Jul 10, 2025 Special Magistrate Hearing

[00:00:02]

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING OF JULY 9TH, 2025 IS CALLED TO ORDER.

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

PLEASE REMAIN STANDING IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY.

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

UP FRONT HERE. AND SO. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS JAMIE BARRA. I'LL BE SERVING AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS MORNING.

YOU WILL NOTICE ALSO UP HERE. ATTORNEY HOLLOMAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

MR. COSS FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. MISS LUNA FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

AND MISS BECK. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CLERK. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE LIVE STREAMED AND RECORDED.

SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION OR A VIOLATION NOTICE, WE'RE GOING TO BE REFERRING TO YOU AS RESPONDENTS TODAY.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL UNFOLD.

FIRST, THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE TO PRESENT ITS CASE THROUGH EVIDENCE.

AND THIS EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE TESTIMONY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, INVESTIGATORS, POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER WITNESSES.

AND THE EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE PHYSICAL ITEMS SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHS, AND WE'RE GOING TO REFER TO THOSE AS EXHIBITS.

THE STANDARD OF PROOF THIS MORNING IS WHETHER A VIOLATION HAS BEEN PROVEN BASED UPON COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THE RESPONDENT WILL HAVE THE ABILITY THEN, TO MAKE ANY LEGAL OBJECTIONS AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, IF YOU SO CHOOSE. ONCE THE CITY HAS FINISHED PRESENTING ITS CASE, YOU AS A RESPONDENT WILL THEN BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A STATEMENT.

PRESENT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND PRESENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS.

AND THEN I, AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WILL RENDER A FINAL RULING ON THE MATTER.

I JUST ASK THAT EVERYONE CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER AT ALL TIMES DURING THIS PROCEEDING, AND ANY COMMENTS MADE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME AS A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

SO THAT BEING SAID, MISS BECK, WE'RE READY FOR THE FIRST CASE, PLEASE.

OKAY. WE HAVE SOME CASES THAT WERE RESCHEDULED OR CAME INTO COMPLIANCE, AND THEY ARE BV 2025 00004 3001 AVENUE

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

[D. BV2025-00039 4651 S US Hwy 1 Ft Pierce 2905 LLC Miles Keller]

HELLO. MILES KELLER. I'M AN INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

THE CASE I HAVE CAME FROM A COMPLAINANT. CASE NUMBER BE 2025 00039 4651 SOUTH, US HIGHWAY ONE. CASE INITIATED FEBRUARY 20TH 5TH TO 2025 VIOLATIONS. OR PMC 304.1 2020. EXTERIOR STRUCTURES I PMC 304.1 .1.1 2020. EXTERIOR UNSAFE CONDITIONS IN PMC 304.13 2020 WINDOWS, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES.

PMC 304.4 2020 EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS PMC 304.7 2020 ROOFS AND DRAINAGE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ONE. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS.

TO MAKE THE SAFE OR STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN. IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE OCCUPANTS VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITIONS REMEDIED.

[00:05:05]

FOUR OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.

FIVE. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE A DAMAGED ROOF.

RECOMMENDATIONS. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXIST.

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, AND THERE HAS BEEN A PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR ON AROUND 625 FOR THE BUILDING ROOF. I BELIEVE IT IS.

DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES I DO. AND HAS THIS GENTLEMAN SEEN THEM YET? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THEM? OKAY. MR. KELLER, YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED FEBRUARY 25TH AS WELL AS JUNE 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES I DID. DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM? YES THEY DID. THIS TIME, THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE OF CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

MR. KELLER, HOW DID THIS PROPERTY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? WAS IT A COMPLAINT THAT CAME IN? WHAT WAS THE COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT? THE ROOF WAS, YOU KNOW, IN A BAD STATE AND CAUSING NOISES, AND THEY WERE AFRAID THAT IT WAS GOING TO FLY OFF INTO THEIR PROPERTY DURING THE WINDSTORMS. OH, FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE'VE SEEN, WHAT ARE THE THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE CAN SEE HERE? SO WE CAN'T REALLY GET ONTO THE PROPERTY. SO IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE WINDOWS.

BUT I HAVE SPOKE WITH I GUESS HE'S A REGISTERED AGENT FOR THEM.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T SEE IF THEY'RE WINDOWS OR THERE'S FRAMES TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT.

YOU KNOW, THE ROOFS KIND OF IN A BAD STATE. AND THEN THE TRUSSES THAT WE CAN SEE.

ANYTHING FURTHER? NO. OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING SIR. HOW ARE YOU? GOOD.

THANK YOU. BY YOURSELF? I'M DOING WELL. THANK YOU FOR ASKING. TELL ME, WHAT'S YOUR NAME? HECTOR. GOMEZ. HECTOR GOMEZ, MR. GOMEZ. WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? YOU'RE THE PART OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY, SO TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

WELL, WE HAVE A WE ALREADY MONTHS BACK. WE DID.

WE HAD THE WHOLE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, THE ROOF REDONE.

SO THIS PART OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK IS JUST AN OPEN AREA.

THE ROOF IS IN BAD SHAPE. WE ACTUALLY PULLED THE PERMITTED DEMO, THAT PART OF THE BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN IMPROVED.

NOW THE OPENING OF THE WINDOWS, I THINK THAT'S THE THING THAT'S STILL PENDING.

THEY'RE JUST FRAMES. THEY HAD GLASS IN THEM. I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR FOR A LONG TIME.

SO, I MEAN, I, MY CONTRACTOR COULD PULL A PERMIT TO PULL THE FRAMES OUT AND LEAVE THE OPENINGS OPEN.

I MEAN, WHAT I DON'T I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE TO DO ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE IT KIND OF DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE IF IT'S JUST A A WALL THERE TO TO PUT WINDOWS BACK IN THERE.

SO LET ME ASK YOU, YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL HERE IS TO EITHER TAKE THE FRAMES OUT OR REPEAT THAT FOR ME.

JUST LEAVE THE OPENING OPEN. I MEAN, IT'S OPEN.

IT'S JUST A BREEZEWAY QUOTE UNQUOTE. YOU KNOW THAT'S THE FRAME THAT THE PICTURES THAT YOU SEE THERE.

I GUESS THAT'S JUST THE FRAMES ARE MISSING THE GLASS.

I MEAN, THAT THAT STUFF HAS BEEN LIKE THAT FOR FOREVER, BUT NONETHELESS, THE OTHER OPTION COULD BE, IF YOU GUYS ARE GOOD WITH IT, I COULD HAVE THE CONTRACTOR MAYBE JUST BORE THAT UP AND STUCCO IT, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH FRAME IT UP INSIDE WITH WOOD, PLYWOOD AND THEN PUT STUCCO ON THE SIDE THAT EXPOSES TOWARDS THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE.

AND MISS HOLMAN DOES THIS, WOULD THIS PUT US INTO COMPLIANCE? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAIN ISSUE WAS THE PERMITTING OR THAT'LL BE A QUESTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

I, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LIMITED PERMIT, WHICH IT APPEARED AS IF IT WAS MOSTLY DEMO WORK THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED IN THE PERMIT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT IT DOES NOT COMPLY ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS, BUT I LET THE DEPARTMENT SPEAK MORE TO THAT. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. IT APPEARS THAT AT SOME POINT THIS STRUCTURE WAS LIKELY PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED.

