07/27/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
July 27, 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:
Andy Salzman, 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 & 7/13/94
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 August 10, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case 19-94
Roy Cadwell
1910 Overbrook Ave
(Minimum Housing) - Continued from 6/8, 6/22 & 7/13/94
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, to allow time for the property owner to work toward
compliance.
A summary of the compliance efforts during the last six weeks was requested.
Attorney David W. Griffin, representing the property owner, stated Mr. Cadwell is currently out of the country. Before he left, he contracted for a thorough inspection of the property
and numerous deficiencies were found. Mr. Griffin stated the electrical system violations have been corrected. He said Mr. Cadwell has contracted for repair of the structural deficiencies;
however, the necessary repairs have not been completed.
Mr. Griffin stated Mr. Cadwell wishes to make the property habitable. Addressing concerns regarding occupancy of the building during restoration, Mr. Griffin stated the lower unit is
vacant and there is one tenant on the second floor. He asked for more time to accomplish the work already contracted and agreed to keep the lower floor vacant until repaired.
Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, responded to a question regarding whether or not the building can be made habitable. He said it can be repaired and progress has been made in this regard.
He stated, upon inspection this morning, he found the electrical equipment, wiring and other violations corrected. He stated the property owner has requested until October 20 to complete
the necessary work.
In response to questions, Mr. Packer stated the electrical repairs were done by a licensed contractor and passed City inspection. He said a survey concerning the structural integrity
was done and indicated the stairway and landing need work. He indicated the building, built in 1925, resembles a converted carriage house and the upper level, or dwelling unit, is relatively
intact. However, the materials used in the stairs and enclosing the lower level have deteriorated. He stated the building contractor has estimated the cost of repairing the stairs
and landing at $1,700.
Questioned if the building contractor is authorized to proceed with the necessary work during Mr. Cadwell's absence, Mr. Griffin indicated he is, and feels the work can be accomplished
by October 20, 1994. Discussion continued regarding whether or not the work can be done in the absence of the property owner.
Victor Chodora, City Building Official, responded to questions, stating there is concern regarding the stability of the first floor due to termite damage to the floor system and walls.
He stated the second floor appears to be safe and the plumbing and electrical systems are up to code. He stated the stairwell is temporarily stabilized.
Referring to the minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities listed on the affidavit, Mr. Chodora stated the primary concerns in this case were electrical and structural. He
indicated
the contractor holds the necessary licenses to proceed with the work. He recommended keeping the first floor vacant until repaired and imposing a fine after October 20 for any repairs
not completed.
City Exhibit C, a photograph album of the subject property, was submitted for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding occupancy of the building. Mr. Packer stated in response to a question, the lower unit will be posted to ensure it remains unoccupied. He stated two people
occupy the second floor unit.
In response questions regarding the immediate safety of the structure, Mr. Chodora stated the stairway hand rail should be sufficient for now. The contractor is to bring it up to code.
He indicated the second floor appears to be supported independently of the first floor enclosure.
In response to a question, it was indicated the contractor is Mr. Morlando, located on Duncan Avenue and Clearwater.
It was felt Mr. Cadwell has been given every opportunity to comply. Staff recommended a fine of $250.00 for each day of non-compliance after October 20, 1994. It was recommended the
lower unit be secured and posted, with a fine imposed if the lower dwelling unit is occupied prior to compliance.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 19-94, regarding violation of Section 47.051, Ordinance 5157-92 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, adopting 1991 Std Housing Code, Chapter
3, Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment & Facilities; Sections 303.4, 305.1, 305.5, 305.16, 305.17 & 307.5 on property located at 1910 Overbrook Ave a/k/a Sunset Point 2nd Addition
- Block G, Lot 63 Parcel # 03/29/15/ 88128/007/0630, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony and discussion at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearings held the
8th day of June, and the 27th 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 the testimony of Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, Victor Chodora, City Building Official, and David Griffin, attorney representing Mr. Cadwell,
and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit C, a photograph album of the subject property, it is evident many conditions still need to be corrected at 1910 Overbrook Avenue.
The Conclusions of Law are: Roy Cadwell is in violation of Section 47.051, Ordinance 5157-92 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, adopting 1991 Std Housing Code, Chapter 3, Minimum
Standards for Basic Equipment & Facilities; Sections 305.1 (Foundation System); 305.5 (Stairs, Porches and Appurtenances); 305.16 & 305.17 (Structural Supports) and 307.5 (Extermination).
It is the Order of this Board that Roy Cadwell shall comply with Section 47.051, Ordinance 5157-92 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, adopting 1991 Std Housing Code, Chapter 3, Minimum
Standards for Basic Equipment & Facilities; Sections 305.1 (Foundation System); 305.5 (Stairs, Porches and Appurtenances); 305.16 & 305.17 (Structural Supports) and 307.5 (Extermination)
by October 20, 1994. In the interim, the ground floor is not to be occupied
and must be secured and posted for health and safety factors.
If Roy Cadwell does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance
due date.
If Roy Cadwell 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, Roy Cadwell shall notify Vern Packer, 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 25-94
Stephen Ballis, TRE
c/o Dayton Resources, LTD
1425 Sunset Point Road
(Land Development Code) Continued from 6/22 & 7/13/94
This case was continued pursuant to the Board's request for additional evidence. Staff was requested to photograph the opposite side of the sign pictured in the exhibit submitted July
13, 1994.
No one was present to represent the property owner.
It was noted the certified mail receipt of the notice of continuance to today's meeting had not been received from the out of town property owner. In response to a question, it was
indicated the said notice of continuance was not posted on the property. Attorney Salzman recommended, as there is no local contact person, posting the notice of continuance on the
subject property.
Russ Stewart, Sign Code Inspector, questioned if the new photographs are sufficient. It was indicated they are.
Concern was expressed the sign has been allowed to remain in poor condition for a long time. In response to a question, it was indicated the subject sign has probably existed for more
than three years. Lt. Kronschnabl explained sign amortization inspection is done by grid, and once a violation is found, the enforcement procedure is lengthy.
In response to a question, it was indicated unsafe structures are reported to the Central Permitting Department for inspection, enforcement, and/or demolition.
Member Rogers moved to continue Case 25-94 to the meeting of August 10, 1994 to post the notice of continuance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case 29-94
Jacob Fulton/Payco Service Station
1108 N Greenwood Ave
(Occupational License)
Continued from 6/22 & 7/13/94
This case was continued from the previous meeting due to the business owner having a conflicting appointment.
In a memo dated July 25, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew Case 29 94, stating the occupational license has been obtained.
Case 35-94
H Glaesel-Hollenback Tre
c/o EMS of Florida
200 Island Way
(Land Development Code)
Attorney Richard Pierce appeared, representing the owners of Island Estates Shopping Center.
Vicki Niemiller, Code Inspector, stated the violation is for an outdoor display of merchandise at the Publix supermarket, for which no conditional use approval has been obtained by the
property owner. She stated a conditional use application was submitted; however, the related parking variance request was denied November 11, 1993 and the conditional use could not
be approved.
Ms. Niemiller stated the outdoor display was first observed June 6, 1994. The Notice of Violation was mailed both regular and certified mail on June 7, with a June 20 compliance date.
She stated the certified mail receipt came back signed. The merchandise was still outside on June 21, 1994. The property was reinspected this morning. The merchandise had been removed
and the property was in compliance. Staff recommended a fine of $150.00 per day if the violation is repeated.
City Exhibit A, photographs of an outdoor flower display on the subject property, was submitted for the record.
Lt. Kronschnabl informed the Board that recent legislation provides for a repeat violation to be brought back before the Board and for the fine to start on that date.
Attorney Pierce stated the manager of Publix thought there was a valid temporary permit for the outdoor display. He stated the manager has removed the display and said it would not
be
repeated.
Mr. Pierce stated, because the absentee owner has arranged to have his mail routed through an intermediary, he did not receive the Notice of Hearing until yesterday. Mr. Pierce requested
that his name be placed on the mailing list for this case.
Ms. Niemiller responded to questions, stating temporary indoor window signage is allowed. Questioned if outdoor displays of flowers are allowed at other locations, she stated, depending
on the zoning, conditional use approval could be required. She verified this situation is not peculiar to Island Estates.
Ms. Niemiller pointed out there are provisions for temporary outdoor sales and retail displays of merchandise. She stated these are common during the Christmas holidays. She responded
to questions regarding time limits and renewals requirements of temporary permits.
A question was raised concerning why parking is tied to outdoor displays of merchandise. Attorney Salzman stated, when an application is received concerning a certain property, that
property is examined to see whether or not it meets the current code. Members expressed surprise parking was considered substandard at this location.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 35-94, regarding violation of Section 40.004(3)(a) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 200 Island Way a/k/a M&B 13-01 in Section
08-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 27th 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 Richard Pierce, attorney representing H. Glaesel-Hollenback Tre, c/o EMS of Florida, and viewing
the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, it is evident an outdoor display of merchandise exists at 200 Island Way which is a conditional
use in this zone, CC (Commercial Center) and no conditional use approval has been obtained.
The Conclusions of Law are: H Glaesel-Hollenback Tre c/o EMS of Florida, is in violation of Section 40.004(3)(a) of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that H Glaesel-Hollenback Tre c/o EMS of Florida shall comply with Section 40.004(3)(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 1, 1994.
If H Glaesel-Hollenback Tre, c/o EMS of Florida does 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 H Glaesel-Hollenback Tre, c/o EMS of Florida 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,
H Glaesel-Hollenback Tre, c/o EMS of Florida 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.
OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION
Case 78-93 - Affidavit of Compliance
Stavros & Panagio Demosthenis (Mr. Homemade)
1765 Gulf to Bay Blvd
(Land Development Code-Signs)
Member Riley moved to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case 78-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Review Order Formats - Andy Salzman - Continued from 7/13/94
Mr. Salzman responded to questions and concerns of the members regarding the order formats used.
Member Swanberg questioned, as the code sections are listed on the affidavit, if it is necessary to repeat them in the motion. Attorney Salzman agreed it is not necessary; reference
can be made to code sections listed on the affidavit.
Updates to the standard forms are to be provided.
Attorney Vaughan was commended by the Board for handling the Code Enforcement Board proceedings when filling in for Attorney Salzman.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
Chairman
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
ATTEST:
Secretary