May 07, 2025 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, I WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, WELCOME TO THE MAY 7TH 2025 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING.

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JENNIFER, I BEGIN WITH ASKING IF ANYONE NEEDS ASSISTANCE WITH A HEARING DEVICE, BOTH WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU UPON REQUEST IF NEEDED. ALSO PRESENT FOR TODAY'S HEARING, IS THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL AS STAFF MEMBERS IN THE DEPARTMENT CLERK INCLUDING MR. ISAACS ACETO-, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WILL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, AND WE HAVE, DIRECTING THE ORDER OF CASES CALL TODAY. THE HEARINGS ARE BEING STREAMED LIVE AND RECORDED AND THOSE PRESENT TODAY WHO HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION OR VIOLATION WILL BE REFERRED TO AS RESPONDENTS. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL RESPONDENTS UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCEEDINGS WILL OCCUR TODAY. THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS FOR TODAY'S HEARING, THE CITY WILL PREVENT PRESENT ITS CASE FIRST TWO EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY OF QUOTE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR OTHER WITNESSES. IT MAY INCLUDE PHYSICAL ITEMS, SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH WE REFERENCE AS EXHIBITS. THE RESPONDENT WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE LEGAL OBJECTIONS IF DESIRED. ONCE THE CITY IS FINISHED SETTING ITS CASE, THE RESPONDENT WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A STATEMENT, PRESENT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOS. I WILL MAKE A FINAL RULING AS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. DURING TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS, ALL PARTIES SHOULD BE REMINDED TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER AT ALL TIMES. ANY COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. WE WILL STAND NOW FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. PLEASE

[4. Case Number: CE-2025-00167 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 1240 Carlton Ct]

TO THE PODIUM . >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING, ONE IS MY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS CASE 2025 E- 167, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED MARCH 19TH OF 2025. THE OWNER WAS STILL LISTED AS, THE ADDITIONAL INTERESTED PARTY 1240 CARLETON COURT LLC WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A NEW OWNER. THE VIOLATIONS ARE FOR 123 E- 64 WITHOUT A PERMIT, I DO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. IN THE PACKET, YOUR HONOR, IS GOING TO BE IN EMAIL FROM FORRESTER WHO ALSO WENT OUT AND TOOK A LOOK AT THE TREES THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED.

THERE'S ALSO THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. AND OFFICER DEBEVEC DID YOU LET THIS GENTLEMAN , ARE YOU MR. RUFO?

>> NO, I'M EDWIN CHOW, I REPRESENT 1240 CARLETON COURT LLC. I'M THE OWNER OF THE ENGINEERING COMPANY THAT THEY JUST RECENTLY HAVE TAKEN ON. IT'S ACTUALLY MY PARTNERS UNCLE, COUSIN, THAT THAT IS THE GUY WHO DID THIS.

>> OKAY, I THINK I'VE SEEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. OFFICER YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED MARCH 17TH OF THIS YEAR AS WELL AS A NOTICE OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE SENT TO THE OWNER AND THE ADDITIONAL PARTY, AND THE EMAIL THAT YOU MENTIONED HERE, THE OWNERS, IS

THAT CORRECT? >> THERE'S AN EMAIL FROM MR. RUFO, SHOWING THAT HE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND THEN THERE SHOULD ALSO BE IN EMAIL FROM THE URBAN FOLKS -- FORRESTER, JOSÉ.

[00:05:05]

>> ALSO, HAVE SOME ATTACHMENTS, A BILL OF SALE, A CLOSING AFFIDAVIT, WAS THAT PROVIDED BY MR. RUFO?

>> CORRECT. >> WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE , ARE THERE MULTIPLE TREES THAT WERE REMOVED OR JUST

ONE? >> THERE WAS I BELIEVE, THREE,

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. >> THIS TIME, THE PHOTOGRAPHS DO

THEY DEPICT THE VIOLATION? >> YES MA'AM.

>> MOVED TO CITIES COMPOSITE ONE . WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE

CITIES COMPOSITE ONE. >> OFFICER, HOW DID YOU COME TO

LEARN ABOUT THE TREE REMOVAL? >> IT WAS A COMPLAINT .

>> FROM WHO? >> THAT, I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME BUT IT WAS A COMPLAINT, IT SHOULD BE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL FOLDER.

>> AND TO SUMMARIZE, YOU SAID THERE IS AN EMAIL FROM MR. RUFO,

WHAT WAS THAT EMAIL? >> IT WAS STATING THAT HE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY BUT IT WAS STILL SHOWING HIM IN PROPERTY

APPRAISER. >> THE PARTY THAT WAS NOTICED FOR THIS HEARING WAS MR. RUFO, CORRECT, BECAUSE HIS NAME IS ON

THE PROPERTY? >> IT WAS MR. RUFO AND CARLETON

COURT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. >> CARLETON COURT, WHERE THEY THE PARTIES WHO WERE SOLD THIS PROPERTY?

>> CARLETON COURT IS THE BUYER, RUFO IS THE SELLER.

> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, CARLETON COURT LLC BOUGHT THE

PROPERTY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> FURTHER TO ADD? >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> WITNESSES FOR THE CITY? >> JOSÉ SANCHEZ FOR THE URBAN

FORRESTER. >> MR. SANCHEZ, HAVE YOU BEEN

SWORN IN? >> YES.

