The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013 08 27 Public Hearing 502.1 WS-1 Code Enforcement Division POLICE 4r.-'6•NIL y IOGII4 Case Number 13-0029107 221 N. Third Street Angelo Sanchez and Raquel Tavares IPMC 304-5 Foundation Walls in Need of Repair IPMC 304.6 Exterior Walls in Need of Repair IPMC 304.15 Exterior Doors in Need of Repair IPMC 304.13 Windows in Need of Repair IPMC 304.13.2 Inoperable Windows ; .5 ,� , � Code Enforcement Division POLICE ria�ios ► Case Number 13-0029107 221 N. Third Street Angelo Sanchez_and Raquel Tavares (continued) WS Ordinance 6-195 Fence in Need of Repair WS Ordinance 6-166 Unsafe Structure Date of Service: April 23, 2013 Inspector B. West ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE ria�ios ► ice • On April 17, 2013, I received a complaint from the tenant at this residence of several violations which she claimed the landlord was refusing to repair. She invited me onto the property where I made the following observations: • An exterior wall at the rear of the house was covered with plastic and other materials. The tenant said the owner did this to cover large holes where the wall had rotted away. The tenant peeled away a corner to show me holes in the wall which exposed insulation and wall studs as well as the sheet rock which makes up the interior wall. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE v 11011,1611 4,11 10 • The wood siding all around the foundation at the rear of the house was rotted away so that holes in some areas were large enough to allow rodents access to the interior of the house. • A wooden fence at the rear of the property was falling down and missing slats. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE HOWL ice • I was shown a hole in another exterior wall where the drain pipe from a washing machine exited. Effluent from this pipe had eroded the ground next to and under the building's foundation. The foundation appeared to be cracking and there were stones in place in an apparent attempt to prop up the foundation. • I next observed an exterior door to the residence which was missing one of the panes in the jalousie windows. The tenant demonstrated for me that the door also did not have a working lock. With the door in this condition, the tenant was unable to secure her residence. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE HOWL • On another exterior door, I observed that the glass in the lower half of a window had been replaced with very thin clear plastic which was duct taped to the window frame. This prevented the window from being raised and the plastic could be pushed in with just finger pressure. • The door frame was rotted and cracked in the area of the lower hinge. The condition of the window and door also prevented the tenant from securing her home. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE v HOWL • I was then asked to inspect an adjacent wooden storage building and carport cover. I observed rotted support beams throughout the overhead portion. These were so deteriorated one could see completely through the beams in places. When pushed by hand, the entire structure would sway. • Doors to the attached storage room were rotted away at the bottom and swollen from water damage to the degree that they could not be closed. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE v HOWL • On April 23, 2013, a notification of these code violations was mailed to the property owner by Certified and First Class mail. Due to the extensive repairs needed, I asked the property owner to contact me to discuss the case. The Certified letter was returned unclaimed after two attempts by the USPS to deliver it. ios*,`fit sno , a Code Enforcement Division ' LIES HOWL • On April 28, 2013, I received a call from the property owner, Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez complained about receiving the letter and said that Code Enforcement and Winter Springs had no jurisdiction over his property. When I tried to address the violations, Mr. Sanchez would not let me speak. Mr. Sanchez complained that he had an agreement with the tenant that they would make the repairs and they had not done so. He told me again that Code Enforcement had no right to enter his property and no authority over him. He stated that he had no intention of making any repairs, that I would be hearing from his attorney and hung up sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE HOWL • On May 1 , 2013, Lt. Terry Baker reported that he had received a phone call from Mr. Sanchez. Their conversation was much the same as the one I had; Mr. Sanchez felt we had no business being involved, that he had no intention of making any repairs and that he would have his attorney contact us. „**,`fit , a Code Enforcement Division POLICE v 110101 ► • On May 1 , 2013, based on these two conversations and the fact that the first letter had only asked to discuss the repairs needed, I sent, by Certified and First Class mail, a