Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/13/1989 1989 Code Enforcement Board July 13, 1989 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY DATE: July 13, 1989 9:00 A.M. TIME: PLACE: 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "F", Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida CEB STAFF PRESENT ANDREWS CONNELLY CONSTANTINE LAMOUREUX PEDONE STRAIN WILLIAMS X X X X X X X BARTOE BOYCE CLARK CONTI LAUBACH MAZZONE MORAD SMITH TOMASINO WILSON BRUTT X X X X X MINUTES BY: Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerk CALLED TO ORDER AT: 9:00 A.M. ADJOURNED: 11:00 A.M. PRESIDING: Darlene Connelly, Chairman ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: None ., .':'.-..~ ....'..--':~. .." .':~~~"'-~-:":'::-".t . " ,. ,'" . .,' .... . ." '~'-p'age"'I"..o.;,.\~<. .".J / CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGE N D A DATE: July 13, 1989, at 9:00 A.M. NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 22, 1989 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Code Enforcement Board vs. William and Shirley Collins; Case No. 89~007 5. OLD BUSINESS Review of Statement of Compliance of CEB vs. Salvatore Palermo; Case No. 89-006 and CEB vs. Humberto Ayala; Case No. 89-003, heard on June 22, 1989. Request for Rehearing of the CEB vs. Barbarino, Cali and Montello by attorneys Roger Wiedeback and Pam Mac'Kie; Case No. 89-005 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. NEXT MEETING DATE Scheduled for August 24, 1989, at 9:00 A.M. 9. ADJOURN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 ITEM: Approval of Minutes of June 22, 1989 Made by Mr. strain that the minutes of June 22, 1989, be approved with the motion on Page 17 being changed from a 5/0 vote to a 5/2 vote. Seconded by Mr. Lamoureux. Carried unanimously. MOTION: ***** CASE NO: 89-007 RESPONDENT: William D. and Shirley L. Collins LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 5317, 5303, 5313, 5307, 5301, 5249, 5311, 5315 Fleming Street, Naples, Florida. VIOLATION: Collier County Housing Code Ordinance No. 89-06, Section Five COMMENTS: Mr. William Smith, Code Compliance Investigator, presented Composite Exhibit "A" for the record with regards to Case No. 89-007, William D. Collins, respondent. Mrs. Connelly stated that all the materials in Composite Exhibit "A" have been entered into the record and asked if Mr. Estelle Vaughn had any discre- pancies with regard to any of this material, to which Mr. Estelle Vaughn, Agent for the Owner, replied nega- tively. Code Compliance Investigator Smith stated that Mr. William D. Collins is owner of record of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, Block 7, and Lots 6-11 inclusive in Block 8, Naples Manor, and has been charged with being in violation of Collier County Housing Ordinance 89-06, Section Five. He stated that on February 10, 1989, he conducted an inspection at the above properties and several housing code violations were noted under the Housing Code Ordinance 89-06 and a report outlining these viola- tions was made and sent to Mr. Estelle Vaughn and Mr. William D. Collins. He stated that on February 27, 1989, he and Mr. Clark met with Mr. Collins, Mr. Collins' son, and Mr. Vaughn and advised them of all the violations. He indicated that a violation letter dated February 10, 1989, shows that Mr. Collins was at Page 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 the meeting and did initial the violations. He stated that on April 6, and April 7, 1989, he conducted a reinspection at the above properties, adding that numerous housing violations still existed but all the life safety issues had been corrected. He stated that all the electrical violations, plumbing violations, and structural violations had been corrected by then. He noted that on April 27, 1989, he made a reinspec- tion of the above properties for compliance and at that time, he met with Mr. Vaughn and indicated that there were still some violations noted at this time. He stated that on May 25, 1989, a second notice was mailed and another notice was mailed to Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Collins on May 26, 1989, along with a stipulation and the notice of violation order to correct. He stated that on June 19, 1989, Investigator Maria Valcarcel met with Mr. Vaughn per his request and Jose, who was the Manager for Mr. Vaughn, to have a reinspect ion of the existing violations of the proper- ties and a report was outlined of violations still existing at that time. He reported that on July 6, 1989, he and Investigator Maria Valcarcel conducted a reinspect ion of the above properties and noted that some of the violations had been corrected and some still existed which should have been corrected by April 27, 1989. He stated that on July 7, 1989, he and Investigator Valcarcel hand delivered code enfor- cement board packets to Mr. Collins at the Beachcomber Club on 5th Avenue South. Mrs. Connelly questioned which violations still exist per case number, to which Mr. Smith stated that at 5249 Fleming Street which is 89-00402 violations that still exist are a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, 1, m, and 0, which are structural violations that are attached to the structure, not supporting the struc- ture. He stated that there are no life threatening violations existing on any of the dwellings, adding that all were corrected within the time frame. He noted that there are still 12 minor violations that still exist. He stated that 5313 Fleming Street which is 89-00398 has 10 existing violations which are a, b, c, d, e, f, g, j, k, and 1. He noted that some of these violations also refer to the previous dwelling and are rooms that are infested with roaches and ver- min. He noted that Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Collins have made attempts to spray for roaches and to take care of the vermin but if the occupants do not take the trash Page 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 out of their dwellings, it is fighting a losing battle. He stated that in all fairness, Mr. Vaughn is attempting to correct the problem, but it still exists. He stated that several of the windows panes in each unit were broken and have been repaired, but when he goes back for a reinspection, some of the windows are broken again. He noted that there is evidence of new glazing and new sealants around the windows. Mr. Smith stated that at 5307 Fleming Street which is 89-08571, all violations were corrected as of July 6, 1989. He stated that they were given several dates to comply and prior to this date, everything had been corrected. He stated that 5303 Fleming Street which is 89-08570, 5301 Fleming Street which is 89-00395, and 5317 Fleming Street which is 89-00400, all viola- tions have been corrected. He stated that at 5315 Fleming Street which is 89-00399, there are violations a, b, c and e which have not been corrected. He noted that this is roach infestation, broken window pane that has been broken again, the front door has not been repaired and there are also several window cranks missing. He stated that at 5311 Fleming Street which is 89-00397 there are violations a, b, c, and e that still exist which are the infestation of roaches, unsanitary tub, south exterior door that is not air tight or weather tight and vermin problems. Mr. Smith stated that in total there are 30 violations that exist and he is recommending that the Board issue a deadline on these violations, adding that Staff would recommend that there be a $20.00 per violation fine after 15 days from the Board's hearing. He stated that Mr. Vaughn has tried to comply and took care of all the life safety issues immediately. Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark stated that with regards to the vermin and roach infestation, there has to be a fair amount of responsibility placed upon the tenants. He stated that if the tenants do not want this infestation they have to be reasonably prudent in their sanitary habits. He noted that it is the responsibility of the owners to take care of this problem, but if they have irresponsible tenants that destroy the property, they do have alternatives under the law. In answer to Mrs. Connelly, Mr. Strain stated that violations a, c, and g refer to roach and vermin Page 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 infestation, adding that they are repetitive viola- tions within the same dwelling. Mr. Strain questioned if this is a separate violation each time, to which Mr. Smith replied affirmatively because it became a separate matter as it was noted that the roaches were taken care of in the kitchen but there are still roaches in the bathroom. Mr. Strain stated that this violation, if cited, could incur a penalty per viola- tion for the same thing for 3 different areas of the house or more. Mr. Clark stated that in the future, the violations will be per structure, adding that it is necessary to do this externally with the property owner, but before the Code Enforcement Board, it will be one violation per structure. In answer to Mrs. Connelly, Mr. Strain stated that vermin and roach infestation violations also exist ln 89-00398, 89-00397, and 89-00399. Mr. Estelle Vaughn stated that he has sprayed 3, 4, and 5 times in every unit and the problem is still there. He stated that the tenant should be as respon- sible as the owner, adding that he has given 17 noti- ces to people to clean up their dwellings or move. He stated that he became involved with these units last November and he is working on the problems that exist in these units, but it takes time. In answer to Mrs. Connelly, Mr. Vaughn indicated that he has been doing the spraying himself, but if the problem cannot be solved, he may have to hire a professional to solve the problem. He stated that some of the violations were purely an oversight due to the fact that there were so many violations. He stated that at this time, everything has been corrected with the exception of the infestation problem. In answer to Mrs. Connelly, Mr. Vaughn indicated that Mr. Collins initialed the stipulations and it has been agreed that these problems would be resolved. He noted that Mr. Collins is the owner of record, but he has a lease/purchase arrangement which is why he is doing all the work at this time. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of Mr. Collins with his knowledge and authority. He noted that all the doors have been repaired, the shower has been corrected, the windows and light fixtures have all been corrected. He stated Page 5 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: MOTION: JULY 13, 1989 that he will meet with the investigator so that he can go over each violation to see that it has been corrected. Mr. Andrews questioned if Mr. Vaughn is willing to try a professional exterminator and also questioned how many units he has, to which Mr. Vaughn indicated that he would be willing to contact a professional exter- minator for prices as it would be costly because he has 40 units. Mrs. Connelly stated that there being no additional questions, the hearing is closed on Case No. 89-007 and the Chair will entertain a motion that will set forth the Findings of Fact as to whether there are any violations of Ordinance 89-06, Section Five. Made by Mr. strain that the Findings of Fact are that William D. Collins and Shirley L. Collins represented by Estelle Vaughn are the owners of record of the sub- 1ect property; that the Code Enforcement Board has JuriSdiction of the person who responded; that William D. Collins and Shirley L. Collins are represented by Estelle Vaughn and he was present at the public hearing; that all notices required by Collier County Ordinance 88-89 have been properly issued; that the property located at 5313 Fleming Street, 5249 Fleming Street, 5311 Fleming Street, and 5315 Fleming street, described as rental units is in violation of section Five, Collier County Ordinance 89-06 as amended with the following particulars as they relate to vermin and roaches; non-weather type conditions, insecure con- ditions, electrical code violations, improper sanita- tion; w1ndow screens, appliances not working; commodes and other unsanitary conditions existing. Seconded by Mr. Andrews. Carried unanimously. Made by Mr. strain that under the conclusions of law William D. and Shirley L. Collins are in violation of Collier County Ordinance 89-06, section Five, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclu- sions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, F.S., and Collier County Ordinance 88-89 as amended 1t is hereby ordered that the respondent correct the violations of section Five of Collier County Ordinance 89-06 as amended by securing the pro- perty, weather tightening the entrances, exits, and windows, correcting the code violations for electri- Page 6 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 cal, correcting the improper sanitation, providing window screens, fixing the appliances, cabinets, and commodes where necessary and eliminating the vermin and roaches and in addition to the descriptions given for the violations, the findings that Mr. Smith has referred to will be accepted for a total of 26 separate violations. That said correction be completed on or before 21 days from this date and that if respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then in that event respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $20.00 per code per day for each and every day the violation described herein continues ~ast said date. Failure to comply with this order w1thin the specific time will result in recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, F.S. which may be foreclosed and respondents pro- perty sold to enforce the lien. Done and ordered this 13th day of July, 1989, at Collier County, Florida. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Mr. strain amended his motion to allow 30 days for the infestation issue which is four violations; one for each unit and that within that 30 day time ~eriod, the owner corrects the problem to the satisfact10n of the Code Enforcement Officers or he shows proof of having a professional firm contracted, who is licensed in the County, to handle it. Mr. williams amended his second. Upon call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. ***** *** Recess: 10:10 A.M. - Reconvened: 10:20 A.M. *** ITEM: REVIEW OF STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF CEB VS. SALVATORE PALERMO; CASE NO. 89-006 AND CEB VS. HUMBERTO AYALA; CASE NO. 89-003, HEARD ON JUNE 22, 1989 COMMENTS: Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark stated that with regards to both of these cases, they are in compliance. He noted that Mr. Ayala has applied for a permit for the existence of the mobile home and Mr. Palermo has obtained a building permit which allows him to maintain the non-volative materials on the pro- perty and the volative materials have been removed. He noted that there were no fines levied on either of these cases as they had both complied within the time frame that was imposed by the Code Enforcement Board. Page 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 ***** ITEM: REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF THE CEB VS. BARBARINO, CALI AND MONTELLO BY ATTORNEYS ROGER WIEDEBACK AND PAM MAC'KIE; CASE NO. 89-005 COMMENTS: Mrs. Connelly stated that her office received a telephone call from Doctor McDuffy on July 12, 1989, adding that she was not in to take the call and later on that same day, a letter was hand-delivered to her office addressed to the Code Compliance Board which states that