[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:10]
ORDER. COULD WE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE
[a. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.>> IF YOU COULD PLEASE REMAIN STANDING.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. YOU MAY NOW BE
SEATED. >> SO BEFORE WE GET STARTED, DOES ANYONE HERE NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF AN INTERPRETER OR A HEARING DEVICE? IF SO, ONE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR YOU. SO JUST PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU DO NEED EITHER OF THOSE THINGS. THIS MORNING, WE HAVE WITH ME, ATTORNEY HOLLOWMAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, MR. SESEDO AND MS. CALENDAR RON, AND I'M JAMIE, SERVING AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS MORNING.
FOR YOUR BACKGROUND, THESE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING ARE GOING TO BE LIVE STREAMED AND RECORDED. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE RECEIVED A VIOLATION OR CITATION, WE'RE GOING TO REFER TO YOU AS RESPONDENTS THIS MORNING.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL UNFOLD. FIRST, THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE -- PRESENT ITS CASE THROUGH EVIDENCE AND WILL -- THIS EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE TESTIMONY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, INVESTIGATORS, POLICE OFFICERS, OR OTHER WITNESSES.
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. AND YOU, AS THE RESPONDENT, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE LEGAL OXES, CROSS- EXAMINE WITNESSES IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
ONCE THE CITY HAS FINISHED PRESENTING ITS CASE YOU AS A RESPONDENT WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A STATEMENT, PRESENT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND PRESENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOS. AND THEN I, AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WILL RENDER A FINAL RULING. I JUST ASK THAT ALL PARTIES CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER DURING ALL TIMES DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY COMMENTS SHOULD BE MADE DIRECTLY TO ME AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
[1. Case Number: CE-2025-443 Investigating Officer: Manuel Fernandez Jr. Violation Location: 1408 Zephyr Ave ]
SO THAT BEING SAID, READY FOR THE FIRST CASE, PLEASE.>> OUR FIRST CASE TODAY WILL BE IN VIOLATION CASES CE 2025- 443 FOR 1408 ZEPHYR AVENUE.
>> GOOD MORNING. >> THIS IS CASE CE-2025- 443 AT 1408 ZEPHYR AVENUE. THIS IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE.
THE KNIT OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JULY 31ST, 2025, SENT OUT VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAILING. THE NOTICE TO I A PEER WAS SENT OUT ON JULY 31ST, 2025, VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAILING. THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME BACK TO A RONALDO MELVIN. THEY WERE CITED FOR SECTIONS 123- 64 SUBSECTIONS A, TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT A PERMIT.
I DO HAVE PHOTOS AND EVIDENCE TO INTRODUCE AS WELL AS A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> HAVE THESE BEEN SHOWN TO --
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPYCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN JULY 17.
JULY 21ST AND THERE'S ALSO AN E- MAIL E- MAIL MARK GREEN AND THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS NOT DATE OR TIME STAMPED. DO YOU KNOW THE DATES --
>> I BELIEVE THOSE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN THE FOLLOWING MONDAY.
I'M NOT TOO SURE OF THE DATE. I BELIEVE THOSE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN BY MR. MARK GREEN OR JOSE
SANCHEZ. >> THOSE WERE A PART OF THE E- MAIL AS WELL AS THE ORDINANCE SECTION YOU CITED
MA'AM. >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN JULY 17TH AND JULY 21ST, WERE THOSE TAKEN BY YOU?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?
>> AND THE E- MAIL, THIS WAS AN E- MAIL THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM MR. GREEN, IS THAT CORRECT.
[00:05:02]
>> WITH PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED TO THAT.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE IN EXHIBIT 1.
>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.
>> SO OFFICER, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAME TO LEARN OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE VIOLATION?
>> I CAME ACROSS THIS PROPERTY I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO POST THE PROPERTY FOR A SEPARATE CASE BUT WHEN I ARRIVED ON THE PROPERTY IT WAS COMPLIED, BUT I DID NOTICE SIGNIFICANT TREE DEBRIS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY AND ONCE I TOOK A CLOSER INSPECTION, I DID SEE THAT THEY HAD TRIMMED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AN OAK TREE THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I PROCEEDED TOTO MARK GREEN.
HE WAS ABLE TO MEET ME OUT AT THE PROPERTY THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT TRIMMING DONE TO THE TREE AND THERE WAS NO PERMIT IN ANY OF OUR SYSTEMS, SO WE PROCEEDED FORWARD.
>> DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT THE TREE AND THE REMOVAL OF THESE LIMBS?
>> I DID HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. ADDY, WHO WAS CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. I DID EXPLAIN TO HER, SINCE THE TREE WAS A PROTECTED SPECIES, THEY NEEDED A PERMIT TO REMOVE OR TO DO THAT KIND OF TRIMMING. SHE DID EXPLAIN TO ME THAT THE REASON THEY DID THAT WAS THERE WAS TREE BRANCHES AND LIMBS GOING OVER THE ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND I ASSUME IT WAS PROBABLY IN THE WAY BECAUSE THEY HAD ALSO REPLACED THE ROOF.
AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT, IF I REMEMBER
CORRECTLY. >> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. FERNANDEZ. I DON'T KNOW IF, MA'AM, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?
>> NO, NO QUESTIONS, BUT I WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO SPEAK IF I MAY?
>> ONE MOMENT. I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL
>> SO MR. GREEN, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND WHO YOU WORK FOR AND WHAT YOUR POSITION
I'M THE PARKS AND GROUNDS DIVISION MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
>> AND HOW DID YOU GET INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE? >> I WAS CONTACTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER THE DAY -- REQUESTED MY PRESENCE TO GIVE SOME FEEDBACK AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF THE TREE AND IF A PERMIT IN HIS OPINION IN MY OPINION WOULD BE NEEDED, YES.
>> AND WHAT IS YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IN REGARDS TO THE CITY'S CODE REGARDING TREE REMOVALS AND IDENTIFYING SPECIES AND WHATNOT?
>> I'VE BEEN WITH THE GREEN INDUSTRY FOR OVER 25 YEARS. I HAVE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN RECREATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT, CERTIFIED GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT, CERTIFIED GROUNDS MANAGER, CERTIFIED GOLF, MASTER GARDENER, ASSOCIATE OF APPLIED SCIENCE IN TURF MANAGEMENT AND MASTER'S DEGREE FROM TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
>> SO WHEN YOU CAME UPON THIS PROPERTY, WHAT OBSERVATIONS DID YOU MAKE?
>> MY FIRST OBSERVATION WAS THE OVERALL CONDITION OF THE TREE.
MY FIRST OBSERVATION WAS THE WAY IT WAS PRUNED SEEMED REALLY DRASTIC. I COULD SEE IT WASN'T, IN MY OPINION, PROFESSIONALLY PRUNED OR TRIMMED OR CUT.
AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE CURRENT SLIDE, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT TEAR BACK ON THAT CUT. NORMALLY YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT FROM A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMER. SO THAT WAS MY FIRST INDICATION.
THEN I LOOKED AT WHAT SPECIES THE TREE IS THIS, AND THENTHEN KIND REFERRED TO WHAT DO WE THINK IS -- IS THIS A PROTECTED TREE AND DOES IT FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY? THAT WAS MY KIND OF THOUGHT PROCESS. AND, YES, LIVE OAK AND IT'S -- IT WAS SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION OF THE TREE, IN MY OPINION, WHEN I ARRIVED. AND I THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, AFTER LOOKING BACK, THE DEFINITION OF ONE, TWO, THREE STATES THAT IT CAN BE JUST AN 8 INCH DIAMETER TREE. THAT'S A PROTECTED TREE UNDER THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A LIVE OAK BUT IT IS ALSO A LIVE
OAK. >> AND I KNOW THAT THE SECTION 123- 64 STATES NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CUT DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER, DESTROY, REMOVE, RELOCATE ANY SUCH ACT INVOLVING A PROTECTED TREE SITUATED ON THE LAND WITHIN THE CITY WITHOUT OBTAINING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
THIS TREE WAS NOT CUT DOWN ENTIRELY, BUT DO YOU BELIEVE BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE THAT THIS HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED WITH THE LIMBS THAT WERE TAKEN DOWN?
>> I DO. IF WE HAD A BETTER PICTURE OF THE TREE, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE DO, THIS IS ONE SECTION. THAT'S A BETTER SECTION RIGHT THERE. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT CUTS ON THIS TREE, CLEARLY YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT- HAND SIDE, THE LOWER LEFT THAT'S BEEN CUT, THE SECOND ONE HAS BEEN CUT, AND THERE ARE TWO MORE SECTIONS HIGHER UP, THE THIRD ONE SIGNIFICANT ONE.
SO THAT'S THREE AS EVIDENCE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND THEY'RE
[00:10:01]
ACTUALLY PROBABLY TWO MORE THAT YOU CAN'T SEE CUTS THAT WERE MADE. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THE OVERALL CANOPY, WHY THE CANOPY IS IMPORTANT ON THIS TREE, THAT'S HOW THE TREE PRODUCES ITS FOOD, ENERGY, TO SURVIVE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS PRODUCES THROUGH THE CHLOROPHYLL ITS FOOD SOURCE.WHEN YOU DRASTICALLY CUT THIS BACK, IT CAN HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SIDE EFFECTS TO THE TREE.
TO THE EXTENT OF WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO IT LONG TERM, BUT IN MY OPINION, IT'S AT LEAST ONE HALF OF THE CANOPY REMOVED AND POTENTIALLY FIVE-EIGHTS TOTAL VOLUME OF CANOPY REMOVED.
>> AND I KNOW THAT AS PART OF YOUR -- YOU SENT AN E- MAIL TO MR. FERNANDEZ WITH A BREAK JOUN OF THE DIAMETER HEIGHT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHY IT
WAS CALCULATED. >> TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS TRY TO QUANTIFY IT. THE MEASUREMENT IS THE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT, 4 1/2 FEET FROM THE GROUND, AND THE WAY WE GO ABOUT MEASURING THAT IS, WE TAKE A MEASUREMENT OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE TREE THAT CAN BE DONE WITH A ROPE, IT CAN BE DONE WITH TWINE, IT CAN BE DONE WITH A FLEXIBLE TAPE, AND THAT'S TRANSFERRED INTO A MEASUREMENT IN INCHES AS INDICATED IN OUR E- MAIL TO THE OFFICER. THAT CIRCUMFERENCE WE MEASURED WAS 148.5 INCHES THAT IS DETERMINED ONCE YOU GET THE CIRCUMFERENCE DIVIDE BY PI, 3.
14 AND GIVES YOU THE TOTAL MEASUREMENT IN INCHES IN THIS CASE FOR 47. 3 INCHES.
>> AND WERE THERE OTHER TREES THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THIS PROPERTY THAN JUST THIS ONE?
>> YES, THERE WERE. IT WAS QUITE EXTENSIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. I'M -- THE EXACT COUNT WE FOCUSED ON THIS TREE, I THINK IT WAS THE WORST AND THE MOST SIGNIFICANT, BUT THERE WERE OTHER TREES ON THE PROPERTY.
>> WERE THERE OTHER TREES THAT WERE JUST TRIMMED OR WERE THEY COMPLETELY TAKEN DOWN?
>> THEY WERE TRIMMED AS WELL, NOT TAKEN DOWN.
>> AND DO YOU REMEMBER IF ANY OF THOSE WERE OAK TREES OR OTHER SORT OF PROTECTED SPECIES?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT HASN'T BEEN COVERED?
>> NO, I THINK THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS.
>> I'M DOING WELL, HOW ARE YOU?
>> AND WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY?
>> FRIEND TO -- TO ROLANDO. HE'S THE
OWNER. >> AND WHY IS -- ISN'T MR. MELHAM, WHY IS HE NOT HERE WITH US TODAY?
>> HE'S WORKING, AND HE WASN'T ABLE TO TAKE THE TIME
OFF. >> SO TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON?
>> SO WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE NOT TOO LONG AGO.
IT WAS COMPLETELY IN SHAMBLES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF BUT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE FIXED.
THE MAIN PROBLEM WAS THAT THE BRANCHES WENT OVER AND INSIDE THE ROOF BECAUSE I GUESS IT HAD BEEN ABANDONED FOR SO LONG. I HAVE PICTURES IF YOU MAY WANT TO SEE THEM. IF YOU ACTUALLY GO TO THE GOOGLE MAPS, THEY'RE THERE WHERE IT SHOWS THE BRANCHES INSIDE THE HOUSE. THOSE WERE THE MAIN BRANCHES THAT WE CUT BACK. WE APOLOGIZE.
WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT WE HAD TO ASK FOR A PERMIT OR THE DEPTH LIKE I HAVE JUST LEARNED NOW. I LIVE IN PORT ST. LUCIE AND I GUESS THE RULES ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND WE SHOULD INFORM OURSELVES BETTER. I DO APOLOGIZE.
THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO KILL THE TREE.
YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANTED TO TRIM IT AND SINCE WE PUT THE NEW ROOF, WE WANTED TO PREVENT
ANYTHING ELSE FROM HAPPENING. >> AND SO YOU SAID YOU HAD PHOTOGRAPHS YOU WANTED TO SHOW ME?
>> ON MY PHONE. I DIDN'T PRINT THEM OUT.
I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD TO. THAT IS OKAY. I SHOW YOU
>> I WILL HAVE A LOOK AS LONG AS YOU LET THE CITY HAVE A LOOK
FIRST. >> WE CAN DISPLAY THAT ON THE CAMERA.
>> THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS NOW. TOWARDS THE END YOU SEE THE PICTURES OF --
OF COURSE. >> AND THEN YOU CAN
>> DO YOU WANT TO BRING THE PHONE A LITTLE BIT
LOWER. YEAH. >>Ć·Ć· RIGHT NOW.
[00:15:01]
>> PRETTY BAD CONDITION. THE TREE WAS COMPLETELY INSIDE.
SEE A BRANCH THERE. THAT'S WHERE THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE ROOF WAS. THAT'S WHY PLASTIC OVER. WE TOOK JUST TO KIND OF SHOW YOU. GRASS AS WELL OVER THE HOUSE.
AGAIN, WE DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW.
>> THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?
>> I FEEL SO BAD, YOU KNOW, AFTER HEARING WHAT HE SAID. AGAIN, WE DIDN'T KNOW.
>> UNDERSTOOD. AND THIS -- I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. GREEN, MR. FERNANDEZ, OR MR. SOSEDO MAYBE YOU CAN ENLIGHTEN ME.
IN LIGHT OF THE TRIMMING THAT WAS DONE, HAD A PERMIT BEEN APPLIED FOR, WOULD THIS TRIMMING HAVE
BEEN APPROVED? >> I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING MORE FOR MARK, BUT I BELIEVE, YES.
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF WORK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET OR THEY WOULD WANT TO DO, BUT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE ON THEIR END.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
APPROVED. >> SO SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT TYPICALLY IS DOES IT HAVE ANY DISEASE IN THE TREE? DOES IT HAVE ANY DAMAGE, PHYSICAL DAMAGE, FROM PAST STORMS OR WIND DAMAGE? IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE BECAUSE IT'S AFTER THE FACT NOW FOR THE SIMPLE THINGS LIKE THAT TO LOOK AT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY GONE WHEN WE GOT THERE, SO WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING TREES WERE AT THE TIME. HOWEVER THERE WAS NOTHING REALLY WE COULD DETERMINE AFTER IT WAS GONE TO HELP US GOING FORWARD, OTHER THAN LOOKING TO THE DAMAGE TO THE TREE AS IT CURRENTLY WAS AT THAT TIME.
>> I THINK THAT GIVES ME ADEQUATE INSIGHT.
THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES?
>> I THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. IF YOU COULD EXTEND TO MR. MELHAM, YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF SEEKING THESE PERMITS ARE SIMPLY BECAUSE THESE ARE PROTECTED TREES AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MR. GREEN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS TRIMMING COULD HAVE HAD ULTIMATELY ON THE TREES THEMSELVES. AND SO ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND, I SYMPATHIZE THAT ALTHOUGH MR. MELHAM MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN HE WAS REQUIRED TO GET A PERMIT, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE, RIGHT. SO THAT BEING SAID, IT'S THE FINDING OF THIS COURT THAT PER STATUTE 162- 09 SUBSECTION A THE VIOLATION IS DETERMINED TO BE IRREPARABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IN NATURE.
GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE PROTECTED TREE, STAFF -- THE COURT IS WILLING TO TAKE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $5,000.
THE VIOLATOR WILL BE ASSESSED A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 TO BE PAID WITHIN THIRTY DAYS TO THE TREE CITY FUND.
MS. SOLAR, MR. MELHAM DOES HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IF HE SO CHOOSES, BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.
[2. Case Number: CE-2025-244 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 911 Atlantic Ave]
>> MY APOLOGIES. OUR NEXT CASE THE SECOND IN VIOLATION CASES CE-2025-244. AT 911 ATLANTIC AVENUE.
>> GOOD MORNING, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
MY NAME IS HEATHER DEBEVEC CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT. THIS -- THANK YOU.
THIS IS CASE NUMBER CE, 2025- 224 FOR THE LOCATION OF 911 ATLANTIC AVENUE.
THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED APRIL 11TH OF 2025.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS -- FORGIVE ME IF I
[00:20:02]
MISPRONOUNCE LOTTIE BROOM.VIOLATIONS 24- 19 SUBSECTION A AND B, NUISANCE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES.
24- 19 SUBSECTION 6 D, NUISANCE OF OUTSIDE STORAGE.
30- 28 SUBSECTION C, PLACEMENT OF CONTAINERS.
IPMC 3. 207 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
IPMC 3. 02 PROTECTED TREATMENT. IPMC 702. 4 EMERGENCY ESCAPE OPENINGS. I DO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH ANYBODY FOR THE PROPERTY, SO THE GENTLEMAN TO MY LEFT HAS NOT SEEN THEM AS OF
YET. >> SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THEY'RE HANDED UP?
>> NO. I'M NOT HERE TO DEBATE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. MY THING IS, MY MOTHER, SHE'S UP IN AGE. THAT'S MY MOTHER.
SHE'S THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> ME AND MY SISTER TO GET GET THINGS TOGETHER FOR HER.
>> I'LL HOW THE CITY TO MAKE THEIR CASE AND YOU'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR SIDE.
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JUNE 16TH, A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PHOTOGRAPHS DATED AUGUST 11TH AND AUGUST 18TH. THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM.
>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE
1. >> AND, OFFICER, THE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE LISTED ARE ALL OF THOSE STILL OUTSTANDING AT THIS TIME?
>> THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER FROM
THE CITY. >> GOOD MORNING, SIR.
>> YOU SAID YOU'RE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S
>> AND CAN YOU PRONOUNCE HER NAME FOR ME?
>> ALL RIGHT. SO TELL ME, SIR, WHAT'S GOING ON?
>> JUST SOME -- MY MOM REALLY HASN'T BEEN AT THE RESIDENCE SINCE AFTER MY FATHER PASSED.
THAT'S BEEN LIKE TEN YEARS. SHE'S BEEN GONE FROM THE HOUSE AROUND EIGHT. SHE STAYS WITH MY YOUNGER SISTER. SO IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF STUFF GOING ON AT THE HOUSE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT NOBODY IS REALLY
THERE. >> WELL, WHO IS THERE? IS IT OCCUPIED? IS IT BEING RENTED OUT?
>> NO. EVERY NOW AND THEN I GO THROUGH, I GOT A DOG IN THE BACKYARD, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT I STAY AT ANOTHER RESIDENCE. BUT AFTER MY -- AFTER MY PASSED DOESN'T LIKE BEING THERE.
>> RIGHT. AND SO I'M SEEING A LOT OF DEBRIS IN THESE PICTURES HERE. SO WHAT CAUSED -- WHAT BROUGHT THESE -- WHO IS PUTTING THAT THERE? HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN THERE?
>> I'M SEEING -- I THINK THE FIRST PICTURE, IF WE CAN PULL IT UP. YES, SIR.
SO IF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT, HOW -- WHO IS PUTTING ALL THIS STUFF
THERE? >> YOUR HONOR IF I MAY?
>> SIR, NOT TO NEGATE ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WHEN I'VE BEEN BY, THERE HAS BEEN OTHER GENTLEMEN THERE.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CAR YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE IS OFTEN RUNNINGOUT FRONT, WHETHER IT'S OCCUPIED OR NOT, I CAN'T REALLY TELL.
AROUND. >> THAT'S MY COUSIN'S CAR.
HE DOESN'T STAY THERE. JUST BECAUSE HE'S IN THE CAR DOESN'T MEAN HE STAYS THERE.
>> OKAY. SO TELL ME, WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON HERE? WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE
FOR ME? >> I JUST NEED TIME TO GET THINGS IN ORDER AS FAR AS CLEANING UP, THAT'S ALL.
>> NO. YOU KNOW, BASICALLY MY MOM SHE'S ON A FIXED INCOME. SHE JUST REALLY AIN'T BEEN THERE SINCE MY FATHER DIED.
>> WELL, I THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF YOUR MOTHER.
MY CONDOLENCES FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR FATHER.
BUT THIS DEFINITELY -- I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE STEPS TO GET THIS, YOU KNOW, RECTIFIED, BUT IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
[00:25:01]
I DON'T KNOW WHAT SITUATION IS GOING ON.WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE STAYING THERE.
BUT WE HAVE DEBRIS COLLECTING. I SEE THE RECOMMENDATION IS 30 DAYS. I'M INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE 30 DAYS. AND SO IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING A VIOLATION DOES EXIST, AND THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED.
THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED AN TRIM ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE AS STATED ABOVE AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS. GENERATED FROM BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. CLEAN OFF ALL FENCE LINES, REMOVE LOOSE ITEMS FROM THE YARD, STORE WASTE BINS TO THE SIDE OR REAR OF THE HOME, REPAIR THE FENCE WHERE PIECES ARE MISSING AND DETERIORATING, PRESSURE WASH THE HOME AND FENCE WHERE DISCOLORATION IS OCCURRING.
IF THIS IS -- IF THIS IS NOT, THEN PAINT.
PLACE HOUSE NUMBERS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY, REMOVE THE COVERINGS FROM THE WINDOWS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED.
MR. BROOM, KNOW THAT YOUR MOTHER DOES HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IF SHE SO CHOOSES AND I DID ORDER 30 DAYS FOR THIS TO BE DONE, BUT IF YOU DID NEED ADDITIONAL TIME, I INVITE YOU TO CALL THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE.
I DON'T MIND GIVING YOU EXTRA TIME IF THEY DEEM THAT PRUDENT.
BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE SEE MOVEMENT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.
>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE, PLEASE.
[1. Case Number: NAVI-2025-00006 (Previously 24-432) Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 2420 Sunrise Blvd]
>> OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE IN LIEN REDUCTION REQUEST.
2025- 6 PREVIOUSLY NAVALINE CASE 432, AT 2420 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. YOU CAN NOW COME UP TO THE
THIS IS CASE NUMBER 2025- 6 PREVIOUSLY CASE NUMBER OF 24- 432 IT IS FOR 2420 SUNRISE BOULEVARD OWNED BY JAMES HOLLAND, AND ALEXANDRIA LOPEZ.
THE VIOLATIONS FOR EMERGENCY ESCAPE OPENINGS, IPMC 3.
043 ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION, PROTECTIVE TREATMENT.
ON AUGUST 21ST OF 2024, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE VIOLATORS 60 DAYS TO COMPLY OR FINED $100 PER DAY. AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED AND FINES WERE STARTED.
FEBRUARY 4TH OF 2025, ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN ISSUED AND MAILED TO THE OWNER. JUNE 6TH OF 2025, THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE. JUNE 10TH OF 2025, REQUEST FOR REDUCTION WAS RECEIVED. THE BALANCE AS OF THAT IS $21,820. THE REDUCTION CRITERIA WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION IN THE LIEN, YES. WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTING OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH PROVIDED TIMELY COMPLIANCE TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE.
NO. WHETHER THERE IS CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. NO.
THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP OF THE PAST 24 MONTHS.
NONE. WHETHER GRANTING OF THE REDUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
>> OFFICER, THERE'S ALSO A RECOMMENDATION HERE.
STATE? >> UPON REVIEW OF THE FILE AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO RECOMMEND THE REDUCTION BELOW STAFF'S PERMITTED AUTHORITY OF 5,000.
>> AND THAT IS WHY IT'S HERE FOR THE LIEN REDUCTION?
>> THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING, YES,
MA'AM. >> JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION, IS THAT AUTHORITY OF 5,0005,000 THE 21,000 OR TO 5,000?
>> NO. WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE -- HAVE -- IS THIS MR. HOLLAND AND MS. LOPEZ?
[00:30:01]
HOLLAND. >> IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
>> MY NAME IS ALEXANDRIA HOLLAND. I HAVEN'T BEEN A LOPEZ IN A LONG TIME.
>> OKAY. I THINK YOUR NAME WAS JUST LISTED AS THAT IN THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S FINE. I DID CORRECT THAT WITH THEM WHEN I CALLED THEM.
>> OKAY. WELL YOU ARE THE INDIVIDUAL --
>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY OR BE HEARD ON? HOW MUCH YOU'RE ASKING FOR THIS TO BE REDUCED BY AND WHY?
>> I'M SORRY. LISTEN, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME BEING IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS, SO MY EX- HUSBAND CAME IN HERE IN JUNE OF 2024 -- JULY, AUGUST? AUGUST OF 2024.
HE DIDN'T MAKE ME AWARE OF THE SITUATION.
I DO KNOW THAT HE HAS DIABETES, AND HE HAS NEUROPATHY.
I KNOW HE GOT THE EXTENSION AFTER ONE OF THE LADIES IN YOUR OFFICE SENT ME AN E- MAIL OF HIM BEING IN COURT.
AS SOON AS I RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL I SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT IT. HE HAD EXPLAINED TO ME THAT HE MISUNDERSTOOD A PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING THAT AFTER HE HAD DONE EVERYTHING ON THE LIST, THAT HE WAS TO CALL IN AND REPORT THAT IT WAS DONE FOR THEM TO COME BY AND DRIVE BY THE HOUSE. HE DID EVERYTHING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO WITHIN THE 60 DAYS THEY GRANTED HIM. BUT HE NEVER CALLED IT IN. HE FORGOT. HE MADE A MISTAKE.
HE DIDN'T REALIZE, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
IT IS A DRASTIC AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR US TO PAY IN REGARDS TO OUR INCOMES AND WHO WE ARE. WE HAVE A CHILD WITH AUTISM. IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS, I WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED IT, I WOULD HAVE CALLED JUST LIKE I DID THE DAY WHEN I DID FIND OUT ABOUT IT. I CALLED THEM.
I HAD THE CASE CLOSED WITHIN DAYS.
I AM ABLE BODY. I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HELP HIM IF HE DIDN'T FEEL SO BAD ABOUT TELLING ME ABOUT IT.
HE JUST WAS EMBARRASSED OF THE WHOLE SITUATION. I'M ONLY ASKING FOR A DISCOUNT.
I DO BELIEVE WE SHOULD PAY YOU GUYS SOMETHING.
$5,000 ON OUR INCOME IS ASTRONOMICAL, TRULY, AND IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PAY SOMETHING, IT'S OUR HOME, WE TAKE PRIDE IN IT.
WE WANT IT TO LOOK RIGHT. BUT WE JUST -- IT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO BE REQUESTING FOR US FOR WHAT I FEEL IS NOT THAT MUCH OF WORK. WE DID IT.
HE HAD GOT IT DONE WITHIN LESS THAN 30 DAYS, CORRECT?
>> YES. I WAS SUPPOSED TO PAINT THE TRIM.
MS. MS. HEATHER, REMOVE THE BOARDS WHICH WE DID. PUT THE LETTERS ON THE MAILBOX.
I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS SUPPOSED TO CALL.
MY EX- WIFE GOT INVOLVED AND THEN MY EX- WIFE DECIDED LET'S PAINT -- SHE PAINTED GOT THE WHOLE HOUSE PAINTED, CUT DOWN SOME WEEDS THAT WERE GROWING UP, DID A MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN ME. BUT.
