Aug 15, 2024 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:11]

>> READY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF YOU ARE.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING OF 8/15/2024 IS 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 STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

>> THANK YOU. >> REMAIN STANDING IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY PLEASE. REMAIN STANDING IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE IS GOING TO BE THE

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

TRUTH. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE CASES THAT CAME INTO COMPLAINTS OR RESCHEDULE BEFORE THE HEARING WERE CASE 24-763 2802 U.S. SOUTH HIGHWAY 1.

[A. 24-536 1713 Bayshore Dr Cheshier, George Kevin Young]

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OUR FIRST CASE THIS MORNING WILL BE 6A 24-536, 713 BAYSHORE DRIVE. GEORGE CHESHIER IS THE

OWNER. >> THIS IS GEORGE CHESHIER.

>> HELLO. >> I AM A FAMILY MEMBER WHO

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR HIM . >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

>> ELLEN O'CONNOR. >> AND, MR. CHESHIER. DO YOU AUTHORIZE ELLEN TO SPEAK FOR YOU THIS MORNING?

>> YES. FOUR CASE NUMBER 24-536 , THE VIOLATION IS SBC 1051.

PERMIT REQUIRED. NO PERMIT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR FOR THIS WORK AT 1713 BAYSHORE DRIVE. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE DOCK PILINGS TO INSTALL WITHOUT A PERMIT. WITH THEIR CRUSTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS IF A VIOLATION EXISTS, THEY BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL AT LEAST 180 DAYS BEFORE THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, PLAY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS, AND COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER CONDITIONS IN THE ORDER AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE VIOLATION?

>> NO. >> WHAT IS HAPPENING?

>> SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. YOUNG, I HAVE FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FEBRUARY THE FIFTH THAT ARE DATED AND TIME

STAMPED. >> YES.

>> WERE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU?

>> THE DATE AND TIME STAMPS ARE. THE ONE THAT IS NOT WAS

TAKEN BY THE NEIGHBOR. >> ARE THE TIMESTAMPS ACCURATE AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU OBSERVED ON

THAT DATE? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. AND THE LAST PAGES A PHOTOGRAPHIC. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THAT PHOTO REPRESENTS AND WE RECEIVED THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

>> THE NEIGHBOR TOOK THEM SETTING THE FILINGS.

>> THE CITY MOVIES INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY'S

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> WOULD YOU, MRS. O'CONNOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> YES. BACK IN '05, WE WERE NOTIFIED OF A VIOLATION. I

[00:05:05]

THAT ACTIVITY ON THE STOCK WAS EXEMPT FROM DEP'S PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE IF THE DEP DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PERMIT FOR THE ALLEGED ACTIVITY, THEN THE CITY HAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE SAME ALLEGED ACTIVITY.

THE ALLEGED CHANGES MADE DID NOT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DOCK. THERE WAS NO DREDGING NECESSARY. IT DID NOT IMPEDE THE WATER FLOW. AND IT IS THE SOLE DOCK ON THE PROPERTY. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY DELETE OR WITHDRAW THIS VIOLATION OR STATE THE SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE LAW THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED. THE CITY HAS DONE NOTHING TO REBUT OR IMPEACH THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM IN APRIL. WE HAVE CONTACTED THEM SEVERAL TIMES JUST TRYING TO GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, AND WE NEVER DID. SO CAN I GIVE YOU EXHIBIT A.?

>> YOU MAY HAND IT TO ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WILL HANDED UP

TO THE PODIUM. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THEY EXHIBIT A THAT YOU HAVE HANDED IS A COPY OF AN EMAIL .

>> OKAY. SO FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR QUESTION, PILINGS DO THEY FALL UNDER THE CRITERIA BELOW? OKAY. SO IT IS A COPY WITH THE

EMAIL. >> YES. IT IS.

>> AND THIS IS A COPY OF AN EMAIL FROM HALEY OSBORNE AT

FLORIDADEP.GOV . >> YES.

>> THAT IS MY EMAIL ADDRESS. HELEN O'CONNOR.

>> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU ADMIT THAT THE PILINGS WERE INSTALLED AND YOU ADMIT THAT THE PILINGS WERE INSTALLED

WITHOUT A PERMIT. >> CORRECT.

>> AND YOUR ARGUMENT IS UNDER 403.813 YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO

HAVE A PERMIT. >> CORRECT.

>> ANY FURTHER TESTIMONY? >> NO. WELL, THE ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS DO YOU SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL CHARGE IS? BSC 105.1. ANY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT WHO INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT IN LARGE ALTER, REPAIR, MOVE, DEMOLISH, OR CHANGE THE OCCUPANCY OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR TO ERECT, INSTALL, ENLARGE, REMOVE, CONVERT, OR REPLACE ANY ELECTRICAL, GAS, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING SYSTEM, THE INSTALLATION OF WHICH IS REGULATED BY THIS CODE. ARE TO CAUSE ANY WORK TO BE DONE. THEY SHALL FIRST MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO APPLY TO THIS.

IT IS NOT THEIR PROPERTY. THEY DO NOT OWN THE WATERWAY. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A BUILDING CODE VIOLATION AS WELL. BUT, I AM GOING WITH THE EXEMPT. IT IS EXEMPT ANYWAY.

>> OKAY. I WILL ASK OUR DEPARTMENT HAD WHETHER THE BUILDING CODE APPLIES TO BUILDINGS, DOCS, AND WORKING

OUT ACTIVITIES. >> YES, MA'AM. PILINGS ARE STRUCTURES UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE THAT YOU APPLY TO STRUCTURAL LOAD REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS IN

[00:10:03]

>> AND NOT ONE PLACE COMES UP IN THE BUILDING CODE.

>> THEY DO. >> OH. I DON'T SEE IT. WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT YOUR LAND?

>> THERE IS REPAIRING AND RIGHTS THAT EXTEND THE OWNER'S

-- >> BUT THE OWNER HAS THE

RIGHTS. >> ALSO, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PERMITTING JURISDICTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO DOCS AND PILES.

THERE IS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WHICH YOU HAVE PROVIDED SOME EXEMPTIONS FOR. THEY DO ALLOW SOME EXEMPTIONS FOR DE MINIMIS WORK, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE PRIVATE BOAT DOCKS. THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS ALSO INVOLVED IN DOCS AND PILES AT TIMES. BUT THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS WITH THOSE AS WELL. BUT EVERY CITY AND COUNTY ALSO HAS REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING UNDER ENFORCEMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR DOCS AND PILES AND BOAT LIFTS. SO JUST BECAUSE IT IS EXEMPT FROM DEP DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.

>> WELL, IF DEP GIVES ME AN EXEMPTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR JOB, THESE PILINGS, YOU ARE STILL GOING TO WANT A BUILDING

PERMIT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO REFER 243813 WHICH WAS QUOTED

IN THIS EMAIL. >> CAN I JUST SAY , DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS EXHIBIT BEING ENTERED IN?

>> NO OBJECTION. >> OKAY.

>> THIS IS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT A.

>> I HAVE GOT A STICKER SOMEWHERE. HOLD ON.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> OKAY.

>> THERE WE GO. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT A, BECAUSE THEY WERE CALLED AN EXHIBIT A.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE RESPONDENT IS RELYING ON LANGUAGE AND FOR A 3.813, WHICH SAYS THE PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES. I CAN HAND YOU MY HIGHLIGHT AND COPY IF YOU LIKE.

BUT READING ALONG IN THAT PARAGRAPH, LET ME HAND THIS TO YOU. THERE IS A SEMICOLON, AND IT SAYS, HOWEVER, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION, THE SUB SECTION DOES NOT RELIEVE AN APPLICANT FROM REQUIRING PERMISSION TO USE OR OCCUPY LANDS OWNED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OR A WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ITS GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY CAPACITY OR, AND THIS IS A CRITICAL LANGUAGE, OR FROM COMPLYING WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS CHAPTER OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. I WILL ALSO HAND YOU, AND I HAVE A COPY FOR THE RESPONDENT, A COPY OF 1990 FLORIDA -- EXCUSE ME -- X. 1990 ATTORNEY GENERAL 104, AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO BUILD A DOCK AND NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS DOES A FLORIDA HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE DOCK LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION. AND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS YES.

>> WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THE DOCK. IT IS NOWHERE NEAR THE DOCK. IT IS NEAR IT BUT IT IS NOT A DOCK.

>> THE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE HISTORY OF FLORIDA LAW. IT IS UNPRECEDENTED.

>> OH. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

>> QUESTION. WAS THIS -- WAS ALL OF THIS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY? BEFORE THE CITY'S HEARING?

>> WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM SOMEBODY SAYING HE

WAS AN ATTORNEY, I BELIEVE . >> A FRIEND WHO WAS AN

ATTORNEY. >> AND I DON'T KNOW IF -- ASSUMING HE WAS AN ATTORNEY, I WOULD THINK HE COULD READ THE ENTIRE STATUTE WHICH CONTAINS THE EXCEPTIN WHICH ALLOWS

[00:15:01]

>> WITH THAT BEING YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE THAT YOU HAVE

THAT? >> FLORIDA STATE LAW.

>> SO AN ATTORNEY -- THE ATTORNEY --

>> THE ATTORNEY HAS DECLINED TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE. WE SENT HIM TWICE THE FORM SO HE COULD APPEAR AND HE CHOSE NOT TO.

>> IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF HE DID.

>> WHICH IS WHY WE DID NOT -- THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES NOT GIVE ADVICE. I WOULD HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH AN ATTORNEY BUT HE HAD NOT MADE AN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF MY

QUESTION. >> SO COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE RESPONDENT. HE WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME AFTER WE RECEIVE ALL THAT INFORMATION TO APPLY

FOR A PERMIT. >> IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER

NOW? >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION BECAUSE THE EMAIL YOU RECEIVED SAYS YOU ARE EXEMPT, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE DEPARTMENT WHO SENT YOU THE EMAIL SAYING YOU ARE EXEMPT ON THE EXEMPT YOU FROM THEIR REQUIREMENT. AND THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE JURISDICTION GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PERMIT AS

WELL. >> YOU KNOW, I ASKED SO MANY TIMES COULD YOU TELL ME WHERE IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE I HAVE VIOLATED AND I HAVE NEVER GOTTEN A SPECIFIC ANSWER.

NEVER. ALL I HAVE GOT THE NEWS THAT SAME THING THAT I READ YOU

WHICH REALLY DOES NOT APPLY. >> THIS CITY INTERPRETS ITS OWN ORDINANCES IS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THE CITY HAS ALWAYS REQUIRED PERMITS FOR DOCKING, PILING, OR WORKING OUT ACTIVITIES. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE LAND. AND IT IS DEFINITELY A STRUCTURE UNDER THE CODE.

>> IT IS A POLE STICKING OUT OF THE WATER AND I KNOW IT IS A

STRUCTURE. >> IT IS A STRUCTURE IN THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IS A THING.

>> I KNOW IT IS. IT IS FRUSTRATING, I AM SURE.

>> AND IT IS THE MINIMUS. WHAT ABOUT THE MINIMUS? I MEAN, WE DID NOT DO A BIG PROJECT. DOES IT NOT FALL UNDER THAT?

>> I DON'T THINK THAT ALLOWS --

>> IS MARRIED TO MINIMUS EXCEPTION TO WORKING OUT

ACTIVITIES? >> ONLY WITH THE DEP.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 90-37 ADDRESSES IT MORE SPECIFICALLY AND SAYS THAT THE MUNICIPALITY DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PERMIT.

>> THAT I NOT HAND ONE DOWN TO HER?

>> SO IT IS IN HERE. >> AND SHOULD BE. IT SHOULD SAY

-- >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HANDED TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> OKAY. WELL, I WILL READ IT SOMEDAY.

>> FORT LAUDERDALE.

>> A LOT OF THIS IS BUILDING A DOCK. A DOCK IS NOT WHAT IS

BUILT. >> I HAVE GOT IT UNDER NUMBER THREE WHERE THE CITY, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY OF WEST PALM, IT SAYS PROHIBITION OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO WHARF OUT TO NAVIGABLE WATERS MAY SUBJECT CITY LIABILITY , SUGGEST CONFRONTATION FOR TAKING SUCH RIGHTS.

>> PROHIBITION. >> THAT MEANS AND HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS NOT ALLOWING A DOCK AT ALL. NOT ALLOWING A

[00:20:06]

>> IT IS NOT A DOCK. >> I AM GOING TO ASK MY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. I AM GOING TO ASK INSPECTOR YOUNG HOW DID THIS ISSUE COME TO YOUR ATTENTION.

