[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS FRAN ROSS AND TIME SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THAT WILL PRESIDE OVER THIS MORNING'S HEARINGS.
YOU RECEIVED NOTICE THAT YOUR PROPERTY WAS POSSIBLY INVOLVED IN A PARTICULAR CITY CODE VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE AND YOU WERE GIVEN TIME TO CORRECT IT AND AS OF THIS MORNING YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WISH TO BE HEARD YOUR CASE WILL BE CALLED SHORTLY.
COUPLE OF THINGS TO BEAR IN MIND, YOU ARE BEING RECORDED ON THE LOCAL FORT PIERCE POLICE T.V. STATION SO IF SOMEBODY SAW YOU ON T.V. THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY WERE WATCHING THE STATION IF YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE AND HAVE NOT TURNED IT OFF, PLEASE DO SO NOW, SO IT DOES NOT INTERRUPT THE SERVICE.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]
REMAIN STANDING SO THAT THE CLERK CAN SWEAR YOU IN IF YOU'REGOING TO TESTIFY. >> IF YOU ARE RENDERING TESTIMONY RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND DO.
YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL
[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]
BE THE TRUTH. >> MADAM CLERK? FIRST CASE?
>> SO A FEW CASES WERE COMPLIED OR RESCHEDULED AND THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS, CASE 22735 S, CASE 221594, 1405 AVENUE Q.
ALSO CASE 22-326 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.
CASE 22-1433, U.S. HIGHWAY 1 AND CASE 22-1816, 106 NORTH 21ST
[A. 20-850 4815 S US Highway 1 Sutherlin Nissan of Ft. Pierce Shaun Coss]
>> OUR FIRST CASE THIS MORNING WILL BE CASE 6A.
>> THIS IS CASE 20-850 FOR 4815 SOUTH HIGHWAY ONE.
IT'S OWNED BY SUTHERLAND NISSAN OF FORT PIERCE.
THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY ARE BUILDING CODE 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APRIL 21ST IN ORDER DETERMINING A VIOLATION WAS ENTERED ON JUNE 15TH AN EXTENSION OF TIME WAS RECORDED WITH THE. ON SEPTEMBER 9TH OF 2021 AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED AND FINES BEGAN.
THIS MATTER CAME BACK FOR A MASSIE HEARING ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2021 AND A 90 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON FEBRUARY 15TH OF 2022 AND JUNE 21ST OF 2022.
I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY THIS MORNING PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND HE'S INDICATED THAT SINCE THE LAST PERMIT REJECTION HIS CLIENTS CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE ARCHITECTS AND THE CITY PLANNER TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR THE PARKING RECONFIGURATION AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. THE REPRESENTATIVE HAS ASKED FOR A 90 EXTENSION. STAFF AGREES WITH THE STIPULATION THIS WILL BE A FINAL EXTENSION AND IF A PERMIT IS NOT ISSUED IN THE 90 DAYS THAT THE FINES WOULD BEGIN AGAIN.
>> YES, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AS MR. KOSKINENCOSS INDICATED THER REQUIRING FOR A STORAGE PARKING LOT FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP AND PERMITS REFLECTING THE NEW LANDSCAPE ITEMS AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE EXTRA TIME OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WE'VE RETAINED A LANDSCAPE PLANNER TO REVISE THE PLANS ACCORDINGLY SO
[00:05:04]
WE ASK FOR THE 90 DAY EXCEPTION. >> THE CITY HAS NO OPPOSITION TO
THAT, RIGHT? >> AT STAFF'S REQUEST IS THIS TREATED AS A FINAL EXTENSION AND FINES WILL BEGIN AT THE END OF 90 DAYS IF THE PERMIT IS NOT ISSUED.
>> COUNSELOR YOU'RE AWARE ONCE YOU GET THE PERMIT YOU HAVE 180 DAYS TO ATTEMPT TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
>> CORRECT. >> BASED ON THE STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES I'LL GRANT A FINAL 90 DAY EXTENSION.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE VERY WELCOME.
>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5 F CASE 22-13005, 207 NORTH 13TH STREET,
[F. 22-1305 707 N 13th St Green, Chauncy Frank Remling]
CHAUNCEY GREEN IS THE OWNER. >> GOOD MORNING.
>> THIS CASE, I'M FRANK REMLING AND I WORK WITH THE CITY OF FT.
PIERCE AS UP SPECK OR THE/INVESTIGATOR AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. THIS IS 82-1305.
THE CASE INITIATED APRIL 13TH OF 2022.
THE OWNER IS CHANCEY GREEN. 908, 21ST STREET APARTMENT A.
VIOLATIONS. IPMC 111 POINT 1.1.
UNSAFE STRUCTURE. IPMC 111.1.2 UNSAFE EQUIPMENT.
IPMC STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION.
DANGEROUS STRUCTURE ON PREMISES. IPMC 340.1, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE GENERAL. IPMC 340.1.1 UP SAFE CONDITIONS.
304.2, PROTECTIVE TREATMENT. IPMC 304.4 STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.
340.6, EXTERIOR WALLS. 3 304.7 AND 304.9, GLAZING. IPMC 306.1 COMPONENT SERVICE ABILITY IN GENERAL. 306.1.1 UNSAFE GLAZING.
IPMC 306.1 COMPONENT SERVICE ABILITY.
306.1 UNSAFE GLAZING. I IPMC 304.6 COMPONENT SERVICE BUILT.
COMPONENT SERVICE ABILITY. IPMC 306.1.1 UNSAFE GLAZING, COMPONENT SERVICE BUILT, UNSAFE GLAZING, UNSAFE GLAZING.
LOOKS LIKE THESE ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH, AREN'T THEY? IPMC COMPONENT SERVICE BUILT IN GENERAL.
IPMC 1 P.1 UNSAFE GLAZING. IPMC 6.04 ELECTRIC HAZARDS.
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURES AND SO GET AND FASCIA.
ANY DAMAGE WILL REQUIRE PLANS DESIGNED BY A REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION
[00:10:06]
EXISTS AND GIVE THE OWNER 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT AND COMPLIED WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY WILL BE PLACED.>> HAVE YOU SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPH?
>> I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY LIKE THAT.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. >> DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE
VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THEM? >> YES.
>> SORRY I WAS ASKING HIM. THE CITY WILL PUT IN PHOTOGRAPHS THE AS COMPOSITE ONE AS EVERYTHING.
>> IT WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. GREEN HOW DO
YOU RESPOND? >> MY RESPONSE IS I'M GOING TO REDO IT, BUT RIGHT NOW THE MATERIALS COST SO MUCH I CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY ALL THE MATERIAL TO GET IT AND I DON'T WANT TO START AND HAVE TO KEEP PAYING TO KEEP THE PERMIT ON-GOING BECAUSE HOW MUCH MATERIALS IS HIGH AND SO MUCH IS ON BACK ORDER AND I WAS GOING TO KNOCK THE WHOLE STRUCTURE DOWN AND REDO IT.
>> OKAY. POINT ONE, IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO TRY AND REHAB IT WHICH THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU, ONCE YOU PULL THE PERMIT YOU HAVE 6 MONTHS, 180 DAYS TO COME IN TO COMPLIANCE. IN AS FAR AS DEMOLISHING IT, BE MINDFUL THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO BE A PERMIT FOR THAT.
YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. I'M BEHINDFUL OF ALL OF US ARE OF HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET MATERIAL NOW.
WITH THE SHIPPING PROBLEMS GETTING BETTER NOW.
THE DECISION UP TO YOU BUT IF YOU DO INTEND TO KEEP IT, AS THE CITY SUGGESTED YOU HAVE TO GET THAT DESIGN ENGINEER, SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT COULD TAKE YOU TO LOCATE OR DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IN TERMS OF DESTROYING THE STRUCTURE AND THEN REBUILDING?
>> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
IF I WAS TO KNOCK THE WHOLE STRUCTURE DOWN AND REDO IT, WOULD I HAVE TO PAY WHAT HEY, I THINK IMPACT FEES, DO I HAVE TO
PAY THEM AGAIN? >> I WOULD SUGGEST YOU TALK TO
THE CITY. >> HOW BIG IS THE LOT?
>> IT IS A REGULAR SIZE LOT. IT'S I WANT TO SAY 1.9 OR 1.7.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET WITH THE CITY AND FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO WITHIN A MONTH? NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, BUT WHAT YOU COULD DO TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO DESTROY OR REBUILD OR TRY AND CORRECT THIS. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A LOT OF
WORK TO DO TO CORRECT IT. >> I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.
IT'S WOOD AND I DON'T WANT TO GO WITH WOOD WITH THE PRICE OF IT
RIGHT NOW. >> EVERYTHING IS HIGH.
I LIKE CHICKEN AND CHICKEN IS HIGH.
IT USED TO BE THE CHEAPEST MEAT IN THE MARKET.
>> I CAN GET WITH THE CITY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT I CAN DO.
ONLY THING IS IF THEY'RE NOT CHARGING IMPACT FEES AGAIN, I PROBABLY CAN HAVE IT KNOCKED DOWN 60 TO 90 DAYS UNTIL I GET
THE MONEY UP TO START OVER. >> HERE'S WHAT I'LL DO.
I WANT TO CONTINUE THIS FOR 30 DAYS TO ALLOW YOU TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK IN HERE IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ON WHAT DECISION YOU'LL MAKE IN THAT 30-DAY PERIOD BECAUSE THE INTEREST OF THE CITY
[00:15:04]
IS, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE BUILDING LOOKS.YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND IF YOU MAKE A DECISION, I WISH YOU WELL, BUT IF YOU DON'T YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AND I'LL HAVE TO IMPOSE WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE. CAN WE GIVE HIM A DATE AND WE'LL
SEND IT IN THE MMAIL. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 5 H.
[H. 22-1389 2502 Jersey Ave DaCosta, Joseph Logan Winn]
22-1389, 2502 JERSEY AVENUE. JOSEPH DACOSTA IS THE OWNER.>> GOOD MORNING. LOGAN WINN CASE 22-13892502 JERSEY AVENUE.
INITIATED APRIL 25TH OF 2022. THE OWNER IS JOSEPH DACOSTA OF 7002 LAKE BOARD FLORIDA. VIOLATION PERMIT REQUIRED.
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TO CONTAIN A PERMIT FOR PAVING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. RECOMMENDATION IS CITY MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS, THE OWNER HAS TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE
ASSESSED. >> I HAVE PICTURES HERE.
>> I THINK THIS CASE HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE MAGISTRATE.
>> WE'LL ADMIT THEM AGAIN. DO THEY FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT? WE'LL MOVE THEM IN TO COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE FOR THIS HEARING.
>> ALRIGHT. MR. DACOSTA HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
>> I HAVE A COMPANY AND WE'RE WORKING AGAIN ON THE PERMITS,
BUT WE NEED MORE TIME. >> DID YOU COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE CITY THAT YOU HAD SOMEBODY AND YOU NEEDED MORE TIME?
I'M GOING TO SAY THIS TO YOU AND EVERYBODY LISTENING TO ME.
IF YOU HAVE BEEN BEFORE ME AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THE CASE WAS CON THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. IF NOT, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO FINES. WHERE ARE YOU WITH TRYING TO GET
THIS TAKEN CARE OF? >> WELL I HIRED THIS COMPANY TO PULL THE PERMITS, BUT IT'S ONLY BEEN LIKE TWO WEEKS AGO AND THEY WERE SHORT STAFFED AND THEY TOLD ME TO COME IN HERE AND ASK FOR
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I DID PULL THIS UP BEFORE YOURSELF, IT WAS YOU. AUGUST 16TH WAS THE LAST HEARING DATE AND IT WAS CONTINUED TO THIS DAY.
>> IT IS BEEN SIX MONTHS AND WE'RE RIGHT WHERE WE STARTED FROM AND - IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE DONE NOTHING.
THERE'S NO RECORD OF YOU DOING ANYTHING.
>> I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING PERSONALLY, NO.
>> YOU DIDN'T HIRE ANYBODY? >> YES, I DID.
>> WELL, THEN YOU DID SOMETHING. >> OKAY.
I THINK I ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WORK WITH THE
[00:20:04]
CITY AND THEY'LL WORK WITH YOU. I DO BELIEVE YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT FROM WHERE I SIT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE DONENOTHING. >> ME PERSONALLY I HAVE NOT DONE
MUCH. >> IF YOU HIRED SOMEBODY YOU SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. I HIRED THIS PERSON AND THIS IS
WHAT THEY'RE DOING. >> IT WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN I HIRED HIM. AND YOU WERE LAST HERE AUGUST
16TH. >> I THOUGHT THIS WAS TAKEN CARE
OF MONTHS AGO? >> WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?
>> THE COMPANY THAT DID THE PAVING SAID I GET ANOTHER LETTER AND DIDN'T HEAR FROM THEM FOR 3 MONTHS AND THEN I GET A LETTER TO COME IN HERE AND THEY TOLD ME NOT TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
THAT'S THE LAST TIME I WAS IN HERE.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE A PERMIT YET? >> NO.
>> AND THE CASE STARTED IN APRIL AND THIS IS OCTOBER.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
THEY SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. IT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND THEN WHEN I GOT THE SECOND LETTER THE SAME THING AGAIN .
>> THIS PARKING LOT IS WHAT? >> A USED CAR LOT.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? MR. DACOSTA ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO. >> BASED ON THE EVERYTHING I FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AND YOU'RE THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION AND I'LL GIVE YOU 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH OTHER CONDITIONS AND VIOLATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
PEOPLE COME IN HERE EVERY MONTH WITH I HIRED THIS PERSON AND THEY DIDN'T DO THIS OR THAT. YOU HAVE TO STAY ON THESE PEOPLE. THE BUCK STOPS WITH YOU.
[B. 22-1171 705 Revels Ln Apt B Hatfield, James Frank Remling]
GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU.NEXT CASE? >> THE NEXT CASE IS 5B.
22- 22-1171705 REVELS LANE, APARTMENT B.,1705 REVELS LANE, APARTMENT B. 1705 REVELS LANE,
>> GOOD MORNING. WHEN YOU ARE READY MR. REMLING.
>> THIS IS 22-1171, 705 REVELS LANE, APARTMENT B.
CASE INITIATED MARCH 30TH, 2022. THE OWNER IS JAMES HATFIELD.
THE VIOLATIONS ARE. IPMC 505.3, SUPPLY, 506.1, GENERAL, 506.2, MAINTENANCE, 603.1, MECHANICAL APPLIANCES, DOORS, THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE MAKE NECESSARY PLUMBING REPAIRS TO PIPE UNDER THE HOME THAT'S POSSIBLY BROKEN.
REPAIR AND REPLACE NON-WORKING AC UNIT AND REPAIR AND FRONT DOORS THAT DON'T LOCK AND MAKE NECESSARY PLUMBING REPAIRS TO TOILET AND TUB THAT ARE BACKED UP.
THE RECOMMENDATION THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS THEY WILL BE GIVEN 60 TODAYS TO COMPLY AND HAVE 180 AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.
AS FAR AS I KNOW RIGHT NOW THERE HAS BEEN NO REQUEST FOR AREA INSPECTION. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES.
>> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE
[00:25:03]
>> MR. REMLING DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU OBSERVED THEM.
AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN AS COMPOSITE
ONE. >> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS
MUCH. >> STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE
RECORD. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SHE HAS NOT BEEN SWORN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AN AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL
>> ALRIGHT. >> WELL A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH THIS PROPERTY. WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A BROKEN PIPE. WE BELIEVE WE NOWHERE THE WATER WAS COMING FROM. ITEMS THREE AND FOUR ARE ALREADY RESOLVED, I WAS I BELIEVE LAST MONTH IN CONTACT WITH MR. COSS AND THIS PROPERTY WAS UNDER CON EVICTION AND THEN SHE FILED AN EMERGENCY MOTION SO THIS LAST FRIDAY WE WERE FINALLY ABLE TO EXECUTE THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION TO TAKE BACK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN I MAIDEN TRY WITH MAINTENANCE WE DID NOTICE SOME FLOODING IN THE CLOSET AND WHEN YOU WOULD STEP TOP TILE SOME WATER COMING OUT.
WE BELIEVE WE DETERMINED THAT'S A LEAKING AIR-CONDITIONING UNIT, BUT I SAID IT WAS THIS PAST FRIDAY AFTERNOON WHEN WE GOT THE WRIT SERVED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE TENANT WOULD NOT ALLOW US ACCESS INTO THE UNIT TO MAKE REPAIRS AND IT
IS VACANT AT THIS TIME. >> ALRIGHT.
THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS IS THAT THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON MARCH 30TH. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT THIS IS OCTOBER.
>> I UNDERSTAND. >> CAN I HAVE ONE SECOND,
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MR. COSS IS GOING TO PULL UP CODE SECTION VIOLATIONS TO ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF TENANTS.
I POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE IT DID INVOLVE A NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST A PROPERTY OWNER WITH A BONA FIDE EVICTION PROCEEDING WHICH IS DILIGENTLY PURSUED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER SO I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO DECIDE THE PENDING OF THE EVICTION HAS ENDED ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY AND THE VIOLATION WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED DURING THE EVICTION PROCESS SO I DO THINK THERE'S A QUESTION FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AS TO WHETHER ANY ACTION TODAY WOULD BE TAKEN DURING THE PENDING OF A BONA FIDE EVICTION.
SO I THINK THE EVICTION PROCESS HAS ENDED, BUT I THINK THAT QUESTION EXISTS WHETHER AND HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED TODAY.
>> I WANT YOU TO ASK THE QUESTION OF MRS. SIMMONS.
I KNOW SHE WORKS HARD. WHY DON'T YOU POSE THE QUESTION
AND I'LL PROCEED FROM THERE. >> MRS. SIMMONS WHEN DID YOU
BEGIN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS. >> I HONESTLY CANNOT ANSWER THAT. I HAVE SO MANY ALL THE TIME.
THIS ONE WAS CRAZY AND IT WAS AN EVICTION AND THEN IT WASN'T AND THEN IT WAS. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT ENDED EYE I MEAN ON FRIDAY IS WHEN WE PHYSICALLY WENT WITH THE SHERIFF AND WERE GIVEN BACK THE PROPERTY.
>> WHAT WAS THE TENANT'S NAME. >> CHRISTINA KOLE.
>> GIVE ME ONE SECOND AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO FIND IT IN THE
COURT OF CLERK'S WEBSITE. >> I THINK YOU MIGHT FIND TWO
[00:30:08]
DIFFERENT ONES FOR HER. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IT APPEARS THE FIRST ACTION 2022, C 1823 COMPLAINT FILED JULY 21ST, 2022.
