Loading...
06/23/1993 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 23, 1993 Members present: William Murray, Chairman Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley Peg Rogers Louise Bolton Absent: D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman (excused) E.J. Robinson (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. 30-93 B American Inc. 2135 Drew Street (Occupational License) Continued from 5/26/93 No one was present to represent the alleged violator. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated he spoke with a representative of the corporation Tuesday. They received their registration number from the state and are now awaiting results of a background check and approval of the Clearwater Police Department. He felt this process should be complete in a couple weeks and requested this case be continued. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case No. 30-93 to the meeting of July 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 33-93 Robbie Cromeadie & E. Hamm 1414 Taft Street (Nuisance) Continued from 5/26/93 No one was present to represent the alleged violators. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated she has not had any contact with any of the parties involved. She verified property ownership again. Upon reinspection of the property, the violation still exists. In response to a question, it was stated Mr. MacPherson, the attorney who represented the alleged violators, was requested to report back today. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated Mr. MacPherson stated at the previous hearing he would need 90 days. The Board suggested he could at least contact the Church in the next 30 days to see if they are interested in the property. The Inspector submitted composite Exhibit D, photographs of the property taken this morning. She stated weeds have overgrown in the right-of-way on the corner. She recommended two weeks compliance time. Discussion ensued regarding the controlled burn and whether there was a contract or agreement informing the property owner of their responsibility for removal of the rubble. It was felt perhaps the City should bear some responsibility for clearing the lot. It was questioned why the City couldn't have the property cleared and send the owners the bill. The Inspector stated she used a different code than the regular public nuisance code because she felt this job goes beyond the means of the regular contractor. Member Riley moved for the City to clear the property and bill the owner. It was stated the Board can make a recommendation that the City clear the property but not as part of the order. The Board was advised of its options including delaying the penalty phase or continuing the case. Member Riley withdrew her motion. Discussion ensued with concern again expressed regarding whether responsibility for removal of the rubble was clearly relayed to the owner. In response to a question, it was stated Ron Hamm signed authorization for the burn and responsibility for the rubble on behalf on the property owners. It was expressed that there are unanswered concerns, including the need of a legally appointed guardian for one of the property owners. Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 33-93 to the meeting of July 14, 1993, attempting to get one of the property owners or a representative in attendance to provide answers to said concerns. Case No. 35-93 Donald McGregor Jr. 1401 Barbara Avenue (Occupational License) Complied prior; To be withdrawn Case No. 36-93 Hair Forum/Pat Girone & Marlene Pinion 1401 Cleveland Street (Occupational License) Complied prior; To be withdrawn Case No. 37-93 Nell M. Lokey/Donald O. McFarland 2339 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development) Complied prior; To be withdrawn Case No. 39-93 Gursagar Singh 1453 Sunset Point Road (Occupational License) Complied prior; To be withdrawn Member Swanberg moved to withdraw Case Nos. 35-93, 36-93, 37-93 and 39-93 as compliance has been obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 40-93 Skylark Opportunities 1133 Cleveland Street (Land Development) Request to continue to 7/28 Member Riley moved to continue Case No. 40-93 to the meeting of July 28, 1993 as requested by the Inspector. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 41-93 Mary G. Realty Incorporated 490 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development) In response to a question whether he agrees the violation exists, Nick Gionis, a partner representing the corporation, stated he does not understand the referenced violation and that is why he is here. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated this case involves a portable sign used as a menu sign. He stated portable signs, and any signs that are not attached to the ground, are illegal. Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated the violation is at the Waterfront Restaurant. Ownership was verified through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office records. She first inspected the property May 27, 1993 and issued a notice of violation May 28 with compliance due June 2, 1993. The notice was sent by regular and certified mail and the signed receipt was returned. Upon reinspection this morning, the violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated she did not speak to anyone at the time of inspection, but the violation was discussed over the phone with Mr. Gionis and he did seem to understand. Mr. Gionis stated he tried to get clarification from the Inspector regarding the violation. He stated he received a letter from Commissioner Thomas questioning the citation, citing an exception in the code for "menu signs." The Inspector stated menu signs are permitted but need to be attached. This business already has one. In response to questions, Mr. Gionis stated the sign does advertise specials of the day, and it is changed one or two times per day. He paid an additional impact fee of $8,000 due to square footage added for additional seating to sell beer and wine outside. In response to a request for staff interpretation of code section 44.57(5) regarding menu signs, John Richter stated the City would not hold a menu sign on which the menu changes to be a prohibited sign. The violation cited is a sign that is not permanently attached to the ground which is a portable sign. Menu signs can be placed at each entry, with the only restriction being that it must be attached to the building, not freestanding, and a maximum of four square feet. In response to questions, Mr. Richter stated, even if the sign were attached, it would still not be legal at that entrance because a menu sign is already in that location. An option, perhaps, would be to place it in the window. He stated the signs are regulated if viewable from off of the property, which this is. In response to questions regarding the purpose of the sign and whether there was some other location it could be placed, Mr. Gionis stated Clearwater Beach has many foreign tourists who don't come into the restaurant if they don't see a menu. It is difficult to see the business sign because of its location between the Pelican Restaurant and Clearwater Beach Hotel. The patio is the entrance. Mr. Richter stated if the sign is placed inside, and can not be viewed from off the property, it will not be regulated. Mr. Gionis stated he feels it is unjust to require the sign be put inside. It is unreasonable that he paid so much for outside seating, and does not understand why the outside area is treated differently from inside. In closing, Mr. Richter stated city code limits the allowable square footage for business signs. This is also subject to permitting. An exempt menu sign can be placed without a permit if not visible from off the property. Member Riley moved that concerning Case No. 41-93 regarding violation of Section 44.57(7) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 490 Mandalay Avenue a/k/a Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 57-63, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 23rd day of June, 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, and Mr. Nick Gionis, representing Mary G. Realty, Inc. and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident there exists a portable sign at 490 Mandalay Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Mary G. Realty, Inc. is in violation of Section 44.57(7). It is the Order of this Board that Mary G. Realty, Inc. shall comply with Section 44.57(7) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by June 30, 1993. If Mary G. Realty, Inc. 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 Mary G. Realty, 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, Mary G. Realty, Inc. shall notify Vicki Niemiller, 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. 19-92 Aztec Insurance Company 905 & 907 Hart Street Affidavit of Compliance Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No. 19-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 3-93 Frank McKinley/Joel Kehrer 206 South Greenwood Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Compliance Status Update Continued from 5/26/93 John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, reviewed the case stating the public hearing was held January 13, 1993 at which time the Board issued an order giving 90 days in which compliance must be obtained after which a $250 per day fine could be imposed. On May 14, 1993, the Inspector performed a follow-up inspection, the violation still existed, and an affidavit of non-compliance was submitted. He stated a little more progress has been made since the last meeting; however, they are only about half way to complete compliance. He recommended the affidavit of non-compliance be accepted. In response to a question whether the fine should be retroactive, Mr. Richter felt since the additional time was allowed for compliance, the fine not be effective until today. Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance in Case No. 3-93 and issue the order imposing the fine to start accruing today. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 10-93 Jaime Viera 1006-1017 Vine Avenue (Standard Housing) Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 34-93 Robert C. Waldo 1240 S. Evergreen Avenue Affidavit of Compliance Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case Nos. 10-93 and 34-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION Lien Status Report The lien status report was reviewed and the following questions/concerns were raised. Regarding Case No. 19-92, Aztec Insurance Company, a question was raised whether the Affidavit of Compliance meant the fine was paid. It was stated the Affidavit only means the violation has been corrected. In response to a question whether violators offer settlements to clear the fine, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City accepted a $5,000 settlement on a $75,000 lien; and another large lien was forgiven except for actual out of pocket costs to the city. Some small liens have been paid when property was sold. Many of the liens are homestead on which you can not foreclose. In response to a question regarding Case No. 56-92, the Secretary stated there is a car sign for which no permit has been issued. An affidavit of compliance was received February 12, 1993 and the total fine due is $4,175. The fine status report will be corrected to reflect compliance. In response to a question, the Secretary stated the lien is filed prior to receiving the affidavit of compliance. The Chairman stated once compliance is obtained, the violator can request to address the Board regarding the fine. It was requested the status of Case Nos. 41-92, 43-92 and 92-92 be brought to the next meeting. Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, stated circuit court has no jurisdiction on foreclosures less than $15,000. A faulty mortgage loan is the first claim to be paid in a foreclosure. Florida Statutes gives 20 year rather than 5 year liens to allow municipalities more time to collect, without having to expend monies on foreclosure proceedings. MINUTES - Meeting of May 26, 1993 Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 26, 1993 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.