CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF PORT ORANGE
1000 CITY CENTER CIRCLE
JANUARY 12, 2011
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: Chairman Robert Troup
Vice Chairman Michael Mellon
Absent: James Keys (excused)
Also Present: Lynette Luff, Assistant City Attorney
Kerry Leuzinger, Chief Building Inspector
Scott Allman, Code Compliance Inspector
Elizabeth Diamond, Business Tax/Code Inspector
Deborah Faircloth, Code Compliance Inspector
Allen Tischler, Building Inspector
Linda Johnson, Right-of-Way Agent
Roger Smith, Public Utilities Director
Mike Ulrich, Assistant Public Utilities Director
Joyce Dombrowski, City Clerk’s Office
Carole Thomas, Recording Secretary
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011
Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Spitz, to re-elect Robert Troup as Chairman for calendar year 2011. Motion carried 5 – 0 by voice vote.
Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Richard Spitz to re-elect Michael Mellon as Vice-Chairman. Motion carried 5 – 0 by voice vote.
Motion made that all nominations be closed. Motion carried 5 – 0 by voice vote.
2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Motion made by Member Spitz, seconded by Member Bickel, to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2010 meeting. Motion carried 5-0 upon voice vote.
3. ATTORNEY OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
Lynette Luff, Assistant City Attorney, gave an overview of the Code Enforcement process at 5:40 p.m.
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. CEB Case No. 10-1206
Philip A. Jr. & Marian Guadagno
836 Second Street
Port Orange, FL 32127
Violation of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Section 105-1. Permits Required as adopted by the City of Port Orange Land Development Code Chapter 1. (A permit needs to be obtained for the roof replacement that was conducted to the home).
Scott Allman, Code Compliance Inspector was duly sworn. The violation consists of a roof being installed without a permit. Violation was first observed on August 2, 2010. The Notice of Violation was mailed certified mail and regular mail on October 12, 2010 and the Notice of Violation was posted on the property and in the City Clerk’s office on October 26, 2010. The violation was to have been corrected on or before November 5, 2010. Reinspection occurred on November 10, 2010 and revealed no compliance. Mr. Allman stated as of today, January 12, 2010, according to the City records, there has been no permit applied for. Mr. Allman submitted photographs he showed to the Board. The first photograph depicted the HTE system where a copy of permit(s) are posted which shows no permit was posted. This was submitted as evidence.
Mr. Allman showed a photograph of Stop Work Order dated August 2, 2010 that was posted which was the date of the initial inspection. Mr. Allman showed photographs of the roofing debris and a dumpster in front of the home taken August 2, 2010. Mr. Allman showed a picture of the front of the house which shows the Stop Work Order posted and the dumpster.
Mr. Allman showed a photograph taken on September 26, 2010 which depicts the Notice of Violation that was posted to the property. Mr. Allman showed a photograph taken on December 7, 2010, which shows a copy of the posting of the Notice of Hearing and an up close photograph showing the meeting date of January 12, 2011. Mr. Allman showed a photograph taken in 2004 which shows brown shingles on the roof and a photograph taken with the new roofing shingles. All photographs were submitted as evidence.
Member Decker asked if a contractor was hired or if it was independently done. Mr. Allman stated, to his knowledge, the family did the work. Mr. Allman was asked by Member Davidson if he had been in contact with the family. Mr. Allman said he has had several conversations with the family and Mr. Guadagno was present. Chairman Troup if the roof work had been completed and Mr. Allman reported yes and it was finished upon the initial inspection on August 2, 2010. Member Davidson mentioned the 2004 photo and asked if the damage was done in 2004. Mr. Allman said that picture was only to show the roof had indeed only been replaced; depicting brown shingles in 2004 and white shingles in 2010. Mr. Allman suggested that Mr. Guadagno respond.
