Loading...
08/28/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER August 28, 2002 Present: L. Duke Tieman Chair Sheila Cole Vice-Chair Franke Huffman Board Member David Allbritton Board Member – arrived 3:02 p.m. Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Douglas J. Williams Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Jenay Martinez Attorney for the Board Mary K. (Sue) Diana Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses 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 04-02 – Cont. from 7/24/02 Clearwater K M, - Lowes c/o Burr Wolff 26990 U.S. Highway 19 North Development Code – King Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff, Code Enforcement Inspector Janice King said during her initial inspection on May 17, 2001, she observed outdoor displays in areas other than designated on the approved site plan. A notice of violation was issued on May 18, 2001. The property has been in and out of compliance since May of 2001. As of today, the property is in compliance. Ms. King said she has been in contact with the previous store manager who left in May or June of 2002 and with the new management regarding these violations. The Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing was issued on December 31, 2001. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-6 for 26990 US Highway 19 North that included photographs of the site. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said a previous code provision provided if a property came into compliance prior to the hearing date, the case would be continued for a period of six months. If the property remained in compliance, the case would be withdrawn. This property has been in and out of compliance within that six-month period. Staff is asking for a finding of violation so if the violation reoccurs, the City can recite the property owner as a repeat violation. Member Allbritton moved that concerning Case 04-02A, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 28, 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 Code Inspector Janice King for City (Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 [Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 –property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 – notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – Lowe’s site plan dated 2/12/98 and Ex. 7 – composite photographs of conditions], it is evident that there was outdoor display in areas other than designated on the approved site plan, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing was in violation of Code Section 1-104(B) as referred to in the affidavit read into the record in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to continue compliance with said Sections of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order the Respondent to pay a fine of one hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($150.00) per day for each day the violation exists after the Respondent is notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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 violator pursuant to Chapter 162, 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. B. Case 24-02 Ollie R. Dennis 1012 N. Madison Avenue Development Code – Kurleman In correspondence dated August 15, 2002, Inspector Scott Kurleman withdrew Case 24-02 as the property is now in compliance. C. Case 25-02 Ollie R. Dennis 1012 N. Madison Avenue Development Code – Wilson In correspondence dated August 15, 2002, Inspector Scott Kurleman requested Case 25-02 be continued to the meeting of September 25, 2002. D. Case 30-02 East Bay Dry Cleaners 1701 Coachman Plaza Drive Development Code – Kurleman In correspondence dated August 15, 2002, Inspector Scott Kurleman withdrew Case 30-02 as the property is now in compliance. E. Case 31-02 Richard D Sr. & Deborah D Lyttle 2936 Clubhouse Drive W Development Code – King Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by hand delivery to Richard D. Lyttle, Sr. ten days prior to today’s hearing. Richard D. Lyttle, Sr., property owner, agreed with the violation. He stated he is in the process of correcting it. Inspector King said Mr. Lyttle lost his job in April and has had some financial difficulty in bringing the property into compliance. She noted the Homeowner’s Association wants this violation taken care of immediately as the problem has existed since August 2001. She said Mr. Lyttle has painted, cleaned the roof and installed some landscaping. She believed the property could be brought into compliance within 30 days. Mr. Lyttle said he planned to sod the entire yard but lost his job the end of April 2002 and is still unemployed. Over the last two days, he has installed grass plugs and finished landscaping. His irrigation pump was broken and has been replaced. He submitted photographs of the landscaping and sod completed today. He said his home is now for sale. Member Cole moved to continue Case 31-02 to the September 25, 2002, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 32-02 E. G. Bradford & Sons Inc. 111 S. Belcher Road Development Code – Hofferle AND G. Case 33-03 E. G. Bradford & Sons Inc. 111 S. Belcher Road Development Code – Fox Ms. Diana read the Affidavits of Violation and Request for Hearing for Cases 32-02 and 33-03. Service on the notices of hearing was obtained by physically posting the property at 111 S. Belcher Road. Inspector Fox said there have been problems with family members in trying to sell the property and no one has responded to staff regarding compliance. Code Enforcement Inspector Jan Hofferle said she spoke to Jerry Bradford who has indicated he is trying to sell this property. His father passed away a few years ago. Mr. Bradford indicated on June 5 and June 14 that the property would be brought into compliance. However, he has since indicated that his brothers are not in agreement regarding the disposition of the site. It was remarked that this property had been operating without a license. In response to questions from Attorney Ruff, Ms. Hofferle said during her initial inspection on February 26, 2002, she observed three