Loading...
04/27/2005 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 27, 2005 Present: Sheila Cole Chair Douglas J. Williams Vice-Chair Joyce Martin Board Member George Krause Board Member Jay Keyes Board Member Richard Avichouser Board Member Kelly Sutton Board Member Also Present: Bryan Ruff Assistant City Attorney Jenay Iurato Attorney for the Board Mary K. 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 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 03-05 – cont’d from 1/26/05 Lawrence E. & Sandra J. Fuentes 779 Eldorado Ave. Development - Hall Board Secretary Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Development Services Manager Bob Hall read into the record code sections related to short-term rentals, which are prohibited at the subject property, 779 Eldorado Avenue. He said his initial inspection was on December 8, 2003, when he noticed a web site advertising short- term rentals at the subject property. Notice of Violation was sent on April 15, 2004. The subject property remained advertised on the web for short-term rentals on April 19, 2004. When contacted, Mr. Fuentes reported difficulty in removing web site advertisements. On November 29, 2004, Mr. Hall notified Mr. Fuentes that he would not bring this matter to the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) as long as no further infractions to the Code occurred. Since then, Ajensea Realty responded to Mr. Hall’s inquiry regarding a web advertisement with an e-mail quoting weekly rental rates of $2,200 for the subject property. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-8. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 1 Mr. Lawrence Fuentes, owner, reviewed his difficulty in removing his advertising from web sites. He expressed surprise at learning of Ajensea Realty’s actions and reported he will advise the firm immediately that his property is not available for short-term rental. He said no short-term rentals had occurred at this property since he received the City’s courtesy letter in December 2003. He said while he did not join a related group lawsuit, he now has a lawsuit pending that challenges City enforcement of its ban on short-term rentals. He felt the City had selectively enforced this case. Property owner Albert C. Kreischer, Jr. said Ajensea Realty’s actions were contrary to his direction and he was unaware of the firm’s solicitation. In response to questions, Mr. Hall said the advertisement of the property for short-term rental is evidence the property owner is violating the Code. He said problems related to short- term rentals cannot be contained until related advertising is controlled. He recommended the property be brought into compliance by April 30, 2005 or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Discussion ensued regarding prima facie evidence and it was indicated it includes the advertising of rentals or use of an agent or other third person to make reservations, which is indicative of a short-term rental. Mr. Kreischer said they never violated the Code intentionally. Member Avichouser moved that action on this case be held in abeyance until the motion associated lawsuit is settled. The was duly seconded. Concerns were expressed whether the property had been used for short-term rentals after the City sent a Notice of Violation and the owners were not informed the real estate agent continued to advertise for short term rentals on the web site. motion Member Keyes moved to reopen the hearing for additional testimony. The was duly seconded. Members Williams, Kraus, Keyes, and Sutton and Chair Cole voted “Aye”; carried Members Martin and Avichouser voted “Nay.” Motion . In response to a question, Mr. Hall said he located the Ajensea Realty web site around the same time as he last spoke with Mr. Fuentes and may not have discussed the site with him. He said the property owner is responsible for the actions of whom he contracts with. In response to a question, Mr. Fuentes said he always had declined offers for short-term rentals whenever the agent from Ajensea Realty contacted him. Member Avichouser restated his motion that action on this case be held in abeyance motion carried until the associated lawsuit is settled. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 2 B. Case 07-05 Richard D. and Vilisity Stow 1874 Ridgeway Dr. Development – Parra Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the notice of hearing on the property. No one was present to represent the property owners. Code Enforcement Inspector Gabriel Parra said the property owners have been charged with a violation due to the presence of a hauling trailer parked between the principal structure and right-of-way on this residentially-zoned property at 1874 Ridgeway Drive. He had spoken with a man who identified himself as the property owner on July 8, 2004, and explained the nature of the violation. The trailer was gone the following week. After a telephone complaint, Mr. Parra reinspected the subject property on January 7, 2005, and observed a hauling trailer parked between the principal structure and right-of-way. The first official Notice of Violation was mailed on January 12, 2005. During reinspection on January 27, 2005, Mr. Parra observed the hauling trailer was parked behind the structure, in compliance with Code. Following another telephone complaint, Mr. Parra reinspected the property on February 9, 2005, and observed the hauling trailer was parked next to the driveway, between the principal structure and right-of-way. He reviewed photographs of the improperly stored hauling trailer taken on February 9 and 15, 2005. Mr. Parra issued a second official Notice of Violation on March 1, 2005, which he mailed via certified and regular mail and posted the property. He presented a photograph of the posting. The certified letter was returned to the City unclaimed. Photographs, taken on March 8, 2005, indicate the hauling trailer was not moved. He recommended the property be brought into compliance by May 1, 2005, or a fine of $100 per day be imposed. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-7. In response to a question, Mr. Parra said neighbors are upset the hauling trailer remains parked illegally on the property. Member Keyes moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on April 27, 2005, 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 Gabe Parra for City, Respondent had no representation, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 [Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – certified mail receipt; Ex. 3 – applicable code sections; Ex. 4 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 – affidavit of hearing & request for hearing; Ex. 6 – notice of hearing; and Ex. 7 – copy power point presentation], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a hauling trailer is parked between the principal structure and the right-of-way on a residentially owned property. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1407.A.2.b 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 by May 16, 2005. 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 May 16, 2005, 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 May 16, 2005. 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. motion The was duly seconded. Ms. Martin recommended the daily fine be increased to $200 per day due to the extended time of the violation. It was felt $100 per day was sufficient. Upon the vote being taken, Members Williams, Kraus, Keyes, Avichouser, and Sutton carried and Chair Cole voted “Aye”; Member Martin voted “Nay.” Motion . C. Case 08-05 William J. and Mary A. Moran 1390 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Development – Fox Property owner William J. Moran admitted to the violation but said extenuating circumstances exist. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 4 Sign Inspector Mary Jo Fox reported ongoing violations of the City’s sign ordinance have occurred on the subject property at 1390 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. She reviewed Code provisions that prohibit portable trailer and vehicle signs. Ms. Fox said she first inspected the subject property on December 29, 2004, and issued a written notice. Temporary compliance was reached on December 30, 2004; however, the violations reappeared. She presented photographs of violations related to vehicle and portable signs, taken on January 16, February 26, March 5, and March 6, 2005. She recommended the property be brought into compliance by April 30, 2005, or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Mr. Moran said he had been in business at this location since 1984, and the signs now were necessary to attract business since the City began to encourage beach traffic to bypass Cleveland Street. He said many nearby businesses exhibit similar signage. He agreed to come into compliance. Member Martin moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on April 27, 2005, 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 Mary Jo Fox for City, and admission to the violation by William J. Moran for Respondent, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. The business is displaying a prohibited vehicle sign and portable sign. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1803.G and 3- 1803.W 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 by April 30, 2005. 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 30, 2005, 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 April 30, 2005. 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. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 5 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 motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. D. Case 09-05 – Repeat Violation John and/or Christina R. Richardson 843 Eldorado Ave. Building - Coccia Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. No one was present to represent the property owners. Building Construction Inspector Mike Coccia said his original inspection was based on a citizen’s complaint. On February 25, 2004, he observed that four new windows and two air- conditioning systems had been installed at the single-family residence at 843 Eldorado Avenue without a permit. A Notice of Violation was issued on March 26, 2004, and the property owner failed to meet the April 5, 2004, compliance date. Mr. Coccia reported an air-conditioning contractor pulled a permit to install two air- conditioning systems on May 7, 2004. The permit expired without any inspections on November 3, 2004. When property owner John Richardson applied for an owner/builder permit for windows on May 21, 2004, staff informed him it was necessary for a licensed contractor to pull the permit as the property was a rental. On July 30, 2004, a “Notice to Appear” for County Court, with an August 20, 2004 arraignment date, was issued to Mr. Richardson for failing to comply within a specified time. The defendant failed to appear and a warrant was issued. On April 12, 2005, a building contractor pulled a permit to install four windows at the subject property to correct the outstanding violations. No inspections have been done. Mr. Coccia inspected the property yesterday and reported the new windows remain out of compliance. His last contact with the property owner was on May 21, 2004. He recommended a finding that a repeat violation has occurred, that the property be brought into compliance by May 27, 2005. Mr. Coccia recommended a fine of $250 per day be imposed if corrections are not made within 30 days. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-10. Member Williams moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on April 27, 2005, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 6 After hearing testimony of Inspector Mike Coccia for City, Respondent had no representation, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-10 [Ex. 1 – case summary/fact sheet; Ex. 2 – photographs dated 2/25/04; Ex. 3 – stop work order; Ex. 4 – notice of violation; Exs. 5-6 – affidavits of posting; Ex. 7 – applicable code sections; Ex. 8 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 9 – affidavit of repeat violation & request for hearing; and Ex. 10 – notice of hearing], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. Air-conditioning systems and windows were installed without permits and/or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 47.083 and 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, that Respondent was found to have violated the same provision by the Board on multiple dates, and that Respondent has committed repeat violations. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent shall comply with said section(s) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by May 27, 2005. It is the Order of this Board that the Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars [$250.00] per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying, the Respondent shall notify the Code Inspector who shall inspect the property and notify the board of compliance. 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. E. Case 10-05 Peter and/or Kelly L. Nascarella 1460 S. Missouri Ave. Building – Coccia Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 7 AND F. Case 11-05 Peter and/or Kelly L. Nascarella 1470 S. Missouri Ave. Building – Coccia AND G. Case 12-05 Peter and/or Kelly L. Nascarella 1480-82 S. Missouri Ave. Permit/Inspection – Coccia Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. The representative had no objection to staff presenting all three cases together. Gerald Figurski, representative for property owners, Peter and Kelly Nascarella, admitted the violations did occur. He said while half of the 14 separate violations have been resolved, the remaining issues cannot be corrected until the CDB (Community Development Board) reviews and approves the project. Mr. Coccia said due to a citizen complaint, he first inspected the properties at 1460, 1470, and 1480-82 S. Missouri Avenue on April 18, 2003. The property owner was renovating existing structures and the parking lot, including site work. All work was being done without permits or inspections. Mr. Coccia advised property owner, Peter Nascarella, not to proceed until necessary permits were obtained. On August 20, 2003, the property owner submitted an application for flexible development approval with requests for reductions to setbacks, required parking, landscape buffer, and interior landscaping and for signage and to allow vehicle sales/display contiguous to residentially-zone property. When the property owner failed to correct violations by October 22, 2003, an “Order to Stop Work” was issued. On November 17, 2003, the property owner hired a building contractor to pull permits for renovations to individual structures, which did not require CDB approval. The work eventually was completed on the three structures. On May 5, 2004, the DRC (Development Review Committee) concluded the application was insufficient. Although staff notified the property owner on numerous occasions, the property owner did not address conditions placed on the application. A Notice of Violation was issued on September 28, 2004, and the property owner failed to meet the October 11, 2004, compliance date. On January 25, 2005, Mr. Nascarella was advised to submit a revised application before February 24, 2005. The property owner missed the deadline. Mr. Coccia presented photographs of the violations taken on April 18 and October 22, 2003. He reinspected the property on April 26, 2005, and seven violations remain. During his last contact with the property owners on January 15, 2005, they indicated they would pursue CDB approval of their project immediately. The property owners did not submit completed paperwork by the February 25, 2005, deadline for CDB consideration and approval. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 8 Mr. Coccia recommended all flexible development applications for CDB consideration be submitted within 30 days and all final inspections be completed within 90 days of the outcome of the CDB meeting or a fine of $250 per day per parcel be imposed and that the applicants be charged for all related administration costs. He reported a previous application submittal had been insufficient and could not be processed by the DRC (Development Review Committee) on May 6, 2004. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia recommended that project deadlines and timelines be imposed. Planner Wayne Wells said staff has been dealing with the property for some time. He recommended that fines be held in abeyance until the CDB reviews and approves revised plans. He recommended imposing a deadline of May 26, 2005, for the property owners to submit completed paperwork for a June 30, 2005 review by the DRC and August 16, 2005, hearing by the CDB. Mr. Figurski reported a scheduling conflict and requested the CDB hearing be delayed until September 20, 2005. He requested the MCEB not impose fines unless permit applications are not filed within 90 days of CDB approval. He said the property owners are willing to admit things had been done incorrectly and accept the schedule for repairs. He said some issues can be resolved now. Member Avichouser moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on April 27, 2005, and based on the evidence issued its motion Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The was duly seconded. FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Inspector Michael Coccia and Planner Wayne Wells for the City and an admission to the violations by Gerald Figurski for Respondent, it is evident the property is in violation of the City Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 47.083 and 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 shall comply with the following schedule as outlined by staff: Submit an application to the City of Clearwater for flexible development approval no later than May 26, 2005. The application must be presented to the Community Development Board on or before September 20, 2005. If the application is approved by the Community Development Board, the Respondent shall have within ninety (90) days from that approval, to submit for building permits. 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 complied with according to the foregoing schedule, the Respondent may be Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 9 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. 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. H. Case 13-05 Frank and/or Anne Mongelluzzi 818 Snug Island Building - Coccia Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. Matthew Lis, representative, admitted work had been done prior to obtaining permits. Mr. Coccia reported he inspected the property at 818 Snug Island following a citizen’s complaint. During his first inspection on June 30, 2004, he found violations related to extensive internal demolition done without permits or inspections. An Official Notice of Violation was issued on July 30, 2004. He reinspected the property on April 26, 2005, and violations had not been corrected. The site was posted. Yesterday, the property owner indicated revised plans were awaiting engineering approval and would be submitted to the City for permitting within 30 days. Mr. Coccia recommended the property owner be required to pay all related administration costs, that revised plans be submitted within 30 days for permitting, and that all work be completed within seven months, or 210 days, or a fine of $200 per day be imposed. He reported the project must adhere to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) regulations if work exceeds 50% of the home’s value. No work is underway at this time. Mr. Lis said 210 days was acceptable for the work to be completed. Member Martin moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on April 27, 2005, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 10 FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Inspector Mike Coccia for City, and Matt Lis for Respondent, who indicated work had been done prior to obtaining a permit, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 47.083 and 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 with in seven (7) months after permit is issued. 