>> A COMPLAINT FROM A NEIGHBOR.

>> AND IS THE CITY OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE?

>> YES, THEY ARE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A PERMIT. I DO NOT KNOW THAT I NECESSARILY WOULD -- I

WOULD BE FRUSTRATED. >> YES. IT IS CRAZY.

>> IT IS NOT A DOCK. IT IS A POLE.

>> I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR --

>> MY NEIGHBOR IS AN IDIOT. REAL PROBLEM. THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. YOUNG FAMILY. DREAM HOME.

>> I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCE OF THIS. YOU ARE

MAKING YOUR ROLLING. >> I AM FINDING THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT GETTING THE PERMIT FROM THE CITY. YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO APPLY FOR IT.

>> OKAY. >> AND IF YOU DO NOT, YOU HAVE

THE 60 DAYS. >> WE ARE GOING TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. I JUST HAD ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND NO ONE

WOULD EVER -- >> I THINK THEY ARE VERY VALID QUESTIONS. YOU DO HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL FROM TODAY'S DECISION SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO DO THAT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> I AM SORRY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU PRONOUNCE THE FULL RULING. MA'AM? WE ARE NOT FINISHED.

THE CITY WAS REQUESTING FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT WOULD RESULT

IN A FINE. >> YES. I DID SAY THAT.

>> YOU ARE GOING TO FIND US, TOO?

>> NO. ONLY IF YOU DO NOT GET IT.

>> $100 A DAY AFTER THE 60 DAYS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6C, 24-719,

[C. 24-719 1102 S US Hwy 1 Jeff Biefun Holdings LLC Logan Winn]

>> YOU READY? >> WHEN YOU'RE READY.

>> ON MORNING. MY NAME IS LOGAN WINN. WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 24-CEVILLA NINE ON 1102 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1 1. THE CASE WAS INITIATED MARCH 21ST, 20.4. THE OWNER IS JEFF FAGER HOLDINGS LLC OF 15385 CORPORATE ROAD JUPITER, FLORIDA, 33478.

VIOLATIONS, FPC 120, PERMIT REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ROOFTOP AC UNITS. THE RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE CITY MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATORS BEGIN SINGING DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, AND APPROVAL FOR 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS CLOSE, APPLY WITH ALL OTHER CONDITIONS, AND ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE WAS A PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR ON

8/13/24. >> YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PHOTO?

>> ARE THEY DATE AND TIME STAMPED? DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION YOU HAVE OBSERVED ON THE DATES

THAT ARE STAMPED ON MARCH 21ST? >> YES, THEY DO.

>> AND WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS LAST PAGE WHICH APPEARS TO

BE A PRINTOUT FROM GOOGLE? >> THE LAST IS A COMPARISON OF THE OTHER TWO SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE OLD UNITS

VERSUS THE NEW UNIT. >> THANK YOU. THE CITY MOVES THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE IN THE CITY'S COMPOSITE

[00:25:07]

EXHIBIT 1. >> PHOTO SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY. AND YOU SAID THE

PERMIT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR? >> IT WAS JUST APPLIED FOR ON

THE 13TH. >> MONDAY, RIGHT?

>> ANYTHING ELSE, MR. WINN. SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY

YOURSELF? >> MY NAME IS RYAN WINN.

W-I-N-N-E. IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS GOING TO BE HANDLED PRIOR TO TODAY AND I WOULD NOT REALLY BE NEEDED.

>> THAT IS HAPPILY FINE. WERE YOU SWORN?

>> I WAS. >> YES.

>> AND I A FLORIDA LICENSED ATTORNEY?

>> YES, I AM. >> THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY IS THAT YOUR VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, ET CETERA. YOU HAVE HEARD THE RECOMMENDATION. DOES YOUR CLIENT AGREE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED AND IS THAT

ENOUGH FOR HIM TO CURE IT? >> THAT IS A LOADED QUESTION.

>> AHEAD ON PRESENT YOUR CASE THEN.

>> BEFORE WE GO THERE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR. THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO AND IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT WAS JUST A PERMIT NUMBER GENERATED UPON IT BEING APPLIED FOR IN THE PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED AND MAYBE THAT IS WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION WAS. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS A PERMIT NUMBER WHICH WAS ISSUED ON THE 14TH WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN

TUESDAY. >> I WILL ASK SEAN TO EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURE JUST A LITTLE BIT.

>> WHEN THE PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR, THAT IS WHEN THE NUMBER IS

FIRST ASSIGNED. >> OKAY. IT IS NOT NUMBER. IT IS LIKE A PERMIT APPLICATION PENDING NUMBER.

>> WHAT IS THE STATUS AT THIS TIME? IS IT IN REVIEW? THE PERMIT APPLICATION, IS IT CURRENTLY IN REVIEW? AND WAS IT A PROPER APPLICATION FOR THE TWO AC UNITS OR WHATEVER AC

UNITS? >> I CAN JUST PULL THE PERMIT UP. I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME ISSUE WITH THE PADDING OR THE CONCRETE PAD THAT NEEDED TO BE HONEST. THAT NEEDED SOME EXTRA ENGINEERING OR OPINIONS BEFORE THE APPLICATION, MAYBE. BUT IT SHOULD ALL BE IN. BUT I CAN PROBABLY SHORT-CIRCUIT. I THINK WE COULD STIPULATE THERE IS A VIOLATION. CAN WE GET 90 DAYS JUST BECAUSE WE ARE RELYING ON A THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTOR AND IT IS NOT THE CLIENT OR MYSELF ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK. JUST IN CASE THERE IS SOME EXTRA INFORMATION THAT IS NEEDED. I WOULD HATE TO HAVE MY CLIENT VIOLATED AND FIND BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR WAS NOT DOING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO QUICK ENOUGH.

>> WE DO HAVE A PROCEDURE FOR IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER. YOU CAN COME AND WITHIN THE TIME YOU CAN ASK FOR AN EXTENSION AND REQUEST AN EXTENSION. I WILL ASK THE DEPARTMENT IN A MOMENT. IF HE IS OKAY WITH A 90 OR IF HE

WANTS TO STICK WITH 60. >> THE STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO 90 DAYS. THERE IS A FEE THAT IS DUE ON THE PERMIT APPLICATION BEFORE THE REVIEW IS STARTED SO IT IS PENDING PAYMENT OF THE

FEES. >> WE GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF

TODAY. >> AND I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE VIOLATOR HAS 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT APPROVAL OF ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLIED WITH ANY OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS IN SURE-ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY WOULD BE ASSESSED AFTER THE 90 DAYS.

>> SOME HOUSEKEEPING. IS YOUR ADDRESS 1015 WEST INDIANTOWN.

MADAM CLERK? MADAM CLERK? IS IT SENT TO THE REGISTER AGENT AS

WELL AS THE OWNER? >> IT IS.

>> WHEN THE ORDER ISSUES, IT WILL BE SENT TO YOUR OFFICE AS

WELL. >> THANK YOU.

>> THERE IS A 30-DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL APPEAL AS WELL.

[D. 24-733 409 Cedar Place Unit A Cedar Place LLC Joel Smith]

[E. 24-734 409 Cedar Place Unit B Cedar Place LLC Joel Smith]

[F. 24-735 411 Cedar Place Unit A Cedar Place LLC Joel Smith]

[G. 24-736 411 Cedar Place Unit B Cedar Place LLC Joel Smith]

>> THANK YOU. >> I WAS GOING TO ADD THAT.

>> OKAY. THE NEXT CASE IS 6D 24-7 409 CEDAR PLACE UNIT A A.

[00:30:20]

CEDAR PLACE LLC IS THE OWNER. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH. I AM AN INVESTIGATOR/OWNER FOR THE FORT SMITH. WE HAVE 27- 43. THE CASE WAS INITIATED APRIL 1ST, 2024, AND THE OWNER IS CEDAR PLACE LLC AT 1860 SOUTHWEST MOUNTAIN VIEW BOULEVARD SUITE 100. VIOLATIONS, FPC 105.1. PERMIT REQUIRED. AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS, DOORS, NEW FRAMING SUBFLOOR, AND PLUMBING BEING DONE WITHOUT THE PERMIT. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY REQUESTS A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS IN THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AS OF NOW, THERE HAS BEEN A FULL DEMO PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR ON 8/11/2024. AND THAT IS KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AT.

>> IS THERE A RELATED CASE ON THIS AS WELL ON THIS UNIT?

>> YES. >> I AM SORRY. I AM LOOKING AT 411 CEDAR PLACE. SO THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR A UNIT.

>> YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> I DO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE

THE PHOTOS? >> NO. I AM FINE.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO THE PHOTOS -- AT THE TIME OF THE PHOTOS MY TIMESTAMP APP WAS NOT FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY.

BUT THEY WERE TAKEN BY ME. ON THE 26TH OF MARCH.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE CITY MOVES THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> THE PHOTOS PRESENTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT 1. >> HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE?

>> NO. PERSONALLY I HAVE NOT. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NO. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> I AM SORRY. I KNOW WHO YOU ARE BUT FOR THE RECORD WOULD

YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? >> MY NAME IS JOCK CHESTER. I AM THE REAL ESTATE BROKER. AND I AM ALSO THE NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION BY AGENT FOR CEDAR PLACE LLC. I ALSO RECEIVED NOTICE DOCUMENTS THAT I NEED TO SUBMIT TO YOU GUYS.

>> ARE THEY SIGNED AND READY? >> YES. SIGNED AND READY. ALSO, A CERTIFICATE OF COMPANY RESOLUTION.

>> PLEASE HAND THOSE TO THE CLERK. THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS JOCK CHESTER AND I AM AN ALLY TO THE CITY. ANY WHEN I AM WORKING WITH, THE MEMBERS OF BUILDING APARTMENT, I DO WHAT I CAN TO OPERATE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE STATE AND LOCAL STATUTE. THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN ITSELF IS JUST ONE OF THOSE UNFORTUNATE SITUATIONS WHERE THE OWNER WAS MISGUIDED BY HER CONTRACTOR. AND WHAT I BOUGHT WITH ME TODAY IS CONVERSATIONS BEFORE THE VIOLATIONS, DURING THE VIOLATIONS, AND AFTER THE VIOLATIONS WHERE SHE WAS CONTINUING TO BE STRUNG ALONG THINKING THERE WAS A PERMIT IN PLACE. IF IT IS POSSIBLE, MAY I USE THE CAMERAS AS AN EXHIBIT TO TRY TO IDENTIFY, AND I WILL TURN THIS IN FOR YOUR RECORDS

AS WELL. >> OKAY. IS THIS IN -- THERE IS A GUY IN THE BOOTH BACK THERE WHO DOES THE CAMERA.

>> THIS, HERE? >> SO THAT IS ALL. HERE WE GO.

>> OKAY. WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS A TEXT MESSAGE DIALOG.

[00:35:07]

>> WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS A BLUE BLOB, SO GIVE US A SECOND.

Ú>> INSIDE OF THIS TEXT MESSAGE DIALOG, YOU WILL SEE A NUMBER OF BLACK ITEMS, REDACTED INFORMATION. JUST AS IT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION. BUT IN THIS FIRST THREAD YOU WOULD SEE, IT IS FEBRUARY THE 10TH AT 1:05, WERE I AM GREETING THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS AS THEY ARRIVED.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING X CLIENT. WHEN ARE YOU COMING TO FORT

PIERCE? HE SAYS MONDAY. >> GO AHEAD AND LAY IT DOWN ON THE TABLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A CONVERSATION

BETWEEN YOU AND WHO? >> THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

>> WAS THE NAME? >> ROB WALLER.

>> WALL? >> WALLER.

>> IS THERE A COMPANY? >> I DO NOT KNOW THE NAME.

>> SUNRISE. SUNRISE CITY. >> FIRST, I HAVE A PROPERTY HERE IN FORT PIERCE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT IN 10 CLIENTS. HE AGREES. WHAT TIME IS GOOD FOR YOU? WE WENT ALONG TO SET UP A TIME, BUT THIS IS WHERE THE INITIAL INTRODUCTION TOOK PLACE. AND, AGAIN, THE VIOLATION TOOK PLACE IN MARCH

OF -- >> I BELIEVE THE 26TH OF MARCH.

>> MARCH 26TH. SO THIS IS FEBRUARY THE 10TH AND THE NEXT TEXT PERIOD IS MARCH THE 5TH. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ADDRESSES, 409 CEDAR PLACE. AND I SAY LET ME KNOW WHEN IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO JUMP ON A CALL TO DISCUSS CEDAR. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CLEAR PATHWAY TO FINISH OUT THIS PROJECT. ON MARCH 20TH, I FORWARD THE INFORMATION OF THE PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS OF 409 CEDAR AND 411 CEDAR, AND HE ALSO REPLIED RECEIVED. AND AT THE BOTTOM, YOU CAN SEE A CONVERSATION WHERE WE ARE STATING AT THE BOTTOM, SEAN, WHICH IS SEAN CONNOR, THE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL AND WINDOWS. SO WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THAT CONVERSATION AND HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION OF THIS PROJECT. AFTER THAT, WE MOVE ALONG WITH, HEY, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS FOR THE PERMITS? HE SAYS ALREADY APPLIED. TAKE A FEW DAYS FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS IT . HE SAYS, THANK

YOU, I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP. >> I AM SORRY. WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT ONE? THAT WAS MARCH 20 SOMETHING?

>> THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS MARCH 26TH SO THIS IS PRIOR TO. IT IS MARCH 25TH. AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT, THE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE INTO MARCH 26TH, AND I ASKED DID YOU RECEIVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS. AND THAT IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE FILE IS MOVING FORWARD. AND THEN HE SAYS -- THIS IS THE CONVERSATION BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THIS IS RELATED TO. HE SAYS A 90 DAY EXTENSION WAS GIVEN AND I TOLD HIM THAT. HE REPLIES, NICE. IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY STAFF. NOT WASTE YOUR TIME.

HOWEVER, AFTER THE VIOLATIONS TOOK PLACE AND AFTER WE DISCOVER THE VIOLATIONS, AGAIN, ACTUALLY AGAIN, AS I POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY IN THE EMAIL, IT SAYS ALL THE PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR. WE ARE JUST WAITING ON THE DATES OF THE BUILDER. THEN WE RECEIVED A STOP WORK ORDER HERE AT 411 AND 409, WHICH IS A TEXT PDF THAT I SENT OVER TO HIM . AND I SAID, GOOD MORNING, SIR. HERE ARE THE WORK ORDERS FROM JOEL, WHICH IS THE GENTLEMAN NEXT TO ME. HE SAYS, NICE. I WILL GET THE PERMIT APPLICATION THIS WEEKEND. AND, AGAIN, THE KIND OF THREW ME OFF BECAUSE ORIGINALLY HE STATED THE PERMITS WERE APPLIED. WHAT HAPPENED WAS REVIEWED THIS PARTICULAR FILE, THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED WERE ACTUALLY ROOF PERMITS. HIS PRIMARY TRADE IS A ROOFER. AND, AGAIN, THE OWNER WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PERMITS WERE PULLED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE FROM YOUR SIDE IN REGARDS TO THE TIMELINE, DEMO, AND ALL THAT STUFF HAD STARTED TO HAPPEN ALREADY. SO IT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION THAT THE WORK WAS BEING DONE, AND WE KNEW IT, AND

[00:40:01]

I HAVE THE PERMITS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU, SIR. THANKS, AGAIN.

ANYTHING THAT IS NOT REDACTED IS NOT GOING TO BE IN THAT PARTICULAR TRANSACTION FILE. I SAID, ONCE I GOT THE STOP WORK ORDER, ANOTHER CONVERSATION. THE STOP WORK ORDER IS DATED TWO OBTAIN A PERMIT. AND FUTURE DEMOLITIONS AND DEMOLITIONS TO BE DONE FOR THIS YOU. 409B STATES TO OBTAIN A UNIT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK AND SO FORTH. BUT, AGAIN, THIS IS US ARTICULATING TO HIM NOW THAT WE RECEIVED A STOP WORK ORDER THIS STUFF HAS TO BE DONE AGAIN AND HE REPLIES BACK, YES. THE PERMIT INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE ITEMS. AND, AGAIN, WE ARE HERE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. I REPLIED BACK, YOU ARE THE MAN. BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE ARE TRUSTING THAT THIS PERSON HAS GOTTEN TO THE PROCESS. AND HERE IS THE GUIDELINE IN A CONVERSATION LATER. HEY, FELLOWS. LET ME KNOW WHEN IT IS A GOOD TIME THAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU ALL TO JUMP ON THE PHONE TO DISCUSS CEDAR, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY. I WANT YOU TO HAVE A CLEAR PATHWAY TO FINISH OUT THIS PRODUCT. R.E.A.D. ACT INFORMATIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. FINALLY, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS WHERE THE CONVERSATIONS AND COMMUNICATION DO NOT SEEM TO -- YOU KNOW, I JUST HAD THAT GUT FEELING ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT. ON JUNE 4TH, THAT IS WHEN WE OFFICIALLY FIRED THEM AFTER NOTHING WAS REALLY DOWN.

GOOD MORNING. JUST SENDING YOU A TEXT MESSAGE TO CANCEL ANY AND ALL PROJECTS FOR FOR OUR NINE CEDAR AND FOR 11 CEDAR. SO I AM NOT DENYING THAT A VIOLATION IS IN PLACE. I AM JUST ASKING FOR LENIENCY FOR A NUMBER OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT STATES AND WE HAVE ALSO IDENTIFIED WHERE SEAN DID REQUEST THOSE PERMITS TO BE MADE SO IT WAS CLEAR FOR ALL PARTIES WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

IT WAS JUST AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND NOW WE ARE HERE

TODAY. >> DID YOU WANT TO PLACE THOSE

INTO ACTUAL EVIDENCE? >> THAT IS FINE.

>> WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL? >> FOR THE RECORD.

>> CALL THIS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1.

>> THERE WE GO. >> WE FOUND A NEW GENERAL CONTRACTOR WHO HAS INITIATED THE PROCESS TO PULL THE DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR BOTH 409 AND 411 CEDAR. RIGHT NOW, AS OF YESTERDAY, THEY PAID THE $10 FEE FOR THE FPOA. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE EXPECTING THE PERMITS TO BE COMPLETELY PULLED WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, POSSIBLY THREE. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS THE PROPER PLACE TO ADDRESS, BUT I KNOW THERE IS A PENALTY FOR APPLYING FOR A PERMIT AFTER YOU ARE CAUGHT WORKING WITHOUT A PERMIT. I BELIEVE THE FEES ARE DOUBLED. IS THAT CORRECT? I AM ALSO ASKING FOR LENIENCY TO SEE IF WE CANNOT PENALIZE THE SELLER FOR THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THEY WERE OPERATING THINKING THAT THE PERMITS WERE PULLED.

>> THAT PENALTY IS NOT REALLY PART OF THIS PROCEEDING. I WILL ASK SEAN TO ADDRESS THAT. WHEN AND HOW WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING

THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED? >> UNFORTUNATELY, NO. SO OUR FEE SCHEDULE IS ADOPTED BY A CITY ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION. WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIVE OR REDUCE THOSE FEES THAT ARE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE. IT DOES REQUIRE A DOUBLE PERMIT FEE WHEN WORK IS STARTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT. WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH YOU IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE STOP WORK ORDERS THAT WERE ISSUED THERE.

I COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND I MAY BE ABLE TO REDUCE SOME OF

THOSE. >> IF YOU COULD HELP, THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. IT WAS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THE SELLER OR THE OWNER THEMSELVES WERE ALMOST $30,000 INTO A PROJECT BEFORE THEY REALIZE THAT THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS LYING. SO ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO HELP REDUCE THOSE FEES WOULD

BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. >> AND JUST A QUESTION FOR YOU

[00:45:07]

>> YES. THEY ARE JUST GOING TO KNOCK IT DOWN COMPLETELY. AFTER THIS PROJECT, AFTER EVERYTHING THAT JUST HAPPENED, THEY WERE TOO MUCH INTO THEIR PROJECT FINANCIALLY. UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A PLACE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, AGAIN, JUST ONE MISSTEP CREATED THIS

PROBLEM TO BE A BIG ISSUE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THIS EXHIBIT, RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1 IS ENTERED INTO THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS

IN THE RECORD. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> OH, I HAVE THREE OTHER RELATED CASES. MAY WE CONTINUE WITH THOSE? UNIT A, SAME ADDRESS. UNIT B, I MEAN. 411. I THINK THEY ARE ALL BASICALLY TIED TOGETHER AND IT IS GOING

TO BE THE SAME RESPONSE. >> CORRECT. THESE ARE TWO PROPERTIES ON ONE PARCEL. SO IT IS ONE PROPERTY TAX I.D. THAT HAS TWO STRUCTURES ON THEM. THEN A DUPLEX. THAT IS WHY HE

HAS THREE DIFFERENT ADDRESSES. >> OKAY. SO THE TESTIMONY GIVEN IN 24-73 -- 24-733 THE PARTIES AGREE ALSO WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO 24-734, 24-735, AND 24-736, SO WE DO NOT NEED TO REDO ALL THAT TESTIMONY AGAIN IN THOSE CASES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

>> I JUST HAVE WON. WERE YOU REQUESTING -- THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING 60 DAYS TO REPLY.

>> THAT IS ALL RIGHT. WE DO NOT HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS HERE. I AM FINE WITH A 60-DAY OPPORTUNITY.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SUBMIT PICTURES FROM ALL OF THE CASES?

>> FOR HOUSEKEEPING, YEAH. LET'S PLACE THE EXHIBITS INTO EVIDENCE FOR 24-734, WHICH IS 409 CEDAR PLACE UNIT B.

>> I WILL HAND YOU THE PICTURES FOR CASE NUMBER 24-734 FIRST.

>> OKAY. THE CITY MOVE THESE PHOTOS INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 IN CASE NUMBER 24-734.

>> PHOTO SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT 1 FOR CASE 24-734. >> ALL RIGHT. AND, NOW, SUBMIT

THE PICTURES FOR 24-735. >> CASE NUMBER 24-735 , 411 CEDAR PLACE UNIT A, THE CITY MOVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTOS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 FOR CASE NUMBER 24-735.

>> AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST ARE THE PHOTOS FOR CASE 24-736 .

>> CASE NUMBER 24-736, 411 CEDAR PLACE UNIT B. THE CITY MOVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AT THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. PHOTOS PRESENTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 UNDER CASE 24-736.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THAT FOR ALL FOUR CASES, YOU ARE NOT

DISPUTING THE VIOLATION. >> CORRECT.

>> YOU ARE ASKING FOR LENIENCY AND TIME TO GET THIS DONE.

>> YES. >> STICK WITH THE RECOMMENDATION? 60 DAYS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST ON ALL FOUR -- FOUR CASES AND THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT, AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL INSPECTIONS. AT LEAST 180 DAYS

[00:50:02]

ANYTHING ELSE? >> I DON'T THINK SO. THAT IS THE PRONOUNCEMENTS FOR ALL FOUR CASES.

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

[I. 24-747 315 N 17th St D.O. Multiple Services LLC Joel Smith]

>> THE NEXT CASES 6I. 24-747, 315 NORTH 17TH STREET, AND D.O.

MULTIPLE SERVICES LLC IS THE OWNER.

>> WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH. WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 24-747 AT 315 NORTH 17TH STREET. AND THE CASE WAS INITIATED APRIL 2ND, 2024. THE OWNER IS D.O. MULTIPLE SERVICES LLC AT 2625 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA. VIOLATIONS, 105.1. PERMIT REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ROOF, FRAMING, DRYWALL, MECHANICAL WORK, AND BATHROOM REMODEL. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXIST AND THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. INSPECTIONS . AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 WILL BE ASSESSED PER DAY.

>> YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES, MA'AM. WOULD YOU LIKE

TO SEE THE PHOTOS? >> YES, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES, MA'AM. I PERSONALLY TOOK THOSE PHOTOS. ON JANUARY

26, 2024. >> ALL RIGHT. THE CITY MOVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

THE PHOTO SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY'S

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING

FURTHER TO ADD? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND TELL ME YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO

D.O. MULTIPLE SERVICES. >> MY NAME IS WILLIAM DOSENDALE

, A CONTRACTOR -- >> YOU ARE A CONTRACTOR? AND WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY?

>> HE JUST ASKED TO GET A PERMIT FOR THE JOB.

>> HE HIRED YOU? >> GET A PERMIT FOR THE JOB.

>> OKAY. >> BUT THE PERMIT THAT LEIPOLD, I SEE DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY NOW IS WAY DIFFERENT.

EVERYTHING WAS FINISHED COMPLETELY.

>> SO YOU ARE JUST HERE TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY. YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER TO REPRESENT THE OWNER AND GIVE TESTIMONY ON THE

OWNER'S BEHALF? >> OKAY. NO. WE JUST GOT A

CHECK FROM THEM. >> ALL RIGHT. THE CITY MOVED TO ACCEPT THIS WITNESS'S TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS , AND WE

[00:55:02]

>> IF WE CAN GET 60 DAYS TO GO AHEAD AND PULL OFF THE PERMIT

AND GET THE JOB DONE. >> THAT IS WHAT THE CITY IS ASKING AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. YOU DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

RIGHT? >> TO STAY RIGHT HERE. SHE IS GOING TO MAKE HER PRONOUNCEMENT. WE WILL MAIL THE ORDER BUT YOU CAN CARRY THAT BACK AND LET THEM KNOW.

>> OKAY. I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS IN THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMIT AND REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE-ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED, AND THE OWNER HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL IF THEY DECIDE TO DO SO.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6M. 24-787

[M. 24-787 2510 S Ocean Dr Piehole LLC Joel Smith]

>> HELLO. >> AND I GET YOUR NAME PLEASE?

>> HELLO. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RYAN EVANS. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2510 OCEAN DRIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE WADE WATSON WHO IS THE TENANT AT THE PROPERTY AND HAS PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY'S BEHALF.

>> OKAY. I HAVE THE OWNER AS PIEHOLE LLC. ARE YOU THE OWNER

OF THE -- >> I AM THE OWNER OF THE LAND.

I SOLD THE BUSINESS TO MR. WATSON HERE ABOUT A YEAR AND A

HALF AGO. >> YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PIEHOLE

IS -- >> OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

>> HE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. I AM THE OWNER OF THE

RESTAURANT. >> GOT IT. THANK YOU. WHEN YOU

ARE READY, MR. SMITH. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH. I AM INVESTIGATOR/BUILDING INSPECTOR WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 24-787 .

LOCATION, 2510 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, PIEHOLE LLC. THE CASE WAS INITIATED APRIL 4TH, 2024. THE OWNER IS PIEHOLE LLC, LOCATED AT 1718 COCONUT DRIVE, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

VIOLATIONS, SBC 5.1, PERMIT REQUIRED. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ACCESSORIES, STRUCTURES, INSTALL WITHOUT A PERMIT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TWO SHEDS, A SHIPPING CONTAINER, TWO TIKI STRUCTURES, AND DECKS. ALSO OBTAIN PERMITS FOR MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING INSTALLED FOR THESE STRUCTURES. RECOMMENDATION. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT AT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THAT VIOLATIONS EXIST, THE OWNER BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, AND OBTAIN APPROVAL AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER CONDITIONS. AND CURE ALL OTHER CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER. NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE OBSESSED. AS OF NOW, NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR. PAPERWORK WAS SUBMITTED FOR TIKI SHOWING THAT AN AUTHORIZED NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE BUILT IT, HOWEVER A PERMIT IS STILL REQUIRED FOR THOSE. I DO HAVE PICTURES.

WOULD YOU GUYS LIKE TO SEE THE PICTURES?

>> I THINK I HAVE ALREADY SEEN THEM.

>> I WILL SEE THE PICTURES.

>> ALL RIGHT. DO THESE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE HANDED ME ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT?

>> YES, MA'AM. I PERSONALLY TOOK THESE PICTURES ON MARCH

29TH OF 2024. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE CITY MOVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS

[01:00:01]

>> THE PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER OR

-- >> I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A WOMAN I BELIEVE TWO DAYS AGO THAT SHE HAS -- THAT THERE WERE SOME -- I GUESS -- FIGURING OUT WHO IS LIABLE WHETHER A LANDOWNER OR TENANT OR WHATEVER THEY ARE GOING TO DO. BUT THEY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND

START APPLYING FOR PERMITS. >> OKAY.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT WAS TOLD TO ME.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. SMITH?

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

>> MR. EVANS, MR. WATSON, WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> CAN YOU FREEZE ON THAT PICTURE?

>> THIS ONE? >> THAT IS WANT TO TALK ABOUT,

I THINK, AT LEAST. >> SO OUR CONFUSION ABOUT, I THINK, A LOT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT WAS THAT WE PURCHASED BUILDINGS THAT ARE MOBILE. THOUGH SHEDS ARE ACTUALLY RENTALS. WE COULD CALL AND GET THEM PICKED UP. THEY TAKE THEM OUT. SO IT IS NOT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT WAS INSTALLED. THAT IS THE SAME FOR THE SEA CONTAINER AND OUTGOING SHEDS. THEY WERE SHIPPED IN. THEY WERE BUILT IN MIAMI, I THINK. SO THAT WAS ONE THING. ON THE TV -- TIKI, THE ATTACHMENTS ARE RAILS . THERE BOLTED ONTO THE UPRIGHT, BUT THERE IS NO OTHER ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING ATTACHED TO THAT TIKI STRUCTURE OTHER THAN THOSE TWO ARE RAILS. THAT DOES IT. SPIVAK IS THE TIKI STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO A BUILDING?

>> NO. IT IS FREESTANDING AND BASICALLY THE TOP PITCH RIGHT THERE DRAINS ONTO THE ROOF BUT IT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE

BUILDING. >> IS THERE PLUMBING?

>> NO. >> IS THERE A LECTOR?

>> NO. >> OKAY.

>> YEAH. THAT IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF THOSE BAR RAILS.

>> YOU ARE SAYING RIGHT THERE? YEAH, SHAUN, USE YOUR CURSOR

AND SHOW US RIGHT THERE. >> THAT RIGHT THERE WAS THE

ADDITION. >> AND THOSE -- THOSE 4 X 4 POSTS ARE JUST SUPPORTING THE BAR RAIL. SO THIS IS JUST TO

SUPPORT THAT REAL. >> OKAY. SO THERE IS TWO TIKI STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> OKAY. SO LET US CALL THIS TIKI STRUCTURE NUMBER 1. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO SAY, SIR? AND LET US LOOK AT TIKI STRUCTURE NUMBER

2. >> THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY PICTURE RIGHT THERE. I MEAN, THERE WAS A DECK AND KIND OF STANDING ON IT UNDERNEATH IT.

>> THAT MIGHT BE A PICTURE FROM SOMEWHERE.

>> RIGHT IN BETWEEN THOSE PALM TREES RIGHT THERE. IT IS A 12

BY 12. >> IS NOT ATTACHED TO ANY

BUILDING? >> NO. IT IS FREESTANDING.

>> IS THERE ANY PLUMBING? >> NO PLUMBING. NO ELECTRICAL.

>> NO PLUMBING. NO ELECTRICAL.

>> MR. COSS, CAN YOU ADDRESS THE TIKI STRUCTURES?

>> YES, MA'AM. AS UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR TIKI HUTS. TIKI HUTS ARE PROVIDED A DESCRIPTION IN FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 102.2. ITEM H. I WILL HIGHLIGHT IT ON THIS GREEN. IT SAYS TIKI'S CONSTRUCTED BY THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA HAS USE. THE TERM TIKI MEANS A WOODEN HUT WITH A FAST ROOF OR OTHER TRADITIONAL MATERIALS AND DOES NOT INCORPORATE ANY ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, OR OTHER NON-WOOD FEATURES. SO GOING BACK TO THE PICTURES, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE STRING LIGHTS GOING FROM THIS TIKI GOING OVER TO THE OTHER TIKI. AS THE RESPONDENT'S ALREADY INDICATED, THE BAR ATTACHMENT TO THE TG. SO THESE DO NOT QUALIFY AS TIKI HUTS AS THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED. THEY ARE TIKI HUTS WHICH WILL NEED TO OBTAIN PERMITS. THE OTHER

[01:05:01]

AREA. >> YEAH. AND THAT SPRINGLIKE, IT IS ACTUALLY PLUGGED INTO THE BUILDING ON THE SIDE. IT IS

LITERALLY JUST LIKE A SCREW. >> WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH SEVERAL RESTAURANTS PREVIOUSLY. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TIKI HUT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETELY MAN-MADE MATERIALS. THE POLES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SET IN CONCRETE. THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY USE OF NAILS OR SCREWS. ONLY THATCH WORK AND TWINE. AND THEY -- WHETHER IT IS A LECTOR, PLUMBING, WHETHER IT IS DIRECTLY ATTACHED WERE UNDERNEATH, IT IS STILL PART OF

THE TIKI HUT AT THIS POINT. >> AND IF I MIGHT ADD TO IT, THE LIGHTS WERE THERE LONG BEFORE THEY PUT THE TIKI HUTS IN. THEY WERE THERE WHEN WE OPENED THE RESTAURANT. JUST EXTENSION CORD CHRISTMAS-TYPE LIGHTS THAT RUN ACROSS. AND, ALSO, I UNDERSTAND THE STORAGE SOLUTIONS OF BEING A RESTAURANT OWNER. YOUR GARAGE TURNS INTO, YOU KNOW, A PLACE TO STORE THOUSANDS OF PIZZA BOXES IN THE BACK OF YOUR TRUCK, AND YOU ARE KIND OF LOOKING FOR CREATIVE WAYS TO PACK STUFF IN. I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY OTHER RESTAURANT IN TOWN THAT DOES IT ANY OTHER DIFFERENT, NOT TO PUT ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE.

THERE'S NOT A SINGLE RESTAURANT IN TOWN THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME STORAGE SOLUTIONS AND I THINK WADE IS USING IT OVER A PIE HOLE. BUT WE DO WANT TO GET INTO PROPER CODE IN BUILDING THAT RESTAURANT. WE KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING IN CODE AND WANT TO MAKE IT RIGHT. SO I DO NOT KNOW WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. BUT WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT

THING AND MOVE FORWARD. >> I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION WE HAD WAS ABOUT IF IT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED, YOU CLARIFY IT IS A FLOODPLAIN SO EVEN IF IT IS A TEMPORARY BUILDING THAT WE NEED TO SUBMIT ANYWAYS. SO, YEAH, THE STORAGE HEADS AND THE TIKI WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED, I THINK.

>> AND THE DUCTWORK. THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS. IF THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS ARE INTENDED TO BE PERMANENT. IF IT IS TO THE GROUND. THEN A PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THAT. IF IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PERMANENT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCES DO HAVE SOME ORDINANCES FOR SHIPPING CONTAINERS WERE THEY ALLOWED TO BE USED AND NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMPARTMENT JUST TO GET A LITTLE CLARITY ON THAT.

YOU KNOW? THE WHOLE SITUATION COULD BE CLEARED UP PRETTY EASILY WITH SOME DRAWINGS FROM AN ARCHITECT IS LOOKING AT PRIMARILY YOUR WOOD LOAD AND STRUCTURAL LOAD REQUIREMENTS ON ALL THESE STRUCTURES. THE FIRST STEP WOULD TO BE EITHER TO CONSULT WITH THE CONTRACTOR OR AN ARCHITECT AND THEY WILL GET YOU SOME TROLLEYS AND SUBMIT YOUR PERMITS.

>> WELL, WE HAVE A DRAWING OF THE CONTAINER. IT IS STANDARD 40 FOOT AND WE BOLTED DOWN. AND THE BUILDINGS, I AM ASSUMING I WOULD HAVE TO HIRE AN ENGINEER BECAUSE THE BUILDING THAT BUILD THEM WOULD HAVE TO HAVE DRAWINGS AND BE PERMITTED TO MOVE THEM ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. CAN I JUST USE THOSE DRAWINGS?

>> THERE MOST LIKELY PRE-MANUFACTURED BUILDINGS THAT WOULD HAVE FLORIDA APPROVAL ALREADY SO YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT NEED APPROVAL FOR THE SHEDS BUT YOU WOULD NEED ENGINEERING FOR THE TIKI HUT AND THE DECKS SO THE ENGINEER COULD JUST TIE EVERYTHING TOGETHER. FOR THE WEIGHT LOAD AND THE FLOOD REQUIREMENTS. LIKE I SAID, BEING A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA, I AM NOT INSTANTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE ELEVATIONS OVER THERE. YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO ELEVATE THOSE STRUCTURES OR INSTALL FLOOD VENTS FOR THEM TO BE COMPLIANT. THAT IS WHERE THE ENGINEERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK IN TERMS OF WHAT IS

REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE. >> ANYTHING FURTHER, ANYONE?

>> WHAT I HEARD EARLIER WAS LIKE THE 60 DAYS. WE HAVE TO GO HIRE SOMEBODY. THAT TAKES A WHILE. WE JUST ASKED FOR

[01:10:03]

>> TOOK THE ABILITY TO GRANT A 90 DAY EXTENSION FOR WHAT IT WAS. DO YOU THINK THIS WILL TAKE A LITTLE LONGER THAN 60 DAYS? I WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY IF THAT IS NOT OBTAINED. AT THE END OF THE 90 DAYS, FOR FOLLOW-UP AND LET US KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT. AS LONG AS THERE IS A GOOD EFFORT MADE TO COMPLY, WE COULD CERTAINLY WORK WITH YOU IN

GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME. >> THANK YOU.

>> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMITS, AND REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, AND COMPLY WITH ANY OTHER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT. THIS FINE OF $100 PER DAY WOULD START AFTER THE 90 DAYS, UNLESS YOU HAVE A -- UNLESS YOU GET SOMETHING FROM THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF TO EXTEND IT BEYOND THAT. AND YOU HAVE 30

DAYS TO APPEAL. >> SO JUST ONE LAST THING. SO WHEN THE SEMINAL TIKI COMPANIES COME IN -- NO, NO, NO, WE ARE SEMINAL. YOU DO NOT NEED OUR PAPERWORK. WE ARE CERTIFIED.

>> YEAH. A LOT OF MISINFORMATION UNFORTUNATELY REGARDING THAT. WE HAVE HAD THIS COME UP ON VARIOUS COMMERCIAL SITES AND EVEN RESIDENTIAL. UNFORTUNATELY, IT

IS BEING ABUSED. >> AND I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY HAVE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS. SO IS THAT TIKI HE THEN GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE OR DOES IT STILL FALL UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION OF A TIKI HUT?

>> IT WILL COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE. PEOPLE DO PERMIT THEM ALL

THE TIME THOUGH. >> OKAY.

>> SO A LOT OF YOUR -- A LOT OF THE SEMINAL INDIANS DO ALREADY HAVE PLANS FOR WHEN THEY HAVE TO BE PERMITTED.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, BOTH.

>> THANK YOU. >> TAMMY?

>> NO. MADISON. >> TAMMY IS OUR CONTROLLER.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL GET THE ADDRESSES OF THOSE RESTAURANTS AND GO CHECK THEM OUT.

>> OKAY. THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 6O. I AM SORRY. WE ARE GOING TO

[Q. 24-985 708 N 19th Street IGL Investment LLC Kevin Young]

THE OWNER. >> KEVIN YOUNG, INVESTIGATOR, FOR CITY. 24-985. 708 NORTH 19TH STREET. IGL INVESTMENT LLC. CASE INITIATED APRIL 24TH, 2024. THE OWNER IS IGL INVESTMENT LLC, 5264 SHERWOOD WAY. THE VIOLATION IS SBC 105.1. PERMIT REQUIRED. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE MANY SPLIT AC UNITS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUEST THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXIST IN THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, AND COMPLY WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS IN ALL CURE VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER. OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. THE AC PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON SIX -- 6/21/2024 WAS INCORRECT. IT WAS CHASED OUT AS A NEW INSTALL. A NEW APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON A 6-2024. THE CONTRACTOR HAS NOTIFIED US ON 8/6/2024. AND WE

HAVE PICTURES. >> LET US TAKE A PEEK.

[01:15:10]

>> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATE STAMPED APRIL 23RD AND AUGUST

5TH . >> YES, MA'AM.

>> ARE THESE DATE STAMPS ACCURATE?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE CITY WILL MOVE THESE TO THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY'S

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE?

>> THEY FIXED THE FLOORING PROBLEM, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. AND THEY COMPLIED THE FLOOR PROBLEM, BUT THE AIR CONDITIONERS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

>> COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE AIR CONDITIONER?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, MR. YOUNG?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> SIR, CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR

NAME? >> JAMES DAVIS ADELE.

>> AND HOW YOU RELATED TO THE OWNER?

>> THE PROPERTY MANAGER HIRED ME 14 MONTHS AGO TO MANAGE THE

PROPERTY. >> IS --

>> C-I-D-S-E-L. WE WILL TAKE THE 60 DAYS TO FINALIZE EVERYTHING. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE SEEING -- A BLUEPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS BEING DONE RIGHT NOW. TO BE ABLE TO DO THE ENERGY CALCULATION FOR THE COMPANY TO COME IN AND DO THEIR CALCULATION AND SUBMIT ALL THE FORMS AND PROCESSES TO GET IT

COMPLETED. >> OKAY. AND I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, APPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS, AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL COMMENCE AND YOU HAVE

30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE IS SIX ARE,

[R. 24-986 1232 Easter Ave Titherington, James Kevin Young]

>> GOOD MORNING. >> MORNING.

>> ARE YOU MR. TITHERINGTON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> CASE NUMBER 24-986, 1232 EASTER AVENUE. JAMES TITHERINGTON IS THE OWNER. ISSUE DATED 12/24/2024.

VIOLATIONS R.I.P. MC 111.1 .3. STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. I PMC, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE GENERAL. I PMC 3411, UNSAFE CONDITIONS.04 10 .10 STAIRWAYS, DECK PORTRAITS, AND BALCONIES. IPMC 14 TO, OPENABLE WINDOWS. 1.1. UNSAFE CONDITIONS. IPMC UNSAFE CONDITION. IPMC 503.4, FLOOR SURFACE. IPMC 504.3, PLUMBING SYSTEM HAS TO. IPMC 506.2.

MAINTENANCE. IPMC 60 4.3.4.1 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. MAKE NECESSARY PLUMBING REPAIRS TO ALL PLUMBING THAT IS NOT PROPERLY CONNECTED AND PROPERLY TRAINING UNDER THE HOUSE OR OTHERWISE CREATING A PLUMBING HAZARD. MAKE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO CONNECT THE ELECTRICAL FEE TO THE REAR COTTAGE. MAKE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIRS . TREAT THE PROPERTY FOR ALL PEST INFESTATION INCLUDING RATS AND TERMITES. REPAIR AND REPLACE STUFF THAT IS CRACKER FALLING OFF THE STRUCTURE. MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO ROTTEN REAMING AND FLOORS. REPAIR AND REPLACE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE BROKEN OR ON OPENABLE. REPAIR

[01:20:03]

REINSPECTION. >> DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE

THE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> I HAVE MY OWN SET AT HOME.

>> YOU HAVE YOUR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. OKAY.

THE GRAPHS ARE DATED APRIL 23RD AND MARCH 29TH. DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS YOU HAVE

TESTIFIED TO? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> ON THOSE DAYS? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THE CITY MOVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE. THIS MAKES THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTOS SUBMITTED WILL BE ADMITTED AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> WERE THERE TENANTS IN THIS BUILDING WHEN YOU MOVED THERE?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> HOW MANY UNITS WERE ON THIS

PROPERTY? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, TWO.

>> SO IS THERE A MAIN BUILDING AND AN OUTBUILDING OF SOME

SORT? >> YES, MA'AM. ALL THE PICTURES WERE FROM THE ONE SIDE OF THE UNIT. I DID NOT GO ON TO THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THERE IS DIFFERENT.

>> ONE SIDE OF THE MAIN BUILDING. ALL RIGHT.

SCROLL BACK UP. THE DECK AREA THAT YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT, THE

ENTRY AREA -- >> IT GOES TO THE SLIDE THAT I

WAS NOT ALLOWED ACCESS. >> SO ONE OF YOUR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS TO REPAIR THE ENTRY DECKING. IS THAT INTO THE

OCCUPIED SIDE? >> THE OCCUPANT THAT LET ME AND WAS THE SOURCE OF THE COMPLAINT, AND HE WAS MOVING

HIS STUFF OUT. >> SO THAT ENTRYWAY --

>> THAT GOES TO SOMEBODY WHO IS STILL LIVING THERE.

>> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD? ANYTHING FURTHER? OKAY. THANK YOU. SIR, YOU ARE MR. TITHERINGTON? WERE

YOU SWORN? >> WHAT IS THAT?

>> WERE YOU SWORN WHEN YOU FIRST CAME IN? YES. THANK YOU.

WHEN YOU'RE READY YOU CAN ADDRESS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> IT IS NOT OCCUPIED AT THE MOMENT. NOT SINCE, I THINK, THE BEGINNING OF APRIL. MY MOTHER PASSED, AND THEN I GOT THE NOTICE. WELL, ACTUALLY, I WANTED TO EVICT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ON THE LARGE HOUSE OR ON THE LARGE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

AND -- BUT I ACTUALLY TOLD THEM -- I GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO MOVE AND THEN THEY DID NOT WANT TO KEEP PAYING THE RENT SO I HAD TO EVICT THEM. SO THEN THEY BASICALLY BROUGHT THE CITY IN AND SHOWED THEM DAMAGE. I GUESS THEY NEEDED TO GO AGAINST ME, I GUESS. YOU KNOW? SO THEN THAT IS WHERE ALL THIS CAME INTO PLAY. SO I DID EVICT THEM. AND I TOLD THE OTHER SIDE THAT THEY

[01:25:03]

AND I WAS TAKING CARE OF MY MOTHER PRIOR TO HER PASSING FOR MANY YEARS WITH MY SISTER SO I HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING, AND THAT WAS MY ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE REALTOR SAID, WELL, IN ORDER TO SELL IT, WE HAVE TO EVEN HAVE THE OTHER SIDE VACANT SO WE CAN SELL IT. I AM JUST SAYING THAT BASICALLY I AM TRYING TO SELL THE HOUSE AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE TAKE ON THESE RESPONSIBILITIES BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO DO THE

REPAIRS. >> YOU SIGNED A LISTING

AGREEMENT WITH A REALTOR? >> YES, MA'AM. AND THAT DOES NOT END UNTIL THE 7TH OF NOVEMBER. I STARTED AT THE BEGINNING OF MAY WITH THE REALTOR. SIX MONTHS .

>> AND IT IS YOUR INTENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY AS IS?

>> YES, MA'AM. SO I AM BASICALLY SELLING IT VERY CHEAP BECAUSE OF ALL THE DAMAGE AND THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO GET IT BACK TO CODE. THEY NEVER COMPLAIN A WHILE I LIVED THERE UNTIL I TRY TO EVICT THEM FOR NOT PAYING THE RENT AND THAT IS

WHERE IT ALL WENT DOWNHILL. >> YOUR ADDRESS IS 1232 EASTER AVENUE, WHICH IS ALSO THE ADDRESS OF THIS PROPERTY?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> BUT YOU DO NOT LIVE THERE?

>> NO, MA'AM. I WAS RENTING IT.

>> THEN NOTHING FURTHER. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING

ELSE? >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A

PERMIT. >> CAN I GET A LITTLE MORE IN CASE I HAVE A PROBLEM SELLING THE HOUSE? IF IT TAKES LONGER? COULD I GET MAYBE 90 INSTEAD OF JUST 60? JUST IN CASE? BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BE SOLD HERE HOPEFULLY SOON. I HAD ALREADY AN OFFER ONCE AND THEN THEY BACKED OUT. SO WE ARE ON THE

SECOND OFFER NOW. >> YOU HAVE AN OFFER PENDING

NOW? >> YES, MA'AM . AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE ON THE 21ST, BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE

YET. THAT IS WHY I AM -- >> YOU HAVEN'T ACCEPTED AN

OFFER? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE STAFF IS NOT AGREEABLE TO A 90 DAY RECOMMENDATION. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO STICK WITH

60 DAYS. >> OKAY. THEN I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE VIOLATOR HAS 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED AFTER THE 60 DAYS. YOU DO HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL, AND YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

[A. 19-3145 4060 Selvitz Road Johnson, Bobby & Wanda Shaun Coss]

>> OUR NEXT CASE IS 9A, CASE 19-3145, 4060 SELVITZ ROAD.

