Loading...
2024-03-12 Handwritten MinutesCITY OF OKEECHOBEE CODE ENFORCEMENT MARCH 12, 2024, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING 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 March 12, 2024, at 6:03 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. 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 February 13, 2024 Minutes. B. This being a Quasi- Judicial proceeding, Special Magistrate Azcona collectively administered an Oath to Code Officers Smith, and Curl, Mr. Steve Dobbs, Ms. Ruby Minton, and Mr. Ricardo Lane. V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS A. Case No. 230719011; Blue Spring Holdings LLC, Northwest 9th 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, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having a vacant lot with overgrown grass, weeds, bushes, or shrubs, and trees. The respondent is a repeat violator, previous Case #191115015, in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On September 12, 2023, the Case was presented to the Special Magistrate, found in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification and imposed a fine of $100.00 per day plus a one-time $100.00 administrative fee to begin 21 days after the date of this Hearing, unless the property owner brings the property into compliance on or before that date. On September 14, 2023, the Lien/Order was mailed via USPS certified return receipt. The notice was returned, undeliverable, on October 26, 2023. On October 3, 2023, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; still non -compliant, overgrown grass still above 24 inches in height. The Lien/Order was recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court, File #2023011476, Page(s):1. The recorded Lien/Order was mailed via USPS certified return receipt, it was returned, unable to forward on November 2, 2023. On October 26, 2023. I, Code Officer Smith posted the property Page 1 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 230719011; CONTINUED: and the public notices board at City Hall with the recorded Lien/Order. On January 17, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; still non- compliant, overgrown grass and weeds. Photos in file. A 90-Day Letter was mailed via USPS certified return receipt. The City has not received the return receipt card back. USPS tracking details placed in the file that show that the notice was left with an individual on January 20, 2024 at 11:03 am. On January 23, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Gad stating that he received the 90-Day Letter, however he was not aware that there was a lien on the property. It was explained to him how the lien came to be. He stated that he would come to the property tomorrow and would like to meet someone there. On January 24, 2024, Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non -compliant all the overgrown vegetation remains. She also met with the property owner, Gad, to show him what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance. Photos in the file. On February 2, 2024, Received an email from Gad stating that the property was in compliance. Email with photos placed in file. On February 6, 2024, the Fine Reduction Application with payment was received. On February 7, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property, in compliance. Photos in the file. Blue Spring Holdings LLC will be credited back to February 2, 2024. Fine accrual grand total of $10,200.00 including the $100.00 administrative fee. Fine accrual began on October 26, 2023, in compliance on February 2, 2024 totaling 100 days. On February 12, 2024, SOV/NOH was mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12, 2024 Hearing. The City has not received the signature card back yet. USPS tracking details placed in the file that show that the notice was delivered, left with an individual on February 15, 2024 at 10:29 am. The City recommends in accordance with Ordinance No. 1274 a fine reduction of 50% plus a $100.00 administrative fee, reducing the fine from $10,100.00 to $5,050.00 plus the $100.00 administrative fee, totaling $5,150.00. RA- I am going to ask the City Attorney Mr. Hyden do you have anything to add on behalf of the city. GH- no sir RA- I have a few questions Mr. Smith, all the photos attached in this violation report did you take them. AS- I took them and Code Officer Curl took some RA- okay, and all the photos represent the condition of the property at the time they were taken AS- that is correct RA- okay CC- your honor we do have someone here today for this case RA- okay, and who do we have here for this case. Please state your name for the record SD- Steve Dobbs, 209 NE 2"d St. I am the consultant for this client. I have a long history of working with the city. I'm having a brain freeze right now, but the previous code officer knew the properties that I managed, and he would just call me up and say hey they need to be mowed and I would go get them mowed. Most recently back to July of 2023 Phil Baughman went out and mowed it. I know that is above and beyond, I know that they are not required to call me to say hey these need to be mowed and I appreciated what they did. I am not sure why the notice didn't get delivered and got sent back to you. My client is trying to develop it and we went back, if I can I have a couple of things I want to show you. RA- yes sir go ahead SD- because I feel like, I mean the property has been vacant for many years. Okay, I pulled these off the property appraisers' website, these are arial views that are available on the property appraisers' website. RA- do you need to see it Mr. Smith AS- no sir SD- this is 2005 you can see what shape it is in RA- okay SD- this is 2014 RA- which one is it, which property SD- this property right here back behind the residents RA- oh okay Page 2 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 230719011; CONTINUED: SD- here is the same photo in 2014 and then in 2019 and then in 2020 he actually cleared the property because he was getting ready to develop it. My question is that there were never any code compliance complaints until 2020 after he cleared it and then it started to grow back. It seems like he is being penalized because he tried to clear it and now, he has just let it grow back. He is trying to keep it clear. When he found out about it, he took care of it immediately. These are just the old ones if you need to keep them you can. AS- yes, we want to put them in evidence SD- okay, this is what I wanted to show you, this is 2020 when it was cleared and then in 2023 obviously it had grown back RA- okay SD- but other than that 2023 doesn't look a whole lot different than 2005 RA- okay how big is this property AS- about 50 acres SD- about 51 acres give or take RA- okay anything else AS- can I say something RA- yes, go ahead, do you need to see these Mr. Smith AS- yes, he is absolutely correct it is 51 acres, but we are not asking him to clear the 51 acres or to keep it clear. All that we are asking for is 30 feet off of the resident's property that is it that is all we are asking for and there is a piece of property when you are coming down the road before you get to the 51 acres that needs to be kept cut as well and that was not being maintained. That is what we are talking about we are not talking about the whole 51 acres SD- oh I agree with you I wasn't trying to apply that. But it just seems like once he cleared it, we got a complaint once he cleared it because all the animals that were on the property came into the neighborhood and all kinds of stuff. Any way just a couple of things and anytime I was ever called it was taken care of and when he found out about it, he took care of it pretty quickly. He is very responsive and all this kind of stuff. He does have someone that will be coming out to mow the 30-feet once a month, so he has that guy scheduled, why he didn't do it before, I don't know AS- okay SD- I am just here asking if there is any mercy in the fee to reduce further it would be appreciated. I am just throwing myself at the court RA- I understand that SD- on behalf of my client, he is a good client, and he pays his bills RA- yes sir and your name again SD- Steve Dobbs RA- Jobs or Dobbs SD- Dobbs RA- Mr. Dobbs I remember you here SD- I have been here before I don't know if it was on this case, but I know it was for this client RA- weren't you here for the previous case SD- I may have been RA- yes, this