MINUTES

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING

Miami Shores Village

October 2, 2003

The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday October 2, 2003, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Barry Perl.

PRESENT: Barry Perl, Chairman

John Patnick (Arrived at 6:35PM)

Robert Vickers

Manny Quiroga

Rod Buenconsejo

John Busta

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

Anthony Flores, Code Enforcement Officer

Hillary Skumanich, Code Enforcement Officer

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Irene M. Fajardo, Administrative Assistant.

ABSENT: Barry Asmus

All persons testifying were sworn in at this time.

1. A) SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 MINUTES:

Mr. Quiroga made a motion to approve the September 11, 2003, minutes with the amended corrections. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Patnick was not present to vote.

2. B) FIRST HEARING

Case #: 2003-04110

Owner: Jonathan Bennet

Address: 9628 NE 2 Ave.

Violation: Schedule of Regulation

Section: 400/401

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property. Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation. Officer Flores explained that the owners needed approval from the Planning and Zoning Board and a permit for the existing signs. Anthony Mallot, an attorney representing the makers of the signs, and the owner, Jonathan Bennet, were there to present the case. Mr. Bennet agreed that a violation existed and explained that he was looking for a sign company to agree to do the plans to submit to the Planning and Zoning Board. He requested more time in order to attend the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.

After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Sections 400/401 of the Miami Shores Village Code, Schedule of Regulation. The violator shall correct the violation in (60) sixty days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If compliance is not completed in (60) sixty 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 5-0.

Case #: 2003-04072

Owner: Alberto and Josephine Soto

Address: 609 NE 105 St.

Violation: Hedge/fence higher than allowed or unlawful materials

Sections 518(a) 518(b)

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property. Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation. Officer Flores explained that the owner was using lattice as fence material. The owner, Alberto Soto, was there to present the case. Mr. Soto explained that there were definition issues in regards to the meaning of a fence. He also explained that the lattice is being used as a decorative ornament to hang plants. He also stated that he could install a wooden fence with a permit and attach the lattice material to hang the plants. The Village attorney, Richard Sarafan, read the code section in regards to lattice material. Mr. Sarafan explained that there is not definition in the code in regards to fences but that lattice is not mentioned as material that would be allowed. Mr. Berg noted that lattice fencing had been brought to the Board on a previous case and it went to the Planning and Zoning Board on appeal. The Board did not agree with the applicant that lattice was allowed for fencing. Case was appealed to the Council, but was eventually withdrawn. The Board stated that many cases have come before the Board in which the owners had to remove the existing lattice.

After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Vickers moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Section 518(a)518(b) of the Miami Shores Village Code. The violator shall correct the violation in (30) thirty days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If compliance is not completed in (30) thirty 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 5-0.

John Patnick arrived at 6:35PM.

Case: 3855

Owner: Raphael and Zulma Van Putten

Address: 114 NE 106 St.

Violation: USF Bldg. 12-133

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property. Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation. Officer Flores explained that the property owner would not be able to attend the meeting but that her mother was present She stated that she did not have a Power of Attorney but that she wanted to speak on her behalf. The Board stated that the owner must be present or that a power of Attorney must be submitted. After a brief discussion, Mr. Quiroga made a motion to continue the case until the nest meeting. Mr. Busta seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.

Case: 2003-04053

Owner: Steven C. Ellixson and Denise Ghariani

Address: 440 NE 105 St.

Violation: Unauthorized construction and alteration

Section: Bldg. 6-4

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that a violation still existed on the property. Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation. Officer Flores explained that renovations were made to the property without an approved permit including a live in unit. Officer Flores described the structure as a possible unit for rental. More pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence. Mr. Berg explained that the entire remodeling was below the minimum flood requirement and that it would have to be removed. The original plans were contrasted with what is there now. The plans show a garage, storage, and a play room. Several new windows and a door were installed without permits. It is now a separate living unit with a kitchen which is a violation of the code. The owner, Denise Ghariani, was there to present the case. Ms. Ghariani stated that all the renovations that were made were done after getting approval. She submitted site plans to the Board as evidence of what her architect drew. She stated that she had checks paying the people for the work done. The Board reviewed the site plans and stated that they were inconsistent with what is currently on the property. The Board inquired about the approved site plans mentioned by Ms. Ghariani. Ms. Ghariani did not have any permits or approved plans with the seal of Miami Shores. She admitted to having done some work without a permit but insisted that the rest was permitted in 1998. No evidence was submitted. The Board stated that the owner must return the property to its original configuration if not brought into compliance within sixty days.

