Loading...
11/20/2013 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER November 20, 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 — October 23, 2013 Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting of October 23, 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 CLR13007173 - Continued from 10/23/13, Continue to 12/18/13 Raymond Gadreault Tag: DV2244E Case CLR13007173 was continued to December 18, 2013. 4.2 Case CLR13006312A— Continued to 12/18/13 Darlina Conto Tag: AHVD24 Case CLR13006312A was continued to December 18, 2013. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 1 4.3 Case CLR13006471 James Paar Tag: Q1791T Petitioner James Paar said this manner of traffic enforcement was abusive, extortion, unconstitutional, and should not be tolerated. He admitted to the violation. Member Strickland moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13006471. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Cole moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4.4 Case CLR13006683 Malissa Parker Tag: ADCA15 Petitioner Malissa Parker said power outages occurred during the stormy day in question. She said the traffic signal was flashing before she reached the intersection and then turned red. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Nancy Miller presented streaming video evidence of the eastbound vehicle, Tag ADCA15, on Court Street failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Ft. Harrison Avenue. The vehicle is registered to Malissa Parker. As the subject vehicle approached the intersection, the video indicated the traffic signal was steady green, then steady yellow, then steady red. Member Boutzoukas moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13006683. 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 December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4.5 Case CLR13006669 -Withdrawn Cecilia Ritenour Tag: 5709JG Case CLR13006669 was withdrawn. 4.6 Case CLR13006790 Michael Foster Tag: BZWK05 Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 2 Petitioner Michael Foster denied the infraction, stating when the infraction occurred, a person was taking a test drive in his vehicle, which he was trying to sell. He said he did not have a record of the driver's name. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and streaming video evidence of an eastbound Volvo, Tag BZWK05, on Chestnut Street failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Ft. Harrison Avenue on August 26, 2013. The vehicle is registered to Michael Foster. Member Cole moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13006790. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Carothers moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4.7 CLR13006965 -Withdrawn Jung Sook Kim Tag: 605VHY Case CLR13006965 was withdrawn. 4.8 Case CLR13007008 Jared Gill Tag: 464TDS Petitioner Jared Gill was not present. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and streaming video evidence of an eastbound Mitsubishi, Tag 464TDS, on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on September 7, 2013. The vehicle is registered to Jared Gill. Member Boutzoukas moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13007008. 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$75 by December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4.9 Case CLR13007294 Richard Cornelius Tag: BVKE36 Petitioner Richard Cornelius said extenuating circumstances existed on September 20, 2013 at 7:34 a.m. when he turned left onto Belcher Road. He said he could not see the color of the light because the sun shone directly into his eyes. He said he slowed to make certain the Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 3 road was clear before he turned. He said the camera's angle was not affected by the sun. He presented a photograph of the sun at the same angle it was that morning. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and streaming video evidence of a silver Chevrolet SUV, Tag BVKE36, on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on September 20, 2013. The vehicle is registered to Richard Cornelius. It was noted that the sun's glare was evident in City photographic images. Member Riordon moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13007294. The motion was duly seconded. Members Boutzoukas and Riordon and Chair Schultz voted "Aye"; Members Strickland, Cole, Johnson, and Carothers voted "Nay." Motion failed. 4.10 Case CLR13007315 Donna Fritz Inc. Tag: AUNM60 Petitioner Donna Fritz denied the infraction, stating the intersection is dangerous and the camera's timing is inaccurate. She said she was driving at the speed limit and could not stop when the light turned yellow without slamming on her brakes and risking a rear end collision or causing another accident. She said red light cameras were dangerous and had been outlawed in other states. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and streaming video evidence of a westbound Ford pickup truck, Tag AUNM60, travelling at 50 mph on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on September 20, 2013. The vehicle is registered to Donna Fritz, Inc. The speed limit on Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard is 40 mph. It was noted no vehicles were behind the subject pickup truck. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller said the subject yellow light is 4 seconds long; its timing is verified monthly. Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette said Florida mandated that the length of yellow lights in Clearwater must adhere to the State's mathematical formula. Petitioner Fritz disagreed with the accuracy of the timing of the yellow light. Member Carothers moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case 13007315. 