Loading...
02/25/2004 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 25, 2004 Present: Sheila Cole Chair Joyce Martin Vice-Chair Douglas J. Williams Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member L. Duke Tieman Board Member Absent: George Krause Board Member Jay Keyes Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Andrew Salzman Attorney for the Board Mark 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. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 35-03 Contd. from 1/28/04 Sabrooke Trust-Trustee Sandelman/Phillip Evans 20228 U.S. Highway 19 N Nuisance Appeal - Hofferle Board Secretary Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained. Development Services Manager Bob Hall said the owner had removed the trailer that was in violation and replaced it with another. Mr. Phillip Evans has indicated he would obtain the proper registration for the new trailer within 10 days. Mr. Hall requested the Board issue a declaration of violation. Staff is not requesting a fine be attached to the violation, but should a repeat violation occur, that a fine be levied. Member Avichouser moved that concerning Case 35-03 a violation of Section 3- 1503.B.6, further described in Section 8-102 of the Community Development Code of the City of Clearwater existed and was corrected prior to this hearing. If the violation is motion repeated, the Board may order a fine for each day the violation exists. The was . carried duly seconded and unanimously Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 1 B. Case 03-04 Hardees Lease Partners 1980 (4930-0027) 2551 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. Development Code – Kurleman Case #03-04 was continued by staff to the March 24, 2004, meeting. C. Case 04-04 Sand Dollar 1600 N. Myrtle Avenue Development Code – Kurleman Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained. The Respondent was not present and had no representation. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff, Code Enforcement Inspector Scott Kurleman said previously a discount automobile establishment existed on the property. In August of 1999, the owner was brought before the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board). In September of 2001 and in June 2002, repeat violations occurred. In June 2002, Dollar General Store moved to the site. On October 1, 2003, under the Dollar General Store ownership, Inspector Kurleman said he found a considerable amount of dead plant material, trash, and debris throughout the property. He reinspected the property on December 4, 2003, and February 23, 2003, at which time the property was still in noncompliance. He referred to the sections of the Code that were applicable. He said the current owner used and accepted the former owner’s landscape plan as his own. Inspector Kurleman said he spoke to the owner’s representative on February 13, 2004, and with Mr. Tim English, Vice President of the company, on February 23, 2004. Mr. English had apologized for not responding to the City and requested another 60 days to comply. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1- 6 for 1600 N. Myrtle Avenue. In response to questions, Inspector Kurleman recommended the property be brought into compliance within 45 days or a $250/day fine be imposed. Member Avichhouser moved that concerning Case 04-04 the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on February 25, 2004, 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 represented, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6: 1) Notice of violation; 2) signed return receipt for notice of violation; 3) applicable code sections; 4) property appraiser printout; 5) affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and 6) composite photographs of conditions], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that the landscaping has not been maintained. Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1204(I) and 3-1204(L) of the Community Development 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 (4/18/04). 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 April 18, 2004, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250) per day for each day the violation continues beyond April 18, 2004. 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. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. D. Case 05-04 Northwood Plaza 3023 Eastland Blvd, #103 Development Code – Kurleman Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained. In response to a question, Mr. Bernie Ruekberg, representative, admitted to the violation. He said the tree had been improperly topped and the owner no longer contracts with that tree company. The trees that were topped are getting new growth. Mr. Ruekberg said any trees that are lost would be replaced. Inspector Kurleman said the trees need to be replaced as they have been permanently and irrevocably damaged by topping. The violation first occurred in December of 2002, at which time the owner was cited. He said he met the owner on site Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 3 on January 22, 2003, and on May 7, 2003. On May 7, 2003, the owner agreed he would replace half of the trees before Labor Day and the remainder before the end of the year. After May 7, 2003, he received no further communication from the owner or his representative. Inspector Kurleman said topping causes root starvation and weak hazardous growth. The tree will never be structurally sound. He recommended that all trees be replaced as originally agreed upon. Joseph Cirman, a certified arborist with Sunrise Landscaping, said he inspected the trees at Northwood Plaza and found new regenerative growth. He said a tree can regenerate itself to prevent starvation of roots in most cases. He proposed to selectively prune the subject trees and allow new leaders to take over while closely monitoring