Loading...
02/26/2014 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER February 26, 2014 Present: James E. Strickland Chair Sue A. Johnson Vice-Chair Duane Schultz Board Member Michael J. Riordon Board Member Wayne Carothers Board Member Absent: Michael Boutzoukas Board Member Sheila Cole Board Member Also Present: Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Camilo Soto Assistant City Attorney Nicole Sprague Secretary to the Board Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:30 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 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 22, 2014 Member Schultz moved to approve the minutes of the regular Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting of January 22, 2014, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Case 01-14—Cont'd from 1/22/14 Larry & Gladys Hilkert 2250 Nursery Rd. Development Code Violation — Espinosa AND 4.2 Case 02-14—Cont'd from 1/22/14 Larry & Gladys Hilkert 2250 Nursery Rd. Commercial Vehicle in Residential Zoning District/Inoperative Vehicle— Espinosa Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 1 Attorney Doug Hilkert said his parents, Respondents Larry and Gladys Hilkert, retained council to represent them for Cases 01-14 and 02-14, but their council could not be present. He said Assistant City Attorney Camilo Soto had refused to grant a continuance. Attorney Soto said the cases were continued once. The City objected to another continuance and requested that the cases be heard today to address lingering violations. Attorney Hilkert said he did not represent the Respondents but would if he had to; he was not prepared to provide a proper defense. He requested the cases be continued to a date convenient to council. Consensus was for the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to hear the cases today. Attorney Hilkert objected to the decision. Inspector Nilda Espinosa provided a PowerPoint presentation. Following inspections, the Notice of Violation for Case 01-14 was issued on October 8, 2013 and notices of violation for Case 02-14 were issued on November 6, 2013. Case 01-14 violation for property addressed at 2250 and 2260 Nursery Road related to 3 dwelling units on a 0.875-acre property with a Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban, which limits density to 2.5 units per acre. Case 02-14 violations at the same property related to commercial vehicles, and inoperative vehicles without current license tags or registration, parked on the property. The June 15, 1999 Staff Report for the property's annexation into the City indicated the property was zoned Low Density Residential with a Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban and had two detached dwelling units with the front one addressed at 2250 Nursery Road and the rear one at 2260 Nursery Road. The Online Property Record Card on the Pinellas County Property Appraiser website indicated the property had 3 living units. Property Owner Larry Hilkert's application for the City's 2014 BTR (Business Tax Receipt) listed 2 business addresses and on the City's Residential Rental Compliance Notice Requirements of Minimum Applicable Standards form, Property Owner Hilkert printed that rental addresses were "side by side" but left the space blank re number of rental units. The property had tenants. Inspector Espinosa said the large garage behind the main house had 2 dwelling units; the property exceeded density requirements. Property photographs on October 2, 4, and 17, 2013 re Case 01-14 showed the main house, the rear garage structure, 2 electric meters on the garage, and 4 mail boxes for 2250 and 2260 Nursery Road in the front right-of-way. Property photographs on October 17 and December 2, 2013 re Case 02-14 showed the front and rear of a dump truck with debris overflowing its cargo bed, a portion of a bucket truck, and a white trailer and hauling trailer without visible license tags. Inspector Espinosa said when she was on the subject property on September 18, 2013, Respondent Larry Hilkert told her about the 2 living units in the garage and the 1 living unit in the main house. The 2 electric meters on the garage were listed under Hilkert; the electric meter on the house was in the tenant's name. Planning Manager Robert Tefft said based on its size and permitted density of 2.5 units per acre, the property was permitted to have 2 units. Attorney Hilkert objected, stating the number of units was not in evidence. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 2 In response to questions, Inspector Espinosa said she inspected the property in response to a complaint. During the one time she was on the subject property, Respondent Hilkert called his son Attorney Hilkert, who arrived and told her she could not be on the property. From the neighboring property, she took photographs of the untagged vehicles and commercial vehicles. She was unable to see license tags on the dump truck, which was backed up to a fence, or on the bucket truck which was parked along a wall and could not obtain VINs (Vehicle Identification Numbers) without tag numbers. Upon review of her photographs, she saw the white van had a valid Georgia license tag. No license tags were visible in photographs of the back of the hauling trailer or white trailer. Attorney Hilkert objected to the board's denial of his request for continuance. He said he would not give testimony as he was not representing the Respondents, but as their son, he wanted to protect them from unreasonable search and seizure. He said the City had not proved its case. In response to questions from Attorney Hilkert, Inspector Espinosa said she first met Attorney Hilkert on the subject property and he handed her paperwork. She had verbal, not written permission from surrounding property owners to enter those properties and take photographs. The Case 0 1-14 Notice of Violation had information re Zoning, which permits 5 units per acre, and the Code Section re the Land Use Plan designation violation. She had advised Respondent Larry Hilkert to talk with Planning Department staff re density. Attorney Hilkert said the Notice of Violation provided insufficient information for the Respondent to cure the violation. In response to questions from Attorney Hilkert, Inspector Espinosa said no quid pro quo occurred. She saw no inoperative vehicles on the adjacent property; the City was addressing violations on that abutting property. She said the presence of four mailboxes in front of a property was indication that more than two living units were onsite. She said the subject property had 1 dwelling unit in the main house and Respondent Larry Hilkert told her there were 2 dwelling units in the garage structure, for a total of 3 dwelling units. In response to Attorney Hilkert's objection, Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman said Respondent Hilkert's admission could be part of the record. Attorney Hilkert said the custodian of the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's records was not present and he objected to inclusion of the Online Property Record Card because the City could not validate the source of that information. The MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) recessed from 2:12 to 2:16 p.m. Re Case 02-14, Attorney Hilkert submitted a Florida Department of Highway Safety document re trailers. In response to questions from Attorney Hilkert, Inspector Espinosa said she did not cite the tow dolly but did cite the white hauling trailer, the open hauling trailer with mesh sides, and the white van. She said the left side of the open hauling trailer was not visible from outside the property and it was possible a license tag was affixed there. She did not know if the license tag on the white trailer was valid. Attorney Hilkert objected to including in the record a photograph of the white trailer taken by a staff member who was not present. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 3 Inspector Espinosa said the photographs were an accurate record of her observations. In response to questions from Attorney Hilkert, Inspector Espinosa said she cited the inoperable vehicles after she did not see vehicle tags on them. She said the Respondent could have contacted her with information re the vehicles' registration. Attorney Hilkert said the board cannot rule against the Respondents because the City did not provide a Preponderance of Evidence. Attorney Hilkert showed, but did not submit, a photograph of a hauling trailer with a license tag on the left rear. A board member noted that trailer was not the one in City photographs. Attorney Hilkert said the Notice of Violation did not identify vehicles by VIN or license tag. Inspector Espinosa said she could not obtain VINs because she was not allowed on the property; the Notice of Violation said to remove the dump truck. Attorney Hilkert said Inspector Espinosa could not testify re the size of the truck. Inspector Espinosa said she could not measure the dump truck or bucket truck because she was not allowed on the property but said it was her opinion that the trucks were commercial size. Attorney Hilkert requested the board dismiss the cases as the City provided no evidence that more than 2 dwelling units were on the subject property and the Notice of Violation had referenced the property's zoning, which permits 5 units per acre. He said the Notice of Violation did not identify inoperable vehicles. He said the City did not provide proof that the trucks were too large to be parked on the property. A resident spoke in support of City action. Attorney Soto said the situation needed to be corrected. Attorney Hilkert objected to the board not continuing the cases. He requested that all of the resident's testimony be stricken from the record because he was not able to cross examine her. He said Inspector Espinosa could not definitely say the number of units on the property and the standard requires an absolute number. He said Inspector Espinosa was not certain if any vehicles on the property lacked license tags. He said Inspector Espinosa's testimony was tainted when she said she sought permission from people at the adjacent property to walk on the property, suggesting she had entered the property without permission. He said Code cites commercial vehicle dimensions but Inspector Espinosa could not testify re exact vehicle dimensions. He said unless photographic evidence was presented with proper scaling, the board could not find that commercial vehicles were on the property. Attorney Salzman advised board members to disregard the neighbor's testimony. Member Schultz moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavits for Cases 01-14 and 02-14. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Espinosa recommended compliance by March 18, 2014 or a fine of$150 per day per violation be imposed. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 4 Attorney Hilkert said board members reviewed the case prior to the meeting and made up their minds before he spoke. He said the fine was not justified. He said there were not 3 dwelling units, commercial vehicles, or untagged vehicles on the subject property. He said no one was allowed on the property without a search warrant. Discussion ensued with comments that it was apparent that the property had 3 dwelling units based on the number of mail boxes and electric meters and the board had no information regarding the case before today's meeting. It was noted that board members are unpaid volunteers who bend over backwards to work with property owners. It was commented that threatening the City with a search warrant was the antithesis of board actions. It was stated that Attorney Hilkert did not appear willing to work with the board. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Riordon moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation for Case 0 1-14 and two violations for Case 02-14 on or before March 18, 2014. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on February 26, 2014, after due notice to the Respondents, 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 three dwelling units are on the subject 0.875-acre residential property that has a Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban, which limits density to 2.5 units per acre. The son of the Respondents was present and spoke on their behalf. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 1-104.113, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall ensure that no more than two dwelling units exist on the property, as previously was established and in existence at the time of annexation into the City and consistent with Residential Suburban Land Use and the Low Density Residential Zoning District, to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by March 18, 2014. 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 Nilda Espinosa, 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 Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 5 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. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. AND This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on February 26, 2014, 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 two (2) violations exist: a dump truck, bucket truck, and inoperative vehicles without current tags are parked on the subject residential property. The son of the Respondents was present and spoke on their behalf. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 3-1407.A.4.a & 3-1503.113.6, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall remove the dump truck and bucket truck and remove or garage all inoperative vehicles on the property to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by March 18, 2014. 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 each violation continues to exist. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 6 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) 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.3 Case 03-14—Affirmative Relief Cont'd from 1/26/14 Riviera Motel LLC 217 Coronado Dr. Public Nuisance Condition/Abandoned Building — Lopez Attorney Soto said on January 22, 2014, the board found the subject property in violation of Code and continued the affirmative relief portion of the hearing to provide the Respondent time to present the City a plan of action to bring the property into compliance. Respondent Anna Rudman said her attorney was talking to Mr. Patel, who would not release the property nor pay her and her husband for the property. Attorney Soto said while foreclosure of the property was in court, Mr. and Mrs. Rudman were the owners of record. Ms. Rudman said she needed more time. She said she would like to fix the property, but whether the property was repaired or razed was up to Mr. Patel. It was recommended that Ms. Rudman continue to work with staff. In response to a question, Ms. Rudman said she could not afford to pay her attorney to attend this meeting. She said she and her husband had tried to work with Mr. Patel. Inspector Michael Lopez recommended compliance by March 24, 2014, or a fine of$250 per day be imposed. He had not heard from the Rudman's attorney. The City's objective was for something to be done re the property. Attorney Soto said the City had been patient with the Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 7 owners and provided them due process, but something had to be done with the dilapidated property, which had several active nuisance violations. Concern was expressed that it seemed sketchy that a large developer became involved with this motel, which sits on valuable property, and that the developer planned to begin construction next door. It was felt the City should treat this property owner with the same flexibility it provided the owner of the 1100 Building. It was stated that something needed to be done re the subject property. It was felt the Rudman's attorney should have been present. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Carothers moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before May 28, 2014. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on January 22 and February 26, 2014, 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 the motel is abandoned and has a hazardous swimming pool and outside storage of a refrigerator, garbage bags, and furniture. Respondent Anna Rudman was present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 3-1503.113.1 & 3-1503.113.2, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall correct the public nuisance condition and resolve violations related to the abandoned property to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by May 28, 2014. 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 Michael Lopez, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 8 that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.4 Case 05-14 Chris Niemczewski 1654 & 1656 Drew St. Lot Clearing/Ext Storage/Hauling Trail. in ROW/Ext Surfaces/Door &Window Opening — Phillips No one was present to represent the owner. Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. Notices of violation were issued on January 8, 2014, following the first inspection. The 5 violations at 1654 & 1656 Drew Street related to door and window openings, overgrowth, outdoor accumulation of debris and trash, exterior storage of building materials, etc., an unscreened hauling trailer in the right-of- way, and failing and peeling paint on exterior surfaces. Property photographs showed the overgrown yard, a window held together with duct tape, an unscreened hauling trailer in the right-of-way, outdoor storage of ladders, construction materials, and other items, an accumulation of debris and trash in the yard, and exterior surfaces with declining, peeling paint. Staff had no response from the owner re this rental property. Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Phillips recommended compliance by March 26, 2014 or a fine of$150 per day per violation be imposed. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. Member Schultz moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the five violations on or before March 26, 2014. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on February 26, 2014, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 9 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 5 violations exist: the yard at this duplex property was overgrown and had an accumulation of debris, trash, and construction materials, a broken window was held together with duct tape, paint on exterior surfaces was declining and peeling, and an unscreened hauling trailer was parked in the right- of-way. The Respondent was not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 3-1503.113.7, 3-1502.G.1, 3-1502.G.2, 3-1502.G.3, 3-1407.A.2.c, 3-1407.A.3.c, 3-1407.A.5, 3-1502.113, 3-1502.C.1, 3-1502.C.3, 3-1502.C.4, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall replace the broken window, remove all debris and items not intended for outdoor use, paint over exterior surfaces with declining paint, cut the overgrown grass, and park the hauling trailer so that it is screened with a 6-foot fence, hedge, or wall to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by March 26, 2014. 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 each violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 (thirty) days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 10 DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.5 Case 06-14—Cont'd to 3/26/14 Vicki A. Hass &William M. Mitchell 3035 Oak Cove Dr. Ext Storage/Ext Surface - Fletcher Case 06-14 was continued to March 26, 2014. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Case 66-13 Affidavit of Non-Compliance M & M Property Group, Inc. 1488 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Exterior Surfaces/Door &Window Openings/Inoperative Vehicles— Schaar 5.2 Case 68-13 Affidavit of Non-Compliance NSLLC 1453 Sunset Point Road Development Code Violation — Franco 5.3 Case 71-13 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Linda Johnson 405 Lebeau St Residential Rental Business Tax Receipt— McMahan 5.4 Case 57-13 Affidavit of Compliance Timothy Forsman 416 Lebeau Street Fences &Walls — Franco 5.5 Case 66-13 Affidavit of Compliance M & M Property Group, Inc. 1488 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Exterior Storage - Schaar 5.6 Case 69-13 Affidavit of Compliance Clearwater Bay Marina LLC 200 Seminole Street Exterior Surfaces/Door &Window Openings — Franco 5.7 Case 24-07 Affidavit of Compliance Alice J Monroe 2468 Timbercrest Cir. Fences &Walls - Phillips Member Schultz moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 57-13, 66-13, 69-13, and 24-07 and to accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the Orders Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 11 imposing fines for Cases 66-13, 68-13, and 71-13. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Case 24-07— Request for Fine Reduction John R. Monroe 2468 Timbercrest Cir. W. Public Nuisance, Lot Clearing, Fences— Phillips Representative John Monroe said the property was owned by his parents and then by his sister. He said his sister could not take care of the property during the years she was seriously ill; she recently passed. He said the family had cleaned the property. He requested a fine reduction. Inspector Julie Phillips said the family did a great job cleaning the property; neighbors were happy the property looked fantastic. The City recommended the fine be reduced to administration costs of$1,759.20. Member Schultz moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 24-07 to administration costs of$1,759.20, payable within 30 days or the lien will revert to its original amount. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent's request for reconsideration of fine at a hearing held on February 26, 2014, and based upon the evidence presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. After considering the request for reduction of fine filed by the Respondent(s) and considering that the property is now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in fine is appropriate in the above-referenced case. It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board dated September 26, 2007, as recorded in O.R. Book 16006, Pages 184-189, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to administration costs of$1,759.20 payable to the Petitioner by March 28, 2014. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of$273,750.00 shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 6.2 Case 57-13 — Request for Fine Reduction Timothy Forsman 416 Lebeau St. Fences &Walls Property owner Timothy Forsman said after he purchased the property last year, he had to rebuild the rear deck before renting it. He said the City issued violation notices due to blunders by his first contractor. After hiring another general contractor to complete the project according to City standards, he continued to receive notices from the Post Office re City notices. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 12 He thought the mail related to the rear deck and only after opening a letter indicating the City had a $12,000 lien on his property was he aware that the fence violated Code. He said he repaired it immediately for$300. He asked for mercy, stating last year was bad for him. He said he repaired the fence as soon as he was aware of the violation. Inspector Michael Lopez said the property was in compliance. The City recommended the fine, currently at $14,800, be reduced to administration costs of$1,577.20. Member Riordon moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 57-13 to administration costs of$1,577.20, payable within 60 days or the lien will revert to its original amount. The motion was duly seconded. It was commented that costs were too high and this decision felt like a bum deal. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent's request for reconsideration of fine at a hearing held on February 26, 2014, and based upon the evidence presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. After considering the request for reduction of fine filed by the Respondent(s) and considering that the property is now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in fine is appropriate in the above-referenced case. It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board dated December 18, 2013, as recorded in O.R. Book 18270, Pages 1254-1257, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to administration costs of$1,577.20 payable to the Petitioner by April 27, 2014. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of$14,800 shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 6.3 Case PNU2013-00679— Request for Fine Reduction Burkinshaw Property LLC 549 Wildwood Way Lot Clearing — Mow/Edge/Trim Code Compliance Manager Terry Teunis said the City had to send a contractor onto the property to abate overgrowth. The fine represented real costs to the City for the contractor plus administrative fee. Staff opposed the request. Noah Brassack said he took over as property manager for the property in December. He said the previous manager had grossly mismanaged the owner's properties. He said it took time for the property owner, an Australian citizen, to receive notices from the City and resolve problems. He requested a reduction in the fine. Member Riordon moved to deny the request to reduce the fine for Case PNU2013- 00679. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 13 7. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: ROBERT M THOMAS HALLIE M THOMAS 1134 STEVENSON AVE PNU2013-01317 03-29-15-88110-004-0130 $200.00 JOHN S BUTHERUS CLAIRE MARIE BUTHERUS 1010 BECKETT ST PNU2013-01393 03-29-15-01926-006-0090 $0.00 GSAMP TRUST 2005 WMC2 2084 LOS LOMAS DR PNU2013-01469 01-29-15-93628-000-1520 $298.29 ROBERT BRADLEY BACHMAN 1863 FRANCIS DR PNU2013-01542 01-29-15-58464-000-1050 $329.76 JAVIER GARCIA 211 S HIGHLAND AVE PNU2013-01660 14-29-15-18972-001-0110 $341.96 USA FED NATL MTG ASSN 1373 TERRACE RD PNU2013-01677 03-29-15-08388-001-0090 $432.88 DONN L BOSTON DIXIE L BOSTON 1710 BRENTWOOD DR PNU2013-01950 23-29-15-61884-008-0040 $200.00 KELLI S SCHLOSS 1720 BENTLEY ST PNU2013-01958 02-29-15-09144-000-2420 $321.10 JAMES W STRATTON JAMES W STRATTON 1525 ROSEMERE RD PNU2013-01962 11-29-15-31194-000-1020 $567.77 JAMES W STRATTON 1531 ROSEMERE RD PNU2013-01963 11-29-15-31194-000-1030 $20.00 Code Enforcement 2014-02-26(a) 14 THERESA E ROBINETTE 1576 LOGAN ST 02- 29 -15- 39186- 045 -0060 PNU2013 -01989 $382.10 VICTORIA MORTON 1419 UNION ST PNU2013 -02025 02- 29 -15- 88182- 000 -0680 $479.97 RADC CADC VENTURE 2010 2 LLC 639 BRYANT ST PNU2013 -02030 21- 29 -15- 00000 - 440 -3000 $470.70 AMIR FOROUTAN 1976 DREW PLZ PNU2013 -02116 12- 29 -15- 55782 - 025 -0170 $388.75 KRISTINA COLEMAN 118 N HILLCREST AVE PNU2013 -02141 15- 29 -15- 22464- 000 -0020 $280.00 Member Schultz moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 8. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Attest: Cha Municipal Code Enforcement Board c- ti20 S- cr- ary for the Bard Code Enforcement 2014 -02 -26 15