inoperative vehicles and substantial outdoor storage. She referred to the sections of the Code regarding those violations. As all certified mail was returned unclaimed, a Notice of Violation issued on February 26, 2002 was posted on the property. She said she has had no recent contact with the property owner. On July 18, 2002, a Notice of Violation and Request for Hearing was issued. As of this morning, the property remains in violation. Attorney Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1- 6, including photographs of the property at 111 S. Belcher Road. Code Enforcement Inspector Mary Jo Fox said regarding Case 33-03, during her inspection on August 14, 2001, she observed several abandoned signs in poor condition and excessive window signs. No sign permits were found for this location. She referred to the Code sections applicable to the alleged violations. A Notice of Violation was posted on the property and sent certified and regular mail on December 18, 2001, however both were returned unclaimed. Other notices were posted on the property and at City Hall on February 26, 2002, March 14, 2002, and July 18, 2002. She spoke to Mr. Bradford regarding these violations. The last date of inspection was August 26, 2002, at which time the property was still in violation of the Code. Attorney Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1- 7, that included photographs of the property at 111 S. Belcher Road. In response to a question, Inspector Hofferle said the inoperable vehicles have no current tags. She said her original photographs reflected the vehicles parked in a different location, but were never removed from the property. She said the debris on the property presents a health hazard. Inspector Hall said there are some legal questions regarding what the City could do to abate the situation. It was remarked the propane tanks are a safety issue. It was felt that 30 days was too lenient a timeframe for compliance as this situation has existed for 2 years. Member Cole moved that regarding Case 32-02, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 28, 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 City Inspector Jana Hofferle for City (Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 [Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 – notice of hearing; and Ex. 7 – composite photographs of conditions on property], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. Inoperative vehicles as well as propane tanks, refrigerators, old grills are being stored on the property and create a public safety nuisance. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1503(B)(6) and 3-1502(F)(1) 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 within ten days (September 7, 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 September 7, 2002, the Respondent 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 September 7, 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. Member Huffman moved that regarding Case 33-03, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 28, 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 Code Inspector Mary Jo Fox for City (Respondent was not present and had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 [Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code sections; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of posting; Ex. 5 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; and Ex. 6 – composite photographs of conditions], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. The business has been closed for several years and there are abandoned freestanding and window signs in poor condition on the property. No sign permits were found for this location. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1803(A), 3-1502(I), 3-1805(Q) and 4-1002 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 within 30 days (September 27, 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 September 27, 2002, 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 September 27, 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. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 18-02 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Chuck C. Broadhurst 906 Pennsylvania Building Code – Coccia Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the Order imposing the fine for Case 18-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Request to Address Board re Fine Case 44-01 – American InfoAge, LLC 505 Virginia Lane (Kurleman) Ms. Diana stated the request is to address the Board at a future date regarding reducing the fine. It was remarked that there appears to be conflicting excuses by the property owner as to why they have not come into compliance. They MCEB previously allowed the property owner 60 days to comply, however, they have not done so. Member Huffman moved to deny the request to address the Board regarding the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS Member Martin stated the Code Enforcement Workshop she attended in Lakeland was excellent. She said the conference attorney clarified the powers and quasi-judicial nature of the Board. She said he stated board members should not visits the sites or speak to the petitioners prior to a board meeting. Board Members are to listen to the facts and make determinations based on those facts. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS Thomas and Barbara Soares COD2002-00249 2525 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Section 18-29-16, Metes & Bounds 41/04 $ 200.00 Opal C. and Danny L. Cole COD2002-00457 710 Lembo Circle Lembo Sub, Lot 13 $ 200.00 Bruce and Samuel Bernstein COD2002-01328 2254 Willow Tree Trail Woodgate of Countryside Unit 3, Lot 78 $ 250.00 Debra Wade COD2002-01738 1881 Feather Tree Circle Feather Tree, Lot 17 $ 250.00 Frank R. Perez and Yolanda Darosas COD2002-00142 321 Coronado Drive Columbia Sub No. 2, Blk A, Lot 6 $ 250.00 Member Huffman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 24, 2002 Member Williams moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 24, 2002, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m.