Loading...
08/25/1993 (2) CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE () ,vAs }./.j c:27 J>L? .; . ".~ . . ~\ .;:~: .'1 I' , . ".. . '" OJ I . l ,". . ,. I', ,...:', I ~ ..~ ,'. ',' T 1;)~:.:!:"~'.lor~'~ ~. .--...-.---....." ~..~..... :'.-. ..I.f.~Jll~~.;~. 1: ..;:,~ >.,'. . c .................~ MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of August 25. 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 Case No. 62~93 Speros & Joan Frangedis Withdrawn 437 S Gulfvi9w Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Case No. 63.93 Helen A Gelep Comply by August 30, 1993 444 Mandoloy Avenue (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Case No. 64-93 Antonios Markopoulos Withdrawn 100 Coronado Drive (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 , f . '::ase No. 65-93 Antonios Markopoulos Withdrawn , ~~ 100 Coronado Drive. 108 B (Land Development Codel Continued from 8/11/93 Case No. 66.93 Kay Soful Corrected prior; if repeats 403 Mandalay Avenue. B violation. may be fined $ 1 SO/day (Land Development Code) for each day of the repeat violation Confl'nued from 8111193 Case No. 67-93 Kay Soful Corrected prior; if repeats 399 Mandalay Avenue violation. may be fined $1S0/day (Land Development Codel for each day of the repeat violation Continued from 8/11/93 Case No. 68-93 Kay Soful Corrected prior; if repeats 403 Mandalay Avenue. A violation. may be fined $150/day (Land Development Code) for each day of the repeat violation Continued from 8111/93 Case No. 61-93 Stanislaw Budzinski Withdrawn 201 S Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Codel "" .' CBAct08h.93 06125/93 ~~. .. .,,,,.. "'. ;ase No. 69-93 Case No. 70-93 Case No. 71-93 Case No. 72-93 Case No. 73-93 Case No. 74-93 .... ~, . I ; ~""""".t ' Case No. 75-93 Case No. 76-93 Case No. 77-93 Case No. 78-93 Case No. 79-93 , ......"" CBAct08b.93 Alex & Mary Gelep 448 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Codel Comply by August 30, 1993 Joseph Caraco & F locolano 432 Poinsettia Avenue, #1 (Land Development Codel Corrected prior; if repeats violation. may be fined $1 SO/day for each day of the repeat violation Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Comply by August 30, 1993 William & Kathryn McKnight 710 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Complied prior. Requost to withdraw Withdrawn Mary & Alexander Dervech 460 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Comply by August 30, 1993 C T Corp Syst I K-Mart Corp Continued to 9/8/93 2130 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Request to continue - Sign variance requested Homer Realty, Inc, 389 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Comply by August 30, 1993 ...~. . Homer Realty, Inc, 393 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Comply by August 30, 1993 Homer Realty, Inc, 387.5 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Comply by August 30. 1993 Stavros Demosthenis ., 1765 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Comply by September 25. 1993 Mehl11et E. Bulca 1 457 Sandy Lane (Public Nuisance) Denied Appeal 2 08/25/93 r"" ! ' Case No. 39-92 Case No. 59-92 Case No. 61-92 Case No. 73-92 ( ....I<P / Case No. 52-93 MINUTES ADJOURN i 1 ........ CBActOBb.93 '} UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adriano Battaglini 406 Venetian Drive (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit William L Robinson 1410 Taft Avenue (Unsafe Building) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit James A and Mary L. Wooding 601 North Gardan Avonue (Unsafe Building) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing fine Paul S. Hodges 302 Vine Avenue (Unsafe Building) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit B J E Inc. I Staack 483 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION ,\ Meeting of July 28, 1993 Approved as submitted 6:45 p.m. 3 08/25/93 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 25, 1993 Members present: William Murray. Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Absent: Louise Bolton (unexcused) Also present: Miles Lance. Assistant City Attorney Robert Santa Lucia, Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana, Secretary for the Board Gwen J. Legters, Recording Secretary ( ~L. f ' .......,,! In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily djs~ussed 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 Steven Watts, attorney representing the property owners and/or lessees in Case Nos. 61-93. 62-93, 63-93. 64-93, 65-93, 66-93. 67-93, 68-93. 69-93, 73-93 and 76-93, agreed to make a combined presentation for the above referenced cases due to all addressing the same violation. He did not agree to the violations. stating the incorrect reference section was given for those properties zoned CR-28. Readings of the affidavits were waived and the Board Secretary verified she had the affidavits on fite and indicated all addressed outdoor displays of merchandise. mincb08h.93 08/25/93 Discussion ensued regarding the CB (beach commercial) and CR-28 (resort commercial) zoning districts on the beach. Mr. Richter indicated there is no provision in the code to allow for outdoor displays. storage or sales on Clearwater Beach in either district. He said the general citation issued was applicable to all the properties cited; however. the reference sections were not I applicable in all cases. "-~ .,<....f''...;....::~~"':''...:r~~.:~.:....L...,;1'.I.: ~.;.,~L ',. ':'u:.j/.':.~':~.~~.t,J:...,. .,......-..~;. ".' .", .:.'_,'.':';.H' ::<...;.:,/..\I."......;.IJ.I:..,. ... '/+'_."" ..> '" .....:.L.~...,.'_.~:r.