Mar 13, 2025 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:12]

SPEAK 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. IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY, IF YOU COULD REMAIN STANDING. SORRY. AND IF YOU'RE PROVIDING TESTIMONY RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE HAVE TWO CASES THAT CAME INTO COMPLIANCE. BEFORE THE HEARING. CASE BB 2024 -- 00047 . CASE BB

24 -- 00071. >> THANK YOU.

>> ONE SECOND. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. WE ARE WITH US FOR A MOMENT.

[D. BV2024-00045 332 Hernando St Crossed Anchors I Condominium Assn. Logan Winn]

ASSOCIATION IS THE OWNER. >> WE ARE READY TO PROCEED.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LOGAN WINN. IN A BOATING INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. TODAY WE HAVE CASE BV -- OF 332 HERNANDO STREET. THE CASE WAS INITIATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2024. THE OWNER IS CROSSED ANCHORS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OF 1144 FRONT EDINA STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. THE VIOLATIONS ARE IPMT THREE OR 4.1.1.1 2021 EXTERIOR UNSAFE CONDITIONS. I PMC 304.10 .2021 EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS, DECKS, PORCHES AND BALCONIES. IPMT 304.1221 EXTERIOR HANDRAILS AND GUARDS. -- 2021 EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. I PMC 30.4 POINT MEMBERS. I PMC 30.4 .2021 INTERIOR STAIRS AND WALKING SURFACES. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS , ONE, TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN. IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE OCCUPANTS VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITION IS REMEDY. NUMBER TWO, ATTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS, DECKS, PORCHES AND BALCONIES. NUMBER THREE, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED EXTERIOR AND HANDRAILS AND GUARDS. NUMBER FOUR, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. NUMBER FIVE, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED INTERIOR STAIRS, PORCHES, DECKS OR OTHER WALKING SURFACES. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY REQUEST A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS VIOLATION EXISTS SO VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. ATTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS TO DRIVE IN ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT. OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THE MOST RECENT NOTE I HAVE ON HERE IS A PERMIT APPLICATION WAS AMENDED INCORRECTLY ON E- 11/2025. RECENTLY IS NECESSARY TO BEGIN PROCESSING THE APPLICATION. THE SCOPE OF WORK IS REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE DAMAGED CONCRETE, COLUMNS, BEAMS AND STAIRS. I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES THAT I TOOK OF THE

PROPERTY. >> MAN, WHO ARE YOU? I AM THE

[00:05:03]

HLA. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THEIR PAST UP?

>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MY NAME IS ROBERT. I'M ONE OF THE FOUR OWNERS . IT'S A FOUR UNIT CONDO. I'M PREPARED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE CITIES PHOTOGRAPHS TO EXPEDITE . HERE YOU GO. WOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY LIKE A COPY ?

>> OF COURSE. >> THANK YOU.

>> BEFORE I READ THIS INTO THE RECORD, SIR, DO YOU REPRESENT

THE ASSOCIATION? >> SORRY?

>> DO YOU REPRESENT ACROSS ANCHORS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION?

>> I AM AN OWNER OF ACROSS ANCHORS. IT'S A FOUR UNIT.

CROSS ACRES IS A SMALL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. MS. MINCY AND I ARE SPEAKING TODAY. THE OTHER OWNERS ARE HERE. I'M JUST GOING TO, YOU PROVIDED WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PHOTO EXHIBITS. HAVE YOU SEEN THESE PHOTO EXHIBITS?

>> YES. MS. BETH GAVE THEM TO ME .

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. WAYNE, COULD YOU PROVIDE ME THE PHOTOGRAPHS HERE, SO I CAN SEE THEM AS WELL? MR. WYNN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU PROVIDED A SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE DATED

SEPTEMBER 12TH OF LAST YEAR. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHERE THE OR ANY OTHER DATES OTHER THAN SYMPTOM 12?

>> NO. >> I HAVE YOUR AN OBJECTION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY ONE OF THE OWNERS WITHIN THE CONDO. AN OBJECTION TO CHARGE NUMBER FIVE. I DON'T KNOW THAT REFERS TO. IT SAYS INTERIOR STAIRS. EACH AND EVERY OF THE CITIES EXHIBIT OR PICTURES, IRRELEVANT IMMATERIAL AS NUMBER -- AS NONE OF THE A.D.D. CITY EXHIBIT THOSE -- CITY PHOTOS IN PICKED THE INTERIOR STAIRS, INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR OF ANY UNIT.

OBJECTION TO CITY EXHIBITS MARKED AS BDM O.R. V WHY EE II00 PP QQQ. THE ABOVE LISTED EXHIBITS CONTAIN CORE SAMPLE SITES , CHAT JUST ONE PAGE OCTOBER 20TH 20 TOWARD -- SITTING LOOSE CONCRETE WAS REMOVED AND PLACES CONTRIBUTED TO THE CURRENT APPEARANCE. 2024 REPORT IN POSSESSION OF MR. SHAUN COSS BY JULY 1ST 2024 GIVEN TO THE CITY IN RESPONSE TO SHAUN COSS'S JUNE 10TH , 2024 LETTER TO CROSS ANCHOR A TO A DEMANDING A MILLENNIAL INSPECTION REPORT BY DECEMBER 31ST, 24. IT CLEARLY STATES CORE SAMPLES WERE TAKEN IN MARCH OF 2024 TWO DISRUPTING AND DISTORTING THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY . THEREFORE, THE EXHIBIT PICTURES TIMESTAMP SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 AT 2:00 P.M. RETAIL TO REFLECT THE TIME OF THE INCEPTION OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION, WHICH IS WHY IN PART THERE OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE. FINDS APPLY CRIMINAL INTENT, ELEMENT OF VIOLATION AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR LACK OF PROPER FOUNDATION. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. WINN, DID YOU TAKE THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> GENERALLY, WHAT DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT? GENERALLY, IT'S A CONDITION WHERE THE CONCRETE IS FALLING FROM THE REBAR, THERE'S MULTIPLE CRACKS AND BEAMS AND STAIRCASES AND

PARTS OF BALCONIES, COLUMNS . >> AND THERE IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THAT WAS WRITTEN HERE IS THAT IT DOESN'T CONTAIN YOUR SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH THERE ARE MANY PHOTOGRAPHS HERE.

DOESN'T CONTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

WHAT IS, DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING?

>> THESE ARE ALL , IT'S FOR APARTMENTS, PER SE. ALL THE STAIRCASES ARE EXTERIOR. AND THE BALCONIES ARE AS WELL.

>> SO YOUR VIOLATIONS THAT ARE PENDING HERE TODAY INVOLVE THE

EXTERIOR SURFACES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> THERE IS ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF INTERIOR STAIRS AND WALKING SURFACES, DOES THAT INCLUDE WHAT YOU HAVE PRINTED

HERE? FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> THE EXTERIOR ONE, YOU SAY? I PMC 30.4 . THAT'S THE LAST ONE ON THE LIST, INTERIOR STAIRS AND WALKING SURFACES WHAT DOES IT REFER TO? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS -- I'M NOT 100%. I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE REFERENCING THE

[00:10:03]

BALCONY WALKING SURFACE. >> OKAY. YES. AND IT'S ALSO UNDER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS NUMBER FIVE, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR PORCHES, DECKS, OR OTHER WALKING SURFACES. WITH THAT INCLUDE ANYTHING FROM THE OUTSIDE SUCH AS A PORK, DECK, OR

OTHER WALKING SURFACES? >> RIGHT .

>> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, AS YOU STATED, TRULY AN ACCURATE DEPLETE THE VIOLATIONS OF YOU -- AS YOU OBSERVED THEM?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE CITY IS OFFERING THIS AS COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. THE CITIES ARGUMENT IS THAT THESE ARE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE. AND THEY ARE MATERIAL OBJECTIONS. NOT A PROPER LEGAL OBJECTION.

>> THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S CONSENT -- COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. AND THE OBJECTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT WILL BE ENTERED AS RESPONDENT EXHIBIT ONE.

>> IT'S FINE WITH THE CITY. NO OBJECTION. MR. WINN, I APOLOGIZE. WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS HERE NOW , THESE PHOTOGRAPHS C AND D, WHAT DO THEY DEPICT?

