Loading...
03/28/2001MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 28, 2001 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair David Allbritton Member Sheila Cole Member Peter Caffentzis Member Absent: Franke Huffman Member Joyce Martin 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 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. ITEM #1 - Public Hearings 1a). Case 04-01 - (Cont’d from 01/28/01) Edward & Sharon M. McGettrick 2471 Chaucer Street (Development Code) – Doherty Per Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, the violation has been corrected prior to today’s meeting and is automatically continued for a period of six months (September 26, 2001) and will be withdrawn at that time if there is no recurrence of the violation. 1b). Case 05-01 - (Cont’d from 02/28/01) Jamie L. Wright 2430 Moore Haven Dr. W. (Public Nuisance) - Phillips In a memo dated March 27, 2001, Inspector Phillips requested a continuance as the property has a new owner. This case was continued to the meeting of April 25, 2001. 1c) Case 07-01 - (Cont’d from 02/28/01) John A. Eifert 1437 Court Street (Development Code/Landscape) - Kurleman Per Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, the violation has been corrected prior to today’s meeting and is automatically continued for a period of six months (September 26, 2001) and will be withdrawn at that time if there is no recurrence of the violation. 1d) Case 08-01 - (Cont’d from 02/28/01) Herbert J. Furey & Joan G. Graf 18675 US 19N, Lot 337 (Building Code) – Coccia Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Property owners Herbert J. Furey and Joan G. Graf were not present. Service was obtained by posting the property. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Building Construction Inspector Mike Coccia said the subject mobile home is on a lot in a mobile home park. He was assigned the case following the resignation of a City inspector, who had cited the property in December 1999 for this violation. That case was closed upon the inspector’s resignation. He said the previous inspector had compiled a file on the subject property with information that indicated the property owner, Mr. Furey, had constructed the carport, along with other unpermitted structures in the mobile home park. He indicated his records did not reflect whether Mr. Furey did other work in the park. Mr. Coccia said he initially inspected the site on November 2, 2000 and found a carport, with offset posts and an overhang, had been constructed without a required permit or inspections. He issued a Stop Work order that day and a Notice of Violation on November 17, 2000. Permitting such a structure requires engineering drawings. No current application with engineering drawings is on file with the City. Mr. Coccia has not had contact with the property owner since the citation was issued. Mr. Coccia reinspected the property after the ordered compliance date and today. The property remains out of compliance. He said the structure is bending due to the cracking and bowing of the offset posts, which appear to be bearing too much weight. He said the structure could be considered unsafe. He identified City Exhibit 9 as photographs he had taken of the property on November 17, 2000 and March 27, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $50 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -9 and displayed photographs of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia said to comply the property owner must submit engineering drawings and obtain a permit for the structure or obtain a permit to dismantle it. Both options require City inspections. Concern was expressed the fine should be $100/day as it relates to a safety issue. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 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 Code Inspector Mike Coccia (the Respondent was not present and had no representation during public hearing), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-9 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation & order to stop work; Ex. 2 – notice of violation; Ex. 3 – affidavit of posting; Ex. 4 – code sections; Ex. 5 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 6 – complaint form; Ex. 7 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 8 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 9 - composite photographs of conditions dated 11/02/00 and 11/17/00), it is evident the property is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code in that a carport was installed without a permit and inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Sec. 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by May 6, 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 May 6, 2001, 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 May 6, 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. NOTE: Mr. Furey addressed the board at the end of the meeting, stating he had arrived late. The Board declined to rehear this case at this meeting. 1e) Case 09-01 Robert & Amy McGregor 2477 Chaucer Street (Development Code) – Doherty Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Property owner Robert McGregor was present. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail service. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Inspections Specialist Geri Doherty said the property had come to her attention on April 4, 2000, after an anonymous complaint. She inspected the property on April 5, 2000, and observed two hauling trailers in the setback and one hauling trailer in the right-of-way. The onsite boat is less than 20-feet long and does not violate Code. She issued a Notice of Violation and left a door hanger for the homeowner indicating he was not licensed for hauling activities and that hauling trailers are not permitted in the front setback or in residential rights-of-way. The issue related to a license tag on one of the onsite vehicles has been corrected. Ms. Doherty said the property owner’s home occupation license does not allow employees to come to the property or for the business to generate traffic greater than is normal for a residential neighborhood. She referenced Exhibit 9, the license application for Robby’s Assembly Service, which lists business activities as delivering and assembling items, such as gas grills and exercise equipment, at customer’s homes or businesses. In response to seven additional complaints that employees and day laborers were present, that semi-trailer trucks delivered supplies, that a playground set was assembled onsite, and that employees were loading hauling trailers onsite, Ms. Doherty inspected the property on numerous occasions. On April 19, 2000, she observed several employees arriving in the morning. She left a related door hangar. Two vehicles, registered at other addresses, were present. She said Mr. McGregor telephoned her on April 20, 2000 and indicated he did not intend to stop his activities as he had to make a living. On her April 27, 2000 visit, she took photographs of one hauling trailer in the front setback and one in the right-of-way. On her May 11, 2000 visit, she observed two vehicles at the home which she had not seen previously. On May 19, 2000, she arrived at the property at 6:28 a.m. and observed two trucks parked in the front, which did not belong to Mr. McGregor. A pickup arrived at 6:38 a.m. Ms. Doherty returned at 11:15 a.m. and observed several vehicles, belonging to employees, parked at the site. On May 29, 2000, she issued a Notice of Violation for employees coming to the house. The certified mail of the notice was returned to the City unclaimed. On June 23, 2000, Ms. Doherty posted the property with a Notice of Violation for onsite employees and traffic at this location. She did not observe semi-trailer trucks unloading at the site. On November 21, 2000 at 7:00 a.m., she observed two trucks in front of the house and a hauling trailer in the front setback. On November 29, 2000, she posted the property with a Notice of Violation for three violations: 1) employees coming to the house; 2) hauling trailers in the setback and right-of-way; and 3) increased traffic in a residential neighborhood. The compliance date for this Notice of Violation was December 4, 2000. On December 15, 2000, Ms. Doherty observed a pickup truck in the street and a hauling trailer loaded with boxes in the front setback. On December 29, 2000, she said no extra vehicles or hauling trailers were onsite. On January 2, 2001, she observed employees loading cardboard boxes into a pickup truck. A hauling trailer was parked in the property’s front setback. She said little has changed in the past year and the violations continue. Ms. Doherty identified City Exhibit 8 as photographs she had taken of the property on November 29 and December 15, 2000. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She identified an aerial view of the property, highlighting the front setback line. She recommended the property owner be given 10 days to comply. If violations continue, she recommended the board impose a fine of $100 per day per violation for every day violations can be documented. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -9 and displayed photographs of the site. Attorney Jason Bangos, representative, said the business has operated at this location for six years. He said the business does not have employees but hires subcontractors. He said the property owner wants no more problems. Concern was expressed that Mr. McGregor’s current willingness to comply contradicts his previous actions. Mr. Bangos said Mr. McGregor had felt he was being singled out for prosecution as other neighborhood properties do not comply with Code. He stated many of those who work on projects for Mr. McGregor, also are his friends. In response to a question, Ms. Doherty estimated she had spent 15 hours on this case. It was stated home occupation rules have been violated. It was recommended Mr. McGregor carefully manage visitor traffic to his property, so that it is not mistaken for employee parking. Member Allbritton moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 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 Code Inspector Geri Doherty for City, and Attorney Jason Bangos for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-9 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – affidavit of service; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – code sections; Ex. 5 – printout of occupational license; Ex. 6 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 7 - notice of hearing; Ex. 8 – composite photos dated 11/29/00, 12/15/00 and 1/2/01; and Ex. 9 – application for home occupation), it is evident the property is in violation of Sections 3-1102.A.2, 3-1102.A.5, & 3-1407.A.2.b of the Code regarding home occupations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1102.A.2, 3-1102.A.5, & 3-1407.A.2.b 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 April 16, 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 April 16, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred and no/100 dollars ($100.00) per violation, per day for each day the violation continues beyond April 16, 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 10-01 Vernon Pierce, TRE c/o Ronald J. Oppliger 1269 S. Highland Ave. (Public Nuisance) - Doherty Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Property owner Ronald J. Oppliger was present. He said he had purchased the property from Vernon Pierce. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail service. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Doherty said commercial vehicles are stored on the subject property adjacent to residential uses, including the Kalmia condominium complex. The business’ on the subject property is licensed as TCB Automotive Merchandise, providing indoor retail sales of auto parts. The property had come to her attention on March 22, 2000, after an anonymous complaint that people were living in the two large trailers parked onsite. She inspected the property on March 23, 2000 and spoke with Mr. Oppliger. She photographed a camping trailer and a RV, which was hooked up to the sewer hose and electric line, and construction equipment, licensed to Bingham’s Backhoe and Trailer Service. On March 28, 2000, a Kalmia condominium resident telephoned with a complaint. Mr. Oppliger met with the condominium association on March 31, 2000. Ms. Doherty and her supervisor also attended the meeting. Residents expressed concern regarding the outdoor storage of construction equipment, travel trailer, and RV on the subject property. On May 1, 2000, Ms. Doherty took photographs of the construction equipment, travel trailer, and RV. She Issued a Notice of Violation for illegal outdoor storage on May 19, 2000. The certified mail notice was returned unclaimed on June 15, 2000. Ms. Doherty said she then worked on a special project for three months. When she reinspected the property on December 13, 2000, the RV was in the rear, hooked up to the electrical line and sewer hose. Also, she observed a semi-trailer and backhoe. Two vehicles for sale were displayed in the front. Neither vehicle had a tag. An automobile in the rear also did not have a tag. These vehicles are considered inoperable. The sale of vehicles is not an approved use of this property. Ms. Doherty issued a Notice of Violation and hand delivered it to Ronald J. Oppliger’s son, Scott. When she reinspected the property on January 5, 2001, the RV was gone. Mr. Oppliger indicated it was being repaired and would be back in several weeks. On February 13, 2001, Ms. Doherty reinspected the property and observed the RV was present, although the sewage hose was not connected. She cited the property for outdoor storage of the RV, but not for people living in the RV, although she previously had observed lights inside, illuminated at night. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the Code forbids the use of RVs as living units in the City. She also cited the property for inoperative vehicles and illegal outdoor storage of construction equipment, which have current vehicle tags licensed to another Clearwater address. She said the outdoor storage is not related to the business, TCB Automotive Merchandise. She also observed the semi-truck parked in the front setback on March 14 and 24, 2001. She said a copy of the City Manager’s response to a letter from the property owner has been distributed. Ms. Doherty identified City Exhibit 9 as photographs she had taken of the property on March 23, May 1, and December 13, 2000 and February 13, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She recommended the property owner be given 15 days to comply or be fined $150 per day per violation for every day violations can be documented. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -9 and displayed photographs of the site. Ronald Oppliger, owner, said he has been in business at this location for more than 10 years. In response to concerns expressed by condominium residents, he said night deliveries now are made to the front of the building, construction equipment is not started before 7:00 a.m., and he has cleaned up the weeds and dust on his property. He said he also has removed the RV and agreed to install a landscape buffer. He expressed concern that in spite of his efforts, the City had cited him for unlawful storage on May 1, 2000. He said he had asked Ms. Doherty to leave his property after she took photographs without permission. He said he had requested this hearing to resolve the issues. In response to a question, he said the vehicles for sale belong to friends. It was felt Mr. Oppliger is running several businesses where only one is permitted. He said he stores the construction equipment, owned by Don Bingham, on site because Mr. Bingham does not have adequate space at his nearby business for storage. Concern was expressed that the RV is habitable whenever it is hooked up to a sewer hose and electric lines. Mr. Oppliger said he has left on lights, the radio, and television in the RV to discourage vandals. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Code prohibits the outdoor storage of construction equipment and RVs. She said Mr. Oppliger could apply for an outdoor storage permit, although the storage must relate to the onsite business. Mr. Teiman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 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 Code Inspector Geri Doherty for City and Ronald Oppliger for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-9 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 – Draft of letter to Oppliger from Horne; Ex. 4 – affidavit of service; Ex. 5 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 6 – occupational license; Ex. 7 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 8 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 9 - composite photographs dated 12/13/00, 2/13/01 and 1/28/98), it is evident the property is in violation of Section(s) 3-1503.B.6, 3-1502.F.1, & 3-915.B of the Code relating to exterior storage of construction equipment, untagged vehicles for sale and recreational vehicle hooked to sewer and electric in unapproved location. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section(s) 3-1503.B.6, 3-1502.F.1, & 3-915.B 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 April 21, 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 April 21, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($150.00) per violation, per day for each day the violation continues beyond April 21, 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. 1g) Case 11-01 Steven D. Kovash 1161 Marine Street (Development Code) - Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Property owner Steven D. Kovash was present. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by a process server. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman said the Public Works Department had contacted him after noticing the property when trimming trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Kurleman inspected the property on December 13, 2000 and observed two decaying laurel oak trees on the single-family residential property. He issued a Notice of Violation on December 13, 2000 with a compliance date of December 31, 2000. Mr. Kurleman reinspected the property and observed that one tree had been removed but the tree on the property’s southwest side continues to pose a danger to nearby property owners and the subject property. Florida Power will remove branches touching feeder lines but will not remove an entire tree. Mr. Kurleman identified City Exhibit 5 as photographs he had taken of the property on February 14, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions, which are extremely hazardous. He said the property owner claims financial difficulty. He recommended the property owner provide the City the authority to contract its removal and assess the property for related costs. He expressed concern the threat of a fine alone will not get the tree removed. He recommended the property owner be given 10 days to remove the tree or be fined $100 per day. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -9 and displayed photographs of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman stated he had provided the property owner with the names of local tree services. Concern was expressed the hazard imperils neighboring properties. Member Caffentzis moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 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 Code Inspector A. Scott Kurleman (the Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-5 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 5 – composite photos dated 2/14/01), it is evident the property is in violation of Sec. 3-1502(H)(3) in that dead and declining oak trees are present on the property and pose a danger to this and adjacent properties. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1502 (H)(3) 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 the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by April 9, 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 April 9, 2001, 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 April 9, 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. ITEM #2 – Unfinished Business 2a) Case 44-00 - Status Report B&K Property Management Inc (B&K Plaza/Dominos Pizza) 2245 Nursery Road (Development Code) - Kurleman Mr. Kurleman reported he had visited the site. Curbs have been installed as directed and the property is in compliance. He will issue an Affidavit of Compliance for acceptance at April’s meeting. 2b) Case 40-00 - Affidavit of Compliance Barry & Eugenia Taylor 2801 Edenwood Street (Development Code) - Kurleman Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 40-00. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2c) Case 01-01 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance David L. & Catherine F. Jones 1200 Melonwood Avenue (Building Code) – Coccia Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 01-01. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2d) Case 02-01 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Juan & Mark J. Costa 612 S. Duncan Avenue (Building Code) – Coccia Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 02-01. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2e) Case 22-99 - Addressing Board re Reduction in Fine Sioutis, Anastasopoulos, Psaltis (Majestics Night Club) 470-484 Mandalay Avenue (Development Code) – Kurleman Board Attorney Andy Salzman said, according to board rules, the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) cannot hear a request to reduce a fine until an Affidavit of Compliance has been issued. Inspector Scott Kurleman noted no Affidavit of Compliance has been issued as the property is not in compliance. Attorney Nicholas Economides, representative, referred to the May 24, 2000 MCEB meeting when the fine accuring on this property was abated and a partial release of lien was granted to other properties connected to the violation property. He noted at this meeting staff had indicated they were satisfied with the current landscaping on the site. He believed the property to be in compliance. Louis Anastasopoulos, property co-owner, said the property is under contract for sale. A lien on the property affects the closing and redevelopment of the property. He said comments made by staff led him to believe that property related problems had been resolved. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended this item be continued to the next meeting. Attorney Economides requested Ralph Stone be in attendance at that meeting. Member Caffentzis moved to continue Item #2e to April 25, 2001. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item # 3 – Other Board Action/Discussion Mr. Salzman recommended after the affidavit of violation and request for hearing is read by the Board Secretary, staff ask alleged violators if they admit to the violation. If they do, it is not necessary for the City to present its entire case. Item # 4 – New Business - None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Dan & Frances Bradford COD2000-06060 1660 Cleveland Street $ 200.00 Keystone Manor, Blk F, W52' of Lot 17 and E1/2 of Lot 18 Member Cole moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Allbritton moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 28, 2001, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #7 – Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.