HomeMy WebLinkAbout09212010SM MinutesSEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1201 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958
Code Enforcement Division
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
MINUTES
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING
September 21, 2010
1. The hearing was called to order at 2:06 p.m. by Special Magistrate David Hancock.
2. Present: Special Magistrate David Hancock, City Attorney Robert Ginsburg, Building
Official Wayne Eseltine, Code Enforcement Clerk Susan Lorusso.
3. Hearing of Code Violation Continuation:
Case No. B10 -1004
Frank Romeo
100 Drake Way
S .BASTION
()LICE
DE,PARTMEMI
Special Magistrate Hancock swore in Wayne Eseltine. Magistrate Hancock called on Mr. Ginsburg
to present the case. Mr. Ginsburg requested Mr. Eseltine to describe to the magistrate what actions
he has taken with respect to 100 Drake Way.
Mr. Eseltine gave his name, position and length of service at the City of Sebastian. Mr. Eseltine
stated that his involvement with 100 Drake Way started with a screened pool enclosure that was
found to be in violation of the City of Sebastian Ordinances and a stop work order was issued on
6/25/07 and a second stop work order was issued on August 25, 2008. Mr. Eseltine said the property
is in violation of continuing work after the issuance of a stop work order, work was completed
without mandatory inspections, materials used are not in accordance with approved plans and
compromise the integrity of the structure, and the pool structure encroaches in the middle of the
setback requirements of approved final subdivision. Respondent was sent a notice of violation on
6/23/10 and the Respondent requested a hearing before the Special Magistrate. A notice of hearing
was sent to Respondent on August 6, 2010 to appear before the Special Magistrate on August 24,
2010, which was continued to this hearing. A notice to appear was sent on September 15, 2010 to
the Respondent's representative to appear before the Special Magistrate today.
Mr. Ginsburg asked Mr. Eseltine to calculate the cost of time utilized by himself and his department
in dealing with 100 Drake Way. While Mr. Eseltine calculated the figures, Mr. Ginsburg addressed
Magistrate Hancock stating that neither Mr. Romeo nor his attorney, Gary Rooney was present.
1
Mr. Ginsburg reviewed what was discussed at the last Magistrate hearing, which was for Mr. Romeo
to deposit approximately $7,000 in Mr. Rooney's trust account to fund the work that needed to be
done to bring this property into compliance. Mr. Ginsburg said he has been informed that Mr.
Romeo is not making a deposit into his attorney's trust account.
Another option discussed between Mr. Ginsburg and Mr. Rooney was for Mr. Romeo to give
permission for city subcontractors to enter onto his property and perform the necessary work. The
cost of that would be calculated as the actual cost of making improvements and the city would file a
lien on the subject property in the appropriate amount. Mr. Rooney informed Mr. Ginsburg that Mr.
Romeo was in agreement to this option.
Mr. Ginsburg asked that an order be entered which would include findings of fact recognizing that
this hearing took place, the city has cited the property on several occasions, the property is in
violation of the code, however the order would include a time frame which will permit Mr. Romeo
enough time to provide us with the releases and hold harmless documents that are needed to protect
ourselves with respect to remediation on his property. Mr. Ginsburg added that Mr. Romeo's failure
to get the variance and the Circuit Court's decision has to have a consequence. Mr. Ginsburg said
Mr. Romeo's failure to comply would result in a fine of the administrative costs and $200.00 per day
from day one at the conclusion of the time frame given to provide us with the documents. Mr.
Ginsburg stated he would like as part of the order the legal authority, to enter onto the property in
accordance with the plan suggested to remediate the violations. At the conclusion of the work the
city does to remediate, a lien would be created to cover the cost of remediation.
Magistrate Hancock stated for jurisdictional purposes that an order be entered containing the
findings of fact, finding of violation, and basically delay for a reasonable period of time before the
assessed fine commences and have that daily fine commence only after he fails to provide the city
with the releases and permission to enter upon the property. Magistrate Hancock added that based
upon the property owner's reluctance to engage in his responsibilities, that the order entered has a
fine that would start after a preset time rather than having another hearing.
Mr. Eseltine noted that based on the Building Department time spent on this case, administrative
costs amount to $1,080.00.
The hearings were adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
2