put it the come guy came so the one case that you gave them the contract no [Music] hey good how are youo [Music]
see I no he's he yet so [Music] [Music] she got but she didn't pay for yeah so with the prus
report yes um actually she just waiting for her to pay the fees okay that's what she's paying she PID the fee then each the but he already went to pnz already riew
and the parking lot hasn't been built waiting for the to pay the [Music] yes welcome everyone I'd like to called order the village of park for meeting
today is Wednesday March 12th it is 6 please call Jamie Anderson here D Benton here Roda bantos yeah Judy hammerberg here Michael lard here Ashley
Bern green Dar C Grant pres Rafael guz pres Vanessa Cherry Pres then good evening this is the meeting this code comping Forest the board is
authorized pursuing to chapter 14 of the V development code to ensure compliance with the village C ordinances the members of the board of citizens and residents of the village of Park and volunteer our time and are not paid for our services the purpose of each hearing
is to give any eled bu opportunity toest the decision of the code compliance officer which result of a notice of violation and to determine whether a violation of the religious code has occurred or we are not
authorized to dis violations based on hardship ignorance or the fact that others may be filt the same violation theing are conducted in judicial manner of responsibility is to act much like a judge in the court and that is Cas
presented by the religious code officer and to contradictory argumented by the Alle violator we are not authorized to change the code The Village commission is only authorized to enact on Revis codes conversely neither the commission
nor the village manager have the authority to overrule the findings of the board soon chapter 162 the statutes orders of the board can only be appealed to the CATE Bo of Mino County we have the authority to assess and order the pre
issue orders having the of law command whatever steps are necessary to bring a violation compliance and to assess administrative costs in order to make a finding upholding the code compliance officer decision we must find that there is subanal competent evidence that the
name violator was responsible for a violation of the Rel of the relative section of the code all documentary evidence presented by the must be submitted for place with in heing file no documentary evidence will be considered unless the allergic
violator or Co client officer the the copy for the hearing file each party shall have the right to call witnesses to introduce exhibits the cross exam opposing Witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered the direct
examination te any Witnesses regard which part which call them to testify and against if you intend to address the board and haven't signed in please do so also anyone planning to address the board I need you to please stand raise
your right hand so you may in your reminders this board ising judicial board and Thanksgiving false testimony please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you B to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
anything we have two discussions that put to the end of meeting Okay so [Music] CH we will have the two discussion corre good evening Dorian Grant C compli
manager for the Cod Compass Department the first seven cases we will call are for the property located at 739 Northeast 111th Street they in section8 of the agenda and there are items
8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 and 8.9 we have coun present and 810 yes yeah 10 yes yes they are here for to request F
reductions on seven leanings that have been placed on this property for several violations um before for you is um contract of sale this property is out for sale uh we have the real estate agent here as
well and we also have the property owner's brother on Zoom from New York um and like I said before you is the contract of sale which I'd like to enter as
evidence um tonight this property is up for sale they have a buyer and um the buyer intends to demolish uh this building according to the agent and they are asking for Relief
on these leans so that they can go ahead and demolish this building and rebuild the brand new house first of I really appreciate that we have a copy of the contract thank you both all of you really much for that if
the plan is to hear these each individually which I would be necessary since they are each individually would anybody have an objection if we change the order absolutely good what I'd like to do if there are no
objections from the GL they have 8.6 first 8.5 second 8.10 8.4 8.8 8.7 and
8.2 8.6 8.5 81 8.4 8.8 8.7 will call it at the
end understand sit first case the first case 8.6 8.6 address 739 noreast 111 street it's case number-1 17-4 Brett Anthony Frey is the property
owner here to request the F reduction this was a violation for discolored walls and the dirty roing the what reading over the material it was the um they're offering $2,000 outstanding things
correct questions comments remember individual time that you [Music] guys yes um we've issued several violations over the years um sometimes
we never got a response from um this particular property owner so we had to request um PD to do a welfare check check on I think two or three occasions we came to find out that individual was not well he has a severe Health hard
shift and uh result of suffering from depression [Music] um and it's we considered all that when uh we put these cases together um the offer that they're giving on um say this
particular violation we are also recommending the same offer considering the history of what this gentleman has gone through he was not he was he was sick and he was also fin financially um uh losing um he losing the house he was
going to lose the house because um of the health ISS attorney here she's the real estate agent and the brother Matt is on zo he
Reed that he might be able to explain better than either Laura or myself about the health and other issues his brother has had terms of Tak care of this property so mat if you're able to if you could explain to the board we would appreciate
that can he hear us you hear us sir oh good evening good evening hi can you hear me hello I can hear you now you could hear me hi good evening my name is Matthew fry I'm here as power attorney of attorney on behalf of my brother
Brett uh due to his failing Health my and my concern for him he is unable to attend these sessions tonight but per uh he purchased his house to make it his permanent home he was a freelance camera op operator for the film industry when the industry lost its tax incentives for
filming in the State of Florida it relocated to Georgia Brett F then found himself with minimum or no work his income became inconsistent at and he struggled to make ends meet during the pandemic Brett did fall into long-term
Co covid and it took a toll on his physical and mental health this also impacted his ability to work when work became available while while this was happening his his wind insurance premium
had increased to $2,000 a month and this doesn't include his homeowners insurance property taxes mortgage Etc um he also was serving um served multiple citations by the village that I F I recently found
found out and all these Financial pressures and increased his stress level which which resulted him in having a stroke along with his depression uh you've you you've mentioned before that the the the the Park police have had done welfare checks
from his neighbors calling his friends family have been concerned about his faing health and we also did welfare checks unfortunately his doctors still have been unable to get his blood pressure under control he is he is uh
seeing doctors uh on a weekly basis now uh he gets confused forgetful and seems unaware of the gravity of this situation I've not mentioned that Brett due the amount of fines uh it I didn't mention the the the fines to my brother the uh
in fear that he might relapse and send them back into the hospital concerned about his health I recently flew to Florida for a welfare check and concluded that he no longer capable of living alone physically mentally or financially this was when we when when
the decision was to sell sell his home and I made a list with Laura Graves who found a buyer immediately for the property the house is in contract with Raul Reyes when the title search came back I didn't became aware of all these leans against the property he's borrowed
money from friend and family I also learned that he's cashed his annuity his pension against my advice to pay or his Mike Mike we just muted you for a moment
Matt we muted you for a moment well I need to know if he can still hear us I want why we did that can you hear us yes I could hear you so the only reason I'm asking you I'm interrupting is I think we have heard and we totally
get it and we understand the property is under contract the important thing is moving forward so I'm going to kind of pull it back now to the board and in the Braes to inut and then we can deal with this first case how the board SE SP be
to bear with us sir yes ma'am thank you so I just had I did not realize we would be going individually Case by case but I will point out that Laura and I have been doing a lot of research and this brand has been very helpful with Laura and what I noticed when I was
doing my own research is that some of the older cases of the leans going back uh to 2015 and 2021 I couldn't even review the record because there are certain items that are missing from the record I also noticed that a couple of
