Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 05 16 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 16, 1995 1. The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Schneider. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call Anne Schneider, present Bob Gray, present Lloyd Anderson, present Ken Haines, absent Charles Holzman, present Gene Prestera, absent Lurene Lyzen, present City Officials. present Captain Bob Pieper, Code Officer Al White, Code Inspector Tom Lang, City Attorney 4. Approval of the March 21. 1995 minutes Mrs. Lyzen made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Gray seconded. All ayes. Motion Carried. 5. Discussion of Closed and Pending Cases Chairperson Schneider asked ifthere were any changes to the Andrescavage Case. Mr. White said that he received a phone call from Mrs. Lockyer on May 15, 1995. She had just picked up her child from the bus stop. Mrs. Lockyer said that Max was loose, and terrorizing the bus stop. Mr. White sent Animal Control, and he also went out there himself. No Max. He's sorry, but there is nothing he can do if he doesn't see anything because of the wording of the Relief Order. Mr. Gray asked if it had been worded differently, could some action have been taken. Mr. White said he would have to look into that. It's a legal matter, and it's difficult to take the word or a testimony of someone without some legal precedence. Chairperson Schneider stated that the board has felt they needed an impartial third party when dealing with some cases so people don't call just to get their neighbors in trouble. Is there any other form of evidence? Mr. White answered, if Mrs. Lockyer testifies to the Code Enforcement Board again, we could call that a repeated offense. Mr. Lang suggested that the lady video tape for document. Most video cameras have a date and time available. Chairperson Schneider mentioned that they had puppies now. Mr. White said he will bring them back as a repeated violator, if he can get Max's escape documented. Mr. Holzman asked Mr. White how he handled the alligator in the pond. Mr. White said he referred it to Fish and Game. Mrs. Lyzen asked if satellite dishes were allowed in the city. Mr. White answered, Yes. Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 2 Chairperson Schneider asked," What is a snipe sign"? Mr. White described it as a small sign stapled to a telephone pole or stuck in the right-of-way. It's in the category of "Prohibit Sign". Mr. Anderson commented that the basketball hoops in violation were rectified, according to the list. Mr. White said there were more. A hoop in the right-of-way area is a hazard to traffic and a danger to participants. 6. Case CEB-94-464. Tuscawilla Realty. Inc.. 1301 Winter Springs Boulevard. Winter Springs, FL 32708. Section 20-412 Temporary Building with no permit. Captain Pieper introduced Tom Lang-city representative, Larry Steiner- Tuscawilla Realty's representative, and Alec String of Tuscawilla Realty. Witnesses were sworn in for testimony. Captain Pieper presented Case Number CEB-94-464. This case deals with a violation of a temporary office trailer with no valid permit for the temporary office use. In July 1993 , the Code Enforcement section handled a complaint of a temporary building in violation of City Ordinance 20-412, by having no valid permit for use as a temporary office. The location of this violation was 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. That case #93-014441 was resolved on 08/03/93 when re-inspection revealed that the temporary trailer had been removed from the property. As a result of that investigation, the Code Enforcement Section became aware that the other temporary building at that location was also in violation of 20-412 as it too had no valid permit. Action on that second building (which is the case before you) was initiated on October 4, 1994. The Code Inspector was advised that the building would be moved within 4 to 6 weeks, or near the end of the 1994 year. On November 10, 1994 during a follow-up on the progress of the case, the Code Inspector Mr. White issued a written warning which was received by Alec String of Tuscawilla Realty. The written warning had a correction date of December 10, 1994 (one month from the time of issuance) On December 23, 1994, Attorney Larry Steiner representing Tuscawilla Realty, wrote a letter (received 12/29/94) stating that the complaint was improper as the subject building was not a "trailer". Mr. Steiner further alleged that the structure had a certificate of Occupancy from the City, and was constructed 7 to 8 years previously. On January 4, 1995, Mr. String of Tuscawilla Realty was issued a Notice to Appear at the January Code Enforcement Board meeting. Also on January 4, 1995 the City Manager responded to Mr. Steiner's letter, advising that it has been the policy of the City to deal with temporary building uses under 20-412, and that the City Commission approved the location of this building at its present site under the stipulations that the building(s) would be (1) moved when the core area of Tuscawilla was basically complete; or (2) when the property (belonging to Winter Springs Development Joint Venture) is sold. Research into the Building Department's archives located the documents and previous permits showing that this building has been located at several locations over the past 13 years, and was moved to its present location at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. between August and September of 1987. This case was removed from the January Code Enforcement Board agenda to allow Tuscawilla Realty and its attorney to study the