Loading...
05/25/2005 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER May 25, 2005 Present: Sheila Cole Chair Douglas J. Williams Vice-Chair George Krause Board Member Jay Keyes Board Member Absent: Joyce Martin 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, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 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 16-05 Dennis A & Nettie L Holt Tre 2760 Northridge Dr. E Tree Permit – Kurleman Board Secretary Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Land Resource Specialist Scott Kurleman provided a power point presentation. The property was first inspected on February 4, 2005, after an anonymous complaint was received regarding the removal of a tree. Mr. Kurleman reported he reinspected the property on February 8, 2005, and found a second violation had occurred, due to the improper removal of a second tree. On February 9, 2005, he issued a second notice of violation and took photographs. Property ownership was verified through the County Property Appraiser. He submitted City composite Exhibit 1, which included photographs. Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 1 Mr. Kurleman recommended the property be brought into compliance by June 15, 2005, fines of $1,152 and $1,344 be paid to the tree bank, a triple fee permit of $45 be paid for each tree, and that two replacement shade trees be planted or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Dennis Holt, property owner, provided photographs of his property, which showed a significant amount of well maintained landscaping. He said he had planted the subject trees, and that they had grown too large, affecting his sprinkler system, grass, roof, sewer, and the neighbors’ bushes and palm tree. He submitted Defendant’s Exhibit 1 – survey of the property and Exhibit 2 – photographs of the landscaping on the property. He said he did not get a permit because he believed he would have difficulty. The case was continued to later in the meeting to allow time for Mr. Holt’s representative to arrive. Following the arrival of Kevin Hayslett, representative for the applicant, Mr. Kurleman reviewed the proceedings up to now. He did not dispute the property was well maintained but reiterated two trees were removed without permits. Attorney Kevin Hayslett said the trees’ roots had caused structural problems with the foundation and problem limbs had hung over the homeowner’s and neighbor’s roofs. He said Mr. Holt did not realize how large the trees would grow when he planted them. He said Mr. Holt was concerned the tree would crack his house’s foundation. In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said he did not inspect the home’s foundation or sewer for damage. Concerns were expressed the property owners had a second tree cut down without a permit after City staff advised them of the requirement. Mr. Hayslett requested that replacement trees not be required as they would require additional work and the small property already has significant landscaping, including eight palm trees. Mr. Kurleman said the property owner could contribute to the tree bank rather than plant shade trees. Mitigation in these type cases is based on a formula used by the ISA (International Society of Agriculture). Mr. Hayslett requested the fines not be excessive as the property owner was only trying to maintain his property. Member Williams moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25, 2005, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident a 24-inch live oak and a 28-inch live oak were removed without permits as required by code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 2 It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is to pay a fine of $1,000, a triple fee permit of $90 and plant two trees by June 15, 2005. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Scott Kurleman, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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. Upon the vote being taken, Members Williams, Krause, carried and Keyes voted “Aye”; Chair Cole voted “Nay.” Motion . B. Case 17-05 Fredrich E & Yvonne L Ulfers 761 Bruce Ave. Exterior Surfaces/Exterior Storage/Lot Clearing - Phillips Ms. Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. Respondent Yvonne Ulfers admitted to the violation. Code Enforcement Inspector Julie Phillips reported the exterior surfaces are deteriorated on the structure and part of a wall is missing. The owner has agreed to bring the property into compliance within 45 days. Ms. Phillips recommended if the property is not brought into compliance within 45 days, a fine of $150 per day be imposed. Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25, 2005, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received and admission of guilt by Respondent Yvonne Ulfers, it is evident exterior surfaces are not being properly maintained and there is exterior storage and debris on the property. Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation within 45 calendar days from the date this Board’s Order is sent certified mail to the Respondent. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Julie Phillips, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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(s) 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. C. Case 18-05 James R Ficken Tre Clearwater Res Trust 1608 N Osceola Roof Maintenance/Exterior Surfaces - Ruud Board Secretary Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by posting the property. Inspections Specialist Alan Ruud provided a power point presentation. The subject property at 1608 N Osceola Avenue is owner occupied. Property ownership was verified through the County Property Appraiser. The two violations relate to the house’s exterior surfaces and roof maintenance. Mr. Ruud first inspected the property on April 29, 2004, when he issued a notice of violation and took photographs, which illustrate rust, discoloration, mildew stains, patching, and peeling paint on the garage and house and various stages of fungus and other organic growth and elements on the roof. The first notice to appear in County Court was issued on June 24, 2004. The County Court heard the case on November 9, 2004, and found property owner, James Ficken, guilty. On November 29, 2004, the City mailed a letter to Mr. Ficken, requesting the property’s Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 4 maintenance violations be brought into compliance by December 31, 2004. A December 21, 2004, photograph showed the letter, posted on the subject property. On January 6, 2005, a second notice to appear was issued for continued violations. On February 28, 2005, the case was referred to the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board). Photographs of the property, taken on March 28, 2005, indicate no corrective action was taken and the violations still exist. A May 12, 2005 photograph showed the affidavit of service for today’s MCEB meeting, posted on the subject property. Actions required for Code compliance include: 1) Clean roof area of mold, mildew, organic growth, or debris and 2) Remove rust, peeling paint, stains, and mildew from all exterior surfaces and paint all surfaces, including, but not limited to walls, doors, trim, soffits, drip edges, and fascia boards. Mr. Ruud recommended the property be brought into compliance within 30 days or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. He submitted City composite Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 – power point presentation including photographs. In response to a request by Mr. Ficken to hear each violation separately and that the exterior surfaces violation be continued, Assistant City Attorney Bryan Ruff requested that both violations be heard as one case. Discussion ensued in regard to Mr. Ficken’s motion to dismiss. Attorney Ruff reported the Circuit Court had denied Mr. Ficken’s motion to dismiss. Attorney for the Board Jenay Iurato said the MCEB should base their decision on evidence presented today. The Board agreed to hear both violations together today. In response to questions from Mr. Ficken, Mr. Ruud reviewed his working experience. Mr. Ficken said he had been cited for storing a refrigerator in his back yard and City staff required him to go to court, even after he removed the refrigerator. He believed this violation led to future inspections of his property. He said City staff inspected his property four times in six weeks. Mr. Ficken said City staff retaliated against him after he complained to the City Council in April regarding code violations for which he was cited. Mr. Ficken said he is correcting problems, as he is able. He said his 70 year-old cement fiber asbestos shingle roof is in its natural state, which is uniform black. He said the roof would be ruined if it is walked upon or subjected to pressure washing. He said the only person he found with experience cleaning this type of roof could not guarantee it would meet City standards. He said the corrosive cleaning chemicals would destroy his plants and ruin his gutters. In response to questions, Mr. Ficken said he had not contacted the City for an inspection of repairs he had made. Mr. Ruud said he had looked carefully at the subject roof today and observed various stages of organic growth and other elements. He said the natural tone of the roof could be seen below the flashing, which is made of zinc or copper and deters mildew growth. He said during today’s visual inspection, he noticed the lower section of the roof is now brown following apparent attempts to clean it. motion Member Williams moved the MCEB not dismiss this case. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 5 In response to a question, Mr. Ruud said the City does not make recommendations for contractors. He said a licensed roof contractor could clean the roof satisfactorily. Member Williams moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on May 25, 2005, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the roof and exterior surfaces are not being properly maintained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as referred in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) is/are to correct the aforesaid violation within 30 calendar days from the date this Board’s Order is sent certified mail to the Respondent. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Al Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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(s) 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. D. Case 19-05 Di Domizio Investments Inc 648 Poinsettia Ave. Signs - Fox Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 6 Board Secretary Diana reported service on the notice of hearing had been obtained by certified mail. Evan Frayman, representative for the property owner, denied the violation. Sign Inspector Mary Jo Fox provided a power point presentation. She said the Code prohibits roof, and above roof signs, such as those on the subject property at 648 Poinsettia Avenue. Photographs showed two neon signs, one on a parapet wall and one on another wall, both of which extended above the roofline. She reviewed the history of the City’s 7-year amortization program. A letter was sent to the property owner on April 11, 1991, indicating the property owner would have to replace the sign by October 13, 1992, or apply for a sign variance. The property owner applied for a sign variance in 1992 and withdrew the request in January 1994. Property ownership was verified through the County Property Appraiser. Ms. Fox reported she had reinspected the property on December 8, 2003, and mailed a May 21, 2004, courtesy notice requiring compliance by June 14, 2004. Compliance was not met. A notice of violation was issued on October 15, 2004, requiring compliance by November 29, 2004. She said property owner Giavanni Di Domizio had asked her to postpone enforcement while he applied for flexible development approval to redevelop the site. On April 14, 2005, staff was advised the request had been withdrawn. She recommended the property be brought into compliance by June 30, 2005 or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Ms. Fox submitted City composite Exhibit 1, which included photographs. Mr. Frayman said the property owner had not been contacted regarding the violation from April 1991 to December 2003. He admitted into evidence Defendant’s composite Exhibit 1 which included photographs. He said the sign has no impact on the community and its removal would have no value. He stated this sign is not over the roof but is located on the façade’s parapet wall. He said plans to raise the level of the roof’s edge will lower the appearance of the sign. He reported a 70-foot building is planned across the street from the 14-foot high parapet wall. He said if the signs are removed, the building would lose its identity. He reviewed the history of the property, stating the owner had recovered possession of it following a foreclosure. He requested the signs be preserved in their current state and the board not find a violation. If a violation is found, he requested 180 days to determine a solution. In response to questions, property owner Giavanni Di Domizio said the freestanding sign is on the side street and does not direct guests to the property’s office. He said he has owned the property since the early 1980s, except for 1991 through 1993. Discussion ensued with comments the sign is unique in that it is located on a wall that is taller than the building, which is above the roofline. In response to a question, Mr. Di Domizio said when his plans to rebuild on the site were not approved, he decided to change the property to condo/motel ownership and preserve the motel’s character, including the unique, traditional sign. He said when the City did not contact him for 10 years, he assumed the sign did not violate Code. Discussion ensued regarding the comprehensive sign program and related time constraints. Mr. Hall recommended the property owner be required to submit an application for Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 7 the comprehensive sign program within 60 days or a fine of $250 per day be imposed. After its submittal, staff will schedule consideration of the application. motion Member Keyes moved to continue Item 1D, Case 19-05, to July 27, 2005. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. E. Case 20-05 Thomas C. Jessup & Dorothy J. Jessup 1770 Drew Street Portable Storage Unit – Parra This item was continued to June 22, 2005. F. Case 21-05 Nicolas Papas & Maria Papas 1800 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Hogfish Grill) Grass Parking - Franco This item was continued to June 22, 2005. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 14-05 – Affidavit of Compliance Richard Wilson 2020 Imperial Way Exterior Storage/Display – Franco Member Williams moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 14-05. The motion carried was duly seconded and unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION The Board Attorney was thanked for the new motion format. Member Martin was wished a speedy recovery. 4. NEW BUSINESS – None. Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 8 . . . 5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: - None. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -April 27, 2005 Member Williams moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 27, 2005, as corrected by the Board Secretary. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Code Enforcement 2005-05-25 ~dLt ~air unlclpal Code Enforcement Board 9