Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner of 15555 De Havilland Court seeks steep lien reduction; council to hear request
Summary
The property at 15555 De Havilland Court carries four code‑enforcement liens totaling $254,106.83; the owner requests reduction to administrative costs ($181.83). Council members questioned the lengthy noncompliance (including an unsecured pool enclosure for roughly a year), disclosure at sale, and precedent concerns ahead of a public appearance by the owner.
Council previewed a request to reduce code‑enforcement liens at 15555 De Havilland Court in the Aero Club neighborhood. Staff reported four liens totaling $254,106.83 and said the owner is requesting reduction to $181.83, essentially the village’s administrative costs. The bulk of the lien — about $175,000 — was attributable to life‑safety issues related to a pool enclosure that remained non‑compliant for roughly 350 days.
Land‑use staff explained the property recently sold (February) to a trust; the current owner has authorized the prior owner or that prior owner’s representative to appear at the council meeting to seek a reduction. Councilors pressed staff about whether notice and statutory disclosure obligations were satisfied at the time of sale, and whether a pattern of reducing large liens when properties are sold to commercial buyers creates a bad enforcement precedent.
Staff and code‑compliance (Mr. Khalil) said reductions depend on the violation type, extent and length of noncompliance, and that the village’s administrative limits constrain how far staff can reduce liens without council approval. They noted a common practice of negotiating reductions to obtain compliance (typical reductions around 80% or up to a $60,000 cap triggered council review), but council members raised concerns about setting precedent when a non‑homesteaded, sold property seeks near‑complete elimination of enforcement fees.
Council asked whether the village had offered a negotiated reduction in advance of sale; staff said no enforceable negotiated settlement occurred because statutory limits applied and the owner did not accept offers. Staff also explained the statutory duty to disclose code‑enforcement liens to buyers and that liens should appear on title searches; if undisclosed, the seller remains responsible. The applicant is expected to appear at the full council meeting to present the case; councilors noted that the hearing is legislative (not quasi‑judicial) so testimony will not be under oath.