THAT WAS DISMISSED AUGUST 22ND OF 2022, VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL.
JAMES AND CHRISTINA KOLE AND OTHER RESIDENTS.
MR. COSS CAN YOU MAKE A NOTE OF THE DATES I JUST GAVE? AND THEN CASE 22 C-C2205. JAMES HATFIELD AND CHRISTINA C COAL, OUR INTERNET IS VERY SLOW.
>> IT'S OKAY. A COMPLAINT FILED AUGUST 26TH, 2022. SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2022.
DO THOSE DATES SEEM CORRECT? >> I THINK SO.
>> SO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS CASE INITIATED IN MARCH OF 2022 BEFORE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS WERE FILED SO GIVEN THE DATES OF THE EVICTION AND THE DATE THIS WAS INITIATED IT'S MY OPINION AT THIS POINT THAT YOU ARE FINE TO PROCEED TODAY THAT NO ADVERSE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING A BONA FIDE EVICTION PROCESS.
>> OKAY. HOW SOON CAN YOU START WORKING
ON THIS? >> THIS IS WRAPPING UP SOMETHING ELSE SHE'S WORKING ON RIGHT NOW, SO I BELIEVE THAT BY THE END OF THIS WEEK OR THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK WE WILL START, LIKE I SAID, SOME OF THE ITEMS ARE ALREADY CORRECTED.
I DO HAVE TO GET THE AIR CONDITIONER REPAIRMAN OUT THERE, BUT BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK WE SHOULD BE COMPLETE.
THE PLACE IS VACANT NOW? >> YES, MA'AM,
>> I'LL CONTINUE THIS ONE LAST TIME.
I THINK YOU'VE HAD TWO EVICTIONS AND WHATEVER WE DO UNTIL IT'S
COMPLETED? >> ESSENTIALLY FOR THE LANGUAGE THAT'S THE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. YES, MA'AM.
ALRIGHT. I'LL GIVE YOU 30 DAYS AND IF IT'S DONE YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
I KNOW YOU ALWAYS SHOW UP. THANK YOU.
[I. 22-1449 104 S 14th Street Rocha, Jorge Frank Remling]
>> NEXT CASE? >> NEXT CASE IS 5I.
22-1449. 104 SOUTH 14TH STREET, JORGE
ROCHA IS THE OWNER. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY.
MR. ROCHA? >> DO YOU NEED AN INTERPRETER?
>> NO. >> ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US?
>> NO. >> DO WE HAVE A HEARING HEADSET?
>> WE DO. >> YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?
>> NO. >> DO YOU NEED SPANISH?
>> CAN WE PASS HIM AND WE'LL GET TH INTERPRETER READY?
>> GET THE HEADSET AND THE INTERPRETER.
>> MR. ROCHA YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AND WE'LL RECALL YOUR CASE.
[J. 22-1464 1620 S 27th St Sofus Holdings LLC Logan Winn]
WE WILL DO 5 >>, CASE 22-1464, SOFUS HOLDINGS LLC IS THE OWNER. 1620 SOUTH 27TH STREET.
[00:35:06]
>> WHEN YOU ARE READY MR. WINN. 22-1464.
1620 SOUTH 27TH STREET. CASE IS INITIATED MAY 2ND, 2022.
THE OWNER IS SOFUS HOLDINGS LLC OF 5006 OLD AVENUE.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR WINDOWS REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE PORCH POST INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE CITY FINDS VIOLATIONS EXISTS AND THERE'S 60 DAYS TO FIX THE VIOLATIONS UNTIL THE PEAR VIOLATIONS ARE CLOSED OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR ON JUNE 21ST AND THE PERMIT DOESN'T SATISFY ALL OF THE VIOLATION CASE. THE PORCH SUPPORT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT AND THEY NEEDED DRAWINGS FOR THAT SUPPORT FOR THE PORCH. I HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY.
>> MR. WINN, WHERE IS THE PERMIT WHEN IT WAS APPLIED FOR AND
WHERE IS IT 234 THE PROCESS? >> I DON'T KNOW.
>> WHAT WAS DONE TO THE PORCH WHERE IT'S NOT COVERED ON THE
PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR? >> THEY REPLACED THE POST THERE AND RECONFIGUREED THE GABLE END OF THE PORCH PORTION THERE.
>> IS THAT COMPARING WHAT YOU OBSERVED TO THE PROPERTY ASSESSORS WEBSITE. DO YOU HAVE THE PROPERTY CARD PRINT OUT THAT WE CAN INCLUDE IN OUR EXHIBIT, PLEASE?
>> I SHOULD HAVE IT IN HERE. >> THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE PROPERTY. IT SAYS IT ON THE TOP.
>> MA'AM? >> MIMI WOODN HERE FOR SOFUS
HOLDINGS LLC. >> HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SEE
THE PHOTOGRAPH? >> NO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO,
DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM? THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PHOTO. I'LL PUT THAT'S THE LAST PAGE.
>> THANK YOU. THESE WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> MIMI WOODN.
I WORK WITH THEM ON THEIR REAL ESTATE.
>> HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS?
>> WE'RE WORKING WITH NEW CONTRACTING AND WE TRIED TO HAND IN A PERMIT LIKE LOGAN SAID, BUT THE SMALL PROBLEM IS THAT THE DRAWING AND THE ENGINEERING OF THIS POST IS SO FAR BACKLOGGED FROM ENGINEERS IN OUR AREA THAT WHEN I GOT IN LINE TO GET IT DONE WITH AN ENGINEER THEY STATED IT WOULD BE SIX TO 8 WEEKS TO GET AND I WAS HOPING TO HAVE IT BY NOW, BUT BEING THAT THERE'S SO MUCH BUILDING GOING ON AND IT'S SUCH A MINOR JOB REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE WORK I'M HUMBLY ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION ON THE TIME TO GET THIS ENGINEERED AND STAMPED OFF, BUT WE DID TRY TO HAND IN THE OTHER PERMITS, BUT IT'S ALL TOGETHER AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT WAS REJECTED.
I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE ENGINEER STATING THAT SCOPE OF WORK IS SMALL, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT AND IT'S IN A PILE OF NEW HOME DRAWINGS AND WHATEVER WE HAVE GOING ON AND THAT'S GREAT NEWS FOR OUR COUNTY, BUT IT'S A BIT OF A DELAY ON OUR
[00:40:02]
DID YOU SEE THE LETTER FROM MR. WINN?
>> I COULD FORWARD IT TO HIM OR ANYBODY HERE.
I GOT IT THIS MORNING. LARRY RHINERSON.
THE ENGINEER. >> I CAN WRITE IT DOWN FROM MY LAPTOP. YOU HAVE A SCRATCH PIECE OF
PAPER OF >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATED IT INTO THE RECONSIDERED SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A HARD COPY. THE LETTER IS DATED SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2022 FROM LARRY REINERSON OUT OF VERA BEACH DIRECTED TO THE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S DIRECTED TO THE COUNTY, BUT I THINK IT'S FOR THE CITY. DEAR SIR THIS LETTER IS IN CONCERN TO THE ABOVE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE GREAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC WITH THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE INVOLVED IN.
WE'RE ADDRESSING EACH PROBLEM AS BEST WE CAN AND THE ABOVE PROJECT SHOULD BE FINISHED BY THE END TO WEEK, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE APPROVED DESIGN FROM THE ENGINEERS.
THERE ARE FEW THAT WILL APPROVE TODAY AND IF THEY WOULD THE COST WOULD BE A LOT HIGHER. PLEASE BEAR WITH US.
>> THANK YOU. THAT WILL BE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD AS SUCH. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO, MA'AM. >> THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THIS CASE WAS INITIATED MAY 2ND, 2022.
>> I STARTED TO LOOK FOR ENGINEERS AT THAT TIME AND EVERYBODY TOLD ME I WOULD BE WAITING, SOME SAID UP TO SIX MONTH, SO IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I TRIED TO GET IN LEADERSHIP TO GET DRAWN, BUT IT'S JUST THE TIME FRAME.
IT'S TOO SHORT AT THE MOMENT. NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DRAW IT, TO SIGN OFF. TOO IN HOME BUILDING AND BUILDINGS GOING UP. WE TRIED AND I HAVE A LOT OF E-MAILS WITH OTHER ENGINEERS, AS WELL THAT I'VE TRIED TO GET IN LEADERSHIP TO GET THEM TO DRAW IT AS WELL, BUT THIS WAS THE ONLY PERSON THAT ACTUALLY INITIATED SOME EFFORT TO TRY TO
HELP US WITH IT. >> THE PROBLEM I HAVE THOUGH IS EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T GET AN ENGINEER TO DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, SOMEBODY DECIDED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THE WORK ANYWAY.
[00:45:04]
>> WE LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE AND WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS POST WOULD NEED A PERMIT. IT IS A DECORATIVE POST.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER PAGES.
THE ONES THAT WERE OF THE ORIGINAL WAY IT WAS.
WE'RE WILLING TO PUT BACK THE WILL BRACKET, BUT AT THIS POINT SPEAKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR WE DON'T WANT TO PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS. WE'RE WILLING TO PAY AND WAIT FOR THE POST, BUT IT'S JUST TAKING TIME.
WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, BUT THAT POST IS JUST READY FOR SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT IT ONCE WE GET THE PERMIT IN AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE ENGINEERING ON THE POST.
