Loading...
2023-05-09 Handwritten Minutes ,�o`f.tr 4�� CITY OF OKEECHOBEE CODE ENFORCEMENT ,�� �y°aT MAY 9, 2023 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING �LL � 1 55 SOUTHEAST THIRD AVENUE, OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA 34974• '- ��� HANDWRITTEN MINUTES — CHRISTINA CURL Mission Statement: The mission of the City of Okeechobee is to provide accommodating services that enhance the quality of life for our citizens and businesses in a fiscally sound manner. Vision Statement: The City of Okeechobee will maintain a vibrant and prosperous community built on our heritage, history, unique character, and small-town atmosphere. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Special Magistrate Azcona called the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing to order on Tuesday May 9, 2023 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Special Magistrate Azcona. II. ATTENDANCE Present Absent Special Magistrate Roger Azcona, Esquire x City Attorney Greg Hyden x Police Administrative Lieutenant Bettye Taylor x Code Enforcement Officer Anthony Smith x Code Enforcement Officer Christina Curl x III. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. Requests for the addition, deferral, or withdrawal of agenda items. There were none. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ADMINISTRATION OF OATH A. Special Magistrate Azcona dispensed with the reading and approved the April 11, 2023 Minutes. B. This being a Quasi-Judicial proceeding, Special Magistrate Azcona collectively administered an Oath to Code Officers Smith, Curl, Mr. Ben Purvis, and Mr. William Hair. V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS A. Case No. 190411010; Kemp Properties of Okeechobee, 909 South Parrott Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 1). AS-violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having the roof and the exterior of the building covered in mildew, in need of cleaning. Backside of the plaza the brush and trees in need of being trimmed. The respondent is a repeat violator. The city communicated with the respondent on the below occasions. On September 27, 2019, the lien/order was recorded, the fine started accrual at $50.00 per day, plus a $25.00 administrative fee. On September 21, 2022, Code Officer Smith inspected the property, and the property was found to be in compliance, leaving a fine balance of $54,350.00 plus a $25.00 administrative fee, totaling $54,375.00. On September 22, 2022 Compliance Letter with fine total mailed via USPS certified return receipt to the address of record and Mr. Ben Purvis. The letter was Page 1 of 17 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 1 9041 1 01 0; CONTINUED: received by Lacy McAdams on September 24, 2022 and Ben Purvis on September 27, 2022. On April 25, 2023, a Fine Reduction Application was received from Mr. Purvis. SOV/NOH was hand delivered to Mr. Purvis for the May 9th Hearing. Signed hand delivery receipt in the file. The city recommends a fine reduction of 60% of the total fine plus a $25.00 administrative fee, reducing the fine from $54,350.00 to $21,740.00 plus the $25.00 administrative fee, totaling $21,765.00. RA-is Mr. Hyden in yet. CC-he is logging on now. RA-okay let's wait for him, hello Mr. Hyden GH-good afternoon I am just getting out of physical therapy RA-okay what we have done so far is that Mr. Smith went through the history of the case that is being considered for a fine reduction and the city is recommending a 60% reduction of the total fine plus a $25.00 administrative fee reducing the fine from $54,350.00 to $21,740.00 plus the $25.00 administrative fee in which case everything would total $21,765.00 at this point is there anything else you would like to add Mr. Hyden on behalf of the City of Okeechobee Code Enforcement GH-just a question for Code Officer Smith the proposed fine reduction is consistent with the staff recommendation that is consistent with the direction of City Council is that correct. AS-yes that is correct GH-I have nothing further sir RA-thank you Mr. Hyden I believe we have a witness here on behalf of Kemp Properties, can you please come to the podium sir and state your name for the record BP-Benjamin James Purvis RA-Mr. Purvis, you have heard the history and the city's recommendation for this case I am sure you are here because you are asking for a lien reduction and the city has recommended a lien reduction of 60% which is a pretty substantial amount. But this property looks like it has been out of compliance for an extended period of time, I was wondering how the fine accrued to $54,350.00. I would like to hear from you as to why should consider a lien reduction in this case and if you have any other facts to present or arguments to make like me to consider in this case to support any further lien reduction that you are asking for. BP-yes, so the property belonged to my mom RA-your mom BP-yes, Brenda Kemp when all this started with the fines that is when I first found out about it I believe that was in 2019, I do live in Okeechobee County, north end of the County, but I do not work in Okeechobee County so I am very seldom in town, my kids go to school in Palm Beach County so I am there more than I am here a lot of times, but my mom's health was not good, she had diabetes real bad, they started taking toes off and this is all while she is back and forth to the hospital, over the course of a year or two they ended up taking the whole leg before they could get everything well enough to heal so she could get out of rehabs. So, during this time when I found out that there had been a lien put on this property, I do not remember his last name, I know his name was Fred, he was the Code Enforcement Officer. I contacted Fred and spoke with him it took about I am going to use an estimate here, I don't have the exact dates, you guys may have the exact dates on file, I know he was retiring at the end of the year so I know between September and the end of the year we had the building pressure cleaned and the roof cleaned, and we had the grass cut. Part of my conversation with Fred was and a lot of the pictures that he had, which I am not saying the property was well maintained, it wasn't at the time, but part of the pictures was of trees that were overgrown that is technically not on our property, there is a vacant lot to the south of our property that has never had Page 2 of 17 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 190411010 CONTINUED; anything built on it, I can't think of the word but it doesn't have to be maintained like it would if it had a house on it, so they come in every few months with a bushhog and cut that down, but there is a concrete wall that is approximately 2-3 ft tall and the vines grow over, so if you stand in that lot and take a picture towards the building it looks horrendous, it looks terrible but a lot of that is the growth from that side of the property coming up and there is three cabbage palms there so there is always limbs by them but it is really not on my property and the other side of the property, I don't know why, but the other side of the property butts up to what