[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:09]
PATIENCE WHILE WE GOT EVERYTHING TOGETHER. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING OF NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025, IS CALLED TO ORDER. CAN WE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. . >> YOU CAN REMAIN STANDING IF
[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]
YOU WILL GIVE TESTIMONY , YOU CAN REMAIN STANDING. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE TO BE SWORN IN . DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH ?>> BEFORE WE GET STARTED, ISANYONE HERE IN NEED OF AN INTERPRETER OR THE ASSISTANCE OF A HEARING DEVICE? IF SO , WE WILL BE SURE TO PROVIDE ONE TO YOU . I WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING ARE GOING TO BE LIVE STREAMED AND RECORDED JUST FOR YOUR BACKGROUND . AND SO GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS JAMIE BURRELL. I WILL BE SERVING AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS MORNING . IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU DO HAVE ATTORNEY HOLLOMAN REPRESENTING THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE , MR. SHAUN COSS FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT . MS. LUNA FROM THE BUILDING APARTMENT AND MISS BACK, YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CLERK. BEFORE WE PROCEED, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL UNFOLD . AND SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION OR VIOLATION , WE ARE GOING TO REFER TO YOU AS RESPONDENTS THIS MORNING .
AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ON WHAT YOU WILL SEE UNFOLD THIS MORNING. FIRST, THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS CASE THROUGH EVIDENCE. AND THE EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATORS, POLICE OFFICERS OR OTHER WITNESSES . THE EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE PHYSICAL ITEMS SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHS. AND WE WILL REFER TO THOSE AS EXHIBITS THE STANDARD OF PROOF THIS MORNING IS WHETHER VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN BASED UPON COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE . AND YOUWILL HAVE , U.S. RESPONDENT, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE LEGAL OBJECTIONS, CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES , IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
AND WHEN THE CITY HAS FINISHED PRESENTING ITS CASE, YOU AS A RESPONDENT WILL THEN BE ALLOWED TO MAKE YOUR OWN CASE , PRESENT YOUR OWN WITNESSES, MAKE YOUR OWN STATEMENTS AND PRESENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS. AND THEN, EYES YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WILL RENDER THE FINAL RULING ON THE MATTER . I JUST ASKED THAT EVERYBODY CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER AT ALL TIMES
[C. BV2025-00150 1303 N 24th St Sunstate Homebuyers LLC Logan Winn]
DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME AS YOUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THAT BEING SAID, CAN WE HAVE THEFIRST CASE PLEASE? >> THE FIRST CASE IS 6C CASE BV2025-00150, TEAM ZERO THREE NORTH 24TH STREET, SUNSTATE
HOMEBUYERS LLC IS THE OWNER . >> GOOD MORNING.
>> MY NAME IS LOGAN LOGAN WINN. I'M EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS A BUILDING INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATOR.
TODAY I HAVE CASE NUMBER BV 2025- BV2025-00150, OF 1303 NORTH 24TH STREET. THE CASE WAS INITIATED JUNE 18TH, 2025. THE OWNER IS SUNSTATE HOMEBUYERS LLC OF 373 NORTHWEST CURTIS STREET WERE TO LUCY, FLORIDA . THE VIOLATIONS ARE FEC 105.12020 PERMIT REQUIRED, IPM C 2021 PLUMBING GENERAL.
CORRECTIVEACTIONS ONE. PAYING THE PERMIT FOR THE INTERIOR EXTERIOR DEMOLITION. TWO, PLEASE OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ANY PLUMBING WORK THAT WAS DONE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY . RECOMMENDATION. THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND VIOLATION EXISTS IN THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AND OBTAIN A PERMIT AND APPROVAL EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. APPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR FIND OF $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AS OF NOW , THERE IS A PERMIT THAT IS ONLY BEEN OBTAINED AND CLOSED. NO OTHER PERMITS FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR . I DO HAVE PICTURES FROM THE PROPERTY
AS WELL . >> BEFORE YOU HAND THEM OUT , HAD THESE GENTLEMEN BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE PICTURES?
>> YES. I HAVE SEEN THEM. IFYOU HAVE AN EXTRA COPY, I WILL
TAKE THEM. >> YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK .
>> OKAY. >> MR. LOGAN WINN, YOU PROVIDED
[00:05:20]
PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JULY 18TH THIS YEAR. DID -- THESEPHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU TAKE THEM? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> AND DID THEY TRULY ANDACCURATELY DEPICT THE
VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THEM? >> YES .
>> CITY COMPOSITE ONE . >> I WILL ACCEPT THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITY 'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE .
>> AND MR. WINN, FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU OBSERVE
SIGNS OF DEMOLITION? >> YES. IT APPEARS EVERY WINDOW OPEN HE HAD A PILE OF DEBRIS. OUTSIDE IT LOOKED LIKE MAYBE DRYWALL, PLASTER OR TILE AND THE WINDOWS WERE BOARDED
BACK UP. >> WHAT EVIDENCE DID YOU HAVE OF
PLUMBING WORK? >> ON PICTURE C, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A NEW CLEANOUT INSTALLED FROM THE STREET SEWER
TO THE PROPERTY RIGHT THERE . >> ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. WINN?
>> NO, MA'AM. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM
THESTATE. >> GOOD MORNING, SIR. HO W ARE
YOURSELF? >> I'M WELL. WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
>> JOEL DIAZ. >> AND WHO WAS YOUR ASSOCIATE
WITH YOU ? >> CONTRACTOR. I WAS GOING TO BE EMPLOYED BY HIM .
