Loading...
13-310 - Roy DeanL Police Department "A CFA Accredited Law Enforcement Agency" 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach., Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 742-6700 Jeffrey Katz Chief of Police Code Compliance Division Phone: (567) 742-6120 FAX: (561) 742-6838 Date: November 20, 2014 To: City Commission From: Code Compliance Division RE: Code Compliance Case #13-310 In accordance with Ordinance number 001-07, the enclosed "Final Lien Modification Order" is hereby forwarded to you for review. As required by Ordinance number 001-07, the following procedures are to be followed: Lj A City Commissioner has seven (7) days from the rendition of the Order to request the City Manager's Office to place the case on a City Commission Agenda for review. (Space provided below for transmittal purposes) o Said review must occur within thirty (30) days of the request for review. o 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. Fi The City Commission shall direct staff to take action consistent with their review of the "Lien Modification Order". 1, - , hereby request the City Manager's Office to place the above referenced case on the next available City Commission Agenda for review. Signed on this date, the day of , 20_ MEE'i''ING MINUTES CODE 'COMPLIANCE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HIEP BOYNTON BEACH, FLOi OCTOBER 15, 2014 4 , x Tanya, the Code Enforcement Receptionist, was being subpoenaF-d because she had indicated to Mr. Arnold, on numerous occasions that the Code Enforcement Department had nothing to do with the tow, when they had ordered it, Police Officers Neap and Patnic were or the list. Mr. Arnold explained he did not have the Officers' full names becaLlSa they do not use - fulI names on the report; rather they only put a designation on the report. Those Officers were on the scene of the illegal tows and they were familiar with who orJored them and why. Ms. Ellis explained, based cn Mir. Arnold's testimony, the Cease and Desist hearing Would be tabled until next month, Mr. Arnold's witnosses Would not testify today. She explained it was her responsibiliry to r-- t11y Ordinances. if the Cease and Desist hearing moved fonivard, she would be the individual to rnakv a finding of whether or not there was a violation, In terms of the subpoena, she needed time to review the transcript and testimony in order to mL,ke a determination whether she v issuo subpoenas and she would submit a written order on the subpoenas before the next month. Everything wr s on hold it the mornent. Ms. Ellis commented she appreciated Mr. Arnold's testimony and background information. D a c i s i o n Ms. Eilis tabled the Cease and Desist hearing on POovember 1 19, 2014, and with respect to the subpoena list, Ms. Ellis would issue a written order regarding whether she would be issuing subpoenas. Mr. Arnold requested confirmation the matter would be heard on November 19, 2014. Ms, Ellis confirmed it vlould and one of three things would occur at that finne; she would either make a ruling at that hearing, take everything under advisement and submit written order, or she could table the matter again, .his. Ellis returned the subpoena: list to Mr. Arnold. As to the transcr the Ci t y C ler k could provide It to him. IVIS. Springer � dvised cases Nos 13-82 and 13-82 were tabled to this rneeting. At the Petitioners request, the,, were tabled to the November 19, 2014 meeting. C ase l \! 0, 13 -310 Roy Dean 2601 NE 3rd Court #1 02 Ms. Springer presented the case. The Notice of Violction was sent on March 1, 2013, for a d ,-molition permit for work done in an apartment. The case was heard on M&y 15, 2013, and no one appeared. The compliance date and fine, was to comply by May 30, 2013, or a fine of $100 a day would be imposed thereafter. The violations were I M E E T1 N G3 rili I j"A U T E S CODE (_'0MPL1A[\!CE SPECIAL UiAGISTRATE HEAF4.1INGS Br 1T BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 15, 2014 corr-cted on September 22, 2014, accruing a fine of $54K and administrative costs of $634,12. Ms. Springer was contacted in Sc-pternber and she explained what neaded to be done. Mr. Dean obtained the permit on Soptumber 22, 2014. There were outstanding taxes of $4,303, and the permit was finalized on September 29, 2014, the taxes were paid on October 2, 2014, and the property passed th-c 1jun reduction inspection on October 1, 2014. Roy Dean, 2601 NE 3rd Court, Unit '102, ow. explained when he purchased the property it was an "as is" sale. The property had water damage, which the Association wanted him to resolve. He did not know he needed a permit. The property managernenit firm took over so he did not get the notices from the City regarding the permit or the fine. When he received that information, he hired an architect and a contractor to pull tho permits. Since then, ha went to the Tax Collector and property Appraisers o,fice and updated his contact information. The letters were sent to the premises and he lives in Broward. He purchased the property in 2007 and it had not been rented. Discussion - followed the notice was sent to the address of record. He learnod about the violation when the propc,Ay was posted. Mr. Dean spoke to the mailman because the association said they sent him correspondence he never received, and he updated his address with the post office. All the work wa completed and the permit was approved . Ms. Ellis explained il. was the owner's responsibility to update their contact information. Daci_­ ion Nis, Ellis reduced the lien to $1,000 PIUS the $634,12. Mr. Dean explained Boynton Beach has been very helpful, expedient and kind. He appreciated the help of Code Compliance. Cas No. 09-2110 01r L & Cristiar, Saavedra 1021 Grove Par. Circle Ms. Springer advised a Notice of Violation was sent on June 30, 2009, regarding a Business T.-x Receipt. The case was heard on September 16, 2009, and no one appeared. The compliance date and fine set was October 1, 2009, or a fine of $50 a day would be imposed thereafter, The violations were corrected on October 10, 2014, accruing a fin of $91,300, plus administrative costs of X634.12. The compliance date was based on the day the inspection was co,-ripleted, but the Respondent had advised the property was vacant prior to that, so the Busin- Tax Receipt would not have been required. The compliance date was the date compliance was verified. 10 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA CITY OF BOYNTO:N BEACI1 Petitioner, VS. ROY DEAN Respondent's). CASE NO. 13 -310 LIEN MODIFICATION ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the City of` Boynton Beach Coale Compliance Magistrate on the Respondent's application for lien reduction on October 15 2014 pursuant to Chapter Two, Article Five of the City Code of' Ordinances, The Magistrate 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 Magistrate hearing, the date the affidavit of compliance was issued, the current hen arnount and all pertinent information relating to the specific case and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUI?GED that: 1. This Magistrate has subject matter jurisdiction ofthis 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 Magistrate on Ma 15, on the Property located at 2601 NE 3 "' Ct. 4102, Boynton Beach, Florida, with the legal description of: VfLL V313 ROYALE GRE.ENDALE COND UNIT 102, according to the plat thereof as recorded in flat Book 24, Page 28, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, I'CN� 08- 43- 45 -16 -15 -000 -1020 is REDUCED TO S 4. The City shall prepare a release and satisfaction consistent with this Order. 5. 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 Magistrate's 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 Magistrate or the City Commission shall be permitted regarding lien redaction. DONE AND ORDERED after hearing at City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this a 'day of 70, Carol D. Ellis CODE COMPLIANC> MAGISTR \TE ATTEST: K �, L u 1 I S'