Loading...
08-21-2012 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 The regular meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was called to order on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Members attending were Vice-Chairman Alfred Mannella, along with Board members Ken Forte, Larry Seidler, Bill Rini, Chandra Myers, and Thomas Gorgone. Also attending were Suzanne O'Shea, Code Enforcement Officer, Allen LaClair, Water Conservation Coordinator/Code Enforcement Officer, Dan Mantzaris, City Attorney, Anita Geraci-Carver, Code Enforcement Board Attorney and Rae Chidlow, Administrative Assistant. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The minutes from the Code Enforcement Board meeting of July 17, 2012 were approved. Code Enforcement Vice-Chairman Alfred Mannella read the Opening Remarks. Code Enforcement Officers Suzanne O'Shea and Allen LaClair, along with any of the public who may testify, were sworn in. Vice-Chairman Alfred Mannella gave the floor to Code Enforcement Staff and City Attorney. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that Case No. 12-849 will not be heard because it was originally continued to the September meeting. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that Case Nos. 12-863 and 12-866 have come into compliance and will not be heard. CASE NO. 12-864 Norma C. &Richard S. Newby 2513 Holly Berry Circle Clermont, FL 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 2513 Holly Berry Circle, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 118, Section 118-35, Maintenance and Pruning City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was present. Code Enforcement Officer Allen LaClair, who was sworn in, 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 severe pruning of a required tree. Pruning is not in accordance with "Standard Practice for Trees, Shrubs and Other Woody Plant Maintenance ANSI 300" of the National Arborist Association. Compliance of this violation will be when a permit to remove the damaged tree is granted, the tree removed, and a new tree is 1 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 installed. Trees must be from the preferred canopy tree list and must be 10-12 feet tall and the trunk must be 3 inches in diameter upon planting. Norma Newby, 2513 Holly Berry Circle, showed photos and stated that she did not realize she was violating the code. She stated that she pruned the tree because of a huge rat being in the garage that she believes came from the tree. She stated that she is on a fixed income and to replace the tree would be a-financial burden for her to replace. Board member Bill Rini stated that by topping the tree, it damages the tree. He stated that he wandered if the tree will survive over time. He stated that they might could offer an extension of time to help with the financial burden. Ms. Newby stated that seeing in the photos you can see that there is new growth on the tree. She stated that the branches were touching the garage door. Board member Bill Rini stated that the side of the tree might have been touching the garage but the top of the tree was not. Vice-chair Alfred Mannella stated that there is a violation and the tree will eventually die and already has a separation in the center. Board member Bill Rini asked the Respondent what amount of time was Ms. Newby was requesting. Ms. Newby stated that she would like until November to replace the tree. Bill Rini made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of $100 per day from December 18, 2012 until complied; seconded by Tom Gorgone. Board member Tom Gorgone asked was the original date of the violation. Mr. LaClair stated that the violation was on March 12, 2012 and initiated in April. Board member Chandra Myers asked when was the compliance date. Mr. LaClair stated the compliance date was June 12, 2012 and he allowed another 30 day extension to July 12. Tom Gorgone made an amended motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of$100 per-day from November 20, 2012 until complied; seconded by Chandra Myers. The vote was 5-1 in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date, with Board member Forte opposing 2 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 CASE NO. 12-867 John R. Clark&Heather Smith 1975 Country Brook Ave. Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1975 Country Brook Ave., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 122, Section 122-122-Permitted Uses; Section 122-349 (b) (3)- Permitted Home Occupations; Chapter 14-9, Section 108.1.2-Unsafe Equipment; Section 108.1.5 (10)-Dangerous Structure or Premises; Section 605.1-Installation; Section 603.1-Mechanical Appliances; Section 603.2-Removal of Combustion Products; Section 308.2-Disposal of Rubbish. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, 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 commercial printing occurring in the garage of your residence on 1975 Country Brook Drive, which is not permitted. The commercial machinery that is being used in the making of the shirts is well beyond that which is considered customary residential (R1 Single-Family) use, and is therefore not permitted. Chapter 122-122 Permitted Uses; Chapter 122-349(b) (3) Permitted Home Occupations. The equipment being used in the garage is considered unsafe in its existing condition and location, and poses a safety risk to home occupants and neighbors. The garage is not a safe environment to operate such equipment, due to the lack of fire protection measures that would be required. Chapter 14-9 IPMC, Section 108.1.2 Unsafe Equipment, Chapter 14-9 IPMC, Section 108.1.5(10) Dangerous Structure or Premises. Failure to obtain a permit for the electrical modifications made in the connection of the commercial