05/25/2011
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 25, 2011
Present: Michael Boutzoukas Chair
Phillip J. Locke Board Member
Sheila Cole Board Member
Donald van Weezel Board Member
James E. Strickland Board Member
Sue A. Johnson Board Member
Absent: Duane Schultz Vice-Chair
Also Present: Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board
Camilo Soto Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Sprague Secretary to the Board
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
The Chair outlined the procedures and stated any aggrieved party may appeal a final
administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas
County within thirty days of the execution of the order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any
party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 Case 37-11
Gulf to Bay Investments LLC
1996 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Abandoned Signs – Weaver
No one was present to represent the owner.
Inspector Mary Jo Weaver provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation
was issued on December 21, 2010, following the first inspection. Violations at 1996 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard relate to an abandoned, non-conforming sign. Property photographs on February 19,
2008, July 25, 2009, December 18, 2010, and March 25, 2011 showed the abandoned, non-
conforming sign and closed business. At 14 feet, the sign is too tall. Yesterday, Ms. Weaver
spoke with property representative Kevin Hubbard who indicated the demolition of onsite
structures is out for bid.
Member van Weezel moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 1
Inspector Weaver recommended compliance in 30 days or a fine of $100 per day be
imposed.
Assistant City Attorney Camilo Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Locke moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation
on or before June 22, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the
Board may order a fine of $100 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that an abandoned, non-
conforming sign is present. The Respondent(s) was/were present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3-
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s)
1803.A
, as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by June 22, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall
notify Inspector Mary Jo Weaver, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 property owned by the Respondent(s),
pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 2
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
2.2 Case 38-11
Mary M. Jones
2021 Oakdale Way
Development Code Violation – Franco
Property owner Mary M. Jones did not admit to the violation.
Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. She had viewed a
Craigslist internet advertisement for room rentals at this property on August 16, 2010. Staff
removed a “Rooms for Rent” sign from the property’s front lawn on October 1, 2010. A notice of
violation was issued on December 21, 2010.
Violations at 2021 Oakdale Way relate to use of a single-family residence in an
unintended manner, with separate rooms rented to individual tenants. Property photographs on
April 1, 2011, showed house rules tacked to the refrigerator, a wall constructed to partition off a
room, locks on bedroom doors, and a refrigerator in a bedroom. Property photographs on May
11, 2011, showed the bedroom locks and bedroom refrigerator had been removed. Inspector
Franco reported multiple meetings with Ms. Jones. In April, the City was faxed a house rental
agreement, drafted and signed on April 5, 2011, between Ms. Jones and three tenants.
Inspector Franco said the property is problematic, negatively impacts the neighborhood, and
has generated a significant number of police calls. Attorney Soto said the Police Department
data base indicates a significant number of people in contact with Clearwater Police had
reported their address as 2021 Oakdale Way.
Timothy Patterson said he has lived in the house for three or four years; other tenants
have changed. He said the lock on his room and his refrigerator had been removed. He said
he is disabled veteran and due to PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) stays in his room and
is not involved with household arguments or Police visits. He said once the Police did enter his
room with weapons drawn.
Property owner Mary M. Jones denied renting single rooms. She said her three tenants
are like a family; they are disabled and have lived together a long time. She said one tenant
has been there approximately five months and another about a year; none is related. She
reported many problems with Code Enforcement and the Police Department; she said most
police calls were related to predators. In response to a question, Ms. Jones said while the
telephone number was correct, the “Rooms for Rent” sign presented by staff was not hers. She
said she has had signs in the yard once or twice; when a roommate drops out, she usually
advertises on Craigslist.
It was commented that the property is not zoned for a boarding house.
Member Johnson moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 3
Inspector Franco recommended compliance by June 8, 2011, or a fine of $150 per day
be imposed.
Four neighbors complained about the subject property, stating it is operated as a
halfway house. They expressed concerns regarding the safety of neighborhood children and
reviewed long-term, reoccurring problems such as daily fights, arguments, cussing, and
considerable police activity, including a visit by SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics).
In response to questions, Ms. Jones said each tenant pays her his monthly rent. She
said she will not rent to more than four tenants; overnight guests are not allowed. She reported
filing a federal complaint that handicapped people should be able to live together. She said she
had evicted many tenants.
Attorney Soto said police calls to the subject property related to burglary, fights, child
protection, harassment, overdose, suicide, theft, assault, domestic violence, Baker Act,
trespassing, failure to keep the peace, etc. In response to a question, Ms. Jones said she is not
medically trained but is disabled and has compassion for the disabled. She said she does
criminal background checks on tenants; her attempts to rent to families did not go well.
Concerns were expressed that neighborhood safety needs to be considered, problems
at the subject property are out of control, and the recommended compliance date does not
provide sufficient time for tenants to locate other housing and move.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member van Weezel moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before June 8, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to
exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the single-family
residence is not being used as intended with separate and/or individual rooms rented to
individuals. A representative of the Respondent(s) was present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1-104.B
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) ,
as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 4
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by June 8, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall
notify Inspector Peggy Franco, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 property owned by the Respondent(s),
pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
Ms. Jones said the compliance date provides insufficient time to evict her tenants.
Attorney Soto said the rental agreement requires 15-days’ notice for termination. The City will
work with Ms. Jones if she makes a good faith effort to comply.
2.3 Case 39-11
Mainstream Partners VIII LTD
350 Hamden Drive
Public Nuisance/Prohibited Mooring – Franco
Antonio Fernandez, general partner with Mainstream Partners VIII LTD, did not admit to
the violations.
Inspector Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued
on February 16, 2011, following the first inspection. Violations at 350 Hamden Drive relate to a
derelict, partially submerged catamaran, docked at the subject property and visible from the
street by tourists and residents. Property photographs on January 3, January 19, and April 7,
2011, showed the catamaran was either partially submerged or refloated. Property photograph
on May 20, 2011, showed the boat afloat. The catamaran is a public nuisance and has caused
the diminution of nearby property values. The cycle of sinking and refloating is ongoing. She
spoke with Antonio Fernandez on February 17, 2011. He reported an email from boat owner
David Larsen indicated the catamaran was sold and would be removed from the dock by June
7, 2011.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 5
In response to questions, Attorney Soto said violations relate to a continuing nuisance
and reoccurring pattern of the boat owner’s ongoing efforts to refloat the partially submerged
catamaran. Inspector Franco said the boat’s registration is current. Nearby residents
complained about the boat’s condition.
Antonio Fernandez said problems with the catamaran have been long term. He thought
adding floaters to the boat would bring it into compliance. He said due to problems with the
boat, he had not charged Mr. Larsen a docking fee for many months.
Consensus was that insufficient evidence was presented proving the boat caused
substantial diminution of nearby property values (City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances,
Sections 3-1503.B.1) or that the boat was tied to a private dock without the owner’s permission
(City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section & 33.055(1)).
Member van Weezel moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Sections 3-1503.A and 33-055.(2) as referred to in the affidavit
in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Inspector Franco recommended compliance by June 8, 2011, or a fine of $100 per day
be imposed.
Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman reviewed the consequences of repeat violations.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member van Weezel moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before June 7, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $100 per day for each day the violation continues to
exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that a derelict boat was
docked at the property. A representative of the Respondent(s) was present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3-1503.A
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s)
& 33.055(2)
, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. No action was taken on violations to City of
3-1503.B.1 & 33.055(1)
Clearwater Code Section(s) , as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by June 7, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 6
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall
notify Inspector Peggy Franco, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 property owned by the Respondent(s),
pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
2.4 Case 40-11
Carol Korotkow
804 Spencer Avenue
Landscaping Required - Phillips
Donald O. McFarland, attorney for property owner Carol Korotkow, did not admit to the
violations.
Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. Following a neighbor’s
complaint, City administration met and determined they would not support a Code change to
permit artificial ground cover. A notice of violation was issued on November 12, 2010.
Violations at 804 Spencer Avenue relate to artificial ground cover, shells used as ground cover,
and an area of the yard lacking ground cover. After correspondence with the property owner,
action on the violation was postponed. Inspector Phillips phoned the property owner on March
22, 2011, reporting that the case would be presented to the MCEB (Municipal Code
Enforcement Board). A final notice of violation was issued on April 14, 2011.
A property photograph on June 24, 2010, showed three sections of the yard: 1) covered
with artificial ground cover; 2) covered with shells, and 3) lacking sufficient ground cover.
Property photographs on March 22, April 14, May 13, and May 23, 2011, showed a lack of
ground cover on a portion of the front lawn, artificial ground cover surrounded by a shell border
on the front side yard, and ground on one side of the house and ground next to the driveway
covered with shells. Inspector Phillips said the property owner stated that artificial ground cover
is “Florida-friendly landscaping” and should be allowed
The MCEB meeting recessed from 4:42 to 4:54 p.m.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 7
Attorney Soto said while local governments cannot prohibit “Florida-Friendly
Landscaping,” artificial ground cover is not permitted. Artificial ground cover does not meet the
definition of “Florida-Friendly Landscaping” according to Florida Senate 2010 Florida Statues
(including Special Session A), Title XXVIII Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and
Use, Chapter 373, Water Resources, the “Florida-Friendly Landscape Guidance Models for
Ordinances, Covenants, and Restrictions,” issued by FDEP (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection) and University of Florida in January 2009, the “Florida-Friendly
Landscaping Model Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for New and Existing Community
Associations,” issued by University of Florida Department of Environmental Horticulture in
September 2010, or “Questions and Answers: 2009 Florida-Friendly Landscaping Legislation,”
issued by University of Florida IFAS (Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences) in March 2011.
Ground cover must be organic. Artificial turf increases surface temperatures and may result in
the loss of habitat. Healthy lawns clean and cool the air, filter stormwater runoff, and reduce
erosion, glare, and noise.
State Representative Ed Hooper said he was representing his constituent at no charge.
He said the State does not prohibit artificial ground cover. He said great strides have been
made in the manufacturing of artificial ground covers and he supported its use. He encouraged
the City to be more flexible and amend its Code to reduce fertilizer and water use.
Planning and Development Director Michael Delk said the City had spent significant time
and labor considering the property owner’s point of view. It was recommended the board take
into account the sources of submitted information.
Ms. Korotkow said she wanted her yard to be attractive without wasting water. She said
the City of Orlando and Green Building Council encourage the use of artificial grass and LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) offers certification points for its use. She said
artificial grass is permitted in the City of Safety Harbor and is used at the Dunedin Marina. She
said a Clearwater Beach condominium has a synthetic putting green. She said artificial grass is
better for the aquifer as it drains 32 gallons/hour through permeable holes while grass only
drains 8 to 10 gallons/hour. She said she does not like rubber infill cushioning. She said
USDEP (U.S. Department of Environmental Protection) and FDEP had told her they had not
done much study of artificial grass.
Ms. Korotkow said she used shells as ground cover because mulch washes into the
street. She said all medians and common areas on Clearwater Beach have shells. She said
she has had little luck during the past 18 months planting ground cover in the sandy soil of her
yard’s middle circle. She said she had spent a significant amount of money on the artificial
ground cover. She said the Code is more than 10 years old and needs to be updated.
A neighbor complimented the look of Ms. Korotkow’s artificial grass and said plant
materials wash into the street due to the steep grade of neighborhood yards.
Attorney McFarland said Ms. Korotkow had not violated Clearwater Code Sections 3-
1502.H.1 & 2 as the City has not submitted a definition of appropriate ground cover. He said a
decision should not be based on opinions expressed by one university. He did not understand
the reference to Article 3, Division 12. He said it is not appropriate for anyone at the meeting to
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 8
define “groundcover.” Concern was expressed that staff’s information is ambiguous and the
language requires interpretation.
