Loading...
12/11/1996MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER December 11, 1996 Present: Stephen D., Chair Louise C. Riley, Vice-Chair 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 Absent: Peg Rogers, Member 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 Statue 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 (Continued 11/13/96) Mido USA Inc. 1590 Gulf Blvd. (restaurant only) (Life Safety Code) Secretary for the Board, M. Kathryn Diana, read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. In response to a question, Mr. Jeff Martin, General Manager for Mido USA Inc.’s hotel and restaurant, stated he agreed with the violation as read. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides stated the restaurant portion of the business was cited for unsafe means of egress. Also, siding on the roof was to be secured. A notice of violation was issued on September 3, 1996. She noted a recommendation was made for the property owner to be found in violation and given 10 days to comply, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed due to the safety nature of this violation. City Exhibits 1-5 were introduced. In response to a question, Inspector Wright said the first notice of unsafe egress was issued on May 10, 1996, and to date, the staircase has not been repaired. A permit was issued on November 27, 1996 to start work. Work was started this morning. The staircase is being constructed of metal and encompasses the second and third floors. The Fire Department requires egress for these floors. In response to a question, Mr. Martin said the restaurant is on the second floor. There is a small banquet room on the third floor. Inspector Wright said the third floor staircase is in question as well because of its condition. Mr. Martin said his understanding of the issue regards the area in the northwest portion of the property, which is the area he is addressing today. Inspector Wright said all of the stairs at the rear of the structure were referenced in the inspection report. Mr. Martin said he was only aware of, and addressing, the second floor stairs at the northwest corner. Demolition of the second floor stairs leading to the ground floor commenced this morning and installation is scheduled for tomorrow. In response to a question, Mr. Martin said there is a main entrance to the restaurant and a wrap-around balcony with sliding glass doors that extends along the southern portion of the restaurant. He stated to his knowledge it is an approved fire exit. In response to a question, Inspector Wright said there is an exit from the kitchen area in the front, and it would be necessary to go around the kitchen to get to the balcony. The staircase currently being addressed extends from the kitchen area. There is an exit on the second and third floors. Should a fire start in the front of the restaurant, there is no safe egress. In response to a question, Inspector Wright said the notice of violation was issued on September 3, 1996 with 10 days for compliance. As of November 3, 1996, this business was still in violation. Mr. Martin said he was having difficulty with the contractor, and contends the work will be done by December 13, 1996. He agreed the third floor stairs need attention. He noted at the second floor landing, there is an exit in the restaurant off the bar and hostess area, and openings at the southwest portion of the restaurant. On the right-hand side is a kitchen, which has its own exit down to the ground level. The area being dealt with goes directly out that corner, drops down and is shared with an adjoining condominium owner. Part of the delay for noncompliance was determining ownership of the stairs. Mr. Martin stated the property documents do not indicate easements or clear ownership of the stairs, and the Mido had to engage legal assistance to remedy the situation. Since the owner resides out of state, it has taken longer than anticipated to resolve this concern. In answer to a question, Mr. Martin said a representative of Mido walked through the premises with the Fire Marshall. Afterward, Mr. Martin said he thought the stairwell currently under construction was the only one that required repairs. In response to a question, Mr. Martin acknowledged that the third floor is occasionally used for banquet purposes, and has two means of egress. One stairway extends up from the main body of the restaurant, and a stairway descends to the kitchen area and down to the ground floor. The stairway that extends from the third floor to the kitchen and to the ground floor is of concrete construction. Mr. Martin said his understanding throughout the process was that the northwest staircase was the only violation. He said the other stairway will be addressed. It is owned solely by the Mido. He confirmed work is in progress. Inspector Wright felt the work in progress on the staircase at the northwest corner could be completed in 20 days. Mr. Martin noted he did not feel both staircases could be completed within 20 days, and that new permitting would be required. It was noted the basic paperwork was already applied for and repair work to the second set of stairs should be accomplished faster. It was noted that the restaurant was originally cited in May of 1996, and no repairs have been made to date. Member Riley moved that concerning Case 43-96, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 11, 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 William Wright, Code Inspector, and Jeff Martin, representing the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 - Chapter 2, Section 202 of the Standard Unsafe Building & Abatement Code, Ex. 2 - certified letter of notice of unsafe egress; Ex. 3 - notice of violation; Ex. 4 - notice of hearing; Ex. 5 - composite photographs of unsafe structure) it is evident a violation exists, the stairs on the west side of the subject property are damaged, dilapidated and unsafe and create a serious hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 2, Section 202, Standard Unsafe Building & Abatement Code, Unsafe Building 1 and 2, 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 10, 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 10, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond January 10, 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. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any 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. B. Case 45-96 (Continued 11/13/96) Charles Howard 1140 Palm Bluff Street (Building Code) Mr. Howard was not present at this hearing. Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing for Case 45-96. The date of official notice of violation was August 8, 1996 for building interior walls, electrical boxes, skylight and dormer without permits or inspections. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted Case 45-96 had been continued at the last meeting. Mr. Howard arrived and addressed the Board after the continuance was granted and heard. He agreed with the violation as read, and was working toward compliance, hoping the architect’s plans would be ready the following week. She submitted City Exhibits 1-6. Inspector Robert Scott said he spoke to Mr. Howard on December 9, 1996. He was meeting with his architect at 3:00 p.m. to pick up the plans. Inspector Scott said he spoke to him again this afternoon and Mr. Howard stated there were mistakes that needed to be corrected on the plans. He took them back to the architect and was to have them back today. Inspector Scott said, as of 2:30 p.m. this afternoon Mr. Howard did not have the plans back. The work is being done without charge, therefore, this project may not be completed expeditiously. Mr. Howard will be occupying the house and the structure behind it will be occupied by his children. Inspector Scott expressed concern the initial notice of violation was sent some time ago, and to date, nothing has been done. He recommended 120 days to comply, or a fine of $25 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Member Riley moved that concerning Case 45-96, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 11, 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, Ex. 2 - notice of violation and order to stop work; Ex. 3 - verification of ownership; Ex. 4 - notice of hearing; Ex. 5 - certified mail receipts; and Ex. 6 - composite photographs of property conditions) it is evident a violation exists, interior walls, electrical boxes, skylite and dormer were built without permits or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent, by reason of the foregoing, is in violation of Chapter 47, Article IV, Section 47.081 and 47.083(2) and Article V, Section 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater 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 within 120 days (April 10, 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 April 10, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of twenty-five and no/100 dollars ($25.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond April 10, 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. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any 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. C. Case 49-96 RKM Development Corp. 1880 Belcher Road N. (Walgreen’s) (Environmental) D. Case 50-96 Randy and Karen Klaub 1906 Radcliff Dr. N. (Building Code) Member Henegar moved that Case 49-96 and Case 50-96 be continued to the meeting of January 22, 1997, to obtain proof of service. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 51-96 Clearwater Jaycee Memorial Foundation, c/o W. Phillips Esq. 2754 Sunset Point Road (Environmental) In a letter dated December 6, 1996, Attorney Wayne Phillips requested continuing this case as he would not be in the area on the day of the hearing. Member Henegar moved that Case 51-96 be continued to the meeting of January 22, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Reconsideration of Rehearing Case 25-96 Gilbert G. Jannelli 1930 Drew Street Attorney Connolly requested clarification of the Board’s intent when they granted Dr. Jannelli a rehearing on September 25, 1996. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the City objected to granting a rehearing due to no appeal to the original order being filed. Discussion ensued regarding the hearing held on November 13, 1996, and it was indicated this hearing was held to provide an update on whether Dr. Jannelli was in compliance after he was granted a conditional use permit on September 10, 1996. At this hearing the Board also addressed a reduction in fine. Discussion ensued in regard to there being no value in rehearing the case as a conditional use has been approved and the fine has been paid. Member Henegar moved concerning Case 25-96 to deny a rehearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION The next meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is scheduled for January 22, 1997 at the Harborview Center. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1996 Member Henegar moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 1996 as submitted in writing to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:49 p.m. Chair Attest: Municipal Code Enforcement Board ________________________________________ Secretary to the Board