>> BUT LETTERS NOT ONLY ON THE MAILBOX, BUT NUMBERS I SHOULD SAY ON THE -- BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MISS THE HOUSE. SHE PAINTED EVERYTHING. BUT AT THAT TIME WE HAD JUST GOT A DIVORCE IN JULY.
>> I KNOW. WE GOT A DIVORCE IN JULY.
I FELT ASHAMED. I FELT WE WERE AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS. AND THEN AULG AUGUST CAME AND THEN IN DECEMBER I GOT REAR ENDED AND THEN I WAS -- MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT.
SHE GOT INVOLVED, WHATEVER, AND SHE TOOK THIS BULL BY THE HORN AND MADE EVERYTHING HAPPEN AND I WISH IF I COULD DO IT BACK, HINDSIGHT IS 2020, MAKE THINGS RIGHT.
I DON'T HAVE 5,000. THAT'S ONE SIXTH, ONE- FIFTH OF MY SALARY. I'M -- LIKE YOU SAID EARLIER TO THE OTHER -- TO THE LADY UP HERE IGNORANCE YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT. I SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING.
SHOULD I BE PENALIZED, YES. ONE-FIFTH OF MY SALARY THAT'S JUST A LOT FOR ME. I'M SO SORRY.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND EXPLAINING THIS TO ME AND BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED. MS. HOLLAND, JUST TO CONFIRM DURING ANY OF THIS PERIOD WERE YOU LIVING AT THE PROPERTY?
YES AND NO. I DO LIVE WITH MY BOYFRIEND.
BUT, YES, I DO COME TO THE PROPERTY TO VISIT THE DOG, HANG OUT WITH MY DAUGHTER, PLAY IN THE POOL.
SOMETIMES I'LL SPEND THE NIGHT AND WE'LL HAVE LIKE A LITTLE SPEND THE NIGHT OVERS.
JAMES DOES MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY. SO WHEN HE DIDN'T TELL ME, I DIDN'T KNOW. LIKE I SAID, I AM ABLE BODIED I WOULD HAVE HAD IT DONE AND I DID HAVE IT DONE. HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD AND THEN I WENT BACK IN AND REDID EVERYTHING. I HIRED TWO GENTLEMEN TO MAKE SURE IT WAS PRISTINE, THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUES, SO THAT WHEN I CLOSED THAT CASE THAT MONDAY, IT WAS DONE PERFECTLY WELL.
AND ONCE AGAIN, LIKE IF I KNEW WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, CAN I JUST JUMP IN HERE.
AFTER HEARING THE SITUATION, THE CITY WOULD AGREE ON HAVING IT REDUCED TO THE TOTAL COST -- THE AD MIN COSTS WHICH WOULD BE
[00:35:05]
A TOTAL OF$1,264.65. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES?
NOW. >> BEST FRIENDS NOW. OTHER TIME --
>> ALL RIGHT. SO I TAKE IT NOTHING FURTHER FROM YOU GUYS?
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE LIKE YOU UNDERSTOOD THE SITUATION AND THAT IT IS IN PERFECT CONDITION AT THIS TIME.
>> ABSOLUTELY. OFFICER DEBEVEC, ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE
>> I'LL TAKE -- I'M INCLINED TO TAKE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF RE DEUCING THE AMOUNT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF $1,264.65. IF I WERE TO PROVIDE 30 DAYS TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT, DO YOU FIND
PAYING THAT TODAY. >> EXCELLENT.
SO IT IS MY ORDER THAT THIS BE REDUCED TO THE AMOUNT OF $1,264.65. TO BE PAID IN 30 DAYS.
IF IT IS NOT PAID IN THAT 30 DAYS, IT WILL BE -- IT WILL REVERT BACK TO THE 21,000 AMOUNT.
YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
BUT I THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND FOR FEELING COMFORTABLE TO SHARE THE BACKGROUND WITH ME.
>> ABSOLUTELY. AND WHERE DO WE
PAY THIS? >> GOING TO SEND YOU A LINK TO PAY ONLINE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
[3. Case Number: CE-2025-254 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 1107 Hemlock Cir]
>> WE'RE GOING TO RETURN BACK TO OUR REGULAR ORDER AND START WITH THE THIRD CASE IN VIOLATION CASES WHICH WILL BE CE 2025- 254 FOR 1107 HEMLOCK CIRCLE.
>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. CHARMAINE KIRKLAND CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
THIS IS CASE CE-2025-254. IT'S A REGULAR CASE.
NOV ISSUE DATE WAS MARCH 25, 2025.
SERVICE IT WAS REGULAR MAIL. ISSUE DATE WAS JULY 21ST, 2025.
NTA SERVICE METHOD CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY AUGUST 8TH, 2025. LAST INSPECTION DATE WAS AUGUST 19, 2025. THE OWNER IS JEREMY GREEN.
THE VIOLATIONS ARE 24- 19 SUBSECTION 6, SUBSECTION B, NUISANCES. IPMC 3. 04 PROTECTED TREATMENT AND I HAVE PHOTOS TO DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS I WITNESSED IT.
>> CAN YOU LIST THE ONES THAT ARE COMPLIED, PLEASE.
>> THE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE COMPLIED ARE IPMC 302. 7, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND IPMC 302 EMERGENCY ESCAPE
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AUGUST 19TH, AUGUST 9 TH, AND MAY 23RD. THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU.
>> DOT PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICTURE THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM?
>> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S
COMPOSITE 1. >> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> MS. KIRKLAND, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> AND YOU STATED THAT IN YOUR MOST RECENT VISIT, THOUGH, THERE TWO OF THE VIOLATIONS HAD BEEN COMPLIED.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> WHAT'S OUTSTANDING ARE THE OUTSIDE OUTSIDE STORAGE NUISANCE AND PROTECTIVE TREATMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED ON
MA'AM. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE
IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING A VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO -- IN AS FAR AS IT'S NOT BEEN DONE REMOVE ALL WOOD BOARDS, REPAIR OR REMOVE THE FENCE WHERE DISREPAIR HAS OCCURRED, PRESSURE WASH OR PAINT WHERE CHIPPING, MOLDING, DISCOLORATION OR DETERIORATION HAS OCCURRED AND REMOVE BOARDS FROM ALL WINDOWS -- WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THE HOME.
FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
[4. Case Number: CE-2025-332 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 3107 Atlantic Avenue ]
[00:40:02]
>> OUR NEXT CASE IS CE 2025- 332 AT 3107 ATLANTIC AVENUE.
>> CASE NUMBER CE 2025-332 OCCURRED AT 3107 ATLANTIC AVENUE. NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUE DATE WAS MAY 23RD, 2025. NOTICE OF VIOLATION SERVICE METHOD REGULAR MAIL ISSUE DATE WAS JULY 23RD, 2025, NTA SERVICE METHOD, REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL, POSTED AT PROPERTY, JULY 25TH 20, 25. LAST INSPECTION DATE AUGUST 5TH, 2025. THE OWNERS ARE PEDRO MORANO AND LILLY ANNA MARTINEZ. VIOLATIONS ARE 123- 37 SUBSECTION 12, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, 125- 322, SUBSECTION C, SUBSECTION 1 FENCES HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, 24. 19 SUBSECTION 6, SUBSECTION A NUISANCES OUTSIDE STORAGE, TRASH AND RUBBISH.
24.19 SUBSECTION 6, C, NUISANCES.
24- 19 SUBSECTION C AND D NUISANCES.
30. 28 SUBSECTION D CONTAINERS IN PLACE AND I HAVE PHOTOS TO DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS I WITNESSED IT.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY WAS THAT LAST INSPECTION AUGUST 5TH OR --
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PHOTOGRAPHS DATED AUGUST 19 TH, AUGUST 9TH, JUNE 24TH, AND MAY 23RD.
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVED THEM.
>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S
COMPOSITE 1. >> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> OFFICER, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THESE PROPERTY
OWNERS? >> I -- IN THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION I MADE CONTACT WITH MS. MARTINEZ AND ON A SEPARATE INSPECTION, I MADE CONTACT WITH MR. MALDONADO, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO FURTHER CONTACT.
>> FROM YOUR INITIAL INSPECTION AND THEN YOUR CONTACT WITH MR. MALDONADO AFTER THE FACT, WERE THEY AWARE OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE OUTSTANDING? DID YOU EXPLAIN IT TO THEM, WHAT NEEDED TO BE CURED ON THE PROPERTY?
AWARE. >> AND HAS ANYTHING BEEN CURED IN THESE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE LISTED?
>> HOW STU COME TO LEARN ABOUT THIS PROPERTY?
>> THIS WAS A COMPLAINT FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, I
BELIEVE. >> DID SOMEONE MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THEM THAT WAS FORWARDED TO YOU ALL?
>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST AND THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED.
THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT THE GRASS AND TRIM ALL LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING BUSHES, TREES AND SHRUBS, SO THAT THE -- SO THAT IT PRESENTS A HEALTHY NEAT AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE. CUT AND TRIM ALL HEDGES IN THE FRONT YARD TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.
REMOVE DEBRIS AND ALL TRASH RELATED ITEMS. REMOVE ALL CONCRETE BLOCKS AND WOOD BOARDS.
REMOVE WATER AND PLASTIC STORM CONTAINERS AND ALL DISABLED CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING TOOLS.
PLACE ALL TRASH CONTAINERS ON THE SIDE OR REAR OF THE HOUSE ON NONCOLLECTION DAYS.
FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.
[1. Case Number: LTCL-2025-120 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 3101 Louisiana Avenue ]
>> OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE NUISANCES.
LTCL 2025-120. AT 3101 LOUISIANA AVENUE.
>> CASE NUMBER LTCL 2025-120. IS A LOT CLEARING OCCURRED ON JUNE 17, 2025. WAS THE NOV ISSUE DATE, SERVICE REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY.
THE NTA ISSUE DATE WAS JUNE 25, 2025.
NTA SERVICE METHOD, REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY, JUNE 25 TH, 2025.
[00:45:05]
LAST INSPECTION DATE AUGUST 19TH, 2025.THE OWNERS FP 34A LLC AND REGISTERED AGENT ANDERSON.
THE VIOLATION IS 24- 19 SUBSECTION 11A AND B.
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR LESS THAN THREE ACRE PROPERTIES HAVE PHOTOS TO DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS I WITNESSED IT.
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JUNE 25TH AND AUGUST 9TH AND AUGUST 19TH. THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?
>> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE
1. >> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> OFFICER, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE COMPANY PROPERTY OWNER.
>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
>> IT'S THIS COURT FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTING IN THE VIOLATION OF THE COURT OF ORDINANCES AND SUCH CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELL FARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE PROGRAM.
THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED, TRIM ALL TREES AND SHRUBS AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS GENERATED FROM BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES AND THE CITY IS TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ABATE THE NUISANCE CONDITION, THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE THE THIRD CASE IN NUISANCES, LTCL-2025-135.
[3. Case Number: LTCL-2025-135 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 1835 Sandridge Rd]
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, CASE NUMBER LTCL 2025- 135 FOR 1835 SANDRIM ROAD.
IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT CLEARING.
THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH OF THIS YEAR. THE NOTICE TO APPEAR WAS JULY 2ND ALONG WITH A POSTING ON JULY 2ND.
ALL MAILINGS WERE REGULAR, CERTIFIED AND POSTED AT THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS A JASON MERRITT.
THE VIOLATION IS 2419 SUBSECTIONS 11A AND B, NUISANCE LANDSCAPE FOR LESS THAN THREE ACRES. I HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT.
I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. MERIT YESTERDAY WHICH WAS MY FIRST CONTACT WITH HIM. HE IS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GET OFF WORK.
HE IS REQUESTING 14 DAYS TO ENSURE EVERYTHING IS TAKEN CARE OF.
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JUNE 17TH, AUGUST 11, AND AUGUST 18. THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICTURE THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED IT?
>> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> ALSO, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, THEY HAVE CUT THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S JUST MINOR LIKE REMOVING SOME DEAD DEBRIS AND SOME OTHER TRIMMING THAT NEEDED TO BE -- LEFT TO BE DONE AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.
>> OFFICER, DO YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PARTICULAR OBJECTION TO THE 14 DAYS HE REQUESTED?
IT'S THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A -- THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THAT SUCH NUISANCE CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN
[00:50:02]
14 DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED AND TRIM ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS GENERATED FROM BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES AND THE CITY TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ABATE THE NUISANCE CONDITION, THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE,
[4. Case Number: LTCL-2025-136 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 1839 Sandridge Rd]
PLEASE. >> OUR LAST CASE TODAY IS LTCL 2025- 136 AT 1839 SANDRIDGE ROAD.
>> YOUR HONOR THIS IS LTCL 2025-136.
1839 SANDRIM ROAD. IT IS A LOT CLEARING.
THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH.
NOTICE TO APPEAR JULY 2ND, POSTING JULY 2ND.
ALL MAILINGS DONE REGULAR, CERTIFIED AND POSTED TO THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS JASON MERIT.
THE VIOLATION 2419 SUBSECTIONS A AND B, NUISANCE FOR LESS THAN THREE ACRE. I HAVE PHOTOS TO SUBMIT.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE SAME GENTLEMAN.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CUT. IT HAS TWO RECLINERS ON THE PROPERTY THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED.
HE'S ASKING FOR THE 14 DAYS TO KIND OF TAKE CARE OF BOTH PROPERTIES IS MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE SPOKE.
>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JUNE 17TH, AUGUST 11, AUGUST 18. THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?
>> DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED
MA'AM. >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>> AND SIMILARLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OX TO THE
>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
>> IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDNANCES AND THAT SUCH NUISANCE CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND THAT THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CITY'S NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 14 DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS TRIM ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS INCLUDING LANDSCAPE, DEBRIS GENERATED FROM BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES. THE CITY IS TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ABATE THE NUISANCE CONDITION, THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY, WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
[a. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]
>> CE 2025- 239 AT 812 ATLANTIC AVENUE.
CE 2025-247 AT 099 ATLANTIC AVENUE.
THE FOLLOWING WILL BE LOT CLEARING CASES.
2025- 182 AT 423 NORTH 13TH STREET.
2025- 106 AT ORANGE AVENUE. 2025- 107 AT 1809 OERNL AVENUE.
2025- 108 AT 1807 ORANGE AVENUE. 1805 ORANGE AVENUE.
2025-116 AT 1833 SANDRIDGE LANE. 2025- 117 AT HERNANDO STREET.
2025-118 ON POREPES AVENUE. 2025- 119 AT SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE.
2025- 168 AT AVENUE F. THE FOLLOWING WILL BE NONOPERATIVE VEHICLE CASES. 2025- 128 AT 1807 ORANGE AVENUE.
2025- 129 AT 1805 ORANGE AVENUE. 2025-130 AT 1805 ORANGE AVENUE WITH 131, 132, 133, 134 ALL AT 1805 ORANGE AVENUE.
2025- 126 AT 1807 ORANGE AVENUE. 127 AT 1807 ORANGE AVENUE.
[00:55:06]
2025-135 AT 1805 ONLY AVENUE WITH 136, 137, AND 138.AND 141. CODE CASE 2025- 249 AT 827 ATLANTIC AVENUE. CODE CASE 2025- 250 AT 815 ATLANTIC AVENUE. CODE CASE 2025- 251 AT 809 ATLANTIC AVENUE. NONON 2025- 142 AT 1401 ORANGE AVENUE. NONON 2025 AT 5045 SOUTH U.S.
HIGHWAY 1. LOT CLEARING CASES 2025-161.
AT 1212 AVENUE F. 2025- 162 AT AVENUE F.
2025- 163 AT 1202 AVENUE F. 2025-165 AT 707 NORTH 12TH STREET. 2025- 188 AT 705 NORTH 12TH STREET. 148 AT 1805 ORANGE AVENUE.
CODE CASES 2025- 248 AT 1902 YORK COURT. CODE CASE 2025- 245 AT 1912 YORK
[2. Case Number: LTCL-2025-166 Investigating Officer: Jarvis Gamble Violation Location: 1130 Avenue F]
COURT. AND LOT CLEARING 2025- 166 AT 1130 AVENUE F. SO FOR CASES REQUIRING A HEARING PER STATE STATUTE 162. 12 A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR CERTIFIED MAIL, THE FREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED PLACED IN THE FILE, IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED, AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WITH THE NOTICE IS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR REGULAR U.S. MAIL TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN CITY HALL. A NOTICE OF HEARING IS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF THE GREEN CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, THE POSTING IS COMPLETED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIM.FOR CASES NOT MANDATED MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING ARE HANDLED IN THE SAME MANNER STATED PRIOR.
IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED, UNCLAIMED, OR NOT RETURNED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN CITY HALL.
>> ALL
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.