documents. The case was rescheduled for March. On March 7, 1995 a meeting was held between the Code Inspector, Code Prosecutor, Tuscawilla Realty, and its attorney. Captain Pieper presented documents showing that: this Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 3 particular building has moved five times in the span of six years between 1981 and 1987. Also included in the most recent move was a letter from Winter Springs Development to the City Manager dated July 28, 1987, requesting the move and a temporary office location use permit. this letter indicates it was "OK'd" by City Manager Richard Rozansky on August 2, 1987. The building permit for the move was issued August 13, 1987 (permit# 13035). Further alterations to the interior (only) of the structure were permitted in September 1987 (#13146) and completed in October. This item was once again removed from the agenda of the March Code Enforcement Board meeting due to the unavailability of the City Attorney that night. HISTORY- Included in your package in the history of this building is a collection ofletters showing the evolution of an agreement between the City of Winter Springs and Winter Springs Development: November 18. 1988-Winter Springs Development/Gulfstream Housing requests a Temporary Office Use permit for a second temporary building at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. January 30. 1989-a follow-up letter from Gulfstream Housing clarifies Winter Springs Development's request for an "additional" temporary building, for a period of 18 months, stating that after that time "it is anticipated the existing temporary office trailer will be moved also" and "in no way do we intend to use either trailer in a permanent manner on the site". February 17. 1989-a letter was sent by Winter Springs Development Joint Venture asking why the request for the additional trailer was not progressing. October 19. 1990-a memo was sent to the City Manager from the Land Development Coordinator regarding Winter Springs Development Corporation's request for a temporary office building under 20-412. Attached to this cover memo is the request, dated 10/17/90. In that request Winter Springs Development Corp. states that the temporary use would likely be concluded within two years. Also on October 19. 1990-a memo from the Land Development Coordinator to the City Manager outlining the staffs meeting to consider Winter Springs Development Corporation's request for the additional trailer. In that memo it states that the staff recommendation was that "all temporary buildings must be removed prior to the sale of this particular property" . October 22. 1990-Minutes of the City Commission Meeting: Regarding the request for the temporary trailer use permit, by a 3-2 vote the request was denied. May 6. 1991-Letter from Winter Springs Development Corp./Gulfstream Housing reviving the previously denied request for a temporary officer trailer at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. Also, May 6. 1991- Memo to City Manager from Land Development Coordinator regarding the reconsideration of Winter Springs Development Corporation's request, and recommending that a stipulation of the approval would include the removal of all temporary buildings prior to the sale of the property. May 13. 1991-City Commission Meeting Minutes: regarding the Winter Springs Development Joint Venture request for a temporary office trailer - including the stipulations recommended by staff to remove all Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 4 temporary buildings if they sell the property. During discussion after the motion to approve, City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher stated this was not to exceed two (2) years, and to be in conformance of our codes. The motion carried 4-1. It is therefore the City's position that: -this building, which is a mobile office, was placed at the present location at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. at the request of Winter Springs Development Joint Venture in the summer of 1987; and that -Winter Springs Development Joint Venture's stated intent was that this building was not intended to be used in a permanent manner, as stated in January 1989; and that -Winter Springs Development Joint Venture's request to place a second temporary building on this land was approved by City Commission in May 1991 based upon the Staffs recommendation stipulating that all temporary buildings must be removed prior to the sale of the property, and the City Attorney's statement that this was not to exceed two (2) years; and that -at some point prior to June 1993 the property at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. became occupied by Vision Developers, Inc., after which on June 11, 1993 the Building Department sent a letter to Vision Developers advising of the expiration of the permit for the temporary office trailer, followed by a Written Warning for the City Ordinance Violation from the Code Enforcement Section on July 30, 1993, leading to the eventual removal of the temporary building by August 3, 1993; and that -at some point prior to March 1994 the property became the possession of Richland Tuscawilla, Ltd., and that -on March 10, 1994, Richland Tuscawilla, Ltd. sold the Property at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. to Tuscawilla Realty, Inc., and that -almost four years have elapsed since the start of the permitted two year period for the temporary buildings to remain at this location, and the property has changed hands several times in the past two years from the original ownership of Winter Springs Development Joint Venture; and that -the building in question is still on the property at this time, beyond the correction time limits given by the Code Inspector in the Written Warning issued November 10, 1994, Therefore the city asks that the Code Enforcement Board rule that the temporary building on the property at 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. which is owned by Tuscawilla Realty, Inc. is in violation of City Ordinance Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 5 20-412 by the fact that it has no valid temporary office location use permit, and further asks that an appropriate relief be immediately initiated. Mr. Gray asked what the City's oliginal concern of why they denied the request for the temporary building. Was there another reason they didn't want this building to be up, other than it was beyond the two years? Captain Pieper asked Mr. Gray if he was referring back to the request for the second temporary office building in the early nineties. Mr. Gray responded, Correct. Mr. Pieper answered that he would be repeating what he heard which he could not confirm because the Building Department was not represented tonight. It is to Mr. Pieper's understanding that the original denial for the second temporary building had to do with some environmental issues, stormwater management, and the placement of the building over pervious soil. All of which lead to the staffs recommendation and the City Commissions denial. The later approval of the second mobile structure was approved because they located the second mobile structure on an existing paved area which did not change or effect the existing stormwater issues. Mrs. Lyzen asked if it was a trailer or a temporary building. Mr. Lang explained that legally the definition of trailer says it should be an abode. The City Commission is the one at the urging of a prior owner of this project which allowed these mobile offices to be put in place without complying with the building code by construing them to be trailers. The confusion is appropriate in that they are not clearly within the definition. In order to get the permit to be there, they were considered by the City Commission to be defined "trailers" which are temporary offices. Chairperson Schneider asked if the structures did not comply with all the inspections and codes as enforced for permanent structures. Mr. Lang said that was his understanding. They were put in as temporary structures and didn't have to comply with the building code, they could be put in as trailers or temporary structures. to Alec String, President and Broker of Tuscawilla Realty, 1301 Winter Springs Blvd. presented his testimony. ~OY;~t(,> A little over a year ago, Tuscawilla Realty purchased for $3000,000.00 a piece of property inside of :v.eLC ~ Tuscawilla. That piece of property required about $10,000.00 of inspections and research on title and deed, ~ a very complicated purchase. Nothing was of record and nothing was to lead Mr. String to believe that he 1-\6~c;S would have a problem with fifty percent of the office space that was on the piece of property that he was W\ ~ purchasing. A year later, or eight months later he was given a notice that within thirty days he had to move half of the space which would basically put him out of business. What he went through from then on with the City of Winter Springs was very frustrating; such as the building officials not having any records and making statements that records weren't kept on computers eight years ago so they were not sure if it had a building permit. There was no way for any purchaser to know that this was going to be a problem. It had separate power and water meters so it appeared to him that someone had approved it. Florida Power also led him to believe that if that building had a separate power meter, then it was given a permit. There was nothing of record to lead him to believe it was going to expire soon. All the memos seen by Mr. String stated that when the property was sold, the building must be moved. The property was sold four times; he was the fourth buyer. The building has been there eight years, and now he has to move half his office in thirty days. He wants to work to build a permanent Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 6 structure there, but it is an expensive, complicated process which cannot be done in thirty days. He tried to get an extended period of time so he could come up with a plan to build a permanent structure. This is not about being a victim, this is about code-whether this permit expired. He would like to have his attorney explain why they feel that permit may still be in force. Whether it's in force or not, Mr. String thinks what is right or wrong is that the city appears to not want to work with one of its businesses so it can have time to plan to build a permanent structure. There's no way that any purchaser of that property would have been led to believe any different than he was. No notice, just thirty days-pack it up. He was told to try and get a permit, but at City Hall he was told nothing can be done until he goes before the board. A site plan on a permanent structure costs $20,000.00. It will take a year to build something. His biggest problem with the whole thing is two years after they issued the permit for the second structure, they did have one taken away. Why didn't they take the second one away at that time? He would not have paid $300,000.00 for the piece of property. He does want to have the building moved and he wants to have a permanent structure there, but he needs time. He can't cripple his business for eight or nine months while he's doing that. Mr. String