Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 11 19 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes r I 1""-. r' r CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: Bob Gray, Chairman, Present James Dasher, Present Anne Schneider, Vice Chairman, Present Lloyd Anderson, Present Jim McShea, Absent Lurene Lyzen, Present Art Hoffmann, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Lt. Bob Pieper Code Inspector Al White Approval of Minutes of September 17. 1991: Hoffmann asked about the status of the sand dumping on the greenbelt. White stated that has been resolved. Lyzen moved to approve the minutes of September 17, 1991. Seconded by Anderson. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion of Closed and PendinQ Cases: White stated that the Carrington Avenue case from last meeting was continued by reason of complications, since that time the case has been resolved. Lyzen commended Wh i te on the prob 1 ems corrected since the 1 ast meeting. White stated that items 7,8, corrected. He asked for a comp 1 ex i ty of the matter. continuation of item #9. and 10 on tonight's agenda have been cont i nuat i on for item #9 due to the The Board was in agreement for the Hoffmann mentioned that he tabulated the types of cases that have been reported since the last meeting and there were 32 disabled motor vehicles, 25 unkept properties and 10 regarding noise and bark i ng dogs j just to give the Board and idea where most of the problems are. Item 6 - CEB"'91-320, Julie Be Jamie Cody, 1485 Conners Lane - Section 13-34. BarkinQ DOQ. and Section 4-1 20.25. BarkinQ DOQ: Witnesses for this case were sworn in for testimony. White gave the Board an update packet on this case. He stated that this case was started in October when a letter was received from a neighbor. The neighbor is not present but his statement is in the package. Apparently this is an on-going problem, the only Code violation I can find is a barking dog that bothers the neighbor. '\ '\ ~ Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 2 Pieper stated that the records indicate that this case began in August, it shou 1 d be po i nted out that it goes further back to a previous Code Board relief order that was issued in March 1989. That case dealt with a noise nuisance, which was due to loud noise from loud parties. The dog noise was not specifically addressed at that time, complaints have been received to which we have previously attempted to apply the relief order to that situation. Pieper stated that if the Board recalls that this was discussed earlier, and found that we could not do that. Hence this complaint has re-started as a new complaint in August. Pieper stated that the first complaint was received on August 7, 1991, a Winter Springs officer responded to a barking dog complaint at 1485 Conners Lane and posted a written warning for violation of City Ordinance for barking dogs; that situation was turned over to the Code Enforcement Board. On September 2, 1991, another Winter .~ Springs officer responded to the same address for a complaint of a barking dog; at that time there was no one home, the officer wrote a narrative report on the situation and filed that report. The third incident on record was October 20, 1991, in which another Winter Springs officer responded to that residence for a complaint of a barking dog; that officer is present and I would like to call him for questioning. Off ice r See 1 y , Win t e r S p r i n g s Pol ice 0 f f ice r , I. D . #= 49 , c am e forward for questioning. Pieper asked Seely on the night of October 20, 1991, did he respond to 1485 Conners Lane, and the nature of the response. Seely stated that he did respond to that address and the nature of the response was a neighbor called the station to complain of a barking dog. Pieper asked if he heard the dog barking. Seely stated that he did hear the dog barking, he said that when he arrived at the residence a neighbor pointed out the house because the house had no numbers, I had to do further investigation to make sure of the house number. Seely stated that when he went to the front door he heard the dog barking and said he also heard the dog barking from the cul-de-sac, he stated that he rang the door bell and no one answered. Seely said he heard the dog coming from a small patio in front of the house; as he looked over the fence and noticed the dog's food and water bowl laying there with the door cracked open about a foot and ~ the dog was inside barking. He stated that as he was writing the violation he was called away to answer another call which was more urgent. Later on that same night Seely stated that he returned to the residence at 1485 Conners Lane, the dog was still barking which ,~ Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 3 was almost two hours later. Pieper questioned