Loading...
04/22/1992 (2) .' CEB I MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 'DATE {)'f/~a/9ft I cS27 -'Ij.~\ 02~/ r""\ MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of April 22f 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. 25-92 Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. 401 S. Fort Harrison Ave. (Land Development Code) Comply within 3 weeks (5/13/92) , UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted affidavitj Issued imposing fine CBa4b,92 4/22/92 ' ~)OTHER BOARD ACTION MINUTES - Meeting of April 8f 1992 None Approved ADJOURN 3:50 p.m. .j '-' 1 r~\ (":; \1...-.,.. I "-...' MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Apri 1 22. 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Also present: Mi les 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 Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. 401 S. Fort Harrison Ave. (Land Development Code) Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated she first inspected the property March 6, 1992. There were illegal temporary banners displayed. She spoke to the manager and issued a notice of violation with a compliance due date of March 9th. Upon reinspection of the property March 9th, the banners were still there. She also noticed signs on the building for which no permits had been issued. She issued a notice of violation on March 11th with compliance due March 18th. On March 19th, she made an inspection and the signs were sti 11 there without permits. Notice was sent to the property owners and to Mr. Burns, the Registered Agent by certified mail and the signed receipts were returnad. The Inspector submitted City composite exhibit AI five photographs of the property taken the morning of the hearing. She stated Mr. Burns called and said he would look into the problem. The temporary banners were removed but the signs are still there without permits. Case No. 25-92 mincb4b.92 1 4/22/92 I....~ .. J ' " \ ~ , ~ ',,-. In response to a question, the Inspector stated all of the signs are in violation as of today. The last time permits were issued was in 1987 for the north and south sides of the building and a pole sign. There are currently five signs plus permanent signage in the windows, none of which is permitted. She told the manager permits were needed for the signs, and the banners had to be removed. The Inspector stated a 48 square foot sign would be permitted on each side of the building that fronts on a street, namely Ft. Harrison, Markley and Garden. In response to questions, she stated the Happy Hour sign is a permanent sign. The signs on the inside of the windows can be permitted, but they can not exceed 20% of the window area. In response to questions, the Inspector stated no signs for this address have been permitted since 1987. Whether a new sign or a face change, a permit is required. She stated a sign survey was conducted throughout the City in 1991 at which time photographs were taken of all signs on business. There are no photographs for this address. It was clarified that two of the four signs facing north and south are pre-existing and had a face change, and two are new; there is a fifth sign facing Ft. Harrison Avenue. None of the signs have permits. Doug Burns, Registered Agent for Park Terrace Clearwater Inc., stated the owners are in California. They have been absentee owners since they purchased the property. He stated they have not been able to acquire the permits because the property owner has to pull the permits. Mr. Burns is trying to get power of attorney from the owner. Mr. Lattimer, a hired consultant to the owners, stated when the property was purchased, one of the owners was local and he authorized the necessary permits. The local owner has since walked away from the business. He stated the first notice went to the old manager who mismanaged the restaurant and has since been replaced. The new manager got notice of the violation, went to the Annex to see the property records, and was not permitted to do so since she was not the owner. Mr. Burns ; s try; ng to get power of attorney to pu 11 permits. The banners were removed when the new manager received notice. In response to questions, it was stated a permit is issued for each sign. One of the signs will be non-conforming in October, 1992. Once the permits are applied for, information can be provided regarding what signs are allowed and what needs to be changed. In response to a question, Mr. Burns stated he will start the process of acquiring the necessary permits this week. mincb4b.92 2 4/22/92 :.:....'i,":....t.'t"":-,.":..,'.1",\..,.;/~ '... ,~,.....i~/:' ~.,' ".. u','l/+ ,~"'~ f.',.~...'I.":~~!...~t\ ..':...,~ ~ .'.~.". "~'~':..':,+,:,'''::i',,~.'''''1.'"f:.,.~:....'......~:,:.~: In response to a question, Mr. Burns and Mr. Lattimer agreed the violation exists, requesting time to correct the problem stating it is difficult \'Jith absentee owners. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 25-92 regarding violation of Section 134.017(a)(1) on property located at 401 South Fort Hardson Avenue a/k/a Court Square Sub., Lot 46, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, Mr. Burns and Mr. Lattimer, representing Park Terrace Clearwater Inc., and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - five photographs of the property taken April 22, 1992, it is evident that there exists non-conforming, illegal signage at 401 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. is in violation of Section 134.017(a)(1). ~..._~ . It is the Order of this Board that Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. shall comply with Section 134.017(a)(I) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within three weeks (5/13/92). If Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 per day per illegal sign for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. does not comply \'dthin 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 violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in. interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. shall notify Vicki Niemiller, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made ;n 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 wi11 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 Illation was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ,. mincb4b.92 3 4/22/92 , .,' ~ ' . . " , " , " . ( , " ' . ' . ' ',p ., : ' . :,' '"".,' " ('\ (""; .,< i>~l ' " UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance The Secretary to the Board reviewed the Order of the Board regarding the compliance time frame stating there are three compliance dates and one fine. She asked for clarification of the intent of the order. Member Cardinal, who presented the original order, moved that his intent was that the fine of $200/day was to be enacted independently for non-compliance with each part of the order and to accept the Affidavit of non-compliance for' part one of the order and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION - None. MINUTES , ' I Mrs. Riley moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 8, 1992 as published. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Attest: 6r;f1~(,~", {l)(~w;t/ CIlA IRHAN , - ,~1 s?~~~ mincb4b.92 4 4/22/92