Loading...
05-21-2019 Code Enforcment Meeting CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING MAY 21,2019 The City of Clermont Code Enforcement Hearing for May 21,2019 took place in the Council Chambers at City Hall beginning at 1:30 P.M.with Special Magistrate Andrew Lanius presiding over the hearing. Also attending were Matthew Reusch,Code Enforcement Supervisor, Katherine Neill,Code Enforcement Officer, Dan Mantzaris,City Attorney,Curt Henschel, Development Services Director,John Kruse, Planning Manager and Rosalee Cohen,Administrative Assistant. Everyone who will testify was sworn in. City Attorney Mantzaris stated that Respondents are present for Items 1,2,3,4, 5, 7, 9 and 10. Case No.C2019-000208 Respondent: Emerald Lakes Co-Op Inc. 1401 W Hwy 50, Lot 51 VIOLATION:Section 122344 Building Permit Required Disposition: Dismissed by the City in name of this Respondent. Will be brought back in the future before the Magistrate in the name of a different Respondent. No ruling needed from the Special Magistrate. Case No.C2017-000125 Respondent: John P Adams&Ann D Adams Family LP 2575 E Hwy 50 MOTION TO LIEN Section 122344 Building Permit Required Disposition: Withdrawn by the City. Respondent has been much more responsive,will be in compliance, hold off and will bring back at next meeting if necessary. Case No.C2018-000319 Respondent: Progress Residential 20141 BO 210 North Bloxam Avenue VIOLATION: JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION Section 122-344 Property Maintenance,Section 302 IPMC Sanitation,and Section 302.4 IMPC Weeds. Disposition: Case was appealed,appeal pending. Stipulation entered into between the City and Respondent to resolve the pending appellate matter and the outstanding fine. Respondent agrees to dismiss pending appeal,accrued fine of$6,300 of which Respondent will pay$1,000,the City agrees that the pending violation which has been corrected will not be treated as a repeat violation in a subsequent hearing. Parties are both in agreement and request that the Special magistrate approve the 1 Joint Stipulation. Special Magistrate asked for confirmation by both attorneys that he has the jurisdiction at this point with the pending appeal to approve this Order. Respondent is represented by Attorney Scott Glass of the law firm of Schutts and Bowen, 300 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando who stated for the record that he concurs with City Attorney Mantzaris' position. Both attorneys agreed that it resolves all the issues and the matter will now be concluded. Joint Stipulation as presented was so ordered by the Special Magistrate. Case No. C2019-000273 Respondent: LGCC Holdings LLC 1700 Legendary Blvd VIOLATION: REPEAT VIOLATION Section 122344 Property Maintenance and Section 302.4 IPMC Weeds Officer Neill presented the case. Property originally found in violation at the November 11,2018 Special Magistrate hearing. Returned in repeat violation status on April 25, 2019. Notices were received on April 29,2019. Follow up inspection on April 30th with weeds in excess of 26 inches. Results of re-inspection conducted on May 7,2019 shows property in compliance. Staff recommends Respondent be found in repeat violation and assess a fine of$350 per day for the twelve (12)days that the property was in repeat violation for a total fine amount of $4,200.00. Lindsey Holt,attorney with the law firm of Crawford,Modica& Holt,702 W. Montrose Street appeared on behalf of her partner,Jimmy Crawford to represent the Respondent. Attorney Holt expressed the Respondent's frustration with his efforts to bring the property into compliance. There is a lease on the property with a tenant in possession since July of 2018 which requires proper maintenance of the property, including the fairways. There have been issues between the parties and Respondent has not been allowed to enter upon the property in order to bring it into compliance in a timely manner. A civil lawsuit was brought and a complaint filed on May 7th and an emergency ex-parte order was granted allowing the Respondent to enter the property. Attorney Holt called Miguel Vidal,tenant at the property,to give testimony,which was allowed by the Special Magistrate, provided it relates to the issues before him today. Special Magistrate Lanius explained that he can only decide today whether or not the property was in repeat violation. Attorney 2 Holt agreed but wanted to find out if there can be an adjustment of the fine. Magistrate Lanius explained that there would be no opportunity to negotiate an adjustment of the fine. She can negotiate with the City and bring a Joint Motion back to him. For the record,Attorney Holt reserved her right under Article 5 to pursue an adjustment of the fine. Attorney Holt called Miguel Vidal to the stand and he was sworn in by the Special Magistrate. Mr.Vidal testified that he's familiar with the commercial lease and that he signed the lease and it's a valid agreement. He's not the owner of the property but has been there since July of 2018 running the golf course and clubhouse. He's a resident of Mexico and has been out of the country sometimes in the month of April but have people working at the golf course. He stated that they try to maintain the property but it's a big