the items were duplicated like there's two separate leans for the roof there's two separate leans for the painting U and then I I know you guys are aware that as far as the law goes you can only go to a certain level for in terms of
fines for a certain violation like what if you P for discussion I know how I feel but i' like to hear from everybody else in terms of the 2000 well um for this I'd like to go ahead
and accept the offer and I would like to move forward on all of them I I took it as a whole to begin with after looking for all all of them and knowing the cases I think I was president of all of
these um hearings of with this case um I thought it was reasonable and I was glad to see an offer come in for for a decent amount each and every I have to say that was my first impression that under the
circumstances and again I thank you for providing that contract because that just eases certainly myor and I think all of us that yes all moving forward and that's what we really all want so do
we want to pull it back here all seven cases do we all feel [Music] comfortably I certainly do I would okay you don't mind i' like
to yeah on like to make a motion to accept $2,000 for each of the following cases for a total of 14,000 um [Music] 8.6 okay on case
number on uh I can read the cases into the record for you seven cases seven cases with leans onto the record case number 8-12-16 73 case number eem 17-4 case number
c-23 d299 case number c-23 3-300 case number c-23 D31 case number c-23 d417 that's all okay um on the case
mentioned to accept deduction $2,000 per case total $1,000 um paid by when do youall close we do to
close April 10th April 10th so they'll be paid as part of the closing I'll prepare and half a days uh as well which the buyer will sign we'll tie the buyer into this as well and the reason I brought more just so you know is if you I saw the contct you know that the buyer
is s books in the village frequently and obviously nothing is to make sure that a built there which obviously will help he's completed multiple homes and he's currently
working on so April the 15th in case something we should by okay um be paid both by April 15th or the fines to
the second Motion in a second to accept $2,000 per case for total of 14 to be paid by April 15th if not def do revert back to what they previously were all in favor I any opposed motion passes 5
thank you both there's one more case I would like to read before you leave thank you for the same property it's a new business and it's under 7.1 it's case number cn- 24-2
739 for the same property same property owner this was a violation for exterior walls um faded and chipped similar violations as old violations but this was um a newer violation we issued multiple violations because they
were there was no compliance so after we leaned the only recourse we could take was issue another violation I'm asking this board to dismiss this case based on um the cell contract that we submitted into the evidence there will motion to
dismiss and c39 second all in favor motion thank you thank you for your time sir thank next item in Old business is 6.1 for the
property located at 826 Northeast 121st Street it's case number e-22 d383 with Jan roots and his wife Denis we have Council present on behalf of the mortgage company we have Council present on behalf of the village we have uh the
building official as a witness [Music] umad so we see that it it becomes understandable when you see the email from the the official that it was a flat rate of so C would
logically had no reason to formulate breakouts because whether they went over what they thought they were going or under get it other comments from the board any any more St
no you this one yes would your name and your relationship with your property yeah my name is attorney kale posing I represent the mortgage servicer who has the mortgage on the property um and just again want to
reiterate what was was reiterated back into hearing on back in December um again no information has been provided to my office as far as theate what is making up of the $10,000 to um this being request to be placed on this property um it was asked for well before
that hearing theing was moved to January and resched again now to the state still nothing has that shows us any sort of where this coming from um so we would ask that because they have not complied provide any sort of record to office as was
instructed back de May yes Brad waiting to hear your permission that's good evening um M chair board memb Weissman
attorney I would suggest to the the members of the board that that that council's argument as to why the lead should be dismissed um is basically without Merit and the reason why I would say that and we've got the building offal hear with them put some additional
testimony on with regards to the basis for the healing um as as the chair as Madam chair has correctly pointed out this was a flat fee um I would suggest that the building official again he's present I believe he's been placed under and I would ask you to hear his
testimony but essentially he would testified that this was a discounted rate that was provided to the village that the estimate of what the cost would have been um would have exceeded the $10,000 flat fee um based and I believe the the official cont testified for for
that based on the amount of time although they didn't keep records as the actual amount of time they're out that they work but based on the amount of work that the company and the building official Associates did in this matter that if they would have charged their
rate they would have exceeded the a would have much higher considerably higher building official stay there by The Village or you an outside cont have an outside contractor government we provide a
service Serv and did you enter into a written agreement with the Village ofate Park PR manager AG to mic the function ofing
that is correct company government presented an estimate negotiated with Mar man city manager at that time and agre this
for to provide the services we estimated more would be [Music] need an hour copc black [Music]
that's we what wastim I don't know I was over $12,000 you have we I think left in the inv was kep in the inv with this
[Music] original estimate [Music] time and what happen when you to the vill and estim did you already discount provide that want to go with a a risk of having
more expensive so [Music] iate and you're familiar with the amount of work that was done this Pro by by yourself yes sir and B I understand you
don't know an exact amount of hour the hours that you didn't work on this project charging your rate $11 an hour would [Music] that b [Music]
I think in at an hour you know so but I know that there are also Arrangements where there are black fees so that's what we struggled with so I
think unig we have hour everybody punches in and time put time get [Music]
[Music] yes right most thenation was offal that time of the gates
there I'm you saw um so for the benefit of the other attorney I understand kind of dropped in your lap this I moved into this Village in 1996 this been
Ono us since 19 we dealt with it as a resent when I was a commissioner in this Village dealt with it as a commissioner this has been [Music] problem you how many Village hours going
to try and but the issue at this point is this violation we provided no information whatsoever requested multiple times now at this hearing is that when we find out with a witness we were not to be here were presented with
information I don't know that material in that you now know why there were noly rates broken out am [Music] that we done all we were provided $1,000
and that was it part of the reason we were looking for inv and break to see the work that we done to see and I just don't have the information to go off and it doesn't seem like we were provided the opportunity to have do proper review the information that sort of breakdown
was you know provided because it was not necessary under the FL the arrangement this would have been helpful if they had mentioned that to begin with and again where we had said we've asked multiple times and again they've always
provided we don't have it we don't have it where was the information telling us it was a flat feed so we could look request more information deeper you wait last minute here at this hearing now to place and tell I believe attorney Vanessa was on
the email U chain when we provided the email that came from the building official that's they ATT turning from your office I just I'm going stand with what I said on I mean you have the opportunity
to that opport certainly ask our building official on any question you so choose would you have anything I I have nothing further than just Cil was not provid
[Music] ex I wouldn't give you an exact date without looking at the emails but it was a lot of emails back and forth was in the last 48 hours or four days or four weeks I would say the last month the last
one did you be aware that youil I was aware that they informed us that uh work was done but again no information was provided they didn't have a breakdown um again it was nothing with li saying that it was a flat aat agreement provided um
to my knowledge of email that was sent but again I'm here saying what was asked de by down if no one has any questions from staff or from the board no further
comments from ouring official or our I'd like to sign a motion make motion on case number- 22383 forward $1,000 was applicable following
fees second I have a motion in a second all in favor iOS motion next items on the agenda under eight Section 8 and it's 8.1 and
8.2 and 8.3 find reduction this is for the property located at 11140 Griffin Boulevard case number e-19 d1556 case number E1 19-1
