Loading...
10/22/1997MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER October 22, 1997 Present: Louise C. Riley, Chair Frank Huffman, Member David Albritton, Member Lawrence Tieman, Member Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Mark Connolly, Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana, Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses, Board Reporter Absent: Helen Kerwin, Vice Chair Dennis Henegar, Member Stephen D. Swanberg, Member The meeting was called to order by Chair Louise C. Riley at 3:02 p.m. in Commission Chambers on the third floor of 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 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 49-97 (cont’d from 9/24/97) Daniel J. Mehler 305 Pennsylvania Avenue (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing into the record. Mr. David Getchel, the new owner of the property, stated he recently purchased the property from Daniel J. Mehler. In response to a question, he said he received notification of today’s hearing from a notice posted on the property. The Attorney for the Board asked Mr. Getchel if he would prefer to continue his hearing to the next meeting due to proper service not being obtained. Mr. Getchel opted to address this issue at the November meeting. Attorney Dougall-Sides suggested Mr. Getchel bring evidence of ownership to the next meeting, since the property appraiser’s records did not yet reflect the change. Mr. Getchel requested information regarding financial assistance in rehabilitating the property. He was referred to Inspector Hinson for assistance. B. Case 50-97 (cont’d from 9/24/97) Leonardo A. Pagnotta 600 Wildwood Way (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing into the record. In response to a question, Mr. Leonardo A. Pagnotta stated he received notification of today’s hearing via certified mail. He said he was only aware that Units 103, 104 and 105 were in violation and did not receive verbal or written notification of violations for Units 106, 102, 205, 206 and 208. Staff’s copy reflected handwritten notations of these units; the copy Mr. Pagnotta had with him at today’s meeting did not reflect the notations nor include the report on these units. Inspector Hinson stated he spoke to Mr. Pagnotta and sent notices to him regarding all units in violation. Board Attorney Connolly recommended addressing the violations in Units 103, 104 and 105 and to continue the violations cited in the other units to the next meeting. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Hinson stated he did not remember the exact initial inspection date, but it was approximately a year ago. He stated the property is a 16-unit apartment building. Fourteen of those units were inspected. This matter came to Inspector Hinson’s attention as a complaint from several tenants residing in the building. Complaints included electrical, plumbing and sanitary problems. Inspector Hinson stated code violations were found in Units 103, 104, 105, 106, 102, 205, 206 and 208. The ceiling of Unit 103 was collapsing, there were holes in the shower walls and drywall was damaged. On the exterior, the doorjambs and door casement were damaged. Interior hardware on bedroom doors was missing. Unprotected wiring from an electrical box in the front of Unit 104 was evident, and the smoke detector was inoperable. There were holes in interior walls and under the kitchen sink where plumbing pipes were not secured properly. An infestation of roaches was evident, the bathroom sink was not secured, drain lines were questionable, and several stove burners were inoperable. The cook stove in Unit 105 was totally inoperable, an infestation of roaches was apparent, the bathroom sink was not secured and the supply and drain lines were questionable. A smoke detector was missing in Unit 106, electrical problems existed including missing electrical switchplate covers, electrical receptacles were inoperable, the ceiling had collapsed from a previous upstairs plumbing leak, and water leaked from the bathtub and toilet. In Unit 102, major violations consisted of wiring under the kitchen sink improperly terminated, and wiring to the water heater was done improperly and not to code. In Unit 205, wiring under the sink had been improperly terminated, switchplate covers were missing from outlets, and bathtub fixtures were leaking. In Unit 208 a cover plate was missing from the water heater, the toilet was leaking, the drain was clogged, and supply lines needed to be checked. In response to a question, Attorney Dougall-Sides stated the property was purchased by Mr. Pagnotta in 1996. All units appear to be tenant occupied. In response to a question, Inspector Hinson stated he spoke to Mr. Pagnotta regarding the violations. Mr. Pagnotta responded he could not afford to pay someone to repair the units. He had also indicated the tenants would not grant him permission to enter their apartments. Mr. Hinson indicated all the tenants seemed favorable to his entry into their apartments. Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1-4, including photographs taken on July 9, 1997. Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl noted when Inspector Hinson arrived at the property to post the code violations, Mr. Pagnotta, denied he was the property owner. A tenant confirmed he was. In response to questions, Inspector Hinson recommended Mr. Pagnotta be ordered to comply within 30 days or a fine of $250 per day be imposed for each day of non-compliance. He also noted an attempt was made to correct wiring problems, but those efforts were not done to code. Also, no permits were pulled. Mr. Pagnotta reiterated he was only aware of violations being cited in Units 103, 104, and 105. In response to a question, he stated he had the violations corrected in these units. He said he contracted with Ceiling & Finishing, Inc. to fix the ceiling in Unit 103. He indicated he would be receiving an invoice from them and had already paid them by check. Mr. Pagnotta stated a licensed contractor performed the work, but could not offer copies of canceled checks for all the repairs to substantiate the work done. It was noted the City has no record of any applications for permits. Mr. Pagnotta submitted an invoice (Defendant’s Exhibit 1) for electrical wiring done on the front of Unit 104. He noted he bought another smoke detector for that unit. An invoice (Defendant’s Exhibit 2) from Lectric Works for a service call for a range was submitted. Upon inspection of the exhibits, it was noted the invoices did not substantiate the work Mr. Pagnotta claimed was done. Mr. Pagnotta also stated some of the repairs were done by tenants. It was explained to Mr. Pagnotta that neither he nor his tenants may perform unlicensed repairs to commercial properties. Permits must be pulled by licensed contractors. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 50-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on October 22, 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 Code Inspector Freddie Hinson, Leonardo Pagnotta, Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-4 (Ex. 1 - Housing Inspector’s Report; Ex. 2 - property ownership verification; Ex. 3 - notice of hearing, affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 4 - composite photographs dated 7/9/97, and Defendants Ex. 1-2 (Ex. 1 - job invoice for electrical services dated 8/8/97 and Ex. 2 - invoice from Lektric Works dated 8/8/97), it is evident the property, Units 103, 104, and 105, is in violation of sections of the Standard Housing Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 302.1, 302.6, 302.9, 303.4, 305.12, 305.16, 305.21, 307.5, 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 30 days (November 21, 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 within 30 days (November 21, 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 November 21, 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. Case 51-97 Lonnie and Josephine Dixon 207 Pennsylvania Avenue (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing into the record. In response to questions, City Inspector Hinson said he inspected the property’s exterior. The condition of the property came to his attention when performing door-to-door inspections in the area. Mr. Hinson stated the City has attempted to assist the owner with necessary repairs through various neighborhood agencies to no avail. He noted the initial inspection was done in 1995. In response to a question, Mr. Hinson noted code violations included deterioration of exterior siding, screens, windows and entryways. The inspection was only conducted on the exterior of the building and the violations are considered to be minor. Mr. Hinson spoke to Mr. Dixon a few days ago at which time Mr. Dixon indicated he would have the necessary repairs done. Since the violations were cited and have continued beyond 120 days, the matter was brought to the Board. Assistant Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1-6, including photographs taken of the property on September 4, 1997. Mr. Lonnie Dixon agreed with the violations and requested thirty (30) days to correct the problems. In response to questions from Attorney Mark Connolly, Mr. Dixon said he received a letter regarding today’s hearing. Inspector Hinson also added that notice of the hearing was posted on the property. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 51-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on October 22, 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 Code Inspector Freddie Hinson and Lonnie Dixon, the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - Housing Inspector’s Report; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - property ownership verification; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 6 - composite photographs dated 2/3/97 and 9/4/97, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that exterior walls, windows and screens are in need of repair or replacement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 305.2, 305.7, 305.13, 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 30 days (November 21, 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 November 21, 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 November 21, 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 52-97 Ihan M. Bilgutay 606 Spruce Avenue (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing into the record. No one was present to represent Mr. Bilgutay. Service on the Notice of Hearing has been obtained. In response to a question, City Inspector Hinson stated he initially inspected the property on June 30, 1997. The property is tenant-occupied, and is a single dwelling with an upstairs apartment. Mr. Hinson inspected both the upstairs and the downstairs units. The matter came to the City’s attention through a complaint from a neighbor. The inspection revealed the toilet had backed up into the bathtub and it had been in that condition for some time. The tenant had spoken to the owner to no avail. There were food storage problems in the kitchen and stove burners were out of service. Electrical problems included fixtures not appropriately attached and missing or loose switchplate covers and receptacles. Ceiling height was approximately 2 inches lower than code. There was work done without permits. The bathroom floor was missing tile and the subfloor had deteriorated due to water accumulation. The front door was missing hardware. A deadbolt lock was on the door but the handle was missing. There were holes throughout the walls and ceilings of the dwelling. Throughout the east and north sides of the building, screens were missing, and the building has no central heat and air. The building was also infested with bugs. The refrigeration unit was not operable and the tenant had informed Mr. Hinson that no agreement was made with the owner to supply his own refrigerator. There were no operable smoke detectors in the building. Mr. Hinson said Mr. Bilgutay requested a report on properties he owns in the area. Copies were mailed to him. Inspector Hinson stated no repairs have been made to date. Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1-6, including photographs taken of the property on June 4, 1997, and October 21, 1997. Inspector Hinson recommended compliance within 30 days or a fine of $250 per day for each day of non-compliance be imposed. Member Albritton moved that concerning Case 51-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on October 22, 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 Code Inspector Freddie Hinson (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - Housing Inspector’s Report; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - property ownership verification; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation & request of hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 6 - composite photographs dated 6/4/97 and 10/21/97), it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Standard Housing Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 302.1, 302.6, 303.4, 305.4, 305.11.2, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16, 307.5, 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 30 days (November 21, 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 November 21, 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 November 21, 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 53-97 Todd F. Hertzberg 1013 Magnolia Drive (Housing) - Hinson Staff requested to continue Case 53-97 to the next meeting as proper service had not been obtained. Member Huffman moved to continue Case 53-97 to the meeting of November 12, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 54-97 Alma R. Riley 1588 S. Prospect Avenue (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing into the record. In response to a question, Ms. Riley responded she received notification of today’s meeting via certified mail. In response to questions, City Inspector Hinson said the property is owner-occupied. This property came to his attention through a door-to-door neighborhood inspection. The initial inspection dates back to March 10, 1997. At that time an exterior inspection discovered minor violations which included inoperable windows, paint problems and unprotected siding and skirting. Ms. Riley was referred to a local agency for assistance. A notice of violation was then issued and the property was reinspected. In response to a question, Inspector Hinson noted that Ms. Riley did obtain a roof permit and some work has been done. The skirting is still damaged. Discussion ensued regarding a “no trespassing” sign placed on the property approximately 30 days after the Notice of Violation was issued. Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1-5, including photographs of the property from September 4, 1997, and October 8, 1997. In response to a question, Ms. Riley agreed the violations exist. Her granddaughter, Pamela Rodriguez, explained the “no trespassing” sign was placed on the property in response to drug problems in the area, not to deter Inspector Hinson. Ms. Rodriguez explained some repairs were made, including installation of central heat and air, installation of ceramic tile and shower renovations. She requested the City give Ms. Riley 30 days to complete all repairs. She stated the skirting will be addressed. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 54-97, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on October 22, 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 Code Inspector Freddie Hinson, Alma Riley (Respondent), and Pamela Rodriquez (Respondent’s granddaughter), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - housing report; Ex. 2 - housing referral form; Ex. 3 - notice of violation; Ex. 4 -verification of ownership; Ex. 5 - composite photographs of the property dated 9/4/97 and 10/8/97; and Ex. 6 -affidavit of service, affidavit of violation & request for hearing and notice of hearing), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. New skirting needs to be installed around the exterior of the structure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 305.7, 305.14, 305.23, 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 30 days (November 21, 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 November 21, 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 November 21, 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 A. Case 32-97 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Jenny J. Harriger d/b/a/ Mambo Bay 490 Mandalay Ave. (Occupational license) - Sexsmith Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 32-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Request Authorization to Foreclose: 1. Case 38-96 - E. G. Bradford & Sons, Inc., Earnest G. Bradford, R/A 111 S. Belcher Road Occupational License - Sexsmith 381 days @ $50/day = $19,050 (Non-compliance) Case 38-96 involves non-payment of gas and fuel taxes to the City. Application was made for an occupational license, but the City did not issue the license. City policy requires the gas and fuel tax be paid before an occupational license is issued. Currently, the tax owed is $42,440.50. Member Tieman moved to authorize foreclosure in Case 38-96. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Case 46-96 Barnett Bank of Pinellas County, c/o Tim Smith 1610 Missouri Avenue (Building) - Scott 279 days @ $50/day = $13,950 (Non-compliance) Case 46-96 involves a fence being built around a retention pond without a permit. When the fence company applied for a permit, they were informed a variance was required. An application for a variance was never made. Member Tieman moved to accept the request for foreclosure in Case 46-96. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 24, 1997 Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Diana noted Chair Riley’s and Member Swanberg’s terms expire the end of October, 1997. She recognized them for their years of service. Member Albritton’s term will be up for reappointment by the City Commission on November 6, 1997. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Chair Attest: Municipal Code Enforcement Board ________________________________________ Secretary to the Board