Loading...
04/25/2001MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER April 25, 2001 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair David Allbritton Member Sheila Cole Member Franke Huffman Member Joyce Martin Member Peter Caffentzis Member – arrived 3:07 p.m. Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Mary K. “Sue” Diana Secretary for the Board Patricia 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 A. Case 05-01 - (Cont’d from 3/28/01) Jamie L. Wright 2430 Moore Haven Dr. W. (Public Nuisance) - Phillips In a memo dated April 18, 2001, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides withdrew this case. The property is under new ownership. B. Case 12-01 Willie M. Spake 1454 Park Street (Building Code) – Wright Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service of the Notice of Hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides, Building Inspector Bill Wright said the violation had come to his attention on November 3, 2000, when he drove past the property and noticed plumbing, electrical, and mechanical work underway. The electrical permit had expired. No other required permit had been issued. He red tagged the property. On December 1, 2000, Mr. Wright issued a Notice of Violation and hand delivered it to the worker on site. As of April 23, 2001, Mr. Wright said the structure remains vacant, no additional work has been done, and no new permits have been issued. He identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs he had taken of the property on April 23, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 and displayed photographs of the site. Property representative John Powers, of Rainbow Property Management, did not dispute the report. He had hoped a handyman could repair damages caused by previous tenants. He said property owner Willie Spake is in a nursing home. As property manager, he uses Spake property rental income to fund repairs. He said the change in the project’s scope has reduced the estimated cost from $3,800 to $1,600. He said repairs could be completed by mid June. Mr. Wright agreed with the proposed schedule as long as it results in a home that is livable. He said if permits are obtained and work is started, staff will work with the homeowner’s representative. It was noted all necessary work is inside and does not affect health and safety issues. Member Allbritton moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 25, 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 for City and John Powers, Rainbow Property Management for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation and stop work order; Ex. 2 - notice of violation and certified mail receipt; Ex. 3 - property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 - applicable code sections; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 7 - composite photographs of conditions dated 4/23/01), it is evident the property is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Secs. 47.081 & 47.083(2) and Art. V, Sec. 47.111 of the Code in that a structure is being renovated without permits and/or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Art. IV, Secs. 47.081 & 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($150.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 30, 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. Upon the vote being taken, Members Tieman, Allbritton, Martin, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Members Cole and Huffman voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C. Case 13-01 Donn McKnight 508 S. Greenwood Avenue (Building Code) - Coccia Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service of the Notice of Hearing was obtained by posting the property. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides, Building Inspector Mike Coccia said he had investigated the violation on August 1, 2000, following an anonymous complaint. The single-family residence remains unoccupied. He red tagged the major remodeling work that was underway without permit. He has been in contact with the owner numerous times. He issued a Notice of Violation on February 5, 2001. The owner must submit engineering drawings for the supports and tie downs and detailed plans to obtain a permit. Mr. Coccia identified City Exhibit 8 as photographs he had taken of the property on August 1, 2000 and April 25, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions and illustrate work on the pier foundation, water heater, electrical, including installation of new outlets, lights, and panel, dry wall replacement, construction debris on the porch, and exposed exterior insulation. He recommended 30 – 45 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 8 and displayed photographs of the site. Property owner Donn McKnight stated a buyer had purchased the property under a lease/purchase agreement and did substantial work on the property before abandoning it. He said he hired an electrician to recommend a plan of action and submitted plans, which were rejected by staff. He said he has hired an architectural firm to do the required drawings. He said the required survey is complete and plans will be ready for submission on May 24, 2001. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the property was red tagged in August 2000, followed by the issuance of a Notice of Violation. In response to a question, Mr. McKnight said the buyer had abandoned the property six months into the agreement. He said it has been difficult to hire a contractor as bids have been high and work cannot start for up to 60 days. Following discussion, Board Attorney Andy Salzman indicated the board only can address violations cited by staff. In response to questions, Mr. McKnight said the lease/purchase agreement with his former business partner had been verbal. He said much of the construction work already was underway when he purchased the property. He said the scope of necessary repairs was greater than he had anticipated. He said his business partner was to have completed the work. It was noted significant work had been done on the property without permits or inspections. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 25, 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 for City and Donn McKnight, Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation and stop work order; Ex. 2 - notice of violation, affidavit of posting and certified mail receipts; Ex. 3 - applicable code sections; Ex. 4 - property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 - activity list; Ex. 6 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 7 - notice of hearing; Ex. 8 - composite photographs of conditions dated 8/1/00 and 4/25/01; 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 major remodeling of a structure has been 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(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 July 3, 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 July 3, 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 July 3, 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. D. Case 14-01 Hardee's Lease Prtnr 1980 (4930-0027) 2551 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (Tattletales) (Development Code/Tree Removal Permit) – Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service of the Notice of Hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Code Inspector Scott Kurleman said he inspected the property on January 13, 2001, following notification by the Community Response Team. He said two live oaks, one 8-inch and one 12-inch had been topped and pruned so severely they were considered removed, according to Code, without a required permit. He issued a Notice of Violation on January 22, 2001, requiring the purchase of an “after-the-fact” permit and replacement of the trees with the equivalent caliper. He reinspected the property on February 14, 2001. The trees had been removed but not replaced. Landscaping efforts were insufficient, as shade trees had not been planted as required by Code. He has been in contact with the property manager, who has been working to obtain trees of the proper size and species. Mr. Kurleman identified City Exhibit 6 as photographs he had taken of the property on January 13, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of the severely pruned trees. He said replacement trees are available at area nurseries. He recommended they be planted where they can achieve their full size. He recommended 14 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 and displayed photographs of the site. Hari Handa, representative, said a tree service had solicited his business to trim the trees. He said he was not present when the work was done. He said he had liked the trees and their destruction had been unintentional. He presented a photograph taken January 13, 2001, illustrating six newly planted trees. He said his landscaping firm was unaware the Crepe Myrtle and Podocarpus were not sufficient. He said he already has spent $400 on landscaping. He said he has located 4-inch trees at a nursery. As the property is in a prominent position at the entrance to Clearwater, Mr. Kurleman recommended against permitting the payment of a fee in lieu of replacing the lost trees. He said Mr. Handa has been cooperative. He recommended two trees be planted in the front of the property and three be planted along the property’s border with Sam’s Club. In response to a question, he said staff would have cited the tree trimmer also but the business’ name is unknown. It was suggested the trees be added to current landscape improvements. Member Tieman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 25, 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 for City and Hari Handa, representing Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation and certified mail receipt; Ex. 2 - applicable code sections; Ex. 3 - property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; Ex. 6 - composite photographs 1/13/01; and Ex. 7 - information summary), it is evident the property is in violation of Section 4-1201 of the Code in that trees have been so severely topped they must be removed and replaced. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 4-1201 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 June 3, 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 June 3, 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 June 3, 2001. The property shall be inspected after 30 days; and if no progress has been made, the fine shall come into force. 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. E. Case 15-01 Clearwater Moose Lodge #1030 1101 Cleveland Street (Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service of the Notice of Hearing, issued on January 22, 2001, was obtained by certified mail. Representative Lee March said he is a landscape architect and Moose member. He admitted the property was in violation of Code. Mr. Kurleman identified City Exhibit 6 as photographs he had taken of the property on February 14, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of landscape conditions. He reviewed buffer requirements and recommended 14 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 – 7 and displayed photographs of the site. Mr. March said lodge members had not realized how lengthy the process would be to obtain permits and become operational following purchase of the property. The City issued an occupancy permit for the property in October. He said the landscaping installation schedule is based on the amount of funds generated by lodge social events. He said the fraternal organization is non-profit. He reviewed completed work, such as the installation of irrigation and palm trees, and significant obstructions hampering progress including buried rock, asphalt, clay bricks, concrete block, concrete slab, lime rock, and junk. He estimated the project will cost up to $1,000 to complete. He said the money has not yet been raised. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said normally the City does not issue occupational licenses before landscaping requirements are met. The organization had contacted the City in February related to plans to replace cold and drought damaged plant materials. It was felt the lodge members had shown considerable efforts. It was suggested a time extension be granted, as long as work continues to progress. Concern was expressed a precedent not be established. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 25, 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 for City and Lee Marsh, landscape architect on project, for Respondent and, viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation and certified mail receipt; Ex. 2 - applicable code sections; Ex. 3 - property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; Ex. 6 - composite photographs dated 2/14/01; and Ex. 7 - information summary; and Ex. 8 - Lee E. Marsh landscape plan dated 2/25/00 and revised 7/6/00 and 7/10/00) and defendant’s Ex. 1 - Lee E. Marsh landscape plan dated 2/25/00, revised 7/6/00 and 7/10/00, it is evident the property is in violation of Sec. 3-1204 (A)(B)(F)(I)(L) of the Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sec. 