HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 07 08 Regular C NEW Code Enforcement Lien Forgiveness
i'
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM C
Consent
Informational
Pu blie Hearing
Regular X
July 8. 2002
Meeting
M~ / tk
Authorization .
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department- Code Enforcement
Division requests the City Commission considers the request of
A VA Anthony/ Plelopateer, LLC for forgiveness for a code
enforcement lien of $75,900.00 against their property at Hayes
Rd. and SR 434.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is to request the City Commission
considers the request of A VA Anthony/Plelopateer,LLC for forgiveness
for a code enforcement lien of $75,900.00 against their property at Hayes
Rd. and SR 434.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
On January 14,2002, Ordinance 2001-62 was adopted that set in place the
procedure for requesting reduction or forgiveness of a code enforcement
lien.
CONSIDERATIONS:
June, 1999
July 29, 1999
The City received notification that the project manager of
the proposed Texaco station had resigned. We were
instructed to direct all correspondence to owners George
Mansour and Kamil Gowni.
The Building Official of Winter Springs instructed the
owners to install a fence around the perimeter of the
property and to keep it locked until such time that impact
fees were paid and permits were issued.
i
JUL Y 8, 2002
AGENDA ITEM C
Page 2
Late August or September, 1999
The fence was finally installed after repeated conversations
and correspondence. It was installed without permits, in
the rights-of-way, and in such a manner that it impeded
traffic visibility. It was moved only after repeated
conversations with owners. Impact fees were paid to the
City, but a "Stop payment" order was placed on the check
before it cleared. Those fees are still outstanding.
November, 1999;
Charges brought against the property owners for Public
Nuisance before the Code Enforcement Board. After
appropriate"due process, the Board found the owners to be
in non-compliance and levied a fine to be imposed after
further notification was given. Notice was sent to the
owners, but the Certified Mail was returned. No fine could
be imposed at this time. Research into the Dept. Of State
records revealed the corporation's attorney in Mt. Dora.
The Order was faxed to the office, and verified via
telephone conversation that it was received in accordance
with Florida Statutes. That attorney gave Staff the new
address and the Order was sent by Certified Mail. Many
telephone conversations with the owners over this time
period resulted in promises that the property would be
brought into compliance "right away". Compliance was
not achieved until March 8, 2002, resulting in a finellien
amount of$75, 900.00.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
On June 18, 2002, the Code Enforcement Board
recommended that the line be reduced to $10,000.00, with
a payment plan, continued maintenance of the property,
owners waiving any right to a Vested Rights challenge and
with an agreement to develop the property in accordance
with current Winter Springs development standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend forgiving or reducing the lien of
$75,900.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 2001-62
B. Code Enforcement Board Minutes, June 18,2002
C. Application For SatisfactionlReduction of Lien
,
JULY 8, 2002
AGENDA ITEM C
Page 3
D. map of site.
E. Order Imposing Penalty/Lien.
F. Memo to Ron McLemore, City Manager, February 4,2000, July 14, 2000, and
November 8,2001.
G. Administrative costs associated with prosecution.
COMMISSION ACTION:
. ,
. ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-62
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLOlUDA, AMENDING THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS CODE OF ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 2; PROVIDING FOR A NEW SECTION 2-61.5
ENTITLED PROCEDURES FOR SATISFACTION OR
RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS; PROVIDING
FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR
INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. .
WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under ~2(b), Art. VIII of the State
Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by
law; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes provides that a municipality may create
administrative boards with the authority to impose administrative fines and other noncriminal
penalties to provide an equitable, expeditious, effective and inexpensive method of enforcing any
code and ordinance in force in such municipality; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has enacted Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances and has
created a Code Enforcement Board with the powers and procedures as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-61 of the City Code provides, in accordance with Chapter 162,
Florida Statutes, an order imposing penalty or fine which is recorded in the public land records and
becomes a lien in favor of the governing body, which can only be satisfied or released by an action
of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is deemed to be in the best interest of the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the City of Winter Springs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGS HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by the
reference as legislative findings of the City Commission of Winter Springs.
Section 2. Code Amendment. The City of Winter Springs Code Chapter 2 is hereby
amended as follows: (underlined type indicates additions and stdkcout type indicates deletions,
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-62
Page I of 5
,
while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from the Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 2. It is
intended that the text in Chapter 2 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall
remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance).
Chapter 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT
* * *
ARTICLE III. Boards, Committees, Commissions
* * *
Division 2. Code Enforcement
Sec. 2-61.5 Application for Satisfaction or Release of Code Enforcement Liens.
Where a certified copy of an order imposing a penalty or fine. as described above in Section
2-61. has been recorded in the public rec'ords and has become a lien against the land and/or property
of the violator. such violator may apply for a satisfaction or release of such lien as follows:
.@l Upon full payment by the violator of the fine or penalty imposed in accordance with
this Chapter. the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and record a
Satisfaction of Lien.
(Q} Upon reqUest for a reduction or forgiveness of a fine or penalty imposed in
accordance with this Chapter. the violator shall submit a written application to the
Community Development Director.
~ The application shall include. but may not be limited to the following:
ill The code enforcement case number;
ill The date upon which the violator brought the subiect property into
compliance with the City Code;
ill The factual basis upon which the violator believes the application for
reduction or forgiveness of the lien should be granted;
ill The terms upon which a satisfaction or release of lien should be granted:
ill The reasons. if any. compliance was not obtained prior to the order of penalty
or fine being recorded;
(Q) The reduction in penalty or fine sought by the violator; and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-62
Page 2 of 5
.
ill Any other information which the violator deems pertinent to the request,.
including but not limited to the circumstances that exist which would warrant
the reduction or forgiveness of the penalty or fine.
This application shall be executed under oath and sworn to in the presence of a Notary
Public.
@ The violator shall submit at the time of application payment to the City in the amount
necessary to reimburse the City for its costs associated with recording the Order imposing a penalty
or fine and the requested satisfaction or release of lien. These costs are non-refundable, without
regard for the final disposition of the application for satisfaction or release of lien.
W Upon receipt of the application for satisfaction or release of lien and payment
provided above. the Community Development Direttor shall confirm through the Code Enforcement
Department that the violation-which resulted in the order imposing penalty or fine has been brought
into compliance. If the violation has been brought into compliance and there is no current code
violation upon the property in question. the Community Development Director shall place the
application upon the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Code Enforcement Board
for the City of Winter Springs.
At the hearing before the Code Enforcement Board. the Board shall review and consider the
application for satisfaction or release of lien. provide the violator with an opportunity to address the
Board regarding the application for satisfaction or release of lien. and to take the testimony of other
interested parties. including but not limited to City staff.
ill Upon review of the application and any testimony presented, the Code Enforcement
Board shall recommend to the City Commission approvaL approval with conditions. or denial of the
application for satisfaction or release of lien.
The Code Enforcement Board. in determining its recommendation. shall consider the
following factors:
fill The gravity of the violation:
Qll The time in which it took the violator to come into compliance:
{f} The accrued amount of the code enforcement fine or lien:
@ Any previous or subsequent code violations:
liD. Any financial hardship;
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-62
Page 3 of 5
(g} Any other mitigating circwnstance which may warrant the reduction or satisfaction
of the penalty or fine:
(h) After a recommendation has been rendered by the Code Enforcement Board, the
Community Development Director shall place the application for satisfaction or release of/ien upon
the agenda of the next regularly scheduled City Commission meeting. The City Commission may
take action solely based upon the sworn application and recommendation of the Code Enforcement
Board, and information provided by the violator in regard to the application for satisfaction or release
of lien:
ill The City Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application
to satisfy or release oflien. If the City Commission approves the application to satisfy or release the
lien and the approval is conditioned upon the violator paying a reduced penalty, fine, or any other
condition, the satisfaction or release oflien shall not be prepared or recorded until the condition(s)
placed by the Commission have been satisfied.