In reference to 3-1502.H.3, Attorney McFarland said if groundcover materials are
synthetic, they cannot be maintained in a live condition. He said shells, which are permitted as
ground cover under certain circumstances, are not alive. He said Ms. Korotkow is not in
violation of Section 3-1204.B. He said there has been little change to Code since stone covered
lawns were prohibited. As synthetic ground cover is permitted in most local cities, he
recommended Clearwater update its Code. He requested that the item be continued so that
definitions could be verified.
Mr. Delk said he is responsible for interpreting the Code and often bases his
interpretation on dictionary definitions; no Code addresses every circumstance. He expressed
concern that synthetic ground cover is available in various colors and qualities. The Code does
not preclude the City from treating putting greens as an accessory structure. The Code requires
groundcover to be live material.
Attorney Soto said Article 3, Division 12 provides examples of appropriate ground cover.
He said Attorney McFarland’s secondary information was from contractors that provide artificial
turf. Attorney McFarland said artificial turf complies with Code as it allows percolation. It was
noted that permeable and percolate have different meanings.
Discussion ensued regarding Code language. Concerns were expressed that Code
definitions may be inadequate for resident understanding, the Code is vague regarding the
definition of ground cover, and is ambiguous regarding the appropriateness of landscape
materials. It was noted the Code requires ground cover to be maintained in a healthy live
condition. It was questioned if the meaning of landscape cover and ground cover are
interchangeable.
Attorney McFarland said water percolates easily through the synthetic material. Ms.
Korotkow said submitted material includes test information on percolation. Mr. Delk said
concrete also can be pervious. Not all soils have the same rate of percolation.
It was felt both the City and Respondent had provided incomplete information.
Member Strickland moved to enter an order to find the Respondent not in violation of the
City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case, and this case is
dismissed. There was no second.
Additional information was requested including a comparison of different types of
landscape covers, the effectiveness of mulch, what governing provisions are in place, and an
explanation of how submitted documents relate to the case and how they should be considered.
Sources for enforcement and interpretation were requested.
It was felt the Ordinance needs to be reviewed for clarity. It was suggested that staff
provide information from SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) on the
permeability of certain types of ground covers. Attorney Soto said FDEP and IFAS regulate
these issues, not SWFWMD.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 9
Member Johnson moved to continue a portion of this item, City of Clearwater Code of
Ordinances, Section 3-1502.H.1&2, to June 22, 2011, and for staff to provide additional
information regarding sources used to interpret and enforce the Code related to ground cover.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Locke, van Weezel, Johnson, and Chair Boutzoukas
voted:”Aye”; Members Cole and Strickland voted “Nay.” Motion carried.
It was stated that shells are used on the beach for ground cover and evidence indicates
Ms. Korotkow’s yard has erosion problems due to its slope.
Member Strickland moved to enter an order to find the Respondent not in violation of the
City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section 3-1204.B, as referred to in the affidavit in this
case, and this portion of the case is dismissed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having hear testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues to the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the condition does not
exist. A representative of the Respondent(s) was present
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3-
The Respondent(s) is/are not in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s)
1204.B
as referred to in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that this portion of Case 40-11 shall be dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
Member Strickland moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section 3-1502.H.3 as referred to in the affidavit in this case.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Locke, Strickland, van Weezel, Johnson, and Chair
Boutzoukas voted:”Aye”; Member Cole voted “Nay.” Motion carried.
Inspector Phillips recommended compliance within 30 days, or a fine of $100 per day be
imposed. In response to a question, Inspector Phillips reviewed appropriate ground covers.
Ms. Korotkow said she has a difficult time keeping plants alive. She requested 60 days.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 10
Member van Weezel moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation for City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section 3-1502.H.3 within 60 days. If the
Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $10 per
day for each day the violation continues to exist. There was no second.
