simple this no no Mich starting right exactly Vanessa sign in sheet for Michael your that will be ni I know they CH it's everyone one signed in who's here to speak on a case okay are we ready good evening everyone I'm here to welcome you to the Village of biscane Park Code Compliance board meeting of Wednesday February 21st would the clerk please claw the rooll Janie Anderson Dell blinton rodo baros Judy hammerberg M Michael lenot here again welcome everyone this is a meeting of the village of biscane Park Code Compliance board the board is authorized pursu to chapter 14 of The Villages Land Development code to ensure compliance with the villages code of ordinances the members of the board our citizens and residents of the village of biscane Park we volunteer our time and we're not paid for our service the purpose of each hearing is to give any alleged violators the opportunity to contest the decision of the code compliance officer which resulted in the issuance of a notice of violation and to determine whether a violation of The Village's codes have occurred or is occurring we're not authorized to dismiss violations based on hardships ignorance or the fact that others may be guilty of the same violation these hearings are conducted in a quasy Judicial manner our responsibility is to act much like a judge in a court and that is to hear cases presented by The Village's Code Compliance officers and to hear contradictory arguments presented by the alleged violators we are not authorized to change the code The Village commission is solely authorized to enact or revise codes conversely neither the commission nor the village manager have the authority to overrule the findings of the board pursuant to chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes orders of the board can only be appealed to the Circuit Court of Miami date County we have the authority to assess and order the payment of civil penalties to assure orders having to issue orders pardon me having the for force of law to command whatever steps are necessary to bring a violation into compliance and to assess administrative costs in order to make a finding upholding The Code Compliance officers decision we must find that there is substantial competent evidence that the name violator was responsible for a violation of the relevant section of the code as charged all documentary evidence presented by the parties must be submitted for placement in the hearing file no documentary evidence will be considered unless the alleged violator or co-compliance officer submits a copy for the hearing file each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses to introduce exhibits to cross-examine opposing Witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called them to testify and to rebut the evidence against them if you intend to address the board and haven't signed in please do so anyone wishing to address the board please stand and raise your right hand so you may be sworn in you are reminded that this board is a quasi judicial board and giving false testimony can be penalized please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you bu to submit will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth we have any additions deletions or changes to the agenda yes addition we would like to put on the record that staff have submitted standard operating procedures and policies for the Code Compliance Department to the Code Compliance board to review and make recommendations copy has been passed by we want to set a special meeting for that yes we'll have to set a special meeting we can we save that for discussion would that be okay absolutely the package that we got initi in initially when we sat down is the policies and procedures manual that they're working on but they want our input and that needs to be done in a public meeting not individually so in the interim before we get further on in the meeting to discussions kind of one will think of some dates that they are available and we'll talk about it then if that's okay yes and changes item number 7.2 on the agenda there was a misspelled word t h r it should have read t h e the I'm sorry 7.2 item 7.2 on the agenda it was a word that was misspelled T HR It should read t h e on agenda item 7.9 the case number should read e 22- 0224 instead of E20 d784 correction has been made the amended uh notice to appear was posted at the property I'm sorry could you repeat the case number in 78 7.9 item number the ca the case number is supposed to read e 22- 0224 and that's all we had has everyone had a chance to read the minutes you mean both minutes yeah yes January and October yes any changes um for January I think on if we can go to January 1 sure uh January 17th I have on number 8.15 uh I think Judy recused herself correct and the vote was three to zero correct and I don't know if it needs to be mentioned that she recused herself or that should be it should be part of the hearing so 8.15 Mark board member Judy Hamberg is recused and the vote should be 30 um that's all I had I have I have one other in a.21 there's a line referencing Village of biscan Park commissioner Matt Kennedy was an attendant spoke with the resident outside the chambers those sort of things happen staff goes out and talks toone Administration sometime we don't normally put that in the minutes because the minutes really need to stress just went on as part what went on as part of the hearing so if I have no objections I'd like that line to be removed any objections none if we could are there any other changes no then I would make a motion to accept January's minutes with those two changes I'll second all in favor iOS motion passes October any changes to October's minutes I don't have any I have a couple okay sorry if we all can go to October's minutes 8G on the second line it reads additionally an administrative fee of $250 and was assessed and should be removed next line reads there shall be full compliance by November 30th 2023 what seems to have gotten lost in a couple of the changes it should say to obtain a permit should follow November 2023 then in 8h first line the motion was made to affirm that a violation did occur a $250 violation fine was assessed and an administrative fee of it follows there anyone else anyone else have any changes well I don't know if it's a change but uh correction or correction a motion was made by chairperson Janie Anderson and seconded by Vice chair Dale Blandon that board member Michael L not me my absence was not an approved absence I um I think I came on this board in June or July of last year and when I did um I had already planned this trip to Europe and was uh made everybody Avail aware of that upon my acceptance of this position I also believe that there were a couple of times when we went over it on on the record about schedules sure and it was talked about so I I you know I I I would make a correction that it wasn't approved approved absence would make a motion to correct that to an approved absence I'll I'll second it I I know I know about his um going I just know at the time that this was that we heard this so should that that should probably go in that should probably go in tonight's notes versus correcting October shouldn't it because that's when we're making that motion to correct yeah or to Grant and excused for October Grant right okay okay but can we put that then in tonight's minutes that I'll make a motion to correct the October uh ruling that Michael's absence was not excused and to corrected to an excused absence because he had in fact given notice that work for you Michael yes so I would motion that October's minutes be approved with those changes second all in favor I opposed motion passes SC zero if the staff ready for the first case yes good evening dorine Grant toad compliance Department the first case and the old business which is item 7 First cases on item 7.1 it's 4665 Northeast 117th Street case number CN 23-36 for belonging to Anto views LLC in care of registered agent Mora Gloria this um they were found to be in violation of um exterior walls not being painted they came to to the hearing last hearing and they were asked to at least pressure clean the walls which they have done and they've applied for a permit I would like to submit into evidence I think we have a copy here um permit number -24 D2 they are in compart in partial compliance I would say for now as we wait for them to complete this uh painting process they did pressure clean those are the they they also have the windows uh boarded up they have the sh says yeah because the the building is vacant plywood I live around the corner I live around the corner and I and I saw I saw the plywood on the Windows oh really so when you look at the picture this is what we're able to see from the street so oh so there was plywood before where is before okay oh and just a reminder everybody for the sake of our audience as well as those who may be watching us on Zoom or YouTube into the microphone because it doesn't pick up anything extraneous and I'm guilty of turning my head too much so durine they have pressure washed that they have pressure washed yes they their permit they've applied for is is a paint um permit and they're waiting for approval okay so at this point what would be the action you would suggest I would suggest we give them more time to go through this process they can get their permit and paint the building do we table it for another month bring bring them back at March's meeting and give us an update on that okay would you make the motion I'll make a motion to table uh 7.1 till next meeting I'll second I'll favor I I I opposed motion passes 5 Z the next case number is the item number is 7.2 on the agenda and uh it's for property located at 690 Northeast 113th Street case number 17- 0089 belonging to the Church of the Resurrection we asking for a motion to dismiss this case uh due process was not applied um while this case was looked at while the board had looked at this case and ruled on this case there were missteps um a courtesy notice was issued and then a notice of violation was not issued they went ahead and brought the case to the board um and didn't give them enough time to comply um the affidavit they filed for nine compliance they filed before the order of enforcement was was issued and they reference the order of enforcement with a different date and a different uh case number so well given given the testimony and the and the documentation I'd make a motion to dismiss lack of due process second I all in favor I I opposed motion passes 5 z um I would ask if uh is this in compliance now yes they are item 7.3 for the same address 690 Northeast 113th Street case number e 17- 0278 the Church of Resurrection um same thing applies to this case we're asking for a motion to dismiss they had um issued this violations at the same time but as courtesy notices um there was no du process and there was a lot of errors in the process but this one is work without a permit that's correct what is the current status because we're looking at a roof and a a carport built without a permit if you look at the package that we um put in they had put down the the the pack uh what was it they bu the porridge the very next day someone attempted to start um issuing I would say they did Issue the uh Affidavit of compliance but it wasn't signed the the document that's on the file is not signed and not um does the structure still exist it doesn't it's not that it was removed the very next day okay I'm sorry that was my point that was my questions here was it in in compliance again um but affidavit is not notorized and it wasn't complete so I wasn't sure and it's two and a half years ago this happened I think no actually more than two and a half years ago well if uh I'd like them to go ahead and make a motion to dismiss lack of a new process second all in favor I I opposed motion passes 5 Z next item is 7.4 address is 928 Northeast 109th Street the case number Isen 22- 0467 Yi palus and Frank palus uh we are requesting uh to issue an intent to lean violation fine of $75 has not been paid um the watercraft was removed so they complied um the violation complied however the fine remains remains unpaid we filed an Affidavit of non-compliance any um any questions from the board no I would make a motion to go ahead and oh is the property owner here I would make a motion to file the intent to lean um would you entertain um the uh administrative fee of 250 and F and assess filing cost absolutely I my Mo let me re rephrase my motion file the intent to lean add the $250 administrative fee and any applicable filing fees I'll second all in favor I I osed motion passes 40 5 Z I keep saying that sorry 5 Z next item is item 7.5 on the agenda the address is 981 Northeast 113th Street case number c-22 87 Renee Alvarez um we're asking for an order of enforcement to be issued they have a fence that's still standing part of it was complied and part of it is still standing so we're asking for an order of enforcement has the property owner reached out to you tried to oh is the property owner here no has he reached out to anyone trying to work out whether is does he want to repair the fence does he want to remove move the fence Luciano Luciano nibs code compliance officer Village of bis Gan Park the property owner did reach out to me and as dorine stated they removed part of the fence it's a Concrete fence so the other part of the fence the fence that you see in the photo it's to the back so I would suggest uh they get in touch with someone to actually physically remove it the rest okay but I haven't heard back from them since in reference to tonight's hearing so what was the part that they took down was it on the on the street it was facing 113 Street there was a a fence there and a partial fence on 10th Avenue those two pieces were removed but the fence to the rear of the property it's still standing and and what was your conversation with the homeowner about that aspect of it he was asking uh for you know specific details on how to actually remove the fence I couldn't give him that information you know uh specific details he needed to get in touch with a contractor or or a handyman to get that that fence removed what I find concerning also is that the notice violation was written about nine months ago was May of last year so there's there's been quite a bit of time there's been plenty of time and plus we tabled this from last meeting to give the homeowner an opportunity to be present tonight correct um I'll entertain a motion um I would uh in case number like to make a motion in case number c-22 87 that a violation has occurred um assess a fine of $250 give the property owner until March the 6 to come into compliance if not a daily fine of $250 thereafter per day I'll second all in favor I opposed motion passes 5 Z quick question yes on the motion it's 250 for the violation fine there's no 250 administrative oh I forgot generally I always include the administrative cost of 250 I'd like to my motion to include the administrative cost of 250 so it' be a VI a fine of 250 administrative cost of 250 to comply come in compliance by March the 6th if not uh commen March the 7th the $250 day or day fine and I second again all in favor daily f i opposed 5 Z Item number 7.6 1109 North East 118th Street it's case number e 21- 0987 Michael and calan um this case had four orders of enforcement if the board will requ call two of the orders of enforcement are in compliance were in compliance at the last hearing we were left with the concrete steps and the windows they have since um been issued with a permit for the concrete steps that's in compliance now now the permit for the windows is in progress there's been there were notes uh from the building official that they had to work on some things and um so far that's all that's left to comply that's the window permit they in the permitting process it's in the in process there was a comment from the building official I believe that they had to give the market value of the door right and that's all they're waiting for to approve this permit so have we ceased then the daily F acrel on the on the steps on the steps the daily a find did a a stop on the date that permit was issued so on this one daily F continues until that permit goes through please and please if you would identify yourselves in your relationship to the property I'm Michael leano um and I live at 1109 Northeast 118 street I'm Callie van we're just waiting then on on your final your permits to be F properly approved yes ever ever since we uh been coming up here we've been it's just been the pro the natural process I guess we've been you know diligent and you know emailing and calling and speaking with Dorene a lot and um so and then at that point once that second permit is approved yes they then would be in a position to apply for for Relief they already put in an application but that application wouldn't be accepted by the board until compliance is achieved so know that as soon as you get that permit you're waiting on that daily fine stops so staff will have the final total then you guys go forward completing your application process and come back in front of us for a fine reduction request okay thank you thank you for all your efforts so far yeah I responded yesterday um because I do try to call but usually like when I make contact online I don't get a followup so the process does take a lot of time so I did follow up yesterday I believe Pedro left the comment stating that they needed the market value of the the project so we still haven't had a b i see the comments he's coming in tomorrow and I will mention it to him okay I I'll give you a call after all right please thank you so much I was say do you need a motion to accept the um uh update the status update on the pro the progress report and table for next month I would assume the permitting should be completed in time for next mon I believe so Janie um I'm sorry what do we really need to table because the Fine's going to run um oh you're right so so I mean we get we're given it's in the process see them again when they come back with the fine reduction if they choose to do a fine reduction okay yeah we just I'll make a motion to accept the progress report a second all in favor I I opposed passes 5 zero thank you thank you thank you next item is 7.7 on the agenda it's for the address located at 1110 Northeast 119th Street this is for case number cn- 23-31 Adriana Montes and ab abunda trust we are asking for um well we would be asking for an intent to Lan however the plans have been approved by pnz I'm happy to report um and they are still going through the process of getting their permit now she I spoke we got in touch with the lady and rapael would you like to give an update on Miss Rafael Gutierrez Co compliance officer for the village of e park regarding this um permit they have submitted an application for a driveway the patio it's for the patio right not to interrupt the only thing left here they have an an amount that has accumulated and is today at 21,250 I did let her know that this will continue to ACR until she comes into compliance so the plans are in process pnz approved so building permits are now being looked at by the building department um we would ask that you give her a till March to see if the permit goes through because this was work that was done without permits right so about how long does it take to now that pnz has um now that yeah it should take a few days I looked at the notes and was it when pnz approved I think it's been over a week now so would it be fair to say that in within three weeks time um a permit should be um pulled and that way they would either have a choice to go ahead and pay for it absolutely and then so we can make a motion that if in three weeks that uh I'd like to make a motion then I'd like to make a motion on case number c-23 d331 um to request that the village uh move with I mean proceed with the intent to lean and assess a $250 admin fee and a and uh an additional 50 admin fee and the filing fee if a permit has not been um pulled and paid for by March the 6 I would like to mention there's already an order of enforcement on this case so there's already the 250 250 Plus what's acre yeah there is oh right I was only asking for the for the lean and the 250 was for the work you had done previous that was part of the original fine correct it's already on the record right but this was for the work that's proceeded from that fine until now for the administrative costs that have accured the original administrative cost was for the original finding corre this administrative cost if if they don't if they do not pull the permit and pay for it by March the 6 to file the lean assess an additional Administration of cost for on The Village's work for the period that's gone by since the original till now and a filing fee I mean I don't think we should be doing this uh work in and from the village without being reimbursed at least for The Village's time the order of enforcement is October so I would definitely second that yes so so an additional 250 administrative fee plus the filing fees the order of enforcement is October right so this has been going on a while so I'd agree with Dale and I would second I want to make sure we have it clear pull and pay for their permit by March 6 if not an additional $250 admin fee no if not deles to proceed with the link with the additional administrative fee of 250 plus any applicable filing fees do I have a second yes Judy all in favor I I opposed motion passes by zero the next item on the agenda is 7.8 the address is 1153 Northeast 119 Street case number 21-24 Larissa garzone Garnett she here today no she's not um we have communicated with Larissa on several times she has been here before the board several times and she was supposed to bring evidence to show that um what she was installing was not a planer was not a fence it was a planer she has she did get a permit that was approved for offense this is a while back however she had an outstanding amount of $770 from daily fines that had accumulated from the time the order of enforcement uh compliance date was given to the time she got the permit it was $770 in our communication she eventually was not able to find the evidence that um she spoke of in the hearing so she was um she asked if she could um apply for a reduction of um fine I told her that was possible and for her to come before the board she wasn't able to bring in that application on time um she kept sending me documents I wasn't able to open it so I told her this is a little too late the board ites time to review this um so as of today um the amount is still outstanding my con concern is irrespective of what the object eventually became she in fact did work without a permit there was a type of construction work started so I would say give her a deadline to file for that we need to give her a deadline to file for the reduction if not an intent to lean I thought that she testified that she didn't think or believe was whatever we said that it was yeah she came thought it was a railing right she said said it wasn't a fence it was a railing but then she changed it and made it into a planter a planter yeah either way she did work she had post stuff at one point yeah she did work with no permit and that's really the Crux of why the fine accured no matter what she turned it into later he started the whole project minus permit so she needs to apply for fine reduction right or pay up right well how long in advance for the March meeting would you folks need a fine reduction to be turned into you at least 10 days Robert I would make a motion that she either replies for a fine reduction gets all paperwork to staff by March 6 or Fally intent to lean second second all in favor I I I opposed I motion passes 41 next item 7 point 7.9 it was 41 oh Michael 41 I apologize I didn't hear that next item is 7.9 the address is 11450 nor East 11th Avenue this is for case number e N20 d224 Alejandro Bowers and Audrey M colum this um case is now in compliance she came in just before we came to the hearing and paid the fine he that's correct okay okay motion would be to close the case um all in favor I I I opposed motion passes by zero next item is 7.10 address is 11503 noreast 11th Place case number Cen 22- 1116 for Sandra Patricia Coro um this is the case um just to remind the board oh she's here that she has um very difficult circumstances at her property she has um a tree and a septic tank yes yes um so basically uh good evening my name is Sandra poro I'm the property owner and um I spoke to the planning and zonning Department I met with them they said that they will allow me to do the the driveway parallel to the gate that I have on the right hand side of my property um I have the actually what they draw and what they if you want to take a look so that way can you speak in the microphone there's one right right uh yeah they um the board agreed that I could put the driveway in this area here and I'm just basically I think we talked about that last month yeah they said that it was okay and I advise I advise them that it has to be very close to the gate just because my septic tank is right in the middle of it and then I have also the that was a concern you expressed last month yeah yeah I do have a picture if you want to see again the house that I we have we have pictures so basically now yeah basically now I am um the person that I was going to use to do the driveway he's not available anymore so I'm looking for another person but my question is in the meantime can I apply for the permit without having that information or just basically wait for because I don't have like an amount that I'm G to pay or anything because I have to look for the person again I mean I have to look for somebody again I would I would safe I would you well the safest thing for you to do is put in an application so we have something on file we'll we'll notate the the the application and of course building will give you um the documentation and the process um so while you're waiting to find someone or while you're waiting to at least you're in the pipeline right so just go and F the application right having it in the system will cover your violation it's not going to go away but at least we'll have some progress we do need to set some sort of a deadline for you to yeah no and and like I I had somebody that I was going to use but unfortunately time pass so I'm looking for somebody else as soon as I have that I'll be able but my question was that I don't want to have something that I'm not doing just filling out the application I'm looking for suggestions for a deadline though that we we a reasonable deadline we give Sandra to come back that with the completed application with with the contract March 6 is that not enough probably G give her April all right why don't we go for an April deadline M could you speak into the mic April 1 will that work I'm sorry I April 1 yeah that will be okay yes I it's just because since February is so short we're like next week is already the end of the month and we have the beginning so I don't want to be on a crush time and then just get yourself in the pipelines yeah yes of course even if it's not complete just starting that application is helpful that that was my question just because since I don't have anybody I just wanted it to make sure that whatever I'm doing I'm doing it the right way so I don't have to my motion would be to give you to give the property owner until April 1 and come into compliance by having a fully permitted and paid for permit okay if not then as of April 2nd a $250 a day fine would start no problem I'll second all in favor I I iOS motion passes 5 Z thank you for all your efforts thank you so much thank you good night who made the motion Jenny second Judy Judy thank you the next item is 7.11 on the agenda and the address is 11623 Northeast 11th Place case number Cen 22-12 for Charles and UD Uris franois um this is for um driveway driveway does not meet the design standards set forth in section 5.6.7 we have been in touch with Mr franois we sent him a message to ask him to um change the information there's a note in his application they have put in an application I should say first uh for the driveway permit however there was a note in the system from the building department that said that they needed to resubmit the the papers because they were not clear and I sent a message to Mr franois but I haven't heard from him yet so that would have to go before pnz correct when does pnz meet uh pnz meets every two weeks but this particular case is not on the agenda I don't believe is it rapael Mr franois one but he still has apparently quite a bit of document that's not clear by the can back I got it so he won't make this next pnz about the second I mean the third week of March at the earliest he could meet March 3D I believe um if if it's approved if I may my concern is that he's being non-responsive in terms of getting the documents that are still missing so even though we know he's not going to make pnz for at least one or two meetings I'd like to give him a tight deadline at least get those documents in that's why I'm trying to figure out because I don't know when he was told to I don't think we were given a date when he was told to the documents weren't there weren't enough he needed additional documentation was that just a few days two weeks ago I don't have the exact date when the building department put in that note but I know I sent him an email last week okay so last let's just say last week he was given notice which you there was one holiday in there so but uh yeah right so maybe the I'm looking the earliest he make um a pnz meeting would be the third week I believe of March and then it takes what about a week if he's approved all right a week or so after about a week yeah week and a half week and a half two weeks go through the building think there a pnz meeting Monday so then two weeks later with March 11th should be the next one if it's possible to get us a calendar of the pnz meetings absolutely that would be phenomenal awes remember we we can do that is so helpful when we're trying to figure this stuff out so it would be you know April the 1 again would be a good a good date but you're saying April the 1 even to have a permit pulled okay okay no I I I the documentation is up to him either he um Can can pull it together the property owner can pull it together and and take it towards to pnz and get a permit or not okay um so I'd like to make a motion on case number CN -22 d120 uh to give the property owner until April the 1st to come into compliance by pulling a permit if not on the 2nd of April assess a fine of $250 administrative costs of$ 250 and a daily fine of $250 I'll second all in favor I I I oos motion passed is 5 Z the next item on the agenda is 7.12 11659 Griffin Boulevard case number is- 21- 0737 BP Apartments LLC in care of the registered agent londona Octavia Octavia is here um we are well I'll let talk okay my name is Octavia londono for BP Apartments board discussion Mr londona was here at the last hearing um and we had to bring a computation of the amount owing which we have put in the documents we have submitted um but he says he's in compliance today he sent some pictures to the inspector we the pictures attached or they're new no he's got new pictures I believe yes uh photos were taken today in reference to the trash cans that were at the side of the residents and it was not in compliance as of today as of today they should be to the rare of the building screened from the public or in the case of a dumpster the whole entire dumpster should be in an inclosure screen from the public I have those pictures the J so we can see them yes we do we do have pictures that uh the inspector took today Mr londono just showed us some pictures 2021 right Mr londono showed us some pictures on his phone that he took after the inspector had been there today so he they have put the containers in the back but going forward Mr londono can explain to the board what he intends to do with that situation because he was supposed to do an enclosure for the dumpster then he changed his mind and decided to use garbage containers which have still been visible from the public right of way I've explained to him that's a violation as well so he can tell the board what he intends to do going forward are you the homeowner are you the apartment owner it says registered agent you're just register registered agent and the owner yes correct but I'm not sure about if is if those containers are enough because that's a multi family property I'm not sure if the capacity is enough how many units 12 is how many units I five it's five units okay and are those uh um garbage and recycling and recycl so you you need at least 10 correct five and five five and five are 10 correct five and five at least a container per unit are there 10 that were those pictures how many were there no there was only like three or four contain we have like four four and four yeah not for five for five units no there go right ahead if you would identify yourself and you I'm sorry any more questions from this board if you would identify yourself in your relationship to the property and okay my name is Octavia londono and I'm also the owner of uh BP Apartments LLC um I've got a dumpster back in 2021 uh to alleviate the issue of the tenants leaving the trash cans outside and getting all these penalties from the city um that worked okay for a while until I uh was told that I needed to put an enclosure f um that became a problem with the permit and it became a problem also with the trash company that was doing the collecting that were demolishing my driveway because they were driving inside to get the trash can and demolishing all the plants and everything so I got them out about a year ago and we went back to the trash cans I have somebody that is in charge of taking them out and bringing them back in so we're in compliance I didn't know the trash cans needed to be be also enclosed or away because behind the building if you drive down the the whole neighborhood everybody's trash can is is seen that doesn't make it legal sir okay anyways um so when I spoke to miss dine Grant she said that I still had to pull a permit and it was going to be too costly for me to do a permit uh because then I would have to do another survey and this and that the surve that I got is already uh two years old and it would have been about $5,000 just to do an enclosure uh uh because just the survey alone is about $2,500 so I just moved them to the back and this afternoon and I didn't know they had going through earlier and I took a picture which I sent to him on his email so we're in compliance as far as the other trash cans they only gave us two and I don't know how to get anymore we are dealing with actually two separate things the trash cans are clearly not in compliance but that's not what we're dealing with tonight so that's a separate issue the dumpster without not being in an enclosure dealing with is the dumpster is the dumpster still on property no no so that's in TR now if you need more trash cans you can our public works department they will take care of it as well as more recycle bins okay all you have to do is call them okay thank you so for me he's now come if picture that he St the village is is accurate and and he's moved behind and I would say he's in compliance as of now and we could stop the daily daily fine and then it's a it's a um uh wether whether you proceed with asking for a fine reduction which is a process you'd go through the village and and fill out a form and then You' ask for a fine okay if that's the case and everybody's in agreement I'd like to make a motion that the property is now in compliance there is no dumpster on it not in the back not anywhere okay a second all in favor I I I I I I do agree with uh with the uh property owner that um a number of the home along Griffin Boulevard are are are um not in compliance and that I would ask recommend that we take a good look at those properties noted my neighbors and so the daily fine will stop as of today I'm sorry you you made the motion who second me Michael Michael may I also put on the record that the amount outstanding which they had asked for the board had asked for uh from the last hearing is $46,400 at this point sir if you wish to apply for a fine reduction there is a form and a fee go into Village Hall and meet with these folks and they can give you the proper paperwork and then come back in front of us for a fine reduction request next one okay thank you okay thank you thank you next time on next item on the agenda is 7.13 for1 1724 Northeast 6th Avenue the case number Isen 21- 0226 property belongs to 11 724 Northeast 6th Avenue LLC we're asking to dismiss this case motion to dismiss violation fine was paid and there has been no affidavits of compliance filed to substantiate the daily fine her order of enforcement dated 4821 I'll make a motion onen 21- 0226 um to dismiss I'll second all in favor I I motion passes 5 Z next case is item number 7.14 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue case number 21- 0227 property owner is 11724 North east6 Avenue LLC we're asking for the board to issue an order of intent to total amount owing is $3,275 this amount accured at $25 a day from April 23rd uh 2021 which was the comply by date which was a day after the comply by date to September 1st 2021 when the permit was issued the $100 violation fine was paid December 6 20121 for order of enforcement dated for April 48 2021 an Affidavit of non-compliance has now been filed good evening members of the board I just have one question so just just for Clear everything's in compliance as far as the fine was paid it was just the um violation uh of uh has not been or the daily fine was not paid that's correct violation is in compliance but there was a total amount of 3,275 that accured between those dates hi everyone Rachel was pulled approximately four months after compliance date so there was a significant time go right ahead thank you madam chair Rachel streitfeld Law Offices at 7293 Northwest Second Avenue I'm the attorney for the owner um and unfortunately it would be a violation of due process for you to impose these fines because your order of enforcement does specifically state that an Affidavit of non-compliance has to be filed before an intense to lean or a lean can be imposed that is the black and white language of your order enforcement that was issued in this case as well as the other cases that I am here on this evening so I appreciate that the process has changed since 20121 but you you ordered um compliance my client my my client pulled the permit several months later after the permit was pulled he did come back and pay the $100 violation fine and at that point he was under the impression that this matter was closed and so now to get a bill basically for several thousand dollars um is outside of the scope because the again the Affidavit of of non-compliance was never filed and your code and your forms specific state that ongoing fines cannot be imposed until an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed so I respectfully request that you dismiss this case was an affidavit or non-compliance ever filed we have filed an Affidavit of non-compliance this case is different from the other cases because compliance um in this case was to get the permit they did get a permit on September 1st 2021 so we calculated what was owing from the date the day after the comply by date in the order of enforcement to the date that they complied so on those dates that's the amount that was that accured um the situation she's talking about does not apply to this case because um even though we have filed a notice Affidavit of non-compliance the date on which they were to comply had passed and then they complied after it's different in a situation where money continues to acre and there's no appid of compliance filed because in that way it's difficult to assess when compliance happened in this particular violation we know when compliance happened it was the date when they um issued the permit that was the compliance date by virtue of the fact that he pulled the permit he clearly knew he wasn't in compliance and we have an end date the date of the permit pool on the other cases no we don't have an end date so we have no idea when that's a whole different ball game obviously you cannot assess daily fines in this case we've got an end date well the order of enforcement actually where it's assess fine um assesses The Daily fine of $25 commits on April the 23rd of 2021 until there was compliance until there's compliance so since we do have a compliance date we have now issued a I mean we backdated it of course to the we we do mention the dates when um compliance was achieved in the non-compliance and the non-compliance only applies to the dates when the findes acred but the argument that I'm making is about Fair notice um and the $100 violation fee was paid in December of 21 at that point if the city was sincere about imposing these fines that had been acing because you have them acing from April 22nd until the permit was pulled in September the fee the $100 fee was paid in December after all of that the client came here in person paid this fee and was not notified that several thousand dolls were owed and I believe that's probably because and again this is black and white language on your order of enforcement it says in the event that an affidavit is non of non-compliance is filed then a fine can be imposed daily that is the black and white language that you mail to Property Owners when they get a violation it doesn't say if you don't pull a permit in time it says in the event an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed then you can impose a daily fine and that Affidavit of non-compliance was not filed and the client did come and pay the $100 violation fee in person and was not advised of these outstanding fines so respectfully I I would appreciate the case to be dismissed can ask a couple questions yes so the the uh the compliance was September 1 2021 is that was that the date the the date that the demolition permit and you know it was the demolition permit was issued in this case oh no sorry I'm looking at 0227 the demolition permit was was pulled I think in September okay and uh in the of 21 and then the um the fine runs from April 22nd what 21 oh I'm sorry this is the dumpster without a permit this isn't the demolition one this is the dumpster without permit um the the I don't have the date that the violation was paid I just have the receipt from it um but the permit was pulled in September so the order of enforcement um you know the order of enforcement is from April the permit was pulled in December or I'm sorry in September and so they're calculating the fines from April 22nd to September 14th um April 23rd to September 1st okay okay so so mid April to September when the permit was pulled and when was is the uh the the Affidavit of non-compliance fil on the 8th of February this year yeah I mean I was reviewing the case that's that's not consistent with what your procedure requires so if I understand your argument is that uh you is that the code says that in order to impose a fine such as is tempting be done here there has to be an Affidavit of non-compliance and that starts to clock that's right yeah and that that's again I mean if if you look in the case File the affidavit I'm sorry the order of enforcement from April 8th lays out those those regulations pretty clearly it says on or about the date of compliance which here was April 22nd an Affidavit of compliance or an Affidavit of non-compliance shall be filed and then it says in the event that an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed then a daily fine can be imposed that's the procedure that's laid out in the notice then and how do you distinguish uh Miss Grant's argument that says you know it's that's inapplicable to the situation here well her argument is that the client knew he was not in compliance um but that doesn't it it doesn't what what my client knew and I'm sure my client was moving quickly to get a permit but what my client knew is is not relevant to what the order says because you didn't follow the right procedure he he may have known he needed to pull a permit but he didn't realize that fines were recuring against him on a daily basis because that order says that they weren't and then then and go ahead I was gonna say the order specifically says that was a daily fine Mr Blandon read the whole thing well I'm reading what your client would have read I'm assumed that he had a daily he had a fine of $100 and if he continued reing reading he would have saw that compliance um by April the 22nd of 2021 if not if he continued over and it said he would acrew a a $25 a day uh fine commencing on April the 23rd until he came into compliance now I mean I don't know if I got an order of enforcement I wouldn't have stopped on my findings of fact because there's um multiple parts of the findings of that I would have read the whole thing going hm maybe I would have asked some questions I don't know I wasn't at the Village I don't know if the village told him sir you also have daily fines we'll get you a total or you know this is the period I said here here's the $100 you know I'm paying the fine get back with me I don't know but I do know that if I was a recipient of this I probably wouldn't have stopped at $100 I would have read the order in full well the order in full respectfully Mr Blandon says in the event an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed a fine of $25 per per day for each day non-compliance is hereby imposed in the event an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed my client never got a notice that a non-compliant affidavit had been filed and he paid the $100 fine and thought that he was finished with this violation was it but the Affidavit of non-compliance was April of 2023 no the ACT David of non-compliance was filed two weeks ago right okay so I mean this and your argument is that this particular paragraph you know requires the anaid non-compliance in order to trigger $5 fine thank you Mr Lynett that is my argument okay so and that and that's what the and and what you were reading there was what is from the order of enforcement from April 8th 2021 okay I mean it appears to me you know and we're doing a lot of speculating about what was in the mind of of the homeowner and I don't think that that's relevant to the um to the issue here I think that m m rafeld is making the argument that our own document says and requires that an affida of non-compliance be filed in order to impose $25 a day exactly the wording is a little odd it says in the event that an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed it doesn't say an Affidavit of non-compliance must be filed in order to assess the daily F Well I mean I think that that at best is vague and I think that if we're the ones that create the document at least in contract law Mr reld if there's a if there's uh an ambiguity with the contract how does the law treat uh the um that particular provision the the law would be in favor of the person claiming the harm and against the person who drafted correct okay I mean I I don't see that as a different situation here at least if I'm following M strif felt's argument I'd make a motion to dismiss uh the violation because I don't believe that it um that the Affidavit of non-compliance uh was filed uh on a timely basis and uh and I think the motion is is is is well taken and I don't think that the distinguishing factor that Miss Grant provided uh is one that overcomes the vague at best language of our um order of enforcement you have a second motion dies for lack of a second second for a second I second for discussion Mike I hear what you Michael I hear what you're saying and I agree I but I would like the village to weigh on the village attorney to weigh in on it also because it would affect what the village would have to say moving forward on how we're dealing with this um I think it's set of President precedence without the village attorney having weighed in on it and give us some guidance I mean I I think that I I think that that's fine but I think that the motion that meld is making for tonight you know deserves to be ruled on and I think that we should bring it to our village attorney in order to um clear up any ambiguity in our in our rules and and make the and make the uh make the correction if necessary Michael do you want to edit your motion or do you want us to vote on your specific motion and then Dale can make his basically I'm just asking that we table it to have the attorney weigh in I mean we the fines have stopped the daily fins have stopped approving since uh 2021 the only thing is whether we move um ask the vill to um place a lean so we're just asking that uh the village attorney give us some feedback or interpretation of this given um what the the attorney is argued I agree with Dale so do I I mean the timing issue yes it's it's a long one but we also have an enforcement an order of enforcement which is hard pressed to understand why um the rest of it okay and then and what and with the attorney what is our what are we uh in what are we asking the attorney to do with regards to the asking the village the the attorney's interpretation of uh under part one uh where onor about their fores that date down to to uh in the event the affidavit how it how it applies to in the event an Affidavit of non-compliance is filed um a f is of each day is to approve that termin that uh those paragraphs right up in there if if we are to immediately follow the non-compliance affidavit um or if it if our language here is sufficient to advise the client at some point that the there remains a a daily F I mean I I I I appreciate us trying to to go that route but I think that in this particular circumstance whatever the village attorney says with respect to their individual interpretation I don't think that we can offload what our job is as a quasi judicial body and to you know interpret you know the facts and the law based upon our Collective we have to enlist the help of our attorney to get things clear and this is certainly one of them I'm not comfortable simply dismissing a case without him reading those paragraphs that Dale mentioned and then interpreting did what was done with the permit having been pulled Etc did that not notate that the person knew they weren't in compliance and therefore pulled it is there reasonable could any reasonable person have interpreted this the way we are you know I want to see legal way in on this I don't want us just to you know make an arbitrary decision tonight when sometimes we do need that additional piece of advice and this is one of them because we have multiple cases with the same property they're going to be argued the same um with the same argument exactly so and this would then apply to other cases that'll come before in the future also which I'd rather know not just for this particular property but for any other properties that come before us because if it is then we may be dismissing the daily FES on other cases if that's what the village attorney interprets then it has a good bearing on other cases that we did not file time in just like we've dismissed um some because uh the affidavits hadn't been filed or we didn't post correct we've dismissed those we've got a a long way to go yet so well well I don't well I don't agree uh that an interpretation by the attorney is you know is is relevant to whether this motion is Rip um I I would support a motion to have the attorney weigh in to Delight your satisfaction that you know that he's weighed in or she's weighed in um but with you know with that information I'd want to table this and have further discussion on it once once that's done we have because we'd have these cases still here just to table the cases because I mean I I I I understand what you're saying and and I have another case on the agenda tonight I mean here's the situation you you go before a board you get an order of enforcement the order of enforcement says okay you have this amount of time to comply you go ahead you do the things that you need to do to pull a building permit the other one is a demolition permit to pull a demolition permit you need all you know utility disconnection letters and water and sewer but the point is that the violations are now complied and the property owner has since come back to the village and he's paid the violation fines for what he owes for for making those mistakes but now we're here two and a half years later and all of a sudden we have a $7,000 bill on a $3,000 bill for AC crewing fines that we didn't realize were actually acre they weren't ACR they only accured until you came into compliance by the meeting what I meant is that they were accruing during that time I mean it's like getting a bill for a trip that you took three years ago I mean it you know he didn't know yeah or charging interest and then you paid it off but you still got all that interest there okay do do I have M Michael has a motion in a second which was just to dismiss so let's vote on that first all in favor I opposed i i i motion fails two to three okay no d like to make a motion to table um in case number e n21 d227 we have the attorney give us some direction and interpretation of the order of enforcement how it reads specifically with part one and part two pertaining the I'll second all in favor I I I I oppose Michael said I he said I is that was that a 550 next item is 7.15 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue case number Isen 21- 0228 for belonging to a one 724 Northeast 6th Avenue LLC we asking for a motion to dismiss uh property owner had paid the violation fine of $100 126 2021 no Affidavit of non-compliance was filed to substantiate the daily fines I would make a motion to dismiss second that all in favor I I I pass is 5 Z who who are we putting down seconded Michael or Judy they both said at the same timey and who Denny Jud next is 7.16 on the agenda address 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue case number 21- 0229 belonging to 11724 Northeast 6 Avenue LLC we're asking for an intent to lean amount owing is $5,200 this amount accured from April 23rd to August 5th of 2021 at $50 a day the violation fine of $150 was paid by the property owner December 6 2021 if there's no objection from the board I would like the next items agenda items 716 7 17 and 718 all of which are the issue and intent to lean that we do the same thing as with the prior case that we refer these three also to the attorney for guidance I'll second but um like the attorney if you have any objections I believe I I I don't have any objections I respect wanting to have an attorney guide you as you make decisions in a quasa Judicial setting and I've mentioned this to Dorene and I did mention it to commissioner Kennedy I have never before seen a quasi judicial board operating without an attorney present given the rights that are at stake you all are doing a phenomenal job I understand wanting to have confirmation from an attorney um you know I I stick by what I'm saying I think the The Village can improve its processes in terms of what happen happens when a property is in is not in compliant to be fair to Property Owners um but I'm happy to come back yet again next month fortunately I don't live in my Homestead and we do appreciate it it's you brought up some good points thank I just yes be hard pressed to I appreciate you all doing your job a second on the motion all in favor I motion passes 5 Z thank you for your patience and your professionalism no absolutely and I am an attorney but not for the village I I know you were an attorney Mr Lyn you just said there were no attorneys here no but your job in this position is to advocate for the code board right not to give advice they would pay you in that instance which they are not right I would like to ask who made the motion for the three cases made the motion until second thank you and it's 5 Z for all three cases next item is 7.19 and it's for the address located at 1210 Northeast 11th Place case number Cen 2347 ignasio de alal III Christina Mar Maria Amro grila graa trust graa Family Trust we at this case is actually in compliance um the tree has been removed um which was obstructing the house the house number as soon as we found it I had it cut down and I also had my Gardener had not been going thank you sir that's that any questions from the board Tre has been removed removed and the addresses can clearly be seen by the fire department it's not for us it's for the fire department no questions sir if you would identify yourself and your relationship to the property please my name is ignasio third I'm the property owner or one of my two sisters as well um yeah as soon as we got these I went and took care of them my Gardener wasn't going so I had to get a new gardener they charging you he he had so I got that money back in argument there but that's aide that it's because uh my nephew moved out to and we're in the process actually work in the process of selling the house because I don't I can't buy it out for my sisters and I sort of was thinking about redoing it but I can't buy them out and do redo it so then I found someone that want wants to buy it so actually the eth is going to be the closing so that may have some bearing on the the couple other one of the other violations three more yes three yeah yeah we have two three more on this first case do I have a motion in case number c-23 d407 violation had occur the on compliance close the cas second Michael y all in favor I I I opposed motion passed is 5 Z next item is 7.20 for the same property case number Cen 23408 we are asking for an order of enforcement for exterior painting no application in the system as of today yes sir like I said um I tried pressure washing see if what was wrong with if it was just something plant but staying through and I started peeling off the paint when I pressure washed it so I will apply for for painting but I think I would ask for a motion to continue it so the next owner can deal with it because they plan on Ren completely renovating the house and like I said my closing date's on the 8th of March which is in two weeks so I would request the continuing so that goes over to the next owner and they'll take care of he they they have plans to completely redo the house so that would that would all fall under them in that case there's no point me painting a portion of it I would like to at least see the house pressure wash sir because I understand what you're saying you don't know what the new owner has planned it could be complete waste of your I get it but frankly in order to remove some of the no I did pressure wash it I pressure washed I started peeling off I started peeling peeling off pain making it worse because it's been there're done that we get that so it's like I don't want to completely peel off the paint because then it'll be weird concrete is this green when did you pressure wash U two weeks ago this was 215 so this would be after because it looks like Milo that's why I was just yeah I don't back page oh okay thank you um that doesn't look real pressure was I saw the one side over to your right where the carport is it looks fine okay yeah come it's this part yeah part behind the boat no behind it's because of the tree well right right good point trees are rough on houses all right this looks uming uh yeah so you're what what you're stating is that um you have a uh a sale of the property to close on or around April I mean March the 8th correct I would could give a continue still our March meeting a second um for discussion well yeah for discussion no I was just you know it's been since September um was the notice of violation I'm only thinking that uh that that's a while um I feel like we're very much stuck between a rocking a hard place on one hand he's got the new owner coming on the other we to this anybody in the neighborhood for five months yeah I'm just you know but for me a violation has occurred and is still I mean nothing happened between September till now and a violation has occurred I don't mind tabling it as far as you know any daily findes or anything but I was just looking I mean we have a violation and viation and nothing has really been I done with that I would like amend my motion well I just wanted before the motion the you said nothing's been done you mean like as far as what taking care of the situation because taking care of the situation he just did he just pressure clean the pressure Wasing didn't work right well he he well it worked on half of the house it didn't work on the half where the tree was this he has had since September and the house could have been pressure washed and painted long before a new owner possibly even making it more attractive for a new owner and nothing's been done in 5 months I I stand corrected I appreciate Dale having brought that up because five months is a long time you property to sit that way and there was no effort made to correct it so I feel like we do have to set at least a violation fine fine then we can table any future decision to the marage meeting to see what the status is then once it's changed chance one of the reasons is uh the new property owner coming in they're going to have renovation plans and all it's not going to include painting yet again right for for a period of time right this could have been resolved before now I'm only saying and I understand appending sale that for closing that a violation occurred of this property from from September I mean before September but given the notice on September it didn't come into compliance or even attempted compliance until a couple weeks ago or a week ago when the notice of toer came out so even if it was fully complied with now we still looking at there all right I'd like to amend my motion he was still he wanted to say something I had tried I had pressure washed it my nephew had pressure washed it before back in in November after the initial uh when he got we got the initial letter and he said that it wasn't coming off and that's when I went I came around now after the holidays and I got a more powerful pressure washer to take care of it and that's when I started ripping off the paint I mean it's like I'm going to amend my motion that in the case of Cen 2348 a violation has occurred it says the $250 fine and table any further decision for the March meeting I'll second all in favor I I motion any opposed I motion passes 41 next the next item is 7 21 on the agenda same property address and the case number is c-23 d410 we are asking for this case to be closed because this boat is grandfathered in we were just waiting for them to bring the registration I emailed it you did email it yeah did you not receive it which email which email did you email address I don't have that you don't have it for again I'll go look actually before I leave I I want to write the email again maybe I have a misspelling in or something I'll send that's fine we can get it later always he's always been registered his entire life right are we asking for the case this case to be closed for that reason I thought Grandfather then I thought the grandfather in um um died with when the property owner um change his hands so when the deceased property owner moves to the um heirs wouldn't that be a change of hands I've had it before uh I've already been through this 2015 or 2010 had houses all was in my name so even though so you're the property owner so even though my father passed away my name was already on it my name was still on it so it's always been my in my name so it is properly registered he says he sent it in I was looking for it I'll have to verify that I'll go send it again maybe I had a misspelling in the email address well I wouldn't I wasn't going to penalize you for the registration when the violation was issued for the boat being there the boats always registered you have the uh administrative variance for the vote to be in the front yes you had the file for that being grandfathered him was one thing so to file for I filed it back like 2010 2011 probably again all right so you're comfortable with closing the case that's correct my motion would be in Cen 23- 410 that we close the case they are now in compliance second all in favor I I I opposed motion passes 5 Z and just for clarity though that ends with prop with the owner selling the property selling the property in other words if the new owner has a boat we did take notes of that they they don't they can't put it in the same place yeah yeah I've had that boat there forever 30 years now yeah I can tell there's that's all right I have another B like that that bat has a special value to me I'm actually taking it with me and I'm gonna okay with the house phony I'm gonna fix it next item is 7.22 same address case number c-23 d420 we're asking for an order of enforcement this is for the driveway and there is no permit in the system as of today uh that I didn't quite understand because that driveway is the original driveway has always been like that I mean we didn't do anything to it that's the but it can't always be like that anymore that's the thing we've always had a driveway requirement but it's now been tweaked and that driveway no longer complies you were even given a courtesy notice that in April the 27th 2022 and the Village um sent out notices to all Property Owners um with regards to the new standards for driveways and when to come into comp among other things there is no approach there's actually is an approach it's underneath it's under it's underneath the uh the grass is overgrown it where the sidewalk used to be I'm thinking this is the same situation as one of the prior ones that if violation has occurred we need to assess the fine but future action needs to be tabled till March so the new property owners are on board I think it's pretty not get drive at this point I mean supposing supposedly I think we'd only be tabling it to see if the if the if the uh property did sell because if it sold then it would be up to the new owners right now correct right yeah so it' be just a mute at that point new Property Owners would um either start to have to P permits or I mean uh we need to be brought compliance if no more comments I'll take a motion I'll make a motion on case number c-23 d420 that a violation has occurred and to um assess a fine of 250 um and table it to any administrative fees um no I mean the property's on S on is changing hands I understand the village did um do some work and all but hopefully um this is going to be remedied in sometime in the middle late March with if the sell doesn't go I'll come back and ask for admin fees oh if the sale does not go through we still have tabled it for other issues right and yes we'll be asking for administrative fees and daily fines table $250 violation fine table till March for further action second Dy second by first in a second all in favor I I opposed I motion passes 4 one thank you sir is that it so send your orders in the mail for the uh the $500 the orders yes okay I was like how do I pay that okay thank you very much have a good evening good luck hope your sale goes through we're moving on to new business on the agenda that's item eight item number 8.1 for the address 590 Northeast 119th Street the case number is Cen 23468 for Danielle Karen Alvarez and Joseph jqueen Alvarez uh we are asking for an order of enforcement this is for a driveway there's no permit in the system and they had received a courtesy notice way back when any questions are you with questions or questions good evening Madam chair board members my name is Joseph Guin Alvarez property owner and I'm Danielle Alvarez property owner feel free sir yes uh we received the notice and we're talking to different contractors we had some questions regarding the layout of the driveway and we wanted to clarify that we asked the code enforcement officer we sent an email requesting clarification what the actual faults were on the property he referred us to the building clerk we emailed the building clerk seeking further clarification she sent us a pamplet gave us some information uh we reached out to her and we asked to be put on the planning and Zing meeting so we could ask further questions before we hire the contractor every contractor we' spoken to is unclear about the biscan park requirements so when we addressed that the feedback we got from the contractors wasn't very positive and we didn't want to break Ground start doing the process to have to go back to the drawing board and start over yeah so we've requested for the next uh planning board meeting that's available um that email is sent today so we're waiting to to hear back on on on being you requested today the the meeting oh so you want I was I was ask going to check with our new clerk if you were on the list because she did the list for the next it's yeah it's so you probably will be on the March meeting okay yeah do we know yet if they are scheduled they said they send an email I haven't seen it yet so I know they are not scheduled for sure they will probably schedule them for the next meeting questions you have are the questions from the contractor well it's questions from us regarding the design because the contractor when we told them about the specifications here they seemed very unclear and we didn't want them to start doing work and run into a problem with planning and zoning and then have to go back to the drawing board which would keep us further out of compliance kind of just want to discuss our proposal with them so to make sure that what we're directing the contractor to do for you know the specific estimate probably would be good to set up an appointment with the cont contractor is building efficient no sure that that's that's a good idea okay you can go to pnz Just for discussion discussion they can as well another you want to know before in the Planning and Zoning Board are incredibly knowledgeable yes I would if they're not on this coming meeting March 3rd would be the next one no I don't believe they do that in that board um how ever the reason I ask used to well I'm sorry um they can apply by Friday um to put him on the next pnz apply for the meeting coming I believe that that was referenced in the letter to the building clerk please put us on the next available meeting the first available we'll come in as a standby if you need us to I mean I'll Stand By and wait I'll follow up on that is that thank you sir is that the right approach or is it the theing into the microphone if you would so do is the pnz meeting you think that's the best approach or to meet with is it Leonardo legu you said somebody I would go to I would go to PNC yeah Planning and Zoning will help guide you on the design and tell you legality survey and tell you all the things you're going a lot of grief from going down the wrong path right because we're trying to we were talking to contractors that may have had experience in this area and yeah yeah we've done lots of driveways and we asked them questions about well do this requirement H they kind of hem and hod and we're concerned that that would raise a red flag after we sign the contract so you got ideas you just want to bring them before the board correct and they're they're really good they have discussion meetings and they'll sit down and discuss it with you and this is new to us so yeah they're very good at so can I make a motion to table this until March the dra meeting in March I'll second all in favor I I opposed motion passes 5 Z so yes please M get yourself on the agenda for pnz even it's a discussion item you can do that you don't have to have everything done okay show them what you want to do go through the process get things in you know take yourself good notes and then you yeah won't waste the effort Fant we will see you in March March 13th is it March for our meeting would be March 20th okay thank you madam chair board members have a good evening next item is 8.2 for the address 670 Northeast 100 19th Street the case number is Cen 23454 for Timothy Kelly this is for a driveway uh Mr Kelly has applied for um permit and I would like to enter into the record D ws-24 D13 um we are asking the board to give um Mr Kelly a two-month continuance um due to a hardship U Mr Kelly is going through some health challenges at the moment to to April you said two months two months I would make a motion to continue Cen 23- 454 to for meeting second all in favor I motion passes 5 Z the next item is 8.3 thank you by the way um 8.3 um address is 740 noreast 121st Street cn- 23- 389 Alaine B Amil I hope I pronounced your name right sir Al yes Al I thought you guys forg for got about me we asking for an order of enforcement this is for driveway I see that um the notice of violation was issued on September the 12th of 20123 has there any been any correspondence um from the resident or property owner until recently you haven't had any written correspondence with the property owner how about verbal yes we had have verbal contact with the property owner and he was trying to ascertain more details as to what the requirements for the village in reference to his driveway this recent or near the notice of violation this was actually a few weeks ago in reference to him asking about that so after the in 2024 that is correct several months that was my only question which which one is the parking the the violation is it this I I yeah well yes and it's well then there's this it's a little tough to look at and and understand that third space which I just found out about through code sir if you would uh your name and your relationship to the pretty my name is Allan Amal I'm owner of 740 Northeast 121st Street uh just for the record I did not get a violation notice in 2023 the first time violation was when the gentleman came over about two weeks ago and then about it the same afternoon they posted something on the door and then about two days later I got a formal notice in the mail what I got last year I've been living in this neighborhood for 25 years what I got last year and I don't remember when was something stating that you wanted to move toward Ward some general fixes for the driveways when these guys came been multiple notices I think it it's been almost two years now am I right for the driveway ordinance on the commission so right at least two years so there has been multiple notices okay when when the gentleman came by to site me with the violation I didn't uh chase him away I went outside and engage in conversation tried to get as much information as possible they were helpful they gave me some brochure with some general ideas I have a very weird driveway because it's gravel my neighbor to one side has that little border that you guys are requiring on the side of a gravel driveway there's some misunderstanding on my part as to exactly what and where that border goes on the on the west side of my property and then as we were discussing more the also mentioned that the the code requires a house a single family residence with less than four bedrooms to have a third space so that third space is in the Swale and there's some complications in the sale obviously because the I I wouldn't even know how to begin to design a 16inch I just found out that there's a a 16-inch border that's supposed to be on the side of the of the street so with a gravel driveway and the as fault it kind of looks I don't know how that would work but I reached out to somebody who sits on the pz board here and told him my little dilemma and he's going to help me to design something that I I pretty much understand what I need to do for the actual driveway that our two cars parked but the question is for that third space how if I can show you that's in front of the property right with the plug that they're not supposed to use that's a whole other story so I've hired just so that you know I've hired a surveyor I paid him he's not so quick to come out but uh I've played with the website to try to get a permit I have not completed that process I also heard from the guy that was before me something about the pz which my friend sits on so if I can get on there and then uh by that time the dates seem like I should be able to submit a plans for permit sometime in March it's not unrealistic the survey will be the last thing that I really need the drawings I should get quickly right that yeah p and z i mean if you went with them just to get information that would be right so if that's correct that there's a cut off till tomorrow that I can get on that meeting is that what you said to that gentleman s that would be uh Friday Friday for the March 4th is Wednesday okay yes so Friday is fr okay we're ready for a motion so so what you want you want to talk to the PNC like the last I just want to make sure to you know again I'm in the same situation I don't want to draw something and and go try to get a permit and they say you can't do that it's it's going to take me as much time since I'm still waiting for the survey to figure out how to draw that out if the meeting is in March 3rd that's like what a week away two week not even two weeks away so by then I would have the drawings and I'd have my survey I would be able to submit nobody else has any questions no I'd like to in case number c-23 d389 uh make motion to table this until our March meeting to determine if they process I'll second just a table in favor I the P meeting is before the March okay so you should have two of them before that our meeting is not till the 20th so you would have two you should have two PNC meetings before go with them get their ideas get the specifics and then please bring this back act let us know what the progress is yeah if I may say what we're looking for is see some movement movement right towards obtaining that permit which would be submitting things to the Village to uh Move Along that's why we're tabling it to make sure that continues on with the forward move that is my intent all right thank you good luck thank you sir thank you good Lu next um I did J the next three items are 8.4 8.5 and 8.6 addresses 11615 Griffin Boulevard case numbers c246 Cen 2464 Cen 2465 these violations at this short-term rental were for unnecessary and excessive noise um they sent an email asking for a continuance to the next meeting um for the record we the chair signed the subpoenas three police officers were subed for these three cases they have been informed of this continuance and they will appear at the March meeting motion motion to table second yes C with me motion to table Cen 24-6 24- 64 and 24-65 to March's meeting so in March we'll have subs from the officers they've been opers right they've been subed and we informed them of the continuance so they will be coming in March 20th for the meeting they asked for the continuous favor I I this zero who second um J JY second I think yeah thank you we're moving on to item nine on the agenda is a fine reduction request 9.1 890 noreast 118 stre Street case number Cen 23262 for Lance and Elizabeth Thomas um he is requesting fine reduction on a fine total of 1,250 what number is this it's 9.1 sir I think you came in late I don't know that you got sworn in umna talking just get sworn in I made a note of that were you soring l no I that did come in late very good memory swear to tell the whole truth whole truth nothing but the truth oh my God please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to submit will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes questions from the board I didn't have this in my packet for some reason I'm just looking I didn't see Mr Thomas go right ahead sure identify yourself and your relationship to the property sure my name is Lance Thomas me and my wife are the homeowners um and the request is for a fine reduction due to uh financial hardship that we've had recently um don't know how much detail the Board needs in this um but in the fall of the cryptocurrency market we were defrauded quite a bit of money that we're paying back so um that's where our financial hardship comes from while we comments from the board um no I was just uh wanting to know is this is is this been remedied is it is it still a Airbnb and is it uh light um uh was a license or license obtained no um the they don't have a license and they are not in violation they have complied they're not Airbnb not anymore they tried it for a little bit but I don't think they really went through with it they advertised and the violation was for advertisement and so it was for 12 um 1,250 the Thousand was the violation fine and the 250 was assessed um and your offer is for um 250 50 right when it when it comes to financial investments Etc I suspect a lot of people have had a lot of ups and downs over the course of the last year I I don't know that I can see that as that level of reduction It's been a year for everybody wherever one's Investments are uh this was just it's not volatile investment it's fraud that's there pending litigation too right yes it is yeah I mean they were defrauded it's not just you know riding the the ups and downs but I'd make a motion to accept the $250 fine in Cen 23262 do I have a second second I have a motion in a second any other comments just think it's not comments no I I mean I see that the the 250 would cover administrative costs and basically we're saying after that we're just saying that there there there was no um violation of our code and there was so there was I problem I understand a hardship and I I I I truly do I'm just um looking at that just covers our the administrative cost at the time um and I I don't think it's not I don't think it's saying that there's not a violation they're just saying that we're taking into account as Financial AR but essentially if we remove the entire amount which is the applicable going on for that violation we have said there's no violation I would be okay with removing the well first of first of all I would be okay with removing the 250 and leaving the Thousand I am not okay with removing the thousand and and I and I'm just a little opposite I I I mean the the Village um The Village expended money to to bring all this to do all the paperwork for the initial violation the violation occurred and there was there so I look at it that yeah so you've covered the uh the cost of all of that and now it's basically a um a fine redu for me a fine reduction on a violation which we would entertain for any Resident who is who um is coming before us for a fine reduction and for me that would be um you know what are you looking at for what can you offer for for the fine um because the administrative costs costs or costs that's how I'm looking at it I'm just looking at have a motion in a second that we should vote on Michael's motion was to accept the 250 Rolo second so all in favor I opposed I I I so motion dies two to three well I can make a second motion uh may I make a recommendation yes I would like to make a recommendation for $500 just because this is a I'm sorry I would like to make a recommendation for $500 just because this is a homestead for them and they were experimenting with advertising when I looked at the paperwork they never rented this place they they advertised but they never got to rent their house and it's their Homestead they live in it you would be comfortable with a 500 I would be comfortable with reducing it to half 500 it's not it's not for us to make the I mean um the resident can say well that's a that's she's saying you know yeah that's a recommendation to you right because the your offer of 250 was did not um was denied um she's just the the village is off saying you know they'd be happy with with um 500 what are you 300 to be just just being honest MH that's basically B $50 towards a $1,000 violation well the middle of that is 400 yeah but the middle of 12200 is not 4 400 1250 but I no I mean the village is is is off you know it said they would be happy for for for you know for 500 and and i would support 500 I would support if the resident is comp 400 I mean I I truly believe looking at the resident I understand hardships I was just looking for something to be Pa towards a violation right agreed and you know I'm not telling you what to offer I'm not no I'm just saying what I would agree with I'm not telling you what to offer either but I would agree to being honest about what the you asked what is it what's the number what could I to do and I'm I'm telling you well you you you've you've heard the arguments and you've heard what the people are saying here and what the recommendation is uh you know I mean if you'd like to make an or tennis be a motion to you said 300 you you've heard some arguments here so you're trying to get support for you know ifine reduction so you know you want to amend that or do you want us to vote on 300 we 400 if board's agreeable I'd like to make a motion to accept the residents offer for fine reduction of $400 a second then we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I motion passes 5 for 400 thank you guys thank you thank you sir thank you and that were all the cases that we brought before the board today we are moving on to 10 discussions on 10.1 address I'm sorry to interrupt if there's no objection can we take 10 two first I I have a feeling that'll be a more concise conversation I'm anticipating there's there's more Nuance more to deal with in 10 one so would anybody have any objection to taking 10 two first I have no 10.2 address is 11095 Griffin Boulevard the case number is CN 2473 purpose Holdings LLC through their registered agent Fel Habib this case is now in compliance they are no longer asking for the variance at this time they remove the gate they have the gate they have we have pictures to submit into evidence GES removed and they move them ahead of the compliance gate that's correct are they still seeking a variance at the moment they're not but they've submitted a statement here is a incredible pie of irony uh R and Dale are going to remember this Michael and Judy on the board then approximately two years ago we had an identical case and they too wanted to be able to leave the gates up while applying for the variant and were not permitted in fact I think it was code had them take it down before it even got to us it was like I'm seeing this and it's deja vu then do you need a do you need a or anything no it was just discuss it's a discussion just wanted to make sure he put it on the record of the security situation at his property okay on to we need to 101 rather sorry we need to make the motion discussion item 10.1 rep comp 11890 North East 10th Avenue case number 22-00 this is for Sarah fah um the progress report has been submitted hardship documentation which is her medical records and her social security payments which is her living wage we submitted a reducted report because there was personal information okay if nobody Minds the thing that I'm sorry I apologize did I done the thing that I have to say I agree with and I'm glad the manager stated this and if he's listening thank you Chris code is code and we enforce equally the violation either exists or it doesn't now and even the attorney that I mean I just cannot fathom how we could would rewrite an ordinance and have a hardship Clause I mean it would be a bureaucratic Nightmare and even the attorney at one point says it would be open to he didn't say uneven that's my word not his but very tough to enforce uniformly um and this ordinance really wasn't imposed any more than any other ordinance was imposed in fact we've always had a driveway ordinance this was simply tweaked and finally enforced before I go any further in my speechmaking I want to offer and see what you guys think of a potential solution if you look at the pictures there is some semblance of a gravel driveway is there any reason that rather than pretend this this violation doesn't even exist M could we instead of requiring an actual driveway which requires all the permits and she stays with gravel the border and all that nine yards of drama could we not allow her to Simply refresh the gravel it means nothing more than getting a load of gravel and having it raked out surely far more coste effective far less drama and if we have to extend the deadline let's give her another two months you had give her to July this was just the progress report I'm sorry did the county how does the board feel I'm sorry Jud unfortunately the county didn't come up with anything yet um they didn't get back with us we did have an appointment for them to visit uh Miss fah but they they didn't make it and they haven't made a second appointment uh the granddaughter came into the office today um because I had invited her to attend the meeting but she was not able to however did she did mention that they are getting together as a family and they are putting money together and talking to different contractors about doing the gravel driveway and and she she gets like $777 a month and then another $129 which is 900 slightly more she's on SSI that's correct but what 93 years old that's correct what does everyone think of she's also she's also had that I believe that house on reverse mortgage yes she does have a reverse yes she's really in bad shape my other question yeah Shar when they came to us first time they were not able to get any grants or anything because of the reverse mortgage so I actually um wait well I was just throwing that as a viable alternative because I you I understand we have to judge each case separately but we all also have to look at unintended consequences and long-term ramifications and it at one point the attorney says well as long as you don't enforce things discriminatorily yeah but you know how the real world is we start ignoring major violations that are so obvious it just destroys codee's credibility but we also gave him to what June no right July I mean we can stick with that um what Janie was saying was that yeah give still leave it at at July right and and uh maybe suggested them they um refresh the to come into compliance such as we did with um some residents on 118th Street that have gravel and they were cited for non-conforming but as long as they maintain the drive gravel driveway um in in until it there there's one 11th Place jie I I I'm I I mean not to digress from other properties but I I understand what you're saying and I'm I I'm in agreement with that that seems like the resolve that would give the uh Property Owners time to come into some funds and if not they can always ask for an extension uh if they show progress you want to stick with the July deadline well July's still a good ways away and if they've already said they were meeting family members were getting together and if they know that they may have an alternative which wouldn't require a new permit just requires replenishing the the gravel driveway in a tidy manner I don't have pictures is what it currently looks like but let's say it's um at a 50% a little more than a 50% um in in good shape that just replenishing it would be in compliance I I'm all for that guess I well for that I guess I do me a a motion so I was just going to say say while as code we cannot um go to them and recommend we have consensus right I won't make a motion this was a discussion item but do we have consensus to offer the property owner the opportunity rather than putting in a whole driveway is simply refresh the gravel bring it I I think what what dorine's saying is that we can't make recommendations I mean like that but it may be that we're we're sticking with the July deadline to come in compliance one of the ways would be because you have a drial that's just offering not not telling you how to what to do just that offer them another alternative yeah an alternative which would be to um replenish right now they think they have the full driveway we give them option number two which would be just refresh what they have I think that's a good idea yes yeah don't don't we have that uh 50% U yes of you know that if you keep if you have 50% on your driveway you you are still okay a little more than % rather than devate inches if that gets achieving basically what we want which was to get closer to compliance than it currently is I think that's a win we're holding on for everything and we may get nothing right I think that would bring it into compliance at that point exactly I'm all for that suggestion so we have consensus for that option you say I like that correct we'll pass on a message from the property that was everything we had on the agenda today is that it no which one you have to set a special meeting date for the um the manual the policies and procedures we manual we can't each give our ideas separately it has to be done in a public meeting so we need to set a special needs so let me ask while we were're off we had uh are you still talking s yeah on the record yeah no I was going have something separate from the record from what's going on in terms of of the information that we're receiving and the manner that we're doing it I thought that we had a little pilot program about emailing it to people are we still doing that or not or like one drive do you guys have one drive we do have one drive and and we were looking for feedback from the board members um we will we can try one drive and and see if that works for the members um I know it would work for me because that's like when I get legal documents it'll come through one drive and I can put it on my my iPad and then I can write on it you're right I thought about that I can write on it and I can do that kind of stuff if you know if you've got the you know an application I I use a thing called trial pad I put it into my that's say like a subscription service I don't know if there's something cheaper out there but well I'm at a disadvantage in that I don't even know what a one drive is so somebody educate me I'll try to use it I'm very lucky guys so member Michael in not one drive and Deo what what's your preference with they take a Dropbox but I like just because I have difficult time reading off of the computer but I hate I hate to say it I take I'll take the drop I really liked it when Raphael linked it to the agenda remember last month you did two copies you um it was the way Shante used to do it too the way the commission gets theirs linked into the agenda I thought was great but either way I'll deal with it we we can we can do granas the only thing with granas like I had said before is we we we have more attachments than the the commission you're right so those links can break and you may see one thing and may not see another however the summary agenda itself I would be happy to put on granus I I know that environmentally I shouldn't say this but it's so nice to have the paper and scribble all my notes new notes and but whatever you guys the other thing that helped out this time was you did things in order yeah it was all in order whole lot easier to keep track of everything when it's in order than when we skip around is and I I know you do it for the people who are here last month's meeting I asked D Dorene and Chris to meet with me I knew we could not do that three and a half hours that was killing people so we C we came up with different ways to try streamline things but it wasn't until today the light bulb lit up I had all it's me this is on me I had always asked to do it in order the people that are here because it only seemed Fair well then what finally the light bulb lit up again and wait a minute it takes so long to go okay now where's that agenda a no no now it's G now it's B now I knew that was killing us so we had a back and forth today and Bine said yeah we'll do this way I liked it much better much better much easier to keep track of feel free guys if please if you see things that I can do better that I can do cleaner simpler please say something you know this is a group effort I'm just here to kind of Channel what we need to do but I need to hear from you because I sure the hell don't have all the answers it it it actually made it much much easier to follow because I was like wow I know where everything is and it's right in order of what it should be I'm and I was late in the day when I thought of that little number but and I'm still on the electronic agenda Judy I I I'm not sure what what's the best way for you I would like to streamline this if somebody can show me how to figure it out um I'll do electronic but I had no luck with Dropbox luck so for now paper is good for you well I mean is there he he called another one out is another the one drive yeah I'll I'll try it but I'll come into your office with my iPad and you'll show me iPad iPad IP have an iPad okay ralo you haven't given me any feedback how would you want the agenda delivered please guys before we go sidebars how's the other we haven't tried one drive we'll try that before we go you jie would like before we go to all our sidebars we need to set a special meeting date you okay whatever first came in okay we try we'll try both and I'll try Gran okay so date for the operate standard operating policies and procedures it yeah can we do it at a regular meeting as a discussion item once it's been reviewed we can bring it to May or April whichever do you want to just put it in March's meeting as a discussion or do you want to do that earlier can you wait till March yeah we can wait till March okay then we don't need a special meeting we'll just make it to give you enough time to review it it's a long we make it the marches at the March meeting we'll make it the discussion item okay great Michel needs yeah oh yes that would help yes you sure anyone got any um I only have one thing and that make a motion to to adjourn I'll second all in favor meeting adjourned at 8:23 I will and welcome actually now that she says that you look familiar I've seen you I thought we had somebody sitting in the way that were have