Loading...
01/23/2008 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER January 23, 2008 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Kelly Wehner Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member David W. Campbell Board Member Ronald V. Daniels Board Member Also Present: Camilo Soto Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair outlined the procedures and stated any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty days of the execution of the order. Florida Statute 286.0107 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 35-07 - Cont’d from 9/26/07, 10/24/07, 11/28/07 Florence Panteles 1501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Exterior/Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud Property owner Florence Panteles admitted to the violation. She said she had some difficult times recently. Inspections Specialist Alan Ruud said staff feels the potholes could be filled in and the exterior surfaces could be brought into compliance within 60 days. Development Services Manager Bob Hall presented photographs of the parking lot and exterior surfaces. Ms. Panteles requested 90 days to come into compliance, as she prefers to resurface the parking lot instead of filling in the potholes. Mr. Hall stated staff was agreeable to a 90-day compliance date. Assistant City Attorney Camilo Soto submitted City composite exhibits. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board on January 23, 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 1 under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, and an admission to the violation by the Respondent, it is evident that deteriorating exterior surfaces and paved areas exist. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.B and 3-1502.K.4, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by April 22, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 44-07 – Cont’d from 10/24/07 Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Public Nuisance/ Buildings/Lot Clearing/Un-maintained r-o-w – Franco Mr. Hall reported the Board previously heard this case and no declaration of violation was made. He had requested the owner provide periodic updates on clearing the property. Code Inspector Peggy Franco stated the project is on track. This case involves a mobile home park. The gates remain locked, there is no debris obstructing traffic, and the property is well maintained. Mr. Hall said dissolvement of a mobile home park is a long procedure. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 2 Michael Rousch, representative, stated the asbestos abatement process has taken time. He said he contracted with a firm to expedite the timeframe between the asbestos abatement and the demolition. He also contracted with two firms to relocate the mobile homes for the benefit of those in need of housing. He said there are 64 homes intact that he does not have title to. He anticipates all the mobile homes will be removed from the property well before the end of the year. In response to a question, Inspector Franco said the City does not require a demolition or removal permit for each mobile home. However, as there are multiple units on this property, the City issued a blank permit for the entire property. She did not know the expiration date of the permit. The property owner is to provide a status report in three months. Member Keyes moved to continue Case 44-07 to April 23, 2008. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 46-07 - Cont’d from 11/28/07 Paula L. Ross 431 Palm Isle SE Required Inspections, Fees – Wilson Case 46-07 was continued by staff to February 27, 2008. D. Case 49-07 - Cont’d from 11/28/07 Manda One Corp 1721 Rainbow Drive Exterior Surfaces – Franco No one was present to represent the property owner. Inspector Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. She said she had spoken to the property owner’s attorney several times. She was unable to meet with him due to scheduling conflicts. As the building has been painted recently, staff requests the board declare that a violation existed and the property owner has complied prior to this hearing. She recommended no fine be imposed at this time. Mr. Soto submitted City composite exhibits. Member Daniels moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23, 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Respondent was not present or represented, it is evident the condition existed; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.B, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). The Board further orders that if Respondent(s) repeats the violation referenced herein, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine for each day the violation exists after the Respondent(s) is notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E Case 01-08 O’ Keefe’s, Inc. 510 Grand Central Avenue Grass Parking/Landscaping – Ruud Steven DuQuesnay, representative, did not admit to the violation. Inspections Specialist Alan Ruud presented a PowerPoint presentation. He said violations relate to required landscaping and illegal grass parking. He said photographs taken on June 7, 2007, November 14, 2007, and December 26, 2007, indicate that the grass was removed and replaced with mulch, and cars were parked on the mulched area. He said code requires vehicles be parked only on paved surfaces. He recommended 30 days for compliance or a $250 fine per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist. Mr. DuQuesnay stated the grass was never removed. He indicated his interpretation of the code permitted mulch as a landscaping element. He questioned if mulch is considered landscaping. He stated there are numerous other properties in Clearwater with the same violations for which he was cited. He stated he has blocked the driveway to prevent parking on the grass and will place signs where no parking is allowed. Mr. Hall advised Mr. DuQuesnay to contact the Planning Department regarding mulch and related landscaping. He said a complaint was received regarding this property. He noted a proposed code amendment would allow fencing in this district, which might help Mr. DuQuesnay with his parking issues. Mr. DuQuesnay requested six months to come into compliance. He said 80% of the illegally parked vehicles are City owned. Mr. Hall felt six months was excessive. He said it is the property owner’s responsibility to prevent illegal parking and to ensure the property conforms to code. Staff requests a declaration of violation regarding the parking violation, and Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 4 that the property owner come into compliance within 30 days regarding the required landscaping, or a $250 fine per day be imposed. Garth Anthony DuQuesnay, property owner, said O’Keefe’s has ample parking for its business. The two vacant lots have been dirt driveways for 20 years. He said mulch was placed on top of the dirt and sand to keep the wind from blowing it around. He said if the mulch is now a problem, he will have it removed. He said the vacant lots are not needed for parking. He noted City vehicles, especially fire trucks, park on the vacant lots. Mr. Soto submitted City composite exhibits. Member Avichouser moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23, 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident landscaping requirements are not being met. It is further evident grass parking, which is not permitted by code, was occurring; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. Respondent was present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is still in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section 3-1502.H.2, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by April 22, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 5 The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 02-08 G Anthony DuQuesnay 1206 Hamlet Avenue Grass Parking/Landscaping – Ruud Garth Anthony DuQuesnay, property owner, did not admit to the violation and authorized Steven DuQuesnay to speak on his behalf. Mr. Ruud provided a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the dates the property was inspected and referred to an aerial photograph of the property. He said violations are for grass parking and required landscaping. He said the property is contiguous to the property in the previous case. The Property Appraiser’s records indicate the two properties have two different owners. Anthony DuQuesnay stated O’Keefe’s has more than ample parking. He said the subject property is used for overflow parking. He said the code permits grass parking for public purpose needs. He stated Mr. Ruud’s photographs were taken during lunch hours and during peak season. Mr. DuQuesnay said people frequenting the business park in the rights-of-way and on the shoulder of the road if they cannot park in this overflow parking lot. He considered this a safety issue and public purpose need. Mr. Soto did not agree that this was a public purpose need. Mr. Hall recommended Mr. DuQuesnay discuss the parking issues with the Planning Director. He recommended compliance within 30 days or a $250 fine per day per violation. Concern was expressed in meeting the proposed timeframe for compliance. It was indicated, if an affidavit of non-compliance was submitted and additional time was needed, the Board could delay its acceptance. Member Adelson moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23, 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that grass parking of vehicles is occurring and that the landscaping requirements are not being met. The Respondent was represented. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Sections 3-1403.B.1 and 3-1502.H.2, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 6 ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by April 22, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. Case 03-08 Paula L. Ross 431 Palm Island SE Waterfront Sight Visibility Triangle – Brown Case 03-08 was continued by staff to February 27, 2008. H.Case 04-08 Paula L. Ross 431 Palm Island SE Fence Standards – Brown Case 04-08 was continued by staff to February 27, 2008. I.Case 05-08 Paula L. Ross 431 Palm Island SE Accessory Structure installed w/o permit - Brown Case 05-08 was continued by staff to February 27, 2008. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 7 J.Case 06-08 M N E K, Inc. 1264 Cleveland Street Exterior Surfaces - Espinosa Cases 06-08, 07-08, 08-08 and 09-08 were heard together. Maria Dedick, owner and corporation officer, admitted to the violations. Mr. Hall said the four parcels are owned by the same person and have different maintenance issues. He said he contacted the owner several times and advised her of the violations, which include the exterior surfaces of the building, windows, doors, and roof not being maintained, and items not designed for outdoor use are being stored outdoors. He said the property owner is close to coming into compliance. Ms. Dedick said she has had problems with some of the tenants. She indicated most of the needed work has been done and the sign was fixed yesterday. She stated she intends to sell the properties. Mr. Hall said staff will give Ms. Dedick a list of remaining work to be completed. He recommended compliance by March 1, 2008 or a $250 fine per day per violation per parcel be imposed. Mr. Soto submitted City composite exhibits. Member Campbell moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23, 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the exterior surfaces of the building are not being maintained as required by code. The Respondent was represented. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.B, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by March 1, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 8 recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. KCase 07-08 . M N E K, Inc 1273 Grove Street Exterior Surfaces, Exterior Storage – Espinosa See Case 06-08 for discussion. Member Campbell moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the exterior surfaces of the building are not being maintained items not designed for outdoor use are being stored outdoors. The Respondent was represented. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.B, 3- 1502.C.1, 3-1502.C.3, 3-1502.C.4, and 3-1502.G, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by March 1, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 9 Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. L.Case 08-08 M N E K, Inc 1274 Cleveland Street Sign Maintenance, Windows Door & Window Openings, Exterior Surfaces, Exterior Storage - Espinosa See Case 06-08 for discussion. Member Campbell moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the exterior surfaces of the building, windows, roof, and sign are not being maintained and items not designed for outdoor use are being stored outdoors. The Respondent was represented. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.I, 3- 1502.C.3, 3-1502.C.4, 3-1502.C.1, 3-1502.B, and 3-1502.F.1, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by March 1, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 10 Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. M.Case 09-08 M N E K, Inc 1277 Grove Street Door & Windows, Ext. Surfaces & Storage, Roof Maint. - Espinosa See Case 06-08 for discussion. Member Campbell moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 23 2008, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the exterior surfaces of the building, windows, doors, and roof are not being maintained and items not designed for outdoor use are being stored outdoors. Respondent was represented. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.C.4, 3-1502.C.1, 3-1502.B, 3-1502.G, and 3-1502.D, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by March 1, 2008. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 11 the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 43-06 - Affidavit of Compliance Charles Allen 321 Duncan Avenue Property Maintenance – O’Neil B. Case 71-06 - Affidavit of Compliance Mc Dowell Holdings, Inc. 1459 Court Street Grass Parking – DeBord C. Case 77-06- Affidavit of Compliance Gratoor Investments, LLC 3 Summit Lane Exterior Surfaces/Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud D. Case 42-07- Affidavit of Compliance Morningside East Condo 2 Assn 2566 Harn Blvd Parking Lot Surfaces – Franco E. Case 43-07- Affidavits of Compliance Morningside East Condo 1 Assn 2566 Harn Blvd Parking Lot Surfaces/ Fences and Walls/Fences/ Exterior Surfaces – Franco Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 43-06, 71-06, 77-06, 42-07, and 43-07. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 40-05 – Abate Lot Clearing Violation Bruce T. Vaughan 1721 Estelle Drive Exterior Surfaces, Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud ($114,300 as of 1/14/08) Mr. Hall reported this owner has failed to comply regarding a lot clearing violation. Staff requests the Board abate the lot clearing violation from a previous order issued by the Board for staff to pursue in County Court. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 12 Member Keyes moved to abate the lot clearing violation from a previous order for Case 40-05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Cases 09-07 & 58-06 – Request for Fine Reduction - Cont’d from 11/28/07 Luis Acevedo (Yield Development) 1749 Drew Street Outdoor Storage, Property Maintenance, Grass Parking, Inoperative Vehicle – O’Neil (Fines - $22,250 & $12,450) Mr. Soto stated the property owner’s attorney wanted the Board to reduce the fines prior to a foreclosure sale. However, the foreclosure sale has taken place, which renders this request mute. He said the property was mortgaged for more than its worth. The Board Attorney said the Board did not need to take any action, as this lien will be cancelled. B. Case 37-06 – Request for Fine Reduction Wells Fargo Bank NA 811 Druid Road E. Permits/inspections – Coccia (Fine - $113,900 - 2007 Just Market Value) Case 37-06 was continued by staff to February 27, 2008. C. Case 28-06 – Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Pamela Sylvia/Robert Orkisz 1505 Laura Street Unsafe Building (Fine - $41,000) Mr. Hall reported when this property was sold, the fines that accrued up until the time of closing were paid. The fines continued to accrue from that time on until the property was brought into compliance by the new owner. Staff is requesting extinguishment of the remainder of the fine. Member Daniels moved that the reminder of the fine for Case 28-06 be extinguished. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Case 43-06 – Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Charles Allen/Christina McDonald 321 N. Duncan Avenue Ext Surfaces, Roof, Inoperative Vehicles – O’Neil (Fine - $23,500) Mr. Hall reported the property owner failed to maintain the property and died six months ago. His estranged daughter inherited the property. She has worked diligently to bring the property into compliance and requests a reduction in fines. He supported reducing the fine to administrative costs of $1500. Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 13 Member Keyes moved to reduce the fines for Case 43-06 to $1500, to be paid within 90 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 33-99 – Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Melvin Spinoza 1632 Drew Street Permits/inspections (Fine - $56,600) Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reported this was a 1999 case involving a shed that was installed without permits and inspections. The Board found the property to be in violation and imposed a fine. The property owner had filed appeals that were unsuccessful. He also petitioned the Board requesting a fine reduction hearing, but was denied. Recently, another appeal was filed by Mr. Spinoza in Circuit Court, which was dismissed without prejudice. The judge had suggested Mr. Spinoza come back before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board regarding a fine reduction. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted Mr. Spinoza is attempting to sell the subject property. Member Daniels moved to grant the request for a fine reduction hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 19-07 – Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Magdaleno A. Iraheta 1628 Harvard Street Outdoor Display/Storage & Exterior Storage – O’Neil (Fine - $16,050) A letter was previously sent to the Board from Mr. Iraheta requesting a reduction of the fine. Member Daniels moved to grant the request for a fine reduction hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. Cases 76-06 & 77-06 - Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Gratoor Investments LLC 1512 & 1508 S. Missouri Avenue Exterior Surfaces, Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud A letter was previously sent to the Board requesting a reduction of the fine. Member Keyes moved to grant the request for fine reduction hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Robert K. Moss, Jr. PNU2007-02165 1008 Grantwood Avenue 08-29-16-99101-009-0190 $325.00 Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 14 Gwendolyn Connor 1815 Star Drive 13-29-15-82440-002-0080 PNU2007-01621 $375.00 Brenda L. Natanski 407 Dora Drive 07 -29-16-76446-000-0160 PNU2007-01775 $320.00 Member Keyes moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair Member Campbell moved to re-elect Doug Williams as Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Daniels moved to re-elect Jay Keyes as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 28.2007 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting of November 28,2007, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Items not on the aQenda Mr. Salzman announced that this was Mr. Hall's last meeting. He complimented him on the excellent job he has done. The Board wished him well. Concern was expressed regarding rental properties and the owner's responsibility to maintain them. The Board's rules and regulations do not allow for the reduction of fines for a repeat violation. Mr. Hall stated the best way for staff to obtain compliance was from the property owner. He said some of the violations on today's agenda had been going on for years. Staff strives to work as diligently as possible with property owners to resolve issues and achieve compliance prior to bringing them to this Board. Mr. Salzman stated the Board could address these type issues in their rules and regulations. 7. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m. "1 - {""~ Ofr' Chal Mun ipal Code Enforcement Board Attest:, '-" ) ~/~./ Secret 0 the Board Code Enforcement 2008-01-23 15