Loading...
07/27/2016 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER July 27, 2016 Present: Chair Wayne Carothers, Vice Chair Michael J. Riordon, Board Member James E. Strickland, Board Member Duane Schultz, Board Member Sue A. Johnson, Board Member Joseph A. Nycz, Board Member Robert Prast Also Present: Andy Salzman —Attorney for the Board, Matt Smith —Assistant City Attorney, Nicole Sprague —Secretary to the Board, Patricia O. Sullivan — Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:30 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. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1. Approve minutes of the June 22 2016 Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting as submitted in written summation. Member Johnson moved to approve minutes of the June 22, 2016 Municipal Code Enforcement Board meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: John Homer, Case 40-16, requested additional time to meet compliance due to personal events and inclement weather. Code Compliance Manager Terry Teunis said the property was 95% compliant and he would assist in coordinating efforts with a charitable group to help finish work needed to qualify for an Affidavit of Compliance. Board consensus was to extend the compliance date for Case 40-16 to September 30, 2016. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Case 20-16 —Cont'd from March 23, April 27, May 25, & June 22, 2016. WITHDRAWN Ronald Balow 1117 Pierce St. Exterior Surfaces - Fletcher Case 20-16 was withdrawn. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 1 4.2 Case 46-16 —Cont'd from June 22, 2016. Cont'd to August 24, 2016 Christine Riley & Stella Mazur 3319 San Bernadino St. Roof Maint./Ext. Surfaces/Door &Windows/Ext. Storage— Stewart Case 46-16 was continued automatically to August 24, 2016. 4.3 Case 47-16 — Repeat Violation - Cont'd from June 22, 2016 Cedar House LLC 302 Cedar St. Short Term Rental —Teunis Attorney Chris Tanner, representing the Respondent, denied the repeat violation. Attorney Bill Kimpton, representing tenant Abbondanza LLC, was present'. Code Compliance Manager Terry Teunis provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation at 302 Cedar Street related to a repeat illegal short term rental. According to Community Development Code Article 8— Definitions and Rules of Construction, a residential use located on residentially zoned property shall not include rentals for periods of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place rented for periods of less than 31 days or one calendar month,whichever is less. Mr. Teunis reviewed previous cases for the subject property: 1) November 20, 2013, the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) issued a Declaration of Violation; 2) July 23, 2014, the board issued an order imposing a $4,100 fine for a repeat violation; and 3) December 16, 2015, the board's order imposed a $500 fine for a repeat violation. At the December 2015 meeting, Jamie Blackstone testified the property was used for multiple short-term rentals; many renters were loud and exhibited rude behavior. Consensus of the Board was for the City to bring this matter back with Ms. Blackstone's documentation of each alleged repeat violation. Photographs of the property on March 10, 2016 showed the property posted with the short-term rental repeat violation.An aerial shot showed the property had a waterfront main house next to a swimming pool and a cottage in the rear, separated by a parking area. Jamie Blackstone reviewed her March 25,;2016 affidavit. Since 2007, she and her husband lived next door to 302 Cedar Street, where she witnessed short-term rentals. She notified the Police Department approximately 12 times for noise and recently reported to the City the subject property's installation on top of a 6-foot fence illegal fencing that touched her house; she feared the fence would cause damage and provide rodents and vermin access to her roof. She testified: 1) February 14 2015 - she called the police at 1:00 a.m. re loud party. A male said the group was renting Cedar House for 7 days; 2) February 21, 2015 - a woman said 21 women from the San Landen Methodist Church were renting Cedar House for 7 days; 3) March 27, 2015, she called the police re very loud men. 2 men said the group was renting Cedar House for 4 days; 4) April 5, 2015 -2 people said 5 families from Strongsville, Ohio were renting Cedar House for 7 days; 5) May 10, 2015—a male from Atlanta and female from Ohio said they were renting Cedar House for 5 days; 6) June 7, 2015 -2 adults from Athens, Georgia said they were renting Cedar House with 2 children for 7 days; 7) June 24, 2015 - male with 6 children said they were renting Cedar House for 7 days; 8) June 29, 2015 - a female from Kentucky said her family was renting Cedar House for 7 days; 9) July 9, 2015, 3 people said they were renting Cedar House for 6 days; she observed 30 people at the house; 10)August 7, 2015 -2 women Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 2 from Atlanta with approximately 6 children said they were renting Cedar House for 7 days; 11) August 16, 2015, 2 males and 1 female from Brazil said their group was renting Cedar House for 20 days; 12) September 5, 2015—while on her roof deck with Private Investigator Constantine Janus, a female with Central Methodist Soccer Team said the team was renting Cedar House for 4 days; and 13) November 24 2015 - male and female said group of 4 adults and 6 children was vacationing at Cedar House for 5 days. Ms. Blackstone said she usually spoke to Cedar House visitors as soon as she observed them. If they arrived when she was out, she approached them when she saw them. She said in each instance, she confirmed renters had vacated the premises by observing the absence of vehicles and activity and arrival of the house and pool cleaning staff. She attached her notes documenting short-term rental activities at 302 Cedar Street to her affidavit. Mr. Teunis reviewed Clearwater Utilities account for 302 Cedar Street: 1) 02/05-03/04/15—21 units = 15,700 gallons; 2) 03/05-04/03/15 —29 units = 21,700 gallons; 3) 04/04-05/05/15—26 units = 19,400 gallons; 4) 05/06-06/03/15 — 18 units = 13,500 gallons; and 5) 06/04- 07/06/15 — 64 units = 47,900 gallons. Water usage corresponded to Ms. Blackstone's affidavit. A July 6, 2016 plumbing receipt for 302 Cedar Street ordered by Charmene Prescott listed replacement of the 1St floor toilet because of a leak, and new flaps in 4 bathrooms. Mr. Teunis reviewed Clearwater Utilities account for 302 Cedar Street following repairs: 1) 07/07-08/05/15 —32 units = 23,900 gallons; 2)08/06-09/03/15—43 units = 32,200 gallons; 3) 09/04-10/06/15 —22 units = 16,500 gallons; 4) 10/07-11/04/15—09 units = 6,700 gallons; and 5) 11/05-12/03/2015 — 15 units = 11,200 gallons. Mr. Teunis said Charmene Prescott and her spouse leased the subject property and lived in the cottage. The property had one meter. Average water use by 2 people was 8,000 gallons/month. While October use was normal, other months had significantly higher water use. In response to a question, he said staff had many conversations with the property owner re short-term rentals. The property's BTR (Business Tax Receipt)was for rentals 31 days or longer. The Property Appraiser listed the owner as Cedar House LLC. Assistant City Attorney Matt Smith presented a 3-page lease agreement for 302 Cedar Street for September 5, 2014 to August 31, 2016 submitted to Clearwater Utilities. Parties to the lease were Lessor