Loading...
2012.05.10_CEB_Minutes_RegularTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Thursday May 10, 2012 9.30 AM Members Present: Chair Louis Reidenberg; Vice Chair Paul Resnick; Board Member Tim Burnich; Board Member Mark Diamond; Board Member Don Gill; and Board Member Michael Kravit. Also Attending: Vice Mayor Ron Brown; Commissioner Dennis Sheridan; Town Manager Kathleen Weiser; Town Attorney Leonard Rubin; Lieutenant Eric Lundberg; Building Official Michael Desorcy; Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes and members of the general public. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Reidenberg called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by the Deputy Town Clerk followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Chair Reidenberg called for any additions, deletions or acceptance of the agenda. MOTION: Member Burnich moved to accept the agenda as presented. Vice Chair Resnick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Vice Chair Resnick stated that he would like to introduce an item under New Business. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. PRESENTATION: • One (1) Vacancy on Board Chair Reidenberg announced there is currently a vacancy on the board, which is being advertised. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • April 18, 2012 Regular Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Pate 2 of 13 MOTION: Member Burnich moved to approve the minutes of April 18, 2012, Regular Meeting. Member Gill seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: No old business. NEW BUSINESS: Chair Reidenbera introduced Town Attorney Leonard Rubin. Attorney Rubin stated that he works with the Law Office of Glen J. Torcivia and Associates, P.A., which represents the Town. He has been involved with code enforcement for approximately 20 years and serves as a Special Magistrate. • Case No. 2012-001 A) Joseph F. Romano — 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Unit 2) B) Lorenzo and Rosaria Sciortino — 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Units 1, 3 and 5) C) Steven J. Tebon — 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Units 4, 6 and 7) Attorney Rubin swore in Building Official/Code Enforcement Officer Michael Desorcy. Chair Reidenbera — Although the address is the same for all of the property owners, the Board will proceed to hear one owner at a time beginning with item A) Joseph Romano, 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Unit 2). Staffs Presentation: Item — A) Joseph F. Romano — 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Unit 2) Code Enf. Inspt. Desorcy — On December 12, 2011, an email complaint was received by a tenant at Ambassadors South in reference to the conditions of the property; specifically rats running across the roof and the overall condition of the property. On December 12, 2011, a site visit was conducted to verify the conditions were a valid complaint. There were phone calls and emails received from residents and Mayor Bernard Featherman with reference to responding to the complaints from the residents at Ambassadors South. On January 25, 2012, the official thorough inspection was performed, and forty photographs of the violations were taken. Chair Reidenbera — Is this concerning unit 2? Code Enf. Inspt. Desorcy — That is correct. The violations at this property (4513 S. Ocean Blvd.) are maintenance and housekeeping issues and are not specific to any one owner at that property. There are three owners at this property; there are seven units. Chair Reidenbera — Is this a common area? Code Enf. Inspt. Desorcy — These are common area violations particular to both buildings, seven units and not to each particular unit owner. The whole property was cited. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Pame 3 of 13 Chair Reidenbera — Do all three owners own different units? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — That is correct. There are no specific violations for unit #2. These violations are housekeeping and maintenance issues germane to the whole property. The issues are conditions of the building; conditions of the roof; trash strewn across the property; conditions of the parking lot; and grading of the property. Chair Reidenbera — Nothing specific though with regards to Unit #2. Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — That is correct. Notices were sent to each individual owner. The property has a Declaration of Condominium, where the properties are divided by percent according to the number of units owned at that property. For instance, unit #2 has an 18% interest in the violations. Attorney Rubin — According to the Declaration, each unit owner has an undivided interest in the common elements; therefore, all three sets of property owners would be apportioned part of the violations. Item — B) Lorenzo and Rosaria Sciortino — 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Units 1, 3, 5) Chair Reidenbera — What percent of the common areas do they own? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — Unit #1-18%; Unit #3-9% and Unit #5-9% (total 36%). Item — C) Steven J. Tebon — 4513 S. Ocean Boulevard (Units 4, 6 and 7) Chair Reidenbera — What is the percentage of ownership for these units? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — Unit #4-12%; Unit #6-21 % and Unit #7-13% (total 46%). Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — Entered into the record as "Exhibit 1 - a list of the code violations" was mailed to the respondents, certified mail on February 6, 2012, which the Board reviewed. On March 9, 2012, met with Mr. Edgar Santos, who represented Mr. Sciortino. We reviewed the list of violations and item #2 — in compliance; item #4 — not in full compliance as the pavers were in the process of being repaired; item #5 — in compliance; item #14 — in compliance; item #17 — in compliance; and item #22 — in compliance. On April 10, 2012, a re -inspection was conducted the following items were in compliance: items #2, 7, 8, and 15 were in compliance. On May 9, 2012, conducted a pre -hearing inspection and found item #6 — in compliance; item #13 — in compliance; item #18 — workmen were pressure washing the roof, and item #16 — in compliance as the air conditioning unit is not abandoned; they are rusty but working. The remaining items are in non-compliance, which are as follows: items #1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 21. Chair Reidenbera — Are you satisfied that item #18 will be in compliance? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — I cannot attest to the condition of the roof. The mold and dirt has been removed, so I am satisfied. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Page 4 of 13 Attorney Rubin — The whole file is being introduced into the record by Mr. Desorcy but as Chairman if you would like them broken down into exhibits that can be done. Chair Reidenberg — The intention is to ensure that due process has been complied with and that all property owners have received proper notice, which is what the Board is required to do. Vice Chair Resnick — Chair Reidenberg, while Mr. Desorcy is looking through his files may I address Counsel? Chair Reidenberg — Yes. Vice Chair Resnick — Attorney Rubin, am I under a proper or mis-proper understanding that the hearing we are now conducting is a non judicial hearing and we are not bound to go by courtroom rules of evidence by having each document marked, etc., etc. so we can get through this hearing and expedite matters? Chair Reidenberg — Mr. Resnick, we are not going by courtroom procedure. If I thought that, I would not do it but I also want to protect the Town so that if a Judge looks at this we have done things at least with some due process. That is what my reading of the Statute requires. Vice Chair Resnick — If you are finished, may I continue with the question I was asking? Chair Reidenberg — You asked the question. Vice Chair Resnick — I did not finish. You interrupted. Chair Reidenberg — You are out of order. Go ahead Mr. Desorcy. Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — For the record, I would like to enter the notices of violations into the record as "Exhibit 2", which was reviewed by the Board. Entered into the record as "Exhibit 3" photographs of the posting of the notice of hearing on the individual units and photographs taken May 10, 2012, at the pre -hearing inspection. The Notice of Posting photographs reflect a date stamped April 21, 2012, and the pre -hearing photographs May 9, 2012, which was reviewed by the Board. Chair Reidenberg — From "Exhibit 3", place the pictures that are specific to violation items #10, 11 and 12, which include the exposed electrical wires, conduits, boxes and box covers. Photos were reviewed by the Board. Does the Board have any objection to removing those photographs from "Exhibit 3" and entered into the record as "Exhibit 4"? By consensus, the Board agreed to have the photographs from violation items #10, 11 and 12 as a separate exhibit. Member Burnich — Have permits been issued for the violations that require a permit? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — No, not at this time. The property owners have not enlisted a licensed contractor to correct these violations. As of 10:13 this morning, no permits have been issued. The items that are in compliance do not need permits. Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — The Town would ask the respondents to pay the $841.30 for the successful prosecution of this case. These are administrative costs, which would cover the attorney's fee, staff time, posting of the notices and certified mailings. The administrative cost sheet was entered into the record as "Exhibit 5". Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Board Questions Staff.• Member Kravit — In accordance with the 2010 Florida Building Code existing, would these three electrical violations not be considered a repair rather than a level one alteration, which would require a permit? If it is a repair, does it still require a permit? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — In my estimation, it is a repair but it does require a permit and there is a permit fee. Member Burnich — For item # 1, has the site grading been completed? Code Enf. Inspt. Desorcy — No. Member Burnich — For item #3, have they applied for a permit and hired a contractor for the handrails and guardrails? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — No. Member Burnich — The property owners have not applied for a permit or hired a contractor for the electrical issues. Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — Correct. Property Owner(s) Question Staff: Chair Reidenberg — Do any of the homeowners have questions for Mr. Desorcy? Mr. Romano was not present. Mr. Sciortino and Mr. Tebon had no questions. Public Questions Staff: Jack Halpern - 4511 S. Ocean Blvd. — Thanked Bldg. Official Desorcy for doing an excellent job. Were there 22 or 23 violations? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — There were 22 violations. Mr. Halpern — Regarding the roof, what do you mean by "cleaned off'? Code Enf. Inspt. Desorcy — The roof was pressure washed yesterday and the day before. I witnessed a gentleman pressure washing the roof starting at the east end of the building going towards the west side. The building on the south side of the property was done the day before. I did not witness that. Mr. Halpern — Have you seen the roof totally cleaned off yourself? Chair Reidenbera — It is my understanding that item #18 is in compliance as far as Mr. Desorcy is concerned. Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — As far as I am concerned, it is cleaned off. Mr. Halpern — Regarding the nuisance complaint affecting the adjacent homeowners, part of the roof is painted gray, white, and different colors and it is an eyesore that affects our property value. Why was that not cited as part of the nuisance complaint? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — What constitutes an eyesore to one person might not be an eyesore to another person. Different colors on the roof are not addressed specifically in the code. One part of the roof has been repaired and it is a silver color. We have seven units and three different property owners. When there is a leak, they call for a roofer and part of the roofing contract is to repair the roof, paint, and seal to protect the roof from the weather. Some contractors use white, some silver coatings. The object of code enforcement is to be in compliance. We do not have an aesthetics board or an appearance board and cannot regulate the color of the roof. Different color roofs are not a violation. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10.2012 Page 6 of 13 Mr. Halpern — Does not the code say that if it affects the property value it is a nuisance? Code Enf. Inspt. Desorcy — Diminution of property value is in the code. I don't know what the different color on the roof next door has anything to do with property values on the adjacent property. I cannot determine that. Mr. Halpern — If it diminishes the value of an adjacent property, then it is considered a nuisance and I believe this issue has not been addressed. Chair Reidenbera — This is an issue between you, Mr. Desorcy and/or the Town Commission. We are only dealing with the violations that Mr. Desorcy has cited and the ones that are not in compliance regarding issues that were noticed. This issue that you are referring to was not noticed so your complaint has no relevance to this hearing. Attorney Rubin — The Chairman is correct. The sole purpose of this Board is to determine whether the code sections actually cited are in violation. If you have something that you believe was not cited, you can make a complaint or address it through Mr. Desorcy, the Town Commission or whatever route you choose to take. Property Owners) Presentation: Bob Noonan, State Certified General Contractor was sworn in, who is representing all three property owners. Mr. Noonan — I have done quite a bit of work in Highland Beach, and will address some of these issues as follows: • Item # 1: The reason why we have not addressed this item because Orkin Pest Control Service has been out there for several months trying to capture the rodents. We have put traps out and if we were to grade it now before getting rid of the rodents, they might die in the wall, which would cause another problem. Assuming Orkin has gotten most of them or they feel satisfied that we have blocked all the holes at this point, that item should be taken care of within the next seven days. • Item #3: Install handrails and guard rails — On the south building, there is a ramp and the elevation from the parking lot to the highest point is about 33 inches. This is not a life safety issue for the residents living there or guests coming in and out of the property. We are getting a railing fabricated this week and this should be done within the next five to seven days. • Item #9: The condensate lines are coming off. There are just traps on there and need to be taken off. Because of the roof (the building was built in 1938) these units are sitting in two different ways. Some are sitting on sleepers that are pieces of structural wood bolted into the rafters of the building. We have several roofing contract proposals from various roofers to redo the roof. They vary from $30,000 to $150,000 for 6,000 sq. ft. The roof needs to be replaced and the air conditioning units would come off at that time and the condensate lines would be repaired. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Page 7 of 13 • Items # 10, 11 and 12: Two state certified electricians have looked at this issue. At the beginning of this week and no later than the end of next week, the owners should agree with the electrician's proposals then a permit application will be submitted to the Highland Beach Building Department, which will resolve the electrical issues. • Item # 19: It is essentially the same issue and a licensed electrician will be taking care of this issue. • Item #20: The conduit is an electrical issue. Some piping is up there but basically it is mechanical pipe like condensate lines. The ductwork is a minor repair. The ductwork and the pipes should be done by the end of next week. • Item #21: The one-way exhaust vents for the dryers inside the units need to be replaced. When the roof comes off, the roofer will then replace them. They are not causing any damage to the inside of the units. The roofing proposals were entered into the record and marked "Exhibit A" (Respondent's presentation). The Board reviewed the proposals. Board Questions Respondent(s): Chair Reidenberg — How come these things were not done before? Mr. Noonan — There is an issue of selecting a contractor. As a General Contractor and acting on the property owners' behalf, I can only present them with the various proposals. I cannot make the decisions for them. There is nothing in the code violations from Mr. Desorcy that requires a new roof. It was only addressing the repairs on the electrical and mechanical side of it for the air conditioning units. The unit owners feel replacing the roof is the best solution. Member Burnich — When were you first contacted to become their consultant? Mr. Noonan — I was given these notices in the beginning of March. Vice Chair Resnick — You are familiar with the items that are outstanding. What is your best guess on when these items will be completed? Mr. Noonan — We can get the electrical done within two weeks to address the code violations. The roofing issue becomes a separate issue that is a decision that has to be made by the owners. The electrical could be addressed this upcoming week. Vice Chair Resnick — If you were given the approval to correct all of these violations within the next day or two, how long would it take? Mr. Noonan — It would take less than 10 working days. Public Questions Respondent(s): Mr. Halpern — When will the roof be replaced or at least repainted? Mr. Noonan — Weather permitting it could be painted with roofing paint, as it is just a couple days work. Mr. Halpern needs to understand that most of the stains were not mildew because of the Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Page 8 of 13 dimpling on the roof, it is a foam roof, and does not have a direct runoff; the puddles dry and leave a stain on the roof especially since it is a white roof. I had the roof pressure washed, and I am satisfied that the roof was properly cleaned; this does not mean that there is not residual staining caused by dirt sitting over time. Mr. Halpern — I need to know when the roof will be replaced. Mr. Noonan — The roof replacement is not a violation. As far as painting it and getting rid of these residual stains, I would say it could be done this coming week weather permitting and permission from the owners to do so. Public Statements: Steven Tebon, 4513 S. Ocean Blvd. was sworn in. I have owned the three front units for twenty years. We have constantly upgraded the roof and have been through several hurricanes where the roof has taken quite a beating. We are a very small homeowners association and one of the issues is that one of the owners is in a trust problem and cannot pay her dues (she is a year and half behind). Mr. Renzo and I have been putting in the money to try to keep up with everything. I have had Mr. Noonan and other people on that roof at least once or twice a year over the last three years. We are the lowest building in Highland Beach and want to have the roof fixed but it is very costly for three home owners to do. There were a lot of violations, which we are not proud of, but we will continue to fix them and move as quickly as possible through the process. Member Kravit — Is it your intent to replace the roof on the building? Mr. Tebon — At the prices they are coming in at and the budget we have to work with it is very difficult. It could be $100,000 to $150,000 to do it right and divided among the three owners; I don't know where the money will come from. Worst case scenario we will make it right. We are $10,000 behind in our dues and constantly funding it. There is a legality process with the condo association because of this lady's trust, which is in violation. Closing Statements: Mr. Noonan — I would like to make one closing statement that might clarify something on these violations. It says Joseph F. Romano but the legal name on the deed is Joseph R. Romano Trust. He is deceased and the estate is being handled by a Trust Attorney in New York. Mr. Joseph Nocca is the Executor of the Trust and is aware of the violations. Chair Reidenberg — Are you saying that the notice was not addressed correctly? Mr. Noonan — No, I am not saying that. Attorney Rubin — According to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office, the property owner is listed as Joseph F. Romano (the notices were sent correctly). Chair Reidenbera — Is there any dispute that Mr. Romano or someone acting on his behalf has not been properly notified? Mr. Noonan — No. Judge Joseph Nocca is aware of the violations and of the hearing. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Page 9 of 13 Steven Tebon — Judge Joseph Nocca was informed of the violations approximately three weeks ago and since then has stepped into the process with us. We feel very confident that this will be rectified and we can move forward with this very quickly. Jack Halpern, 4511 S. Ocean Blvd was sworn in. — I Chaired this Board and was a member for several years and this is a different Board. This is a community and not a legal preceding. My family and I live overlooking this facility for the last eight or nine years. It has a history and five years ago we brought them before this Board. Lots of construction took place without permits. We had to have the State Environmental Protection come in and have them rip out what they built on the dunes illegally. They have not had a history of getting permits, and performing and keeping the property clean. I have had several personal, family and travel issues over the last four years which kept me from really getting involved. Originally, I tried to avoid this Board by writing a letter to Mr. Sciortino in September of this year asking him if he could clean up the place. Unfortunately, the letter was returned with no forwarding address. I filed a complaint with Bldg. Official Desorcy on December 12, 2011. If I filed a complaint on this date, why has it taken five months for a hearing to take place? Why isn't there an issue in terms of the things being repaired in seven to ten days? These things have not been happening. The follow-up and needed approach has not been happening. Not only is there a visual eyesore but realtors have told our residents that this is an eyesore. They have said that they can't get the property value that you want because they have to look at this. We have to look at a roof that is painted white in some spots and gray in others. At least they could have painted it the same color. There is no respect for the neighbors, no caring and no property management. There was a door ripped off the wall laying on the floor for months. They have not taken care of their property and are absentee owners who have made this place into a slum. I think it behooves this Board to actually set a precedent and let them know they are way out of violation. They have not finished all the things that need to be finished. The roof is not clean and still does not look good and the whole character that in terms affects the property value is a key for us. This eyesore affects 160 units in my condominium. When our 40 units on the south side have a diminished value because of their property, the other 120 units also get affected. I ask this Board to get involved and take care of some of the things that haven't really been done to date. Chair Reidenbera — The number of issues that you raised such as delays, etc. appear to be issues that should be raised with either the Town Manager or Mr. Desorcy or the Town Commission; those issues are not in the purview of this Board. We can only deal with what is presented to us. With respect to this procedure, I appreciate the fact that you were Chairman before but the law is quite specific in what this procedure requires and due process at least is required. That means that everybody, including the people that were cited, have the opportunity to appear and present their case in an orderly manner. In the event this matter gets to court, the court can review it and make a determination to see that we have not acted in an arbitrary, capricious, inappropriate or improper manner. I am sorry you do not like the decorum but it will be followed. Mr. Halpern — I think the five month delay in this coming before this Board is a significant issue and I think it is an issue for this Board because it represents the Town. We don't have a Special Magistrate Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Pasie 10 of 13 anymore; we are back to a Code Enforcement Board. This is a citizen board and I think you should be concerned with what is happening in this Town. Lorenzo Sciortino, 4513 S. Ocean Blvd. was sworn in. I am one of the property owners and have lived in Highland Beach for 23 years. I never received Mr. Halpern's letter. I believe he has some kind of animosity because he lives in the building north of us. I am not only an owner but I live there and do the best we can to keep the place as clean as possible. I appreciate you working with us. Chair Reidenbera — Does anybody want to make a proposal with regard to the violations and how they should be handled? MOTION: Vice Chair Resnick moved that each of the violations that are not in compliance (Items #1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21) be given 30 days to complete and for any violation individually that is not complete at the end of 30 days a $250.00 a day per violation penalty be imposed. Discussion: Attorney Rubin — There are three different sets of property owners. I really think we need to do three motions. The association does not own the common property. Each of the three sets of unit owners own an interest in the common property. The percentages were outlined previously. The problem Bldg. Official Desorcy ran into is that the unit owners actually own undivided interest in the common elements. They own it so they are responsible for it and that is why I believe we need three different motions. Vice Chair Resnick — Would it be correct if I said each of the property owners be accessed a $100 penalty per day after 30 days that the violation is not corrected? Plus administrative costs. Mr. Desorcy do you have anything further? Mr. Desorcv — When you make a motion, can you specify business days or calendar days. Vice Chair Resnick — Calendar days. Chair Reidenbera — For the record, so we are clear, the items that are not incompliance are 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21. Vice Chair Resnick, your motion is $100.00 per day for each violation for each homeowner separately, correct? Vice Chair Resnick — Correct. Attorney Rubin — The administrative costs can be apportioned based on the percentage of ownership. Vice Chair Resnick — Accepted amending the motion to include the administrative costs be apportioned based on the percentage of ownership. Attorney Rubin — The administrative cost total is $841.30 and accessed to the homeowners as follows: Mr. Romano - $151.43; Mr. Sciortino - $302.87; and Mr. Tebon $3 87.00. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Paze 11 of 13 AMENDED MOTION: Vice Chair Resnick moved that each of the violations that are not in compliance (Items #1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21) be given 30 calendar days to be completed and for any violation individually that is not complete at the end of 30 calendar days each homeowner be fined $100 per day for each violation that has not been corrected plus the administrative costs, which are apportioned based on their percentage as such Mr. Romano - $151.43; Mr. Sciortino - $302.87; and Mr. Tebon $387.00. Member Diamond seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Kravit — I think the motion is a good motion. However, there are building permits that will be required and by the time the general contractor receives his bids, puts together the permit applications, gets all the documentation to the town, it could use up two to three weeks of that time. I would like to see the motion amended to 30 days from the date of issuance of the building permits, but the permit must be applied for within a certain time frame that you feel comfortable with. Chair Reidenbere — I do not think we have the authority to instruct a specific timeframe. We have the ability to extend the time period and say it could be done within 60 days. Member Kravit — Would Mr. Resnick amend his motion to 60 days instead of 30 days? Vice Chair Resnick — No, I am sorry, I will not. Member Burnich — There is going to be more time that Bldg. Official Desorcy will have to put into these additional inspections so the cost is going to increase. Is that covered under the permit fees? Code Enf. Inset. Desorcy — There will be a re -inspection at the deadline, so more fees will be incurred at that time. Attorney Rubin — We can add the assessment at a later date. Roll Call: Vice Chair Resnick - Yes Member Diamond - Yes Member Kravit - No Member Gill - Yes Member Burnich - Yes Chair Reidenberg - No Motion carried 4/2. • Additional New Business Chair Reidenberg called on the Vice Chair to introduce his new business item. Vice Chair Resnick — As a long time member of the previous Code Enforcement Board, we worked very hard on the Town appearance and revised the Town Code pertaining to signs. We now have political signs appearing on our properties. The Town Ordinance says that only permitted signs are allowed on the property and lists which signs are permitted. Political signs are not on that list. It is my personal determination that Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Page 12 of 13 political signs are not permitted in this town. I ask this Board to support a recommendation to the Town Commission that any political signs other than the local Town elections not be allowed to be erected on private property. Member Burnich — I thought there is a certain period where political signs are allowed. Attorney Rubin — I was looking through your code but I do not see one. Generally it is a common provision in municipal codes that certain number of days prior to an election they are allowed a certain number per parcel property. I do not believe Highland Beach's code addresses this. Chair Reidenbera — We addressed this issue at the last election. It is my recollection that there is a provision in there dealing with signs that would exclude even the political signs of the local officials. We determined, at that time, that we would not ask the code enforcement officer to enforce that provision. It is my understanding that the code enforcement officer has the responsibility along with the Town Attorney to determine whether or not there are any violations of political signs and enforcing them. Vice Chair Resnick — May I ask a question of the code enforcement officer? Chair Reidenbera — I don't think we can do that at this time. Vice Chair Resnick — I will withdraw this whole thing and take it to the Town Manager as a private citizen. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chair Reiden dadjourned the meeting at 11:13 a.m. APPROVAL: SEAL: Louis Reidpb4, Chair C—� Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday May 10, 2012 Paae 13 of 13 Vacancy 5 ATTEST: ( Date: December 19, 2012 Valerie Oakes, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk