Can code enforcement fine you for something they approved ?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2015
- If you are going to build on your property, you get a permit and get it approved by the city or county. But what would you do if after approving the construction, the city started fining you for using it? Sounds impossible. To sort it out, here is Help me Howard with Patrick Fraser.
If you grow up in South Florida, odds are you spend lots of time in and on the water. Joel Behar did.
Joel Behar: "I love my boat, and I love the water, and that's why I live here, so I can have the convenience of a boat in the backyard."
That's why Joel bought a house on a canal in North Miami. He then applied to install a lift that would run perpendicular to the seawall.
Joel Behar: "Then the city came out. They approved building permit. We did everything correctly. We even had a final inspection and the permits closed out with the boat on the lift."
Angel Martinez and his son got a permit to install a similar lift a few feet from Joel. They were approved.
Angel Martinez: "Yes, I was very happy until the problems started."
The problem: About a year after both men built their properly permitted lifts, North Miami cited them.
Brian Zappulla: "And I get a letter in the mail saying I am violating Section 29. I don't know, saying the fines are going to start, I need to get my boat off the lift."
Angel started getting $100 fines because he had his boat on his boat lift. Angel countered, 'You approved the lifts.'
Brian Zappulla: "And they told me I was confused as to how I can park, and I told them that no, they were the ones who were confused."
And talk about confusion at City Hall. While they were being cited by code compliance for putting their boat on their lift, Brian Zappulla put in a request to build the exact same lift the city was telling Angel and Joel they could not use.
Brian Zappulla: "This is what was approved by the city and it shows the dock, so this is the build out, this is the sea wall."
To make sure the city knew Brian's boat would be perpendicular to the seawall, he drew the boat on the application.
Brian Zappulla: "I don't think they can complain with the way we have permitted it. We have described every last detail about how we wanted this thing to be built."
Brian's lift with a boat on it was approved at the same time Joel and Angel were told their boat on the lift was illegal.
Brian Zappulla: "It's really sad, it's really sad. I have lost sleep over it."
Well, Howard, can a city approve a project and then declare it illegal?
Howard Finkelstein: "Legally, in some cases, a government can make a mistake and force you to correct it. But if the mistakes are unconscionable, the law calls that equitable estoppel, meaning the city approved three separate lifts. Legally and morally, they just have to live with this mistake."
I met with the city of manager of North Miami and his staff. Aleem Ghany said the confusion came because the lifts and boat cannot protrude more than 25 feet into the canal that is 100 feet wide.
That means the lifts are legal, but since their boats protrude past the lift, that makes it illegal. The city officials at the meeting were not aware, until I told them, that the building department had just approved Brian's lift with the boat on it, the same lifts Code Enforcement was citing Joel and Angel for.
Ghany told me, "I am going to do my best to find an amicable solution." And he is trying.
Joel has been asked to request a text amendment from the city that will allow the boat and the lift just as they are. The North Miami City Council would ultimately have to approve it. The fee for Joel to apply for the amendment is $3,000, but the city has agreed to waive the fee because of everything that has gone on.
Howard Finkelstein: "This is where politicians need to step in. These are taxpayers that relied on the word of the city, and they shouldn't be punished for trusting the city, and should be allowed to use their boat lifts."
It's all Joel is asking for.
Joel Behar: "I just want to be able to use what I have, what I have a permit for. I want to be able to keep my boat behind my house."
Now, if you are wondering why they can't put lifts parallel to their property, the lots are too small for that. Anyway, Joel is putting in the application to allow the three people to use their boat lifts. We will keep an eye on it and let you know what North Miami does.
Don't have a boat? Can't float and want to build a moat around your problem? Dock it with us. We will work parallel with you to give you a lift, legally. With this Help Me Howard, I'm Patrick Fraser, 7News.
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
I got a notice that I had to get a permit for a dam on a creek on property I was managing, or tear the dam out.
I responded that I had not built a dam.
The agency said they had aerial photos of it.
I responded that they would have to take it up with the...beavers that built the dam. It’s illegal for me to tear out a beaver dam. Even the US Army Corps of Engineers can’t tear out a beaver dam without going through a lot of evaluations, approvals, etc.
They gave up.
Sounds about right.
My uncle was told to quit doing several projects around his property, because of the pollution getting into the "natural trout stream" on it.
The "stream" was a water runoff, from the state road, that naturally ran through several properties, when it rained.
My uncle told the guy to find the head of the creek, and let him know where it started, and how polluted it was, before and after, and get back to him.
Boy, was that guy mad when he realized that the polluter AND progenitor of the "stream" was a state highway!
@@brucedockery5677 *[AMERICA INTENSIFIES]*
Lol somehow the government tends to be filled with morons and crooked politicians!!
ariel photos would mean they trespassed.
@@scottmcshannon6821 That’s what I’m thinking, they need permission beforehand.
"If a man can't piss out his own front door, he's living too close to town". Tom Russell.
Bingo (and isn't arrested)
Well, technically any man CAN piss out of _any_ front door... What matters is if anyone SEES him do it...
“When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes a duty.”
How about listing the author---Thomas Jefferson?
Tree of liberty, anyone?
Bunch tyranny are assholes
This no big deal. Really dumb and stupid
Nobody complained and do right way
@@timc9893
TJ was awesome!!
This hardly qualifies as tyranny. Stupid mistake, yes. Tyranny, no. Stop blowing things out of proportion.
too many regulations. I did code enforcement in Ohio for years. Every time a person gets promoted or hired into a supervisory position you can always count on a new regulation coming out to prove their worth. It was predictable. The regulations just keep building until nobody can know all of them, not even an attorney. The real problems start when different agencies have conflicting regulations and they don't communicate with each other. I have seen it. There is no way to slow it down or to stop it. I gave up and retired early.
I had this once where the township was going to make me cut a few feet off both sides of a house I built. The township attorney came to the meeting and through careful reading, convinced them all that their interpretation of the law was wrong. If the supervisors can't interpret their own law, how is a homeowner supposed to? (also everything was approved by the zoning and building inspector, the problem only came after nosy neighbors got involved, and yes it was on a lake).
I did code enforcement for 20 years and retired a few years ago. The problem is that the government does not allow common sense. The employees try to do everything exactly as they interpret the wording of the regulations. If something doesn't make sense they enforce it anyway and never consider changing the regs or using common sense. Creating hardship for a home owner is a way of putting a feather in your cap. It makes the employee feel powerful and important. Its very difficult to sue a government employee. The best way to fight back is to notify the news media. Sad but true.
or pay someone to take out a knee cant go snoopin if ya aint walkin
The Authorities should have to pay a fine every day those men can not use the lifts
The perfect scam, issue permits for projects then issue fines for said completed projects.
"get em coming and going"
Code enforcement a weapon for your neighbors
I lived in Burke Co. NC but had a house fire in Jan. of 2018 I have tired to rebuild for over 2 years by myself, I have health problems. But have been harassed by the lying code enforcement and head building inspector and at one time was call a S.O.B. by a building inspector .The dictator fat cat commissioners will not listen . I tried to tell them I had my building permits. Even taped copies of my permits on their office door and instead of listening . I got a no contact order against me . Now the jerks are going to tear down my house in October 2021!
This is a corrupted county government and is ran by dictators who rule with a iron fist to make the poor homeless even with permits they will still lie and destroy your homes and dreams . And in the end take your land or make you want to sale on a dead end county road . Tell me how you fight this even with a tall wooden fence 10 feet high !! Code enforcement and head building inspectors are weapon for your neighbors. When you do not want to sale to them . Don't move here !! this is a corrupted county BURKE CO.
The fine was for the boat sticking out, not the lift itself
Oh look! They have a boat.they must have money we can extorte from them!
+Silvio Manuel
He was being facetious...
(extort)
And literally everyone in Florida has a boat...
Sounds like to much government. If the city approved these lifts, I would think the code goes out the window. If not, it sounds like entrapment by the city
The 25ft rule existed before these lifts were approved and built. Two of the owners did not specify the length of the boat they intended to put on the lift. The city couldn't have known. However the owner could have and should have known about the 25ft rule.
So if the lifts are 20ft long, the city has no reason to deny the permit for the lift. Afterall the lift does not exceed the 25ft limit. But that doesn't give the owners a free pass to put a boat of whatever length they want on there. The 25ft rule still very much applies.
