Loading...
05/24/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER May 24, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Absent: 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 22-06 Christopher E. Thrap, Jr. 1749 W. Manor Avenue Property Maintenance, Public Nuisance – Phillips The Respondent had no representation. Code Enforcement Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. Ownership was verified through the property appraiser’s office. She said the initial inspection was done on September 6, 2005. She had contact with the property owner, Christopher Thrap Jr., who indicated he had financial problems and requested eight weeks to comply. On December 16, 2005 and April 12, 2006, notices of violation were issued. Violations related to stagnant pool water and other public health and safety issues. Mulch, furniture, and debris were scattered over the property. Although staff previously denied a permit for a pool enclosure due to setback issues, an enclosure was installed in July 2004. Ms. Phillips recommended the property be brought into compliance by June 21, 2006, or a $150/day fine be imposed. Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1 and 2. Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 1 Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 24, 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 that there is a large accumulation of outdoor storage, debris and trash on the property. The swimming pool is not being maintained and creates a breeding ground for mosquitoes. The Respondent had no representation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation by June 21, 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 Julie Phillips, 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. B. Case 23-06 Jeffery G & Zenith Thaler 1006 Vine Avenue Property Maintenance - Ruud AND C. Case 24-06 Jeffery G & Zenith Thaler 1007 Vine Avenue Property Maintenance – Ruud Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 2 AND D. Case 25-06 Jeffery G & Zenith Thaler 1014 Vine Avenue Property Maintenance - Ruud AND E. Case 26-06 Jeffery G & Zenith Thaler 1016 Vine Avenue Property Maintenance - Ruud AND F. Case 27-06 Jeffery G & Zenith Thaler 1017 Vine Avenue Property Maintenance, Parking – Ruud Jeffery Thaler, property owner, admitted to the violations. Inspections Specialist Alan Ruud said Mr. Thaler had agreed to bring the property into compliance and has begun the work. He recommended that the properties be brought into compliance within 30 days or a fine of $250/day per property be imposed. Mr. Thaler agreed to staff’s recommendation and requested a tabulation of combined fines to present to his tenants. It was reported that the total fine for all properties would be $1,250 per day for each day violations continue past the compliance date. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said the five buildings on three parcels have numerous maintenance issues. He said, after working with Mr. Thaler over several years to resolve these violations, the case was brought to the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board). Mr. Thaler reviewed his recent efforts to bring the properties into compliance and said 30 days would be sufficient to complete necessary work. Attorney Ruff submitted composite City Exhibits 1 and 2. Member Martin moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 24, 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 testimony, admission of guilt by Respondent and agreement with City, and evidence received, it is evident that landscaping requirements are not being met, outdoor storage is occurring on the property, and exterior surfaces of the building are not being maintained. Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 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) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation 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 $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 Al Ruud, 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. G. Case 28-06 Pamela Sylvia 1505 Laura Street Unsafe Building – Wright The Respondent had no representation. Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright provided a PowerPoint presentation. Ownership was verified through the property appraiser’s office. The property owner was cited on August 15, 2005. Photographs taken on that date show that the roof is deteriorated and the garage has improper electrical wiring. Service on the Notice of Violation was obtained by certified mail. Staff met with the property owner twice. Photographs taken in 2006 showed a blue tarp on the roof and a large hole on the west side of the garage. Mr. Wright recommended that permits be obtained within 30 days and work be completed within 60 days or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibit 1. Member Avichouser moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 24, 2006, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 4 FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the Respondent has failed to comply with the unsafe notice dated August 15, 2005. The Respondent had no representation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation by obtaining the necessary permits within 30 calendar days and completing all required work 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 $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 William Wright, 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. H. Case 29-06 Cortel Inc. 400 East Shore Unsafe Building - Wright Roland Rogers, property owner, admitted to the violation. He said the building was damaged last year by a hurricane. He said he had made some repairs and acquired a demolition permit yesterday. He requested 60 days to demolish the three buildings. Mr. Wright recommended the property be brought into compliance within 60 days or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibit 1. Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 5 Member Keyes moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 24, 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, admission of guilt, and evidence received, it is evident that the Respondent has failed to comply with the unsafe notice dated October 12, 2004. 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 within 60 calendar days from the date this Board 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 William Wright, 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. I. Case 30-06 Thomas W. & Jennie L. Legendy 1481 Union Street Parking – Espinosa Staff continued Case 30-06 to June 28, 2006. Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 6 J. Case 31-06 Michael W. & Sandra K. McClure 1447 S. Ft. Harrison Outdoor Display/Storage – Hall Mr. Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation. Ownership was verified through the property appraiser’s office. The violation relates to outdoor display/storage and display of merchandise for sale. On January 5, 2006, he said a store employee had quoted him prices for two topiaries displayed outside and he also purchased a dog flag that was displayed outside. After the initial inspection on January 3, 2006, staff mailed a Notice of Violation on January 18, 2006, with a compliance date of January 29, 2006. Staff had no contact with the property owners. Photographs showed outdoor merchandise displays (flags/banners), including topiaries. He said, last weekend, merchandise was displayed under a tent outdoors. Mr. Hall recommended the property be brought into compliance by May 26, 2006, or a $150/day fine be imposed. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1 and 2. Attorney Robert Walker, co-owner of Fluffy Puppies, said while the topiaries were initially offered for sale, this is no longer the case. He said after thefts had occurred, the topiaries are brought inside at night. He believed his display of banners meets code. Mr. Walker said last weekend, the charitable organization Southeastern Guide Dogs, had erected a tent at the store to solicit donations. He said no merchandise was sold at the event and the charity raised $600. He said the dog topiaries are an ancillary item that has augmented his business and the public likes to see them displayed. He said the City allows local florists to display flowers for sale outdoors. Mr. Hall reviewed permitting requirements for special events. He said businesses are allowed three flags/banners if permanently affixed and not associated with the business. Mr. Walker said the dog topiaries do not have price tags on them and are not for sale. He said the banners are permanently attached. He said after City staff informed him regarding limits on banners, he removed two dog banners and an American flag, and now has three banners. Discussion ensued in regard to signs and Mr. Hall recommended the Walkers discuss signage requirements with staff. Mr. Walker said he plans to display outside only banners that have nothing to do with product sales. Mr. Hall stated temporary flags are prohibited. In response to a question, Ms. Walker acknowledged that the store sells two banners/flags that are displayed outside. In response to questions, Mr. Walker said the freestanding business is not a residence. He said the tent was erected for a one-day charity event and the store received none of the donations. Mr. Hall said, while dog merchandise was displayed during the charity event, staff is not pursuing a code violation for that event. Mr. Walker said only a statue of a guide dog was displayed, which is not offered for sale in the store. Mr. Hall said detachable flags no longer are permitted as they become tattered, clutter roads, and interfere with pedestrian traffic. Staff is addressing this change. Attorney Ruff submitted City composite Exhibits 1 and 2. Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 7 Member Martin moved that outdoor display/storage (banners/flags) exist, and that the property should be brought into compliance by May 26, 2006, or a $150/day fine be imposed. motion The was duly seconded. Members Keyes and Chair Williams voted “Aye”; Members failed Martin, Avichouser and Krause voted “Nay.” Motion . Member Avichouser moved to find the Respondent not in violation and to dismiss the case. There was no second. Discussion ensued and it was felt the motion should reflect that the topiaries were in violation and that this condition was corrected prior. Member Martin moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 24, 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 that display and/or sale of flags/banners are taking place on the property. It is further evident that topiaries were being displayed for sale; however, this situation has been corrected prior to today’s hearing. 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 May 26, 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 William Wright, 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. motion The was duly seconded. Members Keyes, Krause, and Martin and Chair carried Williams voted “Aye”; Member Avichouser voted “Nay.” Motion . Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 8 K. Case 15-06 (Contd from 4/26/06) Wagenvoord Advertising Group, Inc 704 / 706 N Myrtle Ave. Broadcast Station/Commercial Zone - Ruud Attorney Dominick Amadio, representative, requested this case be continued until a full board is present. Member Keyes moved to continue Case 15-06 to the next MCEB meeting when a full motion board is present. The was duly seconded. Members Keyes, Krause, and Avichouser carried. and Chair Williams voted “Aye”; Member Martin voted “Nay.” Motion 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 45-05 – Affidavit of Non Compliance Gilbert G. Jannelli 833 Grand Central St. Property Maintenance – Ruud Gilbert Jannelli, property owner, reviewed problems he had while renovating this property. He said he now has the necessary permits. He said after obtaining renovation bids, he felt it was more economically feasible to raze the structure and construct a new house. He said he now faces density issues and awaits an answer on his request that the City vacate an alleyway so he can enlarge the property. He requested a compliance date extension, stating he would complete the remodel and comply with code. Mr. Hall said staff strongly opposed the request, as the situation had not been resolved over a long period of time. He reported that Dr. Jannelli had appeared before the MCEB in November 2005, promising that he would obtain necessary permits in a timely manner, which he failed to do. Violations related to trash and debris have not been rectified. Mr. Salzman reported that Board rules do not allow an extension to compliance dates. Dr. Jannelli stated he understands the process and will come back and request a fine reduction. He urged board members to view the subject property to understand problems he has faced trying to divide the lot, etc. Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Non Compliance for Case 45-05. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. B. Case 12-06 – Affidavit of Non Compliance Frank P. Barlow Tre 135 Lakeview Rd. Exterior Storage – Ruud AND C. Case 18-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Forrest Culver Tenney, Jr. & Richard Ellis Tenney 1320 Terrace Road Grass Parking, Trailer, Outdoor Display/Storage - Hall Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 9 Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Non Compliance and issue the order motion imposing the fine for Case 12-06 and the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 18-06. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Cases 38-96, 23-02, 32-02 – Request for Fine Reduction Jeffery E. Eller/E. G. Bradford & Sons property 111 S. Belcher Road (Market value: $193,500 - 2005) Jeffery Eller, Manager of Ocean Properties, said when his company purchased the property in December 2003, it was in bad shape and did not comply with code. He submitted photographs of the final project and the property’s condition at that time, noting all four buildings were “unsafe,” the metal shed was deteriorated, and more than 400 propane canisters, oil tanks, 55-gallon drums of fuel product, and various debris were left on the property. He said in the first few months, the company had removed underground storage tanks, three buildings, and all of the debris. After discussions with staff, he had assumed the property then complied with code. He said it took another year to obtain permits to renovate the largest building. He said construction, started in 2004, was completed approximately four months ago. He said he is negotiating to lease the property. Mr. Eller said in April 2004, he had requested a reduction in fines to administrative costs. At that time, he said the only remaining work related to building renovations. He said the MCEB had decided to wait until the entire project was finished before considering a reduction of the fines. Mr. Hall complimented Mr. Eller on the work that was accomplished stating the property previously had many problems. He opposed reducing the fine to administrative costs as the Bradfords remain as partial owners of the property and should be responsible for paying part of the fines. Staff recommends reducing the fine to 25% of the $193,500. Mr. Salzman reported that administrative costs total $6,658. In response to a question, Mr. Hall did not know if the public service tax on this property had been paid. In response to a question, Mr. Eller stated the Bradfords own 50% of the property. He provided the funds and expertise to make necessary improvements. He said the Bradfords did not have funds necessary to improve the property. Mr. Eller said he hoped the MCEB would reduce the fines to administrative costs, as he must pay them. Mr. Wright said the Bradfords own other property in the City. Mr. Eller noted those properties are jointly owned, in a trust, and are not liquid assets. Member Keyes moved to reduce the fine to $45,000 payable within 60 days of today’s motioncarried hearing. The was duly seconded and unanimously. B. Case 30-05 – Request for Fine Reduction (Future Meeting) Nicholas J. Chachula 605 Maple St. ($26,500) - Ruud Mr. Hall said staff opposes this request. Since 2003, staff has had to monitor the property for compliance and the owner has been unresponsive in maintaining the property. Mr. Salzman said the MCEB should base its decision solely on the request. Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 10 . . . Member Martin moved to hear the request for a fine reduction at a future MCEB meeting. The motion was duly seconded. Members Martin, Krause, and Avichouser and Chair Williams voted "Aye"; Member Keyes voted "Nay." Motion carried. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS Larry Finkle 1428 Spring Lane Brentwood Estates, part of Lot 18 & part of Lot 17 PNU2006-00428 $200.00 Josephine Padden Tre 839 Lantana Ave. Mandalay Sub, Blk 30, Lot 4 PNU2005-02784 $365.00 Member Keyes moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 26, 2006 Member Avichouser moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 26, 2006, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Other Business Discussion ensued in regard to repeat violations and the court process. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. ~~ Cha r .. -- ~ - ~ () ~ 0 (, Municipal Code Enforcement Board Attest: se~~~ Code Enforcement 2006-05-24 11