Loading...
10/13/1993 (2) CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE ItJ//a/9.Q ~7- 595 J'-' MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of October 13, 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. 51-93 Arthur & Mary Bruno I R. Mazikoske 1645 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 & 9/8/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested Continued to November 10. 1993. Case No. 74-93 C T Corp Syst I K-Marl Corp 2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd (Land Development Codel Continued from 8/25/93 & 9/8/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested Continued to November 10, 1993, ('-'. . , .......' ....ase No. 98-93 Hughes, R.E., Tre 1306 % North Garden Avenue Standard Housing / Land Development Code Ordered compliance within 7 days. Case No. 99-93 Hughes, R.E., Tre 1306 North Garden Avenue Standard Housing / Land Development Code Ordered compliance within 7 days. Case No. 100-93 David E. Edmunds I Steven Esposito Pets Unlimited 1888 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Dismissed Case No. 101-93 Roy R. Meador, Tre, 2999 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Complied prior; if repeats violation. may be fined $150 per day for each day of the repeat violation. . 'SActl0o.93 '''-' 1 0/13/93 /"....... , Case No. 80-93 Case No. 83-93 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Nina Sanders 1384 Pierce Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance Elias Anastasopoulos & Gregory Politis 668 South Gulfview Boulevard Affidavit of Compliance OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION , Case No. 60-92 ADJOURN ("-''. ...,....; \ ~BAct10",93 "-"" David Legault I James P. Knight 803 Railroad Avenue Request for Waiver of Fine Accepted affidavit: issued order imposing fine. Accepted affidavit. Approved request to address Board at next meeting, October 27. 1993. 4:59 p.m. 2 10/13/93 f'-' C', \.....-- MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD October 13, 1993 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D, Wayne Wyatt, Vice~Chairman Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Absent: Stephen D, Swanberg (excused) 7th seat vacant Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana, Secretary for the Board Gwen J. LAgters, Recording Secretary Jeff Kronschna bl, Special Asst. to the City Manager, Community Response Team Supv, In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution of the order to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 51-93 Arthur & Mary Bruno I R. Mazikoske 1645 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93 & 9/8/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested Case No, 74-93 C T Corp Syst I K-Mart Corp 2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/25/93 & 9/8/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested Inspection Specialist, Geri Doherty, stated sign variances have been requested regarding Cases Nos. 51-93 and 74-93, and sWff is requesting continuances for these cases, minch 100,93 1 10/13/93 . .\:,:.~ .,r~, 'i~: ~ :. . t, ~ ; '":,.., "'.... ,.' . l ~ .;' f:. > ' ..:. ~";: ,J }':' ':........:. 1 .. . .. .....:.. :1 . ': ' ~. < ~ /,:~'~~:,'- \' : ~ -i" . : ..~ .: " :-- I :... ~ .', ' .'J '. ...'~,;" ..: '. :- ': ~.:..I :~~'. " ,;';-' ~ ~ ., t".... .. ~ l' ~ ~~ ' ..~.+ oILl , ' , ~ '~~, ~ ",..' I ',. ~ :, "," Member Riley moved to continue Cases Nos. 51-93 and 74-93 to the moeting of November 10, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No, 98-93 Hughes, R.E.. Tre 1306 Yt North Garden Avenue Standard Housing / Land Development Code Case No. 99-93 Hughes, R.E., Tre 1306 North Garden Avenue Standard Housing / Land Development Code No one was nresent to roprosent the violator. Vern Packer, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated he inspected the two wood frame houses on numerous occasions, took photographs and sent housing reports, askino the owner to make tho necessary repairs. which were not done. Regarding 1306 Y, North Garden Avenue, Mr. Packer stated the tenants had been asked to move. It is believed the house is being used for illegal activities. There is a push on North Garden Avenue to bring the properties into compliance. The subject houses are in very bad shape and upon inspection this morning, the condition of the properties had not changed. No improvements have been made and no permits have been obtained. /" \.~" City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject properties and City Exhibit B, case histories of the subject properties were submitted into evidence. Mr. Packer summarized the case histories of the properties referring to a report sent to Mr. Hughes in September. 1992, and an eviction notice sent to the tenants in February, 1993, The police were asked for an extra patrol in June of 1993. The notice of violation was posted on September 30, 1993. Mr. Hughes did not sign for or pick up the notice of violation which was sent via certified mail. Mr. Packer recommended securing the properties within ten days and imposing a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violations continue. Discussion ensued and in response to a question, Mr. Packer said '18 did not know why there was a the delay between requesting the eviction of the tenants and asking for the building to be secured. He read the definition of an unsafe building from tl1e Unsafe Building and Abatement Code. In response to a question, Mr. Packer stated Mr. Hughes lives at 3214 San Mateo Street in Clearwater. He explained staff tries to gain compliance by working with violators, which sometimes extends the