Loading...
04/13/1988 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 13, 1988 Members present: Robert Aude, Chairman Phillip N. Elliott, Vice-Chairman James Angelis Frank Morris Bruce Cardinal William Murray Absent: John Ehrig (excused) Also present: Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney Shirley A. Corum, Secretary for the Board The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:04 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 88-04-1 - None. The following cases are to be withdrawn as the violations have been corrected: Case No. 12-88 Mitsubishi (Land Development) cont. from 3/9/88 Case No. 26-88 A. Giordano d/b/a Tanner and Associates (Occupational License) cont. from 3/9/88 Case No. 55-88 Joyce Electronics (Occupational License) Case No. 56-88 John P. Fredley (Occupational License) Case No. 61-88 Parcatol Inc. (Occupational License) Case No. 64-88 K. Roland d/b/a Roland Realty (Occupational License) Case No. 65-88 Clearwater Auto Parts Inc. (Occupational License) Case No. 66-88 D. Tribbey d/b/a Credit Collection Systems (Occupational License) Case No. 67-88 W. Christian Tax Service (Occupational License) Case No. 68-88 K. Roland d/b/a R & D Real Estate Appraiser (Occupational License) Case No. 69-88 Jeralne Burt (Occupational License) Case No. 72-88 Henry Robinson Masonry (Occupational License) Case No. 74-88 J. Vinson d/b/a Vinder Homes (Building Code) Case No. 76-88 Jed Enterprises Inc. (Occupational License) Case No. 77-88 Greenwave Lawn Works (Occupational License) Case No. 78-88 H. H. Bae's Tailoring and Alterations (Occupational License) Case No. 79-88 T. Miner Painting (Occupational License) Case No. 80-88 E.S.I. Mobile Marine (Occupational License) Case No. 81-88 Park Terrace Restaurant (Life Safety) Case No. 82-88 Valentinos Kaumalidis d/b/a Mr. Gyro/Mr. Submarine (Land Development Code) Case No. 84-88 Steve's Produce (Occupational License) Case No. 87-88 Dragon Industries (Occupational License) Mr. Elliott moved to withdraw Case Nos. 12, 26, 55, 56, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, and 87-88. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The following cases are to be continued as requested by the Inspectors: Case No. 7-88 Bayfone of Tampa/Pinellas County School Board (Building Code) cont. from 3/9/88 Case No. 32-88 John Ford/Clearwater Auto Wholesale (Occupational License) cont. from 3/9/88 Case No. 86-88 Counseling & Development Center (Occupational License) Mr. Angelis moved to continue Case Nos. 7, 32 and 86-88 to the meeting of May 11, 1988. `Motion` was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 21-88 University Forum Inc. (Occupational License) cont. from 3/9/88 Case No. 85-88 University Forum Seminars (Occupational License) City submitted exhibits: A - H: A, an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times dated January 10, 1988; B, an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times dated March 3rd; C, an advertisement dated April 12th; D, an advertisement dated April 10th; E, an advertisement dated March 10th; F, an advertisement dated February 1st; G, an advertisement dated March 14, 1988; and H, a copy of an occupational license application for Joel Witmer dated February 5, 1987. Janet McMahan, of the Occupational License Division, stated she received a phone call on February 9 or 10 regarding waivers for occupational licenses for religious organizations. The caller did not identify himself; he merely asked questions regarding obtaining an exemption. He would give no address nor information regarding the proposed activity. Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated the seminars held at the Ramada Inn Central and Sheraton Sand Key were both cited for not having occupational licenses and the notices of violation were sent to 1491 Viewtop Drive. Based on the advertisements, it was evident the University Forum Seminars and University Forum Inc. stop smoking/weight loss seminars were being conducted without current City of Clearwater occupational licenses. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. Joel Witmer stated he did not renew his 1987/88 occupational license as he believes he is exempt from paying for an occupational license under the religious activity exemption. Defendant submitted exhibits A  D: A, a copy of the Florida Department of State Incorporation Papers for Universal Life Church International Inc.; B, a copy of the Internal Revenue Service letter to Universal Life Church stating they are exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code; C, a copy of the Florida Department of Revenue Certificate of Exemption for Universal Life Church; and D, a copy of Universal Life Church International Inc. Religious Rights and Tenets. Mr. Witmer stated that due to an error by the St. Petersburg Times, the advertisements for the stop smoking/weight loss seminars did not include the name of Universal Life Church International Inc. In response to a question, Mr. Witmer admitted he had approved the ad layouts. When questioned whether fictitious names had been filed for University Forum Inc. and University Forum Seminars, Mr. Witmer stated they had not. Mr. Witmer stated the members of the classes and seminars pay their memberships to Universal Life Church. He contacted the Occupational License Division in January informing them that the seminars were being held as a function of the Universal Life Church. Mr. Witmer stated the fees collected are donated to various charitable organizations, i.e $1,200 has been donated to the University of South Florida's library fund. Fred Mole, Assistant Central Services Director, stated the Occupational License Division does not have a formal waiver form for religious activity exemptions. Florida Statute 205.191, which gives powers to municipalities to regulate occupational licenses, and Section 205.192, which grants exceptions to occasional sales and fund raising for nonprofit organizations were read into the record. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of "occasional" as related to fund-raising activities. The Assistant City Attorney stated the burden of proof would be on Mr. Witmer to prove he is entitled to an exemption. Based on the representation in the advertisements in the St. Petersburg Times, the Universal Life Church was not involved in the stop smoking/weight loss seminars, and no fictitious names had been filed in Pinellas County. Floyd Carter, Central Services Director, stated Mr. Witmer maintains he is a church, and this is impossible as individuals can not be churches, only organizations can. The Assistant City Attorney pointed out the Board must decide whether the seminars are related to the Universal Life Church. Mr. Carter maintained he had not seen any documentation to prove exceptions to the requirements for occupational licenses for University Forum Seminars and University Forum Inc. Mr. Carter stated if Universal Life Church is involved, the State Statute regarding "occasional" should be applied as the seminars are held continuously. Mr. Carter maintained if an exemption would be granted, it would be granted to an organization, not to Joel Witmer personally. The Occupational License Division has no reason to believe the seminars are church connected. When questioned regarding the fees collected for the seminars, Mr. Witmer stated 100% of the profit goes to the church. When asked to document this fact, he stated he had documentation but not with him at the hearing. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Witmer's Doctor of Divinity degree. Mr. Carter pointed out degrees can be purchased from Universal Life Church for a cost of $20, and he read a list of degrees offered for sale. The Assistant City Attorney stated the ads were placed by non-existent entities not associated with the Universal Life Church. Mr. Witmer had numerous opportunities to correct the errors, if errors were made in the ads. If the collected funds were used exclusively for church use, Mr. Witmer has no evidence to prove this. Joel Witmer stated he was not told to produce financial records and that other churches in the City of Clearwater have not been required to provide their financial records. He stated the omission of the name Universal Life Church International Inc. from the ads placed in the St. Petersburg Times was due to error by him and the St. Petersburg Times. The ads were billed to the Universal Life Church. The meeting recessed from 3:25 - 3:34 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding the length of time Mr. Witmer had to correct the ad if it was indeed an error, and it was pointed out four months is a long time to allow an error to continue. Mr. Elliott moved that concerning Case Nos. 2188 and 8588 regarding violation of Sections `71.02 and 71.02` of the Clearwater City Code, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of April, 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 Janet McMahan, Stu Williams, Fred Mole, Floyd Carter, and Joel Witmer and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits A - H and Defendant's Exhibits A - D, it is evident that Joel Witmer is engaging in business without an occupational license. The Conclusions of Law are: Joel Witmer is in violation of Sections 71.01 and 71.02. It is the Order of this Board that Joel Witmer shall comply with Sections 71.01 and 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by April 30, 1988. If Joel Witmer 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 Joel Witmer 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, Joel Witmer 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 13th day of April, 1988. Case No. 8-88 Joseph Simonelli (Building Code) cont. from 3/09/88 No representative of the alleged violator was present at the hearing. Philip Charnock, Building Inspector, stated a complaint was received in the Building Department on October 7, 1987 that work had been done at 860 Eldorado Ave. Upon inspection, it was found a wall had been constructed of wood with a set of stairs on the seawall. These were constructed without the proper permits. Mr. Charnock stated the Southern Standard Building Code requires permits to make alterations to a residence, and the stairs on the seawall would also require permission from the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. Mr. Charnock stated Mr. Simonelli filled out an application for the proper permit but, as of the day prior to the hearing, the violation still existed with no permit having been