02/10/1988 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
February 10, 1988
Members present:
Robert Aude, Chairman
Phillip N. Elliott, Vice Chairman
James Angelis
Frank Morris
Bruce Cardinal
John Ehrig
William Murray
Also present:
Leo Schrader, Assistant City Attorney
Shirley A. Corum, Secretary for the Board
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:05 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`
CASE NOS. `101 87` Mark Schleben (Occupational License)
`165 87` Robert Keating (Development Code)
`171 87` Robert Smiley (Occupational License)
`1 88` Cinco Marketing (Occupational License)
`3 88` D and W Holdings Inc. (Occupational License)
`6 88` J. Michael Rivers (Occupational License)
`10 88` Merrill Lynch (Development Code)
`11 88` One Day Signs U.S.A. (Development Code)
`14 88` Seven Eleven Food Stores (Development Code)
The Secretary to the Board requested withdrawal of Case Nos. 101, 165 and 171 87, 1, 3, 6, 10, 11 and 14 88 as the violations have been corrected.
Mr. Elliott moved to withdraw the above listed cases. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.`
CASE NO. `172 87` Robert Smiley/City Auto Sales Inc.
(Occupational License)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated an application was filled out for a City of Clearwater occupational license on April 27, 1987. The application was not approved
by the Building Dept. because work had been performed without permits. To the present time, no fee has been paid and no license issued.
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he inspected the property and found work had been done without permits. At that time, the owner of the business, Robert Smiley, was informed
he would need to get a contractor to obtain a permit for the remodeling work being done. On December 8, 1987, Mr. Chaplinsky found the building in disrepair and issued a notice of unsafe
building to the owner of the building, Larry Dimmitt. Mr. Chaplinsky stated there is severe structural damage to the building, cracks in the walls, etc. Mr. Dimmitt has informed him
he intends to demolish the building.
Robert Smiley, doing business under the name of City Auto Sales Inc., stated he had been in business at another location for the past ten years. In February, 1987, he leased 833 Cleveland
Street and put up a partition wall in the garage area. When he applied for a City of Clearwater occupational license, he was told a permit was needed for the wall. He then hired a contractor
and put up a fire wall
and metal door. In December, 1987, he was told the building was unsafe. He feels the City inspector should have informed him at the time of the original inspection that the building
was unsafe. Mr. Smiley stated he has had conversations with Mr. Dimmitt regarding another location for his auto sales. He thought the building was in good condition when he leased it.
City submitted composite exhibit #1, eight photographs of the property.
Scott Douglas, attorney representing Mr. Dimmitt, stated they have inspected the building, and agree it is unsafe and feel it would not be economically feasible to repair it. They
are investigating relocation of the auto sales.
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 172 87 regarding violation of Sections 71.01 and 71.02, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement
Board hearing held the 10th day of February, l988, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following `Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.`
The `Findings of Fact` are: After hearing testimony of Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, Robert Smiley and Scott Douglas, and viewing
the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit #1, photographs of the property, it is evident that a business is in operation without a current occupational license.
The `Conclusions of Law` are: Robert W. Smiley/City Auto Sales, Inc. is in violation of Sections 71.01 & 71.02.
It is the `Order` of this Board that Robert W. Smiley d/b/a City Auto Sales, Inc. shall comply with Sections 71.01 & 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater `within 45 days`.
If Robert W. Smiley 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. If Robert W. Smiley
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 the land on which the violation exists if the violator owns the land, and a lien against any other real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant
to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon complying, Robert W. Smiley shall notify Stu Williams, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should
the violation recur, 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. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`Done and Ordered` this 10th day of February, 1988.
CASE NO. `185 87` Henry F. Cruise/Beach Bar
(Development Code)
Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, requested the affidavit of violation and request for hearing be amended to include a canopy sign which was also put up without a sign permit.
The consensus of the Board was, as there was no representative of the violator present at the hearing, the affidavit of violation should not be amended.
Ms. Doherty stated she had talked with Mr. Cruise on several occasions. He stated he would get the permits before the January, 1988 Code Enforcement Board meeting. The property is
still in violation as the signs are still in the window and no permits have been issued. City submitted composite exhibit #1, five photographs of the property.