~lr~ Attorney Lance recommended either amending the reference section for those properties zoned CR-28 or dismissing those cases and reciting the properties under the appropriate zoning district if necessary. Attorney Watts felt the cases incorrectly referenced should be dismissed. Member Riley pointed out the code regarding outdoor displays is being reviewed by the Code Enforcement Task Force. Staff indicated they are not aware of any proposed changes at this time regarding this issue. Case No. 61-93 Stanislaw Budzinski 201 S Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code~ Vicki Niemiller stated ownership was verified through tho property appraiser's office and a notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 20, 1993 and a notice of violation was sont with a May 27, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on June 1, 1993 and was in compliance. An outside display was again observed on June 21, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent. The property was inspected this morning and was still in violation. She submitted Exhibit H, photographs of the property taken May 28, June 24, August 11 and August 25, 1993. This property is in the resort commercial zoning district and was referenced as beach commercial. Staff recommended withdrawing Case No. 61-93 to recite under the appropriate zoning district jf necessary. c' t '....." . Case No. 62-93 Speros & Joan Frangedis 437 S Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code) , Continued from 8/11/93 Vicki NiemiUer stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and a notice of violation was sent by regular and certified mail and the notice was returned unclaimed. The property was first inspected on May 20, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a compliance date of May 27, 1993. The property was reinspected on June 1. 1993 and was found to be in compliance. She said outdoor display was again observed on June 21 , 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent on June 23, 1993. The property was reinspected this morning and is still in violation. She submitted City Exhibit A, photograplls of the proporty. This property is in the resort commercial zoning district and was referenced as beach commercial. Staff recommended withdrawing Case No. 62-93 to recite under the appropriate zoning district if necessary. Member Swanberg moved to withdraw Cases Nos. 61-93 and 62.93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 63-93 Helen A Gelep 444 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Codel Continued from 8/11/93 "...-"' minc:h08b.93 2 08/25/93 ("" .'c Vicki Niemiller stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and a notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 19, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a May 26, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on May 27, 1993 and the merchandise was still outside. The property was reinspected this morning and the violation still exists. She submitted City Exhibit B, photographs of the property. Member Wyatt moved that, concerning Case No. 63-93. regarding violation of section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 444 Mandalay Avenue a/k/a Clearwater Beach Park, Lot 84, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AU~1Ust, 1993, and based on tht:t evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board entors the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts, representing the property owner. and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit 8, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there exists an activity and/or object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically, outside display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365, conditional uses) at 444 Mandalay Avenue. It is further evident this condition still exists. The Conclusions of Law are: Helen A Gelep is in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Helen A Gelep shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code 1:,.,.,.,/ of the City of Clearwater by August 30. 1993. If she does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order her to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Helen A Gelep 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, Helen A Gelep shall notify Vicki Niemil1er. Code Enforcement Inspector, 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. ll1iru:boBh.93 3 08/25/93 Case No. 64-93 Antonios Markopoulos 100 Coronado Drive (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 ~ I ....~..... \ .~....; Vicki NiemiJIer stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and the notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail with the certified receipt returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 21, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a May 28, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on June 21, 1993 and merchandise was still displayed outdoors. A notice of recurring violation was sent on June 23, 1993. The property was inspected this morning and the violation no longer exists. She submitted City Exhibit C. photographs of the property. This property is in the resort commercial zoning district and was referenced as beach commercial. Staff recommended withdrawing Case No. 64-93 to recita under the appropriate zoning district if necessary. Case No. 65-93 Antonios Markopoulos 100 Coronado Drive, 108 B (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Vicki Niemiller stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and a notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 21, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a May 28. 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on June 1, 1993 and the property was in compliance. The outdoor display was again observed on June 21, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent on June 23, 1993. The property was inspected this morning and the property is still in violation. She submitted City Exhibit D. photographs of the property. This property is in the resort commercial zoning district and was referenced as beach commercial. Staff recommended withdrawing Case No. 65-93 to recite under the appropriate zoning district if necessary. Member Swanberg moved to withdraw Cases Nos. 64-93 and 65-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 66-93 Kay Soful 403 Mandalay Avenue, B (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Vicki Niemiller stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and the notice of violation was sent both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 28, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a June 4, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on June 24, 1993 and the merchandise was still outside. The property was inspected this morning and the violation no longer exists. She submitted City Exhibit E, photographs of the property. mim:IJOBb.93 4 08/25/93 ..,,.....