e e e e e this this this this this like um might as well put it on top of it no next time we get a small PTY you know those table toop is this good good this good jie is this good okay all e yeah I mention that out e e e e Miss Grant are we good to go not yet okay sorry e e e e e anyone who's planning this evening to give testimony if you would please sign in believe we're ready we're good good evening everyone I'd like to call to order the meeting of the village of biscane Park Code Compliance board it's Wednesday March 20th and the time is 6:05 would the clerk please call the role Jenny Anderson D Benton herea bentos Judy hammerberg Michael Lut here again good evening everyone this is a meeting of the village of biscane Park Code Compliance board the board is authorized pursuant to chapter 14 of The Village's Land Development code to ensure compliance with The Village's code of ordinances okay I'm gonna start again okay oh one more time thank you all for your patience first of all good evening this is a meeting of the village of biscane Park Code Compliance board the board is authorized pursuant to chapter 14 of The Village's Land Development code to ensure compliance with The Village's code of ordinances the members of the board are citizens and residents of our village we volunteer our time and we are not paid for our services the purpose of each hearing is to give any alleged violators the opportunity to contest the decision of the Cod compliance office which results resulted in the issuance of a notice of violation and to determine whether a violation of The Villages code has occurred or is occurring we are not authorized to dismiss violations based on hardships ignorance or the fact that others might be guilty of the same violations these hearings are conducted in a CA 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 not authorized to change the codee 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 Florida Statutes orders of the board can only be appealed to the Circuit Court of Miami Dave County we have the authority to assess and Order of payment of civil penalties to issue orders having the 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 officer's 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 Ed unless the alleged violator or code compliance officer submits a copy for the hearing file each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses to introduce ex 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 Witnesses regardless of which party first called them and to testify and rebut the evidence against them if you intend to address the board this evening and you haven't signed in please do so anyone wishing to address the board please stand and ra raise your right hand so that you may be sworn in you are reminded that this board is a Cy judicial board giving false testimony can be penalized please swear everyone in please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth do we have any additions deletions or changes to the agenda I'd like to make a suggestion that we move item 8 12 13 officers and present up be heard I would second that motion all in favor I I passes all right we will go straight if everyone's prepared to 8 12 13 and 14 that was Dale jie the motion yes I second on Tuesday March 19th attorney Shan Whitner filed notice of his appearance informing the village that he will be representing the property owner in these matters involving 111 615 Griffin Boulevard Mr whitner's notice failed to timely inform the village of his appearance in this matter and by operation of the above referenced Ord I will read the ordinance in one moment this matter has been automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled board meeting however if a super majority of the board decides to hear this matter tonight the matter may move forward as scheduled the uh ordinance reads per chapter 14.16 of the of the village codes of ordinances if a violator or the owner of property that is subject to an enforcement proceeding is represented by Council the Violator and or property owner shall notify the village in writing of such representation no less than 72 hours prior to the hearing on the violation before the Code Compliance board if the Violator or property owner fails to give the required notice the hearing on the alleged violation shall automatically be continued to the next code Board hearing unless by a super majority vote the code board members present the code present the code board elects to hear the case does any code board member care to bring anything forward with regard to this matter I I think in light of the fact that we have three police officers that are here and costing the village to be here taking their time out that we should consider hearing this uh dorine could you tell me was the attorney notified of our ordinance in due and when was he notified he was notified uh today sorry he was notified today we received the notice of appearance yesterday and we notified him today after Council advised us to make sure he knew about the ordinance did he know in advance 72 hours in advance so what the ordinance requires is for him to notify us 72 hours in advance just wanted to be clear on that because I have to say I totally agree with Judy we have three officers here they are on their time religious paying for this this is the SEC would be the second continuance that's correct we were asked in February to continue this case and we did I have a real issue with the second continuance when we clearly have the ordinance on our was an attorney um out an appearance the first time they asked for continuance he no they were they didn't have an attorney at the time they he filed notice yesterday okay all right okay so the attorney is here okay I I didn't know I had an issue with du process you know rights versus you know versus you know versus um time frames like 72 hours but the attorney is here so i' would like to bring to the attention of the board that Village attorney um Brad Weisman is on zoom and if you need clarification on this ordinance he can clarify it for us right no I understood the the ordinance but Michael I I don't think the the the attorney for the resident is here the property owner is here yeah he's here here oh okay I didn't know if you wanted me to come up right away or no my misunderstanding yes okay was there like a motion or making a motion we'll call the role will you do the motion first and then we'll call the RO I will make I'll make a motion I don't know what's going on I'll make a motion that we go ahead with the um uh hearing this this uh infraction as we had planned I'll I I'll second the motion I I would have been probably a you know a read the continuance if the attorney wasn't here again on due process rights over you know time frames um of 72 hours or less um but the fact that the attorney is here and ostensively ready to argue this and we've got the village attorney I'll second the motion mik would the clerk please call the role we need a a Voice vote Janie Anderson yes D blinton yes Roda barento yes Judy Hammer yes Michael lard yes pass is 5 Z Dorian Grant toad compliance department for the village of biscane Park the first item is on Section Eight of the agenda it's 8.2 and this is for case number cn24 six for the property located at 11615 Griffin Boulevard for maximia Holdings LLC we have opposing Council present Village um Council present via Zoom for the board and three Witnesses from The Village Police Department shall we take the officer's testimony first or do do the anyone on the code any of the code staff have anything to fill in okay I'll fill in um this particular case um was for offensive noise prohibited noise they were in violation of section 10.1 and necessary and excessive noise this violation was issued in the Fest offence and it comes with a $1,000 fine this particular property is short-term vacation rental and hence the excessive fines that were assessed uh for this violation anyone on the board have questions then if we would I would like to take the police officer testimony first um the council should First Council can go first in defense and then the police officers T the officer testimony first thank you so the first case I'm looking the file let's give the January 18 the one issued January 18 that's you thank you start right okay uh good evening introduce yourself yeah absolutely I'm uh cor Rogers with the village of biscane Park Police Department um if you want to just get right into it um on January 18th 2024 around 5: in the morning uh we were dispatched to 11615 Griffin Boulevard uh due to a complaint of loud music um I believe I was was here at the police station when the uh call went out uh if anybody knows the uh the area 11615 Griffin Boulevard is literally right around the corner from the police station takes uh less than a minute or so to get there uh when I arrived there was no loud music playing uh that I could hear as I was approaching the residence uh but as I entered the front yard of the residence I was able to hear loud noises loud speaking uh like a party uh going on inside of the residence uh I knocked several times on the door uh finally got uh some individuals to come out uh who were renting the place as it was already stated that place is a uh Airbnb short-term vacation rental um I asked to speak to a responsible party um a young man came to the door I believe his name was Mr Mr Williams uh 1999 uh was his birth year he came to with a Washington DC uh driver's license um I explained to them our ordinances of the village of biscan Park as well as Miami day County um and it was uh also known to me that I had just found out rather that officers had responded to the address earlier in the night for a very similar call they didn't uh issue any citations but uh did use their discretion to issue a warning uh to those individuals at that time um because it was our second time responding because there was loud noise uh at 5: in the morning uh that I was able to hear from the exterior of the residence uh I chose to issue a Miami day County Civil citation at that time um and that's that's pretty much it any questions for the officer I would like to enter into evidence police uh report number bp2 4118 0061 I would like um to enter into evidence as well a ticket issued to the individual at the property V 03852 so I got some questions cor and thank you and thank you for your service yes sir uh but being that this is a quasa Judicial board we've got to you know ask some questions absolutely and my understanding from your testimony and also from looking at your police report is that you um call that you received was for a disturbance in the form of loud music correct and then you you were over here at what is this 14th 114th in north east6 114 so you're basically two blocks away not even not even and so you did you did you go there by your car yes so you went by your car I mean what would you estimate that took you from the time that you got the call to the time that you arrived at the residence I said uh maybe a minute or so no more than two minutes to get in the car and to get over there but I think one or two minutes and and uh how was it that you were dispatch like what what information did you receive so as my report States uh we we received a call it was a a disturbance obviously we used codes or they they gave the code over the radio it wasn't emergency mode or anything like that um it was a routine call as we would say it um uh for uh disturbance regarding loud music but I mean like the the person that was you was reporting the for loud disturbance was that guy on the phone or was he you dispatch we get dispatched by Miami day County uh dispatchers okay I appreciate that no absolutely they received the calls uh and as I also stated in the report uh the complainant uh did not want to uh give their information which is 100% allowable and understood uh they called in anonymously to report the uh the disturbance at that location uh and then we were dispatched by m Miami dat County dispatch to that location so basically I just want to understand it so basically you got dispatched you're sitting at the office you get in your car you're there within a minute or so and the report of loud music was not confirmed it was just there was no loud music is that fair to say I did not hear any loud music okay and then when you approached the door and you knocked on the door was it from there that you could hear loud noises emanating from there that were not in the form of loud music no so as I stated before as I enter the property okay from the the street you could hear you could already hear loud talking screaming from inside not not screaming like in fear but you know people like a party that is what I I described it as back then in January it sounded like they were having a party inside of the Residence at 5: in the morning but at this point there was no music that you heard I did not hear any loud music okay yes sir and then the information that you had testified to with regard to another uh officer uh had indicated that there was a a call earlier that night to that same address yes was that before you got on shift it was okay so um so was your was your shift and the other officer shift overlapping at this point so my shift normally starts at 7 a.m. uh for some reason uh we needed some extra coverage and uh I came in uh early uh forgive me I don't remember if if my shift started at uh I the time 3:00 am kind of sounds familiar but I don't know if I started at three or if I had started right at 5 and then that call came out um but and the other officer who was on shift uh he's also uh here and involved in a a previous case so maybe he can speak to that as well okay what was that officer's name uh officer Sanchez um Corporal Sanchez I'm sorry he's present he was he was on the night shift uh that evening so he would have been the one that responded uh earlier I think I even wrote the time down uh on the 17th which was obviously the night before but at 11:44 uh p.m. and then I responded at 5 1 a.m. on the 18th and was that 11 was that 117 which was the same night it just earlier hadn't gotten past 12 so about and was that music or or just a lot of noises that he had heard and maybe he could speak to that but he could speak to that I didn't I didn't notify you just know that there was a call out to that property because something was going on it was another disturbance call I do know it was a disturbance not 100% sure if it was due to loud music or or some other type of dist disturbance at that location what I'd like to point out is if you look at the notice of violation the violation of code section 10-1 offensive noise prohibited it shall be unlawful for any person to make continue or cause to be made any continued loud excessive unnecessary or unusual noise it is not expained only to music yes and the charge on the report is unnecessary and excessive noise correct not strictly a music issue right and to that point that's that's how it's actually listed on the Miami day and on the Miami day County Civil citation which is what was issued it's for excessive noise not necessarily excessive music or anything like that yes anything oh Michael's done a great job of asking questions I've made notes i' already had a few Circle things yeah so yeah what I'm struggling with is that is that you're so close and and you know the the issue came in as a disturbance heard loud music and you went there and then you didn't hear loud music and it was as you approached the property that you heard what you categorizes loud noises so you know I'm just trying to struggle with you know what the what the reason why you're going out there and then when you got out there it actually wasn't confirmed but as you approach you you know you hear some things on the on the outside that are loud noises right uh and from your Vantage Point I mean I don't know how you can best articulate it but in terms of what those loud noises were like how would