Loading...
07/28/1993 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 28, 1993 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman Stephen D. Swanberg E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Absent: Louise C. Riley (excused) Louise Bolton (unexcused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Robert Santa Lucia, Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana, 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. 40-93 Skylark Opportunities 1133 Cleveland Street (Land Development Code) Continued from 6/23 No one was present to represent the alleged violator. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a notice of violation was issued on June 9, 1992 to Stone Buick for illegal wind devices being displayed to draw attention to the business. They did comply with the notice. On May 28, 1993 he saw a banner being displayed on the same property. A notice of recurring violation was sent and compliance was obtained. He has had contact with Joe Jenkins, a manager of the dealership. In response to a question regarding ownership, he stated it is the same as cited in 1992. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the property. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 40-93 regarding violation of Section 44.57(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1133 Cleveland Street a/k/a M&B 21-07, Section 15-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, and viewing the evidence submitted, City Exhibit A - a photograph of the property, it is evident that wind devices have been displayed at 1133 Cleveland Street, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Skylark Opportunities was in violation of Section 44.57(2). It is the Order of this Board that Skylark Opportunities shall continue compliance with Section 44.57(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Skylark Opportunities repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Skylark Opportunities is 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. 42-93 David & Eileen Lucier 704 South Hillcrest Avenue (Land Development Code) Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated on April 28, 1993 he observed a stepvan and boat parked on the property at 704 South Hillcrest Avenue. He checked with the Department of Motor Vehicles and found the registration shows the boat to be 21'3" in length. He measured from their house to across the street and, with the street right of way at 60', determined the setback to be 25'. Notice of the violation was sent with compliance due May 10, 1993. He reinspected the property May 14, 1993 and the violation still existed. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated 20' is the maximum boat length allowed to be parked there. The vehicles are parked perpendicular to the garage door. He asked them to park elsewhere on the property, but the yard is full and there is a wood fence around the rest of the property. Mr. Lucier stated he measured the boat to be 20'; the ski platform and outdrive bring the measurement beyond 20'. Mr. Rosa stated the code includes anything connected with the boat to be part of the length, and the boat registration lists a length of 21'3". Mrs. Lucier submitted Defendant's exhibit A, a composite packet of drawings, occupational license documentation and neighbors' signatures expressing no objection to the vehicles, and proceeded to describe the property size, setbacks, street frontage and where the vehicles are parked. She stated they have lived in Clearwater since 1979. The house was built in 1951, before this code existed. They have owned the boat since 1989 and there have been complaints. The area the Inspector proposed they park the boat has a 4-6" curb and they can't get up and over the curb to the side yard. Also, when the boat is attached to the van, they have 40' in length to try to maneuver on a small road at an angle. They would have to remove two trees to come in from Pine Street. Moving the boat to this part of the yard will make it more visible to the neighbors, who prefer the present location. The back yard only has 13' with a tree on the side, and they would have to take down their fence. Mrs. Lucier stated the commercial truck has been there since 1979. In 1987 they acquired a home occupational license for a business office. The truck is usually gone all day. There are work trucks parked around the neighborhood. When they applied for the license, they were told to remove the truck sign when in the driveway. She phoned storage areas and was given costs for storage of two items from $58.80 to $188.32 per month. Adding the cost for insurance brings the cost to well over $1800 per year. A suggestion was made the applicant may want to challenge the length of 21'3" listed on the boat registration certificate if thought to be incorrect. In closing, Mr. Richter stated the purpose of the restriction is to preserve the appearance of neighborhoods. If there is a hardship regarding this case, they have the option of applying for a variance. The occupational license to do business does not allow violation of the code. Mrs. Lucier, in closing, stated the neighborhood was built in 1951. The neighbors prefer the vehicles be parked in the driveway rather than the side yard which would be unsightly. To use the backyard would require they lose their privacy and security. Discussion ensued with it being expressed that the Board does not have the authority to deviate from code requirements. In response to a question regarding the commercial vehicle, the Inspector stated he believes it is also too tall. A question was raised regarding whether the boat could be stored in the garage, and Mr. Lucier expressed concern regarding a gas hot water heater located there, along with condensation and fumes causing a hazard. In response to a question regarding how this case came about, the Inspector stated there was no complaint. Discussion ensued regarding other available space on the property to locate the vehicles. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 42-93 regarding violation of Sections 42.34(9)(b)1 & 42.34(9)(b)5 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 704 South Hillcrest Avenue a/k/a Druid Heights, block A, lot 10, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, and David and Eileen Lucier, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A - a photograph of the property, and Defendant Exhibit A, a composite packet of drawings, occupational license documentation and neighbors' signatures expressing no objection to the vehicles in the driveway, it is evident a boat and an oversized commercial vehicle both in excess of twenty feet in length are being parked in the front yard setback in a residential zone. The Conclusions of Law are: David and Eileen Lucier are in violation of Sections 42.34(9)(b)1 & 42.34(9)(b)5. It is the Order of this Board that David & Eileen Lucier shall comply with Sections 42.34(9)(b)1 & 42.34(9)(b)5 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 5 working days (8/4/93). If David & Eileen Lucier do 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 David & Eileen Lucier 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, David & Eileen Lucier 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 43-93 Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the attached signage at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard totals 104 square feet and exceeds code allowance. The original violation was noticed as part of the sign amortization program. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken July 23 and 28, 1993. As of today, the violation still exists. In response to questions, the Inspector stated a notice of compliance was issued on January 13, 1993. She did not know when the excessive signage recurred. In response to a question regarding why a violation from January is now being brought forward, the Inspector stated a letter of appreciation was sent on February 18, 1993 and a complaint regarding the same violation was received on May 20, 1993. A question was raised if a time limit exists for citing someone for a violation that occurred previously. It was stated city code and Florida Statutes allow the issuance of a citation for a recurring violation if repeated within five years of the board order. In response to questions regarding the signs allowed, it was stated a maximum of three attached signs are allowed. A pole sign is allowed in addition to the attached signage. Compliance was previously obtained by removing two window signs. Mr. Nowicki requested clarification of the different types of signs and what is allowed. The Inspector stated the sign cited is more than informational and indicated the "Open" sign is not included in the citation. Mrs. Nowicki stated the property was purchased in 1981 when it was a motel. In 1987 the pawn shop was opened. Additional construction was completed in 1992 which expanded the building. They received a letter in January, 1993 notifying them their signage was in excess of what is allowed by code. A neon sign was placed in the window for sale. The other window signs are informational including "open" and "fax." Mrs. Nowicki expressed concern City regulations and increased taxes make it difficult for businesses to succeed. Defendant submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of their property and other businesses. In response to a question, Mrs. Nowicki stated the neon sign in the window is for sale and is lit up most of the time. Questions were raised whether the neon "For Sale" sign is considered be a sign or if it is considered to be a display item of merchandise for sale. Discussion ensued regarding displaying of items for sale in windows and Mr. Richter indicated the City regulates signs not window display items. He said signs in windows are regulated if viewable from off the property. Discussion ensued regarding when a window display is actual merchandise or when it represents a display of merchandise contained in the store to be sold. It was stated other businesses display merchandise for sale in their windows. The Code Enforcement Manager read from the city code the definition of "sign." In response to a question, it was stated the size of a building is not used in determining the signage allowed on the property. Signs are regulated by zoning districts. It was pointed out the intent of the sign code is to beautify the City by reducing visual clutter. The Code Enforcement Manager stated several complaints have been received regarding the signs at this address. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case No. 43-93 regarding violation of Section 44.51(4)(e)2.a of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a M&B 13-06, Section 13-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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, Janusz and Roxana Nowicki, and viewing the evidence, submitted City composite Exhibit A and Defendant composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that signage in excess of the allowed 64 square feet exists at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. It is further evident that said violation existed previously, was corrected and recurred. The Conclusions of Law are: Janusz & Roxana Nowicki are in violation of Section 44.51(4)(e)2.a. It is the Order of this Board that Janusz and Roxana Nowicki shall comply with Section 44.51(4)(e)2.a of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 4, 1993. If Janusz and Roxana Nowicki do 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 Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 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, Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 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. Upon the vote being taken, Members Swanberg, Wyatt, Robinson and Murray voted "aye." Member Rogers voted "nay." Motion carried. Case No. 47-93 John Holm 1364 Friend Avenue (Public Nuisance) In response to a question, Mr. Holm agreed the violation exists as cited. He stated he is buying property outside the City of Clearwater and will be closing on this property on August 11, 1993. He will be moving from the violation address once the closing is final. He requested two weeks in which to comply. In response to questions, Mr. Holm stated not all of the vehicles are operational and/or tagged. He is in the carpet business and one of the vehicles is used for a backup van. There are five or six vehicles, and the rest are collector's cars. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case No. 47-93 to the meeting of August 11, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 48-93 Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) In response to questions, the Nowickis did not agree with the violation. Roxana Nowicki questioned why they, as property owners, were cited when the sign belongs to the lessee. Janice King, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated notice was sent to the business, European Deli, and the property owners. The certified mail receipt was not returned. She spoke to Mr. Nowicki and the operator of the deli and explained that the vehicle with the sign is not allowed. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken May 8 and July 13, 1993. In response to questions regarding notification dates, the Inspector stated the discussion with the property owner and business operator was on June 7, 1993. June 8 is when the official citation was issued. A notice was sent originally May 12, 1993 with compliance due May 14 for which compliance was obtained. When the vehicle sign was again observed, notice of a recurring violation was sent. The violation does not exist at this time. In response to Mrs. Nowicki's question regarding why the property owner was cited, it was stated the owner is responsible for what occurs on the property. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 48-93 regarding violation of Section 44.57(24) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a M&B 13-06, Section 13-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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, Janusz and Roxana Nowicki, and viewing the evidence, submitted City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident one or more vehicle signs and portable signs have existed at 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. It is further evident this condition was corrected and recurred. The Conclusions of Law are: Janusz and Roxana Nowicki were in violation of Section 44.57(24). It is the Order of this Board that Janusz and Roxana Nowicki shall comply with Section 44.57(24) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 15, 1993. If Janusz and Roxana Nowicki do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 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, Janusz and Roxana Nowicki 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. 49-93 Tom Falone, Clearwater Firearms 1916 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Request to Continue The Secretary read a memo from the Inspector stating two violations have been corrected but there is a new violation for which Mr. Falone is to be cited. Staff wishes to bring forth all the violations at one time. In response to questions, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated all the violations have not been corrected. He was agreeable to this case being withdrawn and brought back as a new case. Member Wyatt moved to withdraw Case No. 49-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 50-93 Harold W. Maybee 118 North Missouri Avenue (Land Development Code) In response to questions, Mr. Maybee stated he did receive notice of the violation, but he does not agree it exists. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a complaint was received May 4, 1993 regarding multiple large wheeled seacraft causing an eyesore. Upon inspection, he found eight paddle boats on the property at 118 North Missouri Avenue. This was determined to be outdoor storage which is not a permitted use in a limited office zone. He sent notice to the property owner May 12, 1993 allowing ten days for compliance. Upon reinspection June 2, 1993, the violation still existed. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated he and Mr. Maybee did not have much discussion regarding the violation except that Mr. Maybee told him to check his application for an occupational license. The surrounding properties are zoned general commercial and residential, with Mr. Maybee's property is zoned limited office. Mr. Maybee stated the aquacycles are used for recreation and are transported on a trailer to the beach like any other recreational vehicle. He has letters from friends confirming the vehicles are used for recreational purposes. Mr. Maybee stated after speaking to the Inspector, he rearranged the way the vehicles were parked to limit visibility by neighboring residents. There are a total of six three-wheeled vehicles and one four-wheeled vehicle. In response to a question regarding why he has so many, Mr. Maybee stated he used to be in the aquacycle business, but is no longer. He has as many as 12 relatives visit at one time and uses the cycles in the same manner as a boat. In response to a question regarding whether the vehicles are parked in the setback, the Inspector stated one is located in the front setback. In response to questions, John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated outdoor storage is not an accessory use appurtenant to residential use. Mr. Maybee is approved for a home occupation to rent cameras and sell products, with rental of the aquacycles listed on the application but lined through, apparently not allowed. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated outdoor storage use is not allowed, even if the vehicles are parked behind the setback or covered. A question was raised if there had been a similar issue presented in the past and the vehicle was allowed to remain if covered. Mr. Richter said that issue was addressed under the lot clearing ordinance and involved a classic automobile. Board Attorney Robert Santa Lucia questioned where in the code reference is made that outdoor storage is not allowed as a permitted use in the limited office zoning district. He said the subject property is being used as a single family dwelling which is a permitted use in the OL district. Mr. Richter said Mr. Mayberry is being cited under Section 40.004(a) which he read aloud. Mr. Maybee stated he is trying to sell four or five of the vehicles. Discussion ensued as to whether outdoor storage is applicable in Mr. Mayberry's case and/or whether the section of the code cited is appropriate. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case No. 50-93 regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 118 North Missouri Avenue a/k/a Bassadena Sub., block D, lot 50 and S 1/2 of lot 51, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, and Harold Maybee, and viewing the evidence, submitted City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that outdoor storage does not exist at 118 N. Missouri Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Harold W. Maybee is not in violation of Section 40.004(2). It is the Order of this Board that Case No. 50-93 shall be dismissed. 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. 52-93 B J E Inc / Staack 483 Mandalay Ave (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the alleged violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated there are two construction signs on the property without permits. Only one sign is allowed per lot. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's office. Notice was sent to the registered agent by regular and certified mail, and the signed certified receipt was returned. She inspected the property June 4 with compliance due June 11, 1993. Upon reinspection June 14 and this morning, the signs were still there. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property. In response to a question, the Inspector stated she has had no verbal contact with anyone on the property. In response to a request, construction and real estate sign definitions were read from the code. Discussion ensued regarding the classification of the signs, and it was felt one of the signs was not a construction sign. In response to a question whether there is a valid building permit, the Inspector stated as of this morning there is not. Plans have been submitted, but the project is on hold. Discussion ensued with concern expressed regarding whether the violation cited should refer to type of sign or lack of building permit. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 52-93 regarding violation of Section 44.08(6) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 483 Mandalay Avenue a/k/a Clearwater Beach Park, block A, lots 2-8 and block B, lots 32-43, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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, and viewing the evidence, submitted City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident a construction sign exists at 483 Mandalay Avenue without validation of a building permit. The Conclusions of Law are: B J E Incorporated is in violation of Section 44.08(6). It is the Order of this Board that B J E Incorporated shall comply with Section 44.08(6) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 15 days (8/12/93). If B J E Incorporated does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If B J E Incorporated 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, B J E Incorporated 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. Case No. 53-93 Wagner Trust / First Florida Bank 647 Mandalay Ave (Land Development Code) Complied prior Member Swanberg moved to withdraw Case No. 53-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 55-93 Limited Prop, Inc / Burns 2800 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) In response to a question, Attorney Neil Keefer, representing the tenant, agreed the violation did exist. He stated the first citation for a banner was for a bridge opening celebration for Clearwater. The second time a banner was displayed was for Hooter's 10th anniversary. The banner has been removed. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 55-93 regarding violation of Section 44.57(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a M&B 13-07, Section 17-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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 Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, and Attorney Neil Keefer, representing Hooters as agent of the landlord, who agreed the violation did exist, it is evident that a banner was displayed at 2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, the violation was corrected and recurred. It is further evident the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Limited Properties Incorporated was in violation of Section 44.57(2). It is the Order of this Board that Limited Properties Incorporated shall continue compliance with Section 44.57(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Limited Properties Incorporated repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Limited Properties Incorporated is 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. 56-93 REMPROP, Inc. / Metz 1616 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Land Development Code) Geri Doherty, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated the freestanding sign on the property is 22 feet in height and over 80 square feet in size. The maximum allowable size is 64 square feet and 20 feet in height. The notice of the violation sent by certified mail February 16, 1993 was returned unclaimed. The owner was present during the initial sign survey on December 21, 1992. The violation still exists. City submitted composite exhibit A, photographs of the property taken December 21, 1992 and June 7, 1993, which shows a message change on the sign since the survey. In response to questions, the Inspector stated a 40 foot measuring pole is used to determine sign height. Two faces, a maximum of 64 square feet, are allowed in the general commercial zoning district. Mr. Metz questioned the accuracy of the measuring pole and objected to the photographs submitted in evidence based on the use of this measuring tool. He stated he acquired the property two years ago. The tenant acquired a sign permit four years ago and spent $1500 for the sign. In response to a question, he stated he is not denying the sign may exceed the size allowances; however, he is pointing out the sign was permitted. Discussion ensued regarding the options available to bring the signs into compliance. The Inspector stated two signs are allowed on the pole, but can not exceed 64 square feet overall. Staff recommended 30 days be allowed in which to comply. Mr. Metz requested additional time for compliance. Member Robinson moved that concerning Case No. 56-93 regarding violation of Section 44.51(4)(e)1.b & 44.51(4)(e)1.c of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1616 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a Lakewood Replat, Lot 7, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 28th day of July, 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 Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, and Richard Metz, and viewing the evidence, submitted City composite Exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident signage exists at 1616 Gulf to Bay Boulevard that exceeds maximum size and height allowed in the general commercial zoning district. The Conclusions of Law are: REMPROP Incorporated is in violation of Sections 44.51(4)(e)1.b & 44.51(4)(e)1.c. It is the Order of this Board that REMPROP Incorporated shall comply with Sections 44.51(4)(e)1.b & 44.51(4)(e)1.c of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (8/27/93). If REMPROP Incorporated does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If REMPROP Incorporated 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, REMPROP Incorporated shall notify Geri Doherty, 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 - None OTHER BOARD ACTION - None MINUTES - None ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.