MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
A Regular Meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board was held this date in Council Chambers at City Hall. Chair Diana Mier called the meeting to order at 8:59 a.m.
I. ROLL CALL
The following members were present: Chair Diana Mier, Vice Chair Robert Young, Pat Boruff, Joe Dalton, Jon Preiksat, John Wood, and Ex-Officio Council Member Jim Bennett. Norm Holloway was absent.
Also present: City Attorney Wayne Hall, Building and Code Enforcement Director Hans Behrens, Deputy City Clerk Linda Depew, Code Enforcement Inspectors John Patek and Pat Stuehler, and Recording Secretary Susan Schult.
II. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved
to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting held
III. NEW
BUSINESS
1. Case No. 2009-1573, Marty L. Gwynn,
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Mr.
Patek, being duly sworn, gave a brief history of the case, outlined the
numerous rentals of the property and lack of licensing on the property, stated
proper notice has been given to come into compliance, and displayed the
calendar as it appears on the defendant’s website, illustrating the property is
advertised for rentals for periods less than 30 days. He testified that prior
to
Discussion followed regarding a neighborhood watch group.
Grady Huie, attorney for the defendant, moved to dismiss this action because the notice for this hearing is insufficient to describe the alleged violation, and the notice does not state the weeks in question. He made a second motion to continue this case stating an appeal was filed and the order was unconstitutional.
Mr. Hall noted Mr. Huie’s objections are noted for the record.
Mr. Huie answered questions concerning the appeal and the parameters of the appeal.
Mr.
Patek answered questions concerning additional rentals, and stated the website
was discontinued on
In response to questions from Mr. Huie, Mr. Patek clarified the rental weeks in question are October 1 - 18, 2009, the additional week in November could be another case, and testified he had no personal knowledge of payment of rent.
Mr. Patek called Rolin Becker to testify.
Rolin
Becker,
Mr. Huie objected to Mr. Becker’s testimony because the dates mentioned were not part of the violation and questioned Mr. Becker concerning Mr. Patek’s testimony.
Mr. Becker testified there was no one occupying the house from October 1 - 18, 2009, reiterated the rental dates, stated he talked to the renters who confirmed they were renting the property, but that he had no personal knowledge of payment transactions.
He answered questions from the board regarding the November rental, and mentioned the house was rented December 26, and is still being rented.
Mr. Becker continued to answer questions on the November rental, number of people at the house in November, stated he did not know who was renting the property, the car activity during the November rental, and noted he is taking pictures and recording the vehicle license plate numbers.
Mr. Patek called Bruce Lebedun to testify.
Bruce Lebedun, being duly sworn, President of Golden Beach Association, testified the property was rented on October 19 for seven days, he and Mr. Becker have spoken to the people who rented the house, testified they have license plate numbers of the renters, and the people who rented in October did pay rent. Mr. Lebedun recommended the board take action, as there will be many more rentals in 2010.
Mr. Preiksat stated he has represented the Golden Beach Association in the past, and queried Mr. Hall on a conflict of interest.
Mr. Lebedun answered questions from the board regarding his personal observations of the rentals, and stated he knocks on the door and talks to new renters.
In response to questions from Mr. Huie, Mr. Lebedun stated he feels he has the right to question renters because he is the President of Golden Beach Association and is trying to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Lebedun continued answering questions on his personal knowledge of rental remittance and taking pictures of the cars at rental units.
Discussion ensued on the defendant’s evidence pertaining to rental payments proving the unit was rented for thirty days or more, and the standard of proof in this case.
Mr. Hall clarified Mr. Huie is not testifying today, his role is to represent his client, Mr. Huie has not been sworn, and is not offering any evidence.
Mr. Bennett questioned Mr. Huie on a citation for the appeal proceeding. Mr. Hall stated an order was entered in October, and the defendant is appealing that order.
