Sep 17, 2025 Special Magistrate Hearing

>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. MARTINEZ AND MISS SAIDA, HOW ARE

YOU? >> EXCELLENT.

>> TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> JUST THAT THE -- FENCE WAS LEANING. WE GOT THE NOTICE. SO -- I BASICALLY WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PIECING IT TOGETHER.

AND WE TOOK IT ALL DOWN AND NOW THAT'S OPEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND READY -- I ALREADY HAVE SOME SUPPLIES READY TO GO.

>> EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED

TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION? >> ACTUALLY I DID ARE HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN I SPOKE TO THE OFFICER I HAD ASKED WHO HAD MADE THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE IT SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION VIA AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT. AND WE WERE ADVISED THAT IT WAS ANONYMOUS. AND IT SAYS THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE -- TO THAT. AND THOSE INCLUDE IF IT PRESENTS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAME, OR WELFARE OR IMMINENT DESTRUCTION TO HABITAT OR SENSITIVE RESOURCES.

US JUST BOND -- I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT FELL INTO THAT CATEGORY BECAUSE IT'S -- WE JUST WERE CURIOUS.

>> JUST CURIOUS. UNDERSTOOD, MISS, DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE

FROM THE CITY? >> THE OFFICER, HOW DID THE

COMPLAINT COME IN? >> IF SHE SAYS IT WAS ANONYMOUS, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. I REMEMBER RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT BY EMAIL. I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS ANONYMOUS OR NOT TO BE VERY HONEST WITH YOU. USUALLY WHEN A SUPERVISOR EMAILS ME THE COMPLAINT, I GO AND TAKE CARE OF IT. THE SAME AS IF I RECEIVE IT THROUGH SAY QUICK FIX OR ANY OTHER.

>> NO NAME OR ADDRESS ATTACHED TOYOTA. DOES CODE ENFORCEMENT BASED ON ITS OWN POLICY STILL GO OUT TO CHECK WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A VISIBLE VIOLATION FROM THE ROAD?

>> DEPENDS ON THE COMPLAINT. MOST OF THOSE ARE UNDER CHAPTER 2419 WHICH IS OUR NEW CENSUS BUT THERE ARE OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT DO FALL INTO THAT. LIKE I SAID I REMEMBER THIS ONE HAD COME TO ME FROM A SUPERVISOR. SO THAT'S WHERE I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.

>> THANK YOU. SO QUESTION FOR YOU. IT'S -- I HAVE BEEN GIVEN A RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE 30 DAYS TO HAVE THIS CONCLUDED AND SOUNDS LIKE YOU STARTED GETTING THIS TOGETHER. IS 30 DAYS REASONABLE? DO YOU FORESEE THAT BEING ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU?

>> WHAT IS IT? ABOUT THREE, FOUR PANELS THAT I HAVE TO GO. ABOUT

HALFWAY. >> EXCELLENT.

>> 30 DAYS. >> VERY GOOD. EXCELLENT. AND ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES?

>> NO. >> NO, YOUR HONOR.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IT'S -- THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST AND THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED.

VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO REPAIR THE FENCE WHERE IT IS LEANING AND BOARDS APPEAR TO BE DETERIORATING. FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED AND MR. MARTINEZ, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IF YOU SO CHOOSE, BUT I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING

DOWN THIS MORNING. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WE DID TEAR DOWN ALL OF THE ROTTING -- OR DETERIORATING PIECES. DOES IT HAVE TO GO BACK UP?

>> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION -- >> ALL OR NOTHING WITH THE FENCE. IF THEY WANTED TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE FENCE, OR IF THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE TO REPLACE IT.

>> DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY? >> YES.

>> YEAH. >> EXCELLENT. WELL, THANK YOU

FOR COMING DOWN THIS MORNING. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHTY. NEXT CASE,

[1. CE-2025-2 2400 S Ocean Dr, Unit 3127 Carlos Alberto Russo Heather Debevec]

PLEASE. >>> OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE MASSE HEARING AND THAT'S OUR FIRST ONE WHICH IS CE 2025-2. 2400 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT 3127. IF YOU CAN PLEASE COME UP TO THE

PODIUM. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> YOUR HONOR, THIS IS CASE NUMBER CE 2025-2. 2400 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT 3127. THIS WAS A MASSE HEARING. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUE DATE WAS JANUARY 2ND OF 2025. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS A CARLOS ALBERTO RUSSO. THE VIOLATIONS WERE 22-506 SUBSECTION B FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION REQUIRED AND 22-506O SHORT TERM RENTAL ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS EXCUSE ME -- ON MARCH 12TH OF THIS YEAR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE BURROW FOUND THE VIOLATIONS

[00:10:02]

EXIST AND GRANTED THE VIOLATOR TEN DAYS TO COMPLY AND $5,000 IN FINES. MARCH 25TH OF 2025, AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED AND JUNE 23RD OF 2025 AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED. JULY 29TH OF 2025, A FINE DISPUTE WAS RECEIVED. THE BALANCE WAS $5,018.50. THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION WAS MODERATE AND ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS AT THAT TIME WERE NONE AND ANY PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS WERE NONCOMMITTED BY THE VIOLATOR. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE VIOLATOR PAY THE REDUCED FINE OF $1,500 WITHIN 30 DAYS AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A -- CORRECTION TO THAT WHERE THEY WERE STRICTLY ASKING FOR HARD COSTS WHICH WOULD BRING IT TO $858.63.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> ARE YOU MR. RUSSO? >> I'M CARLOS' SON, GABRIEL. I LET THEM KNOW THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT BECAUSE HE'S ELDER AND WE'RE NOT RESIDING IN FORT PIERCE. THEY WAS NOT ABLE

TO MAKE THE DRIVE UP. >> WHERE?

>> SOUTH FLORIDA, MIAMI. >> TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON

HERE. >> SO WE HAD RECEIVED THE FINE OF $5,000 AND WE'RE NOW OWNERS OR MY FATHER A NEW OWNER IN THE OCEAN VILLAGE RESIDENCE. AND WE RECEIVED THIS FINE I THINK IN A -- LETTER OF DELINQUENCY. BECAUSE OUR MAILING ADDRESS WAS NOT OUR RESIDENCY SO WE DIDN'T FIND THE FINE IN THE TIMELY MANNER FOR US TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO COMPLY IN, YOU KNOW, SOONER. AS SOON AS WE DID RECEIVE THAT NOTICE, I, YOU KNOW, ACTED SWIFTLY AND I WAS ABLE TO COMPLY AND GET ANY CERTIFICATES AND ANY LICENSES NEEDED AND I SENT THEM TO THE COUNTY AND THEY GRANTED US THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE.

>> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT ARE YOU ASKING ME TO DO

TODAY? >> AFTER SPEAKING WITH I BELIEVE IT WAS THE OFFICER, WE WANTED TO DISPUTE THE CHARGES OF THE $5,000 FINE AS IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE OF US NOT KNOWING THE REALITY OF THE LICENSES AND DIFFERENT CERTIFICATES NEEDED TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN THE COUNTY. JUST, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS NEW OWNERS AND NEW PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY, WE WANTED TO JUST HAVE A SECOND CHANCE NOW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ALL THE CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES APPROVED, YOU KNOW, WE WILL NOW

BE COMPLYING MOVING FORWARD. >> CAN I SEE THE FIRST PAGE?

THANK YOU. >> SO JUST -- FOR THE RECORD, THAT $1,500 DOES INCLUDE THAT HARD COST OF $858.63.

>> HOW IS THE $1,500 CALCULATED. >> JUST AN AMOUNT THAT -- I MEAN, WE INCLUDED THE $858 WHICH THE HARD COSTS AND THEN WE CAN STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GO LOWER THAN THE $858.63.

>> UNDERSTOOD. MAY I SEE THE FIRST PAGE AGAIN? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WELL, ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES?

>> NO, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S MY FINDING THAT IT WOULD BE IN CITY'S BEST INTEREST THAT I GRANT THE REQUEST TO REDUCE AND I'M GOING TO REDUCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $858.63. NOW MR. RUSSO, I'M GIVING YOU 30 DAYS TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT. IF YOU DON'T MAKE THAT PAYMENT IN 30 DAYS, IT'S GOING TO REVERT BACK TO THE $5,000 FIGURE. ANY

QUESTIONS? >> NO. THAT'S IT. I APPRECIATE

IT. >> ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU FOR

COMING DOWN. I APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

GREAT DAY EVERYBODY. >> YOU AS WELL.

>>> NEXT CASE, PLEASE. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS -- I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM IF THE PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE WAS HERE FOR A

[1. Case Number: PK-2025-279 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 100 Melody Lane ]

CASE TODAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO RETURN TO OUR REGULAR ORDER. WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO CITATIONS THIS IS GOING TO BE PK-2025-279. 100 MELODY LANE.

>> YOU SAID 279, CAT? >> YES, WHICH IS GOING TO BE IN PARKING AT THE TOP.

[00:15:01]

>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, SHAREMAN KIRKLAND CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. OCCURRED AT 100 BLOCK OF MELODY LANE. A PARKING CITATION, CITATION ISSUE DATE WAS JUNE 6TH, 2025. MTA ISSUE DATE WAS AUGUST 6TH. 2025. SERVICE MET THE CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED IT AT CITY HALL. THE POSING DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2025. THE OWNER IS SIMONE CHARMLEE SETO, CODE SECTION 34-35A SPECIAL EVENTS ROAD CLOSED. FINE OF $50, ADMIN FEE OF $10 WHICH IS -- LATE FEE OF $18 WHICH IS A TOTAL DUE OF $78. AND I DO HAVE PHOTOS TO DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS I

WITNESSED IT. >> OFFICER KIRKLAND, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THE PARKING CITATION?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> DID YOU TAKE THOSE

PHOTOGRAPHS. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AND THEN THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION

AS YOU OBSERVED IT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE AND CITY'S

COMPOSITE 1. >> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.

>> ADMIN OFFICER, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM MISS SETE THE OWNER?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> THE VIOLATION IS AT A PARTICULAR TIME ON THAT DATE. THERE'S A -- AN EVENT THAT HAPPENS WHERE YOU CANNOT BE PARKED IN THOSE PARKING SPACES,

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM, IT'S -- FRIDAY FEST AND IT OCCURS EVERY FIRST FRIDAY OF THE MONTH.

>> THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED BEFORE THE SIGNS WERE PLACED THAT MORNING. IT WAS PARKED AFTER THE SIGNS WERE PLACED?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. >> IT'S THE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE VIOLATION EXIST AND THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED. VIOLATOR WILL BE ASSESSED A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $78. FAILURE TO PAY SUCH A FINE WITHIN 15 DAYS WILL RESULT IN THE CITATION BEING FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

[1. Case Number: CE-2025-237 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 1010 Seaway Dr]

>>> OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE OUR -- IN VIOLATION CASES. THIS IS CE

2025-237. AT 1010SEAWAY DRIVE. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT CASE NUMBER? I DO APOLOGIZE! YES, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST

ONE IN VIOLATIONS CATEGORY. >> WHICH IS CE 2025-237. RIGHT

THERE. >> YOUR HONOR, THIS IS CASE NUMBER CE 2025-237 FOR 1010-SEAWAY DRIVE. APRIL 10TH, 2025. THE OWNER AT THE PROPERTY IS DOME TEAM LLC. THE VIOLATION IS 117-3 SUBSECTION B SIGNS ANDMAINTENANCE AND I DO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. I DID SPEAK WITH SOMEBODY FROM THE PROPERTY. I WANT TO SAY BACK IN MAY? SAYING THAT THEY'D HAVE THE SIGN REPLACED IN JUNE. IT'S STILL NOT REPLACED.

>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED APRIL 8TH. AND SEPTEMBER 5TH. SEPTEMBER 8TH AND SEPTEMBER 15TH. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> YES, MA'AM. >> YOU ALSO PROVIDED A COPY TO

THE PROPERTY OWNER? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CITY'S COMPOSITE 1 FOR EVIDENCE SO THE CITY MOVES.

>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU. THIS COURT FINDS THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE BROKEN SIGN AND OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY PERMITS AND COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS. FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $250 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

[1. Case Number: LTCL-2025-268 Investigating Officer: Jarvis Gamble Violation Location: 515 N 8th ST]

[00:20:02]

>>> OUR NEXT CASE IS A NUISANCES. THIS IS LTCL-2025-268. 515-NORTH 8TH STREET.

>> GOOD MORNING, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. JARVIS GALLON WITH CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT. VIOLATION LOCATION WAS AT 515 NORTH 8TH STREET. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE TO APPEAR WERE BOTH SENT OUT AUGUST 27TH. 2025. REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. LAST INSPECTION DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2025. VIOLATOR IS BRADLEY DEWAYNE AND SUSAN HENDERSON. SUBSECTIONINGS A AND B. NUISANCES AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR LESS THAN TWO ACRE PROPERTIES AND I HAVE PHOTOS AND A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS SENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> OFFICER GAMBLE. PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT NOTICE THAT WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED. OF THIS YEAR. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?

>> YES, THEY WERE. >> DO THEY DEPICT THE VIOLATION

AS YOU OBSERVED IT? >> YES.

>> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1. I'M SORRY, JUST GOING TO PUT THESE IN ORDER

HERE. >> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO

EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1. >> OFFICER, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM

THE PROPERTY OWNERS? >> I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING.

>> AND HAS THE LANDSCAPING CHANGED IN ALL THOSE DATES THAT

YOU HAD APPEARED? >> NOT AT ALL.

>> DID THIS COME IN AS A COMPLAINT OR DID YOU HAPPEN TO

SEE IT? >> IT WAS OFFICER INITIATED. SO I WAS DRIVING BY THE AREA AND I NOTICED IT OVERGROWN.

