Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN MINUTES SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENTHEARING FEBRUARY 18,2025 The hearing was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage. Present: Special Magistrate Kelley H. Armitage, Jennifer Cockcroft, City Attorney, Alix Bernard, Community Development Director, Dorri Bosworth, Community Development Manager, Code Enforcement Officer Curtis Bloomfield, Code Enforcement Officer Richard lachini, Code Enforcement Records Specialist Naiomi Charles, Joseph Perez, AV Technical Assistant, and Janet Graham, Technical Writer Code Enforcement Records Specialist Naiomi Charles swore in staff and all persons who would be speaking. I. Call to order 11. Comoliance Hearina (Massev) A. ENGLERT, CHADWICK & COTTON, NICOLE 168 Harris Drive Sec. 26-81 Required Permits Case No.: CE 20-056011 Mr. Englert, the homeowner, was present via Zoom. City Attorney Jennifer Cockcroft outlined the history of this case, including the prior finding that the property owner was in violation of the City Code of Ordinances. The case previously came back before Magistrate Armitage on an initial Massey Hearing, and the property owners decided at that point to seek a variance from the City Council. That variance was not granted. Subsequently, the property owners have made some modifications. Officer lachini will be asked to elaborate on the current status of the property at this time. Richard lachini, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Sebastian, identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. Officer lachini stated that at this point the property is still in violation. He verified that the photographs which were presented are of the property in question and which show the roof materials having been removed, but the support structures still remaining. He verified that when he visited the property this morning the property was still in violation. He stated that the photos are a fair and accurate representation of the location as he has seen it. Ms. Cockcroft asked that the photos be marked as Exhibits I and 2 and entered into evidence. There being no objection, Magistrate Armitage allowed the photos to be entered into the record. PAGE 2 After being sworn in, Ms. Bernard was asked by City Attorney Cockcroft if she has reviewed the photos presented today, and Ms. Bernard said she has. She also stated she has reviewed the City's Code of Ordinances with respect to permits. She also stated that the structure shown on the photos falls under the City's Code and requires a permit because it is still attached to the building. Ms. Cockcroft asked Ms. Bernard if she is familiar with Section 26-81 regarding permits and that she reviewed that section today. It is her opinion that the structure would fall under Section 26-81. There was discussion between Mr. Englert and Ms. Bernard regarding this matter. Ms. Cockcroft called Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Community Development Manager, to testify. Ms. Bosworth identified herself and her position with the City. She stated she is familiar with the property in question. She stated that, based on the definition from the Florida Building Code, a structure is anything which is built or constructed, or a portion thereof, and it does not matter if it is attached to a building or if it has a roof. She stated that this structure is similar to a screen enclosure for a swimming pool. It would not have walls and a roof; it would have screen. Even though this structure is not going to have walls, we have to check for setbacks. She added that from previous reviews, that was one of the items they would possibly need a for a variance, as staff thinks that where this is placed the concrete is in the City's drainage easement on the east side. Ms. Bosworth elaborated on when a similar pergola, which does not have a roof or is not always attached to a structure, would or would not need a permit. She also stated that the Building Department Director, Wayne Eseltine, has stated previously that this structure was not considered temporary, even though the homeowners had stated that they could just detach it when they needed to, making it a temporary structure. She stated that at this point this does not have a permit, staff has no permit application, thus it is still in noncompliance. At this time, Ms. Cockcroft stated that the City has no further witnesses, and she asks that the Magistrate find that the property is still in violation, and that is the sole question before the Magistrate. Magistrate Armitage asked Mr. Englert if he had anything further. Mr. Englert reviewed his understanding of what was needed for this structure to be in compliance, which was regarding the roof. Since there is no longer a roof present, he is still confused. There was further discussion between Mr. Englert, Magistrate Armitage, Ms. Cockcroft, and Ms. Bosworth. There being nothing further, Magistrate Armitage found the property in non-compliance and imposed the penalties as outlined in his order of October 25, 2023. Ill. Initial Hearinq of Code Violation JERRY OOMS & THOMAS BARNES PAGE 3 690 Layport Drive Sec. 66-3(11) Illustrative Enumeration (Grass) Case No. CE 25-004247 City Attorney Jennifer Cockcroft read the item into the record. Curtis Bloomfield, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Sebastian, identified himself and his position with the City of Sebastian. Officer Bloomfield stated that this is probably the fifth or sixth time this case has been brought before the Magistrate. On January 30, 2025, he visited the property, inspected the property and found it to be in violation of City Code 66-3.11, which is high grass and weeds. He presented photos which were shown on the screen, labeled Exhibit 2, which are copies of the door hanger that was left on the above date. He returned to the property on February 3, 2025 and posted the property with a copy of the Notice of Hearing. Photographs showing the high grass were. shown on the screen and identified as Exhibit 3. He added that these property owners have been found previously as repeat violators and therefore do not get addi- tional time to come into compliance. The property was immediately posted noticing the date for this hearing. Exhibit 4 dated October 15, 2024, is when the property owners were found in violation of the same ordinance. Curtis Bloomfield recommends an order of no time to cure and to allow the City and its agents to enter and abate the property, in addition to place the costs of such abatement as a lien against the property and any other property owned by the listed owners as well as administrative costs of $250.00, and a fine of $500.00 for the repeat violation, and any future violation of the same ordi- nance 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 who wished to be heard on this case, so ordered by the Magistrate. Meeting closed at 2:35 p.m. ice