CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - Indian River County, · PDF fileOwens seconded the motion, ... rather a motion to vacate under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) ... Ms. Vanessa Carter

CEB-Approved 1 March 26, 2012 F:/BCC/All Committees/CODE/2012 Minutes/CODE03.26.12.doc

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD

A meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Code Enforcement Board (the Board) was held in the Commission Chambers at the County Administration Building, 1801 27th Street, Building “A”, Vero Beach, Florida on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.

Present were Chairman Joe Petrulak, Subcontractor Appointee; Vice

Chairman Karl Zimmermann, Realtor Appointee; Cliff Suthard, Member-at-Large Appointee; John Owens, Engineer Appointee; and Pete Clements, General Contractor Appointee.

Absent was Keith Hedin, Businessman Appointee (excused). Let the record show there is a vacancy for an Architect Appointee.

Also in attendance was IRC staff: Roland DeBlois, Environmental and Code Enforcement Chief; Betty Davis, Vanessa Carter Solomon, Rose Jefferson and Kelly Buck, Code Enforcement Officers; Attorney David Hancock, Attorney for the Board; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. 11:46:29 Call to Order

Chairman Petrulak called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. The secretary called the roll, establishing that a quorum was present. 11:47:26 Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2012 Mr. Zimmermann pointed out on page 22 of the minutes Mr. Hedin was noted as seconding the Authorization for Notices to Appear; however Mr. Hedin was not present at the meeting. Upon further investigation the secretary has determined Mr. Owens seconded the motion, and the February 27, 2012 minutes have been amended accordingly.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the minutes of February 27, 2012 as amended.


11:46:04 Attorney’s Overview of Board Purpose and Procedures Attorney David Hancock, Attorney for the Board, gave a brief overview of the

procedures and purpose of the Code Enforcement Board.

11:56:51 Agenda Additions or Deletions, Consent Items Mr. Roland DeBlois, IRC Environmental and Code Enforcement Chief,

reported the following cases had either complied, been rescheduled, or were recommended by staff for an extension of time on the Consent Agenda. Cases #2011090022, #2011100131, #2011110048, #2011110090, #2011110021, #2011050026, #2011090130, #2011100125, #2011120024, #2011090081, #2011100150,#2011120064, #2011120058, #2011120102, #2011120052, #2012010039, #2012010076, #2012010070, #2012010012 and #20122010015 - 30 day extension until April 20, 2012. Cases #2011020073 and #2011100154 – 60 day extension until May 18, 2012. Cases #2011090199, #2011070128 – 90 day extension until June 22, 2012. Cases #2012010067, #2012020132 and #2012020109 were rescheduled.

In compliance were Cases #2011120028, #2011120057, #2012010102,

#2012010038, #2012020098, #2012020105, #2012020119, #2012020010, #2012020046, #2012020007, #2012020001, #2012010035, #2011020100, #2011050226, #2011090210, #2011100103, #2011110072, #2012010030 and #2011060018.

Mr. DeBlois announced there were a number of Lien Release Requests which

should be heard at a time certain of 2:30 p.m., and recommended Case #2010090031, Judy Giannarelli, be heard at the beginning of the Lien Release Requests. He pointed out there was one Rehearing Request on page 24 for Case #2010090084, Leslie and Karen Tar, and requested the Board hear this case first on the agenda. Finally, he noted there was one addendum to the agenda for compliance Case #2012020011, Cynthia Ausby.

Chairman Petrulak announced if anyone present had heard their name or

case number called for a Consent item and wanted their case to be heard, they should talk to their Code Enforcement Officer and the Board would accommodate their request.


12:06:21 ON MOTION BY Mr. Owens, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to accept the Consent Agenda with the revisions.

12:06:34 Swearing in of Those Who Will Testify The secretary proceeded to administer the testimonial oath to everyone who would be testifying at today’s hearings.

REHEARING REQUEST 12:06:49 Case #2010090084 – Leslie & Karen H. Tar Mr. DeBlois related this case had been before the Board for an evidentiary hearing on January 24, 2011 for cutting of dune vegetation without required permits, at which time the Board found the violation and entered a fine of $15,000 along with the requirement of submittal of a restoration plan. The Respondent had subsequently appealed to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and after the appeal was denied, the case had gone through the Circuit Court appeal process. Mr. DeBlois advised on October 19, 2011 the Appellate Court affirmed the Board’s finding and did not overturn the Board’s Order. Mr. DeBlois stated the Respondent had requested a rehearing on the premise of new information or evidence he felt would potentially affect the Board’s ruling. He detailed this evidence consisted of a surveillance video from December, 2011 that appeared to show a landscape worker talking to a neighbor and then proceeding to do some cutting on the Respondent‘s dune with a machete. Mr. DeBlois pointed out the date of the video was more than a year after the violation occurred and staff felt it was irrelevant and not pertinent to the case that had earlier gone before the Board. Respondent Dr. Leslie Tar stressed he had not requested a rehearing, but rather a motion to vacate under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) which stated if newly discovered evidence not known at the time of the judgment, which was April 4, 2011, and if the evidence was material to the case and there was a reasonable probability it would change the result, the information is admissible to be heard. Attorney David Hancock, Attorney for the Board, advised neither the rules of civil procedure or rules of evidence governed this body. In addition, the modification or vacating of the Board’s prior Order required that the Respondent show a


