Loading...
08/19/1981 ~, , ,~. , ':~: ,: , " ' ',\ r-- '" , " " _ c '_' , ' ' ,. " ..."" >Y., '" ',' ' ' :~.. _,......."'\(ft..f(~<tm:M\'-tt1i'lli~.ttrlF.', J'lo---,_~~~~~S~~~~ff.~1JJf1:};!;'1~1.tltd~~UMI(t\".l!m~+~;rf.tp$.~,;t:~'~'p:.d'40.'...,t:'/i~~~1'Ill.t~ "~'~"'~~~.t.:...bl'~.:...lI'Cl1"I":l.'N-4i~1.\:.;,,?W'~\_~~:l.\t. I ?~ MUNICIPAL CODE ENPORCUMENT BOARD r\ \.;J August 19, 1981 Members present: Lee Regulski, Chairman *John Ehrig, Vice-Chairman Paul Carnahan John F. Gerlach Don Winner Raymond Custer arrived 1:10 p.m. Also present: Thomas A. Bustin, Frances Sunderland, Sue Lamkin, City Attorney Board Secretary Assistant City Clerk @ The meeting was called to in the Commission Meeting procedures and advised any or order of the Municipal Code Enforcement in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. be filed within thirty (30) days of the to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute any applicant appealing a decision of this Board verbatim record of the proceedings to support order by the Room in City Hall. aggrieved party Chairman at 1:00 p.m. He outlined the may appeal a ruling Board by certiorari Any such appeal must execution of the order 286.0105 requires to have a such an appeal. CASE NO. 6-81 George Mobile Osterman (Shadow Lawn Mobile Home Park Standards Home Park) by The Chairman Gary Hewetson, reported attorney a motion for Ci ty for continuance of Clearwater. has been filed The Nr. Winner moved motion was duly to seconded continue the and carried item to September unanimously (S 2, 1981. votes) CASE NO. 10-81 John Ty1awsky, Standard Building Code Mr. Ty1awsky is expected to appear at 1:30 p.m. CASE NO. 12-81 Johnson & Albrecht, Standard Building Code Thomas Chap1insky, evidence the fol1o~ing Minimum exhibit: Housing Inspector, entered as Composite Exhibit "1 9 photographs. ~ ~ The Building made on 5/5/81 revealed dition as shown in Department received a the building to be Composite Exhibit #1. complaint and an inspection in a deteriorated con- Before issuing the r-. r- ~ " ' ".lHJ!'" ,~:;f.r"l;:;!7.'?~'!{:'.":,H:~~':'~:~': ;::~j:r,:;:::, :',,::,,;:{:'~i;.;;r~',~';i<,~:"',7:r,",::':"i;',:.:r,,: "",1,,>',,,,><,,,,,, <.;' :;',,; i' ,: '..',,'l,;" ",',:/::\c";':', .', ",'~': ,"'" "C: ,.: ',," "", "..,"'C':'...:,..,'"-c,,"',~,'~"'....,, "y,=,..",.".,~"',,."'.,,.."'<...,.., "''''"''''':;''?-~I , o Notice of Violation the inspecto~ made a personal inspection of the premises with Mr. Albrecht, at his request. The inspection confirmed the report filed by Inspector Reichardt and the Notice of Violation was delivered to Mr. Albrecht on 5/14/81. Inspections made 6/29/81 and 7/6/81 revealed no work had been started on the building, but some of the weeds and outside debris had been removed. Subsequent inspections, the last being made August 3, 1981, revealed no work had been started. He reviewed the exhibit, pointing out the building is rotted, termite ridden, with some roof sheathing missing. The building is not occupied and the property is not fenced, permi~ting access from the east and west. William Albrecht entered as evidence the following exhibit: Defense Exhibit #1 - Let~er signed by Robert Anderson and Robert Schwartz, General Contractors, regarding agree- ment to compJete restoration at 705 Court Street. Mr. Albrecht admitted the condition of the building stating they have hired several men to clean up the premises. The electrici~y has been shut off, and he had tried to obtain a building permit but was told a Class A permit would be required. He read into the record Exhibit #1 stating it would take approxi- mately 35 days to complete the plans and obtain a permit and an additional 100 days to comple~e the restoration. The building is either screened or elevated and is not easily accessible. G There was considerable discussion concerning code require- ments which would cover the renovated structure. 