Loading...
10/23/1996MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER October 23, 1996 Present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair Dennis Henegar, Member Helen Kerwin, Member Carl Rayborn, Member Peg Rogers, Member Lawrence Tieman, Member Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board M. Kathryn Diana, Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses, Board Reporter The meeting was called to order by Chair Swanberg at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair 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. Chair Swanberg noted Mr. Dennis Henegar has been reappointed to another term on the Board. He also welcomed new Board member Lawrence Tieman, and explained to Mr. Tieman the purpose and procedures of the Board. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 40-96 (Continued 9/26) Dina & Bryan Atkins 701 S. Highland Avenue (Land Development Code) Member Riley moved to continue Case 40-96 to the November 13, 1996 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Request to Reduce Fine Case 19-94 Roy Cadwell 1910 Overbrook Avenue Assistant Director of Central Permitting, Vic Chodora, showed a video of the house on 1910 Overbrook Avenue before and during demolition. The video was taken on April 15, 1995, which was the day of demolition. Mr. Chodora noted massive termite damage, insufficient foundation, and untreated lumber used for renovations made years ago. The siding had been eaten through and there was major ceiling damage in the kitchen area. Various other problem areas throughout the house were viewed. In response to a question, Mr. Chodora said the house was last occupied in December of 1994 and demolished in April of 1995. In response to a question, Ms. Diana stated the total fine is $45,000, which is $250 per day for 180 days of noncompliance. She noted Mr. Cadwell has paid a $4,084.66 demolition lien, which is not part of the $45,000 fine. In response to a question, Ms. Diana said administrative costs are $288.34. Mr. Chodora said he was against lowering the fine on Case 19-94. He stated since 1993, City personnel have spent many hours attempting to have Mr. Cadwell comply with City Code. This case started out as a housing code case. The longer the case continued, the more structural problems were found. As a result of those numerous problems, the City took the action to abate the building as an unsafe structure. In response to a question, Mr. Chodora said a total of $3,500 in permitted work was issued for replacement of the roof and electrical work. City Inspectors found someone had installed an electrical box and wiring. No reports were ever submitted to the City. Mr. Chodora said the City’s major concerns were the structural integrity of the building and the stairway leading to the second level. In response to a question, Mr. Chodora said the City has copies of two bids submitted by two different contractors. Each bid was in excess of $30,000 for required repairs. No permits were obtained for the work. The City has spent in excess of 50 man hours on this case. Mr. Cadwell said while watching the video presented by Mr. Chodora, he considered the house to be in good condition and not dilapidated. He said it was occupied by tenants in January of 1995, who were paying $200 a month each for rent. They were perfectly satisfied with the condition of the building at that time. He stated two licensed contractors inspected the building and neither said it was unsafe. He felt City Building officials determined on their own volition that the building was unsafe. The building was bringing in $4,800 a year, for a real estate value of $48,000. Mrs. Cadwell distributed documents to members and City staff in an attempt to show property ownership. Mr. Cadwell believed fining an individual who is a trustee is illegal. He said he and Mrs. Cadwell have been joint owners for the last 30 years, and the lien that has been placed on their property should be removed. Mrs. Cadwell distributed to members a copy of a letter written to the Secretary for the Board regarding the reason the Cadwells were present at this hearing. Mr. Cadwell’s statement that he was the trustee and a joint owner was questioned. Mr. Cadwell responded he was not a joint owner and has never lived on Overbrook. He lives on North Betty Lane. It was indicated where a person lives has nothing to do with ownership. Mr. Cadwell said from his standpoint, it is very important because at North Betty Lane, which he and Mrs. Cadwell jointly own, can be liened. He said in the event of his death, Mrs. Cadwell will be the sole owner of this property and burdened with a lien of $45,000. In response to a question, Mr. Cadwell said the owner of the building that was demolished is Cadwell Properties, Limited. He noted an affidavit issued by Inspector Vernon Packer indicates he is the owner. He said this is not true. He has tried to correct this misconception by writing letters and placing telephone calls to Building Department officials. In response to questions, Mr. Cadwell said Cadwell Limited is a corporation like any other corporation, independent from the shareholders, an ordinary business corporation. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated at the time this case was reviewed, property ownership records indicated Mr. Cadwell as trustee. No unusual circumstances or problems with the notice were noted. In response to a question, Inspector Packer said July of 1993 was the date the City received the first complaint. A letter in the file from Mr. Cadwell states he and Mrs. Cadwell purchased the property at 1910 Overbrook for retirement years. Inspector Packer said Mr. James McGirk, a tenant of 1910 Overbrook Avenue, had asked the City to perform a housing inspection on the lower unit. This case started out as a housing inspection strictly for the lower unit based on the complaint. Inspectors did not originally ask to inspect the top floor. As inspections were done more problems were discovered. It was noted the property was still occupied in January of 1995. Inspector Packer emphasized the lower unit was rented after the property had been cited and posted as unsafe on November 20, 1994. Mr. Chodora noted this Board had previously cited that the lower unit was not to be occupied until all repairs were made. Inspector Packer noted on June 6, 1994, Mr. Perry Milano made application to do the work at 1910 Overbrook. Mr. Packer met two contractors, at Mr. Cadwell’s request, at the property. It was noted this case has already been heard, and the Board is to address only the issue of reducing the fine and Mr. Cadwell was asked why he felt the fine should be reduced. Mr. Cadwell stated it is simply a question of ownership. He stated he was the owner at one