08/13/1986
:;'. .'
F
I:'.
"r', , '.,'
'71' ,'::",::',',',
. . . .
. ""
.. . .
. : '.'. '" ,,'
'"
.~.
~
I
.\
, <,
'-~""(~~
. tp.d\.pJ~~\/i!-t~~~lf!lt~......-
.. .' .
. ,. . . .
.~----------".~"--""""-l
CASE &0. 511-86
Peter Panagakis (Sign Code)
o
\........,;'
Tne Assistant City Attorney requested this case be continued to the meeting
of September 10, 1986, to allow Mr. Panagakis' variance request to be heard
by the Development Code Adjustment Board on August 1Q, 1986.
Mr. elliott moved to continue Case No. 54-80 to the meeting of September
10, 1986. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE KG. 55-86
u.s. Home/Rutenberg (Uniform Development)
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the
violation has been corrected.
Mr. Amburgy moved to withdraw Case No. 55-85.
seconded and carried unanimously.
The motion was duly
CASE NO. 59-86
Harold Maybee (License Code)
Richard Nielsen, Attorney representing the alleged violator, requested
continuance of this case to allow their witnesses to be present for testimony.
The Assistant City Attorney Objected to the continuance as this problem
has existed since May. Mr. Zimmet stated he is not aware of what the witnesses
for the alleged violator are to testify to. The Harbormaster has expressed
concerns with the operation of aquacyoles on Clearwater Beach.
o
Mr. Nielsen stated the
which Mr. Maybee operates.
an occupational lioense has
witnesses will be testifying as to the business
He stated the only issue before the Board is whether
been obtained, not the Harbonmaster's objeotions.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the business of operating aquacycles
would oonstitute a conditional use and require approval by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Mr. Nielsen stated an oocupational lioense for the business has been
issued, but not in Mr. Maybee's name; and the witnesses will testify regarding
the business.
Mr. Amburgy moved to continue Case No. 59-86 to the meeting of October 8,
1986. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken: Mr. Amburgy,
Mr. Morris and Mr. Elliott voted "aye"; Mr. Angelis and Mr. Ehrig voted "nay".
Motion oarried.
CASE BG. 60-86
Robert Burnette (License Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the
violation has been corrected.
Mr. Amburgy moved to withdraw Case No. 60-86.
seconded and carried unanimously.
The motion was duly
~
V
F",
"
r-
r-
.'
. !';..~2:/:%~:i~\1rj~:5;~ri!.b~~'"~,,,,,,____,_~,,,_____
,. . _~~..........-,:,~,':':;?'r......,.:,..J'!l<""!.M~""".-.,,^,___,,__.._____..__________._____.~~
.~
:i
1
CASH: NO. 6-..86
Darryl McCray (License Code)
o
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the
violation has been corrected.
Mr. Amburgy moved to withdraw Case No. 64-86.
seconded and carried unanimously.
The motion was duly
CASE NO. 66-86
Eric Stober (License Code)
Barbara Sexsmith, Occupational License Inspector, stated she visited this
business on August 11, 1986. It appears to be a van conversion business with
a sign on the building reading Flagship Coach. There is evidence that a
business is being conducted without an occupational license.
James Grady, representing the owner of the business, Eric Stober, stated
they do not disagree with the violation; however, there has been no attempt
to deceive. This is a new business started in Hay and on May 16, 1986 theY'
received a Pinellas County occupational license. They were not aware that a
City occupational license was also required.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that a special exception for this type
of business may be required, depending on what the zoning is for that location.
o
Mr. Amburgy moved that regarding Case No. 66-8& re: violation of Seat~on
11.02 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1301 Arcturas Ave.
North, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board hearing held this 13th day of August, 1986, and based
on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following
Fimings or Faot. Conolusions or Law. and Order.
The Findings or Faot are: after hearing testimony of Barbara Sexsmith,
Occupational License Inspector, and James Grady, it is evident that Eric Stober
does not have a proper occupational license as required by Section 71.02, Code
of Ordinances.
The Cooolusioos or Law are:
of Section 71.02.
