Loading...
Minutes 02-18-20 Minutes of the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Held on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 11 A.M. At Intracoastal Park Clubhouse 2240 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida PRESENT: Sanford Guritzky, Chairman Shane Kittendorf, Chief Building Official Daniel Berger John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official Paul Bortz Heather Needelman, Assistant City Attorney Damien Brink A. Call to Order Chair Guritzky called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. B. Elect New Chairperson C. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors D. Approval of Agenda and Minutes (Minutes of September 25, 2019 Meeting) Motion Mr. Brink moved to approve. Mr. Berger seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. E. Old Business F. New Business: Applicant: Mr. Wing Kei Ho and Mrs. Karen Yeh Ho Reference: 1101 — 1103 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida Explanation: A second continuation hearing has been requested by the Board on September 25, 2019, requesting that Mr. and Mrs. Ho will have all their permit documents submitted for approval with the City of Boynton Beach by licensed engineer and licensed architect by January 31, 2020 Shane Kittendorf, Chief Building Official, explained the Order issued by the Board was to reconvene to determine the status of the project. The Ho's submitted plans on Meeting Community I Boynton ida February 11, Recommend that the City of Boynton Beach Readopt and Extend the Time Certain for the Completion of Projects Described in the Community Redevelopment Plan and the Termination of the Boynton Beach CRA Attorney Duhy explained the item is an action from the 2019 Legislative changes made regarding CRA's. This action is something that needs to be done from a legal perspective to reaffirm the CRA's existing sunset date. It does not change anything else, only reaffirms the sunset date. The Resolution is a recommendation of approval that will go before the City Commission in March. Motion Board Member McCray moved to approve. Board Member Romelus seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. 6. Informational i tes by Board Members A. Disclosure of Conflicts, Contacts, and Relationships for Items Presented to the CRA Board on Agenda Chair Grant disclosed he spoke with Rolando Barrero from the Art Walk, Andrew Podray, Tim Collins and Mark Woods of South Florida Marine. He also attended the latter's grand opening. He noted they are all on the agenda tonight. Board Member Romelus had no disclosures. Board Member McCray had no disclosures, but did announce he received several calls from multiple television stations requesting he give them an interview, which he declined. The City had already given interviews and they were good enough. The interviews had nothing to do about the CRA. 7. Announcements and Awards A. In Culture - Art Walk on January 18, 2020 Recap Mercedes Coppins, Business Promotions and Events Manager, announced the CRA partnered with the Boynton Beach Arts District for the In Culture Art Walk. Food and beverages and performances were available and the CRA assisted the event by providing a stage, sound equipment, power, lighting and part-o-lets. Estimated attendance was 250 people. Feedback survey showed 50% of the respondents had never visited the Art District, so the event marketing was successful. Feedback on the event was positive. Event organizer Rolando Barrero advised all the participating artists and vendors made one to two sales each during the event and they were able to acquire additional leads for future sales or contract work. She had photos of the event set up and some of the artist studios open during the event. 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton c , Florida February , 2020. January 31-9t, which were reviewed, but there were multiple deficiencies that must be corrected. One of the most significant items, aside from the structural components, pertained to planning and zoning. Based on the general numbers the Ho's provided, and without evaluation performed or provided at this time, the structure is over 50% deteriorated and the value of the work far exceeds the assessed value of the structure. Based on this information, the Ho's are required to fully conform to the current zoning regulations. As for the structural components, there is a substantial list of items that need.to be addressed, which includes structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire items. A full visual inspection of what is inside was requested several times. Based on the information provided, it appears about 80% of the exterior walls need to be replaced and the current roof system was not part of the package. All the work done without permits up to the time of engineer's letter was never submitted at the time of permit application. The Ho's failed to meet the requirements of submitting the documentation to be approved through the Building Department. Chair Guritzky queried if the City still feels the structure should come down and learned the City did. Karen Yeh Ho, property owner, commented a structural engineer and architect have determined the building is safe. She did not know how staff interpreted