Loading...
11-21-1996 CI {.:;-',.C\J'!I"'\....., "-' ..., CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZEN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 21 , 1996 COMMUNITY CENTER 5:30 p.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Anthony Fowler called to order the regular meeting of the Citizen Code Enforcement Board at 5:30 p.m., Thursday, November 21, 1996. ROLL CALL: Members present were Chairman Anthony Fowler, George Cowan, Frank Roberts, Maureen Bomer, Joan Strong, and Dennis Vincenzi. Also present were Beverly Kinney-Johnson, Code Enforcement Officer; Krista A. Storey, City Attorney; Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development; Kyle Fegley, City Engineer; Attorneys Glen Storch and Robert Thurlow; and Liz McBride, Board Coordinator. Donald Schmidt was recorded absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mrs. Bomer moved to accept the minutes of October 17, 1996, seconded by Mrs. Strong. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Messrs. Roberts and Vincenzi did not attend the October 17, 1996 meeting, therefore, abstained. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES: Chairman Fowler requested Beverly Kinney-Johnson, Code Enforcement Officer, and anyone else with statements or comments pertaining to any of the cases, stand and be sworn in. Mrs. Johnson; Judy Lichter, 826 Navigators Way, Edgewater, FL; Richard Martinez, 317 Schooner Avenue, Edgewater, FL; Judy and Richard Wilson, 20 Plumwood Road, BriarcliffManor, NY; Marty Berge, Managing Partner with Edgewater Landing, Edgewater, FL; Marianne Williams, Air Park Road, Edgewater, FL; and Ward Berg, on behalf of the Ranken Drive Homeowners Association were sworn in at this time. CASES IN COMPLIANCE/CONTINUEDIWITHDRA WN: * 96-CE-0591, C. Jeannette King & Timothy P. Blankenship, in compliance * 96-CE-0731, C. Jeannette King & Timothy P. Blankenship, in compliance UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1, Case # 96-CE-0235 A&B - Thad Sizemore, Jr. & Ranken Drive Homeowner's Association c/o Ward T. Berg. Mr. Sizemore requesting to address the Board on the DEP's findings, and issues relating specifically to the two berms in question. (Sections 9.5-38, Edgewater Code of Ordinances and 704, Land Development Code.) Due to Thad Sizemore's absence, Ward Berg, President of Ranken Drive Homeowner's Association addressed the Board. Mr. Berg 'w' .."" Citizen Code Enforcement Board Minutes - November 21, 1996 Page -2- summarized the case, stating that when Mr. Sizemore met with Kyle Fegley, City Engineer, he thought they had reached a workable solution. Mr. Berg felt Mr. Sizemore complied with what Mr. Fegley originally asked him to do. He said there was a question of how the berms were measured. He said there was a reference to taking six feet off the top of the berms to bring the height down and sloping the edges, and also a reference to the height being 3.4 feet up from a reference point. Mr. Berg then said the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) got involved because some pieces of asphalt were in the dirt used to make the berms. He said it was his understanding that Mr. Sizemore spoke with the DEP, and that an agreement was reached on the removal of the asphalt. Mr. Berg then referred to an October 29, 1996 letter from Mr. Sizemore which asked the Board to allow the height of the berms to be 4.4 feet (one foot higher than what Mr. Fegley indicated). The letter also stated wax myrtles would be planted on top of the berms and sod on the western slope, and six indigenous plants would be planted on the west side. The letter also stated if the Board agreed to the 4.4 feet, Mr. Sizemore would have the modifications completed within seven days from November 21,1996. Mr. Roberts recalled this case was tabled until hearing from the DEP, and stated no report had been provided. Krista Storey, City Attorney, said Mr. Fegley had been in contact with the DEP and could comment. Mr. Fegley referred to an October 2, 1996 letter from Dan Morrical of the DEP which defined what was clean and what was not clean debris. It was determined asphalt did not meet the criteria for "clean debris" and therefore, should be removed and properly disposed of within fifteen (15) days from October 2, 1996. Mr. Fegley said nothing had been done to date on the berms. He said he spoke to Chris, a compliance officer with the Central District ofDEP, who indicated Mr. Sizemore requested an extension of time, which was granted until the end of November. Mr. Fegley said Chris wanted to be at the site to observe removal of the asphalt. It was Mr. Fegley's opinion that in order to observe the extent of the contaminated material, both piles of dirt would have to be removed down to the grade. He then said from that point, why not just bring it up to the recommended 3.4 feet, grade it 3: 1 slope, plant the sod and vegetation on top and be done with it. Mr. Roberts felt the Board could not reach a decision until Mr. Sizemore was in compliance with the DEP. Mr. Fegley said the property was not in compliance. Mr. Roberts then said the case was at the same point as the September meeting. Ms. Storey explained the DEP indicated what they required, and that Mr. Sizemore was asking the Board to modify its (the Board's) previous Order. Discussion followed on the fill permit and recommended restoration procedures. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Berg why Mr. Sizemore would want to spend more money to increase the height of the berms. After speaking to Mr. Sizemore, Mr. Berg said he was under the impression that all that needed to be done was to sift through the dirt to removed the material in question. Chairman Fowler questioned Mr. Sizemore's thought process in this matter. Mr. Berg said he couldn't answer for Mr. Sizemore, but in his opinion they did what was required and should not have to take one foot off the berms now. Mr. Berg felt it was now a personality thing between Mr. Sizemore and Mr. Fegley. Discussion continued on the required procedures, the interpretation of them and the height of the berm on the adjacent property. ....., Citizen Code Enforcement Board Minutes - November 21,1996 Page -3- Attorney Glen Storch, speaking on behalf of Edgewater Landing, couldn't understand why Mr. Sizemore wanted to put up an extra foot. He then read the Board's July 18, 1996 Order, and said according to that Order, the Violator still had not complied and thought the fine was still accruing. Krista Storey, City Attorney, said since the Board continued this matter at its September 19, 1996 meeting, the fines stopped at that point. Mr. Storch said he would like the Board to find a solution to put Mr. Sizemore in compliance at this meeting, and make a determination of an appropriate fine. Placement of the berms for security reasons was then discussed. ....... Chairman Fowler asked Richard Wilson (citizen wanting to purchase adjacent property in Edgewater Landing) if the piles of dirt were there when he made an offer to purchase his lot. Mr. Wilson answered no, and that he had submitted photographs showing it to be an open area. The Chairman then asked if Mr. Wilson had a problem with the berms being 4.4 feet. Mr. Storch responded that he felt the question was how the berms would look. He said since Mr. Sizemore was not present and able to tell the Board what he would do, it would be difficult to come up with a solution. Mr. Roberts moved to freeze Case #96-CE-0235A&B until Mr. Sizemore was available to personally address some issues, seconded by Mrs. Bomer. Motion CARRIED 5-1. Chairman Fowler voted no. 2. Case #96-CE-OI52 - Robert S. Thurlow on behalf of Marianne Williams, owner of House of Gold. Mr. Thurlow requesting an appearance before the Board to protest the procedures used in levying the fines, in imposing the lien, and related issues. Robert Thurlow, Bolt, Spence & Hall, P.A., New Smyrna Beach, FL, on behalf of Marianne Williams, House of Gold, summarized past events, and fines being imposted because offalse alarms. He presented letters to the Board that were sent to Ms. Williams indicating dates of those false alarms. Mr. Thurlow said "we" received a call on October 1, 1996, to pay a $500 fine to the City Clerk or the lien would be imposed. He said Ms. Williams's landlord sold the property and was due to close within a few days, and if the lien was not cleared, there would be legal problems. Mr. Thurlow stated the fine was then paid under protest. Mr. Thurlow distributed and read the ordinances pertaining to the calculation of the fines and the distribution of some notices. He stated he thought the code enforcement process exceeded the authority given it by the City Council in the ordinance and resolution that applied, therefore, making the Board's actions void. He proceeded to read the ordinances and a resolution, and gave his interpretation. Mr. Thurlow referenced the first three false alarms in a six-month period as being free. His determination of a six-month period was January to June and July to December. He circulated six alarm reports signed by the reporting officer that were left at House of Gold. He commented on the areas marked weather condition and remarks on the form, and then said he did not believe any of the false alarms were investigated. Mr. Thurlow concluded the fines were not calculated properly, and Ms. Williams should be refunded $690 from the City. He also asked the ordinance be followed by having the Police Chief make the false alarm determination in writing, or by having the City Council change the ordinance. Mr. Vmcenzi said the Board had previous discussions on establishing fines and asked Ms. Storey to explain again. Ms. Storey said the ordinance states any six-month period, and did not say any six- month period from January 1 to June 30, and July 1 to December 31 and start allover again. She said when this ordinance was presented to City Council, it clearly indicated the intent was any six-month period. Ms. Storey said no where in the ordinance did it say you would continue to get free false ~ ...., Citizen Code Enforcement Board Minutes - November 21, 1996 Page -4- alarms in every six-month period. Ms. Storey stated she did not agree with Mr. Thurlow's interpretation. Chairman Fowler made it clear that the City, not the Board, levied the fines on Ms. Williams. He also stated that the Board is strictly a voluntary group of citizens who are trying to better the community, not attorneys. The Chairman said Ms. Storey, as the Board's advisor, advised the Board of her interpretation of said ordinance, and if Mr. Thurlow had been the city attorney, he may have advised the Board differently. Chairman Fowler asked Mr. Thurlow his purpose for coming before Board. Mr. Thurlow reiterated his intention. Mr. Vincenzi felt the Board needed to go by what Ms. Storey advised, as to how the ordinance was intended and what it meant. He felt based on that advice, the Board calculated the fines properly. Mr. Vincenzi moved in reference to Case Number 96-CE-0 152 that the fines imposed so far stand, and the method of calculating the fines stand, and same method to remain until the City Council reviews and/or changes any ordinances, seconded by Mrs. Strong. Motion CARRIED 6-0. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Case #96-CE-0578 - Ray & Burma Fisher. Discarded signage, metal, chairs and other items on property, Section 717.03. Tent sales not permitted, Section 606.01(b). Code Enforcement Officer Beverly Kinney-Johnson reported first observing violations on the property September 17, 1996. She said during an inspection on September 20, 1996, she observed an additional violation and all were to be corrected by October 3, 1996. She noted that the October 2, 1996 New Smyrna Penny Saver advertised a Tent Sale, to be held at the property on October 2, 1996. Ms. Johnson said Chris of Fisher' s Auction called the office on October 10, 1996, informing staff assistant Liz McBride the tent had been taken down and the property had been cleaned up. Ms. Johnson reinspected the property November 21, 1996, and found some items had been removed but the tent frame was still up. A photograph was presented to the Board for review. In reference to the tent frame, Ms. Johnson recommended the Violator be found to have been in violation and ordered to refrain from future violations or risk enforcement action as a repeat violation. In reference to discarded items, Ms. Johnson recommended the Violator be given until December 1, 1996 to correct the violation or a fine of$100.00 per day be imposed. Questions related to Section 606.01(b) were discussed. Mrs. Bomer, after hearing the testimony presented and the recommendation of staff, moved in reference to Case Number 96-CE-0578 that a violation of Section 606.01(b) of the Edgewater Zoning Ordinance did occur and the alleged Violator committed the violation. The Violator is hereby ordered to refrain from future violations. Failure to keep the property in compliance may result in enforcement action as a repeat violation, in which case a fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed from the date the repeat violation is found to have occurred by the code enforcement officer. Mrs. Bomer also moved that a violation of Section 717.03 of the Edgewater Zoning Ordinance does exist and the alleged Violator has committed the violation. After considering the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the Violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by ... ....., Citizen Code Enforcement Board Minutes - November 21,1996 Page -5- the Violator, further moved that the Violator be given until December 1, 1996 to correct the violation and that a fine of$100.00 be imposed for each day the violation continues past that date, seconded by Mr. Cowan. Motion CARRIED 5-1. Mr. Roberts voted no. 2. Case #96-CE-0631 - William J. O'Donnell, Jr. and Dorothy Uhlman, Trustees. Weeds in excess of twelve (12") inches on property, Section 10-91. Code Enforcement Officer Beverly Kinney-Johnson reported she first observed the violation on October 7, 1996, and was to be corrected by October 19, 1996. Ms. Johnson inspected the property on October 21, 1996, and found no corrective action had taken place. Photographs were presented to the Board for review. Upon Ms. Johnson's reinspection of the property on November 21, 1996, she observed no corrective action had taken place and recommended the Violator be given until December 1, 1996 to correct the violation or a fine of$50.00 per day be imposed. Mrs. Borner, after hearing the testimony presented and the recommendation of staff, moved in reference to Case Number 96-CE-0631 that a violation of Section 10-91 of the Edgewater Code of Ordinances does exist and the alleged Violator has committed the violation. After considering the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the Violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the Violator, further moved that the Violator be given until December 1, 1996 to correct the violation and that a fine of$50.00 be imposed for each day the violation continues past that date, seconded by Mrs. Strong. Motion CARRIED 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Section 606.01(b) was further discussed. CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made and accepted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7: 12 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Elizabeth J. McBride, Board Coordinator Citizen Code Enforcement Board c:\ceb\minutes\112196.reg