[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
WE ARE BEING TELEVISED. BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WHATEVER YOU DO WHEN YOU COME UP HERE, IT IS TELEVISED ON THE LOCAL FORT PIERCE STATION. DOES ANYBODY NEED AN INTERPRETER? ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]
NOW, PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE GOING TO TESTIFY. SO YOU CAN BE SWORN IN.>> IF YOU WILL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?
>> THE FIRST CASE, MADAM CLERK. >> OUR FIRST CASE WILL BE 5-E.
[E. 23-2407 517 N 26th St Apostle Faith Church of Jesus Logan Winn]
CASE 23-2407. THE ADDRESS IS 517 NORTH 26TH STREET. APOSTLE FAITH CHURCH OF JESUS IS THE OWNER. I WILL BE CALLING ATTORNEYGOLDEN. >> GOLDEN LAW, HOW MAY I HELP
YOU? >> ATTORNEY GOLDEN, PLEASE?
>> WHO IS CALLING? THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT. >> GOOD MORNING, THIS IS SCOTT
GOLDEN. >> THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> YES, I CAN. >> OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU. WE WILL BE DISCUSSING --
>> MY NAME IS LOGAN WINN. I'M THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. CASE NUMBER 23-2047.
THE CASE WAS INITIATED AUGUST 22, 2023.
THE OWNER IS APOSTLE FAITH CHURCH OF JESUS.
LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA. THE VIOLATIONS AREST IPMC-111-.1.1. UNSAFE STRUCTURES.
DANGEROUS STRUCTURAL ON PREMISES.
EXTERIOR STRUCTURE GENERAL. UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
STRUCTURAL NUMBERS. EXTERIOR WALLS.
ROOFS AND DRAINAGE. WINDOW, SKYLIGHT, AND DOOR FRAMES. GLAZING.
IPMC30 # 5.2-2021, STRUCTURAL NUMBERS.
IPMC, INTERIOR SURFACES. IPMC305.4-2021, STAIRS AND WALKING SURFACES. IPMC306.1-2021, COMPONENT SERVICEABILITY, GENERAL. IPMC306.1-2021, UNSAFE CONDITIONS. PUBLIC TOILET FACILITIES.
IPMC503.1-2021, FLOOR SURFACE. IPMC604.32021, ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS. IPMC604.3.201, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: O'OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR AND REPLACE ALL THE FIRE DAMAGE, DRYWALL, SOFFIT AND FASCIA. ANY STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WILL REQUIRE A PLAN BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
THE VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.
COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OF THE
[00:05:05]
VIOLATIONS OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.THERE HAS BEEN NO REPAIR OR DEMOLITION PERMITS APPLIED FOR ON THIS PROPERTY. I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES.
DID YOU RECEIVE THE PICTURES? >> YES, WE DID.
>> THANK YOU. LOGAN, DO THE PICTURES FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS?
>> YES, THEY DO. >> AND THEY WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST
>> THE CITIWILL MOVE TO SUBMIT COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.
WHICH IS A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS LABELED A-N.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PICTURES.
ESPECIALLY PICTURE A IS LOOKING DOWN THE AISLE OF THE CHURCH.
ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK THERE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CEILING IS
KIND OF... >> HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CHURCH? >> I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY, MA'AM,
NO: >> AND THEY WERE NOTIFIED OF
THIS HEARING, RIGHT? >> THEY ARE ON THE PHONE.
LET'S HEAR FROM THEM. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MY NAME IS SCOTT GOLDEN. I'M APPEARING ON BEHALF-- EXCUSE ME. OF THE CHURCH.
APOSTLE FAITH CHURCH IN THIS MATTER.
I'M SEEING ON MY SCREEN TALKING GOING ON.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE ABLE TO HEAR ME.
VERY GOOD. AFTER CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCH, AND THEY HAVE GIVEN SOME TIME TO DECIDE WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, THE CHURCH HAS DECIDED THEY ARE GOING TO NEED TO TEAR DOWN THE PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO MEET ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS.
IT WAS AN OLDER STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND SO AT THIS TIME, RATHER THAN SEEK SOME TIME FOR REPAIR, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SEEK 60 DAYS TO GET A DEMO PERMIT.
WE WILL OBVIOUSLY NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE THAT CAN DO THAT.
AND THEN 60 DAYS THEREAFTER, TO ACTUALLY COMPLETE THE DEMOLITION PROCESS. SO IF THE MAGISTRATE WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE US THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS WITHIN THAT PERIOD.
>> OKAY. WILL THE CHURCH BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A DEMO PERMIT WITHIN A 60-DAY PERIOD?
>> ACTUALLY, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD THINK SO.
TYPICALLY, THAT IS NOTES A PROBLEM-- THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM.
IF YOU WOULD PREFER TO GIVE US THE TOTAL OF 120 DAYS TO COMPLETE GETTING THE PERMIT AND THE DEMOLITION ITSELF, THAT WOULD PERHAPS WORK BETTER SO WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO DOING THIS IN PIECES. EITHER WAY, THAT IS THE CHURCH'S
CAN THEY GET A PERMIT WITHIN 60 DAYS?
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> WE DO NEED TO HIRE A DEMOLITION PERSON. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AFTER WE ACTUALLY FILE THE REQUEST WE WOULD GET THE PERMIT.
PERHAPS THE INSPECTOR CAN GIVE US INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT AWARE OF HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE.
>> THE PERMITTING PROCESS STARTS WITH DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMPLIANCE REVIEW WHICH WE CALL DPCR FOR SHORT.
THAT IS YOUR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT AND FORT PIERCE UTILITIES TO AUTHORIZE THE DISCONNECTION OF UTILITIES. THAT TYPICALLY TAKES ABOUT THREE WEEKS. ONCE YOU HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THAT, YOU OR YOUR CONTRACTOR WOULD THEN APPLY FOR YOUR BUILDING PERMIT WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITHIN ONE TO TWO WEEKS. SO 30 DAYS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
60 DAYS WOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE STILL HAVE TO THEIR ACTUAL CONTRACTOR TO DO THE WORK, SO IF WE COULD SIMPLY HAVE 120 DAYS TO BOTH GET
[00:10:02]
THE PERMITS AND COMPLETE THE WORK, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO SOLVE BOTH THE PROBLEMS OF HIRING THE CONTRACTOR, GETTING THE PERMIT, AND THEN COMPLETING THE WORK.>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO HIM A LITTLE BIT MORE? I THINK IF YOU PULL THE PERMIT, THE CITY WILL TELL YOU HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE ONCE YOU PULL THAT PERMIT.
>> ONCE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED, THE PERMIT IS VALID FOR 180 DAYS. HOWEVER, THE PERMIT CANNOT BE-- CAN'T NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN SELECTED.
IF THEY CAN'T SELECT THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 60 DAYS, THAT MAY IMPEDE THEIR ABILITY TO GET THE PERMIT.
STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THE REQUEST OF 120 DAYS IF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION INSTEAD OF CONTINUING THIS FOR
DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, COUNSELOR?
>> I DID. LET ME STATE THIS FOR THE RECORD. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THERE BE NO FINE DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, WHILE WE ARE GIVEN THE TIME TO PROCEED, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. STAFF'S MODIFIED REQUEST WOULD BE THAT THE CITY REQUEST THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS.
WITH THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 120 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED.
COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT.
OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.
THAT FINE WOULD NOT START UNTIL AFTER THE 120 DAYS, IF YOU FAIL
TO COMPLY. >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT,
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR. >> NO, MA'AM.
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS. AND THE PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION. I WILL GIVE YOU 120 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED.
COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 5-C.
[C. 23-2405 114 S 20th St Cooper, JoAnn Kevin Young]
CASE 23-23405. JOANN COOPER IS THE OWNER.EITHER THE -- >> YOU SAID EITHER ONE, RIGHT? OKAY. GOOD MORNING.
WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> GOOD MORNING.
I'M KEVIN YOUNG. BUILDING INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
CASE NUMBER IS 232405, 114TH SOUTH 20TH STREET.
AUGUST 21, 2023, IT WAS INITIATED.
VIOLATION IS FBC-105.1. PERMIT REQUIRED.
THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF RAFTER AND JOIST BEING REPAIRED OR REPLACE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS.
THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL REQUIRED VIOLATIONS. A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. A PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR 8-23-23. IT WAS REJECTED, AND THE BUILDING PLAN REVIEW-- ON 8-24-23 BECAUSE IT NEEDS SIGNED AND SEALED DRAWINGS. NO PLANS H HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PERMIT. I HAVE PICTURES AS WELL.
>> MA'AM, HAVE YOU SEEN THE PICTURES?
>> HAVE YOU SEEN THE PICTURES? >> NO, I HAVEN'T.
>> SHOW HER THE PICTURES, PLEASE.
[00:15:28]
>> THANK YOU. >> DO THE PICTURES FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS YOU OBSERVED?
>> YES, SIR. >> THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN
>> THE CITY WILL SUBMIT COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.
