Minutes for September 9, 2005
(Code Board Workshop)
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board
of Trustees: Combined Workshop with Code Board Members
Friday,
September 9, 2005
3:45
p.m. – Building D&E
Chairman Bruce Bolon called the meeting to order at 3:52 p.m.
Mr. Bolon led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Weglein called the roll. All Trustees were present. Mr. Torpy was present as counsel. Code Board members present were James Worth, Jim Clinton, Julius Santa Maria, Mary Firlein (Alt.), James Tirone, Ken Fricke (Alt.), John Keegan (Alt.), and Paul Ingardia, Code Enforcement Field Officer.
Mr. Bolon referred to Section 2 on page 2, requirements and approval of the ARCC. Ms. McCahan commented “other approved materials” needs to be more specific. Must wood be wrapped or covered with vinyl or aluminum? Mr. Worth commented on the lack of a list of approved materials. Mr. Carillion commented the materials in question are usually aluminum or vinyl which aesthetically blends in with the other homes in the Bay. The DOR does not prohibit building with wood, but it must then be covered. Mr. Tirone commented some of the homes have painted wood which cannot be distinguished from vinyl or aluminum and looks very good. However, Code Enforcement is citing violations for paint, although there is nothing written in the DOR about this. Mr. Carillion pointed out the aluminum or vinyl requirement is written on the permit which is signed by the property owner. Mr. Bleau commented this requirement is not in the DOR. He asked if the ARCC has the authority to include the requirement if it is not in the DOR.
Mr. Torpy commented there are two separate problems facing the ARCC and Code Enforcement. The DOR gives the ARCC authority to review and approve all plans to repair or construct. The ARCC also has the authority to promulgate regulations relating to all construction in Barefoot Bay. The DOR has certain requirements such as chain link fence as the only material for fences. What is not specific in the DOR can be permitted by the ARCC as long as the aesthetics in the Bay are maintained. “Or other approved materials” means the ARCC could approve building something with wood as long as it was not specifically contradicted in the DOR. In the case of the vinyl and aluminum question, if a permit can be produced that says the property owner signed on to cover the wood with these materials, the matter can be taken to Code Enforcement. The relationship between the Trustees Board, the ARCC, and the Code Enforcement Board is what needs to be clarified today.
Mr. Torpy gave an example of a complaint, i.e., an application for a carport that is actually a garage. The DOR specifies a carport, and a garage is not a carport. If the DOR does not specifically prohibit a closed in carport, there is nothing anyone can do about it. If the same property owner came to the ARCC for approval, and the ARCC says you can’t close in a carport, the violation is enforceable. Mr. Torpy commented every flaw in the DOR and the Code Enforcement process has been exposed because of sheer volume in the last 12 months since the hurricanes. The District cannot go back and address the people who have already gotten through the system. What can happen now is to adopt very clear rules for areas in the DOR that are vague. The ARCC has done this, but also needs input at the Board level so very clear guidelines are established from here on. Relative to the Code Board, this will provide them with clear rules to delineate violations. A perception cannot be enforced, only an adopted rule.
Mr. Bolon cited an example of a new handicap ramp built entirely of wood. Mr. Carillion commented the ramp had not been approved by ARCC. Mr. Torpy commented the first question is did they get approval to build the ramp from ARCC? If the answer is no, they violated the DOR by not getting ARCC approval. At this point, Code Enforcement can cite them for violation. After the fact, the ARCC must decide if the structure was permittable. If the ARCC gives them approval, problem solved. If the ARCC does not give them approval, the Code Board can fine them for every day it exists.
Mr. Santa Maria asked Mr. Torpy to clarify that the Code Enforcement Board could fine violators for not having obtained a permit. Mr. Torpy responded that it could. Mr. Bolon asked if the ARCC told the property owner they’d have to paint the structure to match the house before giving approval, the ARCC has the authority to do that. Mr. Torpy responded the only thing the ARCC cannot do is be inconsistent with the DOR. Mr. Torpy commented it was the history of Barefoot Bay that is frustrating the Board today. It is impossible to go back and fix the mistakes of the past. He urged everyone to stop trying to do that. Rehashing the past gets nothing done. The ARCC is being very consistent with new approvals.
Mr. Glashauser commented on “other approved materials”. Nowhere in the DOR does it say what those are. Mr. Torpy reiterated the DOR gives the ARCC the specific authority to promulgate rules that are not specific in the DOR. The ARCC can say what the other materials will be. Mr. Torpy commented that if something is not specifically prohibited in the DOR, someone could do it. The only way to change the scope of authority of the ARCC is to revise the DOR.
