Can you turn it up? Are we ready to go? Not quite. Okay. Good evening everyone. And I'd like to order the village of Biscane Park code compliance board meeting for Wednesday, October 15th. Time is 601. If
the clerk would please call the role. >> Janie Anderson >> here. >> Dale Blinton >> here. >> Roda Beronto. Judy Hammer >> here. >> Michael Len Dar here. >> Darene Grant here. Raphael Gutierrez.
Vanessa Cherry here. 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 of citizens and residents of the village of Biscane Park. We volunteer our time and we are not paid for our services. The purpose of each hearing is to give any alleged violators the opportunity to contest the decision of the code compliance officer which resulted in the issuance of a notice of
violation and to determine whether a violation of the village's 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 villages code compliance officers and to hear contradictory arguments presented by the alleged violators. We are not authorized to change the code. The village
commission is solely authorized to enact or 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 a substantial competent evidence that the name violator was responsible for a violation of the relevant section of the code as charged.
All documentary evidence presented by the parties must be submitted for placement in the hearing file. No documentary evidence will be considered unless the alleged violator or code compliance officer submits a copy for the hearing file. Each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses,
to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in 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 at this time. Anyone who does wish to address the board, please stand, raise your right hand so that you may be sworn in. You are reminded that this board is a quasi
judicial board and giving false testimony can be penalized. >> Please stand. Do you sw Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Okay. May be seated. Do we have any additions, deletions, or changes? >> Yes, we have a correction on number five. My name is Doren Granco, code, compliance officer for the village
of Biscane Park. Uh, correct on 74. I'm sorry, which agenda number on? 7.4 >> 7.4 >> So the description of the violation in the notice to appear
and the agenda was incorrect. The correct description we have amended the the NTA and emailed it to the uh property owner. In fact, we did communicate um with them. They communicated back. Uh but the correct description is in the PD
report and in the notice of violation. So well >> I'm sorry. The correct description >> is in the notice of violation. We have amended the NTA the notice to appear. >> No
>> D I kind of missed the the first part of what you were saying there. Sorry about that. So 7.4 right.4 the description is wrong. It's incorrect in the agenda. permitted days and hours of construction. >> That's the violation. But in the description, it will it talked about a
dumpster. >> Okay. And that should be what? Temporary dumpster. >> The reference should be the police report that's on the record. We are going to enter onto the record. >> So what you're amending your >> We did amend the NTA. We're just >> Okay. >> The board now. >> Nothing. It was just
The vi but the violation itself is okay. >> The violation is correct. Any others? >> Let's see. Okay. >> Ready for your first case? First case is uh in section 7 and it's
7.2. For the address 1016 Northeast, 114th Street is for case number C25-0805. Property located at 1016 Northeast 114th Street. I say that already. The owner of the company is 1016 Northeast 114th
Street LLC. in care of their registered agent, Northwest Registered Agent LLC. We are asking for an order of enforcement in this matter. They were found to be in violation of section 19.15, short-term vacation rental program
penalties. I would like to enter onto the record police report PD25092000760 for a violation that occurred on September 20th. It's a loud vi it's a loud party. So it's a noise violation and it occurred at uh 0038
hours in the morning. >> Asking for a right it's 38 minutes after midnight. We're asking for finding a fact with a $1,000 penalty. >> So
relying on the incident report. >> That's correct. >> No police officers are here. >> Police report. >> There's no police officers here to testify. >> Police officers to testify. >> And and the narrative is uh is
uh that it was an Airbnb. I guess it was a a complying Airbnb. >> Um the police were called out to a loud party and when they got there, they did hear the noise. It was very loud. >> Right. But as far as being an Airbnb, it was registered and all that. >> Yes, it is um legally
>> and and and the the the party that was called where the police were called, was that the owners of the property or it had been it was renters? >> It was a tenant. >> Okay. And uh so it looked like a verbal warning was given and the renters were advised of the village ordinance
regarding allowed parties. A verbal warning was issued to who? To the partygoers >> I believe. So so the way their their police enforce their codes or they call them laws is different from how we enforce the rental
program as a village. So once we get that there was a party and it was loud as the this report says we issue a violation. >> Okay. So so basically what happened just so I just want to follow the facts here because I just want to be sure that
we're all on the same page. So the police were dispatched in reference to allowed party. So somebody had called and said there's a loud party. >> Okay. But I'm looking at the police officer says I made contact and to Mr. Dominguez who stated they were having a small party to celebrate a birthday. Um
and he immediately Mr. Dominguez immediately complied by lowering the music advising all guests to keep their voices down or verbal warning warning was issued. Correct. >> Okay. So I don't see any reference to the police officers indicating that
there that they had heard any loud music. This is what somebody else did. >> He did. I think >> he does say he says that. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay. I missed that. >> That's the first thing I look for. >> Okay, good. All right. I missed that. That's why I was asking those questions.
Okay. >> And do we know why the police officer isn't here to testify? >> No. >> I mean I mean I mean I know this is quasi judicial, but you know this would this would be, you know, considered a
hearsay document where you're offering, you know, a out of court statement for the truth of the matter asserted. I know we're not a court, but we're quasi judicial. So, I'm just trying to think of how >> issued the violation based on the on the report. And you're right. Um it would have been best to have the witness here.
>> Right. Because uh you know actually in the description it says finding of fact. >> We are asking for a finding of fact based on the report. >> Okay. I mean as far as I I mean look this is what I do and I just you know I I I see what it says. I see these things
all the time. I just, you know, I I can't rely upon a narrative um because it's not a score court statement. We're we're here. We just had uh I guess this is somebody associated with the property that had to raise his hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So, from God, right? So, you know, why doesn't the police hear it? That's that's kind of my question. >> If the board pleases, we would be happy to move this case up so that we can bring the witness. I mean, I I'd feel more comfortable be finding fact. Otherwise, I can tell you there it would
only be one side and not the other. I mean, if you're asking for a continuence, you know, I you know, I guess we can entertain that >> and continue the case and bring the witness to the next hearing. >> Okay. I'll make a motion in uh
uh I got it here. CE25-80805 to um table this matter until the next meeting and we can get a proper you know showing a fact. >> I'll second.
>> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion pass zero. So if you understand what we've done is we're going to >> definitely understood. Thank you. Like if you wanted to repeat it but first of all I'm nervous. I never been to one of these hearings. I mean, I I am involved with Airbnb in several places. I
>> just just know, sir, that there's nothing going on right now other than you want to tell the truth. So, you know, >> No, I understand. >> I can tell you what a judge told me one time, which is don't don't snatch victory out of defeat out of the jaws of victory. Just come back next time and figure out. >> I'll look out for the notice. I thank you for your time then. Okay. All right.
Thank you. Thanks. 26.2 is for the address located at 826 Northeast 121st Street. Case number EN22-03 83 for Jan Roots and his wife Denise in
care of the registered agent Laura Ba Shelter Esquire. We are asking this is an intent to lean. This we are um asking for an intent to lean on a receipt an invoice that was sent to us uh from
the unsafe structures board Miami date county in the amount of $61755. Invoice number is US2024-023. >> Right. So this this is the bill from the county. >> The bill is from the county. Correct. >> Have they paid
our cost? >> Um the manager did give the authorization to pay. So if it's not paid then it's in the process to be paid. >> I mean the one that we assess then for our cost the$10,000 I believe it was. >> Oh the other one that's completely
different for us. the the village uh did pay the $10,000 and we have gone ahead and build um >> but we haven't >> filed a lean property yet. >> We have um filed a lean against the property. >> Okay. >> I ask the question. >> Yes.
>> Um this was presented to the property owner, their attorneys. >> Yes. >> Council we have heard back from them. >> We did one of the councils is here. I know he doesn't want to testify on at this hearing. Right. He's right.
So, all parties involved were informed. We sent them notice for this hearing and we sent them copies of the receipt the invoice. >> Okay. >> And the gentleman in the back is the you're the the >> represents the mortgage company.
>> Okay. Just here checking it out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. because I I see where the the notice was from December the 11th of 2024. So, it's been uh 10 months. >> Yeah, it's it's the one on
>> the >> the one that's been shuttered for 20 years. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> More than 25. It'll be It'll be 30 next year. >> Okay. We better. >> Yeah, I was going to say >> tamp it down.
>> Nothing else. I'd like to go ahead and make a motion >> if I mean given given the length of time on case number EN-22-0383 uh u requested the village um reaffirm the uh request to lean or affirm the
request to lean $61755 plus administrative fee of 250 and filing fee as applicable. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I >> oppose. Motion passes 5-0. So just if you don't mind, let me reiterate
intent to lean for the outstanding amount of the bill >> administrative fee of 250 plus any applicable filing fees. We probably should take 51.
>> Yes. >> Oh, yeah. And piloting So, we're still on A26 and I would like to give an update. Um, before you are emails, correspondence from the uh co from the village manager um with Miami
Dade County Historic Preservation Board. the attorneys um for the property owner reached out to the board so they could have this uh property designated as a historic um building. However, we the
last correspondence we received from them yesterday um as you can see they have not met the requirements. Um they have not submitted a certificate of appropriateness that is required for this designation. So we have arranged to
have a meeting with the board next week. I will be testifying to the condition of the property and the history of the violations and uh once the decision is made um the village will go ahead with the original order. >> They had am I correct eight months to
pull permits? >> Correct. >> Have they done so? >> They have submitted some permits for >> approved. Let me no the permits have not been approved. The per the permit >> deadline is passed. >> The deadline is passed. And the village is now in the process of
um we they did prepare the uh request for um to attract bids for the demo um request for proposals and um that package is we are holding on to it until we go through this meeting with the preservation board historic preservation board.
>> That's the one on the 22nd >> 26th. >> The 26. Okay. Because this says that there's a final designation hearing on the 22nd of October. Oh, they designation. >> They asked for an email. >> Oh, they asked for Okay. And >> the deadline.
>> Oh, >> no. There was an addendum. >> Oh, so now it's the 26. >> 26. And so just so I understand the the the owner is trying to get that building
that we were just talking about that's been shuttered up since 30 years ago uh designated as a historic building >> and and I guess that would try to prevent it from what being raised. >> Okay. >> Prevent the village from demolishing the
building >> right >> now. Would that also if they were to get that designation does that then >> mean not require them to come up to current code? They would the village
will still has the power to ensure that properties are maintained in the village. So even if it's a historic building like this one that we're sitting in, it still has to be maintained. >> But right now it's a forplex. It's a forplex.
>> That area is no longer zoned multif family. If and they were to get a historic designation, would they be then permitted to keep it as >> they may? If and that's a big if, then they would maintain
um the property in the condition it was before, the zoning that it had before, which was Fortlex. And there are certain requirements with the historic preservation board. there are certain things they would have to re to preserve or rebuild exactly how it
was before. But before we even get to that stage um they needed to submit some documentation that would prove uh that the building >> we are in limbo >> historically December >> and they couldn't. So after this meeting we'll be able to give um an update.
>> Thank you for the update. >> You're welcome. The next case is 6.12 6.12 for the property located at 11520 Northeast 8th Avenue is for the case
number CE-25-0468 Neil Allen Tyler and Joan Tyler. We were going to ask for an intent. However, the property owner has complied with the violation and they have um applied for relief. Um before you is an application
for relief. Um this property owner has gone through some struggles with the family. They had um major hardship in the family which we met with uh some of the family members and and we were witness to what happened there. Um, we are asking that the board consider this
request for relief. >> And and Dorene, you no doubt have read the statement that uh I guess you're the author. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh wrote and provided to us. Did you and do you as in your position find
it as compelling as as I did which was very compelling? We it is compelling um in a sense in the sense that we we did meet with the family when they lost uh a family member. We did meet with his wife and he had to leave and go away for some
time. So when did he when he did come back and was able to resolve all the issues with his family he did comply uh >> and and almost immediately right I mean obviously you can't put the car before the horse. So he got the the thing fixed and got it immediately >> yes >> taken care of. immediately
>> documentation. Yes. >> You know, we see what you obviously went through. >> Yeah. You should see the damage inside of the house. So, I I didn't want to have the roof pressure washed. >> No, no, no, no. >> Oh, it totally makes sense. >> Reach in the roof. >> Totally makes sense. >> So, the roof was fixed a week ago,
Saturday, and then the roof was cleaned on Monday, two days after that. So in addition just just so I understand in addition to being in constant contact he also uh paid uh what was an outstanding fine or something >> for another for another violation
>> another okay did comply with that and and they asking the amount they are asking for um I would respectfully ask the board to consider $500 just because there was a back and forth on our part uh visiting the property talking to the owners doing the inspection so just so
the village can get its administrative cost. So, we are recommending $500. >> And what did the >> the fine ran ran up to 13,250, >> right? Okay. But that's we what you're proposing and and he's offered to do
>> is that a dollar or >> That's $1. Yeah,$1. >> Yeah. So, may I >> Well, just let me ask you on on the $500 deal, what and your your uh rationale for that is is doing what?
>> Administrative cost. Our inspector and myself have been out there several times. Um and just the duration of the time it has taken for the violation to come into compliance. >> You're saying 500? >> I I'm saying $500 would be the reasonable to cover cost. And the and the and the the resident was was I
believe living in another state in another city in Savannah >> had to leave to go and take care of his family problem. >> Okay. >> Out there. Yeah. But his wife was wife or the lady there was a lady at the house that we >> Yeah. She she has been back and forth. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> But they've been very cooperative, I
have to say. And and we we had a lot of compassion with what happened with them. Um >> and and what about what about in light of that compassion? the there was a $250 uh administrative fee, right? And that's kind of what we that's kind of like our baseline minimum on things, right? That
we deal with. >> Okay. >> That I know cannot be reduced. And that's why >> actually if you look >> That's okay, sir. Go right ahead. If you would identify yourself and your relationship for the record. >> Yeah. Neil Tyler, the owner of 11520
Northeast 8th Avenue. Um I just want to say a couple of things. One, I've never been in this building before. Uh it's very cool. Been here almost eight years. Number two, uh I love your volunteerism and I love the fact that you guys are wanting to keep this game park, you
know, beautiful, right? We have so many houses being torn down everywhere. The juxaposition between the new modern structures and the older houses like this 1940 house is getting kind of striking. My house needs a ton of work done to it. So managing those things is
really good that you guys are doing this. So I just want to say that sincerely. Um so you know basically um the situation is this um and that is that you know Raphael uh and Dorene had you know been out to the property a
couple of times. There was a vehicle that was in the swale. There were vehicles and swelles all over the place. Uh my wife answered, you know, something on Craigslist like get some free mulch. She thought she was getting a pile of mulch this big and a dump truck
literally unloaded 80 yards of mulch into our driveway that we didn't know what to do with. Anyway, so I is as soon as a notice was put on the door saying you have until this date to get rid of the mulch and get rid of the car from
Savannah, I hired someone to move the mulch and I hired a tow truck to move the car into the driveway from the swale which was, you know, irritating people. So, you know, I just want to say that when I wrote a dollar in in there, I
wasn't trying to be um offensive, and I appreciate the fact that it costs dollars to run these meetings and, you know, to pay for employees and so forth, but I paid $500, which was the only fine that I was aware of that I was made
aware of. And and they'll testify. I called in and I'm like, I'm back from Savannah. I got a notice on the door. What's going on? And they said, "You owe us $500." I was here 10 minutes later with the $500. 10 minutes later.
