Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 03 21 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 21, 1995 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Schneider. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. ROLL CALL: Lurene Lyzen, present Bob Gray, present Lloyd Anderson, present Ken Haines, present Charles Holzman, present Gene Prest era, present Anne Schneider, present City Officials. present Captain Bob Pieper, Code Officer Al White, Code Inspector 4. Approval of the January 17. 1995 minutes: Mr. Holzman moved that the minutes be approved. Mr. Haines seconded. Vote: Anne Schneider, aye; Gene Prestera, aye; Charles Holzman, aye; Ken Haines, aye; Lloyd Anderson, aye; Bob Gray, aye; Lurene Lyzen, aye. Motion Carried. 5. Discussion of Closed and Pending Cases: Mrs. Lyzen asked Mr. White if the four cases scheduled for tonight were corrected. Two on the third page: Illegal irrigation systems. Fourth page: Trash in yard. Case#95-001595. Fifth page: Deer Run-Junk in driveway. Case #95-001978. Mr. White stated that the Illegal irrigation system cases were held back because of an owner change. A new owner has to be pursued, and the process starts over. Case #95-001595 is still pending, handled with a certified written warning with a deadline which has not yet been reached. Case #95- 001978 is still pending, under investigation. Chairperson Schneider asked for any further comments on closed or pending cases. Mr. White added, The "posted" in comments on the sheets indicates a written warning was issued, but not signed for lack of personal contact, and the case is still being worked on. Captain Pieper has issued instructions for the road patrol to intensify their efforts to make more contact, and draw to a quicker conclusion. Circumstance is such where during the day, no one is home for a week or two at a time. So at that time, Mr. White tries to get the road patrol to make contact, or he certifies a written warning or citation by mail. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 2 of 10 Chairperson Schneider asked if the designation "posted" was under action taken because she didn't see any on the her list. Mr. White explained that the sheets they have now are for January and February, and this procedure began in March. The next sheets will include the "posted". Mr. Prestera asked if the case of Unattended Grass at 309 Birch Terrace was a result of vacancy. Mr. White answered, This is correct. Another ownership change where the mortgage company has bailed out, and the owner has left and dumped it. A settlement is trying to be reached. The neighborhood has pitched in, and tended to part of the problem with clean up. Mr. Prest era mentioned another case on 193 Garden Drive, which states "Substandard Housing and TO.T Building". Mr White responded, He received a complaint from the resident stating there were rotten holes in the floor, in the wall, plumbing leaking, electrical outlets giving shocks to their children, so he documented the complaint. Since it had been passed to him by the building department, he clarified the points and sent it back to them for handling. "TO.T "means turned over to. "Building" is the department. Mr. Gray questioned the last one on the second sheet, 602 Marui, Construction work at 2:00 a.m. Mr. White said he could not verifY it. Mr. Gray added, Are we not allowed to work at night? Highways do it, using big flood lights. Mr. White stated that it is not accepted practice. He was not positive that's what was going on, and when he investigated in the day; the project was shut down, but everything lead to a D.O.T project on 17-92. Mr. White also said there is nothing he can do with the D.O. T contracts. Mrs. Lyzen maintained the address was Marni Drive. Mr. White explained that at the end of the culdesac, right through the woods you can see lights on the highway. Mrs. Lyzen asked if this was the complainant address. Mr. White replied, this is correct. Not where the offense occurred. Mr. Holzman asked if Case #95-000661 (page 2), Stagnant pool on 303 South Edgemon had been cleared, and if anyone was living there. Mr. White responded, It was cleared as of the first part of February. Yes, someone does live there. The next door neighbor informed him of the problem. Mr. White will be notified again if it comes back. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 3 of 10 Chairperson Schneider asked for further comments on closed cases. No further comments. 6. Case # CEB -94-464: Tuscawilla Realty. Inc.. 1301 Winter Springs Boulevard. Winter Springs. Florida 32708. Section 20-412. Permit required for temporary building. Mr. White stated that this case was not to be presented tonight, because Mr. Kruppenbacher, the city attorney, was absent due to an illness. The case will either be resolved or continued until the next meeting. Captain Pieper explained this case was pulled from the January agenda because there was information they could portray to the violator and gain compliance. There have been meetings with the violators since the last CEB meeting. It became clear the situation was going to be drawn out and litigated. Knowing the violator had council, Mr. Kruppenbacher was scheduled to attend tonight. With intent to present to the board in May, or have it settled and complied; we will remove this case from the agenda one more time. At 7: lOp. m., the Boehms presented to the board, a letter regarding the January case involving the doves. 