Loading...
04/23/2014 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 23, 2014 Present: Chair James E. Strickland —arrived 3:21 p.m., Vice Chair Sue A. Johnson, Board Member Sheila Cole, Board Member Duane Schultz, Board Member Michael J. Riordon, Board Member Wayne Carothers, Board Member Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz 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 Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The Vice 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 2.1. Approve the minutes of the March 26, 2014 Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting as submitted in written summation. Member Schultz moved to approve Item 2.1. 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 09-14 - Cont'd from 3/26/14 Di Domizio Investments Inc. 803 S Missouri Ave. Development Code Violations/Business Tax Receipts— Poole Attorney Brian Aungst, representative for Respondent Giovanni Di Domizio, denied the violation. Inspector Kevin Poole provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on January 8, 2014, following the first inspection. Violations at 803 S Missouri Avenue related to operating a business without a BTR (Business Tax Receipt) and Development Code violations for outdoor storage of vehicles and non-permitted vehicle services established without approval. The property is zoned Commercial where outdoor vehicle storage is not permitted. The property does not conform to all zoning district provisions. Property photographs on January 8, 2014 showed vehicles in repair bays, limousines, approximately 11 taxi cabs, 6 Lincolns, and 4 buses/Recreational Vehicles on the subject property. Attorney Aungst said Mr. Di Domizio intended to provide lubricating and minor auto maintenance services to the general public; auto service station was the intended use and had Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 1 been the property's use since 1960. He said the property was not contiguous to residential property. He said the City had no legal basis for refusing to grant a BTR. He said the cab company did not own the property. In response to questions from Attorney Aungst, Inspector Poole said automobile service station was listed as a permitted use in Commercial zones. There was no evidence vehicles in exhibit photographs were stored there overnight. He was unsure if the same taxis were parked on the property each day. Planner III Matt Jackson said at a February 2013 meeting, staff advised Mr. Di Domizio the site was nonconforming re setbacks, landscaping, etc. and he needed to submit a development application; one was not submitted. He said with pumps, the property's former gasoline station use could be reestablished. Staff did not consider Mr. Di Domizio's request to reestablish fluid dispensing as an auto service station use. He saw onsite vehicle storage every day he drove past. In response to questions, Mr. Jackson said the Industrial Research and Technology zoning district was an appropriate location for this type of business. He could not verify if vehicles were parked onsite 24 hours a day and he had not witnessed vehicle repairs. In response to questions from Attorney Aungst, Mr. Jackson said he had met with Mr. Di Domizio in 2012 re reestablishing a service station but he did not contemplate the current use. He said he had compassion for people who learn their planned use for a property was not permitted by Code and apologized to Mr. Di Domizio via email if there was a miscommunication with zoning counter staff. Mr. Jackson agreed the Code definition of an auto service station did not require gasoline sales. Attorney Aungst said a Jiffy Lube would qualify as an auto service station. He said staff could not testify that taxis were not moved daily. He said before Mr. Di Domizio purchased the property, the Planning Department advised him the City would issue him a BTR once he obtained a State license, but that was not the case. Attorney Aungst reviewed submittals: 1) Pinellas County Property Appraiser printout - property use -Auto Garage— General Repair; 2) Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Motor Vehicle Repair Registration Certificate; 3) City permits for drywall repair, A/C change out, asphalt repair to parking lot; 4) Attorney Carlton Ward's correspondence in support; 5) before and after photographs, etc.. He said the area had nearby auto service stations. He submitted a petition with 44 signatures from neighbors supporting the property owner. Seven audience members stood up in support of the property owner. Mr. Jackson said the Development Code regulated uses in Clearwater regardless of state registrations. He said Publix was not an auto service station even though it sold motor oil. The City will not issue a BTR until the property owner submits a formal development application that meets current standards. Inspector Janet McMahan said she monitored the former gasoline station site following a complaint. She observed taxis in each of the 3 bays in various stages of repair, with one on a lift. She also saw outdoor storage of vehicles, taxis, and limos; party buses were onsite today. She said all of the taxis had the same markings and paint. In response to a question, she said the zoning office denied Norama Auto Co.'s November 9, 2012, BTR application. New York Cab's BTR was registered to a residential address as a home occupation with 6 taxis. Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 2 Mr. Di Domizio said he had relied on the City's representation that he would be able to operate an auto service station when he purchased the property. He said he obtained all required City permits and made many improvements to the property. He said he never intended to provide major auto repairs. He said taxis were not parked overnight onsite. He said drivers dropped their taxis off at 4:00 a.m. for weekly service and cleaning; New York Cab was Norama Auto's biggest customer. He said he parked the taxis and other vehicles in attractive rows while onsite for service. He said Norama Auto would offer auto services to the public as soon as possible. In response to questions from Attorney Soto, Mr. Di Domizio said his intent was to service vehicles for New York Cab and the public. He said weekly taxi services included maintenance, tire rotations, oil changes, etc.; taxis were stored off site if parts had to be ordered. He said vendors performed major repairs. He said the party bus recently broke down and was stuck onsite until parts arrived. He said other party buses come in to be detailed and cleaned and then leave. He said the State issued the Registration Certificate after he answered their questions re his