Loading...
01-16-2003 . =:.-::-. I J, J OCITYOFEDGEWATER 0 CITUENCODEENFORCEMENTBOARD REGULAR MEETING Thursday, January16, 2003 5:30 p.M. COMMUNITY CENTER ~S CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fowler called to order a regular meeting of the Citizen Code Enforcement Board at 5:30 p.m., Thursday, January 16, 2003 in the Community Center. ROLL CALL: Members present were: Chairman Anthony Fowler, Vice Chairman George Ann Keller, Ms. Joy Brindley, Ms. Linda Johnson, Mr. Glenn Barnhill, Mr. Ben DeINigro, and Mr. Ed Com Also present were Board Attorney Scott Cookson, Code Compliance Officer Angela DeSue, and Recording Secretary Lisa R Miller. Chairman Fowler welcomed the new members to the board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes for the regular meeting of September 19, 2002, were presented to the Board for approval. There being no corrections or changes, Ms. Johnson moved to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Brindley seconded Motion CARRIED 7-0. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES: Code Compliance Officer Angela DeSue, Assistant Utililities Director Brenda Johnson, Mr. James Burtner 2429 Unity Tree, and Mr. James Rives 2320 Yule Tree Drive were sworn in for testimony. CASES IN COMPLIANCE: No cases for the board's consideration at this time. NEW BUSINESS~UBLIC HEARINGS: Case #2002-CE-8038> Mr. James Burtner, 2429 Unity Tree Drive Parcel #8402-01-11-5470 Lots 11547, 11548 and S1/2 Lot 11549 INe EXC E 25 FT BLK372FLA SHORES NO 16MB 19 PG217 PER OR 3492PG 0604. Violation of Section 104.1 Permit Application, of the Standard Building Code. Upon inspection, the above residence was found to have structures constructed in the right of way or easement and was given thirty (30) days to remove said structures or supply a written appeal to the Code Enforcement Board to request a hearing. Mr. Burtner had appealed the notice of violation and requested a hearing. Chairman Fowler asked Mr. Burtner for his appeal. Mr. Burtner stated there were some things he didn't understand and he did not get a permit like he should have, but he had lived in this.house for 13 years. When he moved in the canal behind his house was quite a bit smaller and it has been enlarged two or three times since he has been there. He added he has maintained the canal behind his house with a machete, as there is an alligator back there and he has lost two dogs and a cat. Mr. Burtner stated he called the City and was told that it was his responsibility to protect himself from these kinds of animals. Mr. Burtner stated there were two basic reasons why he constructed what he did over a period of seven or eight years: 1) to stop erosion that is undermining his foundation and getting pretty close to his house, and 2) to protect his family. He stated the City came out and restored his neighbor's canal and what he has done is build a retaining wall to stop erosion. He added he had to stop the erosion as it is now coming up under his foundation. Mr. Burtner stated he now has a water leak: somewhere in his line, that everything has been checked on the City side and everything above ground has been checked. He believes that it may be under the foundation and that would be in direct relation to the erosion. . : .:' f.;i~ Code Enforcement Board 0 () .... . Janl181116, 2003 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. Burtner stated when the City had their mathine come down and dredge the canal, they didn't take it from the other side of the canal, they took it from his house side of the canal and it is undermining his property. Mr. Burtner stated that over the years offilling that in to stop the erosion he has been beautifying it. Mr. Burtner stated he did not come to the City to fix the problem, he did it himself Mr. Burtner stated that when he built his retaining wall some of the boards he put on top went over. He stated he was willing to compromise with the City to get this resolved. Mr. Burtner stated the canal behind his house ~as wider than any of the others in Florida Shores except the bigger lakes. He stated he had no idea a pennit was needed and agreed that he probably should have checked on it, but at the time he was just trying to protect his property and stop the erosion. Mr. Burtner provided pictures of his property for the Board. Chairman Fowler stated he was going to reserve some questions until he heard the City's side of the issue. Code Compliance Officer Angela DeSue stated that Code Enforcement was contacted by Public Works in February of2002 regarding a deck/dock built into the canal at 2429 Unity Tree Drive. There was no record of any permit being pulled for the work and it violated the 20 (twenty) foot set back rule. In March of2002 a survey was done of the property and it was received back in August of 2002. Code Compliance Officer DeSue stated she had taken pictures of the items in violation which included: a dock:, a fence, a pool not completely fenced in, a barbeque pit, a shed, and also some planters. There was discussion regarding the survey and where the property lines were and where the items in violation were located. Compliance Officer DeSue stated Mr. Burtner should have gotten a permit for all ofthese items. Contact was attempted with the owner on August 15th and on August 21st Code Compliance Officer Mike McGrath made contact with Mr. Burtner and explained to him the violations that were found. Mr. Burtner had explained to Officer McGrath at that time that he