IT'S LIKE A TWO FOOT OVER HANG AND THERE'S DISCUSSION IF THIS POST EVEN NEEDS A DRAWING, BUT WE WANT TO DO IT ANYWAY.
THAT'S WITHIN THE CITY BECAUSE I THINK THE CONTRACTOR VISITED AND
I DON'T HAVE THE DATE FOR THAT. >> YOU KNOW HOW LONG SOFUS HOLDINGS LLC HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS?
>> NOT EXACTLY. SEVERAL YEARS?
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING THEM UP AND THE EARLIEST DOCUMENT I SEE FROM THEM IS FROM 2010.
SO 12 YEARS. >> SO YOU'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS 12 YEARS. OKAY.
ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.
>> ALRIGHT. THEN BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY I DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSES. ONCE YOU PULL THE PERMIT YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> WE TRIED TO PULL THE PERMIT, BUT BECAUSE THE DRAWING WAS NOT INCLUDED IT WAS KICK-BACK.
>> I JUST FIND THAT ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN IN BUSINESS SHOULD PRETTY MUCH KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING RESTRICTIONS ARE.
[M. 22-1507 114 Roselyn Ave Gutierrez, Gustavo Frank Remling]
>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5M, CASE 22-1507, 114 ROSELYN AVENUE, GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ IS THE OWNER. SIR IF YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN?
>> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS CASE IS 22-1507, CASE INITIATED MAY 5TH OF 2022. THE OWNER IS GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, 105 ORANGE AVENUE, FT. PIERCE. THE VIOLATION IS 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE OBTAIN PERMIT FOR WINDOWS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. A PERMIT WAS A MYED FOR ON 9/7 AND DENIED ON 9/22. AN ENGINEER'S LETTER IS NEEDED WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION SINCE IT ALREADY INSTALLED THE WINDOWS AND I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE WINDOWS.
>> HAS MR. GUTIERREZ SEEN THOSE PHOTOGRAPH?
>> I'M HERE REPRESENTING MR. GUTIERREZ AND I DO HAVE THAT LETTER WITH ME. I'M WORKING FOR THE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOOK AT THE
[00:50:01]
PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE WE PRESENT THEM TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE? AT THIS TIME WE'LL MOVE IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS.IS THIS THE ONE THAT'S A DUPLEX MR. REMLING?
DO I HAVE THAT WRONG IN MY HEAD? >> I DON'T THINK SO.
>> I DO HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER YOU REQUIRE FROM THE
ENGINEER. >> YOU SHOULD HAVE SHOWN IT TO THE CITY. HAVE YOU SEEN IT?
>> I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO SUBMIT IT.
>> YOU NEED TO TAKE IT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEY'LL
>> IS THIS RENTAL PROPERTY? >> IT IS, YES.
I DIDN'T SAY THESE WILL BE ADMITTED AS EXHIBIT ONE.
IS THIS THE ONLY RENTAL PROPERTY THIS PERSON HAS?
>> NO, THERE'S SEVERAL. >> OKAY.
ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.
>> THIS PERSON OR THIS ORGANIZATION HAS SEVERAL PROPERTIES. HE, SHE OR IT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS IN DOING RENOVATIONS.
YOU ALMOST NEED A PERMIT TO RENOVATE ANYTHING IN YOUR HOUSE.
ALRIGHT. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSES. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE?
[C. 21-3532 3021 Okeechobee Road Haisley, Richard & Jimmie Logan Winn]
[D. 21-3534 1608 S 31st Street Haisley, Richard & Jimmie Logan Winn]
[B. 21-3533 1611 S 30th Street Haisley, Richard & Jimmie Logan Winn]
>> THE NEXT CASE IS 6C, SORRY, 6D AND POSSIBLY 8 B.
AND THOSE CASE NUMBERS ARE 21-3532, 3021 OKEECHOBEE ROAD, HOUSE THAT C HAZE LIS THE ONLY'S.
AND ALSO WE HAVE 21-3534, 1608 SOUTH 31ST STREET AND WE ALSO HAVE 8 B, 21-3533, 1611 SOUTH 30TH STREET.
>> THE FACTS FOR THE CASE FOR 6C AND 6D ARE THE SAME.
THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT FOR 8 B SO I WILL READ THAT ONE IN SEPARATELY FOR 6C THE CASE IS 21 21-2532, 3021 OKEECHOBEE ROAD OWNED BY RICHARD AND JIMMY H HAISLEY AND THEN, WE HAVE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR RECEILING AND STRIPEING A PARKING LOT. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APRIL 29TH, 2022 AND AN ORDER OF VIOLATION WAS DETERMINED. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED IN 2022. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 8TH OF 2022 AND THE FINES STOPPED.
THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE DATED SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2022 THAT WAS RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2022. THE FINES DID STOP WHEN THE FINAL INSPECTION WAS APPROVED. THERE WAS AN INSPECTION, PREVIOUS INSPECTION ON JULY 5TH, 2022 THAT THE INSPECTOR THAT HAD DISAPPROVED THAT NECESSARILY MAY HAVE BEEN APPROVED, SHOULD IT
[00:55:05]
HAVE DISAPPROVED SO STAFF IS CONSIDERING THE DATE OF JULY 25TH OF 2022 AS THE COMPLIANCE DATE.HAD THE CASE BEEN COME APPLIED THAT DAY THE FINES WOULD HAVE TOTALLED OVER $2,000 INSTEAD OF $6040.
THERE'S THREE CRITERIA IN THE REDUCTION.
ONE IS VIOLATION IS MINIMAL. TWO AND ACTIONS TAKEN TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS AND THE OWNER OBTAINED AN INSPECTION FOR THE WORK DONE. THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE OWNER WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OR OTHER BOARD HAS BEEN SEVEN TIMES.
STAFF IS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $963$963.60. WE DID RECEIVE A FINE REDUCTION.
THEY'RE REQUESTING IT BE REDUCED TO $2632 AND STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS REDUCTION REQ
REQUEST. >> AGAIN, HOW MUCH YOU ALL AGREE
>> WE'LL TAKE ONE CASE AT A TIME?
>> THIS IS FOR CASES 6C AND 6D. >> THE MONEY IS FOR THEM
>> SO THAT'S FOR EACH CASE SEPARATELY? HOPEFULLY I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE CONFUSED.
>> STATE YOUR NAMES. >> THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I'M KATIE AND I'M THE ACCOUNTANT FOR THE BUSINESS.
>> YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN TO THEM?
>> YOU ARE NOT CONFUSED, CORRECT?
>> HE'S NOT CONFUSED. >> GOT IT.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER ON THESE TWO CASES?
>> NO, MA'AM. I DO HAVE A LETTER THAT I THINK I GAVE TO, THEY HAVE A COPY FROM OUR CONTRACTOR STATING THAT THEY DID NOT PERFORM WORK ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE JULY 25TH PERMIT INSPECTION DATE WHEN THE PERMIT WAS DISALLOWED AND IT WAS REINSPECTED ON JULY FIRST. WE POINTED OUT THAT THE SPACES THAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED WERE NOT ON THE PARCELS THE PERMIT WAS DISALLOWED FOR THAT'S WHY WE WANT THE FINES TO BE REDUCED OF WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON JULY 25TH WHEN THE INITIAL
INSPECTION WAS ALLOWED. >> I CAN MOVE THIS IN AS
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT ONE. >> IT WILL BE ADMITTED.
>> FOR CLARITY, AS YOU CALL THERE'S SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL PARCELS HERE AND WHEN THE INSPECTOR PERFORMED THE INSPECTION TOWARD THE END OF JULY HE MAY NOT HAVE REALIZED THERE'S SEPARATE PERMITS AND HE FAILED ALL INSPECTIONS FOR THAT DAY SO THE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT IS A LETTER FROM THE CONTRACTOR JUST CLARIFYING THAT NO WORK WAS DONE BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER WHEN THE INSPECTIONS WERE FINALLY APPROVED, WHICH CONFIRMS THOSE INSPECTIONS FOR THESE TWO PARCELS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
>> ON THESE TWO, NO, MA'AM. >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO 3021 OKEECHOBEE ROAD AND
1611 SOUTH 30TH STREET. >> THANK YOU.
[01:00:01]
>> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PAY THAT?
>> I CAN HAVE IT FOR YOU NEXT WEEK.
>> I'LL GIVE YOU 14 DAYS TO PAY AND IF IT'S NOT PAID THEY REVERT
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FINE. >> YES, MA'AM.
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY ON THIS.
>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING, PLEASE? I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS ALMOST 50 YEARS AND I TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN OUR PROPERTIES AND THIS BEEN THE BIGGEST FIASCO I'VE EVER DEALT WITH AND THESE PARCELS ARE VERY CONFUSING. WE ARE WORKING WITH SURVEYORS AND WE'RE GOING TO GET IT WHERE IT'S ALL MERGED TOGETHER I FEEL HONESTLY THERE SHOULD BE NO FINE, BUT DUE TO THE CONFUSION AND I JUST THIS BEEN VERY UPSETTING.
>> I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME AND I DRIVE BY THERE FREQUENTLY AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT JOB, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT CAME TO A VIOLATION. NEXT CASE?
>> 21-35331608 SOUTH 31ST S STREET.
>> IN THIS CASE A LIEN WAS FILED.
IT'S 81-1833 AND THIS VIOLATION IS STILL IN VIOLATION.
