Loading...
02/08/1995 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 8, 1995 Members present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair Dennis Henegar Helen Kerwin Carl Rayborn Peg Rogers Robert Theroux Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Special Assistant to the City Manager/Community Response Team Gwen J. Legters, Recording Secretary Holly Ausanio, 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 06-95 - Continued from 1/25/95 Michael & Patricia Vlamakis 2004 Drew St (Occupational License & Land Development Code) In a memo dated February 6, 1995, Code Inspector Janice King requested to continue Case 06-95 to the meeting of March 22, stating compliance efforts are underway. Case 07-95 - Continued from 1/25/95 Marshal S Harris 1649 Flagler Dr (Land Development Code) In a memo dated February 8, 1995, Code Inspector Janice King withdrew Case 07-95, stating the violation is being corrected. Case 09-95 Manuel Kastrenakes 2576 Harn Blvd (Land Development Code) No one was present to represent the property owner. Janice King, Code Inspector, stated a conditional use application for outdoor storage of vehicles was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. This decision was appealed and the Hearing Officer allowed the approval subject to certain conditions. The conditions were not met and the approval expired. Pinellas Rent a Car has been parking lease vehicles on this property without the conditional use. Property ownership was verified through the records of the Pinellas County Property Appraiser and the certified mail receipt was returned signed. Ms. King outlined the dates and conditions of violations and notifications. A violation was observed on December 9, 1994 and the Notice of Violation was issued on December 13, with a compliance date of December 19, 1994. Pinellas Rent a Car and Manuel Kastrenakes were informed that lease vehicles could not be parked on the subject property. Rental cars were observed on the property on January 7 and 15, February 6, 7 and 8, 1995. City Exhibit A, photographs of the subject property dated January 7 and 15, 1995, showing illegal parking, was submitted for the record. Ms. King stated employees are allowed to park on the subject property; however, lease cars are not. She stated she ran the tags of the vehicles depicted in the photographs to verify they are lease vehicles. Ms. King stated she met with Mr. Kastrenakes and felt he understood the violation as he had promised never to park there again. She felt a fine of $250 a day for each day of continued violation was in order. In response to questions, Ms. King stated the property used to be a Farm Store allowed to remain as it was. There is only enough paved parking for the employees' vehicles. It was felt Mr. Kastrenakes had been given many opportunities to comply. It was noted it appears vehicles are also being sold from the lot. It was not known if this was also a violation. Member Rogers moved that, concerning Case 09-95, regarding violation of Sections 36.065(6)(d), 40.004(3)(a), 36.007(1)(c) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 2576 Harn Blvd, a/k/a M & B 14-05 in Section 19-29-16, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of February, 1995, 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 Janice King, Code Inspector and no one being present to represent Manuel Kastrenakes, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of vehicles on the subject property, it is evident rental vehicles are being parked in violation of the zoning regulations at 2576 Harn Blvd. The Conclusions of Law are: Manuel Kastrenakes is in violation of Section 36.065(6)(d), 40.004(3)(a), 36.007(1)(c) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Manuel Kastrenakes shall comply with Section 36.065(6)(d), 40.004(3)(a), 36.007(1)(c) of the Clearwater City Code by February 15, 1995. If Manuel Kastrenakes 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 Manuel Kastrenakes 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. 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, Manuel Kastrenakes shall notify Janice King, 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 before the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether 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 10-95 James & Linda Swetland 3040 Cascade Drive (Land Development Code - Signs) Linda Swetland, the property owner, did not agree to the violation, stating she did not feel she was doing anything wrong. Inspection Specialist Geri Doherty outlined the facts behind the violation. A large number of concrete blocks are being stored in the back yard of the subject property. Outdoor storage is neither a permitted nor conditional use in the RS-8 district. She read from the code the definition of outdoor storage. Ms. Doherty stated the ownership was verified through the Pinellas County Property Appraisers office and the certified mail receipt was returned. The initial inspection was on November 14, 1994 and the Notice of Violation was issued on December 6, 1994, with a compliance date of January 3, 1995. The property was last inspected on February 7, and the blocks were still there. Ms. Doherty recommended compliance