Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 07 21 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes . . CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chainman Hoffmann at 7:00 P.M. r BOARD MEMBERS: Bob Gray, Present James Dasher, Present Art Hoffmann, Chainman, Present Anne Schneider, Vice-Chainman, Present Lloyd Anderson, Absent Jim McShea, Absent lurene lyzen, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Lt. Pieper, Code Officer Al White, Code Inspector Approval of Minutes of May 19, 1992: lyzen moved to approve the minutes of May 19, 1992 as submitted. Seconded by schneider. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes of Extra Meeting of May 21, 1992: lyzen moved to approve the minutes of May 21, 1992 as submitted. Seconded by Schneider. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion of Closed and Pending Cases: Hofftnann asked about the cases from the last meeting. White said those cases have been resolved and there are no violations at this time. r Hoffmann stated that word needs to get to the City that in some way they notify owners of multi-family units that they are responsible for contracting garbage collection not the tenants. He mentioned that that would help quite a bit if we could get that across. There was discussion on a few cases that the Code Inspector had responded to since the last meeting. CEB-92-194, Cheryl A. Meinhalt, 140 Tradewinds Road W. - Section 4-2, More than two (2) Dogs: Cheryl A. Meinhalt was sworn in for testimony. r Pieper stated this case involves a violation of City Ordinance Section 4-2, having more than two dogs in a household. On May 11, 1992, the Code Inspector received a complaint of an excessive number of animals at 140 Tradewinds Road West. While starting the investigation it was learned that a written warning had been written by an officer of the Police Department on the 10th of May for a complaint of noisy animals; that complaint was resolved as a problem corrected. On the 20th of May the Inspector visited the property and identified at least 7 dogs that were present at that household by sight and sound of hearing the different dogs barks. A written warning was left at the residence with the correction date to be the 22nd of May. On May 21, 1992, contact was made with Meinhalt and an extension was granted until the 27th of May; on May 29, 1992, 2 days after the extended compliance date, the Inspector received a letter requesting an additional extension in order for Meinhalt to address the City Commission. An COde Enforcement Board Minutes r July 21, 1992 Page 2 r extension was granted at that time to the 8th of June as was requested in the letter and if not corrected by that date, this case would be set for an appearance at this meeting. On June 22, 1992, the City Commission met and Meinhalt requested that they grant her penmission to keep more than 2 dogs; the out came of that meeting was a denial of Meinhalt's request with a period of 30 days granted to remove all but 2 dogs from the residence. That period of 30 days would tenminate on July 22, 1992, (which is tomorrow 07- 22-92). As of today's date a reinspection discovered only one sound of one dog at that residence. There was no one home at that time for an inspection, but no other dogs were observed. Though the problem seems to be corrected as of this meeting, it was not resolved within the time limits established by the Inspector, even though two extensions had been granted. It is the City's position that Cheryl Meinhalt, the owner of record of 140 Tradewinds Road West, was in violation of City Ordinance Section 4-2 by keeping more than 2 dogs in her household. This position is supported by the fact that the City Commission has previously denied her request to keep more than 2 dogs. We therefore seek a ruling that this violation did exist and ask for a relief order to address this and any future violations of this Section, and we suggest, respectfully, that such relief order be effective in unison with the time limit established by the City Commission for the removal of the dogs, which would be the 22nd of July. White passed out an up date on this case. r Hoffmann stated that the documents the Board was just given, indicates that on July 7th Meinhalt was in the COde Inspectors office and indicated willingness to comply. On July 21, 1992, the owner of record was verified, and that there is one dog and one cat at the home. Schneider questioned the time between the extension to June 8th and when Meinhalt appeared before the Commission on June 22, 1992. So are we saying she is in violation because she didn't have penmission passed June 8th even though June 22nd was the next possible oPPortunity to be heard by the City Commission for an exception. Pieper stated that it was his understanding that the next Commission meeting was on June 8th. He also stated that in Meinhalt's letter dated May 22nd, in the first paragraph, she speaks of a conversation with Mr. LeBlanc about a variance and according to the letter, LeBlanc indicated to her that the next Commission meeting was not until June 8th, which the original