Loading...
12/09/1998 - 2:00 PMMUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER December 9, 1998 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Frank Huffman Member David Allbritton Member Mary Rogero Member Sheila Cole Member Joyce Martin Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Mark Connolly Attorney for the Board Mary K. “Sue” Diana Secretary for the Board Patricia Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair outlined the procedures and stated any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the execution of the order. Florida Statue 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. ITEM #1 - Public Hearings A. Case 24-98 (Cont’d from 10/28 & 11/18/98) Clearwater Roofing Co., Robert Binder 1479-A Greenwood Avenue South (Land Development Code) - Niemiller In her December 7, 1998, memorandum, Inspector Vickie Niemiller withdrew Case #24-98 as the property has been sold. B. Case 30-98 (Cont’d from 11/18/98) Mary W. Smith 111 Blanche B. LittleJohn Trail (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. She reported the certified mail receipt had been returned by the Post Office indicating the property owner had received notice of this meeting. Property owner Mary W. Smith was not in attendance. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Dana Chianella said Inspector Bill Wright had issued a stop work order on July 17, 1998, for work on the conversion of a garage on the subject property into a room being done without a building permit. Leroy Thomas, the tenant who performed the work, is not a licensed contractor. He continues to live on site. Ms. Chianella reviewed City attempts to discuss the violation with the property owner, tenant, and Bay Realty. On August 7, 1998, the owner denied knowledge of the problem. On August 14, 1998, the tenant told staff he would be pulling a permit. Staff issued continuances to the realtor in August and to the owner on November 3, 1998,after she indicated she had been hospitalized. On November 19, 1998, her daughter told staff she had authority to pull the permit and would do so while she was in town. To date, no permit has been issued and the property remains in violation with code. Ms. Chianella identified City Exhibit 4 as photographs Mr. Wright had taken of the building on July 17, 1998, and photographs she had taken of the structure on July 28, 1998, and December 9, 1998. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended 30 days to comply or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1-4 and displayed photographs taken this morning. In response to a question, Ms. Chianella said a considerable amount of work appears to have been completed. She has not been able to enter the property. It appears as if separate apartments are being constructed. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 30-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 9, 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 Dana Chianella (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-4 (Ex. 1 - stop work order; Ex. 2 - applicable code sections; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 4 - photographs, it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Building Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Secs. 47.081 & 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 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 (January 8, 1999). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before January 8, 1999, 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 January 8, 1999. 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 33-98 Mary L. Scott 221 -223 N. Saturn Avenue (Housing) - Wright In his December 9, 1998, memorandum, Inspector Bill Wright withdrew Case #33-98 as the property is now in compliance. D. Case 34-98 William & Hope Georgilas 1849 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Building) - Chianella In her December 3, 1998, memorandum, Ms. Chianella requested this case be continued. Member Tieman moved to continue Case 34-98 to January 27, 1999. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 35-98 Michael L. Holman 702 Phoenix Avenue (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. She reported the notice of hearing sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed by the Post Office. Service was obtained by physically posting the notice of hearing on the property and at City Hall. Property owner Michael L. Holman was not in attendance. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Chianella said on August 20, 1998, she had issued a stop work order after noticing work underway on the subject property to enclose a garage without a permit. She had posted notices of violation on the property and at City Hall. Upon reinspection, the property remained in violation as no permit had been issued. Ms. Chianella said property owner Michael Holman had stated he was starting a new business. Ms. Chianella identified City Exhibit 5 as photographs she had taken of the structure on August 20, 1998, November 25, 1998, and December 9, 1998. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended 30 days to comply or a $50 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -5 and displayed photographs taken this morning. In response to questions from Board Attorney Mark Connolly, Ms. Chianella verified the property was posted with notice of this meeting on November 25, 1998. Permit requirements and procedures related to stop work orders were reviewed. In response to a question, Ms. Chianella indicated the work was near completion when the stop work order was issued. Ms. Dougall-Sides said applicants can submit as-built drawings when applying for the permit. Member Allbritton moved that concerning Case 35-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 9, 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 Dana Chianella (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 - stop work order dated 08/20/98; Ex. 2 - affidavit of posting; Ex. 3 - applicable code sections; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation request for hearing and notice of hearing; and Ex. 5 - photographs taken 08/20/98, 11/25/98 and 12/09/98), it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Building Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Secs. 47.081 & 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 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 (January 8, 1999). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before January 8, 1999, 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 January 8, 1999. 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 36-98 Ofer Zuka 2009 Cleveland Street (Building) - Scott Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. She reported the notice of hearing sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed by the Post Office. Service was obtained by hand delivering it to resident, Michelle Zuka. Property owner Ofer Zuka was not in attendance but was represented by Michelle Zuka. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Building Inspector Robert Scott said he had responded to a May 28, 1997, complaint regarding a concrete slab poured without a permit in the side yard of the subject property. At that time, he saw forms installed in the yard for another concrete slab. Michelle Zuka, resident, had stated the owner had been out of the country for several years. Mr. Scott issued a stop work order on May 29, 1997, posted a notice of violation on the and at City Hall, and sent it certified mail to the property owner. When contacted 3 weeks ago, Ms. Zuka said the owner would be out of the country for at least 6 more months. She said she would get a letter from the owner allowing her to secure the permit. It was noted any portion of concrete that impedes on minimum green space requirements will have to be removed. The property owner could apply for an open space variance. Mr. Scott identified City Exhibit 5 as photographs he had taken of the property on May 5, 1997, and December 7, 1998. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $25 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -5 and displayed photographs taken December 7, 1998. As the problem is unrelated to health or safety issues, Mr. Connolly recommended providing reasonable time for the owner to forward paperwork from Israel granting the residents permission to obtain the necessary permit. Member Rogero moved that concerning Case 36-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 9, 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 Robert Scott and Michele Suka representing the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 - stop work order dated 05/29/97; Ex. 2 - applicable code sections; Ex. 3 - notice of violation; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; and Ex. 5 - photographs dated 05/29/97 and 12/07/98), it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Building Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 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 60 days (February 7, 1999). 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 February 7, 1999, 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 February 7, 1999. 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. G. Case 37-98 Robert M. & W. Rhonda Dobraski 1533 S. Jefferson Avenue (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. She reported the notice of hearing sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed by the Post Office. Service was obtained by physically posting the notice of hearing on the property and at City Hall. Property owner Robert M. Dobraski was in attendance. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Chianella reported she had responded to an April 17, 1998, complaint from a neighbor that a fence on the subject property was not permitted. Mr. Scott had issued a stop work order for the fence based on an anonymous complaint on September 3, 1997. Following another complaint, staff posted a stop work order on December 16, 1997. Ms. Chianella posted a 3rd stop work order on April 22, 1998, and took photographs of the rear property where work had been completed. There are fences at the front and rear of the property. She said it appears both fences may require variances before a permit is issued. On April 27, 1998, the property owner submitted an application which remains pending until a survey is received and possibly necessary variances are granted. Upon reinspection on October 13, 1998, the rear fence has been painted since the stop work order was issued. The property owner noted other neighborhood properties are not in compliance. Upon checking the neighborhood, Ms. Chianella said she photographed those properties on November 3, 1998, as City Exhibit 6. Subject properties in the City were cited. One owner has complied with code. Ms. Chianella identified City Exhibit 5 as photographs she had taken of the fences on April 20, 1998, October 14, 1998, photographs of the posted Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing taken November 25, 1998, and December 9, 1998. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the permits for both fences are pending. As the property owner has had ample opportunity to obtain a permit, she recommended 30 days to comply or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Mr. Scott noted the front yard fence appears to be located in the right-of-way. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -6 and displayed photographs taken this morning. Mr. Dobraski testified the rear fence was present when he bought the property 3 years ago. He said the fence has been in its location for at least 8 years and he did not know a permit was necessary for the replacement of several panels. He said the front 3-foot fence in the front yard is necessary to protect his grandson. He indicated he has not addressed this issue as his father has been ill for the past year. In response to a question, Mr. Scott said a fence permit is necessary if more than 2 panels are replaced. He stated the entire length of fence appears to be new. Mr. Dobraski said he had pressure cleaned and painted the fence after replacing dilapidated panels. In response to a question regarding why he continued work on the fence after the stop work order was issued, Mr. Dobraski said he had felt a permit was not necessary for the 3-foot fence. Ms. Chianella said he had been advised of the code. Mr. Scott cautioned both fences probably require variances which may not be granted. Mr. Dobraski said staff had told him he needed a variance for the back fence. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 37-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 9, 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 Dana Chianella and Robert Dobraski, the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - stop work order; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - applicable code sections; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; and Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 - photographs dated 04/20/98, 10/14/98, 11/03/98, 11/16/98 and 12/09/98), it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Building Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.081 and Art. V, Sec. 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 60 days (February 7, 1999). 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 February 7, 1999, 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 February 7, 1999. 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 38-98 James Williams & Sabrina King 1265 Seminole Street (Building) - Chianella In her December 9, 1998, memorandum, Inspector Dana Chianella withdrew Case #38-98 as the property is now in compliance. I. Case 39-98 Metco Development Corp. Robert J. Metz - Registered Agent 1469 S. Belcher Road (Building) - Chianella In her December 7, 1998, memorandum, Inspector Dana Chianella withdrew Case #39-98 as the property is now in compliance. J. Case 40-98 Remprop Inc. 105 N. Mercury Avenue, Bldgs 1-4 (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. She reported the certified mail receipt had not been returned by the Post Office. Service was obtained by posting the notice of hearing on the property and at City Hall. Property representative Richard Metz was in attendance. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Chianella said she had responded to an August 27, 1998, anonymous complaint that the rear patios of the apartment units were being enclosed. The subject property has 4 buildings with 4 units each. On August 31, 1998, she posted a stop work order and took photographs of the first and second floor enclosures. At that time, it appeared all units were occupied. Ms. Chianella said she reinspected the property today and took additional photographs. She said on the occasions when she spoke with Mr. Metz via telephone, he said the problem would be addressed. Ms. Chianella identified City Exhibit 5 as photographs she had taken of the structure on August 31, 1998, and December 9, 1998. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. As safety issues may be of concern, she recommended 30 to 45 days to comply or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -5 and displayed photographs taken this morning. Richard Metz said he is willing to comply with the code and did not know why it had taken so long to pull the permits. He said he hired a contractor when notified he could not do the work himself. He said the buildings need stucco and painting. He said permits were not pulled for all 4 buildings due to a miscommunication. Member Rogero stated Mr. Metz is her nephew and recused herself from the discussion and vote. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 40-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 9, 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 Dana Chianella and Richard Metz, respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 - stop work order dated 08/31/98; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - applicable code sections; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 5 - photographs dated 08/31/98, 11/25/98 and 12/09/98), it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Building Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Secs. 47.081 & 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 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 45 days (January 23, 1999). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before January 23, 1999, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond January 23, 1999. 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. Members Tieman, Huffman, Allbritton, Cole, Martin, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Rogero abstained. Motion carried. K. Case 41-98 Abdelmaged M. & Gail Ahmed 1505 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue, Units A & B (Housing) - Hinson Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. She reported the certified mail receipt had been returned by the Post Office, signed by Gail Ahmed, indicating the property owner had received notice of this meeting. Property owner Abdelmaged M. Ahmed was not in attendance. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Inspector Freddie Hinson said a tenant had complained regarding electrical problems related to the water heater under the City’s housing code. The subject duplex was converted from an office but staff could find no permit history for the work. The initial inspection in January 1998, included the interior and exterior. The owner has not permitted reinspections. Mr. Hinson testified on the initial inspection, violations included broken windows on the structure’s north side and major problems inside related to electrical wiring, missing or inoperable smoke detectors, broken receptacles, pull chains over the sink, broken plates, circuit interrupters in the bath and wall switch, and a hot water heater that tripped the circuit breaker. The standard housing law requires hot water. The owner has stopped working with the City regarding this property which is located on a City main thoroughfare. Mr. Hinson said no progress is evident. The property owner also owns the building in the rear of the property which is in poor condition. Separate case reports were written on each unit and served on the property owner. Mr. Hinson said when contacted, Mr. Ahmed denied receiving the January notices, which subsequently were hand delivered to Mrs. Ahmed. Notice of the July 1998 violation also was returned unclaimed. Again, staff hand delivered the notices to Mrs. Ahmed on July 2, 1998. Mr. Hinson said in July 1998, he noticed an unlicensed handyman working. A stop work order subsequently was issued. In response to a question, he said the windows remain broken and a large gap remains under the front door. Mr. Hinson identified City Exhibit 4 as photographs he had taken of the structure on October 19, 1998. He indicated photographs taken on December 9, 1998, had not been developed. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. Mr. Hinson recommended 30 days to comply or a $250 per day fine be imposed. In response to a question, he indicated the tenants were evicted. He reviewed other problems with the property including cracked windows, missing screens, and an uncovered access hole. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -4 and displayed photographs. In response to a question, Mr. Hinson said staff has had communication with Ms. Ahmed but she indicated her husband handles everything related to the property. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 41-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on December 9, 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 1-4 (Ex. 1 - housing inspector’s report; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 4 - photographs taken 10/19/98), 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 Secs. 302.1, 302.9, 303.4, 305.7, 305.12, 305.14 & 305.16 for Unit A, and Secs. 302.4, 302.9, 305.11.2, 305.16, 305.20 & 307.5 for Unit B, 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 (January 8, 1999). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before January 8, 1999, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond January 8, 1999. 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. ITEM #2 - Unfinished Business A. Case 01-98 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance (Cont’d from 11/18/98) Patrick B. Baker 1012 Jones Street (Housing) - HInson Member Tieman moved to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 01-98. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 46-94 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Dean Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc. 509 N. Greenwood Avenue (Land Development Code) - Rosa Member Huffman moved to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 46-94. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Other Board Action/Discussion A. Request Authorization for Foreclosure Case 06-98 Glen R. Johnson, Inc. and Affiliates Beach Communities II, Inc. Registered Agent, Glen R. Johnson 1350 Gulf Boulevard. Member Huffman moved to authorize foreclosure for Case 06-98. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Election of Chair & Vice-Chair for 1999 Member Huffman moved to reappoint Helen Kerwin as Chair and Lawrence Tieman as Vice Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Approval of the Minutes Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 18, 1998, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned a 4:11 p.m. and reconvened in a work session at 4:24 p.m.