>> THANK YOU. IT'S THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THAT SUCH CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROGRAM. TRIM ALL TREES IS 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 BEIG 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. NEXT

CASE, PLEASE. >>> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES. >> WHAT'S A NUISANCE? WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH THAT AND QUESTION IS THAT SEVEN DAYS' NOTICE, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. THAT'S NOT ADEQUATE TIME FOR THE OWNER OF

THE PROPERTY TO -- >> QUESTION FOR YOU, ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 NORTH 8TH STREET?

>> NO, I'M NOT BECAUSE I'M A CITIZEN OF THE CITY AND I HAVE -- A CASE COMING BEFORE YOU GUYS IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I'M LOOKING AT THIS. AND I DON'T SEE WHAT'S THE PUBLIC ISSUE. WHAT'S THE -- WHAT'S THE SAFETY ISSUE? ONE.

AND THE SEVEN DAYS' NOTICE IS NOT ADEQUATE TIME FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO GET THEIR PERMISSIONS AND TO HAVE ENOUGH

TIME TO ADDRESS THE MATTER. >> SIR, RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY, SIR, YOU SAID YOU HAD A HEARING COMING UP?

>> I DO IN -- COMING UP. >> YES, BUT SIR --

>> CHECK ON THIS. >> BUT SIR, QUESTION. YOU HAVE A HEARING COMING UP. WHEN IS THAT HEARING?

>> I'M SORRY? >> WHAT'S YOUR HEARING.

>> AFTER TODAY, IT WAS MOVED FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS? SO AT THAT HEARING, WE HAVE THE TIME SET TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR CASE. THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR RESPECTFULLY, YOU DON'T HAVE STANDING TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE.

RIGHT? BUT WHEN YOURS COMES, I WILL BE HERE GOD -- SIR.

RESPECTFULLY, I'M THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THIS IS MY

COURTROOM. RIGHT? >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> BUT SIR, PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK OVER ME. LET ME FINISH. WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR HEARING, I WILL BE HERE GOD WILLING AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR ARGUMENTS AT THAT TIME. BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY RESPECTFULLY. SO IF YOU COULD, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT AND WATCH. I WON'T STOP YOU FROM DOING THAT. BUT PLEASE DON'T DISRUPT THESE PROCEEDINGS.

>> I'M NOT PLANNING TO DISRUPT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT

[00:25:04]

IS THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. ONE, WHAT'S THE NUISANCE.

>> I'M WILLING TO REPEAT -- SIR. SIR, RESPECTFULLY. SIR, RESPECTFULLY, AGAIN, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE YOUR HEARING AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE YOUR TIME TO SPEAK. BUT THIS IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR PROPERTY. BUT RESPECTFULLY, WHEN YOUR PROPERTY IS CALLED, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. BUT FOR NOW, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.

>> THIS IS AN ISSUE -- >> SIR. SIR. GRANDMOTHER THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> NO THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

>>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING

[4. Case Number: LTCL-2025-144 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 1105 N 25th St]

TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO A NUISANCE CASE. THIS IS GOING TO BE LOT CLEARING 2025-144. 1105 NORTH 25TH STREET AND THIS IS

NUMBER FOUR. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CASE NUMBER LTCL 2025-144.

LOT CLEARING THAT WAS INITIATED ON JULY 5TH. 2025. NOTICE OF -- VIOLATION SERVICE METHOD AND REGULAR MAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. NTA ISSUE DATE WAS JULY 17TH 206-78-9250. NTA SERVICE MET WAS BY REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. POSTING DATE WAS JULY 17TH, 2025. THE LAST INSPECTION DATE WAS SATURDAY, AUGUST THE -- SEPTEMBER THE 13TH. THE OWNER IS RYDER LLC. NUISANCES, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR LESS THAN THREE ACRE PROPERTIES. AND I DO HAVE PHOTOS TO SHOW THE VIOLATION AS I WITNESSED IT. I'M SORRY, THE -- THIS CASE WAS RESCHEDULED FROM A PREVIOUS HEARING, THAT'S WHY THE DATE IS -- THE LAST INSPECTION DATE IS ACTUALLY

SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2025. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. AND OFFICER KIRKLAND, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION SETTING THE HEARING FOR TODAY.

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

>> AND YOU ALSO PROVIDED A COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JULY 17TH AND SEPTEMBER 13TH. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THOSE PARAGRAPHS, THEY WERE

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

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

>> THEY DO. >> AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL LIMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S

COMPOSITE 1. >> OFFICER, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM

THIS OWNER? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> WAVE RIDER. OKAY. HAS THE PROPERTY REMAINED THE SAME FROM THE FIRST DATE YOU OBSERVED IT TO SEPTEMBER 13TH. YOUR LAST

INSPECTION? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> DID THIS COME IN AS A COMPLAINT OR JUST A DRIVE-BY?

>> IT WAS THE INITIAL -- I'M SORRY. OFFICER INITIATED.

>> THANK YOU. IT'S THIS CORTICES FINDING THAT A VIOLATION -- A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. AND THAT SUCH A NUISANCE CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CITY'S PROGRAM. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED AND TRIM ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRISAPE DEBRIS GENE 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 CODITION.

THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

>>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO A MASSE.

ANOTHER MASSE THAT WE HAVE THIS MORNING AND THIS WOULD BE A

TELEPHONE CALL. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> HI MR. SCOTT, THIS IS KATHERINE CALLING YOU LIVE IN OUR COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS THIS MORNING FOR A HEARING.

[2. Case Number: 24-799 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 2009 S US Hwy 1]

>> YEP. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO THIS CASE THAT WE'RE

[00:30:06]

HEARING RIGHT NOW IS CASE NUMBER 24-799 FOR 2009 SOUTH U.S.

HIGHWAY 1. MR. SCOTT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SWEAR YOU IN BEFORE THE CITY PRESENTS THEIR CASE. OKAY?

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> I AM SCOTT. >> DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU. THE CITY WILL PRESENT THEIR CASE NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK

AFTER. OKAY? >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOUR HONOR, THIS IS CASE NUMBER 24-799. THE LOCATION IS 2009 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUE DATE WAS APRIL 5TH OF 2024. THE VIOLATOR IS GATEWAY PLAZA FORT PIERCE ASSOCIATES LLC. IT'S FOR IPMC 302.3 SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS. SEPTEMBER 16TH OF 2024, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOUND THE OWNERS IN VIOLATION AND GAVE 60 DAYS TO COMPLY OR BE FINED $250 A DAY. ON MARCH 24TH, 2025, AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED AND FINES WERE INITIATED.

APRIL 2ND OF 2025, AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS ISSUED. APRIL 3RD OF 2025 A MASSE LEADER WAS SENTTH TO THE OWNER. APRIL 16TH.

