06/20/1991 (2)
.'
CEB
c;27
-
37
./
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
DATE O/;!:tIJ!t/
r...... ~"
. ,
,'0 \
, !
...,,~ L .
.~.~.
<,
~II ;'H='
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Emergency Heeting
June 20, 1991
Members present:
William Murray, Chairman
Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman
D. Wayne Wyatt
Louise C. Riley
Absent:
Robert Aude (excused)
William Zinzow (excused)
John. McKinney (resigned)
Also present:
Paul Richard Hull, Assistant City Attorney
Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board
Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:05 p.m. in the Commission
Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures 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 of the order to be appealed. He noted that"
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to
have a record of the proceedings to support, such an appeal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sunburst Fireworks Inc. a/k/a Phantom, Inc.
Dennis A. Sorce, Secretary/Treasurer
2416 Gulf to Bay Blvd.
(Standard Building Code/Land Development)
The Chairman asked Mr. Sorce, representing Sunburst Fireworks, whether or not
they agreed with the violation. Mr. Sorce indicated they disagree.
Case No. 38-91
Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Supervisor, indicated he inspected the premises
after being notified by the Fire Marshal1s office that the main business at this
establishment was the sale of fireworks. He stated fireworks being in a building
creates a special hazardous condition. He inspected the establishment on June 17
and found two types of fireworks - 1) sparklers displayed in the main showroom and
2) the aerial type firecrackers displayed in the back room. He stated the building
does not have an automatic fire sprinkler system.
MCEB
6/20/91
1
~"
,.',*
',.
Government exhibits A & B, photographs of the two rooms where the fireworks
are displayed, were submitted into evidence. Mr. Chaplinsky indicated both of the
photographs show the ceiling of the establishment, and no sprinklers are shown.
Mr. Chaplinksy reported he discussed this with Vic Chodora, Building Official,
and they determined a special hazardous condition did exist. They wrote the notice
of violation, served it on the business on June 17th and gave them until 5 PM on
June 18th to comply. In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky indicated that the
establishment had previously been an auto supply store, He stated that when the
present license was requested, a general and specialty items business license was
applied for with no mention having been made of fireworks. He stated if fireworks
had been mentioned, they'would have inspected the building prior to issuing a
license. Mr. Chaplinsky further reported the entire building would need to be
sprinklered.
John t.1cKay , Attorney represent i n9 Phantum, I nc., asked Mr. Chap 1 i nsky if he
was aware of the difference between sparklers and fireworks. Mr. McKay indicated
state statute 791 provided a definition.
Richard Hull, Assistant City Attorney, objected to the use of the definitions
in F.S. 791 stating that statute had to do with the criminal sale of fireworks, who
could sell them and who could not, and was not a part of the uuilding code.
Further discussion ensued regarding the difference between the sparklers and
the class C fireworks, whether or not a hazardous condition existed, and whether or
not there had been a change in occupancy which would require the installation of the
sprinkler system.
Mr. Chaplinsky indicated in Chapter 4 of the Standard Building Code there is
no quantity listed, but just having fireworks is considered hazardous. In response
to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky indicated he had discussed this situation with Mr.
Bruce McLaughlin and he indicated what his intentions were regarding citing the
estab 1 i shment.
Questions were raised regarding whether or not Mr. Chaplinsky was aware of
other fireworks d i sp 1 ays in other estab 1 i shments throughout the Ci ty i and he
indicated he had seen none so far this year. He further stated he was unaware of
federal regulations or state statutes regarding fireworks.
Harry Mattheus, Life Safety Inspector, indicated he had met with Mr. Sorce and
Mr. McLaughlin to discuss their business. Defendant's exhibit E, a letter from Mr.
McLaughlin to Harry Mattheus, was submitted into evidence. Mr. Mattheus stated the
letter does not accurately depict the meeting which was held, stating he had never
indicated there was a four hour fire wall and he did not say they met code. In
response to further questions, Mr'. Mattheus indicated Phantom was an end unit in a
strip store with a vacant business immediately next door. He stated he could not
attest to whether or not the wall between the businesses was a four hour fire wall.
