10/24/1990 (2)
,\
~...
r"
I' " ,", '
)' ro'
;F
',r- '
I
~--
...1,' '"', , "
,;i
,1
\\
\
10
\
o
CD
l
l
..'
'~I"
In response to questions, he stated this is a vacant lot and is posted
2-3 times per year after receiving complaints from neighbors. He stated the
property was cleared by City contractors in August. In response to a question, he
stated the debris in the photograph is from neighbors who put trash there for
Sanitation pickup. He stated he does not know if the lot clearing bills are paid
by the owner.
Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No.1 of Public Nuisance Clearing List
90-10-2 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property
located at about 709 Vine Ave. aka Pinecrest Sub., Blk. 8, Lot 19, the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
hearing held the 24th day of October, 1990, and based on the evidence, the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vern Packer, Field
Housing Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite
exhibit A - a copy of the file of record, it is evident that there exists the
excessive growth of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the
above address.
The Conclusions of Law are: Clark W. Mills is in violation of Section 95.04.
It is the Order of this Board that Clark W. Mills shall comply with Section
95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (11!3/90). Upon failure
to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize the entry upon
the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition, without
further notice to Clark W. Mills. The City Commission may then adopt a Resolution
assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the City the
actual cost incurred plus $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute
a lien against the property until paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form as the City
Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County
. as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time
specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $150.00 administrative
cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon
complying, Clark W. Mills shall notify Vern Packer, 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 24th day of October, 1990.
Case No. 2
Helen L. Russell
1871 McKinley St aka New Maryrnont Sub, Blk 0, Lot 7
No one was present to represent the violator.
Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated there is an accumulation of debris
on the subject property in violation of Section 95.04(a). She verified ownership
through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. Notice of the violation
was sent certified and regular mail and the certified mail came back unclaimed.
Ms. Niemiller stated she first inspected and posted the property September 21st.
She stated this is a repeat violation which had been befora the Board August 22nd
MCEB
2
10/24/90
r-
r-
r-
~.,'
I
":__':'1'_ .' -
, j f
" .
:1
10
.
,
I
j
.....', .
(
.,
i
\
j
o
:Ql
\,': .,:)
'-.;:./
:l',
for overgrowth. Ms. Russell did comply with the Board's order. Photographs were
taken September 21st and this morning at which time the Inspector spoke with Ms.
Russell who said she would try to clean it up by 3:00 p.m. today.
In response to questions, the Inspector stated the debris is right at Ms.
Russell's front door also. She stated complaints received are usually regarding
the debris. Ms Russell sorts and bags most of it and turns them over to private
organizations. In response to a question, Ms. Niemiller stated she has not received
any complaints of rodents breeding. '
Mr. Swan, a neighbor, stated there is a fenced in area on the property which
is full of junk such as buckets, bags of clothing, trash, office chairs without
legs, broken toys, etc., and there are many mosquitos. He has phoned Sanitation,
the County Health Dept., and other City staff and no one can do anything. He was
told they can not remove anything that is under the eaves or enclosed.
Discussion ensued regarding what the City can legally do to correct the
problem. The Inspector stated you can not see the debris which is fenced in. In
response to a quest ions, Vern Packer, City Inspector, stated he has cited the
property previously and in 1987 a City contractor cleared the property; however,
at that time, the debris was externally stored. Staff can not legally remove
anything that is stored in an enclosed area. Mr. Packer stated he has called the
Fire Dept. and County Health Oept~ and they will not go on the property. He stated
the rest of the neighborhood is relatively clean and cared for.
In response to a question, it was stated public nuisance violations can not
be cited as repeat violators nor can the Board issue daily fines. It was stated
there are no other codes under which to cite these violations.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for more extreme sanctions to handle
these types of public nuisances, and it was stated an ordinance is being drafted
to address the problem.
Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No.2 of Public Nuisance Clearing List
90-10-2 regarding violation of Section 95.04(a) on property located at 1871 McKinley
St aka New Maryrnont Sub., Blk. 0, Lot 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has
heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day
of October, 1990, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code
Inspector, and Mr. Swan, a neighbor of Ms. Russell, and viewing the evidence,
exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - a copy of the legal notice and
photographs, it is evident that there exists the excessive accumulation of debris
at the above address.
