Loading...
02/26/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 26, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley William A. Zinzow Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach 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. 3-92 Ken Marks Ford, Inc. 24825 U.S. 19 North (Land Development Code) John Richter, Development Code Manager, requested this case be heard as a first time violation, although it was brought forth as a repeat. The city code requires the violator receive a notice of repeat violation before a fine for the repeat violation can be imposed. Most violations that are repeated are corrected prior to receiving the required notice. Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated there was a cold air balloon, which is considered to be a wind device and therefore prohibited, at the above referenced address on November 9th and 23rd. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. She issued a notice of the violation on December 11, 1991. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated the cold air balloons were there on weekends. Ken Marks, Jr., General Manager and Vice-President of Ken Marks Ford, Inc. stated the balloons were used for promotional purposes, and it enabled them to give away a van. He stated the business has been there eleven years and has benefitted the community with taxes, charitable contributions, jobs, etc. He questioned why Ken Marks Ford is always cited when his competitors are doing the same thing or worse. In response to a question, Mr. Marks agreed the balloons were there on the days cited. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated a temporary permit can not be acquired for wind devices; their use is prohibited with no exceptions. It was stated Clearwater is taking the lead in trying to eliminate unnecessary signage. The County has recently taken similar action, and other municipalities are following suit. It was also stated the Board can only enforce code violations. Concerns regarding the code can be expressed to the City Commission. Mr. Marks stated they are not going against code on purpose. He stated they don't know what actions are against code. It was suggested he phone City staff with questions regarding the violations. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 3-92 regarding violation of Section 134.009(5) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 24825 U.S. 19 N a/k/a Lot 1, Block 1, Ken Marks Sub., Sec. 32-28-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of February, 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, Development Code Inspector, Ken Marks, Jr., General Manager/Vice-President of Ken Marks Ford, Inc., and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that wind devices prohibited by code have been displayed at 24825 U.S. 19 North, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Ken Marks Ford, Inc. was in violation of Section 134.009(5). It is the Order of this Board that Ken Marks Ford, Inc. shall continue compliance with Section 134.009(5) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Ken Marks Ford, Inc. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $200.00 per day for each day the repeat violation exists after Ken Marks Ford, 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. 4-92 David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine 405 North Fort Harrison Avenue (Land Development Code) John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated there are two violations regarding different areas of the property: 1) not meeting conditions imposed by a State Hearing Officer for special exceptions, and 2) unauthorized outdoor storage. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property showing frontage on Garden and North Fort Harrison Avenues. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated the business is on Fort Harrison Avenue. The use is boat sales and service, and has been there since 1968. The business has grown over the years, Mr. Gangelhoff purchased additional lots, and owns all the referenced property. Regarding the first violation, in 1982 Mr. Gangelhoff requested a special exception for outdoor boat storage and was denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning. He appealed the Board's decision to the State Hearing Officer, and the request was approved for Lots 7-9 provided stipulated conditions are met. In January, 1984 Mr. Gangelhoff requested a special exception for storage and boat repair outdoors for Lots 5 & 10 and Lot 6, and was again denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning. He appealed the decision and, in April, the State Hearing Officer approved the request provided imposed conditions are met. There are six conditions that have not been met. City submitted exhibits B and C, copies of the Hearing Officer's decisions of 1982 and 1984. In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated she is unaware of any time frame imposed; just that the approval is not valid until the conditions are met. Lori Nelson, representing Mr. Gangelhoff, stated a site plan was submitted as required but it was denied by the City. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated the site plan was denied because the proposed building was in the setback area. A variance was requested but the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning denied the variance. He stated the proposed building could have been moved out of the setback area. Regarding the second violation, Ms. Doherty stated there are four lots being used for outdoor storage, which violates City code. She stated the outdoor storage of boats on Garden Avenue refers back to the 1984 Hearing Officer appeal. In response to a question, it was stated the occupational license cannot be withheld based on the violation. City submitted composite exhibits D - F, photographs of the property showing storage of boats and trailers on all of the property as cited. Discussion ensued regarding the Hearing Officer orders. Ms. Doherty stated in 1982, the condition requiring twelve parking spaces refers to North Fort Harrison Avenue. She reviewed other areas of the property and the conditions imposed. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated Mr. Gangelhoff is in violation because he did not comply with the conditions imposed by the Hearing Officer, thereby invalidating the special exception. She stated approval for storage on Lots 1 & 2 and M&B 44/02 was never requested. Ms. Nelson stated they tried to do all the things stipulated by the State Hearing Officer. They spent $13,000 for concrete for the paving, and the permit was denied. The company with whom they purchased the concrete went bankrupt and they lost their money. They don't have the money to comply with the paving condition. In response to a question, Ms. Nelson stated they would need at least a year to comply. Discussion ensued whether a less expensive paving could be done to satisfy the condition. It was questioned whether the paving requirement could be postponed until economically feasible. It was suggested a variance to the paving requirement be applied for due to hardship. Discussion ensued regarding the other conditions, and it was stated the real problem is the junk boats along Fort Harrison and Garden Avenues. Ms. Nelson stated they could clean up the property. The paving is impossible as it would cost $30,000. They would need 30 to 60 days to comply with the other conditions. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 4-92 regarding violation of Section 135.004(c)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 405 N. Ft. Harrison Ave. aka Jones Sub. of Nicholson's, Block 3, Lots 6-9; Hart's Second Sub., Block 3, Lots 5 & 10; Ft. Harrison Sub., Lots 1-3; M&B 44.02, Section 9-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of February, 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, Development Code Inspector, Lori Nelson, representing David Gangelhoff, and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibits A and D-F - photographs of the property, and City exhibits B & C - copies of Hearing Officer orders regarding 1982 and 1984 appeals, it is evident that boats are being stored on property referred to as Lots 1-3, Ft. Harrison Subdivision and M&B 44.02, Sec. 9-29-15, and such storage is not a permitted use. The Conclusions of Law are: David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine is in violation of Section 135.004(c)(1). It is the Order of this Board that David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine shall comply with Section 135.004(c)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (3/27/92). If David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 4-92 regarding violation of Section 135.004(c)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 405 N. Ft. Harrison Ave. aka Jones Sub. of Nicholson's, Block 3, Lots 6-9; Hart's Second Sub., Block 3, Lots 5 & 10; Ft. Harrison Sub., Lots 1-3; M&B 44.02, Section 9-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of February, 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, Development Code Inspector, Lori Nelson, representing David Gangelhoff, and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibits A and D-F - photographs of the property, and City exhibits B & C - copies of Hearing Officer orders regarding 1982 and 1984 appeals, it is evident that there are six stipulations and conditions, imposed by the State Hearing Officer as pre-conditions for the use of areas of the property for boat storage, that have not been complied with. It is further evident that boat storage is occurring on the property referred to as Jones Sub. of Nicholson's, Block 3, Lots 6-9 and Hart's Second Sub., Block 3, Lots 5 & 10. The Conclusions of Law are: David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine is in violation of Section 135.004(c)(1). It is the Order of this Board that David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine shall comply with Section 135.004(c)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 90 days (5/26/92). If David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. If David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine 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, David Gangelhoff d/b/a Gulf Marine shall notify Geri Doherty, 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. Case No. 10-92 Eugene & Judith Thomas 1017 Grantwood Avenue (Land Development Code) Continued from 2/12/92 Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated a fishing boat in excess of 20 feet long has been stored in the setback. She inspected the property after receiving a complaint in July, 1991. She spoke to Mr. Thomas's son and gave them 30 days to remove the boat. The boat was there September 25 and October 1. A notice of violation was issued with a compliance date of October 7. On October 7, 1991 the boat was gone. The boat was there again October 11, December 18, 23 and 26, 1991. She issued a notice of recurring violation on December 24, 1991. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. Ms. Doherty stated she has not seen the boat on the property lately. Mr. Thomas stated he was not aware it was a code violation. He questioned why he is just now being cited, when he has been keeping the boat there for many years. A question was raised if the property could be grandfathered, and it was stated it is only applicable to a non-conforming use. It was stated a 60-90 day grace period was allowed when the code went into effect. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated complaints were received from two neighbors. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 10-92 regarding violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)a of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1017 Grantwood a/k/a Lot 12, Block 14, Wood Valley Unit 3, Sec. 8-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of February, 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, Development Code Inspector, and Eugene Thomas, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that a fishing boat in excess of 20 feet in length has previously been in the setback area from the street right-of-way at 1017 Grantwood Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Eugene B. and Judith A. Thomas are in violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)a. It is the Order of this Board that Eugene B. and Judith A. Thomas shall comply with Section 136.022(i)(2)a of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (3/27/92). If Eugene B. and Judith A. Thomas do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Eugene B. and Judith A. Thomas do 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, Eugene B. and Judith A. Thomas shall notify Geri Doherty, 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. 14-92 John Sanders 1384 Pierce Street (Land Development Code) Geri Doherty, Code Inspector, stated this is not a manufacturing business, as noted on the affidavit, but it falls in the medical/dental category as it entails assembly and fitting of prosthesis. It is still not a permitted or conditional use in this RM-12 zoning district, so the violation is the same. The violation was noted and referred to Code Enforcement by the Occupational License Division. Mr. Sanders was cited December 13, 1991 with a compliance date of January 10, 1992. She stated he could request rezoning to OG (general office), which would allow his use. In response to questions, Ms. Doherty stated the business has been there since June, 1989. She stated the use is not allowed in RM (residential) zoning. She stated there was an areawide zoning to residential in 1982. In response to questions, it was stated this is not part of the downtown redevelopment area. It was stated zoning requests on property less than three acres are not subject to State regulations, and could be processed within six months. Mr. Sanders stated he was not aware of the violation until Ms. Doherty informed him. He paid for his occupational license in 1989, and his check was sent back to him. He submitted defendant's exhibit A, photographs of the property. Mr. Sanders stated he has been at this location for six or seven years. People come to him for back and foot care. In response to questions, it was stated there is no provision for variances to use provisions; a zoning change needs to be requested to accommodate use. In response to questions, Mr. Sanders stated there is a business sign on the wall of the building. The business before him was either software or chiropractic. He stated in the early 1980's the building was unoccupied for about one year and lost its grandfathered use. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the area was rezoned twelve years ago. He stated there was an occupational license for 1986/87, and the next one requested was in 1989. The property was vacant two years, thereby losing its grandfathered non-conforming use status. Mrs. Riley moved to continue Case No. 14-92 to allow time for the violator to get with staff for direction. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION - None. MINUTES - Meeting of February 12, 1992 Mr. Cardinal moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 12, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, reviewed the inspection process. He stated their first priority is to inspect properties for which a complaint has been received; second priority, citings found by inspectors. When on an inspection, the inspectors always check the area for similar violations. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.