11-241 - Safety Solutions 3457 High Ridge Rd��^�~ Department
�n���V�N�
"u CFA Accredited Law Enforcement Agency"
/ooE. Boynton Beach owoem,ru
pn. Box s/o
Boynton Beach, rsriuooa425-o31n
p*vne:po//n*r'o/oo
Fax: /5a1/7vz'o1oo
G. Matthew Immler, Chief of Police
Code Compliance
Phone: (561) 742-6120
suz: (561) 742-6383
Date.
To:
From
RE:
November 2.2O12
City Commission
Code Compliance Division
Code Compliance Case #11-241
|O accordance with Ordinance number O01-O7.the enclosed "Final Lien Modification Order" i8
hereby forwarded iD you for review. As required by Ordinance number O0Y-O7, the follow
procedures are to be followed:
o A City Commissioner has seven (7) days from the rendition of the Order to request the
City Manager's Office to place the case ona City Commission Agenda for review.
(Space provided below for transmittal purposes)
Li Said review must occur within thirty (30) days of the request for review.
u Upon such review, the City Commission may take one of the following actions:
a. Uphold the Code Compliance Board's recommendation in full.
b. Over-rule the Board's decision in full,
c. Modify the Board's Final Order.
D The City Commission shall &8nt staff to take action consistent with their review ofthe
~Lien Modification Order".
[
Office to place the above
Signed on this date, the
, hereby request the City Manager's
referenced case on the next available City Commission Agenda for
day of
.2O11.
Ameiiccz's Gatewuy to the8ulfstrenrn
NflkiUTES OF THE (_'ODE COI'VIPIIJ; LtEN REDUCTION MEETING HELD ON
U10 0CTCjBE_-f:1 '15,2012, AT 6.30 P1M,, IN COMRAISSION CHAMBERS
CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
P R E S"E_ N T :
Michelc Costantino, Chair
Rooerf Foot, First Vice Chair
Gary Cole, Second Vice Chair
Robert Bucella
Rose Marie Yerzy
Alan Borrelli, Alt
A 6 S E't \I
Kathleen Carroll
Cali to Order
Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney
Diane Springer, Code Compliance Coordinator
Chair Costantino called the meeting to order at 6: p.m.
Approval of Agenda
Ni o d ci n
Nilr Cole rr'.oved to approve the agenda. Mr. Bucella seconded the motion that
Linan[MOUSly passed.
ifl. Sv,�e�,amng in of 'Witnesses
Attorney Bridgemari explained the hearing procedures and administered an oath to all
those intending to testify
Sfaty Solutions 3457 High Ridge R oad
Case iNo, 1 a
1-241 a
Nis, Springer rioted the next two cases dealt with the same property. The notice of
viclation was issued on Febtuai y 2, 201 It carne before the Board or) March 16, 201
and no one appeared The proposed compliance date was March 31, 201 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, 201 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, Ni'Is. Springer advised she received an email from the Building
Department that the property was in compliance. It appeared there were some issues
Cc,de i - iero kedj4ct�on
P 0 f)
D 0 Yin t Be'ach" FL October '15, 20•2
with the Engineer and soave of U e contractors used, which was one of the reasons it
took so long to comply.
Michael :Renner, 4672 Bucida Road, Boynton Beach advised he was the owner of the
p 1 c) p e ri 'y at 'J- acid 3459 High Ridge Road. He advised when they moved in, they
installed O racks and wary: 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 engine and stated that sprinklers would have to be installed in
each of the rocks. The initial contractor was hired, which was Stearns, and they applied
for the pel 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
spril'11,;ers. It toc'k %� :seat (Jeal of time bec�-use when the building was built, the sprinkler
flow for th enliiU bc :,Ideng vjas rnislabeled and misrepresented by the original contractor
,and that was a big delay. As a result, the entire building had to be reinspected to
ensure i;ie actual flow (','C)_ild handle the modification, in the end, the engineers
cjetermin that the flow could be handled by the sprinklers and both buildings were
done NI fire inspections and taxes had been paid every year and it was never
questioned All of a sL.ddc,n there was an issue with the sprinklers.
Chair Costantino ir why the Respondent did not ask for extensions and he replied
they did ask for extensions and n fact, the same day the Code Board met they were
grarited trio extension, but siric(., it d�!as for one building and not the other, it appeared as
if no One snovr_'d L;P.
W Foot F�fq on he deialls of the case since both cases were related
to ih- carne unit. Chair Costantino queried the Respondent as to how Much of a lien
i ec;uc[ion he v-,iantca and t ie advised he felt a dismissal was warranted as the effort they
put is was beyond what ',vas 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 20 that fie needed permits and sprinklers installed due to change in the
Ofdifla'nce'
Accoiuinq To N Splirigej: : P - j 2007 V-P-rc was an application made for a permit, it was
Issued and jieli vo;1cj,, b or time limitations and reissued in 2011 and given an
extensors. She r_;vievved the deltal!s,
Mr. Rein cornm-rited that !ie Dellc,ves 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 lVir. Foot opined there was enough information available to proceed
I
Mueting Minutes
Cod& Lien Reduction
Boyriton Beach, FL October 16, 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.
