LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

Code Enforcement - Meeting Minutes June 1, 2017

CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETINGMINUTES

  Thursday, June 1, 2017 

 

  The meeting of the Miami Shores Village Code Enforcement Board was held on Thursday June 1, 2017, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. by Chairman, Robert Smith. 

 

 

Roll Call.

Present: Robert Vickers, Patrick Huber, John Berryman, Kimberly Bruce, Gladys Coia, Rod Buenconsejo, Chairman Robert Smith.

Will everyone that is going to testify tonight please raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

 

In Attendance

Lazaro Remond, Code Compliance Supervisor

Mike Orta, Code Compliance Officer

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Mariana Gracia, Clerk

 

 

FIRST HEARING

Case 4-17-16366

242 NW 93 Street

Mr. Franco Ruiz and Christina Ruiz were present to testify. They are the Tenants living in this property. Ms. Ruiz testified that the mail that came for her Landlord Ms. Alexandra Balmori was not opened. Officer Lazaro Remond testified that the mail was delivered and left with individual. Mr. Sarafan asked for an address. Mr. Ruiz testified that his Landlord had been advised that she had certified mail waiting for at the Post Office. His testimony is that the Landlord knew about the violation. The Legal Department is satisfied that we have serviced this case to the appropriate address. Officer Remond testified that the violation was for installation of cameras without a permit and another one for nuisance or excessive noise.   There was contact made on May 4, 2017 after 8:00 PM. The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan explained the rules about noise violation. 

 

Motion with respect to case 4-17-16366 I move for finding of fact in conclusion of law that there exists a violation of Section 6-4(a) in the Miami Shores Village Code the offending party shall correct the violation 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 automatically assessed to the violator in the amount of $50.00 a day thereafter to constitute a lien to the property of the violator a cost in the amount of $30.00 is hereby assessed to recoup the Village expenses in prosecuting by Mr. Huber

 

Seconded Mr. Berryman

Motion Passed Unanimously

 

Case 5-17-16421

242 NW 93 Street

Mr. Franco Ruiz and Christina Ruiz were present. This case was heard at the same time as the previous case #4-17-16366.

 

Motion to Dismiss the case by Mr. Huber

Seconded by Ms. Coia

Motion Passed Unanimously

 

Summary Adjudication for 1stHearings: Case(s):11-16-16014; 3-17-16248; 3-17-16269; 3-17-16281; 3-17-16309; 4-17-16332; 4-17-16357; 8-16-15682.

The officer, Lazaro Remond, 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 time period specified 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. 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 Patrick Huber, seconded by John Berryman

Vote: Motion passed unanimously

 

PENALTY HEARING

Case 11-16-16053

George Sidney Pickard

869 NE 98 Street

Robert Adam, Esquire on behalf of Mr. Sidney Pickard. Officer Orta testified that last time he saw Mr. Pickard he told him that the case had been continued before the April Hearing. Mr. Adam is saying that Mr. Pickard did not get any notice. Officer Orta testified that he had spoken to Mr. Pickard and told him that the case had been continued. There was discussion between Mr. Sarafan and Mr. Adam about whether or not there was notice given to Mr. Pickard about the continuance. Mr. Adam continues to make the case for not being notified of this hearing. Mr. Sarafan asked if the Attorney and Mr. Pickard had an understanding as to why Mr. Benton gave Mr. Pickard more time. Both the Attorney and Mr. Pickard said no they did not know why.  

 

Motion to re-hear the case by Mr. Patrick Huber, seconded by Mr. John Berryman and the vote passed 5-2

Yes: Patrick Huber, Mr. John Berryman, Ms. Gladys Coia, Ms. Kimberly Bruce, Chairman Robert Smith.

No: Mr. Robert Vickers, Mr. Rod Buenconsejo.

 

Question to Staff from Mr. Sarafan, what is the condition of this property today? Officer Orta replied that the violation is still in place. The Board asked questions. Mr. Adam claims that there was no notice about this case. Officer Mike Orta gave a brief introduction about the case. Section 528 is in violation. He read the Code into the record. The approach must be paved. The Board asked questions to Staff. The Board asked questions of the Attorney and Mr. Pickard. Mr. Adam explained that he had asked to find out when the Ordinance was enacted. Mr. Adam asked Mr. Pickard when he bought the house. Mr. Pickard answered in 1973 and that he has owned the house for 43 years. The Attorney asked if the ribbons were there when he bought the house. Mr. Pickard answered yes they were there at that time. The Attorney asked a few other questions to Mr. Pickard. The Attorney continued to provide information to the Board regarding homes in Miami Shores that have ribbons just like Mr. Pickard’s house. Mr. Sarafan says that clearly the house does not comply with our Code. The question is, is the house grandfathered in. Mr. Sarafan gave a lengthy explanation as to why this Code was enacted. The Board asked questions. Officer Orta said that two Courtesy Notices were delivered. The Board asked questions. Officer Orta testified that the violation was noticed when the front lawn was deteriorated. The Board asked if properties with these same problem can request a variance. Mr. Sarafan answered that yes they can request a variance but it can have granted or denied. The pictures of properties that have ribbons for driveway and grass in front yard were submitted by council. The Board asked questions. The Board discussed that Mr. Pickard had ribbons and no parking other than the ribbons in the front yard. The Attorney said that he bought 44 years ago and that he bought it with this problem. The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan it is up to the Board to decide whether or not they are grandfathered in. He explained the intent of the Code which is to address properties that have to drive through grass to get to their parking. There was discussion about the Ordinance about approaches. Mr. Sarafan explains that the Board has the option to decide if this can be grandfathered in. The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan went over what Motion can be made.

