CE 10/13/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mark Campbell described photos. Carlos Mike Bauer, part time Lead Code Compliance Officer gave testimony. This case began when a complaint was received for overgrowth on to the sidewalk. The Special Magistrate asked if the property owner was present. The owner was present. Tammy Anders, 313 Secret Way Cir advised that she did not think a standing order was needed on something that can be left to interpretation. She thought 80% cleaned was good and was able to get her sons stroller down. The side one was a little more challenging and it was cleaned up to where she thought it was adequate. Ms. Anders stated she was not aware there was an issue with the fire hydrant being impeded and did not recall reading that in the letters. Once they cleaned up, Ms. Anders though it was adequate. Ms. Anders thought it was misleading that the code and what was said were pretty generic. Mr. Bauer submitted into evidence a letter sent to the owner on September 17, 2014. The Special Magistrate asked if it was brought before him as a case in 2014. The letter has been sent by Public Works. Mr. Bauer added that on June 27, 2016, with regard to the 80% most of the interaction was with Donny, husband of the property. What needed to be done was outlined, to allow for compliance. The sidewalks were walked with Donny who advised that was all he was going to do. It was asked if it was ok if a City crew come in and remedy the situation, Donny said yes. Mr. Bauer advised that the sidewalks need to be free of vegetation. Tammy Anders, 313 Secret Way Cir advised that they are maintaining it to the best of their ability and did not think a standing order was necessary. If the communication is there and given enough notice they would try to comply, the best they can. Mr. Campbell advised that the work that was done was performed by the City Public Works Department; they owners have maintained it since then. The Special Magistrate took note of all photographs and letter dated September 17, 2014. The owner referenced other properties that had problems with obstructing areas of the sidewalk that was not relevant to this case. Part of the issue was safety, safety of other people going through the sidewalk; it needs to be kept clear. This is also a liability issue for the owner. The City is worried about complying with the code and peoples safety. With regard to the letter left in the front yard, the City has to do that. The City has to notify the owner of the potential problem, it's in the laws and why they do it that way. The Right of Way was obstructed and had been a problem in 2014. Given that it took some effort to get this done, found it appropriate to enter a Standing Order to make sure it stays that way Finding of fact -The Special Magistrate made a finding that this case came before the Special Magistrate on October 13, 2016. Based on evidence entered it was found that there was a violation of ULDR Section 3-10.3 C 4, obstructing the Public Right of Way. The violation occurred between June 14, 2016 and July 7, 2016, as of October 13, 2016 the property was no longer in violation and was in compliance. A Standing Order was entered 2 1 P a g e