Sprii - I J. , i FAdded thai lie pG17r �,,lculd not have been extended or reissued if the 2007
ISSUU 'V/2�`:,' iqnofed '_-*,0)1nel[h1r.g ITIUSt ha beer. done during the course of that firrie for
therm to gu back and miss =u a ne e^ p and when they reapplied to address it. Then
th(, SeWi pvrrr,it exI)ired dL1-_ to t!rne (imitations when they sent the red tag.
S I � I , ,d
taven Lav 3 SE 2 Avenue Deerfield Beach stated he was an employee of Mr.
Reimer, Fie explained that in 2011, he was given the file that had the inspections
needed and � told to secur,: thy; racks. A consultant was hired, LTL Associates, who
applied for all the per nits, scheduled all the work, completed the work with the racks as
told, secured the racks to i the prints were laid out, and called for the inspection. A
cfii! r,3rit f:kc kl,�Pectcj caanc-, Ja,ire LeJeune, who inspected the sprinkler system and
w :IJOL:Id viol i�.,�Ipicve it Fie inj'c&-,ed tale flov. of - .,!atervvoLild not suppoit the racks. At the
time, h_� advised they were aSKed to present a letter saying the sprinklers met the
reciuiremenls for the racks, and once again, it was rejected. At that time, all the fire
sprink ers were replaced along with all the piping. It took six to eight months to
complete, Access was necessary through another tenants building to accomplish this.
Nii _a;,vler indicated he f,c, [f) Melissa Dyer and someone else in the Building
De ir, ad0i[ici!, h- ir ii spoke to approximately four or five different
inspectors, Pie inspector t1hat perfoi the final inspection apologized personally for
all the corifusior that Ji.CLIUJC� %.vith the mc buildings since February 201 and advised
tinnv " (_ 11t J',/li Lawler floicated he came to the City on ;3everal
occ:Siji)3 c AtC`m Xlr_ i.0 L!� Cl -.,iiluc!iion n:.solved- Each tiriiw, he was given another
iii trt.:ciicn to uompk
-;,,(; to .,)(, avat. Fhe first meeting with Code Enforcen occurred
when awe "rie! Niu, Spiingei to yet the application completed for appearance before
tht. Board. I'Jir Law'lGr 'Urfl1ei[ ihJ; cited that any certified letters sent were received
after di had passed ca[id the contractor also stated no letters were ever received by
h in I Ar� stca,,ed thai he fl, We- assurances of LTL that it was being handled.
Motion
Br-_,sod On testiniotiy wid t,, LJenc& presented in ihy, aforementioned case and having
bl-uf cidviscci asst lh 1 :Jrt lclii, Sa[e[y Solutions, has complied with all lien
re%jLjuucn pro_ set iujlh iii Sectton 2-8z, through 2-89 of the City of Boynton
Be; clh Cold.- oa Ordi:i2riues, liv,r. EiLicciia, moved that this Board reduce the fines
insti in the afoiementicii-;d clsa by virtue: of this Board's Order of March 16, 2011
to aii amount of $1,634.12, including administrative costs. Mr. Cole seconded the
wotien� Fhe - fsodofl ".)assed 5-1 Costantino dissenfii
Mi Reimer ir,quired v hat 1 snoulc31 do about the second property. Chair Costanfino
indicated untll the case 'Nas i)rought before the Board, nothing could be handled at thin
tirrie N!,s Springer advised n,ni u.. coniact her Lind she would discuss it With hie'!
3
CODE. COMPLIANCE BOARD
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Petitioner,
vs.
SAFETY SOLUTIONS
Respondent(s),
CASE NO. 11-241
LIEN 'MODIFICATION ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the City of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Board on the Respondent's application for
lien reduction on October 15, 2012,, purstiant to Chapter t`. , o, Article five of the City Code of Ordinances. The Board having
considered the application, all the facts regarding the specific code or codes the appealing party was in violation of, the date
of the original board hearing, the date the affidavit of compliance was issued, the current lien amount and all pertinent
information relating to the specific case and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
I . This Board has subject matterjurisdiction of this cause and jurisdiction over the Respondent,
2. The Respondent has met all the lien reduction procedures established by the City Code of Ordinances.
3. The lien imposed by the Board on March 16, 2011 on the Property located at 3457 High Ride Rd., Boynton
Beach, Florida, with the legal description of:
HIGH RIDGE COMMERCE CENTER 2 CONDOMINIUM BLDG, UNIT 42 -16, according to the plat thereof as recorded
in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida,
PC'N: 011- 43- 45- 17 -13 -002 -0160 is REDUCED TO $1,534.12.
The City shall prepare a release and satisfaction consistent with this Order.
The release and satisfaction shall be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County at the Respondent's
expense.
6. This Order is not final until the time period for appeal under the Code has elapsed and if appealed is properly
disposed by the City Commission,
7. In the event that the property owner does not comply with the Code Compliance Board order, as approved or
modified by the City Commission, within ninety (90) days of Commission's action, the Lien Reduction Order shall be of no
further force or effect. and the original lien shall remain on the property. No extensions of the ninety (90) day period shall be
permitted, and no further action by the Code Compliance Board or the City Commission shall be permitted regarding lien
reduction,
DONE AND ORDERED after hearing at City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this day of
, 2011
�—�CekaL &��
Michele Costantino, Chairperson
CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD
ATTEST:
Y� - kx�
C Y CLERl
ccat�irs fiumisl�ed:
abTt;�yor and the City Commission
Arne
Clerk
ondent
u a >` i