[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:23] 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.Î YOU CAN [A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES] REMAIN STANDING IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND., DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THANK YOU. [B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED] SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WE HAD A COUPLE OF CASES THAT WERE RESCHEDULED. CASE NUMBER 24-1464 AND 24-1465 FOR 702 NORTH 15TH STREET, FRONT HOUSE. AND OUR FIRST CASE THIS MORNING [C. BV2024-00001 2020 Sunrise Blvd Taylor, Violet (EST) Miles Keller] WILL BE SIX C . OUR FIRST CASE WILL BE BV2024-00001, 2020 SUNRISE BOULEVARD . THE OWNER IS VIOLET TAYLOR . >> GOOD MORNING. >> MR. KELLER, WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> I AM MILES KELLER AND I AM AN INSPECTOR. THIS CASE WAS INITIATED ON JULY 16, 2024. THE VIOLATIONS ARE BUILDING: -- BUILDING CODE 105.1. REQUEST THAT THE VIOLATION BE FOUND TO EXIST. AND COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND VIOLET AND FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS -- SO FAR THERE HAS BEEN NO PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TO THE COURT? >> YES. I HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY. >> WE YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THAT TO COUNSEL SO THAT HE MAY REVIEW IT. >> I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF MS. TAYLOR AND THERE IS NO CONTESTING OF THE VIOLATION. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION --. >> PHOTOS WILL BE ENTERED AS EXHIBIT 1. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD? >> ACTUALLY, VIOLETS TAYLOR PASSED AWAY A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND THE HOUSES OCCUPIED BY CAROLYN TAYLOR. THE PROBLEM IS THAT CAROLYN TAYLOR NEVER HAD THE ESTATE PROBATED OR HAVE THE PROPERTY PUT IN HER NAME. WHEN SHE WENT TO GET A PERMIT SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO GET IT. SHE HAS CONTACTED ME AND I WANT TO ASSURE THE CITY WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PROBATING THE ESTATE. WE HAVE TRANSFER THE PROPERTY FROM HER FATHER TO HER MOTHER, VIOLET TAYLOR AND THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TRANSFERRING THAT TO CAROLYN TAYLOR. WE ARE REQUESTING INSTEAD OF 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN GET THAT DONE WITHIN A 90 DAY PERIOD OF TIME AS WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED AT. >> DO WE HAVE A POSITION ON THE 90 DAYS RATHER THAN 60 DAYS? >> STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO A 90 DAY ORDERING OF DETERMINATION. [00:05:07] >> YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT WOULD WORK? >> YES. WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS AND IT IS JUST A MATTER OF GETTING THE COURT TO SIGN OFF ON IT. >> THE 90 DAYS WOULD BE FOR THE VIOLATION AND INSTEAD, 60 WILL BE GIVEN. WHEN THE PERMIT IS OBTAINED IT WILL BE 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED. YOU MUST COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS. >> YES. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT. MAY WE BE EXCUSED? >> YES, PLEASE. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6 A , [A. 24-1262 309 Dundas Court Septentrion Market Inc. Logan Winn] 24-1262 , 309 DUNDAS COURT HERE SEPTENTRION MARKET INC. IS THE OWNER . WHEN YOU ARE READY MR. WINN. >> GOOD MORNING. I AM LOGAN WINN. I HAVE 309 DUNDAS COURT AND THAT CASE WAS INITIATED DECEMBER 5, 2024. THE VIOLATIONS FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED, IPMC 111.13 (2021) STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY . THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE THE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO RESTORE POWER TO THE HOUSE OR VACATE IT IMMEDIATELY. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) 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 A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR NO WORK PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THEY ARE PASSED UP? >> NOT REALLY. >> MR. WINN KUTV'S PHOTOS ARE DATED MAY 29, 2024. WERE THESE TAKEN BY YOU? >> YES . >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU OBSERVE? >> YES MA'AM. >> WE ADMIT THESE AS EXHIBIT 1. >> THE PHOTOS WILL BE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. >> MR. WINN WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. WHAT DO THEY DEPICT. >> IT SHOWS THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE MAST HAS BEEN RIPPED OUT OF THE CAM . PICTURES C AND D ARE THE POSTINGS REGARDING HUMAN OCCUPANCY DUE TO THE LACK OF ELECTRICITY TO THE PROPERTY. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE MAGISTRATE? >> NOW. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER? >> THE HOUSE, AFTER THEY POSTED FOR THE REMOVAL, IT WAS REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. YOU SEE THE PICTURE OF THE KIDS WAS OVER THERE. AT LEAST THIS IS WHEN THEY CALLED ME. BASICALLY, WE WORK TO GET A PERMIT FOR THE BUILDING BUT THE BUILDING HAD TO BE CHECKED BY AN ARCHITECT AND THAT TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN EXPECTED. I AM JUST ASKING FOR MORE TIME SO THAT WE CAN GET EVERYTHING. >> THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS 60 DAYS. CANNOT BE DONE IN 60 DAYS? >> YES, MA'AM. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE DEPARTMENT? >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE VIOLATOR BE [00:10:01] GIVEN 60 DAYS COMPLY WITH ANY OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER THAT REQUIRE THE PERMIT. THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT? >> YES. THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6 B , [B. 24-1277 719 S 24th St Gonzalez, Claudia Joel Smith] 24-1277 , 719 SOUTH 24TH STREET . CLAUDIA GONZALES IS THE OWNER. >> MR. SMITH, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH AND I AM A BUILDING INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. TODAY WE HAVE CASE 24-1277 LOCATED AT 719 SOUTH 24TH STREET. THE OWNER IS CLAUDIA GONZALES AND THE CASE WAS INITIATED JUNE 11, 2024. THE VIOLATIONS ARE FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED, IPMC 111.13 (2021) STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED, IPMC 505.4 (2021) WATER HEATING FACILITIES, IPMC 603.1 (2021) MECHANICAL APPLIANCES, IPMC 304.13 (2021) WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES, IPMC 704.2.1.1 (2021) SMOKE ALARMS ÷ GROUP R-1, IPMC 704.2.1.3 (2021) INSTALLATION NEAR COOKING APPLIANCES. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, 1. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE SHED LIKE STRUCTURE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. 2. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME INTO 3 LIVING UNITS. 3. MAKE NECESSARY PLUMBING REPAIRS TO SUPPLY HOT WATER FACILITIES. 4. REPAIR/REPLACE THE NON-WORKING AC UNIT AND THERMOSTAT. 5. REPLACE THE MISSING SMOKE DETECTORS. 6. REPAIR/REPLACE THE EXTERIOR DOOR MAKING IT WEATHER TIGHT. THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) 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 A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES. THESE PICTURES WERE TAKEN JUNE 11. >> IS THIS MISS GONZALES? >> YES . >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE HE PASSES THEM UP? >> THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN JUNE 6 , 2024. >> MR. SMITH, YOU STATED THAT THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN JUNE 6. WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU? >> YES. THEY WERE TAKEN AT THE [00:15:04] TIME OF THE COMPLAINT. >> THERE ARE SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND DO THEY DEPICT THE ISSUES ON THAT DATE? >> YES MA'AM . >> THESE ARE ENTERED AS EXHIBIT 1. >> THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> YOU JUST BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE? >> THAT IS THE HOUSE THERE. THAT IS ONE OF THE EXTERIOR DOORS ON THE STREET. THAT IS WHERE A WATER HEATER USED TO BE. THAT IS ANOTHER EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS NOT SHUTTING, CEILING, OR OPERABLE . >> WERE THERE MULTIPLE OCCUPANTS TO THE HOME? >> THREE DIFFERENT -- IN THAT HOUSE. THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE ONES ON TWO DIFFERENT SIDES. AND THAT IS JUST ANOTHER PICTURE OF THAT DOOR. THAT JUST SHOWS ANOTHER OCCUPANCY OF THE HOUSE AND ONE OF THE AREAS THAT IS BEING RENTED OUT. THAT IS THE SHED THAT THERE WAS NO PERMIT FOR. PROBABLY JUST THAT SAME EXTERIOR DOOR FROM PRIOR. I WOULD SAY , WHAT AM I LOOKING AT HERE? I AM NOT SURE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET A PICTURE OF IN THAT ONE. I GUESS A PERSON PUT IN SOMETHING TO GET AIR CONDITIONING BECAUSE THE AIR CONDITIONING WAS NOT WORKING. AND THAT IS A PICTURE OF THE POSTING. >> ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LET THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NO? MISS GONZALES, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE? >> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM, THE HOT WATER IS WORKING. AND ALSO, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WINDOW. >> I THINK YOU MAY BE SPEAKING OF WHERE IT SAYS WINDOW, SKYLIGHT, AND DOOR FRAMES. THAT IS A CODE THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF WINDOWS AND DOORS . >> MISS GONZALES, HAS THERE BEEN A PERMIT OBTAINED FOR THE SHED? >> I AM GOING TO REMOVE IT. I HAD AN APPOINTMENT ON THE 18TH WITH MY CONTRACTOR. WE ARE WORKING ON THAT. >> CAN THAT BE DONE IN 60 DAYS? THE DEPARTMENT. >> IF YOU GIVE ME THE MOST TIME THAT YOU CAN I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >> IT WILL BE 60 DAYS AND THERE ALSO IS A PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION INTO THREE LIVING UNITS. IS IT STILL THREE LIVING UNITS? >> YES BUT I AM STILL WORKING WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. >> YOU SAID THE HOT WATER HAS BEEN FIXED? >> IT WAS ALWAYS WORKING. AND THE AIR CONDITIONING IS WORKING TOO. AND THE THERMOSTAT TOO. SHE TURNED IT OFF AND SHE BROKE THE OUTSIDE DOOR. SHE BROKE A LOT OF THINGS. SHE MOVED THE SMOKE DETECTOR. SHE DID A LOT [00:20:10] OF THINGS IN THAT APARTMENT. >> WE HAVE SEEN PHOTOS OF THE EXTERIOR DOORS NOT CLOSING. >> THE CITY TOLD ME , I GO TO HOME DEPOT AND IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE DOOR. I THINK I WILL REPLACE IT WITH A METAL DOOR. THAT IS BETTER. >> ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE YOU NEED TO CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. >> MY GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS GOING TO DO IT. >> DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO. IF SHE IS GETTING A CONTRACT HER AND WILL GET EVERYTHING TAKEN CARE OF, WE LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING IT REINSPECTED. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FOR THE CITY? >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION. WASN'T MY UNDERSTANDING YOU SAID THERE WAS NO HOT WATER HEATER? >> THERE IS A WATER HEATER BUT IT WAS NOT WORKING. THE WATER HEATER WAS THERE BUT THERE WAS NO HOT WATER AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION WHICH I CONFIRMED MYSELF.WHETHER THERE IS HOT WATER NOW, I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD NEED TO REINSPECT. BUT AS OF THE TIME THAT I DID THE INSPECTION THERE WAS NO HOT WATER. IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I HAVE BEEN OUT THERE. BASICALLY THE WASHER AND DRIER WERE REMOVED. >> SO THE WASHER AND THE DRIER WERE WORKING. BUT NOT ANYMORE. AND THEY THROW THAT IN THE TRASH BUT THE WATER HEATER I KNOW FOR SURE IS WORKING ALWAYS. ALSO, THE AIR CONDITIONING. SHE DOES NOT LIKE IT BECAUSE IT IS SO COLD. I, HOW CAN I SAY, I EVICTED THE TENANT AND SHE SUED ME FOR $8000. SHE WANTS FREE MONEY. SHE GAVE ME A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SO, SHE MOVED FINALLY AND THE PLACE IS NOW EMPTY. AND I SUPPORT WHATEVER THE CITY SAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO FIX IT TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE BUT I NEED TIME. >> YOU WILL BE GIVEN TIME. MAKE SURE THAT YOU CONTACT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEY WILL COME BACK OUT TO REINSPECT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE DONE UNLESS THEY REINSPECT IT. >> I REMOVED THE SHED THOSE ARE EASY THINGS. THE ONLY BIG THING IS CHANGE THE SINGLE INTO THREE UNITS AND THIS IS BIG FOR ME BECAUSE IT WILL COST A LOT OF MONEY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS HOPE FOR THAT OR JUST TIME? >> YOU WILL HAVE SOME TIME TO COMPLY AND MAKE SURE YOU KEEP IN CONTACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT. >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR INSPECTION AT LEAST EVER EVERYONE HUNDRED 80 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH ANY OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS. FAILURE TO DO THAT WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY . IF YOU FIND YOU CANNOT DO IT WITHIN THE 60 DAYS LET US KNOW BEFORE THE 60 DAYS EXPIRES. >> SO WHEN DOES THAT START? >> 60 DAYS FROM TODAY. AND THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> AND IF I AM NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT WHO DO I CONTACT? >> THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. >> YOU CAN CONTACT JOEL SMITH [00:25:05] OR ELIZABETH THAT . -- BACK -- BECK. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR EVERYBODY. [D. BV2024-0006 2001 Delaware Ave A-Rated Home Stays LLC Joel Smith] >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6 D , CASE BV2024-0006 , 2001 DELAWARE AVENUE. A-RATED HOME STAYS LLC IS THE HOME OWNER . >> GOOD MORNING. >> MORNING. >> WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, MR. SMITH. IS BACK GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH AND I AM AN INSPECT HER AND INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE HAVE CASE NUMBER BV2024-0006 LOCATED AT 2001 DELAWARE AVENUE. THE HOMEOWNER IS A-RATED HOME STAYS LLC. THEY ARE LOCATED AT 5259 NORTHWEST SOUTH LOVE IT CIRCLE IN PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA. THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE ARE FBC 105.1 - PERMIT REQUIRED, IPMC 304.6 ÷ EXTERIOR WALLS, IPMC 304.7- ROOFS AND DRAINAGE, IPMC 504.1 ÷ PLUMBING ÷ GENERAL, IPMC 506.2 ÷ SANITARY DRAINAGE AND FUNCTIONAL CONDITIONS. AS OF RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY PERMITS OR CONTACT FROM THE OWNER. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO 1. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED WITHOUT A PERMIT. 2. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED EXTERIOR WALLS. 3. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED ROOF. 4. PLEASE REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED, OBSTRUCTED, OR LEAKING PLUMBING FIXTURES. 5. PLEASE MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE SANITARY SYSTEM. THE CITY RECOMMENDATION IS, THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO 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 VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. I HAVE SOME PICTURES FROM WHEN I WAS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A COMPLAINT FROM THE TENANT THAT WAS LIVING THERE AT THE TIME. AND I DO HAVE PICTURES. >> WILL YOU PLEASE TELL US WHO YOU ARE HERE FOR? >> I AM HERE AS THE PRESIDENT OF A-RATED HOME STAYS LLC . >> THANK YOU. >> ARE YOU DONE REVIEWING THEM? >> YES . >> PLEASE PASS THEM BACK. >> AT THE TIME THAT THIS CASE WAS INITIATED, MY TIMESTAMP WAS NOT WORKING. BUT I DID TAKE THESE PICTURES ON JULY 29, 2024. >> MR. SMITH DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE CONDITIONS YOU OBSERVE THAT DATE? >> YES MA'AM. >> THESE CAN BE JUST THE PHOTOGRAPHS WILL BE ADMITTED AS COMPOSITE EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. >> WILL YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE [00:30:03] WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT? >> THE FIRST PICTURE APPEARS TO BE THE CLEANOUT THAT IS OPEN. THE TENANT SAYS HE CONSTANTLY HAS TO GET IT DRAINED OUT AND PICTURE B IS THE ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE. AND THIS ONE IS KIND OF TOUGH TO SEE THE CONDITIONS FROM THAT PICTURE. AND THE SAME AS WELL FOR THE ROOF. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE SHINGLES ARE PULLED UP. THE ROOF IS IN REALLY BAD CONDITION BUT IT IS JUST TOUGH TO TELL WITH THE PICTURES. >> YOU OBSERVED IT YOURSELF? >> YES. >> THIS IS JUST LOOKING AT THE BACKYARD. NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IS GOING ON THERE. WE NEED TO GO LOOK AT IF PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY LIVING IN THAT OR RENTING THAT. THAT SHED IN THE BACK IS NOT PART OF THIS CASE. THERE IS PLUMBING THAT HAS BEEN CUT OPEN AND BASICALLY TRIED TO BE REPAIRED AND I GUESS THE WATER IS LEAKING OUT OF THERE. THERE IS MISSING CITING ON THE BACK. THAT IS A PICTURE OF THE POSTING. >> ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? >> I HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT FROM THEM SO WE WILL SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. >> SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD? >> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I DID COME WHEN I GET INFORMATION I HAD VIOLATIONS , IT DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY HAD MOVED. BUT WHEN I TALKED TO THE REPRESENTATIVE I WAS INFORMED THAT WE NEEDED A ROOF ON THERE . THE TENANT THAT WAS THERE WAS NOT PAYING AND THEY WERE STUFFING THINGS DOWN THE DRAIN . WHAT EVER THEY WERE STUFFING DOWN THE DRAIN WAS PLUGGING IT UP. YOU CAN SEE THE CLEANOUT IS PART OF THE CITY RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS THE CITY CLEANOUT AND WHEN I CALLED THE CITY THEY UNCLOG IT A COUPLE OF TIMES AND THEY SAID WHOEVER IS THERE IS PUTTING SOMETHING DOWN THE DRAIN . IT SINCE THEY GOT EVICTED THAT PROBLEM HAS NOT HAPPENED. THERE IS A LEAK COMING FROM A FAUCET FIXTURE THAT NEEDED TO BE TIGHTENED UP AND WE CUT THAT OUT THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE IT WAS NOT LEAKING IN THAT SPOT AND IT WAS NOT. IT WAS ACTUALLY A FALSE IT FAUCET FIXTURE THAT WAS LEAKING. THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS THE ROOF. THE OTHER THING WAS THAT THE TENANT BEING MALICIOUS AND TRYING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS BUT SINCE HE HAS BEEN EVICTED THERE ARE NO OTHER PROBLEMS. I AM WORKING TO GET A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF BUT BECAUSE OF THE STORMS, MY GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS UP NORTH DOING WORK AND HE SAID HE WILL BE BACK THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY. THE PLACE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN IMMACULATE CONDITION. THERE WAS NOTHING OUT OF PLACE OR WRONG UNTIL THAT TENANT MOVED IN. >> SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE PLUMBING HAS BEEN FIXED? >> YES. THE PROBLEM WAS THEY WERE STUFFING THINGS DOWN THERE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO. THE BACKUP ALWAYS HAPPENED OUTSIDE SO WHEN THE CITY CAME OUT THEY USED A PLUNGER AND PUSHED IT RIGHT THROUGH BUT SINCE THEN, A CLEANOUT HAS BEEN ADDED CLOSER TO THE HOUSE AND WE HAVE NOT HAD PROBLEMS. >> THERE IS A PANEL THAT WAS DAMAGED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOME. WILL THAT BE FIXED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR? >> THAT HAS BEEN FIXED. WITH A CEMENT BOARD. IT WAS PULLED OFF BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SEE WHY IT WAS CLOGGING. THIS HAS BEEN PUT BACK UP AND IT HAS BEEN TAKING [00:35:01] CARE OF. >> THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR 60 DAYS FOR THAT TO BE PULLED. WILL YOUR CONTRACTOR BE ABLE TO DO THAT? >> IT WILL BE DONE BY FEBRUARY. >> ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, MR. SMITH? >> YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY . YOU OWN THE COMPANY. >> YES, SIR. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IN PHOTO F. DO YOU WANT TO PULL THAT BACKUP ? I AM JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURE BACK THERE AND IF THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT. >> NO. I BROUGHT -- BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND THAT IS A SHED WITH SUPPLIES IN IT. JUST STUFF FOR THE HOUSE. THERE ARE TABLES AND CHAIRS IN THAT. >> IT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL RESIDENCE. >> THAT WAS THERE WHEN I PURCHASED IT. WHEN I OPENED IT UP IT WAS JUST A STORAGE ROOM. I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN MARCH OR APRIL OF THIS YEAR. >> YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE 60 DAYS IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THESE VIOLATIONS. >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION DOES EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL OF ALL INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED AND THIS IS IF THIS IS NOT DONE IN 60 DAYS THERE WILL BE A FINE OF $100 PER DAY. SO IF YOU CANNOT MEET THIS 60 DAYS PLEASE LET THEM KNOW BEFORE IT EXPIRES. >> I WILL. MY CONTRACTOR WILL BE BACK THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY BUT THINGS HAPPEN. BUT I SHOULD HAVE IT DONE. >> AND THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU. [E. BV2024-00007 724 Texas Court Branca, Alan Logan Winn] >> NEXT WE ARE GOING TO DO CASE BV2024-00007, 724 TEXAS COURT. ALAN BRANCA IS THE OWNER . >> MR. WINN, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY . >> WE HAVE CASE NUMBER BV2024-00007 . 724 TEXAS COURT. THE CASE WAS INITIATED JULY 29, 2024 AND THE OWNER IS ALAN BRANCA . THE VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC 111.1.5 (2021) DANGEROUS STRUCTURE, IPMC 304.1 (2021) EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, IPMC 304.13.1 (2021) GLAZING, IPMC 304.4 (2021) EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, IPMC 304.6 (2021) EXTERIOR WALLS, IPMC 304.7 (2021) ROOFS AND DRAINAGE, IPMC 305.1 (2021) INTERIOR STRUCTURE ÷ GENERAL REQUIREMENT, IPMC 305.2 (2021) INTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, IPMC 305.3 (2021) INTERIOR SURFACES, 604.3.1 (2021) ELECTRICAL EQUIP WATER EXPOSED BUILDING. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. 1. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN. OCCUPANTS SHALL VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITION IS REMEDIED. 2. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR/REPLACE THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. 3. PLEASE REPLACE ALL DAMAGED GLAZING. A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED IF WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE REPLACED. 4. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. 5. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED EXTERIOR WALLS. 6. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED ROOF. 7. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED INTERIOR FEATURES. 8. PLEASE PAINT OR REPAIR THE INTERIOR SURFACES OF THE STRUCTURE AS REQUIRED. 9. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO WATER. THE RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL [00:40:02] MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) 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 A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. WE HAVE NO PERMITS AT THIS TIME FOR THIS PROPERTY. THIS CAME TO US VIA THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL. >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU PROVIDED TO ME ARE DATED JULY 29, 2024. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THERE ARE ALSO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM -- 26 THIS YEAR. >> YES . >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS OBSERVED? >> YES. >> WE WOULD MOVE THESE AS EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. >> THESE WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. >> WHEN WE ARE TAKING A LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS HERE, COULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT. >> PICTURE A IS THE FRONT OF THE HOME. PICTURE B IS THE SAME. THE POSTING THAT I PUT ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND PICTURES SEE AND DR PICTURES THAT I TOOK OF THE DAMAGE INSIDE THE HOME. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CEILING IS TORN DOWN AND IT IS COMPROMISED ON BOTH SIDES. YOU CAN SEE THE TREE IS GROWING RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOUSE. AND PICTURE G IS THE STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE SMOKE AND WOOD THAT WAS PULLED DOWN BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THAN THIS IS A POSTING OF THE MAGISTRATE HEARING NOTICE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY. >> THIS PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED IN A FIRE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> HAS MR. ALAN BRANCA BEEN IN CONTACT WITH YOUR OFFICE? >> NO. >> AND NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ? >> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND OBTAIN APPROVAL OF ALL INSPECTIONS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED AND CURE ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 7 B . [B. 23-2183 3220 S US Hwy 1 Units 6 - 8 Commonwealth Multi-Properties Shaun Coss] 23-2183, 3220 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY ONE UNITS SIX THE RATE AND COMMONWEALTH MULTI PROPERTIES IS THE OWNER. >> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS CASE 23-2183 , 3220 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY ONE UNIT SIX THROUGH EIGHT. THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER. ONE IS THE GRAVITY OR THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION, MODERATE. TO ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS OR IF THE VIOLATORS VIOLATION WAS NOT CORRECTED BY THE ORIGINAL VIOLATOR, WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN BY ANY OTHER PARTY OR OWNER IN THE INTEREST TO BRING THE VIOLATION INTO COMPLIANCE? A PERMIT FOR THE REMODEL OF THE THREE SUITES WAS ISSUED 10 MONTHS AFTER THE INITIATION OF THE CASE. THE WORK WAS -- HAS BEEN COMPLETED, INSPECTED, AND A CERTIFICATE OR A OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. [00:45:05] THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION? FOUR. THE FINDINGS AND THE ORDER, ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - NOVEMBER 15, 2023. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - FEBRUARY 22, 2024. ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - APRIL 12, 2024 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ROOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES TO JUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST. >> SIR, WHO ARE YOU? >> I --. >> WHAT IS YOUR NAME? >> -- DIAZ . >> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE TENANT? >> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK, THE CHURCH, IT TOOK A LONG TIME FOR THEM TO GET DONATIONS TO GET THIS DONE. AS WE STAND RIGHT NOW THE CHURCH, THEY ARE IN A TOUGH SITUATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE TRAINED THEIR SAVING ACCOUNT FOR THE NONPROFIT. THE CHURCH HAS BEEN HELPING THE COMMUNITY FOR A LONG TIME. IT IS A SMALL GROUP BUT IT HAS BEEN HELPFUL TO THE ORGANIZATION. THIS FINE COULD BE TAKEN OFF, IF IT COULD BE IT WOULD HELP A LOT. >> RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE UNDER $5000 IN FINES AND FEES BUT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST, WHICH IS THE COST OF DOING THE HEARINGS AND FOLLOWING UP WITH PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS AND THAT IS $899.30. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE COMPANY OR THE CHURCH CAN PAY? >> AS OF RIGHT NOW THE CHURCH HAS NO WAY TO PAY THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO AVOID THOSE FEES. IF THOSE CAN BE FORGIVEN. >> DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT RECOMMEND WAIVER OF ALL OF THE FINES SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION REMAINS THE SAME. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I AGREE WITH THE CITY THAT THEY ARE ONLY ASKING THE OUT-OF-POCKET COST SO I FEEL THAT IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT TO REDUCE IT TO BUT IS THERE AN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING TO PAY IT? >> CAN THE CITY GIVE THE CHURCH 6-12 MONTHS TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING? >> STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO 12 MONTHS TO PAY THE FINE REDUCTION. >> SO THAT WILL BE $899.35. AND YOU HAVE 12 MONTHS TO PAY. AND YOU NEED TO PAY IT BY THEN OR IT WILL REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT. >> WE APPRECIATE THAT. >> YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 7 C, [C. 23-3070 4201 Bandy Blvd. Red Hawk Rebar LLC Shaun Coss] 23-3070, 4201 BANDY BOULEVARD. REDHAWK REBAR IS THE OWNER. >> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS CASE 23-3070 FOR 4201 BANDY BLVD. . THIS IS HERE FOR A FINE REDUCTION. THE VIOLATION WAS FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED. THE REDUCTION [00:50:06] CRITERIA ARE THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION WAS MODERATE. NUMBER TWO, ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS OR IF THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED BY THE ORIGINAL VIOLATOR, WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN BY ANY OTHER OWNER OR PARTY IN THE INTEREST TO BRING THE VIOLATION INTO COMPLIANCE? THE UNPERMITTED SHED WAS REMOVED. AND THIRD, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. AN ORDER DETERMINING THE VIOLATION DATED APRIL 12, 2024. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE DATED JUNE 25, 2024. ORDER APPROVING THE RESPONDENT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WAS AUGUST 16, 2024. AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE DATED OCTOBER 15, 2024. THE CUMULATIVE FINES TOTAL IS $5240. INCLUDING A $40 RECORDING FEE. A FINE REDUCTION REQUEST WAS RECEIVED. >> WHAT IS YOUR NAME? >> I AM ASHLEY LUDLOW AND I AM THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4201 BANDY BLVD. . >> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LET US KNOW? >> NO. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST. >> WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME DO YOU NEED TO PAY IT? >> WE WILL HAVE IT PAID WITHIN THE WEEK. >> SO, THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE IN 30 DAYS OR IT WILL REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL BALANCE. >> YES . >> THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE 8 A. CASE [A. 18-1546 528 N 11th St Unit B 786 Wali Inc. Shaun Coss] 18-1546 , 528 N 11TH ST UNIT B. 786 WALI INC. IS THE OWNER AND THIS IS A LIEN REDUCTION. >> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS CASE 18-1546 FOR 528 N 11TH ST UNIT B AND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED BY 786 WALI INC.. THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WERE IPMC 604.3 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS, IPMC 504.1 PLUMBING FIXTURES, IPMC 305.3 INTERIOR SURFACES, IPMC 309.1 INFESTATION, IPMC 304.13 WINDOWS, DOORS & FRAMES. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - MAY 21, 2019. NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME - JULY 24, 2019. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - NOVEMBER 5, 2019. REVISED ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - MARCH 25, 2021. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - SEPTEMBER 16, 2024. THE FINES ACCRUED FROM NOVEMBER 5, 2019 TO SEPTEMBER 16,2024 AND TOTAL $177,750.00, INCLUDING $50.00 RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER REDUCTION. WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? NO WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. NUMBER THREE, WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? THIS PROPERTY IS A DUPLEX AND THERE ARE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ON BOTH UNITS. NUMBER FOUR, THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS? NONE ON RECORD. WHETHER [00:55:01] GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YES . THE RESPONDENT APPLICATION REQUEST DID NOT -- FOR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IN THIS CASE. TO BE $1429.65 WHICH INCLUDES THE $250 APPLICATION FEE FOR THE LIEN REDUCTION AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST. >> GOOD MORNING. WILL YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF? >> MY NAME IS SHARA -- . >> YOU ARE THE REGISTERED AGENT? >> YES. >> AND YOU? >> I AM SHOCKED CHESTER. >> SO , A QUESTION FOR THE REDUCTION CRITERIA. ARE THERE ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VIOLATIONS? >> HERE IN FORT PIERCE, OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF BLIGHTED PROPERTIES AND MOST OF THEM WERE INUNDATED WITH LIENS. YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION STARTED IN 2019 BUT IN 2024, WHEN WE GOT OUR HANDS ON THE FILE WE WERE TASKED WITH BRINGING THESE INTO LIVING CONDITIONS BUT THE BIGGEST THING THAT WE OBSERVED WAS THAT MANY PROPERTIES HAD A RUNNING LEAN ON THEM. AND THE CHALLENGE IT CREATES IS THAT ANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INTERESTED IN REHABILITATING THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT WITH CASH OUT-OF-POCKET BECAUSE MORTGAGE LENDERS WOULD NOT -- WITH PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A LIEN ON IT . SO SHE DID TAKE A RISK TO REALLY BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AND A FEW OTHER THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT, NOW THAT IT IS FULLY RENOVATED AND IN COMPLIANCE WE ARE WORKING WITH THE TREASURE COAST A HOMELESS SERVICE TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH --. IT HAS BEEN A GREAT PROCESS ALL AROUND. WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO TURN THIS PROPERTY AROUND AND GET IT BACK INTO LIVABLE CONDITION. >> THE DEPARTMENT HARD ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS , IS THAT AN ISSUE TO BE PAID? >> WE WILL PAY IT . >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE DEPARTMENT? >> I FIND THAT THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUFFICIENT AND I ALSO FIND THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO GO FORWARD WITH ACCEPTING THE HARD COST. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO PAY. YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT IF IT IS NOT PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS IT WILL REVERT SO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS DONE. THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> DO WE STAY FOR THE SECOND [B. 19-2514 528 N 11th St Unit A 786 Wali Inc. Shaun Coss] HEARING? >> THEY ARE ALSO HERE FOR CASE EIGHT B. 19-2514, 528 NORTH 11TH STREET UNIT A. 786 WALI INC. IS THE OWNER . >> THIS IS CASE 19-2514 . THIS IS HERE FOR A LIEN REDUCTION. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE -- AN EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED JULY 6, 2020. ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - SEPTEMBER 28, 2020. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - SEPTEMBER 16, 2024. FINES ACCRUED FROM JULY 6, 2020 TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 AND TOTAL $153,350.00 INCLUDING $50.00 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FIVE [01:00:10] CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THE LIEN. WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? NO WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? THIS PROPERTY IS A DUPLEX AND THERE ARE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ON BOTH UNITS. NUMBER FOUR, THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS? NONE ON RECORD. NUMBER FIVE, WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THE RESPONDENT REDUCTION REQUEST STATED THAT I AGREE TO PAY ALL HARD ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND A HALF HAS HELPED RELATED THAT TO BE $1164.45 AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO THAT PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS. >> AND YOU ARE ADOPTING THE SAME RESPONSE FROM UNIT A ? AND YOU ACCEPT THAT COST? >> YES. >> I FIND THAT THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE APPLY HERE AS WELL AND IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF THE COST OF SETTLING WHICH IS $1164.45 PAYABLE IN 30 DAYS. YOU HAVE A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> THANK YOU. HAPPY HOLIDAYS. >> WE HAVE CASE 9 A, 19-3145 . [A. 19-3145 4060 Selvitz Road Johnson, Bobby & Wanda Shaun Coss] 4060 SELVITZ ROAD. BOBBY AND WANDA JOHNSON ARE THE OWNERS AND THIS IS A STATUS UPDATE. >> GOOD MORNING. >> THE VIOLATIONS ON THIS CASE ARE SECTION 5-1.105.1 (2017) PERMIT REQUIRED, SECTION 105.4.1.2 (2017) EXPIRED PERMIT. THIS HAS BEEN BACK MULTIPLE TIMES FOR EXTENSIONS. THE LAST EXTENSION WAS FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. SINCE THEN THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR PERMITS TO COMPLY THE VIOLATION CASE AND IT IS A RATHER LENGTHY PROCESS THAT REQUIRED PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVAL SO THEY HAD TO APPLY TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN THEY HAD TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSION. THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND IS PENDING REVIEW WITH PIERCE UTILITIES. ONCE IT IS APPROVED BY FORT PIERCE UTILITIES IT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT. I WOULD EXPECT THIS REVIEW TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. I WOULD ANTICIPATE AS LONG AS EVERY AS LONG AS EVERYTHING IS APPROVED, THE PERMIT COULD BE APPROVED WITHIN 30 DAYS BUT IF THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES, THAT WOULD REQUIRE REVISION AND THAT COULD PROLONG THIS. THIS IS HERE FOR A STATUS UPDATE . I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. >> I AM WANDA JOHNSON THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I DID SPEAK WITH MELODY NELSON YESTERDAY AND SHE SAID SHE IS WAITING ON ONE MORE PIECE OF INFORMATION [01:05:04] AND SHE WILL HAVE THAT WRAP IT UP. SO WE ARE FOLLOWING UP WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> NO. THE CITY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE CONTINUE THE STATUS HEARING UNTIL THE HEARING IN FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 13, 2025. IF THE PERMIT IS ISSUED PRIOR TO THAT DATE THERE IS NO -- A STATUS HEARING IS NOT NECESSARY. IF A PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THAN IT WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. >> THEN THIS WILL BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 13. AT WHICH TIME YOU WILL EITHER HAVE THE PERMIT OR A STATUS UP DATE. >> WILL WE RECEIVE NOTICE OF THAT TIME? >> YES. >> WE HAVE 9 B , CASE NUMBER [B. 23-2493 1225 McCray Court Roberts, Brandi Shaun Coss] 23-2493. 1225 MCCRAY COURT. BRANDI ROBERTS IS THE OWNER . >> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS CASE 23-2493 FOR 1225 MCCRAY COURT. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY BRANDI ROBERTS AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. VIOLATIONS: FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - APRIL 12, 2024. NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME (90 DAYS) - JULY 16, 2024. 1. APRIL 12, 2024 - SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING - THE THE RESPONDENT ADVISED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE MORE TIME AS SHE WAS TAKING HER CONTRACTOR TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT. STAFF HAS BRIEFLY REVIEWED THE COURT RECORDS AND FINES SEVERAL CASES THAT HAVE BEEN FILED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT AND WE HOPE THAT THE RESPONDENT CAN PROVIDE US AN UPDATE WITH THE CASE RELEVANT TO THIS VIOLATION AND IF YOU HAVE THE CASE NUMBER AS WELL THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> MY NAME IS BRANDI ROBERTS AND I AM THE OWNER OF 1225 MCCRAY COURT. I DO WANT TO TO TELL -- FOR HER PATIENTS. THIS HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE PURCHASED AND I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. YESTERDAY I WENT BEFORE JUDGE ALONZO AND THEY WERE GOING TO CONSOLIDATE OUR CASES LAST MONTH. I HAVE PROOF THAT THE JUDGE WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSOLIDATE THE CASES BECAUSE OF THE WAY I SUBMITTED THE CASES. I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF TRACK OR SAY THE WRONG THING, PRETTY MET I FAILED SO MANY CLAIMS THAT HE DID NOT LIKE THE WAY I FILED IT BUT YESTERDAY IN COURT IN PORT ST. LUCIE, THE CASE NUMBER IS, IF YOU ARE READY, IT IS 562024 03546. WORKING ON THESE CASES IS A JOB IN ITSELF. THE JUDGE WANTS ME TO CONSOLIDATE THE CASES AND MAKE IT CIVIL AND NOT SMALL CLAIMS. I ASKED HIM HOW THIS WORKS. HE SAYS -- I DID NOT SEE [01:10:02] A STATUTE BUT THEY WILL KEEP THROWING ME OUT OF COURT IF I DON'T CONSOLIDATE THE CASES. BECAUSE I HAD EIGHT CASES. HE DID A LOT OF WORK ON THE HOUSE AND AT THE TIME I WAS NOT IN THE HOME. MI ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS? OR AM I ABLE TO SPEAK? >> MAY I ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION? I CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE CASE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE CASE NUMBER THAT YOU GAVE IT WAS VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED BUT YOU STILL HAVE SOMETHING OPEN AGAINST MR. WALLS? IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SUING? IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONSOLIDATING BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS OWED TO YOU? >> YES. >> SO IT IS MORE THAN A SMALL CLAIM AMOUNT. >> THIS IS THE WAY THAT HE IS DOING IT. I WAS TRYING TO DO IT BASED ON , A PERSON REPORTED ME TO THE CITY. HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF ME , AND I HAD TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS SOME CASES. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE THE WAY I WAS FILING THE CASES. BUT THE JUDGE WAS LIKE, YOU HAVE 100,000 HERE BUT THAT IS BASED ON WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO FIX PRIOR TO US MOVING INTO THE HOME. >> HOW LONG IS THAT GOING TO TAKE? IF YOU ARE CERTAIN YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW THAT. >> I WAS REFERRED TO THEM , I WENT TO THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND I SPOKE WITH ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. I CONTACTED SO MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL THAT DASHED BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO FIND A LICENSED PERSON. I DID NOT KNOW THIS PERSON WAS NOT LICENSED. WHERE THE AREA IS IS NOT NECESSARY. I DON'T HAVE ANY DRAWINGS SO I AM IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO FIND AN ARCHITECT AND AN ENGINEER. ONE PERSON CAME OUT AND HE MADE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE I WAS DOING EVERYTHING MYSELF AS A WOMAN. I TOLD HIM THAT MY SON WAS NOT HERE BUT -- IT WAS JUST UNCOMFORTABLE. IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY TRUSTWORTHY , IT HAS BEEN SO HARD FOR ME SO I AM IN COURT. IT IS NOT ONLY THE FINANCIAL PART. HE BUILT ON TO THIS HOME AND I WAS NOT THERE. I HAVE EVIDENCE AND EVERYTHING BUT THE JUDGE IS LIKE , I DON'T WANT TO SAY HE WAS GIVING ME A HARD TIME BUT IT IS HARD. THIS JUDGE DID NOT UNDERSTAND, THEY WERE LIKE PUSHING ME OUT OF THE COURT BUT I AM TRYING TO GET INTO THE COURT SO I CAN PROVE WHAT IS GOING ON. SHE DID HEAR ME OUT ONE DAY. I NEED MORE TIME. I -- I GUESS IT IS THE SAME AS SMALL CLAIMS. I GAVE HIM THE KEY AND I PURCHASED MY FIRST HOME LAST YEAR. HE NEVER HANDED ME ANY DRAWINGS. HOW ARE YOU JUST GOING TO BUILD ME A PORCH? HE TOOK OFF THE TOP PART. I HONESTLY THOUGHT HE WAS WORKING ON FLOORING INSIDE THE HOME. BASED ON THE INSPECTION REPORT [01:15:09] HE BUILT A PORCH. I ASKED WHAT HAPPENED AND HE SAID HE TOOK IT DOWN. HE SENT ME A PICTURE OF SOME FANCY STUFF TO PUT ON IT BUT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD I WOULD REALLY NOT DO THE THINGS THAT HE DID TO THE HOME. >> HOW MUCH MORE TIME ARE YOU REQUESTING? >> I NEED SOME TIME. ALLOW ME TO GET BACK IN COURT. THE JUDGE DID NOT CONSOLIDATE THE CASES SO THE JUDGE REMEMBERED ME AND SAID I HAVE TOO MANY CASES. >> WE UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY. WE ARE JUST HERE TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH TIME YOU NEED. >> I NEED TIME TO GET BACK IN COURT. >> I UNDERSTAND. MR. COSS DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> BASED ON THE TESTIMONY, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A STAGED APPROACH SO STAFF WOULD REQUEST THAT WE HAVE AN UPDATE OF THE NEW CONSOLIDATED CASE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS AND IF WE RECEIVED PROOF OF THE CASE NUMBER RECEIVED IN THAT TIME STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO PROVIDING AN EXTENSION. >> IS THAT CLEAR? YOU GET THE STATUS OF THE CASE IN 30 DAYS. THE CASES PENDING THEN THEY WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER 90 DAYS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> I NEED MORE THAN 90 DAYS BUT I AM SO GRATEFUL AND WILLING TO COMPLY. >> YES, OKAY. I AM GRATEFUL. EVERY TIME I GO THERE YOU HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS. I APPRECIATE HIM. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT MEANS 30 DAYS FOR YOUR CASES TO BE CONSOLIDATED? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO COME BACK AND SHOW US THAT IN 30 DAYS. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD LUCK. [A. 23-263 2400 S Ocean Dr Bldg 2300 Building Catamaran I Inc. Shaun Coss] >> OUR LAST CASE IS A CALL-IN CASE. AND IT IS 23-263 , 2400 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, BUILDING 2300 BUILDING. I AM CALLING THE ATTORNEY. >> IS THIS ATTORNEY --? >> IT IS. >> YOU ARE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE OF A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS CASE 23-263 FOR 2400 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, BUILDING 2300. THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY CATAMARAN I INC. . THIS IS HERE FOR A FINE REDUCTION. THE VIOLATIONS OF THE CASE WERE IPMC 304.1.1 (2021) UNSAFE CONDITIONS, IPMC 306.1.1 (2021) UNSAFE CONDITIONS, IPMC 309.1 (2021) INFESTATION, FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED BUILDING 2300. THE FOLLOWING THINGS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. 1. THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE [01:20:03] VIOLATION: SERIOUS. 2. ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS(S); OR IF THE VIOLATION(S) WERE NOT CORRECTED BY THE ORIGINAL VIOLATOR, WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN BY ANY OTHER OWNER OR PARTY IN THE INTEREST TO BRING THE VIOLATION INTO COMPLIANCE? THE ASSOCIATION HAD THE BUILDING PROFESSIONALLY TREATED FOR THE INFESTATION; A PERMIT FOR THE DAMAGED TRUSSES WAS ALSO OBTAINED AND WORK WAS COMPLETED AND INSPECTED. 3. THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, OR OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCESS, OR OTHERWISE ADMITTED GUILT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING? THE ANSWER IS ONE. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION, MARCH 22, 2023. NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME, 90 DAYS, MAY 30, 2023. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE, AUGUST 29, 2023. ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, OCTOBER 18, 2023. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE, JANUARY 24, 2024. AN EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED AN ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (60 DAYS), APRIL 12, 2024. AN ADDITIONAL ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (60 DAYS),JULY 12, 2024. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE, OCTOBER 2, 2024. THE FINES WERE STOPPED AT THAT TIME. THE FINES FROM AUGUST 29, 2023 THROUGH OCTOBER 18, 2023 TOTAL $4900. FROM JANUARY 24, 2024 THROUGH APRIL 11, 2024, $7800. FROM JUNE 12, 2024 THROUGH JULY 11, 2024, $2900. THE RECORDING FEES WERE $80. TOTAL OF ACCRUED FINES, $15,680. THE RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED A REDUCTION REQUEST THAT THE FINES BE WAIVED IN ENTIRETY. THE RESPONDENT HAS PROVIDED AN REQUEST THAT THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION WAS ISSUED FOR THREE REASONS. CATAMARAN I INC. HAD TO PROVIDE PROOF OF TERMITE EXTERMINATOR AND REPAIR AND REPLACE DAMAGED TRUSSES. THEY DID COMPLY WITH ITEMS ONE AND TWO AND THE ASSOCIATION WAS REPLACING THE ROOF AT THE TIME THAT THE VIOLATION WAS ISSUED SO THE TRUST REPAIRS WERE TO BE PERFORMED AS PART OF THE ROOF REPLACEMENT. THE ASSOCIATION WORK DILIGENTLY TO GET THE TRUSSES COMPLETED. THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED APRIL 2024 AND THEY BEGAN WORKING ON THE PERMIT. THE ASSOCIATION CONTINUED TO DILIGENTLY WORK ON THE ITEMS REQUESTED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT UNTIL IT WAS ISSUED AND THE WORK WAS COMPLETED. THE ASSOCIATION WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY DURING THE PROCESS. THE PROCESS TOOK LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED BY NO FAULT OF THE ASSOCIATION. THE REQUEST THAT THE FINES BE REMOVED IN ENTIRETY. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO BE $1512.30. WHILE STAFF CANNOT AGREE WITH THE RESPONDENT REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FINES IN ENTIRETY THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE FINE TO THE AMOUNT OF $1512.30. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD? >> YES. I THINK ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS WERE COVERED BY MR. COSS. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE FINES CANNOT BE WAIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY BUT THE REDUCTION IS FINE . >> 30 DAYS TO PAY IT IS ACCEPTABLE? >> YES, YOUR HONOR. >> SO IT WILL BE REDUCED TO $1512.30 . PAYABLE IN 30 DAYS. IF NOT PAID IN THAT TIME IT WILL REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT. >> WILL WE RECEIVE NOTICE OF WHERE THIS CAN BE SENT? >> YES. >> THAT IS IT. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATORS CERTIFIED MAIL. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED AN [01:25:02] AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ENCLOSED IS MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND I NOTICE APPEARING WAS SENT VIA MAIL . A COPY WAS PLACED IN THE INSPECTOR FILE. A NOTICE OF OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE LOBBY -- IF IT IS NOT RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS, THE POSTING IS COMPLETED AS IF IT WAS UNCLAIMED. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.