CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:00 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers, Vero Beach, Florida PRESENT: Chairman, Kirk Noonan; Vice Chairman, Dan Hargett; Members: James Richardson; Suzanne Shell and Harry Howle Also Present: City Attorney, Wayne Coment; Code Enforcement Officer, Melody Sanderson; Code Enforcement Officer, Tom Ramsey; Planning and Development Director, Tim McGarry and Deputy City Clerk, Sherri Philo Excused Absence: Liz Sherman 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called today s meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. PRELIMINARY MATTERS A) Adoption of Minutes July 17, 2013 Mr. Hargett made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2013 Code Enforcement Board meeting. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B) Agenda Additions, Deletions and Adoption Ms. Melody Sanderson, Code Enforcement Officer, pulled item 3-C) 1d James W. Bettancourt from today s agenda. She reported that the civil penalty has been paid and the permit has been applied for. Mr. Tom Ramsey, Code Enforcement Officer, pulled item 3-C) 1c Wells Fargo Bank and item 3-C) 1e Claude and Cassandra Meadows from today s agenda. Mr. Noonan made a motion to adoption the agenda as amended. Mr. Hargett seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Deputy City Clerk swore in all witnesses testifying for today s meeting enmasse. 3. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS A) Citation Appeals 1. CASE #13-CE-3954 / 0069T VIOLATOR: John M. and Tracy M. Carroll VIOLATION: Operating a guesthouse and transient quarters in a residential zone 1 08/14/13 CEB
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 530 Camelia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Mr. Ramsey reported that the violation has been corrected as of August 14, 2013 and the civil penalty has not been paid. He requested that the Board deny the appeal and find a violation of the Code, along with an enhanced civil penalty of $300.00 and cost of enforcement in the amount of $458.81. He then went over the history on this case with the Board members (on file in the City Clerk s office). Mr. Richardson asked was Mr. David Hunter the sole complainant. Mr. Ramsey answered yes. Mr. Richardson asked if he could ask Mr. Hunter if he or any of his relatives has any proprietary interest in any hotels/motels in the local area. Mr. Wayne Coment, City Attorney, explained that it would be up to the City as to whether or not they want to call Mr. Hunter as a witness. Mr. Hunter stated that he has no connection to any hotels. It was noted that Mr. Hunter had not been sworn in. Mr. Tim McGarry, Planning and Development Director, read a prepared statement to make his case (please see attached). He entered into the record a copy of a memorandum addressed to Mrs. Tracy Carroll dated June 24, 2011, outlining the City s prohibition against short-term rentals in residential zoning districts (on file in the City Clerk s office). He requested that the appeal be denied, that they be found in violation of the Code by unlawfully operating a guest house and transient quarters in an R-1A Zoning District, and that they be ordered to pay an enhanced civil penalty of $300.00 including administrative hearing costs. The staff believes this enhanced civil penalty is appropriate due to the actions of the appellants and the fact that a $50.00 civil penalty is not commensurate with the amount of rental fees that my be produced by this unlawful use. He felt that requiring less of a civil penalty would send the wrong message to the appellants and other potential violators of the City s restriction on short term or vacation rentals in residential districts. Mr. Richardson asked does Cocoa Beach, Daytona, Clearwater, or anyone else interpret the Code this way. He said that he did not want to discourage tourist if the City of Vero Beach are the only ones that are this strict. Mr. McGarry said that a lot of communities regulate these. What the Board needs to understand is that the State has legislation that preempts the City from making any changes in the Code that affects vacation rentals. Therefore, they are relying on Codes that are in place prior to June 1, 2011. Mr. Richardson said that he did not want to discourage tourism. 2 08/14/13 CEB
