Loading...
06/10/1992 (2) fl'.'....~...;~~,..... .:.t.....:. ......:.~.'. ~'./.:':"..;~"l'/::'.~, :'. ...:........ '. ....~ +..:l:"::".';~ ::':~.'. . "::;,.."". .... .,.~,~.~..:: I~:'~'-:".":;: :,.::,~~ ...\~"....t,:~.... I....:..,~ '.' -~~ ....:. .:'. " ,t: CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE o~//{);9~ dJ '7 - 305 ""~. " ' ," MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD F~ Meeting of June 10, 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. 34-92 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Complied prior Case No. 37-92 Eugene B. & Judith A. Thomas 1017 Grantwood Avenue (Land Development Code-Repeat) Complied prior Case No. 38-92 Ronald A. Hadley City ROW locations t (Land Development Code) ',-~ Case No. 39-92 Adriano Battaglini 500 N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Land Development Code) Case No. 40-92 Joseph Caraco/Anthony Linares 423 poinsettia Avenue (Land Development Code) Case No. 41-92 Arthur and Irene Passias 1378 Milton Street (Building Code) Case No. 42-92 Pelican Car Wash & Quick Lube 2620 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Complied prior Withdrawn Withdrawn Corrected prior; if repeats violation, may be fined $50/day for each day of the repeat violation Comply within 90 days (9/8/92) Corrected prior; if ropeats violation, may be fined $ SO/day for each day of the repeat violation Comply within 60 days (8/9/92) Withdrflwn CBA6a.92 6/10/92 1 , ", , . " '.:.,'. ' ,.......,..... , " I . : , '( ,.-..... Case No. 26-92 Case No. 4-92 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Leslie & Margaret Duttry 1 866 Drew Street (Sign Code) Affidav.t of Non-Compliance David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine 405 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance OTHER BOARD ACTION Discussion: Non-Conforming Sign Amortization MINUTES - Meetings of May 13 and 27. 1992 ADJOURN ("" ',-- \.......e CBA6a.92 2 Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing the fine Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing the fine Discussed Accepted as submitted 5:25 p.m. " 6/10/92 r" (""',\ '''~JI'/ MUNICIPAL CODE ENfORCEMENT BOARD , June 10,1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman William A. Zinzow Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: Louise C. Riley (unexcused) D. Wayne Wyatt (excused) 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 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. 34-92 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Complied prior Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 34-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 37-92 Eugene B. & Judith A. Thomas 1017 Grantwood Avenue (Land Development Code) Complied prior mlncb6D.92 1 6/10/92 ~~. . '-. Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 37-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 38-92 Ronald A. Hadley City ROW locations (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated when signs are posted in street rights~of-way, City personnel remove them. This case was brought to the Board because there were many same signs posted. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the Notice of Hearing was served this morning on Pritchard Clement who was doing work on Mr. Hadley's house, Notice of a recurring violation was sent to Mr. Hadley May 6th by certified and regular mail, neither of which were returned. The Inspector stated the signs were placed on utility poles in various rights-of-way. She noted the phone number, contacted General Telephone Company and obtained the name and address to whom the number is designated. 1 his violation has been ongoing for awhile; notice was issued April 21 st with compliance due April 29th. On May 1 st, two more signs were noticed, and a notice of recurring violation was issued. The Inspector stated she removed 39 of the signs from poles. In response to a question, the Inspector stated she spoke to Mr. Hadley who denied he posted the signs. She stated she saw yellow plastic board, of which the signs arB made, in Mr. Hadley's garage this morning when she was serving the notice of hearing. When she phoned the number on the signl she got an answering machine. The Inspector stated the signs were consistently placed in the same areas, and she has not seen any the past few days. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the signs posted in rights-of-way. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 38M92 regarding violation of Section 134.009(2) of the Clearwater City Code on various City right-of.way locations, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of June, 1992, and based on tho evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The Findinds of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, photographs of various rights-of-way locations, it is evident that signs, printed with "rent" or "condo" and all with identical phone numbers, were erected at many locations; that some 39 violations have been found after notification of the violation was given to the violator. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Ronald Hadley was in violation of Section 134.009(2). Jt is the Order of this Board that Ronald Hadley shall comply with Section 134.009(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Ronald Hadley repaats the violation, tho Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 por day for each day the violation exists after Ronald Hadley is mlncb611.92 2 6/10/92 ( . \..... . l '.....c 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. 39-92 Adriano Battaglini 500 N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Land Development Code) John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager. stotod this proporty, located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, is developed as an auto repair business. The rear of the property is zoned High Density Residential (RM-28), and the property facing Fort Harrison is General Commercial. Conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board in granting a conditional use which have not been met are 1) the site design plan must be approved by the Planning and Development Director and 2) the parking lot rnust be paved or a variance granted. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated notice was sent by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. On January 14, 1992, Mr. Battaglini went before the Planning and Zoning Board for a conditional use for non-commercial parking on a residential lot and vehicle service. City submitted exhibit A, a copy of the Planning and Zoning Board Action Agenda showing the conditions imposed. The three months allowed for compliance expired April 14th. The Inspector stated she reinspected the property April 22nd and checked the Planning Department's records, and no design has been submitted. Notice of the violation was sent April 22nd with compliance due May 1 st. The violation still exists as of this morning. Joe Beno. resident at 500 North Osceola Avenue, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 15 years and owns two other properties adjacent to Mr. Battaglini. Others who have owned or occupied the property did not keep it up. Mr. Battaglini bought the property and has greatly improved its condition. He stated the property has always been residential and commercial. He felt Mr. Battaglini deserved support for his efforts to improve it. Richard Babineau, 501 North Fort Harrison Avenue. stated his canvas and crafts business is located across from Mr. Battaglini. Prior to Mr. Battaglini. the building windows and doors were broken, and incorrigible types would hang out there. Mr. Battaglini put in landscaping, painted and fenced the property. Without the small businesses, the older buildings would be empty. Leon Whitehurst. residing at 510 North Fort Harrison Avenue, stated the araa used to be a haven for drug users and prostitutes. Mr. Battaglini parks up to six cars behind his business, and keeps the lot clean. The only complaints are those from the highrise behind the property. If Mr. Battaglini loses his property to the bank, the problems will come back. He requested Mr. Battaglini be given an opportunity to improve his finances while complying. mlncb611.92 3 6/10/92 f :~..... \ \...,' David West, resident at 500 North Osceola Avenue, in response to a question, stated cars are being stored on the lot regularly. He doesn't object to the business but the condition of the lot; there is rubble around the fence, and it is not mowed. Florence Driggs, resident at 500 North Osceola Avenue, stated Mr. Battaglini has not done what he agreed to do three years ago to avoid an eyesore. He needs to take care of the landscaping. Mr. Beno stated the vehicles are kept on the lot when people don't pay their bill; they are not used for parts. In response to questions, it was stated the current issue is the parking lot, not the landscaping. Code requires the lot to be paved or a variance approved. Mr. Battiglini stated he spoke to City personnel and was told the lot was approved a year ago. He did not hear anything more from the City until receiving the affidavit of violation. He worked with Steve Doherty to draw up a parking lot plan, and was told it would be submitted to the Board. Upon notification of the violation, Mr. Battiglini inquired regarding a variance application and was told it costs $455. When he got the money and went to apply, he was told the time he was allowed to apply by the Board had expired. In response to questions, Mr. Battaglini stated he needs to store the vehicles a few days until tIe can work on them. A couple cars have been there 1-1/2 months. He stated he acquired an estimate of $7,000 to pave the lot. He didn't apply for the variance previously because he was waiting for a response from City personnel. Discussion ensued regarding the expiration of the three month time limit to acquire the variance. In response to a question. it was stated Mr. Battaglini would again be allowed to apply for the variance. Concern was expressed regarding runoff from the paved lot and its effect on the pollution problem. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of time needed to process a variance request, and it was stated the application needs to be filed 24 days prior to the meeting. After the Board's decision, there ;s a fourteen day appeal period. In response to a question, it was stated the only hardship involved might be to the neighbors. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 39-92 regarding violation of Section 137.011 (el of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 500 North Ft. Harrison Avenue a/k/a 0 Harrington's Sub., Lots 1 & 2, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of June. 1992, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters thb following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager. Vicki Niemiller. Code Enforcement Inspector, Joe Beno, Richard Babineau, Leon Whitehurst, David Webb, Florence Driggs, and Adriano Battaglini, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A. a copy of the January 14, 1992 Action Agenda of the Planning mlncb6a.92 4 6/10/92 ~- \ '-.' and Zoning Board, it is evident that the parking lot at the rear of the proporty has not been paved. and no variance has been applied for in lieu of paving, within the three month time period as stipulated in Item 1110 of the Planning and Zoning Board's approval of conditional use requests for said property. The Conclusions of Law are: Adriano Battaglini is in violation of Section 137.011 (e). It is the Order of this Board that Adriano Battaglini shall comply with Section 137.011 (a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 90 days (9/8/92). If Adriano Battaglini does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compll~nce due date. If Adriano Battaglini 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 raol property, the recording of a ccrtlfied 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. Adriano Battaglini 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 in writing and flied 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. 40-92 Joseph Caraco/Anthony Linares 423 Poinsettia Avenue (Land Development Code) John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the property is developed as a restaurant. In addition to the portable sign violation, a banner was also found being displayed upon inspection this morning. Vicki Niemifler. Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the business is Sunset Grille; she sent notice of the violation to the property owners with a copy to the business owner. ThR portable sign has been removed; as of this morning, an illegal banner is displayed. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the sign belongs to the business, but the owner of the property is ultimately responsible. Maria locolano, one of the property owners, stated the sign belongs to the business, and questioned what she can do. In response to a question, she agreed the violation did exist. Discussion ensued regarding responsibility for the violation, and it was stated the tenant is responsible to the property owner, whereas, the property owner is responsible to the City. mincb6I1.92 5 6110/92 Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 40-92 regarding violation of Sections 134.017(a)(1) and 134.013(a) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 423 Poinsettia Avenue a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub., Block B, Lots 5 & 6, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of June, 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 John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, and Maria locolano, an owner of the property, and viewing the evidence ~ an affidavit. it is evident that a portable sign was used at Sunset Grille, 423 Poinsettia Avenue, Clearwater Beach, and was placed without a permit. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Joseph Caraco and Anthony Linares were in violation of Sections 134.017(n)(1) and 134.013(a). It is the Order of this Board that Joseph Caraco/Anthony Linares shall comply with Sections 134.017(a)(1) and 134.013(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Joseph Caraco and Anthony Linares repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Joseph Caraco and Anthony Linares are 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. 41-92 Arthur and Irene Passias 1378 Miltol I Street (Building Code) In response to a question, Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, stated a permit for renovations was issued in August, 1988. Work was not completed at that time, and other permits were issued in February, 1991 and February, 1992. As of April 1st, only the slab has been inspected. He stated Mr. Passias has done a considerable amount of construction since November, 1991. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. Several complaints have been received, and it is the City's position that work is not progressing quickly enough. m{ncb6D.92 6 6/10/92 In response to questions, the Inspector stated it is a single family residence. It is still in an unsafe condition; the back of the property is open and there is debris in the form of construction materials all around. Someone could get hurt. Securing the building would allow time for completion of repairs. Mr. Passias has made great strides in the renovations since he received the notice of violation. Mr. Passias st~ted the electrical and plumbing contractors are going there and he is waiting fi:}~ for the air conditioning contractor. After buying the property, a lot of personal problems occurred keeping him from renovations. He thought his permit was good for six months, and later found it was only good for two. He expects to be done in a couple months. Vern Packer stated the property needs to be secured, and the property cleared of debris for safety concerns and aesthetics. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 41 ~92 regarding violation of Section 138.34, Unsafe Buildings of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1378 Milton Street alkla Replat of Ardmore Place, Lot 20, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of June, 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 Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, and Arthur passias, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that a single family dwelling at 1378 Milton Street is in a state of disrepair or going through renovations resulting in an unsafe condition. The Conclusions of Law are: Arthur and Irene Passias are in violation of Section 138.34, Unsafe Buildings. It is the Order of this Board that Arthur and Irene Passias shall comply with Section 138.34 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by within 60 days (8/9/92). If Arthur and Irene Passias do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Arthur and Irene Passias do 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 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, Arthur and Irene Passias shall notify Vern Packer, 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 ue 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. mincb6Il.92 7 6/10/92 f":\ f ...,. '. Case No. 42-92 Pelican Car Wash & Quick Lube 2620 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Complied prior Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 42-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 26-92 Leslie & Margaret Duttry 1866 Drew Street (Sign Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the Order imposing the tine in Case No. 26-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 4-92 David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine 405 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Mr. Zinzow moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the Order imposing the fine in Case No. 4-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Discussion: Non-Conforminq SiQn Amortization In 1985, a sign code was adopted that caused many signs throughout the City to be non-conforming. At that time, an amortization period of seven years was allowed for those non-conforming signs to be made conforming to City code. The amortization period expires October 13, 1992, and non-conforming signs will be in violation of City code as of that date. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated 2,000 notices were sent out as a result of a signs inventory taken in Clearwater. An enforcement effort will be initiated to ensure the non-conforming signs are brought into compliance. If staft ;s increased, this will substantially impact the caseload of the Board. The Board was requested to consider how they would want to handle the extra caseload. It was stated a second enforcement board or extra meetings were being considered. It was also suggested the Board may want to start the regular meetings earlier to handle the increased caseload. mlncb6a.92 8 6/10/92 r~ t/:;. ~ '- OTHER BOARD ACTION MINUTES - Meetings of May 13 and 27, 1992 Mr. Swanberg moved to accept the minutes of the meetings of May 13 and 27, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Attest: mlncb6D.92 ~.' ~~~c._ . dtt6;Jr[ yf)~d:L , CHAIRNAN . . . I " 9 6/10/92