Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 02 19 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEBRUARY 19, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to Order Pled2e of Alle2iance The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 19, 1998, by Chairman Ken Haines in the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). The Pledge of Allegiance followed. 2. Roll Call Ken Haines, Chairman, present Bob Gray, present Anne Schneider, present Marc Clinch, absent Lurene Lyzen, present Joanne Krebs, present Jim DeGore, arrived at 7:05 p.m. Also Present Jimette S. Cook, Code Enforcement Officer Michael 1. Scheraldi, Building Inspector 3. Approval of the January 20. 1998 Re2ular Meetin2 Minutes It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes as written. Vote: Schneider: abstain; Gray: aye; Clinch: absent; Haines: aye; Krebs: aye; DeGore: absent; Lyzen: aye. Motion passed. Board Member Jim DeGore arrived at 7:05 p.m. Chairman Ken Haines asked about setting aside some time to discuss codes, as a Board. He asked if this should be done tonight, or at another meeting in the future, and there was discussion whether this is something that should be publicly advertised. It was decided that the Board would put this on the agenda for another meeting so that it could be properly advertised. Code Enforcement Officer Jimette S. Cook introduced new Board Member, Jim DeGore (who was appointed by the Commission to replace former Board Member Kitty Reilly who recently resigned from this Board) to those in attendance at tonight's meeting. Chairman Haines then asked Mr. DeGore to tell the other Board Members a little about his background, and Mr. DeGore did. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEBRUAI~Y 19, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 2 OF 6 At the Chairman's request, witnesses for tonight's testimony were sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk. 4. Case #CEB-98-014 D.R. Horton, Inc. Location: Greenbriar at Northern Way Section 16-53, Unpermitted Signs Ms. Cook presented this case which involves a sign (without a permit). There was discussion as to how long this sign might have been in this location; whether there ever was a permit for this sign; and have there been any public safety problems because of this sIgn. Chairman Haines asked if there had been any problems with the sign? Ms. Cook responded that there have not been any problems (other than there not being a permit for the sign). Board Member Jim DeGore asked if there was a way that D.R. Horton could move the sign to get their market value out of their sign? Ms. Cook said that they couldn't, and she elaborated on the status of such "temporary" signs. Mr. Wayne Spears, Sales Manager for the Orlando Division ofD.R. Horton, Inc. spoke to the Board regarding his understanding of this case. He explained that because of the actual location of the Greenbriar subdivision, that a sign explaining how to get to the property location is very important. He further stated that when D.R. Horton, Inc. took "The property out of the...the bankruptcy courts when we purchased it, we made very clear to us that we had signage rights on this Tract F, that we owned that as part of the purchase...that we would purchase Tract F...and that at that Tract F, we had signage rights. If there were no signage rights at that location, we wouldn't... probably not have purchased the property... 'cause it's a.. .it's... tucked back there and if people can't find it... they can't find the product - it's very hard to move the rest of the existing property" . Board member Anne Schneider asked Mr. Spears if he was "Aware of the two year time limit"? Mr. Spears said that he was not. Mr. Spears then said that a permit had been pulled on June 13, 1994, but that he did not have a copy of it. There was discussion regarding this permit. Ms. Cook explained that there was a similar sign pulled by D.R. Horton for the location of Old White Way and Greenbriar Lane, but that it had expired in August of 1997. Mr. Spears asked if Section 16-86 of our Code would apply to this matter. Several Board Members commented that it would still have to be approved, and that such a request should still be applied for - through the City's Building Department. Mr. Spears spoke of possibly getting a variance, and Chairman Haines responded that that would be a different matter, and one which would need to be approved by the City Commission, and not by this Board. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEBRUARY 19, 1998 - REGULAl~ MEETING PAGE 3 OF 6 There was discussion as to "Tract F" and if it is being developed or offered for sale. It was confirmed that it was not being developed or offered for sale. Ms. Cook mentioned that Mr. Spears had said that he would like to consult with his Attorney regarding installing an identification sign at the location in question. There were further comments regarding whether a permit had been obtained from the Building Department. Finding of Fact: In the case of the Code Enforcement Board's Number 98- 014, the City of Winter Springs, the Code Enforcement Board has read the complaint meeting, the sworn testimony of the Code Inspector and other parties involved in this case. Based on these proceedings, I move that D.R. Horton, Inc. (Greenbriar at Northern Way) is in violation of Section 16-53 of the Code of the City of Winter Springs, and that an appropriate Relief Order be issued at this meeting. Moved by Lurene Lyzen. Seconded by Bob Gray. Vote: Gray: aye; Krebs: aye; Haines: aye; DeGore: aye; Lyzen: aye; Clinch: absent; Schneider: aye. Motion passed. Relief Order: In the case of the Code Enforcement Board Number C.E.B. 98-014 of the City of Winter Springs, D.R. Horton, Inc. having beenfound to be in violation of Section 16-53 of the Code of the City, I move that D.R. Horton, upon due notification by this Board, be given thirty (30) days to come into compliance with regard to this violation. If compliance is not achieved by that date, afine of $50.00 will be imposed, per day, until compliance is achieved, as verified by an officer of the City. Furthermore, any and all future reoccurrences (?f this violation after compliance has been achieved, will immediately cause the statedfine to be imposed until compliance is again achieved, as verified by an officer of the City. Since a representative from D.R. Horton is here tonight, and has heard the order of this Board, I further move that due notification has been given as of this meeting. Moved by Chairman Ken Haines. Seconded by Anne Schneider. Discussion. Vote: Lyzen: aye; Schneider: aye; Krebs: aye; Clinch: absent; DeGore: aye; Gray: aye Haines: aye. Motion passed. 5. Case #CEB-98-042 Location: 108 Holiday Lane Stephen & Michelle Cosat Section 6-217, Fence (Pool Enclosure) Code Inspector Cook introduced Michael 1. Scheraldi, Building Inspector for the City of Winter Springs, and explained that this particular case involved a fence which is being used as a pool enclosure, and that in this type of case, all sides of the fence must be "good side out" - as a safety precaution. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEBRUARY 19, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 4 OF 6 Ms. Cook presented several photographs as documentation, and a timeline of the events that have taken place was explained to the Board. Building Inspector Michael 1. Scheraldi explained some of the events that transpired, including that three (3) of the four (4) sides have been correctly changed to show the "good side out"; however, the one remaining portion of the Cosats' fence still needs to be changed. (Note: The remaining side that still needs to be changed is the side directly next to their neighbor's fence). There was discussion as to a fence being installed "good side out" versus "bad side out". Mr. and Mrs. Cosat then explained their position in this case, and answered questions. Michelle Cosat stated that "The portion of the fence that remains in violation, is in violation because it cannot be turned around - because of the neighbor's wood fence that is in the way". There was much discussion about how this portion of the fence could be changed, external footholds, liabilities, and why the City cannot final out this building permit. David Nubar, representing Prestige Fence Company (as a Consultant, and former owner of Prestige Fence Company) was sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk. Mr. Nubar said that Prestige Fence Company was not aware that the City had a "good side out" ordinance that pertained to pools. He further suggested several ways to re-install this type of "board on board" fence so that it would meet code. There was further discussion regarding the suggested solutions presented by Prestige Fence Company. Mr. Nubar stated that "I'm here tonight because I do support their argument, the fact that there is no accessibility to their house, whatsoever". He further explained that he thought that the way the Code was written, that it was vague and that if the neighbor's fence did fall down, that the Cosat's fence would not be in violation. There was further discussion about possible solutions to this fence problem. Finding of Fact: In the case of C.E.B. 98-042, of the City of Winter Springs, the Code Enforcement Board has read the complaint filed and the written information prepared by the Code