Loading...
Minutes 11-17-05 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD LIEN REDUCTION MEETING HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2005 AT 9:00 A.M. Present Michele Costantino, Chairperson Kathy Cook, Vice Chair Bob Foot Kathleen Carroll (arrived at 9:06 a.m.) Richard Yerzy David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Scott Blasie, Code Administrator Absent Chris DeLiso Lisa Simshauser I. Call to Order Chairperson Costantino called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. II. Approval of Minutes There were no minutes for approval, since there was no Lien Reduction Meeting in October. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Blasie announced there were no additions or deletion to the agenda. Motion Mr. Foot moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cook and unanimously carried. IV. Swearing in of Witnesses and Introduction Attorney Tolces administered the oath to all persons that would be testifying. Chairperson Costantino congratulated Board Member Richard Yerzy for being moved up to a Regular Member. Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator, called the roll. All persons present were requested to state their names. Mr. Blasie explained the lien reductions were placed on the agenda in the order the signed applications were received. He pointed out the Board's decision was not final until the City Commission had an opportunity to review the results of the cases. Any City Commissioner could pull a case, if he so wished. This same course of action is available to all applicants as well, if an applicant felt a decision rendered by this Board was not fair. After the minutes have been prepared, they are forwarded to the City Commission for review, at which time they have seven (7) days to review them and determine whether or not they agree with the decisions of the Board. If any applicant would like to appeal the Board's decision regarding their case, they are advised to contact the Code Compliance Office and request their case be sent to the City Commission for further consideration. Mr. Blasie pointed out the City Commission could increase or lower the fine assessed. v. Old Business A. Lien Reduction Mr. Blasie reported the first applicant had four cases, all of which pertained to the Boynton Terrace Apartments that have been demolished. All four cases pertain to the same violations involving the Community Appearance Code and dilapidated buildings. Mr. Foot requested Attorney Tolces explain that in order for a lien reduction to be approved, it required four out of five votes of the five members present. Applicants do have the right to postpone their case until such time when the full Board was present. Attorney Tolces confirmed that four affirmative votes of the Board are necessary to approve a lien reduction and there are only five members present. A full Board would be comprised of seven members. He noted the applicants have the right to postpone their case until the December Lien Reduction Meeting. Case # 04-1200 Boynton Associates, Ltd. 700 N. Seacrest Boulevard Mr. Blasie presented the case. The property owner is Boynton Associates, Inc. The case was originally cited on May 26, 2004 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. The case came before the Board on August 18, 2004. A compliance date of September 2, 2004 was established or be fined $250 per day. The property complied on October 6, 2005, resulting in a total fine of $99,500, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie reported October 6, 2005 would be used as the compliance date for all four cases, which was the date the demolition permits were signed off. Mr. Miller is present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Blasie did have photographs that he took November 16, 2005. 2 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, distributed a statement to the Board and the Recording Secretary, a copy of which is attached to the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Miller read the entire statement into the record. Mr. Blasie pointed out that the third and fourth cases involve unsecured buildings and have a different compliance date. Mr. Miller confirmed he was present representing Boynton Associates, Ltd., the owner of the property. The principal of Boynton Associates, Ltd. was out of the country. They have filed a development plan with the City for 84 units, 37 on the west side of Seacrest and 47 on the east side. They are scheduled for a second hearing before the Community Redevelopment Agency in December. Mr. Miller referred to the exhibit attached to the statement that illustrated one of the new buildings they are proposing to introduce in the project. Mr. Foot inquired what the price of the units would be for people making lesser incomes. Mr. Miller responded they are trying to provide housing to people eligible for available housing assistance programs. Those programs include the SHIP program, a first time homebuyer's program and a program administered by Palm Beach County. They are working with CRA staff to establish those programs. Mr. Miller did report that the affordable housing price for a home, established by the County under those programs is $280,000. Mr. Foot inquired if Boynton Associates is a for profit corporation, similar to the previous owners. Mr. Miller confirmed this was correct. Vice Chair Cook felt that Boynton Associates, Ltd. was aware of the condition of the property when it was purchased even though Boynton Associates could not do anything with the property between May and October, until the buildings were demolished. She pointed out that Boynton Associates was fully aware of the condition of the property prior to it being demolished and was aware of all liens that had been placed on the property when they entered into a contract to buy the property. Vice Chair Cook was opposed to having the liens totally eliminated since this property had been an eyesore for several years. She would like the Board to consider a fine for the four cases, even though each one had to be considered individually. The fines in the four cases totaled approximately $232,000. Mr. Miller acknowledged that the new owner, Larry Finkelstein, who is the principal of Boynton Associates, was fully aware of the liens when he purchased the property. Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Finkelstein is a pioneer in the Heart of Boynton area. He further pointed out the City created incentive programs to get the area redeveloped. They want to provide housing for first-time homebuyers; because of this, every dollar counts. If the fines were not reduced, it might not be possible to do the kind of housing the City wanted. 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Mr. Miller further pointed out Mr. Finkelstein has been involved with the City for many years and has served on several City Boards. He helped to create the Heart of Boynton Plan and now he would like to see it come to fruition. Mr. Foot inquired what Mr. Finkelstein paid for the property. Mr. Miller did not have this information available, but felt it should be available at the County's Property Appraisers Office. Mr. Blasie noted that the buildings were unsafe and they were demolished. The costs for demolition must be borne by the new owner. Several City staff members attended a CRA meeting and requested that the CRA pay those costs, which they did agree to. This cost was approximately $371,000. Mr. Blasie pointed out that Mr. Finkelstein is going to have to deal with the CRA regarding the demolition costs as well. Mr. Blasie explained that Mr. Finkelstein has made a big commitment to address a very bad problem in the City that existed for many years. Mr. Miller also pointed out the CRA requested that Mr. Finkelstein create a Floribbean style of architecture. Adding a metal roof will cost an additional $750,000, which is three times the cost of a shingle roof. Mr. Miller pointed out Mr. Finkelstein is committed to the whole community. Mr. Foot recommended assessing a fine of $10,000, which is a nominal amount for all four cases. Vice Chair Cook pointed out the Board's objective is to make certain that properties are in compliance and this property is now in compliance because it was demolished. She felt it was important to encourage developers to come into the City and this should be taken into consideration. Vice Chair Cook recommended a figure of $5,000 in all four cases that would cover the City's costs in order to get the project going. Mr. Foot did not think that $5,000 was sufficient and felt that Mr. Finkelstein was well aware of what he was getting into when he purchased the property. Chairperson Costantino agreed with Mr. Foot. Mr. Miller pointed out that since Mr. Finkelstein purchased the property, he has done everything to keep the property clean and kept up; whereas the prior owners did not take care of their property. Mr. Foot pointed out that the motion he would be making would cover all four cases. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case #04-1200, and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case #04-1200, by virtue of this Board's Order of August 18, 2004, to an amount of $10,000, including Administrative Costs. 4 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Chairperson Costantino passed the gavel and seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary called the roll and the motion failed 2-3. (Ms. Carroll, Vice Chair Cook, and Mr. Yerzy dissenting. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case #04-1200, and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Ms. Carroll moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case #04-1200, by virtue of this Board's Order of August 18, 2004, to an amount of $7,500, including Administrative Costs. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cook. Motion carried unanimously. Case #04-1201 Case #04-2392 Case #04-2393 Boynton Associates, Ltd. Boynton Associates, Ltd. Boynton Associates, Ltd. 801 N. Seacrest Boulevard 711 NW 2nd St. (Units 211 & 221) 210, 220 & 230 NW 7th Ct. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case Nos. 04-1201, 04-2392 and 04-2393 and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case Nos. 04-1201, 04-2392 and 04-2393 by virtue of this Board's Orders of August 18, 2004, et al to an amount of zero (0), including Administrative Costs. Motion seconded by Mr. Yerzy and unanimously carried. Case #99-1847 Joseph & Marie L. Luma 1516 NE 1st Street Mr. Blasie presented the case. The case originated on July 22, 1999 for violation of the Standard Building Code. The case involved a garage enclosure that required a permit. Further, an occupational license was required to rent the property. No one appeared at the November 17, 1999 hearing. A compliance date of December 13, 1999 was set or be fined $25 per day. In the November 17, 1999 minutes, Officer Melillo stated that the permit portion of the violation was in compliance. The City's records indicate that a license was obtained on April 9,2001 for a total fine of $12,050, plus $730.15 in administrative costs. The permit portion did comply within the timeframe prescribed by the Board. Marie Luma, 1516 NE 1st Street, assumed the podium and stated she got sick in 1999 and spent seven months in the hospital. When she got out of the hospital, she went to the City to find out how to bring the property into compliance. She received a final inspection and everything had complied. She obtained the occupational license as requested, but was unaware there was a lien on her house. 5 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17,2005 Mr. Blasie asked the respondent if she lived in the house. Ms. Luma said she did not live in the house and it has been rented out since 1999. Mr. Foot recommended assessing $250 to cover the affidavit filing costs. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-1847 and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 99-1847 by virtue of this Board's Order of November 17, 2004 to an amount of $250, including Administrative Costs. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cook and unanimously carried. Ms. Luna questioned why she was assessed a fine since she brought the property into compliance. Mr. Blasie explained the Board has made its finding, and she has the ability to appeal the decision to the City Commission. Case #99-451 Virginia Belman 2125 NE 3rd Court Mr. Blasie presented the case. The case was originally cited on March 17, 1999 for violation of the Standard Building Code. The case first came before the Board on August 18, 1999 and no one appeared. A compliance date of September 19, 1999 was set or be fined $25 per day. The property came into compliance on May 7, 2003 for 1,331 days of non-compliance and a total fine of $33,275, plus administrative costs of $730.15. Mr. Blasie pointed out the case involved a 1997 permit and was referred to the Code Compliance Division through the Building Division. Mr. Foot inquired why the property received a red tag. Mr. Blasie explained the respondent received a building permit and the driveway portion of the permit was not completed and did not pass final inspection. Chairperson Costantino pointed out the permit was for re-roof and driveway. Virginia Belman, 2125 NE 3rd Court, Boynton Beach appeared at the podium with her daughter that would be assisting her in translating. Mr. Belman did not learn there was a lien on her property until her daughter tried to purchase the property. She did find out that her husband had received a letter from the City, but in 1999 her father was very sick and she went to Mexico to care for him. Her daughter explained that her mother received a permit to do the pavement in 1999, but her grandfather got sick. Ms. Belman went to Mexico with her three daughters to take care of him, while Mr. Belman remained home in Boynton Beach. Her father remembered an inspector came to the property and he signed a paper, but he thought this meant the problem had been resolved. He was totally unaware that a problem existed. The daughter explained that her mother was going to use the equity in the house to help her purchase a home and at that time the mortgage company 6 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17,2005 informed her there was a lien on her property. Since they found out about the lien, they have worked with the City to get the property inspected and pointed out the property has, in fact, passed inspection. Vice Chair Cook noted the agenda indicated the property complied on May 7,2003. Mr. Blasie reported this was the date final inspection was completed on the driveway. Vice Chair Cook felt that the respondents were confused on what they had actually signed and she would recommend reducing the fine to zero (0). Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-451 and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Vice Chair Cook moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 99-451 by virtue of this Board's Order of August 18, 1999 to an amount of zero (0), including Administrative Costs. Motion seconded by Mr. Yerzy and unanimously carried. Case #98-1395 Paul & Mary Savage 2650 NW 1 st Street Mr. Blasie presented the case. The property was originally cited on April 2, 1998 for violation of the City's Community Appearance Code. Mr. Blasie pointed out one side of the driveway was void of grass because it was used for parking. The case came before the Board on July 15, 1998 and no one appeared. A compliance date of August 17, 1998 was set or be fined $25 per day. The property complied on January 11, 1999 for 146 days of non-compliance, resulting in a fine of $3,650, plus $634.12 in Administrative Costs. Attorney Tolces administered the oath to Mr. Savage. Paul Savage, 1302 West Indies Way, Lantana, Florida, assumed the podium. Mr. Savage explained that he rented the house to his sister, who was responsible for the upkeep of the property. When the City cited the property, he never received the notice. When he had another compliance issue this year, he found out that there was a lien on the property. At that point, he brought the property into compliance. Vice Chair Cook inquired about the condition of the property today. Mr. Blasie responded the property looked good and a photograph was presented first to the respondent and then to the Board. Vice Chair Cook inquired if the respondent's sister still lived at the property. Mr. Savage stated his son is now living at the property, but he will be checking on the property regularly. Mr. Foot inquired if Mr. Savage was in compliance regarding an occupational license to rent to his son. Mr. Savage responded that he provided proper documentation to the City that a family member is living on the property. 7 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17,2005 Mr. Blasie presented photographs taken on July 15, 1998, another on September 16, 1998, and one taken yesterday. Mr. Blasie reported the yard is newly sodded. The photographs were presented to the respondent and then to the Board for viewing. Chairperson Costantino noted the property looked very good. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 98-1395 and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 98-1395 by virtue of this Board's Order of July 15, 1998 to an amount of $250, including Administrative Costs. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cook and unanimously carried. Mr. Blasie reported that the following respondent has two cases as follows: Case #99-436 Jessie, Sr. & Patricia Jones 334 NE 23rd Avenue Mr. Blasie presented the case. The case was originally cited on March 17, 1999 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. Mr. Jessie Jones did appear at the June 16, 1999 hearing. A compliance date of August 16, 1999 was set or be fined $25 per day. The records indicate the property complied on August 18, 2005 for a total of 2,254 days of non-compliance, resulting in a fine of $56,350, plus Administrative Costs of $730.15. Mr. Blasie noted the other case was for an occupational license. Joel Hargis was present on behalf of the owner of Fast Cash Home Funding. Thy purchased the property from Mr. Jones because his home was being foreclosed upon. They assisted him in clearing up all the issues and helped him find a proper place to operate his business and move to another site. They purchased the property in late June, but they afforded Mr. Jones until September to make the appropriate changes. In addition, they advanced funding so he could find a warehouse space for his business, which was part of his problem. They took possession of the house on October 1st and began to clean up the property. Mr. Hargis pointed out the inordinate amount of tires and junk on the property and photographs of the property were presented showing the condition of the property before they cleaned it up. They spent over $4,000 in fees to haul away and dispose of 172 tires that were on the property. In addition, they spent another $1,000 since the hurricane to remove the remainder of the debris. Mr. Hargis also presented a letter from a neighbor across the street, expressing his appreciation for their cleaning up the property. They intend to move forward to improve the house and then put it on the market for sale. When they purchased the property from Mr. Jones, he was supposed to clear up 8 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17,2005 the fines, but he reneged on this. Mr. Jones did clean up the property somewhat, but he did not complete job before he moved out. Mr. Hargis pointed out they purchased the property for $168,000 and he provided a copy of the recorded deed along with other documentation. He noted the house still is in need of improvement, including a new roof and interior work, plus landscaping. After that, they hope to set a record in the area, when they sell the property, which usually happens. Mr. Foot was amazed at the condition of the property prior to it being purchased by Mr. Hargis' company and thought this was one of the worse looking pieces of property in the City. Mr. Blasie explained that Mr. Jones kept the property fenced in, so the Code Compliance staff was not able to see what was located in the fenced area. Mr. Blasie pointed out that every square inch of the backyard was littered with a myriad of debris. He also confirmed what Mr. Hargis had testified regarding the condition of the property. Mr. Blasie presented a photograph of the property that he took yesterday from the street. Vice Chair Cook said the best thing that could happen was new ownership so the property could be cared for. She noted the neighbors had to endure the condition of the property for a long time and, therefore, she wanted to be fair so the property could be fixed up and sold. Mr. Hargis pointed out that what they purchased the property for was not a fire sale. Mr. Foot pointed out that there were two separate fines of $56,000 each. He would recommend a fine of $5,000 for both cases. Mr. Hargis pointed out that if they did not step in, the situation would still exist. The margins on this property were thin and they have already spent $5,000 in clean up costs. In order to fix the property the right way, it is important that the liens be abated. Vice Chair Cook pointed out there was over $100,000 in fines. Therefore, she felt that a total fine of $5,000 in both cases was quite lenient. Vice Chair Cook further stated, if Mr. Jones were present today, she would have requested that the property be condemned. Mr. Hargis pointed out they were not a big developer and only buy six to eight homes per year to fix up and sell. Vice Chair Cook felt it was not fair that Mr. Jones actually profited from what he did to his neighborhood. She noted, however, that when Mr. Hargis' company purchased the property, they were fully aware of its condition. Mr. Hargis stated they try to help people move on with their lives with some assistance. If the property was assessed a fine of $5,000, this would be a significant fine and would diminish what they intended to do to fix up the property. Chairperson Costantino inquired if Mr. Jones was running a business from this property and Mr. Blasie stated he was running a landscape business, without an occupational license. Chairperson Costantino felt that a $10,000 fine would be appropriate. 9 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-436 and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Foot moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 99-436 by virtue of this Board's Order of June 16, 1999 to an amount of $10,000, including Administrative Costs. Vice Chair Costantino passed the gavel and seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary called the roll and the motion failed 2-3 (Ms. Carroll, Vice Chair Cook, and Mr. Yerzy dissenting). Mr. Foot felt Mr. Hargis was aware of the risks when he purchased the property and realized there was a potential profit in the sale of the property. Further, no mitigating circumstances were revealed that would indicate that the fine should be reduced. Ms. Carroll inquired why the City did not address the situation and why wasn't the City more proactive in getting the property cleaned up. She pointed out the new owners took over and immediately cleaned up the property. Mr. Blasie explained that the City cannot go onto private property to clean it up. Ms. Carroll questioned why the fine was allowed to run for almost five years with nothing being done. She felt the property should have at least been re-cited to make the owner act. She noted that neighbors were writing the City