formal Notice of Code Violation to the property owners advising them that I would bring this case before the Code Board if repairs were not made. They were given 10 days to correct the violations. • On May 21 , 2013, the Certified was returned after two attempts at delivery by the LISPS. sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE v HOWL • On May 8, 2013, I received a phone call from Mr. Sanchez wherein he repeated his assertion that the city did not have authority over his property, that neither I no any other Code Enforcement Officer was allowed on his property and the tenant had no authority to allow us on the property. He stated that his attorney and "the court" had informed him we had no authority. He refused to discuss making repairs. The rest of the conversation followed much the same pattern as previous conversations. sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE HOWL • On May 19, 2013, I spoke with the tenant, Ms. Ressy, and asked if Mr. Sanchez had made any repairs. She said he had not. • On June 10, 2013, Mr. Sanchez was notified by Certified and Fir Class mail that this case was to be presented to the code board on the 25th of June 2013 .' The property was posted and all other required notification requirements were met. The Certified mail was returned unclaimed. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE v ria�ios ► 4,11 10 • On June 5, 2013, Capt. Deisler returned a phone call from Mr. Sanchez. As reported by Capt. Deisler, the conversation was essentially the same as our other contacts with Mr. Sanchez. ; .5 sno, , , Code Enforcement Division POLICE HOWL • On or about June 17, 2013, Mr. Sanchez came in to speak with Capt. Deisler. During that conversation, Capt. Deisler told Mr. Sanchez we would postpone the Code Board hearing on this case for one month to allow him time to complete repairs. Mr. Sanchez was asked to keep us informed on the progress. • Since that time we have heard nothing from Mr. Sanchez. There are new tenants in the house now who have told me that Mr. Sanchez covered up the holes in the wall with black plastic so they could not be seen but no repairs have been made. „**.5 t , a Code Enforcement Division POLICE v ria�ios ► • Notification of this code board hearing was mailed to the owners by Certified and First Class on August 9, 2013 . Notice was posted on the property on the same date. Code Enforcement Division POLIO v 110111101 , • 1111. 111111 ; .5P , s Code Enforcement Division POLIO 1100101 e ice 1 " 11110.111111 •1 ; .5 ,� , � Code Enforcement Division POU€F ,., v Lrr, 11011,101 tilti, ...111100 Alt I! • i ' ..04111i ,_.4, _ __. 4,1.! ktr- : ,e E i • l' :!!11:41 ‘ .0.1 is tFt 4L I1 i L, ail _A *l'R Sno, , � Code Enforcement Division li(PNos a 411161 ; .11:6 ;r • :t , ji ' j :. =- • . =, f•� -. - 4 - -. 'A , :,.; . . M1} li t•` Vet aE ' }, i {? ; .5 ,i , c, Code Enforcement Division gov- i-� err .4 v ria111ios • ..fr. ■•••:''jet . } . •_ FV' 114- ' f- ?Ii.' il.: ..r,- PI I5 4Fit +' ` `�£` 1141 -hr.,. - *L�;� ' ., ba *# v : / *et y ti x44j r _ I'.. 1•* y. M /_ • •k r•~ Y s J! 1...0 e. ; tam' ' hi 4-''' '*-i.L'r.' , _'` ` #, F I .- t• 1.' • • f g . II . :71:4".11111Fit' L l'P--: .. T .A ' fry - / '#.,;h. + !I.•' •4� . j `/ J + ' +� f = Y ' _ ire r ;�.5it sno,, c Code Enforcement Division iila POU€F v r io ios 1 II • __•# ; • s �L. , , 1,. ... VII wok • Y. :.- ii. ..., . VW' L `" `t 4 . r. Li . , . ; .5P , s Code Enforcement Division POLIO v 1101111611 ► kfrisialasissta -_ 1p ; .5 ,� , � Code Enforcement Division er 110101 ► ,•e i■ } )15 k Code Enforcement Division POU€F 11011,1611 1.7ry • • • • v ti ; .5 ,� , � Code Enforcement Division iirP POU€F v 11011,101 iy 4;010 t k ditp if4 r' A Ali _ is. 3 iiir 11 I or ‘to _____L .. _ ..„...„,..,0- , _ . _ _ , , _ .. , , V1 lia + . • ....traiiiki _ __ ! ...._,4i-.' • _....mmoMMIIIIIID ' .' , ,# �} . , Code Enforcement Division POlICE v 11011,101 e Pr 1 01, \ [ •41111. I ME 0 ii■•■ii, milillikbi, ,..'r -: '*P ; .5 ,� , , Code Enforcement Division poLifeE v r i0ios ► • Ilir A *F i 11 - 110thi , r _ ull Is% Code Enforcement Division POLIO er v HOLM w 4.1 10 ice • • • r rte' f 40 4, '•�, -II µ1f' ; .5 ,� , s Code Enforcement Division POLIO v rioii ► * 4 iiiiiNa‘k ' — _ — , ! WIR .5p sn ,, , Code Enforcement Division POLIO v r ia11,ios ► 4,11 1 lo - NIA a4 ,-.. blurii‘ilik !Al* f 4 i ' ' 6 ' illik .. i ----> t j 1.44.4 1 ,, : . i iiirl, , 11 601.441P "At r ---mr., vow. : , r ‘ ,...._._ , Y~ a I i''e. i ; .5 ,� , s Code Enforcement Division POLIO v 11011,1611 ice • w�, ; .5 ,� , s Code Enforcement Division POLIO ,,, ,..:., v , ,.., 4,11 1 10 o hi tip0 P il, i 011 ; .5 snr , s Code Enforcement Division POLICE 1. trr ria�ios ► I recommend the owners be required to correct all violations, notify Code Enforcement and have the property re-inspected by September 16, 2013 . If the owners are subsequently found in non-compliance, I recommend a fine of $250.00 per day, retroactive to August 27, 2013 .