>> ON THE WINDOWS -- >> I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS YOUR
NAME AGAIN? >> AND CARGO HENRIQUE -- RICARDO HENRIQUE
>> MR. DEV VE Y. TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON.
>> THE REASON I'M HIRED BY MR. DIAZ, THE WINDOWS , THAT WAS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE WINDOWSARE REALLY DAMAGED, THE HOME IS OLD. YOU SEE A LOT OF HOUSES IN FORT PIERCE HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AND PLUMBING SIDE -- THAT IS FOR YOU, SIR.
>> THE PICTURE OF THE CLEANOUT, I HAD SOMEONE COME AND ASSESS THE ROOF AND THEY RAN OVER THE CLEANOUT BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF LIKE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVEWAY . I HAD A PLUMBER COME BY AND HE REPLACED THE CLEAN OUT PART. THE PART THAT STICKS OUT OF THE GROUND I ASKED HIM IF WE NEEDED A PERMIT. HE SAID WEDIDN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR SUCH A MINOR REPAIR . CURRENTLY , HE IS FILING FOR THE PERMIT THIS MORNING FOR THE CLEANOUT BECAUSE IT DID GET RUN OVER AGAIN BY THE ROOFERS THAT JUST
RECENTLY FIXED TO THE ROOF . >> IT IS GOING TO KEEP
>> SO ESSENTIALLY, YOU ARE TELLING ME WE ARE WORKING ON ALL THE PERMITS THAT ARE NEEDED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE . OKAY.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION I SEE HERE IS FOR 60 DAYS TO ACTUALLY OBTAIN THE PERMIT . TO FIND THAT THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
>> TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT, YES . >> YES.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES ?
>> THANK YOU. THAT BEING SAID, THE COURT DOES FIND THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST. THEVIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. AT LEAST EVERYONE80 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. APPLY WITH OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT. OR A FINE OF $250 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED . MR. DIAZ, YOU WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THE DECISION IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT THIS MORNING AND GETTING THIS
RECTIFIED . NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.
[A. 24-117 1708 S 8th St Godinez, Marco & Martinez, Sylvia Shaun Coss ]
>> YOU HAVE A GOOD ONE. >> YOU AS WELL.
>> OUR NEXT CASE IS 7A CASE 24- 117 , 1708, SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MARCO GODINEZ AND SYLVIA MARTINEZ ARE THE OWNERS .
>> GOOD MORNING SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THIS IS A MESSY REQUEST. CASE 24- 117, FOR1708, SELF EIGHTH STREET. THE PROPERTY
[00:10:01]
IS OWNED BY MARCO GODINEZ AND SYLVIA MARTINEZ OF THE SAME ADDRESS. VIOLATIONS ARE AFFORDABILITY CODE SECTION 5.1, PERMIT REQUIRED . THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JUNE 14TH, 2024 AND AN ORDER DETERMINING A VIOLATION WAS ENTERED. AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED AUGUST 20TH, 2024. THERE WAS A 60 DAY EXTENSION AND TIME GRANTED SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024 . AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE UPON THE PERMIT 'S EXPIRATION WAS RECORDED , RESTARTING THE FINES ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025. THERE ARE TWO PERMITS THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN RENEWED . THE PERMITS STILL NEED TO HAVE FINAL INSPECTIONS TO BE ABLE TO CLOSE OUT THE PERMITS WHICH WILL COMPLY THE CASE.STAFFRECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE STAY WITH THE ACCRUAL OF A FINE FOR 30 DAYS TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND THE
APPROVED INSPECTIONS. >> HOW MANY DAYS WAS THAT? I'M
>> GOOD MORNING. WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
>> MY NAME IS MARIA. I WILL BE TRANSLATING FOR MY MOTHER,
SYLVIA. >> MARIA. YOUR LAST NAME?
>> R B RRK. >> AND SYLVIA MARTINEZ .
>> FORGIVE ME. WHAT IS THE NORMAL PROCEDURE. DON'T WE HAVE DISINTERESTED TRANSLATORS AVAILABLE ?
>> YES WE DO. >> NO OFFENSE BUT I WOULD PREFER US USE A DISINTERESTED TRANSLATOR THIS MORNING .
>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS FELIX. THE SPANISH INTERPRETER.
IDENTIFICATION 9121. HOW MAY I ASSIST YOU?
>> THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. I WAS WONDERING IFYOU WERE ABLE TO INTERPRET
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ? >> GO AHEAD, YES.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. I DOHAVE TO SWEAR YOU AND AS AN
ONE MOMENT. FOR THE INTERPRETER, DO SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU ACCURATELY TRANSLATE THE SPANISH LANGUAGE INTO ENGLISH AND THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTO SPANISH? >> I SWEAR .
>> THANK YOU . >> MORNING MS. MARTINEZ. HOW ARE
LANGUAGE ] . >> ME AND MY HUSBAND, WE DON'T
[00:15:15]
KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS THIS. SO WE DID EVERYTHING BACKWARDS. NOW EVERYTHING IS COMPLETE. WE ARE READY TO PROCEED WITH ACONCRETE BUT THEY TOLD US WE ARE MISSING AN INSPECTION FROM AN ENGINEER OR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT . IT IS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. SO NOW WE NEEDSOMEONE TO COME AND CHECK THAT EVERYTHING IS READY AND THE MEASUREMENTS ARE ALL RIGHT AND READY .>> THANK YOU. MS. MARTINEZ , THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY IS TO HOLD OFF ON THE FINES , ON THE ACCRUAL OF THE FINES, FOR 30 DAYS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IN PARTICULAR ?
