Oct 18, 2022 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M FRAN ROSS AND I'M THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PRESIDING OVER THIS MORNINGS HEARINGS.

YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU RECEIVED NOTICE THAT YOUR PROPERTY WAS POSSIBLY IN VIOLATION OF A PARTICULAR CITY CODE OR ORDINANCE AND YOU WERE GIVEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO CORRECT IT. AS OF THIS MORNING YOU HAVE NOT OR MAYBE YOU HAVE, BUT YOU WOULD HIKE TO BE HEARD.

YOU MAY BE HERE FOR OTHER MATTERS SUCH AS A LIEN REDUCTION. WHATEVER IT IS, WE'LL CALL YOUR CASES SHORTLY. COUPLE OF THINGS.

NUMBER ONE YOU CAN SEE WE'RE BEING RECORDED ON LOCAL TELEVISION SO WHAT YOU SAY HERE IS ON CITY OF FORT PIERCE T.V.

STATION. NUMBER TWO, DOES ANYBODY NEED A TRANSLATOR? OKAY.

THERE'S ONE PERSON HERE? OKAY.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT NEED ONE WE'LL PROVIDE ONE FOR YOU.

NOW IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. PLEASE REMAIN

[3. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS]

STANDING. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TEST MOPE YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

>> THE GENTLEMEN HERE DID NOT TAKE THE OATH.

SIR DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH? WE'LL HAVE TO SPEAR HIM IN AT THE PODIUM. WHEN YOU ARE READY.

[1. 22-1855 1655 N 29th St Unit 208 Madison Cay Ltd Logan Winn]

>> GOOD MORNING. WHEN YOU ARE READY MR. REMLING.

>> I'M FRANK REMLING AND I WORK WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS AN INSPECTOR AND I'VE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN? . THIS IS 22-1171.

705 REVELS LANE, APARTMENT B., THE CASE INITIATED MARCH 30TH, 2022. THE OWNER IS JAMES HATFIELD.

THE VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC 505.3, 506.1, 2021 GENERAL.

506.2, 2021 MAINTENANCE. 603 POINT 1, 2021 MECHANICAL APPLIANCES. IPMC 304, DOORS.

THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO MAKE PLUMBING REPAIRS UNDER THE HOME THAT IS POSSIBLY LEAKING. REPAIR OR REPLACE NON-WORK CING AC UNIT. MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO TOILET AND TUB PACKED UP. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE CITY FINDS A VIOLATION. 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. I HAVE SOME

PICTURES HERE. >> WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BUT CAN YOU TELL US YOUR NAME AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY?

>> KATRINA SIMMONS. PROPERTY MANAGER.

>> HAS SHE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAP? >> YES.

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES. >> THE CITY WILL MOVE THESE AS

EVIDENCE. >> THERE'S NO PERMITS AND THE

OWNER WOULD LIKE A CONTINUANCE. >> GOOD MORNING.

MRS. SIMMONS. >> I KNOW THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM LAST MONTH AND WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON IT.

THE EVICTION DID COME THROUGH AND THE TENANT CAUSE AT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE UNIT SO I TELLS 1-4 IN THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE DONE, BUT WE'RE MAKING OTHER REPAIRS THAT

[00:05:01]

I WANT TO SAY WE'RE ABOUT 80 PERCENT DONE.

MY INTENTION WAS TO GET IT DONE, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED I HAD TO PULL EVERYONE. IF WE CAN MAYBE GET TWO MORE WEEKS WE SHOULD BE DONE WITH THIS AND HAVE IT ALL WRAPPED UP.

>> MR. REMLING DO YOU HAVE A REPLY TO THAT?

>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I KNOW THEY HAD A PROBLEM AT 211.

>> WE'LL CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MAGISTRATE HEARING.

MRS. SIMMONS DO YOU GET A CHANCE TO SLEEP?

>> MY DAUGHTER IS IN LABOR SO I GOT TO GET BACK TO THE HOSPITAL.

I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE COMING UP TODAY SO WE'RE GOING

[C. 21-3678 2801 Citrus Ave Hatfield, James Logan Winn]

>> WE HAVE A LEAN LIEN HEARING.

22-2801 CITRUS AVENUE. JAMES HATFIELD IS THE OWNER.

>> MORNING. >> I'M MR. LOGAN WINN CITY INVESTIGATOR.

21-3168. 2801 CITRUS AVENUE.

THE OWNER IS JAMES HATFIELD OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA.

THERE WAS, THE FINES STARTED ON AUGUST 25TH OF 2022.

THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO FILE A LEAN ON THE PROPERTY.

CASE HAS BEEN READ IN. >> IS THE CASE IN NON-COMPLIANCE

AT THIS POINT? >> CORRECT.

>> SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE - JUNE 22ND THERE WAS AN ORDER

DETERMINING VIOLATION? >> CORRECT.

>> AND THEN THE AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS FILED ON THAT DATE AND THE FINDS TOTAL THIS AMOUNT AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS

THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> HAS ANYONE CONTACTED YOU REGARDING THE PROPERTY BEING IN COMPLIANCE SO ARE WE RECOMMENDED THE LIEN BE ORDERED ON THE

PROPERTY? >> CORRECT.

>> NOTHING FURTHER SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> ALRIGHT. MRS. SI MAN?

>> ON THIS ONE I BELIEVE, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS ON TODAY'S AGENDA OR I WOULD HAVE CONTACT MAINTENANCE.

I BELIEVE THE ONLY THING NOT CURED ON THIS IS THEY GOT BATS IN THE SO FIT SOMEHOW. THERE'S BATS THERE AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY THING LEFT THAT WE HAVE TO DO ON THAT TO MY

KNOWLEDGE. >> MR. WINN? WHAT'S THE CITY'S POSITION MR. COSS?

>> RESPECTIVELY WE REQUEST THE LIEN BE IMPOSED ONCE THE VIOLATIONS ARE CURED AND THE OWNER CAN OF COURSE COME BACK

AND REQUEST A REDUCTION. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM ANY PARTY? I WILL GO AHEAD AND IMPOSE THE LIEN IS IT $4820 AS OF THIS MORNING OR MORE?

>> IT WAS AS OF OCTOBER 12TH SO MORE WILL HAVE ACCRUED SINCE

THEN. >> I WANT TO IMPOSE THE LIEN WHATEVER IT IS AS OF TODAY'S DATE AND MRS. SIMMONS I KNOW YOU'LL BE BACK AND WE'LL ADDRESS THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK.

GOOD LUCK AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NEW BABY.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 5 G.

[G. 22-1305 707 N 13th St Green, Chauncy Frank Remling]

CHAUNCEY GREEN IS THE OWNER. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY.

[00:10:07]

>> THIS CASE IS 707 NORTH 13TH STREET.

THE CASE INITIATED APRIL 13TH, 2022.

THE OWNER IS GREEN GREEN, 90821ST STREET APARTMENTA.

THE VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC 111.111. 2021 UNSAFE STRUCTURE.

IPMC 111.12 UNSAFE EQUIPMENT, IPMC 111.13 UP FIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. DANGEROUS STRUCTURE ON PREMISES.

IPMC 304.1, 2021, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.

IPMC 304.11 UNSAFE CONDITIONS. PROTECTIVE TREATMENT, IPMC 304.4 STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. IPMC 304.6, EXTERIOR WALLS.

IPMC ROOFS AND DRAINAGE. 304.9 OVERHANG EXTENSION.

IPMC 13.12021 GLAZING. COMPONENT SERVICE BUILT.

IPMC UNSAFE CONDITIONS. IPMC 604.3, 2021 ELECTRICAL HAZARDS. IPMC EL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.

FIX ALL FASCIA AND ANY STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WILL REQUIRED SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS BY A PROFESSIONAL.

THE RECOMMENDATION THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE GIVE VIE HEY,S OR THE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED THE ORDER OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED AND THERE'S BEEN NO PERMITS. I BELIEVE THIS WAS HERE LAST

MONTH. >> YES, IT WAS.

>> DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY?

>> YES, I DO. >> HAS MR. GREEN SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS? DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED? THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE COMPOSITE ONE THE PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.

THIS WAS A FIRE THAT HAPPENED ON THE PROPERTY AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS ANY WORK BEEN DONE SINCE THIS CASE WAS HERE LAST

TIME? >> NO, MA'AM.

NOT THAT I'VE SEEN. >> MR. GREEN, DID YOU PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND YOUR INTENT WAS TO?

>> DEMOLITION. I GOT WITH THE CITY ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES AFTER I DEMOLITIONED THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS LIKE I HAVE TO GETS A BESBESTOS TEST T PULL THE PERMIT TO GET THE

DEMOLITION PERMIT. >> HAVE YOU TALK TO ANY OF THE

SPECIALISTS? >> YES.

I GOT TO PAPERWORK AND EVERYTHING I JUST HAVE TO GET A COMPANY TO COME OUT AND DO IT, SO ONCE I GET THE TEST THAT'S

WHEN I CAN PULL THE PERMIT. >> AND YOU ARE GOING TO DEMO THE

PROPERTY? >> YES.

>> WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THAT DONE?

>> I'M WAITING ON A CALL BACK TO SEE WHEN THEY CAN COME OUT AND

DO THE TEST. >> DID THEY GIVE YOU A

TIMEFRAME? >> NO I JUST SPOKE WITH THEM YESTERDAY AND THEY SAID THEY'LL GIVE ME A CALL BACK TODAY OR TOMORROW ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE AND WHEN THEY

CAN COME OUT TO DO IT. >> YOU CALLED THEM THE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE SCHEDULED TO BE HERE?

>> YES. >> YOU DIDN'T CALL THEM AFTER THE LAST HEARING WHEN I GRANTED YOU TIME?

