08/10/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
August 10, 1994
Members present:
Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair
Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair
Dennis Henegar
Carl Rayborn
E.J. Robinson
Peg Rogers
Members absent:
Robert Theroux (excused)
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 & 7/27/94
At the meeting of June 8, 1994, it was indicated the violation was in the process of being corrected. Staff requested and it was unanimously approved to continue Case 105 93 to the
meeting of August 10, 1994.
Lt. Kronschnabl withdrew Case 105-93, stating the property should be in compliance by tomorrow.
Case 25-94
Stephen Ballis, TRE
c/o Dayton Resources, LTD
1425 Sunset Point Road
(Land Development Code) Continued from 6/22, 7/13 & 7/27/94
No representative was present.
Sign Code Inspector Russ Stewart stated this case was continued from the meeting of July 27, 1994 to post the property. He stated the notice of continuance was posted on the property.
There has been no contact with the out-of-town owner. He recommended allowing two weeks to bring the sign into conformance.
City Exhibit A, photographs of the sign on the property, was submitted for the record.
The Board Attorney felt felt every attempt had been made to notify the property owner.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 25-94, regarding violation of Sections 44.51(4)(c)1.b & 1.c of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1425 Sunset Point Road a/k/a
M & B 32-06 in Section 02-29-15, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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, Sign Code Inspector, there being no one present to represent Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD, and viewing
the evidence, exhibit submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of the sign on the property, it is evident a sign which exceeds the maximum area and height for freestanding signs exists
at 1425 Sunset Point Road.
The Conclusions of Law are: Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD is in violation of Section 44.51(4)(c)1.b & 1.c of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD shall comply with Section 44.51(4)(c)1.b & 1.c of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 24, 1994.
If Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $ 50.00 per day for each day the violation continues
to exist past the compliance due date.
If Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD 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, Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD shall notify Russ Stewart, 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 36-94
Eleftherios & Maria Passaris
1484 Gulf To Bay Blvd
(Land Development Code)
No representative was present.
Code Inspector Rick Rosa stated this case involves two violations; a vehicle sign and a sign being displayed on a person in a public right-of-way at a mini shopping mall. He stated
he has been working with the property owner and the violations have been corrected. He wished to establish the violation existed in case it recurs. He recommended a fine of $50 per
day for each day the violation recurs.
City Exhibit A, a photograph of the vehicle sign, was submitted for the record.
Mr. Rosa stated the property is located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, just west of Highland Avenue. A lady in a sombrero was displaying the sign and has been warned if the violation is
repeated she may be issued a notice to appear in county court.
Discussion of the vehicle sign ensued. Mr. Rosa stated, while working with the property owner, it was determined to be impractical for the tenant to park his vehicle at the street.
There were complaints because of what was depicted on the truck. Mr. Rosa stated the vehicle sign was previously cited when the vehicle was not being moved from the property. The
vehicle has been moved.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 36-94, regarding violation of Section 44.57(24) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1484 Gulf To Bay Blvd a/k/a Boulevard Heights,
Blk G, Lots 12-14 & 17-18, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, there being no one present representing Eleftherios & Maria Passaris and viewing the evidence, exhibit
submitted, City Exhibit A, a photograph of the vehicle sign, it is evident a vehicle sign exists which is prohibited at 1484 Gulf To Bay Blvd, this condition was corrected and recurred.
It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: Eleftherios & Maria Passaris were in violation of Section 44.57(24).
It is the Order of this Board that Eleftherios & Maria Passaris shall continue to comply with Section 44.57(24) of the Code of the City of Clearwater.
If Eleftherios & Maria Passaris repeat the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after they are 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 37-94
Conner & Conner
1161 NE Cleveland ST
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated August 10, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew Case 37-94, stating the license fee has been paid.
Case 38-94
Dr. Jeffrey Marks
2535 Landmark Drive
(Occupational License)
Case 41-94
Joy Wolff
2535 Landmark Drive # 101
(Occupational License)
In a memo dated August 10, 1994, License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith withdrew Cases 38-94 and 41-94, stating the license fees have been paid.
Case 42-94
Ed & Belinda Young
607 N Osceola Ave
(Occupational License)
No representative was present. It was noted for the record the Board received a letter from Mr. Young, who refused to appear.
License Inspector Barbara Sexsmith stated the Youngs were notified of the license violation by telephone and by certified mail. The property address was verified through the Pinellas
County Property Appraiser's office and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. She stated an occupational license is required for the operation of more than two rental units.
She stated the Youngs rent out three units and have not renewed their license this year.
In response to questions, Ms. Sexsmith stated it was not known whether or not all three units are occupied. She stated the units have separate gas meters and it was verified through
the City Utilities Department that the names on the gas accounts were different from the Youngs'.
Lt. Kronschnabl confirmed a City cross reference directory lists three different names for the three apartments at the same address. He stated his attempt to telephone the Youngs was
not successful and his telephone message asking why they refused to renew the license was not returned.
In response to a question from Attorney Salzman, Ms. Sexsmith stated, during her telephone conversation regarding why the license has not been renewed, she was told Mr. Young was sending
a letter.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not they understood the violation. Attorney Salzman indicated a telephone conversation regarding their license renewal being delinquent seemed
to be very specific to the problem.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 42-94, regarding violation of Sections 29.28 & 29.30(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 607 N Osceola Ave a/k/a Oak Wood
Sub, Lot 10, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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 Barbara Sexsmith, Code Inspector, there being no one present representing Ed & Belinda Young and viewing the evidence, it is evident
Ed and Belinda Young did not renew their occupational license at 607 N Osceola Ave.
The Conclusions of Law are: Ed & Belinda Young are in violation of Section 29.28 & 29.30(1) of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that Ed & Belinda Young shall comply with Sections 29.28 & 29.30(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 24, 1994. If Ed & Belinda Young do
not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date.
If Ed & Belinda Young 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, Ed & Belinda Young shall notify Barbara Sexsmith, 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 43-94
Peter G & Patricia A Nichols
606 N Greenwood Ave
(Minimum Housing)
Life Safety Hazard Inspector Karl Whittleton stated several violations of the Life Safety code were found during a routine inspection of the property. Upon inspection this morning,
Mr. Whittleton stated most of the violations were corrected. The only remaining violation is of Section 7-1, which requires a fire extinguishing system in a paint spray booth.
In response to questions, Mr. Whittleton stated he hand delivered a notice of violation to a man named George on the subject property. He said the existing fire sprinkling system is
not functional because there is no water connection. He stated he has discussed the installation of a chemical system with the property owner.
Peter Nichols, the property owner, stated he cannot afford to take care of all the problems at once. He stated the City water meter was changed and the size of the piping is not compatible
with his system.
It was indicated the City will work with a property owner to install a correctly sized water line. Mr. Nichols stated that will cost over $600 and take additional time. He stated he
is going to Greece for two months and asked for six months to correct the violation.
In response to question, Mr. Nichols stated the dimensions of his metal spray booth are 15 by 30 feet. He stated the business will not be closed while he is in Greece because he leases
the business to George.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential for fire and explosion hazards in the shop. Questions were raised regarding the lighting, electrical wiring and the type and quantity of work
performed. Mr. Nichols stated this is a small operation and felt there would be no harm to his metal building if there was a fire. He indicated, in a typical week, one car and a few
spot jobs are painted. He said he has a few regular customers and business is slow. He explained he has owned the building for seven years, since it was new. He stated the sprinkler
system has never been connected in the spray booth because he wanted to install plastic pipe, which was not allowed. Mr. Whittleton expressed concern, due to the nature of the work
done in a body shop, sparks could be present at any time, causing a safety hazard.
Concerns were expressed that six months is too long to deal with a life safety issue. Consensus of the Board was that the paint spray booth should not be used until the fire suppression
system is 100 percent operational.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 43-94, regarding violation of Section L/S 101 NFPA Ch 33 Sec 7-1 and Section 17.32 of the Clearwater City Code and property located at 606 N
Greenwood Ave a/k/a Pine Crest Sub, Blk 12, Lots 1-3 & N 5' of 10' vacant alley on S & 1/5 int. retention, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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 Karl Whittleton, Life Safety Hazard Inspector, and Peter G Nichols and viewing the evidence, it is evident the fire sprinkler system
in a paint spray booth, which is required to be connected, is not connected at 606 N Greenwood Avenue.