property is a repeat violator there was a problem back in 2019. Wasn't the previous violation in 2019 AS- yes RA- wasn't it pretty much the say issue AS- the exact same issue RA- okay before I proceed to ask any more questions, I am going to ask the City Attorney Mr. Hyden, do you have any questions for the witness Mr. Dobbs. GH- no sir RA- alright so, other than what you have told me Mr. Dobbs is there anything else you would like for me to consider SD- no I just wanted to bring you those facts, I realize the City Code Enforcement people were being kind when they called me, and I know they were just trying to get it taken care of. I don't know why it didn't happen this time. I know it's not their responsibility and I understand that RA- okay Page 3 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 230719011; CONTINUED: SD- I am not trying to throw shade on any of these people up here, they have a very thankless job and I understand that I am just saying for some reason the communication wasn't there. I don't know if for some reason when they called, I didn't answer. I don't know what happened. I appreciate you guys RA- I have a quick question Mr. Smith CC- your honor may I add something RA- I am going to ask for comments, go ahead Mrs. Curl CC- I just wanted to put it on the record that we did reach out to you in June and July SD- It was cleared in July; I did get an email in July that it had been cut and Phil Baughman called RA- okay let me have her speak and then I will have you respond CC- well no one communicated that with our office, and we kept inspecting the property and it was not in compliance so that is why the case continued SD- if I can RA- okay go ahead SD- maybe that is where the disconnect came, I do have an email, however I did not bring it with me, I do apologize from Phil Baughman that he contacted Code Enforcement and the property had been cleared RA- yes SD- maybe that is where the disconnect came they did reach out to me, and I thought I had taken care of it RA- okay when SD- in June or July RA- okay that was June or July last year SD- last year correct RA- so they got ahold of you last June or July SD- correct RA- that is when you took care of the first violation AS- no, that was that was a different case, June and July is this case RA- okay because this is September AS- June and July is this case CC- that is this case RA- oh it is, so you were made aware of the violation back in June or July SD- I was, but then again CC- I actually called you on June 6m and then received another complaint in July from a property owner there that the property was still overgrown, and nothing had been done. I went back out and inspected the property and it was still in violation. I contacted you again on July 6th reference to it and you stated that you would get it taken care of and we went back out on July 18th and the property was still non -compliant we sent out the SOV/NOH on July 19th as well, then we met with a contractor back in August out there and showed him what needed to be done and still nothing was done. We also talked with Gad who is the actual property owner on August 29th and advised him what needed to be done and he stated he was hiring somebody and still nothing got done. SD- that is where I fell out when I heard he was hiring somebody, and everything was going to be done. I can only represent my client to a certain extent and like I said for years and years the property sat out there in the state it was just in recently and nobody complained and now that it has been cleared now the complaints seem to come and like I said I am trying to give you as much information as I can RA- okay I understand, and I appreciate everything you just said that you are representing your client SD- yeah RA- Mr. Dobbs thank you. I am going to ask Mr. Smith do you have anything else after hearing the testimony of Mr. Dobbs AS- no sir RA- okay I have a quick question Mr. Smith. It says here in your notes that on February 7, 2024 that the property was in compliance, and you noted that Blue Spring Holdings would be credited back to February 2, 2024 Page 4 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 230719011; CONTINUED: AS- right RA- so what does that mean AS- it was a typo, no that wasn't a typo, what happen was RA- so are you crediting him back, what day did the fine start AS- the fine started in October CC- there is a fine accrual sheet in the packet RA- so did you count that AS- it started in October, and it ended on February 2nd we gave him credit back to February 2nd because we did not actually go out and inspect the property until February 7th so I gave him another 5 days that is another $500.00 because we didn't inspect the property till the 7th but the email came in on the 2nd so we gave him credit back to the time of the email because he said it was in compliance on the 2nd and he sent photos on the 2nd but we didn't inspect it till the 7th so we gave him 5 days of credit so that is why I said the 2nd RA- okay so the grand total of $10,200.00 is AS- is up to the 2nd RA- okay, so you did not add the $500.00 so you saved him the $500.00 AS- yes RA- my other question is I know you already have considered a reduction of 50% and giving the property owner a 50% discount which is a substantial amount of dropping it down to $5,000.00 but when you determined to fine him $100.00 per day that is fine that grew to $10,000.00 correct AS- that is correct because he is a repeat violator RA- okay, so you took in the consideration of the previous violation so that is how you came up with the $100.00 per day AS- yes RA- but per the code what is the maximum fine that the City could imposed per day AS- $250.00 per day RA- okay so you did not fine the respondent in this case the maximum amount AS- the maximum, no RA- so you did not fine the maximum amount of $250.00 after he had been found a repeat violator right AS- no RA- so you dropped it down to $100.00 AS- I'm sorry, it's not $250.00 per day it could have been up to $500.00 per day for a repeat violator RA- okay so it could have been up to $500.00 per day for a repeat violator. Okay so do you agree with that Mr. Hyden that the City could have imposed a maximum fine of $500.00 per day in this case GH- yes, I do agree RA- okay so instead of fining the respondent the maximum amount of $500.00 per day you decided to only fine him $100.00 per day AS- yes that is correct RA- okay and what is the City's consideration for allowing you to fine the respondent in this case only a $100.00 per day AS- because the actual fine itself is only $50.00 for the violation and him being a repeat violator I doubled it to $100.00. It is between $50.00 up to $100.00 that he can be fined for the first time around and then the second go around it goes from $50.00 up to $500.00 RA- okay and that is consistent with the City's policy AS- yes, it is consistent with the City's Fine Schedule RA- the City's fine schedule which is already a considerable reduction from the maximum schedule fine AS- yes, it is RA- okay you have already explained that you are not fining the respondent for having to cut and keep the 50 acres clean AS- yes, that is correct. When we had the first case and we discussed it and came to a conclusion on the situation it was only asked the City was only asking that the respondent cut it back the 30 Page 5 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 230719011; CONTINUED: feet to keep it off the people's property because it was encroaching on other people's property because there is a trailer park that is right there in front of it and the high grass was growing onto their property and that is what we were really worried about we weren't worried about the stuff behind it RA- and the property owner was aware of that AS- he was very aware of it CC- your honor would you like a copy of the City's fine schedule RA- yes, that would be great. Mr. Dobbs are you aware of the city's fine schedule SD- I don't know if I have ever seen it RA- okay you can ask for it and they will give you a copy if you would like to see it SD- okay RA- and I see, and I am aware and I just wanted to confirm for the record that the City could of imposed a maximum fine up to $500.00 per day by following the schedule and that they have already given a repeat offender and I will make a finding that the respondent is a repeat violator, and that substantial considerations have been given of $500.00 down