the weight load of the limbs. He felt the trees could grow back to close their original size and shape. He said until 10 years ago, topping was an accepted method of trimming. He said his arborists have experience in working with topped trees. In response to a question, Mr. Cirman said it might take two to three years to recapture the initial shape of the trees. Inspector Kurleman disagreed with Mr. Cirman. He said it is impossible for the trees to have the same structure even if some leaders could be trained back to health. He referred to sections of the Code that prohibit topping of trees. Inspector Kurleman expressed concern the City would be liable for any accidents caused by the unhealthy trees. Inspector Kurleman estimated replacement costs for the trees at $400 - $600 each. The trees were approximately four inches in diameter in 1996. If replaced now, the difference between the current size and the original size could be mitigated through the tree bank fund. Inspector Kurleman said he tried numerous times to work with the owner before bringing this matter to the MCEB. He recommended that all 38 trees be replaced within 90 days or a $250/day fine be imposed for each day the violation continues to exist. Member Martin moved that concerning Case No. 05-04, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on February 25, 2004, 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 Bernie Ruekberg for Respondent, who admitted to the violation, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that 38 live oak trees on the property have been severely topped. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1204(J) and 3-1205(F)(3) of the Community Development Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 4 ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation within 90 days (6/2/04). 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 June 2, 2004, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250) per day for each day the violation continues beyond June 2, 2004. 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. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. E. Case 06-04 Martha A. Drain 1361 S. Martin L. King, Jr. Avenue Development Code – Doherty Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained. The Respondent was not present and had no representation. In response to questions from Attorney Ruff, Code Enforcement Specialist Geri Doherty said the initial inspection was done on September 25, 2003. She said she found a dining room table, toilet, sink, large kitchen appliance, doors, etc. being stored outdoors. She contacted the owner and told him he had two weeks to remove the items. Inspector Doherty reinspected the property on October 10, 2003, at which time she found some items had been removed. She left a door hangar requesting the remainder of the items be removed by the following Friday. She reinspected the property again on October 28, 2003, and found the property still was in violation of the Code. The last inspection done was February 23, 2004. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1- 6, which included photographs of the conditions. Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 5 In response to a question, Ms. Doherty said there was construction lumber in the driveway but no permit had been issued for any type of construction. Member Williams moved that concerning Case No. 06-06, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on February 25, 2004, 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 Geri Doherty for City, Respondent was not represented, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6: 1) Notice of violation; 2) signed return receipt for notice of violation; 3) applicable code sections; 4) property appraiser printout; 5) affidavit of violation & request for hearing; and 6) composite photographs of conditions, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that the property is being used for outdoor storage of furniture, automobile parts and tires, building materials, etc. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1502(G) of the Community Development 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 seven days (March 11, 2004). 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 March 11, 2004, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50) per day for each day the violation continues beyond March 11, 2004. 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. Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 6 motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case No. 32-02 Affidavit of Compliance E.G. Bradford & Sons, Inc. 111 S. Belcher Rd. Development Code - Hofferle Member Martin moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 32-02. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION A. Request re Reduction of Fine Case 28-03 – Jennifer Carpenter 915.5 Turner Street Building – Wright (Lien Amount: $16,750) In response to a question, Ms. Diana said administrative costs associated with this property total $500. Gilbert Jannelli, representing his daughter, reviewed efforts to rehabilitate and/or construct new buildings on this property. He said the property was purchased in 1999 and permits were received to rebuild in 2000. He said work stopped due to a zoning change. Application was made to the Community Development Board (CDB) and a site plan was approved for three units. He felt the owner had been penalized because of those changes. He said a contractor’s bid showed it was more cost effective to demolish the building and to rebuild. He said a demolition permit was obtained and the house was demolished within the required 30-day timeframe. After demolition occurred, the contractor had gone to Europe to visit his father who was ill. He disagreed the groundcover was not in place in the appropriate timeframe. Building Official Bill Wright