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$75 by December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Petitioner Fritz objected to being charged municipal costs of$75. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 4 4.11 Case CLR13007640 -Withdrawn Stephanie Middleton Tag: R832ZE Case CLR13007640 was withdrawn. 4.12 Case CLR13007174 Jessica Irene Yoder Tag: 532PVV Petitioner Jessica Irene Yoder did not admit to nor deny the infraction. She said she had sped up when the traffic signal turned yellow because she did not think she could stop safely. She said the timing of the yellow light was too short; she said yellow lights in Orlando are 7 seconds long. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and streaming video evidence of a westbound Chrysler van, Tag 532PVV, on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on September 14, 2013. The vehicle is registered to Jessica Irene Yoder. Member Cole moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13007174. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to issue a final administrative order requiring the Petitioner to pay a penalty of$158 plus municipal costs of$50 by December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4.11 Case CLR13007000 Michael Paul Raymond Tag: BSFB66 Petitioner Michael Paul Raymond was not present. Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer Miller reviewed photographic images and streaming video evidence of an eastbound vehicle, Tag BSFB66, on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard failing to stop for the red light traffic signal at Belcher Road on September 7, 2013. The vehicle is registered to Michael Paul Raymond. Member Boutzoukas moved to uphold the violation of Florida State Statutes 316.074(1) and 316.075 (1)(c)1 for Case CLR13007000. 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$75 by December 20, 2013. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 5 4.14 Case 47-13 —Continued from 9/25/13 1743 Sunset Property Trust Nobles, Oronde Tre 1743 Sunset Point Road Lot Clearing/Exterior Surfaces/Exterior Storage/Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance— Phillips Case 47-13 was continued to December 18, 2013. 4.15 Case 51-13 - Continued from 9/25/13 & 10/23/13, Continue to 12/18/13 Brian P. Johnson 1429 Spring Lane Door &Window Openings— Franco Case 51-13 was continued to December 18, 2013. 4.16 Case 54-13 —Continued from 10/23/13 Clearwater Basin Marina LLC 900 N. Osceola Avenue Abandoned Buildings— Franco No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on September 4, 2013, following the first inspection. The violation at 900 N. Osceola Avenue related to an abandoned construction site that was a public nuisance. Property photographs on March 22 and July 25, 2013 showed long segments of rusting reinforcement bar extending from the tops of numerous pilings. The residential project was abandoned several years ago. The case was continued last month to provide the Respondent additional time to finalize plans to meet compliance. 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 and carried unanimously. Inspector Franco recommended compliance by January 21, 2014 or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. Assistant Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said the residential project's development order had expired. The CDB (Community Development Board) denied a proposal to construct a high and dry marina on the property; no project has been approved for the site. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Johnson moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before January 21, 2014. 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. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 6 This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 20, 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 a public nuisance condition exists related to a construction site with pilings topped with long lengths of rusting rebar has been abandoned for more than 6 months. 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) 3-1503.A, 3-1503.113.1, and 3-1503.113.2, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall remove partially constructed improvements or obtain necessary approvals to resume construction until completion to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by January 21, 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 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 20th day of November 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 7 4.17 Case 62-13 Thomas W. Martin 1267 Pierce Street Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance—Anderson No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Matthew Anderson provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on June 25, 2013, following the first inspection. The violation at 1267 Pierce Street related to a hazardous tree that was a public health, safety and welfare nuisance. Property photographs on June 10 and November 18, 2013 showed a massive basal cavity in the large backyard laurel oak and damaged roots decayed to organic matter. The tree could fall and cause injury and/or damages. The property was tenant occupied. Inspector Anderson had not had contact with the Respondent. Member Riordon 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 Anderson recommended compliance by December 5, 2013 or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. In response to concern re short compliance time frame, it was noted the property owner was contacted re this violation in June. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Carothers moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before December 5, 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 November 20, 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 a large hazardous tree on the subject property is a public health, safety, or welfare nuisance. 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) 3-1503.113.5, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 8 It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall procure a tree removal permit and remove the tree to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by December 5, 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. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Matthew Anderson, 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 by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.18 Case 63-13 East Shore International Enterprises LLC 405 East Shore Drive Development Code Violation — Lopez Tim Adams, an owner of East Shore International Enterprises LLC., denied the violation. Inspector Michael Lopez provided a PowerPoint presentation. Notices of violation were issued on July 16 and October 9, 2013, following the first inspection. The Development Code Violation at 405 East Shore Drive related to temporary parking on a vacant lot without a permit for a special event or temporary use. Property photographs on August 2, 18, and 24, and September 28, 2013 showed vehicles parked on the sand lot and a sign listing a $10 daily charge. Inspector Lopez said he had no constructive communication with the owner until posting the property for today's hearing. The lot is across the street from the Traveler Motel at 408 East Shore Drive. Planner III Mathew Jackson said parking lots must be paved and striped to meet Beach by Design guidelines. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 9 Mr. Adams submitted: 1) Declaration of Unity of Title for 408, 405, and 409 East Shore Drive; 2) Inspector O'Neil's October 2012 email re requirement for Temporary Permit or BTR (Business Tax Receipt) with parking category; 3) 2012-2013 BTR for 13 units and 30 parking spaces at 408 East Shore Drive; 4) 2013-2014 BTR for 13 units and 17 parking spaces at same address; 5) November 18, 2013 letter from Professional Engineer Gregory Gainer indicating that removing grass grown through asphalt at 405 East Shore Drive and repairing asphalt areas would create parking area that should meet codes; 6) copy of sign re $10 daily guest rate; 7) list of guest pass amenities; plus additional composite information. Mr. Adams said he began using 405 East Shore Drive for parking when he purchased it more than 7 years ago; he said the use did not violate Code. He said he was issued a violation 10 months after he got his 2012-2013 BTR, which he had obtained at the direction of Inspector O'Neil. He said the City did not allow him to appeal the violation. He said his new BTR reduced the number of parking spaces, described now as "permanent paved/striped." He did not want to waste money paving the lot less than 18 months before new development breaks ground there; he planned to repair the lot as recommended by the professional engineer. Inspector Janet McMahan said the 2012-2013 BTR listed the incorrect number of parking spaces; the current BTR was correct. Attorney Soto said the Respondent rented parking spaces that did not meet Code. Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded. Members Boutzoukas, Cole, Johnson, Riordon and Carothers and Chair Schultz voted "Aye"; Members Strickland voted "Nay." Motion carried. Inspector Lopez said as of September 28, 2013, the property was in compliance; he requested a declaration of violation. Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman said the board's finding that the property was in violation served as a declaration of violation. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. 4.19 Case 64-13 Cedar House LLC 302 Cedar Street Development Code Violation — Franco James Steg submitted a November 19, 2013, letter from Betsy Steg, authorizing him to represent Respondent Cedar House, LLC. He denied the violation. Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on September 3, 2013, following a complaint and after the inspection when she spoke with a man on the property who indicated he was leaving that day after a one-week stay. Property photographs on November 8, 2013, showed the property's house and cottage and an onsite vehicle with Louisiana plates. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 10 Inspector Franco presented prima facie evidence that a Development Code Violation related to the illegal short-term rental of a residentially zoned property had occurred at 302 Cedar Street; Inspector Franco's October 8, 2013, correspondence via VRBO.com under a pseudonym, requested short-term rental of the subject property. "Betsy's" response indicated the last weeks of June 2014 were available with a 5-night minimum, quoted a per night rate, minimum deposit and event fee, included an aerial map and floor plans, and listed curfews for outdoor activity and amplified sound due to property's location in residential area. Inspector Franco said she met last week with Betsy Steg, who stated the property was not being rented short-term. The property's VRBO.com listing was changed to a 30-day minimum rental. Representative Steg said when the property was converted to a vacation rental in 2009, the owner thought the ability to rent short-term was grandfathered. He was disturbed that staff used subterfuge to contact the property. He claimed the inspector had a relationship with the complainant and said he had filed a report against the inspector for trespassing when she took photographs on the property. He said current tenants are staying at least 30 days. He did not want to be harassed again. Member Boutzoukas moved to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Franco said the property was in compliance. She advised the property owner re fines related to repeat violations. Attorney Salzman said the board's finding that the property was in violation served as a declaration of violation. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. 4.20 Case 65-13 Joshua Meller 1803 Springtime Avenue Exterior Surfaces — Franco No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on September 10, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 1803 Springtime Avenue related to exterior surfaces. Property photographs on September 10, 2013, showed mold and mildew stains on exterior surfaces and soffits with rotted wood. Property photographs on November 6, 2013, showed repairs had been attempted, mold and mildew stains on surfaces on both structures, unpainted wood on the soffit, and rotted wood on areas of the soffit. She had not had contact with the Respondent; the tenants indicated they were making repairs for the property owner, Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 11 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. Inspector Franco recommended compliance by December 22, 2013 or a fine of$100 per day be imposed. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Riordon moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before December 22, 2013. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$100 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 20, 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 mold and mildew stains and the soffit has rotted wood and bare wood areas without paint. 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) 3-1502.113, 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, paint the bare wood, and repair the soffits to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by December 22, 2013. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$100.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector 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 Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 12 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 by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.21 Case 66-13 M & M Property Group, Inc. 1488 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Exterior Surfaces/Exterior Storage/Door &Window Openings/Inoperative Vehicles — Schaar Paul Dredtakis said he was the property manager but did not have written authorization to represent the property owners. Attorney Soto objected to Mr. Dredtakis representing the property owners without written authorization. Inspector Shelby Schaar provided a PowerPoint presentation. Notices of violation were issued on September 13 and 16, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 1488 Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard relate to exterior surfaces, exterior storage, doors and window openings, inoperative vehicles with expired tags, mildew, peeling and failing paint, and damaged or subpar exterior surfaces. Property photographs on November 18, 2013 showed breeches to exterior surfaces, holes in exterior walls covered with unpainted plywood, improperly secured air- conditioning units, mismatched, peeling, and failing paint, missing soffit, damaged stucco and fascia, mildew on fascia and exterior surfaces, felt hanging from roof, discolored rear door, missing, broken, boarded, and painted over windows, window screens repaired with duct tape, edges of window screen duct taped to exterior wall, exterior storage of discarded items, including furnishings, auto supplies, and an inoperable ice maker, and a Porsche with a flat tire and tags that expired in 2008. Motel 21 is at the intersection of two major City arteries, Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue. In response to questions, Inspector Schaar said she had not had contact with the Respondents. She met with Mr. Dredtakis at the property on May 15, 2013 and was under the impression that he lived onsite. Over time, various mopeds and vehicles parked on the property were inoperable or without tags. it was recommended that the City contact State regulators regarding the motel's poor condition. Mr. Dredtakis said tenants often left inoperable vehicles on the property. He said he was trying to sell the Porsche, which was operable. He said the property's second level was unoccupied and had been concreted and waterproofed. He said he repaired the windows but Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 13 was unaware of broken windows in the property's rear. He said the neighborhood attracted unsavory characters who broke windows after being evicted. He said the mold had been covered and did not understand why new paint violated code. He said he was in the process of evicting a tenant who left items outside to be vindictive. He said the property owners were aware of the violations and had instructed him to correct them; he said he had corrected them to the best of his ability. Member Riordon 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 Schaar recommended compliance by December 20, 2013 or a fine of$200 per day per each of the 4 violations be imposed. Rags previously were used to secure air- conditioning units. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Carothers moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violations on or before December 20, 2013. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$250 per day for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on November 20, 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 breaches, are damaged, or are subpar with mildew, peeling, failing, and mismatched paint, doors and multiple windows are damaged, broken, or missing, outdoor storage of discarded materials and interior furnishing and equipment exists, and an inoperative vehicle without tags is present on site. A person was present, stating he represented the property owner, however, he did not submit written authorization. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 3-1502.113, 3-1502.C.1, 3-1502.C.3, 3-1502.C.4, 3-1502.G.1, 3-1502.G.2, & 3- 1503.B.6, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall repair and paint exterior surfaces so that the structure is free of declining paint, replace all broken and boarded windows, remove all outdoor storage, and remove the inoperative vehicle or bring tags current and make vehicle street operable to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by December 20, 2013. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 14 time specified, the Board may order a fine of$250.00 per violation per day for each day each violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Shelby Schaar, 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 by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The MCEB recessed from 4:16 to 4:23 p.m. 4.22 Case 67-13 Church of Scientology Religious Trust 319 S. Garden Ave. Roof&Above Roof Signs/Temporary Grand Opening & Special Event Signs/Building Permit Required -Weaver Attorney E.D. Armstrong, representative for the Respondent, denied the violation. Inspector Mary Jo Weaver provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on November 1, 2013, following the first inspection. Violations at 319 S. Garden Avenue related to roof and above roof signs and temporary grand opening and special event signs erected without a required building permit. Property photographs on October 28 and 30 and November 1 and 5, 2013 showed a sign, with symbols and words, mounted on the temporary structure's roof and visible from Court Street and signs with roman numerals and words on the temporary structure's north and south walls. The additional signs were mounted after City staff hand-delivered a Notice of Violation re the roof sign to Sarah Heller and Peter Mansell. All signs have been removed. Inspector Weaver requested a declaration of violation. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 15 In response to a question, Planning and Development Director Michael Delk said the City would have approved the signs after proper application. Attorney Armstrong expressed concern that his client would receive a fair hearing, stating the MCEB Chair's remarks to the press indicated prejudice. The Chair said the quote was accurate. He said he was fair and open-minded and offered to recuse himself. Attorney Armstrong said he would not ask the Chair to recuse himself. Attorney Armstrong requested the case be continued as the hearing presupposed that photographs presented by the City were of signage. He said the Code defined the wrap as art work. He said upon receipt of the first Notice of Violation, the Respondent, assuming Mr. Delk had determined the wrap was a sign as the result of his interpretation of Code, immediately filed an appeal to the Community Development Board; the City rejected the appeal, asserting that Mr. Delk had not issued an interpretation. Attorney Armstrong said the Respondent then filed a request for Mr. Delk to interpret the Code regarding the wrap. He said the MCEB could not interpret the Code and requested a continuance until Mr. Delk provided an interpretation. Attorney Armstrong said City actions violated RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) and the Respondent's due process. He said Inspector Weaver had interpreted the Code. Discussion ensued with comments that artwork does not have words and the signage promoted Scientology. It was stated the Respondent should have applied for sign permits before the event and avoided this hearing. Attorney Soto said the City opposed continuing the Case. He said Inspector Weaver brought this case to the board based on her day-to-day expertise and knowledge base of facts and the Code. He said RLUIPA did not apply; neither the MCEB nor Clearwater precluded Scientologists from practicing their religion. He reviewed the Code and expressed concern the Respondent could repeat the violation. Consensus was to hear the case. In response to questions from Attorney Armstrong, Mr. Delk said he had been advised that a letter requesting an interpretation of the Code was dropped off last night. Inspector Weaver said she frequently reviewed Code definitions of signs and art but does not interpret the Code; she enforces the Code. She was not provided information regarding Scientology. The words, "Keep Scientology Working" made her think it was a sign. Attorney Gina Grimes, representative for the Respondent, said the Respondent thought the tent wrap's design was art work. She reviewed the Code and said triangular graphics represented creative ideas of Scientology principals and symbolized Scientology tenants and beliefs. She said the wrap provided the tent structure with an aesthetic quality. She said the wrap's form and manner were appealing and enjoyable to Scientology members. She said lettering on the wrap had special meaning to Scientology members as reminders of their religious belief and why they celebrated services in the tent; the public did not understand the graphics or terminology. She said the wrap did not convey information to the public nor did the Respondent intend it to do so. She said Scientology is a religion, not a business. She said the wrap could not convey a commercial message as no commercial products were offered for sale. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 16 Discussion ensued with comments that letters on the wrap were visible to the public, the wrap was designed to provide event information and convey messages to those who saw it and was not intended to attract people to view it as artwork. Concern was expressed that the Respondent had defined the public too narrowly; parishioners cannot be differentiated from the public. It was felt all religions convey messages to believers and non believers to raise awareness. Concern was expressed that the Respondent had not approached the City for input regarding the wrap prior to its installation rather than later claiming they had no idea the huge wrap could be misinterpreted as a sign. In response to questions from Attorney Soto, Scientology member Sarah Heller discussed the event and enhanced Scientology. She said art work messages were directed to parishioners and were not a general statement to the public. She said when the tent's design was presented to the City, staff expressed no opinion that the wrap required a permit. Attorney Soto distributed a copy of the tent structure's building permit application, which did not reference the wrap. The MCEB recessed from 5:29 to 5:40 p.m. Ms. Heller said nothing was sold at the event. She said books with enhanced Scientology texts will be used by ministers who may or may not purchase them. She said the Respondent would have applied for a sign permit had they considered the wrap to be a sign. She said in deference to the City, artwork was removed immediately after the event. Mr. Delk said the Code empowers him as Community Development Coordinator to interpret the Code and render an opinion; few matters require interpretation. Staff did not reject a permit application from the Respondent for a legal sign. The sign was installed before a formal request for administrative interpretation was submitted. He concurred with Inspector Weaver's opinion that the tent wrap was a sign. He said most requests for interpretation of the Code relate to use and are made by those contemplating actions. He said there was no compelling reason for him to render a formal interpretation as the sign had been removed and the issue was moot. Attorney Armstrong said the Respondent made a proper request for interpretation of the Code and the interpretation was important to the Respondent. Concern was expressed the Respondent would reinstall the signage. Attorney Salzman opined that the Chair needed to vote on this issue as he did not have a conflict of interest and the Respondent did not ask him to recuse himself. Member Carothers 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. Members Boutzoukas, Cole, Johnson, Riordon and Carothers and Chair Schultz voted "Aye"; Members Strickland voted "Nay." Motion carried. Inspector Weaver requested a declaration of violation. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 17 Member Riordon 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 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 November 20, 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. Representatives of the Respondent(s) were present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 3-1804.1, 3-1806.D.2, & 4-203.A.3, 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 20th day of November 2013, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 18 5.1 Case 25-12 —Affidavit of Compliance Woody's Funeral Home Inc 800 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue Business Tax Receipt - McMahan 5.2 Case 30-13 Affidavit of Compliance Housh Ghovaee 300 S. Belcher Rd. Exterior Surfaces —Schaar 5.3 Case 37-13 —Affidavit of Compliance Melvin Spinoza 1632 Drew St. Lot Clearing/Hauling Trailer/Res Grass Parking/Ext Surfaces/Ext Storage/Door & Window Openings— Phillips 5.4 Case 48-13 —Affidavit of Non-Compliance Ibolya Riedt 2073 San Marino Way Exterior Surfaces/Roof Maint/Door&Window Openings - Phillips Member Johnson moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 25-12, 30-13, and 37-13 and to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the Order imposing fines for Case 48-13. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Explanation of the Board's hearing procedure (Article VIII, Sections 5 & 6 of the Board's Rules & Regulations) Item 6.1 was withdrawn. 7. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Donn & Dixie Boston PNU2013-00996 1710 Brentwood Drive 23-29-15-61884-008-0040 $200.00 Federal Home Loan Mtg. Corp PNU2013-01103 1473 S. Evergreen Ave. 22-29-15-11916-009-0060 $384.55 Gilbert& Gro Miller PNU2013-01119 1724 Thomas Dr. 05-29-16-94356-005-0070 $318.70 Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 19 Ella H B Investments Inc. PNU2013-01623 800 Engman St. 10-29-15-43596-001-0010 $467.00 Ranell S. Smith PNU2013-01131 1760 St. Anthony Dr. 05-29-16-94410-002-0120 $347.99 Bih S. Chow Est. PNU2013-01221 201 S. San Remo Ave. 14-29-15-10476-004-0150 $326.60 Bethel Christian Center Church Inc. PNU2013-01539 1502 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue 10-29-15-61758-002-0081 $619.20 Bethel Christian Center Church Inc. PNU2013-01540 1500 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue 10-29-15-61758-002-0080 $619.20 Bethel Christian Center Church Inc. PNU2013-01541 1002 Grant Street 10-29-15-61758-002-0060 $619.20 Bethel Christian Center Church Inc. PNU2013-01540 1005 Marshall Street 10-29-15-61758-001-0070 $619.20 Jacqueline K. White & Terry PNU2013-01327 Washington 1014 Osage Street $310.87 03-29-15-59598-006-0120 Henry Jones, Est. PNU2013-01301 798 Jurgens Street 10-29-15-00000-230-0400 $306.20 Reginaldo Quiroz PNU2013-01647 1655 Palmetto St. 11-29-15-00903-000-0580 $433.32 Maritza Nunez Camilo PNU2013-01497 1364 Fairmont St. 03-29-15-08388-001-0070 $372.78 Donna K Gary Est. PNU2013-01418 1246 Forrest Hill Dr. 23-29-15-28980-000-0180 $343.96 Code Enforcement 2013-11-20 20 Chris Niemczewski PNU2013 -01591 1654 Drew St. 11- 29 -15- 32850 - 000 -1020 $366.62 30 Days Real Estate PNU2013 -01435 1140 Palm Bluff St. 10- 29 -15- 33552 - 006 -0520 $354.16 Tarpon IV LLC PNU2013 -01436 1304 N. Madison Ave. 10- 29 -15- 26892- 007 -0110 $411.93 Member Johnson moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 8. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m. Attest: Quiaiv\LQ4 Chair Municipal Code Enforcement Board THE Secretary for th= Boar Code Enforcement 2013 -11 -20 21