Member Cole moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation
for City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Section 3-1502.H.3 by July 24, 2011. If the
Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $100 per
day for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent, and having heard testimony under oath and received
evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that landscape materials
in the front portion of the yard have not been maintained in a healthy live condition. A
representative of the Respondent was present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3-1502.H.3
The Respondent is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section , as
referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent shall comply with said Section of the
City of Clearwater Code by June 24, 2011. If Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation continues to
exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent shall notify Inspector
Julie Phillips, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the
Respondent fails to 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 property owned by the Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 162,
Florida Statutes.
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 11
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3.1 Case 06-11 Affidavit of Compliance
EBW Investments Inc
401 N. Garden Avenue
Exterior Surfaces - Franco
Member van Weezel moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 06-11. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
4.1 Request for Fine Elimination 40-10 & 41-10
Van Cobb & Leola Cobb
807 & 809 N. Garden Avenue
Lot Clearing – Ruud
Property owner Van Cobb said he was injured in an accident on January 7, 2011,
making it impossible for him to clear his property and his mother’s property by the January 4,
2011 deadline. A doctor’s note verifying his condition was submitted. Attorney Soto reported
the total fine for Case 40-10, 809 N. Garden Avenue, is $7,200 and administration costs are
$1,382.75. The total fine for Case 41-10, 807 N. Garden Avenue, is $13,600 and administration
costs are $1,382.75.
Member van Weezel moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 40-10 to
administration costs of $1,382.75, payable within 10 days. There was no second.
Concern was expressed regarding the Cobbs’ ability to pay the administration costs in
the near future. Mr. Cobb said he hoped to be able to work again by the end of the year.
Attorney Salzman reviewed board policy not to reduce fines below administrative costs.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Strickland moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 40-10 to
administration costs of $1,382.75, payable by November 25, 2011, or the lien will revert to its
original amount. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent’s request for
reconsideration of fine at a hearing held on May 25, 2011, and based upon the evidence
presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
After considering the request for reduction of fine filed by the Respondent(s) and
considering that the property is now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in fine is
appropriate in the above-referenced case.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 12
It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board
dated January 26, 2011, as recorded in O.R. Book 17159, Pages 2128-2129, of the public
records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to administrative costs of $1,382.75
payable to the Petitioner by November 25, 2011. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time
specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of $7,200.00 shall be recorded in the public
records of Pinellas County, Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
Member Strickland moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 41-10 to
administration costs of $1,382.75, payable by May 25, 2012, or the lien will revert to its original
amount. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent’s request for
reconsideration of fine at a hearing held on May 25, 2011, and based upon the evidence
presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
After considering the request for reduction of fine filed by the Respondent(s) and
considering that the property is now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in fine is
appropriate in the above-referenced case.
It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board
dated January 26, 2011, as recorded in O.R. Book 17159, Pages 2130-2131, of the public
records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to administrative costs of $1,382.75
payable to the Petitioner by May 25, 2012. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time
specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of $13,600.00 shall be recorded in the public
records of Pinellas County, Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 25th day of May 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS:
Nancy Peritore PNU2011-00232
2661 Peachtree Circle
29-28-16-20200-000-0110 $275.00
Barnell & Louise Evans PNU2010-01355
604 Fairmont Street
10-29-15-57420-000-0020 $200.00
Wells Fargo Bank N A PNU2010-02626
1309 Springdale Street
10-29-15-71694-004-0060 $250.00
Member Cole moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 13
�
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 27, 2011
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular Municipal Code
Enforcement Board meeting of April 27, 2011, as submitted in written summation to sach board
member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Consensus was to begin the June 22, 2011, meeting at 1:30 p.m.
7. ADJOURN:
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Attest:
CFiair
Municipa{ Code E
Code Enforcement 2011-05-25 14