Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 05 19 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes 4 ~ roDE ENFORCEMENT BOARD May 19, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoffmann at 7:00 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: Bob Gray, Absent James Dasher, Absent Art Hoffmann, Chairman, Present Anne Schneider, Vice-Chairman, Present Lloyd Anderson, Absent Jim McShea, Present Lurene Lyzen, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Lt. Pieper, Code Officer Al White, Code Inspector Approval of Minutes of March 17, 1992: Lyzen moved to approve the minutes of March 17, 1992 as wri t ten. Seconded by McShea. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion of Closed and Pendinq Cases: Hoffmann asked about the Bruno case. White stated that the problem has been corrected and the Building Official and City Engineer are now taking care of that. CEB-92-149, Richard D. Carlson - 101-127 Garden Drive, Section 19-1 - OWner Shall Provide Trash and Garbaqe Collection Service: I""'" Whi te handed out an up-date on the case. Pieper stated present and possibly offering testimony is Diana Mincer and Tenants frem Garden Drive were sworn in for testimony. r Pieper stated that case CEB-92-149 involves discontinuation of trash service in violation of City Ordinance 19-1. The owner of record is Mr. Richard Carlson, of Sarasota. This case came to the attention of the Code Inspector after receiving carplaints on the 8th of April 1992, investigation into the background of these carplaints of uncollected accumulation of trash on Garden Drive revealed that the owner, Carlson of Sarasota, had contacted Industrial Waste Service on March 2, 1992, at which time Carlson advised LW.S. that he would no longer be responsible for garbage collection and removal fram units 101 - 127, which is the first three buildings, building 1, 2 and 3 on Garden Drive. Also, that Carlson had instructed each to be responsible for their own service. LW.S., who had been collecting the trash since October 1991 without being paid, abruptly stopped collection on March lOth, a week after the conversation with Carlson. By April 8, 1992, the carplaints were being received regarding the uncollected garbage and statements were received indicating that the tenants in the subject buildings were putting their trash along side paid clients to be removed. Contact was made with LW.S. which revealed the conversation with Carlson on the 2nd of March. On the lOth of April, the owner of record, Carlson and the mortgage holder were verified by the Inspector and an inspection showed that the garbage rerrained in place at 4:50 in the afternoon on a normally sched\lled trash pick-up day. On the 14th of April additional carplaints were received and notices were prepared and mailed through certified mail to the owner of record and mortgage holder. The records show that Carlson owner of record received his notice on April 24, 1992, and the mortgage holder received their copy on April 28, 1992. On April 29th the Code Inspector took photos of the accumulated trash of units 101 - 127 on the street side. (White passed the photos to the Board members) ~ ..... Code Enforcement Board May 19, 1992 Page 2 .~ Pieper stated that on May 1, 1992, in a meeting between adnUnistrators of the Police Department, the Code Inspector and representatives of I. W . S. , it was discussed and decided that I.W.S. would remove all the trash fram the street in order to establish a starting reference point, after which they would only pick-up fram their paying individuals and clients so that the Inspector could dete~ne who was continuing to litter the street side by setting out garbage without having contracted collection and removal service. On the 6th of Mayall the garbage had been removed fram the street even though sane of the old furniture and larger items had been left behind to be picked up on a later date when recycling and yard trash would be picked up. On the 8th of May, the owner, Carlson, phoned the Inspector and advised him that he was ordering collection service to be restarted to units 101-127. On May 18th the Inspector received a letter fram G.C. Warner Reality, which is a management company, working for Carlson, managing these units, they stated that they were delegated the responsibility for the property by the owner. Today's date May 19, 1992, at approximately 11:00 a.m. I.W.S. reported to the Code Inspector that there was no record of service for units 101-127, with the exception of #113, which was an individual contract with the tenant. A call was placed and a message left for representatives of G.C. Warner to get further information on this but by 4:30 this afternoon I.W.S. called back to the Inspector and advised that there were records now showing that G.C. Warner had opened a comnercial account to collect garbage for uni ts 101-127 on Garden Drive. As of this meeting the probl em seems to be corrected and the street is clear of garbage and trash. However, it is the City's position that Richard Carlson, the owner of lots 1, 2 and 3, units 101-127 Garden Drive, violated City Ordinance 19-1, by cancelling garbage collection services and removal services to a multi-farraly rental residential units that he owns. We seek that the Board rule in this manner and ask that a relief order be rendered