04/08/1992 (2)F
•i
r?
1.
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
omm 4
e7,
",5'
f? MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Meeting of April 8, 1992, 3:00 p.m.
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. 21-92 H. Lube Sys. Inc.
(H. Lubricating Systems Inc.)
23034 North U.S. 19
(Land Development Code)
Case No. 22-92 Edward & Doris Vincent
1355 Drew Street
(Public Nuisance Code)
Agenda Action
Complied prior; if repeats
violation, may be fined
$100/day for each day of the
repeat violation
Comply within 10 days
(4/18/92)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
,,rr Case No. 19-92
Case No. 2-91
Aztec Insurance Company
905 & 907 Hart Street
Affidavit of Non-Compliance (part 1)
Fifteen S. Lincoln Associates
1261 Cleveland Street
Address Board re Accrued Fine
Accepted Affidavit (part 1)
No action taken regarding
Accrued Fine
OTHER BOARD ACTION
MINUTES - Meeting of March 25, 1992
ADJOURN
None
Accepted as submitted
5:18 p.m.
CBA4a.92
1
Apri 1 8, 1992
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
April 8, 1992
Members present:
William Murray, Chairman
William A. Zinzow
D. Wayne Wyatt
Louise C. Riley
Stephen D. Swanberg
Stephen Gerlach
Absent:
Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board
Mary K. Diana, 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
Case No. 21-92 H. Lube Sys. Inc.
(H. Lubrication Systems Inc.)
23034 North U.S. 19
(Land Development Code)
Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, amended the Affidavit of Violation to note
the name of the violator, without abbreviation, to be H. Lubricating Systems Inc.
She stated the violation no longer exists. She stated on March 2, 1992 she
noticed two banners, classified as wind devices, hung in the bays of Jiffy Lube
at 23034 U.S. 19 North, and photographed the property March 4th. This is a
recurring violation; notice was issued on October 1, 1991 for a banner and
pennants. Notice of the violation was sent by certified mail, and the signed
receipt was returned. City submitted exhibit A, the photograph taken March 4,
1992.
mincb4a.92 1 April 8, 1992
In response to questions, the Inspector stated the banners are inside the
building, but can be plainly seen from the road. It was stated if the banners
are prominently visible from off the premises, even if located inside the
building, they are in violation.
In response to a question, it was stated the fine can be imposed only after
the violator is notified of the repeat violation.
In response to questions, the Inspector stated she noticed the violation
in passing. When the doors are closed, it might be considered a window sign.
A concern was expressed there are signs that can be seen from the road at
many businesses. It was stated many businesses are notified of the violation and
comply the same day, and there is no opportunity to impose a fine.
In response to questions, it was stated the process for fining repeat
violators is governed by Florida Statutes which requires notification to the
repeat violator before a fine can be imposed.
Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 21-92 regarding violation of
Section 134.009(5) of the Clearwater City Cade on property located at 23034 U.S.
19 !North a/k/a Loehmann's Plaza, lot 2, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has
heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day
of April, 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 Geri Doherty, Code
Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - a
photograph of the property, it is evident that wind devices were displayed at
23034 N. U.S. 19 on October 1, 1991, that this condition was corrected and
recurred March 4, 1992 at the same address. It is further evident that the
condition was corrected prior to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: H. Lubricating Systems Inc. was in violation
of Section 134.009(5).
It is the Order of this Board that H. Lubricating Systems Inc. shall comply
with Section 134.009(5) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If H. Lubricating
Systems Inc. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of
$100.00 per day for each day the violation exists after H. Lubricating Systems
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.
mincb4a.92 2 April 8, 1992
Case No 22-92 Edward & Doris Vincent
1355 Drew Street
(public Nuisance Code)
Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, stated a complaint was received March 5th
regarding abandoned vehicles. He inspected the property on March 5, posted four
vehicles that did not have current tags, giving until March 18 to comply with
City Code. As of today, two of the vehicles posted - a blue Ford wagon and a
blue Oldsmobile wagon - are still on the property.
In response to questions, the Inspector stated property use is an apartment
complex. City submitted exhibits A and B - photographs of the vehicles on the
property. He stated the vehicles were moved to a paved area on the property, but
they are still uncovered.
Edward Vincent stated he didn't realize it was a violation to have
unlicensed cars on your property. He stated he had a car lot on which he filed
bankruptcy, lie had to move the vehicles and had no place else to put them. He
has applied for titles to these cars in his own name in order to sell them.
In response to questions, Mr. Vincent stated his business was Ace Auto
Sales, Inc. on Seminole Boulevard. He can not sell the cars under the dealer
permit as the business license and dealer permit expired. The bankruptcy was
effective in July, 1990, and the lot closed in February, 1992. He expects to
have titles in a couple of weeks. The two other vehicles are in his garage, but
he does not have a place for two more without being in violation.
t Mr. Vincent stated he needs 20 days to comply. If he can't sell the
vehicles by then, he will junk them.
Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 22-92 regarding violation of
Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1355 Drew Street
a/k/a Fairview Addition, block A, lots 3-5, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th
day of April, 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
Inspector, and Edward Vincent, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City
exhibit A & B - photographs of the vehicles, it is evident that there are cars
without current tags being parked at 1355 Drew Street.
The Conclusions of Law are: Edward and Doris Vincent are in violation of
Section 95.04.
