Loading...
09/26/2001MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER September 26, 2001 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair David Allbritton Member Franke Huffman Member Joyce Martin Member Absent: Peter Caffentzis Member Sheila Cole Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman 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 Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 04-01 - (Cont. from 3/28/01) Edward & Sharon M. McGettrick 2471 Chaucer Street (Development Code) – Doherty Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, as the violation was corrected prior to the March 28, 2001 meeting, the item was automatically continued to this meeting. As no recurrence of the violation has occurred, this case was withdrawn. B. Case 07-01 - (Cont. from 3/28/01) John A. Eifert 1437 Court Street (Community Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, as the violation was corrected prior to the March 28, 2001 meeting, the item was automatically continued to this meeting. As no recurrence of the violation has occurred, this case was withdrawn. C. Case 36-01 New Era Network II LTD Partnership 2898 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Community Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman This property is now in compliance. Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code this case is automatically continued for six months. If there is no recurrence of the violation, the case will be withdrawn at that time. D. Case 37-01 Chauncey Clearwater Trailer Court Inc. c/o Beverly Martin, Tre 2143 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Community Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman This property is now in compliance. Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code this case is automatically continued for six months. If there is no recurrence of the violation, the case will be withdrawn at that time. E. Case 38-01 Crisscross Center Company 2729 State Road 580 (Community Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. Service was obtained by certified mail. In response to a question, Robin Goris, representative for Crisscross Center Company, said he agreed that a violation occurred, but not on all counts. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Kurleman said City staff observed the violations. On July 17, 2001, when he inspected the property, he observed approximately 390 shrubs and 5 shade trees had declined on the property. Crisscross Center Company had submitted a landscape plan in July 2000. He said it appeared that a portion of the irrigation system was not functioning and the landscaping had declined due to a lack of maintenance. A notice of violation was issued on July 18, 2001. He cited the applicable sections of the Code that pertain to the violations. Upon reinspection of the property, he found the company had dumped wood shavings in landscaped areas and moved the parking area without permits. The landscaping had remained in a declined condition. Ownership of the property was verified through the property appraiser’s office. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted Exhibits 1-7, photographs. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said Section 3-1204(I) of the Code covers most of the subject violations for this property. He said a permit is required to alter the parking lot. Ms. Goris said Crisscross Center Company’s owner is not the owner of CC Travel. She acknowledged receipt of the notice of violation by certified mail. She said she had a child two weeks prior to the notice and Crisscross Center Company was extremely busy, therefore, she did not respond to the violations. She said originally, when the plants were installed, the company experienced several hardships. The Planning Department dictated to the Company the number and type of plants required and where they needed to be placed on the property. She said she never had the opportunity to dispute their requirements. Three of the five trees planted were stolen. An arborist told the company to wait until Spring to replace the remaining trees as they may have new growth. She said there was no problem with the irrigation system, and that the wiring was for light posts. She said the company spent over $14,000 on landscaping and experienced problems with it due to the drought. She said although the company wishes to comply with Code, it has experienced financial difficulties. She said she did not realize increasing the parking spaces was a Code violation. She said she also experienced difficulties with one of the Planning Department staff who claimed her husband had threatened the staff member. She said that claim was untrue. She requested additional parking spaces. She requested clarification regarding signage on the property. She stated she was told that if more landscaping was installed, she could also install additional signage. She said she has always had mulch/wood chips down and disputed Inspector Kurleman’s remarks regarding same. The Board’s role was explained, including the need for Ms. Goris to discuss expansion of the parking lot, signage, and the required landscaping with City staff, not this Board. It was remarked that Crisscross Center Company was permitted to build their building based on the landscaping plan. Missing plants must be replaced. If plants were moved around on the property or stolen, the company should contact staff regarding the requirements to mitigate the situation. It was noted that the City permits additional watering time for new plantings. Mr. Kurleman said the City made concessions for setbacks and parking, therefore additional landscaping was required and Crisscross Center Company agreed to those requirements. In May, the City was made aware of their difficulty in obtaining the proper size trees. He felt Ms. Goris should not wait until Spring to replace the trees. He said even if plants are watered one day a week, they will survive. For new plantings, 60 days of daily watering is permitted. Discussion ensued and it was felt due to the company’s financial situation, 60 days would be a sufficient time for the applicant to replace the landscaping and come into compliance. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case No. 38-01 the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 26, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT - After hearing testimony of Inspector Scott Kurleman for City and Robin Goris for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation dated 7/18/01 and return receipt; Ex. 2 – applicable code section; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 – notice of hearing dated 9/4/01; Ex. 6 – composite photos dated 7/17/01 and 9/21/01; and Ex. 7 – landscape plan], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that the landscaping has not been maintained in a healthy growing condition and trees and shrubs need to be replaced. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1204 (A)(B)(D)(I)(L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER - It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by within 60 days (11/25/01. 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 November 25, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250) per day (this was amended to $100/day) for each day the violation continues beyond November 25, 2001. 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. A fine imposed pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes continues to accrue until the violator comes into compliance or until judgment is rendered in a suit to foreclose on a lien filed pursuant to Chapter 162, whichever occurs first. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. The motion was duly seconded. Member Huffman moved to amend the motion by reducing the amount of the fine from $250 to $100 per day. The motion to amend was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Allbritton, Huffman and Kerwin voted “aye.” Members Martin and Tieman voted “nay.” Motion carried. Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion, Members Allbritton, Huffman, Tieman and Kerwin voted “aye.” Member Martin voted “nay.” Motion carried. F. Case 39-01 Discount Auto Parts, Inc. (Repeat Violation) 1600-1606 N. Myrtle Avenue (Community Development Code/Landscape) - Kurleman Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service was obtained by certified mail. In response to a question, Aaron Shutz, representative for Discount Auto Parts, Inc., said he did not agree to the violation in full. Ms. Dougall-Sides said this is a repeat violation of a previous order dated May 5, 2000, by the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. The Order stated the Board could impose a fine without further discussion. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-sides, Inspector Kurleman said the notice of repeat violations was mailed on August 9, 2001 for declining shrubs, dead turf, and refuse and debris on the property. At the August inspection, the property appeared to be vacant. He said Mr. Shutz contacted him on August 31, 2001, indicating he had replaced the shrubs. Mr. Kurleman said upon reinspection of the property this week, he found declining/missing shrubs. Only turf had been replaced. In addition, the applicant has been before the board two previous times. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Board can impose up to $500/day fine in repeat violation cases. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City Exhibits #1-6. Mr. Schutz disputed Mr. Kurleman’s dates regarding reinspection and debris remaining on the property. He said the debris was removed and perhaps other debris was thrown onto the property. He said when the store was closed for a short period of time, the water and electricity were shut off. Due to the drought and the lack of electricity to run the sprinklers, the plants died. He said the landscaping has been corrected and feels the turf is coming back on its own. He felt with irrigation, rain and some grass plugs, the turf would recover. Mr. Schutz said there are approximately 20 other local area businesses with brown turf. He submitted Defendant Exhibit 1 - photographs of his business and other surrounding businesses. In response to a question, Mr. Schutz said he felt within 60 days, 99% of the turf would recover. Mr. Kurleman disagreed, stating the St. Augustine turf that died will not come back. He said only weeds are left and felt the sod needs to be replaced. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted that Mr. Schutz previously had been ordered by the Board to comply. Mr. Schutz felt he was in compliance and that the turf would improve. Member Allbritton moved that concerning Case No. 39-01 the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 26, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT - After hearing testimony of Inspector Scott Kurleman for City and Aaron Shutz, Real Estate Development Manager, representing the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – notice of repeat violation and affidavit of posting; Ex. 2 – printout from property appraiser; Ex. 3 – applicable code sections; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 – notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – Diana letter and attached Order dated 5/5/00; and Ex. 7 – composite photos prior to 8/30/01) and Defendant’s Exhibit 1 (photos of subject property and properties in the area), it is evident landscaping has not been maintained in a healthy growing condition and that some groundcover needs to be replaced, and 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 Section 3-1204 (B)(I)(L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, that Respondent was found to have violated the same provision by the Board on August 25, 1999, April 26, 2000 and August 8, 2001, and that Respondent has committed a repeat violation. ORDER - It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent shall comply with said section(s) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by September 26, 2001. It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of fifteen hundred and no/100 dollars ($1,500) for the repeat violations. A certified copy of this Order shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, and once recorded, shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose a 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. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 07-98 & 30-98 - (Cont. from 7/25/01) Fine Reduction Request Maria Smith-Pernell for Mary W. Smith 1111 Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail (Housing and Building Codes) - Wright Maria Smith-Pernell, representative for Mary W. Smith, said she has three more weeks of cosmetic work/repairs to do. She needs to replace interior drywall and electrical outlets and paint the exterior. She already has replaced the electrical, plumbing and the roof. She has contacted Miles Ballogg, the City’s Brownfields Coordinator regarding removal of the fuel tank buried on the property. She said the project has taken some time because she had to install central heat and air and the associated vents. It was remarked that at the previous Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting, Inspector Bill Wright had stated the contractor indicated approximately $20,000 in permit fees were paid for renovation of the home. In response to a question, Ms. Diana said the fines for Cases, #07-98 and #30-98 total approximately $60,000. Mr. Wright said the applicant’s 60-day extension by the Building and Flood Board expired on September 11, 2001. Since then, the applicant has had one rough electrical and mechanical inspection. He recommended the Board not reduce the fines until the property is in complete compliance. Ms. Smith-Pernell said her contractor told her the necessary repairs and inspections would be finished in 3 weeks. Her contractor had indicated to her that the inspections had been done for the work completed. Inspector Wright disagreed. He said no roof, drywall, or other inspections have been done. He said he has made a minimum of five trips to the property to try to meet the contractor. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said it would take a good contractor working diligently on the property six weeks to complete the necessary repairs. Ms. Smith-Pernell said she had spent over $20,000 on the house. She lives in Washington, D.C. and has an account set up here to pay the sub-contractors. It was suggested Ms. Smith-Pernell expedite the work. Member Tieman moved to continue the request for reduction of fines to the November 28, 2001, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 33-01 - Affidavit of Compliance Melvin Spinoza 1632 Drew Street (Building Code) – Coccia AND C. Case 34-01 – Affidavit of Compliance Valerie Hofmeister & Merle Blasjo, Tre. 1265 Lakeview Road (Development Code) - Doherty AND D. Case 35-01 – Affidavit of Compliance Lloyd & Kim Lehan 909 Bruce Avenue (Development Code) Phillips Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 33-01, 34-01, and 35-01. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION MCEB Rules and Regulations It was agreed to postpone this item until a full Board is present. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she will be drafting a new proposal regarding liens. 4. NEW BUSINESS Rob Powers, the City’s Industrial Pre-treatment Coordinator, discussed a recently passed City grease ordinance that would enact requirements for grease traps to reduce sanitary overflow in the City’s sewer system. In response to a question, he said staff also is addressing oil separators. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS Nasr-Eddin Bawi COD2001-04368 1100 Satinleaf Street $ 200.00 Skycrest Unit B, Blk D, Lot 3 James Brooks Jr and Cleo Sommons COD2001-03400 1404 Taft Avenue $ 250.00 Lincoln Place, Blk 2, Lot 6 Member Tieman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 8/22/01 Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 22, 2001, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.