used to be SunTrust Bank but is now Truist Bank, so there is a strip in there that whoever mows their property does not always mow, it is not mowed right now, it is waist high right now but it is not on our property, I mean it looks bad but it is owned by the bank and they are not maintaining it. It looks like we should mow it, but it is not our property. The total grass on our entire property, I mean it is 99% concrete. We may have 200-300 sq ft of grass total on the property. There is a little strip right by the road by the sidewalk and there is a circle area or quarter of a circle area out front by the building and the back there is about a foot wide area of grass that goes down the building. But when I got the call, we got it cleaned up and mowed, I had a company come over from Stuart and do the pressure cleaning. I had talked to Fred and I assumed everything was good and I didn't hear anything, then we go through COVID and everything else and then I get another letter two years later, well from 2019 to 2022 and that is when I spoke with Mr. Smith and I told him the issues about the other properties and I am sure he went and looked at it, but now mom has passed away and the property has been in probate and I am trying to get it settled and my intensions or my hopes are to buy my brother out of the property when everything is finalized in probate and take the property over and make it a property that is going to generate an income for me for the rest of my life or however long and I can't get through that part of the probate and my brother and I are trying to make decisions until I know if there is going to be liens or fines on it and how much the fine will be I would like to get it low enough so that I can personally pay it off and finish the probate so we can move on with the business. I know that the fine can't be reduced to zero because know that there has been cost involved with filing paperwork and this and that but just my opinion, but uncut grass shouldn't be fined $20,000.00 and I thought this was all taken care of in 2019. RA-okay Mr. Purvis thank you for providing that information. I am going to ask first if Mr. Hyden, the City Attorney, has any additional questions for you. BP-okay RA-do you have any questions Mr. Hyden for our witness GH-yes, are you disputing that the property was not in compliance at all times relevant, does the property owner have evidence that the lien was released, or that the city advised him in writing that the property was in compliance BP-no I had just talked to Fred and the only reason I remember it was because he was trying to get everything wrapped up so he could retire, and I was under the impression that everything was done, and I didn't know, and I didn't hear anything for years GH-I appreciate what you are saying, but what I am asking is did you ever receive anything in writing from the city that the property was in full compliance BP-not to my knowledge and if they did a lot of that stuff was mailed to my mom's address back then, they wouldn't switch it to mail it to me as her address was the address of record at the property appraisers office and she didn't live there, so if they did send something I never received it, so I have no proof of that other than GH-I understand, are you disputing that the city's fines are inconsistent with the city's fine schedule Page 3 of 17 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 190411010; CONTINUED: BP-that I am not sure of I have no clue what the fine schedule is, other than what is on this paper, I know it was $50.00 per day GH-if I may, what is your actual basis of your request for a lien reduction BP-part of problem, part of it was the overgrown trees and grass that was not part of the property, it is other property that is overgrown and that I thought I did everything that was supposed to do, I have never done this before, so I thought I had done everything I was supposed to do in 2019 and since I didn't hear anything else I assumed, which is a terrible thing to do, I understand but I thought everything was good and had no clue, I just want if it's possible the best opportunity and the best shot possible to make this successful, without starting out behind, you know what I mean, because as long as there is liens on it I can't finish the probate and it is hard for me to borrow money against the property to do improvements while there is liens against the property so I need to get this settled and done so I can move forward GH-so to make sure I understood the real basis of your request is that it would be easier to complete the probate process and then to make the property with assuming with what you are saying to make the business a profitable adventure correct BP-well that and I thought it was in compliance in 2019 and part of what is listed is not even part of the property, there are no tress on the property, there is not a single tree on that property GH-I have nothing further sir BP-thank you RA-thank you Mr. Hyden is there anything else you would like to add Mr. Purvis BP-no sir RA-Mr. Purvis you also heard the testimony of Mr. Smith BP-yes RA-Do you have any questions for Mr. Smith BP-other than maybe he can talk about the properties on both sides that is overgrown, and it is definitely not part of Kemp Properties property AS-yes that is correct you are right, you brought that to my attention and that was taken into consideration when the fine reduction was made that the grass was not part of the problem, but however you did have issues with the outside of the building and the roof of the building that had mold and mildew all over it, and you brought that into compliance on 9/12/22, if you look at the screen you can see that you had mildew on the roof and stuff like that, and you did not complete that until 9/21/22 and once that was done I put you into compliance, and that is not considering the grass you made that statement, I went and looked and seen where your property started and stopped and I immediately let you know that you were correct, and that was not going to be a factor in the fine anymore and that is the reason why we dropped it down 60% BP-yes sir right and with the mold on the building it did have mold on it I am not disputing that at all, but once I got the letter, I did get it taken care of in less than 30 days and I did the same thing back in 2019, I think it took like 60 days to get it all done. Part of my problem, it probably doesn't affect the situation, let me get my dates right here. We got the letter on August 22, 2022 and mom passed away on August 27th, 5 days later RA-August 22nd of what year BP-2022, 5 days after I received this notification, it was the second notification, it took about a month or so before I really for the process to go through to make me the executor of the estate to be able to take care of things properly and to make those decisions, to be the administrator, it took a little bit of time to get that process done for me to access things to be able to take care of the property myself, like I said she had been in the hospital for 2-3 years then from the hospital to rehab she probably wasn't home more than a month for