Jun 12, 2025 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:13]

THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MEETING IS CALLED THE ORDER. IF WE COULD STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE. >> TREND ONE -- I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

[B. 24-262 2831 Reynolds Dr (Pool) Sataya Group LLC Shaun Coss ]

>>> GOOD MORNING , MAGISTRATE . I REPRESENT THE SATAYA GROUP LLC.

>> SORRY FOR THAT. IS BACK NO PROBLEM AT ALL. IT HAPPENS. THIS IS OUR REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION

OF THE FINDS AND I BELIEVE WE ARE AGREED ON THE NUMBER . >> I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND WE AGREED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THIS IS 24-2 624-2831 REYNOLDS DRIVE THE CASE FOR THE POOL ON THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY SATAYA GROUP LLC AND THE VIOLATIONS WERE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND 303.2 ENCLOSURES. THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER AND ONE WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THAT AND YES AND WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR COMPLIANCE AND THOSE THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION FOR THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED FOR FIVE .4 BE ONE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE . THREE COME WITH THERE IS CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THE PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP PRIOR TO THESE CASES. NUMBER FOR THE TYPE AND NUMBER FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE PAST 24 MONTHS AND THERE ARE THESE TWO PENDING REDUCTIONS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE. AND THEN ALSO WITH HER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THE STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE COSTS IN THIS CASE. $1753.65 . AT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THE AMOUNT BE REDUCED FROM $25,140, WHICH INCLUDES $40 AND REPORTING FEES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES OF $1753.65 PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS AND FAILURE TO PAY THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS THE AMOUNT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT.

>> WE ARE IN AGREEMENT. YES. >> I FIND THE AMOUNT STATED WILL BE THE AMOUNT THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AND PAYABLE IN 30 DAYS AND IF NOT IT GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT AND THERE IS

[C. 24-607 2831 Reynolds Dr (Spa) Sataya Group LLC Shaun Coss ]

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

>> IS ALSO HERE FOR 24-607 AND 2831 REYNOLDS DRIVE WHICH IS THE SPA AND SATAYA GROUP LLC IS THE

OWNER. >> STAFF HAS REACHED AN AGREEMENT AS WELL WHICH IS 24-6

[00:05:02]

>> WE AGREE ON THAT ONE AS WELL. >> IN THE AMOUNT OF $1105.95 TO BE PAID IN 30 DAYS. OR IT WOULD

REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT . >> THANK YOU SO MUCH,

[A. BV2025-00013 1205 N 27th St Unit 65 SP Pine Creek Village LP Frank Remling]

MAGISTRATE. >> THANK YOU. EFFECT THE FIRST CASE THIS MORNING IS SIX A BV 2025-00013, 1205 N. 27TH STREET UNIT 65 SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP IS THE OWNER.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> MY NAME IS FRANK REMLING WORKING WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS AN INVESTIGATOR INSPECTOR. THIS CASE CAME TO ME AS A COMPLAINTS AND THE CASE NUMBER IS BV 2025-000 13 INITIATED JANUARY OF 2025 AND THE OWNER IS SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP 38 199 AND THE VIOLATIONS ARE THE SUN PLUMBING GENERAL AND I PMC 605 .220 21 RECEPTACLES. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE REPAIR OR REPLACE THE REFRIGERATOR NOT WORKING PROPERLY, 2 REPAIR OR REPLACE THE NONWORKING SHOWER VALVE, NUMBER 3 MAKE NECESSARY ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO THE NON-WORKING ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE MAGISTRATE FINDS VIOLATIONS EXIST, THEY GET 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER CONDITIONS AND ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. NO PERMITS OR REQUEST FOR MANAGEMENT FOR REINSPECTION AS OF YET I WAS ABLE TO TALK TO HIM BEFORE THE HEARING AND THEY ARE READY TO GET TO REINSPECTION NOW . I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES. AND

THIS IS WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE. >> YOU PASSED PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN JANUARY 10 OF THIS YEAR. DID YOU TAKE THESE? DO THESE TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT VIOLATIONS AS

YOU OBSERVE THEM? >> YES, DO. >> THE CITY MOVES INTO EVIDENCE

COMPOSITE 1. >> THOSE PRESENTED WILL BE ENTERED AS CITIES COMPOSITE 1.

SECT THIS IS THE REFRIGERATOR AND THIS IS THE VALVE NOT WORKING. THERE WAS AN ELECTRICAL CORD USED INSTEAD OF THE FEED BECAUSE THE RECEPTACLE DID NOT WORK.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?

>> AND AND ALL NECESSARY CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. WE DID FIND THAT THERE WAS NO NEED

[00:10:04]

REINSPECTION ABOUT A WEEK AGO. >> OWNERS , HOW IS YOUR COMPANY RELATED TO THEM?

>> WE ARE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR THE OWNER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THE REINSPECTION YOU SAID WILL BE DONE TODAY?

>> IT WILL GO THROUGH ELIZABETH AND THEY WILL SET IT UP. >>> MEANWHILE THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT . OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW, IT SHOULD BE FINE. IF NOT, YOU WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED AND YOU HAVE A

30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >>

[B. BV2025-00021 705 S 29th St Unit 3B Orange Apartments LLC Joel Smith]

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING INSPECTOR/INVEST IGATOR. TODAY WE HAVE VIOLATION BV 2025-000 21 LOCATED AT 705 S. 29TH STREET UNIT 3B ORANGE APARTMENTS LLC AS THE OWNER. THIS WAS INITIATED ON JANUARY 28 OF 2025. IT CAME IN AS A COMPLAINT. THE VIOLATIONS ARE I PMC 304.320 21 , WINDOW, SKYLIGHT, AND DOOR FRAMES, 304 .720 21 ROOFS AND DRAINAGE, I PMC 305.320 21 INTERIOR SURFACES, I PMC 505.FOR 2021 WATER HEATER FACILITIES. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED INDO . A PERMIT IS FIRED IF THE WINDOW IS REPLACED. REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED ROOF. THREE, REPAIR THE INTERIOR SURFACES OF THE STRUCTURE AS REQUIRED INCLUDING THE WATER DAMAGED CEILING THAT HAS COLLAPSED, AND 4, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE WATER HEATER. PLEASE NOTE THAT A PERMIT IS WIRED TO REPLACE THE WATER HEATER. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS , THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO GET 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. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES THAT I DID TAKE THAT ARE TIME STAMPED AND DATED FROM JANUARY 28 OF 2025 THAT WERE TAKEN BY ME. WOULD YOU LIKE TO

SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> LET'S SEE. >> MR. SMITH CUT OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM?

>> YES, AND -- MA'AM . >> AT THIS TIME IT WILL BE MOVED INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE 1 .

>> THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS CITIES COMPOSITE 1.

>> MR. SMITH CUT HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY THIS MORNING?

>> NO I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY SINCE THE DAY I MADE THE CASE. SUCK WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE

HEARD? >> YES. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY MY MANAGER THAT I ONCE THOUGHT THESE WERE ALL COMPLETED, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN 100% VERIFIED. OBVIOUSLY I HAVE

[00:15:05]

>> THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY IS YOU GIVE OR GET 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT AND THEN 180

DAYS THEREAFTER TO GET WORK DONE. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME ? >> IT IS. ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT.

I FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT AND DO THE APPROVED WORK . AND HAVE IT REINSPECTED. AND MEET THOSE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 THAT THEY WILL BE GIVEN.

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

[C. BV2025-00023 505 N 25th St 505 S 25th St LLC Frank Remling]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 6 C, BV 2025-00023, 505 N. 25TH STREET, 505 S. 25TH STREET LLC IS THE OWNER. I BELIEVE THE OWNER WAS HERE BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY LEFT. WE ARE GOING TO READ IT IN

ANY WAY. >> THIS CASE NUMBER IS BV 2025 -00023 INITIATED FEBRUARY 320 25 AND THE OWNER IS A 505 NORTH 25TH STREET LLC IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA . THE VIOLATION IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105 POINT ONE PERMIT REQUIRED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION IS OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOF, WINDOWS AND DOORS DOWN WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THEY GET 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT, AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH THOSE CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. IT WAS APPLIED FOR ON TWO 525 FOR RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION AND REJECTIONS IN PLUMBING AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AND NO SUBMISSION SINCE APRIL OF 2025 AND A NEW ROOF ALSO AND REPLACEMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED OR APPLIED FOR. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES. HERE.

>> THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU PROVIDED ARE ALL DATED AUGUST FORT TEEN AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT

SAYS 2023 . IS THAT DATE STAMP CORRECT ? >> ON THOSE PICTURES -- THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE CASES HERE. SUCK OKAY. WHAT WERE THE MOST RECENT -- OKAY HAVE THE MOST RECENT DATES THAT YOU ARE OUT THERE? HAS THERE ANY -- BEEN ANY THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR? I AM SORRY. THERE WERE A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS HERE ARE NOT DATED SO TRYING TO MAKE SURE.

>> IT WAS AFTER THE 23RD BUT I AM NOT SEEING THE DATE HERE. YOU HAVE BEEN OUT TO THIS HOUSE ON

MULTIPLE OCCASIONS? >> YES. >> I GUESS TO FINISH UP THE PHOTOGRAPHS GOT THESE LITERALLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THEM?

>> YES. >> SR IS YOU KNOW THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE STATUS OF THE HOME

SINCE 2023? >> THEY DID SOME WORK DURING INSPECTIONS AND ANOTHER OWNER WAS BUYING IT DID SOME STUFF IN THERE WAS A FIRE AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ROOF. SACK

[00:20:16]

CITIES COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT I GUESS THE MOST RECENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? EFFECT NO . I KNOW ELIZABETH HAS TAUGHT TO THEM. THOSE OF THE PICTURES OF THE

FIRE DAMAGE. >> HAVE YOU SEEN THIS OWNER HERE TODAY?

>> NO . I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE. >> OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER FROM

THE CITY. >> HE IS NOT PRESENT. I FIND THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE VIOLATOR BE GETTING 60 DAYS TO GET A PERMIT , OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS AND THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 DAY WILL BE ASSESSED AND THEY HAVE A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

[D. BV2025-000 25 804 N 19th St Voice of Truth Tabernacle Inc. Miles Keller]

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 6A D CASE BV 2025-000 25, 804 NORTH 19TH STREET, VOICE OF TRUTH

TABERNACLE, INC. IS THE OWNER. FACT THINK YOU -- >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I AM MILES KELLER, THE INVESTIGATOR AND INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE CASE NUMBER IS BV 2025-00025 , 804 NORTH 19TH STREET , VOICE OF TRUTH TABERNACLE, INC. AND THE CASE INITIATED JANUARY 29 OF 2025 . VIOLATIONS ARE IPM C30 2.720 21 ASSESSORIES STRUCTURE, IPM C 304 POINT ONE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE IPM C30 4.220 21 PROTECT OF TREATMENT . 304.6 EXTERIOR WALLS, 304.7 2021 ROOF AND DRAINAGE . 506 POINT 220 21 SENATE TORY -- SANITARY DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND MAINTENANCE AND 603 POINT ONE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WITH WATER EXPOSED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ASSESSORIES STRUCTURE CAN'T 2, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REAP HERE REPLACE THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING WINDOWS THAT ARE BOARDED UP, HOLES IN THE ROOF AND THE ROTTED FACIA , 3 CAR REPAIR THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND PAIN IT IS REQUIRED OR PLAYER -- REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DILAPIDATED EXTERIOR WALLS, 5, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED ROOF, 6, MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE SANITARY SYSTEM AND ROTTED SEWER PIPES, 7, REPLACE THE MISSING AC UNIT SYSTEM,AND OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE ALL THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO WATER INCLUDING THE MAIN PANEL AND METER CAN. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THEY FIND A 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 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR, THERE ARE NO PERMITS FOR ANY OF THE WORK. AND THEY DO HAVE PICTURES.

>> SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS ? >> NO.

>> YOU PASSED UP PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JANUARY 29 OF THIS YEAR. DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> YES, I DID. >> DID THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU

[00:25:06]

OBSERVED THEM? >> YES, THEY DID. >> HOW DID IT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? EXPECT IT CAME INTO COMPLAINT. EFFECT AT THIS TIME THE CITY MOVES INTO EVIDENCE

CITY'S COMPOSITE 1 . >> THE PHOTO THE SCENTED -- PRESENTED WILL BE CITIES EXHIBIT

1. >>> ESTHER KELLER, CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHAT WE SEE IN THE

PHOTOGRAPHS AND WHAT VIOLATIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT? >> IT IS THE EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOWS BOARDED UP WITH THE ELECTRICAL PANEL THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE AND THAT ROOF AND PICTURE B . IT IS THE DECAYING OF THE FACIA AND GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE EXTERIOR. AND THEN HERE IS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH NO ROOF, WINDOW DOORS .

>> THERE IS ALSO A VIOLATION FOR A SANITARY DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AND WHAT DOES THAT

REFER TO? >> I THINK IT IS G AND YOU CAN SEE THIS STACK COMING UP AND IT IS ALL OPEN FOR THE PLUMBING ON THE EXTERIOR THAT IS MISSING A COUPLE PIECES GOING UP TO THE

ROOF. >> ANYTHING FURTHER ? >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLASS -- >> SUM AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A BEEN A VICTIM OF VANDALISM . SO IT'S PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT OF IT TEARING AWAY THE ROOF AND THEY SAY THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BOARDED IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE AC UNIT IN ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS IS

IF NOBODY LIVED THERE. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT, MR. KELLER?

>> THE MISSING AC UNIT SYSTEM AND THE SANITARY SYSTEM. >> WE PULL THIS UP ON THE

PROPERTY APPRAISER AND IT SHOWS THE AC UNIT. >> LIKE I SAID , VANDALISM. EVEN THE WATER HEATER AND A LOT OF THINGS. SO THE BUILDING HAS BEEN VANDALIZED MY PRIORITY HAS BEEN TO RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THE CHURCH ADJACENT FROM THE PROPERTY WITH THE LACK OF FUNDING TO REALLY REPLACE OR REPAIR A BUILDING THAT WAS VANDALIZED . SO I PRIORITIZED

THE EDIFICE OVER A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN UNINHIBITED FOR YEARS. >> MAYBE YOU KNOW BETTER. IF THERE IS A BUILDING THAT IS OWNED BUT NOT INTENDED TO BE FREQUENTED BY ANYBODY OR LIVED IN, DO THEY STILL NEED TO REPLACE THE AC UNIT THAT WAS THERE AND SOME OF THESE OTHER

REPAIRS THAT I GUESS FOR THE SAFETY OF INDIVIDUALS ? >> YES . WHETHER THE STRUCTURE IS OCCUPIED OR NOT HAVE THESE REMAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE. THE STRUCTURE CAN'T REMAIN ON-SITE IN THIS DILAPIDATED NATURE. IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO THE HUMIDITY THAT ENCOURAGES OR VANDALISM AND MORE UNATTRACTIVE BEHAVIOR FROM THE RESIDENCE AND CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY . ULTIMATELY THE STRUCTURE EITHER NEEDS TO BE

REPAIRED OR DEMOLISHED TO CURE THESE VIOLATIONS. >> IT IS ANOTHER OPTION TO REPAIR OR DEMOLISH THE BUILDING . OR GET RID OF THE PROPERTY AND OTHER OPTIONS.

>> YES OR. -- SIR . >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS QUITE

[00:30:13]

>> YES. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY AT THIS TIME?

>> I MEAN, WHEN DO I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHEN WE DEMOLISH IT OR REPAIR IT OR GET

RID OF THE PROPERTY? DO I HAVE 60 DAYS TO DO THAT? >> YES.

>> WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? >> 60 DAYS WOULD BE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT OR EITHER DEMOLISH IT OR

FIX IT. >> OKAY. >> THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER FROM

THE CITY. >> I FIND A VIOLATION EXISTS IN THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN TWO DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND GET APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED OR COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL

BE ASSESSED AND THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU . SECT THE NEXT CASE IS 7 LETTER A 22-2605, 2509 AVENUE LETTER AND UNIT A SANDRA

[A. 22-2605 2509 Avenue N Unit A Alexander, Sandra M Bryant, Charles E (Est) Shaun Coss ]

ALEXANDRA AND CHARLES BRYANT ARE THE OWNERS. >>> GOOD MORNING. I AM SANDRA ALEXANDER. SECT GOOD MORNING . THIS IS CASE 22-2605 425 09 AVENUE AND UNIT A AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SANDRA ALEXANDER AND CHARLES E BRYANT . THE VIOLATIONS WERE FOR FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. THIS CAME BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE MAY 17 AND 2023 AND IT WAS AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND IT WAS STARTED JANUARY 21 OF 2025. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED MARCH 25 CUT 2025. THEY ACCRUED TO $6330 INCLUDING THREE DOLLARS IN RECORDING FEES. -- $30 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE WERE NUMEROUS THINGS WHICH LED TO CONFUSION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND THE PERMITS NOT RECEIVING FINAL APPROVAL. SOME OF THE INSPECTIONS WERE CALLED AND UNDER THE INCORRECT PERMIT NUMBERS AND ULTIMATELY COMPLIANCE WITH THE ATTAINED WHEN THE PERMITS WERE RENEWED IN THE CONTRACT AND SUPPLY ENGINEERED LETTERS FROM MISSED INSPECTIONS OF STAFF WAS ABLE TO CLOSE THESE OUT. SO THESE ARE SOMEWHAT EXTENUATING FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REDUCTION.

