Loading...
09/27/2000MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER September 27, 2000 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair David Allbritton Member Sheila Cole Member Joyce Martin Member – departed at 5:24 p.m. Peter Caffentzis Member Absent: Franke Huffman Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Sue Diana Secretary for the Board Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 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 Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. ITEM #1 - Public Hearings Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides recommended the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) hear Cases 31-00, 32-00, 33-00, 34-00, 35-00, 36-00, and 37-00 together. Attorney Glenn Smith, representative for the sign owners, agreed. As the property owner for each item is different, discussion related to specific cases is reported separately. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed City efforts to reduce signage blight. In 1985, the City Commission approved an ordinance to change the dimensional requirements of signs, which included a 7-year amortization period requiring signs to be in compliance or be removed by October 1982. A 1988 ordinance addressed exceptions on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and also provided a 7-year amortization limit with a compliance deadline of January 19, 1996. The City Commission repealed the previous Land Development Code and approved the Community Development Code in 1999. The new Code includes a section listing transitional rules, which indicate signs are subject to amortization provisions existing in the previously adopted Land Development Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the sign company has filed a lawsuit against the City related to these signs and the Circuit Court is hearing litigation. In response to a question, she said the City contends both the old and new codes address the violations. The sign company has presented arguments to the Circuit Court, which will rule on that issue. The City Commission had directed staff to pursue compliance issues regarding sign regulations and enforce the Ordinance, which the courts have not struck down. She requested both the lessees and property owners be found in violation. Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl stated he has supervised code inspectors for the City’s CRT (Community Response Team) since 1993. He reviewed the City’s sign amortization program, noting residents had requested implementation of an ordinance to address sign blight from billboards and other signage. Since 1993, staff has inspected more than 13,000 signs. Of 40 billboards, 9 remain. Mr. Smith said the notices of violation were based on the 1992 code, not the current one. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the notices of violation cite current code referencing previous code sections. Mr. Smith opposed a resident’s testimony regarding citizen efforts related to this issue, stating that testimony is not relevant to the current code. Staff reviewed each case separately. In response to a question, Inspector Mary Jo Fox said the Code requires all freestanding signs to be landscaped and set back at least 5 feet from the right-of-way and to be no more than 14 feet tall and have no more than 64 square feet of signage. In response to questions from Mr. Smith, Ms. Fox reviewed her qualifications with the City. Mr. Smith claimed the violations were not cited under the transitional rules in the new code. The meeting recessed from 3:54 to 4:10 p.m. In response to Mr. Smith’s requests that she interpret the Code and make legal conclusions, Ms. Fox deferred all such questions to City’s legal staff. Mr. Smith made legal arguments the billboards do not violate the Code. He said the billboards were legally constructed. Concern was expressed Mr. Smith is requesting the board to ignore all previous ordinances prohibiting billboards that provided amortization periods. Ms. Dougall-Sides said since the City adopted the related sign ordinances, the billboards have never been considered a valid nonconforming use. The City provided an amortization schedule to allow the sign companies to recoup their investments. Ms. Fox continued to defer Mr. Smith’s questions to the legal staff. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Circuit Court case could take a long time to settle. Discussion ensued regarding the citing of both the sign companies and property owners. The meeting recessed from 5:24 to 5:43 p.m. Susan Rosetti, FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) District Right-of-Way Administrator in charge of advertising testified that Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60), east of US 19N is on the National Highway System. The road was so designated on November 28, 1995. In response to a question, Ms. Rosetti stated her employer is aware she is testifying at today’s meeting. Patti Blass, Infinity Outdoor Advertising (aka National Advertising) General Manager, said her firm has owned the 7 billboards under discussion since they were constructed. She identified the vested rights application her firm had submitted to the City on July 21, 2000, on behalf of the 7 signs. The firm feels they had relied on the City’s permit requirements when they constructed the billboards and feel their rights are vested. The City rejected the application on September 8, 2000. Mr. Smith reviewed his exhibits. He said he had filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief and damage on May 30, 2000. The suit is pending and has 13 counts in the complaint. He reviewed legal arguments to support his assertions. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted none of the subject billboards have current valid FDOT permits. She said the sign company was aware of related ordinances when they were adopted. Ms. Blass stated the leases renew automatically. Mr. Smith said the billboards on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard are protected from removal due to their location on a federal highway. Mr. Salzman said staff will provide information related to federal highways should the board request it. Mr. Smith stated Chapter 44 related to signs had been repealed when the new Community Development Code was adopted and cannot be enforced. He claimed the transitional rules do not apply as no special reference exists. Ms. Dougall-Sides said previous rules related to billboards are carried forward in the new Code. She noted the Court hasnot struck down any portion of the City’s Code. She said the billboards had not been grandfathered. She noted Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard was not designated as a federal highway until after the City’s sign codes were adopted. The meeting recessed from 7:15 to 7:29 p.m. Mr. Smith submitted his exhibits. Attorney Salzman reviewed board options. He noted the Court is considering many of the issues presented tonight. Concern was expressed in the Board rendering a decision before the Court makes its decision. Concern was expressed the proposed fine of $250/day is not practical as the court case will most likely not be resolved for quite some time. Discussion ensued regarding fines. It was suggested fines not be imposed until after the court renders its decision. Mr. Salzman recommended the board not delay fines until all appeals are exhausted. It was noted hundreds of City businesses already had borne the cost of complying with the sign code. A1. Case 31-00 Owner: Wolverine Prop. Inv. Ltd. Partnership Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 2266 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) - Fox Board Secretary Sue Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail to the owner and lessee. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Mary Jo Fox said she was a Code Inspector I, who had received internal and external training and was certified. She said she had replaced a previous inspector and took over those duties, including Citywide sign inspections. She had inspected the subject property on April 13, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on June 16, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. This property was reinspected on July 5, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the owner or lessee following the citation. She identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on June 16, 2000. Ms. Fox stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the subject billboard, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, is more than 40 feet tall. The face of the billboard is approximately 407 square feet. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct the billboard on June 17, 1981. She said the lease agreement remains in effect. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is west of US 19N. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 31-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 2000, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The motion was duly seconded. Members Caffentzis, Tieman, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye’; Members Allbritton and Cole voted “Nay.” Mr. Salzman indicated at least four affirmative votes are required for a motion to carry. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed motion. As the property owner had not been represented at today’s hearing, it was recommended the property owner and sign company be fined. Consensus was to revote on the case. The motion was withdrawn. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 31-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc. (there was no representative present for Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), it is evident the property is in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f and Sec. 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp may each 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and any real or personal property owned by Wolverine Prop Inv Ltd Ptnshp 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. B1. Case 32-00 Owner: Ace Liquors, Inc. Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 1751 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) - Fox Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by hand delivery to an employee, Charles R. Brooks, at the property and by certified mail to the lessee. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Fox said she had inspected the subject property on April 28, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on April 28, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, posted on the property and at City Hall, and hand-delivered to an Ace Liquors, Inc. employee. This property was reinspected on June 6, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the owner or lessee following the citation. She identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on April 28, 2000. Ms. Fox stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the subject billboard, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, is about 40 feet tall. The face of the billboard is greater than 400 square feet. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct this billboard on November 4, 1975. She said the lease agreement remains in effect. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is west of US 19N. It was stated the lease agreement is year to year and could be canceled before the court renders its decision. Member Caffentzis moved that concerning Case 32-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc. (there was no representative present for Ace Liquors, Inc.), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), it is evident the property is in violation of Sections 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Sections 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f and Section 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ace Liquors, Inc. by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ace Liquors, Inc. are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ace Liquors, Inc. 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ace Liquors, Inc. may each 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ace Liquors, Inc. 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and any real or personal property owned by Ace Liquors, Inc. 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C1. Case 33-00 Owner: Ellis Co. Ltd. Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 501 – 525 South Belcher Road (Sign) – Fox Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail to the owner and lessee. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Fox said she had inspected the subject property on April 13, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on April 28, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. In response to a question, Ms. Fox indicated the subject property is a strip mall and has several addresses. This property was reinspected on June 6, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the owner or lessee following the citation. She identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on April 28, 2000. Ms. Fox stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the subject billboard, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, is about 40 feet tall. The face of the billboard is approximately 400 square feet. Donald Hall, representative, requested the board not punish the property owner. He said the billboard’s long-term lease had been in effect before the City’s related ordinances were adopted. He said the property owner does not have the ability to remove the billboard at this time. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct this billboard on February 10, 1984. She said the lease agreement remains in effect. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is west of US 19N. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 33-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc.; and Donald Hall for property owner, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), it is evident the property is in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f and Sec. 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ellis Co Ltd by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ellis Co Ltd are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Ellis Co Ltd 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. D1. Case 34-00 Owner: Limited Properties, Inc. Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 2800 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) - Fox Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail to the owner and lessee. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Fox said she had inspected the subject property on April 13, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on April 28, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. This property was reinspected on June 6, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the owner or lessee following the citation. She identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on April 28, 2000. Ms. Fox stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the subject billboard, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, is about 40 feet tall. The face of the billboard is approximately 400 square feet. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct this billboard on October 27, 1981. She said the lease agreement remains in effect. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is east of US 19N. It was noted the lease can be terminated in 2001. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 34-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc. (there was no representative present for Limited Properties, Inc.), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), it is evident the property is in violation of Sections 3-1803(Y) and 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f and Sec. 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Limited Properties, Inc. by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Limited Properties, Inc. are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Limited Properties, Inc. 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Limited Properties, Inc. may each 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Limited Properties, Inc. 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and any real or personal property owned by Limited Properties, Inc. 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. E1. Case 35-00 Owner: Bayrock Energy Inc. Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 2760 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) – Fox Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail to the owner and lessee. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Fox said she had inspected the subject property on April 13, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on April 28, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. This property was reinspected on June 6, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the owner or lessee following the citation. She identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on April 28, 2000. Ms. Fox stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the property’s two billboards, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, are 22 feet tall. The faces of the billboards are greater than 400 square feet. Adam Dionna, of Stiller Technology, said the property owner intends to comply with Code and will have the billboard removed soon after the sign company contract expires. He did not know that date. The site is vacant. He said the property owner does not want any problems when applying for permits for future development of the site. Mr. Smith said Bayrock Energy is seeking a temporary injunction against City limits on additional on-site signage. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct this billboard on October 15, 1982. She said the lease agreement remains in effect on a year to year contract. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is east of US 19N. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 35-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc.; and Adam Dionna for property owner, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), it is evident the property is in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f and Sec. 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Bayrock Energy, Inc. by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Bayrock Energy, Inc. are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Bayrock Energy, Inc. 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. F1. Case 36-00 Owner: Herbert E. Wollowick Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 2779 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) - Fox Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail to the owner and lessee. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Fox said she had inspected the subject property on April 13, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on April 28, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. This property was reinspected on June 6, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the lessee following the citation. She said the property owner had expressed concern a long-term lease with the sign company prevented him from removing the billboard. Ms. Fox identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on April 28, 2000. She stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the subject billboard, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, is about 40 feet tall. The face of the billboard is greater than 400 square feet. Herbert E. Wollowick, property owner, said he would like to be in compliance but his lease with the sign company does not allow him to remove the sign. He indicated the sign company contract does not expire until 2005. He felt it was unfair to punish the property owner. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct this billboard on June 6, 1984. She said the lease agreement remains in effect. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is east of US 19N. Member Caffentzis moved that concerning Case 36-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc.; and Herbert E. Wollowick for property owner, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), it is evident the property is in violation of Sections 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)c, d, e, & f, and Sec. 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Herbert E. Wollowick by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Herbert E. Wollowick are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Herbert E. Wollowick 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. G1. Case 37-00 Owner: Car Spa Clearwater . Lessee: Infinity Outdoor Inc. 2516 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) – Fox Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail to the owner and lessee. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Fox said she had inspected the subject property on April 13, 2000, after review of the amortization file developed by previous staff, and observed the billboard, which violates the Community Development Code. Notice of Violation was issued on April 28, 2000, citing the nuisance section of the Development Code, mailed certified, by regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. This property was reinspected on June 6, 2000, and remained in violation as the billboard had not been removed. An affidavit of violation and request for hearing was issued on August 1, 2000. Ms. Fox said she had not been in contact with the owner or lessee following the citation. She identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs she had taken of the billboard on the subject property on April 13, 2000 and after the posting on April 28, 2000. Ms. Fox stated she had visited the property today and that the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property be found in violation and to provide the property owner and lessee 30 days to bring the property into compliance before imposing a $250 a day on each party until compliance is made. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 17. In response to a question, Ms. Fox reported the subject billboard, set back more than 5 feet from the right-of-way, is about 42 feet tall. The face of the billboard is approximately 400 square feet. Tracy Robbins, representative for Car Spa Clearwater, also objected to a citizen’s request to address the board. He indicated the contract with the sign company expires in June 2003 and the firm will have the billboard removed by September 1, 2003. The property owner would be subject to litigation from the sign company if the billboard was removed while under contract. He reviewed problems related to his firm’s acquisition of the property, indicating staff had not disclosed information related to problems with the billboards before the sale was closed. He requested the property owner not be punished. He said Car Spa has delayed development of the site until it receives assurances that the billboard will not cause additional problems. He said a fine against the property owner would affect the firm’s ability to get financing and to market the property. He submitted a copy of the site plan approval application for Car Spa Clearwater as an exhibit. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City is somewhat sympathetic with Car Spa and noted development of the site could not have a freestanding sign as the property already has excess signage. In response to a question, Ms. Blass said the City had issued a permit to construct this billboard on December 26, 1982. She said the lease agreement remains in effect. Mr. Smith noted the billboard is west of US 19N. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 37-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 27, 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 Mary Jo Fox and Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl for City; Attorney Glenn Smith, Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Administrator Susan Rosetti and Advertising General Manager Patti Blass for Infinity Outdoor, Inc.; and Attorney Tracy Robin for property owner, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-17 (As to property owner: Ex. 1 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 2 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 3 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 4 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 7 – composite photos; Ex. 8 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing; and Ex. 9 – notice of hearing (covers both property owner and billboard owner). As to billboard owner: Ex. 10 – 1994 amortization letter; Ex. 11 – 2000 amortization letter; Ex. 12 – notice of violation with certified mail receipt; Ex. 13 – 6/16/00 affidavit of posting; Ex. 14 – code sections cited; Ex. 15 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 16 – composite photos; and Ex. 17 - affidavit of violation/request for hearing) and Infinity Outdoor, Inc. Exhibits 1-17 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation, lease, permit; Ex. 2 – map re outdoor advertising regulatory jurisdictions; Ex. 3 – Clearwater Code; Ex. 4 – Ordinance 6348-99; Ex. 5 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 1: General Provisions; Ex. 6 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Development Standards, Division 18 Signs; Ex. 7 – Clearwater Land Developments, Article 4: Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4.609 Vested Rights; Ex. 8 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 6: Nonconformity Provisions; Ex. 9 – Clearwater Land Development Regulations, Article 8: Definitions and Rules of Construction; Ex. 10 – 7/21/00 letter to John Asmar from Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq.; Ex. 11 – 9/8/00 letter to Marilyn Mullen Healy, Esq. from Ralph Stone; Ex. 12 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages in case styled: National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case #99-3844-CI-11; Ex. 13 – Palm Beach County National Utility Company, Inc. vs. Palm Beach County Health Department, 390 So.2d115(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ex. 14 – R. K. Overstreet, as Tax Collector of Dade County, et al. vs. Robert L. Blum, etc., et al, 227So.2d197(Fla. S.Ct. 1969); Ex. 15 – State of Florida ex rel. Joseph J. Springer vs. Montie Smith, as Chief of Police, City of Dania, 189 So.2d846(Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Ex. 16 – Clearwater Code Sec 44.58 Illegal Signs, Supplement No. 10; and Ex. 17 – 23 USCA § 131 (q) – (t)), and Car Spa Clearwater Exhibit 1 – application for site plan approval with attachments, it is evident the property is in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f. Specifically, Secs. 3-1803(Y) 3,1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f and Sec. 44.55(3)(b) of the previous land development code required sign compliance or removal by 1/19/96. The billboard/sign still exists as a nonconforming sign. The transitional rules of the current land development regulations Secs. 1-106.B and 106.G require that signs/billboards not lawfully existing at the time of this development code be brought into compliance with this code. The billboard/sign fails to be lawful under the current code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Car Spa Clearwater by reason of the foregoing are in violation of Secs. 3-1803(Y), 3-1806(B)(1)c, d, e, & f 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Car Spa Clearwater are to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days after the court’s final judgment in National Advertising Company vs. City of Clearwater Case #99-3844-CI-11. The burden shall rest upon Infinity Outdoor, Inc. and Car Spa Clearwater 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 by the specified compliance date, Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 the specified compliance date. If Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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 Infinity Outdoor, Inc. 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. Members Tieman, Cole, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Allbritton voted “Nay.” Motion carried. H1. Case 38-00 – Request to Continue by Representative Owner: Glen Ellen Mobile Home Park c/o Diversified Investments Lessee: Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. 2894 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) - Fox Attorney Aileen Reilly, representative, requested Case 38-00 be continued. She said she had intended to file a motion with the Circuit Court regarding this case but was out of state for a funeral. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended the continuance not be granted. Discussion ensued regarding case circumstances. Member Tieman moved to deny the request to continue Case 38-00. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Due to time constraints, it later was recommended this case be continued. AND I1. Case 39-00 Owner: Stowell Signs 2815 – 2817 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Sign) - Fox Due to time constraints, Mr. Smith, representing Stowell Signs, recommended this case be continued. Member Caffentzis moved to continue Case 38-00 to October 25, 2000 and Case 39-00 to November 8, 2000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 - Unfinished Business – None. ITEM #3 - Other Board Action/Discussion Case 26-98 – Addressing Board re fine Bill V. & Sophia Stathopoulos 1975 Drew Street (Building) – Scott Sophia Stathopoulos said due to personal problems, she did not realize fines on the property were accruing. The fine is now approximately $33,000. Ed Armstrong, representative, said Ms. Stathopoulos had thought she was in compliance after pulling permits to renovate a building. She had unknowingly hired an unlicensed contractor whom she replaced upon learning his certification was deficient. The project is complete and had a final inspection in November 1999. Ms. Stathopoulos reviewed mortgage, tank removal, and other problems related to the property that had occurred since the death of her husband in 1994. Stephanie Stathopoulos stated her mother had been overwhelmed after the death of her father. Mr. Armstrong requested relief. He said Ms. Stathopoulos had felt she had met the letter and spirit of the law. Inspector Robert Scott said the property owner knew the property was not in compliance since August 1999. He recommended the fine be reduced but not eliminated due to City costs. Staff has spent more than 2 years of effort related to this case. He recommended the fine be reduced to $1,500. Discussion ensued regarding problems Mrs. Stathopoulos had encountered and her delay in addressing this issue in a timelier manner. Member Caffentzis moved that concerning Case 26-98, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board recommends the fine be reduced from $33,000 to $1,500 if paid within 30 days of this hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 – New Business Repeat Violations It was requested staff present ways to impose fines on repeat offenders without having to hear the case again. Community Development Code Revisions It was requested staff brief the board regarding amendments to the Community Development Code. ITEM #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings COD2000-03633 $310.10 Steven Schwartz 904 Myrtle Avenue 1670 Sparkling Court Ira E. Nicholson’s Addition Dunedin, Florida 34698-3203 Block 1, Lot 10 less street COD2000-03628 O. and Lillie M. James $316.00 807 Vine Avenue 705 Pennsylvania Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Pine Crest Sub, Blk 7, Lot 9 COD2000-03629 Roderick Griffin $304.48 1550 F3 McMullen-Booth Road 705 Pennsylvania Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33759 Pine Crest Sub, Blk 7, Lot 10 COD2000-03407 Hoke S. Russell $297.26 1871 McKinley Street 916 Plaza Street Clearwater, Florida 33765-2440 Plaza Park, Blk G, Lot 9 COD2000-03635 WSF Trust 8/6/90 $308.00 C/o Tony Farley 1022 North Missouri Avenue 1022 North Missouri Avenue Springfield #2, Blk 2, Lot 7 Clearwater, Florida 33755-3349 COD2000-02144 Car Spa Clearwater $851.00 515 East Las Olas Boulevard 2516 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Suite 1100 Studebaker’s Sub, Lot 2 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Member Tieman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Approval of the Minutes Member Allbritton moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 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 #7 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.