Loading...
09/22/1993 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD September 22, 1993 Members present: William Murray, Chairman D. Wayne Wyatt, Vice-Chairman Stephen D. Swanberg Louise C. Riley E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers (arrived 3:10 p.m.) Absent: 7th seat vacant Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Asst. to the City Manager, Community Response Team 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. 83-93 Elias Anastasopoulos Gregory Politis 668 South Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated this establishment, named Way Cool, was first inspected and found to be in violation on May 21, 1993. A notice of violation was issued on May 24 and a subsequent inspection on May 28 found the property to be in compliance. Outside display of merchandise was again observed on July 29 and another notice of violation was issued. Upon inspection today, merchandise was found being displayed outside on the door of the establishment. In response to questions, Ms. Niemiller stated one towel was being displayed today; however, larger displays of towels have been observed in the past, mainly on the door. She stated the property owner has been cited for similar violations on other properties and is aware of the code. She stated the threshold is considered to be the dividing line between the inside and the outside of an establishment. Staff recommended the violation be corrected today. If the violation is not corrected today, a fine of $150.00 per day is recommended for each day the violation continues to exist. Attorney Salzman felt ordering compliance today is not a reasonable amount of time and indicated the minimum compliance time should be one week. Member Wyatt pointed out five days to comply was given previously for a similar violation. John Richter said he would like to establish equity between this establishment and others which have already complied. Member Riley moved that concerning Case No. 83-93, regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 668 South Gulfview Boulevard, a/k/a Bayside Sub #5, Block B, Lots 7, 8 & 16 - 20, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of September, 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, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, two photographs of outside display of merchandise at the subject property, it is evident merchandise is being displayed on the outside of the building in an area where it is not allowed at 668 South Gulfview Boulevard, this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was not corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis are in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 5 days (September 27, 1993). If Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after they are notified of the repeat violation. Upon complying, Elias Anastasopoulos and Gregory Politis 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. 84-93 Elias Anastasopoulos 672 South Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated an outside display of merchandise was first observed at this establishment on May 21, 1993. A notice of violation was issued on May 24. A subsequent inspection on May 28 found the property to be in compliance; however, an outside display of merchandise was again observed on July 29 and a notice of recurring violation was issued. Upon inspection today, the property was found to be in compliance. Staff recommended, if the violation is repeated, a fine of $150.00 a day be imposed for every day of the repeat violation. City Exhibit A, a photograph of an outside display of merchandise at the subject property, was submitted for the record. It was noted the photograph also shows outside displays at other businesses adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Niemiller explained violations at the other businesses were addressed during the Code Enforcement sweep of Clearwater Beach. Member Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 84-93 regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 672 South Gulfview Boulevard a/k/a Bayside Sub #5, Block B, Lots 7, 8 & 16 - 20, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of September, 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, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, a photograph of an outside display of merchandise at the subject property, it is evident outside display of merchandise existed in an area where it is not allowed at 672 South Gulfview Boulevard, this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Conclusions of Law are: Elias Anastasopoulos was in violation of Section 40.004(2). It is the Order of this Board that Elias Anastasopoulos shall continue to comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Elias Anastasopoulos repeats the violation, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after he 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. 88-93 E.A. Mariani Asphalt Co., Inc. 601 Druid Road (Land Development Code) Complied prior Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 88-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 92-93 Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel 630 Drew Street (Building Code) (Continued from 9/8/93) This case was continued from the meeting of September 8, 1993, to allow the property owners time to correct the violation. Jeffrey Litton, representing Robert Schoeller, agreed a violation did exist. Tom Chaplinski, Construction Inspection Supervisor, stated this case dates back to November, 1991 when a notice of unsafe building was issued after a fire damaged the building. He stated the property owner hired an architectural engineering consultant who examined the structure and provided a letter stating the heat on the steel framing members, had affected the integrity of the south portion of the building. Mr. Chaplinski stated, the owner has been aware of the problem and has failed to take action. A copy of this letter, marked City Exhibit A, was submitted in evidence. Mr. Chaplinski said the building was used as an ice house. He stated the fire destroyed the cork insulation and portions of the roof and walls. Damage to the south wall was obvious. A demolition permit was obtained and included the removal of ice equipment. Removal of the steel beams caused additional damage to the walls. The southwest portion of the building was to be removed or rebuilt and the brick across the front of this portion of the building was to be removed. This has not been done. Some of the south wall shoring has been done; however, without a permit. He said numerous items shown on the engineering plans, were not corrected. He indicated when the southerly portion of the building was cited, the east and west walls should have been cited too. He submitted a certificate of inspection from Edwin F. Byerly & Associates, Inc. (consultants, engineers, etc.) into evidence as City Exhibit A. Photographs, taken two weeks previously, were submitted into evidence as City Exhibit B. Mr. Chaplinski said they reflect the current condition of the property. The certificate of inspection reflected the condition of the building after a visual inspection by Mr. Byerly. Mr. Chaplinski said the work progressed slowly and Mr. Byerly's firm was let go. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinski said no other permits, other than a demo permit had been issued. He said on September 2, 1993, plans to repair the south wall were submitted and approved. He noted the plan did not cover all the work necessary. A question was raised regarding whether or not a pit containing standing green water behind the building is a safety hazard. Mr. Chaplinski stated this has not been addressed because it was not visible at the time of the initial inspection. Clarification was requested and it was indicated the building is still unsafe and the south half of the building needs to be repaired or removed. The plan submitted covers the temporary shoring of the south wall. Additional structural damage has been discovered, which includes the entire east wall and a chimney. Regarding the permit for work on the southerly portion of the building, Mr. Chaplinski stated it has been ready; however, has not been picked up. Mr. Jeffrey Litton stated he was under the impression the engineering plans addressed the scope of necessary repairs to bring the building into compliance. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinski again indicated the permit did not cover all the work necessary to repair the southerly portion of the wall. Mr. Wyatt questioned whether the permit could be amended to permit additional work. Mr. Chaplinski said a plan amendment could be submitted. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinski stated staff recommends keeping the compliance time to a minimum due to the length of time the south portion of the structure has been in an unsafe condition. He stated Mr. Schoeller appears to have good intentions; however, the repairs are being delayed due to numerous design changes related to the renovation of the building. Discussion ensued regarding why the recently uncovered damages were not addressed at the time the original plans were approved. It was indicated this would have been covered when Mr. Schoeller picked up the permit; however, Mr. Litton said he was told the plans addressed all the necessary repairs. He requested to be informed of the exact nature of all the violations so complete compliance can be reached. In response to a question regarding whether or not he agreed other problems exist, Mr. Litton stated he was not aware the entire east wall needed repair or of any problems related to the chimney. Mile Lance left the meeting from 3:40 to 3:50 p.m. It was indicated the original permit expired and a new permit is needed. Ground breaking on the expansion project is estimated to be in six months. Thomas Lamb, Design & Development in Tampa, stated he began work on the project 11 months ago. He said approximately $60,000 was spent to address the original citations. The contractor employed at that time failed to remove the walls and did not inform Mr. Schoeller's people there were additional problems. The work was done improperly and has caused more problems. He requested to be informed of everything that is wrong so the problems may be addressed all at once. He said Mr. Schoeller will invest millions of dollars in the expansion project. He agreed the south half of the building is unsafe and should be secured and indicated a more recent demolition permit was pulled; however, the engineer did not complete the drawings in time to comply with the ten-day deadline. In response to a question, Mr. Lamb responded he was not a registered architect in the State of Florida. Discussion ensued regarding the length of time needed to resolve the issues at the southerly half of the building. It was felt a permit could be obtained within three days if the plan submitted meets the necessary requirements. In response to a question, Mr. Chaplinski stated he will work with the owner and/or agent if work is actively being done to correct the violations. Member Wyatt moved that concerning case No. 92-93, regarding violation of Sections Subpart C, Article VII, Section 47.161 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 630 Drew Street a/k/a Jones' Sub of Nicholson's, Block 7, Lots 1 - 3 and part of vacant alley, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of September, 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 Tom Chaplinski, Construction Inspection Supervisor, Jeffrey Litton, authorized representative of the owners and Thomas Lamb, of the architectural firm contracted by Robert Schoeller, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, a copy of a certificate of inspection from an architectural firm regarding the structural soundness of the building and City Exhibit B, a photographic composite of the subject property, it is evident an unsafe condition exists in the southerly portion of the structure at 630 Drew Street. The Conclusions of Law are: Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel are in violation of Section Subpart C, Article VII, Section 47.161. It is the Order of this Board that Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel shall comply with Section Subpart C, Article VII, Section 47.161 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 15 days (October 7, 1993). If Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel 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 Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel 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, Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel shall notify Tom Chaplinski, 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. 93-93 Melons International, Inc. Russell-Mackett / Latimer 2284 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Case No. 94-93 Carl & Carol Dunn 1304 Woodbine Street (Land Development Code) Complied prior Member Riley moved to withdraw Case Nos. 93-93 and 94-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 95-93 Sears Roebuck & Company c/o D-768 Tax, B2-109A 1297 South Missouri Avenue (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Rick Rosa, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated this case is not the result of an initial complaint. Since the retail store moved out of the subject property, vehicles have been parked in the parking lot to display for sale. The inspectors have put stickers on the cars, but the problem has continued. Sears has been notified and given 15 days to respond; however, no response has been received. In response to a question regarding vehicles being parked for sale in the Cleveland Plaza parking lot, Mr. Rosa stated there is some City right-of-way involved. The parking lot of the vacant Sears store belongs to Sears and the City has no control over this lot. He stated in order for cars to be cited as public nuisances, they have to be untagged or otherwise visibly inoperable. In response to a question, John Richter presented the option of ticketing the offenders; however, did not find this to be cost conscious. Discussion ensued regarding whether the owner of the property should be held responsible. Another option to barricade the parking lot was not viewed favorably by the majority due to concerns regarding aesthetics and limiting fire access. Lieutenant Jeff Kronschnabl, Clearwater Police Department, stated Clearwater Beach has the same problem with unattended cars being parked on private property. He said if the property is posted, the property owner can have the vehicles towed. He felt Sears should cooperate or be fined. Discussion ensued in regard to drafting an ordinance to address the overall issue. The Board's attorney indicated the City can do spot enforcement if they wish. In response to a question, it was indicated the City does not have the authority to post the property. A question was raised if anyone had been contacted locally to deal with this problem. It was felt Sears should have a registered agent in Florida and the manager of the Sears store in Countryside Mall should know how to contact someone in authority regarding the property. Staff was directed to pursue a local contact. Member Riley moved to continue the public hearing of the above referenced case to the meeting of October 27, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 96-93 New Orleans, Inc. / Seahawk Restaurant 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the violator. Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, stated signage on the subject property exceeds the maximum area and height requirements. On February 3, 1993, notices of violation were sent to the property owner and the business owner, with a compliance date of March 5, 1993. Inspector Don Bohr has been in contact with the property owner. She stated the process to obtain a variance to allow the sign was begun but never completed. City Exhibit A, two photographs of the sign in question, were submitted for the record. Discussion ensued regarding the case, with it being indicated the restaurant is in Chapter 11. Member Riley suggested trying to obtain permission from the bankruptcy court to remove the sign. Attorney Lance recommended staff send a copy of the Board's order to the bankruptcy court. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty stated staff recommends the sign be brought into compliance within 30 days and a fine of $50.00 per day be imposed for every day the violation exists past the compliance due date. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case No. 96-93 regarding violation of Sections 44.51(4)(e)1.b and 1.c of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard a/k/a Suburb Beautiful Replat, Block D, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of September, 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, Code Inspection Specialist, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographic composite of the subject property, it is evident a sign exists that is larger than the allowable 64 square feet and 20-foot height at 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The Conclusions of Law are: New Orleans, Inc. and Seahawk Seafood & Steak are in violation of Sections 44.51(4)(e)1.b and 1.c. of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that New Orleans, Inc. and Seahawk Seafood & Steak shall comply with Sections 44.51(4)(e)1.b and 1.c of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (October 22, 1993). If they 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 New Orleans, Inc. and Seahawk Seafood & Steak 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, New Orleans, Inc. and Seahawk Seafood & Steak 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. Member Riley recommended a $150.00 fine. The maker of the motion accepted the amendment. Discussion ensued regarding fines levied in previous sign cases. Member Wyatt said he was inclined to keep the fine at $50.00. The maker of motion withdrew the amendment. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 97-93 Melons International, Inc. / Karen Russell-Mackett, V.P. 2284 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Complied prior Member Riley moved to withdraw Case No. 97-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 44-93 James R. Nichols 1402 N. Greenwood Avenue Affidavit of Non-Compliance Member Robinson moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-compliance in Case No. 44-93 and initiate the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 60-93 W H Neudeck 311 S Gulfview Blvd Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 75-93 Homer Realty, Inc. 389 Mandalay Ave Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 76-93 Homer Realty, Inc. 393 Mandalay Ave Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 77-93 Homer Realty, Inc. 387.5 Mandalay Ave Affidavit of Compliance Member Robinson moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 60-93, 75-93, 76-93 and 77-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION John Richter announced the reorganization of the Code Enforcement Department. He stated Lieutenant Jeff Kronschnabl of the Police Services Division will be handling code enforcement. Discussion ensued regarding a letter received by the Chairman of the Board from Mr. Hober threatening legal action. Mr. Richter stated the matter involved a fence which was replaced without permits and inconsistent with City codes. Attorney Salzman stated sovereign immunity would hold the Board exempt from any liability. Any liability would pass on to the City. MINUTES - Meeting of September 8, 1993 Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of September 8, 1993, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 p.m.