03/11/1992 (2)
.' '
'I
CEB
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
DATE
. iJ ~B 11/ /q:2J
.
c2'7-
~UCP
, ,
r.\
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Meeting of March 11, 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 be assessed in case of non-compliance.)
Case No. 5-92
Case No. 16-92
Case No. 17-92
()
"-\:....Case No. 18-92
Case No. 19-92
Case No. 6-92
OTHER BOARD ACTION
Michael Vlamakis
2010 Drew Street
(Land Development Code)
Complied prior; if repeats
violation, may be fined
$SO/day for each day of
.'repeat v101dtion
Continued to obtain proper
service of notice
Einstein and Evelina Boykins
1305 Wood Avenue
(Land Development Code)
Malcolm & Evelyne Leslie
1446 South Hillcrest Avenue
(Public Nuisance)
Thomas Floyd
603 Hart Street
(Building Code)
Dismissed with condition
Mr. Leslie approach City staff
to work out mutual agreement
Comply by 1) securing the
structure within 7 days (3/18)
and 2) complete repairs by
June 15, 1992
Continued to obtain proper
service of notice
Aztec Insurance Company
905 & 907 Hart Street
(Building Code)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Ernest Rivers
2723 Haverhill Ct./Bldg. 25A
Affidavit of Compliance
Accepted affidavit
None
MINUTES - Meeting of February 27, 1992
ADJOURN
"
CBA3a.92
Approved as submitted
4:39 p.m.
3/11/92
1
F~
l
"--
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
March II, 1992
Members present:
William Murray, Chairman
D. Wayne Wyatt
Louise C. Riley
Stephen D. Swanberg
Stephen Gerlach
Absent:
Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman (excused)
William A. Zinzow (excused)
A 150 .present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Alan Zimmet, 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
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
Michael Vlamakis
2010 Drew Street
(Land Development Code)
No one was present to represent the violator.
Case No. 5-92
Janice King, Development Code Inspector, stated the business at this location
is Sunsweet Farms. A sign was placed on the property without a permit. Property
ownership was verified through the Pinel'las County Property Appraiser! s office.
Notice was sent to the property and business owners by certified mail, and the
signed receipts were returned. Ms. King stated she had verbal communication with
the property owner and a manager.of the business. The original notice of violation
was sent September 25, 1991 with compliance due September 30. They complied at that
time, but the sign was displayed numerous times since then. A notice of recurring
violation was sent February 13, 1992. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy
of the notice of recurring violation, certified mail receipts, and photographs of
the property. Ms. King stated she saw the sign again February 24th.
mincb3a.92
1
3/11/92
.:;.:~ :I.t: .:,<:r: ~""+';i :.~-~,\.:':.:., f_;:l :J.- ...~+i.>~:~.~-~."",:.':": :./.:...~,.'.:,::" .1.~i.~:1 .",,' ::.. ':~~,,;II:".~~':~" ~..)...'. ~ '. ~. >...~..: .:"~ ',/'~ '.:: .~...~~>,~: .... : ':I~ r.......'i..' '''t' '~.:.'/.~.".', ~"~.l: ", j ~.,. ....1,'., .... l,
,,-=.\ In response to questions, Ms. King stated the sign is portable. She stated
it does not qualify under the criteria used for real estate signs. Ms. King stated
they have also displayed streamers and other signs in the past.
Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 5-92 regarding violation of Section
134.017(a)(I) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2010 Drew Street
aka Skycrest Terrace, block C, lot 5 and the south 50 feet of lot 6, section
12/29/15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th day of March, 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
Enforcement Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite
exhibit A - a copy of the notice of recurring violation, certified mail receipts,
and photographs of the property, it is evident that an i1 legal sign was displayed
without a permit, that this condition was corrected and recurred several times. It
is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: Michael Vlamakis was in violation of Section
134.017(a)(1).
{'
.., (.
It is the Order of this Board that Michael Vlamakis shall comply with Section
134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Michael Vlamakis repeats
the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day
the violation exists after Michael Vlamakis 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.
Case No. 16-92
Einstein and Evelina Boykins
1305 Wood Avenue
(Land Development Code)
It was stated proof of service of the Notice of Hearing has not been obtained.
Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 16-92 until proper service of the notice
is obtained. The ~otion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
,
'-...,.
mlncb3a.92
2
3/11/92
Malcolm & Evelyne Leslie
1446 South Hillcrest Avenue
(Public Nuisance)
Rick Rosa, Development Code Inspector. stated a complaint was received
February 3rd regarding the overgrowth behind the subject property. He spoke to Mr.
Leslie February 4th; Mr. Leslie stated the City installed the fence, left no access
to the easement, and agreed to keep the easement cleared. Mr. Rosa checked with
different departments of the City and found no information regarding said
arrangement. City submitted composite exhibit A, two photographs of the property.
Case No. 17-92
In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the violation exists only at the
back of the lot which is a drainage easement. He stated the City moved fences back
about 12-1/2 feet to accommodate drainage; the property owner owns the fence.
Mr. Leslie stated in 1980 a drain pipe was installed in the easement and the
City assessed the property owners $500. The City dug up the easement and part of
his property two times, and the property has flooded five times since. In 1989, the
City decided all the fences and shrubs need to be moved back ten feet each side from
the easement due to the drain pipe flooding. Mr. Leslie stated the City agreed to
buy the fence and he would erect it, but no provision was made for a gate. The City
said they would take care of clearing the eas&ment; the area was totally cleared out
once by the City, including all the shrubs. His property doesn't have any access
to the easement. Mr. Leslie submitted composite exhibit A, twelve photographs of
his and neighboring properties.
(.~) In response to questions, Mr. Leslie stated his deed designates the easement
for utilities, not drainage. He did not feel the agreement !f/ith the City for
clearing the easement was needed in writing. The City cleared the easement once.
A question was raised whether easement and right of way arc interchangeable.
Mr. Richter, Development Code Manager, stated they are different, and the wrong code
section was cited.
In response to questions, Mr. Leslie stated the fence was moved for drainage
as the pipe would overflow and flood the property; the street would also flood. He
stated he would put in a gate if the City supplies it.
r4r. Leslie reviewed the photographs he submitted, stating the neighbors'
properties are also overgrown. He questioned why his property is the only one that
was posted. The growth in back of his lot is dead scrub; none of the brush growth
is cleared by others.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the wrong section was cited, and asked Mr.
Leslie if he would be willing to clear the property and get with City staff to
clarify and resolve the problem.
mlncb3a,92
3
3/11/92
t:': ".. :::' : ".: ~.+ ~~ ~.~'.. ~\../~'. ":..:::'. ~:.!.: ~'i:::" ~: "7'..~'...', ~ ~~ ~~ ~;.::' " t' , t~ "., ", f: " ~ ': ...~ .' : _ ~...~.I, (. . ~' : ..: ,. . \ ... :... :':' ",-':.;-' f", .': .~ '... \ ~ ,: ~ ( .,' " ~ 1/ '. ~ \ ~ ..... ~.'" ...,,\...... .;.\ ..:' ~", 1" ., Ci .~ .\:/ . f ......... , ':.' t,'~ .,......-.; ,'~ '., 1. .' "', . ~ ~ ~
r."'~ It was stated overgrowth is a violation, and could become a health hazard due
to vermin. Keeping easements and rights of way clear are the responsibility of the
abutting property owner.
Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 17-92 regarding violation of Section
95.04(b) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1446 South Hillcrest
Avenue aka Brookhill Unit 8 Sub., block J, lot 17, the Municipal Code Enforcement
Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the
11th day of March, 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 Rick Rosa. Code
Enforcement Inspector and Malcolm Leslie, and viewing the evidence, exhibits
submitted: City exhibit A - photographs of the property, and Defendant exhibit A,
photographs of the defendant's and neighboring properties, it is evident that the
violation as cited does not exist.
The Conclusions of law are: Malcolm Leslie is not in violation of Section
95.04(b).
", ~....# ..
It is the Order of this Board that Case No. 17-92 shall be dismissed with the
condition that Mr. Leslie approach City staff to work out a mutual agreement. 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. Swanberg stated it is obvious by the photograp~s that other property
owners are also in violation and should be cited.
Thomas Floyd
603 Hart Street
{Building Code}
William Phillips, Housing Inspector, stated he first inspected the property
August 6, 1991, sent notice of the violation by certified mail on August 15, and the
signed receipt was returned. He met with Mr. Floyd on September 5 and tile front
porch had been repaired. He informed Mr. Floyd that a building permit was needed
and gave him until September 15 to acquire said permit. The permit was never
pulled, and on February 8, 1992 the property was reinspected. This visit was
initiated by a call from the Police Department based on a report of a vlolent crime
having taken place at said property. He reinspected the property March 10,
accompanied by police officers, and the condition was worse. There are broken
windows, rotted floors, termite damage, and the electrical panel is broken. City
submitted exhibit A - a copy of a police incident report, and composite exhibit B -
eleven photographs showing the dilapidated condition of the property.
