Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 07 20 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes ... CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 1993 r"" The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Hoffmann. BOARD MEMBERS: CITY OFFICIALS: Bob Gray, Present Lt. Glenn Tolleson, Code Officer Art Hoffmann, Chairman, Present Al White, Code Inspector Anne Schneider, Vice-Chairman, Present(arrived late) Lloyd Anderson, Absent Jim McShea, Present Lurene Lyzen, Present Gene Prestera, Present Approval of Minutes of May 18. 1993: Lyzen moved to approve the minutes of May 18, 1993. Seconded by McShea. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion of Closed and Pending Cases: Lyzen asked about the Villafane case that was tabled from the last meeting. Al White, Code Inspector, stated that the case is closed as the vehicle is gone. r Hoffmann asked about a closed case involving an electric fence. White stated that he did not investigate that case, a police officer investigated that and closed the case. Hoffmann also asked about a case on Seneca regarding a back-flow preventor. Lt. Tolleson, Code Officer, stated that this was given to us by the utility Depart7.ent. He said that the utility Department has sent letters on two different occasions to nine homes in that area because they are not using them and the utility Department received no responses so in turn this was given to us to investigate. Tolleson stated that White went out to these homes and has gotten responses from the residents who were not using the back-flow preventors. Hoffmann asked about the case on Panama regarding a bounced check. White stated that the resident had an occupational license which had expired and when paid, it was paid with a bad check so he went out and collected cash for the occupational license. Hoffmann asked about the case involving bird noise. White stated that is corrected and doesn't recall the details of the complaint. .1"""'" Gray asked about case number 293. White said that that case was turned over to the detective bureau and is an on-going case that can't be discussed. Gray also asked about case 297. White stated that is property on Natures Way that has a dilapidated barn and in order for me to work that sort of case, he needs the Building Department recommendation for either destruction, removal or repair so it is turned over to them for a decision on how I'm to enforce it. '> Code Enforcement Board Minutes July 20, 1993 r- Page 2 White said that there is one other case, number 93012024, that is a disabled vehicle on Cottonwood, that case is closed. Hoffmann mentioned another abandoned vehicle on Devon. the only open case for June. White said that is Prestera asked about vacant homes with stagnant pools and untended grass and what is done about that type of situation. White stated that there is a situation like that on Leopard Trail now and the first step is to locate the owner of the property. He state that he can find no forwarding address and has been turned over to the bank. Then on to the V.A. and to another mortgage carpany and now on to another mortgage carpany. We have to follow the state Law Due Process which requires that we go through the chain of ownership to achieve the point of responsibility. Once we achieve the point of responsible party then we can put them on notice and by our own Code we are required to give them 15 days from receipt of the paper work to do what has to be done. White said that the problem on Leopard Trail is being taken care of by the ~. V.A., they are sending someone out tomorrow to fix the fence. Hoffmann said what if the due process is slow as usual, but we have the health, safety and welfare of the residents involved, couldn't we take same action and notify the people you are trying to get response from that you are doing this because of the health, safety and welfare of the community. White said our steps are limited to handling the paper work first, establishing the owner, putting them on notice, letting the real owner realize their liability. Prestera asked if the City had Leopard Trai 1 home. White procedures. any liability if a child gets hurt at the said no because we are following the state Hoffmann stated that the Board has received with their package an ordinance concerning the citation system. He said that Seminole County, the City of Altamonte Springs, Sanford, and the City of Casselberry have enacted ordinances to be able to issue citations for violations without first having to, in same cases, bring it to the Code Enforcement Board. The intent which is permitted by the State under a change in the Florida Statutes enables this type of ordinance to be enacted by Cities who wish to do it. The intent was to facilitate corrections of violations without a month or two months delay; recognizing however that there can be abuse of the system as well. r Code Enforcement Board Minutes July 20, 1993 r' Page 3 Hoffmann said that basically this ordinance is similar to the other Cities and the County ordinances, in that it lists a grouping of violations by class I, I I, I I I or IV and then indicates what the monetary value of a fine would be for that particular violation. We don't have to follow all these or at least we can encourage the Commission not to follow these verbatim. Hoffmann stated that he realizes that the Board just received