Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 04 11 Minutes (Bazarte)MINUTES OF THE CODE VIOLATION HEARING HELD BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT C' SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON WENDESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. Special Magistrate Laura Donlon announced that the case being heard is Case No. CE 1-11 addressing a code violation at 940 Orchid Lane, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida, that is owned by Melanie Bazarte. Special Magistrate Donlon asked the Petitioner, Town of Gulf Stream, to present the facts of this case. Town Manager Thrasher, for the Town of Gulf Stream, presented a return receipt signed by Melanie Bazarte for the Notice of Agenda delivered to Ms. Bazarte on May 1, 2011 at 5:45 P.M. The Special Magistrate ruled that proper notice had been given and marked the document(s) as Exhibit #1 for the Town of Gulf Stream. The violation described in Exhibit #1 is that fences at 930 and 940 Orchid Lane were constructed without first obtaining building permits in violation of Ordinance 009/9 amending Gulf Stream Code Sections 42.62 thru 42.28 adopting the Delray Beach related codes and the State of Florida Building Code Section 104 by reference. Mr. Thrasher presented a copy of the Notice of Violation dated May 27, 2009 informing the owner that a violation of not obtaining a permit for the installation of a fence had occurred, with referenced Codes regarding the violation attached. The Special Magistrate accepted the Notice of Violation with attachments as a composite of Exhibit #2 for the Town of Gulf Stream. A copy of a printout from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's website indicating the owner of 940 Orchid Lane and 930 Orchid Lane as Melanie Bazarte. The Special Magistrate accepted the Property Appraiser's printout as Exhibit #3 for the Town of Gulf Stream. Three (3) pages of ten (10) photos of the fence installed without a permit dated May 19, 2009 and May 22, 2009 taken by Code Enforcement Officer David S. Ginsberg were presented. When asked by Special Magistrate Donlon if the photos were taken in the usual course and scope of Officer Ginsberg's duties, Mr. Thrasher said yes. The first photo was marked out by Mr. Thrasher. The Special Magistrate accepted the photos, with the exception of the marked out photo, as Exhibit #4 for the Town of Gulf Stream. A return receipt dated March 25, 2011 signed by Melanie Bazarte at 8:35 P.M. for the delivery of Article #144, Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing, hand delivered by an Officer. The Special Magistrate accepted the return receipt of delivery of Notice as Exhibit #5 for the Town of Gulf Stream. A Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing with Ordinances of Reference and legal descriptions for 930 and 940 Orchid Lane attached, delivered to Ms. Bazarte on March 25, 2011. The Special Magistrate accepted the document(s) as a composite of Exhibit #6 for the Town of Gulf Stream. The violation is described in Exhibit #6 referencing violation of Code Ordinance 009/9 amending G.S. Code Sections 42.46 through 42.28 adopting the Delray Beach related codes and the State of Florida Building Code Section 104 by Reference, all of which relate to obtaining a building permit prior to commencing work. Exhibit #6 indicates the fences were constructed at both addresses without obtaining permits, the date of first inspection was May 19, 2009, the date owner was first notified was May 27, 2009, and the date on and by which violations were to be corrected was given as April 15, 2011. Notice and time of Hearing was provided and the Ordinances of Reference were attached. Code Violation Hearing May 4, 2011 Page 2 C Delray Beach Fence Permit Applications with a photo of an existing fence attached to each application for both 930 and 940 Orchid Lane, and a Survey and Owner -Builder Affidavit for each property were presented. Mr. Thrasher stated that a fence permit was applied for upon receipt of the Notice. The Special Magistrate accepted the permit package as Exhibit #7 for the Town of Gulf Stream. A letter addressed to Ms. Bazarte dated April 12, 2011, with a copy of Gulf Stream Code Section 70-187 attached were presented. Mr. Thrasher read the letter aloud to the Record, stating it was signed by him. He said following receipt and review of the Permit Applications with attachments, it was determined that the proposed installation of fences did not comply with the sections of the Code referenced earlier. The Special Magistrate accepted the April 12, 2011 letter with attached Code references as Exhibit #8 for the Town of Gulf Stream. When asked by the Special Magistrate, in terms of Code Section 70-187 which refers to certain sections of the Town of Gulf Stream, if he was looking at Place Au Soleil for the provision of fences over 4 feet, Town Manager Thrasher replied that he was. When asked by the Special Magistrate if the properties at 930 and 940 Orchid Lane fall within that District, Mr. Thrasher replied that they do. In closing, Town Manager Thrasher said he believes the Town provided proper notice and that the current fence was installed without a permit, violating sections of the Code as previously stated, and will ask for a remedy to this situation. Special Magistrate Donlon then asked Melanie Bazarte to testify. Ms. Bazarte said she called Town Hall to inform them she would be installing a replacement fence and asked what was required. She said she was informed of materials that could not be used, but that a C Shadow Box fence was okay. Ms. Bazarte said these were 6 -foot fences for privacy with landscaping around them and she had no idea they had to be kept at 4 feet. She said she had conversations with both Rita Taylor and Mr. Thrasher concerning the matter and she did receive the Notices, but this was a repair and replace situation, not new construction and said there were and are several existing 6 -foot Shadow Box fences in Place Au Soleil. When asked by the Special Magistrate when the existing 6 -foot fence was installed, Ms. Bazarte replied, in May of 2009. When asked by the Special Magistrate what type of fence was there previously and when was it installed, Ms. Bazarte replied, a 6 -foot Shadow Box fence was installed in the 80's. Special Magistrate said in order to come into compliance Ms. Ban a will need a permit for the fence and to get a permit after the fact the fence will have to comply with Code. When asked by the Special Magistrate how long it would take her to comply if she had a permit issued, Ms. Bazarte replied, maybe two or three weeks. Special Magistrate Donlon asked Ms. Bazarte if she had photographs or documents demonstrate the previous fence existing prior to 2009 and Ms. Bazarte replied, she did not, but if she knew the requirements concerning permitting and fence height, she would not have installed the fence. Special Magistrate Donlon administered the Oath to Town Manager Thrasher, Town Clerk Taylor and Mr. Sean Ronan, Ms. Bazarte's nephew. Mr. Ronan said, for aesthetic purposes, he installed the 6 -foot fence rather than a 4 -foot fence for privacy and screening of certain equipment from the street. He said the 6 -foot fence was extended across the driveway to the other property (930 Orchid Lane) to make it larger. Mr. Thrasher said the fence is attractive, but does not meet Code, and removal and replacement of such items requires a permit. He said intention of the Town is to obtain compliance in the kindest way possible and, although it was stated that Code was not referenced in the Notices, he believes it was. Mr. Thrasher asked Town Clerk Rita Taylor to speak about the conversations with Ms. Bazarte. Code Violation Hearing May 4, 2011 Page 3 \J' Town Clerk Rita Taylor said Ms. Bazarte called the Town and asked what the maximum height of a privacy fence between properties would be. Clerk Taylor said her interpretation of a privacy fence would be a fence along the side property lines and, in which case a 6 -foot high fence is allowed. She said the fence was installed along the front of the property and between the two properties, not dividing them. Clerk Taylor stated that at the end of the phone conversation she did advise Ms. Bazarte that a building permit would be required, and it was the last conversation the Town had with Ms. Bazarte until they were advised the fence was up. Ms. Bazarte said she feels the Town uses selective enforcement and that there are several vinyl fences and 6 -foot fences in her neighborhood that could have been grandfathered in, but maybe not. She said she cannot remember anything mentioned about a permit or it would have been permitted at the time, but she understands now and is agreeable to it. When asked by the Special Magistrate what was being recommended in this case, Town Manager Thrasher replied that the Town is requesting the fence running parallel to the face of the property be removed entirely, or shortened to the allowable height, and if it remains a wood fence it must be entirely screened by shrubbery to the 4 -foot height. The Town also suggests that this be completed within ten (10) working days, a corrected permit application for both properties be submitted and, subsequent to the 10 working days, requests a fine accrue on a daily basis of $25.00. When asked by the Special Magistrate if the Town is seeking the recovery of Administrative Costs, Town Manager Thrasher replied that, at the direction of the Town Commission, they would be seeking recovery of Administrative Costs in the amount of $150.00. FINDINGS: Special Magistrate Donlon found there was proper notice and there is a violation on the property. She stated that the Town has requested 10 days for full compliance, but because the Respondent may not have been clear on some of the requirements, she will allow the Respondent 21 days for full compliance. Failure to do so could result in a fine of up to $250.00 per day. The Special Magistrate said the Town has requested a fine of $25.00 per day which she will take into consideration at a Fine Assessment Hearing in the future if the Respondent does not comply, but stated that under Statute the fine could be up to $250.00 per day. The Special Magistrate awarded the Town recovery of Administrative Costs of $150.00, payable within ten (10) days and will coordinate with the Town to schedule a Fine Assessment Hearing to occur after the compliance date. The hearing date will be set in the Order received by mail. This concluded the hearing of Case No. CE 1-11 and the Special Magistrate adjourned the hearing at approximately 10:45 A.M. Rita L. Taylor, Town qbk