you uh you know how would you you characterize what you heard as you approached there you talked about the the voices not up I mean is there a deciel level I mean like what was it like like if you were you know outside you know walking your dog in the morning would it be something that would be disturbing or would you think that hey somebody's you know having a good time in there I mean how would you characterize it sure so the way I look at it is number one is I'm not the complainant right I'm the responding officer so the complainant is a resident more than likely who lives either right next door to because there's houses on either side of that location and there's also residences across the street from that location it could have been any one of those uh residents at 5: in the morning that felt it necessary to call to pick up their phone at 5: in the morning to call the police because there's some sort of disturbance uh that they believe is happening at that location um I do think that it's uh it warranted a citation uh for one it's 5 o'clock in the morning uh I know I don't like to be disturbed at at 5:00 am in the morning uh with with loud talking loud music screaming yelling parties those are not normal hours for things like if it was 5 in the afternoon maybe not but five in the morning and like I said the noise that I heard was was audible from and I won't speculate about a decel level I wasn't measuring uh decb or anything like that uh but I was able to hear loud talking loud voices from the exterior of the residence if we step outside right now I can guarantee you we probably won't be able to hear the conversations that's happening in in these residents right around us I was able to hear those conversations from outside of the residents and it makes me believe that that Anonymous complainant was also able to hear that stuff uh and maybe they also heard uh individuals in the back of the residence where the pool is and things like that and those sometimes also prompt phone calls from our citizens for us to respond to those types of disturbances so let me ask you a question so if you hadn't received this information from off Corporal Sanchez with regard to what happened earlier that night you know would that still from the you know because it's fair to say that you didn't confirm what the reason was that you went out there right you you went out there for loud music but you didn't hear loud music you heard which you considered to be you know some loud noises if you hadn't received that information from corpal uh Sanchez would you have been issuing a a warning like perhaps he did earlier that night in other words did did corpal Sanchez's information that he provided to you uh cause to contribute to your decision to give this violation I would say that it's a contributing factor but it it wasn't the the sole factor that I I based my discretion on um you know once again I I observed I'm my own person I I responded to that location I was able to hear the the noises I'm considering the time that that call is coming in uh and the fact that you have a resident that that doesn't even want to be contacted for whatever reason uh and and I don't want to get into some of the other times that we've had to respond to that because we we're speaking specifically to to this particular uh case or this instance um but like I said his his responding earlier that night with the same group of individuals that were there is not like it's a different set of people these are the same people that were already contacted by police already warned already made aware uh of of the community that they're visiting uh because the misconception a lot of time is when these people from out of town as I told you this guy's from Washington DC uh they when they book these these short-term vacation rentals they think they're they're coming to Miami to to party and things like that and and I explain to them all the time that yes you're in Miami but you're in a little subdivision called biscane Park and this is a little a quiet town they they they respect uh their their their peace uh and they expect for anybody that's visiting here to also uh conform to those things like a question yes sir need to move on absolutely but no this is just to clarify sure the home that you're speaking of has a a property next to it a residence a property on either side as well as properties behind it so it's not an isolated home with no property behind it there is a pool there yes as well as a yard so anyone out there early in the morning speaking or carrying having a little party it's rather audible throughout so you don't necessarily have to hear it from the front and I believe at least one or two of the homes are offset located somewhat behind at least one of the homes is located behind the um the current house that's set up front so anybody out in the back or with doors open or property open would be a little maybe more Disturbed than anybody from the street correct thank you I you know we live in a small community we have a noise ordinance that goes into effect at 11:00 p.m. and people expect to have the quiet for their sleep hours and you know I can't tell you I've never called the police on the last one I did was a city of North Miami Party 10 blocks away or 20 blocks away that we heard but um I think people have the right to their rest and and I think that even though there are airbnbs and we can't stop them we still have every right to enforce our laws for the residents and for the visitors here no I'm I'm she said it she said it all thank you officer thank you you want me to like kind of sit over here have a microphone that there okay right here right there um if you would identify relationship to property sure Sean Widner on behalf of the property owner represented property owner um corpal Rogers excuse me sir can you speak to the microphone please sorry how's this better It Up Lift It Up here we go how we doing good better all right good evening Corporal Rogers um I just want to ask when you went to the property at that morning at 5: amm where did you park your vehicle was it on the street or in the driveway okay so on the street when you exited your vehicle on the street did you hear any noise coming from the residents okay so I was trying to get like about how far up into the yard how how far would you say you were from I apologize you need to run for a second you would please stand at the mic also because we won't have you on audio without that sorry for the interruption about how far would you say you were from the the the door of the residence when you started to hear the noise well I got like oh I see so um as I stated uh as I entered the the property as I entered the yard I was able to hear the loud noises and Loud talking okay sry how here we go how's this all right improvising the first time I ever cross exam one like this longer cords uh corpal did you take any any um any videos or audio recordings of the uh disturbance no I did not did you use any uh recording devices like a decimal no I did not do you know approximately how many feet away from the the residence the doorway you were when you were you finally started to hear some of the sound uh whatever that distance is from the front door to the edge of the driveway okay you said um purple Sanchez was out there that same night have you had any other calls to this residence I have um how many would you say I wasn't prepared to answer that question but I've been there on on several occasions uh I don't have I mean I was just there Saturday morning as well uh so uh we' we've been there uh quite a bit okay is this like a regular occurrence it seems to start becoming a regular currence it's almost as if that that residence is like a party house I don't know if it's intended to be that way but uh it kind of seems to to be that way so would you say maybe on a weekly basis how how often would you get a it's hard you can't it's not officer if you don't have exact figures do not feel compelled no I understand and and it's and that's what I'm about to say it's not a weekly thing these calls are are are random uh it and it also depends on who's renting the house when they're renting the house uh I'm sure sometimes there's families that rent that house and and we don't get a call at all uh sometimes weeks go by and we don't get a call but then sometimes there's times where we get several calls back to back to back uh from that location but I don't have exact numbers uh in front of me okay and how many s have you issued is this the only citation that you issued yes that's the only citation I've issued at that location thank you cor have no further questions thank you we have any further input from the code staff any further input from the board I need you sort of we you have the two more coming behind this yes we want to do testimony for all three and then one at we do one at a time sir I just I'm sorry can I ask uh corpal Rogers one more question just for do you recognize s microphone microphone do you recognize uh this the house in this picture yes the uh in the picture has the uh looks like a red type roof with the uh the squared off uh driveway there that's the subject property yes yes thank you yes good evening Council thank you very much for having us tonight uh Council I just want to point out to the first microphone please sorry the the first image that uh corpal Rogers pointed out as the subject property with the Red Roof this is an image taken from Google Earth with measurements um where you can plainly see the first dot showing the starting point of a measurement the second one is at the edge of the uh driveway the edge of the roadway nearest the house and that is measured at 60 ft and you could see where the dotted line goes across to 100 feet and 100t away from the front of the house is uh the basically the property line of the property across the street the second image is a little better zoomed in diagram of the measurements so just like to point out the Corporal Rogers stated he heard nothing when he got out of his car got his vehicle when he was on the streets he didn't hear started hear noises until he got within the yard within the residence and this was at 5:00 a.m. and the noise ordinance as as you all know states that it's a prim OFA evidence of a violation within 100 feet during the time frame of 11:00 p.m. to 7: a.m. in this case Corporal testified that he heard no noise until afterwards um it just goes to show that he also testified that he was there within a minute or two of the complaint being called in so it's not like something where they had time to to shut down a party or anything this is noise as he testified that we're just coming from inside the house as he said and as someone may point out it may be a little louder to the neighboring properties who were directly behind it however the fact is that the residents here and their tenants also have the right to use and enjoy the property um there was no loud rockus party um there may have been something slightly louder than a normal conversation but going on at this house it wasn't a super loud party he testified straight up that he heard nothing at the at the uh driveway at the um at the roadway therefore for this violation we would ask that the violation be dismissed as there's no finding of an ordinance violation okay and my issue is 100 feet in which direction because the property two the property lines are usually um 10 ft um and there's a home that's really nearby so the homes adjoining it may very well be hearing it just because you don't hear it from the street does not mean you can't hear it from the adjoining Properties or from the properties behind so I I don't agree with your statement that if you can't hear it from the street you can't hear it from anywhere within 100 feet uh I would agree with your statement and I would say that there is no testimony put forward this board to show that any noise was heard um from any other property so there there is there's no evidence that would be completely speculation if there was a property owner an adjoining property owner who was being disturbed um they certainly have not shown up to testify to that so I would submit that there's been no evidence shown as to this violation I would like to hear from off uh Corporal Sanchez if he was um if he had gone by earlier and just given a verbal warning on the same evening or with the same Residence at the same residence with the same uh people at believe 11:44 corpal Sanchez with bis game Park um I cannot um test to the call previous call because I don't have I didn't come here for that case which was previous case it was a warning have recollection of having no recollection of that D and you wouldn't have created any type of a of a there is a case log entry generated um but as much as that I don't recollect what occurred that so would it be fair to say that uh based on on your lack of recollection that you know the the lack of preparing a report or if you had issued a something formal that there'd be a written evidence of it in the absence of that that um that you can't provide any information about what occurred that night on the 17th at 11:44 correct like I stated since I came here is was not pertaining to oros Rogers case I'm here on a totally different one um but I can attest that if I did respond to that and I did not hear any music or anything like that there was no citation issued or any uh report written so it is the possibility that once I did respond there was nothing heard but but we still might have uh if I'm not mistaken we still might have spoken to the actual occupants and have explained to them both Village and both County uh noise ordinance reference the unnecessary excess of noise ordinance thank you Corp no problem any other comment no I'm ready for a motion yeah I I'll make a motion um to dismiss the uh the infraction um I base it on the fact that I take uh uh both Corporal Rogers and Corporal Sanchez at their word uh in terms of what it is that they uh heard or didn't hear when they arrived at the property um there was a noise complaint uh that was at least according to Corporal Rogers um investigated by Corporal Sanchez at some point earlier that night that apparently didn't rise the level of corpal Sanchez at 11:44 on January 17th of a 2024 issuing any type of uh uh a formal uh warning there was a second call uh evidently around 5: in the morning that corpal Rogers uh received and was only within uh less than two blocks and took him about a minute to get there and when he arrived the information that was provided on the dispatch uh was not corroborated in so far as he did not hear loud music he didn't hear loud music when he when he exited his car on the street and he walked and he and did not hear it until he walked within the property we have a second I'll second the motion we have a motion on the floor first and a second all in favor I I all opposed say no no no sorry Mo motion fails two to three I I'd like to make a motion in light of the testimony that we heard and the Very obvious POS that properties in the back and on the side could very well have detrimentally been affected by this noise and doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be heard in the front I would like to affirm that a violation has occurred and that the in CN 24-6 and the violation fee of $1,000 be upheld I'll second that all in favor say I I I oppose say no no motion passes 32 the second case is in Section 8 of the agenda it's item number 8.13 it's for the address 11615 Griffin Boulevard and it's for the case number cen2 2464 for Mex meia Holdings LLC this is another violation for offensive noise uh it was a necessary and excessive noise in the second offense comes with a fine of $2,000 for this short-term rental and we have a police officer as a goodness any questions from the board should we which officer will be testifying to this one the date February 1 January February 1 apologize for that hello good afternoon officer rero been with biscan Park PD for five years now welcome congratulations thank you sir uh in regards to this incident uh this occurred on Thursday February 1st we were dispatched uh to 11615 Griffin Boulevard uh at approximate uh 811 p.m. and in reference to a lot lot noise the servant uh up on arrival uh typically when I respond to any of this kinds of calls I park I like to park my vehicle across the street or in the medium from where the home is located and uh will actually as the way I operate as I sit in there to see if the noise could be heard at that distance uh I've responded uh uh a number of times to this property uh different times day and night uh over the course of the past few months and um uh basically when I was in the car the moment I opened the door of my vehicle I could hear already the noise coming from the the the house emanating from inside the the residence I exited the vehicle and walk over the street I went over to the south gate and I attempted to get the attention of whoever was in the backyard I scream flash I have a pretty bright light that I brought I put in the back and I did not get attention for a few minutes uh and after maybe a minute or two two somebody came in the front of the house and made contact uh there was a young man he told me that he was renting the house for vacation with a group of friends and he was you know polite apologized for what happened and uh I basically explained what was going on it was you know was still 8 o'clock but I've responded there uh a number of times as a primary and secondary officer I have never issue a citation for that particular location but this time I definitely feel that the noise was excessive and uh I proceeded to go ahead and write a citation for the incident and what was the type of noise that you heard was it music it was it was uh uh loud music uh like a party was happening in the back people was screaming and different voices probably I could hear uh four or five different male voices uh there were you could hear a loud splashes on the pool and there was a lot going on and uh to prove my point again I when I walk to the fence I try scream police police please come outside and nobody responded but somebody showed up in front of the resident at the gate or at the the gate no at the the front door of the house thank you Al any questions from the board Mr attorney if you would yes thank you sir no problem good evening officer ROM rosero rosero sorry no problem um I just want to show you with this exhibit does this look look like the uh the subject property with the Red Roof red orange roof the yes where did you say you parked your vehicle either in the street or meeting could you kind of uh approximately around here okay so in the medium between between the two opposite roadways yes sir that's correct can you please speak in the microphone we won't be able to hear that after sorry okay and you said as soon as you open the the car door you could hear the music yes sir that is correct you also said you responded several times to this property can yes no I'm sorely how many would it be more than 10 more than 20 I'm sorry I wouldn't I it will be uh irresponsible for my part to give you a number because I really don't remember right now okay but I've been there a number of times because I you know I even know the the address already so but never issue a citation in the past okay and why is that uh we have responded came in uh like I said I've I've done the same thing where I parked across the uh the street and similar to the situation with the all officers I could not hear the noise until I was inside of the the property at the the in the front yard and uh we still made contact because we have received the disturbance calls we want to make sure that everyone is safe is on the house uh and everybody came outside we have taken it as a uh uh try to educate people that are staying in the home uh but no if we didn't find anything that would be disturbing the peace of the the homes around the uh that residence then we will not issue we just go ahead and give a verbal warning to them okay and on this evening when you issued the citation did you uh take any audio or video recordings no sir they not did you use any sound measuring devices no sir I did not uh thank you no further questions officer problem thank you real real quick officer yes sir is it Corporal no officer officer yes sir um the call was Anonymous that came in or do we yes sir okay yeah it was fomous call so we don't know if it's this same person that called in the earlier call the 18th or not no no it was the uh most of the times that I've responded there it has been Anonymous call is that typical that usually get Anonymous or is yes sir is a it's a common practice I I guess it will be from you know neighbors don't want to have disputes with an ex or neighbors or whoever is behind the residence so typically uh to give you a percentage of probably 80% of the calls that we get are usually anonymous calls okay thank you no problem any other any comments or questions from the board from the code staff I would like to enter into the record police report number bp2 4201 00102 and I would also like to enter onto the record Miami Dave County Civil violation notice number V 03755 2 no questions I'd like to make a motion please like to make a motion in case number c-24 d64 that uh violation had occurred and to affirm the uh fine of $2,000 I'll second all in favor please say I I I I any opposed please say no motion passes 5 Z the next case in Section 8 of the agenda it's item number 84 for the address 11615 Griffin Boulevard it's case number Cen 24-65 for maximia Holdings LLC they were found to be in violation of section 10-1 offensive noise prohibited it was unnecessary and excessive noise in the third offense this comes with a violation fine of 5 ,000 for this short-term rental we have a police officer as a witness to this violation dorine could could I ask a question before he testifies okay the question I have is that um this obviously is a uh a registered short-term rental with biscane park that's correct it's licensed and and these these particular you know ordinances and so forth that they they're communicated in that uh when the license is issued I mean they they know what the they got to abide by the rules that a regular resident would before we issue these licenses we do an inspection a walkth through with the property owners or management company we require them to put notices across the property inside the property with the ordinances like the noise ordinance the trash ordinance and they have to abide by those um codes we ensure that they explain to their tenants at each of their rental time that they are aware of the noise ordinance for the village and the other ordinances as well okay thank you Corporal Sanchez with bisan Park I am one of the two supervisor night shift supervisors on February on Friday February 9th 2024 at 030 hours units were dispatched to 11615 Griffin Boulevard in reference to a large gathering in the backyard uh upon arrival music and Loud talking were heard from the front of the residents uh we spoke with the rent at that time with Mr Tyler D Rael and other occup and we spoke to them about the Miami day County ordinance and they were issued a civil citation questions or comments from board what what was what was occurring that created the Civil citation what's that sir what was it that you heard when you arrived uh loud talking and loud music in terms of the the number of folks that were there did you get an idea of how many people were there because they it was approximately five to six males so five to six males gathering in a house is considered a large Gathering well we were dispatched to a large Gathering but when you got but when I got there it we heard loud music and talking large Gathering can be one it could be multiple it could be five six seven it could be two three four people so so the anonymous call said there's a large gathering at this particular residence correct okay when you got there there was would you say six males yes sir no females not that I saw okay how big is this property I do not know sir believe it has a capacity of 10 to 12 occupants okay this this lot size is 20,000 square feet and the house is what 2200 sare fet it's a very large property and and okay and Tyler Rell was one of the six males correct sir he was the uh when I requested the responsible party who was the renter he was the one that said that it was him and and you said you heard loud music and what what and you heard and talking sir L loud talking you didn't hear uh splashing or Screaming or anything like that no sir okay of course you can have loud talking and loud music and have two people correct it's not necessarily dependent upon the size anything anything more the board would I'm sorry the code off staff would like to add Mr attorney sir thank you good evening Corporal good evening sir uh Corporal when you arve to the house did you uh arrive by vehicle yes sir and where did you park your vehicle in the median sir when you um got out of your vehicle were you able to hear uh any loud noise or any noises yes sir I was able to hear from the median and how loud was it from the median it was loud enough that I was able to hear it from the median was it like disturbingly loud or was it like a faint like you know maybe off in the distance well I can't Define if it's disturbingly loud because I am not the complainant I'm just the responding officer okay but if I could hear it from the meeting which is obviously I think you pinpointed it was 60 something feet from the front of the house to the driveway and this is obviously occurring in the backyard so it's obviously more than 60 something feet so we're talking about what about 100 feet maybe corre okay so I would consider that disturbing okay was it so you consider it disturbing I I would I would consider it disturbing is that why you issued the citation no sir I ass the station because it is a violation of the city and the County ordinance but you have to find it also correct I have to be able to hear it and I heard it okay from from your vehicle I'm just trying to get like was it a as loud as if you stood make like heavy traffic well okay sir I don't obviously I don't know if you're familiar with bis game park at this at midnight you can bar you could hear anything there's no noise there's nobody there's no traffic there's nobody walking so anything here travels so if yall was able to hear you can hear it from the median okay but that's what I'm trying to say if you can you hear like you know you hear from somebody sometimes you walk by a house from the driveway you can hear someone playing loud music inside but from the outside it's kind of muffled that's what I'm trying to get is like how loud was it well I didn't have a measuring we don't use measuring decibel measures or anything like that that's what you're trying to get to okay so it's all subjective purely based on your opinion yes sir okay thank you no further questions if if there are no more comments questions or input from the code SC no questions I'm ready for a motion sure I'd like to make a motion case number c-24 d65 that a violation did occur and to affirm the $5,000 call I'll second all in favor please say I I I any opposed I so that would actually be no no okay so motion passes 4 one thank you officers very much I much appreciate Mr attorney thank you thank you sir for coming in okay we have to back up a little there are a couple things at the front of the agenda we get to we'll move on to section seven we'll move back to section seven of the agenda go two minutes oh go ahead please on those until after at the end so if there's any corrections let's yeah I would prefer because I don't want to waste people's time while we discuss technicalities minutes to the end I just want to say thank you all very much for having thank you sir okay thank you for coming just one little kind of point of order if nobody Minds when I call for them for the vote we're used to always saying I or yes if we're in favor when you're against I know it kind of goes against it to say no because you're actually saying you are against but if you say yes when you're against something it kind of gets conflicted with the actual yeses so anyone who's against and voting no no please say no or nay minute next next case um while we have um The Village attorney on the on Zoom our call cases um where is this lady in section seven this is um items 7.7 7.8 and 7.9 are are you here for those cases no I was just actually going to ask if it's okay just because she has has kids if those of us that are okay with it to maybe let her her case I'm not with her case but let her case be called first just so that she can get kids fed into bed if unless anybody else from a from my order has an objection to that if that would be okay sorry I don't mean to to hijack but I have little kids too this one's gonna go quick I we just call okay I'm sorry let's back that up again it's seven it's three items in section SE seven and it's items 7 point 7 7.8 and 7.9 these are the proper for the property located at 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue the first case number is e 21- 0227 next case number is E21 d229 and the next case number is een 21- 0250 this properties are owned by 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue LLC we are asking for a dismissal of all these three cases and the village attorney can explain Madam chair it's Brad Weissman The Village attorney if I may Brad if you would go ahead sure so um as you can tell these are um relatively old violations that occurred back in in 2021 um what had happened is there were orders of enforcement that were entered with comply by dates it appears these and D can correct me if I'm wrong but based on my memory these are um con doing some construction work without permits um and one of them was dealing with an unper dumpster and essentially what had happened is the property owner or violator um did not comply in in time in accordance with the board's order however a um a not of an Affidavit of not compliance was never filed by The Village it was not until February of of this year where an Affidavit of non-compliance was filed by Miss Grant the and essentially what happened is what what Miss Grant did is calculated going back in history to look at when the comply by date was when the permits were actually issued and calculated fines um during that time period of of non-compliance the attorney Miss um streitfeld has made an objection on a due process claim essentially alleging that due to the lapse in time that the village took to file its um its notice of non-compliance or its Affidavit of non-compliance I'm sorry and um ultimately giving them a due process hearing that they are unable to to put forth a defense just based on the time Witnesses memories are faded records are no longer in existence and their claim was that they had been speaking to members of The Village about these violations and in the process of working out those violations um in my opinion um that due process violation if it were to be reviewed by the Circuit Court would ultimately reverse any finding of a violation by this court or by this board excuse me so that we would recommend that there be a dismissal of these three matters and was this the uh was this the matter that that we were arguing about and we wanted to get Mr weissman's uh okay that's correct I I believe so yeah okay thank you and I I don't disagree with you Mr wi thank you very much appreciate your input okay need a most unless anyone has anything to add we need a motion I would like to enter onto the record the written statement from the attorney okay I'll make the motion on 21- 0227 and Onan 21- 0229 and onen or do we need to do one at a time let's Okay 21- Z250 that um as by the recommendation of of attorney we dismiss these cases a second all in favor please say I I I any opposed say no motion passes 