Loading...
10/27/1999MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER October 27, 1999 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Frank Huffman Board Member David Allbritton Board Member Mary Rogero Board Member Sheila Cole Board Member Joyce Martin Board Member Absent: Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides City Attorney Joseph Corsmeier Attorney for the Board Sue Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:04 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 24-99 (Cont’d. from 9/22/99) Belleview Biltmore Resort Ltd. 1590 Gulf Blvd. (Cabana Club Restaurant0 (Building – Wright) In a memo dated October 27, 1999, Inspector Wright withdrew Case 24-99. The owner has obtained a permit for repairs to the property. Case 26-99 (Cont’d. from 9/22/99) Markos & Sevasti Lagos 1331 Cleveland Street (Landscape – Kurleman) In a memo dated October 13, 1999, Inspector Kurleman withdrew case Case 26-99 as the property is now in compliance. Case 27-99 (Cont’d. from 9/22/99) Mary Jackson 1331 Mary L. Road (Development) – Rosa In a memo dated October 25, 1999, Inspector Rosa withdrew Case 27-99 due to a pending foreclosure. Case 28-99 James R. Ficken 1608 N. Osceola Avenue (Public Nuisance) – King Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. She reported service was obtained by certified mail. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides stated this is an appeal of an inoperable vehicle notice of violation. The appellant is not present. The burden is on the appellant to present the appeal to the board. In his absence, Ms. Dougall-Sides requested the board find for the City. Member Cole moved to deny the appeal. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. James R. Ficken, applicant arrived at 3:15 p.m. and requested that his appeal be heard. Discussion ensued and Member Rogero moved to rescind the previous motion to deny the appeal. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Kerwin and Members Albritton, Rogero, and Martin voted “aye”; Members Huffman and Cole voted “nay”. Motion carried. Mr. Ficken requested the case be continued until after the six-month review of the Community Development Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides did not agree. Mr. Ficken said his main defense is with regard to the current text of the Development Code. He requested “nonresidential” be removed from Section 8-102 of the ordinance. It was remarked that the board cannot make changes to the code. The board makes decisions whether a violation exists, and determines appropriate action. It was suggested that Mr. Ficken submit any suggestions regarding the Development Code to the Planning and Development department. Mr. Ficken said he has antique cars in his back yard but disagrees with the City’s position that they are a nuisance. He referred to sections of the Code that refer to equipment, etc. that must be screened from view. He said the cars in his back yard cannot be seen from the street or by neighbors, and are therefore not a nuisance. The cars have not been dismantled, but have mechanical problems. In response to a question from Mr. Ficken, Inspector Janice King said no odors, noises, substances such as smoke, ashes, soot, dust, gas fumes, etc. are coming from the site. Ms. King said she received two anonymous complaints regarding the property, the first one on June 3, 1999, and the second in September of 1999. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said methods of correcting the violations are cited in Section 7-103(d). Mr. Ficken said he intends to rebuild the classic cars. He said he does not want to purchase tags for cars that are inoperable. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the definition of inoperable is in Section 8-102. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Inspector King said the original inspection date was June 11, 1999. Upon inspection, she found 2 vehicles in the back yard. She explained the Code requirements to Mr. Ficken and gave him time to comply. She did not post the vehicles until August 27, 1999. One vehicle has an older tag without a current decal. The other vehicle has no tag. The property is zoned residential. Mr. Ficken has a garage for at least one vehicle. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Mr. Ficken is in violation of the current Code. The vehicles on the property are deemed inoperable and a nuisance. Notice was given to Mr. Ficken and unless the board sustains his appeal today, the City has the right under the code to abate the nuisance. Mr. Ficken can comply with the Code by obtaining current tags for the vehicles or removing them and storing them in an enclosed building. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said nuisance cases are handled differently than other cases. The City posts nuisance notices. If the property owner does not file an appeal, the City is automatically authorized to abate the nuisance. Should the owner file an appeal, they have the right to appear before the board to show the condition described in the notice does not exist or show why the condition should not be remedied by the City at the expense of the property owner. It is the appellant’s burden to show why the City should not abate the nuisance. The City submits that the appellant has not met his burden that the City should not abate the nuisance. Ms. Dougall-Sides presented City Exhibit #1, photographs of the vehicles taken August 27, 1999, and October 27, 1999, and the inoperable notice given to Mr. Ficken. Board Attorney Joseph Corsmeier agreed it is the appellant’s burden to present evidence to the board to support his position. In response to questions, Mr. Ficken said one of the vehicles is inoperable, therefore, he cannot drive it to the emissions station to obtain a current tag. He does not feel he should obtain a sticker for a vehicle that does not run. The other vehicle is operable. Member Huffman moved to deny the appeal. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 29-99 Vincent & Mary S. Centore 3216 Pine Haven Drive (Development) – Phillips In a memo dated October 19, 1999, Inspector Phillips requested a continuance to allow additional time for compliance. F. Case 30-99 Arian Tenney 1320 Terrace Road (Development) – Rosa In a memo dated October 25, 1999, Inspector Rosa requested a continuance as the property is close to compliance. Member Huffman moved to continue Cases 29-99 and 30-99 to the December board meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 07-98 – Affidavit of Compliance Mary W. Smith 1111 Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail (Housing) – Hinson Case 25-99 – Affidavit of Compliance Marden S. Gordon 1631 Sand Key Estates Ct. (Building) – Wright Member Huffman moved to accept the affidavits of compliance for Cases 07-98 and 25-99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 30-98 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Mary W. Smith 1111 Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail (Building) – Chianella Case 22-99 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Bill Sioutis, Elias Anastosopoulos, and John Psaltis (Majestics Night Club) 470-484 Mandalay Avenue (Landscape) – Kurleman Member Huffman moved to accept the affidavits of non-compliance and issue the orders imposing the fine for Cases 30-98 and 22-99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 95-92 – Request to address Board at next meeting Thomas & Elizabeth Floyd 605 Hart Street (Building) – Wright Ms. Diana said the Board had previously authorized foreclosure on this property. A lien of more than $500,000 has been placed on the property. The Floyds have another property at 603 Hart Street with a lien of$25,000. Member Cole moved to approve the request to address the Board at the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said City inspectors routinely monitor properties to ensure they comply with the landscaping ordinance regarding new development or redevelopment. The site plan and construction process reviewed by the Engineering Department and the City’s landscape architect requires an applicant to file a landscape plan to be reviewed by the Development Review Committee and inspected as installed. Failure to follow the landscape plan can be brought before this board. She suggested that board members and residents contact the Traffic Engineering Department regarding any properties they feel are in noncompliance with the ordinance. It was remarked that there are many obstructed views throughout the City due to inappropriate landscaping. Member Cole asked if the City has an agreement with Kmart their landscaping. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she is not aware of any and believed the improved landscaping was due to the board’s order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 9/22/99 Member Huffman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 22, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:43 p.m.