Loading...
08/12/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 12, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman Louise C. Riley Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: William A. Zinzow (excused) D. Wayne Wyatt (excused) 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. 14-92 John Sanders 1384 Pierce Street (Land Development Code) Continued from 2/26 No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated this case was continued from the February 26th meeting because it appeared the property may be grandfathered; they were also checking to see if it could be licensed as a legal non-conforming use. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the property is located on the northwest corner of Hillcrest and Pierce. It is in an RM-12, multiple-family residential, zoning and the property is being used for a medical office and laboratory. In response to questions, it was stated grandfathering does not apply; however, Mr. Sanders has not exhausted all possibilities. The Inspector stated the current activity is not a permitted or conditional use in an RM zone. After the hearing February 26th, Mr. Sanders applied for licensing and it was determined grandfathering does not apply as the use has changed. The business could be licensed under general office zoning as a medical laboratory use. Mr. Sanders is fitting and adjusting prosthesis which would be a permitted use under said category. It was recommended to Mr. Sanders that he apply for rezoning; the applications were brought to him, but he has not applied. The property was part of an area-wide rezoning in 1972 when it changed from office to residential. In response to a question, the Inspector stated Mr. Sanders does not manufacture the prosthesis as originally stated, and it was requested the affidavit be amended to delete said reference. City submitted composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, and exhibit B - a memorandum from the Planning Manager regarding the property and its use. In response to questions, the Inspector stated Mr. Sanders has been notified by certified mail and verbally of today's hearing. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 14-92 regarding violation of Section 135.004(b) (ref. 135.040, 135.041 & 137.005(a)) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1384 Pierce Street a/k/a M&B 14.01, Section 15-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 12th day of August, 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 viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, and exhibit B - a memo from the Planning Manager regarding the property, it is evident that activities are occurring at 1384 Pierce Street inconsistent with the current RM-12 zoning, in that John Sanders is performing activities classified as medical/dental clinic activities, which is not a permitted or conditional use. The Conclusions of Law are: John Sanders is in violation of Section 135.004(b) (ref. 135.040, 135.041 & 137.005(a)). It is the Order of this Board that John Sanders shall comply with Section 135.004(b) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 1) applying for zoning and land use plan amendments or cease and desist the illegal activity within 15 days (8/27/92); and 2) if John Sanders opts to apply for the zoning and land use change, he must be in complete compliance within six months (2/12/93). If John Sanders does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If John Sanders 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, John Sanders 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. 55-92 Nation Wide Land Corporation 1822 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Mr. Cardinal moved to continue Case No. 55-92 to the meeting of September 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 56-92 D.G. McMullen Properties Inc. 2870 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the business is auto tinting and detailing located in a general commercial zone. There are four signs on the property without permits, one pole sign and three signs on the building. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated she issued a notice of violation June 17th with compliance due June 23rd. They are allowed a pole sign and one sign on the building not in excess of 15 square feet. Upon reinspection July 1st, the violation still existed. The Inspector spoke with the business owner, he came into the office, partially filled out the permit applications, left and never came back. City submitted exhibit A, photographs of the property taken August 12th. The Inspector phoned the property owner who told her they were informed the violation was corrected. In response to questions, the Inspector stated one pole sign up to 64 square feet is allowed per property; the current sign is estimated at 20 square feet. One sign, attached to the building, up to 15 square feet is also allowed. Mr. Swanberg moved that concerning Case No. 56-92 regarding violation of Section 134.013(a) and 134.017(a)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2870 Gulf to Bay Blvd. a/k/a M&B 13-32, Section 17-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 12th day of August, 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 viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that signs exist at 2870 Gulf to Bay Boulevard without permits. The Conclusions of Law are: D. G. McMullen Properties Inc. is in violation of Sections 134.013(a) and 134.017(a)(1). It is the Order of this Board that D. G. McMullen Properties Inc. shall comply with Sections 134.013(a) and 134.017(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 28, 1992. If D.G. McMullen Properties Inc. does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 per day per sign for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If D. G. McMullen Properties 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, D. G. McMullen Properties Inc. 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. 57-92 Metco Development Corporation 1810 through 1820 Drew Street (Land Development Code) To be continued Mr. Cardinal moved to continue Case No. 57-92 to the meeting of September 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 58-92 Joe and Clara Barroso 1470 Rogers Street (Land Development Code) John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated this is a single family residence located west of Highland Avenue. A chain link fence was erected on the east and west property lines without a permit; part of the fence cannot be permitted as it is inconsistent with city code. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated he received a call on June 2nd regarding said property. He inspected the property June 3rd and noticed the fence on the west property line to be five feet high all the way up to the front property line; and on the east side, the fence is four feet high and extends through the right of way. Notice was sent to the property owners on June 4th, with no response from them. Upon reinspection July 10th, the violation still existed. City submitted exhibit A - a copy of a survey of the neighboring property to the east showing the subject property line, and exhibit B - a photograph of the property taken August 7th showing the fence extending into the right of way. In response to questions, the Inspector stated to comply the fence needs its height adjusted, to be moved from the right of way and to be permitted. He pointed out the dotted line on the photograph indicating the right of way line. Code allows a 30 inch high fence from the setback line to the front of house, with a six foot maximum from that point back. He stated the fence is stepped up at the right of way and setback line. Mr. Barroso stated he erected the fence because when he is in Canada, a neighbor has been driving across his property and using his water. He had a $476 water bill one month, and over $100 to replace broken sprinklers. Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 58-92 regarding violation of Section 136.016(b) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1470 Rogers Street a/k/a Breeze Hill, Block A, Lot 18, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 12th day of August, 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 Joe Barroso, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A - a copy of a survey, and exhibit B - a photograph of the property, it is evident that there is a fence on the property that is not permitted, is too high, and erected in City right-of-way. The Conclusions of Law are: Joe and Clara Barroso are in violation of Section 136.016(b). It is the Order of this Board that Joe and Clara Barroso shall comply with Section 136.016(b) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by within 10 days. If Joe and Clara Barroso 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 Joe and Clara Barroso 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, Joe and Clara Barroso shall notify Rick Rosa, 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 33-92 Howard Jimmie 609 Seminole Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance Pursuant to staff request, no action was taken. Case No. 43-92 John H. Allison 1106 Grove Street Affidavit of Compliance/Part 1 Affidavit of Non-Compliance/Part 2 Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Part 1 and Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Part 2, and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 43-92. In response to a question, it was stated the second part of compliance in this case was to be complete within 30 days (7/24/92) or a $250 per day fine. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried. Case No. 44-92 Peter & Patricia Nichols 606 N. Greenwood Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Ms. Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 44-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 47-92 Robert J. Campbell 200 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance In response to a question, it was stated the property is still in non-compliance due to one sign on the roof of the building. The fine was ordered at $25 per day per sign. Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 47-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A letter from Mr. Walsh of Auto Clinic J&M Corporation, Case No. 36-92, was distributed. In response to a question, it was stated the letter is informational only; there is no action requested. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.