the work needing to be done and explained the work being done was just a modification of the building, meaning beautification. They replaced windows and the back door. She reiterated the building is safe and now there are new items arising after they spent thousands of dollars hiring a civil engineer and having architectural and mechanical drawings. The bathroom and everything is in place and the architect said the work was a beautification. In the meanwhile, Ms. Ho explained they were served for foreclosure on their property with a fabricated lien, which they have no knowledge of. She has a copy of the reply she sent to the court, which asserts the City is foreclosing on their property with a lien that was not filed, nor have they received any notice and they know nothing about it. Ms. Ho explained she filed a constitutional challenge for the lien on their property and the foreclosure because the lien is on other another person's parcel identification number (PIN). She advised it was a mix-up, but the City is going to foreclose on their property with the correct name on their correct property without the lien. Ms. Ho distributed a handout. She did not see, at a City Commission meeting, that the Commission planned to foreclose on the property. There was no attachment that the City or the Mayor has the power to sign an affidavit saying they have reviewed the document under the penalty of perjury, she verifies this document to be true to the best of her knowledge. Heather Needelman, Board Counsel, explained there is a current foreclosure case pending, but it is separate issue from what is happening here, which is a demolition order that was appealed. The foreclosure suit had to do with liens on the property, which to her understanding, was noticed from the special magistrate. That matter may also be related to the condition of the property. Ms. Ho explained she pays her taxes on time and the lien is from .Benjamin Ho, an auditor with Florida State. He did not know about the notice, statements or anything. The notice about deficiencies, etc., were not sent to Tallahassee and she did not know Meeting Minutes Building o r of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FloridaFebruary 18, 2020 where it was sent. They spent over$1 OK between the civil engineer and the architect, and they received the foreclosure notice which said Benjamin Ho, who does not own the property anymore. Code Enforcement put a lien on other people's property with their names on it and tried to foreclose on their property. Ms. Ho again reiterated the building is safe, based on the structural engineers and architects say so. The architect would call the improvements a beautification. Ms. Ho explained there is no lawn to mow. The back of the property belonged to Brightline who is maintaining the land now, when previously they had not. The side belonged to the City of Boynton Beach and they did not maintain it, so they did and they hired someone to mow it. As to the status of the matter, Ms. Ho said she did her part and hired an engineer and architect. The building had to be the same kind of building because that was what the City Building Department told her. Ms. Ho asserted the Demolition Department wants to knock the building down, but there is a Preservation Department and the Preservation Department told her how to preserve it. She announced she chooses to preserve the building, and that is what the architect is doing. The zoning is for store, meaning she just has to have a shell and whoever wants to rent there, has to get the permits to improve the interior. The zoning is for store and she put "stuff' in there. Mr. Brink inquired if staff received access. Mr. Kittendorf responded they did not. Ms. Ho commented her constitutional right says she does not have to give access. Ms. Ho inquired how, out of 2,000 liens on property records, they are the only ones who got picked for foreclosure for someone else's property. Mr. Brink recalled at the last meeting, Ms. Ho said she would work with the Building Department. Ms. Ho said she has worked with them and she submitted the paperwork. She went to the Department and spoke with them. Mr. Brink explained part of that was giving them access to the building. Ms. Ho contented access to the building is a U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment issue. Mr. Berger explained at some point, when applying for a building permit, the whole definition of the process is for Building staff to inspect the premises. Ms. Ho explained the mechanical drawings were not done yet. The architect has outside drawings. Chair Guritzky commented all of this was supposed to have been done prior to this meeting and it has not been done. As far as the City is concerned, the Ho's have not met the requirements that they were supposed to prior to and at this meeting. Ms. Ho explained the City is concerned the building is not safe. She proved the building is safe by having a professional civil engineer and an architect say it is safe and the architect and engineer have a license. She checked on the City of Boynton Beach and asserted none of them have a license. Chair Guritzky again announced the Ho's have not completed what they were supposed to do. Ms. Ho disagreed. Mr. Kittendorf explained every