August 24, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The City recommended 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2167, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Oscar Brito is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(E)2A and (D)I inclusive. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2302 Property Address: Violations: Kathlein Ambridge 208 N.E. 1st St. Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1 inclusive. Vacant property east of 208 31 Meeting Minutes ~-' Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 N.E. 1st St. Mow, de-weed and trim property. Remove trash, debris, and derelict objects. Deteriorated fence needs to be removed. Inspector Lewis reported that the property was originally cited on September 12, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The owner asked for 30 days and the City recommended 30 days. The owner has a new permit to put up the fence. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2302, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Kathlein Ambridge is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)1 inclusive. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3271 Property Address: Violations: Jeanne M. Ernest & Jerry Strickland 653 S.W. 4th Avenue Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)lA; 10- 52(A) of the BBC of Ordinances; Remove inoperative, unregistered vehicles and parts thereof. Inspector Lewis reported that the property was originally cited on November 17, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The owners were present at the meeting and requested 30 days to remove the vehicle. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No.00-3271, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Jeanne Ernest and Jerry Strickland are in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D)lA inclusive and 10-52(A) of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-3547 Property Address: Violations: Tracy Lang and Thaddies Lang 10'1 N.W. 4th St. Chapter '10, Article II, Section Chapter '15, Article IX-15-'120(B).'1, 10-30; 32 Meeting Minutes -~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 (D)inclusive. Remove construction waste from swale area. Mow and trim swale. Remove items not being used. Inspector Lewis reported the property was originally cited on December 28, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code and as stated above. The City recommended 10 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-3547, Ms. Williams moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Tracy Lang and Thaddies Lang are in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(B)1(D) inclusive and 10-30, Article II of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violatiOns on or before March 19, 2001. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for inspection of the property to vedfy compliance with this Order. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. A. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS (Tabled) Case #00-1723 Bernard Macon, Jr. 50 N.W.27th Ct. Inspector Guillaume recommended that Case No. 00-1723 be tabled for 30 days. Motion Mr. Lambert moved to table Case No. 00-1723 until the next meeting of the Code Compliance Board of March 21, 2001. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1810 Venetrice Jackson 1634 N.E. 2nd Ct. Inspector Melillo requested that Case No. 00-1810 be tabled for 30 days. The owner was at the meeting earlier and they were working intensely on the property. He had some pictures but they were not finished yet. Motion Mr. Lambert moved to table Case No. 00-1810 until the next Code Compliance Board Meeting on March 21,2001. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0, B. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATION Case #00-2561 Philippe & Antonie Jean 120 S. Atlantic Drive West 33 Meeting Minutes "~ Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Inspector Cain reported that the notice of violation date on the property was October 3, 2000 for a violation of the Community Appearance Code. There was a Code Compliance Board hearing date of December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. Compliance date and proposed fine set by Board of January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The date of compliance was February 16, 2001 for 31 days of non-compliance. Inspector Cain recommended no fine. The Respondents had a problem finding sod to put down during the drought. They had the money but they could not find any sod and this is what took them 31 days to comply. Mr. Rossi asked about the shortage of sod and what affect it would have on the Board's judgments? Inspector Cain said that anything that was cited before the drought would be pursued normally. Anything cited after the drought would be given more leniency. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2561, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondents, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondents, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Philippe & Antonie Jean had violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board'impose and certify no fine or administrative costs. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Case #00-2566 Joseph & Marie Estella 128 S. Atlantic Dr. We. Inspector Cain reported that the notice of violation date was October 3, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code and Hurricane Hazards. A Code Compliance hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The vehicles have been removed and the trash has been removed. The debris still remains and also the fence and the antenna still remain in violation. The property did not comply with 37 days of non-compliance to date. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2566, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondents, and any and all previous violations committed by Respondents, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find that Joseph & Marie Estella have violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondents come into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Case #00-2654 Raymond & Linda Torres 5406 Blueberry Hill Avenue Lake Worth, FI 33436 2801 N.E, 4th St. Inspector Cain reported that the violation notice was October 5, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed 34 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 fine was set by Board of January 3, 2001 or $50.00 per day. The property did not comply to date for 49 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2654, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondents, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondents, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Raymond & Linda Torres have violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine of $50.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondents come into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2868 Miguelina & Nelson Serrano 3025 Ocean Parkway Inspector Cain reported that the original notice of violation on this property was October 26, 2000 for a violation of the Standard Building Code for a permit to enclose a front porch. The Code Compliance Board held a hearing on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by Board at January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property did not comply to date for 37 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2868, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondents, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondents, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Miguelina & Nelson Serrano have violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondents come into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Lambed seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1473 Rose H. Gordon 2841 N.E. 4th St. Inspector Guillaume reported that the notice of violation was on June 14, 2000 for violation of the Community Appearance Code and Standard Building Code. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on November 15, 2000 and Respondent did not appear. Compliance date and proposed fine set by Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property did not comply to date with 37 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1473, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Rose Gordon has violated this Board's prior Order of November 15, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine of $25.00 per day plus administrative 35 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1553 Doris & Everett Matthews 559 Scoff Street Tellico Plains, Tn 37385 3008 E. Palm Drive Inspector Guillaume asked that this case be tabled for 30 days. Motion Mr. Lambert moved to table Case No. 00-1553 until the next Code Compliance Board hearing on March 21, 2001. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1844 B.J. & Jacqueline Fitzpatrick 3091Ocean Pkwy. Inspector Guillaume reported that Mr. Fitzpatrick had called him the previous day and asked that this case be tabled. Motion Mr. Lambert moved that Case No. 00-1844 be tabled until the next Code Compliance Board meeting of March 21,2001. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Chairman DeLiso said the only problem he had with this case was that Mr. Fitzpatrick knew the system. Why was he unable to get an occupational license? Chairman DeLiso believed that Mr. Fitzpatrick was a repeat offender and the Board had kept putting his case off. The motion carried 6-1, Chairman DeLiso dissenting. Case #00-2051 . Ray Heller 2891 N.E. 4th Street Inspector Guillaume reported that the notice of violation date was August 15, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance and Occupational License codes. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on November 15, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for 37 days of non-compliance to date. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2051, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Ray Heller had violated this Board's prior Order of November 15, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a 36 Meeting Minutes .-' Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Miriana seconded -the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2612 Raymond & Linda Torres 2850 Ocean Parkway Inspector Guillaume reported that the notice of violation was on October 4, 2000 for violation of Section 10-2 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, overgrowth and/or debris. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine were set by the Board of January 15, 2001 or $50.00 per day. The property complied on February 15, 2001 for 30 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2612, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, that the Respondents, Raymond & Linda Torres, were in violation of Code Section 10-2 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board's Order of December 20, 2000. Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that the Respondents failed to comply with this Board's Order, and that this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $50.00 per day plus administrative costs, for a total of 30 days. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2995 Raymond & Linda Torres 2351 N.W. 1st St. Inspector Guillaume reported that the notice of violation was October 31, 2000 for violation of the Community Appearance Code and Occupational License required. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $50.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for a total of 37 days of non- compliance to date. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2995, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondents, and. any and all previous violations committed by the Respondents, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Raymond and Linda Torres had violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine of $50.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Ms. Zibelli asked if they had occupational licenses on all of the rentals they had? Chairman DeLiso said a lot of them had liens on them already. He also said that they think they do not have to take care of them when they are empty. 37 Meeting Minutes ...... Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 Case #00-1812 Euvrard Henrys 1601 N.E. 2nd Ct. Inspector Melillo reported that the notice of violation had been on July 25, 2000 for Community Appearance Code issues. A Code Compliance Board hearing date was held on October 18, 2000 and Respondent did appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not complied for 37 days of non-compliance to date. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1812, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Euvrard Henrys had violated this Board's prior Order of October 18, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #005480 Emma J. Moore 1511 N.W. 2"d St. Inspector Melillo reported that the notice of violation was September 28, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondent did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for 37 days of non-compliance to date. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2480, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Emma J. Moore had violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1393 Arlene Henry 144 S.E. 31st Avenue Inspector Roy reported that the notice of violation on this property had been June 5, 2000 for a violation of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, 104.1.1 to obtain a permit for addition on rear of house. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on July 19, 2000 and Respondent did appear. A compliance date and proposed fine were set by the Board as September 18, 2000 or $25.00 per day. The property complied on January 18,2001 for a total of 121 days of non-compliance. Inspector Roy explained some extenuating circumstances in the case. He stated that Ms. Henry had applied for a permit before and came to the hearing on July 10, 2000 and 38 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 she had to answer on three separate occasions comments from the Building Department. They did this in a timely fashion. They had to apply for a variance and once they got it they got a permit. The City recommended no fine. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1393, and having considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the Respondents, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondents, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Arlene Henry had violated this Board's prior Order of July 19, 2000, and this Board impose and certify no fine or administrative costs. Mr. Lambed seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2542 Sol & Bella Heifetz 2923 S. Federal Highway Inspector Roy asked the Board to table case No. 00-2542 until the March meeting of the Code Compliance Board. Motion Mr. Foot moved to table Case No. Compliance Board on March 21, 2001. 7-0. 