Feb 06, 2024 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> THIS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING OF 1/6/24 IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER. IF WE COULD 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

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. >> IF YOU COULD PLEASE REMAIN STANDING? EVERYONE THAT IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING, THE

CLERK WILL SWEAR YOU IN. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE

WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. OUR FIRST CASE TODAY IS CASE 23-1407, 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, UNITY, MERMAID SEASHORES LLC.

>> A FEW HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS BEFORE WE BEGIN. THERE ARE VIOLATIONS ON THE SAME PROPERTY, RELATED TO UNITS D, L, AND M. I WILL REFER TO YOU AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DEFER -- PREVENT ALL THREE TOGETHER, OR INDIVIDUALLY, WHAT YOU THINK WOULD BE BEST.

>> ARE THEY ALL THREE THE SAME OWNERS?

>> CORRECT. THERE IS DIFFERENT EVIDENCE FOR EACH, BASED ON THAT UNIT, BUT IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TYPE OF

TESTIMONY FOR EACH. >> AND YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD OBJECT AS TO GOING FORWARD, AS TO UNIT N. THIS HEARING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED A FEW TIMES. IT HAS NEVER BEEN NOTICED PREVIOUSLY AS TO M. I DON'T THINK MY CLIENT HAS EVEN

RECEIVED A CITATION AS TO M. >> SO, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE DID REVIEW YESTERDAY, UNIT M, AND MAILINGS FOR THE OTHER ONES DID GO OUT. THIS ONE WAS EMAILED. SO, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE UNIT M FOR US TO SEND THE HARD COPY MAIL, WE CAN. BUT, SHE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE FOR M.

>> I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING. >> I'M NOT SO SURE THAT NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SO MUCH DEFICIENT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF SHE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A CITATION FOR M PREVIOUSLY AND IT IS LIKE WE ARE SKIPPING A STEP.

>> SO, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE WILL RESET M AND SEND HARDCOPY NOTICE WITH THE VIOLATION, WITH THE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR A NEW DATE FOR M IF THAT IS THE REQUEST INSTEAD OF GOING FORWARD TODAY. BUT, ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE , IF YOU DO WANT TO GO FORWARD ON THEM TODAY, IT IS PROVIDED TO YOU, BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE AT ANY POINT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO

GET IT DONE TODAY. >> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL REQUEST A M AND WE WILL REQUEST LATER.

>> OKAY, WE WILL RESET M. IT IS D AND L WE ARE GOING FORWARD WITH TODAY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. SO, THE QUESTION ON THOSE IS WHETHER THE VIOLATOR HAS ANY OPINION, WANT US TO PRESENT

ALTOGETHER, OR SEPARATELY. >> ALTOGETHER IS FINE.

>> ALTOGETHER IS OKAY? >> ALL RIGHT.

>> THAT'S FINE WITH ME, AS WELL.

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THE RULE OF SEQUESTRATION, THAT IS NOT WHICH IS WRITTEN INTO OUR RULES. IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO INVOKE THE RULE OF SEQUESTRATION, WE CAN DO THAT. WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE WHAT IT MEANS, I DON'T THINK EVERYONE HAS DONE IT, BUT WE CAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INVOKE SUCH A ROLE, WE CAN DO

SO. >> ARE YOU REQUESTING THAT?

>> I AM -- DOES THE CITY HAVE WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT IS BRINGING THIS?

>> YES. >> OKAY, THEN I WILL INVOKE

SEQUESTRATION. >> OKAY. SO, BASICALLY WHAT THIS ROLE MEANS FOR -- IT APPLIES TO HIS WITNESSES, AS WELL -- SO, PLANNING HAS BEEN SUBPOENAED BY HIM. MS. BARBARA B AREA IS HERE FOR ANOTHER DEFENSELESSNESS. SO, FOR THE ROLE OF SEQUESTRATION COME YOU HAVE TO WAIT OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS WHILE WE ARE CONDUCTING THE HEARING. YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THIS CASE FROM THIS POINT FORWARD WITH ANYONE, RELATED TO D AND L UNTIL THIS HEARING IS FINALIZED. YOU CAN WAIT OUTSIDE, TALK ABOUT THE

[00:05:02]

>> THE OVERFLOW IS NOT ON. BECAUSE THAT WAY, IT WILL --

>> THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT WE WERE DOING IS SHUTTING ALL HEARINGS THAT ARE LIVE PLAY OUTSIDE, SO MADAME CLERK, YOU TURNED OFF THE OUTSIDE AUDIO, IS THAT CORRECT? MAKE SURE, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE WITNESSES THAT YOU ALL HAVE SUBPOENAED, DID THEY LEAVE, AS WELL?

>> IF YOU GIVE ME ONE SECOND. >> SURE.

>> WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT MR. GUS FORD STEP OUTSIDE, AS WE

MAY CALL HIM. >> IS HE UNDER SUBPOENA?

>> HE IS NOT UNDER SUBPOENA. >> OKAY, SO, I WILL LET YOU ADDRESS THAT WITH THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND AMONGST

YOURSELVES. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DISCUSS. THERE IS A GENTLEMAN IN THE BACK ROW WHO WE DIDN'T

SUBPOENA, BUT HE IS HERE. >> YOU MAY CALL HIM.

>> YOU WANT HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE?

>> YES. >> MR. FORD, IF YOU WOULD

PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE? >> THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR. IT IS AN OPEN, PUBLIC HEARING. SO, ANY ISSUE RELATED TO YOU EXCLUDING SOMEONE ROM CHAMBERS IN AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING BY DOING THIS AND ASKING HIM TO REMOVE HIMSELF, YOU ARE REMOVING ANY SORT OF ISSUE RELATED TO YOU CLOSING OFF THE DOORS OF THE CHAMBER TO THE

PUBLIC. IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE ARE NOT DOING IT JUST TO

PUT HIM OUT, SO -- >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> I AM SPEAKING WITH THE ATTORNEY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE

SURE YOU AGREE TO THAT. >> YES.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, MR. BENTEKE, YOU CAN PROCEED. I WOULD RECOMMEND GOING THROUGH D AND L, GENERALLY, OF WHAT THE VIOLATIONS ARE AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO SPECIFIC PIECES OF EVIDENCE, REFERENCE WHICH UNIT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

>> THEY ARE THE SAME ON BOTH UNITS, MA'AM.

>> YES, MA'AM. IF YOU COULD READ IN THE SECOND CASE NUMBER, MEDICINE PARK, BECAUSE WE ONLY CALLED IN "D". WE CAN CALL IN

L. >> YES 23-1406, 2400 SOUTH

[A. 23-1407 STR 715 S Ocean Drive, Unit D MERMAID SEASHORES LLC Heather Debevec]

[B. 23-1406STR 715 S Ocean Drive, Unit L MERMAID SEASHORES LLC Heather Debevec]

>> THE CASE NUMBER IS 2314 07 AND 23 1406. 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, UNIT D AND 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, UNIT L, RESPECTIVELY, BOTH OWNED BY MERMAID SEASHORES LLC. CASES WERE INITIATED ON JUNE 16TH OF LAST YEAR. THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO SECTION 22 506 SUBSECTION B, FOR REGISTRATIONS, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS. THE CITY REQUEST $5000 BE ASSESSED, THAT IS PER UNIT. THE CITY ALSO REQUESTS AN IMMEDIATE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER BE IMPOSED IN FUTURE RENTALS BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY. ALL ADVERTISEMENTS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND PENDING RESERVATIONS BE PROVIDED. OR, ALONG WITH THAT, SHE WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN THE REGISTRATIONS. I DO HAVE COPIES OF ADS FOR BOTH UNITS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT BOTH

TOGETHER, OR SEPARATELY. >> LET'S GO THROUGH THE EXHIBITS FOR UNIT D, FIRST. BEFORE WE MOVE IN, JUST A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR YOU. SIX AND 22 MINUS 506B IS RELATED TO THE REGISTRATION FOR SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS. IS

THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT, MA'AM.

>> AND THAT IS THE VIOLATION FOR BOTH UNITS?

>> CORRECT, MA'AM. >> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE

[00:10:03]

KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS FINE. >> I BELIEVE SO, BUT I AM NOT

100%. >> OKAY. THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM, IS THAT HANDLED THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE?

>> YES. >> HOW DO YOU OBTAIN ALERTS RELATED TO -- YOU MIGHT WANT TO SIT DOWN, JANIE, IT MIGHT JUST BE A MINUTE -- HOW DO YOU OBTAIN ALERTS RELATED TO PROPERTIES WHO ARE BEING USED FOR VACATION RENTALS THAT ARE NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED WITH THE CITY?

>> IT IS THROUGH A COMPANY CALLED GRANICUS, THEY HAVE A HOTLINE, WHERE CITIZENS CAN CALL IN, OR MAKE A COMPLAINT ON IT. WE CAN ALSO GO THROUGH LISTS WITHIN THAT WEBSITE, IN ORDER TO REVIEW PROPERTIES, AS WELL.

>> NOW, DOES GRANICUS SEARCH FOR LISTED ADS FOR VACATION

RENTALS TO ALSO ALERT YOU? >> YES.

>> AND DO THEY COMPARE PHOTOGRAPHS ACROSS THE INTERNET, TO IDENTIFY UNITS THAT ARE BEING LISTED?

>> YES. THEY UTILIZE VARIOUS REAL ESTATE WEBSITES, AND

COMPARING IT WITH THE ADS. >> DO THOSE ADS INCLUDE THINGS LIKE AIRBNB, VRBO, DIFFERENT RENTAL WEBSITES?

>> AMONG OTHERS. YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THESE TWO CASES SPECIFICALLY, WAS THIS A GRANICUS ALERT, OR COMPLAINTS?

>> GRANICUS. >> WHERE THERE ALSO COMPLAINTS OR CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS, OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS?

>> YES. >> OKAY. SO, LET'S GO THROUGH UNIT D. HE SAID YOU OF ADS FOR UNIT D?

>> YES I, I HANDED THEM TO YOU.

>> OKAY. YOU ALSO HAVE CERTIFICATION FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SHOWING THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION FOR

UNIT D? >> YES.

>> NOW, THIS HAS BEEN COMMITTED A FEW TIMES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> FOR E, H, AND L, DID YOU PRINT OUT DIFFERENT ADS AS WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS?

>> DO THEY INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME STAMPS OF WHEN YOU

OBSERVED THOSE ADS? >> I THINK ONLY ONE OR TWO DO NOT. THIS RETORT THE BEGINNING. BUT SINCE THAT POINT, THEY HAVE GOTTEN THE DATES.

>> ARE THERE MULTIPLE CERTIFICATIONS FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, RELATED TO UPDATING, YES, IT IS STILL NOT

REGISTERED TYPE THING? >> YES, MA'AM. THERE SHOULD I

BELIEVE THE THREE IN THERE. >> IS THAT FOR EACH? LIKE, A

SET FOR D AND A SET FOR O? >> YES.

>> OKAY. SO, WE WILL SHOW YOU THE -- LET ME DO THIS REALLY QUICK. ONE SECOND. SO, THE D -- FOR UNIT D, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMPOSITE ONE A -- 1A THROUGH 1W IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> I WILL SHOW YOU THIS PACKET AND IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THESE ARE THE LISTINGS, AND/OR THE CERTIFICATIONS YOU HAVE RECEIVED. MAKING SURE THERE IS NOTHING IN HERE -- AND ARE ALL OF THESE ITEMS KEPT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS

ACTIVITY FOR THE CITY? >> YES.

>> DO YOU WANT TO JUST -- I KNOW YOU PROVIDED IT, BUT IF YOU JUST WANT TO SKIM THROUGH IT, CONFIRM THAT IS YOUR

PACKET? >> THERE IS ALSO LETTERS FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN --

>> OKAY. ARE THOSE LETTERS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION NEEDING TO BE REGISTERED UNDER THE NEW

PROCESS? >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> YES, THIS IS MY PACKET.

>> PLEASE SHOW THAT TO COUNSEL, PLEASE?

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WHILE HE'S LOOKING THROUGH THOSE, WHEN WE STARTED THE HEARING, YOU HAD SAID 1/6 INSTEAD OF 2/6 FOR THE DAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IT IS FEBRUARY 6TH? I

JUST REMEMBERED, I'M SORRY. >> I'M PROUD OF MYSELF FOR NOT

HAVING WRITTEN 2023 . >> CONCENTRATING ON 2024.

>> I CAN'T SAY I HAVEN'T DONE THAT.

[00:16:29]

>>> THE PACKET CONTAINS TWO LETTERS. THEY AREN'T -- IT DOESN'T SHOW AN ADDRESS C, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ONE IS DATED 8/3/21, ANOTHER IS 8/18/21.

>> YOU HAVE THE LETTERING ON THE BACK? OR, THE NUMBERING ON THE BACK? IF YOU WANT TO PULL THOSE OUT SEPARATELY, TOO, I

CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. >> I HAVE THE CERTIFICATION,

TOO. >> EXHIBIT G AND H. WE WOULD AT LEAST, FOR NOW, OBJECT TO THOSE TWO. IT DOESN'T SHOW ANY ADDRESS C, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, TO WHERE IT WAS SENT.

>> MR. SAUCEDO, CAN YOU GRAB THOSE FOR ME? THANK YOU, SIR.

>> OKAY. THAT IS YOUR SPACE RIGHT THERE. WHICH ONE?

THAT'S FINE. >> LOOK.

>> OKAY. >> AND EXHIBIT S HAS TO DO WITH

UNIT M. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OBJECTION TO THE REMAINING?

>> NO OBJECTION TO THE REMAINING ITEMS.

[00:20:03]

>> MR. SAUCEDO, IF YOU COULD HAND ME THOSE? AT THIS TIME, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE WILL MOVE THE -- YES -- WE WILL MOVE THE PACK IN, MINUS 1G, 1H, AND 1S. MS. -- SORRY, ARE

THOSE ADMITTED? >> THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS CITIES COMPOSITE 1A THROUGH 1W, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF G, H,

S, WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED. >> MR. BABIC, I'M GOING TO

HAND YOU BACK G AND H. >> ARE THOSE LETTERS THAT YOU PROVIDED FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE?

>> YES. >> ARE THOSE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT TO ALL RESIDENTS THAT HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE AND

THEN NEEDED TO REGISTER? >> THAT WOULD BE MY

UNDERSTANDING. >> IS THAT FROM YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CITY CLERK?

>> YES. >> I AM GOING TO CALL THE CITY CLERK IN. I AM NOT DONE QUESTIONING HER, SO JUST SO WE CAN GET EVERYTHING MOVED IN. I WILL HAVE THE CITY CLERK COME IN TO AUTHENTICATE, AND WE WILL SWITCH, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO AGREE THAT THEY ARE COMING IN. UP TO YOU.

>> WELL, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE IT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE THAT THAT IS A LETTER THAT THE CITY HAD, BUT IF IT IS INTENDED TO SHOW THAT MY CLIENT ACTUALLY RECEIVED IT OR IF IT WAS SENT TO MY CLIENT, WE WILL OBJECT TO IT.

>> SO, AT THIS POINT, I WILL CALL ON A NEW WITNESS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER NOW ON ANYTHING SHE HAS TESTIFIED TO, THUS FAR.

>> SO, YOU ARE GOING TO CALL HER BACK?

>> YES. >> I WILL CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT

THIS POINT. >> OKAY. I'M SORRY, MS., IS

IT DAVIDIC? >> YES, SIR.

>> ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PROCESSING OF RIVERS RATIONS UNDER THE NEW REGIME OF REGISTRATIONS?

>> THE ONLY PROCESS I AM INVOLVED IN IS IF THERE IS A VIOLATION, SUCH AS WE ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE PARKING ASSESSMENTS. WHAT -- SO, THE CITY IS SEEKING A FINE OF $5000 PER UNIT. WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THAT AMOUNT. HOW'S THAT

AMOUNT CALCULATED? >> NORMALLY, IT IS A STANDARD OF EQUAL TO ONE MONTH'S RENT, IF ONE MONTHS RENT IS HIGHER THAN THAT, THEN THEY GO WITH THE 5000.

>> SO, THE $5000 FINE IS BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UNIT COULD RECEIVE THAT MUCH IN RENT FOR MONTHS?

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT. WHEN WE VIOLATE A VACATION RENTAL, IT IS TYPICALLY BROUGHT UP AS EQUAL TO ONE MONTH'S RENT, IF ONE MONTH'S RENT EXCEEDS THE $5000. $5000 IS THE MAXIMUM THE CITY CAN REQUEST.

>> AND IF THE RENT FLUCTUATES, PER SEASON, IN SEASON, OUT OF

SEASON, HOW IS THAT HANDLED? >> IT IS BASED ON WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME AT THAT MOMENT, WHEN I GET READY TO SCHEDULE

IT. >> NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME. I RESERVE TO CROSS-EXAMINE BASED ON FURTHER

EXAMINATION. >> MR. BABIC, IF YOU COULD STEP OUTSIDE. YOU CAN LEAVE IT THERE, BUT CLOSE IT UP TO WHERE NO ONE CAN SEE WHAT YOU HAVE GOT. WE WILL CALL LINDA COX.

MR. SAUCEDO, CAN YOU ASK MS. COX TO COME INTO CHAMBERS? DID

[00:25:07]

>> WHEREVER YOU ARE COMFORTABLE, YOU CAN SIT. OR, YOU CAN STAND AT THE PODIUM. WHICHEVER YOU PREFER. YOU WERE

SWORN IN PREVIOUSLY, CORRECT? >> I WAS SWORN IN, YES.

>> TELL US YOUR NAME, PLEASE? >> LINDA COX, CITY CLERK.

>> TO THAT FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

>> YES. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THE

CITY CLERK? >> JUST OVER 10 YEARS.

>> PART OF YOUR JOB, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE VACATION RENTAL, SHORT-TERM RENTAL VACATION SYSTEM?

>> YES. >> HOW DOES THAT OCCUR?

>> SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO RENT THEIR PROPERTY WOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION THROUGH OUR OFFICE. WE PROCESS IT THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CODE, AND THURSDAY TAX LICENSE, THROUGH LOCAL TAX LICENSE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AND THEN, IF WE MEET EVERYTHING, WE WILL PROCESS IT THROUGH.

>> IS EVERY SHORT-TERM OR VACATION RENTAL WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THAT REGISTRATION

PROCESS? >> YES.

>> WAS THERE A PREVIOUS PROCESS IN PLACE?

>> THERE WAS. >> WHAT WAS THAT PROCESS?

>> IT WAS A ZONING PROCESS. ANYONE WHO WANTED TO DO A SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL HAD TO GO UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS

UNDER THE ZONING CODE. >> THE CONDITIONAL USE, AND IF THIS IS OUTSIDE OF YOUR REALM, TELL ME, BUT DOES TH PROPERTY THAT WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN THAT ZONE, OPERATE CONDITIONALLY IN THAT ZONE?

>> CORRECT, YES. >> NOW, DID THE CITY SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGE THE ZONING TO ALLOW VACATION RENTALS AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGHOUT THE CITY?

>> THEY DID. >> IS THAT WHY THE ZONING

CONDITIONAL USE WENT AWAY? >> CORRECT.

>> AND IT WAS REPLACED WITH THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM UNDER

SECTION 22-506, SUBSECTION B? >> YES.

>> ARE THOSE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PROCESSES OF THE CITY?