the last 2 years of her life Page 4 of 17 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 190411010; CONTINUED: RA-do you have any documentation of her being in the hospital BP-I can get you whatever you need I have a stack of medical bills I wouldn't lie about my mother being in the hospital RA-okay do you have any more questions for Mr. Smith BP-do you mean like pictures, I can get you whatever documentation that you need as far as doctors, hospitals or whatever, she went from the hospital to rehab she couldn't heal up, her diabetes was bad, it started with her toes, two toes from the ankle to the knee, then her whole leg, so the last 6 months or so she was totally in a wheelchair, we had to pick her up and move her RA-okay if you have no further questions for Mr. Smith, I am going to ask Mr. Hyden do you have any more questions for either witness GH-no, I do not your honor RA-okay thank you. Mr. Hyden I am going to ask you if you have any other argument or statement on the behalf of the City of Okeechobee GH-just briefly the City has factored in the issue with the grass, the city has been consistent with its fine schedule, the city has reviewed the request for the fine reduction and has made an offer of a generous fine reduction, while I certainly understand and sympathize with the property owner, he really hasn't given any justification legal or otherwise for an enhance reduction beyond the 60%, the fine was properly introduced and the recommendation is a 60% reduction there really isn't any other basis for a further reduction RA-okay thank you Mr. Hyden, let me go back a little bit, I meant to ask Mr. Purvis a few questions before I asked for the final arguments from the city attorney. You said your mother passed away on August 27, 2022 and you didn't find out about the violation until five days later. BP-no five days before when I got the second letter RA-oh 5 days before BP-according to my notes it was August 22, 2022 when I got the second letter and August 27th is when she passed RA-okay so up until that time you were not aware of these violations BP-I thought everything was taken care of in 2019 RA-so you knew about it because you dealt with Fred and all of that BP-yes, I thought everything was good RA-okay, so you never followed up with anything to confirm that BP-I did not, I honestly didn't know I needed anything in writing, I thought everything was good RA-but you knew there was a lien, and you knew there was a violation BP-I knew they were filing a lien, yes RA-okay, so I heard there was a dispute over who owned the property and the city has taken that into consideration in the fine reduction, but obviously your mom was in charge of the property and that there was a lien imposed and that there was a fine that your mom was aware of, she was properly notified through due process pertaining to the violation and that lien was imposed, let me see, alright, here's what I am going to do for you I want to thoroughly consider everything before I make a final decision in this case and you said a lot about the condition of your mom and I am willing to look into it. I am going to reserve ruling at this time I am going to give you sufficient time to provide documentation showing your mom was in and out of the hospital for 2-3 years and she was only out of the hospital for 1 month that is a big statement about your mom's condition Page 5 of 17 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 1 9041 1 01 0; CONTINUED: BP-okay, yes, it is, she was not at her house she had to have 24-hour care, so she couldn't be home so she was either at the hospital or rehab facility or when she would try to come home, she would stay with my brother some RA-so she was able to talk to you and make her own decisions and manage her own affairs BP-yes, she held onto that, she wouldn't let me, and my brother have that control, she was a very independent woman and she handled things, unfortunately so a lot of things she should have done before we are dealing with now RA-so here's the next question you heard the City of Okeechobee reduced the fine by 60% to $21,740.00 that is a huge reduction, so that means you only pay 40% of this fine, are you able to pay that BP-it would have to come out of the probate RA-can you make financial arrangements to make payments towards that or somehow BP-I'm sure we can work something out, I don't want to say yes because there is an attorney handling the probate, I got to take this to him and say what do I do here, how do I handle this RA-so basically you will pay this out of the proceeds from the probate it is not coming out of your pocket BP-well if it is cheap enough, I will pay it myself, but I don't want to put $21,000.00 out of my pocket into it, when I have to split this property up RA-okay sure, anything else would you like me to consider in your request for a fine reduction Mr. Purvis BP-no sir, what else would you need RA-I am going to reserve ruling I will review the file and take time to consider all documents as this is an old case, before I was the Magistrate and I want to thoroughly review the file and make a fair judgement and recommendation in this case BP-and the information you want as far as her being in the hospital and such CC-you would bring that to us RA-if you could get that to Mrs. Curl within 10 days, just give me a chronology of the time line not a whole stack of medical records and I will review everything I want to be fair with you as much as I can, you have already received 60% that is a big substantial reduction already, if you give me reason to believe that I should further reduce it and I will consider it BP-thank you I appreciate it RA-thank you Mr. Purvis for being here CC-are we deferring this case to the next hearing RA-yes next hearing I would try to make a ruling before then CC-okay thank you VI. NEW CASES A. Case No. 230324015; Debara Jean Lang and Laura Ann Harrison, 1004 Northwest 4th Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 10, Sections 10-3 Limitation as to the number of animals, 10-8 Public nuisance, Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) Chapter 3, Section 304.1.1 Unsafe conditions (Exhibit 2). AS-violation of Chapter 10, Sections 10-3 Limitation as to the number of animals, 10-8 Public nuisance, Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification and IPMC Chapter 3, Section 304.1.1 Unsafe conditions for having several chickens and a rooster roaming freely on the property and making noise continuously, overgrown grass, weeds, bushes or shrubs, trash, yard debris or junk all Page 6 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230324015; CONTINUED: over the property and the roof and structure in unsafe conditions. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on January 24, 2023 via Courtesy Card. On February 6, 2023 Mr. Lang, the property owner's husband called into the office and spoke with Code Officer Curl in reference to the notice that was received he asked for an extension. He was advised of the work that needs to be completed to bring the property into compliance. He stated that he would keep us updated every 14 days. On February 24, 2023, Mrs. Jennifer Hair called into the office and spoke with Code Officer Curl, she stated that the property was just put into her name as it has been in probate and the person staying in the home is basically a squatter but they have been working on the yard and it has been cleaned up, they are also working on the roof and once the tenant is out on March 17, 2023 they will be putting in for a permit to demolish the structure. She was advised that we have it on the schedule for Monday to do an inspection and once we have that completed, we can give her an update on the status of the property. On February 27, 2023 Code Officer Smith inspected the property: still non-compliant, made progress with the cleaning of the property however the roof is still in disrepair, items in the yard still need to be removed, and the car porch still needs to be cleaned. Photos in file. On March 2, 2023 Code Officer Curl tried to call Mrs. Hair; no answer left message asking her to return my call to discuss the status of the property. On March 2, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call back from Mrs. Hair, updated her on the status of the property and advised her to give us an update after they take possession of the property on March 17,2023. On March 23 2022 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant. Photos in file. On March 24, 2022 SOV/NOH and photos mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 9th Hearing. The certified return receipt has not been received back as of the date of this hearing. On April 24, 2023 Code Officer Curl posted the property and City Hall for the May 9th Hearing. Photos in the file. On April 24, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant. The roof and the structure remain unsafe, the overgrown vegetation and the trash/debris remain, the structure now appears to be vacant and unsecured. On May 4, 2023 Code Officer Smith inspected the property, still non-compliant. On May 4, 2023 Code Officer Curl spoke with Ashley in the General Services Department she stated that a permit for a reroof had been pulled in 2022 but it is set to expire on May 16, 2023, however no work has been completed and no other permits have been applied for. To comply with City ordinances, the property owner needs to address the unsafe roof and structure either by making the necessary repairs or demolition, cut the overgrown vegetation and remove all the debris from the property. The City recommends a fine of$100.00 per day, to begin 21 days after the date of the Special Magistrate Hearing on May 9, 2023 unless the property owner brings the property into compliance on or before that date, plus a $50.00 administrative fee. RA-I am going to ask the City Attorney Mr. Hyden if he has any further questions for Mr. Smith GH-Code Officer Smith I want to confirm that both you and Code Officer Curl inspected the property multiple times to finding that it is not in compliance, that is correct AS-that is correct GH-I see photos in the file, who took those photographs AS-I did, and Code Officer Curl did GH-You were able to confirm that Code Enforcement has taken those photos, and Code Officer Curl spoke with the City's General Services Department and has been able to Page 7 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230324015; CONTINUED: affectively verify that although a permit was pulled for a reroof it is set to expire as of May 16th, that is correct AS-that is correct GH-and the City's recommendation of a fine is that consistent with the city's fine schedule AS-that is correct GH-I have nothing further RA-okay thank you Mr. Hyden GH-Thank you RA-I believe we have somebody here, Ms. Lang, alright come on up, state your name for the record WH-William Hair RA-okay, you are under oath, what would you like to say today WH-the roof permit we knew nothing about RA-which permit WH-the permit for the reroof, that was prior to my wife and her aunt taking possession of the house which happened in January or February somewhere it went through probate, I have paperwork but per my demolition guy before I can apply for a permit for demolition, I have to apply for an asbestos survey done because of the age of the house. That is being scheduled. The tenant that was there was supposed to be out by March 17, 2023 but did not get out till somewhere around the 30th so it just has been really tight, short being able to work on this for me like I said I have paperwork from the guy that I have to have a survey done before I can apply for a permit to demo the house RA-okay sounds good, anything else WH-at this point I don't have anything else RA-I am going to ask the city attorney if he has any questions for you GH-no sir RA-okay, so Mr. Hair you said that you didn't know anything about the permit to do the reroof WH-no sir and I am not going to put a roof on it when that house needs to be torn down RA-you said this property went through probate and just got handed over to your wife WH-to my wife and Debara Lang JH-and to Laura RA-okay so you're not Debara Lang WH-no RA-Debara Lang she is your mom JH-no I am Jennifer Hair, I am the representative RA-So Debara Lang passed away WH-no, she lives out of town JH-I call her my mom, but she is my aunt RA-so when did you actually take over the property JH-we actually finalized the paperwork in December RA-okay in December, when you took over the property in December did you find out about the existing violations at that time WH-there were no violations at that time RA-oh okay you were not notified until February 6th is that correct Mr. Smith AS-that is correct RA-oh so you found out about it Page 8 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230324015; CONTINUED: CC-it was actually on January 24, 2023 AS-oh it was January 24th RA-oh January 24th you became aware of it WH-yes that is when she became aware of it and started going through the process of getting her out of the house RA-oh okay but at that time WH-technically she is one of the owners listed but she has never maintained it or kept up with it or anything else, so we have been trying to get her out of the house and get it cleaned up but let's face it. It is not cleaned up to what it should be, but the month of January and February I was out of state RA-oh okay so when they left the Courtesy Card, did you get that card JH-no I did not RA-ok on February 6th Mr. Lang the property owner's husband called in and spoke with Code Officer Curl CC-the courtesy card your honor was mailed to the Vero Beach address and that is when I received a call from Mr. Lang RA-who is Mr. Lang the uncle CC-the property owner's husband RA-okay did you ever communicate with Mr. Lang JH-yes, that is when I started trying to get her out of the house RA-okay so that was on or about JH-the end of January RA-okay the end of January JH-yes RA-okay my question is you are aware of what is in violation JH-yes RA-okay so we are now in May, and we are still in violation and non-compliant and Mr. Hair is telling me that there is a survey issue, and he just removed the tenant JH-yes WH-we had to get the tenant out so we could get something done to get it in compliance, it is kind of hard-to-get things done