Loading...
01-19-2010 Regular MeetingCITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 The regular meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was called to order on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. Members attending were James Purvis, Chairman, Ken Forte, David Holt, 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, Al Freeman, Water Conservation Officer, Dan Mantzaris, City Attorney, Valerie Fuchs, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, and Rae Chidlow, Administrative Assistant. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The minutes from the Code Enforcement Board Meeting of November 17, 2009 were approved as amended. Code Enforcement Chairman Jim Purvis read the Opening Remarks. Code Enforcement Officers Suzanne O'Shea, Betty McMinamen, and Water Conservation Officer Al Freeman 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 case numbers 10-613, 10-614, 10-616, and 10-618 have complied and will not be heard. NEW BUSINESS CASE N0.09-592 Bibi I. Bholasing 699 Skyridge Road Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 699 Skyridge Road, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Ordinance No. 336-C City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. Water Conservation Officer Al Freeman stated that on August 14, 2009 at 6:30 am, the resident located at 699 Skyridge Road, was watering on a day that they were not supposed to be. He stated they had received prior notices regarding the proper watering days for that address. He stated they were sent a citation twice by certified letter, with no response to either one. He stated that at that point it was turned over to Code Enforcement. He stated they have made no attempt to comply. Chairman Purvis asked what day the citation was issued. Mr. Freeman stated that it was on a Friday. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 Board member Tim Murry asked if there has been any contact with the Respondent. Mr. Freeman stated that they have refused the certified mail that was sent to them. He stated that he believes Ms. McMinamen spoke to them once, but was hung up on. Code Enforcement Officer Betty McMinamen stated that she made contact with a woman who did not speak very good English well, and she received a call from a man who told her not to ever call there again. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that Staff is requesting a $50 fine and a lien to be placed on the property until the fine is paid. Ken Forte made a motion to end the Respondent in violation of the cited City code and be fined a one- time ane of $SO 00 and to move forward to place a lien on the property until payment is made; seconded b_y Tim Murry The vote was unanimous in favor of frnding the Respondent in violation and the amount ofthefne and lien. CASE NO. 10-611 Al-Karim Jivraj 528 W. Minneola Ave. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 528 W. Minneola Ave., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 International Property Maintenance Code 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: The rear building has not remained secure, as required by prior order of the Code Enforcement Board on August 18, 2009. The building does not have functioning electrical services, and is considered unlivable as is, posing a danger to anyone who resides in the building. (Section 108.2-Closing of vacant structures) (Section 108.1.3- Structure unfit for human occupancy). Action required to correct violations: Either repair electrical services to meet current codes, or board up the building (all windows and doors) to prevent entry. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that staffs recommendation is to find the Respondent as a repeat violation due to the property not being boarded up after the previous case that was brought before the Board. He stated that staff is not supporting a remedial action of just boarding up the property. He stated compliance will be when the property is brought to code or demolished. He stated that staff is recommending that the Respondent obtain all zoning and building permits by February 16, 2010 and 2 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 complete all repairs by August 17, 2010, and if that does not occur, then a fine of $400 a day will accrue for each day until compliance. Chairman Purvis read the minutes from the August 18, 2009 Code Enforcement meeting pertaining to this property. Al-Karim Jivraj, 528 W. Minneola Ave., stated that the property was brought to compliance a couple of years ago. He stated that the property was rented out until August 2009. He stated that there are two buildings on the property. He stated that the front apartments were rented out until August 2009. He stated the rear apartments were not rented, because he did not have the money to fix the buildings. He stated he was asked to board up the property which he did. He stated that people have broken into the property. He stated that when it was brought to his attention, he decided to padlock the doors. He stated that the damage that you see in the pictures was done by the tenants when they were told to move out. He stated that he is hurting financially, and he does not have the money to fix the property at this time. Chairman Purvis asked how often does the Respondent check on the property. Mr. Jivraj stated that he tries to check on it frequently, but he had someone looking after the property who became unreliable. Board member