Code Compliance Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, are we ready? I'd like to call to order the Village of Biscayne Park Code compliance ordinance for August 19th. It is now 6 p.m.

Even you get everyone this is a meeting of the village of this in part.

The board is authorized pursuant to chapter 14 of the village's land development code to ensure compliance with the village's code of ordinances. The members of the board are citizens and residents of the village of Biscayne Park. We volunteer our time and will not pay for our services. The purpose of each hearing is to give any alleged violators the opportunity to contest the completion of the code, which resulted in the issuance of a notice to determine whether a violation of the village's code has occurred or is occurring. We are not authorized to dismiss violations based on hardships, igno

If you both would introduce yourselves and your relationship to the property.

I'm going to be quite honest. This went on a long time. While there was indeed a great deal of communication from you folks at SCAF, it was a lot of adversarial situations and you drag on. 250 does not take into account the significant amount of SCAF time that went into all the processing, all the back and forth, the times you came in front of the board. Personally, I would not be comfortable accepting too.

The first thing we have to do is make a motion on your retirement. In the case of CE25-0592, the property is now in compliance. They're offering $250 for their fine reduction. I would make a motion to not accept $250. I'll second.

You heard what staff is suggesting. I would, the ball again is back in your court to make the next offer.

What we're talking about is the level of work that's gone into the various...

You've heard The suggestion from staff, you've heard our reasoning behind not being, quite honestly, I was surprised that staff came in at 7.50 when you consider the amount of work that's gone into it, but I respect them. They know the amount of work it took. I respect them totally, and I certainly will not contradict them, at least not right now. So you know where we are.

Make a motion to accept clients in case CE25 does 0512 to accept their offer of $750 and the funding does. All in favor? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. You're with me. I'm to be paid by September 9 or the fine revolves that was reverts back to its original state.

Right let the record show that Michael and not is here. Clear on the motion that in 50 to be paid by. On favor.

Before we go any further, I mean, in the case of total transparency and honesty, the property owner in this case used to occasionally reach out to Bob when Bob was on the commission. And a couple of times since he's reached out to him, he's in fact contacted Bob regarding this Bob knows better than will involve himself in any code issues. So the only advice he gave Mr. Conte was he might want to meet with a manager or meet with one of the parents.

I need you to identify yourself and your relationship to the property.

Should I show you this? Oh. Okay. I didn't know this. Okay.

We are not here to get into personalities, personality conflicts. We really are here dealing with what you were presented with, in fact, being for service. The village had a legal responsibility to get them cleared off, get that street open. And yes, because that street came from private property, the bill will be generated to the homeowner. And we can talk about a lot of things, but we're not going to get into personalities and who should have behaved differently and whatever. We weren't there.

If one of my trees fall and it falls out into the street, and it's an act of God, an act of Wilma the Hurricane or whatever, it's still my responsibility.

Hurricane on me. I have to pay for the cleanup.

I'm kind of interested in, can you guys hear me? Yes. I'm kind of interested in the discussion that you had with this guy, John, you said his name was?

Irrespective of that, he made a representation to you that you were responsible for. He measured off five feet. Yes. Hold on. I have to say my whole statement before you speak. So he told you that he marked off five feet and said you're responsible for five feet going forward into your property, and that's your responsibility. As a consequence, you made a deal with the contractor to clean up the area that was five feet in that he marked off with the tree that fell and paid the contractor for what was the debris that fell from the tree five feet in on your property. And there was still obviously more tree that was in the road, right?

Yeah, I understand that. But what I'm getting hung up on is there was a representation made to the homeowner. Did he make any representation to you about what was going on? Who was responsible for what's out in the streets?

So your hang-up is that if I would have known, this is you saying I, if I would have known that I was responsible for the whole thing, I would have negotiated another deal with Joe, the contractor.

This was Memorial Day. It's a miracle that anybody even came out. I don't know how much negotiating you could have done with any other vendor to get a better price when it was Memorial Day.

Is the $800 strictly for what had to be done on city property?

Is the $800 bill, does that include them cleaning up on your side?

Yes. $600, if I understood you correctly, was to clean up what was on your side. The $800 is what is owed to the city for the cleanup on the city side.

So you would have given the homeowner the opportunity, even though it was in the public roadway, to do something about it?

Well, that's what I'm getting hung up on. What is it that we have to say about the alleged misrepresentation?

So let me ask you something. Have you determined by virtue of what you've testified to as a misrepresentation about the difference between the amount that you're getting charged now and the amount that it would have been?

And you paid the $7,000? And the five hours that you're talking about, Doreen, that was five hours of who, the police out there?

essentially fee for service and if you remember when we hear fine reductions we do not touch fee for service this makes it a little bit different i appreciate the frustration nobody wants a bill of any size that they didn't expect but again i think dale thank you for explaining it so well two different issues Both have to be dealt with. And thank God there was somebody available on Memorial Day.