1636 and case number e-22 d579 these violations were were materials that were left on the prop property a dilapidated fence and failure to maintain a gate however the current
owner was not the Violator this property was sold at an auction and um the leans that were on the property prior to them purchasing the the the property survived the auction so they
are now responsible for the leans uh that are on the property and they are asking for reduction well H have have has the issue been resolved the issue has been resolved the property the house was demolished it's um empty lot right now
so technically they're completely in compliance they are in [Music] [Music] compliance yes they are very old Lans and um they amount to 341,000 I believe in in
total 339 change7 right one of the cases only has $100 on it and I would recommend that that $100 is not considered they they could pay the $100 I I believe it shouldn't be considered
as a reduction even though he paid the $50 it's for $122 and it's which case there's no [Music] house
yes do we know how much in administrative on there um administrative fees I believe these L are one of them is very old so it was $25 okay in this case probably we should
settle in on one um if we could do the 339 the one with the highest yes know the am well this is not the property owner of the when the property was in
violation any they bought the property at the courthouse know what we at 3399 and have the power this um basically we bought the
property and doing house steps and after it was sold there was a surplus of funds and then the attorney that we hired um they contacted the city so that the city get the Surplus but
then I think dine told me that there were some legal issues yes so the B part couldn't claim on the surplus of funds so now we are coming to this hearing um that we came to this hearing and I wanted to point out the fact that we
plan to build um a property on the lot and I brought the renderings with me from the architect should I basically yeah I can that's fine so this is like the of what it will look like the front
and the back and the floor plant and so we're hoping to resolve the Le so that when we go to build that we don't have issues and we're offering $500 for each case so that's ,500 and what was a surplus that you
were you said you said there was a Sur you offering oh I wasn't offering so U I think to my knowledge there was like 300,000 Surplus yes when the prop sorry not to interrupt when the property was sold by the county there was a surplus
of $300,000 that was left in the coffers because all the county needed was the the taxes that were owing so or whatever else now in the hierarchy of leans we were very much on the bottom so I'm not sure there was a mortgage but there were
other leans that uh preceded our leans so that money went to pay for those leans when our lease pendant was filed I believe we were already late I did consult with the village attorney on this and we were late in in filing our Leist pendants so we could not claim the
300 the 300,000 or some of it we were not able to in looking at the pine reduction case we just heard going with this first case in front of us I'll be honest I'm not
comfortable with a $500 offer well the does anybody know when this proper when the house was demolished Dem I believe the previous owner bought this house it used to be the mayor's house they bought the property and demolished
it it was a few years that it's it's been about 10 years 10 years it's been about that yeah that amount of time yeah so they demolished the property with the intention of rebuilding but I believe they ran into some Financial issues and were not able to right that's why I I
just wanted to make sure I had the right or 10 years ago Dem I believe so so and but these fines agreed up until when I I see there
or there already so it already been placed correct we know when the leans were placed y yes um the first one was August of 2024 August of 2024 right
so and finds have been approving up to that point correct for a house that was demolished correct now the the violations were for trash that was left on the property was debris I I believe
from the demolition some of it and then there was a a security fence which was a chain link fence that had fallen and the gate was unsecure so these were minor violations that could have been corrected easily but because this
property owner that the debris in question had to do with the Demolition that's correct and then the property owner just fell off and just let the property go right um did you did you have any recommendations based the
amount of time that you put into this yes considering that this um they were not the violators they bought the property with the violations which we still hold them accountable for I would recommend a total of 4,000 which is
2,000 for each uh prop for each lean the other lean for $100 I believe they could just pay $100 they don't have to reduce that I 000 4000 for
each I'm so sorry hold on the one Lan was $750 so we couldn't do so we'll do 2,000 on the one lean for 300,000 and the 500 for the 750 lean I would rather leave the seven and
change alone just like the one with the that seven encompasses a violation fine and an admin fine and we really should not be reducing either of those two so I'm comfortable with 2,000 on the
$339,000 one but the other two which are 7 12 [Music] 1,000 you have to put a lot of money into plans and start
building I won't I speak only for me I won't I'm comfortable with [Music] what were have been known to happen yes they
were known and that's how their attorney was able to contact us they saw the Lans in the public records and contacted correct and the reason they they were very adamant about letting us know was because of the 300,000 Surplus that was there they were not aware that
there were other leans that were superceeded I'm sorry um these uh Code Compliance leans so the other leans were considered first and they were paid and there was nothing left for us so we were
your stand reasonable to assume that they're contacting you $300,000 Surplus $300,000 from W that they were trying to get that dealt with the money that they had at the time then they found out that there's other builds in front right
right that was the county the county had the money not them okay but here we are today [Music] many is anyone ready to make motion you
don't make this is a f reduction you either been for, 1500 for all three cases I would make a motion to not accept the $1,500 covering cases e19
15556 1636 and E 22579 do not accept the 500 second all in favor any oppos motion carries 5 they'll do another
motion you're welcome to make another offer right now yeah yes please oh okay so how about the one that you G right before so 2,000 for the 300,000 and then the other two you just
leave it as it is how about that um I mean yeah so if there's no other discussion i' like to make a motion on case number uh the
m-22 383 c-24 d697 and I can read those numbers to the record for you total for the the total
[Music] 3,966 [Music] 77509 7442 for a total of $2,872 to be paid
by by 15 not the uh [Music] Motion in a second all in [Music] favor next item
[Music] 2872 what's the dat the next item is 7.2 and it's for the address 744 Northeast 113th Street it's for the case number c ec- 25- z69
for Mark Newman salinero and Alejandra Michelle salinero in this case we are asking for an order of enforcement as a finding of fact for a
violation that has already been paid the double feif permit fine um this particular particular property owner was found in violation of chapter SE uh section
16.4.1 they had permits for a roof um for their property permits were uh the work was going fine we had permitting the system and everything but uh when one of the inspectors went to the property they found that there was extra work that was done that was not on the
plans and uh that's how they would charge the double Fe permits I wanted to um let the board know that he has complied and paid the double fees for the other permit however this is a precedent case because during the process of
investigating this case uh we found that his roofer this wasn't the property owner the roofer or someone who was presenting the roofer had used a fake stamp to pass the the the plan so they could move to
another stage when the when the plans hadn't really gone through the right process in the building department they took an old stamp forged it and put it um on the plans now the police department is handling this part of the case I I would
need to get a followup um uh status from them on on uh where they are with this case it's not the owner will not be held responsible for that because the roofer is responsible for maintaining his license and what goes with his license but I wanted to put it on the record
that sometimes contractors do this stuff and property owners have to be looking out for what they they are doing for the back to the case um I would like um this board to put on the record of finding of fact for the violation that
happened so part of the RO was permitted it was permitted and this was addition yeah property owner at 744 113 Street um so just so I can be clear about this this
is St for the carp it's for the carport we have a stop order on the actual roof until the pace is resolved with PD they may not allow you to go on with that roof they need to resolve the issue with the building with the roofing contractor
okay I guess I'll keep that separate because absolutely the um I guess my position is the roof permit was issued that carport is continuous with the home it's not a separate structure right so this is the first time I've replaced on
