Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2018 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING OCTOBER 16, 2018 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 James Stokes, Deputy Police Chief Greg Witt, Code Enforcement Officer Richard lachini, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, and Janet Graham, Technical Writer. 3. Ms. Smith swore in staff and all persons who would be speaking. Mr. Stokes stated there is some followup needed on case CE-18-012457 on this same address for a hearing that was held on May 17, 2018. He reviewed that the Magistrate had made an oral ruling from the bench regarding the property not being in compliance, and there has not been an order issued to that effect. Since that hearing, the property has been brought into compliance. Mr. Stokes is requesting that an order be signed showing that the property was in violation but has now been brought into compliance. The City will have that order ready today for signature. Magistrate Armitage agreed. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Clinger if he would be willing to accept service of the Order by mail service. Mr. Clinger said he would. 4. Hearing of Code Violation: Case No. CE-18-030695 Albert Clinger 561 Benedictine Terrace Magistrate Armitage read the docket for appeal of code violation and called on the City to present their case. Regarding the present case, Code Enforcement Officer Richard lachini stated that after the first hearing in May, everything had been in compliance for several weeks, and then PAGE 2 the department began getting anonymous complaints about a large boat parked in the swale in front of the house. Mr. lachini went out to the property and took photos of the situation. He stated the boat is so big that when the boat was pulled into the swale it damaged the swale. The Ordinance requires the homeowner to maintain the swale/right- of-way. The owner has since, due to the other modifications that have been made to the property, regraded the swale and is preparing to put sod or seed down to finish it off. Mr. lachini stated the area looks good, and now that situation is in compliance. The Magistrate inquired of Mr. Stokes how the City wants to proceed with this case. Mr. Stokes stated that there is always a concern with repeat violations, so the common procedure would be to find the property in violation so that, if there is another problem, it would be considered a repeat violation. Rather that proceed in that manner, Mr. Stokes is recommending, because it appears the homeowner is attempting to comply with the Ordinance, that this case be dismissed. If there are problems in the future, they will be addressed. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Clinger if he had any objections to having the case dismissed. Mr. Clinger stated he had no objections. Magistrate Armitage ruled that, based on the evidence and testimony presented, the case is hereby dismissed. Magistrate Armitage called the next case. Case No. CE-18-024127 Patrick G. Pawling 933 Streamlet Avenue Mr. Stokes identified the case number and the name of the owner of the property. Code Enforcement Officer Richard lachini stated while doing a routine inspection on another property on Streamlet Avenue he noticed 933 Streamlet Avenue had several pallets of fencing material sitting in the driveway and some 4 X 4 posts set in the back of the property. He investigated the records and discovered that the property did not have a permit. He put a stop -work order on the property and sent notice by Certified Mail to the owner of record. That -was on June 29th. Someone removed the stop -work order and continued installing the fence. Mr. lachini subsequently encountered Mr. Cobb on the 17_Rl4c3 street, and Mr. Cobb informed Mr. lachini that he was managing the property for the owner. Mr. lachini explained to Mr. Cobb why the stop -work order had been written and what was needed in order to continue with the installation of the fence. Mr. lachini checked with the Building Department immediately before this hearing, and the Building Department is waiting for one more affidavit that they need before issuing the permit. He believes the owner and contractor are making a good -faith effort to come into compliance, and he suggests a time limit be set for that to be completed. Magistrate Armitage called on the appellant to present his view and any evidence. Mr. Craig Cobb appeared to testify on behalf of the property owner, Patrick G. Pawling. Mr. Cobb stated he had contacted the owner, and they have been attempting to obtain a licensed contractor to obtain the permit for the fence. After finding a licensed contractor to pull the permit and get the necessary paperwork in order, that contractor came to City Hall and pulled the permit and has been waiting for the necessary paperwork to come back to him. Magistrate Armitage suggested two options: Number one would be that this case be continued until next month at which time, if they have complied, the City would dismiss the case; option number two would be to give them a definite date which, if they do not meet the requirements, an Order would be written defining any fines or levies that could be rendered. He then asked Mr. Stokes for his input. Mr. Stokes is in favor of continuing this matter until next month, and if it has been taken care of by then, the case will be dismissed and there will be no need for any further action. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Cobb if he understands and agrees. Mr. Cobb stated he understands and agrees. He expects the paperwork to be in this week. Magistrate Armitage ruled that this case will be continued until November 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. If the City before then finds that the property is in compliance, there will be no need for the hearing and the case will be dismissed. 5. The hearing was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. ig