07/19/1986
.r
~, ," ";:".
1'.'
p-'
~
i
-_~_~~""""H"of"~_"MI"~-'~_~""",r\,lo.",~~",_",_~-..'
o
MU~ICIPAL CODE E~FORCEMENT BOARD
Meeting of July 9, 1986, 1:00 p.m.
Agenda
ACTION
1.
Public Hearings
1.
(At the time a
fo~ compliance the Board shall at the
time set the fee
non-compliance.)
case is hea~d and date
set
same
to be assessed in case of
a.
Case No. 31-86
Christmas Wonde~land
(Sign Code)
Comt. tram 5/14/86
Caaplied
a.
Withdrawn
b.
Case No. 47-86
St. And~ews Cove II
(Life Safety Code)
Comt. from 6/25/86
b.
Comply within 90 days
c.
Case No. 48-86
St. Andrews Cove I
(Life Safety Code)
Collt. troll 6/25/86
c.
Comply within 90 days, obtain
dete~mination from ~FPA
@
d.
Case No. 52-86
Patricia Snelson
(Bui1din~ Code)
Cont. troD 6/25/86
d.
Comply by 8/13/86
e.
Case No. 57-86
Kimbe~ly Boswell
(License Code)
CaIlp11ed
e.
Withd~awn
f.
Case No. 58-86
Berna~d Harvey
(Building Code)
f.
1) Obtain permit within time allowed
by DCABj 2) Vacate old building
within 9 months of obtaining pe~mitj
and 3) Demolish old building p~ior
to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for new bUilding.
2.
Unf'1nished Busineas
2.
Discussed p~oposed demolitions going
before City Commission
3.
Other Board Acti.OI1
3.
a.
Lien Status Report
a.
Reviewed
II.
Heir Business
4.
Discussed new State legislation
5.
Minutes of June 25, 1986 lleeting
5.
App~oved as submitted
/~
<:t::/
6.
Adjouroaent
6.
3: 12 p.m.
P
I'.' "
~
.r-..
, I
, .
'. '~~~t~1Zf~~!c.~"~:;"~'~~'~i'Y""~i~:i"..t.':.~_-....-.______..._~--.__.._______,..........'...4"U.1I..__.",..~_...._...__...'"'4<,1:, .n..~~____.....__.....' .
'.
. \ ,
:,1
o
Scott Brainard, Attorney representing St. Andrews Cove Condominiums, agreed
that the fire alarm system is needed in the section of the first building with
12 units and is required throughout the second building. Mr. Brainard
emphasized the association has to go through a certain procedure for collecting
the funds for installation and a 60 day period would be needed to collect these
funds. st. Andrews Cove is requesting 90 days to complete installation.
Harr1 Mattheus stated, after consultation with the Fire Marshal, they have
interpreted the Code to mean that pull stations by the rear sliding glass doors
are not required and will be required at the front entry ways only.
Mr. Angelis moved that concerning Case No. 41-86 re: violation of
Section 19-3.~.1, NFPA Lite Safety Code 101 of the Clearwater City Code on
property with a legal description as follows: a portion of Sections 11 & 12,
Township 29S, Range 15E, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard
testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of
July, 1986, and based on the evi~ence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
enters the following Findings ot Faot, Conolusions of Law, and Order.
The Findings ot Faot are: after hearing the testimony of Harry Mattheus,
Life Hazard Safety Inspector, and that St. Andrews Cove II is in agreement,
it is evident a violation does exist and a fire alarm system is required.
The Conolusions of Law are: St. Andrews Cove II Condominiums are in
violation of Section 19-3.4.1, NFPA Life Safety Code 101.
o
It is the Order of this Board that St. Andrews Cove II Condominiums shall
comply with Section 19-3.4.1, Life Safety Code 101 of the Code of the City of
Clearwater by ~~plet1ng installation within 90 days of this date. If St.
