Loading...
12/14/1994 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD December 14, 1994 Members present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair Dennis Henegar Helen Kerwin Carl Rayborn Peg Rogers Robert Theroux 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 71-93 - Rehearing Marguerite S. Flowers 111 Orangeview Avenue (Land Development Code) Bryan Kutchins, attorney representing Marguerite Flowers, addressed the Board, stating the circumstances justifying a rehearing were detailed in his letter of October 3, 1994. He stated Ms. Flowers wishes to cooperate; however, feels the fine is an undue hardship as she is a widow living on a fixed income. Mr. Kutchins stated her recreational vehicle was lawfully parked on the subject property for 25 years and should have been grandfathered when the code was changed. He felt this action took away rights previously enjoyed by Ms. Flowers and constitutes a taking of her property. Code Inspector Rick Rosa stated in response to questions, the original citation was issued in response to a complaint on July 9, 1991. He stated there was no grandfathering provision in place when the vehicle was cited. Questions were raised regarding why the motor home was moved from the side to the front of the property. Ms. Flowers stated she learned of her neighbor's plan to construct a fence between the two properties and parked the vehicle in front of her house. Ms. Flowers said she believed the vehicle was legally parked within the setbacks. She indicated she is not sure of her setback area. Member Riley expressed concern this issue has persisted since the original citation in 1991. In response to a question from Member Rayborn, it was indicated the property is now in compliance. Ms. Flowers stated she has received permission to park the vehicle off-site in a parking lot near her house. Member Rogers questioned Mr. Kutchins' claim that this action substantially diminished the property value. Mr. Kutchins indicated rights taken away after 25 years constitutes diminution of ownership value. In response to a question from Member Theroux, Mr. Rosa indicated citations are issued in response to complaints as well as upon personal observation by the inspectors. He stated enforcement is uniformly and consistently applied. He explained there is a provision for temporary parking for cleaning and loading a vehicle. Member Theroux felt the code change regarding parking large vehicles was well publicized throughout the City. Mr. Kutchins agreed Ms. Flowers was aware of the change; however, questioned the apparent taking without compensation. Mr. Kutchins stated Ms. Flowers has appeared today in the spirit of good faith and cooperation and respectfully requests to have the fine lifted. Attorney Salzman explained the fine cannot be reduced below administrative costs of $224.74. Discussion ensued regarding the dates of violation, citation and compliance. Mr. Rosa stated he issued the original notice of violation September 23, 1991 and the vehicle was moved to the side of the house September 26, 1991. A notice of recurring violation was issued in 1992. She stated she was given 30 days to comply and arranged to temporarily park the vehicle down the street; however, she needed more time to figure out what to do. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of time the vehicle was parked outside the garage and alongside the house. Mr. Kutchins expressed concern removal of the vehicle from the property may be construed as abandonment of property rights. Discussion ensued regarding the grandfathering provision. Attorney Salzman indicated this is a legal issue to be decided in the courts, not by the board. Member Swanberg expressed concern, if the fine is reduced, the motor home may be returned to the property. Mr. Kutchins stated, upon the reduction of the fine to administrative costs, his client would not assert her grandfathering rights. Member Kerwin expressed concern Ms. Flowers was notified, yet allowed the fine to accrue for 127 days after of the compliance due date. Member Rayborn moved, concerning Case 71-93, in light of the new information submitted, Bryan Kutchins' letter of October 3, 1994, that the lien be reduced to administrative costs only of $224.74. It was questioned if a provision for continued compliance was needed in the motion. Attorney Salzman stated it would be up to the City to recite if a repeat violation occurs. Mr. Kutchins stated his client has authorized him to commit, on record, that she will not park the vehicle on her property from this point on. The motion on the floor was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Swanberg, Kerwin, Rayborn and Rogers voted "Aye"; Members Riley, Henegar and Theroux voted "Nay." Motion carried. Case 56-94 - Continued from 11/9/94 Ted Dialinakis 600 N Greenwood Ave (Life Safety Code) Complied Prior At the meeting of November 9, 1994, it was requested and unanimously approved to continue Case 56-94 to the meeting of December 14, 1994 to allow time to determine if compliance had been achieved. Karl Whittleton, Life Hazard Safety Inspector, withdrew Case 56-94, stating Mr. Dialinakis has performed the work necessary to bring the property into compliance. In response to a question from Member Henegar, Mr. Whittleton indicated a permit was not obtained for doing the work. Attorney Salzman stated the Board has no jurisdiction in this and suggested this concern be directed to City staff. Member Henegar questioned whether the City should reinspect a property for compliance if work has been performed without the issuance of a permit. Staff was requested to draft a letter to the City Attorney, requesting an opinion in this regard. The Board Attorney expressed concern regarding there being no legal representation for the City. He felt some of the questions raised would be more appropriately responded to by the City legal staff rather than by him, as attorney for the Board. Case 58-94 Dean & Patricia Marier 2132 Viola Dr (Land Development Code) Complied Prior In a memo dated December 9, 1994, Code Inspector Janice King withdrew Case 58-94, stating the property is now in compliance. Case 60-94 Tom Soars 2525 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Life Safety Code) Tom Soars, admitting to the violation, stated he was not aware a law was passed requiring voice fire evacuation alarm systems. He stated he wishes to cooperate and has corrected other violations found on the property. He asked for additional time to comply with the alarm system requirement because estimates for installing the voice evacuation alarm system have been costly. He indicated his recent compliance with the sign code cost about $7,000, which depleted his cash reserves