The violator shall have thirty (30) days in which to comply with the conditions imposed by
the City Commission. Failure of the violator to comply will result in the automatic denial of the
application for satisfaction or release of lien.
If the application is denied or if the application is automatically denied due to the failure of
the violator to comply with the conditions imposed by the City Commission, the violator shall
thereafter be barred from applying for a subsequent reduction or forgiveness of the lien for a period
of one (I) year from the date of denial. During the one-year period, the lien may only be satisfied
and released upon full payment of the fine or penalty imposed in accordance with this Chapter.
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Commission, or parts of prior ordinances
and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This ordinance shall be incorporated into the
Winter Springs City Code and any section or paragraph number or letter and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing.
Section S. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effectiye immediately upon
adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-62
Page 4 of 5
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, ;in a regular
meeting assembled on the 14th day of January ,2002. ' "
I 'I (1-
CC~u
PAUL P. PARTYKA U-
Mayor
A ,TEST:
~\ L
~DREA LO
City Cle~~
ZO-LUACES
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the' f Winter Springs only
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
First Reading: Dec.ember 10, 2001
Second Reading: January 14, 2002
Effective Date: January 14, 2002
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-62
Page 5 of 5
. .
ATTACHMENT B
;
- .
,,=
~ 1/
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ~ ',; y
MINUTES V 1Y
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ,/ (' D J.- .
REGULAR MEETING ~_? 7u m a:
JUNE 18, 2002 ? /L/ I
I J.JY
CALL TO ORDER
UNAPPROVED
I.
Chairperson Joanne Krebs called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. on Tuesday,
June 18,2002, in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126
East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708).
Roll Call:
Chairperson Joanne Krebs, present
Vice Chairperson Lurene Lyzen, present
Board Member Ken Furth, present
Board Member James B. Pitts, present
Board Member Greg Roero, absent
Board Member Greg Thompson, present
Board Member Mervin Warner, present
The Pledge of Allegiance followed.
Chairperson Joanne Krebs asked if there would be any Agenda changes and Ms. C.
Jimette Cook, Code Enforcement Manager, Code Enforcement Division, Community
Development Department advised the Board that Case CEB 02-00417 is being added to
tonight's Agenda, which will be heard in addition to Agenda Item "D" and "E". Ms.
Cook distributed new "Finding Of Fact" and "Relief Orders" and spoke briefly of the
changes between the old and the new forms.
Chairperson Krebs said, "I was going to entertain a Motion to accept these as our new
'Finding Of Facts' And 'Relief Orders'."
MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER FURTH. "SO MOVED." SECONDED BY
BOARD MEMBER PITTS. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
UNAPPROVED .
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE 2 OF 12
II. CONSENT
CONSENT
A. Approval Of The May 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Chairperson Krebs requested a Motion to approve the Minutes.
"SO MOVED." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRPERSON L YZEN. SECONDED BY
BOARD MEMBER PITTS. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
BOARD MEMBER F)URTH: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
.:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CASE WAS ADDED TO THE
AGENDA AND DISCUSSED AT THIS MEETING. .:..:.
III. REGULAR
ADD-ON
REGULAR
CASE #CEB-02-0000417
Ms. Cook entered into the record "The Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing" for
"Sunstate Trees and Chelsea Parc Homeowner's Association which is the property
owner". Ms. Cook stated further, "We have the green card back for Sunstate and
although we don't have the return green card from Chelsea Parc that they are represented
here this evening." Ms. Cook clarified the violation and location; and spoke of the past
citations given to Sunstate Trees which were entered into the record.
Deputy City Clerk, Debbie Gillepsie, swore in those persons who may be providing
testimony during the presentation of tonight's case.
Mr. Michael Mingea, Environmental Inspector/City Forester, Code Enforcement
Division, Community Development Department was asked by Ms. Cook whether he had
met with representatives of Chelsea Parc Homeowner's Association to discuss the
requirements for tree removal; if Chelsea Parc Homeowner's Association had "Pulled a
Permit"; and whether he observed tree removal from the common area of Chelsea Parco
Mr. Mingea responded affirmatively and explained that when he saw the tree being
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE30F12
removed he stopped and asked the "Sunstate representative - for his Arbor Permit, he
was unable to produce and asked him to call the office." Mr. Mingea requested a meeting
with the company and prior to leaving the area he measured the tree which was sixteen
inches (16") in diameter.
Ms. Cook said, "We are bringing this to the Board in leu of another citation. We - feel a
citation is a warning - but it does not seem to do the job and it would be another $300.00
to do the cost of doing business. We have cited Sunstate [Trees] four (4) times with
citations, another time with warnings, and here is this other time. I just don't feel that a
citation would - do any good here. I think we need a stiffer penalty. The Homeowner's
Association must share in some of this blame. They were aware that a permit needed to
be applied for and obtained. Sunstate [Trees] was aware that a permit needed to be
applied for and obtained."
Ms Cindy Cox, 1421 Creekside Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke of being a new
member of the Chelsea Parc Homeowner's Association Board; acknowledged that a
permit was needed; and was told by Sunstate Trees that they would get the permit.
Brief discussion.
Mr. Angelo Sparteri, 264 West State Road 434, Longwood, Florida: as an agent of
Sunstate Trees he spoke of his company assisting homeowners with the application for
the permit, but that the homeowners are responsible for obtaining the permit and payment
of fees.
Chairperson Krebs asked, "Your people are out there, they have no permit but are cutting
down a tree. How is that possible?" Mr. Sparteri replied, "That was incorrect. Because
of it's not being a home, I guess not knowing that - he could verify - calling up - to see if
there was one - probably would have been the way to go." Chairperson Krebs said, "But
you are doing business, you are the one who is supposed to know whether or not there is
a permit. And if you don't have one in your hand, you don't cut a tree." "Yes ma'am.
That's absolutely true," said Mr. Sparteri.
Tape I/Side B
Further discussion.
REVISED FINDING OF FACT:
"IN THE CASE OF CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS VERSUS CHELSEA PARC
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NUMBER
CEB 02-0000417, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HAS READ THE
COMPLAINT FILED AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION PREPARED BY
THE CODE INSPECTOR, AND HEARD AT THIS HEARING THE SWORN
TESTIMONY OF THE CODE INSPECTOR AND OTHER SWORN WITNESSES
AND/OR VIOLATORS.
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE40FI2
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THIS
HEARING, I MOVE THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FIND:
(1) THAT CHELSEA PARC HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WAS
PROVIDED NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2-59. OF THE
CITY CODE THAT A VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE
EXISTED UPON THEIR PROPERTY, AND FURTHER PROVIDED A
REASONABLE TIME TO CORRECT SAID VIOLATION;
(2) THE VIOLATORS FAILED OR REFUSED TO CORRECT SUCH
VIOLATION WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE OF
VIOLATION;
(3) THAT THE VIOLATOR WAS PROVIDED NOTICE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 2-59. OF THE CITY CODE, OF THE HEARING
BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, AND THAT THE
VIOLATORS WERE PRESENT AT THIS HEARING; AND
(4) THAT SAID VIOLATION DOES IN FACT CONTINUE TO EXIST PRIOR
TO INSPECTION UPON THE VIOLATOR'S PROPERTY AS OF THIS
HEARING.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT AN APPROPRIATE RELIEF ORDER BE ISSUED
IMMEDIATELY BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD." MOTION BY
BOARD MEMBER FURTH. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WARNER.
DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
RELIEF ORDER - ORDER OF THE BOARD:
"IN THE CASE OF CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS VERSUS CHELSEA PARC
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NUMBER
CEB-02-0000417, HAVING BEEN FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF -
CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE, I MOVE THAT THE VIOLATORS BE
GIVEN NINETY (90) DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION TO CORRECT THIS
VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE. IF VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED
WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED, A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY
DOLLARS ($250.00) WILL BE IMPOSED, PER VIOLATION UNTIL
COMPLIANCE IS ACHIEVED AS VERIFIED BY A CODE ENFORCEMENT
INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS.
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE 5 OF 12
FURTHERMORE, ANY OR ALL FUTURE RECURRENCES OF THIS
VIOLATION UPON COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED WILL
NECESSITATE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CODE
f1:NFORCEMENT BOARD WITHOUT NECESSARILY GIVING THE
VIOLATOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT SAID VIOLATION. THE
FINE, FOR SUCH REOCCURRENCE, SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) PER DAY, PER VIOLATION BEGINNING ON
THE FIRST DAY THE VIOLATION IS FOUND TO EXIST.
AND IF THE VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED WITHIN THE TIME
PROVIDED ABOVE, THE CLERK OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
SHALL BE DIRECTED TO RECORD A CERTIFIED COpy OF THIS ORDER
INTO THE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE
VIOLATOR BEING PRESENT AT THIS HEARING AND HAS HEARD THE
ORDER OF THIS BOARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE VIOLATOR BE
DEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THIS ORDER
IMMEDIATELY." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER FURTH. SECONDED.
DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
REVISED FINDING OF FACT:
"IN THE CASE OF CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS VERSUS SUNST ATE TREES,
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NUMBER CEB 02-0000417, THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD HAS READ THE COMPLAINT FILED AND THE
WRITTEN INFORMATION PREPARED BY THE CODE INSPECTOR, AND
HEARD AT THIS HEARING THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF THE CODE
INSPECTOR AND WITNESSES AND VIOLATORS.
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THIS
HEARING, I MOVE THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FIND:
(1) THE VIOLATORS SUNSTATE TREES WAS PROVIDED NOTICE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2-59. OF THE CITY CODE THAT A
VIOLATION OF CHAPTER - 5 [NO ARBOR PERMIT] OF THE CITY
CODE EXISTED UPON THEIR PROPERTY, AND FURTHER PROVIDED
A REASONABLE TIME TO CORRECT SAID VIOLATION;
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE60F 12
,/
(2) THE VIOLATORS FAILED OR REFUSED TO CORRECT SUCH
VIOLATION WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED IN THE - OF
VIOLA TIONS;
(3) THAT THE VIOLATOR WAS PROVIDED NOTICE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 2-59. OF THE CITY CODE, OF THE HEARING
BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, AND THAT THE
VIOLATOR WAS PRESENT AT THIS HEARING; AND
(4) THAT SAID VIOLATION DOES IN FACT CONTINUE TO EXIST UPON
THE VIOLATOR'S PROPERTY AS OF THIS HEARING.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT AN APPROPRIATE RELIEF ORDER BE ISSUED
IMMEDIATELY BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD." MOTION BY
BOARD MEMBER PITTS. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON L YZEN.
DISCUSSION.
VICE CHAIRPERSON L YZEN REQUESTED THAT FOLLOWING CHAPTER
5, [NO ARBOR PERMIT] BE SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER PITTS
AGREED.
VOTE:
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Brief discussion.
REVISED RELIEF ORDER - ORDER OF THE BOARD:
"IN THE CASE OF CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS VERSUS SUNSTATE TREES,
INC., CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NUMBER CEB-02-0000-417, THE
VIOLATOR, SUNSTATE TREE, INC., HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE IN
VIOLATION OF - SECTION 5 [NO ARBOR PERMIT] OF THE CITY CODE. I
MOVE THAT VIOLATORS BE FINED $1,000.00 PER VIOLATION, SAID FINE
SHOULD BE PAID TO THE CITY WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THIS
ORDER. FURTHER ANY OR ALL FUTURE RECURRENCES AFTER
COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED WILL NECESSITATE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WITHOUT
NECESSARIL Y GIVING THE VIOLATOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT
THE VIOLATION. FINALLY, AS THE VIOLATOR IS PRESENT AT THIS
HEARING AND HAS HEARD THE ORDER OF THIS BOARD, I FURTHER
MOVE THAT THE VIOLATOR BE DEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED
UNAPPROflED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING- JUNE 18.2002
PAGE 7 OF 12
NOTIFICATION OF THIS ORDER IMMEDIATELY." MOTION BY BOARD
MEMBER PITTS. BOARD MEMBER PITTS WAS ASKED TO RESTATE THE
COMPANY'S NAME AND A TIME FOR THE FINE TO BE PAID. BOARD
MEMBER PITTS SAID, "SUNSTATE TREES, INC." AND ADDED, "SAID FINE
SHOULD BE PAID TO THE CITY WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THIS
ORDER." SECONDED.
VOTE:
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON L YZEN : AYE
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Cook responded to questions from Mr. Sparteri regarding Ordinance 2002-08 and
donating the fine to the Tree Bank Program.
Chairperson Krebs recessed the Meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Chairperson Krebs reconvened the Meeting at 8:24 p.m.
.:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS WERE HEARD
IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER. .:..:.
D. CASE #CEB-99-818
Orange Avenue
Chanh Q. Nguyen
Reduction/Satisfaction Of Lien
Ms. Cook introduced this case, and provided for the record an application for
"Satisfaction Or Release Of Code Enforcement Lien"; read portions of the application to
the Board Members; and spoke of the history of this case.
Discussion.
Mr. George B. Wallace, Esquire, P.A., 700 West First Street, Sanford, Florida:
addressed the Board and stated, " - advice from an individual - up until October when he
brought it to my office. He has worked diligently with me and with City Staff to fix it -
once somebody wasn't giving him poor advice. Mr. Nguyen doesn't speak really clear
English but he is certainly able to answer your question."
Tape 2/Side A
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE 8 OF 12
Also Mr. Wallace asked that "Ms. Cook will indicate that Mr. Nguyen himself has
always tried to be cooperative - pleasant - not belligerent, and not antagonistic with the
City."
Ms. Cook acknowledged that Mr. Nguyen has been "Very cooperative" and that she
encouraged him to hire an attorney. Ms. Cook also said, "I do believe that he was lead
astray. On the other hand, I believe he let himself be lead astray and I don't believe a
total satisfaction of this lien is called for here."
The Board asked if foreclosure proceedings had begun and Ms. Cook responded, "No
formal action has been filed at this time."
Mr. Wallace said, "We ask for a forgiveness because since I have been retained Mr.
Nguyen has done pretty much everything he could as quick as a pace as he could to try to
get this matter straightened out and - if the Board feels an absolute forgiveness is not
appropriate because of the length of time and other factors - then we would ask the Board
amend our affidavit to ask for a reasonable fine amount that Mr. Nguyen might have
some capability of satisfying."
Mr. Chanh Q. Nguyen. 4409 Steed Terrace, Winter Park, Florida: stated "I do aware
that I had the fine and violation"; was told by the person that created the problem that the
mulch had been removed; and explained his confusion about actions taken by the City of
Winter Springs and Seminole County.
Discussion.
The present condition of the property and possible costs to the City were discussed. In
response Ms. Cook said, "The property owner is petitioning you for a reduction. My
opinion would be the property owner should supply you with that information. I am not
going to try his case for him." Discussion.
CHAIRPERSON KREBS SAID, "I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS
- IN THE CASE OF CEB-99-818 - A REDUCTION TO THE FINE IN THE
AMOUNT OF TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00) FOR MR.
