10/23/2013 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 23, 2013
Present: Duane Schultz Chair
James E. Strickland Vice-Chair
Michael Boutzoukas Board Member
Sheila Cole Board Member
Sue A. Johnson Board Member
Michael J. Riordon Board Member
Wayne Carothers Board Member
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 1:30 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 25, 2013
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular Municipal Code
Enforcement Board meeting of September 25, 2013, as submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Case CLR13006395
Jessica Ann Palo
Tag: ATRY91
Petitioner Jessica Ann Palo said the length of the yellow light was insufficient for her to
stop safely without being rear ended or causing harm to her daughter in her child seat. She
said she was not aware that the appeal's process would subject her to additional costs.
Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Nancy Miller reviewed photographic images and
streaming video evidence of an eastbound SUV, tag ATRY91, on Chestnut Street, failing to stop
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 1
for the red light traffic signal at Ft. Harrison Avenue on August 10, 2013. The vehicle is
registered to Jessica Ann Palo.
Member Riordon moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and
316.075 (1)(c)(1) for Case CLR13006395. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding municipal costs.
Member Cole moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to pay a
penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by November 22, 2013. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
4.2 Case CLR13005145
Carol Jean Schreiner
Tag: J565TL
Petitioner Carol Jean Schreiner denied the infraction. She said she had never received
a ticket before; she was taught to never slam on her brakes when a traffic signal turns yellow.
She said had she slammed on her brakes she would have caused a chain reaction,
endangering herself and others.
Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and
streaming video evidence of an eastbound Oldsmobile, tag J565TL, on Chestnut Street, failing
to stop for the red light traffic signal at Ft. Harrison Avenue on July 3, 2013. The vehicle is
registered to Carol Jean Schreiner
Member Riordon moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and
316.075 (1)(c)(1) for Case CLR13005145. The motion was duly seconded.
A citizen expressed concern that the yellow light was too short.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Member Riordon moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to
pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by November 22, 2013. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette said the length of all yellow traffic signals in
Clearwater are based on FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) mathematical formulas
that consider speed limits and are intended to be timed appropriately to reduce accidents.
4.3 Case CLR13005539 -Withdrawn
John Paul Orlando
Tag: 3VJX284
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 2
4.4 Case CLR13005998
Nicole Kathryn Delisle
Tag: AXQV29
Petitioner Nicole Kathryn Delisle denied the infraction. She said she appeared today to
request consideration of her financial situation and request a reduced fine. She said she was
unaware that additional fees might be imposed if she appealed. She said the length of yellow
lights differs throughout the City. She said the yellow signal at Ft. Harrison seemed too short.
Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and
streaming video evidence of an eastbound SUV, tag AXQV29, on Chestnut Street, failing to
stop for the red light traffic signal at Ft. Harrison Avenue on July 30, 2013. The vehicle is
registered to Nicole Kathryn Delisle.
Member Strickland moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1)
and 316.075 (1)(c)(1) for Case CLR13005998. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Member Boutzoukas moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner
to pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by November 22, 2013. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding appeal forms that appellants sign and return to the City. It
was stated that municipal cost information is listed in the bullets above the signature line and
people should read what they sign. Concerns were expressed that the form is confusing and
difficult for the average person to understand. Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman said the
Florida Legislature included the additional fee to offset municipal costs to handle appeals. As
appellants who withdraw their appeals are charged $50, Mr. Salzman said $50 is a reasonable
minimal fee for all appellants to cover municipal costs related to each case.
4.5 Case CLR13007173
Raymond R. Gadreault Jr.
Tag: DV2244E
Petitioner Raymond R. Gadreault Jr. denied the infraction, stating he had dropped his
vehicle at the dealership and was umpiring a Little League game at the time of the violation. He
said the dealership is not reputable and did not repair the problem nor provide him paperwork
regarding the service call. It was noted that Mr. Gadreault has sufficient time to submit an
affidavit identifying the vehicle's driver prior to the deadline.