00-2542 until the next meeting of the Code Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried Case #00-1209 Pat Marshall 305 S.W. 5th Lane Inspector Lewis reported that this property was cited on May 11, 2000 for a violation of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, 104.1.1, permit when required. Respondent did appear at the October 18, 2000 Code Compliance Board hearing. A compliance date and proposed fine were set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for 37 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1209, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Pat Marshall had violated this Board's prior Order of October 18, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-1873 Maxime Yves 112 S.W. 14th Avenue Inspector Lewis reported that this property had been cited on July 26, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. The Respondent did not appear at the Code Compliance Board hearing on December 20, 2000. A compliance date and proposed 39 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 fine were set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for 37 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-1873, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Miriana moved that this Board find that Maxime Yves had violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon his certification of fine. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2073 Chackman Hotels, Inc. 706 W.Boynton Beach Bv. Inspector Lewis reported that this property had been cited on August 18, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on January 17, 2001 and Respondent did not appear. The Board established a compliance date and fine of February 2, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property complied on February 16, 2001 for 14 days of non-compliance. Inspector Lewis explained that the City had to explain about the City's Code and what to do with hedges and so forth to a greater extent than usual. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2073, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, that the Respondents, Chackman Hotels, Inc., were in violation of Code Section Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) 1 inclusive, subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board's Order of January 17, 2001. Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that the Respondents failed to comply with this Board's Order, and that this Board impose and certify a fine of $0.00 plus $480.15 in administrative costs. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2176 Charles Henning, Sr. 134 S.E. 8th Avenue Inspector Lewis reported that this property was cited on August 31, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code and RV parking on private property. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondent did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for a total of 37 days of non- compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2176, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Charles Henning, Sr. had violated this Board's prior Order of December 40 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2775 Frank & Christina Bruno 141 S.W. 13th Avenue Inspector Lewis reported that this property was cited on October 17, 2000 for violation of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, Section 105.6. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine were set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for a total of 37 days of non- compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2775, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondents, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondents, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Frank & Christina Bruno have violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondents come into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Ms. Williams seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2411 Gracie Denson 220 N.W. 6th Avenue Inspector Pierre reported that this property had been cited on September 26, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on November 15, 2000 and Respondent did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine was set by the Board as December 18, 2000 or $25.00 per day. The property complied on February 12, 2001 for 55 days of non-compliance. The City recommended no fine due to the cooperation of the Respondent. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2411, Ms. Williams moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, that the Respondent, Gracie Denson, was in violation of Code Section Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) 1 inclusive, subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board's Order of November 15, 2000. Ms. Williams moved that this Board find that the Respondents failed to comply with this Board's Order, and that this Board impose and certify a fine of $0.00. Mr. Foot seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2791 Raymond & Linda Torres 407 N.W. 13th Avenue Inspector Webb reported that the property was cited on October 18, 2000 for violations of the Community Appearance Code, Land Development Regulations, National Electrical Code, Standard Fire Protection Code, and Sections 10-2 and 13-16 of the Boynton 41 Meeting Minutes ' Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21, 2001 Beach Code of Ordinances. A Code Compliance Board hearing was held on December 20, 2000 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine were set by the Board as January 15, 2001 or $50.00 per day. The property had not yet complied for a total of 37 days of non-compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-2791, and having considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any and all previous violations committed by the Respondent, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Raymond & Linda Torres have violated this Board's prior Order of December 20, 2000, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $50.00 per day plus administrative costs, which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of' fine. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Case #00-2942 New Haitian Alliance Church of BB P.O. Box 4064 Boynton Beach, FI 33424 Hoadley Rd. Inspector Webb reported that the property was cited on October 30, 2000 for violations of the Land Development Regulations, Land Clearing/Removing/Filling. The Code Compliance Board hearing was January 17, 2001 and Respondents did not appear. A compliance date and proposed fine as set by the Board as February 1, 2001 or $25.00 per day. The property had not complied with 20 days of non-compliance to date. Inspector Webb stated that the Respondents had obtained a County permit but the lot was located in the City. The Respondents thought they had the correct permit. Chairman DeLiso asked if they were building a church on the lot? Inspector Webb did not know what they were building. Mr. Blasie stated that it was now an environmental issue. They had cleared a large piece of vacant property and were now meeting with the City Forester and other City staff to try to ascertain how they were going to issue the permit and what was there before they cleared the land. Motion Mr. Foot moved to table Case No. 00-2942 until the April 18, 2001 Code Compliance Board hearing. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion that carried 7-0. D. STAFF'S STATUS REPORT (continued) Lien Reduction Case #96-5124, Geraldine Craanen, 2216 N.E. 3rd Street Mr. Blasie stated that this had been the first lien reduction under the new process instituted by the City Commission. The Code Compliance Board did not impose or certify any fine or administrative costs in the case. The City Commission certified $250.00 to recover the recording costs. Chairman DeLiso stated this had been the case 42 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 21,2001 where the lien was attached to a Delray building and they wanted to demolish the building. A Commissioner had some concerns that the City was not recovering its costs. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan S. Collins Recording Secretary (four tapes) 43