CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES Thursday, October 20, 2016

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES Thursday, October 20, 2016"

Clement Snow
5 years ago
Views:

1 MINUTES ARE NOT VERBATIM CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES Thursday, October 20, 2016 A meeting of the Okaloosa County Code Enforcement Board was held Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. at the Okaloosa County Administration Building, 1250 Eglin Parkway N., first floor Commissioner s Chambers, Shalimar, Florida. Board members in attendance were Spence King, Skip Miller, Caralee Gibson, Mike Banks, Dennis Chavez and Cathy Alley. Fay Seketa was not present. Assistant County Attorney Kerry Parsons was also present. Growth Management staff in attendance Lisa Payton, Code Enforcement Supervisor; and Teresa Mullins, Administrative Assistant. 1. ROLL CALL Teresa Mullins conducted roll call. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 18, 2016 Motion to approve the minutes as written made by Skip Miller, Second by Caralee Gibson; approved unanimously. 3. SWEARING IN OF ALL SPEAKERS Ms. Mullins swore in those wishing to address the Board. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Ms. Lisa Payton informed the Board that neither she, nor Ms. Mullins would be available for the scheduled November meeting as both would be out of office at that time. Ms. Payton reminded the Board that per the Board s order, Mr. Kolmetz is supposed to appear again before them at their November meeting as his 90 days will be up. Ms. Payton stated that staff will have to move Mr. Kolmetz to the December meeting. Ms. Payton asked for the Board s understanding and approval. A brief discussion ensued regarding holding a December meeting. Chairman King stated that, given the Board s consensus, the scheduled November meeting. Ms. Payton stated that staff would send Mr. Kolmetz a letter notifying him of the change in meeting dates. Ms. Caralee Gibson asked staff to be sure to include in that letter the end date of the 90 days given by the Board so that Mr. Kolmetz understands that the Board is not giving him additional time just by moving the meeting date. Ms. Gibson stated that the 90 day deadline will not change and she wants to make sure that Mr. Kolmetz understands that he is still accountable to the Board for his progress made by that date. 1

2 Ms. Payton stated that staff will photograph and document the progress or lack thereof at Mr. Kolmetz s property on the deadline so that the Board can ascertain whether or not Mr. Kolmetz has met the requirements of the Board s order from August 18, OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: a. CEB CASE # Ralph Carlton Howard Jr. Location of Violation: 902 Meadow Lane, Fort Walton Beach Ordinance Violation and Public Nuisance. Okaloosa County Land Development Ordinance 91-1 as amended, Chapter 6 Development Design Standards, Section Construction Standards, (11) c and d (vii); Chapter 9, Operational Performance Standards, Section Public Nuisance. Ms. Payton informed the Board that staff began receiving complaints about this property in December of 2015 regarding overgrown grass. Ms. Payton stated that she visited the site herself, walked the property and found that the grass was about calf high; however, as the County does not have a vegetation ordinance the complainants were told that while staff could ask the owner to comply, they would be unable to enforce the request. Ms. Payton further stated that staff contacted Mr. Howard, informed him of the complaints, and asked him to please take care of the overgrowth on his property. Ms. Payton stated that Mr. Howard agreed to take care of the problem; however, when staff revisited the site, nothing had been done. Ms. Payton further stated that, because the County does not have a vegetation ordinance, staff closed the case. Ms. Payton stated that staff received another complaint in June of 2016 specifying overgrown vegetation with snakes and rats coming from that property. Ms. Payton further stated that staff attempted to contact Mr. Howard at his workplace which is the only contact phone number that staff has for him. Ms. Payton stated that Mr. Howard does not live at 902 Meadow Lane, instead he lives with his mother; however, he was unwilling to provide staff with his mother s address or contact information for that location. Ms. Payton further stated that staff attempted to contact Mr. Howard at his workplace; however, staff was informed that Mr. Howard was on vacation and unavailable. Ms. Payton stated that staff received another complaint, from an adjacent neighbor, regarding the overgrowth, vermin getting into the garage and an increase of snakes and rats on the property. Ms. Payton further stated that she visited the site again and found the grass to be knee high with seedlings growing up in the front yard. Ms. Payton stated that the backyard is so full of seedlings and overgrowth that she would have been unable to enter it. Ms. Payton noted that the fence gate was open which allowed her to see into the back yard. Ms. Payton informed the Board that this property is directly adjacent to Eglin Air Force reservation land which is wooded. Ms. Payton stated that staff contacted Mr. Howard on September 9, 2016, at which time he apologized for not taking care of the problem when he was originally contacted; however he informed staff that the problem was that he never had the funds available at the same time that he had time available to take care of the issue. Ms. Paton further stated that staff issued a Correction Notice to Mr. Howard which gave him time to comply with the Building Code in repairing the damaged garage structure. Ms. Payton noted 2