Mr. Worth asked if it behooves the ARCC to be specific on their permits that wrapping the posts is required. Mr. Torpy responded that current permits do have it in writing. Mr. Carillion commented Barbara McGuire instituted the requirement in writing 6 years ago. Mr. Torpy responded to Ms. McCahan that anything permitted before 1999 is subject to the DOR in use at that time. Anything permitted after that is subject to the 1999 version of the DOR. The only thing ARCC regulates is aesthetics. Rules should be flexible enough to reflect current trends and to support property values.
Ms. Weglein asked if the ARCC rules and regulations are written down. [Thelma, from the audience, said nothing in writing.] Ms. Weglein commented the first thing the ARCC has to do it compile a list of what they consider are approved materials. Then attach the list with the permit.
Mr. Torpy commented many arguments from residents could be avoided by making notes on a worksheet that accompanies the permit regarding what was applied for and how the ARCC interpreted the request. These worksheets would make the Code Board’s job easier by providing specific documentation and proof that the resident was permitted for and if they violated the intent of it.
Mr. Worth, Mr. Santa Maria, and Mr. Carillion concurred that all exposed wood has to be “wrapped” with vinyl or aluminum. It cannot be showing as wood or simply painted, as this is not approved by the ARCC. Mr. Tirone wanted to know why paint couldn’t become a permitted material. It’s aesthetically pleasing, hardly distinguishable from aluminum or vinyl even up close, and economically maintained which is a boon to people on fixed incomes. Ms. McCahan objected on the grounds that she had to do the vinyl thing and so does everyone else.
On the subject of white picket fences: decorative fences are permitted to be other than chain link. They are for corralling flowers, not dogs. They have no gates in them and are not used for restraint. They are often used for enhanced privacy.
Tony Vallante, 925 Redbud Road: What does it take to change the requirement for chain link fencing? There are a lot of prettier materials. Mr. Torpy explained it takes 50% plus 1 of the property owners to make a change in the DOR. The fencing issue was included in the last effort to change the DOR, and not enough ballots came back to pass it.
Ms. Weglein asked if an amendment to the DOR might take less time than trying to revise the whole thing. She commented it might be simpler for the residents, as well, and perhaps the time has come when the residents would encompass some changes, if not others. Timing would be important. Do a mailing when residents are in the Bay for the winter instead of up North. Mr. Torpy concurred this might be a more successful way to accomplish one of the most requested changes. Mr. Torpy urged the Board not to begin the cumbersome round of public hearings ad finitum that accompanied the last effort. Mr. Bleau commented we have already done this. Mr. Torpy commented sometimes you have to help people understand their own process. Ms. Weglein suggested each Trustee write up what they want and submit it to Mr. Hunt for the next meeting. Mr. Torpy’s main concern is the frustration he perceives that the process is not moving forward. Mr. Torpy would like to see a focus towards a written document that shows how each process works with all the other processes that depend on it. The Bay has the processes, but the people don’t understand the processes. Mr. Bolon asked if Mr. Vallante had visited the ARCC. Mr. Carillion responded Mr. Vallante had been present at the ARCC meeting that morning.
Mr. Ingardia commented there is a home on Gardenia Drive that looks like a small fortress made of cinder block and stucco. The house does not fit in to the neighborhood. Mr. Torpy replied to check if an ARCC permit had been issued. If not, the building can be torn down. If the permit is from pre-1999, nothing can be done about it. Mr. Ingardia asked about fences along lot lines. Mr. Torpy referred to the DOR’s requirement that fences along swales and canals must be 4 ft chain link. The DOR does not say fences along lot lines have to be chain link. What is a decorative barrier? A fence is an enclosure. If it is not used to enclose anything, it is not a fence, and can be made of a different material approved by the ARCC.
Mr. Torpy explained the Code Enforcement Board is independent. Therefore it is staff’s duty to present the complaint with proof [facts] there is a violation of the DOR. When the Code Board sets a fine and it begins running, after a certain amount of time in which processes occur, Staff is supposed to bring the case back to the Board for certification of fine. This means the violation has not complied. The Board is finished with the process in that case. It now goes to the Trustees Board for approval of collection, which means a lawsuit. Historically this has not happened because it is so expensive.
Ms. McCahan asked what is the bottom line on what the Boards are going to do today? Mr. Bolon directed the ARCC to put together a list of their rules, make a list of “other approved materials”, and bring it back to the Trustees Board. Mr. Bleau asked Mr. Hunt to bring back the DOR the Board worked on approximately 18 months ago for review. Mr. Torpy urged the ARCC to do their thing and formulate a clear policy.
Mr. Torpy urged a very clear policy delineating that the ARCC does “this, Code Enforcement does “this”, the Boards do “this”, collections happen “when”. Something very clear and concise for everyone to refer to..
Mr. Bolon entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bleau made the motion. Second Mr. Glashauser. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928