>> AND, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? >> THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE PARKS

AND GROUNDS. >> WHAT IS YOUR TRAINING?

>> MASTER GARDENER, CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> WHAT IS YOUR TITLE WITH THE CITY?

>> FOREMAN 2 ITS OPERATION SUPERVISOR.

>> DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS TREE REMOVAL?

>> I DID, AND AT THE TIME I DID MENTION TO HEATHER THAT HAD HE APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT MORE THAN LIKELY HE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT.

IT SEEMED TO HAVE ALREADY STARTED SOME STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.

I DIDN'T WRITE A RECOMMENDATION BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT THE MAXIMUM BUT A LESSER FINE BUT WITH ALSO STIPULATION OF ADDING TREES IN PLACE, SOME HARDWOOD TREES THAT ACCOMMODATE THE

REMOVAL. >> I KNOW IN THE RECOMMENDATION HEAR THE TREES THAT WERE REMOVED, THEY WERE ALL OAK

TREES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THE THIRD TREE WAS

EXOTIC. >> ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD?

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TODAY OR ANY TESTIMONY

FOR US TO HEAR AND CONSIDER? >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, WE HAVE THE PICTURES BEFORE AND AFTER AS WELL, SHOULD I PRESENT

THAT? >> I LIKE TO PRESENT THEM AS

EVIDENCE. >> SURE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO DOUBT THE TREE WAS CUT DOWN, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER, THE OWNER WAS NOT FULLY AWARE OF HOW TO CUT IT DOWN. HE WAS JUST VERY, I THINK, HE DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT JUST BECAUSE HE PERCEIVED POTENTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE PLUMBING OR FOUNDATION WALL, IN ADDITION TO THE CANOPY, LIKE SCRAPING THE ROOF, YOU CAN'T JUST DO THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO FOR SURE, HE CUT IT DOWN AND I AM AWARE THAT YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU NEED A PERMIT FOR THIS. AND YOU KNOW, HE HAS RETAINED US , HE HAS RETAINED US TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS GO SMOOTHLY . HIS CONCERN WAS IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PICTURES, THE OUTSIDE TILES WERE POPPING UP, BECAUSE THE ROOTS OF AN OAK, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S VISIBLE AND WHAT'S UNDERGROUND, SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF DIMENSIONS IN TERMS OF THICKNESS , HE WANTED TO ADDRESS THE

[00:10:09]

>> ALL RIGHT, THESE WILL BE MARKED AS RESPONDENTS, NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY. I THINK YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS INCLUDE SOME OF

THE PALM TREES? >> YES.

>> FOUR PALM TREES IN THE FRONT, FURTHER VEGETATION THERE. MAYBE HE'S PUNISHED FOR THIS, HE CAN'T WALK RIGHT NOW, FULLY,

SO, >> JUST TAKING A MINUTE TO SEE WHAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED. WE WERE THERE AT THE TIME HE PURCHASED IT OR ELSE WE WOULD HAVE ADVISED HIM.

>> WE WILL ACCEPT RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT ONE. WHAT WAS THE DATE

OF PURCHASE? >> I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF

ME. >> WAS AT BEST BUY

>> I THINK IT WAS THIS YEAR. >> THE PACKET THAT I SUBMITTED,

IT SHOULD BE ON THAT. >> IT'S PROBABLY ON SOME OF THE STUFF ON THE SCREEN. I CAN'T SEE. BUT IT WAS IN 2025.

>> YEAH. >> DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE TREES

WERE CUT DOWN? >> PRIOR TO MARCH 19TH, YOU

KNOW. >> ANY OTHER TESTIMONY OR EXHIBITS THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT TODAY?

>> NO, THAT'S IT. >> AGAIN, YOU ARE HERE ON BEHALF, YOU ARE AN AGENT OF THE OWNER AND YOU ARE WITH THE ENGINEERING COMPANY THAT HE'S HIRED?

>> YES, MY BUSINESS PARTNER IS HIS DIRECT COUSIN.

>> OKAY, DID YOU STATE THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS YOU ARE HERE

WITH? >> RX CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.

REGISTERED ENGINEERING COMPANY.

>> GOT IT. ALL RIGHT, SO, TOTAL OF, IT SAYS TO TREES REMOVED BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THREE TREES WERE REMOVED.

>> CORRECT. ONE WAS EXOTIC, INVASIVE, --

>> THERE'S NOT A FINE FOR THAT, SO IT'S THE LIVE OAKS THAT ARE A CONCERN. AND I HEARD YOU STATE, I DO SEE A RECOMMENDATION HERE BEFORE ME, FROM THE CITY, BUT I DID HEAR YOU STATE THAT YOU WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THE FULL FINE, BUT TO ADD TREES IN PLACE.

>> IF THEY ADDED PALM TREES, WE NORMALLY LIKE HARDWOOD TREES.

THERE'S A VARIETY, IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY HAVE TO BE OAK TREES. WE HAVE A LIST I BELIEVE, ON OUR WEBSITE.

>> OKAY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE PROPERTY WITH THE

TREES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED? >> I HAVE NOT.

>> IT APPEARS THEY ADDED FIVE SMALL PALM TREES, KIND OF AN ISLAND IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, SO THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED

A HARDWOOD TREE? >> FOR PALM TREES, I BELIEVE THE MINIMUM HEIGHT WE WOULD REQUIRE IS 14 FEET OF CLEAR TRUNK, SO, THOSE MIGHT BE ON THE SMALLER SIDE, IF THEY WERE HAND PLANTED.