2025 RECEIVED THE LETTER REQUEST AND BALANCE OF $1,030. THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION WAS MAJOR. AND ANY AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WERE TO REPAIR THE POTHOLES IN THE PARKING LOT. ANY PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BID THE VIOLATOR WERE NONE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE $1,030

WITHIN 30 DAYS. >> AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE

GENTLEMAN ON THE PHONE AGAIN? >> THE NAME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS

GRANT SCOTT. >> GOOD MORNING, MR. SCOTT. THIS IS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. HOW ARE YOU, SIR?

>> GOOD, HOW ARE YOU DOING? >> I'M DOING WELL. THANK YOU, HAPPY TO BE HERE. SO YOU HEARD THE CITY PRESENT ITS CASE. WHAT

DO YOU HAVE FOR ME THIS MORNING? >> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. THANKS SO MUCH. SO AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE'S AN ORDER OF VIOLATION ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024. THAT REQUIRED US TO GET A PERMIT TO COMPLETE THE SITE WORK AT THE OVERALL GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT WITHIN 60 DAYS. WE WERE IN FOR PERMITS AT THAT TIME AND WERE JUS WAITING ON THE CITY APPROVAL. AND A PERMIT WAS ISSUED. ON MARCH -- LET ME MAKE SURE MY DATE IS RIGHT HERE, ON MARCH 24TH, 2025, MAGGIE FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE REACHED OUT AND NOTIFYING US THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO ISSUE A FINE IF THE POTHOLES WERE NOT FIXED BY MARCH 27TH, 2025. SHE SAID THAT WE WERE IN VIOLATION BECAUSE THE PERMIT FOR THE SITE WORK HAD EXPIRED. THIS WAS ACTUALLY NOT TRUE. AS I HAD INFORMED MISS PEGGY HEREZ. DANIELLE -- I CAN'T SAY HER LAST NAME. DANIELLE FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WHO'S THE PERMIT TECHNICIAN NOTIFIED MYSELF AND THEN I NOTIFIED PEGGY THAT SITE WORK PERMITS DON'T TECHNICALLY EXPIRE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS THERE'S NO REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ASIDE FROM FINAL INSPECTIONS. WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDER WORK OF COMPLETING A $5 MILLION PARKING LOT REHABILITATION. AND INFORMED THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THIS. NONETHELESS, I HAD MY CONTRACTORS GO OUT AND ADDRESS THE POTHOLES THAT WERE REFERENCED. BEFORE THE MARCH 27TH, 2025 DEADLINE. I THEN ALSO NOTIFIED PEGGY OF THIS AS WELL. SO NOT ONLY WERE WE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT, ACTIVELY UNDER REPAIR OF A MASSIVE ROUGHLY 20-ACRE SITE REHABILITATION TO ADDRESS THIS POTHOLE ISSUE PERMANENTLY, WE ALSO THEN SPECIFICALLY COLD PATCHED THE POTHOLES THAT WERE REFERENCED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME REQUESTED BY THE CITY. ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY. SO A LITTLE CONFUSED AT WHERE WE DID NOT COMPLY.

>> AND THANK YOU, MR. SCOTT. QUESTION FOR YOU AGAIN. COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU HAD STATED? WHEN WERE YOU CONTACTED FIRST BY

MISS HEREZ? >> ON MARCH -- WELL, IN RELATION

[00:35:04]

TO THIS NEW REQUEST IN TIME. IT WAS ON MARCH -- JUST GET MY EXACT DATES HERE. ON MARCH 24TH, 2025. I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MISS HEREZ SAYING GOOD AFTERNOON, MY INSPECTOR WAS OUT THERE THIS MORNING TAKING PHOTOS AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND DEVELOPMENT OR NOT, THE PARKING MUST BE KEPT IN SAFE CONDITION.

THIS WAS MEMORIALIZED IN AN ORDER DETERMINED VIOLATION BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024. AS OF TODAY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. UNLESS YOU INTEND TO MAKE YOUR REPAIRS THAT BRING THE AREA OF PARKING LOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND SAFE FOR ALL VEHICLES, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION THAN TOINITIATE FINES OF $250 A DAY. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER INSPECTION FRIDAY, MARCH 28TH. 2025. THOSE REPAIRS REQUESTED WERE COMPLETED

BY THE 27TH. THREE DAYS LATER. >> OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING FOR ME. ANYTHING FROM THE CITY BASED OFF OF THIS

TESTIMONY? >> I HAD EMAILS FROM PEGGY CONCERNING THE CONVERSATION THAT MR. SCOTT IS REFERRING TO.

>> BY PEGGY, YOU MEAN HEREZ? >> CORRECT SIR, SORRY. THE FOLLOW-UP EMAIL. PER NOTICE WE RECEIVED PERMITS TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN THE PROVIDED TIME LANE. YOU ARE CURRENTLY UNDER WAY WITH THIS PROJECT AND MOVING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE ARE THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONCERN. SHE HAD ALSO -- I'M SORRY, THAT WAS FROM MR. SCOTT. IN RESPONSE TO HER EMAIL TO HIM THAT HE WAS JUST REFERRING TO. AS I'M SURE YOU CAN APPRECIATE WE CANNOT COMPLETE 20 ACRES OF SITE WORK OVERNIGHT. PEGGY RESPONDED BASED ON YOUEXCELLENTS BELOW, I REVIEWED YOUR COMMENTS FOR THIS CASE THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE RESURFACING OF THE PARKING LOT EXPIRED ON FEBRUARY 18TH OF 2025 AND WAS NOT RENEWED OR REISSUED.

AND AT THAT POINT, I WAS INSTRUCTED TO FILL OUT THE AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND SHE EXPLAINS THAT FURTHER IN THE EMAIL TO HIM. HIS RESPONSE ON MARCH 26TH AT 7:33 IN THE EVENING ON 2025. WE HAVE SOMEONE GOING OUT THERE TO COLD PATCH THE POTHOLES TOMORROW. AND IF YOU'D LIKE I CAN PROVIDE THE

EMAILS UP TO YOU. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> THIS EMAIL IS ALSO SAVED IN OUR EXHIBIT FOLDER.

>> THE CITY WOULD MOVE THESE INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S

COMPOSITE 1. >> THANK YOU. MR. SCOTT, I'M ASSUMING, SEEING AS IF YOU CAN CONFIRM YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS AS -- GSCOTT@TIMEEQUITIS.COM. COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT?

>> YES, IT IS. >> AND SO I'M GOING TO PRESUME THAT YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE EMAILS. I'LL ADMIT THESE INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT B. AND SO -- MR. SCOTT, I'M SEEING HERE THAT THERE WAS AN INITIAL RULING BACK IN SEPTEMBER. ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GUYS WERE ABLE TO MOVE QUICKLY AND I THANK YOU FOR MOVING QUICKLY.