 

Motion to continue until next meeting by Mr. Rod Buenconsejo. Seconded by Mr. Robert Vickers. Motion failed 3-4.

Yes: Mr. Robert Vickers, Mr. Rod Buenconsejo, Ms. Gladys Coia

No: Mr. Patrick Huber, Mr. John Berryman, Ms. Kimberly Bruce, Chairman Robert Smith.

 

Motion: With respect to case 11-16-16053 I move for finding of fact that a violation exists of section 520 (h) of the Village Code. The offending party shall correct all violations within 120 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. A fine is hereby authorized to be automatically assessed against the violator in the amount of $50.00 the day thereafter which will constitute a lien on the property of the violator. Cost in the amount of $30.00 are hereby assessed to recoup the Villages expenses to prosecute the violation to this date.

 

Motion by Patrick Huber, seconded by Robert Vickers and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.

 

Summary Adjudication for Penalty Hearings:Case #’s: 2-17-16222; 3-17-16263; 4-16-15135.

The officer, Michael Orta, 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 Patrick Huber, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo

Vote: Motion carries unanimously

 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 

Case(s): 12-15-14775; 4-09-5668; 4-08-3967; 10-13-12010; 12-15-14776; 12-11-9428

Owner: Lilliana McCausland

Address: 1059 NE 104 Street

 

Mrs. Lilliana McCausland and her husband were present to testify. Ms. McCausland explained that there had been different medical circumstances in her family. She asked for the Board to consider lowering the settlement amount to $15, 000.00. She explained that she had spoken to a second person from the Code Enforcement Department who had said to her that the amount she was offering was not sufficient. She is a housewife and is asking for consideration. Chairman Smith requested clarification regarding the written statement on Mrs. McCausaland’s proposal. Officer Lazaro Remond testified that yes in these situations it is his recommendation to the Board and because of the burden of this being out of compliance since 1999. In these cases, his recommendation is all dependent on the violation. Officer Remond continues to say that he proposed and recommended an amount. Officer Remond said that immediately after any statement that is made he says that it is up to the discretion of the Board. So, in this case when I met with the property owner she was advised that in this case where there is 300,000.00 in liens $500.00 was a recommendation that I would definitely go to the Board and recommend against it. Officer Remond said that we spoke about how much would be a recommendation that would be that I have seen in the past and I showed evidence from other cases through a public records request that she asked as well and that is the number that I advised on. Board discussion took place at this time. Mrs. MacCausland expressed that due to circumstances out of her control this happened. The Board asked questions. Mrs. MacCausland testified that she is trying to take care of things now that they are getting older.

 

Motion: That upon receipt of $15,000.00 payable within 150 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Patrick Huber, seconded by John Berryman

Vote: Motion carries 6-1

Yes: Patrick Huber, Rod Buenconsejo, Kimberly Bruce, John Berryman, Gladys Coia, Chairman Robert Smith

No: Robert Vickers

 

 Case(s): 4-14-12614; 4-14-12615; 4-14-12616

Owner:  CK Property Solutions

 Address: 186 NE 106 Street

 

Mr. BJ Coutono was present to testify on behalf of CK Property Solutions as a Managing Member of the LLC. The Company bought the property and it was abandoned for four years before they bought it. It took the two years to finish the property. He explained all the different repairs they had to do to cure the violations. The Board asked questions. He bought in 2014 at a price of around $300,000.00. The asking price is $400,000.00. Mr. Sarafan clarified that he may have bought it when the violation was a Notice of Violation. 

 

Motion: That upon receipt of $15,000.00 payable within 60 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Patrick Huber, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo

Vote: Motion Passed Unanimously

 

Case(s): 9-08-4806 

Owner:Irene Dakota

Address: 515 NE 96 Street

 

Ira Silver, Esquire representing Irene Dakota was present. The property was brought into compliance, due to financial issues it took some time. There is a short sale scheduled. Mr. Silver expressed that it has not been easy to get to this point. The offer is for $8,000.00. This property was her homestead. Ms. Coia made a disclosure that she had sold this property to Ms. Dakota in the year 2000. The property is in foreclosure with a sale date scheduled to the end of June, 2017. The Board asked questions. Ms. Dakota testified that the property had been brought into compliance before but never came in to tell the Code Officer. 