a house my wife I bought the house in 2020 um it's my understanding that it was contemplated in the original permit to repair the car for right part of it was damage so I knew it was going to be Sumer there they began replacing the
roof and they thought that they needed to replace it right and why they replac I mean the tongue and groove um decking and a couple and the trusses they on right so it was replaced in the same exact manner that it was previously um
in my POS I I didn't know that there needed to be an additional permit P for your perm is issu based on what your plans show and plans not show area
that well the roof was over the carport permitted or permitted to be done it's how roof over the carpo this was if you were to step into the carard and look up this here yeah so I'm just putting the record I didn't know about it so you know that the board considers that I'm
not sure um but you know the permit I paid for the roof was around for the roof s um I don't know what the fir going to cost with instructor portion of it um they've had to an architect and engine to now drop the plans for it so there has been additional cost
so as well saying that original well I me I me the permit valuation the permit valuation and in terms of what the roer put on there I knew that there was going to have to be a RoR portion of because some of tongue and groove um decking had been
deteriorated so you know at the start it was okay this is what's going to T roof and repar to a portion of the car for but then it turned into the cricket there was more damage and so they just said we're going to replace the entirety of the the guts I guess you could say
the car at that point they would have needed to update the pl up back in Fr different yeah the shingle was the roof covering the
same shingle roof and now it's tocl so this particular violation was brought to us by a building inspector so the building inspector that went to the house looked at that work and said this work has is not on the plan and he could
not put his signature on approving that because wasn't on the plan and he wasn't comfortable doing it we actually went out with PD and the building official the building official confirmed that a roof like that even though it's supposed
to be like a ceiling it needs certain type of straps it needs certain type of assurance for them to sign it off and say it's safe as a building official he could not sign it off without being approved by planning and Design
so he did correct so he did comply he did come to the village and he worked with us he worked with the building department he paid the double fines however I wanted this to be on the record and for a finding of fact because it's it's a big problem for contractors
doing work outside of their permits and it's very difficult for us to track it and very difficult for us to know what's going on if no one brings it to our attention I say just for clarity had this just been one trust maybe replaced
or correct replace it was an entire roof that's common with with replacement of of a roof you're right but the entire thing from the pictures I'm looking at um they took my license the day that they came um so I mean they have my information um but I went to the
planning design they've approved to go forward so now buildings ending everything else what they so so they do not hold the they would not hold him accountable or responsible for what the the roofing contractor did as a
contractor he has he has a license and he knows what the rules are so he went outside of his professional uh rules and he will be held accountable Criminal for what happened
unfortunately ultimately it's the home own responsibility yes this is South Florida and you know what we run up against with certain contractors but until everybody comes in front of it yeah yeah they have to watch what
their contractors is doing and as much as we trust them as professionals but as a property owner ultimately the your roof is not going anywhere right right now there's a SC qu still for qu basically using work
correct um so case number c-25 d69 that violation did occur an assessive F of $250 so there's a fine on top of the
doubleit and and manager [Music] and time I go tomor I just want to know to be paid by um March worry worry March the
30th yes Val next item 6.6 for the address 11501 Northeast 11th Place this is for the case number c-22 d115 a real arbar and his wife
Sally we're bringing this case for a progress report they were found in violation of chapter 5.6 of street parking their driveway did not meet the design standards set forth in this section this is a homestad
and Sally is here um she we spoke before and this was my note Sally that you needed to speak with your husband uh before you made a decision to move forward with this so you can go ahead and explain to the
board when they're ready for [Music] you st well this case has been opened since December of 202 22 we heard at first last January we gave a compliance date of March
24th where and that would have me having the permit correct that would have constituted compliance a later so they did apply for the permit in time um in compliance to that order this
order had no fines in it they went ahead and applied and nothing has happened since that permit hasn't moved it's still on application stage does have a $250 daily F if not in compliance by the 21st of March
compliance and we always make that very clear correct is having the permit and I had explained this to Sally this order would have to be amended in order to add an admin administrative fee and the violation
fine because applying for the permit is not compliance you needed to go through with the permit and do the driveway so none of that has happened so I'm asking the board to amend the order of enforcement
bar you would identify yourself in the relationship in property okay s and I got something back saying um this isn't right um You have to do this you with with the permit the permit for
a resident is a very coome process now I went to [Music] okay that point difficult for me to the process because it's really difficult to get Conn we were going to
do the work we weren't going to hire a contractor we were going to do the work ourselves so everything on the pr points to our cont and then I guess unfortunately much time went by and
nothing last year we had a quite a medal emergency so apologize I got the B but I to Planning and Zoning onay night because we actually have questions also
the thing is like we didn't feel like need a new driveway because we have driveway right there for a moment we went all you agreed to go to PC very quickly back last January which is one you were
not accept a violation F nor an [Music] admin but whether or not each of us as individuals feel we need something if in fact The Villages laws and ordinances says we need to do that we either comply
or we end up in a fine situation which is avoidable if we work with the village and the village made every effort to work with you you remember that meeting I'm sure I I do remember that meeting
and it was when my comp a we came to was when I was called away for three hours away for medical emergency with my grandson has friend so all of last year I
was so and I know that's not excuse and try to fix it what mon your meeting would my if you would sharing that with us okay so um well they they worked with me and said
to get the permit to bring our driveway up the Cod this was Monday night so like maybe hopefully by tomorrow Friday or Monday going to the village for or again
getting online [Music] is there someone in the office who and I don't know procedures so forgive me if I'm saying something wrong tell me quickly is there someone in the office do we have the capability of guiding
folks through the process I mean at this point we want to see the property get the compliance absolutely but can I say something aboutone in the office because the other night um
I asked if somebody could help me um that is at that meeting and said no she wasn't allow help has helped in the past with people so I it depends on what kind of help she needs what what would you like
help with because no is another thing that I have been communicating you know right we have been talking have a concern as how far the help goes because it is
critical that everybody be autonomous if the village gets too involved there's a burden that falls back on them we each as homeowners face the same thing Sally we've had we've had to apply for multiple permits and bonds had to Wi his
way through the system we have that responsibility staff can give us some level of guid but it's not on them and that and I toally that because I know the vill Paul's very
busy um I know they're busy every day and so I I I got the number of somebody that said they would help me it's a person that helps this question is is basically for the Village um isn't there a packet that the home owner can come
and get because I noticed I came over there the other day for a neighbor of mine because the permit was hadn't been it had forward and it was because he had not completed the notorized permit application a number of different things he had I was I was given the docu I mean
the documents that well pamplet that I needed to help me for out so there's a packet there you go by the village sure they can assist you with because I'm see at the time there was one two three four items that
you needed to complete yeah and this was back in Mar sh that so communication I can see yeah she had started the process there was a message from the building clerk all you needed to do was those four things five things she was asking you to do if you had brought those uh
that information up to date your permit would have moved up so that's what you need to do come back to the office talk to the building Clerk and she'll help you move forward um okay so it's like this giv you pack
