May 08, 2025 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MINIATURE ORDER. WELCOME TO THE MADE 28 -- MAY 8 2025 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MEETING. I WILL ASK FIRST IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE A HEARING DEVICE OR INTERPRETER. I AM SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JENNIFER PESKY. ALSO HERE IS THE CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL AS STAFF FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICERS WILL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS THEY TESTIFY. MISS ELIZABETH BACK WILL BE CASH THE CALL TODAY. THOSE PRESENT WHO HAVE RECEIVED A VIOLATION ARE REFERRED TO AS RESPONDENTS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WILL OCCUR TODAY. PROCEEDINGS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS.

THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS CASE FIRST EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE TESTIMONY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, INVESTIGATORS, POLICE OFFICERS, OTHER WITNESSES. IT MAY INCLUDE PHYSICAL ITEMS LIKE PHOTOGRAPHS AND IS WILL BE CALLED EXHIBITS.

STANDARD OF PROOF IS --. THE RESPONDENT CAN MAKE OBJECTIONS AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES IF DESIRED. ONCE THE CITY IS FINISHED RESULTING ITS CASE THE RESPONDENT WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE A STATEMENT, PRESENT WITNESS TESTIMONY, AND PRESENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. ONCE BOTH SIDES HAVE PRESENTED THEIR CASE I WILL MAKE A FINAL DECISION. ALL PARTIES TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER AT ALL TIMES AND COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME AS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WE WILL NOW 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

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> PLEASE REMAIN STANDING IF YOU WILL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY. COULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

[A. BV2024-00072 315 S 17th St. Lazare, Ermith Miles Keller]

WITH 6 A . >> I AM MYLES KELLER AND I AM AN INVESTIGATOR AND INSPECTOR. THE FIRST CASE IS BV2024-00072 .

VIOLATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS. IPMC 111.1.3 (2021) STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, IPMC 304.1 (2021) EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, IPMC 304.10 (2021) EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS, DECKS, PORCHES & BALCONIES, IPMC 304.12 (2021) EXTERIOR HANDRAILS AND GUARDS, 304.13 (2021) WINDOW, SKYLIGHT, DOOR FRAMES, IPMC 304.13.2 (2021) OPENABLE WINDOWS, IPMC 304.14 (2021) INSECTS SCREENS, IPMC 304.15 (2021) EXTERIOR DOORS, IPMC 304.18.2 (2021) WINDOWS, IPMC 304.6 (2021) EXTERIOR WALLS, IPMC 304.7

[00:05:01]

5. REPAIR/REPLACE DOORS THAT DO NOT CLOSE PROPERLY, REPLACING MISSING INTERIOR DOORS AND DOOR HARDWARE, WINDOWS THAT ARE BROKEN OR UNOPENABLE IN APTS A AND APT C. REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS WILL REQUIRE A PERMIT. 6. REPLACE ALL DAMAGED OR MISSING INSECT SCREENS IN APT A AND APT C. 7. REPAIR/REPLACE EXTERIOR DOORS, ROTTED DOOR FRAMES AND DOOR HARDWARE, MAKING DOORS WEATHERPROOF. A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED IF DOORS OR DOOR FRAMES ARE REPLACED. 8. INSTALL, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE WINDOW SASH LOCKS TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR APT A AND APT C. 9.

OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR/REPLACE THE DAMAGED EXTERIOR WALLS. 10. REPAIR/REPLACE THE DAMAGED ROOF.

11. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR/REPLACE ALL DAMAGED INTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INCLUDING FLOOR JOISTS IF NECESSARY FOR THE SAGGING FLOORS IN APT A AND APT C. 12. MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO INTERIOR SURFACES, INCLUDING CEILINGS THAT ARE SAGGING AND WATER DAMAGED, DRYWALL THAT HAS HOLES, IS CRACKED OR MISSING. REPLACE WOOD THAT IS DECAYED. 13. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR/REPLACE INTERIOR STAIRS OR WALKING SURFACES. REPLACE MISSING FLOORING, CRACKED TILES. 14.

TREAT APT A FOR PEST INFESTATION OF RATS, ROACHES, TERMITES AND ANY OTHER PESTS. 15. MAKE ALL REPLACEMENTS SO THAT EACH DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED WITH ITS OWN BATHTUB OR SHOWER, LAVATORY, WATER CLOSET AND KITCHEN SINK, REPAIR OR REPLACE BROKEN SHOWER, LOOSE TOILET FIXTURES APT. A AND APT. C. 16.

REPAIR OR REPLACE BROKEN SHOWER STALL FOR APT A. 17. PROVIDE PROPER CLEARANCES FOR USAGE AND CLEANING OF PLUMBING FIXTURES APT A. 18. A HEATING SYSTEM, CAPABLE OF PROVIDING HEAT TO 68 DEGREES, SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING AND SLEEPING UNITS.

19. ALL MECHANICAL APPLIANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN A SAFE AND OPERABLE WORKING CONDITION FOR APT A AND APT C. 20. MAKE ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO ANY ELECTRICAL FIXTURES WHERE THERE IS EXPOSED WIRING AND/OR LIGHTS HANGING FROM WIRES FOR APT. A AND APT. C. RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE 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, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR THERE HAS BEEN NO PERMITS

FOR ANY CORRECTIVE WORK. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS

TO PROVIDE? >> YES.

[00:10:03]

>> IS THERE SOMEONE HERE FOR ERMITH LAZARE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THEY ARE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE?

>> YES.

>> WHILE SHE IS LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAME TO LEARN ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.

>> THEY BOTH CAME IN AS COMPLAINTS THROUGH THE CITY FROM

THE TENANTS LIVING THERE. >> AT THE TIME I KNOW THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE APARTMENTS THAT MAKE UP THIS BUILDING. WERE THERE TENANTS IN EACH OF THE APARTMENTS?

>> YES, THERE WAS.

>> MR. KELLER YOU PROVIDED ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. ARE THEY DATED JANUARY 21ST OF THIS YEAR? EXCEPT FOR THE NOTICES?

>> I THINK I SEE SOME FROM OCTOBER 22ND, OCTOBER 23RD

>> I SEE THAT. YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS DATED OCTOBER 22ND AND OCTOBER 23RD AS WELL AS JANUARY 21ST OF THIS YEAR. IS

THAT CORRECT? >> YES .

>> AND YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS DATED APRIL 28 OF THIS YEAR WITH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION POSTED AT THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES . >> WERE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN

BY YOU? >> YES.

>> DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE

VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT? >> YES .

>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE THIS INTO CITY'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT ONE. >> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE

DEPARTMENT AT THIS TIME? >> TYPICALLY WE GO OVER THE

PHOTOGRAPHS BRIEFLY. >> THERE ARE MANY PHOTOGRAPHS, MR. KELLER. I KNOW THERE ARE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS IT DATED FROM MY OCTOBER ON THE SCREEN, WHAT ARE THE VIOLATIONS WE ARE SEEING HERE.

>> EXHIBIT A IS BASICALLY THE FRONT STAIRS TO APARTMENT A.

ORIGINALLY THEY WERE SAGGING FROM ROT. AND B, YOU CAN SEE UNDER THE DOORS IS THE SAME THING. ROTTED AND NOT VERY

[00:15:02]

STABLE. >> THESE NEXT SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS FROM OCTOBER IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU WENT OUT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS,

CORRECT? >> YES .

>> WANTED TO GO OUT ON THE 22ND AND 23RD THEN IN JANUARY?

>> THE FIRST ONE I THINK WAS APARTMENT A THAT I WAS CALLED IN FOR. I WENT BACK OUT TO TAKE A COUPLE MORE PHOTOS AND THEN I WENT BACK AND, MISS LAZARE WAS OUT THERE. THAT IS WHY THE DATES WERE THE PROPERTY OWNER I KNOW YOU STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO PERMITS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY WORK DONE ON THE PROPERTY SINCE THEN?

>> THEY DID A COUPLE OF REPAIRS THAT WERE NOT RELEASE SUFFICIENT BUT NOTHING THAT REQUIRED A PERMIT AT THAT TIME.

>> SO FROM THE DEPARTMENT PERSPECTIVE ARE THESE THE LIST OF VIOLATIONS PENDING AND NOT IN COMPLIANCE?

>> CORRECT. >> I WILL JUST SCROLL THROUGH THE REST OF THESE PHOTOS HERE. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER, MR.

HELLER? >> NO .

>> THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS. ARE THERE THREE

APARTMENTS? >> I BELIEVE THERE IS FOUR.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE IS STILL LIVING IN THESE UNITS

TODAY? >> I DO NOT.

>> ARE THESE ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS? NOTHING FURTHER? MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT?

>> SOME OF THE PICTURES I DON'T RECOGNIZE AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN HE WENT BACK AND TOOK THESE PICTURES BUT I HIRED A CONTRACTOR AND WE WILL HAVE THE PERMITS SHORTLY.

>> ARE THE APARTMENTS OCCUPIED?

>> YES . >> HOW MANY ARE OCCUPIED?

>> TWO. >> DO YOU HAVE LEASES FOR THOSE

APARTMENTS? >> YES .