presented background on the case and said staff has been trying to work with the property owner for three years to bring the property into compliance. He said Mr. Jannelli came before the Board and set his own date of August 9, 2004, to have the demolition completed. He said the final inspection was not called in until October 15, 2003 and a notice of compliance was issued on October 16, 2003. Mr. Kit Kowalter, demolition contractor, said the demolition portion of the contract was accomplished in mid-August of 2003. He said he went overseas for four weeks and upon his return found there was a compliance issue with the City. Inspector Wright said he did not know when the building was demolished, as the owner never called him. He said the job had not been completed on October 1, 2003, Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 7 when he visited the property. The fines began in August 2003. Mr. Kowalter said the job was completed long before the October 1, 2003, visit from Inspector Wright, except for the portion involving the fill dirt. Discussion ensued regarding when the property came into compliance as the City Inspector had not been contacted or informed that the job had been completed. Mr. Kowalter said the demolition was finished on approximately August 12 or 13, 2003. It was noted it is the property owner’s responsibility to notify the inspector when compliance is reached. Member Avichouser moved to reduce the fines to administrative costs of $500. There was no second. Member Williams moved that concerning Case No. 28-03, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent’s request for reconsideration of fine at their meeting held on February 25, 2004, and based upon the evidence presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. After considering the request for reduction of fine filed by the Respondent and considering the Affidavit of Compliance accepted on November 12, 2003, it is evident that a reduction in fine is appropriate in the above referenced case. It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board dated September 9, 2003, as recorded in O.R. Book 13053, Pages 825-829, and amended as recorded in O.R. Book 13227, Pages 578-579, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced from $16,750to one thousand five hundred and no/100’s dollars ($1,500)payable to the Petitioner within thirty days from the date of the execution of this Order. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of $16,750 may be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. B. Request to address board re fine at future meeting Case 14-02 Menna-Pinellas 20788 U.S. Highway 19 N Development – Kurleman (Lien Amount: $23,350) Member Williams moved to approve the request to address the board regarding motioncarried the fine at a future meeting. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 8 C. Extension request re previous fine reduction Case No. 18-98 Matthew J. Mule Anna M. & Bernard A. Hawk 700 S. Highland Avenue (Building) Chianella Ms. Diana said this is an extension of a previous fine reduction request. Matthew J. Mule had appeared before the Board in April 2003, and received a reduction in fine with the condition that the property be purchased by him within 45 days, which would have been August 21, 2003. Mr. Mule is asking for an extension of that request. Matthew J. Mule said he had difficulty with the first mortgage holder who wanted the entire amount of the mortgage paid in full. He had anticipated obtaining an agreement with them but was unsuccessful. He also encountered a tax issue regarding the property. He now is working with another party, Jim Newman, whose name is on the title. The back taxes are now paid and the property partially has been refurbished. Mr. Mule requested an extension of 30 days. Mr. Newman said all the utilities rough-ins have been inspected, the paint is being textured, and other work such as landscaping is being completed. He anticipates the job will be completed within 60 days. Member Avichouser moved to approve the extension request regarding the previous fine reduction as follows: 1) The fine previously imposed is to be paid within 30 motion days, and 2) the property must be brought into compliance within 60 days. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl introduced new Community Response Team member Shelby Brown. Mr. Kronschnabl invited everyone to attend a neighborhood conference at Brighthouse Networks Field on Saturday. The workshop is being held in partnership with the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners. It was requested that staff inform all City boards that fines levied to property owners are to be capped at the County’s assessed value of the property. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Ernest Bell PNU2003-02427 702 N. Pennsylvania Avenue (Mercury Monarch) Pinecrest Sub, Blk 8, E48.5’ Lots 5 & 6 $ 200 107 Midway Island Land Trust PNU2003-02778 107 Midway Island (Boat Trailer) Island Estates Unit 3, Lot 33 $ 200 Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 9 . . . Alfred Harris Jr. 1408 Fairmont Street Highland Terrace Manor, Blk B, Lot 16 PNU2003-02789 (Chevrolet Pickup) $ 200 PNU2003-02819 (Isuzu SUV) $ 200 Gary M. Reynolds 406 Leeward Island Island Estates Unit 1, Lot 50 Martha A. Drain 1361 S. Martin Luther King Avenue Lakeview Heights, Blk F, Lot 4 PNU2003-02832 (Toyota Corolla) $200 Cindy Heckrow 1330 S. Michigan Avenue Lakeview Heights, Blk D, Lot 20 PNU2003-02976 (Pontiac Grand Prix) $ 200 PNU2003-02977 (Buick Century) $ 200 Member Williams moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 28, 2004 Consensus was to postpone approval of the January 28, 2004, meeting minutes to the next meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. ~ PL Chair t Municipal Code Enforcement Board Attest: e'~~ ecret the Board Code Enforcement 2004-02-25 10