CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting July 18, 2017

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting The Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board met in formal session at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday,, in the Alcazar Room at City Hall. The meeting was called to order by Clyde M. Taylor, III, Chairman, and the following were present: 1. ROLL CALL Clyde M. Taylor, Chairman Martha Mickler, Vice Chairman John Capra Judi Schuyler Dennis Wissel Karen Zander Stephen Simmons - Absent Staff Present: Denise May, Esq., Assistant City Attorney David Birchim, Director, Planning & Building Department Richard Schauland, Building Official & Code Enforcement Manager Curtis Boles, Code Enforcement Inspector Robert van Mierop, Code Enforcement Inspector Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator, Recording The City staff was sworn in. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 13, 2017) MOTION Mr. Wissel moved to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Mickler and approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Wissel disclosed that he was a neighbor of the property located at 171 Inlet Drive, CEAAB case number Mrs. Mickler disclosed that she had received an communication from Marsha Chance in regard to the Floodplain Management, and further commented that the she received was the same letter that had been included in the Board packets. 4. Public comment for items not on the agenda. None.

2 5. VARIANCES/TREE REMOVAL Item 5 (a) Vista Cove Condominiums 1000 Vista Cove Road Removal of a Southern Red Cedar tree City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. Boles read from the staff report and reported the following: Staff recommendation was that the Board find the property in violation for the removal of a preserved tree without a permit and without Board approval. The Board asked for clarification of the placement and ownership of the tree and what staff was recommending with regard to fining. They also asked if there was knowledge of any replacement trees having been placed. Mr. Boles responded that four cedar trees had been replaced. Mrs. May commented that this Board was a fact finding Board and reaffirmed what was being considered that day. Eldridge Townsend, 2410 Vista Cove Road, was present and testified to the following: That he was the Landscape Chairman of the Vista Cove Condominiums. That the property in which the tree had been located was common ground. That they were affiliated with the University of Florida. That when they had received the notice of violation, they sought out to replace the tree by contacting a local nursery who searched for replacement trees of the required dimensions but was unsuccessful. They did however plant more than was required in a show of good faith to this Board. And he added that his wife liked the tree so much that they also planted a Southern Red Cedar tree on their property within the complex. That after the Hurricane the condo association had several trees down and contacted a tree company. They were told that the tree removal would require a tree removal permit. He asked how they could avoid the permitting process. The contractor stated that he could only trim the tree without a permit and did so. Later, that same contractor was given a list of trees and shrubs to be removed, and the tree in question was on that list. He was not trying to throw blame on the contractor, but noted that it was not the condo s intent to remove the tree without a permit. 2

3 The Board asked Mr. Townsend why that tree was on the list for removal, how he identified the tree as a cedar, and who comprised the list of trees to be removed. Mr. Townsend responded that the committee and the owners adjacent to the trees were the ones that comprised the list. That he had not identified it as a cedar tree because it looked more like a shrub to him. He explained that the cedar tree was in phase five of the complex, next to a large palm that had been dug during the construction period and was just allowed to grow, and it grew beyond expectations from the ground up like a shrub without a defined trunk. Then once the properties were occupied, the condo association received requests to have the tree removed to allow for a better view of the pond. He reported that they had planted five cedar trees for the one that was removed, and then presented photos of the replacements. The Board asked staff for clarification of who the fine was to be imposed to, and whether staff was satisfied with the replacement of the five cedar trees. Staff replied affirmative to the planting and that the fine would go to the condo association. The Board asked what tree company had removed the tree, and how much did they pay for the replacement trees. Mr. Townsend responded that the contractor was Jason Shaw, and that the association paid $200 for the trees and the planting of. Public comment was opened, however there was no response. MOTION Mr. Taylor moved to approve an Order Finding Violation and accept the replacement of five for one, and impose a fine in the amount of $500. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Schuyler and approved by the following voice vote: Ayes: Taylor, Schuyler Capra, Wissel, Mickler. Nays: Zander Item 5 (b) Jeriel M. and Janet M. Gilmer 9 Anastasia Lakes Drive Removal of a Southern Red Cedar tree City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. van Mierop read from the staff report and reported the following: Staff recommended that the Board find violation and impose a fine no greater than $20, which is the normal permit application fee, with replacement requirement of two for one Southern Red Cedar trees. He explained that his relaxed recommendation was a result of the respondents having been victimized by a contractor that 3

4 removed a tree that he had only been given permission to trim. He added that the contractor had shown up in a pickup truck with two kids and even asked to borrow the homeowner s ladder. The Board asked if staff was able to confirm whether the contractor was a legitimate company and if payment had been made to the contractor. Staff confirmed that payment had been made and replied that legitimacy of the contractor had not been proven. Jeriel M. and Janet M. Gilmer, 9 Anastasia Lakes Drive, were present and testified to the following: That after Hurricane Matthew they had damage with trees on their property. That the contractor stopped by and asked Mrs. Gilmer if he could take care of their property, stating that he had trimmed their trees last year. Although she did not recall him, because her husband generally takes care of the hiring of contractors, she did give him permission to trim the trees. When Mr. Gilmer arrived home he asked the contractor, (noting that he did not recognize him from previous work as had been stated to his wife) what they would charge for the trimming, and he responded it would be the same as last time. That they were sympathetic to the contractor because he had 4 told him that the company used to be owned by him and his brother, but they had parted ways and the brother had taken all of the tools and equipment. And that because he had his two children helping by carrying the tree trimmings to the front of the property. Then when they questioned the trimming, the contractor responded that he knew what he was doing, and with that they went into their house. But when they returned they found that the tree had been removed. That they expected the contractor to return the next morning to clean up the debris, but he failed to return and has yet to respond to any of their telephone calls. Then when the city showed up to inform them of the violation, they reported to him what had transpired. The Board asked the respondents if they were aware that removal of trees required a tree removal permit with tree replacements, and they also discussed the size of the property and replanting of trees being problematic. Both respondents stated that they understood the requirement to apply for a tree removal permit, but they had hired the contractor to trim the tree, not to remove the tree. They also expressed their concern of whether the size of their lot would allow for the planting of replacement trees, and offered that perhaps the HOA would

5 allow for the planting in common areas of the development. Public comment was opened. Ed Slavin, Box 304, St. Augustine, was present and commented to the following: That all parties involved should be fined, and that fines should be increased. That the authorities should be notified as he believed this to be elder financial abuse by the contractor, and that it should be investigated. The he felt the owners should not be fined as they had no criminal intent. And he suggested that the respondents report the elder abuse. He thanked this Board and the City. Public hearing was closed. Mrs. Zander asked council if the Board could fine the contractor. Mrs. May informed the Board of the Florida Statute that does not allow for the fining to go to the contractor, but only to the property. MOTION Mr. Taylor moved to approve an Order Finding Violation with no fine imposed, stipulating a two for one Southern Red Cedar tree replacement 5 requirement be enforced in accordance with city code. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Mickler and approved by unanimous voice vote. 6. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY HEARD CASES None. 7. REVIEW OF NEW CASES Item 7 (a) Constantine and Ann C. Antonatos 171 Inlet Drive Unlawful conditions, property littered with junk and debris. City Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-3 Mr. van Mierop read from the staff report and testified to the following: That Mr. Antonatos was temporarily in a nursing home until the Council on Aging and the Health Department had cleared the home safe for him to occupy. Staff recommended that the Board find the property to be in violation allowing 30 days for compliance or a fine in the amount of $250 per day be imposed. And that the property be brought back before the Board for a compliance hearing at the next regular scheduled meeting in August. Mrs. Antonatos was present for questions.

6 Ann Antonatos, 171 Inlet Drive, was present and testified to the following: She stated that she was working diligently to bring the property into compliance, that the yard was cleaned, but she was unable to get the property to everyone s approval. The Board asked Mrs. Antonatos if the items that were on the property were from her home in Miami, if she thought she could clean the property up within the next 30 days, and if she had any family that could assist in her efforts. Mrs. Antonatos replied that some of the items were from her home in Miami. And unfortunately she did not have any family to assist, but with God s help she could have it cleaned up in the next 30 days. And she asked what the violation was. Mrs. Zander explained the violation, and commented to her fellow board members that she would tighten up the time allowed for compliance from 30 days to 10 days. Mrs. Schuyler pointed out from the photographs that the property was yet to be compliant. Public comment was opened. Ray Matuza, Inlet Drive, was present and commented to the following: He thanked Mr. Birchim and the city fathers and city commission 6 for bringing the property before this Board. He stated that the property had been in violation several times over the past four the five years. That several neighbors were present along with him to speak on the conditions of the property. And he expressed concern for Mr. and Mrs. Antonatos welfare with the conditions that seem to persist. The Board asked how long the junk/debris conditions had existed with the property. Mr. Matuza responded that the conditions had existed several times for the past eight years. Shante Yorkman, 170 Inlet Drive, was present and commented to the following: That the situation was difficult for her. That she had helped Mr. and Mrs. Antonatos since purchasing her home. She explained that the property owners were hoarders. That Mr. Antonatos was an Alzheimer s patient, that he had attacked her in the past, and that there was a police report for that incident. She added that her husband had also been attacked by Mr. Antonatos. That as a healthcare professional, Mr. Antonatos health was a concern to her.

7 That the family was in full support of the neighbors requests. That although Mrs. Antonatos was very intelligent, she also required medical attention. That she did not set her trash out to the street until just before pick up because otherwise her trash would be on the Antonatos lawn. Joanie Mathis, 160 Inlet Drive, was present and commented to the following: That the debris that was in the Antonatos yard before the Hurricane actually caused damage to the neighboring properties as it was carried over. She urged the Board to address the situation and not allow additional time, and she requested that a fine be imposed. The Board expressed concern over when the husband would be allowed to return to the home. Mr. van Mierop responded that the interior of the home was full of debris and that the Council on Aging was involved and have stated it would not be allowed for the husband to return to the home until such time as it was safe. Mr. Boles commented to the Board that the property had come before the code board in the past and that each time it would come into compliance. He also thanked the neighbors for their cooperation and coming out to speak to the Board relative to this case. 7 MOTION Mrs. Zander moved to approve an Order Finding Violation, allowing seven days for compliance or a fine in the amount of $250 per day would be imposed for the days of continued violation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and approved by unanimous voice vote. 8. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS None. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Floodplain Management Higher Standards discussion and public hearing prior to CEAAB s recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Schauland gave a brief presentation of the four Higher Standards that are available to the City of St. Augustine, and have been brought before this Board for consideration of recommendation to the City Commission. He stated that the CEAAB s desire for community input had been advertised in several local publications, shared with neighborhood committees, and posted on the City s website, as well as in the City News & Notes prior to this meeting. Mr. Birchim reported that a memorandum would be prepared for the City Commission detailing the CEAAB s recommendation on each of the higher

8 standards that was brought at this meeting for consideration. The following information provides the Board s consensus on each Higher Standard that was presented and any public comment that was offered. CUMMULATIVE IMPROVEMENT SUBSTANTIAL The City of St. Augustine initially adopted the 5-year SI on April 12, Every time that a permit for anything except a new structure was applied for, a search of the last five years is conducted. If the total cost of construction for all of those permits is equal to or greater than 50%, the structure will be required to meet the floodplain management ordinance for new construction. The Board and Staff had discussion of the material that had been provided by presentation and by their packets. Jenny Wolfe, City Historic Preservation Officer, was present to answers the Boards concerns and question with regard to historic structures, and she reported the following: She directed the board to chapter 8 of the building code. She explained that it defined historic structures that are listed individually on the national register, buildings that are contributing to a national register district as well as buildings that may be established on a local district, whether it be individual local landmark or individual local historic district. Adding that those are the properties that would be considered historic and could be brought before you for a variance or they can pursue an administrative option that they would have to be pursuing an ad valorem exemption to go through that option. But either way, they would require an administrative component. Public comment was opened. Melinda Rakoncay, 86 Magnolia Avenue, was present and commented to the following: She was there representing herself and CPSA (Citizen Preservation of St. Augustine) and she submitted two letters from the steering committee persons, noting that those same letters had been sent to the City as well. She commented that the information provided was a good example, and she encouraged the City to publish this part of the example on the website, so that citizens that may find themselves in those situations can get help more readily. Public comment was closed. 8

9 Consensus of the Board was not favorable to reinstate the five year cumulative substantial improvement. FREE BOARDING A freeboard requirement adds height above the base flood elevation to provide an extra margin of protection to account for waves, debris, miscalculations, or lack of data. A freeboard requirement of one foot means that the level of protection for the lowest floor, machinery and equipment, etc. is one foot above the base flood elevation. The updated Florida Building Code with an expected effective date of December 31, 2017, will require all structures to have one foot of freeboard. By adopting this earlier, the City can gain points on the CRS rating. Additionally, owners of new buildings would see a savings on their flood insurance because they are a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation. Mr. Schauland gave a brief presentation and board discussion was opened. Public comment was opened, however there was no response. Consensus of the Board was in favor of Free Boarding. FOUNDATION PROTECTION Foundation protection allows protection against differential settling as well as scour and erosion. Differential or uneven settlement occurs when the soil beneath a structure cannot bear the weights imposed. The settlement of a structure is the amount that the structure will sink during and after construction. Differential settlements become a big problem when the foundation settles unevenly. Erosion refers to a general lowing of the ground surface over a wide area. Scour refers to a localized loss of soil, often around a foundation element. Mr. Schauland gave a brief presentation, and Board discussion was opened. Public comment was opened, however there was no response. Consensus of the Board was in favor of Foundation Protection. LOCAL DRAINAGE PROTECTION Approximately 20% of NFIP claims are for properties located outside of the SFHA, some of these claims are from flooding caused by local drainage problems. LDP credit is for ensuring that new buildings are well above the street level or otherwise protected from shallow drainage flooding. This higher standard would be for all properties within the city limits, whether they are in the SFHA or not. Mr. Schauland gave a brief presentation and Board discussion was opened. 9

10 Public comment was opened. Melinda Rakoncay, 86 Magnolia Avenue, was present and commented to the following: She spoke on behalf CPSA and herself, articulating concerns of setting a maximum as well as minimum on building heights, particularly in historic districts, and the adverse effects in the neighborhoods and ruining the character. She was pleased to see Ms. Wolfe present at the meeting. She also spoke to the building of mounds and recommended going back to pilings. 11. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 6:33 P.M. Clyde M. Taylor, III, Chairperson Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator Joel Michael Parker, 86 Park Place, was present and commented to the following: He asked the Building Official if it were appropriate to put pipes under the ground to carry water out. Mr. Schauland stated that it would not be appropriate. Public comment was closed. Consensus of the Board was in favor of Local Drainage Protection. The Board requested to have the proposed Ordinances brought back at the next meeting. 10. REVIEW OF CONFLICT STATEMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING None. 10