THERE WAS A PERMIT REQUIRED AND IT CAME BEFORE YOU APRIL 25TH IN 2022 AND AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED JUNE 30TH OF 2022. SINCE TO HEARING THE RESPONDENT INDICATED THEY FEEL NO WORK WAS ACTUALLY DONE ON THIS PARCEL.
THERE'S A SLIVER OF I WOULD SAY MAYBE FIVE OR SIX FEET.
>> INCHES. >> STAFF'S POSITION SINCE THE ORDER OF VIOLATION WAS ALREADY ENTERED, THAT ARGUMENT WAS NOT MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND STAFF IS AGREEABLE IF A SURVEY WERE TO BE PROVIDED TO SHOW NO WORK WAS CONDUCT AND THE PARCEL WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT TO COME MY WITH THE CASE OTHERWISE, A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PARCEL TO COMPLY WITH THE CASE.
IMAGING FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE IS NOT GUARANTEED DOWN TO THE INCH AND THERE'S A MAP UPDATE TO WHERE THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK CONNECTION THAT'S BEEN MADE IS NOT REFLECTIVE ON THE GIS LAYER SO I CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARKING STALLS ARE ON THE PARCEL OR NOT.
SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TODAY FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE LIEN IS THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED AS WE HAVE NOT FOUND THIS CASE
TO BE IN COMPLIANCE YET. >> AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
FIVE INCH VIOLATION HERE? >> YES, MA'AM.
FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE CITY AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND OUR CONTRACTOR IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPERTY LINE EXTENDS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ASPHALT TO THE OTHER PART OF THE PARKING START. SO FIVE OR SIX PARTS OF ASPHALT.
WE HAVE A PERMIT IN THE WORKS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE HE WILL NOT TAKE OUR PHONE CALLS.
THE D PR HAS BEEN READY SINCE LAST WEDNESDAY.
AS OF THURSDAY THEY HAD NOT PULLED THAT AND CONFIRMED EVERYTHING WAS READY FOR THEM TO SUBMIT THE PAPERWORK FOR THE PERMIT AND THEY HAD NOT YET PULLED IT, BUT WE'RE CALLING THEM DAILY TO GET THEM TO PULL THE PERMIT AND THEN WE'VE REACHED OUT TO SURVEYORS TO TRY AND GET A SURVEY SCHEDULED BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT BUILDING KRAIZ IT WILL BE 30 OR MORE DAYS BEFORE WE CAN GET A SURVEYOR OUT THERE TO DO THE WORK TO ACCURATELY FIGURE OUT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES ARE OR SUBMIT A LETTER TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE, SO THAT THE PARKING LOT IS ALL ON ONE PARCEL. AND THEN SO WE'RE WORKING TO GET THE PERMIT PULLED AND WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON GETTING A LETTER COMPILED TO FILE WITH THE STATE WITH THE LICENSE OF THE
[01:05:01]
CONTRACTOR FOR NON-COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TALKING WITH US. WE'RE WORKING WITH THEIR SUBCONTRACTOR BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT TAKE OUR PHONE CALLS.>> I'M GOING TO CONTINUE THIS. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING REAL HARD WITH THIS. I REMEMBER YOU FROM LAST TIME.
I'LL CONTINUE THIS FOR 60 DAYS. WHATEVER THE NOVEMBER HEARING.
IT'S JUST INCREDIBLE. YOU DID A GOOD JOB GETTING THIS TAKEN CARE OF AND NOW WE'RE LEFT WITH THIS FIVE INCH STRIP IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT. I'LL CONTINUE IT UNTIL THE NOVEMBER DOCKET, STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY.
YOU KNOW IF YOU MAKE ANY HEAD WAY AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
[A. 21-1826 502 Wendell Road Wallace, Sean & Sirena Logan Winn ]
NEXT CASE? >> THE NEXT CASE IS 7A CASE 71-1826, 502502 WENDELL ROAD, SEAN AND SIRENA WALLACE ARE THE OWNERS. WENDELL ROAD, SEAN AND SIRENA WALLACE ARE THE OWN OWNERS.
>> GOOD MORNING. >> ARE YOU MRS. WALLACE? I NOTICED THAT MRS. WALLACE DID NOT TAKE THE OATH SO SHE'LL NEED
TO BE SWORN IN. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH.
>> YES. >> THIS IS FOR 502 WENDELL ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY SEAN AND SIRENA WALLACE.
THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WERE 105.1, PERMIT REQUIRED.
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 304.4, 304.1 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.
304 POINT 13.1 GLAZING AND 305.3.
THIS CAME BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE IN JUNE OF 2022.
AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED MARCH 21ST, 2022 AND THE FINES BEGAN ON THAT DATE.
ON JULY 6TH, 2022, AN ORDER ASSESSING LIEN WAS ORDERED AND IT CAME INTO COMPLIANCE NOVEMBER 2ND, 2022.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE LIEN IS $11140.
THERE'S SEVERAL CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN. ONE THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE AND ANY ACTIONS TAKEN AND THE REQUIRED WORK WAS COMPLETED AND INSPECTED AND THE OWNER ADDRESSED THE VIOLATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT. ITEM THREE THE LENGTH OF TIME TO BRING THE PROPERTY OF COMPLIANCE IS ONE YEAR.
FOUR, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY WERE FOUND IN VIOLATIONS FROM ANY PROCESSS WERE OTHERWISE, ADMITTED GUILT WAS 0 TIMES.
FIVE, THE NUMBER OF VIOLATION NOTICES THE VIOLATOR HAS RECEIVED AND NATURE AND FINAL DISPOSITION FROM EACH NOTICE IS 0. SIX TO WHATEVER EXTENT THERE'S UNAVOIDABLE PERSONAL HARDSHIP AND THE OWNER THOUGHT THE ROOF PERMIT CORRECTED THE VIOLATION AND THE PERMIT WAS NEEDED AND THERE WAS DIFFICULTY IN FINDING A CONTRACTOR TO DO THE WORK AND WHETHER THE PENDING VIOLATIONS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THERE ARE NONE. STAFF CALCULATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THIS CASE TO BE $1038 WHICH INCLUDES A $250 FOR CITY COMMISSION OR LIEN REDUCTION APPLICATION.
THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO $500 AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY CITY COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING, YESTERDAY, THAT THE $500 DOES NOT MEET THE
[01:10:03]
REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO THE $250 APPLICATION FEE PLUS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
THAT WAS AGAIN $1378 AND 24 CENTS, BUT THAT DID INCLUDE A $250 WHEN THIS CASE WAS PREPARED IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO GONE TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ULTIMATE APPROVAL SO THE TOTAL COST WOULD
BE $1378 AND 24 CENTS. >> AND THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WAS
>> NOT AT THIS TIME, THANK YOU. >> STATE YOUR NAME.
>> SERENA WALLACE. >> YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH
THE $1378? >> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THAT AMOUNT AND I DO AGREE TO THAT AMOUNT.
>> BASED ON THE STIPULATION I WILL REDUCE THE LIEN TO $1378 AND 24 CENTS. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PAY
>> OKAY. I WILL GIVE YOU 21 DAYS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO PAY IT, BUT I GOT A RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED FROM SOMETHING I SENT SO I'LL GIVE YOU 21 DAYS TO PAY. NOW IF YOU DON'T PAY THAT AMOUNT WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME THIS WILL REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF THE $11,000 SO MAKE SURE YOU GET IT PAID.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.
WE CAN DO A CALL IN CASE. THAT'S TWO CASES TOGETHER.
[D. 22-1184 507 S 22nd St Unit A Moncoeur, Nadege Logan Winn]
[Q. 22-2296 507 S 22nd St Unit B Moncoeur, Nadege Logan Winn]
IT'S 5 D22-1184 S, AND THEN 5 Q 22-2296, 507 SOUTH 22ND STREET, UNIT B AND OWNER IS THE SAME, NAGEGE MONCOEUR.>> WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> IS THIS A CALL IN CASE?
>> GOOD MORNING THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FT.
PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY.
YOU'RE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING?
>> YES. >> WHEREVER YOU ARE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY
YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> YES.
>> NOW YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
>> GOOD MORNING I'M FRAN THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PROVIDING
OVER YOU'RE HEARING. >> WE HAVE CASE 507 SOUTH 22ND STREET UNITA. THE CASE WAS INITIATED MARCH 31ST AND THE OWNER IS NAGEGE MONCOEUR OF 2827 COURT.
VIOLATIONS 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED.
[01:15:03]
CORRECTIVE ACTION OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR WINDOWS REPLACEDWITHOUT A PERMIT. >> THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTED IF THE VIOLATION EXISTS THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL INSPECTIONS EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL IT'S CLOSED. CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FIND OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED.
THERE WAS A PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON SEPTEMBER 14TH FOR THIS UNIT ONLY. THERE'S A CASE ON THE ADJOINING
UNIT. >> WHY DON'T YOU READ THAT ONE IN AND YOU CAN EXPLAIN THEM TOGETHER.
THAT WILL I THINK MAKE MORE SENSE.
>> THIS CASE NUMBER IS 22-2296. 507 SOUTH 22ND STREET, UNIT B, OWN SERMON MONCOEUR OF 2827 COURT, WEST PALM BEACH.
VIOLATION 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED AND CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR WINDOWS REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSES. THERE IS NO PERMIT THAT'S BEEN APPLIED FOR ON THIS SIDE OF THE DUPLEX.
>> OKAY. >> I'VE GOT PICTURES OF THE
>> AND CAN ICON FIRM WITH STAFF THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE E-MAILED TO THE RESPONDENT PRIOR TO TODAY'S HEARING?
>> NO. >> MA'AM, CAN YOU HEAR ME ON THE
>> DO YOU HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT WE CAN E-MAIL YOU CAN PHOTOGRAPH, SO YOU CAN VIEW THEM PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
REVIEWING THEM? >> YES, I HAVE AN E-MAIL.
>> IF YOU CAN GIVE THAT TO US. >> SURE.
THAT NOW TO LOOK AT WHAT WE E-MAIL YOU?
>> YES. >> SO YOU SHOULD GET THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE NEXT MINUTE OR SO.
MR. WINN JUST SO WE CAN EXPLAIN THIS, MY UNDERSTANDING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IS THAT A PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON UNIT AN
OF THIS DUPLEX FOR 11 WINDOWS? >> YES.
>> THERE'S NOT 11 WINDOWS ON UNIT A?
>> CORRECT. >> WE'RE UNSURE IF THERE'S 11 UNITS ON A AND B COMBINED, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR, FOR UNIT B SEPARATELY AND IT WOULD REQUIRE IT'S OWN PERMIT?
>> OUR GC DID NOT KNOW THAT. HE SAID HE WOULD SEND OUT THE SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR UNIT I THINK IT WAS UNIT AN AND HE DID
NOT KNOW THAT. >> SHE WOULD NEED IT FOR UNIT B.
SHE'S AN APPLIED FOR B. >> YOU NEED IT FOR UNIT A.
HE APPLIED FOR I THINK THE ENTIRE UNIT.
HE COMBINED THE NUMBER OF WINDOW, SO YOU NEED TO AMEND IT TO SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS ON EACH UNIT.
>> OKAY. HE DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE
SEPARATE UNITS. >> DID YOU GET THE E-MAIL YET?
>> NO. I'M LOOKING AT MY E-MAIL.
>> ARE THEY IN THE DRIVE? >> I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANYTHING
[01:20:04]
Y YET.>> HOW SOON WHOEVER IS WORKING FOR YOU, DO YOU THINK CAN GET
THAT FIXED FOR BOTH UNITS? >> I BELIEVE HE WAS ON THE WAY UP THERE TODAY. I WAS THERE WITH HIM, LIKE I SAID I DID SPEAK WITH HIM YES TO LET HIM KNOW THE APPLICATION WAS NEEDED FOR BOTH UNITS AND HE TOLD ME HE WAS ACTUALLY GOING UP
THERE TODAY. >> CAN I ASK MR. COSS IF THERE'S AN OBJECTION TO RESET THIS? MR. COSS SO WE'LL ASK TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT HEARING IN FRONT OF YOUR HONOR.
>> BECAUSE IT SEEMS THERE HAS BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS, YOU HAVE SUBMITTED IT.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT DOCKET AND HOPEFULLY HE'LL GET UP HERE AND STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT AND IF HE GETS IT STRAIGHTENED OUT, THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS CASE, IF NOT YOU WILL GET NOTICE FOR ANOTHER DATE HERE ON THE DOCKET.
>> YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. GOOD LUCK TO YOU.
>> OKAY. WERE WE ABLE TO GET THE NUMBER
FOR THE INTERPRETER? >> WE'LL GIVE THIS A TRY.
>> CALLS MAY BE MONITORED FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE.
THANK YOU FOR CALLING LANGUAGE LINK, PLEASE ENTER YOUR ACCOUNT NUMBER FOLLOWED BY THE POUND SIGN.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A THIRD PARTY CALL PLEASE PRESS ONE. PRESS TWO TO CONTINUE WITHOUT MAKING A THIRD PARTY CALL. PRESS ONE FOR SPANISH.
PLEASE ENTER YOUR DEPARTMENT CODE FOLLOWED BY THE POUND SIGN.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT. >> PLEASE ENTER YOUR DEPARTMENT
CODE FOLLOWED BY THE POUND SIGN. >> I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE THAT.
>> YOU ENTERED, IF THIS IS CORRECT PRESS ONE, IF THIS IS
INCORRECT, PRESS TWO. >> CAN WE GET IT?
>> OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TRY AGAIN.
[01:25:58]
> IS YOUR CLIENT PRESENT? >> GOOD MORNING.
THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND WE'RE REQUIRING YOUR SERVICES FOR A BUILDING
>> AND IF YOUR CLIENT IS PRESENT?
>> I THINK SO. I WILL PROCEED TO GREET YOUR CLIENT AND EXPLAIN THAT I WILL INTERPRET.
ALL INFORMATION IS CONFIDENT AND I WILL EXPLAIN.
>> FOR 104 SOUTH 14TH STREET. JORGE ROCHA IS THE OWNER.
>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE NAME, PLEASE?
>> JORGE ROCHA IS THE OWNER. >> CAN WE CONFIRM MR. ROCHA THAT YOU CAN HEAR AND UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID? BRACK
>> I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT WELL, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST AND
TRY. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SPANISH TRANSLATION THAT'S BEING PROVIDED FOR YOU?
>> SO THE DIFFICULTY YOU ARE HAVING IS JUST THE ENGLISH
>> BUT EVERYTHING IN SPANISH YOU UNDERSTAND?
>> OKAY. MR. REMLING YOU CAN PROCEED.
>> THIS CASE NUMBER IS IS 22-1449, 404 SOUTH 14TH STREET.
THE CASE INITIATED APRIL 28TH OF 2022.
THE OWNER IS JORGE ROCHA, 140 SOUTH 14TH STREET, FORT PIERCE.
>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT ZIP CODE, SIR?
>> REPEAT THE ZIP CODE, FRANK? >> 34990.
THE VIOLATION IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE WALL IN FILL AND WINDOWS REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY
[01:30:11]
REQUESTS IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATIONEXISTS. >> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT
STATEMENT, SIR? >> THE CITY REQUESTS IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS.
OBTAIN A PERMIT. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLO CLOSED.
>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT? >> OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED.
>> COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDI
CONDITIONS. >> AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS
DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER. >> WHAT IT WAS FIRST WORD?
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE? >> CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS
DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER. >> NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSE
ASSESSED. >> PER DAY BE ASSESSED?
>> YES. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THERE HAS
BEEN - >> SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT?
>> I WAS SAYING THERE WAS NO PERMIT APPLIED FOR.
AND I HAVE SOME PICTURES. >> SOME PICTURES?
>> I HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE PROPER
>> CAN WE SHOW THEM TO MR. ROCHA, PLEASE?
>> YEAH. >> MR. REMLING DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> SHOULD I TRANSLATE THAT AS
MOVE INTO EVIDENCE THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS COMPOSITE EXHIBIT O ONE.
>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
>> YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURES WHERE THEY WERE CHANGED.
>> MR. REMLING, DID YOU START THIS CASE?
>> NO IT WAS ED SMITH'S ORIGINAL CASE.
>> LET HER TRANSLATE AND THEN ANSWER.
[01:35:11]
>> DID YOU GO OUT AFTER MR. SMITH TO TAKE THE PHOTOGRAPHS?
>> YES, I DID. >> AND CAN YOU STILL SEE THE
>> NOTHING FURTHER. >> MR. ROCHA, HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
>> IF YOU ORDER ME TO DO THAT, THEN I WILL DO IT.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NOTHING ELSE.
I WOULD COMPLY TO GET THE PERMIT AND WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME TO D DO.
>> I FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS. PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.
THROUGH INTERPRETER]>> ANY QUESTIONS?INTERP>> ANY QUESTION?
>> 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. ALRIGHT THAT'S IT.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO FOR YOU.
>> NO, THANK YOU. >> THIS IS YOUR INTERPRETER SIGNING OFF. YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY.
THE NEXT CASE IS 5N. SORRY, 50.
[O. 22-1595 2405 Sunrise Blvd Pink Sunrise LLC Logan Winn]
THIS PERSON IS WAITING FOR A PHONE CALL IT'S 22-1595 S, 1907 SUNRISE BOULEVARD AND PINK SUNRISE LLC IS THE OWNER AND I'LL BE MAKING THE PHONE CALL.>> HELLO THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND YOU ARE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING, SO I HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR TESTIMONY.
WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?
>> I SWEAR. >> THE NEXT VOICE YOU'LL HEAR IS
THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M FRAN ROSS, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND MR. LOGAN WINN WILL BEGIN YOUR CASE?
>> CAN I MAKE SURE WE SENT PHOTOGRAPHS TO HER.
>> I JUST SENT YOU THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN YOUR E-MAIL.
>> I'M CHECKING NOW. >> CASE PHOTOS.
[01:40:05]
I GOT IT. >> CASE 22-1595, 1907 SUNRISE BOULEVARD, THE CASE WAS INITIATED MAY 17TH, 2022.
THE OWNER IS PINK SUNRISE LLC OF 1750 NORTHEAST, 191ST STREET, NUMBER 809 OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. 105.1 VIOLATION.
PERMIT REQUIRED. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR STUCCO AND ANY OTHER RENOVATION WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF YOU FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS THEN IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE'S BEEN NO PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON THIS PROPERTY. I HAVE PICTURES.
>> DO THEY FAIRLY DEPICT AS YOU OBSERVE IT?
>> YES. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE IN AS COMPOSITE ONE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER MR. WINN? >> NO, MA'AM.
>> HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS?