NGUYEN AND HAVE THE CITY -ARRANGE FORA PAYMENT PLAN."
MS. COOK SAID, "THE REDUCTION TO TWENTY THOUSAND (20,000.00)
NOT UP TO TWENTY THOUSAND?" CHAIRPERSON KREBS THEN
REPLIED, "A REDUCTION TO TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00)
- FROM ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN THOUSAND (187,000.00) AND
CHANGE." SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON L YZEN. DISCUSSION
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18. 2002
PAGE 9 OF 12
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairperson Krebs recessed the Meeting at 9:16 p.m.
The Meeting reconvened at 9:23 p.m.
Tape 2/Side B
E. CASE #CEB-02-330
701 State Road 434
AVA Anthony Corporation
Reduction/Satisfaction Of Lien
Ms. Cook addressed the Board regarding this case and read into the record a
Memorandum "Constituting a supplement to the Phelopateer's application for Release or
Satisfaction of Code Enforcement Lien".
Mr. Aaron Goravitz, Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor, & Reed, P.A., 215 North Ecola
Drive, Orlando, Florida: spoke of his client's [Kamil Gowni, Phelopateer, LLC]
participation, litigation, and difficulties in his attempt to develop the property; and asked
for "A reasonable reduction under the circumstances."
Mr. Goravitz was asked if a gas station is still in the plans for the property. Mr. Goravitz
replied, "Right now we have the opportunity to file a Vested Rights case against the City
and trying to get a gas station built. That is our absolute last resort if we can work out
these code enforcement issues and do a different plan of sort. I don't expect that we
would build a gas station but there is no firm plan in place with respect to what we are
going to do."
Discussion ensued regarding the City's request for an opaque fence; past communications
with A V A Anthony; possible Vested Rights litigation; the "Relief Order" stipulations;
and the date of compliance.
Mr. Goravit?: said, "We could stipulate as part of a settlement here that we wouldn't
pursue the Vested Rights claim." Additionally Mr. Goravitz stated, "I just spoke to Mr.
Gowni and if there was a recommendation for a nominal fine which goes to the City
Council as part as any final documentation with the City Council we would agree not to
UNA I':;~.'lr.""-i'" n' 'F"'.
ill ~ t: it. . ) .
J t' \ 1" 1 ) :
- .t ~"" '(0' 1"'-" A "J :t. ....'.
~l i J;ttr ~ :t"!
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGEIOOFI2
file the Vested Rights suit and just kind of live with the Code and get on and start
developing." Brief discussion.
Ms. Cook suggested, "The City might ask that in making a recommendation, you include
a provision that the property, at least for mowing, be maintained on a regular basis now
that the Attorney has eluded that money is coming in and they might be able to do that if
it is overgrown again." Discussion
City Manager Ronald W McLemore arrived at 10:09 p.m.
Chairperson Krebs briefed the City Manager on the offer regarding possible litigation
regarding Vested Rights and whether the offer would benefit the City.
Tape 3/ Side A
Manager McLemore spoke of the City's likelihood of winning the litigation and stated.
"It's probably fifty/fifty (50/50), so there is some exposure to the City from a financial
prospective if that litigation is pursued. So there is a value for that going away. The flip
side of that is that the City has had a lot of cost and aggravation and still - piece of
property. The current owner did in fact come forward to try to do something with that
property, clean it up because of a decision of the City Commission, I was unable to do
that. So, the best I can advise you is, yes there's something of value and I would think
something of substantial value to that litigation, potentially going away."
Manager McLemore departed the Meeting at approximately 1 0: 17 p. m.
Discussion ensued regarding possible reduction figures; costs to the City involving this
case; possible stipulations to the reduction; and how long before the property will be
"Cleaned up". Mr. Goravitz said, "We'll mow it within seven (7) days and..."
MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER FURTH. "I MAKE A MOTION THAT UNDER
CEB-02-300, 701 STATE ROAD 434, AVA ANTHONY CORPORATION, THEIR
REQUEST FOR REDUCTION/SATISFACTION OF LIEN. I RECOMMEND
THAT - I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SET A FINE OF TEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($10,000.00) WITH A PAYMENT PLAN AS ARRANGED BY THE
CITY WITH AVA ANTHONY, OR THE NEW COMPANY PHELOPATEER
MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY PER ORDINANCE WHILE WAITING FOR
CONSTRUCTION TO START. WAIVE VESTED RIGHTS SUIT, DEVELOP
THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT WINTER SPRINGS
CODES AND ORDINANCES." SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WARNER.
DISCUSSION.
BOARD MEMBER FURTH SAID, "I CHANGE MY MOTION TO
MAINTENANCE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY."
U!l~PPROVED
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18.2002
PAGEIIOFI2
VOTE:
VICE CHAIRPERSON LYZEN: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KREBS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER FURTH: AYE
BOARD MEMBER WARNER: AYE
BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON: AYE
BOARD MEMBER PITTS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
.:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE NOT DISCUSSED
AT THIS MEETING. .:..:.
REGULAR
A. CASE #CEB-02-316
633 Dolphin Road
Anthony M. & Nancy E. Pandolfi
Chapter 5 (No Arbor Permit)
B. CASE #CEB-02-324
216 Charles Street
Maria & George Ward
Chapter 5 (No Arbor Permit)
C. CASE #CEB-02-330
118 Moss Road
Cesar M. & Romonita Wilson
Section 20-433. (Disabled And Unlicensed Motor Vehicle)
IV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
The Board requested that "Swearing In Of Witnesses" be added to future Agendas and
the placement of brackets in the "Finding of Fact" and "Relief Orders".
V. REPORTS
None.
UNAPPROVED
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Krebs adjourned the Meeting at 10:34 p.m.
RESP ECTFULL Y SUBMITTED:
DEBBIE GILLESPIE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
\City Clerk\BOARDS\CODEENFO\ALLL\MINUTES\2002\061802 REGULAR.doc
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
MINUTES
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 18,2002
PAGE 12 OF 12
NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the
,2002 Code Enforcement Board Meeting.
ATTACHMENT C
."
~~ .h}{/i)/:I;': " "
_....._~........ ......--.--........ ....-..-........
CITY OIl' WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
APlJLICATION FOil. SATISFACTION OR RELI~ASI~
011 COIlE ENFORCEMENT LlJi~N
CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE II: 99-706
APPLICATION FEE: $ 6.00
APPLICANT:
Phelopateer. LLC
DATE: June 13, 2002
ADDRESS: 1348 Valley pine Circle
CITY: ApQpka,
STATE: Florida
ZIP: 32712
NA.TURE OF VIOLATION(S): section 13-1 [Public Nuisance] of the Code of the
r;~y of W;nter ~rings
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 701 State Road 434
DATE FINE/LIEN IMPOSED: FphTn~191 2000
.....,:
COMPLIANCE DATE: March 8t. 2002
RELIEF REQUESTED: SATISFACTION I REDUCTION (Circle one) IF REDUC:fION. THE APPLICANT
AMOUNT: $100.00
IDAYXJK~
PROPOSES $
AS THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCED FINE.
THE FACTUAL BASIS UPON WHICH TilE VIOLATOR BELIEVES TIHS APPLICATION SHOULD DE
GRANTED:' (Ifmorespace is needed add additional pages)
..
*p1ease see attached
TERMS OR CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED UPON APPLICANT SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE GRANTED:
(If more space is needed ad~1 nddilional pages)
*please see attached
THE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPLICANT DID NOT BRING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO
COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO Tr IE ORDER OF PENALTY OR FINE BEING IMPOSED AND RECORDED: (If more
space is needed add addilional pages)
*please see attached
.,.
