Loading...
01/25/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER January 25, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Kelly Sutton Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana 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 286.0106 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 20-05 - (Cont’d from 06/22/05 & 10/26/05) – Request for Reconsideration of Board’s Order dated June 22, 2005 Thomas C Jessup & Dorothy J Jessup 1770 Drew Street Portable Storage Unit - Parra Development Services Manager Bob Hall reported the property is in compliance and requested the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) withdraw its order dated June 22, 2005. Member Keyes moved that the MCEB withdraw its order related to Case 20-05. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 1 B. Case 26-05 - Repeat Violation (Cont’d from 10/26/05 & 11/30/05) Allison V. Thompson 2271 Springrain Drive Permits & Inspections – Coccia Representative Attorney Michael A. Moctezuma Milo thanked staff for their help in reaching a settlement with the property owner and admitted to the violation. Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff said staff and Mr. Milo are in agreement with the terms of the settlement. He submitted Exhibit 1 – settlement terms. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 28, 2005 and January 25, 2006, 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, Michael A. Moctezuma Milo, Esq., and evidence received, it is evident the wooden deck on property does not meet construction permits or inspections 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 as follows: 1) Owner has until June 14, 2006 to comply with demolition request to within setback area, subject to modifications and extensions granted by the City of Clearwater; 2) during this time, in addition to applying for a demolition permit, Owner may apply for a variance to keep the upper deck including the cabana and a portion of the area that lies in the setback area; 3) work will be performed with consultation of the Home Owners Association to determine whether changes should be made to the dock portion that rests on common area; 4) the City will cooperate with the Home Owners Association concerning any plans the Association may present; and 5) no costs are assessed against the Owner. 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 2 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. Members Krause, Keyes, Avichouser, Sutton, carried Adelson, and Chair Williams voted “Aye”; Member Martin voted “Nay.” Motion . C. Case 01-06 Phillip Matonte 307 Leeward Island Permits & Inspections - Garriott The property owner was not represented. Building Official Kevin Garriott reviewed alleged violations via a power point presentation. He stated the first notice of violation and stop work order was issued on October 31, 2005. The second notice of violation was hand delivered to the property on December 7, 2005. Mr. Garriott explained the cited violations. Mr. Garriott presented photographs of the property. He recommended the property be brought into compliance within 60 calendar or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1- 2. Development & Neighborhood Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl reviewed efforts the City has taken since 1999 to bring the property into compliance, representing at least 100 inspections. The new construction was built around a self-contained house. He said the neighbors and the City feel this project has gone on long enough. He said the City wants a date certain for completion and for the property to meet the landscaping and building Code. In response to a question, Mr. Garriott said the property owner had kept permits active over a long time period. Planning Manager Neil Thompson said Code requires at least 35% of lots to be permeable. He estimated the subject site has a deficit of up to 15%. Newly added impermeable surfaces were not part of the original plan submitted to the City. Concern was expressed that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) regulations require houses with significant improvements to meet BFE (Base Flood Elevation) requirements. Mr. Garriott said the new construction is only a façade, has no air-conditioning or heat, and is not connected to the house. The second level of the façade features a deck. The house does not need to be raised as new construction includes no living areas. Mr. Kronschnabl reported the property owner claimed the new construction is to be used for storage. Discussion ensued with agreement expressed the project has been underway long enough. Member Avichouser moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 25, 2006, 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: Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 3 FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident renovation work on property has not met inspection or permit requirements. 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 within 60 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 Building Official Kevin Garriott, 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. D. Case 02-06 Christopher Mercer 2606 Brewton Court Tree Permit– Kurleman Staff withdrew Case 02-06. E. Case 03-06 Andrew D & Michele A Strong 2730 Westchester Drive Tree Permit - Kurleman In response to staff’s request, Member Keyes moved to continue Case 03-06 to motion carried February 22, 2006. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 4 F. Case 04-06 Marilyn McNicholas 1524 Cleveland Street Exterior Storage – Parra Secretary for the Board Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Code Enforcement Inspector Gabe Parra reviewed alleged violations via a power point presentation. He said the property has been cited for outdoor display and exterior storage. He first inspected the property on September 9, 2005, and saw a bathtub in the front yard and left a door hangar. He returned on September 27, 2005, and the bathtub remained in the yard. He issued a Notice of Violation with an October 7, 2005 compliance date. On his third inspection on October 13, 2005, Mr. Parra said the bathtub remained. On that same date, Mr. Parra submitted information regarding the case to the Planning Director, who identified the bathtub as a water closet fixture. Mr. Parra recommended the property owner comply with the Code by February 1, 2006, or a fine of $150 per day be imposed. Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1- 2. Ed McNicholas, representative, said the bathtub is a decorative item, has been in the yard for 20 years, and is used as a waterfall, birdbath, and planter. He presented signed affidavits in support from neighbors. He said the bathtub could not be seen from the road until the City dug a nearby trench and the hedge died. He said a new hedge has been planted. He cited several landscaping articles that mention the use of similar materials to create interest in a garden. In response to a question, Mr. Parra said he the bathtub can be seen from the street and cannot be moved to the back yard, as it would remain visible from the adjacent property. Discussion ensued and it was commented the tub is an antique. Mr. Hall expressed concern allowing antiques as landscaping items could result in people claiming that toilets and old cars are landscape features. Property owner Marilyn McNicholas said the bathtub has been used as a lawn ornament for many years. She said she paints it as necessary so that no rust is visible. She said the tub attracts birds from the park across the street and neighborhood children and similar reproductions sell for more than $1,000. Attorney Ruff reviewed the cited Code section, stating the bathtub, intended for interior use, is being stored outside and is considered by Code to be exterior storage. The violation is based on Code, not on one’s personal opinion of attractiveness. Discussion ensued with comments that the tub is a unique antique, kept outside in good condition for many years, and it only became visible after the surrounding hedge was destroyed. Member Keyes moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on January 25, 2006, 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 as follows: Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 5 FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the bathtub in the front yard is not considered to be an outdoor display or exterior storage. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are not 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 Case 04-06 shall be dismissed. motion The was duly seconded. Members Martin, Krause, Keyes, Avichouser, Adelson, carried and Chair Williams voted “Aye”; Member Sutton voted “Nay.” Motion . 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 10-05, 11-05 & 12-05 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Peter & Kelly Nascarella 1460, 1470 & 1480-1482 S. Missouri Ave. Permits & Inspections – Coccia Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the Order motion imposing the fine for Cases 10-05, 11-05, and 12-05. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 27-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Hugo Castro 907.5 N. Garden Ave. Unsafe Building - Wright AND C. Case 29-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Mark E. Regonini 1630 Eden Ct. Landscape – Franco AND D. Case 31-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Hugo Castro 907 N. Garden Ave. Unsafe Building - Wright AND Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 6 E. Case 33-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Ross W. Jahren 1330-1328 Tioga Ave. Lot Clearing & Exterior Surfaces - Ruud AND F. Case 35-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Damir & Jasminka Hercinovic 1857 Elmhurst Dr. Tree Permit - Kurleman AND G. Case 41-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Gentian Kraja 611 S. Highland Ave. Vehicle Sales - Franco AND H. Case 44-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Donald Fox Realty Inc. 915 Court St. Signs - Hall Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 27-05, 29-05, motion carried 31-05, 33-05, 35-05, 41-05, and 44-05. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 44-05 – Request for rehearing Donald A. Fox Realty, Inc. 915 Court Street Signs - Hall No representative for the applicant was present. Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman recommended the item be continued, as board members had not received a copy of the request for rehearing. motion Member Keyes moved to continue Case 44-05 to February 22, 2006. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Member Martin requested time limits for presenting testimony be reviewed. 4. NEW BUSINESS - None Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 7 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Edward D. Beebe PNU2005-02771 2680 Beaumont Ct. Countryside Tract 94 Phase 1, Lot 49 $446.25 James T. Clemente PNU2005-02724 112 N. Jupiter Ave Sky Crest Unit No. 1, Blk C, Lot 3 $200 Carlene P. Hope PNU2005-02562 1145 Wildwood St. Madison Heights, Lot 8 $387.50 Bobby Howe PNU2005-02561 1515 S. Madison Ave. Carolina Terrace, Blk B, Lot 23 $385 JHH Investments Inc. PNU2005-02289 Plum Investments Inc 1312 Tioga Ave Lakeview Heights, Blk A, Lot 16 $340.50 Josephine Padden Tre PNU2005-02475 51 Verbena St Mandalay Sub, Blk 23, Lot 7 & 5FT X 110FT T/A in NW Cor of Lot 8 $301.25 Marcos Rojas PNU2005-02799 110 S. Arcturas Ave Sky Crest Unit No. 6, Blk A, Lot 5 $200 Irene Micale PNU2005-01310 1660 Dartmouth St Keystone Manor Rev Blk J, Lot 21 $850 Financial Warehouse Group PNU2005-02507 North Mandalay Investment Group 411 East Shore Dr Barbour-Morrow Sub Blk C, Lots 7, 8 & 9 & S ½ of Lot 6 & Subm Land/ TIF Deed #17,411 Per Plat $405 William P Ryan PNU2005-03168 2029 Alpine Rd Sunset Ridge Unit 2, Lots 115 & 116 $200 Member Martin moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings as submitted. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-01-25 8 . . . 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 30,2005 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 30, 2005, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m. Attest: s~1(~ Code Enforcement - 2006-01-25 ~. . J~ Cha Municipal Code Enforcement Board 9