significant change in the facts or evidence not present or known in the original Board proceeding. 12:21:53

ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to deny a rehearing in this case.

Discussion followed. 12:34:35

ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the motion to vacate the Order Finding Violation and Imposing Fine.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was present for this hearing.

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

12:35:21 Case #2012010095 – James Lekanides (George Melo) Mr. DeBlois related this case had to do with parking of a commercial vehicle in at a residence and also in the right-of-way. Ms. Vanessa Carter Solomon, IRC Code Enforcement Officer, submitted two photographs into evidence, which are on file in the Commission Office. She confirmed the vehicle had been removed from the subject property to other locations on the street and she was still receiving complaints from neighbors about the noise, etc., and was requesting a Continuing Order at this time.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find current compliance and enter a Continuing Order for a $100 per day fine if the violation recurred.

It is noted for the record Respondent Mr. George Melo, the tenant on the subject property, was present for this hearing.


LIEN RELEASE REQUESTS 12:42:58 Case #2010090031 – Judy Giannarelli (Bank of America) Mr. DeBlois recapped this case initially came to the Board on October 25, 2010 for overgrown weeds and junk, trash and debris, and extensions were granted until it came back for hearing on January 24 , 2011; at which time a $100 per day fine was imposed for non-compliance, with a beginning date of December 25, 2010. He continued compliance had been verified as of January 31, 2012, which was 402 days for a flat fine of $40,200. Attorney Seth Caraseck, representing the bank, confirmed lis pendens was recorded on March 15, 2010 and the lien was recorded on February 18, 2011. He noted the violations were cured in a timely manner when the bank had taken possession of the property and a closing was scheduled to take place shortly. After discussion, Mr. DeBlois recommended setting a fine in the amount of $1,400 to cover the approximate administrative costs in this case.

12:50:44 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance, set the fine at $1,400, and release the lien on the subject property.

It is noted for the record the bank’s attorney was present for this hearing. 12:50:48 Case #2011030209 – Charlene Persuad (U.S. Bank National Assoc.) Mr. DeBlois summarized this case involved overgrown weeds, junk vehicles, swimming pool maintenance, unsecured vacant structure, junk, trash and debris and health and safety hazard. It had initially been to the Board on May 23, 2011, with direction for the violations to be resolved by June 24, 2011, and after finding non-compliance, the Board had imposed a $100 per day fine with a start date of June 25, 2011. He confirmed staff had verified compliance as of January 5, 2012, which was 194 days of non-compliance for a flat fine of $19,400. Attorney Natalie Guerra-Valdes, representing the foreclosing bank, advised the bank had not yet taken title to the property but had nevertheless taken corrective action; and she requested a reduction in the lien amount.


Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine be set at $1,700 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

12:58:13 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and set the fine at $1,700 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

It is noted for the record the bank’s attorney was present for this hearing. 12:58:35 Case #2011020090 – Forest & Linda Railey (National City Bank) Mr. DeBlois recounted this involved an unmaintained swimming pool violation that had originally been to the Board on March 28, 2011, and after an extension of time the Board had found non-compliance and imposed a $100 per day fine with a start date of May 21, 2011. He advised compliance had been verified as of January 26, 2012, which meant 250 days or a $25,000 flat fine. Ms. Laurie Davis, a realtor representing the Respondent owner, said the home was under contract for a short sale, and asked the Board to reduce the fine to administrative costs. Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine be set at $2,000 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

13:03:48 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and set the fine at $2,000 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

It is noted for the record a realtor representing the Respondent was present for this hearing. 13:04:19 Case #2007110061 – Bryan K. Chesser Mr. DeBlois recapped this case first came to the Board in March, 2008 for junk, trash and debris and storage of a commercial vehicle at a residence, and after an Order Granting Extension it came back for a hearing on May 19, 2008, at which time staff reported the violations had not been resolved. As a result, the Board had


imposed a $100 per day fine with a start date of May 17, 2008. Mr. DeBlois observed staff had confirmed compliance had been achieved as of September 8, 2008, which translated at 114 days of non-compliance for a flat fine of $11,400. Mr. Warren Cleveland, a broker representing the foreclosing bank, asked that the fine be reduced to administrative costs to allow the bank to move forward with a sale of the property. Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine be set at $1,700 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

