Loading...
01/26/2000MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 26, 2000 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Mary Rogero Member Joyce Martin Member Sheila Cole Member Absent: Frank Huffman Member David Allbritton Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Karen Clark Attorney for the Board Sue 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 01-00 P & A Holdings 807 Jeffords Street (LDC) - Doherty Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. The return receipt for the notice of hearing sent by certified mail was received. The date of official notice of violation was November 1, 1999. Attorney Dan Greco, representing P & A Holdings, said he has advised his client, Dr. Mahesh Amin, to come into compliance regarding employees parking on property he owns adjacent to the medical practice. No nonresidential parking is allowed at this site. He agreed Dr. Amin was in violation. City Inspector Geri Doherty said as of today, employees are still parking on the lot. Mr. Greco said he felt that Dr. Amin could find alternative parking and come into compliance by February 10, 2000. It was noted a proposed change in the code may allow parking on this lot in the future. City Exhibits 1-7, including photographs were submitted. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 01-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2000, 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 Geri Doherty and Attorney Dan Greco, Respondent’s representative, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – corrected notice of violation; Ex. 2 – cited code section; Ex. 3 – property ownership verification; Ex. 4 – summary sheet for case; Ex. 5 – Mahesh Amin letter dated 11/14/99; Ex. 6 - notice of violation request for hearing and notice of hearing; and Ex. 7 – photos of conditions on property), it is evident the property is in violation of the section(s) of the Code as read into the record, more specifically, the property is being used for nonresidential parking which is prohibited on this site. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 1-104.B 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 by February 15, 2000. 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 15, 2000, 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 February 15, 2000. 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. B. Case 02-00 Anthony W. & Patricia A. Valentine 1457 S. Prescott Avenue (Building) – Chianella In a memo dated January 24, 2000, Inspector Chianella withdrew Case 02-00. The property is now in compliance. C. Case 03-00 Michael J. & Sheryl A. Hansen 1774 Bentley Street (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property on January 13, 2000. The date of official notice of violation was November 1, 1999. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Dana Chianella said an anonymous complaint was received regarding this single-family home. Upon the initial inspection date on November 1, 1999, Inspector Chianella observed a fence had been installed without a permit or inspections. She issued a notice of violation and stop work order and posted the property. She said the owner called her on the date the property was posted and stated he would apply for a permit and come into compliance, but to date has not done so. The owner attempted to apply for a permit yesterday, but was informed a survey is required for construction of a fence. She said the owner will require two to three weeks to acquire a survey. City Exhibits 1-6 were submitted. Michael and Sheryl Hansen were present for the hearing. Mr. Hansen said this is his first house and he was unaware he needed a permit for the fence. He said he is frequently out of town and has been unable to obtain a copy of the survey on the property. He said he has since requested a copy of it from his mortgage company. Member Rogero moved that concerning Case 03-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2000, 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 Michael Hansen, the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation & stop work order dated 11/1/99; Ex. 2 – cited code sections; Ex. 3 – affidavit of posting dated 11/1/99; Ex. 4 – property ownership verification; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing and notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – photographs of conditions on property dated 11/1/99 and 1/26/00, it is evident the property is in violation of the section(s) of the Code as read into the record, more specifically, a fence has been installed without permit(s) and/or inspections. 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 by March 1, 2000. 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 1, 2000, 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 March 1, 2000. 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. D. Case 04-00 Jerry G. & Vivien L. Harris 484 Island way (Building) – Chianella In a memo dated January 24, 2000, Inspector Chianella withdrew Case 04-00. The property is now is compliance. E. Case 05-00 Jean H. Stuart 1535 Ridgewood Street (Building) – Chianella In a memo dated January 24, 2000, Inspector Chianella withdrew Case 05-00. The property is now is compliance. F. Case 06-00 Evers L. & Leola V. Maxie 1004 N. Betty Lane (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the notice on the property on January 13, 2000. The date of official notice of violation was November 19, 1999. Evers and Leola Maxie were not present and had no representation. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Dana Chianella said an anonymous complaint was received on November 18, 1999, regarding a fence that had been installed without permits or inspections at this single-family home. Upon initial inspection on November 19, 1999, Inspector Chianella stated she issued a stop work order and notice of violation to Ernest Bell. Mr. Bell signed for the notice. Ms. Chianella indicated he is related to the Maxies. Inspector Chianella said the six-foot high fence exceeds the allowable limit. Inspector Chianella said she has had no further contact with Mr. Bell or the Maxies to date. She reinspected the property on January 23, 2000, and the fence was still in violation. She said the owner had been given until January 29, 2000, to comply and has not done so. She said Inspector Bill Wright inspected the property this morning and took photographs. The property remains in violation. Originally, the fence was erect and is now falling down and in disrepair. The owners have made no attempts to correct the problem. City Exhibits 1-6 were submitted. In response to a question, Inspector Chianella said the gate, the section closest to the house, has fallen. She said the owners need to check with zoning to see if they can obtain a permit. She said she did not know if Mr. and Mrs. Maxie reside at the property. Ms. Diana noted the notice of hearing for today’s meeting was sent via certified and regular mail, and the notice posted on the property. The certified mail receipt was not returned. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the owner can comply by either obtaining a permit and inspections or removing the fence. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 06-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2000, 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 1-6 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation & order to stop work dated 11/19/99; Ex. 2 – affidavit of service dated 11/19/99; Ex. 3 – cited code sections; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing and notice of violation; Ex. 5 – property ownership verification; and Ex. 6 – photographs of conditions on the property dated 11/23/99, 1/13/00 and 1/26/00), it is evident the property is in violation of the section(s) of the Code as read into the record, more specifically, a fence was installed without permit(s) and/or inspections. 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 obtain a permit by February 18, 2000, and correct the aforesaid violation by March 5, 2000. 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 5, 2000, 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 March 5, 2000. 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 07-00 Ultra-Motive Engineering 1916 Calumet Street (Occupational license) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. The return receipt for the notice of hearing sent by certified mail was received. The date of official notice of violation was August 4, 1999. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Dana Chianella said that Ultra-Motive Engineering has never been licensed. She said October 1st of each year is the renewal time for occupational licenses. The matter came to her attention when a vendor applied for a license to provide services for businesses at the subject property. On August 4, 1999, upon inspection of the property, Inspector Chianella issued a notice of violation to Ultra-Motive Engineering for operating a service garage without an occupational license. She noted there are two separate businesses at this address. She reinspected the property on October 15, 1999, and informed the owner he must obtain an occupational license for 1998/99 and for 1999/00. He indicated he would apply for those licenses and has not done so to date. Inspector Chianella stated she posted the notice of hearing of today’s meeting on the property on January 13, 2000. A notice of violation was mailed certified mail and received by the property owner on November 1, 1999. City Exhibits 1-6 were submitted. Tim Caruso, owner of Ultra-Motive Engineering, said he is not the owner of the property. The property owner was not present. He said he only owns one of the two businesses at the subject site. He apologized for not coming into compliance. He said until recently, he was in an unincorporated area of the City. He said not until after Inspector Chianella informed him of the need for an occupational license was he aware of the requirement. He requested staff direct him through the property channels. He is licensed by the State and has everything required to purchase the license. Mr. Caruso admitted he was informed of the compliance requirement on August 4, 1999. He said previously, he did not have the money to obtain the license. Member Martin moved that concerning Case 07-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2000, 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 Tim Caruso, business owner, (the property owner was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation dated 8/4/99; Ex. 2 – affidavit of service dated 10/28/99; Ex. 3 – cited code sections; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing and notice of hearing; and Ex. 6 - photographs of conditions dated 1/13/00), it is evident the property is in violation of the section(s) of the Code as read into the record, more specifically, a business is being operated without benefit of an occupational license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 29.28 & 29.40(2) 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 by February 18, 2000. 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 18, 2000, 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 18, 2000. 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. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Kerwin, and Members Tieman, Rogero, and Martin voted “aye”; Member Cole voted “nay”. Motion carried. H. Case 08-00 Florida Outdrive Specialist 1916-A Calumet Street (Occupational License) – Chianella In a memo dated January 25, 2000, Inspector Chianella withdrew Case 08-00. The property is now in compliance. I. Case 09-00 Viorel Caba 1970 Rainbow Drive (Public Nuisance Appeal) - Doherty Ms. Dougall-Sides said in public nuisance cases, the property owner has the opportunity to appeal within 10 days from the notice of violation. Viorel Caba, appellant, said he did not receive a bill of sale for a truck he had purchased from an automotive dealership that went out of business. Mr. Caba contacted the former owner of the business and obtained a bill of sale this morning. He said he can now properly register the truck. Inspector Geri Doherty said a notice of violation for an inoperative vehicle was issued for a large truck without a tag on November 12, 1999. Vehicles are considered inoperable if they cannot be driven on the road. To come into compliance, the appellant must obtain a tag and drive the truck to show it is operational. Mr. Caba said his fiancé purchased the truck. The dealership was responsible for registration of the vehicle. He said he made several attempts to contact the owner of the dealership. Mr. Caba said he now has the title and the bill of sale. These documents were submitted as Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the notice of violation indicated the appellant could have complied by removing the vehicle, storing it in an enclosed building or carport, or making it operable by showing the tag and that it is capable of being operated. Member Cole moved to deny the appeal as it is evident a violation exists. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 09-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2000, 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 Geri Doherty and Viorel Caba, the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, Defendant’s Exhibit 1 – Division of Motor Vehicles Complaint Affidavit and Bill of Sale for 1975 Ford vehicle , it is evident the property is in violation of the section(s) of the Code as read into the record, more specifically, an inoperative vehicle exists on the property which is prohibited by code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section(s) 3-1503.B.6, 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 Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by March 5, 2000. 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 5, 2000, 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 March 5, 2000. 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 landowner’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 33-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Melvin Spinoza 1632 Drew Street (Building) - Chianella Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 33-99. The motion was duly seconded. Ms. Clark reported Mr. Spinoza appealed to the County Court instead of the Circuit Court. The County dismissed his appeal as of January 7, 2000, which was the deadline he had to come into compliance. Mr. Spinoza has since requested the Board provide him a stay regarding the fine that has been accruing since January 7, 2000. Ms. Clark said in order to grant a stay evidence must be presented to the Board that a proper appeal had been initiated. As there is no evidence to that effect, she recommended a stay is inappropriate. Mr. Spinoza will be advised of same. Upon compliance, Mr. Spinoza could request a hearing by the Board to reduce the fines accrued. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. B. Case 30-98 - Affidavit of Compliance Mary W. Smith 1111 Blanche B. LittleJohn Trail (Building) - Chianella C. Case 37-99 - Affidavit of Compliance Michael & Patricia Vlamakis 2010 Drew Street (Repeat Violation) - Hall Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 30-98 and 37-99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Case 06-99 - Request to Address Board re fine at next meeting Clearwater Prop Group c/o Kmart 3476 2130 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (Landscape) - Kurleman Mike Gaines, representing the Respondent, said the landscaping violation has been brought into compliance. Member Tieman moved to approve the request to address the Board at their next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 30-99 - Request for Reconsideration/Rehearing at next meeting Arian Tenney 1320 Terrace Road (Outdoor Storage) - Rosa Discussion ensued regarding whether proper service on the original notice of hearing had been obtained and whether the request for rehearing should be approved. The record indicates the occupant rather than the owner was served by certified mail. The owner is the party being charged with the violation. The Board Attorney recommended the Board approve the request for a rehearing on this case. Inspector Rosa said he believes the son and daughter-in-law of the owner reside at the property. Ms. Clark said it is not clear whether the party petitioning the Board is the owner. Member Cole moved to accept the request for reconsideration and rehearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Kerwin and Members Rogero, Martin and Cole voted “aye”; Member Tieman voted “nay”. Motion carried. C. Case 30-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Arian Tenney 1320 Terrace Road (Outdoor Storage) - Rosa Member Cole moved to table the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 30—99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Case 13-99 - Request to Address Board re fine at next meeting Calvin M. Doyle 1268 Engman Street (building) - Wright Member Tieman moved to accept the request to address the Board regarding a reduction of fine at the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS John M. Anderson COD1999-04144 907 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue $ 320.00 Ira E. Nicholson’s, Blk 3, Lot 3 Eddie J. Walker Est. COD1999-04396 1415 Taft Street $ 320.00 Lincoln Place, Blk 1, Lot 16 Nicola and Allessandra R. Belletti COD1999-04145 800 Woodside Avenue $ 384.48 Oak Acres Unit 3, Blk A, Lot 1 Anthony S. Gattus Jr. COD1999-04682 1340 Mary L Road $ 320.00 Betty Lane Heights 2nd Addition, Blk C, Lot 1 W S F Trust 8/6/90 COD1999-04486 1022 North Missouri Avenue $ 320.00 Springfield No. 2, Blk 2, Lot 7 H. B. Adams COD1999-04320 509 North Greenwood Avenue $ 320.00 Country Club Addition, Blk 8, Lot 13 ls rd Don R. Whitehurst COD1999-04543 635 Mandalay Avenue $ 320.00 Mandalay Unit 5, Blk 84, Lots 1-2 Rodrigues McLeod COD1999-03775 506 Cedar Street $ 320.00 J.J. Eldridge, Blk C, W40’ of Lot 32 Eldon Utsinger COD1999-04002 1205 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue $ 504.60 Palm Bluff 1st Addition, Lot 8 Colin G. Ball COD1999-04197 1103 South Prospect Avenue $ 300.00 Magnolia Heights, Blk 5, Lots 21-22 Member Tieman moved to approve the nuisance abatement lien filings as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 8, 1999 Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 8, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.