>> C AND D, IF THERE'S A BEAM THAT RESTING ON A COLUMN YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CONCRETE IS SEVERELY DETERIORATED. RIGHT THERE. ANTON PICTURE D IT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT SAME BEAM WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE CRACKING AND EXPOSED REBAR. THESE ARE TWO PICTURES ON THE BALCONY WHERE THE REBAR AND THE CONCRETE , OBVIOUSLY NEED SOME REPAIR. ON THAT LEADING EDGE. SAME SCENARIO THERE . WE HAVE CRACKED AND FALLING CONCRETE. THE PICTURE LETTER I WRITE THEIR IS A VERTICAL CRACK RUNNING DOWN THE COLUMN. THERE IS SMALL CRACKS IN THE BEAM ON PICTURE J . THESE ARE THE GUARDRAILS AND HANDRAILS ON THE PORCHES WHERE THEY ARE SPLITTING. MORE CRACKING DOWN THE COLUMNS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THE STRUCTURE. A CHUNK OF CONCRETE , EXPOSED REBAR ON PICTURE O. PICTURE P IS MORE CRACKING DOWN THE COLUMN. SAME COLUMN . SAME PICTURES, BASICALLY. SOME OF THE CRACKS ARE SMALLER THAN OTHERS. SOME OF THE ART OBVIOUSLY WAY EASIER TO SEE. THERE IS A SIDE OF THE BUILDING THERE THAT HAS A CHUNK

OF >>> THAT IS FALLING OFF. ANOTHER THEME WAS CRACKING OBVIOUSLY, MORE CRACKING. THAT'S WHAT MOST OF THIS ALL IS. THAT COLUMN, YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A VERTICAL CRACK RUNNING ALL THE WAY DOWN IT .

>> IS THIS ALL AROUND THE BUILDING?

>> THIS IS PRIMARILY, MY EXPERIENCE THERE WAS ON BASICALLY THE PARKING GARAGE , THE BOTTOM AREA. THAT'S WHERE ALMOST ALL OF THIS OCCURRED. SOME OF THE BALCONY STUFF WAS, YOU KNOW, SECOND-LEVEL OR THINGS LIKE THAT THERE IS A STAIRCASE RIGHT THERE WITH EXPOSED REBAR. I APOLOGIZE. I HAVE WILL -- SHOULD HAVE WORDED THAT BETTER. IS THIS ALL FOUR CORNERS OF THE BUILDING WE ARE SEEING PICTURES OF MAX

>>

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THESE OWNERS

OF THE CONDOS? >> THERE WAS , WHEN WE FIRST WROTE THE CASE THERE WAS A COUPLE OF CONNECTION BACK AND FORTH WITH ME I TYPICALLY WOULD, I EXPLAINED WHAT I DID AT THE PROPERTY AND WHAT THE PROCESS WAS. THEY DISCUSSED WITH ME ABOUT THEY HAD ALREADY CONTACTED AN ENGINEERING FIRM. AND THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET SOMETHING STARTED TO REMEDY THE SITUATION ON THE BUILDING. AFTER THAT I THINK MOST OF THE CORRESPONDENCE PRIMARILY WAS WITH SHAUN COSS IN REGARDS TO

THEIR PROCESS. >> THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER

FROM THE CITY. >> MAY I SPEAK ABOUT THIS?

>> YES. YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN, CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS APRIL. I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS. THE FIRST TIME I SET FOOT IN THIS BUILDING WAS RECEIVING A SHIP GRANT TO BUY THE HOUSE THE FIRST TIME. I

[00:15:05]

WHEN I EMAILED MR. KOSS SAYING, OH, WE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE AN INSPECTION WITH THIS , COULD THIS POSSIBLY CHECK A BOX FOR THE MILESTONE? AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS CONFUSION WHEN LEGISLATION COMES OUT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT CATEGORY YOU FALL INTO. HE CLARIFIED THAT WE DID NOT FALL UNDER THE MILESTONE INSPECTION . THAT WAS GOOD. THAT WE STILL SHOULD HAVE REPAIRS TO DO. WE KEPT MOVING FORWARD. IT WAS A LONG PROCESS TO ACTUALLY GET ENGINEERS TO RETURN . AND THEN IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A PROCESS TO GET THE REPORT AND THEN THE NEXT STEP WITH THE PLANS. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ORDER. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE THE TIMELINE THAT I MADE , WHEN I FEEL LIKE TO SAVE EVERYONE'S TIME IT CLEARLY DEFINES OUR PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING. AND THEN AFTER -- LET ME SEE, INTO OUR ENGINEERS LETTER IN OCTOBER TO REPLY TO THE CITATION HE DID SHARE IN HIS LETTER FOR US REPRESENTING US TO THE CITY THAT THE BUILDING WAS SAFE FOR OCCUPANCY. THAT HE WAS INDEED WORKING ON THIS. AND THAT THE DEADLINE , YOU KNOW, ME AS A LAYMAN, NOT SURE OF THE TIMELINES , THE DEADLINE TO COMPLY OF OCTOBER 28TH DIDN'T SEEM FEASIBLE TO VACATE THE BUILDING AND FIX THE BUILDING. SO WHEN WE CORRESPONDED WITH MR. COSS HE SAID THAT THE LETTER AND THE STEPS THAT I SHARED DID MEET HIS REQUIREMENTS TO OFFER US AN EXTENSION TO CONTINUE ON. AND THAT WAS IN WRITING . NO DATE WAS PROVIDED, SO IN MY MIND AS LONG AS I WAS DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE AND REACHED OUT WHEN I RECEIVED THE ACTUAL PLAN , WE WOULD BE OKAY. AFTER THE HOLIDAY , JANUARY WE RECEIVED A LETTER SAYING THAT WE WORK TO COME FOR OUR MAGISTRATE HEARING. I IMMEDIATELY EMAILED AGAIN, MR. COSS, AND I SAID I WANTED TO DO -- WANTED TO ASSURE HIM WE WERE STILL WORKING ON THINGS. I UNDERSTOOD. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT HE ANSWERED FOR JUST ABOUT THE PROCESS. AND THEN OUR ENGINEER CONFIRMED AGAIN THAT HE WAS WORKING ON THE DRAWINGS. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN I REPLIED TO MR. COSS I ACTUALLY HAD CONCRETE EVIDENCE . WE WERE WAITING FOR THE FINAL AND STAMPED PLANS TO SUBMIT THE PERMIT . SO, THAT WE JUST DID YESTERDAY , AS MR. WINN SHARED. WE , OUR CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED THEM UNDER RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE HE SAID WE ARE SO TINY . THEN WE LEARNED YESTERDAY THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMERCIAL. LAST NIGHT HE DID SUBMIT THE PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL . I HAVE THAT PRINT OUT HERE. I'M SURE THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT. I HAVE IN MY PACKET, IF ANYONE WERE TO NEED IT, THE PROOF OF THE PAYMENT TO OUR ENGINEER. AND , SORRY, OUR CONTRACTOR, TO GET STARTED WITH THE WORK. I HOPE THAT SATISFIES THE GROUP'S NEED TO KNOW THAT WE ARE WORKING ON THIS AND THAT

WE CARE ABOUT OUR BUILDING. >> THAT'S FINE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEPARTMENTS RECOMMENDATION, THE

[00:20:09]

>> IN PARTICULAR, NUMBER FIVE. WE ARE QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CITIES ASSERTION THAT THE INTERIOR STILLWELL, WHICH WE ARE TOTALLY UNAWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. AND PERHAPS THE CITY COULD ADDRESS THAT WITH THE

CODE. >> ARE YOU CONCEDING ALL OF THE

OTHER VIOLATIONS? >> NOT YET. YOU HAVEN'T ASKED

FOR OUR EVIDENCE YET. >> WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO

PROVIDE? >> I HAVE PICTURES OF, THANK YOU FOR ASKING. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE THIS MARKET, THIS IS OUR REAPPLICATION FOR A PERMIT THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DIGITAL YESTERDAY FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. MS. MINCY REPLIED. WE REALLY SHOULD MARK THAT. A PERMIT IS ON FILE. I BELIEVE MS. MINCY TESTIFIED TO THAT WE ARE NOT DEBATING THAT. I DO AGREE AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO OBJECT THAT THERE IS A PERMIT IN THE WORKS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DEPARTMENT TESTIFIED TO.

>> IS THAT CORRECT? IF YOU WERE LISTENING, YES.

>> WHAT I HEARD IS THAT WE INCORRECTLY FILED AS A RESIDENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DID THAT. WHAT THE CITY SAYS IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. SO WE THEN REAPPLIED AGAIN .

>> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO

PROVE WITH THAT DOCUMENT. >> OKAY. WE AGREE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT, THAT'S FINE.

>> THANK YOU. >> WHAT ELSE YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT?

>> I HAVE PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE CORE SAMPLES.

THIS IS, MAY I APPROACH? >> YES. YOU CAN WITH WHATEVER DOCTRINES YOU WANT TO PROVIDE. YOU CAN GIVE THEM ALL TO ME. I

WENT TO THEM FOR YOU. >> THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THE CORE SAMPLES, YOU HAVE ALREADY READ A JOB AS A -- THE OBJECTION, SO I WON'T GO OVER THEM AGAIN, THE CORE SAMPLES WORK DONE FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES. THESE PICTURES DON'T ACCURATELY REFLECT THE DEGRADATION OF THE BUILDING BY ITSELF. HERE. SO, ARE THESE ALL THE EXHIBITS YOU

WANT TO PROVIDE? >> WELL, THE OTHER OBVIOUS ONE, SINCE YOU ASKED, IF I KEEP MAKING A MOTION THAT WE ARE PREMATURE TO HAVE A FINDING AT THIS POINT. I TRIED TO GET SOME PAPERS TO YOUR HONOR THAT THERE ARE THREE REASONS WHY THIS SHOULD BE CONTINUED. THE FIRST REASON IS THAT THE CHARGES BV 0045 REFER TO 330 HERNANDO , FORT PIERCE. THAT IS A NONEXISTENT BUILDING . AND WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL FINES IN A FEW MINUTES WHEN THE ORDER --

>> SIR, LET ME JUST CORRECT YOU. IT'S NOT CRIMINAL, IT'S CIVIL.