The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code section.
Mr. Angelis moved that concerning Case No. 185 87 regarding violation of Section `134.013(a)` of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Lots 72 77, Clearwater
Beach Park, Sec. 8 29 15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of February, l988, and based on the
evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following `Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.`
The `Findings of Fact` are: After hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit #1, photographs of the property,
it is evident that no permits for the signs have been issued.
The `Conclusions of Law` are: Henry F. Cruise is in violation of Section 134.013(a).
It is the `Order` of this Board that Henry F. Cruise shall comply with Section 134.013(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by `March 9, 1988`. If Henry F. Cruise 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. If Henry F. Cruise 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 the land
on which the violation exists if the violator owns the land, and
a lien against any other real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon complying, Henry F. Cruise shall notify Geri Doherty, the City
Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, 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. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`Done and Ordered` this 10th day of February, 1988.
CASE NO. `2 88` Sam Moss d/b/a Moss Printing
(Occupational License)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated that when the 1986/87 license renewal was filed for Moss Printing, it was noted there was a change of address. The business was
previously located at 415 Laurel St., and had moved to 1155 NE Cleveland. When the renewal application went to the Zoning Division in December of 1986, it was not approved.
Ray Wyland, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated the business located at 1155 NE Cleveland is in a limited office zoning district which does not permit a print shop, either as a permitted
use or a conditional use. There is no variance procedure for approving a print shop in an OL zone. Mr. Wyland stated the zoning district became OL in October of 1985 with the adoption
of the Land Development Code.
Sam Moss stated he has operated a small printing business since October of 1983. He operated at the 416 Laurel location for two years. When he bought another printing press, he needed
a larger establishment and rented 1155 NE Cleveland. Mr. Moss does printing work for other printers. He stated he paid his occupational license fee every year and showed three cancelled
checks to the Board endorsed with the Occupational License Division stamp. Mr. Moss submitted defendant exhibit #1, a copy of the occupational license application showing the change
of address. Mr. Moss stated he was ignorant of the law when he changed the location of his business, but maintained the OL zoning was not in effect as it was in July of 1985.
Steve Yandak, owner of the property where the print shop is located, stated he was told by Leo Menendez, of the Zoning Division, that the property was grandfathered in. Mr. Yandak stated
he feels it is unfair to put Mr. Moss out of business as there are no traffic problems at that location.
Discussion ensued regarding whether this was an occupational license violation; it was suggested it should have been brought to the Board as a zoning violation.
Leo Menendez, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated the zoning division did not sign off on the occupational license application as it is in an OL zone. The previous zoning was professional
services and the business would not have been permitted in that zone either.
Mr. Ehrig moved that concerning Case No. 2 88 concerning violation of Section `71.02` of the Clearwater City Code, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of February, l988, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following `Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Order.`
The `Findings of Fact` are: After hearing testimony of Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, Ray Wyland, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Sam Moss, Steve Yandak, and Leo Menendez,
Zoning Enforcement Officer, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: Defendant exhibit #1, it is evident that Moss Printing was in business at the above address prior to adoption
of the Land Development Code in October, 1985.
The `Conclusions of Law` are: Sam Moss d/b/a Moss Printing is not in violation of Section 71.02.
It is the `Order` of this Board that Sam Moss d/b/a Moss Printing is hereby declared to be in compliance with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, and that the pending
violation proceeding before the Board is dismissed. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`Done and Ordered` this 10th day of February, 1988.
`The meeting recessed from 4:45 to 4:50 p.m.`
CASE NO. `4 88` Onorio Carlesimo
(Occupational License)
The Occupational License Inspector stated this case had been complied.
Mr. Ehrig moved to `withdraw` Case No. 4 88 as the violation has been corrected. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
CASE NO. `7 88` Pinellas County School Board/Cellular One Bayfone of Tampa
(Building Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested that Case No. 7 88 be continued to the meeting of March 9, 1988.
Mr. Ehrig moved to `continue` Case No. 7 88 to the meeting of March 9, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
CASE NO. `8 88` Joseph Simonelli
(Building Code)
The Building Inspector requested this case be continued to the meeting of March 9, 1988.