3 that the garage door is damaged as is part of the eave, which would allow small vermin to access the structure. Ms. Payton stated that she didn t notice any water damage or other damage, but with the excessive overgrowth in the backyard, it is easy to see how the property could harbor small vermin, as well as acting as a breeding ground for mosquitos and flies. Ms. Gibson asked if the house was occupied. Ms. Payton stated that the house is not occupied; however, she noted that the house does have power and the exterior front porch light has been left on for months. Ms. Payton further stated that she did not see any evidence of vagrants and all of the windows and doors that were visible are intact and appear secure. Ms. Payton noted that, as staff could not access the backyard, only staff could only view those windows visible from the gate. Ms. Payton stated that, upon receipt of the Correction Notice on September 9, Mr. Howard told staff that he would have the issue taken care of over the weekend. Ms. Payton further stated that staff allow Mr. Howard additional time; however, as of today, nothing has been done. Ms. Payton stated that staff hand-delivered to Mr. Howard, at his place of employment, notice to appear before this Board at this meeting. Ms. Payton provided the Board with staff s recommendation, that being, to allow Mr. Howard 30 days to comply, and if he doesn t then a fine of $ per day retroactive to today s meeting plus administrative costs to cover the pursuit of this issue. Assistant County Attorney Kerry Parsons informed the Board that they must allow an opportunity for abatement; however, there is no set amount of time that must be allowed. Attorney Parsons further stated that the proposed fine of $ per day retroactive to this meeting date until such time as the property is brought into compliance, along with administrative costs is well within the purview of this Board. Chairman King asked Ms. Payton for staff s recommendation. Ms. Payton stated that staff recommends allowing Mr. Howard 30 days to comply, and if he doesn t then a fine of $ per day retroactive to today s meeting plus administrative costs. Ms. Cathy Alley asked Ms. Payton if Mr. Howard is physically capable of taking care of the problems himself. Ms. Payton stated that Mr. Howard is physically capable, noting that he works at O-Reilly s in Destin. Mr. Dennis Chavez asked what needed to be done on the property to bring it into compliance. Ms. Payton stated that Mr. Howard must repair the garage door and the eaves so that vermin can t get into the garage. Ms. Payton further stated that staff cannot make Mr. Howard take care of the overgrowth; however, she is of the opinion that the overgrowth is a haven for the vermin that have access the garage. Ms. Payton stated that she is unsure if the fact that the overgrowth harbors vermin is enough to allow staff to include removal of the overgrowth given that the County does not have a vegetation ordinance. 3

