Loading...
03/22/2000MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 22, 2000 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Frank Huffman Member David Allbritton Member Sheila Cole Member Joyce Martin Member Absent: Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Vacant Seat Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Karen Clark Attorney for the Board Sue Diana Secretary for the Board Patricia Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:03 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 19-00 Arian Tenney 1320 Terrace Road (Outdoor storage) - Rosa Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Property owner Arian Tenney is deceased. No estate representative was present. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Rick Rosa said he had inspected the property on February 2, 2000, and observed the storage of untagged and inoperable vehicles and machinery in violation of Code. Notice of Violation was issued on February 3, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, delivered to the address by Development Services Manager Robert Hall, and posted on the property. No certified mail receipt for the notice of hearing was returned by the Post Office. This property was cited previously and, on December 8, 1999, the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) had found the property to be in violation. Previously a request for reconsideration of this case was approved by the board; however, the case was later withdrawn by staff due to concern proper service had not been obtained. The process is starting anew. The Property Appraiser still lists Arian Tenney as property owner even though she is deceased. During the course of both actions, property resident Forrest Tenney had promised to correct the violations. Mr. Rosa said the last notice of violation required compliance by February 10, 2000. This morning, several violations remained. At Mr. Tenney’s request, staff returned to the property after lunch and found it to be in compliance. Mr. Rosa identified City Exhibit photographs he had taken of the property on February 3, 2000. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. The property has a long history of citations. He recommended the property be found to be in repeat violation with no accompanying fine. Should problems reoccur, this action would allow a fine to be imposed without a subsequent hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 6 and displayed photographs taken this morning. Member Allbritton moved that concerning Case 19-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 22, 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 Rick Rosa and Development Services Manager Bob Hall (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation dated 2/2/00; Ex. 2 – development standards; Ex. 3 – property owner verification; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; and Ex. 5 - composite photographs), it is evident the subject property is being used for outdoor storage of vehicles, machinery, etc. and is in violation of Section 3-1503.A of the Code as read into the record. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing was in violation of Section 3-1503.A of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, as referred to in the affidavit read into the record in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent and/or her successors in interest are to continue compliance with said Section 3-1503(A) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Respondent and/or repeats the violation, the Board may order the Respondent to pay a fine for each day the violation exists after the Respondent is notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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 violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. 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 20-00 Klaus A. & Joan M. Keller 400 S. Greenwood Avenue (Landscape) - Kurleman In his March 13, 2000, memorandum, Inspector Scott Kurleman withdrew Case #20-00 as the property now is in compliance. C. Case 21-00 Herbert J. Furey & Joan G. Graf 18675 US 19N, Lot 337 (Building) - Chianella In the March 22, 2000, memorandum, staff withdrew Case #21-00. The citing inspector has resigned her position with the City. D. Case 22-00 Remzi Dalip 808 Normandy Road (Building) - Chianella Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Property owner Remzi Dalip was in attendance. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Robert Scott stated he had worked with former City Inspector Dana Chianella on this case. On February 11, 1999, the City received an anonymous written complaint and he inspected the property. Although owner Remzi Dalip had obtained a permit for a patio slab, he had no permit to construct a room. Mr. Scott issued a stop work order, and a Notice of Violation, which was mailed certified and posted on the property. The violation required compliance by February 25, 1999. Mr. Dalip signed a permit application, stating he lived on the property and would do the work himself. Staff subsequently learned he does not occupy the property. The City froze the permit on June 1, 1999. Mr. Scott said Mr. Dalip was informed the Code requires he hire a licensed contractor to obtain a permit and certify the construction meets Code. He reviewed difficulties in communication with the owner, noting the addition had been credited with 22 failed inspections. Mr. Scott identified City Exhibit 6 as photographs Ms. Chianella had taken of the construction on February 27, 1999 and December 27, 1999. He stated the photographs are an accurate representation of conditions. He said the project has been time consuming for City inspectors. He recommended 15 days to hire a contractor and comply or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -7 and displayed photographs of the site. Mr. Dalip testified he had allowed tenants to move into the house temporarily after he had injured his back. In response to a question, Mr. Scott said the City had not fined Mr. Dalip for 9 of the failed inspections. Notes on one framing inspection indicated that violations were too numerous to document. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 22-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 22, 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 Robert Scott and Remzi Dalip, Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – anonymous complaint letter; Ex. 2 – notice of violation and stop work order dated 2/11/99; Ex. 3 – affidavit of posting for notice of violation dated 2/28/00; Ex. 4 – property ownership verification; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 - composite photographs of subject property dated 11/2/99 and 1/27/00; and Ex. 7 – building and building regulations), it is evident the property is in violation of the section(s) of the 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, 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 pull a permit and hire a licensed contractor by April 30, 2000, and to complete the addition and have the final inspection by May 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 the specified compliance dates, 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 the specified compliance dates. 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. 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. E. Case 23-00 Shirlee J. Martin & John R. Holloway 1802-A Drew Street (Building) - Chianella In the March 22, 2000, memorandum, staff withdrew Case #21-00. The citing inspector has resigned her position with the City. ITEM #2 - Unfinished Business A. Case 20-99 - Affidavit of Compliance Discount Auto Parts Inc. 1600 N. Myrtle Avenue (Landscape) - Kurleman AND B. Case 01-00 - Affidavit of Compliance P & A Holdings. 807 Jeffords Street (Land Development Code) - Doherty AND C. Case 03-00 - Affidavit of Compliance Michael J. & Sheryl A. Hansen 1774 Bentley Street (Building) - Chianella AND D. Case 09-00 - Affidavit of Compliance Viorel Caba 1970 Rainbow Drive (Public Nuisance) - Doherty Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 20-99, 01-00, 03-00, and 09-00. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 29-99 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Vincent & Mary Centroe 3216 Pine Haven Drive (Fence) - Phillips Member Cole moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 29-99. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Other Board Action/Discussion Case 96-99 – Addressing Board re fine (Cont’d from 02/23/00) Clearwater Prop. Group c/o Kmart 2130 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Landscape) – Kurleman In reference to the Kmart store at 2130 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Kmart representative Mike Gaines requested the board waive the $46,500 fine that had accrued while the store’s landscaping violated Code. Site landscaping now exceeds the level required under the City’s original landscape plan. Kmart employee Joe Burnett reviewed circumstances responsible for the protracted project. Once he took control, he hired a contractor and work began. Further delays related to inclement weather. The project was completed on October 14, 1999. The City had fined Kmart $250/day until the site complied with Code. Mr. Burnett reviewed corporate changes designed to avoid similar problems. Mr. Gaines stated the City had presented an award for the landscape project, which cost Kmart almost $250,000 and eliminated 44 parking spaces. Landscaping plans are in place for the Countryside Kmart. Inspector Scott Kurleman agreed the project represents a great improvement but felt the 18-month delay was excessive. While the landscaping exceeds conditions of the original landscape plan, it does not quite meet new Code landscaping requirements. It was noted the only contact the board had with Kmart was through the company’s authorized landscape architect who testified the project could not be completed in a timely manner due to his workload. Discussion ensued regarding the fine and Kmart’s long term disregard of City efforts. Mr. Kurleman said Kmart had made no compliance effort between April 1998 and June 1999, when Mr. Burnett had become involved. Mr. Gaines stated fines should not be punitive but should encourage compliance. In response to a question, Assistant City Clerk Sue Diana, excluding staff time, estimated administrative costs at $800. Mr. Kurleman stated the Planning Director had recommended the fine be reduced to $5,000. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the reduction with suggestions ranging from 75% to 85%. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 06-99, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent’s request for reconsideration of fine at a hearing held on March 22, 2000, and based upon the testimony reduced the fine from $46,500.000 to 6,975.00 to be paid within thirty days of the date of this hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 – New Business A. Procedure Rules Discussion Attorney for the Board Karen Clark referred to a previous board member comment regarding the board’s ability to discuss issues before a motion is made. She suggested after the public hearing is closed, the board could pass a motion for consideration before discussing relevant issues and determining the board’s conclusion of law. Consensus was to adopt a procedural rule, that board members shall pass a motion for consideration before board discussion begins. ITEM #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Jack V. Kennedy c/o Amoco Oil Co. 21557 US 19N Sec 08-29-16, M&B 33/06 COD1999-05473 $320.00 Member Huffman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Approval of the Minutes Member Huffman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 23, 2000, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the Board Secretary to each Board Member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.