I mean, I empathize with you, but the bottom line is that you know that with regard to if a tree falls down in your neighbor's yard or in a public right-of-way, that was your tree, and there's a responsibility for that. It sounds like your beef is between $200 and $400 in the grand scheme of things, between $1,000 and $1,200, aside from the personality, misrepresentations, and all that. But if you get down to the numbers, That's a number that was incurred by the city, and you were not charged for the time that the police were out there directing traffic.

Exactly. That's what I was thinking. Okay. So actually, why don't we table it? And then we can go from there. Table to the end. We should number the one we just certified to.

Well, it looks like three of them. No, I'm sorry. Two of them we would take back. Those are the pieces. Yes, and the other two aren't.

This is 6.4, you said? So this was adjudicated back in 2019?

Okay, so it's just been accumulating daily fines?

I mean, is a part of it not getting permits? And double fees?

I'm going to ask you. Oh, yes. Your name and your relationship to the property, for the record.

With regard to the permits, what is happening with the permits?

Because that's something that you would come down and you would have conversations with. You can get it. You can't. You pay the double fee. You come for an abatement or a dispensation on the fee. But none of that has happened, right?

Okay, so you gave him options how long ago?

Yeah. And have any of those options been moved on?

But now, that's what I'm actually focused on, because with regard to that, he did it without a permit, right?

more than slightly disconcerting is that there are four major situations, all of which are significantly old. All right, sir, I'm going to ask you straight away. Deal just with the first one, the one that has the big thing. He's talking to Mike.

It's hard to hear you, Cheney. That's my guy.

The one that's gone on since 2019. You're right. Sorry. Better? Better? Thank you, sir. The one that started in 2019 that has multiple issues starting with the wood fence. Realistically speaking, what is your plan?

You said that you hired a contractor and he applied or you applied for a permit last night?

And the permit has been paid for for the double fee and all that stuff? But he did everything to get it there. OK.

So at least in terms of the first case, EEN 19, 1953, All applicable permit applications have been submitted. Okay.

I do, but this one's hard. Thank you. It's kind of hard. I'm going to change the dates a little bit.

September 28th appears to be their last meeting.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 4-0.

Right. So the point is, the daily fines and the lien will still hold until all this is settled. I understand. But we'll hold off the foreclosure. Right.

That's the garage enclosure. Oh, yeah, that's the garage enclosure. So, Gil, if you want to make the motion.

I'll second. Michael, second. All in favor?

Good point, yes. obtaining a permanent involves actually paying for it, not just the application. Sometimes there's been confusion, not with you, but without. I understand. Thank you. Okay.

The notice of violation was first given in December of 23. You came in front of the, well, this came in front of us in January of 24. You complied two years later, almost in March of 25. So yeah, it did. accumulate quite a bit.

So if he's in compliance, he can apply for a fine reduction.

No, those are totally different. Right now, as far as you being able to ask for a fine reduction, it's on the two pool cases. Okay. The ones that were done, were done. All right. If he were to apply for a fine reduction by September 4th, would that be time to get on our agenda?

Okay. Okay, so if no more questions make a motion in cases see one of the time in KC n dash two three dash 506 there was a violation the property owner is coming to compliance give the property owner until September 4 to go into village hall fill out a fine reduction request come back in front of us in September. and we'll see where it goes from there. Should he not apply for the fine reduction in time, then set the intent to lien. Okay.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0.

So this is the other pool case that you are in compliance. But again, it has $101,250 in accrued fines. So I would make the same motion that by September 4th, preferably before that, go into Village Hall. fill out the fine reduction request, come back in front of us in September for the discussion. If we don't do that by September 4th, they will file the intent to lien. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. We will see you in September. Thank you guys for your time.

And Doreen, what communication have you had with the homeowner in that time?

I've been in the village for a few times, but I haven't been in communication with Doreen.

I'm saying that you did that. If you didn't pay the money, it was approved, but then you didn't do anything about it.

So you've got to follow through to reach out. You don't just apply and then wait for something to happen.

So what was approved? He already did it. Oh, it wasn't approved. So on June 17th or whatever you said, it was disapproved or disapproved? Okay. And because why?

But it was it was an after the fact permit correct. After the fact, it's still treated like a regular permit right so he's right, but what was wrong with it, that it was that was just disapproved.

That's working better. You got to just get closer.

Yeah. So that's what they're saying, that you put the ugly side on the outside. That's not supposed to be.