Discussion
followed regarding the exchange of money on previous rentals, whether rentals
booked prior to July are subject to the ordinance, the allowance of three short
term rentals in a calendar year, the wording in the ordinance pertaining to
rentals, no verbiage in the ordinance pertaining to the booking of a rental,
the property never being a legal resort dwelling, the previous order entered
Mr. Hall summarized the evidence in the case.
Discussion continued concerning the notice of hearing dated October 27, seven days of violation commencing on October 19, the defendant’s defense and the testimony that the October 19 rental was made in February 2009, and breaking down the motion in two parts to ascertain a violation and then to assess a fine.
(10:14) Mr. Wood moved in Case No. 2009-1573, Marty L. Gwynn, 409 Darling Drive, the Board finds the Defendant guilty of violating City of Venice Code of Ordinances Section 86-151, from October 19 – 26, 2009, for a period of seven days and fine in the amount of $250 per day is imposed for seven days for a total fine of $1,750. Seconded by Mr. Young.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Young, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Ms. Boruff, NO; Mr. Dalton, NO; Ms. Mier, NO, Mr. Preiksat, NO. MOTION FAILED.
Mr. Young moved in Case No. 2009-1573, Marty L.
Gwynn,
Mr. Dalton moved in Case No. 2009-1573, Marty L.
Gwynn,
ROLL CALL: Ms. Boruff, YES; Mr. Wood, NO; Mr. Young, NO; Mr. Dalton, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion ensued on the enforcement of the ordinance, future cases, and burden of proof in these cases.
Mr. Becker queried Mr. Hall on the appeal process from the citizens.
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Case No. 2009-657, Venice Trust c/o
Tammy Vellucci, 127 Tampa Avenue, East – Violation of City of Venice Code of
Ordinances Section 90-201, The Florida Codes Adopted, Section 90-202 Standard
Unsafe Building Abatement Code.
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Mr. Patek, being duly sworn, stated all inspections have been completed and the defendant is in compliance.
Jamie Ebling, being duly sworn, attorney representing Venice Trust, stated he has an email from Permit Supervisor Karen Butterworth stating all inspections have passed.
Mr. Hall reminded the board of the water meter violation in this case and that ending this case does not negate the water meter issue.
Mr. Ebling stated the water meter is a separate issue, and they are working with the city to resolve the violation.
Mr. Young moved in Case No. 2009-657, Venice
Trust,
ROLL CALL: Mr. Dalton, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Young, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Ms. Boruff, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
2. Case No. 2009-656, Venice Trust c/o Tammy Vellucci, Trustee,
127 Tampa Avenue East – Violation of City of Venice Code of Ordinances Section
90-204, no valid permit for all work done at this property. (Repeat Violator)
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Ms.
Stuehler, being duly sworn, briefly reviewed the history of the case, stated
the water violation will be a separate issue and is not part of this case. She
testified inspections on the work done without a permit were completed on
December 14, the defendant has been deemed a repeat violator in this case,
there is a fine under appeal for $11,000, and a fine not under appeal for
$7,000. She recommended a fine of $250 per day for 116 days for a total of
$29,000, and noted the days in question are from
Mr. Hall left the dais at 10:28 a.m. and returned at 10:30 a.m.
Discussion took place regarding the number of days in violation, remittance of previous fines, the water meter violation being a separate case, and the permits being issued at a double fee rate.
Mr. Hall clarified the role of an attorney at a hearing and answered questions concerning subpoenaing a witness or defendant.
Mr. Ebling, being duly sworn, questioned Ms. Stuehler on the dates she investigated the structure, previous inspections of the building, the earlier inspection resulting in the list of 32 items to be corrected, whether a decision is always rendered upon the conclusion of an inspection, her conversations with building, plumbing and electrical inspectors, the list of 32 items, her knowledge of the Venice Trust conveying the property to another party, permit actions under the potential new owner, violations under the new owners, and reason for the stop work order. Ms. Stuehler stated she never places a stop work order without the permission of the building official and had no knowledge regarding the contractor, Mr. Olson, in this case.
Mr.
