Loading...
08/23/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER August 23, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member Kelly Wehner Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Absent: George Krause Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member ó Also Present: Carlos Coln Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey D. Jensen 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 – (Cont’d from 7/26/06) A. Wells Fargo Bank NA c/o Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, PA 811 Druid Rd. E Permits/Inspections – Coccia No one was present to represent the property owner. Building Construction Inspector Mike Coccia provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to an interior/exterior remodel without permits or inspection. The first inspection was on February 28, 2006, and a Stop Work order and notice of violation were issued on that date. A second notice of violation was sent to the current owner on April 6, 2006. Mr. Coccia presented photographs of the site, showing that plywood was used around new window installations, large segments of missing siding, and exposed construction materials. Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 1 Mr. Coccia reported the previous owner had ignored citations. Wells Fargo Bank now owns the property following foreclosure. A contractor recently called staff stating the process to develop engineering drawings had begun. Mr. Coccia recommended that the City be reimbursed for its expenses, that permits be obtained within 30 days, and that the work be completed within 180 days, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. ó Assistant City Attorney Carlos Coln submitted City composite exhibits. It was requested that estimates be presented to the board when staff recommends reimbursement of City expenses. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 23, 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 remodeling has occurred without permits or inspections. 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) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by obtaining the necessary permits within 30 days and completing all work within 180 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 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is further ordered that the Respondent is to reimburse the City for its costs. 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 2 Case 44-06 – (Cont’d from 7/26/06) B. Michael & Sandra McClure 509 D St. Retail sales – Ruud Staff withdrew Case 44-06. Case 45-06 – (Cont’d from 7/26/06) C. Tahitian Investments Inc. 19995 US Highway 19 N Vehicle display, grass parking, signs – Franco No one was present to represent the property owner. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said at the July 26, 2006, MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) meeting, Larry Michaels, representative for property tenant Advant Motors, had admitted to all violations except vehicle display on the concrete area. He did not consider this to be a violation. Code Enforcement Inspector Peggy Franco said the violation relates to the display of three vehicles on a culvert, located within the setback and 15-foot landscape buffer area and not identified on the site plan as a display area. Planning Manager Neil Thompson said the subject concrete area is an intake flume that is part of the US 19 drainage structure. The flume is within the 20-foot easement granted by the property owner to FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). He said the concrete area was not shown on the approved site plan as a display area. Calculations for site parking requirements were based on the site plan. Mr. Thompson said previous property uses included medical services and a retail sales establishment. Based on occupational license records, the property’s previous vehicle sales and display use had been abandoned. Landscape buffers extend 15 feet from property lines onto properties. Land Resource Specialist Scott Sullivan clarified the site plan was approved before he began employment with the City and statements Mr. Michaels had attributed to him last month were not correct. ó Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits. Mr. Dougall-Sides reviewed Code requirements for landscape buffers. Ms. Franco reported that the violation had been corrected. Member Martin moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on July 26, 2006 and August 23, 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 – 2006-08-23 3 FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the cited conditions existed on the property, however, it is further evident that these conditions were 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 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Case 15-06 (Cont’d from 5/24/06, 6/28/06, 7/26/06) D. Wagenvoord Advertising Group, Inc 704 / 706 N Myrtle Ave. Broadcast Station/Commercial Zone – Ruud Staff withdrew Case 15-06 as the property is in compliance. Case 46-06 E. Terry & Catherine Hodges 408 N. Duncan Ave. Unsafe Building – Wright Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to the standard Unsafe Building Code and failure to make repairs in the allotted time. The first inspection was on June 11, 2002, and a notice of unsafe building was issued on that date. A notice to appear in County Court on December 9, 2004, also was issued. Permits have been extended 16 times. Acknowledgement of violation was by return receipt of certified mail. Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 4 Mr. Wright presented photographs of the site as it appeared in 2002, showing severe fire damage to the structure’s interior and roofing system. Photographs taken in 2005 showed exterior block walls being constructed and roof trusses being installed. Photographs taken in 2006, showed a structure with exposed concrete block and plywood, missing windows and doors, and construction materials stacked in the yard. Since the fire, the City has received many complaints from neighbors regarding the project. He recommended that the property be brought into compliance by September 26, 2006, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Development & Neighborhood Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl said staff has worked with the homeowners for years. Although the project has improved since 2002, staff wants closure. One month ago, the contractor indicated he could complete the project within 60 days, by September 26, 2006. Staff is requesting a deadline to make certain the project is completed. Terry Hodges, property owner, said work is being done daily, and the project recently passed its drywall inspection. He indicated that 30 days for compliance was reasonable. He said final plumbing and electrical inspections are needed. Catherine Hodges, property owner, expressed concern that the contractor may have quit, as he had removed his sign from the front yard. She said they have sufficient funds to pay for the project, and want it completed. ó Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits. Member Adelson moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 23, 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 Respondents failed to comply with the Unsafe Building Code within the time prescribed. 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 by September 25, 2006. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 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) 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. Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 5 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 47-06 F. Isa Q. Dauti 1535 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Signs w/o permits– Weaver Mr. Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to attached signs in non-residential districts and signs erected without permits. The first inspection was on April 18, 2006, and a notice of violation was issued on April 21, 2006, with a compliance date of May 15, 2006. Acknowledgement of violation was by return receipt of certified mail. Mr. Hall presented photographs of the site as it appeared on April 18, 2006, showing figures that resembled hieroglyphics being etched into the building’s exterior walls. A May 15, 2006, inspection indicated the sign violations still existed. The Planning Department denied an application for sign permits. Photographs of the site as it appeared on May 15, 2006, showed more figures being added to the exterior walls, completed figures, and figures decorating the windows. A Notice to Appear, issued on May 17, 2006, was returned unclaimed to the CRT (Community Response Team) on May 30, 2006. Photographs of the site as it appeared on July 14, 2006, showed figures on the building’s exterior and an illegal banner hung from the roof’s edge. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on July 21, 2006. Mr. Hall stated the interior of the restaurant, Pyramida, is decorated in an ancient Egyptian theme. He recommended that the property be in compliance by September 15, 2006, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Mr. Thompson said when workers first began applying figures to the building’s exterior, he visited the site and reviewed the sign code with them. He said staff determined that the figures are signage as they communicate information to attract public attention. He said according to the Code, artwork does not identify the product sold. In response to questions, Mr. Thompson said the figures are not a mural as they convey commercial speech. Mr. Kronschnabl said the City does not want structures to serve as overall corporate signage. He said the entire structure and windows are covered with hieroglyphics. Concern was expressed that other area restaurant themes are apparent by building designs and outdoor decorations. Isa Q. Dauti, representative, said City staff had indicated the designs on the windows were acceptable but called it signage when similar designs were applied to the walls. He said restaurant patrons love the designs. Mr. Hall said staff had not approved any signage on the subject property. Window signage is limited to 25% of the window. Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 6 Discussion ensued with comments that the designs seem to dress up the building and the figures are decoration. Mr. Thompson said before adding the signage, the restaurant should have gone through the site plan process, which required CDB (Community Development Board) approval. Mr. Hall said when staff saw that work had begun, he had cautioned the contractor, Mr. Fuchs, and Sophia that permits were required. ó Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits. Bob Fuchs, contractor, said he had obtained permits for interior work, the parking lot, and landscaping. He said no one had mentioned anything to him regarding hieroglyphics. He said the figures on the wall facing the parking lot were more attractive than a blank wall. He said the figures are art, not signage. Mr. Kronschnabl reviewed the history of the City’s sign program. He said staff had visited the subject property when the etching work began. Although the restaurant was aware that the figures met the definition of a sign, they continued the work. He said signage needs to be approved through the permitting process. Member Wehner moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 23, 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 signs have been installed without permits. 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 by September 15, 2006. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 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 MaryJo Weaver, 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 – 2006-08-23 7 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, Martin, Wehner, and Chair Williams carried voted “Aye”; Member Adelson voted “Nay.” Motion . Case 48-06 G. 1105 S. Prospect Land Trust c/o Trustee Co TRE 1105 S. Prospect Ave. Landscaping, Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud No one was present to represent the property owner. Inspections Specialist Alan Ruud provided a Power Point presentation. The violation relates to landscaping and parking lot surfaces for two multi-family structures. The notice of violation was posted on the property and at City Hall and was sent by regular mail and certified mail. The certified mail was not accepted. The first inspection was on March 8, 2006. Mr. Ruud presented photographs of the property as it appeared on March 8, 2006, showing common areas devoid of sod or landscaping materials and a parking surface that was compromised, lacked pavement, and had become loose dirt/sand. A notice of violation was issued on March 8, 2006. Photographs of the property as it appeared on July 10, 2006, showed broken curbing and no changes to the parking surfaces or landscaping. Another notice of violation was issued on July 10, 2006. Mr. Ruud said the property, now in compliance, has had a long history of noncompliance. ó Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 23, 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 there was a lack of ground cover and a deteriorating driveway on the property, 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 – 2006-08-23 8 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Case 49-06 H. 1105 S. Prospect Land Trust c/o Trustee Co TRE 1105 S. Prospect Ave. Exterior Surfaces - Ruud No one was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Ruud provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent by regular mail and certified mail. The certified mail was not accepted. The notice of violation was posted on the property and at City Hall. The first inspection was on March 30, 2006. Mr. Ruud presented photographs of the property as it appeared on March 30, 2006, showing deteriorating exterior surfaces and a partially painted surface. Notices of violation were issued on March 30, 2006 and July 10, 2006. He said the property now is in compliance. ó Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits. Member Wehner moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 23, 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 the exterior of the structure had not been maintained, 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 9 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Case 50-06 I. Matthew S. Alderman 1419 Carlos Ave. Overnight Accommodations – Hall No one was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to the home at 1419 Carlos Avenue being rented on a less than monthly basis. Overnight accommodations is not a permitted use in a LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential) zoning district. Also the Code describes activities that also can prove renting by use of advertising, rental agent, overlapping agreements, or other activities. The first inspection was on June 2, 2006, when renters stated they were renting for the week and acknowledged that the subject property was the one advertised in the internet printout. The notice of violation was issued on June 5, 2006, and was acknowledged by certified mail. Staff has had no contact with the property owner. The property was found to be out of compliance on July 3, 2006, following the compliance date. Mr. Hall presented photographs of the site as it appeared on June 2, 2006, showing an automobile with out of state vehicle plates parked in the driveway. He said less than two weeks ago, staff spoke with tenants at the property from California and London who stated they were there for a week. Mr. Hall recommended the property be brought into compliance by September 5, 2006, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. ó Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits. Member Adelson moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 23, 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 Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 10 Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the referenced property is being rented on a less than monthly basis, which is not a permitted use in an LMDR (Low Medium Density Residential) zoning district. 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. The Respondent had no representation. 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 September 5, 2006. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Development Services Manager Bob Hall, 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. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 40-06 – Status Report A. Homer Realty Co 387 Mandalay Ave. Roof Maintenance – Brown Mr. Hall reported that repairs were complete. Case 03-06 – Affidavit of Compliance B. Andrew D. & Michelle Strong 2730 Westchester Dr. Tree Permit - Kurleman AND Case 05-06 – Affidavit of Compliance C. Thomas C. Little 1849 Springtime Ave. Roof Maintenance, Exterior Surfaces - Ruud Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 11 AND Case 23-06 – Affidavit of Compliance D. Jeffrey G. & Zenith Thaler 1006 Vine Ave. Exterior Storage, Exterior Surfaces, Landscaping - Ruud AND Case 24-06 – Affidavit of Compliance E. Jeffrey G. & Zenith Thaler 1007 Vine Ave. Exterior Surfaces – Ruud AND Case 25-06 - Affidavit of Compliance F. Jeffrey G. & Zenith Thaler 1014 Vine Ave. Exterior Surfaces, Windows, Exterior Storage, Landscaping – Ruud AND Case 26-06 – Affidavit of Compliance G. Jeffrey G & Zenith Thaler 1016 Vine Ave. Exterior Surfaces, Exterior Storage, Landscaping - Ruud AND Case 27-06 – Affidavit of Compliance H. Jeffrey G. & Zenith Thaler 1017 Vine Ave. Exterior Surfaces, Windows, Exterior Storage, Grass Parking – Ruud AND Case 43-05 – Affidavit of Compliance I. Lokey Oldsmobile Inc. 2339 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Portable Signs, Banners & Flags, Flags – Numbers Limited, Signs w/o permits – Fox AND Case 29-06 – Affidavit of Noncompliance J. Cotel, Inc. 400 E. Shore Dr. Unsafe Building Abatement - Wright Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 12 Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavit of Noncompliance for Case 29-06 and to issue the order imposing a fine and to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 03-06, 05- motion carried 06, 23-06, 24-06, 25-06, 26-06, 27-06, and 43-05. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Case 30-05 – Request for Fine Reduction A. Nicholas J. Chachula 605 Maple St. ($26,500) - Ruud Nicholas Chachula, property owner, said he purchased the old house three years ago. He said it was expensive to keep the property in compliance, but he tried to address problems as soon as possible. He moved out of the house two years ago due to neighborhood crime. He said he made repairs last year after being cited for damage caused by storms and vagrants. He noted he is a full-time student. He indicated he did not know he had to notify the inspector when the property was brought into compliance. He said he has permits to raze the structure. Mr. Hall said staff opposed a reduction to the fine due to repeat violations on the property. He said the property currently is out of compliance. In response to questions, Mr. Chachula said the structure is not sound but his efforts to raze it were hindered until the tenants were forced out. He said the house’s doors and windows had been stolen. He said he has financial difficulties and cannot afford to pay the fine. In response to questions, Mr. Hall said enforcement issues on the property date back to 2002. motion Member Keyes moved to deny the request to reduce the fine. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2006-08-23 13 . B. Case 01-05 - Request for Fine Reduction Five Oaks South, LLC / Louis Development, LLC 443 East Shore Dr. ($43,350) - Phillips Ed Hooper, representative, said the owner purchased the property on July 1, 2005, knowing that fines were accruing daily. He said the previous owner had made no attempt to bring the property into compliance. He said the property owner began the process to raze the structure in August 2005, by notifying tenants that their leases were being terminated. In September 2005, significant asbestos was found. The last occupants left the property in November 2005. Demolition was completed in March 2006, and the City was notified that the property was in compliance. He said the property cannot be developed until next year as a moratorium is in place. He requested the fine be reduced to $8,000, the amount of the fine when the property was purchased. Mr. Hall said staff does not oppose reducing the fine to $10,000. Staff estimated that City costs total $2,000. Mr. Keyes moved to reduce the fine to $10,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS Member Keyes reported he would not be in attendance at the September meeting. . 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: - None. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 26,2006 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 26, 2006, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m. ~)~ Chair \0 ~ \ ()C:, Municip Code ~nforcement Board Attest: ~~~~ Secret t the Board . Code Enforcement - 2006-08-23 14