had built the dock to protect his property from further erosion On September 16th. a courtesy letter was mailed out to Mr. Burtner and on September 22nd there was a notice ofviolatiori. October 11st they received a letter from Mr. Burtner requesting an appeal hearing. Officer DeSue stated on November 13th a notice of violation was sent out. She added as of this date, none of these violations have been fixed and passed out photos to the Board that were taken that day. Attorney Cookson asked for clarification as to which of the violations were coming under the notice. Officer DeSue stated initially when they went out there it started with the dock issue. When it was researched and found that no permit had been pulled they went out to look at the situation and noticed other items that had been built without permits. Officer DeSue stated what they were looking for was to have the dock removed, the barbeque pit and the shed moved. Attorney Cookson asked if the dock encroached on the easement or on City property. Officer DeSue stated it encroached on the City's easement. Attorney Cookson asked who owns South of Mr. Burtner's property as the dock encroaches on the East and South side of his property. Officer DeSue stated she did not have that. information. There was discussion regarding the survey. Chairman Fowler asked Officer DeSue if the easement line has moved in the last 13 years. Officer DeSue stated she did not know. Chairman Fowler asked how far it was from the back of Mr. Burtner's house to the easement line. Chairman Fowler added he was trying to find out if Mr. Burtner had the same amount of back yard that he had when he purchased the house 13 years ago. Chairman Fowler wanted to know if the canal had been widened and ifit was coming close to encroaching on the easement line to the point ofbeingunstable. Chainnan Fowler asked if the deck that was constructed to help with the erosion in anyway causing any kind of blockage in the canal or any problems in the canal. Assistant Utilities Director Brenda Johnson stated she might be able to answer some of the questions. ". -'. .qtizen Code Enforcement Board U . -, JanUary 16,2003 - Minutes Page 3 Asst. Director Johnson stated that some of the questions Chairman Fowler was asking fall under her jurisdiction, which is to maintain the storm water syStem. She stated she couldn't answer what happened 13 years ago as she has only been in charge of it for the last 5 years. Asst. Director Johnson stated the canals in the City are constantly eroding that is just their nature as there is water flowing through there and the machines come in to open them back up. She stated Mr. Burtner had explained to the Board the situation with the neighbor across the street at 2503 Unity Tree and the City did go and help him out ~ he was having problems with erosion as well. Asst. Director Johnson stated her first dealing with Mr. Burtner was when the machine was to come through the canal to clean it, Mr. Burtner did not want it to come through as the shed had a playroom for his child that was tipping toward the canal. She added Mr. Burtner was worried about further erosion. Asst. Director Johnson stated at that time she instructed the operator to bypass that area as it was not that bad at that point. She contacted him about the erosion and told him that the only thing the City could do was to add more fill, but she was concerned about his shed, more so than the barbeque pit. Asst. Director Johnson stated she was more concerned about the City's liability once they constructed something or added fill that might further cause damage to the shed. Asst. Director Johnson stated that in her opinion the canal has not widened in the last five years. She added the biggest problem with Mr. Burtner's property was accessibility as he had planters, rocks and all kinds of things encroaching in that easement setback Asst. Director Johnson stated the easement is there so the City can get the property owners permission to go in and help them out. She added in some areas there is just no room for access and there is nothing the City can do other than take some of the debris from the bottom of the canal and add it back to the top.' She stated Mr. Burtner did not want them to do that. Ms. Johnson asked if the improvements hindered the flow of the drainage that the ditch is intended to cany. Asst. Director Johnson stated the deck could definitely hinder debris. She also added that the City has a St. John's Water Management Permit to maintain these canals and as the City's representative it is her responsibility to notify them of these types of situations as they have their own enforcement procedures. Asst. Director Johnson stated she advised St. Johns of the situation and they decided to wait to see what course this took through the City Boards before they became involved. There was discussion regarding how the dock might be fixed so as not to hinder the flow of water. Mr. Barnhill asked if Mr. Burtner had exceeded his lot line and built on City property. Ass. Director Johnson stated yes. There was discussion as to whether Mr. Burtner paid taxes on the City easement and ifhe had exceeded the setback without a variance. Asst. Director Johnson stated he had exceeded the setback as well as gone beyond onto City property. () There was discussion regarding the lot size of Mr. Burtner's property and that he owned 5 feet on the other side of the canal. Mr. Burtner stated what they were calling a dock was actually a