letters telling the City that the property was horrendous; there should be some responsibility on the City's part as well. Ms. Carroll did not think it was fair to punish Mr. Hargis and his company for doing something good. Further, she pointed out that Mr. Jones was allowed to run a business for several years without a license. Mr. Blasie did not feel that citing Mr. Jones would have been of any use. Mr. Blasie concurred with Ms. Carroll's statement of why should Mr. Hargis' company be penalized for someone's negligence. Mr. Blasie noted that the Code Compliance staff is glad when investors come in and clean up bad properties. Chairperson Costantino pointed out that the applicant was aware the property came with liens when they purchased it. Mr. Hargis acknowledged this, but noted in other situations when they do the right thing, normally they receive help so they could sell the property. He pointed out if they were fined $5,000 to $10,000, this is a significant portion of the value of the home. They would like to completely refurbish the house, put in new grass, a new fence and do all the right things in order to set a high value for the neighborhood. He did not expect to pay no fine, but they need help to do their job. He felt if the fine were significant, it might have an impact upon other people coming into the City to do the same thing. Mr. Foot inquired if the City could have demolished the property as an unsafe dwelling and Mr. Blasie said this was possible. Further, the City could have issued a cease and desist order on a person running a business from a particular location, but there is nothing in place that the City can go in and clean up a piece of property. Mr. Blasie thought there might be legal issues involved in doing this. Attorney Tolces explained if 10 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 there was a health and safety issue that threatened the general public, the City Commission could make certain findings that would allow the City to go onto private property and correct it and then later recover those costs. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-436 and having been advised that the Respondents have complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Vice Chair Cook moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 99-436 by virtue of this Board's Order of June 16, 1999 to an amount of $5,000, including Administrative Costs. Mr. Yerzy seconded the motion that unanimously carried. Case #99-784 Jessie, Sr. & Patricia Jones & Jessie, Jr. Jones 334 NE 23rd Avenue Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-784 and having been advised that the Respondents have complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Vice Chair Cook moved that this Board rescind the fines instituted in Case No. 99-784 by virtue of this Board's Order of June 16, 1999 and the order be released. Mr. Yerzy seconded the motion that unanimously carried. B. Cases to be Heard Case No. 05-2209 Kathryn Ybarra 720 Million Hill Road Mr. Blasie noted that staff has continued the case administratively and inquired if the Board had to continue it as well. Attorney Tolces felt this was not necessary since the respondent is represented by an attorney that cannot be present today. Therefore, administratively, staff has agreed to continue the matter until December and the case will be placed on the December agenda. Case No. 05-2215 Julia Andrews, Owner 226 NE 13th Avenue Edward Charles Leggett, Tenant Mr. Blasie explained the case deals with the City's newly adopted ordinance regarding sexual offenders. The violation is on both the tenant and landlord in accordance with Ordinance No. 05-035. Mr. Blasie reported that on September 19, 2005 Officer Zavattaro contacted Mr. Leggett about his being in violation of the City's newly adopted ordinance and informed him of the regulations regarding the proximity of residences to schools, bus stops, etc. On September 20, 2005, a notice of violation was delivered to Mr. Leggett and to Julia Andrews, the landlord, who resided in Delray Beach. 11 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 On September 27, 2005, Mr. Blasie received a letter from Ms. Andrews requesting that Mr. Leggett be grandfathered in since he previously lived in Boynton Beach and had just moved from The Crossings to her property. She also stated that he moved into the property during the last week of August and Mr. Blasie pointed out the ordinance took effect on July 19, 2005. Service was received upon Ms. Andrews and Mr. Leggett for the October 2ih hearing on October 6, 2005. However, because of Hurricane Wilma, the October 2ih hearing was cancelled. Service for today's hearing, was accomplished on Ms. Andrews on November 9, 2005 and on Mr. Leggett on November 15, 2005. Mr. Blasie presented a map showing the proximity of Mr. Leggett's residence to adjoining schools and bus stops. For the record, the residence is 984 feet from Poinciana Elementary and the ordinance states he cannot reside within 2,500 feet of the school. Further, the resident is 809 feet from a public bus stop and 828 feet from a school bus stop. The documentation was presented to the respondents and then to the Recording Secretary for inclusion with the records of the meeting. Mr. Foot inquired if both cases should be heard together. Attorney Tolces responded that when the Board makes a decision, separate orders would be appropriate, one for each violator. Mr. Blasie pointed out that Sgt. Gary Chapman and Ms. Carissa Bingham were present from the Police Department. Edward Charles Leggett. and Angela Leggett (Edward Leggett's wife), 226 NE 13th Avenue, Apartment A, Boynton Beach assumed the podium. Julia Andrews, 401 Depot Avenue, Oelray Beach, also assumed the podium. Attorney Tolces pointed out that since this is a new case, the plea system would apply. He explained they could plead guilty, not guilty or no contest. A plea