Loading...
11/30/2005 . . . MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER November 30,2005 Unapproved Present: Douglas J. Williams Jay Keyes Richard Avichouser Kelly Sutton Richard Adelson Vice-Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Absent: Joyce Martin George Kraus Board Member Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Jenay lurato Mary K. Diana Patricia O. Sullivan Assistant City Attorney Attorney for the Board Secretary for the Board 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. Case 25-05 - (Contd. from 10/26/05) Imt-Lb Central Florida Portfolio, LLC C/O: Investors Mgt Trust Real Estate Group, Inc. (MacArthur Park Apts) 2690 Drew Street Permits & Inspections (Fence & Roof) - Coccia Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Representative Attorney Anthony Carriuolo said the property owner does not contest the violations. Building Construction Inspector Mike Coccia recommended the property be brought into compliance within 30 calendar days by obtaining all permits and completing the project within six months or a fine of $250 per day be imposed, in addition to reimbursement to the City for administrative and investigative costs. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 1 . . . Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1- 2. Planner Wayne Wells said the height of the fence requires COB (Community Development Board) approval and the earliest the request can be heard is January. The recommendation was amended. The property is to be brought into compliance by obtaining the permits for the roof within 30 calendar days and the fence within 90 calendars days and completing all work within six months or a fine of $250 per day be imposed, in addition to reimbursement to the City for administrative and investigative costs. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 acknowledgement of no contest by Attorney Anthony Carriuolo, Respondent's representative, and evidence received, it is evident installation of perimeter fence and roof renovations on multiple units on property site violated permit and inspection requirements. 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 obtain a fence permit within 90 days, roof permit within 30 days and complete all work within six months from the date this Board's Order is sent certified mail to the Respondent(s) and reimburse City for administrative costs. 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 Inspector Mike Coccia, 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 2 . . . B. Case 26-05 - Repeat Violation (Contd. from 10/26/05) Allison V Thompson 2271 Springrain Drive Permits & Inspections - Coccia Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. Representative Attorney Michael Moctezuma Milo presented a letter on behalf of the property owner and indicated agreement has been reached. Attorney Ruff said the Respondent is to pull the required permits within 60 days and complete the project within another 60 days for a total of 120 days or a fine of $250 per day be imposed after the 120 days have expired. Mr. Milo said lakeside erosion is a problem and the homeowner's association has not addressed it for the last 10 years and an overall solution for all the homes has to be found. He indicated if the homeowner's association becomes involved in the erosion protection, it might impact the project. He indicated the 120-day timeframe is adequate to deal with the issue. In response to a question, Mr. Ruff said the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) this case was presented as a repeat violation on October 26, 2005. Mr. Ruff added the violator would be charged administrative and investigative costs, which total $1,822.31 and submitted documentation. Mr. Milo said his client did not agree to those costs and requested a continuance to the next meeting, as a full board is not present. Member Keyes moved to continue Case 26-05 to the next MCEB meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 36-05 (Cont'd from 10/26/05) Robert Schoeller 632 Drew Street Permits & Inspections - Wright Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright reported the MCEB continued this item last month to allow Robert Schoeller to meet with Planning Department staff. He reported agreement had been reached whereby Mr. Schoeller would file a complete development order application by February 24,2006 for a CDB (Community Development Board) hearing to obtain the necessary permits. Property Owner Robert Schoeller denied he had agreed to that deadline. He said he needed more time as he has three art exhibitions scheduled in Europe and many changes to the site plan are necessary to meet current Code requirements. He said he did not want to work under pressure and offered to complete the project in phases. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 3 . . . Tim Schoeller, property owner's son, said staff provided the following options: 1) submit an application by the February deadline or 2) bulldoze the building. Mr. Robert Schoeller argued that changes to the original development order had been minor and a new one was not necessary. Development and Neighborhood Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl reviewed the history of the property. Since 1994, staff has had a significant number of meetings with Mr. Schoeller, who has not followed through on any agreement. The City has been very patient, but needs to have closure on this project. John Schodtler, Planner, said previous CDB approvals provided three years to complete the work. The project was never completed as the plans specified and the development order and approvals expired nullifying the uses requested. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said Mr. Schoeller cannot pull permits for the necessary work until a new development order is approved. Mr. Schoeller requested additional time to hire an architect and amend the site plan. Mr. Kronschnabl opposed the requested extension. Tim Schoeller said the proposed deadline does not provide sufficient time to design all architectural elements. Ms. lurato reviewed the Board's October decision, which had directed Mr. Robert Schoeller to resolve outstanding issues with the City. She noted that issues of dispute had not been resolved, as the property owner does not agree with staffs recommendation. Member Adelson moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 Respondent has failed to comply with the Stop Work Order and Notice of Violation issued on 4/29/01 and is performing work on the property without an approved site plan and construction permits and inspections. 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 submit an application and site plan to CDB (Community Development Board) by February 24,2006. 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 Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 4 . . . Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Bill Wright, 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Case 37-05 Johnie Blunt 1321 N Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue Fences, Lot Clearing - Collins See Item 1 F, for discussion of this item. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 admission of guilt by Respondent, and evidence received, it is evident excessive debris exists on property site and fence is not properly maintained. 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 by January 15, 2006. 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 Inspector Cornelius Collins, 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. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 5 . 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 38-05 Johnie & Elizabeth Blunt 1317 N Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue Exterior Surfaces, Lot Clearing - Collins See Item 1 F, for discussion of this item. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30, 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 an admission of guilt by Respondent, and evidence received, it is evident the exterior surfaces of structure are not properly maintained and there is excessive debris on 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 by January 15,2006. 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 Inspector Cornelius Collins, 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 Pine lias 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 Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 6 . . . 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. F. Case 39-05 Johnie Blunt 1104 Tangerine Landscaping Required, Lot Clearing - Collins Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notices of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Property owner Johnie Blunt admitted to the violations. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said all violations have not been corrected. He said he explained to Mr. Blunt if the properties are again in disrepair, a repeat violation would be declared. He recommended the properties be brought into compliance by January 15, 2006, 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 November 30,2005, 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 an admission of guilt by Respondent, and evidence received, it is evident excessive debris exists on property site and landscaping does not meet code requirements. 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 by January 15, 2006. 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 Inspector Cornelius Collins, 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. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 7 . . . 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. Case 40-05 Bruce T. Vaughan 1721 Estelle Drive Lot Clearing, Exterior Surfaces, Roof - Franco Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by hand delivery and certified mail. The property owner was not present. Code Enforcement Inspector Peggy Franco reviewed alleged violations via a power point presentation. Her initial inspection of property occurred on April 27, 2005 when a door hanger was left. A courtesy letter instructing the property owner to correct the violations by May 31, 2005 was mailed May 6, 2005. A Notice of Violation was issued on May 31, 2005. Ms. Franco presented her June 15, 2005 photograph documenting roof needing repair and overgrowth in yard. In response to property owner Bruce Vaughan's June 20, 2005 request for an extension, staff granted him 30 days. When violations were not corrected by August 12, 2005, Ms. Franco prepared a Lot Clearing Worksheet, but the contractor could not enter the property due to a lock on the back gate. Her September 1, 2005, photograph showed overgrowth on the property. On September 14, 2005, Ms. Franco posted the property for code violations related to exterior surfaces and the roof. A September 22, 2005 photograph shows overgrowth, a locked gate, a roof in need of repair, peeling paint, etc. Ms. Franco recommended the property be brought into compliance by December 12, 2005 for lot clearing or abatement be permitted, and that the roof and exterior surfaces be brought into compliance by January 6, 2005, or a fine of $150 per day be imposed. Attorney Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 2. Member Avichouser moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 roof and exterior surfaces of structure are not properly maintained and there is excessive debris on property site. The Respondent had no representation. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 8 . . . 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 on lot clearing violation by December 12, 2005 or lot abatement be allowed and on roof exterior surfaces violations by January 6,2006. 