Loading...
01/22/1992 (2) CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ,DATE 0//1,'L),~ .c27-d33 ,'I ~,\ MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of January 22, 1992, 3:00 p.m. Agenda Action PUBLIC HEARINGS (At the time a case is heard and date set for compliance the Board shall, at the same time, set the fee to ~D assessed in case of non-compliance.) Case No. 6-92 Case No. 7-92 Case No. 51-91 .~~;case No. 63-91 OTHER BOARD ACTION Case No. 7-91 Case No. 64-91 Ernest Rivers 2723 Haverhill Ct, 8ldg 25A (Building Code/Permits) Stephen & Debra Hitchens 1240 5 Hillcrest Avenue (Public Nuisance Code) Comply by 2/5/92 Comply within 10 days (2/1/92) UNFINISHED BUSINESS John S Taylor III Royalty Theatre 405 Cleveland St Affidavit of Compliance James Jefferson 1255 Byron Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Arcepted affida1it Accepted affidavit Anthony Alexiou/Penguin Palace 7 Rockaway Street, Affidavit of Compliance Address Board re accrued fine Fine reduced to $2,070 if paid w/in 60 days; othr,rwise total accrued amount remains in effect Roger Hober 615 Phoenix Avenue Request for rehearing Denied request MINUTES - Meeting of January 8, 1992 Accepted as submitted ADJOURN MCEB/cbalb.92 3:39 P.M. 1/22/92 1 " , \ 1 ......... MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD January 22, 1992 Members present: William Murray. Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vico-Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach (arr. 3:13 p.m.) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board 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 (30) days of the execu t i on of the order to be a ppea 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 HEARINGS Ernest Rivers 2723 Haverhill Ct., Bldg. 25A (Building Code/Permits) Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspections Supervisor, stated a complaint was received regarding a second satellite dish being installed at this address. He reviewed the file, inspected the property, and found a second dish. He stated a similar case involving Mr. Rivers at the same address was brought before the Board in August of 1991. Mr. Rivers did comply with the order of the Board at that time. The second satellite dish is smaller and located on the carport. No permit was issued for installation. Case No. 6-92 HCEIl/HllICUHI.92 1/22192 1 r" ... ( ............ . In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the original violation was for installation without a permit which has since been corrected. The second dish is smaller and used for receiving special reports that Mr. Rivers can not get with the larger dish. He believes installation was done by a contractor, and normally the contractor would get the necessary permit. He did not know if two antennas are allowed by code. Mr. Rivers stated he subscribes from Bonneville Market Company. Firstt a plain aerial was installed, then the signal was upgraded. While he was up north last summer, the company installed a larger antenna. He pays $128 per month for the service which he has had over five years. He stated the satellite dish belongs to the company. He was not notified by the installer that permits are required. In response to questions, Mr. Rivers stated he sent to Bonneville Company for the specs on the satellite dish when made aware of the need for the permit. He stated the big dish is for the te1evisiun and the small one for his computer. Questions were raised regarding how long it takes to get a perlnit, whether or not two dishes would be allowed under that zoning, and what time frame might be needed if so. The Inspector stated a permit could be acquired on the same day if the necessary information, specifically the engineering of how erected, is supplied. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 6-92 regarding violation of Section 138.21 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2723 Haverhill Court, Bldg. 25A, a/k/a Winding Wood Condo, Bldg. 25A, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of January, 1992, 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 Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspection Supervisor, and Ernest Rivers, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A, a photograph of the property, it is evident that a second satellite dish was installed without d permit at the referenced residence. It is also evident this is a repeat of a similar violation which occurred at that address in August, 1991. The Conclusions of Law are: Ernest Rivers is in violation of Section 138.21. It is the Order of this Board that Ernest Rivers shall comply with Section 138.21 of the Code of the City of Clearwater no later than February 5, 1992. If Ernest Rivers does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Ernest Rivers 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 ~io1ation 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. Ernest Rivers shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect the property and MCEU/~IIHCBlB .92 tIn If)'; 2 I....~ ' 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 fil ing 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 dnd ' CiH'r i ed utlatl il1lous 1y. Case No. 7-92 Stephen & Debra Hitchens 1240 S. Hillcrest Avenue (Public Nuisance Code) No one was present to represent the violators. Janice King, Code Inspector, stated there is overgrowth and debris on the property. Ownership was verified through the Pinellas County tax rolls. Notice was mailed by certified and regular mail, and the certified letter was returned unclaimed. She did attempt verbal notification. She first inspected the property November 20th and posted it at that time. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including photographs of the property. Ms. King reinspected the property this morning and the violation still exists. The van is gone,' but there is still debris and overgrowth. She stated the Hitchens will not return her calls. In response to questions, the Inspector stated they do live at the address. She stated they submitted their notice of appeal to the Clerk as required by code. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 7-92 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1240 South Hillcrest Avenue a/k/a Lakeview Estates 1st Addition, Block 6, Lot 9, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of January, 1992, 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 - copies of the notices of violation and photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists excessive growth and accumulation of debris. The Conclusions of Law are: Stephen and Debra Hitchens are in violation of Section 95.04. HCEB/MIIICBIB.92 t 122{9? 3 .; :. . ~ .:: ': r, " '~;:, . ~_~ ~ :'.:;"~: .,' '..' .: :.', ',,":;:-,: I" .,.......} ': ~. ~~ ...:.',:'. ',';\.... . ~ ,,': '. ~ '~" ,,:,: .." ~-:.. ':" '; 4": ........, \ ; '. , .'~,,, rI' 1 '.'\ :....:, ',: .. ,',' / .' I ~.: . \"'; '. ~.,.;~. . ....... ~, I -,.., '...... ". ". :' '..: . ~. .' .,1 ," , ' 1" . , , It is the Order of this Board that Stephen and Debra Hitchens shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (2/1/92). 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 conditionl without further notice to Stephen and Debra Hitchens. The City Commission may then adopt a Resolution assessing against the property on whi.:i1 remedial action was taken by the City the actual cost incurred plus $200.00 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 Pinel1as County, Florida as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the proper'ty the $200.00 ddministrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon complying, Stephen and Debra Hitchens 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 hearing before the Board. The motiQ!!, was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 51-91 John S. Taylor III Royalty Theater 405 Cleveland Street Affidavit of Compliance James Jefferson 1255 Byron Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 51-91 and 63-91. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 63-91 f... OTHER BOARD ACTION Case No. 7-91 Anthony Alexiou/Penguin Palace 7 Rockaway Street Affidavit of Compliance Address Board re accrued fine George Greer, Attorney representing Anthony Alexiou, stated his client is actually Peppermill, Inc., Gerald and Eva Gotts being the principals of the corporation. Mr. Alexiou.s attorney has given him the authority to act on his behalf regarding this request. Mr. Greer presented a history of the property, stating there were two entities - Shrimpboat Sally.s and Shrimpboat Eddie's - involved who did not follow proceduresj thereby, causing the violation leading to the fine. His client purchased the leasehold in February, 1988, based on a letter from the City to the State giving their approval to build which led to State approval. They sold it in March, 1989 after they received a parking variance and leased parking lot for night use. The new owners were suppose to complete the deckt as all the permits and approvals were granted. In December, 1989 Peppermill instituted MCCU/HIIlCOIB,92 1/22/92 4 .T._...... I r .....< ........-, foreclosure proceedings on the new owners who failed to honor the agreement. In December, 1990 the new owners filed chapter 11 causing a freeze on any action regarding the subject property. Peppermill finally got possession of the property again in June, 1991. They proceeded to acquire the necessary approvals and/or permits to complete the deck and bring the property into compliance. Mr. Greer stated his clients have spent a lot of money and have been delayed several times due to no fault of their own. He stated the true violators are defunct, and punishment is being imposed on the wrong people. In response to questions, Mr. Greer stated they were aware of the fine accruing in April, 1991. They did not regain possession until June, 19911 and they sold it in September, 1991. He stated the lessee, through the leasehold agreement with the owner, holds the owner harmless. Discussion ensued regarding the owner being ultimately responsible, and Attorney Greer stated the owner WdS equally powerless during the Federal bankruptcy process. Tom Chaplinsky, the Inspector in this case, stated the case did go on and on; at one time Mr. Alexiou's attorney tried to sell the property and break the lease. He would favor some reduction, but not cancellation of the fine. Discussion further ensued regarding the original case, and the events that occurred with different leaseholders which led to the accrued fine. Mr. Chaplinsky recommended the fine be enough to cover costs, with $1,000 being the minimum. It was stated the total accrued fine is $20,700. It was stated the main purpose is to obtain compliance, and there should be some pro-ration of the fine. It was also stated that Peppermill had no control over the situation, the owners seem to be totally protected, and yet we need to recoup some of the costs~ Mr. Cardinal moved to reduce the fine to $2,070 provided payment to the City is received within 60 days or the fine will remain at the total accrued amount of $20,700. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Roger Haber 615 Phoenix Avenue Request for rehearing The Secretary reviewed the Board's order in this case. Case No. 64-91 Questions were raised regarding how repair of a fence is classified to require a permit. Is it based on what percent of the value is replaced? HCEIl/MIIlcnto . 92 1/22/92 5 r"~" i j;' :" l', ' ~,/ "......... Questions were also raised regarding whether the permit was, issued or if Mr. Haber applied for a permit. Mr. Zinzow moved to deny the request for a rehearing as there was no new evidence referenced in the request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding how to prevent incorrect verbiage in Board orders in the future. It was suggested the Board simply give the violator time to complYI allowing for additional time if they feel other application processes will be necessary.' It was also suggested to not be specific as to how they must comply, but. let them decide how to complYI i.e. get a permit or remove the violation. MINUTES - Meeting of January 8, 1992 Mrs. Ri ley moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m. J(.:.ft~ Choirmu .\ Attest: 0~ z. f1.. Seer tory neb ,I MCEB/M IlIcn 1 B. 92 1/22/92 6