Loading...
02/23/1994 (2) A\'::"'l'-' ,.'..:L. , . . . ~ C."'. _. . . .. , .. . , . -. . ; ..,' c " ~ " . ' .', T . " .~.. . <' . . . 'f :"" '/ .l~~~~^.,.".,~!,~,.'",;"";,,,::;,"-':"':""'"''''''''''''' ,I." " ""- ~ .. '. ..'., , , . ":..": .. ~i!'" '< :.,~,~..... .1~~4..... ~,~~.j.,",' h,.:':rt~~.'~t ..) ............. , ' CEB Municipal Code Enforcement Board Minutes '0 Date [e,brJULr-1. 2:3) 199"- -f- /:s 0 / v . , . , . " ,', . ',' I~'. " . l;. ~ . .) , 1,:(:".J\1:':"."'~' ,.:,~.., :l.;.~'v".~ c.'c, . '.,', "",~.,; ~"'f'r.", 1 ,~::.. 0' '''''" " ,,'0, '.. .q.l: ,.~~g~jr>.F .. :_". >', . .. : .c .. ... . . ~: ,... , ,. .':<,. ": . ',~' . Ie :>,~~ " I~ -o-!;.,.r.i MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of February 23, 1994, 3:00 p.m. Agenda Action PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BOARD ACTION I DISCUSSION (.,..i~,.\ I~ Case No. 36~92 Auto Clinic / J & M Corporation c/o Jeffrey Walsht President/A.A. 1239 Lincoln Avenue (Land Development Code) Address Board Regarding Fine Reduced fine from $12,900.00 to $229.82 administrative costs. I ~ ~ Case No. 71-93 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land'Development Code) Address Board Regarding Fine Denied request for reduction of fine. MINUTES ~ Meeting o'f February 9/ 1994 Approved as submitted ADJOURN Adjourned at 4: 15 p.m. u CBAct02b.94 02/23/94 l , , r I. f , ~~l~~'" ,: ',' c';' ). c lfj1\'i:: ;.',>, <'. ' :',,' .~;". . , H ~~' . .. " I ~.' <} MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 23, 1994 Members present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair (arrived 3:04 p.m.) Dennis Henegar E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Carl Rayborn Robert Theroux Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant to the City Managerl Community Response Team Mary K. Diana, Secretary for the Board Gwen J. Legters, Recording Secretary l~~~(~ In order to provide continuity for research, the ite~s will be listed in agenda order f"~' although not necessarily discussed in that order. The meeting was called to order by the Chair 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 decisior. of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None mincb02b.94 1 02/23/94 I I j \ . ,I ! OTHER BOARD ACTION I DISCUSSION v ~ ... . J: . . '.' .. .. :.~i~~l\ <~'~:l'.;'~ . \!l", " ' l ~ '." " :', , < ,'""\ Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic I J & M Corporation clo Jeffrey Walsh, President/A.A. 1239 Lincoln Avenue (Land Development Code) Jeffrey Walsh admitted to the violation, stating he has owned a business at this location since 1980. He said he built an awning to protect his property from flooding which resulted from the paving of an adjacent side street. He explained he built the awning, which encroached into the right-of-way, not knowing a permit was required. He indicated he received the notice of violation in April, 1992, nine months after the awning was built. He said he was in frequent contact with Public Works Director Bill Baker and various other City staff members trying to alleviate the flooding problem; however, was not successful until construction of an additional catch basin was completed in late September of 1993. He indicated he immediately removed the awning leaving the posts in place. <:) After compliance was ordered, Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspections Supervisor, stated he made routine follow-up inspections for about a year. He was not notified of the exact date when the canopy was removed; however, the affidavit of compliance was issued on December 9, 1993, after the posts were removed. He stated the canopy and posts have been removed and the property is now in compliance. In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the canopy was an aluminum roof which appeared to be serving the purpose of a carport being used to work on automobiles. The notice of violation was issued as a result of an anonymous complaint. Mr. Walsh responded to questions, stating he removed the canopy roof on October 5, immediately after seeing the new catch basin effectively diverted rainwater from his property. He hired a neighbor with a backhoe to take down the posts and notified the City. It was noted he received the original citation on May 26, 1992. Discussion ensued regarding a letter to the Board from Mr. Walsh, dated August 8, 1992, outlining his attempts to solve the flooding problem. There was confusion regarding the procedure and the fees for requesting a variance. In response to questions, Mr. Walsh stated his building is 40 feet by 25 feet and the canopy was 40 feet by 20 feet. The canopy did not interfere with traffic and there were no complaints, other than the anonymous one. , , "-' mlncb02b.94 2 02/23/94 . ' t. , h, . I.'