HomeMy WebLinkAbout05192009SMCITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
MINUTES
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING
May 19, 2009
1. The hearing was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Special Magistrate David Hancock.
2. Initial Hearing of Code Violation:
Case No. 09 -11478
Denise Miehle
801 Blossom Drive
Section 54 -3 -14.7. Tree Removal, grubbing, and land clearing permits.
(b) Tree removal and land clearing permit. All lands within the city are required to
obtain a permit for protected tree removal, grubbing or land clearing.
Respondent Denise Miehle was not present but had signed a consent order. She did not
contest the violation and complied with requirements of the order by 1) obtaining an "after
the fact" tree removal permit, 2) paying a total fine of $54.29. The Consent Order signed by
Denise Miehle was presented to and signed by Mr. Hancock.
Case No. 09 -13425
Gary and Ruth Maxon
239 Briarcliff Circle
ASTI
AF rntE f
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958
Code Enforcement Division
Section 54 -3 -14.7. Tree Removal, grubbing, and land clearing permits.
(b) Tree removal and land clearing permit. All lands within the city are required to
obtain a permit for protected tree removal, grubbing or land clearing.
Respondent Gary Maxon was not present but had signed a consent order. He did not contest
the violation and complied with requirements of the order by obtaining an "after the fact"
tree removal permit. The Consent Order signed by Gary Maxon was presented to and signed
by Mr.Hancock.
1
Case 08 -02055
Tracy and Shannon Cook
868 Schumann Drive
Sec. 54 -2 -5.10. Size and dimension criteria.
(e) Regulations for required yards.
(2) Yards requirements.
f. General encroachments into required yards. Every part of every required yard shall
be open and unobstructed from its lowest point to the sky, except for ordinary projection of
sill, cornices, buttresses, ornamental features and eaves; provided, however, that none of the
before named projections shall project into a minimum front yard more than 18 inches nor
into the minimum side yard more than 24 inches. In addition the following provisions shall
govern other encroachments.
3. Horticultural growth poles, play equipment, wires, lights, mailboxes, fences, ornamental
entry columns and gates not exceeding six feet in height are not considered as encroachments.
Code Officer Richard Iachini presented testimony and photographs illustrating the nature of the
violation, namely, the height of the play structure and setbacks from property lines, and the history
of the case. City Attorney Robert Ginsburg and Special Magistrate Hancock asked him several
questions, after which time Mr. Shannon Cook presented his testimony. Mr. Cook requested
an extension of time in which to purchase a certain strip of adjoining property or, if necessary, to
obtain a variance from City Council for his structure.
Special Magistrate Hancock found that there was a Code violation as regards height of the structure
and setbacks and levied a fine of $50 plus administration costs, for a total fine of $128.68. Further,
he ordered that Mr. Cook bring the property into compliance within three months, that is, by August
19, 2009, or face an additional citation and Special Magistrate hearing at which time a fine of up to
$50 per day may be levied.
4. Compliance Hearings:
Case No. 07 -05233
Sebastian Executive Building Condo Assn., Inc.
1623 US Highway 1
Sect. 54 -2 -7.7 Walls and Fences.
(g) Required screens for garbage refuse dumpsters. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this section, all garbage, refuse dumpsters, regardless of the siting on
the property, shall be screened on all four sides by masonry wall, fencing, or other materials
permitted hereunder, at least six feet in height, and rendering the view of said dumpster
invisible from adjacent properties and public rights -of -way. All proposed refuse dumpster
screens must be approved by the building official through the issuance of a fence permit in
accordance with procedures set forth in section 54- 2- 7.7(a).
No representative of the condo association was present for the hearing.
Officer Iachini updated the Special Magistrate on the case history; it is his understanding that a new
permit was pulled recently for the dumpster enclosure. City Attorney Ginsburg noted that the case
goes back two years and the order should include a fine reflecting the costs of code enforcement
personnel.
The Special Magistrate found that the Respondents are in violation of the Code. He ordered that
the Respondents pay a fine of $50.00 plus $38.26 in administrative costs, for a total fine of $88.26.
Further, he ordered that the Respondents bring the property into compliance by June 19, 2009.
5. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 pm.
2