 

Motion: That upon receipt of $8,000.00 payable within 60 days that the lien be released.

Moved by John Berryman, seconded by Patrick Huber

Vote: Motion carries 6-1

Yes: Patrick Huber, Rod Buenconsejo, Kimberly Bruce, John Berryman, Gladys Coia, Chairman Robert Smith

No: Robert Vickers

  

Case(s): 6-14-12777; 6-14-12778

 Owner: Felipe A. Valls Sr.

C/O Georgette Blackburn

Address: 1201 NE 91 Terrace

 

Georgette Blackburn on behalf of Mr. Valls Sr. was present to testify. Ms. Blackburn testified that Mr. Valls had acquired the property shortly after the violations were in place. He acquired the property in order to help a friend of his wife. The original owner stayed in the house. At the time Mr. Valls got sick because of his age. He is 85 years old. It took some time to get the original owner out of the house. Mr. Valls grandson got involved to get the violations in compliance. They have a Buyer since October of last year. She does not know the purchase price nor the listing price. The Board asked questions. Mr. Valls was just helping a friend. Then he could not get the original owner out of the house. Onix Construction is the company that Ms. Blackburn works for.

 

Motion: That upon receipt of $7,900.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Patrick Huber, seconded by Kimberly Bruce

Vote: Motion passes unanimously

 

Case(s): 7-07-2520

 Owner: Michael Roberts

Address: 279 NE 96 Street

 

Mr. Michael Roberts was present to testify. Going back to the year 2000 he had patched the grass. He testified that he had gone through a bad divorce and had to take care of his children for the past 10 years. Officer Lazaro Remond testified that the condition of the back yard is good. The Board asked questions. Mr. Roberts testified that he had a mango tree in the back that was destroying the grass. As a result, he had to invest in re sodding every two seasons. 

 

Motion: That upon receipt of $2,000.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Gladys Coia, seconded by Patrick Huber

Vote: Motion passed unanimously

 

 Case(s): 8-16-15746; 6-16-15458; 9-16-15783; 6-16-15784; 6-16-15457

 Owner: Vulcan Dynamic Realty

Address: 10550 NE 2ndPlace

 

Mr. Charles Levy was present to testify. Mr. Sarafan asked what Mr. Negrit position in Vulcan Dynamic Realty. Mr. Sarafan questioned the validity of the Power of Attorney. Mr. Levy testified that the company had bought the property in 2016 and did not bring the violations into compliance as quickly as they should have. The property was bought for 380,000.00 and is now for sale for 525,000.00. Mr. Levy is the runner for any violations that the properties may have. The company owns over 300 homes. The Board asked questions. The company had a lot of distressed properties and were not able to bring the violations into compliance. Mr. Sarafan spoke about the property is not a homestead and is a business venture.

 

Motion: That upon receipt of $10,000.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Kimberly Bruce, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo

Vote: Motion Denied 6-1

Yes: Kimberly Bruce

No: Patrick Huber, Rod Buenconsejo, Robert Vickers, John Berryman, Gladys Coia, Chairman Robert Smith

JB Motion: That upon receipt of $40,000.00 payable in 30 days that the lien be released.

Moved by John Berryman, seconded by Gladys Coia

Vote: Motion passed unanimously

 

Case(s): 10-15-14573; 11-15-14739

 Owner: Mehrdad Mac Farid

Address: 726 NE 92 Street #11L

 

Mr. Mehrdad Mac Farid was present to testify. He said he bought the property and had a few things to fix. Some of which were the Association’s responsibility. The contractor he hired did not finish in time. He communicated with MSV and asked for an extension. He later found out that he was being fined. Mr. Sarafan said that at one point there was a stop work order and Mr. Farid emailed and asked for an extension. But it did not come to the attention of the Code Enforcement Department. Mr. Sarafan asked for an explanation as to why it was the Association’s responsibility. Mr. Farid explained that the gas connection to washer and dryer was their responsibility. He lives downtown Miami. He paints in this apartment to relax but unfortunately it has served the opposite. The Board asked questions.