within ten days or a fine of $25 per day for each day the violation continues past the compliance due date. City Exhibit A, photographs of concrete blocks on the property taken November 30, 1994 and January 9, 1995 were submitted for the record. Linda Swetland, property owner, stated the first inspection in March 1991, was in response to a complaint from her next door neighbor. The complaint concerned the blocks and an old Porsche being restored by her teen-aged son in the back yard. The car was covered as was allowed at that time. Upon inspection by the Health Department, it was determined the blocks did not pose a health hazard. The case was closed. Mrs. Swetland read from a copy of the Health Department report that no health hazard was found. She stated the blocks inside the fenced back yard are not visible from any angle except the top of the neighbor's picnic table. She stated the blocks were purchased with the intention of constructing additions to their home. Construction did not proceed as planned due to time and financial difficulties. Defendant's Exhibit A, a copy of the April 1991 Health Department investigation report concerning the subject property, was submitted for the record. Mrs. Swetland stated, because of the favorable inspection report, and the fact that there was no time limit to complete construction, she understood the matter was settled. She did not understand why she again began to receive mail concerning a violation with the blocks. She felt imposing time frames for compliance was unreasonable. Mrs. Swetland said her family's situation has changed since construction began. She said her husband was out of work for nine months and his employment has been sporadic. She requested leniency and questioned if a waiver of the code requirements was possible in her case. Ms. Swetland explained the State has built a 12-foot concrete wall on her property line along the State Road 580 expansion. She now needs variances to continue construction. Also, the blocks must be moved by hand because not even a forklift can access the back yard without removing portions of the neighbor's fence. Cost estimates for moving the blocks are about $950.00. Ms. Swetland pointed out the complainant no longer lives at the adjoining property. In response to a question, Mrs. Swetland stated the vehicle pictured in the photographs of the concrete blocks is the Porsche being restored by her son. It was indicated the tag has expired while the restoration is in progress. Discussion ensued regarding bringing the car into compliance. It was indicated the focus of today's hearing was the issue of the blocks. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of time the blocks have been in the yard. Mrs. Swetland did not recall when they were purchased. Clarification was requested if the code concerning outdoor storage has changed since the 1991 inspection report that says the blocks were not in violation. Ms. Doherty responded the code has not changed. She acknowledged there could be confusion with the way the complaint and compliance were presented. She explained the initial complaint concerned rodent infestation. When the inspection report issued by the health inspector indicated there was no apparent rodent problem, the case was closed. The blocks are now being brought forward as an outdoor storage code violation. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty said the blocks are not visible from the street. Defendant's Exhibits B through H, photographs of concrete blocks, a 12-foot wall and a car on the subject property, were submitted for the record. Questions were raised if this was a privacy issue and if this citation reduces reasonable use of the property. Assistant City Attorney Lance felt it was appropriate to proceed with the case as presented. He agreed the blocks were for a good purpose that was not currently possible to achieve. He suggested a compromise by imposing a reasonable date for use or removal. Discussion ensued regarding the number and size of the blocks. Ms. Swetland said there were 1,000 blocks of various sizes. She stated they were purchased at a good price and she does not want to sell them. She wants to use them for the purpose for which they were intended. She said the building plans will now have to be changed because of the proximity of the State Road construction and a variance will be needed. She said she was told she could buy time by applying for a building permit. However, she cannot presently afford the additional time and money for the required permit and plans review fees. Discussion ensued regarding means of compliance and a reasonable time limit. The Board acknowledged the extenuating circumstances of the family's size, hard work and financial situation. One member felt, as the blocks cannot be seen, they do not present any problem and case should be dismissed. Mr. Lance did not agree, stating they were compelled to enforce the law. Attorney Lance again suggested that Ms. Swetland cooperate with the inspectors toward a compliance date and, at the end of the time allowance, negotiate for an extension. Ms. Swetland did not feel this was fair because she and her family have worked hard to improve their property, doing much