Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-2020 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING JUNE 23, 2020 The Hearing was called to order at 2:07 p.m. by Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage. 2. Present: Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage, City Attorney Manny Anon, Code Enforcement Officer Richard lachini, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, Janet Graham, Technical Writer. All who would testify were swom in by Ms. Smith. 3. Hearing of Code Violation: Case No.: CE 19-045545 Thomas & Valerie T. Hammel 473 Quarry Lane Sec. 54-2-7.15 Land Excavation or Fill Mr. Anon stated there has been communication between the City and Mr. Hammel. There is an agreement that he is going to comply. Mr. Anon stated he wanted it on the record that Mr. Hammel would comply by a date certain. Magistrate Armitage called on the City representative to present testimony. Code Enforcement Official for the City of Sebastian, Richard lachini, identified himself, his position and length of employment with the City of Sebastian. Officer lachini stated that he spoke with the owner of the property at 473 Quarry Lane earlier today, and they arrived at an agreement that the owner will take care of the problem. Mr. Hammel has a culvert that has collapsed underneath his driveway, and he is responsible for replacing it. He has a contractor lined up to do the work. The City will give him 45 days to get the work done. That will bring him into compliance. PAGE 2 Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Hammel if he agrees with what Officer lachini testified to. Mr. Hammel stated yes. The Magistrate asked Mr. Hammel to call Officer lachini and let him know when the work has been completed. Mr. Anon reminded Mr. Hammel that he must notify the City that the work has been done so Officer lachini can check to make sure that the work has been done. Mr. Hammel stated he understands. Case No.: 20-013671 AMH 2O14-1 Borrower 790 Carnation Drive Sec. 54-2-7.15 Land Excavation or Fill Magistrate Armitage noted for the record there is no one here from the public to speak on this matter. Code Enforcement Official for the City of Sebastian, Richard lachini, identified himself, his position and length of employment with the City of Sebastian. Officer lachini stated that when passing by the property, he noted that the driveway was being tom up. He testified that a permit is required for pouring concrete to repair the driveway. After speaking with the contractor who did not think he needed a permit, Officer lachini put a stop work order on the work. Officer lachini stated he went by the property a day later, and they had a truck there and were pouring concrete, and they had finished the driveway. Officer lachini presented photos of the condition of the driveway. The City sent a letter to the owner of record, and the property was posted. Officer lachini presented photos of the property in question. The Magistrate asked Officer lachini if the work that had been done would satisfy a permit if one had been gotten. Officer lachini responded probably not. He explained the purpose of a permit is so that an engineer can investigate the integrity of the culvert pipe. The City Engineer did a visual inspection and stated that the pipe is an old corrugated pipe and is compromised. Therefore, had the owner pulled a permit, they would have had to tear the driveway all the way out to the street. As it stands, they only did a 20-foot section, so it is not up to code. Officer lachini stated the City is asking for 10 days to get the permit. The permit will be an after -the -fact permit, which is going to be a $300.00 permit. He is also asking for $100.00 for an administration fee. After 10 days if they do not comply, a $20.00 daily assessment will be levied until they do get the permit and comply. Magistrate Armitage inquired what is the City's position if the homeowner cannot get a permit. Mr. Anon stated he spoke with the City Manager on this case, and it was decided that the City would lien the property. The permit that the homeowner can get is an after- PAGE 3 the -fact permit, which will require an inspection. Mr. Anon stated the engineer from the City who went out said that he thought it could have been compromised. But all that should be resolved if the homeowner gets the permit. As long as he gets the permit and follows the City's rules and procedures, that will satisfy the City. If it is compromised, that is the homeowner's responsibility, and repairing it may cost more money. Mr. Anon stated he can get a sworn statement from the City's engineer who went out there and thought it was compromised and will make that part of the record. Officer lachini stated that all the City is here for today is that they pull a permit and pay the fines for the permit. He further stated that the contractor who did the work is not licensed in the City; therefore, he cannot pull the permit. So they had to find a contractor who is licensed in the City who is willing to go and pull the permit and put his name on the work that was already done. Officer lachini does not know who that is. They had told Officer lachini that they had a permit. However, when Officer lachini checked, all they had was an application. He expects them to get the permit within 10 days from today and the City will levy a fine of $20.00 a day after the 10 days until they do get a permit. So ordered Liens Case No.: CE-19-050422 Mary H. Monroe 1526 Pleasant View Lane Magistrate Armitage noted forthe record that there is no one here from the public to speak on this matter. Mr. Anon called on Code Enforcement Officer lachini to present his case. Ms. Smith was swom in by Mr. Anon. Code Enforcement Official for the City of Sebastian, Richard lachini identified himself, his position and length of employment with the City of Sebastian. He stated the property was posted. Previously this property had been abated. The work was done. The City sent the bill. Nothing was received. So the purpose of this hearing is to lien the property. Ms. Smith stated that notice was sent and returned unclaimed. Officer lachini stated the notice was sent out on December 21st. The post office has marked the notice "Unable to Forward." Mr. Anon stated the amount to be liened is $283.25 and $100.00. So ordered. PAGE 4 Case No.: CE-19--050401 JENNY CARR & ANTHONY BLYTHE & BRENDA BLYTHE & STEVEN BLYTHE 1750 Mistletoe Street Magistrate Armitage commented that on the copy of the docket he has the address is not listed. Ms. Smith stated the docket was amended, and the copy of the notice outside has the address on it. She also stated the property was posted with the address. Mr. Anon stated, for the record, the one posted outside from the City does not have an address. In that case, the City will have to re -notice it. (OFF THE RECORD) (BACK ON THE RECORD) Mr. Anon stated he spoke to both Ms. Smith and Officer lachini. He would like to have them both testify. The officer will testify that he actually did post the property. Ms. Smith will testify for the record that she actually sent a notice, Certified, Return Receipt Requested. He is not sure if it was returned undeliverable or not. The posting outside City Hall was a scrivener's error. Officer lachini stated the property was posted with a letter and notice of hearing for the lien, and photos were taken of the property. That letter has the property address as well as an address for one of the owners as 780 Third Circle, Apartment 101, Vero Beach. The names of all the owners as per the Property Appraiser's website are on the notice. The letter was mailed to them in Vero Beach. At this point Magistrate Armitage set the continuation on this case for next month. 4. There being no further business, Magistrate Armitage adjourned the hearing at 2:33 p.m. A