Loading...
11/27/1991 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD November 27, 1991 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen D. Swanberg Absent: Louise C. Riley (unexcused) Stephen Gerlach (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 Case No. 48-91 National Advertising Company 22726 U.S. 19 North (Land Development Code) Continued from 11/13/91 In response to a question regarding why this continuance is requested, Miles Lance stated a settlement and lease amendment is being proposed to the City Manager. If approved, this case will be withdrawn. Mr. Cardinal moved to continue Case No. 48-91 to the meeting of December 11, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 59-91 Steve Lyon/Victoria's Island Wear North of 423 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated a vehicle with a business sign is being parked at the first metered space off Mandalay Avenue. The business is on Poinsettia, to which the sign on the vehicle is pointing. Her first inspection was made on September 21st, and notice of the violation was issued on September 23rd. The violation was repeated on October 31st, and a notice of repeat violation was issued. She observed the violation on numerous occasions, and she received numerous complaints. Ms. Niemiller stated the vehicle was there yesterday, but not today. On September 5th, the violator was given verbal notification of the violation from another inspector. City submitted composite exhibit A, six photographs of the parked vehicle. Steve Lyon, representing Victoria's Island Wear, stated the vehicle is used to drive to work every day. The vehicle is not always there, and it is not always in the same spot. The parking space is convenient to the business, and he takes advantage of the parking space when he can. He stated the primary purpose of the vehicle is for transportation, not to display the sign. In response to questions, Mr. Lyon stated he owns the business. He stated fingers on the sign do point in one direction only, toward the business, when parked there. He stated the tailgate of the vehicle would have to be removed in order to remove the sign during the day. Mr. Lyon stated he uses the vehicle as transportation to and from work, with occasional deliveries. In response to questions regarding a mannequin display on the truck, Mr. Lyon stated the enclosure is for protection from the environment. The mannequin can not be removed easily. He stated he usually carries deliveries up front. In response to a question regarding what the city code allows, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the code prohibits a vehicle from being parked for the purpose of displaying a sign at the business location. The intent is to not allow vehicles with signs advertising a business to park in areas near the business; the conclusion being the intent is for advertising. Mr. Lyon expressed concern that he does not have a private parking space for the business; therefore, where can he park the vehicle legally if not in front of his business. Discussion ensued regarding where it would be legal for a vehicle advertising a business to be parked. It was stated if it was parked in closer proximity to the business, it would not be concluded the intent was to advertise. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 59-91 regarding violation of Section 134.009(4) of the Clearwater City Code on property located north of 423 Mandalay Avenue a/k/a the first metered parking space off Mandalay Avenue, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 27th day of November, 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 and Steve Lyon, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the vehicle, it is evident that Mr. Lyon, owner of Victoria's Island Wear, has used said vehicle for a purpose contrary to the intent of the code. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Steve Lyon/Victoria's Island Wear was in violation of Section 134.009(4). It is the Order of this Board that Steve Lyon/Victoria's Island Wear shall comply with Section 134.009(4) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Steve Lyon/Victoria's Island Wear repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Steve Lyon/ Victoria's Island Wear 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. Case No. 61-91 Steve Milby 1601 Sherwood Street (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 61-91 as the violation has been corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Affidavits of Compliance Case No. 130-88 John Mavrogiannis d/b/a Import Auto Clinic 1261 Cleveland Street Case No. 2-91 Fifteen S. Lincoln Associates 1261 Cleveland Street Case 91-9-1 #6 Resolution Trust Corp. 1161 Sedeeva Street Case 91-9-2 #3 Charlotte M. Powers 1631 Drew Street Case 91-9-2 #5 Louisiana Life Insurance Co. 1201-1215 Drew Street Case 91-9-2 #9 John C. Gardner about 701 N. Garden Avenue Case 91-9-2 #10 Norman Bie Jr. about 300 Pierce Boulevard Case 91-9-2 #12 Edward M. Graves/Joanna I. Ferrell 1355 Jeffords Street Case 91-10-1 #1 John or Janet Forsee 1017 Calumet Street Case 91-10-1 #10 W A G I 200 Pierce Boulevard Case 91-10-1 #11 Beverly L./Garnel Mack 1625 N. Washington Avenue Case 91-10-2 #2 Bryant S. McBee 1109 Marine Street Case 91-10-2 #5 Roland M. & Mary J. Hansen 1531 Chateau Wood Drive Case 91-10-2 #6 Resolution Trust Corp. 3354 Masters Drive Case 91-10-2 #7 Judith C. Ridenour 1210 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Case 91-10-2 #9 William L./Vicki D. Wells 1260 S. Hillcrest Avenue affidavits of compliance continued Case 91-10-2 #10 Stout Investments Inc. 1505 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Case 91-10-2 #11 Ruby L. Clayton about 1454 S. Greenwood Avenue Case 91-10-2 #12 Ella Rhodes 1211 Roosevelt Avenue Case 91-10-2 #13 Marie Wigfall Estate 1406 Pennsylvania Avenue Case 91-10-2 #14 Karin Rohret/Thomas Dempsey 1000 Engman Street In response to a question regarding Case Nos. 130-88 and 2-91, it was stated both the business owner and the property owner are now in compliance. Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 130-88, 2-91, 91-9-1 #6, 91-9-2 #3, 91-9-2 #5, 91-9-2 #9, 91-9-2 #10, 91-9-2 #12, 91-10-1 #1, 91-10-1 #10, 91-10-1 #11, 91-10-2 #2, 91-10-2 #5, 91-10-2 #6, 91-10-2 #7, 91-10-2 #9, 91-10-2 #10, 91-10-2 #11, 91-10-2 #12, 91-10-2 #13, and 91-10-2 #14. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION - None MINUTES - Meeting of October 23, 1991 Mr. Zinzow moved to accept the minutes of the meeting of October 23, 1991 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS In response to a question regarding Phantom, Inc. (aka Sunburst Fireworks) Case No. 38-91, it was stated the fine accrued at $150/day with almost a month of non-compliance. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.