>> YES. >> THANK YOU. ANY OBJECTION TO
LANGUAGE ] . >> I JUST WANT ONE MORE TIME TO FIND THIS PERSON THAT CAN CHECK THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE. ITNEEDS TO BE AN ARCHITECT THAT CAN DO THE INSPECTION .
>> SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIONS OF 30 DAYS. DO
LANGUAGE ] . >> THE THING IS THAT MY FATHER IS THE ONE WHO HANDLES ALL THE PAPERWORK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW
A LOT OF THIS. >> AND SO, MS. PEPTIC --PARRA
, IS THERE AN ARCHITECT? >> WE ARE SEARCHING AT THE MOMENT. WE JUST GOT NOTIFIED MONDAY THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO SIGN OFF ON THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR RIGHT NOW NOW. AS FAR AS THAT, I THINK THAT 30 DAYS WOULD BE FINE. AND KEEPING -- GETTING EVERYTHING APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER.
>> THANK YOU MS. PARRA. MISS -- MR. SHAUN COSS, ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THERE WAS BYPASSED TO MAKE SURE THE GROUT WAS PROPERLY PREPARED BEFORE POURING THE CONCRETE. THAT IS WHY AN ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER IS REQUIRED AT THIS POINT .
>> MR. INTERPRETER, DID YOU GET THAT?
>> I THINK I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH. I WILL GRANT. I WILL ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. I WILL ENTER AN ORDER AND STAY THE FINES FOR 30 DAYS . AND IN ORDER WILL BE ISSUED FORTHCOMING . THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TODAY.
LANGUAGE ] . >> THANK YOU . NEXT CASE
[B. 24-787 2510 S Ocean Dr Piehole LLC Shaun Coss]
PLEASE. >> NEXT CASE IS 7B CASE 24-7 87, 2510 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. PIEHOLE LLC . THEY WERE NOT
[00:20:06]
PRESENT AT SWEARING AND SO I WOULD HAVE TO SWEAR THEM AND FOR>> IF YOU CAN RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. TO USE FOR THE TESTIMONY
YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> YES .
>> THANK YOU . >> THIS IS CASE 24-7 87, FOR 2510 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. PROPERTY IS OWNED BY PIEHOLE LLC.
VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 105.1, PERMIT REQUIRED. AND IN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED AUGUST 15TH, 2024. THERE IS A 90 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED NOVEMBER 25TH, 2024 . THERE WAS AN AMENDED 90 DAY EXTENSION AT THE TIME ENTERED NOVEMBER 27TH, 2024 . AND THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY EXTENSION AND TIME GRANTED APRIL 10TH , 2025 . THERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11TH 2025. WE RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE RESTAURANT OWNER CONTESTING THE FINES REQUESTING FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION . THE RESPONSE REQUEST IS FOR 90 DAYS . HOWEVER, I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT YESTERDAY . DEPENDING ON THE ROUTE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE REQUIRED PERMITS, THIS COULD TAKE UPWARDS OF SIX MONTHS TO GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS AND THE PERMIT PROCESS.
I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THEM PRIOR TO THAT HEARING SO I CAN ASK PLAIN THAT TO THEM FURTHER FOLLOWING THE HEARING .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO STATE THE ACCRUAL OF FINES AND PROVIDE
AN EXTENSION OF 180 DAYS. >> GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU?
>> DOING WELL. THANK YOU. WHAT IS YOUR NAME, SIR ?
>> WATSON. >> MR. AND MISSES WATSON?
>> I ASK BECAUSE WHEN I SHOW UPSOMEPLACE WITH MY SISTER, SHE GETS MAD WHEN YOU ASSUME. SO TELL ME, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE ?
>> WE ARE THE TENANTS OF THIS ADDRESS , WE ARE PIEHOLE WOODFIRED PIZZA. THIS IS DATING BACK TO 2024. BROUGHT ON SOME MOBILE BUILDINGS, SHEDS . WHEN WE BOUGHT THE RESTAURANT FROM THE OWNERS WHO ARE LISTED AS PIEHOLE LLC, IT IS RYAN EVANS AND OTIS HUMPHREY. THERE WAS ALREADY AN EXISTING CONTAINER AND OTHER STRUCTURES AROUND THERE. AND THEN WE ADDED TIKI HUTS TO THE BUILDING BACK IN 2023, EARLY 2024. OUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME IS THEY DID NOT REQUIRE PERMITS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THE IS THE DOCUMENTATION. WE HAVE SENSE LEARNED THAT THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WITH FLOOD ZONING ON THE TIKI HUT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO BE -- WITHOUT A PERMIT, TO BUILD THE TIKI HUTS. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME . MOST RECENTLY , IN SEPTEMBER, THESE NOTICES THAT WENT OUT WERE SENT TO THE ADDRESSES LISTED ABOVE THE INDIAN RIVER AND COCONUT DRIVE . THAT IS THE OWNERS WITH THE LEASE FROM. WE NEVER RECEIVEDANY OF THE NOTICES BECAUSE THEY WENT TO AN ADDRESS THAT THE FIRST OWNER DOES NOT LIVE AT ANYMORE. AND HAS SINCE BEEN FIXED. THE OTHER ONE DIDN'T HAVE THE UNIT NUMBER .
THEY ACTUALLY ARE JUST DOWN THE STREET , FOR THE SUITE NUMBER.
WE DIDN'T GET THE NOTICES . OUR PLAN TO RESOLVE ALL OF THIS, LONG STORY SHORT, IS WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE ALL OF THE MOBILE BUILDINGS . THE SEAT CONTAINER AND THE TWO MOBILE SHEDS. NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET THEM OUT OF THERE.