David Holt asked the Respondent if he had a counter proposal for the city for when he can comply. Mr. Jivraj stated that it is hard to bring 7 apartments into compliance. He stated that these were functional apartments. He stated that he is willing to work apartment by apartment to bring them into compliance, because he has to do a lot of the work himself. He stated that if he finishes one apartment and can prove it is in compliance, he can rent that one out and begin work on the next one. He stated that 6 months is not long enough to complete everything by the August 2010 date because of financial issues. Les Booker made a motion to find the Re~ondent in repeat violation of the cited City code and be fined at a rate of $400 OD per dam for every day in violation starting February 16 2010 if a permit is not obtained and the propertymust be brought into compliance or be completely demolished by August 17, 2010• seconded by_A_lfred Mannella The vote was 5-1 in favor of finding the Respondent in repeat violation and in favor of the time period and the amount of the Erne with David Holt opposing. CASE NO. 10-622 Al-Karim Jivraj 528 W. Minneola Ave. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: S28 W. Minneola Ave., Clermont, FL 34711 3 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 VIOLATION: Chapter 14, Section 14-9 International Property Maintenance Code 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: The front building (units 1-4) does not have safe, functional electrical and plumbing services. There are numerous large ceiling leaks and holes. Electrical connection is substandard, and dangerous. The exterior structure has holes and rotted wood on the exterior of the building, allowing for entry of water, animals, etc. Windows and screens are broken, ripped, incorrectly mounted, and unsafe. Exterior doors do not have functioning locks. Interior surfaces of bathrooms and kitchen are unsanitary, rotted, and in general disrepair. Garbage and rubbish have collected around the entire exterior of the residence. Smoke detectors are not present, and hallway lighting is not adequate. Appliances are in extreme disrepair and unsanitary. Exterior doors are unsecured and accessible to transients. Large holes and rotten wood in walls and floors. A large amount of animal feces in addition to an abandoned dog have been left on the front porch. (Section 108.1-General) (Section 108.1.2-Unsafe equipment) (Section 108.1.3-Structure unfit for human occupancy) (Section 108.2-Closing of vacant structures). Action required to correct violations: Secure the entire building so there is no unauthorized access at any time or obtain all required permits to make abovementioned repairs, or obtain required permits and demolish building by January 15, 2010. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that the building official made a determination that the structure was unsafe for human habitation. He stated that under the Florida Building Code the building official can post the property and anyone who enters the property from that point is committing a crime. Al-Karim Jivraj, 17720 Deer Island Circle, Winter Garden, stated that this building has 4 apartments. He stated that apartment numbers 1 and 4 were kicked in and destroyed. He stated that apartments 2 and 3 were in good condition. He stated that a lot of the damage is from the last two tenants. He stated that he has cleaned up all the trash from around the buildings. He stated that he called Code Enforcement, invited them into the property and told them that he was going to evict the tenants. He stated that the electric is good; the tenants just did not have the power on. Chairman Purvis stated that by the looks of the pictures, the electric doesn't look good. Mr. Jivraj stated that those are phone and cable lines in the picture with the wires on the outside. He stated that he needs more time. Chairman Purvis stated that he is not in favor of allowing more time, but he does not have a problem with him coming back and explaining why he may need more time. Ken Forte stated that he would like to see the Respondent come back with an update prior to the August meeting. 4 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 David Holt made a motion to end 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 February 16 2010 if a permit is not up lled and the property must come into compliance or be completely demolished by August 17 2010• seconded by Les Booker. The vote was unanimous in favor of anding the Respondent in violation and in favor o~ the time period and the amount of the,fine. CASE NO. 10-617 Bee's Auto Inc. 898 W. Montrose St. Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 898 W. Montrose, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 102, Section 102-6 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 approximately twelve (12) signs that have been erected without a permit in front of 898 W. Montrose St., and in front of the undeveloped lot to its east. Compliance of this violation will be when the. signs are permitted through the City of Clermont zoning department or if a permit is not authorized under the city code, when the signs are permanently removed. Mr. Mantzaris stated that Ms. O'Shea read the code provision and talked about exempt signs, and he wants to make it clear that in the City's position, these signs do not meet the criteria for exempt signs. Wayne Weatherbee, 21919 US Highway 27, Leesburg, stated that he