>> I WAS WITH THE CITY BECAUSE WHEN I CALLED THE CITY, NO ONE ANSWERED AND I LEFT A MESSAGE AND THEY SAID THEY'LL GET WITH

[00:15:05]

I TALKED TO THE CITY ON ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT I MIGHT HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM AND THEY MIGHT BE GRANDFATHERED IN FROM THE CITY SO I SAID I WAS GOING TO DEMO IT EITHER WAY. I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE DO I HAVE THE PAY THE IMPACT FEES TO PUT ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE WHEN

I GET READY. >> MR. COSS DO YOU HAVE INPUT ON

THIS? >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THE IMPACT FEE DECISION WILL ULTIMATELY BE UP TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REQUESTS THAT WE FIND THE ORDER OF VIOLATION FOR TODAY PROVIDING THE PROPERTY OWNER 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.

>> MY PROBLEM WITH THIS MR. GREEN, AND I DO LIKE TO TRY AND WORK WITH PEOPLE, FOLKS LIKE OWNING PROPERTY, BUT IT'S LIKE HAVING A CAR, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAINTAIN THAT. PAY TAXES, KEEP IT UP, IF NOT THE CITY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT MIGHT LIVE ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS CASE STARTED IN APRIL AND IT IS NOW OCTOBER, SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE. I GAVE YOU A CONTINUANCE LAST MONTH BECAUSE I DO REMEMBER YOU BEING HERE.

SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT YOU BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED.

YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THE ONE THING I LEARNED FROM WORKING ON THIS BOARD FOR 15 YEARS NOW IS THEY WILL WORK WITH YOU. BUT IF YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL AND YOU DON'T GET A PHONE CALL AND DON'T GET A REPLY, GIVE THEM A CALL BACK. I'M OLD SCHOOL AND I LIKE TO GO DOWN IN-PERSON. MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS BODY TOO HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THEY DO TRY TO WORK WITH PEOPLE SO IF YOU ARE NOT GETTING PHONE CALLS BACK WHICH MOST TIMES THEY DO RETURN CALLS, JUST DROP IN AND SAY, HERE'S MY PROBLEM AND I THINK YOU CAN GET THINGS DONE MORE QUICKLY BECAUSE THE INTEREST OF THE CITY, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S TO MAINTAIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO, TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE AND THAT INCLUDES YOU TOO AS THE

OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. >> ALRIGHT. SO YOU HAVE GGOT THAT. THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.

IF FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU DON'T THEY'LL WORK WITH THE CITY AND- PERMIT IS CLOSES AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER

[K. 22-1896 1106 N 17th St Norannie Realty Corp Logan Winn]

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5K, CASE 22- 22-1896 MCKAY AND NORANNIE REALTY CORP. IS THE OWNER.

>> SIR WERE YOU SWORN IN? >> MADAM CLERK?

>> YOU CAN STAY BY THE MICROPHONE.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE

TESTIMONY WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> CASE 22-1896 FOR 1006 NORTH 17TH STREET.

THE CASE WAS INITIATED OCTOBER 20TH OF 2022.

THE OWNER IS NORANNIE REALTY CORP..

PERMIT REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION IS OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE WORK DONE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE ACTIVE PERMITS INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF ROOF RAFTERS.

THE CITY REQUESTS DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSES

[00:20:11]

THE PERMIT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR ON JUNE 17TH AND WAS REJECTED IN PLAN REVIEW ON JUNE 29TH AND THERE'S BEEN NO RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW COMMENTS. I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE

PROPERTY. >> SIR, CAN YOU TELL US YOUR NAME? AND ARE YOU CAN REGISTERED AGENT

FOR THE OWNER? >> YES.

>> HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY?

>> NO. MR. WINN WIN DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED? AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO AS EVIDENCE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

ADAM GILIS. >> THE DIFFERENCE IS THE RAFTERS WITH THE PERMITS DON'T INCLUDE THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? ANYTHING FURTHER FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

>> WE PULLED THE PERMIT AND WAS NOT AWARE WE NEEDED TO DO ONE FOR THE RAFTER. THE ROOF HAS SINCE BEEN APPROVED AND WE DID APPLY FOR A PERMIT ON JUNE 17TH AND IT WAS REJECTED.

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING ASSIGNED LETTER FROM ENGINEER.

AND I WAS HOPING TO HAVE IT BEFORE I CAME HERE AND I DID NOT GET IT. SORRY FOR THE DELAY.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS GOING ON.

NO EXCUSE, BUT WE'LL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS.

>> HOW MANY PROPERTYS DO YOU HAVE?

>> IN FT. PIERCE WE HAVE FOUR. WE HAVE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WE HAVE AND DID ALL THE NECESSARY THINGS IN TERMS OF PERMITS AND SO THE BEST PART OF WHAT WE DO IS TO TRY TO BUY PROPERTIES TO REHAB AND I KNOW IT'S BENEFICIAL TO US, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL TO FORT PIERCE ITSELF.

>> THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AND REJECTED BACK IN JUNE, RIGHT? THIS IS OCTOBER.

WERE YOU ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> NO, MA'AM.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THE PERMIT AFTER THE FACT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LETTER SIGNING OFF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE SO THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

>> I THINK EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

I'VE PULLED PROBABLY 30 OR 40 PERMITS.

WE DID NOT KNOW WE NEEDED ONE FOR THE RAFTERS.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE WAY IT I

IS. >> ALRIGHT.

BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED I FIND 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. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

[00:25:03]

>> YEAH, BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THE GENTLEMEN, OKAY IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT WITH THE GENTLEMEN HANDLING IT AND IT'S JUST, I MEAN, LOOK. WE TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND SOMETIMES MISTAKES ARE MADE. I CAN'T MAKE AN EXCUSE BUT IF THE COURT WILL ALLOW US IN A FEW MORE DAYS I WILL GET IT DONE AND I HOPE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO FINED FOR THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE WORK IN FT. PIERCE AND IF YOU CHECK OUR HISTORY YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE BIDEN THE LAW AND THIS WAS

AN OVERSIGHT. >> ALRIL YOU HAVE 30 DAYS AND S MONTHS TO BRING THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS NOTIFY MR. WINN WIN AND HE'LL WORK WITH YOU.

>> I ALWAYS HAD A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM AND THEY'VE ALL BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO US.

>> THANK YOU AND GOOD LUCK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO AM I BEING FINED? >> YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO PULL THE PERMIT, BUT IF YOU DON'T, YOU WILL BE FINED $100 PER DAY.

>> I WILL TRY TO RESOLVE IT BY NEXT WEEK.

>> GOOD LUCK TO YOU. >> THANKS.

[A. 22-326 2650 S Kings Hwy Ft Pierce So Kings Hwy LLC Logan Winn]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5A 22-326, 2050 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY, FT.

PIERCE SO KINGS HIGHWAY LLC IS THE OWNER.

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT PRESENT AT

SWEARING. >> THANK YOU.

WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

>> I'M MARK. >> CASE 22-326, 2050 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY, CASE WAS INITIATED JANUARY 25TH OF 2022.

THE OWNER IS FT. PIERCE SO KINGS HIGHWAY LLC OF 67 MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD IN WARREN NEW JERSEY 07060.

VIOLATION PERMIT REQUIRED, CORRECTIVE ACTION IS OBTAIN PERMIT FOR PAVING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.

THE CITY REQUESTED IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS THAT THE DESCRIBED DV AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE ASSESSED OF A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSES..

S STILL IN THE PHASE. I HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY

IN QUESTION. >> HAVE YOU SEEN THE PICTURES?

>> NO. >> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED? THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE THE

PHOTOGRAPHS. >> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS

SUCH.. >> DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE PERMIT

WAS APPLIED FOR? >> I DO NOT.

HOLD ON. THIS IS FEBRUARY SECOND.

THEY'RE TRYING TO COMBINE TWO PERMITS TOGETHER ON THIS.

THE NOTE I HAVE HERE WAS FROM FEBRUARY FOURTH.

>> IF I MAY ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.

>> WHAT IT IS, IS THERE'S A LARGER PROJECT WHERE THE SITE IS BEING DEVELOPED AND IT TIES IN WITH THE WIDENING OF THE TWO STREETS THERE. SKIPPING HOW WE GOT THERE WITH THE PAVEMENT WITHOUT THE PERMIT. WE APPLIED AND THEN THE ASPHALT GUY GOT OUT THERE AND CITY ENGINEERING, TRACY DEAL ISSUED PART OF THE REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE LARGER PROJECT AND SHE SAID FINAL CERTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE NORTH PARKING AREA AS CONSTRUCTED OF THIS PARKING LOT WAS NEVER CERTIFIED BY THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE AND THEN SAID WE NEEDED ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS AND WE'VE TURNED THAT IN AND WE'RE WAITING ON WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITS. I WOULD THINK IT SHOULD HAVE

[00:30:03]

I'M SURPRISED WE GOT A CODE VIOLATION.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AND WE'RE SHOCKED THAT PAVEMENT GUY HAD ALREADY GOTTEN OUT THERE, BUT IT'S BEING ADDRESSED WITH THE LARGER PROJECT AND WHEN THE WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITS COME IN, THEIR REVIEW WILL BE DONE SO IT'S PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE SITE.

>> CAN YOU NOT APPLY FOR THE PERMIT NOW?

>> WELL WE APPLIED FOR IT BACK IN FEBRUARY AND THEN WHEN WE REALIZED THE PAVING GUY WAS ALREADY OUT THERE, THE CITY ENGINEER SAID WE'RE GOING TO ROLL IT IN THIS BECAUSE THE PAVEMENT WILL TURN INTO A SWELL AND A BROOM BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE WATER MANAGEMENT'S DISTRICT THERE.

PART OF IT IS COMING BACK OUT SO A BIRM IS BEING INSTALLED SO IT IS A DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE SITE WHICH I BELIEVE IS A COUPLE

OF ACRES. >> SO WAS IT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S SUGGESTION TO COMBINE THE TWO PERMITS OR WAS

THAT SOMETHING YOU ASKED FOR? >> IT WAS ALWAYS TO BECOME BIND AS THE ENTIRE SITE DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS ALREADY PAVED SO THERE WAS BACK BEFORE THIS PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AND WHETHER IT WAS A MILL AND REPAVEMENT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS PART OF THE COUNTY BEFORE AND WE DECIDED AT ONE MEETING.

WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH ENGINEERING AND PLANNING, WE DECIDED TO DO THAT AREA AND THEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT FOR PAVING AND REPAVING SO THEY PUT IT UNDER RESEAL AND STRIPING AND WE APPLIED FOR THAT PERMIT AND TRACY DEAL AND I WENT AND LOOKED AT IT AND TO OUR SURPRISE THE PAVING CONTRACTOR GOT IN THERE BEFORE AND PAVED THE AREA AND SHE SAID THAT'S DOING TO COME OUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A BIG BIRM COMING THROUGH AND THE COUNTY IS COMING THROUGH WITH THE SIDEWALK AND GRASS AREA AND THAT'S WHAT SHE'S PUT IN THE REVIEW COMMENTS.

IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A BIG PROJECT, BUT I HAVE TO GET DENSITY REPORTS AND A SURVEY AND SO ON, WHICH WE DID AND THAT'S TURNED IN AND I HAVE A MEETING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING REGARDING THIS, AS WELL.

>> WHEN DID YOU TURN IN ALL THE DOCUMENT?

>> THE SURVEY A FEW MONTHS AGO AND THE DENSITIES WERE DONE ABOUT A MONTH AGO, BUT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED.

WE'RE WAITING ON WATER MANAGEMENT AND DIFFERENT FEDERAL PERMITS BECAUSE THE WATER IS BEING DUMPED INTO THE WATER DISTRICT'S DRAIN SYSTEM ALONG THERE SO THEY'RE WIDENING THE STREET WITH THE SIDEWALK AND THE DOT PROJECT.

>> THIS STREET IS SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

>> THAT AND CROSS WINDS, YES. SO I MEAN HONESTLY WE WERE SO SURPRISED ABOUT THE CODE VIOLATION BECAUSE WE WERE WORKING WITH ENGINEERING THE WHOLE TIME.

THEY SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET SOMETHING DONE WITH THIS SO IT'LL GET CERTIFIED, BUT YOU HAVE TO GET DENSITIES AND DIFFERENT THINGS SO WE'VE DONE THAT.

I SENT AN E-MAIL AND SAID I CAN GO AHEAD IF THEY WANT TO ISSUE AN PERMIT FOR THAT ONE SECTION WE CAN HAVE A FINAL INSPECTION

AND CLOSE IT OUT EITHER WAY. >> IT'S ALL INTER CONNECTED,

CORRECT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT. YOU INDICATED YOU HAVE A MEETING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING THIS HEARING?

>> NATASHA. SHE SAID SHE'S DOING TO NEED HARD COPIES I TOLD HER I WOULD RUN OVER THERE AND SEE WHAT SHE

HAS. >> WE HAVE THE ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER THAT CAN PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE THINGS THAT ARE

OUTSTANDING. >> THIS IS THE LETTER FROM TRACY OF WHAT SHE NEEDED ME TO TURN IN AND SO ON.

>> TRACY? >> TO I NEED TO BE SWORN IN?

>> YES. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

>> YES, I DO. >> GIVE US SOME CLARITY HERE.

>> OKAY. BACK WHEN THIS INITIALLY CAME UP FOR THIS I VISITED THE SITE AND NOTICED THIS BEEN PAVED AND WE HAD SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT ST. LUCY AND WE

[00:35:10]

SO THAT WAS THE NORTHERN SECTION.

SO WHEN HE CAME IN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN SECTION WITH THE NEW PARKING AND EVERYTHING, WE KIND OF DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THAT WHEN WE SAW THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE ON THE NORTH HALF SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW ENGINEERING WAS LOOKING AT IT. HEY, WE NEED TO TIE THESE TOGETHER. THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS AND THEY'VE RETAINED AN ENGINEER AND THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES BEFORE WE CAN PROVIDE APPROVAL THROUGH ENGINEERING IS WE NEED YOUR STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS THAT INCLUDES DOT AND THE COUNTY AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER DISTRICT.

WITH REGARDS TO THE NORTHERN PARKING AREA THAT HAD MILLINGS BEING AS THERE WERE NO PLANS HE'LL HAVE TO HAVE THAT

CERTIFIED. >> WE'VE TURNED THAT IN ALREADY.

>> SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. >> ALRIGHT.

>> THANKS. >> DO YOU THINK 60 DAYS WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME TO GET ALL OF THIS DONE?

>> EVERYTHING SHE'S MENTIONED IS DONE.

I'M GOING TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEY WANT HARD COPIES OF THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

THE PERMITS HAVE BEEN TURNED IN FOR MONTHS AND SOMETIMES THEY

ARE LENGTHY. >> IF I MAY SPEAK WITH THE REGARDS TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA, HAVE YOU RESUBMITTED.

YOUR ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL THEY CAME BACKING WITH QUITE A LIST OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IT CAN BE TIME CONSUMING.

>> THE ENGINEER HAS COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING.

WATER MANAGEMENT CAME IN AND THERE WAS PART OF AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION, BUT THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED AND IT STILL COULD BE A WHILE. WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.

>> YOU MENTIONED ST. LUCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SOUTH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WE HAVE A LOT OF AGENCIES HERE.

>> WE DO. >> TRACY, YOU THINK 60 DAYS IS

ENOUGH TIME OR MAYBE 90? >> I WOULD TEND TO GIVE THEM 90 DAYS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OR WHEN HE MADE THE RESUBMITTAL, BUT ONCE YOU SUBMIT TO SOUTH FLORIDA THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO REVIEW AND RESPOND TO YOU AND WHEN I SAW THE FIRST THERE WERE QUITE A BIT OF DETAILED INFORMATION THAT THEY WANTED SO I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR ALONG YOUR ENGINEER IS ON

THAT RESPONSE. >> YOU THINK 90 DAYS YOU COULD HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION? THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH ALL THE

AGENCIES? >> ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE PUSHING AS MUCH AS WE CAN. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEM.

I'VE SEEN THEM TAKE SIX MONTHS. >> I'LL CONTINUE THIS FOR 90 DAYS, AND LET'S SEE WHERE WE ARE.

JUST GOOD LUCK TO YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALRIGHT. THANKS TRACY.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY THE NEXT CASE IS 5M CASE

[M. 22-2115 919 Avenue J Marcellino, Vincent Frank Remling]

>> THANK YOU. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY MR.

REMLING. >> THIS CASE NUMBER IS 22-2115919 AVENUE J AND THIS CASE INITIATED JUNE 30TH OF 2022. THE OWNER IS VINCENT MARCELLINO, 5625 WALL COURT, PORT ST. LUCIE. THE VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC 304 POINT 18.1, 2021 DOORS. IPMC WINDOWS.

[00:40:07]

REPAIR AND REPLACE ALL DOORS THAT DO NOT CLOSE AND REPAIR ALL BROKEN WINDOWS AND MAKE NECESSARY PLUMBING REPAIRS TO TOILET AND TO WORKING ORDER. REPAIR OR REPLACE NON-WORKING REFRIGERATOR. NUMBER FIVE, MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO ALL HOLES IN THE WALLS.

THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE OWN ER IS 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 ASSASSESSED. THERE'S NO PERMIT.

I THINK YESTERDAY THERE WAS SOME CONTACT BETWEEN HIM AND LIZ YESTERDAY. THEY HAD TALKED AND I DO HAVE

SOME PICTURES ON WHAT'S THERE. >> SIR, CAN YOU TELL US YOUR

NAME? >> VINCENT MARCELLINO.

>> HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH?

>> NO. >> SIR, WERE YOU SWORN?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> IS THIS A BUSINESS? >> NO IT'S A HOUSE COMPLAINT.

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> DID YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH? >> I WAS THERE WHEN HE TOOK

THEM. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EXHIBIT COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT ONE THE PHOTOGRAPHS. >> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.. ANYTHING FURTHER MR. REMLING?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> CAN YOU TELL US YOUR NAME?

>> JAMIE DEREVEL. >> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY

WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> OKAY. >> CAN I ASK WHO ASKED YOU TO BE HERE TODAY. YOUR LAND LORD?

>> I'M HERE ON MY OWN. >> YOU WANTED TO COME AND SPEAK?

>> ABOUT THE CONDITIONS. >> WHAT IS IT YOU WANT THE

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO KNOW. >> LET ME FIRST START OFF BY SAYING THAT I ALMOST DIDN'T EVEN LIKE WANT TO COME HERE TODAY BECAUSE AS A RESULT OF ME REACHING OUT TO YOU GUYS AND COMPLAINING ON MY LANDLORD I GOT EVICTED ON MY APARTMENT.

WHEN I MADE THE PHONE CALL I GOT ADVICE FROM A LAWYER AND I CALLED THEM TO TELL THEM THAT MY LANDLORD WAS NOT MAKING REPAIRED IN MY APARTMENT AND MY RENT HAD BEEN PAID.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR FLORIDA AND AT THE TIME THEY WERE PAYING MY RENT. THEY PAID MY RENT UP.

THEY'VE BEEN PAYING MY RENT SINCE LAST YEAR.

SO WHEN THEY PAID MY RENT, MY LANDLORD I WAS BASICALLY TELLING HIM ABOUT REPAIRS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE IN MY APARTMENT SO HE WAS BASICALLY GIVING ME THE RUN AROUND AFTER THE RENT WAS PAID SO I CONSULTED WITH A LAWYER TO SEE WHAT I COULD DO AND THEY SAID I HAD THE RIGHT TO WITH HOLD MY RENT, BUT BEING THAT I WAS NOT THE ONE WITH THE RENT I NEVER WITHHELD IT.

I WAS GIVING HIM EVERY CHECK AND THEN HE TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF AFTER I COMPLAINED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT HE WENT DOWN THERE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT AND FILED A FALSE EVICTION ON ME CLAIMING THAT I OWED HIM MONEY THAT I DID NOT OWE.

WHEN I WENT TO COURT TO TRY TO FIGHT TO THE EVICTION AND EXPLAIN THAT I DID NOT OWE HIM ANYTHING, THE JUDGE WAS SICK.

JUDGE ALONSO SO HE PRESIDED OUR CASE OVER THE PHONE SO I NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO DEFEND MYSELF AND AS A RESULT THEY BASICALLY GAVE MY LANDLORD, RULED IN HIS FAVOR AND ORDERED THEM TO PAY MY LANDLORD THE MONEY HE WAS SUING ME FOR THAT I DID NOT OWE HIM AND PAID MY RENT UP FOR THREE MONTHS AND THEN THE OWNER TOLD ME THAT HE DID NOT WANT ME AS A TENANT ANYMORE.

I WAS A TENANT UP TO FIVE YEARS UP UNTIL THAT TIME.

[00:45:02]

MY LANDLORD RETALIATED AGAINST ME BECAUSE I CALLED YOU GUYS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE REPAIRS NEEDING TO BE MADE IN MY HOME.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I'M GOING TO CUT HER OFF BECAUSE THE ISSUE WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY IS THE CONDITIONS OF THE STRUCTURE. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT UNDER OUR CODE SECTION 103-345, PART OF THAT SECTION READS NO ADVERSE ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO A PROPERTY OWNER FOR FAILURE TO REMEDY DURING A PROCEEDING AGAIN THE TENANT THAT'S DILIGENTLY PURSUED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THERE WAS AN EVICTION THAT WAS FILED BY THE LANDLORD AGAINST YOU.

>> I'M DEREVEL. >> WAS YOUR NAME DUPRUIS AT SOME

POINT? >> NEVER WAS.

>> WAS THERE EVICTION PROCEEDING?

>> YES. RETALIATION.

>> THIS THAT I'M SEEING WAS FILED ON JUNE 14TH OF 2022.

MR. REMLING I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THIS CASE INITIATED JUNE 30TH OF 2022. DO YOU HAVE THE DATE YOU RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT? WOULD IT HAVE BEEN THE SAME DAY?

>> USUALLY, BUT SOMETIMES WE'LL GET A COUPLE OF DAYS OUT.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THAT CASE NUMBER, I'M LOOK AT THE CLERK OF COURTS WEBSITE IS 2022, PENDING IN ST. LUCY COUNTY AND THE JUDGE

WAS JUDGE ALONSO. >> SO 6/13 WE RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT AND THEN I CAN, I'LL CHECK THE DATE.

THIS WAS, I WITH SHOW THIS TO YOU SHOWS 6/14 TO IT WAS AFTER THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE THAT THE EVICTION WAS FILED.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> I WANT TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. YOU MAY FINISH.

>> OKAY. SO BASICALLY AFTER WE WENT TO COURT, WELL THE JUDGE PRETTY MUCH CONVINCED ME TO SIGN THIS STIPULATION AGREEMENT AND THE REASON WHY I SIGNED IT BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO EVICT ME IN THREE DAYS AND BASICALLY THE STIPULATION WAS, TREASURE COAST HOMELESS CENTER WOULD PAY MY RENT FOR THREE MONTHS AND PAY THE MONEY THAT MY LANDLORD WAS SUING ME FOR. $550.

THEY PAID HIM THREE MONTHS A TOTAL OF $3250 FOR ME TO KEEP MY APARTMENT. UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT ON THE 30TH OF JULY, SORRY, THE 30TH OF SEPTEMBER THAT I WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE ON MY OWN. THROUGHOUT THE DURATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEY PAID I WAS CONSTANTLY CALLING MY LANDLORD AND TELLING HIM ABOUT THE FIXTURES AND I PRETTY MUCH GOT NOTHING. HE WAS ON THE VERGE OF TRYING TO GET ME OUT OF THE APARTMENT BEFORE I HAD THIS COURT DATE.

SO BASICALLY I'M NO LONGER IS MY APARTMENT AND I'M HOMELESS.

I HAVE A 9-YEAR OLD AUTISTIC DAUGHTER AND WE HAVE BEEN IN THAT APARTMENT FOR OVER FIVE YEARS AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL I MADE THAT COMPLAINT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT THIS EVICTION CAME ABOUT. WHEN MY LANDLORD FILED THAT EVICTION HE DID NOT HAVE PROOF THAT I OWED HIM MONEY BECAUSE HE STOPPED GIVING ME RECEIPTS SO I NEVER DID, BUT OUR FLORIDA HAS IT ON THEIR WEBSITE ALL THE PAYOUTS FOR HIM.

WHEN WE WENT TO COURT AND SIGNE THE STIPULATION I DID NOT KNOW LATER ON DOWN THE LINE HE COULD USE THE SAME STIPULATION TO GO GET A RIFF. A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER THE 30TH HE WENT DOWN THERE. I NEVER LEFT BECAUSE HE SEEMED TO THINK THAT STIPULATION PAPER WAS AN EVICTION.

I WAS TELLING HIM THAT IT WASN'T.

THE TREASURE COAST PEOPLE PAID MY RENT FOR THREE MONTHS AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR AN EVICTION SO I SHOULD HAVE NEVER LOST MY HOME BECAUSE THEY PAID THE MONEY HE WAS SUING ME FOR, BUT BECAUSE I CALLED CODE ENFORCEMENT HE WANTED ME OUT OF THE APARTMENT AND DID NOT WANT ME AS A TENANT.

MIND YOU I HAVE BEEN STAYING THERE FOR FIVE YEARS.

SO WHEN I CALLED AND TOLD EVERYTHING WHEN IT CAME ABOUT, I

[00:50:06]

I WAS IGNORED AND NOT PROTECTED. WHEN HE GOT THE RIFF HE CAME TO MY HOUSE THE SAME DAY AND HAD A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A SHERIFF WITH HIM, THE POLICE OFFICER I DON'T KNOW IF HE KNEW HER PERSONALLY, BUT I HAVE VIDEO. THEY BOTH CAME TO MY HOUSE THAT DAY HE GOT THE RIFF. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

THEY KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND HE HAD THE POLICE OFFICER TELLING ME THAT I HAD UNTIL 7:00 P.M. THAT EVENING TO LEAVE THE APARTMENT AND HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE POLICE OFFICER MAKE ME LEAVE AT THAT MOMENT.

AT THE TIME I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON.

IT WAS LIKE THE SHERIFF'S THAT SUPPOSED TO SERVE YOU CAN RIFF, I DIDN'T KNOW. SO WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER LADY CAME TO MY DOOR I WAS COMPLYING WITH HER AND THEY GAVE ME UNTIL 7:00 THAT EVENING TO LEAVE AND I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD.

THEN WHEN THE LADY LEFT, I ACTUALLY CALLED THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND SAID LISTEN, WHEN YOU HAVE A RIFF IS THE POLICE OFFICER SUPPOSED TO COME AND TRY TO FORCE YOU OUT AND THEY SAID NO ONLY A SHERIFF AND I SAID A POLICE OFFICER REALLY CAME TO MY HOUSE AND TRIED TO FORCE ME OUT OF MY HOUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE THAT RIFF DOWN AND HAVE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SERVE THAT RIFF. HE DID NOT DO THAT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY THE $90 OR FIX THE THINGS IN MY APARTMENT AFTER ALL THAT MONEY WAS PAID TO HIM.

HE TRIED EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO GET ME OUT OF THAT APARTMENT BEFORE I GOT MY DAY IN COURT TODAY AND I HATE THE FACT THAT IT WAS DELAYED THIS LONG BECAUSE IF I GOT HERE SOONER BEFORE ALL THIS TRANSPIRED, BUT I TRY EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO KEEP MY APARTMENT AND I DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS OR THE MEANS TO BE ABLE TO HIRE A LAWYER TO DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE ME SPEAKING ON MY OWN DID NOT GET MY ANYWHERE. I SUBMITTED MY EVIDENCE BACKING UP MY CLAIMS OF THIS RETALIATION AND I WAS DENIED EVERYTHING.

SO I WAS FORCED OUT OF MY APARTMENT.

>> YOU WERE PAYING RENT ON TIME AND HE GOT PAID BY ANOTHER

AGENCY SO HE GOT PAID TWICE? >> YES, MA'AM AND HE NEVER MADE THE REPAIRS. HE LET ME STAY IN THAT APARTMENT AFTER THOSE PEOPLE PAID THOSE THREE MONTHS HE MADE ME STAY IN THAT APARTMENT WITH NON-WORKING APPLIANCES UNTIL THE DAY I HAD TO LEAVE AND I CALLED HIM ALMOST EVERY WEEK SAYING I NEED YOU TO REPLACE THIS REFRIGERATOR. I COULDN'T STORE FOOD BECAUSE THE REFRIGERATOR DID NOT WORK. THE AIR CONDITION DID NOT WORK.

THAT'S THE REASON I REACHED OUT BECAUSE I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ON MY OWN BECAUSE I ASKED HIM AND I WAS NOT GETTING RESULTS.

HE WAS PAID ALL THIS MONEY AND LITERAL I WILL LET ME STAY THERE UNTIL THE DAY HE HAD THE SHERIFF HAVE ME PUT OUT BECAUSE I LITERALLY STAYED THERE UNTIL THE SHERIFF CAME AND HE WENT DOWN THERE AND GOT THAT RIFF AND THEY GAVE ME TO 10:00 ON THE 7TH OR THE 8TH AND THEY GAVE ME TO 10:30 THAT DAY TO HAVE EVERYTHING OUT OF THE APARTMENT. I HAD TO LEAVE HALF MY STUFF THERE AND THEY PUT IT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO MOVE OR ANYTHING AND I FELT LIKE THAT WAS MESSED UP BECAUSE HE GOT PAID ALL OF THAT MONEY AND I GOT EVICTED FOR NOTHING BECAUSE MY RENT WAS PAID, MA'AM.

IT HAD BEEN PAID. THE TREASURE COAST STEPPED IN AND PAID THIS MONEY FOR ME TO STAY IN THIS APARTMENT IF THEY KNEW THEY DID NOT WANT ME IN THE APARTMENT AND IF HE KNEW THAT, HE SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE JUDGE. BUT THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE PROOF THAT HE WAS OWED THIS MONEY.