Seely that on his report it mentions second call. Seely stated that he was advised by another officer that he had been out to the same address before and he noted second ca 11 because it was the second call by officers that he was aware of. There was question as to the size of the dog. Seely stated that from the sound of the bark the dog was a small dog. r Gray read Section 20.25 - Noisy Animals for the Cody's to make sure they understand the ord i nance. That sect i on reads: "I t sha 11 be unlawful for any animal owner to permit, either wilfully or through failure to exercise due care and control, any animal to bark, cry, howl, whine or cause other objectionable noises which disturb the comfort, peace, qu i et or repose of any person res i ding in the vicinity; provided, however, that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to dogs engaged in a hunt." Julie Cody, 1485 Conners Lane, spoke on her own behalf. She stated that the dog is 12 pounds; part poodle, yorkie and maltese. Julie Cody asked how many ne i ghbors have comp 1 a i ned about the i r dog. Gray stated that there was only one neighbor who made the complaint. Julie Cody was confused between the violation from March 1989 and the barking dog violation. Pieper explained that this is a completely different violation as they couldn't be fined under the first violation as that was for noise from loud parties and this is noise from a barking dog. Julie Cody asked about the fine of $250.00. Schneider explained that a fine of up to $250.00 can be levied against them, and that is the discretion of the Board as to the amount of the fine. Pieper stated for c 1 ar i ty that th i s case is separate from the violation in March 1989. Julie Cody gave the Board a petition that she had signed by some of her neighbors which states they are not bothered by the dog. The petition is attached to these minutes. r Deborah Anderson, 1491 Conners Lane, spoke on behalf of the Cody's. She stated that she lives next door to the Cody's and that the dog does not disturb her. She stated that she sometimes hears the dog but it does not disturb her. Gray asked where the dog was kept while no one is home. Julie Cody ~ Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 4 stated that the dog is left inside the house. Vie Finch, 615 Barrington Circle, mother of the Cody's, spoke on the i r beha 1 f . She stated that she fee 1 s that th i s charge is harassment by Mr. Livengood. She stated that they have tried to resolve the matter, Mr. Livengood called her daughter and wanted to meet with her to discuss the dog and her daughter stated that she would discuss the matter with him over the telephone and Mr. Livengood didn't agree with that. She said they also tried to meet with Mr. Livengood together with a mediator and he didn't agree with that either, and stated that there were other instances where she feels Livengood wanted to meet with her daughter alone and this is why she feels this is harassment. Finch stated that Livengood frightens her and is glad her daughters have a dog to warn them when someone is around on the property. Gray asked if they thought of keep i ng the dog at Finch's house while they were out to try to help matters. The answer was no. '~ Jamie Cody, 1485 Conners Lane, spoke on her own behalf. She stated that from previous actions she feels that this is a personal matter and does not concern her dog, it is just Livengood's way of getting to them. She also stated that she and her sister have received threatening letters in their mail box stating if Livengood hears any noise coming from their home he will call the police and have them fined. Schneider stated that there have been three different reports from Officers Flannigan, Diaz and Seely, all stating upon arrival they heard the dog barking. There was much discussion on this matter. Dasher moved that based on the testimony of the three (3) winter Springs Police Officers, the Cody's be declared in violation of Winter Springs Code, Section 13-34 and Seminole County Ordinance, Section 4-1 20.25. Seconded by Hoffmann. Discussion. Vote: Gray: aye; Dasher: aye; Hoffmann: aye; Schneider: nay; Anderson: aye; Lyzen: nay. Motion carried. Relief Order - Hoffmann moved that based on the finding that the Cody's are in violation of City Code Section 13-34 and Seminole County Ordinance 4-1 20.25, that no fine be assessed at this time due to inconclusive evidence in the extent that the dog barks when unprovoked; however, if there is a repeat violation substantiated by the Police Department that a fine be assessed for $100.00 for each violation. Seconded by Gray. Discussion. Dasher based on '~ r'"' Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 5 the element of doubt, a smaller fine should be assessed. He stated that he would like to see the fine half of the