[00:10:04]

SO THE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T WANT TO BURN IN THE RESPONDENT WITH A SUBSTANTIAL COST OF RELOCATING THE ELECTRIC SERVICE AND THE AC SERVICE. THAT MAY BE FOR THAT PRIMARY BUILDING, THE FRONT PORTION THAT'S VISIBLE IN PHOTOGRAPH E, BUT THE WALL THAT'S PHOTOGRAPHED IN C AND D AND PHOTOGRAPH C, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ELECTRIC SERVICE IS AS WELL AS THE AC SERVICE.

HOWEVER, THE WALL CAN'T REMAIN IN THAT CURRENT CONDITION.

THE. IT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK, SO IT MAY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST TO LEAVE THAT WALL THERE AS A NOISE BUFFER IF THERE'S YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS THERE IN THE FUTURE.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD BE AGREEABLE WITH FRAMING IN THOSE OPENINGS AND STUCCO IN THEM SO THAT IT WOULD BE A FINISHED WALL.

IN ADDITION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE, WHICH THEY CURRENTLY HAVE PERMITTED.

AND, MR. GOMEZ ARE YOU FOLLOWING WHAT MR. COSS IS SAYING? YEAH. THAT'S FINE. EXCELLENT. I AGREE TO THAT.

EXCELLENT. THE CONTRACT TO REVISE THE PERMIT FOR THE THE BLOCKING OF THE WINDOWS MAY REQUIRE A DIFFERENT PERMIT.

I BELIEVE THEY APPLIED FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT.

SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY SORT OF REPAIRS UNDER THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, SO WE WOULD NEED A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL REPAIRS.

FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, SINCE WE HAVE TO APPLY FOR A WHOLE NEW PERMIT, I SEE THE RECOMMENDATION HERE IS 60 DAYS, MR. GOMEZ. IF I GAVE YOU 90 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WOULD THAT BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOU? EXCELLENT. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM EITHER OF THE PARTIES? NO, SIR. ANYTHING MORE? ALL GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST.

THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, INSOFAR AS IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN DONE TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS, TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED WINDOWS AND DOORS OR TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.

TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED ROOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCORD THAT WAS REACHED WITH THE PART BETWEEN THE PARTIES TODAY.

AND WITHIN THAT 90 DAYS OBTAIN APPROVAL. EXCUSE ME 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 THIS ORDER.

NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.

AND, MR. GOMEZ, YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TODAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD ONE. EXCELLENT. NEXT CASE PLEASE.

THE NEXT CASE IS CASE. ITEM SIX E, CASE NUMBER B 2025.

[E. BV2025-00042 2026 Jacaranda Dr Winter, Lawrence & Selina Logan Winn]

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LOGAN WYNNE, BUILDING INSPECTOR INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

TODAY WE HAVE CASE NUMBER BV 202500042 OF 2026.

JACARANDA DRIVE CASE WAS INITIATED IN MARCH 3RD, 2025.

THE OWNERS, LAWRENCE EUGENE WINTER AND SELENA DALE WINTER OF 1710 CRESTVIEW DRIVE, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. 34949 THE VIOLATIONS FBC 105.1 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED WITHOUT A PERMIT. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL THE RENOVATIONS BEING DONE AT THIS LOCATION.

RECOMMENDATION. THE CITY REQUESTED IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXIST, 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. AS OF NOW, THE RESIDENTIAL REPAIR PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR ON APRIL 7TH.

IT WAS REJECTED BY PLANNING AND PCR REVIEW FEES DUE ARE NOT PAID AT THIS TIME.

I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

[00:15:07]

THIRD. OF THIS YEAR. DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES, MA'AM. DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THEM? YES, MA'AM. AT THIS TIME, THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

THANK YOU. I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE OF CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

MR.. HOW DID THIS PROPERTY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? I BELIEVE THIS IS A OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS DRIVING BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEEING THE THE DEBRIS IN THE GARAGE, AND DIRECTED ME TO GO OVER AND TAKE A LOOK. AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR THE RENOVATIONS.

WHAT IS THAT? IS THAT TO THIS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, A GARAGE? THAT'S THE GARAGE OF THE OF THE HOME. CORRECT.

AND THAT'S A PILE OF AIR CONDITIONING DUCTWORK.

AND THEN, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THEY'VE TOTALLY GUTTED THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE WITH NEW DUCTWORK AND ELECTRICAL AND SOME FRAMING WORK.

INSULATION. PLUMBING LOOKS LIKE REMOVAL OF AN AIR CONDITIONER.

THERE THEY DID A COUPLE. IT LOOKS LIKE SOME INFILL IS DONE ON SOME WINDOWS AND DOORS. ON THE ON THE PICTURE E.

PICTURE OF THE STOP WORK ORDER. SOME OTHER BLOCK WORK WAS LAYING AROUND ON SITE.

THAT WAS JUST ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE STOP WORKER POSTED ON THE FRONT WINDOW. HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS? I HAVE NOT. NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. THANK YOU.

IT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE I TALKED WITH THEM. I DON'T.

I DON'T HAVE A RECORD. I'M NOT DOUBTING 100%.

OKAY? NO, BECAUSE I. BECAUSE I CALLED TO TELL YOU THAT WE HAD PULLED PERMITS AND YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T CARE.

I NEVER SAID THAT. OKAY PLEASE DIRECT ALL CONVERSATION TO ME, PLEASE.

I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU? I'M FINE. MY NAME. MY NAME IS LARRY WEINER. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

I GO BY. I GO BY LARRY INSTEAD OF LAWRENCE. OH.

THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. SO. WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN, MR. WEINER. TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AS HE SAID, WE WERE DOING SOME MECHANICAL AC WORK, AND WE HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED.

AND IT'S, I THINK ON YOUR WEBSITE, 88% APPROVED.

WE ALSO HAD A PERMIT THAT WE HAVE APPLIED FOR FOR THE INSIDE REPAIR AND RENOVATION.

WE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THEY ASKED FOR AN UPDATED VERSION. WE GAVE A NEW UPDATED VERSION.

THEY SAID THAT STILL WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. SO NOW WE'VE CONTRACTED WITH A DESIGNER TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT DONE.

AND WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DONE PROBABLY IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS. OKAY.

SO SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE MADE SOME PROGRESS HERE.

AM I RIGHT IN SAYING THAT AS FAR AS THE PERMITTING GOES, YES. WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO THE BUILDING SINCE WE WERE SERVED WITH THE RED NOTICE.

EXCELLENT. AND SO, MR. NGUYEN, LET ME ASK YOU, OR MAYBE MR..

COS YOU CAN ENLIGHTEN ME WITH THIS RESUBMISSION THAT WAS MADE, IS THIS DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT'S ENOUGH TO GET THIS RESOLVED? OR AT LEAST WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK? IF I MAY HAVE A MOMENT TO REVIEW THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION, PLEASE.

