Loading...
Minutes 12-20-10 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD LIEN REDUCTION MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 20,2010, AT 4 P.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: James Brake Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator Kathleen Carroll Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney Robert Foot Mark Karageorge Kirk LaRock ABSENT: Michele Costantino, Chair Richard Yerzy, Vice Chair Barry Ravel, Alternate I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Foot at 4:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator, provided an overview of the lien reduction procedure, as well as the appeal process. If requested, letters advising of the Board's actions could be provided to a lender, real estate agent or title company requiring immediate information. Any questions with respect to the process could be answered by Mr. Blasie and/or Diane Springer, Code Compliance Coordinator, subsequent to the meeting. Motion Mr. Karageorge moved to accept the agenda as presented to the Board. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion that passed unanimously. II. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES AND INTRODUCTION Attorney Bridgeman explained to the Respondents present that the City's Code of Ordinances required a majority of the Board vote in the same fashion in order for any action to be taken on the lien reduction request. As five members were present, in 1 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 order for a lien reduction request to be approved, at least four members were required to vote in favor of the lien reduction. The Board consisted of seven members, and if all seven had been present, a vote of four in favor of the lien reduction would have been necessary. If a Respondent chose to have his or her item deferred until next month's meeting, he or she could do so by announcing a decision to defer prior to the presentation of the case. Mr. Blasie called the roll to determine the respondents who were present. Case #96-2758 Art Krell 521 NE 2nd St. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case originated on May 29, 1996 for violations to the City's Community Appearance Code involving an overgrown yard, trash and debris. The case had been presented to the Board on August 21, 1996, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and fine had been established by the Board of September 17, 1996, or $25 per day. Staff had documented compliance on February 20, 2007, with 3,807 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie provided older photographs as well as photographs taken this date. He requested the Board disregard a photograph bearing a 1989 date. Mr. Blasie noted three other cases would be brought before the Board involving the property, a duplex rental just north of Boynton Beach Boulevard and NE 2nd Street. In each case, compliance had been documented on February 20, 2007, as that was the date Mr. Krell had approached staff requesting the lien reductions. To date, the condition of the property had improved slightly. In some of the cases dealing with yard violations, water restrictions had not been established. Currently, water restrictions were in place and enforced. Mr. Blasie informed the Board staff had not received any cooperation from Mr. Krell. Art Krell asked for "mercy." He attempted to do whatever was necessary to remedy the issues, and could produce police reports indicating his neighbors had broken into the house. He indicated it had been difficult to take care of the property as he resided in Margate, nearly 40 miles away. In his attempts to cure the violations, Mr. Krell had sodded the property twice and added plants to prevent the neighbors from parking on the property. The tenants would not water the yard or lend any assistance, as they simply "did not care." Mr. Krell acknowledged he never contacted the Code Compliance Officer informing of his attempts to bring the property into compliance. He also acknowledged that he did not have any receipts for the purchase of the sod or plants. Mr. Krell explained at the time he purchased the property in September or October 1989, it had been owned by the Department of Housing and Development (HUD). The property had been vacant for a few years and was in serious disrepair. Thereafter, Mr. 2 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Krell pulled permits and installed a new roof, windows and plumbing at a cost of approximately $10,000. Mr. Krell had purchased the property as an investment and had collected rent "on and off" from 1996 through 2007. Mr. Karageorge expressed concern that the property had been in non-compliance for 11 years, emphasizing Code Compliance had always been consistent in its practice of providing proper notice. As such, Mr. Krell would repeatedly have received notices from Code Compliance via certified mail. Mr. Krell advised the property was being sold, and a closing was anticipated at the end of December. The property was valued at approximately $40,000, and the selling price would be less than the amount originally paid by Mr. Krell. Mr. Krell asserted he could not afford to pay the taxes on the property. Acting Chair Foot pointed out fines of more than $420,000 had accrued against the property. He requested the Board, in recognizing its responsibilities to the community while extending compassion to the Respondent, come up with a motion. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of August 21, 1996 to an amount of $1,000 including admi nistrative costs. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Case #98-1971 Art Krell 521 NE 2nd St. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited May 14, 1998 for violations to the City's Community Appearance Code. The case had been presented to the Board on December 16, 1998, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine were established by the Board of January 19, 1999 or $25 per day. Staff had documented compliance on February 20, 2007, having 2,953 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Acting Chair Foot reiterated the case related to the installation of a driveway, and SArlrli,..,,.., h""..,... """eas in +-he. """..rl anrl <"'.'ale VUUIII':::I UOII;; 01 1..111;; YUI U IIU ;;)VV . Art Krell noted he added gravel to the driveway and posts to prevent neighbors from parking on the lawn. He acknowledged he had not notified the Code Compliance 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Officer of his efforts. He had no record of his actions to install a new driveway, receipts for gravel, tax records or journals of any visits to the property. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of December 16, 1998 to an amount of $826.18, which are the administrative costs. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion. Acting Chair Foot felt if this were a trend, the fine should exceed the administrative costs. The Board could not convey its concern for the community without at least a nominal amount established over and above the administrative costs. Mr. Karageorge pointed out one of the photographs revealed gravel in the driveway. As the sod and swale issues had been addressed in the previous order, he felt the imposition of administrative costs would be sufficient. Mr. Foot reviewed the photographs. The motion passed 4-1 (Acting Chair Foot dissenting). Case #00-1256 Art Krell 521 NE 2nd St. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited May 17, 2000 for not having a Business Tax Receipt for the rental of the property. The case was presented to the Board on December 20, 2000, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine were established by the Board of January 10, 2001, or $25 per day. Staff had documented compliance on February 20, 2007, having 2,231 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Krell contended he had rented the apartment to a Code Compliance Officer who inquired whether Mr. Krell had obtained a Business Tax Receipt. Mr. Krell advised he had not and was told "not to worry about it." He maintained he had the check used to pay the City for the Business Tax Receipt. However, he had received a letter from staff advising the check could not be accepted as a lien had been issued against the nrf'\norty Ac cllrh he Cf'\u1rl nl"\'" compl\l I-la noted the "en'" was hiS Ani" sourr"" r.f tJl Vt--'....., '" . l\oJ oJ\..I'-'1 I, I I V 1\..1 I V\. I Y . II\,... I \.11 m I Ill. 111- VIIIY \..Co;; VI income. 4 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 In response to Mr. Karageorge's inquiry, Mr. Krell advised the premises were currently unoccupied and the last date he had received rent from a tenant was March of this year. Mr. Blasie explained a Business Tax Receipt would not be issued in an instance where liens of any kind existed against the property. No new citations had been issued since 2007, as to do so would be redundant. In order for Mr. Krell to comply, it would be necessary for the City to either accept the check or for the premises to be unoccupied. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Boardis Order of December 20, 2000 to an amount of $1,222.21. Ms Carroll seconded the motion that passed 4-1 (Mr. Brake dissenting). Case #03-89 Art Krell 521 NE 2nd St. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited January 21, 2003 for violations to the City's Community Appearance Code. The case had been presented to the Board on May 21, 2003, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine were established by the Board of June 20, 2003, or $150 per day. Staff had documented compliance on February 20, 2007, for 1,340 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Acting Chair Foot noted the accumulated fine on the property in this case totaled $2011000. The violations included removing wood and poles from swales, installing grass in the yard and swale, removing carpet from the driveway and instaliing rock to define the driveway from the yard. Mr. Krell contended he had removed the carpet and did what he could to cure the violations. The neighbors had parked in the swale areas, and to stop them from doing so, he had added wood and plants, removing the wood after the plants had grown. Mr. Krell acknowledged he had not informed the Code Compliance Officer of his efforts. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction 5 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of May 21, 2003 to an amount of $2,000, including administrative costs. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Case #09-3504 Wells Fargo Bank 714 SW 24th Ave. Mr. Blasie noted no one was present representing the Respondent. Case #08-1940 RobertJ. Mumma 144 SE 28th Ave. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited July 9, 2008 for violations to the City's Community Appearance Code relating to the mowing of the overgrown yard in 2008, The case had been presented to the Board on August 20, 2008, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of August 30, 2008, or $50 per day. Staff documented compliance on October 13, 2008, for 43 days of non- compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie advised the lien reduction involved two cases for the property at 144 SE 28th Avenue. At Mr. Blasie's suggestion, the applicant had submitted a list of expenses for the property. Mr. Blasie commended the improvements to the interior, exterior stucco and new windows. He provided photographs for the Board's review, two of which had been taken this date and others taken during the process evidencing the overgrowth. He recommended the lien reduction be limited to the administrative costs in both cases. Lee Yaffe, 144 SE 28th Ave., noted the property was owned by a corporation, and he was the managing member. He had originally purchased the property as an investment and made repairs to bring the property into compliance. He provided photographs as well. He noted he might be moving into the premises. He assured there was no contract of sale on the house which was vacant, and no tenant would be occupying the premises. After the original property owner passed away, Mr. Yaffe purchased the property from John DiSilvio, who had inherited the house. Mr. Blasie was in possession of a document recorded on September 11, 2009, naming John DiSilvia as the personal representative of the Robert J. Mumma Estate. The document had been recorded after the property cam~ ;,..,to ""~m,..,I:~"",,,,,,,,, II:: III I.,.UIII-IIIOIII.,.\;;. Mr. Yaffe was commended for his efforts. 6 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. Karag6!orge moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of August 20, 2008 to an amount of $730.15, which are the administrative costs. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Case #09-3736 John DiSilvio 144 SE 28th Ave. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. This was the second lien reduction matter relating to the property at 144 SE 28th Avenue owned by John DiSilvio. Mr. Blasie reiterated the personal representative document was recorded on September 11, 2009, as was the deed to Mi. DeSilvio. The case had originally been cited December 2, 2009 for violations to the City's Community Appearance Code which included overgrowth in the yard, trash and debris. The case had been presented to the Board on January 20, 2010 and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of January 30, 2010, or $100 per day. Staff had documented compliance on June 14, 2010, for 134 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Lee Yaffe, 144 S.E. 28th Ave., noted both cases had been pending prior to his taking over the property and appeared similar in nature. He loved the house and made it his mission to bring the property into compliance as soon as possible. His purchase of the property closed at the end of October of 2010. Acting Chair Foot noted fines had accrued totaling $13,400 plus administrative costs. Mr. Yaffe hoped the Board would reduce the fine to administrative costs. He had incurred a number of expenses to bring the property into compiiance and beyond. Acting Chair Foot requested the motion consider the neighborhood was forced to endure the unsightly appearance of the property prior to Mr. Yaffe's purchase. Ms. Carroll added that the prior owner was deceased. Motion ca"'Arl "'.... +-he te...+-i""''''nu .........-1 evidAn"'A ......A..."'nted in l-hA af""'''AmentiAnArl "'''''s''' and U ;:)cu Vill..I ;:)I..IIIIV'IY OIIU I;;II~C 1-'11;;;:)1;;1 III 1.111;; IVII;; IVIII;;U ~o c, 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 fine instituted in the 7 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of January 20, 2010 to an amount of $634.12, which are the administrative costs. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion. Mr. Brake requested the fine be reduced to "just over" the administrative costs. He commended Mr. Yaffe for his efforts, noting the violations were not his fault, but rather that of the previous owner. The Board would be setting the wrong tone by instituting a fine which consisted solely of administrative costs, especially in situations where appearance was involved. He suggested a fine of $800 to $1,000. Mr. Karageorge reiterated that violations run with the land and while Mr. Yaffe made substantial efforts, the neighbors had to deal with the issues for more than 134 days. Ms. Carroll was not willing to amend her motion. The motion failed 2-3 (Acting Chair Foot, Messrs. Brake and Karageorge dissenting). Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. Brake moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of January 20, 2010 to an amount of $900, including administrative costs. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion. Mr. Karageorge would support an $800 fine. The motion for $900 failed 2-3 (Ms. Carroll, Messrs. Karageorge and LaRock dissenting). Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. Brake moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of January 20, 2010 to an amount of $800, including administrative costs. Mr. Karageorge seconded the motion that pass~,.l 4 1 /AA_ r~_-o!.' disse~M~~ \ t::u -.L ('"';:" l.-Oll I IILII I~J' 8 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Case #08- 2494 Deutsche Bank National Trust 203 NE 11th Ave. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited August 28, 2008 for violations to the City's Community Appearance Code requiring the grass to be mowed and bushes trimmed. The case had been presented to the Board on October 15, 2008, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of December 25, 2008, or $100 per day. Staff documented compliance on September 4, 2009, for 313 days of non- compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie noted the matter involved two case files very similar in nature for violations to the vacant property and two buildings situated thereon. He provided photographs taken this date and in February 2010 demonstrating the property was in relatively good condition. Joe Sauter and Monica Yeschek, realtors for Prudential Florida Realty, were present. Mr. Basie recommended a fine of $2,000 or $3,000 on this case and administrative costs on the second. He commended the realtors for maintaining the property. The property had been boarded well, and individuals attempting to pry open the doors had been unsuccessful. Mr. Karageorge noted concerns relating to the second case, as the property had previously been unsecured. Mr. Brake noted the language in the second case called for the property to be kept secured, indicating that while the property had a history of security issues, it had been secured at the time it was cited. Acting Chair Foot noted fines had accumulated against the property in this case in the amount of $31,300. Ms. Yeschek noted the property was in foreclosure and the citations had originally been sent to Deutsche Bank. The investor acquiring the property did so through a quit-claim process in October 2010. The investor had been aware of the violations prior thereto and requested that the property be trimmed and secured. Prudential Florida Realty began the process on the investor's behalf. The property had been purchased for approximately $17,000 and total costs were estimated at $22,000 to secure and trim the property. Comparable homes in the area were selling at approximately $35,000. Mr. Sauter performed weekly inspections on the property which he felt was located in a "dangerous" area. He had been approached by a gang of 12 who yelled at him and aC"L-"'d hi..... \Alh....... he w""s dAinl'"1 in "'hei" houC""" M.. C....'I..."'.. physir....II" """mAlI",rl SOmeOne ;;)l'..1;; 111111 VVI'UI.. U VII 1':::1 III 1..11' ;;)1;;. '"11. "JUUI..I;;I '\..UIIY 1....11 VVI;;U II from the property and boarded the house up. 9 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Ms. Yeschek advised the contract on the house had fallen through as a result of the existing violations, and she did not wish to put the property back on the market until the issues had been resolved. Mr. Sauter noted potential buyers had expressed an interest in the property, but reiterated the realtors desire to resolve the issues with the City. The transaction could proceed upon clearance of the title. Mr. Karageorge had observed improvements made by Habitat for Humanity in the 400 to 500 block of that street. However, the property in question was closer to Seacrest Boulevard, and as such, he believed the sale price on the property would be relatively low. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. LaRock moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of October 15, 2008 to an amount of $1,000 including administrative costs. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Case #09-999 Deutsche Bank National Trust 203 NE 11th Ave. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited April 8, 2009 for violations to the City1s Community Appearance Code and ensuring the property had been secured. The case had been presented to the Board on May 20, 2009, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of May 30, 2009, or $100 per day. Staff documented compliance on September 4, 2009, for 96 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Sauter requested the fine be waived based upon the date the property had been acquired. The property value had declined and it would be difficult to sell the property. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction nl"f"Ironl waC" set fot+h in CocHAn 2 8Ll "'hrAI'gh J-89 of ...h"" 0"'\1 Of Boynton Qo""rh rAde of 1-'" V\...,-\.lUI '-oJ . 1 ~I 111...1'- ~'v, -, ~ 1 VU II L-. 1..'11;.. I..y I II UI;..U\...I .....v Ordinances, Mr. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of May 20, 2009 to an amount of 10 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20; 2010 $1,000 including administrative costs. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Case #09-2107 Anne Russo 206 Meadows Cir. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited June 30, 2009 for violations to the City's Code of Ordinances. A Business Tax Receipt is required for the rental property, which was believed to be a condominium. The case had been presented to the Board on August 19, 2009, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of September 18, 2009, or $100 per day. Staff documented compliance on July 14, 2010, for 298 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie did not provide any photographs. Staff recommended administrative costs as the fine amount. Jared Cohen, of GSIG, the brokerage office for GMAC, provided an affidavit from GMAC which allowed him to appear on its behalf. The Certificate of Title was recorded on September 14th, and the property was acquired through foreclosure on June 28th. The previous owner was responsible for the violations which had been corrected. The City's lien had been recorded after the filing of the lis pendens. Mr. Cohen requested the fine amount be for administrative costs. The rental property was vacant at the time the property was acquired and had been vacant from at least July 1, 2010. There had been a hold on GMAC files as a result of an incorrect foreclosure filing. The hold began shortly after the Certificate of Title was recorded, and as such, Mr. Cohen had not been able to appear at the Code Compliance Board hearing until this meeting. While multiple offers to purchase the property were received, none have yet been accepted. The property had been assigned to Mr. Cohen's office July 1, 2010 and generally, banks did not conduct much research physically on properties prior to foreclosure. As such, Mr. Cohen had no record of the condition of the property. The locks to the property were changed and entered into the master key system on July 1, 2010. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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. LaRock moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Boardls Order of August 19, 2009 to an amount of $1,200 including administrative costs. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 11 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20; 2010 Case #10-311 Bank of America 709 SE 4th Ave. Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited January 29, 2010 for violations to the City's registration ordinance. It was also required the property be secured, the yard mowed, trash and debris be removed and the pool maintained. The case had been presented to the Board on March 17, 2010, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of March 27, 2010, or $200 per day. Staff documented compliance on November 4, 2010, for 221 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie provided photographs for the Board's review. The term, "secure property" shown in the staff report related to the house, and not to the swimming pool. Melanie Huegel, real estate agent with Moyna Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of GMAC Bank, pointed out that while Bank of America had been cited, Bank of America was neither a named defendant nor the plaintiff in the foreclosure action. The lis pendens was filed in July 2009 under Gf\1AC Bank's name. Ms. Huegel did not understand how Bank of America was noticed or Iiened by City staff. The lis pendens, final judgment and Certificate of Title were all in the name of GMAC Bank. GMAC Bank had not received any of the notices from the City, because they were being sent to Bank of America. Bank of America was never the first mortgage holder on the property, evidenced by the lis pendens, Certificate of Title and final judgment rendered July 2010. The lis pendens indicated the defendant was JP Morgan Chase. GMAC Bank was the first mortgage holder as of January 29, 2010. Mr. Blasie reviewed the lis pendens provided and noted Ms. Huegel was correct. The lis pendens was filed under the name of GMAC Residential Funding Corp., and the property was registered under the name of GMAC. Mr. Blasie could not dispute any of Ms. Huegel's assertions. The notices had been sent to Bank of America. At the time, the property owner was the actual owner prior to the foreclosure proceeding. Mr. Blasie reviewed a printout from the Office of Anne Gannon, Tax Collector, for tax year 2009, and it refiected the first mortgage was held by Bank of America. This information was obtained by the Code Officer while reviewing the public records, and staff sent the notices to Bank of America. When asked whether GMAC was properly involved at this time, Attorney Bridgeman responded it was up to staff to make that determination. The statute required the City send the notices to the address shown on the Property Appraiser1s website at the time the violation was issued. The address reflected in the printout was that of Bank of America, in care of Home Focus. Ms. Huegel contended the notice should not have included GMAC Bank until 2010 when GMAC Bank took over the property. She contended there was no mortgagee other than 12 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited June 17, 2010 for lack of a Business Tax Receipt. The case had been presented to the Board on August 18, 2010, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of August 28, 2010, or $100 per day. Staff documented compliance on November 16, 2010, for 70 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Photographs were not provided. Mr. Blasie believed Ms. Balsamello resided in Lake Worth. However, all of the public records reflected she did reside in Boynton Beach. It had been recommended at the last meeting that Ms. Balsamello change her mailing address. However, staff had not been able to verify this had been accomplished. Staff recommended the fine be reduced to the filing fee as Ms. Balsamello had not received any of the notices. Based on conversations with Ms. Balsamello, staff felt the request was