04-02-91 v Amended Agenda to add 4.B. - 3/26/91
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
AGENDA
7:30 PM, Tuesday, April 2, 1991
Call to order
Pledge to the Flag
1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1991.
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests
3. Old Business:
A. Case No. 0013 - Francisco Rebelo to report on progress
made to bring his business at 1651 Mayport Road into
compliance with the city ordinances.
4. New Business:
A. Case No. 0016 - Mrs. Brown, tenant, and Linzy C. Lane,
owner of property located at 1970 Park Street, Atlantic
Beach, in violation of the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Atlantic Beach, Section 12-1.
B. Case No. 0017 - Mr. Mihai Guricza, International Auto
Repair, 1830 Mayport Road Unit #11, Atlantic Beach in
violation of the Standard Fire Prevention Code Sections
1002.2 through 1002. 11 and the City Code of Ordinances
of the City of Atlantic Beach, Sections 20-52( 1 ) and
20-54(A) (B) .
5. Board Members Comments
Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
HELD AT CITY HALL ON APRIL 2, 1991 AT 7:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER Present: George Bull, Jr. , Chairman
Mattie Freeman, Vice Chairman
Peter Dowling, Jr.
Edward Martin
Willie Miley
Herbert Moller
John Venn
And: Suzanne Bass, Prosecuting Attorney
Alan Jensen, Legal Council to Board
Don Ford, Code Enforcement Officer
Dorothy M. Strain, Secretary
1 . Approval of the Minutes of January 8, 1991.
Mr. Martin moved for approval of the minutes of January 8, 1991 as written.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Moller and carried unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 . Recognition of visitors and quests -
Chairman Bull welcomed to the Board two new members, Mr. Willie Miley who
replaced Mary Lyle Perry and Mr. John Venn who replaced William Dorsey.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
3. Old Business
A. Case No. 0013 - Francisco Rebelo to report on progress made to bring his
business at 1651 Mayport Road into compliance with the city ordinances. Mr.
Bull stated this date was Mr. Rebelo' s deadline to fully comply with the
City' s Codes and called on Mr. Rebelo to update is progress. Mr. Rebelo
stated with a lot of hard work he had removed most of the equipment in
question.
Mr. Bull then asked Mr. Ford for his comments. Mr. Ford circulated
photographs of Mr. Rebelo' s property, one dated 2/8/90 and two dated 4/1/91 .
From the Mayport Road view, the pictures showed progress made by Mr. Rebelo.
Mr. Ford reminded the board of their request of a method of permanently
storing the material behind the fence.
Mr. Bull then asked if the City thought Mr. Rebelo had complied with the City
Ordinances.
Ms. Bass asked the board to make that determination based on the testimony
by Mr. Ford and the evidence presented. She also asked if the board thought
the fence, which masked the problem, was responsive to the code.
Mr. Bull informed Mr. Rebelo he could use trailers for storage. The fence
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 2
was a temporary measure to shield the equipment until he could get it cleaned
up. He would not be required take the fence down, if the City and the board
were satisfied with his compliance.
Ms. Freemen asked Mr. Rebelo the status of the clean up. (At the last
meeting he was at 60% of completion) . After a brief summary of his efforts
to comply with the City Code, he stated he was 95% completed. He continued
to say he still had two trailers on the property and was continuing to clean
up the rest of the debris.
Ms. Bass asked if he was still storing parts of motors behind the fence and
Mr. Rebelo said he had old motors, not parts, which he planned to rebuild or
sell .
Ms. Bass then asked how many motors remained in the open storage. Mr. Rebelo
replied he had 20 to 30 motors stored outside. Ms. Bass also asked if the
motors stored in the open were unable to fit in either trailers and Mr.
Rebelo replied several of the motors in question were in the process of being
sold.
Mr. Martin stated he noticed 8 to 10 motors or motor generators lined up in
front of the building on the concrete and asked Mr. Rebelo to explain. Mr.
Rebelo said a dealer suggested to him to rebuild them and make them of
greater value, which he planned to do in the near future. Mr. Bull stated
Mr. Rebelo' s inventory was continually moving which may cause the appearance
of storage.