Member Boutzoukas moved to continue Case CLR13007173 to November 20, 2013.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 3
4.6 Case CLR13007070
Jarrett F. Green
Tag: CT 147NJV
Petitioner Jarrett Green admitted to the violation. He said he recently moved here from
Connecticut where citizens are able to request a hearing and petition for leniency and
consideration. He said the form he signed does not indicate that appeals are subject to a
minimum fee of$50.
Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and
streaming video evidence of an eastbound Volkswagen, Connecticut tag 147NJV, on Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard, failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on September 9,
2013. The vehicle is registered to Jarrett F. Green.
Member Boutzoukas moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1)
and 316.075 (1)(c)(1) for Case CLR13007070. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Member Riordon moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to
pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by November 22, 2013. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
4.7 Case CLR13005705
Tameka C. Bayless
Tag: BKIM10
Petitioner Tameka C. Bayless was not present.
Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and
streaming video evidence of a westbound Buick, tag BKIM10, on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, failing
to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on July 21, 2013. The vehicle is registered
to Tameka C. Bayless.
Member Boutzoukas moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1)
and 316.075 (1)(c)(1) for Case CLR13005705. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Member Riordon moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to
pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$150 by November 22, 2013. The motion was
duly seconded.
It was stated that higher municipal costs are appropriate as the video showed the driver
had plenty of time to stop before running the red light.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Attorney Surette said the process to hire a Hearing Officer to rule on Red Light Camera
appeals is underway. As planned, municipal fees will cover the position's costs. He thanked
the board for their extraordinary efforts and impartial, fair, and thoughtful analysis of each case.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 4
4.8 Case 41-13 —Cont'd from 8/28/13 and 9/25/13
Ralph W. Turner& Carol A. Ackerson
1905 Magnolia Drive
Accessory Use/Outdoor Storage— Espinosa
Inspector Nilda Espinosa reported on the results of her research, done at the request of
the board. She found no record of a Unity of Title for the subject vacant lot at 1905 Magnolia
Drive and the kitty-corner property at 1005 Brookside Drive, where the property owners live in a
single-family residence. Notices of violations were issued on June 11, 2013, following the first
inspection. City Attorney Camilo Soto said outside storage and accessory structures are not
permitted on vacant lots. Inspector Espinosa reviewed photos from her August 28, 2013
PowerPoint presentation. Property photographs on August 5, 2013 showed fencing materials,
lawn equipment, a trailer, and a shed on the vacant lot. This morning the fencing and trailer
remained.
Property owner Ralph Turner said he just returned to town. He said he received one
deed when he purchased the property, which has two lots. He said he purchased the property
because the previous owner had stored his boats there and he needed a place to store his
boats.
Planning Manager Robert Tefft reported on the results of his research, done at the
request of the board. He presented a copy of the 1971 City Code, which indicates the lots were
then zoned single-family and accessory structures had to be accessory to a principal unit. No
shed, only palm trees appear on the property in a 1971 aerial photograph, printed on material
that cannot be copied for presentation. The shed would have been illegal had it been
constructed after 1971. The 1971 Code did not include a Unity of Title procedure. The
residential parcel never was in the City.
Mr. Turner said 40 years ago, palm trees were near the creek while the shed stood
under oak trees.
It was noted that Mr. Turner had testified that the shed was on the property prior to his
purchase more than 40 years ago. It was felt the legal standing of the shed should be
grandfathered. It was stated no Unity of Title exists and as the subject property never had a
principal use, the shed never could have been accessory to a principal use.
Member Boutzoukas moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly
seconded.
A citizen expressed concern the City had not acted on the violation for more than 40
years.
Attorney Salzman said municipal rules are not subject to statutes of limitation.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Boutzoukas and Strickland and Chair Schultz
voted "Aye"; Members Cole, Johnson, Riordon, and Carothers voted "Nay." Motion failed.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 5
It was stated that the Respondents were cited with two violations.