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 in the timeframe specified by the Board, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond specified timeframe. 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. I. Case 14-05 Richard Wilson 2020 Imperial Way Development - Franco Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. No one was present to represent the property owners. Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 11 Code Enforcement Inspector Peggy Franco reported the violation relates to the exterior storage of materials not designed to be outside at the subject property at 2020 Imperial Way. She presented photographs of her first visit to the property on November 23, 2004, which shows boxes and miscellaneous items piled by the front door. She presented photographs taken on December 16, 2004, which show carpet-cleaning machines and other items stored in the backyard. On December 30, 2004, she received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as the owner of the property and said the property would be cleaned. On January 4, 2005, the property tenant reported he would begin working toward compliance. A Notice of Violation was issued on January 10, 2005 and the certified mail receipt was returned to the City on January 14, 2005. Following a February 1, 2005 complaint, Ms. Franco inspected the property on February 9, 12, 15, 23 and March 3 and 30, 2005, and presented photographs she had taken. She reported no corrective action had been taken and a March 30, 2005, photograph shows carpet-cleaning machines in the yard and an April 20, 2005, photograph shows boxes by the front door, and debris is in the yard, although the carpet- cleaning machines had been removed. Based on today’s inspection, she reported no change. Ms. Franco recommended the property be brought into compliance by May 7, 2005, or a fine of $100 per day be imposed. In response to a question, Ms. Franco said the owner had reported the eviction process was underway regarding the subject tenant. Mr. Ruff submitted City Exhibits 1-8. In response to a question, Ms. Franco said she worked with the property owner since November 2004 and this issue has been a neighborhood concern. Member Keyes moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on April 27, 2005, 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 Peggy Franco for City, Respondent had no representation, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 [Ex. 1 – notice of violation; Ex. 2 – certified mail receipt; Ex. 3 – applicable code section; Ex. 4 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 – affidavit of repeat violation & request for hearing; Ex. 6 – notice of hearing; Ex. 7 – photograph dated 12/16/04; and Ex. 8 – copy of power point presentation], it is evident the property is in violation of the City code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 3-1502.5 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 – 2005-04-27 12 ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by May 16, 2005. 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 May 16, 2005, 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 May 16, 2005. 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. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. J. Case 15-05 – Repeat Violation John and/or Christina R. Richardson 739 Eldorado Ave. Development – Hall This item was withdrawn. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 02-04 – Affidavit of Compliance Patricia DePriest 1631 Tuscola Road Development – Franco B. Case 04-05 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance Claudio Scipione 822 Eldorado Avenue Short Term Rental – Hall Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 13 C. Case 05-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Jeffrey Shaun Devries 1818 Beverly Circle Development – Brown Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 02-04 and 05- motion carried 05. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Member Williams moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 04-05. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Consensus was for future meetings to begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Concern was expressed violations continue too long before being brought before the Board. Staff reported the short-term rental issue remains in litigation. Development Services Manager Bob Hall introduced Inspectors Peggy Franco and Cornelius Cobb. 4. NEW BUSINESS – None. 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: Thomas Little PNU2004-02717 1870 Springtime Ave. st Sunset Point 1 Add, Blk E, Lot 35 $307.90 Metria R. Jones PNU2004-02667 1133 Carlton St. Greenwood Park, Blk C, Lot 1 $287.08 George A. Smith Tre PNU2004-01699 C/O Alison A. Carpenter GDN 1733 Algonquin Dr. Clearview Lake Est, Lots 81 and 81A $370.56 Teretha Pugh PNU2004-02547 Philip R. Joseph 1630 N Washington Ave. Fairmont Sub, Blk A, Lot 14 $327.40 Toriano Parker PNU2004-02034 1128 Carlton St. Greenwood Park, Blk B, Lots 29 and 30 $275.20 Code Enforcement – 2005-04-27 14 . . . 30 Days Real Estate Corp Tre 404 Pumpkin Trust 1404 Taft Ave Lincoln Place, Blk 2, Lot 6' PNU2004-02140 $282.01 Florida Middle Prop Inc. PNU2004-01724 1445 S Missouri Ave. Sail's 2nd Add, Blk A, Lots 1 & 2 Less Rd $319.40 Musbah Sader PNU2004-02280 1561 Huntington Ln. Walden Woods, Lot 25 $344.59 Member Keyes moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 23,2005 Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 23, 2005, as corrected by the Board Secretary. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. ~A Ctfc3ir ~ Municipal Code Enforcement Board Code Enforcement - 2005-04-27 15