distributed a letter from the president of the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association explaining that they spend a lot of money maintaining the property. Mrs. Lyzen asked Mr. String if he knew it was a temporary building when he bought it. Mr. String said, Absolutely Not, that's his point. There was no record. He wants to work with the city, however it appears to him the city doesn't want to give him a chance to correct this problem. It's been there eight years, and all of a sudden they want the problem solved. Chairperson Schneider explained that two years had elapsed since the stipulations had been placed on the property by the city council in May of 1991. Action began after the trailer was removed. Mr. String said that according to the council meeting, both were to be moved at the same time. No action was taken to remove the other. They were aware of what it said because it was given to the developer who was there. Chairperson Schneider said she cannot explain what happened in May 1991 or 1993. The function of the board tonight is to determine if a violation of city code has occurred based on the evidence in front of them. (documentation and testimony given under oath) Once that determination is found, there is other courses of actions. Mr. String stated that the only thing Tuscawilla Realty is asking for is some relief because he doesn't believe the city did what it was suppose to do to give him notice that it was a temporary building. The city and the code board understands it is a major undertaking to reproduce that structure properly-do the retention pond, do the proper parking, design the structure, and build. He cannot do it in thirty days. This will tremendously hurt his business and probably not allow him to build. All he's asking for is time. Mr. Lang explained that this board is in a very awkward position because they cannot issue that permit. What they can give is time before they impose some penalty. Time to go before the city commission to see if you can get the city commission to give you the relief you want. Mr. Lang suggested if that is the will of the board that them give them some period of time to appear in front of the city commission to try and Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 7 get that kind of relief from the city commission who can make the determination as to whether or not they want to extend the permit, or something else. This forum does not have that ability, and the board is not doing them a service by making them spend a lot of time trying to convince you of something that you can't rectify. Chairperson Schneider agreed. Mr. Holzman asked Mr.String ifhe had approached the commission. Mr. String said they would not talk to him until this gets resolved. Both AI White and Captain Pieper recommended he try to get a building permit, but they won't talk to him while it's in Code Enforcement hands. Mr. Holzman asked how long this has been in the Code hands. Captain Pieper answered that this particular numbered case originated in late 1994. It has gone through a variety of problems and extensions and continuations in order to get to this point tonight. We have expressed in our meetings with Mr. Steiner and Mr. String that our position here is to do Code Enforcement. What happens in City Hall, at City Hall, and with City Hall doesn't effect our position as code enforcement to whether or not this is a violation. It was suggested that Mr. String explore any possibilities he could get. He did attempt to explore those possibilities and ran into the situation that once something is in front of code board hands that a ruling needs to be rendered so that it is clear that action needs to be taken. Photographs of the structure were shown to the board. Mr. Gray asked Captain Pieper if he was aware of any role the city plays informing potential property owners of any existing, temporary, or elapsed permits when someone is buying property in the city. Captain Pieper said he could not answer for city hall. Mr. White added that he has inquired about existing liens on property. Whatever else anyone would have on this permit basis, he is not involved. The building department would have to answer that. Mr. Lang explained that we (the city) do not have an obligation to advise, nor do we advise of anything other than what's public record. On a difference to Mr. Steiner, if he was doing title work on this property, the minutes of the city commission meeting would not be recorded in the public records such that he could find them by legal description. And the question becomes whether or not a potential purchaser should have looked at those minutes to find out. This might be stretching due diligence, but that is a form of due diligence that you might do to make sure that the property that you are buying has been properly permitted, and you could ask for an estoppel letter from the city, but there is no affirmative obligation for us to tell a potential buyer that there is a permit about to expire on those buildings. It seemed to Mr. Gray that Mr. String exercised what he considers due diligence in trying to secure the information he needed to make a proper purchase. How could he have discovered that there was a permit which had expired, and there was a building on his property which was in violation of code that he didn't know about? Mr. String said that even after he got the complaint when he came to the city to talk with Don Houck, he had no record of it. No record of a permit. Mr. Gray asked what approximate date this took place. Mr. String said he spoke with Don Houck on December 1, 1994 after the citation was given. It