7.Case # 95001917:Charles s. Andrescavage. 219 Morton Lane. Winter Springs. FL 32708. Section 4-1 (Animal Control and Protection Ordinance of Seminole County. Florida. adopted..) 20.23. Animals at large. Chairperson Schneider abstained from this case, due to personal acquaintances. Captain Pieper explained that in February 1995, the code enforcement officer was given a complaint form from Mr. Lockyer concerning dogs that reside at 219 Morton Lane. The package given to the board members by the code inspector contains a Progress Notes and/or Investigation Actions Section which includes a lengthy list of previous contacts and problems concerning animals. Specifically related to loose dogs. March 20, 1993, an incident report written by a Winter Springs police officer, in response to a loose dog. A doberman pincher was at 206 Morton Lane, dragging a length of chain. The officer took hold of the chain, in hopes that the dog would return to it's home so the officer could find out the owner. The doberman went to 219 Morton Lane, and the officer did make contact with someone there who did acknowledge that the doberman belonged at that residence. August 23, 1994, an animal control report listed 219 Morton Lane as the incident location. This complaint was cleared as unfounded. The officer did not find a loose dog. September 10, 1994, Winter Springs Police Department responded to a complaint ofloose dogs (Case#94015299). Mrs. Lockyer called about loose dogs that attacked and killed their rabbit. The Winter Springs Police Officer issued a written warning to Charles Andrescavage of 219 Morton Lane on September 10, 1994. The three dogs were secured to 219 Morton Lane and the problem was considered corrected. The Narrative Statement was written by Janice Lockyer. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 4 of 10 September 12, 1994, Animal Control responded to loose dogs at 219 Morton Lane. A note was left stating there would be citations written if the dogs were seen off the property. September 16, 1994, Another response to 219 Morton Lane by the Animal Control. Documentation indicated the dogs that live there run at large, chew up the neighbors animals, scratching cars, and chase a horse. The call screen indicated the caller was ready to shoot the dogs. Comments Section read: They can't be her dogs, her dogs were inside or on a chain. She was advised that tickets would be written if the dogs were seen loose, and that a trap may be set in the area. NOllember 23, 1994, two citations were written for a total of three dogs found at large, loose from the property at 219 Morton Lane. The dogs were described as a lab cross blonde (Goldie), shepherd cross black/tan (Max), shepherd black/tan, female (Natasia). Both citations with sequential case numbers were written at 4:30 p.m., and received by Louis Madden at 219 Morton Lane. December 14, 1994, animal control responded on two occasions (10:57-11:09 a.m. and 3:26-3:33 p.m.). Both complaints were cleared as "dog not seen". In February 1995, Mr. Lockyer's complaint was made known to the Code Inspector. The copies received, also references back to the incident of the rabbit being killed and the on going situation of the dogs being loose. This complaint described the dogs from 219 Morton Lane attempting to attack a puppy (owned by Lockyers) through a fence or screened enclosure. The puppy escaped, but the momentary fright was very stressful on Mrs. Lockyer. The residents of 219 Morton Lane have a continuing violation of loose dogs, and we seek a ruling of the board; an injunctive relief appropriate to the case. Mr. Gray stated it sounds like four different dogs. Mr. Pieper explained that over the span of time there have been different german shepherds, lab mixes, and dobermans. There are other cases referenced on the synopsis list that don't relate to the dogs being "loose". There is a history of bite incidents from different dogs than the ones referenced tonight, but the list indicates a continuing struggle with the owners to exercise due care and control. Mr. Holzman asked about the two dog limit. Captain Pieper replied that we are specifically dealing with the situation of the loose dogs at this time. Janice Lockyer of 212 Morton Lane told of one incident where Max was in her garage, and chased her back in the house, and another incident where the dog chased her daughter all the way home from the school bus. Stated they were afraid to even go outside of their own home. She has pleaded with the residents of219 Morton Lane to keep their dogs chained up or fence their yard. When the Andrescavages were told of the animal killings, they offered to buy the Lockyers replacements. Mrs. Lockyer felt she shouldn't have to fence her yard to keep other peoples animals out of it. Mr. Gray asked if the animals respond when called. Mrs. Lockyer said the Andrescavage's son told her that the animals are trained for attack. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Gray explained the code: one cannot have a loose animal on other peoples property, it has to be on their own property and under their control. Mrs. Lockyer spoke with animal control and they told her to try to catch the dog. She asked them, how do you catch a dog that turns on you and shows its teeth, and chases you back in the house? Animal control said they would bring traps over for her to catch the dog. She called the Andrescavages on the phone, they said, they keep breaking the chain. Another incident mentioned by Mrs. Lockyer was when her daughter and friend was jumping on the trampoline, and the two dogs corralled them; My husband and I had to chase them off Mr. Prestera asked how long they had been neighbors. Mrs. Lockyer stated she has lived there nine years. The last three years, they have put up with these situations. The Andrescavages would comply for a while, then after the smoke clears the dogs are running free again. They have two big signs out front- "Beware of the Dog"., but they are unchained. Animal control told Mrs. Lockyer they couldn't do anything, unless the dog is on the street. Mr. Prestera asked if the dogs had killed their animals in the past. Mrs. Lockyer stated she had to pull their pet rooster out of one of the dogs mouth. Going back to the rabbit incident: By banging on the door to the house they have out back in order to get to the rabbit, the dogs broke the latch on the door and dragged the rabbit out. Mrs. Lockyer found Max lying on the rabbit, chewing on it. And the other dog was looking around to see what else he could find. Mr. Gray asked how many houses are between the Lockyers and the Andrescavages. Mrs. Lockyer said they live on an acre ofland, and the Andrescavages live across the street about 3 houses down. Mr. Gray said he assumed the dogs must be bothering other neighbors. Mrs. Lockyer said she knows a cat was killed down the road. Down the other side of the block a boy was chewed up, and had to have stitches. Captain Pieper asked Mr. Lockyer ifhe wanted to add anything. Alfred Lockyer of212 Morton Lane spoke his comments: We regret having to be here. He feels it has been longer than 3 years, this all started when the Andrescavages moved into the neighborhood. There have been uncountable times the Andrescavages dogs have disturb our Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 6 of 10 family to one degree or another. We have not been in a situation where one of their dogs have bitten anybody in our family. It is a very scary situation when these big dogs chase you, especially after you've watched them kill your pets. Mr. Lockyer stated that it was not these present dogs that killed the rooster, these present dogs killed the rabbit. It was the dobermans that killed the rooster, and a number of chickens. Mr. Lockyer said Mr. Andrescavage has offered to buy them a rooster, chickens, and a rabbit. The Lockyers feel they have done everything in their power to work this out individually without involving the city. In the beginning, when the dobermans were involved, we called the Andrescavages a number of occasions, then finally resorted to calling animal control to come pick up the dogs. One evening Mrs. Andrescavage came over to the Lockyers house, screaming and yelling at them for calling the pound because they had to pay a fee to get the dog out. A week or two after that, the families made an agreement that the Lockyers would telephone the Andrescavages to come pick up their dogs. This was a daily or weekly situation of calling them. After much frustration, we decided to get the city, police, and animal control involved again. Mr. Lockyer said it has cost him money consulting with his attorney to find out what legally can be done. Finally, the last police officer to come see the Lockyers recommended they call the Code Enforcement Officer, since it was a violation of city code. The photographs Mr. Lockyer showed were developed March 21, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. These are photographs of Mr. Andrescavages dog on Mr. Lockyers property being aggressive towards Mr. Lockyer in their garage. As Mr. Lockyer was shooing the dog away, that's when Mr. Lockyers son began taking pictures. The dog turned on him twice while trying to shoo him away. The last photograph shows them at the end of the driveway, the dog just stood there looking at him, and since the dog was off the property; Mr. Lockyer turned and walked back to the house. The dog finally walked across the street and went back to 219 Morton Lane. Mr. Gray asked if Mr. Lockyer thought the Andrescavages had these dogs for