>> I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS EXHIBIT !G AND H, RELATED TO UNIT G. IF YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE.

>> OKAY. >> AND THEN, WE CAN KEEP THOSE SEPARATE. I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT OUR EXHIBITS 1G, AND

H, RELATED TO L. YES? >> ARE THESE LETTERS THAT ARE SENT OUT TO ALL VACATION RENTAL OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

>> YES. ANYONE WHO HAD A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, WE WOULD DO A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FOR EACH PROPERTY, PRIOR TO THE

REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. >> SO, THESE WENT OUT TO EVERYONE WHO HAD AN ACTIVE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT?

>> EXPLAIN TO US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BUSINESS TAXI, OR

FOR VACATION RENTALS? >> THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS THAT IT IS A TAX ON FOR THE PLEASURE OF DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SO, IF YOU ARE LESS THAN 30 DAYS, IT WAS A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND IF IT WAS GREATER THAN 30 DAYS, WE DID WHAT WE CALLED A NO CHARGE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT BECAUSE WE LINK IT TO THE STATE LICENSE. SO, EVERYBODY HAD ONE, BUT WE DIDN'T CHARGE A TAX TO ANYONE WHO RENTED FOR GREATER

THAN 30 DAYS. >> ARE THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS HANDLED BY YOUR OFFICE, AS WELL?

>> YES. >> SO, WHEN YOU SEE ANYONE THAT HAD A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT YOU SENT LETTERS TO, CAN YOU

EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN? >> SO -- BASICALLY, IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY UTILIZING YOUR PROPERTY AS A SHORT-TERM OR VACATION RENTAL, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT OR A NO CHARGE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT SO WE COULD TRACK THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OPERATING LEGALLY IN

THE CITY. >> A BUSINESS?

>> A BUSINESS. SO, WHEN THEY ADDED THE NEW REGISTRATION PROCESS, THAT WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT PROCESS THAT WE HAD. SO, THAT IS WHO GOT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEW PROCESS. THE LETTERS THAT YOU HAVE RELATED TO YOU, WITH 1G, AND H, BOTH RELATED TO L, DID YOU OBTAIN THOSE, FROM

YOUR SYSTEM? >> YES.

>> AND WAS THAT AT THE REQUEST FOR THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT

[00:30:01]

AND L? >> YES.

>> IN YOUR OFFICE, DID YOU SEND THOSE LETTERS TO THOSE ADDRESSES? 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE D, AND 715 SOUTH OCEAN

DRIVE L.? >> I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY.

WE WOULD HAVE SENT IT TO WHICHEVER ADDRESS WE HAD ON FILE FOR THAT PROPERTY. BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM DIDN'T -- THEY DON'T HAVE MAIL RECEPTACLES IF THEY ARE A SHORT

TERM VACATION RENTAL. >> LET ME REPHRASE. WHEN SOMEONE REGISTERS WITH A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, DO THEY HAVE TO GIVE AN ADDRESS FOR THEIR BUSINESS?

>> YES, A MAILING ADDRESS. >> SO, THE LETTERS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WOULD HAVE WENT TO WHATEVER ADDRESS YOU HAVE ON FILE WITH YOU THROUGH THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT?

>> YES. >> I WILL TAKE THOSE BACK FROM YOU. ACTUALLY, IF WE COULD SHOW THAT TO COUNSEL, THE SAME

LETTERS. BUT -- >> WELL, I WANT TO ASK HER A QUESTION WITH THIS IN FRONT OF HER.

>> IS IT RELATED TO AUTHENTICATING THEM? OR, JUST -- IF I COULD HAVE THOSE BACK, SORRY. I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE IN, JUST MAKE SURE THEY ARE SEPARATE. I WILL MOVE THEM IN AS EXHIBITS FOR THE PROPERTY AT UNIT D, NUMBERS 1G, AND H, AND THE PROPERTY AT L, NUMBERS 1G, AND H. SORRY.

YOU'RE GETTING YOUR WORKOUT TODAY, SORRY.

>> THANK YOU. >> MS. COX, IS THERE ANYTHING ON ANY OF THOSE EXHIBITS IN FRONT OF YOU, THAT INDICATES THAT THEY WERE, IN FACT, MAILED TO ANY PARTICULAR ADDRESS SEE?

INDIVIDUALLY ADDRESSED. >> OKAY. AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING HERE WITH YOU TODAY, TO INDICATE PROOF OF MAILING TO SLICE OF PARADISE, OR NICHOLAS DANNA LOU, OR MERMAID

SEASHORES, OR ANYONE ELSE? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> MS. COX, TO BE CLEAR, IN YOUR CAPACITY AS CITY CLERK, DO YOU KNOW THOSE LETTERS WENT TO EVERYONE WITH A BTR?

>> YES, MA'AM, THEY DID. >> DOES NOT INCLUDE THESE TWO

PROPERTIES IN QUESTION? >> IT DID.

>> AT THIS TIME, THE CITY WILL MOVE IN THE SAME EXHIBITS FOR UNITS D AND L, FOR UNITS 1G, AND H.

>> LETTERS WILL BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS CITIES. 1H.

IT WILL BE 1G, AND H FOR UNIT D AND L.

>> SO, G AND H FOR BOTH UNITS WE ARE DISCUSSING?

>> MS. COX, HAVE YOU, YOURSELF, HAD CONVERSATIONS -- IN THIS

CASE, MISS DEBEVEC? >> FIRST NAME, MICHELLE?

>> CORRECT. >> DO YOU KNOW HER, THROUGH HER OWN WORDS, TO BE THE OWNERS OF UNITS CAPITAL D AND L?

>> YES. >> DO YOU KNOW HER TO BE THE OWNER BEHIND SLICE OF PARADISE AND MERMAID SEASHORES?

>> YES. >> WAS A SLICE OF PARADISE THE NAME THESE PROPERTIES WERE ORIGINALLY RENDERED TO, OR THE

BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT? >> YES.

>> THAT SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED TO MERMAID SEASHORES?

>> YES. >> HAVE YOU, YOURSELF, HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE VIOLATOR, RELATED TO HER NEED TO REGISTER THESE TWO PROPERTIES THROUGH THE SHORT

TERM VACATION RENTALS? >> YES.

>> AND HAS SHE ACKNOWLEDGED KNOWING THAT WAS A CODE

REQUIREMENT? >> YES.

>> AND HAS SHE INDICATED SHE WAS NOT GOING TO DO SO?

>> SHE HAS. >> ANYTHING FURTHER RELATED TO YOUR CONVERSATIONS OR YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT YOU BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO

KNOW? >> NO.

>> OKAY. >> COUNSEL CAN ASK YOU SOME

CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. MS. COX, WHAT IS THE BTR PRICE FOR A RENTAL OF 31 DAYS, AND OVER? DO YOU KNOW?

[00:35:01]

DAYS. >> AND WHAT IS THE BTR PRICE

FOR UNDER 30 DAYS? >> I BELIEVE IT IS $45 AND

CHANGE. >> IF SOMEONE PAYS FOR A BTR IN PERSON, ARE THEY HANDED A COPY OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE JUST

INTRODUCED? >> NOT CURRENTLY, NO.

>> WHEN DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE

NEED TO REGISTER? >> I HAVE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS OVER THE YEARS WITH MS. LONGO SO ON THE NEED

TO REGISTER. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THE

EARLIEST ONE MIGHT HAVE BEEN? >> I COULDN'T -- IT HAS BEEN PASSED. SHE HAS BEEN SAYING IT DOESN'T APPLY TO HER. SO, WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS.

>> SHE SAY WHY SHE WASN'T GOING TO REGISTER?

>> SHE FELT SHE DIDN'T NEED TO BE REGISTERED BECAUSE SHE WAS

GRANDFATHERED. >> THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER

AT THIS TIME. >> MS. COX, AS PART OF YOUR DUTIES WITH THE CITY'S CLERK OFFICE, DO YOU PROCESS, FILE, AND KEEP TRACK OF ALL ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY

COMMISSION? >> YES.

>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE VACATION RENTAL AND SHORT-TERM

RENTAL VARIANCE? >> YES.

>> DOES IT ALLOW ANY GRANDFATHERING IN OF THIS PRIOR

CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS? >> THERE WAS ACTUALLY RECENTLY A DISCUSSION AMONGST THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE ISSUE

OF GRANDFATHERING? >> YES.

>> AND WAS THE OVERALL CONSENSUS THAT THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BY THE CITY COMMISSION?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GRANDFATHER.

>> AND TO BE CLEAR, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES, ANYWAY? GRANDFATHERING NEVER EXISTED. ONE WAS A ZONING PROCESS IN USED TO BE THE 22, NOW IT IS THE 125 PROCESS, AND THE NEW PROCESS IS THE BUSINESS TAX, SUPPLEMENTAL, REGULATIONS CHAPTER OF THE CODE, WHICH IS NOW 22, AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. SO, IT GOES WITH LATE-NIGHT RETAIL AND THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING. NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> MS. COX, ARE YOU PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN PROCESSING REGISTRATIONS UNDER THE NEW REGIME?

>> YES. >> AND CAN REGISTRATIONS EVER

BE DENIED? >> THEY CAN BE.

>> DOES IT EVER INVOLVE AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY?

>> IT DOES NOT. >> DO HOTELS HAVE TO REGISTER

UNDER THIS? >> NO, THEY -- IT IS A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION. SPECIFICALLY PASSED BY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR SHORT-TERM, FOR TRANSIENT, SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS. TRANSIENT PROPERTIES.

>> ALL RIGHT, NOTHING FURTHER.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU CAN WAIT OUTSIDE. THANK

YOU. >> YOU'RE GOING TO CALL MS. HEATHER DEBEVEC BACK. MR. SAUCEDO -- MR. SAUCEDO IS ACTING AS BAILIFF TODAY. IF YOU COULD LET MS. DEBEVEC KNOW TO

COME BACK IN TODAY? >> WELCOME BACK. ARE YOU STILL

MS. HEATHER DEBEVEC? >> I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY NAME,

NO. >> USED TO WORK FOR THE CITY AS

A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER? >> YES.

>> NOT FIRED IN THE HALLWAY? OKAY, GOOD. SO, WE WERE DISCUSSING UNIT D. SO, WE HAD -- SORRY, I AM GETTING THIS OTHER EXHIBIT THAT I HAVE. WE MOVED IN AT THIS POINT, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF I AM CORRECT, 1A THROUGH W, IS ALL SET,

CORRECT? >> YES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF

THE THREE PAGES -- >> SORRY, G AND H HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN ENTERED, AND S HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED, CORRECT? OKAY. SO, MS. DEBEVEC, I WANT TO SWITCH US TO UNIT L, THE PACKET WILL HAVE 1A THROUGH 1W. MINUS G AND H, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. CAN YOU FLIP THROUGH THAT, AND LET US KNOW WHAT IT CONTAINS, PLEASE? JUST GENERALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH

[00:40:03]

SPECIFICS. >> THIS IS WHERE GRANICUS HAD MATCHED THE ADS, ABSENCE OF RECORD, MORE ABSENCE OF RECORD. PROPERTY, AND MORE ADS. IN THE PROPERTY CARDS FOR THIS CASE AND UNIT D, DOES THAT SHOW MERMAID SEASHORES LLC IS

THE OWNER? >> YES. AND IS MS. MICHELLE

THE OWNER OF THAT LLC? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK ON THE

DD PR. >> YOU HAVE THAT ON YOUR FILE?

>> OKAY. AND REVIEWING THAT IS THE OWNER OF MERMAID

SEASHORES LLC? >> SHE IS A REGISTERED AGENT,

YES. >> NOW, IF WE COULD SHOW COUNSEL THE PACKET FOR UNIT L, A THROUGH W, MINUS G AND H. IF I COULD READ THE ALPHABET BETTER, I COULD READ IT, BUT I

CANNOT. >> THE SAME PACKET WE

PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED? >> IT IS SIMILAR MATERIAL, BUT

IT IS FOR UNIT L. >> SO, EVERYTHING WE LOOKED AT

PREVIOUSLY WAS JUST D? >> CORRECT.

>> SO, THOSE WILL BE THE ADS AND STUFF SPECIFIC TO -- AND THE CERTIFICATES, EVERYTHING SPECIFIC TO UNIT L.

>> ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE DOCUMENTS?

[00:45:02]

>> NO. >> AT THIS TIME, THE CITY WILL MOVE ST UNIT L, EXHIBITS 1A THROUGH W, MINUS G AND H AS

EVIDENCE. >> THE DEPOSIT EXHIBIT WILL BE ENTERED FOR THE CITY AS 1A THROUGH W, MINUS G AND H.

>> AND MS. DEBEVEC, I ASSUME EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT AIRBNB AND VRBO ARE, BUT WHAT ARE THOSE TYPES OF WEBSITES?

>> THOSE WEBSITES ADVERTISED SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS,

AND -- >> THOSE LISTINGS, DO THEY FALL WITHIN THE CODE SECTION THAT REQUIRES REGISTRATION?

>> YES. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE RELATED -- ACTUALLY, LET ME STOP THERE. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WE WILL PUBLISH THE EXHIBITS FOR UNIT

D. >> OKAY.

>> AND AS WE CLICKED THROUGH, IF YOU COULD JUST GENERALLY TELL US WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT. THIS IS GOING TO BE EXHIBIT

A. >> THIS IS WHERE GRANICUS HAD MATCHED SOME OF THE ADS, WHERE THEY IDENTIFIED IT.

>> DOES IT CONTAIN THE ADDRESS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNIT?

>> YES. >> WE CAN GO TO PHOTO B. WHAT

ARE WE LOOKING AT IN B? >> THE SAME THING BUT INSTEAD OF THE VRBO LISTING IT IS A PICTURE OF THE AIRBNB LISTING.

THAT IS WHY THERE IS DIFFERENT COLORS FOR THE PICTURES, BUT IN ESSENCE, IT IS THE EXACT SAME THING.

>> AND DOES THAT DOCUMENT, NUMBER OF STAYS, AT THAT UNIT,

THROUGH THE WEBSITE? >> YES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE CAN SCROLL -- STOP. I AM LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM, MIME DOCUMENT STAYS

IN MARCH OF 2022. >> YES POINT

>> AS AN EXAMPLE. OKAY. IF WE COULD GO TO EXHIBIT C, PLEASE? THIS IS JUST AN AD FROM VRBO. OR, THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS REQUESTED FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, VERIFYING WHETHER THEY HAD THEIR TAX RECEIPT OF REGISTRATION AT THE TIME THIS WAS REQUESTED, WHICH THE DATE IS TOWARD THE BOTTOM, OBTAINED FOR THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> DECEMBER 12TH OF LAST YEAR, FOR UNIT D AND L.

>> FOR D AND L, THERE IS NO VIOLATION RELATED TO THE

BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT? >> YES.

>> ONLY THE VACATION SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION?

>> CORRECT. >> EXHIBIT E?

>> IT IS A VRBO AD FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND --

>> AT THE TOP LEFT, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME YOU

PRINTED THE ADS? >> YES. THIS ONE AS AN EXAMPLE, OCTOBER 23RD, 2023, AT 2:30 P.M. DOES THAT MEAN IT IS AN ACTIVE LISTING WITH THAT WEBSITE?

>> YES. >> F?

>> THE SAME THING FOR AIRBNB, AND IT ALSO HAS THE DATES AND TIMES ON THE LEFT-HAND CORNERS.

>> OKAY. G? IS THIS THE LETTER FROM THE CITY CLERK YOU

OBTAINED? >> YES.

>> GO TO H? IT'S THE SECOND LETTER THAT THE CLERKS

PROVIDED. >> OKAY.

>> I? SORRY. >> IT IS A VRBO AD FOR THIS PROPERTY, FROM OCTOBER 24TH OF LAST YEAR.

>> J? WE'RE GOING TO SPEED UP, IF WE CAN.

>> IT IS GOING TO BE AN AIRBNB OUT FOR THE SAME PROPERTY FOR

THE 24TH. >> A?

>> A IS THE GRANICUS LISTING, MAKING SURE EVERYTHING MATCHES, AND IT IS STILL FROM DECEMBER 12TH OF LAST YEAR.

>> L? >> IT IS A VRBO AD FROM

[00:50:03]

DECEMBER 12TH OF LAST YEAR. >> M?

>> AIRBNB OUT FROM DECEMBER 12TH OF LAST YEAR.

>> N? NB SORRY, BEFORE YOU --

>> LET ME TAKE YOU BACK TO M. DOES IT ACTUALLY INDICATE HOSTED BY MICHELLE AND HAVE A PICTURE ?

>> YES. >> OKAY. N?

>> THIS IS ABSENCE OF RECORD. AT THIS POINT, THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT HAD BEEN RECEIVED, SO IT IS JUST THE REGISTRATION THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE BOTTOM, DECEMBER 11TH IS THE DATE THEY HAD FILLED THAT OUT.

>> O? >> THIS IS A COPY OF THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. YOU CAN SEE DATE ISSUED WAS DECEMBER

12TH OF LAST YEAR. >> AND AT THAT POINT, WAS IT UNDER THE NAME, SLICE OF PARADISE INC.?

>> YES. >> AND THE DID THIS GO FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF SLICE OF PARADISE INTO MERMAID SEASHORES

LLC? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT IS ON THE PROPERTY CARD. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AGAIN.

>> DO YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU, IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW IT TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY? WE CAN JUMP TO EXHIBIT C. I BELIEVE IT

IS IN THERE. >> NO, BECAUSE IT IS COMING FROM FEBRUARY 10TH, WHERE IT WENT FROM NICHOLAS AND LUGS, TO MERMAID SEASHORES. SO, SLICE OF PARADISE MAY HAVE JUST BEEN THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THEY RAN THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGH.

>> CURRENTLY REGISTERED TO MERMAID SEASHORES . IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS

UNDER SLICE OF PARADISE. >> OKAY, BUT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SAYS MERMAID SEASHORES.

>> THAT WOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE UNIT. IF WE COULD GO BACK TO, I BELIEVE WE ARE ON N? WE JUST DID THE O BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. SO, WE WILL GO TO P.

>> THIS WAS THE ABSENCE OF RECORD FOR THE SHORT-TERM, THE RENTAL, AND THAT WAS DONE ON JANUARY 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

>> THANK YOU. IT'S THE AIRBNB AD. ARE?

>> IT IS A VRBO AD. >> S? O, S WAS NOT ADMITTED.

I'M SORRY. T? >> THIS IS A PROPERTY APPRAISER CARD. THAT IS FROM FEBRUARY 2ND.

>> IT SHOWS OWNERSHIP IS MERMAID SEASHORES LLC?

>> CORRECT. >> AND DOES IT GO THROUGH THE

SALE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY? >> YES.

>> SO, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SOLD FROM NICHOLAS DANO LIKE JUNIOR, TO MERMAID SEASHORES LLC, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> DO YOU KNOW TO BE HER

HUSBAND? >> TO BE HONEST, I HAVE NO IDEA

HIS RELATIONSHIP TO HER. >> THIS IS FOR MERMAID SEASHORES, PULLED ON FEBRUARY 2ND OF THIS YEAR.

>> OKAY, AND DOES IT SHOW MICHELLE ON GARZA TO BE A

REGISTERED AGENT? >> YES.

>> DO YOU KNOW THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON?

