Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate finds St. Cloud property at 3340 Cypress Pointe Circle in violation for abandoned vehicles; orders $273.77 in costs
Summary
A St. Cloud special magistrate found the owner of 3340 Cypress Pointe Circle responsible for allowing abandoned/unregistered vehicles on the property and ordered payment of $273.77 for prosecution costs within 30 days of the written order.
Drew Smith, the special magistrate presiding at the City of St. Cloud hearing on March 19, 2025, found the respondent for 3340 Cypress Pointe Circle in violation for allowing abandoned or unregistered vehicles to remain on the property and ordered the respondent to pay $273.77 in prosecution costs within 30 days of the magistrate’s written order.
The city’s case was presented by Eric Cole, code enforcement supervisor, on behalf of Code Enforcement Officer April Bennett. Cole said the initial complaint was received Dec. 20, 2024, and that inspections and multiple mailed notices documented a vehicle without a current registration tag and areas of high grass and weeds. Cole said inspectors photographed the conditions and that the city was seeking recovery of administrative costs incurred to bring the matter before the magistrate.
Smith opened the record to respondent testimony and an interpreter. After hearing from the respondent’s representative, Smith said, “Based on the evidence testimony provided, I'll find in favor of the city, find that the respondent was in violation for allowing abandoned or unregistered vehicles to be parked on the property,” and ordered the $273.77 cost recovery to be paid within 30 days. Smith also warned that any future violations of the same code section within five years would be treated as repeat violations.
City staff had documented a timeline of mailed notices, reinspections, and photographs from late December 2024 through March 2025 that showed the vehicle and related violations were observed on multiple dates; a final reinspection at the owner’s request showed the property was brought into compliance on the day of that reinspection. The city nonetheless requested a finding of violation and recovery of costs for prosecution, which the magistrate granted.
The magistrate’s oral rulings will be reduced to a written order that will list the deadlines and payment instructions for the administrative costs. The hearing record shows the city did not seek monetary fines in addition to the cost recovery for this matter.
