Loading...
12/11/1991 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD December 11, 1991 Members present: William Murray, Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman (excused) Louise C. Riley (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution of the order to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS National Advertising Company Case No. 48-91 22726 U.S. 19 North (Land Development Code) Continued from 11/27/91 Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, stated the proposed settlement agreement was not approved by the City. Ed Armstrong, Attorney for National Advertising Company, requested this case be continued to the January meeting to allow additional time to prepare a defense. Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 48-91 to the meeting of January 8, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 1 C. & L. Conti/A. & E. Labricciosia Case No. 56-91 653 Mandalay Avenue (Life Safety Code) Mr. Conti, part owner of the Royal Canadian Motel stated he is not contesting the violation. He has had a hardship in getting someone to relocate the heater due to the location of the pool. In response to a question, Mr. Conti said he is not conceding to the violation. He has owed the property for eleven years, and the heater was replaced two years ago. He has kept the property in good repair, and he had no way of knowing he was in violation. In response to questions, Mr. Conti stated until he received the notice of hearing with the code section, he had to rely on what the inspector told him about the violation, and he doesn't know how to correct the situation. He tried to get a contractor or someone knowledgeable regarding pool heaters, but no one would give him a direct answer. He tried to relocate the heater and was told it had to be ten feet away from all structures or openings; this would place it in front of the building by the sidewalk. The Utility Department recommended a plumber who could move the heater to this location; but this would be costly and an eyesore, making the business suffer. Mr. Conti stated he has contracted to have the heater changed next week. In response to questions, Mr. Conti stated changing to a heat pump was suggested, but it was also stated his pool may be too large for a heat pump to be effective. In response to a question, Anne Blackburn, Fire Inspector, recommended 72 hours in which to have the hazard removed, and that they not be able to rent out space on the second floor. In response to questions, she stated the original notice was issued March 6th, and she reinspected at least six more times since. In response to a question, it was stated the stairwell is in the middle of the building servicing both sides. Mr. Conti stated a fire escape at one end would not serve all the rooms. He stated the heater has not been used since last winter. He stated the gas serves other equipment in addition to the hot water heater. Discussion ensued regarding where the gas line needs to be disconnected to render it safe, and the Inspector stated disconnecting the service is only a temporary measure. Mr. Conti stated West Coast Plumbing and Heating promised to start work this week indicating more time is needed. Discussion ensued regarding the need to disconnect the heater immediately as it is a life safety hazard concern. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 56-91 regarding violation of Section 17-3.2.1 of NFPA Life Safety Code 101 as adopted by Section 93.21 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 653 Mandalay Avenue aka Mandalay Unit #5, Block 84, Lot 6, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th day of December, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The are: after hearing testimony of Anne Blackburn, Fire Inspector, Mr. Conti and Findings of Fact Mr. Labricciosia, and viewing the evidence, it is evident that the space beneath the stairwell, which provides the only exit from the 2nd floor, is being used to house gas pool equipment and heaters. The are: C. & L. Conti and A. & E. Labricciosia are in violation of Section 17- Conclusions of Law 3.2.1 of NFPA Life Safety Code 101. It is the of this Board that C. & L. Conti and A. & E. Labricciosia shall comply with Section 17- Order 3.2.1 of NFPA Life Safety Code 101 as adopted by the Code of the City of Clearwater by 1) disconnecting 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 2 the existing gas feed to the equipment and provide no occupancy to those units on the second floor by 12/16/91, and 2) removing and relocating pool equipment and heater from under the stairwell no later than 1/30/92. If C. & L. Conti and A. & E. Labricciosia do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If C. & L. Conti and A. & E. Labricciosia do not 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 or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, C. & L. Conti and A. & E. Labricciosia shall notify Anne Blackburn, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Richard R. Dimmitt Case No. 60-91 25191 U.S. 19 North (Land Development Code) No one present to represent violator. Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated Dimmitt, on occasion, will park cars on the grass in front of their business. She first observed cars on the grass October 24, 1990; notice was sent October 30th and compliance was obtained November 5, 1990. The violation reoccurred October 12, 1991, she verbally notified them of the violation. Photographs were taken October 30th, and a notice of recurring violation issued. Ownership of the property was verified through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. She submitted City composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to a question, it was stated a ticket was not issued as the Board has the ability to impose substantially stiffer fines. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 60-91 regarding violation of Section 135.004(c)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 25191 U.S. 19 North aka M&B 32/10, Sec. 32/28/16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th day of December, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The are: after hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, and viewing the Findings of Fact evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that vehicles have been parked on the grass without approval and inconsistent with the City Code, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The are: Richard R. Dimmitt is in violation of Section 135.004(c)(1). Conclusions of Law 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 3 It is the of this Board that Richard R. Dimmitt shall continue compliance with Section Order 135.004(c)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Richard R. Dimmitt repeats the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $200.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Richard R. Dimmitt is 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. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. Case No. 62-91 2355 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Complied prior Mr. Zinzow moved to withdraw Case No. 62-91 as compliance has been obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. James A. Jefferson Case No. 63-91 1255 Byron Avenue (Public Nuisance Code) Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated ownership of the referenced property was verified through the Property Appraiser's office, notice was sent certified and regular mail, and the signed certified receipt was returned. She first inspected the property October 31st at which time it was posted and photographed. City submitted composite exhibit A, a photographs of the property. The property was reinspected this morning and the white ford and a trailer frame are still on the property without current registrations. Mr. Jefferson stated he just uses the trailer to sit on, and the Inspector informed him he still needs a current registration. In response to questions, Ms. Niemiller stated in addition to the need for current registrations, the trailer frame has to be moved out of the setback area. She stated the trailer would be legal when registered and may be stored behind the setback. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 63-91 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1255 Byron Avenue aka Ardmore Place Replat, Lots 61 & 62, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th day of December, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The are: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, and Mr. Findings of Fact Jefferson, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that there exists debris in the form of unlicensed vehicles on the above referenced property. The are: James A. Jefferson is in violation of Section 95.04. Conclusions of Law 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 4 It is the of this Board that James A. Jefferson shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of Order the City of Clearwater within 10 days (12/21/91). Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition, without further notice to James A. Jefferson. The City Commission may then adopt a Resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the City the actual cost incurred plus $200.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $200.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon complying, James A. Jefferson shall notify Vicki Niemiller, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Roger O. Hober Case No. 64-91 615 Phoenix Avenue (Land Development Code) Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, stated the fence at the above referenced property was erected without a permit, and the posts and stringers face the adjoining properties. He sent notice of the violation on November 8th by certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. He verified ownership through the Pinellas County tax rolls. He submitted City exhibit A - photographs of the fence, and B - a diagram showing the time frame of when different areas of the fence were replaced. The Inspector recommended compliance by requiring a permit be obtained within a week and that the fence be removed or turned around within two weeks. Mr. Hober, in response to a question, stated he does not agree he is in violation. He submitted exhibits A and B, a diagram and photographs of the fence. He stated when the fence was installed in 1972, a permit was not necessary. He just repaired what has been in existence for sixteen years. He stated he completed replacement of the fence in May, 1990, and questioned why it is a problem now. In response to questions regarding grandfathering, John Richter, Development Code Manager, stated provisions for grandfathering allow existing nonconformities to continue, but do not allow rebuilding to prolong the life of the nonconformity. This fence was replaced in three phases, each without a permit and without meeting orientation requirements, thereby creating a new nonconforming fence. He stated the code is not specific as to when a permit is required when replacing a certain percentage of fence. Mr. Wyatt left the meeting at 4:09 p.m. Mr. Hober expressed concern regarding his constitutional rights, and questioned the appeal process. Discussion ensued regarding the hardship of turning the fence around to meet orientation requirements; and it was stated the code does not require the fence to be turned around, just that a finished side face the neighboring properties. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 65-91 regarding violation of Section 136.016(b) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 615 Phoenix Avenue a/k/a Suburb Beautiful Sub., Block E, south 45 feet of Lot 7 and north 30 feet of Lot 6, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th day of December, 1991, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, And Order. 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 5 The are: after hearing testimony of Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, and Roger Hober, Findings of Fact and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City and Defendant's exhibits A & B - a diagram of the fence and photographs, it is evident that Mr. Hober failed to apply for a permit to replace the fence at the above referenced property. The are: Roger O. Hober is in violation of Section 135.004(c)(1). Conclusions of Law It is the of this Board that Roger O. Hober shall comply with Section 136.016(b) of the Code of Order the City of Clearwater by applying for a fence permit within one week, and picking up the permit within three days of notification of issuance. If Roger O. Hober does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $10.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Roger O. Hober does not 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 or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, Roger O. Hober shall notify Rick Rosa, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. John Holsbrook-Consolidated Bank Case No. 65-91 about 1180 S. Gulf Boulevard (Land Development Code) To be continued to 1/8/91 Mr. Zinzow moved to continue Case No. 65-91 to the meeting of January 8, 1992 as service of the notice of hearing has not been obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Affidavits of Compliance Robert Cooper Case 91-6-2 #1 600 Pennsylvania Avenue New York Guardian Mortgage Corp. Case 91-6-2 #3 501-503 North Saturn Avenue Goldie M. Reid Case 91-8-1 #7 1347 Hibiscus Street Bessie M./Mary L. Singletary Case 91-8-2 #4 about 900 Palm Bluff Willie R. Bryant Jr. Case 91-8-2 #7 1107 Pennsylvania Avenue 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 6 Dolly Caloroso Case 91-9-1 #7 1492 Byram Drive Donna G. Spaduzzi Case 91-9-1 #8 1 South Hercules Avenue Arnold O. Leifer Case 91-9-1 #9 409 South Comet Avenue Mark Street Case 91-9-2 #1 300 Feather Tree Drive New Friendly Village, Inc. Case 91-9-2 #2 2110 Drew Street SCG Mortgage Corp. Case 91-9-2 #4 508 Gilbert Street Robert L. Taylor Case 91-9-2 #6 about 707 Pennsylvania Avenue Richard S. Truesdale Case 91-9-2 #8 about 1404-1406 N. Madison Avenue Patsy Cravens Case 91-10-1 #2 1446 Court Street Lisa J. Lessmeier Case 91-10-2 #1 2047 Sunset Grove Lane Kenneth or Diane Quinlan Case 91-10-2 #3 1166 Brook Road Richard A. Berard Case 91-10-2 #4 1316 Overlea Street Mr. Zinzow moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 91-6-2 #1, 91-6-2 #3, 91-8-1 #7, 91- 8-2 #4, 91-8-2 #7, 91-9-1 #7, 91-9-1 #8, 91-9-1 #9, 91-9-2 #1, 91-9-2 #2, 91-9-2 #4, 91-9-2 #6, 91-9-2 #8, 91- 10-1 #2, 91-10-2 #1, 91-10-2 #3, and 91-10-2 #4. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. - None. OTHER BUSINESS - The meeting adjourned at 4:44 p.m. ADJOURN 12/11/91 MCEB/mincb12a.91 7