Betsy Steg, principal for The Cedar House LLC and Lessee Abbondanza, LLC, Charmene Prescott,.manager. A handwritten line on the last page stated the lessee may use existing listings at VRBO.com and Homeaway.com, including pictures. Mr. Teunis said Charmene Prescott was the 4th listing on a vacation rental Google search today; VRBO.com and other listings advertised the property for short-term rental. Attorney Smith said according to the lease, "The lessee shall pay a total annual rent in the amount of$102,000, less rental credits as indicated in Addendum "B" (Subjugation and Rent Credits) and "This is subject to the rental credits per Addendum "B," accordingly the first month's rent will be $7,000 and total amount due is $16,500 if the credits are applicable." No copies of Addendum "B" or "C" (Option to Purchase to be executed within 90 days) were submitted. Despite MCEB's numerous orders finding the property in violation of Code for short- term rentals, the property continued to be rented short-term. In response to questions, Ms. Blackstone said nearby houses were positioned away from Cedar House. She said while in bed, it jarred her when people jumped into the swimming pool next to Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 3 the fence. She said after Betsy Steg, an attorney, told her short-term rentals were permitted she thought she had to put up with tenants who swore at her and shot fireworks onto her roof. She first reported the short-term rentals several years ago. It was noted a neighbor, Charlie Schmidt, had reported the Toronto Blue Jays rented Cedar House in Spring 2016 and had a loud DJ and naked girls at a party. Ms. Blackstone said Mr. Schmidt lived nearby and did work on her property; she was out of town when that incident occurred. Attorney Tanner said the City had not provided him all records for this case. He made a standing objection to all testimony by Ms. Blackstone and Mr. Janus. He said the case deserved fair and unbiased adjudication. He referenced comments from the December 2015 meeting, stating Member Riordon was biased, and requested that he recuse himself. Mr. Riordon declined. Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman said hearsay testimony was permitted. Attorney Tanner requested that the entire file be submitted into the record. He said there were problems with due process issues. He said the property was leased to Abbondanza LLC, managed by Charlene Prescott, and all alleged violations occurred during the lease. He said Cedar House LLC was not the violator and there was no evidence Cedar House LLC violated Code. He said no competent evidence was presented and he objected to the MCEB basing their decision on hearsay evidence. Attorney Salzman said Ms. Blackstone was sworn in and Attorney Tanner was not precluded from cross-examining her and Mr. Janus. Attorney Tanner said he was unable to cross-examine the 26 unnamed'individuals referenced in Ms. Blackstone's testimony. Attorney Tanner referenced inconsistencies in Ms. Blackstone's testimony: 1) police calls did not correlate with record of police calls to 302 Cedar Street and 2)claims Central Methodist Soccer Team competed locally in early September 2015; team's soccer schedule did not list nearby games during that time period. In response to a question, he said he had not contacted the college re off calendar games. He said documents showed Ms. Blackstone's biased testimony was based on her negative feelings toward Ms. Steg. In response to a question, he said he did not have copies of Addendum "B" or "C." He said the property owner had no knowledge re short-term rentals during the lease, was not associated with other contractual relationships, and was not responsible for infractions during the lease. He said according to the lease, the property owner received rent. In response to a question, he said he did not have the property owner's bank statements listing rental payments from the property. Attorney Smith said the Code did not require the City to prove the property owner had knowledge of short-term rentals. Attorney Kimpton said the predisposition of the board was biased against his client; the board was obligated to provide due;process. He said it would be unusual for every guest to answer questions from a woman on the roof next door. He said it made no sense that Ms. Blackstone would know when every guest arrived and departed. He said it seemed that Ms. Blackstone and Ms. Steg had feuded for years. He said the tenant had a lease purchase agreement. He said Mr. Teunis had not provided him the whole file to examine which was required for due process. He said his client was not advertising the property for rent for less than 30 days. He said a fine would be destructive to his client, who lived in the cottage and rented the big house. It was commented that beach visitors speak freely with residents. Attorney Kimpton said the property was in an area in transition, which was the basis for the feud. He said it was different when someone spoke to visitors face to face vs. speaking to them Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 4 from a roof next door. In response to a question, he said he did not have copies of lease agreements for 2015 for Cedar House. He said he was not familiar with the lease agreement, did not have copies of Addendum "B" or "C," and did not know what rental credits were. In response to a question, he said he looked at the lease a year ago and the only detail he could provide was that his client had an option to purchase the property. His client was not present. He said the City was alleging things he believed were not true. Mr. Teunis said visitors freely provide information about themselves every day and to imply otherwise was incorrect. Attorney Smith said the Code held property owners responsible for violations; Attorney Kimpton and his client Abbondanza LLC had no standing in this case.Attorney Smith said he did not know what evidence the Respondent's attorneys withheld; they would not provide copies of Addendum "B" or "C." In response to questions, Private Investigator Constantine Janus said he met Charmene Prescott at the Cedar House property on September 25, 2015. He said Ms. Prescott said she lived in the cottage, was the manager responsible for day-to-day maintenance, and planned to purchase the property. He said he negotiated a 1-week rental with her and she emailed him the lease agreement. Attorney Smith said the top of the Abbondanza Lease Agreement stated Long-Term. Mr. Janus' lease agreement stated Short-Term. No contracts were submitted disputing City claims that short-term rentals had occurred; copies of leases during 2015 needed to be produced to identify individuals who rented the property. In response to a question, Mr. Teunis said the list of police calls was not comprehensive. Calls from cell phones were listed separately from call from land lines and Ms. Blackstone's calls would be listed under a different address. He said the partial report was not an accurate assessment of all police calls for the subject property. The history of the property's ownership was reviewed with comments that the owner had not homesteaded the property during the last decade. It was felt that short-term rentals had occurred for many years. Doubt was expressed that the alleged feud between Ms. Blackstone and Ms. Steg had any bearing on this case. Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and has committed a repeat violation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Teunis recommended a fine of$500 per day be imposed for the days the property was rented for short-terms i.e. 93 days for a total of$46,500. The number of days was based on Ms. Blackstone's affidavit and testimony. He recommended the fine be paid within 30 days. Attorney Tanner said under City definition, the property owner was not the violator. Attorney Kimpton said all relevant information was not available for his review. He said due process had not occurred. Assistant Smith submitted composite exhibits. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 5 Member Riordon moved to enter an order that a fine of$46,500 be imposed for the 93 days the repeat violation existed payable within 30 days. The motion was duly seconded. It was stated in addition to Ms. Blackstone's testimony, utility bills indicated high water use, the lease referenced vacation rental websites, and missing Addendums had information re rental income. It was noted that the property's lease was $8,500 a month plus $1,500 in taxes. It was commented Ms. Blackstone had to deal with disruption from short-term tenants and associated noise for many years. It was indicated that the proposed fine was a drop in the bucket compared to the short-term rental income. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that a short term rental occurred in violation of the City of Clearwater Code. A representative of the Respondent(s)was present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of Code Section(s) 1-104.113, 3-919, & 8-102 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case and previously was/were found to have violated the same Code Section(s) on November 20,2013,,February 23, 2014, and December 16, 2015, and therefore, committed a repeat violation. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that the Respondent(s) pay a fine of$46,500 ($500.00 daily fine for 93 days when the repeat violations occurred) payable by August 26, 2016. The Board further orders that If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within 5 years, the Board may order the Respondent(s)to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. A certified copy of this Order shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, and once recorded, shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator(s) pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 6 after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The MCEB recessed from 3:23 to 3:30 p.m. 4.4 Case 48-16 H N D Devon LLC 162 Devon Dr. Short Term Rental — Phillips Property Owner John Gianfilippo admitted to the violation. Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. The violation at 162 Devon Drive related to an illegal short term rental. The property's BTR was for monthly rentals. On June 21, 2016, the property was advertised for rent on the internet for less than 31 days. Property photographs on June 21, 2016 showed the single family house with out-of-state vehicles in the driveway. Prima facie evidence: Screenshots of vacation rental website on June 21, 2016— property offered for rent for nightly rate, with a 3 night minimum and comments re a week-long stay in August 2015. Inspector Phillips said the property was in compliance and requested a declaration of violation. Mr. Gianfilippo said Patty Belloise had advertised his property; he never contacted her. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the Respondent. If the Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the condition existed; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 1-104.113, 8-102, & 3-919 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 7 ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.5 Case 49-16 Maria T Fray 996 Bruce Ave. Short Term Rental —Phillips Property owner Maria Fray said she had never rented her property short-term but admitted to advertising it for short-term rental. Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on June 11, 2016, following the first inspection. The violation at 996 Bruce Avenue related to short- term rental. On June 9, 2016, staff received an anonymous complaint. On June 21, 2016 at the Municipal Services Building, Inspector Phillips reviewed the Code and VRBO listing #139612 with Ms. Fray and advised her re changes necessary to comply. Ms. Fray agreed to the corrections and applied for and was issued a BTR permitting rentals for a minimum of 31 days or 1 calendar month, whichever was less. A June 10, 2016 internet screenshot showed the subject property advertised for rent with nightly and weekly rates, offering 1 to 30 day stays. Inspector Phillips said she was able to book the property on the internet for 1 week stays in June and July. Internet screenshots on June 20, 21, and July 19, 2016 showed the subject property advertised for rent with nightly rates, offering 1 to 30 day stays. A property photograph on July 15, 2016 showed the subject property. A July 21, 2016 internet screenshot showed the property advertised for rent with monthly rates and 31-day minimum. Inspector Phillips said the property was in compliance and requested a declaration of violation. Ms. Fray said she had difficulty with the website but had not rented her property short-term. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 8 Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the Respondent. If the Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the condition existed; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent(s) was/were present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 1-104.B, 8-102, & 3-919, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s)to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City,Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.6 Case 50-16 —Withdrawn Muhamed Faour 839 Lantana Ave. Short Term Rental — Phillips Case 50-16 was withdrawn. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 9 4.7 Case 51-16 —Withdrawn Muhamed Faour 843 Lantana Ave. Short Term Rental — Phillips Case 51-16 was withdrawn. 4.8 Case 52-16 Timothy & Janice Amburgy 2813 Long View Dr. Abandoned Bldg./Exterior Surfaces— Harris No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Christin Harris provided a PowerPoint presentation. Notices of violation were issued on April 26, 2016, following the first inspection. The 2 violations at 2813 Long View Drive related to exterior surfaces and an abandoned building. A Clearwater Utilities screenshot showed the property's water service was discontinued on August 9, 2010. On December 19, 2012, the MCEB found the property in violation re windows and doors and accepted an Affidavit of Non- Compliance on February 28, 2013. As of July 25, 2016, the $189,600 lien continued to accrue at $150/day. Property photographs on April 25, 2016 showed the boarded front window, collapsing soffit and garage door, mismatching paint on fascia, a boarded rear door, secured swimming pool, and a dangerous and uninhabitable structure notice posted by the City on June 7, 2011. Property photographs on June 24, 2016 showed missing and torn screens on the back porch, missing soffit, and the collapsing garage door. Property photographs on July 15, 2016 showed no change. Property photographs on July 25, 2016 showed the open back slider, a collapsed interior ceiling, significant peeling paint on the porch's ceiling, collapsing soffit, mildewed fascia, and a dangerous and uninhabitable structure notice posted by the City on April 26, 2016. In response to a question, Inspector Harris said she was in contact with a neighbor who maintained the yard. The owners abandoned the property to foreclosure 6 years ago and moved out of town; the bank did not take over the property. A management company contacted her re needed repairs but took no action. The City was encouraged to take action earlier, before properties decay. Attorney Smith reported the City was contracting with a 3 d party to create a registry and avoid similar incidences. Banks were required to register with the City once a property was in foreclosure, providing the City a contact. In the future, banks will be notified re MCEB actions. In response to a question, he said the Building Department was responsible for determining if a structure needed to be razed. Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Harris recommended compliance by August 26, 2016 or a fine of$250 per day per violation be imposed. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 10 Member Johnson moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before August 26, 2016. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$250 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that 2 violations exist: exterior surfaces and abandoned building. The Respondent(s)was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) Sections 3- 1503.B.2, 3-1503.A, 3-1503.113.1, 3-1503.113.3, 3-1503.113.9, & 3-1502.113, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s)shall replace the soffit and fascia boards, remove peeling and declining paint, and repaint surfaces to present a uniform appearance and occupy, rent, lease, or sell the property or obtain a permit to have the structure demolished to comply with said Section(s) of the Code by the deadline, August 26, 2016. The fine is $250.00 per day per violation for each and every day each violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code,the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Christin Harris, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 11 DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.9 Case 53-16 — Repeat Violation Frank & Isabelle Blainey 3172 Wessex Way Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance— Harris No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Christin Harris provided a PowerPoint presentation. Anotice of repeat violation was issued on May 27, 2016, following inspection. The repeat violation at 3172 Wessex Way related to an unmaintained swimming pool with dirty rancid water, a public health, safety or welfare nuisance. The MCEB found the property's swimming pool in violation on March 23, 2016 and accepted an Affidavit of Compliance on April 19, 2016. Following an April 29, 2016 complaint, Inspector Harris visited the property on May 1, 2016 but could not see the swimming pool. On May 27, 2017, Inspector Harris could see the swimming pool through the unsecured fence and observed dirty, rancid water in the pool. Property photographs on May 27 June 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 23, and 28, July 5, 10, 15, 16, and 24, 2016 showed the bottom of the swimming pool could not be seen through the opaque unfiltered,green water. The property was not occupied and water utilities were shut off about a month ago. Hal Snyder said the subject property had been in disrepair for a long time and lowered nearby property values. Member Nycz moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and committed a`repeat violation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Harris recommended a fine of$500 per day be imposed for 62 days from May 27 to July 27, 2016 when the repeat violation occurred, for a total of$31,000. Attorney Salzman recommended against extending fines into the future. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Nycz moved to enter an order that a fine of$31,000 be imposed for the 62 days the repeat violation existed payable within 30 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that a hazardous swimming pool, which is a public health, safety or welfare nuisance is in violation of the City of Clearwater Code. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 12 The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of Code Section(s) 3-1503.113.5 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case and previously was/were found to have violated the same Code Section(s) on March 23, 2016, and therefore, committed a repeat violation. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that the Respondent(s) pay a fine of$31,000 ($500.00 daily fine) for the time period from May 27 to July 27, 2016, when the repeat violation(s) occurred, payable by August 26, 2016. The Board further orders that If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within 5 years, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. A certified copy of this Order shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, and once recorded, shall constitute a lien against any real or personal;property owned by the violator(s) pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.10 Case 54-16 Frank & Isabelle Blainey, 3172 Wessex Way Exterior Surfaces/Windows Maintenance/Construction Material Storage— Harris No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Christin Harris provided a PowerPoint presentation. Notices of violation were issued on April 8, May 2 and 24, 2016, following the first inspection. The 4 violations at 3172 Wessex Way related to exterior surfaces, window and roof maintenance, and outdoor storage of construction materials. Property photographs on May 27, 2017 showed pine needles collecting on the roof, mold on a back yard decorative awning, and exterior storage of pavers. Property photographs on June 1, 2016 showed peeling paint and rust on two entry columns, rotting fascia with mold and mildew. Property photographs on June 7, 2016, showed torn and sagging screens on the pool enclosure. Property photographs on June 15 and 28 and July 24, 2016 showed no change. The inspector photographed the pool enclosure through a missing fence slat photographed on July 25, 2016. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 13 Member Strickland moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Harris recommended compliance by August 17, 2016 or a fine of$250 per day per violation be imposed. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Prost moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before August 17, 2016. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$250 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that 4 violations exist: exterior surfaces, roof maintenance, outdoor storage, and windows maintenance. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.113, 3- 1502.D.3, 3-1502.C.3, &3-1502.G.3, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall repair, replace or remove loose, torn, and hanging screen on the pool enclosure and ensure that the pool enclosure remains in a clean and attractive condition thereafter,, remove stacked pavers stored outside, repair, clean, or replace any surface with mildew, rust, peeling paint, or loose material, including the fascia, columns by the front entry, and decorative awning over the backyard window, and clear the roof of debris, including pine needles, and maintain the roof on a regular basis to comply with said Section(s) of the Code;by the deadline, August 17, 2016. The fine is $250.00 per day per violation for each and every day each violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Christin Harris, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 14 written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.11 Case 55-16 Prof 2013 S3 Legal Title Trust 3342 Masters Dr. Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance— Harris No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Christin Harris provided a PowerPoint presentation`. A notice of violation was issued on February 23, 2016, following the first inspection. The violation at 3342 Masters Drive related to an unsecured hazardous swimming pool with unfiltered green water. Property photographs on February 23, 2016 showed open access to the hazardous swimming pool with opaque water. Property photographs on May 17, 2016 showed the pool enclosure door was secured. The bottom of the swimming pool could not be seen through the cloudy water. Property photographs on June 13 and July 15, 2016 showed no change. Property photographs on July 25, 2016 showed the pool being drained and the water clear enough to see the bottom. The Realtor's property manager reported the pool pump was broken and the property was in foreclosure. Inspector Harris said the property was in compliance and requested a declaration of violation. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the Respondent. If the Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the condition existed; however, it is further evident the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 15 The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1503.113.5 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise;reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine`whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.12 Case 56-16 Dani Lemberger 1485 Pinebrook Dr. Residential Grass Parking/Hauling Trailer/Exterior Surfaces— Knight No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Daniel Knight provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on April 26, 2016, following the first inspection.The 3 violations at 1485 Pinebrook Drive related to grass parking, an unscreened hauling trailer, and exterior surfaces. Property photographs on April 20, 2016 showed numerous vehicles and a pickup truck with an unscreened loaded hauling trailer parked on the lawn and unpaved surfaces, and peeling paint and staining on exterior surfaces, including fascia. Property photographs on April 26, 2016 showed mildew and peeling paint on exterior surfaces. Property photographs on May 19, 2016 showed no change to exterior surfaces and a pickup truck with an unscreened loaded hauling trailer parked on an unpaved surface. Inspector Knight said on July 15, 2016, the property management company reported the owner would repair exterior surfaces and the tenants had vacated the property and removed the vehicles and trailer. Property photographs on July 15 and 22, 2016 showed peeling paint, rust, and mildew on exterior surfaces and fascia and no vehicles in the yard. Inspector Knight said the property was in compliance for grass parking and the hauling trailer and requested a declaration of violation for those 2 violations. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 16 Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case regarding grass parking and an unscreened hauling trailer and to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the Respondent for these 2 violations. If the Respondent repeats the violations, the Board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the conditions existed; however, it is further evident these conditions were corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1403.113.1, 3- 1407.A.5, 3-1407.A.7, 3-1407.A.2.c, & 3-1407.A.3.c, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within`10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Inspector Knight recommended compliance re exterior surfaces by August 27, 2016 or a fine of $150 per day be imposed. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 17 Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case regarding exterior surfaces and to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before August 27, 2016. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the conditions existed; however, it is further evident these conditions were corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1403.113.11, 3- 1407.A.5, 3-1407.A.7, 3-1407.A.2.c, &,3-1407.A.3.c, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s)to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City,Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 18 4.13 Case 57-16 Martin S Awerbach Tre 1481 Sandy Ln. Residential Grass Parking — Knight No one was present to represent the Respondent. Inspector Daniel Knight provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on May 5, 2016, following the first inspection. The violation at 1481 Sandy Lane related to residential grass parking and parking on unpaved surfaces. Property photographs on April 26, 28, May 5, 27, and June 17, 2016 showed one or more vehicles;parked on the grass and unpaved surfaces. Property photographs on July 7 and 22, 2016 showed vehicles parked in compliance with Code. Inspector Knight requested a declaration of violation. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the Respondent. If the Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the condition existed; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent(s) was/were not present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1403.113.1, 3- 1407.A.5, & 3-1407.A.7 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 19 request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.14 Case 58-16 H & S Realty & Property Inc. 1501 N Betty Lane Fences &Walls/Door &Window Openings/Abandoned Bldg — Knight Project Manager Michael Ferguson and Contractor Hamid Ghannad, representing the Respondent, admitted to the violations. Inspector Daniel Knight provided a PowerPoint presentation. Staff received multiple complaints about the property. Notices of violation were issued on`January 20 and April 20,;2016, following the first inspection. The 3 violations at 1501 N Betty Lane related to fence maintenance, door and window openings and window maintenance, and an abandoned building in a public nuisance condition. A Clearwater Utilities:screenshot showed water service to the property was discontinued on July 8, 2015 (following a fire). A property photograph on January 19, 2016 showed the collapsing fence had missing slats. A property photograph on April 19, 2016 showed boarded front windows and door on the commercial building. Property photographs on May 17, 2016 showed shattered glass on the pavement, overgrown landscaping partially blocking the sidewalk, trash, and the boarded door and windows. Property photographs on May 31, 2016 showed stacked cinder blocks by the collapsing fence. Property photographs on June 13 and 27, and July 12 and 22, 2016 showed no change. Inspector Knight said several weeks ago the property managers said interior demolition was set to begin; the permit expired July 29 2016. The doors and windows needed to be secured and broken glass, which posed a'nuisance, needed to be removed. Mr. Ferguson said repairs were delayed by the insurance companies' tardy decisions. He said his firm was hired a month ago and began assessing damages and necessary repairs. He said he would take care of the permit tomorrow. He said a fence was being installed in front of the building and interior demolition would begin July 29, 2016, followed by rehab work. He estimated the project would take 180 days. He said he would do whatever was needed to comply and would remain in contact with the City. Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Knight recommended compliance within 90 days or a fine of$250 per day per violation be imposed. Mr. Teunis said the City would act if the project did not progress sufficiently. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 20 Member Prost moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before October 27, 2016. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$250 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that 3 violations exist: fence maintenance, door and window openings and window maintenance, and an abandoned building in a public nuisance condition. Representatives of the Respondent(s)were present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-808, 3-808.A.1, 3-808.A.4, 3-808.A.5, 3-808.A.6, 3-1502.C.1, 3-1502.0.3, 3-1503.6.2, & 3-1503.6.1, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall repair or replace the fence so that it is secured, uniform, and vertical or removed the fence (a fence is required if the property is occupied), repair/replace all windows and doors so they are secured in a weatherproof manner and not boarded, begin interior demolition work, bring the property into compliance with Code, maintain the property in a nuisance free condition, and/or sell the property to comply with said Section(s);of the Code by the deadline, October 27, 2016. The fine is $250.00 per day per violation for each and every day each violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon complying with said Section(s),of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Daniel Knight, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 21 review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.15 Case 59-16 -Withdrawn Pasers Fund Holdings LLC 1610 Kings Way Fences &Walls/Roof Maintenance/Exterior Surfaces/Door &Window Openings/Public Health & Safety Nuisance— Devol Case 59-16 was withdrawn. 4.16 Case 60-16 Christine Pecha 1717 Starlight Dr. Landscape Cover— Fletcher Attorney Hieu Le, representing the property owner, admitted to the violation. Inspector Vicki Fletcher provided a PowerPoint presentation.A notice of violation was issued on May 13, 2016, following the first inspection. The violation at 1717 Starlight Drive related to required landscaping. A June 6, 2016 property photograph showed pebbles covering the front yard and vines planted in the right-of-way. Property photographs on June 10 and 13, 2016 showed pebbles covering the front yard, weeds in the mulch, and weeds and poorly maintained vines in the right-of-way. Property photographs on July 14 and 15, 2016 showed the pebbles in the front yard, additional weeds in the mulch, and multiple weeds in the right-of-way. The property owner called yesterday, stating she was not here all year, she had installed pebbles for ease of maintenance, and she would not have done so had she known it was not permitted. The property owner said Pinellas County told her she could cut down the oak trees in the front yard. Attorney Le said property owner Christine Pecha had lost her job in Tampa and worked in Chicago since December 15, 2015. He said Ms. Pecha had invested a significant amount of money in the yard, thinking it would be a better landscape while she was out of town. He said she was ready to comply but could not return to Clearwater until September 16, 2016 to supervise the work. He requested 90 days to comply. Member Prost moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Fletcher recommended compliance by August 10, 2016 or a fine of$150 per day be imposed. The City had received complaints re the landscaping. It was felt the property owner had acted with good intentions. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Johnson moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before October 27, 2016. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 22 Board may order a fine of$150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that 1 violation exists: required landscaping. A representative of the Respondent(s)was present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1204.13 & 3- 1502.H.2, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall remove the rocks from the front yard, plant sod, grass seed, or low growing shrubs, and maintain this area and plant sod, grass seed, or approved ground cover in the right-of-way and maintain this area to comply with said Section(s) of the Code by the deadline, October'27,,2016. The fine is $150.00 per day for each and every day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Vicki Fletcher, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162,Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 23 4.17 Case 61-16 Michelle Lamontagne 1766 Murray Ave. Exterior Surfaces/Roof Maintenance— Fletcher Property owner Michelle Lamontagne admitted to the violations. Inspector Vicki Fletcher provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on March 25, 2016, following the first inspection. The 2 violations at 1766 Murray Avenue related to exterior surfaces and roof maintenance. Property photographs on June 13, 2016 showed mold and loose and broken tiles and a hole in the roof and collapsing;soffit. Property photographs on July 15, 2016 showed a portion of the gutter had fallen to the ground, failing soffit, fascia with mismatching paint, mold, loose and broken tiles, and a hole in the roof. Ms. Lamontagne said she had no steady income before receiving,Social Security benefits last month. She said she caught up with her utility bills and back taxes. She said she could not get a loan to repair the roof without homeowner's insurance and she could not get homeowner's insurance until she repaired the roof. She said City loans required homeowner's insurance. She said some roofers will finance their work. Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Fletcher recommended compliance by October 27, 2016 or a fine of$150 per day per violation be imposed. In March, she provided the property owner with charity organization information. It was noted the situation was difficult and it was recommended that the property owner be provided additional time. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Johnson moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before January 27, 2017. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that 2 violations exist: exterior surfaces and roof maintenance. The Respondent(s) was/were present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.D.1, 3- 1502.D.3, 3-1502.D.4, & 3-1502.113, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 24 ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall remove rotted wood and replace or repair the gutters and soffit, remove all mold and peeling paint from all exterior surfaces and the roof and repaint, and repair the hole in the roof by either repairing or replacing the roof to comply with said Section(s) of the Code by the deadline, January 27, 2017. The fine is $150.00 per day per violation for each and every day each violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Vicki Fletcher, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de'novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a,decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016,`at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.18 Case 62-16 Efstathia;Roumeliotis & Sotirios Koniaris 1727 Cleveland St. Residential Grass