You ready? Are we ready? Okay. Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order the village of Biscane Park Code Compliance Board meeting for Wednesday, December 17th. The time is 6:00 p.m. If the clerk
would please call the role. Janie Anderson, Dell Bington, Roda Berontos, Judy Hammer, Michael Lenat, Darin C. Grant, Raphael Gutterz, Vanessa
Cherry, present. This is a meeting of the village of Buskin Park Code Compliance Board. The board is authorized pursuant to chapter 14 of the vill's land development code to ensure compliance with the vill's code of ordinances. The members of the
board are citizens and residents of the village of Biscane Park. 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 code compliance officer which
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 hardship, ignorance or the fact that others may be guilty of the same
violation. These hearings are conducted in a quasi judicial manner. Our responsibility is to act much like a judge in a court and that is to hear cases presented by the village's code compliance officers and to hear contradictory arguments presented by the alleged violators. We are not authorized
to change the code. The village commission is solely authorized to enact or reverse codes. Conversely, neither the commission nor the village manager have the authority to overrule the findings of the board. Pursuant to chapter 162 Florida statutes, orders of
the board can only be appealed to the circuit court of Miami Dade County, we have the authority to assess and order the 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 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 exhibits, to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party first called
them to testify, and to rebut the evidence against them. If you intend to address the board and haven't signed in, please do so at this time. And anyone who wishes to address the board, please stand, raise your right hand so you may be sworn in. You are reminded the board
is causing judicial and giving false testimony can analyzed. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
Do we have any additions, deletions? No additions. An update that we can give a we don't have any additions, but we have an update on a case that we can give after the fact. Manager is here. He may give us that date. Uh the one thing I do want to add is a
brief discussion at least on February's meeting date and if anyone has a January meeting date problem, we really do need to discuss those two after I said to add. Oh, we do need to vote on Dale. So I'd
make a motion to approve deal Bllandon's app. >> A second in >> favor. >> I motion passes three. Okay, we are ready for our first case. Good evening. My name is Dorian Grant, co-director for the village of Piscane
Park. The first item on the agenda is in section 8 and it's 8.2. It's for the address 11095 Griffin Boulevard >> 82 8.2.
for the address 11095 Griffin Boulevard, case number CE-25-047, Alton 8 LLC in care of their registered agent, Kiran Tuki. They're here for a fine reduction. They were found to be in violation of section 16.14
double fee permits. They installed a fence without first obtaining permits. We are happy to report that they are now in compliance. Um, however, they still have outstanding fines of $12,750.
They are offering $500. The village recommends $1,000 and we have council present via Zoom. >> Good evening. It's Harry Tempresenting
Alton 8 LLC uh care of this Karan. >> Can you hear me? >> You would excuse me a moment. The board needs time to have a discussion and then we will be more than happy to turn it over to you.
>> He was warned. >> Was he? >> Yes, >> he was. >> He was okay. There's one um misconception I think if you read the
application for the fine reduction. The statement is made that they applied for the permit one day after the deadline where the deadline was not for application.
The deadline of August 20, bear with me, August 27th was to obtain the permit, not apply for the permit. I just wanted to correct that. That's a bit of a that's a rather
significant misconception. Judy Rodo, any sir, if you would go, introduce yourself. And again, I'm so sorry. uh and your relationship to the property, please. >> Good evening. I'm Harry Tempkins of Newman and Tempkins. I'm the attorney
for Altonate LLC. Um my address is 605 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Sweet 301. Before we start, I understood that the case number was ending in 0477. The notice of violation that I'm having
have in my hand is 0478. I'm not sure whether I have have a long one or uh there's another one that I don't know about but uh that's the issue and uh which is I think a very
minor one but I wanted to bring it up so there's no problem in your future. >> Okay. I can clarify that the case number is CE-25-0478. >> That's the one we're hearing.
>> Yeah. Um my client basically uh was relying on the contractors and the people that to do all this stuff. And uh I don't want to point fingers, but the contractor should never have done
anything without the permit. They should know better than she did because she is not in this business of doing renovations or repairs and so forth. She would ask that the fine be 500, not a,000. I think you've been very generous
with the thousand, but she's asked me to say that she really can't afford to go more than the 500. and because of her compliance and because she has tried to do everything by the book, but obviously she didn't because of relying on other people who should know what they're
doing. Uh we'd ask that to take consideration and reduce the fine down to $500. >> Um basically what we try to do in these cases, and I'm sorry I can't see you. You're to the back of my head if I'm speaking. Um, we try to cover for uh the
cost of our staff going out and having to put together a case and having to inspect and having to do and that's what we put a basis on um for what we we
would be recommending. Um I can make >> it is unfortunate sir but your client is sadly one of many who put all their faith in a contractor and it still boils
down to it is the property owner's responsibility to make sure all the eyes are dotted and the tees are crossed because they are the ones who are going to be held liable. And again, as >> it was,
>> I have no argument with that. I have no argument with that at all. Uh she's just saying that uh she really can't afford much more than the $500 and she'd appreciate that even though you lowered it dramatically and drastically. Uh she
asked me to try to have it at the at the $500 mark. She understands it's been done before, but I'm not relying on what was done before. We're all talking about what is done now. She said she was one day late and I obviously she
misunderstood with the applications when she's doing it by herself but with contractors who should have known that they needed all this before they started anything that uh that she was one day late according to her but based upon
what you're saying that she was more than one day late because of the time factor thing on it. >> I'm sorry. And and I'm not and I'm not arguing that all I'm not arguing with you at all. All I'm trying to do is see what the what the best I could do for
her. She's out of the country right now and that's why I'm here. Otherwise, she'd be here to face the music herself. >> Unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll take a motion. >> Make a motion, >> please.
>> Okay. um make a motion to um to deny the request for $500. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> That's been denied. >> Sir, the board has voted against accepting the 500.
staff is suggesting to >> $1,000 >> 1,000 >> is to cover a cost. If you remember, case was scheduled uh to be heard at the last hearing. We had to reissue our notices and bring back this case to this
hearing. So, $1,000 would cover cost for staff. >> Sir, I don't know if you could hear Miss Grant. >> I did and I am not objecting to it. I understand the reasoning and so forth on it and I appreciate all the considerations you have given to me and
to my client and uh and hopefully she will pick contractors who are more concerned about complying with your rules and regulations than they are about seeing how fast they can do a job without permits.
So, >> as it as it stands, the fine holds at the $12,000 unless you can on her behalf make an offer that the village would accept. >> Well, I heard $1,000 and that's what we
would agree to. Your >> Okay. You You have to >> Will you Are you saying so you will offer on behalf of your client 1,000? >> Yes, ma'am. In that case, I would make a motion to accept the $1,000 offer.
>> A second. >> All in favor? >> Pay by date. >> Uh with Can we have a pay by date? >> Deadline date. >> I would need it after next year, your honor, because she's out of the country and with this time of year, uh
communications out back and forth is for the holidays. I would like to do maybe by January 15th if that's possible. >> No, no, no. That's fine. Matter of fact, I was going to say January 21st. >> I I'll accept yours as better than mine.
>> Okay. So, we are in agreement. You've ex We have a f first and a second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, we have an agreement $1,000 to be paid by January 21st. If not, the fine
does revert back to its original. I understand. >> Thank you so much, sir. >> Have a wonderful holidays and happy and healthy holidays to all of you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir. >> Happy excuse. >> Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you. >> After the next two cases, I'm asking um the board can allow the village manager to speak on 826. He'll just give a brief update on the meeting we attended at the unsafe structures not unsafe structures we historic preservation board. I'll
call two cases and then we'll invite the manager if that's okay with the board. Thank you. Next two cases in section seven new business is uh item number 7.4 for 821 Northeast 120th Street. It's
case number CE-25-0763 for BP120 LLC in care of registered a wina robin. Um will remember that these cases um were brought before you uh last year I
believe. Um this is a property that is on the list of our unsafe structure properties. Uh the roof has caved in on a on the second uh structure on the property. um and we had issued violations. However, the property was about to be
sold and but the sale uh fell through. Now, these cases were closed because of that sale. However, we had to reissue these cases, both cases for the fence and um the roof because a year has lapsed and there has been no activity
and it's against the ordinance for us to have a property with um construction fence um standing and there's no status on what the progress on that uh >> did we hear this case last year? >> Yes, >> I thought so. I knew it sounded
extremely familiar and I'm going to ask in those situations we need that original case back up. >> That's so critical and I knew I could I seem to remember it. We were working because it was in the process of being
sold. >> That's correct. >> I believe >> the sale didn't >> but Right. And so we were trying to work with the new with the potential new owner >> for and unfortunately in the evidence I wasn't able to present any pictures of
the state of the property now but I was able to use a picture that was taken by the complainant which is a neighbor. She she has she's a it's not evidence but it's um a picture I put in in the file >> with the complaint itself
>> because and the neighbor is who complained about the property not um being >> Madame Chairperson >> if I may comment >> if you would sir your name and your relationship to the property. >> My name is Carl Linder. I'm the owner of
the LLC that owns the property. So when we purchased this property, I came in with a application to demo the property right away, which was not acceptable at the time cuz apparently there was code section that if you
didn't submit plans right away, you couldn't demo. So the plan was always to demo this house. The roof has been collapsed before I bought it. It's been collapsed prior. So we have a demo permit in right now. We have a hearing
on the 21st coming up in a few days and we're hopeful that that application will be approved. Um I want nothing more than to tear that house down. The difference today is instead of $7,000 to tear it down when I quoted it three years ago, it's now 20,000.
Um I also spent $5,000 on that fence. We had to paint the house even though there's no roof. So it's been, you know, a big issue. Now, the issues are not over. All right. Once the house comes down, we have a major issue with FPL
that has an easement 10 ft across the property. >> But I'm going to interrupt you just a second, sort of to remind you. It's also a big issue, the people who are living around it. >> Yeah, that's why I submitted the permit to demolish it three years ago. So, our
intent is to get rid of this structure. Um, >> when is your planning a zoning meeting? 21st is a Sunday >> 22nd. >> Sorry. >> So, it's on the agenda. I actually, if you want to see it, I have it on my phone.
>> We have it. We can confirm. >> Yeah. So, the plan is to demolish this house as soon as possible. Um whether or not we're going to submit plans to build on it, we're very limited and restricted what can be built there. It's not a a really buildable lot in
that way unless we can get FPL to work with us on those lines that cross the property. FPL's quoted me $150,000 to move the lines. I mean, it's really insane considering they did free work up to one block before our street. So, they
buried the lines up to 119th where 120 we missed out. Um FPL doesn't know if they're going to continue that project in the village right now. So we need to move those lines to really effectively build something that's you know uh from
a from an economic perspective that makes sense. Uh I also spent some additional money in the last two weeks getting a study on the existing structure to see what we could do cuz with the setback um it's difficult. Right now the property's on the alley
which is great but the structure has to come down. It's not suitable to be used at all. So, the plan is to demolish. I believe we'll be that property will be gone by February 28th, 2 months. Uh, I would like to request that you give me that amount of time to demolish this
property. >> Well, at this point, what I would like to do is set a deadline for the demo permit to be obtained. If you comply by the demo permit be
getting obtained by the date we set but the work is not finished by the end of the de of the permit then I would ask that the daily fine kick in again
because we've got to bring these things to a close. >> I wanted to tear it down three years ago. The rules now changed right. So now you can demo without the plans which is great and I that was news to us recently. So >> see if if
if on this particular case if no one has any more questions I'm going to go ahead and make a motion in case number C25-0763. A violation has occurred. give the the property owner until January 6th to pull
the demo permit, if not a $250 daily fine. If he complies by pulling the permit by the 6th, but the work is not completed by the end of
the permit, the daily fine of $250. So we have two weeks to pull a permit >> just to get a permit. Now permit >> and how long >> we have the the >> number of months to >> will the Yeah. Will it is it six months to demo?
>> I believe it's six months. >> Okay. >> So pull the permit meaning approved permit in two weeks during the holidays. That might be difficult. I don't know. >> Right. I was going to address the board. Uh we are about to go to uh two weeks of
holidays and um the planning review takes some time before they can issue the permit. So I think January 16. >> Bear with me. Let me get their other dates. We've got the dates and thank you for that, Vanessa. They have another meeting on the 21st of
January. I'm sorry, the 20th of January. >> That works. I will amend my motion to you pulling the permit by January 21st. Second. >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. >> And again, anybody need me to repeat my full
motion? >> Please. >> Okay. Give the property owner until January 21st to come into compliance by pulling a demo permit. If not, a $250 daily fine. If the
property owner complies by pulling the permit by the deadline, but does not complete the work by the end of the permit, $250 daily fine. In other words, we want to encourage
finish. >> It will definitely be down within the time of the permit. >> I I second it. We need a vote. >> All in favor? I >> this motion passes 30. >> Thank you all.
>> So, >> happy holidays. >> You've got another case. >> Oh, I do. >> Next case for the same address and property owner case number CE-25-0795 uh is for the fence they expired permit
item number 7.5. These two matters to me were linked because the roof was related to us being mandated to put the fence to begin with. >> So for this one, the permit has expired. It will need to be renewed because with demo you will need that place covered.
So we are not saying to remove the fence. We are asking you to >> renew the permit. >> We will do that. So in in this case we'll allow the content since it's been there. We'll allow
any questions from the board. Okay. In in C case number C250795, a violation has occurred because the fence permit expired. It says the $250
fine. $250 admin fee and the construction permit, I'm sorry, the demo permit along with the renewed fence permit needs to be in place by
a January 21st or a $250 daily fine. >> Okay, >> I'll second. All >> in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. Happy holidays all. Thank you. >> This time I'll respectfully ask that the
code manager give us an update on A26. An update from the manager for 826, the other unsafe structure. >> Thank you, Biscuit Manager. >> Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um
yes. Um Dorene uh asked me to be here tonight to give you a report about our attendance at the recent historic preservation board meeting. Uh at that meeting on um I think it was last week we uh myself, our code compliance
director Dorian Grant and our building official Pedro Martinez attended the meeting. Was a kind of lengthy meeting. We were the last ones on the agenda. So we were there all all afternoon. But we when we finally got to it, um the board
um heard the recommendation from staff uh to deny the application and there was uh discussion back and forth and after the discussion uh they recommended the staff to withdraw the application. So they did withdraw the application and
they indicated to the village that the village had their authority to go forward with the demolition of the structure. So, uh, we sent a email and, uh, our village attorney followed up with a, uh, former notification to the
property owner and his, uh, attorneys to, they have two attorneys that represented that represent that property that they have 30 days as of December 15th to obtain a demolition permit or the village will proceed with uh,
obtaining it ourselves and and demolishing in the structure. So, we're in the process of now of uh securing a contractor if that doesn't occur and and after December after January 15th uh 2026, we'll be looking to demolish the
property. >> There's no chance they can apply for the historic designation again. >> Uh not at this time. I think the their only hope would probably uh seek a legal injunction at this point. So, and and
the court to try to stop us with it. So, but we're confident that we're going to move forward and either they obtain the permit or we're going to obtain the permit. >> Thank you all so much. >> And I sore for a long time. >> Yes. Yeah. Been going on >> several decades.
>> Right. Right. really took a tremendous amount of effort on all of your parts, manager children, code staff, and please thank the building official for us. >> Yes. Yeah. It was a excellent uh work by
the by our code compliance director and our building official keeping on track of this and uh and keeping me informed so that that uh we we knew where it was and uh we're diligent and and following up to make sure that uh the right thing
was was done. >> Thank you. >> Right. No problem. >> Thank you all. >> And I I think uh Dorene's going to talk tonight. I think there's another item on the agenda tonight about the uh that ordinance and Dorian to speak about that. So,
>> all right. >> We've got the uh the working hours ordinance and the other unsafe structure. >> Yes. >> Right. Right. All right. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. Happy holidays. The next item on the agenda is under
section 7 and it's 7.13. It's for the address 120005 Northeast 11th place. It's case number CE-25-0894 Geronimo Mansia and Sandra. Um we are asking for an order of enforcement. They were found to be in
violation of section 11.6.7 ABD fence maintenance rear wood fence showing signs of discoloration, fading, peeling and general deterioration. Um a fence permit was submitted on
December 10th um to our building department and I would like to enter into the evidence fence fence permit number PFE-25-0044. It's under building review as we >> So it hasn't gone to PND yet?
>> It has been not yet. Oh, because it was updated on the 10th. It's only been a week. So they will be scheduled to be >> but they are approved on the agenda. >> They will be they will have to be scheduled to go. >> Okay. >> We have received the application in the
village. They haven't been scheduled for >> and when will they be I repeat on 20. >> I no they're not on this agenda. She does the agenda now for PND. So she says the next one, not this one, but one after maybe depending
>> I'm sorry. >> So if they'll be on the list for the next one, not this coming up >> be um January 5th >> probably on January 5th. We'll check in with building to make sure. We didn't get a confirmation. Did you have >> a question? What's PND?
>> Planning and design review. >> Ma'am Ma'am, I need you please to do two things. speak into the mic and identify yourself and your relationship to the property. >> My name is Alexandra Manzia and I'm the daughter of the owner.
>> I wanted to ask what's PND? >> It's the the committee that oversees um for all the permits and either approves or denies or asks you to modify. >> So the meeting that you guys have on Monday the 21st or No,
>> right. We have one on the 21st, but you're not on that agenda. The agenda is prepared in advance >> only because I got an email today saying that we were >> really >> Yeah. >> All right. I will look into it.
>> She has to look at the agenda. She prepares the agenda. She said she doesn't remember your address, but I could be I stand to be corrected. >> That's fine. I just wanted to clarify it. >> Whatever major work Yes, Vanessa just remembered.
>> She's my right left hand person. >> I did the agenda today. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, she remembered that you're on the agenda. >> They are. All right. >> Yes, they are. >> 21st. >> Okay. So, you're on December 20. That's this coming Monday. And it's always a
good idea to go in person because if there are questions, if there are issues, you don't want to find about it two days later. You want to try to solve it >> while you're there >> at that point? >> Does my dad have to be there? >> I'm sorry. >> Does my dad have to be there?
>> Should be. >> Okay. >> It would be better. Can you always support and interpret if you need to? And >> Okay, that's fine. >> Okay. So, if there are no more comments,
questions, and I would like a motion. >> Go ahead. I'll let you do it. Okay, >> you're going to hold off on it >> in case number on this agenda. Let me get a date. Okay. In case number C25-089,
no, I do have a question first. This case opened in April. Was there any communication with the property owner at that point? because it opened in April, then the notice of violation was in October.
Introduce yourself for the for the Introduce yourself. They received a notice to >> looking at roughly eight months. >> All right. Thank you. Back to my ENKCE25 J-0894.
A violation has occurred. Assess a $250 violation fine. $250 administrative fee. Permit to be pulled by January. Excuse me. J December
21st or second rather. Excuse me again. January 22nd or a $250 daily fine. >> Your date is January 22nd. >> No, December because they're on December. I stumbled.
>> December 22nd. >> No, >> January 22nd. >> January 22. >> They're going to the PND on the 21st. on the 22nd. I'm sorry. They're going for that meeting. >> They're not on this month's meeting. >> They are on the next month's meeting for
review. So, >> you're giving them until January. >> I misunderstood. I thought they were on this. >> But only for review. Got it.
Okay, let's try that one. In the case of CE25-0894, a violation has occurred. It says $250 fine, $250 administrative fee. Give the
property owner until January 22nd to obtain their permit or else a $250 daily fine. >> I'll second >> in >> favor. I no any opposed. Motion passes
30. Thank you and good luck. >> Next item is 7.12 7.12 and the address is 11920 Northeast 11th place is for the case number C25-0178 for Alina Perez. Progress report for the
roof. Hello, I'm back. >> Tell us how are things going, Elina. >> Alina Perez, I'm the owner of the of the home. I'm actually on the calendar tri the trial calendar call for this week.
It's Wednesday. I haven't been called yet. We're number eight on the list. So, I've got two more days. Let's see what happens. Um, but nothing yet. But you are finally on a calendar.
>> We are. We are for this week. Um, so we'll see. I don't know if number eight is a good number or not. >> Well, good luck. Um, probably I would say even if she could just email
>> Sure. >> an update after that. that I mean there's for you to come to every meeting until we get closer to you get a resolution. >> Yeah. >> So my motion would be simply to ask >> the property owner to email
>> before January's meeting the results. >> Okay. >> And where should I email? >> Okay. Can I get your email? >> Yes. >> Oh, you were the one that emailed me. Then I have your email. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Good luck. >> Motion. >> We didn't get the motion. A motion for this case, please. My My motion is in case no, Bear with me. I'm out of
place here. 7.1 >> 7.12 >> 112 in case number C25-0178 allow the property owner simply to update code compliance manager after her hearing and before January's
meeting. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. Next item is 6.2 in old business. 6.2
is for the address. 10:15 Northeast 112th Street. >> I'm sorry. Item number >> 6.2. >> 6.2. 2. The address is 10:15 Northeast 112th Street. Case number CE-25-0598
Bricken or Lace LLC in care of their registered agent, Harvard Business Services, Inc. We were coming for an intent to lean on this case. They were found to be in violation of chapter 5.6A1 6A1 off
streetet parking vehicles were observed parking on an an unapproved parking surface. uh property owner has reached out to our code officer Raphael Gutierrez and he can comment on
I'd like to add that we have since filed an affidavit of non-compliance and there have fine fines have run up to $9,000 as of today. There is no permit in the system. >> They haven't even applied yet. questions and comments from the board.
>> What she has to say. >> Good evening. My name is Natalya Moreno. I'm from Morgan Winnie Property Management. We are the managers of of the property. Um we as as the inspector said we are on the process of um hiring the contractor and and complete the
permit application. This was something that the owner purchased the property a year ago. He was not aware of the ordinance that was that passed on 2023. So his understanding was that the cars were parked where there were not supposed to
be and not that he needs to do the driveway as per the ordinance. So that's why there was a little bit of uh misunderstanding from his part. But now we inform him, we printed the ordinance, he has all the all the information, we
have all the paperwork with the package so we can uh start the proc the permit process and complete the driveway of the property. >> Here's my concern, ma'am. The first notice of of the violation
went to the property owner in July this year. >> Obviously, we all we're in December. It's five months and he still has not applied. >> That's the misunderstanding that he had because he also received a uh like a
fine for the cars parked there which was paid. So he was confused and he thought that since it was regarding parking it was the same issue. He was not aware of the ordinance and he now he understands that we need to complete the process as
per the ordinance. >> Did the property owner ever reach out to you Raphael? And I want to clarify also about that communication. One way the communication was sent to the register agent and this is a Delaware corporation. So all the
information was sent to the Harbor Business Inc. which is on Delaware. So we did not receive that communication until we started. Very critical, ma'am, that you get with the folks in village hall and make sure they have your correct mail.
>> Already send the property management agreement that we have and all my contact information. >> And if there's one or two or three people, whatever that all have to get the information, please make sure Steph >> we did already, but I already I they have my my contact information. We've
been in contact, so this is not going to happen again. So there's there's already daily fines being put on it and those are going to stay until she pulls a permit. No, >> what I would like to suggest is that
we give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's go ahead and stop the daily fines at this point. No, let me rephrase that. Stop the daily fines the day they turn in the application.
Then I would give them until January 21st to obtain a permit. Well, I'd like to stop the daily fines only because let's face it, we're already at 9,000, >> right?
What I would like to do then is set the 21st as a deadline to obtain the permit, but work has to be completed by the end of the permit or the daily fine of 250 reinstate.
if they're not able to get the permit by the 21st in January just because we're coming off a holiday and three weeks put them on the agenda for that meeting >> for an extension. >> Yes, ma'am. Put them on the agenda for that meeting because that's it's our
meeting night anyway. >> You don't think they'll be in front of P&Z by then? We are He's in the process of completing the of getting the contractor signed, but I have all the I have all my paperwork, all the applica, everything
completed. I'm just waiting for him to complete the hiring process with the contractor. So, they can start with the and with the person that is going to be doing the drawings. So, it's a matter of um I think maybe we can be ready for the
21st with the application and everything for the 21st of January. >> I put it on February's meeting. >> That's sounding a little iffy. >> But but in case that we're not able that the schedule is tight, then we will request
an extension on that meeting. >> Let's push it out then till February's date. >> Okay. >> The 17th. Sounds good. >> And and my reasoning behind saying stop the daily fines the day they
actually apply for the permit is because I'd rather let's cut it. It's already up there. Then add the additional requirement that the work must be completed by the end of
the permit or the daily fines resume. I think it's it's a little more critical to add a sense of urgency to our emotions versus just letting fines accumulate.
