Loading...
09/27/2006 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER September 27, 2006 Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair George Krause Board Member Kelly Wehner Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Absent: Jay Keyes Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member Also Present: Carlos Colón Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey D. Jensen 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 51-06 Anna Lofgren 115 N. San Remo Ave. Property Maintenance - Espinosa Assistant City Attorney Carlos Colón requested Cases 51-06, 52-06, 53-06, and 54-06 be heard simultaneously. Troy Perdue, representative, agreed to the request. Regarding Case 51-06, Inspector Nilda Espinosa provided a PowerPoint presentation. She reported acknowledgement of the violation was by return receipt of certified mail. Violations at 115 N. San Remo relate to exterior surfaces and landscaping. The initial inspection was done on May 10, 2006 and the notice of violation sent on May 15, 2006. Photos indicate peeling paint, soffit damage, lack of landscaping, and trash and debris in the yard. Regarding Case 52-06, Inspector Espinosa provided a PowerPoint presentation. She reported acknowledgement of the violation was by return receipt of certified mail. Violations at 22 N. Evergreen Avenue related to exterior surfaces and landscaping. The initial inspection was done on April 11, 2005, and the notices of violation were sent on April 22, 2005 and May Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 1 15, 2006. Photos indicate broken and/or missing windows, the building needs painting, the property is overgrown, and there is trash and debris in the yard. Regarding Case 53-06, Inspector Espinosa provided a PowerPoint presentation. She reported acknowledgement of the violation was by return receipt of certified mail. Violations at 28 N. Evergreen Avenue relate to exterior surfaces, lot clearing, and landscaping. The initial inspection was done on April 11, 2005, and the notices of violation were sent on April 22, 2005 and May 15, 2006. Photos indicate missing windows, outdoor storage, unfinished painting, lack of landscaping in the front yard, trash and debris, and damaged soffits and fascia. Regarding Case 53-06, Inspector Espinosa provided a PowerPoint presentation. She reported acknowledgement of the violation was by return receipt of certified mail. Violations at 30 N. Evergreen Avenue relate to exterior surfaces, exterior storage, lot clearing, and landscaping. The initial inspection was done on April 11, 2005, and the notices of violation were sent on April 22, 2005 and May 15, 2006. Photos indicate broken and/or missing windows, lack of landscaping in the back yard, unfinished painting, damaged soffits and fascia, overgrowth, and outdoor storage. Inspector Espinosa recommended that all properties be brought into compliance by November 1, 2006, or a $250 per day fine be imposed for each property. Attorney Colón submitted City composite exhibits for all subject properties. Mr. Perdue said the property owner requests 30 days to finish items that she was unaware needed to be addressed. He showed photographs of the properties taken in April and May 2006. He said there were no broken windows. He said the owner had the buildings painted except for the soffit and fascia and agreed to paint them after being told to do so by City inspectors. He said awnings and windows have been replaced, the grass is now mowed regularly, the back of the San Remo property is being sandblasted and scaffolding is in place. He said only the soffit and fascia need to be repainted. In response to a question, Mr. Perdue felt work could be completed by November 1, 2006. Inspector Espinosa said she visited the properties this morning. Windows at 22 N. Evergreen Avenue were broken and a mattress or piece of plywood was stuffed inside the window frames. She said the soffit and fascia on all the buildings need painting. She said she previously had met with the property owner and also faxed the owner a list of the violations. Mr. Perdue said since the owner was attempting to come into compliance, she should have been given additional time before a hearing was scheduled before the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board). Development Services Manager Bob Hall said Anna Lofgren’s properties have been a problem for the past seven years. He said staff brought these cases to the MCEB to obtain declarations of violation. Ms. Lofgren’s properties continue to come in and out of compliance. He felt the declarations of violation would encourage her to maintain her properties. Mr. Perdue said no records indicate Ms. Lofgren had been previously cited. He said she complied whenever code enforcement personnel requested her to do so. Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 2 Discussion ensued and it was indicated the code enforcement officers attempt to get owners to come into compliance prior to bringing them to this Board. It was noted the property owner appears to be taking steps to bring the properties into compliance and the owner’s representative is agreeable to the November 1, 2006, compliance date. Member Adelson moved that Case 51-06 came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 building needs painting, landscaping is deficient, and there is an accumulation of trash and debris 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. 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 November 1, 2006. 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 Nilda Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. B. Case 52-06 Anna Lofgren 22 N. Evergreen Ave. Property Maintenance - Espinosa See discussion under Item 1A. Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 3 Member Adelson moved that Case 52-06 came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 building needs painting, there are broken window panes that need replaced, landscaping is deficient, and there is an accumulation of trash and debris 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. 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 November 1, 2006. 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 Nilda Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. C. Case 53-06 Anna Lofgren 28 N. Evergreen Ave. Property Maintenance - Espinosa See discussion under Item 1A. Member Adelson moved that Case 53-06 came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 2006-09-27 4 FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the building needs painting, there are broken window panes that need replaced, landscaping is deficient, and there is an accumulation of trash and debris 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. 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 November 1, 2006. 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 Nilda Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. D. Case 54-06 Anna Lofgren 30 N. Evergreen Ave. Property Maintenance - Espinosa See discussion under Item 1A. Member Adelson moved that Case 54-06 came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 building needs painting, there are broken window panes that need replaced, landscaping is deficient, and there is an accumulation of trash and debris on the property. Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 5 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 November 1, 2006. 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 Nilda Espinosa, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. E. Case 55-06 Mary Margaret Jones 1223 Idlewild Dr. Grass Parking, Exterior Surfaces - Collins Property owner Mary Margaret Jones was agreeable to staff presenting Cases 55-06 and 56-06 simultaneously. Ms. Jones admitted to the violations. Mr. Hall reported staff recommends that work be completed by November 20, 2006, or a th fine of $200 per day be imposed for each property. Ms. Jones agreed to the November 20 date for compliance. Attorney Colón submitted City composite exhibits for both properties. Ms. Jones stated the properties are now in compliance. She said she called the inspector to inform him of the properties’ status and he took photographs yesterday. She said she had spent $5,700 on repairs. She said she had patched the potholes in the driveway. Mr. Hall said Ms. Jones recently was the victim of vandalism. Ms. Jones felt the damage was intentionally done to ensure that she did not meet her compliance deadline. She is working with her insurance company regarding the damages. Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 6 Discussion ensued regarding the driveway, and staff indicated the driveway is still not in compliance. Mr. Hall said although the vandalism complicated the matter, Ms. Jones still must comply with code and requested a declaration of violation. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said violations still exist. A window in the rear of the home at 21 Oakdale Way is broken and and the painting is not complete. Ms. Jones said the pane had fallen out of one of the windows. She said she could comply by November 20, 2006. Ms. Jones showed photographs of the driveway. She said the asphalt driveway, installed years ago, had not been done properly. To meet the City inspector’s direction to make the driveway look attractive, she had coated it with Duraseal. Mr. Hall indicated the driveway has potholes, is irregularly-shaped, and does not comply with code. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said the property owner, not the City, is responsible for maintaining the portion of driveway between the sidewalk and street. In response to a question, Ms. Jones said she remains unclear regarding the City’s expectations for the driveway. She showed photographs of the driveway, stating there are no potholes. She said areas referenced as potholes were the result of faulty asphalt that was laid several years ago. She said she recently patched those areas and within a few weeks the color should blend in with the rest of the driveway. Mr. Hall said when Ms. Jones requested technical advice regarding the driveway, he had told her that she needed to obtain that information from her contractor, as this is rental property. James Anchor requested to address the Board after the public portion of the hearing had been closed. motion Member Adelson moved to reopen the public hearing. The was duly seconded. Members Adelson, Krause, Wehner, and Chair Williams voted “Aye”; Member Avichouser voted carried “Nay.” Motion . James Anchor said he would help Ms. Jones with the repair work. He indicated when the driveway was constructed, some excess asphalt caused the surface to be uneven, up to one-half inch in places. He said black gravel was used to smooth those areas. He noted Ms. Jones has almost been attacked by her tenants when she tries to repair items on her properties. He said Ms. Jones is trying to evict the current tenants. Member Avichouser moved that Case 55-06 came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 by Respondent, and evidence received, it is evident the driveway surface is not being maintained and the building needs painting. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 7 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 November 20, 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 Cornelius Collins, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. F. Case 56-06 Mary Margaret Jones 2021 Oakdale Way Exterior Storage, Exterior Surfaces - Collins See Item 1E for discussion. Member Avichouser moved that Case 56-06 case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 by Respondent, and evidence received, it is evident the building needs painting and exterior storage is occurring 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. ORDER Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 8 It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by November 20, 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 Cornelius Collins, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails to comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. G. Case 57-06 Enchantment, LLC 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. Signs - Weaver Sign Inspector Mary Jo Weaver provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation relates to a 144 square-foot freestanding real estate sign, erected on commercial property where only 32 square-feet of sign area is allowed. She said real estate signs do not require a permit, but must comply with the code regarding size. She said the initial date of inspection was March 2, 2006. She reported acknowledgement of the violation had been obtained by return receipt of certified mail. She presented photographs of the sign. She said the hotel manager asked what the amount of the fine would be if the sign remained. She advised him the