to $100.00 and then from there the fine still accrued up to $10,000.00 and that is excluding the credit given for the 5 days and saving them another $500.00 and still with the city generosity is allowing the respondent a 50% discount together with the $100.00 administrative fee. I will find Mr. Dobbs that the 50% reduction is reasonable considering the potential maximum that your client could have been fined under the circumstances, and I certainly hope he does not have a third violation as that could potentially be at the maximum. So I will order that the fine in this is reasonable and that the City has communicated with the owner, and substantial consideration and effort was made to resolve this code violation, I know the City is not out there to make money, but it has to impose some sanctions for the purposes of the statue, and I thank you for being here and I appreciate what you are doing for your client sir. I will order that you or the owner make reasonable efforts to make payment arrangements. SD- okay I will let him know. RA- okay thank you for being here Mr. Dobbs. Anything else on this case Mr. Smith AS- no sir B. Case No. 230918005; Freddie L and Ruby L Minton, 302 Northeast 8th Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district (Exhibit 2). AS- in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles for having several inoperable/abandoned/unlicensed vehicles on the property, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, bushes, or shrubs and trees, and junk/debris all over the property, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, and 54-84 Parking in residential district for a recreational vehicle being used as a residence, without such vehicle stored inside an enclosed garage or other structure or parked on a paved driveway and with maintaining the applicable rear and side yard setbacks. The respondent is a repeat violator, previous Case #220222009, in violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles. On October 10, 2023, the case was presented to the Special Magistrate, found in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district. A fine of $150.00 per day, plus a one-time $100.00 administrative fee imposed to begin 21 days after the date of this hearing pending a re -inspection within 2 days of this hearing. On October 12, 2023, I, Code Officer Smith, and Code Officer Curl inspected the property; still non- compliant, disabled/untagged vehicles in the yard, junk, and debris on the property. Photos in file. Photos emailed to Special Magistrate Roger Azcona to make a ruling on from the October 10th hearing. On October 13, 2023, Received an email from Special Magistrate Roger Azcona confirming his ruling from October 10, 2023 since the property was found to be non -compliant. On October 16, 2023, Lien/Order was mailed via USPS certified return receipt. USPS tracking details placed in the file that shows that the notice was delivered, left with individual on October 18, 2023 at 12:19 pm. On November 6, 2023, Code Officer Smith inspected the property: still non - Page 6 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED B. Case No. 230918005; CONTINUED: compliant, one of the disabled vehicles was removed however others remain. The Lien/Order was recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court, File #2023012654, Page(s):1.On November 7, 2023, the recorded Lien/Order was mailed out via USPS certified mail. The notice was received by Ruby Minton on November 10, 2023. On November 15, 2023, Code Officer Smith inspected the property, in compliance. The vehicle was registered and tagged. Photo of the tag and registration in file. Case Closed. Compliance will be as of 13t' of November 2023. On November 27, 2023, Compliance Letter mailed USPS regular mail with fine balance. Fine Balance is $1,050.00 plus $100.00 administration fee grand total of $1,150.00. On December 11, 2023, a Compliance Letter with fine balance was mailed out via USPS certified return receipt. The notice was received by Ruby Minton on December 14, 2023. On January 4, 2024, a Fine Reduction Application, and the inspection fee of $135.00 received by Code Officer Curl. Placed in file. On February 7, 2024, Code Officer Smith inspected the property, in compliance. Photos in file. On February 13, 2024, SOV/NOH mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12, 2024 Hearing. USPS tracking detail placed in file. The notice was received on February 15, 2024 at 10:18 am, the signature on the signature card was not legible. The City recommends in accordance with Ordinance No. 1274 a fine reduction of 50% plus a $100.00 administrative fee, reducing the fine from $1,050.00 to $525.00 plus the $100.00 administrative fee, totaling $625.00. RA- I would like to ask the City Attorney Mr. Hyden is there anything else you would like to add in this case sir GH- this is for Code Officer Smith, I must have misread the Fine Reduction Application, has the respondent requested a previous fine reduction on this property in a different case AS- yes, she did GH- and was that granted AS- yes it was GH- so this would be the second fine reduction request for this same property or a different property AS- the same property GH- nothing further RA- okay thank you Mr. Hyden. I believe we have Ms. Minton here. Are you comfortable there? What would you like to say on your behalf for this hearing today RM- yes, your honor I am as sorry as I can be I just don't have any help and everything happening at my house from leaks that I didn't know was happening until it was too late, so now I have furniture sitting under my carport until somebody can fix my floors, so senior citizens services is supposed to send me some help, but I don't' know how long that will take and I just want to apologize RA- okay, thank you Ms. Minton. I am going to ask the City Attorney Mr. Hyden do you have any questions for Ms. Minton GH- no sir RA- Mr. Smith, you were the inspector on the previous case AS- yes, I was RA- okay I believe you have done your due diligence in this case by notifying the respondent and they were aware of it and ultimately you made checkups in an attempt to see what you could do to get them into compliance. Was there anything else you could have done in this case, or did you pretty much do everything you could do on your part AS- I exhausted all my means. I spoke with what I believe was the son-n-law that lives there, and I gave them extensions before the fine even started trying to get them to get it into compliance. Because compliance is the number one goal not to fine the people. I never wanted to fine them, and I tried very hard, and I did my due diligence trying to get the property into compliance, but. RA- yes, from what I see it looks like the property was cleaned up and the grass was cut AS- yes RA- I mean how long did it take was it a considerable amount of effort to clean it or could it have been done in one day if they really had to do it AS- to clean it up in one day? I think they could have cleaned it up in one day, but it took her a little time to get the one vehicle registered. Because she had the one vehicle that didn't have a Page 7 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED B. Case No. 230918005; CONTINUED: RA- tag on it and she wanted to keep the vehicle so she had to tag it and get the registration so that took a little time, but to clean it they could have cleaned it way before so it was in partial compliance, but they couldn't complete everything because of the tag issue AS- right RA- okay Ms. Minton was there any particular reason why the tag couldn't have been taken care of as soon as possible RM- yeah, the tag was turned in on my car and the engine does not work on my car, it is a very good car, and just about the time I got the money to fix it something else would come up RA- Mr. Smith and my understanding that this is a repeat violation there was already a previous case. AS- yes sir RA- Is it just the one prior, they just had the one prior to this case or how many offensives have they had, was there anything prior to the last case you have mentioned or just that one that you are aware of AS- I would have to go back in look in our files I do not have any of the previous charges prior to the other case GH- I believe what we said earlier is that there was one prior fine reduction request AS- right GH- there are multiple violation orders, but we know for certain that there is one