The only case where the owner can claim that the city really messed up, is the one who put in the permit application drawing showing that he intended to put a 38ft boat on that lift. The city should have caught that one and told him his boat can't stick out more than 25 ft from the canal wall.
The lift is not the problem, the long nose of the boat while parked is the problem . . .extend non-movable rails onto the property, shouldn't cost much, lift the boat until the elevator is even with the fixed rails, then using casters(rollers) on the rails, pull the boat (with a trailer winch) about 8 feet inland onto the fixed rails. , , You didn't remove your expensive lift, and your boat no longer sticks out 25 feet into the canal. . . .
that is a well thought out and intelligent idea.
Nobody will take your advice because its a good idea.
Except you would need to get approval and a permit to add that. And then some land use inspector would tell you it violates some other code. Someone really needs to invent pocket dimensions.
My idea was similar to yours but mines was far more costly because I was talking about cutting into the backyard yours works with the backyard as it is.
Indeed that is exactly right, and if you have a boat next door, not nice to have another one sticking when you try to back out. It would be the same as having a car parked with the trunk sticking into the sidewalk. The driveway is totally legal, your 30ft motorhome sticking over the sidewalk --- not cool. So the title was CLICK BAIT,
all those bashing government (usually justified) should be bashing CLICK BAIT LYING TITLES on videos.
It is about power and control.
You can keep your Doctor....
My take was the lift was legal, but the boat was too long and stuck too far out. Like parking a motorhome in the driveway and it stick out into the street.
The permit should have specified how far out the boat could portrude.
@@user-fy9el7on1f except for that one owner who got his permit approved with the size of his boat explicitly stated on the drawings. The other two cases it's clearly on the owners to do their due diligence and inform themselves of the 25ft law.
@@fermitupoupon1754 Its also on whoever is approving the lift to explain the fucking rules.
If you don't ask, they won't tell you and are not obliged to unless you ask, and they are in the right because of an other little advantage they give themselves called ignorance of the law. The I didn't know defence doesn't fly. It's up to you to basiclly a lawyer whenever you decide to do anything that involves the law and that's pretty much everything. Granted in most cases it doesn't come to that but if they decide they want to fuck with you, you better know the law back and forward and the worst is if they are really intent on getting you and can't find anything they can legally get you on they will just make stuff u or get one of their politician buddies to make up a new law that you will then be in violation of.
@@h.plovecat4307 no, it really isn't. The person applying for the permit needs to ensure that it complies with all relevant laws and code. All the people issuing the permit have to check is whether it complies with said laws and code. The paperwork submitted for the lifts themselves, both were in compliance, the lifts did not stick out more than 25 feet. So the person approving the permits did their job properly, they approved a permit to build a lift that was in compliance with laws and code.
The owner then proceeds to stick a boat on that lift that protrudes too far out into the canal, potentially obstructing other canal traffic. And acts dumbfounded and surprised that the city is enforcing the 25ft law. A law that predates his application for a permit to build a lift.
If the civil servant who approved the permit has to inform everyone about every little code and law that applies to their permit, they'd never get to processing any permits at all. The engineering firm who drew the plans should have known about the 25ft law, they could have informed their client. The company selling the lift very probably knew about the 25ft law, they could and should have informed the customer.
But no, for some odd reason you want to blame the one person who was basically just doing their job in this whole process regarding the permit application. The engineer making the drawing probably didn't want to lose the income from this customer, same with the salesman for the lift.
"The permit should have specified how far out the boat could portrude."
It can't protrude. look at 2:43.
This is why I live in a county where there are no county building codes.
Where is that please?
I sincerely want to study that
LESSON LEARNED: The Government can do whatever it wants. They are ALWAYS right, even when they're wrong!
Govs around America are just like bad gamblers they can never steal enough to fund there addiction.
If you can see another house from your front porch you live too close to somebody.
We live two miles from our closest neighbor. That's close enough IMHO.
