05/06/1981
, ,
'"
.4lIf..~r~~r.~~~~~.
__.___.,.___._~~,~._Wl'f'~~
, ~,
"
, -'
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
o
May 6, 1981
Members
present:
~,,,,-_.,,"""-'"'---
..............."'.."'.. '..q~'
Lee
John
Paul
Regulski, Chairman
Ehrig, Vice-Chairman
Carnahan
John F. Gerlach
Don Winner
Raymond Custer
Also present:
Thomas A. Bustin, City Attorney
Frances Sunderland, Board Secretary
Sue Lamkin, Assistant City Clerk
The
in the
procedures
or
in
be
meeting was called
Commission Meeting
and advised
order of the
the Circuit Court
filed within
to be
any
verbatim
to order by the
Room in City Hall. He
any aggrieved party may appeal
Municipal Code Enforcement Board by
of Pinellas County. Any such appeal
thirty (30) days of the execution of the
appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires
applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a
record of the proceedings to support such an appeal.
Chairman at 2:00 p.m.
outlined the
a ruling
certiorari
to
order
@)""
, .. , .~
..'.'l, ,
CASE NO. 2-81
Stan Freifeld
Sign Ordinance Violation
Entered as evidence by Stuart Williams, City Sign Inspector
Exhibit #1, drawing of
Exhibit #lA, copy of
showing Hillcrest Villas
Hedrick sign erector.
temporary premise real estate
Composite Exhibit #2, three photographs
inspector shortly after the citation
showing the sign as it currently exists
2' x 20' board, for which no permit was
added at the bottom.
original sign.
permit application dated
as the applicant and
Permit was issued for
sign 10' x 20'.
taken by the
was issued,
with a
issued,
8/29/78
Bob
a
The inspector stated temporary
renewable yearly when the
However, department policy has
ment as long as construction is ongoing.
construction here had been completed and
at a site 1/2 mile a'vay, he contacted
sign permits
sign advertises
been not to enforce
When he learned
was being
Mr. Freifeld
are normally
property for sale.
this require-
carried on
by phone
~
~
1.
5/6/81
r
,~...~-~ .-::---.'~'.
jl \'
p-
,\'
..
,~_-'-""~~ll'~~ttx:31Ji;e')j~_.
I
j
. ----.-...--........----....---.....-----.
~.
'...iUW~Woll.~~~~,
/ "1 j,
U I
j,
o
on 7/30/80, 8/8/80, and 8/29/80 and requested the sign be
removed. Mr. Freifeld agreed to do so. On 9/15/80 Mr. Freifeld
was notified by registered mail to remove the sign. The wording
on the addition changes the sign to an off-premise sign, which
is not permitted in an ro.f-16 zone. There is an existing permanent
identification sign on the site.
Cynthia Young, attorney for Mr. Freifeld, objected to his
being cited personally. He is president of Hillcrest Villas, Inc.
and is not personally responsible for the sign.
The City Attorney recommended the notice of violation be
amended to read Stan Freifeld, President, Hillcrest Villas, Inc.
which ,.,ras done.
Entered as evidence by Cynthia Young, attorney for Stan
Freifeld:
Exhibits #1 & #2, brochures describing the 2 projects, to
show the similarity, being developed by the same corpo-
rate entity.
Exhibit #3, an aerial photograph taken 4/9/81, shows
the present development and, in background, Hillcrest
Villas and similarity of construction.
A
\:U
Responding to his attorney, Mr. Freifeld stated the permit
had been obtained by the erector of the sign, that different
areas of word~ng had been changed, although the sign still
advertises Hi~lcrest Villas, and a 2' x 20' rider had been added.
While the ini~ial site was being developed Hillcrest Villas, Inc.
purchased additional property off Enterprise Road in 1979.
Construction at the new site was begun while construction at
the original site was still in progress. He stated he would
remove the 2' x 20' addition, which has been in place approx-
imately 1-1/2 years. He was unaware this was in violation, as
no citation was ever issued until they were asked to remove the
complete sign.
In summation the sign inspector stated the maximum size
permitted for an on-premise sign is 200 sq. ft. The addition,
which directs visitors to another location, makes it an off-
premise sign which is not permissible in a residential zone.
In summation Miss Young stated the respondent, Mr. Freifeld,
has offered to remove the addition to the sign and they feel
thi3 creates no dispute. The inspector testified that while
a project is under construction, renewal of the temporary sign
permit is not required. Concerning the charge of erecting an
outdoor advertising display off premises \.,rithout a permit, the
company is still advertised as the one involved in both projects,
which they consider to be one. People are just directed to a
~
\CV
2.
"
L.'
~ - .
f' ..-
, '
')"
,'; "
r
I' ','
...~.