prior fine reduction request RA- I was just inquiring if there were multiples other than the one mentioned or if there was just the one prior to Mr. Smith AS- multiples violations? RA- yes, dates CC- I think he means multiple cases for violations AS- yes CC- previous to the 2019 case RA- yes, so anyway. Mr. Smith what was the maximum potential fine in this case AS- same as the other case, $500.00 per day RA- okay, so Ms. Minton you are aware because you are a repeat offender could have been up to $500.00 per day, but in this case, they only fined you $100.00 per day with consideration and consistent with the city's fine schedule. They could actually come in here and ask me for a $500.00 per day fine and I would have to actually consider that a legal fine because under statue they are actually able to fine you up to $500.00 per day, and by only fining you $100.00 per day that is really a substantial reduction of the fine, and in this case further they are giving you another 50% from the total fine which has already been substantially reduced bring it down to, what is the city asking for in this case Mr. Smith. AS- $625.00, and the previous fine reduction was 75% RA- 75% AS- on the previous fine reduction RA- do you remember that Ms. Minton, last time you got a 75% discount and this time 50% discount RM- sir I couldn't tell you RA- yes, I was the Magistrate in this case, and he was here, and I remember seeing you here. I feel your situation and I understand you are ultimately the property owner, and the responsibility falls on you, and you must have people take care of things. I understand the Code Enforcement in this case, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Curl have taken considerable effort to make this as reasonable as possible but still had to impose a sanction for the purpose of intent for the code to be enforced. I will make a finding in this case that a fine reduction of 50% reducing the fine to $625.00 including the administrative fee is reasonable and even though I don't want you to write a check for $625.00 if you don't have that kind of money I would like you to make payment arrangements with Code Enforcement to make reasonable payments of what you can afford, even if it just $100.00 a month. Whatever both of you can work out under your circumstances okay. I am neutral in this case, but I have to make a reasonable finding in this case. Okay, thank you Ms. Minton for being here and Page 8 of 19 V. FINE REDUCTION REQUESTS CONTINUED B. Case No. 230918005; CONTINUED: taking care of your property. You will have to find some way to take care of this as soon as possible because repeat offenders if you end up with a third violation. RM- I will take care of it your honor as soon as this is over, I am going to sale it and I am going to rent I am going to rent me an efficiency apartment where I don't have to deal with none of this RA- right you have to take the pressure off of yourself and take care of yourself, wish you the best. Thank you. Do you have anything else to add to this case Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay let's move on VI. REPEAT VIOLATORS A. Case No. 240219005; Sam Lane c/o Richard Roberts, Northwest 10th 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- violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having an inoperable/unregistered vehicle on the property with what looks like someone living in the vehicle with trash and debris around the disabled vehicle and on the property. The respondent is a repeat violator, previous Case #210210008, found in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On February 20, 2024, SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12t' Hearing. The City has not received the SOV/NOH nor the receipt signature card as of the date of this Hearing. On February 22, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith posted the property and the public notices board at City Hall with the Notice to Appear. Photos in file. On March 5, 2024, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; still non- compliant, the disabled vehicle, furniture, and it looks like someone is living in the vehicle. Photos in file. The City recommends in accordance with the City's fine schedule a fine of $100.00 per day, to begin on March 13, 2024, until the property is brought into compliance, plus a $100.00 administrative fee. RA- anything else you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- okay, I am going to ask a few questions, Mr. Smith you took the photos AS- that is correct RA- and they accurately represent the conditions of the property on the date they were taken AS- that is correct as well RA- okay and we have someone here, are you Mr. Lane? Go ahead and come up to the podium and state your name for the record RL- Ricardo Lane RA- and you raised your hand earlier and took the oath RL- no sir RA- okay I am going to swear you in since you are testifying in this case, raise your right hand. Do you swear that all the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God RL- I do RA- okay thank you sir, state your full name for the record RL- Ricardo Lane RA- okay Mr. Lane do you own this property RL- no, my Uncle Sam owns it and I think Mr. Richard is trying to possess it RA- okay, so you are responsible for this property RL- well it just family property RA- okay so it is family property, do you live in it RL- I live in the truck that is on the property RA- oh okay RL- I just fell on hard times I can't keep a job and I don't have nowhere to go; I just need some time to get on my feet, that is all I can do. I don't have anyone in this town Page 9 of 19 VI. REPEAT VIOLATORS A. Case No. 240219005; CONTINUED: RA- okay the violation in this case is a disabled vehicle and someone living in it and some debris, I can see that it is disabled, and it has no current tag, unless you can supply me with a registration at this time RL- I don't, I have to get my license, and get my truck fixed, the truck is fixable I just don't have no way of doing it right now, I don't have a job. I try to keep it neat except when cats or racoons get in the garbage cans and that is pretty much how stuff gets put out on the ground RA- okay and you saw the notice in this case pertaining to the violations because you are living in the car RL- yes, I think I saw it the same day he posted it RA- okay, the problem is that there is obviously a violation in this case, and as the Magistrate Judge in this case it looks like I am going to have to make a finding that there is a code violation because there is factual basis for the violations based on the testimony of Mr. Smith and the exhibits presented what appears to be a disabled vehicle with what appears to be without a tag. Then you obliviously became aware of the violation in this case and up until this day it sounds like the violation has not been corrected because you haven't been able to get it fixed because you have to get your license RL- I didn't know that not having a tag on the truck was a violation, I just found that out. If I could have some more time so I could try to find out how to get my license fixed RA- okay here is the problem the city is now asking me to make a recommendation to me asking me to fine you a $100.00 per day to begin tomorrow AS- Mr. Magistrate we can defer it to the next hearing to give him some more time for him to get his license or find somewhere else for him to park the vehicle and find him somewhere else to live. We can defer it to the next hearing RA- okay, Mr. Lane the city here is giving you substantial consideration for you and what you have heard is that you can be fined up to $500.00 per day and now they are only offering to fine you $100.00 per day that could have been effective tomorrow and they are now giving you another month to fix this problem. I need you to get ahold of him immediately and find some way to correct the violations. Whether it is you finding somewhere else to live or parking the vehicle somewhere else or parking it inside in the garage and it wouldn't be a violation if you are not able to get your driver license at this time. But you have to take care of it, because if the city presents this to me at the next hearing and it presents the way it is right now and they ask me to judicate, in other words to make a determination based on the law and factual basis presented to me at this hearing I have to make a finding and what I am looking at right now you are going to get fined $100.00 per day and that is going to put you in a deeper hole. I hope you can figure something out. Because the city is giving you another chance to correct the violations. Okay so I am going to rule in this case based on the request of the city to defer this to the next hearing. I am going to ask Mr. Hyden do you have anything else for the court on this case GH- not at this time I will wait for the deferred hearing RA- okay thank you sir. Anything else Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- Mrs. Curl CC- no sir RA- Mr. Lane do you understand what you have to do sir RL- yes sir RA- okay, I hope you are able to resolve this case sir, so we will defer this one Mrs. Curl to the next hearing CC- yes sir VII. NEW CASES A. Case No. 240207016; Carl Christian Swope, 1010 Southwest 5th Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles (Exhibit 4). AS- violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles for having two inoperable/unregistered vehicles on the property. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on January 16, 2024, via Courtesy Card. On January 30, 2024, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; non -compliant, the unregistered/inoperable vehicles remain. Page 10 of 19 VI1. NEW CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 240207016; CONTINUED: Photos in file. On January 31, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from Carl Swope the property owner. He stated that he had just gotten out of the hospital and received our notice, and the violations should be corrected within 2 weeks. On February 7, 2024, SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinance were mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12th Hearing. The notice was received by Judy Swope on February 13, 2024. On February 26, 2024, Mr. Carl Swope called in and spoke to Code Officer Smith and asked what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance. I advised him to move the remaining vehicle to concrete pad on the property and register the vehicle. Mr. Swope advised that it was his renters and that he would contact them to correct the issues. On March 1, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from the tenant, Kaylee Alvarado, who asked why the vehicle could not just be turned around where we could not see the tag. She was advised that within the city limits no person shall allow any disabled vehicle to be placed or remain on such property unless such vehicle is within a completely enclosed building or is on the premises of an automotive repair or storage business for which the owner of the business has a current city occupational license and zoning approval. She asked for a copy of the ordinance to be emailed to her at zacharyblaise05(a-)-gmail.com. Email sent to Kaylee Alvarado. On March 5, 2024, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; in compliance, disabled vehicles removed from the property. Photos in file. Case Closed. on March 6, 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 30 Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles on January 10, 2024 until the property came into compliance on March 5, 2024, no lien/order was recorded, no fine accrued. RA- so they think you can just turn it around so you can't see the tag AS- I agree with you sir RA- do you have any further questions or anything to add in this case Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee v. Carl Christian Swope, Case #240207016 based on the exhibits presented and the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith the respondent was cited for violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles for having two inoperable/unregistered vehicles on the property and based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer there is plenty of factual basis for the allegations. Mr. Smith, did you take the photos in this case? AS- that is correct RA- and they accurately represent the conditions of the property on the dates shown in these pictures AS- that is correct RA- and I will also make a finding in this case based upon the exhibits presented was look like a picture of what looks like two vehicles without tags one is a black sedan and one is a light brown vehicle and no tags visible in this case and even though the respondents did take care of the violation and came into compliance, they were in violation up until they came into compliance on March 5, 2024. So, I will make a finding that the respondents were in violation from January 10, 2024, until March 5, 2024 and we will note for the record that even though there is no further action they were in violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles, no lien/order recorded and no fine accrued. Anything else in this case, Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay next case B. Case No. 240207017; Sylvia Ingersoll and Manolo Anuez, 300 Southwest 215t Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles (Exhibit 5). AS- violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles for having several inoperable/abandoned/unlicensed vehicles on the property. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on January 18, 2024, via Courtesy Card. On January 26, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Sylvia Ingersoll, 863-227- 6007, stating that they just received the notice in the mail yesterday, and one vehicle has been removed. She was advised to contact us once she has all the vehicles removed, then we will complete a compliance inspection. On February 1, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the Page 11 of 19 VI1. NEW CASES CONTINUED B. Case No. 240207017; CONTINUED: property; non -compliant, unregistered/inoperable vehicle remains. Photo in file. On February 7, 2024, SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinance were mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12th Hearing. Signature card and tracking details placed in the file. The notice was received on February 10, 2024 at 3:06 pm, the signature on the signature card was not legible. On February 16, 2024, Received an email from Sylvia Anuez sending a copy of the updated registration for the car under the carport on the property. On February 19, 2024, 1 Code Officer Smith responded to Mrs. Sylvia Anuez that she needed to resend the registration due to the fact I was unable to open the file. Mrs. Anuez re -sent the registration via email. On February 20, 2024, After opening the file, it was the title to the vehicle not the registration. I Code Officer Smith spoke with Mrs. Anuez and explained that I need a copy of the registration. She advised me that as soon as her son gets home today, she would send me a copy. On February 22, 2024, Received an email with a copy of the registration and the tag for the remaining car on the property. Photos and email in the file. In compliance. Case Closed. On March 6, 2024, Compliance Letter sent 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 30 Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles on January 17, 2024 until the property came into compliance on February 22, 2024, no lien/order was recorded, no fine accrued. RA- do you have any further questions or anything to add in this case Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee v. Sylvia Ingersoll and Manolo Anuez, Case #240207017 1 will make a finding in this case that the respondents were cited for Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles for having several inoperable/abandoned/unlicensed vehicles on the property, and based on the testimony and the exhibits presented by the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith there is sufficient factual basis for the allegations and the respondents were also properly notified per statue and responded to the violation and made actions to correct the violation in this case. Based on the exhibits presented in this case I can see that there are inoperable/unlicensed vehicles in the photos, and it is consistent with what looks like the vehicles have been parked for a while and visibly there are no tags on the vehicles. I will follow the city's recommendation even though the owner did come into compliance they were in violation from January 17, 2024, until they came into compliance on February 22, 2024, and even though no further action be taken in this matter it will be noted for the record that they were in violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles, and no lien/order recorded, no fine accrued. Anything else on this case Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay next case C. Case No. 240208005; Anne M. Land, 500 Northwest 16t' Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district, Chapter 58, Section 58-72(a) Use of public sewers required (Exhibit 6). AS- violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having an inoperable/untagged vehicle, junk/debris all over the property, tires stacked in the front of the house, overgrown weeds/bushes. Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in a residential district for a recreational vehicle being used as a residence and being parked or stored in a residential area without being stored inside an enclosed garage or other structure or parked on a paved driveway or parked to the side or rear of the principal structure. Chapter 58, Section 58-72(a) Use of public sewers required for the raw septic waste from the RV being dumped onto the grass, road, and adjacent ditch with a strong urine/feces' odor in the area. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on February 8, 2024 in person. On February 8, 2024, Code Officer Curl spoke with the property owner, Anne M. Land, contact #478-397-6340 and advised her that she had 24 hours to have the waste from the RV properly cleaned and that she would be notifying the Health Department of her findings. I also advised her that she would be given additional time to take care of the other violations, however the waste from the RV had to be taken care of immediately as that is a health and safety matter and Code Officer Curl would be back tomorrow to do another Page 12 of 19 VII. NEW CASES CONTINUED C. Case No. 240208005; CONTINUED: inspection. She stated that her son is the one staying in the RV. She advised her that no one could reside in an RV within the City limits temporarily or permanent and gave her a copy of the city ordinances and my business card and informed her that if the waste was not properly cleaned that the case would go before the Special Magistrate on Tuesday, February 13, 2024. Voicemail left and email with photos sent to Kathy Shorter, Environmental Specialist II with the Okeechobee County Florida Department of Health to advise her of the findings of the raw sewage being dumped from the RV at this residence. Received an email from Kathy Shorter stating that if the issue is not resolved in the time given, they would step in if needed and if it was a large amount a company may have to clean it. If not, they would need to lime the area and if it happens again, they will be fined by them. Email chain was placed in the file. On February 9, 2024, Code Officer Curl inspected the property and found the property to be non -compliant, there was still some toilet paper on the ground near the camper and near the adjacent ditch along with the odor, and the RV still appeared to be occupied, however some progress had been made, most of the area by the RV and the road had been cleaned. Code Officer Curl advised Ms. Land that her son needed to clean up the remainder of the waste and to spread some lime in the area to take care of the odor and she would be back by Monday to inspect the property. Photos in the file. On February 9, 2024, a SOV/NOH and city ordinances hand delivered to Anne Land for the February 13, 2024 Hearing. Hand delivery receipt signed and placed in the file along with Ms. Land's photo ID. On February 12, 2024, Code Officers Curl and Smith inspected the property and found the property to be non -compliant, the untagged vehicle, overgrown weeds and some junk/debris remain; however, some progress has been made with the removal of the RV, the cleaning of the raw sewage and the removal of the tires and some junk/debris. Photos in file. I Code Officer Curl spoke with the property owner, Ms. Land and advised her that the case would not go before the magistrate on February 13, 2024 as progress has been made and she would receive another notice in the mail giving her until the next hearing to bring the rest of the violations into compliance. Email sent to Kathy at the Health Department letting her know that the raw sewage had been cleaned up and the RV was removed from the property. On February 12, 2024, an SOV/NOH was mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12, 2024 Hearing. Code Officer Curl hand delivered the SOV/NOH to the property owner, on February 27, 2024. Signed hand delivery receipt placed in the file. On February 27, 2024, Code Officer Curl inspected the property, still non -compliant, the untagged vehicle remains. However, a lot of progress has been made with the removal of the RV, the cleaning of the raw sewage, the removal of the tires and overgrown vegetation. Photos in file. On March 4, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from the property owner, Anne Land, who stated that they are waiting on the paper title for the car and then they will be able to get the car registered hopefully by the end of the week. Code Officer Curl told her that she should be fine and to let us know once it is completed. On March 5, 2024, 1 Code Officer Smith inspected the property still non -compliant, however the property has been completely cleaned up. The only issue remaining is the unregistered vehicle. Photos in file. To comply with City ordinances, the homeowner needs to register and tag the vehicle or remove the vehicle from the property. The City recommends that the respondent be found in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district, Chapter 58, Section 58-72(a) Use of public sewer required. But no further action at this time to give the respondent additional time to receive the hard copy of the title to complete the sale of the car. RA- do have anything to add on behalf of the city Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- Mr. Smith you took the photos AS- no sir they were taken by Code Officer Curl RA- okay, Mrs. Curl you took these photos CC- yes sir RA- these photos have dates and they accurately represent the conditions of the property at the time they were taken CC- yes, they do Page 13 of 19 VII. NEW CASES CONTINUED C. Case No. 240208005; CONTINUED: RA- okay I have a quick question on the recommendation of city Mr. Smith. It looks like based on the city's recommendation you want me to find them in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district, and Chapter 58, Section 58-72(a) Use of public sewer required but you don't' want any further action at this time. So, do you want me to find them in violation and defer the last matter in question? AS- yes, defer the lien/order RA- okay, so no fines. But you still want me to find them in violation of what has already been corrected AS- yes RA -okay, I agree AS- she had one more thing that needed to be corrected, the removal of the car or to get a tag for the car and that is the part I want to defer RA- okay sounds good, so we are bringing it back AS- yes RA- so we are not bringing it back if she gets it corrected AS- we are bringing it back because we are going to note that she got it corrected RA- so either way you are bringing it back AS- yes RA- okay, in this case I will make a finding in this case of the City of Okeechobee v. Anne M. Land, Case #240208005 that the respondent was cited for violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30- 41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district, Chapter 58, Section 58-72(a) Use of public sewers required. The respondent in this case violated for having inoperable/untagged vehicle, junk/debris all over the property, tires stacked in the front of the house, overgrown weeds/bushes. A recreational vehicle being used as a residence and being parked or stored in a residential area without being stored inside an enclosed garage or other structure or parked on a paved driveway or parked to the side or rear of the principal structure and raw septic waste from the RV being dumped onto the grass, road, and adjacent ditch with a strong urine/feces' odor in the area. Based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith and the exhibits presented and the testimony of Mrs. Curl. I will make a finding that there is sufficient factual basis for the allegations in this case. When I look at the exhibits in this case I see pictures of overgrown grass and weeds that looks like they haven't been kept for months, what