Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-2019 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING OCTOBER 29, 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, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, Officer Richard lachini, City of Sebastian Code Enforcement, Officer Curtis Bloomfield, City of Sebastian Code Enforcement, and Janet Graham, Technical Writer. 3. Ms. Smith swore in staff and all persons who would be speaking. 4. Initial Hearing of Code Violations: Case No.: CE-19-029398 DEBRA ANN MORAN AND LEE ANN MILITANO 488 FLEMING STREET Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration The maintaining, using, placing, depositing, leaving or permitting to be or remain on any public private property of any of the following items, conditions or actions is hereby declared to be and constitute a nuisance; provided, however, this enumeration shall not be deemed or construed to be conclusive, limiting or restrictive b. Upon unimproved real property when such growth encroaches upon adjoining improved real property such that it: i. Causes or is in imminent danger of causing damage to the adjoining property, or ii. Creates an unreasonable maintenance burden upon said adjoining property. Nothing herein shall relieve the landowner of any requirement to obtain appropriate permits for removal of such vegetation. Magistrate Armitage called on anyone who is here to testify on this matter to come forward. Seeing no one, he called for the City to present its case. PAGE 2 Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation. He called on the representative of the Code Enforcement Division, Richard lachini, who identified himself and his position with the City, to give the background on the case. Officer lachini stated that this case is for a cutback. Staff sent a certified letter, return receipt requested, to the owner on July 30, 2019, and the property was posted. The letter was returned. He took photographs of the posting and the property. He presented photographs which were viewed on the screens showing the overgrowth violation. He went by the property this morning, and it is still in the same condition. The posting is still there. He is asking that the property be abated and the City be allowed to enter the property and cure the violation. Mr. Stokes asked that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violation, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 8, 2019 or a $25.00-a-day fine thereafter, authority to enter the property after the compliance date if the property has not been brought into compliance in order to abate the nuisance, and to assess those costs against the property, as well as a $100.00 administrative fee. So ordered by Mr. Armitage. Case No. CE-19-027567 HABIB AND HOMA KHAMSI 897 CARNATION DRIVE Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration The maintaining, using, placing, depositing, leaving or permitting to be or remain on any public private property of any of the following items, conditions or actions is hereby declared to be and constitute a nuisance; provided, however, this enumeration shall not be deemed or construed to be conclusive, limiting or restrictive b. Upon unimproved real property when such growth encroaches upon adjoining improved real property such that it: i. Causes or is in imminent danger of causing damage to the adjoining property, or ii. Creates an unreasonable maintenance burden upon said adjoining property. Nothing herein shall relieve the landowner of any requirement to obtain appropriate permits for removal of such vegetation. Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation. He called on the representative of the Code Enforcement Division, Curtis Bloomfield, who identified himself and his position with the City, to give the background on the case. PAGE 3 Officer Bloomfield described that this is a hearing for a cutback of a five-foot overgrowth. He received a complaint from an adjacent neighbor about overgrowth on this wooded lot. He went out and observed the property. He found that it was in violation of City Ordinance 66-3.11(b), and he cited the property. He took photographs of the property and the violation which were viewed on the screens. He showed photographs of the original posting, the posting notice for this hearing, and the overgrowth. A certified letter, return receipt requested, was sent to the owner of record, which was returned unclaimed. He posted the property and is asking that the City be allowed to abate the property and have the five-foot cutback done. Mr. Stokes asked that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violation, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 8, 2019 with a $25.00-a-day fine thereafter for the cost of enforcement, authority to enter the property after the compliance date if the property has not been brought into compliance in order to abate the nuisance, and to assess those costs against the property, as well as a $100.00 administrative fee. So ordered by Mr. Armitage. Case No.: CE-18-028959 RONALD R. MATTIE 1549 QUATRAIN LANE Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration The maintaining, using, placing, depositing, leaving or permitting to be or remain on any public private property of any of the following items, conditions or actions is hereby declared to be and constitute a nuisance; provided, however, this enumeration shall not be deemed or construed to be conclusive, limiting or restrictive b. Upon unimproved real property when such growth encroaches upon adjoining improved real property such that it: i. Causes or is in imminent danger of causing damage to the adjoining property, or ii. Creates an unreasonable maintenance burden upon said adjoining property. Nothing herein shall relieve the landowner of any requirement to obtain appropriate permits for removal of such vegetation. Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation. He called on the representative of the Code Enforcement Division, Curtis Bloomfield, who identified himself and his position with the City, to give the background on the case. Officer Bloomfield stated there is a correction that should be made on the docket. The case number reads CE-18-028959; it should read CE-19-028959. PAGE 4 Officer Bloomfield described that this is a hearing for a cutback of a five-foot overgrowth. He received a complaint from the adjacent property owner about the overgrowth. He went out and inspected the property. He found that it was in violation of City Ordinance 66-3.11(b), and he cited the property. He took photographs of the property and the violation which were viewed on the screens. He showed photographs of the original posting, the posting notice for this hearing, and the overgrowth. From court records he found that the owner is deceased. He posted the property and is asking that the City be allowed to abate the property and have the five-foot cutback done as well as lien the property for the expenses of the abatement. Mr. Stokes asked that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violation, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 8, 2019 with a $25.00-a-day fine thereafter for the cost of enforcement, authority to enter the property after the compliance date if the property has not been brought into compliance in order to abate the nuisance, and to assess those costs against the property, as well as a $100.00 administrative fee. He stated that a copy of this order will be sent to the address that the tax collector has, assuming that a representative of the estate will get it that way. So ordered by Mr. Armitage. Case No.: CE-19-027760 HELEN JEANETTE (MATNEY) WHITE LIVING TRUST 754 BAYHARBOR TERRACE Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration The maintaining, using, placing, depositing, leaving or permitting to be or remain on any public private property of any of the following items, conditions or actions is hereby declared to be and constitute a nuisance; provided, however, this enumeration shall not be deemed or construed to be conclusive, limiting or restrictive b. Upon unimproved real property when such growth encroaches upon adjoining improved real property such that it: i. Causes or is in imminent danger of causing damage to the adjoining property, or ii. Creates an unreasonable maintenance burden upon said adjoining property. Nothing herein shall relieve the landowner of any requirement to obtain appropriate permits for removal of such vegetation. Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation. He called on the representative of the Code Enforcement Division, Curtis Bloomfield, who identified himself and his position with the City, to give the background on the case. PAGE 5 Officer Bloomfield described that this is a hearing for a cutback of a five-foot overgrowth. He received a complaint from the adjacent property owner about the overgrowth. He went out and inspected the property. He found that it was in violation of City Ordinance 66-3.11(b), and he cited the property. A letter was sent to the owner of the property via certified mail, return receipt requested. That letter was signed for, but there was no response. He took photographs of the property and the violation which were viewed on the screens. He showed photographs of the original posting, the posting notice for this hearing, and the overgrowth. He posted the property and is asking that the City be allowed to abate the property and have the five-foot cutback done as well as lien the property for the expenses of the abatement. Mr. Stokes asked that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violation, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 8, 2019 with a $25.00-a-day fine thereafter for the cost of enforcement, authority to enter the property after the compliance date if the property has not been brought into compliance in order to abate the nuisance, and to assess those costs against the property, as well as a $100.00 administrative fee So ordered by Mr. Armitage. 5. Adjournment The hearing ended at 2:15 p.m. ff