ANY ADDlTION~L FACt'S OR INFORMATION THE APPLICANT DEEMS PERTINENT TO THE REQUEST,
INCLUDING nUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CmCUMST ANCES THAT EXIST WHICH WOULD W ARRANT THE
"i: -;~.
REDUCTION OR SAl'ISPACTION OP PENALTY OR FINE: (If more space is needed add additional pages)
*please see attached
\
-,
LV
"3:
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Charles Carrington
City of Winter Springs Community
Development Director
FROM:
Phelopateer, LLC
DATE:
June 13,2002
,~ {
RE:
Supplement to Application for R~lease of Code Enforcement Liens
Hayes and 434 Site
This memorandum constitutes a supplement to Phelopateer's Application for Satisfaction
or Release of Code Enforcement Liens, as described in Ordinance 2001-62, in connection with--
the site located at the comer of Hayes Road and State Road 434 in Winter Springs (the "Site").
Phelopateer, LLC ("Phelopateer") . is successor in interest to A V A Anthony, Inc. ("AVA
Anthony") as a result of an internal transaction (phelopateer and A V A Anthony are both owned :.
by Kamil Gowni).
I. Factual Basis for Application for Reduction of Lien
In order to set up the factual basis for the requested release of the lien, this section
provides a brief chronology of the events affecting the Site dating back to 1999.
A. Chronology
The City began issuing permits for construction of a convenience store and gasoline
station facility on the Site in February 1999. Between February and August 1999, the following
specific permits were issued: Construction Trailer Permit, Fuel Tank Installation Permit, Permit
to Open Hayes Road for Waterline, Transfer of Construction Trailer Permit, Construction of
New Service Station and Convenience Store Permit, Screening Wall Installation Permit and a
Fence Installation Perniit. Pursuant to the Winter Springs Code of Ordinances Section 6-57, these
construction permits expired one year from the date they were issued.
During the time period from the date of the initial permit in February 1999, to the date of
the issuance of the last permit in August 1999, A V A Anthony paid fees to the City, to
contractors, to construction companies, and to the Department of Transportation in order to
develop the Site. The overall expenditure during this six-month period was in excess of
$250,000.00.
038409\83818\534333\5
\:
~;.I'.
Charles Carrington
Community Development Director
. June 13, 2002
Page 2
During the months betwee~ August 1999 and March 2000, construction on the Site
progressed as scheduled. Although the above ground gasoline dispensers and pipes to be attached
to the dispensers were not installed, the gasoline facilities were substantially complete and
remain substantially complete at this time.
6,
A V A Anthony was asked by the City to donate a portion of the Site property to create a
left-turn lane in exchange for and as part of the negotiation concerning construction of a gasoline
station and convenience store facility on the Site. A V A Anthony deeded to City the property
needed by the City for the left-turn lane; a Public Purpose Warranty Deed was signed by A V A
Anthony and the City in August 1999 and recorded by the City in OR Book 3707, Page 0808,
Public Records of Seminole County, Florida.
In March 2000, a dispute arose between A V A Anthony and its contractor providing
services on the Site, John J. Sexton - Contractor, Inc. (hereinafter, "Sexton"), over improper
installation of an underground drainage pipe. Sexton filed a lien against the Site for its fees, and
litigation ensued. In the meantime, AVA Anthony hired Fields & Son Excavation to correct the
problem and finish the Site. Fields & Son began preparing the Site to complete construction of
the gasoline facilities and to construct a convenience store building on the Site. The litigation
between A V A Anthony and Sexton was eventually settled out of court.
During the time period of the litigation between A V A Anthony and Sexton, A V A
Anthony continued to work with the City on developing the Site. The City was well aware of the
litigation and its effect on the Site. Jimette Cook sent a letter to A VA Anthony dated March 20,
2000 notifying A VA Anthony of a fine rwming against the Site for maintaining a public
nuisance. Ms. Cook indicated that if AVA Anthony fenced the Site, then the City would not
place a lien on the property. AVA Anthony complied with the City's request, spending $227.06
on construction of a fence on the Site.
A V A Anthony recognizes that it was sometimes difficult to locate its representatives and
that the Site was not always in compliance with the Winter Springs City Code. However, when
the City communicated directly with the AVA Anthony, it was cooperative in responding to the
City's requests.
During the first week in July 2001, A V A Anthony met with the City to discuss both
completion of construction and the removal of liens that the City had placed on the Site due to
code violations. A V A Anthony was 'concerned about these violations and dedicated to rectifying
the situation. At the City's request, during the week after the July 9, 2001 City Commission
meeting, A V A Anthony backfilled a tank hole, bush-hogged the Site and fixed the fence on the
Site.
OJ8409\8J818\5J4JJJ\5
..
\.
..----
,-
Charles Carrington
Community Development Director
June 13, 2002
Page 3
AVA Anthony then met with City staff On July 20, 2001 regarding the bunding plan for
the convenience store on the Site, and asked the staff whether A V A Anthony should resubmit its
old drawings for the convenience store building or whether it should submit drawings for a new
building. The City staff indicated that it wanted drawings for a new building submitted, which
A VA Anthony submitted, and the City staff subsequently expressed approval of the new
. drawings.
A proposed ordinance, entitled "An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of
Winter Springs, Florida, Establishing Distance Requirements for Gasoline Filling Stations;
Providing for Repeal of. Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions; Providing for _ _
Severability; Providing for Incorporation Into the Code; and Providing for an Effective Date,"
was read for the second time at the Winter Springs City Commission meeting on July 23, 2001
and was adopted by a unanimous vote. The ordinance directly affected the Site due to the Site's
proximity to another gasoline station on State Road 434. This ordinance prohibited construction
of gasoline stations within 350 feet of one another, but also included a vested rights clause. It is
clear from the transcript of this meeting that at the time of the vote, the issue of whether the Site
was vested was not yet resolved.
At this point, the law firm of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor.& Reed, P.A.
("Lowndes") was retained to represent AVA Anthony in its efforts to obtain a vested rights
determination and ultimately to go forward. with developing the Site. On A VA Anthony's
behalf, on October 22, 2001 Lowndes submitted a memorandum constituting a vested rights
application. After reviewing this application, the City staff and the City Commissioners elected
to pursue a settlement agreement with A V A Anthony in order to avoid litigation. Soon
afterwards, the holder of the first mortgage on the Site began foreclosure proceedings on the Site.
Over the next several months, Lowndes and A VA Anthony worked extensively with the
City Manager and the City staff to create an Agreement memorializing the terms of the
development of the site. A landscape architect prepared the landscape plan for the Site, and the
resulting landscaping plan was both extensive and superior to that of any of the surrounding
property. The building design in the agreement featured a brick fa9ade, portico and canopy, and
decorative planters on the front of the building and under the canopy. The final Agreement met
or exceeded the Winter Springs Code requirements on every aspect of the project. At the
February 25, 2002 City Commission meeting, the Commissioners voted against the Agreement
and in effect discontinued all settlement negotiations.
038409\83818\534333\5
'\
r
Charles Carrington
Community Development Director
June 13, 2002
Page 4
B. Factual Basis for Release of Lien
As the above chronology suggests, this Site has been plagued by Wlique and expensive
circumstances ranging from litigation with the contractor to pursuing a settlement agreement
with the City regarding vested rights. The Site is has been the subject of foreclosure
proceedings. A VA Anthony cooperated with the City during the development of the Site, but
due to the numerous problems encoWltered. during development, has incurred substantial
expenses in connection with the Site. In light of the history of the Site, A VA Anthony's
cooperation with the City and the substantial costs associated with the Site, it respectfully
requests that the lien be released. _ _
II. Terms Upon Which Release of Lien Should be Granted:
The Release of Lien should be contingent upon the Site remaining in compliance with the
City of Winter Springs Code from the date of the release forward.