. . .' . ," , '. . I',". ~ ~t;~\~c:~'- . '.: ..' <" .,~:~: :~, A question was raised how long it customarily takes for an inspector to respond to notification a property has been brought into compliance. Mr. Chaplinsky stated inspections are normally done within a day or two. He stated he was not notified when the canopy was removed. Mr. Walsh acknowledged that he had notified the Board, not the inspector. Mr. Walsh stated the awning was put up as a result of the hardship of the flooding problem, not to increase his working space. He stated he was been at this location for 13 years prior to building the awning and had no reason to increase his space needs after that amount of time. In response to a question, Mr. Walsh further detailed his attempts to solve the flooding problem, stating he had documented evidence of the flooding on videotape that had been submitted for the record at the previous hearing. Photographic' evidence from the original hearing was revIewed and Mr. Walsh submitted Defendant's Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property and the new catch basin. Staff recommendation was that a fIne reduction would be in order. o Discussion ensued regarding the case, with it being indicated Mr. Walsh appeared to be working toward solving the problem the entire time his property was in violation. Consensus was to reduce the fine to administrative costs, indicated by Attorney Salzman to be $229.82. In respons~ to a question, it was indicated anonymous complaints are investigated and an inspection is made to determine if the same type of violation exists elsewhere in the neighborhood. Member Theroux moved. concernlng Case 36-92, to reduce the fine from $12,900.00 to administrative costs of $ 229 .82, The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 71-93 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) The original citation in this case is a result of a complaint recelved by staff on July 9. 1991, that a motor home was parked in the setback. A notice was issued to Ms. Flowers and she moved the motor home to the side of the house on September 26, 1991. A written complaint was received in February, 1993 the motor home was v . . ~ mlncb02b.94 3 02/23/94 < I, ;0.,' ' ~ . ""'/' ',' ' t1.. .'. . . .. -F ':\ , ; '") again parked in the driveway, On June 28, 1993, staff observed the motor home parked parallel to the front Qf the property and a notice of recurring violation was issued. The BQard heard the case on August 25, 1993 and ordered compliance within five days. Marguerite Flowers-Chauncey addressed the Board, stating she wishes to have her motQr hQme grandfathered in so she can park it in her driveway. She said her coach is a low-profile motor home. It was explained this board can only consider whether or not to reduce the fine dQwn tQ administrative costs and she WQuld have to take the grandfathering issue before the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Flowers-Chauncey read into the record a January 11, 1994 letter she sent to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. The letter outlined her concerns regarding the nQtice of violation and the manner in which staff measured her property setbacks. She said she has parked her cQach in her driveway since 1969 and felt it should be handled the same way as parking a bQat. She requested the lien be removed from her property immediately. ,. % ~;;, Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl stated there is no grandfather clause regarding recreational vehicles. He indicated staff made several trips to measure her property in response to her requests. He stated subsequent attempts to contact her were not successful. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated motor homes are addressed under a different code sectiQn than boats. Ms. FIQwers-Chauncey questioned numerous different code sections cited on the nQtices of violation and why she received duplicate notices. Mr. Rosa responded the original citatiQn was issued under the old code section, prior to recodificatiQn; the notice of recurring violation was issued under the new code section. Regarding the duplicate mailings, he explained nQtices are mailed both regular and certified mail as an extra measure to help ensure they are received by alleged viQlatQrs. Mr. Rosa stated she was notified in April, 1992 of the May 26, 1992 hearing of the recurring violation. It was questiQned why certified mail was refused by Ms. Flowers-Chauncey and she did not appear fQr the hearings. She responded she chose nQt tQ accept the mail, thinking it was additional duplicate notices of violatiQn. It was noted the coach has not been continuously parked in the driveway and Ms. Flowers-Chauncey stated she had permission from her neighbor to park it alongside her house. Clarification was requested regarding where the vehicle had been parked. A photograph marked City Exhibit A, submitted on August 25, 1993 was reviewed. ~ mincb02b.94 4 02/23/94 . I ,< , ...," ,r . I . \ <, . \ . : . 0< ' n~~;:":' >," ,;. . {'1 J Ms. Flowers-Chauncey stated she has lived here since 1951 and expressed the feeling that she is a senior being singled out. She questioned the presence of City staff on her property and in the vicInity of her property with pollee officers. Lt. Kronschnabl stated he personally observed the motor home parked in her yard while he was in the neighborhood on a different matter. He stressed that staff has tried to make her aware they only want compliance. Discussion ensued regarding compliance efforts. It was indicated the motor home is no longer on the property and the affidavit of compliance was issued shortly after compliance was reached. Attorney Salzman indicated the accrued fine totals $3,175.00, and the administrative costs are $224.74. Member Riley moved. concerning Case 71 ~92. to deny the request for reduction of fine and let the fine stand as read, a total of $3,175.00, due to the fact Ms. Flowers- Chauncey did not accept her mail nor appear for the hearing to try to reconcile the matter; she could have moved the motor home to the side of the house; however, chose to leave it in a non-conforming area for a length of time. The motion was duly seconded. Member Theroux moved to amend the motion, reducing the fine to 50 percent of the accrued total plus full administrative costs to be paid within 30 days. The amended motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken. Members Theroux and \ .u,) Ro b inson voted Ii aye II; M embers Swanberg, Riley, Henegar, Rogers and Rayborn voted ~: IInay". Motion to amend failed. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor, Members Swanberg, Riley, Henegar" Rogers and Rayborn voted "aye"; Members Theroux and Robinson voted "nay". Motion carried. Attorney Salzman reported to the Board regarding the inquiry concerning having a sergeant-at-arms. He did not feel a voting Board member should perform that duty. He recommended having someone present at the meeting who can take administrative action, when needed. Member Theroux submitted a request, in writing, to be excused from the meetings of March 9, March 23 and April 13, 1994 for family medical reasons. Member Rogers asked to be excused from the meeting of March 9, stating she will be on vacation. Chairman Swanberg asked for suggestions the Board would like conveyed during the annual report to the City Commission. Ms. Diana stated the meeting date for this board has not yet been scheduled. ~ mincb02b,94 5 02/23/94 nf.::fif}(,:: '>~ '<, " ' ,I .,. .. ~ . :;" L . , ., < I '.; ~ ~ / d , " .. " :; 'i" :~, ... ~ j' .~ I, .. " . ':' r. . ; ',:.' . . :1' ~(~'~.. . ~\ . ~t!1!,:t"~',i':'}:'!~';ir~',d":' ,,":i, /,:,>: " , " ,.'.". . ;:. , , ,>: c, ...\', : '.'. , . '. c ,:;;/;:,'Y :.?',:,':C.': :.' · ;,:',:,; :,;::':':'/, ':-},:<' ~ : :';.'.' '.,? 'X:1:'\> '~\::1:':,';"'{~: ;~':'> 't~;~:' "/-, MINUTES - Meeting of February 9, 1994 . Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of February 9, 1994, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ' ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. '" , , ,I, ~ ~~~~ Chair .' MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD' ~ ATTEST: 1 i ,\ r , j ,', I" , o 's~Y~ v mlncb02b.94 6 02/23/94