City was looking for compliance, not to impose a fine. Ms. Weaver said the first notice to appear in County Court was issued on May 16, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the owner pled guilty, paid a $138 fine, and then filed a comprehensive sign application. In addition to this sign, the owner displayed a banner across one of the buildings on the property. Ms. Weaver said photographs taken on September 20, 2006, show that the owner updated the sign. Staff felt as the County Court citation did not resolve this issue and the applicant has no intention of complying, the matter had to be brought before the MCEB. Staff recommends compliance by October 5, 2006, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Representative Ed Hooper said the reason he did not admit to the violation was due to a disconnect in the communication process between Enchantment, LLC and the City regarding the sign. He said a fine was paid on behalf of Enchantment, along with a guilty plea in County Court. Brian Scharf of Enchantment met with City staff on site. Mr. Hooper said staff recommended applying to the comprehensive sign program. He said Enchantment submitted its application in May and never heard back from the Planning Department. When they Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 9 approached Planning staff, they were told the application had not been processed. Subsequently, the owner replaced information on the sign face with a new advertisement campaign. Mr. Hooper said Enchantment was not aware of today’s hearing until 10 days ago. He noted the Property Appraiser lists an incorrect address. Mr. Hooper said the comprehensive sign process provides that if an application is denied, the applicant is entitled to appeal staff’s decision to the CDB (Community Development Board). He said the Planning Department has not notified Enchantment of the status of the application. He hoped to know more by the end of October. He said if the owner decides to appeal a decision to the CDB, it may take several months to get on the CDB agenda. Mr. Hooper said he knew the sign was large and discussed redesigning the sign. He noted the banner was removed. In response to a question from Attorney Colón, Inspector Weaver said the code does not stop the violation pending the comprehensive sign application. She said the owner was first notified of the violation six months ago. Discussion ensued in regard to the comprehensive sign program and Inspector Weaver indicated various calculations are used in determining what is allowed. Mr. Hooper said significant development is occurring on Clearwater Beach. He said numerous projects want to display temporary signs for sales centers. Ms. Weaver said while applicants can request deviations from the code under the comprehensive sign program, the code does not guarantee that requests will be granted. Ms. Weaver said applicants cannot erect signs during the application process. In response to a question, she indicated the code does not address the height of real estate signs. She said the City is aggressively monitoring signage on the beach and noted other businesses have come into compliance. Mr. Hooper agreed the sign was larger than code allows unless approved through the comprehensive sign program. He requested until the end of October to remove the sign. Attorney Colón submitted City composite exhibits. Member Wehner moved that Case 57-06 came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on September 27, 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 signage at the subject location exceeds that allowable by City Code. 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 Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 10 It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Code by October 5, 2006. 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 Mary Jo 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 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. H. Case 58-06 Yield Development, LLC. 1749 Drew St. Grass Parking – O’Neil Secretary for the Board Sue Diana reported that staff had continued Case 58-06 to October 25, 2006. 2.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 11-06 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Church of Scientology Religious Trust 215 S Ft Harrison Ave. Fees & Required Inspections – Wilson AND B. Case 45-05– Affidavit of Compliance Gilbert G. Jannelli 833 Grand Central St. Property Maintenance - Ruud AND C. Case 08-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Frederick S. Bachmann 1010 Turner St. Exterior Surfaces, Exterior Storage - DeBord Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 11 AND D. Case 09-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Frederick S. Bachmann 1006 Turner St. Exterior Storage, Exterior Surfaces, Landscaping – DeBord AND E. Case 10-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Frederick S. Bachmann 1014 Turner St. Exterior Surfaces, Residential Grass Parking – DeBord AND F. Case 29-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Cortel, Inc. 400 East Shore Unsafe Building - Wright AND G. Case 40-06 – Affidavit of Compliance Homer Realty Company 387 Mandalay Avenue Roof – Brown Member Avichouser moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 11-06 and to issue the Order imposing a fine and to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 45- motioncarried 05, 08-06, 09-06, 10-06, 29-06, and 40-06. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 04-05 – Request for Fine Reduction (Future Meeting) Claudio Scipione 822 Eldorado Avenue ($21,750) - Hall Discussion ensued in regard to the request. Member Adelson moved to deny the request for a rehearing to reduce the fine for Case motioncarried 04-05 for 822 Eldorado Avenue. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS – None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS Code Enforcement 2006-09-27 12 . . . Laura N. Connolly Tre 2960 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 17-29-16-00000-140-0530 PNU2006-00980 $200.00 Member Wehner moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filing as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Auaust 23.2006 Member Adelson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 23, 2006, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. Chair Munici al Code Enforcement Board Attest: /h~ Secreta to e Board Code Enforcement - 2006-09-27 13