JOHNSON, BOBBY & WANDA ARE THE OWNERS.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS CASE 19-3145 FOR 4060 SELVITZ ROAD. THIS MATTER USUALLY CAME TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON APRIL 21ST, 2021, IN AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION. AND EXTENSION WAS TIME GRANTED OCTOBER 18TH, 2021. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE FOR STARTING FINES WAS RECORDED ON JANUARY 20TH, 2022. IN ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL TIME OF ONE

[01:30:01]

THE ACTION PLAN WAS A MULTI PHASE APPROACH THAT WOULD TAKE MULTIPLE MONTHS. THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIMING OF THE ACTION PLAN UP UNTIL OCTOBER 17TH, 2023, WHEN A 90 DAY EXTENSION WAS GRANTED, BRINGING IT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, WHICH, AGAIN, ANOTHER EXTENSION WAS GRANTED. IN MARCH, THE RESPONDENTS SAY THEIR REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED APPLICATION TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THEIR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR APRIL 18TH, 2024. IT WAS APPROVED WITH SOME CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR RESUBMITTAL, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED , AND THIS MATTER JUST WENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD THIS WEEK, ACTUALLY, FOR APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN. I BELIEVE THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT HAS TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENTS, AS FAR AS WHAT THEY SEE THE NEXT STEPS BEING

IN THE TIMELINE ON THIS. >> WE ARE NOT SWORN IN. I

DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN -- >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. AND RU

BOBBY AND WANDA? >> I AM SHERRY JOHNSON SOLE AND THIS IS MY MOTHER, WANDA JOHNSON.

>> WHOEVER IS GOING TO TALK, JUST UP UP TO THE MIC FOR US.

>> WE WERE HERE AT THE CITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON MONDAY. THAT WAS APPROVED SO WE ARE SCHEDULED TO GO ON SEPTEMBER THE 16TH FOR THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE ENGINEERS.

WE HAVE ALL OF OUR SITE PLANS. WE HAVE LIGHTING, DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING, AND EVERYTHING IS ALL COMPLETED. SO WE ARE AT THE POINT WE ARE JUST MOVING FORWARD. WE LEASED LAND TO THE ASPHALT COMPANY. THERE IS A NEW OWNER WHO IS MOVING THIS ALL FORWARD TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS DONE APPROPRIATELY.

>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL IS NO LONGER INVOLVED IN THIS. SHAYNA VANCE IS NO LONGER REPRESENTING YOU? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS WILL BE AT LEAST SEPTEMBER BEFORE IT GOES IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION. FOLLOWING THAT, ARE YOU PREPARED TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY ONCE YOU RECEIVE APPROVAL? OKAY. STAFF PELECH RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY

EXTENSION. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. AND ARE FINES CURRENTLY RUNNING ON THIS

PROPERTY? >> THEY ARE NOT.

>> OKAY. >> YES.

>> A 90 DAY EXTENSION? >> A 90 DAY EXTENSION WILL BE

GIVEN. >> AND THEN WE WILL GET A DATE OR A NOTICE OR SOMETHING DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS GO IN THE 90 DAYS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE COME BACK.

>> WE WILL RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER SO KEEP IN TOUCH BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[B. 23-3070 4201 Bandy Blvd. Red Hawk Rebar LLC Shaun Coss]

>> OKAY. THE NEXT CASE IS 9B, 23-3070, 4201 BANDY BOULEVARD.

RED HAWK REBAR LLC IS THE OWNER.

>> THIS IS CASE 23-3070 FOR 4201 BANDY BOULEVARD, PROPERTIES OWNED BY RED HAWK REBAR LLC. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON APRIL 12, 2024 ANY ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED FOR A SHED THAT HAD BEEN PLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED ON JUNE 25TH, 2024. THE FINES BEGAN ON THAT DAY. THEY CURRENTLY TOTAL $4420 WITH $20 IN RECORDING FEES.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE NEW PROPERTY MANAGER AT THE SITE WHO IS

[01:35:01]

>> YES. >> SOUND GOOD TO YOU?

>> YES. >> AND , JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED THIS MORNING.

>> CAN YOU GESTATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?

>> MY NAME IS ASHLEY LADLOW. >> THERE WILL BE A 60-DAY

EXTENSION. OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THE NEXT CASE , WE NEED AN INTERPRETER FOR, SO I

[O. 24-952 111 Osceola Ave Hernandez, Juan & Ruiz, Margarita Joel Smith]

>> THINK YOU FOR CALLING LANGUAGE LINK. PLEASE ENTER THE ACCOUNT NUMBER FOLLOWED BY THE POUND SIGN.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A THIRD-PARTY CALL, PLEASE PRESS 1. PRESS 2 COUP CONTINUE. PLEASE PRESS 1 FOR SPANISH.

PLEASE ENTER YOUR DEPARTMENT CODE FOLLOWED BY THE POUND

SIGN. >> YOU ENTERED 2902. IF THIS IS

CORRECT, PRESS 1. >> SPANISH INTERPRETER. 181068.

HOW CAN I HELP YOU? >> YES. ARE YOU ABLE TO INTERPRET FOR A LEGAL PROCEEDING?

>> I'M NOT CERTIFIED, MA'AM, BUT I CAN'T TRANSLATE FOR YOU.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY.

>> PLEASE HOLD FOR INTERPRETER CONNECTION ASSISTANCE. PLEASE HOLD FOR INTERPRETER CONNECTION ASSISTANCE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HOLDING. SPANISH INTERPRETER.

>> YES. ARE YOU ABLE TO INTERPRET FOR A LEGAL

PROCEEDING? >> SO I AM AN OPERATOR. YOU NEED AN INTERPRETER FOR A LEGAL PROCEEDING?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND. YOU ALREADY HAVE AN INTERPRETER ON THE LINE?

CORRECT? >> HE WAS NOT CERTIFIED BUT WE NEED AN INTERPRETER THAT SPEAKS SPANISH AND IT IS FOR A LEGAL

PROCEEDING. >> OKAY. SO WE CANNOT GUARANTEE A COURT CERTIFIED INTERPRETER BUT WE CAN GUARANTEE A INTERPRETER WHO IS COMFORTABLE WITH LEGAL TERMS. IS THAT OKAY?

>> YES. >> YES.

>> OKAY. GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND. I HAVE GOT TO CHANGE A COUPLE THINGS HERE AND I WILL GET YOUR INTERPRETER FOR YOU.

IS YOUR CLIENT PRESENT OR DO WE NEED TO DIAL OUT?

>> THEY ARE PRESENT. >> AND YOU WERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. I AM LOOKING FOR

A LEGAL SPANISH INTERPRETER. >> THANK YOU.

>> SPANISH INTERPRETER I.D. NUMBER 1728. IS YOUR CLIENT PRESENT?

>> YES. AND I DO NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR A TESTIMONY,

INTERPRETER. >> OKAY.

[01:40:01]

>> OKAY. >> YOU SWEAR THAT YOU WILL ACCURATELY TRANSLATE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTO THE SPANISH LANGUAGE AND THE SPANISH LANGUAGE INTO THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE? >> I SWEAR.

>> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS ANDREA DUANE US.

I AM THE CITY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY.

>> MYSELF.

>>

>> ARE YOU MARGARITA RUIZ? >> IS THIS MARGARITA RUIZ?

>>

>> MR. SMITH, WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH. I AM AN INVESTIGATOR/BUILDING INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>>

>> THE CASE NUMBER IS 24-952. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND THE ADDRESSES 111

OSCEOLA AVENUE. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> OWNER, JUAN HERNANDEZ AND

MARGARITA RUIZ. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND THE CASE WAS INITIATED

APRIL 23RD OF 2024. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> VIOLATIONS FPC 105.1. PERMIT

REQUIRED. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND CORRECTIVE ACTIVE -- I CANNOT READ SLOW HERE. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE WINDOWS REPLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT.

>>

>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY OF REQUESTS THAT IF THE

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE -- >>

LANGUAGE ] >> -- FINDS A VIOLATION EXIST, THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.

>>

>> 6T. NOT SIX. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> OKAY. SO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS.

>>

>> UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH ALL

OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> FOR ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF

$100 B ASSESSED PER DAY. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> I AM SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT

HOW MANY DAYS? >> WITHIN 180 DAYS.

>>

>> AND, AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN NO PERMITS APPLIED

FOR. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT SHOW THE VIOLATION THAT YOU

HAVE TESTIFIED TO? >>

LANGUAGE ] >> I DO HAVE PHOTOS. WOULD MARGARITA LIKE TO SEE THE PHOTOS?

>>

>>

>>

[01:45:06]

>> YOU CAN TELL HER THERE ARE A FEW PHOTOS IN HERE THAT ARE IRRELEVANT. THEY ARE OF THE SHED. THE ROOF BE DONE, WHICH THE PERMIT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPLIED FOR AND CLOSED.

>>

>> AT THE TIME OF THE PHOTOS, THE TIMESTAMP APP WAS NOT WORKING, HOWEVER, I DID TAKE THESE PICTURES ON APRIL 19TH,

2024. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THE CITY MOVES THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT

1. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>>

>> OKAY. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE

TESTIMONY, MR. SMITH? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY ADDRESS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>>

>>

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MARGARITA RUIZ.

>>

>> HOW LONG DO I NEED TO -- I AM SORRY. HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT BECAUSE IT WAS MY EX-HUSBAND, THE ONE IN CHARGE, AND I WAS NOT AWARE HE DID NOT GET A PERMIT.

>> AS YOUR EX-HUSBAND AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?

>>

>> YES. HE STILL IS. >> OKAY. SO THE EX-HUSBAND IS

JUAN HERNANDEZ? >>

LANGUAGE ] >> YES.

>> THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY IS THAT YOU BE GIVEN 60

DAYS TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> OKAY.

>>

>> AND WILL THAT WORK FOR YOU?

>> THANK YOU. >>

LANGUAGE ] >>

LANGUAGE ] >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THANK YOU. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU, VERY

MUCH. >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST

EVERY -- OKAY. >> SORRY. GO AHEAD.

>> OBTAIN APPROVAL OF REQUIREMENT INSPECTIONS AT

LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS. >> UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN

CLOSED. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND APPLY WITH ALL OTHER

PERMIT CONDITIONS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER.

>>

>> NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED AFTER THE 60 DAYS.

>>

>> THANK YOU. >> AND THERE IS A 30-DAY RIGHT

[01:50:03]

TO APPEAL APPEAL. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> MS. RUIZ, IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO TALK TO THE APARTMENT , NOTIFIED THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE 60 DAYS IS UP.

>>

>>

>> OKAY. BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. DO I HAVE TO PAY A FINE FOR HAVING DONE THAT WITHOUT PERMISSION?

>> THERE WILL BE A DOUBLE PERMIT VSS WHEN YOU OBTAIN THE

PERMIT. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AS LONG AS YOU OBTAIN A PERMIT WITHIN THE 60 DAYS, THERE WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL

SIGNS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[P. 24-983 303 S 32nd St Ceren, Ignacio Kevin Young]

>> INTERPRETER, IF YOU COULD STAY WITH US, WE HAVE ANOTHER

CASE. >> OKAY.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 24-983.

>>

>> THE ADDRESS IS 303 SOUTH 32ND STREET.

>>

>> THE OWNER IS IGNACIO CEREN.

>>

>> GOOD MORNING. ARE YOU IGNACIO CEREN?

>>

>> AND WHO IS WITH YOU TODAY? >>

LANGUAGE ] >> WHAT IS HER NAME? AND IS SHE

RELATED TO YOU? >>

LANGUAGE ] >> IT IS MARIA CEREN .

>> HE SAID MARIA CEREN? THANK YOU. WHEN YOU'RE READY, MR.

YOUNG. >> CASE NUMBER 24-983 AT 303

SOUTH 32ND STREET. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THE OWNER'S NAME IS IGNACIO

CEREN. >> YES.

>>

>> THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON APRIL 24TH, 2024.

>>

>> AND VIOLATION OF THIS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FPC 105.1.

>>

>> CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OR OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE MULTIPLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.

>> I AM SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ADDITIONS OF THE MAIN

STRUCTURE. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND THE MULTIPLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.

>>

>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY REQUESTS THAT AT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS -- TRAN34

>> -- THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.

>>

>> OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST

EVERY 180 DAYS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN

CLOSED. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT

CONDITIONS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER.

>>

[01:55:04]

>> NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE

ASSESSED. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR EXCEPT FOR YESTERDAY HIS SON CALLED ME AND SAID HE HAD APPLIED FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURE THAT IS

ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I HAVE PICTURES FOR YOU. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> SO I BELIEVE THIS IS -- THIS IS THE STRUCTURE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. OKAY? AND THE REST OF THIS SHED NEEDS TO HAVE A PERMIT, TOO. THAT IS RIGHT HERE. THIS ONE IS VERY OLD. WE ARE GOING TO GRANDFATHER THAT

END. RIGHT, SHAUN? >> OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU PUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AND THEN WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM ON

THE SCREEN. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> MR. YOUNG, THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED APRIL 17TH AND APRIL 24TH.

>>

>> DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU HAVE

TESTIFIED TO ON THOSE DATES? >>

LANGUAGE ] >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THE CITY MOVES THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS

CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>>

>> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MR. YOUNG, WHICH PHOTOGRAPH WOULD

YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT FIRST? >> PHOTO J.

>> UNPERMITTED. IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT OR DEMOLITION.

>>

>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT? >> THE CORNER BEHIND THE LATTER THERE ON H, THERE IS A SHED THERE AS WELL.

>>

>> THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT. >> YEAH. YES.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT. >> SCHOOL TO NUMBER J THERE, OR

LETTER J. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THAT STRUCTURE WAS VERY OLD AND WAS THERE WAY BEFORE ANYTHING. SO SHAUN HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE GRANDFATHER THAT IN.

>> I AM SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE?

>> WE ARE GOING TO NOW THAT STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT IS SO OLD.

YOU KNOW? THAT IT WAS BEFORE. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> JUST FOR CLARITY, THE STRUCTURE IN PHOTO J, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ALL EXISTING CONSTRUCTION? THERE IS NO NEW CONSTRUCTION THERE?

>>

>> YES. THE OUTSIDE PORTIONS LOOK LIKE THEY WERE ADDED SOME TIME AGO, BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK AS IF THEY WERE BUILT AT THE

SAME TIME. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE ROOF LEAK TWOS ON THE STRUCTURE?

>> YES, SIR. THE TWO BY FOURS. THEY LOOK A LOT NEWER THAN THE

ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> SO, AT THIS TIME, OUR

[02:00:01]

REMOVED. >> LANGUAGE ]

>> ALL RIGHT. OTHER STRUCTURES.

>> HIS SON TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT THEY APPLIED FOR A

DEMOLITION PERMIT. >> IS THERE A PERMIT FOR THAT

STRUCTURE? >> THAT IS THE ONE ATTACHED TO

THE HOUSE I BELIEF. >> I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR SAYS THAT THE SHED HAS BEEN BUILT BUT NOT CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE.

>>

>> THEY CAN REVISE THIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF ALL PERMITTED STRUCTURES.

>>

>>

>> AND WE NEED PERMISSIONS FOR ALL OF THOSE. RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. TWO PERMIT FOR ALL OF THIS, WHICH YOU CAN'T DO IN

ONE PERMIT. >>

LANGUAGE ] >>

LANGUAGE ] >> OKAY.

>> ANYTHING ELSE, MR. YOUNG? >> IF THEY WANT TO CONTACT ME TO HELP THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS, I WOULD BE GLAD TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW? WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO DO THEIR DEMO SO I CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM ABOUT THE LIEN TO PART OF THE OLD BUILDING.

>>

>> OKAY. >> MR. CEREN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR GIVE ANY SPECIAL TESTIMONY

TODAY? >>

LANGUAGE ] >>

LANGUAGE ] >> NO. THAT IS ALL.

>> THANK YOU. >> I FIND THAT THE SPECIAL -- THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60

DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. >>

LANGUAGE ] >>

LANGUAGE ] >> SORRY. I NEED HIM TO REPEAT.

>>

>>

>> I AM NOT SURE ABOUT ONE WORD HE IS USING.

>>

>> SO HE SAYS THAT THE PLYWOOD IS OLD SO HE NEEDS TO DO LIKE A NEW COVER OR APPLY SOME MATERIAL ON THE FRONT TO RENEW IT. DOES HE NEED ANY INFORMATION TO DO THAT?

>> YES. SO THEY WILL NEED A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN UNPERMITTED, OR THEY WILL ALSO NEED A PERMIT TO MAKE ANY REPAIRS TO THE STRUCTURES.

>>

>>

>> OKAY. >> I AM GOING TO START OVER. I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THERE ARE 60 DAYS TO

OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PERMITS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL

[02:05:09]

>>

>> UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED.

>>

>> THAT INCLUDES COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS.

>>

>> AND TO CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER.

>>

>> A FINE OF $100 PER DAY -- >>

LANGUAGE ] >> -- WILL BEGIN IF NOT DONE

WITHIN THE 60 DAYS. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> AND THERE IS A 30-DAY RIGHT

TO APPEAL DISORDER. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> FINE. OKAY. AND THERE IS

NOTHING ELSE. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >>

LANGUAGE ] >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICES,

INTERPRETER. >> THANK YOU FOR USING OUR SERVICE. THIS IS YOUR SPANISH INTERPRETER EDIE 1278 SIGNING

[H. 24-737 506 S 8th Street Atlantic 509 LLC Kevin Young]

OFF. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS ALSO A CALL CASE. THEN A PERSON COULD NOT BE PRESENT. IT IS CASE 6H 24-737 506 SOUTH 8TH STREET. ATLANTIC 509 IS THE OWNER.

CALLING CAMERON.

>> HELLO? >> HI. IS THIS CAMERA?

>> THIS IS. >> THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FOUR PAIRS BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

>> HEY, ELIZABETH. >> YOU ARE AN AUDIO TENDON OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING. I WILL HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR

TESTIMONY IF THAT IS OKAY. >> YEP.

>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE

WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, KEVIN.

>> CASE NUMBER 24-737. ADDRESSES 506 SOUTH 8TH STREET OWNED BY ATLANTIC 509 LLC. THE CASE INITIATED APRIL 1ST, 2024.

VIOLATIONS ARE 111.1 .1 IPMC, UNSAFE STRUCTURES. IPMC 111.1 .3, STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. IPMC 111.1 .5 DANGEROUS STRUCTURE ON PREMISES. IPMC 3.2.1 SANITATION. IPMC 3.2 SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS. IPMC 3.4.1, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE. IPMC 3.4.1.1, UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

IPMC 3.4.2, PROTECTIVE TREATMENT. IPMC 304.4, STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. IPMC 304.6, EXTERIOR WALLS. IPMC EXTERIOR DECKS, PORCHES, AND BALCONIES. IPMC 3.4, WINDOWS AND SKYLINE.

IPMC 13.1. GLAZING . IPMC 13.2 IS OPENED WINDOWS. IPMC 304.14, INSECT SCREENS. IPMC 3.401-15, DOORS. IPMC 304.18, BUILDING SECURITY. IPMC 304 18.1 DOORS. 306.1 .1, UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

IPMC 301.1 , CHELATION OF ROMINGER GARBAGE. IPMC 301.1, INFESTATION. IPMC 309.2 , OWNER. IPMC 309.4, MULTIPLE

[02:10:03]

REQUESTED. >> DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED FEBRUARY THE 6, MARCH THE 25TH. DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFY TO?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND ARE THE DATE STAMPS ACCURATE AS TO THE DAYS YOU VISITED THE PROPERTY?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE CITY MOVES THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTO SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> MR. YOUNG, WAS THE PROPERTY OCCUPIED WHEN YOU VISITED IT?

>> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. I DID NOT GET TO GO INSIDE IT.

>> YOU DID NOT GO INSIDE? >> THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS A HONEY BEE HIVE WAS BUILDING INSIDE THE HOUSE.

>> A COMPLAINT FROM A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY OR --

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

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY YOU WOULD LIKE TO

GIVE? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT. A GENTLEMAN ON THE PHONE. I AM SORRY, WHAT WAS

YOUR NAME? >> KAMRYN WHAT? CAN YOU SPELL

THAT? >> C-A-M-R-O-N-N. LAST NAME IS

W-E-R-N-Y. >> WHAT IS YOUR ELATION?

>> ME AND MY DAD, WE OWN IT. EVERYTHING THAT KEVIN SAID, I TOLD HIM IT IS VERY TRUE. IT IS VERY UNDERSTANDABLE. IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS AGO WITH INTENT TO DO A REMODEL AND DO THINGS IN THERE. I AM NOT GOING TO DRAG THIS ALL ON AND EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, BUT WE HIRED SOMEONE TO REDO IT AND IT KIND OF FELL THROUGH AND A SERIES OF EVENTS CONTINUED TO HAPPEN AND IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY. YEAH. THE HONEYBEE THINK. WE HAD A FEW HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEYCOMB. AND, NOW, HERE WE

ARE. >> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TESTIMONY THAT YOU WANT TO GIVE?

>> I DO NOT KNOW HOW THIS EXACTLY GOES, BUT AS OF YESTERDAY, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN DOING AS MUCH AS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO AND WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SELL IT SO AS OF YESTERDAY WE WERE ON OUR CONTRACT TO SELL THE PROPERTY.

WE HAD A BID FROM MULTIPLE BUILDERS AND IT IS JUST TOO MUCH FOR WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO HANDLE AT THE MOMENT. I MEAN, IT IS GOING TO BE A VERY EXTENSIVE REMODEL TO FIX ALL OF THOSE THINGS, SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO RESELL IT.

>> SO IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO SELL IT AS IS OR YOUR INTENTION TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND DO THE REPAIRS TO BRING IT UP TO CODE?

>> NO. NO. WE ARE SELLING IT AS IS.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE CITY DOES NOT CHANGE ITS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE OWNER.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE OWNER? OR THE CITY FOR THAT

[02:15:07]

MATTER? >> NOTHING ELSE FOR THE CITY.

ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CAMERONN? >> NO. I MEAN, WE ARE GOING TO DO OUR BEST. WE HAVE BEEN UNDER CONTRACT PREVIOUSLY. THAT IS WHY WAS DRUG OUT. BUT WE HAVE A CASH BUYER AND THEY HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE PROPERTY AND BEEN INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY MANAGER ALREADY BROUGHT HIM INSIDE AND HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS DEALING WITH. HE KNOWS THERE IS A VIOLATION ON THE PROPERTY ALREADY. HE IS AWARE OF ALL OF THAT. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THINGS ARE HOPEFULLY GOING TO GO THROUGH.

>> OKAY. THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT ON THIS. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE CHANGES OWNERSHIP DURING THAT TIME? I AM ASKING SHAUN WHO IS

THE HEAD OF OUR DEPARTMENT? >> IF THE OWNERSHIP CHANGES, DURING THESE 60 DAYS, THEN THIS CASE WOULD BE CLOSED AND WE WOULD ALLOW THE NEW OWNER AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPAIRS BEFORE WE START A NEW CASE AGAINST THEM.

>> GOT YOU. OKAY. GOT YOU. OKAY. I THINK AS FAR AS LIKE MY SIDE GOES, TALKING WITH THE INTERESTED BUYER, WHAT SHOULD I INFORM THEM WITH? WHEN THEY PURCHASE IT, ARE THEY GOING TO BE ATTACHED TO A VIOLATION OR IS IT GOING TO BE -- HOW DOES

THAT WORK? >> SO THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WILL BE RECORDED WITH A COURT OF CLERK. BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY FINES ASSOCIATED WITH IT YET, SO AS LONG AS THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE 60 DAYS, WE WILL RECORD ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT CLOSING THIS CASE. THEN LIKE I SAID, WE WILL PROVIDE THEM NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT IT BEFORE THERE IS ANYTHING THAT

WOULD IMPEDE THE TITLE. >> OKAY. THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I WILL DEFINITELY PASS THAT ON. I HOPE IT GOES AS

PLANNED. I DO THINK IT WILL. >> AND IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO CLOSE IN THE 60 DAYS, WOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO COME IN AND

REQUEST AN EXTENSION? >> YES, MA'AM. THAT IS FINE.

DID YOU HEAR THAT, MR. CAMERONN? MR. WERNY? YOU WOULD NEED TO REQUEST THAT EXTENSION BEFORE THOSE 60 DAYS ELAPSED.

THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER FROM THIS CITY.

>> THEN I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN A APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT, OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED AFTER THAT 60 DAYS UNLESS IT IS EXTENDED.

>> RIGHT. OKAY. >> AND THERE IS A 30-DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS ORDER OF TODAY.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CAMERONN.

