MINUTES

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING

Miami Shores Village

February 06, 2003

 

 

The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday February 6, 2003, at the Miami Shores Village Hall.  The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Barry Asmus.

 

 

PRESENT:                   Barry Asmus, Chairman

                                    Barry Perl

                                    John Patnick

                                    John Busta

                                    Rod Buenconsejo

                                    Robert Vickers

                                    Manny Quiroga

           

ALSO PRESENT:       Al Berg, Code Enforcement and Planning and Zoning Director

                                    Richard Trumble, Code Enforcement Supervisor

                                    Anthony Flores, Code Enforcement Officer

                                    Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

                                    Irene M. Fajardo, Administrative Assistant.

                                   

ABSENT:                    Hillary Graver, Code Enforcement Officer (Maternity Leave)

 

1. A)    JANUARY 2, 2003 MINUTES:

           

Mr. Quiroga made a motion to approve the January 2, 2003, minutes with the amended corrections.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  The vote was unanimous in favor.

 

 

2.B)     FIRST HEARINGS

 

Case No: 2002-03433             Owners:           Manuel and Soledad Alvarez

                                                Address:           430 Grand. Concourse

                                                Section:            Bldg.12-133. Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior

 

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  The property owner, Soledad Alvarez, was there to offer testimony on the case. Mrs. Alvarez did not agree that a violation existed.  She explains that the roof had been in the same condition for the last twenty three years and that she has never been told to clean it.  She felt that the roof condition was an attractive feature for the property and did not feel that it decreased property value. The Board reviewed the pictures submitted by staff.  They explained to the owner that having a dirty roof might be a nuisance to

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -2-                                       February 6, 2003

 

the surrounding neighbors.  The Board inquired about whether the house was a historically designated.  Staff confirmed that the property was not a historical designated landmark.  Mr. Asmus opened the hearing for public comments.  Maria Guarch, a resident at 431 Grand Concourse, testified on behalf of the owner that the dirty roof was not depreciating property values.  Charles Taylor, a resident at 427 Grand Concourse, also testified on behalf of the owner by stating that he did not mind the dirty roof.

After a brief discussion, Mr. Vickers moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Building Section 12-133 of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violator shall correct the violation in thirty (30) days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed in thirty (30) days, the Code Enforcement Officer is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $25.00 a day, starting on the date of original compliance given in the Notice of Violation. This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.


 

Case No: 2002-03457             Owner:             Marcelo and Monica Maselli

                                                Address:           150 NE 107 St.

                                                Section:            518(a)/518(b) Hedge/fence beyond height limitation

 

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  The violation was for a lattice fence which is not allowed per Miami Shores Village code. The property owner, Marcelo Maselli, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Maselli explained that he had a contract to sell the property and has not had time to comply.  He stated that he would talk to the lawyer in regards to changing the contract and clearing the violation.  The Board explained to the owner that he needed to clear the violation before he could sign an affidavit of clear title at the closing of the sale of the property.  Mr. Maselli agreed to bring the property into compliance. 

After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Sections 518(a)/518(b) of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violator shall correct the violation by March 6, 2003 and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by March 6, 2003, the Code Enforcement Officer is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $25.00 a day starting on the date of original compliance given in the Notice of Violation. This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -3-                                       February 6, 2003

 

Case No: 2002-03057             Owner:             David Wright and Mary Ellen Ahearn

                                                Address:           299 NE 99 S

                                                Section:            Bldg.12-133. Unsightly fascia, soffit, house exterior

 

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  The property owner, David Wright, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Wright explained that he was told that the tiles on the roof were Cuban Barrel Tile and that it was the original roof installed in 1951.  He stated that he found cracks on the tiles after trying to pressure clean the roof.  The Board explained that the only exceptions to cleaning roof tiles in the Village are for historic designated properties.  A list of these properties was handed to the Board as evidence that the property in question is not a historic designated property.  Mr. Wright requested a continuance to further investigate the type of tiles that are on the roof. 