actually there on the outside as you walk in there on the outside thing I think it's from the bottom um so that may because I sounds like you're looking for assistance with um with the dimension which The Village
I don't think will be in a place to um to assist you with that okay I think that we're all going to be okay with the dimensions but it's just the itself seem very complicated complic like for contractors which I get because
there's will be contractors here but um I yeah come back come back and we'll see where what missing guess I wasn't aware of that can we confirm so where this order
was issued it and I went back to read uh the order I know it says if she doesn't comply but by her applying for the permit there was an implication that she has complied and this is why I'm asking for this order to be amended right
number c violation has say $250 violation time $250 Fe the property owner until May
23rd by not second this is Amed so now we 500 so we 500 that by the 23rd or 21st 23d I'm sorry 23d of May
May 23 April all over did you say may or April April I 23 23 [Music] 2 April sayil sorry my
April April 23d 23 one the motion passes [Music] 41e one [Music] next item 7.7 for the address
11133 Griffin Boulevard hey case number CC 24- 0086 for Modesto Molina and his wife Sarah CR we asking for an order of enforcement they have been found to be
in violation of chapter 5.6.7 off street parking the existing parking surface does not meet the standards they do not have a driveway approach um the property owner is here and he is seeking asking for a continu
for 60 days 7.7 are you Modesto until 60 days know yes relationer and the owner3 my wife
[Music] own have work [Music] and is already a permit there a permit no he hasn't I have
[Music] upt days and that up start believe months job I'm here to say get it done and I to
much yeah I also a few technical questions regarding the dway because it's a 194 house and he already has Ave IED to keep you know a few questions I would have no problem this for April's meeting if we
want to back with the progress report AB and then we can go from out with the village you know board I want to get it done you I the two months to finalize
the questions i' like to make a motion number cc-486 table until second in fav we see you your questions can go to the plan
design board they're the people who answer that Village they have me at night as well okay and are the meeting I knowe you have to apply you have to apply to yeah so you can come into Village Hall and
we'll help you come and get all the questions on okay thank you guys bye I would like to um respectively ask the board to move to the to item 10 of the agenda uh Village attorney is here and
we would like to bring for a discussion ordinance there is no number for the ordinance but it is about um mitigation and settlement of outstanding leans by The Code Compliance
board so just just to give you an update there's um the question came off as to whether or not this for help mitiga I understanding that historically you all have been board um there is case law and
attorney general opinions that basically came out which if you look at the statute that authorizes municipalities to new code enforcement and impos leans result of unpaid fines the the leans
themselves by Statute basically ignore to the benefit of local govern that's what the statute says the local governing body of course of the village is the village commission so with the courts and the attorney General mind is
that it is solely within the discretion of the local governing body to to either settle modify or reduce Lanes however the local government body has the authority to delegate that auth to another either private entity or board
such as yourselves when you look at your code it's there's a mention of leans in the reduction in the reduction section but it's only in the title so when you look at the body of the code when it talks about the guidelines and the
authority of the board to mitigate leans it only speaks a BS and not leans so in order just as a cleanup so that there it's clear that this board does have the authority to mitigate leans we are proposing this ordinance that's before
you and essentially what it does is it delegates it specifically delegates it's a delegation by the commission to the through this board to mitigate means and to settle means and it also sets up some additional criteria so you have your
initial criteria that's already in your code that you use when you're um entertaining bu reduction requests and then there were I think there was two other I don't have there are two other criterias that would also be for your
consideration among whatever else you want to consider which essentially would be um whether whether the prop is um is free from any outstanding debts including taxes due to the village and whether any other properties own have
acted codor cases so that would just be something for your consideration when you're determining whether whether or not you would um is this okay all the underl yes I'm sorry so anything struck through is what we would propose to remove anything
under is what we would propose to so one of the things have is that the and number two is that the hearing won't be the over correct so it shouldn't be what do we what do we rely on the time that the record that's before us you would be relying on the
record that's before you as well as well as whatever whatever hardship or whatever s offer that the property own their property on Bo the intent of the that the record will not be noo and I can clean that up I think I know what
you're you're talking about is whe it's Noto to the extent of whether or not shouldn't be entertaining whether or not the violations so a property owner should not be coming to you and saying hey I didn't do it I didn't do it my property was never in violation therefore I shouldn't have
that's already been decided that's I yeah I think that would be good because that's we encounter that a lot no I definitely if you think about it I swear Gary when he was chair used to remind everyone of that before F reductions he
did we used to read out this little thing yeah I pull it out each time that we have fine reductions and basically it's nine little items basically same criteria for f reduction it's good practice because it it'll limit their conversation no that we don't the only
thing we do know is sometimes they do on the same sheet of totals is that there in for service things and we don't touch those that's about the only thing we ever know it's essentially a consideration so it's not it's words
you're not dealing with whether or not whether or not there's taxes or or fees but I don't know would but that we're noty I need to remember to say that TR but to your question it would be a consideration so if somebody has
outstanding fines or some type of other outstanding debt to the Village as it relates to the property that's unpaved is when you measure the the equities of their requests is that a situation where where you would want to
mitigated for you still could if you look those guidelines are just criteria that you may follow or that you shall follow consider them how what what weight you give those factors is up to you with I only been on this board for what
a year and a half so and I don't recall ever being old than taxes I don't know that it's ever been an issue so it would be a consideration so staff could come forward and that something if they're aware and my suggestion would be now that's once that's cified and that's one of the
items or criteria for you to consider staff could have that information for you so that you would be able to consider it and give it whatever due weight you all I really appreciate you hanging did you want to quickly go over the paint I can if you want to 7 everybody we also
have the per which does that's one very pretty simple AFF us but it's still all part of us so just quick over if you don't mind sure so the way the way The Village's um exterior painting ordinance um needs is
it requires a property owner in the secret permit which is ultimately approved the design review board there is a statute please don't ask me to quote the statute on top of my head but there is a specific statute that states
that a municipality cannot impose not required for exterior had painting res 166 I'm sorry it's 166 of Florida statue but um so essentially what we're doing is we're proposing that that
ordinance be amended to change it from a permanent process to just an application so processes will not necessarily change it's semantics and working so that [Music]
and those we just talked the manager thank you for us being included on those ordinances much appreciated that's item 6.2 and the old business is for the
property located at 915 Northeast 118th Street case number Cen 24- 697 I'm try and pronounce this name Queen Zan Gregory and cell white um we were coming for an
intentan however the property owner has paid the fine and is in compliance on that part however we will ask this board to amend this order because they applied for for a permit in 2024 and they haven't gone anywhere with this permit the
application was put in and nothing was done permit still open and there has been no progress and uh while we are amending these orders um we will ask the board that in future when issuing these kind
of orders compliance should be not just applying for the permit compliance should be considered uh um when they have complied installed the fence and find out the permit we can keep these cases open and then um comply
