12/08/1993 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
December 8, 1993
Members present:
D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman
Dennis Henegar
Louise C. Riley
E.J. Robinson
Peg Rogers
Tamara Shannon
Stephen D. Swanberg
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board
Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant to the City Manager;
Community Response Team Supervisor
Mary K. Diana, Secretary for the Board
Gwen J. Legters, Recording Secretary
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. 51-93 Arthur & Mary Bruno / R. Mazikoske
1645 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 8/11/93, 9/8/93,
10/13/93 & 11/10/93
In a memo dated December 8, 1993, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty withdrew Case No. 51 93 as the property owner's sign variance was approved, which brings the signage into compliance.
Case No. 74-93 C T Corp Syst / K-Mart Corp
2130 Gulf To Bay Blvd
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 8/11/93, 9/8/93, 10/13/93 & 11/10/93
Request to continue - Sign variance requested
In a memo dated December 8, 1993, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty requested Case No. 74 93 be continued as the property owner has submitted a request for a sign variance.
Member Robinson moved to continue Case No. 74-93 to the meeting of January 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 95-93 Sears Roebuck & Company
1297 South Missouri Avenue
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 9/22, 10/27/93 & 11/10/93
Lt. Kronschnabl stated he has been in contact with the property owner and compliance has been obtained. He withdrew Case No. 95-93.
Case No. 104-93 Gertrude S Nall, Trustee
Golden Dream: / Menna-Digiovanni
2950 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93
Request to continue - Sign variance requested
Case No. 105-93 Laura Connolly & G. Nall
Gulf To Bay Motel / Menna-Digiovanni
2960 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93
Request to continue - Sign variance requested
In a memo dated December 8, 1993, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty requested Cases 104 93 and 105 93 be continued as the property owners have submitted requests for sign variances.
Member Robinson moved to continue Cases 104-93 and 105-93 to the meeting of January 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 106-93 Claude E Miranda
700 S Lake Drive
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 10/27/93 & 11/10/93
Claude Miranda did not agree to the violation. He referenced a state statute defining commercial vehicles and felt his vehicle did not meet the criteria. The Board Attorney stated
a municipal ordinance can be more restrictive. Attorney Lance agreed and read the City's definition that a commercial vehicle means "any vehicle designed for a commercial or industrial
function, etc."
Janis King, Code Enforcement Inspector, gave the background of the case, stating on August 11, 1993, the antique fire truck was observed parked in the setback of the residential zone
at 700 S Lake
Drive. She verbally informed the owner of the residence that this was a violation and gave him until August 23 to comply. She measured the vehicle as 26 feet long, 8 feet high and
it was parked 13 feet from the property line. She said these dimensions fit the definition of a commercial vehicle according to the code. She reinspected the property and the vehicle
was still present. A notice of violation was sent on September 1 with a September 7 compliance date. The certified letter was returned unclaimed. The regular mail was not returned.
The property was again inspected on September 8 and the vehicle was still there. Ms. King stated she talked to Mr. Miranda after September 8 and he said he would remove the signs from
the vehicle; however, she informed him not only the signs, but the size of the vehicle caused the violation. On September 14, she observed the signs were again on the truck. On September
27, she again talked to Mr. Miranda about the signs being on the vehicle.
Ms. King stated this case has been continued twice at the request of Mr. Miranda. She said Mr. Miranda on November 10 indicated he would be moving the truck to Tampa by January 30.
She submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the vehicle, for the record.
Member Swanberg asked if any complaints had been received regarding the vehicle and Ms. King responded there had been none; she had observed the vehicle herself.
Member Swanberg asked if the advertising signs were removed from the vehicle, would it still fit the definition of a commercial vehicle. Ms. King responded there is still a stipulation
on what size a vehicle may be in a residential area.
Attorney Lance asked if the commercial signs were on the vehicle when a notice of violation was issued and Ms. King responded the signs were present.
Lt. Kronschnabl noted the fire truck has been used for advertising for a number of years.
Member Henegar felt the key point was in the definition of a commercial vehicle. A commercial vehicle was defined as one designed for industrial use and the subject vehicle is an old
fire truck.
In response to questions, Mr. Miranda stated he is in the process of restoring the fire truck and it will be moved by the end of January, if found to be in violation.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case No. 106-93, regarding violation of section 42.34(9)(b)5 of the Clearwater City Code at 700 S Lake Drive a/k/a Boulevard Pines, Block D, Lot
8, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of December, 1993, 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 Inspector, and Claude E Miranda and viewing the evidence, submitted City Exhibit A, photographs of the vehicle,
it is evident an oversized commercial vehicle is parked or stored in a residential setback area at 700 S Lake Drive.
The Conclusions of Law are: Claude E Miranda is in violation of Section 42.34(9)(b)5 of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that Claude E Miranda shall comply with Section 42.34(9)(b)5 of the Code
of the City of Clearwater by January 30, 1993. If Claude E Miranda does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the
violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Claude E Miranda 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, Claude E Miranda 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. 111-93 Homer Realty Co., John W. Homer, R.A.
387.5 Mandalay Avenue
Land Development Code
Case No. 112-93 Homer Realty Co., John W. Homer, R.A.
389 Mandalay Avenue
Land Development Code
James A Martin, Jr., attorney representing Mr. Homer, did not agree to the violation. He stated the citations are improper because they reference the incorrect entity. He said the
correct entity is Homer Properties, Inc. He requested Cases 111-93 and 112-93 be dismissed.
Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated property ownership was obtained from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. The registered agent was obtained from the
office of the Secretary of State. Mr. Martin felt the City should have checked with the official records of Pinellas County. He said, this is a notice of repeat violation and the
entity originally cited was incorrect.
John W. Homer responded to questions, stating the subject properties were owned by Homer Properties, Inc. before the original citations were issued. It was indicated, while Homer Properties,
Inc. is a separate entity from Homer Realty Company, Mr. Homer is the registered agent of both.
Mr. Lance asked that the citation be amended to reflect the correct entity. Attorney Martin felt the original citation was also improper. The Board Attorney expressed concern the proper
party may not have been cited for the repeat violation. Attorney Lance recommended withdrawing Cases 111-93 and 112-93.
Cases 111-93 and 112-93 were withdrawn. Attorney Lance stated any future violations will be cited.
Case No. 113-93 Rode, Inc., c/o John Ford
1201 North Betty Lane
Occupational License
Case No. 114-93 Rode, Inc., c/o John Ford
1201 North Betty Lane
Land Development Code
Case No. 115-93 Rode, Inc., c/o John Ford
1201 North Betty Lane
Land Development Code
No one was present to represent the property owner.
Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the business concerns the resale of commercial materials and vehicles. He received a complaint in early August Mr. Ford was running a business
without a license in the General Commercial zone. Mr. Rosa stated he informed Mr. Ford of the violation at the time and the three notices of violation were issued on August 4, 1993,
giving him one week to comply. Mr. Ford discussed the situation with staff, saying he had a special going out of business permit from the county sherriff. This type of permit is good
for 30 days and Mr. Rosa extended the compliance date to 30 days. He stated the most recent photographs of the property are dated November 29, 1993. Mr. Rosa testified the violations
depicted in the photographs still exist today. City Exhibits A and B, photographs of the subject property on August 26 and November 29, were submitted for the record.
In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the ownership information was obtained from the county property appraiser's office. The address of the complainant was indicated to be 1117
North Betty Lane. It was not known when the special permit from the county would have expired. Mr. Rosa stated he gave Mr. Ford the benefit of the doubt, setting the compliance date
for 30 days after the original compliance due date.
Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Ford operating without permits or licenses and the requirements for obtaining an conditional use.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case Nos. 113-93, 114-93 and 115-93, regarding violation of sections 29.28 & 29.30(1), 40.004(3)(a) and 44.58 of the Clearwater City Code at 1201
North Betty Lane a/k/a Pinebrook Unit 2, Block E, Lots 13 & 14, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th
day of December, 1993, 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 the testimony of Rick Rosa, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibits A & B, photographs of the subject property, it is evident:
1) John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc., is operating a business without a City of Clearwater Occupational License; 2) his use of this property is not in compliance with the zoning regulations
and 3) signage exists which is prohibited by the City Sign Code at 1201 North Betty Lane.
The Conclusions of Law are: John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc., is in violation of Sections 29.28 & 29.30(1), 40.004(3)(a) and 44.58 of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that John Ford d/b/a Rode, Inc. shall comply with Section 29.28 & 29.30(1), 40.004(3)(a) and 44.58 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 7 days after
the execution of this order. If John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc. 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 John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc. does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded
in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida
Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns
of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon
complying, John Ford, d/b/a Rode, Inc. shall notify Rick Rosa, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the
Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before
the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and
filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider
whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
OTHER BOARD ACTION
Case No. 36-92 Auto Clinic J & M Corporation
c/o Jeffrey Walsh, President/R.A.
1239 Lincoln Avenue
Land Development Code
Request to address Board re fine
The request was not scheduled as Board policy requires an affidavit of compliance prior to addressing the Board.
Case No. 43-92 Richard D. Fouts
1106 Grove Street
(Unsafe Building)
Address Board re Waiver of Fine
Dixie Walker Duncan, Housing Inspector at the time of the original hearing, June 24, 1992, gave the history of the property. She stated the previous property owner, John Allison, lived
in Georgia and had rented the property to tenants who damaged the internal systems. The Board issued an order to secure the property within 5 days and to complete compliance within
30 days. The property was secured, however, was not brought into compliance. Mr. Fouts purchased the property with the lien in December, 1992, corrected the unsafe conditions within
two weeks of purchase; however, an affidavit of compliance was not issued until October, 1993. He is asking to have the fine reduced.
Attorney Salzman noted the fine amounts to $115,750 and a lien has already been filed.
Richard Fouts, in response to questions, stated he purchased the property for his residence because he wanted a home and this was all he could afford. He said he has no interest ties
with John Allison. A question was raised if Mr. Fouts was aware of the lien and he responded he signed various papers at closing. It was pointed out the title policy would reflect
the lien.
Mr. Fouts was commended for his work to bring the property into compliance. Discussion ensued regarding reducing the fine and a recommendation was made to continue this case to determine
the amount of the administrative costs.
Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 43-92 to the meeting of January 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 103-93 Larry Bunting
804 N Pennsylvania Avenue
(Public Nuisance)
Affidavit of Compliance
Member Riley moved, concerning Case No. 103-93, to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case No. 108-93 Americana Gulf Motels, LTD
c/o Edith Orosz, R.A.
411 S Gulfview Boulevard
(Land Development Code)
Dismissed: Complied Prior
Continued from 11/10/93 to discuss case law
Board Attorney Salzman said he has not found any case law regarding outdoor displays of merchandise relating to this particular situation. He stressed the importance of the Board making
the determination they feel is appropriate for each individual case.
Case No. 110-93 Viorel Caba
1970 Rainbow Drive
(Public Nuisance)
Affidavit of Compliance
Member Riley moved, concerning Case No. 110-93, to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Discussion ensued regarding citizens purchasing properties that carry City liens and bringing them into compliance. Lt. Kronschnabl felt this helps to clean up neighborhoods and requested
direction from the Board regarding waiving liens for someone wanting to purchase these properties. It was indicated, while it may be a gamble to purchase these properties, pictures
taken before and after compliance would be useful to the Board in making a decision on whether or not to reduce the fines.
Code Inspector, Rick Rosa, requested direction in obtaining compliance in Case No. 71-93, Marguerite Flowers, 111 Orangeview Avenue. Discussion ensued regarding the City's authority
to have the vehicle towed. This case relates to a motor home which is illegally parked in the driveway of a residential property.
Lt. Kronschnabl requested an update to the lien status list.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Vice-Chairman
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
ATTEST:
Secretary