Loading...
11/13/1996MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER November 13, 1996 Present: Stephen D. Swanberg, Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair Peg Rogers, Member Dennis Henegar, Member Helen Kerwin, Member Lawrence Tieman, Member Frank Huffman, Member Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Mark Connolly, 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. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 43-96 Mido USA Inc. 1590 Gulf Blvd. (restaurant only) (Life Safety Code) Attorney Jeff Martin representing Mido USA Inc., requested a continuance. In response to a question, Ms. Diana, Secretary for the Board, noted the certified mail receipt of the notice of hearing has not been received. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the City is agreeable to a continuance of Case 43-96 to the next meeting. Staff was requested to include all applicable code references in Board packets. Member Henegar moved to continue Case 43-96 to the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 44-96 Felecia Johnson 3123 John’s Parkway (Land Development Code) Ms. Diana noted no certified mail receipt of the notice of hearing has been received in this case. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated Inspector Scott indicated the violator has applied for a permit for construction, and noted the City has no objection to a continuance to the next meeting. Member Henegar moved to continue Case 44-96 to the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 45-96 Charles Howard 1140 Palm Bluff Street (Building Code) Ms. Diana noted no certified mail receipt of the notice of hearing has been received in this case. Mr. Howard had moved from the first known address. Another notice was sent by certified mail to 1618 Sunset Point, and was returned unclaimed. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted a request for hearing was hand-delivered to Mr. Howard by Inspector Scott and Mr. Howard was verbally advised of the time and date of this hearing. The City has no objection to a continuance of Case 45-96. Inspector Scott stated he spoke to Mr. Howard on November 5, 1996 at which time he gave Mr. Howard the notice of violation and request for hearing. Inspector Scott said he did not give him the notice of hearing formally, but did verbally inform him. Attorney Mark Connolly suggested discussion of Case 45-96 at the next meeting when all parties are present. Member Henegar moved to continue Case 45-96 to the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Howard arrived later in the meeting and Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was August 8, 1996. Interior walls, electrical boxes, skylight and dormer were done without permits or inspections. In response to a question, Mr. Howard indicated he agreed to the violation as read. He said he is working towards compliance. He noted his architect was incarcerated and has not fulfilled his promise. Plans should be ready next week. He noted his father built the house and he would like to restore it to code. It was noted the Board earlier recommended continuance of Case 45-96. Members agreed the earlier decision will stand and Case 45-96 will be continued to the next meeting. D. Case 46-96 Barnett Bank of Pinellas County 1610 S. Missouri Avenue (Land Development Code) Ms. Diana noted proper service was obtained for Case 46-96. No one was present to represent Barnett Bank. In response to a question, City Inspector Robert Scott stated this violation was discovered as a result of an anonymous complaint. Inspector Scott said he issued a stop work order on July 22, 1996 after attempting to contact Hawkins Construction, the general contractor for the project. Hawkins Construction thought South Florida Fence had pulled the permit and vice versa. The stop work order was for a fence that had been constructed surrounding a retention pond. All other construction had been properly permitted. In response to a question, Inspector Scott said South Florida Fence Company applied for a permit on September 17, 1996, and was told at that time a variance was required for the fence. As of this morning, they have not applied for the variance. Property ownership was determined through the Property Appraiser’s Office, and an Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing was issued. City Exhibits 1-6 were submitted. Photographs of the fence were taken November 13, 1996. In response to a question, Inspector Scott recommended a compliance date of January 16, 1997. In response to a question, Inspector Scott said a setback and a height variance are required and a triple fee will be imposed. A question was asked if the fence was shown on the master construction planned. Inspector Scott said he did not know. The ordinance specifies a fence height of 30 inches and this fence is 6 feet high. Member Rogers moved that concerning Case 46-96, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 1996, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Robert Scott, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - Notice of Hearing and code section cited; Ex. 2 - Stop Work Order; Ex. 3 - census book verification of property owner; Ex. 4 complaint report; Ex. 5 signed return receipt and Ex. 6 - photos of fence) it is evident a violation exists, a fence was installed without a permit or inspection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, Article IV, Chapter 47, Sections 47.081 and 47.083(2) and Article IV, Section 47 in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation on or before January 16, 1997. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before January 16, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond January 16, 1997. If Respondent 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 Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. 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. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Rehearing (Cont’d 10/23/96) Case 25-96 Gilbert G. Jannelli 1930 Drew Street Ms. Dougall-Sides noted a finding of violation was issued on July 24, 1996. The original violation related to parking automobiles on a grass area zoned for multi-family or non-residential use, which is not allowed. At the September 10, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board, a temporary conditional use permit was approved for temporary noncommercial parking with the following conditions: 1) temporary parking is limited to one year from the date of public hearing; 2) the parking layout shall be designed to meet the requirements of a temporary parking lot and no interior landscaping or paving shall be required except as required to prevent wet or bad spots as determined by staff; 3) the temporary parking plan shall be approved by Traffic Engineering and shall meet requirements for a temporary parking lot; 4) access to the temporary parking area shall be from the existing parking lot to the east of the subject property across the area proposed for the two southerly parking spaces and driving on the sidewalk shall not be allowed; and 5) minimum standards for perimeter landscaping as reviewed by staff shall be along Drew Street only for the portion of the subject property being used for temporary parking. Inspector Rosa submitted photos showing the current conditions of the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the property owner requested this hearing, and wishes to show he was in compliance on a particular date. She said the Board could address the fine that has been running. In response to a question, Dr. Jannelli said he is interested in addressing the Board regarding a reduction of fine. Ms. Diana said an Affidavit of Compliance has not been received and noted the Board’s policy to not consider reduction of fines until compliance is met. Inspector Rosa said on Case 25-96 Dr. Jannelli was found in violation of Section 42345(a), parking on a surface condition from August 1, 1996 until September 10, 1996 when Planning & Zoning approved temporary grass parking. In response to a question, Inspector Rosa said Dr. Jannelli was given one week from August 1, 1996 by this Board to come into compliance. The meeting date was July 24, 1996 and Inspector Rosa submitted an Affidavit of noncompliance on August 1, 1996. Ms. Diana noted a $50 per day fine for 40 days (from August 1, 1996 through September 10, 1996) of noncompliance for a total of $2,000. Dr. Jannelli said his contention has always been that he did not violate the code since the code does not specifically address temporary parking on grass. He noted correspondence from the City Engineer, Rich Baier, that indicated the parking was appropriate and later correspondence that contradicted this. Dr. Jannelli said he was working to solve the problem in a timely manner. In response to a question, Dr. Jannelli said the first letter from Mr. Baier was dated May 23, 1996. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the May 23, 1996 letter from Mr. Baier indicated the City Engineer has the authority to approve certain grass parking. Dr. Jannelli noted there was a delay in communication from Mr. Baier while this case was progressing. Ms. Dougall-Sides believed the delay in submission of a sketch depicting the parking layout held up the process. In response to a remark regarding reduction of fine in this case, Ms. Diana believed today’s hearing was to determine whether or not the terms of the conditional use approval were met. Dr. Jannelli said the conditions have been met and an occupational license has been obtained. Attorney Connolly stated if the City’s official is willing to testify as to the date certain the property was brought into compliance, it will suffice for the legal purposes of this Board that compliance was met. Inspector Rosa testified on September 10, 1996, due to the Planning & Zoning Board’s approval for temporary parking, the original violation stopped. Attorney Connolly clarified that September 10, 1996 is the official compliance date. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the July 18, 1996 letter from Mr. Baier informed Dr. Jannelli he would need a Unity of Title or conditional use approval. On July 24, 1996 the Municipal Code Enforcement Board heard the case at which time Dr. Jannelli was in the process of applying for conditional use approval. Dr. Jannelli stated his canceled check dated August 8, 1996 was for the conditional use permit. Ms. Dougall-Sides mentioned sketches were required for the ingress and egress to the property. It was noted this Board had already heard Case 25-96. Dr. Jannelli said he did not feel he was in violation and communicated with the City Engineer while going through the process. It was noted a section in the City code prohibits parking on grass on multifamily and commercial properties. In response to the issue of reduction of fine, Ms. Diana estimated City costs to be $270 for attorney fees, photos, certified mail, and recording fees. Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl noted Dr. Jannelli challenged the constitutionality of the law and lost. He then applied for a conditional use permit. Lt. Kronschnabl recommended the fine run from the original date of violation to August 8, 1996, for a total of 7 days. Member Rogers moved that concerning Case 25-96, the fine be reduced from $2,000 to $350 plus administrative costs (to be determined by Board Secretary). The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Riley, Rogers, Kerwin, Tieman, Huffman and Swanberg voted “aye”; Member Henegar voted “nay”. The motion carried. Dr. Jannelli said he had requested a series of continuances to his case. Attorney Connolly clarified the Order has been decided, and today the Board was only to hear the issue of reduction of fine. Dr. Jannelli stated he wrote letters to the City Manager suggesting this Board be combined with the Fire Marshall. In response to his suggestion, it was noted the Fire Department brings cases before this Board. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION For the benefit of the new Board members, it was noted the Community Response Team has a program allowing citizens to ride with them to gain insight into their operations. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 23, 1996 Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of October 23, 1996 as submitted in writing to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Chairman Attest: Municipal Code Enforcement Board ________________________________________ Secretary to the Board