Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2026 Minutes CITY OF SEBASTIAN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING February 17, 2026 MINUTES I. Call to order The hearing was called to order at 2:06 p.m. by Special Magistrate Robyn W. Hattaway. Present: Special Magistrate Robyn W. Hattaway City Attorney Jim Stokes Code Enforcement Officer Richard Iachini Code Enforcement Officer Curtis Bloomfield Code Enforcement Specialist Joann Patterson Recording Secretary Bridget Eakins Code Enforcement Specialist Patterson swore in staff and all persons who would be speaking. II. Initial Hearing of Code Violations HELEN CLARK 679 ELLINGSEN AVE. Sec. 66-3(1) Illustrative Enumeration (Debris) Case No. CE 26-005150 The City Attorney read the case into the record. Officer Bloomfield stated he inspected the property on February 4, 2026, and found it in violation of Sec. 66-3(1) Illustrative Enumeration (Debris). He presented the following exhibits: Exhibit 1: Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Calls for Service Exhibit 2: Initial Notice of Violation and Accompanying Photographs Exhibit 3: Notice to Appear for February 17, 2026 Hearing/Certified Mail and Photographs Exhibit 4: Copies of prior Magistrate orders documenting previous violations on April 15, 2025 and September 16, 2025. Officer Bloomfield confirmed to the City Attorney that the notice of hearing was properly posted at the property and sent by certified mail. The respondent did not appear at the hearing. During the hearing, the Special Magistrate asked Officer Bloomfield whether there was evidence of prior violations to support the repeat violation status. Officer Bloomfield pointed out the prior orders and noted the dates of the previous violations. The Special Magistrate requested that the full orders be ente red into the record to ensure the Special Magistrate Code Enforcement Hearing February 17, 2026 Page 2 documentation accurately reflected the prior citations. Officer Bloomfield complied, providing copies of the relevant pages and pointing out where the prior violations were documented. Officer Bloomfield stated that the respondent had previously been cited for the same violation multiple times and failed to bring the property into compliance. Staff recommended an order of “no time to cure” and authorization for the city and its agents to enter and abate the property. The costs of abatement would be placed as a lien against the property or any other property owned by the respondent. Staff also recommended an administrative fee of $250 and a fine of $500 for the repeat violation. Any future violations of the same ordinance would be considered repeat violations under Florida Statute Chapter 162 and may result in additional fines. The Special Magistrate stated that following an inspection on February 4, 2026, the respondent was found to be in violation of Section 66-3, paragraph one, and was issued a notice of violation on that same date. She further stated that the respondent failed to comply. The Special Magistrate dictated that a notice of hearing was posted at the property and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, on February 9, 2026. She found that the respondent was properly served with notice of the public hearing. The Special Magistrate noted that neither the respondent nor her representatives appeared to present testimony or evidence. She stated that the Code Enforcement Officer presented competent and substantial evidence of the violation, which was made part of the official record. The Special Magistrate further stated that the respondent had previously been cited and found in violation of the same section, 66-3, paragraph one, on August 29, 2023; April 16, 2024; October 15, 2024; April 15, 2025; and September 16, 2025. She found that the respondent had been given proper notice and an opportunity to be heard , but did not avail herself of that opportunity. The Special Magistrate ordered the respondent to bring the property into compliance on or before February 17, 2026. She ordered the respondent to pay an administrative fee of $250 representing the reasonable costs incurred by the city during its investigation and prosecution, as well as a $500 fine for the repeat violation. Hearing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.