THERE ARE THREE CRITERION AND ONE THAT THEY ASSESSED THAT IS MODERATE AND ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THEM O NOT CORRECT DID WOULD ACTUALLY OR PARTY OR INTEREST TO BRING THE VIOLATION INTO COMPLIANCE AND PERMITS FOR THE NECESSARY REPAIRS DUE TO A FIRE WERE OBTAINED. THE PERMIT EXPIRED WITHOUT APPROVED FINAL INSPECTIONS. THE PERMIT WAS RENEWED AND RECEIVED APPROVED FINAL INSPECTIONS TO COMPLY. AND 3 THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER QUASIJUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE IT GUILTY IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING WAS ONE TIME. THEY REQUEST THAT THEY BE WAIVED AND STAFF CAN'T SUPPORT THAT RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO AMOUNT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHICH

ARE $1176.85 CENTS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> YES.

>> PLEASE BE SWORN. >> FIGURE PARDON. >> SHE WAS SWORN IN.

>> SHE WAS? SORRY. GO AHEAD THAN. SAC BOTH THE FINES , I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE

[00:35:01]

BUT I NEVER RECEIVED A LETTER. AND IF MY CONTRACTOR GOT SOMETHING, I KNOW HE DID A LOT OF COMING TO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING FOR MS. ROSS FOR ME. HE SAID HE WOULD HANDLE ALL OF THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY THE WHEN I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT.

>> HOW THE CODE WORKS IN OTHER CITIES AS WELL AND I JUST WORK HERE IS THE VIOLATION TRAVELS

WITH THE PROPERTY. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT PART. >> IT TRAVELS WITH IT AND YOU ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT . THAT IS THE CODE.

>> THAT IS THE CODE. >> WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT UP WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONER.

>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONER. SAC YOU UNDERSTAND WHY VIOLATIONS TRAVEL WITH THE

PROPERTY. >> I GET THAT. BUT I STILL CONTEST --

>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. YOUR ONLY OPTION HERE IS, AGAIN, THE CITY HAS ADMIN FEES AND IF YOU WANT TO GO AFTER THE CONTRACTOR, IT IS A CIVIL ISSUE. CAN SUE THE CONTRACTOR FOR THAT AND IT GOES TO YOU BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE CITY GETS INVOLVED IN SO YOU

UNDERSTAND. >> OKAY. I GET IT. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO

ADD ? >> NO. >> THERE IS NOTHING FROM THE

CITY. >> I WILL FIND THAT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION OF REDUCING THE FINE TO BE STRICTLY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $1176.85 IS APPROPRIATE. AS YOU SAID YOU CAN GO AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR IF YOU WOULD LIKE AND THE ONLY ISSUE IS HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED TO PAY THIS? 30 DAYS IS WHAT WE USUALLY DO . IF YOU NEED MORE TIME , THAT CAN BE

EXTENDED. >> AND EXTENSION WOULD BE FINE. >> HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED?

>> AT LEAST 60 TO 90 DAYS . >> LET'S SAY 90 DAYS? >> SURE.

>> WHO DO I PAY THIS TO AND WHERE DO I DROP THIS CHECK OFF TO QUIT

>> THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU MAKE IT UP TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> IF YOU DON'T PAY IT IN THE 90 DAYS IT REVERTS TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT SO MAKE SURE.

SPAKE -- >> >> THE NEXT CASE IS 7 B 23-3063,

[B. 23-3063 510 N 21 St Apt B Saffie, Natasha Shaun Coss]

510 N. 21ST STREET APARTMENT B AND NATASHA SAFFIE IS THE OWNER. >>

>> GOOD MORNING. >> IS IT OKAY IF I BRING MY DAD BECAUSE HE WAS HELPING ME THE

LAST TIME. >> I WILL LET HIM GO FIRST. >> THIS IS 23-306345 10 N. 21ST STREET APARTMENT B OWNED BY NATASHA SAFFIE. THIS WAS INITIATED NOVEMBER 30 OF 2023

[00:40:04]

AND 3, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, OR OTHER QUASIJUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ADMITTED GUILT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING WAS ZERO. THE DEFENDANT IS REQUESTING A COMPLETE WAIVER OF FINES AND DID SUBMIT AND ATTACH REQUEST INDICATING THAT MANY OF THESE VIOLATIONS WERE CAUSED BY THE TENANT WHO WAS EVICTED FROM THE PROPERTY AND THEY CAN EXPLAIN THAT BETTER TO YOU IF YOU WISH. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THOSE FINES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST. AND THESE ARE CALCULATED TO BE $1497.80.

>> THANK YOU. >> I CAN'T SPEAK NOW? >> YOU CAN RESPOND IF YOU LIKE .

>> DID YOU GUYS REVIEW MY BINDER AND THE PAPERWORK AND STUFF? >> YES. OKAY. SO IF I HAVE A

QUESTION SHOULD I ASK YOU? >> THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAS NOT SEEN THE BINDER. IF YOU WANTED TO SUBMIT THAT IS EVIDENCE TO YOUR RESPONSE, YOU ARE ABLE TO DO THAT .

