Loading...
10/14/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD October 14, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: Louise C. Riley (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. 72-92 Douglas L. Flaute 1344 & 1346 South Washington Avenue (Building/Standard Housing Code) Continued from 9/9/92 Complied prior Mr. Wyatt moved to withdraw Case No. 72-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 76-92 Gerard and Rita Walczak 1963 Magnolia Drive (Land Development Code) Request to continue to 10/28/92 Mr. Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 76-92 to the meeting of October 28, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 82-92 Jack Eckerd 100 North Starcrest Drive (Fire/Life Safety Code) Complied prior Case No. 83-92 Helen and Harriet Arfaras 1415 Cleveland Street (Land Development Code) Complied prior Mr. Wyatt moved to withdraw Case Nos. 82-92 and 83-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 84-92 Chris and Vivian Carassas 1391 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the referenced property is located on the southwesterly corner of Park and Gulf to Bay Blvd., which is a GC (General Commercial) zoning district. One of the business in this small retail complex has had outdoor sale displays; this requires conditional use approval, which has not been obtained. In response to a question, he stated he is not aware of any application for the conditional use. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a complaint was received in August, 1992 regarding several properties. He inspected the property and explained the need for a conditional use. The violation appeared again on August 25th, at which time notice of the violation with a compliance due date was issued and a photograph taken. Upon reinspection September 12th, the display was there which was photographed. City submitted composite Exhibit A, photographs o the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated he was first informed of the violations in July, at which time he researched to see which properties were grandfathered. The first official notification of August 28th did specify the code sections cited; a reinspection was made September 12th. He spoke with the tenants once, informing them of the conditional use requirement. A question was raised regarding why the property owner is cited when the tenant is the violator. It was stated the tenant is also notified of the violation, but ultimately the property owner is responsible. In response to a question, the Inspector stated after the tenant was advised of the illegal outdoor use, he came into the office expressing concern that other properties are in violation. Notification was sent to the owner by certified mail with a copy sent to the tenant; the signed receipt was returned. John Carassas, Attorney representing the violators, stated the referenced property is in an economically depressed area in which it is difficult to lease the property; they are renting the store on a month to month basis. He stated when the business owner was informed they could not display outside, they initially complied. The tenant can not afford the cost of a conditional use application. Mr. Carassas expressed concern that the code does not make a distinction between continuous or sporadic displays. In response to a question, the Inspector stated he inspected the property this morning and the violation was corrected. He would like to establish the case should the violation be repeated. In closing, the Code Enforcement Manager, stated a conditional use approval is required for outdoor sales at this address whether the use is continuous or sporadic. He recommended a $50 per day fine if the violation is repeated. Mr. Carassas, in closing, stated the code is silent regarding a time limit for such displays, and he does not believe there is a violation. He expressed his objection to the $50 per day fine for the record. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 84-92 regarding violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) & 135.123(10) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at Gulf to Bay Boulevard aka Overbrook Sub., Block 4, Lots 1-3, 20 and 21, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of October, 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, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and John Carassas, Attorney representing the violators, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that outdoor displays have intermittently been placed at 1391 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, that conditional use approval is required for said use in the zoning for that property, and no conditional use has been granted. It is further evident that the violation was corrected and recurred, and that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Chris and Vivian Carassas were in violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) & 135.123(10). It is the Order of this Board that Chris and Vivian Carassas shall continue compliance with Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) & 135.123(10) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Chris and Vivian Carassas repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Chris and Vivian Carassas are 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. 85-92 Eleftherios and Maria Passaris 1484 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violators. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated he sent official notice of the violation to the owner August 28th by certified mail, and the signed receipt was returned. Upon reinspection, the violation existed again on September 12th. City submitted composite Exhibit A, photographs taken August 28 and September 12. He was visited by the owner, after he received the notice of hearing, who stated the tenant was forbidden to repeat the violation. In response to questions, the Inspector stated this property is in a general commercial zoning district for which conditional use approval is required for outdoor sales/display. He had advised the business owner of the requirement. According to City records, no conditional use has been granted. As of this morning, the violation no longer exists. In response to a question, it was confirmed the signed certified mail receipt for the Notice of Hearing was returned. The Inspector stated he has investigated seven properties in this area. One of the properties was grandfathered in since the business use has been consistent since before 1985. He has not seen a recurrence of the violation on the other properties investigated. Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 85-92 regarding violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) & 135.123(10) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1484 Gulf to Bay Boulevard aka Boulevard Heights, Block G, Lots 12-14 and 17-18, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of October, 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 viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that outdoor displays have been placed at 1484 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, that conditional use approval is required for said use in the zoning for that property, and no conditional use has been granted. It is further evident that the violation was corrected and recurred, and that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Eleftherios and Maria Passaris were in violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) & 135.123(10). It is the Order of this Board that Eleftherios and Maria Passaris shall continue compliance with Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) & 135.123(10) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Eleftherios and Maria Passaris repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Eleftherios and Maria Passaris are 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. In response to questions regarding a grandfathered land use, it was stated if the use can not lapse for more than one year. If occupational licenses for a property shows a particular use was not carried continuously, it is no longer grandfathered. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 26-92 Leslie and Margaret Duttry 1866 Drew Street Request to address Board re fine The Secretary to the Board briefly reviewed the case, stating the fine accrued for 85 days of non-compliance at $25.00 per day. Concerns were expressed regarding whether the owner had sufficient notice of the violation and hearing. Consensus was additional information is needed. A chronology of the case will be submitted. OTHER BOARD ACTION 1993 Calendar The proposed calendar for the 1993 Municipal Code Enforcement Board meetings was reviewed. Consensus was for one meeting each month for November and December due to holidays. The Secretary requested the Board consider scheduling a work session in order for her and the Board Attorney to review procedures. Consensus was to set such a meeting for November 4, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. MINUTES - Meetings of September 9 and 23, 1992 Mr. Cardinal moved to approve the minutes of the meetings of September 9 and 23, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.