5 Z thank you Brad thank you you all have a nice evening good night who did the second on Michael Michael I think Michael did yeah thanks that's done now you want to go for the lady with the kid um we we we just got a request uh for the young lady with the children and I don't know which cases yes we have actually we we have two requests in the same section and it's in section nine believe she is the fine reduction that's correct May if you would U the fine reduction bear with me a second [Music] get 91 thanks section nine Cas the item is 9.1 the address is 1109 Northeast 118th Street case number e 21- 0987 this is for Michael and Cal van if the board recalls this is the case that had four orders of import M um this couple has worked diligently to ensure that all the violations have been corrected the violations have been corrected on behalf of the village I would like to make a recommendation I know they've asked for an amount but I'm making a recommendation for $250 uh for the reduction this couple has gone through some personal issues isues that I would like the board to take into consideration Michael lost his mother he was Ill he had to be taken to the emergency room um and they have a lot of uh um bills Financial issues at the moment but if the board can take into consideration that they had heavy fines on this property but have worked very diligently to ensure everything comes into compliance um and to consider reducing this fine to $250 now if I may ask for clarification there are two different uh violations that they're requesting so you you that's that's correct in fact each 250 for both 50 Al together that's correct that's what my recommendation is my concern there if nobody Minds I I'll go ahead and opine for the moment my concern there is we have two separate violations and and they both state up a significant amount of staff time I would be comfortable with 250 each I would not be comfortable with 250 for both I think some point yes they have been through some serious situations but you have to cover at least a portion of the kind of expenses The Village has been through in the two years it took for compliance that's just me I'm looking for input from everyone please so you're miss van uh and it was your husband's who lost his mom I'm sorry for the loss and you'd also indicated I think in your Bine reduction that there was that that um was it your husband that was injured yes and that was in 2022 and that has been the cause or part of the reason for the situation going on yes and you'd asked for a fine reduction down to to $100 for each right yes okay and um the recommendation so so you're you're asking for $200 right yes okay all right and my comment is this uh it is a a hardship issue as well as it it is a homesteaded property and the residents have been in communication and cooperating while it did take a while and seems like they are tempting I'm of the of the opinion that go with the Villers recommendation of the 250 for both I see it both ways um again it's it's a big cost to the the community um but again for a young family I kind of like it breaks my heart um but it's it's it's a $15,900 fine so you can't write it off without doing something can we do a compromise in between the 500 and the 200 and do like a 350 compromise would that be would that be acceptable I The Village uh recommendation is is 250 based upon um the hours of work that she had indicated uh was was poured into this and and uh and speaking to miss van and uh her husband Michael and um you know we've got you know we've got you know death certificate or the the you know the obituary or the family or husband was severely injured I mean at the end of the day you know we are neighbors and this is this you know and we do know that there was you know that there is you know you know time that's been put into it and our minimum you know for any particular fine is 250 so uh that's the recommendation from the village I mean you know the family has you know lives in one house you know maybe there's a couple violations but the bottom line is is that there was confusion over the original violation that resulted in miss van and her husband Michael believing that the violation was void So that obviously took a while to get worked out it got worked out and uh you know as neighbors they all du respect I don't think you were on the board during most of that time and it did take two years which that I'm I'm divorcing myself of that at the moment because of what they've been through but in fact it did take two years I like the compromise of 350 I think that covers as well as we can hope under the circumstances the villagers expenses in this going on for two years I feel like 350 is a very fair compromise well it's not a motion it's a fine reduction would have to offer oh we we either accept or or um deny so we do need a motion as to whether accept or deny the 100 we on this offering not unless the resident wants to U enter I'll accept the the 350 thank you miss van and I do we need to do a vote on that yes we need to make a motion I'd like to make a motion on case number uhen 21- 0987 to accept the residents Property Owners um fine reduction of $300 350 oh 350 thank you 350 uh to be paid um within 60 days I'll second that all in favor please say I I any opposed say no motion passed is 5 Z Miss B thank you thank you for the bring that it took to come tonight thank you thank you so much guys have a great night thank so sorry for your problems and losses we have another request I have to apologize to the other residents uh this young lady came from Orlando and she has to drive back um they're just going to call her she's outside if we can call that case next it's also a fine reduction I'll wait for her to come in and which number is it dorine it's uh in section 9 and it's 9.2 this is section N9 the item number is 9.2 address is 1110 Northeast 119th Street this is for case number Cen 3- 311 Adriana Montes trust and abundan Trust um they are asking for a fine reduction and they will make their own recommendation their offer uh good evening uh we submitted some paperwork explaining that sorry and can you identify yourself you're with me just a second uh are they in compliance yes they are they are in compliance um and we worked um with them to go through the whole process and the building official finalized uh the permit I need you please will to identify yourself and your relationship to the property yeah my name is Adriana Montes I'm the trustee for abundance at trust please make sure the mic is there Adriana Mones trusty for abundance of trust any questions and com any questions from the board for the property owner no I just had one comment um I was looking over when the um date of the fine was to begin it's just a small technicality but it should be December the 1st should the first day of December of the fine and that would only be 91 days so it's $250 too much I mean I'm looking I believe it said at the order of enforcement yes oh yeah it said the um impos and shall commence on the 1 of December 2023 thank you for that so I come up with a total of 23,500 what and I want to explain that uh we got a notice on non-compliance and we submitted paperwork for for a permit for the garage along with a permit for uh the porch and based on that we would have been compliant but we were then later asked to uh separate the permits and then that's when I deferred to the contractor and he was working with the city on that hi my name is Gilbert bz uh I am the uh project manager for kuam general contractor when I first uh seen theine um I went to the association to Village Park and um I asked them what was their guidelines to help me legalize the slab that was done and there was another fine for a driveway that has is not on the code because it's cracked or whatever this situation and so we actually recommended to remove and redo a driveway so there was a lot of documents that needed to be presented and um being that we never worked with uh bisc Park I was asking for guidance and that's where the communication was not accurate and we went as far as getting an engineer to actually [Music] um give a letter that they we're going to start building the plans that they were going to do and we were told to do it in one plan with the back slab and the driveway all one one one process then we found out that you have to do a um survey before you do that in this County in other counties you don't so then we had to hire company to come do a survey so we can present all the documents but the letter from the uh engineer as we were told misunderstanding was that with that letter being served that the fines will stop at 250 after the fact and this is where the whole confusion has occurred and time had taken its place and then at the end they told us that we needed to separate the driveway from the appr so then we had to do another application perimet application and submit it separately and that's what we did we Tred to comply even though it wasn't probably on on on the time period that we were supposed to because there was a lot of leg work that was being done and we apologize for that but it was not done intentionally you know like neglecting the fact you know we took all the initiatives that we could to try to make it compliant you know to to comply with with with the Village Park Association and um you know we were trying to see if that fine could be reduced because we we W on the understanding that we were probably I think two days past the date the deadline you know and then but as Miss Grant uh educated me the other day that we went to the office she said that no it doesn't it's when you pass inspection or something like that so it was all misunderstanding so that's why we trying to see if we could plead that you can take that into consideration we did follow we did make all this all the uh all the uh documents that were needed to to legalize everything and to make everything correct and everything has has been approved and the slab was already uh final approval now the driveway has not been started which needs to get started because to my understanding we got an approval but we got six months is that correct that's correct there's a lot of things you know but I will see if the U Village could actually help us with that and um we're trying to do the 250 fine to reduce if that's possible and and if I may add um there was a real communication breakdown between what the contractor was told and he had been to the office several times and when I did when I met with the property owner I could tell that she had no idea what the contractor was doing or what was expected of him I literally had to get both of them together one time in my office go through step by step they sat in my office over an hour for us to get with the building official until everything was completed they did their application and I asked them to make the recommendation for the amount to the board you you it was your recommendation that he request that amount the owner so so the two I did not recomend uh give them an amount I walked them through the process and asked them to make a recommendation okay and the communication breakdown that you that you referenced that that he talked about was that from a prior employee that was here or was that with you it wasn't with me in in personally it was with the Department uh the building department I he like he explained he hasn't worked in biscane park and there were some things he didn't understand how other cities operate and how they would do and after the fact permit so there was a communication breakdown on what he understood he was supposed to do what documents he was supposed to to uh bring over to Village Hall and I was witness to him and the property owner she almost fired him in front of me but I said don't do that it's just a misunderstanding let's work through this and we did and here we are and what kind of time do you think that you put in with the department and trying to you know work this out and work with the contractor and the owner I would say the standard 250 would meet what we've done on this and everything is compliant it's all passed and they they did everything and and he the the the the timeline that he described is accurate from your understanding I made sure they didn't leave my office until we completed everything okay the village is is satisfied the or would the village recommend to the board no not recommend the village is is is happy with the outcome of of everything to date and the resident property owner has been working with the village to bring this all to a residence that would be accurate our our job is not to punish our job is to gain compliance and we're trying very hard to do that but balanced on the other hand is we have to look at the interest of the village and how much it cost us and our employees to do the work as well so we're we're trying to find a balance here really when it involves work that commences without a permit you don't know the safety issues that are potentially involved and how are things properly anchored how are they are they proper inch wise of concrete and all of those little technicalities that's correct that's one of the most serious time consuming things from Village staff standpoint to go back and make that right that's correct and the building official had to stop him and asked him to bring a engineer's letter meaning an engineer had to certify that job I think that's something we have to take in consideration this is a lot of time not a low cost to the Village particularly this type of violation if I may add um we filed the permits as per the deadline for any violations to be imposed um and the permit was filed before that deadline of November 30th it was filed I'm understanding you the permit was filed uh the original permit was filed along with the driveway and the porch together on 11:14 our deadline was November 30th to to file the permit uh we did fou on time however um uh he was advised to fou all under one permit and this slap in the back as long as as well as the driveway and later he was advised that no that it needed to be fing under separate that that permit was only going to go towards the driveway instead of the back porch which was the one that was going to start accumulating fines on November 30th um but we technically filed before the deadline if you look at the notes of the permit and he was advised to put it on the notes that this permit was also related with the same plans for this lab so I don't think it's fair that we are penalized when there was some Mis misunderstanding miscommunication from the building department TS him of to file the two issues under one permit otherwise we could have never started accumulating fines if we they had gone back with the permit of the driveway which is the one that was ented on November 14 anyone has anything further to add I think we're probably ready for a motion does the board understand what she just explained yeah she they have two violations open there's a violation for the driveway and then the slab that was installed in the back without a permit when he submitted the plans he included both things on the same plan so they did comply like she's saying with the permit application before the November 30th deadline thank you given the testimony of the property owner as well as the uh Village that there was an attempt to compliance byting deadline I'd like accept I'll second I have a motion in a second all in favor please say I I I any opposed please say no motion passes by thank you thank you both we now move to Old business of the agenda first item 7.1 this is for the property located at 590 Northeast 119th Street the case number is Cen 23468 for Danielle Karen Alvarez and Jo Joseph Alvarez they are asking for a 30-day continuance uh to go through the planning and design review I think they had this discussion already on March 4th yes they did we did the agenda before March 4th and they are here to give us a progress report this violation