Andrews Cove II Condominiums do not comply within the time speCified, they shall
pa1 a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.
If st. Andrews Cove II Condominiums do not comply within the time speCified,
a certified copy of this Order, together with an Affidavit of Non-Compliance,
shall be recorded in the pUblic records of the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, and once recorded shall constitute
a lien against real or personal property owned by St. Andrews Cove II Condo
Assoc. pursuant to Chapter 82-37 Laws of Florida, 1982. Upon complying, St.
Andrews Cove II shall notify Barry Mattheus, the City Official who shall
inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute arise
concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the
Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimOUSly.
Done and Ordered this 9th day of July, 1986.
@'-'
~" "
.....
2.
r
'r
i ,I ',' ",.', ,
.: "
r-
~
.. .
,f
. : ~ 4 .
. ~3'i~~~r~1!t..~~:~r;lf:~~~7?;.:~t..;.7t\"t',::t";'~;: .~:~';J":->~...,._,,,_~____._
ClSE RO. 118-86
St. Andrews Cove I Condominiums
o
Harry Mat the us , Life Safety Haza~d Inspector, stated the initial inspection
of this condominium was made on September 23, 1985 and he has reinspected at
least once a month sinoe that time. The Condominium Association is in agreement
regarding the installation of the fire alarm system with the exception of the
placement of pull stations at the rear of the two buildings that have rear
stairways.
The City submitted Composite Exhibit U1 a-c, photographs of the property,
and Exhibit #2, copies of the Code pertaining to this case.
I
,
\
Discussion ensued regarding whether the rear stairways are approved means
of egress, and regarding the interpretation of the Code about the required pull
stations. Scott Brainard, Attorney representing St. Andrews Cove, stated the
rear exits are not a required means of esressj therefore, they maintain there
is no requirement to prOVide pull stations at these exits. The stairways
service the upper units only and the normal means of egress is through the
front door.
The alleged violator submitted Exhibit #1, plans of the buildings at St.
Andrews Cove I Condominiums.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that having an exit results in an
invitation to use the exit as a means of egress. He stated the Code intends
to provide pull stations in locations necessary to provide accessible means
for turning in a fire alarm.
o
Mr. Brainard emphasized that providing the pull stations at the rear exits
would result in additional cost to the condominium residents, many of whom are
elderly and living on fixed incomes.
The consensus of the Board was to direct Harry Mattheus to write to the
National Fire Protection Association, sending plans of the building and a copy
of the tape of the hearing, to request an opinion regarding the interpretation
of the Life Safety Code regarding the second means of egress and the requirement
for pull stations.
Mr. Angelis moved that concerning Case Ho. 48-86 re: violation of Section
19-3.~.1, HPPA ~ife Satety Code 101 of the Clearwater City Code on property
with a legal description as follows: a portion of Sections 11 and 12, Township
29S, Range 15E, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at
the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of July, 1986,
and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the
fOllowing F1ndlngs of Paot, Conaluslons or Law. and Order.
The P1n~ of Fact are: after hearing the testimony of Harry Mattheus,
Life Hazard Safety Inspector, and Scott Brainard, Attorney, and viewing the
evidence and exhibits submitted, various photographs and maps, it is evident
that a fire alarm system is required. Regarding pull stations at rear exits,
a determination will be made by the Fire Dept. and the ~ational Fire Protection
Association.
July 'J, 1'J86
"
r
1 '
r--
, "
,"\ " . ',.
'~"..,
, , ,
, '
~
" ,
I"
:',)~~t.~:.!.;}:~"*{;:0:~~:n'~':!:):~;~i':~;J~"G\.ft~:XPt9~_-.;"__.____~_.._..__.._.,,_.................~'lf.t...~J,~~..i'-~."'...l1'<"_.>J.q......._.......---.....-._,...____~_______....__________~_________
. ,~.
'1
':1
i
I
10
<1
'~
'~
I
1
j
1
l
It is the Order of this Board that St. Andrews Cove I Condominiums shall
comply with Section 1Y-3.4.1, ~ife Safety Code 101 of the Code of the City of
Clearwater by cOIIlpleti.ng installation within 90 days of this date. If the
Fire Dept. receives a determination from the National Fire Protection
Association that a rear system is required, St. Andrews Cove I will complete
installation within the same 90 days; if it is determined that the rear system
is not required, the City will require installation of the front system only.
If St. Andrews Cove I Condominiums do not comply within the time specified,
they shall pay a fine of $25.00 pel' day for each day the violation continues
to exist. If St. Andrews Cove I Condominiums do not comply within the time
specified, a certified copy of this Order, together with an Affidavit of Non-
Compliance, shall be recorded in the public records of the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, and once recorded shall
constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by St. Andrews
Cove I Condo Assoc. pursuant to Chapter 82-37 Laws of Florida, 1982. Upon
complying, St. Andrews Cove I shall notify Harry Mattheus, the City Official
who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a
dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing
before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The ConQ1uslons or Law are: st. Andrews Cove I Condominiuffi~ are in
violation of Section 19-3.4.1, NFPA ~ife Safety Code 101.
. i(. ,
Y
{,
, \
DOHB AND ORDBRRD this 9th day of July, 1986.
CASE HO. 52-80
Patricia Snelson (Building Code)
o
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated a demolition permit has been
issued but the demolition contractor has been unable to complete the demolition
of the building within the time allowed. The demolition contractor is
requesting additional time to complete the demolition; however, Mr. Chaplinsky
requested the Board place a limit on the time allowed.
The City submitted Composite Exhibit #1, photographs of the half demolished
property.
Henry Uhl, the demolition contractor, stated he would need approximately
3 additional weeks to complete demolition of the building. Patricia Snelson
was not present at the hearing.
Mr. Morris moved that concerning Case No. 52-86 re: violation of Section
102.4. standard Building Code. 1985 Editi.on of the Clearwater City Code on
property with a legal description as follows: Block H, Lot 4, Breeze Hill
Subdivision, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of July, 1986, and
based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following
Findings of Fact. Conolusions of Law, and Order.
The F1n~ ot Fact are: after hearing the testimony of Tom Chaplinsky,
Building Inspector, and Henry Ohl and viewing the evidence and exhibits
submitted, photographs of the half demolished structure, it is evident that
a condition of violation exists.
CD
L:I
""1
~~~~~~?~:2~:~~;~~Ji=i~~~~;I~~ici;6=~~":~.:.,..";
July 9, 1986
"., ~.'"':~..<.r;...:i":!f.n~.~.~~..
"
,r-
r
~" ,
~
~
t
I'
.' ~,:~(11!i'!f~-~{:~:,lt.\"!.':1.1\"'~':-::t..""t.tIt~~.v.tua.r____-........._...____.____ ......__...__n._....M____. ._M_----........._____,.....~~_...._"'_,______~~_ __~.______._......~.___...,~>':t_a'rY.4___
"
o
The Cono1usions of Law are: Patricia Snelson is in violation of Section
102.4, Standar'd Building Code, 1985 Edi tion.
I
I
J
j
i
I
It is the Order of this Board that Patricia Snelson shall comply with
Section 102.4, Standard Building Code of the Code of the City of Clearwater
by oompleting demolition by August 13, 1986. If Patricia Snelson does not
comply within the time specified, she shall pay a fine of $25.00 per day for
each day the violation continues to exist. If Patricia Snelson does not comply
within the time specified, a certified copy of this Order, together with an
Affidavit of Non-Compliance, shall be recorded in the public records of the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, and once
recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned
by Patricia Snelson pursuant to Chapter 82-37 Laws of Florida, 1982. Upon
complying, Patricia Snelson shall notify Tom Chapllnsky, the City Official
who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a
dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing
before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1986.
