Loading...
05/28/1997MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 28, 1997 Present: Louise C. Riley, Chair Helen Kerwin, Vice Chair David Albritton, Member Dennis Henegar, Member Frank Huffman, Member Stephen D. Swanberg, Member Lawrence Tieman, Member Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Mark Connolly, Attorney for the Board Mary K. “Sue” Diana, Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses, Board Reporter 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. (Cont’d. 3/26/97, 4/23/97) Case 16-97 Les Spits 432 Cleveland St. (Life Safety - Blackburn) In a memo dated May 22, 1997, Fire Marshall James Goodloe withdrew Case 16-97 as the City is close to resolving this issue. B. (Cont’d. 4/23/97) Case 17-97 John N. Shropshire 1402 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. (Building) - Clarke Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was January 21, 1997. The violation was for an addition to an existing commercial office without obtaining permits and/or inspections. The alleged violator was not present and had no representation. In response to questions, Inspector Clarke stated he received a complaint on December 20, 1996. A notice of violation was issued to the tenant and the property owner. The addition was done to a commercial structure and included doors, drywall, slab, walls, trusses, and electrical work. Inspector Clarke verified ownership through the property appraiser’s office. Inspector Clarke had contacted the owner and tenant several times. To date compliance has not been met. At the last hearing a thirty day continuance was granted. A licensed contractor is required to perform work on commercial property. The initial application was made by a licensed contractor. However, the physician occupying the property stated he did the work himself. Inspector Clarke took photographs of the property on February 7, 1997, February 12, 1997 and April 21, 1997. He recommended since no positive response has been received to date regarding this violation that a fine of $100 per day with a 30 day compliance date be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City’s Exhibits 1-6. Attorney Connolly recommended separate orders for both the lessee and the property owner. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 17-97 (John Shropshire, Property Owner), the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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, (the Respondent, John Shropshire, 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 - code sections cited, and Ex. 6 - composite photos of conditions of property, it is evident a violation exists in that an addition to an existing commercial office is being done without permits and/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 (June 27, 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 June 27, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred twenty-five and no/100 dollars ($125.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 27, 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 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. . Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 17-97 (Robert Jackson, Lessee), the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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, (the Respondent, Robert Jackson, 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 - code sections cited, and Ex. 6 - composite photos of conditions of property, it is evident a violation exists in that an addition to existing commercial office is being done without permits and/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 (June 27, 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 June 27, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred twenty-five and no/100 dollars ($125.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 27, 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 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. C. (Cont’d. 4/23/97) Case 22-97 Jessee & Yvonne Dawsey 1001 Fairmont St. (Land Development) - Niemiller Secretary for the Board Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was March 3, 1997. A complaint was received hauling trailers were parked in a residential setback area. Ms. Dawsey, the alleged violator, agreed to the violation. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Vicki Niemiller stated there were two hauling trailers parked in the front setback area on February 18, 1997. She submitted photographs of the property, City Exhibit A. The notice of violation was sent to the property owner on March 3, 1997. Inspector Niemiller said Ms. Dawsey called to say she was not going to move the trailers. The compliance date was March 13, 1997, and Inspector Niemiller reinspected the property twice since that time and one hauling trailer is still parked in the front setback area. Inspector Niemiller recommended compliance within 5 days or a $25 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1-6. Ms. Dawsey stated the trailer has been in the same location for years. She buys a license tag annually. She stated she did not understand why it has to be moved now. In response to a question, Ms. Dawsey said she moved one trailer and could not move the other since there was no room for it elsewhere. Ms. Dawsey said the trailers are used for hauling lawn equipment and noted the trailers are not parked on the road. Ms. Dawsey believed no compromises could be considered. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 22-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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 Yvonne Dawsey, Respondent, and Vickie Niemiller, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - code section cited; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 - notices of hearing; and Ex. 6 - photographs of trailer, it is evident a violation exists in that a hauling trailer is parked in a residential setback area. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 42.34(9)(b)2 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 5 days (June 2, 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 June 2, 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 June 2, 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 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. D. Case 25-97 Ruben and Linda Umpierrez 1916 Overbrook Ave. (Housing Code) - Rosa Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was November 1, 1996. This property was reinspected on March 21, 1997 and remains in violation of the Standard Housing Code. The Respondent was not present and had no representation. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Rick Rosa stated this matter was brought to his attention by another inspector. The initial inspection was made on October 28, 1996. A housing inspection report was issued on November 1, 1996. Inspector Rosa contacted Linda Umpierrez and referred the case to CNHS (Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services). Inspector Rosa said CNHS had experienced a change in personnel and indicated a lack of communication regarding this case. It was noted there are tenants currently living on the property. The tenants replaced some plumbing fixtures on their own, but that did not address the violations cited. Inspector Rosa stated the building was cited for an unsafe accessory structure, which was for the free-standing rear apartment. It was also cited for electrical problems. Photographs were taken of the property on October 30, 1996. Ms. Dougall-Sides presented City’s Exhibits 1-5. Inspector Rosa stated that on March 21, 1996 Linda Umpierrez was told a pending contract for sale of the property with CNHS had fallen through. Ms. Umpierrez stated she would let the bank take back the property. Inspector Rosa recommended the maximum fine be imposed if the property is found to be in violation. Ms. Kathy Kaylor, a property owner living across from the residence requested the City enforce the Code. She saw no improvements made to the property over the last 4 years. She stated the property was apparently rebuilt after a fire without the required 15 foot setback. She remarked there are other violations in the interior of the home, including electrical problems. She noted very small children live there. There is insufficient air conditioning and plumbing problems. She believed the extensive repairs would far exceed the value of the property. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 25-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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 Rick Rosa, Code Inspector, (Respondent was not present and had no representation) and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 - code sections cited; Ex. 2 - housing inspector’s report; Ex. 3 - verification of ownership; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 5 - composite of photographs of conditions of property, it is evident a violation exists in that the subject property is in violation of the Standard Housing Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 305.15, 305.3, 303.4, 305.13, 305.16, 305.23, 305.22, 305.20, 307.5, 305.2, 305.14, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Section 49.01 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 60 days (July 27, 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 27, 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 July 27, 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 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. E. Case 26-97 M. R. Pullara 431-433 Mandalay Ave. (Unsafe Building) - Wright Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The official date of notice of violation was March 4, 1997. Mr. Joseph Pullara stated he and his brother are the owners of the property. Their father died and a change in ownership occurred. In response to a question, City Inspector Wright questioned if proper service was obtained. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the property was posted on May 22, 1997 and believed it appropriate to proceed with the hearing. Joseph Pullara stated his mother gave him and his brother Peter the deed to the property. Attorney Connolly explained Florida Statutes requires adequate notice to the owner. Mr. Joseph Pullara agreed he received adequate notice of the hearing. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Inspector Wright stated this violation came to his attention through a complaint received by the City on August 29, 1996. The property owners had attempted to install a meter and convert the building to a self-sustaining building separate from the storefront. There are 2 structures on the property. Inspector Wright found deterioration of the perimeter beam by termites, and damage to the siding from water and moisture, and the interior had been used as an apartment dwelling and was not zoned for that use. There had been evidence of someone living in the apartment previously. Inspector Wright noted he had sent letters to the property owners on October 31, 1996 and November 26, 1996, and placed a telephone call to the owner in January and February of 1997. On March 4, 1997 a notice of violation was mailed to Mr. Peter Pullara. County property records in May 1997 indicated that Joseph A. Pullara III, Peter Pullara and Kozmo D. Re and Pillar Re were the owners of the property. After the notice of violation was issued on April 4, 1997 a contractor made application for a permit but has not followed through to obtain it. Inspector Wright said he reinspected the property on May 22, 1997 and today, and the notice of hearing has been removed, and the building is still in violation. Ms. Dougall Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1-10. In response to questions, Inspector Wright stated this building will be referred to the City’s Unsafe Building Structure Program. Inspector Wright recommended giving the violators until June 16, 1997 to obtain permits and have the building taken down, or to impose a fine of $100 a day for each day the violation continues to exist. There is no evidence that anyone has been living in the building recently. Mr. Peter Pullara stated he signed a contract today to have the building demolished. Mr. Joseph Pullara said it is hoped the building will be removed within the next 30 days, but noted the Pullaras have no control over the contractor. Mr. Joseph Pullara noted the building was intended to be used for storage purposes, not human habitation. Member Henegar moved to continue the case for 30 days. The motion was duly seconded. Concern was expressed 30 days would not allow enough time to come into compliance. Upon the vote being taken, Member Henegar voted “aye”; Members Albritton, Huffman, Kerwin, Riley, Tieman and Swanberg voted “nay”. Motion failed. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case 26-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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 Bill Wright, Code Inspector, and Joseph and Peter Pullara, representing Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-10 (Ex. 1 - notice of unsafe building; Ex. 2 - verification of ownership; Ex. 3, Ex. 4, Ex. 5 - letters dated 10/31/96, 11/26/96 and 2/7/97 re bringing the property into compliance; Ex. 6 - notice of violation, Ex. 7 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 8 - notice of hearing; Ex. 9 - affidavit of service; and Ex. 10 - composite photographs of unsafe conditions, it is evident a violation exists in that the subject property has not been brought into compliance as stated in “unsafe” notice. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Coe 601.1 and 604, as adopted by Section 47.051(1)(e) 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 60 days (July 27, 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 27, 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 July 27, 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 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. F. Case 27-97 Leroy Touchstone Jr. TRE. 603 Cedar St. (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the City has not obtained proper service for this case, and requested a continuance of 30 days. Member Huffman moved to continue Case 27-97 for 30 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. Case 28-97 Lawrence & Katherine Labus 912 Eldridge St. (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was June 13, 1996. The property remains in violation of the Standard Housing Code. In response to a question, Mr. Lawrence Labus agreed the property was in violation. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Hinson stated several inspections were done on the property. The first inspection took place on September 11, 1996. The violation was discovered on a routine door-to-door inspection in the neighborhood. A roof is deteriorating, rafter tails are failing, siding is torn away from framed-in windows, windows are inoperable, the front entryway is unsecured and deteriorated, paint is peeling leaving the wood portion of the building unprotected and screens are torn. The roof is the only major violation that was cited. It was noted the Labus’ are occupying the property. Inspector Hinson spoke to a son at the property. He noted the City was trying to work with Clearwater Neighborhood Housing to effect some of the necessary repairs. Mr. Labus had informed Inspector Hinson he would be making some of the repairs noted a year ago. Mr. Healy of Clearwater Neighborhood Housing explained to Inspector Hinson that Mr. Labus indicated he did not need any assistance and would make the repairs himself. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1-4. Inspector Hinson noted there was a reinspection today, and the roofing system was still failing, and a window is unframed. Skirting was placed around the house. Inspector Hinson recommended 30 days for compliance. In response to questions, Mr. Labus stated he had procrastinated in getting the work completed. His original intention was to stucco the home but his brother, who is contractor, could not find the time to do so. He noted two extensions were added to the home and he will get with Inspector Hinson to remedy the remainder of the repairs suggested. He admitted it was more work than he had originally anticipated. He also noted credit problems. In response to a question, Mr. Labus stated that 30 days was time enough to come into compliance. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case 28-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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, Building Inspector, and James Ficken, who indicated he was the equitable owner (did not have written authorization from Mr. & Mrs. Izzo), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 -code sections cited; Ex. 2 - notice of violation & order to stop work; Ex. 3, notice of violation; Ex. 4 - verification of property ownership Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 6 -composite photographs of conditions on property); and Defendant Exhibit 1 (inspector’s complaint report), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that remodeling is being done without a permit or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47, Article IV, Sections 47.081 and 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 by June 13, 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 June 13, 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 June 30, 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 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. H. Case 29-97 John & Emily Izzo 1604 &1604-1/2 N. Osceola Ave. (Building) - Scott Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of official notice of violation was January 16, 1997. Remodeling was done without a permit or inspections. Mr. James R. Ficken was present. He stated he was the equitable owner of the property under agreement of deed with Mr. and Mrs. Izzo since June of 1995 as Trustee and the Manager of the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the City cited Mr. and Mrs. Izzo as the owners of the property. She indicated Mr. Ficken has an agreement for deed regarding the property and has been performing some management functions. The City’s position is that the Izzos are the legal owners of the property, and therefore, cited them in this case. In response to a question, Mr. Ficken stated he has submitted to various City officials, appropriate paperwork indicating his authority in this matter. He did not have authorization with him at today’s hearing to represent the Izzos. Attorney Connolly stated since proper service was obtained, the Board could go forward with this case. In response to a question, Mr. Ficken stated that Mr. Izzo contacted him regarding the notice of hearing. Mr. Ficken said he received the original notice of violation in January, 1997 and met with City Inspector Scott regarding the violation. In response to a question, Mr. Ficken stated he disagreed with the violation. In response to a question from Attorney Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Hinson stated he inspected the property on October 30, 1996. He stated he was inspecting a property in the area, when Mr. Ficken mistook him for another inspector, and asked him to inspect the property. He then changed his mind and did not want the property inspected. The property is for investment consisting of three to four apartment units. Photographs of the property were taken on October 30, 1996. Inspector Hinson sent a housing report. He reinspected the property and found work being done without permits. He notified the Building Department of the situation. In response to questions, Mr. Hinson stated stairs were failing and needed to be secured, and work was being done in other units. Drywall was being installed without permits. Tenants were told not to let City Inspectors inside the building, therefore the units were difficult to access. Upon further inspection, Inspector Scott issued a stop work order. Inspector Hinson stated he had spoken with the Izzos on several occasions explaining to them what was required. Mr. Hinson also spoke to Mr. Ficken. In response to questions, City Inspector Scott stated since this is rental property, all work must be done by a licensed contractor. Inspector Scott verified ownership with the property appraiser’s office. He noted that Mr. Izzo had indicated to him work was being done through Mr. Ficken. He was performing some work and attempting to purchase the property. Mr. Izzo stated he had lost control of the property. He said he would attempt to contact Mr. Ficken to remedy the situation. Inspector Scott said Mr. Ficken indicated to him he had no intent to obtain a permit. He felt doing the work himself was not in violation of City code. Inspector Scott stated the work has been completed and an after the fact permit would be required by a licensed contractor, and proper inspections need to be done to bring the property into compliance. His recommendation was for the violator to comply within 15 days, or imposition of a $250 a day fine for each day the violation continues to exist. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City’s Exhibits 1-6. She objected to Mr. Ficken representing the Izzos without property written authorization. Mr. Ficken stated he received the notice of violation in January of 1997, and has been the manager of the properly since June of 1995. He stated the City is well aware that he is the equitable owner and manager. He felt the failure to send him notice of this hearing was a violation of due process. It was noted Mr. Ficken is not the legal owner of the property. Attorney Connolly noted that this Board has allowed Mr. Ficken to testify in this case, despite the fact that he has no proof of authority on behalf of the Izzos. Mr. Ficken stated he was the equitable owner. Attorney Connolly indicated the Board is here to determine whether or not the property is in violation of the Code cited, and if so, the Order will be entered against the persons cited in the violation. Mr. Ficken expressed his concern about how the complaint originated. He disputed the fact he had invited Inspector Hinson to inspect the property. He stated the complaint on July 18, 1996 was unfounded. Mr. Ficken felt the minor repairs that were done did not require a permit. Member Kerwin noted rental requires a licensed contractor perform the work and obtain the proper permits. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 29-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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, Building Inspector, Fred Hinson, Code Inspector, and James Ficken, who indicated he was the equitable owner (did not have written authorization from Mr. & Mrs. Izzo), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 -code sections cited; Ex. 2 - notice of violation & order to stop work; Ex. 3, notice of violation; Ex. 4 - verification of property ownership Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 6 -composite photographs of conditions on property); and Defendant Exhibit 1 (inspector’s complaint report), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that remodeling is being done without a permit or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47, Article IV, Sections 47.081 and 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 by June 13, 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 June 13, 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 June 13, 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 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. I. Case 30-97 Daniel J. Mehler c/o David J. Getchell 305 Pennsylvania Ave. (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Dougall-Sides withdrew Case 30-97 indicating it would be recited. J. Case 31-97 Johnnie Blunt 907 Carlton St. (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of violation. The date of official notice of violation was September 12, 1996. This property remains in violation of the Standard Housing Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the City would request to continue the case for one month since there is a proposed sale of the property. City Inspector Hinson stated Clearwater Neighborhood Housing is considering buying the property, demolishing the structure and building a new dwelling. Member Swanberg moved to continue Case 31-97 for thirty days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. K. Case 32-97 Jenny J. Harriger d/b/a Mambo Bay 490 Mandalay Ave. (Occupational License) - Sexsmith Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of violation. The dates of official notice of violation were March 20, 1997 and April 3, 1997. This violation concerns operating a business without