Loading...
05/26/1993 (2) :~ CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE o6/2ta/9--~ I . c27 ~' ~, f"\;') MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of May 26, 1993, 3:00 p.m. Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS Action (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-compllance.l Case No. 30-93 Case No. 31-93 Case No. 32-93 Case No. 33-93 ( . ......./' Case No. 34-93 Case No. 3-93 B American Inc. 2135 Drew Street (Occupational License) Ronald F. Berle 510 N. Osceola Avenue (Building & Development Regulations) Complied prior; Request to withdraw Anthony & Maryann Saravanos 600 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code/Signage) Complied prior; Request to withdraw Robbie Cromeadie & E. Hamm 1414 Taft Street (Nuisance Code) Robert C. Waldo 1240 S. Evergreen Avenue (Land Development Code) UNFINISHED BUSINESS Frank McKinley/Joel Kehrer 206 South Greenwood Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Compliance Status Update Continued from 5/12/93 OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION MINUTES - Meeting of March 24 and May 12, 1993 ADJOURN \ ' ~'o~.1 CBA5h.93 1 Continued to 6/23/93 Withdrawn Withdrawn Continued to 6/23/93 Comply by 6/9/93 Continued to 6/9/93 None Approved as submitted 4:10 p.m. 5/26/93 F' ( \ ........ ' \...._,' t' MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD May 26, 1993 I " It,; r I r I Members present: William Murray, Chairman Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Absent: D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman (excused) 7th Seat Vacant (new member begins 6/9/93) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney tor the Board Holly M. Ausanio, Secretary to the Board Gwen Legters, Recording Secretary 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 (301 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. 30-93 B American Inc. 2135 Drew Street (Occupational License) In response to a question, the alleged violator did not agree to the violation. mincb5lJ.93 5/26/93 1 (.'\ Barbara Sexsmith. Code Enforcement Inspector, stated B American Inc. is doing business as Ballroom American Style at 2135 Drew Street without an occupational license. Her initial inspection March 11, 1993, was prompted by an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times. She informed an employee at the business that a City occupational license IS needed and left an application for said license. On March 23, 1993 no license had been issued, and a notice of violation was sent with compliance due April 1, 1993. The office administrator, Patty, phoned the City stating they are currently processing for state authorization. The Inspector was informed during subsequent conversations with Patty on April 8, 19 and May 26, that they are still waiting for state authorization. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the business is a ballroom dance studio and is currently operating. Patty Breon, Office Administrator of B American Inc., stated the state required a $25,000 bond for state authorization. On April 1, 1993, they submitted the necessary requirements to the state and were rejected because their insurance company was not regulated by the State of Florida. Mr. Tomlin, who is with a State office, informed them the bond requirement was recently reduced to $5,000. They again submitted the necessary requirements and are awaiting their state registration number. Thomas Cuniff III, Director of B American Inc., stated early in the year there were problems in the ballroom dance industry, and the state began requiring the $25,000 bond. They tried several insurance companies to find bonding and were unsuccessful. When the bond was reduced, they purchased a $5.000 Certificate of Deposit naming the company and state. \,...........~ Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney stated a letter was sent to occupational license officers from the state recommending proof of state registration be shown prior to issuing an occupational license. ( tnincb5b.93 2 5/26{93 In response to a question, Mr. Cuniff stated the studio, when located at 2135 Drew Street. was licensed by Pinellas County. In response to a question, Patty Breon stated 10 more days should be enough time for the stated to finish processing their application, which was sent yesterday by overnight mail to Mr. Tomlin. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case No. 30-93 to the June 23, 1993 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 31-93 Ronald F. Berle 510 N. Osceola Avenue (Building & Development Regulations) Complied prior; Request to withdraw Case No. 32-93 Anthon'f & Maryann Saravanos 600 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code/Signage) Complied prior; Request to withdraw . ' ........,1 :~.,~~\,,~.~,:.,','.' ,'j',......'..":..:.,~..~,:','.,:~'.:: ..,;~ :f,...'..1' .:H:,,::.~ ',.I, ..,:.' :' ~:',',':'.":'" .' 'l".~ ".,-;," .,' " ~ ,I, . .,' ,,_.... , , , ' Member Riley moved to withdraw Case Nos. 31-93 and 32-93 as the violations have been corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 33.93 Robbie Cromeadie & E. Hamm 1414 Taft Street (Nuisance Code) In response to a question whether the alleged violator admits to the violation, Mr. Gilbert McPherson, Attorney representing Robbie Cromeadie and E. Hamm, stated they do not. E. Hamm is Robbie's sister, and mentally incompetent and in a nursing home. He submitted Defendant's exhibit A, a "Notice of Special Appearance" contesting the jurisdiction of the Board and absence of due process procedures. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the property is located in the North Greenwood area. The house was in a state of disrepair and used in a controlled burn by the Fire Department with the owner's permission. Removal of the remaining rubble is the responsibility of the property owner. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated ownership of the property was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office. She inspected the property March 22, 1993 and sent notice of the violation giving 30 days to comply. The certified mail receipt was returned signed by Robbie Cromeadie. Upon inspection this morning, a partial structure still remains. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken March 19 and May 26. 