amount stated. Hoffmann amended his mot ion to state the fine be assessed for $50.00 for each future violation. Gray amended his second. Vote: Dasher: aye; Hoffmann: aye; Schneider: nay; Anderson: aye; Lyzen: nay; Gray: aye. Motion carried. Item 11 - CEB-91-304, Margaret A. Haxby & Gary Kokaisel, 974 Troon Trace - Section 10-26. No Occuoational License. White passed out an update on this item to the Board. Gary Kokaisel was sworn in for testimony. r Pieper. stated that prior to January 1991, an occupational license was issued to Sun 1 and Sa 1 es for the address 974 Troon Trace, a resident.ial community in the Greenbriar Subdivision in Tuscawi lla On January 23, 1991; the Building Official advised Sunland Sales that their occupational license for that location had been revoked as of February 10, 1991. On the 28th of January, the Inspector was also advised of this information. On February 11, 1991, the Inspector attempted to contact the business at Troon Trace and no one was found. Sometime prior to February 1991, a new permit was issued for Sun 1 and Sa 1 es Assoc i ates, for a new 1 ocat i on at 110 State Road 419, Suite 260, which is a commercial establishment. On Friday, March 8, 1991, the Inspector received an anonymous call that business was still being conducted at the Troon Trace address and at 2:30 that afternoon, the Inspector found none. On Monday, March 11, 1991, the Inspector received another anonymous call for a business being conducted at the Troon Trace address, the Inspector inspected the address at 4:00 P.M. and no business was found. On Fr i day, March 15, 1991, another anonymous ca 11 was received stating the same, and upon inspection no business was found. On Tuesday, April 16, 1991, the Inspector was told by the Building Official that a Mr. Morgan complained about the business being run at the location on Troon Trace. The Inspector inspected the location at 3:00 P.M. and no business was found. Subsequent inspections were done on Wednesday, April 17, at 1:00 P.M, Thursday, April 18, at 11:45 A.M., Friday, April 19, at 12:00 noon, each time no business was found at this location. Also on Friday, Apr i 1 19, 1991, the Code I nspector went to the 1 ocat ion 1 i sted on the occupational license at 110 S.R. 419, and did make contact with the business there. At that time the Inspector closed this case. r- Pieper stated that a new complaint was generated on July 18, 1991, by Mr. Morgan, the location at Troon Trace was inspected at 3:00 P.M. and no business was found. On the 22nd of July, contact was ~ . ~ Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 6 made with the Sunland Sales at the S.R. 419 address and a representative advised that the Troon Trace location was sometimes used to entertain guests. On July 24, 1991, the Inspector advised the Chief of Police that through the investigation he didn't find any violation and closed the case. On September 24, 1991, the Police Chief advised the Inspector that Mr. Morgan complained to him personally at a Commission meeting about th i s i nc i dent. The I nspector went to the house on Troon Trace at 2: 50 in the afternoon on September 24, 1991, and no business was found. There was a maintenance worker in front of the house who advised the Inspector that there was no activity at the home. Also a neighbor was walking his dog and the Inspector asked if there was any business activity at this address and the person advised the Inspector that there was no activity at the address. On october 4, 1991, Morgan met wi th the Po 1 ice Ch i ef and the Inspector to review the case, and at that time Morgan would not sign a complaint. At that point the case was closed. .~ On October 9, 1991, Morgan signed a complaint and on October 18, 1991 a notice to appear was mailed. Attempts to deliver certified mailing to Sunland Sales at the Troon Trace address was unsuccessfu 1 and was returned unde 1 i vered. The I nspector made contact with persons at the S.R. 419 address for the business and advised them of the situation and they agreed to be present at this meeting. The complainant, Mr. Morgan, who is the source of the complaints on several occasions, is not present. Gary Koka i se 1, 1117 Northern Way, spoke on his own beha 1 f . He stated that the business is industrial sales, military/commercial type of sales and he goes to the site and no customers come to the business, he stated that he works out of a sample case. Kokaisel also stated that he and Margaret Haxby jointly own the residence. He said at one time the residence was used as an office and he had two part-time secretaries who came and went from the address and at that point we were told we could not do that, and that is when we moved the business to the S.R. 419 location. Hoffmann asked about on the occasions that people were noted at the address were