Loading...
08/14/1991 (2) CEB , MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, DATE _0 ?ftfh; c:2..7 '. "/ Y \...~",e / -..........~. MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of August 14, 1991, 3:00 p.m. Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS Action (At the time a case is heard and date set for compliance the Board shall, at the same time, set th~ fee to be assessed in case of non-compliance.) Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-08-1 Case 91-8-1 #1 Case 91-8-1 #2 Case 91-8-1 #3 ( " Case 91-8-1 #4 ....,.' , Case 91-8-1 #5 Case 91-8-1 #6 Case 91-8-1 #7 Case 91-8-1 #8 Case 91-8-1 #9 Case HC). 27-91 MCEB Dennis J & Judy G Watson 1759 Townsend St aka Lot 57, Blackshire Est John or Jo Ann Grepares vacant lot about 1110 Sunset pt Rd aka lot 25, Sunset pt & Replat Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre vacant lot about 1122 Sunset pt Rd aka Lot 28, Sunset pt & Replat Simkins Industries, lnc M&B 21-01, Sec 20-29~16 & M&B 33-06, S~c 17-29~16 Mark G Naedel 2944-1/2 Sunset pt Rd aka M&B 14-13, Sec 5-29-16 David P and Susan R Wood 1048 Jadewood Ave aka Lot 21, Blk 14, Woodvalley Unit 4 Goldie M Reid 1347 Hibiscus St aka Lot 10, Dlk A, Pinebrook Sub Clark WMills vacant lot about 709 Vine Ave aka lot 19, Blk 8, Pine Crest Sub James C & Darlene l Grimes 1410 Hamlet Ave aka Lot 13, Blk A, Belleview Ct Dalip Tzekas 2129 Drew St (Land Development Code) Continued from 6/26/91 1 Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) , Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Comply within 10 days (8/24/91) Withdrawn 8/14/91 \""'/ ': J '/ (''., Case No. 38~91 NEW BUSINESS , ' OTHER BOARD ACTION Sunburst Fireworks lne a/k/a Phantom, Ine Request for Rehearing Continued from 7/24/91 Dis~~s,irrn re Lot,Clearing Ordinance MINUTES - Mee~ing of July 24, 1991 ,ADJOURN () .j MCEB, ,3 ~ .'. . ... I .' t ; I. . . .' ~. . . I' ',;, . . . ~ " '. j . ' I. , '/ I Request denied Proposed changes were explained: Board expressed support for the amendments Approvad'&s submitted, 5:24 p.m. 8/14/91 ("',., ...... . i ; '>.,,; .. ','U-...~ PUBLIC NUISANCE CLEARING LIST 91/8/1, 08/14/91 '~1759 Townsend street, Clearwater, Florida, Lot 57, Blackshire Estates- Parcel # 02-29-15-09126-000-0570. Property Owner: Dennis J. & Judy G. Watson, 1584 Bel1eair l.ane, Clearwater, Florida 34624. ~~ ~ 2944 1/2 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, Florida, M&B 14-13 in Section 05-29-16- Parcel ff 05-29-16-00000-140-1300. Property Owner: Naedel Mark G., 475B1u[fview Drive, 8elleair Bluffs, /Florida. ~ 1048 Jadewood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, Lot 21, Block 14, Woodvalley, Unit No. 4- Parcel #J 08-29-16-99102-014-0210. Property OWner: Wood, David P. and Susan R., 1048 Jadewood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 34619. ("'V" 1347 Hibiscus street, Clearwater, Florida, Lot 10, Block A, Parcel # 10-29-15-69030-001-0100. Property Owner: Goldie M. Reid, 1603 2nd Avenue North, Clanton, AI. 35045. / v /' Vacant lot about 1110 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, Florid~, ,Lot '-5" SUl1se t Pt. Bnd repla t. - Parcel l# 03-29-15-88092-000-' 0250. property Owner: John or Jo Ann Grepares, RR 2 Maple Road, Joliet, Illinois 60432. ~ Vacant lot about 1122 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, Florida, Lot'28, Sunset Pt. and replat. - Parcel ~ 03-29-15-88092-000- 0200. Property Owner= Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre., 4 Harborside Drive, 8elleair, Florida 34616. E of Japanese Gardens Mobile Home Park, on Tampa Bay and S of Pearce Drive, Clearwater, Florida. M&B 21-01 in Section 20- 29-16 and M&B 33-06 in Sec. 17-29-16-20-29-16-00000-210-0100 and H&B 17-29-16-00000-330-0600. Property Owner: Simkins Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 3397, Miami, Florida 33152., Vacant lot about Block 8, Parcel Clark W. Mills, 34615. 709 Vine Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, Lot 19, # 10-29-15-69138-008-0190. Property Owner: 1028 SUlanydale Drive, Clearwater, Florida V 1410 Hamlet Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, T.Jot 13, Block A, Belleview Ct., Parcel # 21-29-15-07362-001-0130. property O\otner: James C. Grimes, Da,rlene I~. Grimes, 1410 Hamlet Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 34616. ,',\ p;.~~ MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 14, 1991 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman Robert Aude D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley Edwin L. Choate Absent: William Zinzow (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board 'T_.-- . In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:00 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 th i rty (3D) days of the execut i on of the order to be appea 1 ed. 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 IIEARINGS Public Nuisance Clearina List 91-8-1 Oennis J. & Judy G. Watson 1759 Townsend St. aka Lot 57, Blackshire Est. No one was present to represent the violator. - Case No. 1 Janice K in9, Code Inspector, stated the lot is overgrown. She verified ownership of the property through the Property Appraiser's Office, notice of the violation was sent certified mail, and was r'eturned unsigned with a new address noted. She resent the notice July 2nd and no response has been receivedj she has had no verbal contact with the violator. She first inspected the property June 27thj posted and photographed it June 28th. Ms. King stated she reinspected the ~~,/ property this mornir.g and the violation still exists. MCEB 1 8/14/91 , ""\ '..., In response to questions, Ms. King stated the home doesntt appear to be occupied. She stated an anonymous complaint was received regarding this property. Discussion ensued whether the requirement for service of notice of the violation and hearing had been met, and the Attorney for the Board stated it has. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.1 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1759 Townsend 5t aka Lot 57, Blackshire Est., the Municina 1 Code Enforcement' Board has heard test irnony at the Mun; ci pa 1 Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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 Janice King, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of Law are: Dennis J. & Judy G. Watson are in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Dennis J. & Judy G. Watson shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days(8/24/91). Upon failure to comply within the time ~pecified, the City Manager may authorize the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition, without further notice to Dennis J. & Judy G. Watson. 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, Florida as other 1 iens 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, Dennis & Judy Watson shall notify Janice King, 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 heari ng before the Board. The mot ion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ~lCEB 2 8/14/91 p." , r . <'* - Case No. 2 John or Jo Ann Grepares vacant lot about 1110 Sunset pt Rd aka Lot 25, Sunset pt & Replat No one was present to represent the violator. Janice King, Code Inspector, stated this property is overgrown. She verified ownership through the Property Appraiser1s Office, sent notice of the violation by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. The property was first inspected July 10th, and on July 17th, it was posted and a photograph taken. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.2 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at about 1110 Sunset Pt. Rd. aka Lot ~5, Sunset Pt. & Replat, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony ci~ the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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 Janice King, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other s i mi 1 ar plant mater i a 1 sat the above referenced addres 5 . The Conclusions of Law are: John and/or Jo Ann Grepares are in violation of Section 95.04. " It is the Order of this Board that John and/or Jo Ann Grepares shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days(8/24/91). 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 John and/or Jo Ann Grepares. 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 foy'm as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida as other liens afe 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, John and/or Jo Ann Grepares shall notify Janice King, the City Official who will inspect the property ann notify the Board of comp 1 i ance. Shou 1 dad i spute ar i se concern i ng comp 1 i ance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carrie~ unanimously. MCEB 3 8/14/91 }" f ~i ~.. .e - Case No. 3 Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre. vacant lot about 1122 Sunset pt Rd aka Lot 28, Sunset pt & Replat No one was present to represent the violator. Janice King, Code Inspector, stated she verified ownership through the Property Appraiser's Office. Notice of the violation was sent certified mail on July 18th and the receipt has not been returned. Ms. King stated she spoke to Mr. Leahon on August 1st and he requested an extension. She did not grant an extension based on a similar violation in February which was not cleared by May. City s!.Ibmitterl exhibit At a copy of the file of record olncluu1ng the legal notice and a' photograph of the property. Mr. Aude ,noved that concerning Case No.3 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation o"f Sectio'n 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at about 1122 Sunset Pt. Rd. aka Lot 28, Sunset Pt. & Replat, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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 Janice King, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the above referenced address. The Conclusions uf Law are: Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre. is in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre. shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (8/24/91). 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 Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre. 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 sllch form as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Pub 1 i c Records of Pine 11 as County, F1 ori da as other 1 i ens 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, Evelyn H. Leahon, Tre. shall notify Janice King, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party lnay request a further hearing before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ~tCEB 4 8/14/91 - Case No. 4 Simkins Industries, Inc. M&B 21-01, Sec 20-29-16 & M&B 33-06, Sec 17-29-16 ,I , No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated these two parcels are overgrown. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser1s Office: notice was sent by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. She spoke on the phone with the owners who said they are trying to find a contractor. Ms. Doherty first inspected the property July 11th, posted and photographed it on July 25th. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty said she knows one portion of the property is a repeat violation. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.4 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on two parcels located east of Japanese Gardens Mobile Home Park, on Tampa Bay and south of Pearce Dr i ve aka M&B 21-01, See 20-29-16 & M&B 33-06, Sec 17-29-16 , the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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 Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and a photograph of the property, 'it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of Law are: Simkins Industries, Inc. is in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Simkins Industries, Inc. shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days {8/24/91. 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 Simkins Industries, Inc. 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, Florida 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, Simkins Industries, Inc. shall notify Geri Doherty, 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. MCEB 5 8/14/91 - Case No. 5 Mark G. Naedel 2944-1/2 Sunset pt Rd aka M&B 14-13, Sec 5-29-16 No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated the property is overgrown. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser1s Office; notice was sent by certified and regular mail. She spoke to the owner and he is aware of the hearing. Ms. Doherty first inspected the property July 11th, and posted and photographed it July 25th. As of this morning, the violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A - a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the proper ty. . In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated the area in violation is the property insidu tho fence and the right of way. She stutcd it is for sale. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.5 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2944-1/2 Sunset pt Rd aka M&B 14-13, Sec 5-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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 Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of Law are: Mark G. Naedel is in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Mark Naedel shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (8/24/91). 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 Mark Naedel. The City Commission may then adopt a Resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the City the actual c~~t incurred plus $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lie" against the property unti 1 paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida 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, Mark Naedel shall notify Geri Doherty, 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. e+<~+ , MCEB 6 8/14/91 - Case No, 6 r-- David P. and Susan R. Wood 1048 Jadewood Ave aka Lot 21, Blk 14, Woodvalley Unit 4 No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated this property is overgrown and the house is vacant. She verified ownership through the Property Appraiser's Office; notice was sent by certified and regular mail, and both were returned marked forward expired. The property was first inspected July 11th, and posted and photographed July 25th. As of this morning, the violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated the growth in the front and back yards is over twelve inches. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.6 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1048 Jadewood Ave aka Lot 21, Blk 14, Woodvalley Unit 4, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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 Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materia 1 s at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of law are: David P. and Susan R. Wood are in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that David P. and Susan R. Wood shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days(8/24/91). Upon fijilure 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 David P. and Susan R. Wood. 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, Florida 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, David P. or Susan R. Wood shall notify Ger; Doherty, 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 heari ng before the Board. The mot ion was du ly seconded and carried unanimously. , " MCEB 7 8/14/91 - Case No. 7 /lit v" Goldie M. Reid 1347 Hibiscus St aka Lot 10, Blk A, Pinebrook Sub No one was present to represent the violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector. stated this property is overgrown, and has large tree 1 imbs and debri s from the April 25th storm. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office. She sent a courtesy letter May 30th giving the owner six weeks to clear the property. The property was posted July 11th and a copy of the notice was sent to the owner via certified and regular mail. The cortified letter was re'lur'ned uncla Imed. Photographs were taken July 11th and 14th. The property was reinspected this morning, and the violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property. In response to questions. Ms. Niemiller stated the residence is vacant. She stated a tree hit the corner of the garage with no damage to the house. She stated she informed the housing inspectors of the damage. As of the morning of the hearing. no clearing had been done. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.7 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1347 Hibiscus St. aka Lot 10, B1k. A, Pinebrook Sub., the Municipal Code En'forcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August. 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, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A. a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials and debris at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of Law are: Goldie M. Reid is in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Goldie M. Reid shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days {8/24/91}. 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 Goldie M. Reid. 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, Florida as other liens are recorded. \ ,I' MCEB 8 8/14/91 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, Goldie M. Reid 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 !]lotion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. w Case No. 8 Clark W. Mills vacant lot about 709 Vine Ave aka Lot 19, elk 8, Pine Crest Sub No one was present to represent the violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated the lot is overgrown and there is debris. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office; notice WnS sent certified and regular mail, and the signed receipt was returned. This is a repeat violation. She first inspected the property July 10th, and on July 17th it was posted and photographed. The property was reinspected this morning and the violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property. In response to questions, Ms. Niemiller stated the debris is in the right of way. Sanitation will not pick up from a vacant lot as there has to be an active account at the address. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.8 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-8-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at about 709 Vine Ave. aka Lot 19, elk. 8, Pine Crest Sub., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal, Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 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, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A w a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials and debris at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of Law are: Clark H. Mills is in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Clark H. Mills shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (8/24/91). 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 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. ~1CEB 8/14/91 9 ~. ..;'..~. :i:' ~ '~." .~ ;' ~.;.::~ r ',;.: t.~'.:::t "'~~ . ';}". " ~ , :: ,i) : ~,.it ./~ ~.:" ~ r~. :'.' ~ :"1~~ ~'.. ~ :..;: I r::~. j' : . ~ ~"-.:'t ;5';:' ; ~. 4i.:'~ /:,~ ~j,,/.:: .,. ~ " ' . ~~: : ".f ~:' l" I. ::' '. ";', r_ ~:: -, '. .. ',1> ,::-' '~",J: >~I;' '::,~'Y \~~ .>'t ,;::.: ~(;,: :'":.:~ ';';,~I'~:.. ,n,~~ It:' ," f 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, Florida 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 Mills 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 mot ion was du ly seconded and carried unanimously. - Case No. 9 Ja~es C. & Darlene L. Grimes 1410 Hamlet Ave aka Lot 13. Blk A, Belleview Ct If No one was present to reprosont the violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated the property is overgrown. Ownership was ver if ied through the Property Appra i ser I s Off i ce and not ice was sent by certified and regular mail. The certified mail was returned refused. Mrs. Grimes called the inspector stating the property is going to foreclosure. Ms. Niemiller stated she first inspected the property July 11th, and posted and photographed it July 18th. As of this morning, the violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the legal notice and photographs. In response to questions, Ms. Niemiller stated the residence is vacant. She stated the owner has no interest in the property and won't clear it. ',_ Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No.9 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-08-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1410 Hamlet Ave. aka Lot 13, Blk. A, Belleview Ct., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August. 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, Code Inspector. and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including the legal notice and photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other s imil ar plant materi a 1 s at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of law are: James C. & Darlene L. Grimes are in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that James C. & Darlene L. Grimes shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (8/24/91). 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, vii thallt further not i ce to James & Oar 1 ene Gr i mes. , \."!