Mr. Ehrig moved to `continue` Case No. 8 88 to the meeting of March 9, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
CASE NO. `9 88` Nostimo, Inc.
(Building Code)
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he inspected this property at the request of the Fire Department. There had been an upstairs apartment fire and the building was in a state
of disrepair. There was stucco missing, termite damage, and the building was unsafe. City submitted composite exhibit #1 a d, photographs of the property. Mr. Chaplinsky stated the building
is located on the corner of Kendall and Mandalay Avenues. He has spoken with the owner and the owner plans to demolish the building. Mr. Chaplinsky issued a notice of unsafe building
on November 24, 1987. City submitted exhibit #2a, the notice of unsafe building and #2b, the original notice of violation dated November 24, 1987. Mr. Chaplinsky stated the Building
Department has received several complaints regarding the property. The building is still in violation and there has been no improvement. There is a commercial establishment downstairs,
but no one is occupying the second floor. When questioned by the Board, Mr. Chaplinsky stated there is no imminent danger of collapse.
Mr. Lambos stated he intends to demolish the building but this is not an easy procedure to accomplish. He had to get an analysis by a chemist verifying that there is no asbestos in
the building and all the utilities in the building must be relocated. Mr. Lambos stated he has gotten the asbestos analysis and is in the process of contacting electricians, plumbers,
etc. to relocate the existing utilities. When questioned by the Board, Mr. Lambos stated he would need at least three months to complete demolition. Mr. Lambos stated there are no tenants
in the building with the exception of the downstairs commercial establishment, and they are seven months behind in their rent.
Mr. Ehrig moved that concerning Case No. 9 88 regarding violation of Section `138.02` of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Lots 8, 9, 10 & 11, Block
8, Clearwater Beach Revised, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of February, l988, and based on
the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following `Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.`
The `Findings of Fact` are: After hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky and L. Lambos, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits composite #1 a d and #2, it is evident
that the building located at the above referenced address (legal description) is in violation as an unsafe building.
The `Conclusions of Law` are: L. Lambos/Nostimo, Inc. is in violation of Section 138.02.
It is the `Order` of this Board that L. Lambos/Nostimo, Inc. shall comply with Section 138.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by securing the building, removing the tenants, obtaining
a demolition permit, and beginning demolition by `May 10, 1988`. If L. Lambos does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of `$25.00` per day for
each day the violation continues to exist. If L. Lambos 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 the land on which the violation exists if the violator owns the land, and a lien against any other real
or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon complying, L. Lambos shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect the property
and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, 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. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`Done and Ordered` this 10th day of February, 1988.
CASE NO. `12 88` Mitsubishi (Land Development Code)
CASE NO. `13 88` E.C. Scott (Land Development Code)
The Land Development Code Inspector requested these cases be continued to the meeting of March 9, 1988.
Mr. Ehrig moved to `continue` Case Nos. 12 88 and 13 88 to the meeting of March 9, 1988. `Motion`
was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
CASE NO. `15 88` Thomas Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter
(Occupational License)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated a 1986 occupational license renewal form was filled out for this business and the fee was paid. The application showed a change
of address from 432 Poinsettia Ave. to 28 Papaya St. The application was sent for approval to the Zoning Division and then to Traffic Engineering. Traffic Engineering would not approve
the application and a letter was sent informing them that a $200+ traffic impact fee was due prior to the occupational license being issued. Mr. Williams stated that, at this time, no
occupational license certificate has been issued; however Mr. Oakley has paid the occupational license fee for 1986/87 and 1987/88.
The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable sections of the Code.
The Board questioned why Section 71.01 was not included on the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. The Assistant City Attorney requested the affidavit be amended to include
Section 71.01. As Mr. Oakley had no objection, the affidavit was amended to include both applicable sections of the Code.
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, stated on June 30, 1986, Pinellas County passed an ordinance requiring a traffic impact fee for every change of use generating additional traffic.
Mr. Crawford stated an occupational license for the City cannot be issued without the traffic impact fee being calculated by Traffic Engineering and collected by the Building Department.
