Loading...
08/24/2005 - Workshop MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WORK SHOP MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER August 24, 2005 Present: Douglas J. Williams Vice-Chair Jay Keyes Board Member Joyce Martin Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Kelly Sutton Board Member Absent: Sheila Cole Chair George Krause Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Jenay Iurato Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 3:11 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1 – New Procedures – Ruff a. MCEB or County Court Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff said the City utilizes both the County Court and the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) to obtain compliance related to Code violations. Alleged violators are notified in advance at which venue they will be heard. Staff anticipates numerous cases will come to the MCEB in the future. b. Inspector’s Case Summaries, Power Point Presentations and Exhibits Mr. Ruff requested MCEB feedback regarding the new approach of using Power Point presentations to present the cases. Discussion ensued with comments the implementation of the Power Point presentations are an improvement over the previous approach and should be used more often. Mr. Ruff said staff plans to use Power Point presentations for all cases. 2 – Short Term Rentals – Kronschnabl/Ruff a. Overview – Kronschnabl Mr. Ruff clarified the definition of prima facie evidence and indicated staff tries to provide adequate evidence to provide an inference that the property owner is advertising short-term rentals. b. Prima Facie Evidence – Kronschnabl/Ruff Development and Neighborhood Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl said some property owners rent their properties on a weekly or daily basis. Renters act differently when on Code Enforcement Work Shop 2005-08-24 1 vacation, coming and going frequently, which disrupts the continuity of the neighborhood. He said half the community wants to maintain the community’s integrity and the other half are investors who want the right to rent as they please. Mr. Kronschnabl said a group of investors has filed suit against the City. He expects the first court appearance within the next 120 days. Property owners not part of the lawsuit feel they should be grandfathered in, as they have not been cited for for short-term rentals. Mr. Kronschnabl invited MCEB members to ride along with code enforcement staff to see how involved the process is and the effort put forth to enforce the Code. Mr. Hall said short-term rentals are prohibited in the LMDR (Low Medium Density Residential) district. In response to a question, Mr. Kronschnabl said condominium owners are required by law to have a residential rental license. Mr. Hall said there is a formula for rentals for periods of 30 days or less, based on the total number of units in a complex. The MCEB has not addressed any of those cases yet. Mr. Ruff summarized Section 3-918. Prima Facie Evidence of Certain Uses in Residential Zoning District. This section lists four criteria identifying what constitutes prima facie evidence. He said the Code only requires one of the four criteria to prove a case. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said advertising a property for rent shows intent, regardless of whether or not the owner ever rents the property, and constitutes a violation of the Code. He said in order to impose penalties and enforce the Code once the MCEB finds a property owner in violation, regardless of whether or not it had been corrected, a fine should be imposed at the same time in the event of a repeat violation. Mr. Kronschnabl said some investors did not get correct information when they bought their properties. They were not aware they could not rent short term in residential. In response to a question, Mr. Hall said Section 1-104 of the Code is the jurisdiction and applicability section, which allows for citing of violations for both advertising to rent and renting. Section 9-908 is the related definitive portion of the Code. Mr. Ruff said staff refers to the applicable ordinance when citing violations. Attorney for the Board Jenay Iurato suggested when notices of violation are prepared, that the ordinance be cited in addition to the applicable sections of the Code. In response to a question as to why no short-term rental cases have come before the Board over the last four to five months, Mr. Hall said most complaints regarding short-term rentals are pending litigation cases. 3 – Illegal Tree Removal (Fine Formula) – Kurleman/Hall Inspector Scott Kurleman said there are two Code sections under which he can cite violations for illegal tree removal. The violations can be irreversible or irreparable. Both findings allow the MCEB to impose a fine up to $5,000 per violation. He said fines also can be applied according to ISA (International Society of Agriculture) guidelines. Mr. Kurleman reviewed the types of trees that are exempt from removal. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said camphor trees are listed as intrusive, but are still protected. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said topping of trees is a violation of code. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said trees are measured 4.5 feet above ground, but once a tree is cut down without a permit, the base is measured and a few inches are subtracted to arrive at a respective figure. Code Enforcement Work Shop 2005-08-24 2 Mr. Hall said Inspector Kurleman has the difficult task of trying to get compliance regarding tree enforcement. Staff plans to take action against contractors, albeit difficult. Staff will begin bringing cases to the MCEB against homeowners for tree violations, as ultimately, it is the homeowner’s responsibility to ensure that proper permits are obtained. Mr. Hall said the sad part is that there is no warning or opportunity to give the property owner a notice of violation, as the damage already is done. These types of violations fall under the sections of Code that do not require notification. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said when a tree is removed without a permit, he issues an after-the-fact triple fee permit and replacement tree order. If the site is heavily treed and no replacement trees can be planted, staff asks for additional mitigation. He said when a specific type of tree is removed, it must be replaced with the same type of tree. Mr. Kurleman said over the past year, staff has been successful obtaining compliance by citing homeowners. He said most people come in and pay their fines. Those that do not, are brought before the MCEB. 4 – Repeat Violations – Hall/Ruff a. CRT (Community Response Team) Procedure – Hall Mr. Hall said input from the MCEB has been tremendously helpful to staff. The Board has indicated their support of the procedure for repeat violations being enforceable for a year. He said once a declaration of violation is made, the property owner is required to remain in compliance for five years. If a violation reoccurs prior to the five-year period, property owners are brought back to the Board as repeat violators. If registration of the property ownership is identical to the property owner previously cited, the violation is attached to the property in violation. Rather than imposing a fine after the Board finds a repeat violation, the fine goes back to the day the violation was observed. b. Florida Statutes 162 and City Code 7-102D – Ruff Mr. Ruff said Florida Statutes 162 and City Code 7-102D define repeat violations and the judicial process. Subsection 5 talks about the five-year period for compliance. He reviewed other sections of Code applicable to repeat violations. Concern was expressed that some alleged violators who plead guilty to the violations do not understand the consequences of their plea. Mr. Hall said staff always fully explains the consequences of a guilty plea as well as the code enforcement process. Staff maintains open communication with the property owners and all have the opportunity to seek counsel. Concern was expressed that new property owners are responsible for fines imposed on the previous property owner. Mr. Hall said Florida Statutes mandate the purchaser of the property be informed of the Code violation. They are given the same courtesies of notification. Discussion ensued and it was felt that staff should determine how to handle notification of violations when properties change hands. Mr. Hall said staff prefers voluntary compliance and tries to work with homeowners. 5 – Procedural Issues – Iurato a. Board Orders and City Submittals/Exhibits Code Enforcement Work Shop 2005-08-24 3 b. Whether City should cite Ordinance #7105-03 specifically in short-term rental cases See discussion under Item #2b. 6 – Board Q & A a. Questions the Board may have on sign cases Discussion ensued with comments that the MCEB has not heard any cases involving sign violations, there are some billboards in noncompliance, there is a difference between a sign and a billboard, and if the huge sign at the overpass at Westfield Shopping Mall is in compliance. Sign Inspector Mary Jo Fox said taller signs are permitted near overpasses. The sign at the Westfield Shopping Mall is not considered a billboard. Ms. Fox said billboards are off-site signs with advertising. She said all signs still must meet Code requirements. She said currently, there are six billboards in the City that are in litigation. She said staff has had considerable success getting compliance from property owners regarding sign violations. b. Questions the Board may have on zoning cases c. Any other questions or need for clarification by Board In response to a question regarding Mr. Ruff’s position, Mr. Ruff explained his position in the City. Other Rob Powers, Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator, Public Utilities Department, said he is involved in monitoring grease traps throughout the City. Staff requires grease trap installations after-the-fact, during construction, or when they malfunction and must be brought up to Code. He said staff has used the Court system to obtain compliance from businessowners. He said in the future, staff plans to bring cases to the MCEB for violations involving property owners and businessowners who are one in the same. Ms. Iurato suggested the MCEB refrain from re-opening the public hearing portion of a case. In response to a question from Ms. Iurato as to whether or not the worksheet provided to them to streamline their findings of fact, conclusions of law, and motions, the Board indicated the worksheet was fine. Mr. Hall invited the Board to ride with City Inspectors to observe their job functions. 7 – Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Code Enforcement Work Shop 2005-08-24 4