BASED OFF OF THESE EMAILS HERE. BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHY WASN'T

THIS COMPLIED BACK IN 2024? >> SO WHEN YOU SAY NOT COMPLIED,

SORRY, COULD YOU EXPAND THERE? >> YES. SO THERE WAS AN INITIAL RULING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION IN -- ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024. AND SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHY DID IT TAKE UNTIL IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD EVERYTHING REPAIRED IN MARCH, WHAT? 27TH. YOU MENTIONED. BUT WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG, WHY WAS THAT PERIOD SO LONG?

>> I THINK A FEW THINGS. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT WAS JUST MENTIONED ABOUT OUR PERMIT EXPIRING. AGAIN, FROM THE CITY ITSELF, FROM DANIELLE GONE COOLS HAVE, WHICH IS PROVIDED TO THE

[00:40:03]

CITY, SITE WORK PERMITS DON'T TECHNICALLY EXPIRE AS THERE ARE NO REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ASIDE FROM FINALS. SO ALTHOUGH THE CITY CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT OUR PERMIT WAS EXPIRED, THAT IS NOT THE CASE AND WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SO -- WE HAD BEEN ADDRESSING -- THE SITE HAS BEEN PLAGUED WITH POTHOLES GOING BACK MANY, MANY YEARS. PRIOR TO OUR OWNERSHIP. WE HAD REPEATEDLY ADDRESSED THE PARKING LOT ISSUES THROUGHOUT THIS TIME. THROUGH COLD PATCHING AND REPAVING AND THEN ALSO BY FILLING THEM WITH GRAVEL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LEARNED AFTER ACQUIRING THE SITE IS THAT THE PARKING LOT DID NOT HAVE PROPER DRAINAGE OR WATER FLOW PATTERNS AND ALSO THE SOIL UNDERNEATH IT WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR LONG-TERM PAVING.

AND SO BECAUSE THE SOIL UNDER THE PAVING WAS NOT APPROPRIATE, YOU WOULD REPAVE IT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, A FEW MONTHS LATER, THE ASPHALT WOULD BREAK UP AND YOU'D GET THESE LARGE POTHOLE ISSUES. IN ORDER TO CORRECT THAT. WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH CITY PLANNING AND PERMITTING. AND SPEND AS I SAID, IN EXCESS OF $5 MILLION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ON A MORE PERMANENT BASIS RATHER THAN JUST CONTINUE TO TRY TO PLAY WHAC-A-MOLE AND FIX THESE POTHOLES. GOING THROUGH THE CITY SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS AND PERMITTING PROCESS IS A VERY ARDUOUS TASK. ONE THAT WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDER WAY BACK IN LAST SEPTEMBER. AND WHICH IS WHY WE GOT THE EXTENSION FOR 60 DAYS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AS SOON AS WE GOT THOSE PERMITS, WE STARTED ON THE SITE WORK IMMEDIATELY. WHEN THIS NEW ISSUE AROSE, WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY, WE ACTUALLY REROUTED OUR CONSTRUCTION CREWS TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE OF THE UTMOST CONCERN RATHER THAN THE PLANNED CONSTRUCTION. THIS TOOK BOTH TIME AND EXTRA MONEY. AND SO THEN WE COLD PATCHED THEM AND THEN WE HAD TO LATER GO BACK AND EFFECTIVELY UNDO THE WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE MORE PERMANENT FIX. SO WE WERE MAKING EVERY EFFORT POSSIBLE TO FIX THIS ISSUE NOT JUST IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT IN THE LONG-TERM. THIS HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED NUMEROUS TIMES WITH THE CITY. AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE STILL BEING FINED IN A -- TO BE HONEST, I CAN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY.

>> THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING, MR. SCOTT. AND PLEASE REPEAT FOR ME, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT OR CLARIFY FOR ME, IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THE PERMIT AT ISSUE HERE DOES NOT EXPIRE. OR SHOULD NOT HAVE EXPIRED. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> RIGHT AND THAT WAS PROVIDED TO MISS PEGGY. IT WAS AN EMAIL FROM A CITY REPRESENTATIVE. CITY PERMIT TECHNICIAN. WHEN WE REACHED OUT TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SHE RESPONDED ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26TH. SO YOU KNOW, THREE DAYS AFTER PEGGY HEREZ REACHED OUT TO US. SITE WORK PERM DON'T TECHNICALLY EXPIRE AS THERE ARE NO REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ASIDE FROM FINALS AND JUST SOME CLARIFICATION THERE. AND PLEASE STOP ME IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. BUT TYPICALLY WHEN YOU OPEN A PERMIT, IF YOU DON'T CALL IN INSPECTIONS IN A TIME FRAME, THEY WILL JUST AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE. IF YOU ARE CALLING IN INSPECTIONS, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO EXTEND. JUST BY THE NATURE AND THE CITY POLICY, SITE WORK, THERE ARE -- THERE'S A LOT FEWER INSPECTIONS AND THERE'S REALLY JUST FINAL INSPECTION. AND SO IN THEIR SYSTEM, IT SHOWS AS EXPIRED EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ACTUALLY EXPIRED AND THAT'S WHAT THE CITY'S OWN REPRESENTATIVE

COMMUNICATED TO US. >> THANK YOU. CAN SOMEONE FROM

THE CITY PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS? >> I'M READING SOME EMAILS RIGHT NOW. LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL -- PULL THOSE UP?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> AND JUST FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WHEN THE PERMIT EXPIRE, IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE VIOLATION, HE WAS GIVEN 60 DAYS OR THE COMPANY WAS GIVEN 60 DAYS TO COMPLY WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NOVEMBER 16TH OF 2024, TO FILL IN THESE POTHOLES. THEY DIDN'T.

AND CODE DIDN'T GET AROUND TO IT UNTIL MARCH. SO THEY COULD HAVE BEEN FINED FROM NOVEMBER 16TH OF 2024 UP UNTIL THE DATE THAT THEY COMPLIED. SO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S AN IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT.

[00:45:05]

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE PULLED UP SOME OF THE OTHER EMAILS BETWEEN DANIELLE WHICH IS ON -- I BELIEVE IT'S THE PERSON THAT HE'S REFERRING TO. THE COMMUNICATION THAT HE WAS HAVING BACK AND FORTH. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. SO RIGHT HERE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, IT DOES SAY THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER AS FAR AS EXPIRATION DATES GO. AND IT IS TIME TO PROVIDE COC, ONCE YOU UPLOAD IT TO CONFIRM THE INSPECTION COMPLETED. SO -- SO THE PERMIT WILL BE EXPIRED -- WHAT EXTENT OR HOW THESE PERMITS HONESTLY WORK WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. I DO KNOW THERE WAS AN ORDER THOUGH ALSO GIVING THEM, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH TIME TO COMPLY. BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHEN IT COMES TO PERMITS, WHAT THE INS AND

OUTS ARE. SO. >> IN THAT EMAIL, YOU ARE LOOKING AT, WHEN IT'S TIME TO PROVIDE THE COC, ONCE YOU UPLOAD IT, WE CONFIRM THERE WERE INSPECTIONS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. IF SO, THE PERMIT WOULDN'T BE EXPIRED. AND THE COC WILL BE PROCESSED NORMALLY. SO THERE ARE -- TO ME, THATINTERPRETS THAT'S AN EXPIRATION DATE AND HE HAS TO HAVE THE COC UPLOADED PRIOR TO THAT.

>> ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS, FELICIA?

>> WELL, IF A PERMIT IS SUBMITTED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BUT SEPARATELY, THERE'S A CODE VIOLATION THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO COMPLY WITHIN SO MANY DAYS, ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT THE PERMIT OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ORDER THAT SOMEONE MUST COMPLY WITHIN 60 DAYS.

>> GO AHEAD. >> SORRY, I MEAN, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE PERMIT. SO I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY THERE CAN BE AN ORDER BUT ONCE THEY PULL THE PERMIT AND THE PERMIT IS ACTIVE, THEN THEY HAVE 160 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE JOB. SO -- I MEAN, IT KIND OF PUTS A HOLD ON THAT. YOU KNOW, ORDER. IF WE'RE REQUIRING A PERMIT, AND IF IT'S PULLED, AND IF IT'S ACTIVE, THEN AT THAT POINT, THAT ORDER KIND OF STAYS ON HOLD UNTIL THE JOB IS COMPLETE AND IT HAS ITS FINAL INSPECTIONS AND WHATNOT. SO.

>> AND SEPARATELY, THERE'S SOME INDICATION FROM MISS HEREZ SHE BELIEVED THE PERMIT WAS -- EXPIRED.

>> CORRECT. >> IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERMIT WAS NOT EXPIRED? MR. SAW SAUCEDO?

>> BASED ON THE EMAILS AND THE CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE PERMIT WAS EXPIRED.

>> WAS EXPIRED? >> CORRECT.

>> ON WHAT DATE? >> MARCH -- I WOULD HAVE TO GO

-- >> 18TH IS WHAT THE EMAIL SAID I

BELIEVE. >> I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO

THAT OTHER EMAIL. >> IS THAT REALLY A QUESTION FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WHO ISSUED THE PERMIT?

>> I WOULD SAY SO. YEAH. I CAN PROBABLY LOOK IT UP HERE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND ON THIS SLIDE. THIS A CASE RIGHT?

>> CORRECT, IT IS AN OLD CASE FROM BEFORE WE STARTED, BEFORE

IT WAS EVER INITIATED. >> I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LOOK IT UP ON MY END RIGHT NOW. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, FELICIA, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS WOULD BE A -- SOMETHING THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

>> OKAY. AND SO YOUR OFFICE IS NOT BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE A CLOSING OF

A PERMIT. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. >> HEATHER, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR JUST BASING IT ON THE CONVERSATION THAT PEGGY -- OR THE EMAILS THAT WERE --

>> AT THAT POINT, I WAS BASING IT WITH PEGGY AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. IF -- WE HAD LOOKED IT UP AND IT WAS SHOWING EXPIRED. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING BY. NOBODY SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I KNOW THAT WE HAD -- I BELIEVE WE HAD GIVEN SOME EXTENSIONS AND STUFF DUE TO THE PERMITS AND TRYING TO GET THINGS DONE. BUT IT REACHED A POINT WHERE NOTHING

[00:50:04]

WAS GETTING THERE AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERMIT

WAS EXPIRED AT THAT TIME. >> IF I MAY ALSO COMMENT THERE.

THERE'S AN EMAIL 4:53 FROM DANIELLE SAYING YES, IT EXPIRED YESTERDAY DUE TO NO PASSING INSPECTIONS.

>> WHAT DATE WAS THERE? >> IF YOU KEEP SCROLLING DOWN.

>> COULD YOU PROVIDE THAT EMAIL? >> YEAH. IF -- OKAY.

>> IF YOU COULD CLOSE THAT, YEP. AND GO INTO -- YES. AND IF YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN ON THAT ONE? SO RIGHT THERE, AT THE BOTTOM, IT

SAYS -- >> I SEE IT RIGHT HERE.

>> YEP. MARCH 25TH, 2025. AT 4:53.

>> SCOTT, I'M SENDING THIS TO YOU NOW.

>> WHO WAS THAT EMAIL SENT TO? I SEE IT'S FROM MISS, BUT WHO

RECEIVED THAT EMAIL? >> MR. SCOTT. AND A CAMERON

SHAREETT. >> MR. SCOTT WAS CC'D ON THAT

EMAIL ON MARCH 25TH. >> IT WENT DIRECTLY TO HIM.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHO CAMERON IS. MISS SHAREETT IS THE PROJECT

MANAGER FOR PPM. >> AM I ABLE TO RESPOND TO THIS?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> OKAY. SO I THINK YOU ARE TAKING THIS ENTIRE EMAIL CHAIN OUT OF ORDER. WHICH CHANGES THE STORY QUITE A BIT. SO YES, ON MARCH 25TH, DANIELLE WHO WORKS FOR THE -- AS A PERMIT TECHNICIAN IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT, SAYS YES, IT EXPIRED YESTERDAY DUE TO NO PASSING INSPECTIONS. IN REFERENCE TO THE SITE PERMIT.

WE THEN ASKED HOW DO WE FIX THAT AND SHE RESPONDS, THAT DOES NOT MATTER, AS FAR AS EXPIRATIONS GO. WHEN IT'S TIME TO PROVIDE A COC A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, ONCE YOU UPLOAD IT WE WILL CONFIRM THERE WERE INSPECTIONS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE AND IF SO THE PERMIT WON'T BE EXPIRED. AND THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WILL BE PROCESSED NORMALLY. SHE THEN FOLLOWED UP AGAIN WITH THE -- EMAIL PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED WHICH SAYS, SITE WORK PERMITS DON'T TECHNICALLY EXPIRE AS THERE ARE NO REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ASIDE FROM FINALS.

WHEN YOU ARE READY TO SCHEDULE, LET ME KNOW. AND I CAN OVERRIDE THE EXPIRATION DATE. SO -- SHE'S CONFIRMING THAT YES, IN THE SYSTEM, IT TECHNICALLY EXPIRED. BUT THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE SITE WORK PERMIT. AND THAT IT'S ACTUALLY STILL OPEN. WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE PARKING LOT FOR THIS WORK. YOU KNOW, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IF THERE'S AN OPEN PERMIT TO CORRECT A VIOLATION, AND VIOLATION IS ON PAUSE, THERE WAS ON OPEN PERMIT AND WE WERE ACTIVELY UNDERWAY AND COMPLETING THE WORK ACROSS THE 20-ACRE SITE TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. WE THEN, WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE BEING BROUGHT UP, COLD PATCHED THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS WHICH WAS AN EXTRA COST TO US. AND THEN STILL WITH ALL OF THAT CONTEXT, WE'RE BEING CHARGED A FINE. IT REALLY

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. IF I MAY JUMP IN. BASED ON THE CONFUSION AND THE EMAILS AND THE GOING BACK AND FORTH, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME SORT OF PROBABLY MISUNDERSTANDING ON BOTH ENDS SO I THINK THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND JUST TO WIPE OUT THE WHOLE -- THE FULL AMOUNT.