He indicated there is a difference bet'o'/een class C fireworks and sparklers in
Florida statutes 791.
Mr. Hull, ^ssistant City Attorney, again objected to the use of F.S. 791.
t~CEB
2
6/20/91
"'-..-
In response to further questions, Mr. Mattheus indicated there were a number
of fire extinguishers and 110 smoking signs in the establishment above and beyond a
regular mercantile business. He stated the exit signs were not up when he was in,
and he was shown an emergency light which he was told would be installed.
Further discussion ensued regarding the use of the definition of a firework
contained in Florida statutes 791. Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Code Enforcement
Board, stated there is no definition of fireworks in the City code, and the Board
will have to decide what they consider to be fireworks. Defendant's exhibit H, a
copy of Florida statutes 791 was submitted into evidence.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Mattheus indicated he found
fireworks present and, as far as the Fire Department was concornad, this wa5
considered a spacial fire hazard.
Discussion ensued regarding the physical laY0~~ of the strip center, with it
being indicated that the space occupied by Phantom has four rooms plus a bath, with
an open doorway to the back room where the class C fireworks are stored. '
In response to questions, Mr. Mattheus indicated they had looked at the code
and, according to the Life Safety Code and fire prevention measures, sparklers are
more hazardous than standard mercantile items.
Peter Ferguson, Architect for Phantom, Inc., stated the space Phantom, Inc.
occupies is a separate structure as it was a later addition to the strip center.
In respo',.3e to a question, he did indicate that it sharod a cornman wall with the
rest of the strip center. It was his opinion the wall between Phantom, Inc. and the
vacant space next door was a four hour fire wall.
Mr. McKaYI Attorney for Phantom, Inc., stated he wished to clarify that the
code stated if the matel'ials were stored or handled or in a quantity that was
hazardous to the occupancy, the sprinkler system would be required. He stated there
has been no change of occupancy in this building.
Dennis Sorce, Secretary/Treasurer of Phantom, Inc., stated he has been with
Phantom, Inc. since May of last year. He stated the name was changed from Sunburst
Fireworks; however, the State had not processed the change as yet. Defendant1s
exhibit C, pictures of various stores along Gulf-to-Bay Bou\evard showing fireworks
displays, and defendant exhibit 0, the Phantom, Inc. store, were submitted into
evidence. He stated those articles being depicted in exhibit C are the same types
of articles he sells in his store. He further stated the fireworks displays in the
other stores are more dense than the density in his store.
Mr. Sorce indicated when he met with Mr. Mattheus he offered to put in the
sprinkler system. At that point, Mr. Mattheus wanted this done immediately, and he
said he would begin immediately after July 5th. He stated he is still willing to
do this as he has a fifteen year lease with options on the building.
~'CEB
6/20/91
3
jfi';..,
,,~
Defendant's exhibit F, a letter from Dr. Conkling, an expert on fireworks was
submitted into evidence. Mr, Sorce indicated he does not store class C fireworks
at this building, but only has some displays. People wishing to buy the class C
order them and they are delivered from another location. In response to a question
from the Board, Mr. Sorce indicated he would want to remove all the materials,
sparklers and fir'eworks, prior to installing the sprinkler system as they would need
to be welding pipes.
In response to further questions from the Board, Mr, Sorce did indicated that
fireworks and sprinklers are seasonal and, after the 4th of July, he would have
considerably less of these materials in his store, He stated, however, he wanted
to have some in the store year-round. In response to a question, he also indicated
that, while he ,only leas~s the bllildina, he is still willing to put in a fire
sprinkler system.
