05-21-1991 Regular Meeting• •
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
MAY 21, 1991
The regular scheduled meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was
called to order on May 21, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Members attending
were Edward Whitehead, Martin Wright, George Wood, Joseph Janusiak,
and William McKinney. Member Emma Higgins was absent. Also
attending were Leonard Baird, City Attorney, Richard Bowman, Code
Enforcement Officer, Lanny Harker, Director of Planning and Mimi
Hauch, Planning Technician.
MINUTES of the meeting held April 16, 1991 were approved as
presented.
OLD BUSINESS
CASE NO. 90-04
CITY OF CLERMONT
A Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
Estate of Richard Brunson
P.O. Box 1121
Winter Garden, FL 34777-1121
Defendant(s)
VIOLATION:
City of Clermont Order issued July 17, 1990.
LOCATION: 752 Broome Street
Mr. Bowman informed the Board that this has been an ongoing
violation for the last couple of years and his predecessor has also
been involved with this and was unable to get anything done. We
have asked for the same copies, details and outlines of all the
contracted work or anything that could have been completed on this.
No response from defendant. We have subpoenaed them one time
previous to our last meeting and City Attorney Baird said that we
might want to notify them again due to the fact that there had been
only five (5) days up until that point. We sent them another copy
and neither one of them had been picked up and we have received no
correspondence from them.
Mr. Baird spoke for the record that correspondence was delivered to
the attorney who was at the meeting last year representing the
estate and it is our position that the Board should take the
position that sufficient notice has been given and proceed.
The defendant's attorney did not appear on the record at the last
meeting. Last time he was here he stated he was handling the
estate proceedings and was not here to present the estate in that
particular matter, but the correspondence was sent to him anyway.
Therefore adequate notice has been given and the Board needs to
proceed.
1
• •
Mr. Bowman read the City's recommendation that the defendant be
fined $250.00 per day beginning May 22, 1991 and this fine shall
continue until the defendant provides acceptable plans for
renovation with completion within ninety (90) days of imposition of
this fine, which will be August 19, 1991. If renovations are not
completed by August 19, 1991, the fine shall increase to $500.00
per day until such time as renovations are complete.
Mr. Wood made the motion that the Board accept the staff's
recommendations and motion was seconded by Mr. Janusiak.
Mr. Baird explained that a certified copy of the Order issued by
the Board will be recorded in the Public Records of Lake County,
and that operates as a lien. A copy will be sent to the attorney
and the defendant.
Mr. Bowman approached the Chairman to make the recommendation that
if the defendant opted not to make the renovations that they have
the option to demolish the building.
Mr. Wood amended the original motion to include demolition and the
motion was seconded by Mr. Janusiak. The motion was approved as
amended unanimously.
CASE NO. 91-02
CITY OF CLERMONT
A Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
Julian M. Fogle
951 Parkside Drive
Richmond, CA 94803
Defendant(s)
VIOLATION:
Standard Existing Building Code, Chapter 2, section 202, Unsafe
Buildings (10).
LOCATION: 596 W. Highway 50
Mr. Harker stated that Mr. Fogle phoned today and asked if it was
necessary that he attend this hearing. He interpreted or his
intuition was that we would recommend demolishment of the structure
and we affirmed that would be our recommendation. He has been
through the process of applying for a CUP and was denied
unanimously by City Council for refurbishment of the building. He
indicated to us after we told him what the recommendation was going
to be and that he would comply with the Order. He is aware of what
the recommendation was going to be and chose not to be present.
Mr. Baird asked about the June 17th date and Mr. Harker stated that
he spoke to Mr. Fogle and told him he had twenty-eight (28) days
from today, which would be the date for the next Code Enforcement
Meeting and he was apprised. Mr. Baird stated that Mr. Fogle is
aware of the procedure and has said he is going to comply with the
recommendations and Mr. Baird stated that he did not see problems
with the recommendation.
Mr. Wood made the motion that the building be demolished and it was
seconded by Mr. Janusiak.
The motion was approved unanimously.
2
• •
CASE NO. 91-03
CITY OF CLERMONT
A Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
William H. Stone
P.O. Drawer 520
Clermont, FL 34712
Defendant(s)
VIOLATION:
Standard Existing Building Code, Chapter 2, Section 202, Unsafe
Building.
Mr. Bowman informed the Board that the violation was corrected and
complete.
A motion was made by Mr. Wood that this case be dismissed, the
motion was seconded by Mr. Janusiak, and approved unanimously.
CASE NO. 90-04
The Brunson case was reopened. Mr. Baird asked who represented the
Brunson Estate and to come forward. Mr. Baird explained that their
case was first on the Agenda and the case has been heard. The case
will be reopened to allow the representative to speak. He also
explained that the City has presented its position to the effect
that notice .was given and there has been no compliance with the
Order that was previously issued, so the Board directed that an
Order be entered demolishing the building and assessing a fine of
$250.00 per day beginning tomorrow. Mr. Baird told the
representative of the Estate that this was their opportunity to try
to overturn the Board's decision.
The representative stated they did not have any notification until
the attorney contacted them and stated they were to meet on the
21st. This property is still in probate and the Distributive Deeds
cannot be taken to the bank yet in order to get financing to take
care of the property. The last things were done at her expense.