~ ' Member Riley moved that, concerning Case No. 66~93, regarding violation of section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 403 Mandalay Avenue, B. alkla Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, Lots 17-20 & 34. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AUQust, 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 Vicki Niemiller. Code Inspector. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts. representing the property owner. and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit E, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there existed an activity and lor object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically. outdoor display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 pormitted lIses and 40.365 conditional usos) at 403 MDndolay Avonuo, 8; this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Kay Soful was in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Kay Soful shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If she repeats the violation, tho Board may order her to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after she 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 rehenr any Board ordor 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. 67-93 Kay Soful 399 Mandalay Avenue (land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Vicki Niemiller stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and a notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail ar.\d the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was inspected on May 19, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a May 26, 1993 compliance date. It was reinspected on May 27. 1993 and the property was in compliance. The outdoor display was again observed on June 21, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent on June 23, 1993. The property was inspected this morning and was in compliance. She submitted City Exhibit F, photographs of the property. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case No. 67-93. regarding violation of section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 399 Mandalay Avenue, a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, Lots 17-20 & 34, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AUClust, 1993, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Soard enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. lllincbOBb.93 5 08/25/93 I"" ., I ( "".r.:--OC The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testim ony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts, representing the property owner, and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit F, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there existed an activity and/or object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the zone assigned to subject property, specifically an outdoor display of merchandise, (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365 conditional uses) at 399 Mandalay Avenue, this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Kay Soful was in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Kay Soful shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If she repeats the violation, the Board may order her to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after she 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. Case No. 68~93 Kay Soful 403 Mandalay Avenue, A (Land Development Code) Continued from 8111193 Vicki Niemiller stated ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and the notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 20, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a May 27, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on May 27, 1993 and was in compliance. An outside display was a!;1ain observed on June 21, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent on June 25, 1993. The property was inspected this morning and was in compliance. She submitted City Exhibit G, photographs of the property. Member Riley moved that. concerning Case No. 68.93, regarding violation of section 40.004(2} of the Clearwater City Code at 403 Mandalay Avenue, A, a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, lots 17-20 & 34, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AUQlIst. 1993, and based on tho 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, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts, representing the property owner, and viewing the evidence. submitted City Exhibit G, photographs of the !;:.ubject property, ;t;s evident there existed an activity and/or object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in tho zone assigned to subject property, specifically, outside display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365 conditional uses) at 403 Mandalay Avenue, A; this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. minc:h08b.93 6 08/25/93 o ~ '. . 7. '. ~~,,~ ..~ :'.:: ;,.:.., 4 . +_ :..:-, j::;..i'::"i, ': It'. . ';.T';"/ '~ ~ ~''",; t, . .' ~: \ ' , :' .: " '," ''':'.- . "..... ,.:.. ~4' ~ .~.I .::: . : ' . 'lr~ .' ...<. '';': ~.'.,.: . .fl: \ .C.;,...,' .' /.--;0. t " .:: .' l.: '; " ;:.' ;:: ~. . ,~'~.::' '~. / 'I ~ ). OJ',' I ~: '. J: t.' ,;:': ." '..:. .~. l.~' :~'.: The Conclusions of Law are: Kay Soful was in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Kay Soful shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If she repeats the violation, the Board may order her to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after she 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 flied with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to tho 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. 