Loading...
12/09/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD December 9, 1992 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman William A. Zinzow Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Absent: Thomasine Fontana-Smith (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. 86-92 Warson Road Development Company 924 Pierce Street (Land Development Code) Continued from 11/18/92 Mr. James Kahlmeyer, President of Warson Road Development Company, stated he agrees the violation exists. He met with city staff, stating they were sympathetic but could not do anything to help him. He questioned what his option would be if the plants are stolen again. It was stated he could be cited again if the landscaping is removed. The City Commission has the power to change the code. In response to concern expressed by Mr. Kahlmeyer that businesses are leaving Clearwater due to lack of flexibility regarding code requirements, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager stated anyone can apply for a variance to the code. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 86-92 regarding violation of Sections 136.023(b), (c)(1)(3), and (h)(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 924 Pierce Street a/k/a Coachman Heights Rev., block A, the east 25 feet of the south 20 feet of lot 2 and the east 25 feet of lots 3 and 4, less the street, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th 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 James Kahlmeyer and John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and based on Mr. Kahlmeyer's statement admitting the violation exists, it is evident that the landscaping required by code does not exist at 924 Pierce Street. The Conclusions of Law are: Warson Road Development Company is in violation of Sections 136.023(b), (c)(1)(3), and (h)(1). It is the Order of this Board that Warson Road Development Company shall comply with Sections 136.023(b), (c)(1)(3), and (h)(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (1/08/93). If Warson Road Development Company 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 Warson Road Development Company 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, Warson Road Development Company shall notify Rick Albee, 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) Continued from 11/18/92 No one was present to represent the violator. Dixie Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, submitted Exhibit A - a photograph of the posted notice of hearing, and composite Exhibit B - additional photographs of the property. She first inspected the property March 9. The tenant would not allow an inside inspection; the outside was in poor condition including broken siding and rotten door jambs. A certified letter regarding the violations was sent and signed for in May by Pamela Criswell, a daughter who lives next door. She and Mr. Criswell asked for a six month extension during which time there had been no progress. Notice of this hearing was posted and relayed verbally. Pamela Criswell stated doors were purchased and requested a couple more months. The Inspector recommended 60 days be allowed. In response to questions, the Inspector stated no permits have been acquired. The property is now vacant and secured so there is no health or safety hazard. The verbal notification was given to the daughter since Mr. Criswell lives in Georgia; however, Mr. Criswell is aware of the violations. The Inspector stated it is evident from the bug damage and droppings on the outside that the condition is similar inside. Regarding the windows, there are no screens and one window is inoperable. Code requires they be operable for proper ventilation. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 93-92 regarding violation of Sections 304, 305.2, 305.3, 305.7, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16 and 305.23, Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1451 S. Madison Avenue a/k/a A.H. Duncan's Resubdivided Subdivision, the north 44 feet of the west 125 feet of lot 11, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th 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, Housing Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits A and B, it is evident that the single family residence at 1451 South Madison Avenue is in a state of disrepair, including broken siding, rotten door jambs and flooring, and windows in need of repair. The Conclusions of Law are: Johnnie L. and Willie J. Criswell are in violation of Sections 304, 305.2, 305.3, 305.7, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16 and 305.23, Standard Housing Code. It is the Order of this Board that Johnnie L. and Willie J. Criswell shall comply with Sections 304, 305.2, 305.3, 305.7, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16 and 305.23, Standard Housing Code as adopted by Section 143.01 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 60 days (2/07/93). If Johnnie L. and Willie J. Criswell 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 Johnnie L. and Willie J. Criswell 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, Johnnie L. and Willie J. Criswell 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. 96-92 Opie and Elizabeth Tittle 810 Audubon Drive (Land Development Code) Mr. Tittle, in response to a question, admitted the violation did previously exist. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a recreational vehicle was parked in the setback area at 810 Audubon Drive. Notice of the violation was sent to the owners with compliance due October 30. Upon reinspection November 3 the vehicle was still there. The vehicle has since been moved from the setback; however, a neighbor stated it is on their property. It is desired to establish the violation at this time should it be put back in the future. Mr. Tittle stated the vehicle is parked well within his property line. Member Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 96-92 regarding violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)c of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 810 Audubon Drive a/k/a Gracemoor Subdivision, Lot 11, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th 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 Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector and Mr. Tittle, and based on Mr. Tittle's statement admitting the violation did exist, it is evident that a recreation vehicle was parked in the setback area at 810 Audubon Drive. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Opie and Elizabeth Tittle were in violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)c. It is the Order of this Board that Opie and Elizabeth Tittle shall continue compliance with Section 136.022(i)(2)c of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Opie and Elizabeth Tittle repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Opie and Elizabeth Tittle 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. 97-92 Finis Coulis 921 Eldorado Avenue (Land Development Code) Request to withdraw; Complied prior Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 97-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 98-92 Edward and Barbara Davis 300 Midway Island (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. The Secretary stated notice of the hearing by certified mail was not obtained. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a recreational vehicle was parked in the front yard setback at 300 Midway Island. Ownership of the property was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office. Notice of the Hearing was sent by certified mail and returned refused. Personal delivery was attempted but Mr. Davis refused to receive the letter; the notice was then posted on the property. She first inspected the property September 28, and cited the owner with reference to a violation regarding commercial vehicles. Upon reinspection October 15, it was realized the vehicle was for recreational use, and a new notice was sent to the owner. As of November 3, the violation has been corrected. The violation was also cited in March and was corrected. It is desired to establish the violation existed in case of repeat. In response to questions, the Inspector stated she posted the notice December 3. The inspection was a result of several complaints. The notice was refused, but there was verbal contact and notification. A question was raised whether there were any requirements regarding time limits for posting and posting in the rights of way. It was stated the purpose is to make sure an opportunity to be heard is given to the party. In this case there was also verbal notification. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case No. 98-92 regarding violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)c of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 300 Midway Island a/k/a Island Estates of Clearwater Unit #3, lot 74, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 9th 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, it is evident that a recreational vehicle was parked in the setback at 300 Midway Island. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Edward and Barbara Davis were in violation of Section 136.022(i)(2)c. It is the Order of this Board that Edward and Barbara Davis shall continue compliance with Section 136.022(i)(2)c of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Edward and Barbara Davis repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Edward and Barbara Davis 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. 99-92 Chris and Vivian Carassas 1391 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) John Carassas, Attorney representing the violators, in response to a question whether they concede the violation existed on November 7, stated he has no knowledge of the violation. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated an inspection November 7 showed outdoor display at 13491 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, a repeat of a violation found by the Board on October 14. Notice of the repeat violation was sent by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned November 16. He inspected several times since then, including the morning of the hearing, and has cited no additional violations. City submitted Exhibit A - a photograph of the property, and Exhibit B - a copy of the notice and the certified receipt. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the notice was sent to and received by the landlord. Attorney Carassas stated the tenants, Mr. and Mrs. McNichols, were informed by the landlord of the violation after the hearing October 14. The tenants did comply with the exception of one day. Mrs. McNichols stated they were told by their landlord not to place anything outside, and they only do when something already bought is going to be picked up. Mr. McNichols stated he has done business in Clearwater for 22 years, and is licensed for yard sales and used furniture. He thought it was legal; there are items outside next door and across the street. He needs to place items outside to attract people to the store. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated neighboring properties were investigated and they are either grandfathered in or have approved conditional use permits. Mr. McNichols can also apply for a conditional use. Discussion ensued whether the items were actually stored or displayed, and whether they would be allowed if being stored. It was stated there is no provision in the code for storage under an overhang. It was suggested staff advise Mr. McNichols regarding sign alternatives to attract business. It was stated a sign violation is also pending at this address. Mr. McNichols again expressed concern regarding many other businesses on the same street being allowed to place items outdoors. He was advised his concern can be addressed to the City Commission. Attorney Carassas stated their intention is to continue compliance. He asked the Board to consider all the circumstances. He is aware of property owner laws and responsibility, and requested the tenants also be notified of the violations. He expressed concern that staff repeatedly suggested they move to another area of town. Member Riley moved that concerning Case No. 99-92 regarding a repeat violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) and 135.123(10) of the City Code on property located at 1391 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a Overbrook Subdivision, 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 9th 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 Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, John Carassas, representing the violator, and Mr. and Mrs. McNichols, tenants, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits A and B, it is evident that items were placed outside for sale at 1391 Gulf to Bay Boulevard on November 7, 1992. The Conclusions of Law are: Chris and Vivian Carassas were in violation of Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) and 135.123(10) on November 7, 1992; that Chris and Vivian Carassas were found to have violated the same provisions by the Board on October 14th, 1992, and that Chris and Vivian Carassas have committed a repeat violation. It is the Order of this Board that Chris and Vivian Carassas shall continue compliance with Sections 137.011(b), 135.004(c)(1) and 135.123(10) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. It is the Order of this Board that it will not impose a fine this time for the repeat violation of November 7th. However, 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. 100-92 Church of Scientology, Inc. 700 Chestnut Street (Fire Code) Request to withdraw; Complied prior Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 100-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A question was raised why some cases are brought to the Board to establish the violation and others are not. It was stated a violator who is cited, complies and repeats the violation will be brought to the Board; if they comply and the violation does not reoccur the case is not pursued. As a general policy, it can usually be determined by a person's response whether they will continue compliance. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 55-92 Nation Wide Land Corporation 1822 Drew Street Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 57-92 Metco Development Corporation 1810-1820 Drew Street Affidavit of Compliance Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case Nos. 55-92 and 57-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 65-92 Robert E. Hughes, Trustee 1312 N. Garden Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case No. 66-92 Robert E. Hughes, Trustee 1310 A&B N. Garden Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 65-92 and 66-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Case No. 77-86 David and Virginia Chilcote 1478 Plateau Road Request to address Board re fine The Secretary stated Mr. Chilcote phoned after receiving a letter reminding him there was a lien. He contends the Board forgave the fine. She summarized the case for the Board. In response to a question, she stated the fine was reduced by the Board in 1987 at which time Mr. Chilcote was present. A letter stating the decision of the Board at that time was also sent to Mr. Chilcote. Member Zinzow moved to deny the request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM A copy of the City Attorney's memo regarding the Board's direction was distributed to the Board for review. Discussion will be agendaed for the next meeting. MINUTES - Meeting of November 18, 1992 Member Riley moved to approve the November 18, 1992 minutes as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.