ABSOLUTELY. DO YOU NEED THE PERMIT NUMBER? YES, SIR, I HAVE IT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT IS COMPREHENSIVE TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS.

SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF OBTAINING THE PROPER SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS TO GO ALONG WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION.

UNDERSTOOD. WELL JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME, MR. WINTER, I SEE THAT WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF 60 DAYS.

IF I ALLOW 90 DAYS INSTEAD, WE SHOULD HAVE IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS.

SO 90 DAYS WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH. FANTASTIC.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES? NO, SIR. MR. WINTER ANY MORE? ANYTHING ELSE? THANKS. EXCELLENT.

WELL, IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST.

[00:20:03]

AND OBTAIN AND 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 WILL BE ASSESSED. IN MR. WINTER. YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION.

IF YOU SO CHOOSE. I'M JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

IF WE GET THE DRAWINGS INTO THEM WITHIN THAT 60 DAYS AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT APPROVED IT, IS THAT ON US? IF IF WE HAVE A PERMIT NUMBER, WE'VE SUBMITTED ALL THE DRAWINGS, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

AM I STILL IN TROUBLE? YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND I'M SURE THEY CAN GIVE YOU.

I DON'T MIND THEM GIVING YOU EXTRA TIME. OKAY.

YEAH. SO THANK YOU, MR. WINTER. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT CASE, PLEASE. NEXT CASE IS SEVEN B. CASE B 2024 000098 11 NORTH

[B. BV2024-00009 811 N 21st St Gardner, Earl Shaun Coss ]

WE'RE IN A SPECIAL MINISTRY. THIS IS 20 2024 000948 11 NORTH 21ST STREET.

PROPERTIES OWNED BY EARL GARDNER OF 1701 NORTH 35TH STREET OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

34947. THIS IS HERE TODAY FOR A FINE REDUCTION.

THERE WAS AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION ENTERED FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025 AND AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED APRIL 16TH, 2025. IN AN ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED.

MAY 8TH, 2025 AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED.

MAY 22ND, 2025. THE FINE FINES ACCRUED TO $2,240, INCLUDING $40 IN RECORDING FEES.

THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE FINE.

ONE THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE TO ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS, AND THE OWNER ADDRESSED ALL OF THE CITED VIOLATIONS.

HE STATED THAT HE EXPERIENCED A DELAY IN COMPLYING THE CASE DUE TO EVICTING THE TENANT.

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

THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE FINES BE REDUCED TO $40.

STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, IN THIS CASE TO BE $754.05.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF AND $0.05.

AND, MR. GARDNER. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING SIR.

HOW ARE YOU? I'M DOING WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.

SO TELL ME I SEE BEFORE ME A REQUEST TO REDUCE THESE FINES.

CAN YOU TELL ME MORE? WHY? WHY SHOULD I PLEAD YOUR CASE? FIRST OF ALL, THE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. BUT THE TENANT THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE, SO WOULDN'T LET ME IN, AND WE HAD IT WAS UNDER THE SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM, AND I HAD TO, YOU KNOW LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND THEN WE HAD THE THEY VIOLATED HER AND WE DID AN EVICTION NOTICE.

AND AFTER WE DID THE EVICTION NOTICE, SO I WAS ABLE TO GO INTO THE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, DO THE WORK.

HOW LONG DID THE EVICTION TAKE? OH, A MONTH AND A HALF, I THINK IT WAS.

DID YOU GO THROUGH AN ATTORNEY TO DO IT? EXCUSE ME.

DID YOU USE AN ATTORNEY TO. DID YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO EVICT THEM? NO, NO. OKAY. JUST WENT THROUGH THE COURT. OKAY.

AND SO MR. COSS, EVERYTHING IS IN COMPLIANCE, CORRECT? YES, SIR. YES. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE FOR ME, SIR? OH, NO. I JUST WISH IT COULD BE YOUR REDUCED WELL, I NOTICED A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO REDUCE IT TO $40.

WHY? $40? I WAS JUST DOING THAT. NO. RIGHT THEN.

YEAH. EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT. WELL. THANK YOU. WELL MR.

[00:25:01]

BUT I AM INCLINED TO REDUCE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

EXCUSE ME? THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $754.05.

NOW, TELL ME, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THAT TOGETHER? YOU MEAN 60 DAYS? 60 DAYS? YES. OKAY. I WILL ALLOW 60 DAYS.

RIGHT. SO I WILL GRANT THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FINES DOWN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $754.05.

I WILL ALLOW YOU 60 DAYS TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT.

BUT BE TO BE CLEAR, RIGHT. IF YOU DO NOT PAY WITHIN THAT 60 DAYS, THE FULL FINE WILL COME BACK FULL IN FULL FORCE.

RIGHT. SO I ASK THAT YOU HAVE THAT DONE WITHIN THE 60 DAYS.

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT IN THE 60 DAYS. REACH OUT, COMMUNICATE WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND SEE WHAT OPTIONS ARE THERE.

IT'LL BE PAIN. EXCELLENT. ANYTHING FURTHER? NO, SIR.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. GARDNER.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. THE NEXT CASE IS SEVEN A CASE?

[A. 24-1365 100 Corner Dr Bldg E Sabal Chase Essential Housing Shaun Coss ]

THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

KEESHA SMITH. THANK YOU. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. THIS IS CASE 24 1365 FOR 100 CORNER DRIVE BUILDING.

E PROPERTIES OWNED BY A SABLE CHASE ESSENTIAL HOUSING CARE OF TMO ACQUISITIONS LLC TO COOPER STREET FOR 14TH FLOOR, CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08101. THIS IS HERE FOR A FINE REDUCTION.

THERE'S AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION AFTER NOVEMBER 8TH, 2024 AND AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED JANUARY 15TH, 2025. THERE WAS A ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025 AND AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED JUNE 3RD, 2025.

THE FINES ACCRUED FROM JANUARY 15TH, 2025 TO FEBRUARY 13TH OF 2025 TO $2900.

THE FINES RESTARTED ON APRIL 16TH, 2025, OCCURRING THROUGH MAY 9TH, 2025, TO $2,300 IN RECORDING FEES TOTALING $5,250 IN FINES. THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THE FINE.

ONE, THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE.

TWO ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS AND A PERMIT WAS OBTAINED FOR THE CITED VIOLATIONS AND NECESSARY INSPECTIONS WERE COMPLETED.

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

RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE FINES BE REDUCED TO APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE TOTAL FINE AMOUNT, TO $2,620. STAFF IS CALCULATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, IN THIS CASE TO BE $1,125.90, AND STAFF IS AGREEABLE WITH THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FINES TO $2,620.

GOOD MORNING. AND WHAT'S YOUR NAME? SMITH. MISS SMITH, GOOD MORNING.

THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. SO TELL ME, MISS SMITH WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? WHAT? TELL ME. BRING ME UP TO SPEED ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH THESE VIOLATIONS.

IT SEEMED LIKE THE BIGGEST ISSUE WAS THE VENDOR THAT WE HIRED.

SEEMED LIKE HE COULD NEVER REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INSPECTOR WANTED.