Behrens, being duly sworn, answered questions concerning the inspections
performed at the site, findings incorporated on the list of 32 items, stated
all 32 items violated the
Mr. Hall summarized the case stating the unsafe building case has been resolved and Ms. Stuehler is requesting fines in the amount of $29,000 for work done without a permit for 116 days.
Mr. Ebling displayed the list of 32 items and reviewed work done on the list, asked Mr. Behrens to cite the building code violation for each item on the list, and explained the relevance of this line of questioning.
Discussion ensued on the relevance of the testimony, fines that may be imposed today, previous fines, number of days in violation, when the violations were abated, and inspection history on this case.
Mr. Ebling objected, stating he made a public records request and the inspection history information presented today was not previously provided to him.
Mr.
Hall suggested a continuance on this case. Discussion followed regarding a
possible continuance, dates of the inspections, and fines only being imposed
until
Mr. Dalton left the meeting at 10:59 a.m. and did not return.
Discussion continued on the necessary considerations for imposing a fine, and previous board determinations and orders.
Recess was taken from until 11:01 a.m. until 11:09 a.m.
Mr. Ebling stated he would like to have all the documents in his records request prior to moving forward, and recommended a continuance to allow him ample time to prepare his case.
Ms. Stuehler restated her position for assessing fines.
Mr. Ebling argued if all items are not in violation with state codes, then a fine of $29,000 should not be assessed, and wants to ensure all factors are levied before the fine is imposed. He restated he is speaking to potential fines levied today and requested a continuance.
Discussion ensued regarding listening to current testimony before assessing a fine, whether a continuance would expedite the case when presented next month, when the list of 32 items was first presented to the board, the permit pick up being delayed due to the water meter violation, date the permit was ready, length of this case, and prior testimony.
Mr. Hall recounted the recent willingness to come into compliance, stated the fine does not have to be set at $250 per day, and recommended a motion to continue to allow due process in this case.
Discussion took place on bringing this case to conclusion, previous board decisions on this case, why the permit was not picked up, the defendant now being in compliance, seriousness of the violations, and whether to grant a continuance.
(11:34) Mr. Preiksat moved to deny the request for a continuance. Seconded by Mr. Wood.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Boruff, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Young, YES, Mr. Preiksat, YES; Ms. Mier, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion took place regarding whether to continue this case, time constraints in moving forward, the reason for detail review of the list of 32 items, defendant’s documentation to present his case, and when the appeal will be heard.
(11:42) Mr. Preiksat moved to continue the case on whether to impose fines until the appeal on the June fines is heard in circuit court. Seconded by Mr. Young.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Mier, YES; Mr. Wood, YES: Mr. Preiksat, YES; Mr. Young, YES; Ms. Boruff, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Case No. 2009-1039, Thomas Klein,
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Mr. Behrens, being duly sworn, stated the property will be mowed next week by the public works department.
Ms.
Boruff moved in Case No. 2009-1039,
Thomas Klein,
ROLL CALL: Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Ms. Boruff, YES; Mr. Young, YES. MOTION CARRIED
4. Case No. 2009-962, Estate and Unknown
Heirs of Robert G. Sullivan (deceased), 1512 Strada D’Oro – Violation of City
of
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Mr. Behrens, being duly sworn, stated this property will be mowed next week by the public works department.
Discussion followed regarding the property being in foreclosure.
(11:47) Ms. Boruff moved in Case No. 2009-962, Robert G. Sullivan, 1512 Strada D’Oro,
the Board continues the case until the
ROLL CALL: Mr. Young, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Ms. Boruff, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Case
No. 2009-1290, Jack H. Delaney and Esther L. Delaney, Co-TTEEs,
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Ms. Stuehler, being duly sworn, displayed photos of the property, stated the property is now in compliance, and recommended a fine of $50 per day for six days.
Discussion followed on fines previously imposed, date of abatement, remittance of the fines, and lis pendens being filed on the property.