I WAS STILL EVICTED FROM MY HOME.

>> OKAY. SIR, I'M GOING TO HEAR FROM YOU AND I'LL CAUTION YOU THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH.

YOU ARE UNDER OATH. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> YOU HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH. >> WHY WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THAT

I WOULD LIE. >> DON'T QUESTION ME, I'M

TELLING YOU WHAT THE LAW IS. >> I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT TONE

WITH ME. >> YOU KNOW WHAT? LIVE WITH IT. HOW DO YOU RESPOND.

I'M NOT YOUR TENANT. HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

>> THEY'RE COMPLETELY FALSE. >> HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT?

>> SIMPLY, FIRST OF ALL THE REASON I FILED THE EVICTION WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT PAYING RENT AND WAS $550 IN THE REARS SO WHEN I FILED THE EVICTION AND WE WENT TO COURT THEY TOLD HER BEFORE WE WENT TO COURT TO MAKE SURE SHE PAYS ALL OF HER RENT TO

[00:55:06]

YOU CAN'T JUST WRITE A RECEIPT AND PLAY IT OFF IN COURT THAT THE LANDLORD WROTE THAT SO SHE APOLOGIZED TO HIM.

AS THE HEARING WENT ON SHE WAS ARGUING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE JUDGE ON THE CONFERENCE PHONE AND GOT UPSET IN COURT AND THE JUDGE TOLD ME RIGHT THERE AND THEN LISTEN, IF YOU WANT WE'LL EVICT HER RIGHT NOW. SHE GOT UPSET AND WALKED OUT.

I TOLD THE JUDGE I SAID LISTEN, I'M NOT AN UNREASONABLE MAN AND I HAVE COMPASSION. SHE DOES HAVE A CHILD WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND I'M NOT GOING TO THROW HER OUT LIKE THAT.

I GOT ON MY PHONE AND CALLED HER AND SAID JAMIE COME BACK IN THE COURTROOM. THE JUDGE SAID I CAN HAVE HOMELESS SERVICES PAY HER RENT UP-TO-DATE AND A LITTLE MORE IF YOU WANT TO KEEP HER AS A TENANT AND I SAID I DON'T WANT TO KEEP HER AS A TENANT BUT I WILL GIVE HER THE 60 DAYS EXTRA SO SHE ENDED UP WITH 87-DAYS OF RENT FREE AND SHE KNEW SHE HAD TO LEAVE ON THE 30TH. IT WAS JUDGES ORDER.

WHEN THE 30TH CAME SHE WOULD NOT LEAVE.

SHE SAID I'M NOT LEAVING. I NEVER KNEW THE VIOLATION CAME

IN. >> I'VE HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT THE EVICTION. WHAT ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF THE, EXCUSE ME? EXCUSE ME?

THE PHOTOGRAPHS DON'T LIE. >> YOU WANT TO HEAR MY

EXPLANATION? >> NO I WANT YOU TO HEAR ME.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS DON'T LIE. NOW DO YOU OWN THE PROPERTY AT

919 AVENUE >>?

>> I OWN 50 PROPERTIES. >> DO YOU OWN THE PROPERTY AT 919? HAVE YOU SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPH?

>> NOT UNTIL NOW. >> YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THEM

AGAIN. >> I LOOKED AT THEM AGAIN.

YOU WANT TO HEAR WHAT I HAVE TO SAY?

>> NO, I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS NOW.

>> ALRIGHT. GO AHEAD.

IS THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE MR. REMLING?

>> NO, MA'AM, NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

I HAVE NOT BEEN BACK FOR REINSPECTION.

>> THIS CASE WAS INITIATED BACK IN JUNE AND THIS IS OCTOBER?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> FOUR MONTHS LATER? I'M GOING TO SAY TO YOU WHAT I SAY TO SO MANY OTHER LANDLORDS LIKE YOU THAT COME IN HERE. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.

DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN? WOULD YOU LET THEM LIVE HERE?

>> NO. BUT UNDERSTAND THE

CIRCUMSTANCES. >> NO, YOU'RE DONE.

NOTHING FROM YOU. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE 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. VINCENT THE VIOLATION AND THE CITY ASKS I GIVE YOU 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, BUT YOU HAVE 30. 30 DAYS TO AND YOU HAVE TO CURE ALL VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $$200 A DAY WILL BE ASSESSED TO YOU.

YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL MY DECISION.

>> HOW DO I DO THAT APPEAL? >> FIND YOU A LAWYER.

THANK YOU FOR COMING. GOOD LUCK.

>> WE DON'T PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE YOU HAVE TO PURSUE THAT THROUGH

THE CIRCUIT COURT. >> NEXT

>> ARE WE BACK ON THE RECORD? FOR THOSE THAT REMAIN I APOLOGIZE FOR MY CONDUCT. WE'RE ALL HUMAN.

[B. 22-509 1117 Paseo Ave Rayes, Humberto & Ochoa, Hilda Frank Remling]

NEXT CASE MADAM CLERK? >> THE NEXT CASE IS A CALL IN CASE THROUGH AN INTERPRETER AND IT WILL BE CASE 5B CASE 22-509,

[01:00:09]

>> THIS IS YOUR SPANISH INTERPRETER.

IS YOUR CLIENT PRESENT? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. I WILL PROCEED TO EXPLAIN TO YOUR CLIENT THAT WE'LL BE INTERPRETING AND ALL THE INFORMATION DISCUSSED WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL AND REMIND THEM TO

PLEASE TALK IN FULL SENTENCES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SWEAR HIM IN

NOW. >> OKAY.

>> COULD YOU ASK HIM TO PLEASE RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND? TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

THANK YOU. >> JUST FOR THE INTERPRETER TO CLARIFY FOR YOU AND THE RESPONDENTS, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S NOT A CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT MEETING. WE'RE BEING RECORDED AND LIVE STREAMED FROM OUR COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FRONT OF THE SPECIAL

MAGISTRATE. >> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT.

>> WE'RE BEING RECORDED AND LIVE STREAMED FROM OUR COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FRONT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> CAN YOU BOTH TELL US YOUR

NAMES, PLEASE? >> HUMBERTO RAYES AND OCHOA.

>> DO YOU BOTH UNDERSTAND THE INTERPRETATION THAT'S PROVIDED

FOR YOU? >> SI.

>> MR. REMLING YOU CAN PRESENT THE CASE, PLEASE.

>> THIS CASE NUMBER IS 22-50, 1117 PASEO AVENUE.

THE CASE INITIATED FEBRUARY NINTH, 2022.

THE O THE OH THE OU THE OM THE OBE THE OR THE OWNER IS RAYES HUMBERTO AND OC OCHOA. THE VIOLATIONS ARE FBC 105.1,

[01:05:01]

2017 PERMIT REQUIRED. >> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT

FIRST PART? >> GO AHEAD AND REPEAT THE WHOLE

THING AGAIN. >> THE VIOLATIONS ARE FBC 105.1, 2017 PERMIT REQUIRED. FBC 105.4.1.2, 2017, EXPIRED PERMIT. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO SUBMIT A PERMIT FOR RENEWING 1396.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT NUMBER.

>> 193916.>> CAN YOU PLEASE REP NUMBER.

>> 193916. INCLUDING AN ENGINEER'S LETTER FOR THE-FOOTER AND FENCE INST

INSTALLED. >> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT?

>> FOR THE-FOOTER AND FENCE INST

INSTALLED. >> FENCE, FENCE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. BRACK THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS THEN THE VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS. TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, 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. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT.

>> AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED THE ORDER.

>> AND YOU SAY AND CURE? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

THE PERMIT EXPIRED 8/9/22. AND NO ENGINEER'S LETTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE INSTALLED-FOOTER OR FENCE.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> MR. REMLING DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE-FOOTER ON THE

FENCE? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT IT. >> I SAID MR. REMLING DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE-FOOTER ON THE FENCE? PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE RESPONDENTS PLEASE?

[01:10:01]

>> YES. >> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT?

>> DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLA VIOLATIONS?

>> YOU SAID DOES THE PHOTOGRAPH FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE

VIOLATION YOU SAID? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND MR. REMLING'S RESPONSE WAS YES.

AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO THE EVIDENCE THE

PHOTOGRAPHS AT EXHIBIT ONE. >> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS

SUCH. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE?

>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SU

SUCH. >> THIS WAS A PREVIOUS VIOLATION CASE. I WANTED TO REMIND YOU IN CASE

YOU DIDN'T REMEMBER. >> I REMEMBER.

THE PRIOR VIOLATION WAS IT MOVED AS REQUIRED?

>> YES. >> THE ISSUE AT THIS POINT IS THAT SOME OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT FOR

THAT WORK. >> YES OR AN INSPECTION.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

MR. RAYES? WHAT HAPPENED? HOLD ON. GIVE HIM TIME TO INTERPRET, PLE PLEASE.

>> I AM 67 YEARS OLD NOW AND THAT FENCE I MADE IT UP HIGH AND THE PREVIOUS PERMIT I GOT IT, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

ALL I DID WAS PAY THE ENGINEERS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND I DON'T HAVE MORE STRENGTH TO CONTINUE TH

THERE. >> YOU MAY REPLY?

>> NOW THESE SHORT SENTENCES PLEASE UP BECAUSE HE HAS TO

INTERPRET WHAT YOU SAY. >> CORRECT.

>> THE PREVIOUS VIOLATION, I ALREADY FIXED IT AND NOW I CANNOT CONTINUE TO FIX BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MONEY.

>> WHAT'S THE REMEDY, MR. REMLING?

DOES IT TEAR IT DOWN? >> YOU COULD TEAR IT DOWN.

>> HOLD ON. INTER

INTERPRETER? >> I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK INVOLVED AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT.

>> CAN I SPEAK?

>> WELL THERE SIS A PLACE OF THREE BLOCKS LIKE THAT, BUT TEARING IT DOWN WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE.

CAN WE NOT LEAVE IT LIKE THAT SO THAT IF I DIE SOME OTHER PERSON MAY MAINTAIN IT, BUT NOT TEAR IT DOWN.

>> SIR, YOU HAVE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE OR YOU MIGHT NOT

[01:15:01]

HAVE A CH CHCHOICE. >> CORRECT.

BUT COULD IDEA FEND MYSELF AGAINST THIS, WHAT THEY ARE DOING AGAINST ME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MONEY TO DO THAT.

>> SIR, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE L

LAW. >> WELL I CANNOT BREAK THE FENCE, THEY JUST GIVE ME $300 FOR RETIREMENT SO I CAN'T.

>> I LIVE OFF A FIXED INCOME TOO.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT? >> I LIVE OFF OF A FIXED INCOME TOO? THIS CASE STARTED IN FEBRUARY.

IF YOU DON'T COMPLY I HAVE NO CHOICE, BUT TO FINE YOU.

>> SI. I WILL TEAR IT DOWN THEN.

>> I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO TEAR IT DOWN, BUT YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO PULL THE PERMIT WHICH THE CITY IS ASKING YOU TO DO THAT.

>> I CANNOT KEEP PAYING. I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T HAVE MONEY.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT VERY WELL. TRUST ME.

ANYTHING FURTHER? >> ONE SECOND, SPECIAL

MAGISTRATE. >> YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET THAT,

INTERPRETER? >> SORRY I COULD NOT HEAR HER VOICE CLEARLY.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, MR. COSS IS GOING TO EXPLAIN AN OPTION

THAT MR. RAYES HAS. >> WASN'T THIS A DISPUTE BETWEEN

TWO NEIGHBOR? >> ORIGINALLY, YES.

>> MR. COSS? >> SO THE PERMIT NEEDS TO BE RENEWED WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY $125.

ONCE THE PERMIT IS RENEWED IT'S GOOD FOR SIX MONTHS.

THIS WILL ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TIME TO COLLECT MONEY FOR THE ENGINEER. AND THE ENGINEER LETTER JUST NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

ONCE WE RECEIVE THE LETTER, WE CAN REVIEW IT, APPROVE IT AND

CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT. >> THAT WOULD COMPLY THIS CASE.

>> AND FROM THE RECOMMENDATION HE WOULD HAVE 60 DAYS TO GET THE

PERMIT RENEWED? >> CORRECT.

>> GO AHEAD. >> I CUT YOU OFF.

GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> SO BASICALLY WE'RE TALKING A TOTAL OF EIGHT MONTHS.

[01:20:02]

>> CORRECT. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. RA RAYES?

>> SI. CAN I SPEAK? LETTER WITH THE BIG EFFORT THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE IN EIGHT MONTHS AND LEAVE THE FENCE THE WAY IT IS AND THEN THE ENGINEER GIVES ME THE LETTER TO LEAVE IT LIKE THAT?

>> THE ENGINEER NEEDS TO CONFIRM THAT THE FENCE AND-FOOTERS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE LAST PART?

>> FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> CAN I SPEAK? OKAY.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS FOR THE ENGINEER TO GIVE ME THE LETTER AND WE CAN LEAVE IT AS IT IS. CAN WE DO IT LIKE THAT?

>> AS LONG AS THE FENCE MEETS CODE.

THAT'S WHAT THE ENGINEER NEEDS TO DETERMINE.

>> CORRECT. >> SO IF I CAN CONFIRM WITH MR. REMLING AND COSS YOUR RECOMMENDATION REMAINS THE SAME?

>> YES. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR?

>> YES. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NO. >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED - I FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AT 1117 AND THAT HUMBERTO RAYES AND OCHOA ARE RESPONSIBLE.

I'LL GIVE THEM 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.

LET ME CHANGE THAT. I'LL GIVE THEM 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. 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 THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. GOOD LUCK.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, INTERPRETER.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I CAN HELP YOU WITH?

>> YES WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE IF YOU COULD STAY ON THE LINE?

>> SURE. OKAY.

[A. 21-908 302 S 21st Street Garcia, Javier & Esther Shaun Coss]

[01:25:26]

>> AND I THINK WE'LL NEED TO SWEAR MR. GARCIA IN.

>> COULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

LIEN REDUCTION FOR CASE 21-908. >> IS A LIEN REDUCTION, THAT'S

WHAT YOU SAID, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> FOR 302 SOUTH 21ST STREET OWNED BY JAVIER AND ESTHER GARCIA. THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WERE FLOOR THE BUILDING CODE 105.1.

THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OCTOBER 20TH OF 2021. A 90 DAY EXTENSION WAS GRANTED JANUARY 3RD OF 2022. THE FINES BEGAN ON MAY 25TH OF 20 2022.

AND A LIEN WAS IMPOSED ON JUNE 22ND OF 2022.

PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND WORK WAS COMPLETED AND THE INSPECTION WAS APPROVED. THE FINES WERE STOPPED ON AUGUST 26TH OF 2022. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE FINES

ARE $9350. >> STAFF IS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THIS CASE.

>> I'M SORRY CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT?

>> THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THIS CASE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> TO BE $1576 AND 85 CENTS. THERE ARE 7 CRITERIA TO CONSIDER FOR THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN. ONE, THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION. THIS IS MINIMAL.

TWO, ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE ISSUE AND THE NECESSARY PERMIT WAS OBTAINED AND THE WORK WAS INSPECTED. NUMBER THREE, THE LENGTH AND TIME NECESSARY TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

[01:30:06]

NUMBER FOUR, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION. BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. OR OTHER QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT? >> OR OTHER?

>> QUASI JUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL PRO

PROCESS. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT

FIRST WORD? >> QUASI.

I'M SORRY. QUASI.

OR OTHERWISE, ADMITTED GUILT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING AND THERE'S ZERO TIMES. NUMBER FIVE, THE NUMBER OF THE VIOLATION NOTICES THE VIOLATOR HAS RECEIVED IN THE PAST.

AS WELL AS THEIR NATURE AND FINAL DISPOSITION OF EACH NOTICE. IT'S NONE.

NUMBER SIX, WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT THERE'S EXTENUATING FACTORS. PREVENTING TIMELY COMPLIANCE SUCH AS UNAVOIDABLE PERSONAL HARD

HARDSHIP. >> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT?

UNAVAILABLE, PERSONAL HARDSHIP? >> UNAVOIDABLE.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> THE CURRENT OWNER STATED THAT THE WORK WAS COMPLETED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THEY CLAIM THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE NOTICES RECEIVED. AND THEREFORE, DID NOT RESPOND.

ONCE THEY UNDERSTOOD, THEY TOOK NECESSARY STEPS TO COMPLY.

NUMBER SEVEN. WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT THERE ARE PENDING VIOLATION PROCEEDINGS.

ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. THERE ARE NONE.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE FINE, I'M SORRY THE LIEN TO $826 AND 85 CENTS.

WHICH INCLUDES AN APPLICATION FEE FOR A LIEN REDUCTION FOR $250. NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME.

>> MR. GARCIA HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT OFFER BY THE CITY?

[01:35:11]

>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT THAT ALL THAT PROCESS THAT I WENT THROUGH AND I WAS, FIRST TIME IF I UNDERSTAND THE LADIES THEY WERE HELPING ME AND SENDING LETTERS, BUT MANY OF THE LETTERS I DID NOT RECEIVE AND I SPOKE TO THEM AND I TOLD THEM

THAT THEY DID NOT ARRIVE. >> THAT IS THE REASON WHY IT TOOK ME SO LONG AND ALSO, WHEN I STARTED LIVING IN THAT HOUSE, ALL THE WINDOWS, THEY WERE ASKING ME TO CLOSE AND NOT ALL THE WINDOWS HAVE TO CLOSE. AND THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK FOR HOME DEPOT FOR THE CODE AND THEN THEY TOLD ME THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT, BUT THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE A LETTER FOR ME AND THEY DID AND I TURNED THAT IN TO THEM AND THEY SAID THAT WOULD BE

OKAY. >> LET ME INTERRUPT.

ARE YOU AGREEING TO THE $828 AND 85 CENTS?

>> HOW MUCH TIME? HOW MANY TIME YOU GIVE ME?

>> I'M ASKING YOU HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME YOU NE

NEED. >> I'M SORRY, HOW MUCH WAS THAT?

>> HOW MANY MONTHS DO YOU NEED SIR TO PAY THE $800 PLUS,

DOLLARS? >> 800?

THREE MONTHS? >> ANYTHING FURTHER? THEN BASED ON T STIPULATION OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES I'LL REDUCE THE LEAN TO $825 AND 25 CENTS.

I WILL GIVE MR. GARCIA THREE MONTHS TO PAY THAT AMOUNT.

I'LL ADD ADVISE YOU THAT IF YOU DON'T PAY IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THEN THE LIEN WILL RESULT BACK INTO THE $9350.

>> OKAY. >> DOES THIS NEED TO GO BEFORE

THE COMMISSION? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ALRIGHT. YOU HAVE THREE MONTHS TO PAY AND

GOOD LUCK. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION SERVICES.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I CAN

HELP YOU WITH? >> THAT WILL BE ALL TODAY.

>> THANK YOU FOR CALLING FOR A SPANISH INTER TEAR BRETTER AND

[B. 21-1658 509 N 21st Street McCormick, Nettie Shaun Coss]

HAVE A GREAT DAY. >> YOU TOO, BYE.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS ALSO A CALL IN CASE AND IT'S 6B CASE 21-1658, 509 NORTH 21ST STREET AND NETTIE MCCORMICK IS THE

[01:40:02]

>> SHE GAVE ME ANOTHER NUMBER TO T

TRY. >> HELLO?

>> MRS. SIMMONS? >> YES.

>> GOOD MORNING THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE I WAS ON MY LAND LINE AND I'M OFF THAT NOW.

I'M CONCERNED THIS MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD CONNECTION.