Bruce McLaughlin, Planning Consultant for Phantom, Inc., stated he helped
Phantom find the location for this establishment and made the determination that the
quantities of the fireworks were not sufficient to be a hazard. He stated there was
no change in use. Defendantts exhibit G, Mr. McLaughlin's resume, and defendant's
exhibit I, the requirements for general commercial zoning from the City Code, were
submitted into evidence.
In his closing statement, Assistant City Attorney Hull stated the evidence and
exhibits bare out the violation. The spal'klers and fireworks are flammable and
dangerous and, therefore, a hazard. He stated the definition of fireworks in
Florida statutes 791 is not pertinent as it regulates the sale of these items and
has nothing to do with the building code. He stated there are alternatives to
installing a sprinkler system that requires welding. It is the City's position that
they want removal of the hazard immediately. In response to a question, Mr. Hull
indicated that while they did not feel there was imminent danger, they felt three
days to comply was sufficient.
In his closing statement, Mr, McKay indicated two or three days to comply was
not reasonable. He stated Mr. Sorce and Phantom, Inc. have spent a lot on this
establishment. He further stated the code says there is no sprinkler required if
there is no change of use. He stated there is a difference between fireworks and
sprinklers, and the fireworks are contained' in only 15 percent of the building.
There are no guidelines in the code regarding the quantity that would be considered
hazardous. Phantom is willing to work with the City; they are only asking a
reasonable time with which to comply. In response to a question regarding what
would be a reasonable time, they stated it would take three to four weeks to install
the sprinkler system.
The public hearing was closed and the Board discussed the case.
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 38-91 regarding violation of
Sections 137.007 and Standard Building Code 103.9, 408.3.2 & 408.2.5 as adopted by
Section 138.01 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2416 Gulf to Bay
Blvd. a/k/a Parcel #18-29-16-00000-130-0200, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
has heard testimony at the Emergency Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held
the 20th day of June, 1991, and based on the evidence, the r.lunicipal Code
Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order.
MCEB
4
6/20/91
,.
The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky and Harry
Mattheus, Inspectors, Peter Ferguson, architect for Phantom, Inc., Dennis Sorce,
Secretary Treasurer of Phantom, I nc., and Bruce McLaugh 1 in, P 1 ann i n9 Consu 1 tant for
Phantom, Inc., and the evidence submitted~ exhibits A-I - including various
photographs of the business, a letter from Mr. Mclaughlin to Inspector Mattheus, and
a copy of Florida Statute 791; it is evident that the establishment contains
fireworks that would require that th"is location be classified as a Class H
occupation and requiring an automatic sprinkler system.
The Conclusions of Law are: Dennis A. Sorce nnd/or Sunburst Fireworks Inc.
a/k/a Phantom, Inc. 'are in violation of Standard Building Code Sections 408.3.2 &
408.2.5 as adopted by Section 138.01 of the City Code.
It is tho Ord~r of thi::i 8om-J tlHlt Deflllis A. SOl'CtJ and/or SunbUl'st Fit'cworb
Inc. a/k/a Phantom, Inc. shall comply with Standard Building Sections 408.3.2 &
408.2.5 as adopted by Section 138.01 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within
30 days. If Dennis A. Sorce and/or Sunburst Fireworks Inc. a/k/a Phantom, Inc. 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 Dennis A. Sorce
and/or Sunburst Fireworks Inc. a/k/a Phantom, lnc, do 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
1 i en aga i nst any rea 1 or per'sona 1 property owned by the vi 0 1 ators pursuant to
Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the
rp.cording 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, Oennis A. Sorce and/or Sunburst Fireworks Inc. a/k/a Phantom, Inc. shall
notify Tom Chaplinsky, 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 \"/ith 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 Pet it ion' to Rccons i der or Rehear. The mot i on was du ly seconded and carr; ed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 5~20 p.m.
dff1f~f;(}J1,~,
- .~' . liiAW~/
ATTEST:
D ^W~C:~_L:::J01=-~)D ~=-~
-==--0 SECRETARY
......1.
MCEB
6/20/91
5