of no contest means that they are not admitting the violation, but are not contesting it either. After that, the Board would ask how much time is needed to correct the violation. In this instance the violation involves the location of the residence in relation to a school. At this point, Attorney Tolces asked the respondents to enter a plea. Mr. Leggett pled guilty. Attorney Tolces explained to Mr. Leggett if he was not certain how to plead, he could plead no contest. If he pled guilty, the Board could immediately find him in violation, as opposed to giving him an opportunity to correct the situation. Mr. Leggett changed his plea to no contest. Ms. Andrews asked for clarification on what she was being asked. Mr. Tolces explained the ordinance at hand provides for a limitation on the distance that a person identified as a sexual offender may reside in relationship to any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, playground or other place where children regularly 12 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 congregate. It is unlawful for a sexual offender to reside within 2,500 feet and it is unlawful for an individual to rent any place or structure with the knowledge that it would be used as a permanent residence by any person prohibited from establishing such a residence under the Code. Attorney Tolces explained that Mr. Andrews, the owner of the property, comes under the same restrictions and the potential penalty as the person who is actually a sexual offender. Mr. Foot inquired if the respondent could be provided a certain amount of time to correct the violation. Attorney Tolces said a corrective action was allowed, similar to other Code cases. This Board could provide the respondent an opportunity to correct the violation, enter a cease and desist order and all other options available to this Board, since this Board is charged with the ability to enforce those provisions of the City Code. Mr. Blasie pointed out in order to achieve compliance, the respondent must report their new address and legally change their driver's license. Just moving from the property does not mean he has complied. The respondent must present his new driver's license and the FDLE records must be changed with the new address. This process takes approximately 48 hours. Ms. Andrews pled no contest, because she was unaware of the City's ordinance. Mr. Yerzy inquired if Ms. Andrews was related to the Leggetts and she responded she was not. Ms. Carroll inquired when people apply for an occupational license to rent their property, are they being supplied with this information. Mr. Blasie noted this was not currently being done, but is a good point and they will look into it. Further renewals would also have to be addressed. Vice Chair Cook pointed out in order for the violation to be corrected, Mr. Leggett must move. Chairperson Costantino said the Board needed to decide how much time they wanted to give him to move. Attorney Tolces pointed out the object is to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Blasie asked Ms. Andrews if there was a written lease for the apartment with the Leggetts. Further he would like to ask the respondents if they have made any efforts to comply since they were originally notified on September 19th that they would have to move. Chairperson Costantino asked Ms. Andrews if there was a lease for the property and she stated there was a lease. Chairperson Costantino asked the respondent if they have made an attempt to comply. Mr. Leggett said he has a relative that is a real estate agent looking for an apartment for him and wife. He spoke with her yesterday, but he has not heard back. He would not be able to live in any of the places that he looked at in Boynton Beach. In addition, they needed money to move, and it is hard to just pick up and move. Chairperson Costantino asked how much time Mr. Leggett needed to find another place to live. He responded that he needed at least one month. Mr. Leggett indicated that he was employed. 13 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Vice Chair Cook felt the respondent should have to move by December 1st. Ms. Carroll pointed out that Thanksgiving is next week and other holidays are coming up in December. She would recommend January 1, 2006 to find a place. She noted there was a lot more involved in moving than just finding a place. In addition, it is difficult to come up with all the necessary funds. Ms. Andrews said that after reading the documentation, it is impossible for any sexual offender to rent in the City of Boynton. She has tried to help the Leggetts, but has been unsuccessful. She pointed out that Mr. Leggett has been living in Boynton Beach for over five years and as soon as he moved from The Crossings, he now has to move again. She inquired about the status of her lease. Ms. Andrews sympathized with the Leggetts because there is nowhere for Mr. Leggett to go except back to jail. Ms. Carroll agreed with Ms. Andrews' statement, but noted the Ordinance was passed and this Board had nothing to do with the Ordinance being passed. Once the Ordinance was passed, it became this Board's responsibility to deal with compliance of the Ordinance. Ms. Carroll agreed that there was probably no place in the City where a sexual offender could live. Mr. Foot recommended that the respondents could consult with attorneys regarding the status of the lease. This Board is not charged with dealing with leases. Mr. Blasie presented to the Recording Secretary the City's Exhibit B, which is Mr. Leggett's FDLE record. The original is on file in the City Clerk's Office with the records of the meeting. Chairperson Costantino requested to speak with Sgt. Chapman. Attorney Tolces administered the oath to Sgt. Chapman. Chairperson Costantino inquired if the respondent has complied with everything he is required to do since he has been residing in Boynton Beach. Sgt. Chapman responded that there are two standards; the State standard and the municipal standard. Mr. Leggett is in compliance with the State reporting requirements. However, he is in violation of the City's Code. Sgt. Chapman pointed out that Mr. Leggett has been cooperative with the authorities. Sgt. Chapman pointed out that certain things need to be taken into consideration in ordering the respondent to move, such as whether he has furniture or if he is living in a furnished apartment. If he owned the property, the Board probably would want to consider another timeframe. Mr. Foot inquired if the respondent was on parole and Mr. Leggett stated he was still on probation. 