>> I AM GUILTY AND I APOLOGIZE. >> HAVE YOU BEGAN THE PROCESS OF
APPLYING FOR A PERMIT. >> YES, WHAT HAPPENED I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF. I HAD ALL THE BEST INTENTIONS TO GET THE PERMIT PRIOR TO DO ANY WORK AND I FILED A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT ON THE 21ST OF DECEMBER LAST YEAR AND I WAS IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. FLOREZ FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND I WAS TRYING TO GATHER ALL THE FILES, AND WHAT HAPPENED AS PART OF THE DESCRIPTION IS WHAT HAPPENED I GOT STUCK.
I GOT STUCK AND THEN IDEA LAID IT AND THEN I FOUND OUT THAT THE WINDOWS THAT I PUT UP ARE NOT HURRICANE PROOF AND I ALSO NEED SHUTTERS AND I HONESTLY GOT OVERWHELMED AND I WAS OUT OF MONEY AND I WAS LOOKING INTO GETTING A LOAN AND I JUST POSTPONED IT AND I'M VERY MUCH SORRY AND I'M PLANNING TO FIX ALL THIS MESS AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY AND I APOLOGIZE SO IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SOME EXTRA TIME THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
>> ALRIGHT. I CAN GIVE YOU 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND THEN AFTER THAT YOU'LL HAVE 180 DAYS TO COME MY
THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. >> ALRIGHT.
IF FOR ANY REASON YOU HAVE A PROBLEM DURING THE PROCESS, BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF BACKLOGS WITH WINDOWS AND ALL KIND OF BUILDING EQUIPMENT. LET THE CITY KNOW AND THEY'LL
WORK WITH YOU. >> I HAVE A PROBLEM ALREADY THAT I KNOW ABOUT. I TOOK DOWN THE STICKERS BECAUSE THE WINDOWS WENT UP AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE SO I TOOK DOWN THE STICKERS AND I'M HOPING HOME DEPOT ARE ABLE TO REISSUE, BUT I THINK THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME AND WITH SHUTTERS TOO I'M IN TALKS WITH TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND I'M WAITING ON QUOTES AND I'M TRYING TO HAVE THE SAME PERSON PULL THE PERMIT FOR WINDOWS BECAUSE I NEED HELP WITH THIS AND I REALIZE I CAN'T DO IT ON MY OWN. LONG STORY SHORT, YES, I NEED
ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, THANK YOU FOR
UNDERSTANDING. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.
ALRIGHT. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TEST DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. NOW DON'T FORGET YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
YOU PULL YOUR PERMIT AND THEN YOU GET 180 DAYS TO COMPLY IF
[01:45:04]
YOU RUN INTO OBSTACLES JUST LET THE CITY KNOW AND THEY'LL WORKWITH YOU TO EXTEND THE TIME. >> OKAY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> NO, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE ANOTHER CALL IN.
[N. 22-1579 1001 S US Hwy 1 FP Outparcel LLC Logan Winn]
AND IT IS 5N, CASE 22-1579, 1001 SOUTH US HIGHWAY 1, THE OWNER IS NATALIA Y1 LLC. I'LL BE CALLING NICHOLAS JONES.>> MR. JONES THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND YOU ARE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? >> YEAH.
>> OKAY. FOR TESTIMONY I HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL
PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> YES.
>> THE NEXT VOICE YOU'LL HEAR IS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
>> GOOD MORNING MR. JONES. >> HOW YOU DOING TODAY?
>> MR. WINN WILL PRESENT THE CASE FOR THE CITY.
>> CASE 22-1579 OF 1001 SOUTH US HIGHWAY 1, THE CASE WAS INITIATED MAY 13TH, 2022 AND THE OWNER IS FP OUTPARCEL LLC OF NORTH PARKWAY SUITE C, ORLANDO, FLORIDA.
VIOLATION 105 POINT 120 PERMIT REQUIRED.
CORRECTIVE ACTION IS OBTAIN PERMIT FOR CODING AND STRIPING OF THE PARKING HEIGHT. IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS THEN STAFF RECOMMENDS DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THIS IS HAS A PERMIT IN THE D PR PROCESS AND I BELIEVE IT'S STUCK OVER IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PERMIT? MR. COSS?
>> ME? >> NO, THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE.
>> OKAY. >> ONE SECOND AND LET ME JUST
REVIEW THIS. >> DO WE KNOW WHEN THE PERMIT
>> I THINK MRS. BECK IS GOING TO LOOK THAT UP FOR US.
CALLED THE DPCR WAS APPLIED FOR ON AUGUST 26TH.
>> OKAY. ANY OBJECTION TO MY CONTINUING THIS TO SEE WHERE THE PERMIT GOES?
>> NO, MA'AM. >> WE'LL CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT HEARING TO SEE HOW THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS GOING ON.
>> WHEN IS THAT? IS THAT EVERY 30 DAYS?
60 OR 90 DAY? >> THE NEXT HEARING OCTOBER
WELL HOPEFULLY WE HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE THEN.
APPRECIATE THE EXTENSION. >> THANK YOU.
>> YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL MORNING. >> YOU TOO.
[L. 22-1466 1907 Sunrise Boulevard Lopez, Ever & Buena, Amador Logan Winn]
I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ALL THE CALL IN IS.SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WE WILL CONTINUE CASE 22-1466, 1907
[C. 22-1182 1805 Delaware Ave Apt B Norzelus, Faustin & Alouption, Mirielle Frank Remling]
SO THE NEXT CASE IS 5C, 22-1182, 1805 DELAWARE AVENUE, APT B.[01:50:11]
>> WHEN YOU ARE READY? ALRIGHT.
THIS IS CASE 22-1182, THE ADDRESS IS 1805 DELAWARE AVENUE.
THE OWNERS ARE MIRIELLE AND FAUSTIN ALOUPTION.
VIOLATION 105.3, INTERIOR SURFACES.
IPMC 105.202 INFESTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FIX THE SINK AND TOILET THAT ARE STOPPED UP. REPAIR HOLES IN THE WALLS AND TREAT THE PROPERTY FOR INFESTATION.
THE CITY REQUESTS DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.
>> THERE WAS A PLUMBING PERMIT. A FINAL APPROVED ON 8/3 AND NO REINSPECTION FOR THE OTHER TWO ITEMS FOR REINSPECTION HAVE COME UP. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF PICTURES HERE OF THE HOLE IN THE WALL AND THE INFESTATION.
>> WHICH DID YOU SAY WAS COMPLIED?
DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS
AS YOU OBSERVED THEM? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> WHEN DID YOU GO BACK OUT TO INSPECT THE PLUMING?
>> APPROVAL WAS ON 8/2. >> SINCE THEN WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM? AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVERYTHING THE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT PHOTOGRAPHS.
>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
ANYTHING FURTHER MR. REMLING? >> NO, MA'AM.
>> I FIND THAT THESE ARE THE PAR PARTIES RESPONSIBLE AND THEY ARE NOT PRESENT AND NEITHER IS A REPRESENTATIVE ON THEIR BEHALF. WITH REGARDS TO, WELL WITH REGARDS TO THE PLUMBING I WILL DO RMD THAT IT HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH, BUT THE OTHER VIOLATIONS STILL EXIST SO I WILL GIVE THEM 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
[E. 22-1219 2000 Sunrise Blvd LP Roberts Investment Group LLC Frank Remling]
>> NEXT CASE IS 5E, 22-1219, 2000 SUNRISE BOULEVARD, 2000 SUNRISE BOUL OWNERS ARE LP ROBERTS INVESTMENT
GROUP LLC. >> THIS IS 710 NORTH BRISTOL STREET, LP ROBERTS INVESTMENT GROUP.
VIOLATION 105.12020 PERMIT REQUIRED.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS OBTAIN THE PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT ISSUING A PERMIT.
THE CITY REQUESTS IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE HAS
[01:55:04]
BEEN A PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND IT WAS REJECTED FOR MISSING PAPERWORK ON 5/6 AND THEN SUBMITTED FOR REVISION ON 9/8/22 REJECTED IN LAB REVIEW AND AN E-MAIL WAS SENT ON 9/15.>> NO RESPONSE SINCE THEN? >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
>> DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE COMPOSITE ONE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
>> MR. REMLING IT LOOKS LIKE, IS THIS THE REMODELING OF THE WHOLE
HOUSE? >> YES, THEY DID STUCCO AND THE OUTSIDE. LOOKING THROUGH THE WIN TO YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING.
>> YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM SINCE MAY.
>> I HAVE NOT, NO, MA'AM. >> THEY SUBMITTED A REVISION TO THEIR PERMIT ON 9/8 AND THAT WAS REJECTED AND E-MAILED BACK TO
THEM ON 9/15. >> NO PHONE CALLS OR ANYTHING
RECEIVED? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
>> AND TODAY IS 9/20. HAVE YOU ALL TRIED CALLING THEM?
>> THEY WERE SENT THE COMMENTS AND OFTEN TIMES THEY NEED TIME TO ADDRESS THE REJECTION COMM
COMMENTS. >> WOULD YOU ALL REJECT TO ME CONTINUING THIS TO SEE IF THEY RESPOND TO YOU? YOU SENT THE LAST RESPONSE ON 9/15 AND THAT WAS JUST DAYS AGO.
LET ME CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT DOCKET AND IF WE DON'T HEAR FROM THEM THEN MAKE NOTE OF THAT AND I'LL MAKE A RULING AND FOR THE RECORD NO REPRESENTATIVE FROM THAT GROUP IS PRESENT THIS MORNING. NEXT CASE WHEN YOU ARE READY.