AND THEN , FOR THE TIKI HUTS , TO DO WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO TO GET THE ZONING COMPLIANCE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTRICAL PLUMBING ON THEM. I GUESS WHATEVER IT IS IS A FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT . WE HAVE BEEN WORKING, I WOULD SAY DILIGENTLY, WITH OUR CONTRACTOR AND TRYING TO GET THE PERMITS UPDATED . THE LAST CONVERSATION, WE FINALLY DECIDED TO PUNT, IT WAS TONY JACOB AND/OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS LAST NAME. HE BASICALLY SAID THAT THERE IS AN UPHILL BATTLE AND SAID IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME. THERE IS A LOT TO DO. THAT ISWHAT WE WANT TO PUNT AND GET ALL OF THIS STUFF OUT OF HERE. AND KEEP THE TIKI HUT .
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED , MR. WATSON. THAT?
NO OBJECTION FOR 180 DAYS. >> THE OTHER REQUEST WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE ANY FINES THAT ACCRUE FROM THE SEPTEMBER AND WE DID GET THE NOTIFICATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THEY GET
[00:25:01]
REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE . >> I'M SURE THERE IS A PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION OF FINES. THAT COULD BE NOTICED FOR
ANOTHER DAY, NO? >> CORRECT. WHEN THE CASE IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, WE CAN RETAIN IN THE DIRECTION OF THE FINES ARE JUST FOR INFORMATION SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE PROPERTY OWNER UPDATED HIS MAILING ADDRESS WITH THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY APPRAISERS OFFICE AND OCTOBER OF 2025 PICKS OF THE PREVIOUS NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE OWNER'S ADDRESS AS IT WAS RECORDED WITH PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE .
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES ?
>> NO, SIR . >> ALL RIGHT IT WOULD BE IN MY FINDINGS THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO STATE THE APPROVAL OF FINES FOR 180 DAYS . WE DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL IF YOU SO CHOOSE. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TO BRING ME
[C. 24-1196 1206 N 29th St Bldg. 1 Unit 4 SP Pine Creek Village LP Shaun Coss ]
UP TO SPEED. >> THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO
OUR LONG STORY. >> EXCELLENT. NEXT CASE PLACE.
>> CASE IS 7C CASE 24- 1196, 1206 WORTH 29TH STREET. BUILDING ONE, UNIT FOUR. SPPINE CREEK VILLAGE LP IS THE OWNER .
>> GOOD MORNING . >> THIS IS CASE 24- 1196, FOR 1206 NORTH 29TH STREET, BUILDING ONE, UNIT FOUR, OWNED BY SP PINE CREEK VILLAGE LP. THE VIOLATIONS OR PROPERTY CODE 34.13.2, OPENABLE WINDOWS. 309.1, INFESTATION. 305.3, INTERIOR SURFACES, 605.1, INSTALLATION. GENERAL, 504.1, GENERAL. ORDER DETERMINING THE VIOLATION ENTERED NOVEMBER 8TH 2024. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED GENERALLY 16TH, 2025. 90 DAY EXTENSION AT THE TIME WAS GRANTED. MARCH 13TH, 2025 AND AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION AND TIME WAS GRANTED JULY 10TH , 2025. WE HAVE SINCE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT TO WHAT ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO BRING THE MATTER INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> GOOD MORNING, SIR. WHA T IS YOUR NAME?
>> MY NAME IS JOHN BURNS . BURNS. AND MR. BURNS, TELL ME, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY ?
>> I WORK FOR THE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT DIVISION
SIDE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS . >> OKAY. TELL ME WHAT IS GOING
ON HERE. >> CURRENTLY, WE ARE IN APERMITTING PHASE WITH THE CITY. WE ARE WAITING ON THE FIRE REVIEW TO BE COMPLETED SO THAT WE CAN OBTAIN THE PERMIT TO RECTIFY ALL OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS UNIT. IT HAD WATER REMEDIATION THAT HAVE. AND IT NEEDS TO GET THE DRYWALL AND EVERYTHING REINSTALLED . IT KINO OF SOLVES ALL THE PROBLEMS GETTING THE UNIT CLEANED OUT AND PUT BACK TOGETHER. I THINK JUST FOR SOME DELAYS IN PERMITTING , WE ARE WAITING ON THAT TO BE FINALIZED SO WE CAN GET THE PERMIT AND GET THE UNIT
>> MR. COSS, IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU NEEDED?
>> TO CONFIRM, THE UNIT IS VACANT .
>> CORRECT. >> HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU
REQUESTING ? >> RIGHT NOW I WOULD SAY 30-45 DAYS BASED ON THE HOLIDAY SEASON AND WAITING ON PERMITTING TO GET
COMPLETED . >> JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE AWARE. ALL PERMITS FIRST COME TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HERE FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE SUBMITTHOSE PERMITS TO THE FIRE DISTRICT FOR THEIR REVIEW .
>> YES. IT IS SITTING WITH DYLAN RIGHT NOW .
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVIDE A
60 DAY EXTENSION . >> MR. BURNS, ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WANTED TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION ? ANYTHING FURTHER,MR.
>> I WILL EXCEPT THE CITY RECOMMENDATION AND ENTER AN ORDER STAYING THE GROWING FINES FOR 60 DAYS. MR. BURNS, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND GETTING THIS RECTIFIED .