Mr. McGarry said that is what the hotels/motels are for. He said that it depends on the community. Mr. Coment explained that the Board s determination on this case is strictly limited. He read from the Code Section 2-302 (c), which states The fact-finding determination of the Board for the purposes of a contested code enforcement citation action shall be limited to whether the violation alleged did occur or exists and, if so, whether the person or entity named in the citation is responsible for that violation. He said that is all the Board is to look at. Ms. Shell said that Mr. McGarry stated that the first violation was noted in 2011. Mr. McGarry said that was a different property, which is located on Sea Grape and Mr. and Mrs. Carroll no longer own that property. Ms. Shell asked was it the same violation. Mr. McGarry said it was for a similar action, a vacation rental. Ms. Shell asked did they sell the property before they were cited. Mr. McGarry said they were given a warning citation and then they sold the home. Ms. Shell said then they knew this was a violation. Mr. McGarry answered yes. He said that he gave Mrs. Carroll the memorandum that he entered into the record, which specifically addressed the issue of the 30-day prohibition. He said that he reviewed this with the City Attorney at the time and he made that interpretation, which he has used since he has been employed with the City (2008 Code Enforcement action). Mr. Howle said that Mr. McGarry made mention of warnings issued before the citation was issued. He asked how many warnings were issued. Mr. Ramsey said there was one written warning without a penalty and then a citation was issued with a penalty. Mr. Howle asked how long of a time span was there between the warning and the citation. Mr. Ramsey answered about 45 days. Mr. Richardson asked how often does this occur with other property owners. Mr. McGarry said that Code Enforcement acts on a complaint basis. 3 08/14/13 CEB
Mr. Richardson said that he hasn t seen this case come before this Board. Mr. McGarry explained that is because they send out a warning first. The problem with these types of cases is that the City has to have the facts that there is a violation. Even though they are required to get a special license from the State, they are not necessarily in violation of the City s Code until they are actually caught doing it. Ms. Shell asked how much does the permit from the State cost. Mr. McGarry did not know. Mr. Howle said the State license does not circumvent the Code of the City. Mr. McGarry said unfortunately the State gives out the license without checking with the local government. Mr. Howle said the license from the State is a mute point for this hearing. Mr. McGarry said that getting a license from the State would put them on the City s radar. He said the City also goes after people who are not paying a bed tax. Mr. John Carroll, Property Owner, who was sworn in, said that he sat on the Code Enforcement Board for two terms and really enjoyed it. He didn t think that they ever had anyone from staff asking for an enhanced municipal penalty. He asked what is the basis of this opinion. Mr. McGarry said the basis of asking for an enhanced penalty is because there is a good possibility the City is going to increase the penalties and staff received direction from the City Council that they would like to see that. He said the type of money involved for these short term rentals is fairly substantial and a $50.00 fine is like a slap on the wrist. If the City doesn t send the right message it is possible that people will continue to violate the law. That is the reason that he enhanced the penalty. He said that $300.00 is probably chunk change when it comes to this property. Mr. Carroll asked what is the basis. He asked where does it say that in the Code. Mr. Coment said the maximum penalty on a Code violation is $500.00. Anyone who doesn t contest for a first time violation basically has a reduced penalty of $50.00. But, once a citation is contested and reduced penalty is waived then the Board can impose a civil penalty up to $500.00. Mr. Carroll asked how many citations have been issued by Code Enforcement for vacation rental properties since 2008. Mr. McGarry answered probably less than 10. They have had some warnings. He said that he didn t have that information with him, but there wasn t a lot. 4 08/14/13 CEB
Mr. Carroll asked would two cover it. Mr. McGarry answered no. He said there probably was at least four and Mr. Carroll was half of them. He said it was less than 10. Mr. Carroll said that through a record search there were two found. Mr. McGarry said that he didn t have that information in front of him. He said that this issue has not been a major problem in the City until recently. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. McGarry if it is his position that short term rentals hasn t been going on in the City. Mr. McGarry answered no. He said that short term rentals have been going on in the City, but they operate on a complaint basis. He said that this was basically how the County was doing their enforcement until they changed their regulations. Mr. Carroll asked why did the County change their regulations. Mr. McGarry did not know. It was his opinion was that it was because they had a strong lobby. At this time, Mr. Carroll presented his case. Mr. Carroll stated that he is the owner of 530 Camelia Lane and he does admit to this alleged violation. He said that he has been involved with this Board for a number of years and found that he doesn t agree with Mr. McGarry s interpretation of this Ordinance. It doesn t really exist on paper and he is present today to discuss it and he is spending good money so they can have a legal opinion. He said that he has been a resident of the City of Vero Beach for eight and a half years and he first purchased property in Riomar about 10 years ago. Before that he spent time coming here. At that time his family took advantage of Riomar and did that by renting there on a weekly basis. They spent Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Labor Day of 2003 in renting private homes as vacation rentals. There was not a problem, issue or questions asked. He has been in the engineering/construction business for 37 years and during that time he represented high end clients, such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Wendy s. He used to go all over the State of Texas trying to get these projects approved. He said the first time he would walk into the Planning Department he would be told no, we don t want you here. Our Ordinance is going to stop you from being here. He said the fact is that the Code says what it says. No more and no less. Mr. McGarry can say that he can interpret the Code, but the Code has to be readable by an individual. It can t be changed or manipulated in any way. Twenty-three months ago he served on this Board and at that time he put on an agenda to discuss this very issue. It was right after the State Statute changed, where the legislature decided that the State of Florida should not regulate vacation rentals. Now, 23 5 08/14/13 CEB
months later, Mr. McGarry is still dancing out that same tune. The same record, over and over again that he can interpret the Code. Mr. McGarry objected. He said the Code gives him strict authority to do that. He doesn t know how more clearly it could be in the Code. Whether Mr. Carroll likes it or not. Mr. Carroll said that he didn t interrupt Mr. McGarry while he was speaking. Mr. McGarry said that Mr. Carroll is incorrect. He said that is what the Code says. He asked Mr. Carroll if he read the Code. He told Mr. Carroll not to tell him that he can t interpret the Code. He has the authority. He said that Mr. Carroll doesn t have the authority. Mr. Carroll said that he was making his presentation. Mr. McGarry already had his turn. He asked that everything that Mr. McGarry said be stricken as being out of order. Mr. Noonan agreed. Mr. Coment told Mr. McGarry that he would have his chance for rebuttal. Mr. McGarry apologized. Mr. Carroll recalled after that meeting, when the Board had this discussion with Mr. McGarry, Mr. Coment said that he didn t represent him (Mr. McGarry) that he represented the Board. Mr. Carroll said that he went back and read the minutes from that meeting. He questioned if Mr. McGarry went back and looked to see if his interpretation is right. Is his interpretation following the guidelines set by the courts in the State of Florida. It is obvious that Mr. McGarry hasn t done his homework since that time. He is relying on his own belief. In August 2012, there was a warning issued on their Sea Grape property. He hired an Attorney, who sent the City a letter on his behalf asking for the specifics of the Ordinance that the City was citing and to show them how that 30-day rental property is defined specifically in the Code. Now there is no definition. Mr. McGarry relies on the transient rental statement as limiting the number of days if they go to the Florida State Statutes to figure it out. Mr. McGarry attached the same memorandum that he entered into the record today and sent it back to his attorney. Mr. McGarry said that they couldn t contest a warning. Now today they are talking about the same thing. A lot of things have changed since that warning was issued. There have been court rulings regarding vacation rentals in Ft. Lauderdale. Ft. Lauderdale s Ordinance is almost identical to the City s Ordinance. He said that he served on the Code Enforcement Board in Ft. Lauderdale and he knows what that Ordinance says. He asked why are they really here. He said it is because his family is visible in the community. His family is out there doing good. His family commits to this community. Now, Mr. Hunter filed a complaint against his house on Camelia Lane, but Mr. Hunter lives one block off the beach north of Beachland Boulevard. Camelia Lane is two houses by the Park. He questioned why Mr. Hunter would care about his house on Camelia Lane. He 6 08/14/13 CEB
