Loading...
05/27/1992 (2) CEB . " MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE, fJ5 /~ 1/Q2, , .. c2 7-c29! . t '-..I .1 -- MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of May 27, 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. 33-92 Howard Jimmie 609 Seminole Street (Building Codel Comply by August 1, 1992 Case No. 34-92 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Continued to June 10, 1992 Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic J & M Corp 1239 S Lincoln Avenue (Building Code) Comply wlthin 45 days (7/12/92) ( "+,",,~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 15-92. 15. S. Lincoln Associates 1261 Cleveland Street Discussion re fine ~.. Authorized reduction of fine to $5,000 contingent on violator's ability to deed property back Case No. 25-92 Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. d/b/a Old Bailey's 401 S. Ft. Harrison Ave. Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit OTHER BOARD ACTION Discussion: Non-conforming Sign Amortization Continued to 6/10/92 ADJOURN 4:30 p.m. cba5b.92 1 5/27/92 \.......- ! '~"'-''I' '-" MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD May 27,1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley William A. Zinzow 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 Kathryn 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 Pine lias County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution of the ordor 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. 33-92 Howard Jimmie 609 Seminole Street (Building Code) Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supe'lvisor, stated he saw a truck pouring concrete at 609 Seminole Street. He asked Mr. Jimmie if a permit had been issued, and Mr. Jimmie told him he wasn't aware of the permit requirement for a footing. He also noted a block wall, erected in 1988 without a permit with a variance approved in 1989, had increased in size; and there was a new slab with plumbing. The variance approved was for a 7 foot high wall extending 18.5 feet on the north side of. the building. The wall is now 10 feet high and approximately 28 feet long. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property, and exhibit B, a copy of a survey. mincb5b.92 1 5/27/92 . . I.' ,~ .. I ~"" . , , '. ' .' .' . r . In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the C1riginal 7 ft. x 18.5 ft. wall section is permitted. Referring to photos #2,3 & 4 of exhibit A, he stated sometime between 1989 and r" " now, the once metal building became a block building without the required permitting. City submitted exhibit C, a copy of Dt!velopment Coda Adjustment Board minutes dated August 10, 1989. approving the variance to wall height. In response to a question Jim Kane. an employee of Mr. Jimmie for tho past two years, stated the metal walls of the building have been covered by concreto; and footors and supports were used. The wall was put up as a bullet proof barrier due to problems experionced by being located along the Pinellas Trail. The wall was extended to prevent vandalism. Mr. Kane stated they are trying to get out of the junk business and into dry storage; and they are currently requesting the City vacate Spruce Street to supply the additional parking spaces needed for the change in use. In response to questions, Mr. Kane stated they thought the wall was covered under the previous variance. He stated a structural engineer was hired for the design of the wall; but Mr. Jimmie did the construction, not a contractor. They also had architectural drawings. He stated once the vacation is approved. they will get rid of the junk vehicles. In closing, Tom Chaplinsky submitted City exhibit D, another photograph of the property showing the other side of the wall. He stated additional work was done since acquiring the variance. As the wall is the same height as the building and new plumbing has been installed, he contends their intent in placing the footer. etc. was for future building. He stated Mr. Jimmie knows the procedure; the problems originally started in 1988. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinsky stated a permit can not be obtained for the proposed storage facility unless the vacation request is approved. If denied, other variances will still be required, including one for extended dimensions of the wall, and a side yard setback. In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated there is no imminent urgency or hazard. Discussion ensued regarding how long it takes to process vacation and variance applications. In response to a question. Mr. Chaplin sky stated he felt 60 days would be sufficient time for compliance. In closing Mr. Kane stated they applied for a variance and are waiting for approval of the vacation request. He stated the wall has aesthetic value from the trail side. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 33-92 regarding violation of Section 138.21 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 609 Seminole Street alkla J.H. Rouse's Sub.. Block 3, Lots 19, 20 & 21. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 27th day of May, 1992, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Low. and Order. The Findings of Foct are: after hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Suporvisor, and Jim Kano. an employee of Howard Jimmie, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submittod: City oxhibits A-D. including photographs of the property, it is evident that a concrote footor was pourod. miscellaneous concrete walls and a slab with plumbing were erected without porrnits. ........ mlncb5b.92 2 5/27/92 . _' ~ ,. .~ .~. , .' ~. r .... .... . '.~'. II. . ~ . t . . . ., ~'. > . It. .' . The Conclusions of Law are: Howard Jimmie is in violation of Section 138.21. It is the Order of this Board that Howard Jimmie shall comply with Section' 38.21 of the Code of the City of Clearwater no Jater than August', 1992. If Howard Jimmie does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for 80ch day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Howard Jimmie does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pine lias County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 1 62, 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, Howard Jimmie shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, 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 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. 34-92 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Mrs. Riley moved to continue Case No. 34-92 to the meeting of June 10, 1992. ,The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic J & M Corporation 1239 South Lincoln Avenue (Building Code) In response to a question, Jeffrey Walsh, owner, agreed the violation exists. Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor, stated he visited the site and discussed the situation with Mr. Walsh. The exact property line is not known, but a canopy extends over where a sidewalk would be. The work was basically completed when the complaint was received; and the canopy is well constructed. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the property taken May 27, 1992. Defendant submitted exhibit A, four photographs of the property depicting the canopy. Mr. Walsh stated his business is located on the corner of Pine lias Street and Lincoln Avenue. The City paved the street and it is higher than his property I causing water to run through one of his garages. The canopy helps to direct the water to the street. Mr. Walsh requested guidance from City personnel as to his alternatives. " minc:b5b.92 3 5/27/92 . . . ' , . .. " ~ ' :. } . . .' ' " . ", ~ .., . " .'~. ~,.,-- . ,,~. Concern was expressed regarding the City's liability regarding the canopy if it is in the right.of-way. Tom Chapfinsky, in closing, stated the slope of the property is a problem. A variance would be needed prior to a permit being issued. In addition, the structure does not meet code regulations regarding canopies. Mr. Chapfinsky stated Mr. Walsh needs to disassemble the canopy or modify it for possible permitting. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 36-92 regarding violation of Section 138.21 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1239 South Lincoln Avenue a/k/a Oakwood Heights Sub., Lots 39 & 40, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 27th day of May, 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 Inspector Supervisor, and Jeffrey Walsh, viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A and Defendant composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that a canopy, which appears to extend into the street right-of-way, was erected without the required permit. The Conclusions of Law are: Auto Clinic J & M Corp. is in violation of Section 138.21. It is the Order of this Board that Auto Clinic J & M Corp. shall comply with Section 138.21 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 45 days (7/12/92). If Auto Clinic J & M Corp. does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 par day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Auto Clinic J & M Corp. does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pine lias 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, Auto Clinic J & M Corp. shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, 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 in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no Jater 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. mlncb5b.92 4 5/27/92 I............. Ie, t 'I~,,_. ( '-.... ..' UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 15-92 1 5 South Lincoln Associates 1261 Cleveland Street Discussion fa fine Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, stated 15 South Lincoln has offered $5,000 to pay off lien. The money is in escrow; however, payment is contingent upon 15 South Lincoln being able to deed the property back to the mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure proceedings. The corporation has filed bankruptcy, and the City's lien Is subordinate to a $3 million mortgage. They do not own any other property in Pinellas County. Mrs. Riley moved to rehear the case regarding the accrued fine and to reduce the fine to $5,000 in accordance with the conditions that 15 South Lincoln Associates deed back the 'property to the mortgagee thereby releasing the $5,000 held in escrow, and the City's acceptance of this offer. A question was raised whether the City's costs would be inch.ldod in the reduced amount. It we" stated only actual dollars spent, not staff time, can be Included in costs incurred by the City. It was stated the intent is for compliance, not punishment. Upon the vote being taken, motion carr/eq unanimously. Case No. 25~92 Park Terrace Clearwater Inc. dlbla Old Bailey's 401 South Fort Harrison Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 25-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Discussion: Non-Conforming Sign Amortization This item was continued to the meeting of June 10, 1992. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ~~ b'0ftF Attest: (IIA~~ /l-a.- ~~tary mlncb5b.92 5 5/27/92