Loading...
09/10/1986 -, , "~<:">/:':'<""H:" ,~ '., .'", ' "'" ~~~~~~~~~~~~___.......-Jt.t~l'IM~~t~j;'\Mv.~__. . ..'1 " :-:',j ""! MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting or September 10, Q Agenda 1. Publio Bearings (At the time a case for compliance time set the ree non-compliance. ) is heard and date set the Board shall at the same to be assessed in case of a. Case No. 51-86 Carl Tilly (Building Code) Cant. f"r0ll 8/13/86 COIIplied Case No. 54-86 Peter Panagakis (Sign Code) Cant. f"r0ll 8/13/86 To be Tabled Case No. 77-86 David & Virginia Chilcote (Land Development Code) *Jim Sommers Attendance Requested (Case 162-85) to Discuss Finel Case No. 79-86 Nature's Plus (License Code) Case No. 80-86 Network Video (Land Development Code) Case No. 81-86 Einstein Boykins (Building Code) Case No. 82-86 Iva Armster (Building Code) b. c. ~ V d. e. f. g. ~ v::/;)1 1. 1986, 1:00 p.m. ACTIOB 1. a. Withdrawn. b. Continued to 12/10/86. c. Comply by 10/30/86. d. Continued to 10/08/86. e. Comply by 9/30/86. f. Continued to 10/08/86. g. Secure bldg. or commence demolition by 9/15/86; complete demolition within 2 days following. 9/10/86 \, . ~'..", .. . ' '--~~~~ 2. OlltJ.n1Bhecl Bu.siness @ a. Case No. 7-86 Metco Development Corp.1 Williamsbu~g Place Apts. Mtidavit or CoaIplianC8 b. Case No. 52-86 Patricia Snelson Aftidavit of Hon-Complianoe 3. Other Board Aotion a. Lien Status Report 4. Hew Business a. Elect new Chairman 5. Minutes of August 13, 19B6 meeting 6. Adjourmaent e'" :..... ~..... , \:~;.. e ~...l.Ui. 2. ~;~./~~~i/,$'$~;,~~t;.~14~,"~4AA ~-;.~,..-'tl"'~.t~:'~~?;~~1'''' I , .. " " ...-...-...--.._-~_. 2. a. Accepted Affidavit. b. Accepted Affidavit. 3. a. Reviewed. 4. a. Robert Aude eleoted Chairman; Robert Hostetler eleoted Vioe-Chairman. 5. Approved as submitted. 6. 4:17 p.m. 9/10/86 " r- . ~ . r= .~ . ~~11t~)<~;:f'~~~~.~~7tr~J~~~~~~~1:!)!~1:iH:1:;k~~~'~~___ , _.~..__--..............~.,..."~-,, _.,"'._.._"'......_.__..._ .~.~ "...~"""_.............<#..~I......"'...."''''............%~ ____#~___.""'_~........t...~~._~___.____ ;;.~ " , " o CASE RO. 17-86 David & Virginia Chilcote (Land Development Code) Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he had visited the property on September 8, 1986 and the rear fence is still in violation with the finished side facing in rather than out, as required by Code. Mr. Chaplinsky submitted City Exhibits #1 a-c, photographs of the property, Exhibit #2, a letter dated August 28, 19~6 to t~. Chilcote from Tom Chaplinsky with the Notice of Violation attached and Exhibit #3, the application for the fence permit filed by Jim Sommers of Sommers Fence Company. Mr. Chaplinsky stated, since the original June, 1985 application for a fence permit, the Land Development Code was adopted in Ootober, 1985. Under oertain conditions a fence can be installed with the finished side faoing in; however, Mr. Sommers made a subsequent application for permit and was denied. Mr. Chilcote stated the fence is structurally sound. The neighbors and surrounding property owners have no objections to the way the fence is installed, and the majority of the neighbors have signed a letter of support. Because of two adjacent chain link fences, it was not proper to install the fenoe with the finished side facing out. Mr. Chilcote stated the interpretation of the Code should be ohanged. r7'.. V Mr. Hostetler explained the Board has no authority to change the Code, but does have the authority to enforce it. Discussion ensued regarding why an application for variance had not been filed. Mr. Chiloote stated he feels it is unfair to expect h~ to pay money for a variance request. Jim Sommers, of Sommers Fence Company, stated he did not intentionally violate the Code. When he went to the City of Dunedin to apply for a fence permit, he was told the property is in the City of Clearwater. The alleged violators submitted Exhibit #1, a copy of the contract with the fence company and Exhibit 02, photographs of the property. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Board's responsibility is to uphold the Code. The hardship described by Mr. Chilcote is appropriate for argument before the Development Code Adjustment Board, but not before the Munioipal Code Enforcement Board. The fence is not in compliance, and beoause of the way it 1s installed, it is the basis for a variance request. Mr. Amburgy moved that regarding Case No. 77-86 re: violation of Section 136.016(e) of the Clearwater City Code on property with a legal description as follows: Lot 13, Sunset Ridge Unit 1, located at 1478 Plateau Road, Clearwater, the Municipal Code Enforoement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code ~nforcement Board hearing held this 10th day of September, 1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Pindings or Faot, ConolusloM or Law, and <k-del". ~ '0 2. 9/10/86 . _ _> _ _...____..._.....-_____....__,_.~~r2'_...~"\~'*"JiOl't:1:ll\Z~..J;.. o The Findings or Faot are: David Chilcote and Jim Sommers City Exhibits 1a-d, 2 & 3, and fence currently in place is in City Code. After hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted - Defendant's Exhibit 1, it is evident that the violation of Section 136.016 (e), Clearwater The Conclusions or Law are: of Section 13o.016(e). David & Virginia Chilcote are in violation o It is the Order of this Board that David & Virginia Chilcote shall comply with Section 136.016(e) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by October 30, 1986. If David & Virginia Chilcote do not comply within the time specified, they shall pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each the day the violation continues to exist. If David & Virginia Chilcote do not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of this Order, together with an Affidavit of Non-Compliance and an Order imposing the fine, 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 the land on which the violation exists if the violator owns the land, and a lien against any other real or personal property owned by the violator, pursuant to Chapter 162, Plorida Statutes. Upon complying, David & Virginia Chilcote shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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 10th day of September, 1986. CASE NO. 19-86 Nature's Plus (License Code) Barbara Sexsmith, Occupational License Inspector, stated she visited this property on September 9, 1986. She talked with an employee of the business who stated this is a lawn service operated out of a residence. Ms. Sexsmith submitted City Exhibit ~1, a notioe of the business in the Clearwater Sun. The alleged violator stated he had made application to the Occupational License division, paid his $25.00 and will reoeive his occupational license as soon as he provides his landlord's tax identification number. Barbara Sexsmith stated, since this is a home occupation, he also must have approval from the Zoning Inspector. Mr. Hostetler moved to continue Case No. 79-86 to the meeting of Ootober 8, 1986. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ~" , ": ~' ." '0, ~l.' , 3. 9/10/86 ~ W'" .' ,.,', ,~; . ~ , ". r '" \'! /' '. F- , ! , ';"t?i~~~.!~~~~~.~~~:\....~~.w_~____.._. ,~1 I .._.______......V__--.-_~_;u....t....,~~.'ll'.\.>I."W\...._>W>4<ok,1_.;_......ool.~~....N.+...........___ CASE RO. 80-86 Network Video (Land Development Code) o Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated this is a violation of the Zoning Code. It is a retail outlet located in an OL (Limited Office) zoning district. Network Video is located in the same building as Wilson's Liquor store. Wilson's is a grandfathered use as it was in place prior to a change in zoning. The City submitted EKhibit U1 - a photograph of the property taken September 10, 1986, Exhibit #2 - the application for an occupational license by Network Video dated June 23, 1986, Exhibit U3 - a copy of the Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section 135.005, Exhibit Uij - a zoning map showing where Network Video is located, Ex~ibit U5 - a copy of the Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section 135.083, Exhibit U6 - copies of Ordinance ij035-85, adopting the Land Development Code, and Ordinance 3393-8ij, changing the zoning from CG (General Commercial) to PS (PrOfessional Services), Exhibit #7 - copies of occupational licenses for this location for 1981/82 through 1985/86. Miss Doherty stated the prior use of this location was the Gulf Coast Chiropractic Clinic. Network Video applied for their sign permit July 2, 1986 and grand opening signs went up in July. She stated they do not have an occupational license and were not approved as a retail use in the OL zoning district. She stated a non-conforming use can stay in the zoning district until the ownership changes, at which time they must conform to the Code and to the present zoning designation. to V Discussion ensued regarding the sign permit which was obtained. It was explained the Sign Inspector does not check the zoning, but only the legal requirements for the sign. It is the business owner's responsibility to check the legality regarding zoning. The alleged violator was not present at the hearing. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Code is clear on non-conforming uses; in order for Network Video to be grandfathered as a retail use in an OL zone, it would have had to have been in place at the time of the zoning change. Mr. Amburgy moved that regarding Case No. 80-86 re: violation of Section 135.004(b) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1ij63 Sunset Point Rd., Clearwater, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held this 10th day of September, 1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the fOllowing Findi.Dgs of' Faot. Conclusions of' Law, and OI-der. The Findings or Fact are: After hearing testimony of Geri Doherty and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted - City Exhibits 1-7, it is evident that Network Video is a retail sales operation located in an OL (Limited Office) zone and does not qualify for grandfathering of use, particularly as the preVious use from 1981-1985 was a chiropractic office, a use permitted in an OL zone. The Conclusions or Law are: Network Video is in violation of Section 135.004(b), Land Development Code, of the Clearwater City Code. @"'" . J .~' 'l.! ' ,9110/86," ,.""..___~.",,__....<. . "",,~~,'lj:'~~.)<l r': , . , " , . . ! . "p- J' r- , I" .