>> I BELIEVE SO. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THROUGH

INTERACTIONS WITH HER? >> I HAVE HAD NO INTERACTIONS WITH HER. IT IS THROUGH THE OFFICE.

>> OKAY. V? >> IT IS A VRBO AD FROM TODAY.

ENSURE THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING THAT IT WAS STILL

ACTIVE? >> CORRECT.

>> W? >> IT IS THE AIRBNB AD, ALSO DONE FOR TODAY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF WE COULD GO TO UNIT L?

>> AND I THINK IT WAS H -- >> G AND H WERE ADMITTED, SO

ALL OF THESE WERE ADMITTED. >> SO, THIS IS WHERE GRANICUS HAD MATCHED THE PROPERTY, AND AGAIN HAS THE LISTING OF

[00:55:06]

STAYS, AND -- >> THE OWNER AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IS THAT MERMAID SEASHORES LLC?

>> YES. >> EXHIBIT B?

>> IT IS THE SAME THING. IT IS GRANICUS' MATCHING.

>> OKAY. C? >> IT IS THE AIRBNB AD.

>> AND AGAIN, DOES THIS HAVE HER PHOTOGRAPH AND NAME AS

MICHELLE? >> YES.

>> D? >> THIS IS ABSENCE OF RECORD AT THE BOTTOM, FROM DECEMBER 14TH.

>> AND THE SAME SITUATION ORIGINALLY, THERE WAS NOT A TAX RECEIPT, BUT ONE WAS OBTAINED?

>> CORRECT. THERE WAS NOT AN ACTIVE ONE AT THAT TIME THAT

HAS BEEN OBTAINED. >> AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, STILL NO SHORT-TERM REGISTRATION. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NEXT EXHIBIT, E. >> THIS IS A AT FROM OCTOBER

13TH OF LAST YEAR. >> F?

>> F? SORRY. >> THIS IS AN AIRBNB AD FROM

OCTOBER 3RD. >> D?

>> SO, THE FIRST LETTER THAT THE CLERK PROVIDED ME.

>> H? >> THE SECOND LETTER THE CLERKS

HAD PROVIDED. >> I?

>> THE VRBO AD FROM OCTOBER 24TH.

>> J? >> AIRBNB AD FROM OCTOBER 24TH.

>> ANOTHER GRANCIUS DECEMBER 12TH, WHERE THEY WERE MATCHING THE PROPERTIES. WITH THE ADS.

>> OKAY. L? >> IT IS A VRBO AD FROM

DECEMBER 12TH. >> N?

>> AIRBNB AD FROM DECEMBER 12TH.

>> N? >> IT IS AN ABSENCE OF RECORD FOR THE REGISTRATION, DECEMBER 11TH.

>> O? >> THE COPY OF THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS THAT WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 12TH.

>> P? >> AN ABSENCE OF RECORD FOR THE REGISTRATION, FOR THE 30TH.

>> Q? >> AIRBNB AD FROM FEBRUARY 1ST.

>> VRBO AD FROM FEBRUARY 1ST.

>> S? WE WILL ACTUALLY STRIKE COVER S, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

IT IS RELATED TO UNIT N. T? >> IT IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS CARD FROM FEBRUARY 2ND.

>> OKAY. >> IT SHOWS OWNERSHIP OF MERMAID SEASHORES LLC FOR THE UNIT?

>> CORRECT. >> AND THIS ONE, DOES IT SHOW OWNER, NICHOLAS DALANEK, FROM DECEMBER 12, 2023? SORRY,

FEBRUARY 10TH, 2023? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> SO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD INTO THE NAME MERMAID SEASHORES

LLC, IS THAT CORRECT? >> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YES.

>> THIS IS THE SUNBELT'S FOR THE MERMAID SEASHORES.

>> NEXT EXHIBIT, V. >> IT IS THE VRBO AD FROM

TODAY'S DATE. >> AND W?

>> AN AIRBNB AD FROM TODAY'S DATE. I JUST NEED ONE SECOND,

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> MS. DEBEVEC, ANYTHING FURTHER YOU BELIEFS IMPORTANT FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO KNOW ABOUT, ANY OF THESE UNITS?

>> NOT AT THE START. >> COUNCIL WILL HAVE A CHANCE

TO CROSS-EXAMINE YOU. >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

[01:00:02]

>> MR. BABIC, YOU ARE EXCUSED -- WELL, YOU WAIT IN THE HALLWAY AND THE RULE OF REQUEST RATION APPLIES TO YOU.

>> DON'T SPEAK TO ANYONE? >> ABSOLUTELY. THE CITY WILL

CALL MARGARET RAISE. >> WERE JUST ONE IN?

>> YOU TELL US YOUR NAME, PEGGY RAISE, MARGARET RAISE?

>> IS MARGARET THE LEGAL NAME, BUT YOU GO BACK PEGGY?

>> YES. >> HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?

>> I AM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RESPONSE.

>> FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

>> FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ARE THEY IN YOUR

CHAIN OF COMMAND? >> YES.

>> PART OF YOUR DEPARTMENT, DOES THAT INCLUDE CODE VIOLATIONS RELATED TO SHORT-TERM AND VACATION

RENTALS? >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU IS RELATED TO THE FINAL AMOUNT BY THE CITY. HOW IS THAT CALCULATED, RELATED TO A FAILURE TO REGISTER A

SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL? >> WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY REQUESTED ONE MONTH RENTAL, WHICH IS MAXED OUT AT $5000. IF IT IS OVER $5000, IT IS MAXED OUT PER STATE STATUTE.

>> STATE STATUTE RELATED TO AN IRREVOCABLE VIOLATION?

>> I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE WORDS, YOUR REVOCABLE, IRREVERSIBLE, AND ONE OTHER WORD, BUT YES.

>> SO, ESSENTIALLY, ANY VIOLATION THAT CANOT BE CURED

BECAUSE IT IS DONE -- >> CORRECT --

>>.STATE STATUTE CAPS OUT AT A MAXIMUM FINE, A ONE-TIME FINE

OF $5000, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT, PER VIOLATION. YES.

THE MONTHLY RATE, IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION?

>> YES. >> AND FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, IT IS UP TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON A VIOLATION UP TO $5000?

>> CORRECT. >> SO, FOR THESE, WHEN THE CALCULATION WAS DONE, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS $5000. DOES THAT MEAN THE RENTAL RATE PER MONTH WAS OVER THE STATE

STATUTE CAPS? >> YES.

>> YOU, YOURSELF, RELATED TO THESE UNITS, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. DALANEK?

>> NOT THAT I RECALL. >> DO YOU KNOW HER, PERSONALLY?

FROM WORK. >> SORRY, NOT PERSONALLY, BUT

-- >> YES, I KNOW HER FROM AROUND

CITY HALL. >> I'M USING THE NAMES DALANEK, AND LONGARZO. MICHELLE HAS THE FIRST NAME,

SAME PERSON. >> SAME PERSON, YES.

>> DO YOU KNOW HER TO BE THE OPERATOR OF MERMAID SEASHORES

LLC, FOR YOUR WORK? >> YES.

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH HER SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE REGISTRATION OF THESE TWO

UNITS? >> NOT THAT I RECALL.

>> OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. COUNCIL MAY

HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. >> WHAT DID YOU GO BY IN DETERMINING THE MONTHLY RENT FOR YOUR FINDINGS?

>> ON THE ADVERTISEMENTS, THERE IS TYPICALLY A PER NIGHT RATE, AND THEN WE TIMES THAT BY 30.

>> AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS AN IN SEASON RATE AND OUT OF SEASON RATE? DO YOU JUST GO BY WHATEVER AD YOU HAPPEN TO FIND?

>> WE GO BY THE AD WE HAD AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, YES.

PHRASE THIS QUESTION -- ARE YOU IN AN ERROR Q WITH LINDA COX? OR, IN OTHER WORDS, ARE YOU SUPERVISOR, OR UNDER HER,

OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> LINDA COX IS A CHARTER OFFICER. MY SUPERVISOR IS NICK BINNS, ALSO A CHARTER OFFICER.

WHERE YOU WERE INVOLVED IN FIXING A TRAFFIC TICKET FOR

MS. COX? >> CHECK IRRELEVANT, SPECIAL

MAGISTRATE. >> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT IN

[01:05:02]

YOUR NAME, PLEASE? >> MY NAME IS SANDY VALENTINE.

I SAID YOUR LAST NAME. SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US, PLEASE?

>> OKAY, AND WERE YOU SWORN IN PREVIOUSLY WITH THE CLERK?

>> YES. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, UNIT D AND L?

>> YES. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MS.

MICHELLE DALANEK? >> YES.

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW HER? >> HER AND HER HUSBAND ARE THE

REASON I OWN MY UNIT. >> YOU ALSO OWN A UNIT AT THE

PROPERTY ADDRESS? >> YES.

>> HOW DID YOU GET INVOLVED WITH HER AND HER HUSBAND?

>> MY EX-BOYFRIEND AND HER HUSBAND BECAME FRIENDS. THEY INVITED US UP TO D, AND WE STAYED A WEEKEND AT D AND AFTER THAT, I WAS LIKE, THIS IS A HIDDEN GEM. SO, I KEPT WATCHING. THEY CAME UP FOR SALE, AND I JUMPED.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT WHEN THAT WAS?

>> I BOUGHT D IN DECEMBER OF 2019.

>> AND YOU MENTIONED HER HUSBAND. CAN YOU TELL US HIS

NAME? >> NICK DALANEK?

>> NICHOLAS? OKAY. WHEN YOU BOUGHT UNIT B, WAS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROCESS?

>> YES, AND PART OF THE RETIREMENT PLAN. YES.

>> OKAY. DIDN'T MS. DANALEK HELP YOU WITH THAT PROCESS WITH

THE CITY? >> ABSOLUTELY. AND AT THAT POINT, WAS THE CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW YOU TO OPERATE THAT

AS A ZONING CLASSIFICATION? >> YES.

>> AND DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE PROCESS WAS CHANGED TO THE SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROCESS, REGISTER UNDER

THAT PROCESS? >> I DID.

>> HAVE YOU, YOURSELF, HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. DANALEK LONGARZO IN RELATION TO UNIT D AND L?

>> CONCERNING? >> YOU KNOW SHE IS THE OPERATOR

OF THOSE UNITS? >> YES.

>> AND IS THAT THROUGH HER COMPANY, MERMAID SEASHORES LLC? DEALING WITH HER, IT WAS A SLICE OF PARADISE.

>> OKAY. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT SLICE OF PARADISE MAKE SEASHORES, OR WERE THEY RELATED?

>> WELL, LET'S SEE. SLICE OF PARADISE IS, OR WAS IN HER HUSBAND'S NAME, AND THEN -- ANYWAY, WAS -- AND THEN, I GUESS IN FEBRUARY, THEY CHANGED IT, OR SHE CHANGED OWNERSHIP, AND IT WENT INTO HER NAME, I GUESS, MERMAID SEASHORES,

WHATEVER IT IS. >> OKAY, DO YOU KNOW HER, THROUGH HER COMPANY, TO BE THE OPERATOR OF THOSE UNITS?

>> YES. >> OKAY. HAVE YOU HELPED HER

CLEAN THOSE UNITS? >> YES.

>> IS THAT FOR PURPOSES OF SHORT-TERM, VACATION RENTAL

TENANTS? >> YES.

>> HAVE YOU WITNESSED TENANTS USING D AND L?

>> YES. >> I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU -- YOU PROVIDED ME EARLIER TODAY WITH TWO MLS LISTINGS. ARE YOU

A REALTOR? >> YES, I AM.

>> SO, THESE WILL BE EXHIBITS 1X FOR UNIT D AND UNIT L. SO, IF WE COULD SHOW HER THOSE DOCUMENTS? THEY ARE NOT GOING

[01:10:02]

TO BE ON YOUR -- >> JUST IN CASE?

>> THOSE ARE THE ONES I HANDED YOU THIS MORNING. THEY ARE NOT IN THE PACKAGE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED.

>> THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ADMITTED YET?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. DID YOU OBTAIN THOSE

MLS LISTINGS? >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY, DO THOSE FAIRLY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE MLS LISTINGS FOR 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, UNITS D AND L?

>> YES. >> YOU WILL HANDED BACK TO MR. SAUCEDO, IF WE COULD SHOW THOSE TO COUNSEL, PLEASE. THEY DO

HAVE COPIES, BUT -- >> IT WOULD HAPPEN FROM THE

REAL ESTATE AGENTS, TOO. >> COUNSEL, DO YOU NEED TO SEE

THE MARKED VERSIONS? >> NO.

>> MA'AM, ARE THESE LISTINGS RELATED TO BOTH PROPERTIES

BEING LISTED FOR SALE? >> NOW? YES. THAT -- YES. YES.

INCLUDE CONVERSATION RELATED TO THE PROPERTIES BEING USED AS

AIRBNB AND VRBO BUSINESSES? >> YES.

>> AT THIS TIME, THE CITY WILL MOVE IN AS TO UNIT D. EXHIBIT 1X, AND AS TO UNIT L, EXHIBITS 1X.

>> ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. >> OBJECT ON RELEVANCE GROUNDS, BECAUSE THESE ARE FOR SALE, AND LETTING THE POTENTIAL BUYER NO THEY ARE POTENTIAL AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, NOTHING

MORE. >> YOU CAN JUST HAVE THE COPIES BACK, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, YOU WILL SEE IN THE LISTINGS IT ALSO SAYS FOR UNIT D, VRBO AND AIRBNB CURRENTLY SET UP AND IN PLACE. THIS IS FEBRUARY 23RD, 2024, AT 11:53 A.M. AND THEN, YOU WILL SEE A LISTING ON L.

>> IT SAYS THAT LISTING IS CURRENTLY EXPIRED, THOUGH?

>> THE PREVIOUS LISTING OF IT, AND TELL US WHAT IT MEANS WHEN A LISTING EXPIRES IN REAL ESTATE JOURNAL.

>> THE CURRENT LISTING AGREEMENT WITH THAT PARTICULAR AGREEMENT IN BROKERAGE HAS COME TO THE END OF ITS TERM. SO,

MLS EXPIRES. >> THAT WAS A PREVIOUS LISTING

WITH THAT AGENT? >> RIGHT.

>> ALSO, IT'S IS ALREADY SET UP FOR AIRBNB AND RPO.

>> YES. >> SERVICE WILL BE ENTERED AS

1X FOR THE CITY. >> BOTH UNITS?

>> WELL, FOR D AND L. >> MA'AM, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, COUNSEL MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

>> MS. BALLANTYNE, THESE LISTINGS --

>> CAN I SEE? >> YEAH. IS THAT THE REAL TERM COPY, OR IS THAT THE COPY THAT THE PUBLIC SEES, IF YOU KNOW? SAYS "FULL" AT THE TOP, YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "RESIDENTIAL FULL?" THAT IS THE PART THAT THE AGENTS SEE.

>> OKAY. AND HOW WOULD THAT DIFFER, IF YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT

THE PUBLIC WOULD SEE? >> WELL, IT WOULD GIVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SELLER, THAT IF THERE IS AN APPROVED SALE, THAT THE SELLER WOULD BE MORE THAN GLAD TO GIVE THEM THE BOOKS, OR THAT KIND OF THING. IT JUST TELLS THEM WHAT THEIR PIECE IS. AT THE TOP THERE, IT SAYS VERBAL. BUT, WHERE IT SAYS PUBLIC REMARKS, THAT ISN'T HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE THAT, IT SAYS VERBAL -- VRBO CURRENTLY SET UP A PLACE. THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC REMARKS, WHICH IS WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES. THE PIECE THAT WERE THE COMMISSION AND THE NAME OF THE BROKERAGE THAT LIFTS IT, THAT IS THE PIECE THAT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T

SEE. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

[01:15:02]

NOTHING FURTHER. >> YOU CAN WAIT IN THE

HALLWAYS, PLEASE, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF WE COULD JUST HAVE A FEW MINUTES BREAK, I NEED TO RUN TO THE RESTROOM AND MAKE SURE I HAVE EVERYTHING SUBMITTED BEFORE I REST.

>> HOW LONG ARE WE ON BREAK? >> NO MORE THAN

>> THIS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WILL RECONVENE.

>> THE CITY IS JUST GOING TO RECALL, JUST BRIEFLY. LINDA

COX? >> ARE YOU STILL LINDA COX?

>> CORRECT. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY AND MAKE VERY CLEAR, SOMEONE WHO HAS GONE THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS ON OUR CODE AS IT EXISTS, ARE THEY STILL REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE REGISTRATION FOR THE SHORT-TERM OR VACATION

RENTAL? >> YES, THEY ARE.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER FOR YOU.

>> NOTHING FURTHER. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND COUNSEL, IF IT IS OKAY, MS. COX IS GOING TO GO BACK UPSTAIRS

TO DO SOME WORK, IF -- >> I DO HAVE SOMETHING. EXCUSE ME. UNDER THE QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE THIS NEW REGISTRATION, CAN YOU -- LET ME BACK UP A SECOND. WHEN DID YOU START WORK WITH THE CITY IN YOUR

CURRENT POSITION? >> 10 YEARS AGO. OCTOBER 2013,

I THINK. OR, 2012. >> SO, YOU ARE PRETTY WELL FAMILIAR WITH THE QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH TO GET THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL?

>> YES. >> AND WHEN SOMEONE COMPLETED THAT SUCCESSFULLY, DID THAT APPROVAL ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY OR TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU KNOW?

>> I BELIEVE IT ATTACHES TO THE PROPERTY, BUT BECAUSE IT IS A ZONING ISSUE, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASK A

ZONING DEPARTMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S

ALL. >> LET ME JUST BRIEFLY REDIRECT THE SHORT-TERM AND VACATION REGISTRATION. IS THAT A ZONING

CLASSIFICATION? >> NO.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> LET'S GO UPSTAIRS, I WILL

BE AVAILABLE IF YOU NEED -- >> YES, MA'AM. IF WE NEED HER, WE WILL SEND HER A MESSAGE, IF THAT IS OKAY. SHE HAS SOME WORK TO DO UPSTAIRS. AT THIS TIME, THE CITY RESTS.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOUR HONOR, I WILL CALL MICHELLE LONGARZO. AND I GUESS, DO YOU JUST WANT TO

STAND UP HERE? >> IT IS UP TO YOU.

>> HOWEVER YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE.

>> IF YOU SIT, YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO PULL THE

MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU. >> OR, THE OTHER ONE? THAT'S

FINE. >> ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE UNDER OATH FROM EARLIER, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> AND YOU ARE MICHELLE

LONGARZO? >> YES.

>> AND YOU ALSO GO BY MICHELLE DANALEK?

>> YES. >> WHICH IS THE LAST NAME OF

YOUR HUSBAND? >> YES.

>> WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTIES WE ARE TALKING

ABOUT TODAY. >> OWNER.

>> WERE THESE ORIGINALLY REQUIRED BY YOUR HUSBAND, NICK

DANALEK? >> JOINTLY.

>> "JOINTLY," YOU MEAN YOU AND HIM TOGETHER?

>> YES, BUT HE WAS THE PRIMARY OWNER.

>> OKAY, AND WHAT IS THE ENTITY WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT,

CALLED SLICE OF PARADISE? >> SLICE OF PARADISE IS A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND HAS BEEN RUNNING THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS SINCE -- I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DATE -- BUT, SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND CONTINUOUS.

>> ALL RIGHT, AND WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SLICE OF

[01:20:01]

PARADISE? >> CO-OWNER.

>> SO, YOU HAVE BEEN MANAGING THE PROPERTY SINCE THEY WERE

ACQUIRED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> AND HAS THAT EVER CHANGED, AT ANY POINT?

>> NO. >> AND THEN, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO MERMAID SEASHORES LLC?

>> CO-OWNER. >> AND DID NICK DANALEK TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TO MERMAID SEASHORES AT SOME POINT

RECENTLY? >> YES, FOR THE TRUST.

>> OKAY. SO, WAS THAT MERELY JUST TO HAVE AN OWN -- WITH THE PROTECTIONS THAT COME FROM A CORPORATION AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL?

>> YES. >> IT IS STILL YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN, CORRECT?

>> WHAT -- >> AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE OWNING

IT AND RUNNING IT? >> YES.

>> CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS DOCUMENT?

>> YES. THIS IS -- I GAVE YOU A COPY EARLIER. AND WHAT IS

THAT DOCUMENT? >> THIS IS THE APPROVAL LETTER FOR CONDITIONAL USE WITH NON-NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND IT IS

FOR UNIT D. >> AND DID YOU ALSO GET AN

IDENTICAL ONE FOR UNIT L? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE IDENTICAL. THE CONDITIONS, I THINK, WERE DIFFERENT.

>> OKAY. YOU GOT A SIMILAR LETTER FOR UNIT L, WITH

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. >> APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION,

YES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS RESPONDENTS -- AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE IT PRE-MARKED WITH A NUMBER, OR ANYTHING.

>> MINE HAD "EXHIBIT A" AT THE BOTTOM.

>> THAT IS BECAUSE IT WAS EXHIBIT A TO SOMETHING ELSE.

>> SO, WHAT I CAN DO ON THE BACK, I CAN MARK THESE FOR YOU, I HAVE EXHIBIT STICKERS. DO YOU WANT THEM LETTER DOOR NUMBER

TWO? >> WE CAN MAKE THEM NUMBERED, JUST TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CITY'S EXHIBITS. I THINK THAT

WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. >> SO, RESPONDENTS, EXHIBIT

ONE? >> I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO

IDENTIFY -- >> SORRY, ONE SECOND. YOU DID

MOVE IT IN, RIGHT? >> YES.

>> AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION? >> CORRECT.

>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO IDENTIFY THIS DOCUMENT. SHOULD. SURE.

>> THIS DOCUMENT WAS GIVEN TO BE -- GIVEN TO ME BY VENICE

GILMORE. >> WHAT IS THAT DOCUMENT?

>> THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO RUN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN FORT PIERCE.

>> SO, THE CITY GAVE YOU THIS APPROXIMATELY WHAT YEAR?

>> 2019. >> AND THIS WAS TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO OBTAIN THE

CONDITIONAL USE? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THESE SEVEN STEPS? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY, WE WILL MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE, AS RESPONDENTS NUMBER TWO. AND CAN YOU GIVE US --

>> SORRY, IF I COULD HAVE ONE SECOND TO REVIEW THIS?

>> SURE. >> I AM GOING TO ASK FOR FURTHER AUTHENTICATION ON THIS. I'M GOING TO OBJECT, AT THIS

POINT. >> ALL RIGHT, SO --

>> HE IS OUTSIDE. >> YOU SEE HIM OUTSIDE?

>> YES. SHOWED -- DO YOU WANT US TO TAKE CARE OF THAT NOW?

>> UP TO YOU. I JUST -- I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HIM ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT, SO I JUST WANT TO VERIFY WITH HIM. I DON'T MIND BREAKING THE ROLE OF SEQUESTRATION IF -- WELL, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO HER. SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO BRING HIM IN REALLY QUICK TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, THAT IS FINE.

>> VENICE GILMORE? >> YOU CAN SIT OR STAND.

[01:25:09]

WHICHEVER YOU PREFER. >> COUNSEL, MS. LONGARZO IS GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.

>> STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? >> VENICE GILMORE.

>> WERE YOU HERE EARLIER, WHEN YOU -- DID YOU TAKE AN OATH?

>> YES. YEAH. >> AND WHO IS YOUR EMPLOYER?

>> CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

>> ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR.

>> DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS DOCUMENT?

>> NO. >> DOES IT APPEAR TO BE A LIST OF STEPS SOMEONE HAD TO FOLLOW TO OBTAIN CONDITIONAL USE

FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS? >> TO OBTAIN THE CONDITIONAL

USE? >> LET ME BACK UP. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION?

>> THE CURRENT POSITION, PROBABLY LIKE, I WOULD SAY A

YEAR? ABOUT A YEAR? >> WHAT WERE YOU -- WHAT POSITION DID YOU HAVE BACK IN, SAY, 2019?

>> 2019? I -- IT WAS -- WELL, I WENT FROM PLANNER TO SENIOR PLANNER. BUT, I THINK THAT MIGHT'VE -- I'M NOT REALLY SURE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT, ONE FROM PLANNER TO SENIOR

PLANNER. YEAH. >> WERE YOU INVOLVED, BACK AT THAT TIME, WITH THE QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS BY WHICH PEOPLE OBTAINED A CONDITIONAL USE TO USE THE PROPERTIES AS

SHORT-TERM RENTALS? >> YES, YEAH.

>> THIS PIECE OF PAPER THAT I PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, DOES IT REFLECT ACCURATELY, THE PROCESS I HAD TO GO THROUGH WITH THESE

SEVEN STEPS? >> NOT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE.

THAT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE BTR PROCESS.

>> SO, THE BTR IS JUST LIKE ONE STEP THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO TO COMPLETE, FOR A LARGER PROCESS. EVEN LARGER

THAN THESE SEVEN STEPS. >> CORRECT, YEAH.

>> HAS YOUR MEMORY BEEN REFRESHED YET, AS TO WHETHER THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD GIVE TO APPLICANTS TO

SHOW THEM HOW TO USE A BTR? >> NO. THAT WAS ALWAYS A CONDITION, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A BTR.

>> RIGHT. BUT, DO YOU HAVE ANY FRESH RECOLLECTION, AS FAR AS THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PAPER, AS SOMETHING YOU HANDED

OUT? >> NO. NOT FROM THE CLAIMANT

DEPARTMENT. >> OKAY. WHAT ALL DID SOMEONE HAVE TO DO IN 2019 TO OBTAIN THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR

A SHORT-TERM RENTAL? >> SO, A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION WAS REQUIRED. YOU WOULD SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, YOU WOULD GO TO TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, PLANNING BOARD, AND CITY COMMISSION, AND CITY COMMISSION WOULD MAKE THE

FINAL DECISION FOR APPROVAL. >> THERE WAS A PROCESS BEFORE

A TECHNICAL BOARD -- >> TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.

AND THEN, THERE WAS ANOTHER PROCESS BEFORE A PLANNING

BOARD. >> NO, IT WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AFTER THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.

>> RIGHT, YEAH. SO, FIRST, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THEN THE PLANNING BOARD, AND IF IT GOT THROUGH BOTH OF THOSE, THEN IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION?

>> CORRECT. YES, AND THERE WAS A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING REQUIRED, PRIOR TO TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. BUT, THAT WASN'T A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. THAT IS JUST

LIKE A -- >> IT IS ANOTHER PROCESS.

>> CORRECT, AND PRIOR TO SUBMITTING.

>> AND IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN

A BTR? >> CORRECT.

>> ANYTHING ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO?

>> REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY, I BELIEVE, FOR TAXES, AND THE

STATE, AS WELL. >> ALL RIGHT.

[01:30:22]

>> ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH MY CLIENT, MS. LONGARZO, SITTING

NEXT TO YOU? >> YES.

>> DO YOU RECALL BEING INVOLVED WITH HER, GOING THROUGH THIS

PROCESS? >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME.

>> BRIEFLY, MR. GILMORE, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION WITH THE

PLANNING DEPARTMENT? >> ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR.

EXPLAIN TO US GENERALLY WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS, UNDER

THE CODE? >> BASICALLY, A CONDITIONAL USE IS A PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR USE THAT NORMALLY ISN'T OUTRIGHT PERMITTED BY THE CITY. TO GIVE A PROPERTY OWNER AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT USE APPROVED WITH THE POSSIBLE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO IT FOR APPROVAL.

>> AND IS THAT RELATED TO ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS?

>> THAT IS RELATED TO ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, AND THE USE TABLE, WHICH IS CHAPTER 1, DASH 85, 187.

>> AND HIS CHAPTER 125 BASICALLY THE PLANNING CHAPTER

OF THE CODE? >> CORRECT.

>> THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, WAS THAT SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED TO WHERE SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTALS WERE PERMITTED

THROUGHOUT THE CITY? >> CORRECT. AND THAT WAS DONE WITH ORDINANCE -- I HAVE IT -- 21-020.

>> SO, THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS ESSENTIALLY WENT AWAY FOR SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS?

>> RIGHT. >> AND WITH THAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO ALLOW THROUGHOUT THE CITY WAS A NEW PROCESS PUT INTO PLACE, RELATED TO REGISTRATION FOR SHORT-TERM

ROAR VACATION RENTALS? >> CORRECT. THAT WAS THROUGH

ORDINANCE 21-009. >> IS THAT SEPARATE FROM THE

ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS? >> YES. THAT ORDINANCE WAS FOR THE REGULATION AND THE PROGRAMMING -- ESTABLISHING THE

PROGRAM. >> IS THAT HANDLED BY THE CITY

CLERK'S OFFICE? >> CORRECT.

>> DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AT

ALL? >> NO.

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT EXISTS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONDITIONAL USE?

>> CORRECT. >> I DON'T THINK HAVING -- I HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL HAS REDIRECT.

>> WHEN SOMEONE WAS APPROVED FOR CONDITIONAL USE UNDER THE FORMER PROCESS, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL GRANT WITH THE PROPERTY, AS OPPOSED TO BEING ATTACHING TO THE OWNER?

>> WITH THE PROPERTY, YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT, NOTHING FURTHER

AT THIS TIME. >> WHEN YOU SEE THE CONDITIONAL USE IS ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO

A ZONING PERMISSION? >> WITH THE ZONING PERMISSION,

CORRECT. >> DOES THAT THEN -- DOES THAT DO ANYTHING RELATED TO THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT WAS

SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED? >> SO, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WITH ORDINANCE 21-000, IT AVOIDED ALL CONDITIONAL USES AND ESTABLISHED THEM AS BEING PERMITTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. SO, IF YOU HAD A CONDITIONAL USE, THE CONDITIONAL USE WAS NO LONGER NEEDED. YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO DO THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. GILMORE. I DON'T HAVE ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS. >> YOU CAN STILL WAIT OUT IN THE HALLWAY, PLEASE. I ASSUME -- UNLESS YOU ALL WANTED TO RELEASE THEM, COMPLETELY? IT WAS YOUR SUBPOENA.

>> NOT YET. I WILL RESUME MY EXAMINATION OF MS. LONGARZO.

SO, MS. LONGARZO, YOU HEARD MR. GILMORE GO THROUGH THE

[01:35:03]

LISTED? >> YEAH, THE ENTIRE STEPS WERE, LIKE I SAID, IT IS PRE-APP, WHICH YOU PAY A SEPARATE FEE. THAT GOES INTO ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, TO SEE IF THE CONDITIONAL USE IS ALLOWABLE FOR THAT PARCEL I.D.

ONCE THAT GOES THROUGH, THEN IT GOES THROUGH TRC, AND VENICE WAS MY PLANNER ON UNIT D.

>> TRC IS TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE?

>> YES. THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, YOU GET A -- LIKE, A MEMO. I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE IT HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NAME OF IT IS. OKAY. SO, YOU HAVE TO FILE A CONDITIONAL USE, NO

CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS, THERE IS NO NEW CONSTRUCTION?

>> YES. AND THEN, FROM THERE, THIS GOES ALONG WITH THE PRE-APP, AND ONCE YOU DO THE PRE-APP, I RECEIVED A STAFF REPORT FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, AND THEN ALSO IT GOES IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS A WHOLE OTHER -- I THINK IT IS TRC, THEN 30 DAYS LATER, ACCORDING TO THE CODE, THEN YOU GO TO PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS A SIMILAR COMMITTEE TO THE COMMISSION, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD. YOU ARE EXAMINED BY THE BOARD. THEY THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY APPROVE OR DENY YOU. AND I BELIEVE IN UNIT D, I WANT TO SAY THEY DENIED. SO THEN, THAT GOES TO THE COMMISSIONER BOARD OF REVIEW, WHICH IS ALSO, I BELIEVE, 30 DAYS LATER. AND IT HAS TO BE FOUR OUT OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS MUST AGREE, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE APPROVED. THAT IS ANOTHER HEARING. IT IS HELD QUASIJUDICIAL. I THINK OURS WAS OCTOBER 21ST, 2019, AT 6:30 P.M. THE HEARING IS HELD WITH COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AT-LARGE PUBLIC TO COME UP AND VOICE THEIR OPINIONS, PRO OR AGAINST. WE WOULD ALSO GIVE THE APPLICANT, WHICH IN THIS CASE, AS FOR MY HUSBAND. THAT IS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. THEY DID APPROVE FOUR OUT OF FIVE.

THE ONLY PERSON THAT DENIED WAS JEREMIAH JOHNSON.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WITH THE PRE-APPLICATION TO YOUR APPROVAL AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS BY THE CITY COMMISSIONERS, HOW LONG TO THAT

WHOLE PROCESS TAKE? >> ROUGHLY 120 DAYS.

>> AND WHAT WAS THE COST TO YOU?

>> WELL, SO, THE PREOP IS 250. I THINK THERE IS ONE HERE THAT TELLS YOU EXACTLY. IN THIS CASE, HANG ON. THERE IS A RECEIPT HERE FOR $1221.58. THIS MIGHT BE FOR THE SIDEWALK.

I'M NOT SURE. >> WELL, DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION FOR LIKE, THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROCESS?

>> FOR ME? >> YES.

>> WITH LAWYERS, ENGINEERS, ET CETERA?

>> YES. >> THAT WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF

$30,000. >> AND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ALL

[01:40:02]

THE UNITS, OR JUST ONE UNIT. >> UNIT D WAS THE ONLY UNIT THAT WAS UNDER 30 DAYS. I HAD TO GO TO TALLAHASSEE.

>> UNDER 30 DAYS, YOU MEANT TO BE ABLE TO RENT IT LESS THAN 30

DAYS? >> CORRECT. THEY ONLY HAD IT ON THE CODE WHERE YOU COULD RENT FOR 35 DAYS AND ABOVE. THIS IS FOR NINE MONTHS. I MET WITH PAUL THOMAS, WHO IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. WE HAD TO GO UP TO TALLAHASSEE AND DO I FORMAL OWN PINE. THAT WAS RULED 100% IN MY FAVOR. IT CAME BACK DOWN, AND THEN THEY SAID THAT THEY COULDN'T STOP US FROM

RENTING UNDER 31 DAYS. >> SO, YOU SAID IN EXCESS OF

$30,000. >> CORRECT.

>> WAS THAT JUST FOR UNIT D, OR ALL THE UNITS?

>> THAT WAS JUST UNIT D BECAUSE WE WERE THE PIONEERS, THE FIRST ONES THAT FOUGHT FOR UNDER 30 DAYS. I BELIEVE THE FIRST 31 DAYS WAS MRS. WOOD, I WANT TO SAY SHE WAS THE FIRST ONE. I WANT TO SAY SHE WAS APPROVED IN 2017, SO IN 2017 IS WHEN ALL THE 31 DATE ONES STARTED, AND THAN OURS, WHICH IS OCTOBER --

>> RIGHT. THAT IS WHEN UNDER 31 DAYS STARTED TO APPEAR IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE.

>> AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS

AGAIN FOR UNIT L? >> I DID.

>> AND WITH A SIMILAR EXPENSE?

>> THE EXPENSE WENT DOWN BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A LAWYER PRESENTING TO THE COMMISSIONER BOARD OF REVIEW. I PRESENTED IT

MYSELF. >> AND YOU STILL HAD TO PAY AN

ENGINEER? >> NO, THE ENGINEER, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY. I DO BELIEVE I PAID FOR A SAFETY REPORT FROM THE ENGINEER. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I KNOW I DID ON D, WHERE THEY COME IN, AND THEY SAY THE AREA IS SAFE, WHATEVER. THE CITY WAS ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE THAT WE PUT SPRINKLERS IN OUR UNIT, SO WE HAD TO GO THROUGH A BUNCH OF HOOPS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND SO, THAT ALL ADDED AN EXPENSE IN UNIT D, BECAUSE WE THEN HAD TO TAKE THAT UP WITH TALLAHASSEE, AND AGAIN, SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T FORCE US TO SPRINKLE BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL, NOT COMMERCIAL, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER TO TELL US WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD TO PUT THE FIRE SPRINKLER ON.

SO, THAT KIND OF OFFSET SOME OF THE COST.

>> WHAT IS YOUR -- HOW MUCH DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE SPENT, ALL TOLD, GETTING D, M, AND L APPROVED?

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE ALL THE LAWYERS WE HAD TO PAY?

>> IF YOU HAD TO PAY THEM, YES.

>> I WOULD SAY WE ARE IN UPWARDS OF 55,000, PROBABLY. I WOULD HAVE TO REALLY LOOK. IT IS AN ESTIMATE.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WHEN THE CITY WAS IN THE PROCESS OF ENACTING ORDINANCE 22506-B THAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT TODAY, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT, DID YOU RECEIVE NOTICE FROM THE CITY AS AN AFFECTED PARTY?

>> NO, I DID NOT. >> DID YOU COMMUNICATE THIS

WITH THE CITY? >> I DID.

>> DO YOU HAVE WITH YOU TODAY AN EMAIL OR ANYTHING FROM THE

CITY? >> I DO.

>> WHERE IS THAT? >> RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. PURPLE

CLIP. >> DID I GIVE YOU A COPY OF THIS, MS. HEDGES? THIS EMAIL?

>> I -- OH, YES. YOU DID. >> I WONDERED WHY I DIDN'T

HAVE THREE COPIES. >> IS THIS A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL YOU SENT TO THE CITY, ON JULY 6TH, 2021?

>> YES. >> AND YOU ARE EXPRESSING THAT YOU ARE AN AFFECTED PARTY, WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE ORDINANCE?

[01:45:06]

YOUR HONOR, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE TODAY THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS NOT PROPERLY ACTED AS FAR AS GIVING ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, A DISSENT AND A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

>> AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THERE IS A PROCESS THE

CHALLENGE ORDINANCES, PAST. >> I AGREE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT IS HERE BEFORE US TODAY.

>> WELL, HE JUST SAID HE REVOKED MINE.

>> THEY REVOKED MY SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

>> ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND MAGISTRATES. I'M GOING TO GET IT ON THE RECORD, IF I COULD. DID YOU ATTEND A HEARING TO TRY TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS PENDING ORDINANCE?

>> I DID. >> AND WHAT HAPPENED?

>> I WAS TOLD BY MAYOR HUDSON THAT I COULD NOT SPEAK FOR MORE THAN THREE MINUTES, EVEN THOUGH PRIOR TO THE HEARING, I WAS AN AFFECTED PARTY THAT HAD THE RIGHT TO SPEAK LONGER THAN 30 MINUTES, AND THIS INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED SPECIFICALLY FROM A QUASIJUDICIAL PRESENTATION DONE BY SUSAN CUTSHALL, PRESENTED TO THE CITY. SO, THEY WERE AWARE, AND THEY WERE ADVISED BY LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THIS EXISTS, AND

>> AND A STANDING OBJECTION HERE, ALSO.

