Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCEB MINUTES 07-18-13CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 18, 2013 6:00 PM A Regular Meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida was held on July 18, 2013, in the Cape Canaveral Public Library Meeting Room at 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Mary Russell called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, The Board Secretary called the roll. lkywakywa Mary Russell Raymond Viens Walter Godfrey James Hale Ralph Lotspeich Lynn Mars OTHERS PRESENT Duree Alexander Brian Palmer Todd Morley Joy Lombardi Kate Latorre Chairperson Vice -Chairperson (Arrived at 6:21 PM) Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Community & Economic Devlp. Director Board Secretary Assistant City Attorney The Board members established that the next meeting would be held on August 22, 2013. Assistant City Attorney Latorre swore in all persons giving testimony, NEW BUSINESS: 6pproval of Meeting Minutes: June 20, 2013. Motion by Mr. Viens, seconded by Mr. Hale, to approve the meeting minutes of June 20, 2013, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 18, 2013 Page 2 COMPLIANCE HEARINGS. - 2. Case No. 13-00024 - Violation of Section 105.1, Permit Required: Section 110.1, Inspections Generalof the Florida Building., Code, as adopted by Section 82-31, of the Cit of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, (120 Jackson Ave.) — Randall Shane Reynolds, Trustee. Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander, provided an overview of the Case history and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Alexander testified that the violation is for work without a permit. Officer Alexander stated that, following a complaint, a site visit revealed window replacement and roof work being done by an unlicensed contractor without a permit. A Citation was issued to the individual and a Stop Work Order was posted on the property. Mr. Reynolds testified that the scope of work turned out to be larger than he expected. Mr. Reynolds stated that he has the required engineering for the window and would be submitting for a permit this week and requested additional time for compliance. Officer Alexander respectfully requested that the Board find the Respondent in non-compliance of the Board Order, and be given until September 19:, 2013 to come into compliance or impose the fine in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150,00) for the first day and seventy- five dollars ($75.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Motion by Mr. Viens,, seconded by Mr. Hale, to accept Staff's recommendation and find the Respondent in non-compliance and be given until September 19, 2013 to come into compliance or impose a fine iin the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) for the first day and seventy-five dollars ($75,00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Vote on the motion carried unanimously, 3, Case No. 13-00037 — Violation! of Section 302.1, Sanitation• Section 303.14, Window, Skyli ght and Door Frames; Section 304.3, Interior Surfaces, of the International Propg!jy Maintenance Code (1998 edition), as adopted by Section 82-221, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, (226 Polk Ave.) — Russell L. Moots, Property Owner, Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander, provided an overview of the Case history and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Alexander testified that the violation is for property maintenance, Officer Alexander stated that Mr, Moots had repaired the ceiling, and has been maintaining the exterior of the property. Officer Alexander explained that Mr. Moots had not repaired the windows, as required. Russell Moots, property owner, testified that he fully intended to have the windows repaired by this time; however, due to financial issues he will need additional time, Officer Alexander respectfully requested that the Board find the Respondent in non-compliance of the Board Order, and be given until August 22, 2013 to come into compliance or impose the fine in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the first day and fifty dollars ($50,00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 18, 2013 Page 3 Motion by Mr. Viens, seconded by Mr. Hale, to accept Staff's recommendation and find the Respondent in non-compliance and be given until August 22, 2013 to come into compliance or impose the fine in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the first day and fifty dollars ($50.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Vote on the emotion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. Case No. 13-00033 - Violation of Section 34-96dStandards Established, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, (107 Anchorage Ave,) — Sea Spray Townhomes Condominium Association, Inc., c/o K. Stafford R.A, Code Enforcement Officer, Brian Palmer, provided an overview of the Case history and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Palmer testified that the violation is for a dilapidated fence, Officer Palmer stated that, following a complaint, a site visit revealed the fence was leaning over onto the adjacent property and two gates were falling off the hinges. Officer Palmer further stated that the un -maintained gates provide direct joint access to fire hydrants. The Board Chairperson asked if anyone were present to speak on behalf of the Respondent. No person responded. Officer Palmer respectfully requested that the Board find the Respondent in violation of Section 34-96(d), Standards Established, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, and impose a fine in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the first day and twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Motion by Mr. Viens, seconded by Mr. Hale, to accept Staff's recommendation and find the Respondent in violation and impose a fine in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75,00) for the first day and twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Vote on the motion carried unanimously, 5. Case No. 13-00034 - Violation of Section 105.1 Permit Requjrecl� Section 110.1, Inspections General, of the Florida Building Code, as adopted by Section 82-31, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, (8522 N. Atlantic Ave.Unlit 35�Willjam & Carol Groetsch, Property Owners. Code Enforcement Officer, Brian Palmer, provided an overview of the Case history and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Palmer testified that the violation is for work without a permit. Officer Palmer stated that, following a complaint, a site visit revealed new windows had been installed without a permit, Officer Palmer submitted a letter from the Respondent requesting additional time to come into compliance, The Board Chairperson asked if anyone were present to speak on behalf of the Respondent. No person responded. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 18, 2013 Page 4 Officer Palmer respectfully requested that the Board find the Respondent in violation of Section 105.1, Permit Required; Section 110.1, Inspections General, of the Florida Building Code, as adopted by Section 82-31, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, and be given until August 22, 2013 to come into compliance or impose a fine in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) for the first day and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Motion by Mr. Godfrey, seconded by Mr. Viens, to accept Staff's recommendation and find the Respondent in violation and be given until August 22, 2013 to come into compliance or impose a fine in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150,00) for the first day and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Vote on the motion carried unanimously, OLD BUSINESS: 6. Case No. 13-00047 — Violation of Section 110-468, Accessory Structures, of the City of Cgp,g_Canaveral Code of Ordinances, (625 Manatee Ba Dr.) — Donceel. Randal Craig Trustee. Request for Re -Hearing and Motion for Sigy of Order Imposing PgDjIt of First Violation. City Attorney Latorre advised the Board as to procedure Kim Rezanka, Attorney with Dean Mead Law Firm, submitted a Motion for a Re -Hearing and stated that the reason for the Motion was because Mr. Donceel was not present for the Hearing on June 20, 2013. Attorney Rezanka stated that Mr. Donceel was advised by a member of the City Council that a written request for a continuance could be granted because Mr. Donceel was out of the area for training. Ms. Rezenka stated that Mr. Donceel indicated that he had spoken to Mr. Palmer and was led to believe that a continuance would be granted, Attorney Rezanka stated that neither Mr. Donceel nor she were advised of the ten days to file for a new Hearing. She stated that Mr. Donceel met with Staff on Friday June 281" which would have been enough time to file for a Re -Hearing but was not so advised. Mr. Donceel desired to have time to request either an appeal to the Board of Adjustment regarding Staff's interpretation of this matter or to file for a Zoning Code Amendment. Attorney Rezanka added that she had recently submitted an application for a Zoning Code Amendment which would offer a further remedy to her client. Attorney Rezanka further stated that there are no life safety issues with the structure and it is not causing a blighting effect on surrounding properties; therefore she requested that the Board quash the Order from June 20, 2013 and grant a new Hearing. Motion by Mr. Viens, seconded by Mr. Lotspei:ch, to grant a new Hearing. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Code Enforcement Officer, Brian Palmer, provided an overview of the Case history and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Palmer testified that the violation is for the construction of an accessory structure in the front yard. Officer Palmer stated that a Stop Work Order was posted on the property and that he informed the Respondent that the would need to Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 18, 2013 Page 5 contact the Planning & Zoning Director about a variance for the Structure; however, Barry Brown, Planning & Zoning Director, subsequently stated that it was his opinion that a variance would not be a viable option for the structure. Officer Palmer explained that, following a complaint that work was continuing on the structure, a follow-up site visit revealed that the Stop Work Order had been removed and additional work had been observed. Officer Palmer posted a second Stop Work Order on the property. Officer Palimer reported that the Respondent expressed to Staff that it was his opinion that his "Tilki Hut" was not an accessory structure-, however, Staff explained that the structure met the definition per Section 110 of the City Code, Officer Palmer provided a copy of the definitions to the Board. Officer Palmer explained that Mr. Donceel asked for additional time after the item was scheduled to go before the Code Enforcement Board. Officer Palmer informed Mr. Donceel that he could request an extension of time via e-mail and he would present the request to the Board. At the Code Enforcement Board Meeting on June 20, 2013, Officer Palmer presented Mr. Donceel's email to the Board. Officer Palmer requested that the Board find the Respondent in violation and impose a fine. The Board accepted Staff's recommendation to find the Respondent in Violation and impose a fine. Following the receipt of the Board Order, Mr. Donceel requested a re -hearing. Officer Palmer indicated that the City subsequently received a Motion for a New Hearing or Re - Hearing from Mr. Donceel's attorney, The Board questioned the construction and safety aspect of the structure, Officer Palmer explained that the structure is not allowed per the City Code; therefore, there has not been any plans submitted or inspections performed. Officer Palmer stated that it was his opinion that the structure does not constitute a life safety issue. Craig Donceel, property owner, presented exhibits and photos for the Board's review. Mr., Donceel provided an overview of the location of his property and the location of the tiki hut. Mr. Donceel stated that the property has lush landscaping and the tiki but is hardly visible from the street. Mr. Donceel