Loading...
05/09/1990 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD May 9, 1990 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman Robert Aude William Zinzow Absent: D. Wayne Wyatt (excused) John McKinney (excused) 7th seat vacant Also present: Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution of the order to be appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Nuisance Clearing List Case No. 90-5-1 #1 Clearwater Seville Ltd. parcel S of Pearce Dr aka M&B 33.06, Sec 17-29-16 Vern Packer, Code Inspector, stated he first inspected the property February 26, 1990 after receiving a complaint from the Fire Department and found it to be in violation due to high vegetation. The property was posted and a photograph taken March 2, 1990. He verified ownership through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office and sent notice certified mail which came back undelivered. Mr. Packer then hand delivered notice to Mr. William Albrecht, President of Clearwater Seville, Ltd. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including a photograph of the property in violation. Mr. Packer stated the vegetation is in excess of twelve inches. He inspected the property the morning of the hearing and the violation still exists. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of section of the code violated. In response to questions, Mr. Packer stated he has been dealing with this property for many years and it is does not fall into the "natural state" exemption as it has been maintained in the past. He stated parts of the property have been mowed. Mr. Albrecht, President of Clearwater Seville, Ltd., stated he agrees there is a violation. He started mowing the property on the south property line when his bus hog acquired damage from a log. He is now mowing the property with a smaller mower which is taking additional time. He requested an additional 10 days to complete the job. He will work with the City in every way possible. Mr. Albrecht stated the type and sparsity of the growth is not a fire hazard. Mr. Aude moved that concerning Case No. 1 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 90-5-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property described as that parcel of land S of Pearce Dr a/k/a M&B 33.06, Sec 17-29-16 the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of May, 1990, 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 Vern Packer, Code Inspector, and William B. Albrecht, President of Clearwater Seville Ltd., and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - a copy of the file of record including a photograph of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials at the above address. The Conclusions of Law are: Clearwater Seville Ltd. is in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Clearwater Seville Ltd. shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 21, 1990. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition, without further notice to Clearwater Seville Ltd. The City Commission may then adopt a Resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the City the actual cost incurred plus $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon complying, Clearwater Seville Ltd. shall notify Vern Packer, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Done and Ordered this 9th day of May, 1990. Case No. 90-5-1 #2 William B. Albrecht/Ann E. Larson parcel annexed into City per Ord. 4644-88 aka M&B 34.02, Sec 17-29-16 Mr. William Albrecht stated the mowing of this property has also commenced and a contract to complete it has been submitted. He stated the property is owned by A.E.L Partnership of which he is a partner. His wife, Ms. Larson, is also a partner. The Assistant City Attorney stated the property was annexed into the City per Ordinance 4644-88. Vern Packer, Code Inspector, stated he first inspected the property February 26, 1990 and the property was posted and photographs taken on March 2nd. He verified ownership through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office, sent notice certified mail which was returned undelivered. Mr. Packer then hand delivered notice to Mr. Albrecht on April 11, 1990. He stated he believes Ann Larson is aware of the hearing as he received a memorandum from a Mr. Kerwin, acting on behalf of Ms. Larson, regarding their concerns for clearing the property. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including photographs of the property. Mr. Albrecht stated the photographs depict selective conditions, not general conditions, of the property. City submitted exhibit B, a copy of the memorandum from Mr. Kerwin for the purpose of showing that Ann Larson was aware of the hearing. Vern Packer stated the property is in violation due to high vegetation and an accumulation of debris including machinery, concrete forms, signs, etc. He reinspected the property the morning of the hearing and the violation still exists although some trash piles have been removed. He stated the plant materials are still in excess of twelve inches. The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the section of the code violated. Vern Packer stated it would take a couple of weeks to mow and 35-45 days to remove the debris. He stated the Property Appraiser's office lists both William Albrecht and Ann Larson as the owners. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not Ann Larson has been properly served notice. A question was also raised regarding ownership. Mr. Packer indicated he used information provided by the Property Appraiser's office. He also stated Mr. Albrecht has indicated he and his wife are separated and there is litigation regarding property division. The Assistant City Attorney stated the order of the Board could be directed to Mr. Albrecht only if necessary. Mr. Albrecht stated that two days after he received notice he called Mr. Kerwin, and two days after that Mr. Kerwin stated Ms. Larson refused to pay for the mowing. He stated Mr. Kerwin is Ms. Larson's mother's consultant. He started mowing this property and he was told not to continue. He stated 35-60 days would be needed, some of the debris is due to vandalism. He is part owner of the property; he gave the property to A.E.L. Partnership from Clearwater Seville, Ltd.; the original partnership of A.E.L. was himself, his wife and his wife's father who is now deceased. He stated if he was to do the work himself it would take 100 days. There are 36 acres, 24 of which are upland. In response to a question, Mr. Packer stated some of the debris, if stored properly, could be reclassified as useable. Mr. Albrecht stated if the Board would allow 50 days for compliance, he would meet with Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Packer and could achieve 99% compliance. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 2 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 90-5-1 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property described as that parcel annexed into the City per Ord. 4644-88 aka M&B 34.02, Sec 17-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of May, 1990, 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 Vern Packer, Code Inspector, and William Albrecht and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record including photographs of the property and exhibit B, a memorandum from Timothy Kerwin, acting on behalf of Ms. Larson, re clearing of the property, it is evident that there exists the excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, undergrowth or other similar plant materials and the accumulation of debris at the above address. The Conclusions of Law are: William B. Albrecht and Ann E. Larson are in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that William B. Albrecht and Ann E. Larson shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 45 days (6/25/90). Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition, without further notice to William B. Albrecht and Ann E. Larson. The City Commission may then adopt a Resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the City the actual cost incurred plus $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. A Notice of Lien, in such form as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $150.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon complying, William B. Albrecht and Ann E. Larson shall notify Vern Packer, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Done and Ordered this 9th day of May, 1990. It was the consensus of the Board to send out two separate orders, one to William B. Albrecht and one to Ann E. Larson. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 89-10-2 #4 Seaboard Systems Railroad Inc. Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 90-4-1 #1 John C. Gardner Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Aude moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 89-10-2 #4 and 90-4-1 #1. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question, it was stated both properties in the above referenced cases were cleared by a City contractor. OTHER BOARD ACTION Fine Status Report The Fine Status Report was reviewed. Mr. Aude moved to direct foreclosure in Case No. 9-88, Nostimo, Inc. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion: Code Enforcement Procedures Jim Polatty, Planning and Development Director, reviewed the proposals for improved code enforcement. There were four work groups: Sanitation, Occupational License, Code Administration and Minimum Housing. All inspectors are now under one supervisor and five inspection districts have been created. They are in the process of cross training inspectors to learn other areas of the code. He stated in the past, an inspector specialized in one area of the code and would cover the entire City regarding those types of violations. There was only one vehicle per two inspectors for development code enforcement and occupational license. In addition, the inspectors are required to do the paperwork, keeping them out of the field. He has proposed that the inspectors be in the field with clerical employees doing the paperwork. Mr. Polatty stated they are initiating a complete review of the housing codes which is one of the biggest code problems in the City. The N. Greenwood area had 1,000-1,800 housing code violations. A "neighborhood code watch" program is also being proposed. Also, they have started a weekend program sending an inspector out on Saturdays. A "ticketing" ordinance is being proposed so inspectors can issue a ticket with a specified fine for certain types of violations. In response to questions, Mr. Polatty stated inspectors used to work mostly on complaints but they are now being proactive with the emphasis on voluntary compliance. He stated all employees are requested to remove any signs found in right of ways, however some of the signs are hard to reach. In response to a question, Vern Packer stated he has been in the job three years and tries to handle the violators tactfully. The process takes time and many violators ignore the citations until they have to come before the Code Enforcement Board and face a possible fine. Neil Letgers, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated in the last 6 months they have brought all the inspectors together and are using computerized systems to expedite processing. State mandate delays expediting some of the process as they must give a certain length of time to violators to comply. The Assistant City Attorney stated "abandoned" property on private property is a problem which needs to be addressed in the code, and the minimum housing code needs revision. With regard to repeat violators, it was stated the new process does not work for lot clearing. Mr. Aude stated he has been on this Board for some time and on the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Signs prior, he has seen the system improve over the years and it will continue to improve. He stated the sign code in particular is confusing. In response to a question, it was stated when a violator does not comply with the Board's order, the fine is applied from the compliance date. Mr. Polatty supplied a copy of a 40 page proposal, which was presented to the City Commission in April, to be copied to the Code Enforcement Board for review and possible further discussion. NEW BUSINESS - None. MINUTES - Meeting of April 25, 1990 Mr. Aude moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 25, 1990 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.