>> DO YOU KNOW THE DURATION OF THE LEASES? ARE THEY MONTH TO

MONTH? >> YES. MONTH TO MONTH.

>> IF THE CITY CAN TELL US WHEN THOSE FOR PHOTOS WERE TAKEN?

>> BACK IN OUR TOBER 22ND OF 2024.

>> WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU WERE AT THE PROPERTY?

>> I WENT TO THE PROPERTY TO POSTED ON APRIL 28TH BUT IT WAS

JUST FOR THE OUTSIDE. >> IT IS THE CITY POSITION THAT ALL OF THESE VIOLATIONS STILL EXIST?

>> RIGHT. >> TO HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO

SUBMIT? >> THE TIME THAT I CALLED HIM

[00:20:06]

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN HE MET WITH YOU IN OCTOBER 2024?

>> NO, THAT WAS JANUARY. WE MET IN JANUARY. AND HE CONFIRMED THAT EVERYTHING WAS OKAY HE JUST LEFT EVERYTHING AND TOOK ALL OF THE PICTURES TO MAKE IT LOOK AS BAD AS IT CAN BUT, DID NOT EVEN MENTION ABOUT THE ONES THAT WE HAD DONE AND IT WAS CONFIRMED AND HE SAID THAT WAS OKAY, THAT WAS OKAY. THE ONLY THING THAT IS -- WE WANT TO BENCH MAKE SURE THE FLOOR IS DRY ON THERE AND WHEN HE CAME BACK, AND I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT, I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT AND THEY SAID COME BACK BEFORE I SPEND UNNECESSARY MONEY AND HE COME BACK AND HE SAID THERE IS NO WAY I AM GOING TO LET YOU PASS WITH THAT PART. YOU NEED TO HAVE A CONTRACTOR.

BUT IT WAS TO TAKE OFF THE ONES THAT WE HAD DONE. WE HAD/THINGS THAT HE TALKED ABOUT BUT, HE CAME BACK AND OPENED UNDER THE HOUSE AND TOOK MORE PICTURES. HE WENT BACK INSIDE WITHOUT PERMISSION. HE JUST TAKES AS MUCH AS HE CAN TO MAKE IT LOOK AS BAD AS HE CAN BUT, WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR AND WE ARE GOING TO GO OVER EVERYTHING AGAIN AND WE WILL CALL HIM BACK IN.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER TO PRESENT TODAY? AND ARE YOU ERMITH LAZARE

FOR THE RECORD? >> YES .

>> THE RECOMMENDATIONS REMAINS THE SAME? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

>> ONE MORE THING. WE DID HAVE A PERMIT FOR THE ELECTRICAL AND WE PASSED THE PERMIT. AND, BUT HE STILL HAS THAT IN THE PAPER.

>> OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD TODAY, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I AM HEARING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED ARE STILL OPEN SO, IF YOU DO COME INTO COMPLIANCE OR YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLIANCE OR YOUR QUESTION DASHER CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD STAY IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY SO THEY CAN COME BACK AND DO A REINSPECTION IF NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE FINES OF $100 PER DAY ASSESSED FOR COPING VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD STATED IN THIS ORDER IF YOU DO NOT COME INTO COMPLIANCE?

>> HOW LONG DO I HAVE? >> 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND YOU WILL GET A COPY OF THIS AS WELL. YOU WILL REQUIRE INSPECTIONS EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT IS CLOSED. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS GET IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY SO THEY CAN CLARIFY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE ORDER AND TIME PERIOD

TO COMPLY. >> AND I HAVE MORE TIME?

>> AT THIS TIME I HAVE ENTERED THE ORDER AND I AM DOING THAT AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED TODAY. THESE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS. YOU HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN UNINHABITABLE CONDITIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6.B. . 2425

[B. BV2024-00102 2425 Mohawk Ave 2707 Essex Court Corp Joel Smith]

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH. I AM AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PURSE AND TODAY WE HAVE CASE BV2024-00102 AT2425

[00:25:18]

VIOLATIONS: FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ELECTRICAL WORK AND ALL INTERIOR RENOVATIONS BEING DONE. RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE 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. AT THIS MOMENT, AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED ON -- 16, 2025 AND IS STILL IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. AND, I DO HAVE PICTURES AND THEY ARE TIME STAMPED AND IT DATED FROM

DECEMBER 17 2024. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE FOR THIS CASE? IF YOU ARE HERE FOR YOUR CASE YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM

WHEN YOU'RE CASE IS CALLED. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE

PICTURES? >> NO.

>> MR. SMITH. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AS YOU STATED ARE DATED ON DECEMBER 17 OF LAST YEAR. WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME WE WOULD MOVE THESE PHOTOS IN AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. WE WILL EXCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. MR. SMITH, HOW DID YOU COME INTO CONTACT WITH THIS PROPERTY?

>> I WAS ACTUALLY CALLED OUT TO THIS PROPERTY FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE ROOFING CONTRACT HER. THERE WAS AN ACTIVE PERMIT AT

THE TIME FOR ROOF REPLACEMENT. >> WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE INSPECTION FOR THE RIFF YOU DISCOVERED THERE WAS OTHER WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT? INSPECTION I WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER AND THERE ARE NO HAZARDS OR DANGERS TO ANYBODY THEN I PROCEED WITH THE

INSPECTION. >> FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE SEE THERE WAS ELECTRICAL WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> YES. AND IN PROCESS.

>> SAME WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE FRONT DOOR?

>> YES . >> WHAT WERE THE INTERIOR RENOVATIONS THAT NEEDED PERMITS?

>> INTERIOR RENOVATIONS WITH UP TO THEM TO TELL US INCLUDING ELECTRICAL FIXTURES BEING CHANGED OUT. SOME NECESSARILY REQUIRE A PERMIT LIKE TILING A FLOOR AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> SIR, DO YOU WANT TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF TODAY AND IF YOU HAVE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TO PRESENT.

>> I AM PRESENT FOR THE OWNER AND HE LIVES IN CANADA SO HE CANNOT BE HERE. THE ONLY -- THAT I HAVE GOT IS WE ARE WE FOLLOW THE PROCESS TO DO THE PERMITS FOR THIS SITUATION AND WE ARE READING FOR THE INSPECTOR TO GO TO THE PROPERTY TO SEE WHAT'S HE -- TO REPLACE. WE HAVE THE PERMITS ALREADY IN THE FILE.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN BACK IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY TO SCHEDULE

REINSPECTION? >> YES. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN CALLING I BELIEVE HIM TO GO TO THE HOUSE FOR REINSPECTION BUT HE GETS NO ANSWERS. WE HAVE A GENERAL

CONTRACTOR ON THIS PROCESS. >> I HAVE AN OPEN LINE OF

[00:30:02]

INCORRECT. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING? HE IS REPRESENTING THAT HE HAS NOT HEARD FROM YOUR CONTRACT HER. YOU OBTAIN PERMITS AND IT IS READY FOR REINSPECTION. YOU NEED TO CONNECT WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE SURE THEY TOUCH BASE WITH THE CITY SO AN INSPECTION CAN BE PUT IN PLACE. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE CONTACTING THE

RIGHT DEPARTMENT. >> YES. BUT WHAT I HEAR FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR YESTERDAY AND HE HAS TOLD ME THAT EVERYTHING IS IN THE SYSTEM BUT EVERYTHING IS ON STOP SO HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO ORDER AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY BUT HE GOT NO ANSWER. I AM NOT IN CHARGE OF THAT FOR THIS PROCESS.

>> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PERMIT IS IN BUT NOT APPROVED?

>> YES. THEY MADE FEE PAYMENTS AND EVERYTHING BUT WAITED FOR

THE INSPECTION. >> IT SOUNDS TO ME THE COMMUNICATION THAT THEY ARE PROBABLY TRYING TO HAVE IS COMMUNICATION WITH THE PERMIT TAX. THEY HAVE NOT REACHED OUT TO ME AND THEY HAVE NOT ASKED FOR ME TO DO ANYTHING, REINSPECT OR ASK FOR MY OPINION OR ANY HELP WITH WHAT THEY MY NEED --

MAY NEED. >> CAN THEY DO THAT?

>> I HAVE AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION.

>> MAYBE AFTER WE CONCLUDE THIS HEARING YOU CAN STEP OUT AND MAKE SURE HE HAS YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION TO SHARE WITH THE CONTRACT OR. ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WISH TO PRESENT?

>> NO, NOTHING ELSE. >> YOUR RECOMMENDATION?