appropriate. Additionally, Mr. Blasie felt further research by staff would have revealed a Lake Worth address for the Respondents. The green card had not been returned and the property had been posted. Mr. Blasie did not know whether the premises were occupied at the time of posting. Patricia Paterno, 7807 Marquis Ridge Lane, daughter of Marie Balsamello, noted Ms. Balsamello also resided at 7807 Marquis Ridge Lane, Lake Worth, and no notices had been received at this address. Neither of the Respondents resided at 625 Casa Loma Blvd., and neither was aware of the violation. They had no communication with the tenant, other than the deposit of rent into Ms. Balsamello's account. The Respondents resided in Florida seven months of the year while traveling back and forth from New York. Ms. Balsamello is 82 years of age, is not well, and is cared for by Ms. Paterno. The Respondents purchased the property at 625 Casa Loma Blvd. a few years ago. The mortgage company was aware of the Lake Worth address as mortgage payment statements were sent to that address. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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, Mr. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of August 18, 2010 to an amount of $250, which is the filing cost. Mr. Carroll seconded the motion. Mr. Karageorge requested filing costs as he felt the Code Officer should have been more diligent in his research and felt staff "dropped the ball." 14 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20, 2010 Acting Chair Foot believed the Board was endorsing ignorance of the law. It was the land owners' responsibility to know that a Business Tax Receipt is required, and the Respondents should also be maintaining an address that is usable. He felt the fine should be higher than $250. Mr. Brake preferred administrative costs of $634.12 for the fine, as this would not result in costs to the City. He appreciated the situation, but did not believe the problem was solely the fault of City staff. When the Respondents relocated, the address should have been added to the Palm Beach County records. The motion failed 3-2 (Acting Chair Foot and Mr. Brake dissenting). Attorney Bridgeman noted in order for the motion to pass, four votes, either for or against the motion, were required. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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, Mr. Karageorge moved that this Board reduce the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of August 18, 2010 to an amount of $634.12. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that passed 4-1 (Ms. Carroll dissenting). Case #10-1231 William M. and 2870 NE 4th St. Sharon A. Ganoe Mr. Blasie presented the case and set forth the details of the violations. The case had originally been cited April 22, 2010 for violations to the Cityls Community Appearance Code. The case had been presented to the Board on June 16, 2010, and no one had appeared. A compliance date and proposed fine was established by the Board of June 26, 2010, or $200 per day. Staff documented compliance on November 23, 2010 for 149 days of non-compliance, plus administrative costs. Mr. Blasie proVided photographs for the Board's review. Kathryn Edgeworth, 1200 S. Federal Highway, #307, of Nautica Realty was present. Nautica Realty represented the Bank that currently owned the property through foreclosure. The previous servicers were Lehman Brothers. Administrative fees were requested. Nautica Realty received the assignment from Fannie Mae on September 20th and the property was under contract to sell. The original closing date was December 4th, but was extended because of the liens on the property. It was hoped the closing would occur by the end of the month. Upon acquiring the property, Nautica Realty was 15 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, Florida December 20; 2010 Mr. Karageorge noted he was on a list of candidates being considered for the CRA Board, and the matter was before the City Commission. He inquired whether he should recuse himself from the case. Attorney Bridgeman responded Mr. Karageorge should recuse himself in any situation where his vote would inure to his personal pecuniary benefit or gain or the pecuniary benefit or gain of a family member. However, the decision would be his. Mr. Karageorge acknowledged that while he would receive no benefit or personal gain, he did not wish to be associated with any conflict or perceived conflict. As such, he recused himself and stepped down from the dais. Mr. Brake disclosed on the record that his wife performed small business analyzing for the CRA's grant program, although it had nothing to do with the Heart of Boynton (HOB), the building or the vacant land. As such he would not step down. Mr. Blasie noted staff recommended the elimination of fees for this case. Motion Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, 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 rescind the fine instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of April 21, 1999 to zero. Mr. LaRock seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Mr. Blasie advised he had received notification from the City Clerk's Office pertaining to the Code of Ethics training, which is mandatory for all City staff, boards and elected officials. The two optional meeting dates for the training sessions