>> I'll second that. >> Let me repeat it properly if it is a cone. >> Yes. I'm sorry ma'am. Any more would you Okay. In case C25-0598,
give the property owner until February 17th to pull to obtain a permit, daily fines to stop acrewing the day the
application is turned in. If the work is not completed by the end of that permit, daily fines of $250 to resume. >> Do I have a second? >> Yes, a second.
>> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you so much for coming in. Next item is 6.3 in old business. This is for the address 11133
Griffin Boulevard and it's for case number C24-0086 Modesto Molina and wife Sarah Crroo. Good evening everybody. >> In this case, one second. >> We were going to ask for an intent to
lean on a fine that accured um from June 16 to the day the permit was issued, October 8th, 2025 at $250 a day.
And it um acrewed up to $29,000. They were found to be in violation of chapter 5.6.7 of street parking. Existing park parking service does not have a driveway approach. Now I would like to explain something to the board.
The permit has been issued and they're in compliance on that part. However, the couple came to the office this afternoon to complain that, you know, there was a lapse in communication during the time that the
fine run from the compliance date when they got the permit. So, I went to the building department and pulled the records from them. I pulled the records from PND um and then compared it with our records and these were my findings.
There was a lack of there was a breakdown of communication between building and planning and during that breakdown of communication these fines run um for this um these property owners. It's my recommendation
to the board that because this lapse and in communication and this breakdown in communication happened because of staff, I'm recommending that the board removes these fines. When I looked at the evidence, it was very clear to me that
it wasn't their fault that this happened. We in code had our things in order, but between the building department and the planning uh planning and design and building, there was communication that wasn't making sense.
There was communication that time just lapsed and they came in in true faith. They wanted to they need they did what they were supposed to do. They brought the application in, it was reviewed, but just because of a little thing that was missing.
The communication just went on for three months. And then there was another lapse after the three months between the building department. And it is no fault of their own. I can't stress it enough. And I'm asking this board, I'm sincerely asking that they remove this $29,000 and
give them time to build this driveway. >> Do that. >> Well, my concern about removing it in its entirety. All the daily fines of course, but fact is there was still an initial violation. That doesn't change.
Everything that happened after that could be attributed to mistakes made by staff, but not the initial violation. >> Correct. The initial violation doesn't have to go. And if the board wishes to keep the violation fine at the
administrative cost of $500, that may be I think in my view fair than charging them the daily fine of $250 when they had >> No, no, I totally get that. I get it. But I am not comfortable eliminating the
violation fine and the admin fee that there was in fact a violation. So, are we able to just make it the fine go away or do we have to do it officially as a fine reduction? >> You can amend the order. >> We can amend the order. >> Okay. >> Yes. To remove the daily fine.
>> Okay. I will let me get my papers together. Um, I'll make a motion on my glasses C24-000086 that we um do not intend to lean and
that we remove the daily fines but keep the initial fine in the administration um be added to it and just monitor as they I see a permit in front of me. So hopefully they will get a permit and get a driveway
>> which keep the 500. >> Keep the 500 >> and eliminate everything else. >> Correct. >> I will second that. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 30. >> Thank you both. >> Welcome. Just one of a few things. We
actually applied for the permit and it was a back and forwards with the planning. You know what I mean? So if we did try and we did all everything that we supposed to do >> and all the you know what I mean it was out of our hands. So we appreciate that. We want to comply. We want to get a nice
beautiful driveway and we appreciate it. >> Thank you sir. >> No thank you. >> Glad it's finally working out. And I apologize. >> Almost have a heart attack. >> I apologize for all you had to go through to get us. >> First time I heard it was today that we
had go 20 times. You know, I'm going >> we our our goal is not for punishment. Our goal is for compliance. So once the property would have complied with it, we would have allowed you to come back for
a fine reduction and that's what we do anyways. But if there's if staff tells us that there's a problem and something wasn't done right, >> then going to Yeah. >> Awesome. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> You're very welcome.
>> Thank you so much. >> We don't want anybody having heart attacks. We all live here. >> Taking the time to be here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you to the board for that. >> Yeah. There's no >> Hey, I appreciate you.
I appreciate you bringing it to our attention that there was an issue. >> You know, having cander from all of you and solid professional advice helps us all to work better and I really appreciate it.
Thank you. We're still in old business, section six of the agenda and it's item number 6.1. The address is 683 Northeast 117th Street. It's for case number CE-25-0725. Property owners as CHGM Holdings LLC in
care of their registered agent Caesar Hernandez. We had um issued a violation uh because we found them in violation of section 16.15.2 landlord registration. I'm happy to report that they have now registered landlords in the village.
They paid the fine and they paid the registration fee and are now in compliance. >> What is the agenda number? >> 6.1 and they've paid >> everything. >> Yes. >> In compliance. >> I would make a motion
to close the case. >> Um I'm looking at this and this is a rental property that has three homestead exemptions on it. >> Talk about those >> has how many? three homestead exemptions on it. >> Yep. >> I
>> It's out of It really is out of control, >> but but the manager said that there's a way for us to report it into the county. >> They would have to do it. I'm sorry.
Okay. Yeah, I see. April, April of this year. an old tenant. But it but if it is not the property owner's main residence, I don't care the relationship, it's not eligible for homestead.
>> And can you >> and that's not the only one we've got tonight. We can report to the we can report that to the property appraisers. Um, however, if there's been a sale, the property appraiser is always backed up before they update their records.
>> And you let them know. >> Oh, absolutely. I I don't hold out a lot of hope, but we have to do our part. >> Of course, >> because I don't think there's a meeting that we don't have at least one at least. >> Yep. >> And that cost the village.
and I look at them on all of them now. >> Yeah. >> So, I did have a um short meeting with um someone from the appraisers office and I asked them about homestead exemption and how they enforce it and and they are very grateful that we are
able to report uh some of these cases to them. But one thing he brought to my attention was remember that a person can live in their house for 6 months and live somewhere else for 6 months and still claim homestead exemption legally, >> right?
>> But if somebody is renting out property, that's a different story, >> right? Meaning they can live in the property for 6 months and rent it out for 6 months, we can still ask for the landlord registration. However, we cannot penalize them or report them for homestead exemption. Now, is that easy
for us to verify? Sometimes not because we don't know who's living in the house half the time. >> And the other thing on a duplex, >> if the owner lives in half of it, they get a partial home. >> Correct. >> And if you look at some of these, they're taking full home,
>> full homestead exemptions, and we are watching out for those kind of properties. >> Okay. Next, >> who was the second in this the motion? Sorry. >> I made I think I'm Didn't I make the motion?
>> So, they paid up and they got a landlord permit, >> right? And she she made the motion, but nobody >> I'll second it. >> Yeah. >> A vote. >> All in favor? >> I >> I oppose. Motion passes 30. Thanks for
keeping me honest. We get the >> the next item is 6.4 and it's for the address 11401 Northeast 8th Court. It's for the case number C-25-000015 property appraiser information protected
under chapter 119 of the Florida statutes asking for an intent to lean for an unsafe structure uh violation. Uh, this building was declared unsafe by the building official of the village of Biscane Park. Fines are at 77,500
as of today. An affidavit of non-compliance has been filed. >> Has this gone? Are we in the process of sending this one to D County also? >> Yes. >> And and Florida Power and Lights pulled all the electric out of it underwater.
>> Any questions? Any comment >> now? Do you want me to make the motion for you, Jamie? >> Okay. >> Okay. In um KCE-25-000015, um I would uh recommend that the village um file an intent to lean and that
includes all filing fees and application fees that would include in that >> and the daily fine to continue >> and the daily fine to continue until demolition. Second.
Any opposed? Motion passes 30. And moving on to new business. Section 7 and it's 7.1 for 665 Northeast 120th Street. Is for case number CE-25-0764. Mario Fernandez Montero and Paola
Deliro. >> What agenda number >> 7.1. This was a violation for section 16.15.2 landlord registration required. Um I'm happy to report that this
property owner is now in compliance. They paid the fee and are now registered landlords in the village. There's two homestead exemptions on this. Two two exemptions. >> Yep.
>> That's the full one that everybody >> if you claim homestead. >> Yep. We will take to look at this reported if we have to. >> And this was not a recent sale, so you can't say it got
>> No, no, no, no. I got a motion >> uh just to make a motion to close it >> on C-25-0764 as they have complied
um and paid all the fines. >> Yes. >> And paid for the landlord registration. I would recommend we close this case. I'll >> second. All in favor? I motion passes 30.
>> Next item 6 point I'm sorry 7.2 for the address 690 Northeast 113th Street. This is case number CE-25-0746 Church of Resurrection. They were found to be in violation of section 8.4.10
10 accumulation of trash, junk, and debris, living and non-living plant material, and stagnant water. I'm happy to report that they are now in compliance. Our officer was there today and found a clean property.
>> You know what? That's great. I'm glad they're in compliance, but it's also really disheartening. This is the first thing many people see when they enter our village. >> Right. >> And this is what >> church, >> right?
And a very high individual in the dascese president. That's really disheartening. I don't know how he doesn't see this.
Again, it's a church and it's the entrance to our village. So much for my preaching. Any questions? All right, I'll make a motion in C25-0746. The violation has occurred. They have
since come into compliance, but assess a $250 fine and a $250 admin fee. >> I'll second. All >> in favor? I opposed. Motion passes 30 by date. by
January 1st. >> Oh, I'm sorry. You're forgetting to be paid by January 21st. Next item is 7.3 for the address 717 Northeast 119th Street is for the case number
CE-25-0582. Paola Amigillio Jamie Muell asking for an order of enforcement. They were found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1F property maintenance. They do not maintain their roof as of today. I
believe they are not in compliance and they have communicated with our officer Raphael. >> Any questions? >> What did they say, Raphael? And and the first time you cited them was when?
>> August. >> August 4th. >> I see pictures dated November. >> Again, it's four months. >> We do a daily on it. Well, sure. If they don't come into compliance, of course we can. All right.
Any if anybody Nobody has any questions, I'll make a motion in C25-0582. A violation has occurred. It says a $250 fine, a $250 administrative fee. Give
the property owner until the January 12th to come into compliance or a $250 daily fine. >> I'll second that. All >> in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes 30.
The next item is 7.6. This is for the address 930 Northeast 119th Street. It's for case number CE-25-0877, Hubert Lune. We are asking for an order of
enforcement. This property owner has been found to be in violation of section 16.14.1 double fee permit. The detached garage on the property has been converted to a living space without first obtaining
required building permits >> and they have been in contact with Raphael. >> It's okay. I'm I was just going to add they've been in contact with our officer Raphael. >> Okay. I have a lot of questions.
This started in 1993. Can somebody kind of give us a timeline and what happened? I see three different owners since then. It started in 93. There is a permit
in 2008 I believe there with >> saw something >> that they were supposedly going to unconvert back into living space
and the village not somewhere. The village started reoccupancy permitting I want to say sometime in 2008. How was this not caught?
Well, but here's something incredible, Raphael. Um, and I did take a screenshot thankfully. In Feb, in 2005, the village first initiated the reoccupancy permit requirement.
I'm a little I'm more than a little bothered by in all those years of hand changing on that property. >> Have we missed this? I know that's a rhetorical question for you guys. It but it's
begs Our present um software I'm sorry to interrupt you goes up to 2015. So anything before that we would have to go into the archives to find this really >> this is the fault of whoever
long before you folks apparently did not do reoccupancy because how could you do a reoccupancy and not catch that >> right >> now my but my worst fear is anybody
living in there >> no no I mean in the illegal unit. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. You know that has to stop, >> right? And once Raphael reported that um I did ask one of the building officials
to go there. He did go there and he did confirm that this is an illegal unit and you know things have been installed electrical and other things and that's how the violation was issued. >> What is our legal standing to shut it
down and have whoever is living in there subate the property. >> Correct. So once we issue the violation and this this board can order that the
the place be vacated immediately and no rentals. If they want to convert it they should go ahead and apply for permits. If not they have to convert it to a garage. But even applying for permits, it's a it's a separate structure.
>> It's a garage. >> Yeah, it's a they will arrive. They are >> they are highly unlikely to get a permit because we don't do triplexes anymore. But that's not for us to say. We can only say go ahead, go through the
process and do whatever. But my big thing is I want to see the place vacated now that the village is aware. And if you >> Oh my god, it just gets better. >> Uhhuh.
Correct. >> Which, you know, at the risk of sounding crass, plumbing, okay, doesn't scare me as much. It's not a good thing, but it doesn't scare me. Electric out of me. Well, before he was cited for that before
>> and he just and nobody followed up on it. Well, unfortunately when they were cited, they I'm not sure there was again some type of breakdown where the the case didn't get to the board and there was no order and there was no followup.
So, I think there was so many breaks in along the way. So, we we need we need at this point to get an order and with that order, I'll be able to ask the building official to shut it down. I'll be able to go there and >> Okay. vacated.
>> If there are no more questions or comments, I'm going to make a motion. In the case of CE25 0877, a violation has occurred.
Assess a $250 fine, $250 administrative fee. give the property owner until February 17th to obtain permits,
if not a $250 daily fine. The proper the property to be vacated, I don't want to say as soon as possible. We've got to set a deadline. The property to be vac What would you think realistic Usually
30 days would be what the give them. >> That scares me, but you've got somebody time to find a place to live. >> Now, if if a building official declares it unsafe, they they would have to vacate right away. >> However,
>> then what? Okay, why don't we rephrase that then? Let me rephrase that portion. the property to be vacated as soon as the building official has made his inspection and determines the immediia what by what date it has to
be vacated because I'd be more comfortable with them going in there than us setting a date and well he will have the facts. Well, let me Okay, >> I'll second it.
>> I was going to But we >> and and the owner doesn't >> Yes, that's a whole other story. All right. I for for Vanessa's sake, I'm going to do my motion again. So, in C25-0877,
a violation has occurred. Assess a $250 fine, $250 administrative fee. Property owner has until February 17th to pull all necessary permits. recon convert
sorry is to pull permits for >> to pull all necessary permits to bring the property into com bring the unit into compliance or take it back to its original state of
not being a living unit if not a $250 daily fine building official to inspect as soon as possible and determine date it has to be vacated. >> I second that. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> Motion passes 30. >> And again, and by February 1750, right? By February 17. >> And can I ask you to go ahead and report this into account?
>> Absolutely. >> Exemptions. You want me to pull the one? >> We have so many. >> Yeah. I mean, I'll I'll I'll put them aside for you. >> Thank you. >> The next case is for the same address >> with me. I have a lot to write.
>> Okay. But that is a long one. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> The next item is um 67.7. It's for the same property owner and case number is CE-25-0878
asking for an order of enforcement found to be in violation of 164.1 double B permits. They installed hurricane impact windows and doors without first obtaining permits. Does it still have a garage door on the
front? Okay. Any questions? >> I guess I can make a motion on C-25 just 0878. Um that we uh put forth an order of
enforcement with the $250 fine, $250 administration fee. And should we do daily fines? >> Uh give them a deadline for the permit. >> Okay. Um they have the deadline to pull permits on it by
February. >> February 17th. >> February 17th. If not, a $250 daily fine. >> Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30.
>> Next item is 7.8 8 and it's for the address 1 0 0 Northeast 9th Avenue. The case number is CE-25-0784. Carolyn Dobson and Danielle Wisdom found to be in violation of section 16.15.2
landlord registration. Happy to report that these uh property owners have now complied. They are registered landlords in the village. >> Any questions? >> Yay. They don't have a homestead. >> Do they have any fines outstanding?
Full compliance. Okay. I would say in case number CE-25-0784 that we have gained full compliance and we close the case. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> Oh, any opposed? Motion passes 30.
Next item is 7.9 and is for the address 11801 Northeast 10th Avenue. Case number C-25-0942. Property owner is 11801 Northeast 10th Avenue LLC in care of the registered
agent Estra Tiosontes. We asking for an order of enforcement. This is a repeat offense. Double penalty in violation of section 8.4.3.1B property maintenance
is accumulation of trash as in huge piles of trash. Several bags of trash just left on the property for a long time. We received this complaint a while ago and we've we've um Raphael officer
has reached out to them. Is that the property manager? Spoken with him on several times. He has promised to remove the trash. He hasn't. I am actually looking into um having the property abaded. However, it's a little difficult for our
public works department to handle the size of trash that they have on that property. >> And if they're not able to, I will reach out to waste connections to have them give us an estimate. They don't go on private property.
So we may have to have public works put all that stuff outside onto the street for them to pick it up. So it will take a lot um multi- agencies to abate. In the meantime, we are still reaching out to the manager hoping they can just um
>> are there daily fines on this? >> They're asking for an order of enforcement >> with double penalty. So So Okay. 17 a week later. Okay. There are no more questions.
In case number C25 guess0942, a violation has occurred. assess a $250 fine, $250 administrative fee, give the property owner until December 31st
to come into compliance by cleaning up that property or a $250 daily fine and the village to abate the situation and charge the property owner any fees.
I'll second that. >> In favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. >> Next case is 7.10 and it's for the property located at 11895 Northeast 9th Avenue. Case number
is C-25-0492 Clayton P. Dingle. We were going to ask for an order of enforcement in this case. They have been found to be in violation of section 16.13.1 exterior wall painting. Um this property owner
is a law enforcement officer and he has reached out um to ask for a continuence because he has been called to duty after according to him what happened in Australia. They called all of them back to do extra
work. So he was not able to attend this meeting. >> Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Yes, I get it. I um >> so I I told him I that I would ask the board for that thing. When When did this start
>> this violation? >> Of course, courtesy. He was given a courtesy notice in June. So, we're dealing with a six-month old case, but fair is fair. He's asking for an extension >> 30 days in January.
>> I wouldn't go any past 30 days. >> Yeah. >> Well, January's meeting, >> right? >> All right. My motion in C25-0492 is that we table it for the January 21st meeting. >> Second.
>> All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes 30. Next item is 7.11 for the address 11919 Northeast 8th Avenue with case number CE-25-0791. Property owner is MDL
Inc. We were going to ask for an order of enforcement for landlord registration. However, the property owner has come into compliance asking for the case to be closed. Okay.
So, in case number CE-25-0791, since they have paid for their landlord permits and all fines and fees, correct? >> We will ask that the case be closed. I'll second. All in favor
opposed. Motion passes 30 and there's no homestead on. I'm checking on all of them. The next four cases 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17
for the address 1210 Northeast 11th place. First case number C25-0859. Property owner is Breezel Fine LLC in care of their registered agent Miami Accounting and Tax Services LLC.
Um, in this particular case, they were found to be in violation of section 18.5 construction fence requirements. The construction fence of that property has an expired fence permit. The next case, I'll read all the cases.
Um, it's um dilapidated property. The next case number is CE-25-0860. same property owner, same address, found to be in violation of section 8.4.1 B1 of a grown grass weeds brush. In this
particular case, they are in partial compliance. We were still going to have an order of enforcement in place because they haven't picked up the trash is still on the swell. Next case is CE-25-0861. same property owner, same property
address and compliant fund to be in violation of chapter 16.13 exterior paint. The wall is absolutely in bad shape. It's dirty of the wall. Next case is CE-25-0862.
Same property owner and same address and order of enforcement is what we're asking for. or they found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1f roof maintenance. Their roof is very dirty. They they did the cleanup, but they
didn't pick up the trash on the wall. >> I'm sure you guys all remember we heard this case a little over a year ago. >> Yes. It had just transitioned to a new owner. We were promised it was going to
be a tear down. So, we didn't assess any fines. The village allowed a construction fence even though they had yet to submit demo or building plans. And what's the result? A year and a half
later, it is worse than ever. So much so that you can see it even with the construction fence. Hence why my sense of urgency in in terms of what we're setting for deadlines.
We have to start doing it differently because this is we have two cases now that we tried very hard to work with people. >> Yes. >> And this is what we got. I recommend we go ahead. >> We've heard that one before.
non-compliant. >> Okay. Questions? All right. In the first one, case number C25-0859, a violation has occurred. Assess a $250 fine,
$250 admin fee. give the property owner until February 17th to apply for either a building or a demo permit and renew their construction
fence. The reason I'm stretching so far out is realistically construction fences are only supposed to be married to building or demo permits, right? >> Not what's gone on. So that's why I'm kind
of stretching it out a little. >> I'll second that. >> And bear with me. >> Wrong one. work to be completed by the end of the permit ex expiration date or
a $250 daily fine. So, let me do it from the beginning for poor Vanessa in C25-05859. The violation has occurred. $250 fine, $250 admin fee. give the property owner until February 17th to pull either a
demo or a building permit and renew the fence permit or a $250 daily fine. If the work is not completed by the permit's expiration date, a $250 daily fine.
All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. Bear with me. Have a look. Next. The overgrown grass. any >> Oh, they want I read all of them. So, okay, >> let's go ahead and do the motion.
>> I didn't know if anybody had any other No, we're good. Okay. Any comments from the board >> except we've given you a photograph that we are putting into the evidence for the grass. They have cut the grass, but there's a pile outside that's not picked up. That's not comp compliance. That's >> We're still kind of in in the same
situation, >> right? >> Okay. In C25-0860, a violation has occurred. Assess a $250 fine, $250 admin fee, give the property owner until December 31st to clean up
all the debris, bring the property into compliance, and or a $250 daily fine. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. Motion passes 300. Okay.
>> Yes. I called 16 and 17, but she hasn't done a motion yet for >> item 7-16. >> All of them. So, you're going to go all the way to 17 with motions. >> I'm sorry. Did I miss one?
16. Yeah. >> Next, >> we're waiting on your motion. >> So, in C25-0861, a violation has occurred. Give the property owner until
February 17th to either pull a demo or building permit. I'm sorry. It says a $250 fine. $250 admin fee. Give the property owner until
February 17th to either pull obtain a building or demo permit. If not, exterior walls need to be painted or a $250 daily fine. and all work to be
completed by the end of the permit permit's expiration date or a $250 daily fine. >> Second ask a a quick question. So the expiration um of some of these permits is like six months. Do you want them to
go that far 6 months before the 250 kicks in? >> No. the 250 to me if they don't comply with the application >> would kick in like a normal daily fine >> it's only if they comply
get everything in time but don't finish that then I would want we've agreed to see the 250 kick in again but no we treat it like always >> in the case of all of those where we've made those motions right
>> daily fine kicks if they don't meet that first deadline. But if they meet it, they get no daily fine unless and until they don't complete the work by the expiration date.
I'm okay. So, we have a first and a second on this one. >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. 30. Vanessa, you need me to repeat. >> Yep. She says yes.
>> Okay. In C25-0861, a violation has occurred. Assess a $250 fine, a $250 administrative fee. give the property owner until February 17th to either pull
a demo or building permit or paint the exterior of the property. If they comply by pulling the permits in time, but do not finish the work by the expiration of the permit, $250 fine.
>> Second. >> We got it. One more. One more. In C25-0862, a violation has occurred. Assess a $250
fine, $250 administrative fee. give the property owner until February 17th to either pull a demo or a building permit. If not, roof is to be cleaned.
If property owner, a daily fine of $250. If not in compliance by the 17th of February. If they comply by the 17th but do not finish the work by the end of the permit, $250 daily fine.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. Next item is 8.3 in fine reductions is for the address 11623 Northeast 11th
place. Oh, I'm sorry. We'll go with 8.1 because we heard this. 8.1. The address is 930 Northeast 119th Street. Okay. CE-25-0611. They are applying for a fine reduction
on the landlord registration violation. However, we are recommending to this board to deny this application completely because they have too many other violations open on this property. >> I thought so. I was going to ask you
>> this is a rental. >> Are there open violations? Can we deny? >> Absolutely. I because I I asked and was told no, it has to be That's what I thought.