time, and years ago transferred the property to a company in Canada, which has been the owner for the past 24 years. He said the owners are responsible for the repairs. Mr. Cadwell said he feels the fine is illegal since he does not own the property. He has asked for the City Attorney’s opinion, and has not received a reply. Ms. Dougall-Sides said that was not entirely true. Attorney Salzman noted if Mr. Cadwell is not the proper owner, he has no right to come before this Board to ask for a reduction in fine. He reiterated the issue of ownership has nothing to do with this case. This Board can only decide as to the reduction of the fine. The actual fine was decided in 1994, and continued to run until the date of demolition. In response to a question, Mr. Chodora said the date of demolition was April 15, 1995. A question was raised if the fine continued to run beyond the date of demolition. Attorney Salzman stated the fine stopped running on April 18, 1995. It was noted that date was three days after demolition. In response to a question, Mr. Chodora said November 20, 1994 was the date the notice was sent to Mr. Cadwell that the building was declared an unsafe structure and repairs must be made to prevent demolition. Discussion ensued regarding the date tenants ceased to occupy the premises. Mr. Chodora responded it was late December of 1994 or early January of 1995. It was noted Mr. Cadwell said he had tenants in early January of 1995. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City contends the property was still in violation up to the time of demolition. A question was raised if Mr. Cadwell would have come into compliance when the property was boarded up and the tenants ceased tenancy. Mr. Chodora answered compliance was not met at that time because the building was still considered an unsafe structure. Attorney Salzman noted one of the Board’s concerns when this case was originally heard was the possibility of access to the building while it was unsafe. A question was raised if the City had agreed at one time that one of the apartments could be rented, but the other could not. Mr. Chodora said at the time the matter was originally brought before this Board, it was agreed the upper unit could remain occupied, but the lower unit was not to be occupied until repairs were made. Mr. Cadwell continued to rent the lower unit after the Board’s decision. Inspector Packer noted when a building is cited as an unsafe structure, the notice states the property must be brought up to current code. Mr. Cadwell was given extra time to make repairs. City inspectors even met his contractors at the property, but no repairs were made. Mr. Cadwell said he signed a contract as trustee. Mr. Cadwell stated in November or December of 1994, he met with Mr. Chodora, who told him the building was going to be demolished. He said no justification for demolition was given to him at that time. He referred the matter to the owner who is responsible for repairs. The owner said if the building is to be destroyed there was no point in spending money on repairs. Mr. Cadwell believed the owner should not be responsible for anything after November 20, 1994, when the Building Department said they were going to demolish the building. Mr. Cadwell said the fine should have been $7,500, not $45,000. Mr. Cadwell said his sole responsibility as trustee is to look after the building and monitor the income disbursements. Discussion ensued regarding the fine and the sale and value of the empty lot. It was noted Mr. Cadwell had out of pocket expenses of $7,584.66 for demolition, and repair estimates of $3,500. Member Henegar moved that concerning Case 19-94 the fine be reduced to $5,288.34 to be paid within 30 days, or the fine will revert back to the original fine of $45,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Cadwell asked if there was any provision for appeal of this decision. Attorney Salzman said no appeal can be made to this Board on a reduction of fine. B. Rehearing Case 25-96 Gilbert G. Jannelli 1930 Drew Street Gilbert Jannelli requested by letter this rehearing be rescheduled as he will be out of town. Member Rogers moved to continue Case 25-96 for 30 days. Attorney Salzman noted this case is being brought before the Board for a rehearing. There was some question as to whether or not conditions attached to a conditional use approval were met. Inspector Rosa said on September 10, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use for temporary, noncommercial parking on the lot. Attorney Salzman recommended reviewing the case at the next meeting when all parties involved are present. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Affidavit of Non-Compliance Case 38-96 E. G. Bradford & Sons Earnest G. Bradford, R/A 111 S. Belcher Road It was noted at the last meeting, E. G. Bradford & Sons was in the process of applying for an occupational license. Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl believed a license was issued, but the back taxes on fuel charges were not paid. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the City is requiring fuel taxes be paid before issuance of an occupational license. Member Riley moved to accept the affidavit of non-compliance for Case #38-96 and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Lt. Kronschnabl stated the City accepted payment for the occupational license, but it is unknown whether the license was physically granted. The violator understands he must pay the back taxes. An occupational license is required in order to operate a business in the City. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she advised Occupational Licensing since the fee has been paid and accepted for the occupational license, the City may need to refund that fee. In response to a question, Ms. Diana stated the fine is $50 per day. Discussion ensued regarding whether the $50 fine was for both violations. Attorney Salzman said the $50 per day fine covers all violations as presented at the previous Board meeting. D. Affidavit of Compliance Case 42-96 John & Bridgett Tassinari 715 S. Glenwood Avenue Member Rogers moved to accept the affidavit of compliance on Case 42-96. In response to a question, Attorney Salzman said the offense that occurred has been remedied by mowing. A new violation could occur if the property is not kept in proper condition. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Chair Swanberg noted Member Rayborn’s term has expired, and thanked him for his service on the Board. Member Riley moved to approve the minutes of September 25, 1996 as submitted in writing to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:02 p.m. Chair Attest: Municipal Code Enforcement Board ________________________________________ Secretary to the Board