Loading...
Minutes 02-16-00 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 AT 7:00P.M. PRESENT Christopher DeLiso, Chairman Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Bob Foot Attorney Dick Lambert Scott Blasie, Code Compliance James Miriana Administrator Enrico Rossi Inspectors: Courtney Cain Thomas Walsh, Voting Alternate Luney Guillaume Skip Lewis ABSENT Mike Melillo Pete Roy Patti Hammer, Vice Chair Willie Webb Sarah Williams I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeLiso called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2000 MEETING Chairman DeLiso called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2000 meeting. Mr. Foot moved that the minutes be approved, seconded by Mr. Miriana, and unanimously passed. III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Blasie if there were any additions or deletions to the Agenda. Mr. Blasie stated that there were four items to be deleted from the Agenda as follows: A. Page 6 (Case 99-3033) Anthony Richard (removed) B. Page 13 (Case 99-1857) J. H. & Louise D. Garvin (removed) C. Page 14 (Case 99-2578) Annette & Stanley D. Hicks (complied) D. Page 17 (Case 00-19) Lyndia Matthews (removed) Mr. Blasie also asked that the Lien Reduction Case 96-5768, Anthony Callis/Crossland Mortgage be heard first as a professional courtesy to the legal representative for the Respondent. MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Mr. Lambert moved to accept the Agenda as presented The motion was seconded by Mr. Miriana and carried unanimously. IV.SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES AND INTRODUCTION At the request of Chairman DeLiso, the Recording Secretary administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. Chairman DeLiso requested that Mr. Blasie call the roll. Mr. Blasie asked all persons who were present to say “here” when their names were called. LIEN REDUCTION HEARING Case 96-5768 Anthony Callis/Crossland Mtg. th Property Address: 9400 4 Street N nd 3020/3040 SE 2 Street (duplex) St. Petersburg, Fl 33702 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Mr. Blasie stated that the property was originally cited on November 13, 1996 for violations of Community Appearance Code. The respondent did not appear at the February 19, 1997 Code Compliance Board hearing. The compliance date was set at March 17, 1997 or be fined $250.00 per day. The property came into compliance on February 10, 2000 with 1059 days of non-compliance and a substantial fine had accrued. Mr. Blasie introduced the attorney representing the mortgage company that has foreclosed on the property; however, the City’s lien was not extinguished. Ms. Susan DeLegal, attorney with Holland & Knight LLP, One East Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, representing Crossland Mortgage , took the podium. Ms. DeLegal advised that Crossland Mortgage is the owner of this property at this time by virtue of foreclosing on a mortgage that was recorded in July of 1995. The City’s lien was recorded in July of 1997. Foreclosure proceedings were initiated against the property and on November 19, 1999 the property was purchased in a foreclosure sale and Certificate of Title was delivered to Crossland Mortgage. There were tenants in possession at the time and eviction procedures were instituted. As soon as possession was gained, they began to clean up the property. Shortly after that time they learned of the liens on the property and the violations and spent in excess of $6,000.00 from the end of the year through January 8, 2000 to correct the violations, culminating in the receipt on January 10 of a certificate of compliance. It is the intent of the owner to keep the property in a well-maintained condition so that it can be an asset to the City of Boynton Beach. Crossland Mortgage intends to sell the property. During the foreclosure proceedings, for reasons unknown, the City’s lien was not identified or named in the foreclosure action and, therefore, subject to extinguishment. The options are as follows: 2 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 ? reimburse the City for the costs that were incurred as identified in the City’s letter to Crossland Mortgage in the amount of $826.16 in administrative costs and an additional $1,000.00 or, ? initiate re-foreclosure proceedings and foreclose the lien Chairman DeLiso asked Ms. DeLegal what would happen if they re-foreclosed on the property. She responded that the City’s lien would be extinguished. Assistant City Attorney Igwe advised that this was correct and that there would be expenses involved. The expenses would be largely borne by Crossland Mortgage but if the City defended it, there would be legal time involved. According to Assistant City Attorney Igwe, the bottom line was that Crossland’s Mortgage’s mortgage was superior to the City’s lien. Assistant City Attorney Igwe asked the value of the property and Ms. DeLegal replied that they had an offer of $110,000.00. Their judgment is in excess of $150,000.00 taking into consideration all of the penalties and interest that accrued. The original mortgage was in the amount of $107,100.00. The City’s lien is $264,750.00. Chairman DeLiso commented that the reason it was so high is that there were several neighbors in the area complaining that the owner was not taking care of the property and the Board believed a stiffer fine would get the owner’s attention. According to Ms. DeLegal, the original owner is in foreclosure and in Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 7, so there would be no recourse possible against him. Chairman DeLiso asked the Board if they wanted to recoup some money or let the courts handle it in a re-foreclosure, which would return zero dollars to the City. Mr. Lambert asked whose case it had been originally and Mr. Blasie replied that it had been Joan Mormelo’s case. Mr. Lambert asked for verification from Mr. Blasie that the new owners had indeed put some money into fixing up the property and Mr. Blasie replied that they had done so recently. Ms. DeLegal reiterated that they had taken title to the property on November 19, 1999 and that between that time and January 8, 2000 had made many improvements to the property. Mr. Foot commented that the offer to the City was rather nominal considering the value of their property, their legal expenses for re-foreclosure, time, and the fact that they could not sell the property until title is clear. Mr. Lambert said that the person who caused all the problems on this property is out of the picture, that the City had done everything it could possibly do, and that the legal owners had, immediately upon taking possession of the property, proceeded with renovations and brought the property into compliance. The delay in compliance was due to having to evict the tenants. 3 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Chairman DeLiso said the Board could make a counter-offer if it desired. He also pointed out that the matter had to go before the City Commission which, in his opinion, would probably result in the City taking the $1800.00, allowing a nice family to move in and solving a long-standing problem for the City. Motion Mr. Lambert moved that based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 96-5768, 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, that this Board recommend to the City Commission that the fine instituted in Case No. 96-5768 by virtue of this Board’s order of February 19, 1997 be reduced to administrative costs of $826.18 plus a fine of $1,000.00. Motion was seconded by Mr. Walsh. Mr. Foot recommended a fine of $3,000.00. Chairman DeLiso asked for a vote on the motion, which passed 5-1 with Mr. Foot dissenting. The Chairman excused Ms. DeLegal with the thanks of the Board. V. NEW BUSINESS Chairman DeLiso stated that this Board follows Florida State Statutes. The Board is a quasi-judicial Board and has a plea system. When a person comes up to the podium he or she should state his or her name and address for the record. If you feel that the violation does occur at your property but you need more time to bring the property into compliance, you can plead “no contest” and ask for a reasonable time to bring the property into compliance. If the Board determines that the time needed to comply is reasonable, the Board usually will grant the time to bring the property into compliance. If in fact, the property is brought into compliance within that time, you do not need to re-appear before this Board. A person can plead “not guilty” if he feels that a violation on the property does not exist. In that instance, the City would put on their case and the respondent would present his case. The Board would then determine if a violation does in fact exist at the property. A reasonable amount of time will be given if you are found guilty to bring the property into compliance. However, if the violation is not corrected, a fine will begin to accrue and the Respondent will have to reappear before this Board. 