Very informative! Thanks!
the main problem is that the city and the city code enforcement are 2 different organizations. if you get one of these code enforcement violations for what and where ever take a look at who it says to pay. I bet 9/10 times it says pay another address and another department then what you would pay if you got a traffic or parking ticket. code enforcement has NO jurisdiction to do anything unless you are building a brand new house. they are just trying to take advantage of people that don't know the laws for their areas.
You clearly have no idea what code enforcement does. And yes they do work for the city
Building a new house deals with building codes and building inspectors. Code enforcement is a separate department that deals with the more tyrannical things like how high your grass is or what kinds of vehicles are allowed in your yard or the height of your fence. Etc.
$3000 fee just to apply for a code amendment? And people want to have the government in charge of health care. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
Hmmm I wonder if the city caved because of the news coverage....
I use to live in a town in west palm beach an they started to fine my family because we supposedly had crab grass in the front yard. Also at my grandmother's house I found out that in the township of Haverhill u can't do any kind of auto mechanic in you own driveway. You can't even change a flat tire in your owns garage
I call bs in your own garage
@@Myemnhk every city has they owns laws an regulations.
Nope I don’t follow those rules. The gov can suck my hairy schlong
@@Myemnhk Two parts of my hometown are built upon the aquifiers that the city draws it's drinking water from. In those two parts of the city a lot of auto mechanic work is banned outside specially constructed places. The reasoning being that if you spill oil or petrol or whatever other toxic fluids there are in a car, you could contaminate the watertable that serves three quarter of a million people.
You can chance a tyre or replace a brake disc and things like that, but you're not allowed to contaminate the soil and punishments are very harsh. Fines start at 20k, you have to foot the bill for the clean up, and you're liable for any and all secondary damages your spill may cause for the next 20 years.
I don't change any of the fluids on my vehicles myself. I'll do just about all the other maintenance myself, just not the fluids. Because if a city watchman sees me do it, I'm looking at a huge fine, to the point where it's not worth the hassle and I'll just go to Kwikfit and get it done there.
@@jonathanmarvens I'd say rather than silly it's being cautious. If you have 100 000 do-it-yourself mechanics fixing their cars, accidents happen every day.
Fun fact just because the government can't do something to you whether it be legal or anything like that doesn't mean they won't try to do it and make it seem like they're in the right.
I thought my 50' X 100' home lot was small... now it seems huge. Bonus!
No you were right it is small but depending on how big your city is and how close you are to the most popular part of that City then yes it is large in that part of the city.
If The city made the mistake then they should have to pay to correct it
They can use their boat lift all they want as long as their boat doesn't extend past the 25 foot limit. Nothing about the boat lift is illegal, and it was perfectly fine for the city to approve them. Using the lifts legally, however, is up to the homeowner.
It isn't hard to figure out. The lifts can extend 25 feet into the canal and the boats can extend 25 feet into the canal, so they should either get 25 foot boats or attach a sliding mechanism to the top of the lift so the boats can slide and hang over the seawall when lifted. Allowing oversize boats to extend farther into the canal will make it difficult to navigate, especially if the guy on the other side of the canal also has an oversize boat.
george ford,well said.there is rules for a reason.
I mean, the city approved it *with the boats on them*. I'm not sure how much more clear they could've been.
George Ford - Yes, I think it is the Big Pecker Principle problem😂😂😂
code enforcement fined me for the county after a storm had thrown debris,- trees limbs sheds well houses whatever the strong winds blew around. i called the county who had told me they outsourced the pick up of debris to an out of state source which never came and thats the sad story.
Bit at the end is best part.
ive seen required lighting specified by the county then owner was fined when the light spilled onto neighbors property and would be fined if not changed.
This kind of thing happens because of the city's greed in the first place - they should never have allowed such intensive waterfront development, where properties such as those of the two complainants have such a tiny frontage (barely the width of the house!).
The first two boat lifts are built beyond the platforms that are attached to the seawall thus projecting the boat bows well out into the channel. They make it sound like the boat lifts were attached to the seawall, they are not. Look at 1:53. The left platform is white, the right one is brown. There is 8 to 10 feet of distance before the boat lift starts.