One thing I can share with you, having very, very recently gone through a pretty intensive permitting process in my own home, You don't, I'm going to strongly urge you, you just don't go onto the system, plug in your information, and not keep on top of it over and over again. Things will pop up. Things that need, the faster you fix them, the faster this gets cleared. So there is a responsibility on the homeowner for consistent follow-through. Don't just totally depend on what you put in the system. that's critical to making it move faster, we might not still be here. Now, Dorian, does he need

So in English, it sounds like you have to apply for another permit. It sounds like they will approve it if you put the good side on the outside.

Well, apparently there's more to it than that. It looked like from what I was reading, positioning, setback, et cetera, there may be more to it than that. So we probably don't want to get into that in specifics, just in case, because we're not out there.

Actually, if it's not imposing, since there seems to be question as to positioning, would that be something perhaps they could come out before he applies? Because once the gentleman applies and he gets rejected, it's kind of like get this moving now for him.

What they're asking for is the authorization to foreclose.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0.

Yes. And we had this sort of last month, but it hadn't been agendized properly. So we tabled it 171.

Questions from the board. So if you would identify yourself and your relationship to the property.

Well, in reading the inspection reports, it doesn't say that there never was an infestation. It just says what's being done to control it.

Private company versus from the state inspector. But we have a second report from the city. The thing we have to be concerned with, it's one thing in your own private home. when these little critters get in and do whatever they do at South Florida. But you're running what is essentially a public facility. The standards have to be met at a high level to assure public safety, hence why your owner received this citation. Anderson.

Okay. There are any, no other questions. Would somebody like to make a motion?

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, sir.

I need to leave. Oh. In this particular case, I'll be straight up, again, in the interest of transparency. Although the email I sent staff regarding this case did not precipitate the citation. They were in the process of it. The mere fact that I sent an email means I will be recusing myself.

Okay, this is the new owner. As of when?

And when did you guys get possession of the property?

The property is not... You represent the owner?

But I saw an email on August 7th from a Briff Corp. Is that you? Is that your email? Okay. That said that he was going to get it taken care of like in a day or two.

Are you guys building another soulless square?

The door is going to be the one facing the road?

The one that's back in. What are those three arches? Windows?

Let me repeat it back just to be sure because I have to get the orders correct. So on 2, 4, and 5, give the property owner until November 16th to have a fully issued demo permit or else $250 citation, $250 admin, $250 daily. On 3, dismiss all. Now, my only question, and this is irrelevant at this moment, but I'm going to ask it anyway. We have a situation, ironically, on a property just north of this property where we've been hearing about demo for a long time, and it's still sitting there. You know what I mean?

So we kind of made things, and we made them clean up. since the potential was that it was still going to sit there. Up north with me. Not this one.

Okay, because that my only reason for bringing my only reason for bringing that up, you know, I'm a bit nudgy about being able to justify everything we do. And if we've done one thing for one property, that is pretty much the identical situation.

They actually cleaned up pretty well on that other one. Okay, nevermind. Yes, they didn't. No, that's a different one. That's down the street. You can't keep track, Michael. Believe me.

Ma'am, bear with me a moment. I need you to please identify yourself and your relationship to the property. This is just for the record.

I think I remember when this came up the first time and Ms. Brownell was here, I think that she said she was speaking to a realtor. I think his name was, I forget his name, but he was going to sell it and then nothing happened and then the driveway went in, right? Does that kind of follow the timeline? Yes.

I'm looking here that the property owner apparently has paid both the administrative and the violation fine. Am I correct? And at this point, what I would like to do is simply give her a deadline to come back and apply for a fine reduction.

And looking for the looking for the total here.

But as far as the address she says she wants things mailed to, do you have that address?

If she chooses to apply for a fine reduction, can she do so via email?

Ma'am, I don't know if you're hearing our conversation okay. If you so choose, at this point, you can apply for a fine reduction. You have daily fines that have accrued for both violations due to the time it took to come into compliance, which you are certainly entitled, now that it's complied, to come back and apply for a fine reduction. If that's okay with you, we will set a deadline for you and staff will send you the necessary information.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion. In CEN 24-701 and 702, the property owner has now come into compliance. Give the property owner until September 4th to apply for a fine reduction. If not, institute the foreclosure.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Ma'am, staff will be sending you the information you need. They will be glad to explain all the steps. You'll fill out the form before September 4th. And if you want to, you'll zoom in. Well, we would like you, of course, to zoom in again for our September meeting so you can negotiate a fine reduction.

September 16th, ma'am. We're sorry. Okay.

I've read them both. Oh, yeah. I read both numbers. Thank you.

So we'll see you soon, and your driveway looks good.

And no family? Nobody's contacted you? Nobody?

This is absolutely exactly what I was hoping we would get. It just makes it so much clearer, that it gives us a better definition so we can be more comfortable with what our rules are or aren't, and makes it a simple process. I do note one difference, though. It can't be a straight police report like we were getting. It needs to be, please stop me if I'm wrong, an actual notarized statement. In other words, not... That's correct. Not exactly, Michael.