>> And what was that for? What violation was that? For the mulch? >> That was for the mulch in the car and the swale. >> Okay. >> So anyway, um the reason I wrote a dollar is that I had to pay you guys $50 just to write that so you could read it. So now I'm into this for $550.
And I feel like um having my roof pressure washed immediately when I could, me showing up now, I've already paid $550. And in my eyes, maybe I give you guys $551.
Um so I wasn't trying to be offensive or cheeky. I just felt like I'm already $550 into this on a dirty roof and some mulch in my driveway. So I'm not trying to be facitious. Um, but that was my rationale behind it. And I and and I
learned I learned that fees were racking up every day and I was like, "What? It would be illogical for me to not address that immediately, right?" Like, who would do that? So, that's my position. I I I feel like $500
for a dirty roof after everything that we've been through. I I don't feel that that's fair, but I'll I'll do whatever you guys want. Well, I can tell you, you know, from our um from our experience with these sorts of situations that one of the things that, you know, that you acknowledged
right at the outset concerning, you know, the the volunteerism and the people that we have to pay is that there's an administrative fee that goes along with going through the process. And I don't think that since I've been on the board that anybody's ever voted for anything less than $250. So, I can tell you right now that a dollar is
probably going to get voted down. uh it might be four to one, but you know, I'm just saying that, you know, if it were I in the history that I've been here, it's never been less than $250. So, I don't give that a lot of uh a lot of um uh
chance. So, you know, consider that for what it's worth because one of the things that you can do is you can revise what you want to do. Um but you know they you know we also put a lot of weight on the on the recommendations of our um village where is it
>> code officer >> code officer um you know I I just you know the person that runs the the meeting uh so that's all I got to say. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Well um no I'm just looking. So, I I see where you're asking recommending two uh 500, but as for for the lean purposes, I see there was an
assessment of of 250, but what was what was paid for the $500 that he had paid? >> So, there was another case for mulch and a case for the vehicle. >> Okay. >> So, those two cases have been settled. Everything is good. >> And and that was settled for 58. They
paid, right? >> All right. That was just for the fine or because there would have been >> Did you pay 500 500 for each or was it 250 250? >> It was 250 each and and the the moment that I learned it, I drove here and paid it.
>> The moment like there was no delay on it >> the vehicle. >> No, it was two separate cases and he had >> That's what I'm getting at. So each case would have had had an administrative fee of 250 also. So that would have been a
fine of 250 each. That's 500. An administrative fee of uh 250 each, which is 500. >> We may not have only 250. I believe they didn't >> Oh, we only Okay. So we only asked for the 250 >> and he the way. Yeah.
>> So the case that before us is for um >> the roof. >> The roof. the case. >> It was it was a roof that needed to be pressure washed. Okay. And >> and the reason he do it was because the roof was had it was damaged >> and I don't see where we have asked as I
only see where we have a fine on this one that's not in compliance, but no. Um >> I'm looking at the notice of violation. I don't see where there was a >> an order of enforcement in the in the past. >> Um right on the notice. Yeah, it says a violation to be paid in amount of $250
administrative um an amount of zero. And so that's why I was looking at the daily fines and that's where I saw only the assessment of 250. So that's why I was asking what was Yeah. And for me this was a violation still and I understand the reason behind it
but we didn't know anything about it. And you know the courtesy's notices went back and that went back to May the 9th and then the notice of violation June the 6th and then the order of enforcement was on July the 16th.
>> Well well don't forget that the email from Mr. Tyler to Biscane Park dated October 2nd had noted in paragraph 3 that my mother my mother tragically died in June >> and I was away in June July and much of
August. So if that June 6 came and he was gone, >> I I dealing with that. >> Yeah, I'm I'm and I'm sympathetic to that and I understand, but there was also a um a resident at the property off and on throughout the period and which they had actually spoke with. >> So I'm taking all of that into consideration. And I was just looking to
make sure that the only thing outstanding if we're to look at it with is is um >> the the only just for the record, the only constant resident that was at the house was my teenage stepdaughter who's a Starbucks barista and doesn't know anything about anything.
>> Yeah. There's no administrative fee. >> There was only the 250 violation, >> right? No. No. I I got for the 13,000 plus the 250. Yeah. So it' be just that's the daily fine added up to 13,000. >> So under the circumstances with the roof
leak and we in fact only assessed the violation fine. I'm okay with 250s. >> Well, he hasn't made an offer is offer as I as it is as it is right now. The president has offered offered
$100 I mean $1 as a fine mitigation. I mean to to reduce the fine and >> we had 500 thrown out. >> In light of what you're hearing, you may want to reconsider. >> Well, I hope you I hope not. >> I can't I can't I can't.
>> No, but you know, um >> basically you have a fine of $250. That's outstanding. That I I mean I wouldn't entertain anything less than that or more. The village is um recommending uh asking for 500. I see.
Um if you if you're asking for uh consideration, I know one of our things for even looking at these prop I mean for fine reductions is we look at is it a um homesteaded property and you're not homesteaded. So I don't know if it's a
if it's a for-profit um home or not. Um and then compliance from the homeowner which it appears that you after you came back you got to the village and started all that. So there's all different factors within your case that I'm looking at also. So uh but I can tell
you right now I would not be accepting $1. I'd vote against one. >> Okay. Okay. Well, you know, uh when this really um be became an issue in May, there was a date, a compliance by date,
and that compliance by date was met in June or whatever whatever that was. Yeah, it was it was to be met by June the 6th. It was a courtesy notice May 9th to comply by June the 6th. >> Um, see,
>> July the 11th, the roof is still dirty. >> Um, >> we heard the case July 16th, >> right? And we heard the case on July 16th. So, in May and May and and July 16th, that
that's that's a good bit of stuff. And I understand the leak. I don't blame you. I would have just >> Yeah. My mom died on June 24th and she was sick before that and you know, she was a hoarder. Try clearing out a 4,000 foot house from a hoarder
>> 500 miles away. So anyway, >> you know, just let me know what what my you know what you have the electric chair. I'll I'll take it. Just you know, whatever you guys want to do. Well, we're going to vote on your $1 thing and you kind
you already kind of know how that's going to go. Then the next thing is you can either, you know, go back to the the the original amount or you can make another offer. You can kind of read the room from what we've been kind of indicating and you can make another offer. But >> okay, >> right now a dollar's on the table. >> I would like to counter the $500 with
the $250. I can drop off payment tomorrow morning. >> So for the bond reduction, you're offering 250. >> Well, should we vote? Should we do his motion? I do a motion on the first >> $1. >> On case number um
CE-25-0468 of uh property owner has offered a fine reduction in amount of $1. Um I make a motion that we deny the offer. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I the opposed. Motion passes 5.