compliance time. It was indicatod attempts ot conversations with Mr. Hughes have not been successful. Concern was expressed lhis caso was not scheduled earlier if the violator was not working toward achieving compliance, Discussion enslIed regarding the recommended timo lO guin complianco. mothods and rules regarding enforcement of orders. Olivia Perkle, concerned citizen residing at 1347 SOllth Tioga Avonuo, addressed the Board regarding the cases. Sho stated she has been obsorvinU tho lWO 110llSOS adjacont to tho subjoct '......... mincb 1 Ou, 93 2 10/13(03 I''''' .... ( ~ ,,~ ,.. properties which are also owned by Mr. Hughes, She has witnessed people living there, and indicated Mr. Hughes is not collecting rent. Children are playing unsupervised and there is drug activity, The police do not go into the houses to inspect them and she fears someone is going to get hurt, She has called and written to the City Commission and feels the houses should be boarded up or torn down. She stated there is a need for good housing and if renovated the houses could be rented. Mr, Packer stated there has been no indication that compliance is being attempted, In response to a question, Mr. Packer said he would like to see the houses secured. Member Wyatt questioned if the buildings are not secured by the owner, would the City have the authority to secure the property. Board Attorney Andy Salzman said if compliance is not obtained within the specified time, an affidavit of non.compliance could be tiled immediately imposing the fine. He pointed out there are provisions for demolitIon. Concern was expressed regarding the condition of the structures and Attorney Salzman indicated setting compliance at seven days was in line due to the health and safety factors involved. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Cases Nos. 98~93 and 99-93, regarding violations of Chapter 3, Standard Housing Code & Section 47.161 of the Clearwater City Code, at 1306 and 1306 Y2 North Garden Avenue a/k/a Enghurst Addition to Clearwater Sub-East Y2 Lot 19 and West Y2 Lot 19, The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of October, 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 Vern Packer, Code Inspector, and Olivia Perkle, concerned citizen, viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibits A and B, photographs of the subject property and the case histolies, it is evident unsafe buildings exist at 1306 and 1306 Yz North Garden Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Hughes, R.E" Tre is in violation of Section Chapter 3, Standard Housing Code & Section 47.161, Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Hughes. R.E., Tre shall comply with Section Chapter 3, Standard Housing Code & Section 47,161 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by October 20,1993, If Hughes, R.E., Tre, does not comply within the time specified. the Board may order him to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Hughes, R.E" Tre. 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, Hughes. R.E., Tre shall notify Vern Packer, the City Official who shall Inspect the property and notify the Board of complianco. Should the violation reoccur. the Soard 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 Hoaring, A petition for Rehoaring must be made in writing and filed with the Board minch 1 au, 03 3 10/13/93 i"-........." (..~ ..~, Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon recoipt 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. 100.93 David E. Edmunds I Steven Esposito Pets Unlimited 1888 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Williams Jennings. attorney representing Steven Esposito and David Edmunds. did not agree to the violation as cited and waived the reading of the affidavit of violation. Geri DohertY. Inspection Specialist, stated signage at the subject property amounts to 350.5 square feet where 64 square feet is allowed. The signage consists of one roof sign and 14 window signs. The pictures in the windows are considered to be signs because staff feels there is a direct connection between the animal pictures and the merchandise being sold, City Exhibit A. photographs of the signage on the subject property taken on June 10. 1993. were submitted into evidence, Charles Zetterberg, Code Enforcement Inspector. responded to questions regarding any signage changes since the photographs were taken. He indicated virtually all of the signs depicted on June 10, still remain today. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding calculation of sign area. what is allowed and what is exempt under the permanent and temporary signage requirements. Ms. Doherty was asked to read from the Code the definition of attached signage and it was indicated signs leaning or propped against a building are considered to be attached. Discussion ensued regarding if the pictures of animals are considered to be artwork or if they are signs. because they represent the nature of the business. It was indicated. if the pictures were for sale. they would be considered to be merchandise, Ms. Doherty read the definition of artwork from the City code. Mr, Esposito stated he has been affiliated with the business since 1969 and has owned it since 1980. He stated the animal caricatures are placed in the windows to block the sunfight coming into the front of the store. to brighten the windows and to give the appearance of being in business and shield from public view the backs of racks and storage areas within the store. The first caricatures were painted in 1979 and the artist has continued La paint and update thorn since that time. In response to questions, Mr, Esposito stated. although not currently marked for sale. any of the caricatures Gould be sold, He said he now sells fish, birds and pet supplies and no longer solis dogs and cats, Mr, Jennings felt the intent of the sign ordinance is to make businesses more attractive and minchl0u,93 4 10'13/93 reduce visual clutter, He stated Mr. Esposito is attempting to follow the intent of the code by not displaying words or pictures of merchandise. He questioned whether removing the roof sign and neon signs would obtain compliance. Discussion ensued regarding what constitutes artwork, how the pictures are situated in the windows and permanent versus temporary signage. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case No. 100-93, regarding violation of Sections 44.51 (4)(e)2.a and 2.0. of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1888 Drew Street, a/k/a New Marymont Sub, Block B, Lots 2-4 & 1/2 Vac St on E, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of October, 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, Inspection Specialist, Charles Zetterberg, Code Inspector, Steven Esposito, business owner, and William Jennings, attorney representing Steven Esposito and David Edmunds, the property owner, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, a photographic composite of the signs on the subject property, it is evident the pictures displayed in the windows at 1888 Drew Street have been determinod to be artwork and not signs and are not in violation of Section 44.51 (4)(e)2.a and 2,c. Therefore, Case No, 100-93 shall be dismissed. The Conclusions of Law are: David E. Edmunds and Steven Esposito are not in violation of Sections 44.51 (4He)2,a and 2.c. C,,/ It is the Order of this Board that Case No, 100-93 shall be dismissed, Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Publlc 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 whother to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. Case No. '0'-93 Roy R . Meador, Tre. 2999 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) mincbl0o,93 5 10/13/93 Paul Melvin, manager representing the owner, agreed the violation did exist and was corrected, He said he was hired in August and in an attempt to increase business he placed the temporary signs on the property without the knowledge of the owner, He did not know the owner had previously been cited for a temporary sign violation. Upon being informed of the violation. Mr, Melvin said he had the signs removed the same day, Discussion ensued regarding the issue, with Mr. Melvin stating he is trying to obtain a permit for a permanent free standing sign. ~"'-..,;,.t" f~;..~t.~~;'.I:'" ~.. ".:,,;>.::. ~\~. .....'.'.' .10.~.'~ '.'~."1 ":.'.' "~('.'.':. ...'i .......1 ,....+ ,'r'. :... .-t: '~:~.". ~., ,;:.(.,'.... I:. .:': ,J>: .',/ r", Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, stated Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, supervisor of the Community Response Team, has recommended a procedure for obtaining compliance through education and cooperation. He felt any fine imposed should be commensurate with staff time spent on the violation. Member Wyatt moved that, concerning Case No.1 01-93, regarding violation of Section 44.57(7) of the Clearwater City Code, on property located at 2999 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, a/k/a Lames' survey, Tract A,less southerly 110'. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of October, 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 Fnct are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, and Paul Melvin, Manager mpresenting Roy R. Meador, Tre., and Mr. Melvin admitting the violation existed. it is evident a portable sign existed within an area prohibiting such signage at 2999 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of law are: Roy R. Meador, Tre. was in violation of Section 44.57(7) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Rov R. Meador. Tre. shall continue compliance with Section 44.57(7) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. ~. , ( ",""" If Rov R. Meador. Tre. repeats the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after he 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 Publjc 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 argumont or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 80~93 Nina Sanders 1384 Pierce Street Affidavit of Non.CompHance Member Rogers moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-compliance in Case No. 80.93 and to initiate the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ~..._...~ rnincbl0n,93 6 10/13/93 .,.........'...~.~..... .....; ~.: ,,::"' :~...~:..'.:..:...~.:~.=~.'.,.....,..l'..!~..,. .....:.,j.' .::~. . '~.~I','~'I.~'.. .'....::./....,.... .". .. '~; .......::.:.~: { , r"'\ \ (" . ,....- . t..) Case No. 83-93 Elias Anastasopoulos & Gregory Politis 668 South Gulfview Boulevard Affidavit of Compliance Member Robinson moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 83.93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Case No. 60-92 David Legault I James P. Knight 803 Railroad Avenue Request for Waiver of Fine A request has been made by David Legault and James P. Knight to address the Board regarding a $33.250 fine levied against the subject property, They indicated thoy are working with the Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services to try and develop the property for infill housing. Member Wyatt moved to approve the request for hearing for the meeting of October 27. 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m. ATTEST: ~. .~ Secreta , minch100.93 7 10/13/93