>> IT SHOULD BE MARKED FOR AN ADMITTED EXHIBIT.

>> I WOULD OBJECT TO IT BEING ADMITTED AGAIN FOR RELEVANCE PURPOSES, BUT WE CAN MARKET FOR IDENTIFICATION AS RESPONDENTS

IDENTIFIED EXHIBIT THREE. >> MR. SAUCEDO?

>> RB LIVE? OH, THERE HE IS. >> SO, I HAVE MARKED AS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT CAPITAL THREE FOR MARK, ONLY.

>> CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS DOCUMENT?

>> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT DOCUMENT?

>> IT IS A LETTER FROM GARY K OLDENOFF.

>> AND HOW DID THIS LETTER COME ABOUT? HE WAS HIRED BY MYSELF AND OTHERS THAT ARE SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO OBJECT AND PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS FOR GRANDFATHERING.

>> WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT LETTER?

>> AUGUST 18TH, 2021. >> AND YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNERS TOGETHER HIRED

MR. OLDENOFF? >> CORRECT.

>> DID YOU RECEIVE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY THE FEE?

>> YES. >> WAS SANDY BALLANTYNE ONE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE FEE FOR THIS LETTER?

>> YES. >> HOW MUCH DID SHE PAY YOU?

>> $2000. >> AND THE GIST OF THIS LETTER -- THIS LETTER IS THE WORK PRODUCT THAT YOU PAID FOR, FOR

MR. OLDENOFF? >> YES.

>> AND THE GIST OF IT IS MAINLY THAT -- WELL, IT TOUCHES ON THE LACK OF NOTICE. DOES IT TOUCH ON THE LACK OF NOTICE?

>> YES. >> DOES IT ASSERT THAT YOU SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN, AS WELL?

>> YES. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE

[01:50:02]

>> NO. >> WE WILL MOVE THIS LETTER

INTO EVIDENCE. >> I MARKING RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT FOUR. I WILL NOT OBJECT. I WILL WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION ON EXHIBIT THREE IF YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT, AND THAT IS FOR PURPOSES OF NOT CREATING AN APPELLANT ISSUE. I BELIEVE YOU CAN DETERMINE WHAT WEIGHT THEY ARE TO BE GIVEN.

>> AND THIS LETTER WILL BE EXHIBIT FOUR.

>> AND WILL YOU LIKE ME TO CHANGE THE MARKET FOR EXHIBIT THREE? JUST TO RESPOND TO EXHIBIT THREE? ALL I DID WAS MARK OFF FOR THE I.D., ONLY. SO, I WITHDRAW MY OBJECTIONS TO

EXHIBIT THREE. >> MS. LONGARZO, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. OLDENOFF WROTE A FOLLOW-UP LETTER FOR

YOU GUYS? >> YES.

>> AND DO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE CITY EVER RESPOND TO THE

LETTER? >> THE CITY NEVER RESPONDED TO OUR LAWYER OR A ADDITIONAL LAWYER, WHICH WAS ALSO SENDING LETTERS FROM THE WEST COAST FOR ANOTHER SET OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS, NEITHER WERE RESPONDED TO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL?

>> YES. >> SORRY, I HAVE SOME CROSS EXAMINATION. YES, SIR. MS. -- DO YOU PREFER LONGARZO, OR

DANALEK? >>, MICHELLE, TO MAKE IT

EASIER. >> MICHELLE, UNITS D AND L, YOU ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING THEM AS OCCASION RENTALS?

>> YES. >> FOR SHORT-TERM PURPOSES?

>> IT DEPENDS ON THE CLIENT. >> GIVE ME EXAMPLES, IF YOU

COULD. >> WELL, THE CLIENT -- I HAVE A VERY LONG LIST OF CLIENTS, SO WHEN THEY CALL ME, GO TO WHAT THEY NEED. THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF SHORT-TERM.

>> COULD IT BE A NIGHT, UP TO HOW MANY NIGHTS?

>> IT COULD BE OVER SIX MONTHS. IT JUST DEPENDS.

>> IS THE MINIMUM YOU WILL RENT FOR -- I KNOW SOME RENTALS HAVE

A TWO OR THREE NIGHT MINIMUM? >> YES, OF COURSE. TWO NIGHTS

IS MY MINIMUM. >> OKAY. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE INCOME YOU BRING IN FOR EACH UNIT, PER MONTH?

>> IT DEPENDS. I MEAN, IT IS VERY VARIED -- I'M SORRY, THAT IS NOT PROPER ENGLISH. BUT, IT VARIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SEASONS, THE SUMMERS ARE REALLY SLOW. WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED A PROGRAM WHERE WE HELPED CHILDHOOD CANCER FAMILIES WHEN THEY ARE NOT RENTED, SO WE GO AND TAKE ON CHILDHOOD CANCER FAMILIES, AUTISM FAMILIES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WE HAVE A COUNTY COMMISSIONER THAT OCCASIONALLY CALLS US THAT SAYS THEY CAN BE PLACED AND REPLACE THEM FOR FREE, SO WE HAVE THESE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WE ALSO RUN, SO JUST BECAUSE IF IT IS OPEN, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO OPEN IT TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF. SO, THERE IS NO REALLY, JANUARY, YOU ARE GOING TO GET THIS AMOUNT -- IT IS NOT -- IT IS

VARIED. >> AND 100% UNDERSTAND THAT IS GOING TO DEPEND ON THE DEMAND, OBVIOUSLY. LET ME ASK, LAST YEAR, THE YEAR OF 2023, HOW MUCH RENTAL INCOME DID YOU BRING IN FOR UNIT D, APPROXIMATELY?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE MY RECORDS WITH ME. I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO BE ASKED THAT.

>> WE ARE ASKING, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE NUMBERS, AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE

[01:55:09]

ASKING. >> OKAY, WELL, I CAN'T GIVE

YOU -- >> I AM NOT GOING TO HOLD YOU TO ADD 100%, BUT ARE WE TALKING $5000, $50,000, $100,000?

>> FOR THE ANNUAL? >> YES, ARE YOU ABLE TO

BALLPARK IT? >> IS THIS FOR UNIT D?

>> YES. YES, SIR. >> I WOULD BE COMPLETELY

ESTIMATING -- I DON'T KNOW. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE A BOOKKEEPER, SO, YOU KNOW --

>> WHAT YOU LIST IT AS, AS YOUR NIGHTLY RENTAL RATE.

>> IT DEPENDS ON THE MONTH, ON THE SITUATION.

>> GIVE ME SEASON, VERSUS NON-SEASON.

>> FOR WHAT UNIT? >> D, AND I AM GOING TO ASK THE

SAME FOR L. >> FOR UNIT D, IT CAN GO ANYWHERE FROM $250, PER SEASON. AGAIN, IT FLUCTUATES BECAUSE ON THESE PLATFORMS, IT CAN CLICK SOMETHING WHERE -- IT VARIES IT, YOU KNOW? WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER -- DEPENDING CLICK A CERTAIN BUTTON, IT DOES LIKE AN ALGORITHM, SO IT

CAN FLUCTUATE. >> MEANING THE RENTAL PLATFORM

IS SETTING YOUR RATE? >> IT CAN COME IF YOU CLICK THAT. SOMETIMES I CLICK THAT, SOMETIMES I DON'T, SOMETIMES I HAVE A RATE. SO, IT DEPENDS, IT VARIES.

>> SO, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU SELECT AS AN OWNER?

>> YES. >> IS THAT TO MAKE IT MORE COMPETITIVE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, I'M GUESSING?

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO THE ALGORITHM, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I HAVEN'T FIGURED IT OUT. BUT, IF YOU DO THE ALGORITHM VERSION, I DON'T KNOW, WHEN I COULD BE LIKE $99, THE NEXT NIGHT TO BE $139, IT CAN JUST VARY. I GUESS THEY CLICK ON WHAT THE AREA SURROUNDS, AND --

>> OKAY. SO, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE BOTH UNITS D AND L, THOSE BELONG TO MERMAID SEASHORES LLC?

>> THE TRUST, YES. >> OKAY, AND YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MERMAID SEASHORES? OR, IS YOUR HUSBAND

ALSO RESPONSIBLE? >> IT IS SPECIFICALLY MINE, AND

IT IS FOR THE TRUST. >> OKAY. AND BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES, HE ORIGINALLY OWNED, MR. NICHOLAS DANALEK?

>> THAT IS A HARD ONE TO ANSWER.

>> YOU CAN GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION.

>> WELL, WE JOINTLY HAVE BEEN OWNING THEM, I MEAN, ON PAPER

HE OWNS THEM. >> OKAY.

>> BUT, THERE'S OTHER PAPERWORK THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT, THAT IS NOT PRIVY TO THE PUBLIC.

>> SO, ON PAPER, WE ARE TALKING TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS, BOTH UNITS D AND L, THOSE WERE ONLY LISTED WITH HIM AS THE OWNER. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> DURING WHAT TIMEFRAME? >> PRIOR TO IT SWITCHING TO

MERMAID SEASHORES. >> YES.

>> OKAY. NOW, YOUR POSITION -- AND YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT DIFFERENTLY IF I PARAPHRASE IT INCORRECTLY --

>> SURE. >> -- IS THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO REGISTER YOUR PROPERTIES THAT WENT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ADVISED BY GARY OLDENOFF, MY LAWYER.

>> SO, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE CITY HAS ADVISED YOU NUMEROUS TIMES THAT YOU DO NEED TO REGISTER, STILL?

>> NO. >> OKAY. SO, IT HASN'T BEEN COMMUNICATED TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO REGISTER YOUR

PROPERTIES? >> I HAVE COME TO MEETINGS WHERE I HAVE VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT GRANDFATHERING, NUMERACY, WITH REGARDS TO PUBLIC -- YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC FORM WHERE YOU CAN SPEAK ON PUBLIC THREE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. SO, YOU HAVE -- >> I HAVE ADAMANTLY STATED THAT I AM GRANDFATHERED, AND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THAT IN THE STATUTE. AND I DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BELIEVE THAT WHATEVER ORDINANCE COMPLETELY ERADICATES MY CONDITIONAL USE. IT DOES NOT. IT IS CONSTANT -- I AM CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.

>> SO, YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE STILL OPERATING UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE CLASSIFICATION?

>> CORRECT. UNDER THE LETTER, AND I FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS

THAT I AM REQUIRED. >> SORRY, YOUR SCREENS WENT

BLACK. >> --

>> I JUST WANT TO -- OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE STILL GOOD.

OKAY, SO, HERE IS WHERE I AM GOING. LET'S SAY WE SAID, MS. LONGARZO, MICHELLE, WE ARE DONE WITH THIS, GO REGISTER TODAY, WE ARE DONE WITH THIS. WOULD YOU GO REGISTER YOUR

PROPERTIES TODAY? >> NO.

>> DO YOU INTEND TO EVER REGISTER YOUR PROPERTIES?

>> I AM FOLLOWING THE RULES THAT I AM GRANDFATHERED UNDER, THE DATE I WENT THROUGH QUASIJUDICIAL.

>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS AS A ZONING CLASSIFICATION? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? OR, DO YOU

AGREE WITH THAT? >> I THINK YOU ARE ASKING ME

[02:00:08]

GILMORE TESTIFIED TODAY THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT YOU RECEIVED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VACATION RENTAL

THROUGH THE CLERK, RIGHT? >> I DON'T AGREE.

>> OKAY, BUT YOU SAID YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEIR ADVICE.

>> I AM NOT -- >> YOU LITERALLY JUST --

>> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO VENICE ABOUT THIS -- I HAVE NOT TALKED TO VENICE IN I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG, OTHER THAN BASIC QUESTIONS. I HAVE NOT -- HE HAS NOT BEEN MY PLANNER SINCE 2019.

TO GET AT IS, YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE ADVICE YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE CITY.

>> CORRECT. >> BUT THE CITY, EVEN AS YOU HAVE SAT HERE TODAY, HAVE TOLD YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG POINT

>> THAT IS THEIR INTERPRETATION THAT I AM WRONG. BUT, GARY OLDENOFF'S INTERPRETATION IN THAT LETTER SAYS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT ON RECORD.

>> YOU CAN, JUST GIVE ME ONE MORE SECOND TO FINISH MY QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO YOU DOING THAT WHEN WE ARE DONE. YOU UNDERSTAND HE DOESN'T WORK FOR THE CITY, YOUR PREVIOUS ATTORNEY? A

>> GARY OLDENOFF. >> HE IS A FORMER CITY

ATTORNEY. >> HE DOES NOT CURRENTLY WORK

FOR THE CITY, CORRECT? >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS EVER WORKED FOR MERMAID SEASHORES ONE. I

WOULDN'T KNOW. >> AND THE CITY THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS ST. LUCIE, THAT HE PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR, IS THAT CORRECT, OR WAS IT A DIFFERENT CITY?

>> I DON'T KNOW. HE JUST TOLD ME HE WAS PREVIOUSLY A CITY LAWYER, THAT HE HAS DONE IT IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT AREAS. I

DON'T KNOW. >> OKAY. SO, WHERE MY CONFUSION EXISTS IS, YOU SAID, I AM DOING WHAT CITY STAFF TOLD ME I NEEDED TO DO, THAT IS WHAT I DID, EVEN THOUGH CITY STAFF IS TELLING YOU THAT NO LONGER APPLIES, YOU NEED TO DO X, Y, Z. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO DO X, Y, Z, REFERRING TO THE REGISTRATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE REGISTRATION IS UNLAWFUL, ACCORDING TO GARY

OLDENOFF. >> OKAY. AND TO BE CLEAR, HE

IS NOT A JUDGE, CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW. IF YOU WANT TO ASK, I HAVE NO IDEA IF HE HAS EVER BEEN A JUDGE.

>> YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE REGISTRATION FEE FOR AN INITIAL REGISTRATION CURRENTLY SITS AT $350. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> NO. IT HAS CHANGED A COUPLE OF TIMES. I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> I THINK YOU WERE HERE WHEN THIS LAST RESOLUTION WAS

PASSED. WEREN'T YOU? >> I WAS THERE ON THE FIRST WHEN IT WAS 600. I STILL REMEMBER THAT SECOND ONE.

>> OKAY, IT IS $350 TO REGISTER.

>> BUT, YOU ARE SAYING $350 TO REGISTER, AND I AM GOING TO HAVE MY LAWYER ASKED, WHAT DOES THAT ENTAIL? BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT I DID IN CONDITIONAL USE, IS THE SAME THING THAT YOU REQUIRED TO PAY $350 FOR. I DID EVERYTHING EXACTLY THE SAME. SO, I HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO GET A BTR BEFORE I STARTED RENTING IN 2019, UNLESS I COMPLETED EVERY SINGLE TASK THAT WAS THE SAME AS WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME TO DO, FOR $350.

INDIVIDUALS THAT WENT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS?

>> I HELPED MANY OF THEM BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD NOT HELP THEM AND THEY WERE CALLING ME ON MY CELL PHONE.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF THAT WENT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS THAT CURRENTLY STILL OPERATES A VACATION RENTAL THAT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST?

>> YES. >> HOW MANY PEOPLE?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE SPOKEN TO ALMOST EVERY VACATION RENTAL

OWNER ON THE ISLAND. >> OKAY, AND DO YOU HAVE NAMES OF THOSE THAT REFUSED TO REGISTER, AS YOU DO?

>> I AM NOT GIVING THAT OUT. >> SO, YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER

THOSE QUESTIONS? >> I AM NOT ANSWERING THAT.

I'M NOT -- THAT IS NOT FOR ME -- FOR YOU TO POLICE. I'M NOT

TALKING -- >> SO, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I ASK THAT YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HER REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN DETERMINING HER ELIGIBILITY.

>> MANY OF THESE ARE CLIENTS. I CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE

BREACHING -- NO, I CAN'T. >> DID YOU ASK YOU TO DISCLOSE

THE NAMES? >> I DID. AND THE REASON BEING, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE -- WELL, I CAN ARGUE LATER. I APOLOGIZE.

>> I BELIEVE SHE ALSO ASKED FOR A NUMBER, IF YOU KNOW HOW MANY

PEOPLE ARE IN THAT SITUATION. >> PROBABLY AT LEAST A DOZEN.

>> AND SO -- I'M SORRY, CAN I ASK THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO BRING HER MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, PLEASE? SORRY, THANK YOU. SO, DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CODE AS IT

[02:05:03]

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT CODE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> CODE 22 DASH EURO 20, SUBSECTION B.

>> DO YOU WANT TO SHOW IT TO ME?

>> SURE. CAN WE PULL UP THE MINI CODE, PLEASE?

>> SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE CODE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO --

>> I KNOW, BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE.

>> IT SHOULD BE -- AT THE TOP, IF YOU JUST TYPE IN 22-506.

>> 506? >> 506.

>> SUBSECTION B, ALL VACATION RENTALS AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN UPDATED REGISTRATION UNIT ISSUED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. A RENTAL REGISTRATION UNIT IS NONTRANSFERABLE BETWEEN OWNERS.

>> WHAT IS THE ORDINANCE? >> AN ORDINANCE ENACTS A CODE.

SO, THE CODE IS WHAT CONTROLS. SO, THE ORDINANCE IS WHAT CREATES THE CODE. SO THEN, IT SAYS A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP IN THE PARENTAL UNIT SHALL REQUIRE THE NEW OWNER OR HIS AGENT TO ACQUIRE A NEW REGISTRATION FOR THE RANCH REGISTRATION RENTAL OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SO, THAT IS THERE CODE SECTION THAT YOU

HAVE BEEN VIOLATED UNDER. >> WELL, WHAT IS THE CODE SECTION THAT -- THAT WAS DURING 2019?

>> MY QUESTION TO YOU, MA'AM, THAT AS THIS CODE EXISTS CURRENTLY TODAY, YOUR UNITS ARE REQUIRED UNDER THAT CODE TO BE

REGISTERED. >> NO, I DO NOT. I DO NOT

>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HER.

>> I HAVE -- I WANT TO READ THIS ON THE RECORD.

>> SURE, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO

READ IT IN. >> PLEASE.

>> COULD YOU IDENTIFY WHAT YOU ARE READING?

>> YES, MA'AM. IT IS A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18TH, 2021. IT IS WRITTEN AND OFFERED BY GARY K OLDENOFF. IT WAS ADDRESSED TO NICHOLAS CM MEN'S, CITY MANAGER. IT WAS SENT TO 100 NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, 34950. IT IS IN REGARDS TO SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTAL UNITS, ORDINANCE 21-019. DEAR MR. MINNS, I REPRESENT A NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS REAP APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED ZONING APPROVALS FOR CONDITIONAL USES. FOR SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTALS, AFTER PROPERTIES, BEFORE THE CITY RECENTLY CHANGED ITS LAWS WITH ORDINANCE 21-019. AS YOU KNOW, THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS -- I'M SORRY -- THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL PROCESS WAS EXTREMELY ONEROUS AND EXPENSIVE FOR THESE APPLICANTS. THE UNCERTAINTY OF BEING ABLE TO PERSUADE THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THEIR APPLICATIONS OFTEN REQUIRE THEM TO RETAIN LAWYERS, PAY EXPERTS FOR REPORTS, AND SPEND EXTRAORDINARY SUMS OF MONEY TO SECURE THEIR USES. THE CITY CHARGED THESE PROPERTY OWNERS $1209 FOR THE APPLICATION PROCESS, AND FOR THE ADVERTISING OF THE HEARINGS. ON AVERAGE, IT COSTED MY CLIENTS MORE THAN $5000 TO OBTAIN THEIR APPROVALS FOR THEIR CONDITIONAL USES. OF COURSE, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TIME AND USUALLY UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE OF GOING THROUGH THE CITIES' PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, AND THE CITY COMMISSION. THE NEW CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRES THESE PROPERTY OWNERS TO "REGISTER" AN OPEN FOR AND, OR REAPPLY FOR APPROVAL OF THEIR APPROVED PROPERTIES BY SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2021. THEY ALSO MUST PAY AN ADDITIONAL FEE OF $600, AS WELL AS MAKE AN APPLICATION AND SUBMIT THE SAME INFORMATION THEY HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED FOR CONDITIONAL USES. THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND IE, IN

[02:10:06]

MY CLIENTS HAVE ALREADY PAID A STEEP FEE AND REGISTERED WITH THE CITY. FOR THAT REASON ALONE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS I REPRESENT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO "REGISTER" OR PAY THIS CLEARLY UNREASONABLE OR UNNECESSARY FEE. THIS REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT AND FEE IS ALSO IMPROPER, FOR A FUNDAMENTAL REASON. MY CLIENTS HAVE LEGALLY VESTED RIGHTS TO THEIR CONDITIONAL USES, WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURBED OR TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THEM JUST COMPENSATION. THEY HAVE MADE A PROPER APPLICATION FOR THE ENTITLEMENT TO USE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTALS. AND IN REASONABLE, RELIANT ON BOTH THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND THE CONDITIONAL USES, WHICH THE CITY COMMISSION GRANTED THEM.

THEY HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT SUMS IN FURTHER OF THESE USES AND LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY AND STATUTORILY PROTECTED PROPERTY RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES. THESE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED BY UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AS REGARDS TO THE LETTER, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR HAVE IN RECENT YEARS ENACTED LEGISLATION ELEVATING THE STATUS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, THE HIGHER STATUS THAN IN ACCORD WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. UNDER THE LAW, AND APPROVED CONSTITUTIONAL USE, IS A CLASS OF PERMITTING USED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT UPENDS THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE PARTICULAR USE, AND THE APPROVED RUNS WITH THE LAND, I.E., IT IS NOT RESTRICTED OR EXCLUSIVE TO ANY PARTICULAR OWNER. IF CONDITIONS ARE PLACED ON THE APPROVAL, THOSE CONDITIONS BECOME THE EXTENT OF FURTHER ZONING REGULATION FOR THE PROPERTY THAT -- I'M SORRY -- FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS USED.

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS ARE LEGALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN VIOLATIONS OF ZONING REGULATIONS. THEY ARE SUBJECT

[02:15:02]

THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO INVOKE A CONDITIONAL USE, UNLESS THE APPROVAL EXPRESSLY AND EXPLICITLY PROVIDES FOR REVOCATION. THE NEW ORDINANCE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT VIOLATES THE LAW, WITH REGARDS TO MY CLIENTS' CONDITIONAL USES, BECAUSE IT SET A PREREQUISITE TO MY CLIENTS BEING ABLE TO USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTALS, WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. THE ORDINANCE ALSO VIOLATES THE LAW BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE CITY CLERK MAY DENY REGISTRATION. OR, MAY DENY, REVOKE REGISTRATION, IN EITHER CASE, TERMINATING OR REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NO EXPLICIT CONDITION IN ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS THAT THE USE CAN BE REVOKED. IF A CONDITION OF THE USE IS VIOLATED, THE REMEDY IS ONLY CODE ENFORCEMENT. REVOKING OR TERMINATING THE USE IS NOT AVAILABLE. IN SHORT, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT AND PROCESS IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS TO EITHER PROHIBIT, SUSPEND, OR TERMINATE THEIR CONDITIONAL USE. THE MERE PROSPECT OF THIS LOSS, OF THEIR USE, BASED ON THE NEW REQUIREMENT, SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTIES. SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE INTERFERE WITH AND VIOLATE MY CLIENTS' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. NOTABLY, THIS IS NO RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTING LEGAL RIGHT OR RECOGNIZED VESTED RIGHTS, NOR IS THERE MY PROVISION, GRANDFATHERING APPROVED, CONDITIONAL USES OR LAWFUL ACTIVITIES. THE REGISTRATION FEE IS DISCRIMINATORY, AND PATENTLY UNREASONABLE. AMONG OTHER LEGAL ACTIONS, MY CLIENTS ARE PREPARING TO INITIATE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY IN COURTS WITH BERT D.J. HARRIS JR., PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, DUE TO THE BURDENS THE ORDINANCE HAS PLACED ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEIR CLAIMS WILL ENCOMPASS NOT ONLY REGISTRATION, BUT A HOST OF OTHER PROVISIONS THAT NOW RESTRICT OR LIMIT MY CLIENTS' USE OF THEIR PROPERTIES AND PREVENTS, PROHIBITS MY CLIENTS FROM ATTAINING THE VESTED USE OF THEIR PROPERTIES. INDIVIDUALLY, AND A SPECIALTY -- THE SPECIALTY COLLABORATIVELY, THESE DAMAGES ARE HIGH. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THIS CONFLICT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF MY CLIENT WOULD HAVE SIMPLY HAD A VOICE AT THE TABLE DURING THE MEETING AND THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE TASK FORCE, AND BECAUSE THE CITY FAILED TO NOTIFY HOLDERS OF CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS FOR SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTAL OF THESE ORDINANCES AFFECTING ONLY THEIR CONDITIONAL USES, MANY WERE UNAWARE OF THEM UNTIL THEY WERE ENACTED. I AM OPTIMISTIC, NEVERTHELESS, THAT REASONABLE MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN IF WE JUST LOOK AT THE MATTERS WITH A FULLER PERSPECTIVE. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO ALL TO SEE IF THESE MATTERS CAN BE RESOLVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO MEET WITH YOU FOR THIS PURPOSE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. IF WE DO NOT MEET WITHIN TWO WEEKS, I WILL PURSUE CLIENTS' LEGAL REMEDIES. PLEASE CONTACT ME AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.

RESPECTFULLY, GARY OLDENOFF, CARBON COPIED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE MAYOR, THE CITY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE CLIENTS.

AND THERE WAS A FOLLOW-UP TO THIS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MICHELLE. NOTHING FURTHER AT

THIS TIME. >> GENERALLY,.?

>> JUST FOR THE WITNESS. >> SO, JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, THE CITY CLERK DID COME BACK DOWNSTAIRS, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IS WHO YOU WOULD NEED FOR YOUR EXHIBIT TWO, SINCE THEY REFERENCE THE BTR. SO, SHE IS THERE OUTSIDE, IF YOU WOULD

LIKE TO RECALL HER. >> LINDA COX?

>> YES, SIR. >> WHICH?

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS EXHIBIT TWO, THAT WAS NOT ADMITTED.

>> IT WAS THIS ONE. >> IS THAT THE BTR SEVEN STEPS?

>> YES, SIR. >> I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT

IS. >> BUT, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY CALL YOUR CASE HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU

KNOW SHE IS OUTSIDE. >> AND DID YOU WITHDRAW YOUR

OBJECTION TO THAT? >> I WITHDREW MY OBJECTION TO

[02:20:04]

BELIEVE. >> DO YOU STILL OBJECT TO

EXHIBIT TWO? >> YES, SIR. I JUST DON'T KNOW

THE PROVINCE OF IT. >> ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, I WILL RECALL MS. COX, BRIEFLY, TO SEE IF SHE WILL AUTHENTICATE

EXHIBIT TWO. >> THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE.

MS. COX, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT. DO YOU

RECOGNIZE THIS DOCUMENT? >> YES.

>> IS THAT SOMETHING YOUR OFFICE GENERATED?

>> YES. >> OR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IT

IS? >> IT LOOKS LIKE A HOW TO.

LET'S SEE HERE. SOMETHING -- YES, IT IS THE STEPS OF GOING THROUGH THE BUSINESS TAX PROCESS AND IT HAS THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT ARE

NECESSARY FOR YOU TO DO. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT APPEARS TO BE A TRUE COPY OF WHAT HE WOULD GIVE OUT TO PEOPLE WHO NEEDED

TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS? >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE MOVE NUMBER TWO INTO EVIDENCE.

>> NO OBJECTION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT IS ALL. IF YOU COULD AUTHENTICATE THAT? THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RECALL MS. COX. BASICALLY, REBUTTAL. SO, DO YOU ANTICIPATE HOW LONG IT WILL BE, SHOULD SHE WAIT DOWNSTAIRS OR GO BACK UP AND COME BACK?

>> I HAVE ONE WITNESS NOW WHO WILL BE VERY SHORT, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE WHO MIGHT BE A BIT LONGER. SO, IT IS HARD TO JUDGE

HOW LONG. >> I WILL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.

IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK UPSTAIRS, I CAN SEND YOU AN

EMAIL TO BE DOWN. >> I CAN BE DONE WITHIN TWO

MINUTES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. WE WILL NEED EXHIBIT TWO. DO YOU HAVE EXHIBIT TWO? WE JUST NEED THE PAPER -- IT IS NOT THAT ONE. NO, MA'AM.

>> I'M NOT SEEING THE MARKED ONE. I HAVE THE COPY YOU GAVE

ME, I CAN MARK THAT. >> YOU CAN MARK THAT, IF YOU

DON'T MIND. >> YES. THAT IS THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT TWO. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT, YEAH. >> WE WILL TAKE THEM.

>> RESPONDENTS, EXHIBIT TWO IS ENTERED.

>> I APOLOGIZE. ONE MORE MATTER WITH MS. LONGARZO?

>> COULD YOU FIND -- WE REFERENCED EARLIER THAT MR. OLDENOFF SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE CITY?

>> YES. >> HAVE YOU NOT FOUND A COPY OF

THAT? >> YES.

>> IS IT ACTUALLY IN THE FORM OF AN EMAIL?

>> IT WAS SENT TO AN EMAIL TO TONYA AND LINDA COX. LINDA COULD PROBABLY AUTHENTICATE IT.

>> IS THIS A COPY OF IT? >> YEAH, YES.

[02:25:04]

>> WERE YOU CCED ON THAT? >> YES.

>> OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE, AS WELL.

>> WOULD THIS BE EXHIBIT FOUR?

>> I THINK IT MIGHT BE FIVE. I'M NOT SURE.

>> IF I COULD JUST REVIEW IT?

>> IT WOULD BE FIVE. >> LOOKS LIKE A PARTY.

>> SORRY, I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS, SO I AM READING. IT IS

ABOUT FIVE PAGES. >> MS. LONGARZO CAN YOU --

>> COUNSEL, IF I COULD JUST HAVE A FEW MINUTES. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS, SO IF I COULD JUST HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO READ

IT. >> MY CLIENT WANTS TO KNOW IF

SHE CAN TAKE A BRIEF BREAK. >> DO YOU WANT TO GO ALL ON THE

MICS, OR OFF THE MIKE'S? >> WE CAN GO OFF THE RECORD.

>> WE WILL WE CONVENE. >> A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW. IT IS JUST KIND OF LIKE A WORD DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT -- IT IS NOT IN AN EMAIL, IN IT OF ITSELF. IT IS MAINLY JUST AN ARGUMENT. SO, I WANT TO OBJECT FOR PURPOSES OF CONTINUING THE HEARING, AND I ASK YOU TO RULE

IT, HOW YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE. >> OKAY. THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM

MR. OLDENOFF? >> OLDENOFF.

>> JUST FOR CLARITY, TONYA REFERENCED IN THERE, I ASSUME, WAS THE PREVIOUS CITY ATTORNEY, TONYA ELLERY. IS THAT ACCURATE, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND THERE IS A ROBERT

MENTIONED. >> ROBERT IS A SHORT TERM

RENTAL OWNER AND LAWYER. >> OKAY.

>> THIS IS FIVE -- THIS IS ENTERED AS EXHIBIT FIVE.

>> I WROTE FIVE BASED ON COUNSEL'S SUGGESTION. MADAME

CLERK, WERE YOU -- >> I ALREADY HAVE FOUR.

>> MS. LONGARZO, RATHER THAN READ THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD, COULD YOU JUST READ THE FOUR NUMBERED HEADINGS?

>> THE FIRST HEADING IS, THE ORDINANCE IS LADEN WITH

AMBIGUITY. >> AMBIGUITY --

>> AMBIGUITY, AND AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE THAT IS LEADING TO ARBITRARY ACTION AND ENFORCEMENT, AND IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT, I BELIEVE, THIS CODE SHE IS REFERRING TO, WHICH IS 22-507. AND THE SECOND HEADING IS THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OR PROVIDE THE VESTED RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, OR GRANDFATHER UNITS WHO HAVE DULY PAID THEIR BTR TAX. THAT IS NUMBER TWO. NUMBER THREE IS THE $600 REGISTRATION FEE WAS NOT LAWFULLY DISESTABLISHED, AND IT DISCUSSES THAT. NUMBER FOUR, THE $600 REGISTRATION IS

AN UNLAWFUL TAX. >> AND THAT'S IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SO, THAT IS ALL I HAVE FROM THIS

WITNESS, AT THIS TIME. >> JUST A COUPLE QUICK ADDITIONAL CROSS EXAMINATIONS. CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN TO CODE

SECTION 22-507 AND 508? >> YES. MS. LONGARZO,

[02:30:02]

>> NO. >> CAN YOU SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN FROM THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THAT THEY ARE RESERVED, MEANING THEY DON'T EXIST ANYMORE?

>> I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID RIGHT THERE.

>> IT WAS -- IT WAS, WHEN I WENT THROUGH.

>> SO, HOW WOULD IT BE REPEALED?

>> SUBSEQUENT, IT LISTS THE ORDINANCE NUMBER, 22-033 FOR 25-507, AND FOR 22-508, ORDINANCE 23-051 REPEALED THOSE CODE SECTIONS. IF YOU CLICK ON THOSE, IT SHOULD OPEN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE, ITSELF. AND IF YOU COULD SCROLL

THROUGH? >> SO, THIS IS REFERENCING?

>> THE TWO SECTIONS THAT THE ATTORNEY REFERENCED IN HIS

NUMBER, 22 507 AND 22-508. >> ON GOING TO ASK AGAIN THAT EVERYBODY SPEAK INTO THE MIC, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

>> MY BTR IS IN 2019. THIS IS IN 2022.

>> RIGHT. SO, THE CHAPTER 22, THE 506-3508 WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS RELATED TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL

REGISTRATIONS, NOT BTR. >> I HAVE A LETTER THAT IS

DATED 2019. >> OKAY. MS. VANDERHORST, CAN WE GO BACK TO COMMUNITY CODE? AND ON 508, IF YOU COULD CLICK TO THE ORDINANCE NUMBER, 23-051? IF YOU COULD SCROLL DOWN, SHOWING THE STRIKETHROUGH OF THAT SECTION, AS WELL, KEEP SCROLLING? SORRY, THE REPLACEMENT, SCROLL UP. I APOLOGIZE. SO, THE FIRST CLAUSE, DOWN A LITTLE BIT, DOWN A LITTLE BIT, SECTION 1. 503 IS AMENDED. YOU CAN GO DOWN TO

508. WE ARE LOOKING FOR 508. >> THIS IS NOT LAWFUL. IT STATES IT IN THAT LETTER THAT THIS IS NOT A LAWFUL --

>> SO, MS. VANDERHORST, WE ARE AT SECTION 22-508 SHOWING THAT IT HAS BEEN STRUCK THROUGH AND APPEALED. SO, YOU ARE SAYING YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT? SORRY, JUST FOR THE RECORD.

>> NO. >> OKAY.

>> I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, EITHER. SO, IF YOU WANT TO PUT

THAT ON THE RECORD. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE ASK THAT YOU TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 22-033 AS WELL AS ORDINANCE NUMBER 23-051, AS WELL AS THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 22-507 AND SECTION 22-508 AS OUR REFERENCE IN THE LETTER, IN THEIR CURRENT EXISTENCE.

>> AGAIN, WE ARE REFERRING TO THE EMAIL. I WAS LOOKING AT IT QUICKLY. I HAVEN'T SEEN A DATE IN THE EMAIL.

>> IT IS NOT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS JUST AN ATTACHMENT. I -- IT IS NOT DATED, SO I'M NOT SURE.

>> OKAY, SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT WAS BEFORE.

>> ONLY FROM ANY SORT OF TESTIMONY SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO

PROVIDE. >> I'M SORRY, I DON'T

UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> THE EMAIL YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE, AS EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT, WHEN IT WAS SENT? IT ISN'T DATED.

>> I COULD PULL IT UP ON MY PHONE, IF YOU WANT NEED ME TO, IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE ME A MINUTE.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YEAR? >> IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER THIS

HAPPENED. >> IN 2021, YOU ARE REFERRING

TO, OR 2019? >> I THINK I HAVE IT, HERE.

WAIT A MINUTE. NOT THIS ONE. I HAVE IT --

>> WAS IT SHORTLY AFTER THE PREVIOUS LETTER FROM MR.

OLDENOFF? >> YES. AND SAME YEAR AS THE

PREVIOUS LETTER? >> I BELIEVE SO. DOESN'T THIS

REFERENCE -- >> THE BEGINNING SAYS, THE CONFERENCE I HAD WITH YOU ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1ST.

>> OKAY. DOES IT HAVE THE -- >> IT DOESN'T HAVE A YEAR.

[02:35:11]

WE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE? >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> WHICH, THAT WAS DATED AUGUST 18TH, 2021. SO, PRESUMABLY,

THAT IS 2021, AS WELL. >> I CAN LOOK IT UP ON MY PHONE. I DON'T KNOW. LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN SEE, REALLY QUICK. LINDA WOULD HAVE A -- THIS WAS ATTACHED IN AN EMAIL.

>> COMMON SENSE TELLS ME IT IS FROM 2021. I THINK WHAT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS GETTING AT IS THAT YOUR LETTER IS FROM BEFORE THOSE ORDINANCES WERE ENACTED IS I PRESUME WHAT YOU WERE

POINTING OUT. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. WE WILL

JUST GO WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

>> AND JUST -- I APOLOGIZE -- JUST FOR CLARITY, CLEARNESS OF THE RECORD, YOU DID TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THOSE ORDINANCES INTO THE CODE SECTIONS?

>> YES, I DID. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, I WOULD LIKE

TO CALL ALICIA ROSENTHAL. >> IS IT POSSIBLE -- AND YOU CAN TELL ME KNOW -- I KNOW YOU HAVE A WITNESS HERE FROM THE COUNTY , IS IT POSSIBLE TO CALL HIM SO HE CAN GET OUT OF HERE? BECAUSE THE CITY EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE HERE, BUT --

>> OH, OKAY. >> ALICIA, WE ARE GOING TO SEND YOU BACK OUT AND CALL A DIFFERENT WITNESS. I'M SO

SORRY. >> DO YOU NEED ME?

>> WE WILL. BUT, THERE IS A COUNTY WITNESS, SINCE HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AT THE CITY --

>> ALL RIGHT, THAT'S FAIR. >> AND THAT IS COREY BENTON.

NOT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT IS THAT WHO YOU WANT TO

CALL? >> YES, THE RESPONDENT WILL CALL COREY BENTON, YOUR HONOR.

>> MR. BENTON, YOU ARE WELCOME TO SIT OR STAND AT THE PODIUM, WHICHEVER IS MORE CONVENIENT, AND YOU PREFER.

>> PLEASE STAND. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAGISTRATE,

PARTICIPANTS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> MR. BENTON, YOU WERE HERE EARLIER AND YOU TOOK THE OATH

EARLIER FOR EVERYONE? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> VERY GOOD. STATE YOUR FULL NAME?

>> COREY CHRISTIAN BENTON. >> WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND

EMPLOYER? >> I AM A PLANNER. MY PARTICULAR TITLE IS PLANNING MANAGER WITH ST. LUCIE COUNTY.

POSITION WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

>> I WAS EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR SEVEN YEARS, WHEN LEAVING THE CITY I WAS THE SENIOR PLANNER.

>> WHAT ARE THE YEARS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY?

>> 2011 THROUGH 2018, BEGINNING OF 2018.

>> AND DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR CV, YOU BROUGHT WITH YOU?

>> MAGISTRATE, WOULD YOU PREFER COPY, AT ALL?

>> EVIDENCE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE A COPY OF THIS INTO EVIDENCE, AND TENDER MR. BENTON AS AN EXPERT

IN THE AREA OF PLANNING. >> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN JUST "PLANNING." ARE YOU ASSERTING ALL AREAS OF PLANNING? I THINK WE WILL NEED SOME QUESTIONS FROM HIM TO EXHORT THAT EXPERT IS.

>> AS FAR AS THE QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR CONDITIONAL USE, IT --

>> RELATED TO WHOSE PROCESS? >> THE CITIES PROCESS, AS --

>> THAT EXISTS IN 2019 WHEN HE DID NOT WORK HERE?

>> WELL, I THINK IT WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE HE LEFT IN

2018. >> FOR PURPOSES OF MOVING ALONG, I WON'T OBJECT. THEY CAN ASK HIM WHATEVER THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM, IF HE IS ABLE TO ANSWER SUCH A QUESTION.

>> OKAY. >> AND I CAN MARK THIS -- I HAD A COPY HEADED TO ME. I WILL MARK THIS AS RESPONDENT EXHIBIT SIX, AND NO OBJECTION TO IT BEING MOVED IN.

>> MR. BENTON, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A QUITE INVOLVED

[02:40:01]

>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS THAT WAS IN PLACE,

BETWEEN 2011 AND EARLY 2018. >> WERE YOU, IN FACT, INVOLVED AS KIND OF ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THIS PROCESS?

>> NOT OF THE PROCESS, ITSELF. IT IS MY RECOLLECTION THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, MAYBE SINCE 1981, HAS HAD A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, WHICH IS COMMON WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AS FAR AS VACATION RENTAL PETITIONS, I DID MANAGE A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION OR TWO AT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, PERTAINING TO SHORT-TERM STAYS.

>> NOW, I DID EXPECT WHEN I SUBPOENAED YOU THAT YOU WOULD TAKE US THROUGH HOW INVOLVED AND ARDUOUS THIS PROCESS WAS.

BUT, I THINK WE HAVE BROUGHT THAT OUT FROM OTHER WITNESSES.

BUT, UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THAT PROCESS BY AN APPLICANT, WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE, WOULD IT BROUGHT BELONG TO THE OWNER, OR RUN WITH THE PROPERTY?

>> BEEP BEEP -- BEFORE REVIEWING THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE'S CODE, I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE CITY'S CODE, UNDER LICENSURE, OUR BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS. I CAN SPEAK TO THE COUNTIES PROCESS THAT I

IMPLEMENT ON A DAILY BASIS. >> SINCE MOVING FROM THE CITY TO THE COUNTY, DID YOU ENCOUNTER ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE COUNTIES PROCESS?

>> IN WHEN COMPARING THE PUBLIC'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING INVOLVED IN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND THE APPLICATION OF REASONABLE STANDARDS, I WOULD ADVISE THAT THE PROCESSES HAVE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES. HOWEVER, HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN, THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS AND DISSIMILARITIES, IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW THE COUNTY'S CODE SPEAKS TO THE PROCESS IN WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE IS ISSUED TO THE OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR, AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS, IF IT IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED. BUT, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT CONDITIONS THE CITY CONDITION MAY APPLY, AND

ANY PARTICULAR CHANGES. >> IF SOMEONE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE CITY'S PROCESS, BACK IN THE TIME THAT YOU ARE WITH THE CITY, IF SOMEONE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THAT PROCESS AND REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE, IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD THEY BE GRANDFATHERED IN FOR ANY NEW ORDINANCE, CREATING A NEW REGIME FOR REGISTRATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES?

>> I DON'T THINK I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW ORDINANCES AND THE APPLICABLE STATE LAWS, AS TO HOW NEW LAWS AND ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY. DURING THE TIME WHEN APPLICATIONS WERE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COMMISSION, AN APPROVAL OR DENIAL LETTER WAS AUTHORED BY THE CITY CLERK, ADVISED US TO ANY CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME REASONABLY APPLIED. AND THEN FROM THERE, THERE WERE OTHER STEPS THAT AN APPLICANT NEEDED TO FOLLOW. BUT, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY CHANGES OF COUNTY ORDINANCE, OR HOW THINGS WERE MANAGED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, AFTER AN APPLICATION WAS PROCESSED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I WAS HANDED OFF, AFTER THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING.

>> DO YOU RECALL IN YOUR YEARS WITH THE CITY, AN ISSUE ARISING WITH A 2013 ORDINANCE, WITH AN ERROR THAT THE CITY TRIED TO AMEND THE COUPLE TIMES IN 2016, AND 2018, TO CORRECT A

[02:45:02]

>> I DO RECALL THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE USE TABLE

ADOPTION. YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THE ISSUE WITH

THAT? >> MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IN 2013, AFTER A SERIES OF EFFORTS BY THE CITY TO COMPREHENSIVELY REWRITE THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEY BROUGHT FORWARD ONE SMALL ASPECT OF THAT, WHICH WOULD CONSOLIDATE LISTS OF USES INTO A MORE USER-FRIENDLY TABLE OR MATRIX THAT WOULD CARRY A SERIES OF P'S FOR COMMITTED USES, C IS FOR CONDITIONED USES, AND DASHES FOR EITHER PROHIBITED OR USE IS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT. I RECALL THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN ERROR IN TRANSCRIPT AND, WHERE THE P'S AND DASHES WOULD BE ENTERED, AFTER THAT WAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT, THE CITY INITIATED

ADJUSTMENTS TO CORRECT THAT. >> AND DID THIS -- IF THIS HAD NOT -- DID THIS HAVE AN ISSUE OF PUTTING THE CITY IN DANGER OF LOSING HOME RULE, UNDER A STATE STATUTE OF

PREEMPTION? >> I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT COMPONENT OF IT. I KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATED MATTERS AT THAT LEVEL, AS TO WHETHER AN ORDINANCE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, THE CITY COMMISSION, ALIGNED WITH OR CONFLICTED WITH

FLORIDA STATUTES. >> WAS THIS 2013 TABLE IN WHICH THERE WAS ALLEGEDLY AN AND SCRIVENER ERROR, WAS THERE A PARTICULAR CLASS OF PEOPLE THAT THAT SCRIVENER ERROR

ADVERSELY AFFECTED? >> MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSITION FROM THE LIST TO THE TAPER, AND PRIMARILY LOOKED AT, THE OLD LIST LOOKED AT THE R1 AND R2 ZONING DISTRICTS, IS MY RECOLLECTION. SO, I THINK IT RELATED TO THE ACCURACY OR MAYBE AN INVERSION OF HOW THE CITY WAS HANDLING

THE R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS. >> SO, IT WAS A GEOGRAPHICAL -- IT AFFECTED A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, AS OPPOSED TO A CLASS?

>> THE CITY MAINTAINS, LIKE MANY MUNICIPALITIES, ZONING DISTRICTS. THEY DO APPLY TO REGIONS, BUT THERE IS THE ABILITY TO AMEND AND MODIFY A ZONING OUTLOOK OR ZONING MAP.

THE R1 AND R2 ARE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS, IF YOU WILL, OR CATEGORIES. IT COULD BE ON THE MAIN ONE, IT COULD BE ON

HUTCHINSON ISLAND. >> TO THE 2013 ORDINANCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARGUABLY REPEAL A 2007 ARRANGEMENT?

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THE USE TABLE ITSELF WAS INTENDED TO APPEAL PRIOR ORDINANCES. I THINK THE CITY'S INITIAL ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS MAY HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO 2007, AND IN THE 2001 AND 2003 RANGE. BUT, THE USE TABLE ITSELF WAS INTENDED TO BE A CONSOLIDATED, USER-FRIENDLY LIST OF USES THAT BROUGHT ALL THE CITY ZONING DISTRICTS TOGETHER IN ONE CHART. ALL THE USES TOGETHER IN ONE CHART. SO, I'M NOT SURE HOW IT WOULD CORRELATE SPECIFICALLY WITH AN ORDINANCE IN 2007.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHY IT TOOK THEM FIVE YEARS TO CORRECT THE

SCRIVENER'S ERROR? >> I DO NOT KNOW.

>> YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS RESULTED IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE LOSING HOME RULE?

>> I DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION. I DO NOT BELIEVE I WAS WITH THE CITY AT THE TIME, THAT A LOT OF THAT DISCUSSION UNFOLDED.

>> 2013 TWO 2018? >> DURING MY TIME WITH THE

[02:50:07]

RENTALS. >> I'M HANDING YOU A DOCUMENT -- ARE YOU ABLE TO IDENTIFY THIS DOCUMENT?

>> YES, SIR. IT IS ORDINANCE 16-108, SCRIVENER'S ERROR, CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN CLASSIFICATION OF DWELLING RENTALS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE USE TABLE

THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED. >> WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT

AS A MEMO? >> THIS IS A COVERSHEET TO A MEMO. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD THEN FURTHER PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS A COMBINATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE IDEAS FROM THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THEN MOST LIKELY THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WAS BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> DID YOU PREPARE THAT DOCUMENT?

>> IT SURE LOOKS LIKE IT. YES.

>> WERE ALL THE OTHER DOCUMENTS BELOW ATTACHMENTS TO IT?

>> YES. THE CITY, AT LEAST AT THE TIME, UTILIZED AN ONLINE PLATFORM FOR AGENDA SOFTWARE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC, PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE OFFICIALS WITH THE CONCEPT OF AN AGENDA PACKET. IN THIS INSTANCE, IT LOOKED LIKE IT CONTAINED A STAFF REPORT, A DRAFT ORDINANCE, STAFF REPORT AND ACCOMPANYING BOARD RENDITION, PRE-2011 ORDINANCE HISTORY, AND THE USE TABLE ORDINANCE.

>> ALL RIGHT, I WOULD MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE, AS RESPONDENTS

SEVEN, I THINK WE ARE UP TO? >> IF I COULD JUST HAVE A MOMENT TO SCAN THROUGH WHAT THIS SAYS. IF I CAN CLARIFY WITH COUNSEL, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU, OR MAYBE YOUR CLIENT, PRINTED OFF THE AGENDA ITEM IN THE ATTACHMENTS FROM THE CITY'S WEBSITE. IS THAT WHAT I AM LOOKING AT? OR, DO YOU KNOW?

>> HERE. >> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

BUT, MR. BENTON, YOU RECOGNIZE THIS AS YOUR WORK PRODUCT WITH ATTACHMENTS, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ASSEMBLED?

>> YES. IT DOES APPEAR LIKELY.

>> RIGHT HERE, IT'S IS RESPONSIBLE STAFF, COREY

BENTON, SENIOR PLANNER. >> YES.

>> WHAT NUMBER WAS THIS? I APOLOGIZE.

>> I BELIEVE, SEVEN. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE?

>> YES. >> I WILL NOTE SOME OF THE SPECIAL CONTENTS APPEARED TO BE MORE DRAFT WORK PRODUCTS, THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE FINAL AGENDA PACKET, BUT MORE ON THE RESEARCH AND PREPARATION PHASE. I'M NOT SURE WE WOULD HAVE

[02:55:06]

>> AND I DID NOTE THOSE AS I WAS GOING THROUGH, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I ASSUME THESE WERE OBTAINED THROUGH A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, WHICH DEPENDING ON IF A DRAFT WAS SHARED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC RECORD AND WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED. SO EVEN A DRAFT WOULD BE PUBLIC RECORD. I BELIEVE YOU CAN REVIEW THEM FOR THE BASIS OF WHICH THEY

HAVE WEIGHT. >> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR.

>> IF I COULD JUST HAVE A MINUTE?

>> YOU KNOW HOW MANY APPLICATIONS YOU HAVE WORKED ON, BY WORKING AT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

>> I ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY A HANDFUL. THERE WERE TWO IN PARTICULAR THAT I RECALL, MOST NOTABLY --

>> WOULD YOU SAY A HANDFUL IS ABOUT FIVE?

>> YES. >> AND TWO RECALL IN PARTICULAR, ARE THOSE, BY ANY CHANCE, TWO THAT WERE DENIED?

>> I DO RECALL ONE THAT WAS DENIED AT 2025 SOUTH OCEAN, OR APPROXIMATELY THAT ADDRESS. AND THEN, ONE THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE R4A DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH OCEAN. ABA MS. KELLY? I RECALL THE PROPERTY HAD A LOT OF COVERAGE OUTSIDE OF THE DUNE AREA. I RECALL WORKING WITH HER

CLOSELY. >> THIS COPY OF THE EXHIBIT IN FRONT OF YOU HAS PLACES WHERE THERE ARE THINGS IN RED.

>> YES. >> AND WHAT DO THOSE REPRESENT? NOTES. WHEN, AS A STAFF MEMBER, WHEN YOU ARE REVIEWING

[03:00:05]

>> WITH THOSE HAVE BEEN MADE BY YOU?

>> I WOULD SAY PREDOMINANTLY, AND LESS SHARED WITH OTHER TEAM MEMBERS. OFTEN TIMES, YOU WOULD HAVE A COLLABORATIVE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS COULD ADD NOTES, IF THEY WANTED YOU TO LOOK AT MORE INFORMATION, FOR MORE ANALYSIS.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU IN PARTICULAR ABOUT ONE RED NOTE THAT I SEE. THIS IS DATED OCTOBER 23RD, 2013, DOCUMENT TO ROBERT BRADSHAW, CITY MANAGER. THERE IS A SQUARE NOTE THERE, AND IT ENDS -- IT KIND OF HAS LIKE, AN UNCOMPLETED THOUGHT. IT SAYS, NEED TO FIND MINUTES TO DETERMINE WHETHER -- AND THEN IT ENDS. AND THEN I AM WONDERING IF YOU WERE ABLE TO TELL US IF THAT WAS YOU, AND IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SAY WHAT THOUGHT YOU HAD THAT WASN'T

COMPLETED IN THAT NOTATION. >> I CAN'T RECOLLECT. IT HAS PROBABLY BEEN SIX OR SEVEN YEARS SINCE THIS WAS AUTHORED.

BUT, THE NOTES SAY OCTOBER 13TH, 2013, CONFERENCE AGENDA, VERSION REVIEWED BY CITY COMMISSION, PRESENTED THE APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION OF P/C/ USE CODIFICATION FOR THIS CATEGORY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO TRACK DOWN -- WELL, TO REVIEW WHETHER THERE IS LEGISLATIVE INTENT, OR DIRECTION, OR ANY FINDINGS THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A CHANGE OR MORE

TRANSCRIPTION. >> DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU WENT ON TO FIND THOSE MINUTES?

>> I CAN'T RECALL. I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY RECORDED MINUTES FROM CONFERENCE AGENDAS. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE VIDEOED. WE MAY HAVE AUDIO.

>> DO YOU RECALL A TENT HOLLANDER HAVING A LAWSUIT

OVER DENIAL? >> I DO RECALL.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I AM GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS POINT, TOO. CONDITIONAL USE OF APPROVALS FOR UNRELATED

PROPERTIES, TO RELEVANCE. >> SUSTAINED.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MR. BENTON. THANK YOU

FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE TIME.

>> COUNSEL, CAN HE BE EXCUSED? HE WAS UNDER YOUR SUBPOENA.

>> YES, HE CAN BE EXCUSED. THANK YOU, MR. BENTON. WE WOULD, AT THIS TIME, LIKE TO CALL ALICIA ROSENTHAL.

>> CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME?

>> ALICIA ROSENTHAL. >> I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE EARLIER WHEN PEOPLE TOOK AN OATH. DID YOU TAKE AN OATH?

>> YES, I DID. SO, I WILL ASK YOU TO LOOK AT A SPREADSHEET,

[03:05:04]

>> YES, I CAN. >> YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS,

RIGHT? >> YES.

>> THERE IS ACTUALLY A BLOWUP OF THIS IF IT IS EASIER TO LOOK AT, SO, LET ME -- IN ANY EVENT, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THIS IS? THE SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTALS.

>> DID YOU CREATE THIS? >> YES, I DID.

>> WHO IS YOUR EMPLOYER, AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

>> CITY OF FORT PIERCE, I AM THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANIZER. >> AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD

THAT POSITION? >> I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY

FOR 10 YEARS. >> ALWAYS IN THE SAME CAPACITY? THE SYSTEM, THEN DEVELOPMENT THE SYSTEM, THEN PLANNING ORGANIZER AND I HAVE BEEN DOING THAT ABOUT TWO YEARS.

>> WHAT DID YOU CREATE THIS SPREADSHEET?

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER. >> AND WHAT DID THIS SPREADSHEET INFORM US OF? WHAT DOES IT TELL US?

>> IT IS A LIST OF ALL THE VACATION AND DWELLING RENTALS

SINCE 2015. >> IT SHOWS US -- THERE IS A COLUMN, DENIAL DATE, FOR THE ONES THAT WERE DENIED?

>> YES. >> AND THE NAME OF THE PLAN ARE

INVOLVED? >> YES.

>> AND THERE IS AN APPLICATION CALM, AND FOR EVERYONE, IT SAYS

CONDITIONAL USE? >> CORRECT.

>> AND IF YOU COULD JUST, FOR THE ADDRESSES, IF YOU COULD JUST SKIM THROUGH THAT, AND C, IS THERE ONE FOR 715 SOUTH

OCEAN DRIVE, UNIT D? >> YES.

>> AND DOES THAT REFLECT AN APPROVAL?

>> YES. >> AND THEN, I THINK THE LAST -- OKAY, A LITTLE BIT BELOW THAT AT SOME POINT, THERE IS 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT L.

>> YES. >> THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED?

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT, WE MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS RESPONDENTS NUMBER, I THINK EIGHT?

>> I HAVE NO OBJECTION, IF YOU WANT TO --

>> OKAY. >> DO YOU NEED IT BACK?

>> NO, NO. I DON'T NEED IT BACK.

>> ALL RIGHT. I HANOTHING FURTHER, AT THIS TIME.

>> I DON'T THINK IT WAS ADMITTED, YET.

