Loading...
09/09/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD September 9, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman William A. Zinzow Louise C. Riley D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen Gerlach Absent: Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman (excused) Stephen D. Swanberg (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. 55-92 Nation Wide Land Corporation 1822 Drew Street (Land Development Code) Continued from 8/12 Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor, stated he verified property ownership through the Pinellas County property appraiser's office. He checked with the Secretary of State and was informed Mr. Metz is the corporation president. A fence exists in the setback area of the property which exceeds the height allowed by city code. A permit was issued for the fence December 17, 1991. The fence was first inspected February 10th and a notice to correct the violation was issued. The violation was not corrected, and a notice of violation was hand delivered June 18th to the receptionist. Mr. Metz was also personally told of the violation and that he could apply for a variance to the height restriction. City submitted exhibit A - a copy of the notice of violation, and composite exhibit B - photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the application for the permit showed that the fence was 3-1/2 to 4 foot high. This figure was crossed out and 30 inches was put in its place, which appears to be changed to 38 inches. The zoning personnel say they did not change the height to 38 inches. The application does not refer to the setback area; the fence was drawn in on a copy of a the survey, but did not specify dimensions. The permit specialist only looks for approval of the application when issuing a permit. The Inspector stated no matter what is on the permit, the fence must meet code. He stated a complaint was received which caused the inspection. He is not familiar with the original fence. The person who issued the permit made a mistake. The Inspector stated the fence is 12-14 inches from the sidewalk in the setback area, which is not a violation if the fence is 30 inches. Robert Metz, President of Nation Wide Land Corporation, stated he phoned the Building Department inquiring if a permit was needed to repair the fence, and was told it was not. Mr. Metz submitted defendant's composite exhibit A - photographs of the property taken yesterday showing day lilies and shrubs planted in front of the fence. He built the fence around existing poles; the cross poles collapsed, so he replaced them. Mr. Metz stated it is the same height as the old fence; 30 inches is too short because little children could fall over it. He stated he did not falsify his permit. In response to questions, Mr. Metz stated he has been there 15 years and erected the original fence. He started the repair prior to acquiring a permit because he was told he did not need a permit. When he was issued a citation for doing the repair, he acquired his permit after paying a triple fee. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the permitting process does require inspection of the finished fence, but typically, people forget to call for a final inspection. Mr. Metz was issued his permit December 17, 1991; it was inspected February 10, 1992 and a correction notice issued. In closing, the Inspector stated based on the testimony and evidence, the fence clearly exceeds the height allowed. Minor repairs are allowed without a permit, but this fence was rebuilt. In closing, Mr. Metz stated he didn't expect a big job when he started the repairs. He acquired a building permit for a 3-1/2 to 4 foot high fence. The new fence is safer, stronger and more aesthetically pleasing. He no longer receives complaints about the fence from the neighboring schools. In response to a question regarding the planned widening of Drew Street, Mr. Metz stated the city will need to take some property; he currently only has about 30 feet in front of the building for parking. When he received the first correction notice, his options were not made clear to him. He stated he does not want the responsibility of a 30 inch fence on which a child could get hurt. The fence and landscaping were required when the building was constructed. Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 55-92 regarding violation of Section 136.016, specifically subsections (f)(2), (g) and (h) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1822 Drew Street aka Parcel #12/29/15/00000/330/0400, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor, and Robert Metz, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City Exhibits A & B - a copy of a notice of violation and photographs of the property, respectively, and Defendant's Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that a fence exists at 1822 Drew Street that exceeds the 30" maximum height allowed by code. The Conclusions of Law are: Nation Wide Land Corporation is in violation of Section 136.016. It is the Order of this Board that Nation Wide Land Corporation shall comply with Section 136.016 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by October 15, 1992. If Nation Wide Land Corporation does 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 Nation Wide Land Corporation 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, Nation Wide Land Corporation shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, 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) Continued from 8/12 Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor, stated this is an almost identical situation as the previous case of 1822 Drew Street, with a different corporation as owner of the property. Mr. Robert Metz is also the President of this corporation. A building permit was on December 17, 1991. A fence exists on this property exceeding the height allowed by city code. The decorative scallop on top of the fence varies from 42-48 inches in height. A correction notice was issued February 10, 1992. No corrective action was taken, and a notice of violation was issued June 18, 1992. City submitted exhibit A - a copy of the notice of violation, and composite exhibit B - photographs of the property taken the morning of the hearing. In response to questions, the Inspector stated he believes the work on the fence was started prior to obtaining a permit, but he is not sure it was completed. The permit application is the same as that for 1822 Drew Street. The height requested was 3-1/2 to 4 feet. He is not familiar with the original fence. Robert Metz, President of Metco Development Corporation, stated he inquired with city staff regarding repair of the fence and was informed a permit was not needed. He repaired both the fences about the same time. The fence had two and three rail sections; he put in slats to make it a picket fence. He rebuilt the fence for strength, safety and aesthetics. The covered walkway was always there; hedges are from original construction, and a watering system is in place. Ms. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 57-92 regarding violation of Section 136.016, specifically subsections (f)(2), (g) and (h) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1810-1820 Drew St aka Drew Heights, Block A, Lots 4-11 & vacated alley, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 Tom Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor, and Robert Metz, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City Exhibits A and B - a copy of the notice of violation and photographs of the property, respectively, it is evident that a fence is erected at 1810-1820 Drew Street that exceeds the height allowed by code. The Conclusions of Law are: Metco Development Corporation is in violation of Section 136.016. It is the Order of this Board that Metco Development Corporation shall comply with Section 136.016 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 10/15/92. If Metco Development Corporation does 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 Metco Development Corporation 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, Metco Development Corporation shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, 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. 65-92 Robert E. Hughes, Trustee 1312 North Garden Avenue (Unsafe Buildings Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, stated photographs were taken on January 28 and June 5, 1992. There is a four-plex. The property was inspected on June 29th and a notice of violation sent on June 30th. The signed certified mail receipt was returned. On July 28th, the hearing was requested; and on July 30th a reinspection was made and photographs taken. The structure was still wide open and no improvement have been made. Another inspection was made on September 8th and the condition is the same. City submitted composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated Mr. Hughes has checked on funds available for rental rehabilitation, but he has not personally had contact with Mr. Hughes. The building is still unsecured. It is a two story, four unit building with dilapidated stairways. There are no meters, no water, and it is not habitable. The Inspector stated this case was started in January, 1992. The gas heater on the second floor in the kitchen is vented through the window pane, which is one of the concerns. All the gas meters have been pulled, and there are no active utility accounts on these units. There has not been any power or water on since at least January, 1992. There is no current resident, but there is concern that it can be accessed. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 65-92 regarding violation of Section 138.34(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1312 North Garden Avenue aka Enghurst Addition to Clearwater, the east 8 feet of Lot 1 and the west 54 feet of Lot 20, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that the owner of the structure at 1312 North Garden Avenue did not comply with the notice of unsafe building dated February 12, 1992 requesting the building be repaired or demolished; the building is not secured and has been vandalized; that in its present state, it is considered to be unsafe, unsanitary, lacks illumination and is a serious health hazard to occupants of the premises. The Conclusions of Law are: Robert E. Hughes, Trustee is in violation of Section 138.34(1). It is the Order of this Board that Robert E. Hughes shall comply with Section 138.34(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (10/9/92). If Robert Hughes does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Robert E. Hughes 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, Robert E. Hughes shall notify Vern Packer, 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. 66-92 Robert E. Hughes, Trustee 1310 A & B North Garden Avenue (Standard Housing Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, in response to concern regarding the code cited, stated he inspected the property January 21, 1992 referencing the 1979 code. The city code was amended to adopt the 1991 Housing Code. The 1979 and 1991 code are, for the most part, identical with the 1979 code being more lenient. He referenced some of the differences as follows. The time frame for compliance was 120 days in the 1979 edition and 45 days for major violations or 60 days for minor violations not to exceed 120 days overall. The 1979 code did not have a section for smoke detectors leading him to cite section 103.3, requirements not covered by code. The 1991 code does reference smoke detectors in section 302.9. There is a change of two degrees in the requirements of supplying adequate heat in a dwelling unit; 1979 code requires 70 degrees, 1991 requires 68 degrees. The requirements for cooking equipment are broader in the 1991 code, but have the same installation requirements. The requirements to repair the electrical deficiencies would have been the same. In summary, the 1991 Housing Code would have given less time to comply. Everything the violator was cited for in the 1979 code is addressed in the same language in the 1991 code. The 1991 code was unavailable at the time of the original inspection. The Inspector stated in January, 1992 a complaint was received regarding the conditions of the property at 1310 North Garden Avenue from an acquaintance of one of the tenants. On January 23rd, the property was posted with a notice that the dwelling does not meet the housing code requirements. The Inspector submitted a sample of the notices used by the inspectors, one for unsafe conditions and one for lack of adequate facilities in that once it is vacated, an inspection must be made before it can be occupied again. In response to a question, the Inspector stated both types were used at this property. The tenants stated they have no water and cannot afford to pay the amount required to have the meters reset. The account was turned off February 5, 1991. He informed the tenants they could not live there without running water. On January 27, 1992, a notice was delivered to the tenants in apartments A and B, informing them to go to the Housing Authority for assistance in finding another place to live. The notice gave 30 days to vacate the premises. A housing report was compiled and sent to Mr. Hughes by certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. Said notice gave until June 12, 1992 for compliance. The property was reinspected many times the next couple months and there were no changes. The tenants moved out by early June. On June 5th the units were posted with notice of unsafe building and photographs were taken of the property. A notice of violation was sent to Mr. Hughes on June 30th with compliance due by July 10th. Additional photographs were taken on July 30th, September 2nd and September 8th. City submitted composite Exhibit A, the photographs referenced above. The tenants, while still there after the property was posted, were apparently getting water from a neighbor. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 66-92 regarding violation of Sections 103.3, 302.3, 302.5, 302.6, 303.4, 305.7, 305.13 and 307.5, Standard Housing Code, 1979 Edition on property located at 1310 A & B North Garden Avenue aka Enghurst Addition to Clearwater, the east 68 feet of Lot 20, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that the property at 1310 A & B North Garden Avenue is not in compliance with the Standard Housing Code, 1979 Edition as supplemented by the Housing Inspector's Report dated February 13, 1992 which outlines the conditions of the violation. The Conclusions of Law are: Robert E. Hughes is in violation of Sections 103.3, 302.3, 302.5, 302.6, 303.4, 305.7, 305.13 and 307.5, Standard Housing Code, 1979 Edition. It is the Order of this Board that Robert E. Hughes shall comply with Sections 103.3, 302.3, 302.5, 302.6, 303.4, 305.7, 305.13 and 307.5, Standard Housing Code, 1979 Edition within 30 days (10/9/92). If Robert E. Hughes does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of 250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Robert E. Hughes 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, Robert E. Hughes shall notify Vern Packer, 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. 67-92 Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated an outdoor/retail use exists on this property which is illegal in a general commercial zone. Property ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's office, notice of the violation was sent to the owner by certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. The Inspector stated she spoke to the owners twice last year including June 15, 1991. The property was inspected June 5, 1992 and photographs were taken. Additional photographs were taken July 30, 31 and August 15, 1992. She reinspected the property the morning of the hearing. Most of the items were moved, but a coke machine with a for sale sign on it remained. City submitted composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property. There has been no further contact with the violators. In response to questions, the Inspector stated she told the violators they could apply for a conditional use for outdoor storage and sales in the general commercial zone. The property use to be a motel; it is now a pawn shop with storage. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 67-92 regarding violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) and 135.123(10) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard aka M&B 13-06, Section 13-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 - photographs of the property, it is evident that a conditional use exists at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard without the Planning and Zoning Board's approval. The Conclusions of Law are: Janusz and Roxana Nowicki are in violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) and 135.123(10). It is the Order of this Board that Janusz and Roxana Nowicki shall comply with Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) and 135.123(10) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by September 21, 1992. If Janusz and Roxana Nowicki do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 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, Janusz/Roxana Nowicki 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. 68-92 Richard and Rene Garrabrant 1220 South Belcher Road (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Case No. 69-92 Gertrude S. Nall, Trustee 2950 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Ms. Riley moved to withdraw Case Nos. 68-92 and 69-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 70-92 Lawrence Dimmitt III 25485 North U.S. 19 (Land Development Code) Joshua Magidson, Attorney representing Mr. Dimmitt and Dimmitt Chevrolet, the business located at 25485 N. U.S. 19, stated they disagree with the procedures used regarding improper notice, the party cited as the violator, requirements for giving reasonable time to correct, and there is not reference on the affidavit regarding a repeat violation. Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated this is a recurring violation for which notice was issued previously but the violator was not brought before the Board. A notice of violation was issued on October 29, 1990 citing the same code section. Mr. Magidson objected to participation of one of the Board members as he was a witness in a pending Dimmitt vs. City court case. It was stated if there is not financial gain, there is no conflict. The Board member expressed there would be no prejudice in this case. The Inspector stated Dimmitt Chevrolet was found to be parking or displaying cars on a grassy area; code requires a paved surface area. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office; notice was sent by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. The first notice was issued on October 29, 1990. An inspection on August 1, 1992, again revealed vehicles on the grass. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the actual inspection was on August 1st at which time the photographs were taken, the notice of recurring violation was issued August 5th, and the request for hearing was processed August 6th. She does not know if vehicles were parked there on August 5th. The Inspector stated she did not personally visit the property on the days the violation existed. Her testimony is based on the testimony of the inspector who did personally view the violation and photograph the property. In response to questions whether it is possible the violations were dealt with immediately after notification in November, 1990 and again in August, 1992, the inspector agreed it was possible. She also agreed it was possible there could have been many supervisors between 1990 and 1992 who were unaware that such an action violates the code. In response to a question, the Inspector stated she was not present when the photographs were taken. The Attorney for the Board stated the photos should not be introduced if it can not be testified to their accuracy. He stated there is no evidence proving the August, 1992 violation. Concern was expressed regarding one inspector witnessing the violation and another testifying to it. It was stated if the saturday inspector cites a violation, it is then turned over to the inspector for that zone who proceeds with enforcement of the violation. Ms. Riley moved to continue Case No. 70-92 to the September 23, 1992 meeting. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Magidson objected to the continuation stating the case should be withdrawn or dismissed. He stated compliance has been obtained. Upon the vote being taken, Members Riley, Murray and Zinzow voted "aye." Members Wyatt and Gerlach voted "nay." Motion carried. Case No. 71-92 Wallace and Martha Lovelace 1547 Ewing Avenue (Building/Standard Housing Code) In response to a question, Mr. Lovelace agreed he is in violation as cited. Dixie Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the property. She stated the building is a triplex, and its condition is not too bad. Mr. Lovelace stated he has owned the property for thirteen years and has had difficulty with tenants and vandalism. He almost had it sold two or three times, and he is now trying to work with Habitat to give to charity. He requested more time for compliance. In response to a question, he stated 90 days would be sufficient. The Inspector stated the building was made secure August 18th. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 71-92 regarding violation of Sections 301, 302.1, 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, 302.9, 303.4, 305.3.2, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16, 307.4 and 307.5, Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 and Section 138.21 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1547 Ewing Ave. aka Belmont Subdivision, 2nd Addition, Block E, Lots 23 and 24, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 Dixie Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, and Wallace Lovelace, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that the building at 1547 Ewing Avenue was vacant and unsecured on the date of the inspection; said property is in need of electrical, plumbing and carpentry work; and some unpermitted work had taken place on the property. The Conclusions of Law are: Wallace J. and Martha L. Lovelace are in violation of Sections 301, 302.1, 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, 302.9, 303.4, 305.3.2, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16, 307.4 and 307.5, Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 and Section 138.21 of the City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Wallace J. and Martha L. Lovelace shall comply with Sections 301, 302.1, 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, 302.9, 303.4, 305.3.2, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16, 307.4 and 307.5, Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 and Section 138.21 of the Code of the City of Clearwater no later than October 25, 1992. If Wallace J./Martha L. Lovelace do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Wallace J./Martha L. Lovelace 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, Wallace J./Martha L. Lovelace shall notify Dixie Walker-Duncan, 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. Mr. Gerlach left the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Case No. 72-92 Douglas L. Flaute 1344 & 1346 South Washington Avenue (Building/Standard Housing Code) Request to continue Ms. Riley moved to continue Case No. 72-92 for 30 days as requested. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 73-92 Paul S. Hodges/Helen E. Lee 302 Vine Avenue (Unsafe Buildings Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Bill Phillips, Housing Inspector, stated a complaint was received that 302 Vine Avenue is being occupied without water service and human waste is being dumped in the backyard. He visited the property and the tenant would not allow an inside inspection. An eviction notice was issued to the tenant with a referral to the Housing Authority. A Housing Report was compiled and sent to the property owner May 12, 1992 by certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. The letter allowed 60 days in which to comply with the code. On July 13th, another inspection was made and the tenant was still there and she would not allow access to the inside of the building; no apparent work was done to the exterior of the dwelling. A Notice of Violation was sent to the owner July 14th allowing until July 31st for compliance, and the signed certified receipt was returned. The Inspector visited the property again on August 7th, no work had been done, and the tenant was still there. On August 24th, Mr. Hodges phoned stating he would not be in town for the hearing. It was decided not to continue the case as sufficient time has elapsed and the situation causes a health hazard to the neighborhood. Upon verbal notification to Mr. Hodges that the hearing would go forward, he stated he would send a representative. He stated the tenant moved out and he attempted to rent the property again. The Inspector posted the building August 26th with a notice that stated it was not to be reoccupied due to housing code violations. On September 8th, he visited the property again, the front door was ajar, he inspected the inside and took photographs. City submitted composite Exhibit A - photographs taken September 8th. The situation as depicted by the photographs is the same condition as when first inspected in May. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the dwelling is not currently occupied. Responding to the length of time it takes for eviction, he stated their notice allows 30 days; the city does not have the ability to put someone out on the street. Concern was expressed regarding the health hazards in this type situation. The Inspector stated in most cases, the tenant will immediately leave since the notice gives them priority on the Housing Authority's list for placement. A suggestion was made that the City investigate the possibility of utilizing the environmental sheriff, through the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department who can cause immediate results if proper notification is served. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 73-92 regarding violation of Section 138.34 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 302 Vine Avenue aka Drew Park, Lot 16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th day of September, 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 viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that an unsafe building exists at 302 Vine Avenue of which the owner has not repaired after being properly notified; he continued to allow a tenant to reside in the dwelling without water and using the rear yard as a disposal of waste site, prompting an extremely poor condition of the dwelling and posing a severe health hazard to the occupants and the general public. The Conclusions of Law are: Paul S. Hodges/Helen E. Lee are in violation of Section 138.34. It is the Order of this Board that Paul S. Hodges/Helen E. Lee shall comply with Section 138.34 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 45 days (10/24/92). If Paul S. Hodges/Helen E. Lee do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Paul S. Hodges/Helen E. Lee 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, Paul S. Hodges/Helen E. Lee 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. 74-92 Otis and Barbara Green 1209 Fairburn Avenue (Public Nuisance Code) Complied Prior Ms. Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 74-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 14-92 John Sanders 1384 Pierce Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance Ms. Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 14-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 26-92 Leslie and Margaret Duttry 1866 Drew Street Request to Address the Board It was stated the sign which constitutes the violation is still being put out on weekends. Mr. Zinzow moved to deny the request to address the Board. The motion was duly seconded. A concern was expressed that there are not enough members present familiar with the case, and it was suggested the request be continued. Mr. Zinzow withdrew his motion to deny the request, and moved to continue the request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 53-92 Roger and Theresa Werder 632 Woodlawn Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 53-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 56-92 D.G. McMullen Properties Inc. 2870 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Affidavit of Non-Compliance Ms. Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 56-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION - None ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.