Loading...
02/10/1993 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 10, 1993 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Absent: Thomasine Fontana-Smith (unexcused) 7th Seat Vacant 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 Peter and Patricia Nichols Case No. 8-93 606 N. Greenwood Avenue (Land Development Code) ; Continued from 1/27/93Complied Prior mincb2a.92 2/10/92 1 Casual Elegance Window Treatment Case No. 9-93 843 Eldorado Avenue (Land Development Code) ; Continued from 1/27/93Complied Prior Member Swanberg moved to withdraw Case Nos. 8-93 and 9-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Leonard A. McCue Case No. 11-93 18538 N. U S 19 (Land Development Code) In response to a question whether he agreed the violation did exists, Mr. McCue stated he does not have any first hand knowledge of the violation. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the violation was first noticed during a Saturday inspection on December 5, 1992. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office and notice of the violation was issued December 10, 1992 by certified mail with compliance due December 17, 1992. The certified mail receipt was signed for December 14, 1992. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken December 5 and December 19, 1992. The property was inspected again on February 9 and February 10, 1993 and the violation did not exist. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the December 5, 1992 photo was taken by the Saturday inspector; she photographed the violation on December 19, 1992. She stated the violation has not been observed in the past month. Mr. McCue expressed concern that the Inspector presenting the case did not witness the initial violation, and objected to the admission of the first photograph as evidence. Mr. Salzman, Attorney for the Board, stated a photograph should be submitted into evidence only when testified to it being a fair representation of the condition of the property on that date. This can be established with an affidavit from the inspector who photographed the violation. Mr. McCue questioned whether the Inspector informed anyone at the business at the time the violation was first noticed, and it was stated they had not. He stated the notice of violation received was not descriptive enough regarding the violation. Concern was again expressed that the Inspector who originally cited the violation was not presenting the case. Mr. McCue requested the case be dismissed, stating the violation has been corrected and will not happen again. Member Riley moved to dismiss Case No. 11-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mincb2a.92 2/10/92 2 - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS OTHER BOARD ACTION Scheduling sign cases The Secretary informed the Board there are a number of sign code violations, as a result of the sign amortization period, soon to be brought to the Board. The Board was requested to consider how they may want to handle these as the Code Enforcement Division suggested this may be a heavy load. Options given included meeting once per week, limiting the number of cases, and establishing a second code enforcement board. Consensus was to process as usual until the impact of these cases can be determined. OTHER BUSINESS Regarding Case No. 36-92, Auto Clinic J&M Corporation, the Secretary stated Mr. Walsh has submitted a letter to inform the Board he is not ignoring their order. Mr. Walsh has submitted videotapes of the property for viewing the situation. The Secretary informed the Board members of Mr. Zinzow's resignation stating there are few volunteers to fill the vacancies. It was also stated that due to unexcused absences Thomasine Fontana-Smith is subject to removal. - The meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m. ADJOURN mincb2a.92 2/10/92 3