Eric Stober/James Grady are in violation
,(1)
'0
It is the Order of this Board that Eric Stober/James Grady shall comply
with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by September 30,
1986. If Eric Stober/James Grady do not comply within the time speciried,
they shall pay a fine of $10.00 per day for each day the violation continues
to exist. If Eric Stober/James Grady 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 Eric Stober/James Grady,
pursuant to Chapter 82-37 Laws of Florida, 1982. Upon complying, Eric Stober/
James Grady shall notify Barbara Sexs.ith, 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 13th day of August, 1986.
3.
8/13/86
~"
.':,','" ':':'1..
. II. ,,' .
," I;
~.
r
'. ;:
....______~..."'_~~~..""n"''"__
CASE HO. 61-86
Dickinson Auto Body (License Code)
C\
''-.J
CASE HO. 68-86
Johnnie Blunt (Life Safety Code)
CASE HO. 69-86
Dorothy Glover (Life Safety Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested these cases be withdrawn as the
violations have been corrected.
Mr. Amburgy moved to withdraw Case Nos. 67-86, 68-86 and 69-86. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE RO. 10-86
Sunfish Bay Condos/Greenacre Properties, Inc.
(Life Safety Code)
Mr. Amburgy stated a possible conflict of interest and excused himself from
consideration of this case.
Joe Colbert, Life Hazard Safety Inspector, stated this property has 3
buildings with more than 11 units per building requiring a manual fire alarm
system be installed. He visited the property the morning of the hearing and
no fire alarm system has been installed in buildings A, B & E. The original
Notice of Violation was written on January 2~, 1986, and subsequently
Mr. Colbert contacted the property manager numerous times. The other
violations listed in the Affidavit of Violation have been corrected.
@
Cyndie Johnson, representing Greenacres Properties, Inc. stated the
property management company has a signed contract for the installation of the
fire alarm system. The prOblem has been that the Condo Assoc. has had financial
problems. A special assessment on the owners was required in order to get the
funds to install the system. She requested 60 days to complete installation.
Mr. Angelis moved that regarding Case Ho. 10-86 re: violation of HFPA
Lire Safety Code 101, Section 19-3.4.1 of the Clearwater City Code on property
with a legal description as follows: Condo 5, Bldg. "A", Condo I, Bldg. liB",
Condo 4, Bldg. E; A portion of Lot 2, Sec. 10-29-16 and that part of the NE
1/4 of Sec. 9-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony
at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of August,
1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters
the following F1nd1ugs ot Fact, Conclusions ot Law, and Order.
The Findings or Fact are: after hearing testimony of Joe Colbert, Life
Hazard Safety Inspector, and Cyndie Johnson, Greenacre Properties, Inc., it
is evident there is a situation where fire alarm systems are needed in 3
buildings - A, Band E.
The Conoluslons ot Law are: Sunfish Bay Condos is in violation of NFPA
Life Safety Code 101, Section 19-3.4.1.
~
\(jJ)
r7'..
I" , ,,::',
r
. 1 ' ,...
" ,
.r-
(,
. :
, ,
": !~~~~~~;~;e.hJ':t.tr~~.%i~~'ot.f;!~__w_~.____~_~_.___..~_.~_ . ,.
1
1
n
'~'
It is the Order of this Board that Greenacre Properties for Sunfish Bay
Condos shall comply with NFPA Life Safety Code 101, Section 19-3.4.1 of the
Code of the City of Clearwater w1~hin 60 days. If Greenacre Properties, Inc.
for Sunfish Bay Condos does not comply within the time specified, they shall
pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.
If Greenacre Properties, Inc. for Sunfish Bay Condos 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 Sunfish
Bay Condos pursuant to Chapter 62-37 Laws of Florida, 1962. Upon complying,
Greenacre Properties, Inc. for Sunfish Bay Condos shall notify Joe Colbert,
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.
Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Angelis, Elliott, Morris and Ehrig voted
"Aye". Mr. Amburgy abstained.
DOlE AND ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1986.
CASE RO. 11-86
Arnold Information Institute (License Code)
CASE lIO. 13-86
Landmark Communities (License Code)
CASE HO. 1.....86
Lee Arnold Management (License Code)
o
ClSE 110. 15-86
A.S. Micro-Systems (License Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested these cases be withdrawn as the
violations have been corrected.
Mr. Amburgy moved to withdraw Case Nos. 71-86, 73-86, 74-86 and 75-86.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE 80. 12-86
Lee Millus (License Code)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated this business was
listed in the Pinellas Review as obtaining a Pinellas County occupational
license. Mr. Williams visited the business address and found it to be a
business operated out of a residence. It appears to be an asphalt coating
business. The City submitted exhibit D1 - a copy of the item in the Pinellas
Review.
Lee Millus, the alleged violator, stated he does not operate a business
from his home. At the time he applied for his Pinellas County occupational
license, he did not have an office address so was forced to use his home address
in order to obtain the license. He stated he will be opening a business in
the fall, but as yet does not have a business address. He uses his home address
for mail and telephone purposes.
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn.
~
V
Mr. Amburgy moved to vithdrav Case No. 72-80.
seconded and carried unanimously.
The motion was duly
,.5.""." '
~
" '
..~.
. I' .... ,.
" '~',' "
r~
.<
;'~\'1:'t<1'ffiI'\~'~~'<" '
. :..a~~.';..:t.::tl:a.___.il..\.::~.. \ :1.~~':1lS1~...,..
... _..._~_>h...I,.g~."'Il~ --.-
_....~..Il.._it'.,._"'--....--...~~',.i-..~-.-..._..~_...-...-..
1.1
j
~~
i
o
CASK RO. 16-86
Jeralne Burt (Building Code)
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspeotor, stated he inspected this property in
April, 1986. The garage has suffered fire damage, is unsafe and in danger of
falling down. The roof is partially off and the block walls have been pushed
out. The Notice of Violation was issued on April 10, 1986 and hand delivered.
Mr. Chaplinsky visited the property the morning of the hearing and three walls
are still remaining in an unsafe condition. Mr. Chaplinsky submitted City
composite exhibit D1a-c, 3 photographs of the property taken before 11:00, the
morning of the hearing. Mr. Chaplinsky stated there are piles of debris related
to the fire; the contents of the building are piled in the rear of the property,
some are oombustible and constitute a fire hazard. It also constitutes a
nuisance as it is a breeding place for rodents.
Jeralne Burt stated she will need 3 months to rebuild the garage. She
received the Notice of Violation the day after the fire and, since that time,
she has torn out the roof and one wall. She has hired someone to complete the
building plans in order to get her permit.
Mr. Chaplinsky stated, if the debris is removed and the unsafe condition
corrected, the BUilding Dept. will allow ~iss Burt the time needed to rebuild.
Discussion ensued regarding the definition of debris and the length of
time needed to secure the building and remove the hazards.
o
Mr. Amburgy moved that regarding Case Ro. 16-86 re: Violation of Section
102.4, Standa~ Building Code of the Clearwater City Code on property with
a legal description as follows: Block C, E 125 ft. of Lot 22, Country Club
Estates, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of August, 19B6,
and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the
following Findj,ngs of Fact, Conclusions or Law, and Order.
The FindingB of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky,
Building Inspector, and Jeralne Burt and viewing the evidence, exhibits
submitted: City composite #1a-c, photographs of the property, it is evident
that an unsafe building exists at 816 N. Betty Lane.
The Conclusions of Law are:
102.4, Standard Building Code.
Jeralne Burt is in violation of Section
(~
(jj)
~ ..,...,.........-.8L~.~/8~~~-. 1"91.):;\!lj~~l'~~fIIII'~~I'iI~1rT
",.~" 't ... " r~-
~.
k
"r
' ~ ' ' . '
T-
~
I
., I'
"
,,"
" ,
": ":?Jt~ttR;}~~~:t;.~~it1~1~~~~b't"~~~r___..._._.--.___"
_"____..._.._..-..~__.~__~~~~&,I....""~.,.___.._..___..n_....___....