>> THIS VIOLATION, THEY FIXED IT.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE TO CONNECT WITH THE RIGHT DEPARTMENT AT THE CITY FOR REINSPECTION. AT THIS TIME I AM GOING TO FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CONNECT WITH STAFF BEFORE YOU HEAD OUT TODAY SO THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION TO SCHEDULE THAT REINSPECTION IF

YOU HAVE OBTAINED A PERMIT. >> ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? THEY HAVE -- IN THE SYSTEM FOR THE INSPECTION BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER FROM THE CITY TO GET THE INSPECTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE ELECTRICIAN, THE ELECTRICIAN SHOWED ME TWO DAYS AGO IN THE SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE EVERYTHING READY. THEY PAID THE FEES AND EVERYTHING BUT THEY CANNOT GET SOMEBODY TO GET THE

INSPECTION. >> I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO MEET WITH STAFF BEFORE YOU HEAD OUT TODAY SO YOU CAN CONNECT. THERE MA JUST BE A COMMUNICATION UNDERSTANDING AS FAR AS YOU NEED TO TALK TO TO RESCHEDULE THE REINSPECTION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

[C. BV2024-00105 1804 Havana Ave Cendejas, Manuel & Graciela Joel Smith]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 6.C. , CASE NUMBER BV2024-00105, 1804 HAVANA AVENUE. MANUEL AND GRACIELA CENDEJAS ARE THE OWNERS.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH AND I AM WITH THE CITY OF FORT HURT PIERCE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HER. TODAY WE HAVE BV2024-00105 LOCATED AT 1804 HAVANA AVENUE . AND THE OWNER IS MANUEL AND GRACIELA CENDEJAS . THE VIOLATION IS FBC 105.1

[00:35:08]

>> BUT THE VIOLATIONS ARE STILL OPEN?

>> AS PENDING, YES. I DO HAVE PICTURES. DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE

PICTURES? >> NO, THAT IS OKAY.

>> THESE PICTURES WERE TAKEN BY ME AND THEY ARE TIME STAMPED

DECEMBER 20, 2024. >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS ALSO INCLUDE

A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION. >> THAT WAS THE EXISTING PERMIT

THAT THEY HAVE. YES . >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE .

>> WE WILL EXCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE. MR. SMITH, IS IT SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE THAT WE HEARD THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE REVIEWING ANOTHER AND INSPECTING FOR ANOTHER PERMIT AND FOUND OTHER WORK BEING DONE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT

PERMIT? >> EXACTLY. I WAS OUT THERE FOR AN INSPECTION AND THE PERMIT THAT THEY HOLD WAS FOR THIS AREA HOWEVER WHEN THEY GOT INTO IT IT BECAME A LOT MORE THAN WHAT THEY THOUGHT. SO, THEY WERE JUST UNSURE OF THE ADDITIONAL SCOPE

OF WORK AT THE TIME. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE

ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS FOR? >> IT WAS ESSENTIALLY FOR WHAT THEY WERE DOING, RIPPING OFF OLD SIDING ON THE OUTSIDE AND REDOING IT AND AS THEY GOT INTO IT THEY REALIZED THAT EVERYTHING BEHIND IT WAS DETERIORATED AND ROTTED. THEY JUST HAD TO GO FURTHER THAN WHAT THEY ESSENTIALLY PLANNED ON.

>> ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO .

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO PRESENT NOW IS THE TIME.

>> I AM THE DAUGHTER OF MANUEL AND GRACIELA CENDEJAS AND FOR MEDICAL REASONS MY FATHER CANNOT SPEAK AND MY MOTHER , HER ENGLISH IS VERY LIMITED. WE ARE WORKING TO TRY TO GET THE PROPER PERMIT AND WE WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT DRAWINGS FROM AN ENGINEER SIGNED AND SEALED AND IT HAS BEEN HARD TO FIND SOMEBODY TO HELP US WITH THIS LOCALLY. WE FOUND SOMEBODY AND WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH THEM AS THE GENTLEMAN INFORMED WE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS AND RE-SUBMISSIONS BUT, I GUESS WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDING THE APPROPRIATE WORDING OR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS WITH THE PERMIT RE-SUBMISSIONS AND APPLICATIONS. MY LAST CONTACT WITH THE ENGINEER WAS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN HE PROVIDED ME THE MOST RECENT DRAWINGS AND MY LAST CONTACT WITH THE REVIEWER WAS YESTERDAY AND A WEEK AGO WE REVIEWED WHAT IS NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICATION AND THE PERMIT. I HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO ADD THE ELECTRICAL WHICH IS NOT IN THE DRAWINGS AND I HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO ADD THE CALCULATIONS SINCE THERE IS GOING TO BE A MINI SPLIT INCLUDED SO NOW I AM TRYING TO FIND AN ELECT TRADITION FOR THAT IF -- IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ADD THAT TO THE DRAWING SO THERE IS EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID COME UP IN MY CONVERSATION WITH THE REVIEWER IS THAT BECAUSE I GUESS WE WERE SUBMITTING REPAIR AND REPLACE

[00:40:03]

PROPERLY PULLED BACK THEN. >> I SEE THE RECOMMENDATION IS 60 DAYS. DO WE THINK THIS CAN HAPPEN WITHIN 60 DAYS?

>> IT CAN BE TRICKY. BEING THEY HAVE TO GO BACK THAT FAR. NONE OF US CAN CONTROL HOW FAST THEY CAN DO THAT FOR HER.

>> RIGHT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SET AN UNREALISTIC TIMELINE.

>> I WOULD LIKE MORE TIME BECAUSE MY FATHER HAD A -- IN JANUARY SO WE ARE GOING THROUGH SPEECH THERAPY AND OTHER POST SURGERY PROCEDURES AND MY MOTHER HAS A MEDICAL CONDITION THAT WE HAVE TO TREAT SO ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS WE HAVE TO ATTEND TO

THEIR MEDICAL NEEDS AS WELL. >> HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU

REQUESTING? >> SOMETHING REASONABLE , I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THIS AND I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EVERYTHING. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOUR MONTHS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK OR IF MORE TIME IS NEEDED

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> STAFF WOULD BE AMENDABLE TO 120 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

>> THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS 60 DAYS BUT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING 120 DAYS OR FOUR MONTHS IT TO GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME TO MANAGE THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE IN MOTION AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT YOU HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO PRESENT

BEFORE I MAKE MY RULING? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN120 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 YOU DO HAVE 120 DAYS.

>> THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 6.D.,

[D. BV2024-00107 464 N 9th St Save Our Children Anthony Jetmore]

>> GOOD MORNING. SIR, YOU WERE NOT HERE AT SWEARING IN, SO CAN YOU BE SWORN IN NOW? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE

YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? >> ROBERT KENNETH MILLS SENIOR.

>> TO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE WILL BE

THE TRUTH? >> YES .

>> MY NAME IS ANTHONY JETMORE AND I AM A BUILDING INSPECTOR AND ENFORCER FOR THE CITY. THIS ISBV2024-00107 AT464 NORTH 9TH STREET. THE VIOLATION IS IPMC 111.1.1 (2021) UNSAFE STRUCTURE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE OCCUPANTS VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITION IS

REMEDIED. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> YES . >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE

PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES.

[00:45:06]

>> YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED DECEMBER 26TH AND 27TH OF LAST YEAR. IT DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> I DID . >> DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> THEY DO. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE.

>> WE WILL EXCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE.

>> MR. JETMORE, HOW DID YOU GET CALLED OUT TO THE BUILDING?

>> I GOT CALLED OUT BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT A CAR HIT

A BUILDING. >> IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SEE HER ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, IS THAT THE MAIN DAMAGE

TO THE BUILDING? >> CORRECT.

>> IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION DOES THAT DAMAGE MAKE THE

BUILDING UNSAFE? >> WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WITHOUT AN ENGINEER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. IT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET INSIDE TO SEE IF

THERE IS DAMAGE INSIDE. >> AT LEAST FROM THE DEPARTMENT PERSPECTIVE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT DANGER THERE IS?

>> CORRECT. >> HAVE YOU HAD COMMUNICATION

WITH THE BUILDING OWNER? >> WE HAVE NOT.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> GOOD MORNING. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS OR EVIDENCE

ON BEHALF OF YOUR CASE. >> GOOD MORNING. I AM THE "WARNER OF 464 NORTH 9TH STREET. THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. ON DECEMBER 26, THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT AT THE BUILDING AND ONE OF THE CITY VEHICLES WAS HIT BY ANOTHER CAR AND KNOCKED INTO THE BUILDING AND CAUSED A CRACK IN THE BUILDING. WITH THE PICTURES THAT WE SAW THERE WAS A SHEET PUT IN THE FENCE OF THE BUILDING AND EVIDENTLY THERE WAS ONE PUT ON THE LIGHT POLE ON DECEMBER 26. THE DAY AFTER CHRISTMAS. WE WERE CLOSED FOR TWO WEEKS AND I NEVER GOT THAT FORM THAT WAS PUT IN THE FENCE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ACCIDENT. I GOT A LETTER IN THE MAIL STATING THAT THE BUILDING WAS UNSAFE AND SO I BEGAN TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHEN I CALLED THE CITY THEY TOLD ME THAT I COULD GO TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND GET THE REPORT OF WHAT HAPPENED. I AM FOUR WEEKS INTO THE ACCIDENT, AFTER DECEMBER 26. WHEN I GOT THE REPORT IT WAS A CITY VEHICLE KNOCKED INTO THE BUILDING, I HAD A COUPLE OF BUMPS IN THE ROAD MYSELF. I WAS IDENTIFIED WITH PROSTATE CANCER AND HAD TO START THAT PROCESS BUT, FAST-FORWARD, I HAVE HAD THE CRACK IN THE BUILDING REPAIRED AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT IF SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE COME INTO THE FACILITY BECAUSE WE DO WORK WITH CHILDREN THERE INSTEAD OF SENDING ME OUT SOMETHING SAYING THAT THE BUILDING WAS UNSAFE AND IT NEEDED TO BE SHUT DOWN. IT WOULD'VE BEEN GREAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE COME OUT TO INSPECT THE BUILDING OR SOMEBODY BUT, I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE BUILDING BEING REPAIRED.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT THOSE AS EVIDENCE?

