The City of Newberry special magistrate on Aug. 14, 2025, found the property listed to the estate of Antonio Brown in violation of city code for dangerous buildings, hazardous land and abandoned vehicles and gave the owner 45 days to fence an in-ground pool and resolve two vehicles or face daily fines and possible lien recording.

The finding followed testimony from a city code enforcement officer and statements from Kim Brown, who appeared at the hearing and identified herself as related to the owner. The city presented dated photos and a timeline showing an unsecured in-ground pool and two vehicles on the property at 717 Northwest 250 Third Street. The city’s packet requested prosecution costs of $150 and asked that a $50-per-day assessment begin if the property remained out of compliance.

Why it matters: an unfenced in-ground pool in a residential area is treated as a public-safety hazard by Newberry’s code enforcement process; the magistrate framed the order to give the owner time to comply while making clear the city can recover enforcement costs and record a lien if fines are imposed.

The magistrate reviewed the case history submitted by city staff: the property was inspected as part of a registry of foreclosed or vacant properties, a notice of violation was sent April 25, 2025, and successive reinspection and extension attempts followed. Kim Brown told the magistrate she is handling the property and asked for more time, saying she had spent money on attorneys and that one vehicle had been sold but the other was being refurbished by her son. She said, “I just needed extra time,” and asked for until Sept. 30 to finish work.

The magistrate told Brown he would not cut off testimony but would not allow unnecessary or repetitive statements. He summarized the city’s legal options, noting first-time violators may face smaller fines while repeat violators can be fined up to $500 per day under the statute cited in earlier cases, then set compliance terms: a 45-day cure period from the hearing date and a $50-per-day assessment thereafter. He said, “I'm going to issue an order saying that the property is in violation, and we'll give you 45 days,” and warned that fines accrued after that date could be recorded as a lien on the property.

The magistrate also said the city would waive the $150 cost of prosecution if the property was brought into compliance by the deadline; if the property was not in compliance after the cure period and the magistrate’s order was recorded, any assessment could be enforced as a lien against the property and potentially other properties owned by the same owner in the county.

No formal motion or vote is recorded beyond the magistrate’s order. The magistrate’s direction: 45 days to fence the pool and address the vehicles, $50 per day to begin if the property is not in compliance after that period, and potential recording of enforcement costs as a lien if fines are assessed.

The hearing record notes the property parcel number (02403-006-000), approximate size (0.23 acres) and zoning (RSF MH 2). The magistrate offered leniency on the timetable but made clear the fiscal and lien consequences of noncompliance.

A subsequent hearing or a city action to record a lien would be required to impose the $50-per-day assessment and to collect prosecution costs if the owner does not come into compliance by the deadline.