>> YES. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WHY I DID IT. I FEEL LIKE 1400 AND CHANGE IS A LOT BECAUSE MACE -- MOSTLY WHEN I SPOKE THIS MORNING TO DISCERN MAC I THINK THIS WHOLE THING WASN'T FAIR WHEN I GOT INTO THIS PREDICAMENT WITH THIS VIOLATION BECAUSE I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF EVICTING A TENANT THAT DAMAGED MY PROPERTY AND I DIDN'T RUN THE IT -- RENTED TO HER AND WITH ALL THE TEXT MESSAGES AND I PUT A SCREENSHOT SHE SAID SHE WOULD THREATEN ME AND ALL THE STUFF AND SHE CALLED THE INSPECTOR AFTER SHE DAMAGED THE PROPERTY AND WROTE ME UP AND I GOT STUCK WITH THE VIOLATION AND EVERYTHING. AND NOW I ALREADY FIXED EVERYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR AND THE CONTRACTOR DIDN'T -- HE TOLD ME THAT HE COMPLETED EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED AND TURNED IN ALL THE PAPERWORK. EVIDENTLY, DIDN'T. I WAS NOT AWARE UNTIL I GOT THE LETTER AND I SPOKE TO MS. BACK AND MY FEES ARE HERE AND I HAVE BEEN STUCK TRYING TO GET THIS FIXED AND THE VIOLATION OF EVERYTHING AND I AM STUCK WITH $4000 AND CHANGE . I STILL FEEL LIKE $1400 IS A LOT. I LITERALLY GOT THIS ALL TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE EVERYTHING GOT. IT IS A LOT OF MONEY AND I DIDN'T GET TO RENT ALL OF MY MONEY LAST YEAR AND IT HAS BEEN A HARDSHIP

. I WILL PAY 400 OR 500 BUT 1400, -- >> 1400 REPRESENTS THE CITY'S COSTS FOR BRINGING IT TO THIS POINT. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION.

[00:45:12]

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE COST SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE, UNFORTUNATELY, VIOLATIONS ARE ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY. AGAIN , THE CONTRACTOR ALLOWED THE PERMIT TO EXPIRE, WHICH IS WHEN THE FINES BEGUN AND ONCE IT WAS RENEWED THE FINAL INSPECTION WAS APPROVED SO THIS IS POTENTIALLY A CIVIL ISSUE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR CONTRACTOR THAT THE PERMIT WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, THESE COSTS REPRESENT THE HARD COST TO THE CITY WHICH IS WHY THE CITY CAN'T RECOMMEND THEY BE REDUCED

ANY FURTHER. >> SO IT IS STUCK AT 1407? >> THAT IS WHAT IS ORDERED AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. AS WE EXPLAINED AND AS MR. COSS EXPLAINED, IT IS AN ISSUE YOU CAN BRING TO THE CONTRACTOR AND SOME PEOPLE DO. I HAD ANOTHER LADY HERE SUING HER CONTRACTOR FOR LETTING PERMITS EXPIRE OR NOT EVEN PULLING THEM. IT BECOMES A CIVIL ISSUE BETWEEN

YOU AND YOUR CONTACTOR -- CONTRACTOR. >> WHEN THE EVIDENCE HE SAID THAT I HAD RODENTS AND I NEVER HAD THEM AND I DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT THAT AND HE WROTE THAT UP AND

THAT WAS ABSURD. >> THE TIME TO HAVE CONTESTED THOSE ISSUES WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE INITIAL HEARINGS. THIS IS JUST A REQUEST TO READ DEUCE. WE DON'T REHEAR EVIDENCE FROM THE

INITIAL INVESTIGATION. >> I JUST WANTED ASK SINCE I WAS HERE.

>> IF I PAY THIS, CANNOT PAY IT NOW OR GET IT OVER WITH AND IF I DO PAY IT, I NEED SOMETHING TO

SHOW THE TITLE COMPANY . >> THE ORDER HAS TO BE REPAIRED AND SIGNED AND RECORDED. WE NEED

AT LEAST A DAY TO DO THAT. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EMAIL OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY ARE ASKING ME

SOMEBODY WITH OUR OFFICE CAN EMAIL IT TO YOU. >>> YOU DEALT WITH THEM SO I JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT I HAVE IT HERE AND COMPLETED AND I HAVE TO --

PAY 1497 BECAUSE THEY ARE HOLDING THIS IN ESCROW. >> WE WILL GET IT AS SOON AS IT

IS PREPARED. >> IT IS BEING ORDERED TODAY BUT IT WILL HAVE TO BE PRINTED OUT

AND ASSIGNED AND YOU WILL GET A COPY OF IT. >> IT IS NOT ME BUT ANOTHER

PARTY IS ASKING ME SO MANY QUESTIONS. >> YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO PAY IT AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU INTEND TO DO THAT AND NOT ASKING FOR MORE TIME.

>> WITHIN 30 DAYS IS FINE. BUT I WILL GET IT OUT THEM. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 7 C 24-4, 1123 PINE AVENUE, HECTOR RAMIREZ AND -- HECTOR RAMIREZ & MA

[C. 24-4 1123 Pine Ave Ramirez, Hector & Moreno-Santiago, Ma Yolanda Shaun Coss]

YOLANDA MORENO SANTIAGO ARE THE OWNERS. >> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.

>> OKAY. THIS IS 24-44 1123 PINE AVENUE AND THE PROPERTY OWNED BY HECTOR RAMIREZ & MA YOLANDA MORENO SANTIAGO . THIS WAS INITIATED ON JANUARY THREE CUT 2024. VIOLATIONS ARE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105 POINT ONE. THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST AND THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED MAY 10 OF 2024 AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED APRIL SEVEN OF 2025. . WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN APRIL REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME DUE TO WAITING ON DRAINAGE PLANS TO BE PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER AND PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AN UPDATE BY THE OWNERS OF WHERE THEY ARE

AT WITH THIS. >> ALL RIGHT . WE HAVE BEEN WAITING ON THOSE DRAINAGE PLANS

[00:50:02]

OR TO GET IT DONE AND OVER WITH. >> DEMOLITION WOULD CURE THE VIOLATION AS WELL AND WOULD REQUIRE A NEW SEPARATE PERMIT . IF YOU ARE TRYING TO UPLOAD DOCUMENTS TO YOUR CURRENT REJECTED PERMIT, IT MAY NOT ALLOW YOU TO UPLOAD YOUR RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHERE IT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED SO THAT MAY BE PART OF THE ISSUE. IF YOU DO HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS, WE HAVE TWO COMPUTER KIOSKS AVAILABLE IN OUR LOBBY FOR YOUR USE AND THE PERMIT TECHNICIANS CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT . THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO STAY THE ACCRUAL OF THE FINES FOR 60 DAYS TO ALLOW FOR PERMITTING WHETHER IT IS DEMOLITION OR ONCE THEY DO THE

ENGINEER PLANS. >> SO YOU DO HAVE 60 DAYS TO MAKE THAT DECISION AS TO WHICH

WAY YOU WILL GO WITH IT? >> THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST -- MASSEY REQUEST FOR THAT. I

APOLOGIZE. >> THIS WAS JUST AN EXTENSION REQUEST.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 7 D 24-66

[D. 24-668 3224 S US Highway 1 St. Mary's Hospitality Group LLC Shaun Coss ]

>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. >> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS CASE 24-6 684-3224 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1 OWNED BY SAINT MARY'S HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC INITIATED MARCH 12 OF 2024.

THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. THIS MATTER BECAME AVAILABLE JULY 12 CUT 2024 AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED APRIL SEVEN OF 2025. WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL IN APRIL STATING THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE CITY TO RESOLVE ANY REMAINING CODE DEFICIENCIES AND ARE ACTIVELY PROGRESSING TOWARD FINALIZING THE PERMIT. THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR THIS WORK INITIALLY THAT HAD EXPIRED AND THE RENEWAL FEE WAS RECENTLY PAID ON JUNE THREE. HOWEVER, THE SUBCONTRACTOR, BOTH OF THEM IN THIS HAVE CERTIFICATES THAT HAVE EXPIRED. BEFORE THIS IS RELEASED THEY HAVE TO UPDATE THEIR INSURANCE AND WE CAN RELEASE THIS ONCE THE RENEWAL IS ISSUED THAT YOU CAN CALL IN FOR YOUR INSPECTIONS WHICH WOULD STOP

THOSE FINES. >> I GOT THE EMAIL YESTERDAY. I SUBMITTED SOME INFORMATION AND

THAT IS NOT ABLE TO PROCESS SO I WAS NOT AWARE. >> HOUSE AND YOU ANTICIPATE

GETTING THE INSURANCE UP DID IT SO WE CAN ISSUE THIS? >> I IMAGINE BY THE END OF THIS

WEEK AND I AM SURE THERE IS INFORMATION. >> WHAT IS YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD? >> I AM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.

>> ST. MARY'S HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC IS THE -- >>

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, SINCE THEY ARE SO CLOSE TO GETTING THIS ISSUE RESOLVED, STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS WE ISSUE A STAY ON THE ACCRUAL OF THE FINES FOR 30 DAYS TO ALLOW FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE RENEWAL AND DOCUMENTATION AND INSPECTIONS TO GET THIS CLOSED OUT . ONCE THE CASE IS COMPLIED , THE OWNER CAN SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A FINE REDUCTION BUT THEY CAN'T BE

[00:55:03]

NEGATED TODAY. >> SO 30 DAYS? ALL RIGHT. SO IT WILL BE ON HOLD FOR 30 DAYS.

THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 8 LETTER A 23-2055, 1704 RIO VISTA DRIVE,

JACQUELYN PETERS IS THE OWNER. >>> GOOD MORNING , SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND OFFICERS OF THE

COURT. >> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS 23-20554 1705 RIO VISTA DRIVE WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY FLORIDA ROLLING CODE 105 POINT ONE CUP PERMIT REQUIRED. THIS WAS REQUIRED FOR THE JET SKI LIFT COMING BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FEBRUARY NINE, 2024. NO ORDER DETERMINED ENTERED AND EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED APRIL 23 OF 2024. A PERMIT WAS ISSUED WHEN IT EXPIRED AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH STARTING FINES RECORDED DURING 19 OF 2025. ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN MARCH SIX OF 2025.

THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE AND STOPPING THOSE WERE APRIL 1620 25 AND THOSE ACCRUED FROM FEBRUARY 19 CUT 2025 TO APRIL 16, 2025 TOTALING $5650 INCLUDING $50 IN RECORDING FEES.

THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION AND FIRST WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN AND ALSO 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 THE RULE 5.4 THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THREE WHETHER THERE IS CURRENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP? YES. 4 THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER OWNERSHIP IN THE LAST 24 MONTHS? THERE ARE NONE ON RECORD. AND 5 WHETHER GRANTING THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY? THAT IS TO BE TRUE DETERMINED -- TO BE DETERMINED. THERE ARE MULTIPLE PERMITS FOR THIS HOME AND FOR THE DOCK AND JET SKI LIFTS WHICH MAY HAVE LED TO SOME CONFUSION WITH THE PERMEATING AND -- PERMITTING AND SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE WORK AND TOTALITY. AND THE STAFF HAS CONSIDERED THAT AND AGREEABLE TO REDUCING THE AMOUNT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WHICH IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FEES THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED AND THEY WERE CALCULATED $1513.45 AND THAT IS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION . >> MY NAME IS JACKIE PETERS AND I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL HOME AT FORT PIERCE AND I AM A RETIRED SCHOOLTEACHER. MY LATE HUSBAND WAS SICK FOR 10 YEARS BEFORE HE PASSED. I WAS HIS SOLE CAREGIVER. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH EVERY PENNY OF SAVINGS AND MONEY WE DIDN'T HAVE. WHEN A STORM CAME AND REMOVED SOME OF THESE SLATS ON THE DOCK WE FOUND OUT WE HAD TO GET A PERMIT AND AN ENGINEERS DRAWING TO REPLACE THAT. SO WE SAID SINCE WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT DONE, LET'S PUT A DOCK IN THE FRONT AND THEN MY PARTNER AN ELECTRICIAN SAID --

[01:00:40]