>> I WOULD. >> THIS WILL BE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT -- RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1 .

>> WE WILL ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE RESPONDENT'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. MR. MILLS, WHO DID THE WORK FOR THE BUILDING?

>> THE CONTRACTOR MICHAEL HILL. HIS COMPANY IS GREASE. I DON'T HAVE THE RECEIPT WITH ME BUT I HAVE IT IN MY PHONE IF I AM

ALLOWED TO GIVE THAT TO YOU. >> I AM JUST CURIOUS. HAS AN ENGINEER BEEN OUT TO GIVE YOU AN OPINION ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE

BUILDING? AND THE FOUNDATION? >> NO, MA'AM.

[00:50:02]

>> THE PROCESS TYPICALLY IS YOU WOULD CALL OR SOMEONE FROM YOUR COMPANY WOULD CALL THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ASK FOR THEM TO COME OUT. THEY CAN'T JUST COME INTO YOUR BUILDING. YOU HAVE TO ASK THEM TO COME OUT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> I HEARD THAT. YES, MA'AM. >> SO, AT THIS TIME SIR YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE HAD THE REPAIR MADE BUT IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THE CITY HAS BEEN CONTACTED TO COME OUT FOR

REINSPECTION? >> NOT YET. WE NEED A BUILDING

PERMIT FIRST. >> SO ON OUR AND THE VIOLATION STILL EXIST BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO COME OUT AND REINSPECT AND THEY NEED A BUILDING PERMIT APPLIED FOR SO THOSE ARE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. YOU MAY HAVE MADE THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR BUT THE CITY HAS TO CONNECT THE DOTS ON OUR AND TO MAKE SURE IT IS REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE AND YOU HAVE THE REQUIRED PERMIT IN PLACE.

>> ALL RIGHT. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MR. ANTHONY OR THE ENGINEER COULD COME OUT AND INSPECT SINCE THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE?

>> WE WOULD NEED AN ENGINEER TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF HOW THE REPAIR NEEDED TO BE DONE. NOT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND IT WOULD STILL BE A BUILDING PERMIT BUT, YOU COULD HAVE THE ENGINEER APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT TO EXPLAIN WHAT NEEDED TO

HAPPEN TO GET THE REPAIR. >> IS THAT LIKE A LOCAL ENGINEER

OR SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY? >> A LICENSED ARCHITECT IN THE

CITY OR STATE OF FLORIDA. >> YES .

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO PRESENT?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY? THE TIMELINE WAS 60 DAYS. DO YOU THINK THIS CAN BE DONE WITHIN THAT TIME? TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE? TWO MONTHS.

>> I THINK 60 DAYS WILL BE FINE TO GET IT DONE. I WAS NOT SURE OF THE PROCESS SO I THINK THAT 60 DAYS IS PLENTY TIME TO OBTAIN AN ENGINEER AND HAVE HIM COME IN BUT THE ENGINEER IS THE ONE THAT REQUESTS THE PERMIT OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I DO?

>> ULTIMATELY, WHOEVER THE CONTRACTOR IS THAT MADE THE REPAIRS WOULD BE THE ONE OBTAINING THE PERMIT BUT THE PERMITS WE WILL HAVE TO HOLD OFF ON TO UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE ENGINEER TO DETERMINE WHAT DAMAGES WERE THERE AND IF THEY WERE PROPERLY REPAIRED OR IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL REPAIRS THAT

ARE NECESSARY. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU HEAR THE TIMELINE BECAUSE YOU DID TESTIFY YOU HAVE CHILDREN AT THE FACILITY.

>> YES . >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PROPERTY IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND ON THAT AND AND YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING FURTHER? >> I JUST THINK -- NOTHING

FURTHER . >> I AM GOING TO FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AND AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL ORDERS ENTERED TODAY .

>> CAN I GET A COPY OF THAT? >> YOU WILL GET A COPY ONCE IT

[H. BV2025-00007 1936 Harbortown Dr SHM Harbortown LLC Miles Keller]

HAS BEEN ENTERED. >> THANK YOU, SO MUCH. HAVE A

GOOD DAY. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS6.H.

BV2025-00007, 1936 HARBORTOWN DRIVE. SHM HARBORTOWN LLC IS THE

OWNER. >> GOOD MORNING. CASE NUMBERBV2025-00007, 1936 HARBORTOWN DRIVE. VIOLATIONS:

[00:55:01]

RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR NO PERMIT OR CONTACT FROM THE OWNER FOR REINSPECTION AND I DO HAVE

PICTURES FOR THE PROPERTY. >> CAN I JUST TAKE A QUICK PEEK? OKAY. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. OKAY.

>> MR. KELLER, YOU HINTED UP PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JANUARY 8TH OF THIS YEAR AND APRIL 28TH. WERE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> YES, THEY DO. >> AT THIS TIME WE WOULD MOVE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE .

>> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE.

>> MR. KELLER, HOW DID YOU COME TO LEARN ABOUT THIS PROPERTY?

>> THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SENT US OUT THERE FOR ANNUAL CHECKS FOR COMPLIANCE SO THEY SENT ME OUT THERE FOR THE GATE NOT LATCHING PROPERLY AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PICKETS AND A HOST THAT SOMEBODY APPEARS TO HAVE BACKED INTO WITH A CAR.

>> THIS IS THE FENCE SURROUNDING THE SWIMMING POOL?

>> CORRECT . >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. >> SIR, CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE YOU WISH

TO PRESENT. >> I AM JOSH POWERS AND I AM THE MANAGER AT THE MARINA. WE HIRED A FENCE COMPANY AND THEY OBVIOUSLY DID NOT DO THE GREATEST JOB OF REPAIRING IT.

RIGHT AFTER WE GOT THE LAST VIOLATION WE HAD OUR MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT COME OUT AND BUILD SOME BRACKETS FOR THE GATE TO HELP IT LATCH. I MUST HAVE READ IT WRONG. I DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAD TO GET A PERMIT TO DO THAT. SO THAT IS SOMETHING I GUESS I HAVE TO APPLY FOR. TO GET A PERMIT TO FIX THE GATE. I'M

KIND OF CONFUSED. >> A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED FOR BY THE CONTRACT OR.

>> TO MAKE THE REPAIR? >> YES.

>> IN THE MEANTIME WE DID MAKE A REPAIR TO MAKE IT WORK AND WE WILL APPLY FOR THE PERMIT. I DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

>> SURE. WE CAN PUT THOSE INTO EVIDENCE.

>> THESE ARE RESPONDENT'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 AND THAT LOOKS LIKE THE FENCE. THIS IS THE CONTRACT AND THE INVOICE.

>> I WILL ACCEPT THESE INTO EVIDENCE AND WHAT ARE WE

LABELING THESE ADS? >> RESPONDENT'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT 1 . >> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER

AT THIS TIME. >> I WILL GET A PERMIT AND GET

IT FIXED PROPERLY . >> THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY. I WILL FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AND YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL ANY FINDINGS FROM THIS HEARING.

[A. 21-1658 509 N 21st Street McCormick, Nettie Shaun Coss]

>> THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 509 NORTH 21ST STREET AND NETTIE MCCORMICK IS THE OWNER.

[01:00:05]

>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS CASE 21-ONCE I 6A -- 21-1658. 509 N 21ST STREET. THE VIOLATIONS ARE FBC 105.4.1.2 (2017) EXPIRED PERMIT, FBC 105.1 (2017) PERMIT REQUIRED. THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS DATED FEBRUARY 15, 2022. A NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF 90 DAYS IS DATED APRIL 21ST, 2022. THE AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE IS DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2022. THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE IS FEBRUARY 27, 2025. FEBRUARY 15, 2022 - SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING - 60 DAYS PROVIDED TO RENEW THE PERMIT AND OBTAIN FOR ANY ADDITIONAL WORK OR FINES MAY ACCRUE. ONCE THESE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED THE PERMIT WAS RENEWED AND THE WORK WAS COMPLETED, INSPECTED AND THE CASE WAS COMPLIED. NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THE VIOLATOR WAS -- OR OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ADMITTED GUILT WAS ONE. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1805 $.15. THE RESPONDENT IS REQUESTING THAT THE FINES BE WAIVED COMPLETELY.

>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE TO COLLECT AT LEAST THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES SO, I KNOW YOU REQUESTED A COMPLETE SIGN WAIVERS SO $4040. AT THIS TIME UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE I HAVE TO COLLECT AT LEAST THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES WHICH IS $1805.15. YOUR REQUEST WAS FOR A FULL RELEASE OF $4040 BUT AT A MINIMUM IT WILL BE $1805.15 BASED ON CODE WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST FOR THE STUFF IN DEPARTMENT TO DEAL WITH THIS MATTER WHICH IS OUTLINED HERE BEFORE ME. SO, AT THIS TIME, THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE. IS THAT WHAT I

HEARD? >> IT IS IN COMPLIANCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE FINES TO $1805.15.