13:09:37 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and set the fine at $1,700 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

It is noted for the record a broker representing the bank was present for this hearing. 13:09:53 Case #2009030032 – Chase Home Finance Mr. DeBlois pointed out this case had to do with overgrown weeds on property at 4096 58th Avenue, Vero Beach, which was the same address as the previous case. He recapped it had originally come to the Board on May 18, 2009, and after finding non-compliance the Board had imposed a $100 per day fine starting on June 20, 2009. Mr. DeBlois confirmed compliance had been verified as of April 5, 2010, which was 289 days for a flat fine of $28,900. He recommended the fine be reduced to administrative costs in the amount of $1,700.

13:11:42 ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and set the fine at $1,700.

It is noted for the record a broker representing the bank was present for this hearing 13:12:30 Case #2010050026 – Ashley Bixler (Chase Home Finance, LLC) Mr. DeBlois related the Board heard this case as an evidentiary hearing on


July 26, 2010, and after extensions and ultimately a finding of non-compliance for a junk, trash and debris violation, the fine was imposed with a start date of September 25, 2010. He advised the date of compliance had been verified as of January 11, 2012, which was 473 days for a flat fine of $47,300. Attorney Vernesha Mayweather, representing the bank, stated the violation was recorded after the bank’s lis pendens which was recorded on December 9, 2009, and the bank had received Certificate of Title to the property on January 5, 2012. She noted five days later the violation had been resolved and requested the fine be reduced to administrative costs. Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine be set at $1,700 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

13:16:12 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and set the fine at $1,700 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

It is noted for the record the bank’s attorney was present for this hearing. 13:16:35 Case #2007090015 – Alfred & Candace Russo Mr. DeBlois recalled this first came for an evidentiary hearing in October, 2007 for junk, trash and debris and a zoning use violation for storage of boat/trailers, and the Board had initially given the Respondent until December 21, 2007 to come into compliance. He continued after a number of extensions, it came back for a compliance hearing in March, 2008 and after finding non-compliance the Board entered an Order Imposing Fine in the amount of $100 per day with a start date of March 22, 2008. Inspector Carter Solomon confirmed the property was now in compliance, and Mr. DeBlois stated although he did not have an exact date for when the property came into compliance, using today’s date as a reference point it would be 1,465 days for a flat fine of $146,500. Respondent Mr. Alfred Russo testified the property was in foreclosure and he was attempting to get the lien reduced to proceed with a short sale. He was not sure what date the property came into compliance; however Inspector Carter Solomon acknowledged it had probably been complied for some time before it was brought to her attention.


Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine be reduced to $2,300 to cover the approximate administrative costs.

13:22:10 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and set the fine at $2,300 to cover the approximate administrative costs.


EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS 13:23:00 Case #2012010125 – Gholam Reza Torkaman Mr. DeBlois indicated this had to do with agriculturally-zoned property that was cited for dilapidated abandoned structures, overgrown weeds, junk, trash and debris, and property maintenance and public nuisance violations. Ms. Betty Davis, IRC Code Enforcement Officer, explained she had received a complaint from the City of Fellsmere regarding the subject property, located at 12918 100th Place. She submitted into evidence an Affidavit of Service indicating the property was posted on March 7, 2012 and six photographs, along with an inspection report from the IRC Building Department identifying what the structural problems were with buildings on the site.

Respondent Mr. Gholam Torkaman expounded on various issues he had with the property. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeBlois recommended a two-tier compliance date granting 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to resolve overgrown weeds and junk, trash and debris violations and to board up the property; and an additional 60 days beyond that, until July 20, 2012, to either repair or demolish the structures.

13:38:39 ON MOTION BY Mr. Owens, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant a two-tier compliance date, with 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to resolve overgrown


weeds and junk, trash and debris violations and to board up the property; and an additional 60 days beyond that, until July 20, 2012, to either repair or demolish the structures.

Inspector Davis related she would be sure to arrange a meeting between herself, the Respondent and the IRC Building Department to review what needed to be done to bring the property up to code. It is noted for the record the Respondent was present for this hearing. 13:39:26 Case #2012020028 – Gholam R. Torkaman Mr. DeBlois noted this case had to do with a commercially-zoned property located at 6369 85th Street owned by the same Respondent as the previous case, and involved a dilapidated vegetable stand and junk, trash and debris. Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service and a photograph into evidence, adding she had posted the property on March 7, 2012. She recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

13:43:17 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was present for this hearing. 13:43:57 Case #2012020026 – Kenneth Griwicki Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service showing the property had been posted on March 7, 2012, and four photographs into evidence. She described a dilapidated structure on the site and advised the Respondent intended to remove the building. Mr. DeBlois recommended an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to obtain a demolition permit and remove the structure or bring it up to code.

