Loading...
01/23/1991 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD January 23, 1991 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman William Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt John McKinney Louise C. Riley Absent: Robert Aude (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, 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 91-1-2 - Case No. 1 Daniel A. Engelhardt 500, 510, 520 & 530 Bayshore Blvd aka Lots 1-4 Del Oro Place No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated she received a complaint regarding this overgrown right of way; the rest of the property is in its natural state. She verified ownership through the Pinellas County tax rolls; sent notice certified mail, of which the signed receipt was returned. She spoke with one of the employees who stated the property would be cleared in a few days which was the soonest a contractor could clear the property. Ms. Doherty stated she inspected the property December 20, posted it and took photographs December 31, 1990. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the file of record. The Inspector stated she inspected the property this morning and the violation still exists. In response to a questions, Ms. Doherty stated it was about two weeks ago when she was told the property should be cleared a couple days after the meeting. The last complaint she received was on August 19, 1990. Discussion ensued regarding whether the right of way could be municipal property, and it was stated the abutting property owner is still responsible for maintenance of the right of way. Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 1 of Public Nuisance Clearing List 91-1-2 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 500, 510, 520 & 530 Bayshore Blvd. aka Lots 1-4, Del Oro Place, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991, 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 composite exhibit A -a copy of the file of record, 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: Daniel Engelhardt is in violation of Section 95.04(a). It is the Order of this Board that Daniel Engelhardt shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (2/2/91). 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 Daniel Engelhardt. 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, Daniel Engelhardt shall notify Geri Doherty, 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 23rd day of January, 1991. Case No. 5-91 Frank C. Kunnen d/b/a Clearwater "19" Commerce Park 797 US 19 N aka Parcel # 8-29-16-16510-000-0010 Land Development Code/Signs Continued from 1/9/91 John Richter, Development Code Manager, stated the City recommends the request received by Mr. Kunnen's attorney to continue the case be granted. Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 5-91 to the meeting of February 13, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 6-91 Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. Gerald B. Conley, President 2699 Seville Blvd aka Parcels 17-29-16-80372-001-1050 thru 17-29-16-80372-003-8050 Building Code/Unsafe Buildings Continued from 1/9/91 In response to a question, Mr. Conley agreed that the violation exists. He stated he has been President for two weeks. City submitted composite exhibits A, B & C, photographs of the property taken approximately 12:30 p.m. today. In response to questions, Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor, stated Condominium #12 consists of four buildings which are connected by catwalks and form a courtyard in the middle. The fourth building houses the elevator tower, lobby, etc.; the other three buildings are all condominiums. In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the railings are loose and concrete is falling off them. Each unit has an exterior balcony with similar disrepair. Temporary repairs consist of pipe shoring from landing to landing strapped to the railings, and there is a lot of tape holding concrete together on the balusters. Mr. Chaplinsky stated the repairs were temporarily certified as safe by a professional engineer, and this certification has expired. These repairs were made to allow time for the condominium association to obtain funding. He stated there are 30-35 families that will have to vacate if the violation is not corrected. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinsky stated some of the units were never sold or occupied. Mr. Conley submitted a letter from Mr. Olson, certified engineer, dated January 22, 1991, stating he felt the repairs would be safe at least another 30 days. He stated there has been extreme difficulty in procuring monies for the repairs. The developer has not finished in excess of 30 units, and assessments were not paid. The condominium corporation received a judgment against the developer but have not been able to collect any money. The developer declared bankruptcy and his property is still tied up in court. Mr. Conley stated they are trying to contract for the work; a subcontractor they were dealing with was not incorporated, and the contractor was not currently licensed. Mr. Conley stated there are many older people on fixed income in the building, they are trying to keep the building going, and they desperately need help. Some of the units have been sold for less than originally paid. He requested the City work with them a little longer. In response to questions, Mr. Conley stated the contractor owns 24 units which they are using for collateral with the subcontractor for railing and roof work. It will cost approximately $175,000 to fix the railings. Mr. Conley stated the contractor would start within 10 days of signed contract and complete the job in 120 days. There are currently 38 vacancies of which 14 are in bankruptcy. He stated they no longer have an attorney as they can not pay the fees. In response to questions, Tom Chaplinsky stated 90 days should be sufficient time for the repairs. He stated if the violation is not corrected, they would order the building vacated. He stated the engineer's 30 day certification extension is questionable. Some portions of the concrete handrails have already fallen, one from as high as the fifth floor. The City only agreed to the engineer's certification because the resident's are aware of the condition. There is concern for visitors. Further discussion ensued regarding acquiring a contract and permit, and the type of repair to be done. It was suggested an order be entered with two phase compliance. In response to a question, Mr. Conley stated they are asking the City for 60 days to acquire the permit and an additional 120 days to finish the work. Patricia Peters, past Seville #12 President, stated Mr. Olson has seen the design of the proposed repairs and indicated he was impressed. The Inspector stated the violation was brought to their attention in August, 1989. Code allows them to bring it to the Commission for demolition in 180 days. The Building Department can not let the unsafe condition continue. In response to a question, he stated 30 days to get the permit and 90 days for repair is sufficient. In response to a question regarding how long it would take to get the permit, he stated if the plans are signed and sealed, he would issue the permit the same day. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 6-91 regarding violation of Section 138.02 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2699 Seville Blvd. aka Parcels 17-29-16-80372 001-1050 thru 17-29-16-80372 003-8050, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991, 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, Building Inspections Supervisor, Gerald Conley and Patricia Peters, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibits A-C - photographs of the property, and that Mr. Conley agreed the violation exists, it is evident that unsafe handrails exist at the above referenced address. The Conclusions of Law are: Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. is in violation of Section 138.02. It is the Order of this Board that Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. shall comply with Section 138.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 15, 1991. If Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, Seville Condominiums #12, Inc. shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Done and Ordered this 23rd day of January, 1991. Case No. 8-91 Michael D. Littell d/b/a Air Traffic Education Center 2699 Meadow Wood Drive aka Lot 96, Countryside Tract 92/93 Occupational License Complied prior Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 8-91 as the violation has been corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 9-91 Michael Peters 26133 US 19 N, #107 aka M&B 11/07, Sec. 31-28-16 Land Development Code/Signs No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated Mr. Peters is now in compliance. A sign permit was issued September 17, 1990 for a period of 60 days. The sign was being displayed November 27th, 10 days past its expiration, at which time she photographed it. She stated the sign was removed after she issued the notice of violation. In response to a question, she stated the sign has been there before and the City wants to establish the violation. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the sign. In response to a question, the Inspector stated she did not have proof of service of the Notice of Violation with her. She spoke with Mr. Peters in person and he was aware of the hearing. She told him the Board may take action. The Attorney for the Board recommended the case be continued for proof of due process of the notice of violation. Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 9-91 to the meeting of February 13, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 10-91 S.C.C. Development Corp. Inc. Michael Sofarelli, President 23 S. McMullen-Booth Rd aka Lots 1 & 19, Featherwood Sub. Land Development Code/Signs No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated compliance was obtained January 21. She stated there were two signs displayed when only one was allowed. This is an undeveloped residential zone which is allowed one 32 sq. ft. sign by code. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property and exhibit B, proof of service of the notice of violation. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the property is developed or undeveloped. It was stated if there are streets and sewer it is considered a developed subdivision. Question was also raised regarding whether or not each sign could be considered on a separate lot. It was stated if single lots, one 16 sq. ft. sign per lot is allowed. She stated both signs advertised the entire subdivision. In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated real estate signs do not need permitting but have to meet code requirements. She stated one 32 sq. ft. sign is allowed per property. Concern was expressed regarding whether the number of signs or size of the signs was the violation, and the City requested withdrawal of the case due to a technicality. Mr. McKinney moved to withdraw Case No. 10-91. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 11-91 George V. Tagaras 705 N. Ft. Harrison Ave aka Lot 4, Blk 1, J.H. Rouse's Sub. Land Development Code/Signs No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated notice of the violation was sent certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. She also spoke with them regarding the violation. She stated she visited the property again and noticed more signs were being displayed. Photographs were taken November 26, 1990. All but two of the signs are in violation. She stated they are in compliance as of today. Ms. Doherty stated she issued the notice on December 3rd to the property owner, not the business owner. She gave them until December 7th to comply; upon inspection the violation still existed. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property, and exhibit B, proof of service of the notice of violation. Ms. Doherty submitted City composite exhibit C, photographs of the property taken January 21, 1991. She stated signs are painted on the structure which are in violation if readable when going up and down the street. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 11-91 regarding violation of Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 705 N. Ft. Harrison aka Lot 4, Blk 1, J.H. Rouse's Sub., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991, 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 composite exhibits A & C - photographs of the property taken November 26, 1990 and January 21, 1991 and exhibit B - the signed receipt of the certified mailing of the notice of violation, it is evident that there were several illegal portable and wall signs being displayed at the above referenced address. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: George V. Tagaras was in violation of Section 134.017(a)(1). It is the Order of this Board that George V. Tagaras shall comply with Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If George V. Tagaras repeats the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation exists after George V. Tagaras is notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Done and Ordered this 23rd day of January, 1991. Case No. 12-91 E.J. Mitskevich 1132 Sunnydale aka Lot 22, Sunnydale Sub Land Development Code/Fences Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector Supervisor, stated Mr. Mitskevich installed his fence with the stringers facing the neighbors. In response to a question, he stated by code the finished side must face the neighbors; the fence posts are on the proper side, but the fence was nailed on from the neighbor's side. Mr. Mitskevich proposed to install stringers on the inside to make the fence identical on both sides. Mr. Chaplinsky consulted with Scott Shuford, of the Planning Department, for an interpretation of the code and was told the intent of the code was that the stringers must be inside. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the fence. In response to a question on how to correct the violation, Mr. Chaplinsky stated either the fence needs to be turned around or the planning official's interpretation of the code needs to be overturned. In response to questions from Mr. Mitskevich, he stated City engineers inspected the property regarding the block wall, not the fence; and that the drawing submitted may have shown the horizontal members on the outside of the fence. Gerry Colombo, neighbor on the southside, questioned how a permit could be issued if the plans submitted were not to code. Mr. Mitskevich displayed to the Board a sample of his fence, pointing out that the horizontal slats are on both sides of the fence, and stating they are decorative. He stated City engineers and inspectors saw the fence. The posts are on his side of the fence. Mr. Mitskevich stated a permit was approved with stringers on both sides, and he added stringers on the side with the posts. In response to a question, he stated the horizontal boards on both sides are his design. He submitted defendant's exhibit A, a photograph of a neighbor's fence. In response to questions, Mr. Mitskevich stated his was first served notice of the violation November 20, 1990 at which time one side of the fence was in place. He stated the permit is for over 300 feet of fence. Discussion ensued regarding permits being issued for plans that are not to code, and it was stated all construction is subject to review by inspectors even when a permit is issued. Mr. Mitskevich stated he went to zoning four times because of setback and was told his plans are okay. In response to a question whether the design showed stringers on both sides of the fence, Mr. Mitskevich said the plans stated the good side of the fence would be facing the neighbor with decorative horizontal boards. Discussion further ensued regarding whether the stringers facing the neighbors could be decorative boards. A question was raised whether the fence would fall down if the board on the outside was removed, and the inspector said it would because the stringers on the inside are not connected to the posts. Mr. Mitskevich stated the fence is not complete and his permit is good until April or May. He stated when the fence is complete it will not be in violation. Discussion further ensued regarding a permit being issued with the appearance of the stringers on both sides, and it was stated if a permit contains a code violation it does not excuse the need for compliance with the code. In closing, Tom Chaplinsky stated the code cited specifically states the finished side is to face the neighbors and all support posts and stringers facing inward. Mr. Mitskevich stated when his fence is completed, he can pull off the slats and the fence will stand. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 12-91 regarding violation of Section 136.016(e) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1132 Sunnydale aka Lot 22, Sunnydale Sub., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of January, 1991, 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, Building Inspections Supervisor, E.J. Mitskevich and Jerry Colombo, the neighbor on the south side, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the fence, defendant's exhibit A - a photograph of a neighbor's fence, and viewing a portion of the fence as proposed to be when construction is complete, it is evident that the fence has been constructed with the stringers facing the neighbor's property. The Conclusions of Law are: E.J. Mitskevich is in violation of Section 136.016(e). It is the Order of this Board that E.J. Mitskevich shall comply with Section 136.016(e) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (2/22/91). If E.J. Mitskevich does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $150.00 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 any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, E.J. Mitskevich shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Done and Ordered this 23rd day of January, 1991. ADJOURN - 5:35 p.m.