Mr. Turner expressed willingness to work with the City to resolve outdoor storage issues.
Member Riordon moved to enter an order to find the Respondent not in violation of City
of Clearwater Code Section 1-104B as referred to in the affidavit in this case, and this portion of
Case 41-13 is dismissed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on October 23,
2013, 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. The Respondent(s) was/were not present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are not in violation of the City of Clearwater Community
Development Code Section 1-104B as referred to in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that this violation listed under Case 41-13 shall be dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
Member Boutzoukas moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of City of Clearwater
Code Sections 3-201.A, 3-201.B.1., 2., 3., 4., 3-1502.J.3, & 3-913 as referred to in the affidavit
in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously
Inspector Espinosa recommended compliance in 15 days or a fine of$150 per day be
imposed.
It was suggested the property owner needs additional time to comply.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Cole moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation
on or before November 22, 2013. 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 October 23,
2013, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 6
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 there is outdoor storage
on the subject vacant property. The Respondent(s) was/were present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code Section(s) 3-201.A, 3-201.113.1., 2., 3., 4., 3-1502.13, & 3-913, as referred in the Affidavit
in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall remove all items stored outside
to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by
November 22, 2013. 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 Nilda Espinosa, 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.
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
4.9 Case 51-13 - Continued from 9/25/13, Continue to 11/20/13
Brian P. Johnson
1429 Spring Lane
Door &Window Openings— Franco
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 7
Case 51-13 was continued to November 20, 2013.
4.10 Case 52-13 - Continued from 9/25/13
Sandra Davis Graham
1007 N. Garden Avenue
Lot Clearing — Franco
Michael Pelletreau, representing his mother, property owner Sandra Davis Graham,
admitted to the violation.
Inspector Peggy Franco said the property was in compliance and requested a
declaration of violation.
Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on October 23,
2013, 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the condition existed;
however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. A representative
of the Respondent(s) was present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of the City of Clearwater Community
Development Code Section 3-1503.8.7, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). The
Board further orders that if Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein, the
Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine up to $500.00 for each day the violation exists
after the Respondent(s) is/are notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the
Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing.
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 8
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
4.11 Case 53-13 - Continued from 9/25/13
WCP Residential Funding LLC
1106 Fairmont Street
Door &Window Openings/Exterior Surfaces — Franco
No one was present to represent the owner.
Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. Notices of violation were
issued on July 12 and 22, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 1106 Fairmont
Street relate to door and window openings and exterior surfaces. Property photographs on July
24 and October 1, 2013 showed mold and mildew stains on exterior surfaces and a broken
window.
Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent(s) 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.
Inspector Franco recommended compliance by November 24, 2013 or a fine of$100 per
day be imposed.
It was stated the fine should be higher as the property is a chronic problem and requires
Police Department attention.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Carothers moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before November 24, 2013. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of$200 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 October 23,
2013, 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 2013-10-23 9
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that there is a broken
window and exterior surfaces have mold and mildew stains. The Respondent(s) was/were not
present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code Section(s) 3-1502.C.1 & 3-1502.113, as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall pressure wash and/or paint the
house/building and replace and/or repair the broken window(s) to comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by November 24, 2013. If Respondent(s)
does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$200.00 per day per
violation for each day each 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.
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
4.12 Case 54-13 —Continue to 11/20/13
Clearwater Basin Marina LLC
900 N. Osceola Avenue
Abandoned Buildings— Franco
Case 54-13 was continued to November 20, 2013.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 10
4.13 Case 55-13
Smith Healthcare Clearwater LLC
2057 Edgewater Drive
Exterior Surfaces — Franco
John Schrils, new administrator for the healthcare facility, admitted to the violation. He
said the facility will comply within 30 days.
Inspector Franco presented property photographs on July 28 and August 29, 2013 that
showed exterior surfaces with mold and mildew stains and failing and peeling paint.
Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater
Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously
Inspector Franco recommended compliance by November 23, 2013 or a fine of$200 per
day be imposed. The higher fine is recommended because the violation affects ACLF (Adult
Congregate Living Facility) residents.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Boutzoukas moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before November 23, 2013. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of$200 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 October 23,
2013, 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 exterior surfaces
have failing and peeling paint and mold and mildew stains. A representative of the
Respondent(s) was present
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code Section 3-1502.113, as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall pressure wash and/or paint the
building to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code
by November 23, 2013. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the
Board may order a fine of$200.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 11
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.
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
4.14 Case 56-13
Koch Trust Management Realty Sery LLC Tre
1437 Often Street
Hauling Trailer/Residential Grass Parking — Franco
No one was present to represent the owner.
Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. A Notice of Violation was
issued on June 13, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 1437 Often Street relate to
an unscreened hauling trailer parked between the house and street and vehicles parked on the
grass. Property photographs on July 19 and September 9 and 18, 2013 showed an unscreened
hauling trailer parked in front of the house and multiple vehicles parked on the grass. Inspector
Franco met with the property manager last week and the property has been brought into
compliance. She advised the manager re repeat violations.
Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Inspector Peggy Franco requested a declaration of violation.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Boutzoukas moved to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the
Respondent. If the Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order a fine of up to $500
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 12
for each day the violation continues to exist after the Respondent is notified of the repeat
violation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on October 23,
2013, 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the conditions existed;
however, it is further evident these conditions were corrected prior to this hearing. The
Respondent(s) was/were not present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of the City of Clearwater Community
Development Code Sections 3-1407.A.2.c, & 3-1407.A.3.c, as referred to in the Affidavit in this
case.
ORDER
It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). The
Board further orders that if Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein, the
Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine up to $500.00 for each day the violation exists
after the Respondent(s) is/are notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the
Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing.
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
4.15 Case 57-13
Timothy Forsman
416 Lebeau Street
Fences &Walls — Franco
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 13
No one was present to represent the owner.
Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. A Notice of Violation was
issued on September 10, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 416 Lebeau Street
relate to the fences. Property photographs on September 10 and 23, 2013 showed portions of
the fence have collapsed and the remainder is leaning in places, not uniform, and has broken
and/or missing boards.
Member Carothers moved to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Inspector Franco recommended compliance by November 23, 2013 or a fine of$100 per
day be imposed. She has not had contact with the Respondent. The height of the grass was
corrected following the July 30, 2013 mailing of the Notices of Violation.
A higher fine was recommended.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Member Johnson moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before November 23, 2013. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of$200 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 October 23,
2013, 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 portions of the fence
have collapsed and the remainder is not uniform and has broken and/or missing boards. The
Respondent(s) was/were not present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code Sections 3-808, 3-808.A.1, 3-808.A.5, & 3-808.A.6, as referred in the Affidavit in this
case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall repair, replace, and/or remove
the fence to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code by November 23, 2013. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified,
the Board may order a fine of$200.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 14
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.
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
4.16 Case 58-13 -WITHDRAWN
Mary & James Formelio
c/o All Stars Auto Body
206 Kilmer Avenue
Delinquent Business Tax Receipt— Shawen
Case 58-13 was withdrawn.
4.17 Case 59-13 -WITHDRAWN
Thomas & Jill Buyea
3455 Countryside Blvd 91
Residential Business Tax Receipt—Shawen
Case 59-13 was withdrawn.
4.18 Case 60-13 —WITHDRAWN
Thomas Buyea
3455 Countryside Blvd 89
Delinquent Business Tax Receipt— Shawen
Case 60-13 was withdrawn.
The MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) recessed from 3:43 to 3:51 pm.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 15
4.19 Case 61-13
Regency Oaks LLC
2751 Regency Oaks Blvd.
Development Code Violation - Fletcher
T.C. Beardslee, regional director of property management for Brookdale Senior Living,
representing the Respondent, denied the violation.
Inspector Vicki Fletcher provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was
issued on August 26, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 2751 Regency Oaks
Blvd. relate to a development code violation; living units were converted to an office use that
provides offsite home health care services. The property is zoned Institutional. Property
photographs on September 30 and October 2, 5, and 10, 2013 showed the main building, a
sidewalk leading to an entrance to the office converted from a living unit, a view into the office
from outside the screened entrance door, and office space, with a kitchen, office furniture, and
office equipment. Inspector Fletcher said she had observed Sylvan staff directed to make
offsite visits and staff picking up and dropping off prescriptions for offsite purposes on
September 23, 2013 and construction work to expand the office space into another unit on
October 23, 2013.
Planner III Matt Jackson said this office space is used to oversee offsite health care
visits, which is not a permitted use in the Institutional zone. This type of office is not a typical
amenity at an assisted living facility. The City became aware of the use via complaint. After the
City issued a Stop Work order for the office expansion, Regency Oaks applied for a building
permit. The facility's zoning violation began when the business started offsite health care visits.
Attorney Soto presented email correspondence between Messrs. Beardslee and
Jackson re compliance requirements and Sylvan marketing materials indicating that the
business began serving off campus residents in 2007 and expanded its office to an additional
living unit to accommodate growth in 2010. Sylvan Home Care Services could fulfill its licensing
obligations and retain its staff and clients if it relocates to properly zoned offices.
Steve Lang, architect representing the Respondent, said the subject office is dissimilar
from a chain restaurant as analogized; it does not attract large numbers of people. He said only
one complaint was filed. He said Regency Oaks did not attempt to hide the use. He said the
City permitted and inspected the door between the units and the facility is not at fault if building
department staff did not notice the discrepancy between the use and zoning rules. He
disagreed with staff's interpretation of the Development Code, stating it does not specifically
forbid this use in Institutional zones and the definition of office is poorly written and should be
updated. He said the Code should include a definition of home health care and reflect changes
associated with the emerging health care industry. He said the City did not accept Sylvan
Home Care Services' BTR (Business Tax Receipt) application nor provide appeal information.
He requested the MCEB stay the proceedings to allow the Respondent time to meet with the
City and reach an amicable solution. He said the use does not affect nearby property.
Mr. Beardslee said Brookdale Senior Living manages Regency Oaks Independent
Living, Sylvan Health Center, onsite for more than 20 years and manager of the free-standing
assisted living apartments and skilled nursing facility, and Sylvan Home Care Services, which
provides services to residents of Regency Oaks and the community and is important to the
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 16
organization's business plan. He said the subject office has 4 employees; the remainder of the
facility employs approximately 400. He said Sylvan Home Care Services is not a tenant. He
said forcing the offices to move offsite would have a minuscule effect on the number of people
who enter and exit the campus. In response to questions, he said Sylvan Home Care Services
has never had a BTR. He said if the 4 Sylvan Home Care Services employees do not have
offsite visits scheduled, they work on campus.
Mary Brickle, VP Operations for Brookdale Senior Living, said Sylvan Home Care
Services would lose money if it had to locate its offices offsite. She said only 27% of paperwork
associated with that business is done onsite.
Stacy Meyer, Attorney representing the Respondent, said AEW owns Regency Oaks, a
CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Community), and contracts with Brookdale Senior Living to
manage all of its parts. She said if the offices cannot remain onsite, the business would have to
lay off employees and residents would have to find other service providers. She said Sylvan
Home Care Services' license would be revoked if they did not provide services to County
residents. She said of the business' 43 patients, approximately 21 live onsite. She said the
onsite bank and hair stylist can provide services to people who live offsite
Discussion ensued with comments that the MCEB does not have the authority to change
the Code, that zoning allows Sylvan Health Systems to provide services on the Regency Oaks
Campus, not offsite, and the word "retail" in the Code does not necessarily mean product. It
was suggested that Sylvan Home Care Services could rent offsite offices. It was noted the
business has not created significant traffic.
Mr. Lang said Sylvan Home Care Services has 21 medical staff and 4 clerical staff who
work in the office suite; all are employees.