13:46:10 ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May


18, 2012, for compliance. It is noted for the record the Respondent was present for this hearing. Chairman Petrulak called a recess at 3:28 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 3:40 p.m. 13:47:21 Case #2012020084 – Robert Zitzman Inspector Davis stated she had posted the property on March 7, 2012 and received certified mail confirmation on March 9, 2012. She submitted an aerial picture taken in November, 2011 and eight photographs taken February 6, 2012 and March 23, 2012 into evidence, and testified she had received a complaint from a neighbor about the Respondent bringing in landfill and creating a ditch along the property line. Mr. DeBlois summarized this was agriculturally-zoned property that had been cited for excavation of ditches and earth moving and fill distribution, installation of culverts causing a stormwater drainage issue and illegal dumping of debris. Mr. Todd Tardif, Stormwater Engineer, IRC Public Works Department, testified he had inspected the property with representatives of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on February 6, 2012 regarding a ditch that had been widened and cut into a wetland. He indicated the DEP had given the Respondent until April 9, 2012 for the Respondent to have the ditch restored to its historical value and stabilized, put hay bales in at the culvert, and have all the debris piled and stabilized or burned. Mr. Tardif continued he then received a call from Inspector Davis advising the Respondent was bringing more debris onto the property after the DEP notice was given, which was when the County got involved. Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board grant 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for the Respondent to finalize the various issues in synchronization with the DEP’s direction on cleaning up the property by not bringing in more debris, and complying with the County’s cited sections of stormwater drainage and excavation ordinance.

13:59:25 ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant the Respondent 30 days, until


April 2012, to cease bringing debris onto the property and comply with the stormwater drainage, excavation mining, and health and safety hazard/public nuisance violations.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was present for this hearing. 13:59:40 Case #2012020152 – Scott Rose Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service into evidence indicating the property had been posted on March 7, 2012, and advised this case had to do with a zoning use violation regarding a pot bellied pig on the property. She confirmed the Respondent was presently in compliance but she was requesting a Continuing Order in the event the violation recurred. Respondent Mr. Scott Rose stated the pig was his daughter’s pet and he maintained the situation involved one particular neighbor with a grudge. He asked if the pig could be grandfathered in and his family be allowed to keep it. Mr. DeBlois explained it might be possible to look at this under the concept of a non-commercial kennel or animal boarding place that could potentially allow the animal at a residential property, and if there was a permit it would have certain conditions. He added the Respondent was currently in compliance and recommended the Board grant 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for staff to explore the opportunity for a non-commercial kennel/animal boarding place permit.

14:08:48 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find current compliance and recommended 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for staff to explore the opportunity for a non-commercial kennel/animal boarding place permit.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was present for this hearing. 14:09:20 Case #2012020009 – Schlitt Brothers Property LLC

Mr. DeBlois advised this case had to do with a dilapidated unsecured structure on property at Vero Lake Estates. He recalled the County had previously had a condemnation action against the house; however the Respondents had approached the Board and requested the demolition be delayed under the premise they would


secure the structure and pull permits to eventually restore the structure. Mr. DeBlois continued there had been no progress on restoration and staff was now revisiting the issue. Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 7, 2012, and two photographs into evidence. She gave a brief history of the case and recalled on September 7, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had taken the property off the hazardous bid list and since that time the Respondents had pulled a permit to partially demolish the house, and this week applied to obtain a permit for residence alterations to repair the structure. Inspector Davis advised staff wanted to ensure the work would be done in a timely manner since she had received numerous complaints from the neighbors about it taking so long. Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board grant an extension of 90 days, until June 22, 2012, for the Respondents to make substantial progress in the restoration or otherwise demolish the structure. Respondent Mr. Richard Schlitt felt it might take longer than 90 days because he had to start from scratch in the process, and asked to be allowed six months. Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board go with 90 days in this case, at which time a compliance hearing would be held and more time could be allowed if reasonable progress had been made. Discussion followed about how much work would need to be done to restore the structure up to code. Mr. Suthard suggested the Order be structured to allow some time to obtain the required permits before seeing any progress.

14:17:24 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted (4-1) to grant 90 days, until June 22, 2012, for the Respondents to obtain a permit and make substantial progress in the restoration, or otherwise demolish the structure. Mr. Suthard in opposition.