4 Mr. Chavez stated that the only thing that the Board can enforce then would be repair of the eaves and garage door in order to keep the varmints out. Ms. Payton noted there is damage visible on one part of the house as well, which is, most likely, termite damage; however, house appears to be secure from vermin of the 4 footed variety. Ms. Payton stated that the damage to the house was also included in the Correction Notice and noted that if there are termites, they could well severely damage the house to the point of collapse. Mr. Chavez stated that he was thinking that the motion should be very specific and detailed so that it would hold up legally. Ms. Payton stated that all of the needed corrections are clearly stated in the Correction Notice Mr. Howard was given so there is no need to restate them in the motion. Ms. Gibson asked why staff wanted Mr. Howard s mother s address. Ms. Payton stated that staff wanted to be able to serve him with the certified notice by mail, but couldn t because they didn t have the address to his mother s home where he is staying. Ms. Payton further stated that, because they couldn t mail certified notice to his work, staff had to hand-deliver the certified notice to him personally at his workplace. Ms. Payton stated that Mr. Howard signed for the notice, apologized and thanked the staff who delivered it. Attorney Parsons stated for the record that the notice delivered to Mr. Howard personally is a legally sufficient method of delivery. Mr. Miller offered up a motion for discussion with Mr. Banks seconding the motion. Ms. Alley asked staff for the background regarding the lack of a vegetation ordinance in Okaloosa County. Ms. Payton stated that the issue of vegetation is going to come before the Board of County Commissioners again due to a case in Shalimar. Ms. Payton stated that the request for a vegetation ordinance was presented to the Board of County Commissioners in October of 2015 and it was defeated 3 2. Ms. Gibson noted that there may be concern that enforcing a vegetation ordinance could be very subjective. Ms. Gibson stated that one person s definition of overgrown may differ from someone else s opinion. Ms. Alley noted that could be true except in cases where the grass is 4 feet high and the tree seedlings are growing into a house. Chairman King noted that the Commissioners need to take care when writing a vegetation ordinance regarding vacant properties, such as the golf course in Bluewater Bay where they did enact a vegetation ordinance. Ms. Payton stated that Code Enforcement staff receive complaints regarding overgrown vegetation or lawns that haven t been mowed all summer from spring throughout the 4

5 summer on a daily basis. Ms. Payton further stated that the Commissioners don t want Code Enforcement staff going out to measure the height of grass. Ms. Payton stated, regarding the current Vegetation Ordinance, that it is limited only to MU-1 and MU-2 zoning districts, and the grass in those zoning districts may not exceed 18 inches in height. Ms. Payton further stated that all 4 of the current Code Enforcement staff could spend all day every day measuring grass during the spring and summer months based on the number of complaints received. Ms. Gibson asked if it wouldn t be possible to ask complainants to send in pictures of the overgrowth to save staff a site visit. Ms. Payton stated that if the issue ends up in Court, staff must be able to say that they actually saw a violation with their own eyes. Ms. Gibson asked if the pictures couldn t be used by staff to see if staff even need to physically go out to the site. Ms. Payton stated that policy states that when a complaint is received, staff must go out to the subject site to view it personally to determine whether a complaint is valid. Ms. Gibson noted, referring back to the pictures of Mr. Howard s property, that a white truck appears in several of the pictures and asked if there were children living in the properties adjacent to Mr. Howard s property. Ms. Gibson stated that she is concerned about Mr. Howard s property being a hazard to children. Ms. Payton stated that the property is a hazard to children and noted that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood. Chairman King asked Ms. Mullins to restate the motion made. Ms. Mullins restated the motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Banks. Motion that we give Mr. Howard 30 days to bring the property into compliance and if the property is not in compliance in 30 days, then assess a fine of $ per day retroactive to today plus administrative costs made by Skip Miller; Second by Mike Banks; approved unanimously. Chairman King announced that the next meeting of the Board would be on December 15, OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman King opened up a discussion regarding landscaping. Ms. Gibson asked Attorney Parsons if legal staff have searched out any effective vegetation ordinances that are already in place and have been pursued reasonably and with successful outcomes so that staff here doesn t have to come up with something that s already been 5

