The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.12.17_CEB_Minutes_Regular• • ~ .• r • ~' TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:30 A.M. Members Present: Chair Louis M. Reidenberg; Vice Chair Martin Sahan; Board Member Frank Colarullo; Board Member Paul Resnick; and Board Member Eugene DeLiberto. Members Absent: Board Member Jack A. Halpern; and Board Member Lori Wolin. Also Attending: Town Attorney Larry Corman; Town Manager Dale Sugerman; Building Official William Kraemer; and Deputy Town Clerk Janice M. Moore CALL TO ORDER: • Chair Reidenberg called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Deputy Town Clerk Moore. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Board Member Resnick requested that a pedestrian traffic light on AlA be added to the agenda. Item added by consensus of the Board. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: No comments received. PRESENTATIONS: • Introduction of Building Official William Kraemer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Vice Chair Sahan moved to approve the minutes of September 17, 2008 and was seconded by Board Member Colarullo. Unanimously approved by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS: • None NEW BUSINESS: A) Case No. 2008-03 Villa Costa Condominium Association; 3210 South Ocean Blvd. PH#5 Violation of: FLORIDA EXISTING BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 6 ARTICLE III SECTION 603.2.1 - To Wit: The vertical ventilation shaft passing through all floors is required to be fully enclosed per the Florida Fire Prevention Code. The portion of said shaft passing through the master bedroom area of penthouse #5 is not fully enclosed on the side exposed to said bath interior. B) Consideration of Modification to Section 23-7 of the Town Code-Permitted Signs C) Report from the Chairman D) Election of Officers: 1. Chairman 2. Vice Chairman 3. Secretary E) Approval of 2009 Meeting Dates: • All meetings are scheduled for Wednesdays, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Town Commission Chambers. January 21, 2009 July 15, 2009 February 18, 2009 August 19, 2009 March 18, 2009 September 16, 2009 April 15, 2009 October 21, 2009 May 20, 2009 November 18, 2009 June 17, 2009 December 16, 2009 ADJOURNMENT: Attach are the minutes verbatim that were done from a private contractor through an outside agency. . Chairman reminds audience to turn off cell phones as they adversely affect recording system. Chair: Anyone wishing to speak on any subject either before, during or after the meeting, please sign in and everyone will be called in order pursuant to sign-in sheet at the desk. Would like to ask the members of board to speak into the microphone by pushing the button that says "push" and then you've got to speak in because there have been some problems, not with us, but with other boards, so please speak into the microphone. Some discussion with audience member ensues with chair having to do with order taken regarding sign-in sheet. (some dialogue unintelligible) Chair: (discussion off-mic with unidentified audience member) "Mr. Chairman, can I please ask you. I think the gentlemen is going to be speaking on Case No.: 2008 on new business, and I think that he's confusing that with your announcement, and I would assume that you would be following the normal procedure of calling the building department and the town representatives and then following it." "I'm not calling anybody, I'm going to go by exactly what the agenda is -that's what the town code requires that I do and that's what I'm going to follow. That gentleman was there - I recall seeing him there before. If you are going to speak in the public comments, then please sign in on the sign-iri sheet. Okay, then we'll go by the case and go from there. With that being said, would you call the meeting to order and would you please call the . roll:" Chair Reidenberg: Present. Vice Chair Sahan: Present. Board Member Resnick: Here. Boar member Colarullo: Here. Board Member DeLiberto: Here. Board Member Halpern. Excused or unexcused. What I'd like you to do, Jan, is to check and see the minutes of the last three meetings. At one of the meetings, I think it was the meeting in July, we announced as policy that there had to be notice either to yourself or to me about the reasons for being absent, and also in accordance with the town code, as well. We had to determine how many meeting somebody missed. Would you please check and see how many meetings Mr. Halpern has missed. Some of them have been excused. Clerk: They have to miss three consecutive meetings. Reidenberg: I know. Without being excused, as I understand it. Clerk: Correct. Reidenberg: This one notwithstanding, that's what I want to know before I determine whether or not he's excused, how many meeting he's missed consecutively, or whether excused or unexcused, and then I can tell you whether I'm going to continue to excuse him. Clerk: Okay. Board Member Wolin: She called you correct? Clerk: Yes. Reidenberg: Okay. She will be excused. Clerk: Okay. Reidenberg: As I recall, she hasn't missed that many meetings. Clerk: Okay. Reidenberg: With that, I think agenda calls, the code requires that we pledge allegiance to the flag. Reidenberg: Are there any additions, deletions or any other comments regarding the agenda by members of the Board? Okay, I have one. Yes, sir. Resnick: I would like to bring to the attention of the Board, although this is without comment for or against, I'm aware of a proposed new pedestrian-activated traffic light. Is this new business? It should be under the new business. Reidenberg: Then we'll add it to new business. Why don't you call it Mr. Resnick's comments. Okay. Public comments. There we'll go by the list if anybody wants to make a comment, if they've signed up -Jan take a look and see. Anybody want to make a public comment about anything? Okay, then we' 11 move on. Reidenberg: Presentations: Item 2 is additions, deletions or acceptance of agenda. Okay. The new building official, William Kraemer, is he here? Mr. Kraemer why don't you come on up, please. Mr. Kraemer, how are you? This is the current member of the Code Enforcement Board and the Code Enforcement Board attorney, Mr. Corman. Mr. Kraemer why don't you tell us when you started, where, what you're doing? Kraemer: Okay, I started here on September 26, basically was the day that Bob Dawson was his last day here and he had some festivities to attend to on his last day, so that would have been my starting day as acting building official. Reidenberg: Thank you for coming aboard. We'll look forward to working with you. Reidenberg: Approval of minutes of September 17, 2008. Any additions, corrections, amendments, comments regarding the minutes? No. Move for approval. Colarullo seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Minutes are approved. Reidenberg: Old business. Any old business? Business that the Code Enforcement Board has dealt with before? Reidenberg: New business: Case No.: 2008-03. Villa Vista (sic) Condominium Association. 3210 South Ocean Boulevard, is it the penthouse - cause I see penthouse #5, Highland Beach. In violation of Florida existing building code Chapter 6, Article 3, Section 603.2.1, to wit: The vertical ventilation shaft passing through all floors is required to be fully enclosed by the Florida Prevention Code the portion of said shaft 2 passing through the master bedroom area of penthouse 5 is not fully enclosed on the side • exposed to said bath interior. Reidenberg: I have read the claim of violation. Who is going to present that on behalf of the code building inspector? Not the code enforcement board, the code inspector. Who are you sir? Good morning, Board. My name is Dan Divan. I am the building inspector code enforcement officer here at the Town of Highland Beach. Reidenberg: You are working with Mr. Kraemer? Divan: Yes sir, I am. Reidenberg: Okay. Mr. Kraemer is he - tell me what his position is, and how he differs from you and how you differ from him. Kraemer: Our certifications are different. I'm a certified Florida building official. Dan is a certified multi-discipline inspector who holds multiple inspection licenses in plumbing, electrical, mechanical and structural, and he works - he is employed by our IIL company which is the contractor for the building official position. Reidenberg: Are you both coordinate or is one superior to the other? • Kraemer: I would be the building official and he would be subordinate to me. Reidenberg: I needed to know that, okay. Mr. Divine, is it? Divan, sir. Spells his name -Divan. Reidenberg: I'm sorry. Go ahead. On. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you swear him in please? Clerk: [Witness sworn in] Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Divan: I do. Thank you. Code Enforcement Board, my name is Dan Divan, I work for the Town of Highland $each, and on, Reidenberg: Mr. Divan, would speak into the mic so we can hear you. Divan: Okay. How's this? Better. My name is Dan Divan, I am the code enforcement officer for the Town of Highland Beach, and on December the 16x',1 visited penthouse #5 at the Villa Costa and took the enclosed four pictures. If you care to I'll pass them around. Reidenberg: We haven't seen them and they should have been presented beforehand. • Let me tell you the procedure, Mr. Kraemer, Mr. Divan, so that you know the procedure that we follow with Mr. Dawson. When you make a violation reference we expect, all the members of the Code Enforcement Board, expect that any documentation, such as 3 the members of the Code Enforcement Board, expect that any documentation, such as pictures, or at least copies, will be presented with the violation so that we can have them • in advance of the hearing. Divan: Thank you sir, we'll pay attention to that in the future. All right, let's take a look at them. (unidentified person in background speaking) ...is that possibly the responsibility of the homeowners to present their pictures also at this time, or at some future time? Reidenberg: That's sort of different. I guess I look at that differently, very frankly. .... (unidentified person speaking again) ...I haven't seen theirs. Reidenberg: Why don't we wait `til ... Let me ask you this - a couple of preliminary questions. How did it come about that you went to the - on December 16 to this residence? Divan: I was requested to go there and take these pictures and present this case to the Code Enforcement Board. Reidenberg: By whom? Divan: By Mr. Kraemer. Reidenberg: Okay. Go ahead. • Divan: I presented myself there and took the pictures on the 16tH Reidenberg: Okay. Divan: I don't know what else you are asking, sir.. . Reidenberg: You. can proceed with what you want to say. Divan: On the 16th I visited the site and observed that the fireproofing was missing from the interior of the fire shaft as stated here in the "to wit" section of the notice. As you can see from the pictures, one side is open you can see rusted metal -you can see the three layers of sheetrock and the three layers of sheetrock composed of fireproofing throughout the shaft. Board member: May I ask a question, please? Did you come directly to the board here, or did you give the owner some kind of notice of violation that he subsequently ignored? Reidenberg: Wait a second, now, hold it. This claim is against Villa Costa Condominium Association, correct? Divan: Yes, sir. Reidenberg: Okay. I think that's a question, okay. • 4 • Saban: Is there a notice of violation on record that usually is tantamount to coming before this board? Divan: Yes there is. Reidenberg: Where is that? Mr. Kraemer? Is that the Claim of Violation that you're passing around? Okay. Saban: And there was no action taken on that notice? Divan: I can't testify to that, I might ask Mr. Kraemer to come up and testify to that, sir. I was not here when that was served. Reidenberg: Where were you? Divan: I was not employed until the beginning of November and some of this occurred prior to my employment here. Reidenberg: I'm looking -- just a second. All that I have is a Claim of Violation which is dated the 4'~ of November, 2008. (whispered comment -December, isn't it?) Excuse me. 4`~ of December. That's right, I'm sorry, November was the notary. 4~' of December, 2008, yau're saying that there was action taken before that? • Divan: Yes, I believe there was. Reidenberg. Do you have copies of those? Just a moment, please. Divan: Mr. Kraemer has taken action prior to my being here. Reidenberg: Gentlemen, one - I guess I want to do it in a logical manner. When you make a presentation I expect that somebody knows the whole situation and one person is going to talk at a time. I don't like this group situation, okay? So, you make it difficult. Are you prepared to proceed today? Divan: Are you asking me? Reidenberg: Yes, Mr. Divan. Who is going to present this on behalf of the building department? Who is going to present this, you or Mr. Kraemex. Divan: Mr. Kraemer is the building department, I am the code enforcement officer, I cited the violation after the building department had given notice and taken certain actions prior to a violation being cited. Then after those actions did not achieve a solution, then I cited a violation to bring in front of the code board in order to achieve a solution. Reidenberg: We'll do it this time, okay, but I would appreciate in the future if one person • knows everything and presents it rather than just back and forth. So, Mr. Divan, let me talk to Mr. Kraemer. Come on up, Mr. Kraemer. [Mtr. Kraemer sworn in] Go ahead, Mr. Kraemer. I believe you were discussing --the question was, something, an action that the building department -okay - I am here as - • the reason why I thought it would be better for Dan Divan to handle the code enforcement is because the building department was taking certain actions prior to the code violation being written. I'm here to represent the building department's actions if that comes into question. What was done by the building department I'm here to represent --what was done by the code enforcement board Dan Divan is here to represent. I'm fully ready to present a case if called into question regarding the building department's actions regarding the Villa Costa Condominium Association penthouse 5. Reidenberg: What Mfr. Sahan asked though -- he asked what action was taken preliminary to the code to determine the necessity of the code violation. Kraemer: Okay, if you would like, I can summarize the building department's actions - Reidenberg: why don't you summarize it, go ahead. Kraemer: And then I' 11 defer to Dan to handle the code enforcement. On August 20, 2008, John W. Rogers, President of Tropix Construction, applied for a permit for the Newill residence at 3210 South Ocean Boulevard, Penthouse 5. The building department record shows that the proposed project consisted of a renovation to a master bath and master closets. There were also new vatuties, mirror, sinks, tub, tile, faucets, closet doors and some demo of shower wall tile, wall board, and a section of walls between the toilet area and the shower. • Reidenberg: What are you reading from, by the way, Mr. Kraemer. Kraemer: I am reading from my notes from the building department record. Reidenberg: Official notes? Kraemer: These are my notes that I did on official time. Reidenberg: All right, go ahead. Kraemer: The engineer of record for the construction plans is Gordon Buck of Buck Engineering Corporation, West Palm Beach. The permit for the aforementioned project was reviewed and issued on 9/5/08 by the building official at the time, Robert Dawson. The permit number assigned to this project is # 25083, issued on 9/5/08. On 9/16/08, a letter was composed by the engineer of record for permit #25083, Gordon F. Buck, Buck Engineering, West Palm Beach, in reference to Villa Costa Condominiums, 3210. At this time, I would like to summarize this letter -it's very important to the case. Reidenberg: What is the date of the letter? Kraemer: September 16, 2008 Reidenberg: And who's it from and who's it to? r1 U 6 • Kraemer: It is from Gordon F. Buck Engineering Corporation, and it references Villa Costa Condominiums, and it was issued as part of the one of the building permits that was requested in town. Reidenberg: Who is it directed to? Kraemer: It is not directed to anyone in particular, it's a letter, it's a reference to his inspection on the job. So, it's referencing Villa Costa Condominium. Reidenberg: Let me take a look at what you're looking at. [unidentified voice from gallery] Mr. Chairman, if I may... Reidenberg: No, you can't. I have exhibits that I think might be helpful to the board that I was going to present at the time that you passed the... Reidenberg: Let me take a look at this, okay? (conversation off record between Reidenberg and board - we gotta have a copy of that anyhow. Why don't you show it to Larry?) Saban: I think we're getting into a lot of detail for this board that probably needs to be • pre-digested by the building official. I don't understand why we need all this testimony. I think the building official ought to be in a position to -because he controls the whole thing -he's got an inspector that works for him -the inspector makes an inspection and finds a violation. The owner is notified of the violation and frequently it's handled at that point, and it never reaches this board. So, apparently it's reaching this board because the notification was ignored in some way, and I believe that sequence ought to be summarized to us to give us the background instead of getting into all this detail right away as to really why we are before this board right now. I still don't really know why you are before this board as opposed to handling it within the building and code enforcement function. [unidentified voice from audience] Mr. Chairman, I am the lawyer representing the contractor and I can summarize what's going on here in two minutes so that you'll all understand and I am aware (unintelligible) that these people have brought a complaint before you so that I can state a position. Reidenberg: Okay. [lawyer in audience speaking again] Basically the shaft was... [another unidentified voice from audience] Mr. Chairman.... Reidenberg: Wait, wait, wait, one at a time.. . .7 7 [same voice again] No, no, because we are the respondents, we are, I am the president of the Villa Costa Condominium, and permitting this man who has no standing in this case . at all to present the facts to you would be very, very unfair and prejudicial. Reidenberg: I didn't say that I'm going to do that, did I? [condo president]: Well, it looked like you were about to, that he was about to start. Reidenberg: Well, don't go by my facial expressions. Gentlemen, please sit down, okay? I, too, am a lawyer, so we're all on the same playing field. Let me do it my way. All right. [voice from gallery speaking] Reidenberg: I'm not confused. [voices speaking in gallery speaking] Reidenberg: Okay, wait. Let me do it my way, okay? As far as I'm concerned, we need to see why we're here in the first instance. I understand there has to be some background Mr. Saban about what we're doing here - I'm trying to discover that. Why don't you make a copy of that letter, please Mr. Kraemer, okay. Kraemer: Basically, I was going to summarize the letter -~it was an inspection by Gordon Buck, would you like me to do that? . Reidenberg: I don't want you to summarize the letter. Okay, that's fine. Kraemer: On September 16, Reidenberg: Is it correct then that nothing was done after the -who did you give the violation notice to or tell about this? Kraemer: I'm at the violation notice. The violation notice was issued on 9/26/08 -and I have a copy of that also. Reidenberg: Who was that directed to? Kraemer: Okay, that was directed to, may I read my statement regarding it? Reidenberg: I just want to know who it was directed to. Kraemer: Okay, well, it was directed to the association, and it was given to Judge Colby, and I - Reidenberg: Let me ask this. NIr. Gorman, since this obviously is a condominium unit, do you have an opinion, I guess we need your opinion as to whether or not since it's a condominium unit whether or not the association was the proper party to be notified? • Corman: I don't have sufficient facts at this point to formulate an opinion as to whether or not this is a portion of the condominium unit which would make it the unit owners' problem, or if it's a common element. From the materials that have been provided, it appears that it's a common element, but I think I need to hear more testimony before I'm prepared to form that opinion. [voices from gallery speaking at once] [board member whispering to Reidenberg that they are out of order]. Reidenberg: Do you want to inquire of Mr. Kraemer so that we can proceed in an orderly manner and we can get the information... Corman: Well, my sense is that Mr. Kraemer wants to explain the factual history of what transpired that resulted in the claim of violation being issued on December 4, and typically it's advantageous for the board to be aware of the factual history because if a decision is made that a fine is necessary, knowing what efforts were made to bring the property into compliance with code before we all came here today, is typically material for the board in reaching some decision on that issue. So, I think Mr. Kraemer's recitation of the facts which led to the issuance of the violation is something that the board may be interested in knowing about so we can decide whether or not the town has provided ample opportunity for the property owner to remedy the problem before it was brought here before us today. I think that's what he's trying to do is to explain factually • how it was brought to the town's attention, what he tried to do to address the issue, and how that apparently didn't result in a resolution which culminated in the issuance of the claim of violation on December 4, and then apparently no action was taken as a result of that, resulting in a notice of hearing on December 17, which brings us here. So, I think the appropriate thing to do is let Mr. Kraemer make his presentation as to his knowledge of pertinent facts, we can then hear from the code inspector who actually issued the violation as to the current condition of the property, and what property is at issue, and then the board can heard from whichever other factual witnesses wish to give testimony regarding the nature of the problem and what steps are being taken to cure it. Reidenberg: Well, let me ask you this, first of all, Mr. Kraemer, before you go. Have either you or Mr. Divan reviewed the condominium association documents? Kraemer: No, sir. Reidenberg: Okay. Go ahead with your history. Kraemer: On September 26, 2008, my first day acting as a building official for the Town of Highland Beach, I was called out for a job check inspection for permit #25083 by the contractor, John W. Rogers, Tropix Construction, because there were concerns over a fire-rated shaft that was no longer fire rated. I proceeded to the aforementioned project at the Villa Costa Condominium, 3210 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Florida, and was met in the parking lot by Lt. James of the Delray Fire Rescue Dept., and Dale Sugerman, the town manager of the city hall. I was escorted to view the ventilation shaft enclosure that had been exposed when the green gypsum board was 9 being replaced by the contractor for the project, permit # 25083, John VV. Rogers of Tropix Construction, as mentioned in the engineer's report. • Reidenberg: Excuse me. Did you say Mr. Sugerman was there, also? Kraemer: Yes, sir. Reidenberg: Did you know he was going to be there? Kraemer: Yes, sir. As mentioned in the engineer's report of September 16, 2008, that the letter that you just looked at summarized that this was being replaced at the time of the