Loading...
06/25/2003MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 25, 2003 Present: Sheila Cole Chair David Allbritton Vice-Chair L. Duke Tieman Board Member Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Jay Keyes Board Member – arrived 3:15 p.m. Douglas J. Williams Board Member Also Present: Bryan D. 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 3:02 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. 1. Public Hearings Case 41-02 – Cont’d from 5/28/03 Spence Designs, Inc. (Something Fishy) 913 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Development – Ruud Case 41-02 was continued by staff to the October 30, 2003, meeting. Case 02-03 – Cont’d from 5/28/03 Parkside Clearwater Associates – Property Owner Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. – Billboard Owner 24639 US Highway 19 N Development – Fox Case 02-03 was continued by staff to the July 23, 2003, meeting. Case 11-03 – Cont’d from 5/28/03 Ninon Roy 3031 Prestige Drive Development – King Case 11-03 was continued by staff to the July 23, 2003, meeting. Case 15-03 – Cont’d from 5/28/03 Mildred H Center Trust James H. Center TRE 100 S. Betty Lane Development – DeBord Case 15-03 was withdrawn by staff, as the owner has complied with Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code. Case 16-03 – Cont’d from 6/25/03 Mildred H. Center Trust, James H. Center Tre 1275 Park Street Development – DeBord Case 16-03 was withdrawn by staff, as the owner has complied with Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code. F. Case 21-03 Johnie Blunt and Bobby Cowart 607 Engman Street Development – Shawen 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, License Inspector Dee Shawen said the property was first inspected in December 2002. A tenant occupied the home. Ms. Shawen said she attempted to contact the owners by mail and included an occupational license application form but received no response. To date, there has been no application submitted by the owners for an occupational license. No one was present to represent the owners. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-6, which included photographs of the property at 607 Engman Street. In response to a question, Ms. Shawen said property appraiser records revealed the property has no homestead exemption and the owner’s mailing address differs from that of the property address. An occupational license is required by the owner for rental property. She recommended the owner obtain an occupational license within 10 days or a $100/day fine be imposed. Member Tieman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 2003, and based on the evidence, issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Dee Shawen, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1) Notice of Violation; 2) applicable code sections; 3) Property Appraiser printout; 4) Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing; 5) Notice of Hearing; and 6) photograph of the property, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that the house is being rented without the owner having an occupational license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 29.28 and 29.30 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 July 13, 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 July 13, 2003, 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 July 13, 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. G. Case 22-03 William Donovan 602, 602-1/2, 604, 606 Engman Street & 605, 607 Ermine Street Development – Shawen Ms. 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 Attorney Ruff, Ms. Shawen said the property was inspected on January 8, 2003, at which time she found that four of the six properties were occupied and one was for rent. She said an occupational license is required for residential property that is being rented within the City limits. She researched the City’s records and found that no occupational license application has been applied for or issued, and there is no homestead exemption on the property. She has had no contact with the owners. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-6, which included photographs of the properties at 602, 601-1/2, 604, 606 Engman Street and 605, 607 Ermine Street. Ms. Shawen explained that there are a total of three parcels with two living units per parcel adjacent to one another. The “For Rent” sign was at 604 Engman Street, which is in the center of the three parcels. In response to a question, she recommended the owners obtain an occupational license within 10 days or a $100/per parcel per day fine be imposed. Ms. Shawen said the City does not require that each living unit have a separate license as the permit is based upon the total number of units. In response to a question, Ms. Shawen said the property appraiser records lists one owner for all of these parcels. She said the previous property owner had an occupational license, however the property was recently sold. Member Tieman moved that that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 2003, and based on the evidence, issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Dee Shawen, Code Inspector, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1) Notice of Violation; 2) applicable code sections; 3) Property Appraiser printout; 4) Notice of Violation & Request for Hearing; 5) Notice of Hearing; and 6) several photographs showing the units, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that housing units are being rented without the owner having an occupational