Loading...
11/13/2002MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 13, 2002 Present: Lawrence Tieman Chair Sheila Cole Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member David Allbritton Board Member George Krause Board Member Douglas J. Williams Board Member Also Present: Bryan D. Ruff Assistant City Attorney Elita Cobbs 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 In correspondence dated October 29, 2002, Development Services Coordinator Bob Hall withdrew Case 25-02. 1B) Case 37-02 - Cont’d from 10/23/02 Patrick & Misty Arseneau 1560 S. Myrtle Avenue Building Code – Coccia In correspondence dated November 13, 2002, Inspector Mike Coccia withdrew Case 37-02. 1C) Case 39-02 – Cont’d from 10/23/02 Louis J. & Angelina Chaconas 1736 Drew Street Building Code - Coccia On October 23, 2002, the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) continued Case 39-02 to provide the property owner time apply for flexible development approval of the existing fence and/or provide documentation showing the fence’s previous location. Building Inspector Mike Coccia stated the property owner had not made application for flexible development approval. Planner Mark Parry reviewed Code requirements related to new commercial fencing. Mr. Coccia recommended 30 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. Property owner Louis Chaconas said staff had told him he did not need to file the application before the November 21, 2002 deadline. He said the date scheduled for Development Review Committee consideration of his application conflicts with events related to his wedding. He reviewed his plans for the fence. It was noted the board had suggested Mr. Chaconas apply for flexible development approval prior to today’s meeting, if that process was his intent. It was stated Mr. Chaconas had not followed the board’s recommendation to provide a plat of the property that indicates the previous fence’s location. In response to a question, Mr. Parry recommended the property owner speak with staff regarding permitted materials for the masonry grillwork required for commercial property fences. It was felt 30 days is sufficient for the property owner to meet Code. Member Williams moved that the property owner be provided 30 days to comply or a $100 per day fine be imposed. The motion was duly seconded. It was recommended the property owner be provided additional time to address the fence. It was recommend the fine be increased if required work is not completed by that time. Member Williams amended his motion the property owner be given 60 days. The seconder concurred. Member Williams moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 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 and Planner Mark Parry for City and Louis J. Chaconas for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 [Ex. 1 – notice of violation and order to stop work dated 6/12/02, Ex. 2 – notice of violation dated 8/28/02, Exs. 3 & 4 – affidavit of posting and return receipt, Ex. 5 – applicable code sections, Ex. 6 –property appraiser printout, Ex. 7 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing, and Ex. 8 – composite photographs], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. A 6-foot chain link fence was installed without a permit or inspection. 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 within 60 days (1/12/03). 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 12, 2003, 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 January 12, 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. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. 1D) Case 41-02 Spence Designs, Inc. 913 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Development – Ruud In correspondence dated October 30, 2002, Inspector Ruud requested Case 41-02 be continued to the January 22, 2003 meeting. 1E) Case 42-02 Landmark Palms Homeowners’ Association Landmark Palms Subdivision Building - Wright In his November 4, 2002 letter to Board Secretary Diana, Jim Whitehurst, President of the Landmark Palms Homeowners Association, said he could not attend today’s meeting and stated the association had contracted to raze and replace the wall and that work should be complete by the week of November 18, 2002. He requested a 30-day extension to complete demolition and construction work. Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright recommended a fine be imposed in 30 days if demolition work is not complete. The abutting condominium homeowners association is afraid the wall will collapse onto their property. Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing, issued on October 8, 2002. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The date of inspection occurred on May 13, 2002, and the Notice of Violation was issued on that same day. Other dates of notification occurred on July 2, August 7, August 14, September 4, and September 12, 2002. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff, Mr. Wright said he first inspected the property on May 13, 2002, and noticed the last 200 feet of the association’s south perimeter wall was leaning approximately 6 inches out of plumb to the south over abutting property belonging to a condominium association. In spite of numerous telephone conversations between Mr. Wright and Mr. Whitehurst and the association’s attorney, nothing has been done. A signed contract to raze the wall was previously presented to demolish the wall last June. That did not occur. Mr. Wright identified photographs he had taken of the south perimeter wall belonging to the Landmark Palms Homeowners Association on May 13, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $250 per day fine be imposed, as the wall is an unsafe structure. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for the Landmark Palms Homeowners Association case. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said the contractor had indicated the wall should be removed by November 18, 2002. Board Attorney Elita Cobbs stated Mr. Whitehurst’s request in his November 4, 2002 letter is unclear. Mr. Wright said compliance will be met when the wall is removed and does not require replacement. He expressed concern the wall could collapse into the City’s roadway. Member Martin moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 2002, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 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 William Wright for City, (Respondent had no representation), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 [Ex. 1 & 2 – notice of unsafe building dated 5/13/02 and return receipt, Ex. 3 – applicable code sections, Ex. 4 –property appraiser printout, Ex. 5 – letter to Landmark Palms from Inspector Wright dated 8/7/02, Ex. 6 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing, and Ex. 7 – composite photographs], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. A block wall fence around Landmark Palms is in a deteriorated condition that creates a serious hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47 Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by Section 47.051(1)(e) 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 (12/13/02). 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 December 13, 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 December 13, 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 In response to a concern, Mr. Wright said the homeowners association owns common areas in the development. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. 1F) Case 43-02 Harbor Oaks Development L.C. 608 Harold Court Building – Wright Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing, issued on October 21, 2002. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The Notice of Violation was issued on March 28, 2002. Other dates of notification occurred on May 13, June 7, and September 18, 2002. In response to questions from Mr. Ruff, Bill Wright said the property had been cited and the building placed on the unsafe list on February 1, 1999, when another person owned the property. The building appears to be full of stored materials. He said steps have not been taken to raze the structure or repair it. He said the building has a rusted and peeling roof, a dirt floor, a boarded up door, and stored construction materials. The building does not meet Code. Inspector Wright identified photographs he had taken of the structure in February 1999, and on October 29, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He said the structure could be razed in 30 days. Repairs could take 6 months. He recommended all permits be obtained within 30 days, with work completed in 90 days or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 7 for 608 Harold Court. Property owner Jim Wright said his firm, Harbor Oaks Development L. C., had purchased the structure as a part of a larger property purchase. He said he was not aware the building had been cited prior to his purchase. He said when his firm constructed the nearby shopping center, he thought the neglected building could be of some use. He said recent work was done to remove a tree branch from the roof following a lightening strike. He said the structure does not have electricity or plumbing. He said doors on the building had been knocked down during the construction. He said the building was permitted and constructed the way it stands today. He said he will repair the roof and secure the doors. He said he wants to continue using the building for storage. He said before he razes the structure, he wants to decide the best use for the property. He does not plan to add electricity. He said razing the structure would be a hardship. He wished the building to remain while he decides what to do with the property. In response to a question, Inspector Wright said bathroom facilities are required in storage buildings. It was noted the owner had been notified of related problems four times since the Notice of Violation was issued. The structure must meet current Code before it can be occupied. Jim Wright said he did not need to use the building. Mr. Wright suggested it would be sufficient for the property owner to secure the roof of the building and doors and allow visibility of the structure’s interior, for staff inspection. He expressed concern the building not be used by transients. He said he could work with the property owner for any needed extension of time. He recommended the building be secured according to Code within 30 days or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Member Allbritton moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 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 William Wright for City, and Jim White for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 [Ex. 1 & 2 – notice of unsafe building dated 3/28/02 and return receipt, Ex. 3 – applicable code sections, Ex. 4 –property appraiser printout, Ex. 5 – letter to Harbor Oaks Development from Inspector Wright dated 6/7/02, Ex. 6 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing, and Ex. 7 – composite photographs], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. A structure is in a deteriorated condition creating a serious hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47 Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by Section 47.051(1)(e) 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 secure the building according to city regulations within 30 days (12/13/02). 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 December 13, 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 December 13, 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 44-02 North Bay Community Church 3190 McMullen-Booth Road Building – Wright Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing, issued on October 8, 2002. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The Notice of Violation was issued on July 12, 2001. Other dates of notification occurred on September 12, 2001, May 10, May 22, and July 16, 2002. On September 12, 2001, the BAABF (Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Building/Flood Control) had granted the church 90 days to obtain soil reports. The owners of the building have failed to comply with the Unsafe Notice and with the BAAF’s order. Representative Fred Eichelberger admitted the violation exists but requested a 6-month extension to comply. Representative Patrick Garrett said a sinkhole claim has been filed with the church’s insurance company. Mr. Wright said until the soil reports are provided, no one can determine why the building is cracking. He said he first inspected the structure on July 3, 2001, and noted numerous cracks in the north wall. He said problems could be related to a clay pocket or sinkhole. He said nothing has been done to address the problem in the past year. Mr. Wright reviewed photographs he had taken of the building on June 21, July 3, and September 11, 2001, and on April 2, and November 12, 2002, and indicated the photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to obtain a soils report or a $250 per day fine be imposed. He said people continue to use the three-story building. The soil report would indicate what needs to be done to repair the building. He expressed concern the building’s main power source is behind a major crack. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1 - 6 for 3190 McMullen-Booth Road. Mr. Eichelberger said it has been difficult to get the church’s insurance company to admit liability for sinkhole issues. Testing is scheduled to begin on November 18, 2002. He said it may be difficult to obtain a copy of the soil report from the insurance company. Mr. Garrett estimated the soil report should be available in three weeks for engineers to determine the best way to repair related damage. However, as the church has no control over the process, which could be delayed, he requested additional time. Concern was expressed the problem has been ongoing for an extended time period and that children use the building. Assurance was requested that the structure will be repaired even if the insurance company provides no money. Mr. Eichelberger said the building will be repaired or razed. He reviewed problems the church has had with the insurance company. It was recommended the insurance company’s attorney be advised of today’s ruling, to hold them liable for this fine if delays continue. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 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 William Wright for City, and Patrick H. Garrett, and Fred J. Eichelberger for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 [Ex. 1 & 2 – notice of unsafe building dated 7/12/01 and return receipt, Ex. 3 – applicable code sections, Ex. 4 –property appraiser printout, Ex. 5 – affidavit of violation & request for hearing, and Ex. 6 – composite photographs], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. A structure is in a deteriorated condition relating to sinkhole activity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47 Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by Section 47.051(1)(e) 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 provide a soil report to the City within 30 days (12/13/02). 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 December 13, 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 December 13, 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. 1H) Case 45-02 Isa Q. Dauti 1535 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Building - Wright Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing, issued on October 8, 2002. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. The Notice of Violation was issued on June 18, 2002. Other dates of notification occurred on July 11, July 30, August 7, September 17, and September 24, 2002. Property owner Isa Q. Dauti admitted violations exist. He said he plans to repair the structure. Mr. Wright said yesterday he had met with the roofer, who indicated he will be obtaining permits soon. Mr. Wright said the roof leaks in every section of the building. The owners of the previous restaurant had moved out of the building without contacting the owner. He said repairs will take a while. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $250 per day fine be imposed. He said once the work on the roof is underway, he will work with the property owner to make electrical and mechanical repairs and rehabilitate the interior. Member Williams moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on November 13, 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 William Wright for City, and Isa Dauti for Respondent, and admission to the violation, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. The roofing system of a building structure has deteriorated and flooded the interior. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by Section 47.051(1)(e) 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 repair the roofing system within 30 days (12/13/02). 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 December 13, 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 December 13, 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 21-02 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Robert Petit 1009 Woodlawn Street Building Code – Coccia Member Cole moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case #21-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2B) Case 34-02 Affidavit of Compliance Donald Zeitler 1700 N. Ft Harrison Avenue Development Code – Phillips 2C) Case No. 35-02 Affidavit of Compliance El Amir of Tampa Co. 2099 Highland Avenue Development Code – Kurleman 2D) Case No. 36-02 Affidavit of Compliance Alex Ari Florida Co. 901 Venetia Bay Boulevard Development Code – Kurleman Member Williams moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases #34-02, #35-02, and #36-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #3 – Other Board Action/Discussion – None. Item #4 – New Business No meeting is scheduled for December 2002. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Anne G. Park - UTD 7-19-90 PNU2002-00953 1481 Hamlet Avenue Belleair Highlands, Blk D, S50' of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 $320 Isa Dauti PNU2002-00876 1535 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Druid Hills, Lots 21, 22 and 23 $320 John H. Snyder IV PNU2002-01039 502 Palm Bluff Street Palm Bluff 1st Addition, E50' Lots 6-7 $320 Charles H. and Kirsti A. Anderson PNU2002-01199 1101 Wood Avenue Bonair Hill Sub, Blk C, Lot 1 and W25' of Lot 2 $320 Member Martin 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 October 23, 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 5:00 p.m.