>> I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW TALL THESE TREES ARE. I'M LOOKING AT THESE PHOTOS. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION BEFORE ME TODAY, TO CONSIDER?

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND PROBABLY CONTINUING THE CASE UNTIL WE GO

BACK OUT THERE -- >> AND ASSESS WHAT'S PLANTED.

>> YEAH, MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND. I'M NOT SURE IF JOSÉ HAS ANYTHING IN MIND.

[00:15:04]

>> I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WITH WHAT'S BEEN PLANTED, IF IT COMPLIES WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OR ANY OTHER TREES THAT YOU MAY WISH TO RECOMMEND

FROM THESE PHOTOS. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THERE WERE TWO OAK TREES, 61 DBH AND 63 DBH AND THERE'S FIVE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. IS THAT BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THE OAK

TREES? >>

>> WHEN YOU'RE ASSESSING WHAT SHOULD BE PLANTED THERE, AND LOU OF THE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN, DO YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HOW BIG THOSE TREES THAT WERE REMOVED?

>> YES. >> YOU ARE REQUESTING SOMETHING THAT IS A HARDWOOD, NOT A PALM TREE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE STANDARD IS 12 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT AND 2

1/2 INCH MINIMUM DBH. >> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT DBH

STANDS FOR? >> DIE MATTER -- DIE METER

HEIGHT. >> IT'S HARD TO MEASURE WITH ONES THAT HAVE BEEN CUT DOWN. YOU DON'T HAVE NOTHING TO REALLY GO ON, YOU HAVE TO GET AN ESTIMATE FROM THE ROOT BASE.

>> THE TWO TREES REMOVED, ONE LIVE OAK TREE, 61 DBH, AND THE OTHER ONE, 36 DBH, THAT'S AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE ROOT BASE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO OBSERVE? AND YOU HAVE SEEN AND OBSERVED THIS YOURSELF OR SOMEONE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT HAS.

>> I DID. I WENT OVER. >> ALL RIGHT, AND THERE ARE JUST, THERE ARE CODE ASSOCIATED FINES FOR EACH OF THE LIVE OAKS, IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THAT, THAT EQUALS, FOR THE FIRST TREE $15,250 FINE AND FOR THE SECOND TREE, A $9000 FINE. WHAT THE CITY IS REQUESTING IS $5000 PER TREE, THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN WHAT WE COULD FIND, SO IT'S DEFINITELY A LESSER FINE, FOR A TOTAL OF $10,000 TO BE PAID IN 30 DAYS WHICH WOULD GO INTO THE TREE FIND -- FUND. THAT SAID, SINCE SOME REMEDIATION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND SOME PLANTINGS HAVE BEEN PUT OUT THERE. I DO THINK IT WOULD BE EQUITABLE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND HAVE STAFF GO OUT THERE TO ASSESS WHAT'S BEEN PLANTED AND THEN COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR A REMEDY, THEN WE CAN ASSESS THE FINE AT THAT TIME. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, BEFORE I MAKE THAT FINAL RULING THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT?

>> YES, JUST FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, IF WE HAD SUBMITTED A PERMIT, A TREE PERMIT, AND LET'S SAY, WE COULD RETROACTIVELY GO BACK IN TIME AND LIKE WE WOULD HAVE TO STILL PROBABLY REPLACE A HARDWOOD AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SHOULD WE STILL GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, YOU KNOW, LIKE BECAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE LESS THAN 14 FEET, JUST VISUALLY LOOKING AT

IT. >> I DON'T KNOW, I THINK SO, TOO, FROM THE PHOTOS BUT I DON'T KNOW. THEY'RE CERTAINLY

NOT HARDWOOD TREES. >> DEFINITELY NOT HARDWOOD

TREES. >> I THINK THERE'S A PROCESS, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A TREE DOWN, I WILL HAVE THE CITY EXPLAINED THAT OR CERTAINLY THEY CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT AFTER THE HEARING UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. TO FIND THAT REALLY COULD BE ASSESSED IS $24,250 FOR THE REMOVAL OF THOSE TWO TREES. SO, THE CITY AT THIS JUNCTURE, HAD RECOMMENDED $10,000 TO GO INTO THE TREE FIND BUT I THINK THAT IT WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING , TO ALLOW YOU GUYS TO RECONVENE AND GET A RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS REPLACEMENT AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK BEFORE US, WHEN WE DETERMINE WHAT THE FINE SHOULD BE.

>> DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF HOW LONG --

>> I KNOW HEATHER IS OUT FOR SOME DAYS, JUNE, THERE ARE SOME

HEARINGS IN JUNE. >> WE CAN DO JUNE 4TH.

>> JUNE 18TH. THAT GIVES WELL, JUNE 4TH.

>> I AM HERE FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

>> PROBABLY JUNE 4TH. I MEAN I THINK THAT SHOULD BE MORE THAN

SUFFICIENT. >> THAT WAY IT'S BACK IN FRONT

OF YOU. >> I DON'T THINK I'M HERE JUNE

4TH. >> OH, YOU'RE NOT?

>> WE ARE AWAY THAT WEEK. BUT THAT'S OKAY.