looks like junk/debris all over the property and I see the RV parked on the property and it looks inoperable and untagged, also there is a vehicle and trash and debris everywhere, and I can see what looks like the sewage being dumped in the ditch, you can see what appears to be toilet paper and sewage on the premises and based on what it looks like I will make a finding in this case that the code has been violated even though the property owners did come into compliance with some of the violations I will make a finding based on the recommendation of the city that the respondent be found in violation for the statues cited in this case Chapter 30, Section 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Sections 54-81 Use as a residence, 54-84 Parking in residential district, Chapter 58, Section 58-72(a) Use of public sewers required for the purposes of the record we will find them in violation there will be no additional action in this matter because the city has requested that the respondent be given additional time to receive the hard copy of the title to complete the sale of the vehicle. So, we will defer the matter to the next hearing. Anything else Mr. Smith? AS- no sir RA- Mrs. Curl anything else on this one CC- no sir RA- okay, next case Page 14 of 19 VII. NEW CASES CONTINUED D. Case No. 240215002; Kerri Michael Othmer and Tammy Lynn Hogaboam, 1109 Northwest 9t' Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence, Chapter 70, Section 70-251 Permit required (Exhibit 7). AS- violation of Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence and Chapter 70, Section 70-251 Permit required for a recreational vehicle being used as a residence and a shed being placed on the property and also being lived in as well. The permit (#23-07-276) was left open due to no final inspection, so the permit has expired. (7.11.23 to 1.8.24). Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass and weeds in need of being cut. The respondent is not a repeat violator. The respondent was first notified on January 15, 2024 via Courtesy Card. On January 29, 2024, Kerri Othmer called into the office and Spoke with Code Officer Smith, and she was advised of the violation on the property. She advised that she was at the building department at City Hall getting the permit for the shed and setting an inspection for the fence. She was also advised that she can't live in the RV nor the shed. She asked if she could camp on the property and was advised that she could not camp or live on the property at any time. Once she gets the permits and stops living on the property, the property will be in compliance. On February 12, 2024, Code Officer Smith and Curl inspected the property; still non -compliant, still evidence that someone is living in the RV and the shed. After speaking with Theresa Forde, the Administrative Assistant with the City Building Department, no permit has been issued for the shed. There is a sewage line running from the RV. Progress was made with the vegetation being cut. Photos in file. On February 15, 2024, a SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinance mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the March 12t' Hearing. USPS tracking details placed in the file. The notice was received by Mary Beth Hogaboam on February 20, 2024 at 11:37 am. On March 5, 2024, I, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; non -compliant, evidence remains that the shed is still being lived in picnic table, chairs, and a hanging plant. Photos in file. On March 6, 2024, Code Officer Curl spoke with Keli, the Administrative Secretary for the General Services, Building & Zoning Department, who stated that Permit #24-02-045 was issued for a shed, but no final inspection had been called in as of today and if the property does not have an existing structure before placing the shed, then the shed should not be there without one. Permit placed in the file. Code Officer Smith spoke with the City Building Official Jeff Newell, and he advised me that the permit for the shed was issued in error and that he will have to revoke the permit. To comply with City ordinances, property owners need to complete the permit process for the structure and use the structure for what it is intended. The City recommends that the respondent be found in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence, Chapter 70, Section 70-251 Permit required. But no further action at this time and to defer the ruling to the next scheduled hearing to allow the City Building Department to complete the permitting process. RA- Mr. Hyden, do you have any questions or anything you would like to add GH- no sir RA- okay I have a few questions. Mr. Smith, I understand that you, and Mrs. Curl went to the property and cited the respondents in this case for living in an RV as a residence. You said that there were chairs outside and stuff hanging outside AS- yes hanging plants and chairs, like they had turned it into a residence like someone lived there RA- other than that was there anything else that lead you to believe that they were actually living in the residence AS- like I said also there was a sewer line running from the bottom of the trailer and it wasn't running to nowhere RA- okay AS- so they were using that to use the bathroom RA- did you actually see them use the bathroom AS- no I didn't see them use the bathroom, but the line was running from up under the trailer and I have a photo of that RA- okay, so other than that what lead you to believe they were living in it Page 15 of 19 VII. NEW CASES CONTINUED D. Case No. 240215002; CONTINUED: AS- we had County Code Enforcement Officers ride by saying there were people sitting outside in the picnic area and in the evenings, at night and in the mornings and vehicles parked up there like they were parked by the house. They were sitting up there picnicking and having a good time RA- okay, let me ask Mrs. Curl did you make any other observations in this particular location that would lead you to believe that someone was living inside the RV CC- I road by several times on the weekends and there were people out RA- you saw people outside the camper CC- yes, they were outside the camper, with the door open, around the picnic area with the umbrellas open RA- okay I guess for finding factual basis in this case just because you have something hanging out or something hanging on the table or chairs outside or the sewer coming out of the bathroom it still does not prove that someone was living there. Did you ask them if they were living there AS- I was advised that someone was living there. The case was brought to me by the County Code Enforcement and like I said they have to ride by there every day to get to the office and they would see people, just like she said she would see people sitting outside and, in the trailer, and sitting around having a good time like she said RA- okay Mrs. Curl did you ever ask the people if they were living there AS- I never got the opportunity to, but I did speak with the lady on the phone, and I told her that she could not live in it and then she asked if she couldn't live in it could she camp on the ground RA- oh okay AS- so I was no you can't do that either RA- okay, Mr. Hyden is there anything you want to add in this case to help me make a determination for the city GH- yes, just to clarify, Code Officer Smith, you were notified by the County Code Enforcement Officer that someone was living in the shed and to also to support that someone was living in the shed, she leads you to believe that someone was living in the shed because she asked if she could not stay in the shed or RV if she could camp on the grounds AS- that is correct GH- nothing further RA- okay, I will make a finding in this case that based on the allegations in this case based that a statement that someone made a complaint that said that someone is living there that would be hearsay, however if you spoke with the respondent and she said that if I can't live there can I camp there then that would be considered an omission to some degree because that tells me she is living there because she is asking if she can't live there can she camp there so, that would suffice for the purposes of this hearing for the allegations in this case, just because somebody is hanging a plant outside or a picnic table outside does not mean they are living there. But based on the omission the respondent I will make a finding that the