is the President and Director of Bee's Auto, Inc. He stated that he will have Chuck Forth speak in his behalf. Charles Forth, 939 W. Desoto St., stated that the initial notice was hand delivered by Ms. O'Shea. He presented the envelope the notice was delivered in. He stated that the requirements for service of a corporation are found in Chapter 48 in the Florida Statutes. He stated that it is required that they service the registered agent, or in his/her absence, the president or director. He stated that Mr. Weatherbee could have been anybody. He stated that Mr. Weatherbee and he went to City Hall on the 27`h and met with Jim Hitt, Suzanne O'Shea and a clerk at the front counter. He stated that they asked for 2 sign permits, and Mr. Hitt stated that those were prohibited signs. He stated that he asked where Mr. Weatherbee had violated the sign code. He stated that they attempted to get a permit and they were denied a permit. He stated that they were denied a permit because there is no use at that property. He stated that the City's code is not clear about when a property can or can't have a sign. He stated that they were told that no signs were allowed. He stated that they contacted the ACLU, and that matter is forthcoming with notice of hearing. He presented another envelope not addressed to anyone. He stated that service was made to Wayne Weather. He stated that person does not exist in the corporation as a 5 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 representative or otherwise. He stated that if the City moves forward with this case, then it is violating due process. He stated that if it's the position of the Code Enforcement Board or City Attorney to move forward with this case, then under the Florida Bar requirements for ethics of legal councel, they will request for that to be reviewed by Mr. Weatherbee's attorney. He stated that this was never served properly, and the City was citing a code section that they were told he can't comply with because the city was never going to issue one. He stated that these signs came about because there was an issue pertaining to a banner, which was taken down. He stated that they are asking for this case to be dismissed, served properly, and they can come back next month. He stated that if this case does move forward then by Section 4.4-1.4, everyone is on notice. He stated that these proceedings could encumber the property. Ms. Fuchs stated that if the Respondent is found in violation of the cited code and a fine is imposed, the fine encumbers the property. Mr. Forth stated that there will be an encumbrance to the property without proper notice. Chairman Purvis asked where the dividing line is between an illegal sign and freedom of speech. Ms. Fuchs stated that this doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. She stated that the Board needs to hear from the Staff's Attorney regarding the notice provision since this was raised and noted on the record. Mr. Mantzaris read Section 162-12 from the City's code. He stated that Mr. Weatherbee's testimony was that he is the President and Director of the corporation and Ms. O' Shea's testimony was that she hand delivered the notice to Mr. Weatherbee. Ms. Fuchs stated that she feels Section 162-12 has been met. Chairman Purvis asked about the notice being addressed to Mr. Weather, rather than Mr. Weatherbee. Ms. Fuchs stated that it is a scrivener's error. Board member Ken Forte stated his concern about the spelling of the name in the notice and if that will disqualify the notice. Ms. Fuchs stated that it was a scrivener's error. Mr. Mantzaris stated that the City's position is the notice is good. He stated that Mr. Weatherbee received the notice and is present for the meeting. Mr. Weatherbee stated that he feels he was noticed improperly. Chairman Purvis stated that he does not disagree with Mr. Weatherbee. He stated that he would like to get back to the freedom of speech issue. 6 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 Ms. Fuchs stated that what is before the Board is a sign violation cited by staff. She stated that if everyone is treated the same and equally regarding the sign ordinance for what's prohibited and what's allowed, then there are no freedom of speech issues. She stated that this is not an issue for this case. Mr. Mantzaris stated that the content of the sign is not the issue. He stated that they are talking about a structure. He stated that there have been several similar sign cases that have been brought before the Board where the signs were put up without a permit. Board member Ken Forte asked if the Respondent was refused a permit because the City doesn't issue permits for those types of signs. Planning Director Jim Hitt stated that Mr. Weatherbee and Mr. Forth came in and asked to get a permit. He stated that the permit can't be issued because there is not a permitted use or an occupied building at that site. Chairman Purvis read Section 102.4, the definition of a sign, to the Board. He stated that there is no corporation sign, so he questions if these fit the definition of a sign. Mr. Mantzaris stated that the definition of a sign includes the reference to subject and according to Supreme and Federal Court cases on the First Amendment rights of signs, local governments have to be content neutral in how they address these signs. He stated that it is almost impossible to discuss the signs without talking about the content on them. He stated that he does feel it meets