14:18:29 Case #2012010122 – Patrick Oates

Inspector Sullivan submitted three e-mails dated January 25, 2012 between Mr. DeBlois and Mr. David Hays, of the IRC Engineering Department, and one photograph into evidence. She explained the Respondent had brought in so much fill that his lot was no longer compatible with the surrounding properties, and Mr. Hayes felt the only clear cut remedy would be to provide boundary containment.

Mr. DeBlois noted there was also some concern about the type of fill material

used, as well as the elevation and grading, and recommended the Board find the violation and grant approximately 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to coordinate with the IRC Engineering Department, obtain a permit, and come up with a plan to address the stormwater violation. Respondent Mr. Patrick Oates confirmed he had retained an engineer and was working on resolving the issues.

14:23:53 ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant approximately 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to coordinate with the IRC Engineering Department, obtain a permit, and come up with a plan to address the stormwater violation.


14:24:41 Case #2011110025 – Charles Bayes (U.S. Bank Na Tr) Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 7, 2012, and two photographs into evidence. She related the initial complaint included a junk vehicle and junk, trash and debris, which had been removed; however the remaining issues were a rooster and some fencing that required a permit, along with some cleanup of debris. She recommended a 30 day time frame, until April 20, 2012, or a $100 per day fine. Respondent Mr. Nick Rofero, representing the bank, advised the bank did not own the property at this time and could not go onto the property since it was currently occupied; but he was present to protect the bank’s interest in this matter.


14:27:25 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.


COMPLIANCE HEARINGS 14:27:50 Case #2011110012 – Vero South Property Owners Assoc.

(Fernando Alvarez/Duge Santiago) Mr. DeBlois recapped this case had to do with a failed culvert crossing at a private road going into a townhouse development at the southwest corner of Oslo Road and 20th Avenue, Vero Beach. He clarified this affected a small commercial plaza with easement rights to use the failed road; however maintenance of the road was the property owners association responsibility, and the matter had ultimately gone to the BCC. Mr. DeBlois related the plaza owner had offered to pay half the cost, or $11,000, up front for the road repair and he would look to recover the costs from the property owners association. Mr. DeBlois reported the County had completed the repairs to the road as of February 15, 2012, and submitted into evidence a memorandum dated March 5, 2012 with a summary of costs in the amount of $22,169.91. He recommended the Board find compliance had been achieved, but also that the amount of the repair be entered as a lien against the property. Mr. DeBlois did not recommend any additional administrative costs be levied at this time because of the cooperation of the Respondent property owners association; however he had faith the County would ultimately be reimbursed. Respondent Mrs. Claudia Alvarez said the property owners association agreed to the terms as presented by Mr. DeBlois.

14:33:53 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find compliance and enter an Order assessing the fine in the amount of $22,169.91 for culvert repairs.



14:34:36 Case #2011110096 – William E. Ruetemann Mr. DeBlois recalled this case originally came to the Board on January 23, 2012 for a pole barn built without permits, storage of more than one boat in an unenclosed area, and illegal boat repair at the residence. The Board had given the Respondent until March 23, 2012 to obtain an after-the-fact building permit for the pole barn or remove it, immediately cease the storage of more than one boat on the property and stop the boat repair on the site. Inspector Davis testified no permit had been applied for on the pole barn issue and the Respondent told her he was hoping to get a variance. She confirmed there was presently only one boat on the premises which the Respondent claimed belonged to him; however she had received complaints from neighbors about the Respondent doing work on the boat and creating noise and odor issues. She recommended a seven day compliance period to remove the boat and cease all painting on the property, and also to make application for a variance or remove the pole barn structure. Mr. DeBlois did not see the possibility of a variance for the pole barn since it was not a self-imposed hardship, so the Respondent would either comply or not and have to remove it. He called forth some members of the audience as witnesses. Ms. Patricia Warwick, 8131 135th Street, Sebastian, FL, complained the Respondent was constantly working on the boat at his house and maintained he was running a boat repair business from his home. She stated the repair included use of acetylene torches and fiberglass type of resins creating noxious fumes, and people in the neighborhood were getting sick. Discussion followed. Mr. DeBlois said there was no indication the Respondent had worked on any other boat on the property since the Board had entered its Order, and there was no proof this was not his boat. The Respondent had told Inspector Davis he would remove the boat within seven days, and it would be a non-issue if this occurred. He clarified a Continuing Order was in effect so if there was a recurrence the Respondent could be fined automatically. Mr. Zimmermann suggested Inspector Davis request proof of ownership of the boat from the Respondent. Mr. DeBlois recommended 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for the Respondent to


resolve the pole barn violation and seven days, until April 2, 2012, to remove the boat, and not work on it in the meantime. Mr. Zimmermann said he would be voting against staff’s recommendation because he did not see any reason to allow another seven days for what he felt was a health and safety situation. Mr. DeBlois pointed out part of his recommendation was that the Respondent would not be allowed to work on the boat. Mr. Zimmermann allowed he could support the motion under those conditions, with the stipulation Inspector Davis would also ask for proof of ownership. Mr. DeBlois inquired if the Respondent provided proof of ownership, did he still have to remove the boat. Discussion ensued.