Building Inspector, Plans Examiner and Mr. Kittendorf himself, as the Building Official, are licensed professionals and it is his determination and interpretation, as the Building Official, to determine if a structure is safe or unsafe. Based on the information provided, the building is unsafe at this time. Ms. Ho just said the mechanical pians were deficient and not up to date, so that is an item that she herself mentioned that was deficient and not submitted at the time of submittal that was 3 Meeting Minutes u ilding Boardof Adjustments and Appeals Boynton e ch, Florida February 18, 2020 needed for part of the review process. Mr. Kittendorf explained during the time of application submittal, if determined, the building official could request an authorized entry to examine the property, as under 110.2 of the Florida Building Code, which preliminary inspections before issuing the permit, the building official is authorized to examine, or cause to be examined the building structure or sites for which the application has been filed. Mr. Kittendorf explained this was not allowed and staff was denied access based on preliminary submittal of plans. It appeared staff was still spinning wheels in a circle to try to help to bring the residents into compliance. Ms. Ho asked when Mr. Kittendorf said the building was not safe. Mr. Kittendorf explained due to the posting they are going through, about a year ago, when the property was posted unsafe with the structural roofing collapse and failure. It was something that was happening for a while, and that is why they are sitting having this discussion, because the building was deemed unsafe per his direction. Ms. Ho asked why they were being picked on. Mr. Kittendorf explained the meeting was only for the building. He has no position any more than what the Code requires for the protection of life and property, via the structure itself or the adjacent properties. Mr. Kittendorf explained that was his position and responsibility as the Building Official. Chair Guritzky asked if the Ho's have not met what they said they would. Mr. Kittendorf responded that was correct. Mr. Berger asked Mr. and Mrs. Ho why they would not let them into the building as the Code says; by applying for a building permit, they are agreeing to an inspection. Ms. Ho explained they just asked to go into the building recently, and it was not like they asked a long time ago. She explained the City has violated her privacy rights by entering the building because someone had locksmiths and went inside the building several times. There is a lock on the door on both that they had entered the building without her permission, which is a violation of her constitutional/civil rights. It is trespassing, burglary and theft. Ms. Ho further asserted putting the wrong liens on other's property without legal rights is a criminal action. Mr. Ho thought there was much of information crossed-over. The last time the Board met, they went with the engineer's report and the building was deemed not hazardous and they could proceed until the remodel. Since then, they have submitted for the remodel. The remodel submittal addressed what the City was saying was not addressed. They added a new store front and will address the back with a garage door. He submitted a package for electrical, the bathroom ventilation and installation of the air conditioner. In terms of the wall replacement, everything is there. He noted it is an extensive package. They will make some repairs to the roof rafters and shore it up. Whatever replacement is needed will be replaced. The Building Department mentioned multiple deficiencies. He understood once the permit package is submitted, there would be conversations about what would be added or modified. Mr. Ho explained he has never seen a list of the deficiencies the City was referring to. He did not know how the City determined the building was dilapidated by 50% as he has not seen documents about assessed value of the building in terms of the remodel. Mr. Ho could not defend it without providing the notice and the information. The key is they applied for a permit. They have to look at the process and they have to update it and then be on their way. Meeting Minutes Building o r of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February 18, 2020 At one point, they had a meeting with the CRA and City and tried to negotiate for them to buy the property and they gave a low price and they rejected the offer. They asked for $141 K, which they said was excessive. Mr. Ho asserted that was why the City was trying to foreclose on the property, which was not justified. Chair Guritzky commented this matter has been ongoing since 2019. Mr. and Mrs. Ho moved ahead, but nothing was reported to the City. Ms. Ho explained the structure is a commercial store, not a house that has to have everything in place. The project is a store which means four walls, a roof is needed and the inside does not have to have a concrete floor, just soil. The architect told her she only needed to have three ceiling lights. Whoever will open a store there will have to renovate and at that time, they will send substantial improvements to the City. If she demolishes the building, then no one could build and the City will lose