[A. 20-2307 429 N 20th St Unit A Johnson, Sharon Shaun Coss]
[B. 20-2308 429 N 20th St Unit B Johnson, Sharon Shaun Coss]
[C. 23-52 429 N 20th St Unit A Johnson, Sharon Shaun Coss]
[D. 23-54 429 N 20th St Unit B Johnson, Sharon Shaun Coss ]
>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE PLEASE .
>> THE NEXT CASE IS 8A, CASE 20-2307, 429 NORTH 20TH STREET, UNIT A. SHARON JOHNSON IS THEOWNER. SHE IS THE OWNER FOR THE NEXT FOUR CASES. ALL LIEN REDUCTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH . >> AND THIS IS CASE 20-2307, FOR 429 NORTH 20TH STREET, UNIT A. PROPERTY OWNED BY SHARON
[00:30:01]
JOHNSON. READY TO 68 LAKE TAHOE CIRCLE, WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA, OR THREE 039. THE VIOLATIONS FOR THIS CASE HAVE BEEN COMPLIED. THERE WAS AN ORDERDETERMINING VIOLATION APRIL 21ST , 2021 . THERE WAS A NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 90 DAYS GRANTED JULY 14TH, 2021. THERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES JANUARY 12, 2022 . AND AN ORDER APPROVING A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE TIME WAS GRANTED APRIL 19TH, 2022. AND AN ADDITIONAL -- I'M SORRY, IN ORDER FOR THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION AND TIME WAS ENTERED APRIL 19TH, 2023 PICK THE ORDER ASSESSING THE FINE AND POSING A LIEN WAS UNDER THE SAME DAY, APRIL 19TH, 2023. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED AUGUST 11, 2025 . THERE OUR CRITERIA TO CONSIDER AND THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN. ONE,WHETHER THE REQUESTED PARTY IS THE PERSON RESPONSE WILL FOR THE VIOLATIONS THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN. YES. NUMBER TWO, WHETHER THE REQUESTED PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE AND/OR ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SUPPORTINGTHE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE 5-POINT 4B1. THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. NUMBER THREE,WHETHER THERE IS A CURRENT CODE ENFORCEENT ACTION ON THE PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP . THERE ARE ONLY THE FOUR CASES THAT ARE BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TODAY. NUMBER FOUR, THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS GRANTED FOR THE PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST WHEN HE FOR MONTHS. THERE ARE NONE. NUMBER FIVE, GRANTING THE REDUCTION , WHETHER IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.THATIS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE .
>> THE RESPONDENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE LIEN BE REDUCED TO $75 . STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATOR COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1374.25. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, STAFF CANNOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE AMOUNT . SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN TO THE ADMINISTERED COST OF
$1374.25. >> MR. COSS, I NOTICED WE HAVE A FEW MORE OF THESE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAME PROPERTY. WOULD IT BE MORE EFFICIENT IF WE HANDLED THEM ALL TOGETHER?
>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY, IF WE COULD, THAT
WOULD BE GREAT. >> NEXT CASE IS ITEM 8B. CASE NUMBER 20-2308, FOR 429 NORTH 20TH STREET, UNIT B. THE OWNERIS SHARON JOHNSON. OF THE EDGES PURPOSELY STATED IN THE RECORD. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED APRIL 21ST, 2021. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 90 DAYS WAS RENTED JULY 14TH, 2021. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE STARTING THE FINES WAS RECORDED GENERATE 12, 2022. AND AN ORDER APPROVING THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED APRIL 19TH, 2022. AND AN ORDER DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AT THE TIME WAS ENTERED APRIL 19TH, 2023. THE ORDER ASSESSING THE FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN WAS UNDER THE SAME DAY, APRIL 19TH, 2023. AUGUST 11, 2025, THERE WAS AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED WHICH STOPPED THE FINES . THEREDUCTION CRITERIA PREVIOUSLY READ OR THE SAME CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. THEADMINISTERED COSTS IN THIS CASE ARE $1385.45. AND AGAIN, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST .
>> THE NEXT CAE IS CASE 8C. CASE NUMBER 23-52, FOR 429 NORTH 20TH STREET UNIT A OWNED BY SHARON JOHNSON OF THE ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY READ ON THE RECORD. THE ORDER IS DETERMINING VIOLATION ENTERED APRIL 19TH, 2023. A 90 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME WAS GRANTED DECEMBER 19TH, 2023 PICK AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE STARTING FINES WAS RECORDED MARCH 27TH, 2024.
AND AN ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE TIME WAS GRANTED JUNE 14TH, 2024 . ORDER DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WAS ENTERED NOVEMBER 12, 2024. THEORDER ASSESSING THE FINE AND POSING A LOGAN WINN WAS RECORDED GENERATE NINTH, 2025 AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT STOPPING THE FINES WAS RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2025 . THE REDUCTION CRITERIA IS THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY READ ON RECORD. STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATOR COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1633.85 . AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[00:35:08]
IS TO REDUCE THIS LIEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST.>> LASTLY, ITEM 8D FOR CASE 23-54, FOR 429 NORTH 20TH STREET, UNIT B, OWNED BY SHARON JOHNSON OF THE ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY READ ON THE RECORD. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION ENTERED APRIL 19TH, 2023 AND A 90 DAY EXTENSION AND TIME WAS GRANTED DECEMBER 19TH, 2023 PICK AN AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE STARTING FINES WAS RECORDED MARCH 27TH, 2024 FOR AN ORDER APPROVING THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 60 DAYS WAS RECORDED JUNE 14TH, 2024 PICK AN ORDER DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE TIME WAS ENTERED NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PICK AN ORDER ASSESSING THE FINE IMPOSING A CLERK CLERK IT WAS RECORDED JANUARY 9TH, 2025. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2025. THE REDUCTION CRITERIA IS THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY READ ON RECORD .
STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATOR COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1633.85 AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST.
>> THANK YOU MR. COSS. QUICK QUESTION. WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE LIENS? WAS AT THE90,000 FIGURE WE SAW BEFORE ?
>> NO, SIR . FOR ITEM 8A, CASE 20-2307, THE FINES ACCRUED TO $92,070 . FOR ITEM 8B FOR CASE 20-2308, THE FINES ACCRUED TO $92,070. FOR ITEM 8C FOR CASE 23-52, THE FINES ACCRUED TO $32,670. AND FOR ITEM 8D, CASE 23-54, THE FINES ACCRUED TO
$32,670. >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING . I'M SICK . >> I HOPE YOU ARE FEELING BETTER SOON. ARE YOU MISS JOHNSON ?
>> YES, I AM. >> ALL RIGHT. SHARON JOHNSON,
>> TELL ME MS. JOHNSON, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
>> A LOT WENT ON OVER THE YEARS. I FINALLY JUST DECIDEDTHE BEST THING TO DO WAS TO JUST DEMO THE PROPERTY. JUST DEMO IT WITH ALL THE ISSUES I HAVE HAD OVER THE YEARS. IT IS A LONG HISTORY OF IT. SO I JUST DEMOED IT. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TO ELIMINATE ALL THE ISSUES WITH IT . THE SMARTEST THING WAS TO JUST CLEAR THE LAND AND DEMO IT. AND PAY THE FINES. AND SO I ASKED FOR A LIEN REDUCTION AND FINE REMOVAL. BECAUSE THE FINES AND THE LIEN IS MORE THAN THE PROPERTY IS EVEN WORTH. WAY MORE THAN I PAID . CAN'T AFFORD IT. SO THE REDUCTION IS REALLY GOOD
COMPARED TO WHAT THE FINES WERE. >> LET ME ASK YOU. WHAT WAS
PREVENTING COMPLIANCE ? >> EXCUSE ME .
>> BASICALLY THE FINES WERE OCCURRING BECAUSE THERE WAS A VIOLATION. SO WHAT WAS STOPPING YOU GUYS FROM COMING INTO
COMPLIANCE ? >> BEING SINGLE. I DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY. ON NOT AN INVESTOR. I'M JUST A SINGLE MOTHER THAT TOOK OUT A LOAN YOU TO GET A PROPERTY AND IT DID NOT END OF ANYTHING LIKE WHAT I ANTICIPATED . I HIRED SOMEONE AND ENDED UP TAKING THEM TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO . I NEVER GOT MY MONEY BACK FROM THAT. THOUGHT HE HAD IT LICENSED. HE WAS UNLICENSED. THAT WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO. SO A LOT OF -- HE STARTED THE WORK AND NEVER FINISHED . I LOST MONEY WITH THAT. ARE BROUGHT IN A DOCUMENTATION. JUST FINANCIAL REASONS REALLY. FINANCIAL REASONS. AND LATER, THE HOUSE
[00:40:07]
CAUGHT FIRE FIRE. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS. MOREISSUES RIGHT THERE . SO EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE WAS PRETTY MUCH DAMAGED . NO GOOD. BUT YET, THE FINES AND EVERYTHING WAS STILL OCCURRING AND EVERYTHING -- THE FIRE WAS SIGNIFICANT. SO REALLY THE BEST THING I COULD HAVE DONE AT THAT POINT WAS TO DEMO IT, WHICH IS WHAT I DID. AND EVEN THAT WASN'T CHEAP.THAT WAS UPWARDS OF OVER $10,000. AND I STILL HAVE KIDS AND A FAMILY. A SINGLE MOTHER. I DON'T -- TO ASK WHY IT TOOK SO LONG, I JUST DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY. FINANCIALLY, I COULDN'T . FINANCIALLY, I HAD TO MAKE WAY TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO GO CHINO, TO GO AHEAD AND DEMO IT AND BE ABLE TO SALVAGE AND KEEP
THE PROPERTY . >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED. TELL ME, NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DEMOED, WHEN DID YOU
HAVE IT DEMO? >> THIS YEAR. I'M NOT SURE OF
THE EXACT DATE . >> WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THE
PROPERTY NOW? >> HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE, REBUILD ON IT. I HAVE A REALLY GREAT CONTRACTOR THAT I MET THAT DEMOED IT. AND SAYS HE HAS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY GOING ON.
BUT HAS QUITE A FEW PROPERTIES IN FORT PIERCE . AND IN THE AREA. AND HE SAID HE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ASSIST WITH THE REBUILDING OF IT WHEN I'M READY IN THE FUTURE .
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?
>> NO . >> MR. COSS. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THEFINES FOR ALL FOUR CASES WERE $249,480. THE TOTAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE $6027.40. A STAFF WOULD NEED TO ENTER INDIVIDUAL ORDERS FOR EACH CASE. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONREMAINS THE SAME .
>> THANK YOU. >> MS. JOHNSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING DOWN AND BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED ON WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF YEARS OF YOU HAVING TO GO BACK AND FORTH DEALING WITH THIS AND ULTIMATELY, YOU HAD TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY . BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO EVENTUALLY MAKE GOOD USE OF IT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE RESOURCES TO HELP YOU MAKE USE OF IT. AND SO FOR THAT REASON -- FOR THOSE REASONS, ONE, I DO DETERMINE THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXISTENCE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT PREVENTED THE TIME WE COMPLIANCE . AND I DO FIND THAT , GRANTING A REDUCTION IN THIS MATTER WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY . THAT BEING SAID, I AM INCLINED TO ENTER AN ORDER -- ENTER AN ORDER REDUCING THE FINES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS .'S ALTOGETHER, IT WOULD COME OUT TO $6027.40 . THANK YOU. INDIVIDUAL ORDERS WILL BE ENTERED FOR EACH ONE BUT AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL IF YOU SO CHOOSE. BUT THANK YOUFOR COMING DOWN. THANK YOU FOR
TAKING CARE OF THIS MATTER. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF I MAYASK, HOW MUCH TIME DOES SHE HAVE TO PAY THIS ?
>> THANK YOU. MS. JOHNSON, IF I WERE TO PROVIDE YOU 60 DAYS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT, DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE ?
>> NO . >> WHAT TIME ARE YOU THINKING?
>> I HAVE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES AND I WAS HOPING IT WOULD BE HALF OF THAT. 6000. I KNOW FOR SURE I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT IN 30 DAYS. NOT EVEN 60 DAYS DAYS. POSSIBLY SIX MONTHS . BUT I'M GOING TO BE COMPLETELY -- YET. MAYBE SIX MONTHS.
DEFINITELY NOT 30 DAYS OR 90 DAYS. IT IS WRAPPING UP THE END
[00:45:06]
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STAFF WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO PROVIDE 12 MONTHS WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF IT IS NOT FULLY PAID WITHIN THAT TIME, THAT THE AMOUNTS WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE
ORIGINAL AMOUNT . >> MS. JOHNSON, ANY OBJECTIONS ?
>> DID HE SAY 12 MONTHS? >> A YEAR. I CAN DO THAT.
>> EXCELLENT. I WILL ENTER AN ORDER REDUCING THE MINISTER COSTS. YOU WILL BE ALLOWED A YEAR TO MAKE THOSE -- TO MAKETHAT PAYMENT . IF IT IS NOT PAID IN FULL, THEN EVERYTHING WILL REVERT BACK TO THE 200 SOME ODD FIGURE THAT MR. COSS WAS IDENTIFYING BEFORE BEFORE. ANYQUESTIONS?
>> NO. THANK YOU . >> I HAVE BRONCHITIS . I'M SO
[A. BV2024-00055 209 N 9th Street Kinnard, Kenneth Shaun Coss ]
[B. BV2024-00056 903 Avenue B Kinnard, Kenneth Shaun Coss ]
>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE PLEASE.
>> NEXT CASE IS 9A, CASE BV20 24- 00055, 209 NORTH NINTH STREET. KENNETH KINNARD IS THE OWNER . THESE ARE ADJOINING LOTS. THE NEXT CASE 9B ADJOINS THAT PROPERTY AS WELL. THAT IS
BV20 24- 00056, 903 AVENUE B. >> THE CASES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. CASE NUMBER BV 20 24- 00055, AND BV20 24- 00056, FOR 903 AVENUE B, AND 209 NORTH NINTH STREET. BOTH PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY KENNETH KENNEDY THREE FROM FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
THREE FOR 907. THE VIOLATIONS ARE FOR THE BUILDING CODE SECTION 105.1, PERMIT REQUIRED. THERE IS AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION ENTERED APRIL 10TH, 2025 AND A 90 DAY EXTENSION AND TIME WAS ENTERED JUNE 11TH, 2025. THERE WAS DRIVEWAY WORK DONE FOR THE STRUCTURES . THAT WAS DONE AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE CITY WAS DOING WORK ALONG AVENUE B AND NINTH STREET THERE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD CONTACTED THE CONTRACTOR TO SEE ABOUT DOING THE DRIVEWAY WORK ON HIS PROPERTIES AS WELL . NOT REALIZING THAT THE WORK NEEDED TO BE PERMITTED AND THAT ALSO THE WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. INTO THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SINCE THEN . THE PERMITS WERE LAST REJECTED , TO MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON A CONVERSATION WITH TRACY TOLL YESTERDAY FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THAT REVISIONS ARE IN PROGRESS AND TRACY RECOMMENDED THAT WE PROVIDE A 60 DAY EXTENSION TO
ALLOW FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE. >> MR. TREND TAUGHT --
KINNARD, HOW ARE YOU, SIR? >> GOOD IT.
>> EXCELLENT. TELL ME, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD?
>> BASED ON TIME FRAMES FOR PERMITTING, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING AN ENGINEER DO THE DRAWINGS THAT WE MET WITH MARK AND TRACY ON SITE . SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE ENGINEER DO THOSE DRAWINGS. BASED ON TIME FRAMES FOR HAVING THINGS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AND HAVING THE CONTRACTORS DO IT , I
WOULD THINK ONE A DAY OFF . >> THIS IS ALL FOR THE DRIVEWAY
>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY ?
>> THERE APPEARS TO BE A DISCREPANCY AND THE TIME. SO TRACY KELLY WITH THE ENGINEERING TO HARTMAN IS THE ONE THAT RECOMMENDED 60 DAYS INITIALLY. STAFF WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE 90 DAYS TO ALLOW FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION UPON APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE AND THAT THE
APPLICATION IS MOVING FORWARD. >> AND MR. KINNARD, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATION?
>> I DO . IT IS JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE END OF THE YEAR AND IT IS HARD TO GET THINGS DONE. WE SUBMIT THINGS TO THE CITY AND IT GOES BACK AND FORTH TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT . AND SO IT JUST SEEMS TO TAKE MUCH LONGER TO GET THINGS DONE THEN WHAT YOU WOULD THINK WOULD BE REALISTIC . IF THAT IS WHAT YOU RECOMMEND, I WOULD REQUEST THE 180 DAYS. BUT IF WE WANT TO DO 90 AND THEN ANOTHER 90, THAT'S OKAY TOO .