Mr. Guadagno was duly sworn. Mr. Guadagno stated his mailing address as 902 Keaton Place, Ocoee, FL 34761. Mr. Guadagno stated he has not lived at 836 Second Street, Port Orange, FL 32127 in many years. Mr. Guadagno reported there was damage from the hurricanes to the roof. He stated he has not lived in that house for 15 years. Mr. Guadagno stated his ex-wife lives there with a 4-year child. He stated the child became sick as a result of the roof leaking into the home. His ex-wife called him asking for his help and that she has no money to repair the roof or to upkeep the cost of the mortgage. Mr. Guadagno stated he went over to repair the roof but upon closer examination, realized the roof was far beyond spot repair and need to be entirely replaced. Mr. Guadagno said he paid for new shingles and one 2’ x 4’ piece of wood to replace the wood section at the front door. Mr. Guadagno indicated the tar paper was still in tact and he only put new shingles on. Mr. Guadagno admitted he was wrong in not obtaining a permit but he has gone back and forth and has no money to pull the roof off and put another roof on.
Mr. Guadagno stated his ex-wife is waiting for him to allow her to move back into the house whenever the case is resolved. Mr. Guadagno asked if he could get some kind of concession so he could move his ex-wife back into the house. Member Davidson asked Mr. Guadagno if his name was still on the deed to the house. Mr. Guadagno said his ex-wife cannot obtain financing in order to take his name of the house and that she is disabled. Assistant City Attorney asked Mr. Guadagno if he is the legal owner of the property of the public records of Volusia County and Mr. Guadagno answered that he was. Member Decker asked Mr. Allman what the issue was. Mr. Allman stated Allan Tischler, Building Inspector, Building Department, City of Port Orange is present and has had several conversations with Mr. Guadagno to try and resolve the issue. The issue was that decking was not properly nailed and posed a problem to hire a contractor to certify the roof.
Mr. Allan Tischler, Building Inspector was duly sworn. Mr. Tischler stated the issue is that Mr. Guadagno did not fasten the decking as per the State of Florida Building Code. There is a mitigation that went into affect a couple years ago and now is included within the Florida Building Code. The issue is when you do a re-roofing on single family site built homes, if you remove the old shingles, you must nail the deck as per the mitigation. Mr. Tischler stated Mr. Guadagno admitted that he had, in fact, not nailed the decking. Mr. Guadagno also admitted that he pulled off the existing shingles, put another layer of tar paper down and re-shingled.
Mr. Davidson asked if there was any way to get up into the attic to verify if it had not been nailed property and to code. Mr. Tischler said he did not know the date the house was built but regardless, the decking still must be nailed per the Florida Building Code. Member Decker asked what the totality to bring the roof up to code. Mr. Tischler reported that it would have to be nailed within each facing on each rafter, a maximum of 6” on center. Mr. Tischler recommended that the roof would have to be removed and redone in accordance with the Florida Building Code. Member Davidson asked if there any plywood taken off the roof and placed in the dumpster and Mr. Allman stated there were small amounts of plywood. Mr. Decker asked Mr. Guadagno if had replaced any of the plywood and Mr. Guadagno indicated that he replaced one piece, 2’ x 3’or 4’. Mr. Davidson asked if it was between rafters and Mr. Guadagno said yes. Mr. Davidson stated short of ripping everything off to prove whether or not it has nailed properly spaced, is there no way to get up into the attic, take a look at the rafters and see how the nailing pattern is. Mr. Tischler stated he did not think so since it is a low sloped roof, less than a 3/12 and the attic space is less than 2 feet.
Vice-Chairman Mellon stated if someone hires a contractor or does it themselves, pulls a permit and pulls the roof off, does the City inspect for a new nail pattern. Mr. Tischler stated a status inspection is performed before the shingles and tar paper are applied. Member Davidson, asked again, short of ripping the roof, is there another way to obtain a permit. Mr. Tischler said he saw no other way to comply with the Florida Building Code. Vice Chairman Mellon asked if a random 4’ section could be interpolated and if it was in compliance, can that pass inspection and be in compliance with the Building Code. Mr. Tischler said yes it could be spot checked it in several areas. Vice Chairman Mellon said that since this home was obviously built before the current Florida Building Code was adopted, this roof would fail inspection. Member Davidson stated that since the house was built in the 1960’s, and it has plywood on it, there is a good chance it has been re-roofed a time or two. Mr. Tischler indicated back when the home was built, renailing of the roof was required and mitigation was not in effect, even in 2004 and 2005 when we had the 3 hurricanes. At that time, a re-roof only involved ripping off the old shingles and reshingling the roof.