III. Reasons Compliance Was Not Obtained Prior to the Fine Being Recorded:
As a result of the protracted litigation with its' former contractor and the lengthy
settlement negotiations with the City regarding vested rights, A VA Anthony was confronted with
a combination of a lack of funds and numerous internal issues. Despite these problems, A V A
Anthony was confident that construction on the Site was imminent and it remained committed to
its goal to build a quality facility on the Site. )
IV. Additional Information:
Phelopateer is diligently attempting to avoid litigation regarding this Site and to move
forward in cleaning up and developing the Site.
038409\83818\534333\5
ATTACHMENT D
15.0' BUILDING SETBACK LINE
!
.- I
:25' -' SL
"'>---
I ___
UMPSTER
(SEE DETAIL; SHT.)
,
37'
REMOVE 87 LF OF EXISTING
2' CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
AND 68 LF OF SIDEWALK
N 72-38'37" E
..! . .
. .
'.
..
'. .
EDGE OF ASPHALT
AREA PAVING'
15 LF 4- DOUBLE
YELLOW STRIPING
',,--
"
...,
~":':"
.";--.
....
...,
)' ----~ ~.:.....-=-~_-~:~~..... . ". -~ - :::r.'~ "::'~""'- ".
---
'. ,
., \
" '.
!'!
-l
J
I
---.
---
o
to
~
I
I
i
I
i
1
i
.1
-+--
~
-~~
N
~
m
,....
LOT 30
.V
75' TRANSITION
50' TURN STORAGE
REMOVE CONRETE DRIVE APRON
AND CONSTRUCT 2' CURB & GUTTER
AND 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK GRASS
,., .MAI~,d .
~
/ '.
." :
PARKWAY
5' SIDEWALK
#ISTING
..'. .......-'.,. ./.'.' ~
473.41'
290.07'
N
""'
(TYP
'UBLlC
. PAY
/PHONES
/
@
b
o
d
N
--- - ..,.. - -
-
COIN-OPERA TE
VACUUM ON 6"
CONCRETE PAD WI
FILLED PIPE BOLLARD
COIN-OPERATE
AIRlwA TER ON 6"
CONCRETE PAD WI
FILLED PIPE BOLLARD
. :; .' ....-.;: ~~ ).... 6.~' ~"':.'~': :..~:.~..:. (.:' :.:. ::'.' ..:. ~f.> "~6'
20'
"l3' . -=J . -=J \
'-=J.S ~~O~
~ 3.80-L8 ~
N08A3H8 ft
~~~ 03S0d08d . . ;U
'1.1 . ) li8
; ~~ '0'::> '0'::> A
H.RAIoI: ~
-!;., .....1 '
- jl
0CiJ!
~
Ir- 20.35'
in .1
;;j I
I T HAfJDIC-
ER FOOT Ii'
DE OF CURE
. ,
--
I
:
,
-~
---
EOCt- O~SPHAl T
AREA P~G
R20
EXIS
I
. -..
~ " .
"'.
33.55'
---
3Llb' -----'
~I N
01
~i
---
1.5'
---
~,
---
_______ "- ::~~~D"
~
"STOP" s,d--------=.~
R-l / />
'----
. 1
m'
r--
---
---
---
ATTACHMENT E
:
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
\E:?City of Winter Springs
Petitioner,
Complaint No. CEB-99-706
v. Anthony A va Inc.
6801 Forest City Road
Orlando, FL 32810
Respondent.
ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY/LIEN
TillS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the Winter Springs Code Enforcement Board on
November 16, 1999, after due notice to Respondent, at which the Board heard testimony under oath,
received evidence, and issued its Finding of Fact and ConclusionS of Law and thereupon issued oral
Order which was reduced to writing and furnished to Respondent.
Said Order required Respondent to take certain corrective action by a certain time, as more
specifically set forth in that Order.
An Affidavit of Non-Compliance, bearing the date of February 20, 1999 has been filed with the _.
Board by the Code EnforcementManager, which Affidavit certifies under oath that the required
corrective action was not taken as ordered.
Accordingly, it having been brought to the Board's attention that'Respondent did not comply with
Order dated December 8, 1999, it is hereby:
ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT PAY to the City of Winter Springs a fine in the amount of
$100.00 per day in reference to the property that exists at 70 I East State Road 434 in the City of Winter
Spririgs described as:
LEG LOTS 3O+51+VACD
ENTZMINGER FARMS ADDITION
PB 5 pAGE 9, OF SEMINOLE COUNTY
OWNED BY ANTHONY A VA INC.
6801 FOREST CITY ROAD
ORLANDOt FL 32810
This Order ifrecorded in the public records shall constitute a lien against the above described
property and any other real or personal property of the Respondent, pursuant of Section 162.08 and
. ......Sectio~ '162.09 of Florida Statutes., /J ~ ~/'
..' \ \~It.'bijNE AND ORDER this Iv..... day of '_~ _ . at Winter Springs.
...:,:'Sehiinole'Cbunty, Florida. '
..., . \. .
::. I(-, /.~.... ~
~.~ ~": -::: Code Enforcement Board of the
'.~: '.... · ~ : <;: City of Winter Springs, Florida
.. rj
;:. ". ~s:~r~ .
"~, --
~/7/l-<' 'In ;d;/~
Irman
,. ,
Ity C1et.: .'
-4j10/~
Date
~ y () {.;
, _ =;L'G," ~
w
co
~ W
:I: --.J
:z:
o
r-
f'T1
(")
~ C)
~ --.J
r- 01
01
~
r-
~
~
Ul ;l;
N .:::l
-"
en -:-)
\.0 :-;0
-.
C.J1 c:
W -i'
t-';
21
::0
~
~
~
~
~
~
-"0
::::>;:)
N
::Uu
r-lr:
("") .,
0=
:7.l::2:
oC
!"='l r
'=' rr
~., c-;
'0
'<c:
~ ::z:
Ai-f
=Tl:<
""'"TJ
or-
::>>-
:J:
c:>
o
~
ATTACHMENT F
Code Enforcement
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Fax (407) 327-6695
~~~
~/V
,'::; 1:20
..... \~ ~.,/ (, :/ ') .- ^
en'l I ;''''U'''
CO UF:' l-v . v
'>''nu,>' Itv'rf;r-.
Ily 0 'T Sf:>
<:"<:10 1'?/tv
~ rr
Co<- ~
rr-
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 14,2000
TO:
Ron McLcmore, City Manager
Clm,)es C.ningIOn~';IY DC'CIOP"0~IO'
Jllnellc Cook, COde'EnfOrcement'Manager~;
Updatc on proposed Texaco site. Hayes/434
THROUGH:
FROM:
RE:
On Api! 24, 2000 a Iicn for $100.00 a day beginning Fcbruary 20, 2000 was recorded al Seminole Counly
against thc property for a finc imposed by thc Code Enforcement Board. TIle violation was cr~lIing'cl
Publie Nusiance by the allowing the overgrowth of weeds. storage of construction materials. and the large
holes and pits dug on the property.
Mary Long of Seminole County Impact Fees Division. told me that tJlC County has Iicns againstthc
property as well for non-payment of impact fees. Texaco. Inc. informed me that tJlcy have bcen trying to
collect a subslantial mllount of money from tJle property owncrs as wcll. National Fence Company told me
3 weeks ago that the rcnlal fee for tJle fence had not been paid in three months.
