Loading...
2024-02-13 Handwritten MinutesCITY OF OKEECHOBEE CODE ENFORCEMENT FEBRUARY 13, 2024, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING 55 SOUTHEAST THIRD AVENUE, OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA 34974 HANDWRITTEN MINUTES 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 February 13, 2024, at 6:01 P.M. in the City Council Chambers located at 55 Southeast 31d 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. AGENDA A. Requests for the addition, deferral, or withdrawal of agenda items. RA- Mr. Smith do we have any additions, deferrals, or any cases to withdrawal from this agenda. AS- we will be deferring Item VI. B. Case No.231025003; Timothy Thomas to a future hearing to allow the property to go through probate. RA- okay sounds good we will defer VI. B. to a future hearing. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ADMINISTRATION OF OATH A. Special Magistrate Azcona dispensed with the reading and approved the January 9, 2024, Minutes. B. This being a Quasi- Judicial proceeding, Special Magistrate Azcona collectively administered an Oath to Code Officers Smith, and Curl, Mr. Jeffery Newell, and Ms. Betty Khan. V. REPEAT VIOLATORS A. Case No. 240116019; Charles E. Holt, 1010 Southwest 111h Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 1). AS- violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, shrubs, and trees all over the property, junk/debris all over the property with trailers full of junk/debris. The respondent is a repeat violator, previous Case No. 221025009, found in violation of Chapter 30, Sections, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On January 10, 2024, Beth Albert, County Code Enforcement Supervisor emailed and advised us that the above -mentioned address is in violation, extreme amount of outdoor storage of household goods, and mechanical parts, overgrowth. I, Code Officer Smith observed the above -mentioned property to be in violation of Chapter 30 Sections, 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification: overgrown grass, weeds, shrubs, and trees all over the property, junk, and debris Page 1 of 8 V. REPEAT VIOLATORS CONTINUED A. Case No. 240116019; CONTINUED: all over the property with trailers full of junk or debris as you can see in the pictures. On January 16, 2024, SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the February 131h Hearing. The city has not received the SOV/NOH nor the receipt signature card as of the date of this Hearing. On January 30, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; remains non -compliant, overgrown vegetation, trash, or debris in the right of way, junk, and debris on the property. Grass and weeds growing up through random things in the yard. On January 31, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith posted a Notice to Appear on the property and on the public notices board at City Hall. Photos in the file. On February 6, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; remains non -compliant; overgrown vegetation remains even after cutting the grass in some areas of the property, there is grass, and weeds growing up through random junk and/or debris on the property. Weeds growing around the travel trailer. Storing random items in random places all over the property. Photos in file. The City recommends in accordance with the fine schedule a fine of $100.00 per day, to begin on February 13, 2024, until the property is brought into compliance, plus a $100.00 administrative fee. RA- I would like to ask the City Attorney anything you would like to add on behalf of the city Mr. Hyden GH- yes two questions is the fine that you are recommending consistent with the fine schedule. AS- that is correct. GH- and were you guys able to verify that the owner of the property is not deceased, and the property is not in a state of probate AS- that is correct too as well GH- okay nothing further RA- okay do we have anybody here for this case AS- no sir RA- okay nobody, I do have a few questions. Mr. Smith the pictures that are presented as evidence in this case, you took all the pictures. AS- yes, I did RA- and they accurately represent the conditions of the property at the time these pictures were taken as dated on the pictures. AS- yes, that is correct RA- I noticed on your notes and testimony that you stated that you received a letter from the County Code Enforcement AS- yes, I got an email RA- then you visited the property for inspection AS- yes RA- did you come in contact with the owner of the property AS- not at that time, we did come in contact with him today, we spoke with him today. He is aware of everything, like I said I did post the property RA- I see that you did post the property and that is satisfactory. Because I am looking at the pictures and I see that there is someone in the back of the photo behind the boat AS- that is the neighboring property, that is not his property RA- so that is not the owner AS- no that is not the owner RA- okay so when you came in contact with the owner today, you told him about the hearing for today and he was aware of the hearing today AS- yes, he is very aware of today's hearing RA- ok so he is aware did he attempt to do anything AS- not as of yet, he said he had it in compliance but that was like at 3:00 pm today, I will have to go check it tomorrow RA- but you are recommending that we start the fine schedule today AS- yes RA- okay, we normally give them a couple of weeks to come into compliance Page 2 of 8 V. REPEAT VIOLATORS CONTINUED A. Case No. 240116019; CONTINUED: AS- yes, we normally do but after some