Member Spitz asked if there was a way to only tear the shingles off where they were replaced to look for the nail pattern and if that was not nailed properly, only that section could be re-done. Member Spitz said it did not make sense to renail the entire roof if you are just repairing only one section. Mr. Tischler said regardless whether a person is replacing only one section or the entire roof, the existing decking has be renailed 6” from center. Member Spitz said if a person re-roofs the entire roof, replaces a 4’ x 4’ section of plywood, does the person have to renail the new section as well as the entire roof to meet Code. But, if he only takes and replaces the one piece of wood and leaves all the shingles on and replaces all the other shingles, that is okay. Mr. Allman stated that this case is more about work performed without a permit than how the deck needs to be done. If there had been a permit issued, those issue would be non existent.
Mr. Allman indicated there are no inspections that can be done that would satisfy the Florida Building Code at this point. Mr. Tischler indicated there are other issues that would have to be addressed also such as a gabled roof and a 4” of roofing cement around the perimeter of the house. Mr. Guadagno said that once he received notification on August 2, 2010, he did call the Building Department and asked what the problem was and was told that a permit had to be pulled. Mr. Guadagno asked if he could pull permit after the job was done and was told he could but a penalty would be enforced. Mr. Guadagno said he came to the City to meet with someone from the Building Department in an attempt to resolve the issue. Mr. Guadagno stated he stayed in the Building Department at City Hall all day long but was unable to meet with staff due to staff working at job sites. Mr. Guadagno said he left his name and number, and left the Building Department with no resolve to his issue. Mr. Guadagno stated he was going to pull the permit but was told to talk with the Building officials. After speaking with the Building officials, Mr. Guadagno was told he could not pull the permit. Mr. Guadagno said he is asking for concession, or pay for a permit or pay a fine, because if he said if he had re-roofed over the original roof, he would not have to put in any nails.
Mr. Allman indicated that due to Mr. Guadagno not residing in the home, he would not be eligible to pull an owner/builder permit unless he signed an Affidavit stating that he has lived in the home for the last two years or something along those lines. Member Davidson asked Mr. Allman how the City was notified that he was doing the work without a permit and Mr. Allman said it was through a citizen’s complaint.
Mr. Davidson made a recommendation that the Board recommend the City go to the residence, pull up the area that was repaired, and see how the nailing pattern is to get to the issue of trying to get a permit. If it is not nailed properly, then Mr. Guadagno will have to take whatever actions he can take to get it nailed properly so that it meets safety. Mr. Davidson said he understands what the building code is but the roof didn’t blow off the house so it is probably nailed good. Mr. Davidson said we need to get to the issue and we need to do it in a common sense way and we do not need to say thou shall do it this way and only this way, because there are other ways.
Mr. Tischler stated we cannot assume it is nailed properly, that it must be verified by inspection. Mr. Tischler stated he was not going to sign off and approve work that is not done within the Florida Building Code rules and jeopardize his license which took him years to obtain. Mr. Tischler stated he is professionally liable and if damage occurs as a result of a roof, he will be held solely accountable and not anyone else. Mr. Tischler said he did not write the Florida Building Code rules, only that he is employed by the City to enforce and abide by its authority. Vice Chairman Mellon recommended that we follow these suggestions and have the Building Department look at the nailing pattern and table this issue and a report be submitted as to what the structural aspect of the roofing and structure is and then we can re-visit it. He stated there is another way instead following the Florida Building Code by the letter, whether the owner has to have an Affidavit holding the City harmless or whatever, in defense of our engineers. Vice Chairman Mellon suggested checking not just that one section but to spot check it in other sections of the roof. Mr. Tischler said Mr. Guadagno needs to make contact with the City, pay for his $125 permit and $500 penalty fee for doing work without a permit and make arrangement for the Code Enforcement Inspector(s) to go out and spot check and verify compliance.
Assistant Attorney Luff needed clarification on the Motion suggested by Vice Chairman Mellon. She asked if he was requesting the City go, prior to the submittal of an application for a building permit by a contractor, because the owner of the property, as a non-resident is ineligible to apply for an owner/builder permit. Mr. Allman said that is correct. Mr. Davidson asked if he could have his ex-wife report to the City in person and apply but Mr. Guadagno said she is in Massachusetts in the hospital and not able to do so. Vice Chairman Mellon asked if her family could do an Affidavit to get Power of Attorney and Mr. Guadagno stated yes.
Kerry Leuzinger, Chief Building Official was duly sworn. Mr. Leuzinger stated we would in fact allow Mr. Guadagno to apply and receive the permit as owner/builder and that is in no way a problem. However, there is a $500 penalty fee for work without a permit which would have to be paid at the time of application for the permit. As far as the renailing of the roof, Mr. Leuzinger stated there is no other way to rectify the situation other than the roof must be removed, plywood must be renailed and then reroofed and that is the only way as the Chief Building Official that he could accept it. The Florida Building Code specifically states that the roof must be renailed and that is the minimum requirement of the Florida Building Code whether anyone agrees or not, the City has to enforce the Florida Building Code by law. Mr. Leuzinger stated there is no other solution other than those shingles coming off.
Mr. Allman recommended researching assistance for Mr. Guadagno, for either all or part of the cost, through an Outreach Program, SHIP or CDGB and requests the Board find Philip A. Jr. and Marian Guadagno in violation of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Section 105-1 as adopted by the City of Port Orange Land Development Code Chapter 1.
Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Judith Bickel to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent(s) in Case 10-1026 to be in violation of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Section 105-1 as adopted by the City of Port Orange Land Development Code Chapter 1. Motion carried 4 -1 upon roll call, with Vice Chairman Mellon voting no.
Mr. Allman recommended the Respondent obtain a Building Permit for roof replacement on or before February 25, 2011. In the event a permit is not obtained within approximately 60 days a fine of $50 per day will be imposed until compliance is achieved. Mr. Allman recommended the Respondent contact him and make arrangements for re-inspection to verify compliance. Chairman Troup asked if this was to apply for a permit and Mr. Allman said yes. Mr. Troup then asked in order to apply for a permit, what the Respondent would need to have done first. Member Bickel stated he would have to obtain a permit, not just apply.
Member Davidson asked if he would have to pay a $500 penalty fee for doing work without a permit and Mr. Allman states yes, per City Ordinance. Member Davidson asked what the permit fee for a roof was and Mr. Allman stated $125. Member Bickel asked if there was a six month time frame in which to begin the work that would give the Respondent adequate time to check out the other possibilities for assistance. Mr. Allman stated he would try and help the Respondent as much as possible and if all of the assistance fails, the permit expires, we would have to bring the case back to the Board. Member Davidson stated that during the Respondent’s testimony he said he had called, came to the City to do the paperwork for the permit and nothing happen. Kerry Leuzinger stated there was some confusion if Mr. Guadagno was eligible to apply for a permit as the owner/builder. Mr. Leuzinger stated he would be eligible to apply for the permit.
Vice Chairman Mellon would like to give Mr. Allman time to explore Outreach and other programs and things and would like to continue this case to the next Board meeting before the Board starts mandating a date and time for compliance. Mr. Allman said that was up to Board. He stated that Mr. Guadagno would already have sixty days to get a permit and then another six months for that permit to expire, so we are looking approximately 8 months. Vice Chairman Mellon asked if the Respondent would be able to obtain the permit and Mr. Guadagno said yes.
Motion made by Vice Chairman Mellon, seconded by Member Davidson that the Respondent(s) in Case 10-1206 be ordered to correct the violation on or before April 18, 2011 and obtain the Building permit, pay the $125.00 permit fee and $500.00 penalty fee. In the event the violation and fines have not been paid by April 18, 2011, a fine of $50 for each day the violation continues after April 18, 2011 will be imposed. Chairman Troup asked if the Board would accept staff recommendation for the Motion altering the time to April 18, 2011 from February 25, 2011 as originally stated.
Motion carried 5 - 0 upon roll call vote.
b. CEB Case No. 10-1729
5126 Ridgewood Avenue
Port Orange, FL 32127
Violation of Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, 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), (C) Maintenance of Commercial and Industrial zoned Lots: The owner of every improved lot, piece, and parcel of land located within a commercial or industrial zone within the city shall keep each lot, piece, and parcel of land free and clear of all fallen trees and limbs and undergrowth exceeding 12 inches in height. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require natural areas located within larger improved lots to be cut with a height less than 12 inches within such natural areas. Owners of unimproved vacant parcels in such zones shall similarly maintain such portion of their property as lies within ten feet of any improved property, any sidewalk, roadway, or bicycle path. 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.
Chapter 2 (Definitions And Interpretations) of the City of Port Orange Land Development Code, Section 2. (Definitions). Accessory structure (appurtenant structure). A structure that is located on the same parcel of property as the principal structure and the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. Accessory structures shall constitute a nominal investment, shall not be used for human habitation, and shall be designed to have minimal flood damage potential. Examples of accessory structures are detached garages, carports, storage sheds, pole barns, and hay sheds.
Chapter 3 (General Requirements), Section 304 (Exterior Structure), 304.13 (Window, skylight, and door frames) of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code as adopted per Chapter 14, Article II of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances: Every window, skylight, door and frame shall be kept in sound condition, good repair and weather tight.
Chapter 5 (Plumbing Facilities and Fixture Requirements), Section502 (Required Facilities), 502.1, (Dwelling units) of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code as adopted per Chapter 14, Article II of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances: Every dwelling unit shall contain its own bathtub or shower, lavatory, water closet, and kitchen sink which shall be maintained in a sanitary, safe working condition. The lavatory shall be placed in the same room as the water closed or located in close proximity to the door leading directly into the room in which such water closet is located. A kitchen sink shall not be used as a substitute for the required lavatory.
Deborah Faircloth, Code Compliance Inspector, was duly sworn.
Motion made by Inspector Faircloth, seconded by Vice Chairman Mellon to move CEB Case No. 10-1729 to next month’s Code Enforcement Board meeting as proper service was not received from the Respondent.
Motion carried 5 – 0 upon roll call vote.
c. CEB Case No. 10-1634
3569 Grande Tuscany Way
New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168
Location of Violation: 5802 Journeys End, Port Orange, FL 32127
Violation of Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, 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), (C) Maintenance of Commercial and Industrial zoned Lots: The owner of every improved lot, piece, and parcel of land located within a commercial or industrial zone within the city shall keep each lot, piece, and parcel of land free and clear of all fallen trees and limbs and undergrowth exceeding 12 inches in height. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require natural areas located within
larger improved lots to be cut with a height less than 12 inches within such natural areas. Owners of unimproved vacant parcels in such zones shall similarly maintain such portion of their property as lies within ten feet of any improved property, any sidewalk, roadway, or bicycle path. 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.
Deborah Faircloth, Code Compliance Inspector was duly sworn and presented the City’s case. The violation was first observed October 20, 2010 and the Notice of Violation was sent on the same day. Certified mail indicated delivery on October 23, 2010. The date for correction was November 7, 2010 and reinspection occurred November 8, 2010 which showed non-compliance. Overgrown debris was visible and had not been addressed.
Deborah Faircloth presented a series of photos from the date of the Notice of Violation and the site as it currently stands as of January 10, 2011, which was the most recent inspection. Deborah Faircloth reported that the site has a lot of overgrowth as well as construction debris strewn about the property. Ms. Faircloth stated the property is not in compliance and asked the Board if there were any questions. Member Davidson asked if the is the developer. Ms. Faircloth said he is the owner/developer and has lost his funding and the property is being foreclosed. Ms. Faircloth reported there are other parcels involved within this development that would be considered out-parcels at some point. There are several other parcels that may be coming before the Board next month for a ruling. Member Davidson asked how many parcels are involved and Ms. Faircloth stated she did not have the total with her but she said there are several.
Ms. Faircloth’s recommendation, based on the information presented in CEB Case No. 10-1634, is recommending g the Board find Jai-Ambe, Inc. be found in Violation of Code of City of Port Orange, Florida, Chapter 42 (Nuisances) of the City of Port Orange Ordinances, Section 42-26(C), Maintenance of Commercial and Industrial zoned Lots and Section 42-26(f), Garbage, waste, trash, etc., prohibited.
Motion made by Member Davidson, seconded by Member Decker to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case No. 10-1634 to be in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Chapter 42, Section 42-26, Article II. Motion carried 5 – 0, upon roll call vote.
Ms. Faircloth further recommends the Respondent be ordered to correct the aforesaid violation by abating all overgrowth and removing debris and maintaining this property in compliance before March 15, 2011. In the event the property is not brought into compliance on or before March 15, 2011, the City of Port Orange shall have the option to abate the violation by mowing the property and removing all garbage, trash, junk and debris. The property shall incur a lien, payable to the City of Port Orange for all cost of abatement. Member Davidson asked if the pvc or and conduit shown within the photographs were considered trash and debris or construction material. Ms. Faircloth stated if it were stacked construction material and not strewn throughout the property then it would be considered construction material and not trash or debris and it would not be picked up.
Motion made by Vice Chairman Mellon, seconded by Member Davidson, that the Respondent in CEB Case 10-1634 correct the violation on or before March 15, 2011. In the event the violation has not been corrected by March 15, 2011 or the City will correct the violation by mowing the property, remove all garbage, trash, junk and debris and abating and future violations as long as the property is legally owned by this Respondent. Motion carried 5 – 0, upon roll call vote.
d. CEB Case No. 10-749
Oak Place Industrial Park LLC
c/o Nova Property Management
767 S. Nova Road
Ormond Beach , FL 32174
Re: 630 Oak Place, Unit P
Oak Place Auto Body Shop, Inc.
630 Oak Place Unit P
Port Orange, FL 32127
Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-27 (Business Tax Imposed) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances. There is hereby imposed upon each and every business, profession, and occupation having an effective place of business within the city business tax according to the schedule of taxes contained in this article.
Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-33 (a)(b) (Duration, expiration of business tax receipt; delinquent business tax payment, penalties; doing business without business tax receipt, penalty) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances.
Florida Statute 205.053, Business tax receipts; dates due and delinquent; penalties.
Elizabeth Diamond, Code Compliance Inspector and Business Tax Representative, was duly sworn and presented the City’s case. Ms. Diamond reported the description of the violation as the business has failed to maintain a Business Tax Receipt for the years of 2010 and 2011 and also their Motor Vehicle Repair license issued by the State of Florida through the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services expired November 3, 2007. The violator of the location and the property owner, Oak Place Industrial Park, LLC c/o of Nova Property Management and the business owner, Mr. Sam Padgett.
The violation was first observed May 18, 2010. Notice of Violation was delivered on November 11, 2010 and the Violation was to be corrected by November 21, 2010. The account was re-inspected on November 29, 2010 and December 29, 2010. Results of the re-inspections resulted in non-compliance. Inspector Diamond did check the account on January 12, 2011 and stated she has been working with the business in attempt to get the business to get them up to date as they are an active, working business without a State License and Business Tax Receipt. The Respondent has paid the Business Tax Fees on January 5, 2011. However, she is still waiting on the State license, which takes approximately 4-6 to weeks. Ms. Diamond did check status today and it was received today. She is not sure if the Respondent is aware of that. Ms. Diamond stated as of January 12, 2011, full compliance is achieved, however, her recommendation is that they be found in violation. Ms. Diamond stated, based on information presented in CEB Case No. 10-749, she is requesting Oak Place Auto Body Shop, Inc. be found in violation of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-27, Business Tax Imposed) and Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-33 (a)&(b) (Duration, expiration of business tax receipt; delinquent business tax payment, penalties; doing business without business tax receipt, penalty) of the City of Port Orange Code of Ordinances and Florida Statute 205.053, Business tax receipts; dates due and delinquent; penalties.