wasn't until the first meeting with Captain Pieper and AI White that Mr. String actually saw documentation, or maybe shortly before that. Mr. Gray asked what happens to expired permits. Mr. White said they are saved. The permits were found in the building department files, and copied. Mr. String said he investigated the gas leak from 7-Eleven, he investigated the title, he investigated all the things that a buyer that owns a real estate company would investigate. Certainly nobody purchasing that property would have known there was a pending problem with half of the space, and even going back to Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 8 the city they didn't know. There was not information readily available from the building official on this permit. Chairperson Schneider pointed out that earlier when Mr. String mentioned the building department about getting a new permit, they told him that he had to go through the code board. Until the board makes a finding, they would not know what to do. It has to go through this procedure for the building department to even know what it is or to grant a request one way or another. Mr. Gray agreed with Chairperson Schneider that this is the only way to proceed. A little short term pain to get some long term gain. Chairperson Schneider said the board is sympathetic. Mr. Lang expressed to Mr. String that the box that he is in, is that the city commission has told him that this is a trailer, and that there is a temporary permit which has expired. It is now incumbent upon you if you have arguments as to why it is not a trailer and should be treated as a building and certificated as a building under the code, then you need to make that argument to the city commission. Or in the alternative, you need to argue to the city commission as to why the temporary permit should be extended. This board can't do it, they can give you a window in which to get to the city commission. They would not impose any fines in order to allow you to try and resolve this. Chairperson Schneider asked for further questions or discussion. Mr. Gray commented that the building was attractive and very well kept up. Lawrence Steiner, Attorney from 797 Douglas Avenue in Altamonte Springs was present on behalf of Tuscawilla Realty. He has been involved since just after the complaint was made by Mr. White in the efforts that Mr. String tried to make to get information from the city. This board is not concerned with what we consider fairness inequity. We are talking about taking away a parties property rights without possibly due process. An appropriate documentation and notice in some manner being available from the city to a prospective purchaser. Mr. Steiner went over Captain Piepers report because he believes he can clearly show that the structure of the building by "policy" (as Captain Pieper said)of the city is to be considered a trailer. He does not believe it falls under the definition of a trailer as defined under the Winter Springs city code, and then as applied to this section of the code which calls it a trailer. There may be a distinction with respect to the city always calling this a temporary structure, but never defining it and never using this particular building as a trailer although the second building which has been removed was always considered and called a trailer during the application process. There is also a situation where the city, even supposedly after they realized what they considered to be a trailer or temporary structure to remove, issued an occupational license to the tenant (Vision Developers) of that property. Vision Developers was originally in the trailer that was removed. Mr. White through his initiation had that trailer removed a little over two years after it was initially approved which was per the guide lines at the time, but in October of 1994, the city still issued occupational permits for a building which they claim and the citation reads, "does not have a valid permit". Mr. Steiner disputed that this building does not have a valid permit. The records that Captain Pieper produced show that there is a valid permit on this property. Question is whether or not this has truly expired and has the city taken any action to truly enforce an expiration which they claimed to have occurred. The city's action in taking its action against a trailer in 1993(a little over two years after it was permitted) but without taking any action as to this structure clearly showed that they were extending that permitter time because they took no action. Mr. Steiner also said it is important to note that in the second paragraph of the presentation by Captain Pieper, it says that as a result of that investigation. Why does it Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 9 take a year and a quarter after the initial trailer is removed to have an investigation supposedly as a result of that initial termination of the trailer, that this was a temporary structure that needed to be cited. Mr. Steiner doubted that it was a result of that investigation and certainly it wouldn't take fifteen months to all of a sudden say we have a temporary building here that needs to be removed. From October of 1994 back to August of ] 993 is when they are alleging they investigated for over a year of whether we had a temporary structure. Chairperson Schneider stated whether the city decided to issue an occupational license or whether they had a lack of action, it is somewhat irrelevant to whether the board determines whether this building is in violation of its temporary permit. It's fairly clear from the documentation that the requestor for this building