protection. Mr. Lockyer said he assumed they were pets. In his opinion, the dogs are loose more than they are chained. They are chained up from time to time, and bark when they are chained up. Mr. Gray asked Mr. Lockyer if he has talked with any of the neighbors about if their children are scared of the dog. Mr. Lockyer explained he has not, but has heard discussion amongst neighbors about the dog problem. Some of the complaints, such as scratching a car, and chasing a horse are not the Lockyers complaint, so they must be other neighbors. The problem Mr. Lockyer has with the dogs is the constant harassment. Their daughter will not take the garbage out front, will play in the back yard (very cautiously), and she won't check the mail. She will not walk home from the school bus because a few months ago, the dog chased her all the way up to the house. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Gray asked Mr. Lockyer what would be an appropriate solution. Would stronger chains and more diligence in keeping them chained up make the problem go away. Mr. Lockyer responded, it would go away except for when they are chained, they bark, but we can live with the barking. He suggested the Andrescavages should fence their yard, and keep the dogs in the fences. Charles Andrescavage of219 Morton Lane apologized about the animals. He also stated that the time the rabbit was killed, his dogs were in the house. At the same time, a woman(Donna) at 205 Morton Lane called us. Mr. Andrescavage read a note that Donna had written. "To whom it may concern, I reported two dogs at 219 having attacked my cat. A few hours later I realized my mistake, the dogs were the same breed, but different colors. The dogs that attacked my cat lived on Williams. Mr. Andrescavage said these two dogs (golden lab and a shepherd) have killed his cat. Mr. Andrescavage said his dogs are on heavy chains, we let the male shepherd run free for his wife's protection. Mr. Gray told Mr. Andrescavage that he is not allowed to let the dog run free. Mr. Andrescavage said that the male is not off the property, the dog is there for his wife's protection. Mr. Gray asked, "So you're saying it never leaves the property?" Mr. Andrescavage answered, I guess it did since someone has pictures. All my dogs are chained except for the male because he's an inside dog. The only time they let him out, is when his wife outside. Mr. Andrescavage made comments on a letter from the O'Briens. "... They have never had a problem with any dog that lives at 219 Morton Lane, they walk by the house everyday and the dogs have never approached them in any way, the dogs have always been tied up when I walk by." Mr. Andrescavages commented on the statement made by Mr. Lockyer concerning the dog being taken away and paying a fine. Mr. Andrescavage said his dogs were being watched by a board member at that time. They thought the dogs were being neglected and they called. There are other dogs that run around the neighborhood. They said there were two dogs, if it was one dog it could be mine, two, no. Mr. Andrescavage said he understands what the Lockyers have to do, and that he has no hard feelings. Mr. Gray asked Mr. Andrescavage what he thought he could do to resolve this situation. Mr. Andrescavage said he will double chain the dogs. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Gray said the it sounds like the problem is with the male you let run loose. Pictures of the dogs were passed around for viewing. Ms. Lyzen asked Mr. Andrescavage, "do you agree the dogs break their chain?" Mr. Andrescavage answered No, they are on choker chains. Also said he will chain the male up. Commented that there's no one in the neighborhood during the day and he's added protection to the neighborhood. Mr. Gray asked him if he considered a fence. Mr. Andrescavage stated that when the dog's not in the house, he will be chained. The two dogs that killed his cat, looks just like his dogs. The cat that was attacked at 205 Morton Lane, occurred the same day as the rabbit incident. Neighbors will call and tell him their dogs are loose; he'll check and the dogs are chained up. Ms. Lyzen stated "they have broken their chains". Mr. Andrescavage said, not these dogs. He had a one hundred twenty pound shepherd that broke the chain. Mr. Pieper stated that this wasn't a matter of Max breaking his chain, Max has no chain to break. Mr. Andrescavage answered, Correct. Max is his wife's total protection. Mr. Pieper explained that Max tends to roam off the property, numerous times. Not sure of Natasia or Goldie, except for citations issued by Animal control back in 1994. Mr. Pieper also mentioned that how a child behaves differently when not around their parents, he believes the same holds true for animals with their owners. Ms. Lyzen asked Mr. Andrescavage if Max was the one who protects his wife. Mr. Andrescavage answered yes. Ms. Lyzen asked where his wife was at the time. Mr. Andrescavage answered "in the house". She lets him out to go to the bathroom, and