Member Davidson asked if they have not had a State License since 2007 to conduct business or to actually repair cars. Ms. Diamond responded stated he was in violation of a State License to be legal and legitimate to repair cars but he has now obtained that.
Motion made Vice Chairman Mellon, seconded by Member Davidson, to accept staff’s recommendation to find the Respondent in CEB Case 10-749 to be violation of the City of Port Orange, Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-27, Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-33 (a)(b) of the Code of Ordinances and Florida Statute 205.053. Motion carried 5 – 0 upon roll call vote.
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Member Bickel reported the Port Orange Newsletter listed this month’s meeting date and time incorrectly. Member Bickel suggested the person who puts the newsletter out be put in the loop that meetings are now at 5:30 p.m.
Mike Ulrich, Assistant Public Utilities Director attended the meeting to give a presentation on Backflow Preventors. Mr. Ulrich introduced Linda Johnson, paralegal in the Utilities Department and Shirley Treon, Cross Connection Control Coordinator and Roger Smith, Public Utilities Director. A handout entitled “Discussion on Cross Connection Control” was given to all Board members.
Mr. Ulrich stated the reason for the presentation was to explain the administrative process and the extent that occurs before a case will actually become before the Board. Mr. Ulrich defined Cross Connection as any temporary or permanent connection between a public water system or consumer’s potable (i.e., drinking) water system and any source or system containing non-potable water or other substances.
Mr. Ulrich gave brief discussions regarding the contents of the handout: What is backflow, why it is important, what is a blackflow preventor and regulatory and enforcement.
Mr. Ulrich stated we are mandated by Federal, State and City Code Ordinances to provide water that is usable and safe to drink. He mentioned a web site for reference: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/bfp.htm.
Mr. Ulrich gave an overview of the City’s Cross Connection Control Program and the emphasis on backflow preventors. A backflow preventor is the means or mechanism or device which to prevent backflow into the system. He mentioned a letter from Florida Department of Health which mentioned that backflow preventors must be tested no less than annually to ensure that they are functioning property. This program is enforced by FDEP and monitored by the Volusia County Health Department.
The City’s responsibility is for maintaining of backflow for both commercial and residential connection of compliance but only cases that will be brought before the Code Enforcement Board are the commercial accounts. There are approximately 6,200 devices on residential units that are owned by the City of Port Orange which the City if currently inspecting. The commercial sites are owned by the owners of the properties and therefore required by Code and this program, to report to the City. As a result, the City relies on the commercial property owners to provide the City with the reports and when they do not, this leads into the following process:
There are over 1,420 hazards currently being tracked by the City. Annually, the City sends out educational materials regarding cross connection to commercial property owners which is a requirement. It is a voluntary process that these businesses provide an annual report. If this report is not received, the City sends out a First Letter of Non-Compliance from the Public Utilities office. They are given 30 days to send the report that they have come into compliance, have their inspection done and then the tester sends to the City the certification that they have signed off and approved that device for another year. If the City does not hear from the business owner, a second letter of non-compliance is sent and they are given 15 days to come into compliance. If they do not respond after the second letter is sent, the Public Utilities Department contacts the City’s Code Enforcement Department and Notice of Violation is issued to the property owner. Mr. Ulrich stated having the Code Enforcement Department is probably what brings out total compliance upwards of over 90%. If after 30 days from the issuance of the Notice of Violation and compliance is still not achieved, the case will then be brought before the Code Enforcement Board for action.
Mr. Ulrich stressed to the Board that by the time the case comes before the Board, considerable amount of time has been expended. Approximately 75 days has been extended to the property owner on paper, but in reality after the Public Utilities Department’s tracking, coordination with the Code Enforcement Inspector and then their making contact with the owner, it actually is about 120 days passed before the Board will hear the case. He said 6% of cases being brought forward equates to approximately 90 cases per year, which will be on average 7 or 8 per meeting.
