Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2024 Minutes PAGE 2 as the City has been working with them in trying to get the issue resolved. He stated this agreement pertains to all three cases that are on the docket for Louisiana LLC. B. TIMOTHY HILLYER 612 BAYHARBOR TERRACE Sec. 18-29 Illustrative Enumeration (Grass) Case No.: CE 24-004878 Ms. Cockcroft read the docket for Notice of Code Violation. Magistrate Armitage called on anyone present who wished to testify. There being no one present from the public, Ms. Cockcroft called on Officer Richard Iachini to present his case, and she asked that his documents be entered into the case evidence. Officer Richard Iachini identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. This case is for 612 Bayharbor Terrace. He stated that the owner of this property is deceased, and his children do not want anything to do with it. They left it go back to the bank. There is still a mortgage on the property, and the City has not received any paperwork from the bank. On February 21, 2024, Officer Iachini issued a Notice of Code Violation and sent it via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. There were photos taken, which are a part of the file. The photos were displayed on the screen showing the condition of the property. These photos were taken just this morning. He is requesting approval to go on the property and abate it with zero time to comply because the owners/bank are not responding to any notices. He is also asking for administrative costs of $250.00. There being no one else present to testify in this matter, the request is granted. C. PRABHAT & TANUSHREE DUTTA 832 MAJESTIC AVENUE Sec. 66-3 Illustrative Enumeration (Cutback) Case No.: CE 23-04350 Ms. Cockcroft read the docket for Notice of Code Violation. Magistrate Armitage called on anyone present who wished to testify. There being no one present from the public, Ms. Cockcroft called on Officer Richard Iachini to present his case, and she asked that his documents be entered into the case evidence. Officer Richard Iachini identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. This case is for 832 Majestic Avenue. The property was posted originally in September 2023, sent Certified Mail to the owner per due process. There was no receipt returned to the City. He showed photos on the screen showing the status of the property and the Notice of Violation. A letter was delivered and signed for in Columbus, Ohio, on April 3rd. He is PAGE 3 asking for the City to be permitted to go on the property and abate it and zero time to comply, as they have not come forward as of this time, and charge them the usual administrative cost of $250.00 plus the abatement fee. There being no one present from the public who wished to testify, the Magistrate so ordered. D. HELEN CLARK 679 ELLINGSEN AVENUE Sec. 66-307 Illustrative Enumeration (Trash & Debris) Case No.: 24-003818 Ms. Cockcroft read the docket for Notice of Code Violation. Magistrate Armitage called on anyone present who wished to testify. Ms. Cockcroft called on Officer Curtis Bloomfield to present his case, and she asked that his documents be entered into the case evidence. Officer Bloomfield identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. This case is for 679 Ellingsen Avenue. Officer Bloomfield testified that on January 29, 2024 , he inspected this property in reference to the accumulation of trash, debris, litter, and junk. He found it to be in violation of City Code 66-3(1). He displayed photos on the screen showing the Notice of Code Violation and several photos of the trash and debris. On January 30, 2024, the property was posted with a Notice of Violation, and Certified Mail was sent to the owner of record, a copy of which was shown on the screen. Officer Bloomfield stated that the owner has not responded to any of the notices and did not sign for this Certified Mail which was returned to the City, and the property was placed in queue for this hearing. He displayed a photo of the posting for this hearing. He also showed a copy of the previous Order that Magistrate Armitage signed stating that the owner is in violation of the same ordinance that is in question today. The Magistrate’s signature is on page 2. The owner was deemed a repeat violator at the previous hearing, and he is found to be in violation of the same ordinance at this hearing today. Staff is recommending an order for no time to cure and to allow the City to enter and abate the property, and in addition, the costs of abatement of the property as a lien against the property and any other property owned by the listed owner, administrative costs in the amount of $250.00, and a fine because of the repeat violator status per Florida Statute 162 of $500.00. Any future violation of the same ordinance brought before the Special Magistrate will be considered a repeat violation and may be subject to additional fines in accordance with Florida Statute 162. There being no one present to testify, so ordered by the Magistrate. PAGE 4 E. Compliance Hearings (Massey) CHADWICK ENGLERT & NICOLE COTTON 168 HARRIS DRIVE Sec. 26-81 Required Permits Case No.: 20-056011 Ms. Cockcroft read the docket into the record for the Massey Hearing and identified the case number. Ms. Cockcroft called on Officer Richard Iachini to present his case, and she asked that his documents be entered into the case evidence. Ms. Cockcroft stated that this is not a rehearing of the matter before the Magistrate. This is just a hearing to determine whether or not the property has come into compliance. Ms. Cockcroft asked Officer Iachini if he has inspected this property since the date of the Magistrate’s order. Officer Richard Iachini identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He stated