when the kids come home. Mr. Gray stated there was a clear solution, and utilizing that solution could avoid penalty, even if they do find him in violation and give a relief order; as long as he keeps your dog chained up he will be in the clear. Mr. Andrescavage said that it will be done. Miss Rucker of 244 Morton Lane said she heard a contradiction in what Mrs. Lockyer said. How could she pull a chicken out of the dogs mouth if she was scared of the dog. Miss Rucker asked the Lockyers daughter if she ever walked to her house (because she is friends with Miss Ruckers sister) and if she's scared to walk by Nicky's house. No answers were heard. Mr. Gray asked Miss Rucker where her residence was in relation to theirs. Miss Rucker said, about ten or fifteen houses down. Mr. Gray asked if she had ever seen their dog on her property. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 9 of 10 Miss Rucker answered, no I haven't, never been that far. She said she goes to their house every other day, and the dog only runs loose at the house. Miss Rucker said she was not scared of dogs. Mr. Prestera commented that there was a litany of violations that pertain to the same people at the same address, not only the number of dogs and the length of time (1990 through 1995), but the fact is that we all agree there is a loose dog, that sometimes doesn't like to stay on his property, and there is a violation of more than two dogs. I don't see that we have any other course, but to find them in violation, but then to get some corrective action going, if it continues someone will be in direct violation of city code. Mr. Haines commented on the issue of the ownership of three dogs. Mr. Pieper explained that the Andrescavages have not been served with due notice of the violation of the City Code. To take a stand at this time to find them in violation of something that they have been by due process given the opportunity to correct; Then to throw on top of that, something they may not be aware of and have not been given that due process, would be unfair to them. This action would be a separate investigation and the Andrescavages would have the due process to correct the violation before it is brought to the board. Mr. Prestera ordered,...In the case of the Code Enforcement Board, #95001917 the City of Winter Springs and Code Enforcement Board has read the complaint filed and written information presented by the code officer, and heard at this meeting the sworn testimony of the prosecuting officer and witnesses regarding this case. Based on these proceedings I move that this Board find Charles and Mary Andrescavage in violation of Section 4-1 (20.23 of Seminole County) of the codes of the City of Winter Springs, and that an appropriate relief order be issued at this meeting. Seconded by Mr. Haines. Vote: Anne Schneider, abstained; Gene Prestera, aye; Charles Holzman, aye; Lloyd Anderson, aye; Ken Haines, aye; Bob Gray, aye; Lurene Lyzen, aye. Co-Chairman Gray asked for a Relief Order. Ms. Lyzen ordered, ... "In the case of Code Enforcement Board, #95001917 of the City of Winter Springs, Mary and Charles Andrescavage having been found by this Board to be in violation of Section 4-1,20.23 of the Codes of this city, and a relief order issued, I move therefore that they be given two days to correct this violation and if not corrected by this time as determined by an officer of this city, shall be assessed a fine in the amount of $50.00 per day until such violation is found to be corrected by an officer of the city. Also any repeat occurrences of the same violation as determined by a city officer, shall cause the immediate fine of $50.00 to be assessed for each day of continuing violation, until the violation is similarly found to be corrected. Mr. Pieper commented, it should read per occurrence, not per day. The two days to correct means two days after notification. Code Enforcement Board March 21, 1995 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Gray asked if Mrs. Lyzen was amending her motion to include the two comments. She answered yes. Mr. Holzman seconded the motion. Mr. Pieper explained his concerns on the two day limit. It sounds like the dogs have a two day grace period to run free with impunity. This creates a legal loop hole, that disempowers the code enforcement or police department from taking action for that presumed grace period. Mrs. Lyzen amended her motion to" immediate" correction. Mr. Holzman seconded the amended motion. Vote: Lurene Lyzen, aye; Bob Gray, aye; Lloyd Anderson, aye; Ken Haines, aye; Charles Holzman, aye; Gene Prestera, aye The Andrescavages apologized once again to the Lockyers. 8.Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by Co-Chairman Gray. Respectfully Submitted, 1t~f;~erk THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WILL BE MAY 16,1995- 7:00 P.M. This document is a summary of the Code Enforcement Board. The audiotapes of all meetings are maintained in the permanent records of the City of Winter Springs.