The Conclusions of Law are: Peter G & Patricia A Nichols are in violation of Section L/S 101 NFPA Ch 33 Sec 7-1 as adopted by Section 17.32 of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that Peter G & Patricia A Nichols shall comply with Section L/S 101 NFPA Ch 33 Sec 7-1 as adopted by Section 17.32 of the Code of the City of Clearwater.
Until that section is corrected, the spray booth shall not be allowed to be used.
If Peter G & Patricia A Nichols do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the paint spray booth is used while
the violation continues to exist.
If Peter G & Patricia A Nichols 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, Peter G & Patricia A Nichols shall notify Karl Whittleton, 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 45-94
Lokey Oldsmobile Inc
c/o D.O. McFarland, R.A.
2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd
(Land Development Code)
No representative was present.
Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, stated the property ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's office and there was proof of service of the notice of violation. The
violation consisted of vehicles being displayed on the strip of grass between the two adjacent Lokey businesses without the required conditional use approval for outdoor display. She
stated Lokey does not meet the criteria for grass parking.
Ms. Doherty stated the notice of violation was sent on June 3, 1994, with a June 6 compliance date. On June 24, 1994, she observed and photographed vehicles parked on the grass and
issued a notice of recurring violation. She stated the property is now in compliance and the general manager of the business has stated the cars will not be parked there again. She
wished to bring the case forward to establish a recurring violation and recommended a fine of $50 per day if the violation is repeated.
City Exhibit A, photographs of vehicles parked on the subject property, was submitted for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding the management and the location of the car dealership on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Questions were raised concerning parking on the grass strip. Ms. Doherty stated, under the current zoning, parking is not allowed and they have not applied for the required conditional
use for outdoor retail sales/display. She stated extensive use of grass parking causes rutting, potholes and dust problems. There were also environmental concerns expressed.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 45-94, regarding violation of Section 42.34(5)(a) & 40.004(3)(a) of the Clearwater City Code at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd a/k/a M & B 31-071 in Section
18-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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 Geri Doherty, Inspection Specialist, there being no one present representing Lokey Oldsmobile Inc c/o D.O. McFarland, R.A. and viewing
the evidence, exhibit submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, it is evident vehicles were being displayed/parked on an unpaved area, which use is prohibited by
the zoning regulations without conditional use approval at 2339 Gulf to Bay Blvd, this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior
to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: Lokey Oldsmobile Inc c/o D.O. McFarland, R.A. was in violation of Section 42.34(5)(a) & 40.004(3)(a).
It is the Order of this Board that Lokey Oldsmobile Inc c/o D.O. McFarland, R.A. shall continue to comply with Section 42.34(5)(a) & 40.004(3)(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater.
If Lokey Oldsmobile Inc c/o D.O. McFarland, R.A. repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist after
they are 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 46-94
Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc
509 N Greenwood Ave
(Land Development Code)
Bruce Williams, representing the property owner, agreed to the violation there is commercial storage on the lot.
Code Inspector Rick Rosa stated he inspected this property in response to complaints regarding dumping and overgrowth of vegetation. He issued a notice of public nuisance violation;
however, the lot was only partially cleared.
Mr. Rosa stated, on June 13, 1994, the lot clearing contractor observed tar spilled on the ground, creating an environmental hazard. Mr. Rosa cited the property owner for having commercial
storage on a residential lot. He stated the lot was cleaned up enough to satisfy the public nuisance violation; however several pieces of machinery remained on the lot. The affidavit
of violation for the illegal land use was filed on July 7, 1994.
City Exhibit A, two photographs of the subject property after the lot clearing, was submitted for the record. City Exhibit B, four photographs of the public nuisance violation on the
subject property, was submitted for the record.
Mr. Rosa stated the complaint came from the neighbor to the south. He said sometimes roofing kettles with steaming tar are stored on the lot. Lt. Kronschnabl indicated the alleged
violators have cooperated extensively and the photographs illustrate the considerable improvement of the conditions on the lot. He stated there is now concern with the storage and runoff
of the hot tar pots, which cannot be allowed on the lot. He recommended they be removed.
Mr. Williams stated the Dean Company has done everything possible to be a good neighbor and
is willing to cooperate. He said the company has been in business since 1946 and the lot has been used for equipment storage since it was purchased about ten years ago. He said the
business cannot operate without a place to put the kettles.