said that Mr. Hunter is filing a complaint against him because he can get traction in his complaint against his neighbor. Mr. Hunter is using them as a scapegoat to get his neighbor in trouble. He is using all of them because they are spending time and money when they could be out there doing good in the community. They are wasting time arguing about an Ordinance that doesn t exist. He then introduced his Attorney to the Board. Mr. Thomas Tierney, Attorney, noted that homeowners have private property rights. The law allows cities and counties to restrict those private property rights, but when they do they can interpret the Statutes and they are to be interpreted broadly in favor of the homeowner. He provided to the Board the case Ocean s Edge Development Corporation v. the Town of Juno Beach (on file in the City Clerk s office). He said that case was heard in a Court of Appeals, which is the same Court of Appeals that serves the City of Vero Beach. He said in this case, the decision was made by the Court to strike the Town of Juno Beach s Ordinance where they were trying to restrict homeowners on their property. He said that Mr. and Mrs. Carroll are accused of violating Sections 60.11, which is a generic Section and 61.02, which deals with permitted uses in residential districts. In no place in the Code does it preclude rentals for less than 30 days. Mr. McGarry would like it to say that and he has admitted that the City Codes are vague with respect to that so he has decided to interpret it by reference to Chapter 509 of the Florida Statute and claims under City Code Section 65.06 that he has that power. Unfortunately for Mr. McGarry there were two other cases, Milo v. the City of Venice and Dal Bianco v. the City of Ft. Lauderdale, where the Judges struck interpretations of local city codes, just like this one where the city was trying to preclude short term rentals. The basis for Mr. McGarry s interpretation, and it is only Mr. McGarry s interpretation of the Code, is in Section 61.01 (b) of the City s Code, which states It is the expressed purpose of this section to exclude from this district all buildings or other structures and uses having commercial characteristics, whether operated for profit or otherwise Mr. Tierney asked what does that mean. He asked what is a structure or building having commercial characteristics. Mr. McGarry has determined that renting a residence for less than 30 days has a commercial characteristic. He asked how is that different from renting for 30 or 60 days. He asked how does it become commercial by renting for less than 30 days. He said there is nothing in the Code with that magic 30 days. He said that Mr. McGarry cites Chapter 60, under definitions of guest house transient quarters, which states Any structure including converted dwellings in which less than ten rooms, with or without meals, are rented or otherwise provided for compensation to transients for their temporary care and lodging. Mr. Tierney said there is no definition of a room. He asked does that mean bedrooms or rooms. According to Code Enforcement the house on Camelia Lane has five bedrooms and six bathrooms, which gives them 11 rooms. He said there is no definition in the Code of what is a transient or what is temporary. He asked what does that mean. Is a transient a person who stays in a hotel room for one night, a family who stays in a vacation rental for a week, a family who stays in a vacation rental for one month, etc. He said that the Dodgers use to stay in people s homes for eight weeks. He asked does that make them transient. He asked where do they draw the line. He said that Mr. McGarry has tried to draw the line by referencing the State Statutes. He said that what is happening is that City staff is amending the City Code as 7 08/14/13 CEB
staff would like it to read, not as it is drafted. He felt that Mr. McGarry was operating in a legislative capacity. He is coming in without public input or without elected officials and stating this is how they are going to interpret this particular Ordinance. They can t do it that way. If they want to prohibit short term rentals then they have to change the Code. They have to define what transient and temporary means. Mr. Carroll s position isn t that he didn t rent for less than 30 days, because he did. His position is that the City Code does not prohibit short term rentals as it is currently written. Mr. McGarry said that Mr. Carroll stated that the City s case was similar to Ft. Lauderdale, and he read the Ft. Lauderdale case and the City is not similar. He asked Mr. Carroll to explain how they are similar. Mr. Tierney read the notice of violation, which stated the owner of the single family home in the residential district was operating as a commercial business involving short term rentals. This is prohibited land use in this district. Mr. McGarry said if they looked in the case more clearly they are using their single family definition and the City has guest house and transient quarters as a definition that they didn t have. So they had a weak case to begin with. Mr. Tierney said that Mr. McGarry stated that in order to interpret the definition of guest house and transient quarters that he had to look at Chapter 509 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. McGarry said that there has always been an issue on tenancy. Staff agrees that it is not in the Ordinance. Ms. Shell asked is she correct that Mr. Carroll was aware of this law back in 2011 that a permit was needed and a bed tax would be paid. Mr. Carroll said that that they have rented on a weekly basis and there has been sales tax paid. They were not aware that a vacation rental was required to have a license and they just found out about it a few weeks ago when someone from the State gave them an application, which they did send in. Mr. Hargett asked Mr. Carroll if he had any type of license. Mr. Carroll answered no. Ms. Shell said the bed tax they are paying was for the house on Camelia and not the home back in 2011. Mr. Carroll said anytime they rented property thy have paid bed tax. Mr. Howle said that they knew that there was a contention with rentals with the City because they came across this before. He asked wasn t that the time to try and resolve 8 08/14/13 CEB
this before a citation was issued and an appeal made for that citation. He said that maybe he couldn t do it or maybe he thought that it would go away. Mr. Carroll explained that the initial warning that they received was for the property on Sea Grape. He was on the Code Enforcement Board at the time and he tried to get a motion made at that meeting (September 9, 2011) that Mr. McGarry could not interpret the Code as he indicated. Mr. Coment told them that they could not do that because that was part of Planning and Zoning. He said it stated that in the minutes. Another issue was that they were told they could not appeal a warning. Therefore, he told the Code Officer to go ahead and smack a fine on him because he wanted to get this over with. Mr. McGarry said the statement guest house and transient quarters where it refers to 10 rooms was immaterial. If they read the definition, it states any structure including converted dwellings. Therefore, any structure meets the definition where it is rented for compensation transits and temporary care and lodging. He said it is clear in the Ordinance that it meets that. Clearly, staff acknowledges that 30 days is not in the Code. He said this was not like it was a surprise. If they had a real issue they could change the Code. They had plenty of opportunity to do that. He said that a business tax is supposed to be paid if they are operating a vacation rental and the City has never been contacted for a business license. He said the real issue revolves around tenancy. He understands that 30 days is not listed in the City s Code. He noted that he has not read the other court cases that were referenced. The City stands on their presentation. Mr. Hargett asked Mr. Coment about his statement earlier on what the Board has to follow. Mr. Coment explained that the fact finding determination for the Board has to do with whether or not the violation as alleged on the Code Enforcement citation did occur or exist and if so, whether the persons cited are the ones responsible for the violation. That is the Board s fact finding determination. Mr. Hargett said then the Board has to go by Mr. McGarry s interpretation because it is his right to interpret it. Mr. Coment said that the Board has the final say based on the argument on what those interpretations should be. Mr. Hargett felt that this case should be before the City Council rather than the Code Enforcement Board. At this time, Mr. Carroll gave his closing argument. He said having served on this Board for a number of years that he knows how hard it is to go against City staff. He said that the initial warning they received was for the property on Sea Grape. He would not be here today if he didn t belief that Mr. Tierney s interpretation was spot on that no one would know what Mr. McGarry s interpretation would be. The Code should be clear, just like the speed limit should be clear. The Board is not here to decide whether or not 9 08/14/13 CEB
