07/13/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
July 13, 1994
Members present:
Stephen D. Swanberg, Chairman
Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chairman
Dennis Henegar
Carl Rayborn
E.J. Robinson
Peg Rogers
Robert Theroux
Also present:
Stephanie Vaughan, Attorney for the Board
Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant 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.
Case 105-93
L. Connolly & G. Nall/Menna-Digiovanni
2960 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
(Land Development Code)
Continued from 10/27 & 11/10/93, 1/12, 3/23, 5/11, 6/8 & 6/22/94
At the meeting of June 8, 1994, it was requested and unanimously approved to continue Case 105 93 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) Cont'd from 6/8 & 6/22/94
Code Inspector Janice King withdrew Case 17-94, stating Mr. Covault has obtained a Florida registration for his vehicle.
Case 19-94
Roy Cadwell
1910 Overbrook Ave
(Minimum Housing) Cont'd from 6/8 & 6/22/94
At the meeting of June 8, 1994, it was requested and unanimously approved to continue Case 19 94 to the meeting of July 27, 1994.
As a case may be continued no longer than 31 days, this issue was agendaed for continuance to the next meeting.
Member Riley moved to continue Case 19-94 to the meeting of July 27, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case 23-94
Vaughn & Margaret Haight
22991 US 19 N
(Land Development Code) Cont'd from 6/22/94
No representative was present.
This case was continued to allow time to bring signage for the subject property into compliance.
Sign Inspector Russ Stewart stated Mr. Haight is submitting a variance application for the freestanding sign, which will be scheduled for the City Commission meeting of September 1,
1994. He recommended a compliance date of September 8, 1994 for the freestanding sign. He stated Mr. Haight has arranged to bring the attached signage into compliance by contracting
to have it painted over.
As Mr. Haight seemed to be attempting compliance, it was recommended that staff continue to work with him. Lt. Kronschnabl agreed and withdrew Case 23-94.
Case 25-94
Stephen Ballis, TRE
c/o Dayton Resources, LTD
1425 Sunset Point Road
(Land Development Code) Cont'd from 6/22/94
This case was continued on June 22, 1994, to allow time to post notification on the subject property as there is no local contact person.
Member Henegar suggested adding the name of the business to the affidavit to help identify the location and appearance of the property. Lt. Kronschnabl recommended identifying the business
during staff's narrative.
No one was present at today's meeting to represent the property owner. In response to a question, Mr. Stewart said he posted the property.
Sign Inspector Russ Stewart stated the property is for sale and there has not been a business in operation at this location for three or four years. He explained existing signage on
the property exceeds the maximum allowable height and area requirements. City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, was submitted for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the structure in question fits the definition of a sign, as there is no wording visible on the sign in the photograph. A question was raised
if there is a message on the opposite side of the sign from what is pictured. Mr. Stewart stated there is.
In response to a question, Mr. Stewart read the definition of a sign and sign structure from the Code.
The Board attorney stated it is in the Board's discretion to determine whether the primary purpose of the structure is to convey a message. The majority of the Board felt there was
insufficient evidence to act on this case and requested a photograph of the opposite side of the sign.
Member Riley moved to continue Case 25-94 to the meeting of July 27, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Members Swanberg, Riley, Robinson Henegar, Rayborn,
and Theroux voted "Aye"; Member Rogers voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Member Theroux commented on the large number of sign code issues being raised within the City. It was indicated this is due to the October, 1993 expiration of the sign amortization
period. It was indicated legislation having an economic impact on citizens is frequently an emotional issue.
Case 26-94
Lela Boykin Estate c/o Einstein Boykin
1028 N Missouri Ave
(Public Nuisance)
No one was present to represent the property owner.
Code Inspector Rick Rosa reviewed the history of the property. In response to questions, Mr. Rosa stated the subject property is located off Palmetto Street between Greenwood Avenue
and Betty Lane to the north of the stadium. He said the notice of violation for both meeting dates was posted on the property, on which a house was demolished some time ago. He requested
the Board's permission to have the lot cleared and the vehicle towed.
City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, was submitted for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding the public nuisance process. Board Attorney Vaughan verified there
was no one in the audience to represent the Lela Boykin Estate or Einstein Boykin.
She clarified the notice of violation indicated the condition was to be remedied by June 14, 1994, or an appeal was to be filed. As no one had appeared or corrected the violation, the
City is authorized to remedy the situation.
Lt. Kronschnabl noted there was no new evidence presented in the letter of appeal.
Case 27-94
Victor & Emilie Lukas
2882 Gulf-To-Bay Blvd
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated June 20, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew this case, stating the occupational license has been obtained.
Case 28-94
Cynthia Goebel
1128 Pinellas St
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated July 6, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew this case, stating the
property has changed hands and a new citation will have to be issued.
Case 29-94
Jacob Fulton/Payco Service Station
1108 N Greenwood Ave
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated July 8, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith requested a continuance due to the business owner having a conflicting appointment.
Member Riley moved to continue Case 29-94 to the meeting of July 13, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case 30-94
Quality Cleaners/Eleftherios Drettakis
702 Drew St
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated June 30, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew this case, stating the occupational license has been obtained.
Case 31-94
Ross Real Estate Investment Co / Ross Thurman III
600 Bypass Dr #215
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated June 30, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew this case, stating the occupational license has been obtained.
Case 32-94
Pelican Two, Inc/J.A. Staack, R.A.
470 Mandalay Ave
(Land Development Code)
No one was present to represent the property owner.
Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated the business operating on the subject property is Jammin'z Dance Shack and Grill. The property ownership was verified through the Pinellas County
Property Appraiser's office. She stated this is a recurring violation of a banner and strips of pennants being displayed in violation of the code. The violation was first observed
on February 24, 1994 and a notice of violation was mailed on February 25, 1994. The property was reinspected on March 4, 1994 and was found to be in compliance. The violation was again
observed on June 3, 1994 and a notice of recurring violation was sent June 4, 1994 via both regular and certified mail. The certified mail receipt was returned signed. The property
was reinspected this morning and found to be in compliance. Staff recommended a fine of $100.00 a day if the violation is repeated.
City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, was submitted for the record.
In response to a question, Ms. Niemiller stated the banners in question do not qualify as grand opening banners. She recommended, if the violation is repeated, a fine of $100.00 per
day for each day of repeat violation.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 32-94, regarding violation of Section 44.57(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 470 Mandalay Ave, a/k/a Clearwater Beach Park,
Lots 43-48, S14.75' Lot 64, & Lots 65-71, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of July, 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,
it is evident banners and strips of pennants were being displayed at 470 Mandalay Ave on February 24, 1994, this condition was corrected and recurred on June 3, 1994. It is further
evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: Pelican Two, Inc. c/o James A Staack, R.A. was in violation of Section 44.57(2).
It is the Order of this Board that Pelican Two, Inc. c/o James A Staack, R.A. shall continue to comply with Section 44.57(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater.
If Pelican Two, Inc. c/o James A Staack, R.A. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after they
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 33-94
William & Helen Kebort, Tre
771 Bayway Blvd
(Land Development Code)
A man who identified himself as the tenant of 771 Bayway Boulevard, did not agree to the violation.
Code Inspector Vicki Niemiller stated this case is for an outdoor display of merchandise, which is not a permitted or conditional use in the CB (Beach Commercial) Zone. She stated the
property ownership was verified through the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office. She testified a post card rack was observed outdoors on May 18, 1994. A notice of violation
was sent via regular and certified mail on May 19, with a compliance date of May 25 and the certified mail receipt was returned. The property was reinspected on May 25 and the postcard
rack was still outdoors.
As the City Clerk did not receive the certified mail receipt for the Notice of Hearing, Ms. Niemiller indicated she posted a copy of said notice on the door of the subject property.
Upon reinspection this morning, the property was found to be in compliance. She said staff recommends a fine of $150.00 a day if the fine is repeated.
City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, was submitted for the record.
The tenant questioned the code regulating the outdoor display of merchandise in his zone. He requested a copy of the applicable sections. Staff is to furnish these copies to the tenant.
The tenant disagreed with postcards being included in the definition of an outdoor display of merchandise. He stated the rack is in an enclosed area and cannot be seen from the street.
He questioned newspaper racks and vending machines being allowed outdoors. Ms. Niemiller explained outdoor vending machines are required to have a permit. She stated news racks are
exempt from the permitting requirement; however, are restricted to particular areas.
The tenant left the meeting.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 33-94, regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code at 771 Bayway Blvd, a/k/a Bayside Shores, Block C, Lots 1-10, the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 13th day of July, 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 the tenant of 771 Bayway Blvd and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A,
photographs of the subject property, it is evident an outside display of merchandise exists which is not a permitted use in the Beach Commercial (CB) zone at 771 Bayway Blvd.
The Conclusions of Law are: William & Helen Kebort, Tre are in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that William & Helen Kebort, Tre shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by July 20, 1994.
If William & Helen Kebort, Tre do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past
the compliance due date.
If William & Helen Kebort, Tre 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, William & Helen Kebort, Tre 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 34-94
Viorel Caba
1970 Rainbow Drive
(Public Nuisance)
Lt. Kronschnabl withdrew Case 34-94, stating this matter will be pursued through the County court system. In response to a question, he explained this individual has been challenging
the public nuisance process by maintaining a minimum of six vehicles and three boats on his property, apparently moving license tags from one vehicle to another. After repeated checks
of this property, the decision was made to cite the property owner through the court system, issuing tickets for vehicles in violation.
OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION
Case 04-93 - Affidavit of Compliance
Barnell & Louise Evans
1313 N Greenwood Avenue
(Standard Housing Code)
Case 08-94 - Affidavit of Compliance
Evangelos & Maria Natsis
1626 & 1628 Drew St
(Standard Housing Code)
Case 18-94 - Affidavit of Compliance
Heinz & Elisabeth Roeshink/Dennis Roeshink
1358 Boylan Ave
(Public Nuisance)
Case 20-94 - Affidavit of Compliance
Ioannis & Eva Tagaras
2241 Nursery Rd
(Land Development Code)
Member Robinson moved, regarding Cases 04-93, 08-94, 18 94 and 20-94, to accept the Affidavits of Compliance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Review Order Formats - Andy Salzman
This item was continued to the meeting of July 27, 1994.
Member Henegar requested information regarding Code enforcement; the different Code classifications, the responsible departments and qualifications of the inspectors.
Lt. Kronschnabl briefly explained the code enforcement arena. He is to provide a list of the different branches of code enforcement and a breakdown of the departments responsible for
each.
In response to a question from Member Theroux, it was indicated the Board does not hear cases that carry a criminal penalty, such as the anti-nudity ordinance.
MINUTES - June 8, and June 22, 1994
Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of June 8, and June 22, 1994, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:24 p.m.
Chairman
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
ATTEST:
Secretary