dryer. Additionally, there is no vent connected to the dryer, as required. Chapter 14-9 IPMC, Section 605.1 Installation, Chapter 14-9 IPMC, Section 603.1 Mechanical Appliances, Chapter 14-9 IPMC, Section 603.2 Removal of Combustion Products. The chemicals and paints used in the printing of the shirts are required to be handled, removed, and stored per MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) requirements. MSDS sheets were not available for reference. Additionally, chemicals and paints are being disposed of onto the driveway and lawn, which is not permitted per Danielle Owens, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Additionally, there is a street curb drain located in front of the residence, which would be the collection drain for water leaving the property. Chapter 14-9 IPMC, Section 308.2 Disposal of Rubbish. Compliance of This Violation will be when the following conditions are met in their entirety: All commercial printing equipment used for the manufacturing of shirts must be permanently removed from the residence/garage. This type of equipment may only be used in an approved commercial location. All commercial printing 3 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 chemicals and paints must be stored off premises in accordance with the requirements of the MSDS. City attorney Dan Mantzaris asked Ms. O'Shea to explain how she identified the equipment as a dryer. Ms. O'Shea stated that when she went to the website to identify the dryer. Board member Bill Rini asked if the specs for the dryer show what is required and why it's required to be vented. Ms. O'Shea stated that it's due to the heat and smoke created from the dryer. She stated that this is not considered a home occupation. Board member Bill Rini asked Ms. O'Shea if she looked at that electrical panel for the inspection date. Ms. O'Shea stated that she did not look at the panel and no permits have been pulled for additional electrical. Jimmy Crawford stated that he represents Mr. Clark. He stated that the primary consideration is to determine whether he can operate his business. He stated that Mr. Clark operates a sign business approximately 1 1/2 miles away from his home. He stated that the sign business does not have enough room to include the t-shirt business which is about 5% of his business. He stated that Mr. Clark operates the machinery for the t-shirt business approximately two to three hours a week. He stated that the garage door is open during the operation of the machinery for the t- shirts. He stated that he has a petition from the immediate neighbors stating that they are aware of the operation of the business and have no problems with the operation, nor do they feel unsafe. It states that there are no loud noises, strange odors, or traffic coming and going to the home. He stated that someone complained but it was not one of the neighbors. He stated that this could fall under an accessory use or as a home occupation. He stated that under the definition of the home occupation it does not state the equipment that is involved in the association of the residence, it states "equipment in' size or numbers that is normally in association of the residence". He stated that there are three pieces of equipment in the garage and one more that hasn't worked for four years. He stated that he does not consider that "in numbers or size"beyond what would be normally found in a garage or workshop. He stated that this type of business is not included in the list of prohibited businesses for home occupation. He stated that the dryer is connected electrically correct with a 220 plug and was wired by an electrician. He stated that the last picture shown with that included an extension cord was a photo of the irrigation system and underground fence for the dog and has nothing to do with the dryer. He stated that the dryer does not need to be vented if it is used in an open environment, which it is because the garage door is open when the dryer is in use. He stated that they do have a quote for the ventilation if the city states that it must be ventilated. He stated that the paint is not flammable and they will not dispose of into the drains. 4 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 John Clark, 1975 Country Brook, stated that his primary business is a sign business. He stated that his t-shirt business brings in approximately 5% to 7% of his income. He stated the embroidery and vinyl work is completed in the shop but the screen print part of his business is done in his garage because the amount of space the equipment takes up. He stated that the fire inspector noted that the dryer is hard wired to the main panel to the house, not the subpanel in the garage. He stated that it is wired 220. He stated that he does now have the MSDS sheets that are required and he will keep them in his garage. He stated that he works in his garage at night but all deliveries are made to his sign business. He stated that he has to man his sign shop from 8am to 5pm, so he only works on the screen printing in the evenings and it is not all the time. He stated that part of the business is very sporadic. Sylvia Holt, 1972 Country Brook Avenue, stated that she has lived there for 3 years and she has never smelled anything or seen any trash. She stated that she does not hear any noise and there is never any traffic to his home. She stated that she is always outside and Mr. Clark is a quiet neighbor. Konica Harwick, 1972 Country Brook, stated that she has also lived in the neighborhood for 3 years. She stated that she has not smelled any odors or seen any traffic to Mr. Clark's home. She stated that she has a daughter who is always playing outside and she would never allow her to be harmed by anything and don't see anything hazardous with