e e e e e welcome everyone good afternoon uh welcome to the code enforcement board regular meeting on Tuesday March 12th 2024 at 1 o'clock pm Miss deart can you please call the role member prman sorry member loura here member Murray here member Kaufman here Vice chairperson Perlo yes chairperson schlam yes Town attorney Ruben thank you all rise pledge United States Amica stand is there a motion to approve the agenda motion to approve second all favor hi for those giving testimony related to the case that you're affiliated with please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the authority vested in me as a notary of the State of Florida do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you you may be seated are there any corrections to the minutes of February 13 2024 hearing none may I have a motion to approve the minutes of February 13th 24 I Mo to approve the minutes is there a second second second all in favor say I I I have no unfinished business so we are on to new business and our first case is 20 CC 23-12 d012 Cate um the violation alleged is a Association has failed to comply with the requirements of section 11.9 which is the recertification of buildings of the town's administrative amendments to the Florida building called by failing to submit the required Milestone inspection report do the members have any expart Communications to disclose anyone hear from seate no um at this time like to open a violation hearing turn this over to Mr sski uh the town is pulling this case from the agenda you know it would be better if you said that before I use all this energy through the whole P the whole in that case the next one's getting pulled as well the next one is being pulled also okay great try to conserve my vocals okay so we're onward to see onwards to see step Marla garik and that is case uh 23-12 d017 um let's see here it's uh building permits required perola was built is that what it's called a perola or pergola pergola okay pergola was built without an issued permit do the board members have any exp parte Communications to disclose okay that case turn it over to oow my name is Adam osowski town of Highland Beach code compliance officer and I have been previously sworn in this is case number CC 2023-24 74 South Ocean Boulevard senior building inspector John Gallow inspected the property on December 27th 2023 the violations that remain as cited on today's agenda agenda are only 30-1 122a pergola built without a permit this is a building code violation only um per building code official Jeff Remis as cited by the town of Highland Beach Administrative Code chapter one for the 8th edition of the Florida building codes more specifically section 105.2 work exempt from a permit this pergula is a structure that was built without a permit the notice of violation was served by certified mail that was sent on December 27th 2023 the respondant was given 14 days to come into compliance the notice of hearing was served by posting and certified mail sent on February 2st 2024 prior to today's hearing I reinspected the building records this morning on March 11th 2024 and the violation continues to exist I have submitted the following evidence which includes proof of service supporting documents and photographs the town recommends that the respondent be found in violation of the town code AS alleged in the notice of violation and be fined $250 per day for each day the violation remains after the date set for compliance the town is asking to assess prosecution costs in the amount of $250 payable by the date set for a compliance okay um so this is a house right private private it's a private house single family house and what you're asking for them is to now get the permit that they should have gotten correct so they can remedy this correct any other questions for St that do we have uh Fender here or a Mr or Mrs garik or one of their representatives good afternoon my name's Michael Marshall I'm with the Nelson mull Law Firm I remember beh of the the homeowner and U and I'm accompanied by by the general contractor um that was um that was the contractor of record on permit there was a permit application that was filed so I I very much appreciate you pointed out that you need a permit and we 100% know that um it this is It's a rather unfortunate circumstance and um and it I understand that we're here on the fact that a permit was not issued for this structure and the structure was erected what there's no dispute there and so so we understand that's happening but I do want to explain to you what has occurred uh because what we were requesting from you is just some more time to try to cure this situation we currently have an appeal of Staff interpretation that was just filed today you see I wasn't involved when this first happened I got a call when the notice was issue which was end of December right around the new year and the issue was that this structure um does not the reason why a permit wasn't issued is because there was an outstanding comment from the planning department regarding the setback for this structure now that the application refers to it as a pergula refer to as a pergula in this it is really not a pergula a pergula doesn't even exist in your code there's no definition of pergula there's no word it is a gazebo it fits your definition of gazebo which is an open walled roof structure and so it's this is exactly what this is it's got four posts the roof that's over Furniture in the backyard by the pool it's a gazebo right and so what staff had told the applicant uh was that we can't find gazebo in your code um there's no exception for I mean gazebo for pulas there's no exception for pergula in the yard right in the yard so that means it has to meet the same requirement as the house so it has so you you can't have it you can't have a pergula that sticks off the house because pergula is not mentioned as something that's allowed to encroach into the yard so so staff was given this comment and unfortunately at that time the contractor and and he's here today and I don't mean to make this about him but he was going through some rather serious health issues and the email that went to him were missed and the installation of this structure was pre-arranged with a with a installer from the West Coast who literally showed up in one day and put it up and and and our contractor did wasn't fully comprehend the comment from staff much less be able to discuss the comment staff so once I started reading it after obviously the structure's up and violation been noticed I read the code and I'm like hang on um I you're basically saying you can't have this structure in a yard and it's I'm sure that there are gazebos all over the place and so but and so I read the code so we gave an interpretation of the code to staff and they disagree with the interpretation that's what we've appealed so I would like time to be able to go to the board of adjustment to have the board of adjustment say whether or not you can have these structures in Highland Beach if we can't then we'll take it down obviously nobody wants to like you know do something unto or incur fees right now just trying to get to an answer and I'm doing my best I've been discussing with staff from the very beginning of the year so we have we have been diligently working like I said we submitted an answer it was you been rejected we're now appealing it so we are we are pursuing this we are trying to fix this couldn't have just done a tiki hut instead of a TI Hut's not in the code Tiki Hut's not in the code there's no word Tiki Hut's not in the code so they would have made the same conclusion they would have said and the thing is that gazebo is actually defined in the code but then it's not discussed anywhere else except for in connection with Dune walkovers which obviously you don't have to have a dune to have a gazebo well no matter what it is you need a permit for it you need a permit for it but the question is they won't issue a permit if you don't meet the setback so what's the setback and you can't decide the setback until you decide well what is it right and so we're trying to flashh all that out and you know it's a matter of interpretation which often means that it's not black and white you know but it is something that Florida law quite clear on that there is ambiguity in Land Development regulations because they are derogation of private property rights and they are what is this thing use for it just it's just shelter it protects the outdoor kitchen it's like an outdoor grill with a table so you can stand out there and Grill your pork chops without getting way everybody has one yeah well I mean it's it's a gazebo even at your Tiki Hub would will meet the definition of gazebo in the code there's no tiki hut in the code can you provide other you said there's probably other ones I mean I I could I mean normally I don't point to other people and say oh they did it I SC do I used point to the rules and say I meet the rules right but I'm more than happy to survey the surrounding area and find similar structures that currently exist in yards well if it doesn't meet the setback it's never going to be aov right well so but watch the setback so there are different setbacks for different types of what what's what's generally considered an accessory structure M K yeah I'm only confused is I know it's a private piece of property but this whatever is sitting on basically the in Coast yeah the the the the property line that they're saying there need to be some kind of setback we don't know what it is right now they're saying 20 feet is the inter Coastal so it doesn't AB private property it's it faces the Open Water it seems like a place where a setback wouldn't even be necessary well I think you're going to have problems with that because this is that's not really considered your property so I think I'm not trying to put it on the off the property it probably is their property but it's just an issue of whether what the setbacks are what the setback is yeah yes yeah what the setback is right yeah and I'm not saying what the answer is I'm saying we're trying to find that answer and so you know yes sir sir just clarify for me are you the attorney representing the homeowner yes sir okay second question if I went to Home Depot and I bought one of those portable gazebos right and brought it home that you see laying on the floor of Home Depot all the time yeah and I put it in my backyard does that require a permit well so most I haven't memorized the Highland Car know pretty well now but uh most jurisdictions if you have something that's a fixed to the ground that's considered a structure which typically requires a building permit now if you just have this structure that you just sit on grade I mean you know it's movable it's temporary there's usually different jurisdictions have regulations for movable and temporary structures and so you know but there's all there's concern with that it was uplift and things you have to worry about and that's why you know I would think that the code would address that type of thing in some way whether it's a permanent structure or a temporary structure and the third question is if in fact uh you're found in violation um your comment was if I understood it correctly that you're going to take it down well we have to why won't you just apply for the permit and come into compliance so uh well no we have applied for the permit but I'm saying so why don't you just bring the permit request into to compliance and leave the structure here because the comment on the permit application was that the pergula the pergula what the structure needs to be set back 20 feet from the rear property line I don't have 20 feet the the home is 20 feet got it so basically they're saying you can't put it in the yard you can't put this in the backyard understood now I understand so I can't get a permit for well so if there is indeed a setback requirement that applies and this one doesn't need it then yes form of relief from that would be a variance now the question though it begs the question what is the setback requirement and does it currently made it or not I was just going to let the board know that the building official Mr Remis is here so if you have building code questions I'm sure he'd be happy to answer yeah oh we're I think Mr Remis wants to say something address this isue you're done have I don't have anything say but honestly I'm happy to answer questions but I me he may say something I okay Mr Remis good afternoon jeffre Miss building official town of Highland Beach I usually only come here come up here to speak to clarify and put things into context number one the pergola was installed without a permit before they even applied for a permit all right so applying for the permit was an after the fact let's just get that number two when they applied for the permit they applied to install a Pergola they did not apply for anything else um so again the work was done with without even applying so they put themselves in this situation after the fact after they applied for a building permit because of the code case it was determined that the pergola did not meet the setac requirements so we're kind of muddying the waters the purpose of the code case is work without a permit where the waters are getting muddied is that they're asking for additional time on this and Adam can I have the original date on the case so we're going back to the end of 2023 we're Midway through March and this has been reviewed by myself ingred Allen a town planner Marshall ledy Town manager and what they're trying to do which is mudding the waters is beyond a stretch all right so I don't really want to discuss anything from planning and zoning the reality of it is in all actuality they should be actually just immediately remove it period and then get this settled and then they can reinstall it if it's that simple and they want to call it whatever they want to call it that's fine but at this point if they really want to get rid of the violation they should just remove it and that would take care of the problem until the legalities of this through the planning and zoning department through Ingrid and whether it's a interpretation or however this has to work um we'll do that but in the meantime probably the easiest thing to do would be just to remove it removes the violation and that would probably be the easiest decision that you could make and then they'll have plenty of time to figure out the legalities but again we're here for working without a permit for choosing to do a job without pulling a permit and then finding out that they couldn't do it and and I agree I mean it's this is pretty simple when you look at it either it's either it happened or it didn't was there a permit right and they did not apply for permit and they started working before applying for the permit that is correct that's all we need to know that correct I think uh and if if they didn't then they didn't the whole thing with the variances and the Gazebo or a or a tiki hut or whatever youone that's not for us really that's I mean they could take that up with the uh the adjust board it's got nothing to do with the fact of whether they started work without even applying for a the there the legalities of it is there was not a permit issued and they decided to go ahead and install it anyway without any permits or approval they put themselves in this situation so the best thing to do would be just to remove the structure figure out the rest of it for whatever however they want to stretch definitions all right and if they get that through Planning and Zoning that's fine I don't really care I'll be happy issue of permit as long as it's going to meet the wind Zone because it's a structure that cannot become uh a threat to Neighbors when high winds all right so there a lot of requirements for this because of the wind Zone we're in all right and that's it and so I just wanted to put that put some context to that and I think we can put this to bed a little bit quicker if they would just remove it it's just got four legs remove it and then put it back in what about a teepee someone put up a tepee in their back would that be a all depend depends on how it's attached to the ground and if it's a temporary structure or not that's all depends on the tri and there are some other issues we have yeah that's a whole other ball game yeah but again this is we are not here for a planning and zoning issue we're here for a building code issue right we can't muddy the waters here this is a this is a building code issue not a planning and Zone he can argue the planning later but the quickest thing would probably just be to be directed to remove it until this gets figured out and then they can either install it or not I have a question maybe for Mr owski what what is the town asking for finding yeah we're looking we are looking for the finding of fact or finding that there's a violation and for the board to set a date to for them to achieve compliance number three and in order for them to achieve compliance one way to achieve compliance would would be to get approval through the planning board and then apply for permit and then get through that process or they can just simply remove it and then be in compliance have two choices right yeah but for us today we just need to decide whether a violation was committed which it either was or wasn't it was either done without a permit or it wasn't okay and uh that looks like the number three to me can't make I believe the respondant is still oh respondent still has to respond to this I believe they had um I mean look I've I've done my utmost best to be as open and transparent with you all as possible um I do have with me the contractor we will would like to present him to provide you factual testimony because I agree we do not want muddied water here and and what you're going to hear from what happened is that there was a permit application that was submitted it was checked off by everyone and to say this isn't a zoning issue that was the only sign off that was missing was from planning and zoning and that and that's why the permit wasn't issued so it was 1,00% the issue was with the application was submit a permit was applied yes and it was under review signed off by all disciplines all departments but Planning and Zoning so that's why this is a planning and zoning issue okay and they were making a comment factual matter then that we are disp you're disputing Mr say there was never application before start please if I may I'm so sorry let me present the factual because because he's going to present fact evidence I was not there I'm not a fact witness in this part so I I just I wish you should listen to him and not me okay that's okay all right good afternoon my name is Frank bashota I am the G check's property manager I'm not their general contractor to be clear okay we hired a general contractor and he fell asleep on this thing so we applied for a building permit in the beginning of August and I had dialogue with Jeff going back and forth the requirements and the criteria that they needed was Way Beyond what we were looking for it had roof all kinds of stuff I sat with Jeff he got rid of a lot of stuff that we didn't need on there everything was approved except for the setback issue I sat with ingred and Jeff at one point and she was after the side setback she was looking for uh 20 feet on a side setback and we have more than 50 feet on our side setback and then this turned into the rear setback where we are one foot over the rear setback which I didn't know we have we get um surveyor they did the surveyor and this is where we stand today but we did apply for the permit we what date in the beginning the application in the beginning of August you have the application I don't think the application I think it's I want to see the date of the application but they they care about the approval and they're correct it wasn't approved Mr Remis is saying they never even applied before they started working we did apply the permit number was a the permit number was ap23 2029 and um I have a picture of it here in my phone that I sent to the attorney yesterday and we paid over $1,100 in initial fees and they sent us a bill for the final fee with still the stipulation of the survey setback was another $2500 and we were ready to pay that but then this whole thing blew up I had major health issues through this whole thing I had cancer I went through I really dropped the ball on my end with the emails and back and forth with Jeff and it it it was a disaster for the guard checks now the people delivered it in November and installed it while I was out right now I have double vision I have six nerve py on top of my cancer so it's been very difficult for me to read and and do all the stuff but we didn't do what Jeff said there we applied for the fo permit first and then it got installed in November they came and delivered and installed it in one day so you did the work before the permit was before we we actually had the permit I thought we were GNA get it okay so again as I said the beginning we we recognized that the structure was was erected and we recognized that the permit was not ultimately issued that's it Frank Frank yeah well and what I'm asking for is so we're ask I'm asking for time to fix it and I mean and obviously we could tear it down but under our view under our view of the code we would just be building it back in the same place two weeks that's what well I need to get to a board of adjustment hearing and I don't know what their calor is but you we're not here for that we're here I know I know I'm not I'm not asking you to not I'm not asking you finish you don't have an approved permit I know I we're asking so we all know that so what we're asking for is like so we've had since the notice right an opportunity to cure and and we're working through that cure so I'm just asking for more time to cure it you're gonna get two weeks well is that can I get to the board of adjustment two weeks no I I don't know when the next Board of adjustment I mean if the if the board of adjustment was tomorrow that'd be fine I mean I'm gonna just say