is for a driveway I'm sorry my question is it's still hung up at pnz planning and design review excuse me it's still hung up there were you approved at pnz we were there for discussion good morning first of all uh Madam chairman members of the board Danielle Alvarez and Joseph Alvarez Property Owners of 590 Northeast 119 Street uh we met at the Planning and Zoning Board and we were up for discussion we had some clarification regarding the sale because we weren't sure about the parking status there planning and board uh planning and design board did a great job of clearing that up for us they gave us some design ideas right now we're in the process of locating a contractor and going through with the survey process and all that stuff I'm o okay to a degree with the continuance but what my concern is we've got to put something that gets a sense of urgency out there without putting at least some deadline which if it gets hung up with pnz they can you folks can always come back and ask for an extension then but if we just keep going continuance after continuance with no end point that they need to you know kind of try to achieve then we're at this like forever well but at the same time trying to get a survey is not an easy thing these days and trying to get contractors is not an easy that's we take that into consideration I as well and I don't have a I don't have a problem giving a 30-day continuance I don't either it sounds like they doing their due diligence long as it's moving in the right direction you make me happy thank you wait minut we haven't voted or anything I I I'm in I'm in somewhat agreement with Janie in that I think we should give a deadline and then if it's not met even if it's 60 days then you come back because Within 60 days hopefully you would have already had several T um several opportunities to meet with the planning and design committee board as well as to secure a uh a survey and or a survey and a um a contractor and if not then you can come back before us and ask for an extension but I'd like to see a deadline also instead of having it come back again next month which is rather short time if you haven't even gone to pnz yet or does you don't have the survey and you don't have the uh contractors so I find that we would just be once again extending it whereas it's 60 days something should be done and it will give you there's a concrete deadline we don't need to see you say for example next month you're working on it but you guys take a look at tonight's agenda we've just got way too many continuance after continu after continu with no end game at least by giving these folks who have been terrific about working with the village and trying to do the right thing but at least give them a goal they'll make the attempt to meet it if they've done everything possible and they still haven't met it it's still haven't found a contract you're still working with PNC you come back you ask we extend I think it's all reasonable the question is is is 60 days thought is that is a reasonable time to do the things that you think you need to do or is difficulty a contractor in a survey perhaps a little bit more time maybe the survey shouldn't be that hard the could be a harder thing no the surveys have been diff the surveys have been difficult for people to obtain from what I've seen we go 90 days I would be fine with 90 days thank you 90 would make me happy it's still moving in the right direction yes I will I get to my C okay I would like to make a motion in excuse me in case number c-23 d468 give the property owners until June 4th come into compliance by pulling all necessary permits if that becomes an issue you haven't made it through pnz if that's the problem if if the village side of the issue is the problem come back and ask an extension other than that June 1st I'm sorry June 4th as a compliance deadline if not as of June 5th there would be a $250 daily fund very well and a 250 administrative fund but again if you come into compliance by June 4th or come with evidence that yes you've done your due diligence and there's pieces still missing and ask for the extension then you're fine I have a question if the permits in process will we still have to come by on June 4th and present and say hey this is where we're at or we need we need to know the permit is okay in your hands got it not just in process but in your or I mean if it's the situation the projects and process do we still have to come before the board yes the progress report you can come back to us we'll report to the board got it very well well what what happens sometimes is people get approval for a permit and don't actually pull the permit and pay so understand that you're not in compliance of having a permit until you've paid and pulled the second and then I'd like to add something because if I understand your motion is to pull a permit by June the 4th if not a $250 for day fine and the 250 ad 250 admin corre um my question is if if they do that they don't need to come back us of progress asking they need to give it to dor no you don't need to come back because basically you would make sure that the um U The Village knows that you pulled the permit and you're in compliance okay it would not come before us you don't have to I we don't want to find out about the meeting after the fact and lo on TV the evening here sir you don't have to do scintilating I let me repeat my motion so it's clear that we ask for compliance by June 4th which means you pulled and paid for the permit if not $250 daily fine 250 admin fine do I have a second I already second all in favor please say I I you oppos say no motion passes 5 Z thank you both thank you m clity members of the board have a good evening I just wanted to get some clarity the 250 administrative fee will only be assessed after okay without compliance I got or if they're not in compliance and they show up to give us a progress report so if you're if the non-compliance has to do with something Viller side versus like not paying or something different ways thank you have a good evening um I'm gonna apologize to the um residents again we have another request we have an elderly um resident Miss alette um she's very uncomfortable and I'm going to have to call her case now this is in Section 8 and the item is 8.16 8.16 the address is 1192 d23 noreast 12th Avenue the case number is c-23 d339 this is for AED or let Romain and Jan Pier we asking for an order of enforcement uh for a driveway violation there has been no permits in the system we've communicated with Miss arlet and she's here today to give her own testimony I apologize to agenda number again it's in section8 agenda item number is 8.16 oh I'm sorry that's one 810 810 yes so I called the wrong case I'm sorry sorry he gave me 10921 10th 10921 yes 10 10 I apologize to the board for that me as well so it's 8.10 property address 10921 Northeast 10th Avenue the case number is c-23 d282 it's Marie rodrigue and pointville PTO pointville yes PTO pointville poize for that we're asking for an order of enforcement this is for a driveway um violation uh they are no permits in the system we did go to the property we were unable to make any contact at the time questions from the board yes does the does the property owner reside at the property I just that it's not a homesteading property it should yes she does no why it's not a homestead should be I say she does it's a it's a duplex it's a duplex yes so is one side rented yes it is okay so one side rent one so so Doran when you say that there's no permits in the system does that mean that that was a driveway that's been there for that long or that it was put in without a per file um I'll look at the file until you exactly when we issued the violation um this violation I believe was issued last year August August yeah yes so since then we haven't seen any activity on on this particular violation and we did try to make contact we went to the property knocked on the door there was no answer remind me again the original deadline for driveways was actually January of last year am i that's correct and then what did you do in in August you gave her was this a violation or warning or what was it um we first issued a courtesy notice this was January 2nd of 2023 and in August of 202 I'm so sorry the the the that courtesy notice was issued May 6 2022 I apologize for that we gave them right the compliance date for that was January 2nd 2023 that's what I was reading now we didn't we went back we inspected the property there was not compliance and in August second 22nd quite a few months past eight months we issued a notice of violation they still not in compliance now and there is no activity like I said in the almost two years P courtesy notice and seven months past the notice of violation and no response no communication so this is Marie yes rodrigue rodrigue rodri rodri and and who are you and you live there too no I don't live there okay um and what's your relationship to the property my mom your mom okay and did she live there you know um been there for 27 years okay probably close to 30 actually I think this year is going to May third so what what um so there was some courtesy notices and and there was some uh there were some issues with regard to communication what what well the don't live there I try to maintain and help out with the property as as possible um there were some other violations I think it was like the roof I had somebody come by swing by there and they pressure washed it something that they said they couldn't read the numbers on the on the um the house I went myself up and put bigger numbers um now the thing is I went down there a couple times to because I had to um pay a fine and I was explained to just the same way when I was putting the roof on the on the property now understand the beautification of the of the neighborhood but it comes at a cost of US it comes at a cost of her she's 77 years old with her income now and I explained that at the time to the Village when I came over here though these things is you know it's it's it's almost like you're saying that you're not trying to penalize the people that live here but the rules that's been implemented is penalizing the people that that Liv here let finished now yes hon understand the driver that's there that's been the original driveway since we bought the property now at the same time I don't know what section 5.6 of the driveway code that's been expanded she has one car the other neighbor has two cars now there was a point where they were parking kind of on the grass this what I was told on the on the on the fine so I told them not to park on the grass they parked back to back they did have somebody else there at the time but again they've continued to to to to stop doing that now my thing is what do we want to do with this driveway and who's paying for it we we don't make the rules um the rules are made by the commission our job is to enforce it prior to the commission redoing the driveway ordinance there has always been a requirement for driveways in this community and the driveway for a duplex I believe requires four spaces two for each side so um Dorene can be more explicit on it so but this the driveway you have only has one so under any of the ordinances at least since I've been here since 96 you're not in compliance with the prior ordinances or anything that I'm aware of but but again it's not in compliance with any of our ordinances and it hasn't been since 1998 since before then yes I just have a question of the boot officers in the village um has there been in communication with regards to resolving this issue um in the past two years to to bring out some type of resolution what type of items might need to be done how it can go about doing it anything from the residents or property owners Village no there's been no communication um when we issue these violations we ensure that we add the entire ordinance and it's a two-page uh document um if when residents come to the to to Village Hall we do give them the flyer that shows what type of um driveways they can do but we haven't really had any communication with this particular resident you said your name is always okay detto um with regard to the the communication was that something that reached to you like did your mom talk to you about like well again she she lives there by herself she's there I don't live there um I have to do again I'm speaking because I do a lot you speaking the microphone sir thank you I said I'm speaking because I do most of the try to do help out with most of the happy lifting obviously as you guys could see so I mean I do I apologize certain things fall to the cracks obviously it has but I have gone down there like I said um and I've spoken especially about these issues and with the fines that were held out before what about like since August like like when the vi violation came in what we just heard was that there was no communication since you're communicating for your mom well again if she if if somebody's coming by there and they're probably sending a mail or two or what have you like you guys send like you send this notice I I I try my best to acknowledge them again I'm I have you know I'm running my own household in a sense I'm working I mean I'm here I'm helping this my mom but like I said certain things fall through and question I asked before is um I'm Sorry Miss Judy Amberg yeah okay you stated that that those compliance was here since before then well in 94 she bought that property and nobody told us that it was in not in compliance then as well we bought in '94 the fact that the village may have not as stringently enforce this as they are now doesn't negate the fact it's not a new ordinance there's been some minor tweakings to it but it's not new and it's being enforced with everyone we work with folks as much as we can we've had other cases very recently that we've done our best to work a timeline with them but you can't just ignore two years worth of notices from the village and not make that communication effort so that things can be worked out so that's what puts us where we are now tonight we can't pretend we can't selectively enforce an ordinance deliberately and say well for some folks we're just not going to worry about it can't do that okay I'm not I'm not I'm not um uh stating that as well either all I'm saying is I I have a few times come there and expressed with with um with this um pocket you know there are various ways I mean it does not there are numerous types of materials for a driveway for the minimum that you'd be required to do and are more reasonable I would strongly urge you if you don't already have the paperwork from the village that details what types of driveways and the materials are accessible acceptable excuse me and how much parking space you would need because of it being a duplex obtain that material work with staff but we've got to get a timeline we've got to get it moving okay I I'll swing by um tomorrow afternoon um and there's no there's questions I'd like to make a motion like to make a motion that a violation has occur get the property owner six months we have with other hardship cases uh to come into compliance if if give a date um September you want to say [Music] September what okay sep third week September 16th will be the third week the 18th if not assess a u at that point assess the fine of 250 and a daily F on the 19 of 250 per day administrative cost compliance by 98 if not a 2 a 250 violation fine a 250 admin fine and 250 dealers I'll second I'll second all in favor say I I any opposed no please come and see us Mr fto we'll work with you okay all right thank you thank you sir thank you work with the village all right please moving back to Old business which is section seven of the agenda item number 7.1 this is for the 7.2 we did one I'm so sorry2 so it's 7.2 item number 7.2 for the address 665 Northeast 117th Street this is for case number Cen 23- 364 and to views LLC in care of their registered agent Mora Gloria this case was continued for them to get permits uh for paint uh which they have i' would like to enter into the evidence permit number e-24 D2 um they have communicated with the inspector and the inspector can give an update now Raphael hello Raphael Gutierrez Co compliance officer V of B Park the uh Property Owners of this property uh have apply as Miss Grant stated um the permit pain permit is in place and they also have appli for the stocko um finishing for the property so the job is in progress ongoing progress or do they do they actually have the permits they yes they do yes um they do have the permit okay paid for and they have them let me double check please I just want to be sure St work the paid paint permit has been issued um the the paint permit has been issued this the stackle is not the stackle issue is not on this agenda it was for paint the paint permit has been issued that's correct that's all we're worried about at this point it's paint permit so any other comments no comments except that uh we asking that you grant them this continuance they are a new new owners and they are working on fixing the property perit there's really they have painted it haven't they don't let me just did me just clarify something I just I'm just going over the records so the paint permid has been issued for the paint the stco has not been issued about the St up I'm sorry oh the paint yeah the paint um that has been issued so they really don't need a continuance they have the permit right that's correct that's what I had written down down here why um correct except this particular violation was not issued for a permit this particular violation was issued for them to paint the building now they want to do some stackle work first and they have applied for Tacko permit now I didn't want that discussed because we issued the violation for them to paint the building really can't right and so they've come into compliance with regards to what they right which is they have the permit but they still need to paint the building perm runs out then run out that's correct they have six months however they have time in case number c-23 d364 I'd like to make a motion that they're in compliance and close I'll second all in favor I no motion passes 5 Z the next three cases are 7.3 7.4 and 7.5 these are for the property located at 739 Northeast 111 Street first case number Cen 23- 299 for the second case number is Cen 23-30 and the third case number is Cen 23-33 this property is owned by Brett Anthony Frey um they have been in violation uh with exterior pain section 16.3 point1 uh re-roofing um I would say roof repair because they have a roof that's caved in and that's a violation of section chapter 16-9 and for the street address a fixed uh which is missing a number violation of section 11.1 to5 I'm reading these three cases together because we are asking for an intent to lean for all three cases we tried to I will say this the Violator has had several cases in the past leans filed and has never made any contact with the village we have reached out several times but we have never met this uh gentleman uh yesterday I asked uh the police department to do a welfare call because we have never seen who owns this property and it's severely damaged the whole uh roof on the garage side is caved in the chief of police and the deputy chief uh made a welfare call to the property they met uh the elderly gentleman that lives there they said he is okay he he was able to speak with them so we are asking to go ahead and issue leans intent to leans for all three cases any comments no I was just going to comment you answered my questions which a property owner been um in communication with the village or anything so I have no further questions than that Doren is he aware that he's in violation we have sent a certified mail we have obtained service meaning we have sent certified mail we have posted the property several times is is HE capable of understanding you don't know that I would not be able to say I've never met him this not to make that absolutely not to okay yeah there's no questions make a motion I'd like to make a motion and I'd like to M motion on all three of them at once on uh case number c-23 D300 uh case number c - 23299 d331 West of the village move with following the plus um the fing fee on each of the separate citations I'll second all in favor say I please I I I any opposed motion pass passes 5 Z the next case is item 7.6 740 Northeast 121st Street the case number is Cen 23- 389 the owner is Elaine B Amil he's here tonight um this a violation is for a driveway there is no permit in the system as of today but we have been in communication with the property owner good evening alen Amiel for 740 Northeast you let the board okay ask any questions little anxious no if no questions then go right ahead sir Allan Amiel we 740 Northeast 121st Street good evening and based on what I've heard this evening I'm looking pretty good because I have a contractor I have my plans I have a survey I started all the paperwork I was actually going to submit on Friday or tomorrow because I thought the hearing was Friday until I got an email from Raphael thank you Raphael I raced over here I literally thought it was Friday so if you didn't send that email I would be in trouble you speak into the mic so I'm ready to rock and roll I just need time to get a permit uh and that's it I got a design that's relatively simple it's going to be approved by pz I've already run it by one of the members if you guys want to see a picture I got a picture are you ready to go apply for the permit very nice yeah your house so that's my story I'm sticking to it so thank you sir they'll be keep that copy because that does have and I believe oh so okay there there'll be two more um planning and and design meetings by the end of April correct April the 1st and April the 15 you already submitted your request to be heard no because if you submit it by March the 25th you can be heard on the next hearing okay we have everything together if not you'd have to submit it by April the 8th to be heard on April 15th so all of that said I'd like to make a motion uh I'd like to make a motion uh to give the property owner until April the 30th to come into compliance by pulling a permit if not assess a fine of 250 administrative costs of 250 and a daily fine to Comm on May the 1 second I'll second all in favor please say I I I any oppose no motion passes 5 Z thank you sir I have entered into the evidence a depiction of what the driveway will look like moving on to new business first item in Section 8 is 8.1 for 739 Northeast 111th Street Cen 23 417 it's again for Mr Brett Anthony Frey uh this is the gentleman with the three uh intent to Lans that uh we just confirmed this is an open violation for a driveway um a violation of section 5.6.7 uh we asking the board to issue an order of enforcement for this violation any questions if not doesn't it doesn't look like that driveway has been driven over in years um if no there questions I'd like to make a motion in case number cn23 d417 that a uh violation has occurred well give the property owner until April the 30th to P pull a permit if not assess a fine of 250 administrative cost of 250 and a daily that's on May the 1 I'll second all in favor I I any oppose no motion passes next case is item 8.2 4767 Northeast 114th Street the case number is Cen 23- 284 this is for 767 Northeast 114th Street LLC in care of their registered agent right angle LLC we're asking for an order of enforcement on this violation which is for a driveway they are found to be in violation of chapter 5.6 no communication no permits Doren is is there a driveway I don't even see like an actual I see a car parked in the grass but is that apparently the driveway there is no driveway and they have to um they are in violation um of the driveway ordinance they have to install brand new driveway there's no like uh uh access Street behind the property we inspectors we don't believe so but we is there an access in the back no there's no access to the RAR of that residents you know what I'm talking about right the access roads the alleys right okay yes no has there been any communication with the uh resident or from the property owner we haven't heard from them call them if there are no further questions or comments we'll entertain a motion well yeah no I just notice that this is not a homesteaded property that's for the record and make okay in case number cn2 23- 284 we find that a violation does exist give the property owner until April 30th come into compliance if not a $250 fine $250 administrative fine and a $250 daily fine to commence on May 1st I'll second it you have a motion first and a second all in favor say I I opposed no motion passes zero the next item is on 8.3 this is the prop for the property located at 820 Northeast 119th Street the case number is Cen 23106 for Anthony Tavis um they are requesting a continuance um we are requesting this continuance this property owner has been in touch with us he is deployed into active duty by the federal government I would make a motion to Grant the continuance I'll second that all in favor I I do we give a date to Wi the continuance he does ask till next month he's back the end I'm sorry you're right I should have been part of my motion my motion is to continue until the April meeting next case is 8.4 820 Northeast 199 19 stre Street case number Cen 23- 415 for the same resident we asking to close this case um after reviewing the case I realized that this the case that we just called before was identical um even though we use different sections we issued the violation for the same violation like to make motion number c-23 d10 oh no and case number c in-23 D415 to close the case a second all in favor say I I any oppose no motion passes 5- Z next item 8.5 this is for the address 859 Northeast 115th Street case number Cen 23294 for one Sebastian pantis um he was found to be in violation of [Music] um the building ordinance which he which is 1631 3.1 he did construction work without a permit um Mr asantis was in our office today he's asking for a continuance um he's working with the building department now to close out a pling permit that they had applied for in 201 23 but did not final for it was for a bathroom uh bathroom sink and toilet that was installed um yeah this this was back in August of 2023 and from then until today he said that's correct Mr yes Mr pantis had explained to me that just like the other gentleman there was some miscommunication when he came to the building department the information he received from what he said he understood that he wasn't supposed to get a permit for installing a toilet so he left this alone until we contacted him and told him that he needed to close this permit the violation was still open so he he had pulled the permit he did pull the permit he didn't get a final because in his mind when he came and was told that he didn't need a permit to just install a toilet I couldn't verify that but he said we did Issue a violation for the trash but that one closed because they removed the trash the next day he did like ex the next day after we issued the violation he applied for the permit permit I'm getting a little confused he's complied now he has the permit but the permit is still open it wasn't I know it wasn't closed has he paid for did he pay for he paid today we have right when I reviewed the permit it was there was no payment actually I have to say so he came in paid for the permit now the permit is good so he has to call for a final all right then so he's asking for a continuance so he can go through that process why would we I would like to make a motion if youall entertain it um and case number c-23 d2954 uh give the property owner until April the 20 24th basically all it has to do is pay and and call for an inspection April the 24th uh to um close out the permit if not assess a fine of 250 administrative costs of 250 and a daily fine of 250 commencing a I mean April the 25th second we have a first and a second all in favor say I I I any opposed motion passes 5- Z so that gives a continuance in continu and it doesn't have to come before us next item is 8.6 4 1040 Northeast 119th Street case number Cen 23- 297 ja giovana L children's trust and Marie C lato trust we asking to close this case it's now in compliance I will make a motion in c-23 297 that the property owner is not commit compliance and we close the case second all in favor say I I any opposed motion passes 5 Z next item 8.7 this is for the property located at 1107 Northeast 117th Street for case number Cen 23448 BP park10 LLC in care of their registered agent IL Max LLC this uh property owner just bought this property they just closed on this property and they're asking for a continuance of two months in order for them to demolish this property and submit their plan plans for the new uh house that they'll be building on that uh property they are aware of this violation so was the previous owner we did explain to them that this violation will move to the new owner and until um they get in the plans and um do what they need to do with the Demolition this uh violation will remain open I I kind of would recommend we give them more time than that because they can't get a demolition plan until they put forth their building planse that oh yeah correct don't you can't force building plans anymore yeah so as of January you're allowed to pull a demo permit without needing any other place should I introduce myself as a resident or Planning and Zoning member you're both either so David gruin yeah David gruin 11520 Griffin Boulevard as of January now they're allowed anybody's allowed to pull a demo without needing to have approved Master plans so thank you for that David that's a state law that's not a law change that oh we wouldn't have changed that thanks so in reality you know I think we again I look for an end game where a client you know where a property owner has some level of responsibility because they've got to meet a deadline or come back and explain why they couldn't but not just kind of this open-ended we'll see you next month sort of thing there's no reason we can we do three months I'm not sure if they were aware of the change in the state law but we'll be happy to communicate because that's why the commission had to change our orance the state law preempted it okay and you can't our plans anymore also I think it's somebody who just bought the property we should be giving them fair fair time property agree November I'll make a they just bought that property I don't think that yeah the the the old the old owner just moved out on March 11 I'll make a motion that in Cen 23- 448 um we give the new owners three months 90 days June June 20th June 20th to pull permits and can we make it a Wednesday let's make it even June 19th June 19th Jun 10th that's a holiday it's a Wednesday okay June 20th then she's right's right excuse me okay so giving them till June 20th I'm sorry for to pull permits right or or it's the $250 fine and the $250 administrative and the $250 daily unless they come talk to us and ask for something different I'll second all in favor say I I opposed motion passes 5 Z next item is 8.81 0901 Griffin Boulevard c-23 d59 property belongs to mpmr Holdings LLC they were found to be in violation of um a swimming pool that wasn't that had offence that was nonconforming uh when we issued this violation we also posted a hazard safety hazard um notice um the property owners at the time did come into City Hall to find ways uh for resolution but then they disappeared we hadn't heard from them for a while and um I asked my officers to post uh the safety hazard sign again because the fence that they have cannot protect um animals or young children from the swimming pool can I ask only because when I see documentation like this I can't not this the swimming pool have a permit the swimming pool is an existing swimming pool it's been there for a long time however the fence is too short to it does my question is how do we have a pool that's final with a 2 fo8 in fence he will answer that question actually if you would identify yourself Lauren Jacobson on behalf of mpmr and the property is it not Lauren Jacobson on behalf of mpmr um I I have other questions to to bring forward but that question you asked is part of our question question we did have work done on the pool permitted from the city of biscan park I think 2006 or 2007 huh 13 2013 I don't remember but we had the pool renovated and the deck replaced yeah as I said you can't tell if it's we had the pool renovated we had the deck renovated it was permitted the city came out and did their final en closed that permit me so you bought the property in 2013 2013 yeah 2013 existed obviously it was there when we bought it we renovated it afterwards oh my years are off if I said 13 you you've never lived in the property no because I know the people you bought it from and you bought it 11 years ago but nobody's ever lived at that property ever yeah was beautiful my name is Meen RoR and I represent mpmr Holdings LLC uh he's my husband and uh we've been taking care of the property ever since we purchased it in 2013 uh from the Russells a nice family that lived here and the fence was already in place along with the pool um they actually added a new fence to the neighbor's side because their fence actually their fence was falling apart and before we purchased the property they the neighbor built a wall and it was permitted and everything was fine we purchased the property but we never moved in because we have a property in Surfside and our children were going to school there so we figure in the future we might just moved here we come to the property every two months or so to check on it we do have people that take care of the lawn and the swimming pool uh on a weekly base or monthly for the for the pool and um twice a month for the law so we received a notification actually from one of the the workers that there was a posting on the door in March for violation because we have not received any documents when we came to the properties when we saw the violation and we came to the office and met with Mr nibs to find out what was that about because obviously there was a permit for that fence back in 2002 and I didn't have the documents for it until we met with Mr nibs and he explained all the the violations and we we were willing to work with it and make sure that everything was in compliance but when I pull the information from the records it shows that a permit was done for that particular fence so I didn't understand why 10 years later now we have to redo a new fence and everything else it doesn't mean code it's only 2 Fe 8 in it's actually taller but I guess over the years it maybe the ground or something you know and but I'd like to just read for you because the the citation is for removal of non-conforming exis existing fence that's what the citation is for yes but in your code it says 11 6.6 non-conforming fences and walls any fence or wall which has been properly permitted approved by the village prior to Pat passage of ordinance number 2011-2 or existing prior to number 248 or which does not comply with the requirements of this ordinance shall be considered legal yet non-conforming structure such non-conforming fence or wall may be continued until such fence or wall has deteriorated to the extent of more than 25% of the structure or has been damaged more than 50% of the structure may I answer to that the problem yeah it surrounds a pool I I I get that but the violation was for Section 11.9 right it just says corrective action that could be taken but the violation was for the swimming pool not being surrounded by a non-im take a look at your notice of violations and and the fact that the property is vac worries me more it was on march9 so that's been a year I just want to know the village if there's been any communication since March the 9 a year ago until recently with regards to inquiring what needs to be done before you answer can I just add one more thought to his question I haven't finished sir the board sir if if there's been any correspondence with the property owner as to how to rectify it since March of since the vi notice of violation was issued a year ago more than yeah more than a year ago I will say yes there has been communication and this was right after we issued this violations and I'll will explain the violations these were not proactive inspections from our officers for the same reasons he just read out in this ordinance this was a reactive meaning someone complained and we had to go out there with a measuring tape and measure the fence when we found out that this fence was only 4 foot something how much was it again four 4 in it was about actually under four in it was under 4 in when we measured it with a tape 4et 4T correction yes and the four feet now when I looked at the photographs when the when the inspector came back and I looked at and reviewed the photographs I see the swimming pool and I sent him back right away go and post a safety hazard because for a 4 foot fence with a swimming pool right in view that was a huge liability for the village so they came in did their due diligence at the time and asked how they could correct this violation and we gave them several options they could cover the swimming pool that would um at least cover the safety issue they could put a fence around or a barrier around the swimming pool and that could you know put keep away the safety issue while they deal with the with the fence issue none of that was done and like I say we lost them they disappeared for a while and we had to reach back out to them if if I can answer the disappearing no we did come see you and we also went and started getting quotes and so on and so forth when we learned of this ordanance and we had a question about it which you're telling me I looked up the wrong thing or the fence people looked up the wrong thing we sent an email to Mr nibs explaining the ordinance the violation and the code and ask to Polie and that I have Rectify It quotes from different and here's are the quotes and we never heard back and this is in April of 2013 that's what I'm so we sent this to him we didn't hear back we did not get another notice on our door we did not get a letter in the mail we did not get a phone call until today but I have to say though you got a property that is completely open to a street minus a 2 fo8 in vence with a pool you know do you need a notice to tell you no what happened was and this is she said they got a call to compl right there was big Hedges back there the hedges were were were becoming a disaster to everybody but that still doesn't satisfy Dade County's requirements so it's been there for since what 2002 the fence which satisfied the state county at the time and that c because my pool's been in there since 200 and do you understand the liability you assume let's just let's just stick to we don't mind to all right to fix whatever is wrong that's what I want but what we're saying is we didn't disappear for a year we thought I even told Mr NS outside before and when they called today I thought after the email okay let's get to where we need to go to fix this problem may I show you the quotes may I show sure but we really don't need the quotes I mean all we need to know is I like the fact that he has a letter that's why I was want to know about correspondence I think you might need to enter that into the record sir oh is an email explaining exactly what we emailed back in April May I say something about the communication uh since the company is was um had an agent uh located in Aventura that's that's the address that is registered for the property appraiser so I tried changing the address and they sent me a letter back saying that I have to send in some additional documentation when I came to the office here I gave my email my address my current address in s i if anything needed to be sent to please send it to me at that address or by email because otherwise the mail was going to get lost we never received they did call today thank you we we did the last notification I received was on Thursday from Mr nibs letting us know about the the the violation station what we need to do though is let's see going forward what can we do if it's what this board not only on on we'll call it violation okay but I wanted to ask so so Dave David gruin 11520 gping Boulevard planning and planning and design review board so just for clarification for both sides the the issues with it are actually at the state level under the the uh Smart Water Act that was passed which is so you find this and email this because I know this needs to be submitted for the record but it's section it says is it's subsection one a residential swimming pool barrier must have all of the following characteristics subsection a of point1 the barrier must be at least four feet high on the outside bar subsection B the barrier may not have any gaps openings indentations protrusions or structural components that could allow a young child to crawl under squeeze through or climb over the barrier subsection C the barrier must be placed around the perimeter of the pool and must be separate from any fence wall or other enclosure surrounding the yard unless the fence wall or other enclosure or portion thereof is situated on the perimeter of the pool is being used as part of the barrier and meets the barrier requirements of the section and then last section subsection D the barrier must be placed sufficiently away from the water's edge to prevent a young child or medically frail elderly person who may have managed to penetrate the barrier from immediately falling into the water so I'm and I'm only saying that to say Beyond us you're the only one here with the knowledge understanding what you just read so so if I could just ask in in C it's saying that that would not be the fence outside meaning if we're fixing this we're not just putting a new we need a fence on the pool not no what what what it's saying is is your perimeter fence right you you do not need to have a fence that goes immediately around a pool if the perimeter fence you are then counting as the pool fence but that means the perimeter fence has to comply with all four of those those point but so if we put a better fence on the outside of the yard don't need a you don't need a second fence or if you put a better fence just around the pool you don't need to do the whole yard May folks would we need to wrap it up yeah please give us the time we waited for everyone to go in front of us and we've been patient enough I think this is important we are family we have children my son just went to college last year I explained that to Mr nips we didn't have the funds to put on a brand new fence at the time I did get the calls from three companies from different options and it's a lot of money it's over $4,000 and it without removing the trees they need to remove all the trees that are not ours what about a barrier just around the pool so I got a quote for that that was $2,000 plus we discussed except what our okay what our thought was right so we're not not saying this is what it is what our thought was because we had the pool done and our permit was finalized we didn't think we needed that why didn't they say something then now drill into the marble deck and make big holes in the brand new de when they didn't tell us then so we thought it was why is it that one phone call 10 years later from God knows who the that doesn't matter that's all it takes fact is you're really not in compliance the result is what are we going to do how much time frame do you need so there I I I've heard I to get into compliance I need to put something around the pool or new F so to be at least four feet you you heard Mr grin read the code to start I don't know how long it takes to pull the fence people to get a permit from you guys does it take a day or does it take a week you know I don't understand this is a serious safety issue I we should all be working together to get the safety issue taken care of not sitting here and saying oh because such and such happened 10 years ago it's now 2024 we need to fix this it's going to be fixed but we need the time because we need to col money and find the vend that mon two months two months on there is a violation that has occurred get the property owner until say May 2 May the 22nd come into compliance not assessive of 250 admin cost 250 and a daily 250 I'll second all in favor please say I I I any opposed no motion passed is 5 Z the next case is 8.9 for the same address and it's a it's yeah it's it's confusing yes this violation section 18.5.19 um motion however we have to read it into the record okay CU there it just says we're doing construction without a permanent we didn't weren't doing any construction no we didn't say that we said to put a construction fence to secure the pool okay on case number c number C3 a second all in favor say I I I I all oppos no motion passes 5 Z thank you I would like to put it on the record that we have posted back the safety hazard um um notifications uh to the public that uh situation has to be resolved quickly because it is a safety hazard for the community okay thank you David may I move to the next Just for future reference if there's any notification that needs to be sent to mpmr Holdings uh would you be able to send it by email if it's by writing the address I I gave the address before if you don't have it I'll happy to give it to you again so that I can get the communications thank you for for letting us know we'll keep that on the record however I would like for you to understand that we are bound by law to send all violations to the address in the tax assessor um in information if you can fix that we'll be happy to be sending you we're going to be able to carbon copy to the address we will send a copy to that address okay that should help thank you so and follow up with a phone call like we did this time thank you the next item is 8.11 this is for the address located at 10931 nor East 10th Avenue case number Cen 23- 283 for Jeffrey Draymond they are requesting a continuance they have a permitting process for a driveway the permit number is DWS -23 D 277 and um is that your property David uh no so daveid Ruan 11520 Griffin Boulevard this is actually that my neighbor across the street my my first house my first love in biscan park uh he's a a great guy but he's 76 doesn't have an email address or any of that stuff so the whole open gov portal submitting all that I kind of took over everything for him um the one thing that I would say is the permit was actually approved on October 16th uh the first GC which I helped him engage with uh everything was great and they said all right cool we'll do this next December as in December of 2024 so we were like all right that's not going to work the second one ghosted us but we now have after a month and a half but as of the beginning of March we finally basically got a guy um that owns uh what's the name of it sorry I I wrote it down real quickly um it is uh Francisco concrete services U I just wanted to be known Jeffrey Draymond did pay like all of the fees and everything he was supposed to and we were hoping to have it done before it got to this but I anticipate that the cons sense we have the permits and everything like that the construction will be done within two months but and it's a duplex but he's the only person that's ever lived in either side one side he just keeps empty and fills with his extra stuff but you're still waiting on the things that it shows us here that you're still feeding onc because our GC was changed twice uh were're we were waiting for the GC to basically send back a estimated start date because we didn't want to have the problem as the first the way we've gone all night we are trying to give an endpoint realistically which you were going through this what realistically to you would be an end point that you're confident all those documents could be in no so the the notice that we got or that he got was March 6th and by I think it was like March 10th or so they had said oh yeah we'll start by the end of the month um and again we already have everything approved and everything so we recommend 9 days okay I mean it's whatever whatever you guys want to do but in my understanding it shouldn't take more than more than two weeks to to cure but but but if it does then then we have to deal with bringing you back again on a month to month well no we we we get overwhelmed with the amount of work so yeah and you guys are doing God's work and it's the planning and zon and committee trust that we get a lot of driveway permit applications as well so uh but but yes he was terrified when he got this notice because he's been here since 70 1973 and he's never gotten co- compliance violation I was like I'll go for you don't worry about it okay why don't I make a motion that in CN 23- 283 we um give them uh 90 days to comply so that would be June 20th June 20th and if not then the $250 fine $250 Administration in $250 per day um fee would go into effect second all in favor please say I I any oppose no motion passes 5 Z David thank you thank you guys very much David you were sitting here for but we really appreciate you being here gave us good info very [Music] much thank you is this one next case is item 81515 the address is 11905 Northeast 12th Court the case number is Cen 23340 Nicole jeanan Jack and Jean r would you and gin Jax I Smith gin Jax we asking for an order of enforcement however they have asked for a continuance do we have a letter and on what basis this is that's what I'm looking for because yes they got a courtesy notice in April of 2022 right so we're talking two years well the courtesy noice gave him actually a pretty amount nice amount of time given until January the 2nd of 2023 right so that's eight months then um they had didn't comply by August there was no compliance of 2023 and then by March the 6th of 2024 there was no compliance I'm not inclined to a continuance it's two years okay um there is no permit in the system I'll like to put that on the record all right I I'll make the motion that a violation did occur and that um that we will put forth a $250 fine a $250 administration fee and a $250 a day fine um when do we pick a beginning date iance state of first compliance date of May 1st April what's the date May 1 May 1 I'll second all in favor please say I I I any opposed no motion passes 5 Z we'll move to section n so we can take care of Mr londono over there sorry sir I apologize this is in section nine and it's item number 9.3 the address is 11659 Griffin Boulevard case number e 21- 0737 for BP Apartments LLC in care of its registered a agent Mr londono Octavia uh Mr Octavia is here to um ask for a fine reduction with this dumpster violation that has been going on for quite some time since 2021 um the staff is recommending he has put in his own recommendation but we are recommending $1,000 um just because this case has gone on for a long time and um compliance just happened happened I think last month or a couple months ago any questions board yet sir if you would identify yourself in your relationship with the property yes my name is Octavio londono and I am the owner of BP apartment LLC um the reason why I suggest that the the reduction was because I got a dumpster to allevia and I think I explained this in the past um the dumpster was moved by code they told me to move it to different sections they never said I was in violation apparently they issue violation 2021 I never heard anything about it until just recently from Mr Ring Grant what about a year ago maybe a little less and I didn't know anything about a violation then what I end up doing was getting rid of the dumpster because if it was going to be such an ordeal just get rid of it I got rid of it and then the trash cans became also in violation because they cannot be seen from the road so I I thought the trash cans were different so then the trash can got taken care of and while I had the dumpster I was paying for the collection fees for five units that I I paid to the city taxes I never went back and got that money and I feel that if I'm going to be fine then that is part of the retribution to the city for this ordeal and that's why I propose you $100 because it this it does cost me about 4500 to 5,000 a year in trash collections of my taxes for that property questions from the board whether you use our trash or use your own trash the city has to pay there's no retribution to the city we have to pay um great waste for the collection for each unit so we don't get money back out of them if you're putting in a dumpster we still owe them the money so there's no retribution to the city and there's nothing for the city out of it we are paying and that's why it's it when I first came into the city there were people who didn't pay their garbage bills then it was put on to thank God for Richard eer and the crew um it was put onto our tax bills because those of who paid were paying for others but the city still has to pay no matter what so there's no retribution to the city so all the multifamilies they have their own dumpsters they're paying collection to the city as well as the dumpsters you're you're paying collection to the city the city pays great waste and the city pays great waste correct everybody there's no out of that because we contract for the entire Village and and there's no way to nickel and dime down a little here and a little there because we're a very small village so we don't get a whole lot of people wanting to pick up our trash okay so I guess what's before us is um an offer of $100 against an outstanding uh mine of 4,000,000 plus um I'd like to make all in favor please say I I any opposed no motion passes motion passes 5 Z umage haded the village is recommending to cover the years of administrative work and follow through that went into the case and we also considered that this is not a homestead this is an in incom producing property for Mr London it's a business so we we took that into consideration I do recognize that he has been making some effort he he has yes and finally the dump truck crossing the median which was another extent The Village that's correct and I forced him to come here and Dorene he did Dorene your your um your recommendation was based upon a calculation of the time and effort and the hours that you all had put in that's correct this violation was open opened in 2021 way before we all came here but uh Mr londona is right that he was there was some confusion again in the communication however when I found this violation sitting there I contacted him and we started working together at this point your offer has been denied or we adjourn for the evening like to make a different offer or 500 you split the difference I personally I will not go anything lower than what has been reced by they're in the best position to know what went into dealing with this case for almost a years okay I'm willing to accept the villages bre Foundation of a th000 accept a th sir yes in that case on case number 737 they can make motion to accept the property owners offer of ,000 to be payable April a second all in favor say I I I any oppos no motion passes 5 Z thank you Octavia I'll the order in the mail great evening what date for payment deal um no Michael M that concludes the fine reduction so we'll go back to no business 8 16816 the address is 11921 d23 noreast 12th Avenue n23 d339 this is forette Romain and Jin Pier um violation is for a driveway there is no permit in the system and I don't believe we we've spoken we we haven't communicated I called arlet I found her number but I didn't get a call back if everybody would please look at the um return receipt request mail I think we're going to have to uh hold this off till next month have them Reen noticed notice the address Second Avenue the second the property owner was here it would be one thing property owner yeah that's like make a motion then yeah I would make a motion that we table this until next month's meeting have the owner properly noticed I'll second in all in favor I I I any oppos no motion passes 5 Z again if the owner was here it would be one thing but they're not GL saw that I'm sorry who said you second yes7 so we're moving on to 8817 thank you for that um Madam chair we're moving to 8.17 the case number is 11947 Northeast 12 court case number c-23 d332 is for marel and Augustine perie and Kenny Jeffrey perie um we are asking for a finding of fact um an order of enforcement um evidence was provided by a previous tenant uh I believe we have entered that onto the record uh we issued them a violation for renting the unit on a long-term basis without first obtaining a permit uh yes and I also notice this property is homesteaded I know it's a duplex I don't know property to the side but if not I don't know who would look into that but um I see the resident had provided a lease I mean the renter had provided a lease and everything else had the property owner um uh been in communication with the village as to this uh notice of violation I'm sorry I didn't hear that part I was just saying has the property owner been in contact with the village as to the viation um where's luano yes we we spoke with the prop he the the um officer spoke with the property owner he actually contested this and I was hoping that he would be here tonight however we had overwhelming evidence to show that he was renting this property and requires he absolutely did we had other violations on the property which are now in compliance well given that like to make a motion on case number c-23 d332 that a violation has occurred uh set a fine of $250 administrative cost of $250 Supply by April the 10th um or a $250 per day F thereafter I'll second all in favor I any oppos no motion passes 5 Z last the minutes the minutes we the minutes there were two things I found in the minutes with me me get organized 7.14 7.4 or 7.1 7.14 7 in my paperwork I had it listed as Janie making the motion Judy am iong I don't know I could have it wrong 7.14 I have with me was that that I had a motion this is for the February minutes right right when I had on 7.14 motion to dismiss was Michael and Rolo and it failed that's correct you have that and then it was Dale and Janie okay that's what we have okay and I was wrong that's okay that's fine that was a long and on 7.20 I had it is 41 I have it is 41 also y you're right good catch um 7.20 12010 Northeast 11th Place I have it as 41 one do we know who opposed I the I usually write that I didn't write it either 41 okay we'll listen to the tape again but um I have 41 case was TBL the motion was seconded oh we don't I jie and Dale I I have right but I have it 4 one and you know what I don't know who and I have March I don't have April right 41 is those who not not till April that's 44 one against right oh yeah no four so someone was against tabling this case she so someone was was was against tabling this case is that what you're saying that's what I have okay do we remember who was again no no see I don't even I mared it was for one again we will check it oh we'll listen to the tape again to make sure semantics big one and I have lost okay I'm sorry Judy were you okay 755 what's missing is the $250 admin find should go in there also so now on case 77 can I borrow somebody's 9.2 for tonight I've moved my 9.2 around so often I can't find it because 7.7 it would be before we move I'm sorry to interrupt you on 7.5 what do the others have do you have a 250 uh administrative fine because we don't we didn't have that yes I have violation 250 fine 50 admin by three four or $250 per day so we have 253 times okay Dale and Janie the three timers yes okay thank you can I borrow your 9.2 from tonight I have 250 250 thank you 9 point somehow I managed to lose 9.2 because 9.2 ties into 77 thank you not uh on 77 it says if a perent has not been pulled by March 6 and fine paid um it talks about an additional daily fine well there's already a daily fine on that is that 7.7 7.7 okay where it says oh right right question paid by it has another daily fine in there so what I was thinking if you look at 9.2 from tonight 9.2 on the order of enforcement that paragraph under the order of the codinance board is as follows the paragraph in that would actually make for a good a good proper addition to 7.7 after the motion and all of that you're right d did added 250 administrative fine so when we add it to the becomes 750 because you did that no I I added that back in too did yeah I'm Sor 23500 or is it 23750 after you add the two come up today right we had two with the first one we just reassessed whatever Right add then you added so we had a $500 administrative total 55 yes so that's 750 plus the daily 23750 was right in the agenda which one are we on 75 77 we are on 7.7 and you referenced the fine reduction 9.2 that's the same property but ell had corrected us in saying it was 23500 and not oh yes yes yes however if 500 was assessed as the violation the the fee plus 250 violation F that's 750 right all here should be 23500 because you started the day day earlier you should have started December the 1st so if you remove 250 everything else adds up to 23,500 and not 23,7 added that 2 without real realizing that it started on December you right but going back to the minutes the minutes um talk about an additional Daily Find which can't Happ you already have a daily and I was just saying that on 9.2 from tonight if you look at the order of enforcement the area in red of our findings actually would cover that's correct minutes except obviously for the who made the motion and the vote etc etc but I see that would would fit perfectly I think that's all I found in the minutes does anybody else have you know you too is everybody okay with that if we move the minutes last on the agenda tot agree yeah they don't need our housekeeping they don't need our housekeeping you're right okay else we T the discussion for the Code Compliance department and standing offering um so on that one I I have to apologize to the board that I brought this to the board um The Village attorneys um reviewed the document and when they found out that I had asked the board to make recommendations they clarified for me that the board of a quasi judicial body cannot participate in an administrative procedure in making policies for Michael I saw that we didn't vote on the minutes you guys oh the minutes I would make a motion to accept February's minut minutes with changes I'll second all in favor I I pass 5 Z good I'm sorry dor my apology no no no you're you're good so I was saying about the policies and procedures that um attorney Valerie viente reviewed the policies and in the end she um advised that um this is a quasi judicial body and they cannot participate in um reviewing policy administrative policies um so so unfortunately uh while I personally was looking for those recommendations legally I cannot take recommendations from this body I apologize for that I just want to say one thing I don't want to forget to say it in April I won't be at May's meeting and normally if I'm not gone a long time I ask you guys if you don't mind changing okay I'm going to be gone too long to ask you to change May's meeting and I just don't want to forget to tell you be next week okay I don't know when I'm so I okay are you gonna let us know so we arrange to either postpone or change the dates for the May meeting okay we'll wait for you anything else from anyone motion toour second quick question how was the electronic um agenda for Michael one drive I gotta say that I wasn't able to download it this time but not because was just I just didn't have the opportunity to do it okay can you please try it again because I do want to try it next time I'm sorry no it's fine we'll continue to send the electronic but I I believe