Loading...
11/28/2001MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 28, 2001 Present: Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair David Allbritton Member Franke Huffman Member Joyce Martin Member Kevin Teismann Member Sheila Cole Member Peter Caffentzis 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 Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 3:02 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 40-01 (Contd. from 10/24/01) Complete Automotive Repair 203 S. Myrtle Avenue (Development Code/Sign) – Fox Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Mary Fox stated upon initial inspection of the property on October 23, 2000, she observed a freestanding sign in the right-of-way. The sign dimensions exceeded size requirements per Code. The current property owner had been given an amortization letter regarding signage regulations and subsequently removed only the top panel of the sign. Ownership was verified through the property appraiser’s office. The sign continues to violate the minimum setback requirements of 5 feet. The sign also violates current Code that permits only monument signs on this property in this location. Ms. Fox said on July 20, 2001, a notice of violation was issued to the property owner and posted at City Hall. Upon reinspection, Ms. Fox said the property remains in violation of the development code as it pertains to signs. She said the sign would have to be removed in order to come into compliance and if replaced, must be a monument-type sign located 5 feet from the sidewalk. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1-10, photographs and a survey depicting the dimensions and location of the sign on the property. In response to questions, Ms. Fox said the right-of-way generally begins 1 foot from the sidewalk on the building side of the sidewalk, and extends 5 feet. She said the entire sign structure must be set back 5 feet from all property lines. She described a monument sign and gave the allowable dimensions. Monument signs in the downtown district are permitted at a maximum height of 4 feet. Ms. Dougall-Sides read the definition of a monument sign as stated in the Code. Len Levin, property owner, said he has owned the property for 30 years and the sign has existed for nearly 32 years. He said he believed there was a “taking” of the property at one time and the sign was originally 3 inches over the property line. He said it is difficult for a business to survive in the downtown. He ignored the 3-inch encroachment into the setback because he thought the sign may have fallen under a grandfather provision. He said at one time he was willing to spend money to make any necessary changes to improve the property because of numerous plans over the years to revitalize the downtown. He now feels nothing will ever change. In response to a question, Ms. Fox said October 13, 1992, was the compliance date for Mr. Levin to comply with the sign Code and staff is just now addressing this particular property. In response to a question, Mr. Levin said bringing the sign into compliance now would not affect the tenant’s ability to do business. It was remarked that the base of the sign is only 3 inches into the right-of-way, but the top of the sign significantly juts over the sidewalk into the right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding a sufficient timeframe to bring the property into compliance as the holidays are approaching. Mr. Levin felt he needed 45 days to comply. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case No. 40-01, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 28, 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 Mary Jo Fox for City and Len Levin for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-10 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 – affidavit of posting; Ex. 4 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 – amortization letter; Ex. 6 – information summary; Ex. 7 – survey; Ex. 8 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 9 – notice of hearing; and Ex. 10 – composite photos dated 10/23/00, 2/21/01, 4/9/01 and 7/20/01), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a freestanding pole sign is located in public right-of-way and freestanding pole signs are not allowed in the downtown district. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1803(L)(Y) 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 within 45 days (January 12, 2002). 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 January 12, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars and no/100 ($150.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond January 12, 2002. If Respondent does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 42-01 (Cont’d. from 10/24/01) Richard A. Hoffman and Maxine I. Nordmann 1919 Kings Highway (Building Code) – Coccia Continued to 1/26/02 Staff has requested that Case 42-01 be continued. Member Cole moved to continue Case 42-01 to the January 23, 2002, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 43-01 Robert Schoeller 630 Drew Street (Building Code) – Wright Member Huffman moved to continue Case 43-01 to the May 22, 2002, meeting per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 44-01 American Infoage 505 Virginia Lane (Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail and by posting the property. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Inspector Scott Kurleman said he noticed declining, dead, and missing plant material at this property while inspecting an adjacent property. He said approximately 155 shrubs, 154 ground cover plants, 7 live oaks, and 9 crepe myrtles were required at the property according to a previously submitted and approved landscape plan. The initial inspection was done on August 22, 2001 at which time he issued a notice of violation. He said irrigation is present but apparently not working properly. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted Exhibits 1-7, photographs, and a landscape plan for the property. Mr. Kurleman said since the initial inspection on August 22, 2001, the property owner has installed some new shrubs. Jim Bandurant, Chief Operating Officer for American Infoage, said he did not contest the violation. He said the company has experienced some financial difficulty and with the ongoing drought and problems with the irrigation system has not been able to replace all the plant material. He said the irrigation system had been damaged for some time, which caused the plants to decline. He said he has to install a new well system. He requested the landscape plan be modified as it included too many high maintenance plant materials that would not withstand the drought. It was remarked that Mr. Bonderant would have to request modifications to the landscape plan through the Planning Department. In response to a question, he requested 45 days to comply because of the upcoming holiday season. Member Cole moved that concerning Case No. 44-01 the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 28, 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 Jim Bandurant for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation and return receipt; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 – notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – landscape plan; and Ex. 7 - composite photos dated 8/22/01 and 11/27/01), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that the required landscaping has been neglected, landscape has not been maintained in a healthy growing condition; several trees have died and the irrigation system is not functional. 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 within 60 days (January 28, 2002). 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 January 28, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred and no/100 dollars ($100.