what he does. Jim Purvis, 4206 Hammersmith Dr., stated that Mr. Clark is a personal acquaintance of him. He stated that Mr. Clark is unfortunately in a predicament. He stated that he has printed t-shirts for certain political candidates and not for other candidates. He stated that this is obviously a complaint from a competitor. Board member Tom Gorgone stated he wants to hear about the violations other than accusations. Mr. Purvis stated that testimony was given pertaining to the fire department inspector, yet the inspector is not here to cross examine. He stated that testimony was presented concerning electrical connections with no verification by a qualified person. He stated that he cautions this Board to be careful because this is very similar to a previous case that ended up before Federal Court. City attorney Dan Mantzaris asked Mr. Purvis if he was aware of whether there were any permits pulled for electrical work that was completed. Mr. Purvis stated that he is not aware of any permits. Mr. Mantzaris asked Mr. Purvis if it would surprise him that the electrical work was completed without a permit. Mr. Purvis stated that he wouldn't say that it would surprise him, it was unknown to him. 5 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 Mr. Mantzaris asked Mr. Purvis if he had any specific information with regards to the operation of the equipment and business in a residential area. Mr. Purvis stated that know no more than what was presented by staff. Board member Tom Gorgone stated that the complaint is brought forth by the Code Enforcement Officers and the information provided by the Code Enforcement Officers is germane to what the city code states. He stated that therefore the presence of the fire inspector was not needed. He stated that the Code Enforcement Officers are trained and adequate to present the city's cases. Mr. Crawford stated that he understands that the fire inspector was not required to come to testify for the case; however the Code Enforcement Officer testified that the dryer was wired through an extension cord, an electric fence or an irrigation system. He stated that she did not know they were hard wired into 220 and cited Mr. Clark for fire violations, so it is important to have the right people present who can testify the correct information. Board member Bill Rini asked Mr. Clark if he explained to the fire inspector was hard wired. Mr. Clark stated that the fire inspector knew it was hard wire, but Ms. O'Shea wasn't paying attention or she forgot. He stated that the fire inspector saw the hard wire and spoke to the electrician. City attorney stated that the only reference to the fire inspector was Ms. O'Shea pointing out the presence of the fire inspector in the picture. He stated the key issue is the city does not know what was used to power this equipment because there was no permit acquired for wiring this equipment. Board member Bill Rini asked about the toxicity of the products. Mr. Clark stated that all the inks are drain safe and they are nontoxic. He stated that the only chemical that is put into the washout booth is the emulsion from the screens that is 1000/1 ratio of emulsion to water. Board member Bill Rini asked that the chemicals are commercial product. Mr. Clark stated that you can buy the products from Michaels so he's not sure that they are commercial products. Board member Bill Rini asked if Mr. Clark if he had a business location but also conducts some of the work from home. Mr. Clark stated that was true and he was told by the City he was not required to have a Business Tax Receipt. 6 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 Mr. Crawford stated that they believe it is allowable as an accessory use. He stated that they will pull an electrical permit if requested, they will keep the MSDS sheets at the location, the chemicals will be disposed of properly, and they will vent the dryer. He stated they this is an allowable business. City attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that Mr. Clark stated that this is an operation as part of his business in a residential neighborhood. He stated that Mr. Clark is using his home to operate his business rather than paying rent for a larger location for his business. He stated that an accessory structure are considered garages, pools, and sheds, not a piece of business equipment that manufacturing t-shirts to be sold as part of a business operation. He stated that the city will not give him a Business Tax Receipt because he does not meet the guidelines for a home occupation. Board member Bill Rini asked if the equipment is insured under his business insurance. Mr. Crawford stated that it is not insured under his business, it's under his home insurance. Vice-chair Alfred Mannella stated that it doesn't matter if the equipment is insured or not. Tom Gorgone made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of$250 per day from September 18, 2012 until complied; seconded by Chandra Myers. The vote was 5-1 in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date with Vice- chair Alfred Mannella opposing. CASE NO. 12-868 Elaine Henry 282 Hunt Street Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 282 Hunt Street, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 118, Section 118-35, Maintenance and Pruning City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, 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 three Oak trees located in the front and rear yards of the property that were severely over-pruned.Hatracking means to flat-cut the top or sides of a tree, severing the leader or leaders, to make internodal cuts; to prune a tree by stubbing off mature wood larger than three inches in diameter, or reducing the total circumference of canopy spread not in conformance