I have had code officials approve deign drawings and during constructor change their mind. On one project 4 different codes officials changed from the original design to one method to back to the design to another method. The last 3 days prior to the building being opened for use, which would have resulted in multiple thousands of dollars to execute plus a four week delay in opening the building. Myself and the Architect filed charges that they were changing approved and stamped plans. Two codes officials lost their jobs and the others were punished as well. That is the job of your engineer or architect of record. It's funny that codes officials want to dictate what they themselves do not have the education, skills and licensing to do themselves.
Screwing with honest citizens while criminals have sacred rights...
Not to defend the city, but it is likely that in the first 2 cases that the permit was approved without knowing the size of the boat being docked, or without any restriction being explained or built into the approval.
Imagine if they had a boat that fit within the 25 foot from shoreline limit. Then 5 years later they get a 50 foot long boat, and put it on the same lift, but now the boat comes halfway across the canal. Would "you approved the lift" get them any sympathy?
Its not an issue with the lift, its an issue with the size of boat being put onto the lift.
That's not even possible, because they go out and get the footage for not only the lift, but it has to fit a boat, so they have the footage for it already. It's not like they put a submarine there when they got permission to put this lift. You have to have detailed plans for that kind of construction and they could know how big a boat would be to fit in that space and see it in operation before approving it.
Imagine the city figuring out their own Bullshit before they start making laws
If the city can prove that the owners could have known about the 25ft regulation prior to the permits being issued, then I see no problem in them enforcing that limitation. Sucks to be the owners, but they should have done their homework. Except the guy who got his permit based on a drawing that explicitly included the size of the boat, the city should have caught that and denied the permit.
On the other hand if the city cannot prove that the owners could have known about the 25ft rule, it would be the amicable solution to grant these people a one time exemption to the rule. As long as they own their current boat, that specific boat is exempt from the rule. Buy a new boat, or a new owner buys the house, the exemption ends and the 25ft rule is enforced.
That way they get to keep their lift for their boat, but if they buy a new one, it has to be under 25ft.
@@fermitupoupon1754 the owners should have done their homework? Not the city? The owners, you say.
@@ghostofreagan3181 If the 25ft rule was on the books prior to the owners building their lifts, then yes it's on them to make sure that what they want to do is legal. Especially if they did not disclose the length of the boat at the initial application for the permits.
Ignorantia legis non excusat.
Think about it, if being ignorant of the law would be a valid excuse in court. "Oh I am sorry your honour, my client didn't know that attempting to assasinate the president to impress a hollywood actress is against the law" -"Ah yes, counsellor, I understand your position. Mister Hinckley, it's against the law to kill or attempt to kill the president in order to make Ms. Foster fawn over you. Now that you are aware of the law, please don't do it again. You are free to go home now."
So yeah, being ignorant of the law is no excuse. And the same applies here. The fact that these owners were ignorant of the 25ft regulation is no excuse if that regulation was on the books prior to them filing for permits.
We got permits to build a 3000 sqft pole barn, went through all the hoops to make sure we would be good, pole barn was up except for garage doors and the steel on the front wall and code enforcement calls and says it's over the sqft the code allows which is 1,000 sqft, told us we had to tear it down
Free people don't have to ask permission to build on their property. So. You are not free or you don't own property, or both. The answer is, you are not free and not-free (slaves) people are not allowed to own property.
Vinny Fiorella , sorry to hear you couldn't get to lockup stage. I had something a bit similar, ie my 140m2 shed was fully approved, and my nearest neighbor signed of tbe plan that he approved. ... but I made the mistake of informing the neighbors when it was going up . . They threatened an injunction, my lawyer told me to get it up that weekend as I was legally entitled to do so; so I did. This shed looked complete on the Monday. The council finally paid the have the pitch lowered, and the shed sprayed a slightly different colour. Once its up, its up
A more recent example is the ATF ( Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms ) sending out letters saying "bumpstocks" do not violate Federal law. But, due to political pressure, they change their mind. ( If they even have a mind ) Most shooters considered those as range toys anyway, but their power to "reclassify" is truly scary. Next week they might decide my two shot derringer is a weapon of mass destruction, and therefore banned.
The problem is the home owner. He can certainly build the lift but there is a certain size boat that can be held on it. He exceeded that size. He can put any boat he wants that does not stick out more than 25 feet.
We you rely on government for safety and or security you get neither.
Growing up as a kid my g parents have a house in WI on smallish lake. And im 30 now and luckily ive never had to go to court for something this ridiculous. It's disgusting that you need a permit to put anything essentially in the water, in front of YOUR property. In this small town these locals had to tear down a pier bc it "somehow" extended, i forgot but maybe 10 ft onto the neighbors "lake property"...im especially mad bc it was a unique spot where ppl could walk down this paved trail and enjoy the lake, and more outsiders moved in and they took out the pier and years later demolished the path walkway. Oh well I just cut thru their lawn now.
Sounds like there just trying to put you in between a rock and a hard, show code enforcement your permit and tell them to go take it up with them, remember the code enforcement officer can be sued for pulling that kind of thing so can the city,
I am not entirely certain about this however it is possible that the waterway is under federal jurisdiction 33 CFR § 329.15. This is something that needs to be determined but if the water falls under federal jurisdiction the city code simple may not be enforceable.
And federal could be much worse so pick your battles wisely cause fed trumps state.
You ever heard of entrapment
Yes and it is against the law, funny enough. Had a similar situation years ago when opening up a small business in my township. Ultimatly they made the mistake of oking our building permits. Our lawyer told us that we had them by the short hairs. They threatened to sue us and our lawyer told them fine, go ahead and sue. They never did.
That's not entrapment
City: Yeah the boat lift is approved but you just cant put any boats on it. WTF!?!?!?!?!??!?
Take that 4-5foot wooden deck out that buts up against the seawall and then you can move the boat back toward the seawall, might have to add on to the aluminum I beam , I dont agree with the city but there is an option if they dont budge.
How did this turn out???
Just like my 18th birthday present from my mom.
She bought me tints for my car. I go to get them installed and the guy shows me a piece of plexiglass with 3 levels of tint. Asks me which one i want, i point to the darkest (obviously), he asks "all around?" I say "all around". About a month later i get pulled over and ticketed for illegal tints.
Fought it in court, because how can a legitimate business sell and install something THAT THEY KNEW WAS ILLEGAL?!
I'm an 18 year old girl at the time, i assumed that if it's a legitimate business (which it is and it's still there 24 years later) and they can legally sell and install an item, that said item must be legal, RIGHT??
I won. Didn't have to pay anything, didn't have to remove my tints (which only the front windows were technically illegal, the back can be dark, just not the front)
But HOW can it be legal to sell and install something that's illegal to HAVE??
bring in politician's ?
To quote Dire StraightsA long time ago came a man on a track
Walking thirty miles with a pack on his back
And he put down his load where he thought it was the best
Made a home in the wilderness
He built a cabin and a winter store
And he ploughed up the ground by the cold lake shore
And the other travellers came riding down the track
And they never went further, no, they never went back
Then came the churches then came the schools
Then came the lawyers then came the rulesThen came the trains and the trucks with their loads
And the dirty old track was the telegraph road
Great video I would like to talk to you about it. I think you will be glad with what I want to share regarding overzealous CF. Is there a way I can message you?
I would modify the lift with a conveyor so that you can lift the boat and pull it back onto the sea wall to allow for traffic. Then patent it and build it for others. Looks like to me both sides have a good arguement so work out a solution for all
How cities get away with crap.. Me: But we don't have homeowners association.... Them (city) its an ORDINANCE!! Somehow that word "ordinance" seems to steam roll over everything!!!
It's all about generating revenue mostly, although it started and should be about keeping homeowners property values not going down.
The boats are a hazard to navigation and the intent of the law reasonable, but the city screwed up...
How? Their boats protrude into the channel no further than the larger boats on either side.
@@uio890138 look again
@@TruckTaxiMoveIt I did, before making that post I pulled up the location on Google maps and looked at the satellite image, their boats protrude no further out than other boats in that channel. Maybe you should check that, their address is 2141 NE 123rd St, North Miami, FL 33181.
I do more research before forming an opinion, going off the footage the media showed in this clip is misleading and purposely done that way to generate sensationalism.
Now if I were a betting man, I'd say the guy complaining is the one across the channel with the boat house. He obviously has to swing out wide to get his boat into that boat house and he's probably pissed that these guys boats make that task more involved. Like I said, once you view the satellite image and realize these guys' boat protrude no further out than others boats up and down that channel you start to understand what is going on. Basically it's a rich guy bitching about a poor guy being in his way.
Same thing happened with my family. They applied for a permit to install a hydroponic heating system for this home within city limits. The city approved EVERYTHING and it went fine for several years. Suddenly they got a 5 day notice to remove the system or face daily fines, etc.. After complaining to the city? They where forced to remove it as the "Former building and code enforcement" head retired and couldn't be reached. Even though his signature was on all the paperwork stating all was installed correctly and safely.
Sometimes even if you have all the evidence you think you need, a government can just run over your ass because money talks!! (in this case, the gas company was probably complaining as these systems use none of their product, get enough in operation and it cuts into their profit margin)
Sue the city or county and it will be resolved fast!
These ppl dont have the money to sue. It also means you put your life on hold and they know it. Entrapment! Disgusting.
Put powered rollers on the lift or other mechanical means. After the boat is raised, pull the boat far enough in to make it legal. Reverse rollers or other mechanical means to use boat. Not real simple, but certainly feasible, and solves the problem.
#HelpMeHoward is the man.
This is so easy to to see what is wrong: THE BOATS STICK OUT MORE THEN 25'. 2:43 See how 1 boat is parallel, and up to code, but the 2 other boats stick out.
In Florida I see it all the time, permit is approved even though it is wrong to NEC....Up to a licensed professional to figure out if the inspector want code or blueprint!
Too bad in US he cant speak the language of the paper that allows him to have the Right to question the Government
It’s tyranny but sir you already approved
This job . When sovereign immunity sparks a shootout; however it’s been documented by my old boss that the inspectors in PA were asking for money on the side to approve jobs . Boss was
A service manger at a auto chain
City ordinances amount to perferences. Most if not all can be discarded as they are actually frivolous. Can't have chicken or poultry on the property, for example.
It all boils down to you can build the boat life but you can’t park a bout that will extend more than xx feet into the canal. Probably the width of the large yachts parked next to million dollar homes. The canals must allow two way boat traffic and that requires minimum space on the sides of both boats and in some cases boats doing a 180 in the canal which then has to be as wide as the length of the boar plus more space for safety.
So the issue might simply be, your boat is too big for the canal but if you use a row boat, no problem. Of course, if that was explained in front the news article would lose a lot of impact.
I'm sure that the Gov't termites were informed about what size boat would be perched on the lift.
The city goofed up, they should not have approved the lifts as submitted. The requirement to keep the waterway as open as possible is sound for the safety of boat operation. The men could still have lifts, they just need them to lift the boat up and back from the water so a portion of the boat is over land.
This solution is to have them move the boat back inland towards the property.
3:27 he clearly built an extended deck on to the bulkhead then built the dock onto the extended deck then put a bigger boat onto it extending over the canal rather than the deck.
They are obviously out too far in the canal, damage will certainly result from it
I was thinking this too. You can get approval for the boat lift but then use it and violate the code. They're not being fined for the lift but for how far the boats are sticking into the canal. It's like Porsche selling a car that can go 160 mph. The car is legal but if you drive over the speed limit you can still be fined.
This isn't really a good case for government overreach. This video is misleading. The city shouldn't have backed off because of bad publicity.
I can see why the city has a problem with the lifts, they inproch the right of way in the canal. Modifying the lift to pull the boat over the property would help keep the easement open. Pretty sure there is a code on how far of the bank your allowed to use. Its not about the lift but how its being used.
Easy fix.
The city needs to pay to remove the lifts and repay the owners for their losses, it was their error. Then deny the application.
I will bet the owners knew what the codes were, but put in the applications anyway!
This sounds just like America.
Incompetent politicians and incompetent bureaucrats.
The "PROBLEM" Started in 1959 !!!
They seem to be leaving a lot out of this story, but the short answer is yes. They don't say if the lifts were approved for a permit (in other word approved to be built), or if they were cited after they were installed and found to be in violation (two very different scenarios). I suspect the two in question may not have shown the orientation of the lifts, and whoever issued the permit didn't bother to ask or check (which is the first problem).
I question why this is even up to the building dept - these are not structures to be occupied or used in any way, and it hangs out over the water, which is where bldg. dept. jurisdiction usually ends. I suspect someone in town government thought it would be a good idea (and probably a permit fee generator as well). It sounds to me like this is more of a land use / inland wetlands / army corp issue, and should be up to those folks.They also don't say if the applications were in order. Applicants "bend the truth" to suit them (or outright lie) and its only discovered after something is built.Also, there is a "belief" that if you get away with something for some period of time (usually I hear 3 years), its "grandfathered" in - nothing could be further from the truth. That might be the case for land use, but never for a building, fire or health code issue. As a code official for 30 years, I can assure you that if I approved something that I later found out was wrong, I am obligated to get it corrected, even if I inspected and approved it.
It is not the citizens responsibility to make sure the city officials are doing their jobs properly. This was only fixes bc the news got involved
It's not against the law to build the lift, it's just against the law to use the lift. Got it? Ok!
Code enforcement should know that it is illegal to take back the permit that was approved. In fact, code enforcement are only picking and choosing who gets approved and who doesn't. That is unfair for the tax-paying boat owners.
City: we screwed up, give us money.
For the first two guys it really depended on the size boat that was going to be used for the third guy that was another story
Your going to need a smaller boat. That is a narrow waterway that has to accommodate two way traffic. If boats stick out too far they are a hazard to navigation. A permit for a lift is one thing, a too long boat is another. He bought a tiny lot on a tiny canal and has to berth accordingly.
This is when you filed a law suit for negligence use of law and harassment. Have that person approving permits removed . This will show the city that they made a serious mistake and don't do it again
Sue the city
A lot of people aren't getting it. Pay attention. The lift is legal and they aren't being cited for having one. They are being cited because their boat is too big for the canal.This law was already on the books and everyone, especially the home owner should have been aware of it. If the homeowner had a smaller boat that complied to the regulations, there would be no problem.
Comissioner Joe Carollo and City of Miami Police have barricaded streets around the Silver Bluff neighborhood at sw 17th ave and 23rd street.
It's your illegal to block more than 1/4 of the canal if you want to use your boat lift get a shorter boat. Doesn't matter if they approve the boat lift oh, it doesn't stick out more than 1/4 of the width of the canal but you cannot put a hundred foot boat on it and block the canal. Very common thanks. And there are federal regulations concerning navigable waterways.
Bill's lift is okay because Bill has a better boat - Catamarans are the biz man
The boat lift was designed the wrong way and the city did not realize the mistake from the plans. If they properly designed jt, they would not have gotten the false approval
Outrage! Time to clean house.
This why I’m moving out of the city
A civil servant will find a probem for every solution.
Wow there so nice to wave the fee.
Is code enforcement hiring? I am seeking a job with no accountability.
This is honestly a multi-level mistake that shouldn't be taken as some form of corruption. An inability to have internal cooperation led to the approval of a system that would unknowingly cause issues down the line. Considering they waived the fee, it's not so wrong.
Over crowding leads to this
Wealth leads to that
Miami yeah, key West yes, unless you are cashing the city
Has there been any accidents since then what's the update?
I don't have a problem with the rule to not allow boats past 25 feet in the canal but once you approve it then the city has to live with it, or they could give them their money back for the lifts and other costs.
Not really. They can live with the lift they permitted but it's the boat owner's responsibility to ensure boat doesn't protrude beyond the permitted limit.
So what happens if the owner sells and will the next owner have same hassle from the government?
So what the hell happened where's the update that's what I hate about these stories we never go back and tag on the ending
When applying for a permit in a disclaimer it says you must comply with all local and state ordinance. Soooo. It is the responsibility of the requestor to be within code
Look at the video around 1:40 it clearly says -max vessel projection 27'-10'', someone at the city did not read or understand the plans as they have said the max projection allowed is 25', so they should have said 'sorry this is over 25 you need something different', the lift is allowed but not the boat -how hard is that to understand.
well, I guess if the police are allowed to lie, so can city and county permit departments?
either that, or they said it's okay for you to build it, but to use it that's another story...
Love the puns!