Loading...
04/13/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 13, 1994 Members present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair Dennis Henegar Carl Rayborn E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Robert Theroux Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant to the City Manager/Community Reponse 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 Chair 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 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, 1/12/94 & 3/23/94 Sign variance granted with conditions 2/7/94 In a memo dated April 8, 1994, Inspections Specialist Geri Doherty withdrew Case 74-93, stating signage on the subject property is now in compliance. Case 11-94 Burger King Corp / Burger King / Roger Thomson R.A. 1101 S Missouri Avenue (Land Development Code-Signs) In a memo dated April 8, 1994, Inspections Specialist Geri Doherty withdrew Case 11-94, stating signage on the subject property is now in compliance. Case 12-94 Frank C Kunnen, Jr 2124 Sunnydale Blvd (Land Development Code-Signs) Janice King, Code Inspector, testified this case relates to vehicle service being performed outdoors in violation of the code for this zone (IL). The IL zone requires all vehicle service to be performed inside an enclosed building. Legal notice of the violation was sent to the property owner and the business owner and ownership was verified through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. The certified mail receipt for the legal notice sent to the property owner has not been returned. The certified mail of the Notice of Hearing was returned unclaimed to the City Clerk Department. Ms. King posted and photographed the subject property this week. She stated this was also done when the property owner was previously cited for the same code violations. Ms. King stated her first inspection of the property was on September 17, 1992, in response to a neighbor's complaint about Max Pitcheon, the lessee, working on a noisy race car outside. At that time, a warning was given and the code was explained. A second warning was given on October 6, 1992. On January 21, 1993, Ms. King observed Mr. Pitcheon working on a car outside and spoke to him. A Notice of Violation was sent on February 1, 1993, with a complaince date of February 12, 1993 and Mr. Pitcheon complied. On September 22, 1993, Mr. Pitcheon was again observed working on a vehicle outside. Ms. King and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Richter visited the site on October 2, 1993 and spoke with Mr. Pitcheon and Mr. Kunnen, the property owner. Mr. Pitcheon was observed working outside on October 6, 1993. He said this would not recur. Seeing no further violations for several weeks, Ms. King stated the case was closed. However, she indicated Mr. Pitcheon has been observed working on vehicles outside as recently as January 28, 1994. She explained to him there would be no further warnings and the case would be brought before the Board. City Exhibit A, photographs of work being performed outside on the subject property on January 28, 1993 and the Notice of Hearing posted April 12, 1994, were submitted for the record. In response to a question, Ms. King stated the code for this zone has always required vehicle service to be indoors since Mr. Pitcheon began operating his business in 1983. She indicated there was an addendum to Mr. Pitcheon's occupational license to add vehicle repair. Due to ongoing complaints from neighbors in the adjacent Raintree Village regarding the excessive noise and the clutter related to the outdoor work being performed, staff recommended a fine of $150.00 for each day of non-compliance. A question was raised regarding how a fine, if imposed, would be calculated. It was indicated the fine would not run continuously, but would be computed on each day there was work performed outdoors. Concern was expressed with citing the property owner instead of the lessee in cases of this type. Attorney Salzman stated enforcement must be done through the property owner, who is responsible for the property. He stated a tenant can be brought in for informational purposes, but there is no strength of position unless the property owner is made responsible for compliance. Discussion ensued regarding what type of work consitutes a violation, if noise enforcement is a police issue and the rights and obligations of property ownership. Ms. King indicated vehicle service work is allowed in the IL zone only in enclosed bays and the Community Response Team is responsible for noise enforcement. Assitant City Attorney Lance stated he is satisfied the state and municipal mandates are being followed by requiring compliance from the property owner. Attorney Salzman maintained that the intention of these proceedings is to gain compliance, not to punish citizens or collect fines. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 12-94, regarding violation of Section 41.053(30)(a) & 40.004(3)(a) of the Clearwater City Code at 2124 Sunnydale Blvd a/k/a Clearwater Industrial Park Replat, W 396.34' of Lot 1, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of April, 1994, 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 viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of work being performed outside on the subject property on January 28, 1993 and the Notice of Hearing posted April 12, 1994, it is evident vehicle service is being performed outdoors at 2124 Sunnydale Boulevard, which use is not in compliance with the IL (limited industrial) zoning regulations. The Conclusions of Law are: Frank C, Kunnen, Jr. is in violation of Section 41.053(30)(a) & 40.004(3)(a) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Frank C Kunnen, Jr shall comply with Section 41.053(30)(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 7 days (April 20, 1994). If Frank C Kunnen, Jr does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $200.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Frank C Kunnen, Jr 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, Frank C Kunnen, Jr 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 13-94 Jashwantlal & Jyots Bakriwala 1264 Cleveland St (Land Development Code-Signs) Code Inspector Rick Rosa requested to continue Case 13-94 to the meeting of May 11, 1994 as the alleged violator is working toward obtaining compliance. Member Riley moved to continue Case 13-94 to the meeting of May 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 14-94 Makris Plaza Inc, Stella Makris, R.A. 2110 Drew Street (Land Development Code-Signs) Code Inspector Janice King withdrew Case 11-94, stating the subject property is now in compliance. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION Case 71-93 Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Second Request to address Board regarding fine In response to a question, Attorney Salzman said the bylaws do not preclude rehearing a fine reduction request. He stated the Board has the option of asking for any new facts and circumstances in writing prior to deciding whether or not to rehear the request. He suggested, if written facts are requested, they be submitted to the Board during a regularly scheduled meeting. Lt. Kronschnabl stated he appreciates the opportunity to prepare in advance when responding to allegations. Member Riley moved, concerning Case 71-93, to approve sending a letter to the violator's representative requesting any new information in writing prior to the Board deciding whether or not to grant the request to address the Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 106-93 Claude E. Miranda 700 S Lake Drive (Land Development Code) Affidavit of Compliance Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case 106-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Swanberg questioned if a policy could be implemented to require a reduced fine to be paid within a set time period. Attorney Salzman said there is no case law regarding a time frame and believed one could be set. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.