Loading...
05/13/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD May 13, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman Louise C. Riley Stephen D. Swanberg Absent: William A. Zinzow (excused) D. Wayne Wyatt (excused) Stephen Gerlach (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. 23-92 Sears Roebuck and Company Inc. 27001 N. U.S. 19 (Sign Code) Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 23-92 as requested by the Inspector. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 26-92 Leslie & Margaret Duttry 1866 Drew Street (Sign Code) No one was present to represent the violator. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the signs on the business on Drew Street are in excess of all allowances provided by City Code and, therefore, ineligible for permits. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated Jackie D's, the referenced business, is a hair salon and has signs placed in the right of way and on a side of the building which does not face a street. Property ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office, notice of the violation was sent to the property and business owners by certified mail, and the signed receipts were returned. She first noticed the violation February 13th, photographed the sign on the golf cart located in the right of way, and sent notice with a compliance date of February 28th. Ms. King also had verbal contact with someone named "Ray" at the business. The sign on the golf cart was removed, but the illegal sign on the building remained. Different signs have been placed in the right of way and she did photograph them. There was a vehicle with a sign in the right of way this morning. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken February 13, March 30, April 11 and May 13, 1992 depicting the illegal signs. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the pole sign and those in the windows are allowed. She stated there has never been an application for permit by the business owner, and she never heard from the property owner. Notice was sent to the property owner and copied to the business owner. She stated the sign at the front of the building would be allowed. The signs cited are the one on the east side of the building and those intermittently placed in the right of way. She stated this is a new business, and they have not been previously cited. Mrs. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 26-92 regarding violation of Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1866 Drew Street a/k/a New Marymont Sub., Block A, Lot 1, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of May, 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, four photographs of the property, it is evident that there are illegal signs displayed at 1866 Drew Street. The Conclusions of Law are: Leslie & Margaret Duttry are in violation of Section 134.017(a)(1). It is the Order of this Board that Leslie & Margaret Duttry shall comply with Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 20, 1992. If Leslie & Margaret Duttry 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 Leslie & Margaret Duttry 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, Leslie & Margaret Duttry shall notify Janice King, 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. 27-92 Hunter Blood Center Inc. 324 Jeffords Street (Land Development Code) John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the property involved is developed as a parking lot abutting Harbor Oaks. Parking buses in a parking lot that adjoins a residential district is an illegal use of the lot. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the owner of record is Hunter Blood Center Inc. Notice of the violation was sent by regular and certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. She first inspected the property February 25 in the morning and issued notice of the violation in the afternoon with compliance due by March 24. They requested a 30 day extension, and she extended the compliance date to April 20. Upon reinspection April 20, the buses were still there. She inspected the property this morning and four buses were there. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the other vehicles on the lot are allowed, and the lot is not paved. In 1987, a conditional use to park vehicles there was requested and granted. The approved parking was for doctor parking, not buses which are permitted by code. The request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board with the final decision approving the request subject to the conditions set forth in code section 136.025(c)(19). The zoning district was and still is Limited Office. Mr. Baxter, Attorney representing Hunter Blood Center Inc., read into record part of the Planning and Zoning Board minutes of December 15, 1987 stating the request was contingent upon a proposed exchange of property which did not occur. In response to questions, Mr. Baxter stated the lot was not developed as a parking lot; the use evolved as such in anticipation of the land swap. The vehicles in question have consistently been there. Mr. Saltarelli, President of Harbor Oaks Association and resident at 322 Lotus Path, read into the record a letter from the Association on behalf of its members requesting the violation of City code, regarding Hunter Blood Center vehicles parked on the referenced property, be prohibited. In response to questions, Mr. Saltarelli stated he has personally observed the buses with the engines running for several hours as early as 6 a.m. and as late as 10-11 p.m., causing noise and pollution. The vehicles have increased in numbers and size since they first started parking there in early 1980s. Mrs. Phyllis Stewart, 331 Lotus Path, stated her property abuts Hunter Blood Center, and her family has occupied the residence for 30 years. She stated the diesel smoke and fumes go into her back yard and home before dawn and in the evening. The servicing of the buses during the day is annoying and has been ongoing for a long time. She stated the noise and smoke, rather than parking, are the problems. Ms. Judy Mitchell, residing at 327 Lotus Path adjacent to Hunter Blood Center, stated the Center is in full view of her back windows. She moved in in September, 1991, and the noise level is loud including Saturday and Sunday. In response to questions, Ms. Mitchell stated the vehicles cause a visual and noise problem. In addition, the buses are sometimes backed up onto her property and the drivers leave trash. Mr. Robert Kern, 321 Lotus Path, stated he heard a loud noise about 7 a.m. one Sunday, walked by the Center and saw a tire service truck changing the tires and wheels on the buses. He has lived there since 1972. In addition to the buses running, there are air system compressors and diesel generators. The buses return as late as 11-12 p.m., the buses are left running and the smoke comes into his house. He stated parking is not the problem, but leaving them running. Mr. Baxter stated Hunter Blood Center purchased the property in 1980 with the intent of using the property for parking and storage. They have used the property in this way consistently since purchased. He was not aware the buses are running three to five hours. They have already agreed to not run the buses on Druid Road or in the neighborhood, and they have muffled the compressors. The City redefined non-commercial parking in 1987 and, prior to that, there was no violation. He stated the vehicles are not buses, they are mobile blood drawing units. In response to a question, it was indicated the vehicle classification according to the Department of Motor Vehicles was not known. In response to a question, Mr. Baxter stated the lot was not designed as a parking lot but an overflow area. He stated they have been searching for another place for the vehicles since 1987 with much difficulty. They do not want an issue or publicity with anyone. They currently have a contract with UPARC for a lot on Calumet; contingent upon Morton Plant purchasing property from the Center. Otherwise, they do not have the money for a purchase. He stated they need more time; he estimates a closing date to be in January, 1993. He stated the administrative offices will not be relocated. A question was raised whether the use is a lawful non-conforming use. Mr. Richter stated in 1987 a conditional use was approved authorizing the parking of cars and other vehicles according to code. Parking prior to 1987 would have been illegal; parking of buslike vehicles is in violation of the land development code. Mr. Richter stated the violator was given 30 days to comply plus a 30 day extension with the understanding they remove the buses. Discussion further ensued regarding whether the use is grandfathered. It was stated originally there was only one bloodmobile and it was smaller. The use changed with larger and more vehicles being parked there. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 27-92 regarding violation of Section 135.004(b) on property located at 324 Jeffords St. a/k/a Bluff View Sub., Part Lot 18 and Lot 19, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of May, 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 John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, James Baxter, Attorney representing Hunter Blood Center, Roberta Martin, President of Hunter Blood Center, and Mr. Saltarelli, Phyllis Stewart, Judy Mitchell, Robert Kern - neighboring property owners, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A, a photograph of the property, it is evident that bus-like vehicles are being parked at 324 Jeffords Street. The Conclusions of Law are: Hunter Blood Center Inc. is in violation of Section 135.004(b) (ref. 136.025(19)e). It is the Order of this Board that Hunter Blood Center Inc. shall comply with Section 135.004(b) (ref. 136.025(19)e) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (6/12/92). If Hunter Blood Center Inc. does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day per bus for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Hunter Blood Center Inc. 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, Hunter Blood Center Inc. shall notify Vicki Niemiller, 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. 28-92 Subway Development, Inc. 1778 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated an illegal sign was attached to a wall at the corner of the Subway Restaurant. Property ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office, notice of the violation was sent to the business and property owners by certified mail, and the signed receipts were returned. She also communicated the code violation to the owners verbally. On February 27th she observed the sign tied against the wall on the west side and issued a notice of the violation with compliance due March 3rd. She explained to the business owner that a permit was needed. The sign was out again on March 10th, March 15-16, 22-24 and April 3rd. She issued a notice of recurring violation with compliance due March 3rd. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the property taken March 26, 1992. They are now in compliance; the last time she saw the sign was April 3rd. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 28-92 regarding violation of Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1778 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a M&B 14-24, Sec. 14-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of May, 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 exhibit A, a photograph of the property, it is evident that a non-conforming sign was intermittently displayed at 1778 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, that this condition was corrected and recurred on several occasions. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Subway Development, Inc. was in violation of Section 134.017(a)(1). It is the Order of this Board that Subway Development, Inc. shall continue compliance with Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Subway Development, Inc. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Subway Development, 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. 29-92 BAK Enterprises Inc. 1500 McMullen Booth Road (Sign Code) In response to a question, Mr. Turner, Registered Agent for BAK Enterprises, Inc., agreed the violation did exist. He stated the violation was corrected after being notified. In response to a question, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated this case is being brought forward because the violation did reoccur after the initial notice and correction. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated portable signs, which are not provided for in the code, were displayed at the subject property in January. Notice was issued January 3rd, and the violation was gone upon reinspection January 8th. On March 17th, a portable sign was again being displayed. Notice of a recurring violation was issued and the violation was corrected. Mr. Turner stated the business is a restaurant and pub. The signs were used during the playoffs in January and for St. Patrick's Day in March on weekends only. In response to a question, Mr. Turner stated he does understand it is a violation of City code. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 29-92 regarding violation of Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1500 McMullen Booth Road a/k/a South Oaks Fashion Square, Lot 1, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of May, 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 Enforcement Inspector, and acknowledgement by Mr. Turner, Registered Agent, that the violation existed, it is evident that illegal portable signs were displayed at 1500 McMullen Booth Road, 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: BAK Enterprises Inc. was in violation of Sections 134.017(a)(1). It is the Order of this Board that BAK Enterprises Inc. shall comply with Section 134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If BAK Enterprises Inc. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after BAK Enterprises 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 10-92 Eugene B. & Judith A. Thomas 1017 Grantwood Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 10-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance (part two) Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-compliance (part two) and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 19-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 38-91 Sunburst Fireworks, Inc. a/k/a Phantom, Inc. Cancellation of Lien The Secretary to the Board stated there were other actions she was not made aware of when the lien was filed. In response to a question, she stated the City has no choice but to cancel the lien. Mrs. Riley moved to approve the cancellation of lien in Case No. 38-91. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, it was stated the lien can not be reinstated in the future; this is a full and final cancellation. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Fine Status Report - Foreclosure Status The Fine Status report was reviewed and a status of those cases directed for foreclosure was supplied to the Board. In response to questions regarding A-Plus Restaurant Equipment Inc., it was stated the corporation was dissolved. The lien can be held until expired; if the corporation comes back into existence, the lien is still good. It was stated the corporation did not own the property. In response to questions regarding 15 South Lincoln Associates, it was stated foreclosure proceedings were directed on the case against Mavrogiannis, owner of the business, not 15 South Lincoln. It was stated the City's lien is subordinate to a $3 million mortgage on the property. The property is totally vacant and most likely valued under the mortgage amount; therefore there would not be any extra money after the mortgagee is paid. It was stated the corporation has three general partners and does not own any other property in Pinellas County. It was stated an offer of $5,000 was made to the City to satisfy the lien; and a question was raised why they would want to pay if they can walk away from the lien in foreclosure. Consensus of the Board was to recommend acceptance of the $5,000. MINUTES - Meeting of April 22, 1992 Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the minutes of the meeting of April 22, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.