Discussion ensued regarding the history of ownership, the conditions surrounding the subject property and means of alleviating the problem. Rezoning was discussed; however, Mr. Rosa
indicated the property owner residing to the south objects to the present use of the lot due to the smell of the hot tar. Mr. Williams stated they are willing to install fences and
landscaping. He did not feel having the company vacate the lot would solve the problem, as there will still be a problem with overgrowth and other people illegally dumping junk on the
lot. It was indicated a fence between the lot and the property to the south would require a variance.
A question was raised if the lot could be fenced to discourage random dumping. It was indicated the city does not allow fencing of a vacant lot. Lt. Kronschnabl stressed that storage
of the tar pots disturbs the neighbor.
In response to a question if the roofing tar was considered toxic waste, Mr. Williams stated it is the same material commonly used in road asphalt.
Discussion continued regarding the zoning. Mr. Williams stated he was told to get a recommendation from the Code Enforcement Board to take to the Planning and Zoning Board. He felt
he had been misinformed about the process.
A question was raised if the tar pots could be stored on the main property. Mr. Williams stated there are seven to ten of the pots and there is not enough space on the main property
because other vehicles are parked there. He said employees' personal cars are parked across the street.
Mr. Williams suggested allowing time for the pots to cool down before they are brought back to the lot. Lt. Kronschnabl agreed to allow time to work out a solution through the Planning
and Zoning Board as long as smoking tar pots are not brought onto the lot.
Discussion ensued regarding inoperable equipment stored on the lot. Mr. Williams stated they have made progress and will continue to work toward getting rid of it. He requested time
to sell an unused conveyor. Attorney Salzman indicated it would take approximately 60 days to bring a conditional use request before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Rosa stated
staff will work with the company as long as they are attempting compliance and had no problem with the 60 day recommendation, as long as the hot tar kettles are not brought onto the
property during the 60 days.
Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 46-94, regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 509 N Greenwood Ave a/k/a Country Club Add,
Blk 8, Lots 12 & 13, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Inspector and Bruce Williams, representing Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc and viewing the evidence, exhibit
submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property, it is evident there is commercial storage on a residential lot which constitutes an illegal land use in the RS-8 zoning
district at 509 N Greenwood Ave.
The Conclusions of Law are: Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc is in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 60 days (October 9, 1994). During
these 60 days, Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc shall remove unused equipment and a conveyor belt and shall not bring hot tar kettles back on the property.
If Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc does 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 Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc 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, Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc shall notify Rick Rosa, 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 47-94
Harold Maybee
118 N Missouri Avenue
(Public Nuisance) Continued from 7/13/94
Code Inspector Rick Rosa withdrew Case 47-94, stating the public nuisance violation was corrected prior to today's hearing by the removal of the abandoned vehicle.
Case 48-94
Harold Maybee
118 N Missouri Avenue
(Land Development Code)
Harold Maybee stated he did not understand the violation.
Code Inspector Rick Rosa explained outdoor storage is not allowed in the OL (Limited Office) zoning district. He said the citation is for illegal land use related to the storage of
aquacycles and exercise equipment on the subject property. He stated the notice of violation was issued on June 29, 1994 with a July 13 compliance date. The violation remains today.
City Exhibit A, photographs of aquacycles and exercise equipment on the property, was submitted for the record.
Lt. Kronschnabl stated Mr. Maybee has an occupational license to operate a business but was unsure what kind. Mr. Maybee responded he sells and rents small equipment. Mr. Maybee said
he uses the cycles for the amusement of himself and his family.
On July 28, 1993, (Case 50-93) Mr. Maybee was cited for violation of the same code section. Mr. Maybee stated at that time he was no longer in the aquacycle business and was trying
to sell some of the eight water craft stored on the property. He claimed the remaining aquacycles were strictly for his family's personal use and the Board dismissed the case.
Concern was expressed that Mr. Maybee was recently observed renting out the aquacycles. Mr. Maybee denied this. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the equipment is used for
rental purposes.
Discussion ensued regarding a trailer on the property loaded with a large wheel-shaped apparatus which was indicated to be exercise equipment. Mr. Rosa stated the trailer has a current
tag; however, the equipment loaded on the trailer is considered outdoor storage.
