Loading...
12/08/1993 (2) , '~ CEB MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE 0 / 2.J/6 ~ /9.JJ, . I, d7 -- C;027 (~v~ MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of December 8, 1993, 3:00 p.m. Aaenda 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 Case No. 51-93 Arthur & Mary Bruno I R. Mazikoske Withdrawn - sign variance granted 1645 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93, 9/8/93, 10/13/93 & 11/10/93 Case No. 74-93 C T Corp Syst I K-Mart Corp Continued to January 12, 1993 2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93, 9/8/93, 10/13/93 & 11/10/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested (' ': "'t..-' CBAct12D.93 12/8/93 Case No. 95-93 Sears Roebuck & Company Withdrawn - Complied Prior 1297 South Missouri Avenue (Land Development Code) Continued from 9/22, 10/27/93 & 11/10/93 Case No. 104-93 Gertrude S Nail, Trustee Continued to January 12, 1993 Golden Dream: I Menna-Digiovanni 2950 Gulf To Bay Bouleva,rd (Land Development Code) Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested Case No. 105-93 Laura Connolly & G. Nail Continued to January 12, 1993 Gulf To Bay Motel { Menna-Digiovanni 2960 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Land Development Codel Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93 ~ Request to continue - Sign variance requested F~ f'- J .........; Agenda Case No. 106-93 Claude E Miranda 700 S Lake Drive (Land Development Code) Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93 Case No. 111-93 Homer Realty Co., John W. Homer, R.A. 387.5 Mandalay Avenue Land Development Code Case No. 112-93 Homer Realty Co., John W. Homer, R.A. 389 Mandalay Avenue Land Development Code Case No. 113-93 Rode, Inc., clo John Ford 1 201 North Betty Lane OccupauonalLicense Case No. 114-93 Rode, Inc., clo John Ford 1201 North Betty Lane Land Development Code Case No. 115-93 Rode, Inc., c/o John Ford 1201 North Betty Lane Land Development Code UNFINISHED BUSINESS Action Ordered compliance by 1/30f94 Withdrawn Withdrawn Ordered compliance w/i 7 days after execution of order Ordered compliance w/i 7 days; after execution of order Ordered compliance w/i 7 days; after execution of order OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic J & M Corporation clo Jeffrey Walsh, PresidenrlR,A. 1239 Lincoln Avenue Land Development Code \,..",.1 Request to address Board fe fine CBAct12n,93 2 Affidavit of compliance required to address Board 12/8/93 r~ ,.\' '1; Aaenda Case No. 43-92 Richard D. Fouts 1106 Grove Street (Unsafe Building) Address Board re Waiver of Fine Action Continued to January 12, '1993 Case No. 103-93, Larry Bunting 804 N Pennsylvania Avenue (Public Nuisance) Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Case No. 108-93 Americana Gulf Motels, L TO cIa Edith Orosz, R.A. 411 S Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code) Dismissed: Complied Prior . Continued from 11/10/93 to discuss case law Discussed case law C' Case No. 110-93 Viorel Caba 1970 Rainbow Drive (Public Nuisance) Affidavit of Compliance \...,., Accepted ADJOURN 4:35 p.m. CBAct12n.93 3 ,\ 12/8/93 fA ~' ~) .~- MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD December 8, 1993 Members present: D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman Dennis Henegar Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Tamara Shannon Stephen D. Swanberg Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant to the City Manager; Community Response Team Supervisor Mary K. Diana, 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 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, 10/13/93 & 11/10/93 In a memo dated December 8, 1993, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty withdrew Case No. 51.93 as the property owner's sign variance was approved, which brings the signage into compliance. Case No. 74~93 C T Corp Syst I K-Mart Corp 2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/11/93, 9/8/93, 10/13/93 & 11/10/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested rnincb1211,93 12/06/93 ('\ ( \.....,.., In a memo dated December 8. 1993, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty requested Case No. 74-93 be continued as the property owner has submitted a request for a sign variance. Member Robinson moved to continue Case No. 74-93 to the meeting of January 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 95-93 Sears Roebuck & Company 1297 South Missouri Avenue (Land Development Code) Continued from 9/22, 10/27/93 & 11/10/93 Lt. Kronschnabl stated he has been in contact with the property owner and compliance has been obtained. He with Case No. 95-93. Case No. 104-93 Gertrude S Nail, Trustee Golden Dream: I Menna-Digiovanni 2950 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 10/27193 & 11/10/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested Case No.1 05-93 Laura Connolly & G. Nail Gulf To Bay Motel I Menna-Digiovanni 2960 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 10127193 & 11/10/93 Request to continue - Sign variance requested In a memo dated December 8, 1993, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty requested Cases 1 04~93 and 105-93 be continued as the property owners have submitted requests for sign variances. Member Robinson moved to continue Cases 104.93 and 105-93 to the meeting of January 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 106-93 Claude E Miranda 700 S Lake Drive (Land Development Code) Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93 Claude Miranda did not agree to the violation. He referenced a state statute defining commercial vehicles and felt his vehicle did not meet the criteria. The Board Attorney stated a municipal ordinance can be more restrictive. Attorney Lance agreed and read the City's definition that a commercial vehicle means "any vehicle designed for a commercial or industrial function, etc." Janis King, Code Enforcement Inspector / gave the background of the case, stating on August 11, 1993, the antique fire truck was observod parked in the setback of the residential zone at 700 S lake Drive. She verbally informed the owner of the residence that this was a violation and gave him until August 23 to comply. She measured the vehicle as 26 feet long, 8 feet high and it was mincb12o.93 2 12J08/93 f'., (~ parked 13 feet from the property line. She said these dimensions fit the definition of a commercial vehicle according to the code. She reinspected the property and the vehicle was still present. A notice of violation was sent on September 1 with a September 7 compliance date. The certified letter was returned unclaimed. The regular mail was not returned. The property was again inspected on September 8 and the vehicle was still there. Ms. King stated she talked to Mr. Miranda after September 8 and he said he would remove the signs from the vehicle; however, she informed him not only the signs, but the size of the vehicle caused the violation. On September 14, she observed the signs were again on the truck. On September 27, she again talked to Mr. Miranda about the signs being on the vehicle. Ms. King stated this case has been continued twice at the request of Mr, Miranda. She said Mr. Miranda on November 10 indicated he would be moving the truck to Tampa by January 30. She submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the vehicle, for the record. Member Swanberg asked if any complaints had been received regarding the vehicle and Ms. King responded there had been none; she had observed the vehicle herself. Member Swanberg asked if the advertising signs were removed from the vehicle, would it still fit the definition of a commercial vehicle. Ms. King responded there is still a stipulation on what size a vehicle may be in a residential area. Attorney Lance asked if the commercial signs were on the vehicle when a notice of violation was issued and Ms. King responded the signs were present. Lt. Kronschnabl noted the fire truck has been used for advertising for a number of years. Member Henegar felt the key point was in the definition of a commercial vehicle. A commercial vehicle was defined as one designed for industrial use and the subject vehicle is an old fire truck. In response to questions, Mr. Miranda stated he is in the process of restoring the fire truck and it will be moved by the end of January, if found to be in violation. Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case No. 106-93, regarding violation of section 42.34(9Hbl5 of the Clearwater City Code at 700 S Lake Drive a/k/a Boulevard Pines, Block D. Lot 8, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of December, 1993, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Janice King, Code Inspector, and Claude E Miranda and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of, the vehicle. it is evident an oversized commercial vehicle is parked or stored in a residential setback area at 700 S Lake Drive. The Conclusions of Law are: Cloude E Miranda is in violation of Section 42,34(9Hbl5 of the Clearwater City Code. mincb 120.93 3 12/08/93 .~..... . J (' , \."t.-'.. f i '-.,-c It is the Order of this Board that Claude E Miranda shall comply with Section 42.3419)(b)5 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by Januarv 30. 