Inspector, and heard at this meeting, the sworn testimony of the Code Inspector and other parties involved in this case. Based upon these proceedings, I move that Stephen and Michelle Cosat of 108 Holiday Lane, Winter Springs, Florida is in violation of Section 6-217 of the Code of the City of Winter Springs, and that an appropriate Relief Order be issued at this meeting. Moved by Joanne Krebs. Seconded by Bob Gray. Vote: DeGore: aye; Clinch: absent; Gray: aye; Lyzen: aye; Haines: aye; Schneider: aye; Krebs: aye. Motion passed. Relief Order: In the case of the C.E.B. 98-042 of the City of Winter Springs, Stephen and Michelle Cosat having been found to be in violation of Section 6-217 MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEBRUARY 19, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 5 OF 6 of the Code of the City, I move that Stephen and Michelle Cosat, upon due notification by this Board, be given thirty (30) days to come into compliance with regard to this violation. If compliance is not achieved by that date, a fine of $100.00 will be imposed, per day, until compliance is achieved, as verified by an officer of the City. Furthermore, any and all future reoccurrences of this violation after compliance has been achieved, will immediately cause the stated fine to be imposed until compliance is again achieved, as verified by an officer of the City. Since Stephen and Michelle Cosat is present, and has heard the order of this Board, I further move that due notification has been given as of this meeting. Moved by Chairman Ken Haines. Seconded by Joanne Krebs. Discussion. Vote: Krebs: aye; DeGore: aye; Lyzell: aye; Schneider: aye; Gray: aye; Haines: aye; Clinch: absent. Motion passed. In other business, Ms. Cook spoke to the Board about setting up a Code Enforcement seminar and she explained to the Board about a discussion she recently had with the City's Attorney. She said "We had some questions about issuing relief orders, when we haven't found someone in non-compliance. If...if somebody is a reoccurring problem, and they come into compliance by the date that we give them, can we still bring them up to the Board, and say look, this...this character...you know...just keeps messing up. Can you fine them? We can't do that. You have...you have to give somebody a time to come into compliance - February 16th. If they do what you've asked them to do on February 16th, and the Board Hearing isn't until the 30th, but they've fixed it by the 16th. You can't bring them back on...you can't hear the case on the 30th. You have...they're...they're in compliance". She further added, "There are additional means for enforcement, other than the Code Enforcement Board to meet...to meet that...that need - the citation. The citation program is one that's heard in the county court system. And also...a new forum...a Notice to Appear - that the Code Enforcement Officer's can actually issue a Notice to Appear, and if...you know there's certain criteria for that; so...unfortunately, you're not able to issue a Relief Order if you haven't found somebody in non-compliance". Ms. Cook also informed the Board when other cities hold their Code Enforcement Board meetings, and provided the Board with this information in writing. Ms. Cook also gave the Board a chart that showed the current status of the Code Enforcement caseload. Next, there was discussion about when the Board Members would be interested in having a Code Enforcement seminar, and that such a meeting would probably last about three (3) hours. The dates that were suggested: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 - 6:00 p.m., or as an alternative, Wednesday, April 1, 1998 - 6:00 p.m. (Due to the hour that they were to meet, the Board asked if dinner could be provided). There was further discussion about the proposed class/seminar. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEBl~UARY 19, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 6 OF 6 Board Member Schneider next spoke about problems she had with the City's Building Department. Discussion about this matter. There was also discussion about various Ordinances, and how they were written. Chairman Haines asked that the Board Members be notified of the actual date for the Code Enforcement Class/seminar, as soon as it is known. Ms. Schneider asked about the courtesy telephone in the lobby, and if it could be available on meeting nights. 6. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Haines at 8:50 p.m. with consensus of the Board. Minutes respectfiilly submitted by: Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, Deputy City Clerk City Of Winter Springs, Florida DOCS/boards/codeenfo/ty9798/minules/021998.doc