Loading...
04/24/1991 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 24, 1991 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman Robert Aude William Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Absent: Louise C. Riley (excused) John J. McKinney (unexcused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Mary Kathryn Diana, Acting 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 3:01 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 91-4-2 - No cases. Case No. 23-91 Mary G. Realty, Inc. Nick Gionis, President/Registered Agent 490 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Continue to 5/22/91 Case No. 24-91 John Sanders 1384 Pierce Street (Occupational License) To be withdrawn Mr. Aude moved to continue Case No. 23-91 to the meeting of May 22, 1991 and to withdraw Case 24-91 as requested by memo from the Inspector. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 25-91 E.J. and Maureen Mitskevich 1132 Sunnydale Drive (Public Nuisance Code) Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, read code section 95.23(1) into the record, stating the fence at the 1132 Sunnydale is a nuisance condition. City submitted exhibits A - a copy of the code section cited and B - a report issued by Mr. Earl Barrett, Housing Counselor for the City. Ms. Niemiller read the report which stated the condition of the fence devalues the neighboring properties. Mr. Mitskevich objected to the report being submitted as evidence stating he has a right to question Mr. Barrett as to his opinion. He stated a house two doors away from him sold in less than a week at market value. Discussion ensued regarding whether the report should be entered into evidence, and consensus was to enter it as evidence noting Mr. Mitskevich's right to question Mr. Barrett. Mr. Mitskevich objected to the hearing and requested a continuance. City submitted composite exhibits C & D, photographs of the property taken April 24 and March 8, 1991, respectively. Ms. Niemiller stated she inspected the fence this morning, and the condition has not changed. In response to questions, the Inspector stated notice was sent certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. City submitted exhibit E, a copy of the notice with the signed certified mail receipt. Discussion ensued regarding whether the fence was a standard industry type. In response to a question, the Inspector stated posts and stringers are to face the inside according to City code. On this fence they face outward. Mr. Colombo, next door neighbor, in response to a question, stated stringer boards face his property. He submitted City exhibit F - photographs of the property taken January 23, 1991. Mr. Colombo stated the pictures accurately depict the painted condition of the fence as it is today. He would like the fence to be standard in appearance to keep property values from diminishing. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Colombo's tree limbs extending over Mr. Mitskevich's property. Mr. Mitskevich stated he erected the fence because Mr. Colombo had butchered the tree when cutting the extended limbs. He stated Mr. Colombo told him there wouldn't be a fence on the property line. Mrs. Jelineck, neighbor about halfway down the street, stated she can not see the fence from her property. In response to questions, she stated the stringer boards are facing out. Part of the fence is painted yellow and white, and the paint looks like it was dabbed on. Mrs. Jelineck stated the fence is offensive, and she believes it diminishes property values. In response to questions, Mrs. Jelineck stated the house that recently sold in the neighborhood was bought by a party who lived there previously, but she didn't know the selling price. She stated Mr. Mitskevich's property was not visible from that location. Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspections Supervisor, in response to questions, stated he has been with the City 17 years during which time he has inspected 50 or more fences. He stated a stringer on a wood fence is a horizontal supporting member of the fence, without which the fence would fall apart. Defendant submitted exhibit A, a copy of the City's correspondence to Mr. Mitskevich regarding Case No. 12-91, also dealing with the fence. In response to questions, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the violation regarding Case 12-91 was corrected. The structural stringers are now on the inside; the decorative stringers face the neighbors. He issued the affidavit of compliance based on what he observed. He stated he was not inspecting the appearance of the fence, just the stringers. The fence was constructed according to the permit issued. A question was raised as to why compliance was issued and another violation cited. It was stated the first violation was for the stringers only; this is a different violation. Per Mr. Mitskevich's request, James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, read a portion of a letter to Mrs. Sue Berfield regarding the violation being considered. In response to a question, Mr. Polatty stated the fence was found to be in compliance from a building aspect; however, it was deemed to be in violation of the nuisance code due to its appearance. The side facing Mr. Colombo's property is not finished. In response to a question regarding a neighbor's dilapidated, red fence, Mr. Polatty stated he has not noticed this fence; however, he will have staff investigate. Mr. Mitskevich stated he feels he is being harassed; he is not getting the same treatment from the City as his neighbors, as staff will not respond to his complaints. Mr. Polatty stated the City has investigated three reports received from Mr. Mitskevich and has responded to him. In response to a question, it was indicated the time limit on a fence permit is six months; however, an extension can be requested. In response to a question, Mr. Mitskevich stated the decorative boards on the outside of the fence are not continuous so as not to be construed as stringers. In closing, Mr. Richter stated a notice of violation was issued based on the City's nuisance code regarding diminution of property. The stringer-like boards and dabbed on multi-color paint on the neighboring side of the fence devalues the property. He requested ten day compliance to provide a finished appearance on the fence, and a $25 per day fine if compliance is not obtained. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 25-91 regarding violation of Section 95.23 Nuisance Conditions (1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1132 Sunnydale Dr aka Sunnydale Sub, Lot 22, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 24th day of April, 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 Vicki Niemiller, John Richter, Tom Chaplinsky and James Polatty, City of Clearwater Officials; Mr. Colombo and Mrs. Jelineck, neighboring property owners; and Mr. Mitskevich, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits A-E, a copy of the City Code as cited, a memo from Earl Barrett, Housing Counselor for the City, photographs of the property and fence, and the notice of violation issued by the Inspector, and Defendant's exhibits A - a copy of the City's correspondence to Mr. Mitskevich, and B - a copy of a drawing of the fence as submitted with the fence permit application, it is evident that, while the fence is in strict conformance with the building code as it relates to the situation of the structural stringers, Mr. Mitskevich has purposely and maliciously defaced the finish of the fence in a manner that presents itself to be a nuisance in that it causes a substantial diminution of the value of neighboring properties. The Conclusions of Law are: E. J. & Maureen Mitskevich are in violation of Section 95.23 Nuisance Conditions (1). It is the Order of this Board that E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich shall comply with Section 95.23 Nuisance Conditions (1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (5/4/91). If E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If E.J. & Maureen Mitskevich do not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of, 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. & Maureen Mitskevich shall notify John Richter, the City Official who will direct a reinspection of the property and notification to 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 24th day of April, 1991. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 1-91 Allison Repetto d/b/a Orange Blossom Groves Address the Board re accrued fine Mr. Repetto stated he measured the fire lane between the two buildings where the Inspector said firefighting equipment wouldn't be able to get through in case of fire, at 29 feet. He called the Fire Inspector twice but received no answer. Mr. Repetto stated the Inspector came out again and said it passed inspection; however, he didn't know what passed. Mr. Repetto stated different fire districts have inspected the property over the years. A retired State Fire Marshal inspected the property and found it okay. In response to a question, Mr. Repetto said he thought the violations were corrected. Inspector Daniels stated he drove through the property numerous times. He told Mrs. Boice and a worker that the violation still exists. He stated he referenced the fire lane on the south side as he felt it was impossible to get the fire hoses through due to the collection of junk and trash. Inspector Daniels stated most of the violations were corrected prior to the time allotted, but felt the most dangerous violation was not. Discussion ensued regarding responsibility of ensuring compliance, and it was stated there may have been a communication problem. It was also stated the majority of the violations were corrected. It was stated there were many years of jurisdiction uncertainty, allowing the accumulation of debris. Mr. Cardinal moved to reduce the fine from $3,400 to $500. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Aude, Cardinal, Zinzow, and Murray voted "aye." Mr. Wyatt voted "nay." Motion carried. Case No. 7-91 Anthony Alexiou 7 Rockaway St Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case 91-2-1 #2 Denny's Realty Inc. 1400 US 19 S aka M&B 41/01 Sec. 19/29/16 Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance in Case No. 7-91 and issue the order imposing the fine, and to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 91-2-1 #2. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Election of Officers Mr. Aude moved to continue the election to the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS - None. ADJOURN - 5:10 p.m.