,l
I,
/,
,___">l2.>!l~~;\!~;I$""',,~._
I
I
I
i
I
I
-'---.-_w_.-.-.---.------....-'..........'..u..;....'-;to...................---l.
1/ I
I' ,
\:' ,,'
i'
o
different office
the same type of
They have had no
location. The same company is still selling
units and do not feel there is any violation.
complaints concerning esthetics.
, I
FINDING OF FACTS:
1. Request for permit was for a temporary premise
real estate sign la' x 20'.
2. Sign still exists.
3. Copy of sign has been changed from original permitted
copy to copy which exists today (per photographs).
4.
Sign has been altered by the addition of a 2'
board on bottom of sign without an additional
application being granted.
X 20'
permit
5. Property being advertised on sign is not contiguous.
@""
, ~"" .
", ,
Based upon the facts found, Mr. Gerlach moved that Hillcrest
Villas, Inc. is guilty of violation of Clearwater Code Sec. 143.21
(a) (1) and Sec. 143.33 (b)(3)(c) and that Hillcrest Villas, Inc.
be allowed 60 days in which to obtain the necessary permits in
order to erect a sign that meets the code or remove the sign.
The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken
Messrs. Carnahan, Gerlach, Winner and Regulski voted "Aye";
Mess rs. Custer and Ehrig voted "Nay". ~lotion carried.
CASE NO. 4-81
Leroy F. Mitchell (Mai Tai Motor Inn)
Fire Code Violation
.'
James A. Helinger, Jr., attorney, stated he is now the
attorney of record for Mr. Mitchell. Since he has just been
retained, he is not in a position to properly represent his
client and asked that a 3D-day continuance be granted. He
stated there appears to be several different lists of alleged
violations and he asks that a final list be furnished by the
Fire Marshal.
Upon recommendation of the City Attorney, Mr. Ehrig moved
to continue this case until June 3, 1981, beginning at 2:00 p.m.
with the Fire Marshal to provide the Board, the Board Secretary,
and counsel for Mr. Mitchell a list of the violations of the
code, with sections cited, no later than IS days prior to the
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 5-81
Affordable Furniture
Violation
Sign Ordinance
o
\!i;;;I
Sign Inspector Stuart Williams stated Jack McMannus, whom he
he1ieves to be manager of the store, was notified on 10/24/80, 1/14/81,
3 .
5/6/81
, , (
, ,
""8,":"
", ,.
,. ,I',.
,', H
, ,
.~
~.
i ~ ", ,-!r:!:~ri)~R?~Y~~&itS$!~;r~)it'l~\~';;.7i>..~~~"Yu>"'''''r':~~~~~3:~~'-''~''''''',",_....V',f~";'.......e~~p.,II{~t.rttl--."'-.,ft..........~1t ;L''''\~'''-~''''~Jjt,~~1e~~!l':<'~~;''li.~)~~})I.~.t.~...(u.~~
.)
!
"
r
r'
o
1/22/81 and 1/26/81 c~ncerning the violation which consists of
placing advertising sIgns on a vehicle which is not used in the
normal course of business. Upon advice from the City Attorney
the Chairman stated if a hearing date is set the Board Secretary
be directed to identify the violator as the legal entity that is
doing business at 1231 Cleveland Street and, if it IS a corpora-
tion, to also send a notice of violation to the resident agent
as recorded in the office of the Secretary of State in
Tampa.
t'
Mr. Custer moved to set a hearing date of June 3, 1981.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 7 - 81
Mrs. Hoke Russell Southern Standard
Housing Code Violation
The Affidavit of Violation of the Southern Standard Housing
Code and the inspector's report dated 9/8/80 were reviewed.
Discussion ensued concerning prioritizing of violations where
numerous ones exist.
Mr. Gerlach moved to set a hearing date of June 3, 1981.
The motion was duly seconded.
A
'-.!:J
Discussion ensued concerni~g whether or not the Board could
stipulate selective compliance In cases of this type and the
City Attorney stated that would be at the option of the Board.
He gave a brief overview of the minimum housing code and the
efforts made by the inspectors to work with the owners.
Upon the vote being taken the motion carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 6-81
George Ostermann (Shadowlawn Mobile Home
Park) - Mobile Home Park Code Violation
Because there was confusion over section numbers cited,
by unanimous consent the City Attorney was asked to return the
Affidavit of Violation to the proper department with instructions
to submit new information bearing proper section numbers from
the new Code of Ordinances. It was suggested a letter requiring
use of the new Code be sent to all department heads.
MINUTES The Chairman presented the minutes of the meeting
of April 15, 1981, for consideration. Mr. Winner moved the
minutes be approved as submitted. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 1-81
Rodney Finke (Terra Excavating) - Water
Pollution Code Violation
It was noted an Affidavit of Compliance had been filed In
this case.
~
~
4.
5/6/81