>> YOU UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT HERE TO REHEAR THE CASE. THE VIOLATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED AND THIS IS DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE TODAY. SO, STAFF HAS TESTIFIED THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE DO REDUCE THE FINE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST WHICH IS THE MINIMUM WE CAN FIND YOU TODAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE BEFORE I MAKE MY

ROLLING? >> HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO PAY

THIS? >> HOW LONG DO YOU NEED?

>> SIX MONTHS. >> STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO THAT.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME BEFORE I MAKE A ROLLING? WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE RULING THAT WE ARE GOING TO FIND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $1805.15. REDUCING THE FINE TO THAT AMOUNT AND YOU WILL HAVE SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PAYMENT SO PLEASE STAY IN TOUCH WITH STAFF TO MAKE

THOSE PAYMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, NOT THAT I BELIEVE IT WILL BE A PROBLEM, BUT IF THAT FINE IS NOT PAID WITHIN THAT SIX MONTHS IT WILL REVERT BACK TO THE FULL AMOUNT SO IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU ADHERE TO THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE AGREED TO. THAT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE ORDER.

[C. BV2024-00009 811 N 21st Street Gardner, Earl Shaun Coss]

>> OUR NEXT CASE IS 7 C. THAT IS 811 NORTH 21ST STREET AND THE

[01:05:01]

OWNER IS EARL GARDNER. >> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS CASE BV2024-00009, 811 NORTH 21ST STREET. VIOLATIONS: IPMC 305.3 (2021) INTERIOR SURFACES, IPMC 309.1 (2021) INFESTATION, IPMC 504.1 (2021) PLUMBING GENERAL, IPMC 603.1 (2021) MECHANICAL APPLIANCES THIS IS NEAR FOR A MAFFEI HEARING. THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED FEBRUARY 14, 2025 AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED APRIL 16, 2025. TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF STAFF THIS CASE IS STILL IN VIOLATION SO PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR.

GARDNER. >> YES. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT I WENT TO THE HOUSE TO WORK ON IT AND SHE HAD CHANGED THE LOCKS.

THE HOUSES UNDER THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM SO THEY VIOLATED HER ON MARCH 31ST THEY HAD TO BE OUT AND I COULD NOT START WORKING ON THE HOUSE UNTIL SHE GOT OUT OF THE HOUSE AND I HAVE THE

PAPERWORK HERE FROM THE HOUSING >> YOU REFERRED TO SHE. WHO IS

SHE? >> THE TENANT. MICHELLE BROWN .

>> SO YOU ARE THE OWNER AND IT WAS OCCUPIED BY A TENANT?

>> YES. AND I HAVE STARTED TO DO THE REPAIRS. AS A MATTER OF FACT I HAVE EVIDENCE, PICTURES OF MOST OF THAT ALREADY DONE.

>> OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT THOSE INTO EVIDENCE

TODAY? >> YES, IF I COULD .

>> WILL YOU PLEASE PASS THOSE UP TO THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY?

>> IT IS JUST MINOR STUFF. >> MR. GARDNER YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE TO VACATE FROM THE SPECIALIST WITH THE SECTION 8 DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS. KITCHEN CABINET, DRYWALL. REFRIGERATOR AND THE INSIDE OF THE REFRIGERATOR WE WILL MARK THESE AS RESPONDENT'S ONE .

>> NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY. >> THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS THE BATHTUB WAS JUST NASTY AND I NEED TO CLEAN AT. OH AND, THE LINE WAS STOPPED UP AND WE JUST HAD TO TAKE THE TOILET STOOL UP TO CLEAN THE LINE. AND THAT HAS

BEEN DONE ALSO. >> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE RESPONDENT'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PERFORM A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION TO VERIFY THAT ALL VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CURED. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE STAY THE ACCRUAL OF THE FINES FOR 30 DAYS TO COURTNEY INSPECTION AND ONCE THE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED TO HAVE BEEN CURED THEN WE COULD FOLLOW UP WITH A FINE REDUCTION HEARING.

>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING? BECAUSE YOU ARE HERE TODAY AND THE VIOLATIONS ARE OPEN BUT YOU HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO STAY THE RUNNING OF THE FINE AND SCHEDULE WITH YOU A TIME FOR REINSPECTION IN THE SHORT TERM TO GET OUT THERE AND CONFIRM THAT YOUR VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED THEN WE WILL BRING YOU BACK BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ACTUAL FINE WILL BE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF TO SET THE REINSPECTION. HOW LONG ARE

WE STAYING THE FINES? >> 30 DAYS .

>> WE ARE ONLY GOING TO STAY THE FINES FOR 30 DAYS SO YOU HAVE TO GET THAT REINSPECTION DONE SO WE CAN GET YOU BACK ON THE SCHEDULE TO COME BACK TO DETERMINE WHEN YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE

FINE WILL BE. >> I'M SORRY?

[01:10:07]

>> I JUST PRAY THAT YOU WILL WAIVE THE FINE BECAUSE I CAN'T REALLY WORK ON THE HOUSE BECAUSE SHE IS STILL IN THERE.

>> WHEN YOU FILL OUT THE RECOMMENDATION -- OR I'M SORRY, THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FINES, INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN THE

PACKET. >> THANK YOU, SIR. NOTHING

[B. 20-2819 1400 Avenue I Alix, Ernst Shaun Coss]

FURTHER TODAY. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 8.B. .

20-2819, 1400 AVENUE I. >> THIS IS CASE 20-2819, 1400 AVENUE I. THE OWNER IS ERNST ALIX. THE VIOLATION IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105.01, PERMIT REQUIRED. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - APRIL 21, 2021 NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME (90 DAYS) - JULY 12, 2021 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - DECEMBER 30, 2021 ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - AUGUST 16,2022 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - MARCH 21, 2023. ORDER ON LIEN REDUCTION - MAY 17, 2023. FINES RAN FROM DECEMBER 30, 2021 TO MARCH 21, 2023 AND TOTALS $44,650.00 INCLUDING $50.00 IN RECORDING FEES. A LIEN REDUCTION HEARING REDUCED THE LIEN TO $4,000.00 TO BE PAID IN 24 MONTHS BEGINNING JUNE 1, 2023.

TO DATE, $3,143.00 HAS BEEN PAID TO DATE. REDUCTION CRITERIA: WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? YES. WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? NONE ON RECORD. THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS? NONE ON RECORD. WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH ERNST ALIX PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND HE INTENDS TO PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT BY JUNE 1ST WHICH HE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 24 MONTHS HOWEVER WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION THAT UNFORTUNATELY, BASED ON THE ORDER AND ON THE RULES AND PROCEDURE FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THAT THE 24 MONTHS CANNOT BE EXTENDED. SO IF WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS THEN WE CAN DO THAT FOLLOWING THIS HEARING BUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THIS REQUEST.

>> SO JUST SO I AM CLEAR YOU TALK TO TO THE RESPONDENT AND HE DID INDICATE HE CAN MAKE THE PAYMENT BY JUNE 1ST, 2025 .

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY AT THIS TIME? >> NOT AT THIS TIME .

>> SIR, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS ERNST ALIX. I KNOW THEY DENIED. OKAY. MY BIG PROBLEM IS A PAYMENT ON JUNE 5TH. I REALIZE I CANNOT MAKE MY PAYMENT ON JUNE 5TH AND THAT IS WHY I REQUEST --. I ASKED HIM TO LET ME KNOW AND THEY DID NOT DO THAT. ANYWAY.

[01:15:04]

>> I AM NOT PERMITTED TO GIVE YOU THAT EXTENSION UNDER CODE.

THAT IS THE ISSUE. THE CITY HAS TESTIFIED THAT YOU INDICATED YOU COULD MAKE THE PAYMENT BY JUNE 1ST 2025 AND YOU ARE STATING YOU

CANNOT? >> I AM GOING TO SEE WHAT I CAN

DO. >> WHAT AMOUNT IS REMAINING? HE

HAS PAID $3143 TO DATE? >> YES .

>> SO ABOUT $800. >> YES. ABOUT $800.

>> SO, I AM ABLE TO CONSIDER TWO THINGS TO DETERMINE YOUR REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION. CAN SOMEBODY CALCULATE THAT NUMBER?

>> $857. >> YOU HAVE PAID EVERYTHING OF THE 4000 YOU HAVE PAID $3143 AND WHAT IS DUE CURRENTLY BY JUNE 1ST 2025 IS $857 SO I AM ABLE TO LOOK AT WHETHER YOU IS THE REQUESTING PARTY HAVE ESTABLISHED THE EXISTING OF THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ROLES AND I CAN CONSIDER WHETHER IF I GRANT A REDUCTION OF THAT $852 IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY SO YOU -- CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU CANNOT PAY THAT 800 -- $857 BY

JUNE 1ST. >> I CAN'T PAY BECAUSE -- PROBLEM. I HAVE ALSO HAVE KIDS. MY GIRL IS IN COLLEGE. I HAVE SO

MANY PROBLEMS. >> YOUR INCOME IS SOCIAL SECURITY. IS THAT WHAT I AM HEARING?