Motion: That upon receipt of $1,000.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Patrick Huber, seconded by Rod Buenconsejo

Vote: Motion passed unanimously

 

Case(s): 11-14-13433

 Owner: Jefferson Geimer

Address: 65 NE 105 Street

 

Mr. Jefferson Geimer was present to testify. In December 2014 he was made aware that he had a violation and he needed to get the house painted. He had a hard time hiring a contractor and he made the Code Compliance Officer Mr. Flores aware of that. He asked for more time and the Officer said that he understood and he would work with Mr. Geimer. He ended up hiring another contractor. In April of 2015 he was made aware that there were fines running on his property. When he questioned why fines were accruing he was shown a picture of a posting of his violation. He claims he never received a notice. Mr. Geimer claimed he did not receive the certified mail. Mr. Sarafan clarified that the letters in the file were never claimed from the Post Office. May of 2015 the final permit was closed. He is aware of how this process works. He would have come to the Board if he would have known. He is asking for relief of this lien. He would like to clear this up. He was unable to attend previous meetings because of work. Mr. Sarafan went over the notices he received and what it said. 

Motion: That upon receipt of $100.00 payable within 30 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Rod Buenconsejo, seconded by Robert Vickers

Vote: Motion carries 4-3

Yes: Rod Buenconsejo, Robert Vickers, Kimberly Bruce, Gladys Coia

No: Patrick Huber, John Berryman, Chairman Robert Smith

 

 

Case(s): 10-16-15894

 Owner: Marianne Bonavita

C/O Omar R. Paez

Address: 1005 NE 98 Street

 

Mr. Omar Paez was present to testify on behalf of Ms. Bonavita. He testified that Ms. Bonavita has health problem that prevented her from being here. She has a son and he also has some health problems. They are now selling the property and found out there is a lien. Her son hid the letter and did not want to tell them about the letter. Mr. Paez came to a previous meeting to see how things works. Ms. Bonavita has been a long time resident. Mr. Sarafan asked if Mr. Paez had witnessed the Power of Attorney. Mr. Paez said that yes he had. 

Motion: That upon receipt of $200.00 payable within 60 days that the lien be released.

Moved by Patrick Huber, seconded by John Berryman

Vote: Motion passed unanimously

 

MINUTES

Minutes for May 4, 2017

Motion to approve minutes, by Mr. Patrick Huber, seconded by Mr. John Berryman and the Motion passed unanimously.

 

Mr. Sarafan went over how certain Request for Relief had been handled and how the applicant had another intention for the property. He asked the Board to try re consider the amount before they vote. The Board is not required to rule at this time if the Board does not have all the information and answers they need to make a decision. The meeting was excellent. Mr. Sarafan says that sometimes there is reasons why people come to the meeting without certain information. The Board can make a motion to continue if they feel they do not have all the right information. Board discussion took place at this time. Chairman Smith thanked Mr. Sarafan for clarifying the issue of grandfathering and how he had handled the issue. 

Mr. Vickers spoke about how he had heard a couple of applicant tonight and they had expressed that they had spoken to Staff. His concern is with their being coached or guided as to what to offer and what to say and what not to say. Mr. Sarafan disagrees with the use of the word coached. Guidance he agrees with. Mr. Sarafand concurs that the residents need some guidance. Board discussion took place. Officer Remond said that the tendency when you put a number on the application if sometimes is a commercial venture and when that is the case the bottom line is what matters. Officer Remond said my recommendation and what I explained to them is that is to the discretion of the Board but if it is a recommendation that I am not agreeing with for our Department and to the Village, what I have said is I will step in and recommend against it. They can request a public records request and they can see what is the precedence. So of course if they come in with 300,000.00 in fines and it is not for adding grass, each case is independent, but when it is that many; my recommendation is this is what we should put down. That is the reason behind my recommendation. Mr. Sarafan asked the Board to remember that these cases will be looked at as precedence. Officer Remond said that it is an opportunity that he has to offer his guidance as a service that the Village has to residents, because a lot of times they don’t know. Mr. Sarafan said that he offers the same guidance when he gets phone calls from attorney’s. Mr. Vickers doesn’t think that is right to get an idea but also what is it worth to you. That is the bottom line, what is it worth to resolve that matter and it be put back on them. They can put anything they want. If they feel they want to put $100.00. Further discussion took place by the Board. Mr. Vickers said to Chairman Smith: when you asked them for the final offer give it a little more finesse or emphasis. Mr. Sarafan admitted to missing Mr. Asmus and how he put emphasis on at the time of the offer. The Board asked questions about the procedure.  Chairman Smith would like to add to the form the usual questions the Board asks. Mr. Sarafan said yes but then when the meeting starts then ask the applicants to swear that this is true. Mr. Buenconsejo thought that Mr. Berryman had a great idea when he came back with a Motion for $40,000.00 in that particular case. The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan suggested that Officer Remond can ask the applicants to provide more information when they submit the Request for Relief. Mr. Sarafan it is in the Applicants interest and in the Village’s interest to get this information. Board discussion took place at this time.

 

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will be on July 6, 2017

 

ADJOURNMENT

June 1, 2017 Code Board meeting was adjourned 

________________________________                         _____________________________

Lazaro Remond, Code Enforcement Supervisor            Robert Smith, Chairman