Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2021 MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958 Code Enforcement Division CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING MAY 18, 2021 The Hearing was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage. Present: Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage, City Attorney Manny Anon, Code Enforcement Officer Richard lachini, Code Enforcement Officer Curtis Bloomfield, Administrative Assistant Janickie Smith, Joseph Perez, AV Technical Assistant, Janet Graham, Technical Writer (via Zoom), and Dorri Bosworth, Community Development Manager. Ms. Smith swore in staff and all other persons who would be speaking. Call to Order II. Initial Hearna of Code Violations: Case No. CE-20-056011 Chadwick S. & Nicole M. Englert 168 Hams Drive Nicole Cotton, property owner and attorney for the homeowners, presented a Motion to Dismiss the violation as it relates to this case. In the notice that was received by the homeowners, the homeowners were accused of violating Section 26-81 of the Sebastian Code. She stated that Paragraph A of the Code states that, "Before any building or structure of whatsoever nature shall be erected or constructed within the corporate limits of the City or any addition shall be made to any existing building or structure within the corporate limits of the City, the owner, contractor, or responsible for building such building or structure or making such additions thereto shall complete an application for a building permit from the City for such erection, construction, or addition." The Motion to Dismiss the violation is based on a facial challenge to the Code because the term "whatsoever' is too broad. She explained further the basis for the Motion to Dismiss. PAGE Magistrate Armitage stated that, based on the challenge being of a constitutional nature, this matter is outside the purview of this tribunal. He does not have the authority to declare a part of the Code to be unconstitutional. After discussion between the Magistrate and the Attorney for the homeowners, the City Attorney had no comment on the situation, and the City is ready to present its case. Mr. Anon stated that Dom Bosworth, Manager and Planner with the Community Development Department, has been sworn and is present to testify regarding any information about the building codes. Mr. Anon then called for the City to present its case. Code Enforcement Official for the City of Sebastian, Richard lachini, identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He identified this case and stated that on December 29, 2020 he received an anonymous complaint of a structure being unsafe. Officer lachini went out to the address to talk to the owners. He could not make contact with the owners. He then referred this matter to Community Development, Planning and Zoning Department, to get their input. He was told that this structure is greater than the square footage that is permitted on that property according to the City's zoning ordinance. On December 21, 2020 he again went out to the property and cited the property and gave the owners 30 days to obtain an after -the -fact permit and approval from the City. He understands that the owners went into the City and applied for a permit, and it was declined by the City. On February 9, 2021 upon reinspecting the property, the extensions were still on the garage. Notice was sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, giving the homeowners 30 days to correct the situation, and photos of the property were taken, which Officer lachini displayed on the screen. The homeowners were to pull an additional permit. This is now to the point where resolution is needed on this matter. He requested the Magistrate to give the homeowners another 30 days to finish this up and bring it to a resolution or face a daily monetary fine. Ms. Cotton questioned Officer lachini regarding the permit that was declined and asked for that permit application number. Officer lachini said he did not have it, but he had been told by the homeowner that he had obtained a permit. He himself never saw any permit application. She further questioned the officer regarding the history of this matter. Mr. Anon stated if Ms. Cotton has pictures that she wants introduced, she should present them so that the record is complete. He added that Ms. Bosworth has the pictures that Officer lachini did not have with him, and she will present them when she testifies. Dorn Bosworth identified herself as the Manager and Planner with the Community Development Department. She reviewed the history of her department's involvement with this matter. She testified that in January 2019 Building Permit Application No. 19- 000245 was submitted and reviewed by the Building Department. It was for a 500-square- foot accessory structure. Land Development Code Section 54-2-7.5, Accessory PAGE 3 Structures, states what the maximum size of an accessory structure is, which is 1,000 square feet. The Code also goes on to explain that over 500 square feet the City feels that those structures are larger structures, so that 500-750 square feet structures need to be very similar to the house, and anything over 750 square feet needs to match the house exactly. When the permit comes into the Building Department, they confirm the size of the proposed structure, it comes over to her department so that it can be taken before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then it goes back to the Building Department so that they review the architectural/structural portion of the permit. She explained that when the application for the permit came in in January 2019, it was at 500 square feet. She believes that the homeowner, because he had called and had done some due diligence, was aware that the Code said that excessive structures over 500 square feet had to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission review. That application was permitted, and it was issued because it met all of the structural code. The current complaint is because of the two carports that were added on either side of the structure without permits. She described that these are carport wings that were added onto a building that had to be bolted, they had to meet the wind load requirement, and they have to meet structural building code requirements. She stated that each of these carports is 300 square feet in size, so that brings the building with the attachments to 1,100 square feet. This would mean that the application has to come before Planning and Zoning, the main structure has to meet the requirements in terms of color, and it is over the maximum size allowed for accessory structures. The City is requesting that the homeowners apply for a building permit for the carport additions to the original structure, at which point it will be brought to the Planning and Zoning Department, who will review the Land Development Code to determine compliance or noncompliance. She added that the City is unable to verify if the carport additions meet setbacks. Staff is not sure if it is located in an easement or if it is too close to the neighbors' properties. These are some of the