provided a brief description of the photos that he submitted, Mr. Donceel explained that in Section 110-468 the verbiage begins with "No accessory Structure..." and changes to "No accessory building..." a few sentences later. He further explained that this paragraph describes what the accessory building could not be used for; which his tiki but could not be used for any of those purposes. Mir. Donceel provided several definitions of "structure" and stated his opinion that his tiki but does not fit because it is not a building. He further provided City code definitions for "building" and "shed" and stated his opinion that such definitions were not applicable to his tiki but and the codes referencing them were therefor inapplicable. Mr. Donceel also read from City Code Section 34-91, "Landscape means elements of nature and manmade objects combined in relation to one another." Mr. Donceel stated that this definition was the best description of the tiki but with its natural characteristics. Mr. Donceel testified that other City officials have been to the house and agree that the Code that he has been cited under does not apply to the tiki hut. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 18, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Donceel stated that he has submitted a Zoning Code Amendment request that would provide clear and applicable definitions and would authorize the City to consider the granting a variance for an accessory structure to be located in the front yard on a case by case basis. He requested additional time to complete the Code revision and the subsequent variance approval, should he be successful with the Code revision., Mr. Donceel further testified that, with the exception of the Complainant and a few out-of-state owners, he has a petition with signatures of all of the 25 neighbors that are in favor of his tiki hut. The Board asked Mr. Donceel how much time he thought he would need for his request for a Code amendment. Mr. Donceel stated that City Staff told him that the Code Amendment process could take four months; then additional time for a Variance could take an additional two months. Todd Morley, Community & Economic Development Director, testified that Staff did a good job enforcing the Code and stated that the Respondent was cited correctly. Mr. Morley stated that, if Mr. Donceel is successful in getting the Code change, and is also successful in getting the Variance, he still needs to obtain a permit which would take time also, Mr. Morley concluded that realistically it could take six months for a resolution. Chairperson Russell asked Mr. Donceel why he removed the Stop Work Order Mr. Donceel explained that the exposed framing, made of Cyprus wood, started to turn black and it needed to be protected. He stated that he took pictures to the City and requested permission to cover the wood. Mr. Donceel said that, on the day he approached the City, Glenn Pereno was in a meeting and he asked to speak to Mr. Brown. He stated that after explaining the situation to Mr. Brown, he was told to "do what you have to do to protect the wood." Mr. Brown also said that he would talk to Mr. Pereno and Mr. Palmer about the conversation. Mr. Donceel removed the Stop Work Order due to surveillance of the property by the complainant. John Johanson, General Contractor, testified that he agreed with Mr. Donceel that his landscape ordainment does not fit the description of an accessory structure. Mr. Johanson stated that Mr. Donceel has spent tens of thousands of dollars on his landscaping and it is beautiful and well maintained and brings value to the community. He further stated that if folks would look at the definitions again they would see that this is not a structure and it's not a building; it is landscaping. Mr. Johanson explained that all this is over a conflict between two neighbors; however the majority of the neighbors are in favor of what he has done. Mr. Johanson concluded by stating that if folks read the Code as it is written, Mr. Donceel is correct. Mr. Donceel explained that he informed Staff that he believed he was cited under the wrong Code and asked how to appeal the decision; he was told that he would have to take it to the Board of Adjustment. When he requested an application Staff was not able to produce one until a week later, Dan Gilbert, of 620 Manatee Bay Dr., testified that Mr. Donceel has violated the City Ordinance and the Building Code., Mr. Gilbert stated that he has concerns regarding the safety due to the fact that the structure has not been inspected, Mr. Gilbert also stated that this property owner has no regard for City Code. Mr. Gilbert expressed that a good compromise would be to remove the structure until Mr. Donceel is able to obtain a permit for construction. Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes July 18, 2013 Page 7 Attorney Rezanka stated' that Mr. Donceel made a good argument and, because the City Code is ambiguous, requested a four month continuance to give them time to complete the process of a Code amendment. Officer Palmer respectfully requested that the Board find the Respondent in violation of Section 110-468, Accessory Structures, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances and impose a fine in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) for the first day and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Officer Palmer stated that Staff would support an eight month extension due to the fact that they have applied for the Code amendment; this, is not a life safety issue; and this will be a lengthy process, The Board held a discussion regarding an interim status report at four months to decide which direction to go, based on Mr. Donc,eel's progress at that time. Motion by Mr. Godfrey, seconded by Mr. Viens, to amend Staff's recommendation and find the Respondent in violation and be given four months (November 21, 2013) to come into compliance or impose a fine in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) for the first day and seventy-five dollars ($75.010) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. Approved on this 2013. —4- � Joyfo f _Vy Rusll, Chairperson