6 created elsewhere. Ms. Gibson offered her time to look through any such existing ordinances herself to spare staff from having to spend time on it. Ms. Gibson stated that, in her experience, it is more likely that one can get approval for something if all of the background work is completed and a finished or almost finished product is presented. Ms. Payton stated that all of that work has already been done by staff. Chairman King noted that during the first discussion that this Board had on the issue of a vegetation ordinance, the attorney recommended looking at the ordinances in Leon County and Wakulla County. Attorney Parsons noted that the legal firm she works for also serves as the legal counsel for Wakulla County as well as serving in various capacities for several other Counties in Florida. Attorney Parsons stated that she once served as the legal counsel for Citrus County which had a vegetation ordinance that limited the height of grass to 18 inches in all zoning districts except for Agricultural and Rural Residential districts. Attorney Parsons further stated that there are ordinances like this elsewhere in the State that have been successful; however, a major concern that frequently comes up during the public hearings regards the cost of implementing such an ordinance. Attorney Parsons stated that she worked with one County in particular which had a population of only 140,000, with a vegetation ordinance that required grass to be no higher than 18 inches and they had no less than 260 open for high grass at any given time. Attorney Parsons further stated that Legal staff and Department staff did draft a vegetation ordinance; however, it was whittled down by the Commissioners to what is now in place, limited to only MU-1 & MU-2 zoning districts. Ms. Gibson noted that this Board s goal has always been compliance, but the number 2 goal should be efficiency with a mind to the budget so that staff doesn t get overburdened. Ms. Gibson further stated that if an owner failed to comply, then perhaps the County should have the work done and tack the cost onto the owner s property tax bill. Attorney Parsons stated that the County has that provision in place; however, it is only to be used in the case of egregious violations of health and safety. Attorney Parsons further stated that staff must always be aware of private property rights in terms of having the County hiring someone to come in and cut their grass. Ms. Payton informed the Board that the Commissioners have stated that only the most egregious cases, such as those posing a clear and present danger with no response from the owner, should be presented to them, for bids to be submitted to select a contractor take care of the issue and then adding the actual cost of achieving compliance the property tax bill. Ms. Gibson suggested a point assessment; with a requirement that, for example, if a property accumulates over a hundred points, without subjectivity staff would know that this property is a problem and needs to be taken care of more expediently than others with fewer points. Ms. Gibson noted that this might be an issue that requires that workshops be held. Ms. Payton stated that there are 2 of the 5 Commissioners who are adamantly opposed to any sort of vegetation ordinance more than already exists and will not agree to a wider scale vegetation ordinance in any way. Ms. Payton further stated that there is one Commissioner whose stance is somewhere in the middle. 6

7 Mr. Banks stated that he believes that any such ordinance should be limited to those that pose health, life, safety issues. Mr. Banks further stated that this Board, for a long time, has discussed the clean and lien process and getting the costs of those properties that have to be cleaned placed on property tax bills and asked if that process was any closer to being approved. Ms. Payton stated that the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance has been approved, and one of the first cases under this process will be brought before the Commissioners by legal staff fairly soon. Ms. Payton further stated that there are a few more that are in process to be handled under the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance. Ms. Gibson asked what would happen in Mr. Howard s case if he doesn t comply with the Board s order. Ms. Payton stated that staff will issue a citation to Mr. Howard and he will eventually be brought before a Judge. Ms. Payton further stated that this particular property doesn t meet the requirements to be brought in front of the Commissioners for Nuisance Abatement. Ms. Payton stated that Mr. Howard will be given 30 days and then a lien will be established, but he will also be given a citation, which, if the conditions are not met, will force him to appear in Court. Ms. Payton further stated that it s unfortunate that there are some people who just do not seem to care about their properties. Ms. Payton noted that Mr. Howard s property is a homestead property so it is not subject to foreclosure on this potential lien. 8. ADJOURN There being no further business before the Board, Chairman King declared the meeting adjourned. Prepared by: Teresa Mullins, Administrative Assistant II

Meeting Agenda July 14, 2010

Aurora Advocate notified 07-08-10 CITY OF AURORA OHIO -- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Meeting Agenda July 14, 2010 TIME: 7:30 p.m. LOCATION: Council Chambers, Aurora City Hall, 130 South Chillicothe Road 1.