The most engaging topic of the meeting was the discussion surrounding Dian Bateson’s fence on Sea Shell Lane. Bateson installed a five-foot aluminum fence around her property without obtaining the necessary permit, leading to a code violation under building code 105.1. She expressed her concerns about safety, particularly due to increased traffic and proximity to local businesses, including a restaurant and a gas station. Bateson emphasized feeling unsafe without adequate fencing, stating, “I have a Lockantina restaurant bar right directly across the street from me… I don’t really feel safe there without it a minimum 5ft fence.” She also described her experiences with trespassers and wildlife, which prompted her to seek the fence installation initially.

Bateson’s application for a variance was deemed incomplete, missing critical information about the fence’s location and distance from property lines. Despite submitting the application by the deadline, Bateson and city officials could not reach a resolution, as evidenced by ongoing communication between Bateson and the city. During the meeting, Bateson shared photographs to support her case, highlighting privacy issues stemming from the property’s elevation, which is lower than the adjacent road. She noted the inadequacy of her previous four-foot fence, stating, “The 4ft fence is like a twoft fence,” and argued that her neighbors had higher fences, which warranted consideration of her request.

Rich Morris, a neighbor, corroborated Bateson’s concerns about the property’s elevation and its impact on privacy and safety. He stated, “Her house and my house… are actually almost six foot lower than the road,” suggesting that even with a taller fence, visibility for drivers would remain unobstructed. Morris’s testimony supported Bateson’s argument for the necessity of the five-foot fence for both privacy and security.

The magistrate acknowledged the need to address the violation while providing Bateson an opportunity to complete her variance application. The ongoing violation of the city’s code regarding fence installation without a permit led the magistrate to agree with the city’s recommendation to impose fines. However, a decision was made to stay the accrual of fines for three months, allowing Bateson time to submit a revised survey and complete the application. A follow-up hearing was scheduled for June 24, 2025, to review the submission of the new survey and variance application, indicating that if the variance were granted, the fines would not be enforced.

In another significant case, the magistrate addressed maintenance violations at a property located on West Long Point Road, owned by Lee Coats, trustee. Code Enforcement Officer Chris Fel detailed violations, including a broken window, dilapidated siding, and the presence of raccoons. He clarified that the window was not broken but had a peeling tint. The property, vacant for over five years, was deemed a public nuisance due to its unsafe siding and overall disrepair.

Despite attempts at communication, Coats did not respond to the notice of violation issued on January 17, 2025. The magistrate confirmed findings of fact that established ownership and the existence of code violations, noting the property as a public nuisance. An order was issued, giving Coats until April 25, 2025, to repair or replace the dilapidated siding and torn window tint. If compliance was not achieved, future fines of up to $250 per day could be imposed, becoming a lien against the property if necessary.