They are waiting for the attorney to give them the deeds and were
told this is suppose to be taken care of in the next month or two.
Contractors will not take deeds to do any work on the property,
since their are not finalized.
Mr. Baird stated that the problem this Board has is at the hearing
in July, 1990, one of the issues that was brought up at that time
was the fact the City is supposed to provide you with a certified
mail notice of these hearings. At the July 17, 1990 hearing we
went through the whole thing about the City sending the certified
mail notice of hearing to the past office box or to the address
that is listed on the tax roll. That is the City's responsibility,
the City waived that the last time you were here, because you
advised us that you had not been to the post office to get the mail
in sometime and so you did not get notice. We went through all
that when your attorney was here and we were advised that all other
certified mail sent to that post office box would be picked up,
that is in the record. We sent a subpeona by certified mail for
last month's meeting, it was never picked up, we sent a subpeona by
certified mail for this month's meeting, it was never picked up,
despite the representations made to us in July 1990, that they
would be picked up. Out of an abundance of caution, this Board
entered an Order last month requiring that notice be sent to your
attorney just out of courtesy and we continued the hearing from
last month until today. This has been going on since July, 1990,
when the last Order was entered requiring you to simply pull a
3
• •
building permit or present a contract from a contractor that was
going to do the work to bring the site ir_to compliance. That was
all we asked at that time, that has not been done and has nothing
to do with the Estate or the banks or anyone else. We have certain
rules that we have to follow and this Board is directed to follow
those rules.
The representative claimed that. the notice for last month was not
received and she goes to the post office daily. She also stated
she did not know of this meeting until the attorney called and said
there was a meeting on the 21st.
She was instructed by Mr. Baird that this was the time to speak to
the Board.
She stated that as far as a contractor and getting that information
together, she has had a number of quotes, but not written. She has
tried to have people come out and from her understanding one of the
roofing companies has had a problem in Lake County. He only gave
her a verbal quote and she has kept in contact with him. Last time
he came out, he estimated the cost at $10,000.00. Other estimates
received were higher. The Estate has been in probate for over a
year and we are waiting for Orange County to close the estate. She
has been to the property in the last six (6) months to check to see
if everything was half-way in order.
Mr. Baird stated that in the event the Board decides that the Order
will remain the same, the representative does have the right to
appeal. The representative also has the right to come back, if she
complies with the things that are required to be done and ask that
the fine be waived or reduced. She has the right to do that here
and also the right to do that before the City Council before she
files an appeal with the Circuit Court. Those are her options
assuming the Board wishes to continue its Order already entered or
modify the Order.
Mr. Wood stated that it appears that the lawyer is involved with
the deeds. The representative is relying upon the deeds to get the
money to finance the renovations. Mr. Wood stated that perhaps the
lawyer should come back.
Mr. Baird stated that the lawyer was here in July, 1990, based upon
his representations to us, as to the time frames involved with the
probate proceedings, the Board entererl its Order requiring that he
has thirty-six (36) days to just show us a contract that they were
going to do something. The Estate can do that the beneficiaries do
not have to do that. We ordered the property owner to do that and
the property owner at that time .was the Estate, not the
beneficiaries.
Mr. Wood stated shouldn't a representative of the Estate be
present.
Mr. Baird stated that is why a subpoena is issued to the Estate of
Brunson. The attorney is required to represent the Personal
Representative in the administration of the Estate.
Mr. Wood stated that the attorney should be the one to deliver our
message and make the Personal Representative understand what the
City wants.
Mr. Baird stated that .the attorney knew of the Order in July and
the attorney knew from the correspondence sent by his office what
was going to happen and a copy of-the Order will be sent to him
also. Mr. Baird recommends to the Board that it keep the Order in
effect and redo it so the representative will know what happened.
Mr. Baird stated put the burden on them to go out and do something
and then come back to request either a waiver of the fine or
reduction of the fine because this has been going on for a long
time.
4
• •
Mr. Baird said obviously there has to be some sympathy for the
beneficiaries, they are involved in a probate procedure and lawyers
and courts are not really noted for their speedy disposition of
things, on the other hand the City has its responsibility to deal
with these problems as they come up.
Mr. Whitehead explained what the Board has decided and read the
motion.
Female representative stated how can the City fine them when they
have nothing to borrow on.
Mr. Whitehead restated that they were asked to bring in a contract
for renovations.
Mr. Whitehead asked the Board if there were any comments or
amendments to the motion. Mr. Wood. restated he feels that the
attorney should appear and Mr. Whitehead stated that they have the
right to appeal.
Mr. Baird stated that .once the fine starts it might give them some
motivation to go do something, knowing that the fine may be waived
if they do something.
Representative stated they complied with the first proceeding and
she cannot get a real quote, but a $250.00 per day fine until
somebody comes and says its going to cost $10,000.00 on paper does
not make any sense to her.
Mr. Baird stated I think what the Board wants to see is your plan
of action to bring this building into compliance. What that would
mean is a contract with a licensed contractor where he says, I am
going to do certain things. The City wants to see that you are
making progress in bringing the building up to compliance.
Mr. Wood made a motion to keep the original motion and it was
seconded by Mr. Janusiak. The motion was unanimously approved.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Edward Wh' ead, Chairman
ATTEST:
Mi 1 Hauch
Planning Technician
5