Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160816 SM MINUTESSEBASTIq POLICE ggpARTMEAyT Fir PrP SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING August 16, 2016 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 Officer Richard Iachini, Chief Michelle Morris, Commander John Blackledge, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, Community Development personnel Dom Bosworth. 3. Hearing of Code Violation: Case No. CE 16-04275 Christopher M. Poppell & Tara L. Wolfe 1325 Abbott Lane Magistrate Armitage read the docket, Case number 16-04275, in the matter of Christopher M. Poppell & Tara L. Wolfe 1325 Abbott Lane, Sebastian, Florida 32958. Magistrate Armitage called Tara L. Wolfe for testimony. Ms. Wolfe testified that Christopher M. Poppell was not present and has not lived in the residence for two months. Magistrate Armitage asked if we would be moving forward, Mr. Ginsburg confirmed and stated this was the first he had heard (referring to Mr. Poppell not living in the residence), and again confirmed with Ms. Wolfe that Mr. Poppell was not living in the residence and asked Ms. Wolfe if they were married. Ms. Wolfe stated she was not married to Mr. Poppell but purchased the house with Mr. Poppell as his girlfriend. Ms. Poppell stated they split up in February / March and Mr. Poppell moved out. Mr. Ginsburg stated Mr. Poppell moved out and asked if Ms. Wolfe owned the house now? Ms. Wolfe stated both she and Mr. Poppell own the house. Mr. Ginsburg stated you are as responsible for the residence. Mr. Ginsburg asked is your name on the deed as well? Ms. Wolfe stated "yes it is". Magistrate Armitage asked Code Officer Iachini if he ever spoke with Ms. Wolfe. Code Officer Iachini stated no, I only talked to the owner on record Christopher Poppell and he was the only one present. Ms. Wolfe stated they were both the owners on record. Magistrate Armitage took a recess for Code Officer Iachini and Mr. Ginsburg to speak with Ms. Wolfe. Magistrate Armitage called to order at 2:13 p.m. Mr. Ginsburg requested a continuance until the next Special Magistrate hearing date of September 20, 2016. At that time an update will be reported with regard to this case. The owner of record that is occupying the residence is willing to cooperate and correct the violation. Magistrate Armitage asked Ms. Poppell if she understood and agreed, she replied "I agree". Magistrate Armitage so ordered as requested. 4. Applicability and Filing Procedures [Site Plan Review] Sec. 54-4-18.2 Case No. CE 16-09893 & 16-09894 Jose Hernandez & Nora Bonilla 867 Sebastian Blvd Magistrate Armitage called Jose Hernandez for testimony. Nora Bonilla was not present for the hearing. Mr. Ginsburg stated the City of Sebastian will be withdrawing case CE 16-09893 reference sign violation. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Hernandez if there were any objections and he stated no. Mr. Ginsburg stated in reference to the second case Mr. Hernandez has arranged for an engineer, Mr. Todd N. Smith. Mr. Todd N. Smith, PE, stated his name. Mr. Ginsburg asked Mr. Smith if he was hired to complete the work for Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Smith answered that is correct. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Hernandez had started work to a lot that he purchased next door to his existing business, he cleared the lot and brought in stones to stabilize the ground in which cars were parking on. At that time Mr. Hernandez hired Randy Mosby who is also engineering in town, to correct the violation as brought to Mr. Hernandez from Code Officer Iachini. Mr. Smith stated a survey was ordered however the surveyors only surveyed the new lot and there was confusion about the survey. The surveyors returned and completed a survey on the existing business because the two parcels would be joined to function together. Since that time Mr. Mosby passed away in June of 2016. Mr. Mosby was the sole engineer of his firm, so there was a significant state of confusion on all of the projects Mr. Mosby was working on. Mr. Smith stated he was a personal friend and colleague of Mr. Mosby and worked out something with his next of kin to step in. Mr. Smith stated he has been in business locally since 1992, and is now in charge over a lot of Mr. Mosby's projects including Mr. Hernandez's to start a site plan to submit and formally address this matter, and to get the land permitted for parking lot extension. Mr. Smith stated he wrote a letter to Code Enforcement regarding this matter to include the history of this address, requesting a forty-five day time period to allow time to complete the drainage design, landscaping, and meet with land developing staff and be able to submit a formal site plan. Mr. Smith stated he is a one man engineering firm balancing about twenty of Mr. Mosby's projects and about twenty of his own. Mr. Smith stated he is doing the best he can and if granted the time he thinks he can resolve this matter to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Ginsburg request to have a say in the narration of the history because the land did not just get cleared and cars didn't just park there, and I want to make it clear our view of what occurred leading up to today. We may end up where you want to be, but I think it's important for the Special Magistrate to know what happened here. 2 Magistrate Armitage asked are we moving forward with a trial? Mr. Ginsburg stated no. Magistrate Armitage asked if anyone needs to be sworn? Mr. Ginsburg stated correct. Mr. Ginsburg stated this is information that may lead to a continuance with conditions or a consent decree, and you will decide on that. Mr. Ginsburg requested Code Officer Iachini give a history of the property. Code Officer Iachini stated his name has served 11 years of service as a code enforcement officer, proceeding with this case at 867 Sebastian Blvd, New York Barbershop. On March 12, 2015, I stopped by to see him and reminded him of a prior visit in February 2015, because I noticed there were piles of dirt dumped in an empty lot that he cleared. I reminded him that he needed a permit before he changed the elevations. At that time I did not know what his plans were. I spoke with him about it in February and I made a notation about it in March 2012. And Mr. Hernandez promised me that he would go by City Hall on Monday, because that is the only day his shop was closed so that he could do what he needed to do. However, the preceding Monday was a holiday, President's Day so that knocked it off another two weeks. This lead on from March to November of 2015, I was unable to make contact with Mr. Hernandez because the business was closed. I took photos of the property and violations and will try to make contact with him the following day. On November the 17a', I talked with the owner about the violation of site plans and the accessory use of unapproved property, owner was told previously he could not spread the dirt on the adjacent property. Mr. Hernandez told me he was out of the country when a friend of his did it. I told him that didn't excuse him he needed to now get a site plan for what he wanted to use it. Again that was November of 2015. Working with him on getting that proposal and in for a site plan, this follows now into January 2016 coming up to this year, and talked to the owner about his site plan changes for the property, owner Mr. Hernandez stated he contacted two area engineers to get a plan made for review, I contacted one of the two engineers Mr. Todd Smith who is here today, to see if he got any messages, Mr. Smith explained the name and number didn't sound familiar, but he would contact Mr. Hernandez to set up an appointment. January 2151 I talked with the owner to get a progress report on the property site plan, explained to the owner that if I didn't hear from him by the end of the day that I would have to start the paperwork towards notice of violation in leading to this hearing. That dragged out into February 26, 2016, I stopped by to get a site plan progress report, owner showed me two copies of a survey that he had to give to his engineer making progress slowly but moving forward. In March 29, 2016 I talked with the owner of the barbershop Mr. Hernandez and try to get an update on the site plan that he was supposed to submit a year ago, I asked the owner to step outside so that we may talk away from all of his customers, and there was another individual there that I had to ask to be removed before I talked to him. On March 315` the site plan required for any changes, that's when I started the notice of violation process, I issued a notice of violation giving him fifteen days to produce and get approval of a site plan, and I had been working with the owner since March of 2015. Owner has since cleared the property without a permit, changed the elevation by filling the property without a permit, and to this date has not produced a site plan, left notices of violation at the register at the counter and explained to his two owners or workers to make sure he received the notices. April 15, 2016 I re -inspected the property and the violation had not been complied and nothing has been done and that's when we sent him a certified letter, and I posted it on April 16, 2016. I posted it and took photos of the notice of violation and the property. Magistrate Armitage asked if this prompted a response from the owner? Code Officer Iachini answered not until I gave him a notice to appear. And that was back in March, and I stopped by on May 13, I talked to Mr. Hernandez and explained to him that the engineer Randy Mosby needs a survey of the property and a survey of the business. The owner stated he would call him, I also reminded him to call into the building department for final inspection on monument sign on a case on which we have closed. August 11 I re -inspected the property for the site plan violation and nothing had been done at this point, so I posted the property and took photos and basically got the same violation ending, pictures of the property showing nothing had been done. Magistrate Armitage asked Code Officer Iachini if there was anything further you wish to add? Code Officer Iachini replied no. And stated he did receive a call from Mr. Hernandez on the evening of the 11 th that he wanted to meet with me to discuss what he could do to alleviate this problem. It was late in the day and I told him I would meet with him the next morning, which was the 12th at 8:OOa.m. I meet him at the site plan, I talked with him at his property to discuss everything that he had to do, at that point and time, he got ahold of Todd Smith, Mr. Smith told us he had taken over for Randy Mosby, and he would see what he could do because he had taken over all of his cases. He had given us a letter of intent of what his plans are and also a preliminary sketch of the site plan. And that's what I've got to date. Magistrate Armitage stated he has a couple of questions for Mr. Smith. Magistrate Armitage asked if he had been formally retained by the owner? Mr. Smith stated I have. Magistrate Armitage asked when was your retainer? Mr. Smith answered on August 12. Magistrate Armitage stated so your relatively new to this? Mr. Smith stated that is correct. Magistrate Armitage stated as you have heard the officer testify, this has been going on for more than a year and a half. Mr. Smith stated I understand. I knew back as Mr. Iachini's testified originally Mr. Hernandez had contacted me within that time sequence that Mr. Iachini testified to, and at the same time he had contacted Mr. Mosby, two engineers, and at that time he hired Mr. Mosby instead of me, so I am familiar that this was ongoing. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Smith "but you are formally retained?" Mr. Smith answered Yes Sir. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Smith " and your going to start the process that needs to be done, is that correct?" Mr. Smith stated yes, I have actually mentioned this to Richard as a gesture of good faith, had my staff over the weekend put together a full preliminary site plan so that we could move as quick as possible on this because of the time that's been going on. And just so it's straight in the record, even though I took over Randy's cases, I wasn't aware of this particular case in Mr. Mosby's files. I'm having a set of difficulty identifying those projects that Mr. Mosby had, so they tend to surface to the top when somebody contacts me and says "Oh Randy was doing this for us or Randy was doing that" so when I was contacted again by Mr. Hernandez through Mr. Iachini and realized that he had hired Mr. Mosby when digging for that information, those files, and that's when I kind of stumbled on the survey history of the project. Magistrate Armitage asked now he is your client? Mr. Smith answered that is correct. Magistrate Armitage asked now there will be no slippage and you understand the process and there will be no missed deadlines, correct? Mr. Smith answered not unless I die. Magistrate Armitage stated Okay, I guess we'll accept that as an excuse. Mr. Smith stated he has been in business in Sebastian since 1985, my word is my bond and I would like to think I have a good report with staff and Dori can testify to that as far as that goes. We intend to move quickly and get this submitted and get it permitted. Mr. Ginsburg asked what is your time frame for getting before the P & Z? Mr. Smith stated that obviously will depend upon the staff time on reviewing it, that's why when I wrote my letter I had asked, all I can control is my end of it, so I asked for forty-five days to make a submittal to staff. At that point the ball is in their court, they could take two weeks to review it or two months. I can't speak for staff's review time. Mr. Ginsburg asked are you telling the City and the Special Magistrate here that in forty-five days you will have a submittal for a P & Z action that they will be able to consider this? Mr. Smith stated no, what I am saying is I will have a site plan submitted to the land development department for site plan review. At that time staff reviews our submittal, Mr. Ginsburg stated I am familiar with that. Mr. Smith stated once we've satisfied their comments then staff will schedule it for P & Z. I can't commit to when it will be scheduled for actual P & Z, all I can do is commit to when I can submit a site plan to land development for review. Mr. Ginsburg asked what would prevent you from doing that in the forty-five days? Mr. Smith stated if I die, I don't mean to be a sarcastic. Nothing. Mr. Ginsburg asked have you been paid by Mr. Hernandez? Mr. Smith stated I have been partially paid. Mr. Ginsburg asked if the partial payment was enough to cover this? Mr. Smith stated yes. Mr. Ginsburg asked so you are undertaking the responsibility of within forty-five days submitting a proposed site plan to P & Z up to the Community Development department for their review. Mr. Smith stated that is correct. Mr. Ginsburg stated I want your commitment that if they come back to you with the changes that might be necessary that you will immediately tum that around. Mr. Smith stated absolutely. Mr. Ginsburg stated it is clear to me that we've had a lot of difficulty getting this thing on track. Mr. Smith stated right. Mr. Ginsburg stated there are things have