Loading...
10/08/1986 :[7..... , " , . . . . . . " ' . ,: I, F ~ ..____~,~~_____.~_____ _ _..________. ..~N__._ .- . . ,.. - ~.~---_.._._--_............._--~~..."-..._~ '----....& . MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD o October 8, 1986 Members pr-esent: Rober-t Aude, Chairman James Angelis Tim Amburgy Phillip Elliott Frank Morris Bruce Cardinal Absent: Rober-t Hostetler (unexcused) Also present: ~ V Alan Zimmet, Assistant City Attorney Shirley Corum, Acting Secretary for the Board The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:08 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the pr-ocedures and advised any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution o~ the order to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a verbatim record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC 8IWlIlIGS CASE 110. 19-86 Nature's Plus (License Code) cont. traa 9/10/86 The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the violation has been corrected. Mr. Morris moved to withdraw Case No. 79-86. seconded and carried unanimously. The motion was duly CASK RO. 81-86 Einstein Boykins (Building Code) cont. fro. 9/10/86 Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated a letter from Dave Christiansen of the Building Dept., dated June 26, 1986, was hand delivered to Mr. Boykins on June 27, 1986. In the letter- Mr. Boykins was ordered to demolish the unsafe structure by July 27, 1986. Mr. Chaplinsky stated he had visited the property on October 7, 1986, and there has been no progress made on the demolition which was begun previously. The roof is intact but could fall down as there is no siding on the building. @.'C' .~) i';: .. The City submitted Exhibits: n1 - the letter from Dave Christiansen to Mr. Boykins dated June 26, 1966; n2 - a photograph taken September 8, 1986. Mr. Chaplinsky stated Mr. Boykins applied for a second demolition permit in early September. Mr. Chaplinsky tried to deliver the demolition permit to Mr. Boykins personally on September 11, 1986, but left the permit stuck in the door as Mr. Boykins was not there. The permit is limited to 60 days. .r . ~. . ,~. .. r- 1 .. i, .. . . ~< .:~~tJ~~1~~1'.!~~~\'t1;::1n:;.t;'.'w~!lo..'l"'/"III."",,___.____~'__'______''''___\~:"_-l..:-y.,~."'.'h'''''tJ.'''~''''r.,,,._\-,...__...___..__.~ iJ 1 c) o @ No representative of the alleged violator was present at the hearing. This property was previously cited under the Housing Code and Mr. Boykins planned to repair the house at one time. He applied for the first demolition permit on May 17, 1984. Mr. Chaplinsky stated he feels the structure is a safety hazard, as it could fall down at any time. Discussion ensued regarding the need for fencing around the unsafe structure until the time demolition is completed. The Assistant City Attorney stated it would be difficult for the City to declare it an emergency as it has been in violation since 1984. The City could put up fencing to prevent City liability. Mr. Morris moved that regarding Case No. 81-86 re: violation of Section 102.4, Standard Building COde, 1985 Edition of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description as follows: Block 2, Lot 5, Springfield No.2, located at 1028 N. Missouri Ave., Clearwater, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of October, 1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Faot, Conolusions of Law. and Order. The Pindings of Paot are: After hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky, BUilding Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted - 01, a letter from Dave Christiansen dated June 26, 1986, and #2, a photograph of the property taken September 8, 1986, it is eviden~ that an unsafe building condition continues to exist due to the lack of siding, bracing, etc. The Conoluslons of Law are: Einstein Boykins is in violation of Section ,102.4, Standard Building COde, 1985 Edition. It is the Order of this Board that Einstein Boykins shall comply with Section 102.4, Standard Building Code, 1985 Edition of the Code of the City of Clearwater by (1) fencing and securing property by 10/17/86 and (2) completing demolition, as stated in letter from Building Dept. dated 6/26/86, by 10/31/86. If Einstein Boykins does not comply within the time speci~ied, he shall pay a fine o~ $25.00 per day for Part 1 of this Order and $25.00 per day for Part 2 of this Order ror each day the violation continues to exist. If Einstein Boykins does not comply within the tDne 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, Einstein Boykins shall noti~y Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect tne 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, eitner party may request a further hearing before the Board. The .otion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Done aDd Ordered this 8th day of October, 1986. r- I: .. . r-~ ( . . ..:' ~ . .,: ., ..:~~~~:.t..t~;2}~~'f,::~.tlt;":?~;:J:r"..,,,,._._._ .........__, u_.____....l~..t!l_;,..}~"'JFr.....~\7f.........<\..~~____., _._...__.....___......____.~~_.......___.__~___.A . .11 , CASE NO. 83-86 Einstein Boykins (Life Safety Code) o Karl Whittleton, Life Hazard Safety Inspector, stated this property was originally inspected on April 3, 1986. It is a fast food restaurant called Buster T's Chicken. ~. Whittleton stated he had spoken to Einstein Boykins personally regarding the fire extinguishment system, which is in need of reinspection and certification, and the hood and duct system, which is in need of certain modifications. He stated he had visited the property the morning of the hearing and the violations still exist. The City submitted exhibit 81 - the occupational license for Buster T's Chicken issued in the name of Einstein Boykins. No representative of the alleged violator was present at the hearing. Mr. Amburgy moved that regarding Case No. 83-86 re: violation of Section 7-2.3 and 26-3.5, Life Safety Code of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description as follows: Greenwood Park No.2, Block liP", Lot 32 located at 1115 N. Greenwood Ave., Clearwater, the Municipal Code Bnrorcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of October, 1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the fallowing Findings of Faot, Conolusions or Law, and Ol-der. G The Findings of Fact are: After hearing testimony or Karl Whittleton, Life Hazard Safety Inspector, and Viewing the evidence, exhibit submitted _ #1, a copy of the occupational license, it is evident that Einstein Boykins, operating as Buster T's Chicken, has fire extinguishment equipment that needs to be inspected and certified; and a hood and duct system that needs certain modifications. The Conolusloos o~ Law are: Einstein Boykins is in violation of Section 7-2.3 and 26-3.5, Life Safety Code. It is the Order or this Board that Einstein Boykins shall comply with Section 7-2.3 and 26-3.5, Life Safety Code of the Code of the City of Clearwater by October 17, 1986. Ir Einstein Boykins does not comply within the time specified, he shall pay a fine or $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If Einstein Boykins does not comply within the time specified, a certiried copy of this Order, togethor with an Affidavit of Non- Compliance, and an Order imposing the fine, shall be recorded in the public records of the Orfice 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, ?lorida Statutes. Upon complying, Einstein Boykins shall notify Karl Whittleton, 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 .utlon was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ED Done and OI'dered this 8th day of October, 1986. . . ..'.r.H?/08/86 . ,..,.,1l"~"'~"""'1.' .q" ,:.., ;_''!.II,'''', ~;.;~~~.'.- iM'-;....- J I I I I " : ... ~. ::1 [7, '. l.' .: :::~~~if"ml~~-!tt> ; .~.~'a'J~.t..._'E~~.;:-t~,"m~~~~~ __~'>>.~t:"flJm~~.P~...._ OIFIRISBlD BUS~ o CASK RO. 52-86 Patricia Snelson (Building Code) Mr. Angelis moved to issue the Order imposing the fine in Case No. 52-86. The Affidavit of Non-Compliance was accepted at the meeting of September 10, 1986. The ~tlOD was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ClSB RO. 66-86 Eric Stober/Flagship Coach Pinellas (License Code) Att'idaYi t of' lfoa-eo.pl1anoe Mr. Elliott moved to 66-86 and issue the Order and carried unanimously. accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance in Case No. imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded CASK RO. 16-86 Jeralne Burt (Building Code) AtfidaYit of' eo.plianoe Att'idaYit or Ifon-<:c.plianoe Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated Jeralne Burt does have an architect who is working on plans to rehabilitate this property. Morris moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance (Part 1 of order) The .otion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. in Case No. 76-86. CD Mr. Morris moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance order) in Case No. 76-86 and issue the Order imposing the fine. was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (Part 2 of The motion CI.SB RO. 82-86 Iva Armster (Building Code) Affidavit or Cc8plianoe Mr. Amburgy moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 82-86. The .otiOD was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney stated that, City had secured this building two days after Enforcement Board meeting. regarding Case No. 82-86, the September 10th Code the cmnm BOARD Acno. Lien Status Report In Case Ro. 51-83, authorize him to file a worth foreclosing on. the Assistant City Attorney requested the Board Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as the property is not Mr. Morris moved to empower fine as they see fit in Case No. carried unanimously. the City Attorney's office to rescind the 57-83. The 80tian was duly seconded and ~" f.'I'" . :.f,1::' '.~ 4. 10/08/86 p.... " " . , :~ ,,~.. r I' .. 1 '," , .'" .. ..\ ., ,'!. ./ ,.:.~~.;<,,;...'. . , .. "~~~",,}:~~'lI',,"'1~~._,..~,,,"___... ':'1~~. .-<l_b.......,:..t~i.i~;tUlb'~___ __.....~~J____.___. . . . ,_...-----..._"'"-----_.__.~- ... . o In Case Ho. 162-85 (Jim Sommers) the Assistant City Attorney stated Mr. Chilcote (Case No. 77-86), the owner or the property for which Mr. Sommers is in violation, met with John Richter of Planning and Urban Development and suggested changes in the Code regarding allowances for fences to be placed with the finished side facing in under certain circumstances. The Assistant City Attorney stated Mr. Richter has taken these suggestions under oonsideration, and may be preparing an ordinance to change this section or the Code. At this time, Mr. Chilcote has not applied for a variance to the Develop- ment Code Adjustment Board. In Case Ho. 18~85, the Assistant City Attorney stated Jeralne Burt filed suit against the City and the Judge issued a temporary injunction to prevent demolition. However, that injunction has now been dissolved. Ms. Burt has a licensed contractor who is drawing up plans for renovation of the property. In Case 10. 4-86, Tom Chaplinsky stated Helen Russell has complied and the house is technically up to Code; however, there is still a problem with debris and abandoned vehicles in the yard. REV BUS:IRBSS Mr. Amburgy requested rollow-up be done on the review of the Oocupational License Code to allow for occupational licenses covering multiple locations. ~ V The Assistant City Attorney stated Network Video has filed suit against the City claiming they were grandfathered in when the Land Development Code was adopted. They requested a temporary injunction and were denied; however, the Judge did enjoin the City from collecting the rine from the September 30, 1986 date, and instructed them to request a rehearing before the Code Enforcement Board. They have until Friday, October 10, 1986 to file for the rehear ing. HDftJTES The Chairman presented the minutes of the meeting of September 10, 1986 for consideration. Mr. Elliott moved to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carr~ed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:27 p.m. ~ /' t4- 9 airman / Attest: -~ y . Clerk ~ \ .r.', . , '.>..:....,.,..'..t,...T..'7ft..f..~ If.u.lI..~I.t~''~~~''''''......~ _.. J ,,~ t,