>' > t.tCEB 10 8/14/91 "......., I 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, Florida 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, James and/or Darlene Grimes 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. Case No. 27-91 Dalip Tzekas 2129 Drew Street (land Development Code) Continued from 6/26/91 Complied Mr. Wyatt moved to withdraw Case No. 27-91. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Lokey Oldsmobile Inc./Paul B. Lokey, President 2355 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (Land Development Codej Continued from 7/10/91 John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, requested this case be continued to (' ~ August 28 to allow for the processing of a building permit. ~~~ Case No. 35-91 Mr. Cardinal moved to continue Case No. 35-91 to the meeting of August 28, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Aude abstained from voting in this case due to a conflict of interest. Ernest Rivers 2723 Haverhill Ct, Bldg 25A (Building Code) It was stated Mr. Rivers phoned from out of town requesting a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Case No. 40-91 Tom Chaplinsky, the Inspector in this case, had no objections. Ms. Riley moved to continue Case No. 40-91 to the meeting of August 281 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. , ~ ~ MCEB 11 8/14/91 Case No. 41-91 Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc./Paul B. Lokey, President 2336 Gulf to Bay Blvd. aka parcel 18-29-16-00000-240-0400 Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated Saturn of Clearwater, the business at this address, is owned by Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. On April 27,1991, a complaint was received that balloons were displayed at the above address. An inspection was made and photographs were taken. City submitted exhibit A, two photographs of the property taken Apr i1 27th. Ms. Doherty s ta ted the vi 0 1 at i on is a repeat of the same kind of violation, using wind devices, found by the Board in December, 1989. At that time, the Board issup,d an order imposing n $100 per day fine for a repeat violation. A notice of repeat violation was issued on May 24, 1991. The affidavit of violation, issued by the Inspector, was verbally amended, without objection,changing March 26 to April 27, 1991 in Facts behind violation. In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated the previous violation regards the same owners and property. She stated there is no evidence of the balloons being displayed more than the one day. Discussion ensued regarding the necessity of issuing notice to the violator prior to imposing a fine. It was stated that without proper notification it can only be established that a repeat did occur, with a fine to be imposed for another repeat. Mr. Scott Harlib, Manager of Saturn of Clearwater, stated he is representing Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. He has been with the company since October, 1990; he joined the management team in May, 1991. Since that time there have been no violations by Saturn. In response to questions, he stated he does not know of the previous violation, but did agree there was a violation in April. John Richter, in closing, stated this is a repeat violation and a fine should be imposed. However, he expressed concern regarding a provision of code section 22.67 that says a fine can be imposed only after notice to the violator of the repeat violation. Discussion ensued regarding the process of notifying a repeat violator while the vi 0 1 at i on ex i sts; I t was stated the I nspectors need time to research the property for prior violations and ownership. Mr. Harlib stated there has been only one violation in ten months, and it won't happen again as long as he is Manager. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 41-91 regarding a repeat violation of Section 134.009(5) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2336 Gulf to Bay Blvd. aka parcel 18-29-16-00000-240-0400, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings af Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. " ' ~'CEB 12 8/14/91 r' \ The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Code Inspector and Mr. Harlib, representing Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that balloons were attached to automobiles at 2336 Gulf to Bay Blvd. It is further evident that the violation was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of law are: Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. was in violation of Section 134.009(5); that Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. was found to have violated the same provisi~n at the same location by the Board o~ December~ 13, 1989, and that Lokey Oldsmobl1e, Inc. has 'committed a repeat v fa lat lOn. It is the Order of this Board that Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. shall comply with Section 134.009(5) of the Code of the City of Clearwater and continue to comply hence forth. If Lokey 0 I dSl1Iob i 1 e, I nc. repea ts the v 101 at ion, the Board may or'der them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. is notified of the repeat violation. 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. Mr. Aude abstained from voting in this case due to a conflict of interest. Case No. 42-91 Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc./Paul B. Lokey, President 2430 Gulf to Bay Blvd. aka parcel 18-29-16-00000-130-0400 In response to a question, Mr. Scott Harlib, representing Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc., agreed the violation did exist. Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated on April 27 and May 3, 1991 photographs were taken showing balloons being displayed at the above referenced address. She stated the same type violation was found by the Board in 1990. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated the previous violation was against the same owner and address. City submitted exhibit A, two photographs of the property. Mr. Aude abstained from voting in this case due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 42-91 regarding violation of Section 134.009(5) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2430 Gulf to Bay Blvd. aka parcel 18-29-16-00000-130-0400, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of August, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. MCEB 13 8/14/91 f""~ ..." ~. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty. Code Inspector and Mr. Harlib. representing Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A. photographs of the property, it is evident that balloons were attached to automobiles at 2430 Gulf to Bay Blvd. It is further evident that the violation was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. was in violation of Section 134.009 (5) ; that Lokey 01 dsmob11e , Inc. was found to have v io 1 ated the same provision at the same location by the Board on December 12, 1990, and that Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. has committed a repeat violation. It is tho Ordor of this Board that Lokoy Oldsmobile, Inc. shall comply with Section 134.009(5) of the Code of the City of Clearwater and continue to comply henceforth. If Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to ex! ,t aftAr Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. is notHicu uf the repeltt violation. 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Wm. B. Albrecht/Ann E. Larson M&B 34/02, Sec 17-29-16 Affidavit of Compliance Lydia Roebuck about 1163 Lasalle st Affidavit of Compliance Robert w. & Elaine Wigle 3205 Wessex Way Affidavit of Compliance Edward & A. Sr.. Ratkewicz 3012 Merrill Ave Affidavit of Compliance Michael J. Bobowski 3265 Pine Haven Dr Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 90-5-1 #2, 90-6~2 #2, 91-6-1 #3, 91-6-1 #4 and 91-6-2 #2. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 90-5-1 #2 Case 90-6-2 #2 Case 91-6-1 #3 Case 91-6-1 #4 Case 91-6-2 #2 MCEB 14 8/14/91 ,;";;\ ....., , Case No. 29-91 Stephen & Sharon McKee 628 Fairwood Forest Dr Affidavit of Non-Compliance Affidavit of Compliance In response to a question regarding non-compliance, the Inspector stated there may have been a misunderstanding regarding what was needed for compliance. Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 29-91. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. No action was taken on the Affidavit of Non~compliance. OTHER BOARD ACTION Case No. 38-91 Sunburst Fireworks Inc a/k/a Phantom, Inc Request for Rehearing Continued from 7/24/91 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Discussion ensued regarding the reason for the request being a desire to ut il ize a different type of alarm system than originally planned. It was stated the Board's oy'der did not specify how, but when, compliance was due. It was also stated requirements for a system are specified by code; any variances to the code need to be heard by another board. In response to a question, Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated no fire system has been installed nor have the hazardous materials been removed; therefore there is currently non-compliance. ' Bruce McLaughlin, Planning Engineer for Sunburst Fireworks Inc., stated the Board's order says to just comply, and it is hard to determine what is needed. He stated they originally had a cost for sprinklers and later found that there would be a substantial cost to bring water to the site for the sprinklers. He expressed concern regarding complying with the building code and not meeting fire code. He stated the code is not clear and asked for consideration as they are trying to comply. Dennis Sorce, Secretary/Treasurer of Phantom, Inc. stated when compliance time needed was first discussed, he thought 30 days would be enough to install a sprinkler system. Now they don1t know how to comply. He stated the store next door is still empty as requested by the Fire Department. Discussion ensued regarding the order of the Board being based on the request of the violator. It was stated removal of the hazardous materials would bring the store into compliance. Mr. Wyatt moved to deny the Request to Rehear based on failure to produce adequate grounds for a rehearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. MeED 15 8/14/91 r:::' Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance in Case No. 38-91 and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion Re Lot Clearina Ordinance John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, explained the proposed changes to the Lot Clearing process stating it will greatly shorten the pl~ocessing time.' It was stated citations will be issued, and only those appealing would come to the Board. He also stated the administrative fee would be increased from $150 to $200 to cover the cost to the City. Some concern was expressed regarding City liab'ility of entering und clearing properties and forfeiture action regal-ding abandoned vehicles I and it was stated the City's action would be the same as now. Ms. Riley moved to support the proposed ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. John Richter stated he would like to give a written summary of cases to the Board. ;'-=......... Andy Salzman I Attorney for the Board, stated the Board has to remain independent of the City. Providing information prior to the hearing could cause prejudice. There would be no problem with the City asking for a recommended compliance time or fine in a closing statement for each case. MINUTES - Meeting of July 24, 1991 Mr. Aude moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 24, 1991 ,as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m. Attest: D~AQ~~- ~tacy , 1'~.'" MCEB 16 8/14/91 ,.::, t^AUDf:ll'MR2til~lrl)l t J-~~ 10.1 "'I.IN(, .