CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING

CITY OF PORT ORANGE

1000 CITY CENTER CIRCLE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

NOVEMBER 10, 2010

 

THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD of the City of Port Orange was called to order by Chairman Troup at 5:30 p.m.

 

Roll Call:

Present:

Luther Davidson

Scott Decker

Judith Bickel*                                  

James Keys                                                 

Richard Spitz                                                           

Vice Chairman Michael Mellon

Chairman Robert Troup

*Arrived at 5:34 p.m.

 

Also Present:

Lynette Luff, Assistant City Attorney

Wayne Clark, Director of Community Development     

Mike Hill, Community Development Engineer              

Mike Ulrich, Assistant Public Utilities Director

Deborah Faircloth, Code Inspector

Scott Allman, Code Inspector

Amanda Bonin, Code Inspector

Tim Burman, Code Inspector

Mike Zaffuto, Engineer

Dena Joseph, Code Inspector

Don Stuhr, Code Inspector

Glenda Leftwich, Recording Secretary

Joyce Dombrowski, City Clerk’s Office               

 

2.         CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

 

Motion made by Member Spitz, seconded by Member Keys, to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2010 meeting. Motion carried 7-0 upon voice vote.

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 2

 

3.         ATTORNEY OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

           

Lynette Luff, Assistant City Attorney, gave an overview of the Code Enforcement process.

 

4.         NEW BUSINESS

 

a.         CEB Case No. 10-1168

            Barcelo Developments, Inc.

            5752 S. Ridgewood Avenue

            Port Orange, FL 32127

            Re: 5460 Ridgewood Avenue

            Port Orange, FL 32127

 

Violation of the City of Port Orange Land Development Code, Chapter 6, Section 3(d)(1) Upgrades of existing site development. Change of use as described by the building code, the Standard Industrial Classification Manual or when determined to be of significance by the administrative official.

 

Chapter 6, Section 6(b) pertaining to site construction permits. (permits shall be obtained prior to site construction).

 

Chapter 10, Article 1, Clearing and Grading, Section 5, Required erosion and sediment control measures. (approved measures shall be taken for erosion control).

 

Chapter 16, Section 1(e)(4)(a) All storage areas shall be enclosed by an opaque wall, fence or landscaping of sufficient maturity, density and height to screen such areas from any public right-of-way or adjoining property. (fencing shall be installed to sufficiently screen). (Landscaping shall be maintained to sufficiently screen the permitted chain link fencing).

 

Deborah Faircloth, Code Compliance Inspector, was duly sworn.  Ms. Faircloth explained that the site was formerly a shed sales site and is now being used as a contractor’s yard.  This change of use requires significant site upgrades which are supposed to be completed before establishing use of the property.  All necessary permits are required for site upgrades and are to be obtained before site construction.  This constitutes a work without permit as no permit or site development approvals were obtained before beginning to use the site for a contractor’s yard.  A grade and fill permit is required before the addition of fill.  Additionally, erosion control measures shall be in place before commencement of site upgrades.  The permit was not obtained before the addition of fill. 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 3

 

Unacceptable erosion control measures were installed on the site within the past week.  Requirements for the screening fence were not followed.  A fence permit was issued to screen the storage area from the public right of way that required adding twenty 10 foot high red cedar trees to screen the fence.  The fence was installed but landscaping was not.  That part of the permit is in noncompliance.  Ms. Faircloth went over a time frame of events leading up to this hearing.  Member Davidson asked why there was such a long length of time between the first notice of violation and getting to this hearing.  Ms. Faircloth stated the City and the contractor were in talks trying to get these matters settled and the contractor was working with them trying to get the correct permits and paperwork lined up.  Ms. Faircloth said once a development order was issued for the property it seemed like the cooperation stopped.  The City has been trying to get voluntary compliance from the contractor but now they have received complaints from nearby residents. 

 

Ms. Faircloth provided photos of the violations and a copy of the plan showing the proposed area for the pile of dirt.  The property is separated by the B23 Canal.  Pipes were dropped into the canal and covered by fill.  Jersey barriers were installed but are not acceptable.  No acceptable erosion control measures have been taken.  Debris has been dumped on the bank and is filtering down to the canal.  Fill has been placed on both sides of the property.  The canal was piped and covered with fill to allow access to the back side of the property.  Member Davidson asked if any authority or jurisdiction has provided a permit allowing the piping of the canal.  Ms. Faircloth answered no.  Member Davidson asked if the City allowed the contractor to use and occupy the property while going through this development phase.  Ms. Faircloth replied yes, in a way because they wanted them to take care of the issues but asked them to not use it for daily operations.  Ms. Faircloth then referred to the photos of the site and stated they show that there has been some erosion control measures taken. Ms. Faircloth stated the erosion control measures are unacceptable due to the grade of the slope and there is no stabilization of the steep slope.  The silt fence will not hold back any erosion that may occur during a rain.  She estimates the barrier is knee high and the fill slope is in the six foot tall range.  Member Davidson remarked there are materials that can keep erosion from occurring on steep slopes.  Ms. Faircloth said all the City needs is cooperation from the contractor.  Member Bickel asked if permits have been acquired now.  Ms. Faircloth said yes there has been a grade and fill permit issued which expires December 13th if the work has not been completed.  Member Davidson asked where the canal goes to.  Ms. Faircloth said the canal goes all the way to Rose Bay, going through a retention area that acts as a filter.  Member Davidson asked if the fill permit included piping the ditch.  Ms. Faircloth said she has seen some correspondence but the ditch is under county rule and the permit would not come from Port

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 4

 

Orange.  She has not seen a county permit to pipe the ditch.  Member Barker asked if all parties involved have been addressed regarding the City’s requirements.  Ms. Faircloth answered absolutely.  Member Barker asked if the conditions are being addressed and if the owner is doing all they need to do to comply.  Ms. Faircloth stated at this time they are out of compliance on these four issues.  Member Davidson asked why this issue was on the agenda earlier in the year and then pulled off.  Ms. Faircloth stated after the case was put on the agenda progress began happen so the case was continued for two months and then closed.  Because progress was being made a development order was issued.  Ms. Faircloth stated once the development order was issued progress seemed to stop.  Ms. Luff asked when the development order was issued.  Ms. Faircloth said the development order for the front half of the property was issued on July 21, 2010.  Ms. Faircloth showed a complete timeline for the project.  Member Davidson asked when this case first appeared before the Board.  Ms. Faircloth stated she believed it was either April or May.  Member Mellon asked if the canal cuts the property all the way north and south.  Ms. Faircloth stated yes.  She said the development order was only issued for the front half of the property because that is the issue that was supposed to be addressed at that time.  The back half was to be done in a second phase but work has already started.  The only permit for the back half is a grade and fill permit.  Member Davidson asked why 180 days passed with the owner being allowed to occupy and use the property before issuing the development order.  Ms. Faircloth stated the screening fence was placed along the front of the property to screen the area from public view.  Member Davidson asked if it is a normal procedure for the City to allow someone to occupy and use a property while they are going through the development process.  Ms. Faircloth asked Tim Burman, City Planner, to address this issue. 

 

Tim Burman, City Planner, was duly sworn.  Mr. Burman stated at a February meeting it was discussed with the owner that the property could not be used as a construction yard and storage at that time.  This was also stated in a letter sent to the contractor on March 12, 2010.  Mr. Burman stated each time the case was put on the agenda the contractor would start to make progress and the case was then removed from the agenda.

 

Ms. Faircloth provided a site map showing the proposed area for the mound of dirt.  She stated the dirt must be pulled back and put on a 3 to 1 slope.  It will need to move back approximately 23 feet to get a 3 to 1 slope.  This will be in compliance with the engineered drawings.  Member Davidson asked what means the City has in place to keep the dirt from flowing into the roadway or onto cars.  Ms. Faircloth stated at this time there are no means in place.

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 5

 

Leo Masci, Owner, was duly sworn.  He stated it has been frustrating trying to get a permit for the past year and a half.  He listed the ways his company has reportedly been cooperating with the City:  screening the front and back of the property, obtaining a fill permit, meeting with Volusia County to get their approval, and finally receiving the St. John’s permit.  Mr. Masci stated the reason the site is not being completed in two phases is because St. John’s wants it done in one phase.  He stated they are placing a 36 inch pipe coming from upstream (north) and a 48 inch pipe leading to the Allen pond (south).  This is double the capacity that is required.  Mr. Masci said a silt fence has been added and the dirt pile was moved once at the suggestion of Mike Zaffuto.  He feels it is unreasonable for the City to ask them to move out after a year and a half of being on the site.  Mr. Masci presented photos of the site.  He stated the erosion control materials he used are acceptable because the canal is being filled in and the dirt pile is temporary.  Mr. Masci stated the canal must be filled in to allow access to the site.  Residents along the back of the property complained when commercial vehicles entered the back of the property using the residential street, which is the only way to access the back of the property. 

 

Mr. Masci addressed each of the complaints individually: Chapter 6 Section 3(d)(1) a change of use request was submitted; Chapter 6 section 6b a change of grade permit was issued; erosion control issues have been taken care of with temporary means; Chapter 16 opaque wall and landscaping has been taken care of.  He said this is the first time he has heard that the City has an issue with the trees and bushes that were planted.  Member Decker asked if Mr. Masci has been answering the City’s requests with their requirements.  Mr. Masci stated yes. 

 

Daniel Johns, project engineer for Barcelo Developments, was duly sworn.  He stated they have permits from St. John’s Water Management District as well as the Army Corps of Engineers to pipe the canal.  Member Davidson stated that generally when a company approaches the permitting agencies with all the proper documentation in hand the process does not seem too lengthy.  He also stated that occupation of a site for a certain amount of time may be covered under a Florida law called prescriptive right of way.  Member Davidson asked if the area is properly zoned for this type of business.  Mr. Burman stated it is properly zoned as long as it is properly screened.  Member Davidson remarked that the City’s requests must be followed to obtain the proper permits in a timely manner.  Mr. Masci stated he will continue moving this project forward regardless of what happens tonight.  He will continue the permitting process with all agencies involved.  Mr. Masci stated Mr. Johns has been busy and intends to hand the updated redesigned plans into the City on Monday (November 15,

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 6

 

2010). Member Bickel asked when approval was granted by St. John’s.  Mr. Masci said about three to four weeks ago.  Member Bickel asked if that is when they told him they did not want the process done in two phases.  Mr. Masci said no, they were told about it three or four months ago.  Member Bickel asked why he did not come back before the City and request a revision or addition to the site plan.  Mr. Masci stated he did not know if his company did or not.  Mr. Johns said he understands the process quite well and said he was not going to send plans back to the City at that time showing the revision simply because the county had not approved it yet and he would have had to resubmit it again when the county approval was given.  Member Bickel said that may have prevented the hearing tonight.  She asked why they have not applied for the fill the ditch permit yet.  Mr. Johns stated that is part of the complete site package and depended on the site permit and the St. John’s permit.  Mr. Masci said he thought Mr. Johns had been communicating with the City regarding both of these issues.  Member Bickel stated the City has the ability to put a stop work order on any project and has shown cooperation by not doing so but he has continued working without permits and took out the second phase that has not been permitted or even been looked at.  Mr. Masci said the change of grade permit was the second phase.  Member Davidson asked if the change of grade permit was issued as a result of the additional work on the second phase.  Mr. Masci said it was issued because he needed to store dirt because he had a job in Port Orange.  He said at one point he was told to stop putting the fill dirt on the site until he had the permit and then told it was okay as long as the silt fence was put up.  Mr. Masci said he does intend to get the permits.  Member Davidson asked if both of the permits expire in December.  Mr. Masci stated yes.  Member Davidson said the permits state they were issued in September and are valid for 180 days but the expiration date in December is less than 180 days. 

 

Mike Zaffuto, Engineer for the City of Port Orange, was duly sworn.  He stated the 180 days is a generalized factor for all building permits.  He stated that the City code requires that all change of grade permits for sites less than three acres expire in 90 days.  He stated the company was given a sheet with the permit that has 27 requirements for this permit and number one on the sheet was the expiration is in 90 days.  Member Bickel asked if there are phases of inspections on grading permits.  Mr. Zaffuto stated the City contracts with Hampton to do site inspections.  The information is provided to the inspector when the permit is issued; the problem with this case is that by the time this permit was issued the site was already graded up to the eight feet where Jersey barriers are done so there were no inspections.  Member Bickel asked if core samples are now needed.  Mr. Zaffuto stated they will need to provide samples to satisfy these conditions.  Mr. Zaffuto stated the permit only pertains to the western half of the property.  The ten to fifteen foot stockpile has not been approved and is not

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 7

 

allowed under the general change of grade permit.  Mr. Zaffuto showed a site map highlighted of where a stockpile is allowed.  He stated the City generally

does not allow a stockpile, but when allowed a stockpile is to be no higher than six feet and has to be stabilized.  Additional requirements state that inactivity or a

final rest in construction results in a seven day time limit for stabilizing the site:  seed, mulch, sod or some type of material must cover the bare soil.  Mr. Zaffuto stated that the silt fence, which was installed this week after eight months of construction, was not installed correctly.  This means the site is not protected from erosion if it rains.  Regarding the fence permit, code requires a certain amount of trees to be planted.  In this case it calls for twenty red cedar trees at a minimum height of ten feet.  Mr. Zaffuto provided photos that show this was not done.  Mr. Masci disagreed that there were no trees installed.  He said he will have his landscaper out to fix the problem if the trees were not installed.  He said he never received a notice regarding the trees.  Ms. Faircloth provided a copy of the fence permit that outlined the requirement of trees and how they should be spaced.  Mr. Masci said he was never told the trees were an inefficiency until this hearing.  Member Davidson asked if any new trees were planted.  Ms. Faircloth stated the trees showing in the photos are existing trees and no new trees have been added.  Ms. Faircloth volunteered to meet Mr. Masci on site to explain the tree requirements.  She stated this is only one of the items that need to come into compliance. 

