Loading...
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