what Mr Remer said you're better off taking it down and then finishing everything 100% and then and then okay so so if we take it down um you're gonna have to then we do something with that resubmit the application and build it again but we still have to make the same okay that's fine we have to make the same presentation I suppose and go through the same issue with staff uh and in the meantime we've just demolish the structure for no what could be no reason demolish it that's you can take that down that's a that's a a removable structure that will go back up well when I say demolish I don't mean with a with a sledgehammer or anything I mean you have to take it down sorry I didn't mean to be pejorative there but my only point is I I I'm literally not trying to persuade you guys to not believe the fact no I'm asking for your I'm asking for some relief that's all I'm asking for how are we gonna provide you can give me you can you can we don't give anything we well I mean he's asking he's just asking for addition time why are you here he's asking for additional time yeah yeah have you applied to the uh Board of exceptions and appeals we have and and they have not given you a date the we just got the we just got the staff rejection of our of our interpretation last Friday the day that the application the appeal was filed so honestly we have no idea how long it'll take for that hopefully it's the next hearing I mean I mean it could be 90 days they don't have a regular hearing date so they're scheduled when cases arise I mean we I just yeah I mean because because by by by taking this interpretation we' got from staff is that this that that this structure which whether you whatever you call it I mean it firmly meets the definition of gazebo and the code the fact that someone call it a pergula I mean your returning will tell you I can write a motion and call it anything the motion is what I ask for for but but my point is that they're saying you can't have this thing they're saying you can't have it because right because of where it's loc because it needs a 20ft setback which the same setback as the house which means it can't go in the yard that's correct right and so if and so we don't we think that's absurd to be honest well then they have I me but I me but it may not be it may be that gazebos are banned in Highland Beach in the yards and they may be and that's I'm just trying to get an answer on that because obviously if you can't have it you can't have it I don't know why they accepted the permit to begin with if you can't have it well they didn't the in process they're required to accept permit they could have just said straight out give a permit or not give a permit you don't have a permit right now I know but okay I know we don't because we have a dis I mean look I'm not trying to justify what happened it sounds like no no I'm I'm just trying to justify that it makes it makes it is in all fairness and Justice to give me time to resolve what is an issue that should have been addressed six months ago but it could take three it could take six months and hurricane season starts but there I don't think there's any life safety issue here I don't think any life safety issue we we're more than happy to have it inspected we should ask let's limit to questions and this back and forth is not productive yeah we're gonna at this time we're gonna conclude our uh part well do you have do you have more evidence to present I'm sorry what what was your I I missed your name when you inel Marshall Marshall yes okay Mr Marshall do you have anything else you want to present no I no thank you thank you okay okay so once again there's one thing before us today that we have anything to do with at the code enforcement board and that's whether or not any type of work was done without an issued permit that's not a permit application that's actually an issue a permit that was issued and it's Undisputed Undisputed by both sides at work was done without an issued permit so I'm saying that we find uh that there was a violation but there has to be a motion to that effect I I can make the motion for a number three which is a single violation wait a minute before you do that and then there would have to be a time for compliance that's the issue is the time like what's a reasonable time to get reasonable time he said two weeks that's what we give everybody standard standard is two weeks can we discuss this yes I please discuss it and the board has discretion as the time I mean it could be two weeks it could be two months whatever the board the compliance for compliance I would give um 30 or 60 days give 30 but I would also want the Lessing the daily because if he's got to get it from that board and if you don't do in 16 days then he's got to take advantage then he's got it well but would lessen the Daily Find i' do the 60 but if he doesn't daily F would start after the date of compliance oh after oh then that's fine okay yeah not now the only thing he'd be is the 25050 what do you think Mr chairman may I yes you know like all of these cases that we hear there's always extenuating circumstances and there are human issues this isn't just a black and white issue and I think as a board sometimes we fail to look at the human issues and the human element and I think that everybody sitting behind this table could be faced with a similar situation given the extenuating circumstances and so therefore um I suggest that we give them what time they need given those extenuating circumstances and this is a homeowner who tried to do