Loading...
10/23/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER October 23, 2002 Present: Lawrence Tieman Chair Sheila Cole Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member Franke Huffman Board Member George Krause Board Member Douglas J. Williams Board Member Absent: David Allbritton Board Member Also Present: Bryan D. 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 25-02 – Cont’d from 8/28/02 Ollie R. Dennis 1012 N. Madison Avenue Development Code – Wilson At the request of staff, Item 1A, Case 25-02 was continued to November 13, 2002. 1B) Case 37-02 Patrick & Misty Arseneau 1560 S. Myrtle Avenue Building Code – Coccia At the request of staff, Item 1B, Case 37-02 was continued to November 13, 2002. 1C) Case 38-02 Lane E. Schoeck 2346 Shade Tree Lane Building Code – Coccia Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The date of inspection occurred on June 11, 2002, and the Notice of Violation was issued on August 13, 2002. Property owner Lane E Schoeck admitted to the violation. He said work on the project to enclose the garage and relocate the water heater should be complete within 90 days. Inspector Mike Coccia said project drawings must be submitted to the City for review and approval. He recommended 90 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on October 23, 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 Mike Coccia for City and Lane Schoeck for Respondent, who admitted to the violation, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that the garage door was removed, the garage enclosed and the water heater relocated to the exterior of the house without permits or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Article IV, Chapter 47, Section 47.083(2) and Article V, Chapter 47, 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 January 21, 2003. 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 January 21, 2003, 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 January 21, 2003. 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 39-02 Louis J. & Angelina Chaconas 1736 Drew Street Building Code – Coccia 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 June 12, 2002, and the Notice of Violation was issued on August 28, 2002. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff, Mr. Coccia said when he first inspected the property on June 7, 2002, he noticed a new section of chain link fence, new gates, and other violations related to electrical issues, which have been corrected. After several attempts, Mr. Coccia contacted the owner and reviewed the violation. Installation of the fence was not permitted and does not conform to current Code. There is no permit or application on file for the fence. He was not aware of any previous fence at that location. Mr. Coccia identified photographs he had taken of 1736 Drew Street on June 12, and October 22, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 1736 Drew Street. Property owner Louis Chaconas said the fence and gates were in poor condition when he purchased the property. He said his business was burglarized three times before he repaired the fence. He said he did not replace the poles and only had performed maintenance on the fence by replacing the gates and chain link. He said the fence is similar to ones at nearby businesses and he wished it to remain. He said he needs a 6-foot fence to protect his business. He said he is getting married soon and cannot afford a fancy fence. In response to a question regarding fence maintenance, Mr. Coccia said the intent of the Code is to allow homeowners to replace sections of wood fencing without obtaining a permit. A permit is required to replace chain link on a commercial property, as the Code now requires chain link to be covered with green or black vinyl. The Code only permits commercial chain link fences to be 36-inches high in the subject location. Six-foot commercial fencing must feature monumental styling and iron decoration. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia said the Code had changed since the fence on the property across the street was installed. It was suggested Mr. Chanonas could present documentation to prove that a fence previously was there. Mr. Chanonas said he had created two new rolling gates, similar to those on the property across the street. He said after he repaired the fence, he tried to apply for a fence permit and learned that chain links cannot be replaced. It was suggested Mr. Chanonas apply for flexible development approval to retain his fence in its current configuration. It was stated approval is not guaranteed. It was indicated the flexible development process can be lengthy. It was felt Mr. Chanonas should have the opportunity to explore other options. Discussion ensued regarding time frames necessary to correct the violation. Board Attorney Andy Salzman suggested the board could provide Mr. Chanonas with the opportunity to discuss what needs to be done with City staff. Member Williams moved to continue Item 1D, Case 39-02, to November 13, 2002. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1E) Case 40-02 David W. & Angela M. Heid 1839 Seton Drive 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 date of inspection occurred on September 6, 2002, and the Notice of Violation was issued on September 11, 2002. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Inspector Scott Kurleman said his first contact with the property owner was on April 30, 2002, after Mr. Heid applied to remove a 40-year old live oak tree from the property and indicated a swimming pool would be installed. Mr. Kurleman first visited the property on May 22, 2002 with Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani to discuss setback issues related to the proposed above ground swimming pool. While inspecting another neighborhood property on September 6, 2002, Mr. Kurleman noticed debris by the subject property’s curb and found the tree effectively removed with only the trunk remaining. He said Mr. Heid had been informed previously that a pool permit had to be issued before a tree removal permit could. The application for the pool, submitted on May 3, 2002, was not approved. While Mr. Heid did submit another drawing regarding the pool, the permit was not activated until October. Mr. Kurleman said during the week of May 6, 2002, Mr. Heid had left staff a series of threatening and abusive voice mail messages. The pool permit was approved after the fact on October 1, 2002. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Land Resource Specialist Rick Albee stated he is responsible for coordinating construction and tree removal permits. He visited the property on May 3, 2002, and informed the homeowner and arborist the tree removal permit would be delayed until the swimming pool permit was issued. He said the swimming pool’s originally proposed location was not acceptable as it did not meet setback requirements. The May 13, 2002, resubmission to locate the swimming pool 40 feet from the tree was acceptable and the tree would not have to be removed. Staff would have denied the tree removal permit application as the pool installation did not affect the tree. He reported the homeowners had installed the pool before a permit was issued. A tree removal permit never was issued. Property owner Angela Heid said in addition to the swimming pool, she wanted to remove the tree due to other concerns as the tree’s roots were above ground, damaging the structure of her house, and growing into her neighbor’s in ground pool. She expressed concern branches would break off the tree and crash through the roofs of her home and that of a neighbor’s. She said the tree was not in good shape. She said after a portion of the tree had been trimmed, Florida Power removed half of the tree due to its interference with a transformer. She said Mr. Kurleman’s recommendation to kill the tree’s roots had sounded too expensive. She said many neighbors are willing to testify they are thrilled the tree is gone. She said the tree was an eyesore and was not removed maliciously. Ms. Heid said she is a new homeowner and thought paperwork provided her by staff included a permit to remove the tree. She said her neighbor, who paid for the tree’s removal, and an arborist had thought the paperwork included a tree removal permit. Property owner David Heid said no one from the City had informed them the paperwork they were provided did not contain a tree removal permit. He said staff had told him to “go ahead and do what you have to do.” He said staff had provided him with “tons of receipts.” He said it was months before the tree was removed. He said no one from the City had contacted him. He submitted Defendant composite Exhibit 1. Mr. Kurleman identified photographs he had taken of 1839 Seton Drive on September 6, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply by planting two trees that are 8 to 10 feet tall and have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches, removal of the remainder of the partially removed tree, and imposition of a $5,000 fine, the maximum fine for this type of violation. He recommended the fine be imposed due to the magnitude of the violation. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said staff did not have the opportunity to properly inspect the tree before it was removed. Based on his observation, Mr. Kurleman said the tree had appeared to be pretty healthy even though some limbs had been removed. He had reviewed the procedure to remove roots with the homeowner. Mr. Albee said staff’s job is to preserve trees. Alternative actions are available to stop related damage rather than remove a tree. In response to a question, Mr. Heid said he was frustrated he was not receiving correct answers from staff. He said staff had refused to provide him with a written statement guaranteeing a tree branch would not fall through his roof and harm his daughter. Building Official Kevin Garriott testified that he had received several, lengthy, abusive voice mail messages from Mr. Heid. He said staff has records of the calls. He said Mr. Heid was excitable when visiting City offices and would not listen to reason. He screamed at City staff when they attempted to perform electrical inspections. He said while one telephone message from Mr. Heid was calm and complimentary of two staff members, the other messages were belligerent in tone. Concern was expressed whether staff had adequately apprised Mr. Heid of what was needed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 6 for 1839 Seton Drive. In response to a question, Mr. Ruff reviewed the Code regarding the ability to invoke a $5,000 fine for an irreparable or irreversible violation. Mr. Salzman recommended when considering punishment, the board consider circumstances surrounding this case. Concern was expressed the board is being asked to legislate behavior. It was stated the intent is for compliance, not punishment. It was felt there was blame on both sides. Concern was expressed an ordinary citizen could not understand paperwork issued by staff. It was felt the emotional aspects of this case should not be considered. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on October 23, 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 and Land Resource Specialist Rick Albee for City, and David and Angela M. Heid for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1) notice of violation; 2) copy of return receipt for certified mail; 3) applicable code sections; 4) property appraiser printout; 5) affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and 6) photographs, and Respondent composite Exhibit 1 (affidavit of violation & request for hearing, status sheet, 2 receipts from City; Information Summary from Tidemark, boundary survey dated 5/16/02, case summaries, letter from Florida Power, boundary survey dated 5/13/02, assembly guide for steel wall pools, property appraiser printout, copy of building permit, letter from City to Respondent, copy of American National Standard for above ground pools, and a memo from Tamika Holmes to Garry Haire), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a protected live oak tree was removed without first obtaining a permit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 4-1201 and 3-1205(F)(2) 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 pay a fine of one thousand and no/100 dollars ($1,000.00) as the violation is considered to be irreparable or irreversible in nature. It is also the Order of the Board that the Respondent correct the aforesaid violation within 30 days (November 22, 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 22, 2002, the Respondent may be ordered to pay an additional fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond November 22, 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 2A) Case 19-02 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Chuck C. Broadhurst 1112 Palm Bluff Street Building Code – Coccia 2B) Case 20-02 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Robert Petit 1009 Woodlawn Street Development Code – Phillips 2C) Case 23-02 Affidavit of Non-Compliance E. G. Bradford & Sons, Inc. 111 S. Belcher Road Development Code – Kurleman Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the orders imposing the fines for Cases #19-02, 20-02, and 23-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2D) Case 22-02 Affidavit of Compliance Ochi LLC (Oil Can Henry’s) Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Development Code – Kurleman 2E) Case 28-02 Affidavit of Compliance John & Laura L. Gianfilippo 1939 Sunset Point Road Development Code – Ruud 2F) Case 33-02 Affidavit of Compliance G. Bradford & Sons, Inc. 111 S. Belcher Road Development Code - Fox Member Huffman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases #22-02, #28-02, and #33-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #3 – Other Board Action/Discussion Member Huffman was thanked for his service on the board. Item #4 – New Business – None. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Debra Wade PNU2002-00527 1881 Feather Tree Circle Feather Tree, Lot 17 $320 Laura N. Connolly, Tre. PNU2002-00559 3012 County Road 31 McMullen's Bayview, Blk 5, Lots 2 & 3 $432.38 James E. and Docha A. Kipp PNU2002-01122 2832 St. John Drive Virginia Grove Terrace 5th Addition Blk B, Lot 4 $ 320 Sean Morrissey and Nancy Koppel PNU2002-00822 1777 Apache Trail Navajo Park Revised, Blk A, Lots 1 & 2 $ 320 ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. PNU2002-01021 412 Pleasant Street North Shore Park, Blk 7, Lot 18 $ 320 Gulf Point Ltd. PNU2002-00574 1936 Springtime Avenue Sunset Point 2nd Addition, Blk G, N51' of Lot 50 $ 439.62 Lela Blocker Est c/o Dollie H. Jackson PR PNU2002-00995 1201 Tangerine Street Greenwood Park #2, Blk D, Lots 1 & 2 $ 320 Helene Mercier PNU2002-00406 3201 Drew Street Section 16-29-16, M&B 12/02 $ 576.60 Teretha Pugh and Philip Joseph PNU-00946 1630 North Washington Avenue Fairmont Sub, Blk A, Lot 14 $320 Carlos Lopez and Harold Mayo PNU2002-00949 1487 South Michigan Avenue Zephyr Hill, Lots 14 and 15 less S25' $ 320 Countryside Home Loans, Inc. PNU2002-00943 1534 South Madison Avenue Carolina Terrace, Blk A, Lot 9 $320 Vision Development Enterprises Corp. PNU2002-00979 703 Pennsylvania Avenue Pine Crest Sub, Blk 7, Lot 10 $320 S. P. Greenwood PNU2002-00285 408 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue Coachman Heights Revised, Blk D, Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17 $535 S. P. Greenwood PNU2002-00283 413 Ewing Avenue Coachman Heights Revised, Blk D, Lots 6 and 7 $359 Ethel Darlage PNU2002-00622 912 North Myrtle Avenue Section 09-29-15, M&B 41/01 $473.16 S & P Properties COD2002-01562 1180 Cleveland Street Gibson's Clearwater Heights, Lots 4 thru 8 incl $360 Rebecca L. Sanders PNU2002-00890 Eight North Nimbus Avenue Sky Crest Unit 9, Blk J, Lot 8 and 1/2 vacant alley on West $320 Isa Q. Dauti PNU2002-00998 1535 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard West Parking Lot Druid Hills, Lot 20 $320 Chuck C. Broadhurst PNU2002-00626 906 Pennsylvania Avenue Pine Crest Sub, Blk 2, Lot 3 and E1/2 vacant alley on West $320 Member Williams moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Cole moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 25, 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 5:02 p.m.