Parking/Hauling Trailer/Boat in ROW— Fletcher Respondent Sotirios Koniaris accompanied by tenant John Hubbard, denied the violations. Inspector Vicki Fletcher provided a PowerPoint presentation. She said the property came into compliance after it was posted and requested a declaration of violation. A notice of violation was issued on March 10, 2016, following the first inspection. The 3 violations at 1727 Cleveland Street related to residential parking restrictions re a boat and trailer and residential grass parking. A March 10, 2016 property photograph showed a large boat on a trailer in the driveway and an enclosed unscreened trailer and pickup truck parked in the front yard. A March 24, 2016 property photograph showed an enclosed unscreened trailer parked in the front yard. Property photographs on April 15, May 4, and June 6, 2016 showed a large boat on a trailer, a pickup truck, and an enclosed unscreened trailer parked in the front yard. An April 21, 2016 property photograph showed an enclosed unscreened trailer and 2 jet skis on a trailer parked in the front Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 25 yard. A May 16, 2016 property photograph showed an enclosed unscreened trailer and a pickup truck parked in the front yard. A property photograph on May 17, 2016 showed a large boat on a trailer in the driveway and an enclosed unscreened trailer parked in the front yard. A June 9, 2016 property photograph showed a large boat on a trailer, a pickup truck, another vehicle, and an enclosed unscreened trailer parked in the front yard. A June 13, 2016 property photograph showed an enclosed unscreened trailer parked in the front yard. A July 15, 2016 property photograph showed no vehicles parked in the front yard. Mr. Koniaris said he had not received any correspondence from the City regarding the violations; his tenant John Hubbard notified him. He said he twice provided the Code Inspector with his home and cell numbers. In response to a question, he said his tenant had loaded the trailer while cleaning out the garage. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Johnson moved to find the Respondent was in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case and to enter an order that no fine be imposed against the Respondent. If the Respondent repeats the violations, the Board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day each violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident the condition existed; however, it is further evident this condition was corrected prior to this hearing. The Respondent was present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) was/were in violation of City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1407.A.5, 3- 1407.A.1.b, 3-1407.A.2.c, 3-1407.A.3.c, 3-1407.A.7, 3-1407.A.1.a, 3-1407.A.2.a, 3-1407.A.3.a, & 3-1407.A.7 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of this Board that no fine will be imposed against the Respondent(s). If the Respondent(s) repeats/repeat the violation referenced herein within five years, the Board may order the Respondent(s) to pay a fine of up to $500.00 for each day the repeat violation continues. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the Board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 26 Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the execution of the Order to be appealed or after final disposition of the request for rehearing of the Order to be appealed. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.19 Case 63-16 Globality Partners Corp 2233 Springwood Cir. W. Landscaping Required — Fletcher Attorney Rashida Overby, representing the property owner, admitted to the violation with a request. Inspector Vicki Fletcher provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was issued on April 18, 2016, following the first inspection. The violation at 2233 Springwood Circle West related to required landscaping. Property photographs on March 16 and June 13, 2016 showed the entire yard and right-of-way covered with a mixture of pine needles and leaves. Property photographs on July 20, 2016 showed pine needles had been raked and mulch was being applied in the right-of-way and pine needles on the front yard. Property photographs on July 25, 2016 showed the yard and right-of-way covered with pine needles. Attorney Overby said a tenant lived in the house. The property was owned by the granddaughter of the 96 year-old original owner, following a quick claim to maintain the property. She said the property's 3 large pine trees could not be pruned. She said the property had too many trees and the constant shedding of pine needles prevented anything from growing; within 2 days of raking, the yard was covered with pine needles. She said the Code allowed organic ground cover. She said she contacted the Planning and Development Department to see if the trees could be removed. She requested 60 days to comply. Mr. Teunis said pine needles could be used to surround plants but could not be used as ground cover; pine needles covered the entire property. The homeowners' association had contacted the City and indicated at a neighborhood meeting a County representative said pine needles attracted mosquitoes. The problem re pine needles existed throughout the neighborhood. Member Riordon moved to find the Respondent(s) in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Inspector Fletcher recommended compliance by August 11, 2016 or a fine of$150 per day be imposed. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Nycz moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation on or before September 27, 2016. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of$150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 27 This case came before the City of Clearwater Municipal Code Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, 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 that 1 violation exists: required landscaping. A representative of the Respondent(s) was present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are in violation the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.11-11.2, as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall plant sod, grass seed, low growing shrubs, or approved ground cover and maintain this area to comply with said Section(s) of the Code by the deadline, September 27, 2016. The fine is $150.00 per day for each and every day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Vicki Fletcher, 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 property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The Respondent may request a rehearing of the decision of the Board, in writing, and delivered to the City,Clerk within 10 days of the postmark of the written order. A request for rehearing shall be based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the board's decision. The written request for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons therefor. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to rehear the matter; the Board will not hear oral argument or evidence when making this decision. Any aggrieved party may appeal a final Order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within 30 days of the Order. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the Board's proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 4.20 Case 64-16 — Repeat Violation Ralph Turner & Carol Ackerson 1905 Magnolia Dr. Vacant Parcel Outdoor Storage - Cantrell Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 28 Property owner Ralph Turner admitted the trailer was on his property but said it was not stored there. Inspector Jason Cantrell provided a PowerPoint presentation. On October 23, 2013, the MCEB found the property in violation of Code re outdoor storage on a vacant lot. The repeat violation at 1905 Magnolia Drive related to outdoor storage on a vacant parcel. The property was posted with an Affidavit of Repeat Violation on June 21, 2016. A June 16, 2016 property photograph showed a boat, trailer and shed. On October 23, 2013, the MCEB found the property owner not in violation of Code re the shed, however the shed was moved since then. A property photograph on June 20, 2016 showed a boat and trailer, a loaded hauling trailer under a tarp, and fence sections leaning on the shed. Property photographs on June 23, 2016 showed a boat and trailer, a loaded hauling trailer under a tarp, other items covered by a tarp, fence sections, a saw horse, compressors, tools, household items, windows, a riding lawnmower, debris, a cooler, empty bottles, plywood, and a chicken coop. Property photographs on July 7, 2016 showed fencing sections, a chicken coop, construction materials, PVC pipes under the shed and a loaded hauling trailer under a tarp. Property photographs on July 15, 2016 showed fencing sections, plywood, and items stored under the lean-to and chicken coop. Property photographs on July 22, 2016 showed fencing sections, a lean-to, and chicken coop with chickens. A July 26, 2016 property photograph showed the lean-to. Mr. Turner said items were on the property as he was emptying his house after he sold it and waited for the delayed closing. He said the lean-to was on the property previously and was used to store the lawn mower. He said he was moving out of town and had to load household items into the hauling trailer. He said he would move the chicken coop. Inspector Cantrell said items on the vacant lot started being moved on July 15, 2016. It was felt the property owner had not violated Code. Attorney Smith submitted composite exhibits. Member Riordon moved to enter an order to find the Respondent not in violation of the City of Clearwater Code as referred to in the affidavit in this case, and this case is dismissed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Riordon, Strickland, Nycz, Prast, and Chair Carothers voted "Aye"; Members Johnson and Schultz voted "Nay." Motion carried. This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Municipal Enforcement Board on July 27, 2016, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having hear testimony under oath and received evidence, the Board issues to the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the condition in question does not exist. The Respondent(s) was/were present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent(s) is/are not in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 3-1502.J.3 & 1-104.113 as referred to in the Affidavit in this case. Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 29 ORDER It is the Order of the Board that this Case 64-16 shall be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Case 29-16 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Gilbert Jannelli 1343 Cleveland St. Fences &Walls/Lot Clearing/Roof Maintenance/Exterior Surfaces— Fletcher 5.2 Case 32-16 Affidavit of Non-Compliance Jon Daniels & James Fajen 1437 Carlos Ave. Roof Maintenance/Exterior Surfaces— Knight 5.3 Case 09-16 Affidavit of Compliance Mirko & Anka Rudman 1295 Santa Rosa St. Roof Maintenance/Clean Roof- Fletcher 5.4 Case 21-16 Affidavit of Compliance Matthew S Grams & Bonita L Tye 602 Oberlin Dr. Residential Grass Parking/Hauling Trailer—Stewart 5.5 Case 31-16 Affidavit of Compliance Schlau Properties Co 1425 Sunset Point Rd. Parking Lot Surfaces — Knight 5.6 Case 32-16 Affidavit of Compliance Jon Daniels & James<Fajen 1437 Carlos Ave. Fences &Walls— Knight 5.7 Case 33-16 Affidavit of Compliance 109 Kenwood Ave Trust 109 Kenwood Ave. Parking Lot Surfaces — Devol 5.8 Case 34-16 Affidavit of Compliance Dror Peled 2706 Landmark Dr. Residential Grass Parking — Harris Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 30 5.9 Case 37-16 Affidavit of Compliance Robert& Crescensa Whitney 1618 N Ft. Harrison Ave. Non-Conforming Signs/Parking Lot Surfaces—Weaver 5.10 Case 39-16 Affidavit of Compliance Walker, Richard Const Co., 1251 Sunset Point Rd. Lot Clearing — Knight 5.11 Case 41-16 Affidavit of Compliance Deborah C. Ferguson 2418 Moore Haven Dr. Windows Maintenance/Fences— Harris Member Schultz moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 09-16, 21-16, 31-16, 32-16, 33-16, 34-16, 37-16, 39-16 and 41-16 and to accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the Orders imposing fines for Case 29-16 and 32-16. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Case 07-14— Request for Lien Reduction C T S Holdings of Pinellas LLC 1840 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Door &Window Openings/Public Nuisance Condition/Graffiti-Schaar Aaron Stuart, Managing Partner for`C T S Holdings of Pinellas LLC, said he acquired the property in 2014 through default and planned to fix it; he had the gasoline tanks removed. He said building permits were in place to develop the property. He said his previous attorney had relocated and he was not notified re the lien which came to his attention at closing. He requested the lien be reduced to administration costs.'' Mr. Teunis said the City supported reduction of the $31,200 lien to administration costs of $1,805.20. Member Riordon moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 07-14 to administration costs of$1,805.20 payable within 30 days or the lien will revert to its original amount. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board considered the request for reconsideration of a lien at a hearing held on July 27, 2016, and based upon the evidence presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. After considering the request for reduction of the lien and considering that the property is now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in the amount of the lien is appropriate in the above- referenced case. It is the Order of this Board that the lien previously imposed in the Order of the Board dated May 28, 2014, as recorded in O.R. Book 18422, Pages 1772-1776 of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to administration costs of$1,805.20 payable to the Petitioner Code Enforcement 2016-07-27 31 by August 26, 2016. If the reduced lien amount is not paid within the time specified in this Order, a lien in the original amount of $31,200.00 shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July 2016, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 7. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS: T C 12 LLC 1205 N GARDEN AVE 09- 29 -15- 65466- 000 -0190 PNU2015 -01937 $554.50 CHADWICK JAMES DUDLEY 1357 BROWNING ST PNU2016 -00491 22- 29 -15- 01476 - 000 -0830 $473.00 CHADWICK JAMES DUDLEY 1265 BYRON AVE PNU2016 -00495 22- 29 -15- 01476 - 000 -0840 $473.00 VANESSA HALE 2209 JAFFA PL PNU2016 -00690 18- 29 -16- 33993 - 000 -0920 $220.00 Member Schultz moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. BOARD COMMENTS It was requested that cases continued by respondents be scheduled at the end of the Public Hearings. 8. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. Attest: Chair Secr'etdry to the Bo. rd Code Enforcement 2016 -07 -27 cipal Code Enforcement Board 32