these people clients. ~ Kokaisel stated that he wasn't sure of the occasions, but one time he had a golf outing, which included friends and clients. There were about 28 people for the outing, three of which slept at the ~ Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 7 residence at Troon Trace. There was discussion on this item. Pieper stated that this case has been opened and closed three times previously as unfounded. The complainant was told when the meeting was going to be held and is not present tonight. Gray moved to dismiss this case. All aye. Motion carried. Seconded by Schneider. Vote: Item 12 - CEB-91-305, James D. & Miriam L. McElmurry, 844 Dunbar Drive - Section 4-1 20.25 Barkinq Doqs _White pass out an update to this case. r- James D. & Miriam McElmurry and Melvin & Dorothy Shank were sworn in for testimony. Pieper stated that the run-down of th i s case is on October 10, 1991, the Code Inspector received a complaint from a Winter Springs Po 1 ice off i cer, for a bark i ng dog comp 1 a i nt at 844 Dunbar. A narrative patrol log was written at that time. On October 16, 1991, a written complaint was received from Melvin Shank regarding the barking dog. Melvin Shank, 836 Dunbar Terrace, spoke regarding this case. He stated that the McElmurry's have two dogs and one of the dogs bark all day. He said that he and his wife can't even sit outside on their patio because of the barking dog. Gray asked if they can hear the dog bark i ng from ins i de the i r house. Shank stated that yes they can hear the dog from inside their home. Gray asked if the dog barks at night. Shank said the dog sometimes barks at night, but that doesn' t bother them as much at the constant barking during the day. He stated that the dog is some sort of a hound dog which has a very distinctive and annoying bark. r Pieper asked Shank if he has had any commun i cat i on with his neighbors that also are annoyed by the barking dog. Shank stated that he has. Pieper stated that upon his arrival this evening Mr. Shank presented him with two statements from neighbors complaining about the dog barking. Shank also stated that he would have gotten another but did not have the complaint sheet for them to fill out. Pieper presented the two complaint forms to the Board. .. .~ Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 8 Miriam McElmurry, 844 Dunbar Drive, spoke on her own behalf. She showed the Board a sketch of her home and the adjacent homes, the type and number of pets and the number of children her neighbors have. She a 1 so showed the Board pictures of her home wi th the fenced back yard and of the doggie door they have installed. McElmurry stated that she has two dogs, one a mixed terrier and the other a beagle. The dogs are out in the fenced yard all day while they are at work. McElmurry showed the Board a petition that she had some of her neighbors sign stating that the dogs do not disturb them with their barking during the day. She also said there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and loose dogs that disturb her dogs which she feels make them bark. Gray asked what is the reason the dogs are 1 eft out a 11 day. McElmurry stated so they can go to the bathroom, and that she also keeps her door open from the garage to the kitchen so the dogs can get into the house during the day. ~ James McElmurry asked why the questions on whether the dogs are left alone during the day. Gray stated that pet owners are suppose to have the pets under their control and if they are barking for any reason and the owners are not there to control them it is a nuisance to the neighborhood. Ms. McElmurry stated that she spoke with her neighbors who live behind them with five children and they stated that they are aware that their children throw things over the fence at the dogs and will try to keep the children away from the fence. Hoffmann stated that everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of their own home, if the noise situation is out of control frequently and bothers them from enjoying the benefits of their home, then that is disturbing the "peace. There was discussion on this case. Gray moved that James and Miriam McElmurry are found in violation of Sect ion 4-1 20.25. Seconded by Hoffmann. Vote: A 11 aye. Motion carried. ~ Re 1 i ef Order - Dasher moved that the McE 1 murry . s sha 11 have a period of one month in which to correct the violation, if there should be a repeat of this violation, there shall be a fine of r Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 19, 1991 Page 9 $50.00 for each occurrence of the vi 0 1 at i on and that sha 11 be determined by an officer of the City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Lyzen. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. r r Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk