Everyone, I'd like to call to order the village of Biscane Park Code Compliance Board meeting for Wednesday, April 15th. The time is 6 o'clock. If the clerk would please call. >> Janie Anderson, Dell Blinton, Roda
Beronto, Judy Hammer, Michael Lat, Dorian C Grant, Raphael Gutierrez, Vanessa Cherry, present. This is a meeting of the village of Biscane Park code compliance board. The board is authorized pursuant to chapter
14 of the villages land development code to ensure compliance with the villages code of ordinances. The members of the board are citizens and residents of the village of Biscane Park. We volunteer our time and we're 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 hardships, 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're not authorized to change the code. The village commission is solely authorized to enact or revise codes. Conversely,
neither the commission nor the village manager have the authority to overrule the findings of the board. Pursuant to chapter 162 of the Florida statutes, orders of the board can only be appealed to the circuit court of Miami date county,
we have the authority to assess and order the payment of civil penalties, to 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 charge. 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 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 you haven't signed in, please do so. Anyone wishing to address the board and if there's anyone I don't know if we're assuming anyone tonight please stand and raise your right hand so you may be sworn in. You are reminded that this board is a quasi
judicial board and giving falseony can be penalized. But just before you do that I want to make note Michael Lenat is present. Please stand up. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay. Do we have any additions, deletions, or changes? >> We have none. >> We should vote on Dale's absence. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve Dale's absence.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Motion passes 40. One other question on the February minutes. Do we need to make a motion on those or is it enough? >> You can go ahead and make a motion >> then. I don't know that everybody would
have had chance to read them. Wouldn't it be better we'll put them on May >> the February? Sure, we can do that. >> What would you all prefer? Because we just got the February minutes that I did sign, but we do need to make a motion. And if nobody's had the chance to read them, it would probably make sense to
wait for May. >> I believe minutes were reviewed um at the March meeting. The minutes were reviewed at the March ME meeting. They we only needed a motion. So, everyone did review the minutes. >> Sure.
>> I may. You can do the motion now, actually. >> Oh, all right. Then I'll make a motion to approve February's minutes. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Motion passes 40. Want to follow?
>> Okay. if you've ready for the first case. >> Good evening. My name is Dorian Grant. I'm the co-director for the village of Biscane Park. Our first four cases are in section eight of the agenda,
fines reduction. First case is item number 8.6 for the address 1210 Northeast 11th place. The case number is CE-25-0859 Brisen LLC in care of the registered
agent Miami Accounting and Tax Services LLC. They're here for a fine reduction. Um the violation I'll say is not yet compliant. However, I'll
explain this 18.5 construction fence requirements. This temporary fence is still up. It hasn't been removed. And I would like to give um the property owner the opportunity to explain why they have not removed the fence.
>> Okay. Before we get to that, there's two items. We have three other items, but this is important because um for fine reductions um compliance is a requirement. However, this fence hasn't been taken down because they have a permit, I believe, uh with the county
that's been looked over for the septic tank. And I'll let him explain. Sir, >> if you would, your name and your uh relationship to the property. land. We're not on source. I'm going to be honest with you, sir.
>> I Okay. I'm going to ask you please let's condense it a little. They're having you connect where into North Miami. >> Yes. >> Because They're at a 120 and
>> and it's over $100,000 for impact fees. $150,000 in impact fees. Okay. >> What I'm not understanding and well that's bad enough. I will say I didn't
expect that. What does this have to do with the construction fence? >> The construction fence. So I did not require them to remove it because in the past we had a lot of problems with squatters when that property wasn't fenced. So, right. So, while they are working on this, I would respectfully
ask the board to allow them to keep the construction fence um so that they can work the septic issue. >> The point is it's been without a permit and we will not issue a permit again. Is that what I'm understanding? >> No, the fence was done.
>> Oh, no. Go ahead. >> But the issue was and what he came in front of us for was the lack of a permit. >> Correct. The fence was done with a permit initially and they were waiting on applying for development permits. However, they have not been able to
apply for the development permits because they've been hindered by what's going on with the county >> and the construction fence permit expired. >> Yes. And that they should actually bring into compliance. Absolutely. They they should keep it current. The construction
fence, right? >> Yeah. I didn't understand from your comments on the um on your request. I I was like, "Wait a minute." Well, septic whatever. Now it makes sense. >> And the dilemma, if I may add, is if he
comes back to renew that construction fence permit, I will have to send that um case to the planning and design review board. They will not approve it, >> right? >> Because their condition is development permits. But while he's waiting for the county to do what they're doing and we
can't get development permits in, planning and design review will not approve it. But I am asking, like I say respectfully to the board to allow him to keep that construction fence because we will have a different kind of problem which will be squat us back into that >> which will be far worse. Yes. And there
are kids that live on that block. So correct back right next door. So yeah. >> So what's before us is a fine reduction. So, you're saying that you agree with what he's asking for in this case? >> I do. I I looked at the documentation uh from the county and I agree with what he's saying and respectfully ask the
board. >> But, you know, the the thing is is I think that there's been a precedent that's been established here that I think we're going to have to discuss. Not to say that a precedent can't be, you know, have exceptions, but the precedent as far as I understand it has
been that, you know, that there's been what, like at least at least a 250, right, for for the administrative fee, >> right? And then some I mean, I don't think we've ever gone below that. And then the other thing that I was going to add to that was that there's I don't
know if have we ever gone below 500. >> No, >> I don't think we ever have. And I haven't said my recommendation. >> Huh? >> I haven't given my recommendation for the amount of money they should pay. >> Okay. So maybe I should hear that to see if we need to consider that. >> Explain this part first.
>> We normally do not >> right >> eradicate the violation fine nor the admin fee. >> Correct. >> Because of the time and the expense that that that uh >> Dorina has to and you know they have to to put into this. So that's kind of been
a a precedent that's got developed. I mean, you know, everybody is, you know, there's volunteers here. So, but, you know, we've been working together for about one of the years. Some are more liberal than others, you know, but really that's kind of been a established line. And if there's more discussion
about that, let let's hear it because I >> property owner is um proposing $1 from a 700 7500 um lean. Uh here's proposing a dollar.
We are proposing 500. And we're proposing 500 just because the village uh should get back administrative uh the administrative cost of >> Okay. So, so maybe I read your mind because I was the thing that I was thinking in my in my mind and I I wanted
to make sure that I was reading that right because I saw what the recommendation was and you were talking about being in agreement with him. I understand what you're saying and I understand the dilemma you're in and and at the end of the day, are are you going to still have to hook up to that municipal sewer line
and you had to pay all that money and the impact fees to get to that point just to just to direct your Yeah. your funding Well, I don't disagree with that. I mean, some would like smaller places
than the larger places, but Right. So, first thing we need to do, um, I'm going to make a motion in CE25-0859 that we reject the offer of $1. >> I'll second. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I motion passes 40. >> So, you what you just saw there was you made a recommendation to pay a dollar. we just had that discussion and I didn't know that that was what Dorian's recommendation, you know, if she said lower then we would have to, you know,
talk that through. Um, but she, you know, that's the lowest that we've ever as a as a commission, a board has ever gone to. So, I mean, if you want to make a motion, we can't tell you what to recommend, what to do, but you've seen
you you've heard the arguments here. If you want to make another, you know, motion or a tennis, >> right? >> You can you can make a recommendation about how much you want to pay. Your $1 got rejected. You kind of heard what the
discussion was about the lowest that she we would ever go and what her recommendation is. You know, you can do whatever you want, but >> you can go from there, but we need to hear from you. >> You can read the room. What's your next offer? You've heard the discussion. Okay. You have to you have to tell us.
Yes. Okay. And I make it >> your offering. We have to accept it, >> right? >> So, I'm gonna make a motion. and we have to be the offer. Enough. >> I'm going to make a recommendation that
we accept $500. That is staff recommendation and and the the client says he will uh be willing to pay $500. >> I'll second that. >> In favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 40. All
right, sir. Uh deadline for paying >> uh May first >> 30 days if it's good within the 30 days. >> 30 days for payment >> or the fine will revert back to its original state.
>> If you don't pay within the 30 days, it goes back to the 75. The next case is item 7 8.7. Same address, same property owner. It's for case number CE-25-0860. They are asking for a fine reduction.
They were found to be in violation of section 8.4.1 overgrown grass, weeds, and brush. >> $19,500 for overgrown grass. >> Right. And >> and the reason this um fine um accured
um to this amount was they did comply when they were supposed to comply or I would say they had a partial compliance. However, I did not accept that compliance because they took the trash from the front of the house and put it inside on the yard in front of the yard.
So when I went there to conduct my inspection, I saw the trash in front of the yard and I was like this is not comp compliance. They had a choice to just leave it out there and the trash bulk pickup would have picked it up. >> Please, the board first. I'll give you time on this.
>> Yes. Okay. >> So, he wasn't the one. Of course, they were they sent people there to work who had no idea what >> Here's here's the thing that stands out to me. Aside from the 76 days that it took for compliance, if you take a look at the pictures, there are more problems
than just that pile of trash. >> The swale is all overgrown. The front yard is overgrown. So, do you visit that property often? So, then you have seen
things like this. And we're I understand. But you said you visit the property if we because in your notes you mention a couple of times how you've made the effort to keep it clean and neat and
whatever. Please come take a look. I'm sorry, but that does not qualify as neat, clean, and safe. And I believe we first heard this property in 2024. Am I correct? >> That's correct, Chief.
>> At that point, please somebody correct me if I'm misremembering. We did not assess any fines because we're trying to work with the new owner. >> That's true. We did not assess any fines. They had just >> right. They had bought the property with the intention of developing and that
didn't work. as they were. >> It also shows the swell area overgrown. So that's outside of the fence. Sir, I need you to identify yourself and at the microphone, please. Don't worry,
it's better. It just as good as the rest of us. They didn't pick it. Okay. Yeah. >> But >> I mean that that has happened. I mean I I've had that situation happen. I'm going to have to disagree with you
on that. I'm down the block from that house. We've had no problem with our trash pickup. I'm on the same schedule. I'm on the same schedule. >> And if you do, you can call city hall and they can dispatch somebody to get
out there. >> But you understand, it's not just that, and that's bad enough. The front yard's overgrown. The swale was overgrown. There are things growing up the side of the house. So, it's a it's problem and
it's not all centered on that trash pile >> during the But it was still in the front. It was still in front of the house visible. Dorene, may I ask for staff's recommendation, please?
So, there was partial compliance like I stated earlier. Um the fines were allowed to acrude to $19,500. This this was unnecessary. I would um they they are proposing a dollar, but I would recommend 500 just because of the
length of time it took for compliance and it was explained to them that the trash is in the front and they could have done it differently. >> But also with our trash pickup, the yard waste pickup, if I hire somebody to do tree trimming and work, I pay them to
haul it away. The city doesn't haul that away. If I if I trim my palm frrons and that I put in a bucket and they take, but they're not here to do all the major cleanup of our properties.
We don't have a contract with them to do that. That's above and beyond the scope of what our trash collection is to haul it. So the normal recommendation would have been 10% of the actual amount but you know considering that this looks
like a community miscommunic between the >> well because I'm surprised at your recommendation which I think is extremely um generous in light of the work and and also the perspective of how you um evaluate of fine reductions you
know with that calculation you know even when >> partial compliance >> right so I'm >> No, I would I just was surprised at that and you know and happy to hear that. >> 76 days, sir. 76 days
>> at $250 a day >> plus the >> plus the admin. >> But you would have got noticed that there was if you don't come to here and deal with this then you could be, you know, there could be a lean, you could have daily fines.
You know, >> they got to >> Well, we don't want to see you again except at an open house, you know. So, just get it redirected. >> Yeah, I see. I see. >> I don't know. the they they can they can explain that but but here we are right
now you you you've recommended a dollar you saw what happened in your last case you understand what the the rationale is >> vote on it >> and I'll I'll >> hold on just one second to say no go ahead >> I I'll make a motion that we deny the
offer of $1 on the fine reduction >> second all in favor >> I oppose motion passes We're zero. >> We can't tell you what to do, but if you want to make another motion, you heard everything up to this point.
Well, 10% 10% has not been recommended by them. So that would be $1,950. Right? She's recommended 500, right? So what I'm saying is she said despite the fact that this is what we usually do, I would recommend 500. So,
just like the last time, we just rejected your $1. If you've got another another offer to make as an offerer offer, then we'll consider it. Do you have one? I think we have to get past being
fixated on the trash pile. There were so much more to it than that. Front yard grass, swale, much more than just that trash pile. We got to get past that fixation. That's not the only problem.
>> The ball is in your court as they say. Sir, >> I make a motion to reject the 250. >> I >> I pass. Any opposed? Motion passes 40. Anything else?
Do you have another offer to make? >> I'll make a motion to reject the 315. >> Second. I >> I'll make a motion to reject the 400. >> All in favor? >> I >> motion passes 4.
>> I'll make a motion to accept the 500. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 40. The next case is 8.8. Same address and same property
owner. The case number is CE-25-0861 asking for a fine reduction found to be in violation of chapter 16.13 exterior paint. Now, when this violation was issued, I would like to uh inform the board that
the property owner did work really fast in um bringing the property into compliance. They pressure washed and I think um within a very short time it was painted. I would ask respectfully if the
board can wave the regular 250 and just charge administrative fee of 250. That would be my recommendation. However, it's up to the board. I I won't agree with that.
I mean, you figure we've got pictures from March 6th. Did it still look this bad? That's a very long time to finally come into compliance.
Very long. >> So, Dorene, what you know, you're you're >> Oh gosh. Dorian, so I I didn't know if I fully understood your rationale for breaking with your I
>> I had a different I apologize. I had a different date, but I I just looked at the case and we opened the case in October. So that's a long time. >> Exactly. >> You you thought it was opened up, >> right? I thought that it was March. I I was looking at the date for the order of
enforcement. So when you said March, you were in wave it because it was it's April now and that was March >> time. I went there and I saw activity. >> So you were six or seven months off is what you're saying? >> Yeah, I was that off. >> Okay. So if what is your do you have a recommendation?
>> Recommendation would be the same $500 just to cover cost um and um the violation fine. >> Okay. >> Here's something there with me that I think needs clarification. only because once it's on the record, I
want it to be accurate. I'm so sorry. Get to that. Oh, sir, in your um reasoning for the request, you mentioned the notice of violation issued in October references exterior wall mildew. The notice to appear dated March
2nd lists a completely disrescription, lot maintenance and cleanup. Those were two completely separate cases. The notice to appear for the paint is actually dated March 16th.
>> That's the date I >> and it goes with the paint. The notice you're referencing, March 2nd, goes with the overgrowth. We heard two separate cases. We ruled on two separate cases. They were not confused. I just want to
assure you of that. Since you put that on the record, I wanted to explain. >> Okay. Since the owner's um representative has offered $1 for this fine, I will make a recommend uh make a
motion that we reject it. >> I'll second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. 4 Z 4 Z. Because sir, Because it's been two years, sir. We have been hearing it's going to get
turned on soon for two years. The neighbors, sir, have the neighbors have to live with this. You have a family with kids on one side of this property. There are lots of other kids, you know, in on that block.
It needs the fact that yes, I understand it's a struggle. You didn't anticipate the sewer, etc., but still doesn't absolve you of following the rules and being a good neighbor. Well, I mean, who know? I mean, the
people with the kid next door, they may move down, you know, down to the other side of the house and they're never going to get the benefit of the time that they had at that property to, you know, >> and >> I get I get I get I >> Right. We don't know if it's been five or 10.
>> If your $5 million property had a house looking as bad as that beside it, do you think you'd be able to sell it for $5 million? But if we allowed if we allowed the neighbors properties to get that bad, do
you think that you could sell your house for $5 million living beside that house? >> Look, we all want to be a good neighbor. I get your perspective. You're you're in a real estate business. You're trying to make money. You know, you got unexpected costs. This is another one, you know.
So, there's a $7,500 fine um you know, for for for that. You heard the community you know about what they say about it and they rejected your $1. So at this point you can make another another offer and we can consider it.
You you heard what the recommendation was from Dorene and you see that the there's a lot of um you know weight that's invested into what she has to say and you've also got you know two prior
hearings moments ago going through that process. So, you want to make another motion or I'm sorry, another offer to consider. >> I'll make a motion to accept the $500. >> Second. Hi.
>> Passes for a zero >> and the pay by day >> and all fines to be paid in 30 days or they revert back to their prior amount. Sorry. >> No, please fill in the gaps. I I like
just doing the motions. All that other stuff I don't really mind you doing it. No, that's fine. I I would I welcome it. The last case for this um property owner section 8.9 same address same property owner
>> it's you guys again okay good all right >> it's number >> getting too routine here >> c-25-0862 fine reduction found to be violation of section 8.4.31 property maintenance roof was unmaintained.
They are recommending a dollar. I mean they are offering a dollar. We recommend $500 just to recover cost. >> I I actually don't even see a dollar amount. So I saw a dollar dollar and then nothing. >> I He missed that one. >> He missed that one. Okay. So, you haven't made I I mean I I'm going to say
that I don't know that there is an offer being made because the copy that I have doesn't have a number. So, you get to ask for a number and we'll vote on it. Do you guys do you have anything to say about this? Because this is about what
this is a roof. >> Okay. All right. So, we all know what the story is. So, where we at? I'll make a motion to reject the $300. >> Second that. >> I
motion passes 4. You know the routine. Okay. I'll make a motion to reject the $400. >> Second. All in favor? >> I motion passes. Z.
>> I'll make a motion to accept the 500. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Motion passes for zero. >> Perfect. >> And payment to be made within 30 days or the fine reverts back to its original amount.
>> It's a whole lot less than 175,000. >> So, exactly. >> All of us do. >> Yeah. as staff would like to recommend to the uh property owners or representatives that if you stay in touch with us the outcomes can be very
different because if I >> but you'll never see us because they'll take care of it in the office. You only get to see us if something happens along the way. I don't know and then we talk about it. So, >> and if we had an open case in the county and we knew about it, then
>> Well, we just learned a lot today, right? I mean this, you know, we don't we don't mind people learning about it. Not from that perspective, but >> of the house, sir, that they're requiring you. >> Yes. I guess also because you're further
north than me, between the size of the house and you being further north, they can force you to do that. >> But look, at the end of the day, you know, I know we went through a lot here, but you know, you were looking at fines of of how much? Like almost $30,000.
I mean, you did you guys did pretty good. And we appreciate your, you know, and and like Dorian said, I mean, it's an open door, so hopefully we'll see you at the open house. >> Afraid to ask questions. >> Yeah, >> Jack would rather hear from you in
advance than knock on your door with a little citation. Really ask questions. >> Code's job is to try and keep the neighborhood looking nice so that the neighbors aren't upset about it. >> That's why you picked it, right? We appreciate that. We appreciate
>> the $5 million homes. >> You both next two items are in section six of the agenda and it's 6.3 and 6.4. The address is 981 Northeast 113th
Street. The case number CE-26-0013. Property owner is Renee Alvarez. This is we're here for an intent to lean for the $500 uh that remain remains unpaid, found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1
exterior wall paint. We're happy to report that the property is now in compliance. The house has been painted. However, the $500 remains unpaid. >> You always come through. You had the last thing with the fence and you came through, right? It was always right up
to the right up to the point and then you come through. >> See us first. >> No, I'm telling you, you know. >> Be Yeah. Oh, well, you're welcome. >> yourself and your relationship to the property.
Right. >> So, this case is for the exterior paint. We haven't gotten to the trash yet. What we're dealing with though is the unpaid >> But we're dealing with But we're dealing with the unpaid fine. We're dealing with the unpaid fine.
There's $500 outstanding that was assessed. >> No, we can't on the citation fine and the admin Can we do not reduce this? >> I mean, I I I know I know that we we've had the, you know, the good fortune of meeting before, unfortunately, under
these circumstances, but you've always, like I said, remember the fence? He had that fence, the concrete fence thing. He came here, got it done. This got it done. I mean, he comes through. So, and and like he said, like he says, he's, you know, he's got to he's got to save
money to to do these things. and and you know things money doesn't grow in trees. So I'm very compelled by uh the request and would ask you what type of time frame do you think that you need in order to satisfy and you got two things here
>> so let's say so like if we gave you if we gave you 90 days or 120 days it' be no problem at all right >> I I I appreciate your offering you you'll pay let's divide 333.
>> Um, >> how about 250 a month for four months? >> Everybody, are you okay with that? >> Whatever time that he that this homeowner wants, I think that he should get uh and and he said 90 days he could
do it. 120 by definitely. So, whatever we can do to make it a little bit easier to get it done, >> 250 a month or four months until it's paid off. You're Hey, you're not allowed. >> I tell when when they try to sell my
property, they come to the door knocking. I say, "I'm going to be buried in the backyard." Of >> course, the problem with that word, okay, hang on a minute, guys. Figure how to properly word this. Each one is two is 500, right?
>> Are we dealing with these together? I mean, we called them together. >> They're two separate cases. It's up to the board if you want to lump it as one. Okay. >> Yeah, >> I'll call the other case just to put it on the record and then you can rule on that. The other case number for the same
address and same property owner is CE-26-0014 found to be in violation of section 8.4.10 for trash. Um, violation is in compliance. $500
remains unpaid. >> Okay. So, we're dealing with it together. >> Question is for them. >> So, we're dealing with it together, right? >> Correct. >> So, you got a $1,000 fine and you heard
the from the last guy, the way that we look at things. So, you know, basically just looking at the time frame, 120 days. You going to make a motion? >> All right. Oh, my motion would be to combine cases C26-000013
and C26-000014 as one unit for a total outstanding fine of $1,000 to be paid $250 per month and paid off in four months or else the will come back.
>> I'll second it. >> All in favor? I I any opposed? Motion passes 40. 250 a month for four months or we'll see you again. >> We can just come down and just >> want to see you hang out.
>> Bry to say hello. That's all. The next the next five cases are under section 8 for fine reduction. Um section 8 well section 8 and it's 8.1 to
8.5. The address is 720 Northeast 117th Street. case number CEN-24-653 SFL Assets LLC in care of their registered agent Zaguri Scott PA. They're asking for a fine reduction.
>> What What number is it? >> One through five. >> Oh, one through five. >> I'll read all the cases and the reason is um the current property owner is a new owner. uh this property went into foreclosure.
We had a lot of leans on this property, high high large leans. This property owner came in, they paid the abatements, they paid um all the outstanding citations and now they are asking for fine reductions on these violations which
they came in and cleaned up and and cleared uh very quickly. I have to say within a very short period of time they cleaned up the swimming pool, they pressure washed the roof, they brought the property into um reasonable condition in a very short time of owning
the property. So without wasting the board's time, I would like to read all the cases and I'll tell you what the recommendation what their offer is. So the first case is CEN-24-6 uh53. They're offering $2,000. The next
case for the same address, same property owner. Case number CN24654. They're offering $2,000. Case number C25-1014. Same owner, same property address offering $2,000. The next case is
CE25-1015. Same property owner and same address. They are offering $2,000. Next case is CE25-1016. same address, same property owner, they are offering $2,000. These lens were way
into the 300s of thousands. However, because of what they did, um how they came in quickly, paid everything that was outstanding, um I would recommend to the board that they accept these offers. I thought of that
as soon as I read this. It was an extraordinarily fair good faith offer and considering the foreclosure situation, it could have been much more difficult >> and the house was in terrible condition. >> I absolutely
complete agreement. >> And let me ask you this, and I'm looking at some text messages that are that are in there. That was the prior owner, right? >> Right. >> Okay. Because I kind of remember this because this was before us. He came before us on online and >> did
>> and at the time when we we were working with Mr. Khan, the property had already gone into foreclosure. >> Maybe he was hoping to regain the property, but that didn't happen. >> Do we need to take them one at a time? >> It's up to you. You can you can accept
all of them. I read all of them into the record. >> All right. On base, there's a CE on it. All right. on case CE-24-653 um on case number
CN24-654 on case number CE-25-1014 on case number CE-25-1015 And on case number C-25-1016, I re I make the motion that we accept
$2,000 offer on each of these violations >> for a total I believe of 10,000 >> total of $10,000 to be paid within 30 days. And do we do we have do we have to list out all the different offenses?
Okay. Okay. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 40. Thank you so much. We're, believe me, we're grateful. We're grateful.
Nice. >> Awesome. We We >> You're the real estate agent or the lawyer? >> Okay. >> We like >> You got a really easy job today then. >> Well, I can talk for a little bit. I I am too. No,
>> but you know it's it's nice you didn't make an offer of $1. You made a fair offer. >> Yeah. Yes. No. Well, again, we're very grateful that he went and so quickly done everything and
that your offer was very much a good faith offer >> and and we really love that somebody's going to be moving in. It's just such a nice thing. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> Thank you so much. Much appreciated. Appreciate it, too. We much appreciate. >> Yeah. And for the day they have already paid is over $3,000. I just wanted to put it on the record. >> Thank you. >> Don't feel guilty about sending the
bill. I mean, you got you had to wait, man. It's like travel time. >> Thank you very much. >> Raphael, can I ask you a favor to check the mic because I' I've been texted that the mic is not working.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Checking in on it. >> There's this there. Now it is. You know what? Let me check something. Next case is under item under section
seven and it's item number 7.5. As for the address 11920 Northeast 11th place the case number is CE-25-0178 Alina Perez. We brought this case back to the board. This case has been before the board several times because she's
going through litigation. But we brought this case and another case before this one because uh this the village attorney reviewed all the cases that are in litigation. We we are obliged to let him know if there's any case that has any pending litigation and we did. When he
reviewed the cases, he mentioned to us that just because a a property is in litigation for something does not mean the board cannot issue an order of enforcement. We have to have an order of enforcement in place. That's what the procedure should be. The board doesn't
have to assess fines if they if they don't wish to, but we have to have an order of enforcement on the record. >> Where'd your child? Oh, so we settled. >> Oh, so this So
>> I figured that was what I was coming to talk about today. I didn't know it was something else. So >> yes, we're we're good. So now I'm just waiting for them to negot send the check basically. >> And then you get the roofer. >> And then I get Yeah, I already have the roofer identified. So I'm ready to go.
So I should have that in hand within the next few weeks. It's already been a few weeks. >> Finally. We didn't go to trial. We settled. And >> and did you have um >> Yeah. >> Uh do you have the permits and everything already to go? >> Not yet. Not yet.
>> Yeah. This happened maybe like three weeks ago now. I think it's been about three weeks. >> Congratulations. And >> yeah. >> And just for the record, you're Alina Perez. >> Alina Perez. Yeah. The owner. >> Owner. >> Yeah. >> Well, this is loud. >> That's great.
>> So pretty much. >> Yeah. Yeah. So that's good. Yes. I'm happy that's over and done with. I think it was like three years in litigation. Yeah. >> I thought it was awful what I went through after Hurricane Wilma with
citizens, but >> Oh, it's terrible. >> They did move on it. I mean, I had no roofs. It was gone. It was hanging on the fence. >> So, the order of enforcement, yes, will help us and guide us through the building process.
Okay. >> So, so basically you were basically saying that because what we've been doing with Miss Perez is continuing waiting and kind of affording her that time because litigation our attorney said you don't have to wait for that. You can still force her to you can still
force compliance. Just because he has litigation doesn't mean anything, right? And you were just informing us of that. Correct. So they were all we were just continuing with this progress. >> Okay. But so now we now but >> and now she's here telling us about what
the progress is. So So your your recommendation isn't to do an order of enforcement so that we force compliance, but you want to give her some time to just go through the process. >> My recommendation would be that we still put an order of enforcement in place. Um we've had and I'm not saying that about
m threads in the past where oh this is what's going on six months down the road of what actually happened. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen in this case. It helps us when there's an order of prayers. The only reason I'm so sorry.
>> No I I >> this is not an order of enforcing what we've had here has been just uh continuances to get progress. In other words, >> now we need an actual order that if anything happen
in case things case things case doesn't work out in case the roof is not we would have >> but but here's my problem with that. This has been going on since 2022. So for the last four years we've been we've been affording her just >> we've been continuing. >> No, she says it says 22. Is 22 or 24?
>> Uh 22 I think it is. >> 22 it says in there. >> What the parents say to us. >> Okay. So, I understand that, but I also understand that that that we're supposed to also look at things on a case-by case basis. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. So, on a case- by case basis and particularly with Miss Perez, we've been
sitting here for four years saying, you know, kick it down the road because she's kept us involved. She stayed involved. She she she kept us apprised of the litigation process. And we all know that practice in the judicial field that the wheels of justice grind slowly. And it has ground to the point where now
she's got a satisfactory result. She's sitting at the starting line of getting a new roof. And now we're sitting here, you know, I I I don't think in this particular case, I understand, you know, the logic of the of the uh order of enforcement, but Miss Perez has not, you
know, has never burned us. >> Four years we've been here. I want to give her some time to just get, you know, if you want a progress report in in, I don't know, 30, 45 days, whatever it's going to take for you to get a roofing permit to come back and say, you know, and and walk her along the way, or if you want to give her some time to
say, okay, we'll get your, you know, get your roof done by this particular time. I think that she deserves that type of respect than to give it an order of enforcement to force compliance. and and I partially agree with you, but the logic is that if we have an order of
enforcement in place and the board does not have to assess a penny. >> Exactly. >> What the order of enforcement will do is do the same thing that a continuous continuence will do. If her time >> What if she violates? What if she violates her enforcement? >> That's where
if she violates a continuence, there's really nothing we can do. If she violates an actual order of enforcement, I can bring it back here and ask for a fine. >> Ask for a fine to be assessed from what point >> I could do it retroactively actually.
>> Right. So I mean that that that's that >> we can see. >> Okay. >> We're not going to as far as I'm concerned. >> Would you give Miss Perez X number of months? She's been
Well, I'm sure if she sees there's going to be a problem meeting those x number of months, she's going to get in touch with it. Isn't it? We have all that flexibility >> and that's for an extension of time. Yes. >> I believe the attorney is asking is that
we give some parameters so that there is a goal, so that there is a structure. That doesn't mean we're going to pick her when she's down, but she can that continuence. If she chooses not to ask for continuence and does it meet the
deadline, then yes, they ask for that. >> There's been some precedent cases. There's been some precedent cases, which is not an identical case like Miss um thing, but similar where they had to get a permit and we gave them compliance because they got the permit. They never
did the work. I ended up having to bring those sentences back because we gave them compliance and closed the cases. However, they didn't go ahead and do the the job. Miss can do the same thing. She can decide. I'm sorry, MZ to have to
give you as an example. I know you're fine. >> Fine. >> She could decide not to even when even though she gets even though she gets the money, she can decide not to do the move. And for me, that move will stay in non-compliance. I have to have a
um watching the case and watching the progress and What helps me is that order. >> Okay. >> Now, my knowledge of doing roofing because I did one in 2019. I would not say 30 days is enough. I at least 45 to
60. >> I was to get the money. I'm sorry, not she. Miss Perez get the money has to get her contracts all in place with her contractor >> permit >> and get permits. I was really thinking
more along the lines of like September 30th. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Well, let me ask Miss Perez, have have you have you delved into getting the You said you got a contractor identified. >> Have a contractor identified. >> You talked to him outside the identity. >> Yeah. Yeah, I have. >> Did you just say how long is this going
to take? What do you say? >> He's Well, it depends. >> No, they over promising under deliver. What did he tell you? >> I mean, it's it's >> he hasn't done anything yet. So, he's waiting for my initial deposit. >> Okay. Yeah. And it's my first time getting a roof. I hear it's terrible. So
I don't even know. >> Simple roof. It's a very simple roof. It's got very little pitch, right? Yeah. Just >> just Yeah. >> Very standard. >> So um So you don't have any guidance from your guy yet? >> Not yet. >> And in the last four years at a dinner party or talking to somebody, did you
ever anybody say how long a roof takes in in their experience? >> Not that I recall. I've never had to have a roof like Yeah. Right. That that should be enough time. >> Mine took a less than two months.
>> Well, let me ask this question. I know that you've been coming. She's been coming for um status conferences, right? >> She has been excellent. >> Right. But but my question was was how long was it between how much how long were we given her between to come give us an update? been coming every month.
And I think there was one every other month. >> Every other month. >> And then I was reporting by email >> in advance. Yeah. >> We don't need you to come back. I mean, five months to get permit knowing that
if you see any issues, any even the slightest chance deadline. >> Okay. >> We know the status. >> You will love your new roof. It's so nice knowing that the water droplets aren't going to come in.
>> I'm going to just make sure that you all know where I I stand on the record. Is that I'm just fundamentally opposed to um to issuing an order of enforcement to somebody who has been nothing but compliant. And we're not talking about
one or two meetings. been talking about for four years almost 50 months. uh and and has you know been an an example of uh you know um community uh you know being involved and active in
you know in the situation and it's been she's been given you know she's been given a lot of leeway for that and I don't think that at this point when she's right at the finish line of the litigation at the beginning of getting the new roof that now we have we force compliance through this direct
effective. I would propose that we give her the same courtesy that we have given her for the time over the last four years and and she you know if it was if if she was coming every 60 days to give
us a report and you know telling I got the I got the uh you know I got the roofing permit I got the I the guys already started and then we give her another one then then why are we going to change the rules of engagement with this particular resident? when it's worked fine all of this time and now
we're going to change it because we got a we got a a um >> recommendation from from from the attorney which is an attorney saying that you're not uh that you're not uh you don't have you're not prohibited from doing what he's suggesting. He said
that you're allowed to do it, right? He says that's what you can do and that gives you there's all kinds of great benefits that you've told us about with regard to to putting this order in place that you're talking about. Right >> now, I would not attempt to make an interpretation of what an attorney said.
However, I can I can put it in my own words um by saying I understood what the village attorney meant by saying that any litigation on a property and it doesn't have to be about a roof should not stop this board. >> Exactly.
He's saying that we have the permission to do what you're suggesting, right? You said that you have the the permission to to put this in place, right? No, hold on, Judy. >> Miss Anderson Jamie, let me just finish. It's usually usually the same to Judy.
We go back a long way. No. Well, all I'm saying is that you is that you you you got a interpretation from the attorney that this is something that we can do, right? But it doesn't mean that we have to do it. It's saying that we can do it, right? >> Again, I would not want to put words in
his mouth. >> The attorney tell you to come here and direct us to vote a certain way. He didn't tell you that. >> No, he he did not make any recommendations. Exactly. at what the attorney was clarifying in that meeting and we had examples of cases for instance our village manager had a
similar case like she had his roof was leaking had to do with insurance however he used his own money to fix it because code was issuing him with a violation for the roof he used his money to clear the code case and then he continued the litigation
>> so the what the village attorney was saying is >> our cases should not be held by that litigation Right. >> Move the code board case even for the property owner accountable for fixing the roof while they're fighting their
case with the >> and I understand that. And basically what what he's saying is that in that case that guy had the financial means to do that. Right. Miss Perez has never come here and said she's got that and I don't know whether she does or not or or or how it was. We handled it this way and we did it this way for all of this
time. That guy handled it the way that he could because he had the financial means to do it. She's ha she's handled it the way that that anybody would want us a resident to handle it by coming here and holding herself accountable. Now she's got the money and now and she's going to get the roof done. And
hold on a second. Let me let me let me finish my point there. There is no time limit on this, right? This is the administration of justice. People have have their time. We all have our time to express absolutely >> these views. And and the point that I'm
making is that we're she has handled this in a manner that is consistent with the way that the board views, you know, good neighbors that that are good citizens and good and good people in in regard to handling their business. >> Is our ultimate goal. You're right.
>> Exactly. And and she and she's been keeping us there. So, I am fundamentally opposed to shifting the burden to her with with putting this potentially retroactive fine that can be put in place when she's if she does it, right? But let's say something happens and we
don't can't predict the future as somebody just said that the builder just said, we don't know what's happening in the future, but right now I don't think there's any reason for us as a board to change the manner in which we're dealing with Miss Perez and her situation. I would recommend that we do what we did
before. >> We do a continuence and she gives us and she comes and if she comes in here and says, "You know what? I've got the contract signed and I got a permit and if we can make that part of it and give her 60 days to get those things done and and force the compliance that way, fine.
But I'm not in favor of putting something in place that could potentially cause her to get a fine that's retroactive to today because she hasn't done anything to deserve that." >> You believe her Okay.
>> Secondly, what I started being asked not something why I do something. I'm the one suggesting five months. Surely in that five months, Miss Perez
is going to get a early on. Oh, darn. I believe that as I know where we need structure in our findings, not just
>> we're a case- by case basis and and and and and we should not be shifting the burden now at this stage with Miss Perez. No, I'm not saying I'm every case is a case by case basis and and and and Miss Perez hasn't done has done everything that we
want somebody to do and to put something in place that could potentially put her at risk of getting a fine that retroacts to, you know, April 15th after September 30th. I'm fundamentally opposed to that. Her conduct hasn't dictated that. And but
well, we may not be on this floor. May be somebody else. So I don't want to put put Miss Morz in a position where she can have that potential and you want to shift the burden just because the attorney said that you can. So it doesn't mean that because the attorney says that you can that you have to shoot
that bullet at at somebody like Miss Perez who's been nothing but an exemplary citizen. So if the you know so with that >> what's the motion? >> Okay. I'll make a motion that she come
back in. How long do you think it's going to take you to get a permit? >> Do you have any idea? >> I have no idea, but I can predict within the next 60 days. >> How how reasonably likely is it for her to get a permit in the next 60 days? Okay. And that gives her a little wiggle
room just in case. >> Okay. >> Come back. >> We'll give it. We won't comply. >> I was seem more generous. I was giving her the five points. >> Yeah. But the thing is is that that's shifting the burden. If you want to give her five months to get her, you know, to
to come back for it, if you want to give her five months to come back for a status to determine whether her roof is done and then we can, you know, send her off with congratulations, that's great. And if she doesn't and then we figure out the next thing to do, I would definitely support that. >> Is the motion to continue for five
months? So, I'll make a motion to um to continue this case for 60 days or you know or no or or I make a motion that she obtain a
permit for her the replacement of her roof um within 60 days. A second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I'm I'm going to have to say something. Once you give a condition, you have
given an order of enforcement. >> Okay. Then then Okay. So, so >> days and then your next sentence is going to be or else >> if she doesn't get it. >> Okay. Then then then we okay saying >> so so then we give her so then I say
that that we give her uh that that she comes and gives us 60 days and we continue we continue the case for 60 days. >> No I mean I would anticipate that she's going to have a permit but she's >> that way.
>> Exactly. That's that's my motion. Jud. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> We got two nos. >> There was a motion and a second that you have to ask.
>> All in favor? >> I I might intention if I'm wrong. >> 60 days based of conduct over the last year or so given a high report case been
in litigation and come back in support to her comply and life in to the next months, >> but if there's no fine, then she won't it won't be retroactive.
>> If she doesn't apply, and I'm not saying I motion, I'm okay with any motion that comes forward. I'm just going to clarify how without any go back to there is zero It gives me
that order. on. >> Well, it it is on her and and the burden has been on her and that's what and she's been taking care of it by coming here. What if she didn't, you know, what what if this was, you know, seven, eight months ago when she didn't have the
money and she didn't have the settlement and she didn't and she wasn't able to do what that other neighbor did and we were going to force compliance upon her and she's got no control over the litigation, right? That seems like there was a violation. continuous.
>> Okay. Then September 30th, she's not in compliance. Then what happens then? But let's just you we don't have the control of the future. What could happen? For what? A commitment for what? What's the violation? Like we we could violate her
that day, right? So what so what h what's the recommendation in six months if she doesn't comply? Exactly. Exactly. Well, of course, but what I'm saying is that she that's shifting the burden to and now puts it in in into the
possibility that she could get a fine. What I'm proposing is that you give her a continuence just like we've continued to give her a continuence and she's given us an update and now she's at the point not seven, eight months ago where it's like gosh, I'm still in litigation. And at that point, we might say, "Hey, let's uh see if we can push this along."
But she but she's been coming along every every month, every couple months saying, "Hey, I still got the litigation." Now she comes in tonight and says, "Hey, I won my case. I got a settlement. I'm at the next step." And we say, "Okay, well, you don't get in six months. I could potentially give you a fine that I could recommend a fine
because you didn't come in compliance." So why why does she deserve that from this meeting rather than rather than the respect that we've been giving her in this process and say, "Come back in two months." And if you tell and if you tell us and if you tell us that there is no that you haven't done anything she sat on her hand she didn't do anything then
you can make some recommendations at that point right >> so the way the law is written the order of enforcement is put in place so that we can monitor clients the order of enforcement does always give them time of enforcement doesn't always just say
here give us the money >> but it shifts the burden it shifts the burden Okay. >> Okay. >> I understand due process and there's also due process with regard to how we've been doing things wi wi with a
particular with a particular um owner. So, I'm saying that the due process that we've been exercising to her is to give her the time and the space in order to get, you know, to to this point, which she's not like that other guy that could just throw, you know, $30,000 at a
problem and get it solved and and go and fight the litigation. And now she's got the money. And so, let's just give her come back and tell us in two months. Maybe maybe two months you got a permit. If you do, I'll be happy. and we make it their responsibilities >> and she's met her responsibility this
entire night. >> Well, I don't have >> it's it's it sounds like it's closing. She just settled the case. If the motion is to continue and there's a second. >> Okay.
>> 60 days >> or progress report. >> Well, you know what? I I would be I would be more inclined to go your way if in 60 days Miss Perez came here and didn't do anything and didn't have any, you know, didn't have a roofer, didn't
have a permit, didn't have a name. I would say, you know what, you've been good up to this point, but now we got to make some changes. But but right now, she's she's earned my trust. >> I everyone.
>> Thank you. See you soon. >> That was eventful. >> You have to thank Michael. >> And I'm going to disappoint you with the next case. >> Which one that is?
I'm going to read this case so we can get reasoned it. the one with okay I'm going to read 7.4 is for the address 11308 Griffin Boulevard and it's case number CE-25-068 RNA Kiba and Pierre Ital
we were going to ask for an order of enforcement found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1 4.3.1 tarps on the roof. You are familiar with this case. It's an identical case with the one we you all just heard.
And this evening as I was walking into the log cabin for the meeting, the property owner walked up to me and said to me, "Good news. We have settled." >> But has this owner I mean where is the owner? >> She lives right there and I told her she
doesn't have to come. Okay, >> they have settled just an extra time to apply for permit. However, I leave it up to the board. >> Well, let me ask you this. Has that owner been um as responsive as Miss Perez? >> Absolutely. And Miss Perez has been in
this longer. >> Wow. Well, based upon that, I would, you know, and the owner is not here, but you, but it's because, not because they're not interested. It's not because they're sherking the responsibilities. I would make a motion to continue this for 60 days for a progress report, and
at that time, we can evaluate whether we need to take additional action. >> No, in this I don't have a problem with that. This is for a year. I would be very uncomfortable being
>> I'll second that. >> I won't be so kind. >> So is this a second? >> Second. Michaels. >> All in favor? I >> should pass. True. Because it's only fair. You can't The cases are too similar. I would not
want to completely different but these folks that he did with Miss Perez that that's just longer that's targeting >> I mean miss miss Perez was just jerked around longer that's all I mean that's
I mean that's that's pretty amazing >> 60 days right >> 60 yeah >> the next case is under old business section six of the agenda and it's section item number 6.1. The address is
821 Northeast 109 Street and it's for case number CE-25-0947. Peter Leanov and Danielle Ayala with uh asking for an intent to lean for an amount of $500 which remains unpaid.
They were found to be violation of section 16.14 double fee permits. they had installed a temporary obtaining permits. I will explain to the board that um when this violation was reported to us, the property owner did
not have because they were doing interior work. However, they did some work outside that um they did an extension. They revised their permits and there's an extension going on. They extending the garage. So
that's we went over and we asked them to sell the fence right away because there was so much going >> Yeah. They didn't do an extension because I I know that property unfortunately because I mean that fortunately whatever but it it they they removed the garage and put a new
structure and everything. Yeah. >> So now that the addition is on and we had to ask them did they put the fence up to protect the neighbor? They did put the fence up but never came in to apply for the stuff
>> and any communication with them after that. >> We have tried to communicate. Uh we sent an email yesterday. >> Oh, Raphael has a question. >> I'm looking. did get the permit and without an affidavit of compliance. We're here for
intent to lean. They didn't pay the fine, the $500. >> They did eventually get a permit. I have to mention, thank you, Rafael. >> I do not want to misrepresent the facts. I didn't intend to. They did get a permit. And I would like to read onto the record permit number P26-0000.
>> So, assist. >> Nobody has any further comments. I'd like to make a motion. In case number C25-0947, give the property owner until May 1st, pay the $500. If not, the village to
file the intent to lean for $500 in and any applicable filing fees. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 40. >> The next case, 6.24859 Northeast 115th Street. Case number
CE-25-1012. Elena Agava. We were going to request to have this case dismissed and remove the fines. However, after we reviewed the case for the hundth time,
we found that we were actually correct the first time. Now, there were some discrepancies that happened in the building department, but all of those things were corrected. They had to pay an extra amount for the double fee fine because they only paid one. one was
canled during the process. We corrected everything. They've paid the fines, closed the cases, they paid the permit fees, and all we are asking the board to do is disregard. No, it's the cases are closed is to disregard this item.
>> Do I have to make a motion? >> Um, yes. >> All right. >> No, no. I will I will uh make a motion and item 6.2859 Northeast 115th Street C21012
to disregard that agenda item. >> You >> I moving on to the next case um number. It's under section six of the agenda and it's 6.5. The address is 1015 Northeast 112th
Street for case number CE25-0598 Ricken Blays LLC in care of their registered agent Harvard Business Services Inc. We are asking the board to reinstate the order of enforcement with daily fines retroactively.
They were issued with a violation for a driveway which they were parking vehicles on an approved surface that the actual violation is their driveway needs to be upgraded to the design standards. Um they never pulled a permit and the
fines were stopped when they came to the the board the I think it was the second or third time they came to the board. The board was ling enough that had been running and had run up.
However, they're asking that signs be reinstated. >> Let let me ask a question. Uh I see in in the items here that there is a uh let me just go to it. It's a statement. This is not a statement of
good standing. What does that mean? Is there something wrong with the the company? Yeah. Brick brick and lace. Brick bricken for lace LLC. This is not a statement of good standing. >> Says it. >> Oh, okay. Oh, that's okay. So, okay. So,
there was nothing bad on the >> order of extension. It says all approved fines to be removed and the fines were removed back to November 13,
in which case we'd have to wait to registered in >> Texas. probably lower tax. >> I think it's also the case law. Oh, right, right, right, right, right.
>> Right. Okay. Okay. Final answer, guys. You still deliberating? um affect >> Okay. Well, that Yeah, I saw that. That's why I wanted a clear clarification because
The reason I asked is if we look at >> the order of extension, it says that all acred fines were going to be removed. says that the daily fine 15 has been stopped, but the order of extension says
something different. Take a look at the um third paragraph. >> Oh, they did ask for an extension. >> All acred fines to be removed. Not >> why would we remove
for an extension where because they came in and an extension was approved. We have funds from the date of order when they were like to the date when they asking for the extension. So you are
right the extension was made to February 17th and that's when >> Okay. So >> yeah. And and before before we go further, I just be in light of the information that you uh advised us concerning documents
that were in there that were ostensibly or was not supposed to be in there because they may uh influence one way or the other. Um you're asking us to disregard those from any consideration, right?
>> Okay. And so and and so I think it's important for the record that I I make a statement about that because I asked that question about that and what did that mean and I got to tell you that I have looked at it um when I asked the question Judy had
said something about it's just a corporation registration or whatever. I didn't see anything deletarious in there or anything that would influence my decision either favorably or unfavorably towards this case. And I think it was important I make that statement because I was asking questions about it and
before you made your statement. So >> I want to put on the record that it has not influenced my decision or or that's not even made yet. But >> appreciate we appreciate that. come to the decision that because of the
extension we go back. >> Yes. For that's correct. Yes. >> Further I'll make a motion in case 25 reinstate the fines due to the lack of
permiting by the property owner. to be reinstated as of February 17th, 2026. >> A second. >> All in favor? I motion passes. >> Thank you for that
correction and that detail. Sometimes stuff passes my attention. I'll move on to the next case and it's case number 11 one. I'm sorry, it's under section six and it's 6.6. 6. It's for case number C-25-10007
and is for the property located at 11215 Northeast 8th Avenue for Sylvia, Barcelona. We're asking for an intent to lean. The lean has acred to 7,750 as of today. They were found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1f
property maintenance roof. The roof has not been cleaned um in a very long time and we reinspected the property and found that the roof has still not been cleaned. They are still non-compliant. Are the the people living there?
>> Yes. Communicate. Raphael >> I I Yeah. So I called had a conversation and the violation was issued. Um, and today I called them. I told her
that, um, her voicemail was full. So, um, I've been able to >> Is it Is it, you know, because I I'm only asking because I I heard it before when you said you sent an email to somebody. I think it was like today or yesterday. Um, is is that typically when
you try to contact people like a day or two before the meetings or is are you guys behind or is it is it usually the time? Typically we do try within the course of the the month the the the maybe two three months if the case is coming up whenever we do try to contact
people or sometimes they come in and contact us or try to come and see us in the the village. However I we do review all the cases before we bring them and I always ask the officer and and the code clerk if there has been any communication. If I hear that the
communication was two months ago I ask them to I can make comments. >> Yeah, because that's persuasive. And and Raphael, did when the when it was issued, you had a conversation with the owner? >> Yes, I did. >> Well, how'd that go? >> Um, it didn't go well. Uh, she was very
upset uh because um she had some previous uh issues with the in the building department regarding a roofing permit. And so getting the notice of violation and the problem. So she went on to
>> that happened years ago with the building department. It wasn't recent. >> No, it was some time ago. >> So you triggered some bad memory that she had about the building department. >> She went on to excuse me put the property taxes and so forth. So I had to just listen.
>> Uh so but what I do and what we do is um the follow up is on the first comp any compliance. So, if they have a compliance date, right, that's when we make the follow-up phone call. >> And and when was that?
>> Um on in her case, her >> I mean, we're going back to February 17th. This has been kicking around. >> What else? Enforcement. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. The order was 16.
>> So, the this Compliance date was August >> for the order of enforcement. No, not in No, I haven't the other day actually. >> But did you did you speak to the to the owner at that time? Uh, but
okay. Well, go back to the that compliance state thing that you said you always follow up which would have been in March. >> Yes. >> But you didn't talk to her. Do you have a record of it? >> Speak with her. >> But but if you don't speak with somebody, you say attempted to call, you
know, voicemail full. Do do you do you note that? Is there anything noted for that time frame >> on in the comments? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What is it for the March followup? >> They don't have nothing for Mars. >> I hope I hope
>> Oh, it's important that we Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, because because you're saying you're saying what your pattern of practice is when they get the violation and there's and there's and there's a a date in March. That is what that's that's when they're supposed to be complied by date and you always and you your pattern of practice is to have
contact by that time, right? But you didn't have that contact. You don't have evidence of of trying to contact at that time and you don't have a present recollection of contact at that time. Is that what you're saying? Okay. So, you can't tell the board whether you followed your pattern of practice of of
contacting this particular one time I rate, you know, homeowner about the violation or not. Right. Okay, >> we have been dissembled for now in April and we still have
>> Yeah, situation like >> I agree with that. In this case, we have to agree with the board that due process is very important, especially before we lean a property. We have to at least untap it, >> right?
Question case number C25-107. the property owner until May 1st come into compliance by cleaning the roof. The commodity in compliance village needs to file a lean intent to lean excuse me in the amount
of $7,750 plus filing fees daily fine will continue to approve until compliance is achieved. Thank you. Second that >> favor I. Any opposed? Motion passes 4 Z.
>> Next case is under 6.7 in the same section of the agenda and the address is 11403 Northeast 8th Avenue for case number C25-0929 Lavanta LLC in care of their registered
agent Ernon Adonir. We asking for an intent to lean. Uh they were found to be in violation of section 16.15.2 landlord registration required. They applied for a landlord permit but never paid the $40. An order of enforcement
was put in place and as of today they have acred fines of up to $3,750. >> That all began because they didn't pay 40. And I as I asked the same question when I reviewed the cases that for $40, you don't respond and you don't get in
touch with us and don't pay the $40, then you end up with an order of enforcement with a $250 a day. >> This is what kind of Go ahead, Raphael. >> Uh I spoke with the property owner and he said he was going to come to village
hall and take care of it and he never did. >> And when was that? Back at the time. And then I called today and uh let's just write them a message um something simple should have been
settled not a homesteaded property until >> any and the homeowner knows they realized that they said they were going to do something that they didn't do. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> And what when when was this? What Monday are we talking about? this past Monday
or >> so they know they had this email of enforcement to make sure even though it's mailed to them she emails it to them direct >> okay and that they get bounced back or anything okay >> no more comments I'm going to go ahead
and make a motion in C25- excuse me in C-25-09 29. Go ahead, the city to go ahead and send the intent to lean letter in the amount of $3,750
plus filing fees daily fine to continue to work through until they come into compliance. >> Second. >> All in favor? I oppose. Motion passes for zero. >> The next case is under 6.8 for the same
address and same property owner. Case number is CE-26-000074. This is an intent to lean abatement by our public works department. So this cannot be negotiated. We still haven't received the fine
assessed of $300 by the public works department for work that was done to um protect the secure the swimming pool and the $250 250 $500 that was assessed for this violation by the board. A total of
$800 remains unpaid. >> Any questions? I'm happy that we $800 >> plus any fees. >> Excuse me.
All in favor? >> I zero. >> The next case is under 6.9. The address is 11505 Northeast 11th place. Case number CEN-24-213
and CE-25-0355. We were hoping to make a disclosure to the new property owners of this forclosed property. Uh the new property owner that has taken over is RBI mortgage mortgages LLC in care of their registered agent Rosenberg and Cummings
CLLC. We have tried to make contact with the um registered agent. He on the registered agent that's on the record. This registered agent was on the deed. Registered agent on the record,
attorney Isaac. We contacted him. He called us back just to confirm that he was the registered agent and where we got his information from. We let him know. We we go through a lot of papers and public records, but um we haven't heard from them since.
