Loading...
04/26/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 26, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Kelly Sutton Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Absent: George Krause 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 15-06 Wagenvoord Advertising Group, Inc. 704/706 North Myrtle Avenue Broadcast Station/Commercial Zone – Ruud A letter was received from the property owner’s representative, Attorney Dominic E. Amadio, requesting a continuance. Attorney Bryan Ruff said staff does not oppose the request for a continuance. motion Member Keyes moved to continue Case 15-06 to May 24, 2006. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. B. Case 16-06 Patricia A. & Henry D. Tucker 2341 Nash Street Exterior Surfaces, Roof Maintenance, and Exterior Storage – Franco Henry Tucker, property owner, admitted to the violations. He said the property is under contract for sale. Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 1 Development Services Manager Bob Hall said staff has agreed to extend the compliance date until October 1, 2006, should the purchase contract fail. He said Mr. Tucker is responsible for informing the new owners of the violations. Staff recommends a fine of $150 per day be imposed if the violations continue after the recommended compliance date. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1 and 2 for the record. Member Keyes moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on April 26, 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 and admission of guilt by the Respondent, it is evident that exterior surfaces and roof of the structure are not being maintained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation by October 1, 2006. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Peggy Franco, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) 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 or personal property owned by the Respondent(s) pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. 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. Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 2 C. Case 17-06 Boatswin Tree Services 509 Virginia Lane Fences and Windows – Franco William French, property owner, admitted to the violations. Mr. Hall said Mr. French has been informed he is responsible for bringing the property into compliance if sale of the property fails. Staff recommends that the property be brought into compliance by October 1, 2006, or a fine of $200 per day be imposed. Tom Burns introduced himself as the new owner of the property. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite exhibits 1 and 2 for the record. Member Avichouser moved that This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on April 26, 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 and admission of guilt by Respondent, it is evident that the fence and windows at the subject property are in need of repair or replacement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation by October 1, 2006. 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 or personal property owned by the Respondent(s) pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. 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. Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 3 motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. D. Case 18-06 Forrest Culver, Jr., and Richard Ellis Tenney 1320 Terrace Road Grass Parking, Trailer, Outdoor Display/Storage – Hall Forrest Tenney, property owner, admitted to the violations and reported the property is currently in compliance. He submitted photographs of the property taken on April 26, 2006, Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Mr. Hall said this is a repeat violation and staff is recommending a $500 per day fine be imposed, retroactive to January 28, 2006, and continuing until compliance is met. Mr. Tenney said he has cleaned up the property and is trying to find another place to live. He reported his son is a mechanic who likes older cars and that is the reason for the number of vehicles on the property. Mr. Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation. He said he had personal contact with Mr. Tenney regarding the violations. He reviewed the history of the property and said the City issued several notices to appear in Court and fines were paid. On December 30, 2005, Mr. Hall observed a hauling trailer parked in the front yard, two vehicles on the grass, and various items stored in the front yard and contacted Mr. Tenney. On January 11, 2006, a hauling trailer and various items remained in the yard. On April 12, 2006, the conditions remained unchanged. Mr. Hall showed photographs of the violations. He said based on Mr. Tenney’s testimony, he would inspect the property to verify if compliance has occurred. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibit 1, which includes a history of the property for the purpose of establishing a repeat violation. In response to a question, Attorney Ruff said in 2004 and 2005, the City took the violations related to outdoor storage, grass parking, a hauling trailer and inoperative vehicles to County court. Mr. Tenney said current problems resulted from a family dispute. His son has been told to move out and remove his vehicles. Mr. Tenney said he plans to plant grass, improve the property, and then hopes to sell it and move out of Clearwater. He said he would have difficulty paying the proposed fine. In response to questions, Mr. Tenney said frequently there were several teenagers at his home and the situation got out of control. He said he sometimes resided in the house and had not received several of the notices of violations. He said at times, cars parked on the grass or vehicles were being repaired. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said staff feels the fine is appropriate as violations on this property have been ongoing for years. Discussion ensued and concern was expressed staff’s recommendation would result in a $45,000 fine, and since this was a repeat violation, the fine could not be reduced. It was felt the proposed fine was unrealistic and would keep Mr. Tenney from selling or improving the property. Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 4 Mr. Tenney stated he did not have a lot of money. He said while many problems had occurred, he has done his best to address them. He said he never appeared before the board before, but paid court fines. Mr. Hall suggested the fine be made retroactive to April 1, 2006, the date this case was submitted for today’s hearing. Member Martin moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on April 26, 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 (Respondent was present), it is evident that residential grass parking is occurring, a hauling trailer is parked on the grass between the principal structure and right-of-way, and outdoor storage is taking place on the property. 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, and therefore, has committed a repeat violation. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by April 26, 2006. It is also the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall pay a fine of $500.00 per day commencing on April 1, 2006, and continuing for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying, the Respondent(s) shall notify Development Services Manager Bob Hall, 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. Upon the vote being taken, Members Williams, Martin, Motioncarried Sutton, and Keyes voted “Aye”; Members Avichouser and Adelson voted “Nay.” . Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 5 E. Case 19-06 Marina E. Vasilaros Trust/Marina E. Vasilaros 131 Devon Drive Overnight Accommodations – Hall Chuck Buford, representative, admitted to the violation. He stated the website has been changed to reflect monthly rather than weekly rentals. Mr. Hall reported he had informed the property owners regarding the impact of a declaration of violation. Staff recommends the board make a declaration of violation with no fine imposed, as the property is in compliance. Should the same violation occur within the next five years, the case would be brought back to the board as a repeat violation. Member Martin moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on April 26, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received and admission of guilt by Respondent’s Representative Attorney Chuck Buford, it is evident the home at 131 Devon Drive was being rented on a less than monthly basis which is not a permitted use in the LMDR (Low Medium Density Residential) zoning district. 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. Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 6 F. Case 20-06 Michael J. and Robin L. Mazzone 960 Mandalay Avenue Overnight Accommodations – Hall Secretary for the Board Diana reported she received a letter from Mr. Mazzone stating he could not attend today’s hearing and indicated he had changed his website. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. Mr. Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation. He said property ownership was verified through the property appraiser’s office. After the City received a complaint on September 20, 2005, he inspected the website, took photographs of the property, and confirmed the property was being advertised for rental on a weekly basis. He presented photographs of the property, including the posting of the notice of violation. Staff recommends compliance by May 15, 2006, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. He said the website is now in compliance, however requested a declaration of violation with no attached fine. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1 and 2 for the record. In response to questions, Mr. Hall said this case is not part of the pending lawsuit against the City related to short term rentals. Member Keyes moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on April 26, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received (Respondent was not represented), it is evident the home at 960 Mandalay Avenue was being rented on a less than monthly basis which is not a permitted use in the LMDR (Low Medium Density Residential) zoning district. 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 of $250 per day 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 7 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. G. Case 21-06 Elan Properties LLC 875 Bruce Avenue Overnight Accommodations – Hall Mary Ann Polce, representing her daughter, admitted to the violation. Mr. Hall said he had discussed the violation with the property owner. The websites are now in compliance. Staff requests a declaration of violation with no fine imposed. Should a repeat violation occur, staff may order a fine. In response to a question, Ms. Polce stated no scheduled bookings for this property are for less than 30 days. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1 and 2 for the record. Member Adelson moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on April 26, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received and admission of guilt by Respondent’s Representative Mary Ann Polce, it is evident the home at 875 Bruce Avenue was being rented on a less than monthly basis which is not a permitted use in the LMDR (Low Medium Density Residential) zoning district. 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 of $250 per day 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 8 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. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 07-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Neil C. McMullen 1247 Pierce Street Exterior Surfaces and Lot Clearing – Espinosa motion Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 07-06. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 12-97 – Request for Fine Reduction John C. Gardner/Habitat for Humanity 1024-1026 N. Missouri Avenue ($7,000 fine) Ms. Diana reported that Habitat for Humanity, the new owner of the property, is requesting a reduction in fine. Mike Brecheen, representing Habitat for Humanity, stated the previous owner had advised his organization there were liens on the property. He said overdue property taxes and liens on this property totaled approximately $30,000. He hoped the City’s liens could be reduced so that Habitat could construct affordable housing on this property. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said staff does not oppose reducing the fine on the property. Ms. Diana estimated administrative costs at $500. Mr. Hall said his department’s administrative costs also total $500. Member Keyes moved to reduce the fine for property located at 1024-1026 N. Missouri Avenue to the City’s administrative costs of $1,000, to be paid within 30 days from today’s motioncarried hearing. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS – None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS Bruce Vaughan PNU2005-00900 1721 Estelle Drive $386.25 Oak Acres Add, Unit 3, Blk H, Lots 9 & 9A Member Keyes moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings as submitted. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-04-26 9 . . . 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 22, 2006 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 2006, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Other Clarification was requested regarding receipt of evidence when no visual evidence of the violation is presented by staff. Ms. lurato explained evidence can include testimony by the code enforcement officer, the City, any witnesses, and alleged violator, and any exhibits and evidence submitted. She also explained, when an alleged violator does not contest the charges, the existence of a violation is considered proven. Mr. Hall introduced new code inspector Corey O'Neil. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m. ~ Code Enforcement Board Attest: (~ Secret 0 he Board Code Enforcement - 2006-04-26 10