The Conclusions of Law are: Helen L. Russell is in violation of Section
95.04(a).
It is the Order of this Board that Helen L. Russell shall comply with Section
95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (11/3/90).
Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize
the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition,
I,
I""
I' ,
MCEB
3
10/24/90
".r--.
'.r-
r-
~
I
, ,
.!'~t1~~1~iJ?:i~~t;rttf!y:rf)'tf~;Ji':r;7~;';'ain'(,i;;i)';f!;';!l\:::.!~!:"::lY2;'Y';;~Wf:!i;~;1];\i;[~s~t!:~~i~~~:t(~i%~~W~~ff?\i~~t~~~~J~rl
i:
o
>, "
'~ ',.; "
.... .J.
0,
"
@
,~
,', '"
"\
without further notice to Helen L. Russell. The City Commission may then adopt a
Resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the
City the actual cost incurred plus $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall
constitute a lien against the property until paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form
as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of
Pinellas County as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action
after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $150.00
administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until
paid. Upon complying, Helen L. Russell shall notify Vicki Niemiller, 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 24th day of October, 1990.
!,
I '
Lokey Motor Company
1220 U.S. 19 South
(Land Development Code)
Mr. Aude refrained from participating in this public hearing due to a conflict
of interest.
Case No. 39-90
Mr. McFarland, Attorney for Lokey Motor Company, asked if anyone else had a
conflict of interest and the response was negative.
Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, stated he received a complaint August 28th
regarding cars parked on the grass at the above referenced location. He inspected
the property and sent notice of the violation via certified mail on September 5th
giving until September 7th to correct the violation. He reinspected the property
on the lOth and today and the violation still exists. Mr. Rosa submitted City
exhibits A & B, photographs taken October 24 and September 10 1990, respectively.
Mr. McFarland stated he reserves his right to object to the photographs until
he gives his testimony.
In response to questions, the Inspector stated since cars are parked there,
it is considered a parking lot. It is unenclosed and, therefore, needs to be
surfaced according to code. He stated he sent a copy of the code section with the
notice of violation, and has received no calls or questions from the violator. Mr.
Rosa stated the area in question is considered a parking lot because the vehicles
are parked in an unenclosed area. In response to a question, he stated he received
the complaint from a Mr. Jonson.
Oiscussion ensued regarding the violation for which Lokey Motor Company was
cited the last time, and it was stated that citation was for parking in an area
not designated and so approved on the site plan. Discussion also ensued regarding
what constitutes parking as opposed to display.
Mr. McFarland stated Lokey is displaying the vehicles for sale and there is
no prohibition in the code. Mr. McFarland submitted defendant's exhibit A, a letter
from Assistant City Attorney Rob,Surette stating Lokey was in compliance regarding
the prior violation with parking ~s noted on the revised site plan. He submitted
defendant's exhibit B, the revised site plan on record in the City Clerk Department,
MCEB
4
10/24/90
.. ,,;.>.. ";'.
r
" ,
. ,,'
'Tn"
, . . ,
. ; " '.
'. . '.
" " '
I .,' " ,
, < '-
. . . . \
,I',
'" . .
~"
, ,
r
I
..\.'::"W~11,';,:.:;~~~~~~0ff~1t.~~'~~~f1\~~70~*';?~7~;~;%jtts'~}(%~ftrfi~;~~~~~~:~~k1r~~i~~~r,\;!'.
..-: .
...~
10
'1 ·
I
J
i
, I
" i
( !
j
, !
o
i ~'.
pointing out where the vehicles were to be displayed. He stated Lokey was given
a special exception to use lot 2 entirely for the auto dealership, and there is
nothing on the site plan that says they can't display vehicles in the area in
question.
In response to questions, Mr. McFarland stated the site is currently under
construction. Cars are being moved around during the construction, and the area
in question will be paved as quickly as the phases of construction allow.
In response to a question, John Richter, Development Code Manager, stated
even though the site is under construction, until the area is paved it is a
violation to park vehicles there. He stated they need to make arrangements to park
the vehicles in another area consistent with the code; there are some provisions
for parking in green space, however, it has not been followed here.
Hank St. Jean, of Williams' Architects, stated the cars aren't parked in the
right of waYi the sidewalk was put'on private property to accommodate pedestrians.
He stated the moat for backflow was approved by the City which later realized a
mistake was made in location. He stated it took three months to move the moat,
delaying paving of the lots. Mr. St. Jean stated he is working with staff to move
cars to the north lot. In response to questions, Mr. St. Jean stated it would take
three weeks to have the occupational license modified to allow the use of the north
property for car sales. He stated the vehicles are displayed 24 hours a day.
In response to a question, it was stated there is no intent to park vehicles
in grassy areas once construction is complete.
Discussion ensued regarding the length of time needed before the lot was
paved, and it was stated 30 days may be sufficient provided the City cooperates
and there aren't any other unexpected problems.
Mr. McFarland stated they have not ignored the CitYi they have proceeded
without construction financing in order to expedite the job.
Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 39-90 regarding violation of Section
136.022(e) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1220 US 19 S aka Lokey
Sub., Blk. A, Lot 2, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at
the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day of October, 1990,
and based on the evidence, the Munitipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Rick Rosa, Code
Inspector, John Richter, Development Code Manager, Donald McFarland, Attorney and
Henry St. Jean of Wi 11 iams Architects, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted:
City exhibits A & B - photographs of the property and Defendant's exhibit A - a
letter from City Attorney Rob Surette, it is evident that Lokey Motor Company is
parking vehicles on an unenclosed parking lot which does not meet surfacing
requirements, as designated in City exhibits
A & B.
, ':
The Conclusions of Law are: Philip E. Lokev is in violation of Section
. 136. 022( e )1.
, '
~,
MCEB 5 10/24/90
" '('7
':C'.'. )Hfljv.i:',.t,~*~i;if:;~iii:'i((l?t~,irYf~~;~~lf,;i' .
'r-:
r---
,I .'
~
"
. . I
, ..
" '
.-
"
)
o
,',
CD
t.1r.\
\Ji
',' ;'>
,
: '
.' '
It is the Order of this Board that Philip E. Lokey shall comply with Section
136.022(e)1 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 60 days (12/24/90). If
Philip E. Lokey does not comply wtthin the time specified, the Board may order them
to pay a fine of $200.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.
If Philip E. Lokey does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of
the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of, Florida, and
once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned
by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation
concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall
constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns
of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent
purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the
violation exists. Upon complying, Philip E. Lokey shall notify Rick Rosa, the City
Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should
the violation reoccur, 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. Any aggrieved party may
petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public
Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board
Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to
the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider
whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral
argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or
Rehear. The motion was duly secpnded and carried unanimously.
I
I,
"
Done and Ordered this 24th day of October, 1990.
On Top of the World Condo Assoc., Inc.
Bldgs. 18, 18A, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44,
74, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88 & 89
(Fire Code)
continued from 10/10
Mr. Cardinal moved to continue Case No. 41-90 to the meeting of November 14,
1990 as the violation is being corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Case No. 41-90
45, 50, 53-61,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 90-08-2 #2
Richard Lennon
Lakeview Hgts, Blk A, Lot 1
Affidavit of Compliance
Dimmit Car Leasing, lnc
Magnolia Park Sub, Blk 7, Lots 4 & 5,
Lots 6 & 11 less E 15 ft & Lot 12
less W r~ ft
Affidavit of Compliance
Case No. 90-09-1 #2
MCEB
10/24/90
6
~ ; '. .
-.. :.
l' .<
"
. ,
0 Case No. 90-09-1 #3 Seaboard System Railroad Inc
Magnolia Sub, Blk 7, Lots 7-10 &
E 15 ft of Lots 6 & 11
Affidavit of Compliance
Case No. 90-09-2 #2 Joseph & Miriam S Jackson
Pinebrook Highlands, Blk E, Lot 3
Affidavit of Compliance
G).'..
,',f';.'.'
, ,
>,\<,'19:,
t~~r:
Mr. McKinney moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case Nos.
90-08-2 #2, 90-09-1 #2, 90-09-1 13 and 90-09-2 #2. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
OTHER BOARD ACTION - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
ADJOURN - 5:35 p.m.
Attest:
~~ z jj..._ ,()u
sec\Jtary
-----
MCEB
7
10/24/90