LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 2006

The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday, March 2, 2006 at the Miami Shores Village Hall.  The meeting was called too order at 6:00 PM with the following members present.

 

PRESENT

Barry Perl, Chairman

John Busta

Rod Buenconsejo

John Patnik

Barry Asmus

Manny Quiroga

ALSO PRESENT

Anthony Flores, Code Enforcement Officer/Supervisor

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Mike Orta, Code Enforcement Officer

Emilia S Palmer, Administrative Assistant

ABSENT

Robert Vickers

 

All persons testifying were sworn in by the Village Attorney, Richard Sarafan.

 

ITEM I: FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Minutes

Mr. Buenconsejo and Mr. Perl requested that minor typographical type corrections be made.    The motion to approve the February, 2006 Minutes was made and seconded with a unanimous vote in favor of the motion.

 

ITEM II: FIRST HEARING

Case #: 2004-05125
Owner: Carol Amaya King Seligson
Address: 9350 N.E. 12th Avenue

Attorney Chris Kelley was present representing Ms. King regarding the code violation.  Mr. Kelley offered information relating to the gravel driveway and the trees on the property in proximity to the driveway.  Mr. Sarafan provided a survey of the property dated 1993 which did not show the gravel drive.  A lengthy discussion between Mr. Kelley and Mr. Sarafan regarding the driveway ensued.   Mr. Perl summarized Mr. Kelley’s assertion that there was never a driveway built on the property, but the coral rock has always existed, and further that due to that circumstance, the driveway should be grandfathered and allowed as a non-conforming use.  Mr. Sarafan disagreed with the assumption, finding no case law to support the argument.

Following additional discussion by the Board,  Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Code Section 520 (H) (1) and 521 (B)(1a) of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violation shall be corrected by within thirty (30) days and immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by the specified time, the Code Enforcement Officers is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $50.00 per day thereafter.  This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation were assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  The Motion passed unanimously.

 

Case #: 2005-06543
Owner: Alejandro Prieto – Executive Officer, Precision Health Center
Address: 9838 N.E. 2nd Avenue

Mr. Preito indicated that Precision Health Center is the tenant.

The officer, Anthony Flores, explained the nature of the violation and testified that the violation still existed on the property.  The tenant has erected a sign for their business without prior approval of the Planning & Zoning Board as required by the Code.  Pictures were submitted as evidence.  Code Officer Flores stated although Mr. Prieto had submitted the paperwork for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board, he had been unaware that he needed to be present.  Therefore, the Planning & Zoning Board did not hear the item.   Mr. Flores providing the Board with a timeline on the issue. 

Mr. Prieto provided reasons for his non-compliance, including the fact that the property owner received the notices rather than Precision Health Center.  Mr. Prieto confirmed that he had applied for approval of the Planning & Zoning Board and the dates of the applications.

Following a discussion by the Board,  Mr. Buenconsejo moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to Code Section 504(f)(1) and the Schedule of Regulations of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violation shall be corrected within thirty (30) days and immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by the specified time, the Code Enforcement Officers is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $50.00 per day thereafter.  This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation were assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  The motion was seconded.  The Motion passed unanimously.

 

Case#: 2005-06535 & 2005-06537
Owner: Andre & Suze Dormus
Address: 101 N.W. 106th Street
Violation: Unlawful Occupancy of Single Family Residence and Unauthorized Construction without a Permit

The officer, Anthony Flores, stated that although the property owner was not present, he requested that the case be heard.  Mr. Flores went on to explain the nature of the violation and testified that the violation still existed on the property.  Mr. Flores indicated that the property owner had turned the property into a triplex.  Pictures were submitted as evidence and showing numerous exterior doors, water lines, etc.  Code Officer Flores stated that witnesses were present to testify to the fact that multiple families reside at the home.   Mr. Pearl read a letter into the file.  Neighbor testified that the information contained in the letter was true and provided additional information relating to the home.

Following questions and discussion by the Board,  Mr. Quiroga moved for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a violation exists according to the Schedule of Regulations (400-401) and Code Section 12-211 (a) and 6-4 of the Miami Shores Village Code.  The violation shall be corrected within ten (10) days and immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance.  If compliance is not completed by the specified time, the Code Enforcement Officers is to report back to the Board and the Board may then assess a fine against the violator in the amount of $250 per day, per case thereafter.  This will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation were assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion.  The Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Dormus arrived later during the meeting.