After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved to continue the case until the meeting on March 6, 2003.  Mr. Perl seconded the motion.  Discussion by the Board was made in regards to the roof tile being possible Cuban Barrel tile and how that would affect the clearing of the violation.  Proper evidence should be brought to the Board in regards to the type of tile that exists on the roof.  Motion passed 6-1.  Mr. Asmus voted no.

 

Case No: 2002-03391             Owner:             Ernesto Marquez

                                                Address:           1421 NE 104 St.

                                                Section:            20-1(b) Building or obstruction.

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  Mr. Flores explained that DERM made an investigation and told the owner to remove the tiles from the canal.  A find report has not been issued yet.  The property owner, Ernesto Marquez, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Marquez explained that he placed the tiles on the canal because he thought that it would save his seawall as soil was eroding from behind the seawall.  The Board advised the owner to call a professional seawall company and remove the tiles that are in the canal.  They also informed the owner that he needed to obtain a permit before repairing the seawall. 

After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Sections 20-1(b) of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violator shall correct the violation by March 6, 2003 and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by March 6, 2003, the Code Enforcement Officer is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $25.00 a day starting on the date of original compliance given in the Notice of Violation. This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Vickers seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

 

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -4-                                       February 6, 2003

 

Case No: 2002-03412             Owner:             Karen Trefzger

Address:           34 NW 98 St.

Section:            518(a)/518(b) Hedge/fence beyond height limitation

 

Supervisor of Code Enforcement, Richard Trumble, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  The property owner, Karen Trefzger, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Ms. Trefzger agreed that a violation existed.  She explained that the lattice fence was being used to secure her dog on the property.  She inquired about possible solutions for securing the dog if she had to remove the lattice.  The Board gave the owner some alternative solutions and explained that any further inquiries in regards to the type of gate she could obtain would have to be discussed with the Building Dept. 

After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Perl moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Sections 518(a)518(b) of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violator shall correct the violation by March 6, 2003 and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by March 6, 2003, the Code Enforcement Officer is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $25.00 a day starting on the date of original compliance given in the Notice of Violation. This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

Case No: 2002-03480             Owner:             Moises Lamour

Address:           10516 NW 2 Ave.

Section:            20-17; 520(i). Failure to maintain parkway.

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  Moises Lamour testified that he had bought the property two years ago.  He explained that he never received notice from the Village since the notices were addressed to the old owner.  He agreed to comply with the violation. 

After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Sections 20-17 and 520(i) of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violator shall correct the violation by March 6, 2003 and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by March 6, 2003, the Code Enforcement Officer is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $25.00 a day starting on the date of original compliance given in the Notice of Violation. This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -5-                                       February 6, 2003

 

Summary Adjudication:

 

Cases: 2002-03065, 3158, 3212, 3280, 3331, 3347, 3348, 3375 3376, 3378, 3398, 3414, 3446, 3467.

 

Chairman Asmus read each case and address into the record and asked if anyone was present.  No one was present.

 

Richard Trumble testified that Affidavits of Non-Compliance and evidence of violation existed in each of the files.

 

Mr. Quiroga made a motion for a summary adjudication of all such cases to include a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists as charged in the respective notice of violations issued therein and that, in each case, the offending party will correct the violation within the time period specified by the staff in the staff recommendations for these hearings, and will immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance.  In each such case, if the violation is not brought into compliance within such time periods, the code enforcement officer may report this back to the Board in accordance with the Board’s rules and regulations at which time a fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator in the respective daily amounts specified in staff’s recommendations for tonight’s hearing, retroactive to the original compliance deadline, which will constitute a lean on the property of the violator.  Further, with respect to each of the cases, costs in the amounts specified in staff’s recommendations for tonight’s hearings are hereby assessed in order to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Perl seconded the motion.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

3. C)    PENALTY HEARINGS

 

Case No: 2002-02959             Owner:             Hortensia Cardona Hunter

Address:           9417 NE 9 Ave.

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  Evidence in the file showed that a permit was not pulled for the carport. The property owner, William Hunter, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Hunter explained that he has lived in the property since 1952 and that the carport on his property has been there for a long time and believes that it is grandfathered in.  He also stated that the carport is in harmony with the property.  The Village attorney, Richard Sarafan, explained that it is possible for the carport to be grandfathered in.  The Planning and Zoning Board will be the Board to determine whether or not the carport should be removed. 

After a brief discussion, Mr. Quiroga made a motion to table the case until the March 6, 2003 meeting in order for the property owner to bring more evidence on his behalf.  Mr. Busta seconded the motion.    Motion passed 7-0.

 

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -6-                                       February 6, 2003

 

Case No: 2002-023242           Owner:             Donald Bauman

Address:           30 NW 107 St.

 

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  The property owner, Donald Bauman, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Bauman explained that the tenant did not inform him of the violation and requested that the Board give him seven more days to bring the property into compliance.

After a brief discussion, Mr. Perl made a motion to move the compliance date to 02-10-03.  If the property is not brought into compliance by 02-10-03, the case will come back for Penalty on March 6, 2003.  Mr. Bauman will have to inform the officer when the property is brought into compliance.  Mr. Quiroga seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

 

Summary Adjudication:  Cases: 2002- 02959, 3100, 3106, 3135, 3156, 3241, 3271, 3333.

 

Mr. Vickers moved for a summary adjudication of all such cases to include a finding of fact and conclusion of law that a violation exists as charged in the respective notice of violations issued therein and that, in each case, the offending party shall correct the violation within the time period specified by the staff in the Staff recommendations for these hearings, and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  In each such case, if the violation is not brought into compliance within such time period, the Code Enforcement Officer may report this back to the Board in accordance with the Board’s rules and Regulations at which time a fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator in the respective daily amounts specified in Staff’s recommendations for tonight’s hearing, retroactive to the original compliance deadline, which will constitute a lean on the property of the violator.  Further, with respect to each case, costs in the amounts specified in Staff’s recommendations for tonight’s hearings are hereby assessed in order to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

3.C)     REQUEST FOR RELIEF

 

Case No: 2000-01886                         Owner:             Hubert Miller

                                                            Address:           1275 NE 94 ST.

 

The property owner, Hubert Miller, and his attorney, Edwin Sarr were there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Sarr explained why the owners took a long time to bring the property into compliance.  Financial setback and illness were the reasons why the violation was not corrected in a timely manner. The owners are refinancing the home and currently have money in escrow to try to satisfy the lien.  The closing statement on the property was submitted to the Board as evidence.  After further discussion, Mr. Quiroga made a motion to accept the offer of $2,400.00 payable within two weeks or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $11,925.00.  Mr. Perl seconded the motion.  Motion passed 6-1. (Ms. Asmus voted no).

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -7-                                       February 6, 2003

 

Case No: 2002-02685                         Owner:             Alex Peña

                                                            Address:           289 NW 111 Terr.

 

The property owner, Alex Peña, was there to offer testimony on the case.  Ms. Peña explained why it took a long time to bring the property into compliance.  He agreed that it took a long time to comply and that he hopes that the Board will consider his efforts.  After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Buenconsejo made a motion to accept the offer of $507.50 payable within 14 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $5,075.00.  Mr. Patnick seconded the motion.  Motion failed 2-5.  (Mr. Asmus, Mr. Perl, Mr. Quiroga, Mr. Vickers, and Mr. Busta voted no).

 

Case No: 2002-02836                         Owner:             Erik Margard

                                                            Address:           1491 NE 102 St.

 

The property owner, Erik Margard, was there to offer testimony on his case.  Mr. Margard explained the reasons why it took a long time to bring the property into compliance.  He stated that the permit approval took longer than what he expected.  After further discussion, Mr. Quiroga made a motion to accept the offer of $600.00 payable within 7 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $2,115.00.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 6-1.  (Mr. Asmus voted no). 

 

Case No: 2000-00502                         Owner:             Jose Barroso

                                                            Address:           1625 NE 104 St.