that yes, he has inspected this property since the date of the Magistrate’s order. He has inspected the property this morning as well as periodically throughout since the last hearing. The property is not in compliance. Photos were taken. The photos were shown on the screen, and he identified each photo as well as the date on which it was taken. The date the Notice for this hearing was posted was March 12, 2024. Ms. Cockcroft called on Mr. Wayne Eseltine, City of Sebastian Building Official. Mr. Eseltine identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. He stated that he is familiar with this case. He testified that no permits have been obtained for the structures since the Magistrate’s Order that was entered in September of 2023. Ms. Cockcroft asked Mr. Eseltine if it is his opinion as the Building Official whether this property has come into compliance with the prior Order of the Magistrate. Mr. Eseltine stated no, it has not. Ms. Cockcroft asked Mr. Eseltine if there has been any activity with him or the Building Department on this property since the date of the Magistrate hearing . Mr. Eseltine said no, there has not. Ms. Cotton, one of the property owners, asked Mr. Eseltine as the Building Official if permits are required for swing sets. Mr. Eseltine said there is an exception in the Code for swings and playground structures that are typically purchased, the intent being not to require permits for swing sets, etc. Ms. Cotton asked if there is a definition in the City Code as to what a swing set is. Mr. Eseltine answered that he does not think there is a specific definition. Ms. Cotton showed several photos to Mr. Eseltine and asked him to identify each one. He stated that the photos showed chains with seats. It looks to him like someone hung swings from the rafters. Ms. Cotton asked Mr. Eseltine where it addresses in the Building Code swing sets and playground equipment. Mr. Eseltine said there is an exception for PAGE 5 swings and playground equipment in the provisions of the Florida Building Code. Ms. Cotton asked who determines the intent of these structures for the City of Sebastian. Mr. Eseltine stated it is the Building Official. Ms. Cockcroft stated that the purpose of this Massey Hearing is to determine new findings related to whether or not the property has come into compliance, to impose the appropriate fine and lien, and to remind the Magistrate of his order from September 13, 2023. The property was to come into compliance and, if not, then the Massey hearing would be held to order a fine of an administrative fee of $100.00 for costs and then $250.00 a day for violation. At this point, she is asking that the Magistrate find that the property is still in violation and impose those fines and, if necessary, a lien. The other property owner, Chad Englert, testified that he is one of the homeowners of the property being discussed. He was asked if he was aware that he needed to bring the structure into compliance with the City’s Order. He stated he was aware, and it is his opinion that he did so. He described how he altered the structure to provide swing sets for his daughter. He stated that after the last hearing the City Manager met with Mr. Englert at the property in order to reach an agreement. They could not agree, so Mr. Englert asked the City Manager, if he altered it into a playground, that would satisfy the City Manager. Mr. Englert said he never got an answer from the City Manager. Mr. Englert was shown by Ms. Cotton several photos of the structure, and he identified each. Those photos were entered into the record. The Magistrate asked if Mr. Englert would summarize what his position is. Mr. Englert related his position on this matter, that being that this structure is now a playground/swing set. Mr. Eseltine read from Section 102.2 of the Building Code, which talks about provisions and exemptions in Section 102.6. He also read from Section 104.1 which described the Building Official’s duties. It is his opinion that simply attaching swings onto the existing structure does not make it a playground. There was then extended discussion among Mr. Eseltine, Ms. Cockcroft, Ms. Cotton, Mr. Englert, and the Magistrate regarding this matter. After discussion, Mr. Eseltine gave a detailed description of what is required to get a building permit for the shed. There was discussion regarding what would be required to get a variance for this project. PAGE 6 Ms. Alix Bernard, Community Development Director, was sworn in. Ms. Cockcroft asked if Ms. Bernard could provide any information that would be relevant to Planning and what review might be needed if they get their engineering study done. Ms. Bernard stated it would depend on where the setbacks are for this property, it could require a variance . Also, there are architectural requirements that are the same as to the principal structure. The Magistrate asked, if the homeowners apply for the variance first and it was granted, could they go to the engineer to satisfy the Building Department. Ms. Bernard said they could assist the homeowners, and there was discussion regarding the criteria for obtaining a variance. The Magistrate suggested that the City educate Mr. Englert on what the process is for obtaining a variance. Mr. Englert said he is willing to start the process immediately. It was agreed by all that by next Friday, the process is begun to obtain a variance. It was also agreed by all that the City will keep the homeowners apprised of how the process is moving along. The Magistrate stated that, if this is not the case, there will be another hearing during which there will be fines/penalties involved. There being nothing further in this matter, the Magistrate continued this hearing pending the resolution of the variance application. jg