In response to questions, Mr. Maybee stated there are two aquacycles remaining on his property and the trailer with the exercise equipment has been removed.
In response to a question from Attorney Salzman, Mr. Maybee stated, in the two months he has owned it, the exercise wheel has been for his personal use.
Mr. Maybee argued that boats are allowed to be parked on private property and believed his aquacycles are no different. It was indicated boats are allowed, with certain restrictions,
on residentially zoned property; however, this property has limited office zoning.
Attorney Salzman stated, if outdoor storage is not a permitted or conditional use in this zone, then the use is irrelevant.
Staff recommended removal of the items in question or imposing a fine of $150.00 per day for each day they remain on the property.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 48-94, regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 118 N Missouri Avenue a/k/a Bassadena Sub,
Blk D, Lot 50 & S½ of Lot 51, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, and Harold Maybee, and viewing the evidence, exhibit submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of aquacycles
and exercise equipment on the subject property, it is evident outdoor storage exists which is neither a permitted nor conditional use in the OL zoning district at 118 N Missouri Avenue.
The Conclusions of Law are: Harold Maybee is in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code.
It is the Order of this Board that Harold Maybee shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by August 24, 1994. If Harold Maybee does not comply within
the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date.
If Harold Maybee 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, Harold Maybee shall notify Rick Rosa, 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 49-94
Allyn Ayers & Randall Bryan
1180 Court St
(Land Development Code)
No representative was present.
Concern was expressed whether proper notification of the hearing occurred. Mr. Rosa explained this case is to establish a recurring violation and requested a continuance to September
14, 1994.
Member Riley moved to continue Case 49-94 to the meeting of September 14, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Case 50-94
Clara & Dorothy Boldog
325 S Gulfview Blvd
(Land Development Code)
No representative was present.
Code Inspector Vicki Niemiller stated the violation is for illegal outdoor display of merchandise at Surfin' USA. She stated the violation was first observed on June 20 and the notice
of violation was sent on June 21, with a June 27, 1994 compliance date. She found the property in compliance on June 29, 1994. The violation was again observed on July 12 and a recurring
notice of violation was sent on July 13 via both regular and certified mail. She stated the certified mail receipt was returned signed. Upon reinspection this morning, she found the
property in compliance. She stated she spoke to one of the business owners and he understood he could be fined up to $150 a day for a repeat violation. She recommended a fine of $150
per day if the violation is repeated.
City Exhibit A, a photograph of outdoor storage on the subject property, was submitted for the record.
Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 50-94, regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 325 S Gulfview Blvd, a/k/a Lloyd White Skinner
Sub, Lots 63-77, 113-117 & S½ of Lot 112, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of August, 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, there being no one present representing Clara & Dorothy Boldog and viewing the evidence, exhibit
submitted, City Exhibit A, a photograph of outdoor storage on the subject property, it is evident an outdoor display, which is not a permitted or conditional use in the CR-28 zoning
district, existed at 325 S Gulfview Blvd, this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing.
The Conclusions of Law are: Clara & Dorothy Boldog were in violation of Section 40.004(2).
It is the Order of this Board that Clara & Dorothy Boldog shall continue compliance with Section 40.004(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater.
If Clara & Dorothy Boldog 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. 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.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION
Cases 65-92 & 66-92 - Affidavit of Compliance
Robert E. Hughes, Tre
c/o Rental Properties Trust
2314 San Mateo Street
(Building Code)
Case 17-93 - Affidavit of Compliance
Wm Wilkins & F B Lauer
3196 Gulf To Bay Blvd
(Land Development Code)
Cases 98-93 & 99-93 - Affidavit of Compliance
Robert E. Hughes, Tre
c/o Rental Properties Trust
2314 San Mateo Street
(Building Code)
Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Cases 65-92, 66-92, 17-93, 98-93 and 99-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Attorney Salzman reported an ordinance is being drafted which would allow for administrative costs to be included in all fines imposed by the Board. He stated this would give the City
the capability of covering the costs associated with bringing cases forward.
MINUTES - July 13, 1994
Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of July 13, 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 5:12 p.m.
Chairman
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
ATTEST:
Secretary