Loading...
03/25/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD March 25, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen D. Swanberg Absent: William A. Zinzow (excused) Louise C. Riley (excused) Stephen Gerlach (excused) Also present: 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. 16-92 Einstein and Evelina Boykins 1305 Wood Avenue (Land Development Code) Continued from 3/11/92 Janice King, Development Code Inspector, stated a commercial vehicle had been parked in the right of way. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's office and notice of the violation was sent by certified mail. There was verbal communication by her the day before the hearing and by Clearwater Police Officers on February 14th. Ms. King first noticed the violation January 23rd, and sent notice to remove the vehicle by January 30 with which compliance was obtained. The vehicle was back again on February 14 and 20, and notice of the recurring violation was sent February 21, 1992. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the parked vehicle at the referenced address. Ms. King stated she inspected the property the day before the hearing and several other times, and it appears the vehicle has not been there since February 20th. In response to questions, Ms. King stated the section of the code cited relates to activity that exists on property. She also sent Mr. Boykins a copy of Section 136.022(i)(1)(e), relating to parking in right of way, to better explain the violation to Mr. Boykins. She stated a "commercial" vehicle is defined as one designed for a commercial or industrial function, or marked with commercial advertising. Mr. Boykins stated he does not store the vehicle or park it overnight at his property. He may be working day or night, and sometime he stops home for lunch or to clean up for the next job. He parks his truck on Missouri Avenue. In response to a question, he stated his truck is at his home maybe two hours a week. He came home one morning in January; that evening he had to leave again, but found he had to replace the engine in his truck. He stated he has not parked it there before nor since then. In response to a question regarding parking a commercial vehicle in a residential zone during a lunch break, it was stated that would be a violation if business is not being conducted at that address. Mr. Boykins stated he purchased the vehicle in 1984, and he does not park there overnight. He stated he stops home for lunch, and questioned why nothing was said to him sooner. In closing, Mr. Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the vehicle meets both conditions which define "commercial." He stated there is no overnight exemption; if loading, unloading or cleaning a commercial vehicle, it must be removed when the work is done. In response to a question, he stated there is no exception to allow parking even just a couple hours a week. He stated when the vehicle is at the owner's residence, it is not performing a service. Mr. Boykins, in closing, stated the vehicle is not being parked overnight or for 24 hours, nor is it being stored. He indicated the Police Department had told him as long as he does not park the truck in the right-of-way overnight, it is not a violation. He stated he will not take his vehicle to his home unless he has to. Discussion ensued regarding the section of the code cited, and consensus was it is not specific enough. Concerns were expressed that commercial vehicles should be able to be parked at the owner's home for short periods of time, such as a lunch break. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 16-92 regarding violation of Section 135.004(b) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1305 Wood Avenue a/k/a Highland Pines 6th Addn., block 8, lot 16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of March, 1992, 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 Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, and Mr. Boykins, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute under City Code Section 135.004(b) as cited. The Conclusions of Law are: Einstein Boykins is not in violation of Section 135.004(b). It is the Order of this Board that Case No. 16-92 shall be dismissed. 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. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street (Building Code) Continued from 3/11/92 In response to a question, Julio Aldecocea, representing Aztec Insurance Company, stated they do not dispute the violation. He stated they started the necessary work, then stopped to see if they could sell the property in an "as is" condition. A month ago the contractors were called back to continue repairs. He asked for 180 days in which to comply, stating they could secure the bottom floor of the buildings to reduce the hazardous condition. In response to a question, Mr. Aldecocea stated there were five apartment buildings on the site, but one had burned down. Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector Supervisor, stated prior to Aztec Insurance Company obtaining it, the property was inspected about two years ago. At the time, Mr. Rivers was cited for the violation, he could not be located, and the property went to foreclosure. Then Aztec Insurance Company took over, acquired permits, started work, and then stopped work on the buildings. The neighbors have had to deal with this nuisance for over two years. Mr. Aldecocea stated Aztec Insurance obtained the property in April, 1991. IRS had a redemption period of 120 days, at which time the government could take back the property; therefore, no work was done during this period. In response to questions regarding the time frame needed to repair the buildings to minimum standards, Mr. Chaplinsky stated they should secure the buildings by the end of the month to prevent entry. He stated the Building and Planning Officials would like to see completion by May 15, 1991. If they are actively pursuing completion of the repairs, it is possible. He stated there is additional damage to the plaster work since last May. In response to questions, Mr. Aldecocea stated they stopped working on the building hoping they could sell it to a local investor. He stated the roof, stucco, and some woodwork has been done. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinsky stated the damage is quite extensive. It will probably take $80,000 as they need electrical and plumbing work, and the original construction has defects. The stucco is almost done. He submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken March 25th. He stated he would like to see them apply for a permit within 30 days, and he is sure the department would expedite its issuance. He stated the buildings are structurally sound. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 19-92 regarding violation of Section 138.02 (renumbered as 138.34) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 905 & 907 Hart Street a/k/a Lots 15 & 16, Block C, Plaza Park Sub., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 25th day of March, 1992, 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, Construction Inspector Supervisor, and Julio Aldecocea and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that there are four buildings in a state of disrepair and representing a hazard at the 905 & 907 Hart Street property. The Conclusions of Law are: Aztec Insurance Company is in violation of Section 138.02 (renumbered as 138.34) of the City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Aztec Insurance Company shall comply with Section 138.02 (renumbered as 138.34) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 1) securing the buildings to the satisfaction of the Building Department within 5 days (3/30/92), 2) apply for permit for repair or demolition within 30 days (4/24/92), and 3) obtain the certificate of occupancy for the buildings within 100 days (7/3/92). If Aztec Insurance Company does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $200.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Aztec Insurance Company 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, Aztec Insurance Company 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. Case No. 20-92 Lokey Olds Inc./Saturn Dealer 2336 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Mr. Richter requested this case be withdrawn based on the inability to impose a fine due to the notification requirement for repeat violations. Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 20-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 18-92 Thomas Floyd 1421 Fairmont Street Affidavit of Compliance (Part 1) Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Part 1 in Case No. 18-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion ensued regarding repeat violators and how the required process makes it difficult to impose a fine. A question was raised why a notice of violation couldn't be given on the spot. It was stated legal research is required to ensure the proper party is cited which delays the process, and the violator is not always accessible. Per Florida Statutes and City Code, the fine is still not effective until after the date of the notice of repeat violation. MINUTES - Meeting of March 11, 1992 The Chairman stated on page one under Also Present, replace Andrew Salzman with Alan Zimmet as Attorney for the Board. Mr. Swanberg moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 11, 1992 as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.