Loading...
03/27/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 27, 2002 Present: Lawrence Tieman Chair Sheila Cole Vice-Chair (departed 4:17 p.m.) Kevin Teismann Member George Krause Member Absent: Franke Huffman Member David Allbritton Member Joyce Martin Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Sue Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:04 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 Case 36-01 New Era Network II Ltd. Partnership 2898 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Community Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, as the violation was corrected prior to the hearing date, the item was automatically continued to this meeting. As there has been no recurrence of the violation, this item is withdrawn. Case 37-01 Chauncey Clearwater Trailer Court Inc. c/o Beverly Martin, Tre 2143 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Community Development Code/Landscape) – Kurleman Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, as the violation was corrected prior to the hearing date, the item was automatically continued to this meeting. As there has been no recurrence of the violation, this item is withdrawn. Case 07-02 – Contd. from 2/27/02 Debra Kagan Ward 1148 N.E. Cleveland Street (Building Code) – Coccia This property is now in compliance. Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, this case is automatically continued for six months. If there is no recurrence of the violation, the case will be withdrawn at that time. Case 08-02 Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Development Code) – Kurleman Secretary for the Board Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. She said service of the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. No one was present during the hearing to represent the Nowickis. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, City Inspector Scott Kurleman said he originally inspected the property on December 7, 2001, at which time he observed a tree had been improperly topped. Prior to his inspection, the City’s Environmental office had sent notice to the property owner to discontinue topping trees on the site. In November 2001, Mr. Kurleman sent notice to the owner that if topping of trees continued, the trees would have to be replaced. On December 7, 2001, Mr. Kurleman reinspected the property and observed a tree had again been topped 50 – 60%. In response to a question, he said topping a tree creates decay, promotes root starvation, and disfigures the tree. When branches grow back after topping, they are frail and can become hazardous. On December 7, 2001, Mr. Kurleman sent a notice of violation via certified mail to the property owner and service was obtained. In January 2002, Janusz Nowicki contacted Mr. Kurleman and in March 2002, Mr. Nowicki’s landscaper contacted him inquiring about possible alternatives to shade trees in the front of the property. Mr. Kurleman explained that since the violation had already occurred, the property owner would need to remove the damaged tree and replace it inch for inch. The tree has a 7-inch caliper and could be replaced with one of similar caliper or with two separate trees of 3- and 4-inch calipers. Mr. Kurleman said he is unaware of any efforts by the property owner to take action toward compliance. He felt as the property owner has had over 3 months to comply, the City should not be too lenient about the violation. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1- 7, photographs of the tree and property taken in December 2001, and on March 26, 2002. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said there has been no dispute from the property owner that the overhead power lines prompted topping of this tree. He said the power lines are 20 feet from the tree, and normally, Florida Power Corporation would trim them. Mr. Kurleman said the adjacent property owner had indicated the tree was topped to give visibility to the property owner’s site and to ensure visibility of his sign on the adjacent property. Member Cole moved that concerning Case 08-02, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on March 27, 2002, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT: After hearing testimony of Scott Kurleman, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits [1) Letter dated 4/25/01 addressed to respondent; 2) Notice of Violation dated 12/11/01; 3) Copy of applicable Code Sections of the Clearwater City Code of Ordinances; 4) Property Appraiser printout; 5) Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing; 6) Notice of Hearing; and 7) photographs of the subject property], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that shade trees were topped. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1204(J) and Section 3-1205(F)(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 that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by April 11, 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 April 11, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond April 11, 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. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Janusz Nowicki asked to address the board regarding his case. No testimony could be given as Member Cole had left the meeting and there was no longer a quorum. Mr. Norwicki was informed by staff he could write a letter to the Board requesting a rehearing. Case 09-02 U Haul Co. W. Coast FLA. 23917 U.S. Hwy 19 N (Development Code) – Kurleman This property is now in compliance. Per Section 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, this case is automatically continued for six months. If there is no recurrence of the violation, the case will be withdrawn at that time. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 01-01 – Request for Reduction of Fine David & Catherine F. Jones 1200 Melonwood Avenue (Building Code) – Coccia David Jones, property owner, said he was divorced from Catherine F. Jones at the time the notice of violation was received. He said when the City responded to an anonymous fence complaint at his property, they found his porch in disrepair. He stated he pulled down a portion of one of the walls. City Inspector Mike Coccia said the property was cited for construction work without permits. He stated it was difficult to determine the extent of the construction work due to overgrowth and a dog in the back yard. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Mr. Coccia said the Affidavit of Compliance was filed on February 11, 2002. The original notice of violation was given in August 2000. In January 2001, Mr. Jones was given 30 days to comply. A final inspection of the property was done on February 11, 2002, 11 months from the time the notice of violation was issued. Ms. Diana said the fine is $17,150 and the City Clerk Department’s total administrative costs are $350. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Development Services Department’s costs are $609.50. Mr. Coccia said staff does not support a total reduction in fine, as the property owner never contacted staff nor attempted to come into compliance for 11 months. Mr. Jones said she had experienced debilitating depression due to his divorce. He stopped paying his mortgage and stopped dealing with personal and other issues. He was not working full time and his financial circumstances were in disarray. He said he barely was able to pay the $53 for the permit for construction. He felt that $17,000 was not appropriate in this instance as the deterioration was hidden behind a fence. He has since recovered from the divorce and wishes to move forward. The equity from his home is his life’s savings. In response to a question, Mr. Jones said it took him a week to complete construction once he began the work. He recently sold the home, received $40,000 upon sale, and the title company has retained money in escrow for the lien. Ms. Dougall-Sides said when a notice of homestead was filed by Mr. Jones for this property, the title company argued that it released the lien. Ms. Dougall-Sides said that would only be true if a lien was imposed as a result of a court judgment. Concern was expressed Mr. Jones took too much time to come into compliance since he ended up doing the work himself. Discussion ensued regarding an appropriate fine. Member Teismann moved to reduce the fine to $5,000 plus administrative costs of $1,010, to be paid within 30 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 41-01 – Request for Reduction of Fine Loni J. Shutler 2731 Poppyseed Court (Building Code) – Coccia Mr. Coccia said this case involved a patio overhang and a fence installed without permits. The Affidavit of Compliance was filed on February 11, 2001, after a final inspection was performed. On October 24, 2001, this Board issued an order to comply by November 23, 2001, or a $100/day fine would be imposed for each day of noncompliance. The work required engineering drawings and a permit. Ms. Diana said the total fine is $7,900. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said staff was not made aware of any hardships experienced by the property owner. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Development Services Department administrative costs total $583; Ms. Diana said the City Clerk Department’s costs are $350. Loni Shutler, property owner, said the contractor who did the work did not obtain a permit; she did not know a permit was needed. After she was informed of the violation, she acted immediately to find another contractor and engineer. She said it took some time to find a contractor especially since most of the work had been done. She said she also had funding issues because she had spent all her funds on the construction. She thought once she had obtained the permit, she was in compliance. In response to a question, Ms. Shutler said due to electrical and wind requirements, some modifications needed to be made. Ed Ruark, engineer and general contractor, said he inspected the strapping, etc. and found it was not properly completed. He said in general, the structure was designed well. He became involved in the project in February 2002. Ms. Shutler said as she is a single parent and works, she could not find a contractor any sooner than she did. It cost her an additional $1,200 - $1,400 for the engineering drawings, the permit, and for Mr. Ruark’s services. It was remarked that Ms. Shutler attempted to comply rather quickly once she received the notice of violation. Member Cole moved to reduce the fine to $500 plus $1,433 in administrative costs payable within 60 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case 15-01 - Request for Reduction of Fine Clearwater Moose Lodge 1030 1101 Cleveland Street (Development Code) – Kurleman Chris Howell, Arvida Realty Services, said he was hired in January 2002 to facilitate the sale of the property. He was unaware at the time of the City’s lien and other issues regarding the property. He said a letter was hand delivered to the City’s Municipal Services Building notifying the code inspector the property was in compliance as of July 23, 2002. The Lodge assumed they were in compliance and felt they had notified the City accordingly. Mr. Howell believed that the letter was not property delivered. Mr. Howell said, subsequently, Mr. Marsh, the head of the Lodge’s Board of Directors, resigned in December 2001. The Board of Directors never received the City’s notice of violation. Once Mr. Howell became involved, the matter was resolved. An affidavit of compliance has been issued with a compliance date of February 13, 2002. In response to a question, Mr. Howell said although the property had been in compliance, it was not inspected as required. Mr. Kurleman said when the Board first heard this case, one of the conditions of compliance was that he was to be contacted by the Lodge to check on the progress. The Lodge was not cooperative. In response to a question, Ms. Diana said the fine is $19,400. Mr. Salzman said the notice of the fine that was mailed by certified mail to the Lodge on November 1, 2001, was signed for by Lee Marsh. The notice clearly stated that the fine was to accrue at $100/day for each day of noncompliance and that upon compliance, Inspector Kurleman was to be notified. Mr. Howell said the Lodge’s entire board finally resigned. The Lodge’s membership is approximately 450- 500 members. None of the members knew of the violations and fines. He said once the problems were discovered, they were taken care of quickly and the property was sold. There are funds available from the sale that were held in escrow to pay the fines, however, Mr. Howell hoped the board would consider the members who were unaware of the problems. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Development Services Department’s administrative costs are $1,070; Ms. Diana said the City Clerk Department’s administrative costs are $450. Discussion ensued regarding the fine. It was remarked that approximately 240 – 250 days of noncompliance occurred prior to Mr. Howell’s involvement. Member Teismann moved to reduce the fine to $2,500 plus administrative costs of $1,520 to be paid within 30 days. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Teismann, Krause, and Chair Tieman voted “aye”; Member Cole voted “nay”. Motion carried. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION - None 4. NEW BUSINESS - None NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS – None Member Cole left the meeting at 4:17 p.m. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 27, 2002 Due to lack of a quorum, this item was postponed to the next meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.