of the construction work themselves. She did not feel it was fair for the City to impose deadlines on the use or removal of the blocks. She stated she will not have the $15,000 needed to complete construction within six months or a year. She said it is not fair to ask her family members to move the blocks. She insisted she was told the blocks were not in violation. Mr. Lance explained the focus four years ago was on rats, not on the blocks. He stated there could have been a code violation at that time which was not cited. Now that a complaint has been filed, there is a code violation citation. He felt as this case is now before the Board, the code should be supported. He again recommended finding a violation and allowing plenty of time to comply. Discussion continued regarding various means and dates of compliance. Spreading the blocks around to form a patio was explored as one alternative. It was noted the necessary City approvals would need to be obtained. In closing, Lt. Kronschnabl stated the City is only seeking compliance. He told Ms. Swetland he was willing to meet with her after the hearing to work out a legal solution. He stated he would do everything he could to help her gain compliance. He agreed this is a unique situation and stated he would go the extra mile; however, he needed some indication of cooperation from her. Ms. Swetland insisted this action is not fair. She maintained this was not a code violation four years ago and felt she is now being pushed into a corner. Member Rayborn moved to dismiss the case. There was no second. Discussion of code interpretation followed. Assistant City Attorney Lance felt if a code interpretation was required, an opinion from the circuit court could be requested. He said he would prefer the Board did not rule on an interpretation of the Code as a matter of law. Discussion ensued regarding whether a violation exists. Mr. Lance stressed that just because the code was not enforced four years ago, does not mean it cannot be enforced today. Majority consensus was that the blocks were in violation four years ago and are in violation now. While it was agreed this case is unique, fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to the Board was felt to be important. The majority felt the City's point of view to allow a generous compliance time was appropriate. Concern was expressed with Ms. Swetland's indication she did not want to move the blocks at all. It was felt she wished to stay in violation no matter how much time was given to comply. Mr. Lance recommended taking action that would allow the Community Response Team to stay involved to monitor the situation. Ms. Swetland was advised to continue talking with the City to resolve the matter. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 10-95, regarding violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 3040 Cascade Drive a/k/a Northwood Estates Tract C, Blk A, Lot 19, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of February 1995, 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, and Linda Swetland and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted, City Exhibit A, photographs of concrete blocks on the subject property and Defendant's Exhibits A-H, Inspection reports and photographs of the subject property from various angles, it is evident an accumulation of concrete blocks exists in the back yard at 3040 Cascade Drive. The Conclusions of Law are: James and Linda Swetland are in violation of Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that James & Linda Swetland shall comply with Section 40.004(2) of the Clearwater City Code by July 30, 1995. If James and Linda Swetland 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 James and Linda Swetland 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. 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, James & Linda Swetland shall notify Geri Doherty, 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 before the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether 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, Members Swanberg, Riley, Kerwin and Rayborn voted "Aye," Members Henegar, Rogers and Theroux voted "Nay." Motion carried. Case 11-95 Antonio Markopoulos 100 Coronado Avenue (Life Safety Code) In response to a question, Antonio Markopoulos stated he does not agree to the violation. Anne E. Downes-Blackburn, Fire Inspector, stated the Days Inn Hotel property was inspected October 3 and 19, 1994 and January 11, 1995. She stated the building is not constructed of non-combustible materials and 100 percent fire sprinkler coverage is required. Only portions of the hotel are sprinklered. Mr. Markopoulos was required to comply by October 1, 1994, pursuant to State statute 509.215(3). Mr. Markopoulos stated he purchased the property in 1987. Upon notification of violation of the State fire code, he questioned what was needed. He was told to sprinkler corridors on the first through third floors and all first floor shops. Upon completion, the work was approved by the Fire Marshal. He was then told of the need to sprinkler the fourth floor, which is not used due to insufficient parking. Mr. Markopoulos said he has applied for a variance to create six