requested a temporary permit. Mr. Steiner said he understood what she was saying, and possibly what they were doing in presenting this is laying the foundation for what action may be needed to be taken by Tuscawilla Realty should this board determine to take whatever action may be negatively against them. He added that's why we have a court reporter here because he believed this board did have the ability to determine certain matters as to whether or not the complaint that has been filed does properly meet the requirements to show that there is a violation. Mr. Lang asked when the two years expired. Mr. Steiner explained that the two years had technically expired two years after the city commission approved it, but because of the action of the city the time had been extended by the city. Mr. Lang asked which action-the failure to cite you would extend the two years? Mr. Steiner answered that the failure to require that the structure be removed when the city commission action at that time that the second trailer was permitted said that all (both)must be removed at that time. Mr. Lang said," assuming that I can accept your argument that the failure to give you notice to remove it, extended it; wouldn't that two year period come to an end the day you were cited because now you're on notice that they don't intend to extend it any further"? Mr. Steiner said, "I don't believe so because of the nature of the complaint. The citation reads-Must be moved or permitted, there is llot a valid permit all it. The position that has been taken is that there was no permit at specifically ever on this property. If you look at the file that's been presented, Mr. Govoruhk wrote back to me on January 4, ]995 that they are still unable to locate any file for this temporary building and it is unknown how a separate power meter was installed. As of January, almost two or three months after this citation was issued there position was still-there is no permit at all on it". Mr. Lang asked ifhe would agree that the minutes have been located where it's been indicated that you have a two year permit that runs from a given date to a given date. Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Steiner answered, that's correct except to the extent of the extension given by the city not taking any action to properly terminate it. The citation as given is an improper citation and does not address the issue as it was given on the date when it was cited. On the basis of the wording and the language that Mr. White used at the time based upon the information which he believed to exist because they could not find any records that he has cited this for not having any permit at all, and Mr. Steiner doesn't believe that is the situation that we had in existence in October 1994. Chairperson Schneider asked where in the code does it say in a lack of an action by the city implies that an extension has been granted. Therefore the violation was found as that the building was unpermitted, it had expired from the time that the owner of the property agreed to the city stipulation in May of 1991 to two years later. The two years had expired, permit was expired, and the building was not permitted. Mr. Gray asked Mr. White if they had a copy of the temporary permit that had been issued. Mr. White said he could not put his finger on details which occurred years prior to his employment with the city; but after additional research, the documents were located. The permit is F4 in the packet. Mr. Steiner said that it is important to note that (contained on page 3 of Captain Piepers report) all temporary buildings must be removed prior to sale of this particular property, even arguing that the two years had expired the city took no action (once again)upon a transfer of that property to put anybody on notice as a prospective purchaser that we have an alleged or possible violation, there is nothing, not only in the record, and he understands what they are looking at and saying here's the structure and here's the citation. We have a situation where the citation doesn't match the facts at the time it was presented and at the time Mr. White wrote it up. Mr. Steiner doesn't believe subsequent documents can be used which are located while doing research to try to present your argument to justify the existence of facts which were not known at the time when the complaint was issued. Mr. Lang explained that the argument Mr. Steiner is trying to make is that there was a waiver that continued that permit on beyond the two years because the city didn't take any action. Chairperson Schneider asked Mr. Lang if she had a waiver. Mr. Lang stated that legally the position is that it expired at the end of two years. The failure of the city may create a estoppel argument when they get in front of the city commission with regard to what the city commission does, but for the purposes of this board, the permit you've been presented by the city commission expired two years after the date that it was issued. What he had heard the board say as a group is that they're very empathetic because the owner has been put in an awkward position because of some things that have been done. Those are things that have to go back to the city council as part of an estoppel argument to say that the city shouldn't at this point require us removal, but extend the temporary permit for them. As far as this body is concerned, the Code Board can't do it. It very clearly states in the code that only the city commission can issue that temporary permit. The temporary permit that is presented expired two years from the date that motion was passed. Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Steiner stated also that Mr. String and his company is in a catch 22 situation for the following reason. Mr. Steiner spoke to Mr. Govoruhk on several occasions in January 1995 who even suggested that an application for an extension of the permit be made at that time so that this matter could be resolved. Not after these proceedings, but at that time Mr. String went back to the city and is then told we won't consider anything. Chairperson Schneider said that the board is aware of that. As previously discussed, Mr. String is here tonight and the board has to have a finding tonight in order for you to proceed any further. Mr. Lang added that a good argument to make is why the board would not impose any fines for the period when no one seemed to know what was happening, but it still doesn't continue that permit. Chairperson Schneider repeated that we have to go back to the main issue. Captain Pieper stated that in spite of Mr. Steiner's attempt to make the members of the board feel like they're all doing something to Mr. String; the boards action tonight is just another step in the process of allowing Mr. String to correct the problem if he can get it front of the city commission. What ever emotional issues somebody tries to attach to this and lay guilt trips on members for what they're trying to do, that's not the case. Chairperson Schneider added what we are doing tonight would free up Mr. String in order to proceed in what he is trying to do. Mr. Steiner stated that is correct with one step further, which is that although Mr. String will take whatever action is finally determined to be necessary and that's been his position all along. We also dispute whether or not the actual structure constitutes a trailer under the terms of the Winter Springs city code. Chairperson Schneider told Mr. Steiner that was an issue he needed to take up with the city commission. Mr. Lang said that it has been directed to us; the city commission has interpreted their code. However, they did it to say that these buildings (whether they are mobile offices, trailers, or buildings) fall underneath this section of the code which is defined trailers. That was the way these buildings were put in place, and I realize that it was a predecessor in interest, but the predecessor in interest cooperated in reaching that conclusion so that this could be done. We can't go back and reverse all those decisions that have been made, so as far as this board is concerned, they have been told by the city commission they are to treat this as an exception under that specific provision of the code that deals with trailers. They can't reverse the city commission and tell them that this is not a trailer. You may convince the city commission to do something else and send it back to us, but this board is not in the position to do that because the permit as issued said it's an exception under a specific provision of the code, the city commission has accepted that exception meaning that they will live by it and has given someone two years in which to have that temporary building. This board can't do anything else other than to say that two year period has expired and these trailers at this point are not validly permitted. Mr. Gray said, looking back through all the correspondence between the previous owners and the city, they all mention a temporary office trailer. There shouldn't be any question as to what we are talking about here. Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Steiner said that under their permit it cites this section of the code for its authority. In fact if you look at the 1987 application there is no expiration date on that, although on all prior permits there were. Mr. Lang said he was trying to be funny here, not fictitious. The Catch 22 may become if you convince somebody that this isn't a trailer because then you have a building structure that under the code you cannot occupy because it's not in compliance with the building code. Then you're going to be out of a building and it's going to be sitting there. I'm not telling you what you ought to do because that is a decision you will have to make, but when you start talking about Catch 22 you may be leading yourself into a Catch 22 if you try and get the determination that this isn't a trailer such that it falls within the exception. Mrs. Lyzen said that one of the letters states "Tuscawilla Single Family Home Sales Office". Mr. Lang said that this has been called everything in the universe, but the fact is that it has always been approved under section 20-412 Trailer Uses and that is the permit in existence. Chairperson Schneider added, that's the section of the code the city by policy uses for temporary structures. Captain Pieper stated that since 1981 when the Winter Springs Development Corp. would hold their Tuscawilla collection of model homes this particular structure has gone from Benita Wood Drive to White Dove Drive to Superior Court to Seneca Blvd. until it finally came to rest at Northern Way and Winter Springs Blvd. Each of those location changes had the approval of the city commission under 20-412, and all are on file in the archives in City Hall in minutes from the city commission meetings. It's the same thing from 1981 until today.