03/09/1988 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
March 9, 1988
Members present:
Robert Aude, Chairman
Phillip N. Elliott, Vice Chairman Frank Morris
Bruce Cardinal
John Ehrig
Absent:
James Angelis (excused)
William Murray (excused)
Also present:
Leo Schrader, Assistant City Attorney Shirley A. Corum, Secretary for the Board
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:13 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`
Lot Clearing List 88 03 1 No Cases.!
Abandoned Property List 88 03 1 No Cases.!
`CASE NO. 88 87` 15 S. Lincoln Associates (Life Safety)!
`Cont. from 7/8/87`!
`CASE NO. 17 88` Glenn White Associates (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 19 88` Movie Makers (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 20 88` Tile by Cavanaugh (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 22 88` Lerner Woman (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 23 88` Harlow Engel (Life Safety)!
`CASE NO. 25 88` Computer Service Network (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 27 88` George Routh (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 28 88` Plas Tech Industries (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 31 88` Reliable Lawn Service (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 33 88` Jerry's Beach Service (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 34 88` Jerry's Beach Service (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 35 88` A. Linn Wyllie & Company (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 36 88` A. Linn Wyllie & Company (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 37 88` Meridian Mortgage & Investment (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 38 88` Western Consolidated (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 39 88` Mayer Company (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 40 88` Marino Import & Export (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 41 88` David Mayes Homes Inc. (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 42 88` Gary Walker (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 43 88` Rolak Inc. (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 44 88` George Allen (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 45 88` Stephen Barasch (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 46 88` Deborah Barasch (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 47 88` Payne's Paradise Lawns (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 48 88` Natural Design Landscaping (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 49 88` Natural Design Landscaping (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 50 88` Donald V. Rebholz (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 51 88` Medical Administrative Co. (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 52 88` Robert Wilder (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 53 88` O. B. R. Incorporated (Occupational License)!
`CASE NO. 54 88` Odell Blunt (Occupational License)!
The Secretary to the Board asked that the above listed cases be withdrawn as the violations have been corrected.!
Mr. Ehrig moved to withdraw Case Nos. 88 87, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
51, 52, 53, & 54 88. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
`CASE NO. 7 88` Bayfone of Tampa/Pinellas County School Board!
(Building Code) `Cont. from 2/10/88`!
`CASE NO. 8 88` Joseph Simonelli (Building Code) !
`Cont. from 2/10/88`!
`CASE NO. 12 88` Mitsubishi (Land Development Code) !
`Cont. from 2/10/88`!
The Secretary to the Board stated Case Nos. 7, 8 & 12 88 have been requested by the Inspectors to be continued to the meeting of April 13, 1988.!
Mr. Ehrig moved to `continue` Case Nos. 7, 8 & 12 88 to the meeting of April 13, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
`CASE NO. 13 88` E. C. Scott (Land Development Code)!
`Cont. from 2/10/88` !
Carol Cicero, Land Development Code Inspector, stated she inspected this property as the result of a complaint received in the Code Administration Division regarding a boat parked in
a residential zone. City submitted composite exhibit #1 four photographs of the property taken December 14, 1987 and February 4 & 29, 1988 and exhibit #2 a copy of the Notice of
Violation and applicable Code section. Ms. Cicero stated she had contacted Mr. Scott's wife who stated the boat would be moved. The Notice of Violation was mailed to the Scotts on December
28, 1987. Another complaint was received in the Code Administration Division on February 1, 1988 stating the boat was still parked in the setback area at 1664 Jeffords St.!
Discussion ensued regarding a portion of the original Land Development Code referring to a 60 day period of grandfathering after which all vehicles would be required to comply with
the Code. !
Donald McFarland, Attorney representing E. C. Scott, objected to this portion of the Code being admitted as an exhibit as it is not currently a part of the Land Development Code.!
Ms. Cicero stated she provided this copy of the original Land Development Code to answer the question regarding grandfathering after the 60 day grace period. She stated there is no
grandfathering provided for in this section of the Code. She stated the boat does not comply with Section 136.022(i)(2)(a), which allows boats up to 20 feet to be parked in the required
setback area from a street right of way. When questioned whether the Code in effect prior to the Land Development Code's adoption in October, 1985 regulated the size of boats parked
in setback areas, Ms. Cicero stated there were no restrictions.!
Mr. McFarland submitted Defendant's exhibit #1 a survey of the lot, exhibit #2 a copy of Section 136.008 of the Land Development Code, and exhibit #3 a copy of Section 136.007
of the Land Development Code. Mr. McFarland stated Mr. Scott purchased the residence primarily because it had room to park his trailered boat. Prior to purchasing the property he checked
the subdivision rules regarding the parking of boats and trailers and found no prohibition. Mr. Scott bought the property in September, 1975, when there were no regulations in the Code
of the City of Clearwater regarding the parking of boats and trailers. Mr. McFarland stated the boat that is currently parked in the setback area was purchased in 1983 and has been parked
there continuously since that time. This was prior to the adoption of the Land Development Code in October, 1985. Mr. McFarland referred to Section 136.007(a) regarding nonconformities
and stated none of the listed criteria were contravened by Mr. Scott. Mr. McFarland also referred to Section 136.008 regarding accessory uses. He stated the ordinance, when it was adopted,
was meant to be prospective not retroactive. Mr. McFarland stated Mr. Scott's boat is moved approximately once a week on weekends and he wants it parked in his driveway for convenience.
!
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Code is clear on the size of boats allowed to be parked in the required setback area. He stated nonconforming uses do not apply to moving vehicles.
!
Discussion ensued regarding whether this is a nonconforming use that was grandfathered in when the Land Development Code was adopted. !
Mr. Ehrig moved that concerning Case No. 13 88 regarding violation of Section `136.022(i)(2)(a)` of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Lot 3, Block K,
Oak Acres Addition, Unit 3, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of March, 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 Carol Cicero, Land Development Inspector, and Donald McFarland, Attorney and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City's
exhibits #1 & 2 and Defendant's exhibits #1, 2, & 3, it is evident that the use currently in existence, ie., the parking of a 30 foot boat in the setback, is in compliance with the criteria
for nonconforming uses in the Land Development Code, Section 136.007, and was in existence prior to the adoption of the Land Development Code. !
The `Conclusions of Law` are: E. C. Scott is not in violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)(a).!
It is the `Order` of this Board that E. C. Scott is hereby declared to be in compliance with Section 136.022(i)(2)(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, and that the pending violation
proceeding before the Board is dismissed. `Motion` was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken: Mr. Morris, Mr. Ehrig, Mr. Aude and Mr. Cardinal voted "aye". Mr. Elliott voted "nay".
`Motion carried`.! `Done and Ordered` this 9th day of March, 1988. !
The meeting recessed from 2:30 2:35 p.m.!
`CASE NO. 15 88` Kite Encounter/Thomas Oakley (Occupational License)!
`Cont. from 2/10/88`
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, reviewed some of the issues discussed at the previous meeting. He stated he had prepared a chart showing the overlapping uses and trip generation rates.
City submitted exhibit #2, the above referenced chart. Mr. Crawford stated it is possible that someone could be assigned a higher impact fee even though they are in a lower use category.
The municipal officials who are responsible for enforcing the County ordinance have no leeway to adjust fees. The only relief provided for in the ordinance is to obtain an independent
study by a private engineer to determine actual trip generations. Mr. Crawford stated the rate is based on average trip generations, not individual use. If a classification is listed
in the ordinance, they are obligated to use it.!
Sarah Ward, of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, stated the MPO drafted the ordinance and is responsible for monitoring enforcement. Ms. Ward stated the rates
for traffic impact fees are based on average trip generations and the only relief provided for is the independent study referred to by Mr. Crawford. Ms. Ward stated they do not have
the discretion to create new categories or to assign uses to other categories. Although there is no formal appeal process, the ordinance, which is administered by 24 municipalities and
Pinellas County, provides for an administrative self help committee which meets on an as needed basis to discuss issues of concern regarding enforcement of the ordinance. Ms. Ward stated
a person objecting to their impact fee could submit the objection to the committee for review; however, the decision would not be binding. The only other appeal process would be to the
courts. The ordinance is scheduled for review shortly and there may be an appeal process incorporated into it. When questioned regarding the independent study, Ms. Ward stated the completed
study would be submitted to the MPO for review. If they agree with the engineer's recommendation, the rate would be lowered. This could then be applied to the current situation only,
to future situations also, or could be completely ignored. The MPO would not be bound by the independent study engineer's recommendation.!
Thomas Oakley stated he has paid his occupational license fee for the past two years. He stated if he could afford to hire a professional engineer for an independent study, he would
do so. He would also have had an attorney representing him at the Board hearing. He stated he would be amenable to going to the self help review committee if that is the only way to
obtain relief.!
Keith Crawford stated the committee meets only on an as called basis, but it is usually every few months.!
Discussion ensued regarding the traffic impact fees and the value which accrues to the land owner rather than to the tenant of the property. !
When questioned regarding the willingness of his landlord to pay the traffic impact fee, Mr. Oakley stated he had agreed with the landlord to take care of all expenses when he sublet
the property from Beach Taxi.!
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 15 88 regarding violation of Sections `71.01 and 71.02` of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 28 Papaya St., Clearwater, Fla.,
the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of March, 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 Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, Sarah Ward, Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, Don Winner and Thomas Oakley and
viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City's exhibits #1 & 2, it is evident that Thomas Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter is in business at the above address without a current occupational
license.!
The `Conclusions of Law` are: Thomas Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter is in
violation of Sections 71.01 and 71.02.!
It is the `Order` of this Board that Thomas Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter shall comply with Sections 71.01 and 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 60 days. If Thomas
Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter 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 Thomas
Oakley d/b/a Kite Encoutner 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, Thomas Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter 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 upon the vote being taken: Mr. Morris, Mr. Elliott, and Mr. Cardinal voted "aye".
Mr. Aude and Ehrig voted "nay". `Motion carried`.!
`Done and Ordered` this 9th day of March, 1988.!
`CASE NO. 18 88` Consolidated Milinery Co. (Occupational License)!
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated this business, located
in Maas Brothers Department Store, 320 Cleveland St., is a leased operation. The 1987/88 fee has not been paid and, according to the manager of Maas Brothers, the Milinery Company is
still leasing space in which to sell wigs and hats.!
There was no representative of the alleged violator present at the hearing.
Mr. Elliott moved that concerning Case No. 18 88 regarding violation of Section `71.02` of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 320 Cleveland St., Clearwater, Fla., the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of March, 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, and viewing the evidence, it is evident that Consolidated Milinery Co. is in business without a current City of Clearwater occupational license. !
The `Conclusions of Law` are: Consolidated Milinery Co. is in violation of
Section 71.02.!
It is the `Order` of this Board that Consolidated Milinery Co. shall comply
with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by April 15, 1988. If Consolidated Milinery Co. does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a
fine of $10.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If Consolidated Milinery Co. 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, Consolidated Milinery Co. 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 9th day of March, 1988. !
`CASE NO. 21 88` University Forum Inc. (Occupational License)!
The alleged violator requested this case be continued to the meeting of April 13, 1988.!
Mr. Cardinal moved to `continue` Case No. 21 88 to the meeting of April 13, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
`CASE NO. 26 88` Tanner and Associates (Occupational License)!
The Secretary to the Board stated there had been no service on the alleged violator in this case.!
Mr. Ehrig moved to `continue` Case No. 26 88 to the meeting of April 13, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
`CASE NO. 30 88` Tony Miele Hauling Service (Occupational License)!
Barbara Sexsmith, Occupational License Inspector, stated this is a home occupation that previously had an occupational license but have not renewed their license for 1987/88. Ms. Sexsmith
stated she had spoken with the wife of the alleged violator on the phone who stated Mr. Meile had not been able to get into the Occupational License Office to renew the license.!
There was no representative of the alleged violator present at the hearing.!
Mr. Ehrig moved that concerning Case No. 30 88 regarding violation of Section `71.02` of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Lot 36, Block 3, Beckett
Lake Estates, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of March, 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 Barbara Sexsmith, Occupational License Inspector, and viewing the evidence, it is evident that Anthony Meile is doing business
at the above address without a current City of Clearwater occupational license.!
The `Conclusions of Law` are: Anthony Meile is in violation of Section 71.02.!
It is the `Order` of this Board that Anthony Meile d/b/a Tony Miele Hauling Service shall comply with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by March 16, 1988. If Anthony
Meile 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 Anthony Meile 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, Anthony Meile shall notify Barbara Sexsmith, 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. !
`Done and Ordered` this 9th day of March, 1988. !
`CASE NO. 32 88` Clearwater Auto Wholesale (Occupational License)!
The Secretary to the Board stated there had been no service on the alleged violator in this case.!
Mr. Cardinal moved to `continue` Case No. 32 88 to the meeting of April 13, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
`UNFINISHED BUSINESS` !
Lot Clearing List 88 01 1!
`Case No. 8` Willie & Vadie Hannah (906 Marshall St.)!
`Affidavit of Compliance`!
`Case No. 9` Hubert & Carrie Jackson (904 Marshall St.)!
`Affidavit of Compliance`!
Mr. Ehrig moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 8 & 9, of Lot Clearing List 88 01 1. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
Abandoned Property List 88 01 1!
`Case No. 5` Willie & Vadie Hannah (906 Marshall St.)!
`Affidavit of Compliance`!
`Case Nos. 6 & 7` Hubert & Carrie Jackson (904 Marshall St.)!
`Affidavit of Compliance`!
Mr. Ehrig moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 5, 6 & 7 of Abandoned Property List 88 01 1. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
`OTHER BOARD ACTION` !
Fine Status Report !
The Fine Status Report was reviewed, and discussion ensued regarding filing liens when the fine is still accruing. !
The Assistant City Attorney stated he would get a copy of the Attorney General's opinion regarding whether the fine continues to accrue after the filing of the lien. !
The consensus of the Board was, for the time being, liens not be filed in cases where the fine is still accruing. !
Discussion ensued regarding the cases the Board has directed foreclosure on.!
Mr. Ehrig moved that the Chairman write a letter to the City Attorney's office requesting a status report regarding foreclosures for the April meeting of the Code Enforcement Board,
and the letter be copied to the City Commission. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.!
The consensus of the Board was if no violators are present for the next Lot Clearing/Abandoned Property meeting on March 23rd at 5:00 p.m., the work session agenda would be discussed.!
`NEW BUSINESS` None. !
`MINUTES` !
Mr. Elliott moved to approve the minutes of the meetings of February 10 & 24, 1988, 1988 as submitted. `Motion` was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.!