1993. '~.....' tn response to questions regarding the burn, the Inspector stated signed authorization was given the City for the burn. The authorization did not specify responsibility for removal of the rubble. In response to a question. she stated the City became involved with the property after Robbie Cromeadie made application for a demolition permit. City submitted exhibits Band C, statements authorizing removal of utility meters and the controlled burn. In response to a question whether the property owners were advised they would be responsible for removal of the rubbish, the Inspector stated Deputy Fire Chief Kinsey stated they were informed. Ron Hamrn, who signed the authorization representing the family, was informed the rubble would have to be removed. Mr. McPherson objected citing heresay testimony. He stated Robbie Cromeadie can not afford to have the lot cleared. She desires to sell the property to the neighboring St. John's Missionary Baptist Church, with the church assuming the responsibility of clearing and maintaining the property. Clear titlo can not be obtained due to E. Hamm's being legally incompetent to sign papers. They plan to ask the church to take the title as is with no objection of E. Hamm's family. In response to questions, Mr. McPherson requested 120 days to pursue said action. because he is representing the alleged violators pro bono and can not make this case a priority. The surrounding neighborhood is mostly residential with the church across the street. He stated he viewed the property before the rneeting and did not feel there was imminent danger present. , , ..~,.r lllincb5h.93 3 5/26/93 F":'" Discussion ensued regarding the controlled burn, with concern expressed regarding notification to the property owners of their responsibility for clearing the property after the burn. Concern was also expressed whether a life safety hazard exists. In response to a question, Mr. McPherson stated he would attempt to have the property deeded to the church within 90 days, and report back to the City. Concern was expressed regarding the debris on the property devaluing the neighboring properties. In response to a question regarding how much and the type of debris remaining, the Inspector stated part of the subfloor, bricks from a chimney and brick piers remain. In response to questions, the Inspector felt it would be easler and less costly to remove all the debris including the piers. In response to a question regarding the house next door, she stated it is boarded up. In response to a question, Mr. McPherson stated there is no mortgage on the property. Robbie Cromeadie had to borrow money to pay the taxes. Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 33-93 to the meeting of June 23, 1993 in order to allow time to approach the church regarding sale of the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. . Case No. 34-93 Robert C. Waldo 1240 S. Evergreen Avenue (Land Development Code) .l.- " ( I ...../.f. 1l1l1lCh5b.93 4 5/26/93 In response to a question whether he agrees the violation exists, Mr. Waldo responded in the affirmative. He stated he is repairing the boat, which needs a hull and engine. Storage facilities do not allow repair work on the premises due to insurance factors. In response to questions, he stated he can not move the boat into the backyard because he has a workshop there. He moved the boat onto the driveway as much as he could when he received the letter of violation. About 15 feet of the boat still remains in the setback. Mr. Waldo stated he needs two more weeks for the repairs. He is looking for a lot on which to park the boat when repairs are complete. Lot rentals for recreational vehicle parking do not allow repair work that involves power tools. John Richter. Code Enforcement Manager, stated staff is agreeable to the needed two weeks. Member Riley movod to continue Case No. 34-93 to the meeting of June 9, 1993. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued whether un order should be imposed to ensure compliance. The motion and second were withdrawn. ',---" "'.~~'J~t;'~;:,:~,,'~'~~,~.",':.r"',~:~:,'~ :.~.".,: ""l'~,, .~.':, .~ ",:..I,~": ." ~ ' "~-;,, .,' .;" .:', .' ::""'~':~~"'.'r"'~'~"":': '.~',:.~! _ ~'."." ..:...'" ., I'. ~."t N' 1.,',1 ,,' ,..'....~~.:_ ff~... t ' Member Riley moved that concerning Case No. 34-93 regarding violation of Section 42.3419)(b)1 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1240 South Evergreen Avenue a/k/a Lakeview Estates 1 st Addition, Block 5, Lot 9, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of May, 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 Robert Waldo admitting that the violation does exist, it is evident there is a boat exceeding twenty feet in length being parked or stored illegally at 1240 South Evergreen Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Robert C. Waldo is in violation of Section 42.34(9)(b) 1. It is the Order of this Board that Robert C. Waldo shall comply with Section 42.34(9Hb)1 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by June 9, 1993. If Robert C. Waldo does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Robert C. Waldo 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 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, Robert C. '''~_' Waldo shall notify Rick Rosa, 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 tiled 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. 3.93 Frank McKinley/Joel Kehrer 206 South Greenwood Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Compliance Status Update Continued from 5/12/93 Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, submitted photos of the property taken May 26, 1993, showing some progress has been made. He stated Mr. McKinley is still working at corning into compliance. . , ~.' lllincb5b,93 5 5/28/93 F~ A concern was expressed that the violation has already continued for some time. A suggestion was made that no more than 90 days beyond the original 90 day comply time, as ordered by the Board, be allowed. C"'" -...,.,.) '--' Discussion ensued regarding the extenuating circumstances that existed. The Attorney for the Board stated once compliance is reached, the violator has the right to address the Board regarding an accrued fine and the circumstances which delayed compliance. Member Swanberg moved to continue acceptance of the Affidavit of Non-compliance to the meeting of June 9, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question, it was stated the fine does accrue retroactive to the compliance due date of the Board's order once the affidavit of non'compliance is accepted. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION - None MINUTES. Meeting of March 24 and May 12, 1993 Member Riley moved to accept the minutes of the meetings of March 24 and May 12, 1993 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN ~ The meeting adjourned at 4: 10 p.m. Attest: c ~[ ~~O~(~ SEC~rARY minc:b5b.93 6 5(26/93