Loading...
05/26/1999MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 26, 1999 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Frank Huffman Member David Allbritton Member (arrived 3:14 p.m.) 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 Brenda Moses Board Reporter Absent: Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Mary Rogero Member 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 12-99 Kristen & Ryan Netschi 3201 Masters Drive (LDC) – Doherty In a memo dated May 26, 1999, Inspector Geri Doherty withdrew Case 12-99 as the property is now in compliance. B. Case 13-99 Calvin M. Doyle 1268 Engman Street (Building) – Wright Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. She reported the return receipt for the notice of hearing sent by certified mail was received. The date of official notice of violation was January 26, 1998. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Bill Wright said a building inspector driving in the area noticed the dilapidated condition of the property. The initial inspection on January 26, 1998, showed the structure’s tin roof missing segments. The structure is deteriorating and an unsafe notice was mailed to Calvin M. Doyle. Property ownership was verified through the property appraiser's office. On February 9, 1998, the property was reinspected; no improvements had been made. On February 10, 1998, a letter was mailed to Mr. Doyle. On February 23, 1998, another inspection was made and no repairs had been made. In March 1998, a reinspection revealed a good portion of the roof had been replaced without permits or inspections. A stop work order was issued at that time. Inspector Wright said he had received a letter in March 1998 from a licensed contractor indicating he was being retained to perform work at the property, however, no permits were pulled. On March 19, 1999, Carl Doyle, Calvin Doyle’s son, met with Mr. Wright regarding the property. As of May 25, 1999, no permits have been issued. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City Exhibits 1-9 which included photographs of the property taken January 22, 1998, May 21, 1999, and May 25, 1999. Carl Doyle stated his father has Alzheimer’s disease and his mother is elderly and unable to care for the property. He noted he and his wife are licensed residential contractors and he is in the process of activating his commercial license. He believed the patch work he did on the roof did not require a permit. He requested four months to transfer title to the property to himself and to obtain permits. In response to questions, he stated he initially was unaware of the situation. He stated the debris surrounding the property has been removed. A neighboring church and other neighbors use a dedicated road between this property as a storage and recycling area. He stated after the ownership of the property is transferred, he intends to renovate or rebuild the building. The building is not being used. It was remarked that Mr. Doyle, as a licensed contractor, should have known to pull permits. Mr. Carl Doyle submitted Defendant’s Exhibit 1, photographs of renovations made. In response to questions, Inspector Wright stated the structure is unsafe. There are new apartments being constructed in the area and concern was expressed regarding the loose tin sections on the roof especially with the hurricane season near. Inspector Wright found 30 days to be sufficient time to pull permits and contract a licensed contractor to begin necessary repairs. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Doyle’s request for an additional four months to comply. It was noted he has already had 17 months to bring the property into compliance. It was hoped and requested that Mr. Doyle expedite the process since the structure is unsafe. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 13-99, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 26, 1999, 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 William Wright and Carl Doyle, Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 – Notice of Unsafe Building dated 1/26/99; Ex. 2 – cited code sections; Ex. 3 - notice of violation and order to stop work dated 6/5/98; Ex. 4 – property ownership verification; Ex. 5 - notice of violation dated 7/15/98; Ex. 6 – notice of hearing dated 5/6/99; Ex. 7 – composite photos dated 1/22/98, 5/21/99, and 5/25/99; and Ex. 8- case chronology) and Defendant’s Exhibit 1(Ex. 1 - photos of renovations made to building), 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 Sections 47.081, 47.083, 47.111 and 47.161 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 25, 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 July 25, 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 July 25, 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 14-99 Beach Communities II, Inc. Glenn R. Johnson, Registered Agent 1350 Gulf Blvd. (Public Nuisance Appeal) - King Ms. Dougall-Sides stated at 1:20 p.m. today the alleged violator’s attorney requested a continuance. This case is an appeal of a public nuisance violation. Previously, in separate hearings, the board found a violation existed on this property and imposed a fine of $150/day and authorized foreclosure. Also, the City Commission declared the subject site a public nuisance under the previous land development code and authorized the City Attorney’s office to pursue an injunctive relief in Circuit Court. Discussion ensued regarding the requested continuance. Ms. Dougall-Sides requested due to previous actions, the property being in noncompliance for such a long period of time and the last minute request for a continuance by Mr. Johnson’s attorney, the board hear the case today and deny the request for appeal. She noted the new development code expands the definition of “nuisance” and provides a more expeditious way to proceed. Ms. Dougall-Sides requested, if the board denies the appeal, to direct the city to enter onto the property and abate the nuisance and charge the associated costs to the owner. If unpaid, these costs could become a lien on the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City’s Exhibit #1, history of the property. Inspector Bob Scott reviewed the history of this property. He said a permit was issued to Beach Communities, II Properties on January 29, 1997 for a construction trailer. The trailer was requested to build a sales office for conducting business. The permit expired on July 29, 1997. The contractor requested an extension, which was granted until November 1, 1997. No building permits for a sales office were issued. On January 2, 1998, a notice of violation was issued. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board heard the case and the board found that a violation existed and issued an order for compliance. On November 19, 1998, the City Commission declared the property a public nuisance. At that time, a request was made to turn off the power and water to the trailers. The request was approved. The applicant currently has a generator for electricity and a holding tank. The applicant is running a business on the site in an area designated residential. No current permits exist for a sales office for conducting business. Glenn R. Johnson, owner of the property, said he did not wish to go forward with the case without his counsel. He indicated his attorney had an emergency hearing. He felt he is not prepared or qualified to defend himself. He said there are inconsistencies with the City’s presentation. Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl said this is a health and safety issue. City staff has met with threats of violence, profanity, and litigation while attempting to contact the applicant or his associates. Mr. Johnson indicated it was the other way around. Mr. Kronschnabl stated numerous residents in the area have contacted his office to request denial of the appeal. Nicholas Fritch, a local resident adjacent to the property on the north, stated the nuisance has existed since January 1997. He felt the violation has gone on too long. He said the applicant is operating a commercial business in a residential area and the local telephone directory lists the subject property as the business’ address. He urged the board to stand behind the Commission’s decision that the property is a public nuisance. He also urged the board to increase the fine due to the applicant’s flagrant ignoring of the law. Dick Reuben, a local resident characterized the property as a “pig pen” and urged the board to deny the appeal. The Sand Key Association made telephone calls and sent letters to Mr. Johnson to invite him to discuss this problem, to no avail. The City has given him many extensions to build luxury condominiums at the property. He has made no effort to clean up the site. He urged the board to deny the appeal. In response to questions, Inspector Janice King stated photographs were taken of the property yesterday and it is still in noncompliance. The property is not fenced, but rolls of fencing lay on the property. In response to a question, Lt. Kronschnabl said staff has received numerous complaints. Most of the complaints have been received form neighboring residents and condominium owners. Staff is concerned for the public health, safety, and welfare of the community at large. A fine continues to accrue and the applicant has made no good faith effort to correct the situation. He found it impossible to fairly, consistently, and impartially regulate codes within the City when this violation has been ongoing for 2 ½ years. Ms. Dougall-Sides said no current permits or site plans exist for this site. The City revoked a previously approved variance due to conditions for approval not being met within the applicable time. The applicant went before the Development Code Adjustment Board for a new variance and was denied. That matter is currently on appeal. There are no current development approvals of any type for this site. She urged the board to declare the site a nuisance and authorize abatement. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City’s Exhibit #2, photographs of the property. Member Cole moved that concerning Case # 14-99, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 26, 1999, 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 Inspectors Robert Scott and Janice King, Director of Development Services Jeff Kronschnabl and Respondent Glen Johnson, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-2 (Ex. 1 – packet of materials regarding previous actions and Ex. 2 – composite photographs of current conditions on site), the Respondent’s appeal to a Nuisance Notice of Violation has been denied. It is further evident there exists a public nuisance at the above address pursuant to Sec 3-1503.A and B, as further defined in Sec. 8-102 of the City Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sec. 3-1503.A and B, as further defined in Sec. 8-102 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 City Manager be directed to authorize entry upon the property and take such action as is necessary to abate the nuisance at the land owner’s expense without any further notice to the Respondent. A certified copy of an Order of the Board imposing costs of abatement plus administrative costs may be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, and thereafter such Order shall constitute a lien against the land on which the violation exists and upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator until paid. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 25-98 - Affidavit of Compliance Thomas L. George, Jr. 417 N. Washington Avenue (Building) - Scott Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case #25-98. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 08-99 - Affidavit of Compliance Michael & Patricia Vlamakis 2010 Drew Street (LDC) - DeBord Staff withdrew the Affidavit of Compliance for Case #08-98 because the property is no longer in compliance. C. Case 06-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Clearwater Prop Group c/o Kmart 3476 2130 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (LDC) - Kurleman Member Cole moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case #06-99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION – None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 24, 1999 Member Huffman moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.