he is appalled at the St. Matthews situation. He stated that he is urging the Code Enforcement Board to allow a new hearing on the entire matter. She stated that she did not speak with Dr. McDuffy, adding that she would like to caution people that this board is required under law to consider mat- ters presented on the record, evidence presented during the hearing, and it is not appropriate for mem- bers of the public or respondents to contact any member and would request that in the future all per- sons govern themselves accordingly. Mrs. Connelly questioned if the letter dated June 26, 1989, and signed by Ms. Mac'Kie is in accordance with the requirements and qualifies as a petition for re- hearing, to which Attorney Wilson replied affir- matively. Attorney Wilson stated that she received a telephone call on the same date from Attorney Wiedeback and a confirmation letter subsequent to the telephone call from Mrs. Mac'Kie that they had joined together in their request for a rehearing. She stated that the information contained in the letter of June 26, 1989, is sufficient to bring the matter before the Board under the provisions of the ordinance. She stated that this petition is on behalf of Barbarino, Cali, and Montello. Mrs. Connelly stated that Mrs. Mac'Kie's petition for rehearing states that she would like this petition considered as her formal request for a rehearing of the Code Enforcement Board decision with regard to St. Matthews House matter. She stated that the petition indicates that the request is based on the grounds that the decision made by the Board was contrary to the evidence presented in its failure to allow a Page 8 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 reasonable period of time for obtaining site develop- ment permits and constructing the improvements required by the Order. Mrs. Connelly questioned if the grounds for the rehearing qualifies for a re- hearing, to which Attorney Wilson replied affir- matively, adding that there are two provisions within the ordinance that would allow a rehearing; one is contrary to evidence and the other is that the hearing involved in error on a ruling of law which was fun- damental to the decision of the enforcement board. She noted that the ordinance also states that there should be reasons given as to why the request is alleging that it is contrary to the evidence. Mrs. Connelly stated that at this point, the Board is deciding whether they will rehear the matter and there is no need to get involved in the substitive deter- mination at this point. Attorney Mac'Kie stated that what is being decided is whether or not to allow them the opportunity to be reheard. She stated that the rehearing request is limited to the issue of a portion of the Order where it was determined that there would not be a grace period before the fines were to commence, adding that she would subject that this was contrary to the evi- dence that was presented that day. She stated that she would like to make her case on that point. She stated that it appears to have become the practice of this Board to give reasonable time to correct the violations prior to imposing a fine as was decided in the previous case this date. She stated that in her clients case, the grace period was not allowed despite the fact that the violator is prohibited from correcting the violations until permits are issued. She stated that this is the grace period she is asking for. She stated that it appeared that many members were persuaded that St. Matthews House had not acted in good faith during the six month period when it was brought to their attention that there were violations. She stated that she has documentary evidence that this is not correct. She stated that if this was the basis for the members' determination, that portion of the decision was contrary to the evidence. Mrs. Connelly questioned what rule or regulation indi- cates that the Code Enforcement Board has to give a grace period to anyone that is in violation of the Page 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 code, to which Mrs. Mac'Kie stated that there is no obligation, but this was the point of the last hearing. She stated that this was the issue that was debated and that is a portion of the Order that she is asking to be reheard. Mr. Constantine stated that with regards to the pre- vious case this date, there is no comparison, adding that there was no life threatening situation in the previous case. Attorney Wiedeback stated that he represents Mr. Montello who is present and he is in agreement with the motion for a rehearing. He stated that during the course of the hearing, there was a suggestion made that individual members could be held liable if there was any fire at these premises, adding that if this suggestion was made in a court of law, the judge would dismiss the jury panel and consider them prejudice. He stated that with regards to Chapter 162.06 and 162.07 it refers to violator and it states that the Enforcement Board shall take testimony from the code inspector and alleged violator, adding that he cannot see how Mr. Montello is a violator of anything. He stated that a legitimate effort is being made to resolve this situation, adding that he should be given sufficient opportunity to correct something over which he mayor may not have any control and to give him some direction with regards to the steps that are necessary in order to comply. Mrs. Connelly stated that the comments about Mr. Montello's status as a violator have been waived because at the hearing Mr. Wiedeback conceded on behalf of Mr. Montello that all the violations existed. She stated that the time to have raised those issues would have been when the Board considered whether those violations existed. Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark stated that the Collier County Housing Code stipulates that no person shall lease or let or sublease to another person for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit that does not comply with Section Five of the code. He noted that St. Matthews was never charged, noting that Mr. Wiedeback's client was charging $1,600 a month for a building that should not have been leased at all. He noted that his client also received a 15 page document Page 10 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 outlining the specifics of each violation in great detail. He noted that his client had six months prior to coming before this Board, which was an error on his part in judgment. Mr. Constantine stated that the question before the Board is whether or not there was a flaw in the hearing on Mr. Montello. Attorney Wilson stated that technically the question is whether or not there was a flaw in the Order that was entered, not the proceeding itself. She stated that it is whether the Order was contrary to the weight of the evidence that was heard. Mr. Constantine stated that there were a couple of people that did not agree, but that was simply a minority of the vote, adding that there has been no flaw that he can see. Attorney Mac'Kie stated that the ordinance specifi- cally states that she is allowed to ask and the Board is allowed to grant a rehearing if upon considering what was heard at the hearing and looking at the Order that was granted, that it is reasonable to determine that the Order was contrary to the evidence. Mr. Strain questioned if a rehearing was founded on the basis of Mrs. Mac'Kie's statement would the Board be setting a precedent in future cases, to which Attorney Wilson stated that anything that this Board does can be used by someone at a future hearing with regards to setting a precedent. She stated that it would not set a precedent in the sense that the Board would be bound by such a decision. Mrs. Connelly questioned if the position of Mrs. Mac'Kie is that the grounds for the petition for a re- hearing is that the Boards Order was contrary to the evidence because some board members may have viewed the evidence in a way that indicated that they should not have exercised their discretion in giving a grace period, but the grounds are not being limited specifi- cally to that point? Mrs. Mac'Kie stated that this is correct, because the evidence called for leniency and a grace period primarily because the work cannot be corrected without a grace period. Page 11 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark stated that the issue is whether or not the fines would have to be paid if they had remedy. He stated that if Mrs. Mac'Kie's clients do not continue the violations, then they do not pay the fine. Mrs. Mac'Kie stated that this is not the issue and if it is going to be brought up, she would like a chance to discuss the matter also. Mrs. Connelly stated that the purpose is only to decide whether the petition for rehearing on the grounds that it is contrary to the evidence should be allowed. Mr. Constantine stated that everyone expresses an opi- nion and those opinions were expressed in their vote at the last hearing, adding that he does not feel that there was any flaw in the evidence or the Order. He stated that he feels that if a rehearing is granted, a precedent will be set. Mr. Strain stated that as individuals, every member has to assess whether their own vote was cast based on the evidence that was heard. MOTION: Made by Mr. Williams to deny the request for a rehearing of the CEB vs. Barbarino, Cali, and Montello by Attorneys Roger Wiedeback and Pam Mac'Kie; Case No. 89-005. Seconded by Mr. Constantine. Carried 6/1, (Mr. Lamoureux opposed). ***** ITEM: NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS: Mr. Constantine stated that the packets that the mem- bers receive are repetitive, and questioned if it is necessary to put all this information in more than once, to which Mr. Clark indicated that the packets could be shortened. Mrs. Connelly stated that there should be a workshop to discuss some issues with regards to procedures and other matters. MOTION: Made by Mr. constantine to have a workshop immediately following this meeting to discuss procedures and other matters. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously. Page 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JULY 13, 1989 ITEM: MEETING DATE COMMENTS: Mrs. Connelly stated that the next meeting date will be August 24, 1989, at 9:00 A.M. ***** There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Darlene Connelly, Chairman Page 13