1993. If Claude E Miranda does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Claude E Miranda 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 Jien 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, Claude E Miranda shall notify Janice King, 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 orrler 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 whetl1er to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 111~93 Homer Realty Co., John W. Homer, R.A. 387.5 Mandalay Avenue Land Development Code Case No. 112~93 Horner Realty Co., ..John W. Homer, R.A. 389 Mandalay Avenue Land Development Code James A Martin, Jr., attorney representing Mr. Homer, did not agree to the violation. He stated the citations are improper because they reference the incorrect entity. He said the correct entity is Horner Properties, Inc. He requested Cases 111-93 and 112-93 be dismissed. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated property ownership was obtained from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. The registered agent was obtained from the office of the Secretary of State. Mr. Martin felt the City should have checked with the official records of Pinellas County. He said, this is a notice of repeat violation and the entity originally cited was incorrect. John W. Homer responded to questions, stating the subject properties were owned by Homer Properties, Inc. before the original citations were issued. It was indicated, while Homer Properties, Inc, is a separate entity from Horner Realty Company, Mr. Homer is the registered agent of both. mincb1211,93 4 12/08/93 /' ! Mr. Lance asked that the citation be amended to reflect the correct entity. Attorney Martin felt the original citation was also improper. The Board Attorney expressed concern the proper party may not have been cited for the repeat violation. Attorney Lance recommended withdrawing Cases 111.93 and 112-93. Cases 111-93 and 112693 were withdrawn. Attorney Lance stated any future violations wlll be cited. Case No. 113-93 Rode, Inc., clo John Ford 1201 North Betty Lane OccupafionalLkense Case No. 114.93 Rode, Inc., cIa John Ford 1 201 North Betty Lane Land Development Code Case No. 115-93 Rode, Inc., cIa John Ford 1201 North Betty Lane Land Development Code No one was present to represent the property owner. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the business concerns the resale of commercial materials and vehicles. He received a complaint in early August Mr. Ford was running a business (' without a license in the General Commercial zone. Mr. Rosa stated he informed Mr. Ford of the ',,~. violation at the time and the three notices of violation were issued on August 4, 1993, giving him one week to comply. Mr. Ford discussed the situation with staff, saying he had a special going out of business permit from the county sherriff. This type of permit is good for 30 days and Mr. Rosa extended the compliance date to 30 days. He stated the most recent photographs of the property are dated November 29, 1993. Mr. Rosa testified the violations depicted in the photographs still exist today. City Exhibits A and B, photographs of the subject property on August 26 and November 29, were submitted for the record. ' In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the ownership information was obtained from the county property appraiser's office. The address of the complainant was indicated to be 1117 North Betty Lane. It was not known when the special permit from the county would have expired. Mr. Rosa stated he gavo Mr. Ford the benefit of the doubt, setting the compliance date for 30 days after the original compliance due date. mincb12o,93 5 12/08/93 Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Ford operating without permits or licenses and the requirements for obtaining an conditional use. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case Nos. 113~93, 114.93 and 115-93, regarding violation of sections 29.28 & 29.30{1 L 40.004(3H(I) and 44.58 of the Clearwater City Code at 1201 North Bettv Lane alkla Pinebrook Unit 2, Block E, Lots 13 & 14, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of December, 1993, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of law, and Order. ....-, r'O. ( ...... The Findings of Fact are: after hearing the testimony of Rick Rosa, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibits A & B, photographs of the subject property, it is evident: 1) John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc., is operating a business without a City of Clearwater Occupational License; 2) his use of this property is not in compliance with the zoning regulations and 3) signage exists which is prohibited by the City Sign Code at 1201 North Betty lane. The Conclusions of Law are: John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc., is In violation of Sections 29.28 & 29.30(1 ). 