issued. Mr. Charnock stated he was contacted by Mr. Simonelli on March 9, 1988 and asked that the case be continued at the request of Mr. Simonelli's attorney. They have applied, subsequently, to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on Building and Flood and obtained a variance. They have also obtained a zoning variance from the Development Code Adjustment Board, but no permit has been applied for to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). When questioned regarding what the Building Department would require to issue a permit, Mr. Charnock stated plans and specifications would need to be submitted and approved by Zoning. Also, the Department of Natural Resources would have to approve the seawall installation. When questioned whether the current structure would be approved by the Building Department, Mr. Charnock stated the railing on the stairs would have to be lowered. Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated Mr. Simonelli has applied for a fence permit for which he does not need DNR approval. The stairs on the seawall would require DNR approval, however. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 8-88 regarding violation of Sections 103, Standard Building Code; Chapter 139, Coastal Construction Code; and 138.01 of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Mandalay Sub., Lot 3, Block 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of April, 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 Phillip Charnock and Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspectors and viewing the evidence, it is evident that work has been performed at the above address without the proper permits. The Conclusions of Law are: Joseph Simonelli is in violation of Sections 103, Standard Building Code; Chapter 139, Coastal Construction Code; and 138.01, Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Joseph Simonelli shall comply with Sections 103, Standard Building Code; Chapter 139, Coastal Construction Code; and 138.01, Clearwater City Code within 60 days. If Joseph Simonelli 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 Joseph Simonelli 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, Joseph Simonelli shall notify Philip Charnock, 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 13th day of April, 1988. Case No. 57-88 James Smallwood (Building Code) cont. from 3/9/88 Michael Wilkins, Building Inspector, stated a complaint was received in the Building Department on December 29, 1987 regarding work being done without a permit. He stated he had talked with Mr. Smallwood who stated he did not believe the boat canopy was a structure since it is temporary in nature and in the form of a mobile vehicle. City submitted Exhibits A - H, photographs of the property taken March 1, and April 13, 1988. Mr. Wilkins stated Mr. Smallwood had sent a letter to the Chief of Building Inspection stating he did not feel the canopy constituted a structure and requesting the Notice of Violation be cancelled. Mr. Wilkins stated the mobile boat canopy is currently attached to the ground which causes a zoning setback violation. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. Kathryn Lancaster, attorney representing Mr. Smallwood, stated the zoning setback is not the subject of this hearing as the Notice of Hearing does not address zoning requirements. Discussion ensued regarding what constitutes a structure and the definition of structure in the Southern Standard Building Code. Defendant submitted Exhibits A - L, copies of photographs of the property and Exhibit M, a copy of the Notice of Violation issued by Michael Wilkins on February 10, 1988. James Smallwood stated he was told by several City departments that there were no restrictions on the parking of a mobile boat canopy. He stated he put the tiedowns on the canopy the same day Michael Wilkins suggested this be done. The boat canopy was built by his son and himself and is used to protect his boat. Milton Smallwood stated he was involved in the construction of the canopy trailer. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of Florida Statute, Chapter 322, the definition of vehicle. He stated even if the boat canopy could be considered a mobile vehicle, it would need to comply with permitting requirements. Ms. Lancaster stated there is nothing in the Code that addresses a vehicle as a structure. The canopy is an accessory to the boat, not prohibited by City ordinance. The vehicle is licensed to go on Florida roads and is not an enclosure but a cover. The zoning problem brought up at the hearing would be addressed by Mr. Smallwood at a later date. Discussion ensued regarding the safety of the boat canopy. Mr. Angelis moved that concerning Case No. 57-88 regarding violation of Sections 103, Standard Building Code and 138.01 of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Russell's Sub., Unit 1, Lot 3, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of April, 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 Michael Wilkins, Building Inspector, James Smallwood and Milton Smallwood and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits A  H and Defendant's Exhibits A - M, it is evident that the boat canopy is a danger and an unfit structure as it presently stands. The Conclusions of Law are: James Smallwood is in violation of Sections 138.01, City Code and 103, Standard Bulding Code. It is the Order of this Board that James Smallwood shall comply with Section 103, Standard Building Code and 138.01 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 12, 1988 by obtaining a permit and submitting plans for making the structure safe. If James Smallwood 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 James Smallwood 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, James Smallwood shall notify Michael Wilkins, 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 13th day of April, 1988. The meeting recessed from 5:15 - 5:17 p.m. Case No. 58-88 A. Graffunder d/b/a P.M.M. Capital Inc. (Occupational License) Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated this business failed to renew their 1987/88 occupational license. The alleged violator was phoned on numerous occasions and told a $112.50 occupational license fee was owing. As of the day of the hearing, no license had been obtained. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. No representative of the alleged violator was present at the hearing. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 58-88 regarding 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 13th day of April, 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 this business is in operation without a current occupational license. The Conclusions of Law are: Anne Graffunder is in violation of Section 71.02. It is the Order of this Board that Anne Graffunder shall comply with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater `within 30 days`. If Anne Graffunder does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order her to pay a fine of `$10.00` per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If Anne Graffunder 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, Anne Graffunder 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 13th day of April, 1988. Case No. 62-88 J. Ronspies d/b/a Pinellas Management and Accou. (Occupational License) Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated this business failed to renew their occupational license for 1987/88. They were called on numerous occasions, and on April 11, 1988, the alleged violator called the Occupational License Division and stated he would be in. As of the morning of the hearing, no occupational license had been obtained. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. Mr. Murray moved that concerning Case No. 62-88 regarding 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 13th day of April, 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 a business exists without an occupational license. The Conclusions of Law are: James Ronspies is in violation of Section 71.02. It is the Order of this Board that James Ronspies shall comply with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by `May 12, 1988`. If James Ronspies 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 James Ronspies 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, James Ronspies 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 13th day of April, 1988. Case No. 63-88 Yvonne Agvero d/b/a Visual Concepts Inc. (Occupational License) The Secretary to the Board stated no service had been obtained in this case. Mr. Cardinal moved to continue Case No. 63-88 to the meeting of May 11, 1988. Motion was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously. Case No. 70-88 C. Burlett d/b/a Century Soft Water Co. Inc. (Occupational License) Case No. 73-88 C. Burlett d/b/a Chem Free of Florida (Occupational License) The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code Sections. No representative of the alleged violators was present at the hearing. Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated these businesses were previously located at 2034 Weaver Park. He was informed the address had been changed to 2972 Meadow Oak Dr. S. When questioned regarding what evidence he had that they were engaging in business, he stated the telephone answering machine answers the telephone number listed as Century Soft Water. Discussion ensued regarding whether these two businesses are still in operation. Mr. Elliott moved to continue Case Nos. 70-88 and 73-88 to the meeting of May 11, 1988 for further information. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 75-88 T.M.C. Remote Productions (Occupational License) Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated this business is in an area recently annexed into the City. They were informed they would be required to obtain a City of Clearwater occupational license; however, the business is still in operation and no license has been obtained. No representative of the alleged violator was present at the hearing. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. Mr. Elliott moved that concerning Case No. 75-88 regarding 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 13th day of April, 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 T. M. C. Remote Productions has no Clearwater occupational license. The Conclusions of Law are: T. M. C. Remote Productions is in violation of Section 71.02. It is the Order of this Board that T. M. C. Remote Productions shall comply with Section 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 12, 1988. If T. M. C. Remote Productions 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 T. M. C. Remote Productions 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, T. M. C. Remote Productions 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 13th day of April, 1988. Case No. 83-88 M. & E.J. Mitskevich d/b/a Quick Tan/Cash for Gold (Land Development Code) Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated on January 5, 1988 sign violations were noted at this business. She stated there were numerous signs on the windows and door of this business located at 1865 Gulf to Bay Blvd. City submitted composite exhibits 1 a - d, 2 a & b, and 3 a & b, photographs of the property taken April 11 and 13, 1988. Ms. Doherty stated no sign permits had been obtained for the signs in question. The alleged violator has now partially complied by removing some of the signs. Ms. Doherty stated they would be allowed to have 15% of their window area covered with signs, which would be computed after the windows are measured. Also, they would need to obtain the necessary permits. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the applicable Code sections. Ms. Doherty stated a citation has since been issued regarding strips of lights in the window, however, these were not included for this hearing. E.J. Mitskevich stated they have been in business in Clearwater since 1981 and at this location for one year. A window was blown out in January, and they were told they did not need a permit for a portable sign. Since that time, they have removed the portable sign and scraped the majority of the window area. He said they intend to put up paper signs for which they would be allowed to cover 50% of their inside window area. Mr. Mitskevich stated he was told, at the time he applied for a permit for the neon sign, he would need to apply for a variance. He was told by a sign company, however, that he did not need a permit to paint the inside of the windows. Mr. Mitskevich stated he now intends to put up only temporary signs and will scrape off the remainder of the window signs the day following the hearing. When questioned whether Mr. Mitskevich would need a permit for the neon sign, Ms. Doherty stated he would, and the percentage allowed would be dealt with in the permitting process. The Assistant City Attorney stated there are two neon signs without permits currently at the business. Mr. Angelis moved that concerning Case No. 83-88 regarding violation of Section 134.013(a) of the Clearwater City Code, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of April, 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 E. J Mitskevich and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibits #1 - 3, it is evident that there are signs with no permits. The Conclusions of Law are: E. J. Mitskevich is in violation of Section 134.013(a). It is the Order of this Board that E. J. Mitskevich shall comply with Section 134.013(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 12, 1988. If E. J. Mitskevich 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 E. J. Mitskevich 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, E. J. Mitskevich 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 13th day of April, 1988. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Abandoned Property List 88-01-2: Case Nos. 1 & 2 Lonnie & Josephine Dixon Affidavit of Compliance Abandoned Property List 88-02-2: Case No. 2 James Jefferson Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Elliott moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 1 & 2 of Abandoned Property List 88-01-2 and Case No. 2 of Abandoned Property List 88-02-2. Motion was duly seconded and `carried` unanimously. Case No. 172-87 R. Smiley/City Auto Sales Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case No. 185-87 Henry F. Cruise Affidavit of Non-Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the orders imposing the fines in Case Nos. 172-87 and 185-87. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 18-88 Consolidated Milinery Co. Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 30-88 Anthony Meile Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 18-88 and 30-88. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 17-87 H. Freeman/Atrium Hotel Consideration of Request to Reduce Accrued Fine The Assistant City Attorney stated a meeting is scheduled for April 19, 1988 with Mr. Freeman, Mr. Mattheus and Mr. Freeman's attorney regarding this case. No action was taken. OTHER BOARD ACTION Fine Status Report - Reviewed. NEW BUSINESS The Secretary to the Board requested Board direction regarding a formal request to meet with the City Commission. Consensus of the Board was to request the beginning of the work session of May 2, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. or, as an alternative date, May 16, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. and that a memo would be sent from the Chairman requesting this meeting. MINUTES - March 9 & 23, 1988 Mr. Elliott moved to approve the minutes of the meetings of March 9 & 23, 1988 as submitted. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m.