Loading...
Minutes 11-05-18 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2018, AT 3 •, INTRACOASTAL PARK CLUB HOUSE, 2240 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Sanford Guritzky Shane Kiftendorf, Building Official Andrew Podray John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official Paul Bortz James Cherof, City Attorney Timothy Hunt Daniel Berger A. LLT ORDER- The Minutes Clerk called the Roll. A quorum was present. Attorney Cherof explained there was one appeal. He administered an oath to all those intending to testify. B. CHAIRPERSON - C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS D. NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Maximo Arvelo Reference: 3150 Orange Street, Boynton Beach, FL Explanation: Applicant is appealing a demolition order issued as allowed by Section 116.4, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 6th Edition of the 2017 Florida Building Code. The applicant is requesting a stay of the demolition order and additional time to conduct the work stipulated by the Notice of Unsafe Building dated 05/01/2018. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 5, 2018 Maximo Arvelo advised he bought the subject property in September of this year unaware of the demolition order. Out of the blue, he went to the Building Department to find out about the property and learned of the order. Consequently, he took action to appeal the demolition order to the Board. His plans for the property were to rehab the home. He hired an architect and contractors. He is set up and waiting for the authorization to begin work to improve the property. Chair Guritzky understood the property was supposed to be condemned and he is requesting to remove the process. Mr. Kuntzman advised the property was posted and Mr. Arvelo came in and informed him he purchased the property without knowledge of the demolition order. Mr. Kuntzman suggested Mr. Arvelo provide a timeline, which he did. He was requesting 11 months to rehabilitate the property. There were a few items in his letter he requested Mr. Arvelo address with his contractor. He has a mechanical and plumbing contractor who are Certified General Contractors, but they need to be licensed under the trade they would perform the work on, unless the General Contractor is also a plumbing/mechanical contractor. Mr. Kuntzman noted Mr. Arvelo requested 11 months, but he requested 30 days for the plumbing, mechanical, electrical and interior work. The City was requesting six months (180) days to complete the project as opposed to Mr. Arvelo's request. Mr. Berger noted the same thing. The plumbing work will be done and then the electrical and all the rest. The work is stacked in a linear fashion adding up to 11 months. He asked if there was any reason why he could not complete the work sooner, and also if the duration given was through to Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Kuntzman responded it was through final inspection. Mr. Arvelo explained he was trying to be safe. All in construction know that the work could be done faster, but there are many things that can delay construction. He has already worked with his crew and he knows they will be there. He knew he had to see the City to repair the building that was damaged and vacant for a long time. He told his architect to visit the site, start the plans, bring them to the City for revisions, wait for them to review what is wrong and how to fix it, obtain the permit and be ready to start working. He thought the permit would take a few weeks or a month. He will proceed when able, but they have to take things step-by step. He did not want to request a shorter time and have to return to ask for an extension. He was comfortable he could complete the work within the time line and wanted to work with whatever the Board decides. He felt if the Board granted the request, they would be doing him a favor, but he would accept the Board decision. He wanted to be clear, he was not playing games and he did not want delays. He is ready to start working tomorrow, but things take time and the issue was out of his hands. Mr. Arvelo explained he purchased the home in September and attempted to clean the site forthe neighbors. His team has removed trash and debris on the site, and addressed the vegetation. He was contacted by Code Compliance and the Officer inspected the property. He had to wait for the permit to begin work on the interior. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 5, 2018 Mr. Berger asked if Mr. Arvelo had any experience rehabbing homes and learned he did. He buys houses to keep as rentals. Sometimes he sells one or two when he needs money to acquire more properties. Currently, he owns 10 properties; two in Margate, six in Riviera Beach, two in Lake Worth. This is his first in Boynton Beach. He has worked with his contractors before. Mr. Hunt noted the contractor is listed as a Certified General Contractor, but the Department of Business and Professional Regulation lists them as Certified Air Conditioning and Certified Mechanical contractors. Mr. Kuntzman explained it needed to be corrected. The pictures given to the Board were taken when the property was posted in January 2018. Mr. Hunt asked if Mr. Kuntzman could verify, since Mr. Arvelo owned the property, if the property was posted as set for demo or if the signs were blown away. Mr. Kuntzman explained he had not been to the property since it was posted. He visited the property a total of three times in a three-month period, all at the beginning of this year and the end of last year. He noted there was an issue with a squatter living in the property and he was there when he posted the property the second time, but he did not see him there the third time. Chair Guritzy inquired if Mr. Kuntzman was aware Mr. Arvelo cleaned up the property or if anyone from the City verified the property was cleaned up. Mr. Kuntzman could not confirm, but knew Code Compliance visited the premises in the last week or so and they were just conducting follow-up inspections. Mr. Hunt pointed out the letter said Mr. Arvelo was unaware of the demolition or code violations, but he satisfied the liens. He asked if those would be from this case being it was a Code Compliance case. Mr. Kuntzman commented Code Compiance is a different department. Although they work hand-in-hand to improve properties, the Building Department is not involved with fines, liens, or lien reductions. Mr. Berger inquired how much Mr. Arvelo paid out of pocket to address the liens and outstanding debt. Mr. Arvelo explained he purchased the property through a lawyer. Before he purchased the property, he paid delinquent taxes and some utility fees. They had an agreement to leave some money in escrow, because they understood there would be some issues with Code Compliance that had to be mitigated. He estimated the escrow would cover them. Mr. Arvelo explained he has not paid anything to the City. The guy he bought the property from paid the taxes and utilities. Mr. Hunt asked what the City would make Mr. Arvelo remove; if he would have to take the interior down to the shell and if the trusses were fine. Mr. Kuntzman explained a design professional had to conduct an analysis of what could and could not be saved. The addition in the back of the home had an open hole which was probably the worst part. The addition was an existing remodel based on a 2000 permit. There was also a garage addition in the front of the property. Mr. Kuntzman explained he would apply for permits 3 11 KOJI m I 4d I Mid Meeting ies Building oar of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 5, 2018 working with the trash company. His General Contractor was already working the plumbing, mechanical and electrical contractors and all know the situation. He is only waiting for the architect to draw the plans, bring it to the truss company, which is the most crucial part, get the plans approved by the City, but the architectural plans and approval of the truss takes the longest. After that, all else can be pushed. He advised it takes 15 days just to give a price. The plan approval and the roof will take the longest. Mr. Berger was fine with the 11 months, but asked what could be put in place to ensure in 11 months the job will not still have eight months to go as it has happened in the past. He asked if not done and Mr. Arvelo returns to the Board in 11 months for an extension, would he tear down the structure. Mr. Arvelo reiterated that was why he wanted the 11 months to be sure he would finish. He pointed out in 11 months, if he was 50% complete, it means he is not doing what he said. Anything can happen in construction and he has to be done in 11 months. If he did not have the situation with the demolition, he would have requested five or six months, but he knows this home will take some work. The home will be made new, but a rehab is not the same as a new build. He wants enough time. If that is not the case, the home would be demolished and he is the only one who will lose money. Mr. Bortz was questioning as to whether there was a penalty clause that could be added. Attorney Cherof responded there is not because there is demolition order in place and the action is on the demolition order. He suggested the starting point is the architectural plans and the permit application. He suggested the Board stay the consideration of the request for the appeal for 45 days to allow the architect to prepare and submit the plans to the City. They can return the matter to the Board for further consideration while the applicant has to clear the first two hurdles. Mr. Berger agreed. Approved plans is a major milestone. If in six months the plans were not approved, they can discuss it in six months. Mr. Podray explained the problem is not staying the demolition. Once Mr. Arvelo secures the structure in a safe way, the City cannot demolish the building. He thought the Board should grant the 11 months. He advised the Board just had a similar case three years ago. The Board ruled against the applicant. The Board set criteria to come back, and the demolition order went through and the applicant pressed charges against the City and the applicant won. He favored