>> HE IS 78 YEARS OLD AND WE DO OUR OWN LAWN CARE AND HOUSEKEEPING AND WE DELAYED THAT AGAIN AND ON THE 29TH OF JANUARY TWO WOMEN CAME AND INSPECTED THAT AND EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT AND THEY ARE JUST WAITING FOR ANOTHER SHIPMENT OF MATERIAL THAT WAS ON BACKORDER TO COME IN . WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN TOTAL COMPLIANCE AND EVERYTHING WAS GOOD AND I GET A LETTER SAYING

THAT I HAVE THIS HUGE FINE FOR NOT BEING COMPLETED ON TIME. >> I AM ASKING TO BE ABSOLVED OF THIS. WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE TWO WOMEN WHO CAME TO OUR HOME AND INSPECTED IT ARE AND NOBODY HAS A RECORD AND THEY ARE IN THE CITY AND ALSO DURING THIS TIME PERIOD I HAD TWO DEATHS IN THE FAMILY AND TWO WHO DIED TRAGICALLY AND WITH THE FIRST GRANDCHILD AND I WENT AND HELPED. IT WAS A SERIES OF FINANCIAL AND EVEN NOW I HAVE ANOTHER ENGINEER AND THEY WANT ANOTHER DRAWING FOR THAT SECOND DOCUMENT AND SHE WON'T DO IT AND I HAVE TO FIND A NEW ENGINEER TO DRAW THE EXISTING DOCUMENT. IT HAS BEEN INSANE.

>> DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY -- SHE IS STILL WAITING? >> THERE ARE OTHER PERMITTING MATTERS BUT THIS ISSUE WITH THE JET SKI LIFT IS RESOLVED. AND STAFF IS EMPATHETIC WITH EVERYTHING SHE HAS GONE THROUGH, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROHIBIT US FROM RECOMMENDING AN AMOUNT LOWER THAN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHICH IS WHY STAFF HAS

RECOMMENDED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $1513.45. >> DON'T THEY NORMALLY SEND A LETTER SAYING THAT YOU WILL BE FINED AFTER THIS DATE OR SOMETHING ? I GOT THIS ASTRONOMICAL LETTER AND AGAIN I THOUGHT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE AND THE PEOPLE CAME AND INSPECT

IT AND SAID IT IS BEAUTIFUL . I HAD NO CLUE. >> YES, MA'AM . THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION AFTER THE HEARING IN FEBRUARY OF 2024 PROVIDED THAT THE ISSUE HAD TO BE REMEDIED WITHIN 60 DAYS AND THAT WAS YOUR NOTICE THAT IF THE PERMITS WERE NOT OBTAINED OR THEY WERE TO EXPIRE THAT THEY WOULD BEGIN AND THIS WAS THE NOTICE SET. BACK BUT WE WERE IN

COMPLIANCE AND IT WAS ALL REDONE. >> AS PART OF THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION, IT WAS YOU MUST COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN IMPROVED INSPECTION EVERY 180 DAYS TO KEEP IT ACTIVE OTHERWISE THE PERMIT EXPIRES. SO WHEN IT EXPIRED, THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTED AGAIN THE VIOLATION.

>> AGAIN I THOUGHT I WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT WAS INSPECTED ON THE 29TH AND THE 28TH OR 29TH OF JANUARY. NOBODY HAS A CLUE OF WHO THE PEOPLE WERE WHO CAME TO THE

HOUSE . >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY FEMALE INSPECTORS.

>> THERE WERE TWO OF THEM. I KNOW THAT DATE FOR SURE BECAUSE MY 82-YEAR-OLD SISTER WHO WAS VISITING AND WENT OUT AND SPOKE TO THEM . I DIDN'T THEY WERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THEY SAID WHAT A BEAUTIFUL JOB , ET CETERA. AND WE HAVE NO CLUE WHO THEY WERE. AGAIN , I THOUGHT IT

[01:05:02]

WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE INSPECTIONS. >> UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE

ANY FEMALE INSPECTORS FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? >> THAT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION OR HOW COOL IT WAS AND TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY WERE THE FIRST WOMEN AND I HAD NO IDEA WHO THEY WERE. IT IS A MYSTERY. AGAIN , I THOUGHT IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE. WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WITHIN OUR POWER TO GET THIS. IT WAS JUST A SIMPLE REPAIR AND IT LOOKS GOOD AND IT

IS BEAUTIFUL. >> I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT BUT UNFORTUNATELY STAFF'S

RECOMMENDATION REMAINS THE SAME. >> YOU ARE NOT BEING CHARGED THE FINES BUT IT IS THE AGREED-UPON

AMOUNT OF THIS POINT CUT JUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. >> THAT'S A TOTAL HARDSHIP FOR ME . NOW I HAVE TO PAY FOR ANOTHER ENGINEER TO DRAW UP THE EXISTING DOCK BECAUSE MY

ENGINEER REFUSES TO DO IT . AND I HAVE ALREADY PAID. >> THERE IS ANOTHER PERMIT THAT HAS TO BE CURED -- OBTAINED NOT RELATED TO THIS VIOLATION CASE.

>> IT IS ON THE SAME PERMIT, CORRECT? ALL THREE WERE ON THE SAME PERMIT.

>> THAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE DRAWING PROVIDED BUT THEY SAY THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT WOULD BE APPLIED FOR SO IT'S EVEN A SEPARATE PERMIT WOULD BE APPLIED FOR FOR THAT SO THIS WAS ONLY

FOR THE JET SKI LIFT. >> I FIND THAT THE REDUCED AMOUNT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE

COSTS IS APPROPRIATE AND DO YOU NEED EXTRA TIME TO PAY FOR THIS? >> YES. HOW MUCH TIME .

>> HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU REQUIRE? >> AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD GIVE ME

. >> SIX MONTHS? >> I BELIEVE THE RULES ALLOW UP

TO SIX MONTHS. >> OKAY. >> SO IF IT IS PAID BY SIX MONTHS, THAT COMPLETES IT . IF IT ISN'T PAID IN SIX MONTHS IT REVERTS TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT.

