Title:
title
Reduction of Lien Request - Consideration of Applicant, Cha’s Studio Inc.’s, appeal of the Deputy County Manager’s denial of requested lien reduction of Code Enforcement Board lien (Case # 19-126-CEB) to administrative costs of $580.98. The subject property is located at 4384 Frances Avenue, Sanford; Tax Parcel ID: 14-20-30-503-0000-0130. District2 - Zembower (Alexis Brignoni, Code Enforcement Clerk)
end
Division:
division
Development Services
body
Authorized By:
Jose Gomez, Chief Administrator of Development Services
Contact/Phone Number:
Alexis Brignoni/407-665-7403
Background:
Isabel Acevedo, President of Cha’s Studio, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, submits this appeal on behalf of Cha’s Studio, Inc. (the “Applicant”). The Applicant submits an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners (the “Board”), pursuant to Seminole County Administrative Code Section 3.20 B.(3), of the Deputy County Manager’s denial of Applicant’s request for a reduction of a code enforcement board lien upon the property located at 4384 Frances Avenue, Sanford, Florida 32773 (the “Property”). The Code Enforcement Board lien, recorded on August 2, 2021, in Book 10002 at Pages 943-944, Official Records of Seminole County, Florida (the “Lien”), secures the County’s interest in the collective amount of $68,980.98 ($68,400.00 in accrued daily fines; $580.98 in administrative costs).
The Applicant acquired the Property via purchase by warranty deed in April 2024. The Lien was imposed upon the Property while owned by a previous owner. The Applicant, who brought the Property into compliance, claims financial hardship “due to financial burdens incurred during the extensive rebuilding process (of the Property)” and seeks a reduction of the Lien to the amount of the administrative costs ($580.98).
The Applicant’s appeal asserts that “at the time of closing, we were aware of a code enforcement lien of $16,800, which we anticipated would be negotiable upon completion of necessary cleanup efforts. Regrettably, we have since discovered that the property is encumbered by a lien totaling $86,000, a sum that is far beyond our financial capacity to address…” To note, while the Applicant was initially informed of an incorrect daily fine total, staff subsequently updated the Applicant with the corrected amount as provided within this agenda memorandum. Staff is uncertain as to whether a title search was performed prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the Property. The Applicant’s appeal includes a Notice of Commencement relating to foundation repair, building plans titled “Residential alterations, addition and renovations” with a handwritten notation of “Future plan,” and photographs of the property.
The Deputy County Manager’s denial of the Applicant’s request for reduction was based upon a determination that the request failed to meet the following guideline established by the Board:
If a property owner has purchased property on which a lien was recorded, a waiver or reduction on lien shall not be granted, in such cases, the lien should have been considered in reaching a purchase price. Section 3.20 B.(2)(a), Seminole County Administrative Code.
Information specific to the violation of the Seminole County Code:
Code Enforcement Case number 19-126-CEB was initiated in response to a complaint. At the time, the Property was owned by Andrew S. Faulkner, a previous owner. A background timeline is provided as an attachment to this item, with a pertinent summary provided below.
On December 18, 2018, the Code Enforcement Officer observed uncultivated vegetation (defined by Section 95.3(b), Seminole County Code [“SCC”], as a nuisance) on improved property more than 8” in height, in asserted violation of Section 95.4, Creation or maintenance of nuisances prohibited, SCC. On August 22, 2019, the matter came before the Code Enforcement Board, which issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order giving the Respondent a compliance date of September 5, 2019. An Affidavit of Non-Compliance was filed by the Code Enforcement Officer after re-inspection on November 19, 2020.
On July 22, 2021, a compliance hearing was held, and the Code Enforcement Board issued an Order finding Non-Compliance and Imposing Fine/Lien in the amount of $16,800.00 as of July 22, 2021, with the fine amount of $50.00 per day continuing to accrue until compliance is obtained.
On April 17, 2024, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership to the Applicant (from “FL Buyer’s Group, LLC”). The Applicant undertook the actions necessary to bring the Property into compliance after obtaining ownership of the Property.
On May 20, 2024, an Affidavit of Compliance was filed by the Code Enforcement Officer after re-inspection finding compliance as of May 20, 2024. As the daily $50 fine continued to accrue from July 23, 2021, until May 19, 2024 (1032 days), an additional $51,600 accrued in daily fines since imposition of the Lien, for a total fine amount of $68,400.00 secured by the Lien.
As the Lien secures administrative costs ($580.98) in addition to the accrued daily fine amount, the total amount secured by the Lien is $68,980.98.
Review Criteria:
Section 3.20 B.(3), Seminole County Administrative Code, provides:
If the Deputy County Manager determines that the request fails any one of the above-established guidelines, the Deputy County Manager shall issue a written denial of the request. If the applicant wishes to appeal the Deputy County Manager’s decision to the Board, the applicant may do so by filing a written appeal with the Deputy County Manager stating why the Board should make an exception to its established guidelines and reduce or waive the lien. Upon receipt of a proper appeal, the Deputy County Manager shall present the information to the Board of County Commissioners at a regular meeting for their consideration and final determination.
As provided above, the Applicant requests that the Board make an exception to its established guidelines and reduce or waive the lien for the following reasons:
1) Community improvement: Applicant’s stated intentions in purchasing the Property are not only a personal financial investment, but to contribute positively to the community by increasing the value and safety of the neighborhood. Applicant conveys that numerous neighbors and community members have expressed gratefulness for Applicant’s purchase and intended transformation of the Property, which Applicant states was “for many years used as a hub for drugs and illegal activity including dangerous individuals.” Applicant hopes to improve the quality of life for neighbors by improving the Property.
2) Financial hardship: The amount of the Lien far exceeds the amount that Applicant understood the Lien to be upon purchase. Applicant misunderstood the Lien amount to total $16,800.00. Moreover, it was Applicant’s hope that the Lien could be negotiated following cleanup/compliance.
3) Financial hardship: Applicant states that unanticipated structural issues with the house’s foundation have led to substantial financial losses. Applicant reports purchasing the house for $140,000.00. Applicant provides a “total renovation budget” for the Property of $65,000.00. Applicant states “this project alone has put us back an extra $61,050.12.” Applicant states that no monetary gains will be realized given the ongoing structural issues and that the house will be fully reconstructed.
Applicant states that the following has been completed at the Property: foundation replacement; yard cleanup; interior of home cleanup; and property debris and trash removal. Applicant includes photographs of the Property, as well as building plans of the intended renovations to the house. Applicant provides descriptions of additional intended improvements (replacement of roof, windows, doors; garage enclosure; addition of a third bedroom; etc.), noting that relevant permits will be submitted. While Applicant desires to implement such improvements, Applicant’s concern is that they cannot finish the project if the Lien is not reduced as requested.
4) Administrative costs will be paid by Applicant: Applicant is not requesting reduction or waiver of administrative costs.
5) Applicant corrected the violation: The violation was not caused by the Applicant, who remedied the violation after acquiring the Property. The Property was found to be in violation on September 6, 2019. The Applicant brought the Property into compliance within approximately six weeks of obtaining title to the Property.
Requested Action by Applicant:
Staff requests the Board consider and make a final determination on Applicant’s written appeal from the Deputy County Manager’s denial of Applicant’s request for reduction of the Lien to $580.98 administrative costs and, should the Lien amount be reduced, authorize the Chairman to execute a Satisfaction of Lien upon payment of the approved reduced amount.