Mr. Dowling understood the fence was to be used as a temporary solution. The
board agreed. He stated there was a plan to build a building which would
take the place of the fence and ( last board meeting Mr. Rebelo said he was
unable to fund this solution. ) Mr. Dowling wondered where it put the board
with respect to code compliance. If the fence did not have to be removed and
the public could not see the motors behind the fence, would this cause a
nuisance? He questioned whether Mr. Rebelo had complied with the code enough
to release his fine or if the board needed to go into Stage 3 and ask him to
come up with a new plan to get rid of the motors behind the fence. With this
plan, the fence could be removed and the property would be back to where the
board thought compliance would be met, which was a clean area.
Mr. Martin believed the fence was a temporary solution to give time for a
permanent solution.
Mr. Bull said Mr. Rebelo had stated previously his permanent solution was to
eventually build another building once the economy was in a better state.
He continued to say the fence was a stop gap measure to mask off the debris
until he could clean it up. Mr. Bull also stated that neither the trailers
on site nor the fence were in violation and the fence made it a better
situation. He also suggested the City could continue to monitor the property
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 3
and if the situation were to intensify again Mr. Rebelo would be in direct
violation of the board' s order and would be subjected to immediate fines.
Mr. Martin then asked Mr. Bull if the storage of the 30 to 40 motors behind
the fence was in fact violating of the City Code. Mr. Bull responded that
the motors on the ground behind fence were in violation and Mr. Rebelo was
to obtain another trailer for storage if necessary. As of this night, Mr.
Bull felt the property was in 95% in compliance and suggested to give Mr.
Rebelo two weeks to be in 100% of compliance.
Mr. Dowling stated the board had a mandatory automatically imposed fine that
would start on April 3, 1991 .
Mr. Moller spoke of the dramatic change and the cost involved and agreed it
may not be feasible, at this time due to the poor economy, for Mr. Rebelo to
build additional storage. He thought, even though it was not in 100%
compliance with the City code, Mr. Rebelo should not be fined. He suggested
if there was a way, find him in substantial compliance with the ordinances.
Mr. Bull suggested to lifting the fine and find him in substantial
compliance with the ordinances but give him another two weeks to move the
motors in question into storage.
Mr. Martin moved to suspend the fine for two weeks and give Mr. Rebelo this
time to move the remaining items off the ground and into storage to be in
compliance with the City Code. The motion was seconded by Ms. Freeman and
passed by a vote of 6-1 vote. Mr. Dowling voted nay.
Mr.Bull said he would personally inspect the property on April 16, 1991 and
with the board ' s permission he would make a decision at that time.
Mr. Dowling then questioned if after the two weeks Mr. Rebelo had not
complied with the Code, and since the board' s next meeting was not until
June, 1991, would the fine be automatic.
Mr. Bull answered "Yes, if the board lived by its motion, " and also mentioned
that with the type of business Mr. Rebelo operates there would always be
equipment in transit outside of the building.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
4 . New Business
a. Case No. 0016 - Mrs. Brown, tenant, and Linzy C. Lane, owner of property
located at 1970 Park Street, Atlantic Beach, in violation of the City Code
of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach, Section 12-1. Mr. Bull read the
hearing format and during the reading there was a brief discussion in
reference to the need of a court report. At this time, one was not needed.
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 4
The City was represented by Suzanne Bass, Prosecuting Attorney and Don Ford,
Code Enforcement Officer. All witnesses in the case were sworn in.
Ms. Bass opened the hearing by stating that the property in question had been
used to store rubbish. She said Mr. Ford would give testimony and evidence
to prove that the property was at this date not in compliance with the City
code even though apparent improvements had been made. She then called on
Mr. Ford to testify. She asked him how long he had been inspecting the
property. Mr. Ford responded that his first notification to Mr.Brown was on
1/9/88 and since then, he had contacted the Browns fifteen times either by
letter or by meeting at the property. He also contacted Linzy Lane, the
owner, in an attempt to have the property cleaned up.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Ford' s opinion on what exactly was in violation. Mr. Ford
responded that Mr. Brown apparently was repairing cars at this address and
the repair time would take six months to a year to complete, which meant the
cars were left unused on the front property.
Ms. Bass asked if there were junk cars on the property on 4/1/91 and Mr. Ford
responded that only one car remained (photographs were presented) .
Ms. Bass then asked if the previous week there were junk cars on the property
and how long these vehicles had been there. She also asked if there were
junk vehicles behind Mr. Brown' s fence. Mr. Ford replied the two junk cars
had been there since 10/90 and he was not sure what was behind the fence.
Ms. Bass asked if Mr. Ford thought, at this time, the front yard was in
compliance with Section 12-1 . Mr. Ford referred to one of the pictures which
showed scrap metal, old bicycle parts and various junk pieces still seen on
the property as of April 1, 1991 . With this he felt the property was not
in compliance with the City Code.
Ms. Bass called on Mr. Lane, the owner of 1970 Park Street property. She
asked if he made routine visits to the property and if he was aware that Mr.
Brown stored junk cars. She also asked if he knew what was behind the fence
and if the property at this time was cleaned up. Mr. Lane answered yes to
all her questions and stated he was not aware of what was behind the fence.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Lane if he was willing to make sure his property was kept
in compliance with the Code if given an opportunity after tonight and whether
he realized what the problem was with keeping junk cars and other garbage
items on the property. Mr. Lane replied said "yes. "
Ms. Bass called on Mrs. Brown and asked if the junk cars were moved and what
was behind the fence. Mrs. Brown said the junk cars had been removed and
behind the fence were tools, one junk car, tires, an air pump and a trailer
with fence posts on it. She also stated the trailer had not been used for
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 5
a long time and the car had not been used in over a year; the car was
operable but needed tires.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Brown when the trailer was last used and what was it used
for. Mr. Brown replied he used it for his work and the car remaining did not
have a title, which had created a problem to have it removed. Also, Mr.
Brown stated one of the cars moved out of the front yard had contained his
tools, which were used in his business.
Mr. Ford stated it takes six months to get a title through Tallahassee which
would cause a delay to remove the car from the property. The city could have
it towed at the owner' s expense and a title would not be necessary.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Brown why he got rid of his tools when he removed the
car in the front yard. Mr. Brown said he stored the tools in the car and the
car and tools where now being stored at another location ( Levy Road) . Ms.
Freeman asked what business he did. Mr. Brown responded he repaired cars.
Mr. Bull stated that the area was not zoned for that type of business and he
was operating against the zoning regulations.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Brown about the use of the trailer. Mr. Brown stated
he had 2 trailers and only used the 4 wheel. The other is a 2 wheel trailer.
Closing Statements
Ms. Bass gave her ending statement by saying 1970 Park Street was not in
compliance with the City Code due to the remaining debris and the items
behind the fence. Mr. Brown stated that before this evening he was not told
of a problem with the back yard but would remove items in question.
Discussion continued in reference to the car in the back yard. Mr. Bull
mentioned if the car was operable there would not be in violation.
Mr. Dowling asked Ms. Bass whether action taken in this case would be against
the tenant or property owner. She believed it would be against the property
owner. Alan Jensen agreed.
Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Brown if the remaining debris in the back yard was
operable other than the trailer. He answered yes. Mr. Dowling clarified
that any outside storage was in violation of the City code.
Mr. Miley spoke of the progress made on the property and there had been an
effort made by Mr. Brown, and more time should be given.
Mr. Bull explained that the Honda needed to be operable or removed and the
trailer in use could stay and Mr. Brown had 30 days to clear the rest of the
rubbish.
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 6
Mr. Ford gave further history of this case and stated that Mr. Brown had been
cooperative in cleaning up the property but within a month it would be in the
same condition again. The complaint was that the property continued to be
in and out of compliance.
Mr. Martin moved to give Mr. Brown 60 days to get into conformity with the
ordinances and advised him that he needed to remain in compliance. Mr. Miley
seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Bull expressed to Mr. Brown if he did not stay in conformity with the
codes the Board would levy a fine to the property owner.
Mr.Dowling concluded by saying Mr. Brown will bring the property into
conformity which meant he would remove the Honda or get it operable and
miscellaneous debris would be removed. The trailers could stay and the fence
could remain.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. B. Case No. 0017 - Mr. Mihai Guricza, International Auto Repair, 1830
Mayport Road Unit #11, Atlantic Beach in violation of the Standard Fire
Prevention Code Sections 1002.2 through 1002.11 and the City Code of
Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach, Sections 20-52(1) and 20-54(A) &
(B) . Mr. Moller read the hearing format and once again, a court reporter was
not necessary. The City was represented by Suzanne Bass, Prosecuting
Attorney, Don Ford, Code Enforcement Officer and Walter Rew, Fire Chief.