- '~l),r-ll:~.:~{-!rjf~':~.:f.h-..,.'t!(t~t""c.~___ o It is the Order of this Board that Network Video shall comply with Section 135.004(b) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by September 30, 1986. If Network Video does not comply within the time specified, they shall pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If Network Video does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of this Order, together with an Affidavit of Non-Compliance and an Order imposing the fine, 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 the land on which the violation exists if the violator owns the land, and a lien against any other real or personal property owned by the violator, pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon complying, Network Video shall notify Geri Doherty, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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 10th day of September, 1986. The meeting recessed traa 3:11 p.m. to 3:23 p.m. CASE HO. 81-86 Einstein Boykins (Building Code) The Secretary to the Board stated the Notice of Hearing had not been served in this case. A V Mr. Aude moved to continue Case No. 81-86 to the meeting of October 8, 1986. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. CASE HO. 82-86 Iva Armster (Building Code) Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he originally inspected this property in July, 1986. This building is unsafe as a result of a fire which occurred in July, 1986. Mr. Chaplinsky also visited the property on September 8, 1986. He stated he is unsure whether someone is living in the building, but a dog is being kept there. The City submitted Exhibit #1 - a photograph of the property taken September 8, 1986, Exhibit #2 - a newspaper clipping showing the building damaged by the fire, and Exhibit #3 - a letter dated July 30, 1986, from Andy Onufer, Acting BUilding Director, to Iva Armster informing her of the unsecured and unsafe condition of the building, with a Notice of Violation attached. Mr. Chaplinsky stated the building was so damaged by the fire, it is not structurally safe. The studs and rafters are charred, the building is unseoured and oonstitutes an attraotive nuisanoe for young children as it is located near a sohool. In addition, it is surrounded by trash and debris. (fB:;:'~ ,>".1, , ,I'''' , .?!,10/&,.o.,._,..., .~ ..~.......~, r-- I' , ,n" , , ; , r--- ~ " , .' 'I' . t;~~~~1~.v{,.~~~~~~i6~~~'r:(o.~V-1\~"-"'-"______"''''__'''_~_ . , ' . 'I' ,1 'i j 1 ;::) Discussion ensued regarding whether the Buildin Dept. has the authority to seoure the property immediately. The alleged violator was not present at the hea Mr. Aude moved that regarding Case No. 82-86 re violation of Section 102.4, Standard Building Code of the Clearwater City Code on property with a legal description as follows: Block G, Lot 9, Fairm nt Sub., located at 1312 N. Madison Ave., the Municipal Code Enforcement Boar has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforoement Board hearing held th s 10th day of September, 1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code nforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, ConolwsloIl3 of Law, d Order. The Findings ot Faot are: After hearing test Building Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibi Exhibits 1-3, it is evident that a hazardous and uns 1312 N. Madison Ave. mony of Tom Chaplinsky, s submitted - City fe condition exists at The Conolusions of Law are: Iva Armster 102.4, Standard BUilding COde, 1985 Edition. violation of Section A V It is the order of this Board that Iva Armster hall comply with Section 102.4, Standard Building Code of the Clearwa er City Code by securing the structure to the satisfaction of the Building De t. or beginning demolition by September 15, 1986 and, if demolishing, by completing demolition within two (2) days of September 15, 1986. If Iva Armster does not comply within the time specified, she shall pay fine of ~100.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. f Iva Armster does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy f this Order, together with an Affidavit of Non-Compliance and an Order im osing the fine, shall be recorded in the public reoords of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against the land on which the violation eKists if the viola or owns the land, and a lien against any other real or personal property owed by the violator, pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon co plying, Iva Armster shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall nspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute ise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before e Board. The .ot~on was duly seoonded carried unanimously. Done and Ordered this 10th day of September, 1 86. The Board also directed that a letter be sent Building Dept. A telephone call was made to Mr. C deoided the Armster property would be secured immed basis. o Dave Christiansen of istiansen and it was ately on an emergency the UNFDnSHBD BUSIRESS CISE HO. 7-~6 Metco Development Corp./Willi msburg Place Apts. Affidavit or eo.pliance The IlOtlon 8) Mr. Elliott moved to accept the Affidavit was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6.