Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-2018 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING DECEMBER 18, 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, Building Department Official Wayne Eseltine, Deputy Chief Greg Witt, Code Officer Curtis Bloomfield, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, Janet Graham, Technical Writer. 3. Ms. Smith swore in staff and all persons who would be speaking. 4. Hearing of Code Violation: a. Case No. B-18-1020 ALBERT CLINGER 561 BENEDICTINE TERRACE Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation regarding a pool that was installed without a permit. He then called on the representative of the Building Department to give the background on the case. Building Department Official Wayne Eseltine reviewed the history of the case. A permit was applied for on 10-8-2018 to install an above -ground pool at 561 Benedictine Terrace. He stated there are comments in the computer system from 10-22-2018 indicating that a new survey would be required, as it appeared that the pool was encroaching into a rear 20-foot public utility drainage easement. There are subsequent comments entered in the computer system documenting phone conversations with the owner's representative dating from 10-25-2018 to 10-31-2018. On 11-01-2018 investigation revealed that the above -ground pool was actually installed in the ground and filled with water. A violation notice was hand -delivered on 11-02-2018 for installing a pool without a permit, which constitutes an unsafe structure without swimming pool barrier requirements having been assured to be in place. Mr. Eseltine presented the Court with photographs of the pool and showed them to Mr. Richards as well. Mr. Eseltine testified that on 12-04-2018 a notice of this hearing was hand -delivered. He further clarified that a permit was applied for but was never issued because of the ongoing issues of the pool encroaching into the utility drainage easement, and the Plans Examiner had multiple conversations with the owner regarding this matter. The status of the application is that it is on hold. The Building Department requested a new survey. The survey that was provided when the permit was applied for was of a proposed survey dating from when the house was originally built. This proposed survey shows a 12-foot easement when in fact it is supposed to be 20 feet. The City gave the owner 15 days to remove the pool because it cannot be in the easement. The Magistrate then asked for testimony by Mr. Clinger. Mr. Carl Richards approached the podium. Mr. Richards stated his belief that the pool is not in the easement according to the survey he presented. He further stated that the City has accepted five other projects based on this survey, including the air-conditioning system, tree removal, concrete driveway, roof replacement, and a fence, all of which required the same survey, which was accepted. Mr. Richards stated he has observed several other homes within the City limits that should be in violation of the Code. He stated that 20 feet from the property line would be right up to the back door of his house. Mr. Stokes, City Attorney, reviewed his knowledge of the history of the case. He stated that he agrees with the property owner that, if this is going to remain a dispute over what the setback is, that is something that is going to have to be resolved by the Circuit Court. The City is working from the plat books which are the recorded documents of the County showing a 20-foot setback, and if the City needs to get that clarified, it will most likely have to be clarified by the Circuit Court. The City is asking either for a ruling today or that this matter be continued so the owner can pursue it. The bottom line is that the owner does not have a permit issued for the pool. The other choice for the homeowner is to get a variance for the setback. Mr. Richards objected to the survey being called a proposed survey, as it has been in effect for 29 years, and if the City mistakenly permitted the other five projects on the property according to the present survey, that is the City's mistake. He further testified that his wife and father-in-law presented to the Building Department four weeks after the application was made and were told by someone at the front desk that we could probably go ahead and start the project because, by the time the permit is ready, we would be fine. So that's what the owner did. Mr. Eseltine stated that when permits were applied for regarding the other five projects on this property, those projects had nothing to do with the easement, and that is why the survey was adequate for those projects. He further stated that he has other pool permits for properties on this same street that have 20-foot easements next to drainage canals. Further discussion ensued as to whether the pool that is the subject of this hearing is an above -ground pool or an in -ground pool. Mr. Stokes then requested a short recess. (OFF THE RECORD) A short recess was taken. (BACK ON THE RECORD) Mr. Stokes explained that one of the issues is whether this is an above -ground pool versus an in -ground pool. There is a deck that is partially finished around the pool, and that adds to the question of this being a permanent structure. He reiterated that Mr. Richards has the right to present his case to City Council and request a variance. If Mr. Richards chooses to do that, then this matter could be continued by this Court while that process is pursued. If Council grants the variance, then this issue is moot. If that is the case, then an inspection would have to be done by the City regarding permitting requirements. If Council turns down the request, then the case would have to be reconvened here. If the variance is permitted, the owner would have to amend the application for the permit to include the decking. Magistrate Armitage then ordered this hearing suspended and continued until the owner files for a variance. As part of the Order, the property owner is to file for the variance in a timely manner. If City Council rejects the request for a variance, then the case will be returned to this Court; if City Council grants the request for a variance, then the City would withdraw its case, and this issue would be at an end, pending any issues with the permitting. Mr. Richards inquired if he would be required to provide a new survey, and Mr. Stokes stated that he would need an up-to-date survey in order to apply for a variance. Magistrate Armitage instructed Mr. Richards that, if circumstances are beyond his control to comply with the Order, Magistrate Armitage is certain the City will work with him. Mr. Stokes asked that an Order be issued to the effect that the variance will be applied for within 45 days. Magistrate Armitage so ordered and ordered that the case will be continued pending application for the variance and, depending on the outcome of that application, this case will be either reconvened or the case will be moot. 4. Liens Mr. Stokes described the 11 remaining cases on the docket are for the imposition of liens where violations have already been issued. In each of these cases the properties were found to not be in compliance with the Code. The City expended funds to enter the properties and cure the situations, and this is the City's attempt to put the cost of that remedy as a lien upon the property. These would be only administrative costs, no fines. The proposed Orders that have been presented to the Court are all in about the $80.00 range. In each of these cases, the property owners were notified of this hearing today, and no one has appeared. The City is asking that imposition of the costs be repaid to the City pursuant to the proposed Orders that were given to the Court. The properties are as follows: Case No.: CE-18-031450 and 18-031585 CHRIS AND ERICA GOLDEN 118 EASY STREET Case No.: CE-18-032439 WARREN JAMES AND ELIZABETH FELTZ, JR. 137 MIDVALE TERRACE Case No.: CE-18-034379 VINCENT AND DAWN CLINEMAN TRIONFO 922 LAREDO LANE Case No.: CE-18-034378 BARBARA C. HAWKINS 313 BAYFRONT TERRACE Case No.: CE-18-029193 WILLIAM D. AND PHYLLIS STANLEY 1568 COWNIE LANE Case No.: CE-18-030471 JOHN H. CYPRESS 159 MABRY STREET Case No.: CE-18-034763 and 18-034764 DAVID AND JULIE CLARK 104 DUBAN STREET Case No.: lNCE� 445 Case No.: CE 1 B/SCq NEpANE AVCHE 34666 CE3 & ARBER 3TR Case NO.:EETTIO/V ✓OE 029564 15> R pyp/CIPpO Case No.: CE_lg AC PALAj STREET Ma9fstrate ✓EA/V -030352 'EI 4. The healing was ad ourOrderetl. rmitage .0 1097 PHCtpS STRF� ✓EA/V E PETERS natl at ?:36 p.m. S CITY OF SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN THE MATTER OF: MR. ALBERT CLINGER 561 BENEDICTINE TERRACE SEBASTIAN, FL. 32958, Respondent. �•r CASE NO. B I8-1020 THIS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate of the City of Sebastian, on December 18, 2018, after due notice to the Respondent The hearing on this matter is continued indefinitely based upon Respondent's representation that he will seek a Variance to encroach into the rear yard easement. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that Respondent shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to obtain an updated survey of his property and to submit his application for a Variance. After the Variance matter is finally adjudicated, or in the event no timely application is Sled, this matter will be reconvened upon the call of the City. RENDERED this 18th day of December . 2018, in Sebastian, Florida. CI EB TIAN, F RIDA ^ LLEY H TAGEU SS((ectal Ma stra AI 1Rre and correct copy hereof was delivered to Respondents by hand delivery/certified mail this Itio day of U, eCCanbe.- .2018. (� IlLe Enforcement 3120190059638 RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF JEFFREY R SMITH, CLERK OF COURT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FL BK 3245 PG: 855 Page 1 of 1 10/112019 12:30 PM