THEY CAME OUT A FEW TIMES. EVERY TIME I BELIEVE I SPOKE TO ONE LAST TIME, HE KIND OF EXPLAINED TO ME EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS THAT HE NEEDED, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE PERMIT FINALLY APPROVED.

I HAD TO CALL. I SPOKE TO A YOUNG LADY, SHE ASSISTED ME WITH IT, AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY GOT US TO HURRY UP AND GET THIS DONE.

[00:30:02]

THE WORK WAS COMPLETED AND WAS APPROVED BY YOU GUYS APRIL 11TH, SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR IT TO BE, I GUESS, HALF OF THE AMOUNT SINCE WE DID GET IT DONE IN APRIL.

AND AND I'M SORRY. WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY? THE PROPERTY MANAGER. THE PROPERTY MANAGER. AND SO I NOTICED THERE WERE FIVE OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PAST.

WHAT'S GOING ON? YES. TWO OF THEM WERE TERMITES.

THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT ISSUES, TO BE HONEST.

ONE WAS A FLOOD ISSUE. THEY ALL WERE DIFFERENT COMPARED TO THIS ONE.

I BELIEVE THIS ONE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WAS MAINLY FOR THE BUILDING AND CAR ACCIDENT HAPPENED THE SAME EXACT TIME AS YOU GUYS GAVE ME THE PREVIOUS VIOLATION.

A CAR ACCIDENT? YES. SOMEBODY WENT INTO THE SAME BUILDING THAT YOU GUYS GAVE ME A VIOLATION FOR RIGHT BEFORE.

SO WE HAD A TWO FOR ONE SITUATION WITH THAT BUILDING.

OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION? NO. ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. COSS? NO, SIR. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I'M INCLINED TO REDUCE THIS. THIS.

FINE. I'LL AGREE WITH THE WITH THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO REDUCE IT TO HALF.

SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 2620. ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE YOU GUYS TO GET THAT TOGETHER? 30 DAYS. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE'LL ORDER IT DUE IN 30 DAYS.

PLEASE NOTE, IF IT IS NOT PAID IN 30 DAYS, THE FULL 5250 IS GOING TO BE OWED.

RIGHT. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO MEET THAT DEADLINE.

BUT I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GETTING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE AND FOR COMING DOWN TODAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT CASE PLEASE. OKAY. THE NEXT CASE IS SEVEN.

B I'M SORRY. NINE B CASE 23, 2493 1225 MCRAE COURT.

[B. 23-2493 1225 McCray Court Roberts, Brandi Shaun Coss]

YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS CASE 23 2493 FOR 1225, MCRAE COURT PROPERTIES OWNED BY BRANDY ROBERTS.

AND THE SAME ADDRESS. THE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY ARE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 105.1.

PERMIT REQUIRED. THIS IS HERE TODAY FOR AN EXTENSION IN TIME.

THERE WAS AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION ENTERED APRIL 12TH, 2020 FOR A 90 DAY EXTENSION IN TIME.

WAS GRANTED JULY 16TH, 2020 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY EXTENSION AND TIME WAS GRANTED JANUARY 16TH, 2025. ON APRIL 1ST, 2025, STAFF RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR FURTHER EXTENSION.

IN TIME THE OWNER HAD A SCHEDULING CONFLICT WITH THE MAY 8TH HEARING, AND IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE JUNE 12TH HEARING AT THE JUNE 12TH HEARING.

THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAD A SCHEDULING CONFLICT AND WAS RUNNING LATE.

THE RESPONDENT DID NEED TO LEAVE FOR WORK, SO THIS WAS CONTINUED TO TODAY'S HEARING.

PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, I'D LIKE TO HEAR AN UPDATE FROM MISS ROBERTS.

AS TO HER ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS. GOOD MORNING, MISS ROBERTS.

HOW ARE YOU? GOOD MORNING. YOUR HONOR, I'M OKAY. ARE YOU? I'M DOING WELL. THANK YOU. SO TELL ME, CAN YOU.

AND YOU ARE THE PROPERTY OWNER, RIGHT? YES. YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT, SO TELL ME WHAT. WHAT'S GOING ON? I AM A NEW PROPERTY OWNER.

I'M IN AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION RIGHT NOW. I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A PRO SE LITIGANT, WHICH I'M SURE I NEED AN ATTORNEY. I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A PRO SE LITIGANT AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT, WHO'S ACTUALLY THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE THAT I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF IN, AND I'M SUING THEM IN COUNTY CIVIL COURT CASE NUMBER 562024 CC 004604 IN FRONT OF JUDGE ALONZO EDMUNDS. I WANT TO SAY ABOUT 2023, THE DEFENDANT IS THE ONE WHO USED A FICTITIOUS NAME TO REPORT ME TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND I JUST RECENTLY RESUBMITTED.

I HAD TO DO AN AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM BECAUSE I GUESS THE LACK OF CONTENT IN MY CLAIM, I CAN'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT'S BEEN A PRETTY DIFFICULT PROCESS.

I'M IN COUNTY CIVIL COURT. I JUST SUBMITTED THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED ON JULY 7TH, SEVEN, 2025.

SO IT SHOULD BE ON THE ON THE RECORD. I'M SUING THEM, ACTUALLY.

[00:35:07]

AND ONE OTHER THING, BUT SPECIFICALLY HOW THIS RELATES TO WHAT'S GOING ON OR ALSO BREACH OF CONTRACT.

THEY COMMITTED FRAUD PRETTY MUCH BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED OVER 10% FOR ME, WHICH WHEN IT SAYS FLORIDA STATUTE 489.126 PRIMARILY ADDRESSES THE PROPER HANDLING OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY CONTRACTORS AND THE PENALTIES FOR MISAPPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

AND. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. MISS ROBERTS. CAN YOU REPEAT THE CASE NUMBER FOR ME? OKAY. IT IS. LET ME GO DOWN. SORRY. 024 CC.

004604. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. OKAY I AM.

I DID RESUBMIT THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM ON MONDAY, WHICH BECAUSE I HAD 20 DAYS TO DO IT PER JUDGE'S ORDER OF JUDGE ALONZO EDMOND FROM HIS NAME. CORRECT. OKAY. NOW, IT SAYS WHEN A FLORIDA STATUTE 489.126, PRIMARILY ADDRESSES THE PROPER HANDLING OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY CONTRACTORS AND THE PENALTIES FOR MISAPPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS, AT ITS CORE, WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN TO 13 WHEN THE CONTRACT RECEIVES AN INITIAL PAY. FORGIVE ME, MISS ROBERTS.

NO, NO, NO, DON'T DON'T APOLOGIZE. BUT TELL ME MORE.

WHAT WHAT LED TO THIS? DID THIS PERSON DO WORK ON YOUR PROPERTY? YES. YOUR HONOR. I PROBABLY MISSED THAT. SKIP THAT PART.

YOU'RE FINE. JUST PLEASE BRING ME UP TO SPEED, OKAY? UP TO SPEED. PRETTY MUCH. THEY RECEIVED OVER 10%.

AND IT SAYS THAT PRETTY MUCH IN THAT STATUTE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.

SO FACTUALLY, DID YOU HIRE THEM TO BUILD SOMETHING FOR YOU OR FIX SOMETHING? YES, YOUR HONOR, I HIRED THEM. I WAS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY AT THE TIME.

I GAVE I GAVE THEM A KEY TO THE HOME IN FORT PIERCE.

I KIND OF, LIKE, KNEW THEIR SISTER MET THEM ON FACEBOOK.

MET THE CONTRACTOR ON FACEBOOK. EVENTUALLY, I FOUND OUT WITH SPEAKING WITH MY SON.

I WAS TRYING TO GET SOME INSIGHT. IT'S MY FIRST TIME PURCHASING A HOME.

I'M LIKE SOMETHING I WRITE. I DON'T KNOW, HE'S, LIKE, KIND OF SCREWING ME OVER.

SO ONE DAY I ASKED HIM AND IT'S IN HIS EVIDENCE ON ON THE DOCKET, I ASKED HIM, I WAS LIKE, ARE YOU LICENSED? AND THEN, SURE, HE WAS LIKE, I DON'T NEED A LICENSE.

I WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HE SHOWED ME A BADGE.

IT SAYS CONTRACTOR. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE SHOWING YOURSELF AS A CONTRACTOR.

SO LET ME SEE IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY. RIGHT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HIRED THIS INDIVIDUAL TO BUILD A HOME FOR YOU.

NO, YOUR HONOR, I HIRED HIM TO INITIALLY REPAIR THINGS ON THE INSPECTION REPORT.

OKAY. HE BUILT A BALCONY ON THE INSPECTION REPORT.

IT SAYS YOU CAN EITHER REPAIR OR REBUILD. HE NEVER CONSULTED WITH ME.

HE NEVER GAVE ME MEASUREMENTS. HE DIDN'T, BECAUSE I'M PICKY.

HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY. DO YOU WANT IT LIKE THIS? WHAT MATERIALS WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE? THIS IS MY FIRST HOME, RIGHT? AND LIKE I SAID, I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WORKING WITH ME, ESPECIALLY MRS. ELIZABETH BECK. THIS IS MY FIRST HOME.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IT. NOW I COULD LOSE MY HOME.

POSSIBLY, IF I DON'T COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH THESE FINES OR WHATEVER IT IS, I DON'T KNOW. I'M NEW TO THIS, SO I DON'T KNOW.

MY. I FEEL LIKE HIS INTENTIONS WERE FOR ME TO LOSE THE HOME OR BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

IF HE KNEW TO ANONYMOUSLY CONTACT THEM. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PULLING PERMITS.

SO I UNDERSTAND IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY AS AN OWNER.

BUT I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING. AND SO HE WAS HIRED TO DO THIS JOB.

HE SHOULD HAVE WHAT? YOU EXPECTED HIM TO GET THE PERMITS? HE DIDN'T GET THE PERMITS. AND THEN HE TURNED AROUND AND REPORTED YOU FOR IT.

I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PERMITS AT FIRST.

RIGHT. BUT HE HE DID. HE OBVIOUSLY HE DID. IF HE KNEW TO GO IN ANONYMOUS ANONYMOUSLY AND HE ADMITTED THAT HE CONTACTED THE CITY BECAUSE HE SAID I DIDN'T PAY HIM, BUT HE CHARGED ME TWICE FOR DRYWALL. I SEE HE WAS LIKE OVERCHARGING ME, NOT GETTING WORK DONE.

SO THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT. I'M SUING HIM FOR FRAUD, AND I FINALLY COLLECTED ALL OF MY EVIDENCE AND RESUBMITTED MY AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

SO I'M ASKING FOR MORE TIME BECAUSE IT'S JUST LIKE I NEED AN ATTORNEY.

I'M DISABLED. I REALLY CAN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, BUT I'M WILLING TO TRY TO GET AN ATTORNEY.

I'VE SPOKE TO FLORIDA RURAL LEGAL SERVICES. THEY TOLD ME I WAS DOING A GOOD JOB, BUT THE JUDGE SAID, HEY, HE HE GOT ON MY CASE. HE WAS LIKE, YOU'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB.

BUT HE DID ALLOW ME TO AMEND MY STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

I WAS SO THANKFUL FOR THAT. I GOT IT DONE ON MONDAY.

100 AND SOMETHING PAGES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU PULLED IT UP. IT SHOULD BE ON ON THERE NOW.

I REALLY FEEL LIKE HE SINCE AND I WENT THROUGH THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND IT SAYS SINCE HE CHARGED ME A CERTAIN AMOUNT,

[00:40:04]

OKAY, WELL, WELL, THANK YOU, MISS ROBERTS. MR. COX DID YOU GET THE INFORMATION YOU NEEDED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION HERE? PARTIALLY. I, I HAVE A FEW FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS THAT WERE STATED.

THE COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED ON AUGUST 29TH, 2023, BY MARCUS JENKINS.

THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT IS ON THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION IS FAILING TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ROOM ADDITION.

ANY OTHER RENOVATION BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WINDOWS, WRAPAROUND DECK, STUCCO, AND A NEW ROOF.

SO THERE WERE SOME SUBSTANTIAL WORK HERE. THE MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS WITH THE PROPERTY AS FAR AS OBTAINING A PERMIT? TO BRING THE THE VIOLATION INTO COMPLIANCE? REGARDLESS OF THE KIND OF A SEPARATE COURT ACTION THAT YOU HAVE.

A PERMIT IS STILL GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

I'M NOT SURE OF YOUR INTENTION OF CONTINUING ON WITH THIS UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR, SINCE A PROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT. HAVE ANY EFFORTS BEEN MADE TO OBTAIN SIGN AND SEAL DRAWINGS FROM AN ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR ANY CONTACT MADE WITH A PROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR? YES, SIR. I SPOKE TO WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE NAME.

IT'S CALLED AFTER THE FACT. PERMITTING I SPOKE TO.

I WOULD HAVE TO FIND THE GUY'S NAME. HE'S LIKE IT WOULD COST THIS MUCH JUST TO LOOK AT IT.

AND THEN WE MAY HAVE TO TEAR DOWN A WALL. HONESTLY, I MAY HAVE TO END UP JUST.

GETTING RID OF THE BUILDING. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYTHING.

IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. IT LOOKS LIKE A PLAYHOUSE.

IT LOOKS LIKE. I NEVER SEEN A STRUCTURE BUILT LIKE THAT IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

THE. I DON'T HAVE THE PICTURES WITH ME, BUT THIS MAN JUST TOOK ADVANTAGE OF ME.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION. I'M AT THE POINT WHERE I MAY BE DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHAT I WROTE IN THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM, BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT THEY THEY HAVE TO, I DON'T KNOW, THE PROCESS OF PERMITTING, BUT THE DRYWALL IS ALREADY UP.

SO I WAS TOLD THAT THE YOU KNOW TO IN ORDER TO INSPECT IT.

I GUESS THEY WOULD HAVE TO. I DON'T KNOW, HONESTLY, I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE DEMOLISHED BECAUSE IT'S THERE ARE PROBLEMS. THE ROOF IS LEAKING, IS THERE'S MOLD. I MEAN, IF THEY WOULD HAVE TO, I DON'T KNOW, THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

AND THEN THE BEGINNING OF MY AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM, I PRETTY MUCH DID SAY THAT I JUST MAY HAVE TO GET THIS DEMOLISHED.

I DON'T EVEN LIKE IT. AND AND WITH IT, I SPOKE TO SOMEONE I'M SORRY I HAVE SPOKEN TO SOMEONE ABOUT AFTER THE FACT PERMITTING.

AND THE INITIAL THING IS JUST LIKE IT'S LIKE $5,000 JUST TO LOOK AT IT.

AND THEN THEY WERE SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT DRAWINGS.

I THINK HIS NAME WAS ROGER. I DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME.

I PROBABLY HAVE IT IN MY PHONE OR WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE.

THANK YOU. AND WOULD IT BE YOUR INTENT TO DEMOLISH JUST THE WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED OR THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

I HAVE SPOKEN WITH PATIO ENCLOSURES TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE THE BALCONY.

I WAS TOLD I'VE SPOKEN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. ACTUALLY, A LOT OF PEOPLE COME BY.

THEY WASTE MY TIME. I'VE ACTUALLY SUBPOENAED QUITE A FEW PEOPLE TO COURT, WHICH I DID THAT WRONG.

IT WAS TOO EARLY. A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I DID HAVE COME BY THE HOUSE.

LICENSED CONTRACTORS. PATIO ENCLOSURES WAS ONE PERSON.

I IT'S I WAS TOLD IT'S BUILT WRONG ALREADY, SO IT'S JUST IT'S.

I WAS THINKING ABOUT SELLING THE HOME. IT'S JUST A HEADACHE.

IT'S JUST BEEN ONGOING. IT'S JUST. IT'S JUST TOO MUCH FOR ME.

I'M OVERWHELMED. AND I REALLY RESPECT YOUR QUESTIONS.

I LOVE YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT THE PATIO IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REDONE.

AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO PEOPLE. I HAVE PEOPLE WHO WASTE MY TIME, WHO COME BY, WHO HAVEN'T GIVEN ME AN ESTIMATE.

PATRICK ENCLOSURES WAS KIND OF EXPENSIVE, SO I WOULD TRY TO GO WITH MORE REASONABLE CONTRACTORS.

WHO'S WHO? LIKE I SAID, THEY'LL COME BY. NEVER GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE.

AND AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONS, IT'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED.

[00:45:03]

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. MY CONCERN IS THAT EVEN IF MISS ROBERTS IS SUCCESSFUL IN HER COURT CLAIM THAT WE'RE STILL IN A POSITION WHERE COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED.

AND IT'S UNLIKELY, I ASSUME, FOR HER TO RECEIVE ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION AS A RESULT OF HER CASE.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN RESOLVING THIS MATTER.

SO AS WE ARE TODAY, WE'RE NO CLOSER THAN WE WERE THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE TO COMPLIANCE.

MY RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO PROVIDE A FINAL 180 DAY EXTENSION TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, WHETHER THE PERMIT IS TO PROPERLY RENOVATE THE PROPERTY WITH ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OR TO DEMOLISH ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OR THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE WHICHEVER SHE CHOOSES TO DO SO.

SO. UNDERSTOOD. I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION HERE, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER EITHER PARTY WOULD LIKE ME TO CONSIDER? YES. I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN SOMEONE FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COME INSIDE THE HOME AND GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE I MAKE A FINAL DECISION? AS FAR AS LIKE SO THEY CAN SEE THE INSIDE OF THE HOME BECAUSE THEY'VE ONLY SEEN THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOME AND THERE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE INSIDE.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND CONTRACTOR CONTRACTING WORK.

SO DEFINITELY THAT'S A DISCUSSION TO HAVE WITH SOMEONE FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

MY $0.02 HERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYTHING WOULD BE RESOLVED IF YOU HAD SOMEBODY COME HELP YOU DEAL WITH THE PERMITTING ISSUE, RIGHT? SO IF YOU HAD A PROFESSIONAL COME IN, BE ABLE TO FILE FOR WHATEVER PERMITS ARE NEEDED TO EITHER DEMOLISH OR COMPLETE WHATEVER, OR COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH WHATEVER'S NEEDED TO BE DONE.

I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE.

SO BY ALL MEANS, I INVITE YOU TO TALK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THAT MIGHT BE A SOLUTION.

AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, MISS ROBERTS, I. I COMMEND YOU RIGHT FOR FOR ADVOCATING FOR YOURSELF.

RIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT THE DOCKET HERE. LOOKS LIKE THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF FILINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU TRYING TO DO SOMETHING PER SE THAT, YOU KNOW, US AS ATTORNEYS, WE GO TO SCHOOL FOR SEVEN YEARS AND PRACTICE YEAR ON, YEAR ON END TO DO IT'S A HEAVY LIFT. RIGHT? SO I GET IT.

AND I COMMEND YOU FOR FOR ADVOCATING FOR YOURSELF AS IT STANDS.

FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE CITY AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

YOU KNOW, THESE PERMITS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, RIGHT? FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM MANY DIFFERENT STANDPOINTS FROM SAFETY, SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO I AM GOING TO GO WITH THE CITY WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE A FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME OF 180 DAYS. TO ALLOW YOU TIME TO DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO GET THIS CORRECTED AND RIGHT AND JUST TO FOCUS IN ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE COMPLETELY APART AND SEPARATE FROM THE LAWSUIT YOU HAVE BEFORE JUDGE ALONSO.

REALLY, I WANT TO SEE THIS PERMITTING ISSUE COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WHETHER YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT PERMIT TO COMPLETE THE WORK OR GET A PERMIT TO DO THE DEMOLITION THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE YOU'RE CONSIDERING DOING.

IS ANY QUESTIONS FROM THERE, OR AM I, AM I CLEAR? YOU MADE YOURSELF CLEAR AND I WOULD LIKE TO TELL THEM.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND. EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. MISS ROBERTS, I CERTAINLY WISH YOU THE BEST WITH THIS.

AND I REALLY HOPE THAT THIS IS GOING TO. THE PERMITTING ISSUE IS RESOLVED WITHIN THE 180 DAYS.

BEST OF LUCK TO YOU. ONE MORE THING. I'M SORRY.

AS FAR AS HIM RECEIVING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND I KNOW THAT I AM THE OWNER.

WHY WOULDN'T THE PERSON WHO WAS BUILDING BE IN TROUBLE FOR THIS AS OPPOSED TO ME ONLY? SO FROM THIS LENS HERE, FROM THE CASE THAT'S IN FRONT OF ME HERE.

YOU AS THE BUILDING OWNER, IS RESPONSIBLE HERE RIGHT NOW.

CIVILLY. RIGHT. EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF JUDGE ALONSO, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE PERSON WHO'S IN, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS TAKEN CARE OF,

[00:50:04]

YES, YOUR HONOR, AND I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE I SPEAK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I NEED SOME RESOURCES, SOME CONTRACTORS. I NEED SOME HELP. SO. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I'M SURE THEY'LL BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.

THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND GIVING ME SOME INFORMATION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. DRIVE SAFE.

MISS. BACK. BECK. NEXT CASE, PLEASE. NEXT CASE IS NINE A CASE 24 DASH 1196 1206 NORTH 29TH STREET.

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

LP IS THE OWNER. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING SIR.

WHAT IS YOUR NAME? ANTHONY PAVLIK. WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY? I WORK FOR THE OWNERSHIP GROUP. EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU SIR. MR.. MR. PAVLIK, AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY? YES, PAVLIK. PERFECT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

THIS IS CASE 24 DASH 1196 FOUR 1206 NORTH 29TH STREET.

BUILDING ONE. UNIT FOUR. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP OF 3189 DEL OBISPO STREET, SUITE 150, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, 92675.

THIS IS HERE TODAY FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. THERE WAS AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION GRANTED OR.

I'M SORRY. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 8TH, 2024 AND AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED JANUARY 6TH, 2025.

IN ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED.

MARCH 13TH, 2025. ON JUNE 12TH, 2025, A FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME WAS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY MANAGER.

AS OF TODAY, THERE ARE NO FINES. PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.

ALL RIGHT, MR. PAVLIK, TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON.

YES. SO THIS UNIT WENT INTO A. STATE WHERE WE HAD TO REMEDIATE THE UNIT FOR ORGANIC GROWTH INSIDE. AND WHILE THAT WAS GOING ON, THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS IN CHARGE OF THE REMEDIATION, THE REBUILD. WE THEN IN NOVEMBER THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS STILL IN CHARGE OF THE REMEDIATION AND THE REBUILD, AND THEN WE BASICALLY LEFT IT IT WAS OUT OF SIGHT. OUT OF MIND, IF YOU WILL.

AND THEN IT CAME ABOUT THAT THE UNIT WAS STILL EMPTY.

AND WE STEPPED IN AS OWNERSHIP GROUP. NOW WE ARE IN CONTROL OF THE UNITS.

IT DOES REQUIRE REMEDIATION AGAIN. SO IT IS IT'S NOT IN THE BEST SHAPE FOR REBUILD AT THE MOMENT.

WE DO HAVE A CONTRACTOR IN PLACE. WE HAVE A SEALED DRAWING PACKAGE READY TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT AND THE PERMIT PACKAGE. I WOULD THINK 60 TO MAYBE 90 DAYS BECAUSE WE, WE ARE HAVING TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REPAIRS TO KEEP THE UNIT REMEDIATED AND AND READY FOR REBUILD.

THANK YOU, MR. PAVLIK. MR. COSS. THANK YOU. STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO PROVIDING A FINAL 90 DAY EXTENSION TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.

I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO OBJECTION. NONE. WE'RE READY.

I HAVE EVERYTHING HERE. ALL I NEED TO DO IS GET THE NOTARIZED, GET EVERYTHING NOTARIZED AND FILED WITH THE CITY.

THE DRAWING PACKAGE IS COMPLETE. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING IT DONE.

FANTASTIC. FANTASTIC. WELL, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

THAT BEING RESOLVED, I'LL. I'LL GRANT AN EXTENSION OF 90 DAYS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE, EVERYBODY.

OKAY. OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE IS SIX. A CASE BV 2025 00010 12

[A. BV2025-00010 1202 Ave G Cervantes, Javier & Veronica Miles Keller]

HELLO AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE CASE NUMBER BV 2025 00010

[00:55:05]

VIOLATIONS ARE FOR THE BUILDING CODE 105.1 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED.

OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STUCCO COLUMNS, PLUMBING, SEWER, RE PIPING, WINDOWS, DOORS, EXTENSION OF ROOF GABLES, STRUCTURAL FLOOR, JOIST, WALKING SURFACES, ROOF TRUSSES, ELECTRICAL REWIRE, DRYWALL FRAMING, AND INSULATION.

RECOMMENDATIONS. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THIS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THE VIOLATIONS EXIST.

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 AN ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

THE PERMITS, COVERING THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK DONE, WAS APPLIED FOR ON SEVEN 1 TO 25 AND IS NOW IN PLAN REVIEW.

I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

MR. KELLER, YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE LOOK TO BE ALL DATED JANUARY 14TH OF THIS YEAR.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU? YES. THEY WERE. AND DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THAT OR THE VIOLATION? YES THEY DO. AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE IN EVIDENCE. THAT IS COMPOSITE ONE.

I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE OF CITIES. COMPOSITE ONE.

MR. KELLER, HOW DID YOU COME INTO CONTACT WITH THIS PROPERTY? SO I WAS DOING A ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FOR THE SERVICE THAT GOT YANKED DOWN BY A TRUCK.

AND TO DO THE INSPECTION, I HAD TO GO INSIDE AND MAKE SURE NOTHING ELSE WAS, YOU KNOW, DAMAGED IN THE PROCESS AND DISCOVERED ALL THIS, AND THIS IS ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE'RE SEEING ARE IS UNPERMITTED WORK.

YES, BUT IT APPEARS THEY'RE COVERING MOST OF THAT WITH THEIR MOST RECENT PERMIT.

THAT'S IN REVIEW. YES.

NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST.

AND A VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO. STUCCO COLUMNS. PLUMBING.

SEWER PIPING. WINDOWS. DOORS. EXTENSION OF ROOF GABLES.

STRUCTURAL FLOOR JOISTS. WALKING SURFACES. ROOF TRUSSES.

ELECTRICAL REWIRE. DRYWALL FRAMING AND INSULATION.

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.

WILL BE ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU, MR. KELLY. NEXT CASE PLEASE. NEXT CASE IS SIX B. CASE B B 2025 00029 1238 AVENUE

[B. BV2025-00029 1238 Avenue D Giordano, Steven Logan Winn]

HERE WE GO. I HAVE CASE NUMBER BV 202500029 OF 1238.

AVENUE D CASE WAS INITIATED FEBRUARY 10TH, 2025.

THE OWNER IS STEVEN GIORDANO OF 5427 NORTHWEST CONSUMER AVENUE, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

34983 VIOLATIONS ARE FBC 105.1 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED BY PMC 304.2 2021 PROTECTIVE TREATMENT IN PMC 304.6 2021 EXTERIOR WALLS. PMC 605.1 2021 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ONE.

OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE INTERIOR DEMOLITION DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT TO REPAIR.

REPLACE ALL ROTTEN WOOD ON EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING THREE.

REPAIR ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS OF THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE OPENING CREATED BY MISSING WALL AC.

[01:00:04]

THE RECOMMENDATION THE CITY REQUESTED IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS 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 FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

AT THIS TIME, THERE IS NO PERMIT FOR THIS WORK TO BE DONE.

I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

AND MR.. WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ALL TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 10TH OF THIS YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES, MA'AM, I DID.

DID THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM? YES, MA'AM. THEY DO. THIS TIME, THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE. THE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

MR. NGUYEN, HOW DID YOU COME INTO CONTACT WITH THIS PROPERTY? I BELIEVE IT WAS A COMPLAINT THAT WE RECEIVED.