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) 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. H. Case 41-05 Gentian & Alma Kraja 611 S. Highland Avenue Development Code (Vehicle Sales) - Franco Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. The property owners were not present. Ms. Franco reviewed alleged violations via a power point presentation. She made her first inspection of the property on May 31,2005 and sent a courtesy letter. Her May 31,2005 photograph showed a vehicle, marked for sale, parked in the front of subject property. Her June 3, 2005, photograph showed the "unlawful" sticker she had attached to the vehicle. She reported she received a message from "Hector" on June 6, 2005, who said he would move the vehicle. During her June 21, 2005 inspection, Ms. Franco said a different vehicle for sale was parked on the property. She returned property owner Alma Kraja's June 22, 2005 message, explaining that vehicles cannot be parked on the grass and vehicle sales are not permitted in a residential district. During her August 10, 2005 inspection, Ms. Franco said a third vehicle on the property was being offered for sale. A Notice of Violation was issued on August 12, 2005. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 9 . . . Ms. Franco reinspected the property on September 7,2005 and found a fourth vehicle on the property offered for sale. She posted the property on September 14,2005, after the certified mail certificate was not returned. On October 12, 2005, she found a fifth vehicle on the property for sale. On October 20, 2005, she found a sixth vehicle on the property for sale. On October 25, 2005, a boat on the property was offered for sale. Ms. Franco recommended the property be brought into compliance by December 5, 2005, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. She reported the property has a "for rent" sign and no tenants live there. She never was advised the property was a rental or that tenants had been selling vehicles from the house. The property owner is responsible for activities on the property. She did not know if the property owners live onsite. Ms. Franco submitted City Exhibits 1 -2. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 vehicle sales are occurring in a residential district, which is not allowed by code. The Respondent had no representation. 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 by December 5,2005. 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 Inspector Peggy Franco, 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. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 10 . . . The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. I. Case 42-05 Giant Oillnc 3009 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Portable Storage Units & Dimensions - Franco Case 42-05 was withdrawn by staff. J. Case 43-05 Lokey Oldsmobile Inc. 2339 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Portable Signs, Banners & Flags, Numbers, Window Signs, Permits - Fox Property owner representative Scot Harlib admitted to the violations and reported he would meet with staff to remedy them. Sign Inspector MaryJo Fox recommended the property be brought into compliance by December 15, 2005, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Member Adelson moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 an admission of guilt by Respondent's representative, and evidence received, it is evident on the property prohibited portable signs, excessive flags and window signs, and signs erected without permits are being displayed. 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 by December 15, 2005. 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 Inspector Mary Jo Fox, 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. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 11 . . . 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. K. Case 44-05 Donald Fox Realty, Inc. 915 Court Street Development Code (Signs) - Hall Property owner representative Attorney Nathan Hightower requested a continuance, as all board members were not present. Mr. Hall requested the item be heard, as the violation is located on a major City corridor. Member Keyes moved to deny the request to continue Case 44-05. The motion was duly seconded. In response to questions, Mr. Hall said the violation relates to prominent vehicle signage on a main corridor. Mr. Kronschnabl said the property owner has violated the site's development order, which clarifies the number of permitted signs. He expressed concern the property owner's refusal to comply with code sets a dangerous precedent that would allow businesses throughout the City to convert old U-Haul trucks into business advertisement signage. Mr. Hightower did . not consider the writing on the truck as signage and said he was amenable to discussing the issue further with staff. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hightower requested a 10-minute recess. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board recessed from 4:13 to 4:21 p.m. Mr. Hall reviewed the alleged violations via a power point presentation. He initially inspected the property on September 27, 2005 and issued a Notice of Violation on September 28, 2005, with a compliance date of October 5, 2005. The violator's attorney contacted staff and requested a hearing before the MCEB be scheduled. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property on October 14, 2005. The property's development order limits signage to two attached signs and one monument sign and requires the property owner to maintain a lease with the property owner to the south for parking needs. Mr. Hall presented photographs he had taken of the property: 1) September 22,2005 - photograph of converted U-Haul truck painted with advertisements for onsite orthodontist business, parked on property; 2) October 7,2005 - photograph of a-frame sign in the subject property's right-of-way; 3) October 7,2005 - photograph of converted U-Haul truck parked in driveway on subject property near street; 4) October 12, 2005 - photograph of Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 12 . . . converted U-Haul truck parked on subject property by street; 5) October 14, 2005 - photograph of Notice of Violation attached to door of subject property; 6) October 14, 2005 - photograph of neon "BRACES" sign in window of subject property; 6) October 14, 2005 - photograph of subject property, showing a-frame sign in right-of-way, converted U-Haul truck, neon "FUN BRACES" sign in window, and a blue neon "BRACES" sign in another window; and 7) November 5,2005 - converted U-Haul truck straddling two parking spaces on subject property, with signage facing oncoming traffic. Mr. Hall recommended the property be brought into compliance by December 1, 2005 or a fine of $250 per day per violation be imposed. Mr. Hall read into the record the Code definition of a sign, which includes signage on vehicles. Planning Manager Neil Thompson reported the Community Development Code, adopted in 1999, recognizes the difficulty of redeveloping in Downtown and allows the City and applicants to work out agreements through a flexible standard process. Property owner Donald Fox had availed himself of that process and agreed to certain conditions in the development order. In addition to its use as signage, the converted U-Haul truck also violates the order, as it hampers onsite traffic circulation and blocks parking. In consideration of development challenges, the City had agreed to the applicant's request to lessen City parking standards. Mr. Thompson said the Code specifically prohibits vehicle signs. Mr. Hall submitted City Exhibits 1 - 2. Mr. Hightower objected to some of the documents: 1) Exhibit 1 - correspondence and staff report; and 2) Exhibit 2 -photographs. Mr. Kronschnabl reviewed the history of the City's enforcement of its sign code, reporting that enforcement had not been applied selectively. He said the subject property owner is not complying with code, as required. In response to questions from Mr. Hightower, Mr. Hall repeated his previous testimony. Mr. Hall testified he had observed the converted U-Haul truck moved around the site approximately six times prior to issuing a citation. He did not know if the converted U-Haul truck was moved daily. He did see the converted U-Haul truck off site on two occasions. Mr. Hall reviewed Code regulations requiring trucks with signage to be parked in less prominently visible spaces and suggested an area on the parcel to the south would be less visible to passing motorists. He said to comply, the property owner would need to remove all signage not listed in the development order. Mr. Hightower said the determination if the sign on the truck is highly visible is subjective. Member Keyes moved to accept the City's Exhibit 1 into the record, noting Mr. Hightower's objection to correspondence dated February 12, 2003, January 3, 2003, April 13, 2001 and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Keyes moved to accept the City's Exhibit 2 into the record, noting Mr. Hightower's objection to the photographs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 13 . . . In response to questions from Mr. Hightower, Mr. Thompson detailed factors that let to his interpretation of the Code. He said he walks past the subject property twice daily, and through personal observation, saw the converted U-Haul truck positioned to maximize its exposure to passing traffic. He noted all parking should be east of the structure. He was unsure if the converted U-Haul truck could fit in a standard parking space. He said the development order contains no reference to a vehicle sign. He expressed concern that parking the converted U-Haul truck so that it straddles three parking spaces aggravates the previously recognized shortage of available parking spaces for the business. He said the converted U- Haul truck also is parked for prolonged periods of time in the property's driveway, impeding onsite traffic circulation. He reviewed code requirements regarding window signage. Window signage is not listed in the development order and is not permitted. The subject structure currently features three window signs. In response to questions from Mr. Hightower, property owner Dr. Donald Fox said he did not know illuminated objects in windows were not permitted. He said the objects, which cover less than 25% of the window, illuminate the office when the lights are off. He said he did not know the development order precluded him from having window signage. He believed the A- frame sign was allowed in the Downtown. He said his staff uses the truck for his practice up to three times a day. He said he maintains a log where the truck is parked on the property. He said staff uses the truck to pickup supplies, mulch, decorations, trips to bank, deliver supplies, and move equipment prior to hurricanes. He said the truck cannot be parked behind the building. Mr. Kronschnabl said A-frame signs no longer are allowed in Downtown. The development order specifies the number of permitted signs, whether or not they are illuminated, and the number of parking spaces. He said the converted U-Haul truck affects the subject property's visibility triangle. Mr. Hall recommended the property be brought into compliance with the development order by December 1, 2005, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Mr. Hightower said the definition of a vehicle sign is subjective. He distributed photographs of area businesses with trucks used to conduct business parked on site. He said enforcement of the law is selective. He said the development order does not specifically outlaw window signs, which he called "window objects." He said the truck, with identification on it, is used for business. He said only the A-frame sign is supported by evidence. It was felt the signage on the converted U-Haul truck is similar to a billboard and that it is being used as a billboard on the subject property. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 property has been developed in a manner inconsistent with previous approvals. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 14 . . . 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 remove all unapproved signage with the exception of window signs by December 1, 2005. The window signs are ordered to be removed by December 15,2005. 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 Inspector Bob Hall, 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 The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. L. Case 45-05 Gilbert G. Jannelli 833 Grand Central Street Roof, Ext Surfaces, Lot Clearing, Ext Storage - Ruud Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. Property owner, Gilbert Jannelli, requested a continuance. Mr. Hall requested the item be heard. Mr. Jannelli said tenants of the subject rental property had not moved out as scheduled. He said the tenants have no garage or storage and have six children. He said the tenants agreed to move out by December 15, 2005 and he plans to renovate afterwards. Member Keyes moved to deny the request to continue Case 45-05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Jannelli disputed all three violations. Inspections Specialist AI Ruud reviewed the alleged violations via a power point presentation. He reported his first inspection of the property occurred on February 28, 2005, followed by a July 12, 2005 inspection. Notices of Violation were issued on February 28, and July 12, 2005 Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 15 . Mr. Ruud presented his July 12, 2005 photographs of the house, which showed missing shingles, broken windows, debris on the roof, rotted eaves, deteriorated wood, and debris in the yard. His September 22, 2005 photographs showed a painted over window, a missing sill and window pane, unfinished paint project with multiple colors, peeling paint, debris in the yard including sinks, rotted wood, missing shingles, etc. His October 6, 2005 photographs showed missing shingles on the roof, debris in the yard, an abandoned vehicle, missing window pane, painted windows, and outdoor storage. His November 17, 2005 photographs showed outside storage of a refrigerator, gas can, cooler, etc. plus the posting of the property. Mr. Hall said to bring the property into compliance all debris, trash and overgrowth must be removed, roof shingles must be replaced as needed, roof needs to be cleaned of debris, and all rust, peeling paint, stains and mildew must be removed from exterior surface areas and surfaces must be painted. Areas to be repaired or refinished are, but are not limited to, walls, doors, trim, soffit, drip edges, and fascia boards. Rotted areas need to be repaired. Mr. Hall recommended the cleanup is done within 30 days or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. He recommended a compliance deadline of 120 days for items that require permits. Mr. Jannelli said the majority of the violations have been corrected and he will be renovating the structure. . Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 30,2005, 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 exterior surfaces of structure are not properly maintained and excessive debris exists on 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 120 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 Inspector AI 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. . Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 16 . . . 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 09-05 - Affidavit of Compliance John and Christina R. Richardson 843 Eldorado Avenue Permit/Inspection - Coccia Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 09-05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 28-05 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Gilbert G. Jannelli 1871 Douglas Avenue Unsafe Building - Wright AND C. Case 30-05 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Nicholas J. Chachula 605 Maple Street Property Maintenance - Ruud Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the orders imposing the fines for Cases 28-05 and 30-05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 10-95 James & Linda Swetland 3040 Cascade Drive (Fine Abeyance) Mr. Hall said fines on this property have accumulated and now equal the property's market value. Violations still exist. He requested the fines be placed in abeyance to pursue the violations through the court system. Member Adelson moved to put the fine in abeyance for Case 10-95. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 17 . . . B. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Member Keyes moved to appoint Douglas Williams as Chair of the MCEB. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. · Member Avichouser moved to appoint Jay Keyes as Vice-Chair of the MCEB. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS - None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Mary M. Jones PNU2005-01106 2021 Oakdale Way Shadow Lawn Blk B, Lot 24 & S'ly 5FT of Lot 25 $200 Terence Hazell PNU2005-00903 909 Wood Drive Oak Hills Blk G, N 87.7FT of Lot 1 & N 97.7FT of the W 54FT of Lot 2 $200 Sammie State Est. PNU2005-00022 1305 Roosevelt Avenue Jackson's, C.E. Sub Blk 2, N 50FT of Lots 1 & 2 $338.80 Wayne R. Brown 1420 Sunset Point Road Sunset Highlands Unit 2 Lot 4 PNU2005-01633 Rivera-Calderon Family Trust 1923 N Highland Avenue Sunset Highlands Unit 1 Part of Lot 51 From NW Cor of Lot 37 Run N 75 Ft E 150 Ft SW 93.91 Ft W 95 Ft to $356.50 PNU2005-02160 $398.75 Lori A. Croley 710 Ruskin Road College Hill Estates Lot 21 PNU2005-02392 $307.75 Member Keyes moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 26,2005 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 26, 2005, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 18 . . . 7. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. ~est: . ;l~ Secre t the Board Code Enforcement - 2005-11-30 w&} Chai Muni ipal Code Enforcement Board 19