money. Currently, they pay their taxes on time every year and they are maintaining City property and not charging them. Now the City was accusing them of not maintaining their property. She wanted the City to transfer the deed to the land to her free of charge, because she has been mowing the lawn. She asserted that was the issue for the foreclosure. Mr. Ho commented they made substantial improvements. Mr. Berger commented the drawings are good and the Ho's took a step in the right direction, but he questioned if the 50% was based on the assessed value, and Mr. Kittendorf advised it was. Mr. Berger asked if their estimates, when they go to market, exceeded 50% of the assessed value, then are they responsible for bringing the property fully up to Code including zoning. Mr. Kittendorl' responded it did. Mr. Berger noted the building no longer works there as-is. Mr. Kittendorf confirmed it did not. The value of the building in 2018 was $2,638. The repairs would immediately exceed that amount. The structure was non- conforming. Mr. Berger inquired if there was anything else they could do and appeal. Ms. Ho disagreed with the 50% amount. Mr. Brink explained the amount was from the property appraiser. Ms. Ho commented the value was $90K. Mr. Brink explained that amount includes the land and only the value of the building applied. Mr. Bortz noted the drawings, as of January 29, 2020, have a State of Florida Registered Architect seal. He asked if they had a State of Florida Registered Inspector as in the past, it has been required. Mr. Kittendorf explained the plans they provided were designed by a State of Florida Registered Architect who certified his drawings, but what notoriously happens is when the Building Department takes in plans, the design professional puts the minimal information as needed. The Building Department ends up critiquing the drawings and providing them back all the information they need to try to assist to gain compliance with the Code. Most of the time, design professionals do something minimal to make something out to make it look good and then send it in. Then the Building Department conducts a review to determine code compliance. What was submitted was just the architectural drawings, and they do show some structural components, but an architect, if he is a structurally sound design professional, if he wants to take the responsibility, can, in lieu of an engineer, design the plans and provide all methodologies and attachments, wind loads and pressures for each opening. Mr. Kittendorf commented there are multiple items that are deficient at this time. Chair Meeting Minutes Building c r of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February0 Guritzky thought the Board was going in circles. Mr. Berger agreed and mentioned he did not know what the new zoning allows, but thought tearing it down and putting sod there is not a great option. Mr. Brink explained the Code says if improvements will be made to the building that exceeds more than 50%, the owner must bring all zoning items into compliance. That means everything from setbacks, parking requirements for the new use and a litany of other items. He understood if Planning and Zoning informs Mr. and Mrs. Ho, they also have to address all zoning issues, maybe they could apply for a variance of other appropriate avenue, which is where the hiccup is. If Planning and Zoning allows them to make improvements that have not even been approved by the Building Department because of issues discussed today and having access to the building, the building in the meantime is still deemed unsafe. Mr. Ho commented there are multiple buildings out there. Mr. Brink explained they are discussing their building. Mr. Ho commented he has never seen a list. Ms. Ho thought the Board members did not discriminate against them, but the City is and it violates their constitutional civil rights by entering the building. Mr. Brink objected to Mr. and Mrs. Ho making accusations as it was not helping their case. Mrs. Ho explained they had to have a locksmith come out to open the lock because they did not put a lock on the building. The locksmith broke the lock went inside and she asserted the City put a sticker there. Mr. Kittendorf was not sure what Ms. Ho was referring to. Mr. Brink explained there are buildings all over the City that are not compliant. Ms. Ho expressed they were selected and targeted. She thought her building was the nicest on the entire street and that the City was looking for a constitutional challenge. Ms. Ho said a lawyer came and sued the City. She explained the Mayor had said the City knocked down a building illegally and the City was sued. She commented the Board members only know what they need to know, but the City knows more about the matter. Mr. Kittendorf explained the City started reconciling blighted structures in the City and one building was demolished by the owner and three by the City. One was completely remodeled, so the Board knows about the process of what the Department has done to try to help clean up the municipality with the unsafe structures. He noted Mr. Ho said he has never saw comments or anything of this nature before with regard to requirements and inspections. He clarified Mr. and Mrs. Ho have applied as an owner