consideration and training we have found out that 21-days is not appropriate, because you have to make the order and once you make the order, we have to put the order in place. RA- okay, I am going to ask the city attorney, Mr. Hyden considering that we normally give them a couple days up to 3 weeks to come into compliance before we start the fine. In this case the city is asking for the fine to start immediately are you arguing that this is justified on behalf of the city GH- let me ask some questions here, Code Officer Smith can you explain to the Magistrate the reasoning behind not giving them an amount of time that we normally do to come into compliance AS- because if we give them 21-days, we will have to come back to another hearing and present the case as compliant or non -compliant then it would be another 30-days before they would actually start fines GH- to be clear what the city's position is Code Officer Smith is that if the Magistrate enters the order now that the fine would not actually kick in until we come back for the compliance hearing. AS- right GH- nothing further RA- I will make a finding in this case of the City of Okeechobee v. Charles E. Holt, Case No. 240116019 that the respondent in this case was cited for violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, for having junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, shrubs, and trees all over the property, junk and debris all over the property and with trailers full of junk and debris. I will also make a finding that the respondent in this case is a repeat violator, previous Case No. 221025009 for similar violations, and based on the testimony and the exhibits presented by certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith, I will make a finding that the respondent was properly served, and contact was made with the respondent, and he was aware of today's hearing and the property was also posted. In examination of the exhibits presented today there is sufficient factual basis for the allegations provided by the city's Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith, I find that the exhibits provide sufficient factual basis for the allegations in this case. I can see that there is plenty of vegetation around the premises to support the allegations of overgrown vegetation and I can see that there is plenty of debris and what looks like garbage all over the premises and beside the road that is not in the proper containers and materials and equipment laying all over the property and it is not being orderly kept so based on those facts and testimony I will find that the respondent is in violation in this case. I will also make a finding that the city's recommendation in this case requiring that the fine begin immediately today February 13, 2024, which is the day we are having this hearing and considering the statements of the certified Code Enforcement Officer that it does take a few days before the order comes back and I will also consider the fact that the respondent in this case is a repeat offender so I will find that the fine beginning at the time that the order is signed and executed by this court and begin on the date that the order is signed and will begin immediately will be done so that is what we will order in this case. Anything else in this case, Mr. Smith. AS- no sir RA- okay next case VI. NEW CASES A. Case No. 240117008; Church of God of Prophecy, 102 Northwest 101h Street, Violation of Florida Building Code Chapter 1, Sections 105 Permits, 105.4.1 Permit intent (Exhibit 2). AS- violation of Florida Building Code Chapter 1, Section 105 Permits, Subsection 105.4.1 Permit intent for the applicant altered the scope of work of the original permit application without the building department review and approval and we have the Building Inspector here to testify. RA- okay what is your name sir JN- Jeffery Newell, I am the City's Building Official for the City of Okeechobee RA- okay, Mr. Newell what would you like to say today Page 3 of 8 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 240117008; CONTINUED: JN- that the respondent is in compliance, Anthony and I met him at the property on Monday and he has met our requirements to get back to the proper scope of the permit application. RA- okay thank you Mr. Newell do you have any questions for this witness Mr. Hyden GH- yes, briefly so just to confirm you are implying that the respondent is in compliance with the scope of the open permit. JN- that is correct. GH- nothing further RA- what is the city's recommendation. AS- the city recommends that no action be taken on this matter, but request it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Florida Building Code (FBC) Chapter 1, Section 105 Permits, Subsection 105.4.1 Permit intent from January 2, 2024 until the property came into compliance on February 12, 2024, no Lien/Order was recorded, no fine accrued. RA okay I see that you have conferred with Mr. Newell that the property is now in compliance since you want me to make a finding that they were in violation, I am going to have to ask you to state the facts of the violation. AS- no problem. The respondent is not a repeat violator. On December 5, 2023, the applicant, Pastor Mike Bevis submitted a permit application to add an existing utility structure and enclose the structure. The use as described by the FBC is defined as "Utility and Miscellaneous Group type U. It was discovered on December 4, 2023, during an onsite inspection that the permit applicant had exceeded the scope of work described in the permit application, changing the use from an "Utility use U to an Assembly use A-3. The applicant did not submit any addendum to modify the original permit application to change the scope of work from utility use to assembly use. Changing to assembly use (A-3) requires the submittal of architectural or engineered construction plans due to the life safety design requirements and ADA standards and on a local level, it requires reviews by the City's Technical Review Committee along with a Fire Department review for fire prevention and life safety codes. This action on part of the permit applicant creates a serious liability to the city and to the applicant. On December 5, 2023, Notice of Violation letter was mailed via USPS certified return receipt to the applicant. The notice was received by Debora Bevis on December 11, 2023. On January 18, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith, and City Building Official Jeff Newell inspected the property; non -compliant, advised the property owner Travis Bevis of the violations. Photos in file. Mr. Jeff Newell also advised him what he needed to do to bring the property into compliance (Remove the entire kitchen) and I advised him how much time he had to correct the issues. I Code Officer Smith hand delivered the SOV/NOH for the February 131h Hearing to Travis Bevis. Photo in file of the hand delivery receipt. On February 6, 2024, Code Officer Smith spoke with the City Building Official Jeff Newell who advised that he had not heard anything from Mr. Mike Bevis on the progress of the violation being corrected. On February 12, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith, and the City Building Official Jeff Newell inspected the property, in compliance, the property owner removed the kitchen and the plumbing to the satisfaction of Mr. Newell. On February 13, 2024, a Compliance Letter was mailed via USPS regular mail. The City recommends no action on this matter, but request it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Florida Building Code (FBC) Chapter 1, Section 105 Permits, Subsection 105.4.1 Permit intent from January 2, 2024, until the property came into compliance on February 12, 2024, no lien/order was recorded, no fine accrued. RA- so I have a quick question, so Mr. Newell so what they basically had was a permit for specific purpose, but they did something more JN- what he was permitted for was a utility building for storage, workshop, and those kind of things but what he did was turn it into a fellowship hall and that turned it into an assembly classification and there is a lot of safety issues, you have to have architectural drawings, it is far more complicated than just a utility building, so he had to get back in line with just utility use, which he has done RA- okay, I understand it now, thank you very much. Is there anything Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- I will make a finding in this case of the City of Okeechobee v. Church of God of Prophecy, Case No. 240117008; that the respondent in this case was cited for FBC Chapter 1, Section 105 Page 4 of 8 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 240117008; CONTINUED: Permits, Subsection 105.4.1 Permit intent the respondent altered the scope of the work without the building department approval. Based on the testimony and exhibits presented by the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith I will make a finding that there is sufficient factual basis for the allegations in this case and even though the respondent did come into compliance by correcting the issues and by having the Building Official and Code Officer Smith conduct a final inspection of the property and they recognized that the property has come into compliance. I will follow the city's recommendation in this case that even though no further action in this case it will be noted for the record to have been in violation of Florida Building Code Chapter 1, Section 105 Permits, Subsection 105.4.1 Permit intent from January 2, 2024 until the property was brought into compliance on February 12, 2024, no lien/order recorded, no fine accrued. Anything else on this one Mr. Smith. AS- no sir RA- okay next case B. Case No. 231025003; Timothy Lee Thomas, 809 Northeast 51h Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 3). AS- deferring case to a future hearing to allow the probate case to be resolved. C. Case No. 240109004; 1012 Parrott LLC, 1012 South Parrott Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence (Exhibit 4). AS- violation of Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence for using multiple recreational vehicles as residences. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on November 2, 2023, via Courtesy Card. On November 13, 2023, the property owner came into the office and spoke with Code Officer Smith and advised that he was going to get the property into compliance. He asked if he could have more time to get the people living in the RV a place to stay. He also stated that he was going to email his contact information and that he would keep the office updated with the progress. On January 8, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; non -compliant, one RV has been removed from the property, however one remains. It has power hooked up to it, sewage lines running from it and there is a makeshift sidewalk in front of the trailer. Photos in file. On January 10, 2024, SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinance mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the February 13th Hearing. The notice was received by J. Bonet on January 13, 2024. On January 29, 2024, the property