THIS IS MY CELL PHONE AND IT WILL GO IN AND OUT AND I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND THE JUDGE. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

>> YES. YOU'RE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE OF

THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING? >> YES.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL HEAR IS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> MORNING MRS. SIMMONS THIS IS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FRAN ROSS.

>> GOOD MORNING YOUR HONOR. IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO BE BEFORE

YOU. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD TO HEAR YOUR VOICE. THE NEXT VOICE WILL BE THAT OF

SHAUN COSS, BUILDING SUPERVISOR. >> YES.

>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS A MASSIE HEARING FOR 509 NORTH 21ST STREET. THE CASE IS 21-1658 AND WAS INITIATED JULY 13TH OF 2021 AND THE VIOLATIONS ARE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE EXPIRED PERMIT AND SECTION 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED.

THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU FEBRUARY 15TH OF 2022 AND AN ORDER OF VIOLATION WAS ENTERED. A 90 DAY EXTENSION IN TIME WAS GRANTED. NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH THE OWNER.

ON SEPTEMBER 9TH OF 2022 AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WAS ORDERED AND FINES BEGAN. THE FINES TOTAL $3330.

AND ON SEPTEMBER 22ND OF 2022, STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE OWNERS DAUGHTER CONTESTING THE FINES AND REQUESTING A MASSIE HEARING. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AS YOU ARE AWARE WE DO HAVE AN ATTORNEY ON THE LINE TO REPRESENT THE OWNER, AS WELL AS THERE'S A MEMBER OUR AUDIENCE THAT I BELIEVE IS RELATED TO THE FAMILY SOMEHOW AND THEY WISH TO SPEAK, AS WELL.

>> OKAY. ARE YOU THE PERSON RELATED TO THIS CASE? DO YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD?

DID YOU SEND THE LETTER? >> COME FORWARD AND GET TO THE MICROPHONE. AE YOU THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER?

>> GRANDDAUGHTER. >> STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? NETTIE MCCORMICK.

>> OKAY. MR. COSS?

>> ARE WE AT THE STAGE OF IMPOSEING THE LIEN?

>> WE WOULD BE. SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR MASSIE HEARING SO THAT THE LIEN IS NOT FILED SO BEFORE STAFF MAKES A RECOMMENDATION I'D LIKE AN UPDATE FROM THE ATTORNEY OR FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE AS FAR AS STATUS OF THE PROBATE.

>> CAN I SPEAK NOW YOUR HONOR? >> YOU CAN SPEAK NOW, COUNSELOR.

>> YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DECEASED FOR 42 YEARS AND I BELIEVE THE FAMILY DID NOT REALIZE IN ORDER WHILE THE PROPERTY IS THERE FOR OWNERSHIP TO CHANGE THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROBATE AND SO CONSEQUENTIALLY NOBODY IS IN A POSITION TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT BECAUSE OWNER IS THE ONE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE APPLICATION. THEY ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF

[01:45:02]

WE'RE ASKING THAT YOUR HONOR WOULD GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME TO OPEN THE ESTATE TO THEN APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND THAT YOU WOULD SUSPEND THE AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE NOTICE IS NOT LIVING.

I'M IN THE PROCESS OF COMPLETING THAT, BUT IT'S JUST THAT WE NEED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED, IN

ORDER TO GET THE ESTATE OPENED. >> OKAY ANYTHING FURTHER?

MR. COSS? >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE I DO KNOW THAT THE GRANDDAUGHTER HERE IS TRYING TO BRING THE MATTER INTO COMPLIANCE. I DID SPEAK WITH A CONTRACTOR THAT WAS TRYING TO PULL THE PERMIT, BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED AS FAR AS OWNERSHIP AND WERE NOT POSITIVE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PULL THE PERMIT SIGNED BY THE OWNER THAT'S NOT TECHNICALLY THE OWNER. SO I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THEY'LL MOVE FORWARD ONCE THAT'S RESOLVED.

FOR TIMING PURPOSES, SINCE WE'RE AT THE STAGE OF A MASSIE HEARING STAFF RECOMMENDS WE GRANT A 90 DAY CONTINUANCE.

>> YOU'RE AGREEING TO STAY THE FINES?

>> WE'LL STAY THEM FOR 90 DAYS. >> DID YOU HEAR THAT MRS.

SIMMONS? >> YES, YOUR HONOR.

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET IT OPEN DURING THAT TIME AND GET THE

PERMITS ISSUED. >> THEN I'LL CONTINUE THIS MATTER FOR 90 DAYS AND STAY THE FINES ACCRUING.

THAT'S IT. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> OKAY THEN. IT WAS NICE TO HEAR YOU EVEN IF

I DIDN'T SEE YOU. >> SAME HERE.

SAME HERE. TAKE YOUR.

BYE. YOU HAVE 90 DAYS.

GOOD LUCK. >> THIS BEEN A NIGHTMARE.

>> TRUST ME I STOPPED DOING PROBATE, OKAY?

[C. 22-735 723 High Point Blvd High Point of Ft Pierce Condominium Section 2 Logan Winn]

NEXT CASE? >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 5C, CASE 22 22-735, 723 HIGH POINT BOULEVARD AND A HIGH HI APPOINTEE CONDOMINIUM SECTION 2 IS THE

OWNER. >> OKAY MR. WINN WIN WHEN YOU

ARE READY. >> 22 THE OWNER IS HIGH POINT OF FORT PIERCE CONDO, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. VIOLATION.

105 POINT 1, 2020. PERMIT.

PAVED AND STRIPING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.

THE CITY REQUEST AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL INSPECTIONS FOR 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED.

COMPLY AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

>> MR. WINN WIN CAN YOU CLARIFY? WE HAVE 723 AND ONE.732.

WHICH ONE? >> THE OWNER IS AT 732.

>> BUT THE ACTUAL ADDRESS IS 723?

>> CORRECT. THE PERMIT IS READY.

THEY NEED TO PAY THE REMAINING DOUBLE FEE AND THE CONTRACTOR

THAT NEEDS TO BE A SEED. >> I WILL MOVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH..

>> MR. WINN WAS IT COMMUNICATED THAT THE PERMIT WAS READY FOR

PICK UP? >> YES IT WAS E-MAILED.

>> DO YOU HAVE ONE THAT WAS DONE?

>> LOOKS LIKE SEPTEMBER 20TH. >> AND AS OF TODAY AS WE'VE BEEN SITTING IN HERE THEY HAVE NOT OBTAINED THE ACTUAL PERMIT OR

PAID FOR IT? >> NO.

[01:50:04]

>> OKAY. >> HAS ANYBODY CONTACTED YOUR

OFFICE? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

>> AND IT WENT TO A REGISTERED AGENT, RIGHT?

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THEY WERE VERY INVOLVED AT THE ONSET AND WE GRANTED NUMEROUS EXTENSIONS PRIOR TO COMING.

STAFF'S POSITION SINCE THE PERMIT IS READY FOR PICK UP AND CONTACT REGISTRATION FOR JUST ABOUT A MONTH NOW STAFF WILL

REQUEST TO FIND A VIOLATION. >> OKAY.

AND THERE IS NO ONE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED AGENT? ALRIGHT. THEN BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED. 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. THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU.

[E. 22-1184 507 S 22nd St Unit A Moncoeur, Nadege Logan Winn]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5E, CASE 22-1184.

507 SOUTH 22ND STREET UNIT A. NADEGE MONCOEUR IS THE OWNER AND IS ALSO, THERE'S A UNIT B THAT'S 5N CASE 507 SOUTH 22ND STREET, UNIT B. AND SAME OWNER. NADEGE MONCOEUR.

>> YOU WANT ME TO DO THEM BOTH TOGETHER?

>> YES, MA'AM. IT IS A SIMILAR CASE.

SAME SITUATION. MR. WINN?

>> CASE 22-1184, 507 SOUTH 22ND STREET UNIT A, CASE WAS INITIATED MARCH 31ST OF 2022. THE OWNERS NADEGE MONCOEUR.

VIOLA VIOLATIONS PERMIT REQUIRED, CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR WINDOWS REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE CITY REQUESTS IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS.

THEN 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. COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT COASSESSED. THE PERMIT FOR THIS UNIT IS REJECTED IN PLAN REVIEW ON OCTOBER 13TH AND THE OWNER HAS BEEN E-MAILED. I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE

PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES, THEY DO. >> DOES THIS COVER BOTH UNIT?

>> PRETTY SURE IT DOES. YE

YEAH. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE.

>> THANK YOU AND THIS COMPOSITE WILL BE PUT IN, IN BOTH CASES AS THE OWNER IS THE SAME. ANYTHING FURTHER MR. WINN?

>> AS A POINT OF REMINDER THIS WAS HERE PREVIOUSLY AND THE ISSUE ON THIS ONE WAS ORIGINALLY THEY APPLIED FOR ONE PERMIT FOR BOTH UNITS WITH ALL OF THE WINDOWS?

>> YES. >> DID THEY SUBMIT FOR EACH UNIT AFTER THAT? DO YOU KNOW?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE SEPARATED?

>> YES, THEY ARE. >> SO DO WE KNOW WERE THEY BOTH

DENIED? >> I HAVE DENIAL ON BOTH.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> OKAY.

ANYTHING FURTHER? ALRIGHT THEN BASED ON THE EVIDENCE 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. NADEGE MONCOEUR IS THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATIONS.

[01:55:09]

>> HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COPY OF THIS FOR EACH FILE OR PUT THE FILES TOGETHER?

>> I HAVE ANOTHER SET. >> SO WE CAN MAKE THAT FOR UNIT A AND THEN WE CAN SEEK TO ADMIT PHOTOGRAPHS FOR UNIT B.

>> WANT TO WRITE ON THERE UNIT A AND UNIT B?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> NEXT CASE MADAM CLERK? >> NEXT CASE IS AH, 22-1468 AND

[D. 22-1171 705 Revels Ln Apt B Hatfield, James Frank Remling]

[H. 22-1466 1907 Sunrise Boulevard Lopez, Ever & Buena, Amador Logan Winn]

AMADOR LOPEZ ARE THE OWNERS. >> THIS IS FOR 1907 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. CASE WAS INITIATED OCTSEPTEMBER 22ND. VIOLATION FBC 105.1, 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED. TRESSES BEING INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXIST 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 ASSASSESSED.

