Loading...
10/26/2005 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER October 26, 2005 Present: Sheila Cole Chair Douglas J. Williams Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Jay Keyes Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Kelly Sutton Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Jenay Iurato Attorney for the Board Rosemarie Call Acting Secretary for 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. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued from 09/28/05 Case 25-05 Imt-Lb Central Florida Portfolio, LLC C/O: Investors Mgt Trust Real Estate Group, Inc. (MacArthur Park Apts) 2690 Drew St. Permits & Inspections (Fence & Roof) – Coccia Case 25-05 was continued automatically to November 30, 2005. B.Continued from 9/28/05 Case 26-05 (Repeat Violation) Allison V Thompson 2271 Springrain Dr. Permits & Inspections – Coccia Case 26-05 was continued automatically to November 30, 2005. C. Case 32-05 Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 1 Wilson, Robert H III Kehoe, Marty Miller, David S. 1626 Barry Rd. Permits & Inspections – Coccia Case 32-05 was withdrawn. D. Case 33-05 Ross W Jahren 1330/1328 Tioga Ave Lot Clearing and Exterior Surfaces - Ruud Acting Secretary for the Board Rosemarie Call reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Property owner Ross Jahren said his property had been out of compliance, but now meets Code. Inspections Specialist Al Ruud said the property continues to violate Code. He recommended that both buildings on the property be brought into compliance within 30 calendar days or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on October 26, 2005, 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 the exterior surfaces of both structures are not properly maintained and there is excessive debris on the property site. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of 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 30 calendar days from the date this Board’s Order is sent certified mail to the Respondent(s). If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Al Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/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(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 Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 2 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. motion The was duly seconded. In response to a question, Mr. Jahren reviewed his actions to bring the property into compliance and said the majority of the violations had been addressed. carried Upon the vote being taken, the motion unanimously. E. Case 34-05 George & Stavroula Melandinos 2428 Parkstream Ave. Permit for tree removal - Kurleman No one was present to represent the property owners. Acting Secretary for the Board Rosemarie Call reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman provided a power point presentation. He first inspected the property on January 28, 2005, in response to an anonymous complaint. The Notice of Violation was issued on May 26, 2005, for improper tree removal. Photographs of the tree stumps, taken on January 28, 2005, indicate the size of the previous trees and their location on the property at 2428 Parkstream Avenue. He recommended the property be brought into compliance by November 29, 2005, by planting two code size shade trees and mitigating the remaining 23 inches by paying $1,104 to the tree bank fund or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Mr. Kurleman submitted City exhibits 1 and 2. In response to a recommendation that staff determine costs incurred to pursue violations, Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff said staff is not prepared to present cost estimates at this time. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said the original Notice of Violation was not sent by certified mail and had to be reissued on May 26, 2005. He discussed the matter with the property owners’ daughter and thought the issue would be resolved. In response to questions, he reviewed the method used to determine the value of trees. As they normally are measured at the 4.5-foot mark, Mr. Kurleman said he had subtracted several inches from stump measurements to determine size. Member Martin moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on October 26, 2005, 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 Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 3 Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that two laurel trees were removed without permits as required by code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is to pay a fine of $1,104 and plant two trees as required by code by November 29, 2005. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Scott Kurleman, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/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(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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. F. Case 35-05 Damir & Jasminka Hercinovic 1857 Elmhurst Dr. Permit for tree removal – Kurleman Acting Secretary for the Board Rosemarie Call reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Property owner Damir Hercinovic said he was unsure that a violation had occurred. Mr. Kurleman provided a power point presentation. He made his initial inspection of the property on June 1, 2005, and issued a Notice of Violation on June 7, 2005, regarding improper tree removal. He presented photographs of the tree, taken on June 10, 2005, which showed that the tree’s branches had been pruned to the trunk. Code language considers severely pruned trees as having been removed as excessive pruning causes trees to die. Mr. Kurleman said the homeowner had made no attempt to contact him. Mr. Kurleman recommended the property be brought into compliance by November 29, 2005, by planting one code shade tree, and mitigating the other 21 inches of tree by paying $1,008 to the tree bank and or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 4 Mr. Kurleman submitted City exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Hercinovic said the tree had been damaging his pool enclosure screening and carpeting. He said he had not intended to violate Code when he paid someone to trim the tree and did not know that a permit was required. He submitted photographs he said were taken today that demonstrated that the tree was coming back to life. Mr. Kurleman said the structure of the tree had been compromised and could not be restored. Regrowth shown in the photographs is weak and will become hazardous. Mr. Hercinovic said this is his first violation and requested that the fine be reduced. He said he did not understand that he could have contacted staff to discuss the issues before coming to this board. Member Williams moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on October 26, 2005, 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 a live oak was removed without a permit as required by code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is to pay a fine of $1,008 and plant one tree as required by code by November 29, 2005. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Scott Kurleman, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/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(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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 5 G. Case 36-05 Robert Schoeller 632 Drew St. Permits & Inspections - Wright Acting Secretary for the Board Rosemarie Call reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. Property owner Robert Schoeller said he did not admit to a violation. Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright provided a power point presentation. He made his initial inspection of the property on April 29, 2004, and issued a Stop Work order on May 10, 2004. Code violations include building without permits and/or inspections and work without permits. Service on the notice of a December 13, 2004, hearing in court had been obtained by posting the property, after certified mail was returned to the City unclaimed. Staff met onsite with the owner, who paid a fine on the notice to appear in court. Mr. Wright presented photographs, taken in 2004, to include the Stop Work Order, construction of walls, a well, ponds, and a reflecting pool in the property’s rear. No building permits or plans had been submitted to the City for any of the construction. While a pond had been permitted, no inspections were scheduled. Photographs, taken in 2005, showed no improvements had been made to the structure’s front but in the rear, showed construction debris and new construction, including installation of storefront windows, a garage door, pillars, a reflection pond, a fountain, etc. Mr. Wright said the property owner continues to add to the property without obtaining necessary permits, using licensed contractors, nor passing required inspections. Mr. Wright said due to ongoing problems with the property, staff recommends that the property owner obtain necessary permits within 14 days and comply within 30 days, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed, but due to special Downtown District rules, amends its recommendation to require that the property owner apply to the CDB (Community Development Board) for a new development order within 30 days, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Building Official Kevin Garriott said the previous development order had expired and needs to be reactivated before the property owner can apply for required permits. Mr. Wright said the well is now a fountain. The grounds are not open to the public. Attorney Ruff said the property is located in the Downtown District. Mr. Wright submitted City exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Schoeller said the CDB had approved the site plan for his garden. He said he was advised that permits only were required for the pond and gate. He said permits were not required for him to build walls to hold soil and create a formal garden at the rear of his home. He said an inspector had said the pond was fine and that he did not need to return. Tim Schoeller, son of the property owner, said they could do their own construction without permits onsite as the property is homesteaded and is a live/work space. Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 6 Planner John Schodtler reviewed the site plan approval process. The subject property is located in the Downtown redevelopment district. CDB or DRC (Development Review Committee) approval is required for any changes to structures in the district, including painting and landscaping. On March 13, 2001, the CDB issued a development order for an art studio, offices, gallery space, and a residence, with conditions that required that permits be obtained within one year, a certificate of occupancy be obtained within one year, or a request for an extension be obtained within one year, etc. As the development order expired in 2003, the property owner needs to repeat the process. It was recommended that the City send a letter to Mr. Schoeller, outlining what actions he must take to comply with Code. In response to a question, Mr. Schodtler said one-year deadlines can be extended when projects continue to pass inspections. Construction permits for the subject property expired. Mr. Wright said a site plan, including landscaping drawings, are required to apply to the CDB. Attorney Ruff requested that the board classify this as a repeat violation as the property owner previously went before the County Court and paid a fine. At this point, staff cannot determine the cost of a CDB application. Robert Schoeller said he now does not intend to open the property to the public. He said staff had advised him that permits were not necessary for garden sculptures. He said he had not changed any structures. He said the property is his home. Mr. Wright said the owner has changed the property from a commercial use as an ice- house to a residential use. The property’s overall concept, including landscaping, must meet the Downtown plan and must be approved. Mr. Garriott said some onsite projects require permitting, such as the need for engineering overview when concrete is poured for retaining walls or electrical service is installed. Robert Schoeller said he already had received approval for his site. He said the process is too expensive and is impossible to do within one year and requested an extension. Member Keyes moved to continue Case 36-05 to November 30, 2005, to provide the motion property owner the opportunity to work out outstanding issues with staff. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Continued from 8/24/05 Case 20-05 (Request for Reconsideration) Thomas C Jessup & Dorothy J Jessup 1770 Drew Street Portable Storage Unit – Parra Case 20-05 was continued automatically to January 25, 2006. 4. NEW BUSINESS – None. Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 7 . 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Martin R Sportschuetz 754 Bruce Ave. Mandalay Sub, Blk 14, Lot 5 PNU2005-01309 Don R Whitehurst 635 Mandalay Ave. Mandalay Unit NO.5 Blk 84, Lots 1 & 2 $299.75 PNU2005-01645 $381 Member Keyes moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 28,2005 Member Williams moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 28, 2005, as corrected: page two, paragraph seven, last sentence to read "He said based on the inspector's observations, t1-.c property is still out of compliance." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Chair Cole said that it was a great honor to serve orl the Municipal Code Enforcement Board, and encouraged residents to take advantage of great opportunities in the City for citizen. n involvement by volunteering. . 7. ADJOURNMENT: \ The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ,....--... \ Jc~ Ch ir Mu icipal Code Enforcement Board . Code Enforcement - 2005-10-26 8