>> IT WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH. >> THANK YOU.
>> AND MS. COOPER, HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
>> WELL, I'M A RETIRED TEACHER. I'M WORKING-- I'M ON A FIXED INCOME. I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS. I DID-- I'M TAKING CARE OF MY AILING SISTER. I HIRED RINO ROOF TO COMPLETE IT FOR $4,000. THEY GAVE ME THE FIXED PRICE FOR THAT. AND I GAVE THEM THE OKAY TO DO THAT. THEN THE NEXT THING I KNEW, IT HAD GONE FROM $4,000 TO $11,000. AND I DID ASK THEM TO STOP WORK BECAUSE I COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY THAT AMOUNT.
SO I CALLED MY COUSIN JEROME RYAN IN.
HE COME UP-- MAY HE COME UP TO SPEAK NOW WITH ME?
JEROME RYAN. COUSIN OF JOANN COOPER.
>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.
I WAS SITTING RINGSIDE DURING THIS PROCESS.
I GAVE JOANN THE GREEN LIGHT TO THEIR COMPANY, AND OVERSEE ALL OF HER BUSINESS. I SAID FOR THE REPAIRS ON THE ROOF, $4,200 WAS A GOOD PRICE. A LICENSED COMPANY.
SHE SIGNED THE CONTRACT. SHE HIRED THE COMPANY TO DO THE ROOF. UNBEKNOWING, THE COMPANY WENT TO DO THE WORK AND NEVER PULLED A PERMIT.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE. SO THEY DIDN'T PULL A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK, AND SHE HAS A SIGNED CONTRACT HERE WITH THEM.
AND THEY CALLED HER AND SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME OTHER DAMAGE TO THE ROOF, AND THEY WOULD GET BACK TO HER.
WHEN THEY GOT BACK TO HER A FEW DAYS LATER, THEY GAVE HER A BILL FOR $11,000. I THINK THE SAME DAY, THEY WERE SHUT DOWN. I SHOWED UP AND I SAID TO THE COMPANY, I SAID, "HOW DO YOU DISCUSS $11,000 WHEN YOU SIGNED A $4,200 CONTRACT? SHE DID NOT GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO GO BEYOND THAT POINT. IF SO, I WOULD HAVE SHOWED UP ON HER BEHALF." SHE NEVER GOT A CALL.
WHEN I TALKED TO THE COMPANY ON HER BEHALF, I SAID "JOANN, LET ME HANDLE IT." I TALKED TO THE COMPANY.
HE TRIED TO OUTTALK ME. THE ONLY THING HE HAD ON HIS MIND WAS "YOU CAN GO GET FINANCING." I SAID NO, NO NO. THE PRINCIPLE ISSUE IS SHE SIGNED A CONTRACT. IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO ADDITIONAL WORK, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A RELEASE ORDER FROM HER SIGNED TO FURTHER THE WORK. YOU TALKED ABOUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADDITIONAL WORK. WHEN YOU SHOWED BACK UP THREE DAYS LATER, YOU GIVE HER AN $11,000 BILL.
WE DID NOT KNOW THAT DAY THEY HAD BEEN SHUT DOWN.
>> NO, WE DIDN'T. >> THE DAY I CONFRONTED THEM WAS THE DAY THE INSPECTOR SHUT THEM DOWN FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SO THERE IS SOME BAD BEHAVIOR THAT HAS MANIFEST ON BEHALF OF THE ROOFING COMPANY WHO SHE HIRED BECAUSE SHE HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE OF ROOF CONSTRUCTION. >> RIGHT.
>> THAT IS HOW WE END UP AT THIS PLACE TODAY.
>> OKAY. WHERE ARE WE-- WHERE ARE YOU AT NOW WITH HAVING THE ROOF REPAIRED OR REPLACED?
>> I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING. I HAVE TRIED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM TO NO AVAIL. I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE TO
SHE IS ON A FIXED INCOME. I TALKED TO THE COMPANY A COUPLE
[00:20:04]
OF TIMES. WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION. THEY ARE ADAMANT ABOUT GETTING PAID IN FULL. YOU GO TO THE BANK AND GET MO MONEY. BORROW AGAINST THE HOUSE.I SAID "WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET IN DEBT. SHE CANNOT AFFORD IT.
SHE TOLD YOU WHAT SHE COULD AFFORD.
PUTTING AN $11,000 MORTGAGE ON THE HOUSE WAS NOT AN OPTION.
THAT IS WHAT THEY KEPT WE WILL E YOU IN COURT.
SHE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY. I SAID, WE CAN EITHER GIVE YOU $100 A MONTH OR $50 A MONTH, OR WE CAN SAY IT TO YOU IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FINISH WHAT YOU STARTED. YOU ARE IN VIOLATION.
YOU DID THIS JOB AND NEVER PULLED A PERMIT.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, JUST FOR CLAYTY,-- CLARITY, THE ROOFER HAD OBTAINED A PERMIT TO REPLACE THE ROOF COVERING ONLY.
SO WHEN INSPECTOR YOUNG WENT OUT, HE FOUND THAT THE ROOF RAFTERS HAD BEEN REPLACED AS WELL.
IN ADDITION TO THE ROOF DECKING. THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE WORK WHICH IS WHY THERE WAS A STOP WORK ORDER.
TO DATE, THE ROOF COMPANY HAS NOT APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO REPLACE THE RAFTERS OR THE ROOF DECKING.
YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS A VIOLATION THAT ALWAYS FALLS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. EVEN WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CREATED BY SOMEBODY ELSE. SO STAFF IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM IN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TIME TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.
ULGT MATILY, THE PERMIT WOULD NEED TO BE OBTAINED EITHER BY THE ROOF COMPANY, ANOTHER CONTRACTOR, IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH ANOTHER CONTRACTOR. OR IF MS. COOPER RESIDES IN THE
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A LICENSED ROOFING CONTRACTOR TO
OBTAIN THE PERMIT. >> I CAN CONTINUE THIS.
MS. COOPER, HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU LOOKING FOR TO TRY TO GET THIS RESOLVED? BY RESOLVING, I MEAN TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. ONCE THE PERMIT IS OBTAINED, THEY WOULD HAVE 1850 DAYS TO $180 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE WORK.
IN LIEU OF INSPECTION. >> THE QUESTION IS THIS.
IS THERE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT HAS BEEN DONE AT THIS POINT BY THE OTHER COMPANY? DO THEY JUST WALK AWAY AND NOT
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? >> I COULD SPEAK WITH YOU
FOLLOWING THE HEARING. >> YES.
>> THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISCIPLINE THEM.
THAT IS OUTSIDE OUR JURISDICTION.
I COULD SPEAK WITH YOU REGARDING SOME OTHER OPTIONS FOR YOU.
>> OKAY. >> WELL, WE WILL DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO ON OUR END. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE TO GET A ROOFING CONTRACTOR WHO CAN GO AND GET PLANS DRAWN UP FOR THE RAFTERS AND THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.
TO PICK UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF AND WHAT THEY DID NOT DO
CORRECTLY. >> MY STATUS WITH THE ROOFING
COMPANY. >> WELL, SO IN TERMS OF WHERE SHE GOES FROM NOW, IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH THAT ROOFING COMPANY, YOU SAY YOU HAVE SOME INSIGHT ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
BEYOND THIS POINT? >> ILL SPEAK WITH YOU FOLLOWING THE HEARING. AT THIS POINT --
>> I STILL OWE THEM $7,000, I THINK.
I'LL CONTINUE THIS. 30 DAYS, YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THIS UP AND GOING WITHIN 30 DAYS?
>> I CAN FIND A CONTRACT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN GET THE
JOB DONE. >> I JUST MEAN FINDING A CONTRACT. ROOFS ARE EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR OR
REPLACE. >> WE ARE ASKING A ROOFER-- IT IS A GARAGE. WE ARE BASICALLY ASKING A ROOFER TO COME IN AND COVER SOMEONE ELSE'S SINS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN FIND SOMEONE TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE NO ROOFER WILL WANT TO COME BEHIND ANOTHER COMPANY AND CLEAN UP THEIR MESS. I WILL SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT.
THAT IS GOING TO BE THE QUESTION.
FINDING A ROOFER. WHO IS GOING TO COME IN AND VALIDATE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. AND NOT HAVE A HAND IN IT.
>> WELL, I CAN'T GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE FROM HERE.
YOU PROBABLY SHOULD JUST CONSIDER FINDING ANOTHER ROOFER.
>> YES. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
TO GET ANOTHER ROOFER. TO COME IN AND TO QUALIFY THE
WORK. >> AND THEN THE WORK THAT WASN'T DONE THAT YOU ALL PAID FOR, THAT IS ANOTHER WHOLE MATTER.
[00:25:02]
THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY.>> OKAY. >> LET ME-- I'LL CONTINUE THIS FOR 30 DAYS TO. GIVE YOU AIL TIME.
TO GIVE YOU ALL TIME. STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY.
THEY WILL WORK WITH YOU. >> OKAY.