>> We do not recommend it because >> there's so many other things we are dealing with. Why are we giving them a reduction on one case? >> Right. There's again a sense of urgency. But if we reduce this then what about >> is there a lean on the property?
>> Yes. For the amount of much do we >> um we would have to the roof. We would have to calculate it tell you the amount but are running in. Yeah, I think
>> right last month we >> we Judy we did it last month 125 plus whatever was accumulating >> 930 >> but has the >> so this correct this lean for 12,000 is is on for this case however we are
asking the board to deny this application yes >> because there are many other violations that are open on the property and until comply with everything else >> you know we cannot >> will the village go with The lean though >> the lean will yes definitely will
continue running. >> Then my my motion would be to deny the fine reduction request. >> Okay. They have complied. So the lean will stay at that amount until they comply with the other violations. They can come back and apply. >> Gotcha.
>> Okay. So you you recommended denial. I'll second that. >> All in favor? I. Motion passes 30. Jamie recommended Judy said next item
8.3 for the address 11623 Northeast 11th place and it's for the case number CN-22-120 for Charles and Eurod principal. They were applying they applying for a fine reduction
uh for a driveway violation. The driveway is in compliance. It's has been installed. However, there's a fine for $130,000. They offered 600. I am recommending to
this board to move this case up to the next hearing because they are not present. >> There's no point. They're not here. There's no one to negotiate with. So my motion would be in the case of CN22-120 that we table this for January's
meeting. >> I'll second that. >> In favor I any opposed? Motion passes 30. >> Were they told to be here? >> Yes. >> When they applied they came to the office and Vanessa
>> Okay. gave them instructions. >> I would think if you're trying to make $30,000 disappeared to $600, you'd show up. >> Yeah. And the L is filed. So, I would show up if I was hopefully we'll encourage them to attend it next year.
>> We actually >> should we should we actually vote on it and deny it? >> Yes. I'm going to resend I want to resend my motion. Judy, I need you to resend your second. >> I'll resend my second. >> All in favor? I
now do it. Yes. >> Okay. So, this is on the Hang on. This is 8.3. We're doing >> CN-22-160. I will make a motion to deny the fine reduction.
>> I'll second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 30. >> May I explain what the difference will be between continuing the case and denying? >> So the difference now that you have denied this case is they will have to
pay another $50 and reapply. Be they didn't show up. >> We I mean >> we weren't going to accept that anyway. >> You're negotiating something and you don't show up. Now you see the other case they had the
representative zoom in. They made arrangements for anyway. >> Okay. >> And those were all the cases we brought before the board tonight. >> Just a second.
>> Now we're on the minutes. >> I have 7.19. Yeah, >> I frequently >> Do I need Do I need >> Yes, that's additional backup. >> Okay, gotcha.
>> That's just me and additional backup. >> Okay. Um, there were issues I found with the minutes. That could be me. Okay. On 6.5 >> I had it that Jamie did the second.
>> I don't see anywhere that it's in the >> Yeah, exactly. >> made the motion. I made the second. >> The last line. >> Mhm. at 6.5 chair person Jamie Anderson seconded the
>> yeah you see that >> on the second go round not the first one >> I see it on the on the first >> I don't see it on the second motion I get you okay >> on the approved motion I don't see Jenny's name there's no second
>> okay that Okay. And on 6.6 I had that I seconded it. >> Oh yeah. Good catch. >> I don't keep these things but I keep the
agendas. So, I look back at what I did. >> Anything else? >> Um 8.3 8.3 I have written that Jamie seconded it. You said that not Anybody else? >> We may have both done it. And if it's
Michael, that's fine. >> Okay. >> You know, sometimes people say something. >> Yeah, that's >> that's it. Oh my god. >> These are the ones that had rental
issues. >> Thank you. >> Okay, now we have Well, probably should do February's meeting date first. Vanessa was kind enough to reach out to
Dale. I'm sorry. >> A motion to approve the minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Motion passes 30. >> The minutes with correction.
>> Yes. As amended. >> Right. >> Okay. Well, I had asked that we um deal with February's meeting date, even though Dale's not here. And Vanessa was kind enough to reach out to Dale,
who says he's open pretty much the whole month. I'm gone for a couple weeks, then Bob is having surgery on what would have been our meeting night.
So, is there any way you guys could meet with me? >> I'm not here the 13th to the 18th. >> The 20th. Yeah. >> The n anytime from the 19th on out would been great.
>> That would work for me. >> It would. >> I'd be back. >> Would Thursday the 19th work? >> No. No. >> I'm coming back on the 19th. Hang on. My class 16, 17, and 18. It's a three day drive or two day drive.
>> Okay. How about the 20 23rd? >> 2 May 3rd. >> You need time to decompress. February 23rd on a Monday. >> We're okay. >> I Let's make sure that's not PNZ. No. Is there on the 17th?
>> It won't be. >> You know, if it's an advisory board, they can always use the um village hall, but certainly can't. I'm hoping everything >> I'm good anytime that week. So >> June, I'm probably going to be gone
every >> Let's do February. >> Okay, >> let's let's solidify February. >> February. You're good. Are you okay? >> February 23rd. May May I ask you guys to
please reach out to Michael and Dale? >> Yes, >> there's PNZ on the calendar. So, we would have to check with the >> Oh, because they have one of two. Should we make it a Tuesday then the 24th?
is on the 18th. So if we put it on the >> Yeah, because I see PNZ is jockeying a couple of different days. >> I can do any time this February February 24th. 24 the 24th. We just don't want to take
a chance because >> No, no, no, no. Thank you for catching that because again, if it's a an advisory board, they can always use village hall, right? But planning design review certainly cannot go for February 24th.
>> 24 Now, I've also got a conflict in May, but that's far out and I'd rather have Michael and Dale here to discuss that. >> May June is my >> of their days because you know my
theory. I try to make it so that we have a full board. We got to adjust, >> right? >> So be it because I prefer a full board. Look at tonight. We were like close. >> I know. I talked to Rulo and said I'll
see you on Wednesday. >> Okay. >> We got one more things to do and thank you guys for being willing to move February. I really appreciate it. 24
>> and any day that week I >> the week before I'm >> organized later. >> Okay. >> Last is for second reading. So we have no choice. I would have much preferred Michael and Dale to be here.
See, anytime the vill's land development code gets changed, planning and design review always gets the ordinance first. But did did everybody get a copy of this ordinance? Well, that kind of makes it tough.
>> So, do you want to read it to us? Um, all right. Let me try to get the pertinent points. I I guess I should have specified make sure everybody had a copy. Just thought that would have happened. Sorry. Um, this has to do with the days
and hours of construction work being permitted. Right now, the only days that are completely not permitted is Sunday. Federal holidays are 11 to 5. The commission is being
asked to change that. I'll read you the pertinent permitted days and hours for construction work. The erection including excavation, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or delivery of materials other than at the
following times is prohibited. Federal holidays used to be 11 to 5. Now, it's what they're suggesting is no construction work may be conducted on Sunday or federal holidays. Interior construction contained within an
enclosed structure where all noise originates from within the exterior walls shall not be subject to the construction hours contained in this section. I wanted to have this come in front of us because we in fact will be
the ones that have to work with this ordinance versus planning and design review. They'll see it if it gets another change. So I had wanted input from all of you guys. I was going to compile it and send to the manager who
will then forward to the commission. Um, I would have rather make my remarks last, but since I did have the advantage of having the ordinance in front of me, if nobody minds, I'll make my remarks
>> right ahead. >> My concern is twofold. Well, I do think the ordinance needs to specify Christmas, New Year's, and Thanksgiving as no construction, so that there should not be a doubt. My concern with the other federal holidays is by
and large they are not observed by private industry. President's day or indigenous people's day etc. So people who are working that day hiring companies who are working that day are not going to be thinking
oh they can't work that day and my project may go over that. We're going to get a lot of rude awakenings, but my biggest issue is what this does for the do-it-yourselfer.