inspection. Upon visual inspection I noted a violation of Florida Building Code 2004 707.5 to the shaft enclosure wall adjacent to the green gypsum board removed by Tropics Construction no longer was protected from floor to ceiling affording atwo-hour fire rating on the limited common area of penthouse # 5. Prior to leaving the premises, I then proceeded to the Villa Costa management office and delivered a notice of code violation of Florida Building Code 2004 707.5 to the building management officials. I was escorted to the private unit of the vice president of the association, Judge Colby, whereby Judge Joseph Colby willing accepted the violation. I explained to Judge Colby that the condo association should call me within ten days to verify their progress in obtaining a contractor to do the repairs to the shaft. At this time, I also noted verbally to Judge Colby that an original piece of drywall was missing in the corridor fire-rated wall that the construction demolition had exposed on the tenants' side. This was of concern to everybody. On September 29, 2008, John W. Roberts, the Newills' contractor, delivered • a revision to permit #25083, which consisted of providing repairs of $2,800 to the shaft wall and exhaust duct and repair of the original drywall missing in the corridor wall, as well as the repair to the water-damaged ceiling and a portion of wall, including metal studs. On October 1, 2008, John W. Roberts revised his application, removing the portion of the work that constituted the repairs to correct the September 26, 2008 code violation. Reidenberg: Let me stop you right there. First of all, Mr. Gorman, I guess we need to hear from you, in your professional opinion, I heard what Mr. Kraemer did, but I need your professional legal opinion as to whether or not, without review of the condominium documents, how he was able to make a determination of who was the violator, to determine whether this was a common area or not? Wouldn't that be correct? Carman: You could look at the condominium documents and try to evaluate whether or not from the documents this is identified as a common element as compared to a portion of the unit, but from his description of the nature of the shaft, it sounds on its face like it's a common element. Reidenberg: Could have, would have, should have, should he have reviewed the condominium documents before him, to make a determination as to who is responsible? That's my question to you. 10 • Gorman: Well, I guess the better question is to ask him how he made the decision that it was common property. For example, if a condominium officer acknowledged that it was common property, that would be an admission that he might be able to rely on. Reidenberg: But I'm asking you whether it would have been proper procedure for him to have reviewed the documents to make that determination -the heck with whether he asked somebody, shouldn't he have reviewed the documents or had somebody review the documents and make that determination.? Gorman: It's certainly a step that would be appropriate in connection with his due diligence. Kraemer:. May I say that as a building official and understanding state statutes and condominiums, I understand the difference between common area, limited common area, and the unit owner's responsibility. That's well documented in the state statutes and I understand the difference -- there was no need to for me get involved with condominium association documents. Reidenberg: So, that's your opinion, okay? Mr. Gorman just indicated that it would have been due diligence for you to have done so. Okay? Mr. Gorman represents the code enforcement board. Okay? All right, the question is were you aware of the fact that the condominium documents may be different as far as who's responsible, the association or the homeowner, correct? Kraemer: As a building official we do not get involved with the condominium association rules we deal with state statutes. I made that determination based upon my professional opinion as a building official and my understanding of the state statutes. Reidenberg: You made a determination that this was a common area? Kraemer: Yes, I did, the shaft would have been a common area. The fire-rated wall would- have been a common area and there would have been limited access on the unit owner's side. It is very important in my day-to-day activities when issuing permits to know who is responsible for what element of the condominium based on the fact that we have applications with owner-agents signing for permits. But I will accept the recommendation to look into the association documents if need be and if there is a discrepancy with what I am saying I ... Reidenberg: Don't you think that before you made this violation notice you.. . Kraemer: 1Vo, sir. Reidenberg: You don't? Kraemer: Starts to speak, Reidenberg interrupts: Why not? • Kraemer: Because in the course of our day-to-day activity as building inspectors and building code professionals we do not review condominium association documents... 11 Reidenberg: I understand, but in this particular situation there is the potential of a dispute. Correct? • Kraemer: Yes, sir, there is the potential for a dispute. Reidenberg: It would have been helpful to, do you think, to review the documents and to make a determination as to who was the appropriate person to cite for the violation? Kraemer: I believe state statutes makes it clear whose responsibility it is. Reidenberg: That's not my question. Kraemer: Okay. Reidenberg: Would it have been helpful to you to have reviewed the condominium association documents to make a determination as to who was the appropriate person to correct this problem. Kraemer: I don't think I can answer that unless I reviewed the association documents... Reidenberg: Yeah, you could. The question is would it have been helpful to you to have reviewed the documents to make a determination as to who was responsible for the correction of the violation? Kraemer: It was my opinion that it was limited common area -now as far as determining . the responsibility of the violation, that is not for me to determine that's for the board to determine at this point because... Reidenberg: No; it's not for the board.... Kraemer: ...but as far as the area, the actual structural area.. . Reidenberg:.Mr. Kraemer, I just don't understand - it's a real simple question I'm asking you. Kraemer: Yes, sir. Reidenberg: Would it have been helpful to you to make a determination as to who was the appropriate person to cite for the violation to have reviewed the condominium association documents? That's a simple yes or no. Kraemer: 1Vo, sir. Reidenberg: It wouldn't have been. Kraemer: It is my opinion, and you're asking me a question, no sir. Reidenberg: Okay. You didn't need to do it. . 12 • Kraemer: I did not need to review the association documents to determine whose area was affected by this code violation. Not whose responsibility it was to correct it, but what area was affected by the building violation would not have been found in the condominium association documents that I would be aware of. So that's why I would answer the question no. Reidenberg: Then why did you say before that you were going to review it? Kraemer: If it is a recommendation by an attorney that I should review certain documents, I would be more than happy to make the review process. Reidenberg: Okay, might that possibly influence who potentially should be cited for the violation and the necessity for incurring the expense to correct the problem? Kraemer: Sir, I, at this point this was a code violation, not a code enforcement case -the violation was to common area which would have been controlled by the condominium management association. Reidenberg: Okay -you just heard Mr. Corman not too long ago say and indicate, okay, that due diligence would have been best if you would have reviewed the documents. He is the lawyer. Kraemer: Yes, sir. • Reidenberg: Okay. Do you want to do that before you proceed. Kraemer: No, sir. I' d rather proceed. Reidenberg: Okay. If you don't want to do it before you proceed, that's okay. V~Ie'il go ahead. Kraemer: Thank you. Reidenberg: Mr. Corman, let me ask you this. Just a second. Let me ask you this. Do you think it would be appropriate for Mr. Kraemer and/or Mr. Divan to do that before they proceed? To make a review of the condominium association documents as you had indicated before would have been due diligence? Corman: I think it's appropriate for them to proceed. They are providing the board with bases for their opinion as to why it's a common element - ahh- I'm sure other people may address this issue. At this point we don't know that there's even a dispute as to whether or not it's a common element -the association may acknowledge that, in which case, this is much ado about nothing. In a perfect world if you dot every "i" and cross every "t" you would have double-checked the documents, but he's testified as to why, in his opinion, it's a common element, the board will hear other testimony that the board's concern that the responsibility for curing this problem is unclear, then you don't have to • find that there's a violation today. But he's entitled to proceed, he can present his 13 evidence, explain his opinion, then the board will decide whether there is adequate evidence upon which this board is prepared to act. • Reidenberg: I'm not sure, very frankly, what you mean when you say "in a perfect world he would have reviewed the documents." Was there anything preventing him from doing that? Gorman: Not that I'm aware of, but we're here today - a lot of people are here today - we don't even know that this is a factual issue in dispute, so he's prepared to proceed, he's expressed his opinion that it's a common element, he's explained why he believes it's a common element, Reidenberg: Okay, but you have indicated, though, Mr. Gorman, you yourself said, okay, `in a perfect world' -can you give me your professional opinion, based upon what he has said, as to the fact of whether or not this is a common element or not? Gorman: In my opinion, it's a common element. Reidenberg: Okay, in your profess... Gorman: ...without having reviewed the plans. Typically, a vertical shaft that services many different units in a building is going to be a common element. It's not going to be the responsibility of a single unit owner to take care of that. Reidenberg: Okay. I appreciate that, except that I noticed that you referred to in your petition that there is only one unit, penthouse #5? Kraemer: That is where the violation existed -the location of the violation. Reidenberg: Well, that's what I don't understand, Mr. Gorman, what you were saying if it's a vertical unit, how can it be only one unit that's referred to? Kraemer: I was in penthouse 5 when.. . Reidenberg: Did you look at any other units? Kraemer: No, sir. Reidenberg: Why not? Kraemer: There was no need to -there was an opening there that was, as I said, was when the greenboard was removed, then that opening into the shaft became exposed. That's why I was there in penthouse 5 to view the code violation. Reidenberg: Might this have been a problem from the inception of the construction? Kraemer: The problem that I noticed from the inception of the construction, as I • mentioned, was a piece of drywall that was missing on the corridor wall in the limited space from penthouse 5 from the inside, and it was opinion that it had never been 14 • installed properly, it looked to me like there was a piece of drywall missing, perhaps behind a tub that the original inspector might have missed. Reidenberg: In what unit? Kraemer: That would have been penthouse 5. Reidenberg: Might that have been the problem? Kraemer: Actually, the problem was -- the main problem was the shaft that was completely exposed as the pictures that you have show -- there was -the shaft is supposed to be a four-sided enclosure completely from floor to ceiling protected -one side was completely open, all three layers of drywall were removed, and therefore, it was no longer two-hour rated. Reidenberg: And who had removed them, do you know? Kraemer: Yes, the drywall was, I was not actually there when it was removed, I don't know if there is going to be a dispute over who removed the drywall or not, [voice from audience] .. . Reidenberg: I'm not stipulating to anything, right now... Please, let me deal with him. Go ahead, Mr. Kraemer... • Kraemer: Okay. As I mentioned on October 1, 2008, John W. Roberts revised his application removing the portion of the work that constituted the code violation that was issued on September 26, 2008, and left only in his revision the repair of the water damaged ceiling and a portion of the wall including some metal studs that he had. revised his plan. Originally, the revision requested was acted on and approved by the building department by plan reviewer and signed on October 1, 2008. On October 8, 2008, the building department received an application for the portion of the work that constitutes the repairs to correct the September 26, 2008 code violation at the Villa Costa Condominium, limited access common area, penthouse 5. The scope of this proposed project consisted of repairs to drywall of the two-hour fire rated ventilation shaft and the one-hour rated corridor wall, as well as the recommended engineer repairs to the surface rust area of the metal duct work inside the shaft. This contract was entered into between Other Brothers Drywall Incorporated and Villa Costa Condominium Association per the application. This application was acted on and approved by the building department on October 14, 2008, and issued to Other Brothers Drywall Incorporated, and this permit number was 25195. On October 22, 2008, the building department received a letter regarding the Newill residence penthouse 5, submitted by George D. Kneeves, President of Other Brothers Drywall, Inc. dated October 22, 2008. Kneeves requested to withdraw his pernut for the repairs to correct the September 26, 2008 code violations to the limited common area of penthouse 5. On October 22, 2008, permit #25195 to do the repairs to penthouse 5 that constituted the condominium association repairs was withdrawn. Since • October 22, 2008, I have been in contact with the condominium association management, and was informed by Judge Joseph Colby of attempts to negotiate a contract with John W. Rogers of Tropix Construction, and subsequently was informed of their intention of 15 getting Gregory Kneeves to reactivate permit #25195. It should also be noted that permit • #25083, the original permit for the bathroom and closet filed by Tropix Construction Incorporated, has remained active and has been inspected up to drywall screw, with the exception of the area of the limited common area of the code violation. At this point, I would like to direct our attention back to Dan Divan, who is acting as the code officer... Reidenberg: Okay, that's fine... Kraemer: ...regarding the case 20Q8.... Reidenberg: Where is Mr. Divan? Ilene. Okay. Divan: Yes, sir, how can I help you? Reidenberg: Go ahead. You can pick up where he left off. Divan: Okay. We have a reasonable history or reasonable understanding of what transpired, and on the 16th of December, I went over and took a picture of the violation as it existed at that date, and to my knowledge it still exists today. Reidenberg: Okay. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman? Unidentified Board Member: I've got a chronology question. Are the requisite - do we know that the requisite time periods for response to notifications has passed? Can I kind • of get that chronology that brings us to this board as opposed to it being handled in the code enforcement or building departments? Divan: I don't understand your question, sir. Would you clarify for me, please? Unidentified Board Member: My question relates to the date of the notice that was given, the number of days they had to correct it, and a statement to you that those days have passed without any action which left you with no choice but to come to this board. Divan: I can only answer that by referring to Mr. Kraemer's previous chronology of what transpired, and the fact that nothing had been accomplished. Reidenberg:: When did he direct, when did Mr. Kraemer direct that you go to take a look at this unit? Divan: I believe it was November the 4th. Reidenberg: What do your records show? Divan: I didn't bring records for that date, sir. Reidenberg: Why not? Divan: silence... 16 • Reidenberg: Mr. Divan, okay, you may not like me, I don't care -that's not the question. The question, sir, is this. When you come before this board at any time in the future, I would appreciate it if you would come prepared with all your records regarding the particular situation we're talking about. Makes it real difficult if you don't have them. Do the best of your recollection, when in December -what caused you to go in December? Divan: Excuse me? Reidenberg: What caused you to go in December again? Divan: I was directed to go out there and see if the violation still existed. Reidenberg: By whom? Divan: Mr. Kraemer because it was an ongoing situation we were trying to resolve. Reidenberg: Was it December 16th that you were directed to do that also? Before December 16`h~ Divan: Yes, sir. On December the 4cn Reidenberg: December the 4~' you went, as well? • Divan: Yes, sir. Reidenberg: How do your recall that? Divan: Approximately the beginning of the month. Reidenberg: Approximately the beginning of the month? Do your records reflect that? Do you have records that show these things? Divan: Not here, sir. Reidenberg: Not here. Where are they? Divan: They would be in the building department, sir. Reidenberg: Okay. As I said, in the future, please bring whatever records you have that confirm what you're saying. Okay? Divan: Thank you. Sahan: As I sit here, I don't know that all of the legal steps have been taken prerequisite to this case being made to this particular body. May I have an opinion of counsel on that? Do you feel that we know yet that this issue is properly before us at this time? 17 Gorman: It seems like this has been the subject of discussion with the association for • several months. We've had other cases where the building officials have attempted to get property owners to remedy problems prior to nssumg notices of violation. A notice of violation was in fact, issued. A claim of violation was issued on December 4, and adequate notice was given as to this hearing being conducted today on the 21St such that due process has been complied with. If you are questioning should they have given the association additional time prior to having a hearing before the board, I guess I would note that there is a statement in our procedures and in both the state statute and the town code, the section that governs the town code enforcement procedures, that if there's an emergency situation, the code enforcement officer has the discretion to schedule a hearing without giving further time to the property owner to cure the violation, and if there's a fire safety wall that's supposed to be in place that's missing, that would be considered to be a safety hazard that would create an emergency situation justifying a hearing within the time frame, as reflected by the claim of violation and the hearing that's scheduled before us today. So it appears to me that due process has been complied with. Sahan:: Thank you. Reidenberg: Wait, wait, wait, wait. I guess I have a problem with something that started back in September now, all of a sudden, becoming an emergency as of December, Mr. Gorman. I appreciate what you're saying, but if it started on September 4, or August 20th, as I have it, the first time the permit was pulled to deal with this, then September 5, 2008, 1VIr. Dawson issued a permit, three months later, doesn't seem to be an emergency situation to me that they should - if that was the case, I am confident 1VIr. Dawson would • have acted upon it sooner. Gorman: Well, based on Il~r. Kraemer's testimony, the association has been on notice of this issue for a few months, and they are aware that they are in violation of code, and I think most experts would say that the lack of a fire wall is an emergency situation because if there is a fire in the building, the fire will spread much more rapidly if the fire wall isn't in place, and that's why fire walls are typically code required to provide safety to the residents, whether it's a building or a commercial structure. So, the fact that the association has been given all this time to deal with something that, in the opinion of most experts would constitute alife-safety issue, it's up to the board to decide to whether or not they've had adequate time to respond or not, but fire safety walls typically deemed important.. . Reidenberg: interrupting Gorman - I disagree with you. I~r. Sahan asked you a question. It's not up to the board to decide that. Mr. Sahan asked, you, and I think is entitled to an answer, the question from you, is to whether or not, in your professional opinion, that all the necessary time restrictions, requirements, as well as the due diligence regarding the review of the condominium association, have been complied with, that this is properly before the board at this time. Gorman: 1 have expressed my opinion that I think it is. n 18 • Reidenberg: Okay. (responding to someone in audience) ...that's not the way we do it. Okay. Anything else you want to say, Mr. Divan? Divan: No, sir. Reidenberg: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on this? Unidentified speakers from audience: On behalf of the.... Reidenberg: One at a time. Unidentified speakers from audience: There is a violation that has been posted against the Villa Costa Condominium Association and we are the respondents... Reidenberg: Interrupts speaker in audience. First I'm dealing with -okay, who wants to speak in support of the claim, anybody want to speak in support of the claim of violation? You want to speak in support of the claim? Okay. Go ahead. i know, he's going to have to wait. Unidentified speaker in audience: Thank you for letting me speak. ...he's a lawyer (laughter) [swearing in of speaker] Reidenberg: Let me tell you this. Anybody that's a lawyer that appears before this board . while I am the chairman that lies, I will report them myself to the-Board of Professional Responsibility. Trust me, I will do that. Okay? Clerk: Please state your name: Lawrence Chandler: The genesis of this whole problem, is up on the top of this association there is -interrupted by audience member. I want to state my objection on the record so that you understand that you have presented a case on behalf of the Town of Highland Beach against the Villa Costa Condominium Association... Reidenberg: I haven't presented anything... Unidentified speaker: The building department has on this violation -it's on your calendar. We are not being given an opportunity... Reidenberg: Wait, wait, wait a second. I asked anybody in support of, I said anybody speaking in support of the violation. Okay. Chandler: Thank you, sir. There are two things going on... Reidenberg: Let me stop you. The respondents will have as much time as they want to respond, and clearly as much time as the petitioners had. Chandler: There. are two serious, very life-threatening problems going on. We have already heard the city attorney [interrupting from audience] ...these are highly prejudicial remarks that have nothing to do with this hearing, it is very prejudicial, very unfair to the 19 respondent, the ~Iilla Costa Condominium Association. This counselor should not be • permitted to make any statements in regard to that. I have the defense to this - I have the facts that this board will need to make a determination. Counsel can come back on behalf.. . Reidenberg: interrupting unidentified speaker: ®kay, he can say -you know what - I'm going to let you say whatever you want to because you're a lawyer, too, at the same time after he's done. Chandler: As the city attorney just commented to the board that, in his opinion professionally, this was a hazardous safety issue because of the fire retardant incapabilities of the building. Reidenberg: I don't think Mr. Gorman said that - I think that based upon, he said, that's qualified, based upon what he's heard. Is that right, Mr. Gorman? He can't given an opinion.. . Chandler: It's always an emergency when you have a fire that can kill people and spread death. Gorman: I can't give an opinion as to whether the fire safety wall is there or not, I have to rely upon the report of the witnesses as will this board. If, in fact, there is no fire wall in place, in my opinion that would create a safety hazard. Reidenberg: That's not your professional opinion? Gorman: In my professional opinion and my familiarity with construction standards, it is. Board member: As a point of order, I was wondering if you could identify your posture in this case before you give your facts. Chandler: I'm representing Mayor Newill and his wife for free, and also Tropix Construction, Mr. John Rogers, for free, and I'm an attorney at law in the State of Florida. And that give me standing to represent people. Board member: And what is their posture in this case? Chandler: Well, the victims of the apartment... Reidenberg: Wait, wait, can you. give me the correct spelling of your name? Chandler: Mr. Newill - Reidenberg: Your name: Chandler: Doesn't spell - repronounces his name: LAWRENCE CHANDLER. Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. # 1: Mr. and Mrs. Newill can barely live in their condominium because it's under construction half way that got stopped because of the 20 . problems with the common wall that we've been hearing a little bit about. #2: The construction company whose been paid and is expected to finish the job wants to finish the job and move on with his business. #3: He cannot do it because the common wall is a problem and he is not authorized under his contractor's license to mess with the common facilities, that's the problem of the association. The reason that there is a problem is because when Mr. Rogers, under his contract, went into this bathroom and took out the tile, the common wall and elements around it started falling down on him because it was water rotten and full of black mold. Mold, may I remind you, is one of the six most deadly elements to man, anthrax, mold, especially aspergillus, uranium, plutonium, and two others. Reidenberg: Let me stop you right there. It sounds to me, very frankly, let me ask you this, why didn't you -- I would assume that this is a safety, danger, hazard, to whomever's unit it is - and I don't care whose unit it is -would that be a fair statement? Chandler: In fairness to them, I don't... Reidenberg: Is that correct? Chandler: I didn't understand it, but... Reidenberg: What you said that it was a dangerous situation to health and safety, so on and so on... • Chandler: And ought to be reported to... Reidenberg: Why haven't you gone into court? Chandler: Well we will sir, that's the next step -and if Palm >3each County.. . Reidenberg: Why not do that now, before this? Chandler: The underlying problem is that they can't fix it because they would just be covering up a deadly problem. Reidenberg: This would appear to be a situation, very frankly, which is more proper before a circuit court of Florida rather than a code enforcement board, all that we could ever do, under any circumstances, is fine somebody, whoever it is, whether it's the unit owner, the association, I don't know who it is -this appears to me, gentlemen, other members of the panel, that this would be an action that should have been taken to circuit court.. Unidentified Board member: Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, that's where it should be, in my opinion... Chandler: It's a code violation that can't go away 21 Reidenberg: You have a dangerous and health emergency situation that everybody's • acknowledged here, and we're not going to be able to resolve that here. Chandler: It's a code violation of dangerous proportions that will not go away until the condominium association takes the proper steps to cure the underlying problem, which started with the leaky roof 17 years ago... Reidenberg: Okay, well that's what I'm saying, all this stuff is irrelevant to me, very frankly, and is an issue, and is it correct, Mr. Gorman, I believe that there is provision in the town code that provides that matters such as this can be handled by the circuit court. In fact, I think it's Section 2.98 of the town, of the Code Enforcement Board specific code provisions, subsection (b) which provides that the code enforcement officer may, in his discretion, refer violations of this code to the court having jurisdiction in the county. It would appear to me.. . Chandler: I didn't think this code enforcement board would want to do nothing when there is a 98-day violation going on that they're doing absolutely nothing about which... Reidenberg: I would think that you're going to get action, very frankly, from a circuit court judge with a restraining order of some sort or writ, of some sort, very frankly, than you are going to get from us. Because the most that we can ever do, as I told you, is to impose a fine, then whoever it is, they don't have to pay it, so your violation, if there is one, could continue for ad infinitum. We've had situations that have gone on for long periods of time where people haven't paid their violations -that would appear to me, in • my opinion, to be the appropriate place and forum where this should be handled, and I am sure that a circuit court judge would give you a much more expeditious hearing and resolution than we can ever will. I mean, all we can do... Chandler: You are delegating common citizens, who may or may not be living on social security, to thousands and thousands of dollars of legal fees in circuit court which is a very slow, laborious process, which I've been involved in for 40 years, when here we are in front of a code enforcement board, with them admitting, and we admitting, that it is a common element, him saying that it's dangerous for fire, my telling you that it's dangerous for mold because it's all over the place, so that... Reidenberg: What you're telling me it's -you're not an expert on mold... Chandler: I'm a little bit of an expert on mold, I don't have a Ph.I?. in it... Reidenberg: You're not an expert on mold -you and I know that -and you can't testify as to the validity of mold and we're not in the position to make that determination, but all these thing being said, this still appears, you have already indicated, Mr. Chandler, this is a situation that you said you're doing pro bond, I don't know why, and I it doesn't make any difference to me, pretty frankly... Chandler: All right, if half the building were falling down, you could also send us to circuit court and not make them rebuild it. 22 • Reidenberg: Let me assure you, I would believe, okay, if half the building was falling down, somebody damn well better go into the circuit court and not come to the code enforcement board because they're not going to get that kind of fast action, okay, that's what courts are for, you and I know that. Chandler: Enforcement has a right to shut a building down. Reidenberg: Pardon me. Chandler: It's just like OSIIA, they can go in and close aproperty -when there's safety involved.. . Reidenberg: We don't -you're wrong - we don't, no, we don't --no.... All we have the ability to do is to assess fines. Isn't that right, Mr. Corman? Corman: We have the power to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to impose fines and then to take legal action to reduce the fines to a monetary judgment. Reidenberg: Right. Chandler: I would also add, since you said you've studied law, that until we exhaust our administrative remedies, which is right here in this room, we have no business in circuit court. • Reidenberg: No, I don't agree with you. Let me ask you this, Mr. Kraemer, can you tell me why this wasn't referred to circuit court instead of this procedure? Kraemer: No sir. Chandler: Okay, I would like it on the record that I have tried to exhaust my administrative remedies and apparently am going to be denied that even though the claim being made... Reidenberg: You're not being denied anything. I'm just telling you, okay, as Mr. Corman just said, all we can do, at best, even assuming everything you say is correct, Chandler: Then I want that result so that it will be a positive administrative finding that it admissible in circuit court as a piece of evidence, just like an appellate court ... Reidenberg: Then, very frankly, okay, we're going to have to have a full hearing, okay, where there is going to be testimony and we're going to have to have witnesses, so forth and so on... Chandler: Okay, we can schedule that for another day, I'il come anytime... Reidenberg: Okay, well, let me, that's something we're going to have to discuss • Resnick: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'm just a simple citizen, not a lawyer, a member of this board, and we have a report of violation from the code enforcement board, and I 23 think it's appropriate that we hear it, and we take action on it if we find that there is a violation, unless Mr. Corman tells me otherwise that we cannot f nd, you know, if action • is not taken, we set a penalty as we have on all other cases. Reidenberg: This appears to be a little more complicated than the cases we have... Resnick: Sure, it's complicated, but again, I'm just a simple citizen and I would take the action that this board is empowered to take... Reidenberg: Yes, sir [acknowledging member to speak] I~eLiberto: I think one of the problems here is [discussion of microphone issue). ®kay, it's a mold problem here, evidently, and I think now it becomes something which - maybe the department of health should get involved in this to inspect it. If it is a serious mold problem, it must be corrected. Now there are engineering firms here in Florida that specialize in mold investigations. ®ne of them, by either party, should be contacted and this should be investigated, and if a mold problem does exist, it needs immediate attention: What happens is, in the event that one of the parties becomes sick as a result of this, it opens up a lawsuit... Reidenberg: That's why I'm suggesting... Chandler: She has that already She has been sick for 7 years and after 1VIr. Rogers's quick improvements, which he was licensed to do a mold removal, she has been getting immediately better. • Reidenberg: Wait, wait, wait a second now, hold it. Chandler: And we have doctors that will testify to that. Reidenberg. Who do you represent? Ii~Yr. Rogers? Chandler: The two people sitting over there in the second row. Holds your hands up please, Mr. Rogers and M[s. Newill. Reidenberg: 1VIr. Rogers is the contractor? Chandler: He is the contractor that stopped work when he hit the common wall, and the common wall starting falling down on him, covered him... Reidenberg: I'll tell you, N1r. Chandler, I think you're -- this is just my professional opinion, I think you're -you have a little problem here, very frankly, in my opinion, okay, I think that you're best served to represent one of the other. I don't think you can represent both. I really don't think that you can. Chandler: They don't have a dispute between them, they're in complete agreement. I'm allowed to have a waiver... . 24 • Reidenberg: I don't think that it makes any difference whether or not they have a dispute.. . Chandler: I'll write to the Florida 800 number, but I'm pretty sure of my position. Reidenberg: I don't think that you're right. Chandler: That's an ethical question, that sir, with all due respect, I'll worry about that. Reidenberg: No, I'll worry about it too. Chandler: I'm a lawyer for 40 years and haven't had a problem in 40 years. Reidenberg: Notwithstanding, Iworry about that, too. I have a real problem with that. don't know, very frankly, I see a potential conflict between these two parties. Chandler: I'm trying to save lives, not worry about my license. Reidenberg: Then why don't you go to court? Chandler:, We will, but, we have a job to do to get an administrative ruling... Reidenberg: You don't have to come here to make the determination to go to court. disagree with you. Sorry, I don't agree with you, you don't have to do that, in my opinion. Chandler: Well, in your opinion... Reidenberg: Let me ask you this, Mr. Gorman. Would it be correct, in your opinion, that they don't have to have an administrative hearing before they go into circuit court for the relief-kind of relief that they're talking about - with a dangerous emergency situation. They don't have to come here to the code enforcement board first, do they? Gorman: In my opinion, they could proceed directly to circuit court, if that's their decision. Chandler: That's an option. We can also exhaust our administrative remedies in a much more economical fashion. Nobody is forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to circuit court when they have local boards that are designed to remedy and fix these things, levy fines and stop work and do whatever they have to do. Reidenberg: But all we can do is levy fines. Even if we levied a fine, that doesn't mean the works going to get done. A judge can order somebody to do the work, not us. Chandler: I would like a record of sworn testimony by people like the person here that calls himself judge, of what he has said and done about this case.. . • Unidentified voice from audience: I don't call myself judge -I've been referred to as judge because I'm a retired superior court judge... 25 Chandler: I know what you are - 667udge": and I did not refer to myself as a judge. Reidenberg: And I don't care, he's a lawyer, too, or he has been a lawyer, whatever, okay, you're a lawyer, too, I have some concerns, gentlemen. ®ne, whether or not Mr. Chandler, Mr. Chandler, this is just my personal opinion, okay, I think you are best served to represent only one of these parties. That's my opinion. Two: I think for the sake of expediency, because at best here in this board, all you're going to get, and I can tell you this, al] we can do, as Mr. Corman says, is get a money judgment and, you know, against somebody, and I'm not sure who, at best, but that's not going to get you any findings here that are going to be specific in terms of what you need. You're going to have to start all over again. So, to expedite the situation. Chandler: Let me give you one example, Reidenberg: CTo ahead... Chandler: If I can interrupt you... This code enforcement board can contact Paim Beach County as this gentlemen was suggesting, get code and zoning, Reidenberg: So can you... Sorry, it's not our job to do that. • Chandler: When I retain an expert he looks tainted because I hired him. When this counsel gets somebody to come look, then he has the imprimatur of the state behind him. i Reidenberg: That's something you should have discussed with Mr. Kraemer and Mr. Divan, very frankly, and/or the town manager, cause they're also supposed to be handling this. Chandler: I had one hour to prepare for this hearing. Reidenberg: Okay. Sahan: I've got one other question. Mold remediation has already been discussed. I guess this is a question of the building official, Mr. Kraemer. Is mold remediation a part of the permit that's in question, here? Kraemer: [off mic and difficult to hear answer] The engineer stated that there was no black mold found [cannot hear rest of remark] Sahan: So, in your opinion, this work can be completed without a mold remediation? Kraemer: I would have to defer to the expert engineer, and I don't know if he's an expert in mold, but as far as Buck Engineering building department [cannot hear part of remark] ... board of health of West Palm Beach stated that there was no black mold... . 26 . Reidenberg: Okay. Board member: What are the colors of mold? Chandler: starts to speak... Reidenberg: [more than one person speaking] Wait, wait, Mr. Chandler look, you can't become a witness at the same time. Chandler: I'm under oath. I want you to know, too, that it was removed by Mr. Rogers. It's spoliation of evidence if you want to take it that way. Reidenberg: Be that as it may, okay, to begin, this is what we're talking about, this is what I'm talking about when I say, Mr. Kraemer, we have, Mr. Kraemer says we have no mold, you say we have mold, okay, these are issues that this board is not in a position to make a determination regarding. Okay, at this point in time, as to whether, how it was created, also. This appears to be more of an appropriate situation, okay, Chandler: One other problem. Reidenberg: Yeah... Chandler: That's not being addressed. This shaft goes all the way through the building, the water doesn't stop on the second floor, it goes all the way to the bottom. Every apartment has mold and has the walls falling out and my going to circuit court won't help the other 9 floors. This board can help the other 9... Reidenberg: I disagree with what you're saying. You know that. You can have those people joined as interested parties, you know that. So, we both know that, okay, that's not true. In fact, that, very frankly, is, would appear to be the appropriate situation based upon even what you just said. Chandler: It could be done that way if enough money and enough people were interested and understood the gravity of the problem which this gentleman does, which this gentlemen over here, I think, does... Reidenberg: Why haven't you reported it to the board of health? Chandler: I'm surprised that it hasn't been reported to the board of health... Reidenberg: Wait, wait, wait, why haven't you? Chandler: 8:30 this morning they weren't open when I first heard about this case. Reidenberg: One would think, very frankly, that if this was such an emergency, life- threatening situation, that you would have been consulted before 8:30 in the morning the • day of the hearing? Chandler: The other attorney is totally unavailable for reasons that I won't go into. 27 Reidenberg: ®kay, well, be that as it may, okay, at this point in time, Mr. Resnick.. . Resnick: No, I'm waiting for you to finish... • Reidenberg: CTo ahead, Frank... Colarullo: If you have a problem with the mold, and you cannot do anything unless you address that fact. Reidenberg: I'm sorry, what? Colarullo: Unless you address the mold, no construction can be done. Reidenberg: According to Mr., Buck Engineering, there is no mold. Colarullo: That's why we have to have an expert. Reidenberg: I understand that. That's why this would appear not to be... Chandler: May I show these pictures? Reidenberg: It's not going to make any difference to me, Mr. Chandler, at ali. Chandler: It's (possibly technical name for mold) mold... Reidenberg: You know what, it's not going to make any difference to me, Mr. Chandler, at all. Judges have to make those kinds of decisions, not code enforcement board at this point in time, because that's not even referred to here, and as Mr. Kraemer indicated, based upon what he had, there is no mold. That would appear, I wouldn't disagree, based upon the limited knowledge I have about mold, that something that should be addressed. Seriously, fast. Not since September, okay? And certainly not, as I said, I'm not sure why you want this relief? Us potentially giving somebody a violation.. . Chandler: I want the code enforcement board to direct these gentlemen that just testified to contact the Palm Beach County Health Department... Reidenberg: We don't have any authority over them, at all. That's Mr. Sugerman's position, he has the responsibility to do that, not the code enforcement board. We can't tell them what to do about anything. All we can do is fine people, that's all. We can ask them to bring what they're supposed to bring to the hearing, but Mr. Sugerman is the town administrator -he's the only one that can make that determination. That's what my understanding is... Chandler: Well, in appellate court terminology, and I've been in appellate courts for 40 years also, when you build a record, and you establish the foundation, you start at town counsel, at the lowest possible level, trying to seek a cure, and you work your way up through the system as far as you must in order to see that justice is done. • Reidenberg: No -1 didn't say that... have you... 2g Chandler: I didn't come here to this... Reidenberg: Have you gone to Mr. Superman's office? Chandler: I don't know who Mr. Superman is. Reidenberg: He's the town manager. Have you gone through the town manager to try and resolve this issue and ask him to... Chandler: Yes, we have. Reidenberg: You've asked them to contact the state and the department of health? Chandler: What are we asking? Do you want hear from the contractor to answer that question? I'm under oath -- I don't know the answer? He could tell you briefly... Reidenberg: ®kay. I'm asking you, has the department of health been contacted, or have you contacted Mr. Superman to ask him whether or not he contacted the department of health? Chandler: I haven't turned on my phone since I walked in this building at 8:34. I have done nothing. So I would have to defer to him... Reidenberg: Why don't you ask him and then you can come back and tell me. • Chandler: They've talked to him a couple of times -they have not sent anybody out - this problem seems to be somewhat... Reidenberg: Contacted who several times? Chandler: Superman, and they seem to be reluctant to touch this project. It's a pretty vast project. It's mold from top to bottom. Resnick: Mr. Chairman, we have testimony, whether it's credible or not, that there is a mold issue involved here. And I don't think whether there's mold or not can be decided today at this hearing (Reidenberg: that's for sure) and if mold is an issue, and I agree that if it is that it has probably spread to the other apartments as well, I don't think that any determination that we make here today would be valid in that situation without addressing the overall, and therefore, I think that an appearance before this board today is premature in that there is no relief that we can grant. Reidenberg: And you're saying that Mr. Superman wouldn't address this? Is that what your contractor is saying? Chandler: Say that again? • Reidenberg: Mr. Suget~rrian would not address this and deal with this? Chandler: IVot so far, we've been talking about this since August. 29 Reidenberg: Since August with 1VVIr. Sugerman. Resnick: That's why I'm saying, Ii/ir. Chairman, again, my suggestion is... Chandler: I came here not to advocate so strongly, I came here in support of the code violators who found these codes and which are not being enforced. So, you said, "does anybody want to speak on their behalf," they were divided in their responsibilities, and I happen to know the whole story.. . Reidenberg: Okay, I guess that based upon -voices in audience -okay wait, I'm not sure, okay, wait... Okay wait. Don't - I guess we go back to the situation, gentlemen, that I said before, this would appear to be a situation which is well -you know -needs to be handled by a court, rather than. the code enforcement board, and I would again recommend, and it's preliminary, and as you say, okay, these are issues that should be dealt with. Option is a district court judge if you can convince a district court judge or circuit court judge to tell NIr. Sugerman to do something that he would abide by that... Chandler: What the chairman is saying - may I have, is there a possibility that I can have a tape or a transcript of my attempt to incur administrative relief? This is recorded, I assume? Reidenberg: It's recorded. Ali you have to do is tell them that, you know, that I'm sure, it's on the -it's - I don't... Chandler: administrative hearings office... Reidenberg: Hold it. Wait a second now. You're attempting - I said, you're attempting to obtain administrative relief. I didn't see how you attempted to obtain adminstrative relief. I don't get that. Chandler: Yes, sir. I want to hold a hearing and have witnesses testify under oath so that this enforcement panel can see what is really going on. And if that's not going to happen, then I would like... Reidenberg: Well, first of all, the only person who can do this, that can bring a vi®lation is the code enforcement officer. All right? IIe's presented it - I asked you if you wanted to speak in support of it so we can get some more background. Okay? But it would still appear to me - and I hope my other members agree now -that this is a matter that is more properly before a court rather than the code enforcement board? Mr. Resnick: Resnick: IVIr. Chairman, I would disagree with you slightly on that only because I think our job here is to only act on the claim of violation that's in front of us -the claim of violation only speaks to replacing the wall in the shaft. • Reidenberg: Yeah, but you're talking about a situation, pretty frankly, whereby, there is a claim of mold, there is not a claim of mold, it would appear to me that we would be derelict in our duty if we force somebody to put up, to impose a fine and then there was a, • 3d they put up a wall, then it had to be torn down because there was mold. That would be derelict. Chandler: I agree with the chairman, and that's not what I seek. I just seek, I recognize that the ruling is basically that I have a better forum somewhere else. I'm only requesting now, that since I see no court reporter, that there be some means that I could show circuit judge Edward Rogers, that I did exhaust my administrative remedies and they ruled that my remedies lay at a higher level, and that therefore, I did everything... Reidenberg: We haven't ruled anything yet, okay? We have to take a vote on that, assuming that we're even going to take a vote on that. Resnick: In answer to his question, though, Mr. Chairman, this proceeding is recorded, and is on public television and you can record it off of, if you have a DVR you can very easily get a copy of it. Chandler: And I've spoken on behalf, when you said were there any comment on behalf of the violations, I've spoken on behalf of that, [Reidenberg: I understand that] and more importantly, I, hold on a moment -I've spoken on behalf of that, and I think that afull- blown hearing is necessary, but you agree with me, I guess, or you've talked me into it, that this is not the panel of people with whom should be hearing experts about mold. I also agree with one of these gentlemen who said there is absolutely no economy to be gained by hiding this stuff by plastering it up and hiding it. That would be crazy. That • would be the craziest thing to do. Reidenberg: That's what I said. Chandler: Okay, and I agree with that. Reidenberg: I knew we'd agree on something. Really, that's what I think... Chandler: And you can't fix the common wall until you fix the mold. Reidenberg: That's what Isaid -it's got so many issues, and as I said, with our only ability is to, as you've been told, impose a fine. Chandler: And we don't want a fine because, gosh, I represent a lady maybe incorrectly, that would be paying the fine, too, and she's harmless. Resnick: ~'es. I agree. As far as administrative remedy, the remedy here in this case, as suggested by the chairman, is by our code enforcement department come to us and a fine is assessed that goes to the town, and so, really, the remedy may exist, but it's not a remedy to any private individual, it's a remedy to the town, this particular board, and so, we are really not meant to hear you other than as a witness, rather than as a claimant, you're really not a claimant, you're a witness. The claimant is really the building official. Reidenberg: Right, and he presented his case, and I was the only one who said was anybody in support. But I'm not presenting it on behalf of the town, but the code 31 enforcement officers presented what they presented, and very frankly, with regard, there was no issue about mold, you raised the mold issue and that raises, in my mind, I think, we would be totally derelict in our duty by dealing with this and not suggesting that you contact the health department and whoever else that you have to if they think you should, now that you're hired, and dealing with this, and I'm sure, Chandler:...and I'd point out that if this public building was a mold issue question or the violation question, I would be the wrong person to be here in support of the code enforcement. They are out there enforcing private things, condominiums and apartment buildings, homes and things like that.. . Reidenberg: Xou know, we have an issue because of the fact that as I said, we have a conflict as far as who's reading the code, who's reading the assoc. documents...anybody want to make a motion?... Sahan: I'll move to table this issue pending further resolution by staff. Board member: Personally I would object to that - we have a report of violation... Reidenberg: Do I have a second to that? Board member: I won't second that, no. Reidenberg: Do you want to second that? Colarullo: I would like to go further on this, I don't... • Reidenberg: Well, the only problem is if I say we're going to go further then we're going to have to have a full hearing, and if you are prepared to start it today and keep on going, that's fine with me, but I'm not going to do it on the basis of half an hour, or an hour, and as I said, with the complexity of these issues, hoard Member: Why don't we hear from the condominium board president that's sitting here in the audience and see what he has to say about it all. Reidenberg: All right. Not a problem for me - do you have a problem with that? Sahan: In view of a determination, we're not necessarily determining it the way you and I are saying, so I guess it's relevant to hear hire. Reidenberg: Do you want to withdraw your motion at this time? Sahan:: I'll withdraw it, yes. Reidenberg: ®kay. des, sir: Joseph Colby: I will be referring to a great number of documents, including the Buck • Engineering report, [dialogue not clear]... board member suggests recess at this point... 32 • Reidenberg: We're going to take a recess until 11:15... Reidenberg: Reconvening meeting: Not everybody knows that during the break Mr. Sugerman approached me and said to me that he has been raising his hand and I didn't recognize him. The reason being that I have been a following procedure that I understand that the town commission follows also not to recognize people, so forth and so on, but he did indicate to me that he wants to speak in support of it, but I told him that I'm still going to take you, I'm sorry, what is your name, sir? Joseph Colby. Mr. Colby, before you get started, let me just ask you this question. Would you, I know you represent the opposite side. Colby: I'm the acting president of the Villa Costa Condominium. We're the respondents. Reidenberg: Would you have any - do you have any problem with this matter properly being held in circuit court? Colby: It probably will end up there, and when you hear my remarks, you'll understand why. Reidenberg: I'm saying that without delaying or belaboring the point, would you have • any problem if we voted to table this situation... Colby: Yes. Reidenberg: Then you could end up... Colby: There would be a problem. There would be a problem because there are facts that have to go on the record particularly after.. . Reidenberg: You wouldn't have any objection if we tabled it and you went to court, then? Colby: I would have such an objection to your tabling it at this point. Reidenberg: Because? Colby: Because statements have been entered on the record that have to be refuted. Reidenberg: You could do that in circuit court. Colby: Right here on this record. That's the problem. And statements have been made on television to the residents of this town that may or may not be accurate and you've got to get the facts before you table anything because you permitted this attorney to speak. • Reidenberg: I understand that. I'm going to permit you to do it. I'm saying though, if you're saying that it's going to go to court anyhow, more than Likely, 33 Colby: Counsel for the, I don't know what they are, the resident, the mayor and his wife • and their contractor, he indicated that it's going to court, so I assume it will go there eventually. Reidenberg: Okay. I don't care who it is, very frankly, all I'm concerned about is whether or not there is a violation and who is the proper person to be cited. Colby: That's why I want to give you some testimony. Reidenberg: You want to give me some testimony. ®kay. So you want to contradict what - so you believe there is some issue as far as whether or not the proper person was cited? Colby: Yes. Reidenberg: You have evidence that would refute that? Colby: I believe we do. Once you hear it, you' 11 make that determination. Reidenberg: ®kay. Gentlemen, do you want to do that, or does anybody want to bring in other motions? Sahara: I did have that motion to table, Reidenberg: Do you want to renew it? • Sahara: I would like to renew that motion just on the grounds that I don't think we're here as a pure fact-finding - I feel as if that unless we can provide a remedy today, or at least in due course, that we're not here just to... Unidentified voices from audience speaking off mic. Reidenberg: Go ahead, Mr. Sahara. Sahara: Yes. I made my own determination that there is credible testimony to the effect that putting - I call this band aid on this opening, which is really all that we have the power to require, and then we could fine people for not closing this fire partition, that may be contrary to people's health, and I would not want to be in that kind of a position without further testimony, Colby: Mr. Chairman, just as a point, what evidence have you received to the contrary? Reidenberg: Let him finish. Let him finish. Colby: Okay. Sahan: And to that end, I'm feeling that there is no remedy that we, as this particular • board can do, and as a predicate towards a court action, I'm not sure that that's our function here either. ®ur function is to respond to filings made by the building ®fficial, 34 • and I have doubts whether that filing is -will solve the problem in such a way as to shield us from liability, or at least moral culpability, and to that end, I would like to table this and have these issues further resolved. Colby: R/Ir. Chairman: Reidenberg: Wait just a second. Is there a second on the motion? Board member: I agree with you on that, but I still would like to hear the report. Reidenberg: Okay. Go ahead Ivlr. DeLiberto. DeLiberto: What do you want? Reidenberg: Do you want to make a second to his motion? DeLiberto: I will not second. Reidenberg: Okay. That's fine. CTo ahead. Colby: Thank you. I think I was about to be sworn. Board member: Then I'll withdraw it. Swear this gentleman. • Colby: Sworn in. 3oseph Colby. I have some prepared remarks which I think may answer some of the questions in the board's mind, and I will be referring to a number of documents, including that book report which we prepared in a packet for each of the board members so that they might have all of the correspondence. If I may, I'll give it to counsel and ask him to pass it around to the board members. Reidenberg: That's fine. Why don't you just pass in on, Mr. Gorman... Colby: Spells his name. Reidenberg: Is it your position that the appropriate person was not cited for the violation. Colby: Yes, sir. Reidenberg: Okay. And, you didn't include the condominium association documents? Colby: No, sir, I did not, and I will answer the chairman's question that he posed to Mr. Kraemer, there is no doubt in my mind, having read the documents, that the fire wall around the duct is, in fact, a common element. It is a common element. Reidenberg: What's the problem? • Colby: Nothing. You had asked Mr. Kraemer about looking at the documents in order to determine that, and he had said from his knowledge it is, and I'm telling you that according to our documents it is. 35 Reidenberg: Okay. Colby: Shall I proceed? • Reidenberg: And why do you think -tell me, why you don't think then, that the appropriate person - Colby: When you hear what I have to say, you understand it. Reidenberg: Go ahead. Colby: Thank you. Then again, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, good morning. And again, my name is Joseph Colby. I am vice president .and acting president of the Villa Costa Condominium Association. I am on medication for an as yet undetermined ailment affecting my jaw, so if occasionally some of my words are slurred, please understand the situation. The condo unit which is the subject of the violation, is owned by the Mayor. Because of persistent rumors and evidence that has been given to us, I am going to ask your indulgence and permission, to ask each member of the board individually whether they have spoken with the mayor, the town manager, or any other person, about this matter prior to this hearing, and specifically if they have been shown pictures allegedly relating to this matter. It's important. We have received. such information - I want to verify whether or not that's a fact. Reidenberg: Okay. Well, you're not going to do it here. • Colby: I can't do it here. If you tell me I can't, then I won't, but I wanted to know. Reidenberg: You can't do it here. If you want to do it in court, I have no problem with that. But this is not an evidentiary hearing where you start inquiring of the board members. Colby: Well, I have to tell you, Mr. I~eLiberto was busy talking with Mrs. Newill and looking at pictures that we were not privy to, and I don't understand whether or not judgment may be clouded by those conversations when it comes time to vote. Reidenberg: Okay. I guess I'll go back then. Gentlemen. Linder the circumstances, it would appear to me, as I have indicated before, that the appropriate forum for this type of litigation would be a circuit court rather than a code enforcement board, and .. . Colby: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree. The building department issued a violation to us and it is that violation that we are here to address, and there's a question as to who is responsible. There is such a violation. It exists. Reidenberg: Well, you know what? You are only a lawyer, as well, and you were stating the ultimate conclusion if there's a violation. That's what potentially a judge will decide. Colby: That's what you're going to decide here. A violation and if it's been violated by . the condo association. 3b • Reidenberg: That's why I'm saying that this appears... Number one: you are challenging members of the entire board, as I see it. Colby: No, I'm just... Reidenberg: Don't tell me you're not, you are. Colby: I'm not challenging, I'm asking if you have been given information outside of our hearing that might prejudice your decision against us. It's that simple. Reidenberg: You know what. I'll testify to that in court, so will everybody else if they have to, okay? That's fine. Now, gentlemen, again. I am suggesting again that based upon the nature of the circumstances, that this is not a situation that we should be handling, and I'm going to ask Mr. Sahan to renew his motion that we table it and ask that it be handled by a circuit court. Sahan: So moved. Reidenberg: Do I have a second? Board member: I'm confused. There is more information that we should hear before we rule on that. • Reidenberg: But he wants to conduct a hearing as to whether or not - Colby: I don't -want to conduct a hearing, I want to give you evidentiary facts under oath... Reidenberg: You put us in a situation whereby we really can't proceed, very frankly, Mr. Colby, and I' 11 tell you why. Colby: Why. Reidenberg: Because you now want to inquire from everybody here as to whether or not there has been any communication - Colby: I've withdrawn that because you have ruled against it. Reidenberg: Well, you know what? Doesn't make any difference whether you've withdrawn it, okay? I have to try to protect the board members, okay, if nothing else. What I'm suggesting is that you've made it impossible, very frankly, for any of us, okay, in my opinion, to act in any way shape or manner. Colby: You mean if, in fact, you've had conversations with the mayor, it is Reidenberg: No, no, no. To act on this matter at all. And I hope the other board • members agree with me. 37 Colby: I don't see that at all. You have every right to act on this matter. In fact, you • must act on it... Reidenberg: I don't agree with you. Especially since you've challenged -you've now made specific reference to ... Colby: You've determined that this board will not hear this matter, aren't you? Reidenberg: I'm determining nothing other than the fact I'm suggesting that this is not the appropriate forum, okay, this is not the appropriate forum, I've said that a hundred times already today, you've now challenged the panel - I have no problem with you doing that, but I'm not going to permit you to do it here, today, now, and the fact that you did do it, makes it, in my opinion, the obligation of all of us not to hear this matter. Colby: As a sitting judge, I have been asked to recuse myself based on information that counsel has, and I have made the determination not to do so because counsel's information was wrong. Reidenberg: Are you suggesting now that we should make a determination as to whether or not we should recuse ourselves from hearing this. Colby: No, no, I won't even ask - I won't say a word about it.. . Reidenberg: But you've done it... • Colby: Mr. DeLiberto has conversations, I'll assume that he is going to give me an honest opinion when it comes time to vote. Reidenberg: Now, I want to have a discussion with the board, now. You understand what this gentleman has done -what he said, and why I don't think that we should proceed on this matter, at all, based upon the circumstances. I'm not suggesting that any of us did anything wrong. Okay. But the fact is, okay, he's suggesting, okay, and in Iaw when people challenge a judge, or a hearing judge, the judge has the right to... Colby: We have not suggested anything, Mr. Chairman, we have asked a question. That's all we have done. Shall I read the statement again? Reidenberg: Don't read it again. What I'm suggesting, though is, now at this point in time, I really don't think that we should be hearing this matter at all, notwithstanding. This is a matter proper for another forum. Not for the code enforcement board. Unidentified voice from audience speaks but is unintelligible. Reidenberg: Half doesn't make any difference, it's not going to make any difference, at all. If we don't make any decision, it's not going to make any difference. Colby: Well, why don't you wait and maybe you will make a decision when you've • heard what I have to say. 3S • Reidenberg: Mr. DeLiberto, do you want to proceed, or not? [repeats question) DeLiberto: Excuse me. Reidenberg: Do you want to proceed? DeLiberto: No. Reidenberg: Mr. Colarullo? Colarullo? I'd like to hear the other side. Reidenberg: Do you want to proceed, notwithstanding ... [voices from gallery saying yes] Reidenberg: Mr. Resnick? Resnick: Yes. Reidenberg: Mr. Sahan? Sahan: I've got a motion to table. Reidenberg: So you don't want to proceed? You don't want to proceed as well? Okay. • And Mr. Sahan, I know, is leaving at noon. We're not going to proceed to hear anything further in connection with this case. This matter is going to have to be referred, as far as I'm concerned, to the town manager, and you can deal with it there with him, Colby: Our problem, Mr. Chairman, has been the town manager. He has been involved in this from the very beginning. Reidenberg: Then Mr. Colby, you know, just like I do, that the only place as you said before, it's probably going to end up in court anyhow, so why waste everybody's time? I now have one member of the panel who says he's not going to proceed.. . Colby: You allowed counsel, who has no standing in this case, to make remarks that are detrimental to owners of our building, and put them on the record... Reidenberg: Wait -hold it. There's no findings at all. Colby: No, but the people are out there and they have findings and our building has been brought into disrepute because of those statements that were made by a non-expert witness. What did you hear about mold? You heard it from an attorney who said I'm not an expert. That's where you're making your determination - he can't prove that. Reidenberg: We're not making any determination, at all. • 39 Colby: Yeah, you are, you're saying you can't hear it, you're going to table it. Why • don't you just hear it and make a determination either decide it or don't decide it -decide it against us or whatever you want to do. [unidentified voices from audience saying "it's not fair"] Reidenberg: Mr. DeLiberto? DeLiberto: What? Reidenberg: You have to tell me whether you want to proceed now. DeLiberto: I don't want to proceed, no I think it's up to the condominium to get an engineer's report on the mold situation, and we'll take it from there... Colby: Absolutely not, Mr. DeLiberto, but if you would like to arrange to do that, you may. The Newills haven't. Maybe you'd like to do it. We're not going to do it because there is no mold. Now you've got -that's the first exhibit you've got the report from Buck Engineering. DeLiberto: Settle it once and for all. Ciet a mold specialist in there.. . Colby: No sir. No sir. No sir. Will not do that. Reidenberg: Wait, wait, wait... • Colby: Totally uncalled for. The request is uncalled for. Reidenberg: According to the Buck report, there is no mold. Okay? DeLiberto: There is no mold? Reidenberg: According to the Buck report. Look, I have no problem proceeding, Mr. Colby. Okay, at all. But I can tell you this. If we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it the right way, and I'm going to expect that both you and whoever it is, the city, is going to present an expert witness on whether or not there is or is not mold. It's not going to be based upon people's testimony. Colby: Not -from me, right? Because I have not raised that issue. Reidenberg: I understand that, but you understand, and I hope you understand, that if we said there is a violation and go ahead, impose a fine against somebody so that they would - didn't put up a wall, and this guy is saying there is mold, we would be derelict in our responsibility, as far as I'm concerned -let's assume that you're right. Assuming that you're correct, okay, then there is not a problem. But, in my mind, until I hear it from an expert, not two lawyers, Colby: Well, you know what? Mold doesn't enter into this. The violation is for the • failure to have a fire wall over the air duct. Mold is not mentioned by anybody in the 40 • building department. That is not the subject of this violation, it is not the subject of this hearing. Reidenberg: And you're right. I agree. I agree. Mold is not the subject of this violation, except it's been raised as an issue. And I'm not saying that that's... Colby: He's not an expert. Reidenberg: And I agree, that's why I said to you he's not an expert. Colby: 'T'herefore, we should have nothing to do with it. Board member: He's not even a fact witness, actually. Reidenberg: That's correct. He's not. He's presented anopinion -his testimony or statements don't mean. anything to me. Colby: Understand that counsel got up and said he was here to speak in favor of the violation on behalf of the town. Did you hear one word that spoke on behalf of that other than saying it was his clients who took down the fire wall. Did you hear it? Reidenberg: I agree and I understand that, okay. And I'm not suggesting there is or is not mold, I don't know, but I don't know it as a fact, and you're right, there is no claim of mold. Not by the building inspector. Not by the fire inspector. Not by anybody. So, • first of all, there is no evidence about anything, these are just lawyers' statements. His statement, whatever statements you're making, are lawyers' statements, they are not facts, . . Colby: I am speaking only as the president, acting president of the ~Iilla Costa Association.. . Reidenberg: I have no problem, if the board wants to have a hearing on this, we're going to set aside, in my opinion this would take at least two or three days, and we can have a hearing, and we'll hear the entire thing. I'm not going to do it piecemeal, though. I'il accept that everything that he said, you're going to contradict and have evidence to contradict it. Colby: Yes, sir. Reidenberg: And credible evidence. I'll accept that as a given, okay? Under any circumstances, though, in order for us to make a determination one way or the other, there has to be expert testimony as to the issue of mold. Colby: No, there doesn't. It has no bearing on this case. It has none. Reidenberg: Yes it does. r~ U 41 Colby: It has none. You see, this is the problem, The building department has a violation. That violation has to be cured. l~iow you're going to find out who wants to • cure it and what's preventing it. Axed I think you want to know that. Reidenberg: iVir. Corman, let me ask you this. Would we be derelict in our duty in proceeding without making a determination from an expert about whether or not there was in fact mold in this situation? Corman: The claim of violation doesn't reference mold. The representative of the association has conceded that it's a common element and that a violation exists. So, it sounds like the only issue now is why the violation is in place, what steps have been taken, if any, to cure the violation, whose responsibility is it to cure the violation, and how much time do they need to do that. If they think there's a mold problem that may go into the board's calculation of how much time they should be given to investigate the mold problem and address the violation. If there's mold, maybe they need an extra 15 days to deal with the mold before they can close up the firewall, but right now, you have a concession that it's the association's property, and that a violation currently exists. The only thing we don't know is why is the violation in existence, why hasn't it been cured, what needs to be done, when is it going to be done, who's going to do it. Reidenberg: Let me ask you this. 1VIr. Colby, is IVIr. Corman, correct, did you concede it's a common area. Colby:. Yes, sir. • Reidenberg: ®kay. Are you conceding it's a violation? Colby: Absolutely, it's a violation not to have that air duct covered with the #`ire wall The specific fire wall, I believe it's two-layer, etc.. Absolutely. Reidenberg: And your concern is the fact that, what is your.. . Colby: When I make my statement you will understand it completely and fully and you will have the documents. Thank you. Reidenberg: Go ahead. Colby: Now; if you read the violation notice, and I understand that the building department hasn't brought it, but I have the ones that were served onus. If you read the notice, it v~~ould seem to indicate that a fire wall, in fact, never existed. However, in fact, there was such a covering until the mayor, by his contractor, Tropix, unlawfully and improperly removed it without permission from the condo association, and without the required town permit, and most importantly, without ever having given anyone but themselves an opportunity to see the actual condition of not only. this duct covering, but also a wall which stood in front of it. Reidenberg: ®kay. This is your position. . 4~ • Colby: It's all our position. Reidenberg: What witnesses do you have or evidence do you have... Colby: We'll supply you with the witnesses. We have the evidence. Reidenberg: Okay. Colby: The only thing the association ever saw was the wall over the bathtub after the the had been removed by Tropix, which was a solid and intact wall except for a mildewed area, which wall they also removed. The mayor and his contractor, Tropix, made up their own minds that this was black mold. Reidenberg: Okay, wait, Mr. Colby, okay. You can use the word "mayor" I don't care whose unit it is. It's the unit owner as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it is the mayor - that's not going to make any difference to me.. . Colby: It seems to the town manager. I'm sorry, but it does. Reidenberg: If it does, as I said, that's why I'm telling you, Colby: I know. • Reidenberg: That this is still not the appropriate forum. Board member:. I'd like to add to what the chairman says. I really would prefer that you refer to the unit owner rather than the mayor, because to me, the mayor is no different that anyone else in this town. Colby: You're right except that every time he corresponds with people he signs it mayor. So, therefore, Board member: I have no correspondence with the mayor, and I would appreciate it... Colby: I'll be happy to call him... Soard member: The "unit owner." Colby: The unit owner, that would be fine with us. The unit owner and his contractor made up their own minds that this was black mold, not mildew, and they went on a mold hunt throughout the entire bathroom. They removed 3 walls in the pursuit of mold when their own engineer, and that will be explained, Buck Engineering Company, who we hired on their recommendation, told them verbally and then in writing, did not exist. Reidenberg: You say "we" you mean the association? • Colby: The association hired Buck because we wanted to determine where was there a leak. And when I come to it you'll hear it, it's there. Just give me a moment and let me finish. 43 Reidenberg: Go ahead. . Colby. I said again that Buck Engineering said verbally and then in writing, there was no mold. The unit owner also determined on their own, contrary to the findings of Buck Engineering and several other experts, that water had come down the inside of the duct which serves all of the #5 and #3 units. Again, notwithstanding their own engineer had determined, correctly, that the occasional water which seeped down the outside of the duct was wind-driven rain through a small opening near the outside base of said duct and not inside. It becomes important. Reidenberg: ~1hat's that based on? Colby: I'm sorry. Reidenberg: V1hat is the last statement based upon? Colby: Buck Engineering. Read his report and then there's... His letter and... Reidenberg: I don't have a report, I have the letter.. . Colby: Other Brothers, about the fifth exhibit down -- at the time of review of the duct shaft, there was no indication that water was inside the metal shaft. Reidenberg: You're saying that's being referred to in his letter of September 16, 2008 Colby: No, November 13, now. Other Brothers Drywall. Reidenberg: Oh, I don't have that. Colby. Actually, Buck Engineering had examined everything and had seen rust on the outside of this duct, and so therefore, he made his recommendations as to what should be done. Reidenberg: I don't have that one, that's why. I don't have that letter. The one November 13th that you're talking about. [talking among board and papers jostling] Colby: Thank you, counsel. Reidenberg: Oh, this is, The Other Brothers Drywall. This is not Buck Engineering. Oh, you said Buck Engineering. Colby: I thought that Buck had included it in his report, obviously, they told us verbally, and then of course, when they made their recommendations... Reidenberg: I was just looking for what you said. Colby: Right. Reidenberg: Okay. 44 • Colby: All right. As I just got finished saying, they made a determination that water had come down inside the duct and seeped out, and that is not what took place according to the verbal report from Buck and the written report from Other Brothers Drywall, that the water came down on the outside, and in fact, the pictures that we've given you show the roof repair that was made on the roof, and you can see, we'll be happy to point out to you what the pictures mean, that the small opening through which wind-driven rain was allowed to enter was .sealed on the outside of the duct. Every expert that we spoke to told us that none of the walls had to be removed, and that the mildew on the outer tiled wall could have been removed with Clorox or something similar, and it was as simple as that. However, the unit owner and his contractor, not only removed all of the walls, never showed anybody the mold they claimed was there, or the actual condition of the walls, but in fact called many of our snowbirds up north and told these owners there was mold throughout their walls and they would all have to tear down their walls. We know this because many of those worried owners called the association to voice their fears, which were totally unfounded, except for the calls from the unit owner. They also invited many of our full-time owners to their unit, all of whom told them and us that they saw no sign or smell of mold. To compound his unfounded claims, the unit owner then used the power of an office that he held, and his relationship with the town manager, to cause the town manager to have the town building department issue a violation from the building department and the Delray Beach Fire Department, for a missing fire wall over the air duct. You heard the testimony from Mr. Kraemer, which surprised me because I had not heard it before, that on the day he came down to issue that original violation, I believe on • September 26, he met the town manager downstairs in the parking lot. During this time, a representative of the unit owner went further by falsely claiming that our condo president, Carl Feldman, had done installations in his unit, and caused the building department to call him with a threat of filing a violation against him and his wife for this work which was nothing more than a repair to a leak in the master bath toilet, which had caused some minor water to appear on the floor of the Feldmans' air conditioning closet. When the Feldmans, at their own expense, went to find the origin of that toilet leak, their plumber cut into two small sections of the hall wall outside their apartment called either view or peep holes, to learn the origin of the leak, which of course, they found. The building department stopped any repair to the wall by demanding a permit, and that we have only licensed contractors repair the wall. It was, of course, later determined that no permit is required to make a small repair to either the wall or the toilet. As a result of this harassment, Carl Feldman resigned as president of our board, hence, the fact that I'm the acting president. Carl Feldman sent his letter of resignation to every owner simply saying that he did not retire to be singled out for these threats and aggravation for a voluntary position he had taken for the benefit of all of his neighbors. The unit owner, using his title, his office and the town manager, his friend and political ally, falsely used every means at their disposal to bring pressure and blackmail on the unit owners of our condo. They persisted in this against the advice of their own experts. As stated to us, the political.. . Reidenberg: Mr. Corman, Mr. Colby is raising issues which appear to be issues that are • of a serious nature involving the administration of the town. Would that be a-fair statement? 45 Corman: He is, though I'm not sure how it directly relates to the existence of the code violation that he acknowledges exists and what's being done to cure it. • Colby: And who is responsible for it. Corman: You are addressing that to some degree. Some of your comments are beyond the scope of what's at issue. Colby: They all tie in, counsel. Reidenberg: Wait, wait, that's not the question, okay? The question is whether or not certain state laws as well as town laws that he's potentially referring to as far as neutrality and the abuse of power, Corman: He can file a complaint with the commission on ethics if he thinks state laws regarding those issues are being violated, but that's really not the issue before the board. Reidenberg: Well, I'm not sure I agree with you, and one of, I guess, Corman: Each of you in your own mind needs to be co~dent that you can impartially judge this case. As long as you're each convinced that you can judge this case on an impartial basis you're entitled to sit as a member of this board. Board should act based on the evidence that it hears that's related to the issue; whether or not a violation exists, whose responsibility it is, and how best to cure it. Some of these statements regarding the relationship of the mayor and the town manager, unless it's going to influence your decision-making, really aren't relevant to the claim of violation, and if the gentlemen thinks that state laws are being violated by the mayor and town manager's interaction, he has a right to file a complaint with the commission on ethics. Colby: Thank you for that. Reidenberg: You haven't done that? Colby: Excuse me. Reidenberg: You haven't done that? Colby: Haven't done that? No. No, not at all. Not at all. Not necessary.. Not necessary to do. Reidenberg: Why? Colby: We have not found it necessary to go to those lengths. All we've been trying to do, and you'll find out if you'll let me finish, all we've been trying to do is repair that missing wall. That's all we've been trying to do, and you' 11 find out how we've been stymied at every turn, and why. And then it will make sense to you. U 46 I~eidenberg: ®kay. We'll let me suggest one thing to the members of the board. What I'm going to suggest is this. That we make a recommendation at all, that the recommendation be that to deal with this issue that we have a circuit court judge appoint a neutral expert to make a determination as to 1) who is responsible; and who is in violation, who's responsible, this is an issue that should be decided by someone, I have concerns, very frankly, even Mr. Gorman, I appreciate your honesty and your integrity, but I think at this point in time, under the circumstances, it's something that has to be decided by a neutral, other than this board, because of the fact that you've raised the issue that it is the mayor, and since you've raised the issue as far as the town manager, and you have every right to do that, I have concerns about the issues that Mr. Colby raised. I have concerns about that. I have no evidence any way one way or the other, as to whether they're valid or invalid, doesn't make any difference, but that's what I think we should do if we make any recommendation, and that whoever, that the judge make a determination thereafter, who makes, who's responsible... Colby: This is going to happen -this is going to happen and it's in here, if you'll let me finish, and I will show you how it's going to happen and how a judge is going to make a determination. Reidenberg: Well, just a second, okay? I made a motion, okay? Do I have a second to my motion? Board member: And what is that motion? l~eidenberg: My motion is that we refer this matter, we refer this matter, either through Mr. Gorman or some other counsel, to a circuit court judge for the determination of a neutral expert or experts, as many as the judge may decide, for resolution of this issue and determination of responsibility with regard to... Colby: You're talking about something that may take literally months and the unit owner would like very much to close that fire wall and so would the association. You've heard testimony that it's a matter of health safety. We'd like to finish it. We think that when you've heard all of this, you will understand who caused the violation, whose failure it is that it hasn't been cured, and what should be done in order to get it fixed. l~eidenberg: But, NIr. Colby, I appreciate that, and even assuming we determine that it's the association is not liable at all, and we say, okay, fine, that it's the unit owners, all we can do is fine the unit owner, that's all. We can't get the resolution... Colby: We don't want another thing from you. We will have the judge take care of the rest of it. All you have to do is make that determination. That's all we're asking. 1Zeidenberg: But as I told you, also, we're not going to fmalize that here today. Colby: Il~o, no, you'll certainly reserve, and you'll certainly have the right to think about • it... 47 Reidenberg: That flies in the fact of wanting to get it resolved. I'm not sure when tl-~is board will reconvene again. Colby: And really it won't require. You don't have the power to order anybody involved in this to get this thing repaired like we'd ask you to. You don't have the power. Reidenberg: We don't. Colby: We will be asking a circuit court to do exactly that. But I want you to understand what goes to the heart of this; why the violation exists, why it hasn't been cured.. . Reidenberg: I think you've done a very good job at explaining that... Colby: No I haven't given you any of that information yet. Reidenberg: You have. Colby: No. No. Reidenberg: Yeah, you have. Colby: I haven't. Board member: 1t~Ir. Chairman. With respect, and I've had this discussion earlier. I have a personal problem that I've got to personally leave at noon as it turns out today. I did not know this was going to take this long. With respect though, I would like to Leave in the hands of what still constitutes a quorum here and I believe you can continue to do what you were doing. I apologize that I won't be able to hear it. Colby: Absolutely. Tvlay I go on,1~Ir. Chairman? Reidenberg: Before you leave, I made a motion. Igo I have a second to my motion? Board member: Could I hear the motion... Reidenberg: The motion is that we have either IV~r. Corman or separate counsel appear before a circuit court judge for the purpose of appointing a neutral to determine the responsibility for this problem both with regard to the cost as well as the responsibility. Colby: Why would you want the town to incur that expense when we've indicated to you that we'll be taking the appropriate steps. Why should the town get involved in that? It's beyond the scope of powers of this board. Why get them involved in paying litigation expenses, arbitration expenses, Reidenberg: NIr. Colby, you've raised issues which in my mind are serious. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Corman says that you can file complaints. You've raised issues which in my mind are serious and should have to impact on what happens. • 4~ • Colby: The issues are only raised so that you may have them in mind when you determine why the violation has not been cured. That's the only reason for all of this. ~'ou haven't been able to make that determination -you haven't heard enough of the facts yet. Reidenberg: My motion stands. Are you leaving before? Sahara: If there is any discussion on the motion, I won't be available to... Reidenberg: We're going to have a discussion now. Is there a second to my motion? Board member: I'll second the motion. Reidenberg: Okay. Any discussion? Board member: I don't think I'm contributing anything new, but again, the way I'm leaning is that we have a claim of violation from the building official, there's an admission that I hear that a violation exists, the only one thing I would do is because of all the complications involved, that we either think about if we were to impose a penalty that we can always revoke it, but also possibly give a greater time than we normally do to cure this violation before a penalty sets in. Reidenberg: Okay. Well, here's the problem. The problem is before we're ever going to • get to that point, we're going to have to have a full evidentiary hearing which is going to take, in my opinion, at least two days. It's going to require expert testimony. So the exigency situation which both Mr. Colby and the other lawyer, seemed to indicate, appeared to be subject to resolution in a forum other than this. We're not going to be able to resolve it other than impose a fine potentially. Colby: The only thing that we would ask that you do is if you find that there is a violation that has not been cured within the requisite time, is that you find out whose fault it is, and that you levy a fine against that person. That's all we're asking you... Reidenberg: I understand. Colby: We will ask the circuit court for any other relief that we require. Reidenberg: The problem is, gentlemen, is this, since the petition is filed, the violation is only against the Villa Costa, it's not against the unit owner. Colby: That's right. Which is why I asked you why you asked counsel to speak first and speak on that subject. He was not a party to that proceeding. Reidenberg: I told you why. I -was asking for anybody that was in support of the.. . Colby: But you heard, almost at the beginning, that he wasn't speaking in support of • anything having to do with the building department. He was speaking in support of the position of Tropix and the Newills. 49 Reidenberg: You know, I said the same thing to him I'm going to say to you. Fine, except for the fact that you're not going to get it resolved here today. • Colby: Don't want the resolution. I just want to make sure that the record is clear and that the people watching this on channe197 now understand that the statements made by previous counsel are not accurate, they do not, no, those statements are out there, and right now, as far as anybody that has been watching TV is concerned, there's mold in our building, and in fact, I have heard one of the members of this board indicate there must be. Reidenberg: Well, you haven't heard that from me... Colby: No, I haven't, Mr. Chairman. And all I'm trying to do is let you know... Reidenberg: All I know is, that, as a matter of fact, the only thing that I have is a Buck Engineering report indicating there is no mold. Okay? Colby: And it has no bearing on this case. None. Reidenberg: Well, it does in an indirect manner. Colby: Only in the event that you should decide that there might be, and you want to spend the town's money or the Newills' money in trying to determine that -all that time delaying further the solving of the problem, the curing of the violation, which is both fare and health. • Reidenberg: Okay. Colby: Why don't you let me show you what efforts we've been making to cure that violation and how we've been thwarted... Reidenberg: The problem is that all we can determine is whether or not you're responsible, not whether or not somebody else is because nobody else has been cited_ Colby: That's fine, and if you should make that determination, that we are not responsible because we have made every reasonable effort and we will be happy to call the building department to buttress that fact. Everything I tell you about our efforts is known to the building department. They've checked on everything, every single step of the way. Reidenberg: Well, the one thing they haven't checked, as we've talked about, is the association's documents. Colby: And I told you before that - Reidenberg: You're stipulating now that it's a common.. . • 50 • Colby: Absolutely, it's a common element. It's a common element. In fact, it goes to the crux of the circuit court lawsuit. It being a common element and state law and condo documents, 718, incidentally of the Florida state law, providing that the association has the unalterable right to enter a unit for the purpose of repairing a common element. And that's what I want to bring out to you so you can understand why it wasn't done. And the only way you're going to understand that is to let me fmish my remarks. Reidenberg: Go ahead. Colby: I'm now going to give you the chronological list that one of your members was looking for of every single action taken by the association, every one of which, as I just said, was disclosed to the town's building department on a regular, almost daily, basis. The unit owner started the major renovation of his master bathroom in August, or early September of '08. On or about September 8, the mayor's wife, asked that I, as a board member and neighbor, come to their unit to see the mold that they found. Mrs. Newill told me that she has a very, very sensitive nose, and knew for a long time there was mold in the bathroom. I saw some mildew, not mold, on a comparatively small area of an entire 7-foot -- approximately 7-foot wall. I immediately called Carl Feldman, our president, and within a half hour we both went to the unit. Tropix was there, said there had to have been a leak and that we should hire an engineer to find the source. He told us about Buck Engineering, who he said was his mentor, and he said they were excellent in their field, and he suggested that we hire them, and we did. We hired them and we paid them. They came in, they met with the Newills, they met with Tropix, they met with our • maintenance people and went up on the roof, inspected the duct, and made their findings that there was some - I call it rust, but it really can't be rust because it's galvanized metal, but there was some discoloration on the outside of the duct and he made the recommendation. Reidenberg: Are you telling me now, that you, the association attempted to make the repairs, but you were prohibited? Is that correct? Colby: Absolutely. Reidenberg: That's what you're telling me? Colby: I'm going to give you a chronological of every single... Reidenberg: Is that what you're telling me is the fact? Colby: That is right. Reidenberg: That's what you represent that the evidence would show? Colby: That's right. Reidenberg: Okay. Wait, just a second. If that's the case, we have to have an • evidentiary hearing on that issue before we can even determine anything else as to whether or not this gentlemen's representation of whether or not they tried to cure it and 51 they were prevented, for whatever reason, whether it's because of town agency, whatever, that somebody prevented them from doing it, there would be no violation if they were • prevented from doing the work. Colby: Let me go onto the number of times that we tried to do exactly that so that you understand there is a series of times that we attempted to go in and I want you to understand how we have been blocked... Reidenberg: Okay. I'll accept, as a given, what you say that you've been blocked. For purposes of the record, I'll accept that. Assuming you've been blocked, but that's your representation, gentlemen, under either circumstance, if they've been blocked, obviously Villa Costa can't be responsible if they've been blocked from doing the work. I don't see how there could be a violation. Board member: Who's blocking them? Reidenberg: We have to find that out. That's going to require a hearing to determine that before we determine anything else. Would you agree? Board member: I agree. Reidenberg: Do you agree, Mr. Resnick? Resnick: -Yeah, you'll be able to determine that from the testimony of the building department, They were involved. • Reidenberg: Would you agree we've got to farad that out first? Resnick: No, I'm not sure I agree with that, I think the action we can take can again be either - we can give time, or a penalty to be imposed, or if, assuming the violation exists, we can give time for it to be cured, or, as we have done in the past since I've been on the board, once we've got additional information... Reidenberg: That's not going to change anything, Mr. Resnick in terms of whether or not the association was prevented from doing the repairs. If they were prevented from doing the repairs, if they were prevented whatever, some way, some how, whether it was through official action or unofficial action, if they were prevented from doing the repairs, how could there possibly be a violation? Resnick: No, the violation is there, again, the violation is there -the determination of who is responsible for the penalty if they were prevented from curing it is beyond our case. Reidenberg: We have to make the determination whether it's a proper filing in the first place. • 52 • Resnick: Well, I disagree with you, Mr. Chairman, because we have a violation that was brought to our attention by the building official. It's our job to determine whether this violation exists, and if it exists, and is not cured, then we should set a penalty... Reidenberg: We have to know that it's the proper party... The proper party, in other words, if they were prevented, and this gentlemen says, the evidence, let's assume the evidence is going to show that they were prevented from doing the repairs, how could there possibly be a violation if they're prevented, for whatever reason, whatever method, if they're prevented from doing the repairs? Resnick: Again, I think that it's beyond our scope to determine who is responsible for preventing the repairs, Reidenberg: Well, I disagree... Resnick: Well, that's what makes the world go around... Reidenberg: We have to make a determination before we can impose a fine, wouldn't you agree, li~Ir. Gorman? Gorman: The way I see it, it's clear there's a violation of the code, it's been conceded, it's clear that the violation pertains to a common element, because that's been conceded, I agree with board member Resnick that the issue of whether or not the association is being • prevented from making the repairs would go to the issue of what remedial action should be ordered by the board. For example, the board could instruct the association to take whatever steps it deems necessary to gain access to the common element and give them a time frame within which to do that, and then we can have a continuation to see if, in fact, either they've reached agreement with the unit owner or they've taken steps to bring a legal action in circuit court to gain access to the common element, and as long as the association reasonably and diligently pursues the goal of achieving the repair so the violation is cured, any fine can be withheld. But that's up to the board's judgment in terms of what will best motivate the association to gain access to the common element so the repair can be implemented. Reidenberg: Mr. Colby, let me ask you this. Is that one of the things that you want? You want access to the apartment? Colby: Do I want, I'm sorry? Reidenberg: Do you want access to the apartment? Colby: Absolutely. Reidenberg: And you're being prevented from doing that? Golby: Absolutely. We hired, you've got the contract, you've got the pegmit that was • issued by the town to ®ther Brothers Drywall, we've tried repeatedly. We have been turned back for a variety of reasons. 53 Reidenberg: Let me ask you this, then. I'll ask you the same question. Why haven't you proceeded into court to get a court order to permit it? • Colby: Because, I would be happy to tell you that, because there were ongoing negotiations that went up until just about a week ago in order to try to resolve this with the unit owner without having to go into court. We have been attempting to do exactly that. Reidenberg: Okay. Colby: I'll be happy to detail it for you. You'll understand... Reidenberg: No, no. So all you want is access to the... Colby: We've called he Highland Beach Police Department because somebody told us, but they were erroneous, they were wrong, that they were sure that the Town of Highland Beach Police Department would help us gain entry, so I called the Highland Beach Police Department, spoke to their expert on this matter, and as we assumed he said, cannot do it until you get a court order. Once you get the court order, he said we'll be happy to come in and either break down the door or take off the hinges and get you in there. Building department has already told us that they'll be happy to accompany Other Brothers Contracting when they go in to do the job so that they're not harassed. However, in order to accomplish this, what we've done, and you will see as I read, I was away, I was out of the country for ten days, came back, this, notice of this hearing had been sent out 7 days . before I came back, I only had 3 days, but nevertheless, last hriday morning, we contacted Becker Poliakoff, and I received their retainer agreement, and we are retaining them specifically to gain entry to that apartment and make the repair. Let me tell you how it's done in 1~lorida. I assumed, like in just about every other jurisdiction, all you had to do.. . Reidenberg: We have to take a break for a couple of minutes, Colby: Okay. ~k#~k "*~k~M=k~k~`-'*##~ka~:k~k##~k~k•k%k~~~~k%t-8~~~~k m~k~k~k~k~k*~k~k%k%F~''yk~''~~~k%k~k7k~k r%k=k~~k~i:~k~ka:;'~*~k~r~.=~%KT~ ~k#~k####~~k*~k~k~k*~~k~k*~-k~k~k~*~~k~k~k~~k~k~~k~k~~~k~k=kaki Colby: Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, I know that the voluntary boards in this town don't anticipate long hearings. If you would like to adjourn. this to another day to continue this, I will certainly consent to that if it assists the board in any way. Reidenberg: I think that, in view of the fact that we have a number of other matters of other nature, that that would be the appropriate thing to do. Everybody agree? Board member: I'll agree to that. Reidenberg: 1VIr. I3eLiberto? • 54 DeLiberto: Yes. • Reidenberg: Mr. Resnick? Resnick: Sure. Reidenberg: We're going to adjourn this, and what we'll do is we'll have the clerk notify you as to when we are going to have a special hearing in connection with...no -- and whether or not we're going to do it at the regular hearing or whether we're going to do it later on. Colby: The only thing I call to your attention is the upcoming holiday because when we retained counsel he wanted us to adjourn this today and I said no we won't do that because I didn't want to be accused... Reidenberg: I don't care what he wants to do... Colby: No, in other words, so I know the holidays are coming up, so I just want you to be aware. Reidenberg: I understand, but I've gotta talk after the meeting I will discuss, or later on in the meeting, I'll discuss with the board members when it's convenient for them, and then we'll let you know, we'll let all the parties know, publish a public notice to that effect. • Colby: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reidenberg: Okay. We'll move on. Consideration of modification 23.? of the Town Code Permitted Signs. Mr. Sugerman, I apologize for not recognizing you, notwithstanding the fact that you were waving, as I said. You'll get an opportunity at the next hearing, I'm sure, or some time, but with regard to this issue, you want to proceed, who are you speaking on behalf of? Sugerman: Myself. Reidenberg: Not the town? Sugerman: As the town manager. That's correct. I'm speaking on behalf of myself as the town manager. Reidenberg: Okay, go ahead. Sugerman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my name is Dale Sugerman. I am the town manager. The Town of Highland Beach staff, through the members of the police department and the building department, we have been removing real estate "For Sale" and "Open House" signs that have been placed along state route AlA on the weekends advertising property for sale located on the residential sites... • 55 Reidenberg: Are you going to read this statement? Sugerman: I am, sir. • Reidenberg: Everybody's read it, haven't they? Sugerman: If the chair will allow me to make a presentation, I would appreciate it. Reidenberg: Okay. I don't want you to waste time reading something we've already read... Sugerman: I have been waiting for this agenda item for three hours, it will take me seven minutes to read - Reidenberg: Seven minutes? Okay, it's going to you seven minutes to read it, but it's going to take you a lot longer to be questioned. Sugerman: And if you'll allow me the seven minutes, I'll get my position on the record, Reidenberg: You want to read this entire thing again? Sugerman: Sir? Reidenberg: Is that right? That's what you want to do? Sugerman: The answer to the question is yes. • Reidenberg: Okay. Go ahead. Sugerman: The signs were removed and returned to the individuals who have placed them on state road AlA. The reason that we remove and return them is that Section 23-7 b (a) of the town code says: "No temporary real estate signs shall be permitted except those erected by property owners or the owners' agent and such sign shall be subject to the following conditions: a) not more than one sign shall be erected for each property." Typically, the property itself has either a temporary real estate or open house sign located at the front of the property. So an additional temporary real estate sign placed on state route AlA is prohibited. We therefore remove the second sign placed on state route AlA and return it to the property owner or real estate agent. I have been approached by one resident and one realtor working in the Town of Highland Beach asking that we make an exception to the current code, due to the very depressed state of the economy and real estate market. Specifically, they are pointed to Section 23-7 6 (e) of the town code, which says in part: e) one additional open house real estate sign shall be permitted for a 48-hour period for sales of property and it's to be removed immediately after the two-day period. The town staff has been taking a position that this additional sign can only be located on the property which is owned by the seller, and cannot appear within the right- of-way on state route A 1 A unless the actual property being sold in located on state route AlA. I have included copies of the entire Section 23-7 of the town code in your packet. I believe that there are a few of the real estate folks here in the audience today ~uho would 56 • like to provide you with their input on the matter. The board, of course, has an opportunity to discuss this matter at any depth that you wish, and if it leads to a recommendation to modify the code, you would do so by providing your recommendation on the subject to the town commission, of course, and the actual amendments to the code would have to be done as an action taken by the town commission. I believe I used less than seven minutes. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Reidenberg: ®kay. Good. Are you making any recommendations? Sugarman: I am not. I am bringing the issue to the board so you understand what action we have been taking. The action we have been taking is that the town staff, through the police department and the building department, only recognizes the allowance of one sign. All other signs are being removed and returned to the property owner or the real estate agent. Reidenberg: You've been enforcing the town code? Sugarman: We have been enforcing the town code as we interpret the town code. The folks who may want to stand before you think that there might be leeway as to some discretion in the enforcing of the town code. That's why the action is being brought before you today. • Reidenberg: Let me ask you the questions, then. How do you think this would benefit the town to permit an amendment? Sugarman: I don't believe that it would benefit the town Reidenberg: Igo you think that, as a result of this, there could be confusion on signage, with different signs next to each other, as to which property is for sale, which property is not for sale, and so on and so forth? Sugarman: I'm not in a position to make a judgment as to whether or not somebody who has seen or reading a sign could be confused. I'm not an expert on confizsion. But I can tell you I believe if we allow flexibility in the sign code as it is being administered now, we may have a proliferation of signs beyond one per property. Reidenberg: So, what you're suggesting is that this not be permitted? Sugarman: My recommendation is that the code should remain as is, and the enforcement should remain as we are enforcing it. Reidenberg: okay. Why did you present this to the board, then? Sugarman: Because here in the town of Highland Beach, and as your town manager, 1 take the position that if interested citizens have an issue that they would like to have considered, the buck does not necessarily stop with me, because I'm enforcing the code as I see fit, however, if there is good reason to believe that an amendment to the code is 57 appropriate, I'm not the person who amends the code. It's the town commission. And that would be done only on the basis of the town commission taking an action, and the • code enforcement board may want to weigh in as to whether or not you want to have a recommendation on modifying the current code, and I think there are a number of people who would like to speak to that. Maybe the code enforcement board does not want to weigh in on making a recommendation about the current code. The current code is the current code, and I am responsible for the administration of that code. I bring it before you as a courtesy to our citizens as we do with all of our citizens when they ask that we consider making a modification. . Reidenberg: So that I have it straight. You're enforcing the present code? Correct? Sugarman: Yes. Reidenberg: And you are not recommending, on behalf of the town, that this be, that the ordinance be modified? Sugarman: The code be amended. That's correct. I am not recommending that the code be amended. Reidenberg: ®kay. Any questions of IUIr. Sugarman? Unidentified voice: I totally agree with Dale Sugarman. Reidenberg: ®lcay. Let's see what, l~r. Sugarman, why don't you hang out here while • the other people are here. Yes, sir. Swear him in, please. Unidentified person: Identifies himself as Greg Bowen. I live at 1101 Russell Drive, in the town, and I am also a licensed real estate broker. IVIr. Sugarman has been kind enough to bring us before the board, and also under 23-13 of the town code, the town code states that appeals shall be governed under Section 2-104 Appeals of the Code Enforcement Board. That's why I'm here. Reidenberg: Well, we're just the board. You're talking about appeals from the code enforcement board. Bowen: Appeals shall be governed by Section 2-104 Appeals of the Code Enforcement Board. Reidenberg: But we are the Code Enforcement Board. Bowen: And that's why I'm here today -appealing. I'm actually asking for your help. I agree with NIr. Sugarman that there should be no modification of the current code -the current sign code. It seems to cover everything. What I don't agree with is the town's staff interpretation of the code. Under 23-7 paragraph a: generally signs are permitted along the road frontages unless otherwise indicated. That's under permitted signs. In other words, the code says that the signs must be along the road frontages. Under 23-7 ~6) no temporary real estate signs shall be permitted except those erected by the property SS owners or the owners' agents and such signs shall be subject to the following conditions, • and I'm repeating what Mr. Sugerman said. The signs shall be compliant with this criteria, 12x1$ black letters on white, and under paragraph 6, Section (e), one additional open house real estate sign shall be permitted fora 4$-hour period and be removed immediately thereafter. Nowhere in the code, and this is where the interpretation comes in -nowhere in the code does the code state that that open house sign has to be in front of the subject. The way the police department is enforcing this code, right now, as explained to me by one of the sergeants is open house signs are permitted on the A 1 A right-of--way for properties located on AlA. However, if I put a sign, say across the street from Belair Drive pointing down Belair Drive, the police department interprets this as an illegal sign, a noncompliant sign, which I don't understand. There seems to be a double standard. But nevertheless, the code doesn't state anywhere that the sign has to be right in front of the property, nor does it refer to the for sale sign on the property that has to be on the subject property. It's vague in that regard. -And another thing I wanted to bring to the board's attention is that there is currently 352 properties for sale in Highland Beach, approximately 7% of those are in pre-foreclosure, foreclosure, or bank-owned properties, and these are just the properties that are in the IvILS. That represents about 7°/® of the homes for sale in Highland Beach. I~eidenberg: 7% of the homes for sale? Bowen: 7% of the homes for sale that are in the MLS are pre-foreclosure, foreclosure, or bank-owned properties. There may be another 3-4% otherwise that are not in the MILS that are in foreclosure or bank-owned. This is the worse real estate and housing market and fmancial market, it's unprecedented. The worse in decades, as you well know. Currently, there has been about 127 homes sold in Highland Beach this year, and at that attrition rate, it's about 10 per month, and based on the inventory that's available now, 362, it's about 3 years of inventory, that the sellers are suffering through trying to sell their homes, and 7% are losing them. So, what we're asking for today is a broader interpretation of the existing code, and that the code enforcement take into account the economic situation that's going on in the housing market, the price of which of homeowners that have the homes for sale are paying right now, while sitting on their homes trying to move them. So, that's all we're asking for is a broader interpretation of the code. Actually, the code is fine, it's just to allow us to have an open house sign to try to market those properties and try to get into the developments and down the streets to purchase those homes. I~eidenberg: So, are you saying, then that if you put a sign on AlA that would refer to one of the other side street properties, is that what you're suggesting? Bowen: Yes, it's picked up by the police department if I put a sign on AlA. If I put a sign in front of a listing I have on AIA, according to the police department, that's okay, but if I put that same sign in that same spot directing a prospect down an adjoining street, that's illegal. That's the part I don't understand. It's a double standard. • Seidenberg: How do you think that an additional open house sign on AlA for that particular property on the side streets would help selling the house. 5~ Bowen: It gets prospects down the streets. I've sold dozens of homes.. . IZeidenberg: You don't think people go down the streets without that? Bowen: No, not necessarily. It catches their eye. That's why you see so many open house sign because it directs prospects down those streets. It's exposure. It's market exposure. When people are going down A l A if they are looking for a potential property to buy perhaps, and they'll see an open house sign and they'll turn down that street to take a look. I have a property on Belair Drive still listed over 14 months -and by the way, this enforcement is new. The last 20 years we haven't -- this enforcement of this double standard has not been in place. This just happened in August. Reidenberg: What do you mean, double standard? Bowen: We11, if you have a property on AlA the police say it's okay to have an open house sign, but if you put an open house sign in that same spot directing someone down an adjoining street, it's illegal. l~eidenberg: But you could put an open house sign on the side street house, as well. Bowen: That's correct, well I can't, because you can only have one additional signo cannot direct people down that street.. . l~eidenberg: No, no, what you're asking for is you want to change the code then, because you could put, for houses on the side street, you can have the regular sign that's there all the time, and what you want is an open house sign. Bowen: That correct. lZeidenberg: ®kay. And you want, in addition, you want the opportunity to put another open house sign. Bowen: No, just one. We would just have the one at the end of the street, and when they come down the street they see the for sale sign. l~eidenberg: You wouldn't put an open house sign on the property when you're selling it. Sowen: We can put the open house sign on the existing for sale sign down the street. 12eidenberg: ®h, you want to cover that up and then have another.. . Bowen: We could to be code compliant. Yes. This is what we've been doing for 20 years. There has never been a prohibition against it before in the town, Igeidenberg: Well, you know, life changes, okay? Bowen: I don't lcnoveT v~~hy the interpretation has changed. Because the code does not specify the sign has to be on the subject property, either the for sale sign or the open • house sign. 60 Reidenberg: Let me ask. Would you agree, though, it refers to a situation which clearly • would indicate that it was not, that it's the property on AlA that they're referring to, or not? You could put another open house sign on the side street properties... Bowen: I can, yes, in front of the house, but that does not direct prospects down that street to the property of traffic going down AlA. There's only four streets in Highland Beach. Reidenberg: I know. Board member: He's looking far more exposure. He wants A1A plus... Reidenberg: Why would you think that that would give you -make the situation better? Bowen: Because there's no reason to turn down the street unless - if there's a prospect looking for a property they see the open house sign, they have no reason, they may not even notice the street unless they see the open house sign directing them down that street to an open house. I'll give you an example, Mr. Halpern, he's not here today, but he's been to probably 6 of my open houses down those streets, and he wouldn't have any way of knowing there were open houses had he not seen the signs. These are temporary open house signs -they're code compliant, and they're removed within 3-4 hours... Reidenberg: I think you said you wanted something with an arrow, or something? • Bowen: I didn't say anarrow - an open house -like this, that's all.. . Reidenberg: How would it show what property? Bowen: People see that sign and they turn down the street. Reidenberg: I'm not sure how - if they see that sign, very frankly, that would turn them down the street. Bowen: It does. Reidenberg: But you need an arrow, too, right? Bowen: Well, there's no prohibition against an arrow. The code says the lettering has to be black lettering on white. We can put an arrow on it. The noncompliance open house signs that you see often, the regular real estate signs that are Like a sandwich sign, they're blue in color for our company, they have arrows... Reidenberg: You're aware of all the obstructions on AlA as they are, are you not? Bowen: Sure. And you're aware of the fact that there was an investigation as to the obstruction and an attempt to try to make AlA to look aesthetically great so that you . could sell your properties on the side... Bowen: I'm all for it. Absolutely. 6i Reidenberg: I'm not sure ho~u putting an additional sign would enhance that, the town, how it would enhance the town? • Bowen: I don't know that would detract from the town to have an open house and who would make that determination. Reidenberg: Iiow would the town benefit? Bowen: Well, the average sale price of a home in the town right now is down, excuse me, 25-30% and that directly affects the town's tax base. That's a huge beneft to the town, and the worse the real estate market gets, the lower the prices get, and the lower the tax base gets. I've been a proponent of town beautification, I've communicated with 1~1r. Sugarman on several occasions regarding islands and beautifications at the end of the streets, and I've volunteered my services on beautification on our architectural review board, I am a huge proponent of it and I don't think that an open house sign on a Saturday or Sunday for 3 or 4 hours would detract... Reidenberg: Well one might not, but there ,nay be 300, and then it would detract from the town, correct? If that were permitted, there would be no limitation as to how many could be put up. Bowen: You might see 10 on a given weekend -going back to the length of the town. Going back to 2005 when the market was booming. Reidenberg: I'm not sure how it benefits the town, I really am not, very frankly. • Bowen: It would benefit the homeowners, I can tell you that. Reidenberg: Well, yeah, I mean but, the town, it's true, but you could lower the price and that would benefit the homeowners they would sell the houses. I mean, that could work, too, but we don't have any control over that. Gentlemen? Resnick: Before any comments, I would like to hear from other speakers if there are any out there? Reidenberg: Gkay. Is that all? Bowen: Yes, thank you. Audience member: Trli, I'm Beverly Knight, 4023 South ®cean Boulevard, I'm also a licensed real estate agent in the town. I'm so for this code that we have because a lot of agents abuse it with their red signs and blue signs and signs with their faces on tlriem, and so forth. But when you stay ~,~ith the bleak and white 12 x 1 g signs and it's a temporary sign that's only there for a few hours, I think that, I'm here actually to support Greg, because my listings are on AlA, so I can put my signs out there, but they have listing that are down on these side streets, and a lot of times people are just driving through ~Iighland Beach, they're not driving here to look for open houses and they're not driving through to • look at properties, they're just driving through and they'll see an open house sign and bz they stop. It benefits the town because if they buy one of the houses on the side street, • the price that they're paying for that house has been equates to the town for their property taxes the taxes they're gonna pay on the price that they pay on that house when they transfer title to that house, so it does ultimately benefit the town to sell real estate in the town. I don't think there's a problem if they put a sign there for a few hours and they take it out if it's on the corner, maybe of that street where they're going to turn down. If they're going to be popping up all over town in different colors, that's a different issue. But, I think that in this case, if you're going to say you can't put an open house sign that's in black and white, 12 x 18 which is within the code of signs for real estate agents, then you might as well say when it comes time for election of officials we cannot put any signs at all in the medians or on the side streets. , . Reidenberg: I agree with you. I don't disagree. Knight: Okay, well why don't those get pulled out when they put those in -Melissa Berg had to leave but she was going to talk about that. Reidenberg: I can tell you this. When I saw there was some political signs, I didn't care who it was, along AlA, I did contact the building inspector, and asked that they investigate and remove the signs if they were improper, and from what I saw, a couple days after, they were removed. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Political signs should not be on the median. • Knight: Okay, but it took days to get them removed. This is hours -- these signs are out for sometimes 2-4 Reidenberg: One of the problems, very frankly, Miss Knight, is this. Let's assume that there is a side street and there's 7 houses that are on the side street for sale, then what you are suggesting is that there be potentially 7 open house signs, cause each one of them is going to have a different address. Correct? Knight: There's no addresses on them. Reidenberg: No addresses, at all? Knight: No. Reidenberg: So, in other words, what you are saying is that the real estate agents would cooperate and say that there be only one open house.. . Knight: We could do that. But it has to be black and white, they can't be purple, pink and blue with balloons on it and sometimes they put them across the street and on the street the side that the street is on. I've seen them do that, too, which is also very annoying. Reidenberg: But you'll agree, they shouldn't be permitted at all? C7 63 Knight. I~To absolutely. I'm the worst. I'xn always in Dale Sugerman's office because • when I moved here and I put y real estate signs out, they picked them up and they threw them away or they put them behind town hall. Since I've been here I've seen real estate signs that don't get picked up, I'm working on another issue where there is other code enforcement violations that don't seem to get resolved, they go months and months and months and months and nobody does anything about them. `T`his little thing about the real estate sign, I mean all of a sudden they're all getting picked up, and this doesn't make sense to nee. Igeidenberg: Perhaps now you know why. `T'his open house sign that'sthere -that's what you're suggesting be put on the - Knight. `That's 12 x 1 ~, black and whets, that's what's in the code... I~eidenberg: With an arrow, without an arrow? Knight: Well if that put a black arrow on that sign, it's okay, but if the sign is in the shape of an arrow, n®. 1 he kind that the real estate agents buy -the big red ones with the big arrows. No, those are not allowed. IZeidenberg: I'm still not sure, very frankly how a sign that says open house would... Knight: you can put black and white letters, Fteidenberg: I understand. 'The problem that I'rn having is that if they put it on the side • street.. . Knight: Gn the corner... 1Zeidenberg: ... on the corner, they wouldn't know whether or not it was the house where it was on.. . Knight: Well, there's no house right on the corner, they could turn down that street. I~eidenberg: ®kay. I'rn sorry, do you have anything else? Knight: I®To, I'm against alI other code violations when it comes to these signs, but this one little issue here I do believe in because people are not going to turn down those streets and there's only four streets in Ilighland beach. IZeidenberg: Anybody else? Let me talk to her first, I~~r. Sugerman, then I' II get to you... Audience IVlember: Good afternoon, I'm Kira Scyrank with Lang lgealty. I've been selling real estate in Highland Beach since 194. I am currently selling a re-sale of a development I've sold in 1984 down at the end of the street on I3elair Drive Development 1'achtman's Cove. All last season I had open houses Saturday and Sunday. dreg also • had a new development next doo~° to me, and we both had open houses together. What I 64 • don't understand, since 194, and I used to sit Yachtsman's dove % days a week, there has never been an issue with open house signs. Why, ail of a sudden, now, in those horrible economic times, for us as realtors, for people in foreclosures and short sales, now they're picking up our signs. But what I do agree with completely is that the realtors, with Bev and Greg, the realtors were not using the compliant open house signs of white and black - it looks horrible. Reidenberg: What do the economic times have to do with the signage? I just don't understand. Ksught: ®kay, let me explain. Because, this sign would have an arrow. There's people that are visiting, new homeowners here in Highland Beach on AIA, they go out for lunch they drive down AlA, they might not psychologically really think they want to buy a house, but when they see an open house sign, they' 11 pull off A 1 A, go down, and come into the house, and if they fall in love with it, they become a buyer. Reidenberg: Wait a second. What would that have to do with the economic times? They could do that anytime, right? Knight: IVo, because they're not aware, I'm saying the open house signs help us with the economic times to get buyers and prospects into the townhouse or the house that's dawn the street that people driving by, the general public, would not see, or know that we have a house for sale down the street. • Reidenberg: ®kay. Go ahead. Knight. I definitely would have an arrow, I understand how you got confused, well, just because you see an open house sign on the corner what does that mean, how are they going to know to go to the end of the street? Definitely, we need an arrow, and that's what we would have. We could just have one open house sign, the realtors could get together and say, okay, we're both going to do it 1 to 4, we only put up one sign so it's not obtrusive on AIA, like we've been doing for that last 24 years, and make it, and have the police pick up the open house signs if they're not in compliance with the City of Highland Beach, on the ordinance, of 12 x 1$, white with black letters. Reidenberg: You 1zterally don't think that people turn down the side street. Knight: IVo, they don't. I've been doing open houses here and I feel like I'm really old telling you this - 24 years, I sat that development in a construction trailer 7 days a week with open house signs and that's how I sold them all. I had a contract on my unit, 1016 Belau Drive, the guy came. in off my open house, unfortunately, you don't get any marketing newspapers, people don't really go through the. ads in the newspaper, and even if you were to advertise in the newspaper open house, they don't do that. People know every Sunday all developments have open houses, and they drive apound. What I really don't understand, and can you please. answer me? Why, for that last 24 years all of a sudden now for realtors, I mean our income level, I know it's not your problem, but «ve're suffering terribly, and this is like the worst time to not let us do open house signs, 65 and if we go with compliance with the sign and all that, I agree with you, I mean we • really need your help here, things are horrible. Thank you. Iteidenberg: ®kay. Anybody else`s l~r. Sugarman: Sugarman: bale Sugarman, again, town manager. Let me. There were three points I wanted to make. Let Yne get to the last question that was asked. ~7hy, after 24~ years is the town suddenly enforcing the soda as it relates to open house signs, and the answer to that question is pretty straightforward. In August of last year, after spending nearly a year on the topic of obstructions in the right-of--way on State route AlA, this board, after conducting a series of public hearings, ended up making a number of recommendations to the town commission that they wanted to see the town staff enforce the existing code more vigorously as it relates to obstructions in the right-of--way, and those recommendations were taken to the town commission. The town commission held public meetings on this very same topic, and in the end, the discussion and the debate led to a directive from the town commission that they will support the staff in the enforcement of the town's code that's been on the books for 24 or 45 or 97 years, however, long, they will support the town staff in more vigorously enforcing the town code. I cannot talk about the prior 24 or 45 years, but I will tell you that since around October 1, the town has been more vigorously enforcing the town code, in particular as it relates to signage in the right of way. Unfortunately, one of the residents who had one of the temporary real estate signs here that I would love to show you, has left, and so I can't show you, it wauldn't be my exhibit, it would be hers, but the way we are interpreting the code is, my position is, each property that is for sale is entitled to have a temporary real estate sign, . instead of it saying open house, it is the same dimensions black and white, and it would say, I forget exactly, but for sale, and who to contact and the telephone number, and that swinging sign gets to be placed on the property. Now that for sale sign gets to stay there all the time - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In fact, the code even says it can stay on the property up to 5 days after the sale is actually consummated. I think there is a 3-day right of rescission, and so on, so they can keep the temporary real estate sign on the property 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, up to 5 days after the actual sale occurs. That signage is there because the real estate agents and the property owners want the traveling public to know that that parcel is for sale. Now if somebody is going by at 4 a.m., they may see that, and it's unlikely they want to bother the property owner or the real estate agent to view the house at 4 a.m. I~owever, it's typical people go shopping for real estate on weekends, so it's my interpretation that the code says for 48 hours you can also have an open house sign, and that open house sign can go on the property, go right next to the for sale sign, the real estate sign, and this sign goes up for 48 hours to let the traveling public, or the purchasing public. know, that this is a good time to come on in, this house is open. You can tour it. And so, that's why we believe the code allows a second open house sign on the property, not on state route AlA with an arrow that says down this side street there is an open house. `This is to let people know that that property is holding an open house, and they can keep the sign up for 48 hours. Now, having said that, we're very sympathetic to the real estate business right now. The market is horrendous. And I don't want to be argumentative, but the reality of it is the more the prices are depressed in town, and the more sales that are consummated at a depressed value, the lower the rate of taxes that are paid on that h®use. So if somebody stands before you and gives yott the ~~ argument that these additional sales will benefit the town by bringing in additional taxes, • actually the argument is exactly the reverse. When prices go down through the consummation of a sale, the town will receive less taxes. We do not receive the doc stamps, we do not receive any of the county taxes that are part of the consummation of a sale. I just want to make those three points. I would be happy to answer any questions on the statements that I made. Reidenberg: Let me talk to that gentlemen. ~1r. Bowen? Bowen: ~'es? Reidenberg: Would you agree with this, that if people on AlA if they had bigger signs that that would also potentially help. I mean bigger than what Highland Beach limits? Bowen: I don't think so. No. Reidenberg: How about if there were bigger signs on the side? Wouldn't make any difference if there were bigger signs? Bowen: I think the code criteria.. . Reidenberg: No, forget about that now. Bowen: Bigger signs? As long as they're noticeable, no. • Reidenberg: How about the color? Would you think that the color would benefit potentially the homeowner? Bowen: The color? Reidenberg: The color of the sign, if it was red instead of black and white? Bowen: Not necessarily. Reidenberg: ®kay. Bowen: I just wanted to rebut Dale's last comment. Dale is not a real estate expert, as far as I know, he's not a broker, and he doesn't see the day-to-day transactions what we're involved with. When the real estate market, let's say, bottoms out, prices will firm up as sales progress, and then prices will ramp back up again. It happens every real estate cycle. So, the benefit would be additional taxes as sales ramp back up again. It's typically every ten years, the real estate market recycles and that occurs. It's historic. Reidenberg: I think 1vlr. Resnick had a question. Resnick: I probably have been the biggest advocate on this board for signs. I hate signs. But I understand also, a need at times, and my question would be, mainly because it talks . about it being out for 4g hours, the town that I came from back in California, we were inundated with signs like that, you know on four different corners with arrows pointing to 67 where you go, and we wouldn't have that problem here, but the time was much more limited. I, for one, might be much more sympathetic to a change in the regulation if you . said to me can we put out these open house signs for 2-4 hour periods, not a 48-hour period. Put them out on Saturday at noon, take them away at 4:00,. Bowen: We're typically 1-5. Resnick: Whatever, that 4-hour period is, would something like that be workable for you all, and the reason, you know, as I say, I understand the need for them, but sitting here there is no way in the world that I would allow them out there for 48 hours. In my vote. Bowen: We all agree. Resnick: That's not what the presentation shows. Bowen: That's the town code. Reidenberg: However it was being misinterpreted before, doesn't make any difference, clearly an open house you're not going to have it there on the side street for 48 hours, first of all, one additional open house, you don't have to have it for 48 hours to have it open. You're going have it for, like you say, for 2-4 hours. There's problems with signs all the time. We had that problem with, last year, somebody wanted to put up a massive sign that covered the whole scope of the property and they were cited for a violation and the sign was very constricted and it was anocean-front property, so I'm not sure how the economic times, though, makes a difference, though if this was the situation. I'm really • am not. Bowen: It's not just a realtor issue, it's a homeowner issue, and Reidenberg: The homeowner that's selling is leaving Highland Beach, so they're not going to, Bowen: With all due respect, the board, and the town manager, are here to serve the homeowners as board members and management of the town. Reidenberg: We're here to benefit the town, you are correct. [tape skips here to Sugerman:] Sugerman: The codes does not allow balloons or streamers to be attached or anything else to be attached, because they're very specific about the dimensions, size, coloring, lettering, of these signs. Board Member: So, in other words, what you're saying is you can't put the sign in the right of way? Sugerman: IVo, I didn't say that. I think I said the town will take a position of leniency if the property owner or the real estate agent wants to place the sign in the right of way in • ~8 front of the property that's subject to the sale, we will demonstrate flexibility to allow it • to go on the right of way. Reidenberg: Why? Sugerman: We try to sho~n~ flexibility. Reidenberg: That makes no sense. You're just totally inconsistent with what you just said before, Mr. Sugerman, very frankly. If you're enforcing, the recommendation, that's correct. The recommendation of this board was that the ordinance be enforced. Sugerman: I'm not talking about State Route AIA, sir. I'm talking about on the side street. Reidenberg. Oh, on the side street. Sugerman: That's what I was talking about. That's what I was referring to. I was referring to the subject property for sale. The town will show some flexibility and allow a sign at that property, say on Bel Lido Drive, Belaire, whatever side street it might be, we will show flexibility and allow the for sale sign and the open house sign to be placed in the right of way, but only in front of that property. Reidenberg: On the side street. Sugerman: On the side streets, yes sir. Reidenberg: Any other discussion? Go ahead. Bowen: I just wanted to mention that that's akeady provided for in the code. The code says you may have a for sale sign and one additional open house sign, however, the code does not, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the code, I'm not really in favor of any modification, it's just the interpretation of the code. Again, there is no mention in the code whatsoever, that either the for sale sign or the open house sign has to be on the subject property. I've read it 20 times, it's not there. This is an interpretation of the staff and the town manager, as Dale stated earlier, it's not how the code is written verbatim. Sugerman: I can confirm that. Greg's right. That's the way we interpret the code. It does not talk about it being within the four corners of the property, he's right. That's how -the code doesn't talk about it. That's why I said.. . Reidenberg: Nell, but it refers to -it's clearly referring to the property where the... Sugerman: That's our belief, yes. Reidenberg: That's clear from reading the ordinance. Bowen: I think that the verbiage is the seller or their agent are entitled - I don't think it's -you may imply that.. . 