Loading...
08/25/1999MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER August 25, 1999 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Frank Huffman Board Member David Allbritton Board Member Sheila Cole Board Member Joyce Martin Board Member Absent: Mary Rogero Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides City Attorney Mark Connolly Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 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 Statutes 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 20-99 Discount Auto Parts Inc. 1600 N. Myrtle Ave. (landscape) - Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. She noted service was obtained on the notice of hearing sent by certified mail. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Scott Kurleman said he received a citizen complaint prompting an initial inspection on May 24, 1999. Upon inspection, he found 8 shade trees and 206 shrubs had either died or declined. A site plan approved on May 17, 1996, lists specific landscaping requirements for this property. Landscaping materials that had been installed after the initial inspection also had died due to a lack of maintenance. Upon reinspection in July 1999, an affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued. He verified photographs of the property taken on August 18, 1999 depicting dead and declining landscaping materials and lack of curbs around interior islands. The property was reinspected this morning and the violations continue to exist. Inspector Kurleman said the irrigation system appears to be functioning. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7. Keith Dull, store manager for Discount Auto Parts, said all decisions regarding landscaping are made at the corporate level. He agreed some landscaping materials had declined, but some had green growth at the bottom. He said more time was needed for the roots of the plants and trees to take firm hold. He felt 30 days would be a reasonable amount of time to replace them. It was suggested a meeting be scheduled with the store manager, the landscaper, and the City inspector to determine which trees and shrubs should be replaced. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the curbs were not cited as part of the violation. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 20-99, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 25, 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 Scott Kurleman, Keith Dull, store manager representing the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – cited code section; Ex. 3 – verification of property ownership; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 5 – notice of hearing dated 8/4/99; Ex. 6 – landscaping plan dated 2/21/96; and Ex. 7 - composite photographs of landscaping conditions, it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1204 (B), (I), and (L) 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 (later amended to 45 days). 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 (later amended to 45 days), 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 the ordered compliance date. 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. Member Huffman felt that 30 days was not enough time to involve the landscaper and recommended the motion be amended to 45 days. The maker and seconder of the motion concurred. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. B. Case 22-99 Bill Sioutis, Elias Anastasopoulos, & John Psaltis (Majestiks Night Club) 470-484 Mandalay Avenue (landscape) - Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. She reported service was obtained on the notice of hearing sent by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Inspector Kurleman said the CDB (Community Development Board) requested the property be inspected for compliance with the approved landscaping plan submitted on June 11, 1992, which was a condition of approval for a previously granted conditional use. He said he inspected the property on June 29, 1999, and found the required landscaping materials deficient. There was no irrigation system visible. He posted a notice of violation on the property on July 22, 1999. Property ownership was verified through the property appraiser’s office. He met with the tenant on July 30, 1999, who indicated the landscaping was deficient when he took tenancy. Inspector Kurleman said he reinspected the property this morning and the violations still exist. The landscaping plan approved in 1992 lists specific types of landscaping materials required, but not specific numbers of shrubs. The code in effect at that time lists the specific numbers. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 10. James Eftekari, tenant, questioned why the landscaping requirements are being enforced when the City is in discussions with developers and property owners in this area regarding redevelopment. He said he has improved the landscaping in front of the building. He said it is difficult to maintain plants at the rear due to the salt water and blowing sand from the beach. Regarding redevelopment, Attorney Dougall-Sides said Mr. Eftekari is referring to the land assembly ordinance recently adopted by the City Commission. She indicated she did not know if the subject property falls within the redevelopment area. No action has been taken by the City regarding the proposed redevelopment area. She said the previous conditional use approval requires the property to adhere to the landscaping plan in effect in 1992. Attorney Nickolas Ekonomides, representing the property owners, said his clients have a lease agreement with the tenant indicating he is responsible for maintaining the property. Litigation is pending against the tenant regarding rent payments, etc. He noted the tenant was not cited on the notice of violation, however, was listed along with the property owners on the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. He said his clients wish to comply with the code, but feel the tenant has caused the violation and the board should consider the tenant’s responsibilities in this case. John Psaltis, co-owner, said he is a victim of circumstances because of the tenant. He said he wishes to comply with code and has no intention of neglecting the property. A suggestion was made for the owners to meet with staff to determine more drought and salt tolerant plant materials to use. Niki Psaltis, co-owner, said she was a tenant of the property in 1997 and has since purchased it. She said when violations occurred at the site in 1997, she was cited as the tenant and ordered to comply with the code. Now that she is the owner, she is once again being asked to comply and does not understand why her tenant is not being held responsible for the violations. She said in 1998, the property was leased to Majestiks. She said she had receipts showing she spent $3,500 on landscaping materials in 1997. She did not understand why the tenant let the property go. She said she obtained water bills from the City which showed zero water use. It appeared the tenant had neglected to switch on the irrigation system to maintain the landscaping. She said the lease requires the tenant to maintain the property, including landscaping. Mr. Ekonomides said he did not dispute the owners’ responsibility but questioned whether this issue should be considered a joint responsibility. Attorney Ekonomides submitted Defendant’s Exhibits 1 – 3. Discussion ensued in regard to whether both the property owner and the tenant should have been cited. It was again noted both were listed on the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Board Attorney Connolly suggested withdrawing the case to recite both the owner and the tenant. Ms. Dougall-Sides wished to proceed with today’s hearing. She expressed concern that tenants change frequently and that the owner is ultimately responsible for the property and the lien goes against the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides said it is difficult to determine tenancy from public records. Attorney Ekonomides noted the tenant had received notice and was present at today’s hearing to represent himself. Notice was also posted on the property. He believed adequate notice had been received. He realizes the board is concerned with due process, but found the owners to be in a difficult situation. He said a significant amount of time will be required for the owner to resolve litigation with the tenant. Board Attorney Connolly said the owner has remedy for breach of contract. The board’s responsibility today is to determine if a violation exists and take proper steps to cite the owner. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 22-99, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 25, 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 Scott Kurleman; Nickolas C. Ekonomides, attorney representing the Respondents; and John and Niki Psaltis, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-10 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation dated 6/29/99; Ex. 2 – affidavit of service dated 7/22/99; Ex. 3 – verification of ownership; Ex. 4 – landscaping code sections; Ex. 5 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 – notice of hearing dated 8/12/99; Ex. 7 – letter of objection to continuance of conditional use on subject property; Ex. 8 - affidavit of service for notice of hearing; and Ex. 9 – site plan with issuance date of 6/11/92, and Ex. 10 – photographs of current landscape conditions) and Defendant’s Exhibits 1-3 (Ex. 1 – City of Clearwater Utilities domestic and lawn billing history; Ex. 2 – Universal Ground Management invoices; and Ex. 3 – Page 4 of lease), it is evident the property is in violation of the sections of the Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondents by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Section 3-1204 (B), (I), and (L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondents have failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondents are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days (October 24, 1999). The burden shall rest upon the Respondents 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 October 24, 1999, the Respondents 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 October 24, 1999. If Respondents do 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 Respondents 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 23-99 David A. Grice 405 Pennsylvania Avenue (nuisance) - Kurleman In a memo dated August 20, 1999, Inspector Scott Kurleman withdrew Case 23-99. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 13-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Calvin M. Doyle 1268 Engman Street (Building) - Wright Member Tieman moved to accept the affidavit of non-compliance for Case 13-99 and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION – None. A. Request to reconsider Case 17-99 Equator, Inc. (Froggy's Restaurant) - 2516 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (Building) - Wright Member Huffman moved to deny the request to reconsider Case 17-99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 16-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance (Landscape) - Kurleman Equator, Inc. (Froggy's Restaurant) - 2516 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Member Tieman moved to accept the affidavit of non-compliance for Case 16-99 and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 17-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance (Building) - Wright Equator, Inc. (Froggy's Restaurant) - 2516 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Member Tieman moved to accept the affidavit of non-compliance for Case 17-99 and issue the order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Request Authorization for Foreclosure Case 95-92 Thomas & Elizabeth Floyd 605 Hart Street Member Tieman moved to authorize foreclosure regarding Case 95-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 28, 1999 Member Cole moved to approve the minutes of July 28, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded. Member Allbritton requested the first sentence, third paragraph, page 3, be changed from “Member Huffman” to “Member Allbritton…”. Member Cole amended her motion to approve the minutes as corrected. The seconder concurred. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.