69-93 Alex & Mary Gelep 448 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Vicki Niemiller stated the ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office and a notice of violation was sent both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 19, 1993 and a notice of violation was with a May 26, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on May 27, 1993 and was no longer in violation. An outside display was again observed on June 24, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent. The property was inspected this morning and is still in violation. She submitted City Exhibit I, photographs of the property. In response to a question, Ms. Niemiller stated the threshold is considered to be the dividing line between the inside and the outside of a business establishment. Discussion ensued regarding what constitutes outside display and a question was raised if soft drink vending machines are allowed. Mr. Richter said an ordinance is being drafted to address outdoor vending machines. A question was raised if the property owner owned the vending machine on the property, and Attorney Watts indicated he did not know. Member Wyatt moved that, concerning Case No. 69-93, regarding violation of section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 448 Mandalay Avenue a/k/a Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 80-83, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcemont Board hearing held the 25th day of August, 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 Vicki Niemiller. Code Inspector and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts, representing the property owner. and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit l, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there exists an activity and/or object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically, outdoor display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365 conditional uses) at 448 Mandalay Avenue. It is further evident this condition still exists. mincb08b.93 7 08/25/93 .....v. The Conclusions of law are: Alex & Mary Gelep are in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Alex & Mary Gelep shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by Auaust 30, 1993. If they do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Alex & Mary Gelep 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, Alex & Mary Gelep shall notify Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement lnsoector. 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. Attorney Watts stated zoning ordinances deal with uses and felt his clients displaying merchandise outside did not violate any zoning ordinances. Mr. Richter said the zoning code treats uses of property as (1) permitted uses, (2) conditional uses or (3) prohibited uses. He said the code does not list all the prohibited uses in a specific zoning district. He said if uses are not listed as permitted or conditional, they are prohibited. Case No. 70.93 Joseph Caraco & F locolano 432 Poinsettia Avenue, #1 (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the property owners. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated ownership of the property was verified through the property appraiser's office. The notice of violation was sent by regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was inspected on May 20, 1993 with a May 27, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on June 1, 1993 and no merchandise was outside. An outside display was again observed on June 24, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent. The property was inspected this morning and the building is now vacant: there is no longer a business on the property. She submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the property. Ms. Niemiller said, even though the business is gone, finding the property owner in violation would give the City leverage if the violation is repeated on the property. Concern was expressed regarding a new business owner not knowing of the violation and it was felt a provision could be put in the lease. Ms. Niemiller said she has spoken to the property owner and he knows he is responsible for his tenants. rnincbOBh.93 8 08/25/93 ""'" I Discussion ensued regarding the procedures of issuing citations to property owners and lessees rind Mr. Richter agreed going after the property owner, in addition to the tenant, would provide leverage to the City in Iiening the property if the violations recur. Member Wyatt moved that, concerning Case No. 70-93, regarding violation of section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 432 Poinsettia Avenue, # 1, a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, Lot 41, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of Auoust, 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, and John Richter. Code Enforcement Manager, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there existed an activity and/or objects not permitted as conditional uses in the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically, outdoor display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365 conditional uses) at 432 Poinsettia Avenue, #1; this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Joseph Caraco & F locolano were in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Joseph Caraco & F Jocolano shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Joseph Caraco & F locolano repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to ""'" exist after they 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 upon the vote being taken. Messrs. Murray, Wyatt, Swanberg and Robinson voted "aye"; Ms. Rogers voted "nay". (Member Riley had left the meeting). Motion carried. Case No. 71-93 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue ,(Land Development Code) ,nincb08b,93 9 08/25/93 No one was present to represent the property owner. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the citation is the result of a complaint received by staff on July 9. 