After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Section Bldg. 6-4 of the Miami Shores Village Code. The violator shall correct the violation in (60) sixty days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If compliance is not completed in (60) sixty 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 $50.00 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 6-0.

Case: 2003-03973

Owner: Gus Grande

Address: 489 NE 95 St.

Violation: Inoperable vehicle on premises

Section: 13-1

The officer, Hillary Skumanich, testified that a violation still existed on the property. Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence of the violation. The property owner, Mr. Grande agreed that a violation existed and requested additional time in order to have the vehicle towed. Mr. Grande explained that he was waiting for the Certificate of Title of the vehicle. He stated that the vehicle would be towed within thirty days.

After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Section 13-1 of the Miami Shores Village Code. The violator shall correct the violation in (30) thirty days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If compliance is not completed in (30) thirty 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 6-0.

Summary Adjudication: Case #’s: 2002-03469, 2003-03530, 2003-03880, 2003-03881, 2003-03902, 2003-03935, 2003-03940, 2003-03950, 2003-03951, 2003-03974, 2003-03977, 2003-04034, 2003-04059, 2003-04066, 2003-04092, 2003-04106.

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

The officer, Anthony Flores, testified that Affidavits of Non-Compliance and evidence of violation existed in each of the files.

Mr. Busta 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. Quiroga seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.

3.C) PENALTY HEARINGS

Summary Adjudication: Case #’s: 2003-03883, 2003-03936.

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. Quiroga seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.

Anthony Flores testified that affidavits of non-compliance existed in the files.

4.D) REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Case: 2000-01020

Owner: Wanda Collier

Address: 98 NW 98 St.

The property owner, Wanda Collier was there to present her case. Ms. Collier explained that she had been ill for a long time. When she finally placed sod on the swale, she got ill again and the grass died. She finally resoded and has been maintaining the swale ever since. Officer Skumanich stated that she had maintained contact with the owner. After a brief discussion Mr. Patnick made a motion to accept the offer of $500.00 payable in 30 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $7,515.00. Mr. Busta seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-2. (Mr. Vickers and Mr. Quiroga voted no).

Case: 2002-02382

Owner: Lourdes and Robert Jenkins

Address: 990 NE 94 St.

Mr. Jenkins was there to present his case. Mr. Jenkins stated that he was not aware that there was a lien on the property. Mr. Jenkins stated that he came into compliance within the date required and that he called the Village to inform the officer for re-inspection. Mr. Jenkins assumed that the case had been closed. Evidence in the file showed that the case was closed shortly after the date of original compliance. The Board inquired about the current conditions of the property. Officer Skumanich confirmed that the property was in good condition. After a brief discussion, Mr. Vikers made a motion to accept the offer of $125.00 payable in 10 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $1,265.00. Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.

Case: 2002-02301, 2002-02302, 2002-02303, 6526, 6527, 8098, 9312

Owner: Andre Hilaire

Address: 46 NW 95 St.

The attorney, Loy Whittecker, was there to represent the property owner, Andre Hilaire. Mr. Whittecker explained that Mr. Hilaire was ill and that he also has a language barrier because he does not speak English. Mr. Hilaire had attended the previous meeting with an offer of $5,105.00 which was denied and was there to make a new offer of $10,500.00. After a brief discussion of the case, Mr. Quiroga made a motion to accept the offer of $10,500.00 payable in 10 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $126,901.84. Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1. (Mr. Perl voted no).

Case: 6321

Owner: Jean Renel Philizaire

Address: 10904 NW 2 Av

The property owner, GenePhilizaire, was there to present her case. Ms. Philizaire explained that she is a single mother who is having financial problems. Ms. Philizaire stated that she was refinancing the house. She would pay the settlement amount with the money she will receive in the refinancing of the property. After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Patnick made a motion to accept the offer of $300.00 payable in 30 days or the lien reverts back to the original amount of $3,296.94. Mr. Quiroga seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-2. (Mr. Busta and Mr. Perl voted no).

5.E) ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Quiroga made a motion for adjournment. Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. The October 2, 2003, meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was adjourned at 8:00P.M.

____________________________________

Mr. Barry Perl, Chairman

________________________________

Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary