04/24/1991 (2)
,', \
'. '
I,
f?
",'
II
",f,'.
'.,
. I,.
..
.'1\ ,
I"
:>1:.;'
"',r,
, ~' . , ,', ,:'
,.~"
.\ '~
/
....r~
. .
"
r-
. ".
I
,.
','.. ,; ;
, .f>
0" .
,\
c
o
<2)",.
.... ~ ,
., .
E.J. and Maureen Mitskevich
1132 Sunnydale Drive
(Public Nuisance Code)
Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, read code section 95.23(1) into the record,
stating the fence at the 1132 Sunnydale is a nuisance condition. City submitted
exhibits A - a copy of the code section cited, and B - a report issued by Mr. Earl
Barrett, Housing Counselor for the City. Ms. Niemiller read the report which stated
the condition of the fence devalues the neighboring properties.
Case No. 25-91
Mr. Mitskevich objected to the report being submitted as evidence stating he
has a right to question Mr. Barrett as to his opinion. He stated a house two doors
away from him sold in less than a week at market value.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the report should be entered into
evidence, and consensus was to enter it as evidence noting Mr. Mitskevich's right
to question Mr. Barrett. Mr. Mitskevich objected to the hearing and requested a
continuance.
City submitted composite exhibits C & D, photographs of the property taken
April 24 and March 8, 1991,' respectively; Ms. Niemiller stated she inspected the
fence this morning, and the condition has not changed. In response to questions,
the Inspector stated notice was sent certified mail and the signed receipt was
returned. City submitted exhibit E, a copy of the notice with the signed certified
mail receipt.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the fence was a standard industry type.
In response to a question, the Inspector stated posts and stringers are to face the
inside according to City code. On this fence they face outward.
Mr. Colombo, next door neighbor, in response to a question, stated stringer
boards face his property. He submitted City exhibit F - photographs of the property
taken January 23, 1991. Mr. Colombo stated the pictures accurately depict the
painted condition of the fence as it is today. He would like the fence to be
standard in appearance to keep property values from diminishing.
Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Colombo's tree limbs extending over Mr.
Mitskevich's property. Mr. Mitskevich stated he erected the fence because Mr.
Colombo had butchered the tree when cutting the extended limbs. He stated
Mr. Colombo told him there wouldn't be a fence on the property line.
Mrs. Jelineck, neighbor about halfway down the street, stated she can not see
the fence from her property. In response to questions, she stated the stringer
boards are facing out. Part of the fence is painted yellow and white, and the paint
looks like it was dabbed on. Mrs. Jelineck stated the fence is offensive, and she
believes it diminishes property values.
In response to questions, Mrs. Jelineck stated the house that recently sold
in the neighborhood was bought by a party who lived there previously, but she didn't
know the selling price. She stated Mr. Mitskevich's property was not visible from
that location.
MCEB
2
4/24/91
_~.. _ _"*"''l>_1.~~~~'''H..~~~1~.". ~:;"~'\'..:'~::' '",-_:::;:~::;'~:"'7;:~.,~-'~>" .~. ": " .....~.. ,.. "..~. . r -,
. , .' .
F
~
F
/" ,"
r--
I
, ,
; ,
: ~ " .
'..-
. .~.
, ~
o
!
i
I
I
o
o
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 25-91 regarding violation of
Section 95.23 Nuisance Conditions (1) of the Clearwater City Code on property
located at 1132 Sunnydale Dr aka Sunnydale Sub, lot 22, the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
hearing held the 24th day of April, 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 Vicki Niemiller, John
Richter, Tom Chaplinsky and James Polatty, City of Clearwater Officials; Mr. Colombo
and Mrs. Jelineck, neighboring property owners; and Mr. Mitskevich, and viewing the
evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits A-E, a copy of the City Code as cited,
a memo from Earl Barrett, Housing Counselor for the City, photographs of the
property and fence, and the notice of violation issued by the Inspector, and
Defendant1s exhibits A - a copy of the City's correspondence to Mr. Mitskevich, and
B - a copy of a drawing of the fence as submitted with the fence permit application,
it is evident that, while the fence is in strict conformance with the building code
as it relates to the situation of the structural stringers, Mr. Mitskevich has
purposely and maliciously defaced the finish of the fence in a manner that presents
itself to be a nuisance in that it causes a substantial diminution of the value of
neighboring properties.
The Conclusions of Law are: E. J. & Maureen Mitskevich are in violation of
Section 95.23 Nuisance Conditions (1).
It is the Order of this Board that E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich shall comply with
Section 95.23 Nuisance Conditions (1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within
10 days (5/4/91). If E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich do not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day
the violation continues to exist. If E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich do 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, E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich
shall notify John Richter, the City Official who will direct a reinspection of the
property and notification to 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 24th day of April, 1991.
MCEB
4
4/24/91
''''.,'\;' .
F
~ ,', ~"," .,' '
j1 ...'
p-
~
,/
"'., .
.....,..,.
. ~ ,
, I'
",_...,t. '.~-l