>> IT IS MORE THAN THE JET SKI WAS WORTH. IT IS REALLY SAD. >> THANK YOU.

>> >> THE LAST CASE WILL BE A CALL IN CASE . WE WILL BE CALLING MR.

[B. 24-438 308 Hernando St Kroll (TR), Joyce A Cohen Shaun Coss]

COHEN FOR 9 B 24-438, 308 HERNANDO STREET. >> HELLO?

>> MR. COHEN? THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU CAN

HEAR ME OKAY? >> I CAN HEAR YOU FINE. >> YOU ARE IN AUDIO WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR 24-438 ON 308 HERNANDO STREET AND THE OWNER JOYCE COHEN AND I DO HAVE TO

SWEAR YOU AND FOR TESTIMONY IF THAT IS OKAY. >> THAT IS FINE.

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

>> I DO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THIS IS 24-438 4308 HERNANDO STREET AND THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JOYCE COHEN WITH FPC 105 POINT ONE , 304 POINT ONE , 304.10 .

THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN 2024 AND NO DETERMINATION WAS ENTERED. 90 DAYS WAS GRANTED AUGUST 14, 2024. AND ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR

[01:10:11]

BEING REQUESTED. >> CAN YOU WILL HEAR ME OKAY? >> I DO NOW HAVE A FULL ENGINEERING REPORT . IT IS READY TO BE FILED FOR A PERMIT THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE RIGHT NOW IS I AM OUT OF STATE . SHE IS ELDERLY AND DISABLED AND I HAVE BEEN HANDLING FIXING UP THE PROPERTY AND I HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGER DOWN THERE AND I AM OUT OF STATE AND A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. I AM NOT ON THE GROUND TO MEET PEOPLE. THE PROPERTY MANAGER REFERRED ME TO A CONTRACTOR WHOM I THOUGHT WOULD BE GREAT BECAUSE IT WAS AN IN PERSON REFERRAL. AND HE GOT THE PLANS AND FINALLY GOT BACK TO ME AND GAVE ME AND OUT OF THE PARK NUMBER TALKING ABOUT THE COST TO REPAIR THE DECK AND ALL OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BUILDING HAVE BEEN FIXED BUT IT NEEDS TO BE FINISHED. AND THE REPAIRING OF THE DECK OR BRING IT BACK UP TO CODE IS WHERE IT IS AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE A REPORT FOR FROM APPLIED ENGINEERING. THE CONTRACTOR THAT I WAS REFERRED TO INITIALLY WANTS THAT TO REPAIR THE DECK AND ESSENTIALLY I COULD BUILD AN ENTIRELY NEW DECK FOR THAT MONEY. I KIND OF HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIND SOMEBODY DEPENDABLE TO GET SOME MORE QUOTES AND I DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE AND FOUND THEM THROUGH THE ENGINEERING FIRM BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY CONTACTS THERE BUT THE ENGINEERING FIRM REFERRED ME THREE DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AND I PUT IN A REQUEST FOR BIDS WITH THESE THREE PEOPLE AND AWAITING RESPONSE. I AM REQUESTING TIME TO CLOSE THE DEAL WITH THE BEST BID SO I CAN GET THE PERMIT AND . IT IS A REAL FINANCIAL CHALLENGE WITH A SMALL BUSINESS HANDLING MY OWN BILLS IN MY OWN LIFE AND MOM'S STUFF KIND OF REALLY GOT OUT OF CONTROL. I HAVE TO KEEP IT WITHIN BUDGET AND I COULDN'T SPEND 12 GRAND ON THE SKY. AND ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEER, I WENT BACK AND SAID IF THAT SENSE AND HE SAID THE GUY IS TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE OUT OF STATE AND THAT WAS A THROWAWAY NUMBER HE GAVE YOU AND OTHER HE -- EITHER HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THE JOB OR THAT IS WHERE I STAND AND THREE GUYS IN THE PROCESS OF BIDDING FOR THAT AND I HOPE TO

HAVE AN ASSIGNED CONTRACTOR SHORT THE. >> HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL TIME ARE

YOU REQUESTING, SIR ? >> IF YOU COULD GIVE ME ANOTHER THREE MONTHS, THAT WOULD BE GOOD, BUT WHATEVER YOU CAN GIVE ME I WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR. I AM ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF RENOVATING OTHER PARTS OF THE HOUSE OR THE INTERIOR SO IT WILL BE AN EXPENSE. I REALLY DO NEED TO DIAL IN THE BEST BID OR WHATEVER TIME YOU CAN GIVE ME I WILL BE GRATEFUL FOR.

>> I WOULD CAUTION YOU THAT ONCE THE PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR , UNLESS IT IS A PERFECT SCENARIO, THERE WILL BE SOME TIME BACK AND FORTH POTENTIALLY WITH THREE SUBMITTALS OR RESPONSES TO PLANNED REVIEW COMMENTS. I DO ENCOURAGE HER CONTRACTOR TO APPLY FOR THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO A FINAL 90 DAY EXTENSION AGAIN WITH THAT CAUTION THAT THEY DO APPLY FOR THAT PERMIT IN A TIMELY MANNER SO YOU DON'T GET TOWARD THE END OF THAT 90

[01:15:03]

DAYS WITHOUT THE PERMIT BEING ISSUED. >> I DO UNDERSTAND. YES.

>> SO THERE WILL BE A 90 DAY EXTENSION. >> THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY

AGREEABLE TO ME. >> OKAY. 90 DAYS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOODBYE.

>> GOODBYE. >> OKAY. SO A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR CERTIFIED MAIL AND IT'S SIGNED AND PLACED IN FILE BENEFITS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THIS WITH THE NOTICE ENCLOSED IS MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR IN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT REGULAR MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ATTACHED TO IT. A COPY WAS PLACED IN THE FILE. 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL AND A NOTICE POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND IF THE CARD ISN'T RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING POSTING IS COMPLETED THE SAME WAY AS IF THE CARD WERE RETURNED

UNCLAIMED. >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.