retaining wall for the erosion. There was discussion regarding the width of the canal behind Mr. Burtner's residence and the width further down the street. Mr. Burtner stated he did not ask the City to make the repairs, he made them himself and he was unaware that any permitting was needed, he was trying to protect his property and make it look nice. Mr. Burtner stated he had developed a water leak under his house that he believes is directly related to the erosion from the canal. Chairman Fowler asked what structures are built into the easement. Mr. Burtner stated he did not feel that any ofit was, but stated that the City felt the shed and the barbeque grill is. There was discussion regarding the survey and the placement of the items on the survey and where Mr. Burtner's actual property line was. Attorney Cookson stated the reason Mr. Burtner was given notice was for a failure to get permits. Attorney Cookson stated Mr. Burtner had constructed a number of things and the board was to make a determination as to whether he is in violation of the code as sited in the notice. Attorney Cookson stated if Mr. Burtner did not want to take the items down and get a permit, then what he was looking . . ,~. ,qtizen Code Enforcement Board 0 Q \, January 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 4 at was a variance, and that would go under the City Council to approve the structures that he has to remain where they are. Attorney Cookson stated lie did not want to give the false impression that all J :Mr. Burtner had to do was to go get a permit, Attorney Cookson stated that as the items were in the easement he did not believe a pennit would be issued. Ms. Johnson moved to table this item, as they do not have enough information. Motion DIED due to a lack of second. Chairman Fowler asked if Mr. Burtner's request for hearing was supposed to have been that he didn't have permits. Attorney Cookson stated all they can go on is the evidence before the board, which is the courtesy letter and the notice of violation citing the code provision of requiring a permit. Chairman Fowler stated the only thing they needed to look at was the gentleman's requirement to get permits. Ms. Keller asked Mr. Burtner ifhe had checked on getting permits since the notification was issued. Mr. Burtner stated he did talk to the City and was told this was the way to go, so he has been waiting. Ms. Johnson stated she is confused as to how we got to this point. Attorney Cookson asked Compliance Officer DeSue to walk them through how this case had come to the Board. There was discussion as to the process the- request came to the board. Chairman Fowler passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Keller. Mr. Fowler moved to table this case pending the attempt Of receipt of said pennits at which time the City can reffie its case and hopefully give the Board more information at that time. Attorney Cookson asked if this meant that Mr. Burtner . would come back with the permit or other specific code violations. Mr. Fowler stated that was correct. Mr. Burtner stated that he has been transferred to Texas and that he flew back for this meeting. Mr. Fowler stated the permit part was Mr. Burtner's responsibility, but some of the other issues connected with the case need to be taken up with the City. Mr. Fowler stated that until the board got more information, he did not believe they cot.ild honestly make a decision. Ms. Johnson asked if they could table an issue with a date uncertain, or does it have to be a certain date. Attorney Cookson stated it can be tabled and continue to table it at each meeting. He added the Board needed to let Mr. Burtner know the date it will be reconsidered, but at the next meeting it can be tabled again. There was no second to the motion, Mr. Fowler amended his motion. Mr. Fowler moved that due to the fact Mr. Burtner was tied up by being in Texas, he would like to see the issue tabled for a period of 45 days. He added that means it will not come before the board for at least 2 months and that will give Mr. Burtner time to resolve the matter with the City and get the permits. Mr. DeINigro seconded. Vice Chairman Keller asked Mr. Burtner ifwe had his foxwarding address in Texas. Mr. BUrtner stated that he was keeping this house as his daughter was living in it and that all correspondence should go through that address. Motion CARRIED 7 - o. The gavel was passed back to Chairman Fowler. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business at this time. LIEN REDUCTION REOUESTS: Case #94-CE-0247, Mr. James A Rives, 3416 Juniper Drive, Edgewater, Florida 32141, Parcel #8402-01-08-4130, LOTS 8413 and 8414, BLOCK 255 FLORIDA SHORES NO.9 MB 23 PG 132 PER OR 2296 PG 802. Violation of section 19-31 of the Code of Ordinances. On November 17, 1994, the Code Board determined that the homeowner was not connected to City sewer and ruled that the violation must be abated by connecting to City sewer by December 14, 1994, or a $50.00 per day fine would be imposed for each day of non-compliance after that date. Connection to City sewer took place on January 10, 1995. Total fines and administrative costs in this case are $1, 366.50. . .