happened there intentionally going forward and doing a number of things that were told to the owner couldn't be done without a permit. And we want it stopped. And we want the P & Z review as soon as possible. We want everything done according to the way the Code expects it to be done. Post haste. Mr. Smith stated I understand, there is no incentive to me to drag it out, I'm a business man and can't speak for the way the project was handled by the other engineer, my reputation will speak for itself, as soon as I make a submittal and staff or whatever comments they have there usually minor of nature, I hope that I know what I'm doing by this point after thirty years and within a couple days we want to just respond immediately to comments and get our final payment and get done and move on to our next job. Mr. Ginsburg requested to ask Mr. Hernandez some questions along these same lines. Magistrate Armitage requested Mr. Hernandez come to the stand Mr. Ginsburg stated this is not a trial, but this is your commitment to continue with Mr. Smith and put this right and get it done properly, because another thing to stand in your way is when you leave this room you could fire Mr. Smith. Mr. Hernandez stated that's why I want to do the right thing. I make a little mistake, I don't have to much information and that is why I hired him. Mr. Ginsburg stated you have Mr. Smith who is well informed and well capable of producing the documents needed to set this straight. Mr. Smith stated just for the record so the Special Magistrate knows as well as the two of you, when I came on board a couple days ago, I did discuss with Mr. Hernandez the alternative is to pick up the stone and restore the property back to the way it was prior to the violation, instead of site planning it for parking lot expansion, so I did bring that to his attention that is a viable solution of complying with the code violation, and if he can't afford to do the design or pavement or whatever these expenses that are going to come down the road with this and I met with both him and his wife, and they advised me that they do want to move forward with getting this permitted so it can be used as a parking lot so there aware. Mr. Ginsburg asked if it was being used as a parking lot today? Mr. Smith stated it's not really being used as a commercial parking lot but the day I was out there, there was a couple cars parked on it. I don't want to speculate who they were, but there were a couple cars parked. Mr. Hernandez stated employee cars. Mr. Ginsburg stated in any event this is one we can reschedule for September 20, I want to make sure we're on track with this, we've been at this for a year and a half and it's time to put it behind us, both of us, the City and the property owner. Magistrate Armitage stated I want to say for the record so that both parties know since this has been going on for a year and a half, do not anticipate that I'm just going to dismiss this case without at least having your client compensate the City for the officer's time. There has been a number of times where he's gone out of his way to track down your client and has been told certain things and no follow- up. And I understand the engineer died, but that doesn't seem to be the sole problem. The sole problem seems to be lack of follow through on behalf of your client. The City has spent a great deal of money to get your client's attention and anticipate next month that I will order him to compensate the city for the officer's time as well as the City's expenses. Mr. Ginsburg stated we will be back September 20. Magistrate Armitage asked if there were any other cases or anyone that wish to be heard. Mr. Smith asked with my request of forty-five days to do this, Mr. Ginsburg stated were going to see how your doing with this on September 20, that's the point of it. Mr. Smith stated it affirms my schedule things for deadlines, so September 20 is thirty-two days from now. Mr. Ginsburg stated that's your forty-five days. Mr. Smith stated I'm being given thirty-two days to submit a site plan? Mr. Ginsburg stated I think the answer to that is pretty much yes or at least I want to substantially on your way there. I want to see it, it's been going on too long. You'll tell us what's happening between now and September 20. Mr. Smith stated okay. Magistrate Armitage stated the best thing I can advise you is to keep the City informed, the reason why there is a lack of trust here is that your client has not kept the City informed and they have been chasing your client, and so some transparency and some communication might go a long way. Chief Morris stated I appreciate it and that was my only concern is that Officer Iachini has wasted and put in a lot of time on this, and I think he has given him more than fair warning as well as the Community Development department, because she has been in contact with him as well, so I appreciate that. Thank you Magistrate Armitage asked Chief Morris to make sure all of the costs are itemized for the next court hearing. Chief Morris stated she will take care of that personally. 5. Hearing adjourned at 2:43 p.m