vacation rentals are right for Vero Beach. The State has already made that decision. What they are here to talk about is did he violate the Code as it is written. Mr. Tierney stated that the definition of transient and temporary that Mr. McGarry gave them. Those definitions apply to tenancies of 30 days or more just as they would for 30 days or less. There is nothing in the definition in the dictionary that states a transient is someone who stays in a residence for less than 30 days. It just states temporary. To state that the dictionary definition supports Mr. McGarry s decision is inaccurate. Mr. Hargett asked to hear from the person who made the complaint. Mr. Coment said that he would have to be called as a witness. At this time, Mr. McGarry gave his closing statement. He said that any reasonable person could say that this was temporary use of the property. Clearly the use of the property is being used as temporary. He said the Code does not have explicit language and that is why they applied 30-days. He felt that any reasonable person would state that this was transient use of the property. Mr. Noonan made a motion that the City Code is vague on this issue and therefore there was no violation. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion and it passed 3-2 with Ms. Shell voting no, Mr. Howle no, Mr. Richardson yes, Mr. Hargett yes, and Mr. Noonan yes. At this time, the Board took a ten-minute break. The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 3:23 p.m. None B) Notice of Assessment Appeals C) Non-Compliance Reports 1. Requests for Notice of Assessment a. CASE #13-CE-3789 / 0149M VIOLATOR: Edward J. Flalkowski, Jr. VIOLATION: Stagnant swimming pool VIOLATION ADDRESS: 703 Holly Road, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ms. Sanderson reported that the property remains in violation and the civil penalty has not been paid. She requested that the Board issue a Notice of Assessment of continued penalties and the cost of prosecution in the amount of $46.37. 10 08/14/13 CEB
Mr. Noonan made a motion to find the property in violation and to issue a Notice of Assessment of continuing penalties along with the cost of prosecution in the amount of $46.37. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. b. CASE #13-CE-3672 / 096M VIOLATOR: Horacio Rosales, Sr. and Maria Rosales VIOLATION: unsheltered storage of stripped, junked, inoperable or unlicensed motor vehicles or any parts thereof exist on property / garage, trash or other unsightly or unsanitary materials not properly enclosed VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2196 32 nd Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ms. Sanderson reported that Mr. Rosales had to leave today s meeting to check to see if his car has been removed. She asked that the Board hear this case last on today s agenda. The Board members agreed. The Deputy City Clerk swore in Mr. Horacio Rosales. Ms. Sanderson reported that the Board previously gave Mr. Rosales 45 days to come into compliance. Mr. Rosales said that almost everything has been removed from the property. The vehicle is still on the property and the two motors are in the front and are covered. He reported that a tow truck would be picking everything up before the end of today. Mr. Coment said that because the civil penalty has been paid, if the Code Enforcement Officer wants, she could pull this case from today s agenda and the Board would not need to take action. If the property is not brought into compliance, she could bring it back before the Board at their next meeting. Ms. Sanderson pulled this case from today s agenda noting that the violator has worked very hard to come into compliance. This item was pulled from today s agenda. c. CASE #13-CE-3866 / 0053T VIOLATOR: Wells Fargo Bank VIOLATION: Weeds, grass, and overgrowth in excess of 12 inches VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1935 22 nd Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 d. CASE #13-CE-3948 / 0186M 11 08/14/13 CEB
This item was pulled from today s agenda. This item was pulled from today s agenda. VIOLATOR: James W. Bettancourt VIOLATION: Boat lift installed without Code Compliance Certification or permit VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4504 Bethel Creek Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 e. CASE #13-CE-3927 / 0075T VIOLATOR: Claude and Cassandra Meadows VIOLATION: Weeds, grass, and overgrowth in excess of 12 inches; dead tree VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1716 30 th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 f. CASE #13-CE-3770 / 0154M VIOLATOR: John C. and Patricia Rapp VIOLATION: Weeds, grass, or undergrowth at a height of more than 12 inches; unlicensed nonoperable motor vehicle VIOLATION ADDRESS: 555 20 th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ms. Sanderson reported that as of July 1, 2013, the violation of weeds, grass, or undergrowth has been corrected, the violation of the unlicensed non-operable motor vehicles remains in violation, and the civil penalty has not been paid. She requested that the Board issue a Notice of Assessment of continuing penalties and the cost of enforcement in the amount of $85.40. Mr. Noonan made a motion to find that the violation of weeds, grass, or undergrowth has been corrected as of July 1, 2013, that the unlicensed motor vehicle is still in violation and that the Board issue a Notice of Assessment of continuing penalties along with the cost of prosecution in the amount of $85.40. Mr. Howle seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. Request for Board Order a. CASE #13-CE-3713 / 0125M VIOLATOR: Cherane (Pefley) Trajere / Bank of America, National Association VIOLATION: Weeds, grass, and undergrowth over 12 inches; tree and other debris accumulated throughout the property 12 08/14/13 CEB