property and they have a large portion of it in order. He thinks,for the most part,the property is maintained in good order. Attorney Mantzaris asked Mr.Vidal if he has staff responsible for maintaining the property. Mr.Vidal stated yes.Attorney Holt provided copy of the commercial lease for the record. Attorney Holt called David Nameniuk,authorized represent of the owner, LGGC. He stated he was aware of the violations and has been present several times before the Magistrate. He stated that he could not take any steps to make any repairs to the property because he had no access and if he entered upon the property, he would be sued by Mr.Vidal. There is an Injunctive Relief Order issued by the Fifth Judicial Circuit granting a temporary injunction and allowing LGCC during the pendency of the lawsuit,to enter upon the property to maintain it. LGCC has filed a verified complaint in Lake County for damages and certain other defaults related to the commercial lease. Attorney presented a copy of the Order. Mr. Nameniuk stated that as soon as LGCC received that authorization, he purchased over$10,000 worth of new equipment,paid over $6,000 in labor costs to remove dead trees and limbs and he has personally mowed every hole on the property several times averaging more than 6 hours per day and has hired two full time employees plus himself to do the weeding and clean up the golf course,all in order to cure the violations. He stated that the golf course has not look better. He has incurred order$17,000 in attorneys,$10,00 in equipment and over$7,000 in labor to seeking permission to enter upon the property in order to maintain it. LGCC will be responsible for paying the fines. He 3 will continue to maintain the property with the code until he's replaced. Attorney Mantzaris asked Mr. Nameniuk if he's aware of the November 2018 Order, he stated yes. He stated that LGCC relied on the tenant to maintain the property and the tenant assured them that all maintenance would be completed and it was not done, hence LGCC filed for the temporary injunction. He acknowledged that LGCC is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of the property. Attorney Holt asked that the Magistrate consider eliminating or substantially reducing the fines due to the frustration of LGCC. The Magistrate asked Officer Neil if the property has been maintained since the May 6th compliance date,and if she has seen evidence of ongoing maintenance. She stated she has not personally seen any work in progress, but she has seen the effects of maintenance done. Disposition: Violation in the amount of$200.00 per day for the twelve(12) days the property was in violation. A meeting in the middle to show appreciation for LGCC's efforts. Case No.C2019-000289 Respondent: LGCC Holdings LLC Liberty Hill Drive VIOLATION: Repeat Violation Section 122-344 Property Maintenance and Section 302.4— IPMC Weeds Attorney Mantzaris pointed out that this case involves the same issues as the ones just heard in Case No. C20190-00273. All parties, including Attorney Holt, agreed that in the interest of time,the Magistrate will make the same ruling as the previous case. Disposition: Violation in the amount of$200.00 per day for the seven (7)days the property was in violation. A meeting in the middle to show appreciation for LGCC's efforts. The Magistrate advised Attorney Holt that she has the right to appeal this decision within ten (10)days. 4 Case No. C2018-000377 Respondent: Capitao Duda Real Estate LLC 4300 S US Highway 27#104 VIOLATION: Reduction of Fine Section 304.13 Window, Skylight and Door Frames,Section 305.3 Interior Surfaces,Section 305.6 Interior Doors, Section 122-344 Building Permit Required. Attorney Mantzaris introduced and presented the case and stated this case involves doing work without a building permit. Case was previously heard before the Magistrate and was brought into compliance however,fine has accrued in the amount of$19,000.00. Special Magistrate's Order required that the Respondent submit required plans and bring the property into compliance on or before January 15,2019 otherwise,a fine of$250 per day would accrue. The property has been brought into compliance. Issue before the Magistrate today is the Respondent's request for a reduction in fine via letter dated April 16`h. Attorney Mantzaris pointed out that this is a doctor's office which services the public and renovations were done without the proper permits,and the City takes this violation very seriously. Attorney Mantzaris stated that the City has not taken a position of agreement with this request yet, but is willing to hear the Respondent's side. Mr. Paulo Alves, property manager stated they did the best they could to bring the property into compliance. There was a tenant occupying the premises and they did not have access to the property. By the end of November 2018,the tenants were removed from the property which took two months. But in the meanwhile,the fines were accruing. He's requesting 30 days' reduction in the amount of$7,500.00. They spent quite a bit to bring the property into compliance.The Special Magistrate asked him how did he arrive at the specific amount of $9,428.55, and it's indicated that the work was done by the maintenance man,and if he has any backup evidence to support how he arrived at that dollar amount. Mr.Alves provided a receipt from GECALT Construction Group. Mr.Alves explained that the work was done by a third-party maintenance man from this company and not their personal maintenance man from their company. 