Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150120SM MinutesSFBASTIAAI POLICE OF,PARTMElyT 9 SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING January 20, 2015 1. The hearing was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage. 2. Present: Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage, City Attorney Robert Ginsburg, Code Enforcement Officers Richard Iachini and Curtis Bloomfield, Code Enforcement Clerk Susan Lorusso. 3. Ms. Lorusso swore in staff and all persons that would be speaking. 4. Hearing of Code Violation: Case No. CE 14-31343 First Church of the Nazarene 50 S. Wimbrow Drive Magistrate Armitage read the docket for Case No. CE 14-31343. Mr. Ginsburg called Code Officer Richard Iachini, who identified himself and stated his position as code enforcement officer for the City of Sebastian for ten years. Mr. Iachini gave details of his site inspections beginning October 3, 2014 and continued through today, January 20, 2015. Mr. Iachini presented photos taken the morning of January 20, 2015, which Rev. Vacchiano had no objection to the photos being entered into evidence. The photos were marked as City's Exhibit #1. Mr. Ginsburg stated that it is the city's belief that the photos show the property to be in violation of the City's Code of Ordinance Sec. 54-2-7.13; that there are too many recreational vehicles on the property. Responding to Magistrate Armitage's questions, Rev. Vacchiano said he had no questions for the code officer and he did have one witness he would like to call. Mr. John B. Hartman, 421 Georgia Boulevard came to the podium. Rev. Vacchiano asked Mr. Hartman if the boat and the trailer in the photo belonged to him, and Mr. Hartman stated they are his. Rev. Vacchiano described the property as being three separate lots; lot 1 has the shed, lot 2 has the house and Tract F is the church property. After much discussion between Rev. Vacchiano, Code Officer Iachini, Magistrate Armitage and City Attorney Ginsburg, it was verified that the church is one parcel, Tract F, and the properties with the house and the shed were unified and are now one single combined lot. The unity of title was done for the purpose of extending the fence and constructing the shed on Lot 1. The city requested this item be deferred to the February hearing to give the code officer time to research the actual property lines. Magistrate Armitage agreed to the city's request to defer this matter upon further inspection of the actual property lines. Case CE 14-31343 is deferred to February 17, 2015 or not at all if the inspection shows the properties in compliance according to the actual property lines. Case No. CE 14-28140 First Church of the Nazarene 421 Georgia Boulevard Code Officer Iachini stated his name, position and years of service. Code Officer Iachini reviewed the site inspections at 421 Georgia Blvd. for more than two fowl on a property beginning September 9, 2014 and continued through today, January 20, 2015. Mr. Ginsburg asked if the chickens were in a coop and where the coop was located. Code Officer Iachini stated that there was a coop located on the unified lots 1 and 2. No portion of the coop is located on Tract F. On January 9, 2015 the notice to appear was posted and photos were taken of the coop and chickens. Mr. Ginsburg entered the photos as composite exhibit #1 and Rev. Vacchiano had no objections and also had no questions for Code Officer Iachini or witnesses. Magistrate Armitage called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the city. Hearing none, he called Rev. Vacchiano to speak. Rev. Vacchiano stated that he feels the installation of the fence caused the issues presented here today since he had to unify Lots 1 and 2 causing them to become one lot. Magistrate Armitage explained that the reason this case is before him is the fact that there are four chickens on one lot and the city's code only allows for two chickens on a single lot. Mr. Ginsburg asked what the purpose of the chickens was and Rev. Vacchiano responded eggs and also if they could get a rooster then they would be able to have more chicks to give out to the people of the church. Magistrate Armitage asked if one coop could be at 421 Georgia Blvd. and a second coop be at 50 S. Wimbrow and Code Officer Iachini responded it could as long as the chickens are kept within the coops. Magistrate Armitage stated that by the defendants own testimony he is in violation. Mr. Ginsburg offered to give Rev. Vacchiano ten days from today's date, to January 30, 2015 to cure the violation. If he does we will waive the fine for the chicken violation if he doesn't we will impose the fine inclusive of the ten days and continue until the violation is cured. Because of the admission, the administrative fees of $160.00 should be imposed today and paid on or before January 30, 2015. 5. Procedure for Enforcement of Contractor Licensing Statutes (Sec. 2-195) Case No.: B15-1012 MATTHEW T. HALL DBA SHORELINE SHUTTERS 105 SEBASTIAN INDUSTRIAL PL., #8 Magistrate Armitage read the docket and Mr. Ginsburg addressed Magistrate Armitage and requested Mr. Eseltine testify first because our code indicates that since Mr. Hall did not respond within a certain timeframe to appeal the violation notice there is no hearing before the magistrate. This proceeding is for enforcement of the contracture licensing statute. We will present the facts of this case and ask you enter an appropriate order. If you wish to hear from Mr. Hall I have no objection for you to do that. Our ordinance indicates that Mr. Hall's failure to respond is an admission. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Hall why he did not respond. Mr. Hall said he did not realize he only had ten days to respond to the certified mail he received and not realize he was in violation. Magistrate Armitage confirmed with Mr. Hall that he did in fact receive the letter from the Building official. Mr. Wayne Eseltine, Building Official identified himself, his position and years of service. He testified that Mr. Hall was sent a citation via certified mail on December 16, 2014 as a result of a violation notice posted on May 11, 2014 at 1322 Bevan Drive for installing an aluminum carport without a building permit. A fine of $300.00 was imposed. Mr. Hall failed to correct the violation and pay the civil penalty. He also did not request in writing within ten days to appear before the Special Magistrate to challenge the citation. Mr. Eseltine said the administrative costs of enforcement are $192.00. Mr. Eseltine said the carport is too close to the property line, within an easement and does not meet the setbacks of the zoning code. Mr. Eseltine presented photographs taken on January 15, 2015 and Mr. Ginsburg requested they be submitted as Exhibit #1. Mr. Ginsburg clarified that there are two available alternatives, one take it down, second seek a variance for the intrusion into the setback. None of those things were done. Mr. Eseltine said they may not be approved for a variance as the carport is in a drainage/utility easement. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Eseltine what we are dealing with right now is the fine concerning the contractor and then possibly deal with structure on another day. Mr. Eseltine said the violation was written to cover the property coming into compliance and to do that they need a demolition permit to take down the carport. Mr. Howard Swogger of 958 Crown Street, Sebastian, Florida is representing his father-in- law, the homeowner of 1322 Bevan Drive. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Swogger if he discussed this issue with his father-in-law and Mr. Swogger stated that he gave the contractor ample opportunity to remedy the violation. Mr. Swogger added that his father-in-law wants his money back and the structure be taken down from his property. Magistrate Armitage said refunding the homeowner's money would be a civil matter between them and the contractor. Mr. Eseltine said the contractor could obtain a demolition permit and take down the carport. Magistrate Armitage reviewed that the recommendation is a fine, demolition of the structure and administrative costs. Mr. Swogger said the homeowners will not allow the contractor back on their property until they get their money refunded by him. Magistrate Armitage said the officials of the city have recommended that the structure be demolished. Mr. Swogger said the homeowner wants to be there if the contractor returns to the property. Magistrate Armitage said that can be allowed but the homeowner cannot refuse him access to remedy the violation. Magistrate Armitage asked how many days is the city willing to give the contractor to remove the structure and Mr. Ginsburg said ten days is sufficient. It was verbally agreed that someone from the family of the property owners would be at the property when demolition is to take place. Mr. Swogger inquired if the contractor would be made responsible to repair the gutters he removed for the carport installation and other damage done to the house. Mr. Eseltine agreed that the contractor must put it back to its original state, including the one-piece gutter. Mr. Ginsburg offered that the property should be returned to the original condition it was in prior to the carport installation to the property owner's satisfaction. Mr. Ginsburg said the ten days commence now. Mr. Ginsburg requested a ruling for the fine of $300.00 remain; administrative cost of $192.00 remain; and a fine of $20.00 per day starts today and goes to January 30. The city is willing to waive the daily fine if the structure is demolished and property returned to original condition and passes inspection within the ten days. If not, then the $20.00 per day fine starts from today, January 20, 2015. Mr. Ginsburg also requested whoever does demolition must have a proper permit. Mr. Ginsburg would like the $300.00 fine and the $192.00 administrative costs paid prior to the demolition permit being issued as a condition of the demolition permit. Magistrate Armitage decided not to hear from Mr. Hall as Mr. Swogger said Mr. hall told the property owners they did not need to worry about a permit. Magistrate Armitage reviewed the order with Mr. Hall in detail. Case No.: B15-1013 BRIAN D. LYNCH DBA EMERALD CARPET & TILE CLEANING 779 CRYSTAL MIST AVENUE Magistrate Armitage called the case and Mr. Ginsburg called on Mr. Eseltine. Mr. Eseltine identified himself, his position and years of service with the city. Mr. Eseltine testified that Mr. Brian Lynch acted in the capacity of a contractor without holding a certificate of competency issued by a local construction board or the State of Florida. Mr. Eseltine recommends a fine of $250.00 and administrative costs of $192.00. A citizen complaint generated the investigation and subsequent fine against Mr. Lynch. Janette Schlough, 8446 97h Avenue, Sebastian, Florida is the complainant who is the property owner that hired Brian Lynch to lay carpet and tile at a rental property she owns. She hired Mr. Lynch on a good recommendation from someone who had work done by Mr. Lynch and was satisfied with the job. She stated that they never told her they were not licensed to do that work and they would not give her a receipt for the work. Ms. Schlough also stated that the workers left an outside hose running and she received a $400.00 water bill from the county utility department. Ms. Schlough stated that Mr. Lynch has not responded to her calls, nor has he responded to Mr. Eseltine or notice to appear at this hearing. Magistrate Armitage ruled that Brian Lynch is assessed a fine of $250.00, administrative costs of $192.00 and a fine of $20.00 per day beginning January 20, 2015 until Mr. Lynch obtains the proper license. Mr. Eseltine asked how we force someone to become licensed. Mr. Ginsburg said the city has various avenues it could take to make Mr. Lynch comply. 6. Hearing adjourned at 3:42 p.m.