builder, and they are stating they are knowledgeable and understanding in the field of construction and are acting as a contractor themselves. It is challenging to say they never saw comments like this when someone is an unlicensed professional taking on a very complex task. There are volumes and volumes of code books staff needs to know, understand and enforce. Mr. Bortz touched upon the valuation of the structure by the property appraiser. That was the base of staff's start of the process. They requested a detailed evaluation. They do have the opportunity to do an assessed value by an assessor on the structure. The information they put on the value of work they were proposing was $10K, which would appear to be substantially low, based on the amount of work needing to be done and the work that is not exposed or shown on the current plans at this moment in time and that was the information they used to determine their findings. If Planning and Zoning was not in the equation, the information required under structural electrical plumbing and mechanical, based on the conditions of them exceeding 50% within the structure, the information put on the plans call for a Level II 6 Meeting Minutes Building ar of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FloridaFebruary 1 , 2020 alteration. In this case, with the amount of work, damage and deterioration to the structure exceeded 50%, it would be a Level III alteration,.which then requires all the structural components and everything to be brought up to the current code. Ms. Ho said she may agree to it; because there is no tenant now, but whoever comes to rent the place, would have to bring it up to Code. Mr. Brink explained it was the owner's responsibility to bring the building up to code, not the tenant. Ms. Ho disagreed the tenant is responsible to bring the building up to code and not her. She does not have to worry about huge electrical work or plumbing. She questioned the cost to fix four sides of the wall and a roof, plus the window. That was all that had to be addressed. She did not have to fix the interior. She commented the City has intruded. Chair Guritzky explained the structure is not safe. Ms. Ho disagreed and commented the structural engineer and architect says it is safe. Her husband's brother is a professional civil engineer. Mr. Brink explained it is the owner's responsibility to ensure the building is compliant with the building code and the zoning; not the tenants. The tenant could leave at any time and then the property is still responsible to be compliant. She likened her building to the ones in Renaissance Commons when she tried to rent there. She saw the floor was dirt. Ms. Ho explained the Board was listening to hearsay. She went to check on the cost of the windows and the doors, which was what is needed. The roof is solid, because of ongoing maintenance. She could get a roofer to put on a new roof. Mr. Brink inquired what action was needed today. He requested Attorney Needelman inform the Board what the Board's options were. Chair Guritzky thought the issue was the safety of the structure Attorney Needelman agreed and explained the Building Official's Order of Demolition was appealed before the Board. There was a stay that was granted by the Board on September 25th. The Board gave 18 months until February 2021, for it to be complete, but before doing so, the Board gave them until January 31St to submit the plans. Based on what the Building Official said, the plans are incomplete or deficient, so the needed documents had to be submitted by January 31st. The City is asserting they have not been completed because they are not complete. The Board could modify the previous order to stay the demolition, but if so, the Board should allow the City Attorney's office to do its due diligence and research, and then they can submit a memo to the Clerk as to their findings. Mr. Berger commented a potential motion would be the Board told them they needed to go in, by said time, January 31st for permits. They all know that no that he has ever met, has gone through the permit process without some kind of comments back and then resubmit. They received comments, which was understandable, and he asked what was an optimal review time to see if they have addressed the comments. He thought currently, the could potentially be on track for finishing the modifications by February of 2021. Even with the comments they provide, there is a guarantee that Mr. and Mrs. Ho would be at the 50% threshold that has to go to zoning. At that point, it has to be passed to planning and zoning or they need to speak with an attorney. Ms. Ho 7 Meeting Minutes Building o r Adjustments and Appeals FloridaBoynton Beach, r 18, 2020 explained she is pro se. Mrs. Ho advised she would appeal and the City would have to pay for attorney's fees. Mr. Ho said they have not received comments yet. Motion Chair Guritzky moved the structure comes down based on nothing being fulfilled by the Ho's for the City under review by the City Attorney. Mr. Brink understood the motion would remove the stay. Attorney Needelman responded it was. It would modify the prior motion in moving to grant the demolition. Mr. Bortz seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1 (Mr. Berger dissenting.) Ms. Ho