Ms. Bass in her opening statement explained Mr. Guricza had an occupational
license to operate an auto repair business at 1830 Mayport Road. Mr. Gillow
and Mr. Winter would testify that he was using this property for auto body
and repairs. She continued to say Mr. Guricza would spray paint cars and
specks of paint would get on the cars parked at Mr. Winter ' s business next
door. He was in violation because he is operating without an auto body
repair license.
Ms. Bass called on Fire Chief Rew. She asked when he had conducted an
inspection at the auto repair business. The Chief replied he had been there
on several occasions but most recently on Friday, March 29, 1991 . He went
on a complaint that Mr. Guricza was operating a paint booth which had not
been approved by himself as the Fire Inspector. Ms. Bass then asked the
Chief to explain the significance of involving the Fire Chief with the
inspections of a paint booth. Chief Rew explained, for example, if the
filters in the ceiling were not in proper working order, the paint specks
would be in the air and could cause environmental problems. Ms. Bass asked
the Chief if he thought Mr. Guricza ' s paint booth complied with the Fire Code
and he replied "not at the present time" .
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 7
Ms. Bass then asked Mr. Ford about his involvement with inspecting the
premises. Mr. Ford stated he had been meeting with Mr. Guricza since
January, 1990 and since then he had performed four (4 ) inspections, all of
which had failed ( a copy of the sections of the Fire, City and Life Safety
codes was provided) . Ms. Bass then asked if Mr. Guricza would need a
separate license to operate as an auto body shop and whether he had applied
for this additional license. Mr. Ford replied that if the original license
did not indicate auto body repair then an additional license would be needed
and Mr. Guricza had applied but due to the violations it had not been
approved. Mr. Ford also stated he had received complaints from Mr. Winter,
who operates a business directly adjacent to the property in question, and
Mr. Gillow, who was employed by Mr. Winter. The pictures shown to the Board
where supplied by Mr. Winter.
Ms. Bass then called on Mr. Winter and Mr. Gillow. Mr. Winter stated he
owned and operated a window tinting business at 1850 Mayport Road since June,
1990. He explained that Mr. Guricza was painting cars without a license,
chemicals were thrown down the drains, and he had total disregard to the law.
He stated since Mr. Guricza had received the hearing notice he had not been
painting but had been doing other type auto body work. He also said that
several cars at his business had paint specks. Also, dust from the sanding
at Mr. Guricza' s business had interfered with the window tinting procedure.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Gillow if Mr. Guricza was doing auto body repairs at 1830
Mayport Road. Mr. Gillow replied that he had been employed at Mr. Guricza' s
business in December 1990 and while he was there, oil, paint and other
chemicals were drained down the bay drains and he was not aware of any oil
recovery system in the bay. He also spoke of damage the sanding and painting
caused at Mr. Winter' s business.
Ms. Bass then called on Mr. Guricza who stated he was the owner of
International Auto Body and verified he had a license to do auto repair. She
asked if he was doing auto body work and he responded that he had. He
continued to say when he moved into the building the drain was filled with
rubbish and oil . He found he was responsible for cleaning it up after
several phone conversations with the owners of the building and the city
officials. He stated he had not thrown anything down the drains. He also
stated he had built a spray booth, which was 95% completed and by April 3,
1991 it would be completed.
Ms. Bass suggested to the board not to allow him operate an auto body repair
shop until he obtained the proper licensing. She asked Mr. Guricza if he
understood her suggestion. He replied that he was not told he could not do
body work only that he could not spray. Ms. Bass asked what percentage of
his business was dependent of the paint booth. He replied 50%.
Ms. Bass then asked Mr. Ford if he gave Mr. Guricza permission to do auto
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 8
body repair as long as he did not spray paint cars and Mr. Ford replied that
he did not. He explained he instructed Mr. Guricza he could do mechanical
repairs only and was not to do any type of body repair work at all . Mr.Ford
said according to Mr. Winter' s testimony 20 cars have been spray painted
since January, 1991, so Mr. Guricza ' s statement claiming he had not sprayed
any cars once he was told he needed a license, was false. Mr. Ford stated
the sign, which advertises auto body repair was approved on the basis he
would not do any body work until the spray booth was approved by City
officials. The City approved the size not wording of the sign.
Closing Statement
Ms. Bass closed by asking the board to take appropriate action on the
testimony of the City. She suggested Mr. Guricza should cease and desist
from using that property for any body work until he was legally permitted.