[00:20:05]

>> DO YOU WANT IT TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU?

>> I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN I'M BACK ON THE SCHEDULE. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS UNNECESSARILY. WE HAVE THE MINUTES IN THE RECORD. WE CAN

WORK THAT OUT INTERNALLY. >> YES.

>> SO I DON'T WANT TO DELAY IT UNNECESSARILY. I THINK IT GIVES THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S AGENT AND THE DEPARTMENT AND CITY STAFF THAT NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED, THE TIME TO GET TOGETHER, LOOK AT WHAT IS OUT THERE AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS REPLACEMENT TREES, AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT A RECOMMENDATION FOR A FINE AND CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THAT TIME.

SO, IF YOU WANT TO DO JUNE 4TH, MAY BE JUNE 18TH.

>> OKAY. >> WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU GUYS.

>> BASED ON WHEN THE CASE WAS OPENED, I THINK A MONTH --

>> YEAH, I THINK -- >> IT SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG, UNLESS THERE IS ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH JUNE 4TH, I THINK WE SHOULD STICK TO THAT DATE.

>> WE WILL RECOMMEND JUNE 4TH, CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING AND DURING THAT TIME, STAFF WILL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S AGENT TO MEET AT THE PROPERTY TO ASSESS THE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT OUT THERE AND WHAT RECOMMENDATION FOR HARDWOOD TREES, AND ANY HEIGHT OF PALM TREES IS REQUIRED AND IT'LL COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD, TO DETERMINE A FINE.

>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >>> THE NEXT CASE WILL BE FOR

[1. Case Number: CE-2025-26 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 510 Texas CT]

26. 510 TEXAS COURT . >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS IS CASE NUMBER 2025 DASHED 26, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 10TH OF THIS YEAR. IT WAS TO BG 510 TEXAS COURT LLC, PROTECTIVE TREATMENT. I HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. I DID SHARE THEM WITH THE GENTLEMAN TO MY LEFT EARLIER.

>> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JANUARY 9TH OF THIS YEAR AND APRIL 25TH AS WELL AS MAY 5TH. WERE THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> YES MA'AM. >>

>> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITIES COMPOSITE ONE.

>> OFFICER HOW DID YOU COME TO LEARN OF THIS HOME?

>> I HAVE GOTTEN A COMPLAINT AROUND THE CORNER AND JUST CONTINUED LOOKING AROUND THAT COMPLAINT AND NOTICED THIS

NEEDED TO BE PAINTED. >> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH

THE OWNER OTHER THAN TODAY? >> I HAVE, BY PHONE, AND HE SAID HE WAS WORKING I BELIEVE ON SOME STUCCO OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE AND HE HAD TO GET SOME STUFF TOGETHER FIRST. WE THUSLY

CONTINUED WITH THE CASE. >> ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO CURE THIS VIOLATION IS TO PAINT ANYWHERE THAT IS APPEALING AND

DISCOLORED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES MA'AM.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> GOOD MORNING, SIR, DO YOU HAVE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TO

PRESENT TODAY? >> NO, I'M JUST IN THE PROCESS OF, AS I HAD EXPLAINED TO THE OFFICER, I WAS GETTING QUOTES FOR STUCCO TO PAINT THE ENTIRE BUILDING INSTEAD OF JUST TOUCHING UP, WHICH WAS WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS. WE ACTUALLY WANT TO PAINT THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND GET IT LOOKING A LOT NICER. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SOMEONE TO GO OUT AND PAINT AND DO THE STUCCO WORK. IT SHOULD BE DONE, I THINK, WITHIN, YOU NECK -- YOU KNOW, THE NEXT 30 DAYS. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT.

>> CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND WHO YOU ARE IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> MY NAME IS ANDRE BARRETT AND I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> I'M ASKING BECAUSE IT SAYS BG 510 TEXAS COURT LLC AS THE OWNER. YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE LLC?

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. YOU ARE STATING THAT YOU NEED I BELIEVE 30 DAYS TO GET THE PROPERTY PROPERLY

PAINTED. >> YEAH, WE'VE IDENTIFIED ALL OF THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND WORKED ON THE BUDGET

[00:25:06]

APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. IS THE CITY ACCEPTING OF 30 DAYS AND SET OF 15? ANY OTHER TESTIMONY YOU WISH TO GIVE

TODAY? >> THAT'S IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, I ROLE THAT VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO PAINT, WHERE THERE'S HEALING OR DISCOLORATION AND FAILING TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $250 PER DAY. BE BACK IN TOUCH WITH THE DEPARTMENT WHEN YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, HAVE A GREAT DAY.

>> I APOLOGIZE, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL, DID I SAY THAT?

>> NO, I WAS THINKING THAT. >> MY APOLOGIES.

>> SO IF YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO APPEAL, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO

[3. Case Number: CE-2025-00143 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 835 Seaway Dr #4]

THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>>> THE NEXT CASE IS THE THIRD CASE IN VIOLATION CASES, CASE NUMBER CE E- 2025, 835, SEAWAY DRIVE, UNIT 4. YOU MAY NOW COME

UP TO THE PODIUM . >> GOOD MORNING.

>> IN MORNING. >> SPECIAL THE PROPERTY OF 835 SAWYER DRIVE NUMBER FOUR. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 27TH OF 2025. IT WAS TO NYC SUBS, VIOLATION IS 22 DASHED 20, SUBSECTION A, CERTIFICATE OF USE REQUIRED AND TO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. THE PACKET ALSO INCLUDES THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE CITY

CLERK'S OFFICE. >> SIR, WHAT IS YOUR NAME?

>> MY NAME IS JOHN CRUZAN. >> ARE YOU AN OWNER OR

ASSOCIATED OF NYC SUBS. >> I'M THE OWNER OF NYC SUBS.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOOK AT THESE PHOTOS?

>> YES. OKAY, THIS IS THE VIOLATION. OKAY. OKAY, THANK

YOU. >> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED COPIES OF THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS AN ABSENCE OF CERTIFICATION FROM OUR CITY CLERK, AND A PHOTOGRAPH DATED FEBRUARY 26TH OF THIS YEAR, DID YOU TAKE THAT

PHOTOGRAPH? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DOES IT DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED?

>> IT IS NOTED THAT HE HAS A APPLICATION AND FOR THE

CERTIFICATION OF USE. >> WE WILL ACCEPT CITIES

COMPOSITE ONE. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. >> SIR WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY, GO AHEAD AT THIS TIME.

>> YEAH, YES, I WASN'T AWARE THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE TO A TAX CERTIFICATE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S CALLED, A CERTIFICATE OF USE, AND I WAS MADE AWARE BY THIS CERTIFIED MAIL AROUND APRIL 20TH THAT I WAS IN VIOLATIN. AND I ACTED IMMEDIATELY TO REMEDY THE VIOLATION TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF USE. I DID GET THE CONTACT, I CONTACTED THE OFFICER THAT ISSUED THE VIOLATION , JUST TO GET INFORMATION, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A CERTIFICATE OF USE WAS, AND YOU KNOW, I WANT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, I WANT TO HAVE A CERTIFIED, SAFE RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW NOT JUST FOR MYSELF BUT FOR THE PUBLIC. TOMORROW, I HAVE,

[00:30:05]

OLD. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THAT.

>> THE RESTAURANT IS OPEN NOW? >> YES.

>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TODAY?

>> NO. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY IGNORANCE OF NOT KNOWING THAT THIS HAD TO BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER.

>> OKAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE TAKEN STEPS TO MITIGATE THE PROBLEM AND YOU ARE HERE TODAY, SO THAT IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND YOU'VE ALREADY APPLIED FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF USE, SO HOW LONG DO WE THINK BEFORE THAT WILL BE ISSUED?

>> IF HE'S ALREADY GOT THE FIRE INSPECTION DONE AND SUBMITTED THAT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND TOMORROW, I HAD 30 DAYS BUT HE - SHOULD HAVE IT WITHIN 15 AND WE CAN LEAVE IT AS 32 ENSURE THAT HE HAS MORE THAN AMPLE TIME TO OBTAIN THE CERTIFICATE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A RULING THAT YOU WILL BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN THAT CERTIFICATE OF USE AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU WILL HAVE TO CEASE YOUR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES UNTIL WHICH TIME YOU HAVE IT. FAILURE TO DO THAT WELL ASSAULT AND A -- 2228, BUSINESS WILL BE SUSPENDED WHILE THE VIOLATION CONTINUES. SO, SINCE HE DOESN'T HAVE THAT CERTIFICATE OF USE, THAT MEANS HE WON'T HAVE UTILITIES, IS THAT CORRECT, SO HE CAN'T OPERATE THE BUSINESS.

>> IS IF HE DOES NOT HAVE ISSUED WITHIN THE 30 DAYS, THEN, YES, HE COULD BE CHARGED $250 A DAY WITH THE UTILITIES --

>> THE UTILITIES WILL NOT BE SHUT OFF NOW. ONLY IF HE DOESN'T COMPLY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I READ THAT INTO THE RECORD CORRECTLY AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

[4. Case Number: NOOP-2025-59 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 721 Hernando St]

>> I FULLY UNDERSTAND. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL GO WITH THAT, JUST MAKE SURE YOU GET WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS SOON AS YOU DO OBTAIN THE CERTIFICATE OF USE.

>> VERY GOOD. >> YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL,

SHOULD YOU WISH TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE GOING TO JUMP TO THE LAST CASE, WHICH IS D4, THAT WILL BE IN OTHER CASES CATEGORY, IS THE VERY LAST PAGE, SO THAT IS GOING TO BE 2025 - 759 -- YOU

MAY COME UP TO THE PODIUM. >> 59. I BELIEVE YOU SAID 159.

>> I'M SORRY, YES, 2025-59 . >> GOOD MORNING, SIR.

>> HOW ARE YOU? >> I'M DOING WELL, HOW ABOUT

YOURSELF? >> VERY WELL.

>> THIS IS 725 HERNANDO STREET, NONOPERATIVE VEHICLE. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 21 OF 2025, THE NOTICE TO APPEAR, MARCH 25TH OF 2025, POSTING WAS DONE ON MARCH 25TH, 2025, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS FRANK CELENTANO JR. NEW SINCE FOR NONOPERATIVE VEHICLES. I DO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND WHO IT WAS SENT TO. AND I DID SPEAK WITH FRANK PRIOR TO FULLY INITIATING THIS CASE. I GUESS HE HAD SOMEHOW OBTAINED THE BOAT FOR HIS DAUGHTER, WHO UNFORTUNATELY HAD PASSED, THE BOAT WAS NEVER REGISTERED UNDER HIS NAME OR HIS DAUGHTER'S NAME. IT WAS STILL SHOWING UNDER THE OLD OWNER. AND IT DOES NOT HAVE A TAG OR A REGISTRATION TO IT AT THIS TIME.

