Loading...
06/22/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 22, 1994 Members present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Dennis Henegar E.J. Robinson Peg Rogers Robert Theroux Absent Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair (excused) Carl Rayborn (excused) Also present: Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board 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. Case 105-93 L. Connolly & G. Nall Menna-Digiovanni 2960 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code - Signs) Continued from 10/27 & 11/10/93, 1/12, 3/23, 5/11 & 6/8/94 At the meeting of June 8, 1994, Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty requested and it was unanimously approved to continue Case 10594 to the meeting of August 10, 1994. As a case may be continued no longer than 31 days, this issue was agendaed for continuance to the next meeting. Member Rogers moved to continue Case 105-94 to the meeting of July 13, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 17-94 Church of Scientology / Covault 551 N Saturn Ave (Public Nuisance) Continued from 6/8/94 This case was continued to allow staff time to investigate questions raised by the Board and to meet with Mr. Covault to discuss reaching compliance. Janice King, Code Inspector, reported Mr. Covault is not classified as a student by the Department of Motor Vehicles, because they do not recognize the Church of Scientology as an accredited school. She stated he is required to obtain a Florida registration for his vehicle. Wayne Covault stated he is in the process of obtaining Florida registration for the vehicle. Ms. King recommended Mr. Covault be allowed two more weeks to obtain the Florida registration. Attorney Salzman recommended continuing this item to the next hearing. If the case is not dismissed prior to the hearing, he stated it would be necessary for the Board to make a ruling. In response to a question, Mr. Salzman advised it is not necessary for Mr. Covault to appear before the Board at the next meeting if the vehicle is in compliance. However, he recommended Mr. Covault notify the City of his compliance well in advance of the next hearing date. Member Rogers moved to continue Case 17-94 to the meeting of July 13, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 19-94 Roy Cadwell 1910 Overbrook Ave (Minimum Housing) Continued from 6/8/94 At the meeting of June 8, 1994, it was unanimously approved to continue Case 19-94 to the meeting of July 27, 1994 to allow time for staff to work with Mr. Cadwell to bring the property into compliance. As a case may be continued no longer than 31 days, this issue was agendaed for continuance to the next meeting. Member Rogers moved to continue Case 19-94 to the meeting of July 13, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 22-94 Stanislaw & Kazimiera Budzinski 201 S Gulfview Boulevard (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the property owner. It was verified the certified mail receipt of the Notice of Hearing had been received by the City. Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated an order was issued for a recurring violation of outdoor display of merchandise on October 27, 1993. The Board ordered a fine of $150.00 per day for each day of repeat violation. Ms. Niemiller stated she observed merchandise being displayed outdoors on May 10, 1994 and mailed the notice of repeat violation to the property owner on May 11, with a compliance date of May 13, 1994. The notice was sent both regular and certified mail and the certified return receipt was received by the City. She reported ownership of the property has not changed since the original order. Ms. Niemiller stated merchandise was observed outdoors again on May 27, June 3 and this morning. Staff recommended a fine for these three days and any additional dates of subsequent violation. City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property on May 27, June 3 and June 22, 1994, was submitted for the record. In response to a question, Attorney Salzman explained the notification process, stating a fine is imposed for every day a violation exists after the notice of repeat violation is issued. Ms. Niemiller stated she has observed merchandise outdoors on other days; however, the displays were removed before she could photograph them. She stated she speaks to the tenants each time and they say they will not do it again. She said she has not met the property owner, but has met with the business owner many times. Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 22-94, regarding repeat violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 201 S Gulfview Blvd a/k/a Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 48-52 & 98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of June, 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 Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property on May 27, June 3 and June 22, 1994, it is evident an outside display of merchandise exists which is not permitted in the CR-28 zoning district at 201 S Gulfview Boulevard. The Conclusions of Law are: Stanislaw & Kazimiera Budzinski are in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code; were found by the Board on October 27, 1993 to have violated the same provision and have committed a repeat violation. It is the Order of this Board that Stanislaw & Kazimiera Budzinski shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by June 22, 1994. Stanislaw & Kazimiera Budzinski shall pay a fine of $ 150.00 per day for May 27, June 3 and June 22, 1994, and $150.00 per day for each additional day the of repeat violation. A certified copy of this Order imposing the fine shall be recorded in the Public Records of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County and, once recorded, shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. A fine imposed pursuant to Chapter 162 continues to accrue until the violator comes into compliance or until a judgment is rendered in a suit to foreclose on a lien filed pursuant to Chapter 162, whichever occurs first. 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, Stanislaw & Kazimiera Budzinski 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 23-94 Vaughn & Margaret Haight 22991 US 19 N (Land Development Code) Vaughn Haight stated he was not sure if he understood the violation. Russ Stewart, Code Inspector, explained the signage in question is abandoned and exceeds the maximum allowable size and height for the zoning. He reported any sign advertising a business no longer licensed or not doing business at a location for 180 days is considered to be abandoned. The property owners were notified of the violation on December 27, 1993, via both regular and certified mail, with a compliance date of January 31, 1994. He said the signage remains in violation today. City Exhibits A and B, a photograph of the subject property and the certified mail return receipt, were submitted for the record. In response to a question, Mr. Stewart stated there was a delay in bringing this case before the Board due to a change in City personnel. The case was being handled by an inspector who is no longer with the City. Mr. Haight stated as soon as he purchased the property, he received the notice of violation. He stated he experienced numerous problems during the closing which delayed compliance. However, he said he had been working with the previous inspector and was surprised to receive the notice of hearing. He stated he wished to sell the property and would ensure the new owner recognized the need to bring the signage into compliance. Discussion ensued regarding notification dates, correspondence between Mr. Haight and the City and the signage allowance for the property. Concern was expressed the previous property owner was not cited. Mr. Haight indicated he was told by a City representative signage was grandfathered in for this property. Mr. Haight stated he spent thousands of dollars on back taxes and cleaning up the property. He indicated his willingness to apply for a variance. It was indicated, if a variance is requested, the Board would not rule on the matter until after the variance hearing. A suggestion was made for Mr. Haight to paint over the attached sign on the side of the building. Discussion ensued regarding continuing the case to allow Mr. Haight time to schedule a variance hearing. Member Rogers moved to continue Case 23-94 to the meeting of July 13 to monitor Mr. Haight's request for a variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this issue was properly handled in view of the change in City staff. Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, stated it was necessary to act on the matter as a violation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. It was indicated time is being extended in good faith to allow Mr. Haight ample opportunity to comply. Case 24-94 Tom Falone, Clearwater Firearms 1916 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard (Land Development Code) Tom Falone requested an explanation of the violation. Russ Stewart, Code Inspector, explained the above roof structure is visible from outside the property and depicts paint ball symbols, or "splats" which represent merchandise sold inside. He considered this to be a sign in violation of the code. City Exhibits A & B, a photograph of the subject property and a magazine clipping advertising paint ball guns, were submitted for the record. In response to a question regarding the exhibits, Mr. Stewart stated the "splats" in the advertisement look the same as those on the sign in question. Mr. Falone did not object to the exhibits; however, did not agree with the interpretation of the photograph of the above roof structure as depicting paint ball "splats". Mr. Falone stated he has been in the City for 32 years and has operated a gun range on the subject property since 1980. He said the building is a former Burger King and has a structure sticking up from the parapet wall which cannot be removed. He stated he had it decorated with a picture of Yosemite Sam; however, the picture was not allowed because it was felt the guns held by the cartoon character represent his business. He stated he then contracted with an artist to paint over the cartoon with flower art. Defendant's Exhibit A, a composite containing photographs, newspaper and magazine clippings depicting paint ball "splats" and a receipt for painting, was submitted for the record. Mr. Falone expressed concern with the citation, stating a previous sign inspector voiced the opinion the sign does not represent paint ball "splats". He questioned why the original inspector was not present. It was indicated he is no longer with the City. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the structure is a sign and whether or not it represents paint ball "splats". It was felt the advertisement submitted as City Exhibit B was not relevant and did not represent the structure on the subject property. The illustration on the structure was not deemed to resemble either paint ball "splats" or flowers. The definition of a sign was read into the record. While it was agreed the structure may attract attention, it was not considered to advertise or convey a message peculiar to this type of business. The majority of the Board did not feel the structure was in violation as cited. Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 24-94, regarding violation of Section 44.57(8) of the Clearwater City Code at 1916 Gulf-To-Bay Blvd a/k/a M & B 24-01 in Section 13-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 22nd day of June, 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 Russ Stewart, Code Inspector, and Tom Falone, Clearwater Firearms, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibits A & B, a photograph of the subject property and a magazine clipping; Defendant's composite Exhibit A, a receipt, photographs, newspaper and magazine clippings, it is evident above-roof signage does not exist at 1916 Gulf-To-Bay Blvd. The Conclusions of Law are: Tom Falone, Clearwater Firearms is not in violation of Section 44.57(8). It is the Order of this Board that Case No. 24-94 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 25-94 Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD 1425 Sunset Point Road (Land Development Code) It was indicated the notice of hearing was returned in the mail and a request was made to continue this case to allow time to post the property. Member Rogers moved to continue Case 25-94 to the meeting of July 13, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION Attorney Salzman discussed the subject of continuances, suggesting staff may wish to consider withdrawing and rescheduling certain cases rather than continuing for a long period of time. Ms. Doherty explained the time frames associated with applying and obtaining variances and building permits sometimes extend far past what was expected. She verified activity concerning violations is monitored by staff and cases are usually not brought before the Board until it is felt no further compliance efforts are in progess. Concerning Case 10593, she stated staff did not anticipate the alleged violator would apply for a variance. A question was raised regarding Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance not having attended recent hearings. Attorney Salzman stated it was felt to be inappropriate for Mr. Lance to attend in view of the fact that Alan Zimmet, senior partner of the Board Attorney's firm, is representing the City as Interim City Attorney. Discussion ensued regarding standard language in the motions. Mr. Salzman suggested this be agendaed for review at the next meeting. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Chairman MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ATTEST: Secretary