are Thursday, January 13th and Wednesday, January 26th, both at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Blasie urged the Board members to contact the City Clerk's Office to reserve the dates for the training. Adjournment: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Stephanie D. Kahn Recording Secretary 1/4/11 17 ._---~--~----------- MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR I FORM 8B I COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ':~ ,NAME-,-FI,RST NAME-.MIDDLE ~AME i. } . fi. NAn:~~ BfARD' CA'JNCIL: COM ISSlr'1~fITY, OR COMMITIEE \ elt \ (tl C~~rC i q{ ~.. _ I I .r t . ~. . \. (C I , ~ . \ v "'" \, t..J(. . . . THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON ; MAI,~~N? ;A9PRt '. ) . . WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: "jl! If lii i ,',I , f ,-,...- '-' '. . ~ITY Q COUNTY ! CIID' ,COuINTY // ("-1 \ He \ l',k'LV.l,._ \. f: I NAME ~~ ~9LI:ly~S. 9'1ISION' : DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED ---~- " \,- " )( 'i\. MY POSITION IS: APPOINTIVE .-.-------- -----_.~_._-,---- WHO MUST FILE FORM 8S. This form is for use by any person sirving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112,3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. --------_.~-------- -~-- ----.-----. -~ ______n__ .______.___ -~-~_.__.._._--_.._---- ---------------.------ INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which 'Ires to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- e which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163357. F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister. father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . + + I ELECTED OFFICERS: I In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: F'RIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . . . + + APPOINTED OFFICERS: I '"It hough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you ;lust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made ,y you or at your direction. ,t) !NTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE \u must con".iele 2~1d f!!e \:'::0 ,,;r,,", (before maKing any attempt to influence the deciSion) with the person responsible for recording the IInulos of the meeting. who will incorporate the form in the minutes [Continued on other side) ----- .- 'f,M ~t(H}; r~AGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTERES1 I, f1-~~ ~~~ ~. <rebY disclose that on De ~- , 'z.-o ,20 /u: (a) A measur~ or will come before my agency which (check one) - inured to my special private gain or loss; - inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate. , - inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, . - inured 10 the special gain or loss of ' by whom I am retained; or -- inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ;JO f/l/~ c:5,rL c-=''?' ~ ~ )#?~- #C-{)~~/J Z/?J&:' ~ IJA /--/v4 ;;; d A,/?..lj ; /~= ~~. Date iled Signat~ ---- NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE" PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. ---.J CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 2 • • FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR. COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAMFI ST NAME2-MIDDLErME (Mc NAME OF WARD,C UNCIL,COMMITNI,NORITY,OR COMMITTEE NO)UNL (3-01( THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMAION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON MAILING /Lt 81kx' WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: C1)6Y 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CI &ad/ 1 isocr NAME ON POLITICAL W6311%1 n_k_or) isuit DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: D ELECTIVE 4 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B. This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112,3143,Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. • INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting-on a measure which --,Jres to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- e which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal(other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S„and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vole basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative"includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife,brother, sister,father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: ' PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the Measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. ' . APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE .N: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) DE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 • APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: - You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. .DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S,INTEREST `hereby disclose that on 1�� ' 0 ,20 (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or • inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. • (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: • xfo z,/‹4- • • • Date iled Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA-STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM.OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION.IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM BB-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 •