Loading...
10-20-2009 Regular MeetingCITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 The regular meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was called to order on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Members attending were James Purvis, Chairman, Ken Forte, Tim Murry, Les Booker, and Alfred Mannella. Also attending were Jim Hitt, Planning Director, Suzanne O'Shea, Code Enforcement Officer, Betty McMinamen, Code Enforcement Officer, Dan Mantzaris, City Attorney, and Valerie Fuchs, Code Enforcement Board Attorney. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The minutes from the Code Enforcement Board Meeting of September 15, 2009 were approved. Code Enforcement Chairman Jim Purvis read the Opening Remarks. Code Enforcement Officers Suzanne O'Shea and Betty McMinamen, along with any of the public who may testify, were sworn in. Chairman Jim Purvis gave the floor to Code Enforcement Staff and City Attorney City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that for case number 09-568 the Respondent and the City are asking for a motion for continuance until the next meeting. Ken Forte made a motion to continue case number 09-568 to the November 17 2009 meeting• seconded by Les Booker. The vote was unanimous in avor of the continuance City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that case numbers 09-570, 09-576, 09-577, 09-580 and 09-583 have complied and case number 09-572 had no service and will not be heard. NEW BUSINESS CASE N0.09-579 John C. & Vickie E. Wetzel 101 E. Hwy. 50, Suite B Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 101 E. Hwy. 50, Suite B, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 102, Section 102-8 (14) City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced section of the City of Clermont Code of Ordinances due to the bull'seye sign that is affixed to the front, outside of the building. Compliance of this violation will be when the sign is permanently removed. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 John Wetzel Jr., 17648 CR 455, Montverde, stated that he disputes the fact that it is a bull'seye. He stated that they painted a target, like the Target store sign on Highway 50. He stated that if he needs to make it a trademark for his business he will do that to allow it to be on the front of his building. He stated that it is there to attract attention to the business. He stated he could paint over the center so that it would not be a bull'seye. Board member Booker stated that he feels it is just a catchy sign not a bull'seye. Code Enforcement attorney Valarie Fuchs stated that it is the intent of the code not the meaning of the code. Mr. Wetzel asked that if Target can have a target for a sign, why he can't he have a target. Chairman Purvis stated that they need to focus on his case and not Target and requested the dictionary meaning of a bull'seye. City attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that they have researched the definition but he does not feel it will render any type of assistance in helping with a decision on this case. He stated that if the bull'seye is the center and if he takes the dot out of the center, there is still a center. He stated that Target's sign is their logo which is a trademark and was permitted as a brand not as a bull'seye. He stated that if the bull'seye was incorporated into the company name and made as a logo, then they probably would not be able to create a code case against him. Board member Forte asked if the sign is painted on the building, do you need a permit? Planning Director Jim Hitt stated that if something on the side of a building acts as a sign, then yes, they need a permit. Board member Forte asked if the City feels the bull'seye is a sign as opposed to something painted on the side of a building. Mr. Mantzaris stated that it is the City's position that it is a sign. Board member Forte stated that in all the years he did training with the military and shot at targets aiming for the bull'seye in the middle, he agrees with Mr. Wetzel that the center black dot is the bull'seye and the rest is just a target. Mr. Wetzel stated that if he just continued painting the side of his building with the red and white circles would that not be a sign. Board member Forte stated that he could not vote to implement a fine on this case because there is no difference between this and Target. Chairman Purvis stated he would like to know if the building even allows that size of a sign to be permitted. 2 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 Board member Booker stated that when he looks at the sign he calls it a target. City attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that no matter how you look at it, it is a bull'seye. Board member Murry stated that no matter what color the center is, it is a bull'seye. He stated that you can't take the center away. Board member Mannella stated that it is a target. He stated that if you take the black dot out and put a deer head in there, it's a target. Ms. O'Shea stated that she too has shot plenty of guns in her life. She stated that a target can be anything you are shooting at. She stated that there is no other definition to a bull'seye other than it's circles that come into a center point to focus your attention on the middle. She stated that yes it is a target, but it is definitely a bull'seye. Chairman Purvis stated that as the City attorney stated, it is the intent of the sign. Les Booker made a motion to find the Respondent not in violation of the cited City code • seconded by Alfred Mannella. The vote was 3-2 in avor of ending the Respondent not in violation with Chairman Jim Purvis and Board member Tim Murrv onnosing. CASE N0.09-581 Alice J. Hinton ET AL Vacant lot at W. Broome St. & 4th St. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: Vacant lot at W. Broome St. & 4th St., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 (302.4) High Grass and Weeds City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. He stated that it is currently in compliance but due to ongoing activity on this property over the last several years the city will be looking for an order finding the property in violation, but now in compliance. Should the property come back before the city, it can be found in repeat violation. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced sections of the International Property Maintenance Code, City of Clermont Code of Ordinances, due to the following: High grass and weeds in excess of 18 inches (Section 302.4 Weeds). Action required to correct violations: The premises must be returned to a condition met with custom and usual maintenance, clean of all dead, dying, and/or excess vegetation, uniformly trimmed and mowed, with all clippings removed from the property. All underbrush around the trees must be trimmed and removed from the property. 3 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 James Johnson, 8619 Valley Ridge Court, Orlando, stated that he had someone clean it up, but it was not done correctly. He stated that they will keep it in compliance. Les Booker made a motion to and the Res ondent in violation o the cited Ci code • seconded b Tim Murry. The vote was unanimous in avor of anding the Respondent in violation of the cited City code CASE N0.09-586 James Miller Johnson & Ruby Johnson 101 4th St. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 101 4th St., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 (302.4), High Grass and Weeds City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. He stated this case will be treated the same as the previous case. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced sections of the International Property Maintenance Code, City of Clermont Code of Ordinances, due to the following: Grass and weeds are in excess of 18 inches in height. (Section 302.4 -Weeds). Compliance of this violation will be when the following conditions are met: The premises has been returned to a condition met with custom and usual maintenance, clean of all dead, dying, and/or excess vegetation, uniformly trimmed and mowed, including the street right-of--way to the curb, with all clippings removed from the property. All underbrush around the trees should also be trimmed and removed. James Johnson, 8619 Valley Ridge Court, Orlando, stated that he will keep the property mowed. Ken Forte made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code • seconded by Tim Murry. The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation of the cited City code CASE N0.09-584 Teji Investments, LLC 640 E. Lakeshore Dr. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 640 Lakeshore Dr., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 34, Section 34-61 (1), Unlawful Maintenance of Nuisances City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. 4 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced section of the City of Clermont Code of Ordinances due to the five vacant lots that are extremely overgrown with tall grass and weeds. Compliance of this violation will be when the premises have been returned to a condition met with custom and usual maintenance, clean of all dead, dying, and/or excess vegetation, uniformly trimmed and mowed, including the street right-of--way to the curb, with all clippings removed from the property. Mike Lavender, 1719 1St St., stated that the Moorings did go bankrupt and went up for auction about 5 months ago. He stated that Teji is the new owner. He stated that Premier Lakefront was contacted by Teji to take care of the property. He stated at that time the grass was about 3 feet tall and the gates had been left open and there had been a lot of dumping on the property. He stated that they have had a hard time finding a landscape company to stay on the job to complete what they have been hired to do. He stated that one of the obstacles they have come across is the retention pond because there is no way to get down into it to mow. He stated that he is asking for a continuance to bring this property to code because they have had a struggle to find a landscape company to do it. Les Booker made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code and be fined at a rate of $150.00 per day for every day in violation starting November 17 2009 • seconded b~lfred Mannella. The vote was 4-1 in favor of finding the Respondent in violation and in favor o the time period and the amount of the fine with Board member Ken Forte opp sink the violation start date CASE N0.09-540 Zainab Allboan 1617 12t" St. & 1680 Rosewood Dr. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1617 12t" St. & 1680 Rosewood Dr., Clermont, FL 34711 REQUEST FOR FORGIVENESS City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. Carol Monico, Bradenton, stated that the owner of the property lives in New York. She stated that all the mail was being held because they were in Jordan with her mother while she had surgery. She stated that while they were in Jordan there was confusion about who was cutting the grass while they were gone. She stated that they do have a regular lawn maintenance company now that will mow every 2 weeks now. Ken Forte made a motion to fine the Respondent in the amount of $400 • there was no second so the motion fails. Les Booker made a motion to fine the Respondent in the amount of $1750 • seconded by Alfred Mannella. The vote was 4-1 in favor of fining the Respondent in the amount of $1750 with Ken Forte opposing the amount of the rne. 5 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 CASE N0.09-569 Manzella Builders & Remodeling Inc. 959 W. Minneola Ave. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 959 W. Minneola Ave., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 (302.4), High Grass/Weeds; Vacant Structures & Land City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced sections of the International Property Maintenance Code, City of Clermont Code of Ordinances, due to the following: High grass and weeds in excess of 18 inches, (Section 302.4 Weeds) (Section 301.3 Vacant Structures & Land). Action required to correct violations: Mow grass and weeds on the property, including to the street right-of- way. Remove all clippings and dead vegetative debris. The Respondent was not present. Alfred Mannella made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code and be aped at a rate of $200.00 per day for every day in violation starting October 31 2009 • seconded by Les Booker The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation and in favor of the time eriod and the amount o the fine. CASE N0.09-573 Peoples State Bank & Clermont Hospitality, Inc. Clervue Drive-in Sign, E. Highway 50 Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: Clervue Drive-in Sign, E. Highway 50, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 (302.4), Excessive Weed and Plant Growth City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. Code Enforcement Officer Betty McMinamen exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced section of the City of Clermont Code of Ordinances due to the accumulation, which includes but is not limited to this property currently being overgrown with tall grass and weeds. Compliance of this violation will be when all of the premises have been returned to a condition met with custom and usual maintenance, clean of all dead, dying, and/or excess vegetation, uniformly trimmed and mowed, including the street right-of--way to the curb surrounding this parcel. 6 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OCTOBER 20, 2009 The Respondent was not present. Ken Forte made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code and be fined at a rate of $250.00 per day for every day in violation starting October 21 2009 • seconded by Alfred Mannella The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation and in~avor o the time period and the amount of the fine. CASE NO. 09-575 Jerry D. & Jeanne C. Walls 400 E. Highway 50 Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 400 E. Highway 50, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 (302.4), Excessive Weed & Plant Growth City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. Code Enforcement Officer Betty McMinamen exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation summary as follows: You are hereby notified that you are in violation of the referenced section of the City of Clermont Code of Ordinances due to the accumulation, which includes but is not limited to this property currently being overgrown with tall grass and weeds. Compliance of this violation will be when all of the premises have been returned to a condition met with custom and usual maintenance, clean of all dead, dying, and/or excess vegetation, uniformly trimmed and mowed, including the street right-of--way past the sidewalk to the curb of the street frontage. The Respondent was not present. Les Booker made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code and be fined at a rate of $250.00 per day for every day in violation starting October 21 2009 • seconded by Ken Forte The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation and in favor of the time period and the amount o the rne. Chairman Purvis requested a workshop to be held at 6:00 pm on November 17, 2009. There being no further business, the meeting w~ Attest: C ~- Rae Chidlow, Code Enforcement Clerk 7