(the same building) Mr. Steiner said contrary to what Captain Pieper said, we are not citing you in the way he used it, as doing anything to us, we realize that and leave that to his own wording, Mr. Steiner doesn't believe he used it in that manner. Captain Pieper said that was the way he interpreted what Mr. Steiner said. Mr. Holzman said, Finding the Fact in the case ofCEB#94-464 of the City of Winter springs, the Code Enforcement Board has read the complaint filed and the 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 Tuscawilla Realty in violation of Section 20-412 of the code of the City of Winter Springs, and that an appropriate relief order be issued at this meeting. Mrs. Lyzen seconded. Vote: Lurene Lyzen, Aye; Bob Gray, Aye; Lloyd Anderson, Aye; Charles Holzman, Aye; Anne Schneider, Aye. Motion Carried. Mr. Holzman motioned to find property in violation of city code is cited by the code board inspector with the following conditions: 1) Sixty days from the date of code board orders for violator to come into compliance for staff recommendations the violator may come into compliance if violator obtains permission for trailer or mobile offices from the city commission. 2) That a fine of$250.00 per day for each day that this violation is in violation passed the sixtieth day. Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Gray said he felt the fine was way out ofline, personally. The intent here was to get them to come into compliance by dealing with the city. A grace period of sixty days beginning immediately gives them two meetings in June and one in July. Chairperson Schneider asked Mr. Gray ifit was the fine or the grace period. Mr. Gray said the fine bothers him. Mr. Lang explained that the fine would start on the sixty first day if there was either no permit issued so that they could be there, or the building was not removed. Mr. White asked, Suppose the commission allows them to be heard in July, and they have maybe one or two days left and the commission says "no"? He added that he was not trying to reword the motion, but is trying to look ahead in all fairness. Mr. Lang suggested, to the board that is something the city council has to deal with. If the commission thinks they should give them another ninety days to remove the building then they ought to give them a ninety day permit in order to get the building out of there. If it's an onerous order, they have the right to take us into court and try to enjoin the city. They're going to have the right to appeal and try and stay the order if they are not happy with what they get. I don't think you all should try and contemplate where Mr. String is going to be at the end of the sixty days right now. I don't disagree with considering the fine, if you're uncomfortable with the per diem, obviously that's a number that you pick, but I think if you try and give them additional time, you are going to put yourself in a position where you are constantly chasing your tail because every time you put a number of days on there, there is always going to be a period when it's going to come to an end and you can say "what if'. I think you need to draw the line, and say at the sixtieth day the city commission has to deal with this question. Captain Pieper said the sixty days from today would rougWy be the 15th of July and there are city commission meetings on May 22, June 12, June 19 and July 10. Obviously, May 22 is Monday so you won't be able to get on that agenda, but there are still three additional meetings where the item could be heard by the commission. Mrs. Lyzen asked Mr. Gray ifhe was comfortable with the fine. Mr. Gray said you can look at it two ways: Lower it if you are just trying to allow them this opportunity because it's not really a problem; or you raise it if you think it's a major problem that we have to get rid of this building. I don't see what benefit the city gains by eliminating this building. Chairperson Schneider said, I think what you are saying is that it's not an eye sore, it's not a health hazard, that it is not something that has to be removed. Mr. Gray said that two hundred and fifty isn't really going to matter anyway with their resources. Chairperson Schneider asked Mr. Gray for a suggestion. Mr. Gray replied, maybe more like fifty dollars a day just to give it some number. Normally the fine is suppose to entice the person into coming into compliance and any number we put on this is not going to cause this to happen unless we make this a thousand dollars a day or more. Don't believe we can go that high anyway. Seems to me that the course of action should be-give them a reasonable time to come in front of the city, give them a minimum type of fine per day, and see what the city does. Chairperson Schneider disagreed. If the number is too low, I'm afraid that the city may not work with such diligence as I would hope in this case. Code Enforcement Board May 16, 1995 Page 14 Captain Pieper speaks strictly hypothetically, not to cast any aspersions or imply anything, but as a policy it would seem to me that if you apply a minimum fine per day, that some operations might construe this as the cost of doing business and it will cost us X amount of money to correct the violation or it would cost us X amount of money to keep the violation and pay the fines. The cheaper way out is the fines. By statute, $250.00 is the maximum, unless this is brought back to the board for a repeat violation and then you can go as high as $500.00. Mr. Gray asked if the board had the leeway to set their own fines. He thought that was a guideline. Captain Pieper answered no, and tonight the highest you could go is $250.00. Chairperson Schneider stated that the motion that was made stands sixty days from tonight and a fine of $250.00 per day after the sixty first day. Mrs. Lyzen seconded. Vote: Anne Schneider, Aye; Charles Holzman, Aye; Lloyd Anderson, Aye; Bob Gray, Aye; Lurene Lyzen, Aye. Motion Carried. Chairperson Schneider adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.