matters that are reviewed through the building permit process. She presented and identified photos, and they were entered into the record. Mr. Englert wanted it put on the record that the City staff have already made their decision that he needs a permit. The homeowners are still arguing the fact that they do not because they feel the carport wings are temporary structures. After discussion among the Magistrate, the City Attorney, the Attorney for the homeowners, and Mr. Englert, the Magistrate reiterated that this matter is not under his purview. He suggested that the homeowners meet with the Building Department and the Community Development staff so that this matter can be resolved. Ms. Bosworth stated that if the homeowners do meet the staff, staff would be able to give the homeowner copies of the Code that they will be able to see the rules on which they are making their decision. That would help the homeowners in making their decision as to whether they wish to appeal or continue on with the permitting process. PAGE 4 Mr. Anon further explained that the homeowners must get the after -the -fact permit based on the testimony today by the building official who stated that this is going to require a permit. The Magistrate set a time limit of two months to get everyone together to work this out. Once the building official explains the process and the homeowner has a chance for input, then the decision is whether the homeowner wants to live with that decision. Ms. Bosworth stated that the Code does state that, if the homeowner disagrees with the determination from staff, the homeowner can appeal that to City Council. There being no further discussion, the Magistrate moved to the next item on the agenda. Case No.: CE-20-050504 Thelma R. Castillo De Portillo 493 Seagrass Avenue Section 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration Magistrate Armitage called on the City to present its case Code Enforcement Official for the City of Sebastian, Richard lachini, identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He identified this case and stated that on November 24, 2020 he received a request for a cutback to be done. On December 1, 2020, a notice was sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, the property was posted, and photos were taken which were displayed on the screen. Since this was an issue of international mail, the City staff waited 60 days to get notice of receipt. Nothing was returned to the City, so on March 22, 2021 the property was posted with a letter to appear before the Special Magistrate sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and photos of the property were again taken, which were displayed on the screen. (At this point, the witness in this case who is present via Zoom was sworn in from South America.) The witness, Lisette Valiente stated that they never received the notification requiring them to clean up the lot. They just recently received the last letter requesting them to come forward for the hearing. She stated they are willing to have the work done, but since they are overseas, it is taking them some time to get the services. Thus, they are requesting a reasonable time to get this done. Officer lachini asked the witness if they had received from the City the list of vendors who could do the work for them. Ms. Valiente said no, they did not get that. Mr. lachini said there is a list of local vendors that you can get to take care of it. The City needs a good PAGE 5 address for the witness, a phone number, and an email address, and staff will be glad to email the homeowners a contact list. From that date the homeowners will have 30 days to comply. The witness stated the phone number as being 503-7887-9143, and her email address is VallenteLisette@gmail.com. At this point, the Magistrate suggested speaking to the witness in Spanish, at which time the questions and answers between the witness and Mr. Anon were done in Spanish. Case No.: CE 21-008258 Angus Bland & Nora T. Joyner 322 Biscayne Lane Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration Code Enforcement Official for the City of Sebastian, Richard lachini, identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He identified this case and stated that the homeowners were cited for the cutback ordinance, Sec. 66-3.11(b) via a notice of violation sent on February 25, 2021 via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. On March 1, 2021, the property was posted with the letter that was sent and photos were taken of the property. The photos were displayed on the screen. On April 30, 2021, the property was posted with a Notice to Appear before the Special Magistrate which was sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and photos were taken. He stated that the owners of this property are deceased. They had left the property to five siblings. Officer lachini, having spoken to several of the siblings, they indicated they did not want to put any more money into the property. They said for the City to do what was necessary to take care of this matter. At this point, Officer lachini is asking for permission to go ahead and abate the property as well as the standard administration fees of $100.00 plus the cost of the abatement. Mr. Anon moved the entire report, Notices of Violations, the return notice of the letters that were returned, and the call log sheet as part of the record. Ordered as requested by the Magistrate LIENS Mr. Anon stated the next two cases are hearings for actual liens. The Special Magistrate has already entered orders in the past, and now the City is asking to have liens placed on the properties for the work that was done. PAGE 6 Case No.: CE 20-037137 Diver C. & Hyacinth V. Chrichlow 201 Engler Drive Mr. Anon called on the City to present its case. Officer lachini identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He reviewed that this case was presented before Magistrate Armitage previously, and the City was permitted to abate it. He is asking at this time that the property be liened. Mr. Anon stated for the record the repairs that were made came to $563.85. He is also asking for an additional $100.00 for administrative fees. The date of the initial order in this matter was March 16, 2020, and he offered the whole packet to be admitted as part of the record. No one in chambers or on Zoom to be heard, so ordered by the Magistrate. Case No.: CE-20-046157 Kathleen B. Hillis 1020 Topsail Lane Mr. Anon stated that the date of the initial order entered was on March 16, 2020. He called on the City to present its case. Officer lachini identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He stated this was brought before the Special Magistrate previously, and the City was given permission to go onto the property abate it. At this time, he petitioned that the liens be accepted with the court costs as well as the fee for doing the cutback. Mr. Anon stated that for the record the amount will be $640.70 plus the additional $100.00 administrative fees. No one in chambers or on Zoom to be heard, so ordered by the Magistrate. There being nothing further, the hearing was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. A