>> BUT ALL RIGHT. I'M LIMITED ON WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT SAY HERE. ESPECIALLY A IMAGINE-- AS SPECIAL AGISTRATE. I WILL GIVE YOU TIME.
IT IS THE HOLIDAYS. I'LL GIVE YOU-- I'LL CONTINUE THIS UNTIL MY NEXT DOCKET. HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN GET THINGS
STRAIGHTENED OUT. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE NEXT HEARING-- THE HEARINGS ARE BEING RESCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT YEAR MOVING FROM TUESDAY TO EARLIER THURSDAY.
THE NEXT HEARING WILL NOT BE IN 30 DAYS.
SO STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO MAKING YOUR NEXT HEARING IN FEBRUARY FOR THEM TO COME BACK WITH A STATUS.
>> AND WHAT IS THE FEBRUARY DATE?
>> FEBRUARY 8. WOULD BE THE DATE.
>> THAT IS A THURSDAY? >> YES, MA'AM.
MERRY CHRISTMAS. >> MERRY CHRISTMAS.
[F. 23-2412 602 N 9th St Hudson, Ellaree c/o Hudson, Haywood Logan Winn]
THE NEXT CASE IS 5-F. 23-2412.
602 NORTH 9TH STREET. ELLAREE HUDSON.
CARE OF HAYWOOD HUDSON ARE THE OWNERS.
>> WHEN YOU ARE READY, MR. WINN.
>> CASE NUMBER 23-2412. 602, NORTH 9TH STREET.
THE CASE WAS INITIATED AUGUST 22, 2023.
THE OWNER IS ELLAREE HUDSON. CARE OF HAYWOOD HUDSON OF 1121 EATONTON HIGHWAY, GRAY, GEORGIA. VIOLATION.
IPMC11.1, STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY.
IPMC111.15, DANGEROUS STRUCKTURE ON PREMISES.
EXTERIOR STRUCTURE GENERAL. IPMC304.1.1, 2021, UNSAFE CONDITIONS. PROTECTIVE TREATMENT.
IPMPFC, STRUCTURAL NUMBERS. EXTERIOR WALLS.
IPMC304.72021, ROOFS AND DRAINAGE.
IPMC304.15, DOORS. IPMC306.1,-2021, COMPONENT SERVICEABILITY, GENERAL. UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
CORRECTIVE ACTION: TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO REHABILITATE OR DEMOLISH THIS PROPERTY.
ANY STRUCTURAL REPAIRS WILL REQUIRE SIGNED AND SEALED REPAIR PLANS DESIGNED BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
RECOMMENDATION? THE CITY REQUESTED THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED.
COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT, OR A FINE OF $100 HER PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.
NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR ON THIS PROPERTY.
I HAVE A SET OF PICTURES AS WELL.
>> AND DO THE PHOTOS FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS
AS YOU OBSERVED THEM? >> YES, SIR.
>> THE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN AUGUST 21, 2023?
>> CORRECT. >> THE CITY WILL MOVE TO SUBMIT
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> IT WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
[00:30:01]
>> HOW DID THIS COME TO CODE? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS A COMPLAINT.
>> LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR FOR A LONG
I FIND THAT ELLAREE HUDSON IS NOT PRESENT.
NEITHER IS HAYWOOD HUDSON PRESENT ON HER BEHALF.
HOWEVER, I DO FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS.
AND THAT THE VIOLATOR 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 PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.
30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING.
[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]
THE CASES THAT WILL BE RESCHEDULED ARE CASE-- THAT WERE TAKEN OFFER THE DOCKET OR WILL BE RESCHEDULED ARE CASE 23-982, CASE 23-1981, SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. 23-21, 702 NORTH 15TH STREET, APARTMENT A. 1720, MIAMI COURT.2614 AVENUE I. CASE 22-2732, 1219 NORTH 22ND STREET. AND 712 CEDAR PLACE.
>> OKAY. AND FOR THE PARTIES THAT ARE NOT
PRESENT, HOW WERE THEY NOTIFIED? >> A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATORS CERTIFIED MAIL. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED, IT IS PLACED IN THE FILE.
TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT REGULAR U.S. MAIL WITH AN AFT OF MAILING ATTACHEDDENED TO IT.
A COPY WAS PLACED IN M M M M M F MAILING ATTACHEDDENED TO IT.
A COPY WAS PLACED IN THE INSPECTOR'S FILE.
TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL.
NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF THE CERTIFICATION CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, POSTING IS COMPLETED THE SAME WAY AS IF THE
CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED. >> IS THAT IT?
>> ALL RIGHT. THEN WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.