1991, that a motor home was parked in the setback. A notice was issued to Mrs. Flowers and she moved the motor home to the side of the house on September 26, 1991. A written complaint was received in February of this year the motor home was again parked in the driveway. Mr. Rosa said he spoke to Mrs. Flowers and she moved the motor home back to '-- f',; the side of the house. On June 28, 1993. staff observed the motor home parked parallel to the frontage of the property. A notice of recurring violation was issued. He submitted City Exhibit A, a photograph of the propertY. The adjoining neighbor had erected a fence to prevent parking of the vehicle at the side of the house. A question was raised if the fence was erected by the neighbor to keep the vehicle from being parked on their property and Mr. Rosa felt this was the case; however, he said he had not surveyed the property line. A question was raised if there was anywhere on the property the vehicle could be parked and be in complianco, and Mr. Rosa indicated it did not appear there was. Mr. Rosa said the violation still exists today. In response to a question. Mr. Rosa responded a recreational vehicle can be parked on the property for 24 hours for the purposes of cleaning, unloading, loading, etc. Member Rogers movod that, concerning Case No. 71 M93, regarding violation of section 42.34(9)(b)3 of the Clearwater City Code at 111 Orangeview Avenue. a/k/a Russell's Sub, Block 1, Lot 4, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Codo Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of August, 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 Rick Rosa. Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit A. a photograph of the subject property. it is evident a recreational vehicle is parked or stored in a residential setback area at 111 Orangeview Avenuo. this condition was corrected prior and has recurred. It is further evident this condition still exists. The Conclusions of Law are: Marguerite S. Flowers is in violation of code section 42.34(9)(bl3 of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Marguerite S. Flowers shall comply with Section 42.34(9)(bI3 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 30. 1993. If she does not comply, or repeats the violation, the Board may order her to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Marguerite S. Flowers 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 purdlasers, 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, Marguerite S. Flowers shall notify Rick Rosa. Code Enforcement Inspector, 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. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Rogers, Messrs. Murray, Wyatt. Swanberg and Robinson voted "aye"; Member Riley was not present. Motion carried. Case No. 72-93 William & Kathryn KcKnight 710 Drew Street (Land Development Codel minch08h.93 08/25/93 10 " -~, In a memo dated August 17, 1993, Vicki Niemiller stated the violation was corrected prior to the public hearing and requested this case be withdrawn. Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 72-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 73-93 Mary & Alexander Dervech 460 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Vicki Niemiller stated the ownership of the property was verified through the property appraiser's office. The notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and the certified mall receipt was returned signed. The property was first inspected on May 19, 1993 and the notice of violation was mailed with a May 26, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on May 27, 1993 and the property was in compliance. An outside display was again observed on July 9, 1993 and a notice of recurring violation was sent. The property was inspected this morning and is still in violation. She submitted City Exhibit J, photographs of the property. Member Wyatt moved that, concerning Case No. 73-93, regarding violation of section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 460 Mandalay Avenue a/k/a Clearwater Beach Park. Lots 74~ 77, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AUQust. 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts, representing the property owner, and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit J, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there exits an activity and/or objects that are not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically outdoor displays (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365 conditional uses) at 460 Mandalay Avenue; this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident this condition still exists. The Conclusions of Law are: Mary and Alexander Dervech are in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Mary & Alexander Dervech shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by AUQust 30. 1993. If they do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Mary & Alexander Dervech 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, Mary & Alexander Dervech shall notify Vicki Nierniller, Code Enforcement Insnector, the City Official who sl1;)1I inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board rnillGh08h.93 11 08/25/93 .~",~.':~..'. '....~(,.:.....:." ;~'."':, :'-.~"..' "t"'.~\~:~',,-~,"".':~j..' .:--,........... J.. ...-:I'~ :':...~....~.I.,..,Tr ....\.~.~~. .....' .~..~'::: ..' .\..~:.:........I . ..,'".'. '. 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 duty seconded and carried unanimously. Cflse No. 74-93 C T Corp Syst I K~Mart Corp 2130 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Request to continue - Sign variance requested Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, asked for this case to be continued due to a sign variance having been requested. Member Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 74-93 to the meeting of September 8,1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. I '\.w_" Case No. 75-93 Homer Realty, Inc, 389 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the property owner. Vicki NiemHler stated property ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office. The notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail. The certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was inspected on June 21, 1993 with a June 28, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on July 2, 1'993 and the merchandise was still outside. She said this is not a recurring violation; they have never complied. The property was inspected this morning and is still in violation. She submitted Exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to a question. Ms. NierniJler responded she sent a notice to the business owner in addition to the property owner. She said she did not have any personal contact with Mr. Homer or the business owner. In response to a question, she responded this property is in the Beach Commercial zone. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 75-93. regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 389 Mandalay Avenue, a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, Lots 23-25. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AUQust, 1993, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. \ "~....~ mincb08h.93 \2 08/25/93 .' : ' , . ~ ~ ~~:~ :'~~~ r ":~,' ":, .,.,.' I~ :~. :. .,.:. ~ I ... .... ~', t -I' ~.... :"'. ... ' ~'::. r '. ~', :.," '. ~.' -. .:~ .;\.: .. .: ~~:" :,T'~ ~., l ';';"':" _:;':..:. .;.., I 'I.', ~ ',' '; ~h~ 7.!"~ (.~,. ~'.": .' ~', I .. ~ j'. ~ ~ t.~"'.::: ...~ I,' -: t,l..' '~~I '. ;Ij \,.. ,l: ;. \r :.~ :~:. ~. '; . .......T". I The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, it is there exists an activity and/or object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use n the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically outside display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 and 40.365) at 389 Mandalay Avenue. It is further evident this condition still exists. The Conclusions of Law are: Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer, R.A., is in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. .".... ~... It is the Order of this Board that Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer, R.A. shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 30, 1993. If he does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer, R.A. 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, Homer Realty, Ine, John W. Homer 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 bofore 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 wlll 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. 76-93 Homer Realty, Inc, 393 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Vicki Nierniller stated ownership of the property was verified through the property appraiser's office and the notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and tho certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was inspected on July 9, 1993 and a notice of violation was sent with a July 16, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on July 26, 1993 and the merchandise was still outside. Tho property was inspected this morning and is still in violation. She submitted City Exhibit K, photographs of the property. "'~-+' Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 76-93, ragarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 393 Mandalay Avenue, a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, Lots 23.25, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AUQust. 1993, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. and Order. mincb08b.93 '3 08J2u/93 The Findings of Factare: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Attorney Steven Watts, attorney representing the property owner, and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit K, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there exists an activity and/or object that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the zone assigned to the subject property, specifically, outdoor display of merchandise (reference sections 40.364 permitted uses and 40.365 conditional uses) at 393 Mandalay Avenue. It is further evident this condition still exists. The Conclusions of law are: Homer Realty, lnc, John W. Homer, R.A., is in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer, R.A. shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by A!!9~t 30, 1993. If he does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer, R.A. 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 violatClr 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, Homer Realty, lnc, John W. Horner 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 s,ubsequent 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. mincb08h.93 1 .~ 08/25/93 Case No. 77-93 Homer Realty, Inc. 387.5 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the property owner. Vicki Niemiller stated the ownership of the property was verified through the property appraiser's office. The notice of violation was sent by both regular and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property was inspected on June 24, 1993 and the notice of violation was sent with a July 1, 1993 compliance date. The property was reinspected on July 2, 1993 and the signs were still there. The property was inspected this morning and the violation still exists. She submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the property. \...-~, \..... ' \ ',-p.+ Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case No. 77-93, regarding violation of Section 44.57(7) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 387.5 Mandalay Avenue, a/k/a Barbour Morrow Sub, Block A, Lots 23-25, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of AU(lUst, 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector. and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there exists one or more portable signs, where portable signs are prohibited, specifically, two outside portable signs, at 387.5 Mandalay Avenue. It is further evidont this condition still exists. The Conclusions of Law are: Homer Realty, lnc, John W. Homer, R.A., is in violation of Section 44.57(7) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer, R.A. shall comply with Section 44.57(7) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by Auaust 30, 1993. If he does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Homer Realty, lnc, John W. Homer, R.A. 