Loading...
02/09/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 9, 1994 Members present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chairman Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chairman Dennis Henegar E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Carl Rayborn Robert Theroux Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived 3:28 p.m.) Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant to the City Manager/Community Response Team Mary K. Diana, Secretary to the Board Gwen J. Legters, Recording Secretary 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. Cases 04-94 and 05-94 were continued to the end of the meeting to allow time for the representatives to arrive. Later in the meeting, Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance reported the representatives in these cases had declined to appear if police officers were present at the hearings. The hearings proceeded without anyone present to represent the alleged violators. It was noted for the record that Larry Brown and Robert Metz were present at the meeting of January 12, 1994 and were notified of the continuance of this hearing to February 9, 1994. The affidavits of violation were read into the record. Case No. 04-94 Robert J. Metz, R.A. Metco Real Estate & Insurance 1822 Drew Street (Land Development Code - Signs) Continued from January 12, 1994 This case was continued on January 12, 1994, at the request of Larry Brown, agent of the alleged violator, in order to have proper representation. mincb2a.94 1 02/09/94 No one was present to represent the alleged violator. Charles Zetterberg, Code Enforcement Inspector, requested to withdraw Case 04-94, stating the non-conforming sign has been removed. Lt. Kronschnabl stated, according to Mr. Metz, the sign has been moved to Clearwater Beach and indicated the sign can be cited again if non-conforming. Member Henegar moved to accept withdrawal of Case 04-94, in accordance with a request from staff. The was duly seconded and unanimously. motioncarried Case No. 05-94 Emil J Metz 1834 Drew Street (Land Development Code - Signs) Continued from January 12, 1994 This case was also continued from the meeting of January 12, 1994. No one was present to represent the alleged violator. Charles Zetterberg, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the sign in question is located in a strip shopping center addressed as 1834 to 1852 Drew Street and depicts a "pencil". He said the code prohibits three-dimensional objects that are used as signs; allows one freestanding sign per lot abd two sign structures exist on the property; allows a maximum area of 64 square feet while the hexagon designed "pencil" measures 104.6 square feet and allows a maximum height of 20 feet and the "pencil" is 23.5 feet high. Property ownership was verified through the County Property Appraiser's office. The original owner was Emil Metz and the current owner is Helen Metz. He stated the notice of violation was sent both regular mail and certified mail and the certified mail receipt was returned. City Exhibits A & B, photographs of the subject property taken on the date of the survey and the morning of February 9, 1994, were submitted for the record. In response to a question, Mr. Zetterberg stated 1834-1852 Drew Street was verified, through the City atlas, to be one property. Discussion ensued regarding measurement of the "pencil". Member Swanberg questioned if it is customary to measure the structural area of a sign. Mr. Zetterberg responded this sign is unique. Member Rayborn requested clarification regarding the square footage calculations. He questioned adding the sum of all six sides of the "pencil" when only one side of a two-sided sign is calculated in the overall square footage. It was indicated three-dimensional signs are illegal. Member Riley expressed concern the "pencil" is leaning toward Drew Street, and could be a safety hazard. Discussion ensued with regard to the lettering on the sign. In response to a question, it was stated the lettering advertises a Greek restaurant which is no longer in business and the sign is, therefore, considered to be abandoned. It was indicated the Planning and Zoning Board felt if the lettering was painted over, the sign could be considered a sculpture. Lt. Kronschnabl stated the mincb2a.94 2 02/09/94 alleged violator has been advised of this; however, did not indicate a willingness to comply. Mr. Zetterberg stated in response to a question that the sign does extend over the City right-of- way and there is a second freestanding sign on the property. It was not known if the code addresses a sculpture hanging over into the right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding the issue. Member Henegar felt the "pencil" was definitely in violation and covered under the Southern Building Code. Member Theroux said he considered air space to be right-of-way. Staff recommended the sign be brought into compliance within 30 days, or be subject to a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues. The other option would be to remove the business name from the "pencil". Attorney Salzman explained for the benefit of the new members the Board may order compliance; however, may not direct how compliance is to be achieved. The alleged violator needs to check with staff. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 05-94, regarding violation of Section 44.57(22) & 44.51(4)(e)1.a, 1.b & 1.c of the Clearwater City Code at 1834 Drew Street a/k/a M & B 33-05 in Section 12-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of February, 1994, 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 the testimony of Charles Zetterberg, Code Enforcement Findings of Fact Inspector and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibits A & B, photographs of the subject property taken on the date of the survey and the morning of February 9, 1994, it is evident there exists a three-dimensional object used as a freestanding sign; this sign exceeds the maximum number of freestanding signs allowed, is greater than 64 square feet in area and greater than 20 feet in height, the maximum allowances at this location; this sign has been abandoned and extends over the City right-of-way at 1834-1852 Drew Street. The are: Helen Metz (agent Robert J. Metz) is in violation of Section Conclusions of Law 44.57(22) & 44.51(4)(e)1.a, 1.b & 1.c of the Clearwater City Code. It is the of this Board that Helen Metz (agent Robert J. Metz) shall comply with Section Order 44.57(22) & 44.51(4)(e)1.a, 1.b & 1.c of the Code of the City of Clearwater by March 2, 1994. If Helen Metz (agent Robert J. Metz) does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Helen Metz (agent Robert J. Metz) 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, Helen Metz (agent Robert J. Metz) shall mincb2a.94 3 02/09/94 notify Charles Zetterberg, 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 was duly seconded and unanimously. motioncarried UNFINISHED BUSINESS OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION Board Attorney Salzman explained to the new members the procedures involved in a request to address the Board. He stated compliance is required prior to allowing a violator to address the Board and a fine may not be reduced below the administrative costs. Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic / J & M Corporation c/o Jeffrey Walsh, President/R.A. 1239 Lincoln Avenue (Land Development Code) Request to Address Board Reviewing the facts of Case 36-92, Board Attorney Salzman stated a canopy, extending into a street right-of-way, was built without a permit. A notice of violation and a stop work order were issued; however, a permit was never obtained. The Board found the canopy was built without a permit and ordered compliance within 45 days, with a fine of $25.00 per day for each day of non- compliance with the order. Non-compliance extended for 516 days, resulting in a fine of over $12,000. The Affidavit of Compliance was accepted at the meeting of January 26, 1994. It was not clear from the affidavit if compliance was achieved by removing the canopy, or obtaining the permit. Case No. 71-93 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Request to Address Board Mr. Salzman stated the Board found that a recreational vehicle was parked in a residential setback. The affidavit of compliance was issued effective on January 4, 1994. The violation continued for 127 days at a fine of $25.00 per day, plus administrative costs, for a total of $3,229.16. mincb2a.94 4 02/09/94 In response to a question, Board Secretary Diana stated postage, recording fees, attorney fees and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the City Clerk Department are considered when computing administrative costs. Staff time is not included. Questions were raised regarding a letter from the property owner which expressed concern with the notice of violation and the manner in which her property was measured. She indicated her recreational vehicle has been parked on the property for many years and should be grandfathered in. In response to a question, the length of the vehicle was not known. Attorney Salzman stated it would be proper to revisit a case if there are mitigating factors involved. Lt. Kronschnabl encouraged the Board to look at both sides of the issues when dealing with citizen complaints. The Board requested the City personnel involved with each case to be present in the future when violators appear to address the Board. The background paperwork and the minutes of the meetings are also to be provided. Member Riley moved, concerning Cases 36-92 and 71-93, to approve the requests to address the Board on February 23, 1994. The was duly seconded and unanimously. motioncarried Board Secretary Diana reported the City Commission has requested an annual report from each City board. She stated one board will report at the beginning of each upcoming Monday City Commission meeting. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board will be scheduled for a future meeting. In response to a question, Lt. Kronschnabl stated his section will not be directly responsible for enforcing the proposed public nudity ordinance. In response to a question, Attorney Salzman stated opening and closing remarks may be made without being sworn in; however, testimony must be under oath. It was noted for the record that Member Tamara Shannon has resigned. Discussion ensued regarding who should be responsible for escorting an unruly individual from the meeting if it ever becomes necessary. Concern was expressed with the expense of having a police officer present during every meeting. A suggestion was made to have an officer on call in the building where the meeting is taking place or have a "designated City employee" who could be someone in attendance at the meetings. Member Henegar requested research into having a non-voting member of the Board designated as sergeant-at-arms. Mr. Salzman indicated the Florida Statutes provide for a seven-member Board and adding to the membership would require an amendment. In response to a question, Lt. Kronschnabl stated he still maintains his certification as a police officer. mincb2a.94 5 02/09/94 -Meetings of January 12, 1994 and January 26, 1994 MINUTES Chairman Swanberg requested a phrase be added to page 5, paragraph 4 of the minutes of January 12, 1994, indicating Mr. Brown chose to continue with the questioning after asking for a continuance. Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of January 12, 1994, as corrected and the minutes of January 26, 1994, as submitted. The was duly seconded and unanimously. motioncarried ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:04 p.m. Chairman MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ATTEST: Secretary mincb2a.94 6 02/09/94