5 The Special Magistrate asked attorney Mantzaris to indicate the City's position on the two issues, namely the amount of days and the money spent to bring the unit into compliance. Mr. Mantzaris examined the receipt provided by Mr.Alves and stated that Code Enforcement is authorized by statute to impose a fine of up to$250 per day and it has no bearing upon the amount expended by Respondent to bring the property into compliance. The maintenance is done for the benefit of the owner. If the City agrees to the reduction in fine based upon the amount the Respondent spent,then they would allow every property owner to double dip since improvements to the property increases the value for the benefit of the owner. He further explained that the fines accrued for 77 days based upon information contained in the Respondent's letter requesting a reduction to 30 days. The City's position in calculating the number of days is to look at the three conditions set forth in Chapter 162, i.e.,the severity of the violation,the responsiveness of the violator and whether the violator has had any issues. The City's position is that the violation is very serious, in that it's a property renovated without a building permit and open to the public for health care services. He stated that the City is not in the business of penalizing good tax paying citizens, but they do require compliance. The City is willing to accept a reduction in the lien from $19,000.00 to $5,000.00,with the stipulation that the Respondent makes the payment within 30 days from today and if the fine is not paid within the 30-day period, it will revert to the$19,000.00 amount. The city is presenting this to the Special Magistrate for consideration and is requesting that an Order be entered to that effect. Disposition: Order approving payment of$5,000.00 within 30 days,with the stipulation that if it's not paid within the 30-day period,the fine will revert to$19,000.000. The Special Magistrate explained in detail to the Respondent,and suggested that the Respondent make this payment within five days, Respondent responded that he understood and this is acceptable. 6 Case No.C2016-000542 Respondent: Jeffrey S. Davis&Taci Lyden 847 W Minneola Avenue VIOLATION: Motion to Lien Chapter 14, IPMC Sections 108.1.1 Unsafe Structure, 108.1.3 Structure Unfit for Occupancy,108.5 Prohibited Occupancy, 304.1 Exterior Structure,304.7 Roofs and Drainage,305 Interior Structure, and 306.1.1 Unsafe Conditions Chapter 34 Sections 3461 Enumeration of prohibited items and 3462 Creation or Maintenance of Nuisances. Chapter 122 Section 122344 Property Maintenance. Attorney Mantzaris introduced the case. Code Enforcement Officer, Neill, presented the case. City filed a motion,case originally came before Special Magistrate in January 2017 relating to violations on the property. Original Order gave Respondents until March 18t''to correct the violations, property has not been brought into compliance as of today's date. City is asking for the imposition of a fine in the amount of$250 per day accruing from March 18, 2017 until today and that imposition of fine would be filed in the public records and create a lien on the property. Taci Lyden stated that she supplied the City with a structural integrity report form an Engineer,she understands there were issues with weeds around the property, under construction since she purchased the property. Had a lot of structural issues, she has pulled permits, and she's shocked that the City has an issue with the property,as no one lives there and it's under construction. She had not heard anything from the City since the date of that hearing and she is now taken Special Magistrate explained that it was found that a violation existed at the last hearing and since the property did not come into compliance, and now the City wants an official lien filed against the property. Mr. Lyden stated that she was aware there were issues and she provided a report from a structural engineer,she renewed the permit and the exterior will be done as it's a time consuming process. Code Enforcement Officer Neill testified that permits were renewed. 7 Attorney Mantzaris stated there continues to be issues with this property. The Special Magistrate stated that he needs to clarify that someone has gone out to inspect the property and found it not in compliance at this time,as it's the Respondent's responsibility to call the City for an inspection after the violations were corrected. Ms. Lyden stated she was not aware she was responsible for calling the City for an inspection. The Special Magistrate advised her that pursuant to the Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Order, a copy of which was provided to her at the last hearing, paragraph 2 clearly states that the Respondent is responsible for contacting the City to arrange for a Code Enforcement officer to conduct a re-inspection of the property and to verify that the violations have been corrected and the property has been