09/16/1981
.,f7....
. " . - . .
.,
r'.' '.
r-
.1'.
./
I
_. ~___--""~'4~' ___ _____
-~/i-~I
o
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
September 16, 1981
Members present:
Lee Regulski, Chairman
John Ehrig, Vice-Chairman
Paul Carnahan
Don Winner
Raymond Custer
o
Absent:
John F. Gerlach
Also present:
Gary Hewetson, representing City Staff
Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney (arrived 2:25 p.m.)
Frances Sunderland, Board Secretary
Sue Lamkin, Assistant City Clerk
(B'"
",;'
..
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 2: 00 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and
advised any aggrieved party may appeal a ruling or order of the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board by certiorari in the Circuit Court of Pinellas
County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the order to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute
286.0105 requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have
a verbatim record of the proceedings to support such an appeal.
CASK RO. 10-81
John Tylawsky (935 Lakeview Rd., Clearwater)
Standard Building Code
Entered as evidence for the City by Gary Hewetson:
c:>.
o
Exhibits #1, U2, & #3 - Photographs of the subject building,
taken 9/15/81.
Exhibit U4 - A drawing submitted to the Building Dept. by John
Tylawsky (not accepted into evidence).
Exhibit US - Letter addressed to Zoning Dept. dated 1/9/78 signed
by John Tylawsky.
A
~
Charles Reis, Building Inspector, reported he had made an inspection
on 5/21/81 as the result of a neighborhood complaint. Mr. Tylawksy told
him he had filed plans a year earlier and had never had any response from
the City. Investigation of the Building Dept. files indicated an
application for a permit had been filed but was turned down because he did
not meet zoning, parking, and setback requirements. He had been advised by
the Planning and BUilding Departments he would have to go before the
appeals board. This was not done and the bUilding was subsequently red-
1 .
9/16/81
r-..
~I.
r-
I
I .
____ ....__~..~',a...~\M...,"'l-:'.~1~-:".,..1I"'~J:.::~.~~:.:,~T:'t'.j.....:~~':""'.":o'<'-"'."'';':':~.o.",,'''''''~''.'l..'~4-lf.....,....'''''~,r''''''_'''''''''''''' ._.._..... .4.., "_,_,_"~",,,."'...,,_....-,,..'.'#'<l'" ."l""'.~__.h".l-'::J:":-,:,"\~,~~~~"",,,,,,,,,_,_,,___"_____~_<li#lo~
,
I' i
;
!
f
1
, i
I 0
I
.} 'I
,....,
tagged on 6/11/80. On 5/22/81 the inspector issued a red tag, allowing the
Defendant until 6/5/81 to file new plans. A Notice of Violation was issued
on 6/8/81, setting 6/15/81 as the deadline to comply with the Order. The
Notice of Violation was forwarded to the Board on June 16 and the Affidavit
of Violation \-las hand delivered to Mr. Tylawsky on 8/19/81 at City Hall.
The inspector reviewed Exhibits 1 thru 3, stating they had been taken from
City right-of-way. The building was never inspected inside as access was
refused by the Owner. No permit for construction of the shed has ever been
issued, although various other permits for repairs have been issued.
Mr. Tylawsky had indicated the appeal process was too expensive. Exhibit
#5, dated 1/9/78 was read into the record.
o
John Tylawsky requested the inspector read into the record a letter
written to him by Roy J. Ayres, Building Director, returning his
application for a building permit dated 8/20/81 stating the reasons f'or
denial. He was informed an application had been prepared for him to submit
to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which he was asked to come in and
pick up. He presented copies of three documents to the inspector stating
they were duplicates of original documents submitted with his application
for a building permit. He asked if the originals of those documents had
been with the letter from Mr. Ayres and the inspector stated they \<Iere
not. Mr. Tylawsky' questioned the inspector concerning a red tag issued
6/11/80 and various copies of bills from lumber and concrete companies. He
also questioned him concerning a statute of limitations on the violation.
He requested the inspector state the violation concerns the shed not the
trellis shown in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
1
\
" ....:
,r')
''-J
The inspector clarified for the Board procedures required for making
application for a building permit. Roy Ayres reported he had been
requested, through one of his inspectors and the Zoning Officer, to reject
Mr. Tylawsky's application in writing so that he could bring the letter to
this hearing.
Entered as evidence by John Tylawsky for the Defense:
Exhibit 111 Drawing, which had been City's prospective Exhibit
filL
Exhibit fi2 - Red tag dated 6/11/Bo.
Exhibit fi3 - Copy of delivery receipt dated 6/5/80.
Exhibit fi4 Copy of delivery receipt dated 6/6/80.
G Exhibit #5 Copy of delivery receipt dated 6/14/80.
'. , .
CD
Mr. Tylawsky stated City's Exhibit #5 and his Exhibit #1 were in no
way related to each other. He reported the concrete for the slab was
poured on 6/5/80. He contends this was the date the violation began. He
was red-tagged by Inspector Kohlmeyer on 6/11/80 and was advised to make
applioation for a building permit, which he did. He stated he talked by
phone with Inspector Koh~eyer several weeks later and was told the permit
would be mailed to him. He never received it. Mr. Tylawsky requested
copies of certain sections of the Florida Statutes be entered as evidence,
to which Mr. Hewetson objected. The Chief Assistant City Attorney
confirmed the sections do not have to be introduced into evidence to be
considered. They will, in fact, be considered and may be cited in
arguments. Mr. Tylawsky' conceded he committed a violation of the Building
2.
9/16/81
.'" l'
~...
r-.
'.-j"""
~-
. /.
,i ..
I
..___.________~.____,__._.......f__...'S4,"I'.ri_....;.L..,'1"~,:r"_~~t\~",:,}'{?4..
{/;~
I.
-i
,
I
~
1
I
.0
I
Code; however, under due process and equal protection under the law, he
feels there must be a statu te of 11mi ta tions on this violation. He
questioned the necessity for obtaining a permit for a storage shed at the
time of construction.
Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Tylawsky stated he felt no
violation existed since the Building Dept. did not pursue the matter.
, .
..,
In summation Mr. Hewetson reported there is no statute of limitations
on this violation, as it is a continuing type. The facts to be considered
are whether a permit was obtained for a structure he erected, and Mr.
Tylawsky has conceded he did erect a structure and did not obtain a
permit.
: . ',<.'
The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with Mr. Hewetson's
statement that this is a continuing-type violation covered under Section
108 of the Standard Building Code.
o
...
\.
In summation Mr. Tylawsky contended this is not a continuing violation
because the inspector who issued the red tag in 1980 never returned to
follow through. He cited Sections 775.082 and 775.083 and 775.115 to
support his contention he has a legal right to a statute of limitations.
The Board recessed from 3:50 to 3:58 p.m.
o
The Chairman reviewed the evidence presented and discussion ensued
concerning the delay involved between the time the. red tag was issued and
the Board received the case and whether there is, in fact, a statute of
limitations on this violation.
o
Mr. Ehrig moved the F1nd~ or Facts in the case of John Tylawsky,
935 Lakeview, Clearwater, Fl. are: 1) From the evidence shown in
Plaintiff's Exhibit #1, there is a storage building at that address; 2) By
the testimony of Defendant he admits the fact no bUilding permit was ever
issued; 3) and from Defense Exhibit D2, the red tag placed on the structure
on 6/11/80 stating on the reverse side lfno permit", that the Cono1.usloD ot
Law is: John Tylawsky did violate Section 106.1 of the Standard Building
Code and is guil ty of said violation, and the Order is: Mr. Tylawsky
shall pursue filing the proper applications for the variances in the
parking requirements and building setback requirements and the special
exception for a nonconforming use, and the deadline for filing these
applications will be October 7, 1981, for the next Board of Adjustment
meeting of October 22, 1981, or the first one thereafter. If Mr. Tylawsky
does not comply within the time specified he shall pay a fine of $50.00 per
day for each day the violation continues to exist. If the findings of that
Board are in f'avor of' the application for the special exception and
variances, we give Mr. Tylawsky 7 days to apply for and obtain the
proper building permit. The penalty for not applying for and obtaining a
building permit shall be a fine of $50.00 per day for each day he fails to
comply. If the application and appeals of Mr. Tylawsky are denied, then he
shall eff'ect the removal of the said bUilding within 30 days after the
final appeal process or pay a fine of $50.00 per day until the building is
removed; and, furtheMnore, the decision of this Board shall become final
upon a final decision of Mr. Tylawsky's appeal to the Board of Adjustment
C)
3.
9/16/81
~
~
--
.,
,
\
,"',
k.
r-...
r--.
....2fl:....,:::.:.. ;,;.....:
, . :"'~., . ,. : ';;'
t'""' '.,. '.,.
. .' ;".... '. . ~,... '
..'" '.-, ,... /\
;. :.'.:::' >!~:::..
" . '.
.--:1
. .' .. ',..
I
I'
_ .,._,_._ _ ~__..__,__ . _~,__,,,,,,,__,,,__"'-'N ~,""";',.':..,'::'~':"7t~ .....:1"::~~<.-l.ri:""!~"'1.:t~r.:."1.
-,' '"
o
and any appeal thereto.
unanimously.