1'0\ V In summation, Inspector Chap1insky stated that more than 90 days have expired since the o~iginal notice of violation. The City has liability, as the condition of the building is known and to pe~mit the violation to continue is not proper. The Board recessed from 1:35 p.m. to 1:~2 p.m. Mr. Ehrig moved the Findings of Fact are: From the evidence shown in Plaintiff's composite exhibit 1, photo A, the structural roof system is in disrepair and poses a hazard to the public safety and welfare, and the evidence shown in Plaintiff's composite exhibit 1, photo B, shows the unsafe condition of the interior of the building. By the testimony of Mr. Albrecht he acknowledges this condition and his willingness to effect repairs on same. Conclusions of Law are: The building at 705 Court Street is in violation of the City building code and Chapter 133, Section 103.4, Unsafe Buildings (Standard Building Code), and the Board finds the Defendant guilty of the violation; Order is: Defendant is given: 1) 30 days to complete plans and submit to building department for a permit to rehabilitate or demolish the building, and in the event a building permit is not applied for a fine of $50.00 per day will be levied until compliance, and 2) 120 calendar days to complete the construction in accordance with the approved and permitted plans or be fined $50.00 per day to commence on the l2lst day. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimOUSly. 2. 8/19/81 " , ..,~ I " ' , . . .-~~53!.~u~;!1:~;J':~lt1~Jtf:~{}'P:~t:~!;~,11~_~~:'~.r\"n;'!::::::.f:i.Yt"~~"lt\J\~~t~el"1i';~k'f2'.~~l;~ "'.'!~,...':.:!;.';'l;r~:\, ':'~~2..';.o~m.Y.~'t''!~f\;C,..~.;'.,'~~~~r..t.A'':/'':~~I~~;;tI:r,..~~EP~~~M!.@\~Wtlt'E?.r~i~~...pw..v.:h~~l~)~:t~~ .", :\ 32 CASE NO. 10-81 John Tylawsky, Standard Building Code o The Notification of Violation and Request for Hearing was hand delivered by Inspector Charles Reis to John Tylawsky at approximately 2:10 p.m. Mr. Ty1awsky stated he was informed of the hearing today and is not prepared to present a defense, as he will need to subpoena witnesses from the Building, Zoning, and Planning Departments. He requests a postponement. Mr. Ehrig moved to postpone Case No. 10-81 until 9/16/81. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. CASE NO. 13-81 Michael Clarke's J. FIorino & Mike Clearwater Coachworks, Clarke d/b/a Fire Code The Chairman reported a motion for continuance has been filed by Gary Hewetson, representing the City of Clearwater. Fire Inspector Kingsley is on call if the case is to be heard. Robert Neumeyer, representing Clarke's management consultant, Clearwater Coachworks. stated he is ~ '0 Mr. Winner moved to deny the by Gary Hewetson. The motion was unanimously. Hearing of the case inspector can be notified. motion for continuance filed duly seconded and carried will be deferred until the CASE NO. 2 - 81 Hillcrest Villas (Stan Freifeld, President) Sign Ordinance The City Attorney reported the sign has been removed and the appeal in Circuit Court dismissed. A Certificate of Compliance has been filed by the sign inspector. CASE NO. 4-81 Leroy F. Mitchell (Mai Tai Motor Inn) Fire Code The City Attorney reported an Affidavit of Non-Compliance on "B" items has been filed. The fine is in effect and the papers will be recorded and become a lien against the property. CASE NO. 5- 81 Affordable Furniture, Sign Ordinance The City Attorney reported an Affidavit of Compliance has been filed. CASE NO. 17 - 81 Church of Scientology, Zoning and Standard Building Code ~ '\iQ Roy Ayres, Building Director, reported the term "parish center" was given to him by John Conroy, ,.,ho stated they perform r7~.' I " .. ~ 'F, \. '\.11~1!:j~~":t:1'&~~tf~:?i!~tt~!J:.t::j~,~9;j!:::::5'!:~:.~~~-:~z:~ 7(.~~~t;{~:t~~:~~~:.:: !\.:::';~:::".l\'..~~';~e:~;\'::":':"''''''P.:-~-;:'': ~:;," \fJrt;;,.t..:,~ .':':.,:!,':~~ "~.'\, ::<."~:"~1:",:(."\~'~!>'~ "." ~"1l. !.f~:!;\t'.~t~e:~.'.l.l:" :",:)~;;!..~~:"~:if';':';~'f~"'t:"~;~.,!-,t,\'l'>>l'l.~I:l'ttfo;~",~-,, ~ 31 I I ! o a training activity. Neither the current zoning nor the proposed land use plan designation (low density residential) permits this usage although it might be permitted as a special exception. There is no definition of "parish center" in the zoning code. It has been suggested that a request for a change in zoning be made as there are two zoning categories in which the use would be permitted. The property owner of record would be notified if a hearing date is set. f .' The Building Director stated the information provided him concerning building improvements carne from a third party. He was informed there had been extensive roof work, exterior siding, and window replacement, anyone of which would require a building permit. Based on the time frame supplied by the third party, it is believed the work was performed by the present tenants. The Notice of Violation was issued based entirely upon the testimony of the complaining party. No building permits have been issued. The City Attorney reported there is nothing in Florida Statutes Chapter 166 stating separate violations on the same piece of property must be handled separately. Mr. Winner moved to set a hearing on the two alleged violations on 9/16/81 starting at 2:00 p.m. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. CD Michael J. FIorino - Mike Clarke d/b/a Clarke's Clearwater Coachworks, Fire Code Christopher Kingsley, Fire Inspector, stated Clarke's Clearwater Coachworks had applied for an occupational license in October 1980. A routine inspection to OK issuance of the Occupational License revealed the spray booth was not in conformance with code standards. For approximately 8 months he had contacts with Mike FIorino who verbally expressed willingness to comply; however, no action was taken and the condition of the booth deteriorated during that time. Specifically, the exhaust fan was located in the ductwork, and it did not have a proper-type motor. A motor is supposed to be outside of the spray booth unless it is shielded. The present ductwork permits exhausting into the atmosphere. Their department had been working with the previous owners of this business, so they were aware of the deficiencies at the time the business was sold. The inspector enumerated the specific sections in Chapter 5 of NFPA 33 which the operator is violating. CASE NO. 13-81 ~ ~ Robert Neumeyer, representing Clarke's Clearwater Coachworks, stated he handles their business affairs. The building has always been a garage or a body shop and he believes the spray booth has been operating for at least 10 years in its current condition. Under his supervision the building has recently been painted, a contract has been let for a fence, concrete work is being done, and they recently purchased a new air-vent booth. They are obtaining bids on ductwork for the booth in \ .r- ~. ) , , ~~Crl~t:;::'tt!!.~~~~~1IN:lAUr...~~~':.~~""'f::.~~~'e::'..ft!.t.'~~~;t.~~~~:c.'!"'~.~~~~'W'!!...YJ)~i;r~~~'~"'~'l~..~~~(..,.~~!t'Ir~.~K!IIll'(tlrt~rtP\."'J'..lii~lf~'f1'tIi~~mm~~~~ .-;;'0 I I, t o question and the fan has been expects the modifications can reloca tell to be completed the outside. Ile within 10 days Inspector Kingsley stated the ational for approximately one year. previous owners make it operational spray His booth had been opcr- bureau had helped the The specific 4:45 p.m. Board Nembers paragraphs or questioned the Chapter 5 and inspector concerning recessed from 4:36 p.m. the to :'lr. IHnner moved that the Fi_~c!_ln_&~~1i.act are: That the testimony by both the Petitioner and the Defendant substantiate that the fan system with respect to belts, shafts and filter system in the Spray Booth at Clarke's Clearwater Coachworks does not conform to tile ventilation requirements of NFPA 33, Chapter #5, Paragraphs 5-2 5-6, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15; Conclusions of Law are: Based on these facts, the Code Enforcenlentnoard-{i~ C 1 ark e I s C lea n., ate reo a c In., 0 r k s g u i 1 t Y a s c h a r g e c.l 0 f fir e cod e violations Order ls: The Defendants are therefore ordered to ----- bring this spray booth to code within 30 days. If the defendants do not comply a fine of $50.00 per day shall commence on the 31st day and continue until compliance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. @ Discussion ensued concernin~ the one meeting per month. The consensus to see what future agendag hold. feasihility of of the Board having only is to wLlit MINUTES The Chairman presented of 8-5. 1981 for consideration. Mr. be approved as submitted The motion carried unanimously. the minutes of the ~eeting Ehrig moved the minutes was duly seconded and Heeting adjourned at 3 49 p.m. . ot~~ L~ - CityClerk ----,- ~ ~ 5 B/19/81 .-a.-..__ . .'