It is the Order of this Board that Edward and Doris Vincent shall comply
with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days
(4/18/92). 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 condition, without further notice to Edward and Doris Vincent. 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 $200.00
mincb4a.92 3 April 8, 1992
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 $200.00 administrative
cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon
complying, Edward and Doris Vincent shall notify Geri Doherty, the City Official
who shall inspect the property and notify the guard of compliance. Should a
dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing
before the Board. The motion was duly seconded.
In response to questions, it was stated the personal property owner is
notified in hopes that they will remove the vehicle.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried.
In response to a question, Mr. Vincent was informed he would be in
compliance if the vehicles are parked under the carport.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company
905 & 907 Hart Street
Affidavit of Non-Compliance (part 1)
Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-compliance (part 1) in Case
No. 19-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 2-91 Fifteen S. Lincoln Associates
1261 Cleveland Street
Address Board re Accrued Fine
Bruce Harper, Attorney representing Fifteen South Lincoln Associates, owner
of the property, stated the owner was not directly notified of the violation or
the fine. They found out about the lien by way of a title search performed last
week. The violation was not intentionally ignored. The property cited is an
outparcel of property mortgaged in excess of $3 million. Mr. Harper stated his
client is losing the property and negotiating with the mortgage holder to avoid
foreclosure proceedings. If the owners had known about the problem, it vrould not
have been ignored.
In response to questions, Mr. Harper stated the notices sent by the City
were received by the leasing agents. The prior property manager had his office
at the 503 Cleveland Street address. Mr. Eggers' firm, Centerpoint Realty,
became the leasing agent in 1990.
Mr. Harper read into record and submitted into evidence as Defendant's
exhibit A, a copy of a sworn statement of Mr. Ronald Beeman, Managing General
Partner of 15 South Lincoln Associates. Said statement reiterated the fact that
15 South Lincoln Associates had no knowledge of any actions against it by the
Board.
mincb4a.92 4 April 8, 1992
Mr. Harper stated the tenant, who caused the violation, was ordered to pay
only $25 per day as opposed to the $250 per day against the owner. He stated
that, after notification in December, 1991, Mr. Gibson, an employee of
Centerpoint Realty, went to a City office to inquire about the lien and was led
to believe everything was alright. When Centerpoint Realty became the leasing
agent, the 503 Cleveland address was used by maintenance personnel.
In response to a question, the Inspector stated the owners mailing
address received from Pinellas County tax records was 15 S. Lincoln Associates.
The notice she sent to that address was returned marked "no such address". She
stated she spoke to Mr. Gibson on or about September 13, 1990; and he had signed
for certified mail sent to 503 Cleveland Street.
Discussion ensued regarding notices and orders sent, and who actually
signed for them. It was stated a letter dated April 15, 1991, which reiterated
the Board's order of January, including the fine, was signed for by Mr. Gibson.
In response-to a question, the Inspector stated she did not have any more contact
after said letter.
David Eggers, owner of Centerpoint Realty, stated he first knew of the
problem in December, 1991. Notices sent by the City were not intentionally
ignored. He stated they approached the tenant and tried to work with them to
obtain compliance. He stated in April, 1991, they had problems collecting the
rent, and the tenant moved out.
In response to questions, Mr. Gibson stated he approached City staff after
receiving the December, 1991 letter, and was assured the problem was taken care
of. He stated after he received the notice of hearing in January, 1990, he went
to Attorney Greer's office with Mr. Mavrogiannis and was told they were taking
care of the problem. Mr. Gibson stated he lost the letter sent by the Inspector
in April, 1991.
The Attorney for the Board reminded them the Rules and Regulations of the
Board does not allow them to hear a petition for reconsideration of a fine
unless requested within 30 days after the violation has been brought into
compliance. He reviewed additional regulations regarding the process.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to continue with the case and
rule on the fine. It was stated this case was brought forth without prior notice
because foreclosure action is pending. It was suggested the problem should be
handled between the owner and the leasing agent.
In response to questions, Mr. Eggers stated the tenant vacated the building
in July, 1991. He asked that the building be painted in order to remarket the
space. The building was painted in September 1991. He stated he personally
signed for the letter regarding compliance. Mr. Eggers stated his company was
hired as Property Asset Manager in September, 1990.
Discussion ensued regarding Board procedures. In response to a question,
it was stated 30 days notice must be given to the Board members regarding intent
to waive the rules.
-nincb4a.92 5 April 8, 1992
In response to a question, Mr. Harper stated his client was not aware of
the lien, but is willing to pay one half of what the lien would be if accruing
at $25 per day as for the tenant, or $3,500. He stated if the property is
foreclosed, the lien will be voided entirely.
Mr. Gerlach left the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Discussion ensued regarding bringing this request forth at the next
meeting.
Mr. Swanberg moved to change the 30 day requirement to rehear Case No. 2-91
regarding the accrued fine. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being
taken, Members Swanberg, Wyatt and Murray voted "aye." Members Zinzow and Rile
voted "nay." Motion failed. {Four votes are required to change Board procedure
In response to a question, it was suggested Mr. Harper write a formal
request to address the Board.
OTHER BOARD ACTION - None.
MINUTES
Member Riley moved to accept the minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1992
as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
Attest:
PILA?(
5ecr ary
Chairman
,f
k
5
?- mincb4a.92
6 Apri 1 S, 1992