Loading...
Minutes 10-15-12 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE LIEN REDUCTION MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2012, AT 6 :30 P.M., IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Michele Costantino, Chair Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney Robert Foot, First Vice Chair Diane Springer, Code Compliance Coordinator Gary Cole, Second Vice Chair Robert Bucella Rose Marie Yerzy Alan Borrelli, At ABSENT: Kathleen Carroll I. CaII to Order Chair Costantino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda Motion Mr. Cole moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Bucella seconded the motion that unanimously passed. III. Swearing in of Witnesses Attorney Bridgeman explained the hearing procedures and administered an oath to all those intending to testify. Case No. 11 -241 Safety Solutions 3457 High Ridge Road Ms. Springer noted the next two cases dealt with the same property. The notice of violation was issued on February 2, 2011. It came before the Board on March 16, 2011 and no one appeared The proposed compliance date was March 31, 2011 or $100 per day. Compliance date was on September 20, 2012, for 538 days of non - compliance. She advised this case was initiated through the Building Department as a red tag issued on January 10, 2011. In 2007, there was a permit applied for to install racks and the permit expired. It was reissued on August 9, 2011 and expired again. The Respondents reapplied and an extension was granted by the Building Department. On September 19, 2012, Ms. Springer advised she received an email from the Building Department that the property was in compliance. It appeared there were some issues Meeting Minutes Code Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, FL October 15, 2012 with the Engineer and some of the contractors used, which was one of the reasons it took so long to comply. Michael Reimer, 4672 Bucida Road, Boynton Beach advised he was the owner of the property at 3457 and 3459 High Ridge Road. He advised when they moved in, they installed the racks and were inspected by the Fire Department and Code Enforcement They paid each year to receive their inspections for the last four years. The City hired a new fire protection engineer and stated that spnnklers would have to be installed in each of the racks. The initial contractor was hired, which was Stearns, and they applied for the permit. Stearns went out of business and left the Respondent hanging. Another contractor /engineer was hired, who was working with the City as far as the inspection and other requirements. In the end, both properties were completed and went beyond what was required. The racks were engineered, installed, bolted down, secured together and a sprinkler contractor was hired to perform all the work and install the sprinklers It took a great deal of time because when the building was built, the sprinkler flow for the entire building was mislabeled and misrepresented by the original contractor and that was a big delay. As a result, the entire building had to be reinspected to ensure the actual flow could handle the modification. In the end, the engineers determined that the flow could be handled by the sprinklers and both buildings were done. All fire inspections and taxes had been paid every year and it was never questioned. All of a sudden there was an issue with the sprinklers Chair Costantino inquired why the Respondent did not ask for extensions and he replied they did ask for extensions and in fact, the same day the Code Board met they were granted the extension, but since it was for one building and not the other, it appeared as if no one showed up. Mr. Foot requested clarification on the details of the case since both cases were related to the same unit. Chair Costantino queried the Respondent as to how much of a lien reduction he wanted and he advised he felt a dismissal was warranted as the effort they put in was beyond what was required. He could have removed the rack but instead wanted to ensure all problems were taken care of. There was continued discussion on the chain of events and what led up to the red tag and subsequent violations. The bottom line was the Respondent moved in and installed the racks in 2007 and was not notified until 2011 that he needed permits and sprinklers installed due to change in the Ordinance. According to Ms. Springer, in 2007 there was an application made for a permit, it was issued and then voided because of time limitations and reissued in 2011 and given an extension. She reviewed the details. Mr. Reimer commented that he believes part of the confusion was that he had two units. There are permits for both, but only one unit was under question. Chair Costantino suggested tabling the case in an attempt to contact the building officials and query them on the situation. Mr. Foot opined there was enough information available to proceed 2 Meeting Minutes Code Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, FL October 15, 2012 with the case. Vice Chair Cole opined that although he could see Mr. Foot's point, he felt the Respondent may have been caught in a "Catch 22" situation and he wanted to be sure the situation handled was the situation brought to the Board on this date. Ms. Springer added that the permit would not have been extended or reissued if the 2007 issue was ignored. Something must have been done during the course of that time for them to go back and reissue a new permit and when they reapplied to address it. Then the second permit expired due to time limitations when they sent the red tag. Steven Lawler, 310 SE 2 Avenue, Deerfield Beach stated he was an employee of Mr. Reimer. He explained that in 2011, he was given the file that had the inspections needed and was told to secure the racks. A consultant was hired, LTL Associates, who applied for all the permits, scheduled all the work, completed the work with the racks as told, secured the racks to how the prints were laid out, and called for the inspection. A different fire inspector came, Jake LeJeune, who inspected the sprinkler system and would not approve it. He indicated the flow of water would not support the racks. At the time, he advised they were asked to present a letter saying the sprinklers met the requirements for the racks, and once again, it was rejected. At that time, all the fire sprinklers were replaced along with all the piping. It took six to eight months to complete. Access was necessary through another tenant's building to accomplish this. Mr. Lawler indicated he spoke to Melissa Dyer and someone else in the Building Department. In addition, he indicated he spoke to approximately four or five different inspectors. The inspector that performed the final inspection apologized personally for all the confusion that occurred with the two buildings since February 2011 and advised they were caught in a shuffle. Mr. Lawler indicated he came to the City on several occasions attempting to get the situation resolved. Each time, he was given another instruction to complete to no avail. The first meeting with Code Enforcement occurred when he met with Ms. Springer to get the application completed for appearance before the Board. Mr. Lawler further indicated that any certified letters sent were received after dates had passed and the contractor also stated no letters were ever received by him. Mr. Lawler stated that he had the assurances of LTL that it was being handled. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case and having been advised that the Respondent, Safety Solutions, 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. Bucella moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of March 16, 2011 to an amount of $1,634.12, including administrative costs. Mr. Cole seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -1 (Chair Costantino dissenting). Mr. Reimer inquired what he should do about the second property. Chair Costantino indicated until the case was brought before the Board, nothing could be handled at this time. Ms. Springer advised him to contact her and she would discuss it with him 3 Meeting Minutes Code Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, FL October 15, 2012 Case No. 11 -201 Safety Solutions 3457 High Ridge Road Ms. Springer presented the details of the case. The notice of violation was issued on January 31, 2011. It came before the Board on March 16, 2011 and no one appeared. The proposed compliance date was March 26, 2011 or $100 per day. Compliance date was on October 4, 2012, for 557 days of non - compliance. She explained the case hinged on the prior case. In reviewing the records, Safety Solutions had a Business Tax Receipt. In 2011, they were not issued one based on the fact that the outstanding permit was not addressed. This case could not comply until after the first case complied. Once it became final on September 20 they applied for and passed the inspection for the Business Tax Receipt. Michael Reimer, 4672 Bucida Road, Boynton Beach advised he had nothing further to add. Mr. Foot requested confirmation from Ms. Springer that they applied for a Business Tax Receipt in 2007. Ms. Springer indicated the first evidence of a Business Tax Receipt was 2008 and they had one until 2011, which was denied because of the permit issue. Mr. Bucella noted that due to the first case, Mr. Reimer was not allowed to have a Business Tax Receipt, but he was being charged for not having one even though it was the City who was not allowing it. He could not understand how he could be fined for something he was not allowed to have. There was a brief discussion on the responsibility issue. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case and having been advised that the Respondent, Safety Solutions, 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. Cole moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of March 16, 2011 to an amount of $634.12, including administrative costs. Mr. Foot seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment Motion Ms. Yerzy moved to adjourn. Mr. Cole seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m. eeef_L.- Ellie Caruso Recording Secretary 4