business plans. He said City staff did not tell him a development application was required when he spoke with them before purchasing the property. He said his Clearwater Beach hotel and bar/restaurant were operating at the time of purchase. Two people spoke in support of the property owner. Attorney Soto said the company had violated Code by starting a business without a BTR. He said Mr. Di Domizio owned multiple businesses in Clearwater and was familiar with City rules and regulations. He said it was apparent that the outdoor storage and display of taxis and other vehicles on the subject property had occurred over a period of time and more services were provided onsite than permitted at an auto service station. Attorney Aungst said the property qualified for a BTR as an auto service station. He said Mr. Di Domizio only intended to display vehicles on the property; the vehicles were transient and not stored on the property overnight. He said the taxis will disappear when the business can be opened to the public. He said if a technical violation occurred, it was unintentional and Mr. Di Domizio had been trying to resolve it since 2012. He said the party bus breaking down on the property was not intentional and it would be towed. Discussion ensued with comments that taxis always seemed to be present on the property. Concerns were expressed that staff had not provided sufficient valid points for refusing issuance of a BTR, staff's presentation included a number of assumptions and vagueness re length of time taxis were parked onsite, staff emails had contradictions, and re difficulties Mr. Di Domizio had faced. It was commented that the property should retain its long-time gasoline sales and auto repair services use, property photographs did not show equipment necessary to perform major auto repairs, and the property owner had made a significant investment and greatly improved the property. It was recommended the City and Mr. Di Domizio work toward a compromise. It was felt a violation did not exist. Concerns were expressed the business was operating without a BTR and needed to comply with City requirements. Member Carothers moved to enter an order to find the Respondent not in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case, and this case is dismissed. The Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 3 motion was duly seconded. Members Schultz, Riordon, Carothers, Anuszkiewicz, and Vice Chair Johnson voted "Aye"; Member Cole voted "Nay." Motion carried. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on April 23, 2014, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having hear testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues to the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the conditions do not exist. The Respondent and his Representative were present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent is not in violation of the City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 1- 104.B or City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section 29.30.1 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that this Case 09-14 shall be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of April 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board recessed from 3:12 to 3:21 p.m. 4.2 Case 10-14 Severino Gonzales Hernandez Juana Flores Lugo 1345 N Highland Ave. Portable Signs/Excessive Signage/Attached Signs in Non-Residential District/Signage without Permit—Weaver No one was present to represent the owner. Inspector Mary Jo Weaver provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on January 6, 2014, following the first inspection. Violations at 1345 N Highland Ave. related to portable signs, excessive signage, attached signs in a non-residential district, and signage without a permit. Property photographs on January 3, 2014 showed a portable sign, 5 signs on the front and side of the building, and signage flanking the front door. None of the signs was permitted. Property photographs on April 17, 2014 showed all of the signage remained except the portable sign had been removed. Member Schultz 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. Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 4 Inspector Weaver recommended compliance by May 20, 2014 or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. She had been in contact with the property owner on several occasions. Member Schultz moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation related to excessive signage/attached signs in a non-residential district and signage without permit on or before May 29, 2014. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$100 per day for each day that violation continues to exist and to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code related to the portable sign as referred to in the affidavit in this case and that no fine be imposed against the Respondent for this violation. If the Respondent repeats the violation related to the portable sign, the Board may order a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the violation continues to exist after the Respondent is notified of the repeat violation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on April 23, 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 one violation exists: the business has unpermitted signage which is excessive and located on the front and side of the building and flanking the front entrance. It also is evident that the condition related to a portable sign existed; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondents were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondents are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Sections 3-1807, 3-1807.113.3.a, and 4-1002, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. The Respondents were in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section 3-1804.H as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER Re. Community Development Code Sections 3-1807, 3-1807.113.3.a, and 4-1002, it is the Order of the Board that the Respondents shall obtain sign permits that meet current sign code regulations and remove all other attached signs to comply with said Sections of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by May 29, 2014. If Respondents do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$100.00 per day for each day the violations continue to exist. Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 5 Upon complying with said Sections of the Code, the Respondents shall notify Inspector Mary Jo Weaver, 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. Re. Community Development Code Section 3-1804.11-11, it is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondents. The Board further orders that if Respondents repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein, the Board may order the Respondents to pay a fine up to $500.00 for each day the violation exists after the Respondents 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. The Respondents may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 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 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 23rd day of April 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.3 Case 11-14 1519 Tioga Ave Land Trust Platinum Group Financial LLC Tre 1519 Tioga Ave. Hazardous Trees —Anderson No one was present to represent the owner. Inspector Matthew Anderson provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on January 24, 2014, following the first inspection. Violations at 1519 Tioga Ave. related to hazardous trees. Property photographs on March 20, 2014 showed 5 hazardous trees, including a water oak with a large cavity and rapid decay, a laurel oak with many large limbs snapped off, a large dead citrus tree, a dead tree without foliage, and another tree that needs pruning. Any of the hazardous trees could fail and fall on the residence or neighbor's home. The property is tenant occupied. Almost 2 months ago, the property owner, an Orlando company, had responded it would take care of the problems but no action was taken. A permit to remove the trees was required. Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 6 Member Schultz 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 Anderson recommended compliance by May 13, 2014 or a fine of$250 per day be imposed. Four hazardous trees needed to be removed and one tree needed to be pruned. Concern was expressed the hazardous trees were dangerous. Member Riordon moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before May 13, 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. Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on April 23, 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 four hazardous trees and one tree that requires pruning are present on the property. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section(s) 3-1503.113.5, as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall remove the four hazardous trees and prune the fifth tree to comply with said Section(s) of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code by May 13, 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 Matthew Anderson, 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 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 7 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 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 23rd day of April 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.4 Case 12-14 -WITHDRAWN Andrew W. Wieczorkowski 2474 Sunset Point Rd. Tree & Palm Requirements & Replacements -Anderson Case 12-14 was withdrawn. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Case 61-13 Affidavit of Compliance Regency Oaks LLC 2751 Regency Oaks Blvd. Development Code Violation — Fletcher 5.2 Case 05-14 Affidavit of Compliance Chris Niemczewski 1654 & 1656 Drew St. Lot Clearing Violation/Ext Storage/Hauling Trailer/Ext Surfaces/Door&Window Openings - Phillips Member Schultz moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 61-13 and 05-14. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Case 06-03 — Fine Reduction Rqst— STATUS CHECK— Cont'd from 3/26/14 George L. Fulmer, Jr. 526/532 S. Ft. Harrison Ave. Exterior Surfaces Attorney Carlton Ward, representing property owner George Fulmer, Jr. and his son, requested a reduction to the fine. He said the property was in compliance. Attorney Soto said staff supported reducing the fine to administrative costs of$1,141.20. Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 8 Member Schultz moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 06-03 to administration costs of$1,141.20, 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 April 23, 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 properties are now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in fine is appropriate in the above-referenced cases. It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board dated May 7, 2003, as recorded in O.R; Book 12726, Pages 1769-1780, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to administration costs of$1,141.20 payable to the Petitioner by May 23, 2014. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of$78,000.00 shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of March 2014, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 7. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: GUNDEN, LAURA E EST 1516 CLEVELAND ST PNU2013-01977 14-29-15-18954-008-0200 $327.00 MICHAEL W JOHNSON 915 PINELLAS ST PNU2013-02016 21-29-15-58068-014-0030 $520.00 USA FED NATL MTG ASSN 696 SNUG ISL PNU2013-02197 05-29-15-43457-000-0570 $400.00 WELLS FARGO BANK N A 956 BAY ESPLANADE PNU2013-02274 32-28-15-13464-256-0130 $350.00 30 DAYS REAL ESTATE CORP THE 509 MARILYN TRUST 1140 PALM BLUFF ST PNU2013-02365 10-29-15-33552-006-0520 $352.00 SARA MITCHEM Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 9 1142 ENGMAN ST PNU2014-00010 10-29-15-33552-004-0540 $200.00 SARA MITCHEM 1142 ENGMAN ST PNU2014-00011 10-29-15-33552-004-0540 $200.00 SARA MITCHEM 1142 ENGMAN ST PNU2014-00012 10-29-15-33552-004-0540 $200.00 ISHLER, JACK R SR EST 1001 PINELLAS ST PNU2014-00023 22-29-15-58086-013-0010 $1,048.00 USA FED NATL MTG ASSN 696 SNUG ISL PNU2014-00069 05-29-15-43457-000-0570 $200.00 BETHEL CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH INC 1002 GRANT ST PNU2014-00080 10-29-15-61758-002-0060 $333.62 BETHEL CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH INC 1003 MARSHALL ST PNU2014-00081 10-29-15-61758-002-0070 $333.62 BETHEL CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH INC 1502 N MARTIN LUTHER KING PNU2014-00082 JR AVE 10-29-15-61758-002-0081 $288.57 BETHEL CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH INC 1500 N MARTIN LUTHER KING PNU2014-00083 JR AVE 10-29-15-61758-002-0080 $288.57 COLFIN AH-FLORIDA 5 LLC 1706 SHARONDALE DR PNU2014-00088 02-29-15-98982-000-0570 $301.00 ANDRIA BESHIR ESTER MECHAIEL Code Enforcement 2014-04-23 10 1033 FAIRWOOD AVE 08- 29 -16- 99101- 009 -0130 PNU2014 -00100 $200.00 STEPHEN P PREZA 1266 SANTA ROSA ST 15- 29 -15- 38574 - 009 -0150 PNU2014 -00124 $682.00 Member Schultz moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 8. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m. Attest: Cha1r Municipal Code Enforcement Board Code Enforcement 2014 -04 -23 11