~. .,citizen Code Enforcement Board 0 , · January 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 5 o Mr. Rives stated he believed there was an error in records. He stated he had hired. a licensed, certified, plumbing contractor, Kevin Hall to do the work. Mr. Rives stated he was out of town at the time due to a family illness and when he came back into town he pulled a permit on December 7, 1994. He stated he sent a letter to the City Manager asking for a waiver of the connection fee. He stated that from the paperwork Kevin Hall had until December 15, 1994 to do the work. Mr. Rives stated it did not take 30 days (or a certified, licensed plumber to come out and do a 6 hour job. Mr. Rives stated that Kevin Hall did the sewer, Herb Weems pumped out the septic, and Neil Bell came and crushed the tank. Mr. Rives stated it was hooked up in a timely manner and since it was 9 years ago none of the contractors keep records that far back. Mr. Rives stated the Health Department may have something but when he checked on it, he found out it would be in the archives. Mr. Rives stated he didn't know if the inspection paperwork was lost or what, but that the sewer was hooked up in timely manner. Mr. Rives stated he didn't know anything about this until he went to a closing and was told there was a lien against his house in the amount of $143,400. Mr. Rives stated after he found that out he came to the City to find out the proper steps to resolve the problem. Ms. Johnson asked for clarification on whose notes were in the packet for the City's records. It was noted the information was from a previous code enforcement officer. Ms. Johnson asked if the City had any records that say when that connection was made. Compliance Officer DeSue stated all we had was the previous officer's hand Written notes. There was discussion as to when the permit was pulled and the timeline in the hand written notes and regarding the extension that was applied for through the City Manager. Chairman Fowler asked Attorney Cookson if the lien itself and the procedures leading up to it were valid. Attorney Cookson stated this was what was recorded that put Mr. Rives on notice of the lien on the property. Chairman Fowler asked if it was a valid lien that would stand up in a court of law. Attorney Cookson stated the City took the steps they needed to impose the lien, and the lien they filed is a valid lien. There was discussion regarding the title company's figure of $143,400 and the lien amount of$1,366.50 and it was noted the title company figured the $50 per day from 1994 as the City never filed an affidavit of compliance. Attorney Cookson stated the only evidence we have states that Mr. Rives was in compliance as of January 10, 1995. Ms. Johnson moved that the lien of record against Mr. Rives on case #94-CE-0247 be reduced to the $16.50 which is the cost of the City to release and record the satisfaction of the lien and that Mr. Rives not be required to make any other type of payment other than the recording fee. Mr. Barnhill seconded. Chairman Fowler asked Compliance Officer DeSue ifthere were any other costs incurred by the City in regards to this issue. She stated no. Motion CARRIED 7 - O. Mr. Rives thanked the board and left at this time. DISCUSSION ITEMS: There was discussion regarding lien reductions that had come to them recently where procedures were not correct. ChairmanFowler asked Attorney Cookson if the liens he had seen would stand up in court. Attorney Cookson stated he did not know ifit was up to the Board to determine if these liens would stand up in court or not. He did not believe that this was a determination the Board needed to make. Chairman E owler stated advice from previous counsel was that procedures were not what they should have been in previous years, so why would they prosecute things because they would lose. Attorney Cookson stated in this case it would have been helpful if there were some evidence as to when the inspection was made and when the connection was made. Ms. Johnson stated there was a technical requirement in Chapter 162 for liens of code enforcement boards that a certified copybe recorded in the public record. She added this did not appear to be the . · . '.-,~' .' Citizen Code Enforcement Board () \. Janhaiy 16. 2003 - Minutes Page 6 case in a lot of instances. She added the recotding of an original instead of certified copy appears to be an issue that has been overcome as reflected in case law. There was discussion regarding certified copies and originals and the proper procedure to file a lien. o CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMENTS: Compliance Officer DeSue stated Compliance Officer McGrath had been detailed to the Building Department and that Firefighter Dave Newell would be helping her until"March. She added FF Newell did a sweep of Florida Shores in reference to basketball hoops'Being in the easement and getting dumpsters fully enclosed. Compliance Officer DeSue stated she has been working on Hibiscus and getting some of the businesses there completely enclosed. She added she would be working on Guava next. Ms. Johnson asked about the fire-clearing ordinance. . Compliance Officer stated that had come to halt. Officer McGr~th was doing it when he was by himself and it became too much. Since Officer DeSue has joined him they have been trying to play catch up. Ms. Keller asked if anything had been done to finalize the Land Development Code Book. There was no information on this at this time. Ms. Keller asked if there was any word on the new bylaw changes. There was no information on this at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none at this time. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Minutes respeCtfully submitted by: Lisa R Miller. Recording Secretary