the definition of a sign. He stated the signs still are a structure that is on a property without a permit. Board member David Holt questioned the process of getting a permit through the City. Board member Tim Murry stated that he is confused on the permitting. He stated he understands they need a permit, but he questioned whether a sign could go up without a permitted use on that property. He questioned why it took so long to serve notice to the Respondent. Mr. Mantzaris stated that the City has had ongoing discussions with the property owner and property owner's legal counsel with regard to the use of this property. He stated that there have been at least 2 meetings with them where they were asked to remove the signs. He stated that they have been working with the Respondent to see if they would voluntarily comply. Board member Les Booker questioned that the sign permit can't be issued because there is no permitted use on the property. Chairman Purvis stated that he does not personally He stated that the issue is how do they get the sign that. believe these are signs as defined in the ordinance. s down, and do they even have the authority to do He stated that he does not support finding this Respondent out of compliance because he is not sure there is anything to comply to. 7 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 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 dad for every day in violation starting Februarv 2, 2010. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Board member Alfred Mannella asked if they could make a motion for the staff to do more homework on the sign issue. Tim Murrv made a motion to postpone this case to the Februarv 16 2010 meeting• seconded by Alfred Mannella The vote was 2-4 so the motion ails with Chairman Purvis, Board members Forte, Holt and Booker opposing. Board member David Holt stated that he does not see how City code would allow these signs. He stated that what is before the Board now is failure to obtain a permit. He stated that it is up to the Respondent to get the permit and if they can't get one, then fight to get one. Mr. Holt further stated the Board should make a decision tonight. He stated that the points of view and comments made by other Board members are valid, but fall outside the Board's responsibility. He stated that this case as presented is about whether the Respondent has a permit or not, not whether a permit should be issued. He stated that it is up to the City staff and City Council. Ms. Fuchs stated that is correct and that is what has been presented before the Board by Staff. She stated that it is up to the Code Enforcement Officer to decide what code is being violated. She stated that it is up to the Board to either agree that the code has been violated or if it hasn't been violated. She stated that it is up to Staff to determine whether the Respondent can get a permit or not and the Respondent has the right to appeal that decision. Board member Les Booker asked that if these signs were placed anywhere else in the City, could they get a sign permit. Mr. Mantzaris stated that he would not get a permit for the number of signs. He stated that it depends on the size of the property, the frontage, and many other issues. Board member Ken Forte stated that he would rather support a motion finding the Respondent not in violation rather than postpone the case. Chairman Purvis stated that he concurs with Mr. Forte. Chairman Purvis passed the gavel to Vice-chairman Tim Murry. Ken Forte made a motion to find the Respondent not violation of the cited City code; seconded by Jim Purvis. The vote was 1-S so the motion fails with Board members Forte, Holt, Murrv, Booker and Mannella opposing. Board member David Holt stated that this sets a bad precedent, so he does not support this motion. 8 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD JANUARY 19, 2010 Board member Tim Murry agreed with Mr. Holt, but said is not clear whether these are illegal signs because of the verbiage. Chairman Purvis stated that if Staff is adamant, then they have the opportunity to gather more convincing evidence and come back before the Board. Board member Ken Forte stated that his intent with his motion was not to keep the City from ever going against the Respondent again. Ms. Fuchs stated that staff will not be allowed to bring it back before the Board within a year. She stated that another option is the City can modify their sign definition to ease the Board's concerns. Mr. Mantzaris stated that the City will not have an opportunity to come back before the Board with this case. Ms. Fuchs stated that if the Board determines these are not signs, the City will not be able to bring this case back before the Board. She stated that if they find the Respondent not in violation of Section 102.6, then Staff will not bring this back before the Board. If it's the Board's decision that it is not a sign and so a permit is not needed, the section of the code does not apply. Gavel was returned to Chairman Purvis. David Holt made a motion to end the Respondent in violation of the cited City code and be fined at a rate of $75.00 per day for everv day in violation starting February 2 2010 • seconded bX Alfred Mannella. The vote was S-1 in favor of ending the Respondent in violation and in favor o the time period and the amount o theme with Tim Murry opposing There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Attest: ~t~ / Rae Chidlow, Code Enforcement Clerk 9