this ordinance and that maybe they can meet in a week or two in which we would have a better chance to review it. Hoffmann stated that one thing that is missing is a training program for people who would be assigned to be Code violation officers. Tolleson said the only other people would be police officers. Hoffmann asked about the statement regarding the state Retirement System. Tolleson said he asked the City Attorney about that and the Attorney said he didn't know how that statement got in there. White gave the Board a list of violations that coincide with the County's and also what section the violation is in the City's Code. r' Hoffmann stated that the key section in this is on page 3 - "..the officer has to have reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a civil infraction in violation of the City Code of Ordinances and that the County Court will hear the charge. In other words it must be something that the courts will listen to as a violation. Hoffmann asked about the violations that are not cleared in which a citation was issued, each day that exists beyond the period that you gave to correct it can that be considered a new violation, is that what this means? Tolleson said it would be a new violation. Hoffmann said that page 7, paragraph 2-b, is mainly a legal question - If a person cited pays a civil penalty he has waived his right to a hearing to contest the citation; what if he doesn't correct the violation. Tolleson said then you reissue the citation. Hoffmann said when this goes to the County Court and is heard there, and if the fine is $100.00, and it says here that the County Clerk can collect $10.00 for costs - this brings up the question has the County agreed to this figure. Tolleson said yes. Gray asked if the computer system that the Code Inspector and Code Officer is using can it implement this. Tolleson said that is one problem we are going to have, who is going to track it because officers are out 24 hours a day and an officer writes a citation, then Al goes out the next day and doesn't know an officer has written a citation, and Al writes another one, r' Code Enforcement Board Minutes July 20, 1993 f" Page 4 so it would be possible that someone would get a citation three times before it is computed. Al gets warnings everyday, but the problem is to get them in the computer. Hoffmann mentioned a new citation form. Tolleson said that is being worked on. Discussion on whether there would be a need for the Code Enforcement Board if this ordinance passes. Tolleson stated that this is not going to do away with the Board, there will still be cases for this Board. Tolleson said that what some Cities are doing is that part of their appeal process instead of going to the County Court, is that City's Code Board- They either can pay the fine, appeal to the Code Board or go to the Courts. Prestera brought up the point that the officer glvlng the citation will at his discretion give up to 30 days grace period. Some officers might give more or less time for a same violation, how will this be tracked? Tolleson stated that there would be no way to track it. f' Discussion. Gray stated that he doesn't like the idea of judgement calls by officers for the grace period. Schneider said that is where the Code Board comes in, where there is a case of wether or not something is a violation. Hoffmann stated that we could put down situations that we feel that grace period should be less than 30 days and all the others would be thirty days. Prestera mentioned that on page 3, a violation is given 30 days, then on page 7 it states then if citation is issued then it is given another 30 days, does this mean that someone in violation has 60 days to correct or pay for a violation. Hoffmann asked if a notice and a citation is one in the same. It was determined no they are not the same. The notice could be one week or up to 30 days. Discussion. The Board said that this seems like it would load the court system for trivial things. Hoffmann asked Tolleson if there was anything in the ordinance that he feels should be modified or suggest modifying. Tolleson said that the Board could pick out same of the violations that could come before the Code Board and not the Courts. Tolleson also mentioned that he did not like the section where is states leaving a warning with a 15 yr. old. The Board agreed and discussed this matter. The Board agreed to change the age to leave a warning with to be 18 years old. Discussion on the new ordinance. t""" .. Code Enforcement Board Minutes Ju 1 y 20, 1993 ~ Page 5 Tolleson said that on page 8, para. b, the statement doesn't need to include "the Code Enforcement Officer" in that section about if he refuses to sign. Because the Code Enforcement Officer does not have the authority to arrest anyone and in order for that to happen the Code Officer will have to get an officer and go back and have the person to say in front of a police officer that he/she refuses to sign. The Board discussed having a workshop. It was decided to hold a workshop on August 3, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. White showed the Board different type of signs, stickers and notices that he obtained from another City to see if they would like him to use something simi lar to them. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, t"'" Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk r