[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
>>> IF WE COULD ALL PLEASE RISE 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 UNDERGOD INDY VISIBLE FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU.
WE CAN HAVE THE DEPARTMENT'S WITNESSES SWORN IN.
>> SWERBL -- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WE WILL DO THAT AS
[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]
>> WE WILL START WITH IDENTIFYING ANY CASES THAT WERE COMPLIED OR PULLED AND THAT IS 5B20-1226, 2005, BARCELONA AVENUE. 25C, 20-319, 29 HILLS COURT HAS BEEN RESCHEDULE WALLED FOR ANOTHER HEARING AND 5F, 20-1938 SOUTH 30TH STREET. HAS BEEN COMPLIED.
[E. 21-0424 CE 1309 N 19th Street Greit LLC Maximillion Lewis]
5E, 13 WITH 19TH STREET. AND I NEED TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESS, MAX, MYSELF AND JENNIFER.IF YOU TOOK A STAND IN THE BACK AND IF YOU COULD STAND.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE
YOU SWEAR, AFFIRM THAT WHAT YOU WILL GIVE WILL BE THE
>> SESSION MAGISTRATE CAN I DO THE QUESTIONING?
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT FIRST. >> KAY.
>> YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN. >> MARGARET M.REYES.
I'M THE MANAGER FOR FORT PIERCE.
>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THE COMPLIANT MANAGER?
>> 14.5 YEARS. >> HAVE YOU HAD ACCESS TO DO
WORK IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> HAVE YOU HAD ACCESS TO OR OCCASION TO WORK WHERE 1309 WHERE 19TH STREET IS LOCATED?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> HAD YOU DRIVEN BY THAT
PROPERTY MULTIPLE TIMES? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> AND YOU SIGNED AS A SUPERVISOR WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN REGARD TO THE CASE THAT IS A SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE TODAY. >> YES, MA'AM.
>> DID YOU ASSIST IN CITING THE PROPERTY?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND WHAT IS THE RELATION
THAT IS ALLEGED? >> THE VIOLATION IS FOR THE USE OF A STRUCTURE IN THE CITY THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PERMITTED USES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN OUR ZONING CODE.
>> AND WHAT IS THE PARTICULAR USE THAT IS ALLEGED?
>> IT'S A -- HOUSE. >> AND IT'S IN REGARD TO OUR CODE OF OR DANCES. DID YOU REVIEW THAT PRIOR TO
CITING THE PROPERTY? >> I DID.
>> WHAT WAS YOUR CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO YOUR REVIEW?
>> THAT THE TABLE THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE CITY HAVE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL USES BUT HOUSES ARE NOT
PERMITTED IN PERMITTED USES. >> AND THIS PARTICULAR
[00:05:02]
PROPERTY IS IT LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT?>> YES. >> IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE TABLE IT CLEARLY DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THIS PROPERTY COULD BE USED AS A ROOMING HOUSE, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. >> I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU --
>> A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAVE AN ITEM I'D LIKE TO HAVE AS CITIES ONE. THERE'S NO OBJECTION.
>> THANK YOU. >> IT WAS ADMITTED TO THE
THANK YOU. >> I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT'S NOW IN EVIDENCE IS CITY'S 1. IS THAT CORRESPONDENCE.
>> FEBRUARY FIFTH, 2021. >> WHO IS THAT SENT?
>> IT WAS SENT TO MS. HOFMIS T*ER.
>> AND THAT PROPERTY CITED IN THE CASE NUMBER.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> IS THAT GRAY, LLC?
>> YES. >> AND IT INDICATES THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED CONSISTENTLY IN THE SAME
MANNER. >> THAT'S WHAT IT INDICATES,
>> THE USE IS NEVER. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>> THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED CONTINUOUSLY AS A ROOMING
HOUSE, CORRECT? >> YES, IT SAYS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS CONSTRICTED.
>> AND YOU ALLEGED CONTINUOUS. >> THAT'S WHAT'S STATED IN THE
CORRESPONDENCE. >> YOU STATED CONTINUOUS.
>> CONTINUALLY. >> AND THAT'S WHAT'S STATED IN
THE EXHIBIT, CORRECT? >> YEAH.
YOU SAID BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
THAT YOU HAD OCCASION TO WORK? ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> THAT YOU HAD OCCASION TO DRIVE BY 1309 NORTH STREET MULTIPLE TIMES.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> HAVE YOU EVER PERSONALLY SEEN THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING IN ANYWAY?
>> ONCE UPON A TIME IT WAS IN 2008/2009 WAS THE LAST TIME I
SAW IT FUNCTIONING. >> WHAT WAS YOUR INVESTIGATION
LIMITED TO IN THAT TIME? >> AT THAT TIME ROOMING HOUSES WERE STILL MONITORED AND PERMITTED, LICENSED BY THE DTPR AND ONE OF THEIR INSPECTION AND WE CITED THE PROPERTY FOR MULTIPLE PROPERTY CODE VIOLATIONS.
>> AND DTPR IS NO LONGER MONITORING THOSE PROPERTIES YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT DURING THAT TIME FRAME, THAT WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ACTUALLY SAW THE PROPERTY
>> AND WAS THERE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE PROPERTY
APPEARED TO BE NOT OPERATING? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> DURING THAT TIME CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW THE PROPERTY
APPEARED FROM THE OUTSIDE? >> YES, MA'AM.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS 2010 BUT IT WAS AROUND THAT TIME FRAME. IT COULD HAVE BEEN 2011, THE PROPERTY BECAME VACANT AND IT WAS BOARDED UP AND REMAINED BOARDED UP PRETTY MUCH UNTIL 2019.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THAT TIME.
>> OKAY. >> AND THE BEHAVIOR OR THE USE THAT IS COMPLAINED OF AND CITED THIS MORNING IN THIS CASE NUMBER THAT OCCURRED AFTER 2019, CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 2010 AND 2019 YOU DID NEVER OBSERVED THAT BUILDING TO BE
>> AND YOU NEVER OBSERVED THAT BUILDING TO BE IN USABLE
[00:10:05]
CONDITION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> LET ME SIT DOWN TO SHOW COUNCIL.
ARE. >> MY OBJECTION WOULD BE RELEVANT. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT PICTURE
HAS ANYTHING DO WITH USE. >> A SPECIAL TPHAPBLG STRAIT MAGISTRATE WE HAVE AN OBJECTION.
WE HAVE THE LEGAL RULER IN THIS CASE.
I WILL SHOW YOU A COPY OF IT FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT AS TO ITSEDED ADMISABILITY. THEY ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN 2019. THEY ARE, I WILL PROPER THEY ARE PHOTOED OF THE CITED PROPERTY AND PHOTOED OF THE CITED PROPERTY BOARDED UP AT THAT TIME.
I WILL PROPER THAT I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE A
OBJECTION. >> THERE'S BEEN NO PREDICATE LAID. BUT CERTAINLY RELEVANCE.
>> I WILL BE HAPPY TO LAY THE APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION FORKED A MIS -- FOR ADMISABI HR*EU TY ON THE EVIDENCE.
THERE WILL BE AN ARGUMENT THIS PROPERTY WAS GRANDFATHERED PURSUE WANT TO OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.
A PROPERTY THAT IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE IN A NON-FORMING MANNER CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS SUCH AS LONG AS THE OWNER DOES NOT STOP USING THE PROPERTY IN THAT WAY.
SO, IF A NON-CONFIRMING USE IS DISCONTINUED FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE THEN THAT PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CODE.
SO PART OF WHAT WE ARE STATING THIS MORNING IS THERE WAS AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF DISUSE OR DISCONTINUANCE OF THE NON-CONFIRMING USE SO THAT'S WHY THE PHOTOGRAPH OF 2019 IS
RELEVANT. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW THE LINE OF QUESTION IS REHAVEVALENT. IT'S IMPLIED TO BE AN UNPERMITTED USE. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT AT ALL.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS STATEMENT OR THIS BELIEF EVEN COMES FROM SO THIS WHOLE IDEA OF CONTINUANCE USE, NON- CONTINUE USE I DON'T KNOW IF IT COMES INTO PLAY.
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CITY COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY AND THEY READILY ACKNOWLEDGINGED THAT THE CODE DOESN'T DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE AT ALL AND DOESN'T DEAL WITH BOARDING HOUSES. MAGICALLY DECIDED IF 125-127 IS ON THIS, AKA THERE'S NO LAW ON THIS.
WE WILL SAY IF IT'S NOT LISTED THEN BECAUSE OF SILENCE IT'S IMPLIED TO BE UNPERMITTED. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION SO THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT AND THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING ABOUT BEING GRANDFATHERED ET CETERA IS NOT RELEVANT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY. WHAT DOES 125-187 SAY?
>> SO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT BUT IF WE CAN COME BACK TO ISSUE OF ADMIS IS SABILITY WE MIGHT BE GOING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT ARGUMENT.
>> DID YOU WANT TO -- I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S RELEVANT AT ALL.
>> I THINK IF YOU'RE ARGUING THIS MORNING THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLEGING THAT THE PROPERTY IS GRANDFATHERED THAT TAKES THAT ISSUE OFF THE TABLE AND THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION EXISTS BUT THAT EXHIBIT IS IN EVIDENCE.
IT'S BEEN ARGUED TO THINK IS STAFF BEFORE.
[00:15:19]
>> THE CITY'S EXHIBIT 2. >> I'D BE HAPPY TO ASK THE WITNESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE BEFORE YOU FORMALLY ADMIT IT. I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT COULD BE CITIES 2. IT'S TWO PHOTOGRAPHS STATED IN OCTOBER 30TH OF 2019. CAN YOU LOOK AT THOSE?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO THOSE DEPICT 1309 NORTH
>> DO THEY DEPICT THE WAY THE BUILDING LOOKED IN 2019?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITIED THAT MOVED THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN AS CITY'S ONE
COMPOSITE. >> I WILL ADMIT THEM.
>> I RENEW MY RELEVANCE OBJECTION UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WILL ADMIT THEM REGARDLESS.
DID YOU WANT THAT? >> YES, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. SO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE YOU'LL NOTE THAT IN CITIES ONE THERE ARE THE BUILDING APPEARS TO BE BOARDED UP. MULTIPLE WINDOWS ARE BOARDED
UP. >> DID YOU INITIATE THIS PARTICULAR CASE OR THIS INVESTIGATION?
>> MY OFFICE INITIATED THE CASE.
WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE WAS PROPER NOTICE LISTED ON THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEB-SITE? >> YES.
>> WAS THAT GRAY, LLC? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> WERE THEY SERVED IN CON WITH RULES AND PROCEDURE?
>> AND WERE THEY FOR THIS HEARING STPHUD.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WITH REGARD TO WORK ON THIS INVESTIGATION.
I DIDN'T ASK YOU. >> THERE IS A COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE WITH PLANNING THE PARTY THAT ARE PROEP
APPROPRIATING THE QUESTIONS. >> I'LL ASK YOU ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S AN OLD ONE. I KNOW THAT WAS CONSISTENT
WITH 2009. >> I DON'T HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL HER LATER
CROSS? >> REYES, DID YOU EVER OBSERVE A PROPERTY DURING THE TIME PERIOD THAT YOU OBSERVE THE
PROPERTY? >> JUST THAT IT BECAME VACANT?
>> HOW YOU KNOW THAT IT BECAME VACANT?
>> THE PROPERTY WAS BOARDED UP.
WE CITED IT MANY YEARS AGO AFTER IF PROPERTY BECAME BOARDED UP AND IT REMAINED BOARDED UP FOR MANY YEARS.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY ACTIVITY AT THAT LOCATION AFTER IT
BECAME BOARDED. >> HOW OFTEN DID YOU VISIT OR GO BY THE PROPERTY DURING THAT TIME PERIOD IN 2010 AND 2019.
>> THAT'S HARD TO SAY. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I PROBABLY HAVE DRIVEN BY THERE ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR.
>> I HAVE NEVER BEEN CALLED TO THAT PROP THINK SINCE THAT TIME. BUT I HAVE GONE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA AND DRIVEN BY IT.
[00:20:03]
>> SO ONCE A YEAR WHEN YOU DROVE BY.
YOU DIDN'T OBSERVE USAGE ON THAT YEARLY SORT OF TOUR.
>> NO, SIR. >> SO YOU'RE BASING YOUR OBSERVATION THAT THERE WAS NO CONTINUAL USE OFF OF PASSING THE PROPERTY ONCE A YEAR, IS THAT COLLECT?
>> THE FACT THAT IT REMAINED BOARDED THE ENTIRE TIME.
>> NOW YOU STATED THERE WAS A CONTINUAL USE BACK IN 2009.
CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >> THERE WAS A CONTINUAL USE FOR THE ROOMING HOUSE OPERATIONS AT THAT TIME.
I LOCATED A MEMO THAT I DRAFTED BACK IN 2009 IN WHICH A COMMISSIONER HAD QUESTIONED WHETHER THE USE WAS ALLOWED AND I HAD COMMUNICATED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THAT TIME IT WAS STKRAEUD DAVID THAT SAID IT WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE PAST THE USE THE NINE MONTHS IF THERE WAS CONSTRUCTION GOING ON AND AT THAT TIME REHABILITATION EFFORTS WERE NEEDED ON THE PROPERTY WHICH ALLOWED THE CONTINUAL USE TO BE EXTENDED FOR AS LONG AS -- CAN BE EXTEND THE PAST 12 MONTHS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.
>> ARE YOU AWARE TO OTHER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DIDN'T CONTINUE OVER THE 12 MONTH PERIOD?
>> IT DID STOP AND THAT'S WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BOARDED.
>> WHEN WAS THAT. >> I WANT TO SAY IT WAS AROUND 2010 BUT I CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN THE EXACT DATE.
>> PERMITTED USES IN THE ZONE, YES.
>> YOU WOULD ALSO READILY ADMIT THAT NOWHERE IN THIS 125-187 GRID FOR PERMITTED USES IS A BOARDING HOUSE
DISCUSSED OR MENTIONED. >> CORRECT.
>> IT'S NOT LISTED AT ALL IN 125-187, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. >> IS THERE ANYTHING IN 125- 187 THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT ANY USE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE USE TABLE DUE TO ITS SILENCE IN THE TOPIC IS AN UNPERMITTED USE?
>> IS IT STATED IN THAT CODE? >> NO.
>> SO THE CITY HAS JUST TAKEN THIS POSITION THAT IF THERE'S SILENCE ON USE THEN IT'S IMPLIED TO BE AN UNPERMITTED
>> ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY WAS OPERATING WITH THE CONTINUAL USE PERMIT. IT'S ALLEGED THAT WAS OPERATING WITHOUT SUCH PERMIT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS QUESTION IS BETWEEN SCOPE OF YOUR JURISDICTION THIS
MORNING. >> LET'S LOOK AT THE VIOLATION. IT'S NOT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL USE. THE VIOLATION IS FOR 125-187 BASIC ZONING DISTRICTS. AND THE VIOLATION VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT USE IS LISTED IN THE USE TABLE 125-187 ARE ALLOWED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT.
THEY ARE WITH A PERMITTED USES ARE WITH USES IDENTIFIED WITH QUOTATION MARKS. NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
THEY ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. ANY USE DUE TO SILENCE ON THE TOPIC IS AN UNPERMITTED USE AND PLACE THE TABLE FROM 125-187 IN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THERE CAN BE A RELEVANCE OBJECTION WHEN ISSUE OF CONTINUAL USE. THEY WANT TO SAY HE'S NOT COMPLYING WITH THE USE BUT THAT'S FAR DIFFERENT DAY, NOT TODAY. -- FOR A DIFFERENT DAY, NOT
TODAY. >> I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTIONING AS RELEVANT BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I --
>> OKAY. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION
AGAIN. >> IS THERE ANYWAY TO READ BACK? CAN WE READ BACK?
I WILL ANSWER AND IF I ANSWER INCORRECTLY OR IF I DON'T
[00:25:03]
COVER YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.THE ZONING CODE IS CONSIDERED A PERMISSIVE CODE.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO LIST ANY TYPE OF VIOLATION THAT IS NOT PERMITTED SO INSTEAD WE LIST ALL THE ZONING, ALL THE USE HAS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT OR BY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE CODE. ANYTHING THAT'S NOT LISTED IS CONSIDERED PROHIBITED. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO LIST ANYTHING THAT'S NOT PROHIBITED AND THAT'S THE VERSION OF ZONING ORDINANCES AND CODES. WE DON'T LIST EVERYTHING WE
CAN'T DO. >>> HOW CAN THE CITY TAKE A POSITION THAT IF IT'S SILENT IT'S IMPLIED NOT TO BE ALLOWED. IN SABILITY LAW, RIGHT?
-- THIS IS THE LAW? >>> I OBJECT.
I BELIEVE THE WITNESS HAS ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> I DON'T THINK THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED IF
THAT'S THE OBJECTION. >> THE OBJECTION IS ALSO HAS
BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. >> YOU WILL ALLOW THE LINE OF QUESTIONING. I'M NOT GOING OUTSIDE WHAT I PREVIOUSLY ASK TO QUESTION HER ON.
>> I UNDERSTAND. MY OBJECTION STANDS AND AGAIN
THE ANSWER IS THAT -- >> LET THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
OFFICIALLY RULE. >> I WILL ALLOW IT AS
RELEVANT. >> WHAT IS YOUR RULING AS ASKED AND ANSWERED, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE?
>> I WILL SAY THAT THE QUESTION THAT THE -- IT'S
SUSTAINED, YES. >> SO NEXT QUESTION.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> NO REDIRECT. AGAIN, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RECALL THIS WITNESS IF NECESSARY.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO CALL ITS NEXT WITNESS WHO WILL BE MR. LEWIS.
CODE INVESTIGATOR LEWIS. WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY SWORN THIS
>> CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD?
>> MAX LEWIS. >> WHERE YOU WORK?
>> THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT.
>> WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? >> CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
>> WERE YOU ASSIGNED TO WORK ON CASE 21-0424?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DID YOU REPORT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1309 NORTH 19TH STREET.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> HAVE YOU BEEN TO THAT
PROPERTY BEFORE? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> DID YOU ALSO OBSERVE THAT PROPERTY TO BE BOARDED UP IN
>> HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO DRIVE PAST THAT PROPERTY
MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> HAVE YOU SEEN THAT PROPERTY BOARDED UP MULTIPLE TIMES?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> WE ARE TALKING ONE OR TWO WINDOWS OR EVERY SINGLE WINDOW?
>>> EVERY SINGLE WINDOW. >> WOULD YOU SAY THAT PROPERTY IN THAT STATE FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTH?
>> AND WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S ALREADY IN EVIDENCE AS CITY'S TWO, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT EXHIBIT?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DID THAT EXHIBIT DEPICT THE PROPERTY WITH ALL THE WINDOWS BOARDED?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT LEAST THE WINDOWS VISIBLE IN THE PICTURE, CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND IS THAT HOW YOU HAVE SEEN THAT PROPERTY IN THE PAST?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DID YOU TAKE THAT PICTURE
TAKE THOSE TWO PICTURES? >> I SURE DID, YES, MA'AM.
>> AND HAVE YOU SEEN THE PROPERTY IN THE CONDITION DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH FOR MORE THAN A YEAR?
>> YES, MA'AM. SO I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS INVESTIGATION WHICH STARTED
MORE RECENTLY, CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE SCENE, THERE WAS SOME CHANGE IN HOW THE PROPERTY LOOKED, CORRECT?
>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW DIFFERENT IT LOOKED AT THE
TIME THAT YOU WENT THERE? >> THIS IS BRAND NEW.
>> WERE THERE UPDATES? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> WERE THERE BOARDS IN THE WINDOW?
[00:30:02]
>> YES. >> WERE THERE PEOPLE IN THE
>> ONE FAMILY OR MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN THE
PROPERTY? >> I CAN'T REALLY SAY IF IT WAS MULTIPLE FAMILIES. I HAVE SEEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON THERE, YES, MA'AM. I WILL SHOW YOU A TPOEF GRAPH IF -- PHOTOGRAPH IF ADMITTED IT WOULD BE CITY'S 3.
>> I'LL OBJECT TO RELEVANCE. I'M NOT SURE THE RELEVANCE OF
IT. >> OKAY, LOOK AT THAT IF IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICTS WHEN YOU REPORTED TO THE
PROPERTY. >> THAT WAS IN FEBRUARY OF
>> AND DID YOU TAKE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?
>> SO THE RELEVANCE I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE PROPERTY AS THEY APPEARED IN 2021.
IN COMPARISON AS TO HOW THE PROPERTY LOOKED PREVIOUSLY.
>> SO I CAN SHOW THIS TO YOU THAT YOU CAN MAKE A
DETERMINATION AS TO RELEVANCE. >> I'LL ADMIT IT AS CITY'S 3.
>> THE WINDOWS ARE NO LONGER BOARDED UP.
>> SO THIS CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN HOW THE PROPERTY LOOKED FROM MORE THAN 12 MONTHS WHEN YOU OBSERVED IT TO HOW IT
LOOKS NOW IN 2021. >> YES, MA'AM.
WHEN YOU WIN IT TO THE PROPERTY DID YOU HAVE ANY CONSERVATION WITH ANYONE WHO CLAIMED TO BE AN OWNER OR
MANAGER OF THE PROPERTY? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> AND DID THAT PERSON INDICATE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING USED AS A ROOMING HOUSE, STRIKE THAT, DID YOU AND YOUR SUPER BOWL VISOR INDICATE WHY YOU WERE ON SITE?
>>> YES. >> AND WAS THERE ANY DENIAL MADE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING USED AS A
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS.
>> SIR, HOW OFTEN DID YOU OBSERVE THIS PROPERTY?
>> MULTIPLE TIMES. >> WHEN WERE THOSE
OBSERVATIONS? >> BETWEEN 2019 SINCE I WORKED
HERE AND YESTERDAY. >> SO YOU NEVER OBSERVED THE
PROPERTY PRIOR TO 2019? >> NO, SIR.
>> YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IN 2009? >> VERY LITTLE.
>> YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHY THE UPDATES WERE MADE?
>> NO. YOU STATED THAT YOU SAW MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS AT THE PROPERTY.
IT'S TRUE THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THESE WERE IN A SINGLE FAMILY OR WERE NOT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. >> WHEN DID YOU OBSERVE THOSE
INDIVIDUALS AT THE PROPERTY? >>> I COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACT DATES. YESTERDAY THE INDIVIDUALS AT THE PROPERTY. PROBABLY DEFINITELY IN 2020 I HAVE MAYBE A COUPLE MONTH AS GO.
I OBSERVED SOME PEOPLE THERE. MULTIPLE TIMES I OBSERVED
PEOPLE THERE. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> NO REDIRECT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
SO AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD CALL MR. CIS TPH*E ROS IF HE
[00:35:01]
COULD COME FORWARD, PLEASE. . >> GOOD MORNING.
>>> STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> CISNEROS. >> WE WILL CALL IT FPU GOING FORWARD. WHAT YOU DO AT FPUA?
>> DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SUPPORT SERVICES.
>> YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ACCOUNT INFORMATION?
>> I DO. >> HAVE YOU BEEN IN RELATION TO THE ACCOUNT WHICH IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1309 NORTH
>> AND IF I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK TO 2016.
DID THERE COME A TIME IN 2016 WHEN SERVICES TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1309 NORTH 19TH STREET WERE SUSPENDED?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> WHAT SERVICES WERE SUSPEND?
ELECTRIC. >> WHEN YOU SAY WASTE WATER,
WHAT YOU MEAN? >> SEWER SYSTEM.
>> I SAY AUGUST 16TH, WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN OFFICIALLY?
>> AT THE CUSTOMER REQUEST ON AUGUST 12 OF 2016, WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE CREDIT UNIONS IGNORE TURN SERVICES
>> A DEPOSIT IS RETURNED IF THERE'S ANY REMAINING DEPOSIT AND AT THAT TIME THE ACCOUNT BEGINS CHARGING MINIMUM SURCHARGES WHICH INDICATES THAT THE METER WILL NOT CONSUME ANYTHING BUT WILL STILL BE A MINIMUM CHANGE TO HAVE THE METER THERE AND MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM.
>> OKAY. >> DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHEN A PROPERTY GOES INTO THAT STATUS, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT UTILITIES ARE ACTUALLY BEING USED WHEN IT'S IN THAT STATUS?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO WITH REGARD NO 1309 NORTH 19TH STREET, THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST TO DISCONNECT SERVICE WAS GRANTED IN AUGUST OF 2016.
WHAT IS THE NEXT TIME THAT SERVICES WERE RESTORED TO THAT
LOCATION? >> SERVICES WERE RESTORED IN OCTOBER OF 2019. THEY WERE COMMUNITY LEANS FOR THE SURCHARGE WHICH WERE PAID AND SERVICES WERE REINSTATED.
>> SO FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR, THERE WAS NO UTILITIES GOING TO THIS PROPERTY.
>> NO CONSUMPTION. >> NO CONSUMPTION OF WATER.
>> RIGHT. >> OF WASTE WATER SERVICES,
>> THERE WAS NO CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW THERE WAS NO ONE USING THE PROPERTY FOR ANY OF THESE SERVICES DURING THAT TIME FRAME.
>> THERE WAS NO CONSUMPTION. >> IS THERE ANYWAY YOU CAN JUST QUICKLY DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT THOSE -- WHAT THAT LEAN
WAS FOR? >> IT WAS A MINIMAL FEE FOR WATER, WASTE WATER AND ELECTRIC.
THOSE FEES GO TO BILLING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY ACCOUNT. THIS ABILITY FOR US TO MAINTAIN THAT METER THAT BECOMES TO THAT ARTICLE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED THAT WE DO IN THE AREA.
>> THERE'S NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THOSE MINIMUM FEES AND ANY USAGE OF UTILITIES AT THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THIS TIME THE CITY CAN CALL VENICE GILMORE.
>> GOOD MORNING, SIR. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL
NAME FOR THE RECORD? >> GILMORE.
>> WHERE DO YOU WORK? >> CITY OF FORT PIERCE
[00:40:03]
>> YOU HAVE ACCESS TO A HISTORY WITH REGARD TO 1309
>> DID YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESEARCH ANY USE PERMITS WERE APPLIED FOR FOR THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2009?
>> YES. >> DID YOU DO THAT RESEARCH?
>> YES. >> SINCE 2009, HAVE ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS BEEN GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY?
>> NO. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT CONDITIONAL USE FOR THIS
>> HOW IS A ROOMING HOUSE DEFINED UNDER YOUR PLANNING OR
ZONING? >> I WILL OBJECT THIS AS
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DIRECT. >> I CAN CALL THEM AND ASK THEM DIRECT IF HE WANTS TO STEP OFF AND I WILL CALL HIM
ON MY SIDE THAT'S FINE. >> SIR, HOW IS THE ROOMING
HOUSE DEFINED? >> A ROOMING HOUSE WOULD BE A HABITABLE SPACE WITH MULTIPLE UNITS WHICH WOULD BE SHARED BY
[00:47:24]
>> I WOULD LIKE CALL MR. REYES.
>> WOULD YOU GIVE ME A SECOND? >> YEAH, NO PROBLEM.
>> I CALL MR. REYES. YOU REMAIN UNDER OATH.
I HAVE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON THAT PERMIT.
WAS THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED WITH
THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> WHAT WAS THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IN THAT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. >>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CONDITIONAL USE WAS FOR A ROOMING HOUSE WHICH IS THE USE
BACK AT THAT TIME. >> IS THERE ANY ISSUE WHAT YOU WOULD REFER TO AS A ROOMING HOUSE OR BOARDING HOUSE OR ARE YOU USE USING THOSE TERMS INTERCHANGABLE?
>> INTERCHANGABLE. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS. >> ANY OTHER WITNESSES?
>> NO OTHER WITNESSES. >> MAY I HAVE ONE MORE MOMENT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING.
[00:50:36]
>> MAGISTRATE, I DON'T HAVE ANY REDIRECT FOR WITNESS.
IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED TO CLOSING I HAVE NO OBJECTION
WITH YOU GOING FIRST. >> MAGISTRATE, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT TO YOU BEFORE, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE NATURE OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION IN THAT CASE AND THE NOTICE IS VERY CLEAR ON ITS FACE.
AND THAT IS A VIOLATION SECTION 125 OF THE CODE.
THAT IS BASIC ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE AND WHAT THE CITY IS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS CREATE NEW LAW HERE TODAY.
WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS BASICALLY WRITE IN THE CODE OF PER VISION THAT DOESN'T EXIST. AND THAT IS IF ANY USE IS NOT SPECIFIC LIST ON THE USE TABLE THAT'S CONTAINED IN 187.
THEN IMPLY TO BE AN UNPERMITTED USE.
I DON'T THINK THE POINT OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND I DON'T THINK IT'S THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO BASE ECONOMY WRITE NEW LAW THAT IS NOT PROM GATED BY THE FOLKS THAT ARE CHARGED WITH DOING THAT. AND IN THIS CASE, FINDING A VIOLATION WOULD BASICALLY BE THAT IN FACT THE ASSUMPTION IN READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE USE TABLE IS IMPLIED TO BE AN UNPERMITTED USE WOULD BE A MISCARRIAGE OF LAW.
THAT'S THE STANDARD WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
WE ARE LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
ER OUR POSITION IS THERE WILL. IF THE CITY COMMISSION WAS TO TO RUN INTO THE CODE. IF THERE IS A USE THAT IS NOT LISTED IN THIS TABLE THEN THAT IS AN PERMITTED USE WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL LIST PERMIT.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO THAT. THAT'S YOUR JOB.
THAT DOESN'T ALLOW YOUR COURT TO RIDE IN THE GRAY AREA.
>> JUST AS IT HAS NOT BEEN IN EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
LET'S READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND LOOK INTO THIS GRAY AREA AND CREATE SOMETHING NEW. WE WILL MAKE AN EXAMPLE.
THAT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S SIMPLY READING BETWEEN THE LINES AND THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THIS SITUATION.
>> ON TOP OF THAT, I WOULD SAY IF EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO ACTUALLY KPHARBGIZE -- CHARACTERIZE THIS AS TO WHAT IT IS IS SPARSE. YOU HAVE REYES TESTIFYING THAT SHE'S BEEN BY THE PROPFY OVER THE COURSE OF YEAR OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. YOU HAVE MR. LEWIS TESTIFYING THAT HE'S SEEN INDIVIDUALS THERE BUT HAS NO IDEA IF THEY ARE SINGLE FAMILY OR WHETHER THEY ARE RELATED AND THIS IDEA THAT'S THERE'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AS SOME NON-CONFIRMING USE IS SPARSE AT BEST.
I THINK MY CLIENT'S POSITION IN SO FAR AS THE GRAY AREAS IS ITS STRONGEST POSITION. WE DON'T SEE THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW ON THIS UNLESS THERE'S A CHANGING TO THE CODE.
THAT'S FINE. LET THEM CHANGE THE CODE.
LET'S CHANGE THE CODE THROUGH CASE LOCK BASICALLY.
[00:55:01]
OR LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. >> MAY I PROCEED?
>> THANK YOU SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
SO ISSUE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A ROOMING HOUSE OR BOARDING HOUSE WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THAT WAS DENIED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE IT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S ARGUE BID COUNCIL FOR THE RESPOND TKAPBT -- RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT 1. THE ARGUMENT IS TO THE APHREUBG ABILITY OF -- APPLICABE OF THIS CODE AT THIS POINT.
TO TEX TENT ANY WAS ISSUED WITH THIS PARTICULAR USE OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN ALLEGED AND ADMITTED AND IN EXHIBIT ONE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS USED CONTINUALLY IN THE SAME MANNER SINCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1956.
SO ISSUE AT THIS POINT IS WHETHER OR NOT BACK IN 2009 OR PRIOR TO THE EXTENT THIS WAS ANY CONDITIONAL USE GRANTED FROM THIS PROPERTY. WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAS DISAPPEARED. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT PER OUR CODE WHEN A PROPERTY IS NO LONGER USED IN THAT MANNER FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS THEY NOW HAVE TO COME BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS ALL BUT ABANDONED.
IT WAS BOARDED UP MORE THAN 12 MONTHS.
YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF HOW IT APPEARED.
YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NO WATER SERVICES PROVIDED TO THIS PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS.
NO WASTE WATER NO ELECTRICITY PROVIDED TO THIS PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. THERE'S NO REASONABLE WAY TO FIND THIS PROPERTY WAS BEING USED AS A ROOMING HOUSE OR ANY OTHER RESIDENT FOR ANY HUMAN BEING FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST
THREE YEARS. >> SO TO TEX TENT THERE WAS A PERMIT GRANTED FOR THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A BOARDING HOUSE OR A ROOMING HOUSE THAT WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WENT INTO DISUSE FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS PER OUR CODE. NOW IS ONE REQUIRED?
>> THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING GRANTED PRIOR IN 2009 WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE'S ONE REQUIRED AND THIS PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED PREVIOUSLY.
IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ALLEGED IN TERMS OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-187 THE CODE LISTS PERMITTED USES THE CODE LIST CONDITIONAL USES. SO THE TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS PROPERTY CAN DEFINITELY ROOMING HOUSE OR BOARDING HOUSE IS NOT LISTED AS A SPECIFIC USE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THIS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. TO THE EXTENT THAT AN APPLICANT CAN ARGUE THAT IT FALLS UNDER THE PERMISSIVE USES. THEY ARE WELCOME TO GO THROUGH THAT APPLICATION PROCESS. THAT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY.
WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY IS WHERE THEY ARE OPERATING IN THE ON SENSE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEY WERE NOT.
>> BRIEF REPLY. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT THINGS TO POINT OUT.
ONE, THE LETTER THAT'S BEING REFERRED AS EXHIBIT 1 WAS ISSUED FEBRUARY 25TH OF '21.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE.
NUMBER TWO IF IN FACT THEIR ARGUMENT IS THERE IS A CODE VIOLATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THEN WE HAVE A DUE PROCESS ISSUE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 19TH SAYS.
IT DOESN'T SAY THING ABOUT THAT.
SO, IF THEY WANT TO BASICALLY SAY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND IT'S EXPIRED WHICH IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN HERE AT ALL THAT'S FINE BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY.
[01:00:05]
THE REALITY IS WHAT WAS PREPARED FOR TODAY WAS 125-187 AND IN DEALING WITH THIS GRAY AREA.I THINK YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WELCOME TO LOOK AT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT EXPIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ARGUMENT IS MADE I BELIEVE THERE'S A DUE PROCESS ISSUE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S TIME
TODAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
>> I FIND CITY AND THE EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE CITY IS PRESENTS A CASE FOR WHAT IT'S BEEN CITED FOR.
I BELIEVE THE VIOLATION DOES EXHIBIT.
I DON'T KNOW THE GRAY AREA DEFINES IT.
OR WHETHER THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A PERMIT IN 2009 IS ALSO DETERMINED BUT I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION DOES EXIST IN THAT YOUR CLIENT WOULD HAVE 15 DAYS TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE OR CEASE OPERATING AS IT IS PRESENTLY.
OR THAT IT A FINE OF $250 A DAY WOULD BE ASSESSED UNLESS
MORE TIME IS REQUESTED. >> I WOULD ASK FOR 45 DAYS.
RIGHT NOW THE WORLD OF BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION IS PURE INSANITY. SO TO GET A PLANNER ON BOARD AND GET THE NECESSARY THINGS IN LINE TO BASICALLY DEAL WITH THE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IT MORE THAN LIKELY WILL TAKE MORE THAN 15 DAYS. JUST GIVE HIM WHAT'S GOING ON
IN THE WORLD. >> YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION?
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THAT HE'S MAKING. THE CITY DOES HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT THE ADEQUATE PERMIT. SO IF YOU CAN JUST START, I THINK THE ORDER IS TO JUST START THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
IT'S NOT TO COMPLETE IT. IN THAT RESPECT I DO THINK THE
15 DAYS IS REASONABLE. >> WE CAN SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE
AND SAY 30. >> IT'S TO APPLY FOR THE
PERMIT. >> 30 DAYS FROM TODAY.
>> THANK YOU. >> GIVE THEM TO JACKIE.
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. GIVE US TWO MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU MA'AM. >>> THE NEXT CASE THAT WE WILL
[A. 19-738 217 N 10th Street Lazare, Ermith Shaun Coss]
CALL. LOZARO WILL BE SWORN IN.>> STATE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR RIGHT HAND -- NAME
>> THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY LIZARE OF 3406 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. IN IS BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR A LEAN REDUCTION. THIS CASE WAS INITIATED ON MARCH 18TH, 2019. THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WAS CITY ORDINANCE EXPIRED PERMITS.
[01:05:02]
BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON 2019 AND A VIOLATION WAS ENTERED. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED. ON JULY 6TH, 2020 IN THE ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING A LEAN WAS RECORDED.AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED ON JANUARY 12TH, 2021 AFTER DISCOVERERRING AFTER THIS MANNER CAME IN COMPLIANCE ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2019 ONCE THE PERMITS WERE RENEWED AND THE SECTIONS WERE APPROVED AND THE PERMIT WAS CLOSED THUS IN THE CASE.
>> THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES WAS 2,350.
THERE'S CRITERIA IN CONSIDERING THE REDUCTION OF THE LIEN. IT'S MODERATE, TWO ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS.
THE OWNER OBTAINED THE NECESSARY VITAL INSPECTIONS.
THREE, THE LENGTH AND TIME NECESSARY TO BRING THE PROPERTY TO COMPLIANCE WAS 8 MONTHS.
FOUR, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER JUDICIAL PROCESS OR ANY SUCH PROCEEDING
WAS FIVE TIMES. >> THE NUMBER OF VIOLATION NOTICES, THE VIOLATOR HAS RECEIVED IN THE PAST AS WELL AS THE NATURE AND FINAL DISPOSITION OF EACH NOTICE.
THERE'S 21 NOTICES IN THE PAST, 19 CASES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED, ONE CASE IS ACTIVE AND IN THIS CASE HAS A LIEN.
SIX, WHETHER TO WHAT EXTENT THE FACTORS PREVENT A TIMELY COMPLIANCE SUCH AS UNAVOIDABLE PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
NUMBER 7 WHETHER TO WHAT EXTENT THERE'S PENDING VIOLATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THERE ARE NONE.
>> STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE COSTS OF THIS CASE TO BE $1, 232.74. HER REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THE LIEN. STAFF IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT REQUEST. IT'S TO REDUCE THE LEAN FROM $ 2,350 TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $1,232.74.
>> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE RECORDING FEES.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> ALSO THE $250 FEE FOR THIS
TO GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD IF
YOU'D LIKE. >> STATE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR CONFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE WILL
>> WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS FOR ALL REMAINING THAT I HAVE TO PAY BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY GOING THROUGH SOME HARDSHIPS RIGHT NOW WITH THE HOUSES. IF THERE'S ANYWAY I CAN --
>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE IT TO JUST THE CITY'S COSTS SO I THINK THAT IS HALF OF THE $2,350.
DO YOU NEED MORE TIME? I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO. IF YOU NEED TIME TO PAY IT.
I AM FINE THAT THE LIEN SHOULD BE REDUCED TO THE AMOUNT AT WHAT IT COST THE CITY TO PURSUE IT WHICH IS $1,232.74.
BUT YOU CAN SPEAK TO THEM ABOUT A PAYMENT PLAN FOR THAT.
>> OKAY. THERE WAS AN ERROR ALSO.
WE THOUGHT THE CASE WAS CLOSED AND EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETE BUT THE INSPECTION THE INSPECTOR DID THE INSPECTION
[01:10:01]
DID PUT IT IN THE SYSTEM AND WE REALIZED THAT IN THE LAST MINUTE WHERE THEY CALL AND THAT'S WHEN THEY GO AHEAD AND TO REDO THE INSPECTIONS. THE VIOLATOR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY. THAT WAS NOT DONE.THIS COMPLIANCE WAS FOUND DURING A ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK OF THE RECORDS.
SO THE FINES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO ONLY RUN FROM SEPTEMBER 30TH --LY ASSESS THE AMOUNT TO BE WHAT WAS OWED TO THE CITY AND YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS TO PAY IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AND JUST TO REITERATE THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COMMISSION. >> SPECIAL IMAGINE
[C. 20-1591 CE 517 Beach Ct Aliaga, Frederick Reconco, Ethel P. Isaac Saucedo]
ADMINISTRATION THE NEXT CASE WE WILL CALL 517 BEACH PORT.>> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS CASE NUMBER 20-15.
517 BEACH COURT. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS \FREDERIC OF 517 BEACH COURT FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
THIS CASE WAS PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2021. THE RESPOND TKAPBTS FAILED TO APPEAR THAT DAY AND THEY WERE SCHEDULED FOR A SECOND HEARING. . THAT'S UP FOR MOBILE HOMES PROHIBITED AND THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND IT EXIST THE VIOLATOR A FINE OF $1 R50 THAT MAY BE ASSESSED. I DO HAVE PHOTOS WITH TWO DIFFERENT DATES. ONE OF THEM WAS FROM YESTERDAY AND THEN I HAVE FROM THE BEGINNING OF MARCH.
THAT'S THE DATE ON THE PHOTO. >> LET'S TAKE ONE AT A TIME.
WE DON'T HAVE CONFUSION. >> WHILE THE RESPONDENT IS LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS. DID YOU TAKE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS
THE FIRST SET? >> THE FIRST SET FOR MARCH 3RD I TOOK THOSE. THE ONES THAT SHE'S CURRENTLY LOOKING AT NOW. THOSE WERE TAKEN BY MY
>> DID YOU SEE WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE ON BOTH
>> AND DO ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS REGARDLESS OF DATE OR WHO TOOK THEM DEPICT WHAT YOU SAW?
>> CORRECT. >> I WOULD MOVE THE PHOTOS IN
[01:15:02]
AS AS CITY'S COMPOSITE. . >> DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION
TO PHOTOS? >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> MY NAME IS ETHEL. >> YOU CONFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH?
>> YES. >> SO THE ALLEGED RELEVANCE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH IS THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TRAILER THAT'S ALLEGED TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CODE IS THAT
>> CORRECT. THAT'S THE RELEVANCE AND I
BELIEVE I LAID. >> I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE PICTURES ARE SHOWING. I RECEIVED A LETTER SAYING I'M IN VIOLATION OF CODE SECTION 1, 2, 5-187 AND ON A DIFFERENT MATTER IT HAS A DIFFERENT CODE.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE I WOULD ALLOW CODE OFFICER ASK THAT HE BE ABLE TO FINISH HIS TESTIMONY AND PERHAPS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME.
ARE THE PHOTOS ADMITTED OR NOT?
>> THEY ARE ADMITTED AS RELEVANT TO WHAT THE VIOLATION
IS. >> SO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IF WE CAN FINISH -- I'M ASKING IF WE CAN FINISH OUR PRESENTATION AND THAT MIGHT ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES OKAY?
>> NOW THAT THE PHOTOS ARE IN EVIDENCE ARE WE ABLE TO PUT
>> DO WE WANT TO START AT THE BEGINNING?
>> DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION?
>> I DO. >> CAN YOU STATE WHAT IS THE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION. >> IT WAS FOR MOBILE HOME PROHIBITED AND IT STATES THAT RESIDENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM LIVING IN MOBILE HOMES WITHIN OUR ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND IT JUST STATES THAT YOUR ADVICE THAT NO ONE MAY RESIDE IN THE MOBILE HOME LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
WHEN WE GO OUT -- THIS WAS ACTUALLY A COMPLAINT THAT WE RECEIVED. WHEN WE GO OUT AND WE ADDRESS THIS COMPLAINT AND WE SEE THAT IT'S CONNECTED TO SOME SORT OF SEWAGE IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE SOMEONE IS LIVING ON THE
MOBILE HOME. >> SO TO CLARIFY THE ALLEGATION IN THE PAPERWORK IS BASICALLY THAT THE OR THE ALLEGATION THAT YOU ARE MAKING THIS MORNING IS THE MOBILE HOME WAS HOOKED UP NOT JUST PARKED ON THE PROPERTY BUT HOOKED UP IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT COULD SUPPORT SOMEONE LIVING INSIDE THE MOBILE HOME IS THAT CORRECT?
>> AND THAT IS -- IS THAT -- THAT BASIC ALLEGATION, IS THAT
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION? >>> NOT IN THOSE WORDS.
I'VE ACTUALLY DID HAVE SOME SORT OF COMMUNICATION WITH HER TOWARDS THE BEGINNING WHEN THE CASE WAS OPENED.
>> YOU SAID YOU HAD COMMUNICATION.
WHAT DID YOU HAVE? >> SHE HAD CONTACTED ME STATING NO ONE WAS LIVING AND WE WERE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT SOMEONE WAS LIVING AT THE MOBILE HOME.
I TRIEDED TO EXPLAIN TO HER WHAT I JUST MENTIONED A FEW MINUTE ASSESSED -- MINUTES AGO. THAT'S WHEN SHE REQUESTED TO SPEAK TO PEGGY AND ALSO ADVISED THAT IT WASN'T ALLOWED. NOTHING WAS EVER DONE.
SO THAT'S WHEN WE PROCEEDED WITH THE CASE AND WE SCHEDULED
[01:20:01]
IT FOR A HEARING. >>> SO IT WAS ADVICED THAT THE MOBILE HOME WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE HOOKED UP.
>> SO GOING BACK TO YOUR INITIAL INVESTIGATION WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY, YOU SAW WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT THE PHOTOS? >> THE HOSES ARE CONNECTED.
ONE OF THE OTHERS I THINK PEGGY JUST PASSED IT.
THAT LITTLE SECTION AND THAT'S A HOSE THAT'S CONNECTED.
THERE'S ALSO LOOKS LIKE THE SEWAGE.
THERE'S A PIPE UNDERNEATH. THAT'S CONNECTED AND I THINK THOSE ARE JUST -- THERE'S PROBABLY -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS BLACK TABLE IS RIGHT HERE.
>>> YEAH. LOOKS LIKE THAT'S PROBABLY CONNECTED TO SOME SORT OF ELECTRICITY I'M ASSUMING.
I CAN'T SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE CONNECTED TO.
THERE'S SOME SORT OF WATER RUNNING TO THE MOBILE HOME.
>> SO THERE'S SEWAGE HOOK UP AND THAT'S DEPICTED IN SOME OF
>> OKAY. >> ANYTHING ELSE WITH REGARD TO YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU WANTED TO
>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD?
>>> JUST A CLARIFICATION THAT IN THE NOTICE IT SAYS LIVING BUT IN MY EXPLANATION IS ANY USE OF THE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE THE MOBILE HOME PARK IS PROHIBITED.
WE DID USE THE TERM LIVING IN OUR NOTICE BUT I BELIEVE IN MY CONSERVATION I ACTUALLY SAID THE WORD "USE" THAT MOBILE HOME CANNOT BE HOOKED UP TO WATER AND SEWER AND ELECTRIC.
THAT'S AN INDICATION OF THAT PROPERTY BEING USED WHETHER IT'S USED AS A SHE-SHED OR WORKSHOP OR OFFICE.
EITHER WAY IT CANNOT BE USED AND IT CANNOT BE HOOKED UP WHILE IT'S PARKED ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT A VIOLATION. HOOKING IT UP SO IT CAN BE USED IS THE VIOLATION. I AM ADMITTING THE PHOTOS AS
THE CITY'S PHOTOS DEPOSIT ONE. >> CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING.
JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE SHE STATED EARLIER THAT THE THERE'S DIFFERENT CODES.
BACK IN JULY 15 OF 2021 THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY OPEN.
THAT CODE SECTION DID CHANGE AND THEN I OPENED ANOTHER CASE BACK IN OCTOBER 7TH OF 2020 WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT WITH THE NEW CODE BUT IT'S THE SAME VIE.
THOSE NUMBERS JUST HAPPENED TO CHANGING UNDER THE NAME.
>> REPUBLISHED IN THE SUMMER OF 2020.
YOU SAY SUE WANT. CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THE SEWAGE IS? ALL I SEE IS THE SEWAGE HOSE.
>> TH-T IS THE CONNECTION HERE.
>> OF MY HOSE. HE SAID I'M CONNECTED TO SUE WANT. CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE I'M CONNECTED TO SEWAGE. THIS IS MY HOSE COMING OUT OF MY CAMPER TRAVEL TRAILER NOT A MOBILE HOME AND I STORE IT IN A PDC BECAUSE I HAVE PUPPIES THAT LIKE TO GO IN THERE AND LICK THEM AND I KEEP THAT TO KEEP TO DISCOURAGE MY DOGS FROM GOING IN THERE. SO I SEE A PDC THAT I USE TO STORE MY SEWAGE HOSE. CAN SHOW ME WHERE MY SEWAGE IS CONNECTED. I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE A SEWAGE HOSE WHENEVER I GO OUT WITH MY CAMPER.
[01:25:01]
ACTUALLY CAN'T -- YEAH THAT RUNS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THELET ME GO THROUGH THE PHOTOS. WE WILL SEE WHERE IT COMES OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE. THAT'S THE BEGINNING THE ONE
WE JUST HAD WAS THE MIDDLE. >> THERE'S A TREE THERE.
>>> YEAH. >> IT RUNS FROM AND IN THIS SECTION HERE THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT I AM ABLE TO SEE THERE BECAUSE OF THE PALM TREE. THE BUSHES THAT'S THERE.
>> I CANNOT SEE WHERE IT'S GOING.
>>> >> YOU ARE SAYING I HAVE SEWAGE. I HAVE POWER.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> IT COULD BE THE POSSIBILITY
THAT YOU HAVE POWER, YES. >> YOU WILL KNOW IF I'M CONNECTED TO SEWAGE BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IF I'M CONNECTED TO POWER. YOU SEE CONNECTED TO A HOSE.
I REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECAUSE I WAS UNCLEAR AS TO THE DEFINITION OF THIS CODE.
I ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF THE DEFINITION.
IT SAYS MOBILE HOME PROHIBITED AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO RESIDE. I ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS SAID THAT NO ONE LIVES IN IT IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID-19 SOMEONE WANTED TO STAY AT MY HOUSE. I COULDN'T LET THEM IN.
I HAVE A SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD AND HE COULDN'T BE EXPOSED TO ANYONE. I LET HIM STAY THERE A FEW DAYS. I EXPRESSED THAT IN AN E-MAIL THAT I DID HAVE SOMEONE STAY THERE FOR A FEW DAYS.
THEY WERE NOT LIVING IN THERE. THEY DID NOT HAVE POWER OR UTILITIES WHILE THEY WERE STAYING THERE.
SINCE I GAVE THEM THE NOTIFICATION THIS WAS BACK IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR NO ONE HAS STATED OH OR HAVE AFFIDAVITS THAT NO ONE FOUR SIGNED AFFIDAVITS YOU ARE WELCOMED TO PASS THEM OUT AND READ THEM. NO ONE LIVES IN MY CAMPER.
I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THE CODE THAT SAYS I'M NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE WATER CONNECTED TO THE CAMPER.
IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT UTILITIES.
IF YOU ARE SAYING THEY PUT UTILITIES ON ANYTHING THAT IMPLIES THAT I'M USING IT. YOU'RE RIGHT I'M USING IT IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER BUT IT DOES NOT SAY I'M LIVING ON IT.
IF I PUT WATER OR MY BOAT OR ELECTRICITY TO CHARGE MY BATTERY THAT DOES I'M LIVING IN IT.
SIMULCAST UNCLEAR AS TO FIRST OF ALL THIS IS A TRAVEL TRAILER NOT A MOBILE HOME. AND I USE IT FOR CAMPING.
WHEN IT'S THERE IT NEEDS MAINTENANCE.
BATTERY NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED.
ALL THE PLUMBING NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED SO I HAVE NORMAL MAINTENANCE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE CITY'S POSITION ON ENFORCING OR ASSUMING THAT SOMEONE LIVES IN IT. WELCOME TO -- I TOOK PICK PICTURES OF THE INSIDE IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT MY PHONE.
I HAVE MOSTLY USED THIS AS A STORAGE.
I DECIDED TO MOVE EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THERE IN MY OTHER TRAILER WHICH BY THE WAY I COULD ELECTRICITY.
IT'S AN ENCLOSED TRAILER WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE THAT DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE LIVES IN IT.
I FEEL THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IT'S MISLEADING.
I HAVE FOUND OTHER OR DANCES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THAT READ AND PRESENT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE A LITTLE BETTER. IT ACTUALLY SHOWS PICTURES OF DIFFERENTUSC-JJSC1029
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, >> THESE ARE PRESENTED I
ASSUME. >> I AM ONLY HERE TO REPRESENT
[01:30:02]
MYSELF. I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT IS BEING ENFORCED. YOU ARE SAYING I'M NOT ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN MY RECREATION VEHICLE TO PREVENT DETERIORATION. THEN I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I FEEL PROBABLY SOMETHING THATNEEDS TO GO BEYOND HERE. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, NO OBJECTION TO ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO PUT INTO EVIDENCE. I DO CAUTION AS FAR AS THE ADMISSIBILITY OR RELEVANCE OF OTHER CODES OF ORDINANCES.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING. CHARGED WITH FOLLOWING THE FORT
PIERCE COURT OF ORDINANCES. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS? I KNOW YOU HAVE DISCUSSED THEM.
>> I TOOK PICTURES OF MY CAMPER BEFORE I LEFT THIS MORNING.
I CAN PULL THEM UP. >> UNFORTUNATELY THAT CANNOT BE SUBMITTED IF IT IS ON YOUR PHONE.
>> I THOUGHT SHE HAD COPIES. >> HAPPY TO EMAIL IT TO YOU RIGHT NOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, PERHAPS THE BEST THING TO DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME MAY BE TOO CONTINUE THIS CASE, HAPPY TO LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, MAYBE SOME, I CANNOT MAKE ANY PROMISES FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT BUT MAYBE SOME UNDERSTANDING THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT OR MAYBE NOT. AT LEAST THIS WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS PROVIDING.
>> CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING DATE.
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU BECAUSE SHE ACTUALLY SAT THROUGH TWO VERY LONG HEARINGS TO GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE WITH THAT.F YOU ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE ONE MORE TIME. TO PRESENT EVERYTHING YOU WANT
PRESENTED. >> I WILL BE LEAVING, GOING OUT
>> NOT PLANNING TO BE BACK UNTIL THE SUMMER.
>> ARE YOU LEAVING SHORTLY? >> AS A MATTER FACT I WAS
SUPPOSED TO LEAVE MONDAY. >> OKAY.
>> POSSIBLE FOR US TO GET THEM PRINTED IF SHE EMAILS THEM?
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION. >> SO STILL UNCLEAR TO ME.
JUST TO CLARIFY, DID NOT ASK TO SPEAK TO PEGGY.
I SIMPLY CALLED THE OFFICE, CLARIFICATION, I WANTED TO READ MYSELF, PEGGY KNOWS ME FROM BEING ON THE BOARD, OUR BIGGEST ISSUE WHEN WE HAVE THIS TYPE OF SITUATION IN FRONT OF US, WE WANT TO DO RESEARCH. I WANT TO READ IT FOR MYSELF.
SOMETIMES A LOT OF THINGS CAN BE LOST IN TRANSLATION.
I ASKED ON ONE OF MY EMAILS CAN SOMEONE SHOW ME ON THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE THAT SAYS UTILITIES ARE NOT PERMITTED.
SO I DO NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT SAYS, THE UTILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED. NOW I UNDERSTAND THERE IS WATER CONNECTED TO MY CAMPER. NOWHERE ON THE ORDINANCE DOES IT SAY THAT. IT IS SAYS NO ONE IS ABOUT TO RESIDE TO USE IT AS HOUSING. NO ONE USES IT AS HOUSING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE OF A COMPLAINT.
WHEN HE BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION HE SAID THAT I POSTED ON AIR B&B SO I FEEL LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. NO ONE WAS IN MY CAMPER.
AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED I'M NOT IN ANY VIOLATION BY HAVING WATER CONNECTED TO MY CAMPER. I FROM TIME TO TIME TO CONNECT POWER BECAUSE I HAVE TO KEEP THE MAINTENANCE OF THE APPLIANCES AND THE BATTERY IN MY CAMPER SO I CAN USE IT WHENEVER I NEED TO. IT SEEMS TO ME A LITTLE BIT FAR-FETCHED TO ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE WITHOUT HAVING ENOUGH
[01:35:06]
INFORMATION FOR CITIZENS AS MYSELF THAT ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY. IF YOU ARE SAYING I AM IN VIOLATION BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS LIVING IN MY CAMPER I WOULD BE HAPPY TO EMAIL HER, PICTURES SHOWING THAT NO ONE IS IN MY CAMPER. STILL STUFF I AM STORING.NOT VERY MUCH. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU TRYING TO SAY, NO ONE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN IT, NO ONE LIVES IN IT.
I HAVE AFFIDAVITS TO PROVE THAT IN THE MENTION OF WITH ORDINANCES SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS IS A TROUBLE TRAILER.
NOT A MOBILE HOME. THE ORDINANCE IS FOR A MOBILE
HOME. >> CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION.
HEADING OUT OF THE COUNTRY, WILL THIS BE USED IN TILL YOU COME BACK IN ANY WAY SHAPE, OR FORM?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL STILL BE THERE.
TRYING TO SELL IT EVER SINCE THIS HAPPENED.
>> REQUEST WE DO THE CONTINUATION UNTIL THE SUMMER.
MORE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE AND HOPEFULLY MAY BE RESOLVED OUTSIDE OF THIS VENUE. WHEN YOU ARE SEEING SUMMER,
JUNE, JULY? >> PROBABLY JUST BEFORE SCHOOL
SO AUGUST 4. >> I WOULD SAY IF YOU NEED ME TO BE BACK BY AUGUST 4 THEN I CAN BE BACK.
>> GOING TO ASK THIS BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 4.
COMMUNICATION BY EMAIL? >> ASKED THIS BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 4. PLEASE PROVIDE ISAAC WITH YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE CAN COMMUNICATE DURING THAT TIME
AND MAYBE RESOLVE THIS WITHOUT COMING BACK ON AUGUST 4.>> WE HAVE EXCHANGED QUITE A FEW EMAILS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.
THIS HEARING WILL BE RESCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 4 AT THIS TIME. I AM SORRY GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO GET MY PAPERWORK BACK IN ORDER.
[A. 19-2390 CE Recall - Massey 1710 Sunrise Blvd Toussaint, Michelot Isaac Saucedo]
OKAY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THE NEXT CASE IS GOING TO BE A RECALL OF CASE 19 Ã17 10 SUNRISE BOULEVARD.AUGUST 22, 2019, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OF 1710 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. THE VIOLATIONS THROUGH ROOFS AND DRAINAGE. ON DECEMBER 19TH, 2009, INSPECTION WAS MADE IN THE PROPERTY NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
JANUARY 3, 2020, SUBMIT A REQUEST TO STOP THE FIND THE PROPERTY WAS STILL IN VIOLATION.
ON FEBRUARY 5, 2020 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DENIED THE REQUEST TO STOP THE FINES, CONTINUED THE MATTER FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS.
WHILE CONTACTED ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, OBTAIN A CONTRACTOR AND PERMANENT AND MADE PROGRESS ON THE ROOF. JUNE 1, 2020, INSPECTION WAS MADE OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY WAS STILL IN VIOLATIONS, NO PERMITS SUBMITTED AT THAT TIME.
JUNE 17, 2020, ACTUALLY AS OF MARCH 10, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINES 6 TO $67,000. TO SEE IF SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN OBTAINED.
WHICH SHE IS HERE TODAY. TO SEE THAT THEY CAN HAVE SOMEONE HELP THEM REPAIR THE ROOF.
I DO HAVE PHOTOS IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.
[01:40:02]
FOUNDATION FOR THE PHOTOS? DID YOU TAKE THE PHOTOS.>> ADMITTED AS CITIES COMPOSITE ONE.
>> ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THE PHOTOS?OMPLETED
YOUR PRESENTATION? >> NOTHING THAT I CURRENTLY
>> YES PLEASE. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE
TESTIMONY WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> YES.
DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE? >> I AM HAVING A FIGHT WITH THE INSURANCE BACK AND FORTH. SO I BARELY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT IT.
SINCE I GUESS THE INSURANCE TOOK LONGER, NOW I TRY TO GET ALL THIS. SO THAT IS WHY I WANT TO REBUILD. SEND OUT INFORMATION, WAITING
FOR ANSWERS FOR NOW. >> SO WHAT IS YOUR, SPECIFIC
RESPONSE?>> MY UNDERSTANDING SHE DOES HAVE A LETTER SHE RECEIVED FROM FLORIDA REBUILD. IT DOES KIND OF ÃCAN I SEE THAT? I AM SORRY.
IT DOES LOOK LIKE AN APPLICATION PROCESS WAS SUBMITTED. IT DOES STATE THE PROPERTY OF 1710 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO GET SORT OF ASSISTANCE.
BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH. >> CAN YOU SEE THE DATE OF THE
APPLICATION? >> THE DATE STATES DECEMBER
18TH 2020. >> I SENT ALL OF THE INFO
FEBRUARY 10. >> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
>> YES. >> LAST MONTH BASICALLY.OKAY.
HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING BACK? >> NOT HAD.
>> HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, JUST TO SUMMARIZE THIS, THE REQUEST WAS TO STOP THE FINES WHILE THIS WAS GOING THROUGH. THAT WAS DENIED.
CONTINUING TO RUN, BUT STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND WE CONTINUE TO BRING THIS BACK FOR REVIEW PERHAPS WE CAN DO A SIX-MONTH REVIEW TO ALLOW THIS APPLICATION PROCESS TO GO THROUGH. PERHAPS ONCE THE PERMITS ARE OBTAINED WE CAN STOP THE FINES FROM RUNNING.
ADDRESS THOSE AFTER COMPLIANCE IS REACHED.
BUT FOR NOW, THE FINES WILL CONTINUE TO RUN, RECOMMEND A SIX-MONTH REVIEW WHICH WOULD BE IN SEPTEMBER.
SEPTEMBER 15. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND? UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15 AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AGAIN.
>> HOPEFULLY YOU WILL HAVE PAPERWORK FROM REBUILD FLORIDA TO SUPPORT THE STOPPING OF THE FINES.
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, AS YOU ARE AWARE, STILL UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY. DUE TO COVID-19, THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE SCHEDULED FOR FIRST HEARING DID NOT APPEAR REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION FOR THE NEXT, APRIL 21.
THEIR CASES, 20 Ã0904 BARCELONA AVENUE.
[01:45:02]
CASE 20 Ã2320 HILLS COURT. THE ONES WE ARE GOING TO ÃWEALREADY READ THAT ONE. >> I NEED TO PRESENT IT.
REMOVE THAT ONE FROM NAUTILUS. 20 Ã0904 AND 20 Ã2320 REQUEST BE CONTINUED TO THE SECOND HEARING IN APRIL.
[A. 20-2655 PK APPEAL Jaycee Park Amador, Adriana Chad Dawson]
OKAY. THEN CALL CASE 20 Ã26 55.>> GOOD MORNING. WERE YOU SENT A CASE NUMBER 2655? WAS THAT CASE INITIATED ON
NOVEMBER 15, 2020? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> WAS THAT FOR PARKING CITATION?
>> YES MA'AM IT WAS. >> WHAT WAS THE NATURE?
>> THE VEHICLE PARKED IN A NO PARKING AREA.
>> OKAY. DID YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE? THE LOCATION?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> MORE THAN ONE PHOTO OR JUST
>> TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT WHAT YOU SAW?
>> YES, MA'AM.> NOTING THERE IS NO APPELLANT PRESENT, AN APPEAL OF A PARKING CITATION. THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN AS CITIES
ADMITTED. >> MIGHT BE PRE-MARKED FOR YOU.
WHICH IS NICE. SO ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY
WITH REGARD TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> THEY SHOW THE VEHICLE
IMPROPERLY PARKED? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> OKAY. HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE APPELLANT ON THIS PARKING APPEAL?
>> NO, MA'AM. >> WAS SHE NOTICE TO COME HERE
>> WAS SHE NOTICE TO BE HERE TODAY? SO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO APPEAR ON TWO OCCASIONS, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRESENTED, ASK YOU AFFIRM THE CITATION. ISSUE THE FINES AS NOTED ON THE
AGENDA THIS MORNING. >> I FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR ASSESS THE AMOUNT OF $50 FOR THE VIOLATION IN FAILURE TO PAY SUCH FIND WITHIN 30 DAYS.
FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM.
>> CHAD I THINK YOU WERE NEXT. THE NEXT ONE TOO.
[G. 20-1676 CE CONT. 3/17/21 1124 Hemlock Circle Davis, Courtney J Chad Dawson]
>> THE NEXT CASE 20 Ã1676. 1124 CIRCLE.
DAVIS. >> CASE NUMBER 20 Ã1676 1124 CIRCLE. OWNED BY COURTNEY DAVIS.
THE CASE INITIATED AUGUST 5, 2020, THIS PROPERTY CITED FOR SECTION 24 Ã19, A NUISANCE ON PROPERTY PROVIDED.
SECTION 24 Ã21 NUISANCE AS A CONDITION.
SECTION 34 Ã36 SECTION PARKING.
FOR A BIT ON THE RIGHT AWAY. THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT TO COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO TODAY'S HEARING.
THE CITY REQUESTING THE PROPERTY BE COMPLIED.
>> I AM SORRY WHAT WAS THE LAST THING YOU SAID?
>> SO SORRY. REQUESTING THAT YOU FIND A VIOLATION DID EXIST BUT THE VIOLATION HAS BEEN CURED, IF THE RESPONDENT WERE PRESENT, ADVISED THAT THIS COULD SUBJECT THEM TO HIGHER FINES IN THE FUTURE.
>> OKAY. >> I DO WANT TO PUT ON RECORD THEY DID SHOW UP TODAY, I EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT OUR ATTORNEY JUST THAT. THEY WILL GET PROPER NOTICE
THAT WHATEVER WENT ON TODAY. >> OKAY.>> OKAY.
FINDING THE VIOLATION DID EXIST, BUT THEY BEEN CORRECTED.
AT THIS POINT. BUT THAT THEY WILL GO AGAINST
[01:50:02]
THEM IN THE VIOLATION OCCURS AGAIN.THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE 20 ÃONE 254-1711
[A. 20-1254 CE 1711 N 19th Street Keith, Willie Keith, Jeniffer J Keith, Glenn R Heather Debevec]
PNORTH 19TH STREET. KEITH.>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.
>> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE
RECORD. >> CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE
ENFORCEMENT. >> SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH?
>> I DO. THIS IS CASE NUMBER 20, 125-4711 NORTH 19TH STREET. REFERENCED SECTION 22 Ã137 SUBSECTION 13 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REQUESTED THEY CLEAN OFF THE FENCE, TRIM THE WEEDS IN THE BACK.
THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 10 DAYS TO COMPLY OR A FINE PER DAY.
PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. >> THE PHOTOS, DEPICTS WHAT YOU
>> NO RESPONDENT PRESENT, MOVE THE PHOTOS IN AS CITIES ONE.
COMPOSITE. >> PHOTO SUBMITTED AS CITIES
COMPOSITE ONE. >> ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY
ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> NO, MA'AM.
>> ANY CONTACT WITH RESPONDENTS?
NOTICED TO BE HERE TODAY. >> YES, MA'AM.
>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. >> THANK YOU.
>> QUITE A FEW PICTURES. OKAY.
I WILL FIND THE VIOLATION IS, THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 10 DAYS TO OMPLY OR BE FINED $50 PER DAY ASSESSMENT.
[B. 20-1863 CE 1301 Emerald Terrace Emerald14 LLC Isaac Saucedo]
>> THE NEXT CASE 20 Ã1863 1301 EMERALD TERRACE.
>> 1301 EMERALD TERRACE. NITIATED BY MYSELF AUGUST 18, 2020. DID COME BEFORE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON FEBRUARY 17 OF 2021.
THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO APPEAR, AUTOMATICALLY WERE GRANTED A SECOND HEARING. THE OWNER IS EMERALD LLC, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. THE VIOLATIONS SECTIONS 30 Ã28 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTAINERS. SECTIONS 24 Ã19 MAINTENANCE OF NUISANCE AND PROPERTY PROHIBITED.
SECTION 2421 NUISANCE AS A CONDITION.
REQUESTED A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION, GIVEN 10 DAYS TO COMPLY OR A FINE PER DAY PSS.
I DO HAVE PHOTOS HERE. >> DID YOU TAKE THE PHOTOS?
DEPICT WHAT YOU SAW? >> YES, THEY DO.
>> MOVE THE PHOTOS IN AS CITIES ONE COMPOSITE.
>> THE PHOTOS ADMITTED AS CITIES COMPOSITE ONE.
>> ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE PHOTOS? HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH RESPONDENTS?
WITH THE RESPONDENT? >> THE BEGINNING WHEN THE CASE WAS OPEN JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS MULTIPLE CASES OPEN ON THE PROPERTY. THE COMPLIED TO THOSE BUT ¦
>> NOTICE GIVEN FOR TODAY? >> YES, THERE WAS.
>> OBVIOUSLY FAILED TO APPEAR. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> I FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS, 10 DAYS TO COMPLY OR A FINE
[01:55:05]
WILL BE ASSESSED. >> THANK YOU.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THAT IS THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
ONE LAST THING FOR MS. TANYA. >> JACKIE, DO YOU HAVE THE LIST OF THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO FAILED TO APPEAR
YOU WANT ME TO READ IT OFF? >> YES, PLEASE.
>> CASE REQUIRING ARENA STATUTE 162.12 NOTICE OF THE HEARING SENT TO THE VIOLATOR CERTIFIED MAIL.
IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED, IT IS PLACED IN THE FILE. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNASSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WITH THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING ENCLOSED SENT TO THE VIOLATOR BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL. 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING NOTICE, POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN CITY HALL.
A NOTICE OF THE HEARING ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AFFIDAVIT AND POSTING.
IF THE GREEN CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, THE POSTING IS COMPLETE IN THE SAME MANNER.
FOR CASES NOT MANDATED BY THE STATE STATUTE, MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING ARE HANDLED IN THE SAME MANNER STATED PRIOR. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNASSIGNED, UNCLAIMED OR NOT RETURNED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.