inquired what the motion was and learned it was to revoke the stay and approve the demolition order of the building official. Ms. Ho commented the City wants a lawsuit. Mr. Bortz responded the Board was trying to help her the moment she was called before the Board the first time, but there was delays, delays and more delays, until all of a sudden pressure was put on them and now Ms. Ho was making threats. Ms. Ho explained the building was already half verified and signed by a professional civil engineer. Chair Guritzky explained she had to go to the City, but she has not fulfilled it at this point. Attorney Needelman explained the motion is to revoke the stay of Demolition Order of the building official. She explained the Board was modifying the order to do something else. The appeal came before the Board and based on that, decided to revoke the stay and approve the demolition order of the Building Official. For the record, representing the City Building Department was Shane Kittendorf, Building Official, City of Boynton Beach, and John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official, City of Boynton Beach. The Board members in attendance are listed as present. G. Announcements None. H. Adjournment Motion There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Bortz moved to adjourn. Mr. Berger seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m. Catherine her Minutes Specialist 8 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AN APPEALS N E: APPEAL FROM ORDER OF DEMOLITION ORDEREV IN STAY AND APPROVINGBUILDING_ FICIAL' - NOTICE OF DEMOLITION This matter came before the City of Boynton Beach Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals ("Board")February 18,2020,after due notice to the Applicants,and concerns real property located at 1101 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida, 3 343 5, legally described as follows: LOT 1 BLK A, Lake Addition to Boynton, Florida, According to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, less and except the east 17 feet of Lot 1 (when measured at right angles to the east line of said lot) Block A and that part of Lot 1, Block A,which is included in the external area formed by a 12 foot radius arc tangent to the south line of said Lot 1 and tangent to a line 17 feet westerly of and parallel to the east line of said Lot 1, Block A, Lake Addition to Boynton, Florida, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71. PCN 4 08-43-45-21-32-008-0010 (hereinafter referred to as "subject property.") The property is owned by Wing Kei Ho and Karen Yeh Ho ("Applicants). The April 04, 2019 appeal filed by the Applicants came before the Board on August 14, 2019 for a hearing with a continuation hearing on September 25, 2019 and a second continuation hearing on February 18, 2020. The Applicants were appealing a December 19, 2018 Notice of Unsafe Building issued by Shane Kittendorf, Building Official of the City of Boynton Beach ("Building Official"). The Applicants represented themselves. FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony given and the evidence including the Building Official's testimony, reports, memoranda, comments and recommendations, the Board found the following: 1. The Building Official, pursuant to his authority per Sections 116.1 and 116.1.4 of the Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the Florida Building Code, determined that the subject property is in an extremely unsafe condition due to a collapsing roof and approximately 80% of the exterior walls needing replacement which during a storm can affect surrounding structures as materials can become projectiles. 2. Based on the Building Official's review and testimony,the subject property is over 50% deteriorated and the value of the work required exceeds the assessed value of the structure. (00360889.5 306-9904950) 3. The Building Official requested to do a full visual inspection of the interior of the subject property but the Applicants refused access several times. 4. At the September 25, 2019 hearing before the Board, the Applicants requested additional time to provide design documents to show that they were planning on making repairs to the property. At the September 25, 2019 hearing, the Board ordered a Stay of Demolition until January 31, 2020 for the Applicants to submit the required documents to the City to prove that the subject property was not unsafe. 5. On February 18, 2020,the Building Official testified that the documents submitted by the Applicants were incomplete and deficient. 6. Based on the evidence provided at the February 18,2020 Board hearing,there is no basis to provide the Applicants additional time as the Applicants' submitted documentation was deficient and incomplete. ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Stay of Demolition issued on September 25, 2020 is revoked and that the Building Official's determination that the subject property be demolished is approved. The Board retains jurisdiction of this appeal to issue supplemental orders. DONE AND ORDERED this �� day of � , 2020 in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Sanford Guritzky,.. n CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Crestal Gibson, City Clerk ; ' � 1Y� V 4 kik (00360889.5306-9904950)