 

Member Davidson stated he is concerned about the piping of the canal and the strength of the pipes when heavy equipment will be driving over them.  Mr. Masci said what is in place now is a temporary fix to allow him to access the back of the property when he was not allowed to access the back from the residential street.  Ms. Faircloth stated there are specific codes in the ordinance that prohibits access from a commercial property onto a residential street when there is access from a major road.  Mr. Masci disagreed, saying the canal blocks access from Ridgewood to the rear of the property.  Member Davidson remarked that someone involved with the site planning, such as the engineer, should have read the ordinances regarding what could and could not be done with the site.  Mr. Johns said he does not specialize in land use legalities. 

 

Mr. Burman spoke about the timeline of this project and the steps taken by both parties during the permitting process.  Mr. Burman said the initial site plan was split in half so that Mr. Masci and his company could get established on the front half of the property while the issues regarding the back half were being addressed.  He said the City was never informed that St. John’s required the property be declared one phase.  Mr. Masci apologized, stating it was a miscommunication between him and Mr. Johns regarding the City not being told

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 8

 

St. John’s wanted the site done in one phase. Chairman Troup asked what the City needs Mr. Masci to do right now to get into compliance.  Mr. Zaffuto answered the only permit they have right now is the change of grade permit.    They have to properly grade the site by December 16th according to the plans.  They have to stabilize the slope to avoid further erosion.  Mr. Zaffuto explained how a three to one slope is developed.  The tall mound of dirt is not allowed at all with this permit.  Mr. Zaffuto stated that a preconstruction meeting was held on August 4, 2010, in the Community Development conference room and a letter from Chip Glor, City Engineer, was sent to the site engineer on August 6 with a list of items that needed to be sent to the City to get the plans approved and start preconstruction on the front half of the site.  The St. John’s permit was just one of the items required.  The City just received a copy of the St. John’s permit via email this week.  There are five other items on the list, including a FDOT permit, that have not been submitted to the City for approval. 

 

Ms. Faircloth stated for the record that there some concerns by staff regarding some of the factual information that has been given by the Respondent, regarding the validity of the information.  Ms. Faircloth stated the staff does not feel the information given fits the whole scheme of the way things have happened.  Mr. Masci asked for specifics.  Mr. Burman answered stating using the site as a contractor’s construction yard storage.  The site has a permitted use however until the improvements to the site plan have been installed, inspected, and approved by the City the site cannot actually occupy or function as a construction yard storage.  A Certificate of Occupancy has never been issued for that site to be used as construction yard storage.  Ms. Luff asked what work has been done to this point.  Mr. Burman said two fences have been installed, the rear fence due to the fact that residents were complaining of the dirt pile.  Code does require that any construction material be screened from abutting residential areas.  The fence as installed is not in compliance due to the landscaping issue.  Member Keys asked if all the rest of the work done on the site was done without permits.  Mr. Burman answered that the work on the back half of the site was done through the change of grade permit.  Member Keys asked about the piping and the work done to the canal.  Mr. Zaffuto answered that the City cannot give permission to pipe a canal that they are not responsible for.  The County is responsible for this canal and no permit from the county has been submitted to the City by the developer. Mr. Zaffuto said the work to the canal was done without a permit.  Member Keys asked what other work has been done without a permit. Mr. Zaffuto answered the placement of fill in the back half began without a permit. 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 9

 

Chairman Troup asked for staff recommendations.  Ms. Faircloth recommended finding the Respondent in violation of the City of Port Orange Land Development Code Chapter 6 Section 3(d)(1), Chapter 6 Section 6(b), Chapter 10 Article 1 Section 5, and Chapter 16 Section 1(e)(4)(a).  

 

Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Decker, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1168 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Land Development Code Chapter 6 Section 3(d)(1), Chapter 6 Section 6(b), Chapter 10 Article 1 Section 5, and Chapter 16 Section 1(e)(4)(a).    Motion carried 6 – 1 by roll call vote, with Member Spitz voting no.

 

Ms. Faircloth further recommended the violation be corrected by scheduling a preconstruction meeting on or before December 3, 2010; by completing the Change of Grade permit by December 10, 2010; by receiving Site Construction permit on or before January 7, 2011; and by having Final Inspection to complete the project on or before July 8, 2011.  In the event that the aforesaid violator fails to meet any of the above time frames, then there shall be imposed against the Respondent, a fine of $250 for each day the violation continues after the date of non-compliance with any of the referenced time frames.  In the event that the Respondent completes the requirements listed above, the Respondent shall request a re-inspection by the Code Compliance Inspector to determine whether the violation has been brought into compliance.   

 

Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Decker, to accept staff recommendation in CEB Case No. 10-1168. Motion carried 4 - 3 upon roll call vote, with Member Spitz, Member Mellon, and Chairman Troup voting no.