rental units on the fourth floor, totalling 600 square feet. He told the Fire Marshal he did not yet have final plans for the fourth floor and needed an additional six to eight months to comply. He said the Fire Marshal approved this. Ms. Downes-Blackburn stated Fire Department officials met with Mr. Markopoulos and allowed another 183 days to complete the variance request process. As of today, he still has not received his variance. Ms. Downes-Blackburn stated 8,000 square feet are unsprinklered. This area is used for storage and has been used for sewing. It is constructed of wood and stucco, and a cord running under the door to an active electrical outlet in the hall was observed. Whether or not the area is used, it is required to be 100 percent sprinklered. Ms. Downes-Blackburn stated it was recommended to Mr. Markopoulos that he install the required sprinklers as is and retrofit the system to whatever use he decides in the future. She stated this was explained to Mr. Markopoulos in the meeting with the Fire Marshal. She stated the additional compliance time runs from January 11 to July 14, 1995. In response to a question, Ms. Downes-Blackburn stated this is a dangerous situation. Mr. Markopoulos stated his plans were approved as submitted, then additional requirements were added by the Fire Department. He did not feel responsible for the delay. Ms. Downes-Blackburn responded a statute was passed in 1983 concerning sprinklering open corridors in transient dwelling units. She stated Mr. Markopoulos was given until October 1, 1994 to submit plans and obtain permits for sprinklering the fourth floor. This was never done. She stated the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) has also cited him. Discussion ensued regarding how long Mr. Markopoulos knew about the need to sprinkler the fourth floor and how long it could take to comply. Ms. Downes-Blackburn said Mr. Markopoulos could install adequate sprinkler coverage to this large open area in a short time. The delay is due to Mr. Markopoulos trying to work out plans to use that floor for motel rooms, which requires variances and approvals. It was felt 180 days would be adequate for obtaining the necessary permits and approvals for him to complete his plans. Discussion ensued regarding the fire alarm system and sprinkling requirements on the lower floors of the building. In response to a question, Ms. Downes-Blackburn stated the State DPR inspectors discussed the requirements with Mr. Markopoulos. Mr. Markopoulos stated his discussion with the DPR inspectors was the first time he was aware of the fourth floor sprinkling requirements. He stated he hired an engineering firm to design the existing sprinkler plans and he thought they were to code. Discussion ensued regarding the fire safety issue. A question was raised whether a sufficient volume of water was available to supply two systems at once. Ms. Downes-Blackburn explained available water supply considerations. Further concern was expressed regarding the City's liability should a fire occur. A concern was expressed regarding the piecemeal work already completed. Ms. Downes-Blackburn explained this approach was perfectly acceptable providing each phase was done correctly and the entire project was finished by October 1, 1994. In closing, Ms. Downes-Blackburn recommended finding the property in violation and setting the compliance date by July 14, 1995. She asked that the potential fine be reasonable. Mr. Markopoulos did not agree. He stated the fourth floor has a concrete floor with an attic below. He said he was told since there was no electricity to it, the fourth floor would be fine if it was locked and sealed. Concern was again expressed regarding the potential danger. It was noted the Fire Marshal recommended allowing six months to comply. Member Riley moved that, concerning Case 11-95, regarding violation of Florida Statute 509.215 and Section 17.05 of the Clearwater City Code, on property located at 100 Coronado Avenue a/k/a Lloyd White Skinner Subdivision, Lots 44-47 & 90-93, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 8th day of February 1995, 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 Anne E. Downes Blackburn, Fire Inspector and Antonio Markopoulos, and viewing no evidence, it is evident there is no sprinkler system for the fourth floor of the Days Inn Hotel at 100 Coronado Avenue. The Conclusions of Law are: Antonio Markopoulos is in violation of Section Florida Statute 509.215 and Section 17.05 of the Clearwater City Code. It is the Order of this Board that Antonio Markopoulos shall comply with Section Florida Statute 509.215 and Section 17.05 of the Code of the City of Clearwater by July 14, 1995. If Antonio Markopoulos 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 Antonio Markopoulos 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, Antonio Markopoulos shall notify Anne E. Downes-Blackburn, 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 before the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether 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 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Chairman MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ATTEST: Secretary