Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-30-2019 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING JULY 30, 2019 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, Wayne Eseltine, Director of Sebastian Building Department, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, Dom Bosworth, City Community Development Department, and Janet Graham, Technical Writer, 3. Ms. Smith swore in staff and all persons who would be speaking. 4. Hearing of Code Violation: Magistrate Armitage called on Mr. Stokes to present the first case. Case No. CE -17-011096 CAPT'N BUTCHER INCJARIEL SEAFOOD 1729 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE Sec. 54-4-18.2(e) Applicability and Filing Procedures Mr. Stokes described the history of the case, and that the operation by Ariel Seafood at this site is not compliant with the site plan approval for this parcel. The City has been working with Ariel Seafood, who is trying to transition to a new location. The problem is that this has been too long in coming, and so the City had to bring it before the Magistrate. An attempt was made to bring this matter before the Magistrate in 2017, and in March of 2018 the City entered into a stipulation with Ariel Seafood and Capt'n Butcher as the property owner to attempt to get the property into compliance. Both parties signed a stipulation admitting to the violation, and the City in exchange gave the parties a timeline for getting the property into compliance. There was a provision at that time that the City Manager could grant an extension. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ariel was to be off the site within 90 days with a 60 -day extension, or 150 days total. As of this time the property is still in the same condition. The City has worked with Ariel Seafood, but the City feels it is now time to enforce the stipulation. Mr. Stokes called on Dom Bosworth of the Sebastian Community Development Department. PAGE Ms. Bosworth reviewed the history of the situation. A site plan from 2002 did not include the use by Ariel Seafood. Due to the economic downturn, the proposed development of the properties on the site plan were not completed. In 2017, when it was discovered that the use by Ariel was not part of the site plan, the City gave Ariel Seafood the option of relocating or adding their use to the site plan, and that would be reviewed. At that time, Ariel had begun their engineering site plan review for a new piece of property. There have been some delays through that process, and it has taken a long time to get Ariel off the site. The position the City has taken is that Anal's use is not properly shown on an approved site plan. Mr. Stokes stated that as part of the stipulation, Ariel Seafood did submit a $10,000.00 cash bond to the City. That has not been enforced yet, but the City is still in possession of it. He submitted a copy of the stipulation to the Court. The stipulation calls for a daily fine of $150.00 a day after the 150 -day extension. The bond was to secure that. Magistrate Armitage called on Ariel Seafood to present their case. David Krebbs, Destin, Florida, and Robert Waltermire, Sebastian, identified themselves. Mr. Krebbs stated he owns Ariel Seafood in Destin. They are a wholesale fish company that opened in 1990. In January 2016 he entered into a contract to buy apiece of property in the industrial park. In August of 2016, Mr. Waltermire met with the civil engineer to develop the property. On February 19, 2019 they finally received the permits to build. He described the building they will be working from. Mr. Waltermire stated the building will be completed in two weeks, and the only thing left to obtain is the certificate of occupancy. He stated he has been told that once the building is complete, it takes approximately a month to get the CO. Mr. Armitage asked if in two months everything should be in place. Mr. Waltermire stated that was correct, and unless something drastic happens it should be no more than two months. Mr. Armitage asked the City for suggestions. Mr. Stokes proposed that an order be drafted which would ratify the stipulation, forfeit the $10,000.00 bond for everything due and owing up to October 15', and it would state that there will be a $150.00 daily fine beginning October 15'. He stated the City is willing to amend the stipulation to forfeit $5,000.00 for the back penalties up to October 15t. They would like to hold the other $5,000.00 for either a future daily fine after October 151 or cleanup costs should they vacate and there is cleanup PAGE needed. If they are out by October 18' and the property is cleaned up, the City would refund the other $5,000.00. Mr. Krebbs stated he is in agreement. Mr. Armitage stated that hearing no objections from either side, the plan as proposed is what will be done. Case No. B-18-1020 ALBERT CLINGER 561 BENEDICTINE TERRACE Sec. 26-34-08(f)(6) Unsafe Structure & Building Code 105.1 Mr. Stokes read the item into the record Mr. Stokes reviewed the history of this matter. An order was issued by the Court allowing the property owner to get a variance. However, an order for a variance is not an option because this is on a utility easement. The only way a property owner can build on a utility easement is to have the easement partially vacated by the utility. The property owner was given 45 days to accomplish that, and as of this date the easement has not been vacated, and the property remains not in compliance. Mr. Armitage called on the property owner or a representative to speak on this matter. Mr. Stokes stated that the witness who is going to speak is not the owner of the real property. He may have some factual information. The City would like to be able to have the owner of the property or their legal representative testify. There is a standing issue -- whether he can properly represent the property owner. However, as a fact witness as to the steps that have been attempted so far, Mr. Richards does have personal knowledge. Mr. Armitage asked the witness if he understands the City Attorney's position. Carl Richards, Sebastian, stated he does. His father-in-law, who is the property owner, lives with Mr. Richards' family now (at the address of the violation). Mr. Stokes further described the history of this matter, which was addressed at a prior hearing. He stated that the utilities must sign off as vacating the easement, and the only thing left is to have FPL sign off. He asked Mr. Eselline to address the matter PAGE 4 Mr. Eseltine stated that since the last hearing in December of 2018, the property owner was given 45 days to obtain a survey and apply for the vacation of the easement, which would have to go through City Council. The City attempted to obtain abandonment of the easement from all the utilities, and they have ail been obtained except for FPL. At this point FPL still requires the owner to produce a proposed survey showing the new easement location. That is the responsibility of the owner. So this matter has not gone further. He added that the deck was installed after they were given a notice of violation to stop work. He stated that on pictures which he presented at the prior meeting, there was no deck, and now part of the deck is present, which Mr. Richards disputes. Mr. Stokes stated the property needs to be brought into compliance. If the homeowner can get this easement vacated by FPL, that's the last step before the matter is taken to City Council. Staff does not object to it once the last step is completed. He feels that a period of 60 days, which is October 1s', should be sufficient time to have this completed. If it's not done by October 1't, the City will ask for a daily fine of $50.00 a day until such time it is completed and administrative costs of $200.00 levied. Magistrate Armitage asked for comments by the witness for the property owner. Mr. Richards stated that the City of Sebastian had instructed the property owner to get a specific survey, which the property owner followed those instructions. Now they are being told they need to get another survey which will cost another $400.00 or $500.00, as the one they had done is not correct. Mr. Stokes stated when the new survey was gotten, that satisfied the requirements of the City, but it apparently did not satisfy FPL. That is outside the City's control. The City has been trying to work with the property owner on this situation. He asked to further amend his statement about what will happen if the matter is not completed by October 1 a1. In that case, he would ask for permission for the City to go in and pull the pool and deck, etc. out in order to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Armitage suggested to Mr. Richards that, if there is someone with a power of attorney for the property owner, that person get involved. Mr. Eseltine stated the City has contacted FPL and the Richards family several times. Mr. Armitage asked that copies of all the emails between FPL and the City be provided to the property owner so that they can see exactly what is required by FPL, and this matter can be resolved by October 1. PAGE Mr. Armitage suggested that, if this matter has to come before him again, the property owner have someone with a power of attorney present to testify on behalf of the property owner. It was ordered by the Court that the City's request be granted, with the understanding that the property owner be provided with copies of the emails between the City and FPL. 6. Adjournment The hearing was adjourned at 2:52 p.m 19