 

Ms. Luff explained the appeal process to Mr. Masci.    

 

b.         Amanda Bonin, Code Compliance Inspector, was duly sworn.  Ms. Bonin reported item b, CEB 10-1297, is in compliance.

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 10

 

c.         CEB Case No. 10-1177

            George & Barbara Meyerhoff

            4550 Clyde Morris Boulevard-Suite E

            Port Orange, FL 32129

 

Violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems.  Backflow prevention devices are required to be installed on all potable,

irrigation, and fire water lines and to be inspected and tested by a certified backflow prevention tester on an annual basis.

 

Amanda Bonin gave the staff presentation.  Ms. Bonin reported the violation was first observed on July 29, 2010.  A notice of Violation was sent July 29, 2010 requesting the violation be corrected by September 2, 2010.  Re-inspection on September 3, 2010 showed no compliance.  Inspection on November 9, 2010 still showed the property was not in compliance.  Member Mellon asked if the property consists of a group of businesses.  Ms. Bonin reported it is a building of condo units.  Member Mellon wondered how a Certificate of Occupancy was issued without this violation being noticed.  Because this was the first time a backflow prevention device case has come before the Board, Ms. Luff asked for a sketch of what Public Utilities is doing in terms of getting compliance before bringing Code Enforcement into the process.

 

Mike Ulrich, Assistant Public Utilities Director, was duly sworn.  Mr. Ulrich provided a newsletter that is being sent to all the water customers educating the public about cross connections and backflow prevention devices.  The Department of Health has cracked down on cross connections and backflow prevention devices for residential and commercial customers in the past few years.  Commercial cross connections are deemed a higher hazard than residential connections.  In this situation, the well required a permit from Volusia County which never goes through the Port Orange Utilities or Building Department.  Mr. Ulrich provided photos of the site showing the cross connection site between the irrigation well with a booster pump and the City water meter.  This is the area the backflow prevention device is required.  A second area of concern is a pipe leading from the potable water towards an irrigation area.  Mr. Ulrich stated the Port Orange Utilities Department also sent letters to this customer indicating the potential hazards in January and again in May of this year.  Member Davidson asked if this customer has his irrigation well hooked in to the City water.  Mr. Ulrich stated there is a potential for a backflow, not that he has it hooked in to the City water.  Member Davidson said he cannot see the

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 11

 

hazard if the well and the potable water are not connected.  Mr. Ulrich stated that according to Port Orange Code Chapter 74 Section 247, the State of Florida

Administrative Code Chapter 62 Section 555, and United States Environmental Protection Agency this is a hazard.  A discussion ensued regarding the potential hazards and how they occur.  Mr. Ulrich said this is being handled as an educational process at this point.  They will only be bringing cases to the Board that have not complied with the code requirements.  Member Davidson remarked that the water could have been turned off for noncompliance.  Mr. Ulrich said that is an option that he would have to take before the City Administrators if that is what the Board recommended.  Chairman Troup asked if this was a condo type of office.  Mr. Ulrich stated it is a single floor with four to five businesses with one water meter.  All commercial buildings and all residential buildings with reclaimed water must have a backflow prevention device.  Mr. Ulrich outlined the differences in residential and commercial requirements.  He said this is not an issue in new construction.  However, when a well is added at a later date it becomes an issue. A discussion ensued regarding the ownership of the individual units and who should be notified.  Consensus was reached that the units are rented and not owned by the individual businesses and the owner was properly notified.

 

George Meyerhoff, owner, was duly sworn.  Mr. Meyerhoff explained that the pipe coming out of the wall was to water one plant and is not connected to the irrigation system.  He explained that he did call a plumber for a quote and was unable to afford the work.  He is coming before the Board to ask for time to have it done.  Chairman Troup asked Mr. Meyerhoff what the estimate for the job was.  Mr. Meyerhoff stated it was a few thousand dollars.  Chairman Troup asked staff how many commercial properties in the City do not have backflow prevention devices.  Mr. Ulrich answered he believes it is less than 1% of the hazards in their system.  A discussion ensued regarding levels of hazards and how cross connections occur.  He said the sources do not have to be connected, just be on the same site at a close distance.  Mr. Meyerhoff said this was never discussed with him.  The Board advised he obtain more quotes and feels the amount the plumber quoted was too high.  Member Keys asked if the Utilities Department has tried to get a reasonable price from local plumbers for customers needing this work done.  Mr. Ulrich stated the department must refrain from suggesting any one company over another to avoid showing favoritism.  Member Davidson asked how long backflow prevention devices have been required.  Mr. Ulrich stated it became a requirement in 1982 or 1983.  Mr. Meyerhoff stated he built the building around 1980.  He had the well put in at the same time.  Mr. Ulrich said he did not see any existing business at that location that is an immediate hazard right now.  Mr. Meyerhoff asked for as much time as possible. Mr. Ulrich

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 12

 

said a standard backflow preventer like ones placed on a house would be sufficient for the pipe that is on the side of the building watering the plants. Ms. Bonin provided the staff recommendations.  She recommended finding the Respondent to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems.    

 

Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Spitz, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1177 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems. Motion carried 6 – 1 by roll call vote, with Member Mellon voting no.

 

Ms. Bonin further recommended the violation be corrected on or before March 10, 2011.  If the violator does not comply with this order, a $250 fine will be imposed for each day the violation continues past March 10, 2011.  The Respondent shall also contact the code enforcement officer to arrange re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with the order. 

 

After a brief discussion, the Board decided the violation must be corrected on or before May 4, 2011 or the Respondent will be fined $50 each day the violation continues past May 4, 2011.  Ms. Luff recommended abatement and liening the property for the cost of the abatement rather than a per diem fine.    

  

Motion made by Chairman Troup, seconded by Member Bickel, to require the Respondent in CEB Case no. 10-1177 to correct the violation on or before May 4, 2011 or the City will correct the violation and place a lien against the property for recovery of the cost.  Motion carried 7-0 upon roll call vote.

                                        

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 13

 

d.         CEB Case No. 10-1902

            Marjorie Law & Co.-Trustees

            625 S. Federal Highway

            Boynton Beach, FL 33435

            Re:  5325 Ridgewood Avenue

            Port Orange, FL 32127

 

Violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems.  Backflow prevention devices are required to be installed on all potable, irrigation, and fire water lines and to be inspected and tested by a certified backflow prevention tester on an annual basis.

 

Ms. Bonin gave the staff presentation.  The case number was incorrectly referred to as CEB 10-1180.  The case no. is CEB 10-1902.  The violation was first observed July 29, 2010.  Notice of violation was sent July 29, 2010 to be corrected on September 2, 2010.  The property was re-inspected on September 3, 2010 and was not in compliance.  As of November 9, 2010, a permit has been applied for and is currently in plan review.  Ms. Bonin stated she spoke with the plumbing contractor who said they will have the job done as soon as a permit is issued.  Chairman Troup asked what is on the property now.  Ms. Bonin stated she could not tell if it is vacant or not.  Chairman Troup asked if this property has been before the Board previously.  Ms. Bonin said it was the property next door that is owned by the same owner.  Chairman Troup remarked he has had contact with the Respondent in the past.

                                   

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Davidson, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1902 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems. Motion carried 7 – 0 by voice vote.

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 14

 

Ms. Bonin recommends the violation be corrected on or before December 17, 2010.  If the violator does not comply with this order, a $250 fine will be imposed for each day the violation continues past December 17, 2010.  The Respondent shall also contact the code enforcement officer to arrange re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with the order.  Member Bickel asked what if it takes past December 17th to issue the permit.  Member Bickel suggested the violation be corrected no later than 30 days after issuance of the permit or abatement. 

 

Motion made by Member Decker, seconded by Chairman Troup, to require the Respondent in CEB Case no. 10-1902 to correct the violation no later than 30 days after issuance of the permit or the City will correct the violation and place a lien against the property for recovery of the cost.  Motion carried 7-0 upon roll call vote.

 

e.         CEB Case No. 10-1383

            David & Jessie Miller

            904 Fifth Street

            Port Orange, FL 32129

 

Violation of Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, Chapter 42 Section 42-26(d) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances- Maintenance of improved residential lots.

 

Scott Allman, Code Compliance Inspector, was duly sworn. The violation was first observed August 31, 2010.  Notice of violation was sent October 28, 2010 to be corrected on November 8, 2010.  The property was re-inspected today and was not in compliance.  The property is vacant and in foreclosure.  Mr. Allman presented photographs taken today showing the overgrown lawn.  A neighbor recently mowed the front yard but the back and sides are overgrown. 

 

Mr. Allman recommends the Board find the Respondents to be in violation of the Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, Chapter 42 Section 42-26(d) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances- Maintenance of improved residential lots. 

 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 15

 

Motion made by Member Keys, seconded by Member Bickel, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1383 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange, Florida, Chapter 42 Section 42-26(d) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances.

 

Mr. Allman recommends the violation be corrected by abating all overgrowth and maintaining the property in compliance on or before November 17, 2010.  If the violator does not comply with this order, the City shall have the option to abate the violation by mowing the property and abating any future violations as long as the property is legally owned by these Respondents.  The property shall incur a lien payable to the City each time the City abates the violation.

 

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Davidson, to require the Respondent in CEB Case No. 10-1383 to correct the violation on or before November 17, 2010 or the City will correct the violation by mowing the property and abating any future violations as long as the property is legally owned by this Respondent. Motion carried 7-0 upon roll call vote.

 

f.          CEB Case No. 10-1210

            CSI Development LLC

            6462 Central Avenue

            St. Petersburg, FL 33707

            Re:  3825 Nova Road (Blockbuster Video)

            Port Orange, FL

 

Violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control, State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems.

 

A five minute recess was taken at 7:45 p.m.  The meeting reconvened at 7:40

p.m.

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Agenda

November 10, 2010

Page 16

 

Ms. Faircloth gave the staff presentation.  The location is Blockbuster Video, owned by CSI Development.  The violation was first observed June 29, 2010.  Notice was given to the owner August 3, 2010 to correct the violation by September 6, 2010.  The property was re-inspected on September 7, 2010 and October 20, 2010 and was not in compliance.  A plumbing permit for installation of the device was issued on November 3, 2010 and the owner is cooperating. 

 

Ms. Faircloth recommends finding the Respondent to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control, State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems.  The Respondent shall have the violation corrected on or before December 10, 2010 or the City can abate the violation as indicated.  Member Bickel asked if the permit gives the Respondent six months from issuance to complete the work.  Ms. Faircloth stated the permit does give six months but because this is a code enforcement case it should abide by the Board’s orders. 

                                   

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Davidson, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1210 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems. Motion carried 7 – 0 by voice vote.

 

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Keys, to require the Respondent in CEB Case no. 10-1210 to correct the violation on or before December 10, 2010 or the violation will be abated. Motion carried 7-0 upon voice vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Agenda

November 10, 2010

Page 17

 

g.         CEB Case No. 10-1212

            CSI Development LLC

            6462 Central Avenue

            St. Petersburg, FL 33707

            Re:  3861 Nova Road (Dollar General Store)

            Port Orange, FL

 

Violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control, State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems.

 

Ms. Faircloth gave the staff presentation.  The violation was first observed June 29, 2010.  Notice was sent to the owner August 3, 2010 to correct the violation by September 6, 2010.  The property was re-inspected on September 7, 2010 and October 20, 2010 and was not in compliance.  The owner has provided a copy of a bid proposal for correcting the violation.  This is a four inch line on the fire service which is a substantial job.  The site also requires modifications in order to come into compliance.  The owner is obtaining more bids and intends to comply.  There was a discussion of the need for a backflow prevention device on a fire line.  Ms. Faircloth stated this is a State regulation the City has to comply with.  The State checks the Public Utilities records to evaluate the City’s compliance.  Member Davidson asked if the sprinkler system was a retrofit or was it installed at the time of construction.  Ms. Faircloth said she did not know.   

 

Ms. Faircloth recommends finding the Respondent to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control, State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems. 

                                   

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Decker, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1212 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 74, Article VIII – Cross Connection Control and State of Florida FAC 62.555.360 – Cross Connection Control for Public Water Systems. Motion carried 7 – 0 by voice vote.

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Agenda

November 10, 2010

Page 18

 

Ms. Faircloth requests that the violation be corrected on or before January 10, 2011 or the City can abate the violation as indicated.  Member Bickel suggested the date of compliance be May 4, 2011. 

 

Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Bickel, to require the Respondent in CEB Case no. 10-1212 to correct the violation on or before May 4, 2011 or the violation will be abated. Motion carried 7-0 upon voice vote.

 

Dena Joseph, Code Compliance Inspector, was duly sworn.  She reported item h., CEB Case No. 10-156, is in compliance.

 

i.          CEB Case No. 10-1439

            Mark Vitali

            107 Barefoot Trail

            Port Orange, FL 32129

 

Violation of Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, Section Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Article II (Garbage, Junk and Undergrowth), Section 42-26 (Cleanliness of Property Generally-Duty of Owner), (d) Maintenance of Improved Residential Lots: The owner of an improved lot in a residential zone with lot sizes of one acre or less shall keep such lot free and clear of all fallen trees and limbs.  All weeds, grass, and undergrowth shall be cut to a height not exceeding ten (10) inches.

 

Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Article II (Garbage, Junk and Undergrowth), Section 42-26 (Cleanliness of Property Generally-Duty of Owner), (f) Garbage, waste, trash, etc., prohibited.  The owner of every lot, piece and parcel of land shall keep such lot free and clear of garbage, waste, trash, debris and junk.

 

Ms. Joseph gave the staff presentation.  The violation was first observed on September 14, 2010.  A notice of violation was sent to the Respondent on October 14, 2010.  The property is not in foreclosure but it is vacant.  The owner does visit the property.  The violation was to be corrected by October 24, 2010.  The most recent inspection of the property on November 10, 2010 revealed the property was still not in compliance.  This owner has been before the Board before for other violations.  Ms. Joseph provided pictures of the property.       