and he cannot borrow money due to having filed a Chapter 11. He said he is entering his busy season and expects his cash flow to increase to the point he can afford to install the necessary equipment by the end of March. Discussion ensued regarding the Life Safety Code requirements. It was indicated to be a nationally recognized code, updated annually. Discussion ensued regarding the purpose of the voice alarm system. Inspector Whittleton explained it is an automatic system to alert people by lights and sound to evacuate in an emergency. He said the existing public address sound system is inadequate because it does not automatically activate in an emergency and is only amplified in the entertainment section of the establishment. There is concern people with certain disabilities might not be alerted to evacuate without an approved alarm system. It was noted a crowd in a panic situation is not likely to stop to consider the needs of individuals. Mention was made of the use of a strobe light to alert handicapped patrons. Member Kerwin questioned what the City's liability would be if the law regarding installing an approved alarm system was not enforced and a fire should occur. Attorney Salzman stated he could not speak on behalf of the City. He did indicate municipalities have a certain amount of sovereign immunity. A question was raised if compliance could safely be delayed until the end of March. Inspector Whittleton stated he had no problem with granting a 120-day extension, provided Mr. Soars submits a written statement regarding his intention regarding compliance. Mr. Soars indicated his willingness to cooperate, stating he has been in operation for over 14 years. Member Henegar questioned the legal occupancy. Mr. Soars said his establishment has a Class B license and he is licensed by the Fire Marshall to seat 600. Member Henegar moved, concerning Case 60-94, regarding violation of L/S 101 Sec. 9-3.4.1 as adopted by Section 17.32 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2525 Gulf to Bay Blvd a/k/a S400' of N450' of W149' of E1079' NE 1/2 of SE 1/4 connecting 136 acres, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of December, 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 Code Inspector, and Tom Soars, it is evident the required voice evacuation alarm system has not been installed at 2525 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The Conclusions of Law are: Tom Soars is in violation of Section L/S 101 Sec. 9-3.4.1 as adopted by Section 17.32 of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Tom Soars shall comply with Section L/S 101 Sec. 9-3.4.1 as adopted by Section 17.32 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 120 days (by April 13, 1995) and shall submit a letter of intent to the City to monitor the public address system in case of an emergency until compliance is reached. If Tom Soars does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If Tom Soars 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, Tom Soars shall notify Karl Whittleton, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, 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, upon the vote being taken, carried unanimously. Case 61-94 Scott Segin 1460 S Prescott Ave (Public Nuisance) Scott Segin stated he purchased the car from an acquaintance who moved and did not have title to the vehicle transferred from the previous owner's name. Mr. Segin indicated he does not know how to get the vehicle registered. In response to questions, Mr. Segin stated he has no carport or garage and cannot move the car off-site without a license tag. He has no bill of sale and does not know to whom the car is actually registered. He indicated the MG Midget is almost a classic and he has invested approximately $2,400 to date. In response to a question, Mr. Segin indicated the vehicle is registered in Florida. This was not felt to be a unique situation and he was advised to go to the Pinellas County tag agency for help in solving the problem. It was stressed to Mr. Segin he remain in contact with Mr. Rosa regarding his compliance efforts. Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 61-94, regarding violation of Section 20.35(1) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1460 S Prescott Ave a/k/a Sall's 1st Add Blk C Lot 16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 14th day of December, 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 Scott Segin and viewing no evidence or exhibits, it is evident an abandoned or inoperable vehicle exists in violation of Section 20.35(1) of the Clearwater City Code at 1460 S Prescott Ave. The Conclusions of Law are: Scott Segin is in violation of Section 20.35(1) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Scott Segin shall comply with Section 20.35(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (by January 13, 1995). Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the City Manager may authorize the entry upon the property and such action as is necessary to remedy the condition without further notice to Scott Segin. Upon complying, Scott Segin shall notify Rick Rosa, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, 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, upon the vote being taken, carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 25-94 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Stephen Ballis, TRE c/o Dayton Resources, LTD 1425 Sunset Point Rd (Land Development Code) Case 42-94 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Ed & Belinda Young 607 N Osceola Ave (Occupational License) Case 19-94 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Roy Cadwell 1109 N Betty Lane (Minimum Housing) Member Riley moved to accept the Affidavits of Non-compliance in Cases 25-94, 42-94 and 19-94 and issue the orders imposing the fines. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION / DISCUSSION ADDRESS TO BOARD - Televising Meetings - City Information Management Staff Jim Lange, Community Outreach Manager, addressed the Board prior to the meeting being called to order. He stated the Municipal Code Enforcement Board meetings are now being taped for telecast on C-View TV, Channel 35 on Vision Cable. Starting in January subsequent meetings will be broadcast live. The program schedule will be published in the TV Dial. He offered guidelines to the Board. Helen Kerwin was introduced and welcomed as the new Board member appointed to fill the unexpired term of E.J. Robinson. MINUTES - November 9, 1994 Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of November 9, 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 4:10 p.m. Chairman MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ATTEST: Secretary