these cases once they have finished the work because what has happened with a lot of cases we went back and looked at the cases that came before the board with orders that had $250 they're good because they applied for a permit and they haven't done anything thing with these permits some
of them are two years old yes but and I told because I see how people are gaming the system yeah you you say as long as you have your permit you're good as long as you apply how long is the permit good for
six mon six months so some of them expire then they should they out of compliance yeah but even if we say you're not in compliance until you obtain the permit which is really the
intent that's what we've always intended they can still G the system for another monely nothing Department expired technically they were in comp right I don't know so there's a difference with um a a case that comes in they did the
work and then it was double fines and they was supposed to apply for a permit and then there are those cases where it's a driveway they need a permit and we bring them to the board and the board tells them okay if you apply for a permit you'll be good so what they do is they apply for the permit we consider
that compliance and they fall off they don't do anything with the driveway they don't go ahead and and do what they're supposed to do with the permit so it's an issue and we have a lot of those cases open now well we are on 6.2 right correct and
this is we went to the tent no no no I I know I followed that part I just want to make sure I understand um they would pull it on PID for a double permit fee did they they paid they paid for the double permit fee but they didn't do the
work well the pictures of this well they because the work had already been done oh they did the work before so why was this that's why worko gave them a double fee um
violation I I I remember what happened here so when we did this um agenda they hadn't paid so they came in and they paid this is a different type of case remember I just said there are those that have already done the work with the double permits so this is one of those
but we have cases coming off that the work wasn't done so this one is in compliance this one's in compliance they just have not paid the $250 they did they did they paid the they did pay the F the double permit yes okay all right
so one's good we can close it we can close this one okay on case number c-24 d697 I like to make motion that the this compliance has been achieved
and closed may I go back on this I just read my own note there's no progress on the permit here's what they did there was applying for a permit is one thing putting an application they didn't go all the way they didn't go to PNG because even
though they've done the work they still have to go right to p& they have to go and have the the the the the work inspected I'm so sorry you have to pull that so what we saw in the system was an
application for a permit however the permit didn't go anywhere they didn't submit the paper they were supposed papers they were supposed to submit and there was no inspections they didn't go before p& D so this is an open
permit even though they paid the 250 they are still out of compliance and it's expired it's expired by now it's 24 when did they apply so the 30 yeah nothing there's nothing in the system on this permit
um before I send my motion I just got a question uh so basically for this case though there there there there is a a violation f a f is there anything stopping us from going back and reciting them because
they haven't um secured the permit that's one way we could do it we still had this case open and on the agenda for intent toan now they came in and paid the fine which complied partially however they're still out of compliance because they didn't go all the way with
the permit they put in an application like we started out but nothing was uploaded the permit wasn't notorized paperwork that needs to be daily deadline put a daily see when
we first heard this we did violation F and W the ad but we didn't do it so he's right we can do it two ways we can amend the order or we can reissue this violation reissue the violation we got
to wait another month daily the same thing correct and we'll reach out and explain to them what the board did because yes on case number c246
7 I'll my motion [Music] I'll other questions I'd like to goe and make a motion in c24 697 uh they are still not in compliance
set a headline of April 23rd but the perent should be obtained if not a daily F of $250 per day all in favor any opposed motion pass
41 41 41 5 thank you next item is 6.3 it's for the proper located at 10921 Northeast 10th Avenue the case number is
CN 23282 for Marie rodri and her son PTO pointville we are bringing this case but not intent to lean because the the order
didn't have no fines fines on it this is another case where they came in and said oh we applying for the permit and the did not assess any fines because they did go ahead and apply for something however they haven't gone through that permit we have since filed an affid
David of non-compliance this property is a non-homestead and while the gentleman um PTO came in the uh Village and said he was going to apply for the permit and and do what he needs to comply we
haven't seen any but there are daily finds on this that should have commenced on September 19th this is another case where we assumed compliance because before September 19th they applied for the permit so this order needs to be amended
to read they I think they need to pay some assessment fees and a violation fine because they imply that they have complied by applying for a permit when they didn't do anything with the permit going have
to make that much Clear computer and inting your name your name and address and then the building clerk is asking you for a a notorized affidavit and and none of that is uploaded two years pass by and this case
is just sitting there and we are assuming oh they applied for a permix there's a number and they paid the fine so the case is good in some cases and and considering that this is a a non-homestead I think the order of um we think that they should um amend the
order of enforcement and assess fines um I do have one question so they hav't they applied for it but they have not there is an administrative B current there was
none and an administrative Fe will be assessed will be assessed if so what they did was they went in the system and got a number yes sir I think what you should require
compliance to be them going through with the process we can give them extensions they can ask for extensions on the order of enforcement the compliance St on the order of enforcement but we cannot not tell them compliance is you applying for a permit because they'll come in pay the
500 do the number and then look like they complied and they didn't when we went back through these uh permits we found that these permits are just sitting there they haven't gone through um what can we do to correct it now moving forward on this is to amend the
order of enforcement is there any Reon we make it met retroactive dat here or would you prer we set a new deadline with the it would be better to make a new
deadline Cas number c322 i' like to order of enfor on 24 amended to that a per J
by April 23d 23rd If not daily 5250 you just did what we've been doing a permit shall be pulled by this time so if we say that he'll go ahead and pull the permit and then won't go through
with doing the work we should ask for yeah you should ask for full compliance obtain a permit by April 23rd f of2 no violation fine yes viol as
per $250 is to amend the order of March 20 24 state where must [Music] have can you adding the language for the permit to be issued because there's a
difference between applying pulling a permit and having it issued there's a process that goes into issuing a permit by the time it gets to it's being issued I'm happy to surrender the case to the building department because now they can monitor it
issue so if I may um how long after they apply for it go with PNC would they realistically be able to secure a permit if if the first time because I know
number of the driveways need a second hear correct and we are happy to give them extensions of time and or bring them back here to ask for more time however you can issue orders for 60 days in situations like driveways meaning um
they have to comply by such and such a dat 60 days from the date so they have time to go to pnz and they have time to go through with the permit process they kind of work quicker when there is a deadline without a deadline to get the
permit they just leave it alone yeah they they won't do it so we have to have the word issued in there issue not pull because they get a number and come to code and say here I
got the number I applied but the permit has not been issued no applying is not issuing there's a process right usually for it and that doesn't mean your permit has been issued thank
you well I like that violation has occurred sets a fine of $250 administrative cost of fee of $250 direct the property owner to to have an issued permit by April the
23rd for $250 per day second all in favor motion that's
good next item is 6.4 for the address 11345 Northeast 9th Port case number c-23 d341 for William lomy um we were coming for an intentan on the $500 that remains unpaid for the driveway
violation this is a homestead Mr lary is requesting an extension on the order of enforcement on the comply by date because he's having surgery today tonight actually L 12 we I did visit Mr lomy at
his house had a conversation with him he came into the office and he did put it in writing requesting this extension we recommend that the board grants it I don't see any so he has complied he has complied however he he hasn't paid