>> Okay. Okay. And sir, you indicated that you may might to um make a make a change your offer or would you like to make another offer? >> Yes, sir. Based upon everything that you just read to me and minimums, uh $250 is
uh hopefully where we are and I can drop off payment in the morning. >> And just for the record, there was no recommendation of minimums for this is just understanding your specific case. Yes, sir. >> We don't have any minimums. >> I I don't know. When when I heard the
banter back and forth, I heard that 250 was a baseline on each one. >> Well, 250 is a historic. I'm just saying that historically, this is what I've seen. I'm sharing you, you know, the knowledge of this board. You never been in this building before. I have every Wednesday of once a month. So, I could
say when I'm in here, this is what I've heard. I've shared that with you. I've not made a recommendation. Said it's a >> understood. Understood. In that case, I would make a motion to accept the $250 fine reduction offer in KC25-0468.
>> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I motion passes 50. >> All right, guys. Thank you very much. Make sure you guys get some money in the morning. >> I'm sorry. >> Bear with us. >> Hold on. Hold on. >> We just have to finish off our motion.
And you you did say tomorrow, but can you make the payment by November 12th? >> So that's just a date. Any day before? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's your date. November 12th or it would resort back to the >> 250 or five?
>> Yes. >> All right. >> All right, guys. Have a good evening. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next items 6.7 and 6.8. This is for the property located at
11:06 Northeast 118th Street. His number, first case number is CE-25-0593. This property is owned by 1106 Northeast 118th Avenue LLC in care of their registered agent Biscane Urban Homes LLC. We were
going to ask for an intent to lean. However, the property owner has complied in this violation has complied with the violations um and they have applied for relief. In this particular case, the fines had
run up to $12,000. They have offered $500. We are recommending 1,500. And our reasons are we have um had several inspections on this property. It
took um several inspections before they complied. So this would cover cost for the village. I >> mean our bottom line this one right out of the gate. This is life safety. This is a pool. This is one of the most dangerous problems in the state of
Florida. When I see something take several months to to come into compliance, I would certainly never be in favor of 500. >> No, I I I I I'm in agreement with you
there because that just it just >> Well, I mean, >> the amount of time this went from um November the 23rd, that was a a notice of violations. comply by July I mean from July 23rd comply by uh July 30th
and the order of enforcement came in in August is just now taken care of um I'm not sure in October >> we actually supplied with so >> extraordinary >> yeah even when we've had these cases
before the board uh we've and and it was in the state that it you know it wasn't covered. You know, I you know, the board's attitude is always you got to get that done like tomorrow or because of the life safety issues that you know, Miss Anderson was talking
about. >> We seem to have to say at every meeting, whatever the contractor did or did not do, it is still property owner's responsibility to make sure all applicable laws are followed. can't
blame it off on the contractor. >> I guess initially I need to make a motion that >> Well, I mean before you make the motion, she she can >> Yes. >> Yeah. But doesn't she have the opportunity to talk about why she's with
the support of the offer? I mean, she >> Good evening. >> Would identify yourself? Yes. >> And your relationship to the property? >> My name is Maya Daniel and I am owner's rep on this property. So, the pool is still under construction. Um, we needed
to put the fence around there and the pool cover. On the second and we we've met a few times with Darin and and Raphael. Um, I picked up this violation from the from the office. So, I had to order the cover, get the fence um
situated with the contractor. He didn't need to put it around, but not to blame him. We've been in constant communication. We know it's a life safety. I pumped that pool myself, so there's no water in there. Um, and on the second inspection, I think the cover fell in from the rain before, like the
night before or something like that. So, we've secured it better and the village has made sure that it is in compliance. It that's why we were trying so many times. There was uh minor things that would pop up that make us not in compliance, but it's something that we
did take seriously and we've um been in constant communication on. I should have written a better explanation, but I was rushing because it was like our last day and I've been back and forth with getting that done. So, it's not something that we were ignoring at all.
>> Yes. And in support of what Maya is saying, not to interrupt the board, in support of what Maya is saying, she has worked very diligently to cure these violations. I denied like four times the work that they did and I was very adamant about making sure Considering
the history of this property that >> is this the one that's been in perennial >> it's been in construction for like forever six years or more >> any keys. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean well first of all let me ask you a couple questions. >> First one is you you identified yourself as the owner's rep.
>> Uh the manager the permanex but yeah just project manager. Yeah. Project manager. So I've been here without the owner. >> What what is it? I mean is this place going to ever get finished? What's going on? >> It is. It looks way better than it it did. So, he had >> Is that on the roof? >> We're doing a tile roof there.
>> I just met with Pedro um Mr. Martinez last week. We needed to fix something on the actual HVHC roofing package, which we sat down and did. >> So, I I guess what you know what I've what I listened to um Mr. Blandon was as
he was recounting the the timeline of events. Uh it's been over 3 months, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then the the four times that you were talking about Dorene where uh you know you were making sure that they got it right and she was working
diligently. That was very lately though, right? >> It was pretty I would say throughout the process since we issued the violation. She's been in touch. She came to the office. We had a meeting with her and her her boss, the property owner. Um and she she comes from North Florida. She is
guilty of texting me at 6:00 in the morning when I'm still in bed. But she has worked very hard. I mean, the the job they did in the beginning, I wasn't ready to approve it. >> When was this when when were these contacts? Were these contacts in the last couple weeks or were they over the
course of those three? >> It was over the course. I have to say it was over the course of the >> Okay. So, like the we only got the pictures the pictures without anything on it. Was that the original pictures that right before the communication started? I I should say that the actual file that
we have, I'm not sure what was put in this package, but the actual file that we have has a lot of pictures from the beginning. Has the pictures of the jobs that I denied that I couldn't approve. Um, >> and what's the village recommending?
>> We are recommending 1,500. Um, >> that's just that's just for this one that we're hearing right now, >> just for that one case. Um and just just because of how many times we've had to communicate, meet um inspect the property, deny. >> Well, when we meet, we want we like when
our when our residents, you know, do communicate. In fact, we la them when they communicate. So, there was a communication >> was on top of everything. Yes, there was a lot of communication. She has my personal number and that's the problem. >> And thank you for your efforts back.
That is a lot of time aka money staff has to put into it when it that many attempts get it right. And again, it always goes back to my big thing about more than anything else.
>> Well, Miss Anderson, you also said that um and I agree that and I've heard you say it a lot in these meetings is that you know the contractor is is not an excuse. So it sounds Dorene, it sounds to me like the constant communication
you were in was was you know and and the many times that you failed it and made her go back through the process to get it done was that there was problems with the contractor that was doing the the job right. So it wasn't necessarily her not doing the wrong thing or not communicating. It was the contractor >> contractor but I held her responsible
because she manages these properties more than one >> exactly and and that's the that gets to Janie's point too that you know the contractor is not an excuse which I'm persuaded by. I have those. >> She tried and tried and tried. >> So, it now has the construction fence.
>> But, but here's I mean, you saw that fence. That thing looked like anybody could get >> I was trying to do it myself out there. So, I you know I and I know that it's >> Well, you deserve a raise, but I mean that's >> Thank you very much. >> Say that out loud.
>> Thank you. >> I appreciate it. >> What's before us right now is whether we'll accept the um fine reduction offer of $500. And if anybody else like to make a motion like
C-25-059 that the uh property owner representative offer of 500 motion >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes 5. Well, you
sat through the last meeting and I think what you should consider as an owner's rep, I don't know if you have to whatever, but you know, uh, the fact is it's a it's a pool. It's a life safety issue. The fact is is that it took three months to get it right,
but it wasn't uh, you know, from lack of trying, it just wasn't getting right, and that just exacerbates the life safety issue. So, uh, you know, it's I'm very persuaded by the, uh, you know, the testimony of of Dorene and the effort,
and I applaud you and applaud you for the efforts, but, you know, they kind of fell short, but you're looking at what, $12,000. Is that what it is? And you're recommending $1,500. >> Yeah, we are proposing, 1500. >> Okay. >> We have this one before us.
>> Yeah. I mean if if you'd like otherwise we can move to the next phase. >> You need a offer. >> Okay. I'll um let's do the 1500. Let's get it out the out the way. We definitely want to do whatever it takes to >> make sure we're good. Yes, please. And
it was two fines for 12,000. So I did put the 500, but if it's 1500, we can do the 15. Is that 15 for both of them or we're going to >> for this one case? >> Okay. We have two also. >> Yes. >> Right. So,
>> one case at a time though, right? >> No questions on case number C-500593. The uh property owner representative made that offer offer of 1500 fine reduction. I like to make a motion to
accept their offer. >> I'll second. >> I motion passes 5. Who's the second? Two people. Sir, second >> Michael. >> Next case.
>> I'm sorry. Payable by November the 12th. >> If it's not payable by November the 12th, it goes back to the 12,000. >> Okay. >> Paid by November 12th or it will revert back to the original total. What was that?
>> It was $1,500. Oh. Next item, it's the same address, same property owner for the same swimming pool for not having a protective barrier. The previous case we just had was for the um stagnant water. This one is for
the protective barrier and she has come into compliance. They have come into compliance. Fines run up to 12,000 on that case. They proposed 500. We are also proposing 1,500 on this case. >> All right. So, this is
Are we going Are we trying to get a double here? What is this? This is the same pool situation, but it's just water in the pool. Is that the difference? >> So, for every construction site, they're supposed to have a protective barrier. >> This is the lack of protection.
>> Correct. >> Okay. And do they run the exact same periods of time? Correct. >> So, they got a double offense. >> Now, they have the correct fence and they've covered the swimming pools. So, >> let me ask you this. So, uh
in determining what you would recommend, did you uh and I I haven't heard it yet, but I just want to know before before I hear it, it does it include time that's additional in terms of the back and forth that you did with this fine representative going
back and forth. uh or is this kind of all subsumed within the same kind of back and forth that you did from the other violation that we just discussed? It >> it's the latter same back and forth. Um it was so many times that I looked at both cases and
and the amount of time it takes for her to put a case on the agenda. So we when we're putting a case on the agenda, every case is considered as a separate case. So in in terms of noticing and and the paperwork and everything, we have to do everything separately even though the
violations were issued at the same time to the same owner for the very similar violations. >> Back so the back Yes. >> correct. >> It's double the work. >> And did did you take that into consideration uh to whatever you're going to recommend? >> We absolutely did
>> to us in in terms of looking at them both at the same time. >> Yes, we did. We only looked at the history of this property cuz if you remember this property has appeared before this board for the same violations. >> It does not >> admire then it was other other managers
or another attorney that was working with us but it's come before this board for several >> I remember and I remember the the other person had um it was another woman that >> the attorney >> that was the attorney. >> Yes. >> Okay. But okay. Okay. So, I just want to
make sure. So, so putting all that stuff into perspective, what is the recommendation? >> We are recommending 1,500 for this case as well. >> Okay. >> And and what and what are you asking for? Is this a 500? >> 500. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I think we know that's going to go
unless but you know, we can what what say you? >> Um I know that uh is there any way that we can get a thousand? Is that too low for this? No, just the 1500.
>> Well, if you want to go a th00and then tell me tell us why you know you think that a thousand >> because it was because there was two cases on on the same site, same pool the fence. I did it too low at the first. We had to make them move it up. So we did um past four feet, make sure no one no child can climb over
>> um and then move it in and out from the pool. >> You've heard there's double work. double in the back war in your inspection two items not one so only I won't
>> okay um there was also like some with this barrier Darin clarified it on the code but beforehand I don't know how this went but I I think this was already discussed at this board before with the fence but I'm not too sure I don't know what happened so I remember that there
was a the fence in the front had a problem at one point that we talked about, right? >> The construction fence. That's not this though. >> No, >> this is not this. Our code requires that every construction fence um every construction site that has a swimming
pool has to have an extra barrier because not every construction worker can swim and if they fell in there, that's a safety issue. So, they have to have an extra barrier around the swimming pool. >> Okay. Uh, 1500. >> Are you revising your your
>> Yeah, I'm request. >> Yep. Yes. I would like to request for 1500. Is that Is that >> I'll make motion just to amend her initial offer on case number C-25-0595 has her offer 500 to,500.
I would also like to go ahead and move to accept the offer of $15. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> indicate November 12th >> be paid by November 12th
back to the original. >> Okay. >> And you can tell your boss that the board suggested that you get a raise. >> Thank you. I will. I should have recorded it. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you for all your working with staff.
>> I've seen you in the building department a few times, Jamie, walking in and out. >> Yeah, you're good. >> Thank you. >> I'll send you the order. I I'll So, I'll read the other two cases that are paid and closed for the record.
Okay. But you don't have to be here because I know you going to North Broward. You can go. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Items 6.13 and 6.14. I would like to read onto the record. Address 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue.
First case is CE25-0554. It's owned by 11724 Northeast 6th Avenue LLC. We had issued a violation for fencing material and maintenance um which was in disrepair. I have to report
I'm happy to report that they are now in compliance. They've paid the fines and this case is now we are asking for you to close this case. >> Case number C-25-0554. I can make a motion to close the case. >> A second.
>> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 50. >> Next case, same address and same property owner. It's case number CE-25-0555. They were found to be in violation of section 8.4.11
for excessive growth of grass, weeds, brush, and uh other o overgrowth. They cut the grass, they cleaned up the property, and they are now in compliance and have paid the fines. We're asking the board to close this case. I mean, I'd like to make a motion case
number C-25-055 that the property is in compiance paid and to close the case. >> A second. >> All in favor? I oppose. Motion passes 5. >> The next case is 6.15.
Item 6.15. It's for the address 12022 Griffin Boulevard. Um, case number CN-24-190. Property owners are here. Common Carmen and her husband, Mr. Figureroa.
Um, we were coming here for a progress report and I'm happy to report that the building department. Oh, so you have to be sworn in, sir. One second. >> Sir, I think >> he's not testifying. Are you testifying
on a case tonight? No. Okay. It's just you have a case. Will you speak? >> Okay. Get sworn in just in case. >> So, go ahead. >> Raise your right hand. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to give will be
>> Yeah, they're right. >> Will be the truth. The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> So, I'm happy to report that the building department sent me an email um saying that Mr. Figuroa has now um
complied. The permit has not yet been issued because there's a payment that needs to be made. However, it's been completely approved. >> All right. >> You stole my my thunder. >> Well, you could tell us where you flew in from today, right? I mean, we could
>> I flew in last week. >> Okay. >> You won't have to come here. Uh so so the good news is at 11:47 a.m. my wife contacted me and said on my personal email address the uh permit had arrived and I I said it can be it must be the
one for the pool. So but I I do want to go on the record and thank Miss Grant because something happened last week. The last time I was here, I went in, I sent messages to that individual gory that, you know, I know he's building, you guys are not building, but I I want
this on the record. It is my belief that that individual is probably writing things in a different language and having them translated. Hence the reason his comments don't make sense. >> I spent money with a contractor to try to decipher what was in there. And the
guy after a few tries basically to his his arms up and said look just apply for the permit again yourself and then when you figure out what what he means but what happened I went in I put my phone number I put my contact information I sent the guy a message asking him to
contact me he didn't coincidentally on Thursday Miss Grant called me and she asked me about the status I g there's nothing I put something in there the guy hasn't answer. She must have shaken somebody because on
Friday night, late at night, they went ahead and finally returned the building permit telling me what needed to be corrected. The NOAS I had entered at the beginning by now had expired because of all the back and forth. And the guy,
somebody must have taught him how to communicate properly because he wrote succinctly what was needed and what was correct. It made it very simple for me to comply. So on Sunday, I went ahead gather all the new things that were no
longer expired, put them in, and today I was surprised by this. So my feedback and the reason for this long rant is somebody's got to get to this guy because by the way he works with multiple municipalities and I can tell you that it's the same complaint from
different people about the same individual. It is creating frustration for me as a homeowner. Um and then it creates problem for you guys as well. All this because somebody cannot effectively communicate. So that's
>> thank you for that. We appreciate that that >> your efforts for this. I will send over credit to building official Miguel Nunes. He worked very very well with with the family and I was just behind pushing
to me. >> Well, look, I mean that sounds like a happy ending for sure. Some lessons in the meantime. >> Happy ending. >> Almost to >> almost Oh, wait. There's one more scene. >> All right. I also have to mention that the >> yes I am going to applying for a significant
significant in fact I won't even do it because I'm very rough I will have my better side come in here and plead that fine >> this is the time I >> because I I can't say no to her and I'm hoping that the board can't say no to her either. >> That's a good strategy.
>> Carmen before he over speaks >> if they want to have the fine reduction next month by when would you need the paperwork? um at least a week before, but if you can bring it now, um we'll get it ready for November. >> Okay.
>> I'm just like also that you need to pay pay for the permit from what I >> Oh, no. That that's say just >> No, that tomorrow morning that that'll be done. >> Exactly. I was going to say before all this goes, pay for the permit. >> Oh, no, no. That that that's being done tomorrow morning. It wasn't done today because of the time that they uh
>> understand. I was just making it clear to everybody that don't worry. >> Yeah. Yeah. We we appreciate your comments and we're here to gain compliance and not to penalize people, but we really do need to make sure our staff gets taken care of because it
costs a bill. >> Thank you and all your efforts >> and thank you for your patience and and consideration. I really appreciate it and most gracious and we do appreciate >> Thank you. >> For anybody who doesn't know this >> house now was gorgeous. >> Yes.
>> Yes. It was beautiful before, but it >> it's a very cool house. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's home now and we're we're back and it's feels it feels good to be there. >> They just need a helipad on the roof. >> Yeah. The house has some character and
and I don't know if anybody knows the history of the house. The house was not built there. Uh when we bought it, we received the newspaper clippings from like the 1940s where the house was actually built someplace else and they moved it and put it together on that lot. >> Wow.
>> Yeah. So, this is pretty cool story. The bunker. >> The bunker. >> Yeah. It's completely made out of concrete. So, it's like we can take a bomb blast. >> I know where I'm going in a hurricane. >> Bring the wine. We
we'll ride the storm together. >> There you go. >> Oh, the bourbon. >> I can do that, too. >> All right. Uh, do you need anything from me or the tomorrow? I'll pay the fine. I pay the the permit and then I'll come back for the uh I'll send my wife back
for the for the fine reduction. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You guys, too. >> May we have Miss Carmen's number this time so we can push for the reduction? >> Thank you. The motion
the motion >> but um >> this is a status report, wasn't it? >> Oh, I'll make then I'll make a motion then. >> It was just a progress report. I thought I didn't think a motion really to accept the progress report. >> Yes, we on
>> writing for a minute 4-190. Um, I'd like to make a motion to accept the progress report that a permit has been approved pending um, uh, payment of the permit. Uh, the resident indicates they will f uh, apply for a fine
reduction. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I motion passes 5. Very nice. Next item is 7.4. No business. This is for the address 11 1929 Northeast 6th Avenue. It's for case
number CE25-073. Stannislav Ivanov. >> Yes, >> we're here for a finding of fact. This uh property owner was found to be in violation of section 18.4.1 permitted days and hours of construction. They were conducting some
work on a Sunday. Um there was a police report for this and on the record is a police report. I don't have the number here but I think it's in the package. Yes. Um we have been in touch as you can see the property owner is here. We asking
for a finding of fact in this case. >> I mean this police witness >> exactly and it's got the same issue that we had with the very first one today. Well, >> but police
are certainly legally liable for everything they put in their reports. So, in this particular case, I'm I'm comfortable that with the detail he's got in this report, an officer is not going to compromise
themselves, so >> Could you pull the microphone towards you? We can hear you. Could you pull the microphone towards you? Thank you. Yes. >> I mean the the issue that I have is the same one I had the first. I mean no
matter how much you know detail there is it's still an out of court statement offered for the truth of matter asserted and as a quasi judicial body that we are uh and a finding a fact which is being asked for then there is no testimony whatsoever on the other side and and
this would you know it's it You know, we're talking the officer is talking about what he hears and what he observes. This is out of court. You know, if the officer was here and took the same oath that this gentleman did and and said that this is what I saw and
this is what I observed, then, you know, then there's, you know, we have something to, you know, to consider. This is, you know, this is rank hearsay. I mean, the report itself is hearsay. But I I would accept and I think that, you know, the fact is that it that it is a it is a police report. So it you know
it would survive a business exception exception to the hearsay but the information within it is classically called hearsay within hearsay and you know I don't think that you know that without listening to the officer that I could support anything that's in here
because I haven't had the chance to talk to him. Yeah, we would like to submit to the court to to the board that um we do we did we didn't invite the the witness to come and we would be happy if the board can um continue this case to the next hearing we'll bring the witness.
>> Okay. >> Going to ask this gentleman sir if you would first of all identify yourself and your relationship to the property. >> Um yes sure I'm Stannislavvenov. I'm the property owner. >> Were you on site that day? >> Uh no I was not. Okay.
>> I person I personally was not on site. >> Did you talk to your workers? >> Uh I did talk to them on >> They admit being there that day. >> They arrived on site on that day. Yes. Around >> they were there. >> But again, this would be considered hearsay too because now you're offering what they told him as an you know and
they're not here to talk to >> admitting they were there. >> Well, the officer was there. He's got a report that's there. >> Just admitted that they were there at work today, not at the time. >> Right. No, I'm on the sun. >> Well, I haven't seen them personally, but I was told they were there plus the police.
>> I have no problems just going ahead and >> but they didn't do any work if that makes any difference. They arrived on site and then uh >> this is what we're going to do. You know, you weren't here. We had the exact same thing earlier on. They've made a motion to continue to get the officer here, you know, because we don't
have anything to consider. You weren't there. >> You're telling us what other people told you. That's the same problem we have here. >> I have a video from a neighbor. We We we want to I mean we're going to move to continue I think is that we're doing
>> some help for this particular case but in the future why not ask can you ask chief to ask his >> take a time stamped photo >> there's no need >> stamped photo yes um or we will they
they're okay with coming here to to >> see my my concern is that for example if you have a police officer works on Sunday, this could very well be overtime and we can't get into situations where they're going to have overtime. Now, in
the case of sound, obviously you can't do that. They have to come in. But for this, all it takes is a timestamp photo. >> I don't disagree with that because that would be like we we look at pictures all the time. So, if there's a time stamp photo, the observation has been confirmed by a time stamp photo and then
maybe we look at the time stamp photo said here look at the workers. It it it said, you know, but he said what he what he heard. Doesn't matter what he heard, but we were looking at this. >> Surprised we didn't That is absolutely what we >> I know. And there is no picture in here, so I'm surprised, too.
>> Agreed. >> Yep. In I'd like to make a motion in case number CE25-0739 that we table it until next month's code meeting and we ask the witnessing officer to please attend.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? Motion passes 5. So we will see you next month. >> Thank you. And if you and if you have workers that are going to say, you know, something different than what's in the police report, which I guess you have a
copy of, then you have the opportunity and the right to have those guys here to talk to us. >> Uh yeah, I'm I'm just not sure like what what they can explain. Uh I mean, they told me they were there, but then they left when the police arrived.
>> You we're not lawyers that are that are counseling you. I'm just saying that you have the right to have people testify. So, there's going to be a police officer that's going to talk about what he observed and what he heard and what he saw that day and that's going to probably be pretty persuasive. So, >> before you make any decisions, do you want to, you know, establish what
exactly happened? >> Well, that's what we're trying to figure out. So, we can So, and if what happened with the police officer said, you know, there's going to be consequences because it violates parts of our code. So, >> does it make sense to bring another witnessed neighbor?
>> It's it's up to you. Sir, please caution your workers. >> They cannot >> It was a subcontractor. It's uh >> I'm sorry. >> It was a subcontractor. It's not like I coordinated them. I just signed a contract with them to do the work. And >> please let everyone know they can't work Sundays.
>> No, no. I now I know because I was sent by a neighbor was sent a part of the code, but but the working and now we have it posted on the on the property. But uh like when it comes >> come back and tell us that next month because we're tableabling it. So there's
no testimony being taken right now. >> I'll just um go to the copy of the police report. It has all the information of that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. Next one. >> Thank you. >> Next case in old business is section
6.1. The address is 630 Northeast 117th Street. It's for case number CE25-0455 Long Kiss LLC in care of their registered agent Hernandez Caesar, the manager. We are asking for an intent to
lean in the amount of $500 in unpaid fines. They were found to be in violation of section 11.9 swimming pool protective perimeter fence. It had a wooden broken gates. They have now complied with the violation, but
they haven't paid the fines. >> No questions. >> They're not the property owners are not here and uh they pay the fine, but uh I'd like case number C-5455 uh to
request that the village Well, to affirm the villages request following $500 plus an additional $250 administrative. >> I'll second. All in favor?
>> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 50. >> Next case is 8:30 Northeast 120th Street under 6.3. I'm sorry. 63 >> 6.3. It's for the address 830
Northeast 120th Street and it's for case number C25-0170. Property owner is 8:30 Northeast 120th Street LLC in care of their registered agent Fraios Leontis.
Murder that. We asking for an intent to lean for unpaid fines of $500. Uh they were found to be in violation of section 8.4.2 unsightly and unused objects around the property. Uh we have since filed an affidavit of non-compliance.
>> They're not complying with it. >> They have complied with the violations, but they haven't paid the $500. village. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0.
Next item is for the same property and the same owner. We're asking for an intent to lean um in case number CE-25-0493 found to be in violation of section
8.4.31F property maintenance. They had a dirty roof. They have now complied. However, fines did run from the client date of 817 to October the 2nd. The amount is $12,000. We have since
filed an affidavit of non-compliance. >> I'm surprised you didn't find them for the washer and the dryer on the front porch there. Is that a violation? >> I know, but I'm just saying I'm surprised they didn't go for that. Look at the washer and dryer on the
issue for that. I guess I got lucky there, >> sir. >> Well, as the Broadway that's a whole separate on um so so Okay, so the the the link
I'd like to make >> case493. Well, before I do that, I do have one question. You said they paid the fines, the 500. They haven't paid the fines. They haven't paid the fines. >> All right. Then on case number
C-593,000. >> I'll second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion passes 5 Z. Next item is 6.5 for the property located at 931 Northeast 107th Street. It's case number
C25-0183 for car Leo and in Henrietta Andre Kova. were asking for an intent to lane in the amount of $250 found to have been violation of section
6.3.4 garden bulky waste. They have since uh complied with the violation and they came in yesterday and paid the fines. They are now in compliance and we're asking the board to close the case. >> Good.
>> So in the >> Yeah, I remember this guy. He said he was going to do it like the next day and every time I go by I was like he didn't do it yet. get the notice to appear. >> So in the case of C25-0183, I make a motion that we close the case
since it's complied with and paid. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes 50. >> The next item is 6.6 for the address 11095 Griffin Boulevard.
It's for case number CE25-0478. Property owner is Alton 8 LLC in care of the registered agent Kiran Dougy. We were going to ask for an intent to lean for the outstanding fines of $12,750
as of today. However, this property owner has been working with the village uh to get their plans um approved which planning and design review board approved and they are now in building review. We are asking the board to stop
the fines to allow her to get the permit and then come back and apply for relief if she so wishes. >> I I would certainly make that they've been approved, but they still have to go through >> through the building review, but they are working. She's been to the village several times. I I was hoping she would
come in tonight. >> And she's also got she's also got some correspondence in the file where she was communicating too. Right. And if nobody has any questions, I'll make a motion in the case of C25-0478, that we cease all daily fines as of
today's date, the 15th, and have the case come back in front of us in November for an update. And I guess with this point we should suggest that the property owner once they've paid for the
permits then uh for refinement >> so choose >> if they choose. Okay. >> Anybody point >> just a suggestion. I'll second your motion. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion passes 5. The next item is 6.9 and it's for the address 11217 Northeast 8 Court. It's for the case number C25-0503 for Danielle Phil's Burner
6.9. They were found to be in violation of section 3-26 and restrained dogs. uh they have now come into compliance by paying all the fines. An affidavit of compliance has been filed.
>> So everything's >> correct. We're asking the board to close this case. >> That's correct. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0.
>> Next item 6.10 6.10. The address is 11231 Northeast 11th Place. This is for case number C25-0384 for Elizabeth Courto Crespo and Ariel Perez Courto. We are requesting the
board to remove fines from this particular case. Uh we issued a violation in error. uh the property was sold and we confirmed that the license for the vacation rental was owned by the
previous owner. We have requested the clerk to refund her for the $50 that she paid to request for um fine reduction for the fines that have run on this prop. Well, there was no running fines, but there was $1,000 that was should be
here. However, we are requesting this board to remove these fines and dismiss this case. Any questions? >> No question. I'll just make property bought in October. A violation.