with a tenant in there RA-how much time do you need to get this into compliance JH-now that we have her out it will be a lot easier WH-45 days so I can get the survey done, I have a proposal to get the survey done so can apply for the demo permit RA-so do you think 45 days will get it done WH-I don't know if I can get it torn down in 45 days, but I can at least get the paperwork done, but I am working on it JH-I want it gone too RA-I am going to ask Mr. Smith and the City Attorney Mr. Hyden what is the city's position with them requesting 45 days WH-tell me what I can do with the exception of the roof because I am not getting up there JH-I won't even go inside the house RA-I am going to let you speak with Mr. Smith on that WH-tell me what I can do to make matters work at the moment so you can go ahead and roll it, because your office is almost impossible to get ahold of JH-you have no voicemail Page 9 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230324015; CONTINUED: WH-if you give me a work cell phone and we can communicate AS-I can give you that WH-I can give you mine and we can go day to day, week to week whatever I need to do to keep you updated, its coming down, getting rezoned and new houses going up RA-Mr. Hyden what is your position on this issue GH-while I certainly understand the homeowner's situation, but the issue is that the property is not in compliance, and it has to come into compliance does the property owner have any demolition permit pulled WH-I do not have a demolition permit pulled as I have to get the asbestos survey done first because of the age of the house GH-I understand but when is that being done WH-the proposal has come in and the contractor is working on it, trying to get everything scheduled GH-so we don't have a date for that yet WH-no but I can probably, I hope I could have that survey done within two weeks JH-how hard is it to get the demo permit AS-not hard at all WH-and once I get that done then we have to turn everything in to get the building department to get the demo permit GH-I mean the lien would not be imposed for I believe a period of 21-days so that would certainly give the property owner time to get the asbestos survey done and if a demo permit is pulled this matter could always be revisited by the Special Magistrate at the next regular scheduled meeting but without a date certain of when that asbestos survey will be completed and without a demolition permit I don't think the city can take a position other than to request that the lien order be entered after 21 days consistent with the recommendation of Code Officer Smith RA-okay alright since this is the first time, we are here Mr. Hair I am going to go ahead and defer your case to the next hearing. When is our next hearing Mrs. Curl CC-that would be June 13, 2023 RA-okay I am going to expect substantial compliance if you get it done before then let him know. WH-hopefully by then I can have the two surveys done and the demo permit in the works RA-I am hoping that you can get it taken care of, if not I will probably give you 21 days after that before the fine starts, okay thank you Mr. Hair. So, Mrs. Curl, we will defer this to the next meeting. B. Case No. 230324016; Santos Justiniano Lopez Felix and Marina Gloria Orozco Jarez, 1007 Southwest Park Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning beautification (Exhibit 3). AS-violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification and Chapter 10, Section 10-8 Public nuisance for having an abandoned doghouse, several appliances in the yard, a disabled vehicle parked on the property, overgrown weeds, grass, bushes, or shrubs, trash, yard debris all over the property and several roosters on the property constantly crowing. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on Page 10 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED B. Case No. 230324016; CONTINUED: March 8, 2023 via Courtesy Card. On March 3, 2023 Code Officer Curl received an email from Mr. Bryan Bormann with three videos attached that he had taken in the am at 6:35 am, 7:05 am and 7:30 am of the roosters crowing. On March 3, 2023 Email sent to Animal Control reference to the complaint to ask with their assistant in possibly removing the roosters from the property if deemed necessary. Received email back from Amy stating that she would have an officer respond and advise of the public nuisance ordinance and provide an update. Email in file. On March 7, 2023 Received an email from Animal Control Officer Medina stating that he was able to follow up with the compliant and that the roosters/chickens have been removed from the property as of March 7, 2023. On March 23, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant the disabled vehicle remains, the appliances remain in the yard, the abandoned doghouse remains, and the roof on the barn has not been repair/replaced. On March 24, 2023 SOV/NOH, photos and city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 9th Hearing, received by Felix on March 29, 2023. On May 4, 2023 Code Officer Smith inspected the property, still non-compliant. To comply with city ordinances, the disabled vehicle needs to be removed from the property. The City recommends a fine of $50.00 per day, to begin 21 days after the date of the Special Magistrate Hearing on May 9, 2023, unless the property owner brings the property into compliance on or before that date, plus a $50.00 administrative fee. RA-I am going to ask the city attorney if he has any more questions for Mr. Smith. GH-Code Officer Smith I see there are photographs in the file who took those photographs. AS-I did and Code Officer Curl GH-understood and you have each physically been to the property and inspected the property to determine that it is still non-compliant AS-that is correct GH-and the city's proposed fine of $50.00 per day is that consistent with the city's fine schedule AS-that is also correct GH-I have nothing further RA-okay, thank you, I have a few quick questions. Mr. Smith in regard to exhibit 3 with regards to the house AS-yes sir RA-does it include, there seems to be some debris behind it on the barn, on this one is that part of the problem AS-she said the roof of the barn RA-oh okay, so the roof of the barn, so the chicken problem has already been resolved AS-yes it has, and they have gotten rid of the appliances out of the yard and cleaned up the yard, but they did not get rid of the disabled vehicle RA-so the problem it just the disabled vehicle, what about the pile of boards by the fence AS-yes, all of that was pretty much gone when I went by RA-so that is not part of the problem, so the problem is the disabled vehicle AS-yes, the disabled vehicle as of now RA-so the vegetation is not part of the problem, and you did speak with Felix CC-no, he just received the notice RA-he never called you pertaining to the violations CC-no sir RA-okay I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee vs. Santo Justiniano Lopez Felix and Marina Gloria Orozco Jarez; Case #230324016 I will make a finding in this case based on the testimony and the exhibits presented by the City of Okeechobee certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith. I will make a finding that there is an existing Page 11 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED B. Case No. 230324016; CONTINUED: violation that is persistent in this case which is the disabled vehicle it sounds like all the other violations have been taken care of, however I do see that there is plenty of factual bases for the allegations, I can see in the pictures what looks like a disabled vehicle parked on the side by the fence, is it one or two vehicles Mr. Smith AS-it is just one RA-and it does look like it has been there for a while even though the grass has been trimmed around it, I don't see a tag on that vehicle, and it looks like it has been there a while. So based on the exhibits presented and the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer I will make a finding that there is a violation and under the circumstances the city recommends a fine of $50.00 per day to begin 21 days after the date of this hearing, May 9, 2023, unless the property owner brings the property into compliance on or before that date, plus a $50.00 administrative fee. I will follow the city's recommendation in this case and that is what we will order. Anything you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH-no sir RA-okay so that is what we will do, thank you Mr. Smith, next case C. Case No. 230324018; Terry L. and Marjorie L. Jones, 200 Southwest 10th Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 4). AS-violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having disabled/untagged vehicle, boat and trailer on the property, overgrown weeds, bushes or shrubs, a large pile of yard debris and the exterior of the home is in need of being cleaned. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on March 8, 2023 via Courtesy Card. On March 23, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant the disabled vehicle, the boat, and the overgrown weeds, bushes, or shrubs remain, and the exterior of the home is still in need of cleaning. The large pile of yard debris has been removed. On March 24, 2023 SOV/NOH, photos and city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 9th Hearing, received by Jones on March 30, 2023. On April 25, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call from the tenant Sarah Hawthorne 863-532-3184, she stated that they have been working on the property and the untagged/inoperable vehicle and boat have been removed and they are working on getting the property cleaned up, the trailer removed, and the house cleaned. She was advised that we will complete an inspection before he hearing to verify if the property is in compliance and then the case will go before the Special Magistrate on May 9th, and it will the Magistrate's discretion as to impose a fine or not and if he chooses to impose a fine that they would have 21 days after the date of the hearing before the fine will start to accrue. On April 25, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner Mr. Terry Jones, 863-648- 2206, inquiring about the status of the violations on his property. He stated that this is a rental property, and he is being told by his tenants that they are working on getting the property into compliance. I advised him that I spoke with one of his tenants this morning and she stated that they had most of the violations corrected and that we would be completing an inspection of the property by May 2, 2023 if he would like to call back after we complete the inspection and we could give him an update on the property. On May 4, 2023 Code Officer Smith inspected the property, found to be in compliance, case closed. On May 4, 2023 Compliance Letter mailed via USPS regular mail to the property owner and tenant. The City recommends no action on this matter, but request it be noted for the Page 12 of 17 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED C. Case No. 230324018; CONTINUED: record to have been in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances and 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. RA-anything you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH-no sir RA-okay, in the case of the City of Okeechobee vs. Terry L. and Marjorie L. Jones, Case #230324018. I will make a finding in this case based on the testimony and the exhibits presented at this hearing that the respondents were cited for Chapter 30, Section 30-41 for having a disabled vehicle, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown weeds, bushes or shrubs, a large pile of yard debris, and the exterior of the home needing to be cleaned. I will find that based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith and the exhibits presented at this hearing, I will find that the respondents were in violation of the city codes Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances,30-44 General cleaning and beautification even though the property owners have come into compliance they were in violation until they came into compliance on May 4, 2023. I will follow the city's recommendation that no action be taken on this matter but will note for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification until they came into compliance on May 4, 2023. VII. COMPLIED CASES A. Case No. 230324012; Betty Jean Tillis, 525 Southeast 13th Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 5). AS-violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, bushes, or shrubs and having trash, junk/debris all over the property. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on March 7, 2023 via Courtesy Card. On March 23, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant there is still overgrown weeds, grass, bushes, or shrubs and trash, junk/debris all over the property. On March 24, 2023 SOV/NOH, photos and city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 9th Hearing, received by Betty Tillis on March 28, 2023. On March 28, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Ms. Tillis. I explained to her what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance and advised her that once they had the property into compliance for her to give us a call and then we would complete an inspection to confirm compliance. On April 24, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Ms. Tillis, stating that the property had been cleaned. I advised her that I would inspect the property to see if it is in compliance. On April 24, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, and the property was found to be in compliance, case closed. Photos in file. On April 26, 2023 Code Officer Curl spoke with Ms. Tillis letting her know that the property is in compliance and the case has been closed. Compliance Letter mailed via USPS regular mail. The City recommends no action on this matter, but requests it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30- 43 Public nuisances and 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. RA-I would like to ask our City Attorney Mr. Hyden if there is anything else you would like to add GH-no sir, thank you RA-Mr. Smith looking at your exhibits here did you take these photos AS-myself and Mrs. Curl Page 13 of 17 