with the current National Arborist 7 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 Association standards. Severely trimmed shall mean the cutting of the branches and/or trunk of a tree in a manner which will substantially reduce the overall size of the tree area so as to destroy the existing symmetrical appearance or natural shape of the tree in a manner which results in the removal of the main lateral branches, leaving the trunk of the tree with a stub appearance. Compliance of this violation will be when the following is completed in its entirety: Plant three trees that meet at least the following criteria: Preferred Canopy tree, a minimum of 12 feet in height immediately after planting, a minimum of 6 foot spread, a minimum of 3 inch caliper, 65 gallon container, FL grade 1 or better. The trees must be replaced in close proximity to the affected trees. A tree removal permit must be submitted prior to removal. Elaine Henry, 282 Hunt St., stated that she had asked someone to trim the trees and did not know that they were going to trim them in this manner. She stated that she has replaced the two trees in the back and will replace the tree in the front. She stated that she has obtained a tree removal permit from the city and was told the permit was good for ninety days. She stated that the tree removal company will be back this week to remove the trees in the back; however she needed additional time to remove the tree from the front yard. Board member Chandra Myers asked how much time Ms. Henry will need to remove the trees from the yard. City attorney Dan Mantzaris stated that staff is willing to allow the Respondent to November 20, 2012 to remove the trees. Tom Gorgone made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of$100 per day from November 20, 2012 until complied; seconded by Chandra Myers. The vote was 5-1 in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date with Board member Ken Forte opposing. CASE NO. 12-869 Thomas E. &Dawn Peake 165 Carroll Street Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 165 Carroll Street, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14-9, Section 302.4-Weeds; Section 302.1-Sanitation; Chapter 34, Section 34-95-Prohibition of Storage of Certain Items City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the condition of the property on the date taken and read the violation 8 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 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. This includes trimming the grass/weeds in the front yard that has grown up through the hedges. (Section 302.4 Weeds). There is miscellaneous debris scattered around the property, including but not limited to, buckets, cans,blocks, wood, concrete, stagnant water in buckets, etc(Section 302.1 Sanitation) Expired trailer and boat. (Chapter 34-95 Prohibition of storage of certain items). Action required to correct violations: The premises, front and back, must be uniformly trimmed and mowed below 18 inches in height. Remove all miscellaneous debris and garbage, and dispose of it from the property. Remove the boat and trailer from the property, or store it in an enclosed garage. Thomas Peake, 165 Carroll Street, stated that he has been taking care of his father and he has been trying to take care of the violation issues. He stated that he has most of the items off the property. He requested extra time to finish cleaning up the property. Tom Gorgone made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of$100 per day from October 16, 2012 until complied; seconded by Chandra Myers. The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date. CASE NO. 12-872 Pooran&Khamrajie Sukdeo 779 Lakeview Pointe Dnve Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 779 Lakeview Pointe Dr., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 118, Section 118-35, Maintenance and Pruning City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, 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 three Oak trees located in the front yard of the property that were severely over pruned, in which all of the limbs were removed. Hatracking means to flat-cut the top or sides of a tree, severing the leader or leaders; to make internodal cuts; to prune a tree by stubbing off mature wood larger than three inches in diameter, or reducing the total circumference of canopy spread not in conformance with the current National Arborist Association standards. Severely trimmed shall mean the cutting of the branches and/or trunk of a tree in a manner which will substantially reduce the overall size of 9 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 the tree area so as to destroy the existing symmetrical appearance or natural shape of the tree in a manner which results in the removal of the main lateral branches, leaving the trunk of the tree with a stub appearance. Compliance of This Violation will be when the following is completed in its entirety: Plant three trees, that meet at least the following criteria: Preferred Canopy tree, a minimum of 12 feet in height immediately after planting, a minimum of 6 foot spread, a minimum of 3 inch caliper, 65 gallon container, FL grade 1 or better, the trees must be replaced in close proximity to the affected trees. A tree removal permit must be submitted prior to removal. Kjamrajie Sukdeo, 779 Lakeview Pointe Dr., stated that she was informed she could plant some American elm. She stated that she has severe allergies and she was advised by the doctor to trim the trees and clean up the moss. She stated she didn't know she was violating the city code. She stated that in opinion the trees are growing back. She stated that she will replace the trees. Board member Tom Gorgone asked Ms. Sukdeo how much time she would need to replace the trees. Ms. Sukdeo stated that she is fine with the time frame presented by staff. Tom Gorgone made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of$100 per day from November 20, 2012 until complied; seconded by Chandra Myers. The vote was 5-1 in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date, with Board member Forte opposing. CASE NO. 12-855 Richard L. Pooley III 944 Linden St. Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 944 Linden St., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 42, Sections 42-14, Excessive Lighting in Residential Area; Chapter 122, Section 122-344, Construction of Structure without Permit City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was not present. Code Enforcement Officer Allen LaClair, who was sworn in, 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 construction and installation of a "lighthouse" on the subject property without a permit. In addition, the lighting produced is not constrained within your property limits. Compliance of this violation will be when the lighthouse 10 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES - CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 is disconnected, a permit pulled and proper inspections passed, or the structure (and lighting) is removed. Tom Gorgone made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a ,fine of$100 per day from September 18, 2012 until complied; seconded by Larry Seidler. The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date. CASE NO. 12-870 Theodore P. &Kathleen A. Ross 946 Dartmouth Ave. Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 946 Dartmouth Ave., Clermont,'FL 34711 REPEAT VIOLATION: Chapter 14-IPMC, Sections 303.2;Pool Enclosures; Section 303.1, Swimming Pools City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was not present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, 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 following: A panel of screening for the pool enclosure is removed, and the pool is currently accessible, posing a threat to the safety of the public. (Section 303.2 Pool Enclosures). The pool is green and stagnant. (Section 303.1 Swimming Pools). Compliance of this violation will be when all of the premises have met the following conditions: Secure the pool enclosure screen, so there is no unauthorized access to the swimming pool. All pool screening must remain secure and intact at all times. Chemically treat or drain the pool, so that the pool is no longer green and poses a threat. Ms. O'Shea stated she did have contact from the bank and there is a work order for Thursday, August 23, 2012 for the work to be completed. Ken Forte made a motion to find the Respondent in repeat violation of the cited City code with a fine of$250 per day from August 31, 2012 until complied and declare this property a threat to life, health and safety to the public; seconded by Chandra Myers. The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date. CASE NO. 12-871 Federal National Mortgage Association 1798 Vale Dr. Clermont, Fl 34711 11 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1798 Vale Dr., Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 14-9 IMPC, Section 302.4, Weeds; Section 302.1, Sanitation; Section 303.1 Swimming Pool City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was not present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, 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). Miscellaneous items stored on the side of the house, including but not limited to: buckets, tarps, appliances, etc. (Section 302.1 Sanitation). The pool is stagnant, green and unsanitary. (Section 303.1 Swimming Pool) (Section 302.1 Sanitation). Action required to correct violations: The premises must uniformly trimmed and mowed below 18 inches in height. All appliances and other miscellaneous items must be removed from the exterior of the property, or stored in an enclosed area out of view. Chemically clean the pool so it is clear and clean, and is not a breeding ground for bugs. Larry Seidler made-a motion to find the Respondent in repeat violation of the cited City code with a fine of$250-per day from September 18, 2012 until complied and declare this property a threat to life, health-and safety to the public; seconded by Ken Forte. The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the,fine and date. CASE NO. 12-873 Joseph Lezama 1480 Muir Circle Clermont, Fl 34711 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1480 Muir Circle, Clermont, FL 34711 VIOLATION: Chapter 118, Section 118-71, Minimum Trees City Attorney Dan Mantzaris introduced the case. The Respondent was not present. Code Enforcement Officer Suzanne O'Shea, who was sworn in, 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: There are not any approved Canopy trees 12 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 21, 2012 located on your property. Compliance of this violation will be when the following is completed in its entirety: Plant three Canopy trees on the property. The trees must individually meet at least the following criteria: A minimum of 12 feet in height immediately after planting, a minimum of 6 foot spread, a minimum of 3 inch caliper, 65 gallon container, FL Grade 1 or better, the trees must be replaced either two in the front and one in the rear yard, or vice versa. Larry Seidler made a motion to find the Respondent in violation of the cited City code with a fine of$100 per day from September 18, 2012 until complied; seconded by Tom Gorgone. The vote was unanimous in favor of finding the Respondent in violation with the fine and date. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. _....i/im _ .-- Dave Holt, Chairman Attest: \?,.Sk9M,,,k_), Rae Chidlow, Code Enforcement Clerk 13