THERE'S BEEN NO PERMIT FOR THIS CASE AT ALL.

I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY?

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED? AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH..

>> WAS THERE A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF?

>> THEY PULLED A PERMIT FOR A ROOF REPLACEMENT INDICATING MORE LIKE A REPLACEMENT OF SHINGLES FOR A PITCHED ROOF AND THIS IS ACTUALLY FLAT ROOF THAT THEY HAND FORMED TRUSTS AND WERE

DOING THAT. >> SO THE PERMIT PULLED DID NOT

COVER THE WORK THAT THEY DID? >> CORRECT.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> I FIND THAT EVER AND BUENA AMADOR LOPEZ ARE THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION. THEY ARE NOT PRESENT THIS MORNING AND NEITHER IS A REPRESENTATIVE ON THEIR HALF, BUT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE 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 ASSASSESSED.

[F. 22-1219 2000 Sunrise Blvd LP Roberts Investment Group LLC Frank Remling]

30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> NEXT CASE IS 5 F, 22-1219, 1907 SUNRISE BOULEVARD, LP ROBERTS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC IS

THE OWNER. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> THIS CASE NUMBER IS 22-1219. CASE INITIATED APRIL 5TH OF 2022. THE OWNER IS LP ROBERTS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC. 710 PORT ST. LUCIE.

THE VIOLATION IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FBC 105.1, 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT ISSUING OF PERMIT.

THE CITY REQUESTS IF A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS FOR APPROVAL EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED.

APPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ALL THOSE IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED. I DO BELIEVE THIS ONE WAS HERE LAST MONTH. THE PERMIT IS READY FOR ISSUING, BUT THEY NEED ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SUBS NEED TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE THEY CAN GET THE PERMIT.

I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES HERE. >> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT

[02:00:05]

WHAT YOU OBSERVED? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> HAS IT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THEM THE STATUS OF THE PERMIT? WE'LL ENTER THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS COMPOSITE AND EXHIBIT ONE.

>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.

>> THERE'S A PERMIT FOR STUCK O ON THAT.

I BELIEVE EVERYBODY HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.

>> YOU WERE E-MAILED ON THE 13TH OF OCTOBER.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> I FIND THAT LP ROBERTS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, AGENT ROBERTS IS NOT PRESENT NEITHER IS A REPRESENTATIVE ON THEIR BEHALF. I FIND A VIOLATION 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 ASSESSASSESSED. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

[I. 22-1828 322 N 12th St Bitetto, Vitangelo Logan Winn]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5I, CASE 22-1828, 1005 NORTH 14TH STREET.

VITANGELO BITETTO IS THE OWNER. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> CASE 22-1828 OF 1005 NORTH 14TH STREET.

THE CASE WAS INITIATED MAY 27TH OF 2022.

THE OWNER IS VITANGELO BITETTO OF 1484 SOUTHEAST VILLAGE GREEN DRIVE, PORT ST. LUCIE. VIOLATION 105.1, 2020, PERMIT REQUIRED. FLOOR FRAMING AND OTHER RENOVATIONS WERE BEING DONE WITHOUT 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 ASSESSASSESSED.

THE PERMIT FOR THIS BEEN APPLIED FOR ON JULY 7TH OF 2022 AND WAS REJECTED IN REVIEW ON JULY 22ND OF 2022 AND THERE'S BEEN NO RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED AND WE HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL.

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE ONE.

SUCH. >> ALRIGHT I FIND THAT VITANGELO BITETTO IS NOT PRESENT AND NEITHER IS A REPRESENTATIVE ON HIS HALF, BUT I FIND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED THE 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 PER DAY BE ASSESSASSESSED.

[J. 22-1861 603 Ave E Garcia, Jose Logan Winn]

30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 5

>>, 22-186 1 1, 603 AVENUEE. >> THIS CASE WAS INITIATED MAY 31ST OF 2022. THE OWNER IS JOSE GARCIA.

FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. THE VIOLATION IS 111.1.1.

UP SAFE STRUCTURES. IPMC 105.111.

DANGEROUS STRUCTURES. IPMC UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

IPMC 304.7, ROOFS AND DRAINAGE. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE DETACHED GARAGE THAT'S UNSAFE.

THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION 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 ASSESSASSESSED.

THE DEMO PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR ON JUNE 16TH AND THE OWNER WAS

[02:05:05]

PER PLANNING THE APPLICATION WAS NEVER ACCEPTED OR COMPLETED.

>> WHAT IS A SOA. >> CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

>> WE HAVE A SET OF PICTURES FOR THIS, AS WELL.

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE ONE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.

ANYTHING FURTHER? I FIND JOSE GARCIA IS NOT HERE, NEITHER A REPRESENTATIVE ON THEIR BEHALF, BUT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY I FIND THE 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 ASSASSESSED. HE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

[L. 22-1897 121 N 29th Street Baptiste, Lerones Logan Winn]

>> NEXT CASE, MR. WINN? >> THE NEXT CASE IS 511, 22-1887. 121 NORTH 29TH STREET.

LERONES BAPTISTE IS THE OWNER. >> CASE 22-1897 OF 121 NORTH 29TH STREET. THE OWNER IS LERONES BAPTISTE OF 632 STILL MAN AVENUE PORT ST. LUCIE.

VIOLATION 105.1, 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED.

CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO CORRECT A DRIVEWAY DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION 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 AND THERE'S BEEN NO PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON THIS PROPERTY AND I HAVE THE SET OF

PICTURES. >> OKAY.

>> DO THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE ONE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

>> THANK YOU. THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH..

I FIND THAT LERONES BAPTISTE IS NOT PRESENT AND NEITHER IS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE ON HIS BEHALF, BUT I FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS AT 121 NORTH 29TH STREET AND HE'S THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION. 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 ASSASSESSED.

HE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> NEXT CASE IS 6A CASE 17-898,

[A. 17-898 1450 Bell Avenue TSPN 19 LLC 1450 Bell Ave Owner LLC Shaun Coss]

THE OWNERS. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A MASSIE HEARING FOR 1450 BELL AVENUE, CASE 17-898. WHILE I HAVE NOT RECENTLY HEARD FROM THE NEW OWNERS IN REGARD TO THE PROGRESS BEING MADE, I DO HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS ON THE TECHNICAL REVIEW TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE FOR THIS. STAFF RECOMMENDS WE CONTINUE THIS CASE FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS WHICH WILL ALSO DEFER THE ACCRUING OF FINES FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS, AS WELL.

>> I'LL GRANT THAT RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU MR. COSS, FOR THE RECORD.

ANYTHING FURTHER? >> WE HAVE A LIEN HEARING CASE.

[8. OTHER CASES - LIEN HEARINGS]

[A. 21-3322 504 N 26th St Unit B Yas Holdings LLC Frank Remling]

[02:10:03]

>> THEY WERE PRESENTED FOR IMPOSITION OF LIEN AND IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR, FOR 504 NORTH 26TH STREET THE LETTER SAID THAT A LIEN WOULD BE IMPOSED AND FINES HAVE BEGAN.

A LIEN WAS IMPOSED HOWEVER THEY WERE SENT A NOTICE THAT STATED THEY WOULD BE PROVIDED A POSITION OF LIEN HEARING FOR TODAY'S DATE. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT APPEARED TODAY. WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE OWNERS REGARDING THIS CASE INDICATING THE CASE IS COMPLIED SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISMISS THE PREVIOUS ORDER OF FINE IMPOSING LIEN AND WE'LL CREATE A NEW ORDER ASSESSING

FINE IMPOSING LIEN DATED TODAY. >> ALRIGHT.

I FIND THAT YAS HOLDINGS LLC IS NOT HERE OR ANY REPRESENTATIVE ON THEM. WE'LL DISMISS THE PREVIOUS LIEN AND IMPOSE A LIEN ON THIS PROPERTY AS OF TODAY'S DATE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[B. 21-3587 4150 Okeechobee Rd Unit B 4150 Plaza LLC Logan Winn]

>> THE NEXT TWO CASES ARE ALSO LIEN HEARINGS.

8 B, 21-3587, 4150 OKEECHOBEE ROAD UNIT B AND 4150 PLAZA LLC

[D. 22-1070 1104 Mayflower Rd Justin, Lareste Logan Winn]

>> IN THESE CASES WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE RESPONDENTS.

THE CASES ARE NOT COMPLIED SO IT'S FOR YOU TO SIGN FOR HIM

POSITION. >> ALRIGHT.

THEN BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED I FIND WITH REGARDS TO 8 B, 21-3587, 4150 OKEECHOBEE ROAD UNIT B AND 4150 PLAZA LLC IS THE OWNER AND REGARDS TO MAY 1104 MAYFLOWER ROAD, JUSTIN LARESTE IS THE OWNER AND ALSO, IS NOT PRESENT AND IN EACH CASE I WILL IMPOSE A LIEN AS OF TODAY'S DATE.

ALRIGHT. THAT'S IT?

>> YES, MA'AM, THAT'S ALL THE CASES.

>> HOW WERE THE PARTIES NOTIFIED?

>> NOTICE WAS SENT TO VIOLATOR CERTIFIED MALE AND IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED IS IT PUT IN THE FILE AND IF NOT RETURNED A NOTICE OF HEARING MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR AND TEN DAYS BEFORE TO HEARING IS SENT REGULAR U.S. MALE WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WITH IT AND A COPY IS IN THE INSPECTOR'S FILE AND 10 DAYS BEFORE TO HEARING THERE IS A POSTING OF IT IN CITY HALL AND THE POSTING OF NOTICE IS IN THE CITY AND IF IT IS NOT RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE POSTING IS COMPLETE, THE SAME WAY AS THE CARD WAS

RETURNED UNCLAIMED. >> OKAY.

THERE BEING N

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.