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond January 28, 2002. If Respondent does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 45-01 Irene L. McClimans 1209 Edenville Avenue (Building Code) – Coccia Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. Service was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Inspector Mike Coccia said on September 11, 2001, he received an anonymous complaint regarding a residential swimming pool without permits or inspections, at which time he red tagged the property. He said the property owner had applied for a permit but had performed the work before the permit was approved. She had an above ground pool installed in ground. He said the manufacturer’s specifications do not allow the pool to be placed below ground level. He said he spoke to the homeowner on numerous occasions regarding her options. He said as of today, no changes have taken place and the property remains in violation of the building code. He said the concrete surrounding the pool was added after the stop work order was issued. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 –9, photographs. In response to a question, Irene McClimans said the pool is 24 x 18 feet and 4 feet deep with a cap on top. She purchased the pool from Mr. Pool on US19 in Clearwater. At that time, she requested they put the pool in for her. She was given instructions regarding permits, contacting Florida Power for electrical work, and a list of subcontractors. She said before she was able to obtain a permit a subcontractor arrived with a tractor and had already begun to dig. She felt there would not be a problem and the subcontractor proceeded with the work, which was completed within 4 hours. She said when the City inspector questioned the work, she spent several hours at the City discussing the matter with the permitting staff. She said she could not understand why others in her area, who used the same pool company, had sunk their above ground pools inground and had no problems. She felt she had done everything she could as a consumer. Her daughter, Jane McClimans, read excerpts from a document obtained from Mr. Pool that indicated to her as long as the pool was full of water, there should be no problem with it collapsing, and that the liner was guaranteed for 7 years. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia said the City requires certification from the manufacturer as to the stability of above ground pools being sunk inground or an engineering certification that the intended use is acceptable. Staff feels this use is different than the intended use. He said that specific information was requested of Ms. McClimans on August 24, 2001, and still has not been received to date. He said under this set of facts, Ms. McClimans would not have received a permit for the pool. In response to a question, Ms. McClimans said she indicated on her application that she wished to sink an above ground pool inground. Mr. Coccia said other requirements such as compliance with setbacks had to be reviewed by Zoning before her permit could be considered for approval and before staff could respond to her request. Building Official Kevin Garriott said the applicant knew of the permit requirement before she had the work done on the property. Although Ms. McClimans spoke to different personnel at the City in the same department, she was repeatedly told to provide information regarding engineering standards before the pool could be placed inground. He said the application first went to the Zoning, Building, and Public Works for review. Staff was waiting for her to comply with the last requirement regarding engineering standards. Ms. McClimans submitted a copy of a letter that she stated was faxed from the pool manufacturer to Mr. Pool. She said Mr. Pool has been in business for 30 years and has never had problems with above ground pools being placed inground. In response to a question, Mr. Garriott said when an above ground pool is proposed to be sunk inground, staff uses the criteria for an inground pool which states that an engineer must affirm the pool meets the criteria under the Code. It was remarked Ms. Climans felt she had gone through the proper steps and that Mr. Pool should resolve the matter. Member Allbritton moved to continue Case 45-01 to the January 23, 2002 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 07-98 & 30-98 - (Cont’d. from 9/26/01) Fine Reduction Request Maria Smith-Pernell for Mary W. Smith 1111 Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail (Housing and Building Codes) – Wright Discussion ensued regarding the length of time this property has been in violation. The owner was granted at least two extensions to complete necessary work but to date has not done so. In response to a question, Inspector Wright said as of this morning, no framing, drywall, or final plumbing inspections have been done. In response to a question, Ms. Diana said the fines continue to accrue. One case is at $3,100; the other is over $50,000. Mr. Salzman said the fines cannot be stopped until an Affidavit of Compliance is received. Concern was expressed that he fines would exceed the value of the property by the time compliance is met. Mr. Wright said he was unsure why the work has taken such a long time. Al McCloud, Ms. Smith-Pernell’s contractor, said he finished the project today and the property is now ready for final inspections. He said he experienced some personal problems that delayed the project. He said he left Mr. Wright a telephone message this morning. Maria Smith-Pernell, representing Mary W. Smith, said a Certificate of Occupancy was required before the water can be turned on, therefore the plumbing was one of the last projects to be completed. She said she is working with the City regarding removal of the fuel tank buried on the property. Member Huffman moved to rehear Cases 07-98 and 30-98 at the January 23, 2002, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 02-01- Affidavit of Compliance Juan & Mark J. Costa 613 S. Duncan Avenue (Building) Coccia AND Case 41-98 – Affidavit of Compliance Abdelmaged M. & Gail Ahmed 1505 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue (Building Code) Hinson Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 02-01 and 41-98. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Rules of Procedure Discussion ensued regarding changes to the board’s Rules of Procedure. Changes included minor housekeeping issues, actions requiring simple majority and the ability to address the Board regarding fines before compliance is reached. It was noted the Statement of Proceedings will include each party giving testimony will be limited to 15 minutes to present their case. The Board can grant additional time on a case by case basis. A request was made to revise the order worksheet to indicate a motion is being made. Member Huffman moved to accept the Rules of Procedure dated November 2001, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS - None 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS Viorel Caba COD2001-05490 and 05492 1970 Rainbow Drive $ 400.00 Skycrest Unit 8, Blk B, Lot 12 Robert Taupier COD2001-04635 2812 Candlewood Street $ 250.00 Woodvalley Unit 2, Blk 6, Lot 13 Benjamin Philip Homes Inc COD2001-05032 1540 Laura Street $ 281.00 Crest Lake Sub, Blk E, Lot 14 Trisha Jacobs COD2001-05212 718 Fairwood Forest Drive $ 250.00 Fairwood Forest, Lot 102 Roma Square Inc COD2001-05796 2009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard $ 200.00 Midway Sub, Lots 3, 4 and 5 Edward and Marie Finch III COD2001-05621 2226 Claiborne Drive $ 250.00 Morningside Estates Unit 1, Lot 114 Member Huffman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 10/24/01 Member Caffentzis moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 24, 2001, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.