 

The owner, Jose Barroso, and his attorney, R. Bryson, were there to offer testimony on the case.  Mr. Barroso read a statement letter from the owner into the record as evidence.  He explained that the owner thought that the violation had been cured since they had attempted to obtain approval from the Planning and Zoning Board and a permit.  Mr. Barroso stated that an order was never mailed to the owners stating specifically that the gazebo had to be removed.  The planning and Zoning Director, Al Berg, testified that the owners were sent notice of the denial for permit approval and that they knew that the gazebo had to be removed since it was a non-permitted structure.  Mr. Perl made a motion to deny the owner’s offer of $2,000.00 of the total lien amount of $20,830.00.  Mr. Patnick seconded the motion.  Motion passed for denial 4-3.  Mr. Busta, Mr. Buenconsejo, and Mr. Quiroga voted no).

 

Case No: 9375                                     Owner:             Julio Consuegra

                                                            Address:           300 NW 112 Terr.

 

The owner, Julio Consuegra, was there to offer testimony on her case.  Mr. Consuegra agreed that he had taken a long time to bring the property into compliance, but that the amount due was excessive.  Evidence in the file showed documented evidence when the case was closed and the

 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -8-                                       February 6, 2003

 

date the property was to be brought into compliance.  The amount owed coincided with the dates. After further discussion from The Board, Mr. Buenconsejo made a motion to accept the offer of

$1,500.00 payable within 7 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $4,230.00.  Mr. Busta seconded the motion.  Motion passed 6-1.  Mr. Asmus voted no.

 

Case No: 9375                                     Owner:             Aisha Goodison

                                                            Address:           63 NW 103 St.

 

The owner, Aisha Goodison, was not originally on the agenda but Mr. Buenconsejo made a motion to hear the case and Mr. Perl seconded.  Motion passed 4-3.

Ms. Goodison explained that she never received notice of the violation since they were addressed to the old owner.  Staff presented evidence in the file that showed that Ms. Goodison had been in contact with the Code Enforcement officer and that she was aware that a violation existed.  Ms. Goodison stated that she brought the property into compliance as soon as she found that a violation existed. 

After further discussion from The Board, Mr. Patnick made a motion to deny the offer of $500.00.  Mr. Perl seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

Case 2002-03399 from the First Hearings agenda will now be heard by the Board.  Mr. Patnick stepped down from the bench to offer testimony on the case.

 

Case No: 2002-03399                         Owner:             John Patnick Jr.                  

                                                            Address:           190 NW 99 St.

                                                            Section:            Bldg.6-4; Unauthorized construction

                                                                                    and alteration.

 

The supervisor, Richard Trumble, testified that a violation of painting without a permit still existed on the property.  Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation.  The property owner, Mr. Patnick was there to offer testimony on the case.  He agreed that a violation existed.  He explained that the tenants had painted the house without his consent and they also did not obtain a permit.

After a brief discussion, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Section 6-4 of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violator shall correct the violation by March 6, 2003, and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by March 6, 2003, the Code Enforcement Officer is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $25.00 a day, starting on the date of original compliance given in the Notice of Violation. This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Perl seconded the motion.  Motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Patnick did not vote).

 

 

Code Enforcement Meeting                                          -9-                                       February 6, 2003

 

4.D)     NEW BUSINESS:

 

The Village attorney, Richard Sarafan presented a new process for Code Enforcement.  He explained the new procedure that will take place during the meeting.  He also advised the Board members of new tactic ways of speaking to the property owners and the questions they should ask.  A new form, which would be handed to the property owners after the case had being heard, was submitted to the Board for review.  The Board felt that the process might help the meeting run faster and more efficient.  After further discussion, Mr. Quiroga made a motion to approve the new Code Enforcement process.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the notion.  Motion passed 7-0.

 

5.E)      ADJOURNMENT:

 

Mr. Quiroga made a motion for adjournment.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.  The February 6, 2003, meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.

 

           

                                                                                    ____________________________________

                                                                                    Mr. Barry Asmus, Chairman

________________________________

Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary