11-03-94
.r.
CITY OF ATIANPIC BEF1C3;
CODE ESIF'OR1f~S'IFNT B07~RD AGQ~17~
7:30 P. M., NOVII~ffiER 3, 1994
Call to order
Pledge to the Flag
Roll Call
1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 6, 1994.
2. Recognition of Visitors and (bests regarding any matters that are
not listed on agenda. .
3. Old Business:
The following information contains a report of ocaq~liance relative to
old business of the Board. If a Board manber has questions or would
like further information regarding any of the reports the Code
IIzforcerent Officer will be happy to resporr3 to questions at the
meeting.
Case No. 0076 -Bill Knight -renter of property located at 945 Plaza
Drive. Was found to be in Violation of Sections 12-1-7 and 19-1 of the
Code at the meeting of September 6, 1994. Mr. Knight was given 10 days,
until •September 17, 1994, to bring the praperty into anq~liance to the
satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Inspector. If the property was not
brought into canpliance by September 17, 1994, the owner of the
property, William Nicol, would be fined $25.00 per day beginning
September 22, 1994, and continuing each day until the property was
brought into ccnq~liance.
Note: Property has bean brought into p~lia,rx± tD the Sat]Sfx-f;m of
the Code Enforoem~t Officer.
4. New iL,air,PCa:
Case No. 0077 -Fred Carlson -owner of property located at 1890 Mealy
St., in violation of Section: 24-112 - outside• storage -boats,
trailers, 55 gallon drums an3 other miscellaneous items are being stored
in public View; Section 12-1-7 - Open Storage -building material,
building rubbish or similar items.
Case No. 0078 - Greg Fields - renter of property located at 1093
Hibiscus St., in Violation of Section: 24-163 - parking of a
recreational vehicle (boat) in front of the front yard set back line.
Case No. 0079 -Benny J. Ossi -owner of property located at 205 Fdgar
St., in violation of Section 12-1-7 -storage of abandoned Vehicles and
boats -trash continuously deposited outside of dumq~ster. .
Case No. 0080 -Vision EYiergy -saner of property located at 779 Triton
Rd., in Violation of Section 19-1 - Obstructing the Right of Way;
section 12-1-6 Attraction Detrimental to Safety -electrical pole and
Minutes, Page 2
Code Ehforo°tnent Board
November 3, 1994
miscellaneous electrical equignrnt attached.
5. Rtiquest for lien action:
It is requested the Board vote to place liens for weed abatement a~
associated administrative and advertisement expenses on the following
properties:
Amount of Lien
$4,500.00
Description of Property
Damlition of 91 Donner Road, a/k/a Part Goverrnmsst
Lot 2, o«rned by Lawrence C• Rolfe
6. Board Members Comments
7. Adjournment
(,
~'
CALL TO ORDER:
CITSC OF ATLANTIC BEAC[i
CODE ENFORCII4QIT B011RD MINVl'FS
NOVEMBER 3, 1994
Present: Edwaxd Martin, Chairman
Barbara Bonner
Heywood Dowling, Jr.
Theo K. M.itchelson
Kathleen Russell
Absent: John Venn (Excused)
Lou Etta Waters (Excused)
And: Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney
Alan Jensen Legal Counsel to Board
Don Ford, Building Official
Karl Gunewald, Code Enf. Officer
Trudy Lopanik, Secretary
Ed Martin, Chairman, thanked the Board for meeting on Thursday instead
of Tuesday. He congratulated Messrs. Dowling aryl M.itchelson on being
reappointed to the Code Enforcement Board for four year terms.
1_A,pproval of Mirnrtcs of September 6, 1994.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes of the
meeting of Sept~:nber 6, 1994.
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests rrt+na.riim any matters that are
not listed rn agenda.
There were rw visitors.
3. Old Busirrss:
Case No. 0076 -Bill Knight -renter of property located at 945 Plaza
Drive. Was found to be in violation of Sections 12-1-7 and 19-1 of the
Code at the meeting of September 6, 1994. Mr. Knight was given 10 days,
until September 17, 1994, to bring the property into ccmpliance to the
satisfaction of the Code Enforcams:t inspector. Zf the property was not
brought into catg~liance by September 17, 1994, the owner of the
property, William Nicol, would be fined $25.00 per day beginning
September 22, 1994, and continuing each day until the property was
brought into ca~liance.
Note: Property has ban br+o:x3ht into ornQ] ianoc to the satisfaction of
the Oxle FY:faroc~nt Officer.
Mr. Martin reported the property of Bill Knight had been brought. into
co;~liance and the Board accepted the report.
Minutes - 11/.!/y4
Page 2
4. New Business:
Case No. 0077 - Fred Carlson - owner of property located at 1890 Mealy
St., in violation of Section: 24-112 - outside storage -boats,
trailers, 55 gallon drums and other miscellaneous items are being stored
in public view; Section 12-1-7 - Open Storage - building material,
building rubbish or similar items.
Mr. Martin read the case hearing procedure and all witnesses were sworn
in.
Suzanne Green reported the original notice was sent on July 11, 1994 but
ca~liance was not achieved until the end of October, 1994.
Karl Grunewald reported the original notice was sent July 11, 1994 but
since it was not picked up fran the post office the letter was hand
delivered on August 2, 1994. He indicated 15 days were given to ca~ly
but cca~liance was not reached until the earl of October. Mr. Gunewald
passed out photographs. Partial canpliance was reached October 13th and
complete cac~liance was reached today, November 3, 1994. Mr. Gunewald
recanm~ded that Mr. Carlson be found guilty of the violation so that if
the violation occurred in the future it would be treated as a second
violation.
Ruth Ashley, 1190 20th Street North, Jacksonville Beach, indicated she
was representing Fred Carlson who was out of town on an emergency. She
explained the certified letter was not received but that it was harri
delivered August 2, 1994. Immediately after receiving the letter Mr.
Carlson proceeded to try to contact the individual who owned an
abandoned boat on the property to have the boat removed. It was
explained the boat belonged to an acquaintance of Mr. Carlson who lived
in Miami and was difficult to contact. It was explained Mr. Carlson had
the boat raroved at his own expense of $100.00.
A motion was made, seoorr3cxl, and passed to find Mr. Carlson guilty of
violating Sections 24-112 and 12-1-7 of the Code.
A motion was made, accorded, and passed that >f the pmoperty was faun
to be in m--oonQlianoe of the above referEnoed codes in the future, a
fine of ;50.00 per day would bogie on the day the proporty was found to
be in mroon~liancc and oontinuirg each day until the lrroperty was
brought into oampliarre to the satisfaction of the Code Enfaromient
Officer.
Case No. 0078 - Grog Fields - renter of property located at 1093
Hibiscus St., in violation of Section: 24-163 - parking of a
rer_rPational vehicle (hoatl >n front of the front vai~i set back line.
Mr. Dowling read the case hearing procedure and all witnesses were sworn
in.
Suzanne Green reported the ordinance was violated when Greg Fields
Minutes - 11/3/94
Page 3
parked his boat in front of the front yard set back line. A notice was
hand delivered June 29, 1994 and Dir. Fields was given 60 days to ca~q~ly
with the code by the Code Enforcanent Inspector. Ms. Green reported
cacq~liance was achieved on November 3, 1994.
Karl Grunewald passed out photographs of the property indicating the
violation still occurred on October 13, 1994 and that the violation
ceased to exist on November 3, 1994. Dir. Grunewald explained the boat
did not belong to the owner of the property, David T. Gaskins, but to
the renter of the property, Greg Fields. City records indicated Dlr'.
Gaskins .still lived at the property when in fact he did not, and thus
the city was not able to contact him. Dir. Grrrnewald explained Mr.
Fields asked if he could have time to remove the boat and Dir. Grunewald
allowed 60 days, which expired September 20, 1994.
It was determined Dir. Fields lived at the property since March 1994, and
that he intended to move fran the property.
Greg Fields, 1093 Hibiscus Street, explained the boat had been moved.
He indicated when he moved to the Property there was nothing in the
lease to indicate a boat could not be stored, aryl he was never told he
could not store a boat. He indicated he planned to move into a new
house in January.
A discussion ensued regard whether Mr. Fields had one boat or two boats.
Whereas Mr. Grurr'wald recalled seeing only one boat, Mr. Fields felt
that there were two boats on the property when Mr. Grunewald visited the
site.
It was determined it was not possible to store a boat in the back yard
because the property line did not allow this. Mr. Fields explained he
was a charter boat captain. He indicated he was building a new house in
Jacksonville Beach and would move in January. At the present time the
boat was stored on a empty lot next to the property. it was deterntined
city codes allowed the boat to be stored on the empty lot, behind the
set back line.
A motion was made, accorded, and passed to find Dir. Fields guilty of
violatllYJ Section 24-163 of the Ct~de.
A lmhim WaS flk'rde, SCOOOded, and passed to f].nd Dir. Caak;na, owner Of
the property, guilty of owning property where a violation of Section
24-163 of the Code ocetrrred.
Under discussion, Mr. Fields agreed to telephone Karl Gunewald on
November 4, 1994 and advise Dir. Grunewald of the address of Dir. Gaskins.
A action was made, scoordod, and passed that if the property was found
to be in rrn~Qlianoc of the above rttferena3d cede in the future, a
fine of ;50.00 per day would bogie rn the day thr: p~•*i-y was found to
be in rrn-aomplianoe against the aarrer of the ~operty. David c,~k;r,G,
and Oerrtinuing each day until the property tras braxdht into oonp] ianoe
Minutes - 11/3/94
Page 4
~, to the satisfaction of the Code Fnforoement Officer.
Case No. 0079 - Besu~y J. Ossi -owner of property located at 205 Fdgar
St., in violation of Section 12-1-7 - storage of abandoned vehicles and
boats - trash continuously deposited outside of du:~ster.
Mr. Martin read the case hearing procedures for Case No. 0079 Benny J.
Ossi and Case No. 0080 Vision FS~ergy, and all witnesses were sworn in.
Suzanne Green reported Benny Ossi owned property which was occupied with
business tenants. He was notified of the violations referenced above
via letter on August 10, 1994.
Karl Grunewald reported Mr. Ossi was not in ca~liance as of November 3,
1994, but that he had made numerous steps to ca~ly. Mr. Gunewald
passed out photographs of the property. He indicated Mr. Ossi was
notified August 10, 1994 after which time Mr. Grunewald gave Mr. Ossi 30
days to bring the property into compliance. It was explained Mr. Ossi
faxed the City a copy of a letter he had written to his tenants
notifying then of the violations. Mr. Grunewald indicated he had tried
to notify as many of the tenants as possible, but that it was the
responsibility of Mr. Ossi to work with the tenants to see that the
Property had been brought into crny~liance. Mr. Grunewald indicated he
met Mr. Ossi on the property a week ago and that Mr. Ossi had hired
someone to help him clear the property. A junk car and debris still
remained as of 4:30 p. m. November 3, 1994.
It was explained this was a canmxcial prefabricated building divided up
and rented out to tenants who ran Various businesses.
When asked if he felt Mr. Ossi was led to believe the city would take
responsibility to notify the tenants, Mr. Grunewald responded the city
did not have time to go out and notify each and every tenant and Mr.
Grunewald felt Mr. Ossi was aware of this. Mr. Grunewald added he did
take time to notify as many tenants as possible. When asked how much of
a percentage of the work was canpleted, Mr. Grunewald indicated he felt
808 had been cai~leted.
Benny Ossi explained it was his desire to clear the property. He
indicated he had given tenants 30 days to clear the property, and thus
far he had spent $500 clearing the property. He had removed 15
autcnnbiles aryl sore boats. He had difficulty in getting someone to
remove appliances and tires. It was explained fiberglass and auto shops
were located in the building.
It was explained the board had two goals (1) correct the problen, and
(2) to keep the same problem from reoccurring.
Mr. Ossi assured the Board the property would be cleared and that the
problen would not occur again. He explained he had taken a week off
fmn his work to get the problen taken care of. When asked how long it
would take him to crnq~lete the work Mr. Ossi indicated two weeks time
Minutes - 11/3/94
Page 5
n would be sufficient.
Mr. Dowling explained that Mr
policing his own property.
Ossi would be held responsible for
A motion was made, seconded, and passed to allow Mr. Ossi until November
20, 1994 to bring the property into compliance to the satisfaction of
the code Enforcement Inspector. If the property was not brought into
compliance a fine of ;100 per day would begin and continue until the
property was brought into compliance. If the property was found to be
in non-compliance of Section 12-1-7 in the future a fine of ;100 per day
would begin on the day the property was found to be in non-compliance
and continuing each day until the property was brought into compliance
to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Inspector.
It was explained if the work was not completed and Mr. Ossi incurred a
fine, it would be up to him to collect the fine from his tenants, if he
so desired.