>> Okay. In that case, I'll make a motion in KCE-25-0384, we should resend all fines as well as refund the application prepaid for the fine reduction since the notice was issued.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 5. Next item is 6.11 and is for the address 11505 Northeast 11th place. This is for case number
CE25-0355 Omiter 2 LLC in care of the registered agent Cabrera A Rioto L asking for an intent to lane. They are non-compliant. Found to be in violation of section
16.14.1 double fee permits for installing a driveway without first obtaining permits. Before the board rules on this case, I would like to mention that this property is in foreclosure. The village attorney has submitted a
claim for surplus funds in another case in which we have filed a lean. Now, while we can go ahead and file this lean, I just wanted the board to be aware that this property is in foreclosure. >> And if I remember the last time this guy was here and he we were dealing with it.
He said, "Well, I'm just going to just take it out. I'm selling the house anyway." I Right. I don't see a for sale sign on the house because that's because it's in foreclosure. Okay. So the village attorney has been in communication with the county and
whoever is dealing with the foreclosure. While we are very low in the hierarchy of getting any money from the surplus funds, we may get money because we filed these leans before >> the listend we won't get.
>> We wouldn't be able we we may get something from because the lease pendance was filed after we filed our first lean. We may not get anything from this lane, but we still should go ahead and file it if the board allows
>> it. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. >> The next item is under no business and it's 7.1. 7.1 is for the address 1015 Northeast
112th Street. This is for case number CE25-0598 Brick Inface LLC in care of the registered agent Harvard Business Services Inc. We asking for an order of enforcement in this case. They are non-compliant founded in violation of
chapter 5.6A1 off street parking. vehicles were observed parking on an approved parking surface. I mentioned that we have conducted several inspections and and reviewed this case and we find uh that
this parking um surface they have does not meet uh design standards. >> You said they are within the design standard >> does not meet design standards. >> That's what I was going to say. So I had a few questions here. I mean if I may.
Number one was you I see where people have part of the grass. So that's what this one's being cited for. So my question was are we looking for the future on the excitement for uh not having a park I mean for a driveway.
>> That's the first thing I thought of the citation is for 5.6.1 6.1 which theoretically then if they don't park there they've come into compliance if it's put in the proper driveway that's 5.6.7 6.7 >> right >> but they were part on the grass that's
how I was looking >> right >> the grass or the or those pe rockck there >> actual grass too >> no there see over here it's on the grass now that's further that's on a driveway that hopefully the village will be citing for >> lack of driveway
>> yes in fact the officer did go out of his way and speak with um um some experts you know people who know um zoning and and who who people from the planning and design review board. One of the members actually walked by to look at the driveway to to just see what kind
of violation could be issued for this and just to confirm the violation and he did say that we definitely should issue a violation for design standards. So this violation is for parking on the grass. We however will issue a violation for actual design standards.
>> The corrective action is listed at getting the driveway but that doesn't jive with with Okay, >> we're gonna get there. >> Anyway, yeah, right now we're just talking about they're not parking on >> they're just parking on the grass
surface. >> So, if there are no questions, I'd like >> number November 12th $250 per day. I'll >> second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion
passes 5. >> And maybe this I do have questions maybe at the end currently approved. But have a question. Next item is 7.3 for the address 11:45 Northeast 119th Street. Is for case
number CE25-06004. Property owner Lucy A. Paulson Eram Teresa Hayes asking for an order of enforcement. Um they have not registered their property as landlords
um and haven't paid a fee of $80 to register. >> So this is what could have happened to me? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Just want to make sure. >> Yes, council. We we have spoken to Teresa and she let us know two months I
believe two months ago that she put a check in the mail but we have not received that mail. We did communicate again but from what the clerk was um updated me this morning. She said um Teresa has put in another application.
However, that application is also incomplete. So as of today they are non-compliant. motion on number of $250 second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes 5 Z.
>> Next case is 7.5 and is for the address 12025 Northeast 8th Avenue. Case number is CE-25-0592. Property owners are Andrew and Lameus Wilson. We were going to ask for an order of enforcement. They were found to
be in violation of section 8.4.3.1F property maintenance. the exterior wall and awnings were in need of cleaning. As of today, we um we're told that the awnings have been cleaned by the
manager. Um and um the property owners met with the manager and asked the manager for a a 90-day continuance. >> And what's what's your position in that? >> I work for the manager. I did
drive by this quite often and I do see that the I noticed right away it looked like a new awning >> maybe an old one but it >> they pressure washed it >> but I just happened to notice it like popped out is very white and um but I
did notice that the property itself is um yeah I I see where it's sighted for exterior wall and so is need but if they're if they're working towards I think 90 days, especially given weather we've had for this. Yeah, I have
no problems. property owners. That would be uh see 90 days would be in >> November. the January meeting of 2026.
>> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I any opposed? Motion passes 5 Z. I will say that there's some spirited discussion in there in the email exchange and and and and you know I I think that we did this homeowner a solid
on this but you know if we got a problem in January it would not be might not be as uh forgiving, >> right? No, no, no. And I and I read over the material and all and it the what changed my mind was whenever I happened to be coming over here had to drive by
it. It wasn't it's just that I go by this property all the time and I did strike. So, very recent. And but I noticed that some nice improvement, but I said I didn't realize that it was needed to be
painted or pressure cleaned up for us in the future. And now I see it here and >> they're doing it. >> Yes. So, when Ace came up, it's like um
Let's do the minutes first. >> We are done with all the cases. >> Yes, those were all the cases we brought before the board tonight. >> Do you have September's minutes? Has everybody had a chance to read them? >> Issue really. There was just one typo,
grammatical grammatic error on um where it had a T and it should be should be. Oh yeah, here 7.5 typo. Believe it's like the second or third line.
That's the only thing that I occurred and t I mean >> going for the English. I mean >> yes. >> Oh yeah. >> Queens >> the queen. Actually, I'm non compliance.
>> Not Englishing. I see that the English is not Englishing. >> Well, I mean, hey, that sounds great. But I mean, >> I I see that we >> That's the only thing, but other than that, if make a motion
to is >> all I'll second. All in favor? >> I >> Any opposed? Mes 5. >> You had question. >> Yeah. For like just a little agenda I to
discuss on these um approved not the approved gravel ones that we've already you know met the criteria went through designing and all. What about this grass that is prevalent that pops up and it's not 50%
but is there something you can do? I said anything. I thought that part of the charm of it, >> right? >> But with with the gravel it's >> Yeah. >> like it's it's blaring because usually
white and then it's filled with um with grass. just an idea that the um planning and design or whoever the standards might >> look at it >> considered it can if they can give us some direction or
>> I I will tell you I spray my neighbors with vinegar and salt that kills off the weeds for >> not that hard >> a couple of weeks and then it grows back and I have to constantly constantly do
it. Last year I spent three days pulling all the weeds out and they all by the roots and they all came back. >> How much do you charge per hour? I mean >> I do it for free for an 86 year old. >> Good tired. >> That's
I realize I'm sorry is more environmentally conscious. It's a lot of work. It's such >> Yeah. >> that it's like there's no base.
>> No. No. to see her >> happiness. >> Do I have >> any other discussion, questions? >> Anything? >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> No, because I