Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 03 19 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes AMENDED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES March 19, 1991 I""" The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Bob Gray, Cha i rman, Absent James Dasher, Present Anne Schneider, Vice-Chairman, Present Lloyd Anderson, Present Beverly Fickling, Present Lurene Lyzen, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Code Officer Lt. Bob Pieper Code Inspector Al White Approval of Minutes of January 15, 1991: Lyzen moved to approve the minutes of January 15, 1991. Seconded by Fickling. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion of Closed and Pending Cases: White stated that the case involving the Puterbaugh's regarding the fence dispute. He stated that, he visited the site the next day and determined that there was a half inch of concrete base on the property line and the owner chipped off the half inch and now the problem stands corrected. White stated that the Mayhood problem involving the two vehicles has been corrected. {' White also stated that the problem involving the Tryon case near Cumberland Farms, Tryon went before the Board of Adjustment and it is stated that the Site Plan in still in violation. He stated that there was not enough time to put this case on tonight's agenda as he had to wait for the Board of Adjustment minutes. There was not enough time for notification to the parities involved. White stated that the violations that exist are the RV and storage area. He stated that the Board of Adjustment set up boundaries for the display area and they allowed the display to came out seven feet from the front of the building and they are eleven and a half feet, they also allowed them to came out thirty feet from the west of the building and they are out forty feet with a fence and are out 100 feet with the rest of the equipment. There was discussion on this case. Lyzen moved to hear the Tryon case at the May meeting. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Seconded by Fickling. White also mentioned the LeCesse project located on Torrey Pine Drive. He stated that the project has been taken over by FDIC. r Item #6 - Marjorie Malich - Section 4-2, 10-26 and 20-416: White distributed an up date regarding this item. Cheryl Duncan, Lynn Stone and Marie Moore were sworn in for testimony. Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 2 r- r' Lt. Pieper stated in February 1982 in a City Commission meeting, the City Manager explained that in a previous council from 1975 that Malich was given permission to have in excess of two dogs. Due to call>laints at that time the matter was back in front of the Commission. In February 1982, by unanimous vote the Commission granted Malich permission to keep six dogs until such time as a couple of the dogs passed away and asked her that before she gets any other dogs that she appear before the Commission again. In October 1989 a Police Officer issued Malich a warning for having more than two dogs. The remarks on the warning stated that there were four adult dogs at the household and that the owner trains dogs at her heme for weeks at a time. On October 21, 1989, the Police Officer cleared that problem as being corrected. On January 15, 1991, Officer Dowell spoke to Malich with regard to operating a kennel in a residential area without a permit from the City with having more than two dogs in the household. At that time Malich told Officer Dowell that she has two dogs of her own and she was boarding two for training. Further, Malich advised that she would request to appear before the City Commission at the earliest obtainable date. At that time the case was turned over to Code Inspector White. On January 29, 1991, Malich returned a phone message to White indicating that she had made no progress with the case. White informed Malich that the case would be prepared for this meeting. February 11, 1991, at the City Commission meeting Malich appeared to request permission to have more than two dogs at her residence, the Commission minutes stated that there was a complaint from 120 Camphorwood and as a result of that meeting the Commission voted 3-2 to deny the request. February 28, 1991, the Code Inspector spoke with Malich and asked her if she had obtained a business permit from the City or to allow more than two dogs, at that time Malich stated to White that she has three dogs and plans to keep them. On March 8, 1991 White had delivered an amended notice of violation and notice of hearing; at that time Malich showed White two dogs but White noticed a third dog at the rear of the dwelling. March 18, 1991, White obi,~; l,~d a l ,~ :"~{ ,n--:'" t)f 1?0 Camphorwood street, that in the past she has seen television ads and business cards of Ma 1 i ch I s advert i sing Red Rose Kenne 1 of Winter Spr i 1\8 ~~; >". , t dt."d that Malich had approached her in the training of her dog and the cost would be $200 per dog. r' Pieper stated that it is the position of the City that Malich is in violation of Section 4-2, and that her household has contained more than two dogs by virtue of the stated facts that she boards dogs for training in addition to the dogs that she herself owns. In addition, boarding of dogs constitutes a kennel as defined in City Ordinance Section 20-415 as more than two adult dogs per household, this is supported by the witness's statement that she has seen Malich presenting business cards for Red Rose Kennel of Winter Springs, therefore, Malich is in violation of 20-416 in that her residence is zoned R-1 and kennels are only permitted in R-U and C-2 zoned areas. Section 10-26 in that Malich is operating a K-9 boarding and training business by her own admission in this and previous cases; observation by officers of the City and soliciting of the witness for services for exchange for monitory compensation without having a business license fram the City. We therefore seek a determination that these violations have existed and a relief order to address future violations of these Sections in the event that they continue or reoccur. Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 3 r Margarie Malich, 122 Camphorwood street spoke on her behalf. She stated that she now has three dogs. The third dog is being trained for the hearing impaired and stated that she would like to keep the third dog until it is ready to be placed. Lyzen asked if Malich is training the dog for pay. Malich stated that no, she volunteered to train the dog. Malich stated that the card for Red Rose Kennel is what show people show their dogs under. She stated that she shows in obedience trials. She also stated that training dogs is therapy for her. Malich stated that she doesn't have a business because she doesn't get paid. Also, she has her house for sale and will leave the City as soon as it is sold. Malich stated that what she is asking for is a variance to keep the three dogs until her home is sold. r Schneider stated that it is against the City's Code to have more than two dogs, and Malich does not have the penmission fram the City Commission to have more than two dogs. She also stated that the Code Enforcement Board does not grant variances. She stated that the job of the Board is to detenmine if Malich is in violation of the Code, and to encourage her to come into compliance. Schneider stated that Malich is in violation by her own admission by having more than two dogs. Hoffmann asked what would it take for Mal ich to remove one dog fram her residence until such time she sells her home, and asked if she ever considered that. Malich stated that yes she could do that. Malich stated that if she removes one dog then she is not in violation, that she does not have a business and does not run a kennel. Schneider stated that once Malich gets down to two dogs then she is not in violation of running a kenne 1 . Marie Moore, 120 Camphorwood Street, stated that she has made numerous complaints to the Pol ice Department for noise and stated that nothing has been done. She said that she has spoken with the Mayor and came before the Commission with pictures of Malich putting dogs in cars, has license plate numbers. She also stated that a police officer has gone over to Malich's with a noise complaint and Malich had refused to sign the complaint. Schneider stated that the violation does not include a noise complaint. White stated that he could not find any old complaints. r Donna Mumaugh, 123 Camphorwood Street, stated that she doesn't hear any noise fram Malich's residence and has no complaints against Malich. Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 4 f' Cheryl Duncan, 328 Bridal Path, Casselberry, stated that Malich has helped train her dog on a strip of land behind her home when she had her dog in obedience competition. She stated that Malich's dogs are well trained and are quiet. Lynn Stone, 1012 Manchester Circle, Winter Park, asked for clarification on running a business. Hoffmann stated that if a business type of activity and not charging for it, it is still considered a business even if there is no exchange of rroney. She also stated that she has left her dogs with Malich while she is away. There was discussion on the violations. Pieper asked Moore how long she has lived at 120 Camphorwood, and how long has this been a problem. Moore stated that she has lived there since 1988 and it has been a constant problem. Pieper also asked about the $200 fee to train her dog. Moore stated that she did not have her dog trained by Malich. f" Dasher rroved that based on the evidence before the Board tonight that Margarie Malich is guilty of violating City Code Section 4-2 only - keeping of rrore than two dogs in one household. Seconded by Anderson. Discussion. Hoffmann stated that if Malich gets down to two dogs then she is not operating a business per say, and the noise should go down with two or less dogs. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Relief Order: Lyzen rroved that Margarie Malich having been found in violation of Section 4-2, is given seven (7) days to come into compliance, if in the future in the opinion of an Officer of the City again violates the Code shall pay a fine of $25.00 for each violation. Seconded by Fickling. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Item #7 - Edward Eberhardt - Section 20-431: Edward Eberhardt was sworn in for test irrony . White handed the Board an update on this case. ,r". Pieper stated that the property is located at 627 Pearl Road, this is a violation of Section 20-431, parking commercial vehicles in a residential zone. This is being brought before the Board as a repeat violation. On October 1, 1990 and Officer issued a written warning for parking a commercial vehicle in a residential area, and upon reinspection on October 15, 1990, the Officer shows that the problem was not corrected and was turned over to the Code Enforcement Board for act i on . On October 22 , 1990, a not i ce of hear i ng was ma. i 1 ed and received by Eberhardt on October 23, 1990. November 1, 1990, Eberhardt spoke with the Code Inspector and stated that he would like to appear before the Board to request that he be allowed to have the vehicle there as it is used in his Business. Pieper stated that at that time they did not pursue a violation of operating a business. On November 12, 1990, a photo was taken by the Code Inspector depicting the vehicle on the property. November 20, 1990, the Code Board heard this case and issued a relief order requiring the Eberhardt's to r- r- r- " Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 5 come into compliance within 10 days and make application for a variance to have the vehicle parked at their property or pay a fine of $10.00 per day which would begin December 1, 1990. On December 4, 1990, the vehicle was still present at the location, on December 5, 1990, the Code Inspector filed an affidavit of compliance with the order. On December 10, 1990, a letter was sent stating a $30.00 fine which had accrued for the dates December 2,3 and 4, 1990. On January 23, 1991, the City Clerk advised White of the unpaid fine. White observed the property and found the vehicle on the property in violation of the relief order and took a picture at that time. On January 24, 1991, White issued a written waning to the Eberhardt's to be corrected by January 31, 1991. On the 29th of January White inspected the property and the vehicle was not on the property and assumed that the problem had been corrected; in addition City Hall provided White a copy of the unpaid fine fram the previous case. February 7, 1991, again a reinspection was made and no violation occurred. February 14, 1991, at 3:00 p.m. and on the 15th at 4:00 p.m. and again on the 18th at 3:30 p.m. the violation was observed, at which time White issued a statement of violation and a notice of hearing for repeat violation of Section 20-341. The violation was also noticed on February 19, 21, 25, 28 and March 1, 11, 13, 18, 1991, at different times during the morning and afternoon hours. On March 19, 1991, the vehicle was not observed. Pieper stated that it is the position of the City that the Eberhardt's are in violation of SEction 20-431 by the continued parking of a commercial vehicle in a residential area on at least 12 separate occasions between January 23, 1991 through March 18, 1991, and that the stated dates of occurrence is in violation of a relief order issued for the same violation on November 20, 1990. We therefore, seek a detenmination fram the Code Enforcement Board that this constitutes a repeat violation and as such is subject to the increased fines of up to $500.00 per day taking note that as of time the Eberhardt's have yet to pay the fines levied fram the original case. We seek that a relief order be issued for this and any other future violations of this section. Edward Eberhardt, 627 Pearl Road, spoke on his own behalf. He stated that at the last meeting the detenmination was he was not to park the truck there overnight. He stated that the truck was there on the above stated dates as he was loading and unloading the truck. He stated that most of the time after 6:00 p.m. the truck is not there and picks it up in the morning for work. He said that the truck is gone fram his home during the day about 50% of the time. He also stated that the truck is parked at his home during the day when business is slow, as his business phone is at his residence, and when he gets a call he goes out with the truck. Hoffmann asked Eberhardt if he had a business address other than his home. Eberhardt stated that yes in Casselberry. There was discussion of Section 20-431. There was also discussion on the time the truck is parked at the residence during the day. It was detenmined that overnight parking is considered any seven hour period. Eberhardt stated that he has spoken with the Land Development Coordinator about getting a variance fram the Board of Adjustment to park his commercial vehicle. He stated that the price for the variance is to high for him at this time. Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 6 r- Pieper stated that this case was decided in October that this is a violation and clear from Eberhardt's statements that the vehicle is parked at his residence waiting for use in his business. Our position is that the parking of the vehicle is in violation. Dasher asked why can't this be a continuance of the original decision of the Code Board and enforce the current in effect relief order. Pieper stated that the filing of the affidavit of compliance on December 5, 1990, satisfied the previous complaint, and this is why it is not a continuance but a repeat violation. There was question on whether this is a continued or a repeat violation. Pieper stated that a continued violation would be if there was no affidavit of compliance and was continuing and a repeat violation is the violation was corrected and again violated. Eberhardt stated that he is disputing the $30.00 fine levied against him because he stated that the truck was parked there for loading and unloading and while he was home for lunch. Schneider stated that this is a new case and the fine levied against him is still due. r Lyzen moved that Edward and Kristin Eberhardt are found in violation of Section 20-431 which is a repeat violation. Seconded by Hoffmann. Vote: All aye. Relief Order: Dasher moved that Edward and Kristin Eberhardt having been found in repeat violation of Section 20-431 of the Winter Springs Code, shall have a period of five (5) days to comply with the Winter Springs Code or shall be fined $75.00 per day for any additional days of violation. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion: Hoffmann stated that if this is checked for repeated violations that an effort be made to detenmine that the truck is not parked there specifically to load and unload. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Item #8 - Robert & Donna Gre~~ - Sections 4-2 and 13-26: Robert & Donna Gregg and Less O'Neil were sworn in for testimony. r Pieper stated the violation is for Section 4-2, more that two dogs, and Section 13-34, which was originally noted as 13-26. On August 15, 1990, the Code Inspector Mary Muse received a complaint of more than three dogs at 400 South Hawthorne and barking dogs. August 28, 1990, a written warning was issued stating too many dogs and keep the barking down, with a correction date of September 4, 1990. September 5, 1990, the Code Inspector noted in the files the sentence of getting rid of dog 9-6-90, will be getting rid of big dog soon so there will only one dog at the residence; no affidavit or correction was filed. On January 22, 1991, Code Inspector White observed three dogs in the yard at the residence and a photo was taken. February 11, 1991, a notice of violation was sent to the property owner and the renter Robert and Donna Gregg. February 13, 1991, Less O'Neil inquired of the status of the case and stated that the noise from the dogs was bothering him at 5:00 a.m. and on the 18th of February O'Neil observed three dogs barking at the residence at 6:30 a.m. On Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 7 r February 20, 1991, the certified mailing of the statement of notice was received by the Gregg's and on the 22nd the property owner received the certified mailing of the statement of notice. March 1, 1991, Less O'Neil was subpoena for this meeting and on March 6, 1991, White delivered a corrected copy of statement of violation to Donna Gregg, and at that time White tried to detenmine the status of the case and Donna Gregg declined to comment. Ms. Gregg then asked if this pertained to the dogs and White stated yes, she then signed the notice and left the area. On March 6, 1991, O'Neil received his subpoena to appear. March 13, 1991, upon reinspection two dogs were observed. On March 18, 1991 White made contact with O'Neil and was infonmed that the problem is continuing and he will appear at the Code Board meeting. Pieper stated that it is the City's position that Robert and Donna Gregg are or were in violation of Section 4-2 in that there were three dogs in the household at 400 S. Hawthorne between the dates of August 15, 1990 and February 18, 1991, even though the Code Inspector noted that they intended to correct the problem as early as 9-6-90; also the violation of Section 13-34 - in that Robert and Donna Gregg are or have been keeping an animal in the City which causes frequent or continued noise disturbs the comfort of any person in the vicinity. We propose a detenmination by the Code Enforcement Board that these violations existed and a relief order addressing these violations and any future violations of these Sections. r Robert Gregg, 400 S. Hawthorne, stated that when he was served the notice for roore than two dogs he got rid of one dog. He stated that his dogs do not make noise at night. Hoffmann stated that the problem is that Gregg keeps the dogs outside after dark, and to stop the noise he needs to keep the dogs under control. Gregg stated that his 1 and lord does not want the dogs ins i de the house. Gregg a 1 so stated that the neighborhood children taunt the dogs inside the fence. Dasher stated that even though the children taunt the dogs, it is considered an attractive nuisance. Pieper asked Gregg about the third dog. Gregg stated that the dog is no longer at his home. Donna Gregg, 400 S. Hawthorne, stated that other neighbors have dogs and they bark and it is not always their dogs. Less O'Neil, S. Hawthorne, stated that he has nothing against dogs, he said that he just wants to sleep. This has been going on since August 1990. He also stated that he has made calls to the Police Department about the noise. And also that he has even changed his bedroom but to no avail. r There was discussion on this case. It was detenmined that this case be done as two separate issues. Pieper suggested that if the Board detenmines that there are only two dogs, Section 4-2 is corrected, it is important to establish a detenmination that the ... " j- Code Enforcement Board Minutes March 19, 1991 Page 8 r violation did exist so that if a third dog is brought on the premises we can address this as a repeat violation. By digest of Office of the Attorney General Bob Butterworth to the City of Lake Clark Shores, "before a person may be charged with a repeat violation it must have been a previous detenmination by a Code Enforcement Board that the person who is violated the same provisions of the Code or Ordinance". Pieper stated that if the Board sirrply determines problem corrected - there has been no determination by the Board. Schneider moved that Robert and Donna Gregg had been in violation of Winter Springs Code Section 4-2, as of 3-19-91, Robert and Donna Gregg have come into COllJ 1 i ance. Seconded by Lyzen. Vote: A 11 aye. Mot i on carr i ed . Dasher moved that Robert and Donna Gregg are found Springs Code Section 13-34, noise nuisance by dogs. All aye. Motion carried. in violation of Winter Seconded by Lyzen. Vote: Relief Order: Fickling moved that Robert and Donna Gregg after notification which is this evening, and they are present, be fined $25.00 for each incident of noise that. is confirmed by a City Officer. Seconded by Lyzen. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. r Item #9 - Barbara Ru~e - Section 20-431: White stated that this case has been solved as of 5:00 p.m. this evening. Case Dismissed. Dasher stated that he would like to commend Lt. Pieper and Al White for the good job in the professionalism they showed with the presentation of the cases before us. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopk i ns Deputy City Clerk r