Aug 19, 2020 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

>>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS FRAN ROSS. I AM THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THAT WILL BE RESIDING OVER THIS MORNING'S HEARINGS. BEFORE WE BEGIN, A FEW FORMALITIES I NEED TO GO THROUGH. ONE IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS SESSION IS BEING TELEVISED. REMEMBER WHEN YOU GET UP TO SPEAK, HE WILL -- AND SOMEBODY SAYS THEY SAW YOU ON TV, YOU'RE BEING TELEVISED ON A LOCAL TV STATION.

DOES ANYBODY HERE NEED AN INTERPRETER? >> WE HAVE ONE CASE THAT REQUIRES AN INTERPRETER SO WE CONTINUED THE MATTER. THAT WAS CASE 5D.

IT WILL BE CONTINUING UNTIL WE GET AN INTERPRETER. >> OKAY.

FOR THOSE OF YOU, ALSO REMEMBER WE ARE GOING TO SWEAR ALL OF YOU IN AT ONCE.

WE WOULD DO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT. IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD.

INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> OKAY.

WOULD YOU REMAIN STANDING. MADAME CLERK. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU'RE READY CALL THE FIRST

CASE. >> FIRST WE ARE GOING TO DO THE CASES THAT ARE RESCHEDULED.

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

THAT IS ALL I'VE GOT RIGHT NOW. >> WE ARE READY. >> THE FIRST CASE WE ARE GOING

[B. 19-3293 AC 1012 Sunrise Blvd Cloe, Jackie Kenneth Nelson]

JACKIE CLOE >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE I'M GOING TO READ THIS IN.

CAN YOU HAND THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THE PAPERWORK? I'M GOING TO BE SUBMITTING CORRESPONDENCE FROM UM THE RESPONDENT. THIS IS CASE 19-3293.

THE ADDRESS IS 1012 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. THIS WAS INITIATED BY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER NELSON TRADE WE HAVE SEVERAL ANIMAL CONTROL CITATIONS IN FRONT OF YOU.

ANIMAL ABUSE, FAILURE PROVIDE FOOD, FAILURE TO OBTAIN CITY REGISTRATION A RABIES VACCINATION. UM, THE CORRESPONDENCE WE RECEIVED FROM THE RESPONDENT, MR. CLOE PRAYED WE RECEIVED THIS ON AUGUST 12. PLEASE NOTE, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME TO COURT. I HAVE BEEN DOWN SINCE MARCH. I WILL PAY TO $50 EVERY MONTH UNTIL THE END OF THE BALANCE. WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED ONE PAYMENT FOR $250 WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE BALANCE DUE. NELSON DID HAVE THE OPTION TO SPEAK WITH MR. CLOE IF YOU WISH

TO HEAR WHAT HE HAD TO SAY? >> OKAY. >> WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU

DELIVER THE NOTICE? >> WHEN I WENT TO THE DOOR TO DELIVER THE NOTICE.

THE DOOR WAS OPEN AND I SPOKE TO ONE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS IN THERE SWEEPING THE FLOOR.

I ASKED IF MR. CLOE WAS THERE? HE WENT AND GOT HIM. HE CAME OUT.

I LET HIM KNOW THAT I WAS DELIVERING COURT DOCUMENTS FOR THE DAY DID PRAYED HE TURNED AROUND AND TOLD ME THAT HE JUST SENT ONE PAYMENT IN FOUR TRAN H, HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT TO COURT. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH ALL HE SAID. HE SAID HE WILL KEEP SENDING

MONEY AND UNTIL HE CAN GET CAUGHT UP. >> OKAY.

YOU KNEW THAT PERSON TO BE JACKIE CLOE? >> YES, MA'AM.

WE HAVE A HISTORY WITH THIS PLACE. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NO, MA'AM. >>MR. CLOE IS NOT HERE, BUT I DO HAVE THE LETTER.

[00:05:09]

ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM. I MEAN, WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THIS CASE HERE. I MEAN, I KNOW HE SAID IN A STATEMENT THAT HIS LEGS WERE HURTING SINCE MARCH PRAYED HE WAS WALKING AROUND FINE WHEN I WENT OVER THERE.

>> IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE YOU WOULD LIKE US TO PRESENT WE COULD.

IT IS APPEARING HE IS NOT CONTESTING THE CITATIONS. >> I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. I GOT THE LETTER. ANYTHING FURTHER? BASED ON THE TESTIMONY, AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE VIOLATION EXIST AND JACKIE CLOE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION I ORDER THAT HE PAY THE TOTAL FEES DUE IN THE AMOUNT OF 10 AND $15 FOR ANIMAL ABUSE, FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOOD, CITY REGISTRATION REQUIRED, RABIES VACCINATION REQUIRED. I WILL ORDER THAT HE PAY THIS WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

OKAY. NOW, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE HERE -- THE CASES DONE,

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD, I WILL LISTEN. >> FIRST, IT IS NOT A SURPRISE

AND THANK YOU. >> I NEED YOUR NAME. >> SUSAN PERRY, UNITED FOR

ANIMALS. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN? >> YES.

THIS IS A REAL TRAGEDY. I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT JACKIE, WE KNEW JACKIE.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS REALLY SHOULD HAVE LANDED IN CIVIL COURT.

WE BELIEVE THIS IS A CRIME AND A CRIMINAL CASE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR. NOT SURPRISED JACKIE DIDN'T SHOW UP TODAY, OR THAT HE IS AGREEING TO PAY THE FINES, BECAUSE HE GETTING OFF EASY. WE BELIEVE THIS CRIME FALLS UNDER A STATE STATUTE THAT HE FAILED TO ACT. REGARDLESS -- I KNOW THE DIFFICULTY WAS TRYING TO PROVE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EMBEDDED CHAIN.

WE KNEW THAT HE WAS CHAINING UP BLUE. WE CONSTANTLY WOULD ASK HIM TO PLEASE REMOVE THE CHAIN. WE WOULD GIVE HIM COLLARS AND STUFF.

HE INSISTED ON IT. I AM SAYING BLUE WOULD GET AWAY. WHILE WE BELIEVE, BUT WE CANNOT PROVE THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT EMBEDDED CHAIN. WE DO KNOW IS THE FACT THAT THIS UNIDENTIFIED PERSON THAT RETURNED BLUE TO HIM, THAT HE FAILED TO ACT FOR SIX DAYS AND SIX NIGHTS, ACCORDING TO HIS BODY CAMERA VIDEO AND OWN TESTIMONY.

SO, BLUE LAID THERE ON THE GROUND OF HIS CARPORT FOR SIX DAYS AND SIX NIGHTS, COULD NOT EAT, COULD NOT DRINK. THE INFECTION GOT WORSE IN HIS NECK.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE VERY FIRST DAY THIS UNIDENTIFIED PERSON BROUGHT ABU BACK, WHAT HE DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY CALL THE POLICE, BECAUSE, I MEAN,, SOMEONE HE IS CLAIMING DID THIS TO HIS DOG, ANY ONE OF US WOULD HAVE CALLED THE POLICE AND REPORTED IT AS A CRIME.

ALSO, YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY SEEK VETERINARIAN CARE, WHICH JACKIE SAID HE COULD AFFORD AND HE DID NOT SEEK VETERINARY CARE COME HE JUST LET HER LAY THERE. I HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM.

IF YOU WATCH THE VIDEO, THERE ARE MULTIPLE OTHER PEOPLE THAT KNEW BLUE WAS THERE, AND DID NOTHING, TOO. JACKIE IS THE OWNER, I KNOW HE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE.

WE ARE STILL HOPING THAT THERE WILL BE CRIMINAL CHARGES, WE BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE TREATED

AS A CRIME, A CRIMINAL CHARGE, NOT A CIVIL CASE. >> I WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION,

HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY.

I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANIMAL CONTROL AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE ARE SEEKING RATER JUSTICE FOR BLUE.

>> ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO BE HEARD? >> GOOD MORNING.

>> STATE YOUR NAME. >> CHARLIE CROW. >> WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN?

>> YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME A FEW MINUTES HERE. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. I DID RESEARCH, HOW LONG DOES IT

TAKE FOR A CHANGE TO BECOME EMBEDDED? >> IT TAKES APPROXIMATELY ONE

[00:10:04]

EVERYBODY IS GUILTY. HAVING NO TETHERING IN THE CITY AND COUNTY I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANS ANYMORE. THE DOG WAS ON THE CHAIN ON THE OUTSIDE OF THIS CARPORT.

IT WAS JUST SAD. STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BEGGING FOR SOME JUSTICE, BEGGING FOR PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE LAW. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT? BUT, IT WAS GRUESOME AND IT IS AWFUL.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN HERE 70 YEARS. I HATE TO THINK THAT THIS IS IT? THIS IS 1950. WE CAN'T GET ANYWHERE WITH ANYTHING.

EITHER WE STUB OUR TOE WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, OR IT IS SOMETHING, OR IT IS SOMETHING, IT'S JUST AWFUL. I APPRECIATE ANYTHING. THIS PERSON SHOULD BE LOCKED UP ALONG WITH EVERYBODY ELSE THAT HAS PURPOSELY KILLED DOGS AROUND HERE.

THEY SHOULD BE LOCKED UP, WE ARE NOT LOCKING THEM UP. THE SYSTEM IS FAILING.

I HAVE SAT IN THE COURTROOM FROM OTHER CASES, AND IT IS JUST A CONTINUAL MESS.

IT IS GREAT JOB SECURITY. NOTHING EVER SEEMS TO GET DONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING. CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTUALLY CHARGED HIM WITH FOUR COUNTS OF VARIETY OF ANIMAL ABUSE. BUT -- AND I THINK THAT IS ALL THE STATE ATTORNEY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE, NUMBER ONE, YOU ALL KNOW I LOVE UNITED FOR ANIMALS, I LOVE THE WORK YOU DO, VERY GRATEFUL. YOU JUST HAVE TO KEEP PUSHING. IT IS THE SQUEAKY WHEELS GETS THE GREASE. I KNOW THAT IS AN OLD, TIRED AND TRUE SAYING, YOU JUST CAN'T GIVE

UP. >> ABSOLUTELY. IT IS NOT JUST OF THIS CASE, TERRY CASE. EITHER WE GET A SNACK AT CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WE GET A SNAG IN ANIMAL CONTROL. GET A SNAG IN THE COURT. THE CITY DOESN'T EVEN FIGHT THE SLUMLORDS FOR THIS MESS. YOU CAN SMELL THE DOG. YOU CAN SMELL THE STENCH.

YOU CAN SEE THE MAGGOTS. NOBODY -- AND THESE WERE ALL ADULTS.

OLDER ADULTS. EVERYBODY PULLS OUT THE, I CAN'T MAKE IT TO COURT CARD AND WE JUST LET IT GO. I MEAN, ALL OF THE COSTS TO GET $250 OUT OF THIS PERSON.

OH MY GOD, HOW MUCH SHOULD A COST US TO GET $250? EVEN IF HE WILL FOLLOW UP.

AT THAT IT WILL TAKE FOREVER FOR US TO GET BACK INTO COURT TO DRAG HIM BACK IN.

OH, BUT HE DOESN'T FEEL GOOD ENOUGH TO COME IN BECAUSE HIS LEGS AT.

OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEED THE DOG COME HE DID NOT TAKE CARE OF THE DOG AND HE KNEW THE DOG WAS DYING. THANK YOU.

>> MAY I SAY SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR? >> PLEASE.

COME ON UP. >> ANIMAL CONTROL IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DID EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER THAT WE COULD DO THAT DAY. WE DID GO TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY DID INVESTIGATE WITH THE DETECTIVE. THE DETECTIVE TOOK IT TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THAT IS OUT OF OUR HANDS FROM THERE ON. WE DID EVERYTHING TO THE FULL

EXTENT THAT WE COULD. >> I KNOW. I KNOW THE NUMBER OF CITATIONS THAT YOU HAVE ISSUED. THAT IS WHY I PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT I SEE WHERE YOU DID

EVERYTHING YOU COULD. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR COMING.

BANTAM CAR, NEXT CASE? >> THE NEXT CASE IS A RECALL, 20-0052 CE NEETO INVESTMENTS LLC

[I. 20-0052 CE Recall 620 S US Highway 1 Neeto Investments LLC Lentin LLC Heather Debevec]

>> WE DID RIGHT TO A RECALL ON. IT IS ACTUALLY A REHEARING. YOU HAVE RULED ON THIS.

OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO REQUEST A REHEARING IF NEW INFORMATION IS OBTAINED. THAT IS THE FACT THAT THIS TIME. THERE HAS BEEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN OBTAINED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO PRESENT TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, THIS IS A REHEARING. YOU HAVE RULED ON THIS ALREADY. NO INFORMATION HAS COME TO LIGHT

AFTER YOUR HEARING. >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN.

[00:15:01]

WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FIRST? >> I'M SORRY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, SO WE CAN GET ON THE

RECORD, SO HEATHER COULD READ IN THE FACTS REAL QUICK? >> I'M SORRY.

>> THIS IS CASE NUMBER 20-0052, 620 HIGHWAY ONE, THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON JANUARY 14 OF THIS YEAR. IT IS BACK BEFORE YOU AS A REHEARING.

THE PREVIOUS HEARING WAS JUNE 10 2020 WHICH WAS CONTINUED TO ALLOW THE OWNER TIME TO PART -- OBTAIN A PERMIT AND A CONTRACTOR. APPEARING BEFORE YOU AGAIN ON JULY 15 TO REMOVE THE CEMENT BLOCKS AND COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT CONDITIONS WITHIN THE 90 DAYS IN ORDER WAS ISSUED. SINCE THEN, MR. LENTIN CONTACTED TO ME TO EXPLAIN HE HAD BEEN TRYING TO GET A PERMIT. THERE WERE ADDITIONAL THINGS I WOULD GO WITHOUT PERMITS, WHERE HE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE WHAT IS LEFT OF THE PARKING LOTS, ALL OF THE OTHER CEMENT ITEMS AND RELAY SAWED DOWN. SEAN IS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN THAT.

THE CITY IS REQUESTING THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THIS INFORMATION DIVIDED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS ABILITY IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE HAD GIVEN OF THE 90 DAYS.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF YOU WANT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COORDINATOR, SHAUN COSS TO

EXPAND ON THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS? >> YES.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I'M SORRY, I DO NOT SEE IF SHAUN COSS WAS SWORN?

>> I WAS SWORN IN. DEPARTMENT COURT NADER. GOOD MORNING.

EVERY DEMOLITION PERMIT IS ISSUED WITH A CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY BE CLEARED OF ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ALL PAVEMENT BE REMOVED THAT THE PROPERTY IS GRADED, AND SALTED.

PARTIALLY BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 3303 A VACANT LOTS.

THE SECOND PART OF THAT REQUIREMENT IS BASED OFF OF THE CITY ORDINANCE WHICH ACTUALLY FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK FIRST?

>> I NEED TO GET THE NAMES PLEASE? >> MY NAME IS DENNIS LENTIN.

REPRESENTING LENTIN LLC. WITH ME IS MR. FRIEDE REPRESENTING NEETO INVESTMENTS LLC. WE OWN THIS PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE TO GO UP BACK A LITTLE BIT IN TIME WHEN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED, HEATHER HAD SENT IT TO ME, AND I TALKED TO HER ON THE PHONE BACK IN JANUARY, AND SHE KIND OF& INDICATED TO ME THAT SHE FELT THAT THESE BLOCKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN. BUT, SHE WAS ORDERED TO DO THIS, TO FILE A COMPLAINT. SO SHE'S DOING HER JOB. I UNDERSTAND.

IN CONVERSATION WITH SHAUN COSS A WEEK AGO, HE IS TELLING ME THAT HE IS FOLLOWING STATE LAW.

WE HAVE A LITTLE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE STATE LAW. THE STATE LAW SAYS, BUILDING.

THIS IS A CONCRETE BLOCK. IT IS NOT A BUILDING. THERE IS NO BUILDING ON THAT LAND. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BUILDING ON THAT LAND.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE, WE MET SOMEONE HERE WHO INTRODUCED US TO A CONTRACTOR, AND THAT DAY, WE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS AS WERE DISCUSSED HERE IN COURT. WE WENT FOR THE PERMITS, WAS INFORMED THEY HAVE TO REMOVE THE CONCRETE, AND HYDROSEEDING GRASS , OR PUT SAWED DOWN. NOT PART OF ANYTHING WE DISCUSSED HERE, NOT PART OF ANYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT, IN MY OPINION, AND THE OPINION OF AN ENGINEER, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN WRITING, THAT IS NOT A BUILDING AND REMOVAL OF THAT BLOCK, THOSE BLOCKS DO NOT CONSTITUTE REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING, OR EVEN THE WORD "DEMOLITION" WAS A PERMIT SAYS. IT IS NOT DEMOLITION, IT IS REMOVAL.

DIFFERENT THINGS. WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS FAIR FOR THE CITY TO ASK US TO REMOVE

[00:20:09]

PULLING OUT UP, YOU THEN HAVE TO REMOVE THE ROCK UNDERNEATH IT, AND THEN PUT SOME SORT OF A DIRT TO FILL IT IN. THIS BECOMES AN EXPENSIVE PROJECT FOR WHAT? WE DON'T KNOW. WHEN I TALKED TO SHAUN COSS, AND I BELIEVE HE WILL VERIFY THIS, HE DOESN'T CARE THAT THE BLOCKS ARE THERE OR NOT. THEY DON'T BOTHER HIM.

WHO DOES IT BOTHER IN THE CITY THAT THESE BLOCKS ARE THERE? AGAIN, THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS, AND AS WE DISCUSSED, THERE WERE POLES THAT THE CITY ASKED US TO PUT THEM DOWN, WE CUT THEM DOWN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. ALSO, BY WHAT YOU SAID, YOUR HONOR, THAT IF WE HAD LEFT THE POLLS, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ASKED TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS, OR YOU WOULDN'T AFFIRM THAT ORDER. DO WE NEED TO PUT THE POLES BACK? WE CAN DO THAT. WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR. WE ARE READY TO HAVE THOSE BLOCKS REMOVED. WE NEED A PERMIT THAT SAYS REMOVE THE BLOCKS, NOT TO TEAR

UP THE GROUND, THE ASPHALT, AND SPENT ALL SORTS OF MONEY. >> GOOD MORNING, MR. FRIEDE.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY PARTNER CAME TO THE FIRST HEARING MONTHS AGO AND YOU GAVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME ESTIMATES. IT TOOK US TWO MONTHS.

WE FINALLY GOT ONE CONTRACTOR AND WE GAVE YOU A COPY, THE ESTIMATE WAS $4500.

AT THE HEARING ALONG WITH THE OTHER ATTORNEY HERE, YOU SAID REMOVE THE BLOCKS.

WE AGREE. NO QUESTIONS. WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

BUT THEN WHEN HE WENT TO GET THE PERMITS, TWO DAYS AFTER WE WERE HERE, WE HIRED HIM THAT DAY, HE MET US AT THE LOTS, HE LOOKED OVER THE EIGHT PIECES OF CEMENT SCUM HE SAID I WILL TAKE THEM AWAY, I WILL BLESS THEM UP, I WILL FILL IN THE HOLES. FINE.

I SAID, YOU NEED A PERMIT, HE WAS SURPRISED. HE SAID TO TAKE AWAY THESE BLOCKS, WE NEED A PERMIT? THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. THEN WE WERE HIT WITH REMOVE SOME OLD BLACKTOP, FROM THE STREET YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE IT BECAUSE THE GRASS IS GROWING THROUGH IT. WE KEEP THE WEEDS CUT DOWN EVERY OTHER MONTH WE SPENT ALMOST $100 HAVING THE WEEDS CUT DOWN. WE AGREED TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS. BUT, YOU ARE GOING NOW FROM A 4500-DOLLAR JOB TO A POSSIBLE $12,000 JOB TO REMOVE CEMENT. IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT WE AGREED TO DO, WE WERE SO TAKEN BACK THAT THEY ASKED US TO DO MORE, AND IF WE DO THAT, THEN HYDROSEEDING IT'S, AND THEN, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS GOING TO STOP.

WE FEEL IT IS UNDUE ASKING US TO DO THINGS THAT ARE REALLY NOT NECESSARY.

THE CEMENT BLOCKS ARE UGLY, OKAY? WE AGREED TO DO THAT.

BUT THEN YOU THROW THIS AT US, AND IF WE DO THAT, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO THROW AT US? WE ARE WILLING TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS, WE AGREED, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

WE CAN'T KEEP THROWING STUFF AT US THAT CAN COST US $15,000 THAT WE CAN AFFORD.

THIS $4500, GIVE OR TAKE $500, WITH THE PERMIT COSTS AND ALL OF THAT IS A LITTLE BIT TOUGH ON US ALSO, BUT WE AGREED TO DO IT TO COMPLY WITH YOUR REQUEST. WHEN WE WERE HIT WITH REMOVE THE CEMENT, THE OLD BLACKTOP, AND THEN HYDROSEEDING OR RE- SOD THE WHOLE, NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. WE ARE PAYING ALMOST $3000 PER YEAR IN TAXES, 415 YEARS.

WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SELL IT, WE CANNOT SELL IT. IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S TRASH ARE ALL OVER IT, PEOPLE ARE SLEEPING ALL OVER IT. WE KEEP IT NEAT AND CLEAN.

WE TRIM THE TREES. WE HAVE A FOR-SALE SIGN ON ON IT.

IT IS COMPLETELY AGAINST -- I FEEL THAT THE COURT NEEDS OR FEELS THAT THEY WANT TO BE FAIR TO EVERYONE IN THEIR CITY, OR THE WHOLE WORLD. THE COURT, IN MY OPINION WANTS TO BE FAIR TO THE OWNERS, TO THE NONOWNERS, BUT TO ASK US TO DO MORE THAN WE AGREED TO DO WE

FEEL IS UNJUST. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IF I COULD RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF ISSUES? THE GENERAL -- THE COMPLAINT WAS GENERATED FROM THE FORT PIERCE COMMUNITY.

WHEN THEY WERE DOING EVALUATIONS OF THE CITY, THEY SAW IT AND THEY PRESENTED US WITH THE

[00:25:03]

REGARDING THE OFFICER, WE ALL HAVE OPINIONS ON SOME OF OUR CODES.

STEP SUPERVISOR MAKE A DECISION. BASED ON COMPLAINTS WE FOUND JUSTIFIED.

YES, SHE WAS GIVEN INSTRUCTION TO MOVE FORWARD. SHE WAS IN ORDER TO DO IT, BUT SHE WAS GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW. MY UNDERSTANDING IS PUTTING THE LIGHTS BACK UP IS NOT AN OPTION UNLESS IT IS PART OF A FULL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.

IF THERE WAS ANOTHER PLAN TO REDEVELOP THAT LOT, AND WE HAVE HAD THIS ON OTHER PROPERTY .-DOT THE CITY. IF YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE CASE MOVING FORWARD, THEN PLANS FOR REDEVELOP MIGHT GET SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND IT'S ACTIVELY MOVING FORWARD, WE WILL PUT A HALT ON OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS A PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT.

THAT WOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL LONG-TERM GOAL. UM, THIS CAME BACK BEFORE YOU, BECAUSE THIS HAS AN IMPACT. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE STARTED WITH UM CODE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE BUILDING CODES. WE WERE NOT AWARE ALL OF THIS HAD TO BE DONE.

IT WAS FOUND OUT. THAT IS WHY IT IS BROUGHT BACK BEFORE YOU, OBVIOUSLY NEW INFORMATION THAT IMPACTS YOUR ORDER. STAFF UNDERSTANDS BOTH SIDES, WE HAVE A COMPLAINT FROM THE FORT PIERCE BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY -- COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE OWNERS WHO HAVE AGREED TO TAKE CERTAIN STEPS BUT ARE ALSO TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND PERHAPS AN EXTENDED TIMEFRAME ON THE ORDER, SO THE ORDERS STILL IN PLACE BUT ALLOW THEM SOME EXTENDED TIME REFERRING TO MAYBE 12-24 MONTHS TO ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. IF SOME BUSINESS WAS TO COME IN AND REDEVELOP IT.

MAY SOME EXTENDED TIME TO ALLOW FOR EITHER TRANSFER OF TITLE, OR REDEVELOPMENT.

THE ORDER WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE. IT WOULD TRANSFER WITH THE LAND.

IT WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND. >> OKAY. >> I WOULD LIKE TO BRING SOMETHING ELSE TO YOUR ATTENTION SIX MONTHS AGO WE GOT A REQUEST FROM THE STATE, I WILL GIVE YOU

THE NAME OF THE AGENCY. >> TOLD THE STORY WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE PAPER.

WE GOT A REQUEST FROM THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. THERE WAS A GAS STATION ACROSS THE STREET CATTY CORNER ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE SOME CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. THE STATE HAS ASKED FOR PERMISSION THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY TO DRILL A TEST ON THE LAND.

WE HAVE GIVEN THEM PERMISSION, THAT IS SUPPOSED TO START SOMETIME THIS MONTH.

JUST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS ANY CONTAMINATION FROM THE GAS STATION OR NOT.

THE RESULTS OF THAT, WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE. AS WE POINTED OUT ONCE BEFORE, WE HAVE SOLD THIS LAND FIVE TIMES. EVERY TIME THAT WE HAVE A SALE CONTRACT, THEIR CONDITION SAYS THEY WANT TO CHECK WITH THE CITY AND SEE WITH THE CITY REQUIRES THEM TO DO IN ORDER TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. IN EVERY CASE THEY HAVE COME BACK IMMEDIATELY. CAN'T DO IT, THE NUMBER DON'T WORK, THE CITY IS TOO PROHIBITIVES TO DO. THEY ARE ASKING FOR TOO MUCH.

WITH THESE DETAILS ARE, I DON'T KNOW. YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE. I CAN DRIVE THROUGH THIS TOWN COME ON U.S. ONE, AND GIVE YOU 100 THINGS THAT ARE WORSE THAN THOSE BLOCKS. NO MATTER WHAT WE COME UP WITH HERE AS A CONCLUSION, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO GET OUT TO OUT OF REMOVING THE BLOCKS.

YOU KNOW, IT IS A GIVEN. WE WILL REMOVE THE BLOCKS, BUT HOW, WHEN, AND UNDER WHAT

CONDITIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY YOU. >> I WILL ELABORATE ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. I CAN SHOW YOU THIS IF YOU LIKE.

ANYHOW, LONG STORY SHORT, THEY& ARE GOING TO START TOWARDS THE END OF THE MONTH END DRILL SOME HOLES ON THE LOT TO SEE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR DOWN THEY GO -- TO SEE IF ANY OF THE CONTAMINATION FROM YEARS AGO CARRIED THROUGH IN THE GROUNDWATER.

WHICH HAS NO BEARING ON US REMOVING THE CEMENT BLOCKS. WHAT I ASKED THE COURT TO DO IS NOT POSTPONE IT, HAVE US REMOVE THE BLOCKS, WHAT WE AGREED TO DO , AND CALL IT A DAY.

IF WE SELL IT, WHOEVER'S GOING TO DEVELOP IT WILL, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, PUT FOOTINGS,

[00:30:04]

THE BLOCKS, WE DROVE BY TODAY, THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT OF AN EYESORE.

WE AGREE TO THAT. I ASK YOU TO ASK THE BUILDING PERMIT TO ISSUE A PERMIT TO MOVE THE BLOCKS IN THE VIOLATION AND, LET THEM PROCEED WITH THEIR GROUNDWATER.

IF THEY FIND CONTAMINATION, THEY MIGHT SET UP A STATION WITH A TENT ON ITS, WITH A BUILDING ON IT, AND HE COULD GO FOR 2-3 YEARS TO PUMP OUT THE GASES, OR WHATEVER.

HE SAID TO ME ON THE PHONE, HE SAID WE DON'T THINK IT HAS TRAVELED THAT FAR.

WE ARE TALKING PROBABLY 60 YARDS, 70 YARDS ACROSS, CATTY CORNER, BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER A GAS STATION ON THAT LOT LIKE THERE WAS ON THE ONE THEY FOUND THE CONTAMINATION ON.

WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO, UNTIL THAT ANSWER IS THERE, IF WE HAVE A PROSPECTIVE BUYER, WE HAVE TO MAKE THEM AWARE. OF THE FINDINGS. THERE'S KIND OF LIKE A MORATORIUM ON TRYING TO SELL IT. THE SIGN IS THERE, WE ARE TRYING TO SELL IT.

TIMES ARE TOUGH TODAY. I DON'T NEED TO REMIND YOU THAT WE ARE IN A PANDEMIC.

WE ALL HAVE DIFFICULT TIMES. BOTH OF US, I'M GOING TO BE 80 ON FRIDAY.

BOTH OF US, AND HE FOLLOWS ME BY TWO WEEKS. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

>> WE ARE GOING TO BE 80 YEARS OLD, I'VE BEEN LIVING IN FLORIDA SINCE 1951.

I CONSIDER MYSELF A FLORIDIAN, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE I'M A LITTLE KID.

AT ANY RATE, WE JUST THINK THE CITY IS JUST PUSHING A LITTLE TOO MUCH.

IT COMES FROM A COMMITTEE. THIS IS WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID.

IT DOESN'T MATTER THE TITLE. THE DEFINITION OF A HIPPOPOTAMUS IS THE COMMITTEE TRYING TO DESIGN A RACE HORSE. ANYHOW -- I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY.

EVERYBODY KIND OF SEEMS TO BE ON THE RIGHT PAGE. WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE CITY, THEY ARE COOPERATIVE, THEY GIVE ME INFORMATION, AND THEY TELL ME WHATEVER WE TALK ABOUT ON THE PHONE WE CAN REPEAT HERE IN COURT. ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY?

>> NO, I THINK WE COVERED IT. IF WE REMOVE THE BLOCKS, YOUR HONOR, IT IS A GREAT ASSET TO THE STREETS, IT'S ON U.S. ONE. IT DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. BUT TO GO THAT EXTRA STEP AND REMOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN HARDLY SEE FROM THE STREET. IF YOU DROVE BY THE LOTS, YOU COULD NOT SEE WHAT THEY ARE ASKING US TO DO, OTHER THAN THE BLOCKS.

THEY DO STICK UP MAYBE 3-4 FEET. >> LISTEN, YOU HAVE SEEN THE PICTURES.

>> I HAVE SEEN THE PICTURES. SO NO PERMIT WAS ISSUED AT ALL IN THIS CASE?

>> AS FAR AS I KNOW THE PERMIT HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED, BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT THE

PERMIT REQUIRED. >> MAY I BE HEARD? >> YEAH, I'M CROSSING THE LINE HERE. PROCEDURALLY WHERE WE ARE IS THIS, YOU ISSUED AN ORDER, THE BASIS FOR THE ORDER WAS ESSENTIALLY NOT CONTESTED, AND IT'S STILL NOT CONTESTED TODAY.

HOWEVER WHAT WE HAVE IS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, AS I SAID AT THE LAST HEARING GOES TO MITIGATION NOT NECESSARILY TO THE UNDERLYING ISSUE THAT WAS BEFORE YOU.

WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS A SITUATION WHERE THE RESPONDENTS ARE FINDING OUT THAT IT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY COST THEM MORE MONEY THAN THEY ORIGINALLY BELIEVED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF THEY ARE ASKING FOR TODAY IS NOT SO MUCH THE REVERSAL OF THE UNDERLYING ORDER, BUT FOR YOUR HONOR TO MAKE A DECISION AS FAR AS THE BUILDING PERMIT IS CONCERNED, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MATTER -- RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MATTERS BELIEVE THAT IS A MATTER THAT YOU CAN RELY ON. WHAT YOU CAN DO IS POTENTIALLY STAY UM THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY ISSUED, AND GIVE THE RESPONDENTS

[00:35:04]

APPROPRIATE. >> MAY I SPEAK? >> ASK HER WHO SHE IS?

>> MAY I HAVE YOUR NAME? >> MY NAME IS TONYA EARLY, AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

>> THANK YOU. WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE CITY, THE OWNER? REMOVE THE CEMENT BLOCKS, THE PLACE WILL LOOK 95% MUCH CLEANER, MUCH BETTER, DON'T MAKE US GO THE EXTRA STEP AND REMOVE THE CEMENT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE LOOK OF THE LOT.

THE CEMENT YOU CANNOT SEE, THE GRASS IS GROWING THROUGH, IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR THE CITY, AND YOU GIVE US TWO MORE YEARS, MAYBE WE WILL GET IT SOLVED, BUT THEN THE CEMENT BLOCKS LAID THERE. WE ARE WILLING TO SPEND THE $4000, BUT WE DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD ENFORCE TO GO THE EXTRA STEP.

I THINK THE PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO REMOVE THE CEMENT BLOCKS, BECAUSE THE STATE CODE SAYS IF YOU DEMOLISH A BUILDING, YOU HAVE TO DO THE REST OF THE LOT. WERE NOT DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING. WE ARE REMOVING CEMENT CUBES THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED BUILDINGS. MR. SHAUN COSS TOLD ME THE STATE LAW CONSIDERS THE BUILDINGS.

I READ THE STATE LAW, IT SAYS "BUILDINGS", IT DOES NOT SAY CONCRETE BLOCKS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT MAKES THE CATEGORY. THEY ARE NOT FOOTINGS.

IT'S NOT LIKE A BUILDING WHERE THE FOOTINGS REMAIN AND YOU COULD CONSIDER IT A BUILDING,

IT'S JUST A CEMENT CUBE THAT USED TO HOLD THE LIGHT. >> OKAY.

I GOT THREE OPTIONS. TO HERE REALLY. WANT TO MODIFY THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND AMEND MY PREVIOUS ORDER TO ALLOW THEM 18-24 MONTHS TO COMPLY.

NOW, I'M WILLING TO DO BOTH OF THOSE, BECAUSE THEY ARE BASICALLY ONE IN THE SAME.

THE ORDINANCE -- I GUESS WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE IS BASICALLY AMEND THAT, I MAY BE BACK ON SOMETHING, NEW HEARING, OR SOMETHING. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE HARDSHIP THAT YOU HAVE INCURRED. SHAUN COSS, GOING TO ASK YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER IF NOT COUNSEL YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. DOES THE CITY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR THE PERMITS? WHEN I GAVE YOU THE RULING, I GIVE YOU SO MUCH TIME TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS AND COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS. THAT IS THE CATTLE IN THERE.

IS THERE A WAY -- THE CITY COULD MODIFY PORTIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO DRILL -- AND IF I EXTEND THIS 24 MONTHS, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM TIME TO COME IN AND DRILL. THROUGH THAT DRILLING, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DO, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO THIS, BUT MAYBE, SOME OF THAT CONCRETE WOULD GET MOVED IN THE PROCESS.

>> DO YOU WANT A COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LETTER? >> FOR THE RECORD, YES.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO CURE THE PROBLEM HERE. >> CORRECT.

THERE IS A COUPLE OF MISSPEAKING SPRAYED THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE DOES NOT REFERENCE BUILDINGS, REFERENCES STRUCTURES. HOWEVER, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE OR WAIVER OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ONLY THE FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION CAN. THE PERMIT CONDITIONS ARE ONLY PARTIALLY BASED OFF OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THAT PART BEING -- I WILL READ FOR THE RECORD.

[00:40:01]

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE HYDRO- SEEDED FALLS UNDER THE CITY ORDINANCE, ENGINEERING ORDINANCE, I DON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF ME, NOR WOULD I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER AN OPINION ON THAT, AS IT IS AN ENGINEERING ORDINANCE.

TO GET BACK TO THE POINT OF IT BEING A STRUCTURE, THESE WERE FORMALLY LIGHT POSTS.

IGHT POSTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PERMITS FOR INSTALLATION.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PERMITS FOR DEMOLITION. LIGHT POSTS HAVE TO MEET NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE COMPLIANCE, THEY HAVE TO MEET COMPLIANCE FOR FOOTINGS, UNDERGROUND STEEL. THEY ARE STRUCTURES. A STRUCTURE ISN'T DEFINED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AS ANYTHING THAT IS BUILT OR WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED.

IT IS NOT A BUILDING, NOBODY SAID IT IS A BUILDING. HOWEVER, IT IS A STRUCTURE.

A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE. DEMOLITION IS NOT REQUIRED -- I AM SORRY, NOT DEFINED WITHIN THE BUILDING CODE. HOWEVER, WHEN A DEFINITION IS NOT DEFINED IN THE BUILDING CODE, WE GO BY THE MOST COMMON DEFINITION BASED ON DICTIONARY.COM. THE DEFINITION FOR DEMOLISH IS TO DESTROY OR RUIN, A BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE ESPECIALLY ON PURPOSE. TO PUT IT INTO, DESTROY, EXPLODE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT -- CALLS IT REMOVAL, OR DEMOLITION, WE ARE SPEAKING THE SAME THING.

REMOVING THE LIGHT POST IS DEMOLISHING THE LIGHT POST WHICH REQUIRES A PERMIT, WHICH

REQUIRES THE PROPERTY TO BE GRADED, AND FILLED. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

>> YES. >> IS A POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY, UNDER THE STATE LAW, TO ISSUE A PERMIT TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS AND PUT OFF THE REST OF THE REMOVING THE ASPHALT UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, OR DEVELOPED? I UNDERSTAND, THE ATTORNEY SAID BEFORE THAT WOULD GO WITH -- IF THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH THE PROPERTY.

IS THAT POSSIBLE TO DO? >> NOT REALLY. THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS VALID FOR 180 DAYS WHEN IT IS ISSUED. WITHIN THAT 180 DAYS YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN IMPROVED -- APPROVED INSPECTION. IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED IF ALL OF THE ASPHALT WAS NOT REMOVED

AND THE SOLID WAS NOT IN PLACE. THAT PEMIT WOULD EXPIRE. >> UNDERSTAND FROM THE CONTRACTOR THAT WENT TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ISSUED THE PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRET BLOCK. WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE REST OF THE WORK WOULD BE DONE

SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

THE ONLY TIME WE WILL DEFER DEMOLITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, OR PAVEMENT, IS WHEN THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT ORDERED THAT HAS ALREADY GONE THROUG SOME FORM OF APPROVAL PROCESS. HAD YOU COME HERE THIS MORNING TO SAY A NEW GAS STATION IS BEING BUILT THERE WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, YES, THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD CONSIDER.

>> UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BEING BUILT THERE. >> YOU DO HAVE THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WANTING TO COME IN AND DRILL.

YOU KNOW WHEN THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DO THAT? >> THE END OF THIS MONTH.

>> MOST LIKELY IT IS NOT SIMPLY DRILLING THAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY USUALLY SET UP A MONITORING STATION WHICH WILL INCLUDE A PORTABLE BUILDING, OFFENSE, AND SOME TYPE OF ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS. YES, PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THAT.

>> FURTHER QUESTION, IF THE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED, THE FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE,

[00:45:02]

THEY GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE ASPHALT AND RESEED IT? >> THEY WOULD NOT, UNFORTUNATELY. THE FENCE IS REQUIRED BY PERMIT BY LOCAL CITY ORDINANCE.

THE FENCE IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ORDINATE BY FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

SINCE THE BUILDING IS PORTABLE, IT IS TEMPORARY IN NATURE. NO DEMOLITION PERMIT WOULD BE

REQUIRED TO REMOVE THAT BUILDING >> SOUNDS A LITTLE CONFLICTING IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE LAWS ARE EQUAL FOR EVERYBODY. >> THERE IS SOME OVERLAP HERE BETWEEN WHAT THE STATE CAN DO, AND THE CITY REGULATIONS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN, IF YOU CAN COME PULL THE PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A CONDITION.

YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT YOU CAN'T AFFORD RIGHT NOW. I WILL EXTEND THE PREVIOUS ORDER TO GIVE YOU 24 MONTHS TO COMPLY. HERE IS WHAT I AM ALSO LOOKING AT THOUGH.

WHEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMES IN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO THE. [INAUDIBLE] DO YOU?

>> TYPICALLY THEY CORE DRILL A SMALL SECTION NO LONGER THAN A FOOT IN DIAMETER.

IF THERE IS CONTAMINATION ON THE PROPERTY THEY CONTROL MULTIPLE MONITORING SITES.

IT DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE OF THEIR PROJECTS. >> IF YOU WILL, LET'S ALLOW THE ORDER TO STAY INEFFECTIVE. COUNSEL, I'M NOT GOING TO NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE.

WITH A CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE 24 MONTHS TO COMPLY. I WANT TO SEE WITH THE EPA'S GOING TO DO, I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT OFFER YOU SOME RELIEF WITH THE COST.

>> IF THEY FIND CONTAMINATION THEY MIGHT START DRILLING ON THE WHOLE 19,000 SQUARE FEET.

RIGHT NOW THEY TOLD US THEY'RE GOING TO DRILL IN THE FRONT, CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK, MAY BE 2-4 HOLES. THAT IS WHAT THEY TOLD US ON THE PHONE.

IF THEY FIND CONTAMINATION THEY MIGHT GO FURTHER BACK EAST ON THE LOT.

THE LOT IS ROUGHLY 137 DEEP BY 135 FRONTAGE. THEY MAY GO FURTHER BACK, THEY COULD BE THERE FOR TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, IF THEY FIND CONTAMINATION.

IF THEY DON'T FIND CONTAMINATION THEY WILL WRAP UP THEIR THINGS AND FILL IN THE HOLES AND THEY WILL BE GONE. IF YOU GIVE US TWO YEARS TO COMPLY, THAT WOULD HELP US A LOT UM AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING FOR THOSE TWO YEARS, NOT EVEN REMOVE THE BLOCKS.

THAT IS A BENEFIT FOR US, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR OFFER. >> I EXPECT FOR YOU TO REMOVE

THE BLOCKS. YOU HAVE A CONTRACT TO DO THAT. >> WANT US TO REMOVE THE BLOCKS?

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THEY CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT THE PERMIT.

>> RIGHT. YOUR CONTRACTORS GOING GOING TO GET THE PERMIT --

>> REMOVE THE BLOCKS. >> THAT IS THE CATCH ALL THAT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN RIGHT NOW.

>> THEY HAVE 24 MONTHS TO COME FULLY INTO COMPLIANCE. THEY COULD POTENTILLY WAIT 18 MONTHS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT AND DO THE WORK AT THAT POINT GULF I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT. HAVE THE CONTRACTOR REMOVE THE BLOCKS.

IN THE INTERIM, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IS GOING TO COME IN AND DO THE TESTING. I AM HOPING WITH THE TESTING, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RESULTS WILL BE, BUT, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HELP YOU REGARDING THE TOTAL COMPLIANCE REQUEST OF

REMOVING THAT CONCRETE. >> FIVE UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, WE GET A PERMIT THAT SAYS REMOVE THE CEMENT ON THE BLACKTOP, AND THE BLOCKS, BUT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FULFILLED

FOR TWO YEARS IF WE REMOVE THE BLOCKS, SAY THE FIRST 60 DAYS? >> RIGHT.

HERE AGAIN, HOW I AM TRYING TO EXTEND THIS IS BY VIRTUE OF THIS LETTER.

YOU WILL FIND SOME RELIEF YOU SAY THEY JUST DRILL A HOLE, MAYBE THEY WILL TEAR UP SOME OF THE CONCRETE AND THEN YOU WON'T TO REMOVE AS MUCH. GO AHEAD.

>> RESPECTFULLY, JUST SO THE RESPONDENT IS AWARE, THE 24 MONTHS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE VALIDITY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. THE BUILDING PERMIT REMAINS ACTIVE ONLY FOR 180 DAYS.

[00:50:07]

MUST REMAIN VALID FOR THE 24 MONTHS. >> HERE IS WHAT I AM LOOKING AT TWO, SHAUN COSS. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SITUATION, LET'S SAY THEY GET THE PERMIT. AS WITH OTHER PERMITS, IF SOMETHING COMES UP WHERE THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO COMPLY, BUT CAN'T, BECAUSE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS DON'T YOU GRANT EXTENSIONS?

>> TYPICALLY TO THE CASE. NOT TO THE PERMIT. PERMIT EXTENSIONS AND RENEWALS CAN ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THERE IS A CHARGE FOR BOTH EXTENSIONS AND RENEWALS. THERE HAS TO BE A BASIS FOR THE EXTENSION OR RENEWAL.

WHEN THERE IS CHANGES IN THE CODE CYCLE IT COMPLICATES THINGS FOR THE UPCOMING CHANGE WITH THE NEW CODE GOING IN EFFECT IS DECEMBER 31 OF THIS YEAR. WHILE I DON'T EXPECT ANY CHANGE

TO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, IT CERTAINLY IS A POSSIBILITY. >> THAT CHANGE THAT YOU SEE

FORTHCOMING WOULD NOT AFFECT THEM? >> IF THE PERMIT EXPIRES IT

WOULD. >> WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET IT EXPIRE, BECAUSE THE DUE DILIGENCE -- THESE GENTLEMEN HAVE BEEN HERE THREE OR FOUR TIMES.

I DON'T WANT TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AS I HAVE SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, COUNCILWOMAN JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEBODY IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO COMPLY, YOU KNOW, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT OLD CAVEAT ELECTED BUYER BEWARE.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW THESE PROBLEMS EXISTED AND NOW IT IS A HEADACHE.

I DO UNDERSTAND AND TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS ARE REALLY TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND HAVE THOSE BLOCKS REMOVED. YOU GET THERE, YOU HIRE A GUY, AFTER THIS LAST HEARING, AND THE GUY SAYS OKAY, I CAN DO IT FOR YOU, AND THEN HE COMES TO THE CITY AND THE CITY SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO MORE THAN THAT, AND IT'S GOING TO COST YOU MORE MONEY THAN YOU ANTICIPATED. I DON'T THINK THESE GENTLEMEN ARE TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW. I UNDERSTAND THERE FOR A TRIP -- THEIR FRUSTRATION.

I DO THINK WE CAN FIND SOME MIDDLE GROUND HERE. >> THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS LOCKED INTO WHAT THE BUILDING CODE SAYS. THEY CANNOT BURY IT FROM THAT.

THE BEST RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE 24 MONTH COMPLIANCE PERIOD.

PRAY IF IT TAKES THEM 18 MONTHS, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. JUST DO A 24 MONTH DATE FOR COMPLIANCE, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HIM. THEY HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH US THE WHOLE TIME. STAFF ALWAYS APPRECIATES THAT END IS WILLING TO WORK WITHIN HIM. I THINK IF WE LEAVE IT AS A 24 MONTH COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ANY UM ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN THEIR, WE CAN WORK WITH THEM AND GO FORWARD FROM THERE.

>> OKAY. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT WOULD WORK? >> YOU WOULD HAVE 24 MONTHS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. IF THAT MEANS THAT 18 MONTHS UM YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO ANYTHING AT 18 MONTHS, YOU OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EVERYTHING AND YOU TAKE CARE OF IT BEFORE THE 24 MONTHS EXPIRES. ONCE YOU GET THE PERMIT YOU HAVE

SIX MONTHS. >> 18 MONTHS WE CAN APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND HAVE SIX MONTHS TO

GET ALL OF THE WORK DONE? >> CORRECT. TRAN.

>> UNLESS WE SELL IT IN BETWEEN AND THEY COME TO YOU FOR PERMITS AND THEY WILL MAKE A BUILDING OR

A USED CAR LOT, THEN THEY WILL REMOVE WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO? >> CORRECT.

KEEP IN MIND IF THE EPA FIND SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS THIS ORDER WE CAN DO A RECALL BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AGAIN WITH NEW EVIDENCE BEING, YOU KNOW, FOUND.

>> LIKE THEY INVITE ME TO YEARS TO CLEAN THE GROUND. >> OF SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP YOU CAN BRING THAT TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ATTENTION ALSO.

STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING DOING A 24 MONTH TIME TO COMPLY WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS, JUST LEAVE IT AS

A BLANKET 24 MONTHS. >> OKAY. >> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. I THINK WHAT MR. SHAUN COSS IS TRYING TO SAY, HERE'S THE CATCH.

IF THE RESPONDENT'S OBTAIN A PERMIT, OF COURSE, IF YOU STRUCTURE YOUR ORDER BASED ON 24 MONTHS COMPLIANCE PERIOD. IF THEY OBTAIN A PERMIT TO RANT, THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE SIX

[00:55:06]

TAKE ACTION. >> IF WE WAIT 18 MONTHS, APPLY FOR THE PERMIT, GET IT ALL DONE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, THEY CAN SIGNOFF THAT THAT YOU DID EVERYTHING THAT THE PERMIT REQUIRED? RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING FOR 18 MONTHS.

MEANWHILE, THE EPA COMES IN TO CHANGE THE WHOLE PICTURE. WE COME BACK HERE AND SAY, YOUR HONOR, ANY THREE YEARS TO CLEAN THE CONTAMINATION, MAYBE THEY WILL REMOVE THE BLOCKS.

>> ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE COME TO IT. THE ONLY DECISION BEING MADE TODAY IS THAT YOU HAVE 24 MONTHS TO COME INTO COMPLETE COMPLIANCE UM.

>> 18 MONTHS TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, AND SIX MONTHS TO COMPLETE IT.

>> WHEN YOU ISSUE AN ORDER, WE NEVER GOT A COPY OF THE ORDER THAT YOU ISSUED.

HEATHER WAS NICE ENOUGH TO E-MAIL ME A COPY OF WHAT IS SAID WE NEVER GOT AN OFFICIAL COPY.

>> MAKE SURE YOU GIVE US YOUR CORRECT ADDRESS. >> THEY HAVE THE CORRECT

ADDRESS. >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE IT UM THEY DO GET RECORDED, AND THEY

CROSSED AND WE DID THE REHEARING. >> WE DID THE REHEARING, WHEN IT GOT RECORDED WE JUST HELD ONTO IT. WE KNEW WE WERE COMING BACK.

>> THERE IS A COPY OF IT IN THE FILE. >> CAN WE GET A COPY OF THIS 24

MONTHS TO COMPLY? >> YOU WILL GET A COPY OF IT, ABSOLUTELY, YES.

>> THAT WE WE HAVE OUR COPY IN THE FILE. >> CORRECT.

AS WE SAID, WE RECORD EVERYTHING, BY THE TIME THE RECORDING CAME BACK WE SCHEDULED

THIS HEARING, SO WE HELD ONTO IT. >> HOLD ON.

I'M I'M AMENDING THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER TO GRANT YOU 24 MONTHS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAY SAFE. >> I ALWAYS SAY, IF YOU RUN INTO

PROBLEMS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY. >> WE STAY IN CONTACT.

>> WE DO. >> I WANT TO ASK THE COURT WHEN MORE THING, IF WE COME BACK

AGAIN, CAN WE GET LUNCH, PLEASE? >> LISTEN, GENTLEMEN, MY BIRTHDAY WAS SUNDAY, SO MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL GET TOGETHER HERE. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK.

OKAY. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 20-1444, 1723 OKEECHOBEE ROAD, FORT

[C. 20-1444 AA 1723 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce Discount Liquor & Wine Jacqueline Young Smith]

PIERCE DISCOUNT LIQUOR AND WINE. >> GOOD MORNING, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS A CONTINUATION FROM JULY 15.

>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> WOULD YOU GIVE ME YOUR NAME, PLEASE?

MR. KUMAR. YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THINK YOU. >> THE CONTINUATION WAS TO TAKE PLACE.

HE WAS WHEN HE PRESENT SOME DOCUMENTS TO ME, AND HE DID. I HAVE A TICKET WORK ORDER WITH A COUPLE OF DETAILS THAT TOOK PLACE WITH HIM TRYING TO CORRECT THE SITUATION WITH THE ALARM.

>> WHEN WAS OUTDATED? >> IT IS DATED JUNE 30. >> OF WHAT YEAR?

>> 2020. I'M SORRY. >> OKAY.

>> ON HERE IT DOES STATE THAT IT WAS RESOLVED. THIS ISSUE WAS RESOLVED.

IT WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH HIS FIX PAD, OR WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE?

I'M NOT SURE. >> YES, YOUR HONOR. THAT DID FIX THE PROBLEM.

I WAS REQUESTING THEM ALL OF THIS TIME TO FIX IT, BUT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS NOT DUE TO THAT.

AFTER THAT, I NEVER HAD AN ISSUE. I HAVE OTHER BUILDINGS I NEVER, YOU KNOW, HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE ALARM. IF I DID, I ALWAYS PAID FOR IT

[01:00:02]

WHEN I PUT THE ALARM IN THERE, THEY DID NOT REPLACE THE PANEL. THEY JUST HOOKED UP THE ALARM WITHOUT THAT. THIS TIME THEY CHANGED THE PANEL AND THE PROBLEM WAS RECTIFIED.

EVERY SINCE THAT I NEVER HAD AN ISSUE. BASICALLY IT TOOK ME THREE TIMES TO TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT I'M GETTING THIS ALARM THINGS, AND I'M STANDING THERE, AND THE COPS ARE SHOWING UP, YOU KNOW, AND SOMEHOW STILL NOT TAKING THE ALARM OFF AND THE SIREN GOES OFF. FINALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY CAME IN AND SAID EVERYTHING WAS FINE.

THE THIRD TIME THEY CORRECTED IT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW -- >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, ONE OF THE ISSUES UM I REVIEWED THIS FILE UM PRIOR. ONE OF THE ISSUES I HAD IS IF UM THE OWNER WAS PRESENT, AND UNABLE TO DO THE ALARM CODE DID HE NOT RECEIVE A CALL FROM THE ALARM COMPANY WHERE HE COULD HAVE CANCELED THE ALARM? CUT IS PART OF THE REASON I RECOMMENDED THIS COME BACK BEFORE YOU. THAT WAS NEVER TRULY EXPLAINED.

IF HE WAS PRESENT, WHY DIDN'T HE CANCEL THE ALARM PRIOR TO THE POLICE BEING DISPATCHED?

>> OKAY, YES, SO THE SYSTEM I HAD IN THE LIQUOR STORE WAS IN THE BACK OF THE BUIDING.

UM, FIRST THEY CALLED THE LIQUOR STORE, THEN THEY CALL MY CELL PHONE, AND SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME I GOT TO THE PHONE IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW, I NEVER MADE IT IN TIME.

THEY CALLED ME ON MY PHONE, LIKE YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M USUALLY,- BUSY WITH A PATIENT OR SOMETHING I DID NOT GET A CALL, OR MY PHONE WAS DEAD AT THOSE TIMES. BUT, I CALLED THEM AFTERWARD WITH THE COPS ALREADY DISPATCHED. YOU KNOW, I TRY TO CANCEL THEM, THEY SAID IT WAS TOO LATE. SO, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME BEFORE, YOU KNOW? BUT, YOU KNOW, USUALLY A PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THEM.

THOSE THREE TIMES I COULD NOT. >> YOU DON'T HAVE A BACKUP PERSON THAT THEY COULD CALL IF

THEY CAN'T REACH YOU? >> I DO, BUT, YOU KNOW -- WE'RE BUSY WITH A PATIENT AND I DON'T WANT THEM TO CALL, YOU KNOW, MY WIFE BECAUSE SHE HAS TO GET UP IN THE MORNING AND GO TO WORK.

IF SOMEBODY WAKES ME UP, I CAN GO. ONLY IN AN EMERGENCY KIND OF THING, YOU KNOW? I DID ADD ANOTHER PHONE NOW. NEXT TIME IT HAPPNS, IF I DON'T PICK UP, IF THE PHONES ARE DEAD, YOU KNOW, MINE IS NOT WORKING, AT THE LIQUOR STORE IF I DON'T PICK UP THE PHONE, IF I'M SLEEPING. AT LEAST A THIRD PERSON CAN GET IT, SO I DON'T HAVE TO COME AGAIN HERE. I AM SORRY.

I'VE NEVER CAME HERE BEFORE. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME AND HOPEFULLY MY LAST TIME.

>> WELL, YOU GOT COLD -- CALLED ON MARCH 10, YOU DIDN'T RESPOND, MAY ONE YOU DIDN'T RESPOND, MAY 10 YOU DIDN'T RESPOND, NOW YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF $700 IN FEES BECAUSE NO ONE RESPONDED TO THE

ALARM GOING OFF. >> THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THAT, THE PROBLEM WAS WITH THE ALARM PANEL ITSELF. THAT IS NOT WORKING. NORMALLY I RESPOND.

I GET OTHER BUILDING CALLS AND I RESPOND. I AM THERE.

I KNOW THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON, YOU KNOW. THERE WAS A LOT OF RIOTING AND LOOTING GOING ON, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AT 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

I STILL SHOW UP, YOU KNOW? EVEN THOUGH I HAVE TO GET UP THE NEXT DAY.

EVEN ASK THE COPS, I ALWAYS SHOW IT. >> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, HERE'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU. WHEN THAT ALARM GOES OFF, THE ALARM COMPANY AUTOMATICALLY CALLS YOU AND SAYS HEY, ARE YOU OKAY? AND WHEN YOU DON'T ANSWER, THAT

IS WHEN THEY CALL THE POLICE AND HAVE THE POLICE GO OUT THERE. >> YOU SEE SOME OF THEM, ON THERE, I'M IN BUILDING. THE ALARM IS GOING ON IN THE MORNING.

>> THEN YOU SHOULD ANSWER THE CALL. I'VE BEEN IN MY HOUSE WHEN MY

ALARM GOES OFF, AND I TELL THEM I AM FINE. >> SOMETIMES WITH MY PHONE, HE DIES OR SOMETHING, I CAN'T RECEIVE THE PHONE CALL OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW? OR IF I DON'T HAVE MY PHONE ON ME, BECAUSE I'M RUSHING, YOU KNOW, I HAVE IT IN MY PHARMACY.

I USUALLY KEEP IT WITH ME, IT'S MY UMBILICAL CORD, KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT.

IF THERE'S AN ALARM GOING OFF I WANT TO BE THE FIRST WANT TO GET THE CALL.

SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, I CANNOT BE 100% OF THE TIME. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I DO NOT PICK UP THE PHONE. NORMALLY I DO PICK UP THE PHONE IF THEY ARE THERE AND I HAVE AN

[01:05:03]

ISSUE. >> SIR, YOU KNOW, THE POLICE HAVE A LOT TO DO.

WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND RESPONDING TO A BUILDING, BECAUSE THE ALARM IS GOING OFF AND IT'S AN INCONVENIENCE TO THE OWNER, BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS DOING SOMETHING ELSE -- THIS IS WHY THE POLICE ARE BEING CRITICIZED. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE SAYING D

FIND THEM, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RESPONDING TO FALSE ALARMS. >> I AM ALL FOR, YOU KNOW, THE POLICE PRAYED THEY'VE ALWAYS HELP ME. EVEN THE ALARM COMPANY, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE REASON I HAVE EVEN AT MY HOME AND ALL OF MY BUSINESSES, FOR THE PROTECTION.

BY NO MEANS DO I MEAN TO IGNORE ANY OF THE PHONE CALLS. I EVEN BOUGHT A FOAM WITH A BACKUP BATTERY ON TOP OF IT, IF THE PHONE DIES I CAN CHARGE IT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, 24 HOURS I KEEP IT WITH ME. I EVEN TAKE IT TO THE BATHROOM, SO I DON'T MISS IT SO I DON'T GET A $700 FINE. I TRY MY BEST, YOU KNOW? THESE ARE THE TWO OR THREE TIMES I CANNOT PICK UP THE PHONE. OTHERWISE, I ALWAYS PICK UP THE PHONE.

>> DOES THE CITY HAVE A POSITION ON THIS? IT IS A $700 FINE.

I DO NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE WITH THE PAD NEEDING TO BE FIXED.

THE PROBLEM IS, YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING YOUR PHONE. SO THE POLICE HAVE TO STOP WHAT

THEY ARE DOING, AND GO OUT. >> THE PROBLEM WAS WITH THE PANEL.

I'M COMING INTO THE STORE, I'M TURNING THE ALARM ON, AND THE ALARM WILL NOT GO OFF BECAUSE IT GETS FROZEN THERE. I'M PUTTING IN THE CODE, AND IT WILL NOT DISABLE.

>> THE ALARM COMPANY BECAUSE YOU, AND ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IS I'M HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE

ALARM. >> I DID TELL THEM THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH IT.

THEY SENT A TECHNICIAN THREE TIMES, THEY COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS.

RANDOMLY IT WILL NOT GO OFF. THEY SAY IF I MOVE IT, THEN IT COMES INTO THE SIGNAL.

THEY SAID STAY THERE WHEN YOU TAKE THE ALARM OFF. NOW I HAVE LEARNED HOW TO, YOU

KNOW, HANDLE THAT. >> OKAY. DOES THE CITY HAVE A

RECOMMENDATION? >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, UNFORTUNATELY, WE ALWAYS TAKE INTO ALL KINDS OF CONSIDERATION. BUT, IT IS BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE HAS PRESENTED THAT HE WAS THERE BUT FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE TELEPHONE CALL FROM THE ALARM COMPANY WHICH REQUIRED OUR OFFICERS TO RESPOND. UM, BASED ON THAT, STAFF IS

RECOMMENDING THAT THE FINES REMAIN AS IMPOSED. >> SIR, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NO. THAT IS WHY I'M HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL THAT.

THIS IS UNFAIR. I AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. I ALWAYS PAY MY FINES WHEN I HAVE TO. THIS WAS OUT OF MY COURT. YOU KNOW? I DID RECTIFY WITH THE ALARM COMPANY. EVERY SINCE THEN, YOU NEVER SEE ANY ALARMS AFTER THAT. I HAVE MULTIPLE THINGS GOING ON. SOMETIMES, I HAVE DOCTORS CALLING, RIGHT NOW, I CANNOT ANSWER THE PHONE. IT WILL BE HELD AGAINST ME BECAUSE I'M HERE, I DON'T WANT THAT'S WHY DON'T ANSWER THERT.- PHONE.

I DO GO OUTSIDE AND CALL THEM BACK. >> OKAY.

SIR, I'M NOT GOING TO REDUCE THE ALARM. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS, $700. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU IGNORED THE ALARM --

>> NOT IGNORE IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU.

IF IPHONE IS NOT WITH ME, DURING THAT TIME, DURING THOSE THREE TIMES, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYBODY

THE TIME WITH THEM. >> I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE FINITE $700.

YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL MY DECISION. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS HIS APPEAL. TRAN27 HUNDRED DOLLARS. --

>> $700. >> I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL IT, THAT IS WHY I'M HERE.

I WASTED ALL OF THIS TIME. I WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH HER I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR.

>> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PAY THE $700? >> I CAN PAY.

I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT RIGHT. $700 FOR 400-DOLLAR ALARM IT IS

EXCESSIVE. >> COUNSELOR, I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU LET HER SPEAK?

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE IS COMING FROM.

THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE FINES THAT WERE ASSESSED AND THEY APPEAL IS BEFORE YOU AT THIS

[01:10:01]

UM, THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. THAT IS A FACTUAL SITUATION.

I WOULD JUST POINT OUT,, UM, A DRIVER MAY SPEED EVERY DAY UM, HE MAY ONLY GET ONE SPEEDING TICKET. WHAT THE COURT WILL LOOK AT, WHAT HAVE IT ON THAT DAY AT THAT TIME. THE DRIVER MAY OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS EVERY DAY, HE MAY SPEED ONE DAY AND GET CAUGHT. AGAIN, WHAT THE COURT WILL LOOK AT IS WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE BASIS -- I WANT YOUR HONOR TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE

BASIS FOR YOUR RULING. >> THE BASIS OF MY RULING IS BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY, DOCTOR KUMAR. HE WAS THERE ON EACH OCCASION, ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY.

THE ALARM WENT OFF, ON EACH OF THESE CASES, HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HIS PHONE WITH HIM THAT HE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE CALLS, FROM THE ALARM COMPANY WHEN THEY CALLED TO SEE IF YOU ARE OKAY.

SO, THE POLICE WERE THEN NOTIFIED AND CAME TO THE LOCATION.

BASED ON HIS TESTIMONY, I AM NOT GOING TO REDUCE THE $700 FINE. >> THERE IS NO FURTHER THING I

CAN DO TO APPEAL IT? IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY? >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS HOPING.

IF I COULD HAVE A MOMENT TO UM CHECK THE CODE, TO SEE UM WITH THE APPEAL STATUS SAYS?

BY PROCEEDINGS. >> HAS, SO LIKE ANY OTHER RULING, I THINK YOU MAKE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE NEXT LEVEL OF APPEAL WOULD BE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE THIS IS STANDARD LANGUAGE IN ALL OF YOUR ORDERS THAT THE

RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> GOOD LUCK, SIR.

>> THIS IS FINAL? I HAVE TO PAY? >> YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL

TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. >> OKAY. I CAN APPEAL THIS AND CIRCUIT

COURT? >> YES, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

>> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL. >> CIRCUIT COURT --

>> HOW TO TAKE ACTION. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHATEVER

ACTION YOU NEED TO TAKE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> AND THINKING HE'S NOT UNDERSTANDING WHERE HE HAS TO GO AND WHAT HE HAS TO DO AFTER THIS POINT.

>> I CANNOT GIVE HIM LEGAL ADVICE FROM HERE. >> HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. HE HAS TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION HE NEEDS TO TAKE.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> MADAME CLERK. WE HAVE TWO TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WE HAVE TO DO.

[01:15:03]

IT WAS ACTUALLY CASE 20-1242, THEY PAID. >> THANK YOU.

I AM READY WHEN YOU ARE WITH THE PHONE. >> ALL RIGHT.

LET ME FIND MY PAPERS HERE. >> DO THAT ONE FIRST. >> LET ME GET OVER HERE TO THE

PHONE. >> I CAN READ IT IN. YOU HAVE THE PAPERWORK?

>> GOOD MORNING, THIS IS PEGGY WITH THE CITY OF OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT.

>> S, PEGGY, HOW ARE YOU? >> IS THIS MR. SCAVELLO? >> YES.

>> YOU ARE ON SPEAKERPHONE IN FRONT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE ARE READY TO REVIEW YOUR REQUEST. BEFORE WE START IF WE COULD HAVE THE CLERK'S WHERE YOU END.

>> WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? >> MY NAME IS PAUL SCAVELLO.

>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS

[6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MASSEY HEARINGS (FINE REDUCTIONS)]

BOTH OF THESE CASES WERE INITIATED BY CODE OFFICER, HEATHER DEBEVEC, ON JANUARY 10, 2020 FOR A PERMIT REQUIRED. THIS WAS ABOUT TREES BEING CUT DOWN.

UM, IT CAN BE FOR YOU IN MARCH, AND YOU GAVE THE RESPONDENT 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN A LAND CLEARING PERMITS OR BE FINED $100 PER DAY. ON JULY JULY 16, THE VIOLATION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. WE SENT A NOTICE TO MR. NIKKI YOLANDA MORING PRAYED HE RESPONDED REQUEST IN THIS HEARING. IN YOUR PACKET IS SOME PAPERWORK THAT MR. SCAVELLO HAS SUBMITTED, IT INCLUDES A CONTRACT WITH A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE AS WELL AS A TREE MITIGATION PLAN. THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE PERMITS THAT YOU REQUIRED. THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO IT IN THE TIME YOU PROVIDED. UM, THE REQUEST THAT MR. SCAVELLO HAS IS TO STOP THE ACCUMULATION OF FINES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO ALLOW THEM TO FINISH THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE PERMIT THAT HE ORDER TO GET. STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS REQUEST.

>> OKAY. THAT APPLIES TO BOTH CASES? GOOD MORNING, MR. SCAVELLO.

>> GOOD MORNING, HOW ARE YOU? >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST MADE BY THE CITY?

>> I DO. I WAS JUST UM TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY UM THAT WE COULD DO A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. BECAUSE WHEN WE DID THE MITIGATION UM SURVEY, IT ONLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS THREE POEMS OVER THE 14-INCH DBH, AND TWO PINE TREES.

JUST TO GIVE US TIME TO DEVELOP A SITE PLAN, AND UM, DURING THESE TIMES GREAT AND THEN LOOK

TO OBTAIN A LAND CLEARING FROM THEIR? >> IS 30 DAYS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU

TO GET THE PERMIT? >> 30 DAYS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WILL BE SUFFICIENT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE HOPING TO GET THIS UM CLEARED, AS WELL, AND THEN DEVELOP -- YOU KNOW, WHEN I CAME ABOVE, YOU KNOW, AT THE MAGISTRATE IN MARCH UM UNFORTUNATELY WE SUFFERED THE COVID-19, AND IT BEEN A HUGE HIT HERE. I'M IN NEW YORK, AS WELL.

[01:20:02]

WE ARE HOPING TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE WHEN A 60 DAY TIMEFRAME, IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY?

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I TELL YOU WHAT, IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON IN THIS WORLD, I WILL STOP THE FINES, AND GIVE YOU 90

DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOZ WHEN EACH OF THE CASES. >> THAT IS PERFECT.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> CAN YOU DO ANYTHING WITH THE FINES, YOUR HONOR?

>> NOT RIGHT NOW. I CAN STOP THEM FROM ACCRUING. >> ONCE THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE, YOU HAVE THE CHANCE TO COME BACK TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND ASK HER THEN DATA CAN BE DONE THE SAME AS WE ARE DOING TODAY BY TELEPHONE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO COME DOWN TO FLORIDA. WE CAN ARRANGE IT OVER THE PHONE AS WE ARE DOING TODAY.

THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN BRING YOU BACK.

>> OKAY. THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE FINES THAT ARE ACCRUING DATA

STOPPING TODAY? >> NO, SIR. THE FINES STOP ACCRUING, AND THEY SIT AT THE $2700, AND THEY SIT THERE UNTIL THE 90 DAYS EXPIRES, OR THE PROPERTY COMES INTO COMPLIANCE. THEN, AT THAT TIME, YOU COME BACK AND ASK THE SPECIAL

MAGISTRATE TO ADJUST THE $2700. >> OKAY. THAT IS PERFECT.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE, I

APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU, MR. SCAVELLO, HAVE A GOOD DAY.

>> YOU, AS WELL, THANK YOU. >> LET ME GET THE NEXT ONE. I LOST MY PEN.

>> TAKE YOUR TIME. >> WHERE DID HE GO? SORRY.

YOU. >> THIS IS PEGGY WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT.

YOU ARE ON SPEAKERPHONE IN FRONT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WE ARE READY TO PRESENT YOUR APPEAL. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, OUR CLERK IS GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN.

>> MA'AM, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? >> LAURA WILLS.

>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMOY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD MORNING. I AM

[B. 20-1721 AA Guardians Credit Union Dawn Vanderhoff Jacqueline Young]

I WAS DEALING WITH DON VANDER HOFF, NOW I'M SPEAKING WITH YOU MS. LAURA WELLS, CORRECT?

>> THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON JUNE 17, REGARDING AN ALARM APPEAL.

>> CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS ONE IS REGARDING THEM REQUESTING THE FEES WITH THE FALSE ALARMS TO BE WAIVED.

[01:25:01]

THE NOT PAID, APRIL 27, INVOICE 31357, APRIL 26, INVOICE 31353, APRIL 25, INVOICE 31330.

THIS IS 202020 OF COURSE. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE NOT PAID, THE LAST THREE.

MAY 23, IT IS A TOTAL OF FOUR, WHICH IS INVOICE 32022. >> LAURA? IF YOU COULD HELP US EXPLAIN WHY THE THREE ALARMS HAPPEN APRIL 25, 26 AND 27 AND POSSIBLY

WHAT HAPPENED ON MAY 23? >> ABSOLUTELY. I WAS LOOKING AT OUR RECORDS AND SHOWING WE HAD TWO FALSE ALARMS LAST YEAR, AND WE HAD NINE OF THEM WITHIN -- OR SEVEN OF THEM WITHIN NINE OR 10 DAYS. WE HAD A SITUATION WITH OUR ALARM SYSTEM ITSELF, AND WHEN WE STARTED HAVING SO MANY ALARMS WE CALL FOR SERVICE. UM, I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE TECHNICALITIES. FROM WHAT I WAS TOLD, THERE WAS A UM SEISMIC ISSUE.

OUR FIRST LINE MAINTENANCE TEAM WENT OUT AND SERVICED EVERYTHING THEY HAD TO REPLACE SOME SENSORS AND SUCH, THEY THEY TESTED IT ALL TO MAKE IT -- OR EVERYTHING WAS OKAY.

WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY SINCE APRIL 27. I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS PAY? TRAN28 THESE FOUR INVOICES WERE APPEALED. DAWN VANDERHOFF WAS SUPPOSED TO CALL TO SEE IF THERE COULD BE ANY THING DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS AN EQUIPMENT

MALFUNCTION ISSUE. >> WAS ANY INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO YOU REGARDING AN ALARM?

>> YES, HAVE A WORK INVOICE SUMMARY DATED FOR APRIL 28. IT WAS E-MAILED TO ME.

>> OKAY. UM, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STAFF BELIEVES THAT CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE APRIL 25, 26, AND 27. NOT NECESSARILY A FULL WAIVER AS WE DID HAVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT UM RESPOND UM, BUT, THERE WAS A MALFUNCTION IN THE ALARM THAT WAS REPAIRED. STAFF IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF THOSE THREE.

UM, MS. LAURA, MAY 23, THERE WAS A FOURTH ALARM THAT UM HAPPENED AFTER THE REPAIR.

I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THAT ALARM >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT ONE.

I AM ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE A GENUINE FALSE ALARM. -- WE DID N EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION IN APRIL.

I'M ASSUMING THE ONE IN MAY IS A GENUINE ALARM. I DO SHOW THAT WE PAID THOSE THREE THAT YOU ARE QUESTIONING THOUGH ON THE END OF JUNE. JUNE 22 WE SENT A CHECK.

I'LL HAVE TO SEE IF THAT HAS BEEN PAID YET. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IT SOUNDS

LIKE -- >> DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS TO VERIFY?

>> MISS LAURA, IF YOU CAN MAKE THE CONFIRMATION. WHAT STAFF WILL RECOMMEND TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS TO WAIVE ONE OF THE FALSE ALARMS AND APPLY THAT FEED TO THE MAY 23 ALARM, AND THEN WE CAN BE RESOLVED IF WE CAN GET CONFIRMATION OF THAT PAYMENT.

>> I DO SHOW THAT THE CHECK HAS BEEN CLEARED. I CAN CERTAINLY GET A COPY OF IT AND SEND IT TO YOU. WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ANYTHING YOU ARE WILLING TO HELP US WITH.

>> MS. WELLS, DO YOU HAVE MY E-MAIL. I WILL BE THE ONE THAT NEEDS I

CONFIRMATION PLEASE. >> YES, MA'AM, I DO. >> YES, MA'AM.

[01:30:09]

>> YES, THE THREE THAT YOU TOLD ME. HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

LET ME SCROLL TO IT. 31353, 31330, AND -- OKAY, WHERE'S THE OTHER ONE?

31357. >> OKAY. THOSE ARE THE THREE UNDER APPEAL

>> YES. TRAN OKAY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE -- >> I DO SEE THE OTHER ONE THAT WE PAID FOR THE 523 OCCURRENCE. WE SHOULD BE PAID UP TO DATE. THE INVOICE NUMBER IS 32022.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS CAN BE WITHDRAWN.

>> THIS COMPLAINT IS WITHDRAWN. ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.

TRAN OKAY. THE CITY HAS WITHDRAWN THE COMPLAINT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE NO SCREEN. >> YOU HAVE NO SCREEN?

>> JUST FOZ, BUT THE TWO NEXT TO ME ARE WORKING. NEXT CASE.

>> WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE ONES THAT ARE NOT HERE. WE ALL JUST LOST OUR SCREENS.

>> THAT IS OKAY, HAVE MY CHEAT SHEET. >> CAN I INQUIRE WHAT YOU WANT

TO DO WITH THE ONCE FIRST TIME UP IF IT'S A NO SHOW. >> FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE WILL RECOMMEND -- WE ARE BACK. IT. [LAUGHTER] OKAY, IF IT'S A FIRST TIME STAFF WILL RECOMMEND A CONTINUATION. IF

WE COULD GO THROUGH EACH ONE? >> CASE 20-1271, BRANDY, LUKACS

[A. 20-1271 CT Porpoise Beach Lukacs, Brandy Heather Debevec]

THIS IS A PARKING VIOLATION. IT IS THE FIRST HEARING. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE WILL REQUEST OUT TO BE CONTINUED UNTIL UM, LET ME GIVE YOU OUR DATES -- SEPTEMBER 92, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S ENOUGH TIME TO GIVE ENOUGH NOTICE. SEPTEMBER 16?

>> FINE WITH ME. >> THIS IS ALSO A FIRST NOTICE, CASE

[B. 20-1223 CE Jaycee Park Cypress, Gloria Ann Jacqueline Young-Smith]

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WE REQUEST TO BE EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 16. >> THIS IS A FIRST HEARING,

[C. 20-1213 CE Jaycee Park Innocent, Stiffany Jacqueline Young-Smith]

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE REQUEST THAT BE CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 16.

[E. 20-1231 CE Jaycee Park Ellis, Najare Garnesha Jacqueline Smith-Young]

>> GRANTED. >> CASE 20-1234 DOREN DOSSOUS

[F. 20-1234 CE Jaycee Park Dossous, Doren Jacqueline Young-Smith]

, FIRST HEARING. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE REQUEST THAT TO BE MOVED TO

[G. 20-1235 CE Jaycee Park Browning, Carlean Yvette Jacqueline Young-Smith]

SEPTEMBER 16? >> GRANTED. CASE

20-1235 CE CARLEAN YVETTE BROWNING >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE

REQUEST OUT TO BE EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 16. >> GRANTED.

[H. 20-1238 CE Jaycee Park Jackson, Zakela Lynn Jacqueline Young-Smith]

20-1238 CE ZAKELA LYNN JACKSON >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE

REQUEST OUT TO BE EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 16. >> GRANTED.

[J. 20-783 CE 405 Decordre Ct A & B Lazarre, Ermith Isaac Saucedo]

>> THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING FOR 20-738 CE

, ERMITH LAZARRE >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS COMPLIED.

I BELIEVE ISAAC SAID THAT WAS COMPLIED THIS MORNING. >> HE DID NOT TELL ME.

THIS IS THE ONE WE SAID YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK IT UP. >> 783 IS COMPLIED.

WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST A REVIEW AND DETERMINATION. WE WILL JUST DO COMPLIED.

WE ARE GOOD. >> OKAY. 20-0003

[K. 20-0003 CE 1809 Avenue N Richardson, Felicia B Richardson, Jr, Joseph Maximillion Lewis]

[01:35:04]

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE REQUEST OUT YOU BE CONTINUED AS WELL TO THE CODE OFFICER CALLED IN SICK TODAY. WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST OUT TO BE CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 16.

>> GRANTED. >> THAT IS IT. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, HAVE A CORRECTION. BROWNING, CASE 20-1235 IS PAID. IT IS PAID.

>> WE WILL JUST TAKE IT OFF THE DOCKET. >> IT IS NOT MS. MORING?

>> NO. >> WE HAVE BROWNING AND THEN WE MOVED IT TO MORING.

>> BROWNING WAS PAID A LONG TIME AGO. >> OKAY.

THEY WERE BOTH PAID? >> YES. >> THAT'S IT?

>> THAT IS IT, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> ALL RIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.