Loading...
09/08/1993 (2) / , , I CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD . DATE D9/ 02/9..~ d 7- 56 :7 ,.. ..,.,' .' '4 ..,. _.......-. .. , '. ~ \ '; . " + / ;' ' ," ~ , " . . , " 'J ,:."::,:,, :: ' , -.-.. 1 ...ra.u ......._.......~... "'. . .. t :~(t :U!('."~,,: ::' :';' ~, I " )'"'' ,:,:..1,1 ,."'. ,4,{,....~~.."'.,','.:",' " \.... ..~,,-I,,.~,>,., ..'i,...\...,,,.'~'_.. .~I,,;~ i.~:',.~,".,"" .,:.,",.:..~~.. ,':~~.........".'~ :'.\.~'r~~~...:~...,'~.~ J....~"'..';,:~L.,-":;" ,~ MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of September 8, 1993 . 3:00 p.rn, Agenda Action PUBUC 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. 51-93 Case No. 54-93 Case No. 58-93 ( ',Case No. 74-93 '-" Case No. 80-93 Case No. 81-93 Case No. 82-93 Case No. 85.93 l ...."'/ CBAct09u,93 Arthur & Mary Bruno I R. Mazikoske 1645 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Codel Continued from 8/11/93 Continued to 10/13/93 S & A Property Corp I Bennigans 2640 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Complied prior Withdrawn T C L PropertY lnc 21799 North US 19 (Land Development Codel Continued from 8111/93 Request to Withdraw Withdrawn C T Corp Syst I K-Mart Corp 2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/25/93 Request to continue Continued to 10/13/93 . Nina Sanders 1 3B4 Pierce Street (Land Development Codel Apply for Zone/LUP change or cease activity within 15 days; if application is made, all approvalsJlicenses obtained or activity ceased within 7 months TeL Property rnc 21799NUS19 (Land Development Codel Corrected Prior; if repeats violation, may be fined $150/day for each day of the repeat violation William and Hope Georgilas 1825 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Withdrawn Star Enterprise 1840 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Land Development Code} Request to Withdraw Withdrawn 09/08/93 Case No. 86-93 ( Case No. 87-93 Case No. 90-93 Case No. 91-93 Case No. 92-93 C'case No. 76-92 Case No. 78~92 Case No. 79-92 Case No. 43-93 Case No. 48-93 ~, I "'.:1' CBAc\09n.93 Dance City of Clearwater 1163 N Hercules Ave (Occupational License) Complied Prior Withdrawn Marks Holding Corp 24791 N US 19 (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Withdrawn Robert and Martha Meyer 1770 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Withdrawn Richard R Dimmitt 2674 Sunset Point Rd (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Withdrawn Robert Schoeller I Cynthia Daniel 630 Drew Street (Building Code) Continued to 9/22/93 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Gerard & Rita Walczak 1963 Magnolia Drive (Land Development Code) A ffidavit of Compliance Accepted Donald & Jessie Zebley 1963 Ripon Drive (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Robert & Rosemary Parks 1957 Ripon Drive (Land Development Code~ Affidavit of Co,mpliance Accepted Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted 2 09/08/93 Case No. 56-93 ("~ Case No. 63-93 Case No. 69-93 Case No. 71-93 Case No. 73-93 REMPROP, Inc. I Metz 1616 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Helen A Gelep 444 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) A ffida viI of Compliance Accepted Alex & Mary Gelep 448 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) A ffidavit of Compliance Accepted Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted affidavit; issued order imposing fine Mary & Alexander Dervech 460 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted .", ,OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION L,. Case No. 92-92 Yvonne Irle 1303 Y2 N. Ft Harrison Avenue Address Board Case No. 3-93 Item ADJOURN L '........' CBAcI09...93 Reduced Fine to $1000.00 frank McKinley I Joel Kehrer 20d S Greenwood Avenue Address Board re fine Reduced Fine to $450.00 The status of certain business signs was given by the Code Enforcement Manager 5:01 p.m. 3 09(08/93 r' () , ,-. MUNICIPAL CODe ENFORCEMENT BOARD September 8, 1993 Members present: William Murray I Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Absent: Stepher; D. Swanberg (excused) 7th Seat Vacant Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Holly M. Ausanio, Secretary for the Board Gwen J. 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 aggrievod party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution of the order to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 51-93 Arthur & Mary Bruno I R. Mazikoske 1645 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Dovelopment Code) Continued from 8/11/93 'I John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager I requested this case be continued as a variance application has beon submitted. mincb9u.93 9/8/93 , , Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 51-93 to the meeting of October 13, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 54-93 Case No. 58-93 S & A Property Corp / Bennigans 2640 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code~ Continued from 8/11/93 Complied prior TeL Property lnc 21799 North US 19 (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 Request to Withdraw Member Wyatt moved to withdraw Case Nos, 54-93 and 58-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 74-93 C T Corp Syst / K-Mart Corp 2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/25/93 Request to continue John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, requested this case be continued as a variance (~j application has been submitted. Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 74-93 to the meeting of October 13, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. No one was present to represent the violator. Case No. 80-93 Nina Sanders 1384 Pierce Street (Land Development Code) ,\ Ger! Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the use as a medical/dental facility at 1384 Pierce Street is inconsistent with that allowed in RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning. On February 26, 1992 the Board held a public hearing regarding this property with John Sanders as the property owner. The case was continued for additional research regarding grand fathering, and it was determined this was not a grandfathered use. On August 12, 1992, the Board found Mr. Sanders in violation. It was brought to the Inspector's attention in March, 1993, that Mr. Sanders had conveyed the property to Nina Sanders between February 26 and August 12, 1992. Ms. Doherty stated Mr. Sanders was ill the office today applying for a rezoning, and stated he would be at the hearing when he was finished. In response to a question, she stated an affidavit of non-compliance was issued regarding the original case. '---.../ /I1incb9n.93 2 9/8/93 (~" " .,~~ In response to a question. Miles Lance. Assistant City Attorney, stated the transfer of deed to Nina Sanders was discovered when the property was up for tax sale. In response to a question regarding the length of time needed to process a rezoning request. Geri Doherty stated it could take up to seven months. Rezoning for this property would also require land use plan change approvals from the county and state. Responding to a question regarding the downtown rezoning area. she stated this property is outside that area. Concern was expressed regarding whether or not the next state rezoning application period can be met. It was stated staff works with the violator when compliance is being pursued. In response to a question, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated rezoning is considered if a property abuts a commercial zone or if the use is the norm for the area rather than the exception. He felt there was a oood possibility rm:oning would bo approvod. A question was raised regarding the absence of an occupational license since February. 1992. Mr. Richter stated that cannot be addressed until the use is approved. Member Rogers moved that concerning Case No. 80-93 regarding violation of Section 40,004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1384 Pierce Street a/k/a M&B 14-01, Section 15-29-15. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of September, 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. it is evident an activity exists at 1384 Pierce Street that is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in that zone. rni"c!l911.93 3 9/8/93 The Conclusions of Law are: Nina Sanders is in violation of Section 40.004(2). It is the Order of this Board that Nina Sanders shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 11 applying for a zoning/land use plan change or cease the activity within 15 days (9/23) and 2) if application is made, all approvflls/licenses to be obtained or activity ceased within 7 months (4/8/94). If Nina Sanders does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order her to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date, If Nina Sanders 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 shull 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, Nina Sanders shall notify Geri Doherty, 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 , ',,--, ' ~ t ,",.I' \...../ 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. Upon the vote being taken, Members Rogers. Robinson, Murray and Wyatt voted "aye." Member Riley voted "nay." Motion carried. Case No. 81-93 T C L Property Inc 21799 N US 19 (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated balloons were cited at Performance Toyota, 21799 North U.S. 19 on May 22. 1993. and a notice was issued May 26. Tho violation was corrected and recurred June 19, with a notice being issued June 25. Photographs were taken of both instances of the violation. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property with an affidavit by the Saturday inspector. In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated she received a letter from Rives & Rives. the business owner's attorney, admitting to the violatlon. The letter was read into the record and submitted as City exhibit 8. Ms. Doherty stated the violation has not recurred since her conversation with the attorney. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 81-93 regarding violation of Section 44.57(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 21799 N. U,S. 19 a/k/a M&B 33-02, Section 8-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of September, 1993. and based on the evidence. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findlngs of Fact. Conclusions of Law. and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Ged Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that balloons were displayed at 21799 N. U.S. 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: TeL Properties, Inc. was in violation of Section(s} 44.57(2). It is the Order of this Board that TeL Properties. Inc. shall continue compliance with Section(s) 44.57(2) of tho Code of the City of Clearwater. If TeL Properties, Inc. repeats tho violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150,00 per day for each day the violation exists after T C L Properties, 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 a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Soard 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 minch9il,93 4 9/8/93 ~ 1 ~ of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider /' or rehear the case. The Board witl 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. ' I, c~: \...../ Case No. 82-93 Case No. 85-93 Case No. 86-93 Case No. 87-93 Case No. 90-93 Case No. 91 ~93 William and Hope GeorgiJas 1825 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Land Development Codel Request to withdraw Star Enterprise 1840 Gulf to Bay Blvd' ' (Land Development Codel Request to Withdraw Dnnco City of Clearwater 1163 N Hercules Ave (Occupational License) Complied Prior Marks Holding Corp 24791 NUS 19 (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Robert and Martha Meyer 1 770 Drew Street (Land Development Codel Complied Prior Richard R Dimmitt 2674 Sunset Point Rd (Land Development Codel Complied Prior Member Wyatt moved to withdraw Case Nos. 82-93, 85-93, 86-93, 87-93, 90-93 and 91-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 92-93 Robert Schoeller I Cynthia Daniel 630 Drew Street (Building Code) In response to a question whether he agreed the violation exists as cited, Jeffrey Litton, representing Robert Schoeller, agreed to the violation and stated he is here to request a continuance. The notice of hearing was received late Friday. which did not allow them sufficient time to have their architect present. Mr. Litton requested a two week postponement on behalf of Mr. Schoeller. mincb911.93 5 9/8/93 (' (',..'/ .... , \ ' ~. i, Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated a fire occurred in November, 1991. Since that time he has been ;n contact with Mr. Schoeller and other people at the property. Nothing substantial had been done until July, 1993, and plans for temporary shoring to alleviate the unsafe condition were submitted last week. Mr. Chaplinsky stated when the plans are approved and the work completed, it will still be unsafe but will eliminate any imminent danger. Concern was expressed the condition was allowed to exist for two years. Mr. Chaplinksy stated the shoring will provide necessary stability to the south wall; the east wall is questionable. In response to a question regarding the permitting, Mr. Chaplinsky stated it may be approved today. Regarding how long it would take to get the shoring in place, Mr. Litton stated it would take a week. Mr. Chaplinsky stated he has no objection to a two week continuance provided they take care of the south wall, which is an imminent problem. He stated if work proceeds as expected, there may be no reason to come back for a hearing. Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 92.93 to the meeting of September 22, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 76-92 Gerard & Rita Walczak 1963 Magnolia Drive Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 78-92 Donald & Jessie Zebley 1963 Ripon Drive Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 79.92 Robert & Rosemary Parks 1 957 Ripan Drive Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 43-93 Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 48-93 Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 56.93 REMPROP, Inc. I Metz 1616 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Affidavit of Compliance mincb9CJ,93 6 9/8/93 ,./"--' , ( '~..", \0".... '-...,. \ . Case No. 63-93 Helen A. Gelep 444 Mandalay Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 69-93 Alex & Mary Gelep 448 Mandalay Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 71-93 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case No. 73-93 Mary & Alexander Oervech 460 Mandalay Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Mellluer Wyatt muved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance in Case No. 71-93 and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 76-92, 78-92, 79-92, 43~93, 48-93, 56-93, 63-93, 69-93 and 73-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Case No. 92-92 Yvonne Irle 1303 % N. Ft Harrison Avenue A ddress Board Brian Kutchins, Attorney representing Mrs. Irle, stated Mrs. Irle purchased the property in 1984, it was boarded up shortly thereafter. Upon review of the City's file he found the notice of hearing sent to Mrs. Irle October 26, 1992 was returned unclaimed. An affidavit of service shows personal service of the notice was served November 17, 1992 on Ed Fletcher, who handles bookings for Irle's restaurant, but who is not an employee. Mr. Kutchins stated Yvonne Irle never received notice of the violation. In June, 1993, after being informed