My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CE 06/09/2016 Minutes
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
Advisory Board Minutes
>
Code Enforcement Hearing Minutes
>
CEB Minutes Archives
>
2016 Code Enforcement Minutes
>
CE 06/09/2016 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2016 1:02:22 PM
Creation date
7/28/2016 1:02:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Meeting Type
Regular
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
6/9/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MSI has been mowing the property but has not done any further action. Court records do not show PNC has <br />taken over; this is still in the property owner's name, as listed on the Seminole County Property Appraiser <br />website. The City was now going to pursue the code compliance cases. <br />fhe Special Magistrate called to the audience for the property owner or representative for 400 Hibiscus Rd. <br />There was no one present. <br />The Special Magistrate advised that for the record the following Findings of Fact were all for 400 Hibiscus Rd. <br />Finding of Fact- Based on the testimony, photographs and other evidence entered into this case CE -15-01181, <br />General maintenance, ULDR Section 3-10.3, it was found that the property 400 Hibiscus Rd is in violation that <br />Section. It was ordered that the property come into compliance by June 23, 2016, if there is no compliance by <br />that date a $50.00 fine per day for every day of non-compliance will be imposed. <br />Finding of Fact- Based on the testimony, photographs and other evidence entered into this case CE -15-01224, <br />Accessory structure maintenance, ULDR Section 3-10.3 A(6), it was found that the property 400 Hibiscus Rd is <br />in violation that Section. It was ordered that the property come into compliance by June 23, 2016, if there is no <br />compliance by that date a $50.00 fine per day for every day of non-compliance will be imposed. <br />Finding of Fact- Based on the testimony, photographs and other evidence entered into this case CE -15-01225, <br />Overgrown, trash & debris and/or dead tree(s) or limbs, ULDR Section 3-10.3.(C)(1), it was found that the <br />property 400 Hibiscus Rd is in violation that Section. It was ordered that the property come into compliance by <br />June 23, 2016, if there is no compliance by that date a $50.00 fine per day for every day of non-compliance will <br />be imposed. <br />NEW CASES <br />r'ence erected without permit; ULDR Section 2-7.10(A) <br />® CE -16-00093 55 N Winter Park Dr <br />Mark Campbell, Lead Code Compliance Officer read the case history into record, case number CE -16-00093, <br />violation address 55 N Winter Park Dr, violation fence erected without permit; ULDR Section 2-7.10(A) a <br />metal gate and fence on this property was installed without a permit. Notification date April 7, 2016, correction <br />date requested April 27, 2016 (non-compliant), hearing notice date May 19, 2016. Property posted/served May <br />19, 2016 (posted). Correction date requested June 8, 2016 (non-compliant). The property was found to be Non - <br />Compliant on June 8, 2016; the City requests a $50 per day fine if there is no compliance by August 10, 2016. <br />The Special Magistrate viewed photos provided in the PowerPoint presentation. <br />The Special Magistrate called to the audience for the property owner of 55 N Winter Park Dr. The owner- was <br />present. <br />Heather Bowles, 55 N Winter Park Dr, advised that she put in all the paperwork and she also had a death in the <br />family. <br />The Special Magistrate asked Ms. Bowles if acknowledged that the fence was built without a permit. <br />Ms. Bowles stated yes. <br />fhe Special Magistrate asked Ms. Bowles, so she had no real dispute with the City's case, it's that time is <br />needed to come into compliance. <br />31 Page <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.