15:00:45 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann to grant 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for the Respondent to resolve the pole barn violation and seven days, until April 2, 2012, to remove the boat, and not work on it in the meantime; with the stipulation the Respondent provide proof of ownership.

The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Clements said he had a hard time telling someone he could not work on a boat at his home if he actually did own the boat.

15:02:26 ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements to grant 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for the Respondent to resolve the pole barn violation.

The motion died for lack of a second.

15:02:59 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard to impose a $100 per day for non-compliance of both violations.

The motion died for lack of a second.


Mr. DeBlois suggested amending staff’s recommendation to allow the Respondent seven days, until April 2, 2012, to remove the boat without working on it in the meantime, or provide evidence of ownership, and if ownership was forthcoming the boat would be allowed on the property; and 30 days, until April 20, 2012, to either permit the pole barn or remove it. 15:08:43

ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted (4-1) to allow seven days, until April 2, 2012, to remove the boat without working on it in the meantime, or provide evidence of ownership, and if ownership was forthcoming the boat would be allowed on the property; and 30 days, until April 20, 2012, to either permit the pole barn or remove it. Mr. Suthard opposed.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing.

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS 15:10:00 Case #2012010073 – Edward S. Massey Mr. DeBlois related this had to do with a property maintenance violation, no building permit for building modification and an electrical maintenance violation. Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 7, 2012, and eight photographs into evidence. She confirmed the Respondent was working to resolve the violations. Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board find the violation and grant approximately 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain permits for repair of the structures or demolition and removal, or otherwise be fined $100 per day.

15:11:52 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant approximately 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain permits for repair of the structures or demolition removal, or otherwise be fined $100 per day.


It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:12:02 Case #2011120067 – Skyline Scaffold, Inc. Ms. Kelly Buck, IRC Code Enforcement Officer, submitted two photographs into evidence, and verified service on March 13, 2012. She described a carport overhang that had been enclosed without permits. Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to either get the required permits and comply with the permits for the modifications, or return the structures to their previous configuration.

15:13:47 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, to either get the required permits and comply with the permits for the modifications, or return the structures to their previous configuration.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:13:58 Case #2012010089 – Frank Blake & Sally Wynn Mr. DeBlois advised this was a violation for an unsafe building.

Inspector Buck verified service on March 15, 2012 and submitted an inspection report dated November 7, 2011 and a Notice of Violation dated January 16, 2012 from the IRC Building Department into evidence. She also submitted a letter from Respondent Mr. Frank Blake dated March 19, 2012, stating he would be pulling a permit to bring the property into compliance.

Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board find the violation and grant an extension

of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain permits and comply with the permits or be fined $100 per day.

15:15:41 ON MOTION BY Mr. Owens, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain permits and


comply with the permits or be fined $100 per day. It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:15:43 Case #2012010090 – Gifford Gardens LLC Inspector Buck submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 14, 2012 along with an inspection report dated September 27, 2011 and a Notice of Violation dated January 16, 2012 from the IRC Building Department into evidence. She testified she had not had contact with the Respondent’s representative regarding the unsafe building violation.

Mr. DeBlois recommended the Board find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain permits and comply with the permits or be fined $100 per day.

15:17:15 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain permits and comply with the permits or be fined $100 per day.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:17:22 Case #2012010059 – Michael & Marion Perri Ms. Rose Jefferson, IRC Code Enforcement Officer, submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 16, 2012, and a photograph into evidence. She described overgrown weeds at a vacant residence and recommended an extension of 30 days.

15:18:34 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the overgrown weeds violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.



15:18:34 Case #2011090204 – Giovanni Parente Inspector Carter Solomon submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March15, 2012, and three photographs into evidence. She explained there was previously a burnt-out house on the property, and the Respondent had obtained a partial demolition permit and torn down everything except the slab and a partial wall. Inspector Carter Solomon added there was also overgrown weeds and junk, trash and debris on the site, and requested an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012 for the property to be brought into compliance or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

15:20:00 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012 for the property to be brought into compliance or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:20:08 Case #2011110033 – Nicholas & Susan Lavorgna Inspector Carter Solomon submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 15, 2012, along with a photograph into evidence. She pointed out a swimming pool enclosure violation had initiated the complaint; however upon further research she discovered the pool had never been finalled out with the IRC Building Department because of some structural issues. Inspector Carter Solomon believed the home was now going into foreclosure and requested an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for staff to get in touch with the lender to resolve the violations or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

15:22:08 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for staff to get in touch with the lender to resolve the violations or be subject to a $100 per day fine.