the $500 right he installed a driveway yes Mr lmer installed his driveway he did US you have to give another we were talking
about could be something don't know whatever I'm sort in agreement with you also that you know was already a set finding the are already there uh almost a year a short shy of a year
and um what I'd like to do is is the right make a motion there no question case number c341 um the right abilities to move forward with intent to lean um for $500
um at uh if the resident is not pay full by April the April the 7 second all in
[Music] favor bless you next item is 6.5 for the address 11460 Northeast 10 Avenue case number c-22 d106 for Carlos Koso and lordes
Rosario we are asking for a revised or amended order of enforcement this is another violation for a driveway hestad property they applied for a permit but they haven't gone through with the permit I called Mr
Carlos um colazo and spoke with him on March 6 he St that he was in Nicaragua working for the USA and was unable to do the work he however said he would be coming in Monday which was last Monday
to start the work I haven't heard from him but his da should be are they not because last time we came in front of us last April April of last year he was told
that his daily FS we keeping until the permit issue doesn't he have daily he do why I believe if this is another case where he applied for a permit let me
see I'm looking at the order of enforcement said there shall be full compliance with the state provisions of the theth February I'm looking at an order of enforcement for the hearing that was held April 17 2024 which says the daily
fine will be stopped as ordered by in order of enforcement dated January 17th um will be stopped once the necessary permits are pulled and paid right now
again pulled and paid he did P pull the permit but he didn't go all the way with it he paid the $500 yes so no he didn't pay for the permited he paid the violation fine and
the assessed uh fee the administrative uh fee however he he went ahead and applied for the for the uh permit he got a number he sent it to by email hey look I applied for the permit here's the number however we looked at this permit
and it there is no activity nothing has happened it was on hold the permit has been on hold um for for a while almost a year there been no AC violation in the admin and what I'm not understanding is
why that kind of look like G us why wasn't the daily F why weren't the daily finds beginning to recr as his nonon because when you issue orders you say if he pulls the permit at such and such a
date and pays the fine he's good and this is why we are asking for the language to change a little bit and for um compliance to we should have an expect expectation of compliance for them to do the entire job they they
should finish the job before we close these cases because if we just ask them to apply for the permit they do that and then building has several permits open permits sitting there expiring and no work has been done Sy right and it's a
learning experience for us that we need with the so what we need doily the daily fine amend the date for the daily
fine give him time but if he doesn't comply by such a the daily F would kick in did he did done the work 23rd to actually have a
per if not $250 de April 23 but I don't know if I have agreement that would be my motion in-16 we need to revive enement from April 17
2024 to allow the property owner until April 23rd to have his permit issued if not $250 daily time all did we do this
next case is 6.7 for the address 11636 Northeast 7th Avenue case number c-24 d623 or PB P LLC in care of the
registered agent rodon Law LLC we asking for an intent to lean for $250 that remain remains unpaid they were found to be in violation of Section 8 .6 construction dumpster they had a construction dumpster on the front yard
of the property without first obtaining a dumpster permit there is no permit in the system and this property is a non Homestead there's still no permit no permit now okay here's where I'm confused if you go back to the order
from September it says affirm that the violation has by removing the dumpster yeah but but he still need one second let me make sure I know what I'm saying yes yes he did go and get the
permit however he hasn't paid the 250 okay so so the order is right the order is right this one is right this is a good one we just need um him to pay the 250 so we asking for an intering no questions I'd like to make a
motion case number c-24 d623 dirting The Village to move forward with following an attemp to lean for $250 all in favor anyos motion pass that's this one no he paid the um the ministry but the
dieses okay next item is 6.8 the address is 11905 Northeast 12pt case number is cn- 23- 340 for Nicole Jin Jack and his wife Jin R Jin Jack I Smith Jin
Jack asking for an intentan on daily fines that run for um for a few days how many days they so in this particular violation it was for a driveway they got
the uh they got the permits they got the permit but they never so here's another case where they did get come in apply for the permits but they haven't obtained the permit they got the permit came in and and paid the 500 the 250 250 they paid that
however this violation had a daily fine run from May 2nd of 24 to May 20 of 24 the date they applied for the permit so there's $4,500 outstanding however they applied
for the permit and didn't do anything with it because the last communication from the city I believe is May 21st of last year once again multiple documents Miss yes and his daughter did come into the
office to try and correct the problem to find out from us what she needed to do so we went through the process she needs to go ahead and apply for the permit did she apply she hasn't we gave her the information but did she come in last week
Monday but if you when you we have on the record uh DSW 2434 which is the driveway permit as you can see there is no activity it's expired now correct so the village go back and reissue reissue a citation we can
reissue a citation however we're asking for an intent to lean on the 4,500 that's out absolutely we can c-34 direct Village to move forward
,500 um next item is 7.3 okay for the address 7.3 and 7.4 it's for the address 860 and 862
Northeast 120th Street case number c-24 d701 and case number CN 24-72 for Katherine Brownell um these violations are for
driveways uh they were found to be in violation of chapter 5.6.1 off street parking both driveways for the duplex so on one side uh the 60 and the 61 are both um
non-compliant however this is the case if you recall where we had the lady the property owner missing reporting missing at this point um the police department has um sort of ended their investigation because everything looks fine her
driver's license is up to date um it looks like there's been activity she her bills are paid and everything is okay they check the morgs she's alive somewhere they still haven't seen her but everything looks fine per PD with
that said uh we will ask the boards to go ahead and issue orders of enforcement on both cases um because it looks like she's she's there somewhere maybe she doesn't want to be found we we wouldn't want to put that on the record but ask question it's already answer
here's a picture from March 6 the property is cut the bills are paid electricity is paid water is paid the propert isine right somebody is there parking in the back like the service road in the back
property parking um I don't believe so no there's no parking at all some of those places they have them oh no not this property no they don't have parking in the back they just parking well they have yeah two little
rolls that they don't have driveways they have to yeah the property are vacant both of them but we we don't know where Catherine has properties other places and she may be forwarding her mail to
the other properties Homestead once it's homesteaded on one side the other side was rented out she lived in 860 862 was rented out at some point but both of them are vacant when
living V now correct PD went out there and they they didn't breach but they looked through the windows and they said it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house but someone is taking care of it and paying the bills
so we would like the board to issue orders of enforcement 712 say a $250 for each case cost of $250 for each Cas and get the property
owner until April 23d to have an issue permit on each case if not a $200 per dayv 7 next item is 7. five and it's for the address one8
Northeast 114th Street case number CC 25- 0149 property owner is 748 de4 LLC in care of the registered agent formento George we are asking for an order of
enforcement this property owner was found to be in violation of section 18.4 point1 permitted days and hours of construction work they were pressure washing um at 7:25 creating loud
construction noise 1841 nois but they don't qualify at 1841 reads the erection including exavation demolition alteration or repairer
we constru is this a construction side um see the pictures pict was yes we issued this violation based on what PD gave us however I'm not excusing that we didn't read we should
have this uh property is under construction and when PR doesn't mention construction work well he's if you read the report on statute description he says construction noise violation because that's
that's that was observed operating a pressure waser not doing construction so using using we could could be and I I respectfully understand how where the board is coming from
however a construction site having any type of equipment that makes enough noise and we didn't of course they didn't have a decimal machine to measure the the amount of noise if it was creating enough noise to disturb the neighbor they are definitely in