[K. 22-1465 1618 Mayflower Road Vadim, Donchu Logan Winn]
>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5K, 22-1465, 1618 MAYFLOWER ROAD AND DONCHU
VADIM IS THE OWNER. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY MR. LOGAN
THE OWNER IS DONCHU VADIM OF 1618 MAYFLOWER ROAD.
VIOLATION FBC 1052020 PERMIT REQUIRED.
WINDOWS AND DOORS REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
SIDING REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE'S A PERMIT FOR WINDOWS AND DOORS THAT'S BEEN READY SINCE JULY 19TH. THE PERMIT DID NOT INCLUDE SIDING NOR IS THERE A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR THE SIDING.
THE OWNERS WERE E-MAILED ON JULY 19TH THAT THE PERMIT WAS READY.
I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY.
>> DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT FAIRLY THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU
>> AND THE PERMIT FOR THE WINDOWS AND DOORS ESSENTIALLY THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THAT PERMIT AND THEN RETRIEVE IT? AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT
ONE THE PHOTOGRAPHS. >> THANK YOU.
THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH. ANYTHING FURTHER.
>> NO, MA'AM. >> SO THEY GOT THE WINDOWS AND DOORS WAS E-MAILED TO THEM ON JULY 19TH AND YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM AND OF COURSE THEY STILL NEED A PERMIT FOR THE
[02:00:08]
SID SIDING.SO THE ONLY VIOLATION NOW IS THE PERMIT FOR THE SIDING.
>> NO, MA'AM. >> I WOULD SAY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND MR. COSS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK THE WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE STILL IN VIOLATION.
THE PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED YET BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PAID FOR IT SO WE FIND IT FOR THAT AS WELL.
>> OH. >> IT'S READY, BUT THEY HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT OBTAINED IT, THE
PERMIT. >> THE CASE WAS INITIATED BACK IN MAY. INTERESTING.
DID YOU SEND THEM E-MAIL? >> I'M NOT SURE.
THE OFFICE HANDLED PERMITTING.
>> THE PERMIT TECHNICIAN USUALLY E-MAILS AND CALLS THE CONTRACTOR
APPLYING FOR THE PERMIT. >> EXCUSE ME.
THAT'S A NEW ONE FOR ME. >> THAT'S A NEW ONE FOR ME, RIGHT? THE E-MAIL WENT OUT ON THE 19TH OF JULY. MR. COSS WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM IF I CONTINUE THIS ONE LAST TIME? IT JUST SEEMS SO ODD THAT THE E-MAIL WAS SENT TO THEM AND YOU HAVE APPROVAL AND YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN THIS CASE WE ASK THAT THE VIOLATION BE FOUND BECAUSE THE OWNER HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT FOR PERMITTING
FOR SIDING OR ANYTHING. >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED I FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS AND DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PRESENT AND NEITHER IS A S NOT - REPRESENTATIVE ON HIS BEHALF.
HE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU.
NEXT CASE? >> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO
[B. 21-1941 411 N 2nd Street House that Cider Built LLC Anthony Jetmore]
CONTINUE 6B, IS THAT CORRECT? >> SO THE NEXT CASE IS 6B, CASE 21-1941, 411 SECOND STREET, HOUSING
>> I'M A CONTRACTOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
21-1941, ADDRESS IS 411 NORTH SECOND STREET.
THE OWNER IS HOUSING RESIDENT. THE VIOLATION IS 105.1, PERMIT REQUIRED. I'M SORRY.
THE CASE INFORMATION STARTED AUGUST 12TH OF 2021.
THE FINDINGS ARE ORDER DETERMINATION VIOLATION JANUARY 19TH, 2022, NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME MARCH 3RD, 2022.
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE, JULY 15TH, 2022.
JANUARY 18TH, 2022. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOUND OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION AND PROVIDED 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMITS OR FINES MAY OCCUR. JULY 13TH, 2022.
[02:05:09]
AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE DATED JULY 13TH, 2022 IN A RECORD AND RECORDED JULY 14TH, 2022.REJECTION COMMENTS WERE E-MAILED ON JUNE 6TH OF 2082.
WHEN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS DRAFTED THERE HAD BEEN NO REJECTION TO COMMENTS. THE REVISION WAS SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 3RD OF 2082. ON SEPTEMBER 22ND A REJECTION OF THE PLAN WAS REVEALED THROUGH E-MAIL AND THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU. >> AND SO CAN I BE CLEAR? WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR TODAY ON THIS ONE?
>> THIS WAS A REQUEST FOR A MASSIE HEARING AND I'LL SUBMIT THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR MASSIE.
>> ARE THE FINES CURRENTLY RUNNING?
>> THEY ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THIS CAN BE CONFIRMED, BUT I BELIEVE HE FEELS THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL ELECTRICAL HAZARDS HERE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE FINES TO A CREW EVEN THOUGH THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT PRESENT
TODAY. >> THIS VIOLATION WAS FOR A STAGE INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT?
>> CORRECT. >> HOW DOES THE ELECTRIC PLAY
INTO THE STAGE? >> THAT'S PART OF THE STAGE.
>> IS THAT WHERE THE HAZARD IS? >> CORRECT.
>> WE'LL MOVE IN AS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT ONE THE LETTER FOR THE MASSIE HEARING EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT HERE.
AND MR. REMLING HAS THERE BEEN CONTACT FROM THE RESPONDENT ON
THEIR BEHALF. >> THE CONTRACTOR REACHED OUT
AND WE'VE HAD TWO CONVERSATIONS. >> AND WHAT WERE THOSE?
>> THEY ACTUALLY RESUBMITTED THEIR PLANS, BUT DIDN'T RESPOND TO THE FIRST COMMENT, SO THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON, THE COMMENTS WERE PUTTING UP GUARDRAILS AND THEY DON'T HAVE A HAND RAIL SO THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THEY BUILT TO GET UP ON TO THE STAGE. IS THAT SINCE THE SEPTEMBER 2ND REJECTION OR THAT'S WHY IT WAS REJECTED?
>> THAT'S WHY IT WAS REJECTED? >> BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS
>> HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THEM SINCE THEN?
>> WE HAVE NOT. >> IS THIS BUSINESS STILL OPEN?
>> IT IS. >> THIS IS NOT THE ONE, THE YELLOW BUILDING JUST BEFORE BACKUS DRIVE? IF YOU REMEMBER THE STAGE LOOKS LIKE A TRUCK.
>> IT'S STILL OUT THERE. IT'S NEXT TO THE BIG WHITE
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS.
MY SON HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH SOME ENTERTAINMENT AT THAT LOCATION. I DON'T PERSONALLY KNOW THE GUY, BUT I'VE BEEN TO A COUPLE OF EVENTS THERE SO I NEED TO RECUSE
MYSELF IN THIS. >> SO WE WILL, DO WE KNOW THE NEXT DATE FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE?
>> I WILL CHECK I THINK THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER.
>> HOLD ON I HAVE THE DATES IN HERE.
>> SO WE'LL TAKE BACK RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT ONE AND IT'S OKAY. WE'LL SEND NOTICE TO THEM AND RESET THIS IN FRONT OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLITIER.
>> I KEEP THESE IN MY CALENDAR SO I DON'T MISS A DATE.
THIS IS STILL GOOD. LET ME APPROACH THE CLERK.
>> SO WHENEVER HER NEXT DOCKET IS.
[02:10:02]
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ALRIGHT.
[A. 20-2260 2209 Avenue D St. Cyr, Randolph Frank Remling]
NEXT CASE? >> THE NEXT CASE IS 8A, CASE 20-2260, 2209 AVENUE D. THIS IS 20-2260, 2209 AVENUE D, OWNER IS ST. CYR, RANDOLPH. THIS IS FOR HIM POSITION OF A LIEN AND AS OF THIS MORNING THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND IT'S STILL IN VIOLATION AND STAFF WANTS A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO BE SIGNED AND
RECORDED. >> DO YOU HAVE THAT WITH US?
>> WE DO, YES. >> SO YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENT I
>> OKAY I'LL SIGN IT AND FIND NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN SO I'LL SIGN THE ORDER IMPOSING A LIEN. I CAN DO IT NOW OR AFTER WE'RE
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.
AND THIS WAS INSTITUTED OCTOBER 1ST, 2020 FOR THE RECORD.
ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM, THAT'S IT.
>> FOR THE PARTIES NOT PRESENT, HOW WERE THEY NOTIFIED?
>> PER STATE STATUTE 162 POINT 12 A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATORS BY CERTIFIED MALE AND IF THE GREEN CARD IS UNSIGNED OR NOT RETURNED THERE WILL BE A NOTICE OF HEARING THAT'S MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR. A NOTICE IS SENT REGULAR U.S.
MAILING AND COPIES OF ALL FILE.ENTS REPLACED IN THE OFFIC- TEN DAYS BEFORE TO HEARING A NOTICE OF HEARING POSTED IN THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL AND A NOTICE OF HEARING ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING.
IF THE CERTIFICATION CARD IS NOT RETURNED WITHIN TEN DAYS BEFORE TO HEARING THEN HOSTING IS CONSIDERED AS IF THE CARD WAS
RETURNED UNCLAIMED. >> ALRIGHT ANYTHING FURTHER? THEN WE ARE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.