owner came by and advised Code Officer Smith that the last RV on the property had been sold and would be removed from the property the next day. I advised him that I would inspect the property on Wednesday the 315t for compliance. On January 31, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; in compliance, all the RV's have been removed off the property. Photos in file. Case Closed. On February 7, 2024, Compliance Letter mailed out via USPS regular mail. The City recommends no action on this matter, but request it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence from November 2, 2023, until the property came into compliance on January 31, 2024, no lien/order was recorded, no fine accrued. RA- anything you would like to add on behalf of the city Mr. Hyden GH- no sir thank -you. RA- Mr. Smith you took all these photos. AS- yes, I did RA- they actually represent the conditions of the property at the time they were taken. AS- yes, that is correct RA- I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee v. 1012 Parrott LLC, Case No. 240109004 the respondents in this case were cited for violation of Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence for having multiple recreational vehicles being used as residences, and I will make a finding in the case that the respondent was properly served and were aware of this violation and today's hearing. I will also make a finding that by examination of the exhibits presented and the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith there is sufficient factual basis for the allegations in this case. By examining the photos, I do see on the property Page 5 of 8 VI. NEW CASES CONTINUED C. Case No. 240109004; CONTINUED: what looks like multiple RV's being used on the premises therefore there is factual basis for the allegations, and I will make a finding even though the respondents did come into compliance on January 31, 2024, they were in violation since November 2, 2023, and we will note for the record that the respondent was in violation until they came into compliance on January 31, 2024 and no further action. Anything else in this case, Mr. Smith. AS- no sir RA- okay, next case VII. FINE REDUCTIONS REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 221221016; 130 Palm Beach Properties LLC c/o Betty Khan, Northwest 111h Street, 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 weeds, grass, bushes, shrubs, or trees. The respondent is not a repeat violator. On January 9, 2024, the case was presented to the Special Magistrate, the city recommended in accordance with Ordinance No. 1274 a fine reduction of 50%, plus a $50.00 administrative fee, reducing the fine from $8,300.00 to $4,150.00 plus the $50.00 administrative fee, totaling $4,200.00. The case was deferred until the next hearing to allow the property owner an opportunity to speak with Code Enforcement about lowering the fine and to work out a payment arrangement. On January 10, 2024, received an email from Betty Khan requesting that the fine be reduced from 50% to 20%. On January 11, 2024, Code Officer Curl emailed Mrs. Khan to advise her that the city stands behind its recommendation of 50%, however a 12-month payment plan of $350.00 per month was offered. SOV/NOH emailed to Mrs. Khan for the February 13, 2024, Hearing. On January 12, 2024, received an email from Mrs. Khan asking for the necessary paperwork for the payment plan. She was advised that once the Magistrate makes the final ruling that we would have her sign a payment plan agreement. The City recommends in accordance with Ordinance No. 1274 a fine reduction of 50% plus a $50.00 administrative fee, reducing the fine from $8,300.00 to $4,150.00 plus the $50.00 administrative fee, totaling $4,200.00. A payment plan of $350.00 is due by the 15th of each month until the lien balance is paid in full. RA- okay Mrs. Khan, I see that you are here, what would you like to tell me today. BK- I would like to reiterate that I was never served, and as soon as I got the email from Mrs. Christina, I got the property into compliance. I heard you ask a question on the previous case if they ever tried to know if I was around. I was out of the country, I was going through a divorce, which is a tough time, and the property was just grass it wasn't detriment to anyone, it wasn't horrible, and no one could have gotten hurt, it was just grass, and as soon as I found out I took care of it. I shouldn't have had a fine because as soon as I heard about it, I took care of it, and that is when I got regular mail to my mailbox. I live on busy street and so when the mailman comes, he is not able to come to my house because I have a guard dog, I have a German Sheppard so that no one comes on my property and so there was no way for him to serve me or give me that. So, I wasn't aware of any of it and as soon as I found out I tried to take care of it immediately, I am very compliant, and I don't see why I have to pay for that and as I mentioned before I have three children to take care of. RA- I am going to ask the attorney if he has any questions for the record. GH- not any questions but to note that the city ordinances lay out what fine reductions can occur, the amount they can occur, and grounds for those fine reductions. The city's fine reduction is in compliance with the ordinance in terms of the amount that can be granted, so we stand by that particular amount and that the magistrate is also bound by the ordinance by the maximum amount that a fine can be reduced RA- okay, thank you Mr. Hyden. I remember our hearing last time and I told you to take some