14 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 05-2215, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find that Edward Charles Leggett is in violation of the City of Boynton Beach Code Sections as cited, and move to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before January 1, 2006. The Board has considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any previous violations by the Respondent, and hereby orders that if the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $100 per day for each day the violation continues past January 1, 2006, plus Administrative Costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division in order to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cook and unanimously carried. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 05-2215, Mr. Yerzy moved that this Board find that Julia Andrews is in violation of the City of Boynton Beach Code Sections as cited, and move to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before January 1, 2006. The Board has considered the gravity of the violations, the actions taken by the Respondent, and any previous violations by the Respondent, and hereby orders that if the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $50 per day for each day the violation continues past January 1, 2006, plus Administrative Costs shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division in order to arrange for re- inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by Ms. Carroll and unanimously carried. Chairperson Costantino noted most cases the Board heard involved property on which a lien could be attached. She questioned how this would be handled in Mr. Leggett's situation where there is no property to attach. Attorney Tolces responded that Ms. Andrews' property could be attached, if she did not comply with the Board's order. However, in the future if Mr. Leggett eventually owned any property or does in fact own any property, the lien would attach to whatever he owned in Palm Beach County. Attorney Tolces pointed out that there are certain limitations that the City could do with regard to the lien and pointed out this was not a criminal proceeding. Mr. Yerzy questioned if the Board should consider larger fines against the homeowner that is renting the property to the sexual offender. Vice Chair Cook felt this might apply if the landlord knew they were renting to a sexual offender. Attorney Tolces explained that the lien would attach to personal as well as real property in Palm Beach County and the City could then enforce a lien against that property. Mr. Yerzy felt if the landlords were assessed steep fines, it would encourage them to force the sexual offender off the property faster. Mr. Foot said this could be considered for future cases, but he did not think it was appropriate to move in this direction. Ms. Carroll also pointed out that many 15 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 of the violators may be on probation and if a person is found in violation of a City Ordinance, it could have ramifications under those circumstances. Sgt. Chapman noted that on the criminal side of the violation, it would be considered a misdemeanor, but the Police Department is not pursuing it at this time. They will go with the Board's recommendations and the civil side of the violations. Their main concern is that the person does not re-offend in the City. Mr. Blasie pointed out that the City has been successful with compliance of the Ordinance. There have been previous cases initiated, and the people have complied, which was confirmed through FDLE. Ms. Carroll pointed out that if a person did not cooperate and was renting their apartment, this might force the landlord to institute eviction proceeds that could take upwards of 90 days. If the landlord was assessed a fine of $500 per day, the compliance time might have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Recess was declared at 10:50 a.m. The meeting resumed at 11 :04 a.m. Case #98-1456 Joe R., Jr. & Olga Espinoza 2761 NW 1st Street Mr. Blasie presented the case. The property was originally cited on April 6, 1998 for violation of the City's Community Appearance Code. No one appeared at the July 15, 1998 Code Compliance Board Hearing Date. A compliance date of September 14, 1998 was set or be fined $25 per day. The property complied as of April 6, 2005, for 2,395 days of non-compliance and a total fine of $59,875, plus administrative costs of $634.12. On May 18, 1999, a permit was issued for the driveway and the permit was finaled on May 29, 1999. The reason it took sometime for the respondents to obtain their permit was due to the Utility Department keeping their survey. Mr. Blasie presented photographs of the property. Two photographs were taken on July 15, 1998, one on October 16, 1998, and one taken November 16, 2005. The photographs were first presented to the respondent and then to the Board. Chairperson Costantino noted that the property looked very good. Attorney Tolces administered the oath to Mr. Espinoza. Jose Espinoza, 2761 NW 1st Street, assumed the podium. Vice Chair Cook inquired why it took the respondent so long to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Espinoza was under the impression that once the driveway was in and the sod was installed, the property had complied. He only learned recently that there was a lien on the property when they tried to refinance. 