>> MR. CELENTANO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE PHOTOS? OFFICERS YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPH DATED MARCH 25TH , AND APRIL 28TH AND MAY 5TH, WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPHS ALL TAKEN BY YOU?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD

[00:35:01]

>> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITIES COMPOSITE ONE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT, SIR, ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO PRESENT WILL BE AT

THIS TIME. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR VERBAL TESTIMONY YOU WANT TO PROVIDE BEFORE I MAKE MY RULING HERE TODAY?

>> OH, WHAT TO DO WITH THE BOAT? THE OWNER SHOWED UP TO GET IT FRIDAY. I WOULDN'T LET HIM HAVE IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO FOUND IT BUT I CALLED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. HE DOES OWN IT, SO, I NEED TO GET BACK WITH HIM. WHETHER HE WANTS IT OR NOT, IF NOT, WE KNOW, IT'S GOT TO GO TO THE LANDFILL IS WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO OR WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T OWN IT, I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER I DID OR NOT. I HAD A COURT CASE ON THE BOAT A LONG TIME AGO, I DON'T KNOW WHO LEGALLY, WHILE HE OWNS IT, IF I GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM, IF HE WANTS TO COME GET IT, OKAY, IT'S GOING TO THE LANDFILL.

>> OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WISH TO PROVIDE?

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> SIR HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO GET THAT DONE TO TRY AND GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM OR GET IT TO THE LANDFILL?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE, I DON'T HAVE HIS PHONE NUMBER, IF I DID I COULD CALL HIM, YOU KNOW, GET BACK WITH HIM

BECAUSE POOR GUY. >> YOUR HONOR --

>> HE GOT SOMETHING FROM THE CITY, I HAVE NO CLUE. HE JUST SHOWED UP BUT ANYWAY HE CAME TO GET THE BOAT. IT'S NOT HIS

FAULT. SO. >> I'M SORRY, WHAT WERE YOU

GOING TO SAY? >> I SAID I CAN ASSIST WITH THAT. I'VE HAD SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS THE OWNER, AND CONTACT WITH ME, WANTING TO GET IT. WE WERE WAITING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. CELENTANO . THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY AND TAKE IT WITHOUT SPEAKING TO HIM. SO, IF I CAN, AFTER OUR HEARING, IF I CAN GET A PHONE NUMBER FOR MR. CELENTANO, I CAN PASS THE INFORMATION TO THESE INDIVIDUALS

TO GET WITH THE OWNER. >> OKAY, SO WHAT ARE DEPARTMENT STAFF IS SAYING IS THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE OWNER OF THE BOAT AND AT THE END OF THIS HEARING BEFORE YOU LEAVE, PLEASE CONNECT WITH STAFF, WHO IS TESTIFYING ABOUT THIS SO SHE CAN PROVIDE THE PHONE NUMBER AND YOU CAN WORK WITH SOME SPEED, TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM AND GET THE BOAT REMOVED SO THAT YOU ARE NOT FIND. SO THAT SAID, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO GIVE SEVEN DAYS , DO WE THINK SEVEN DAYS IS ENOUGH TIME TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WITH THE CONNECTION YOU HAVE?

>> EVEN IF WE HAVE THE SEVEN DAYS I'M NOT HERE NEXT WEEK SO

IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE LONGER. >> OKAY, SO WHAT ARE WE

RECOMMENDING? >> CAN WE DO 15?

>> YES. >> THE DEPARTMENT IS OKAY WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO, NOTHING FURTHER YOU WISH TO PRESENT?

>> I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM YOU HAVE NO FURTHER TESTIMONY YOU WISH TO PRESENT BEFORE I MAKE MY RULING. I WILL FIND A NUISANCE CONDITION DOES EXIST IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND IT POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED TO THE CITY'S NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM. THE VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 15 DAYS TO ENSURE ALL VEHICLES ARE SAFELY AND LEGALLY OPERABLE, OR REMOVE THEM FROM THE PUPPY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN THE CITY TAKING NECESSARY STEPS TO ABATE THE NUISANCE CONDITION, THE COST OF WHICH WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO GET IN TOUCH WITH STAFF HERE AFTER TODAY'S HEARING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNER OF THE BOAT SO IT CAN BE REMOVED FROM YOUR PROPERTY, OR TAKE OTHER MEASURES TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR PROPERTY WITHIN THE 15 DAYS, OR THERE WILL BE AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST YOU, AS THE

PROPERTY OWNER. >> YES. YES.

>> AGAIN, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS RULING. THANK YOU.

>> SO, I CAN GET HIS PHONE NUMBER.

>> YOU CAN CONNECT WITH STAFF, MAY BE OUT IN THE HALLWAY.

>> OKAY, I NEED HIS PHONE NUMBER, IF I CAN GET IT.

>> I NEED YOUR NUMBER TO GIVE TO THEM.

>> OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO JUMP INTO OUR REGULAR ORDER. WE HAD A CITATION SCHEDULED FOR THIS MORNING BUT NO ONE IS PRESENT AT THIS TIME. DO YOU GUYS STILL WANT TO GO FORWARD? ALL RIGHT.

[1. Case Number: PK-2025-00097 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 3204 Kentucky Ave]

>> IF THEY WERE PROPERLY NOTICED, YES.

>> YES MA'AM. >> CITATION OF PO, THIS IS NUMBER TWO AND IT'S PK 2025 BEST 97, 3204 KENTUCKY AVENUE.

[00:40:13]

>> GOOD MORNING YOUR HONOR, OFFICER KIRKLAND, THIS IS CASE NUMBER PK 20 $25 00097 . VIOLATION OCCURRED AT 3204 KENTUCKY AVENUE. THIS IS A PARKING CITATION DISPUTE, CITATION WAS ISSUED ON VIBRATE 27, 2025, AND T8 ISSUE DATE WAS APRIL 2ND 2025. THE OWNER IS GEORGE CEDRICK DUNN, CITATION NUMBER 10308, PARKING ON CITY RIGHT AWAY WITH A FINE OF $50, ADMIN FEE OF $10 WHICH IS A TOTAL DUE OF $60. I HAVE

PICTURES AS I WITNESSED IT. >> OKAY, OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE PARKING CITATION DISPUTE THAT WAS FILLED OUT BY MR. DUNN, IS THAT CORRECT. HE SAID I WAS NOT GIVEN A WARNING, I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 40 YEARS AND YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FEBRUARY 27TH AS WELL AS THE TICKET THAT WAS LEFT ON THE VEHICLE. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE THEY TAKEN BY

YOU? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU

OBSERVED IT? >> YES.

>> WE ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE THE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE. IS THERE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT?

>> NO MAN. >> THEY ARE NOT HERE IN ATTENDANCE, WE HAVE GONE FORWARD AND HEARD THE HEARING, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND ORDER THE VIOLATOR

TO BE FIND IN THE AMOUNT OF $60. >> 15 DAYS?

>> 15 DAYS, FOR PAYMENT, YES OF THE FINE.

>> $78 OR $60? >> IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE $60.

>> THE ADMIN FEE, I MEAN THE LATE FEE.

>> 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. >> HE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

[2. Case Number: CE-2025-94 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 1487 S US Highway 1]

THANK YOU. >> WE WILL SKIP DOWN TO VIOLATION CASES, IT'S THE SECOND CASE, WHICH IS CE 2025 BEST 94, 1487 S. U.S. HIGHWAY ONE.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS IS CE 2025- IT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE INITIATED ON FEBRUARY 7TH OF 2025, TO SOME IT COMMERCE PLAZA. SIGNS MAINTENANCE, I HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT.

>> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR, APRIL 28TH, AND MAY 5TH, THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHERE

THEY TAKEN BY YOU? >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT? ?

>> CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE . WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE, CITY'S COMPOSITE 1. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME ? ALL RIGHT WHAT WE WILL FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 10 DAYS TO REMOVE THE EMPTY WOODEN SIGN AND COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS, FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $250 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED AND PAYMENT I'M SORRY, NO, I DON'T NEED TO SAY THAT, THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO APPEAL FROM THE DATE OF

[5. Case Number: CE-2025-00103 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 1301 S US Highway 1]

THE ORDER. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT CASE IS THE FIFTH CASE IN VIOLATION CASES, WHICH IS

1301 S. U.S. HIGHWAY ONE . >> THIS IS CASE NUMBER CE 2025,

[00:45:05]

WHICH TO SUBMIT . >> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED DECEMBER 7, APRIL 20TH, MAY 5TH. WERE THESE

TAKEN BY YOU? >> YES MA'AM

>> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU

OBSERVED IT? >> YES MA'AM.

>> YOU PROVIDED LETTERS THAT WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1 .

>> ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE, . >> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO

SUBMIT AT THIS TIME? >> NO MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD AND FIND THAT THE VIOLATION DOES EXIST, AND ORDER THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 20 DAYS TO REPLACE THE -- $250 A

[1. Case Number: LTCL-2025-00069 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: N US Highway 1 (1433-412-0030-000-7)]

>> THANK YOU. NEXT CASE IS THE FIRST ONE ON OUR OTHER CASES CATEGORY. THAT'S LOCK CLEARING 2025-69 FOR NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY

1. >> IT'S NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY ONE, PARCEL NUMBER 143341200 00 . IT WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 27TH OF 2025 WITH A NOTICE TO APPEAR AND THE POSTING BOTH BEING ON MARCH 28TH, 2025. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS K RT VENTURES LLC.

THE VIOLATION IS FOR 24 - AND SUBSECTION I, TRIPLE I, NUISANCE LANDSCAPE, LARGER THAN THREE ACRES. I HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT . AS OF MONDAY WHEN I WENT AND TOOK MY LAST SET OF PHOTOS, THEY DID HAVE THE LANDSCAPING PORTION COMPLIED BUT THEY STILL HAD TRASH AND DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS, IT LOOKED LIKE A RECLINER AND SOME OTHER VARIOUS ITEMS. I DID REACH OUT TO A PROPERTY MANAGER THAT HAD CONTACT WITH THE OWNER AND WAS WORKING WITH THEM TO LET THEM KNOW THERE WAS STILL AN

ISSUE AT THE PROPERTY. >> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED MARCH 26, MARCH 28TH, APRIL 28TH , AND MAY 5TH OF THIS YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> AND DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> YOU HAD LETTERS THAT WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AN ADDITIONAL.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WISH TO PRESENT?