of the accrued lien by a visitor to the restaurant, Mrs. Irle promptly contacted the handyman to fix the problem, At the hearing in November, 1992, the Board ordered a $200 per day fine. The violation was corrected in June, 1993. The lien accrued to over $50,000 while Mrs. Irle did not even know the violation existed. Mr. Kutchins stated Mrs, Irle is law abiding and, once aware of the violation, made sure it was corrected. He requested the fine be waived due to a tack of notice of the violation. Dixie Walker-Duncan, the citing Inspector, stated she tried to serve notice to several Irle homes but no one would receive it. She also left Mrs. Irte a hand written note at tl1e restaurant regarding tl1e hazard. mincbSIl,93 7 9/8/93 f"" In response to questions regarding service, Mr. Kutchins stated the notice of hearing and the Board's order were sent to 1402 North Fort Harrison Avenue. Mrs. Irle does not live there, so she was not aware of the problem. Her son lives at 1402, but she Jives at 1406. Ms. Walker-Duncan stated 1402 is the mailing address listed on the tax roll for the violation address. She attempted delivery at 1406 once she found that was Mrs. Irle's address. In response to questions. the Inspector stated when she attempted hand delivery at 1402, Mrs. lrle's son refused to receive the letter. She tried service at another Irle family address, and there was no answer. Staff at the restaurant refused to sign for it, but they did accept it. Mr. Kutchins stated his client did not know of the violation, which was a minor repair. He felt the purpose of the Board is to gain compliance, not to penalize. The pictures in the file show a deteriorated floor board; the staircase was not a major hazard. Ms. Walker-Duncan stated the violation addresses the hazard of the second story landing. Exhibit A, photographs submitted at the original hearing, were reviewed. Ms. Walker-Duncan noted a board was placed across the bottom of the stairs in the photograph dated November 18, 1992, the day of the hearing. Observing a photograph taken November 17, 1992. the board was not there. Mrs. Irle stated once she was aware of the problem, she had it corrected the next day. She did not know anything about the board at the foot of the stairs; however, a maintenance man had been regularly replacing barricades torn down by vandals. She stated they were not told they needed to inform anyone after the repairs were made. ('~.... .. .f '"'tIlt Discussion ensued regarding the extent of attempted service of the notices, and the fact that the violation is now corrected. Concern was expressed regarding the length of time the hazard existed and the City's liability in the matter. In response to questions, the Inspector stated she asked for Mrs. Irle at the restaurant, and when would be a good time to corne back. She attempted service there at various times during the day. When she tried to serve the notice to Mrs. Irle's son she also told him what it was about. It was indicated Mrs. Irle is at the restaurant every day. Member Robinson moved to reduce the fine in Case No. 92-92 to $1,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 3-93 Frank McKinley / Joel Kehrer 206 S Greenwood Avenue A ddress Board re (ti,e " Mr. McKinley stated the racks were constructed without a permit. He did not ignore compliance. but was too slow in completing removal of the racks by the date ordered by the Board. He stated he had 90 % removed when he received notice that the fine was accruing. In response to a question, Mr. Mckinley stated dismantling the racks does not take long. but first they have to remove car parts from the racks; that would take 30-40 days. They have been working for months on this. but were hindered by the no name stann. They received over 700 cars from which parts jammed the racks. .......... mincb9n,93 6 9/8/93 r , ('"'" , " , .I "-/ In response to a question, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the Board originally gave them three months in which to comply. They allowed a three month extension following that time and additional time after that. He felt an extended amount of leniency was . granted in this case. Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, stated there was concern regarding expansion of a non-conforming use. The racks enabled them to take on additional vehicles, while the property really is not big enough. He stated they completed the work after notification of the accruing fine. He stated they had completed about 40% of the work when non-compliance was first brought before the Board. When the Board actually accepted the 'affidavit of non-compliance, about 90% compliance had been obtained. In response to a question, Mr. McKinley stated he felt reduction of the fine to $50.00 per day would be fair. Member Riley moved to reduce the fine in Case No. 3-93 to $450.00. The motion was \<'U;! duly seconded. Concern was expressed a $450.00 fine is too low. However, it was felt they have work,ad hard to gain compliance., which has now been obtained. ' Upon the vote being taken. Members Riley, Robinson, Murray and Rogers voted "aye." Member Wyatt voted "nay." ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 5: 1 5 p.m. ATTEST: ~X~ SECREt\ Y l11inch9n,93 9/8/93 9