Loading...
04/08/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 8, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana, 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. 21-92 H. Lube Sys. Inc. (H. Lubrication Systems Inc.) 23034 North U.S. 19 (Land Development Code) Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, amended the Affidavit of Violation to note the name of the violator, without abbreviation, to be H. Lubricating Systems Inc. She stated the violation no longer exists. She stated on March 2, 1992 she noticed two banners, classified as wind devices, hung in the bays of Jiffy Lube at 23034 U.S. 19 North, and photographed the property March 4th. This is a recurring violation; notice was issued on October 1, 1991 for a banner and pennants. Notice of the violation was sent by certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. City submitted exhibit A, the photograph taken March 4, 1992. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the banners are inside the building, but can be plainly seen from the road. It was stated if the banners are prominently visible from off the premises, even if located inside the building, they are in violation. In response to a question, it was stated the fine can be imposed only after the violator is notified of the repeat violation. In response to questions, the Inspector stated she noticed the violation in passing. When the doors are closed, it might be considered a window sign. A concern was expressed there are signs that can be seen from the road at many businesses. It was stated many businesses are notified of the violation and comply the same day, and there is no opportunity to impose a fine. In response to questions, it was stated the process for fining repeat violators is governed by Florida Statutes which requires notification to the repeat violator before a fine can be imposed. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 21-92 regarding violation of Section 134.009(5) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 23034 U.S. 19 North a/k/a Loehmann's Plaza, lot 2, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of April, 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 Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - a photograph of the property, it is evident that wind devices were displayed at 23034 N. U.S. 19 on October 1, 1991, that this condition was corrected and recurred March 4, 1992 at the same address. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: H. Lubricating Systems Inc. was in violation of Section 134.009(5). It is the Order of this Board that H. Lubricating Systems Inc. shall comply with Section 134.009(5) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If H. Lubricating Systems Inc. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation exists after H. Lubricating Systems Inc. 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 22-92 Edward & Doris Vincent 1355 Drew Street (Public Nuisance Code) Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, stated a complaint was received March 5th regarding abandoned vehicles. He inspected the property on March 5, posted four vehicles that did not have current tags, giving until March 18 to comply with City Code. As of today, two of the vehicles posted - a blue Ford wagon and a blue Oldsmobile wagon - are still on the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated property use is an apartment complex. City submitted exhibits A and B - photographs of the vehicles on the property. He stated the vehicles were moved to a paved area on the property, but they are still uncovered. Edward Vincent stated he didn't realize it was a violation to have unlicensed cars on your property. He stated he had a car lot on which he filed bankruptcy. He had to move the vehicles and had no place else to put them. He has applied for titles to these cars in his own name in order to sell them. In response to questions, Mr. Vincent stated his business was Ace Auto Sales, Inc. on Seminole Boulevard. He can not sell the cars under the dealer permit as the business license and dealer permit expired. The bankruptcy was effective in July, 1990, and the lot closed in February, 1992. He expects to have titles in a couple of weeks. The two other vehicles are in his garage, but he does not have a place for two more without being in violation. Mr. Vincent stated he needs 20 days to comply. If he can't sell the vehicles by then, he will junk them. Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 22-92 regarding violation of Section 95.04 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1355 Drew Street a/k/a Fairview Addition, block A, lots 3-5, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of April, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, and Edward Vincent, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A & B - photographs of the vehicles, it is evident that there are cars without current tags being parked at 1355 Drew Street. The Conclusions of Law are: Edward and Doris Vincent are in violation of Section 95.04. It is the Order of this Board that Edward and Doris Vincent shall comply with Section 95.04 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (4/18/92). 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 Edward and Doris Vincent. 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 $200.00 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, Florida as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $200.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon complying, Edward and Doris Vincent 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. In response to questions, it was stated the personal property owner is notified in hopes that they will remove the vehicle. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried. In response to a question, Mr. Vincent was informed he would be in compliance if the vehicles are parked under the carport. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance (part 1) Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-compliance (part 1) in Case No. 19-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 2-91 Fifteen S. Lincoln Associates 1261 Cleveland Street Address Board re Accrued Fine Bruce Harper, Attorney representing Fifteen South Lincoln Associates, owner of the property, stated the owner was not directly notified of the violation or the fine. They found out about the lien by way of a title search performed last week. The violation was not intentionally ignored. The property cited is an outparcel of property mortgaged in excess of $3 million. Mr. Harper stated his client is losing the property and negotiating with the mortgage holder to avoid foreclosure proceedings. If the owners had known about the problem, it would not have been ignored. In response to questions, Mr. Harper stated the notices sent by the City were received by the leasing agents. The prior property manager had his office at the 503 Cleveland Street address. Mr. Eggers' firm, Centerpoint Realty, became the leasing agent in 1990. Mr. Harper read into record and submitted into evidence as Defendant's exhibit A, a copy of a sworn statement of Mr. Ronald Beeman, Managing General Partner of 15 South Lincoln Associates. Said statement reiterated the fact that 15 South Lincoln Associates had no knowledge of any actions against it by the Board. Mr. Harper stated the tenant, who caused the violation, was ordered to pay only $25 per day as opposed to the $250 per day against the owner. He stated that, after notification in December, 1991, Mr. Gibson, an employee of Centerpoint Realty, went to a City office to inquire about the lien and was led to believe everything was alright. When Centerpoint Realty became the leasing agent, the 503 Cleveland address was used by maintenance personnel. In response to a question, the Inspector stated the owners mailing address received from Pinellas County tax records was 15 S. Lincoln Associates. The notice she sent to that address was returned marked "no such address". She stated she spoke to Mr. Gibson on or about September 13, 1990; and he had signed for certified mail sent to 503 Cleveland Street. Discussion ensued regarding notices and orders sent, and who actually signed for them. It was stated a letter dated April 15, 1991, which reiterated the Board's order of January, including the fine, was signed for by Mr. Gibson. In response to a question, the Inspector stated she did not have any more contact after said letter. David Eggers, owner of Centerpoint Realty, stated he first knew of the problem in December, 1991. Notices sent by the City were not intentionally ignored. He stated they approached the tenant and tried to work with them to obtain compliance. He stated in April, 1991, they had problems collecting the rent, and the tenant moved out. In response to questions, Mr. Gibson stated he approached City staff after receiving the December, 1991 letter, and was assured the problem was taken care of. He stated after he received the notice of hearing in January, 1990, he went to Attorney Greer's office with Mr. Mavrogiannis and was told they were taking care of the problem. Mr. Gibson stated he lost the letter sent by the Inspector in April, 1991. The Attorney for the Board reminded them the Rules and Regulations of the Board does not allow them to hear a petition for reconsideration of a fine unless requested within 30 days after the violation has been brought into compliance. He reviewed additional regulations regarding the process. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to continue with the case and rule on the fine. It was stated this case was brought forth without prior notice because foreclosure action is pending. It was suggested the problem should be handled between the owner and the leasing agent. In response to questions, Mr. Eggers stated the tenant vacated the building in July, 1991. He asked that the building be painted in order to remarket the space. The building was painted in September 1991. He stated he personally signed for the letter regarding compliance. Mr. Eggers stated his company was hired as Property Asset Manager in September, 1990. Discussion ensued regarding Board procedures. In response to a question, it was stated 30 days notice must be given to the Board members regarding intent to waive the rules. In response to a question, Mr. Harper stated his client was not aware of the lien, but is willing to pay one half of what the lien would be if accruing at $25 per day as for the tenant, or $3,500. He stated if the property is foreclosed, the lien will be voided entirely. Mr. Gerlach left the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding bringing this request forth at the next meeting. Mr. Swanberg moved to change the 30 day requirement to rehear Case No. 2-91 regarding the accrued fine. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Swanberg, Wyatt and Murray voted "aye." Members Zinzow and Riley voted "nay." Motion failed. (Four votes are required to change Board procedure.) In response to a question, it was suggested Mr. Harper write a formal request to address the Board. OTHER BOARD ACTION - None. MINUTES Member Riley moved to accept the minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.