15:22:17 Case #2012010123 – Cynthia Stamps Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating property at 12930 100th Place in Fellsmere had been posted on March 7, 2012, and two photographs into evidence. She indicated this was a hazardous structure cited for property maintenance and health and safety hazard/public nuisance, overgrown weeds and junk, trash and debris violations. She recommended 60 days, until May 18, 2012 for the structure to either be demolished or brought into compliance with the County’s code. 15:23:07

ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant 60 days, until May 18, 2012 for the structure to either be demolished or brought into compliance with the County’s code.


15:23:12 Case #2012010124 – Cynthia Stamps Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating property at 12922 100th Place in Fellsmere had been posted on March 7, 2012, and one photograph into evidence. She reported this was a lot adjoining the property cited in the previous case and consisted of a dilapidated shed, overgrown weeds and junk, trash and debris violations. She recommended 30 days, until April 20, 2012 to bring the property into compliance or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

15:23:59 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant 30 days, until April 20, 2012 for compliance or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:24:05 Case #2012010137 – Emma Lee Williams (Jose L. Williams) Inspector Davis submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 7, 2012, and six photographs into evidence. She advised a home on the lot had burned down and people were living in a recreation vehicle on the site, which was a zoning district use violation, and there was a lot of junk, trash and debris on the property. She recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.


15:25:35 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:25:37 Case #2012020017 – Indigo Development Inc. Inspector Davis testified she had received certified service on March 12, 2012, and submitted three photographs into evidence. She outlined this involved landscape maintenance and site plan nonconformance, including two missing stop signs, at a commercial property in Roseland and recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance. Chairman Petrulak suggested a shorter time frame for the stop sign violation; however Inspector Davis explained the site was vacant so there was not a lot of traffic and the Respondents were working on coming into compliance.

15:27:10 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:27:24 Case #2012020022 – Tarpon IV LLC Inspector Davis submitted two photographs into evidence and confirmed she had received certified service on March 12, 2012. She related this was a case of junk, trash and debris on a vacant lot and recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

15:28:03 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.



15:28:09 Case #2012020121 – Gaddis Capital Corporation Inspector Davis submitted a photograph and an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 7, 2012 into evidence. She stated she had received a complaint about signs placed too close to the property line and not in compliance with the County’s code, and recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

15:29:07 ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:29:11 Case #2012010006 – David Jackson Jr. Inspector Buck confirmed service on March 15, 2012 and submitted two photographs into evidence. She confirmed the only violations outstanding at this time were a junk vehicle and a junk boat, and the Respondent had requested 30 days to resolve the issues.

15:30:08 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violations and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:30:16 Case #2012020054 – Dale & Kathryn Curtis Inspector Jefferson submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 16, 2012, and two photographs into evidence, and described overgrown weeds on the subject property. She recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.


15:31:06 ON MOTION BY Mr. Owens, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:31:13 Case #2012020086 – Anne Desmet (Wells Fargo Bank) Inspector Carter Solomon submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 15, 2012, and two photographs into evidence. She confirmed service by certified mail on Wells Fargo bank on March 12, 2012, and advised this case had to do with overgrown weeds at a vacant residence currently in foreclosure. Inspector Carter Solomon recommended an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

15:32:15 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:32:18 Case #2012020111 – Wilma Martin Inspector Carter Solomon submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 15, 2012, and four photographs into evidence, and related the cited violations were for overgrown weeds, exterior structure maintenance violation and an unsecured vacant structure. She confirmed the unsecured vacant structure violation had been resolved as the Respondent had boarded up the windows and mowed the grass, so all that remained was a property maintenance violation for the roof on the structure. Inspector Carter Solomon recommended the Board grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain the appropriate permits and finish the work or be subject to a $100 per day fine.


15:33:40 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously to find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondent to obtain the appropriate permits and finish the work or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:33:48 Case #2012020014 – Glen & Olga Block Inspector Carter Solomon confirmed she had received service by certified mail on March 10, 2012 and submitted a photograph into evidence. She recalled when the Respondents were initially cited they had enclosed the entire carport and made it into a living area; however since that time they had taken down most of the improvements with the exception of one wall. She recommended an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondents to obtain a permit and finish the work or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

15:34:55 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 60 days, until May 18, 2012, for the Respondents to obtain a permit and finish the work or be subject to a $100 per day fine.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:34:58 Case #2011120003 – Roger & Joy Smith Inspector Jefferson submitted an Affidavit of Service indicating the property had been posted on March 16, 2012, and three photographs into evidence. Mr. DeBlois described overgrown weeds on the subject property and recommended the Board find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance or a $100 per day fine.