and placed into effect should the owner or management decide to discontinue service in the future, therefore a relief would be in place. ~ Hoffmann stated that there is truly a violation and that is it is the owner and not the renters responsibility to provide for garbage service, the question canes up is how long had this situation existed. Pieper said through records and contact with I.W.S. it would appear that cancellation of service with official notice was March 1992, however a bill had not been paid since October 1991. Lyzen asked that as of now there is a contract for collection. Pieper stated that as of 4:30 this afternoon it was verified by phone call fram a representative of I.W.S. to the Code Inspector that service for those units had been restarted with I . W. s. through G. C. Warner, the management corp. working for Carlson. Lyzen stated that according to now there is no violation. Pieper stated that is correct, as of this meeting. Lyzen said so as of now there is not violation, but you want a relief order in case there is reoccurrence of this violation. Pieper stated that that is a simplified way of putting it, in a more complex way, we are looking for a precedence, we would like sanething on file, on record, that the Board has ruled that yes this is a violation and if the violation does reoccur this action will be taken. I think one of the reasons we are looking for a precedence as you see fram the agenda tonight, we are talking about a situation where we have various"""" owners of units on the same street creating the same violation. This type of situation could expand to other areas of the City where ever there is a multi- Code Enforcement Board . -- ~ Code Enforcement Board May 19, 1992 Page 3 farrdly unit and where there is a series of different owners such as Lori Ann Lane, Cory Lane. When ever we are not dealing with one overall Carpany that- is in charge of that entire area we are going to have to go through cases with each particular property owner if they for sane reason or another violate this section. We would like to see the ruling made and the precedence established. Pieper stated that he would like to add that even though the owner is in carpliance and the problem does appear to be corrected at this time, it is within the standard operating procedures of the Code Enforcement Board that the problem was not corrected within the time given by the Inspector, and therefore could still cane before the Board, which is why it still remains on the agenda. Hoffmann asked about the time given' by the Inspector. Pieper said that it is stated on the notice the time to correct this violation is immediately, and as stated the mailings went out and received and there was a period of time for which no action was taken even up to 11:00 a.m. this morning, it was 4:30 p.m. this afternoon before an action was documented and could be verified. f' Diana Mincer, owner of units 151-157 Garden Drive, said maybe sane of the other building owners are not aware of what should be done as far as the garbage service and I was wondering if sanething could be mailed to all the building owners. Hoffmann stated that one thing the City could do under its authority is to notify owners of multi-farrdly units that are rented, reminding them that they are responsible for contracting for garbage removal and tenants are not responsible. This would be helpful to avoid future problE!l\9. Discussion on this case and on Section 19-1. Lyzen stated that in the case of CEB-92-149, of the City of Winter Springs, the Code Enforcement Board has read the carplaint filed and the written information presented by the Code Officer and heard the witness regarding this case; based on these proceedings I move that this Board find Richard Carlson in violation of Section 19-1 of the Code of the City of Winter Springs and due to the fact that Richard Carlson has corrected this violation as of 4:30 p.m., May 19, 1992. Richard Carlson is put on notice that there could be a penalty if there is a repeat of this violation. Seconded by McShea. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. I""'" RELIEF ORDER: Schneider moved that the owner of record, Richard Carlson or his agent, are again found in violation of Section 19-1, the failure to carply to Section 19-1 if garbage collection services are not provided by an action of the owner Richard Carlson or his agent, be fined $100.00 per day in the event that they again cease to provide garbage pick-up and trash collection for their properties in fi ve (5) working days, as noted by an officer of the City of Winter Springs, this relief order shall go into effect as soon as this relief order is accepted. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. , ~4 Code Enforcement Board May 19, 1992 Page 4 ~ A. CEB-92-170, James Beckwith - 141-147 Garden Drive, Section 19-1 - OWner Shall Provide Trash and Garbage Collection Service. B. CEB-92-170, James Beckwith - The Peoples Bank of Bridgeport Coru1ecticut - 141- 147 Garden Drive, Section 19-1 - OWner Shall Provide Trash and Garbage Collection Service: Pieper asked seeing that this case is similar situation to adjoining property on the same street with the same witnesses that may offer testimony, do these people need to be resworn in for this case or are they still under oath for the entire meeting of this Board. Hoffmann stated that since we did not have a recess and the proceedings are continuing, and the witnesses have been sworn in prior to that we can continue, they have been identified as the same witnesses and no additional people have entered the roam or left, we don't have to reswear them in. Pieper stated this case is similar to the previous case and involves units 141-147 Garden Drive, where the owner of record has failed to provide garbage collection service to a multi-family rental residential unit. This case came to the attention of the Code Inspector in conjunction with the previous case, it is owned by an ~ entirely different entity but also with the cancelled garbage collection service. On April 22, 1992, a complaint was received that the tenants of this particular building 141-147 were "piggy-backing" their garbage along side garbage of paid c1 i ents of 1. W . S. The owner of record James Beckwith, and the mortgage company were verified that date. On the 23rd of April the Inspector received records fram I.W.S. that service at these four units was permanently discontinued on April I, 1991. One year before the receipt of this complaint. For the last year l.W.S. has either knowingly or unknownly picked up garbage fram non-subscribers. Contact with Carlson with the previous case just discussed caused I.W.S. to stop collecting fran anyone on Garden Drive except the paid clients which I ed to the discovery of this complaint. On April 24th notices were mailed to the owner of record and mortgage holder I the owner received his mailing on April 27th. On April 29th a photo was taken of the uncollected trash in front of units 141-147 (White passed the photo to the Board). Also on April 29th, a certified letter was received fram the owner of record, Mr. Beckwith, stating that the ownership of this particular property was transferred to Peoples Bank of Bridgeport Connecticut as ordered by a bankruptcy court accompanying Beckwith's letter was a copy of the deed in lieu of forec1osur-e executed on the 31st of March 1992, as prepared by Attorney R.W. Roth of Orlando, which the Board has a copy. On the 30th of April, the notice of violation was prepared and sent by certified mail to the alleged new owner the Peoples Bank of Bridgeport Connecticut I that mail went out on May 1st and our records show that the notice was received by a representative of the Peoples Bank of Bridgeport on May 4th the receipt card was returned to the City on May 6th and received by the Inspector on May 7th. Inspection of the area on this date, May 19, 1992, shows that the trash and garbage has been removed fram the area and the problem appears corrected. ~ However, contact with 1. W. S. shows that there is no record for service for this . .. building and I.W.S. is picking up simply as a courtesy to the City and to keep the neighborhood tranquil. As of this meeting we have had no contact fram the Peoples Bank of Bridgeport even though they have had 15 days fram the receipt of their .. ~ Code Enforcement Board May 19, 1992 Page 5 notice of violation. r.w.s. records does not show that the owner of the property has contracted for service. A recheck of the owner of record on this date, May 19, 1992, still shows the owner of record as James Beckwith not withstanding the notarized deed in lieu of foreclosure transferring ownership to the Peoples Bank of Bridgeport. rt is the position of the City of Winter Springs that the owner of units 141-147 wham ever they may be, is in violation of City Ordinance 19-1 by not providing garbage collection service for a multi-f~ly rental residential unit. We seek a ruling as such fram the Board and ask that a relief order be put in place to inspire compliance with tlris violation of the ordinance. Whi te passed out an up-date on this case. Lyzen stated that as of this date they are in violation as they have not contracted with l.W.S. for service. Pieper stated that the problem still exists, visually you can not tell because r.w.s. is providing service without a contract. r" , Pieper stated that this is sirrdlar to the previous case, but where this gets complicated is that we have had no contact with the alleged new owner, to confirm or deny for us that they are responsible, we can't guarantee the fact that they are even aware of the fact that they are in violation or what the requirements were at the time they took over ownership of this property at the time of the bankruptcy procedure. Discussion. Lyzen moved that case CEB-92-170, the Code Enforcement Board has read the complaint filed and the written information presented by the Code Officer, based on these proceedings r move that this Board find the owners of record, James Beckwith and the Peoples Bank of Bridgeport Connecticut in violation of Section 19-1 of the Code of Winter Springs and an appropriate relief order be issued at this meeting. Seconded by Schneider. Vote: All aye. RELIEF ORDER: McShea moved that the Peoples Bank of Bridgeport Connecticut is found in violation of Section 19-1 and a fine be levied of $100.00 per day after five (5) working days of notification of this order; if the violation continues, and any subsequent violations of this Section as deterrrdned by an officer of the City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. Respectfully SubrrUtted, Margo Hopkins ~ Deputy City Clerk