Loading...
09/25/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER September 25, 2002 Present: Lawrence Tieman Chair David Allbritton Board Member Franke Huffman Board Member Douglas J. Williams Board Member Absent: Sheila Cole Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Andrew 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 07-02 Debra Kagan Ward 1148 NE Cleveland Street Building Code – Coccia 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 As no recurrence of the violation has occurred, the item is withdrawn. 1B) Case 09-02 U Haul Co. W. Coast FLA. 23917 U.S. Hwy 19 N Development Code – Kurleman Per Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, the item was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 As no recurrence of the violation has occurred, the item is withdrawn. 1C) Case 25-02 – Cont’d from 8/28/02 Ollie R. Dennis 1012 N. Madison Avenue Development Code – Wilson In correspondence dated September 12, 2002, Inspector Eric Wilson requested Case 25-02 be continued to the meeting of October 23, 2002. 1D) Case 31-02 – Cont’d from 8/28/02 Richard D. Sr. & Deborah D. Lyttle 2936 Clubhouse Drive W. Development Code – King Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property. The date of inspection occurred on August 29, 2001, and the Notice of Violation was issued on September 4, 2001. Richard D. Lyttle, Sr. said the landscaping violation did exist a month ago. Code Enforcement Inspector Janice King said the majority of the yard has been plugged, and planted seeds are sprouting. She expressed concern it will be difficult for grass to grow on the small, bare, sandy areas of the yard. Staff is asking for a finding of violation so if the violation reoccurs, the City can recite the property owner as a repeat violation. Mr. Lyttle reviewed his efforts to landscape the property, which has an irrigation system. Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman said, considering Mr. Lyttle’s actions and with continued irrigation and fertilizing efforts, it would be reasonable to expect the yard will comply with Code within 120 days. Board Attorney Andy Salzman said as the house is for sale, a future violation by new owners would not constitute a repeat violation. The new owners could be noticed regarding this violation. As Mr. Lyttle has corrected the majority of the violation, it was recommended the item be continued. It was felt Mr. Lyttle had acted in good faith. Member Huffman moved to continue Case 31-02 for 120 days. The motion was duly seconded. Members Allbritton, Huffman, and Williams voted “Aye”; Chair Tieman voted “Nay.” Motion carried. 1E) Case 34-02 Donald E. & Peggie Zeitler 1700 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Development Code – Phillips Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & 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 Julie Phillips said in June 1990, this property at 1700 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue had been found in violation of the same Code infraction. She inspected the property on October 26, 2001 and found 3 trailers on site being used for illegal storage. One trailer remains. She issued a Notice of Violation on August 8, 2002. She recommended 5 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Donald Zeitler, property owner, admitted to the violation. He said he could not meet the deadline to comply. The trailer holds merchandise that cannot fit into his store. He said plans to add a warehouse to this site were foiled due to parking requirements. He said the carpet business market has been poor since September 11, 2001, and he has been unable to sell all of the carpeting he has in stock. He stated road construction in front of his Drew Street store has further hindered his business and his sales have dropped by 62%. He said the trailer has been on the site for many years and it was not brought to his attention until last fall. He felt he could remove the trailer by the end of 2002. He had sent a letter requesting an extension for this temporary storage use. He said his business is more than 25 years old. Ms. Phillips expressed concern the trailer, at 40 feet in length, 13 feet in height, and 8 feet in width, is quite large and nearly four times larger than trailers allowed, for limited times, at permitted construction sites. It was felt special circumstances exist. It was stated Mr. Zeitler had made efforts to correct the situation by removing two trailers and was working to resolve the issue. It was noted the site had been out of compliance for at least eight months, a long time. Concern was expressed the owner was aware that use of on-site trailers for storage was illegal as he had been cited previously for the same Code infraction. It was recommended the violation be corrected before the end of the year. Member Allbritton moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 25, 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 Inspector Julie Philips for City and Donald and Rod Zeitler for Respondent, and admission to the violation, it is evident a portable storage unit is illegally located on the subject property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-2103.A.6, 3-2103.B.3 and 3-2103.B.3.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 within 45 days (November 9, 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 November 9, 2002, 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 November 9, 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 35-02 El Amir of Tampa Co. 2099 Highland Avenue Development Code – Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The Respondent was not present and had no representation. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff, Mr. Kurleman said he first inspected the property at 2099 Highland Avenue on March 28, 2002 and observed that two pine trees had been removed without a permit. He issued a Notice of Violation on March 29, 2002. He said the property owner is working to replace the trees and install a hedge as a landscape buffer along Highland Avenue and Union Street. The owner had removed the trees because they made a mess in the parking lot. The owner said he did not know permits were required. Mr. Kurleman visited the property today and reported no change had occurred. Mr. Kurleman identified photographs he had taken of 2099 Highland Avenue on March 28, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions and show sawdust remaining where the trees previously stood. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 including photographs for 2099 Highland Avenue. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said each pine tree had been 15-inches in diameter. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Member Williams moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 25, 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 Inspector Scott Kurleman 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 – applicable code sections; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – certified mail receipt; Ex. 5 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 6 – notice of hearing; and Ex. 7 – composite photographs], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. Two protected pine trees were removed without a permit and have not been replaced with equivalent material. 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 within 30 days (October 25, 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 October 25, 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 October 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. 1G) Case 36-02 Alex Ari Florida Co. Key West Grill 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Development Code – Kurleman Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. Rick Mitchell, Representative, admitted to the violation. He said the company had purchased the property four years ago. He said the site’s landscape plan had been submitted to the City in 1985. The company had spent $3,000 on landscaping and requested 30 more days to complete the project. Mr. Kurleman recommended 30 days to comply or a $150 per day fine be imposed. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on September 25, 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 Inspector Scott Kurleman for City, and Rick Mitchell for Respondent, and admission to the violation, it is evident the required landscape has not been maintained on the subject property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1204.B, 3-1204.I and 3-1204.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 within 30 days (October 25, 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 October 25, 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 October 25, 2002. Who 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 2A) E. G. Bradford & Sons Inc. 111 S. Belcher Road Development Code – Hofferle Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case #32-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #3 – Other Board Action/Discussion It was recommended members review the pamphlet received from the recent code enforcement workshop in Lakeland. Item #4 – New Business – None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings – None. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Allbritton moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 28, 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 3:59 p.m.