CASE HO. 51-86
Kimberly Boswell (License Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the
violation has been corrected. Mr. Angelis moved to withdraw Case No 57-86.
The Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
o
CASE HO. 58-86
Bernard Harvey (Building Code)
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he had inspected this property
numerous times since the initial inspection on April 3, 1986. This is a
commercial building previously used as a tavern and dance hall. It is currently
unsafe, termite damaged, rotted and not up to Code. Mr. Chaplinsky feels the
building is a fire hazard and should be demolished.
The City submitted Composite Exhibit #1 a-d, photographs of the property
taken the day of the hearing, July 9, 1986. Mr. Chaplinsky stated he has been
in contact with Mr. Harvey. Mr. Harvey is in agreement regarding demolition
of the building; however, he has a variance from the Development Code Adjustment
Board to build a new building and wishes to use the old building for storage
during the construction period.
Bernard Harvey stated he is requesting the old building be used for storage
of tables, cash registers, etc. until the new building is completed. He is
building on the vacant lot adjacent to this property, and has received zero
setback variances from the DCAB. He said the plans are currently being worked
on and the dance hall/tavern has been shut down and secured.
o
Mr. Morris moved that concerning Case No. 58-86 re: violation of Section
102.~. Standard Building Code, 1985 Edition of the Clearwater City Code on
property with a legal description as follows: Block E, Lots 32 and 33,
Greenwood Park No.2, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony
at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of July, 1~86,
and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the
following Findings or Faot, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
5.
'FT'
'. " .
, ,
, ,
r
/".,
r-
-1
, ,
: /~If~~~~t'ITr~.rr~~i(~:!?:tJ'tX..W}~~.~;t~~r~_
'~
'\
"
'l~
,
J
l
j
I
~
'I
3
~
o
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing the testimony of Tom Chaplinsky,
Building Inspector, and Bernard Harvey and viewing the evidence and exhibits
submitted, photographs of the structure, it is evident that an unsafe condition
exists.
The Conolusions ot Law are: Bernard Harvey is in vio~ation of Section
102.4, Standard Building Code, 1985 Edition.
Q
It is the Order of this Board that Bernard Harvey shall comply with
Section 102.4, Standard Building Code of the Code of the City of Clearwater
by obtaining a building permit for construction of a new building within the
time allowed by the Development Code Adjustment Board. If no permit is
obtained, the old building shall be demolished immediately. While the new
building is under construction, the old building may be used for storage for
a maximum of 9 months and the old building shall be demolished prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new structure. If the new structure is
completed prior to the expiration of 9 months, the old building will be
demolished at that time. If Bernard Harvey does not comply within the time
specified, he shall pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. If Bernard Harvey does not comply within the time
specified, a certified copy of this Order, together with an Affidavit of
Compliance, shall be recorded in the pUblic records of the Office of the
of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, and once recorded shall
constitute a lien against real or personal property owned by Bernard Harvey
pursuant to Chapter 82-37 Laws of Florida, 1982. Upon complying, Bernard Harvey
shall notify Tom Cbaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect the property
and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute arise concerning
compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board.
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Non-
Clerk
The
DORE AHD ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1~86.
0IFIRISIIIm BUSDJESS
The Secretary brought to the attention of the Board three Code Enforcement
Board proposed demolitions scheduled for the City Commission meeting July 17,
1986. Two are for demolition only; Mrs. Russell's property is for repair or
demolition because there is over $7,000 of fine money in escrow, which could
be used to repair the property.
0TBJm BOARD ACTIOH
Lien Status Report
Case No. 57-83 - Einstein Boykins
Tom Chaplinsky stated the Assistant City Attorney had indicated to him
that, if Mr. Boykins demolished the building, the fine of the Code Enforcement
Board might be waived. The Board directed Mr. Chaplinsky to cite this property
under 'unsafe bUildings' in order to resolve this case.
A
'.J