granting the 11 months and the fail safe is Code Compliance will site him if the building is not secure or there are other violations. Mr. Podray suggested 11 or 12 months and as soon as the building is secured, the Board moves from a delay of the demolition order to cancelling the order as the building is no longer a hazard. He thought his suggestion was the best because otherwise there are legalities such as how did the City obtain pictures of the home? Did the City trespass on the property and what defines a secure property? Nuances arise and if the applicant gets an attorney, the Board would not want to expose the City to potential litigation. When talking about demolishing private property, there are technical difficulties. He opined the applicant be given 11 months, and until such time as he secures the property after four or five months, the demolition order is abandoned and at that point he can work with the City at his leisure and rehab the house. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 5, 2018 Chair Guritzky asked how to handle the demolition. Technically the home should be demolished now. He asked if the Board should stay the demolition for 45 days and give the applicant six months from then to complete the project. Mr. Podray would stay the order for the entire 11 months. He thought doing so would create a case for him as the applicant could assert he could not reasonably have restored that house to a safe and secure condition in 45 days. The prior Board gave a 30-day extension and it failed. When it failed, the City demolished the home and created its own lawsuit against the City. He thought the Board should set realistic timeframes. It is the owner's private property and it begs the question if the City has the right to trespass on property to take the picture and demolish someone's private property without giving adequate time before a judge said he could actually restore it. Attorney Cherof clarified the prior action referred to by Mr. Podray had a demolition order the Board authorized. The property owner attempted to obtain an injunction to stay the demolition in Court and the City won that part of the case. The structure was thereafter demolished. The lawsuit that followed was for the loss of value to the property owner following the demolition. The City settled the case and acquired the property. The amount was the settlement value of avoiding litigation over the case and acquiring the property. Mr. Podray's point was incorrect as it pertained to the demolition. The demolition order was sustained by a court and the demolition did occur. One option was for the Board not to take action on the demolition, but stay the proceeding and make sure Mr. Arvelos' commitment to the project, by having the architect do the work, get paid for it and submit plans in the City. If, in 60 days, the architect cannot do that, or recommends to the property owner, the Board would be no worse off. In response to questions, Mr. Kuntzman explained the City's six-month recommendation for option 2 was from today and NOT the date of permit issuance. Mr. Berger asked would it be would be subject to six months from the permit being issued. Mr. Kuntzman explained it was up to the Board, but he would be amenable to it. Discussion followed the City has the right to step on property, per state statute, when there was a permit issued that expired. Mr. Arvelo understood the Board's point of view, but commented at the end of the day, he, as a homeowner in Boynton Beach, wants the same as the Board wants. They all want a beautiful street, and a house that brings value to the neighborhood. He wants to bring the house to a beautiful condition as soon as possible. They both want what is best for the City. He commented he will do his best on whatever the Board decides. There are many things to coordinate which he would handle. He has no other options. As to the trusses, he would have to wait for the architect, but it appeared the better way would be to fix the back part of the home. The front of the house looks brand new although they have to inspect to the 2017 or 2018 Code. The architect conducting calculations now to 6 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton each, Florida November 5, 2018 see if they need to build a new section, attach it to the old one or install an entire roof truss. Whatever he decides is what they will do. Chair Guritizy asked if Mr. Kuntzman thought the structure was too far gone to be rehabbed. Mr. Kuntzman explained it was up to the design professional. Mr. Arvelo explained the design professional will do it the better and faster way. Chair Guritzky explained the options are to either demolish the building, give a 45-day extension or give 11 months. Motion Mr. Podray moved to have a stay of demolition for the full 11 months, until such time as the building is shown as secure and when it is, the stay of demolition goes away and there is no longer a demolition order. The motion unanimously passed. The decision is to give 11 months to complete the project. Mr. Arvelo thanked the Board. Mr. Podray wanted to follow up