69 Reidenberg: You're talking about the house... Bowen: The house itself is not mentioned at all in the code. Reidenberg. So what you're Saying is you don't want to have an open house sign on the property on the side street, you'd rather have it on AlA? Bowen: That's correct. I'd rather have it on AlA directing people down to the house... Reidenberg: Saying open house, but you don't want it on the property? Bowen: I'm not entitled to a second sign, I understand that. Reidenberg: You just want it on AlA? Bowen: I'm not entitled to that, under the code. Reidenberg: One of the problems that I would see, gentlemen, I would see problems with enforcement in terms of having the police determine, who's doing what, who's picking it up, who's not picking it up. That's potentially a problem. Mr. Resnick? Resnick: Well, again, I'll take the harder position. I think yes, the enforcement would be with the police department, it is right now, if we were to make any kind of changes to this I would go for even stricter enforcement, if they're not picked up, I wouldn't put them aside and save them. Reidenberg: That's why I don't even want to do anything... anybody want to make a motion, oh, go ahead... Unidentified voice from audience: Definitely, as realtors we pay for these signs so when we come to do our open house we don't want to leave our signs out overnight because kids or somebody is going to steal the signs, so we put the sign out at 1:00 and we pick it up at 4:00 or from 2 to 5. I think, again, what you're saying, how you hated signs in California and all that, the open house signs were horrible what they had with not regulating and being in compliance with the 12 x 18 and the white and black letters, I think that will look very nice, if the police don't see a compliance on the open house sign, yes, we all agree, they should be picked up, they need to be the standard 12 x 1$, and we agree with you on that. And as far as, I know you're having a problem understanding how does an open house really bring people to the house, but the last contract I had on this unit that's been on the market for 3 years that's vacant, the people came through an open house. When I.. . Reidenberg: I understand, but if you have a house on the side street, you haven't sold the house because it said open house in front of the house? Unidentified realtor: Right, I agree with you there. But what I'm saying it helps, it brings more prospects into the house, it makes our odds better in these economic times, • 70 Reidenberg: We had somebody that wanted a bigger sign, and he said that would help selling his condominiums, too. Sometimes there has to be Realtor: Manalapan, Hillsboro Mile, you're all the same on the signs. All the Manalapan signs are smaller. Reidenberg: Mr. Sugerman, let me ask you this? Have you determined in any way, shape or manner, have you had a chance to, whether or not any of the communities permit the kinds of signs that they're talking about? Realtor: All Boca and all the cities off Federal they all allow it... Sugerman: I have not. Reidenberg: Well, I guess what I would think would be a good thing to do before we make any determination is to see what some of the communities along A 1 A what their posture and position is, so we would at least have some idea. Realtor: If you go out on a Sunday, Delray Beach, I'm sorry, but you drive up AlA, Delray allows open house signs on AlA waiving them down, Boca Raton does go by sun and surf, I mean just take a ride one Sunday -everybody but Highland Beach.. . Reidenberg: Mr. Sugerman, would you be willing to do that, Mr. Sugerman, so we can have some idea? Obviously, you have to do everybody along AlA... Sugerman: I believe the recommendation from the board should be to the town commission because that is your duty and responsibility, and if the board sees fit to ask the town commission to have a survey done we can do that and be responsive to the town commission. Reidenberg: Anybody want to make a motion to that effect? Or do you want to make any motion at all? Any further discussion? Or we don't have to make any recommendation to the town commission. Board Member: I' d like to keep the code as it. Resnick: He'd like to leave it as is. Reidenberg: Okay, we don't have, you want to make a motion to that effect? VVe make no recommendation to the town commission? Board member: I'll make the motion that we leave the sign ordinance as is. Board member: I'll second it. Reidenberg: All in favor? Aye. • Mr. Resnick: Right now, nay. 71 Reidenberg:. I vote aye. So, the motion is that sign ordinance remain the way it is. ®lcay. Next. We will move on to report from the chairman. • Voice from gallery: Thank you, board. Reidenberg: Gentlemen: ®n, I'm going to read, so it may take a little bit. On September 2, 2008, acting in accordance with our previous instructions, I appeared before the Town of Highland Beach Commission, dealing with the recommendation that we had made to the town commission on AlAright-of--way obstructions. At that time the minutes reflected of September 2 reads as follows: Acting on your directive, and I was referring to, these are the minutes. Acting on your directive, the Town of Highland Beach Code Enforcement Board has investigated, researched and held public hearings, and taken necessary steps to evaluate, in order to make recommendations for your consideration, as to obstructions on AIA. We propose the following recommendations be adopted as policy of the Town of Highland Beach made as amendments to the Code of Highland Beach. 1) Strict enforcement by whatever policing authority is in effect of all state and town laws regarding parking, speeding, bike lanes, turning regulations, etc. 2) Install signs stating no turns, no passing on swales, no parking on swales, bike riders single file only. 3) Install welcome signs at entrances to town stating that all town laws are strictly enforced. 4) That applications for building permits, if any, upon discretion of building official that parking on AlA may be necessary. Contractor shall furnish a copy of the DOT application for parking prior to issuance of building permit. 5) There shall be no free-standing reflectors within the unpaved portion of the right-of--way permitted. [no number 6 dictated] 7) Recommended to all residents that installation of hedges no higher than 18" in lieu of reflectors, concrete rounds and pyramids. 8) Require that all mailboxes be moved to the tree-line within the nght-of--way. Town attorney, Slmey, at that meeting, according to the minutes, said if the commission wished to adopt these we will have tc review the code first. Commissioner Trinley stated that since the state owns the from the edge of the ,how can the town dictate what can or cannot be put on the property. Doesn't the postal service control where the mailboxes are placed? Who would plant the hedge and maintain them. Mayor Newill stated the commission would have to budget for these expenses and need to identify that cost first. Mr. Reidenberg stated that unless we have strict enforcement of the rules and regulations it will still be a problem. Town Manager Sugerman stated the FDOT has a contract with the town to maintain AlA. They take the position that the state's right-of--way is the town's responsibility. Last year, we had received a list of 870 obstructions. This list also includes trees and shrubs plus some other obstructions that may or may not be acceptable. Commissioner Pagliaro stated we need to send a list to the homeowners and have them voluntarily participate in removing the obstructions. Manager Sugerman stated as of Friday the police had issued 13 citations for contractors parking on the right-of--way. Are you looking for strict enforcement making obstructions in the right-of--way illegal? We will need to check the regulations for mailboxes making -- where do you want to go with the 18" hedge? Do you want to force residents to do planting, or should the town take it over? Commissioner Trinley: Strict enforcement. Motion by Vice-Mayor Zwick to instruct the town manager to work with the town attorney to write a draft code provision to meet requirements recommended by code enforcement board, seconded by . Commissioner Pagliaro. This is the minutes of the Town Commission on September 2na 72 There was then a discussion. Mayor Newill stated we would like to see all the • obstructions go away. We still have to address the 18" hedge, I cannot vote for it until we know the actual cost of planting and maintaining it. The role call vote was as follows: Vice-Mayor Zwick stated yes; Commissioner Pagliaro, yes; Commissioner Sirelli, yes; Commissioner Trinley, yes; Mayor Newill, no. The motion passed with a 4-1 vote and that motion, gentlemen, was to instruct the town manager to work with town attorney to write a draft code position to meet requirements recommended by code enforcement board, that was the motion. On November 25, I'm reading from the agenda. The agenda of November 25a' states: Item #9: Reports from town attorney. Update on plans for dealing with obstructions on SR AlA. From the agenda, the minutes, the minutes reflect this. Reports to town attorney. Update on plans for dealing with obstruction on SR AlA. State Road AlA is governed by FDOT with the exception that the town has a memorandum of understanding regarding shrubbery and trees. The town can take two approaches on this concern. Section 16.3 Parking right of-way. Include a provision that there will be no further landscaping on the ROW without town commission approval or put nothing in the right-of--way. Simplest way to deal with this is to create an ordinance creating certain item on ROW or subject to a code enforcement action. Mayor Newill: Where can the landscaping trucks park, or when residents have a large party? Attorney Sliney: Select items that are permissible are not allowed and I will create an ordinance. The town commission does not have jurisdiction over AlA. FDOT allows the town to regulate the activities. Town manager Sugerman then went on to say: The original obstruction list permit the FDOT had 800 items that included trees, hedges, reflectors, address signs, mailboxes, etc. If you want to make some of these obstructions illegal, there are two ways to go. Everything, or only the following allowed: Plantings and break-away signage. Commissioner Pagliaro: Residents started using reflectors as a means to protect their sod and small shrubs. Mayor Newill stated: We would eliminate the reflectors and pyramids if we enforced the no parking. Manager Sugerman: We have more aggressively been enforcing the no parking in the right-of--way. Code enforcement suggested the town plan an 18-24" hedge in the ROW throughout the town. Would cost a lot of money initially and then to maintain. Commissioner Trinley: Town Manager, can you get a list of the obstructions and the cost to plant and maintain a hedge throughout the town and then schedule for a January workshop. Item 12: Public comments and requests related to items discussed at meeting. Lewis Reidenberg, Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. If you review the tape of the meeting where the commission of the code enforcement board was made, a motion was made by the commission instructing the town attorney and town manager to prepare. an ordinance regarding these obstructions. I find it astonishing that code enforcement worked on this project for over a year, with the knowledge of the town attorney and the town manager, why serve on a board if your work is going to be ignored? Those, gentlemen, were my comments. Everything we did, the work that we did, was ignored. I made that clear, obvious to the commission. They passed an ordinance, sure. You're more than welcome to take a look at them. I've repeated, I've read to you, verbatim, what the minutes show. I was upset then with the fact that nothing happened; I 73 was upset at the fact that we were obviously, clearly, everybody ignored totally, the town attorney, the town manager, everybody ignored, the motion that had been passed -- when • I appeared at that meeting in November, it was like this was a brand new subject. So, I bring that to your attention as I said because of the fact that I thought it was important that you know that your- work went for naught up to this point in time. Why that happened, I can't answer. Board member: I thought they were going to look into it... Reidenberg: They passed a motion, an ordinance, they passed a motion in September, instructing the town manager to work with the town attorney, to write a draft code provision to meet requirements recommended by the code enforcement board that was passed. 5-l. Nothing happened. When I attended the meeting in November, it was as if nothing happened. Yes, Mr. Sugerman, come on up. Sugerman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [tape stops recording at this point] C • 74 APPROVAL• Louis Reidenberg, Ch. Martin Sahan, V. Ch. Paul Resnick, Sec. Frank Collarullo Jack A. Halpern Eugene Diliberto Lori Wolin Seal: • Resigned 12/19/08 Resigned 12/20/08 Attest: ~l~ 1~~,/ • ~~~~~ Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk t~osent • Page 1 of 1 Janice M. Moore From: Sahn, Marty [MHSAHN~mactec.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 1:50 PM To: Imrai~aol.com; Janice M. Moore Subject: RE: Highland Beach Code Enforcement Board Special Meeting Mr. Reidenberg and Ms. Moore: I would like to confirm my resignation form the Highland Beach Code Enforcement Board that I discussed with both of you oralty at the last CEB meeting on December 17, 2008. My resignation is effective as of that meeting. As I told you at the meeting, the reason for my action is the unwillingness of my employer MACTEC Engineering to allow me to take the time to attend meetings, held as they are during business hours. I am gratified by the support that MACTEC has given me for the five years that I have served on the CEB, but because of the current economic recession, MACTEC has determined that its Principals should be spending full time on its core business. I appreciate the opportunity to serve our community and I have enjoyed the associations with you and others that have resulted from this service. • Sincerely, Martin H. Sahn Page 1 of 2 ~e~-e~/ Bno~wn From: Thy ~p LVp LV~A 3:1Q ~1 V. ~~ p p L. ~'yy ~,_`~'~r w~Ay°M ~(P~~-^'~"~O'~_'~f/~AAIp ~t1'$a11BtS; LOTS 1Ceiyon ~1Mey~110dg90I1fUSS.aOtn R@: ~'ll~ll~fid C.O~E. ~ BOdll~ $peaal Meeblg _o~'Q~ 16 N t Ay0 hi S •.~y ,; _ ..,~ '3 _ _ :~~ ~o n • DATE: TO: FROM: RE: Office of the Town Manager Interdepartmental Memo December 12, 2008 Mr. Louis Reidenberg, Planning Board Chair Members of the Planning Board Dale S. Sugerman, Town Manager Consideration of Modification to Section 23-7 of the Town Code- Permitted Signs The Town of Highland Beach staff, through the members of the Police Department and the Building Department, has been removing real estate "for sale" and "open house" signs that have been placed along SR A1A on the weekends, advertising property for sale located on the residential side streets. The signs are removed and returned to the individuals who have placed them on SR A1A. The reason that we remove and return them is that Section 23-7 (6) (a) of the Town Code says: No temporary real estate signs shall be permitted except those erected by property owners or the owner's agent, and such signs shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Not more than one sign shall be erected for each property. Typically, the property itself has either a temporary real estate or open house sign located at the front of the property, so an additional temporary real estate sign placed on SR A1A is prohibited. We therefore remove the second sign placed on SR A1A and return it to the property owner or the real estate agent. I have been approached by one resident and one realtor working in the Town of Highland Beach asking that we make an exception to the current Code due to the very depressed state of the economy and the real estate market. Specifically, they are pointing to Section 23-7 (6) (e) of the Town Code which says, in part: e. One additional "open house" real estate sign shall be permitted for aforty-eight-hour period for sale of properties and is to be removed immediately after the two (2) day period. • • The Town staff has been taking the position that this additional sign can only be located on the property which is owned by the seller and cannot appear within the right-of-way on SR A1A (unless the actual property being sold is located on SR A1A). Copies of the entire Section 23-7 of the Town Code are included for your review and consideration. I believe that a few of the real estate folks plan to be in attendance at the Board meeting to provide you with their input on this matter. The Board, of course, has an opportunity to discuss this matter at any depth that you wish, and if it leads to a recommendation to modify the Code, you would do so by providing your recommendation on this subject to the Town Commission. Of course, any actual amendment(s) to the Code would have to be done as an action taken by the Town Commission. I will be in attendance at your Board meeting to make a brief presentation on this subject and to answer any questions that you might have. ~~ Dale S. Sugerman • Town Manager cc: Richard Carl, Sergeant William Kraemer, Building Official Eric Lundberg, Sergeant Chapter 23 SIGNS AND ADVERTISING* Page 1 of 2 • Sec. 23-7. Permitted signs. (a) Generally. Signs are permitted only along the road frontage unless otherwise indicated. (b) All zoning districts. (1) In all zoning districts one single-faced "No Trespassing" or "Posted" sign is permitted for each one hundred (100) feet of road frontage. This single-faced sign shall not exceed Florida State Statutes or Department of Transportation standards, nor exceed three (3) square feet in size and shall be nonilluminated. No permit is required. (2) In all zoning districts, one entrance (ingress) and one exit (egress) sign is permitted for directing traffic flow. Each sign may be single-faced or double-faced and shall meet Department of Transportation standards, and not exceed three (3) square feet in size. Each sign may be illuminated or nonilluminated as determined by the owner and police department. A permit is required. (3) In all zoning districts, one street number sign is allowed for each major entrance and may be single-faced or double-faced, not to exceed three (3) square feet per face. These street number signs should be readily visible at all times from the main highways leading into the entrance. These signs may be illuminated but not with intermittent or colored lights or animation. No permit is required. (4) The flying of national, state and town flags is permitted in all zoning districts. A limit of two (2) flags per site is allowed at any one time. No permit is required. (5) On vacant land in all zoning districts, one on-site nonilluminated real estate "for sale" sign is permitted. The sign may be single-faced or double-faced, not to exceed • twelve (12) inches in height by eighteen (18) inches in width, swinging-type, with post. A permit is required. (See additional requirements section 23-7(b)(5), (b)(6) a., b., c., d., e.). (6) No temporary real estate signs shall be permitted except those erected by property owners or the owner's agent, and such signs shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Not more than one sign shall be erected for each property. b. The size of each sign shall be limited to an area not more than twelve (12) inches in height by eighteen (18) inches in width per side. Signs may be constructed to permit lettering on both front and rear, lettering shall be black on -white background. c. Signs are to be two-sided "swinging type" with posts to be one inch black angle-iron, six (6) feet in length with four (4) feet above ground from the top of sign when installed and with a piece of one inch by one inch by one-eighth (1/8) inch black angle-iron placed horizontally, four (4) feet from top of post (ground level). d. Removal of signs after sale or rent, within five (5) working days. e. One additional "open house" real estate sign shall be permitted for aforty- eight-hour period for sale of properties and is to be removed immediately after the two (2) day period.. Such sign shall be of the same size, color and installation as set forth in b. and c. above. (c) All zoning districts. • (1) Temporary signs. One temporary nonilluminated sign is permitted within the boundaries of the site, either: (A) Construction sign: For premises undergoing new construction only, for http://library2.municode.com/default/DocView/ 10919/1 /69 12/8/2008 Chapter 23 SIGNS AND ADVERTISING* Page 2 of 2 which building permit is in force, one nonilluminated single-faced or double-faced sign not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet per face is allowed but not less than • three (3) feet on any one side.This temporary sign may include a maximum of two (2) names, limited to the developer's and/or general contractor's names. Each entity may include one telephone number and/or one website address. All letteringis to be in black on a white background. Maximum letter height shall be three (3) inches. An artist's rendering of the proposed structure is allowed. A maximum of three (3) colors will be allowed within the artist's rendering. A graphic representation of the sign, drawn to scale, must be submitted as part of the application. The temporary sign may not be installed on the building or construction site fence. The sign shall include the street address number in letters three (3) inches high. Removal of this temporary sign is required as a condition for issuing the certificate of occupancy. The planning board reviews the sign for approval and a permit is required; or (B) Real estate sign: One nonilluminated real estate sign advertising the premises "for sale" by the owner or his agent. This sign may be single-faced or double-faced, not to exceed twelve (12) inches in height by eighteen (18) inches in width, swinging-type on a post. No permit is required. (See additional requirements section 23-7(b)(6)a., b., c., d., e.). (C) Permanent signs: a. One permanent single-faced or double-faced sign not to exceed ten (10) square feet per face may be permitted. Such sign must be illuminated, but not with intermittent or colored lights or animation. No symbols or logos are permitted. The planning board reviews the sign and a permit is then required. • b. A street address sign readily visible from the street is required. Installation of this street address sign is a condition for issuing the certificate of occupancy. No permit is required. c. In the case of Intracoastal property, one additional permanent sign identifying the development may be allowed. This additional sign may also be single-faced or double-faced, not to exceed ten (10) square feet per face. It may be illuminated, but not with intermittent or colored lights or animation. A permit is required. d. In the case of motels, asingle-faced or double-faced pendant, for the purpose of indicating "vacancy" or "no vacancy" only, may be attached to a permanent motel sign permitted under this section. This pendant shall not exceed three (3) square feet per face, nor exceed the width of the permanent sign, nor exceed six (6) inches in height. No permit is required. e. Tow away signs conforming to state statutes are allowed. A permit is required. The fee is twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each sign; limit of two (2). (Ord. No. 645, 4-4-95; Ord. No. 664, 3-4-97; Ord. No. 688, § 15, 1-2-01; Ord. No. 692, 7-3-01) • http://library2.municode.com/default/DocView/10919/1/69 12/8/2008