Loading...
03/11/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD March 11, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman (excused) William A. Zinzow (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Alan Zimmet, 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. 5-92 Michael Vlamakis 2010 Drew Street (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Janice King, Development Code Inspector, stated the business at this location is Sunsweet Farms. A sign was placed on the property without a permit. Property ownership was verified through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. Notice was sent to the property and business owners by certified mail, and the signed receipts were returned. Ms. King stated she had verbal communication with the property owner and a manager of the business. The original notice of violation was sent September 25, 1991 with compliance due September 30. They complied at that time, but the sign was displayed numerous times since then. A notice of recurring violation was sent February 13, 1992. City submitted composite exhibit A, a copy of the notice of recurring violation, certified mail receipts, and photographs of the property. Ms. King stated she saw the sign again February 24th. In response to questions, Ms. King stated the sign is portable. She stated it does not qualify under the criteria used for real estate signs. Ms. King stated they have also displayed streamers and other signs in the past. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 5-92 regarding violation of Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2010 Drew Street aka Skycrest Terrace, block C, lot 5 and the south 50 feet of lot 6, section 12/29/15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th 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 viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - a copy of the notice of recurring violation, certified mail receipts, and photographs of the property, it is evident that an illegal sign was displayed without a permit, that this condition was corrected and recurred several times. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Michael Vlamakis was in violation of Section 134.017(a)(1). It is the Order of this Board that Michael Vlamakis shall comply with Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Michael Vlamakis repeats the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Michael Vlamakis 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. 16-92 Einstein and Evelina Boykins 1305 Wood Avenue (Land Development Code) It was stated proof of service of the Notice of Hearing has not been obtained. Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 16-92 until proper service of the notice is obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 17-92 Malcolm & Evelyne Leslie 1446 South Hillcrest Avenue (Public Nuisance) Rick Rosa, Development Code Inspector, stated a complaint was received February 3rd regarding the overgrowth behind the subject property. He spoke to Mr. Leslie February 4th; Mr. Leslie stated the City installed the fence, left no access to the easement, and agreed to keep the easement cleared. Mr. Rosa checked with different departments of the City and found no information regarding said arrangement. City submitted composite exhibit A, two photographs of the property. In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the violation exists only at the back of the lot which is a drainage easement. He stated the City moved fences back about 12-1/2 feet to accommodate drainage; the property owner owns the fence. Mr. Leslie stated in 1980 a drain pipe was installed in the easement and the City assessed the property owners $500. The City dug up the easement and part of his property two times, and the property has flooded five times since. In 1989, the City decided all the fences and shrubs need to be moved back ten feet each side from the easement due to the drain pipe flooding. Mr. Leslie stated the City agreed to buy the fence and he would erect it, but no provision was made for a gate. The City said they would take care of clearing the easement; the area was totally cleared out once by the City, including all the shrubs. His property doesn't have any access to the easement. Mr. Leslie submitted composite exhibit A, twelve photographs of his and neighboring properties. In response to questions, Mr. Leslie stated his deed designates the easement for utilities, not drainage. He did not feel the agreement with the City for clearing the easement was needed in writing. The City cleared the easement once. A question was raised whether easement and right of way are interchangeable. Mr. Richter, Development Code Manager, stated they are different, and the wrong code section was cited. In response to questions, Mr. Leslie stated the fence was moved for drainage as the pipe would overflow and flood the property; the street would also flood. He stated he would put in a gate if the City supplies it. Mr. Leslie reviewed the photographs he submitted, stating the neighbors' properties are also overgrown. He questioned why his property is the only one that was posted. The growth in back of his lot is dead scrub; none of the brush growth is cleared by others. The Assistant City Attorney stated the wrong section was cited, and asked Mr. Leslie if he would be willing to clear the property and get with City staff to clarify and resolve the problem. It was stated overgrowth is a violation, and could become a health hazard due to vermin. Keeping easements and rights of way clear are the responsibility of the abutting property owner. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 17-92 regarding violation of Section 95.04(b) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1446 South Hillcrest Avenue aka Brookhill Unit 8 Sub., block J, lot 17, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th 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 Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector and Malcolm Leslie, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - photographs of the property, and Defendant exhibit A, photographs of the defendant's and neighboring properties, it is evident that the violation as cited does not exist. The Conclusions of Law are: Malcolm Leslie is not in violation of Section 95.04(b). It is the Order of this Board that Case No. 17-92 shall be dismissed with the condition that Mr. Leslie approach City staff to work out a mutual agreement. 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. Mr. Swanberg stated it is obvious by the photographs that other property owners are also in violation and should be cited. Case No. 18-92 Thomas Floyd 603 Hart Street (Building Code) William Phillips, Housing Inspector, stated he first inspected the property August 6, 1991, sent notice of the violation by certified mail on August 15, and the signed receipt was returned. He met with Mr. Floyd on September 5 and the front porch had been repaired. He informed Mr. Floyd that a building permit was needed and gave him until September 15 to acquire said permit. The permit was never pulled, and on February 8, 1992 the property was reinspected. This visit was initiated by a call from the Police Department based on a report of a violent crime having taken place at said property. He reinspected the property March 10, accompanied by police officers, and the condition was worse. There are broken windows, rotted floors, termite damage, and the electrical panel is broken. City submitted exhibit A - a copy of a police incident report, and composite exhibit B -eleven photographs showing the dilapidated condition of the property. Mr. Floyd stated he removed old boards from the floor to repair it, at which time he was told he needed a permit and a licensed contractor. He had to get the Police to remove people who were living in the building without his permission. He had the electric and water turned off. Mr. Floyd stated he tried to get permit, but he was told he needs a blueprint from a contractor, which would cost him $1,000. He can do the work himself except electrical; he doesn't have the money to hire someone else to do it. In response to a question, Mr. Floyd stated he is not a licensed contractor; he holds an occupational license for stucco work. Discussion ensued regarding time needed to complete the work, and the need to keep the building secured. In response to a question, it was stated a licensed contractor is needed based on the property being rental. If the owner is going to live in it, he would be allowed a homeowner's permit. Discussion further ensued regarding securing the building, and the break-in problem. It was stated a boarded up entrance can be easily torn off. In response to questions, Mr. Floyd stated if he did the work it would cost $5-6,000. He stated the lowest contractor cost just to pull the permit was $500. The damage hasn't been assessed by a contractor, but a rough estimate given was $17,000. It would take at least 30 days to get somebody to start work, and six months to finish. Again, a question was raised regarding the need for the owner to live there after completion of repairs, if a homeowner's permit is pulled. It was stated it would be a criminal penalty to offer the property for rent or sale within a twelve month period following completion. Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 18-92 regarding violation of Section 138.02 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 603 Hart Street aka Jones Sub. of Nicholson, block 4, lot 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 11th 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 William Phillips, Housing Inspector and Thomas Floyd, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - a copy of a Police incident report, and exhibit B - photographs of the property, it is evident that the building is dilapidated and in need of repair. The Conclusions of Law are: Thomas Floyd is in violation of Section 138.02. It is the Order of this Board that Thomas Floyd shall comply with Section 138.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 1) securing the building within 7 days (3/18/92) and 2) completing the repairs by June 15, 1992. If Thomas Floyd does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $25.00 per day each for Parts 1 and 2 of this order for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due dates. If Thomas Floyd 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, Thomas Floyd shall notify William Phillips, 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. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street (Building Code) It was stated proof of service of the Notice of Hearing has not been obtained. Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 19-92 until proper service of the notice is obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 6-92 Ernest Rivers 2723 Haverhill Ct./Bldg. 25A Affidavit of Compliance Ms. Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 6-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION - None MINUTES- Meeting of February 26, 1992 Ms. Riley moved to accept the minutes of the meeting of February 26, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m.