things in good faith in my in in my opinion but there were ma'am I'm speaking can I please finish how do you know The Home Room these are not the I'm not here to argue with I'm not here to argue with you everyone gets to say I'm not here to argue with you I'm here to give my opinion okay and I'd appreciate it if you would just let me finish so I think that everybody sitting here in this room can be faced with the human element and extenuating Circumstance es and if it if when that time expires whether it's 30 60 90 days if we find that they did something intentionally or wrong then I think we have plenty of time to find them in violation in the mean time in my humble opinion given the circumstances I think that we should give them some latitude what do you suggest timing I'm not sure I know the answer to that but I just want to be fair and if that's 306 90 120 days whatever it is to bring this into conclusion and compliance that would be fine with me I'm happy saying how much time served Mr Marshall do you think you need to get this in compliance well so as it was saying it the appeal of the staff interpretation of the code goes to a board of adjustment and and like you said that's they're not regularly scheduled so I mean we could be prepared I mean as soon as possible I mean the issues are I mean we kind of they're sort of formulated we know um it the alternative if if our interpretation of the code is that that there it's regulated as other customary yart accessories which means it's subject to like triangle sight visibility stuff like you put it that by the road and it can't be super tall so it has height and visibility requirements but no specific setback requirements now it you know if that if that if that interpretation fails then the only option is what was mentioned earlier which is a variance which we can submit for both of them simultaneously I'm not sure if a variance process would take longer than the interpretation process or if it's heard by the same board same board so you could just present them alternatively so I mean this get happen as soon as okay basically it could take we have no idea how long but I whenever they scheduled the board of adjustment meeting thank you would would the board be uh would they uh set a meeting for just one item that's usually with that's what they do they meet they meet only by appointment only they just met relatively recently last month um because they had a variance but I don't know you know you have to have a quorum and get the meeting together and now we're getting into yeah and and I just want to respond to you know what my colleague Dr Kaufman was saying about the human element and you know we got to let people uh uh do what they have to do and give them time and I have a little bit of an issue with that because you know it's about precedent too you know and everybody has a special circumstance okay everybody that comes in here has some special reason why they started work without a permit okay and if we sit sit here and try to you know faret out the human element and you know give people as much time as they need what's fair I think we're going down a rabbit hole uh if we if we go with that line line of thinking you know that that's that's not what code enforcement is here for I mean uh we're here pretty much be black and white I mean there there's there's rules for a reason and uh you know if if we can help someone by giving a little more time then that's different than saying you know as much time as they need I think we should listen um that that's just setting a bad precedent for would you suggest would I I mean I I I think the two we normal Standard time is is might in this case be uh altered or maybe extended to 30 or 60 days but you know it's certainly certainly not to the to the realm where where maybe maybe someone should make a motion and you could always discuss the motion but yeah we would need a motion so and I can't make one so someone else I move that respondent be found in violation of the town code is alleged the notice of violation and that they be ordered to comply within 60 days or be fined $250 per day for each day the violation remains after the date set for compliance and assess prosecution costs in the amount of $250 payable by the date set for compliance I second okay so we can have a roll call any discussion on the motion any discussion on the motion okay roll call member prman uh yes member loura yes member Murray yes uh member Kaufman yes Vice chair person Perlo yes chairperson schlam yes thank you motion carries you got your 60 days congratulations all right pace number CC 20241 d32 Julia wanklin and Patrick citton that's on Russell Drive and the uh violation was an AC change out oh wait wait AC change out has expired okay uh any board board members exp parte Communications at this time I turn over the hearing to I'm sorry I don't want to cut you off but the town is uh pulling good good good all right because those get corrected quickly yep and uh it then um now we have announcements March 14th oh this one okay March 14th which is uh isn't that Pi Day yes that's national Pi Day 3.14 9:30 a.m. planning board meeting then we have uh April 9th 2024 is our 100 PM code enforcement yeah this was a boo boo said April 11th here that's a boo boo let me just check that for a second here April 9th oh wow that's the day I'm getting back flying straight from Vegas on a red eye so well if not I'll take over Mee well yeah you may have to no problem you never know with the planes um okay the meeting is now adjourned