4 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 A:CASES TO BE HEARD (TABLED) Case No. 99-704: Charles & Fred Rahming th Property Address: 224 N.E. 10 Avenue Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D).1A & 1B; PT3-LDR.CH2. Section 6.D.6, PT3-LDR.CH20- VIII.Sections 2.A, 2.D, and 2.E.; SBC’91 Edition Section 1902.2 Inc.; SFPC 603.2, 10-2 B.B.C. of Ordinance 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinance; Every rental unit used for residential living purposes in the City must be licensed. Inspector Webb stated the case was originally cited on April 7, 1999 for Community Appearance Code, Land Development Regulations violations, and occupational license required. Owners of record are Charles and Fred Rahming. The violations were observed through routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was accomplished by certified mail and it was previously tabled by this Board. Mr. Lambert inquired of Mr. Webb if all of the violations were still in existence and Mr. Webb replied that they were. Mr. Lambert verified through Mr. Webb that this was a probate case. th Mr. George Calvin Rahming, 224 N.E. 10 Avenue, Boynton Beach , took the podium on behalf of Fred and Charles Rahming. Chairman DeLiso said that he remembered the case and that he believed Mr. Rahming had inherited the property and that it was in probate with Mr. Rahming’s attorney working on getting new title. Mr. Rahming affirmed that this was the case. He had a letter from the attorney which Chairman DeLiso asked be read by Mr. Blasie. The February 15, 2000 letter from attorney Jeff Tomberg read as follows: Dear Scott: I previously forwarded to you my request to postpone this matter so I could complete the legal services for Mr. Rahming so that he may obtain a loan on the property. Today Mr. Rahming asked if I could attend tomorrow evening’s hearing but upon such short notice I was unable to do so. I will be in South Carolina all next week and a trial the following week. I hope this matter can be passed upon this written correspondence. If not, please provide me notice of your next monthly or bi-monthly meeting and with due consideration for my scheduling problems. Very Truly Yours, Jeff Tomberg Mr. Blasie read another letter from Mr. Tomberg dated February 14, 2000, which said: 5 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 I have been asked to represent George Calvin Rahming as it relates to the th Charles and Fred Rahming property at 224 N.E. 10 Avenue. All but two of the siblings have agreed to turn the property over to George. Unfortunately, George will require complete ownership of the property in order to obtain a mortgage and in order to comply with the extensive repairs necessary to put the property in compliance with Code. Because we are unable to get two of the siblings to agree on price, we have been forced to file a petition so that George can buy this house in that manner. I project that it is going to take approximately six months for this matter to be completed from a legal perspective and once that’s completed, Mr. Rahming will be in a position to go forward with the loan. Please provide us with the necessary time in order to get this matter resolved from the legal basis so we can bring the property into compliance. Mr. Foot asked Mr. Rahming whether he had any assets to apply to the renovation of the property and what he had done towards fixing it up to date. Mr. Rahming stated that he had no assets and that the lawyer was trying to get the property in his name so he could get a loan, at which time he would have enough money to make the needed improvements. Mr. Blasie said his Division did not have knowledge that the City would be able to help Mr. Rahming one way or another because it is a rental property. Mr. Rahming referred to Octavia Sherrod and an offer of assistance but Mr. Blasie said that his Division did not have knowledge of that. According to Mr. Rahming, Octavia Sherrod may be able to lend him some money because he lives in the other half of the duplex. Mr. Lambert asked if the condition of the property and the existence of any health or safety issues would allow tabling the issue for six months. Mr. Blasie replied that the property was dilapidated and needed work but was livable. Mr. George C. Rahming lives on one side of the duplex and rents out the other side. Mr. Blasie shared a punch list of problems pertaining to the property with the Board. Mr. Blasie said that there was an occupational license violation on the property also. Assistant City Attorney Igwe said that he could not get a license until the property had been fixed up. Chairman DeLiso pointed out that it remains to be seen if Mr. Rahming is going to be the owner of the property or not. Chairman DeLiso further said that thirty days was not going to be sufficient to bring the property into compliance and that if a lien were to be put on, it would slow up the process even more. Chairman DeLiso suggested that the issue be tabled for six months since the property is liveable and there are no immediate hazards. 6 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Motion James Miriana moved to table Case 99-704 for six months. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion. After discussion among the Board, Mr. Miriana and Mr. Walsh withdrew their motion. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-704, Bob Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact and conclusion of law, that Charles and Fred Rahming are in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D).1A & 1B;PT3-LDR.Chapter 2. Section 6.D.6, PT3-LDR.Chapter 20, Section-VIII.Sections 2.A, 2.D, and 2E; SBC’91 Edition, Section 1902.2 Inc.; SFPC 603.2, 10-2 B.B.C. of Ordinance, 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Foot moved to order that the Respondents correct the violations on or before August 14, 2000. If the Respondents do not comply with this Order a fine in the amount of $25.00 a day plus administrative costs shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division Branch for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by Mr. Rossi and carried 6-0. Chairman DeLiso asked that an excerpt of this section of the minutes be mailed to Mr. Tomberg. IV. NEW BUSINESS B) CASES TO BE HEARD Case 00-37: Jamie B. Ashley th Property Address: 2740 S.W. 11 Court Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1 Inc. and (E) 2C; Clean and mow lawn, repair all screening Inspector Pete Roy stated the case was originally cited on January 10, 2000 through a neighborhood complaint. Service was by certified mail. th Ms. Jamie B. Ashley, 2740 S.W. 11 Court, Boynton Beach , took the podium, pled no contest, and asked for 10 days to bring the property in compliance. 7 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-37, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law that Jamie B. Ashley is in violation of Code Section Chapter 15-Article IX-15-120 (D) 1,Inc. and (E)2C. of the B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation on or before March 13, 2000. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 00-49: Marie C. & Jean Brizeus th Property Address: 146 S.E. 27 Ct Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D), Inc., B.B.C. of Ordinances; remove all unlicensed vehicles from property; remove all auto parts from property, including tires. Inspector Roy stated the case was originally cited on 1/13/00 through a routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was accomplished by certified mail. th Bethany Francois, 146 S.E. 27 Ct, Boynton Beach , took the podium representing Marie C. Brizeus and pled no contest. The Respondent requested 10 days for compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 00-49, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Marie C. Brizeus and Jean Brizeus are in violation of Code Section Chapter 15, Article IX-15- 120(D) Inc. of the B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violation on or before March 1, 2000. If the Respondents do not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 8 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Case No. 99-2398: Rocio P. & Adolfo Cisneros th Property Address: 331 S.W. 7 Avenue Description: SBC ’97 ED 104.1.1 Building Permit Required and proper inspections for the wood fence, wood structure and garage enclosure Inspector Lewis stated this case was originally cited on September 22, 1999. A building permit is required for the garage enclosure. Mr. Lewis said that the City recommends 120 days for compliance. th Ms. Rocio Cisneros, 331 S.W. 7 Avenue, Boynton Beach took the podium and pled no contest. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2398, Bob Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Rocio P. & Adolfo Cisneros are in violation of Code Sections SBC 1997 Ed, 104.1.1 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Foot moved to order that the Respondents correct the violation on or before June 17, 2000. 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 re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-3017: Ulrich Notrez & G. St.Forte th Property Address: 325 N.E. 16 Avenue Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D).1A; remove, repair and/or register red Ford van, black Isuzupick-up truck, grayFord van. Inspector Melillo stated the property was originally cited on December 16, 1999. The Isuzu pick-up has complied. The violation was recently discovered through a complaint of a neighbor. Service was done by certified mail. th Mr. Ulrich Notrez of 325 N.E. 16 Avenue, Boynton Beach took the podium, pled no contest and asked for 60 days for compliance. He said he was having trouble finding an electric box in order to start his red van. 9 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Chairman DeLiso stated that the Board gives at the most 15 days for moving a vehicle. Sixty days is unreasonable. Mr. Lambert asked if the vehicle were registered and Mr. Notrez replied that it was not. It cannot be registered until it passes inspection and it will have to be in running condition before that is possible. The Board inquired if Mr. Notrez were running a repair shop and he replied that he was not. Chairman DeLiso asked to see some pictures. Mr. Foot asked Mr. Notrez what other vehicles he had for his own transportation. Mr. Notrez responded that he had a company truck and his wife’s car. Chairman DeLiso commented that the case was first cited in December and that it was now February. Mr. Melillo said that Mr. Notrez had asked for more time and it had been granted. Mr. Lambert wondered what would happen if he were not able to get the box and Mr. Notrez responded that he was promised the electrical box in 30 days. Chairman DeLiso recommended that if the Respondent were to be granted 30 days the fine should be steeper than if he were granted 15 days. Mr. Foot said that the Board needed to be aware of the neighbor’s complaint and that he was considering 15 days. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-3017, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, the Ulrich Notrez and G. St. Forte are in violation of Code Section Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D).1A of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Foot moved to Order that the Respondents correct the violation on or before March 2, 2000. If the Respondents do not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $50.00 per day shall be imposed plus administrative costs. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-3027: George & Yvette Williams th Property Address: 110 N.E. 27Avenue Description: SBC 1994 Edition, 104.6.1; Permit #96-2876. Must pass Inspections in order to extend life of this permit. See “Red Tag” dated 12/3/99 and contact W. Erskine, Building Division, 742-6669 to resolve. Inspector Courtney Cain stated that the citation was issued on December 20, 1999. The violation was discovered through a Red Tag from the Building Department. Service was accomplished by certified mail. The City recommends 10 days. 10 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 th George Williams, 110 N.E. 27 Avenue, Boynton Beach , took the podium and stated that the permit was for enclosing the Florida room. Respondent pled no contest and asked for 10 days to comply. He believed that he could get an electrical inspection during that time. Chairman DeLiso reminded Mr. Williams that if he did not comply within the 10 day period he would be fined and Mr. Williams stated that he understood. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-3027, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that George & Yvette Williams are in violation of Code Section SBC 1994 Ed 104.6.1 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violations on or before March 1, 2000. If the Respondents do not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana. . Motion carried 6-0 VI. OLD BUSINESS ALIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS (TABLED . ) th Case No. 99-2009 George & Alma Diamond 181 N.E. 18 Avenue th 1606 N.W. 24 Street Boynton Beach, Fl 33436 Inspector Melillo stated the property was originally cited on August 11, 1999 for violation of the City’s Community Appearance Code. No one appeared at the November 17, 1999 hearing date. A compliance date of December 13, 1999 was set by the Board or $25.00 per day fine. The property has not complied yet. This is a rental property. Mrs. Diamond was at the meeting last month and the Board wanted her to come back this month for an update and pictures. There have been 65 days of non-compliance. Chairman DeLiso asked if any progress had been made and Mr. Melillo replied that lots of progress had been made. She talked to the tenants in front of Mr. Melillo and lay down new grass and sod in the swale and in the yard. The vehicles are on the tow list 11 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 to be towed. Some small miscellaneous items need to be done such as more grass. Mr. Melillo distributed pictures to the Board. Mr. Lambert made a motion to table Case No. 99-2009 for the next meeting. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Mr. Foot wanted to know if the tenants had been evicted or if the numbers of people in the house were down to a manageable number. Ms. Diamond said they have been advised they could only have three people and that if they exceeded that she would begin eviction process. However, there is a vehicle in the yard and Ms. Diamond has advised the tenants that it has to be moved. Ms. Diamond called the City for assistance because the tenants have removed the City’s stickers twice and she asked for it to be towed. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-341: Alpine Seven Company, Inc. 1112 N. Federal Highway Inspector Webb stated the property was originally cited on March 12, 1999 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. At the Code Compliance hearing held on May 19, 1999 Respondent appeared. A compliance date of June 14, 1999 was set by the Board or be fined $25.00 per day. The property came into compliance on February 14, 2000 and there are 243 days of non-compliance. Mr. Lloyd Powell, representing Alpine Seven Company, Inc ., took the podium and thanked the Board for their patience and tolerance. Mr. Powell stated that it took quite a while for the towing process to be accomplished. Mr. Powell asked the Board to consider waiving the administrative costs and fees. Mr. Miriana questioned whether it had really cost the City that much since the inspectors are already on the payroll. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Blasie to respond to this question. Mr. Blasie said that in this case the inspections were not very labor-intensive as it only involved driving by to see if the vehicle wasthere or not. Mr. Lambert commented that the City had done a study on the fees for inspections and that these were the actual numbers the study suggested Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in Case 99-341, Mr. Lambert moved to find as a matter of fact and conclusion of law that the Respondents, Alpine Seven Company, 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 May 19, 1999. Mr. Lambert moved that Respondent failed to comply with this Board’s Order and that this Board will not impose a certified fine or administrative costs. 12 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana. Motion carried with Mr. Foot abstaining. Mr. Foot advised that he would have to abstain from a vote due to a conflict of interest for which he duly submitted Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and other Local Public Officers. VII. OLD BUSINESS B. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS th Case No. 99-2099 Russell J. Case 417 S.E. 20 Ct Inspector Roy stated that this property was first cited on August 24, 1999 for Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) Inc. The Respondent appeared at the November 17, 1999 Compliance Board Hearing and a compliance date of January 17, 2000 was set by the Board or be fined $25.00 per day. The property is not yet in compliance and there are 30 days of non-compliance to date. th Russell Case, 417 S.E. 20 Court, Boynton Beach took the podium and said that he hired somebody to do the work and paid them but they did not do the work. Mr. Case stated that he had been in the hospital so he had not been able to do the work himself. Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Case if he planned to have somebody else fix it and he said that he did. Mr. Case said that the City wanted him to put sod over a concrete driveway and that the grass would not grow there. Chairman DeLiso asked to see pictures which Mr. Roy presented. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2099, 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 Russell Case has violated this Board’s prior order of November 17, 1999 and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day plus administrative costs which shall accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Motioned seconded by Mr. Miriana. Motion carried 6-0. 13 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN DELISO CALLED FOR A RECESS AT 8:12 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. VIII. OLD BUSINESS C. LIEN REDUCTIONS th Case No. 97-4235 Willie & Mamie Knowles 554 N.W. 11 Avenue nd 1491 N.W. 2 Street Boynton Beach, Fl 33435 Mr. Blasie said that the property had first been cited on November 20, 1997 for violation of Code Section 13-16 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, failing to renew his occupational license for a lawn service. On December 27, 1997 Respondent’s case came before the Board and Respondent did not appear. Service for the hearing was obtained by certified mail and it appears that Mr. Knowles’ daughter signed for the certified mail. The Board set a date for compliance of January 19, 1998 or be fined $50.00 per day. Respondent came into compliance on October 29, 1999 although Staff did not realize it at that time. The days of non-compliance were 649 and the total fine is $32,450.00 plus administrative costs. The background is that Mr. Knowles has a history of late renewal of his licenses. He has some health problems and went to occupational licensing and asked them to pull th his name off the records. Although he does not live at 554 N.W. 11 Avenue he still has the mortgage there and the property records of Palm Beach County still indicate that is his home address. Mr. Foot asked if Mr. Blasie knew about the operation of the business during this time and if the business had been dormant. Mr. Blasie did not know. nd Mr. Willie Knowles of 1491 N.W. 2 Street, Boynton Beach took the podium. Mr. Knowles explained that when it came time to renew his business license in 1997 he was ill and asked the Licensing authority to remove his name from the computer as he was unable to work. He spent time in the hospital, spent 90 days recuperating, and then went back in the hospital and it took him 9-1/2 months to catch up on paying bills. He told the licensing authority that he did not know if he would be able to work but that if he were able, to please change his address. When he came to renew the license the licensing authority charged him to change his address and did not say anything about any violations. Mr. Knowles’ wife divorced him and Mr. Knowles signed their house over to her. His wife came back to him to ask for help in getting a loan for the house. When Mr. Knowles applied for the loan the mortgage company advised him of the $32,000.00+ lien the City of Boynton Beach had on the house. About four weeks ago when Mr. Knowles went to Occupational License to ask why he owed $32,000.00, he 14 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 was told that it was because he had not renewed his occupational license. Mr. Knowles told Occupational License that he hadn’t pulled a license because no one was supposed to be working in 1997. Mr. Knowles did not understand why there was a problem. When he came to Occupational License to pull a license in 1998 no one mentioned anything to him. Mr. Knowles maintained that he knew nothing of any lien. Mr. Foot asked Mr. Knowles if he had evidence of a permit for the 10/1/97 to 9/30/98 year or the succeeding year. Mr. Knowles said that he had applied for a license twice since his illness and that he had to pay $40.00 extra for a late application. After considerable discussion Mr. Foot began a motion to table the issue for the next meeting until Mr. Knowles could provide the evidence of the licenses for 1997 and 1998. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Mr. Knowles advised that this would work a hardship on him since his house was in foreclosure and he needed to satisfy the lien before he could get a mortgage. He stated that there were only fifteen days left on the foreclosure. Delaying until the next meeting would result in the loss of his home. Mr. Knowles was asked if he would like to settle on a particular amount in lieu of presenting the licenses and he stated that he did not have the money to do that. He believed he could produce the licenses if he could go to his house and get them. The issue of whether Mr. Knowles had been in business in 1997, 1998 and 1999 could not be determined definitively. Mr. Blasie said that it is the job of Code Enforcement to serve the Respondents and bring their case to the board but that they were unable to make frequent checks of whether a particular business was operative. Mr. Blasie said that he must have been running a business or Code Enforcement would not have sent him a violation notice. Chairman DeLiso said that if Mr. Knowles could provide proof of an occupational license no fine should be assessed. Motion Mr. Foot moved that Case 97-4235 be tabled for 45 minutes so Respondent could obtain and present proof of an occupational license in 1998. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. th Case No. 97-4349 Guy Estella 515 N.E. 20 Avenue th 212 S.W. 10 Avenue Boynton Beach, Fl 33435 Mr. Blasie stated that the property was originally cited November 26, 1997 for violations of the City’s Community Appearance Code. The Respondent did not appear at the 15 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 February 18, 1998 Board hearing and a compliance date of March 16, 1998 or $25.00 per day was set by the Board. The property came into compliance on September 9, 1998 for 176 days of non-compliance and a fine of $4,400.00 plus administrative costs has accrued. Mr. Estella was unable to apply for a lien reduction any sooner. Chairman DeLiso asked for photos which Mr. Blasie supplied. th Guy Estella, 212 S.W. 10 Avenue, Boynton Beach , took the podium. Mr. Estella said that in the past he had some address problems and he attributed his ignorance of this violation notice to those address problems. When he found out this property was in violation he went to the Building Department for help in trying to fix up the property. This process took much longer than he thought. He called Mr. Blasie, got a permit and the fine stopped running. Chairman DeLiso asked if anybody had signed for the notice of violation and Mr. Blasie said no, that service had been to a Post Office box, the mail was returned, and service was then obtained by posting. Mr. Estella said that he had had many instances of failure to get mail but that now he had a regular address. Mr. Foot asked if this had been the first violation of Mr. Estella and Mr. Blasie stated that on this particular property it would be the third violation since 1997. One of the violations was for a vehicle of one of his tenants of which he probably had no knowledge. In response to further questions from the Board Mr. Blasie stated that Mr. Estella had had other violations on other properties. Chairman DeLiso commented that from the pictures the property looked great right now. Mr. Estella said that he had spent $25,000.00 to get the property looking that way. Chairman DeLiso asked him if he were getting ready to sell the property which Respondent replied, Yes. Mr. Blasie explained that he had built on to the house, doubling it in size and that when Mr. Estella got the house it was vacant and in very poor shape. Mr. Estella said that the City took a lot longer than he thought and there was no way he could get a permit. Inspector Melillo offered to comment on the situation. He stated that the property was extremely dilapidated and run down, a real eyesore to the neighborhood. It was finally boarded up. The place had no grass at all, a big hole in the driveway, constant break- ins by neighborhood kids who had parties in it. It looked shabby and was a safety problem with people going into it all the time. When Mr. Estella finally ended up with the property he did fix it up and it looks very nice now. Mr. Foot commented that when the Board gave the property one month to comply or pay $25.00 per day it must have believed the property did not require that much work to be brought into compliance. He said that it probably had not needed $25,000.00 to bring it into compliance. Although 30 days was probably short to cover the painting of the house, the rest of the violations: items in the yard, grass, hole in driveway, could have been handled within that 30 day period. Mr. Foot commented that Mr. Estella had not appeared at the Board’s hearing. Mr. Estella said he did not know anything about 16 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 the hearing. Mr. Estella said that the delay had been due to tenants in the house. When they finally moved out he was able to begin fixing the house up. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 97-4349 and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures as set forth in Sections 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board recommend to the City Commission that the fine instituted in Case 97-4349 of $4,400.00, by virtue of this Board’s order of September 9, 1998, be reduced to the administrative costs of $634.12. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miriana. Chairman DeLiso said that the only service in this case had been by posting and since Mr. Estella was not notified, $634.12 seemed rather steep, especially since he had been coming to this Board representing other people and was never notified on any of those occasions. Chairman DeLiso believed that recovery of the $250.00 lien filing fee should be the only penalty. Motion carried 5-1, Chairman DeLiso dissenting. Case No. 99-1314 Dennis & Joan Kennamer 8562 Lawrence Rd. Mr. Blasie said that this property was originally cited June 8, 1999 for violations of the City’s Community Appearance Code and also Land Development Regulations pertaining to automobile repairs. The case came before the Board August 18, 1999. Respondents did appear and a compliance date was set for October 18, 1999 or be fined $25.00 per day. The property came into compliance January 19, 2000 for 92 days of non-compliance for a fine of $8,900.00 plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie distributed photographs and alluded to several extenuating circumstances in the case. Mr. Foot pointed out that the fine was actually $2300.00 and not $8900.00 as stated. Dennis Kennamer, 8562 Lawrence Road, Boytnon Beach, Florida 33436 , took the podium and presented his case. Mr. Kennamer, a native of Boytnon Beach coming from rural areas with agricultural/residential zoning, said that he had been used to having parts and equipment in the yard. Also, his property had just been re-zoned as residential from agricultural and that his father’s adjoining property had only been made residential recently. Mr. Kennamer went on to explain why he had not brought the property into compliance sooner. Mr. Kennamer’s wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in May of 1998 and in 1999 the Kennamer’s had to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy. His mother was in the final 17 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 stages of breast cancer and Mr. Kennamer had to take off work many times when his wife was unable to care for herself during the day. He lost his job in June due to excessive absence. From June of 1999 until December 23, 1999 when he got a job he was unemployed. His mother-in-law and his mother both passed away within 30 days of each other in August and September of 1999. His father was attacked and received permanent nerve damage to his arm and he is the one who would have helped with the clean-up of the property. In addition, on December 13, 1999 his father’s house on the adjoining property burned down, further slowing the clean-up effort. Mr. Kennamer was being treated for depression and anxiety. Ultimately friends came to the aid of the Kennamers and helped them bring the property into compliance by xeriscaping and removing trash. The $15,000.00 insurance proceeds from his mother’s death were consumed by catching up the mortgage. The $4,000.00 insurance proceeds from his wife’s mother’s death were used to catch up the second mortgage. All of these circumstances led to the Kennamer’s inability to comply with the Board’s Order. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case 99-1314, and having been advised that the Respondents have 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 recommend to the City Commission that the fine instituted in Case 99-1314, by virtue of this Board’s Order of August 18, 1999, be rescinded and that the lien imposed by that Order be released. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana. Motion passed 6-0. th Case No. 97-4235 Willie & Mamie Knowles 554 N.W. 11 Ave. nd (continuation) 1491 N.W. 2 Street Boynton Beach, Fl 33435 nd Mr. Knowles, 1491 N.W. 2 Street, Boytnon Beach , took the podium and announced that he had not pulled an occupational license until 1999. Mr. Foot said that based on the Respondent’s own statements that he did work during the fiscal year October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999, there is a violation that should be recognized and that the Board should reduce the fine to the administative costs of $634.12. Motion 18 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Based on testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-4235, and having been advised that the Respondents have 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 recommend to the City Commission that the fine instituted in Case No. 979-4235, by virtue of this Board’s Order of December 17, 1997 be reduced to $634.12. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Motion carried 6.0. Chairman DeLiso advised Respondent that he had to go before the City Commission for a final ruling on his case. Respondent said that he had to talk to the loan officer tomorrow reference the mortgage and Chairman DeLiso asked Mr. Blasie to give Respondent a letter to give to the loan officer concerning the Board’s recommendation to the City Commission. VI.OLD BUSINESS A. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS (TABLED) Case No. 99-717 Neeck & Venande Simeus 116 W. Ocean Dr. (late arrival) At Chairman DeLiso’s request, the Recording Secretary swore in the witness. Inspector Skip Lewis stated that this property had originally been cited on April 9, 1999 for a permit for remodeling work in his house, Standard Building Code 1994 Edition 104.1.1. A hearing was held on August 18, 1999 and Respondents did appear. At that time a compliance date was set of October 19, 1999 or a fine of $25.00 per day. The property is not yet in compliance for 120 days of non-compliance. The records show the Building Department made comments on the plans that were submitted and the Respondents were called to pick the plans up on November 29, 1999 and as of February 9, 2000 no comments had been picked up. A permit has not been issued. The Board asked why. Mr. Blasie said no permit was issued because the Respondents had not picked up the plans from the Building Department with their comments. Neeck Simeus, 116 W. Ocean Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida took the podium and stated that he had not received any such message to pick up the plans. He recalled that one time he submitted plans to the Building Department and they agreed that the electrical and structural plans were fine. The only other thing they wanted was a set of plans because he said no one would be able to read what we had on the paper and he 19 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 explained he needed plans from an architect. Mr. Simeus has consulted with an architect and she has not yet finished the plans for submission to the City. Chairman DeLiso asked if this were the case where Mr. Simeus put a double door in without a permit and Mr. Simeus concurred. Mr. Blasie believed that there was more to it than that. Chairman DeLiso reiterated that he had taken out a sliding glass door and put in double french doors. Mr. Blasie said there were also walls and windows involved and that this was included in the initial citation. Respondent said that there walls put in on the inside in order to screen a bathroom from view. The double doors are in the back of the property and Mr. Simeus wondered how anyone could go into his yard when the gate was locked and see something like that. Chairman DeLiso asked if he had not been asked to get product approvals from Home Depot and he said yes but it was a back-and-forth thing, constantly. The Building Department released him from that requirement and asked that they be given a set of plans drawn up by an architect that shows what he did. Mr. Simeus said that he did the job to the best of his ability and the Building Department had approved parts of it but wanted the architect’s drawings. Mr. Simeus went to the architect because he wanted to put a two-car garage in the house. Chairman DeLiso reminded the Respondent that he was not here for that issue. He said that he wanted to include the remodeling work in with the plans for the two-car garage because he would only have one fee to the architect. Chairman DeLiso asked him to go to the Building Department on February 17 to pick up the comments and see what needed to be done. Respondent agreed to do this on the following work-day. Mr. Foot asked Respondent that if the Board tabled the case, what length of time would he like the Board to consider. Respondent said that he needed to get the comments from the Building Department and the plans from the architect. He went on to say that the City was asking for a lot of detail and Assistant City Attorney Igwe said that this was not the forum for that issue. Chairman DeLiso recommended tabling the issue to allow Respondent to get the comments and come back with status. Various Board members felt that the Respondent was not really trying to get the situation resolved. Mr. Rossi reminded everyone that the situation dated back to April of 1999. Mr. Foot made a motion to table the issue until March 15. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Motion carried. Chairman DeLiso directed Respondent to pick up the comments from the Building Department because the fine is running. The fine has not been certified yet and all will be taken into consideration when Respondent comes before the Board in March. Chairman DeLiso advised Respondent to tell the architect that a fine was running. 20 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 NEW BUSINESS(continued) A: CASES TO BE HEARD Case No. 99-3054: Robert Huddleston th Property Address: 809 S.E. 4 Street Description: SBC 1994 Edition 104.6.1, 104.7.2 and 105.6 Inspector Lewis stated that the original citation was on December 23, 1999 and brought before the board on February 16, 2000 for work done prior to the issuance of a permit, and no inspections after six months on Permit No. 96-1137. Property owner as recorded in public records of Palm Beach is Robert Huddleston and this was a red tag from the Building Department. City recommends 15 days for compliance. Respondent was not present. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-3054, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Robert Huddleston is in violation of Code Sections Standard Building Code 1994 Edition 104.6.1, 104.7.2 and 105.6 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 1, 2000. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day will be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Bob Foot seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-3069 L.D. Terry Property Address: 170 Ocean Parkway, Boynton Beach Description: Chapter 15-Article IX-15-120(D) Inc., Chapter 13-16 of B.B.C. of Ordinances; install sod in dead areas of yard and swale to achieve a uniform green appearance; and repair driveway apron. Also, an occupational license is required to rent the house. Inspector Luney Guillaime presented Case No. 99-3069. It was originally cited on December 29, 1999. This violation was discovered through a routine inspection of the 21 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 neighborhood. Service was accomplished by certified mail. City recommends 60 days for compliance. Inspector Guillaime stated the property is a rental property. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 99-3069, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that L.D. Terry is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) Inc; and 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before May 15, 2000. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $50.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re- inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Bob Foot seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-2996: Lucille K. Hunter th Property Address: 160 N.W. 14 Avenue Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D)1.D; please install grass in yard and swale where bare spots occur. Inspector Melillo stated that this case had been originally cited on December 15, 1999. It was discovered through a routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was accomplished by certified mail. City recommends 30 days to comply. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2996, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Ms. Lucille K. Hunter is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1.D. Mr. Foot moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation on or before March 13, 2000 or a fine of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re- inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Lambert seconded motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-2998 Derle B & Cecillia Bailey th Property Location: 156 N.W. 14 Avenue 22 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) Inc; please remove, repair and/or register blue Chevy S-10 pickup. Remove all miscellaneous items in carport. Pick up all loose trash and debris in yard and swale. Inspector Melillo said that this property had originally been cited on December 15, 1999. The violation was noticed on a routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was by certified mail. The Chevy S-10 pickup has complied. The City recommends 30 days for compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2998, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Derle B & Cecilia Bailey are in violation of Code Section No. Chapter 15-Article IX-15-120 (D) Inc of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violations on or before March 13, 2000 or a fine of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-3045: Betty Jones th Property Address: 200 N.E. 17 Avenue Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D).1A Remove, repair and/or register your black Nissan pickup truck . Inspector Melillo stated that Ms. Jones had been there earlier but had not stayed. The case was originally cited on December 22, 1999 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. Inspector Melillo explained the case to her and noted that this is her son’s pick-up truck. It has been towed in the past and it came back. She explained to Inspector Melillo tonight that they have a buyer for it and they are going to take it. The violation was discovered by routine inspection of the neighborhood and service was done by certified mail. Ms. Jones agreed that 15 days would be sufficient time. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-3045, Mr. Foot moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Ms. Betty Jones 23 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D).1A of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Foot moved to order that Respondent correct the violation on or before March 2, 2000 or a fine of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re- inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Dave Lambert seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-558: Rev. Nathaniel Sandy, Church of God Universal, Inc. th Property Address: 121 N.W. 8 Avenue Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D)1 Inc; trim trees 10 feet up from ground. Repair fence. Install sod in all areas void of grass, including swale; Part 3, LDR, Chapter 23, Article II.O. Parking lot needs to be re-sealed and re- striped. Inspector Webb said that this case was originally cited March 16, 1999. It was originally discovered through a routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was by certified mail. City recommends 30 days for compliance. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-558, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that the Church of God Universal, Inc., Rev. Nathaniel Sandy, is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1 inc. and Pt 3, LDR, Chapter 23, Article II.O. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 13, 2000 or a fine of $25.00 per day will be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-2799: Timothy & Earlene Ham th Property Address: 524 N.W. 9 Avenue Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1.d & E and Chapter 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances; de-weed yard 24 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 And install sod. Also, an occupational license Is required for rental property. Inspector Webb said that the property had originally been cited on November 17, 1999. Violation was discovered through a routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was by posting. The City recommends 60 days. Mr. Foot asked what the chances were of getting communication with Respondents. Inspector Webb said they lived in Cocoa Beach. Mr. Webb went by today and they have put the irrigation system in so they are moving on it. Mr. Foot asked if there had been any response from the Ham’s and he said no, that he believed the tenant was responding to the notice, probably after calling the owners. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2799, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact and conclusion of law, that Timothy & Earlene Ham are in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1.D & 1.E and 13-16 of B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the th Respondents correct the violations on or before April 17 or a fine of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miriana and carried 6-0. Case No. 99-2919: Mapp Lawton st Property Address: 1407 N.W. 1 Street Inspector Webb stated that this case was being taken off the agenda and referred to Ms. Octavia Sherrod’s office. Case No. 99-1298 First Union c/o Joe Fortunato Property Address: 133 Sausalito Drive Description: SBC 1994 Edition, 104.6.1, Permit #98-3801 did not pass inspection – See copy of red tag dated 5/17/99 and contact W. Erskine – Building Division Inspector Cain stated that the case was first cited on June 22, 1999 and was a red tag from the Building Department. Service was by certified mail. The City recommends 10 days. Chairman DeLiso asked if this were the developer who filed bankruptcy and Inspector Cain affirmed that it was. Mr. Foot asked if the bank were active in completing the 25 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 project and Mr. Cain said no. Mr. Cain further stated that the Code Compliance Division was looking into boarding up four units in the area due to numerous neighborhood complaints. Mr. Foot asked who would act within the ten days. Inspector Cain did not know. Assistant City Attorney Igwe said that since the developer had filed bankruptcy they had been talking to the Homeowners Association to see what could be achieved. There are approximaely eleven units that have not been developed. Mr. Foot questioned whether ten days was a long enough time since no one seemed to be moving on completing the development of the property. Inspector Cain said the bank’s plans were unknown. Inspector Cain spoke to the bank representative, Joe Fortunato, last month about getting the grass mowed and this was done. Mr. Foot asked if there were a safety problem and Inspector Webb said there was not. Mr. Lambert thought a big fine might be in order to encourage action on the part of the bank. Mr. Foot said this was just a paperwork situation relating to a permit, not to the construction issue. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-1298, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that First Union Bank is in violation of SBC 1994 Edition 104.6.1. Mr. Lambert moved to order that Respondent correct the violation on or before March 1, 2000. If Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $100.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-1299: First Union Bank c/o Joe Fortunato Property Address: 134 Sausalito Dr Description: SBC 1994 Edition 104.6.1, permit #98-3800 conditions of permit; see red tag dated 5/17/99 and Contact W. Erskine, Building Division 742- 6669 to resolve. Inspector Cain stated that this was first cited on June 22, 1999. Violation was discovered through a red tag from the Building Department. Service was by certified mail. City recommends 10 days. The Board asked Inspector Cain what the permit was 26 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 for and he replied that it was for no inspection on an air conditioning unit – if not approved, permit would be void. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-1299, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that First Union Bank is in violation of Code Sections SBC 1994 Edition 104.6.1 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violation on or before March 1, 2000. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $100.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 99-2061: Cedonia M. Brown Property Address: 3166 N. Seacrest Blvd. Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D).Inc.; Chapter 10-2, B.B.C. of Ordinances; and Chapter 13-16 B.B.C of Ordinances; please remove all appliances from yard, including vehicle, trash and debris. Install sod in yard. Occupational license needed to rent house. Inspector Cain stated that the property was originally cited on August 23, 1999. The violation was discovered by routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was obtained by posting. The City recommends 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2061, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Cedonia M. Brown is in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) Inc, Chapter 10-2, B.B.C. of Ordinances, and Chapter 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that Respondent correct the violations on or before March 13, 2000 or be fined $25.00 per day. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 27 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Case No. 99-2068: David Nicholls Property Address: 2651 N. Seacrest Blvd. Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D). 1A and Chapter 10-2 B.B.C. of Ordinances; please remove all trash and debris, tires, wood, lawnmowers, awnings; must be picked up. Yard is overgrown and needs to be mowed. Inspector Cain said that the property was originally cited on August 20, 1999. The violation was discovered by routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was obtained by posting. City recommends 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2068, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that David Nicholls is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D) 1A and Chapter 10-2 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 13, 2000. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-2851: Martin Velasquez/Mary Sauceda Property Address: 390 Miner Road Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D). 1A, Section 10- 52 B.B.C. of Ord; Section 10-52. (A) B.B.C. of Ordinances; remove all unregistered vehicles or have them registered. Remove motor from front yard. Fences and items not being used need to be removed. Inspector Cain stated that the case was originally cited on November 24, 1999. Violation was noted during routine inspection of neighborhood. Service was by certified mail and the City recommends 15 days. 28 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2851, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Martin Velasquez and Mary Sauceda are in violation of Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120 (D).1A, Section 10-52 B.B.C. of Ord; Section 10-52(A) B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violations on or before March 1, 2000. If the Respondents do not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-2857 Ralph Eccles Property Address: 260 No. Palm Drive Description: Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D).Inc; Section 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances; please remove vehicles from rear yard or have registered. Remove blocks, appliances. Sod yard wherever dead or bare spots occur. An occupational license is required to rent house. Inspector Cain stated that the property was originally cited on November 24, 1999 through routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was accomplished by certified mail and the City recommends 30 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2857, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Ralph Eccles is in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D).Inc and Section 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 13, 2000 or a fine of $50.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 29 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Case No. 99-2988 Dwayne D. & Jeanyne M. McGee Property Address: 87 Maple Lane Description: Section 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances; every rental Unit used for residential living purposes in the City must be licensed . Inspector Cain stated that the property had originally been cited on December 14, 1999 through a complaint of a neighbor. Service was by certified mail and the City recommended 14 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2988, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Dwayne D. and Jeanyne M. McGee are in violation of Section 13-16 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondents correct the violation on or before March 1, 2000. If Respondents do not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 99-3031 Brad S. Carlton Property Address: 583 Alto Road Description: Section 13-16 B.B.C. of Ordinances; every rental unit used for residential living purposes in the City must be licensed. Inspector Cain stated that the property was originally cited on December 20, 1999 through a routine inspection of the neighborhood. Service was by posting and the City recommended 15 days. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-3031, Mr. Lambert moved that this Board find, as a matter of fact, and as a conclusion of law, that Brad S. Carlton is in violation of Code Section 13-16 of the City Code of Ordinances. Mr. Lambert moved to order that the Respondent correct the violations on or before March 1, 2000. If the Respondent does not comply with this Order, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day shall be imposed. The Respondent is further ordered to contact the City of 30 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Boynton Beach Code Compliance Division to arrange for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS ALIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS (TABLED) . th Case No. 99-2444: 620 N.E. 7 Avenue Job Sylvain & Josette Bouchard 1123 Sea Pines Way, Lantana, Fl 33462 Inspector Webb stated that the property was originally cited on September 28, 1999 for violation of the Community Appearance Code. No one appeared at the Code Compliance Board Hearing on November 17, 1999. The Board set a compliance date of December 13, 1999 or be fined $25.00 a day. The property is not yet in compliance and there have been 65 days of non-compliance to date. Mr. Webb explained that Respondent had called last month and said he was trying to get the well dug for the irrigation system. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2444, 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 Job Sylvain and Josette Bouchard have violated this Board’s prior Order of November 17, 1999, 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. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. B. LIEN PENALTY CERTIFICATIONS Case No. 99-2354 3169 Grove Road Luis Small 8604 Marlamoor Lane West Palm Beach, Fl 33412 31 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Inspector Cain stated that the property had originally been cited on September 21, 1999 for Community Appearance Code and Occupational License requirement. No one appeared at the Code Compliance Board Hearing of December 15, 1999 and a compliance date of January 17, 2000 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. The property complied on February 10, 2000 for 23 days of non-compliance. City recommended no fine. In response to a query from Mr. Foot, Mr. Cain explained that Respondent had been going through the eviction process. He had to wait until the people were out before he could begin work on the property. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-2354, 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 Mr. Small has violated this Board’s prior Order of December 15, 1999 and this Board impose and certify no fine or administrative costs in this case. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 98-3448 Jean E. & Marie J. Losier nd 1533 N.E. 2 Street Boynton Beach, Florida Inspector Melillo stated that the property had originally been cited on September 24, 1998 for violation of the City’s Community Appearance Code. No one appeared at the Code Compliance Board’s hearing on December 15, 1999 and a compliance date was set for January 17, 2000 or be fined $25.00 per day. The property complied on February 7, 2000 for 20 days of non-compliance. The violation was that the driveway needed to be defined or de-weeded and repair or replace wood fence. They installed two brand new concrete driveways and a wooden fence around the property which took quite a while to complete including getting the permits. City recommends no fine. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 98-3448, 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 the Respondents, Jean E. & Marie J. Losier, were in violation of Code Sections Chapter 15, Article IX-15-120(D) Inc., subsequent to the date of compliance specified in this Board’s Order of December 15, 1999. Mr. Foot moved that this Board impose and certify no fine or administrative costs in this case. 32 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Motion was seconded by Mr. Miriana and carried 6-0. Case No. 99-1795 Rolando & Alicia H. Ramos nd 1890 N.E. 2 Lane Boynton Beach, Fl 33435 Inspector Melillo stated that this property was originally cited on July 19, 1999 for Community Appearance Code violations. Respondents appeared at the Code Compliance Board Hearing on December 15, 1999 and a compliance date of January 17, 2000 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. The property is not yet in compliance and there have been 30 days of non-compliance to date. Over three-quarters of the violations have come into compliance and Respondent is busy working on the rest. The City would recommend tabling until next month. Chairman DeLiso suggested that the Respondent be advised to appear before the Board when the property is in compliance. Motion Mr. Lambert moved that Case No. 99-1795 be tabled until the Code Compliance Board Meeting to be held on March 15, 2000. Motion seconded by Mr. Miriana and carried 6-0. Case No. 99-1068 Fontana Plaza, Ltd. 3629 So. Federal Highway Inspector Roy stated that the notice of violation date on this property was May 10, 1999 for Community Appearance Code and Land Development Regulation violations. No one appeared at the Code Compliance Board hearing on October 20, 1999. A compliance date was set for January 17, 2000 or be fined $25.00 per day. The property is not yet in compliance for 30 days to date of non-compliance. Mr. Roy said that the Land Development Regulations, Part 3, Chapter 7, 5-11, Section B has come into compliance this week. City recommends tabling until April meeting. Mr. Roy spoke to Harvey McClintock and he forwarded a letter to Mike Rumpf in Planning and Zoning and is trying to get a Site Plan revision to take the fence down. Motion Mr. Foot moved that Case No. 99-1068 be tabled until the Code Compliance Board Meeting to be held on April 19, 2000. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 33 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 Case No. 99-1888 Lagene Adler & Julme Lionel th 444 S.W. 8 Avenue Boynton Beach, Fl 33435 Inspector Lewis stated that this property was originally cited on July 29, 1999 for violations of the Community Appearance Code. No one attended the Code Compliance Board hearing on December 15, 1999. At that meeting a compliance date of January 17, 2000 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. The property is not in compliance and there are 30 days of non-compliance to date. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in Case No. 99-1888, 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. Lambert moved that this Board find that Lagene Adler and Julme Lionel have violated this Board’s prior Order of December 15, 1999, and this Board impose and certify a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day which shall continue to accrue until the Respondent comes into compliance or until a judgment is entered based upon this certification of fine. Motion was seconded and carried 6-0. th Case No. 99-2110 127 S.E. 14 Avenue Timothy L. Augsback 617 No. M Street Lake Worth, Fl 33460 Inspector Lewis stated that Case No. 99-2110 was first cited on August 24, 1999 for Occupational License Required. No one appeared at the Code Compliance Board Hearing of November 17, 1999. A compliance date of January 17, 2000 was set or be fined $25.00 per day. There is no compliance yet with 30 days of non-compliance. City recommends tabling for 30 days. Mr. Blasie said that they did call to say they needed to do some work on an air conditioner which didn’t pass inspection. They had to remove it. They had air conditioning and some electrical work done with no permits and they needed to clean up the yard. Mr. Blasie tried to do an inspection but no one was there. In previous conversations Mr. Augsback intends to comply but is having trouble with his tenants. Mr. Foot moved that Case No. 99-2110 be tabled until the Code Compliance Board Meeting to be held on March 15, 2000. Motion was seconded by Mr. Walsh. Motion carried 6-0. 34 MEETING MINUTES CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 16, 2000 IX. FORECLOSURES There were no foreclosures. Chairman DeLiso asked for an update from Assistant City Attorney Igwe in reference to Mr. St. Juste’s property . X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ Susan Collins Recording Secretary (four tapes) 35