brought into compliance with the City Codes cited above. The Special Magistrate asked if that was done. Code Enforcement Officer Reusch testified that he conducted an inspection of the property this morning and found that the property is not in compliance. Property is still in a state of disrepair,siding exposed and other various other issues are still outstanding. The Special Magistrate asked if anyone from the City was ever contacted at any time prior to today to observe whether or not the property has been brought into compliance. Code Enforcement Officer Neill stated that according to the City's records,the last requested inspection was on December 4,2018 and a building inspector from the City went out and failed the property and this is the last recorded date of any contact for a re-inspection. The Special Magistrate asked the Respondent if she feels that the property is now in compliance. Ms. Lyden testified that she only sees an issue with the exterior which is old wood siding and she has not commenced any interior work. The Special Magistrate advised that the only issue he's ruling on is whether or not the property is in compliance. Ms. Lyden stated her goal is to get everything done and she's not trying to. She did not know that she was aware she had to contact Code Enforcement. Her understanding is that when she pulls a permit,the City would know she's getting work done. 8 Disposition: Imposition of Lien as requested by the City is granted. The Special Magistrate advised the Respondent to contact the City's Code Enforcement Officers to verify what she needs to do and they'll be able to explain in detail what is required of her in order to bring the property into compliance. Case No. C2017-000305 Tiproel LLC ET AL Bloxam Ave(Alternate Key 1109957) VIOLATION: MOTION TO LIEN Section 122344 Property Maintenance, Section 3461 Enumeration of Prohibited Items, Conditions or Actions Constituting Nuisances,Section 3462 Creation or Maintenance of Nuisance by Property Owner Declared Unlawful,Chapter 14 Section 301.31 IPMC Vacant Structures and Land,and Chapter 14 Section 302.4 IPMC Weeds Attorney introduced the case. Case was originally brought before the Special Magistrate in August 2017,compliance date set for August 31, 2017 or fine of$250 per day would accrue. To date, property has not been brought into compliance. The City is requesting that a lien be imposed on the property. Attorney Lindsey Holt,with the law firm of Crawford, Modica& Holt,702 W. Montrose Street appeared on behalf of the Respondent and stated that the Respondent has never received any notice of prior hearings from the City. This is vacant property,she's not sure where notices were sent. Respondent just received last Friday a notice about today's hearing and Respondent engaged her firm. Respondent is requesting a 60- day extension in order to bring the property into compliance. Attorney Mantzaris advised that original notice of hearing was sent to a Clermont address and there is an affidavit of posting. Compliance issue can be resolved very quickly and the City has no objection with the extension. Janet Christoff,co-owner of the property appeared on behalf of Respondent and stated for the record that the proper address to send notices is 11646 Grace Lane, Clermont, FL 34711 or to their attorney. Disposition: Sixty-Day extension granted, as agreed to by the City. Special Magistrate advised that Respondent needs to work with the City to bring the property into compliance as soon as possible and to keep the lines of communication open. 9 Item 6 Case No. C2017-000379 Singh, Ramchand Trustee& Devika Sing Trustee 1306& 1312 Disston Avenue VIOLATION: MOTION TO LIEN Section 122344 Building Permit Required No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Attorney Mantzaris introduced the case. Motion made in February 2018,compliance date was set for April 30th and a building permit has not been obtained to date. City is requesting a lien be imposed in the amount of$75.00 per day accruing from April 30, 2018. Disposition: So ordered by the Special Magistrate. Imposition of Lien granted as requested by the City,fine accruing from April 30, 2018 in the amount of$75.00 per day. Case No. C2018-000526 ALP Investments, LLC 975 Pitt Street VIOLATION: MOTION TO LIEN Section 122344 Property Maintenance,Section 302 IPMC Sanitation,Section 302.4 IPMC Weeds,Section 3461 Nuisances,Section 308.1 IPMC Rubbish and Garbage,Section 3462 Creation or Maintenance of Nuisance by Property Owner Declared Unlawful, and Section 301.2 IPMC Vacant Structures and Lands Attorney Mantzaris introduced the case. Matter came before the Special Magistrate in January 2019. Order issued setting compliance date for January 31, 2019 or a fine of$250.00 per day would be imposed. Property still not brought into compliance to date. Property is neglected and City is requesting that the fine be converted into a line. Notice was mailed to the Respondent at their listed address. No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Disposition: So ordered by the Special Magistrate. Imposition of Lien granted as requested by the City,fine accruing from January 31, 2019 in the amount of$250.00 per day. With no further scheduled hearings,the hearing adjourned at 2:48 P.M. 10