VII. COMPLIED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230324012; CONTINUED: RA-I know you are alleging in this case that the respondents are in violation of Sections 30-43 Public nuisances and 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, bushes, or shrubs and having trash,junk/debris all over the property. I am looking at these pictures can you show me exactly what part of this is in your opinion of the violations AS-Mrs. Curl CC-I don't have the photos in front of me RA-this one it looks like the grass is short, I mean CC-it is all the debris and the trash and all the coolers there were coolers piled up over here, there is overgrown grass and weeds on the side of the house and the fence line there is more debris, there was just stuff everywhere, building materials all over the yard and out here it was kind of hard-to-get photos of the yard from the road RA-I see what you are talking about, that's what I wanted to know. I will make a finding in this case based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officers and the exhibits presented in this hearing. I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee vs Betty Jean Tillis, Case #230324012, I will make a finding that the respondents violated Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, bushes, or shrubs and having trash, junk/debris all over the property and there is factual basis for the allegations that was explained by Mrs. Curl, from what she has pointed out, I do see the debris all over the property if I look at it real close I can see pieces of wood and coolers just laying all over the yard, and I do see what looks like overgrown weeds on the side of the house so there is factual basis for the allegations so I will make the finding that the respondents are in violations, even though the property has come into compliance we will note for the record that they were in violation until they came into compliance on April 24, 2023. I will follow the city's recommendation that no further action be taken in this matter, but the violations will be noted for future reference. B. Case No. 230324013; Jay Nason c/o Betty Jean Tillis, 515 Southeast 13th Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 10, Section 10-8 Public nuisance, Chapter 70, Section 70-302 Permit (Exhibit 6). AS-violation of Chapter 10, Section 10-8 Public nuisance, Chapter 70, section 70-302 Permit for having chickens/rooster crowing for more than 20 mins and a privacy fence without a permit. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on March 7, 2023 via Courtesy Card. On March 3, 2023 Email sent to Animal Control reference to the complaint to ask with their assistant in possibly removing the roosters from the property if deemed necessary. Received email back from Amy stating that she would have an officer respond and advise of the public nuisance ordinance and provide an update. Email in file. On March 8, 2023 Received an email from Animal Control Officer Medina stating that the rooster has been removed from the property via owner Betty Tillis. On March 23, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant the privacy fence remains without a permit. On March 25, 2023 SOV/NOH, photos and city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 9th Hearing, received by Betty Tillis on March 28, 2023. On March 28, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Ms. Tillis. I explained to her what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance and advised her that once they had the property into compliance for her to give us a call and then we would complete an inspection to confirm compliance. On April 24, 2023 Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Ms. Tillis, stating that the property had been cleaned up and the fence had been taken down. I advised her that I would inspect the property to see if it is in compliance. On April 24, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant, however progress has Page 14 of 17 VII. COMPLIED CASES CONTINUED B. Case No. 230324013; CONTINUED: been made the privacy fence has been taken down, but it is leaning up against the house and the yard has been cleaned up the yard some, however a few items still need to be cleaned up. On April 26, 2023 Code Officer Curl spoke with Ms. Tillis and explained what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance. On May 4, 2023 Code Officer Smith inspected the property, found to be in compliance, Photos in the file. Compliance Letter mailed via USPS regular mail. The City recommends no action on this matter, but requests it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 10, Sections 10-8 Public nuisance and Chapter 70, Section 70-302 Permit. RA-I am going to ask Mr. Hyden is there anything you would like to add sir GH-no your honor, thank you RA-okay, I have a few questions on this one Mr. Smith AS-okay RA-I see that you are recommending for me to make a finding that the respondents are in violation in this case, and it be noted for the record until they came into compliance. So, you are asking me to make a finding that they were in violation of Chapter 10, Section 10-8 Public nuisance for having rooster/chickens crowing for more than 20 minutes. How did you determine if the roosters were crowing for more than 20 minutes. CC-I can answer that, I did the inspection, and I did observe, I sat there for over a half of an hour across the street from the property and I did hear the rooster crowing continuously RA-for more than 20 minutes CC-yes sir RA-okay I will accept that. Okay for Chapter 70, Section 70-302 for having a privacy fence without a permit, I don't know if I can list that one. Which fence are you referring to CC-the one in the back of the house RA-looking at the pictures in the exhibits I see that one of the pictures is similar to the other case CC-yes sir, they are right beside each other RA-okay CC-if you look here that was the privacy fence that was up on their property without a permit and that was verified through the General Services Department RA-oh okay, so that's this one CC-yes RA-alright I didn't see it. Okay based on the testimony of Mrs. Curl and taking the picture and pointing it out to me what was in violation I will make a finding in this case based on the testimony of Mrs. Curl and Mr. Smith and the exhibits presented at this hearing that there is factual basis for the allegations, and I will make a finding that the respondents in this case were in violation of Chapter 10, Section 10-8 Public nuisance for having roosters crowing for more than 20 minutes that was observed by Mrs. Curl, Chapter 70, Section 70-302 Permit for having a privacy fence without a permit that was verified by Mrs. Curl, even though they have come into compliance we will note for the record and follow the city's recommendation in this case. So, in the case of the City of Okeechobee vs. Jay Nason c/o Betty Jean Tillis, Case #230324013, based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mrs. Curl and the exhibits presented I will find that the respondent is in violation of Chapter 10 Section 10-8 Public nuisance, Chapter 70, Section 70-302 Permit until they came into compliance on May 4, 2023. C. Case No. 230405007; Bart F. Caso, Jr., Southwest 18th Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district (Exhibit 7). Page 15 of 17 VII. COMPLIED CASES CONTINUED C. Case No. 230405007; CONTINUED: AS-violation of Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district for having multiple RVs being used as a residence and not properly parked on residential property. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on February 18, 2023 via Courtesy Card. On February 27, 2023 Code Officer A. Smith and Patrol Officer S. Smith spoke with the renters of the property (Melissa Morse), and we were advised that their parents from out of town are staying in the RVs'. The renters were advised that it was a violation of city ordinance to live in a RV on any property and not a RV park in the city. The renter asked if they could be given 2 more weeks and their parents will be leaving. I advised them that would be ok. The renter also advised that they would be taking down the tent, hammock, and the kiddy pool. Inspected the property still non-compliant. Photos in the file. On April 5, 2023 Code Officer Smith inspected the property, still non-compliant. Photo in file. SOV/NOH, photos, and city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 9th Hearing, received by Bart Caso on April 13, 2023. On April 20, 2023 Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non-compliant. On April 26, 2023 Code Office Curl inspected the property, the property in compliance, case closed. the RVs have been removed from the property. On April 27, 2023 Compliance Letter mailed via USPS regular mail. The City recommends no action on this matter, but requests it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence and 54-84 Parking in residential district. RA-anything else you would like to add in this case Mr. Hyden GH-no sir, thank you RA-okay, so Mr. Smith you took the photos AS-I did, and Code Officer Curl did RA-so the respondents were using multiple RVs as a residence on the property Mr. Smith AS-yes sir RA-what reason did you have to believe that they were actually living there AS-there was a power cord and a hose running from the bottom of the RV which showed that they had power in the RV and the never denied that they were when I spoke with the renters, they advised that their parents were staying in them while they were down here from out of state on vacation RA-and did they say how long they had been living there AS-they had been there the whole time that they had been down here on vacation RA-which was how long AS-2 weeks, a month I don't know how long, when I got there, they asked for two weeks, and I told them that they had two weeks to pack up and move off the property RA-okay so parking the RVs over there wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't been living in them AS-so if they would have had the RVs parked on concrete or under a structure and met the setbacks then there would have been no issue. But once you move onto the property, as you can see, they were parked all over the place and once you start staying in it you can not do that, they never can be used as a residence that is against city ordinances RA-if they would have just parked there for a weekend and stayed there for the weekend would that have been an issue AS-probably not because I wouldn't have seen it on the weekend, but they were long term it was more than over a month RA-you took these photos AS-yes CC-we first noticed them on February 18th, and they didn't remove them from the property until April 26th Page 16 of 17 VII. COMPLIED CASES CONTINUED C. Case No. 230405007; CONTINUED: RA-so in the case of the City of Okeechobee vs. Bart F Caso Jr, Case #230405007 I will make a finding that the respondent was cited for Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence and Section 54-84 Parking in residential district for having multiple RVs parked on the property and not properly parked and being used as a residence. I will make a finding because there is sufficient factual basis based on the testimony and the exhibits presented at this hearing. Even though the respondents did come into compliance on April 26, 2023 I will make a finding that they were in violation up till that time. I will follow the city's recommendation that it be noted for the record and even though the city recommends no further action we will just note it for future reference, so that is what we will do. D. Case No. 220222009; Freddie and Ruby Minton, 302 Northeast 8th Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles (Exhibit 8). AS-violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles for having multiple unregistered/inoperable vehicles on the property. The respondent is a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on February 22, 2022 via SOV/NOH, received by Ruby Minton on February 26, 2022. On April 12, 2022 Case presented to the Special Magistrate, found in violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles. A fine of $50.00 per day, to begin 21 days after the date of this Hearing, unless the property owner brings the property into compliance before that date, plus a $100.00 administrative fee. On May 3, 2022 Lien/Order recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court, File #2022006136, Page(s):1. On May 23, 2022 Code Officer Smith inspected the property: in compliance. Fine total: $800.00 plus $100.00 Admin fee grand total: $900.00. On August 9, 2022 Fine reduced 50% from $800.00 to $400.00 plus $100.00 Admin fee totaling $500.00. On April 5, 2023 Ms. Minton made the final payment in the amount of $50.00, receipt #49782, fine balance paid in full. On April 10, 2023 Release of Lien recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court. File #2023004261, Page(s): 1. Recorded ROL mailed via regular mail. The City recommends no action on this matter, but requests it be noted for the record that the fine balance was paid in full, and the Release of Lien was recorded on April 10, 2023. RA-okay sounds like they paid up everything AS-yes sir RA-I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee vs. Freddie and Ruby Minton, Case #220222009 that they were in violation and then came into compliance, accrued a fine, fine reduction, and took care of the fine, we will note for the record that the fine was paid in full, and the Release of Lien was recorded on April, 10, 2023. VIII. ADJOURN MEETING There being no further business to come before the Special Magistrate, the Hearing was adjourned at 7:27 P.M. BE ADVISED that should you intend to show any document, picture, video, or items to the Special Magistrate in support or opposition to any item on the agenda, a copy of the document, picture, video, or item must be provided to the Code Enforcement Secretary for the City's records. ANY PERSON DECIDING TO APPEAL any decision made by the Special Magistrate with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceeding is made and the record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Code Enforcement Office in person or call 863-763-9795, Hearing Impaired: Florida Relay 7-1-1 no later than four business days prior to proceeding. Page 17 of 17