Mr. Bull asked Mr. Guricza for his closing statement. Mr. Guricza responded
he would close down the body shop until the spray booth was approved. He
believed the complaints by Mr. Winter and Mr. Gillow were part of a personal
conflict against him.
Mr. Bull asked if the zoning regulations permitted a body shop in this area
and Mr. Ford replied it did. Then Mr. Bull confirmed that if as long as his
business complied with all the codes involved, Mr. Guricza could operate an
auto body repair business. Mr. Ford replied that he could.
Mr. Bull asked Mr. Ford if it was legally permissible to the EPA to sand cars
outside or whether it needed to be contained and Mr. Ford replied it needed
to be contained.
Mr. Bull told Mr. Guricza the sanding would have to be done inside only or
the EPA could shut the entire business down in a day. Also, he told him the
codes which he was charged with violating and they needed to be adhere to
immediately.
Mr. Dowling asked Ms. Bass if the building owner was liable. She replied he
was and it was an oversight that he was not present ( This case was placed on
the agenda at a late date) .
Mr. Ford said Fred Lewis was the owner and Susan Lewis handled this property
and he had kept her informed with each stage of this case. Mr. Dowling asked
what the Lewis ' response had been. Mr. Ford understood it was a tenant
problem and they were leaving it up to Mr. Guricza to bring his business into
compliance.
Mr. Dowling then asked Ms. Bass if a fine were to be levied, would it be
against the owner and she replied that it would. If Mr. Guricza continued
to operate his auto body repair business, the board could either fine the
owners and/or fine him for operating without proper licensing.
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 9
Mr. Ford said one of his main concerns was a licensed electrician had not
done the electrical work in the spray booth. The wiring had been covered up
without an inspection by him (a permit was not issued from the Building Dept.
for this job) .
Mr. Moller asked what needed to be done to complete the spray booth. Chief
Rew stated the exhaust fan was not in and the lights needed to be explosion
proof. Mr. Ford continued to say the caps were removed from the electrical
fixtures and the electrical panel had blanks missing. After this inspection,
Mr. Ford felt it an emergency to bring this case before the board
immediately.
Mr. Martin suggested that the board tell Mr. Guricza not to operate an auto
body shop until he had the appropriate licenses, and if he continued to
operate in violation, he would be put out of business completely.
Ms. Freeman questioned if the building needed to be rewired or added to what
was already there. Mr. Gillow said he had done the wiring of the spray booth
while employed by Mr. Guricza and added that he was not a licensed
electrician in the State of Florida.
The Board discussed briefly of the responsibility of the maintenance on the
building.
Mr. Bull emphasized when wiring or rewiring any commercial building it must
be done by a licensed electrician. It is a major violation not to be in
compliance of this code. Mr. Bull continued to say Mr. Guricza was to
expose the wiring and Mr. Ford was to inspect. Then it was to be approved
by a licensed electrician before he could operate. The board will not be
responsible for any hazards which could involve personal injury or the
destruction of a building due to faulty wiring.
Mr. Bull moved that Mr. Guricza cease and desist from operating a body and
paint shop as of this day, April 2, 1991, until it was approved by Mr. Ford
and the Fire Chief. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion.
Mr. Miley questioned Mr. Gillow about doing the electrical work and found
he was licensed in the State of Virginia.
Chief Rew was unaware the electrical was not done by a licensed electrician.
Mr. Bull told Mr. Ford to inspect all electrical wiring and at his discretion
pass it or fail it. He also emphasized to Mr. Guricza again to get into
compliance immediately to do auto body work.
Code Enforcement Board Meeting
April 2, 1991
Page 10
Mr. Dowling suggested amending the motion to state that in the event Mr.
Guricza does violate the board' s order of tonight, his license will
automatically be suspended for an indefinite period. Mr. Bull accepted the
amendment. Carried unanimously.
Mr. Dowling had one last question regarding the building owners. He thought
the board needed to take a harder look at the tenant problems and make the
building owners responsible for helping the board with enforcing the law,
since their buildings could be in jeopardy. The owners need to be at the
Code Enforcement Board meeting when their property is in violation of the
City Codes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Adjournment
There being no other business to come , t,efore the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 9 :35 p.m.
George Bull, Jr.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Dorothy Strain
Secretary