Loading...
04/23/1997MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER April 23 1997 Present: Louise C. Riley, Chair Helen Kerwin, Vice Chair Dennis Henegar, Member Frank Huffman, Member Stephen D. Swanberg, Member David Allbritton, Member Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Mark Connolly, Attorney for the Board Susan Stephenson, Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses, Board Reporter Absent:: Lawrence Tieman, Member The meeting was called to order by Chair Riley 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. She 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. 07-97 (Cont’d 2/26/97, 3/26/97) Leonard A. McCue/Overby’s Inc. 18540 U. S. 19 N. (Land Development Code) Secretary for the Board, Susan Stephenson, read the Affidavit of Violation into the record. It was noted Case 07-97 had been previously presented. Inspector Janice King stated a site plan and an application were submitted which were not sufficient to start the permitting process. Mr. Jablon, operator of Overby’s, is aware of the situation but is out of town. Inspector King requested a 90-day compliance date, after which time Overby’s must store the vehicles indoors. In response to a question, Central Permitting Specialist, Stephen Sarnoff, stated the conditional use application received last week showed angled parking on the site plan, and the driveway dead ends. Also, the authorization that Mr. McCue was unwilling to sign was only for one of the metes and bounds parcels that are the subject of the violation. He noted these were minor items that needed attention, and the violator has had adequate time to remedy these issues. Attorney Amadio representing Mr. McCue stated that Mr. Jablon is the operator of Overby’s. He noted Mr. McCue wishes to rectify this situation. Mr. McCue agreed with the site plan as presented to the City. Mr. Amadio acknowledged that Mr. McCue was aware that the site plan was rejected and required modifications. He noted Mr. McCue filed an eviction notice against Overby’s Inc. on February 11, 1997. Mr. Amadio stated since Overby’s is in violation of the City Code, they are in violation of their lease. He provided Board members with a copy of the Suit to Evict. Mr. Amadio requested that any fines imposed be levied against Overby’s Inc. rather than Mr. McCue. He noted that Mr. McCue is attempting to comply. It was noted when a finding is determined, it will be presented against the property owner. Attorney Connolly noted this Board has the authority to fine the violator, not just the property owner. Attorney Dougall-Sides stated that both the property owner and the business owner were cited, and the City requests that the finding be against both parties. At the request of Attorney Connolly, Ms. Dougall-Sides summarized the facts behind the case for the benefit of new Board Member, David Allbritton. It was noted this case goes back to January of 1994. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case 07-97 (Leonard McCue, property owner) the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on February 26, 1997, March 26, 1997, and April 23, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Janice King, Code Inspector, Steve Sarnoff, Central Permitting Specialist, Leonard McCue, property owner, Dominic E. Amadio, attorney representing Mr. McCue, Ed Jablon, General Manager for Overby’s, Howard Ross, attorney representing Overby’s, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-11 (Ex. 1 - cited code section; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 4 - notice of hearing; Ex. 5 - chronology; Ex. 6 - notice to cure noncompliance with lease agreement; Ex. 7 - photo of condition of property; Ex. 8 - Final Order of Dismissal re conditional use; Ex. 9 - photos taken of property on 2/26/97; Ex. 10 and Ex. 11 - applications for occupational licenses by previous business owner, Exoticar, and the current owner, Overby’s and Defendant’s Ex. 1 - occupational license for Overby’s Inc. dated 9/30/94 with category of automobile dealer and Defendant’s Ex. 2 - occupational license application dated 12/30/93, it is evident outdoor display exists on the property which is permitted only as a conditional use in the highway commercial zoning district; there is no conditional use for this location. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 41.022 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation within 90 days (July 23, 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 July 23, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred and no/100 dollars ($200.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond July 23, 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 Border 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. D. Case 14-97 (cont’d 3/26/97) Discount Auto Parts 1600 N. Myrtle Avenue (Environmental) In a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, Inspector Clarke withdrew Case 14-97 as the property is now in compliance. E. Case 16-97 (cont’d 3/26/97) Les Spits 432 Cleveland St. (Life Safety) In a memorandum dated April 17, 1997, the Fire Marshall requested this case be continued B. Case 17-97 John N. Shropshire 1402 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Building) Attorney Dougall-Sides stated the City expects compliance today and requests a continuance. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case 17-97 to the meeting of May 28, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 18-97 Michael Hollenbeck 113 Kenwood Avenue (Building) Ms. Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation into the record. In response to questions from Attorney Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Greg Clarke stated he was investigating another code violation at an adjacent property when this violation came to his attention. He noticed debris on the property and some construction. He called the office to check for permits. A notice of violation was issued on November 21, 1996 for building remodeling without a permit on this property. The property is uninhabitable and unoccupied. It is unknown whether the property was tenant-occupied at the time of the violation. Inspector Clarke received a letter from the property owner stating the steps they would take to try to comply with the Code. It was noted compliance has not been met to date. There are structural and wiring problems, and interior renovation taking place without permits. Inspector Clarke took photographs through a window on February 13, 1997 and April 21, 1997 of work being done on the property. He noted the property owners were going to remove the existing structure and build an apartment dwelling, which will require permits. City submitted Exhibits 1-7. General Contractor, Gaylord Landau, was hired by the Hollenbeck’s to design a new multi-family building for the property. The Hollenbecks have applied for construction financing and the current plans have been turned down. New plans are to be submitted, however should the financing be turned down, the property may need to be rehabbed. He requested a 90-day continuance. The building is secure and boarded for safety. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 18-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 23, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Greg Clarke, Code Inspector, Gaylord Landau, representing the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 -notice of violation; Ex. 2 - notice of violation and order to stop work; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 4 - notice of hearing; Ex. 5 - Darya Hollenbeck letter dated 2/20/97; Ex. 6 - cited code sections; and Ex. 7 - composite photos of conditions of property, it is evident interior remodeling and construction are being done 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 Section 47.083(2) and Article V, Section 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation within 120 days (August 22, 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 August 22, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred and no/100 dollars ($100.