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 530 Acacia Road, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ms. Sanderson reported that the property remains in violation and she has not had any contact with the property owner. She requested that the Board issue a Final Order of continuing penalties until the violation is corrected. Mr. Noonan made a motion that the Board issues a Final Order of continuing penalties until the violation is corrected. Mr. Howle seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. b. CASE #13-CE-3847 / 0024T VIOLATOR: Theeratat Taweesuk / c-o Boonting Nvampaton VIOLATION: Grass, weeds, and overgrowth in excess of 12 inches VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1925 5 th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Mr. Ramsey reported that the property remains in violation. He requested that the Board issue a Final Order of continuing penalties until the violation is corrected. Mr. Noonan made a motion that the Board issues a Final Order of continuing penalties until the violation is corrected. Mr. Howle seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. c. CASE #13-CE-3810 / 0037T VIOLATOR: First Horizon Home Loans VIOLATION: Unsecured black stagnant pool VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1546 26 th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Mr. Ramsey reported that the property remains in violation. He requested that the Board issue a Final Order of continuing penalties until the violation is corrected. Mr. Noonan made a motion that the Board issues a Final Order of continuing penalties until the violation is corrected. Mr. Howle seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. d. CASE #13-CE-3793 / 0179M VIOLATOR: Shawn P. Spivey / Nationstar Mortgage, LLC VIOLATION: Stagnant swimming pool VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2821 21 st Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 13 08/14/13 CEB
Ms. Sanderson reported that the property was brought into compliance on August 13, 2013 and the civil penalty remains unpaid. She requested that the Board issue a Final Order finding the property in compliance, ceasing the continuing penalties as of August 13, 2013 and to pay the civil penalties. Mr. Noonan made a motion to issue a Final Order finding correction of the violation, ceasing the continuing penalties as of August 13, 2013, and assessing the total penalties and costs. Mr. Hargett seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. e. CASE #13-CE-3907 / 0180M VIOLATOR: The Bank of New York, f/k/a The Bank of New York Certificateholders CWABS, Inc. Asset Backed Certificates Series 2 / Bank of America VIOLATION: Weeds, grass, or overgrowth at a height of more than 12 inches VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2124 28 th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ms. Sanderson reported that the property was brought into compliance on July 19, 2013 and the civil penalty remains unpaid. She requested that the Board issue a Final Order finding the property in compliance, ceasing the continuing penalties as of July 19, 2013 and to pay the civil penalties. Mr. Noonan made a motion to issue a Final Order finding correction of the violation, ceasing the continuing penalties as of July 19, 2013, and assessing the total penalties and costs. Mr. Howle seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS/CITATIONS None 5. OLD BUSINESS None 6. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS a. CASE #13-CE-3615 / 1022D VIOLATOR: Christopher D. Wolf, Tara L. Athorn, Ocwen Loan, and Bank of America Ms. Sanderson reported that the Board issued a Final Order to pay the civil penalty of $50.00 along with the cost of prosecution. The check was received in the mail the day 14 08/14/13 CEB
after the Code Enforcement Board hearing and therefore, she would like to waive the cost of prosecution. She requested that the Board amend the Final Order to pay the civil penalty with no cost of prosecution. Mr. Noonan made a motion to issue an amended Order to Pay, waiving the cost of prosecution. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Rosales was not back to hear his case and therefore, the Board took a five-minute break in order to give the Code Officer time to try to reach him. The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 3:39 p.m. and the Board heard item 3- C) 1b. 7. CLERK S MATTERS None 8. ATTORNEY S MATTERS None 9. CHAIRMAN S MATTERS None 10. MEMBER S MATTERS None 11. ADJOURNMENT Today s meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m. /sp 15 08/14/13 CEB