Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate orders compliance dates, daily fines if unmet for 1233 Hancock Circle property
Summary
The special magistrate found the owner of 1233 Hancock Circle in violation for property maintenance and abandoned vehicles, ordered administrative costs of $378.41, set an initial compliance deadline of March 31 for vehicles and April 18 for structural repairs, and established daily fines for noncompliance.
On March 19, 2025, Special Magistrate Drew Smith found the owner of 1233 Hancock Circle in St. Cloud in violation for allowing abandoned vehicles to remain on the property and for maintaining a structure in disrepair, and set compliance deadlines with financial penalties for missed deadlines.
April Bennett, a city code enforcement officer, presented the case and entered notices, photographs and a statement of violation into the record. Bennett told the magistrate inspectors received a complaint in October 2024 and documented abandoned vehicles, tree debris and missing siding and damaged porch pillars in multiple reinspections and photographs through March 2025.
Smith said he would order compliance for the abandoned vehicle by March 31, 2025, and ordered that if the vehicle issue was not corrected by that date a $50-per-day fine would begin to accrue. For the structural maintenance — missing siding and damaged porch pillars — Smith set an April 18 compliance deadline and stated that if the issues were not corrected by that date a $250-per-day fine would be assessed until compliance. He also ordered the respondent to pay administrative costs of $378.41 within seven days of the written order.
Bennett told the magistrate that at times the property owner communicated plans to remove debris and to engage a contractor for repairs and that inspectors verified partial compliance on some items (for example, removal of tree debris at one reinspection) while other items remained outstanding. The magistrate’s orders reflected those mixed compliance findings and imposed staggered deadlines tied to the categories of violation.
The magistrate indicated his oral rulings would be formalized in a written order that will list the compliance dates, daily fine amounts, and payment instructions for administrative costs. The hearing record shows no respondents present for this case; the magistrate entered the violation findings based on the city’s evidence.