>> ONCE IT'S IN THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT RESULTS

IN FINES . ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CIVIL, YES.

>> WELL, I BELIEVE THAT NOTICE SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED .

THAT'S ONE POINT WE WANT TO MAKE . WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE IS THREE WAYS WE GET PREJUDICE WHEN YOU SEND IT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS THE CORRECT ADDRESS IS 332 HERNANDO , UNIT A, B, SEE , ONE, TWO, THREE , ONE, TWO, 3 AND 4. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CITIZENS GO TO SEE IF WE HAVE MADE CORRECTIVE ACTION THEY CAN'T FIND THE EVIDENCE OF THE PERMIT OR THE TAKEBACK OF COMPLETION.

IT NEEDS TO BE 332 HERNANDO. THAT IS WHAT OUR INSURANCE IS UNDER. WHEN OUR PRESIDENT IS SERVED WITH NOTICES BY THE CITY SHE HAS TO DRIVE OVER TO THE POST OFFICE , BECAUSE THEY WON'T DELIVER, THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE BELIEVES THIS IS 332 HERNANDO. IT RESULTS IN A DELAY IN COMMUNICATION. FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS WE WOULD ASK THAT THIS MATTER BE CONTINUED .

THAT'S ONE OF, THE OTHER REASON IS THAT WE WERE UNDER THE MILLENNIAL SCHEDULE TRYING TO COMPLY . AND THAT GOT CHANGED AFTER THIS PROCEDURE FOR CODE VIOLATION BEGAN. THERE WAS, WE ARE BEING CHARGED WITH SOMETIME WHEN WE WERE UNDER A TOTALLY DIFFERENT REGIME AS GUIDANCE WAS GIVEN TO US. THOSE ARE A FEW REASONS WHY I WISH, IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO A REPORT BY DECEMBER 31ST WE SUBMITTED A REPORT ON JULY 1ST

[00:25:05]

>> BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE AM GOING TO GET YOUR EXHIBIT INTO EVIDENCE. THIS IS THE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT . NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? I WILL ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE ITEMS .

IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY, JUST LET US KNOW NOW.

>> APRIL, HAVE YOU SUBMITTED THIS?

>> I MEAN, YEAH. THEY HAD IT . >> I DON'T KNOW . APRIL HAS A WHOLE PACKET THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED AT ALL TIMES I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN EVIDENCE OR NOT. IT'S THE TIMELINE, IT'S THE SUMMIT BRIAN MASCO , CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT . AND ITS PERIODIC REPORTS TO THE CITY DATED JULY 1ST AND OCTOBER 8TH OF 2024. IF THOSE AREN'T IN EVIDENCE WE PROBABLY SHOULD MARK

THEM. >> IT ONLY GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS THAT EXIST HERE . THAT'S WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. IF YOU WANT TO SUBMIT THEM INTO EVIDENCE THAT'S FINE, NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO IT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO WHAT WE ARE HEARING TODAY. I DO BELIEVE YOU ALL. YOU HONESTLY HAVE AN ENGINEER WORKING HARD, SO IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO BRING THAT PACKET

UP >> THANK YOU.

>> MR. COSS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE

DEPARTMENT? >> YES, MA'AM. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER INITIALLY HAD THE CITED ADDRESS AS 330 HERNANDO STREET. HOWEVER, ALL NOTICES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SENT TO 332 HERNANDO STREET. THAT INCLUDES THE INITIAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

THAT INCLUDES A NOTICE OF HEARING. WHICH WE HAVE THREE SIGNED CERTIFICATION CARDS FOR ONE PATRICE MINCY REGISTERED AGENT. TWO CROSSED ANCHOR -- CROSSED ANCHORS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. AND 3, PATRICE MINCY, REGISTERED AGENT. SERVICE HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE. STAFF IS WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE CHARGE I PMC 30.4 , INTERIOR STAIRS AND WALKING SURFACES . WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH CORRECTIVE ACTION NUMBER FIVE. HOWEVER, STAFF DOES WISH YOU CAN SEE -- CONTINUE WITH A FINDING OF VIOLATION AND OUR RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.

>> AND THIS IS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT THREE, NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY. THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY AGAIN.

>> THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS NUMBER TWO, NUMBER

THREE . NUMBER TWO FOR THIS. >> THAT'S THE THIRD ITEM THAT

YOU HAVE SUBMITTED. >> NUMBER THREE FOR THE RESPONDENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

WE ARE ASKING FOR THE VIOLATIONS ALL THAT THAT LAST ONE, I AM PC 30.4 TO BE BOUND WITH THE SAME RECOMMENDATION. I FIND THAT THE VEIL -- VIOLATIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR EXIST AND THAT THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT . WHICH APPARENTLY, THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST ONE EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMITS HAVING CLOSE. COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT URKEL OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY WOULD BE ASSESSED THERE'S A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. THANK YOU.

>> FOR THE RECORD, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACT MADE IT PURSUANT TO THE MAGISTRATE MANUAL SECTION 2 AND I GAVE IT TO YESTERDAY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

>> IT'S NOT BEING CONTINUED. NUMBER FIVE WAS STRICKEN . NOT

SEEKING. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6D, CASE BV

[E. BV2024-00068 1009 Sunrise Blvd New Millionaires Inc Miles Keller]

[00:30:03]

IS THE OWNER. WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. I'M MILES KELLER. I'M INVESTIGATOR AND INSPECTOR WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. CASE NUMBERS BV 2024 -0068 -1009 SUNRISE BOULEVARD . CASE INITIATED OCTOBER 17TH OF 2024. VIOLATIONS ARE FOR THE BUILDING CODE 105 FOR THE BUILDING CODE 105.1 , PERMIT REQUIRED.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED WITHOUT A PERMIT , INCLUDING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, BUILDING, ROOFING AND OR DEMOLITION.

RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTED 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 OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR IT HAS A REJECTED PLAN REVIEW . THAT WAS ON 12 -26 -2024. I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY. ARE YOU MISS BILLICK?

>> NO. SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT. I'M NATASHA KERRY.

>> AND WHO ARE YOU TO MISS BULLET?

>> I JUST TOOK OVER FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.

>> SO YOU ARE THE PROPERTY MANAGER NOW?

>> YES. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?. NO. IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

>> MR. KELLER, YOU PROVIDED SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS . AND A STOP WORK ORDER ARE THESE ALL THAT I DON'T HAVE A DATE STAMP ON YOUR. DO YOU RECALL THE DATE YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? I BELIEVE IT'S THE DATE ON THE STOP WORK ORDER. IT SHOULDN'T BE TIME STAMPED, THAT I THINK WITH THE NEW TYLER SYSTEM IT PUTS IT IN WEIRD PLACES.

>> WHAT THAT BE, IT LOOKS LIKE OCTOBER 17, 2024?

>> I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT PHOTOGRAPH.

>> I THINK THAT IS WHEN THE CASE WAS INITIATED.

>> IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A COUPLE OF DAYS PRIOR TO THAT.

>> IT'S LABELED AS R ON THE DOCUMENT YOU PROVIDED ME.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS 12-17 -2024 WHEN THE STOP ORDER WILL

-- STOP WORK ORDER WAS PLACED. >> YOU SAID 10 1017 OR 1217?

>> IT WOULD BE 10-17. >> AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM MARCH 3RD, WHICH IS THE POSTING OF THE

PROPERTY. >> YES.

>> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHERE THE ALL TAKEN BY YOU?

>> YES THEY DO. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> YES, THEY DO. >> WHAT WAS THE WORK THAT WAS

DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT? >> IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS AN ADDITION BUILT IN THE BACK FOR AN ENCLOSED PORCH. WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND BUILDING WAS ALL DEEMED -- BEING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS FOR

>> THIS IT WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITIES COMPOSITE ONE.

PHOTOS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITIES COMPOSITE ONE.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, MR. KELLER?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. TO THE NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> MA'AM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> YES. I'M HERE TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TIME DUE TO , AS FAR AS THE OWNER, BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR.

THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION IN DIRECTION. WE HAVE MOVED ON TO A NEW CONTRACTOR. WE HAVE TO GET AN ENGINEER INVOLVED. SPEAKING TO THE ENGINEER , HE IS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WORKLOAD, BUT WE HAVE STARTED THE PROCESS AS NEW INSPECTOR , AS FAR AS OBTAINING PERMITS. I'M GOING TO ASSIST A LONG WAY TO MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT FASTER JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO

[00:35:01]

GET THOSE PERMITS OBTAINED. >> HOW MUCH TIME LEX

>> I SEE ON HERE 60 DAYS IS ON HERE, BUT THE ENGINEER, HE IS TELLING ME JUST 30 DAYS JUST TO GET OUR DRAWINGS AND STUFF

TOGETHER. >> 30 MORE DAYS THAN THE 60?

>> YES. I WAS ASKING IF I COULD GET 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF THE 60

DAYS. >> LET'S SEE IF THE CITY HAS AN OBJECTION TO IT AN EXTRA 30 DAYS.

>> THE CITY DOES NOT OBJECT. WE WOULD BE WILLING TO AMEND OUR RECOMMENDATION TO 90 DAYS.. THAT WOULD BE 90 DAYS.

>> YEAH. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. IS WHAT I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE VIOLATOR GIVEN 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT . OBTAIN APPROVAL OF ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS, OR OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE IS 6F . CASE BV

[F. BV2024-00074 410 Acai Ln St. Hilaire, Myrnise Miles Keller]

>> WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. >> CASE NUMBERS BV 2024-00074 , ADDRESS FOR 10 AÇAI LANE. CASE INITIATED OCTOBER 24, 2024.

VIOLATIONS FOR FLORIDA BUILDING CODE -- PERMIT REQUIRED .

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS , OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOM IN THE GARAGE, INCLUDING BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND ANY OTHER WORK BEING PERFORMED WITHOUT A PERMIT . RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY REQUESTS THAT A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS . THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT . OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED . COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR NO PERMIT FOR THIS WORK HAS BEEN ISSUED. AND I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE WORK

BEING DONE. >> ARE YOU MISS CLAIRE?

>> YES, I AM. >> DID I PRONOUNCE IT CORRECTLY?

>> YES, MA'AM . >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THEY ARE HANDED OUT?. YES, PLEASE. --

>> YES, PLEASE. >> HERE IS THE STOP WORK OR -- STOP WORK ORDER. IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THE ROOM BEING CONSTRUCTED IN THE GARAGE AND THE AC UNIT ON THE SIDE.

>> SO, THAT IS AN OFFICE SPACE, BECAUSE I WORK FROM HOME. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WITH CHILDREN THERE RUNNING BACK AND FORTH, SO MY HUSBAND AND HIS FRIEND, THEY BUILT ME LIKE AN ENCLOSED AREA, JUST SO THE KIDS WOULDN'T BE RUNNING UP AND DOWN WHEN I'M ON PHONE CALLS. SO, HE AND HIS FRIEND BUILT IT FOR ME. WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WE NEEDED TO DO LIKE ANY PERMITTING OR ANYTHING, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY DO MUCH TO IT. SO, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING AN ARCHITECT TO DRAW OUT, BASICALLY, WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DID. WE CONTACTED THE CITY AS WELL TO ASK THEM EXACTLY WHAT WE NEEDED TO GET DONE . THEY SENT US A LIST. WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THAT. ABOUT THE ARCHITECT IS WAITING ON A FLOOR PLAN, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED FOR SOME TIME NOW. AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN. WHAT I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND SO THAT HE CAN GET THAT FLOORPLAN DONE. BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED WORKING THINGS WITH HIM. I WANT TO ENTER INTO EVIDENCE, BUT BEFORE THAT, MR. KELLER, DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?. YES. I DID.

>> THEY ARE DATED OCTOBER -- OCTOBER 24TH OF LAST YEAR.

>> YES. IS GOOD DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY PERMIT -- DEPICT

THIS UNPERMITTED WORK? >> YES, THEY DO.

>> MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY COMPOSITE NUMBER ONE.

>> PHOTOS WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE NUMBER ONE.

>> MS. SINCLAIR, YOU PROBABLY HEARD FROM THE LAST CASE THE REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT YOU BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT AND START THAT PROCESS. CAN THAT BE DONE IN 60 DAYS?

[00:40:07]

>> THE ONLY THING I BELIEVE WE ARE WORKING THAT'S WAITING FOR IS THE FLOORPLAN. THE WAY THE CITY HAS REQUEST, YOU GO ON THE WEBSITE AND REQUEST IT IS TAKING A WHILE FOR THEM TO EVEN RESPOND. I REQUESTED, I HAVE PROOF OF THE REQUEST BEING DONE AS SOON AS WE GOT THIS LETTER. AND I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN BACK INTO RESPONSES OR ANYTHING. AND I FOLLOWED UP ON THE REQUEST FOR THE FLOORPLAN. TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE DEPARTMENT? IT SEEMS UNUSUAL TO TAKE THAT LONG TO RESPOND TO THE REQUEST, BUT THE REQUEST ARE PROCESSED BY THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU FOLLOW UP WITH THEM AGAIN . AND IF YOU DON'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER THEN YOU CAN LET EITHER ELIZABETH OR I KNOW AND WE WILL ASSIST YOU WITH THAT.

>> PERFECT YEAH. I DO HAVE. -- PROOF OF THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE FLOORPLAN BACK YET THAT IS THE ONLY THING THE ARCHITECT IS WAITING FOR.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> I FIND THAT THE BICYCLE THAT'S VIOLATION EXISTS. YOU

HAVE 60 DAYS -- >> CAN WE HAVE AN X OR 30 DAYS JUST IN CASE THERE IS AN ISSUE THERE? THE STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO

THAT. >> OKAY. 90 DAYS. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS EVERY 180 DAYS. THAT REQUIRE IT UNDER THE PERMIT UNTIL IT'S CLOSED. AND ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS ASCRIBED IN THE ORDER THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED BY PERMIT OR $100 A DAY FINE WILL BE ASSESSED. THAT'S AFTER 90 DAYS. IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM OR FOR SOME REASON EVEN THE 90 DAYS ISN'T ENOUGH, MAKE SURE YOU CONTACT THEM , THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, TO LET THEM KNOW

WHAT'S GOING ON. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 7D, CASE 24

[E. 24-1196 1206 N 29th St Bldg. 1-4 SP Pine Creek Village LP Shaun Coss ]

>> THIS IS CASE 24-11 96 FOR 1206 NORTH 29TH STREET, BUILDINGS ONE THROUGH FOUR. WHICH IS OWNED BY SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE OP. THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ART INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MINUTES GO THREE OR FOUR POINT MINUTES GO THREE OR 4.13.2, OPEN A WINDOWS. 309.1, INFESTATION, 30.3, INTERIOR SURFACES, 605.1 AND INSTALLATION, 704.1, GENERAL AND 504.1, GENERAL. THIS CAN BE FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN MEMBER EIGHT, 2024 IN AN ORDER THAT DETERMINED A VIOLATION WAS INJURED. FINDS WAS RECORDED GENERA 16, 2025. ON FEBRUARY 2ND 2025 WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE PROPERTY MANAGER CONTESTING THE FINES AND REQUESTING AN EXTENSION. PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.

>> SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD ABOUT YOUR REQUEST FOR THE

EXTENSION? >> YES. WE HAVE OBTAINED A CONTRACTOR WHO IS CURRENTLY DOING THE REMEDIAL WORK. I HAVE AN INVOICE HERE THAT IS PROOF OF THAT. IS I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED YOU, WHAT IS YOUR NAME AND YOUR RELATION TO THIS

PROPERTY? >> I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS DAVID DAWKINS. ON THE PROPERTY MANAGED THERE.

>> AND YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE -- >> AN INVOICE OF PROOF THAT WE

HAVE HIRED A CONTRACTOR. >> IF YOU WANT TO TESTIFY ABOUT IT THAT'S FINE. BUT IF YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE IT WE WILL DO IT AS AN EXHIBIT. THANK YOU. AND YOU HAVE PROVIDED FROM EDWARDS PROPERTY REMEDIATION INVOICE A LITTLE OVER $9000 FOR MOLD

REMEDIATION. >> YES. . AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DATED NOVEMBER DUE DATE DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

>> THIS WILL BE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. THE INVOICE WILL BE AND DIDN'T -- ENTERED AS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT ONE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ABOUT , ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR THE CONTINUANCE OR EXTENSION?

>> NO. WE ARE JUST ASKING IF THE CITY COULD STOP THE FINES , SEEING THAT WE HAVE HIRED A CONTRACTOR AND THE WORK IS

CURRENTLY BEING DONE? >> HAS THERE BEEN ANY OTHER WORK

[00:45:06]

>> CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE?

>> DUE TO THE REMEDIATION THAT THEY HAD TO TAKE AWAY THE, WHAT IS IT CALLED? THE DRYWALL. WE ARE WAITING ON THE CONTRACTOR AND EVERYTHING TO BE ABLE TO FINISH EVERYTHING. BUT I DID RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM HIM AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE HIM 2 TO 4 WEEKS TO OBTAIN , SO HE CAN OBTAIN HIS MURMAN DOES PERMIT TO SUBMIT IT. AND GET THE ENGINEER AND DRAWINGS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE REQUIRED PERMITTING. I GUESS THEY ARE WORKING TO GET EVERYTHING TO START ROLLING THE BALL TO GET EVERYTHING DONE. AND I APOLOGIZE. WHAT IS YOUR NAME REX

>> MY NAME IS JEANNIE MANN DRAGON.

>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT ?

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN STOP THE FINES TO SEE IF WE

CAN PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. >> THANK YOU.

>> IT WAS SOMETHING MINOR THAT BECAME REALLY INTENSE. IT WAS A LEAK FROM UPSTAIRS THAT WAS CAUSING THE DRYWALL AND IT CAUSED ALL THE DAMAGE. IT WENT FROM ONE SIMPLE MINOR THING THAT YOU GUYS OBSERVED TO SOMETHING BIGGER.

>> THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU TESTIFIED AS TO THE TIME FOR THE CONTRACTOR, BUT SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU

REQUESTING FOR AN EXTENSION? >> HE SAID 2 TO 4 WEEKS AFTER BID APPROVALS , STAMPED ENGINEER DRAWINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR PERMITTING. THAT TAKES ADDITIONAL TIME. I'M THINKING 90 DAYS. THAT'S ME PUSHING IT. I THINK I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE DONE SOONER, WITHIN 30 TO 60 DAYS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE PERMITTING TAKES. YOU KNOW? AND THE ENGINEER AND ALL OF THAT

PROCESS WITH THE CITY. >> THANK YOU. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STATS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE STAY THE ACCRUAL AND PROVIDE AN EXTENSION OF 90 DAYS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> IT WILL BE STAYED FOR 90 DAYS. THAT IS WHAT YOU REQUESTED, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT CASE IS

[A. 16-27 411 Cedar Place Cedar Place LLC Shaun Coss ]

CURRENT OWNER. >> THIS IS CASE 16-27 FOUR 411 CEDAR PLACE ON BY CEDAR PLACE, LLC. THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WERE CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 5 -- 1.11 POINT WERE CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 5 -- 1.1 1.2.1. UNSAFE BUILDING.

INTERNATIONAL PROBABLY -- MAINTENANCE PROPERTY CODE.

304.14, WINDOWS DOORS AND FRAMES, 108.1 .2, UNSAFE EQUIPPED, ONE WEIGHT .1 .3, STRUCTURAL UNSAFE FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, THREE OR 4.1, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, THREE OR FOUR POINT UNSAFE FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, THREE OR 4.1, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, THREE OR 4.10, STAIRWAYS NEXT TO PORCHES AND UGLIES, 304 POINT TO PORCHES AND UGLIES, 304.13 .1, GLAZING, -- OPENABLE WINDOWS, THREE OR 4.15, EXTERIOR DOORS 130.2, STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, 30.3, INTERIOR SURFACES, 30.4, WALKING SURFACES, 30.6, INTERIOR DOORS 309.1, INFESTATION, 44.7, FOOD PRPARATION, 504.1, PLUMBING FIXTURES AND 603.1, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 160.1, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, 60.2, ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES, 60.4, WIRING, AND SOME OF 4.2 AND SOME OF 4.2.1, SMOKE ALARMS. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DECEMBER 12, 2017. THERE'S ORDER TO -- DETERMINING , OR, YES, ORDER DETERMINING MILEAGE WAS ENTERED DECEMBER 12, 2017.

AFFIDAVIT OF NOT COMPLAINTS START OF THE FINES WAS RECORDED EVERY SEVEN, 2018 . THERE IS AN ORDER ASSESSING FIND AN OPPOSING LIEN RECORDED AUGUST 2ND, 2018. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINTS STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025. THERE ARE 20 FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS . FINDS ACCRUED FROM FEBRUARY 7TH, 2018 TO FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025 TOTALING $640,280 INCLUDING $30 IN

[00:50:06]

THERE ARE FIVE OTHER CASES THAT HAVE A LIEN THAT THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED. 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 , THERE ARE NONE ON RECORD. OH, WHETHER GRANTING REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. STAFF HAS CALCULATED MINISTRY AND COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1805 . THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO THE MINISTRY AND COSTS. STAFF IS TO THAT REQUEST TO REDUCE IT TO THE

OF MINISTRY OF COST. >> DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING

TO THAT? >> NO. HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THIS IS A CONTINUED EFFORT OF GETTING RID OF LIGHT IN OUR CITY. AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE VIOLATIONS HERE. THIS PROPERTY WAS QUITE A CHALLENGE. HOWEVER, WORKING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REMEDY THESE PROBLEMS . WE ARE

TOTALLY FINE TRAFFIC >> $1805.45?

>> YES. MY ONLY QUESTION, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I WAS LOOKING AT THE OTHER HEARINGS. THERE IS TWO PROPERTIES ON TWO BUILDINGS ON ONE PARCEL. I TRIED TO CLICK TO SEE IF THERE IS OTHER ADMINISTERED OF COSTS FOR THE OTHER HEARING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE TODAY? I WASN'T SURE IF THESE ARE COMBINED OR IS IT TWO SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES THAT WILL BE ATTACHED ? THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION HERE. THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE CASES THAT WERE INITIATED AT TWO SEPARATE TIMES , TWO SEPARATE VIOLATIONS, TWO SEPARATE LIENS. TWO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND THEN THE AGREEMENT IS $1805.45, WHICH REPRESENTS THE MINISTRY OF COSTS. THANK YOU.

>> EXCUSE ME. HOW LONG TO PAY? >> SORRY.

>> HOW LONG DO YOU -- >> RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REMEDYING A FEW MORE PROPERTIES THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS LIEN. HOPEFULLY, I WILL HAVE THAT DONE WITHIN THE NEXT 3 TO 6 MONTHS. SIX MONTHS IS OKAY WITH YOU ALL, I THINK THIS ENTIRE PORTFOLIO SHOULD BE COMPLETE WITHIN THAT TIME.

>> DOES THE CITY OPPOSE SIX MONTHS?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> YOU UNDERSTAND IF IT'S NOT PAID IN THE SIX MONTHS IT REVERTS BACK?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT CASE AS WELL . >> THE NEXT CASE IS 8B, 17-11 6409, CEDAR PLACE. CEDAR PLACE LLC IS THE CURRENT OWNER. TO GO THIS IS CASE 17 -- 1160 8449 CEDAR PLACE. THE APARTMENT IS OWNED BY CEDAR PLACE LLC. VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY WERE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 2.3, SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS FOR THREE OR 4.1, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, THREE OR 4.6, EXTERIOR WALZ, THREE OR 4.10, STAIRWAYS, DECKS, PORCHES AND BALCONIS, 304.13, WINDOWS DOORS AND FRAMES WITH 30.3, INTERIOR SURFACES AND 309.1, INFESTATION, 504.1, PLUMBING FIXTURES, 603.1, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND 60.2, ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN DECEMBER 12, 2017. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED. ON FEBRUARY 7TH 2018, AN AFFIDAVIT OF NOT COMPLAINTS STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED. IN ORDER ASSESSING FIND AN OPPOSING LIEN WAS RECORDED AUGUST 9TH, 2018 . AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINTS STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025 . FINDS ACCRUED FROM IF EVERY SEVENTH 2018 TO FEBRUARY 11TH 2025 TOTALING $640,000, SO, 640 -- $640,000 $280, INCLUDING $30 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN ONE, WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS

[00:55:05]

FIVE OTHER CASES HAVE A LIEN HAVE BEEN RECORDED. 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. THERE ARE NONE ON RECORD. AND 5, WHETHER GRANTING REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY . THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

THAT THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE MINISTRY OF COSTS.

STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE MINISTRY OF COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1503.65. STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS REQUEST TO REDUCE IT TO THE MINISTRY OF COSTS OF 1500 365. WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR IT TO BE PAID WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

>> OKAY. IS THAT AGREEABLE? >> YES.

>> IT WOULD BE $1503.65 REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTERED OF COSTS AND 6 MONTHS TO PAY IT OR IT REVERTS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL

AMOUNT. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> HAVE A GOOD DAY.

[C. 21-2867 202 Gardenia Avenue Gilliam, Darryl & Esquivel, Aida Shaun Coss ]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 8C . CASE 21-28 . CASE 21-2867, 202 GARDENIA AVENUE. DARRYL GILLIAM AND IDA ESQUIVEL ARE THE OWNERS.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> I'M DARRYL GILLIAM. >> THIS IS CASE 21-2867 FOUR 202 GARDENIA AVENUE. PROPERTY IS OWNED BY DARRYL GILLIAM AND AIDA ESQUIVEL . THE SAME ADDRESS. VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY WERE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 10.1, PERMIT REQUIRED THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JUNE 22ND, 2022 . IN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTER. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED APRIL 25TH, 2023.

IN ORDER ASSESSING FIND OPPOSING LIEN WAS RECORDED MAY 17TH, 2023. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINTS STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED IN NOVEMBER 7, 2024. FINDS ACCRUED FROM APRIL 25TH 2023 TO NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024 TOTALING $56,240, INCLUDING $40 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN. ONE, WHETHER THE REQUESTED PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN . YES. TWO, WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLAINTS AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS DIVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4 B1. THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THREE, WHETHER THERE IS CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER OWNERSHIP.

YES. THERE ARE TWO OTHER CASES. FOR, THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS. THERE WAS ONE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN. FIVE, WHETHER GRANTING REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED , HIS REQUEST DATES, I'M NOW IN COMPLAINTS AND IT HAS BEEN A ROUGH PROCESS TO MEET COMPLAINTS FROM OBTAINING A PERMIT TO BEING PUT ON HOLD BY -- COVID, CANCER, LOSING TOES, DIABETES, HEART ISSUES. I'M STILL STANDING, STILL STRONG. PLEASE HAVE MERCY AND WAIVE THE FINES AND REDUCE , I'M SORRY, PLEASE HAVE MERCY AND WAIVE THE FINES OR REDUCED TO WHERE ABLE TO PAY OVER A 12 MONTH.. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE MINISTRY OF COSTS IN THIS CASE TO BE $1604.05. STAFF CANNOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO GO BELOW THE WRECKED -- ADMINISTRATIVE AMOUNT. STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE FOR THAT AMOUNT TO BE PAID OVER 12

MONTHS. >> THE AMOUNT OF $1604.05, WHICH

[01:00:03]

THINK YOU CAN DO? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THEN JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT AT THE END OF 12 MONTHS IT IS PAID, BECAUSE THEN IT KIND THAT CAN COME BACK IF IT ISN'T.

OKAY? >> THANK YOU.

>> AND YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS? APPEAL WHAT? GOD IS GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH .

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD..

THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS NINE A, CASE

[A. 23-1588 308 Avenue A East Coast Land Holdings LLC Shaun Coss ]

>> THIS IS CASE 23-15884308 AVENUE A. PROPERTY IS OWNED BY EAST COAST LAND HOLDINGS LLC. VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WHERE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 10.1, PERMIT REQUIRED . THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OCTOBER 18TH, 2023 , AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED ON GENERALLY 16TH, 2025. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINTS STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED JANUARY 30TH, 2025. THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THE FINES. ONE, THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE. TWO, ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS AND A PERMIT FOR , A PERMIT FOR THE UNPERMITTED WORK WAS OBTAINED, BUT EXPIRED WITHOUT ANY INSPECTIONS. IT WAS LATER RENEWED AND A FINAL INSPECTION WAS APPROVED COMPLYING A VIOLATION. THREE, THE NUMBER OF TIMES BY LATER WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PORT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER QUASIJUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ADMITTING GUILT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDINGS WAS ONE TIME. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THIS CASE TO BE $766.45. THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ENTIRE FIND AMOUNT BE WAIVED. WHILE STAFF CANNOT AGREE TO THAT REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES BE REDUCED TO THE MINISTRY OF COSTS OF

$766.45. >> HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED

TO PAY THAT? >> MA'AM, WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME ON THE RECORD AND WHO YOU ARE TO THE PROPERTY?

>> MY NAME IS DELLA COATES. ON THE MANAGER OF THE STORE. FIRST THING, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT A PROBLEM , WE CAN PROBABLY PAY THE BILL WITHIN 10 DAYS. THE POINT IS, WHEN THE PERMIT IS PULLED THAT IS THE JOB OF THE CONTRACTOR TO GET A FINAL INSPECTION, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THE CONTRACTOR CALLS FOR ALL THE

INSPECTIONS AS THEY GO ALONG? >> THAT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY. IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA ULTIMATELY ANY VIOLATIONS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY. ANY PENALTIES THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED GET ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER. HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, IF YOU

CHOSE TO DO SO. >> THAT'S NO PROBLEM. WE WILL

HAVE AND PAID WITHIN 10 DAYS. >> I'M GOING TO SAY 30 DAYS. SO YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT WILL BE $766.45 IN 30

DAYS TO PAY. >> OKAY. AND REVERTS BACK IF IT'S NOT PAID IN 30 DAYS, IT GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT. AND YOU DO HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL. 30 DAYS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 9E, CASE

[B. 23-1634 109 Fisherman's Wharf Miller, Joseph G (Tr) Shaun Coss]

>> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS CASE 23-1634 4109 FISHERMAN'S WHARF. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY JOSEPH MILLER OF A 5500 ORANGE AVENUE. VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WERE FLORIDA

[01:05:04]

THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED . AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINTS STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED IN JANUARY 3RD, 2025. FINES ACCRUED FROM FAIRBURY 21ST, 2024 TO JANUARY 3RD, 2025. TOTALING $31,730, INCLUDING 30 ON -- $30 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE FINES. ONE, THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION WAS MODERATE. TWO, ANY AND ALL ACCESS 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 INTEREST TO BRING THE VIOLATION INTO COMPLIANCE. AND PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE PERMITTED BLOCK FENCE WAS OBTAINED AND INSPECTIONS WERE COMPLETED.

NUMBER THREE, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OUR OTHER JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ADMITTING GUILT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDINGS WAS SEVEN.

RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE FINES BE REDUCED TO $100.

PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE STAFF IS NOT ABLE TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT THE FINES BE REDUCED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $902.85.

>> IS THAT THE TOTAL? >> THAT IS THE TOTAL, SIR. ARE

YOU MR. MILLER? >> PARDON ME, MA'AM?

>> ARE YOU MR. MILLER? YES. I AM. AND THIS IS MY TENANT, JOHN NOLLIE. UNFORTUNATELY, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. IT WAS A TRANSFER OF THE BUSINESS OWNERSHIP FROM THE X TENANT TO MR. NOLLIE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, HE APPLIED FOR ALL THE PROPER PERMITS. I THOUGHT IN THE FIRST PERMIT WAS ISSUED THAT IF THERE WAS ANY PROBLEMS WITH CODE VIOLATION DEPARTMENT IT WOULD CEASE. I WAS WRONG TO ASSUME THAT. THE SITUATION CAME UP , SO MY ATTORNEYS OFFICE WHEN HE INFORMED ME THAT I HAD A $30,000 LIEN WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IT SHOCKED ME. AT THIS POINT THE BUSINESS IS UP AND RUNNING. AND ALL OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LIST OF THE TIMELINE FOR MR. NOLLIE PULLING ALL THE PERMITS, THE X TENANT LEFT MR. NOLLIE WITH A BAG OF ISSUES THAT HE

DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WERE ISSUES. >> MR. MILLER, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE MINISTRY OF COSTS, WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD, HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE. THAT'S $902.85. IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS TO ORDER THAT AGAINST YOU TO BE PAID TO SATISFY THIS, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE THAT PAID?

>> TODAY. >> WE USUALLY SAY 30 DAYS.

>> JUST TELL ME WHERE I NEED TO BRING THE CHECK. NOTHING FURTHER

FROM THE CITY. >> OKAY. I FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF $902.85 IS WHAT WILL BE DUE . AND YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO PAY IT, IF YOU WANT TO PAY IT EARLIER THAT'S FINE TOO.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHAT DEPARTMENT DO I HAVE

TO GO TO ? >> THAT WILL BE PAID TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU CAN PAY IT AS SOON AS WE WRAP UP THIS HEARING. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES, OR IF YOU WANTED TO COME BACK TODAY OR TOMORROW AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. SAID ALL RIGHT GO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING.

[C. 23-2858 1509 Avenue E Sweeting, Ronald & Jannie Shaun Coss]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 9C, CASE 23-2858 , 1509 AVENUE E, RONALD AND JANNIE SWEETING ARE THE OWNERS.

>> THIS IS CASE 23-2858 , 1509 AVENUE E, THE PROPERTY IS OWNED

[01:10:05]

FINES ACCRUED FROM NOVEMBER 27TH, 2024 TO JANUARY 9TH, 2025 TOTALING $4350, INCLUDING $50 OF RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS FINE. ONE, THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE OR TWO, ANY AND ALL TIRE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE FILER TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS. THE STRUCTURE WAS VACATED , THE VIOLATION NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT WERE ADDRESSED. AND THE NECESSARY PERMIT AND INSPECTION WAS OBTAINED. NUMBER THREE, THE NUMBER OF TIMES VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER QUALIFIED JUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ADMITTING GUILT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE TWO. THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED FINES BE REDUCED FROM $4330 FROM $4330-$1000. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRIVIA COSTS IN THIS CASE TO BE $971.45. WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO THE RESPONDENTS OFFER . STAFFS RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO AHEA%-Ú OF COSTS OF $971.45. I ASSUME THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, SINCE IT'S

BELOW . >> YES.

>> HOW LONG WOULD YOU NEED TO PAY THAT?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO PAY IT TODAY. I WILL SAY 30 DAYS. IF IT'S NOT PAID IN 30 DAYS IT REVERTS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT. THAT

SHOULD BE. $971.45 . >> COULD I GO UP AND COULD I PAY

IT TODAY? >> NO. YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE ORDER. THE OFFICIAL PAPERWORK IS DONE . IT WILL BE

DONE BY TOMORROW. >> OKAY.

>> SIR, ARE YOU MR. SWEETING, JUST FOR THE RECORD?