When did we get this? Is this in my... Is this an add-on? No, it was in our agenda.

What number is it? 5.51. It was in our agenda packet.

No, it just says memorandum. It doesn't say 5.1.

Ah, sorry. Because am I correct, police officers' minimum overtime is four hours? That's correct.

You run into this situation, we could subpoena them to be here and find out that the property owner isn't even here. So this way, if there's a way to reach out, when we know we have a case that does involve police testimony, if there's a way to confirm as to whether or not as to whether or not the property owner is gonna be here. Do they wanna cross-examine? So before we subpoena, we now have a process to do it the right way, fair to everybody. And that's great. Please thank John for us.

I'm still reading this, so just give me a moment.

We have the incentive here to get a procedure in place. And while I don't want to see police officers dragged in here on a day off and paying overtime that's unnecessary, we're going to do the right thing. And this, I think, helps us a lot more to have a procedure that we all now know what we need to do. Well, Michael's reading. Michael, if you don't mind, I'm going to go on to the minutes while you're reading. Yeah, go ahead. Is that okay? Everybody have time to read the minutes. Yep. Any changes, corrections?

I have two questions. On 7-2 and 7-3, I have a date of July 31st. Oh, you didn't have notes that you would hear. I'm sorry?

I believe her. Bad news. See? Okay. Then I'm good.

Would you rather table it? Do you have notes at home, or you just don't have the notes?

Okay. Then I'll make a motion to approve July 15th code board minutes as written. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. No, no, no. Of course. Of course, of course. Sorry about all the noise when this rolls. Do we have a stand for this by any chance? Because honestly, this works much better for me. It's up there. Oh, if we could find another one somewhere, this works so much better. But You know, try writing and doing. No, it's not working.

Okay. So I've had a chance to look at this, and it says that fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Okay. I'm looking at the memorandum, page one, the highlighted section here. I just highlighted. It says that also on fundamental due process, which is at the bottom of page two, it says, uh, Although the rules of evidence are relaxed because it's quasi-judicial, fundamental due process pursuant to Florida Statute 162.07 requires that fundamental due process be observed. It is necessary to fill the procedural gaps By common sense application, the basic rules

Michael, you do realize a couple of things. The incidents you're referencing are at least 12 years old. and have nothing whatsoever to do with current administration, current chief, or current staff. While I totally respect your concerns, I think that's kind of borderline, out of line, and a little on the unfair side when you're talking a 12-year-old situation to say that because of what happened in 2014, it could happen again today. if it could happen again tomorrow. We have no reason to believe that, and I'm going to trust the village attorney to not have put this village in any precarious s

The officer, right. Well, you have what is the officer gains nothing by having a prosecutorial attitude. towards somebody who's making noise, and you have a resident who has to have called it in. Very different from the situation you're talking about.

Well, I'm talking about a history of the police department, whether it's a current administration or not. It's something that we have to recognize and you learn from the present and the future by what's happened in the past. Of course. And all I got to say is that every single case where there has been a police officer that's come in here and testified, with regard to the complaints that were made that were brought before the board, I believe that we voted unanimously in every single case once we heard the evidence. So if it's not about getting a police officer to come in here and to testify a

I honestly don't recall that every time the officers have been here, anybody has cross-examined them. I've cross-examined them. But the people you purport to be concerned about, the property owner hasn't, and that's the whole point of the due process, is for the property owner. They haven't done it.

Does the noise complaints that have been issued, does it say in there that you have the right to cross-examine the officers when these violations are made? Yeah. Okay, so when they get the notice, as a layperson, there is no information that's provided to the resident that they have the opportunity to require the police officer to be there and to cross-examine them at the hearing?

It's what I read at the beginning of the meeting. If they want their case tabled to have the police officer here, we will do that.

I read that at the beginning of the meeting. All right. That's fine. If they come up here and they say that they want to cross-examine the police officer, then we table it. Yes. Okay.

Well, that's the thing. They're not told before. They're told at the hearing. But we're all listening right now that if they want to require it at the hearing, we'll table it. Well, John says it.

John says it right in here. That's right. Table the meeting. I'm sorry, table the case if they ask to have the officer. I'm okay with that.

And if they're here and they want and they request it, then we'll table it.

No, he said EG. For example, you just suggested that they can do it when they're up here, and I'm fine with that.

I would also like it to be in the notice. I'd like to be in the notice, too. Yeah, because John says... Five business days in advance to let us know. So why not put it in there?

He gave an example. E period, G period means forgive. Okay.

I get it. So is a village attorney going to review the language that's provided to the violator, the alleged violator, who's presumed innocent? Okay. Thank you.

If we could put these as part of the notes, I'm sorry, the minutes for this month so that they're really on the record. Okay. That was fun.