WAS IT A COMPLAINT ABOUT ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR? IT WAS THE OPENINGS ON THE BUILDING WERE PART OF THE COMPLAINT AND THAT I BELIEVE THAT SOME PEOPLE WERE OCCUPYING THE BUILDING SOME VAGRANT VAGRANTS IN THE AREA. THE FIRST TWO PICTURES THAT WERE ON THERE WERE A LITTLE FUZZY BECAUSE I ACTUALLY HAD TO TAKE THEM THROUGH THE WINDOWS.

AND THAT'S WHY THERE I WAS TRYING TO SHOW THAT THE INTERIOR HAD BEEN BASICALLY DEMOED.

HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE OWNER? NO, MA'AM.

NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS, AND THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE INTERIOR DEMOLITION DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL ROTTING WOOD ON EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

REPAIR ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS OF THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE OPENING CREATED BY THE MISSING WALL AC UNIT, AND REPAIR OR REPLACE THE OPEN ELECTRICAL BOX IN THE FRONT OVERHANG.

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 OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY.

WILL BE ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU, MR. WYNN. NEXT CASE PLEASE. NEXT CASE IS 6CBV 2025 00031 1904

[C. BV2025-00031 1904 San Marcos Ave Balbuena, Edgar Allan Frank Remling]

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS FRANK RUMBLING.

I WORK FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS A INVESTIGATOR SLASH INSPECTOR.

THIS NUMBER IS BV 2025. 0031. 1904 SAN MARCOS AVENUE CASE INITIATED FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025. THE OWNER IS EDGAR ALLAN BOVINA. 2714 SOUTH 35TH STREET, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

34981. THE VIOLATION IS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 105.1 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED.

THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ENCLOSING THE GARAGE.

THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUEST THAT A 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 CONDITION AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

THERE IS. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONTACT OR A PERMIT HASN'T BEEN APPLIED FOR AT THIS TIME.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO ME BY A COMPLAINT. AND I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES.

AND MR. RUMLEY. THESE PHOTOS, WERE THEY TAKEN ON ONE DAY? THAT'S FEBRUARY 11TH OF THIS YEAR? YES, MA'AM.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ALSO SOME PHOTOGRAPHS FROM GOOGLE EARTH.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK, DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT AND THE GOOGLE MAP PHOTOGRAPHS FROM YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE HOME? DO THEY TRULY, ACCURATELY DEPICT THE HOME? YES.

THIS TIME, THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE. THANK YOU.

I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS A COMPOSITE ONE.

[01:05:04]

THE COMPLAINT WAS ABOUT ADDING A WINDOW WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT UNDER WE LOOKED AT IT MORE AND IT WAS THEY CLOSED IN THE WHOLE GARAGE.

OKAY. AND SO FROM THE GOOGLE EARTH SHOWS THE GARAGE BEFORE.

AND THEN AFTER THEY ENCLOSED IT.

NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS, AND THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ENCLOSING THE GARAGE, 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 WILL BE ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU.

[F. BV2025-00045 5701 Orange Ave SAJ Sunrise LLC Logan Winn]

CASE NUMBER B202500045 OF 5701 ORANGE AVENUE.

CASE WAS INITIATED MARCH 10TH, 2025. THE OWNER IS SAR SUNRISE LLC OF 12 337 NORTHWEST 69TH COURT, PARKLAND, FLORIDA. 33076 VIOLATIONS. FEC 105.1 2020 PERMIT REQUIRED ACQUIRED BY PMC.

111.11 2021 UNSAFE STRUCTURE I. PMC 604.3 2021 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS I.

PMC 605.1 2021 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION I. PMC 605.4 2021 WIRING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE STORM DAMAGED AREAS OF THE BUILDING.

TO 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. THREE.

OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM COMPONENTS CONSTITUTING A HAZARD FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED.

FIVE. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO INSTALL. REPLACE. REPAIR.

ELECTRICAL WIRING. FLEXIBLE CORDS MAY NOT BE USED AS PERMANENT WIRING OR RUN THROUGH DOORS, WINDOWS, CABINETS, WALLS, FLOORS OR CEILINGS.

RECOMMENDATION. THE CITY REQUESTED A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS.

A VOTER IS TO 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 THE OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER. NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.

THERE ARE NO PERMITS FOR THIS WORK AS AS OF NOW.

I DO HAVE A SET OF PICTURES FOR THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.

MR.. WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU BROUGHT UP ARE FROM MARCH 10TH OF THIS YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. AND DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES, MA'AM, I DID. DID THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM? YES, MA'AM. THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE. CITY COMPOSITE ONE.

I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE. A CITY'S COMPOSITE ONE.

AND, MR. WYNN, HOW DID THIS PROPERTY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? I THINK WE GOT A PHONE CALL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE.

BECAUSE WHEN THE IT WAS A BAD STORM WE HAD THAT DAY IN AS IT BLEW THE AWNING ON TOP OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

IT WAS LIKE LIKE A PATIO COVER ON THE BACK THERE.

YOU JUST DEPICTED IN THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE.

AND THIS I KNOW WE HAVE AN OWNER WHO'S LISTED, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY A TENANT ON THAT PROPERTY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THERE THERE WAS AT THE TIME.

YES. AND HAS THERE BEEN ANY WORK DONE? SO I WENT OUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE TWO WEEKS AGO.

AND THEY HAVE REMOVED THE STRUCTURE, THE AWNING COVER, IF YOU WILL.

THEY REMOVED THAT OFF OF THE BUILDING. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE DISCONNECTED EVERYTHING, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO PERMITS PULLED FOR ANY OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.

THERE'S GOING TO NEED TO BE A DEMO PERMIT FOR WHAT THEY'VE REMOVED, AND THEN AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT FOR SECURING THE ELECTRIC THAT'S THERE THAT THEY'VE DISCONNECTED TO ENSURE THAT IT'S DONE PROPERLY.

[01:10:04]

HE WAS LIKE, OKAY, SO I DON'T HE DIDN'T REALLY ELABORATE ON MOVING FORWARD.

SO THEY WERE AWARE OF THIS HEARING TODAY. CORRECT? YES. OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. THANK YOU.

IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS, AND THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE STORM DAMAGED AREAS OF THE BUILDING. OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN.

OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR. REPLACE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM COMPONENTS CONSTITUTING A HAZARD.

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED.

OBTAIN A PERMIT TO INSTALL, REPLACE, REPAIR, ELECTRICAL WIRING, WIRING.

AND 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 WILL BE ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

THANK YOU, MR. WYNN.

AND THAT'S. THAT'S IT. AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS WERE NOTICED IN THIS MANNER.

NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR. CERTIFIED MAIL AT THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED.

SIGNED. IT'S PLACED IN THE FILE AT. THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED.

AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WITH A NOTICE OF HEARING ENCLOSED IS MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING.

A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS THEN SENT REGULAR U.S.

MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ATTACHED TO IT.

A COPY IS PLACED IN THE IN THE FILE. TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING.

A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD OF IN THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL, AND A NOTICE OF HEARING IS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF THE CERTIFICATION CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, POSTING IS COMPLETED THE SAME WAY AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED.

OKAY, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.