Yesterday, I spokc wilh a contractor on the site tJlat was hired to mow thc property. He said that he was
hired by tJle owncrs to c1c.1r the property "because the City was on him". J tried again. in vain. to contact.
tJle owners and informthcm that the lien is still running until tJle silualion is complclely c1c.1rcd up. J also
spoke with National Fence yestenL1Y who lold me thai the property owners have paid thcir renlal bill up to
date.
TIle City has some oplions available to help alleviate Ihis problcm.
1.
Do a lille sc.1rch to see what liens arc outstanding on this property. and decidc whether or not
foreclosure is economically feasible. Since Ihe property is nol a "homcstc.1d" property. we may
go back to Ihe Code Enforcement Board 10 order foreclosure against Ihe property. We would lhen
own thc property and be tJlC responsible party for ils mainlenance.
Go back to Ihe Code Enforcement Board to ask them to "order wlk1tever means ncccss.ary" to
bring the property inlo compliance. TIle City would have to decide what those mc.1ns arc. and be
willing to pay for il. TIle property would again be liened for thc amount spenl. This lien would be
subsequent to any olher Iicns or mortgages on thc property.
Seek an injunctive relief order from the court 10 force the owners 10 comply. Again. the cost of
such action would be paid by the City. Enforcemenl would also be cosily.
Enler Ihe privale property and install a 6 or 8 fi. induslrial opague fence at our cost. 1'11I not sllre
of the legalliabilily of entering onto privale property and taking action withollt a appeal process
arTorded the property owner.
2.
~4t
.~~
c)
4.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 4, 2000
TO:
Ron McLemore, City Manager
THROUGH:
Charles Carrington, Conununily Development Director
FROM:
Jimelte Cook, Code Enforcement Manager
RE:
Texaco projectl S.R 434
· In June, 1999 the City received notification that the project manager of the Texaco project had
resigned. We were instructed to direct all correspondence to the owners George Mansour and
Karnil Gowni.
· On July 29, 1999, the City instructed the owners to install a fence around the perimeter of the
site and to keep Ule area locked until sueh time as impact fees are paid and pennits are issued.
· A fence was installed about a month later after repeated conversations and correspondence
with Ule owners. It was installed without penn its, on the right-of-way and in such a way that
it impeded traffic visibility. It was finally moved after repeated conversations and
correspondence.
· TIlere was information that some sort of litigation was involved between UlC owners and Ule
previous contractor and that construction was halted until Umt situation was resolved.
· Impact fees were paid to the City, but a "stop payment" was put on Ule check before it could
clear. TIIOse fees are still outstanding. (approx. $44,000.00 and 5% penally for "stop
payment")
· Late 1999 the City obtained the area along Hayes road and constructed a turn lane. TIle
City's contractor removed part of the fencing to construct Ule turn lane. At some point, Ule
reminder of Ule fence along the rear of the property next to Hacienda Village was removed,
but we do not know who removed it..
· In November, 1999 charges were brought against the owners of the property, Ava Anthony
Inc. for creating a public nuisance. TIle Code Enforcement Board found Ule owners in non-
compliance and levied a fine to be imposed after notification to the owners and after a
reasonable time Notice was sent to the owners o[this Order.
· TIle Certified letter was sent to the owners of record, but was refused and mmked
"refused/moved/no forwarding address". No fine could be imposed at Ulis point.
· Research into UlC Department of State records revealed Ule corporation's attorney is located in
Mt. Dora. TIle Order was faxed to the attorney and telephone conversation verified Umt it was
received. TIle Corporation's attorney gave me UlC correct address for UlC official office of the
corporation and Ule Board's order was sent certified mail.
· TIlere were many telephone conversations with the owners over Ulis time period and c.1ch
time Ule owners insisted tIlat tIle litigation was drawing to a close and that we would see
action on Ule site "in 2 weeks".
· TIlere was a telephone conversation on February 2, 1999 with Mr. Gowni in which Mr.
Gowni said that impact fees were indeed paid, that building permits were in order and that
construction would begin on Monday, February 7, 1999. As of Fcbnmry 2, 1999 impact fees
were not paid and building pemuts were expired.
· TIle owners of this property llave been less than cooperative with the City since they became
involved in Ulis project.
I
· We have received many complaints from the residents in Hacienda Village and from others in
the City about the potcntial hazards that exist at this sitc.
· Options to considcr;
· Bring the issue back to the Code Enforcement Board and ask that they order the City to
correct the violation by fencing the property and lien Ille property to recoup the cost of
Ille fencing.
· Bring Ille issue back to the Code Enforcement Board and ask Ilmt Illey order Ille City to
correct the violation by mowing Ille property, filling in Ille holes, removing the dcbris,
and fencing Ille property and lien Ille property for costs involved.
· Respond to Ille management of Hacienda Village suggesting Ilmt Illey ereet a fence on
Illeir property at Illeir cost to protect themselves from visual distractions and what they
perceive to be a "dangerous situation".
".~
.!
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 8, 200 I
TO:
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney
FROM:
Jimette Cook, Code Enforcement Manager
RE:
A VA Anthony vested rights
I have reviewed the Memo from the attorneys.for A V A Anthony, Inc. and offer the following response:
· In my opinion, the common vested rights issue pursuant to Winter Springs Code Section 9-40J"does
not apply. TIle code gives a property owner the opportunity to apply for a special vested rights
exception for zoning changes that were made to bring said property into compliance with tlle 1992
Comprehensive Plan. TIle "zoning change" alluded to in tlle memo does not apply in tllis case,
tllerefore tlle special use pennit is not applicable. AU arguments tlmt tlle case meets tlle standards for
detennining vested rights (Section 9-403) are moot.
· TIle argument for equitable estoppel, in my opinion, is not substantiated. TIle 3 elements Imve not
been met. TIle first element of "good faitll" Ims not been met. A VA Antllony did not act in "good
faith" to continue construction of tlle gas station A Stop-payment order was issued by the owner
against tlle $42,000.00 check for impact fees. Attempts at contacting the owners went unanswered for
montll5. TIle City was not kept infonned of tlle status of the abandoned site and had to force the
owners to construct a safety fence around Ule property to protect Ule public from falling into tlle large
open pits surrounding tlle partially installed gas tanks. TIle City contacted Texaco Corp. in an attempt
to reach tlle owners of the property and was informed Umt Texaco was "looking for them" as well. TIle
standard o["good faith" has not been met.
· TIle second standard for equitable estoppel is based on some omission or action by the governmental
agency. The City of Winter Springs adopted the Ordinance requiring certain distances between gas
stations wllile tllere \vere no active building penruts in place for gas stations. TIlere were no
applications for building permits at Ulat site. TIlis standard for equitable estoppel has not been met.
· TIle property owner chose to abandon Ule construction site. TIle property owner chose to stop payment
on Ule impact fee check. TIle property owner failed to reasonably infonn the City of it's intent and
further, avoided communication WiUl Ule City for monUls. Because of the abandonment of the site, Ule
failure to pay impact fees, the failure to communicate wiUI Ule City, and the failure of A V A Anthony
to renew any building pennits, Ule City had no rec1son to believe that UIC site would ever be developed
by A VA Anthony as a gas station. TIlis standard has not becn met.
· III Texas vs. TOlVn of Miami Springs, Ule dcvcloper had obtained nccessary building pcnnits before thc
City changcd UIC ordinance. TIlis is not UIC situation in Ulis instancc. A VA AnUlony allowed the
permits to expire well before the City of Winter Springs changed Ule ordinance. In Bishop I'S'. City of
Gainesville, the City approved a zoning change specifically to allow the gas station to be constructed at
the site, then latcr changed the ordinance and prohibitcd gas slations. In this casc. however, a change
was not made to the zoning designation to allow A VA Anthony to conslruct a gas station. Permits
. >
..(
\. were issued to A V A Anthony to construct a gas station pcr codc allhe limc of application. They failed
to construct Ille gas station. TIlfough no fault of the City, IllOse pennits were leU to expire and no
allempts were made prior to ordinance changc to rcnew Illose permits. TIIC cascs arc not similar
enough, in my opinion, to constitute precedence.