on a request he made a few months ago to make the Board more active. He had suggested having a poster up in the Building Department so the public knows the Board exists. He thought a waiting period for an applicant of two months and possibly two and a half months was too long, and the $250 fee was too much for a small renovation project. He asked if the City Commission has done anything to further those suggestions. Attorney Cherof explained there has been no action taken by the City Commission on any of those points. Mr. Kittendorf explained there was discussion about the matter at the last Commission meeting last month. There have been posters placed in the lobby, follow-up information has been sent out, and a discussion of the $250 fee was sustained at $250 based on the cost and expense allocated during the meeting. The last item was for the two-month timeframe. The maximum amount of days was 60 days in total. It provided the applicant 30 days to put his response together if there was an issue and 30 days for the Building Department to put all the information together. In this case, they got the letter two weeks ago and in that two weeks' window, staff put together the emergency hearing. They try to move as quickly as possible based on the magnitude of the issue. The goal is to stay within the 60-day window if not sooner. Mr. Podray asked his fellow Board members if it was reasonable to have a 60-day timeframe or if they should push to meet sooner if an applicant does follow through. Discussion followed the 60 days was for both sides to prepare. It is a 60-day maximum. 7 Meeting ie Building rd of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 5, 2018 Mr. Podray commented if he wanted to appear before the Board and he knew he would lose two months worth of rent, he would make the decision to side with Mr. Kittendorf and roll over on the topic. If he knew there was a two-week turnaround, and he would not lase any rent, he would immediately file for the application. The Board could be a lot more active by talking amongst themselves and committing to showing up for justice for the public sector. Sixty days does give people time to prepare, but if they keep falling back on that and that is in the applicant's mind, there will be a lot less applications because time is money. The Board needs to hear applications as soon as possible and Mr. Podray sought the Board's opinion. Mayor Grant explained he received an email from an attorney friend of his on October 16th, which he forwarded to Mr. Kittendorf, which allowed the proceeding to occur. It was held in three weeks. He commented the Board is dealing with 60-day maximums and not minimums and they can see what the City can do when urgency arises. Mr. Arvelo explained staff was awesome. They gave him the option to come last week, which he declined as he needed information from his team to come to give exact information, so he waited one more week Mr. Kuntzman explained the Board is a last resort and they will work with customers as best as they can. They have a case right now where they have given an extension. They have given the applicant every opportunity not to come to the Board by working with them. Coming to the Board is an inconvenience for the applicant so try to avoid convening the Board and help them get their project underway. The goal is not to bring everybody to the Board. The goal is to repair the structure on their terms. The applicant came in a few weeks ago totally shocked and Mr. Kuntzman felt for Mr. Arvelo, but they were out to bid for demolition. The very next day from when Mr. Arvelo first came in, the City was going to award the demolition contract. Discussion followed if staff could rescind the demolition order on their own. Mr. Kuntzman responded they will work with a customer. Mr. Kittendorf eXplained this property had no correspondence. Mr. Arvelo had just purchased the property back in September. Prior to the notices and posting and follow- up communications, there was never a response advising the City anyone had an interest to rehabilitate the home. Based on those factors, the City moved towards demolition and once they issued the demolition notice and they were going to bid, staff then requested the person who owns the property understand the path they need to take. An example of a challenge they had was with a gentleman with three properties considered for demolition. Staff advised in December they would will work with him as he reached out to the Department and staff gave six months to get the permits and rehab the home. It took all of the six months. The last day to submit was June 1St and on May 31St he submitted the drawings. The next day, staff conducted the plan review and turned it around in a day and sent it to the customer and it took the customer three months to come back. It was then resubmitted and it took staff four days to review. Staff sent it back and 8 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton each, Florida November 5, 2018 -------------------- staff is still pending the response. Staff tries to assist customers, but they take advantage