15:35:49 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the violation and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, for compliance or a $100 per day fine.


COMPLIANCE HEARINGS 15:36:04 Case #2011110003 – Joel R. Kist Inspector Carter Solomon recapped this case had initially been heard on January 23, 2012, at which time the Board found a violation for overgrown weeds. She continued one extension had been granted in February and the Respondent had been given until March 23, 2012; however the property had not been maintained. Inspector Carter Solomon submitted a photograph into evidence showing compliance had not been attained, and recommended a $100 per day fine be imposed, with a start date of March 24, 2012.

15:37:07 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find non-compliance and impose a $100 per day fine, with a start date of March 24, 2012.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:37:19 Case #2012010065 – BZ Auto Corp (Robert Zankl, Registered

Agent) Inspector Carter Solomon advised this case had first come to the Board on February 27, 2012, at which time the Respondents were given until March 23, 2012 to secure the doors and windows to the building, which had not been done. She recommended the $100 per day fine be imposed, with a start date of March 24, 2012.


15:38:13 ON MOTION BY Mr. Owens, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find non-compliance and impose a $100 per day fine, with a start date of March 24, 2012.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:38:38 Case #2012030026 – Keith A. Moskowitz Mr. DeBlois noted this was on the agenda as a repeat violation of a previous Order of June 28, 2010, having to do with outdoor storage, sign violations and parking in a public right-of-way without approvals.

Inspector Buck submitted three photographs into evidence and confirmed service had been received on March 10, 2012. She testified on March 6, 2012 she had observed employees and customers parking in the right-of-way and had seen illegal signs on the property. Inspector Buck noted as of this morning the banana flags had been removed and the Respondent told her he had instructed his staff not to park in the right-of-way. She recommended the Board find the Respondent in violation of a repeat Order and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, or a $100 per day fine would be imposed.

15:41:14 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Owens, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find the Respondent in violation of a repeat Order and grant an extension of 30 days, until April 20, 2012, or a $100 per day fine would be imposed.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:41:22 Case #2011090168 – Secretary of Veterans Affairs Mr. DeBlois recapped this was overgrown weeds on a lot with a vacant house, and it had initially came to the Board on November 28, 2011, with extensions of time up until March 23, 2012 for compliance. Inspector Jefferson submitted a photograph into evidence, which are on file in the Commission Office, and noted nothing had been done. Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine be imposed.


15:42:20 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmermann, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find non-compliance and impose a fine in the amount of $100 per day, with a start date of March 24, 2012.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:42:38 Case #2012020011 – Cynthia Ausby Mr. DeBlois summarized this case had originally been to the Board on February 27, 2012 for commercial vehicles at a residence, junk, trash and debris and a zoning district use violation for storage of commercial vehicles and equipment, and the Board had given the Respondent until March 23, 2012 to comply. Inspector Buck submitted two photographs into evidence and verified the property was not in compliance. Mr. DeBlois recommended the fine of $100 per day be imposed, with a start date of March 24, 2012.

15:43:56 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to find non-compliance and impose the fine of $100 per day, with a start date of March 24, 2012.


LIEN RELEASE REQUESTS 15:44:06 Case #2011080048 – Daniel T. Glover (Interstate Advisors LLC) Mr. DeBlois noted this was an overgrown weed violation and compliance had been verified on February 10, 2012, which was 48 days after the onset of the fine. He recommended the Board acknowledge compliance and set the fine at the flat $100 per day amount of $4,800.


15:44:50 ON MOTION BY Mr. Suthard, SECONDED BY Mr. Clements, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to acknowledge compliance and set the fine at the flat $100 per day amount of $4,800.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:45:00 Case #2010060116 – Richard & Rha Jeppson (Bank of America) Mr. DeBlois related this was an overgrown weed violation and the start date of the Order Imposing Fine was September 25, 2010. He confirmed staff had verified compliance as of December 1, 2010, which was 67 days of non-compliance, and recommended the Board acknowledge compliance and set the fine at $6,700.

15:45:35 ON MOTION BY Mr. Zimmermann, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to acknowledge compliance and set the fine at the flat $100 per day amount of $6,700.

It is noted for the record the Respondent was not present for this hearing. 15:45:43 Authorization for Notices to Appear

ON MOTION BY Mr. Clements, SECONDED BY Mr. Suthard, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to authorize the Notices to Appear for cases leading up to the April 23, 2012 meeting.

Other Matters

There were none. Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Documents

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - Indian River County, · PDF fileOwens seconded the motion, ... rather a motion to vacate under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) ... Ms. Vanessa Carter