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, Homer Realty, Inc, John W. Homer shall notify Vicki NiemiHer, tho 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 unanim ously. The meeting' was recessed from 5:00 to 5:08 p.m. Case No. 78-93 Stavros and Panagio Oemosthenis 1765 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the property owner. IllinclJ08b.93 15 08/25/93 I, ~ .....,~... -. , , _.' Vernon Todd, attorney representing the lessee, and Aspasia Papadopoulos. lessee. agreed to the violation. Ms. Papadopoulos stated the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) is doing improvements to Keene Road at Gulf to Bay Boulevard. She has not seen their plans and does not know how this will affect the sign. She said she was told the FOOT project is to start in August or September of this year. In response to questions, it was indicated the sign belongs to the property owner, not Ms. Papadopoulos. The property owner is away in Greece and cannot be reached. Attorney Todd questioned if adequate notice of the hearing was given. The Board Attorney indicated as long as an attempt was made by staff to notify the property owner thp.ri'~ was sufficient notice. Member Riley felt the case should be continued as it is not known how the business owners will be affected by the DOT project. Chairman Wyatt questioned if the business owner had legal rights to make improvements on the property and it was indicated there was no provision in the lease. There was discussion whether proper notice had been given and the Board Secretary said the certified mail receipt had been returned signed. Attorney Lance pointed out that Inspector Zetterberg met directly with the owner on February 9, 1993 and informed him of the violation. Charles Zetterberg, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated when he met with the property owner in February, he explained the violations and informed him of the compliance due date in writing. In response to a question, he indicated the violation has existed since Apfil 1992. Mr. Richter stated the compliance date was October 13, 1993. He felt allowing the existing sign would competitively impact those who have complied with the sign code. He said it would be appropriate to request a sign variance. In response to a question, it was indicated the majority of surrounding businesses are in compliance. Attorney Todd felt the sign was not displeasing and requested delaying any action until the owner has returned from Greece to address the issue. Member Rogers moved that. concerning Case No. 78-93. regarding violation of Section 44.51(4)(el1.b & 1.c of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1765 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, a/k/a Suburb Beautiful. Block B. Lots 1. 2. 5 & 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of August. 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 Charles Zetterberg, Code Enforcement Inspector, Vernon Todd, attorney representing the lessee and Aspasia Papadopoulos, the lessee who admitted to the violation, and viewing the evidence, it is evident there exists signage that exceeds the 64 square footage and 20 foot height allowances at 1765 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. It is further evident this condition still exists. The Conclusions of Law are: Stavros and Panagio Demosthenis. property owners, and Aspasia Papadopoulos, lessee, are in violation of Section 44,51 (41(e\ 1.b and 1.e of the Clearwater City Code. mincb08b.93 Hl 08{25193 I~'" " / I \.-""'....c \t..-.r~ It is the Order of this Board that Stavros and Panagio Demosthenis and Aspasia Papadopoulos shall comply with Section 44.51 (4)(e) 1.b and 1.0. of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (SeDtember 25. 1993). If the violators do 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 Stavros and Panagio Demosthenis do not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinel/as 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, Stavros Demosthenis shall notify Charles Zetterberg, 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, eithar 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. Member RlIey left the meeting at 5:47p.m. Case No. 79-93 Mehmet E. Bulca 1 457 Sandy Lane (Public Nuisance) No one was present to represent the property owner and the appeal was denied. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, indicated if any illegal vehicles remain, they will be towed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 39-92 Adriano Battaglini 406 Venetian Drive (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 59-92 William L Robinson 1410 Taft Avenue (Unsafe Building) Affidavit of Compliance lllincb06b.93 17 08/25/93 r"'" ( :'" ........."..../ \........... Case No. 73-92 Paul S. Hodges 302 Vine Avenue (Unsafe Building) Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 52-93 B J E Inc. I Staack 483 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Member Robinson moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance concerning Cases Nos. 39-92, 59-92, 73-92 and 52-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 61-92 James A and Mary L. Wooding 601 North Garden Avenue (Unsafe Building) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and initiate the order imposing the fine concerning Case No. 61-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION OR DISCUSSION Member Swanberg questioned if certain advertisement signs such as those displayed in the windows of Kentucky Fried Chicken are allowed. Mr. Richter is to research and report to the Board. Member Rogers questioned if attorneys are required to be sworn in and Mr. Santa Lucia responded only when testifying. MINUTES - Meeting of July 28, 1993 Member Swanberg moved to approve the minutes of July 28, 1993, as suhmitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ATTEST: ADJOURN - The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m se~T~0 rnincb08b.93 18 08125/93