Case No. 18-92
mlncb3a,92
4
3/11/92
f"'.,
r
I
,
4,,,::.<
<~
Mr. Floyd stated he removed old boards from the floor to repair it, at which
time he was told he needed a permit and a licensed contractor. He had to get the
Police to remove people who were living in the building without his permission. He
had the electric and water turned off. Mr. Floyd stated he tried to get permit, but
he was told he needs a blueprint from a contractor, which would cost him $1,000.
He can do the work himself except electrical; he doesn't have the money to hire
someone else to do it. In response to a question, Mr. Floyd stated he is not a
licensed contractor: he holds an occupational license for stucco work.
Discussion ensued regarding time needed to complete the work, and the need to
keep the building secured. In response to a question, it was stated a licensed
contractor is needed based on the property being rental. If the owner is going to
live in it, he would be allowed a homeowner's permit. Discussion further ensued
regarding securing the building, and the breakHin problem. It was stated a boarded
up entrance can be easily torn off.
In response to questions, Mr. Floyd stated if he did the work it would cost
$5-6,000. He stated the lowest contractor cost just to pull the permit was $500.
The damage hasn't been assessed by a contractor, but a rough estimate given was
$17,000. It would take at least 30 days to get somebody to start work, and six
months to finish.
Again, a question was raised regarding the need for the owner to live there
after completion of repairs, if a homeowner's permit is pulled. It was stated it
would be a criminal penalty to offer the property for rent or sale within a twelve
month period following completion.
Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 18-92 regarding violation of Section
138.02 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 603 Hart Street aka Jones
Sub. of Nicholson, block 4, lot 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard
testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th day of
March, 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 William Phillips, Housing
Inspector and Thomas Floyd, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City
exhibit A - a copy of a Police incident report, and exhibit B - photographs of the
property, it is evident that the building is dilapidated and in need of repair.
The Conclusions of Law are: Thomas Floyd is in violation of Section 138.02.
It is the Order of this Board that Thomas Floyd shall comply with Section
138.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 1) securing the building within 7
days (3/18/92) and 2) completing the repairs by June 15, 1992. If Thomas Floyd does
not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of
$25.00 per day each for Parts 1 and 2 of this order for each day the violation
continues to exist past the compliance due dates. If Thomas Floyd does not comply
within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be
recorded in the Public Records of Pine1las 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
mtncbJa.92
5
3/11/92
,~..:::/ '":' ~+ : J: ..!. ~ ':1 :.:~,: (\..~ ~';!r.~:;r ",,< ~:~. ~:': ~ : ' :', ''''~ I ".~' I.. .: ;. ~;:,~:";! ,~;',,;~ +~; ..' ~"';, ~. ~. , +'~; I , : ""'. .'.: .'.... "::'.;:: \. ' ' .... . . 'f;:" ~: ?.. ~. :'.~~ : / >r:.,~~ :;':'( : f . ~~. :~~;. ~.:~~ t>..~ :'~';.'" I ':: .'~. ,.":. -:- \ : '~', I '..' :
"".U,..,
subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the
findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchaser's, successors
in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon
complying, Thomas Floyd shall notify William Phillips, the City Official who shdll
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.
Case tlo. 19-92
Aztec Insurance Company
905 & 907 Hart Street
(Building Code)
It was stated proof of service of the Notice of Hearing has not been obtained.
Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 19-92 until proper service of the notice
;s obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
t'. ';
t~~\ . '
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Ernest Rivers
2723 Haverhill Ct./Bldg. 25A
Affidavit of Compliance
Ms. Riley luoved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 6-92. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 6-92
OTHER BOARD ACTION ~ None
MINUTES- Meeting of February 26, 1992
Ms. Riley moved to accept the minutes of the meeting of February 26, 1992 as
submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m.
(}(~
Chairman
Attest:
() '-..
~~>\.t~ 2- .
See r~rn r y
/~j I,
... 06~L~
--
,
~.
mlncb3a..92
6
3/11/92