 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION:  FIRST HEARINGS

Mr. Perl read each case and corresponding address into the record to verify whether or not anyone was present to address the Board.  As the individual property owners nor their representatives were present for the hearing, Mr. Perl confirmed that each of the cases contained affidavits attesting to the Code Violations alleged and indicating that proper notice had been served. 

 

CASE NUMBERS:  2005-06296, 06420, 06469, 06471, 06476, 06478, 06515, 06526, 06532, 06545, 06549, 06550, 06552, 06553. 06554, 06577, 06576, 06557, 06574, 06587, 06599, 06600, 06601, 06609, 06610, 06647

Mr. Quiroga 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, except for Case # 06599 and 06600 which shall be corrected within 48 hours, 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 amount of $50.00 per day thereafter, which will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.  Further, with respect to each case, costs in the amount of $15.00 per violation are hereby assessed in order to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violations to date.  Mr. Buenconsejo  seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 

 

ITEM III: PENALTY HEARINGS

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION – PENALTY HEARINGS

Mr. Perl read each case and corresponding address into the record to verify whether or not anyone was present to address the Board.  As the individual property owners nor their representatives were present for the hearing, Mr. Perl confirmed that all case files contained appropriate affidavits attesting to the fact that violations still exist subsequent to the ordered compliance dates and that individuals have not contacted the Code Enforcement Department. 

 

CASE NUMBERS:  2005-05917, 06352, 06367, 06399, 06440, 06445, 06450, 06477, 06479, 06481, 06539

Mr. Quiroga moved for a summary adjudication of all such cases currently remaining on the penalty docket for tonight’s hearing, and that each respective violator be ordered to pay the daily fine previously adjudicated and authorized to be imposed against them by prior order of the Board, retroactive to the date the violation was to have been corrected and upon recording, the Board’s order in this regarding will constitute a lien against the property of the violator.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.

 

ITEM IV: REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Mr. Perl reiterated the purpose of this portion of the Hearing.  Mr. Sarafan swore in additional individuals expected to testify before the Board.

 

Owner: Robert Sherman
Address: 1008 N.E. 94th Street

Mr. Sherman provided information relating to the original violation and the circumstances surrounding compliance of the violation.   Mr. Sherman stated that he found out about the approximate $17,000 lien in attempting to sell the property subsequent to a divorce action.  Mr. Sherman reported that he did not notify Code Enforcement of the compliance date as a Code Enforcement Officer had been present at the time the demolition of the dog pen.  He believed that approximately one month elapsed between the violation and the compliance date.  Resident and neighbor, Ron Morrocco, testified on behalf of Mr. Sherman and verified that the dog pen was demolished approximately one month following the violation.  Mr. Sarafan provided file information relating to the dates of the violation and penalty hearing respectively.  The dates contained in the file indicate that there was a three month span between the first hearing and the penalty hearing.   It was confirmed that Mr. Sherman’s wife with whom he was in the middle of a divorce, signed for the notifications.  Mr. Sherman had offered $1,500 but amended the offer to $9,000 which represents 120 days at $75.00.  Mr. Quiroga moved to accept the offer of $9,000 payable within 30 days.  Mr. Patnik seconded the motion and vote, when taken was 5 to 1 with Mr. Asmus dissenting. 

 

Case #: 2002-02452
Owner: Guy O’Grady
Address: 800 N.E. 96th Street

Mr. Quiroga moved that this item be heard last.  Mr. Asmus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.

 

Jessica Best

Ms. Best was present and offered information relating to the original violation.  Ms. Best was offering $1,200 against the lien of $9,000.  The offer represents additional monies from Ms. Best’s initial request for relief.  The violation was for unauthorized construction.   Mr. Asmus moved to deny the offer.  Mr. Patnik seconded the motion.  The motion passed 4 to 2 with Mr. Quiroga and Mr. Buenconsejo dissenting. 

 

Patrick & Angela Young   (Ettienne)

Title Insurance Company Attorney Ellen Patterson was in attendance representing the Youngs.  Ms. Patterson indicated that the Young’s purchased the property and inherited the fines.  The original offer was $1,000 which had been denied.   Mr. Sarafan clarified that Ms. Patterson represents the property owners.  Mr. Asmus moved to deny the new offer of $3,500.  Mr. Patnik seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.

 

Case #: 2004-05174, 2004-05177
Owner: Luc Nisette
Address: 151 N.W. 92nd Street

Mr. Nisette was present to request relief.  Information was provided regarding the fact that the fines have previously been paid in full and Mr. Nisette is looking for a partial refund of the fines.   Mr. Nisette originally was looking for a refund of all fines paid except  $1,764.  This request had been denied.  Mr. Nisette is now requesting a refund of all fines except $1,900.  Mr. Nisette reminded the Board of the circumstances surrounding the case.   Prior to a motion being made, Mr. Nisette raised the payment offer to $2,000.  Mr. Buenconsejo moved to recommend the refund of $3,880 with final authorization required from the Village Manager.  Mr. Patnik seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.

 

Case #: 2003-04483
Owner: Masden Jackson
Address: 12 N.E. 101st Street

Mr. Perl reported that the current fine assessed on the property is $5,965 and Mr. Jackson is offering $500.  Mr. Jackson offered an explanation regarding the original violation.  Mr. Sarafan offered time frame details contained in the file.  Prior to a motion being made, Mr. Jackson increased his offer to $1,500 to be paid within thirty (30) days.  Mr. Quiroga moved to accept the offer of $1,500 to be paid within thirty (30) days.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.

 

Case #: 2002-02790, 2005-05761, 2005-05738, 2005-05734
Owner: Ms. Lisette Reid
Address: 189 N.W. 102nd Street

Ms. Reid reiterated the circumstances surrounding the violations and the fact that she had not received the notifications due to incorrect owner information.  The original violations involved a deteriorated driveway and a fence issue.  The previous offer denied was $4,000.  Ms. Reid’s current offer is $4,100.  Mr. Asmus moved to deny the offer.  Mr. Patnik seconded the motion and the vote was 5 to 1 with Mr. Busta dissenting.

 

Case #: 2002-02452
Owner: Mr. Guy O’Grady
Address: 800 N.E. 96th Street

Mr. O’Grady outlined the timeline and specifics of the violations.  A lengthy discussion regarding the violations in general and specifically, the violation relating to the terrace roof ensued.   It was ultimately determined that the construction project had begun and due to the extensive amount of time to do the construction which was in excess of three years, the building permits expired.  Mr. O’Grady’s offer in July of 2004 was $2000 and his current offer is $500.  Mr. O’Grady indicated that he has paid $1,000 and would be willing to pay an additional $1,000 at this time.  Mr. Sarafan clarified the issue surrounding the payment of the $1,000 which was related to another property owned by Mr. O’Grady.  Mr. Buenconsejo moved to accept the offer of $1,000.  Mr. Quiroga seconded the motion and the vote was 3 to 3.  The motion failed. 

 

Andre & Suze Dormus

Mr. Sarafan advised the Dormus’ that there case had been heard and adjudicated prior to their arrival at the meeting at approximately an hour after the meeting had begun.  Mr. Sarafan further advised that the Board had heard testimony from one of the Dormus neighbors and from the Code Enforcement Officer, as well as photographs of the property.  Mr. Sarafan suggested that the Dormus’ be given the opportunity to provide testimony and request reconsideration of the Board’s action. 

Ms. Dormus requested an extension to the time in order to cure the violation.  Mr. Perl summarized the information regarding the violation, ensuring that Ms. Dormus was aware of the nature of the violation which involved the conversion of the property into a triplex. Ms. Dormus disputed the fact that the house had been subdivided but admitted that she would not allow Code Enforcement into the house. 

Mr. Quiroga amended his original motion to allow 15 days to come into compliance and to allow Code Enforcement into the home to verify that the property is a single family residence.   The remainder of the original motion stands.  Mr. Buenconsejo seconded the motion as amended.  The vote was called and the vote was 5 to 1 with Mr. Asmus dissenting.

 

ITEM V. ADJOURNMENT

The March 2, 2006 Code Enforcement Board Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.

Back To Top