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 August 2, 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 August 2, 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 August 2, 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. Upon the vote being taken, Members Tieman, Cole, Allbritton, Huffman, Caffentzis, and Chair Kerwin voted “Aye”; Member Martin voted “Nay.” Motion carried. F. Case 16-01 Adriano Battaglini 500 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue (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 continued automatically for a period of six months (October 24, 2001) and will be withdrawn at that time if no recurrence of the violation occurs. G. Case 17-01 Luby's Restaurants Ltd. Partnership 2599 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. No representative for Luby’s Restaurants was present. 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 property on December 18, 2000, following a complaint to the City Manager’s office. He observed the east buffer landscape materials were dead and choked with weeds, indicating a lack of maintenance. The landscaping is inconsistent with the property’s landscape plan, filed in December 1996. He reinspected the property on January 10, 2001, and noted the landscaping had deteriorated further. The property owner first contacted staff regarding this issue on April 23, 2001, and indicated the violation would be corrected within one week. Mr. Kurleman identified City Exhibit 7 as photographs he had taken of the property. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions and illustrate landscape violations along the east buffer and interior islands. He recommended the landscaping materials be replaced and maintained. He recommended 14 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 8 and displayed photographs of the site. The importance of maintaining vacant business properties was stated. It was recommended the fine be increased. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on April 25, 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 for City (Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 – notice of violation and certified mail receipt; Ex. 2 – applicable code sections; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – composite photographs dated 2/14/01; Ex. 7 – information summary; and Ex. 8 – landscape plan dated 12/2/96), it is evident the property is in violation of Sec. 3-1204 (A)(B)(F)(I)(L) of the Code in that plant material is missing and/or in declining condition. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Luby’s Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, c/o Deloitte & Touche, by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sec. 3-1204 (A)(B)(F)(I)(L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that Luby’s Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, c/o Deloitte & Touche, has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that Luby’s Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, c/o Deloitte & Touche, is to correct the aforesaid violation by May 18, 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 18, 2001, Luby’s Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, c/o Deloitte & Touche, 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 May 18, 2001. If Luby’s Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, c/o Deloitte & Touche, 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 Luby’s Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, c/o Deloitte & Touche, 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 A. Case 03-01 - Status Report William J. & Mary J. Kuhn 1923 Flora Road (Housing Code) - Wright Mr. Wright said he had inspected the property on April 23, 2001, and that the structure’s condition, over a sinkhole, has deteriorated further. Owner William Kuhn’s soil report, submitted for his insurance claim, had recommended the site be stabilized with grout. On April 16, 2001, Mr. Kuhn’s contractor applied for a permit to stabilize the structure, using 7-foot underpinnings. As they would be of insufficient length to reach the hard pan, as indicated in the soil report, staff declined to issue a permit until an engineer report is submitted indicating the plan proposed is adequate. Mr. Wright identified photographs he had taken of the property. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions and illustrate a 2.5-inch gap in the wall by the rear door, the ¾-inch shift of the corner wall, a large crack in the perimeter beam, enlarged separations, numerous cracks, footers falling away from the building, stucco pulling away from blocks, shifted top blocks, and foam spray used to block vermin access. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said five homes in the area have similar problems. Two structures have been stabilized with underpinnings. The owners of two structures refused staff access to inspect. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said the soil report had indicated the hard pan is 34 feet deep. The cost of work proposed in the permit application is approximately $2,300, while the cost of soil report recommended repairs is approximately $40,000. Mr. Salzman reviewed the board’s previous decision that repair work must begin by May 3, 2001, or a fine be imposed. B. Case 44-00 - Affidavit of Compliance B&K Property Management Inc (B&K Plaza/Dominos Pizza) 2245 Nursery Road (Development Code) - Kurleman AND C. Case 11-01 - Affidavit of Compliance Steven D. Kovash 1161 Marine Street (Development Code) - Kurleman Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 44-00 and 11-01. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item # 3 – Other Board Action/Discussion A. Case 22-99 - Addressing Board re Reduction in Fine (Cont’d from 3/28/01) Sioutis, Anastasopoulos, Psaltis (Majestics Night Club) 470-484 Mandalay Avenue (Development Code) - Kurleman Board Secretary Diana reported this item has been withdrawn. Item # 4 – New Business - None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings – None. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 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 4:44 p.m.