>> OH, I'M SORRY. YES, THIS IS RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT EIGHT. I

WILL ENTER IT INTO EVIDENCE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. JUST A BRIEF COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WAS THIS RELATED TO TRACKING PROPERTIES UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS?

>> YES. >> AND IT INCLUDES AN

EXPIRATION DATE? >> YES. IT --

>> IS THAT AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE CONDITION APPROVAL? OR, WHAT IS THE RESTORATION DATE THAT IS ON THERE, IF YOU KNOW?

OR, REMEMBER? >> THE EXPIRATION DATE IS FOR

THE CONDITIONAL USE. >> AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPROVALS LASTED A YEAR, ACCORDING TO THIS CHART?

>> YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN WE SAY "EXPIRATION DATE," IS THAT

[03:10:02]

>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. >> SO, IT IS NOT LIKE THE CONDITIONAL USE, ONCE IT IS APPROVED, THEY DON'T END IN A

YEAR? >> THANK YOU FOR THAT

CLARIFICATION. >> OKAY, I GUESS I AM CONFUSED, THEN, BECAUSE THE EXPIRATION DATE IS A YEAR FROM THE APPROVAL DATE. SO, I ASSUMED THE APPROVAL DATE WAS THE DATE COMMISSION APPROVED THEIR CONDITIONAL USE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, THE EXPIRATION DATE

WOULD BE ONE WHAT EXPIRES? >> SO, THEY HAVE TO ENACT WHATEVER THE CONDITIONAL USE WAS FOR. SO, THE CONDITIONAL USE IS FOR DWELLING RENTAL, OR VACATION RENTAL. THEY HAVE TO

START THAT PROCESS. >> SO, THEY HAD A YEAR TO DO THAT AND COMPLY WITH ANY CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED ON

THEIR APPROVAL? >> EXACTLY.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> SO, JUST TO MAKE THAT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, THE EXPIRATION DATE IS NOT THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE, BUT IT IS THE DUE DATE BY WHICH THEY MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE

CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL? >> CORRECT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT

WOULD EXPIRE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NOTHING FURTHER, AT THIS TIME.

>> ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE HALLWAY.

>> WE WILL, AT THIS TIME, CALL MR. GUS FORD.

>> YES, SIR. YOU CAN SIT, OR YOU CAN STAND AT THE PODIUM.

WHICHEVER YOU PREFER. ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE FREEZING. I AM SNIFFLING FROM THE COLD.

>> I HAVE A SUIT COAT ON AND I AM A LITTLE COLD. THAT KEEPS US

ALL AWAKE. >> HE PROBABLY WAS NOT SWORN IN

EARLIER. DID YOU SWEAR? >> NO.

>> MADAM CLERK CAN SWEAR YOU IN. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> I'M SORRY? >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> GUS FORD. >> DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU START QUESTIONING, CAN WE HAVE YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, PLEASE?

>> F-O-R-T. >> MR. FORD, ARE YOU A UNIT OWNER, AT 715, SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE?

>> I AM. >> WHICH UNIT DO YOU OWN?

>> I OWN UNIT F AND I. >> F AND I. ARE YOU ALSO PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION?

>> I AM. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED YOUR

UNITS? >> I BOUGHT THEM IN EITHER 2014

OR 2015. >> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A LENGTHY, AND EXPENSIVE, AND DIFFICULT PROCESS THAT YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH BACK IN THAT PERIOD, TO BE APPROVED FOR SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS. DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT

PROCESS? >> CONDITIONAL USE?

>> YEAH, YES. DID YOU HAVE HELP GETTING THROUGH THAT

PROCESS, FROM SOMEONE? >> YEAH. I ASKED MICHELLE, I ASKED TIFFANY, I ASKED -- YEAH, A COUPLE PEOPLE.

>> DID, IN FACT, MICHELLE 1G, AND H DO DO THAT WHOLE

APPLICATION FOR YOU? >> NO, NO.

>> ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. >> SURE.

>> BUT, SHE DID HELP PROVIDE HELP FOR THAT APPLICATION, IS

THAT CORRECT? >> I HAD QUESTIONS, YEAH. I HAD QUESTIONS OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT DID IT. YEAH.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOTHING FURTHER.

>> OKAY, JUST BRIEFLY. MR. FORT, AFTER YOU DID THE

[03:15:08]

REGISTRATION? >> YES.

>> DID YOU REGISTER YOUR PROPERTY ACCORDING TO CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS? THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

>> AM I DONE? >> ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.

>> SURE. >> MR. FORT, AT THE TIME THAT THIS NEW ORDINANCE THAT SHE JUST ASKED YOU ABOUT WHERE YOU HAD TO REGISTER, AT THE TIME THAT ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, DID YOU OBTAIN LEGAL COUNSEL TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY IN

OPPOSITION TO THAT? >> THEY HAD BEEN DISCUSSING TOGETHER TO DO IT. BUT, I MEAN, IT WAS -- I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN ALL OF THAT. THE GROUP TO TALK TO SOMEBODY, AND IN TIME, WE DECIDED NOT TO DO IT.

>> DID YOU NOT GIVE A CHECK TO TIFFANY, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT

EFFORT? >> I DID.

>> YOU DID? OKAY. HOW MUCH DID YOU CONTRIBUTE?

>> I DON'T RECALL. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, THANK

YOU, SIR. NOTHING FURTHER. >> JUST BRIEFLY, AM I CORRECT IN MY BELIEF THAT THE OPPOSITION YOU EXISTED, YOU MENTIONED TIFFANY, WAS YOUR GROUP OPPOSITION RELATED TO THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUE THAT YOU BELIEVE AT THE TIME, THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT RELATED TO GRANDFATHERING? WHY I'M ASKING THAT IS, WITH THAT ARGUED TO THE CITY WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE

ORDINANCE? >> I DON'T THINK IT EVER WENT

THAT FAR. >> OKAY.

>> I MEAN, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, BUT I MEAN, WE NEVER SUED, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> SO, I WAS REFERRING TO PUBLIC COMMENT, WHEN THE ORDINANCES ARE ADOPTED, PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND THEY HAVE THE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ORDINANCE. DID YOU ATTEND ANY

OF THOSE? >> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> OKAY, THAT IS FAIR. THANK YOU.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY RESPONSE FROM THE CITY, WRITTEN BY AN ATTORNEY, THAT YOU CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO

TIFFANY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN? >> I DON'T RECALL.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. NOTHING FURTHER.

>> HE WAS HERE AS A SPECTATOR. IF YOU ARE DONE, I ASKED THAT HE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN THE CHAMBER IS, IF HE WANTS TO.

>> ARE Y'ALL GOING TO CUT THE HEAT OFF?

>> I, UNFORTUNATELY, DO NOT CONTROL THAT, BUT YOU ARE FREE TO STAY HERE, YOU ARE FREE TO GO OUTSIDE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS WARMER OUTSIDE, I HAVE NOT BEEN OUT THERE TODAY. YES, SIR.

RESPONDENT HAS NO FURTHER EVIDENCE. WE JUST HAVE SOME LEGAL ARGUMENT AND SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT, WHICH I COULD DO AS A CLOSING. BUT, WE ARE THROUGH PRESENTING

EVIDENCE. >> SO, THE ONE REBUTTAL OF THE WITNESS I HAVE, IS GOING TO BE THE CITY CLERK. IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU ARE WILLING TO STIPULATE TO, WHICH IS EVIDENCE RELATED TO MS. LONGARZO AND HER HUSBAND APPEARING FOR BOTH LEGISLATIVE READINGS OF ORDINANCE 21-09, AND ACTUALLY SPEAKING AT PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THOSE ORDINANCES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO STIPULATE THAT SHE DID APPEAR AND VOICE HER

OPINIONS? >> SHE HAS TESTIFIED THAT SHE APPEARED BUT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR MORE THAN A COUPLE MINUTES. SO, WE WILL STIPULATE TO THAT.

>> THAT SHE DID HAVE HER THREE MINUTES?

>> YEAH, I THINK SHE SAID THREE MINUTES. SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK FOR MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.

>> RIGHT. AND THAT'S -- DO YOU AGREE THAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT

EVERYONE IS PERMITTED? >> WE DON'T STIPULATE TO THAT.

>> SO, IF I COULD JUST HAVE ONE SECOND, I WILL EMAIL MS. COX TO

COME BACK DOWN. >> ALL RIGHT. WE MAY HAVE A REBUTTAL CASE THROUGH MS. LONGARZO AFTER THIS.

>> OKAY, MEANING YOU MAY RECALL?

>> YEAH, WE MAY RECALL HER FOR REBUTTAL.

[03:20:02]

>> I WILL TELL YOU THE TESTIMONY I AM GOING TO ELICIT IS RELATED TO -- SO, YOU HAVE STIPULATED THAT SHE DID APPEAR AND DID SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, BUT WAS ONLY ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. SO, WHAT I WILL BE LISTENING FOR FROM MS. COX, IS THAT THOSE ARE THE RULES, THREE MINUTES. SO, WHILE SHE IS COMING DOWN, IF YOU WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THAT -- AND WE COULD DO IT OUT OF ORDER, I HAVE NO OBJECTION, JUST TO FILL THE TIME -- IF THERE IS SOMETHING.

OR, YOU COULD WAIT. WHATEVER IS YOUR PREFERENCE. OH, SHE ACTUALLY JUST MESSAGE ME THAT SHE IS OUTSIDE. YES, SIR. SO, WE -- GO AHEAD, AND WE WILL CALL LINDA COX.

>> ARE YOU STILL LINDA COX AND STILL CITY CLERK?

>> YES, MA'AM. CF1 O >> AND YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, JUST AS A REMINDER. THIS IS JUST KIND OF A PROCESS QUESTION. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS THAT COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR ADOPTING ORDINANCES. ARE YOU FAMILIAR

WITH THOSE? >> YES.

>> ARE THERE STANDARD PROCEDURES BY WHICH THOSE

HEARINGS ARE HELD? >> YES.

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE A TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> YES. >> IS THERE A SET AMOUNT BY ROLE OF THIS CITY, HOW LONG EACH PUBLIC COMMENT PERSON HAS

TO SPEAK? >> THREE MINUTES.

>> AND IS THAT FOR EVERY LEGISLATIVE HEARING THE CITY

ADOPTS? >> YES.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS , I GUESS LET ME CLARIFY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW. PUBLIC COMMENT, EXPLAIN

WHAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS? >> PUBLIC COMMENT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COME IN AND MAKE COMMENTS TO THE CITY COMMISSION ABOUT THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN FRONT OF THEM BEING CONSIDERED. IT IS JUST WHAT THEY SAY AND THE COMMISSION LISTENS.

>> THEY CAN VOICE OBJECTIONS, AGREEMENT, OR ANYTHING IN

BETWEEN? >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> MS. COX, IS THERE A DISTINCTION MADE, AS FAR AS PEOPLE COMING TO MAKE COMMENT? IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PEOPLE JUST FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND ACTUAL AFFECTED PARTIES, AS FAR AS HOW MUCH TIME THEY GET, AND OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT?

>> FOR A LEGISLATIVE HEARING, PUBLIC COMMENT IS THREE MINUTES. STAFF DOES MAKE A PRESENTATION. STAFFS PRESENTATIONS OUTLINING IT OR NOT LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

POSITION, RECEIVED TRAINING ON THINGS LIKE THE

QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS? >> WE DID A TRAINING FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION, AND I WAS PRESENT AT THAT TRAINING.

GIVEN BY SUSAN -- I CAN'T. THIS IS A HARD NAME TO SAY.

TREVATHAN? >> YES, SIR. I WAS.

>> AND DID YOU RECEIVE NOTES FROM THAT TRAINING?

>> LET ME GIVE YOU THIS COPY, BECAUSE --

>> I REMEMBER SEEING THE PICTURES OF THE SLIDES, THE OTHER INFORMATION BEHIND IT. I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T RECALL.

ATTENTION TO -- I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS COPY.

>> AND I WILL OBJECT TO HER TESTIFYING TO A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE. I THINK YOU COULD REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ON SOMETHING IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT I DON'T THINK SHE SHOULD BE TESTIFYING TO A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YET.

>> DOES IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, LOOKING AT THIS PAGE, AS FAR AS

[03:25:03]

>> THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A PART OF HER PRESENTATION. I'M NOT SURE. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT THE RULES WE ADOPTED.

>> OKAY. >> I WOULD MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING, CITY OF FORT PIERCE, MARCH 13TH, 2017.

>> THE CITY WOULD OBJECT PROPER AUTHENTICATION. THEY TRY NOT

TO. >> THAT IS SUSTAINED.

>> YOU CAN HAND THAT BACK. >> THE OBJECTION WAS SUSTAINED.

I'M SORRY, ISAAC. DO YOU WANT IT MARKED JUST FOR

IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES? >> JUST FOR IDENTIFICATION.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I HAVE MARKED IT RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT

NINE, I.D. PURPOSE ONLY. >> OKAY.

>> BUT, YOU DID RECEIVE TRAINING FROM MS. TREVARSON,

CORRECT? >> THE CITY COMMISSION RECEIVED

TRAINING FROM MS. TREVARSON. >> WERE YOU -- DID THE CITY TELL YOU TO FOLLOW HER TRAINING?

>> THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED

QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEDURES. >> IS THERE A PROCEDURE THAT SAYS NO ONE CAN TALK FOR MORE THAN THREE MINUTES? EVEN IF

THEY ARE AN AFFECTED PARTY? >> CAN I ASK YOU TO CLARIFY? ARE YOU REFERRING TO LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS, OR QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS? BECAUSE THOSE ARE DIFFERENT.

AND I FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS

HAPPENING. >> WELL, YOU COULD ANSWER BOTH WAYS. ARE YOU AWARE OF AN ORDINANCE OR OTHER ENACTED PROCEDURE THAT LIMITS EVERYONE, WHETHER THEY ARE AFFECTED OR NOT, TO ONLY THREE MINUTES? WHETHER IT IS FIRST ANSWER AS TO QUASIJUDICIAL, AND THEN AS TO LEGISLATIVE.

>> I NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR QUESTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

THAT IS NOT MAKING SENSE TO ME.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PROCEDURE ENACTED BY THE CITY, THAT LIMITS EVERYONE TO THREE MINUTES FOR A CAUSAL -- QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER THEY ARE AFFECT, OR

NOT? >> THE QUASIJUDICIAL, OR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. THERE ARE MOMENTS IN THIS PROCEDURES WITH , IF REQUESTED, CAN AFFORD

ADDITIONAL TIME. >> AND IN THE CASE OF LEGISLATIVE, ARE YOU AWARE OF PROCEDURES ENACTED BY THE CITY, THAT LIMITS ALL COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES, WHETHER SOMEONE IS AN AFFECTED PARTY, OR NOT?

>> THE CITY COMMISSION ALLOWS THREE MINUTES ONLY DURING LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS. FOR ANYONE -- FROM THE PUBLIC THAT

WISHES TO SPEAK. >> AND IF SOMEONE IS AN AFFECTED PARTY, CAN THEY REQUEST MORE THAN THREE

MINUTES? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOTHING FURTHER.

>> MADAM CLERK, CAN I CLARIFY? SORRY. WE HAVE TWO MADAM CLERKS IN CHAMBERS TODAY. I APOLOGIZE. IS IT SAFE TO SAY

[03:30:05]

>> YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> JUST ONE MORE THING. WERE YOU, AT ANY TIME, TELLING APPLICANTS TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS, AS FAR AS QUASIJUDICIAL

CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL? >> I TOLD INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHT. TO A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. I THINK IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES WHEN THESE PROCEDURES WERE ADOPTED. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS ME DOING IT AS MUCH AS IT WAS OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

>> NOTHING FURTHER. I THINK, FOR REAL, THIS TIME, YOU CAN GO BACK TO YOUR OFFICE FOR EIGHT MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOTHING FURTHER IN REBUTTAL.

SOME CLOSING STATEMENTS. >> JUST BRIEFED CLOSING ARGUMENT, I THINK THE EVIDENCE SPEAKS PRETTY CLEARLY FOR ITSELF. A FEW THINGS THAT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, RELATED TO THE FIRST LETTER SENT BY MR. OLDENOFF POINT THAT IN OF ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR GRANDFATHERING. IT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HIS CLIENTS HAD LEGAL REMEDIES TO PURSUE, HAD THEY BELIEVED THE ORDINANCE WAS IMPROPER, AND SUCH WAS NOT CHOSEN TO DO.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE -- IF WE COULD SCROLL BACK UP TO 22 MESS -- 22-506 SUBSECTION B, IT IS CLEAR THESE HAVE TO BE REGISTERED. YOU HAVE AMPLE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU THAT THEY ARE BEING USED AS A SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS. EVEN THE VIOLATOR HERSELF ACKNOWLEDGES. SO, FOR THAT REASON, WE ARE ASKING THAT THE PROPERTY BE FOUND IN VIOLATION. IT IS IN IRREVOCABLE VIOLATION. WE ARE ASKING FOR A $45,000 FINE, AND THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS IF WE CAN PULL THOSE UP FROM THE AGENDA ITEM. HERE WE GO. THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, FUTURE VRBO BE TERMINATED, ALL ADVERTISEMENTS BE REMOVED AND CANCELLATION PROVIDED TO THE CITY. AND NOTHING FURTHER.

>> MS. VANDERHORST IS REMINDING ME, THAT IS FOR BOTH D AND L.

>> YES, G AND L. SORRY, NOTHING FURTHER.

>> ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE CASE OF -- I WILL GIVE A COPY TO THE MAGISTRATE, AS WELL. THE CASE OF RALSTON VERSUS CITY OF KEY WEST, 8757 SECOND, 659. THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE WAS IN A SITUATION VERY SIMILAR TO MY CLIENT, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, OR TO PUT IT IN MORE PRECISE LEGAL TERMS, THAT THEY HAD A LEGAL, NONCONFORMING USE, WHICH IS WHAT GRANDFATHERING IS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PAGE RIGHT AFTER NOON IV OF THE OPINION, ON THE SECOND TO LAST PAGE, IN CONCLUSION, MS. RAULERSON ESTABLISHED THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS OF UNIT 271 CONSTITUTE A LAWFUL, NONCONFORMING USE. IT FOLLOWS THAT HER USE IS GRANDFATHERED IN, BECAUSE HER USE EXISTED LAWFULLY BEFORE THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS TOOK EFFECT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUBMIT THE CASE OF TOWN OF PALM BEACH. NOW, THIS

[03:35:09]

>> A BRIEF REBUTTAL? SPECIAL MINISTRY, THE CASE ON THE STATUTE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, I THINK THE MISUNDERSTANDING IS RELATED TO GRANDFATHERING. THESE ARE TALKING ABOUT ZONING CLASSIFICATION. THIS IS ZONING, GRANDFATHERING. THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IS A SEPARATE PROCESS UNRELATED TO ZONING.

[03:50:20]

>> IF THE GREEN CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE CODE

[03:50:30]

[03:50:32]

CITY HALL. >> AND FOR THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY, WAS NOTICE MAILED TO THE MERMAID SEASHORES LLC?

>> YES, AND EMAILED DIRECTLY TO MR. GUZIK, AS WELL.

>> AS WELL? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> ARE WE CONCLUDING?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.

>> THE EXHIBITS WERE PROVIDE THROUGH EMAIL.

>> I AM ENTITLED TO HAVE IT, SO I WANT A PHYSICAL COPY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.