Mr. Crawford stated the prior use of the business located at 28 Papaya St. was a taxicab office. Traffic Engineering uses a table listed in the County ordinance for calculating traffic
impact fees. This is a one time fee which is not applied again unless a higher use for the location is applied for. The use rate, which is included in the table in the ordinance, is
applied countywide. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Crawford stated there is no appeal process or waiver of the fee provided for in the ordinance; the only recourse is
for the business to have an independent traffic analysis done to calculate a new fee. City submitted exhibit #1, a copy of Pinellas County Ordinance 86 43.
Thomas Oakley, doing business as Kite Encounter, stated he has operated a kite store on Clearwater Beach since October of 1985. In April of 1986, when the Beach Taxi location on Papaya
St. became available, he leased the property and opened his business around the end of June. Mr. Oakley stated he was ignorant of the fact he needed to file a change of address form
with the Occupational License Division immediately. At the time his license became renewable, he informed them of his new address.
Mr. Oakley stated Beach Taxi, which was listed as an office, had between six and fifteen cabs sitting on Papaya St. at all times of the day. Since the taxi office has moved, the City
has installed two additional parking meters. He stated that since the majority of his customers are walk ins from the beach, there is much less traffic than previously. Mr. Oakley found
out he was required to pay the traffic impact fee when his occupational license was not issued. Since there is no appeal process in the ordinance, he requested the Board excuse him from
paying the traffic impact fee.
Don Winner, a neighbor of Mr. Oakley's on Clearwater Beach, stated he was contacted by Mr. Oakley shortly after October 1, 1986. He has since contacted the Assistant City Manager and
was told there was nothing the City could do for Mr. Oakley. The County has agreed it seems unfair, but at the present time there is no appeal board to hear the case. Mr. Winner stated
he feels there is valid basis for appeal as there is much less traffic being generated with the kite store than there was when the Beach Taxi occupied 28 Papaya St.
The Assistant City Attorney pointed out the Code Enforcement Board cannot waive traffic impact fees, and the Board does not have the right to change a County ordinance.
Discussion ensued regarding what the Board could do to alleviate Mr. Oakley's situation until such time a County appeal board is established to hear the case. Various solutions were
suggested such as issuing an order with an indefinite compliance date. It was pointed out the purpose of the ordinance is that businesses share the County cost of meeting transportation
needs. It was also emphasized that Mr. Oakley has paid his occupational license fees and not been issued his occupational license certificate.
Keith Crawford stated the established rate comes from averages and there is no latitude to adjust the rate at which the traffic impact fee is computed.
The Board felt that since the current use is less intense than the previous use, some consideration should be given to Mr. Oakley.
The Assistant City Attorney suggested the Board continue the case to the next meeting so further investigation could be done to determine how much discretion the Board has.
Mr. Ehrig moved to `continue` Case No. 15 88 to the meeting of March 9, 1988 with the understanding the Assistant City Attorney would develop supplemental information and acquire new
testimony for the Board to review, and with the further condition that if after researching the surrounding community, the
existing use is determined to be less intensive than the previous use, the issue will be resolved by giving the City a wider latitude of interpretation of the County ordinance. `Motion`
was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
CASE NO. `16 88` First Florida Bank Corp.
(False Alarms Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the the wrong party was cited.
Mr. Ehrig moved to `withdraw` Case No. 16 88. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`UNFINISHED BUSINESS`
CASE NO. `99 87` Mark Schleben
`Affidavit of Compliance`
Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case No. 99 87. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
CASE NO. `174 87` Joseph Lechowski
`Affidavit of Compliance`
Mr. Angelis moved to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case No. 174 87. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
Lot Clearing List 87 01 1
CASE NO. `12` Valentinos Koumoulidis
Sarah McMullen's, Blk. 3, W 1/2 Lot9, Sec. 15 29 15! `Affidavit of Compliance`
Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case No. 12, Lot Clearing List 87 01 1. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
`OTHER BOARD ACTION`
Fine Status Report
The Fine Status Report was reviewed.
`NEW BUSINESS`
The Chairman welcomed two new members, William Murray and John Ehrig, to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board.
`MINUTES`
Mr. Cardinal moved to approve the minutes of the meetings of January 13 and January 27, 1988 as submitted. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m.