Loading...
01/28/1998MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 28, 1998 Present: Helen Kerwin, Chair Lawrence Tieman, Vice-Chair David Allbritton, Member Frank Huffman, Member Mary Rogero, Member Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. “Sue” Diana, Secretary for the Board Mark Connolley, Board Attorney Brenda Moses, Board Reporter Absent: Dennis Henegar, Member William Plouffe, Member The meeting was called to order by Chair Kerwin at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Chambers, 112 Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. 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. Case 55-97 (cont. from 11/22 & 12/10/97) Scott A. Swisher 5 S. Highland Avenue (Land Development Code) - King In a memo dated January 13, 1998, Janice King withdrew Case No. 55-97 as the property is now in compliance. B. Case 01-98 Patrick B. Baker 1012 Jones Street (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Attorney Surette noted the date of official notice of violation was September 5, 1997. The subject property remains in violation of the Standard Housing Code. In response to questions from Attorney Surette, Inspector Fred Hinson said the initial inspection of the property dates back to October 1995, at which time the property was tenant occupied. Access to the interior of the property was not obtained at any time. The exterior violations observed were minor and included missing skirting, broken and inoperable windows, unprotected siding and siding damage, peeling paint, and damaged soffit and fascia. Mr. Baker had converted an area in back of the house to a laundry room, closing off a window. Drain and vent pipes extend through the window, skirting and paint are missing, and screens do not property fit the windows. Inspector Hinson indicated Mr. Baker had attempted to make some repairs. Assistant City Attorney Surrette submitted City Exhibits 1-9. Mr. Patrick Baker stated, while in the process of buying the house, someone had moved in. He asked her to vacate the premises and removed her belongings. He was arrested in the process and was not allowed on the property. In response to questions, he indicated he is not currently living in the house or renting it to anyone. He said he could not complete the repairs because his disability benefits stopped and is waiting for them to start again. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Baker’s eligibility for housing assistance. Mr. Hinson said once Mr. Baker occupies the property, he can apply for assistance. In regard to the necessary repairs, Mr. Baker felt the repairs could be completed within 60 days. He noted the previous tenant denied the City access to the interior of the house. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 01-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 28, 1998, 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 Patrick Baker, the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-9 (Ex. 1 - composite photographs of conditions dated 10/8/97; Ex. 2 - housing report and housing code; Ex. 3 - City code adopting housing code; Ex. 4 - notice of violation; Ex. 5 - affidavit of service for notice of violation; Ex. 6 - notice of violation request for hearing; Ex. 7 - notice of hearing; Ex. 8 - affidavit of service for notice of hearing; and Ex. 9 - composite photographs of conditions dated 1/15/98, 1/20/98 and 1/28/98), 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, 303.4, 305.7, 305.12, 305.13, 305.14, 305.23, 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 90 days (April 28, 1998). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before April 28, 1998, 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 April 28, 1998. 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 02-98 Louis & Cleareather Gross 915 N. Garden Avenue (Housing) - Hinson No one was present to represent Louis and Cleareather Gross. Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. The property is in violation of the Standard Housing Code. In response to questions, Inspector Fredd Hinson said at the time of the initial inspection the property was tenant occupied. Attorney Surette submitted City Exhibits 1-2. In response to questions, Inspector Hinson said the housing report was posted on the property because the one sent certified mail was not claimed. He said major exterior violations included a leaking roof and deteriorated windows and siding. There was no interior smoke detector, the water heater was improperly wired, sanitary problems with the bathroom sink and commode, the bathroom floor was in disrepair, and the bathroom door was not secured. The kitchen shelving and cabinets and interior door hardware were in disrepair. Inspector Hinson said he spoke to Mrs. Gross who said she had experienced financial difficulty and requested an extension for compliance. Inspector Hinson allowed her time to correct the situation but no repairs were made. Attorney Surette submitted City Exhibits 3-8. In response to questions, Inspector Hinson said the notice of hearing and notice of violation were posted on the property for 10 days. He said he spoke to Mrs. Gross at length, and the owners are well aware of the violations. The surrounding neighbors are in the process of revitalizing the neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding a reasonable time frame to make the necessary repairs. Member Albritton moved that concerning Case 02-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 28, 1998, 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 1-8 (Ex. 1 - composite photographs of conditions taken 9/2/97 and 12/9/97; Ex. 2 - housing report and housing code; Ex. 3 - City code section adopted housing code; Ex. 4 - notice of violation; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 6 - notice of hearing; Ex. 7 - affidavit of service; and Ex. 8 - composite photographs of conditions taken 1/15/98 and 1/27/98), 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, 302.4, 302.6, 302.9, 303.4, 305.2, 305.3.2, 305.5, 305.7, 305.12, 305.13, 305.16, 305.20, 305.21, 305.22, 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 (March 29, 1998). 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 March 29, 1998, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($150.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond March 29, 1998. 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 56-97- Affidavit of Compliance Ihan M. Bilgutay 608 Spruce Avenue (Housing) - Hinson Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 56-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Request for Reduction of Fine Case 25-97 Ruben & Linda Umpierrez 1916 Overbrook Avenue Mr. John See, realtor, represented Citibank, the present owner. Citibank took title in August 1997 through foreclosure. He said $3,700 was spent to demolish the building and clean up the property. There is a sales contract pending on the property for $10,900. In response to questions, Ms. Diana estimated administrative costs regarding this case, excluding costs incurred by the Community Response Team, at $400. Member Tieman moved to reduce the fine from $29,500 to $1,000 if paid within 30 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 10, 1997 Member Huffman 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 3:51 p.m.