You now have the do-it-yourselfer who will have one day a week, Saturday, and not even that if Fourth of July falls on a Saturday to complete any significant project. That's very difficult for someone who
can't necessarily afford to hire someone to do everything or you know and even though they've added the part about well if that's on the inside and that's where the noise is. If you're building cabinets, you're doing towel work,
you're doing wet saws and table saws and you ain't doing that inside. If you're working on a patio, friends, you get my drift. So I and this is just me. I have an issue with
this draconian change. Now I understand the frustration the big develop the tear down the attitude of some contractors but I think we're losing sight and then punishing
the individual homeowner who is just trying to make the property better. And maybe on Memorial Day they do need to work on their fence. So anyway, that's just me things. >> Well, it's funny because I always thought that it was prohibited on on
federal holidays already, but it's >> they want to take that away. >> It was prohibited. It was permitted. >> It was permitted. I I didn't think it was. I thought we had voted that it was not permitted on federal holidays. Um >> 11 to 5
>> 11 to 5 certain hours. Um, yeah, as as a do-it-yourselfer, I have concerns about that. But the other issue is is I mean, there's so many federal holidays that things need to be specified. I mean, I think New Year's Day, I mean, people are
going to be hung over from New Year's Eve. New Year's Day needs to be >> one of specify New Year's, Christmas, and Thanksgiving, >> fourth of July. There's no all day. >> All day.
>> I mean, think about this. We listen to fireworks, whatever. >> The table saw on top of that. >> Anyway, because I want to make sure I keep my comments separate. I want you guys to have your comments separate, not
bundled with mine. So, >> but yeah. And but I I also think, you know, if you're going to be prohibited, you need to specifically state exactly the days. And I would I would agree with New Year's. I would agree with Christmas. I would agree with
Thanksgiving, but I wouldn't agree with Memorial Day. It's not that when doing the research for this was several things um from an enforcement perspective
when we start specifying days, dates, times, it's very difficult and and I would say it makes it easier if they say no work on holidays and other cities have this. City of Miami Beach to mention a few. City of um
what's the city next to us? Miami Shores and El Patau. They all say no construction work on federal holidays. And and the reason for that I think looking at their research as well and speaking to some of their staff is when
you start specifying little by little it's very confusing for construction companies for for for um um subcontractors and while you I I get it that the board or some board members are considering the individual property owners
these um ordinances are really directed at the bigger companies. because allowing and I say Memorial Day not that any holiday means anything in this context it's just a holiday memorial day or Christmas day whatever
day having a concrete truck delivering concrete when people are at home not working is is really unfair to the next door neighbors >> question I would what's a delivery if I need a load of pavers
>> I can't according to this. I can't have Home Depot delivery. >> I have a GMC Denali. Can I go pick it up myself? >> That's still a delivery. >> It is a delivery. However, you're not going to have the same noise impact. A
construction truck makes different kind of noise than a personal vehicle delivering. >> You ex This doesn't differentiate. >> Correct. This punishes the do-it-yourself needs to work on their fence
>> or their patio or they're making their kitchen cabinets by lumping them in with the contractor who's going to show up with a front end loader in a bulldozer. >> There's no way to separate that, >> right? And and because the construction ordinance is very entangled with the
noise ordinance, what you're going to have are next door neighbors calling on their neighbors saying, "I'm hearing this knocking sound in here and it's irritating." Now, we are not here as code enforcement to deal with the noise ordinance during holidays. Now, this is a burden that's going to fall on PD.
They will have to go and attend to every call for my neighbor is doing this, my neighbor is doing that, my neighbor has um um machine, a saw, something in the their front yard. And we are putting that burden on the police. And I during
holidays, it's they're high pick. they are assigned to many other different things. The manager looked at that and thought we we cannot pull PD from the important things that they do during these days to looking at noise violations for someone making that kind
of noise. So those are some of the things he looked at and also looked at what other cities are doing of course and most cities do not allow construction on um federal holidays and um he just thought specifying each holiday may be okay for
some people and some people may get offended because why is my that holiday being respected and my holiday is not being respected. So there's the thing behind Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving. I think you
>> which which are respectable holidays to some, but some people don't celebrate Christmas. They may >> and more than uh Columbus Day, Veterans Day. >> I I get it. I get it. Personally, I get
it. But I'm I'm just presenting what I heard the manager saying in the meetings that when in situations where they specify oh this holiday other people will come and say why is their holiday better than mine and why can they work on their holidays.
So when >> really see Christmas years and Thanksgiving anybody getting too bummed out about I think people pretty much realize those are family days I do have company that's kind of
That's that's the basic standard wise world. But I I really can't prefer that being the thing. >> Yeah, I know. But I know you personally don't, but that's the reason why most cities have done federal holidays as a
blanket. All federal holidays because there is the issue of people feeling that okay, they respect that holiday more than they respect my holiday. And we did discuss this when I was on the board and I thought we voted it but I guess we didn't. >> I'm sorry.
>> I thought we voted it in then to ban construction on federal. Oh, waivers are it's already in the ordinance that if they are doing specific things, they can ask uh for permission from the building official
and it's only certain circumstances that >> like emergency stuff when septic problem they need something >> so waivers are there. >> It's a health hazard. >> Yeah. >> Started out with Christmas, New Year's, Thanksgiving. Are you guys feeling more
like you're more comfortable with what Marina is explaining? Because I want to make sure >> I'm just explaining on behalf of the manager. >> I want to make sure whatever I say to the manager is accurately reflected. can't do construction.
>> Right. Right. >> So, there are some people that are considerate, but when you're making ordinances, you have to understand that not everybody thinks the same way. And once you give people the permission, >> you give them this much, understand that
they'll go this much. So, when >> right? >> Oh, so you know, as much as what you're saying does make sense for the for the regular D Yi, is that the word? DIY people.
You also have to understand they do have the leeway to do whatever they want. I mean, as long as they're not making noise, they can do whatever they want. Nobody's coming to stop them. >> Ever use a wet saw and not make noise. >> That's the problem. If they're going to make noise, then we would have to sight
them for the noise because noise is not allowed certain time, right? >> And that don't need to be cut. and and if someone calls the police and says somebody's making noise over here. Now we move out of construction into the noise violation >> different.
>> So that's where they it's intertwined and that's why big trucks cannot be allowed on any federal holidays and this is just an opinion again in the village you know running do doing construction when people are
trying to rest. So it doesn't matter if it's Christmas or Memorial Day. What Memorial Day means to someone. Christmas Day may mean to someone to the the other person. You are very s I'm speaking I'm speaking on behalf of
the manager. There were three make sure I get I want to make sure I get this accurate. We had three board members present. two of which are absolutely okay with the rewrite of the ordinance, one of
which is not. And I will detail you guys have a problem if I detail my concern. >> Go right ahead. >> You're okay. >> I won't, you know, whatever. >> No, no, no. But I want to say that two of the three board members present are
fine with me >> prohibiting on all federal holidays. one of us was not and I'll give the short information of mine >> and and give the reasons because they may what's good with what's good with you giving your reasons is they may
consider expanding their ordinance in a different way where they give some leeway or they give special um permissions for people who are doing a project they can always come in and ask you know for special permission >> you know it's never easy
>> North Miami has done that >> ordinance because you've got to cover so many eventualities. >> But if you're doing something that is going to potentially negatively affect people and see to compare >> Miami Shores to us,
>> there's also an economic difference. >> Absolutely. >> Shores more. >> They have more commercial >> outside help. >> Yeah. >> This can park I'm not saying we're hurting, but you do see a lot more do iters.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. And this is completely residential. They have more commercial. So >> I do. Yeah. >> Exactly. So it really >> those are some of the things to consider. Yeah. I I'll I'll bring that up to the manager as well. That's >> there is no way. But that's just short
version that two of the three present board members are okay with prohibiting on all federal holidays. One of us wasn't. And I'll give I promise to give the short version of my reasoning. But I want to send it on to the manager
so he can that was very nice of him to say for us to take the time to say because we have to work with it. Right. >> Okay. Do I have anything else? >> That'll be all. >> Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you.