>> YES. THANK YOU. YOU JUST HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE ACTUAL SIGNED

ORDER BEFORE YOU CAN PAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE DO HAVE A CALL IN CASE.

THAT WILL BE 7B, CASE 24-536. 1713 BAYSHORE DRIVE. SHINE, DO

[A. BV2024-00008 505 N 25th Street 505 S 25th Street LLC Frank Remling]

YOU WANT TO DO FRANK'S CASES? >> WE CAN DO FRANK'S CASES

FIRST. >> WE ARE GOING TO DO 6A, BV 2024 -00008, 50 NORTH 25TH STREET, 50 SOUTH 25TH STREET LLC IS THE OWNER. TO GO GOING WITH 6A FIRST?

>> THE ONE THAT IN THE AND 8. >> 24 -- 00008 .

>> MY NAME IS FRANK REMLING. I WORKED FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS INVESTIGATOR/INSPECTOR . THIS CASE NUMBER IS BV 2024- 00008 0000800 NORTH 25TH STREET . THE CASE AND INITIATED AUGUST 1ST, 2024 . THE OWNER IS 50 SOUTH 25TH STREET LLC. 507 SOUTH 33RD STREET , FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC 111.1 .1 , 2021, UNSAFE STRUCTURE. IPMC 111 POINT, 2021, UNSAFE STRUCTURE. IPMC 111.3 , 2021 STRUCTURALLY UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. IPMC 111.1 .5, 2021 DANGEROUS STRUCTURE ON THE PREMISES. IPMC 304 304.1 , 2021 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE. IPMC 304.1 .1 30 4.1.1.1, 2021 EXTERIOR UNSAFE CONDITIONS . IPMC 304

[01:15:05]

IPMC 30 POINT MEMBERS. IPMC 304.21, GROUPS AND RANGE. IPMC 30.2, 2021 INTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. IPMC 305.3 , 2021 INTERIOR SURFACES. IPMC 306 30 6.1.1.1 , 2021 COMPONENT UNSAFE CONDITIONS . IPMC 604.3 , 2021, ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS. IPMC 604.3 .1 , 2021 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT . WATER EXPOSED. IPMC EQUIPMENT FIRE EXPOSED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE STRUCTURE SAFE AND FIT FOR HABITATION AGAIN . IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE OCCUPANTS VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITION IS REMEDIED. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR, REPLACE THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED WINDOWS, SKYLIGHT AND DOORS. PLEASE REPLACE ALL DAMAGED GLAZING , A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE REPLACED. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED ROOF. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED INTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. PLEASE PAINT OR REPAIR THE INTERIOR SURFACES OF THE STRUCTURE , AS REQUIRED.

PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE OR REPAIR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM COMPONENTS CONSISTING OF A HAZARD. PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO WATER .

PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO FIRE. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY , THE CITY REQUESTS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS VIOLATION EXISTS.

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 FOR ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES THIS WAS A FIRE.

>> MR. REMLING, I KNOW THERE WERE NOTES HERE THAT THERE WAS A PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR THIS FEBRUARY, BUT IT WAS REJECTED.

AND IN REVIEW, SINCE EVERY 20TH. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM . >> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY ARE DATED AUGUST 14TH AND AUGUST 22ND . DID YOU TAKE THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> TO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS

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

>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WILL MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S

COMPOSITE ONE. >> PHOTOS SUBMITTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

>> MR. REMLING, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY , IS THIS SOMEONE WHO OWNED THIS PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE? OR CAME INTO

IT AFTER THE FACT? >> AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE.

>> AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER OR HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM? I HAVE TALKED TO HIM, THE ORIGINAL OWNER, THIS THING WENT ON FOREVER. IT WAS A DIFFERENT CASES ON IT. IT WAS A STOP WORK ORDER THE FIRST TIME AND AND SOMEBODY GOT IN THERE AND STARTED A FIRE. THAT I WAS

TALKING TO HIM AT THE TIME, YES. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS BEEN DONE ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> YES. THERE HAS BEEN SOME PERMITS PULLED. THEY WERE DOING WORK AND THEN SOME PEOPLE GOT IN THERE AND DID, HOMELESS PEOPLE, AND STARTED A FIRE. HE SOLD IT TO ANOTHER GUY .

>> AND THAT INDIVIDUAL YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH?

>> I HAVE NOT TALKED TO HIM. >> WOULD THAT BE THE OWNER OF 50

SOUTH 25TH STREET LLC? >> YEAH.

>> OR THE REGISTERED AGENT, PABLO BERG LOT?

>> YES . >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. AND THERE IS NO ONE HERE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

>> NO, MA'AM. I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS THE VIOLATOR BE

[01:20:04]

[B. BV2024-00011 505 N 25th Street 505 S 25th Street LLC Frank Remling]

TO APPEAL. >> THE NEXT CASE IS BV 2024-00011 . 50 NORTH 25TH STREET . 50 SOUTH 25TH STREET

LLC IS THE OWNER. >> THIS CASE NUMBER IS BV 2024- 00011, 505 NORTH 25TH STREET . CASE AND MISTREATED AUGUST 25TH, 2024. THE OWNERS 505 SOUTHPOINT FIFTH STREET LLC, 507 SOUTH 33RD STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 10.1 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 10.120 20 PERMIT REQUIRED.? ACTIONS ARE PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE INSTRUCTION THAT HAS MOVED FOR WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE CITY REQUESTS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS IN VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. 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 PRIOR TO THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED. RESIDENTIAL REPAIR PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR ON TO /5/25. REJECTED FOR ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW. SINCE TWO, TWO , 2025. I DO HAVE SOME

PICTURES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED DECEMBER 21ST , 2022 . DID YOU

TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> TO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE

VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS BEFORE THE FIRE, RIGHT? AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE PRESENTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

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

>> I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT , OBTAIN APPROVAL OF 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 PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. THERE IS A 30

DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> AND THAT WE HAVE 6C, BV 2024-

[C. BV2024-00012 505 N 25th Street 505 S 25th Street LLC Frank Remling]

LLC IS THE OWNER. >> CASE INITIATED AUGUST 5TH, 2024. THE OWNER IS 505 NORTH 25TH STREET LLC, 507 SOUTH 33RD STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC 309 IPMC 309.1 , INFESTATION. IPMC 506 , INFESTATION. IPMC 506.2, 2021, SANITARY BRIDGE. SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE. I AM -- IPMC 74.6 -- IPMC 74.6.1 -- IPMC 74.6.1.1, 2021, SMOKE ALARMS. DIRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE PLEASE TREAT THE PROPERTY FOR AN INFESTATION AND MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT REINVESTIGATION . NUMBER TWO, PLEASE CALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE SANITARY SYSTEM . NUMBER THREE, PLEASE INSTALL, REPAIR OR REPLACE SMOKE ALARMS AS IS REQUIRED IN THIS CHAPTER.

RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY REQUEST SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS VIOLATION EXISTS, 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 OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. RESIDENTIAL REPAIR PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR ON 2/5/25 , REJECTED IN THE BUILDING . ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING PLAN -- 2/ 20/25. THIS STARTED OFF WITH A COMPLAINT. AND I DO HAVE

[01:25:04]

PICTURES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN ON THE DATE OF THE CASE INITIATION, WHICH WOULD BE AUGUST 5TH, 2024? THEY'RE JUST

NOT TIME STAMPED ON THIS COPY. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AND THEN THERE'S POSTING THAT IS NOVEMBER 4TH. ACTUALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE 2022 THERE IS A POSTING. THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT POSTING IS CORRECT HERE.

>>

>> THIS IS THE SAME HOME WHERE THERE WAS A FIRE, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> WORTH THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN

AFTER THE FIRE? >> NO. THIS WAS BEFORE.

>> WHAT DATE WERE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN? AGAIN, THEY DON'T HAVE A TIMESTAMP. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

>> THE ORIGINAL CASE ISN'T IN THAT FILE, THAT I CAN FIND THE

DATE IN OUR SYSTEM HERE. >> MR. REMLING, WHILE WE ARE WAITING, THESE VIOLATIONS WERE WITH , THERE WAS A PREVIOUS OWNER TO THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? DURING THAT TIME. THAT'S BEFORE

THE FIRE . >> YES.

>> AND THEY HAD NOT BEEN CURED BEFORE THE FIRE? WAS THIS WHOLE

AREA DAMAGED IN THE FIRE TOO? >> THE WHOLE BACK AREA AND THE ROOF WAS DAMAGED, YES.

>> THE PREVIOUS CASE WAS 20S -- 22-2215.

THAT CASE WAS INITIATED JULY 12TH, 2022 . HOWEVER, REPLACED AN EARLIER CASE GOING BACK TO 2020, WHICH WAS THIS PROPERTY HAS CHANGED OWNERSHIP MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGH THE PROGRESSION OF THESE CASES. THE INITIAL PLAINT WAS REPORTED SEPTEMBER 20TH,

2020. >> MR. REMLING, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU PROVIDED, WITH A HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN 2020?

>> THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS THERE, YEP. TO AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

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

EXHIBIT ONE. >> NOTHING ADDITIONAL FROM THE

[01:30:05]

>> 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 . COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER . NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.

THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

[B. 24-536 1713 Bayshore Dr Cheshier, George Shaun Coss ]

>> WE HAVE A CALL IN CASE. THAT WOULD BE 7B. CASE 24 -- FIVE 536, 1717 BAYSHORE DRIVE. GEORGE CHESHIER IS THE OWNER. HOWEVER, WILL BE CALLING ELLEN O'CONNOR . AND THAT IS HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW.

>> HELLO. >> MS. O'CONNOR?

>> YES. >> THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE IN AUDIO TENANTS OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING.

>> PERFECT. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

>> YES, I CAN. >> OKAY. I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR TESTIMONY, SO IF YOU COULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND . IS ALL

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

>> YES, I DO. >> A MENTIONED BEFORE, WE ARE CONSIDERING CASE 24-536, 1713 BAYSHORE DRIVE WITH GEORGE

CHESHIER AS THE OWNER. >> RIGHT.

>> GOOD MORNING, THIS IS CASE 24-526 FOR 1713 BAYSHORE DRIVE.

THIS IS A MASSEY HEARINGS. CASE IS OWNED BY GEORGE CHESHIER OF 1713 BAYSHORE DRIVE. VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE OF FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 10.1, PERMIT REQUIRED. IN ORDER DETERMINE A VIOLATION WAS ENTERED AUGUST 16TH 2024. THE AFFIDAVIT OF NOT COMPLAINT STARTING FINDS WAS RECORDED JANUARY 21ST, 2025. THE FINDS TOTAL $4420. WITH $20 IN RECORDING FEES. IF I CAN JUST HAVE A MOMENT REAL QUICK HERE TO REVIEW SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE SUMMARY SHEET.

>> MY APOLOGIES. FOR ACTION DATE NUMBER TWO, THE AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE, REPAIRED -- PREPARED AND RECORDED. THE DATE WAS JANUARY 23RD, 2025 IS WHEN IT WAS RECORDED. AND WAS SIGNED ON JANUARY 21ST, 2025 AS THE DATE THAT THE FINDS COMMENCED.

AS OF TODAY THE FINDS ARE $5120 WITH $20 IN RECORDING FEES . AS FINDS CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AT $100 ON JANUARY 21ST, 2025 A LETTER

[01:35:05]

>> MS. O'CONNOR? >> YES.

>> COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO MR. CHESHIER? .

I'M HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. >> AND HE HAS GIVEN YOU PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF TODAY? . YES, HE HAS .

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION?

>> YES. AT THE LAST MAGISTRATE HEARING YOU TOLD ME I COULD APPEAL THE DECISION. WHICH I DID . LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT DURING THE APPEALS PROCESS INSTEAD OF LETTING ME APPEAL JUST GO THROUGH AND COMPLY WITH WHATEVER IS DECIDED, YOU FIND ME DURING THE WHOLE PROCESS WHICH I AM SHOCKED AT. BUT IN ANY CASE, GIVING UP THE APPEAL AND I AM APPLYING FOR THE PERMIT. WE HAVE THE MARINE CONTRACTOR WORKING ON IT. I HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU THE PLANS, SO YOU KNOW IT'S GOING ON. FORGET THE FINES AND GIVE US TIME TO GET THE PERMIT FINALIZED. MS. O'CONNOR, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HAD. EVERYBODY HAS HEARD IT HERE. YOU TALK ABOUT THE FINES COMING TO YOU. ARE YOU PART OWNER OF THIS

PROPERTY AS WELL? >> NO. I MEAN TO HIM. WHEN I SAY

ME I'M TALKING HIM. >> I UNDERSTAND. I APOLOGIZE.

DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR INPUT?

>> STAFF DID RECEIVE A COPY OF SOME PLANS THAT WERE EMAILED HIM I BELIEVE, LAST NIGHT THOSE PLANS ARE NOT SIGNED AND SEALED, SO THEY ARE NOT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE PLANS. MS. O'CONNOR, ARE THOSE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE DEP FOR A

PERMIT? >> YES, IT IS . FOR THE EXEMPTION. I AM PUTTING IN AND IN SECTION -- AND EXEMPTION OF THE PACKAGE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS REQUIRED OR NOT, THAT I FIGURED PROFESSIONALS IF THEY WANT THAT EXEMPTION, I'M SICK OF FIGHTING. I'M JUST GOING WITH IT.

>> DID THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDE YOU ANY INDICATION OF HOW LONG

THIS PROCESS WOULD TAKE? >> THEY ARE NOT REAL FAST . I GAVE THEM ALL THIS INFORMATION 30 DAYS AGO AND IT TOOK THEM 30 DAYS TO GET THOSE DRAWINGS. I THINK I NEED LIKE 90 DAYS. THEY SAID 60, BUT I WOULD LIKE 90, JUST TO BE SURE.

>> THANK YOU. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STAFF WOULD BE AMENABLE TO STAYING THE ACCRUAL OF THE FINES FOR 90 DAYS AND

PROVIDING A 90 DAY EXTENSION. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO. >> THE FINES WILL BE, THEY WILL

BE STAYED FOR 90 DAYS. >> MEANING THERE ARE NO FINES?

DOES THAT ELIMINATE THE $5000? >> MA'AM, SO, IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY ABANDONING THE APPEAL AND GETTING THAT PERMIT WHEN THAT PERMIT IS RECEIVED THERE IS A WAY IN WHICH THOSE FINES CAN BE, YOU CAN REQUEST THEM TO BE REDUCED ENTIRELY OR PARTIALLY. I KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR THE OTHER HEARINGS, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL HEARINGS HERE TODAY WHERE PEOPLE WERE IN THAT SITUATION AND ALREADY HAD FINES ACCRUED THEY WERE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF THEM. THAT IS A SEPARATE HEARING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE HAD ONCE THAT PERMIT HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WAS WATCHING. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY ACTUALLY HAD ACCRUED. THE LETTER KIND OF SAID WE WILL ACCRUE IF YOU DON'T TO THIS. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN

THEY ARE ALREADY ACCRUED. >> YES, THEY HAVE, YES .

>> IT'S TOO LATE, THEY HAVE ALREADY ACCRUED. THEY HAVE, YES . WHAT THEY'RE STOPPING TODAY FOR 90 DAYS.

>> OKAY. GREAT. >> THE FINES WILL BE STOPPED ACCRUING FOR 90 DAYS BEFORE THEY BEGIN.

>> GREAT. >> OKAY. AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. AND YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO THAT. IS THERE

ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT 30 DAYS STARTS ONCE A PERMIT IS COMPLETED, CORRECT? I APOLOGIZE, WHAT WAS THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT THE 30 DAYS, RIGHT TO APPEAL?. YES. TO APPEAL THE FINES . WE CAN DO THAT ONCE THE WHOLE PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED AND

FINALIZED? >> YES. IT'S NOT EVEN AN APPEAL, IT'S NOT A MASSEY HEARINGS. YOU ARE REQUESTING THE FINES TO BE REDUCED AND THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING FOR THAT .

>> OKAY. WE WILL DO IT. >> THANK YOU.

[01:40:03]

>> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S IT. THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE PRESENT FOR THE OTHER HEARINGS. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATORS CERTIFIED MAIL. THE GREEN CARD IS REESE -- RETURN FIND ITS PLACE IN THE FILE. IF IT'S RETURN UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE WITH HEARING ENCLOSED IS MAILED TO THE VIOLATED. 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS THEN SENT REGULAR U.S. MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ATTACHED TO IT. 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. NOTICE OF HEARING IS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF 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. >> WE DO HAVE THREE MASSEY HEARINGS WHERE THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT APPEARED . DO YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE READ THOSE IN AND PROVIDE STAFFS

RECOMMENDATION? >> NO. I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT THEY NEED TO PHYSICALLY BE HERE TO BE HEARD ON THESE. I ASSUME THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE IN PART BASED ON WHAT THEY STATE

THEY HAVE DONE. >> CORRECT. IS WHAT I MEAN, I DON'T MIND READING IN THESE CASES ARE AND THEN WE WILL JUST PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS DID NOT APPEAR TO ARGUE THEIR CASE FOR THE MASSEY HEARINGS. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE 22- 2605 , 2509 AVENUE LETTER IN THE, UNIT A CASSANDRA HIM ALESSANDRA AND CHARLES EE BRYANT ESTATE . FOR A MASSEY HEARINGS.

NO ONE IS HERE ON THEIR BEHALF. WE HAVE 1306 HAVE AN AVENUE, THAT'S 24-999 , CASE NUMBER. AND THE OWNER IS MICHAEL ANTHONY FOR JONI. NO ONE IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THAT PROPERTY. AND LASTLY, THERE IS 24- 1031, 602 NORTH NINTH STREET, LIZETTE MIRANDA IS OWNER. NO ONE IS HERE ON HER BEHALF HERE TODAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.