written warning was written to be corrected by the 22nd was extended to the 27th. Two days after the 27th a letter was received from Meinhalt requesting a further extension to June 8th for the next Commission meeting. Gray stated that the bottom li ne is Me i nha 1 tis in comp 1 i ance now, Schne i der agreed. Gray also asked if there was any history prior to the 11th of May of Meinhalt having dogs in excess of two at her residence. Pieper stated only the complaint of noisy animals. r Gray stated that it seems to him that this case is actually resolved quite Code Enforcement Board Minutes ~ July 21, 1992 Page 3 r expediently compared to other cases in the past. He commended Meinhalt for coming into compliance with the City. Lyzen mentioned that with the previous complaint, the complainant refused to sign the complaint. Schneider stated that it does appear that this case has been resolved. Pieper stated that as of today's reinspection, it does appear that it has been resolved. Gray asked Meinhalt how she resolved the situation with the dogs and how they were placed. Meinhalt stated 3 are at the vets being boarded, at her expense and the others have been adopted out by placing ads in the paper. Gray asked how long has she been taking care of animals in her hone. Meinhalt stated since 1985. Gray asked if she typically has had more than 2 dogs or cats at her hone. Meinhalt stated yes. G"ay also asked if anyone has complained prior to the past 3 months. Meinhalt stated no. Lyzen asked Meinhalt how many dogs does she have now. Meinhalt stated one and one cat. r Dasher asked about. an electronic device Meinhalt used to try to control the barking of the dogs. Gray asked Meinhalt if she was aware of the City Ordinance. Meinhalt responded that no she was not aware of the Ord i nance. Dasher stated for the record, that the nl.lTber of the Ordinance is the County's Ordinance which the City also administered, in other words the law which controls the animals in the hones and in residential is the same for the County as it is for Winter Springs. Schneider stated not for all zoning, the City allows kennels in R-U and agricultural areas. Gray asked Meinhalt if she has had any trouble in the past with the County. Meinhalt stated no, and she has supplied a letter of commendation from Seminole County Humane Society; she said that she works with basically a lot of different organizations. Dasher asked if Meinhalt is forced to leave the dogs during the day and go out to work. Meinhalt stated she does, and that her house is air conditioned and that her dogs have a better life than sone people. Gray asked Meinhalt what her plans are for the dogs that she is boarding. Meinhalt stated that she will pay the boarding until they are adopted and she will not bring them to the humane society like the case of the greyhounds. r Meinhalt stated that she would like to thank the Board for the kind way she Code Enforcement Board Minutes ~ July 21, 1992 Page 4 r' was treated tonight. She said that she was treated like a "dog" at the Commission meeting, treated rudely at that meeting. She also said that her daughter was treated rudely, she was not given any respect. Meinhalt also stated that Al White has been very helpful through this whole ordeal; she has had problems with the people on the other side of the house, they don't answer her questions, and Mr. White has been very helpful. would 1 ike to cannend him. Hoffmann said regarding this case the Board has to issue a finding of fact. Schneider moved that Cheryl Meinhalt of 140 Tradewinds Road West, be found not guilty of violation of the Winter Springs Code Section 4-2 as of July 21, 1992. Discussion. Pieper said that he feels this will be in conflict with the City Commission's previous finding and he thinks that the Code Board will be out of unison with the City if that finding of fact is ruled upon. Schneider stated that she did not agree with Pieper because Meinhalt asked for permission to keep more than 2 dogs, they would have granted her an exception. Pieper said he understands that but this case was initiated on May 10, 1992. If you issue a ruling that Meinhalt is not in violation as of the July 21, 1992, are you also saying that this violation never existed? Schneider stated not at all. Pieper then stated that we then need a finding r' of fact from the time this case was initiated. Gray said that it seems to him to be consistent you either have to find Meinhalt in violation or you have to dismiss the case; you can't find her not in violation based on the evidence. Pieper stated that the Board can dispense with any relief order but based upon the evidence that has been presented I think we do need a finding of fact from the time the case was initiated, not the time the case was terminated. Schneider said she understands the difference. Schneider rescinded her motion. Schneider moved that case CEB-92-194 be dismissed on the grounds that Cheryl Meinhalt has come into compliance with the Code of Winter Springs Section 4- 2 as of July 21, 1992. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Lyzen rescinded her second and Schneider rescinded her motion. r Schneider moved that CEB-92-194, be dismissed on the grounds that Cheryl Meinhalt, although having been in violation of Winter Springs Code 4-2, has now come into compliance as of July 21, 1992. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Gray asked Meinhalt if she intends to take dogs into her home again to tend to them etc. Meinhalt state that she would go into the activity in a different way; that she will not house them in her home. Vote: Gray: aye; Dasher: nay; Hoffmann: aye; Schneider: aye; Lyzen: aye. Motion carried. ~de Enforcement Board Minutes r' July 21, 1992 Page 5 r Hoffmann asked if anyone wishes to issue a relief order. Hoffmann stated that there will be no relief order issued for this case this evening. (' CEB-92-200, Jeanette C. Linders, 608 Sailfish Road - Section 13-2(d), Sta~nant Poo 1 : Pieper stated that this case deals with a violation of Section 13-2(d), stagnant pool. On May 14, 1992, after receiving an anonymous complaint, the Code Inspector discovered the pool at 608 Sailfish Road was stagnant and dark with various forms of wildlife inhabiting the water. On May 18th the realtor handling the property phoned the Inspector to advise that she had been in caTl11..lnication with the owner of record in California, Jeanette Linders, who advised that the property is subject to foreclosure and she cannot afford to take care of the property. On May 20, 1992, a reinspect ion showed that the pool was clear, further investigation by the Code Inspector throughout the neighborhood revealed an anonymous neighbor who advised that the pool was cleared by them pouring bleach in the pool at the direction of an unnamed person at City Hall. On June 3, 1992, the statement of violation and notices to appear were mailed to the owner of record and to the mortgage holder; by June 19th the owner of record had received her statement of violation and notice to appear, having been duly noticed and served she has not appeared fran Santa Barbara, CA. As of th i s date there has been no verification that the mortgage holder has received the statement of violation but a trace has been initiated with the Post Office to discover the status of that mailing. Pieper said that a reinspection of the property on this date showed that the pool again is dark green to a black in color. White passed out photographs of the pool to the Board with an up date of this case. Pieper also stated that the water is inhabited by frogs, tad poles and various water insects and is full of algae and other vegetation. You cannot see 7 inches below the surface of the water. Even though the house is vacant; power is on as evidenced by the air conditioning unit that was running at the time of the reinspect ion , however the pool filter was not running to keep the pool clear. Pieper stated that it is the City's position that Jeanette Linders, owner of record, of 608 Sailfish Road is in violation of City Ordinance 13-2(d) and we seek such a ruling fran the Board and a relief order to address this violation and any future violations of this Section that may occur. Discussion on this case. r Gray moved that Jeanette C. Linders, current owner of record, is found in violation of City Code 13-2(d). Seconded by Lyzen. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Code Enforcement Board Minutes ,.' July 21, 1992 Page 6 r' Gray moved that Jeanette C. Linders, current owner of record, having been found in violation of Section 13-2(d) of the Code of Winter Springs be fined $50.00 per day, 10 days after notification, to continue until the violation has been corrected and the fine will be reinstated for any future violations of this Section as detenmined by an officer of the City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Dasher. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. CEB-92-242, Jacqueline B. Rapport, 680 East State Road 434 (aka: 521 East State Road 434) - Section 13-2(d), Untended Grass and Weeds: Pieper stated that this case is removed from the agenda because we received communication last week from the owner of record. Within 5 working days of receiving the notice of violation, they had contracted a lawn maintenance company and sent a letter to White apologizing for the violation. The letter expressed that they had contracted a local lawn care provider who would be attending the property on a semi4TIOnthly basis, expressing that their problem in the past was that they had contracted with an unreliable lawn care service that had let them down and their hopes were now that the new lawn care provider would keep the property in compliance with the City Ordinance. Since we received that information, we have decided that we would remove this from the agenda tonight, monitor the situation for the next per i od of time and it mayor may not reappear on the Septerrber meet i ng. ,~ The lawn care provider that they have contracted with are known to us and are known to be responsible. We feel that it will remain in compliance and if not we will bring it back before the Board in Septerrber. The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk r