CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting May 10, 2016

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 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 Judi Schuyler, Chairman, and the following were present: 1. ROLL CALL Judi Schuyler, Chairman Clyde Taylor, Vice Chairman Jack Capra Martha Mickler Ron McDonald Stephen Simmons CeCe Reigle - Absent Staff Present: Denise May, Esq., Assistant City Attorney David Birchim, Director, Planning & Building Department Richard Schauland, Code Enforcement Manager & Building Official Curtis Boles, Code Enforcement Inspector Robert Vanmierop, Code Enforcement Inspector Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator, Recording 2. SWEARING IN OF CITY STAFF (None) City Staff was Sworn in. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 12, 2016) Ms. Mickler MOVED to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Capra and approved by a unanimous voice vote. 4. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS 5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 6. VARIANCES/TREE REMOVAL Item 6 (a) Renee C. Caira 55 Avista Circle Removal of a Cedar tree City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. Boles reported the following: Applicant was requesting to remove two cedar trees that had been denied due to size Applicant obtained an arborist report as directed during her appeal. The report revealed that one cedar tree had a 30 degree

2 lean towards the neighbor s house and was in severe decline Applicant was present for questions Ms. Schuyler asked for clarification on whether the arborist report gave same recommendations as staff. Mr. Boles responded affirmatively. Renee Caira, 55 Avista Circle, was present and testified to the following: The second cedar tree was 45 feet tall and she was concerned the tree may fall on her or her neighbor s houses She preferred not to replace the trees, but was willing to donate to the Tree Mitigation Fund Ms. Mickler was concerned with the removal of the healthier tree. She was in favor of removing the unhealthy tree as recommended by the arborist. Ms. Caira explained that the cost of trimming the tree per year would be burdensome, and she feared the tree would fall. Mr. Capra asked if the letter received from the neighbor was in reference to the damaged tree. Ms. Caira answered affirmatively. Ms. Schuyler MOVED to APPROVE the removal of the failing tree while the other be pruned and maintained with the requirement that the applicant donate to the Tree Mitigation Fund to meet replacement requirements. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Mickler. Mr. Simmons commented that he was not in favor of donation to the tree fund as a first option for mitigation. Ms. Schuyler AMENDED her to APPROVE the removal of the failing tree while the other be pruned and maintained with the requirement that the applicant follow applicable city ordinance to meet replacement requirements. The motion was WITHDRAWN by Ms. Schuyler after discussion. Ms. Caira expressed concern for the replacement as she was limited on space. Mrs. Schuyler asked who made the decision of whether she could replace or pay into the tree mitigation. Mr. Taylor felt that paying into the Tree Mitigation Fund was not adequate compensation for the loss of the tree. Mr. Birchim explained the tree replacement procedures. Mr. Simmons commented that he had no concrete evidence that replacement of the trees was not feasible on the property. 2

3 Mr. Birchim stated that the arborist could provide a recommendation regarding whether the property would accommodate tree replacement, and staff could require replacement or donation based on that recommendation. Ms. Schuyler MOVED to allow removal of the failing tree, maintenance of the healthy tree, with two cedar tree replacements unless there is not enough space on the property, as reported by an arborist, in which case she will donate $500 into the tree fund which is $250 per tree. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Mickler. Ms. Schuyler WITHDREW the previous motion after further discussion. Mr. Taylor commented that the trees served to protect and he was not in favor of removing the trees. He noted there was no indication that the tree was in imminent danger of falling. Ms. Caira commented that the arborist report declared the tree to be a danger. She stated she would be responsible for the damage to her neighbor s property. Mr. McDonald asked if the diseased tree could be replaced and for the second replacement be paid in lieu of to the tree fund. There was further discussion regarding the information necessary to approve or deny the tree removal. Mr. Simmons MOVED to DENY the removal of the non-diseased tree and APPROVE the removal of the fair but diseased tree with a replacement requirement of 2 for 1. If the applicant stipulates that she is unable to meet replacement on the property, then second application would be submitted with arborist report supporting the replacement hardship and one of replacement requirements would be met by donating to the Tree Mitigation Fund. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Capra. VOTE ON AYES: Simmons, Capra, Schuyler, Taylor, Mickler, McDonald NAYES: NONE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY Item 6 (b) Jonathan Stamps 35 Madeore Street Removal of a Oak tree. City Code, Chapter 25, Section Mr. Boles reported that the applicant had withdrawn the application. Ms. Schuyler MOVED to close case Motion was SECONDED by Mr. McDonald. 3

4 VOTE ON AYES: Schuyler, McDonald, Taylor, Capra, Mickler, Simmons NAYES: NONE APPROVED UNANIMOULSY 7. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY HEARD CASES Item 7 (a) Blake F. Deal, III 7 Bridge Street City Code, Chapter 17, Section City Code, Chapter 28, Section Operating a wedding-hall, chapel with exterior garden, reception area inside Historic Preservation District (HP-1). Mr. Birchim reported the following: The property was zoned Historic Preservation-One which does not allow special event venue or wedding venue businesses The HP-1 Zoning District permitted the following: o Single-family residences o monthly or greater rental dwelling units o accessory apartments o apartments and duplexes The HP-1 Zoning District allowed the following as uses by exception which must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board: o Public administrative and service facilities o Structures and uses limited to business offices, museums, and housing for employees o Churches o Schools o Not-for-profit museums o Not-for-profit libraries On November 9, 2015 a complaint was filed that a wedding event venue business was operating at 7 Bridge Street. On January 24, 2016, February 20, 2016, and March 19, 2016, City Code Enforcement Officer Robert Vanmierop observed events taking place on the property On April 12, 2016 the CEAAB reviewed case and found that a wedding event venue business was operating at 7 Bridge street without a Business Tax Receipt and in violation of the HP-1 Zoning District. No fine was levied, but a fine of $250 per day was to be imposed should the violation continue. Staff requested the case be closed in order to provide a record of that decision in order to open a new case to address the violations of this order for wedding events that took place after April 12, 2016 which was item 8(b) on the Agenda Dennis Bayer commented that Mr. Deal had requested the case be continued until the next hearing as he would be out of town. 4

5 Ms. May addressed the Board that the respondent had the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Capra commented that staff had received a letter stating that the appeal had been filed and he was not in favor of continuing the case. There was discussion regarding whether the City had received a Notice of Appeal to which Ms. May answered negatively. Nancy McAlum, 22 Dufferin Street, was present on behalf of Mr. Deal. She requested that the hearing be postponed. Public hearing was opened. BJ Kalaidi, 8 Newcomb Street, agreed with Mr. Simmons that the case should be closed so the others could be heard. Wendy Gowen, 5 Tremerton Street, stated that she had witnessed other events and the property was still being advertised as a wedding venue. Public hearing was closed. The Board and Staff discussed the difference between continuing occurrences of a violation and repeat violations and the associated fines in regard to closing the case. Mr. Taylor MOVED to CLOSE case upon staff recommendation without imposing any fine. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Simmons. VOTE ON AYES: Taylor, Simmons, Schuyler, Mickler, McDonald NAYES: Capra PASSED 5/6 Item 7 (b) New Venture Time, Inc. 10 Anastasia Boulevard City Code, Chapter 3, Section 3-24 Vacant on-site sign and sign structures prohibited. Mr. Birchim reported the following: Staff found the structure in violation of City Code and gave the owner time to go before the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) for a Variance within the Anastasia Boulevard Entry Corridor On April 21, 2016, HARB denied the application and the property owner indicated that he would appeal the decision to the City Commission. Staff asked to continue the case to June 14, 2016 to allow the applicant opportunity to appeal the HARB s decision. Mr. Taylor moved to continue case to the June 14, 2016 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Schuyler. 5

6 VOTE ON AYES: Taylor, Schuyler, Capra, Mickler, McDonald, Simmons NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 8. REVIEW OF NEW CASES Item 8 (a) John Farrell 92 Smith Street City Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-4 City Code, Chapter 8, Section Request reduction of fines on acquired property. Mr. Schauland reported the following: The property at 92 Smith Street had two outstanding liens with the City of St. Augustine totaling $18,200 ($15,750 fines and $2,450 abatement) Case : o On August 14, 2012 the CEAAB found the case in violation of overgrown weeds and grass and an unsafe building open to trespass and issued an order finding violation and approving abatement authorizing a fine amount of $250 per day beginning on August 15, 2012 and each day thereafter o On October 9, 2012, the CEAAB approved order imposing penalties and lien on the amount of $10,400 ($8,750 fine and $1,650 abatement) Case o On August 12, 2014 the CEAAB found the case in violation of being overgrown with weeds and grass and issued an order finding violation authorizing a fine in the amount of $250 per day be imposed beginning August 28, 2014 and each day thereafter of continued violation o On September 9, 2014 the CEAAB issued order authorizing abatement and imposing a lien in the amount of $7,800 ($7,000 fine and $800 abatement) The subject property had been sold with liens attached and the new owner was requesting a reduction Per Florida Statute (4) a certified copy of such order may be recorded in the public records of the county and shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors, in interest, or assign if the violation concerns real property, and the findings therein shall be binding upon the violator and, if the violation concerns real property, and subsequent purchasers, successors in interest, or assigns Per Florida Statute (2)(c) An enforcement Board may 6

7 reduce a fine imposed pursuant to this section Mr. Birchim stated that staff had no recommendation and requested the Board s opinion on the matter. John Farrell, 4330 Craftsbury Drive, New Port Richie, was present and testified to the following: He intended to live in the structure with his two children He cleaned and painted the property and pulled an exploratory permit to start fixing the structure He purchased the property knowing there were fines for $27,000 and pulled permits for the renovation He plans renovation in an amount around $50,000-$60,000 using materials he had acquired and doing the work himself He has medical bills totaling $1,500 per month He would like the amount reduced down to the original fine, but would consider any offer made by the Board The Board expressed understanding of both the property owner s situation and the imposed liens. Public hearing was opened BJ Kalaidi, 8 Newcomb, Street stated that due diligence must be done. She was concerned with area properties deteriorating, but also expected the Board to enforce the ordinances. Mr. Taylor asked if the City had ever foreclosed on the property to which staff answered negatively. Mr. Simmons MOVED to DENY a reduction in assessments. The motion FAILED for lack of a second. Mr. Farrell asked if payment options were available. Ms. May stated that payment installments could be arranged. Mr. Capra MOVED to APPROVE a reduction in fines in the amount of 1/3 of the total fines and abatements for both assessments. Motion was SECONDED by Ms. Schuyler. The Board discussed: The purpose of fines to encourage compliance Protecting past liens as a way for the City to leverage compliance and cover abatement costs Creating a payment installment plan to ease hardship for the property owner VOTE ON AYES: Capra, Schuyler, Taylor, McDonald NAYES: Mickler, Simmons 7

8 Item 6 (b) Blake F. Deal, III 7 Bridge Street City Code, Chapter 17, Section City Code, Chapter 28, Section Failure to cease and desist operation of a wedding-hall, chapel with exterior garden, reception area inside Historic Preservation District (HP-1). Mr. Birchim reported the following: On April 12, 2016, CEAAB reviewed Case and found that a wedding venue business was operating at 7 Bridge Street without a business tax receipt and in violation of HP- 1 Zoning and the case was just closed On April 16, 2016 City Code Enforcement Officer Robert Vanmierop observed a wedding taking place at 7 Bridge Street of which photographs were included in the agenda packet On April 16, 2016 a citizen complaint was also filed regarding the wedding event The property owner has requested a continuance of the case until the June 15, 2016 meeting Staff asked the Board to acknowledge that the violation occurred and to levy a fine of $250 Robert Vanmierop testified the following: On April 16, 2016 he observed a violation at 7 Bridge Street. Photographs were taken and included in the Board s packets The Board clarified that staff was requesting one fine of $250 for the April 16, 2016 violation and not a continuous daily fine. Mr. Birchim answered affirmatively. Mr. Bayer stated that it was difficult to defend the argument of continual fines running past the actual day of violation. Mr. Capra asked for clarification of what the recurring fines would be. Mr. Bayer responded that any repeat violations following the April 16, 2016 violation would be considered a repeat violation, which allowed for a fine of up to $500 per violation. Mr. Vanmierop stated that the only subsequent violation he was aware of was on April 16, Mr. Simmons asked Mr. Vanmierop to identify the photographs presented in the Board s packets. Mr. Vanmierop described the photographs as requested. Mr. Simmons asked how long Mr. Vanmierop had stayed at the site. Mr. Vanmierop reported that he had remained at the site for approximately seven minutes. 8

9 Public comment was opened. Earl Stratton, 56 Marine Street, testified that at 10 a.m. the morning of April 16, 2016, trucks and laborers were blocking Bridge Street to unload tables, and equipment which caused an accident by vehicles attempting to avoid the parked vehicle. He offered to produce pictures of the accident should the Board ask for them. Nancy McAlum, 22 Dufferin Street, stated that Mr. Deal was planning to appeal the case by May 22, 2016 and asked for copies of the previously mentioned photographs. Mr. Simmons asked if Ms. McAlum had particular knowledge of the violation. Ms. McAlum responded that she did not witness the wedding and was only there to report that Mr. Deal was requesting a continuance. B.J. Kalaidi, 8 Newcomb Street, asked if the photographs not taken by staff were included in the agenda packet, and could be considered in the Board s decision to which the Board answered affirmatively. She also asked the Board to question Ms. McAlum regarding events occurring on the property subsequent to April 16, Cameron Moyer, 50 Marine Street substantiated the previous testimony of his neighbor that a wedding occurred on April 16, Wendy Gowen, 5 Tremerton Street stated that she and neighbors had walked down and witnessed the decorations and tables for an apparent wedding, but it was not only weddings but large gatherings and events that concerned them. She stated that Mr. Deal maintained he was renting the property on a monthly basis and if the tenant decided to have a wedding, they could. She believed that statement was incorrect and said she had a large piece of property and was able to have large gatherings if the City was notified first; however, a friend who rented another property nearby was not allowed more than 20 people at events. She cited traffic congestion as a concern. She felt the Board s prior order was not being taken seriously by the property owner and the fine was insufficient to encourage compliance. Mr. Birchim reported to the Board that Ms. Gowen s property was in a different zoning district that restricted gathering to no more than 20 guests. There was discussion regarding the following: Fining the property per day from the time of the April 16, 2016 occurrence until there was clear proof that the property owner ceased operations as a wedding venue The intent of the property s operations The criteria to cease fines and bring the property into compliance 9

10 The Board s authority to subpoena records Continuing the case to subsequent meetings to track compliance whether or not the Board chose to impose fines Mr. Taylor MOVED to find the property in violation and impose a fine of $500 per day starting April 16, 2016 and CONTINUE the case to the June 14, 2016 meeting for review. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Schuyler. Mr. Simmons stated that the per-day fine would only cause the property owner to request a reduction in fines and further legal actions. He suggested ruling on the violation before them. The Board continued to discuss what actions by the owner would bring the property into compliance Mr. Birchim stated that the permissible uses were residential uses and there was no loophole that stated that a wedding business was allowed within rentals. Mr. Bayer stated that the website advertisements were proof of continued violation. Mr. Taylor MOVED to impose a maximum fine of $500 per day for a repeat violation proven to have occurred on April 16, 2016 this hearing of for a total amount of $12,000. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Simmons. The Board discussed what would occur if a subsequent violation were to be found. They came to consensus that the case should be closed and a subsequent violation would be treated separately. VOTE ON AYES: Taylor, Simmons, Schuyler, Capra, Mickler, McDonald NAYES: NONE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS (None) 8. OTHER BUSINESS (None) 9. REVIEW OF CONFLICT STATEMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (None) Mr. Taylor WITHDREW his motion. 10

11 10. ADJOURNMENT 1 Meeting was adjourned at 4:59 P.M. Judi Schuyler, Chairperson Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator 1 Transcribed by Candice Seymour 11