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 19

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Decker, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1439 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 42, Article II Section 42-26 (d) and  Chapter 42, Article II Section 42-26 (f).   Motion carried 7 – 0 by voice vote.

 

Ms. Joseph recommended the Respondent be required to correct the violation by removing garbage, trash, junk and debris and shall maintain the property in compliance on or before November 21, 2010.  If the violator does not comply with this order, a $100 fine will be imposed for each day the violation continues past November 21, 2010.

 

Motion made by Member Decker, seconded by Member Keys, to require the Respondent in CEB Case no. 10-1439 to correct the violation on or before November 21, 2010 or incur a fine of $100 for each day the violation continues past November 21, 2010.  The City will also have the option of abating any future violations as long as the property is legally owned by this Respondent.  Any future violations of the same Ordinance will be considered repeat violations and dealt with accordingly.  Motion carried 7-0 upon roll call vote.

 

j.          CEB Case No. 10-1537

            T W Carmean Inc.

            727 Hawks Ridge Road

            Port Orange, FL 32127

            Re:  1400 Yearling Trail

            Port Orange, FL 32127

 

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 20

 

Violation of Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, Section Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Article II (Garbage, Junk and Undergrowth), Section 42-26 (Cleanliness of Property Generally-Duty of Owner), (d) Maintenance of Improved Residential Lots: The owner of an improved lot in a residential zone with lot sizes of one acre or less shall keep such lot free and clear of all fallen trees and limbs.  All weeds, grass, and undergrowth shall be cut to a height not exceeding ten (10) inches.

 

Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Article II (Garbage, Junk and Undergrowth), Section 42-26 (Cleanliness of Property Generally-Duty of Owner), (f) Garbage, waste, trash, etc., prohibited.  The owner of every lot, piece and parcel of land shall keep such lot free and clear of garbage, waste, trash, debris and junk.

 

Ms. Joseph gave the staff presentation.  The violation was first observed on August 24, 2010.  A notice of violation was sent to the Respondent on October 12, 2010.  The violation was to be corrected by October 22, 2010.  The most recent inspection of the property on November 10, 2010 revealed the property was still not in compliance.  This property is in foreclosure.  Ms. Joseph submitted as City exhibit pictures of the property.   

 

Ms. Joseph recommended finding the Respondent to be in violation of  Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, Section Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Article II (Garbage, Junk and Undergrowth), Section 42-26 (Cleanliness of Property Generally-Duty of Owner), (d) Maintenance of Improved Residential Lots and  Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Article II (Garbage, Junk and Undergrowth), Section 42-26 (Cleanliness of Property Generally-Duty of Owner), (f) Garbage, waste, trash, etc., prohibited.    

 

Motion made by Member Mellon, seconded by Member Decker, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. CEB10-1537 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 42, Article II Section 42-26 (d) and  Chapter 42, Article II Section 42-26 (f).   Motion carried 7 – 0 by voice vote.

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 21

 

Ms. Joseph recommended the Respondent be required to correct the violation by removing garbage, trash, junk and debris and shall maintain the property in compliance on or before November 16, 2010.  If the violator does not comply with this order, the City will have the option to abate the violation and place a lien against the property for the cost of abatement.  The City will also have the option of abating any future violations of the same Ordinance as long as the property is legally owned by this Respondent.  Any future violations of the same Ordinance will be considered repeat violations and dealt with accordingly.    

 

Motion made by Member Decker, seconded by Member Davdison, to require the Respondent in CEB Case no. 10-1537 to correct the violation on or before November 16, 2010 or the City shall have the option to abate the violation and place a lien against the property for the cost of abatement.  The City will also have the option of abating any future violations as long as the property is legally owned by this Respondent.  Any future violations of the same Ordinance will be considered repeat violations and dealt with accordingly.  Motion carried 7-0 upon roll call vote.

 

5.         OLD BUSINESS

 

None

 

6.         BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS

 

Ms. Faircloth thanked the Board for working with Code Enforcement on the cross connection violations.  There were a total of 38 cases sent to Code Enforcement by the Public Utilities Department and these are the only ones that did not get into compliance.  Member Davidson suggested giving the violators more time to come into compliance due to the length of time it takes the situation to get through the different departments. Ms. Faircloth stated when an issue deals with code cases they are routed through the process with a priority.

 

 

 

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2010

Page 22

 

Ms. Luff reported that the City Council accepted settlement offers on two code cases:  1076 Kingswood Way and 4679 Chardonnay.  The properties are in compliance and some compensation was paid to the City for the fines assessed.        

 

7.         NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting of the Code Enforcement Board will be December 1, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.

 

8.         ADJOURNMENT

  

Adjourned:  8:12 p.m.

 

 

                                                                                    _____________________

                                                                                    Chairman Robert Troup