o
o
~
'V
It is the Order of this Board tnat Jeralne Burt snaIl comply with
Section 102.4, Standard Building Code of the Code of the City of Clearwater
as follows: 1) within " ~s clearing away debris as determined by
Tom Chaplinsky or another City inspector and making remaining walls and structure
safe according to the inspector's determination and 2) obtaining a building
permit or demolishing structure within 30 days. If Jeralne Burt does not
comply within the time specified, she shall pay a fine of $25.00 per day for
Part 1 of the order each day the violation continues to exist and $10.00 per
day for Part 2 of the order each day the violation continues to exist. If
Jeralne Burt 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 Jeralne Burt pursuant to Chapter 82-37 Laws of
Florida, 1982. Upon complying, Jeralne Burt shall notify Tom Cbap11nsk,y, 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 mot~OD was duly seconded and carr~ed
unanimously.
DOlE ARD ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1986.
UIIP'IIIIISHBD BUSDIBSS
CASE HO. 3-86
Island View Condos (Building Code)
Affidavit of Compliance
grnie Barger addressed the Board stating he became involved in this
situation in May. He was not aware that a violation existed and the violation
has since been corrected. He requested the accrued fine be reduced.
Mr. Amburgy moved to accept the Affidavit of
and reduoe the accrued fine from $3,050 to $500.
seconded and carried unanimously.
Compliance in Case No. 3-86
The motion was duly
CASE RO. 1-8&
Metco Development Corp./Williamsburg Place Apts.
(Fire Code)
Mr. Angelis moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case ~o.
7-86. The mot~on was duly seconded and carr~ed unanimously.
CASB RO. 36-86
John L. McPartland/Garden Lake Condominiums
(Fire Code)
Mr. Elliott moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No.
36-86. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASK 110. 1&8-86
St. Andrews Cove I Condominiums
(Life Safety Code)
The Assistant City Attorney pointed out the Board's order dated July 9,
1986, requiring the Fire Marshal to get an interpretation from the National
Fire Protection Agency, was not within the Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Zimmet
stated the Fire Marshal has the authority to make the determination without
requesting a ruling from the NFPA.
,r
F'
I ... ...
r
\.
'r\r~\;:~t.t):t~:l:~~~~....__,*...." ~.._, ~
~_._----,._,,"..--........,.......~--,,-_..
f\
\.,,)
Mr. Elliott moved to amend the order in Case No. 48-86, dated July 9,
1986, to remove the requirement for an NFPA determination regarding the rear
pull stations of the fire alarm system. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
It was the consensus of the Board to send a cover letter to Scott Brainard,
Attorney for St. Andrews Cove I Condominium, informing him of the Board's
decision not to require the NFPA interpretation and allowing additional time
in which to appeal the Board's decision either to Circuit Court or to request
a variance from the Life Safety Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the Pinellas
County Construction Licensing Board.
CASE HO. 162-85
Jim Sommers (Building Code)
Mr. Zimmet, the Assistant City Attorney, stated the property owner has
now been cited for the violation and the case will be on the agenda for the
September 10, 1986 meeting. He questioned whether the Board would consider
reducing Mr. Sommers fine at the same time.
The consensus of the Board was to send a letter to Mr. Sommers requesting
he attend the September 10th meeting to discuss the accrued fine.
LIRH STATUS REPORT
CASE HO. 51-83
Einstein Boykins
r'\
V
The Assistant City Attorney stated the building on the Boykins property
is half demolished, has now been cited as an unsafe building and will be on
the September 10, 1986 meeting.
CASE RO. 58-83
Charles Robinson
The Board was informed this property has gone before the City Commission,
the Resolution was passed and Mr. Robinson must either substantially repair
the property within 30 days or the City will demolish.
RE'if BUSIIESS
The Assistant City Attorney reviewed the new State legislation regarding
Municipal Code Enforcement Boards. Changes that have been made: 1) refers
to the hearing procedure - when a violation has been corrected and reoccurs
before the hearing, the hearing can still be heard; 2) refers to clarification
of board orders and fines; 3) refers to the section regarding repeat violators
- a new hearing is not reqUired if an order has been issued; 4) involves who
can serve notices of violationj and 5) extends the running of liens from two
years to five.
Mr. Zimmet also reviewed a case where the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the Circuit Court and reinstated the order of a Code Enforcement
Board.
-l
','.,
:...:-..{