02/27/1991 (2)
,.;
'~
.
"
"
.,. '.
;
.~
~
r-"
r-
r-
71', '~,
. . .',:(..
. \.".
., ,
'. . .. .
, , '
, ,
\ . "
',\, '
: ,f:
I
I
.
i'
.'~,:;:~i~~W~~~~:~l,(~,l*~~?~i~~~t~~t~nf~&;:~:()~jl'i?i;;\'~f;:itP'?ifi,\:ji~)t'}\~"~~:"::~);:W;'l~~,~jk~t!Ir~~Y~*.\"t4~~~~:'~~~~~~.. .
10
,
~, .'
\
i
\
1
, ,
" . \~'.
"\ '
i
, I,'
.. ", \
o
A
W
.:- ,,",
, .'
<.:"
In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the owners have not contacted him.
He stated the property has been posted before.
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No.1 of Public Nuisance Clearing List
91-2-2 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property
located at about 1934 Hercules Ave aka Sunset Oaks, Lot 1, the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
hearing held the 27th day of February, 1991, 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 Rick Rosa, Code
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
or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the above
address.
The Conclusions of Law are: Bay Properties Pinellas is in violation of Section
95.04.
It is the Order of this Board that Bay Properties Pinellas shall comply with
Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (3/9/911. 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 Bay Properties Pinellas. 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, Bay Properties Pinellas shall notify Rick Rosa, 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 27th day of Februarv, 1991.
Frank C. Kunnen d/b/a Clearwater "19" Commerce Park
797 US 19 North
(Land Development COde)
continued from 2/13/91
Rick Rosa, Development Code Inspector, requested this case be withdrawn. In
response to a question, he stated the violator is now in compliance.
Case No. 5-91
Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 5-91. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
MCEB
2/27/91
2
.~
r
71
.>
r--
1
! .'
,
, ..
, : :~
't;
;,
.,
,.
,
o
Case No. 13-91
Lawrence Dirnmit III, President/Registered Agent
Dirnmit Chevrolet Inc.
25485 US 19 North
(Land Development Code)
Joshua Magdison, attorney representing Dimmit, requested the notice be amended
to eliminate IIdjb/all, as Mr. Dimmit is not doing business as the corporation, but
;s the President of the corporation.
,
"
,.,..
\,dI
Rick Rosa, Development Code Inspector, stated on Saturday, October 27,1990,
he inspected the property and found that cars were being parked on the grass. He
sent notice certified mail with compliance due by November 2, 1990 at which time
Dimmit did comply. Mr. Rosa inspected the property January 19, 1991 and the
vehicles were displayed on the grass again. He reinspected the property this
morning and compliance has been obtained. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph
of the property taken January 19, 1991. Mr. Rosa stated he wishes to establish
the violation in case of a repeat, the fine could be imposed.
Mr. Magdison, attorney representing Dimmit, stated his client is trying to
comply. He stated the information regarding the violation doesn't always get
through the chain of command, and it is not intentional.
Mr. Magdison expressed concern regarding the City being able to institute a
fine without a further hearing should the violation occur again. It was stated
there would be another hearing, however, the fine could be imposed effective back
to the first day of the repeat violation.
Discussion ensued regarding the date of the original violation and the
photograph taken several months later. Discussion further ensued regarding the
need to follow through establishing the first violation, and the need to issue a
notice of violation for repeat violations. Also, concern was expressed regarding
bringing violations to the Board months after the original citation.
Discussion further ensued regarding the procedure for violations corrected
prior to a hearing, and it was stated all notices of the violation should be noted
on the affidavit.
The Inspector requested the Board withdraw Case No. 13-91.
Mr. Wyatt moved to withdraw Case No. 13-91. The motion was duly seconded and
carried four to one. Mr. Aude abstained from voting as he was not present for the
entire hearing.
Case No. 14-91
Charles F. Kaufman
1721 N Highland Ave
(land Development Code)
No one was present to represent the violator.
,S7\
V
MCEB
3
2/27/91
I
I
I
~..
I
~~ '
;ii'.(;n.l(i~?~~'\\ ~P':::~~:~~:~?\~r, ',?'~~:~?;~'\:: >:'i\i~: r>'?:,;y .
; .
~j
A
"~
,~ ~
1 \0,1
I
i
I. "
\
"
!,
i
i
1
I
I
o
CD',
....
, ,
Rick Rosa, Development Code Inspector, inspected the property January 10,
1991, and found a trailer parked in the setback area. He sent notice of the
v io lat ion certified mai 1, the signed receipt was returned. He reinspected the
property January 31, 1991, the trailer had been moved but was still in violation.
Mr. Rosa submitted City exhibit A, a photograph of the trailer on the property.
In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the notice sent to the violator
explains what the violation is. He stated the property is on a corner and the
setback is the same on the front and side, which he believes is 25 feet. He stated
the violation still exists. He stated the house is built up to the setback line.
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 14-91 regarding violation of
136.022(i)(2)b of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1721 N Highland
Ave aka Highland Est Sub, Blk B, Lot I, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has
heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 27th day
of February, 1991, 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 Rick Rosa, Development
Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - a
photograph of the property and B - a copy of the Notice of Violation, it is evident
that a hauling trailer is being parked within the setback area of the property
referenced above.
I ','"
The Conclusions of Law are: Charles F. Kaufman is in violation of Section
136.022(i )(2)b.
It is the Order of this Board that Charles Kaufman shall comply with Section
316.022(i)(2)b of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (3/9/91). If
Charles Kaufman does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them
to pay a fine of j150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.
If Charles Kaufman does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of
the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas
County, 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, Charles Kaufman 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 seconded and carried unanimously.
Done and Ordered this 27th day of Februarv, 1991.
MCEB
4
2/27/91
"""<==1:; ,:
~, ' ; ,-'. , . ,.. " ,.;"
.. . .
.: :>~?,~.,' . " :y::
....... "'.'. .' .'
. . -,.' .. .." '
, .".'
F
",
, '.
.\
y
"
f"'
, ,
, " "
I,,,.
. '