\IlOl\r~'iS 111q V<E~rrJJQ.::r~ t:..KI,/S I,:ny CLEAk\VA1t.""K FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS N"ME 01" 00"'1\0. COUNCil" ("OMMISSION, AUTHOIUTY. OR CQMMllTEE tJltH,\ICWAL COt-I: ENPOfaMBJf f:D. ("OUNlY PHlE!JJ15 THE HOARD, COUNCil. COMMIS!>ION, .\UTHOllln' all. COMMITTEE ON WH!5" I SERVE IS A IINITOF: 1)"'(.11Y C COUNTY 0 OTllER 1.0CAI. AGENCY NAME 01' l'OI.lT1CAI. SUIlOIVISION: C.U:,Af<\VAiEK. I ROf<ICA IMTE ON WHICIf ~1X'CllRRED V (Ires MY rOSITlf)N IS: Nt (;U 1;[( 14 l.q~ I ~r''OINTIVE o EI.EC"TlVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form Is for use by any person serving at Ihe: county, city, or other local level of government on an appointe:d or ele:cted board, council, commission. authority, or commiuee, II applies equally 10 members of ndvisory and non.advisory bodies who are prese:nte:d with a vOling con llict of interesl under Section 112.3143, Florida SlatUtes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a connict of interest will vary greatly dependil)g on whether you hold an eleclive or appointive position, For this reason. please: pay close attention to the instructions on this form before comple:ting the reverse side: and tiling the: form. 1"' < \ , , . ". ' INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143. FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special privale: gnin. Each locnl oencer also is prohibiled from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (01 her than a government agency) by whom he is relained, 1 n either case. you should disclose the con nicI: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to Ihe assembly the nature of your interest in the measure: on which you are abstaining from vOling; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form wilh the person responsible for recording the minutes of Ihe meeting, who should incorporate lhe form in the minutes, APrOlNTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county. municipal. or other local public office :-'lUST ABSTAIN from voting on a m~asure whh;h inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from know,;ngly vOling on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (Olher than a government agenc...) by whom he is relained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a malter in which he has a conllict of interesl, but must d;$cJose thqmture of the conllict before making :]n~' JHempl to inl1ucnce the decision by or.31 or written commuOlc:llion. whether made by the officer or :1t his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTE:-"fPT TO INFLUE:--1CE THE DeCISION PRIOR TO THE :-.IEETING ,.\T WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: ,,-_r . You should complete and file Ihis form (berore making any aHempt 10 inrluence Ihe decision) with the person responsible for re:cording the minules of the meeting. who will incorpor.lle the form in the minules. · A copy of the form should be provided immedi3tcly to the other members of the agency, . The form should be read public:ly at the meeting prior to consideration of the mailer in which you have a contlict of interest. (I HlI~M ~t1, .,'11 1',(;[ I IF YOU MAKE NO AITEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT nv DlSCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You should disclose orally the nalure of your conniet in the measure before participating. ,/' '. · YOll should eompll:le the farm and file it within I S days after the vote OCCurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes i of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes, ~ DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1. (~Or->E.KT f.\Ur;E I hereby disclose that on HU0U'?T I" , 19..1L-.: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) {~~ ~~:41 _ inured to my special privillc gain; or CA(;t 4'2.... tJ I / .. 'l..O(<2(OLO~MOblu;. (Nc:., _ lOurcd to the spcclal galO of , by whom 1 am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nalUre of my interest in the measure is as follows: I) A~JY6 l.OtAL OFFICEl, 16 C.cJf<r. OPflCEK ' \\WrH ~\I !.~~!(~!"I,~?/~,RfHrr~~~??. 1 t I CLEM<\Y A TE ~ F1() ~I CJA , 2) LOr.~Y _ OLV;0(~~~.~~ I? A CLIE),JT CF \N1LLlJ\M? Ar<ct.IITecrs f-n-iU~..) I~T^I N~ TH I? FIRM 10 fer<f=d(\~11 .... . '~-- Al?CH\TECiUkAL ~;EJ\VICE5 dti IT? E;€:H ALr;, ; AU GCV)I 14 I It-I~ t /\ ,/./ I) j,:jtm(( . S,[ 19m1lure t ' //"1 / Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES *112.317 ~198S). A FAILURE'TO MAKE ANY REQUll"./ DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MA Y BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REr-,,10VAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,ooO. ('f' FORM MI. r.qr . PAGE