license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 29.28 & 29.30 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 July 13, 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 July 13, 2003, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Three hundred dollars ($300.00) per day ($100.00 per day per parcel) for each day the violation continues beyond July 13, 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. H. Case 23-03 Lee’s Tree Service 2991 Ashecroft Court Development – Kurleman Case 23-03 was continued by staff to the July 23, 2003, meeting. I. Case 24-03 Tim J. Schemel 2300 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Development – Kurleman Case 24-03 was continued by staff to the July 23, 2003, meeting. J. Case 25-03 D R P Co Alabama, Inc. 1467 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Development – Kurleman Case 25-03 was withdrawn by staff, as the owner has complied with the Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code. K. Case 26-03 Keith Lee Rinker 2985 Ashecroft Court Development - Kurleman Ms. 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 Attorney Ruff, Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman said after receiving a complaint from a neighbor, he inspected the property on January 31, 2003, at which time he found a 16-inch pine tree had been removed from the rear yard without a permit. The City’s records indicated there was no permit for any tree removal at this property. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-6, which included photographs of the property. Mr. Kurleman recommended Mr. Rinker pay a fine of $48/inch for the 16 inches of tree that were removed and that Mr. Rinker obtain an occupational license. Keith Lee Rinker, Lee’s Tree Service, said he was guilty, with extenuating circumstances. He said the homeowner obtained a permit for removal of three oak trees. He believed the homeowner had approached some of his employees and requested they remove the pine tree. He said, frequently, a homeowner will ask that an additional tree be removed, and his employees do not always see the homeowner’s permit. He questioned, however, whether or not his employees actually cut down a tree or a stump. Mr. Kurleman said the tree service company denied removing it. He believed someone had placed a log on top of the stump to disguise it. In response to a question, Mr. Rinker said he did not know who would have placed the log on the stump and hoped it had not been done to deceive. He acknowledged that his occupational license to work in Clearwater had expired. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said the City uses a standard formula for mitigation in these cases, which has been devised by the ISA (International Society of Agriculture). It was questioned if the tree that was illegally removed could be replaced. Mr. Kurleman said it would be difficult to replace that size tree and the homeowner might not wish to replace it. Mr. Rinker was cited for its removal, not the homeowner. Mr. Rinker said he felt there was a possibility that the situation arose because the pine tree stump was only two feet from a room addition at the rear of the house. Member Allbritton moved that that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 2003, 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, and Keith Rinker, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1) Notice of Violation; 2) applicable code sections; 3) Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing; 4) Property Appraiser printout; 5) Notice of Hearing; and 6) two photographs of tree stump, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a 16-inch pine tree was removed without a permit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 4-1201 of the Community Development Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has removed a 16-inch pine tree without a permit. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to pay a fine in the amount of seven hundred sixty-eight and no/100 dollars ($768.00) by August 2, 2003. If Respondent does not pay the fine by August 2, 2003, 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. Mr. Rinker asked the criteria for removing a stump and questioned what is considered a tree and what is considered a stump. He insisted there was a permit issued for removal of the three oak trees. He said sometimes there are stumps on a property, and it is difficult to determine who removed which trees. Attorney for the Board, Jenay Martinez, said the Board had already ruled in this case, and it was inappropriate for Mr. Rinker to continue his testimony. She said there is a process in place if Mr. Rinker wishes to appeal the Board’s decision. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case 13-03 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Provident Bank, Inc. 309 Vine Street Housing - Wright Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the Order imposing the fine for Case 13-03. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION – None. NEW BUSINESS – None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: F Y P Enterprises, Inc. PNU2003-00285 24 South Fredrica Avenue Brookwood Terrace Revised, Blk 4, Lots 8-9 & S1/2 Lot 7 & Pt of vac Park St. $ 320.00 Jason Munn PNU2003-00842 1391 S. Martin Luther King Avenue Lakeview Heights, Blk F, Lots 11 and 12 $ 1,406.76 Member Williams moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 28, 2003 Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 28, 2003, was continued to the July 23, 2003, meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m.