of homes that are in unsafe and unsanitary conditions and they do not follow up. Staff uses the Board to assist them when these situations occur to put in place measures to get the homes back into a habitable condition. Securing a home does not protect neighbors and homeowners from blighted, unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Staff seeks to return the homes to a habitable condition and assist them though the process to either demolish or rehab the home and they can start from scratch at that point in time. Mr. Bortz thought the Board was available at any time they can make a decision to help staff with the job. The object is to move things ahead and the Board is willing to do what they can when needed. Mr. Podray asked if the Board was comfortable with the two months. Chair Guritzky thought two months was reasonable as a maximum, as did Mr. Berger and Mr. Bortz. Mr. Hunt would only have an issue if the Board was constantly at the 60-day timeframe. It seemed the Building Department did a fine job. The total days in this instance was 61 days and it did not have to come to the Board as the application states it is a 30-day deadline from the final notice. He thought staff did an excellent job in this case. Chair Guritzky commented the Board rarely gets called and he knows the Building Department was doing a good job. G. ANNOUNCEMENTS H. ADJOURNMENT Motion Chair Guritzky adjourned the meeting, which was seconded by Mr. Podray. The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. 1, W-im-oQ, Catherine Cher�Itulj Minutes Specialist 9 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS IN RE: APPEAL FROM ORDER OF DEMOLITION Applicants: MAXIMO ARVELO ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DEMOLITION The October 16, 2018 appeal filed by Maximo Arvelo (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") came before the City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on November 05, 2018 for hearing. The Applicant appealed a May 01, 2018 Notice of Unsafe Building issued by Shane Kittendorf, Building Official of the City of Boynton Beach. The applicant represented himself. The City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals(hereinafter referred to as the"Board") after review of the testimony and evidence provided by the Building Official, and the arguments of Applicant and his attorney finds: 1. The Building Official has determined that property owned by Applicant located at 3150 Orange Street in Boynton Beach, Florida is unsafe, unsanitary, a fire hazard, and dangerous to human life is supported by the record and is not disputed. 2. By issuance of his May 01, 2018 Notice of Unsafe Building, the Building Official advised the Applicant of his findings and ordered the repair, rehabilitation or demolition of the unsafe building. 3. The Applicant filed their appeal of the Building Official's notice and sought an extension of time to repair and rehabilitate the property and thereby avoid its demotion by the City. 4. The applicant do not contest the unsafe condition of the building but asserted that the building can be repaired to a safe condition if given a reasonable period of time to effectuate the repairs. 5. The Board, following testimony of the Applicant and the Building Official finds that the Applicant can reasonably be expected to repair the property to a safe habitable condition by October 05, 2019. 6. The Board finds that the building is unsafe but that the Applicant should be granted until October 05,2019 to repair the entire building to a safe habitable condition. Demolition is therefore stayed to that date. 7. The Applicants will apply for permits to effectuate the repairs identified by the Building Official which he deems necessary to restore the property to a safe condition. 8. In the event the Applicant fail to remedy the unsafe condition of the building by October 05,2019,the Building Official is authorized to proceed with demolition of the structure or appear before the board for an extension. 9. Motion: Mr. Podray moved to have a stay of demolition for the full eleven (11) months, until such time as the building is shown as secure and when it is, the stay of demolition goes away and there is no longer a demolition order. The motion unanimously passed. The decision is to give eleven (11) months to complete the project. 10. The public record, including, but not limited to, the Building Official's reports, memoranda, comments and recommendations on the appeal, agenda back-up before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals, along with the record established before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on November 05, 2018, are hereby incorporated by reference. 11. The Board retains jurisdiction of this appeal to issue supplemental orders it deems necessary to remedy its finding that the building owned by Applicants is unsafe. DONE AND ORDERED this I `1 day of 2ce ¢f 2018 in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Sanford G ' •y, Chairman CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF AI) AND APPEALS J ith A. Pyle, Cit f Clerk •i