Loading...
11/18/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD November 18, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman William A. Zinzow D. Wayne Wyatt Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Thomasine Fontana-Smith Absent: 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 3:05 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. 86-92 Warson Road Development 924 Pierce Street (Land Development Code) Continued from 10/28/92 In response to a question, Jim Kahlmeyer, President of Warson Road Development, stated he agrees the violation exists, but he does not agree with the requirements. He moved the business here in 1989. The required bushes were planted, but they were stolen within 48 hours of being planted; they have not been replaced since then. The business does paper recycling; cars drive across the green space; the City's sanitation truck tore out electric the first week the business was there. They also drive across the area where he is suppose to have bushes planted. Also, trucks that come to service the business drive over the green space to back up to the loading dock. Mr. Kahlmeyer questioned whether he would have to keep planting new bushes if someone keeps stealing them, or if the City would be responsible. He stated his neighbors don't have the same requirements as he does. In response to a question, he stated he first occupied the property in 1989. It was stated the first notification he received was in June, 1992. In response to a question regarding why it took three years to notify him of the violation, it was stated a landscape requirements reinspection program was initiated just this year. It was stated the landscape code requires the buffer be maintained in a healthy condition for life. The program started early this year dealing with properties that had site plans submitted as of January, 1985. Once those properties are addressed, staff will continue the process working back to older plans. A list was compiled and a letter sent informing owners that their property will be inspected. Out of approximately 150 sites inspected, 75% were in violation, and have since complied. Concern was expressed that the plants may be stolen again or destroyed by the vehicles using the property. A question was raised regarding what the purpose is for having one property in an area landscaped when the others aren't required because of grandfathering. In response to questions, the it was stated the 1988 site plan required 100% of the buffers be landscaped; code requires only 50%, which is all that is being asked now. The 50% can also be placed at the back of the property. It was stated they are trying to preserve the aesthetics of the City. The problem is not just in the downtown area, and will be addressed throughout the City. City submitted composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property. Member Wyatt moved to continue Case No. 86-92 to the meeting of December 9, 1992 to allow Mr. Kahlmeyer, representing Warson Road Development, time to work with city staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 88-92 Robert and Betty Jones 1040 Grantwood Avenue (Land Development Code) Request to Withdraw Case No. 91-92 Chris and Vivian Carassas 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Continued from 10/28/92 Request to Withdraw Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. s 88-92 and 91-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question, the Secretary to the Board stated regarding Case No. 88-92, the Inspector's memorandum states it has been determined the violation does not exist. Regarding Case No. 91-92, the memo requesting withdrawal does not state why. Case No. 92-92 Yvonne M. Irle 1303-1/2 N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Building Code) No one was present to represent the violator. A question was raised regarding service of the notice of hearing. In response to questions, Ms. Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, stated the notice of hearing was returned unclaimed. During a previous attempt to serve notice at the address of record, Mrs. Irle's daughter refused to accept the letter and, since then, no one answers the door. Employees at the restaurant where the notice of hearing was served confirmed that Mrs. Irle worked there. The property was not posted. The property was first inspected March 9, 1992; the building was vacant and boarded up. The outside staircase was in an advanced stage of deterioration. The notice of violation and notice of hearing were hand delivered on September 9 and November 17, respectively. Upon reinspection today, the violation still exists. A board was erected in front of the staircase, but could be climbed over. City submitted composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the structure is a two story residence, with one dwelling upstairs and downstairs, neither of which are occupied. There is an occupied duplex in back. The property is located across from Bill Irle's Restaurant. The staircase is a safety hazard to the neighborhood. The staircase is metal and you can see through the landing. The rest of the structure was not inspected as it is boarded up. It is not known if there is an inside staircase. A concern was expressed regarding the trash on the property, and it was stated the composition of the trash changes regularly. Member Riley moved that concerning Case No. 92-92 regarding violation of Section 138.34 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1303-1/2 North Fort Harrison Avenue aka Enghurst Addition to Clearwater Subdivision, Lot 4, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 18th day of December, 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, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property, it is evident that the outside staircase leading to the second floor of the building at 1303-1/2 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue is deteriorated and constitutes a safety hazard. The Conclusions of Law are: Yvonne M. Irle is in violation of Section 138.34. It is the Order of this Board that Yvonne M. Irle shall comply with Section 138.34 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by November 25, 1992. If Yvonne M. Irle does 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 Yvonne M. Irle 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, Yvonne M. Irle 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. Case No. 93-92 Johnnie L. and Willie J. Criswell 1451 South Madison Avenue (Standard Housing Code) No one was present to represent the violator. The Secretary to the Board stated proof of service of the notice of hearing has not been received. A copy was delivered to 1453 South Madison Avenue. In response to questions, Dixie Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, stated the next door neighbor who received the notice used to live at 1451 South Madison, and currently resides at #1453 with Pamela Criswell. The notice of hearing was not posted. The property has been vacant since August, but it has been secured and it is not a safety hazard. Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 93-92 to the meeting of December 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 94-92 Frank C. Kunnen, Jr. 2124 Sunnydale Boulevard (Land Development Code) To be withdrawn Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 94-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question, the Secretary to the Board stated the memo requesting withdrawal does not give a reason. Case No. 95-92 Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd 605 Hart Street (Standard Housing Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Dixie Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, stated the dwelling is occupied. She submitted City composite Exhibit A, photographs of the property. She first inspected the property April 8, 1992, and the structure was in an advanced stage of deterioration, including a leaky water heater which rotted the kitchen floor and damaged the floor joist, inadequate electrical outlets, and door jambs need replacing. The initial report did not declare the building unsafe, but staff is recommending demolition rather than repair of the structure. The signed certified mail receipt for the notice of violation was returned April 15, 1992, and monthly inspections have been made since then. In response to a question, the Inspector stated sufficient time has been allotted, and no repairs have been made. Member Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 95-92 regarding violation of Sections 302.9, 302.4, 305.16, 302.1, 302.6, 305.13, 305.7, 303.4, 305.12, 305.2, 305.5, 305.14, and 307.5, Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 605 Hart Street aka Jones Sub. of Nicholson, Block 4, Lot 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 18th day of December, 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 and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that the structure at 605 Hart Street is in an advanced stage of deterioration due to the conditions as listed in the Housing Inspector's Report dated April 8, 1992. The Conclusions of Law are: Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd are in violation of Sections 302.9, 302.4, 305.16, 302.1, 302.6, 305.13, 305.7, 303.4, 305.12, 305.2, 305.5, 305.14, and 307.5, of the Standard Housing Code. It is the Order of this Board that Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd shall comply with Sections 302.9, 302.4, 305.16, 302.1, 302.6, 305.13, 305.7, 303.4, 305.12, 305.2, 305.5, 305.14, and 307.5, of the Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 60 days (1/18/93). If Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd 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 Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd 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, Thomas and Elizabeth Floyd 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 39-91 Charles F. Kaufman 1721 N. Highland Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 49-91 Yvonne M. Irle 1411 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 22-92 Edward and Doris Vincent 1355 Drew Street Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 57-92 Metco Development Corporation 1810 through 1820 Drew Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case No. 64-92 Peter J. Sapourn, Trustee 415 Mandalay Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 67-92 Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 77-92 George and Mary Collins 1944 Ripon Drive Affidavit of Compliance Member Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 39-91, 49-91, 22-92, 64-92, 67-92 and 77-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 57-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Appointment of Vice-Chairman Member Zinzow nominated Member Wyatt as Vice-Chairman. Member Riley seconded the motion and moved to close the nominations. Upon the vote being taken, Member Wyatt was appointed unanimously as Vice-Chairman. Discussion re procedure directives A request was made that a reason be given when a case is withdrawn or continued by staff. Discussion ensued regarding what the Board needs from the Inspector. It was stated if the affidavits were self-explanatory, the Inspector would only need to submit exhibits and answer questions to confirm or clarify the facts on the affidavit. Concern was expressed regarding service of the notices of violation and hearing. Discussion ensued and it was recommended the notice of violation be posted and, if the proof of service of the notice of hearing is not received, that also should be posted with a photograph taken. Consensus was to distribute the memo as drafted, including the above referenced concerns. Discussion A concern was expressed regarding enforcement of the landscape requirements ordinance; specifically that citing of properties not be selective. Another concern was that there may be owners who acquired property after a site plan was approved and who are unaware of the conditions of the plan; all of sudden they are cited with the burden and expense of having to landscape the property. MINUTES - Meeting of October 28, 1992 Mr. Zinzow moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 28, 1992 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m.