40.004(3)(a) and 44.58 of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that John Ford d/b/a Rode, Inc. shall comply with Section 29.28 & 29.30(1), 40.004(3)(a) and 44.58 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 7 days after the execution of this order. If John Ford. d/b/a Rode. Inc. 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 dnte, If John Ford. d/b/a Rode. Inc. 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 shalf constitute a lien against any real or personal property ownod by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shalf 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, John Ford, d/b/a Rode. Inc. shall notify Rick Rosa, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur. the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS OTHER BOARD ACTION Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic J & M Corporation c/o Jeffrey Walsh, President/R .A, 1239 Lincoln Avenue Land Development Code Request to address Board ,e fine The request was not scheduled as Board policy requires an affidavit of compliance prior to addressing the Board. min~b12o.93 e 12/08/93 (''' ~..,; '--.. ; Case No. 43-92 Richard D. Fouts 1106 Grove Street (Unsafe BuUding) Address Board fe Waiver of Fine Dixie Walker Duncan, Housing Inspector at the time of the original hearing, June 24, 1992, gave the history of the property. She stated the previous property owner, John Allison, lived in Georgia and had rented the property to tenants who damaged the internal systems. The Board issued an order to secure the property within 5 days and to complete compliance within 30 days. The property was secured, however, was not brought into compliance. Mr. Fouts purchased the property with the lien in December, 1992, corrected the unsafe conditions within two weeks of purchase; however, an affidavit of compliance was not issued until October, 1993. He is asking to have the fine reduced. Attornoy Salzman noted the fine llmounts tu $115.750 and a lien has already been filed. Richard Fouts, in response to Questions, stated he purchased the property for his residence because he wanted a home and this was all he could afford. He said he has no interest ties with John Allison. A question was raised if Mr. Fouts was aware of the lien and he responded he signed various papers at closing. It was pointed out the title policy would reflect the lien. Mr. Fouts was commended for his work to bring the property into compliance. Discussion ensued regarding reducing the fine and a recommendation was made to continue this case to determine the amount of the administrative costs. Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 43-92 to the meeting of January 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously, Case No. 103-93 Larry Bunting 804 N Pennsylvania Avenue (Public Nuisance) Affidavit of Compliance Member Riley moved, concerning Case No.1 03-93. to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 108-93 Americana Gulf Motels, L TO c/o Edith Orosz, R.A. 411 S Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code) Dismissed: Complied Prior Continued from 11/10/93 to discuss case law Board Attorney Salzman said he has not found any case law regarding outdoor displays of merchandise relating to this particular situation. He stressed the importance of the Board making the determination they feol is appropriate for each individual case, Illlncb1211.93 12/08/93 7 (""\ ("; ....M" v Case No. 110-93 Viorel Caba 1970 Rainbow Drive (Public Nuisance) Affidavit of Compliance Member Riley moved, concerning Case No. 11 O~93, to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. BOARD DISCUSSION Discussion ensued regarding citizens purchasing properties that carry City liens and bringing them into compliance. Lt. Kronschnabl felt this helps to clean up neighborhoods and requested direction from the Board regarding waiving Jiens for someone wanting to purchase these properties. It was indicated, while it may be a gamble to purchase these properties, pictures taken before and after compliance would be useful to the Board in making a decision on whether or not to reduce the fines. Code Inspector, Rick Rosa, requested direction in obtaining compliance in Case No. 71-93, Marguerite Flowers, 111 Orangeview Avenue. Discussion ensued regarding the City's authority to have the vehicle towed. This case relates to a motor home which is illegally parked in the driveway of a residential property. Lt. Kronschnabl requested an update to the lien status list. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. ~/"'-- ,-- ;Z--"'. " .' --:-Q C~:::;-:-. ~'~~~4. , Chairman (".. ".. MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BoARD ATTEST: 2~Y~ mincb12u,93 12/0B/93 8