This is our second attempt to put them on the board to make these disclosures. These lanes have been running for a while now from the previous owner and Yes, he he he looked at this one just like 720. He worked with us to uh litigate uh 720. Um we hope that the
property owner can contact us because what happens any recorded um we lose it in the >> so far down in the priority. >> Correct. We are not on we are not a superiority lean. So the only thing uh
we can do um the attorney advised that advised was the orders of enforcement for these leans still stand >> with the property. So they will still stand with the same amount of money that are standing on on the propert on on the
on the violation. So like we did with 720 was either get in touch with the owners let them know disclose the village and I hope that they can in this case we haven't heard from them
continue to reach out >> can we do can we do a new order of enforcement from this day forward since it's new owners and they're still not compliant. So what we can do is not an order of enforcement from this. We cannot issue that would be double jerk
is that what they call it right. We can issue the violation and start over with the >> but that would be from this day forward not the board um decide they wouldn't want to work on this we can issue new
violations. However, those old violations suggest I start over. I'll be happy to stop. We can we can start a new case. We're going to give them 30 days. Let let me just ask a question on the um
you keep saying that we're going to lose the money lose the money is let me just see if ask the question and see if I'm understanding you're correct and is that because of where we would land in the superiority of the lean but that's based on the assumption that there's more debt
that will get uh above us than the value of the house right Okay. It has already happened. Okay. So, we already wiped out. Okay. So, so yeah. So, what
>> he lean that was recorded in the public records. However, we still are record. >> So, in terms of a compliance for this particular house, we went from one non-compliant uh owner to a new
non-compliant owner. Okay. Okay. And we can only deal with the new non-compliant owner from what he's done for the last two months. >> Yeah. >> Based on the history of the house, they know that they had problems, right? and and they they were able to to to get this house, you know, without having to
compile this stuff or or or satisfy those and now they're sitting there in their own non-compliant mess that we're dealing with. So I >> Exactly. So that could be the subject of a new is that the subject of this or is that
subject of something that's going to come into come down the line? Yeah, because those and and it was never those things were never put in in the first place without a permit. So, this guy bought that problem. >> Okay. violations.
There anything else you want? >> Second. All in favor? I That means >> exactly now, right? Item 6.106.10 for the address 1 1550 Northeast 11th
place is for case number CE-25-083 Hector Reglerero Bas and Paola Reglerero. They're asking for an intent to offense violation. Uh there was a fence that was in
violation section 11.67. Fence was discolored. They pressure washed the fence. However, there was a part of the fence that they had to replace. And I'm going to leave this board to the side. There was a part of the fence that they needed to replace,
which they did. However, the court officer had let them know that they needed to apply for permits in order to face the fence. Now, there was an order of enforcement um asking them to obtain the permit.
They haven't obtained the permit, but the property owner when we got in touch with him read a different ordinance to us that says if a job, and he's right, if a job is less than $100, he doesn't need to get a
permit. >> That's true. >> Claim was he only spent $75 to replace the tomb. And I cannot find a way to discip that. I cannot speak against what he said. He needed single
>> and and and more importantly, he took care of the problem that was was there, which was he pressure cleaned his thing. He had a couple boards, did it? >> Okay. >> Right. >> I cannot call him a liar. And in that
case, I'm will ask for the board to No, we're going to have to resend the order of enforcement that asked them to get a permit because now fines had run, right? So, and we will have to resend the fines as well. Remove the fines.
They didn't need a permit. Okay. >> So, >> as was expected. >> So, I'd like to make a motion on uh where's the number here? OCE25-0883 to uh resend the order of enforcement
and the attendant fines attached to it. I >> next item we are back to new business and section 7 7.1 for 871 Northeast 117th Street for case number C26-0044
LMI McGra we're asking for an order of enforcement been found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1G 4.3.1g. The exterior wall needs to be painted. Um, our last inspection revealed
non-compliance. Our inspection was today. Our last inspection was this afternoon and um they are still non-compliant. >> And has there been communication with this owner, >> Raphael?
Um, I met with him today as as well as the person who's going to be doing the job. So, um, he does have, um, they're working on on closing the contract. So, he asked me, the property owner asked me today if we could give him an additional 30 days until to to comply. So, the
person who's going to do the job, they think they may start doing it next week. So, it's just uh, pull the paint. This one is for the >> paint approval. >> The paint. Yeah. So, that's g a very simple. >> It's a quick process. >> It's a quick process. And the color they're going to choose is an approved
color. So that will be approved right away. >> Ours. >> Yeah. >> What? >> Asia board. >> Oh, yes. They are >> they usually fix that with >> they usually fix that when they do.
>> No, it's repair. It's it's repair. Yeah. >> All right. We have noted that violation and we will issue a courtesy notice for that for them to replace it. >> Yes. >> In case number
owner. >> I'll say >> all in favor >> I >> next case is for the same property same property owner and it's KC-26-0045 asking for an order of enforcement. They were found to be in violation of section
8.4.3.1F 4.3.1F roof maintenance. They had a dirt they have a dirt roof still non-compliant. Raphael the same on the same um property owners on the same situation. So the person who's going the contractor who's going
to be painting the house is also going to clean up the roof. So again, they're asking for a 30 days extension. >> So he believes they can get both of those things done in the 30 days. >> Yes. Yeah. for the for the um the roof. They don't need a permit. So that's um
would be very simple. >> So we're going to >> May 15. That would be I I usually have for people
orders of endorsement a little more comfortable like >> I'm good with that. I can make actually I'm going to go back and revisit the other property owner as an extend the time
and you revise uh the first case to 522 as well. Go ahead. Going back to CE26-004, I'd like to amend my motion to make the extension of date from May.
Second favor. >> I next case is in section seven of the agenda and it's 7.3. The address is 11:07 Northeast 117th Street.
case number CE-26-00009 V Park 110 LLC in P in care of their registered agent Ilmax LLC. We are back with a progress report on progress report or none thereof on
this case. They were found to be in violation of chapter 5.6.1 A12 off streetet parking. The driveway does not meet approved stand design standards. Now I would like to bring to attention of the board that this is the
property that um was bought by B park to be demolished and now two years had gone by. If you remember we brought this property back to the board and since
then they have cleaned property. They have painted the property. Now the violation with the driveway is a little bit difficult for them and I'm just saying a little difficult. I just be logical in this situation because
they are they still intend to demolish that property. Now if they're going to demolish the property to install that driveway now >> what I would ask for the board to do is give them more time. They've applied for a construction fence permit which I know
will not be approved yet until the development permits come in. So if they can give them another night in that area. >> They did a lot of work. >> These folks have not make this property.
>> They painted the place and it was looked terrible. Even though they're going to tear it down. I mean they did that. They had it's a house. I know. So, we are asking for at least 90 days back for a progress report.
>> Did you repeat that? >> While you're looking that up, Jenny, I'll make a motion. >> Yes. Make a motion in C26-00009 uh to extend the time to 90 days to June 26 for a progress report.
>> Second >> I passes. >> Next case is under section 7 and it's 7.6 6 address2025 Northeast 5th Avenue. Case number
CE-26-0048. Property owners are Moore Schneider and Bar Oz. We are asking for an order of enforcement in this case. They were found to be in violation of section 16.14.1 daffo fee permits for an outdoor kitchen
that have installed without first obtaining permits. The kitchen is beautiful. However, they did it without permits and we are at this point asking for an order of enforcement. We have reached out to the property owner. They've come to the village. We've explained the violation
and they are aware of what they need to do. I want to know how Raphael got the picture in their backyard. >> Construction site next door. They haven't applied for the permit at all. >> Absolutely.
>> Correct. It looks like they've connected water. There's a slab and >> we still kind of slowed down. No, it does not. No, >> if you're going to make the motion, I don't want to walk on. >> No, I'd rather you make it because I'm
not quite sure what to do with >> And will any of that need to be in front of PNZ or is that all electrical mechanical have to go in front of planning and design screws and >> go before PNZ? They haven't set back.
>> All right. Considering all the plans that this person is probably going to have to submit, I'm going to Okay. In case number CE-26-0048, a violation has occurred. Assess a $250
fine. $50 administrative fee. Give the property owner until June 16th to pull a complete permit for kitchen and everything it entails. If not, $250
fine commencing on the 17th. >> Daily first and a second. All in favor? I motion passes. >> And those were all the cases we were able to bring before the board tonight.
>> March's minutes everybody. Take whatever you are on March's minutes on agenda item 6.7 where it says on the second to the last where it says if not the fine will be
reinstated. It should include reinstated back to March 18th of 2026. >> Yes, ma'am. Not interested. March. >> And just refresh my memory under the
next four cases. Gail Bllandon made a motion to deny the extension. Remind me of that. >> Yeah. Remember That's the only 7.5. >> Yeah, exactly.
abaded but all will be built out but it doesn't risk the violation If you're doing just didn't get to get it. Anybody else? I Motion to approve the minutes
of favor. >> I make a motion to adjurnn. I'll take a motion to adjurnn. All in favor? Miss everyone.