>> YEAH. YEAH. THANK YOU, ELIZABETH. THANK YOU,

EVERYBODY. >> OKAY. AND NOW FOR CASES

[B. 24-717 5550 Okeechobee Road 7978 Associates IX LLC Frank Remling]

OWNER. >> WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> MY NAME IS FRANK RENTAL. I WORK FOR THE CITY OF FOR SPEARS AS AN INVESTIGATOR/BUILDING INSPECTOR. THIS CASE IS 71417555 0 OKEECHOBEE ROAD. THE OWNER IS 7978 ASSOCIATES IX LLC. 7978 COOPER CREEK BOULEVARD, UNIVERSITY PARK, FLORIDA, 34201. VIOLATIONS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR A 5.1 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE OBTAINING A PERMIT FOR SEAL COATING AND STRIKING THE CAR IN THE PARKING LOT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE RECOMMENDATION. THE

[02:20:02]

>> THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED MARCH 20TH. DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO AND OBSERVED

ON MARCH 20TH? >> YES.

>> THE CITY MOVIES PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS WILL BE SUBMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> NOPE.

>> OKAY. I FIND THAT THE RELATION EXISTS AND THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE.

COMPLYING WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED, AND THERE IS A 30 DAY

RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 24 6J. CASE 24-760 A 705 SOUTH 29TH

[K. 24-760 705 S 29th St Apt 12G Orange Apartments LLC Frank Remling]

>> THE CASE INITIATED APRIL 2ND OF 2024. THE OWNER IS ORANGE APARTMENTS LLC. 54 WEST GRACE STREET TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA PROGRAM THE VIOLATION IS IPMC 309.1 2021 INFESTATION. IPMC 604.3 2021 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

TREAT THE PROPERTY FOR ALL PAST AND INFESTATION INCLUDING RACKS. MAKE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO THE NONWORKING RECEPTACLE. FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS AND VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. AND CURE ALL OTHER CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. A REQUEST FOR REINSPECTION WAS RECEIVED ON 8/14/2024, BUT THERE WAS NO RECEIPT WHERE THE PEST-CONTROL HAS BEEN RECEIVED YET, SO WE HAVE NOT CAUGHT ANYTHING IN WRITING ABOUT THEM GOING IN DOING ANYTHING WITH THE PEST-CONTROL. AND I DO HAVE

SOME PICTURES. >> OKAY.

>> AND THE PAST THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS COMPLAINT IS WHAT KIND OF A PAST? RATS? ALL RIGHT. PHOTOGRAPH STATED APRIL 1ST, 2024. DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU

HAVE TESTIFIED TO? >> YES.

>> THE CITY MOVIES PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> PHOTOS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> IS THAT YOUR HANDWRITING AT THE BOTTOM OF PHOTOGRAPH BE?

>> YES. AND WHAT IS THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING?

>> DELIGHTS DOES NOT WORK AND DROPPINGS I BELIEVE IN THE

CLOSET IS WHAT IT WAS. >> WAS THIS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANT WHEN YOU DID THIS INSPECTION?

>> YES. >> THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IS GOING TO ASK TO CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS THE PEST INFESTATION. I WOULD LIKE THE HONOR TO BE GIVEN 20 DAYS TO CORRECT THAT VIOLATION. YOU

[02:25:05]

DAYS? >> NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 20 DAYS TO ADDRESS THE INFESTATION OF RATS AND 60 DAYS FOR THE OTHER VIOLATIONS. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM VIOLATIONS. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THIS ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED, AND THERE IS A 30-DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

>> THANK YOU. >> THERE IS ANOTHER ONE.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 6K. 24-760. 705 SOUTH 29TH STREET APARTMENT

[J. 24-758 705 S 29th St Apt 12C Orange Apartments LLC Frank Remling]

12G. >> THIS IS CASE 24-58. CASE WAS INITIATED ON APRIL 2ND, 2024. THE OWNER IS ORANGE APARTMENTS LLC. TAMPA FLORIDA, 33609. VIOLATION IS IPMC 309 2021 INFESTATION. IPMC 604.3. 2021 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO TREAT THE PROPERTY FOR ALL PEST INFESTATION, INCLUDING RATS. MAKE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIR FOR THE NONWORKING LIGHT FIXTURE. THE RECOMMENDATION IS DONE. THE CITY REQUEST THAT THE MAGISTRATE FINDS IT EXIST AND MAY BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO ACQUIRE THE PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AND A REQUEST FOR REINSPECTION WAS 8/14/2024, AND IT WAS THE SAME THING AS THE OTHER ONE. NO RECEIPT FOR PEST-CONTROL HAS BEEN RECEIVED

YET. >> WAS THIS IN THE SAME BUILDING AS THE OTHER UNIT? ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS? PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED APRIL 1ST. DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO THEM THAT YOU YOU

ON APRIL 1ST? >> THE CITY MOVES THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTOS ARE PRESENTED -- THEY WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> AND WAS THIS APARTMENT

OCCUPIED? >> YES.

>> SO THE CITY WOULD -- THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WOULD AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST THAT THE OWNER BE GIVEN 20 DAYS TO TREAT THE PROPERTY FOR PEST INFESTATION, INCLUDING RATS, AND 60 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE OTHER APARTMENT -- OR THE OTHER

VIOLATIONS. >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 20 DAYS TO ADDRESS THE PEST INFESTATION, INCLUDING RATS, AND 60 DAYS TO ADDRESS THE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE NONWORKING RECEPTACLE ELECTRICAL REPAIRS. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS, UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITHOUT ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. AND THERE

[L. 24-764 2609 S US Hwy 1 Ehden NV c/o Fraga Properties Logan Winn]

IS A 30-DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 6L CASE 24-764, 2609 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1 EHDEN NV C/O FRAGA PROPERTIES IS THE OWNER. THANKS.

>> WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> CASE NUMBER 24-764 OF 2609

[02:30:06]

OF PICTURES I TOOK. >> ARE THE PHOTOS DATE STAMPED? THE PHOTOS ARE DATE STAMPED MARCH 29TH. AND THEY EXPLAINED THE GOOGLE MAP THAT IS THE SECOND PAGE.

>> CRACKED. >> AND WHAT DOES THAT SHOW US?

>> THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE NEW UNIT AND THE OLD UNITS THAT ARE

IN THE BUILDING. >> ALL RIGHT. THE CITY MOVES THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT 1. >> OKAY.

>> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, ATTAIN APPROVAL OF OWL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED, AND THERE

IS A 30-DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU.

[N. 24-925 1109 N 27th St Bldg 9-70 SP Pine Creek Village LP Kevin Young]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 26N 1109 NORTH 27TH STREET BUILDING 9-70 , AND SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP IS THE OWNER.

>> 24-925, 1109 NORTH 27TH STREET BUILDING 9-70. SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP IS THE OWNER . CASE INITIATED APRIL 18TH, 2024. 5.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. ATTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE INTERIOR RENOVATION BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTERIOR DEMOLITION, FRAMING, WINDOW INSULATION, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND MECHANICAL WORK. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT AT THE CITY MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXIST IN THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO ATTAIN A UP PERMIT. AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE.

COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. A PERMIT WAS ISSUED BUT DOES NOT COVER THE SCOPE OF THE WORK DONE AT THIS UNIT. IT STATES, UNIT RENOVATION INCLUDING WORK AND DRYWALL TEXTURE, PAINT, INSTALLATION OF BASEBOARDS, FLOORING, AND KITCHEN CABINETS. ALL RIGHT. PICTURES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATE STAMPED APRIL 9TH, 2024. DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION YOU HAVE TESTIFY TO? ON THE DATE THAT YOU OBSERVED THE VIOLATIONS?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THERE IS A STICKY NOTE ATTACHED TO THE FRONT. WHAT YOU LIKE THAT TO BE PLACED INTO EVIDENCE. IT SAYS -- WELL, I WILL LET YOU READ IT.

>> DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT? >> IT IS THE SAME.

>> SO THE CITY IS GOING TO MOVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> PHOTOS PRESENTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT 1. >> AND DID YOU TESTIFIED THAT

[02:35:04]

>> YES. SO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS A DIFFERENT CASE NUMBER. IT WAS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WERE LIVING THERE AND THEIR PLUMBING WAS LEAKING ALL THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE, AND THEY WOULD NOT FIX IT. SO THEY HAD A VIOLATION AGAINST THAT AND THEN SAID THAT THEY FIXED IT, THE PLUMBING PROBLEM. AND THEN THEY CALLED ME BACK OUT FOR THE REINVESTIGATION OF THAT CASE, AND THAT IS WHEN THEY COMPLETELY GUTTED THE WHOLE APARTMENT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE

OWNER? >> NEGATIVE, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NOTHING. >> I FIND THAT THE MOTION EXISTS IN THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO ATTAIN A PERMIT -- ATTAIN APPROVAL OF ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED, AND THERE IS A 30-DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[S. 24-1074 433 N 9th St Socnos LLC Miles Keller]

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. LAST CASE IS 6S, CASE 24-1074, 433 NORTH 9TH STREET . SOCNOS LLC IS THE OWNER.

>> I AM MILES KELLER. I AM THE INVESTIGATOR/INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. CASE NUMBER 24-1074 , 433 NORTH 9TH STREET , SOCNOS LLC IS THE OWNER. CASE INITIATED MAY 9TH OF 2024. VIOLATIONS ARE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ONE OF 5.120 20 PERMIT REQUIRED. IPMC 304.13 2021 WINDOW, SKYLIGHT, AND DOORFRAMES. IPMC 304.13 .2 20 2021 OPENABLE WINDOWS. IPMC 304.15 2021 DOORS. IPMC 309.1 2021 INFESTATION. IPMC 304.6 2021 EXTERIOR WINDOWS. IPMC 604.3 2021 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS. AND IPMC 605.1 2021 INSTALLATION. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, ONE, REPAIR AND REPLACE WINDOWS THAT ARE LEAKING AND ON OPENABLE. TWO, OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE FRONT DOOR AND PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL WORK DONE WITHOUT PERMITS. THREE, MAKE REPAIRS TO THE FRONT DOOR MAKING IT WEATHER-TIE. FOUR, TREAT PROPERTY FOR ALL PEST INFESTATIONS, INCLUDING TERMITES, AND, FIVE, MAKE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO THE OUTLET THAT ARE BURNT OUT AND MAKING THE ELECTRICAL PANEL SAFE. SIX, MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE HOLES IN THE EXTERIOR WALLS. AND, SEVEN, REPLACE THE MISSING SMOKE DETECTORS. RECOMMENDATIONS. THE SENIOR QUEST IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND VIOLATIONS EXIST, THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, ATTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, AND COMPLY WITH ALL THEIR PERMITS, CONDITIONS, AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 MAY BE ASSESSED.

WE RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE OWNER ON MONDAY, 8/12/24, ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION. THEY WERE INFORMED THAT THE CASE WOULD REMAIN ON THE AGENDA. AND I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE

[02:40:01]

>> ALL RIGHT. >> PHOTOGRAPHS STATED MAIN 2ND.

>> YES. >> AND MAY FIXED.

MAY 6TH. >> I BELIEVE THEY WERE ON MAY 2ND . YES. MAY 6TH, I DID GO BACK OUT THERE. IT DIDN'T TAKE

ALL THE PICTURES. >> AND TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO AND THAT YOU OBSERVED ON MAY 2ND AND MAY 6TH?

>> YES. >> MOVE THESE INTO EVIDENCE AS

CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> THE PHOTO SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THAT SOMEBODY CALLED AND ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION. YOU MEANT THEY ASKED TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING? IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I WAS NOT PART OF THAT. THAT WAS ELIZABETH THAT RECEIVED THE

PHONE CALL. >> YES. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE WAS DENIED?

>> YES. >> AND THAT THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR THEM TO APPEAR BY PHONE OR ANYTHING?

>> NO. >> OKAY. I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO ATTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED, AND THERE IS A 30-DAY

RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU. THAT IS IT. AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR THROUGH CERTIFIED MAIL. THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED AND PLACED IN THE MAIL. AT THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED, THEN DISCLOSE MAIL TO THE VIOLATOR 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. A NOTIC OF HEARING WAS THEN SENT IN REGULAR U.S.

MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ATTACHED TO IT. THE COPY WAS PLACED IN THE FILE 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD. IN THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL. A NOTICE OF HEARING IS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. AT THE CERTIFICATION CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING POSTING IS COMPLETED THE SAME WAY AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED

UNCLAIMED. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO

COME BEFORE? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THEN THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING OF 8/15/2024

IS ADJOURNED. >> THANK YOU. HEATHER DEBEVEC

>>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.