Loading...
01/24/2001MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER January 24, 2001 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Sheila Cole Member Franke Huffman Member Joyce Martin Member Peter Caffentzis Member Absent: David Allbritton 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 1:00 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 1a) Case 42-00 (Cont’d from 11/8 & 12/13/00) To be Continued to 6/27/01 per Sec. 7-102(c) William, Michael & Assoc. Inc. (Philip J. Matonte, RA) 307 Leeward Island (building) - Chaplinsky Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the property is in compliance. According to code, if the violation is not repeated within six months, the case will be withdrawn. Member Caffentzis moved to continue Case 42-00 to June 27, 2001. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1b) Case 43-00 (Cont. from 11/8 & 12/13/00) McDowell Holdings Inc. (McDowell Dental Office) 1433 Court Street (landscape) – Kurleman Board Secretary Sue Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Notice of Violation was issued on August 11, 2000, mailed certified, regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The Respondent was not present and had no representation. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman said he had inspected the subject property on August 11, 2000, after notice by the CRT (Community Response Team) and neighbor complaint. The dental office business occupies two parcels with parking to the west. A landscape plan is on file. Residential properties on Rogers Street abut the rear of the property. The parcel to the rear of the subject property was purchased, the fence relocated to the south, and the landscape buffer on the subject property removed. The required 10-foot wide buffer was replaced with parking for approximately one dozen vehicles on a parcel zoned residential. In February 2000, the CRT attempted to bring the site into compliance. Staff rejected the submitted site plan as it lacked more than 40 items. Staff rejected the second submission due to its deficiencies and failure to identify setbacks. Inspector Kurleman identified City Exhibit 6 a as photograph the CRT had taken of the subject property in January 2000, and photographs he had taken in August and December 2000, and January 2001, noting the office’s rear parking area is extended into the residential yards. Staff recommends replacement of the entire south buffer to be 10-feet wide, include two shade trees, 27 shrubs, and an automatic irrigation system, and be adjacent to the paved parking lot, per the approved landscape plan submitted in May 1995, and replace missing/declining shrubs in the west buffer. No parking is permitted in approved landscape areas. A fence may be required. He indicated the property owner has not been cooperative. Mr. Kurleman recommended the property comply within 15 days or a fine of $250/day be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 9, including a petition from neighboring residents who oppose commercial encroachment on Rogers Street. The City has not yet cited the property for a zoning violation. One resident requested the City impose landscape requirements for the subject property. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said the rear property was purchased approximately three years ago. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the landscape buffer is required to shield residential properties from commercial uses. Concern was expressed the property owner has taken no action to remedy the violation. It was felt the business’ parking imposes on the neighbor’s quality of life. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 43-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 24, 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 Code Inspector Scott Kurleman, (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-9 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 3 – code reference; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 – notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – photos; Ex. 7 – petition from surrounding residents; Ex. 8 – application for site plan approval; and Ex. 9 – site plan/landscaping plan dated 1/12/94), it is evident the property is in violation of Section(s) 3-1204 (A), (B), (F), (I), & (L) of the Code in that a required landscape buffer has been removed and cars are being parked on this area. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section(s) 3-1204 (A), (B), (F), (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 February 17, 2001. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before February 17, 2001, the Respondent 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 February 17, 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. 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. 1c) Case 44-00 (Cont’d from 11/8 & 12/13/00) B&K Property Management Inc. (B&K Plaza/Dominos Pizza) 2245 Nursery Road (landscape) - Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Notice of Violation was issued on July 24, 2000, mailed certified, regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Mr. Kurleman said he had inspected the subject property on July 24, 2000, after notice by a member of the public. The property owner had failed to install required landscaping in conjunction with remodeling the structure. Open holes in the asphalt and piles of dirt and debris were on site. He visited the property today. The site is now in compliance, except curbs on interior islands are missing. He recommended the property comply within 30 days or a fine of$50/day be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 7. Mr. Kurlman identified photographs of the property taken on January 22, 2001. David Wilson, representative, noted the citation did not address curbing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the requirement is listed on the landscape plan and cited under Sec. 3-1204(A). Mr. Wilson said installation may be delayed by County permitting issues. It was noted timbers could be installed, rather than curbs. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 44-00, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 24, 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 Code Inspector Scott Kurleman and Representative David Wilson, Esquire, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 –property appraiser printout; Ex. 3 – code sections cited; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – composite photos; and Ex. 7 – revised landscape plan dated 11/1/00), it is evident the property is in violation of Section(s) 3-1204 (A) of the Code in that the required interior curbing has not been installed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section(s) 3-1204 (A) 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 30 days of issuance of a county permit for curbing and that a status report on this case be given at the March 28, 2001 meeting. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before the specified compliance date, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond the specified compliance date. If Respondent does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1d) Case 01-01 David L. & Catherine F. Jones 1200 Melonwood Avenue (building) - Coccia Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Notice of Violation was issued on August 1, 2000, mailed certified, regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Building Construction Inspector Benjamin Coccia said he had inspected the subject property on August 1, 2000, after an anonymous complaint to Building Inspector Bill Wright was passed on to him. Staff was unable to access the property due to a fence and a dog. Although overgrown trees and shrubs further impeded inspection of the property, it appeared some type of construction or demolition work, without permit, was underway. The violation continued upon reinspection of the property on August 17, 2000. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 8. Mr. Coccia said Mr. Wright had taken photographs on July 10, and August 18, 2000. He identified photographs he had taken today. The landscaping has been cut back. He said demolition work on the structure has continued. While the homeowner is permitted to perform the work, a permit is required. He recommended the property comply within 30 days or be fined $50/day. David L. Jones, property owner, said the wall of the addition was falling down due to dry rot and he removed pieces of the room as they fell off. He said the addition is not part of the original house. It was noted a portion of the addition’s roof remains. It was felt the attached structure is unsafe. Building Office Kevin Garriott reported a permit is needed to remove any portion of structure. The City needs to inspect the work to make sure unsafe conditions do not remain. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 01-01, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 24, 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 Code Inspector Mike Coccia and Respondent David Jones, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation and order to stop work; Ex. 2 – notice of violation and certified mail receipt; Ex. 3 – affidavit of posting; Ex. 4 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 – code sections cited; Ex. 6 – affidavit of violation request for hearing; Ex. 7 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 8 - composite photographs of conditions dated 7/10/00 and 8/16/00), it is evident the property is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083 & Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code in that construction work was done without permits and/or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083 & Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER: It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by March 4, 2001. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before March 4, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond March 4, 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. 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. 1e) Case 02-01 Juan & Mark J. Costa 612 S. Duncan Avenue (building) – Coccia Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Notice of Violation was issued on July 17, 2000, mailed certified, regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Mr. Coccia said on July 17, 2000, Bill Wright was training him in the neighborhood when Juan Costa requested they come to his house regarding a flooding problem. In the back yard, they observed a room addition under construction without a permit. Staff issued a Stop Work Order. He said the violation still exists. He identified City Exhibit 8 as photographs taken of the subject property on July 17, 2000, and January 12, and 24, 2001. He recommended the property comply within 30 days or a fine of $50/day be imposed. Mr. Garriott stated to obtain a permit, the property owner needs to obtain an engineer drawing of the floor plan, electrical, and plumbing. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 7. Agnes Costa said the City has caused area drainage problems. She said when it rains, her house floods. She said her family cannot rent out the duplex’s apartment due to flooding problems. The flooding has ruined their furniture and kitchen cabinets. Mr. Costa said his attorney was to have written a letter to the City regarding this issue. He said he has paid a deposit to receive the necessary drawing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the property owner has not taken legal action against the City related to flooding issues. Member Caffentzis moved that concerning Case 02-01, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 24, 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 Code Inspector Mike Coccia and Respondent Juan Costa and Mrs. Agnes Costa, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – affidavit of service; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – code sections cited; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 7 - composite photographs of conditions dated 7/17/00), it is evident the property is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083(2) & Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code in that a room addition was constructed without permits and/or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083(2) & Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER: It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by March 19, 2001. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before March 19, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond March 19, 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. 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. 1f) Case 03-01 William J. & Mary J. Kuhn 1923 Flora Road (housing) - Wright Board Secretary Diana read the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Notice of Violation was issued on August 4, 2000, mailed certified, regular mail, and posted on the property and at City Hall. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright said he had inspected the subject property on June 2, 2000, after notice by the tenant regarding cracks in the walls. He said a sinking problem is causing concrete blocks from breaking away from the building. He filed a housing report on June 9, 2000. The garage is sinking. Cracks in the inside shower are causing water to drain improperly. Some interior doors no longer close. Mr. Wright said no repairs have been made. He identified photographs taken on August 4, 2000 and January 23, 2001 showing large cracks, gaps, crumbling stucco, and a beam separating from a wall. He expressed concern the condition of the house has worsened and may not be safe for human occupancy. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 8. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said the tenant will have to vacate once the City places the house on its unsafe list. William Kuhn, owner, said the property’s problems are not his fault. He said the insurance company has determined the presence of a sinkhole and paid out the face value of the policy. He said other area homes with sinkhole problems continue to crack even after repairs are complete. He felt the house needed to stabilize before any repairs are made. He has been in touch with a realtor as he plans to sell the house. He said his tenant has been told to vacate the property by February 1, 2001. Building Official Kevin Garriott said if the house is not repaired, the City will raze it and place a lien on the property for demolition costs. In response to a question, Mr. Wright estimated the building will be unsafe within 90 days if nothing is done. Discussion ensued regarding options and mitigating circumstances. Member Huffman moved that concerning Case 03-01, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on January 24, 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 Code Inspector William Wright and Respondent William Kuhn, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 – housing inspector’s report; Ex. 2 - housing code; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 - notice of violation; Ex. 5 – insurance letter dated 8/14/00; Ex. 6 – affidavit of violation request for hearing; Ex. 7 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 8 - composite photographs of conditions dated 1/23/01), it is evident the property is in violation of Section(s) 302.1, 305.2, 305.12, 305.16, & 305.20, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Ch. 49 of the Code in the Respondent has failed to comply with housing report dated 6/9/00. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section(s) 302.1, 305.2, 305.12, 305.16, & 305.20, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Ch. 49 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 to having the structure unoccupied by March 4, 2001 and beginning remediation of the structure by May 3, 2001. It is further ordered that a status report be given by Inspector Wright at the April 25, 2001 meeting. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before the specified compliance dates, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred and no/100 dollars ($200.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond the specified compliance dates which fine may be implemented by the Board at the April 25, 2001 meeting. If Respondent does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board Order resulting from a public hearing. A petition for rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the Order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the petition to reconsider or rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 3:18 to 3:30 p.m. Item #2 – Unfinished Business 2a) Case 28-00 - Affidavit of Compliance KVB Corp. 2275 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (landscape) – Kurleman Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 28-00. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2b) Case 40-00 - Rehear to determine status of compliance Barry & Eugenia Taylor 2801 Edenwood Street (fence) - Kurleman Mr. Kurleman stated the board had requested this case be reviewed for compliance. He identified photographs of the subject property taken on November 21 and December 20, 2000 and January 24, 2001. Eugenia Taylor, owner, has indicated they are in the process of removing the chain link fence in the front setback. Member Tieman moved that the property owners of the subject property in Case 40-00 remove the entire fence by February 15, 2001 or a fine of $100/day be imposed until compliance is reached. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #3 – Other Board Action/Discussion 3a) Request to Address Board re fine at future meeting Case 22-99 Sioutis, Anastasopoulos, Psaltis (Majestics Night Club) 470-484 Mandalay Avenue (landscape) - Kurleman Mr. Kurleman said the property owner has requested a reduction to the fine on the property. The tenant did not maintain the landscaping. Currently, the property is occupied by a construction trailer related to a nearby condominium project. The building is empty. Member Cole moved to hear a request regarding Case 22-99 on March 28, 2001. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3b) Case 25-98 - Addressing Board re fine Thomas L. George Jr. 417 N. Washington Avenue (building) - Scott In his October 20, 2000 letter, Thomas George, Jr. reviewed problems he had experienced when remodeling his home and requested his fine be reduced. Building Construction Inspector Robert Scott did not oppose a reduction in the fine but recommended City expenses be recouped. Member Huffman moved to reduce the fine for Case 25-98 from $21,200 to $1,500, payable by February 23, 2001. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #4 – New Business – None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Lotus Enterprises Inc COD2000-04601 1411 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard $296.06 Boulevard Heights, Blk C, Lots 2-4 and 23-24 12/13/00 action was to readdress at this meeting. Withdrawn Brightwater Investment Establishment COD2000-05069 155 Brightwater Drive $407.00 Bayside Sub No. 2, Lot 14 James Brooks Jr. COD2000-05344 1404 Taft Avenue $250.00 Lincoln Place, Blk 2, Lot 6 Jennifer Campbell COD2000-05005 1461 South Betty Lane $250.00 Brookhill Unit 1, Blk B, Lot 5 Clearwater Group Ltd. COD2000-05183 1212 South Missouri Avenue B $250.00 Section 22-29-15, Metes & Bounds 21/01 Thomas Floyd COD2000-05006 604 Seminole Street $250.00 E.P. Merritt's, Blk 1, Lots 4 and 5 less W62-1/2' MOL Rodrigues McLeod COD2000-04506 506 Cedar Street $250.00 J.J. Eldridge, Blk C, W40' Lot 32 Michael Nelson COD2000-05042 2955 Meadow Oak Drive North $372.40 Timber Ridge of Countryside Unit 2, Lot 66 Norwest Mortgage Inc. COD2000-05243 1025 Melonwood Avenue $250.00 Woodvalley Unit 5, Blk 4, Lot 23 Gwendolyn Taplin COD2000-04935 703 Nicholson Street $250.00 Ira E. Nicholson's Add, Blk 1, Lot 13 Ruth Wilson COD2000-05002 906 N. Pennsylvania Avenue $250.00 Pine Crest, Blk 2, Lot 3 and E1/2 vac alley adj on W Jamie Wright COD2000-04972 2430 Moore Haven Drive West $250.00 Woodgate of Countryside Unit 1, Lot 6 Member Tieman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings, with the exception of the Lotus Enterprises Inc. property at 1411 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Approval of the Minutes Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 2000, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.