The motion was duly seconded and carried
CASH: RO. 17-81
Church of Scientology of Florida (511 S. Highland
Ave, Clearwater) Zoning & Building Code Violations
o
Gary Hewetson reported an Affidavit of Compliance has been filed
concerning the building permit. A permit has been obtained by Henry
Boerner and Char les Adams, owners of the property. Mr. Ayres, Attorney
Gluckman of Tampa, and various persons from the Church of SCientology met
in his office yesterday to discuss the zoning violation, and a letter of
agreement will be presented and a copy attached to the Affidavit of
Compliance which will be submitted by the Building Department. He
requested the case be dismissed. He stated the Ordinance provides it is
permissible in a PS zone to conduct consulting services, although it does
not define the term. Investigating dictonary meanings, it has been
determined the establishment is providing consulting services on a one-on-
one basis, with no classroom activities, and the hours of operation are
8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. five days a week.
".
Discussion ensued regarding whether it would be
to dismiss the case, and the Board Secretary reported
instructed her that an Affidavit of Compliance,
agreement, must be on file before this can be done.
Mr. Ehrig moved that Case No. 17-81, as it relates to a bUilding
permit, be dismissed because an Affidavit of Compliance has been filed by
Roy Ayres; and that consideration of the violation of' Sec. 131 . 119 be
postponed until the next meeting, 10/7/81, at which time the Board will
entertain acceptance of an Affidavit of Compliance based on the testimony
or information presented by the staff attorney. The motion was duly
seconded. Upon the vote being taken Messrs. Ehrig, Carnahan, Custer and
Winner voted "Aye;" Mr. Regulski voted "Nay." Motion carried.
proper for the Board
the City Attorney has
with any attendant
f~
V
tJRFIRISBED BUSIRESS
elSE RO. 6-81
George Osterman (Shadow Lawn Mobile Home Park) (11
Bayview Ave., Clearwater) Mobile Home Park Standards
A
V
An Affidavit of Compliance signed by the Building Director, together
with a copy of a letter agreement addressed to Gary Hewetson and signed by
George Osterman and David A. Luczak, attorney, has been submitted.
Considerable discussion ensued concerning the reasons for permitting the
mobile home on Lot 401 to remain while two others will be removed. The
consensus of the Board was that they should be informed concerning the
details of any agreements reached, whether the City has a policy for
waivers in some cases, whether there actually was a violation, and if there
were no violation that fact should be a matter of record. The Board does
not wish to be used for' selective enforcement and expressed the desire to
know the terms of the agreement between the City and Gary Hewetson so the
Board can understand what the City expects of him.
.~
~
Mr. Ehrig moved to instruct the Secretary to write a letter to the
City Manager, with a copy of this portion of the minutes, requesting he and
4.
9/16/81
r' <
..... OW "' _ ."
;."
_./: t
Lj?
<,I
, :
[7... .
. .
, ,
~L
..1,.,'
p-
I
.>~i' f
c,
I
.~~~~A;~~~1\~r~r~er>>'%1t!L~':tf......r.~r""'''!~f.~~.7,\\~..t.,~''~''''''''''I~W~~"1~J:l!loi\._"_".~~""""'~1I1C1~~f1~~~..,\,wt~~,,........~~~:::~t'<t\~n~~_...-.
1/ I !
I.
..' ,
o
the Mayor meet with
meeting, and to allow
motion was duly seoonded
the Board to discuss these
the Board members the option
and carried unanimously.
problems prior to the next
of being present. The
Mr. Ehrig moved
Compliance in Case
ascertain
Shadow Lawn Mobile Home
circumstances for
to
postpone
acceptance
of
of
to
manner.
purpose.
:rmM
o
CASK RO. 11..81
Clearwater Seville, Ltd. (2640 Seville Blvd.,
Clearwater) Building Code
The Chairman
from a resident of Seville Condominiums
the balconies. The Chief Assistant
filed requesting the Court to
judge dismissed the case
the court order to file
passed.
noted for the record a letter had been received
stating no work has been done on
City Attorney reported a suit had been
issue an injunction against the City. The
and gave the Plaintiff ten days from the date of
by certiorari. It appears the ten day limit has
()
Further discussion ensued concerning the date on which the Board would
like to meet with the City Manager and the Mayor. October 7 at 3:00 p.m.
was suggested. The Chief Assistant City Attorney reported the meeting must
be in the Sunshine and proper notification would be required.
IuBUT~
September 2,
approved as
unanimously.
The
1981, for
submitted.
Chairman presented
consideration.
The motion
the
Mr.
was
minutes of
Ehrig moved
duly seconded
the meeting of
the minutes be
and carried
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
ED
Ch~
~~
City Clerk
,
L~#
.
~
~
'd
5.
9/16/81