LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 05, 2013

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES

   Thursday, December 05, 2013

The meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday December 05, 2013, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman, Robert Vickers.

 

Roll Call.

Present: Barry Asmus, John Patnik, Barry Perl, Manny Quiroga, Rod Buenconsejo, Chairman Robert Vickers.

 

Absent: Bob Smith.

 

In Attendance

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Anthony Flores, Supervisor, Code Enforcement

Mike Orta, Officer, Code Enforcement

Karen Banda, Clerk

 

FIRST HEARING

 

Case: 10-13-11961

Owner: Daryl Trawick

Address: 533 NE 92 St.

Violations: 12-133; Unsightly Fascia, Soffit, House Exterior

Violations: 20-31; Failure to maintain sidewalk.

Violations: 12-82; Nondwelling structures and fences.

 

 

Code officer Mike Orta gave summary of violations and date courtesy notice was given. Pictures were presented to board members and Mr. Trawick as evidence of violation. Chairman Vickers asked Mr. Trawick if he agreed with violations on his property and Mr. Trawick answered yes and no. Mr. Trawick disputed way the Code Enforcement officer handled violation and did not return Mrs. Trawicks phone calls to clarify issues on property. Board members asked questions about violations noted on property. Mr. Trawick did agree to clean roof even though he does not believe it is dirty and will paint wall that is dirty even though he does not know if the wall is his or property of the neighbors. Mr. Trawick did question section of code 20-31 which states that “it is unlawful for any owner of property in the village which is contiguous to any sidewalk or across which any sidewalk may extend to allow such sidewalk to be or remain in such condition as to make the use thereof unsafe or dangerous”. Chairman Vickers asked Code Officer if the sidewalk was dirty and if it makes it unsafe when it gets wet and mold grows on it, it then becomes unsafe to walk on and Code Officer answered yes. Mr. Trawick stated if it was a safety concern than disputed that Code Enforcement was picking on his home because many homes on his block had sidewalks that were in the same condition and they were not being cleaned. Chairman Vickers clarified that those homes could have a present violation and homeowners have chosen not to do anything about it and have chosen not to come in to speak to board like Mr. Trawick was doing at the present time. Mr. Trawick agreed to remedy violations and wanted board to know how unhappy he was with the code enforcement department in dealing with this matter. Chairman and Mr. Trawick discuss how many days will be needed to remedy violations. Board and staff agree to extend date till next meeting which will be on February 6th, 2014.

 

MOTION: With respect to case(s): 10-13-11961 I move for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that there exists a violation or violations of Section(s) 12-133; 20-31; 12-82 of the Miami Shores Village Code. “The offending party shall correct all such violations within 60 days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance by that time, the Code Enforcement Officer may report back to the Board and, in such event, a fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator in the amount of $50 a day thereafter, which will constitute a lien on the property of the violator. Costs in the amount of $30 are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violation to date.

 

Moved by Manny Quiroga, Seconded by Barry Perl

Motion passed unanimously.

 

 

Case: 10-13-11905

Owner: Francine Pierre Louis

Address: 20 NE 104 St.

Violations: 6-4 (a); Unauthorized Construction/Expired Permit(s)

 

Kevin Lyenel was present on behalf of Ms. Louis. Ms. Louis lives out of the country and her brother Mr. Lyenel agrees to violation. Mr. Sarafan asked if he is authorized to represent owner and he stated yes. Code Officer Anthony Flores gave summary of violation which is unauthorized construction. Code officer went by property and noticed construction debris outside of home and after speaking to person doing work, Mr. Flores asked if worker if could ask owner to come outside in order to get permission to inspect home. Worker said that homeowner was not going out to meet him but did grant access to home for inspection. A kitchen and bathroom remodel was taking place. Mr. Lyenel stated he agrees there is a violation and the person they hired to take care of renovation assured them that everything would be done by the code. They have begun process to pull permits for renovation. Board discusses time frame to remedy violations.

 

 

MOTION: With respect to case(s):10-13-11905 I move for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that there exists a violation or violations of Section(s) 6-4 (a) of the Miami Shores Village Code. “The offending party shall correct all such violations within 60 days and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance by that time, the Code Enforcement Officer may report back to the Board and, in such event, a fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator in the amount of $50 a day thereafter, which will constitute a lien on the property of the violator. Costs in the amount of $30 are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violation to date.

 

 

Moved by Barry Perl, seconded by Manny Quiroga.

Vote: Motion passed. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).

Yes: Barry Asmus, Barry Perl, Manny Quiroga, Rod Buenconsejo, Chairman Robert Vickers.

No: John Patnik,

 

 

Case: 10-13-11906

Owner: Francine Pierre Louis

Address: 20 NE 104 St.