Lee Haas, attorney representing Regency Oaks resident Linda DeBottari, said he had
contacted the City regarding the office expansion. He said his client is suing Regency Oaks due
to the presence of Sylvan Home Care Services near her residence. He said according to sworn
interrogatories, Sylvan Home Care Services has more employees and independent contractors
than stated today. He presented photos of the office space, employees, and drop box for
medial specimens in the hallway near his client's home. He said the business does not pay rent
and as State law requires residents to share facility expenses, his client and other residents
must cover the cost of the business' rent and utilities.
Ms. Brickle said the Lab Corps box, which serves the campus, was relocated to
Regency Oaks front office.
Regency Oaks resident Linda DeBottari said she had paid a significant entry fee to move
into Regency Oaks based on promises of elegant living. She said she was extremely unhappy
to find a business operating near her final home as she had no desire to live in a business
district. She said management had assured her that permits for the expansion were not
required. She said she was resentful that the law was not followed.
Member Strickland moved to find the Respondent(s) 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 2013-10-23 17
Inspector Fletcher recommended compliance by November 25, 2013 or a fine of$200
per day be imposed.
Attorney Meyer requested 120 days.
Sympathy was expressed for Ms. DeBottari's circumstances. It was stated to comply,
the office's oversight of offsite activity would have to cease. It was suggested the Respondent
may need additional time to comply.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. The City opposed providing additional time.
Member Riordon moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before January 20, 2014, by stopping the use of onsite office space to support
off-site home health care services. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified,
the Board may order a fine of$200 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 October 23,
2013, 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 living units, zoned
Institutional, were converted to an office use that supports off-site home health care services. .
A representative of the Respondent(s) was present..
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code Section 1-104.113, as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall stop using onsite office space to
support off-site home health care services to comply with said Section(s) of the City of
Clearwater Community Development Code by January 20, 2014. If Respondent(s) does/do not
comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$200.00 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 Vicki Fletcher, 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.
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 18
The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and
delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request
for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence
or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's
decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon
receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter;
the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the Order to be
appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed.
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record
of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 Case 32-13 Affidavit of Compliance
Andrew Jordan Jr.
1353 Overlea Street
Door &Window Openings— Franco
5.2 Case 38-13 Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Cleo M. Trammell
1016 LaSalle Street
Landscape Cover— Franco
5.3 Case 42-13 Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Gregory Clark
1000 N. Garden Avenue
Residential Rental Business Tax Receipt - McMahan
Member Johnson moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 32-13 and to
accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the Orders imposing fines for Cases 38-13
and 42-13. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. NEW BUSINESS: None.
7. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS:
Mark & Verna Spina PNU2013-01186
1364 S. Evergreen Ave.
22-29-15-11952-014-0100 $200.00
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 19
Mark & Verna Spina PNU2013-01106
1364 S. Evergreen Ave.
22-29-15-11952-014-0100 $200.00
Leona Roots PNU2013-00902
513 N. Garden Ave.
09-29-15-37422-002-0190 $200.00
Torin D McCray PNU2013-00961
1326 Fairmont St.
03-29-15-08370-001-0070 $200.00
Juana Cantero PNU2013-01075
2087 Loma Linda Way
01-29-15-93628-000-1200 $1485.00
Dianna & Ron Heeter PNU2013-01133
1964 Drew Plz.
12-29-15-55782-025-0240 $354.51
Davison, Mark V. Est. PNU2013-01126
1535 Sherwood St.
11-29-15-39168-040-0050 $470.29
Michael Beaton PNU2013-00848
1526 S. Madison Ave.
22-29-15-13662-001-0070 $297.04
Werner, Theresa M PNU2013-00958
1224 Sedeeva Cir.
03-29-15-28674-006-0160 $342.95
Susan Dowe & Charlotte Ure PNU203-01438
1117 Granada Street
03-29-15-47430-002-0190 $319.38
Ella H. B. Investments Inc. PNU2013-01082
802 Engman St.
10-29-15-43596-001-0010 $302.35
Joyce E. Farley PNU2013-01200
2080 San Marino Way
01-29-15-93628-000-0960 $269.25
Le Anne Cross PNU2013-01323
1041 Commodore St.
03-29-15-05220-003-0010 $273.01
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 20
Mark A. Green PNU2013-01311
407 Cincinnati Pkwy.
12-29-15-55782-021-0030 $414.16
Laura E Gunden Est. PNU2013-01011
1516 Cleveland St.
14-29-15-18954-008-0200 $368.38
Redus Florida Commercial LLC PNU2013-01552
1825 Sunset Point Rd.
01-29-15-70164-300-0800 $345.00
Amir Foroutan PNU2013-01134
1976 Drew Plz.
12-29-15-55782-025-0170 $456.20
Theresa E. Robinette PNU2013-01178
1576 Logan St.
02-29-15-39186-045-0060 $378.20
1304 Wood Property Trust PNU2013-01236
1304 Wood Ave.
11-29-15-39168-041-0010 $359.85
Lisa & Sylvester Hall PNU2013-01170
1706 Sharondale Dr.
02-29-15-98982-000-0570 $366.86
904 Seminole St Land Trust PNU2013-00788
904 Seminole St.
10-29-15-69138-005-0150 $419.70
Ferro, Gregory R Revocable Living Tr. PNU2013-00868
2861 Edenwood St.
08-29-16-99102-010-0060 $329.22
Terrence John McClurg PNU2013-00949
1585 Jeffords St.
23-29-15-30366-000-0760 $284.70
Raymond J Herie PNU2013-01253
1201 N. Garden Ave.
09-29-15-65466-000-0191 $328.90
Gregory & Eric Gainer, Rocco Sanders PNU2013-01214
1205 N. Garden Ave.
09-29-15-65466-000-0190 $374.65
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 21
Kelli S. Schloss PNU2013-00878
1720 Bentley St.
02-29-15-09144-000-2420 $318.37
Sheri Shamblee PNU2013-00675
1437 Overlea St.
11-29-15-39258-007-0110 $372.52
Sheri Shamblee PNU2013-00674
1437 Overlea St.
11-29-15-39258-007-0110 $1141.00
Lydia M Lynch Est. PNU2013-00865
800 Allen Dr.
13-29-15-22788-000-0080 $427.96
Victoria Morton PNU2013-01071
1419 Union St.
02-29-15-88182-000-0680 $450.41
Gloria White PNU2013-01102
1015 Metto St.
10-29-15-55908-000-0110 $1135.00
Burkinshaw Property LLC PNU2013-00679
549 Wildwood Way
21-29-15-06948-002-0340 $418.71
Dustin Dean & Patricia M. North-Dean PNU2013-00632
1308 S. Madison Ave.
22-29-15-48978-003-0150 $269.25
Wrobel Industries Inc. Tre. PNU2013-00803
1927 N. Highland Ave.
02-29-15-87714-000-0513 $396.91
1309 Sandy Lane Trust PNU2013-00713
1309 Sandy Ln.
03-29-15-08388-004-0160 $328.26
Evers Maxie Jr. PNU2013-00941
1203 Blanche B. Littlejohn Trl.
10-29-15-65718-002-0050 $423.50
Krista Leigh Lipe PNU2013-01021
907 Plaza St.
10-29-15-72000-005-0160 $200.00
Code Enforcement 2013-10-23 22
Philip J. Matonte
PNU2013 -00642
307 Leeward Island
08- 29 -15- 43308 -0340
$395.64
Josine Pullen
PNU2013 -00896
120 S. San Remo Ave.
14- 29 -15- 47016- 003 -0110
$956.00
Member Boutzoukas moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
8. ADJOURN:
The meeting adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
(,lam v C ci
Chair
Municipal Code Enforcement Board
e retary for th Boa
Code Enforcement 2013 -10 -23 23