>> MISS HOLLOWMAN? >> YES, AGREED.

>> THANK YOU. MR. SCOTT, DID YOU HEAR THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION?

>> YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT'S -- IT'S MY -- IT'S THIS COURT'S OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO WAIVE THE BALANCE OF FEES HERE. AND THERE WILL BE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. BUT THANK YOU, MR. SCOTT, FOR

[00:55:05]

BRINGING THIS TO THE CITY'S ATTENTION.

>> THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME.

>> ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

>> HAVE A GREAT DAY. BYE BYE. >>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING GO

[2. Case Number: NUIS-2025-20 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: 2634 Mohawk Ave]

AHEAD AND RETURN BACK INTO THE REGULAR ORDER. HEATHER, YOU CAN STAY. THIS IS GOING TO BE A NUISANCE CASE. AND IT'S NUIS 2025-20. THAT'S FOR 2634 MOLEHAWK AVENUE. WHAT WAS THAT

CASE NUMBER AGAIN? >> YES, SIR, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SECOND ONE IN OUR NUISANCE LIST. THIS IS NUIS 2025-20.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOUR HONOR, ADDRESS 2634 MOHAWK AVENUE. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JULY 15TH OF 2025. IT WAS SENT CERTIFIED REGULAR MAIL AND POSTED TO THE PROPERTY ON JULY 17TH OF 2025. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS JESSICA OSORIO. FOR VACANT BUILDINGS BOARD UP REQUIRED. I DO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT. I HAD SPOKEN WITH HER FATHER ONCE. AS HE CAME INTO THE OFFICE TO TRY AND SEE WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS THREE OPEN CASES. ONE OF THOSE CASES HAD BEEN REMEDIED AND COMPLIED. AT THAT TIME, HE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY AND DOING SOME OTHER ITEMS. THERE'S BEEN NO PERMITS ISSUED. THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGES. NO FURTHER CONTACT. NOTHING ELSE -- THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE OTHER CASE OR TO THIS ONE AND NO

FURTHER CONTACT. >> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JULY 11TH, SEPTEMBER 8TH AND SEPTEMBER 15TH. DID YOU TAKE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

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

>> YES, MA'AM. >> YOU ALSO PROVIDED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.

>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.

>> OFFICER, DID I UNDERSTAND IT THAT YOU SAID YOU SPOKE WITH THE OWNER'S FATHER? THE PROPERTY OWNER'S FATHER?

>> CORRECT. HE HAD COME INTO THE OFFICE TO UNDERSTAND ALL THREE CASES BECAUSE THERE'S -- AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS THREE CASES INITIATED. A LOT CLEARING THE BOARD UP AND ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE. THE LOT CLEARING IS COMPLIED. THE BOARD UP IS BEFORE US. THE CODE CASE WILL -- BE FORTHCOMING IN A FEW WEEKS I'M SRE. AND I HAVE HEARD NOTHING FURTHER.

>> SO WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THIS HOUSE? I KNOW YOU HAVE IT A A VACANT BUILDING. NO ONE LIVES THERE CURRENTLY?

>> THE HOUSES WOULD BE UNINHABITABLE AT THIS TIME DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE ROOF AND THE CONDITION INSIDE AS DESCRIBED. HIS INTENTIONS WERE TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. BUT THERE'S BEEN NO PERMITS, NO FURTHER ACTIVITY, NO FURTHER

COMMUNICATION. >> AND -- THE OWNER, SHE'S NOT SPOKEN WITH YOU DIRECTLY. THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. >> THANK YOU. IT'S THE COURT'S FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THAT SUCH NUISANCE CONDITION POSES 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 TEN DAYS TO RESECURE ALL OPENINGS INCLUDING ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS WITH PAINTED EXTERIOR, GRADE PLYWOOD, OR OTHER SIMILAR COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PRODUCTS DESIGNED FOR INTENDED USE. AND INSTALLED IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER. FAILURE TO COMPLY BY THE DATE ORDERED WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE 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.

[3. Case Number: LTCL-2025-150 Investigating Officer: Heather Debevec Violation Location: S US Highway 1 (2410-711-0067-0005)]

>> YOUR HONOR, THIS IS CASE 2025- 150, PARCEL NUMBER

[01:00:01]

2410-711-0067-0005. THE ISSUE WAS REGULAR CERTIFIED AND POSTED TO THE PROPERTY ON JULY 17TH OF 2025. THE OWNEROWNER THE PROPERTY, THE VIOLATION IS 24-19. I DO HAVE PHOTOS.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MOWED SINCE THE VIOLATION.

IT'S BEEN MOWED A COUPLE OF TIMES, TO BE HONEST.

HOWEVER, THERE'S A PILE OF DEBRIS, WHICH IS WHERE I PLACED MY SIGN, THAT STILL REMAINS.

>> BLESS YOU.

>> THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU PROVIDED ARE DATED JULY 7TH.

JULY 17TH , SEPTEMBER 8 AND 15.

WERE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> YOU ALSO PROVIDE D A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE COMPOSITE IS 1.

>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE 1.

I APOLOGIZE. DID YOU SAY YOU HAVE HAD CONTACT

WITH THE OWNERER? >> THERE'S BEEN NO CONTACT.

HE HAS OR SOMEONE HAS COMPLIED AT LEAST MOWING.

>> IT HAS BEEN MOWED A COUPLE TIMES SINCE THE VIOLATION HAS BEEN INITIATED.

THE PILE OF DEBRIS REMAINS.

>> THANK YOU. >> IF YOU COULD SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT? THANK YOU.

>> I WAS WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY

SOMETHING. >> THANK YOU.

>> IT'S THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS AND THAT SUCH NUISANCE CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELLER FARE OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED.

THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVENGIVEN DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS, AS NEEDED, AND TRIM ALL TRIES, SHRUBS AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS NOTIFIED. AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS, INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS FROM THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLAINTS 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 IS TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST

[5. Case Number: LTCL-2025-201 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: N 25th St (2404-710-0071-000-4) ]

THE PROPERTY WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

NEXT CASE PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

>> OUR NEXT CASE IS IS LTCL-2025-201.

THAT'S FOR NORTH 25TH STREET.

>> THIS IS LTCL-2025-201. NORTH 25TH STREET. 2404-710- 00 1-00-4. THIS IS A LOT CLEARING THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 18TH, TO 25. THE SERVICE MET CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. ISSUE DATE WAS AUGUST 8TH, 2025. REGULAR MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY.

THE POSTING DATE WAS AUGUST 8TH. THE LAST INSPECTION DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2025. THE OWNER VIOLATIONS ARE 24- 19 SUBSECTION 11 AND SUBSECTION B, NUANCE, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR LESS THAN 3 ACRE PROPERTIES. I HAVE PHOTOS.

>> OFFICER YOU PROVIDED A NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS TAKE AUGUST 8TH AND SEPTEMBER 16TH. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN BY

YOU? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THAT THEY TRULY DETICKET THE VIOLATION AS YOU

OBSERVED IT. >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE THAT COMPOSITE 1.

>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE

AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1. >> OFFICER V YOU HAD HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE OWNER?

>> NO CONTACT AT ALL.

>> THE OF PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE DATES BUT ALSO TWO SEPARATE AREAS OF THE PROPERTY.

ONE SHOWS KIND OF GRASSY AREA.

HAS THAT BEEN CUT?

>> THAT PORTION HAS BEEN CUT, BUT THE TREE HAS NOT.

THAT PARTICULAR TREE HAS NOT BEEN CLEANED AROUND

[01:05:01]

OR TRIMMED.

>> DOES THAT NEED TO BE TRIMMED TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT?

>> YES, MA'AM, IT DOES.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. >> THANK YOU.

>> IT'S THE FINDING OF THIS COURT THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NUISANCE BE GREASED THROUGH THE ABATE THE PROGRAM.

THE VIOLATEER WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED AND TRIM ALL TREES 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 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

[6. Case Number: LTCL-2025-205 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 604 N 25th St ]

ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. NEXT CASE PLEASE.

>> OUR NEXT CASE IS LT KRX L-2025-205 AT AT 6 40 04 NORTH 25TH STREET.

>> CASE NUMBER LTCL-2025-205 IS LOCATED AT 604 NORTH 25TH STREET IS A LOT CLEARING THAT WAS ISSUED ON JULY 18TH, 2025 BY REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. THE ISSUE DATE WAS AUGUST 8TH, 2025.

SERVICE MET THE MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. THE POSTING DATE WAS AUGUST 8, 2025. THE LASTINGS IN DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 13, 2025. THE OWNERS ARE MARIE CHARLES.

VIOLATIONS ARE 24-19 SUBSECTION 11.

SUBSECTION A, B, NUISANCE.

I HAVE PHOTOS TO DETICKET THE VIOLATION AS I WITNESSED IT.

>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS DATED AUGUST 8TH AND SEPTEMBER 13TH. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN BY YOU?

>> DID DO THAW TRYLY DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS YOU OBSERVED

IT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THE CITY MOVES IT INTO EVIDENCE.

>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE 1.

>> OFFICER, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THESE PROPERTY OWNERS?

>> NO, MA'AM. NONE AT

ALL. >> WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY? IS IT MOWING OR ANY TREE WORK?

>> MOWING AND TREE WORK. SOME TRIMMING AND ALSO THE GRASS NEEDS TO BE CUT.

IT'S THE COURT'S FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS. THAT SUCH CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE ABATEMENT PROGRAM.

THE VIOLENTER WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS AS NEEDED AND TRIM ALL TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS, INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS GENERATING FROM BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 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

[7. Case Number: LTCL-2025-219 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: N 24th ST (2404-702-0055-000-1)]

ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITH 30 I DAYS TO APPEAL.

>> 219, VIOLATION LOCATE NORTH 24TH STREET, PARCEL NUMBER 2404-702-0055-000-1. THIS IS A LOT CLEARING CASE THAT WAS INITIATED ON JULY 26, 2025 BY REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY.

THE ISSUE DATE WAS AUGUST 8, 2025.

NTA SERVICE METHOD, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. THE POSTING DATE WAS AUGUST 8, 2025, AND THE LAST INSPECTION DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 13, 2025.

THE OWNER IS CHRIS LLC. AND THE REGISTERED AGENT, THE VIOLATION IS 19 SUBSECTION 11. AND I HAVE PHOTOS AS I WITNESSED

[01:10:05]

IT.

>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS DATED AUGUST 8TH AND SEPTEMBER 13TH. THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE COMPOSITE 1.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.

>> OFFICER V YOU HEARD FROM THE OWNER OF THE ADDITIONAL PARTY?

>> NO, MA'AM.

>> THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREENTS THAT NEED TO BE MET, WHAT ARE THEY STILL ON THAT PROPERTY?

>> THE GRASS NEEDSNEEDS TO MOWED AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

THERE'S NO TREES.

IT'S A CITY PICKUP SPOT SO THERE'S ALWAYS TRASH THERE. IT'S A BULK PICKUP SPOT. I'M SORRY.

>> THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE MORE RECENT PHOTOGRAPHS,

CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> IT'S THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS IN VIOLATION AND THAT SUCH NUISANCE CONDITION POSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELLER FARE OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THE NUISANCE BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE ABATEMENT PROGRAM. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN SEVEN DAYS TO CUT ALL GRASS AND WEEDS, AS NEEDED, AND TRIM ALL TREES, SHRUBS, AND BUSHES TO THE STANDARDS NOTIFIED. AND REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS, INCLUDING LANDSCAPE DEBRIS FROM 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 NUISANC CONDITION. THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE

[8. Case Number: LTCL-2025-224 Investigating Officer: Charmaine Kirkland Violation Location: 2502 Avenue L]

ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

NEXT CASE PLEASE.

>> OUR LAST CASE IS LTCL-2025-224 AT 2502 AVENUE L.

>> CASE NUMBER LTCL-2025- 224, VIOLATION OCCURRED AT 2502 AVENUE L. THIS IS A LOT CLEARING. THE ISSUE DATE WAS JULY 26, 2025. SERVICE METHOD, REGULAR MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. NTA ISSUE DATE WAS AUGUST 8, 2025. SERVICE METHOD, REGULAR MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTED AT PROPERTY. THE POSTING DATES WAS AUGUST 8, 2025.

THE LAST INSPECTION DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 13, 2025. THE OWNER IS INVESTMENT LLC AND THE ADDITIONAL PARTY IS ERNEST JR. IZ DOER. THE VIOLATIONS ARE 24 IS SUBSECTION 11, A, B, NUISANCES, LANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LESS THAN 3 ACRE PROPERTIES.

AND I HAVE PHOTOS TO DEPICT THE VIOLATION AS I WITNESSED IT.

>> OFFICER, YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS DATED AUGUST 8TH AND SEPTEMBER 13TH.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEY TAKEN BY YOU?

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

>> THEY DO. >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTO EVIDENCE COMPOSITE 1.

>> I'LL ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE.

>> OFFICER, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF

THE ADDITIONAL PARTY? >> YES, HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL PARTY LAST WEEK.

I ADVISED HIM THAT ANOTHER PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT I CITED THAT HE OWNS NEEDED TO BE CUT AS WELL.

AND HE ADVISED ME THAT IT WOULD BE CUT BY THE TIME OF THE HEARING, BUT IT HAS NOT.

>> IS IT TRIMMING OF GRASSES AND ANY TREE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR COMPLIANCE?

>> YES, TREES NEED TO BE TRIMMED AND THE GRASS NEEDS TO BE MOWED.

>> AND HE WAS MADE AWE WARE OF WHAT YOU WERE LOOKINGLOOKING EXACTLY?