violation however I get it the the the the ordinance it doesn't talk about Construction nois in that way about a homeowner who's pressure washing their driveway at 7:25 it's not construction it's
not says they can until yeah we're g to find construction s homeowner who might do the same thing wouldn't the manager would like to say something
noif who LIC all contractors within day County to contract as a Crusher washer license from the construction qualifying board it falls the paying category so it is I would say it is
considered some specially construction type works it's not you know it's not your general contractor it's not your subcontractor but you need a license from the construction qualifying board to uh go
out and contract for that type of work but question my driveway and in order to avoid and I've done that so I really do my at 7 a.m. and I do it probably about 7:30 to start ahead of the sun am I
going to be sighted which i' have to be then if we're going to start this you Beed for noise no it's the noise ordinance here starts at um much later at night actually 11 11 to 7: a.m. so it's she's
pressure washing at 7:30 we technically wouldn't violate her however if it was the police they would because they go by Miami Dade County ordinances right I I think the same question is if you're out paying your house right at 7 a.m. would
that be considered Construction Construction work no I would I would say yes that's not by our ordinance but you you need it falls under the county code and Le me you need a license to do that type of work but if you're doing it as a
home owner no you don't need need a license but it's still considered uh construction work construction work yes and we had this discussion at one of the commission meetings like what where do we draw the line between someone working because the the ordinance that in some
part of it says they cannot start work a certain time the reason why they can't start work a certain time is they create noise with their equipment so it's probably how the ordinance is written but the reason why we site them for doing work at that time is because they
create construction noise which is disturbing to the neighbors we had and where we had the same thing where you couldn't start construction where they they would get there uh the workers would get there at 7 a.m. right
and that we had a fence around the property and they would open the fence door on the property and they were saying We Didn't Start starting work we just we just and we said no you know you're at the job site you're you're
considered construction construction worker any work that you're doing correct it would be the same as turning on um what do you call this thing where they get power the generator they turned on a generator it may not be listed in there as creating noise but it is very
noisy and at a construction site we have here's the thing they're cited under 18.4 yes 18.4 does not talk about noise it talks about alterations etc
etc if if I'm running a generator because my power's gone on you're going to tell me I can't run my generator or 8:00 in the morning we're getting real away from what this ordinance says if the ordinance needs to be amended to
include these things because our concern is your right but so then that me needs to happen but when I'm looking at they're cited they're not cited under county code we cited them under our code of 18.4 which does not appear to include
pressure wases well we could we could amend it if you that's what you're speaking we can amend the we can amend the violation say that any work that's being performed performed under which which
the license under this conu Tres qualifying Bo my account and operating a pressure washer on a construction site is construction work again the the ordinance would have
to say any work done on a construction site I agree with that what we have is very specif Yeah the code can be very vague and sometimes we do struggle to finding which code to use with what but she's right maybe the the code should be
clarified I'm not comfortable interpreting or of yes there's uh can rered um they are gray lines you know void for
vess V can be voided doesn't give you a reasonable know what it is that you should should be done yeah so I think that what been saying and you know it seems
quite you know big particular when you look at the language and look what the violation is here under our fin only question would be is this um is this a construction site where it's Fen in yes there is a construction
fence construction fence around the whole property M so it's a construction site it's a construction site so they were working before I was with is a violation however because the police officer mentioned the noise I get it when she says that we have to be very
specific we then we we shouldn't emphasize the noise part we should emphasize the part that he was working at 7:25 when he shouldn't have been right I say it me a construction site and he's pressure washing he's working different than having
somebody corre yes agree [Music] right well the the ordinance that we used 18.1 says that 18.4 point1 says
permitted days and hours of construction so this one is specific to doing work on a construction site at the wrong hours of the wrong day and a fence property like this ex the construction site correct if they are working at 725 they
are in violation of this ordinance but can can it defines what that work is considered it just doesn't say in general work on a construction cite it defines the work and I'm not seeing it but anyway if
there's no more what does it the erection including excavation demolition alteration or repair of any building or delivery of materials other than at the following times is put it doesn't just say a general any work
construction right it was specific work it was specific word none of that specific work I don't think fall the definition of what you're trying to accomplish with correct I understand but and and then the danger with as with with the the ordinance not being
specific is there'll be someone on a we on a on a construction site tomorrow painting and then they'll say hey I'm allowed to paint at 7:25 yeah but that's altering that's altering because now you're changing a color so that can go under and painting is just an example it
could be anything else that's was your driveway we Al your driveway but you pressure wash the house which I just see it as it's construction site that is fully encapsulated with a fence and this I mean you have somebody
who goes on um on the property before 7:30 and they're just sitting there with with um um uh getting everything ready and all and they shouldn't be it's still making noise they're working you know you know I'm not working I am just pulling all my equipment out happens to
be hey heavy and it's banging around making some loud noise they haven't started but they're at the construction site is that not deemed work not by the ordinance read anyway okay if there are no more
questions I love to have a motion on case number c c-25 d149 on that a violation has move like make a motion to read violation has
occurred $250 administrative cost $250 I'll second all in favor I I I'll oppose no no motion sorry I
didn't yes motion passes 32 two next item this one is 7.6 for the address 10831 Northeast 10th Avenue case number c-24
d0120 for Maria Laura la Miss Maria was supposed to the husband was supposed to attend Mr Lazaro Tores they gave us his name and said he would be attending but he's not here they were found to be in violation of chapter
5.6.1 of street parking their existing parking surface does not meet the village driveway design standards they haven't paid the permit fees for the driveway however they were approved by P and D on
Monday so their permit is uh under building review they just need to to pay the permit fee in this case um since they are showing progress maybe we can give them more time we and ask for a continuance again for 30
days April sure a motion in c-41 to table case and bring back in the meeting second all in favor I any opposed motion pass
Z we did this one so the next item is uh 7.8 it's for the address 11311 noreast 8 Avenue case number CC 25-8 for Vanessa hot salami we asking
for an order of enforcement with a violation fine of $1,000 uh this uh property owner and short-term rental vacation owner was found to be in violation of chapter 19 short-term rental short-term vacation
rentals unnecessary and excessive noise at a licensed property they had tenants that were very noisy they had a loud party there was I believe a police report in right submitted into evidence this the
first Ur this is the first occurrence um they did have a violations before that have fallen off so within this year this is the first occurrence the violation has $1,000 all in
favor oppos motion pass those were all the cases we brought before the board today and I would like to mention that I'm I'm I will bring um the chairperson's concern with how vague the code is uh to
to the Village manager and there I'm sorry Village manager and Village attorney there are some things he has written a few uh codes for big cities so we have to look at our entire code and there will be some things that we will need to choen up some some codes are
very vague I I really appreciate that you brought it upu the vagueness right yeah if they appealed that case they could use that argument to say and I'm not giving them this nobody yes who
second who who who was the second for the minutes I'm ask the manager he's sitting right there no not he said no he's the manager
everybody thank you we do not recycle no more just shred them yeah