Violations: 6-4 (a)

 

Chairman states this case is a continuation of previous case yet because floor beams and a possible engineering report that would be needed discusses time frame that should be given.

 

MOTION: With respect to case(s): 10-13-11906 I move for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that there exists a violation or violations of Section(s)6-4 (a) of the Miami Shores Village Code. “The offending party shall correct all such violations by March 3, 2014 and shall immediately notify the Code Enforcement Officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance by that time, the Code Enforcement Officer may report back to the Board and, in such event, a fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator in the amount of $50 a day thereafter, which will constitute a lien on the property of the violator. Costs in the amount of $30 are hereby assessed to recoup the Village’s expenses in prosecuting the violation to date.

 

Moved by Barry Perl, seconded by Barry Asmus,

Motion passed unanimously.

 

Summary Adjudication for 1st Hearings:

Case#’s: 10-13-11908; 10-13-11926; 10-13-12020; 10-13-12022; 11-13-12091; 11-13-12104; 11-13-12105; 11-13-12108; 11-13-12109; 11-13-12118; 11-13-12120; 3-13-11110; 6-13-11449; 6-13-11500; 7-13-11621; 9-13-11809; 9-13-11839; 9-13-11854; 9-13-11858; 9-13-11864.

 

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

 

MOTION: I move for 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 such case, the offending party shall correct the violation within and 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 fact 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 lien on the property of the violator. Further, with respect to each such 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.”

Moved by Manny Quiroga, Seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

Motion approved unanimously.

 

 

PENALTY HEARINGS

 

 

Summary Adjudication for Penalty Hearings:

Case #’s: 10-13-11948; 10-13-11949; 10-13-11950; 10-13-11951; 10-13-11952; 12-12-10671; 5-13-11348; 8-13-11696; 8-13-11709; 8-13-11725; 8-13-11726; 8-13-11745; 8-13-11753; 9-13-11820; 9-13-11837.

 

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

 

Motion:I move that, in each case currently remaining on the penalty docket for tonight’s hearing, 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 from the day the violation was to have been corrected. That upon recording, the Board’s Order in this regard will constitute a lien on the property of the violator.

 

Moved by Manny Quiroga, Seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

Motion passed unanimously.

 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

 

Case: 3-10-6799; 9-07-2606; 6-08-4353; 6-10-7247

Owner: Bank United

Address: 35 NE 92 St.

 

Desiree Prado was present on behalf of bank as realtor. Mrs. Prado gave summary of property and stated Bank united took back home in foreclosure and remedied many violations. Property still needs a lot of work and there is a potential buyer for property that will renovate home. Board asked questions regarding compliance and listing offer. Offer to pay $7500 payable 30 days.

 

Motion: Upon receipt of $32,000 payable within 60 days the liens on this property is released.

 

Moved by Barry Asmus, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

 

Discussion by board about amount stated in motion. Board discusses how bank diligently brought property into compliance and has a potential buyer that will continue to renovate home for property values.

 

Motion amended: Upon receipt of $15,000 payable within 30 days the liens on this property is released.

 

Moved by Barry Asmus, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

Vote: Motion passed. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).

Yes: Barry Asmus, John Patnik, Barry Perl, Manny Quiroga, Rod Buenconsejo.

No: Chairman Robert Vickers.

 

 

Case: 11-06-1330; 11-06-1331; 4-08-4144

Owner: B&L Realty Holdings, LLC

Address: 101 NE 110 St.

 

Marie Duron was present on behalf of B&L realty and stated this property was previously before board and bank chose not to mitigate all liens because they stated liens were wiped out in foreclosure. Board asked questions regarding title search and Attorney confirms with Mrs. Duron that title insurance did not insure over liens and excluded liens in place. Family will reside in home. Offer to pay $1000 payable within 30 days.

 

Motion: Upon receipt of $5000 payable within 60 days the liens on this property be released.

 

Moved by Barry Asmus, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

Vote: Motion passed. (Summary: Yes = 4, No = 2, Abstain = 0).

Yes: Barry Asmus, John Patnik, Barry Perl, Rod Buenconsejo.

No: Manny Quiroga; Chairman Robert Vickers.

 

 

Case: 11-09-6484

Owner: Osvaldo and Anna Velez

Address: 1091 NE 96 St.

 

Mrs. Velez was present and stated a permit was opened in 2009 for a door installed in home and believed to have called for a final inspection but cannot be certain due to personal problems affecting the family at that time. They did not receive any notifications and certified return receipts in file were not signed but date stamped by post office. Mrs. Velez is trying to refinance home and was made aware of liens after a title search was done. Board asked questions regarding certified mail sent. Offer to pay $250 payable within 30 days.

 

Motion: Approve offer of $250.00 payable within 30 days.

 

Moved by Barry Perl, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

Vote: Motion passed unanimously. (Summary: Yes = 6, No = 0, Abstain = 0).

Yes: Barry Asmus, John Patnik, Barry Perl, Manny Quiroga, Rod Buenconsejo. Chairman Robert Vickers.

 

Case: 12-08-5142; 3-09-5513; 3-09-5514; 7-07-2408

Owner: Federal National Mortgage

Address: 89 NW 106 St.

 

Sean Pierre-Paul was present on behalf of Fannie Mae as realtor and stated the violations were incurred by the previous owner. Previous owner did appear before the board to mitigate fines and a relief order was accepted but never paid. Mr. Pierre-Paul stated that there is a potential buyer that will be renovating home. Offer to pay $740 payable within 30 days.

 

Motion: Upon receipt of $7000 payable within 60 days the liens be released.

 

Moved by Barry Asmus, John Patnik.

Vote: Motion passed unanimously. (Summary: Yes = 6, No = 0, Abstain = 0).

Yes: Barry Asmus, John Patnik, Barry Perl, Manny Quiroga, Rod Buenconsejo. Chairman Robert Vickers.

 

 

Case: 4-07-1896; 4-09-5646; 4-09-5651; 12-06-1428; 1-13-10754; 1-13-10751; 12-11-9295.

Owner: Lansdowne Real Estate Holdings, LLC

Address: 140 NW 110 St.

 

Scott Fineman was present as realtor on behalf of Lansdowne Real Estate Holdings, LLC. And property was foreclosed on in 2011. Mr. Fineman was given property to rent and at that time the property did not appear to have any issues. Property was rented for a year and then was placed on the market. A lien search ordered at that time showed outstanding liens on property. Board members asked questions. Offer to pay $7500 payable within 60 days.

 

Motion: Upon receipt of $35,000 payable within 60 days the liens be released.

 

Moved by Barry Asmus, seconded by John Patnik.

 

Discussion by board about motion. Mr. Asmus states violations have been on property for many years.

 

Motion amended: Upon receipt of $15,000 payable within 60 days will release the liens.

 

Moved by Barry Asmus, John Patnik.

Vote: Motion passed. (Summary: Yes = 4, No = 2, Abstain = 0).

Yes: Barry Asmus, John Patnik, Barry Perl, Rod Buenconsejo.

No: Manny Quiroga; Chairman Robert Vickers.

 

Case(s): 11-12-10606

Owner: Ellen W. Sepe

Address: 1066 NE 94th St.

 

Kevin Sepe was present as owner of property and stated he was away last year and a hurricane was bearing down on South Florida and he called an electrician to install a generator that he had in his home so that his family would be okay. The electrician began to do the work, put an electrical panel up and piping but never connected the generator. Mr. Sepe was not present when the generator was being installed but Code Officer came by and stated they could continue but a permit was needed. After coming to City Hall and receiving bids on how much work would cost he decided not to continue. Pictures were presented to board of all the work that had taken place. Code Officer Mike Orta stated he asked contractors to stop work and spoke to the contractor several times about violation and the contractor mentioned he was waiting on the homeowner to let him know how they would proceed. Mr. Sepe stated that he had been to village and did not know who exactly he spoke to but that everything was ok and no other remedy was needed. After finding out in May about liens he still was not aware that he needed to obtain a demolition permit for the generator that was on a slab outside of his home. It was not until a few weeks ago that he was aware of how to cure violation. Board asked questions regarding pictures presented that show work of installation. Offer to pay $1000 payable with 30 days.

 

Motion: Move to accept offer of $1000 payable within 30 days and release lien.

 

Moved by Barry Perl, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo.

Vote: Motion passed. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).

Yes: John Patnik, Barry Perl, Manny Quiroga; Rod Buenconsejo. Chairman Robert Vickers.

No: Barry Asmus.

 

Case: 12-10-8024

Owner: Mainul Chowdhury

Address: 87 NW 100 S.

 

Mr. Chowdhury was present before board for a second time to mitigate fines and stated violations were not incurred by him, rather he bought property with lien. Board makes note that Mr. Chowdhury was aware of lien prior to buying property. Mr. Chowdhury stated he found out about lien a couple days before closing and there were other violations that he cured on time. He understands that all cases are different but objects to a decision made by board last month for a property that was also bought by a different owner aware of liens that were over $100,000 and it was granted relief for about $3000 yet his one lien that accrues to $36,000 was granted relief at $2,500. He only wishes to have a property clear of liens. Offer to pay $1100 payable within 30 days.

 

Motion: Move to accept offer of $1,100 payable within 30 days and release lien.

 

Moved by Rod Buenconsejo., seconded by John Patnik

Vote: Motion passed. (Summary: Yes = 4, No = 2, Abstain = 0).

Yes: John Patnik, Barry Perl, Rod Buenconsejo. Chairman Robert Vickers.

No: Barry Asmus, Manny Quiroga.

 

 

Motion: Approve November meeting minutes.

Moved by Barry Asmus, seconded by Barry Perl.

Motion approved unanimously.

 

New Business- Attorney Richard Sarafan reminds board they are free to contact him regarding pending litigations.

Attorney Richard Sarafan addresses board as council regarding tonight’s meeting and mitigation motions. Strongly urges board to consider an approved policy governing what’s come to be known as the BP motion.

Particular concerned about what it evolved into tonight, and while there are minor concerns about a BP motion in general and have been willing to sit quiet in the past because of the positive effect, the immediate BP motion as the first motion and competition to make sure it’s the first motion is not good.

For one thing, it’s happened to frequently, the BP motion if used at all should be infrequent for special cases where it’s appropriate. The immediate motion, being the first motion heard is particularly bad. Council suggests that we consider a resolution of the board that no such motion can be made as the first motion.

The reasons for this are, first of all it’s not appropriate in every case and it looks bad and it will get you in trouble. Perception is reality and board must put themselves in the position of the people that come before them. We have a system set up to ask them to put in writing what their offer is, we have lengthy discussions here with them, we ask them what their final offer is and that number goes out the window in one vote. One motion made by a member of the board with a second can steer board off in a whole different direction and you have a situation like you’ve seen several times tonight and apparently at the last hearing where the applicant goes to all the trouble to pick a number and lays it out before you and believes it’s the right number yet doesn’t even get that number voted on.

Council is not talking about an express statement made by the Chair asking if there is a motion to accept and there’s no motion, than it’s clear to applicant that the number is not approved or if there is a Yes I’ll move to accept but there’s no second, again it is made clear that the applicant’s number was not approved. At least the applicant feels like he got a fair shot. But when applicant comes up and says I propose x and immediately in a competition somebody undercuts it and says no I propose 32 times x, it gets seconded and voted on and approved and nobody ever votes on x, that is not good.

It deprives the applicant with the ability to get his own number before this board such that sometimes they have to come back a second month just to get their number voted on. It sends the wrong signal psychologically; it undermines the rules placed by the board. An applicant that saw this happen a couple of times intentionally provoked one for the very purpose in seeing what number board was going to propose. Remember we do not negotiate and any negotiation it’s always great if you could get your opponent to propose his number, tells you a lot. This guy saw that dynamic and he got you guys to put your number on the table, now he knows you’ve set the ceiling. He knows he can go for that and whatever else will be below that. My suggestion is that you consider some sort of rule, perhaps one that says a BP can only be made after its clear that no support for the applicants number, either nobody moved it or nobody seconded it or it was defeated. You can’t continue to do what you did tonight.

Chairman asked if by doing that we would have two votes.

Council reminds board that the rule that board set out was that they would only vote on one proposal per applicant per night. A BP is not an applicant’s proposal, it’s the opposite and on rare occasions they have been appropriate and the inventor Mr. BP has used them in the past in my opinion fairly appropriately in cases where it was clear where in most cases the applicant’s number had already gone down in flames. It was clear that he was saving the applicant time by giving an alternative remedy, since their number was not going to pass. The BP motion should be used very infrequent and only when appropriate and definitely should not be an immediate go to.

Chairman mentions that there is a discussion by board prior to vote and its okay for board members to express that they do not support the number presented. The perception is that we have dismissed and overlooked them.

Council states there is a good system is in place and has to let it work without giving the appearance of an imperial board that is going to dictate to them what their application should be.

Chairman reiterates that the board should go through normal process and let applicants hear the whole discussion of approval or disapproval to applicant’s proposal. Then chairman shall ask the final question and a motion shall be made to accept the offer, if the proposal made by applicant is not approved than no motion shall be made.

Council suggests that after board has had a full discussion where anyone can express their opinions as to any offers, the Chairman should say “Do I hear a motion to approve”, and next “Do I hear a second”, and it will move forward. If no there is no second to the motion made, then the Chairman could say “Do I hear any other motions.

Chairman states those other motions cannot be routine and set a standard.

Board members agree with proposal.

Board also discusses attendance and it will be monitored closely next year.

 

 

Motion to adjourn meeting.

Motion passed unanimously.

 

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will be on February 06, 2014

 

ADJOURNMENT

December 05, 2013 Code Board meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

________________________________               _____________________________

Anthony Flores, Code Enforcement Supervisor                    Robert Vickers, Chairman