Mr. Ulrich stated that before any case comes before the Board, he will personally go out and meet with the property owner in effort to resolve the issue but he stated there will still be cases coming before the Board. He stated that best way to reduce the number of cases to come before the Board is to take a stance, understand the process and reiterate that this is a public drinking water system and the ramifications of contaminations is a potential threat that affects the entire water system. Mr. Ulrich mentioned that the Port Orange Utilities Department operates as a business which sells water and is not funded by tax dollars.
Member Davidson asked if the City was going to be centering their efforts on commercial and not residential. Mr. Ulrich stated the City already monitors the residential already. Mr. Ulrich was asked if anyone who has a sprinkling system could be affected and he stated anyone on a private well will be affected. Mr. Ulrich mentioned that about $130,000 a year is spent inspecting those devices in order to be in compliance with the Department of Health when a program is audited annually. The Health Department requests a list of who is in compliance and for those in non compliances, what actions are occurring. Member Bickel asked if it is the business owner’s responsibility to contact the City annually to request an inspection and Mr. Ulrich stated, it is a requirement of the Code to provide the City a copy of the Inspection Report. He stated this is because, as a business, the City is not allowed to go onto a person’s property and test that device of those businesses. This is a liability issue. Member Davidson asked if the City was in full 100% compliance for all of its devices within the system and Mr. Ulrich stated that the City is. Member Davidson asked why it is taking so long to get this program enforced He asked if there is a contamination why it is not being addressed immediately. Mr. Ulrich stated he is managing risk and not necessarily saying these devices do not work or that contamination exists, the City only requires they provide an annual report. If there a true cross connection contamination, the City does have the ability to shut off the water and shut down the system. He stated the City is managing risk and compliance. Member Bickel asked if there has ever been a cross connection contamination and Mr. Roger Smith stated there had been.
Mr. Ulrich mentioned that our system goes beyond the realm of the City of Port Orange. We serve portions of the City of Daytona Beach Shores, portions of Town of Ponce Inlet and portions of unincorporated Volusia County. We are a regional water supply and sell those municipalities water but they manage their own cross connection programs and their respective Code Enforcement Board monitor and enforce those programs within their jurisdiction. (Mr. Ulrich also mentioned that by the time this process has come before the Board, time expended by Code Enforcement, Public Utilities and other staff members costs the City approximately $425 to $450. He stated his department will not be asking for reimbursement of the staff cost but only that the commercial property come into compliance.
Member Bickel asked Mr. Ulrich what his recommendation will be as far as fine for non compliance. Mr. Ulrich states to the extent that the Code allows within reason. Vice Chairman Mellon recommended that the costs of staff be covered within the fine as well since the Public Utilities Department is an enterprise fund. Assistant City Attorney Luff asked if Public Utilities have the ability to request that the city abatement by way of making the inspection and billing back to the commercial property. Mr. Ulrich said he would like to discuss that issue with the City Attorney’s office. Mr. Ulrich said because of liability issues, we do not do that. He stated Volusia County has a policy in place whereby in the event a business fails to comply with the County’s cross connection/backflow ordinance, the County will access the business site in order to inspect a commercial backflow device and then bill the business owner. This, however, has not been a practice of our City up to this point in time. He did state the County’s model may be an avenue (or tool) for his department to discuss/review with our City Attorney office. Member Bickel asked if a plumbing permit is required and Mr. Ulrich stated not for a reinspection, only for an installation.
Member Davidson asked which Backflow Preventor device is being put on the water meters. Mr. Ulrich stated NRP, a reduced pressure device. Mr. Ulrich referred to the letter from Florida Department of Health states a violation of drinking water rules to maintain an effective cross connection control device could result in a civil penalty, if imposed judicially, is $10,000 per violation, per day. This is what the City’s imposed fine could potentially be if a violation is found. Mr. Roger Smith stated the purpose of this program to manage risk, evaluate what potential hazards exist, and if there is a cross connection contamination, how bad might it be, and if we know it is imminent or not.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Next meeting date is February 2, 2011.
8. ADJOURNMENT: 7:10 p.m.
Chairman Robert Troup