>> NO. >> ALL RIGHT, I WILL FIND -- FIND THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS AND IT POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND IT BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CITIES NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM, VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT OFF THE FENCE LINES AND TRIM ALL TREES AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. FAILURE WILL RESULT IN $100 A DAY FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES. THE CITY HAS TAKEN THE NET NECESSARY STEPS, THE COST OF WHICH IS TO

[2. Case Number: LTCL-2025-00055 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 906 Avenue I]

HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS. >>

>> THANK YOU. NEXT CASE IS THE SECOND ONE IN THE SAME CATEGORY,

LOT CLEARING 906 AVENUE I. >> YOUR HONOR THIS IS LOT CLEARING CASE 976 AVENUE I. SORRY, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 20TH OF 2025. THE NOTICE TO APPEAR ON THE POSTING WERE DONE ON MARCH 21ST OF 2025. AS FOR VIOLATION 2419 SUBSECTIONS 11 AND B. NUISANCE LANDSCAPING FOR LESS THAN THREE ACRES. I HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE OWNER'S SON A FEW TIMES AND ALSO MET THE

[00:50:02]

SOME DEBRIS TO BE REMOVED. >> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED MARCH 18, MARCH 20TH -- 21ST, APRIL 28TH , MAY 5TH, AND MAY 6TH, ARE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHERE THEY ALL

TAKEN BY YOU? >> DID THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> ALSO PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSIT ONE. ANYTHING FURTHER TO PRESENT?

>> NO MA'AM. >> A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS AND IT POSES A THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED IN THE CITIES NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM. VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO TRIM ALL TREES AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS GENERATED FROM BRINGING THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE.

[3. Case Number: LTCL-2025-63 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 2300 N US Highway 1]

>> THANK YOU. LAST CASE FOR TODAY, IS GOING TO BE THE THIRD ONE IN THE SAME CATEGORY, LOT CLEARING 2025 63. HIGHWAY ONE.

>> YOUR HONOR THIS IS LOT CLEARING CASE 2025 - 63, 2300 N.

HIGHWAY ONE, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED MARCH 26, 2025. THE NOTICE TO APPEAR ON THE POSTING DATE WERE DONE ON MARCH 28TH, 2025. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ARE STEWART AND PAM ELLIOTT, THE VIOLATION IS FOR 24 - 19, SUBSECTIONS 11 A, B, TRIPLE I, NUISANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR A PROPERTY LARGER THAN THREE ACRES. I HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. AGAIN I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH A PROPERTY MANAGER, THEY HAVE DONE THE LANDSCAPING , BUT THERE'S AREAS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF TRASH AND DEBRIS THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED, REMNANTS OF HOMELESS CAMPS, AND I BELIEVE WE WERE REQUESTING SEVEN DAYS, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THEM AT LEAST 10 TO ENSURE THEY HAVE TIME TO GET EVERYTHING.

>> YOU'VE PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED MARCH 26, MARCH 20TH, APRIL 28TH, MAY 5TH . WERE ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU?

>> YES MA'AM. >> TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT??

>> YES MA'AM. >> YOU ALSO PROVIDED A COPY, THERE'S A PICTURE OF THE POSTING ON THE PROPERTY,

CORRECT? >> YES MA'AM,

>> AND A LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS , THE MAILING ADDRESS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS OUT OF POM-POM, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> HAVE YOU EVER HAD CONTACT

WITH THEM, SPECIFICALLY? >> YEARS AGO.

>> FOR ANOTHER VIOLATION ON THE SAME PROPERTY?

>> CORRECT. IT WAS ANOTHER LOT CLEARING AT THE SAME PROPERTY,

THAT'S BEEN QUITE A WHILE. >> IS THIS ADDRESS WHAT IS LISTED ON THE APPRAISER'S WEBSITE?

>> YES MA'AM. >> THE MANAGER OF THE PROPERTY WITH WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH, WHERE THEY MADE AWARE OF IT BY

THE POSTING? >> NO, I CALL THEM, TRYING TO REMEMBER IF HE HAD THE CONNECTION TO THE PROPERTY OR NOT. HE IS WITH A REAL ESTATE AGENCY, SO, THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER HIM WITH THIS PROPERTY AND THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET THAT WE HEARD EARLIER. HE HAD TIES WITH BOTH OF THOSE AND SAID THAT HE STILL DID, SO HE ASSISTED THEM.

>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE, CITY'S COMPOSITE 1 . WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE, CITY'S COMPOSITE 1 . ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WISH TO PRESENT AT

THIS TIME? >> NO MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL FIND THE NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCES AND IT PROVIDES A THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY. THE VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 10 DAYS TO CLEAN OFF THE FENCE LINES, CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED AND TRIM ALL TREES AND BUSHES , AND REMOVE

[00:55:10]

APPEAL THIS ORDER. >> I'M SORRY, FORGIVE ME BECAUSE I WASN'T PAYING FULL ATTENTION, DID YOU GIVE THEM

SEVEN? >> WE GAVE THEM THE 10.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I WILL GO OVER THE

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]