Loading...
02/22/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER February 22, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Kelly Sutton Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Jenay Iurato Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair outlined the procedures and stated any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty days of the execution of the order. Florida Statute 286.0106 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 03-06 (Cont’d from 01-25-06) Andrew D & Michele A Strong 2730 Westchester Drive Tree Permit - Kurleman Susan Gardner, representative, said the Strongs do not contest the alleged violation. They request consideration regarding the amount of the fine. Ms. Gardner said prior to issuance of the tree removal permit, the Strongs were granted a permit to demolish the building. However, the tree was removed prior to issuance of a permit. City Inspector Scott Kurleman said this is a repeat violation and considered irreparable and irrevocable. He recommended the replacement of two shade trees and a fine of $5,000 be paid into the City’s Tree Replacement Fund by March 15, 2006, or a fine of $250 per day be levied. Ms. Gardner said the Strongs have agreed to replace the trees . She said the demolition permit for the building was issued and the property is undergoing extensive remodeling. She said conditions on the property are not conducive to planting the trees at this time and requested 60 days to replace them. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 1 Inspector Kurleman said staff would work with the Strongs regarding planting the new trees. He objected to extending the timeframe for payment of the fine. Ms. Gardner requested the City grant the Strongs the opportunity to pay half the fine by March 15, 2006, and the other half by April 15, 2006. In response to a question, Inspector Kurleman said the date of the first violation was June 23, 2005. The Strongs applied for a permit on September 8, 2005. He said he left a message for them on September 13, 2005, that their permit application would be denied, and in October, noticed the trees had already been removed. Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff submitted composite City Exhibits 1 and 2. Inspector Kurleman said the previous fines levied against the Strongs have been paid. This fine is for removal of two more trees. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Discussion ensued and consensus was to reopen the public portion of the meeting as the Board had additional questions. In response to a question, Inspector Kurleman said the Strongs had paid $1,872 on July 29, 2005 for a previous violation for removal of two live oak trees. He said that fine was calculated on a formula per caliper inch of each tree. He said none of the trees were in the path of planned construction. Mr. Kurleman said he had no objection to the Strongs paying the fine in two installments. Discussion ensued and a $150 fine per day was suggested if the compliance date is not met rather than staff’s recommendation of $250 per day. Concern was expressed the homeowners willfully removed three substantially-sized trees and staff’s recommendation of $250 was in line. Member Adelson moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on February 22, 2006, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and acknowledgement of no contest by Susan Gardner, Respondent’s representative, and evidence received, it is evident a 30-inch diameter live oak tree was removed without a permit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case and was/were previously found to have violated the same provisions on June 23, 2005 and therefore, has committed a repeat violation. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 2 ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall pay a fine of $5,000.00 to the tree replacement fund ($2,500.00 by 3/15/06 and $2,500 by 4/15/06) and plant two shade trees as required by code by 4/15/06. It is also the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall pay a fine of $250.00 per day commencing on 4/15/06 and continuing for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Scott Kurleman, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motion The was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Williams, Keyes, Krause, Avichouser, Sutton, and Adelson voted “Aye; Member Martin voted “Nay.” carried Motion . B. Case 05-06 Thomas C Little 1849 Springtime Ave Roof Maintenance & Exterior Surfaces – Ruud Property owner Thomas Little admitted to the violation. Inspector Alan Ruud said the City is agreeable to working with the property owner regarding property maintenance including roof and exterior surfaces and allowing the owner 60 days for compliance or a $250 fine per day be imposed. Mr. Little said he agreed with Inspector Ruud’s proposal. Attorney Ruff submitted composite City Exhibits 1 and 2. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on February 22, 2006, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and acknowledgement of no contest by Respondent and evidence received, it is evident exterior surfaces of the building are not maintained as required by code and excessive debris exists on the property. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code within 60 calendar days from the date this Board’s Order is sent certified mail to the Respondent(s). If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Al Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. C. Case 06-06 Phillip C Hayden 2889 Catherine Dr Public Nuisance & Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance – Phillips Property Owner Phillip Hayden admitted to the violation. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said the property has been brought into compliance, and staff requests the Board make a declaration of violation in the event of a repeat violation. He said the swimming pool is a health and safety concern. Attorney Ruff submitted composite City Exhibits 1 and 2. Member Avichouser moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on February 22, 2006, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues to the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 4 FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and admission of guilt by Respondent and evidence received, it is evident the swimming pool located on the property was not maintained or covered as required by code, however, it is further evident that this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred 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 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. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. D. Case 07-06 Neil C McMullen 1247 Pierce St Exterior Surfaces & Lot Clearing - Espinosa Code Enforcement Inspector Nilda Espinosa gave a powerpoint presentation regarding the violations. She said the original date of the violation was September 1, 2005. The Notice of Violation was mailed on September 12, 2005. The violation for this quadplex is for stained and chipping paint, exterior surfaces not painted, and overgrown trash and debris. She said the Notice of Violation was mailed again on January 2, 2006 and a return receipt received on January 18, 2006. A reinspection on January 18, 2006 and this morning revealed that no correction actions have been taken. She recommended compliance by March 9, 2006 or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Attorney Ruff submitted composite City Exhibits 1 and 2. In response to a question, Inspector Espinosa said the property has been vacant since July 2005 and is now for sale. She stated the paint product the owner is using will continue to create problems. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 5 Secretary for the Board Diana said notice was provided to the owner by posting the Notice of Hearing on the property on February 10, 2006. Member Martin moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on February 22, 2006, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the exterior surfaces of building located on the property are not maintained as required by code and trash and debris exists on the property. Respondent had no representation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code within 30 calendar days from the date this Board’s Order is sent certified mail to the Respondent(s). If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $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) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 26-05 – Clarification of Board Motion/Order dated 1/25/06 Allison V. Thompson 2271 Springrain Drive Building Permit - Coccia Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 6 Attorney Ruff said the $250 per day fine recommended by staff at the last meeting was not included in the original Board Order of January 25, 2006. He said he spoke to Ms. Thompson’s representative regarding clarification of the Order to include a fine who requested the fine be lowered to $150 per day. Discussion ensued and it was felt a $250 per day fine was appropriate in this case. Member Keyes moved to amend the original Order to include a $250 per day fine. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. The original order will be amended as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and an admission of guilt by Respondent’s representative, Michael A. Moctezuma Milo, Esq., and evidence received, it is evident the wooden deck on property does not meet construction permits or inspections requirements. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code as follows: 1) Owner has until June 14, 2006 to comply with demolition request to within setback area, subject to modifications and extensions granted by the City of Clearwater; 2) during this time, in addition to applying for a demolition permit, Owner may apply for a variance to keep the upper deck including the cabana and a portion of the area that lies in the setback area; 3) work will be performed with consultation of the Home Owners Association to determine whether changes should be made to the dock portion that rests on common area; 4) the City will cooperate with the Home Owners Association concerning any plans the Association may present; and 5) no costs are assessed against the Owner. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist (this amount was clarified at meeting of February 22, 2006). Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Mike Coccia, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 7 B. Case 40-05 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Bruce T. Vaughan 1721 Estelle Dr. Exterior Surfaces Roof Maintenance – Franco Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 40-05 and motioncarried issue the order imposing the fine. The was duly seconded and unanimously. AND C. Case 10-95 – Affidavit of Compliance James & Linda Swetland 3040 Cascade Dr Phillips AND D. Case 28-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Gilbert G. Jannelli 1871 Douglas Ave. Unsafe Building - Wright Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 10-95 and 28-05. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 44-05 – Request for Rehearing (Future Meeting) Donald A. Fox, Inc. 915 Court Street Signs – Hall Ms. Diana said a letter was received from the property owner’s attorney requesting a rehearing. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said staff opposes a rehearing. motion Member Avichouser moved to deny the request for rehearing Case 44-05. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. B. Case 04-05 Claudio Scipione – Request for Fine Reduction (Future Meeting) 822 Eldorado Avenue Short Term Rental – Hall ($21,750) Ms. Diana said a letter was received from Mr. Scipione’s sister requesting a reduction of the fine. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 8 In response to a question, Mr. Hall said staff opposes the request for a fine reduction and indicated the fine would have been much higher if Mr. Scipione was not given consideration regarding the compliance date. Ms. Iurato reviewed the criteria the Board should consider regarding reduction in fine requests. Discussion ensued and it was felt the petition for reduction should have been made by the Mr. Scipione. Member Avichouser moved to deny the request for fine reduction for Case 04-05. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS – None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS La Risa Development Co, LLC PNU2005-02918 655 Poinsettia Ave Mandalay Unit # 5 Replat Blk 82, Lot 2 $875.00 As Desc in Pl 20 Pg 27 La Risa Development Co, LLC PNU2005-02919 648 Bay Esplanade Mandalay Unit # 5 Replat Blk 82, Lot 13 $765.00 As Desc in Pl 20 Pg 27 La Risa Development Co, LLC PNU2005-01461 644 Bay Esplanade Mandalay Unit # 5 Replat Blk 82, Lot 1 $775.00 As Desc in Pl 20 Pg 27 La Risa Development Co, LLC PNU2005-02931 669 Bay Esplanade Mandalay Unit # 5 Replat Blk 77, Lot 8 $350.00 As Desc in Pl 20, Pg 27 La Risa Development Co, LLC PNU2005-02920 650 Bay Esplanade Mandalay Unit # 5 Replat Blk 82, Lot 12 $575.00 As Desc in Pl 20 Pg 27 La Risa Development Co, LLC PNU2005-02922 654 Bay Esplanade Mandalay Unit # 5 Replat Blk 82, Lot 11 $675.00 As Desc in Pl 20 Pg 27 Member Keyes moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings as submitted. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-02-22 9 . . . 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 25,2006 Member Martin moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 25, 2006, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. c~~~ Municipal Code Enforcement Board ~ ~ Secr t~ the Board Code Enforcement - 2006-02-22 10