Loading...
07/26/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER July 26, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Absent: George Krause Board Member Kelly Wehner Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana Secretary for the Board Patricia O. Sullivan 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 Case 37-06 A. Wells Fargo Bank NA c/o Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, PA 811 Druid Rd. E Permits/Inspections – Coccia Staff continued Case 37-06 to August 23, 2006. Case 40-06 B. Homer Realty Co. 387 Mandalay Ave. Roof maintenance – Brown Property owner John Homer admitted to the violation. Code Enforcement Inspector Shelby Brown recommended the property be brought into compliance by August 25, 2006, or a $150/day fine be imposed. Development Services Manager Bob Hall reported it had been difficult for Mr. Homer to hire a contractor for the small roofing job. Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 1 Mr. Homer said repairs to the 3,200 square-foot decorative tile roof, damaged last year by a storm, have been delayed due to contractor postponements. He could not guarantee that work would be completed within 30 days. Discussion ensued with comments that Mr. Homer was at the mercy of a roofing industry stretched thin by last year’s storms, had done everything possible to correct the violation, and did not have control over the contractor’s schedule. In response to a question, Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman said a status report could be given at the next meeting and the fine held in abeyance until then. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides submitted City composite exhibits. Mr. Hall reported when discussing the project with the roofing contractor, staff had emphasized the importance of completing the job on time. Mr. Salzman recommended a status report be provided at the August meeting. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on July 26, 2006, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath, admission of guilt by Respondent, 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 by Respondent, and evidence received, it is evident the roof is in need of repair. There are several roof tiles missing on the front façade. 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), that the fine be held in abeyance, and that a status report be provided at the next meeting (August 23, 2006). Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Shelby Brown, 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 2 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. Case 42-06 C. L. David Shear c/o Ruden, McClosky, Smith 40 Bay Esplanade Parking lot – Brown No one was present to represent the property owner. Ms. Brown provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to deterioration of the parking lot. The violation was acknowledged by certified mail and telephone conversations on January 20 and 31, March 1, and June 26, 2006. The first inspection was on January 5, 2006, and a courtesy letter was sent on January 9, 2006. Ms. Brown presented photographs of the site as it appeared on January 9, 2006, showing the parking surface was extremely compromised, lacked pavement, and had become loose dirt/sand. A February 15, 2006, inspection indicated no corrective action had occurred. The initial notice of violation was issued on February 17, 2006. Photographs of the site as it appeared on March 22, 2006, showed no corrective action had been taken. No corrective actions were apparent during inspections on April 11 and 24, and July 20, 2006. Ms. Brown reported on July 24, 2006, she spoke with the property owner and received a copy of a contract for parking surface work, targeted for completion on August 31, 2006. The contractor telephoned staff and reviewed his plan to obtain necessary permits. She recommended that the property be in compliance by September 15, 2006, or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted City composite exhibits. Discussion ensued and concern was expressed, as in the above case, the Respondent may not have control over the contractor’s schedule. It was noted the property owner was not present at today’s meeting nor had any additional time been requested. Ms. Dougall-Sides said no evidence was presented that delays in concrete work were problematic. Member Martin moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on July 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: Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 3 FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the parking lot surface is not being maintained. 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 September 15, 2006. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $150 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 Shelby Brown, 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. 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. Case 44-06 D. Michael & Sandra McClure 509 D St. Retail sales – Ruud Staff continued Case 44-06 to August 23, 2006. Case 38-06 E. Betty Kent 1233 S. Belcher Rd. Vehicle sales – Franco No one was present to represent the property owner. Secretary for the Board Diana reported property owner Betty Kent had telephoned this morning, stating the violation had been corrected and that she was ill and would not attend today’s meeting. Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 4 Code Enforcement Inspector Peggy Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to operating a vehicle sales business on residential property. The violation was acknowledged by certified mail and multiple on-site conversations. The first inspection was on June 10, 2005. Ms. Franco presented photographs of vehicles for sale on the subject property as it appeared on June 10, and July 8 and 30, 2005. A notice of violation was issued on August 5, 2005, and the property was in compliance on September 11, 2005. Ms. Franco reopened the case on October 13, 2005, when she observed another vehicle for sale. She gave the property owner the benefit of the doubt when Ms. Kent claimed that she was selling her own vehicle because she needed money. A photograph of the property as it appeared on December 21, 2005, showed another vehicle for sale. Ms. Franco said Ms. Kent’s son-in-law had claimed he was unaware of previous violations and removed the “For Sale” sign from the vehicle. Ms. Franco closed the case in January 2006. Ms. Franco presented photographs of the property as it appeared on March 29, and May 16, 2006, showing two different vehicles for sale. After Ms. Kent’s son-in-law claimed that Florida law permitted him to sell three vehicles a year from the property, Ms. Franco determined that she had photographed seven different vehicles offered for sale on the property during the previous year. On July 7, 2006, Ms. Kent telephoned her, and stated that vehicles had been displayed for sale without her knowledge and that the practice would not happen again. Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted City composite exhibits. Mr. Franco said she had explained to Ms. Kent that repeat violations could result in significant fines. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said repeat violations could be documented with photographs. Attorney Dougall-Sides said vehicle sales is not a permitted use for property zoned LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential District). Member Avichouser moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on July 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, it is evident that vehicle sales were occurring in a residential district, however, it is further evident that this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent had no representation. 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 5 Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of $500 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Case 45-06 F. Tahitian Investments Inc. 19995 US Highway 19 N Vehicle display, grass parking, signs - Franco Ms. Franco provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to the use of prohibited balloons and signs, grass parking, and vehicles parked outside display areas. She reported multiple personal contacts with business employees. The violation was acknowledged by certified mail from the tenant and property owner. The first inspection was on February 18, 2006, and a courtesy letter was set on February 22, 2006. On March 4, 2006, she spoke with Larry Michaels, Vice President of Advant Motors, regarding the violations. Ms. Franco presented a photograph of the site as it appeared on March 4, 2006, with a large balloon display and vehicles displayed in the right-of-way and on mulch. She issued a written warning on April 28, 2006, which she left on the business’s counter as dealership staff had refused to sign for its receipt. A photograph of the site as it appeared on April 28, 2006, showed vehicles displayed on the mulch. A photograph of the site as it appeared on April 30, 2006, showed vehicles displayed in the landscape buffer area, outside permitted display areas. A photograph of the site on May 22, 2006, showed non-permitted signage on display. On May 24, 2006, Ms. Franco said she reviewed the site plan with the dealership’s manager and explained the violations. A photograph of the site as it appeared on June 7, 2006, showed vehicles displayed in the landscape buffer area, outside permitted display areas identified on the business’s site plan. A photograph of the site as it appeared on June 10, 2006, showed vehicles displayed in the right-of-way, balloon displays, and a vehicle displayed on a platform in the site triangle. She issued a notice of violation on June 14, 2006. Photographs of the site as it appeared on June 17, 2006, showed a vehicle displayed on a platform in the site triangle and non-permitted signage, balloons, and vehicles displayed on the right-of-way and in the landscape buffer. A photograph of the site as it appeared on June 24, 2006, following the compliance date, showed balloons and vehicles displayed in the right-of- way. A photograph of the site as it appeared on June 28, 2006, showed a vehicle displayed on a platform in the site triangle. Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 6 Ms. Franco presented a copy of the site plan, noting that vehicle display areas and landscape buffer zones were marked. She recommended that the property be in compliance within seven days or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted City composite exhibits. Larry Michaels, representative for property tenant Advant Motors, claimed a City staff member had given permission to display vehicles on the “concrete island” when developing the landscaping plan. He admitted to violations related to prohibited balloons and signs and grass parking. He said the Code allows parking vehicles on concrete surfaces. In response to a question, Ms. Franco said she had seen vehicles on display in the right-of-way and mulch areas on the previous Saturday, July 22, 2006. Mr. Hall said the property previously had a medical company use. Regarding the car lot use, a site plan had been submitted that clearly delineated the vehicle display areas. Mr. Hall said there might have been a misunderstanding that displaying vehicles on the “concrete island” would be permitted. The dealership was informed of this. In response to a question, it was indicated the “concrete island” is part of the drainage system off US 19. Discussion ensued and concerns were expressed displaying vehicles from the “concrete island” may be allowed. Consensus was to continue the case to obtain additional information. motion Member Keyes moved to continue Case 45-06 to August 23, 2006. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Case 15-06 (Contd from 5/24/06 & 6/28/06) G. Wagenvoord Advertising Group, Inc 704 / 706 N Myrtle Ave. Broadcast Station/Commercial Zone – Ruud Staff continued Case 15-06 to August 23, 2006. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 22-06 – Affidavit of Non Compliance A. Christopher E. Thrap, Jr. 1749 W. Manor Ave. Property Maintenance, Public Nuisance Phillips Case 28-06 – Affidavit of Non Compliance B. Pamela Sylvia 1505 Laura St.. Unsafe Building – Wright Code Enforcement – 2006-07-26 7 . . . C. Case 39-06 - Affidavit of Compliance Carol Gilpin 1213 Caracas Ave. Hauling Trailer - Franco D. Case 30-06 - Affidavit of Compliance Thomas W. & Jennie L. Legendy 1481 Union St. Parking - Espinosa Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Non Compliance for Cases 22-06 and 28-06 and to issue orders imposing fines and to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 39-06 and 30-06. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 01-05 - Request for fine reduction at future meeting Five Oaks South, LLC / Louis Development, LLC 443 East Shore Dr. Fine: $43,350 - Phillips Member Avichouser moved to schedule a fine reduction request hearing on August 23, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS - None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: - None. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 28,2006 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 28, 2006, as corrected by the Board Secretary. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 8. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m. Attest: ~ Secre ry 0 the Board Code Enforcement - 2006-07-26 ~~~ Ch ir Municipal Code Enforcement Board 8