Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2019 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING NOVEMBER 19, 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-19-036989 and 19-036990 NICHOLAS J. AND RACHEL HOLPFER 373 HARP 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. and Sec. 54-2-7.13 -- Mobile homes, travel trailers, campers, boats, trailers Magistrate Armitage called on anyone who is here to testify on this matter to come PAGE 2 forward. Seeing no one, he called for the City to present its case. 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 on September 16, 2019 he was doing a routine inspection of the area. On this property he noted two violations. One was a small utility trailer parked out beyond the front line of the house. It was loaded with trash and debris. He went to the house and knocked on the door. There was no answer. He left two notices of violation and gave the property owners five days to correct it. On September 23rd he went by the property again, and he found it to be still in violation. Notice was sent via Certified Mail and gave the property owners 15 days to comply or respond. The Certified Mail notice was returned unclaimed. The property was posted on September 24th, and photographs were taken. He presented photographs which were viewed on the screens showing the violations and posting of the notices of violation as well as notice of this hearing. He stated that each time he visited the property, he knocked on the door and had no response. Mr. Stokes stated that the property owner did not show for this hearing, and he asked that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violations, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 29, 2019 or a $100.00-a-day fine thereafter, and to assess those costs against the property, as well as a $150.00 administrative fee. So ordered by Magistrate Armitage. Magistrate Armitage questioned if the trailer could be removed. Mr. Stokes stated that the trailer, being a registered vehicle, would present a whole other procedure to remove it, and it would not be financially beneficial for the City to go that route. He suggested that, since there are two different violations, the case would be better served if there were two separate orders issued. So ordered. Case No.: CE-19-033261 and 19-033268 AVCHEN CONSTRUCTION INC. 932 BARBER STREET Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration PAGE 3 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. And 66-1 Nuisance 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. Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation, noting that the property owner is not present. 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 that this property has come before the Magistrate previously. He stated that while on routine patrol, he noted the condition of this property, noting that the grass was overgrown. He cited the property for this violation. He noted that the second violation on this property is due to the property being unsecured. There have been complaints from adjacent property owners, and the police department has responded to vagrants occupying the property or kids vandalizing the property. Officer Bloomfield showed on the screen the photographs that were taken showing the condition of the property as well as the postings for both violations as well as the posting of the notice for this hearing. There has been no response from the property owner. Mr. Stokes stated that the property owner did not show for this hearing, and he stated that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violations, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 29, 2019 or a $150.00-a-day fine thereafter, $150.00 a day to compensate for enforcement to be paid on for before November 29, 2019. It is also requested that the City be allowed to enter the property to cure the overgrown grass as well as securing the house by boarding up the doorway in the back of the house. He asked that the costs for curing the grass violation and securing the property be assessed against the property as well. So ordered. PAGE 4 Case No.: CE-19-033278 AVCHEN CONSTRUCTION INC. 938 CLEARMONT 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. Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation, noting that the property owner is not present. 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 that this property is owned by the same entity as the property at 932 Barber Street according to the property appraiser. Notice was sent via Certified Mail and was returned unclaimed. The subject property is a wooded lot that is behind the 932 Barber Street property. The owner adjacent to the lot lodged a complaint about the overgrowth. He stated that the overgrowth also needs to be cut back so that the City can access the Barber Street property in order to secure the house. He displayed photographs of the violations on the property as well as the postings of the property, including notice of this hearing. Mr. Stokes stated that the property owner did not show for this hearing, and he stated that, based upon the evidence presented, the City would ask for a finding of the violations, ask for the property to be brought into compliance on or before November 29, 2019 or assess a $50.00-a-day fine thereafter, authorize the City to enter the property after November 29 to bring the property into compliance, and to assess those costs against the property, as well as a $150.00 fee for the cost of the enforcement, to be paid on or before November 29, 2019. PAGE 5 So ordered by Mr. Armitage. Case No.: CE-19-039566 YU C. AND CHING C. TSAI 413 AUTUMN 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. 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. Mr. Stokes read the docket for appeal of code violation, noting that the property owner is not present. 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 that the property came to his attention because of a complaint by the adjacent property owner about overgrowth. He stated there are two cabbage palm trees that are entangled in the adjacent property owner's service line. He cited the property for the violation in order to have the trees removed and the overgrowth cut back. He displayed photographs on the screen showing the violations, the posting for the violations, as well as a notice for this hearing. The owner of the property had contacted FPL and was told that FPL was not responsible for removing the trees, and the property owner would have to take care of the problem. Notice was sent via Certified Mail to the property owner and was returned unclaimed. Mr. Stokes stated that the property owner did not show for this hearing, and he stated 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 29, 2019 or assess a $50.00-a-day fine thereafter, authorize the City to enter the property after November 29, 2019 to bring the property into compliance, and to assess those costs PAGE 6 against the property, as well as a $150.00 fee for the cost of the enforcement, to be paid on or before November 29, 2019. So ordered. 5. Adjournment The hearing ended at 2:22 p.m. L