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond August 22, 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 Border 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. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case 16-97 to the May 28, 1997 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 19-97 Mounir Agaiby 222 Dolphin Pt. Rd. (Building) In a memorandum dated April 22, 1997, Inspector Clarke withdrew Case 19-97 as the property is now in compliance. G. Case 20-97 Frank Lennox Lennox Apts. 2035 Kings Hwy. (Building) In a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, Inspector Clarke withdrew Case 20-97 as the property is now in compliance. H. Case 21-97 Joseph & Dorothy Feola 1481 Pierce St. (Housing) In a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, Inspector Rosa withdrew Case 21-97 as the owner is making the necessary repairs to bring the property into compliance. I. Case 23-97 Ronald A. Hadley 1148 & 1148 1/2 LaSalle St. (Building) Ms. Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation into the record. In response to questions from Attorney Dougall-Sides, Inspector Robert Scott stated his initial inspection was November 20, 1996. This property was also the subject of a housing case which came before the Board last month for a different violation. This violation is a building code violation. The property was issued a notice of violation and a stop work order on November 19, 1996. Inspector Scott spoke to Mr. Hadley this afternoon and indicated he was having difficulty locating a local contractor to complete the work. Mr. Hadley felt he could complete the work within 30 days time. Notice of today’s hearing was provided by return receipt mail and the return receipt was returned showing date of delivery as April 4, 1997. The violator was not present at this hearing. He noted the structure is secure. City submitted Exhibits 1-6. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 23-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 23, 1997, 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, (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 -notice of violation; Ex. 2 - notice of violation and order to stop work; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 4 - notice of hearing; Ex. 5 composite photos of conditions of property; and Ex. 6 - cited code sections, it is evident plumbing, electrical and structural work are being done 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 Section 47.083(2) and Article V, Section 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation within 30 days (May 23, 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 May 23, 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 May 23, 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 Border 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. J. Case 24-97 David & Myrna Whitehead 620 Spencer Avenue (Public Nuisance) Ms. Dougall-Sides noted this is an appeal under the lot clearing ordinance. The property was cited for having debris on the property, namely an inoperative vehicle. Mr. David Whitehead stated that his interpretation of Section 20.32 defining “inoperative” does not mean his vehicle is inoperative. He stated he does not have a license tag on the vehicle. He uses the vehicle as a second vehicle in the event his other vehicle is not usable. Inspector Janice King stated his vehicle could either be licensed or stored in a garage. Attorney Dougall-Sides noted that the City Code states debris includes inoperative vehicles. Under the abandoned vehicle notice section, inoperative vehicles are deemed inoperative if a current registration tag is not affixed to the vehicle. Mr. Whitehead disagreed with the definition of “inoperable”. City submitted photographs of the vehicle. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 24-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 23, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Janice King, Code Inspector, David Whitehead, Respondent, and viewing the evidence, photographs of vehicle, it is evident there exists an inoperable vehicle at 620 Spencer Avenue. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondents by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Section 20.35(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondents have failed to remedy the cited violation. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondents are to correct the aforesaid violation within 10 days of the date of this Order. 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 the Respondents. The City Commission may then adopt a resolution assessing against the property on which remedial action was taken by the City the actual cost incurred plus $200.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. A notice of lien, in such form, as the City Commission shall determine, may be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida as other liens are recorded. If the owner takes remedial action after the time specified, the City Commission may assess the property the $200.00 administrative cost. Such cost shall constitute a lien against the property until paid. Upon complying, the Respondents shall notify, Janice King, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Riley, Kerwin, Huffman, Swanberg and Allbritton voted “aye,”; Member Henegar voted “nay”. Motion carried. K. Case 22-97 Jessee & Yvonne Dawsey 1001 Fairmont Street (Land Development) Ms. Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation into the record. In response to questions from Attorney Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Vicki Niemiller stated the property was first inspected on February 18, 1997. A hauling trailer is parked in a residential setback area. She noted there were 2 hauling trailers parked there previously. The owner had agreed to move them, however as of this date, one trailer was still parked on the property. She submitted photographs of the property. This violation was based on an anonymous complaint. Inspector Niemiller stated that the owner verbally indicated she had no intention of moving the trailer, and suggested the City proceed with whatever was necessary. Attorney Connolly noted that since the City has not received a return receipt of notice of hearing, the Board should hear the case at the next meeting. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case 22-97 to the meeting of May 28, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Member Henegar questioned whether properties on which Yvonne Irle had requested liens be waived were sold to a religious organization as indicated would be. Staff to investigate. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Louis Bakkalapulo Letter Re: Arthur & Irene Passias Case 41-92 -- 1378 Milton St. Attorney Connolly stated Attorney Louis Bakkalapulo is disputing the lien placed on this property and indicated his clients, Arthur and Irene Passias, have offered to pay $1,000.00 to settle the matter. It was noted the Board had previously reduced the fine. Member Swanberg moved to allow Mr. Bakkalapulo to address the Board regarding the fine for Case 41-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 26, 1997 Member Henegar moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.