time to see if you could work something out with Code Enforcement, and it looks like based on the testimony of Mr. Smith they are not reducing it any further as they fill like they have reduced it a significant amount and I will get to that point. Even though they have reduced it by 50 percent they are offering you a payment plan in this case of $350.00 a month until it is paid off. You have Page 6of8 VII. FINE REDUCTIONS REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 221221016; CONTINUED: stated the same reasons for me since the last time when I ruled that unless there was any type of work out that I was not looking or leaning towards any further reduction and I would also like to add to the record the reason why because I have been doing this for a while, and outside of here I am also an attorney and I really like to hear from people to give me a compelling reasons why I should further reduce your lien, and I am a neutral magistrate in this case and I make the decisions based on the law and based on the evidence. First of all, you stated that BK- one more reason RA- okay go ahead BK- tomorrow is Valentine's Day RA- I appreciate that I am also married, you told me that you got divorced, a lot of people get divorced, but you are still responsible for your property, because a person gets divorced it does not necessarily relieve them of their duties or responsibilities. We did have a final hearing on this case previously finding you in violation and I did find that because the law only requires that the property is properly posted and that the city code enforcement officer has made sufficient efforts under the law to notify of the violation and in this case there was posting at the City Hall and the property and that is all that is required, they are not required to find you and personally serve you, so I have to make a finding because that is what the law requires and I cannot make them more responsible then what the law requires and the attorney has argued that and I am familiar with it so I have to make a finding that you were properly served and you were in violation and the fine was assessed. BK- one more thing RA- I am already making my ruling. Ultimately you were out of the country, and I know you went through a bad divorce, and I am super sorry for that, and lots of people go through tough times in their marriage, I have been married for 20 years, so I know how difficult it can be and how much work it is to be married, and also raise teenagers, I have two teenagers myself and you have two strapping boys with you here today, and I can appreciate that and I hope they are doing everything they can to help you. I want to mention this because I didn't last time, I am familiar with city code and know the laws, the city can actually fine you up to $250.00 per day, but they didn't do that they gave you $50.00 per day. So that was already a substantial break. So, when you got fined $50.00 per day and they never heard from you and your fine accumulated to $8,300.00 they still reduced it by 50 percent and dropped it down to $4,200.00 and on top of that you could have been made to pay it immediately plus interest and fees but they didn't do that, they are now giving you $350.00 a month to pay it and I have not heard any additional reasons from you to reduce it any further and give you any more consideration in this case, so I find that this is really reasonable, and you need to work with them and follow this through. So, I have to impose this as it is very reasonable on behalf of the city and I cannot find any more reason to give you more of a break, and they are bending over backwards. BK- even though I was not served RA- yes, you were not personally served. But the law only requires that they post the property and that they post City Hall. Because this is your property, and you are responsible for monitoring your property. BK- I don't live in the county RA- yes, even if you don't live in the county and the law only requires that they post the property and City Hall, I cannot do more than what the law requires so I have to make a finding for that. I know you have a certain right to appeal against it to circuit court, but I cannot find any other reasons to reduce it any further because the city's recommendation in this case if very reasonable. You have to make arrangements to pay the $350.00 because you own property in Okeechobee and the city has it direct. BK- I can appeal it correct RA- correct, you can certainly appeal against it with the circuit court if that is what you want to do. I wish you the best of luck and hopefully you can take care of the situation. Go ahead and meet with them and take care of it. Anything further Mr. Hyden. GH- no sir RA- anything else Mr. Smith Page 7 of 8 VII. FINE REDUCTIONS REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 221221016; CONTINUED: AS- no sir and that is it RA -what about this case, oh that is the one that was deferred AS- that is correct, that case is deferred VIII. ADJOURN MEETING There being no further business to come before the Special Magistrate, the Hearing was adjourned at 6:38 P.M. BE ADVISED that should you intend to show any document, picture, video, or items (collectively, "materials") to the Special Magistrate in support or opposition to any item on the agenda, a copy of the materials must be provided to the Code Enforcement Secretary for the City's records. You will be required to sign a form certifying that all personal Information has been redacted from the materials you wish to provide. 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 8 of 8