>> YES. I GET $1000. SOMETHING LIKE THAT .

>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER INCOME?

>> WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IS I HAVE TO PAY EVERY MONTH TO INDISCERNABLE ]. I CAN'T MAKE IT BY JUNE 1ST. BUT I KNOW,

JULY, YES . >> MAY I ASK THE CITY WHAT HIS PAYMENT HISTORY HAS BEEN? WHAT HAS HE BEEN PAYING MONTHLY? HE HAS NOT QUITE EVEN ONE MONTH TO MAKE THIS LAST PAYMENT.

>> WE HAVE PAYMENTS RANGING FROM $63 UP TO $170 AND THE HIGHEST PAYMENT WAS $500 IN MARCH THIS YEAR.

>> HOW DID YOU MAKE THE PAYMENT IN MARCH FOR $500? DID YOU GET

TAX REFUND MONEY OR SOMETHING? >> NO, I DID NOT GET TAX REFUND MONEY. WHAT HAPPENED, I EXPLAINED TO SOMEONE MY DIFFICULTY BUT SHE GAVE ME A GIFT OF $500.

>> SO, THE TESTIMONY THAT I AM HEARING, OR JUST FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. YOU DON'T HAVE THE INCOME TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN

THE TIME ALLOTTED. >> IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO MAKE IT ON JUNE 5TH BUT -- I DON'T KNOW .

>> WHAT WOULD BE HALF OF THE PAYMENT? THE REMAINING. HE IS ASKING FOR JULY AND HE HAS GOT UNTIL JUNE.

>> HALF THE PAYMENT WOULD BE $428.50.

>> SO IF I TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND THE REQUESTED TWO MONTHS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT AND I WAVE HALF OF THE YOU MAKE HOW

MUCH? >> $428.50 .

>> $428.50 BY JUNE 1ST. CAN YOU DO THAT?

[01:20:05]

>> YES. >> IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY? ANYTHING FURTHER FROM YOU, SIR?

>> WHAT? >> ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY BEFORE I MAKE MY DID TERMINATION, MY ROLLING.

>> I SAY IT IS OKAY FOR ME TO MAKE THE PAYMENT BY JUNE 5TH .

>> TELL ME THAT NUMBER AGAIN. >> $428.50.

>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO FIND YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO MAKE THE FULL AMOUNT DUE BY JUNE 1ST OF 2025 BUT WE DO SAY THAT YOU HAVE MADE VALIANT EFFORTS TO PAY THIS OFF IN FULL WITHIN THE 24 MONTHS. I AM NOT ABLE TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD BUT SINCE YOU HAVE ONLY REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL MONTH I AM WILLING TO MEET YOU IN THE MIDDLE AND REDUCE THE FINE AMOUNT TO $428.50 TO BE -- TO BE PAID ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1ST . IF HE DOES NOT MAKE THAT PAYMENT BY JUNE 1ST 2025, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

>> THE FINE WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT.

>> OKAY. I AM GOING TO MAKE IT.

>> IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LIEN AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS FOR THE RECORD. $44,650. INCLUDING $50 IN RECORDING FEES SO IF YOU DON'T MAKE THAT PAYMENT OF $428.50 ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1ST, THE LIEN GOES ALL THE WAY BACK AND THAT IS NOT UP TO ME. THAT IS UNDER CODE, TWO $44,000 SO YOU NEED TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT YOU MAKE THAT PAYMENT.

>> THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME. I AM GOING TO MAKE IT. I PROMISE.

>> YOU WILL GET THE ORDER REFLECTING WHAT YOU NEED TO DO AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO CONTACT STAFF BUT REALLY THERE WILL NOT BE MUCH ANYBODY CAN DO IF YOU DON'T MAKE THE

PAYMENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

[C. 22-2732 1219 N 22nd Street Trudeen Multiservices LLC Shaun Coss]

>> OUR NEXT CASE IS 8.C., CASE NUMBER 22-2732. 1219 N 22ND STREET . TRUDEEN MULTISERVICES LLC IS THE OWNER .

>> THIS IS CASE 22-2732, 1219 N 22ND STREET . OWNED BY TRUDEEN MULTISERVICES LLC. THIS IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE --. TIME WAS GRANTED JULY 18 2023. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED JANUARY 21ST 2025. MICHAEL ORDER IMPOSING A LIEN WAS RECORDED JULY 18, 2023. AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE, GENERA 21ST, 2025. ORDER ASSESSING FIND AN IMPOSING LIEN, FIGURING 19, 2025. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE, MARCH 17, 2025. FIND SECRET FROM JANUARY 21ST, 2025 TO MARCH 17, 2025 TOTALING $5540. THE REDUCTION CRITERIA --. WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? YES. WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? NONE ON RECORD. THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS? NONE ON RECORD. WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. STAFF HAS CALCULATED

[01:25:02]

>> OKAY. MA'AM, YOU HAVE HEARD THE TESTIMONY HERE OF THE DEPARTMENT. AT THIS TIME THERE IS ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $2079.95. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT I REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN AND YOU HAVE REQUESTED A $100 FINE. AT THIS TIME HAVE ANY

PAYMENTS BEEN MADE? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> I AM ABLE TO CONSIDER EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENT TIMELY COMPLIANCE OR SUPPORT A REDUCTION BELOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE -- MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND I AM ABLE TO CONSIDER WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PREVENTING YOU

FROM MAKING PAYMENTS. >> MY NAME IS LATOSHA KERRY.

GOOD MORNING. THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION IS -- PERMIT .

>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHO YOU ARE IN RELATION TO THE OWNER, WHICH IS AN LLC. ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE LLC? ARE YOU AN AGENT OR

OWNER? >> AGENT .

>> THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION IS THE PERMIT WAS OBTAINED BY A CONTRACTOR AND UNDER THE OWNER ASSUMPTION THAT THE PERMIT WAS INSPECT DID, BECAUSE OF THE MISCOMMUNICATION, THE FINES JUST KEEP ACCRUING. THERE WASN'T ANY ILL INTENT. WE ALWAYS HAD THE INTENTION OF COMPLYING BUT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR, I GUESSED YOUR RESPONSIBILITY WITH COMMUNICATION, THAT IS HOW THE FINES WERE ACCRUED. AS FAR AS FINE REDUCTION, IT IS BECAUSE OF TODAY'S ECONOMY, PEOPLE NOT PAYING BILLS OR KEEPING UP WITH IT SO WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR LENIENCY.

>> SO THE PROPERTY IS SCHEDULED TO BE CLOSED?

>> WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH REMOVING ALL OF THAT STUFF SO

THAT IS OCCURRING ALSO. >> SO THERE IS NO REAL ESTATE CLOSING? IS THAT PART OF THE REQUEST?

>> NO. >> IS IT FOR SALE?

>> NOT THAT FAR IN TROUBLE YET. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND THE INSPECTION WAS DONE AND THE REASON FOR THE INSPECTION NOT BEING COMPLETED IS THE INSPECTOR DID NOT SEE THE PERMIT CARD ON SO, AGAIN, THE PERSON THAT ATTENDED ASSUMED THAT THE INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED BY THE WASN'T IT AND THINGS JUST GOT OUT OF HAND.

>> I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HEARING THAT TESTIMONY I WILL GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REDUCE THE LIEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF 2079 AND $.95.

>> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PAY THAT?

>> SIX MONTHS. >> STUFF IS AGREEABLE TO THAT .

>> YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE REDUCED LIEN AND YOU WILL RECEIVE AN ORDER REFLECTING THAT. YOU DO HAVE 30

DAYS TO APPEAL THE ORDER. >> JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE IF THAT IS NOT PAID WITHIN SIX MONTHS IT REVERTS BACK TO THE FULL AMOUNT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY.

[D. 23-1842 670 Hernando Street 670 Hernando LLC Shaun Coss ]

>> OUR NEXT CASE IS 8.D.. 23-1842, 670 HERNANDO STREET 670

HERNANDO LLC IS THE OWNER . >> GOOD MORNING.

[01:30:07]

>> THIS IS CASE 23-1842 FOR670 HERNANDO STREET. 670 HERNANDO LLC IS THE OWNER. THIS IS HERE FOR A VIOLATIONS: LIEN REDUCTION.FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CASE FOLLOW-UP.ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - OCTOBER 18, 2023.

AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - JUNE 25, 2024. ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - AUGUST 15, 2024. AMENDED ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - AUGUST 28, 2024. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - FEBRUARY 10, 2025. FINES ACCRUED FROM JUNE 25, 2024 TO FEBRUARY 1, 2025. FINES TOTAL $23,050 INCLUDING $50 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE CRITERIA TO DETERMINE REDUCTION.

FIRST,WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? YES.

WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. NUMBER THREE,WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? NO . NUMBER FOUR THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS? NONE. NUMBER FIVE. WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE $1367.35. THE RESPONDED DID NOT COMPLETE THE REQUEST FORM INDICATING THE AMOUNT DUE AND THE AMOUNT BEING OFFERED SO PRIOR TO MAKING RECOMMENDATION I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT AS TO THEIR REQUEST.

>> GOOD MORNING. I AM MICHELLE SIGMUND REPRESENTING THE OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY. I WAS CONTACTED BY HIM IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR AND MET HIM ON SITE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROJECT THAT TOOK PLACE WITHOUT A PERMIT. I GOT A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT FROM HIM AND WAS IN CONTACT WITH SCOTT -- FROM GEORGIA CONSTRUCTION AND PETE, THE OWNER OF PRECISION PAVING AND I ASKED THEM TO PLEASE PULL THE PERMIT AND HAVE THE INSPECTIONS AND TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THE BUSINESS THAT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

THEN I STEPPED IN TO ASSIST WITH THE PAPERWORK AND I HAVE NEVER DONE ONE OF THOSE BEFORE SO I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO PUT THERE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE AFFORDABLE RANGE OF MINIMALLY COVERING WHAT YOU HAVE INCURRED SO FAR. -- WAS ILL ADVISED BY BOTH HIS CONTRACT YOUR AND THE SUBCONTRACT HER THAT HE DID NOT NEED A PERMIT AND THEY WERE GOING TO DO A LAYOVER EXISTING UNTIL HE RECEIVED THESE NOTICES, HE WAS

NOT AWARE. >> SO, YOU UNDERSTAND I AM ABLE TO LOOK AT THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE/TO SUPPORT THE AND WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY SO YOU DID NOT SUBMIT THE REDUCTION REQUEST AMOUNT ON THE FORM SO WHAT ARE

YOU SEEKING? >> WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED. BY THE STAFF.

>> SO YOU HAVE A FIND TOTALING $23,050 INCLUDING RECORDING FEES AND YOU HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $1367.35. ANYTHING

FURTHER? >> NO, JUST HOW MUCH TIME THEY

WOULD NEED TO PAY THAT. >> SO, THE ADMINISTRATIVE .

>> 60 DAYS . >> I WILL GO AHEAD AND REDUCE

[01:35:01]

YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL ANY ORDER ENTERED HERE TODAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS6.E.

[E. BV2025-00001 513 N 17th St Great Harvest Investment LLC Frank Remling]

THE OWNER . >> GOOD MORNING. THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT TO ME BY --. THIS IS CASE NUMBERBV2025-00001 , 513 N 17TH STREET. VIOLATIONS: FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED, IPMC 304.13 (2021) WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1. OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. 2. REPAIR OR REPLACE WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT WORKING PROPERLY. RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE HAVE BEEN NO PERMITS PULLED FOR THOSE. -- SAID HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE VIOLATION. I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SPEAKING WITH ELIZABETH.

>> YES. THE OWNER. AND TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING IN ORDER TO GET EVERYTHING DONE AND I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES.

>> THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU PROVIDED ARE DATED DECEMBER 30TH OF LAST

YEAR. >> YES .

>> WERE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AT THIS TIME WE WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE .

>> WE WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE.

NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY AT THIS TIME.

>> JUST THE BOARDED WINDOWS NEED TO BE REPLACED.

>> NO ONE IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT OR ON THE PHONE?

>> HE REACHED OUT BY EMAIL AND BY PHONE. HE LIVES OUT OF STATE BUT HE JUST BECAME AWARE OF SOME OF THE WORK DONE THERE NEEDS PERMITS AND HE IS OUT OF THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. HE INTENDS TO GET PERMITTING FOR THE UNPERMITTED ITEMS.

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

[F. BV2025-00002 2731 Fairway Dr Bly, Patrick Miles Keller]

ASSESSED. >> OKAY. THE NEXT CASE IS6.F.

BV2025-00002. 2731 FAIRWAY DRIVE. PATRICK BLY IS THE OWNER.

>> CASE NUMBER BV2025-00002, 2731 FAIRWAY DRIVE. PATRICK BLY IS THE OWNER . THE CASE WAS INITIATED JANUARY 6,

[01:40:03]

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PORCH COLUMNS. RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR ON --. THEY COULD NOT VERIFY THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ON THE PLAN. I HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

>> MR. KELLER, THE PHOTOGRAPHS HE PASSED UP ARE DATED JANUARY 6TH THIS YEAR AND APRIL 28 FOR THE POSTING. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES . >> DID YOU TAKE THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES.

>> DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE

VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT? >> YES, THEY DO .

>> AT THIS TIME WE WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT ONE. >> ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. THE VIOLATION HERE IS THAT THEY NEED PERMITS FOR THE WOODEN POSTS THAT WE ARE SEEING?

>> CORRECT. >> HAVE YOU HAD CONTACT WITH THE

PROPERTY OWNER? >> I HAVE. I BELIEVE HE HAS ALSO TALKED WITH MR. COSS ABOUT THE STEPS HE NEEDS TO GET PERMITS.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY .

>> NOBODY IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT OR ON THE PHONE?

>> NO . >> ANY RESPONSE FROM THE RESPONDENT REGARDING THE VIOLATION?

>> JUST IN REGARDS TO THE PERMIT.

>> ALL RIGHT. I WILL GO AHEAD AND FIND THAT VIOLATION EXISTS, THE THEVIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100.00 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE ARE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL ANY ORDERS ENTERED AT THE

[G. BV2025-00005 1016 Tortugas Ave Mendez, Armando & Castillejos, Manuela Logan Winn]

HEARING TODAY. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 6.G.

BV2025-00005, 1016 TORTUGAS AVENUE. ARMANDO MENDEZ, MANUELA

CASTILLEJOS ARE THE OWNERS. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LOGAN WINN . TODAY WE HAVE CASE NUMBER BV2025-00005 1016 TORTUGAS AVENUE. THE ARMANDO MENDEZ, OWNER ISMANUELA CASTILLEJOS. VIOLATIONS: FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED, FBC 105.4.1.2 EXPIRED PERMIT. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: RENEW PERMIT 24-172 OR OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION BEING BUILT AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AS IT STANDS IT APPEARS THAT A RENEWAL MAY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BUT THE FEES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. WE DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES FOR THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

>> MR. WINN COLLIER PROVIDED PHOTOS THAT ARE DATED JANUARY 10 OF THIS YEAR. DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

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

>> YES, MA'AM. >> I WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE

CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. >> I WILL ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE

CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. >> MR. WINN, HOW DID YOU COME TO

LEARN OF THIS PROPERTY? >>

>> WHAT IS THE ADDITION THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?

>> ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE THEY PUT AN ADDITION ON TO THE BUILDING. IT IS ON THE SECOND PICTURE THERE. YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE WALL THAT WAS ADDED TO THE HOUSE.

[01:45:06]

>> WHAT IS THAT PERMIT 24-172 FOR?

>> IT APPEARS THEY HAD A PERMIT BUT IT EXPIRED .

>> FOR THE BACK OF THE HOUSE? >> IT APPEARS THAT THE RENEWAL WAS THE RECEIVED BUT THE RENEWAL FEES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID .

>> NO ONE IS HERE OR ON THE PHONE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT? ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE RESPONDENT? WE WILL GO AHEAD AND FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. 30 DAYS TO APPEAL ANY ORDERS ENTERED TODAY.

[I. BV2025-00011 1205 N 27th St Unit 60 SP Pine Creek Village LP Logan Winn]

>> THEM WE HAVE CASE 6.I. BV2025-00011. 1205 N 27TH STREET, UNIT 60. SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP IS THE OWNER.

>> CASE NUMBERBV2025-00011 WAS INITIATED JANUARY 14, 2025 FOR1205 N 27TH STREET, UNIT 60. THE OWNER,SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP 31899 DEL OBISPO ST SUITE 150 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CALIFORNIA.

VIOLATIONS: IPMC 304.13.1 (2021) GLAZING, IPMC 605.1 (2021) ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION, IPMC 607.1 (2021) DUCTS-GENERAL.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1. PLEASE REPLACE ALL DAMAGED GLAZING. A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED IF WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE REPLACED.

REPAIR BROKEN GLASS IN WINDOW ASSEMBLY. 2. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. PLEASE REPLACE OR REPAIR LIGHTS IN STAIRWAYS. 3. PLEASE REPAIR OR REPLACE EXHAUST DUCT TERMINATION IN SOFFIT THAT ARE MISSING LOUVERS. --- RECOMMENDATION: THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. THERE ARE NO PERMITS OR CONTACT FOR REINSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. I DO HAVE PHOTOS.

>> MR. WINN, THE PHOTOS ARE DATED JANUARY 14 OF THIS YEAR.

DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> YES, I DID. >> DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE

. >> WE WOULD ACCEPT INTO EVIDENCE

CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. >> MR. WINN , HOW DID YOU BECOME

AWARE OF THIS UNIT? >> THIS CAME VIA A COMPLAINT VIA THE NEWS. UPON INVESTIGATING I WAS NOT ABLE TO VERIFY ANY BAT INFESTATION BUT I DID NOTICE SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE PICTURE D THERE IS AN OPEN EXHAUST TERMINATION THAT COULD ALLOW ENTRY INTO THE BUILDING. I NOTICED SOME OTHER, THE LIGHTS IN THE HALLWAYS WERE BROKEN. STAIRWELLS AND A COUPLE OF

BROKEN WINDOWS. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> THE RESPONDENT IS NOT HERE OR ON THE TELEPHONE?

>> NO . >> NOTHING FROM THE RESPONDENT

HAS BEEN RECEIVED? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE .

>> WE WILL GO AHEAD AND FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS.

THEVIOLATOR(S) BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT; OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED; COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS; AND, CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE

ASSESSED. >> OKAY. WE HAVE TO CALLING

[B. 24-764 2609 S US Hwy 1 Ehden NV c/o Fraga Properties Shaun Coss ]

[01:50:27]

>> HELLO . >> HELLO. THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING. CAN YOU HEAR

ME? >> I CAN. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> I CAN. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. TO YOUR SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE

TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> I AM SORRY. YOU HAVE TWO CASES THIS MORNING AND THE FIRST IS CASE 24-764 2609 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY ONE.EHDEN NV C/O FRAGA PROPERTIES IS THE OWNER. WE WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERING 8.A. FOR THE SAME ADDRESS AND THE SAME OWNER .

>> CORRECT . >> THIS IS CASE24-764, 2609 S US HWY 1. THIS IS A FINE REDUCTION CASE.VIOLATIONS: FBC 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED. FINDINGS/ORDER: ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - AUGUST 16, 2024. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - NOVEMBER 26, 2024. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - FEBRUARY 27, 2025. THE FINDS A GROUP ACCRUED TO $8630 INCLUDING $30 IN RECORDING FEES. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CAUSE TO BE $901.25. THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE FINE. ONE, GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE. TWO ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS. A PERMIT WAS OBTAINED AND A FINAL INSPECTION WAS DONE AND THE PERMIT IS CLOSED. NUMBER 3 THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ADMITTED GUILT WAS SIX. THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE FINES BE REDUCED TO 10% OF THE FINE WHICH IS $863. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE COMBINATION OF THIS CASE AND THE NEXT CASE FOR THE FINE REDUCTION, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF $38.25 IN ADMINISTRATIVE COST. I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO ACCEPT THE RESPONDENT REQUEST OF REDUCING THIS TO $863 KNOWING THAT THE REMAINING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WILL BE COVERED BY THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR THE LIEN REDUCTION? OR WOULD IT BE BEST TO REDUCE THIS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND SUBTRACT THAT AMOUNT FROM THE NEXT REQUEST?

>> I AM NOT CERTAIN IF THERE IS AN LEGAL ISSUE WITH EITHER ONE SO WHATEVER WOULD BE EASIER TO KEEP TRACK OF PAPER WISE.

>> FOR EASE OF PROCESS, STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO ACCEPTING THE

REQUEST OF $863. >> OKAY.

>> SIR, ON THE PHONE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TESTIMONY OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS AT THIS POINT? THIS A SPECIAL

MAGISTRATE PESKY. >> YES, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. I

CAN HEAR YOU AND AM -- . >> I WANT TO CLARIFY WE ARE ABLE TO ACCEPT LESS THAN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST WHICH IS THE $901.25 AT THE REQUEST OF $863.

>> IF THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING IT THEY CAN. BUT THEY

ARE EATING THAT CAUSED . >> IT IS THE DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO ACCEPT THE OFFER THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. $863 WHICH

[01:55:09]

>> NO . >> WE WILL GO AHEAD AND REDUCE THE FINAL LIEN AND EXCEPT $863 WHICH IS YOUR REQUEST AND REFLECTS 10% OF THE FINE. YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL ANY ORDERS ENTERED AT THE HEARING TODAY AND IF IT IS NOT MADE

WITHIN -- WHAT TIME PERIOD? >> WITH 60 DAYS BE SUFFICIENT?

>> THAT WOULD BE. THANK YOU . >> IF THE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE

[A. 20-886 2609 S US Hwy 1 Ehden NV c/o Fraga Properties Shaun Coss ]

>> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT

CASE THAT HE IS ON FOR . >> THE NEXT CASE IS 8.A. 20-886.

2609 S US HWY 1. EHDEN NV C/O FRAGA PROPERTIES IS THE OWNER.

>> THIS IS CASE NUMBER20-886, 2609 S US HWY 1 .EHDEN NV C/O FRAGA PROPERTIES . THIS IS A LIEN REDUCTION. FINDINGS/CASE FOLLOWUP: ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - OCTOBER 21, 2020.

AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - JANUARY 12, 2022. ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - APRIL 22, 2022. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - JANUARY 30, 2025. FINES ACCRUED FROM JANUARY 11, 2022 TO JANUARY 30, 2025 AND TOTAL $111,540. INCLUDING $40 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FOUR CRITERIA TO DETERMINE REDUCTION.

NUMBER ONE,WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? NO. NUMBER TWO, WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

NUMBER THREE,WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? THERE ARE SIX OTHER CASES. NUMBER FOUR, THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS? NONE ON RECORD. WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. STUFF HAS CALCULATED ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO BE $1364.85. THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO $11,554. STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO THIS REQUEST.

>> SIR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS IS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PESKY.

>> YES . >> SO YOU HAVE MADE AN OFFER FROM THE LIEN REDUCTION AMOUNT OF -- TO MAKE PAYMENT OF $11,554. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO ACCEPT THAT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. TO HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT

AT THIS TIME? >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE REDUCTION IN LIEN AMOUNT DOWN TO $11,554. HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO PAY THAT?

>> IF IT CAN BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER, 60 DAYS .

>> SO THE PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 60 DAYS AND IF YOU DO NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT TIMELY IT WILL REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LIEN AMOUNT. ANY ORDERS ENTERED TODAY YOU WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

>> YES, MAGISTRATE. >> THANK YOU.

[E. 24-717 5550 Okeechobee Road 7978 Associates IX LLC Shaun Coss ]

>> THANK YOU . >> THE LAST CASE IS A CALL IN CASE. IT IS 8.E. 24-. 5550 OKEECHOBEE ROAD. AND I WILL BE

[02:00:01]

>> THIS IS MIKE . >> THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE IN AUDIE -- AUDIO ATTENDANCE OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING. CAN YOU HEAR

ME? >> YES.

>> I DO NEED TO THROW YOU IN FOR TESTIMONY. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. TO YOUR SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL

PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH. >> I DO . 24-717,

>> WE ARE CONSIDERING CASE5550 OKEECHOBEE ROAD. 7978 ASSOCIATES

IX LLC IS THE OWNER. >> CORRECT.

>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS CASE24-717, 5550 OKEECHOBEE ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY7978 ASSOCIATES IX LLC. THE VIOLATION IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105.1 (2020) PERMIT REQUIRED. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION - AUGUST 16, 2024.

AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - NOVEMBER 25, 2024. ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN - JANUARY 9, 2025. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE - MARCH 21, 2025. FINES ACCRUED FROM NOVEMBER 25, 2024 TO MARCH 21, 2025. FINES TOTAL $11,640.00 INCLUDING $40 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER.

ONE,WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN? YES.

NUMBER TWO, WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5.4(B)(1)? THAT ISTO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? JUST THIS ONE CASE BEING CONSIDERED. 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. NUMBER FIVE, WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE LIEN BE REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT TO THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL FEES AND COST INCURRED. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1061.25. AND STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST.

>> OKAY. SIR, THIS IS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PESKY. CAN YOU HEAR

ME? >> YES.

>> WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FEES TO $1061.25.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I APOLOGIZE. I DID NOT REALIZE -- FEE RECORDING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. HONEST MISTAKE THERE AND ONCE I REALIZED WHAT HAD TO BE DONE WE DID HIRE A PERMIT EXPEDITER TO HELP OUT BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO DO THIS MYSELF FOR TWO MONTHS AND IT WAS OVER MY HEAD. THE PERMIT COMPANY WAS A HUGE HELP AND WAS ABLE TO GET EVERYTHING RESOLVED. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE REDUCTION REQUESTED AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE

FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

I APPRECIATE THAT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ENTER AN ORDER FOR A FINE REDUCTION DOWN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $1061.25.

HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PAY THAT?

>> 30 DAYS WOULD BE FINE. >> PAYMENT WILL BE MADE AT THE A REDUCED AMOUNT OF $1061.25 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ORDER AND

[02:05:04]

>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. >> HAVE A GOOD DAY.

>> OKAY. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE VIOLATOR VIA CERTIFIED MAIL. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR.

10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING IT IS SENT REGULAR MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ATTACHED AND A COPY IS 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 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF THE CERTIFICATION CODE IS -- CARD IS NOT RETURNED WITH THE -- WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE HEARING IT IS CONSIDERED

UNCLAIMED. >> WHERE WE ARE AT ON THE AGENDA? THERE ARE NO OTHER CASES TO BE HEARD? ANY NEW BUSINESS? ANY OLD BUSINESS? GO AHEAD

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.