· On page 4, paragraph 3, Ille allorneys for A VA Antilony allege that tile owners were in continuous
contact with City staff. TIley refer to a request from Code En[orcementto install a fence to prevent a
filing of a code enforcement lien and Illat A VA AntilOny installed Ille fence at Ille City's request.
What actually occurred was that after weeks and weeks of calling, writing and attempting to contact
A VA AnUlony about the unsafe conditions at Ule abandoned site ( open pits and large piles of sand and
aggregate material) Ule property owner finally had a chain link fence installed. After a public hearing
before Ule Code Enforcement Board for Public Nuisance charges, (A V A AnUlOny did not respond to
Ille charges and did not appear at Ule hearing to answer Ule charges) a fine was imposed. A VA
AntilOny continued to ignore Ule City's request for infonnation. Finally, in an attempt to abate the
visual nuisance of the abandoned site, Ule City offered not to place Ule code enforcement lien on Ule
property if AVA Anthony would completely fence Ule property with a 6 feet industrial or heavy
weight, opaque fence. TIus offer was ignored. TIle City had no choice but to place Ule code
enforcement lien against the property.
In paragraph 4, page 4, reference is made to a meeting held in July 2001. That meeting was held on
July 5, 2001. At that meeting, discussions were made relating to Ule condition of Ule site and Ule code
enforcement Iiell AVA AnUlony was not told that if improvements were made Ulen building pennits
would be issued. City staff infonned A VA AnUlOny of a pending ordinance concerning separation of
gas stations. During the week of July 9, some improvements were made to the site, but failed to meet
tlle conditions for compliance that was discussed at tlle July 5, 200 I meeting and U13t was ordered by
tlle Code Enforcement Board TIle code enforcement lien is still accruing and will continue until
compliance is achieved.
"...,/
· In conclusion, in my opinion, A VA AnUlony is not vested. The property owner avoided
communication willi Ille City, failed to complete Ille project, allowed tlle penn its to expire, ignored
Code Enforcement action, stopped payment of Lhe impact fee check, and adversely impacted tlle
collununiLy by allowing tlle site to become abandoned and degraded. TIle "good faith" element was
noL met by tlle property owner. The Ordinance to restrict gas stations was duly advertised and adopted.
There were no active pennits and no applications for site plan reviews submitted or pending at the tilDe
of adoption.
cc Ron Mclemore, City Manager
Charles Carrington, Community Development Director
. .'
ATTACHMENT G
,
Information to be provided by attorney's Staff'
prior to meeting
Date: 070802
Due to time constraints, Regular Agenda Item
"D" was not discussed on 7/8/02. It is scheduled
to be on the 7/22/02 Agenda.
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM D
Consent
Informational
Pu blic Hearing
Regular X
.1.---'
July 8, 2002
Meeting
Mgr. / Dept.
Authorization
REQUEST:
The City Manager requests the City Commission schedule a workshop to discuss the need for
changes to the Code of Ordinances related to Accessory Buildings and Detached Garages
(Ordinance 2002-14).
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Commission to set a date for a workshop to discuss
new regulations related to Accessory Buildings and Detached Garages.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 163.3167(1I)F.S. which states: Each local government is encouraged to
articulate a vision of the future physical appearance and qualities of its community as a
component of its local comprehensive plan. The vision should be developed through a
collaborative planning process with meaningful public participation and shall be adopted by the
governing body of the jurisdiction. Specific section of the Winter Springs cod of Ordinances to
be reviewed is Chapter 6, Section 84 Accessory Buildings.
1
July 8, 2002
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM D
Page 2
CONSIDERA TIONS:
1. Section 6-84 states that detached garages are not permitted in residential areas, unless
attached by a "breezeway, passage or otherwise."
2. On March 11, 2002, the City Commission directed the City Attorney to review Section 6-84
and advise the city Commission on whether amendments to Section 6-84 are needed and to
determine under what circumstances detached garages would be an acceptable use.
3. Staff recommends that Section 6-84 be amended to achieve two primary objectives:
· Amend Section 6-84 to clarifY the definition of accessory building and to exclude
detached garages.
· Establish specific regulations for detached garages, especially on large lots zoned single
family.
4. On May 1,2002, the Planning Zoning Board recommended approval of Ordinance 2002-14.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff suggests that the City Commission schedule a workshop to consider recommendations
related to codes governing Accessory Buildings and Detached Garages.
COMMISSION ACTION:
2
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
JUNE 2002
SUNDA Y MONDA Y I TUESDA Y WEDNESDA Y I THURSDAY I FRIDA Y SATURDAY
Notes: 1
· Meetings Shown In Red Ink Are Scheduled For The Commission Chambers
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
. )ARD APPRECIAT'~ ."
CALNO (A/temutil/g Citie~~ \'I IIMER - TUSCAWlI.I 14
Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M. _ ~CW8-71OO~ !lit
City Commission :"~""" .
Workshop - 6:30 P.M. PlaJln~~g!LPA Regul :00 P.M.
[Traffic Calming] Regulr. !JIIP'nl - 7:00 P.M. cheduled)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Oak Forest Wall &
Beautification Of Winter Beautification District -
City Commission Springs Board (BOWS) Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M. Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Tuscawilla Lighting & Tri-County League of Cities
Beautification District Luncheon - Noon
Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Winter Springs
Paw Park Citizen
Code Enforcement Board Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
City Commission
Executive Session - 5:30 P.M. Board OfTrustees
City Commission (Pension Plan)
Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M. Special Meeting - 7:30 P.M.
30 NOTES:
Revised 06/27/02
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
JULY 2002
SUNDAY MONDA Y TUESDA Y WEDNESDA Y THURSDA Y FRIDAY SATURDAY
I 2 3 4 5 6
Tuscawilla Lighting & HOLIDAY
Beautification District p,annflallrAUfglLP A Independence Day
Advisory Committee
Special Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
7 8 9 10 II 12 13
Tri-County League of Cities
City Commission Legislative Event - 5:30 - 7:30 P.M.
Workshop - 5:00 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. Oak Forest Wall &
[Budget] City Commission Beautification Of Winter Beautification District
City Commission Workshop - 6:00 P.M. Springs Board (BOWS) Advisory Commillee
Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M. l Budget] Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Tuscawilla Lighting & Winter Springs
Beautification District Paw Park Citizen
Advisory Commillee Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
Code Enforcement Board Board Of Adjustment
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Special Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
City Commission
Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M.
28 29 30 31 Notes:
· Meetings SI1oll'n In Red Are Scheduled For 771e Commission Chambers
Board OfTrustees
(Pension Plan)
Regular Meeting - 7:30 P.M.
Revised 06/2 7/02
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AUGUST 2002
SUNDAY MONDA Y T TUESDAY WEDNESDA Y THURSDA Y FRIDA Y SATURDAY
Notes: 1 2 3
· Aleelings Shown In Red Are Sscheduled For The Commission Chambers
Board Of Adjuslment
Regular Mecling - 7:00 P.M.
(If Scheduled)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Oak Forest Wall &
Beautification District
Planning And Zoning/LPA Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Florida League of Cities Ann/lal Conference
Beautification Of Winter
City Commission Springs Board (BOWS)
Regular Meeling . 6:30 P.M. Regular Meeting. 7:00 P.M.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Tuseawilla Lighting &
Beautification District
Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
Code Enforcement Board
Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
City Commission
Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M.
NOTES:
Revised 05/03/02