16 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida November 17, 2005 Vice Chair Cook inquired if there were any other violations against the property. Mr. Blasie was not aware of any. Further, Mr. Blasie reported that the respondent installed a concrete driveway three times the necessary size. Mr. Espinoza also reported that he recently installed a new roof, for which a permit was obtained. Mr. Foot inquired when the driveway complied and was informed it was May 25, 1999. Mr. Foot also asked when the sod had been laid. Mr. Blasie reported the grass was signed off on April 6, 2005. Mr. Espinoza explained the reason it took so long for the driveway to comply was due to the fact the City had to move the water meter that was in the driveway. Once the water meter was moved, he installed the driveway and sodded the yard. At this point, Mr. Espinoza thought the property had complied. Vice Chair Cook would recommend assessing administrative costs only. Mr. Blasie pointed out that Mr. Espinoza takes great pride in his property and it looks very good. Ms. Carroll felt the respondents should only be assessed the affidavit filing costs of $250. Chairperson Costantino pointed out the great amount of work the respondents have done to the property and the pride they take in their home. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 98-1456, and having been advised that the Respondents have complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Ms. Carroll moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in Case No. 98-1456, by virtue of this Board's Order of July 15, 1998, to an amount of $250, including Administrative Costs. Motion seconded by Mr. Yerzy and unanimously carried. VI. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 11: 15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~U/--&i.tc ,4..1. Iu K..~it-ci..' Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (November 21,2005) 17 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH CODE COMPLlENCE DIVISION LIEN REDUCTION HEARING Thursday, November 17,2005 9:00 AM 742-6833 Diane Statement I am here this morning representing Boynton Associates, L TO in its request for your consideration and approval of the waiver of all Code Compliance liens on its properties. My client apologizes for not being here in person. The original hearing date was cancelled due to Hurricane Wilma and my c1ientis now out of the country, however, it was important to maintain this hearing date as the property is in foreclosure and my client needs to have the liens removed prior to closing on their development loan. While the previous owners were from out of town, my Client, the new owner, is a local developer with strong ties to the community and a tireless supporter of the City of Boynton Beach. As you probably know, the previous project on the site was quite a handful for the previous owners and the City. The previous owners were in the midst of approval for a $4m renovation along with adding new financial partners when one of the 2004 Hurricanes hit and made the property uninhabitable. That was the final straw. The new financial partners walked away and the previous owners expended over $50,000 to board up the property, apply roof tarps and relocate some of the tenants, when they just ran out of money. My client is in the process of reimbursing them for those expenditures. The partnership (Boynton Associates, L TD) went under contract to my client in May; however, my client was unable to close on the transaction until the previous owners could cancel an existing housing assistance contract relating to the property, which didn't finalize until late September. My client was unable to effect any maintenance on the properties until they became the new owner. Closing took place September 30, 2005 and my client immediately accomplished what was necessary to bring the properties in compliance and has started planning a new "for sale" residential community to replace the previous Section 8 rental project. My client asks for your assistance in removing the liens placed on their properties. The new development will more than make up for the waiver of liens with the new taxes and fees collected by the City. Additionally, the new development will be a significant boost to this area of Boynton Beach and help to initiate the area's redevelopment. Assistance is necessary from all sources to make this new home community a reality, as well as my client's desire to maintain sales pricing at a level that will allow new home buyers to qualify for the various housing programs currently available to first time home buyers. We hope you will maintain your position to obtain compliance over the receipt of penalties and therefore we request your approval of our application. {~ !f~ ~ ~f.' Z ~:, ~ ~ ~ i.f ~ l ~ ~ If fit g i ~ \Ii. ~ iI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ;fJ .. ~{ ~: i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~41 ~, "'- "{ ~, ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ i j il! ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Q ~, -J ; ::::> . [Q ~" ~ ~ " " \- ri, ~ JI Z !;.'- ~ 3 ::) ,-, 4 I i~ ,.., lO ; .... ~ == & l> ~ z I (t: 0 ~ ~. ~ i u ~ \! < ~ UJ ~ if -J ~ ~ UJ I ~ ~ \- ;'" Z I ~ ;~ 0 Ql ~ 7. u.. a Z ~ if I 'to I 0 ~ ~ Iii ~ ", I ~, ~ " Z ~ I iii .~ I ~ I] .I ! ~ 1'''< ;, 0 ~ '''' ~ ~ I " ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ I ;;: ~ ~', ~. ~ ;-; , f' i tt 00. ;<; re: a: ~ ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ g; 'l\ 0: 3~ i , * it ~ ~ ~ @ ~t ~ N ;";. l! ~ ~ l.l ~ ;i " ~ " 'I ~ 'l. ~ <f.. !4 I it 'l1 Ii ~ ;1- ~1 ~ I Ii @ ~ ~ ~ i I I Z " I ?: ~ < {1- I .,.~ ~ ~~\. i> , ~ "', I U f ~,c ')>:: 0 *1 ,,- ~ ~: t; ~j !2 ';~ ~ ~ , " "", ~ " ,