Loading...
05/22/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 22, 2002 Present: Lawrence Tieman Chair Sheila Cole Vice-Chair Franke Huffman Board Member David Allbritton Board Member Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Vacant Seat Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Elita Cobbs Attorney for the Board Susan Stephenson Acting 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 43-01 Robert Schoeller 630 Drew Street (Building Code) – Wright Per Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, the item was continued automatically to this meeting. As no recurrence of the violation has occurred, the item is withdrawn. 1B) Case 13-02 Lorraine P & Charles R Hilleboe, Tr 1255 Jeffords St. (Development Code) - Kurleman Acting Board Secretary Susan Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. Charles R Hilleboe said some of the landscape installation had been completed. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman said the building department had brought the property to staff’s attention. He initially inspected 1255 Jeffords Street on December 27, 2001. The landscaping was to be installed in three phases however several areas lack landscaping materials as indicated on the site plan. The City approved the site plan to modify the parking lot on June 10, 1999. Mr. Kurleman issued a Notice of Violation on December 27, 2001, reinspected the property after the compliance date, and found the property’s condition unchanged. The property owner was advised the site plan could be modified but this has not been done. Mr. Kurleman identified photographs he had taken of 1255 Jeffords Street on March 12, March 14, and May 21, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 45 days to comply or a $200 per day fine be imposed. He said while Phase I may have been completed, the landscaping has declined and is in violation of the site plan. No work on Phases II or III is evident. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 10 for 1255 Jeffords Street and distributed photographs of the site. Mr. Hilleboe said he has a contract to install the landscaping by July 3, 2002, and felt 60 days would be adequate to complete the project. In response to a question, he said the irrigation system has been installed. He said Phase I landscaping had died after the site manager departed and no one tended the landscaping. It was stated the condition does not present a health or safety concern. Concern was expressed this site has been out of compliance since December 1999. It was suggested the $200/day fine is fair due to the ongoing nature of the problem. Member Martin moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 22, 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 Mr. Hilleboe, respondent and Scott Kurleman, code inspector and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 2-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 3-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 4-Community Development Code Section 3-1204, 3-1205; Exhibit 5-Property Appraiser Printout; Exhibit 6-Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing; Exhibit 7-Notice of Hearing; Exhibit 8-Letter to City of Clearwater; Exhibit 9-Photos; Exhibit 10-Drawing-Interior Design Landscape Architecture, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that installation and maintenance of landscaping per the approved plan dated June 10, 1999 has not been done or has not been maintained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1204 (A)(B)(D)(I)(L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by July 21, 2002. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a re-inspection 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 21, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each day the violation continues beyond July 21, 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. 1C) Case 14-02 Menna-Pinellas 20788 US 19N (Development Code) - Kurleman Acting Board Secretary Susan Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. John Menna, representative for Menna-Pinellas, agreed landscaping at the 20788 US 19N property does not comply with Code. He stated his firm develops hotel properties. The firm purchased the subject site last year and plans to raze the current motel and restaurant and construct a hotel. A site plan is being prepared and it does not make sense to install landscaping that will be torn out when construction begins. He offered to deposit funds into an escrow account to cover required landscaping expenses. Ms. Dougall-Sides said in his August 20, 2001 letter, Mr. Menna had stated his intention to submit a site plan by November 2001. The original Notice of Violation was issued in December 2001. Staff recommends 21 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. It was stated due to permitting requirements, site plan approval could take 6 months. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 8 for 20788 US 19N and distributed photographs of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Menna stated he is renting the on-site restaurant on a month-to-month basis while negotiating with hotel franchises and preparing the site plan. Mr. Kurleman stated the property is at the major City intersection of US 19N and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and reviewed staff’s recommendation for installation of a landscape buffer and trees. He said it is not appropriate for the board to consider bonding arrangements. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said the restaurant’s reoccupation of the vacant site triggered current landscape requirements. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman estimated it would cost $1,000 to bring the site into compliance. Mr. Menna said the cost would be much higher as the asphalt would have to be cut to install an irrigation system. Discussion ensued regarding the need to install an irrigation system and related costs. It was felt the maintenance of attractive landscaping is important due to the site’s location. Mr. Menna agreed to install required landscaping and maintain it with manual watering until the site plan is approved. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said staff will report to the board if landscaping is not maintained. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 22, 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 Mr. John Menna, respondent and Scott Kurleman, code inspector and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Letter to City of Clearwater; Exhibit 2-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 3-Community Development Code Section 3-1204, 3-1205; Exhibit 4-Property Appraiser Report; Exhibit 5-Notice of Hearing; Exhibit 6-Land Planning Map; Exhibit 7-Photos; Exhibit 8-Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that installation and maintenance of landscaping has not been done. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1204 (A)(B)(D)(I)(L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by June 21, 2002. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a re-inspection 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 21, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 21, 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. 1D) Case 15-02 Susan M. Bell 1128 Carlton Street (Occupational License) - Dee Shawen Withdrawn 1E) Case 16-02 Laura J. Porter 1524 S. Prospect Avenue (Public Nuisance) - Julie Phillips Acting Board Secretary Susan Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. Laura J. Porter, property owner, admitted problems exist at 1524 S. Prospect Avenue but said she had addressed some of the compliance issues. Code Enforcement Inspector Julie Phillips said while some of the vehicles had been removed from the property, a station wagon and travel trailer, without current registration, remain. A significant amount of debris remains onsite. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 8 for 1524 S. Prospect Avenue and distributed photographs of the site. Nathaniel Luke stated he is helping his sister, Ms. Porter, address problems. He is trying to contact the previous owner of the travel trailer to obtain the title and acquire a temporary tag. He said 99% of the trash in the yard has been removed. In response to a question, he was unsure if he could sell the station wagon within 10 days. Ms. Phillips indicated Code prohibits the sales of vehicles from front yards in residential neighborhoods. In response to a question, she said remaining debris includes scattered old fencing, tires, and a refrigerator. Ms. Phillips said after her original visit to the property in November 2001, Ms. Porter was hospitalized for a period of time. Ms. Phillips said significant improvement has occurred in the last few weeks. Mr. Luke said his brother-in-law, who passed away last year, had accumulated a great deal of junk. In response to a question, Ms. Phillips said the City could run the Vehicle Identification Number for Ms. Porter. The City could arrange to tow the vehicles and bill Ms. Porter for related costs. Staff hoped Ms. Porter will have the vehicles removed. The site does not have a garage or car port where vehicles could be parked. The vehicles could remain in their current location if they were tagged. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 22, 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 Nathaniel Luke, spokes person for respondent, and Julie Phillips, code inspector and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 2-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 3-Community Development Code Sections 3-1503.B.6; 3-1503.B7; Exhibit 4 -Property Appraiser Printout; Exhibit 5-Motor Vehicle Information-Pinellas County; Exhibit 6 - Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing; Exhibit 7-Notice of Hearing; Exhibit 8-Photos, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that there are several inoperative vehicles on the property as well as general debris. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1503.B.6; 3-1503.B.7 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 21, 2002. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a re-inspection 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 21, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 21, 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. 1F) Case 17-02 Jacqueline Chaplin, Est 1000 Grantwood Avenue (Public Nuisance) - Janice King Acting Board Secretary Susan Stephenson read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Code Enforcement Inspector Janice King said she initially inspected the single-family residence at 1000 Grantwood Avenue on January 25, 2002, following an anonymous complaint. She observed stagnant water, approximately 6-inches deep, in an above ground pool, which is a nuisance. The fence on the property’s northeast side is in disrepair. She issued a warning notice, left several door hangars, and mailed notices of Violation. The certified mail was returned to the City unclaimed. The City received one telephone message, on April 23, 2002, indicating a fire had occurred. Staff has had no response to either telephone number left in the message. Ms. King said a person replacing kitchen cabinets had stated the owner had received an insurance settlement for the fire in the bathroom. She reinspected the property after the compliance date and found the property’s condition unchanged Ms. King identified photographs she had taken of 1000 Grantwood Avenue in March and on May 22, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. She said only one tire has been removed. She said outside storage items need to be placed in the garage and recommended the swimming pool be drained. Neighbors have problems related to mosquitoes breeding in the pool. The pool will remain an attractive nuisance unless it is covered. She recommended 14 days to comply or a $50 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 1000 Grantwood Avenue and distributed photographs of the site. Discussion ensued regarding the debris in the back yard and concerns regarding the broken fence. Concern was expressed the property owner had ignored related problems for a long time and was not represented today. Member Allbritton moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on May 22, 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 Janice King, code inspector and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Warning; Exhibit 2-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 3-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 4-Community Development Code-Section 3-808; 3-1503.B.3; and 3-1502.G; Exhibit 5-Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing; Exhibit 6-Notice of Hearing; Exhibit 7-Photos; Exhibit 8-Photos, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that there is outdoor storage, dirty pool water, and a poorly maintained fence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-808; 3-1503.B.3; and 3-1502.G 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 05, 2002. The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a re-inspection 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 05, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 05, 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. ITEM #2 – Unfinished Business The Chair read a letter from the Mayor expressing disappointment that board member attendance was poor at this year’s appreciation dinner. The City paid a considerable amount of money for meals, prepared for board member and their guests, who did not attend after indicating they would. Suggestions for future appreciation events were requested. It was recommended individual suggestions for changes be forwarded to the City Manager’s office. Member Teismann has resigned from the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) and the City Commission will consider applications for the empty seat. Item #3 – Other Board Action/Discussion - None. Item #4 – New Business - None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings – None. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Cole moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 24, 2002, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #7 – Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.