Case No. 0080 - Vision Energy - owner of property located at 779 Triton
Rd., in violation of Section 19-1 - Obstructing the Right of Way;
section 12-1-6 Attraction Detrimental to Safety - electrical pole and
miscellaneous electrical equipment attached.
(Witnesses were sworn in earlier in the meeting)
Suzanne Green indicated on July 1, 1994 Vision Energy was cited for what
the city considered a very serious hazard in that electrical equipment
located at 779 Triton Road (100 feet east of Mako Drive, north side of
Triton Road) was in violation of the National Electrical Code in that
the electrical meter was no longer grounded, and electrical equipment
boxes were not protected from the elements.
Karl Grunewald explained that after Vision Energy indicated the above
referenced equipment was no longer used, the city directed JEA to remove
the service line and meter. Vision Energy agreed to remove all
unnecessary equipment and to request JEA to remove the pole. Mr.
Grunewald reported as of the end of October, last week, the matter had
been cleared up but for a period of four months the matter was in
non-compliance. Photographs were passed out by Mr. Grunewald.
Mr. Grunewald reported the city contacted JEA and asked them to remove
electric lines so that the site would no longer be powered. Vision
Energy indicated they would have the pole removed, but there was no
action for some time. Mr. Grunewald sent a second letter on August 29,
1994 and David Singer, Area Marketing Manaqer, Vision Energy, had the
pole removed a week ago and had since painted the equipment covers.
When Mr. Grunewald was asked by the Board if the pole was hot he
responded everything in the meter box was hot. When asked how long
energized conditions existed Mr. Grunewald responded that energized
~ conditions existed for possibly three years. When asked how long it took
Vision Energy to fix the problem Mr. Grunewald responded he mailed a
certified letter on July 1st and again on August 29, 1994, but the pole
Minutes - 11/3/94
Page 6
was not removed until the the latter part of October. Also, he
indicated there was no cover over the energized portion of the pole. He
explained that when JEA took the line drop down the condition was no
longer dangerous.
David Singer, Area Marketing Manager, Vision Energy, indicated he
started to work at Vision Energy July 13, 1994. At that time, he added,
he was not aware that there was such a condition. He received
notification from Mr. Grunewald and within a week Vision Energy pulled
all electrical equipment off the pole. There was some controversy with
JEA, he explained, over who owned the pole, and eventually the pole was
taken down. There was no dangerous wire, he added. He explained Vision
Energy had been sold as of November 1, 1994 and work was planned in the
Royal Palm area to replace pipes and valuing which would cost the new
company between $5,000 and $10,000.
It was determined there were other sites that might be dilapidated and
it was explained the new company was going into a maintenance program
and all sites would be repaired. The Code Enforcement Inspection
department indicated it felt secure that the work would be done.
The Board expressed its desire to have an inspection done of existing
sites and Mr. Singer indicated he would be would be happy to accompany
the code enforcement inspector to ensure all sites were safe.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed to find Vision Energy to be in
violation of Sections 19-1 and 12-1-6 of the Code.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed that if the property located at
779 Triton Road was found to be in non-compliance of Sections 19-1 and
12-1-6 of the Code by the Code Enforcement Inspector at any time in the
future a fine of ;250.00 per day would begin on the day the property was
found to be in non-compliance and continuing each day until the property
was brought into compliance to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement
Inspector.
Mr. Singer advised that other existing sites were under ground tanks,
only Don Ford advised The Standard Gas Code granted the power of
condemnation to cities in the event of a violation if the city felt
there was a serious threat to the public.
The board indicated their desire to have other sites examined to which
Mr. Grunewald asked Mr. Singer for a list of locations. Mr. Singer
indicated he had a blueprint which provided all the sites. The board
asked for a report concerning this matter at the next Code Enforcement
Board meeting in January.
5. Request for lien action:
It was requested the Board vote to place liens for weed abatement and
associated administrative and advertisement expenses on the following
properties:
Amount of Lien Description of Property
N,inutes - 11/3/94
Page 7
$4,500.00 Demolition of 91 Donner Road, a/k/a Part Government
Lot 2, owned by Lawrence C. Rolfe
Mr. Martin presented a request for lien in the amount of $4,500 for the
above referenced property. It was explained the property had been
demolished, and three liens had already been placed against the
property.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve the request for
levying a lien.
6. Board Members Comments
7. Adjournment
There being no further business Chairman Martin adjourned the meeting at
9:15 p. m.
G. E. Martin
Chairman
Attest:
Trudy Lopanik
~'