Loading...
06/26/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 26, 2002 Present: L. Duke Tieman Chair Sheila Cole Vice-Chair Franke Huffman Board Member David Allbritton Board Member Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Absent: Douglas Williams Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Andrew J. Salzman Attorney for the Board Mary K. (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 18-02 Chuck C. Broadhurst 906 Pennsylvania Avenue Building Code – Coccia Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property. Chuck C. Broadhurst was not present. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff, Building Inspector Mike Coccia said he initially inspected 906 Pennsylvania Avenue on November 14, 2001. Major renovation work was underway at the vacant structure, including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. The work was not permitted and no inspections had occurred. He issued a stop work order. He posted the property on November 16, 2001, and mailed a Notice of Violation to the property owner. The notice was returned to the City unclaimed. Mr. Coccia issued an Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing on April 10, 2002. On November 27, 2001, Mr. Coccia spoke with Mr. Broadhurst regarding the violation and agreed to Mr. Broadhurst’s request for a 2-week extension. A contractor contacted Mr. Coccia on December 18, 2001 and discussed compliance requirements. On June 21, 2002, a contractor submitted an incomplete application. Mr. Coccia identified photographs he had taken of 906 Pennsylvania Avenue on November 14, 2001 and June 25, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. The photographs illustrate new framing and dry wall installation, building material storage, a new water heater with exposed piping, a new air-conditioning system, new riser wires, new windows, and stucco work. Current photographs illustrate the property is overgrown and a window is broken. The CRT (Community Response Team) has received reports that people are accessing the empty house. He recommended 60 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. He said most of the work appears to be completed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 906 Pennsylvania Avenue which include photographs of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia said the owner does not live locally. He indicated no further work has been done since the stop work order was issued. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 26, 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 Mike Coccia, Code Inspector, (respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Notice of Violation & Order to Stop Work; Exhibit 2-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 3-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 4- Development Code; Exhibit 5- Property Appraiser Report; Exhibit 6- Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing; Exhibit 7-Photos, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that remodeling work commenced prior to permit issuance and inspections were not done as required. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47, Article IV, Section 47.083, and Chapter 47, Article V, Section 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 August 26, 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 August 26, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond August 26, 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. 1B) Case 19-02 Chuck C. Broadhurst 1112 Palm Bluff Street Building Code – Coccia Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property. Chuck C. Broadhurst was not present. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Mr. Coccia said he initially inspected 1112 Palm Bluff Street on December 5, 2001 and issued a Notice of Violation that day. Major renovation work was underway in the vacant structure, including structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. The work was not permitted and no inspections had occurred. He issued a stop work order. He posted the property on January 7, 2002, and mailed a Notice of Violation to the property owner. Mr. Coccia issued an Affidavit of Violation on April 10, 2002. Mr. Coccia identified photographs he had taken of 1112 Palm Bluff Street on December 5, 2001 and June 25, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. The photographs illustrate attempts to repair major structural damage, which causes the house to sag, exposed roof trusses, interior wall demolition, lathe and plaster removal, and bathroom plumbing and sewer pipe removal. Current photographs illustrate the property is overgrown, has debris in the front yard, and a boarded window, which can provide access. He recommended 60 to 90 days to permit and complete necessary work or a $100 per day fine be imposed. The structure is not yet unsafe but is almost a nuisance. Concern was expressed regarding safety issues as wires are exposed. In response to a question, Building Official Kevin Garriott said the City can remedy the problem if the owner does nothing within 90 days. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 1112 Palm Bluff Street which include photographs of the site. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 26, 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 Mike Coccia, Code Inspector, (the respondent was not present and had no representation) and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Notice of Violation & Order to Stop Work; Exhibit 2-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 3-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 4- Development Code; Exhibit 5- Property Appraiser Report; Exhibit 6- Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing; Exhibit 7-Photos, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that remodeling and demolition work was done prior to the issuance of permits and inspections were not performed as required. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47, Article IV, Section 47.083 (2) and Chapter 47, Article V, Section 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 September 25, 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 September 25, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond September 25, 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 22-02 OCHI LIC 2070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Oil Can Henry's) Development Code – Kurleman Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail and by posting the property. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman said he initially inspected 2070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard on March 18, 2002, and issued a Notice of Violation on March 22, 2002. The oak trees, which have been topped and severely shaped, need to be removed and replaced. He posted the property and mailed notice to the property owner. Mr. Kurleman reviewed problems resulting from poor tree care. The subject trees are weak and probably will fall if allowed to grow. He reinspected the property on April 10, 2002, and found it not in compliance. He issued an Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing on April 29, 2002. He said the business first contacted him last week. He drove past the property today and it remains out of compliance. Mr. Kurleman identified photographs he had taken of 2070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard on March 18, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. The photographs illustrate the shade trees had been trimmed severely. He recommended the property owner be required to file for permits, remove and replace the trees with 20-inch caliper healthy shade trees within 30 days or a $100 per day fine be imposed. In April 2001, staff had mailed the property owner a courtesy letter regarding this issue. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 2070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard which include photographs of the site. Burns Thomas, one of the Oil Can Henry’s franchise owners, stated employees had trimmed the trees. He said the trees border a driveway, not a parking lot. He said due to the abundance of asphalt surrounding the base of the trees, the trees can never grow tall. He did not think the recommended fine was fair. He offered to work with the City regarding the landscaping but said he could not afford a significant expense. He said the subject property is one of the last Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard properties with topped trees. It was recommended the time period to comply be extended. Member Allbritton moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 26, 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 Burns Thomas for respondent and Code Inspector Scott Kurleman for City, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Code Letter; Exhibit 2-Notice of Violation; Exhibit 3-Development Code; Exhibit 4-Property Appraiser Report; Exhibit 5-Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing; Exhibit 6-Location Map; Exhibit 7-Photos, it is evident the property is in violation of the City Code in that four trees on the subject property have been "topped" and "shaped." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1205(F)(3), 3-1204(J) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violations. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by September 25, 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 September 25, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of One hundred dollars ($100.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond September 25, 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. Members Cole, Huffman, Allbritton, Krause, and Chair Tieman voted “Aye”; Member Martin voted “Nay.” Motion carried. 1D) Case 23-02 Bradford, E.G. & Sons, Inc. 111 S. Belcher Road Development Code – Kurleman Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property. No representative for the property owner was present. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Mr. Kurleman said he initially inspected 111 S. Belcher Road on January 17, 2002, and issued a Notice of Violation on February 6, 2002. The site is overgrown, in poor condition, and is missing significant landscaping. He posted the property and mailed notice to the property owner. The property owner did not acknowledge receipt of the letter. Mr. Kurleman said he contacted the property owner many months ago via voice mail but never received a reply. An attorney for the property had contacted him last week. An Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing was issued on April 29, 2002. He drove past the property today and said the condition of the property may have deteriorated further. Mr. Kurleman identified photographs he had taken of 111 S. Belcher Road on January 17 and June 21, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. The photographs illustrate weed growth, missing landscaping, and propane tanks scattered across the rear of the property. The property’s landscape plan was approved in the 1980s and requires 16 oak trees, more than 200 shrubs, mulch, and weed removal. The irrigation system needs to be checked and the parking lot has missing curbs. He said the property owner has not contacted him and he is not sure of future plans for the property. He recommended the landscape plan be implemented within 90 days or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 111 S. Belcher Road which include photographs of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said staff will work with the property owner to bring the property into compliance. The property needs to meet Code regardless of future plans. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 26, 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, Code Inspector, (respondent was not present and had no representation) and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1- Notice of Violation; Exhibit 2-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 3-Development Code; Exhibit 4-Property Appraiser Report; Exhibit 5-Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing; Exhibit 6-Location Map; Exhibit 7-Photos, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that landscaping has not been maintained in accordance with approved landscape plan. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1204(B)(D)(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 September 25, 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 September 25, 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 September 25, 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. 1E) Case 26-02 Discount Auto Parts, Inc. 1600-1606 N. Myrtle Avenue Development Code – Kurleman Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing, noting this is a repeat violation. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. Lori Ann Ciccarelli, representing Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., stated her firm recently had taken over Discount Auto Parts, Inc. and the related process is underway. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Mr. Kurleman said he initially inspected 1600-1606 N. Myrtle Avenue on May 13, 2002, and issued an official repeat Notice of Violation on May 14, 2002. Most of the previously installed shrubs and turf had died. The site lacked general maintenance. He posted the property and mailed notice to the property owner, who acknowledged receipt of the letter. Mr. Kurleman said the site was in compliance as of June 10, 2002. He said once notified, the property owner responded quickly to resolve the problem. Mr. Kurleman identified photographs he had taken of 1600-1606 N. Myrtle Avenue on May 29, June 7, and June 21, 2002, and indicated recent photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. Early photographs illustrate weed growth, dead and missing landscaping, trash and debris. Recent photographs indicate the site is in compliance, with shrubs and turf replaced and mulch installed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 6 for 1600-1606 N. Myrtle Avenue which include photographs of the site. Board Attorney Andrew Salzman said the board is requested to determine if a repeat violation has occurred. Mr. Kurleman said the previous fine had been $1,500. He hoped the property would be better maintained in the future. He recommended the board require recovery of staff costs of $962.50. Ms. Ciccarelli said the takeover had doubled the size of Advanced Auto Parts, headquartered in Virginia. She did not know how long that process would take. She said maintenance of the subject property, which has a closed business, “had fallen through the cracks.” She said the firm responded quickly once notification was received. Member Martin moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 26, 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 Lorraine Ciccarelli for respondent, and Code Inspector Scott Kurleman for city, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits: Exhibit 1-Notice of Repeat Violation; Exhibit 2-Affidavit of Posting; Exhibit 3-Development Code; Exhibit 4-Property Appraiser Report; Exhibit 5-Affidavit of Repeat Violation and Request for Hearing; Exhibit 6-Photos, it is evident a repeat violation has occurred (landscape plan and irrigation system not maintained) and the property was in violation of the section(s) of the Code as read into the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing was in violation of Code Section 3-1204(B)(I)(L) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, that Respondent was found to have violated the same provision by the Board on August 25, 1999, April 26, 2000, and August 8, 2001, and that Respondent has committed a repeat violation. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent shall continue to comply with said section(s) of the Code of the City of Clearwater. It is the Order of this Board that the Respondent shall pay an administrative fee in the amount of nine hundred sixty-two dollars and fifty cents ($962.50) relating to this repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose a five hundred ($500.00) 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 2A) Case 23-01 - Affidavit of Compliance John S Lynn C/O Jeraine C Burt 816 North Betty Lane (Development Code) – Wilson AND 2B) Case #25-01 – Affidavit of Compliance Jeralne C. Burt and Errol J. Kidd 1113 Tangerine Street (Development Code) – Wilson AND 2C) Case #08-02 – Affidavit of Compliance Janusz & Roxana Nowicki 2054 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Development Code) – Kurleman Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases #23-01, 25-01, and 08-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2D) Case #17-02 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Jacqueline Chaplin 1000 Grantwood Avenue (Development Code) - King Member Cole moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case #17-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #3 – Other Board Action/Discussion It was stated residents can display on their property for sale signs on vehicles that are properly parked, operable, feature current tags, and registered. In reference to a workshop for Code Enforcement Board members, Ms. Diana will advise the board when the date is announced. Item #4 – New Business - None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Yolanda Darosas and Frank Perez COD2002-00267 317 & 321 Coronado Drive Columbia Sub No. 2, Blk A, Lot 5 & 6 $ 300.00 S & P Properties COD2002-00849 1180 Cleveland Street Gibsons Clearwater Heights, Lots 4 thru 8 $ 250.00 Member Huffann moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Huffman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 22, 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 4:36 p.m.