a Clearwater occupational license. No occupational license has been obtained for hair wrapping or braiding. In response to questions, Inspector Barbara Sexsmith stated a complaint was received in 1996 from a local licensed beauty salon that hair wraps were being done. The owner was informed regarding how to obtain a state cosmetology license for hair wrapping. Inspector Sexsmith stated that Mr. Gionnis is the property owner and Ms. Harriger is the business owner through a lease agreement. The only license applied for was by Ms. Harriger doing business as Mambo Bay, a retail sales establishment. Ms. Sexsmith said hair braiding is an activity that requires licensing. In 1997, Inspector Sexsmith received a telephone call that hair wraps were once again being done at this establishment. In March of 1997 and today, photographs of signs in the window offering hair wraps for $7.00 and up were taken. A notice of violation was issued to Ms. Harriger. Inspector Sexsmith spoke to Mr. Harriger over the phone. Mr. Harriger felt he was exempt from licensing because he was selling a product but was not being compensated for placing the product in the hair. In response to questions, Inspector Sexsmith indicated this business was offering a service as well as selling a product. The Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing was hand-delivered to the business owner. In order to comply, the business owner must attend a16-hour State licensing course, register with the State, and obtain an occupational license from the City. Inspector Sexsmith recommended compliance within 30 days or a $50 a day fine be imposed for each day of noncompliance. Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl stated he spoke to Mr. Harriger several times in order to resolve this issue. He received several phone calls from bonafide hair salons noting that Mambo Bay was in violation of State law. In conversations with Lt. Kronschnabl, Mr. Harriger indicated he was only charging for the price of the beads, and not to place it in the hair. He said Mr. Harriger indicated he would attend the 16-hour licensing course. He gave Lt. Kronschnabl the date of the course he intended to attend, and thanked Lt. Kronschnabl for working with him. Lt. Kronschnabl thought the matter had been resolved. Ms. Dougall-Sides presented Exhibits 1-11, and noted Exhibit 10 of the State Statutes addresses persons whose occupation is confined solely to hair braiding. They must be certified. The Statute defines hair braiding (platting) as the interweaving of the client’s natural human hair for compensation. The Statute does not include hair extensions. In response to a question, it was indicated hair extensions are more highly regulated. Mr. Harriger remarked the State Statute indicates hair braiding is the manipulation of hair for compensation. He indicated he had contacted the City’s Occupational License Department to obtain the license for hard braiding, and discovered even with a license for hair wrapping or hair braiding, his establishment must be licensed as a salon having the appropriate equipment which would be very expensive. He stated their business does not charge for putting the hair braid into the hair. In response to questions, Mr. Harriger stated the business places beads in hair for customers without charge when requested. He also stated the Executive Director of the Cosmetology Board in Tallahassee said he was not obligated to obtain a license for hair braiding. Discussion ensued regarding whether there is another activity other than retail sales occurring which requires licensing sales. Staff was requested to contact the Cosmetology Board regarding this issue. Member Kerwin moved to continue Case 32-97 for thirty days. The motion was duly seconded. Ms. Dougall-Sides questioned whether the Board was going beyond their purview. She noted the issue of hair braiding falls under the cosmetology category not retail sales. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. L. Case 33-97 Tom M. Sehlhorst 1050 N. Myrtle Ave. (vacant land) (Land Development) - Packer Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of official notice of violation was March 14, 1997. A two-pole sign was erected that does not meet required setbacks, and footer inspections for this sign were issued in error. A contractor has stated he did not erect the sign, apply for permits or request inspections. In response to questions, City Inspector Packer stated the violation was discovered on March 13, 1997 upon receipt of a request for a final sign inspection. Mr. Sehlhorst was informed the sign could not pass inspection because no footer inspection had been done and the sign did not meet the required setbacks. Mr. Packer said staff surveyed the property and staked the City right-of-way for reference. The survey stake in the photographs clearly show the sign does not meet the 5-foot setback requirement. A correction notice was issued to Mr. Sehlhorst on April 16, 1997. In response to questions, Mr. Packer stated a permit was originally issued for the sign. After researching the application, it was discovered Mr. Sehlhorst had signed the back of the application rather than the contractor of record. Because of the size, height and configuration of the sign, a licensed contractor is required to apply for the permit. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the sign. Inspector Packer took photographs on March 14, 1997, the same day the stakes were placed on the property showing the location of City property. Inspector Packer said he visited the property on Mach 31, 1997 and noted a change was made to the base of the sign, which was not part of the sign application or permit. He noted the sign had already encroached into the setback and the changes caused the sign to encroach further into the right-of-way. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1-10 including photographs of the property. Inspector Packer stated the language on the permit referred to was for an “existing upgrade”. It was noted when completing an application for an upgrade, the applicant agrees to comply with current setback requirements. He believed the subject sign was relocated from somewhere else on the property. Inspector Packer requested the sign be removed since it is a hazard and did not meet the setback requirements. He recommended compliance within 10 days or a $100 fine per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Mr. Tom Sehlhorst asked for clarification of the citation. It was indicated he was being cited for a sign violation. He referred to and questioned Inspector Packer regarding correspondence including a permit he had received from the City. It was noted the permit was issued in error and a corrected notice issued. In response to questions, Inspector Clarke stated he asked Mr. Sehlhorst for his permit when he noticed Mr. Sehlhorst digging a hole for a sign. He said he asked Mr. Sehlhorst if he had a permit and said to call the City for an inspection. Mr. Sehlhorst objected to the City saying the permit was issued in error. Attorney Connolly noted no one was disputing the document was genuine. It was noted that the original permit was issued in error, the contractor did not make application for a permit, the application was signed by Mr. Sehlhorst, and the contractor did not erect the sign. Mr. Sehlhorst felt the City is not timely in issuing permits and said it is difficult and/or costly to have a contractor wait around to sign a permit. Discussion ensued regarding other ways to apply for a permit. In response to a question, Inspector Clarke indicated when he approached Mr. Sehlhorst, he said he was digging a hole in which to put a sign and showed him what appeared to be a permit. At that time, he noted to Mr. Sehlhorst there would be no problem with using an existing sign as long as it was permitted. In response to questions, Inspector Packer stated that the Building Official may invalidate permits once they are issued for misrepresentation of application or change in circumstances. Inspector Packer read a letter received from the contractor of record which stated he did not make application for the sign permit for Tom Sehlhorst on Myrtle Avenue. Mr. Sehlhorst noted he used the 1992 application to apply for a sign permit in 1997. Mr. Sehlhorst indicated he had received a sign variance for the subject property. He showed Assistant Central Permitting Director Vic Chodora a form which Mr. Chodora noted was a transmittal application and did not indicate whether a variance had been approved. Member Kerwin moved that concerning Case 33-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 28, 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 Vern Packer, Building Construction Inspector, Bob Clarke, Code Inspector, Vic Chodora, Assistant Central Permitting Director, and Tom Sehlhorst, Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-10 (Ex. 1 - code sections cited; Ex. 2 - sign permit application received 1/10/97); Ex. 3 - notice of violation & order to stop work; Ex. 4 - correction notice dated 3/14/97; Ex. 5 - verification of ownership; Ex. 6 - Weiser Construction Inc. letter dated 4/2/97; Ex. 7 - Vern Packer memo dated 4/18/97; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 9 - notice of hearing and composite photographs of signs on property); and Defendant Exhibit 1-2 (Ex. 1 - claim for damages and Ex. 2 - form with sign dimensions dated 10/10/96 and two photographs of signs), it is evident the property is in violation in that a pole sign was erected does not meet required setbacks, required inspections were not made, and permit was issued in error (contractor did not apply for permit). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 36.007(a), 44.58(a), 44.57(12), 44.57(17), 44.06(1), 44.06(2), 44.5[c](2) and 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 by June 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 June 10, 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 June 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 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 - none. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 24-97 - Affidavit of Compliance David & Myrna Whitehead 620 Spencer Ave. (Public Nuisance) - King Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 24-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 50-96 - Affidavit of Compliance Randy & Karen Klaub 1906 Radcliff Dr. N. (Building) - Scott Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 50-96. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 45-96 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Charles Howard 1140 Palm Bluff (Building) - Scott Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 45-96 and issue the Order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Case 46-96 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Barnett Bank of Pinellas County 1610 So. Missouri Ave. (Building) - Scott Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 46-96 and issue the Order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 41-92 - Address Board re: Reduction of Fine Arthur & Irene Passias 1378 Milton St. (Unsafe Building) - Packer Mr. Louis Bakkalapulo, Attorney for Arthur and Irene Passias addressed the Board regarding the reduction of fine. Mr. Bakkalapulo stated when Mr. Passias purchased the home in 1987 it was in need of repair. Mr. Passias had experienced financial problems and could not complete all repairs. He has since made renovations and greatly improved the property. Mr. Passias asked that the fine be reduced to $1,000. It was noted the fine was previously reduced from $102,500 to $5,250. Member Henegar moved concerning Case 41-92 to reduce the fine from $5,250 to $1,250 which includes administrative costs, to be paid within 30 days of the date of the Order. The motion as duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 09-88 Request to Address Board at 6/25/97 Meeting Nostimo, Inc. - c/o L. Lambos 32 Bay Esplanade Ms. Diana noted this is a request to address the Board regarding a reduction in fine. All pertinent information was included in Board Members’ packets. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case 09-88, to approve the request to address the Board at the June 25, 1997 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 23, 1997 Member Tieman 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 7:05 p.m.