Loading...
03/24/1993 (2) c27- Y~5 1. CEB' MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT SOARD DATE ()3/ ~ if /9:3 I ~l..,.,.. , MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of March 24. 1993, 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. 10-93 Case No. 13.93 Case No. 18-93 l' ,I . .:"". Case No. 19.93 Case No. 92-92 Case No. 95~92 Case No. 4-93 ...._ ,J CBA3b.93 Jaime Viera 1006-1017 Vine Avenue (Standard Housing Code) Continued from 2/24/93 Comply within 60 days (5/24/93) Frank C. Kunnen. Jr. 21 24 Sunnyclale Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 2/24/93 Dismissed Chevron USA Inc. 23988 North US 19 (Land Development Code) Complied prior; if repeats violation. may be fined $50/day for each day of the repeat violation Richard R. Dimmitt 25191 North US 19 (Land Development Code Complied prior; if repeats violation. may be fined $50/day for each day of the repeat violation UNFINISHED BUSINESS Yvonne M. Irle 1303~1/2 N. Ft. Harrison Ave. (Building Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing the fine Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd 605 Hart Street (Standard Housing Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing the fjne Barnell and Louise Evans 1313 N. Greenwood Avenue (Building Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing the fine 3/24/93 '.J~' :....~' . : I:..C'......I:~~..;.~.;~~,~;':.:.I.~.:..;..~':.:..'\.:\''..;.':'.1'1, ......,. :', '.'~\""'.',~:'.:'::.~i.:.., . .."'1',,',,,"'" '%'.~.'.:.', '.':', ....'....'..:: I., ,l' J' OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION 'r... ~ase No. 4-92 David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf marine 405 North Fort Harrison Avenue Staff request re foreclosure Continued for additional information MINUTES- Meetings of January 27, February 10 and February 24. 1 993 Approved minutes of January 27 February 24, 1993 as submitted; continued approval of minutes of February 10, 1993 ADJOURN 7:05 p.m. . of 11':....~ ~/ --.~\. ., ., ~,J CBA3b.93 3/24/93 2 ..,.., ~~ .. . " ~" ". (, , -..- , '~~r MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD March 24, 1993 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Absent: Thomasine Fontana-Smith (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Robert Santolucia. Attorney for the Board Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board In order to provide continuity for tesearch, 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 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. 10-93 Jaime Viera 1006-1017 Vine Avenue (Standard Housing Code) Continued from 2/24/93 At the February 24, 1993 meeting the Board requested a reinspection of the property prior to entering a order to clarify more specifically what properties are still in violation. Vernon Packer, Building Inspector, stated he reinspected those units that were accessible. Mr. Viera informed him he had obtained eviction notices and plans to evict and secure the units within 45 days. Mr. Packer requested the Board order the units secured within 60 days; that Mr. Viera obtain the required permits when he begins renovation; and the units be inspected prior to being rented again. He requested all trash and debris be cleared from the property. In response to a question. he stated vacating and securing the property will bring it into compliance. r'.'. . .. ....~. ,I \ . .........,f>". In response to a Question. Mr. Viera stated he started the eviction process March 1, He is trying to fix up the property. He will pull the necessary permits and. as each unit is ready. call for an inspection. A Question was raised regarding the new inspection report. and the Inspector stated the report is accurate for three units referenced, #s 1006. 1007 and 1017. The City's position is if the unit is vacant and secured. there is no housing violation. Upon review of the units referenced on the affidavit of violation. Mr. Viera and the Inspector agreed that the units still in violation are tis 1006.1008.1010 and 1017. All the other units are vacant and secured, Member Robinson moved that concerning Case No.1 0-93 regarding violation of Section 302, Chapter 3, Standard Housing Code 1979 Edition as adopted by the Clearwater City Code on prOpflrty locAted fit 1006. 1008.1010 and 1017 Vine Avo a/k/a (] portion of Jurgens Addn. to Clearwater. Block C. Lot 1 less rd on N, Block D, W 50 ft Lot 1, Lot 2 less rd on N. and Lots 3 & 4, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day of March. 1993, and based on the evidence. the Mynicipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law, and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vernon Packer. Housing Inspector. and Jaime Viera, and viewing the evidence. exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, and B - an inspections report dated March 24, 1993, it is evident that the conditions at 1006, 1008. 1010 and 1017 Vine Avenue do not meet the standards of the Housing Code. The Conclusions of Law are: Jaime Viera is in violation of Section 302. Chapter 3, Standard Housing Code 1979 Edition. It is the Order of this Board that Jaime Viera shall comply with Section 302, Chapter 3/ Standard Housing Code 1979 Edition as adopted by the Code of the City of Clearwater within 60 dRYS (5/24/93)! If Jaime Viera 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 compliance due date. If Jaime Viera does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of PinelJas 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 tho 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. Jaime Viera shall notify Vernon 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. millch3h,93 2 3/24J93 /,,1"".... ~~\ (' ': ..~~... I, "h"'~ 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 Rehoar. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 13~93 Frank C. Kunnen, Jr. 21 24 Sunnydale Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 2/24193 In response to a question, Don McFarland, Attorney representing Mr. Kunnen, stated proper service of the hearing was received, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the property referenced is an industrial park located east of Hercules Avenue on the north side of Sunnydale Boulevard. The property is zoned limited industrial, was developed in the late 19705 with four industrial garage buildings. The violation exists on the north side of the property adjacent to residential property. Parking is occurring in an area that is not approved, permitted, nor striped. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a complaJnt was received regarding the subject property. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's office, notice was sent by certified and regular mail. The certified letter was returned unclaimed. She first inspected the property November 23, 1992, and sent notice of the violation with compliance due by December 14, 1992, Reinspections were made and photographs taken December 17, 1992, February 5 and March 24, 1993. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. The Inspector stated she inspected the property this morning and the violation still exists. . Mr. Robert Beranek, a resident of Raintree Village, the adjacent property, stated he has lived there since 1977. A lawn mowing service parks wagons full of clippings against the fence for periods of time allowing the clippings to rot and smell. The area used to be a ditch, but the City laid pipe and it was covered over. In response to a question, Mr. Beranek stated Raintree Village was built prior to the industrial park. Mr. Hal Holmes, a resident of Raintroe Village for the past year, stated there are 6-12 vehicles parked up against the fence at one time, Trailers with lawn debris sit until rotten, only ten feet from the bedroom window. John Lochneck, a resident of Raintree Village, felt the problem started many years ago with the dedication of the 25 foot drainage easement for use of the general public, The City asked Raintree Village to contribute to the installation of the pipe and filling in the ditch. After written correspondence and negotiations with the City, Raintree Village Association thought they had an agreement with tho City that there would be no parking on the grassy area over the covered ditch. In response to questions, Mr. Lochneck stated the area in question is a 25 foot easement which starts at their fence. and next to the Raintree residents bedrooms. kitchens and living rooms. Raintree was asked to help because of erosion from their property into the ditch. rnim:h3b.93 3 3124193 y...., t' .... . Attorney McFarland stated the pavement in the photographs, in its entirety, Is on the Sunnydale Space Center property (Mr, Kunnen's property) and was paved in about 1982. In Florida, unless you have a solid curb, grass tends to grow onto the adjacent pavement. Raintree Village owns an area of grass along the fence which is on Mr. Kunnen's side of the fence, and the grass grows out toward the pavement. The people that have been parking in that area have done so constantly since summer, 1982; not parking in the sense that there is a required parking space needed. There is additional land which is used for the tenants to put their vehicles on from time to time. They don't park right up against the fence: the parking is essentially on the paved area on Mr. Kunnen's property and not on the grass or Raintree's property. A copy of a site plan of Mr. Kunnen's property approved March 11. 1981, was displayed. ,Attornoy McFarland objected to its submission citing it is not the site plan of the space center as it was constructed. In response to a question regarding why vehicles are parked in non- designated areas, he stated there was nothing in the code prior to 1985 prohibiting parking in areas other than identified. This use has been constant and without interruption since 1982; and he felt the use, if prohibited by adoption of the 1985 code, would become a vested non- conforming use. City submitted composite exhibit B, four letters 1) 2/19/82 to Cecil Henderson, Engineering Department. from George Barker, President of Raintree Village Association; 2) 2/23/82 to George Barker from Max Battle, Director, Public Works Department; 3) 5/31/83 to Mel Jacobson, President. Raintree Village from Max Battle; and 4) to Max Battle from Mel Jacobson. Defendant's exhibit A, a letter dated 3/12/93 to Michael Wright, City Manager, from Max Battle was submitted. In response to questions, it was stated Raintree Village Condominiums were developed a short time prior to the Space Center. Frank Kunnen, owner of 2124 Sunnydale Boulevard, stated the fence, which originally was a chain link, belongs to Raintree Village. It is on their property and was at the top of the bank. They had drainage problems, and it was believed the fence would wash out. Raintree approached the City and they were going to pay the whole bill for the City to pipe the ditch. He was asked if he would be willing to share in the cost. of which there was no benefit unless he could use all of his property. He started having the grassy area maintained because the City started citing him for thoir property, There is a misunderstanding of who owns the property. Mr. Kunnen suggested they plant some bushes or put up 4 x 4's and signs informing people to "keep off" the property. He stated the green area belongs to Raintree Village, Discussion ensued regarding ownership and responsibility of the grassy area in question. A concern was expressed regarding whether the right party had been cited for the violation. It was felt it the property in question belongs to Raintree Village, it is up to them to pursue a different avenue for enforcement such as having the vehicles towed away. Discussion further ensued regarding the paved area of the property, and from where and when approval was received for the pavement. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated it is his understanding the City paved the additional area being questioned. mincb3b.93 4 3124193 /'....~, , I <~-' Attorney McFarland moved that the citation be dismissed stating it has been clearly established by City documentation and staff that the paved area to the north of the buildings has been paved and used for storage of certain vehicles as required by paragraph (9) old code section 133 since 1982. In closing, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the property was developed in the late 1970s, at which time the City's traffic engineer was responsible for approval of all parking lot plans. Photographs were submitted showing the lot was not striped in accordance with the City code. both today and in 1982. Attorney McFarland again requested the case be dismissed stating it has been clearly shown that for 11 years the City has provided for and allowed the activity which has continued there. If there is a neighbor problem. the City should not be involved. Discussion ensued and consensus was the City can not cite someone for improper parking on someone else's property. It was suggested the property owner could have the vehicles towed for parking on their property. In response to a question regarding the requirements of pavement for driveways and accessways, Mr. Santolucia, tha Board Attorney. stated the violation cited is for parking in a grassy area against code. If the property is owned by Raintrea Village and not the alleged violator. he can not be cited for the violation. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 13-93 regarding violation of Sections 136.022(e)(1) and 136.022(f)(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2124 Sunnydale Blvd. a/k/a Clearwater Industrial Park Replat. W 396.48" of lot 1, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day of March. 1993. 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. Robert Beranek, Hal Holmes and John lochneck, residents of Raintree Village, Frank Kunnen, and Don McFarland, Attorney representing Mr. Kunnen, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits composite A - photographs of the property. and B. four letters regarding storm sewer installation dated February. 1982. May and June 1983, and Defendant's exhibit A - a letter from Mr. Battle to the City Manager dated March 12. 1993. and review of a site plan of the subject property dated February 16, 1981, it has been determined that the property on which the violation exists is not owned by Mr. Kunnen. The Conclusions of law are: Frank C. Kunnen Jr. is not in violation of Sections 136.022(e}( 1) and 136.022(f)(21. It is the Order of this Board that Case No. 13-93 shall be dismissed. 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 Rohear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mincb3b.93 5 3/24/93 ,fr....., The moeting recessed from 5:05 to 5:20 p.m. Case No. 18-93 Chevron USA Inc. 23988 North US 19 (Land Development Code) In response to a question whether the violation did exist, Mark Perrault, Territory Manager for Chevron, stated they are not contesting the violation. The business was under construction and closed for 45 days. A grand reopening was planned and pennants were displayed. When cited by the inspector, the pennants were removed. They were later cited for banners in the bays which have existed for three ,years and presumed okay. They complied with the notice. The parent company had planned a countywide grand reopening for which he inquired about a special use permit and was told there were none. The event took place February 26-27. 1992, and the pennants were removed. They will continue compliance now and in the future. Mr. Perrault requested a waiver of any fines. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, requested the Board establish that the violation existed and a $50 per day in case of a repeat occurrence. Member Rogers moved to dismiss the case with no fine impose. The motion was duly, seconded. Discussion ensued explaining the need to establish the case in order to impose a fine if the violation should be repeated. (VI In response to a question, the Inspector stated they are currently in compliance. The fine is in line with other similar cases. .~ Upon the vote being taken on the motion to dismiss the case, the motion failed. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 18-93 regarding violation of Section 44.57(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 23988 N. US 19 a/k/a Blackburns Sub., part of Lot 1, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day of March, 1993, 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 admission to the violation by Mark Perrault, Territory Managlu for Chevron, it is evident that pennants were displayed at 23988 North US 19, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Chevron USA Inc. was in violation of Section 44.57(2). It is the Order of this Board that Chevron USA Inc. shall comply with Section 44.57(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Chevron USA lnc, repeats a violation of the same code section. the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Chevron USA 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 mincb3h.93 6 3/24/93 ,~..' ./ - ~~~ 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. 19.93 Richard R. Dimmitt 25191 North US 19 (Land Development Code In response to a question, Joshua Magidson, Attorney representing Mr. Dimmitt, stated they do not agroo with tho violation as cited. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated property ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's office. Vehicles were displayed for sale on the grass rather than a paved area of the property. On October 1, 1992, vehicles were observed parked on the grass; a notice of violation was issued with compliance due October 5, 1992. Upon reinspection October 5, 1992 the vehicles were again observed displayed on the grass. Compliance was obtained prior to going before the Board. On February 25, 1993, three vehicles were observed on the grass at Dimmitt Cadillac. A notice of recurring violation was sent by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. A request for hearing was processed on March 2. 1993. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken February 25, 1993. The ..../ violation has been corrected; and it is requested this be established in case of a repeat. (": In response to questions. the Inspector stated she did not bring the case to the Board in October, 1992 since the violation occurred only one day. Mr. Dimmitt owns the property. In response to questions, she stated the violation was observed February 25, 1992, and a notice was issued February 26. She was informed by Brian Valentine. an employee of Dimmitt Cadillac, that he parked the vehicles on the grass. Mr. Dimmitt has been cited as the violator since he owns the property. She personally observed the violation as cited in the notice of violation issued October 1, 1992. Compliance was not obtained as requested. After being cited February 25, the cars were moved within the hour. She stated other' businesses have been cited for the same violation. She responded Dimmitt Cadillac does have permanent surface, but she does not know if it is all improved for parking. A question was raised whether the area of the property being used for display was designated and approved, City exhibit B. the site plan which would depict such designation if approved. John Formshel1;'Goneral Manager of Dimmitt Cadillac. stated a new employee parked the veflicles unaware of it being against code, The vehicles were removed within 45 minutes of being notified of the violation. In response to questions. he stated he works for Richard Dimmitt and Dimmitt Cadillac. the lessee of the property. In closing, City's Attorney Miles Lanco stated the City has the right to cite the owner. mincb3b.93 7 3/24/93 ~". ,..-., , ........ . ~ I , .......,. Attorney Magidson expressed concern regarding the property owner's ability to control the use of his property. He felt the lessee, rather than the property owner, should be held responsible. He also stated the code does not state one cannot park on the grass, and questioned the recommendation of the City for a $200/day fine. Member Riley moved that concerning Case No. '19.93 regarding violation of Section 42.34(5)(a) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 251 91 N US 19 a/k/a M&B 32.10, See 32-28-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day of March, 1993. 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 John FormshelJ, General Manager of Dimmitt Cadillac, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, and 8 - a site plan of the property as certified March 21, 1990. it is evident that vehicles have been parked/displayed on a grass surface at 251 91 North US 19, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Concfusions of Law are: Richard R. Dimmitt was in violation of Section 42.34(5)(a). It is the Order of this Board that Richard R. Dimmitt shall comply with Section 42.34(5)(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Richard R. Dimmitt repeats the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50,00 per day for each day the violation exists after Richard R. Dimmitt 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 92692 Yvonne M. Irle 1303-1/2 N. Ft. Harrison Ave, (Building Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case No. 95-92 Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd 605 Hart Street (Standard Housing Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance mincb3b.93 3/24193 8 ..,-....., I ' Case No. 4.93 Barnell Evans/Louise Evans 1313 N. Graenwood Avenue (Building Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Member Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case Nos. 92-92, 95-92 and 4-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Case No. 4-92 David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf marine 405 North Fort Harrison Avenue Staff request ra foreclosure Member Riley moved to authorize staff to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance stated he investigated the status of the property and found there were many mortgages on the property. Consensus was to delay any action regarding this request; and the motion was withdrawn. ;t , " I ) "'-'" MINUTES ~ Meetings of January 27, February 10 and February 24, 1993 The Secretary to the Board stated Ms. Fontana~Smith indicated her absence will continue another 4-6 weeks. In order to avoid mandatory removal of Ms. Fontana-Smith from the Board. the minutes of February 10, 1993 need to be amended to 'show her absence as excused. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p,m. v~{&~,"L ' CIIA LRl.IAN It was suggested Ms. Fontana-Smith be requested to resign without prejudice at this point to keep her eligible for possible reinstated at another time. Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of the January 27 and February 24. 1992 meetings and to continue a pproval of the minutes of the February 10, 1992 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ATTEST: ('y '-Ie' ? AJ. r; ~Iiif.r \" lA.....L / ~ ~ . SECuETARY \ I ..... .. minch3b,93 9 3124193