(11:50) Mr. Young moved in Case No. 2009-1290, Jack H. Delaney and Esther L. Delaney, Co-TTEEs, 317 Base Avenue, the Board finds the Defendant is still guilty of violating City of Venice Code of Ordinances Section 34-81, a fine in the amount of $50 per day is imposed for six days for a total fine of $300. Seconded by Mr. Wood.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Boruff, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Young, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Case
No. 2009-1014, Irene & Christopher A. Leach, 825 Gulf Coast Blvd. –
Violation of City of Venice Code of Ordinances Section 34-81, Offensive
Accumulations; prohibited – grass/vegetation in excess of 12 inches. (Mortgage Foreclosure)
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Ms. Stuehler, being duly sworn, displayed photos of the property, stated she learned the property is being listed by Realty Executive Solutions, and contacted the real estate agent who stated the property would be mowed within two weeks. She requested a continuance, and noted fines should continue.
(11:52) Mr. Wood moved in Case No. 2009-1014, Irene & Christopher A. Leach,
Discussion followed regarding assessing fines in this case, additional language regarding the fine, the realtor’s incentive not to have any further liens against the property, and the recommendation to fine the defendant $50 per day for a total of $1,750.
Mr. Hall clarified that the case can either be continued or fines can be imposed, but not both.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Young, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Hall left the dais at 11:56 a.m. due to a conflict of interest.
7. Case No. 2009-1462, Latinovic Vladimir,
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Ms. Stuehler, being duly sworn, stated the violation has been abated, displayed photos of the property showing the automobile was removed on December 20, and recommended a fine of $375 and the defendant be deemed a repeat violator.
Mr. Hall, being duly sworn, stated he is representing the estate, explained they had trouble obtaining the keys to the car delaying the removal of the vehicle, and requested no fines be imposed.
(11:59) Mr. Young moved in Case No. 2009-1462, Latinovic Vladimir, 628 Golf Drive, the Board found the Defendant guilty of violating the City of Venice Code of Ordinances Section 86-501, but the Defendant has corrected the violation and no further fine is imposed. Future violations of this section will cause the Defendant to be deemed a repeat violator and subject to a fine of up to $500 per day. Seconded by Mr. Wood.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Boruff, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Young, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES; Ms. Mier, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Case
No. 2009-1463, Latinovic Vladimir,
Chair Mier stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications were received.
Ms.
Stuehler, being duly sworn, displayed photos of the property showing the
vehicle was removed on
(12:01 Mr. Young moved in Case No. 2009-1463, Latinovic Vladimir, 628 Golf Drive, the Board found the Defendant guilty of violating the City of Venice Code of Ordinances Section 86-501, but the Defendant has corrected the violation and no further fine is imposed. Future violations of this section will cause the Defendant to be deemed a repeat violator and subject to a fine of up to $500.00 per day. Seconded by Mr. Wood.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Mier, YES; Mr. Wood, YES; Mr. Preiksat, YES; Mr. Young, YES; Ms. Boruff, YES. MOTION CARRIED.
V. ELECTION
OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Ms. Mier queried board members on a nomination for chair and noted she does not wish to serve as chair.
Mr. Wood nominated Ms. Mier to serve as the Chair of the Code Enforcement Board. Ms. Mier respectfully declined the nomination.
Discussion took place regarding Ms. Mier or Mr. Preiksat being the Vice Chair, and the complicated cases coming before the board.
Ms. Boruff nominated Mr. Young to serve as Chair of the Code Enforcement Board. Seconded by Mr. Wood. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Mier turned the gavel over to Mr. Young.
Ms. Boruff nominated Ms. Mier serve as Vice Chair of the Code Enforcement Board. Seconded by Mr. Preiksat. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bennett requested a few minutes on the next agenda. Mr. Young suggested the board have discussion on how to proceed on the short term rental cases at the next meeting, and Mr. Hall noted he will meet with the city manager and city attorney regarding these types of cases.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before this Board the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
(Approved by the Chairman and the Deputy
City Clerk at the