respondent is living there in a RV and based on the testimony of Mrs. Curl on her observations and considering the circumstances in this matter I will make a finding that the respondent seems to be living on the property in a RV and in the case of the City of Okeechobee v. Kerri Michael Othmer and Tammy Lynn Hogaboam Case #240215002 that the respondents in this case were cited for violation of Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence and Chapter 70, Section 70-251 Permit required for a recreational vehicle being used as a residence and a shed being placed on the property and being lived in as well without a permit. They were also living in the shed as well. AS- that is the way it looked to me, like I said they had hung plants and all the stuff in front of it RA- okay, Mr. Smith can you provide me with more factual basis that she was actually living in the shed AS- yes, because when she spoke to me, she told me that if she can't live in the shed could she camp there RA- okay, I could see that she could be living in the RV AS- she can't live in an RV either RA- yes, you can AS- no you can't Page 16 of 19 VII. NEW CASES CONTINUED D. Case No. 240215002; CONTINUED: RA- under the code it won't allow her to camp there and put a camper there and live in the camper on the property AS- right RA- but under the circumstances you are also telling me that she is living in the shed and you want me to make a finding that she is living in the shed AS- no the shed, she put the shed on the property without a permit RA- okay AS- during the permit process in order for you to put a shed on a property you have to have a main structure like a home RA- okay AS- and she don't have that either it was just a vacant lot, and they just stuck this stuff on there and started staying there RA- oh okay AS- so that was the problem. The shed did not have a permit. It is not permitted RA- okay so are you asking me to find her in violation of living in a shed or having a shed without a permit AS- shed without a permit and living in the RV RA- okay, got it. Now that is clarified. I will make a finding in this case that there is factual basis in this case that the respondent is in violation of having a shed on the property without a permit and is subject to a future inspection and I will also make a finding that based on the allegations of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass and weeds and based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer and after examining the exhibits, I have a quick question Mr. Smith. I am looking at the first set of pictures in this case the ones that were taken at 14:08 and 14:09 there are two similar looking pictures in there containing the RV and you are asking me to make a finding that the respondent is in violation of General cleaning and beautification by having overgrown grass and weeds. When I look at the picture on the top that seems to a be well cut grass I mean lawn, so just need for clarification which one here is the basis for the violations, is it the second picture at the bottom is it still part of the owner's property AS- yes, all the pictures are of the owner's property but let me get to the pictures RA- its this one Mr. Smith AS- okay RA- I just wanted to make sure, there that one AS- okay if you see in the second picture RA- so your violating them for what is in the second picture AS- right, you can see overgrown grass, weeds, and bushes RA- okay I do see some things in there, like the vegetation close to the fence seems to past half of the fence. Then when I look at exhibit 7 pictures what is the nature of the violation that is being portrayed in these pictures AS- which one RA- exhibit 7 AS- it's all exhibit 7, which picture RA- the time stamp is 14:51, 1 am just trying to understand the violation AS- okay that is showing you the RV being parked and it is showing you that the grass had been cut and then you see the second one up under it you see that line right there coming from under the RV that is the sewer line I was telling you about RA- okay, I will make a finding in this case that the respondent is in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for overgrown grass and weeds, I see the exhibits that has grass that looks like it hasn't been cut for a while around the property. I will follow the City's recommendation in this case and find the respondents in this case in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, Chapter 54, Section 54-81 Use as a residence, Chapter 70, Section 70-251 Permit required and even though we take no further action at this time and to defer the ruling to the next scheduled hearing to allow the City Building Department to complete the permitting process and to see if the permit can be issued, so I will make that finding and continue this for Page 17 of 19 VII. NEW CASES CONTINUED D. Case No. 240215002; CONTINUED: further consideration. Anything else on this case Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- anything else you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- okay next case Vill. COMPLIED CASES A. Case No. 240116019; Charles E. Holt, 1010 Southwest 11t' Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 8). AS -He is a repeat violator, previous Case Number 221025009, in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On February 13, 2024, Case was presented to the Special Magistrate, found in violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, and imposed a fine of $100.00 per day plus a one-time administrative fee of $100.00 should the property fail to come into compliance by February 13, 2024. On February 14, 2024, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; in compliance, overgrown vegetation was cut, and the trash removed from the right of way junk/debris was picked up and stored in an organized manner on the property. Photos in file. The property owner was given credit for having the property in compliance on 2.13.24. Lien/Order was not recorded and no fine accrual. Compliance Letter mailed out via USPS regular mail. Case is Closed. The City recommends no action on this matter, but request it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 30 Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification on January 10, 2024 until the property came into compliance on February 14, 2024, no lien/order was recorded, no fine accrued. Compliance Letter was mailed out via USPS regular mail. The case was closed. The City recommends no action on this matter, but request it be noted for the record to have been in violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-40 Junk, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification from January 10, 2024 until the property came into compliance on February 14, 2024, no lien/order recorded, no fine accrued. RA- anything you would like to add on this case Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- Mr. Smith you took the photos in this case AS- yes, I did RA- and the time and date stamps accurately represent the conditions of the property at the time they were taken AS- yes, they do RA- I will make a finding in this case of the City of Okeechobee v. Charles E. Holt, Case No. 240116019 the respondent was cited for 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, and debris all over the property with trailers full of junk and debris. Based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer and the exhibits presented in this case. I will make a finding that there is sufficient factual basis for the allegations by examining the pictures I do see what appears to be overgrown grass, weeds, shrubs and trees on the property, and I do see a picture in here with what seems like trash and debris along the side of the road and a lot of junk being in trailers and everywhere else and there is plenty of evidence to support the allegations Oh we did already make a finding in this case and before they could be find they corrected it AS- correct RA- okay, so no further action be taken in this case and even though the respondent did come into compliance it will be noted for the record that they were already in violation, and they did come into compliance. Anything else Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay Page 18 of 19 IX. ADJOURN MEETING There being no further business to come before the Special Magistrate, the Hearing was adjourned at 7:42 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 19 of 19