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU MR. KINNARD AND MR. COSS. I'M INCLINED TO ALLOW A 90 DAY EXTENSION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS REACH OUT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ASK
[00:50:02]
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FROM THERE. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. SO IN ORDER WILL BE ISSUED TO THAT EFFECT.[A. BV2025-00120 510 N 21st St Unit A Foliaco, Aldolfo & Sanchez, Erika Joel Smith]
[B. BV2025-00121 510 N 21st St Unit B Foliaco, Aldolfo & Sanchez, Erika Joel Smith ]
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH .
>> NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> 6A CASE BV 2025- 00120. 510 NORTH 21ST STREET UNIT A . ADOLFO, FOLIACO AND ERIKA SANCHEZ ARE THE OWNERS, WHO ARE NOT PRESENT. AND THEY ARE OWNERS OF 6B AS WELL. BV2025-00121. SAME ADDRESS UNIT B . SIMILAR
>> GOOD MORNING. MANY WAS JOEL SMITH WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. BUILDING INSPECTOR INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATOR . WE HAVE THE BV 2025 00120 AT 510 NORTH 21ST STREET UNIT A . COPY
AND PASTE FOR UNIT B. >> DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM
SEPARATELY? >> IF THEY ARE SUBSTANTIALLYTHE SAME, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO DO THEM SEPARATELY .
>> UNIT A, THE CASE WAS INITIATED MAY 20TH, 2025.
THEOWNER IS ADOLFO EDUARDO F -- FOLIACO . AND ERIKA SABRINA SANCHEZ AT 725 SAND GRACELAND , LAKELAND, FLORIDA 43463.
VIOLATION IS FB C 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTION.
OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR AC SYSTEM INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT . AND THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING YET . IT WAS APPLIED FOR IN 10-28.
REJECTING THE MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW. NO PROVIDE TO THE REVIEW COMMENTS. THE RECLAMATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS. 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 THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 A DAY BE ASSESSED I HAVE PICTURES WHICH I CAN GIVE TO YOU. DO YOU WANT THEM SEPARATELY OR GIVE YOU BOTH FOR A AND B .
>> WE CAN DO BOTH. >> OKAY . THESE ARE FOR UNIT A.
>> MR. SMITH, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS , WERE THEY TAKEN THE DAY OF THE CASE INITIATION ON MAY 20TH OF THIS YEAR?
>> YES, THEY WERE. THEY ARE TIME STAMPED WELL. SOME ARETIME STAMPED. ALL IN UNIT A ARE TIME STAMPED EXCEPT FOR ONE FOR SOME REASON . HOWEVER, I DID TAKE THAT PICTURE THE SAME DAY.
>> THIS IS FOR BOTH UNIT A AND UNIT B, YOU ARE OUT ON THE EXACT
SAME DAY . >> AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS, DO THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THEM?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE INTOEVIDENCE COMPOSITE ONE COME FOR UNIT A AND CITY COMPOSITE
ONE, FOR UNIT B. >> I WILL ACCEPT THESE INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY COMPOSITE ONE, FOR UNIT A AND CITY
COMPOSITE ONE FOR UNIT B. >> MR. SMITH, WERE YOU OUT THERE
FOR ANY PARTICULAR REASON? >> SO I WAS ACTUALLY OUT THERE FOR A BUILDING INSPECTION ON A PERMIT FOR A ROOF . SO I WAS
THERE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS . >> AND YOU LOCATED IT LOOKS LIKE 2AC SYSTEMS PUT IN FOR ADJOINING UNITS?
>> YES. EXACTLY. UNIT A IN UNIT B. AND BOTH A C'S HAVE BEEN
REPLACED. >> WITHOUT A PERMIT.
>> WITHOUT A PERMIT. I KNOW THEY WERE REPLACED BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN ON THAT PROPERTY QUITE SOME TIME FOR OTHER ISSUES AND
OTHER PERMITS . >> WE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK
WITH THE OWNERS ? >> I HAVE NOT. IT SEEMED THEY SWITCHED OWNERS. WE HAD A CASE ON THIS WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THEN THE PREVIOUS OWNERS SOLD IT . SO THE PERSON WHO HAS
[00:55:02]
IT NOW FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE AC'S.IBELIEVE THE PREVIOUS OWNER MAY HAVE. IT IS WISHY-WASHY BACK AND FORTH WHO DID IT. BUT THEY WERE DEFINITELY CHANGED RECENTLY .
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU. AN D THE MATTER OF BV 2025-00120, AND BV2025- 00121, FOR 510 NORTH 21ST STREET UNIT A, AND UNIT B RESPECTIVELY, IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AND 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 FIND OF $250 WILL BE ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL APPEAL. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH.
>> THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY. IS THAT OUR LAST ONE
>> OKAY. NOTICES OF HEARINGS WERE SENT TO THE VIOLATORS CERTIFIED MAIL. THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED ASSIGNED, IT IS PLACED IN THE FILE. IF THEGREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING, OPPOSED AS MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR. 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING WASN'T REGULAR U.S. MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAIL ATTACHED TO IT. THE COPY WAS PLACED IN THE FILE . 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL AND HEARING POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH THE AFFIDAVIT POSTING THE CERTIFICATION CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING POSTING IS COMPLETED. THE SAME WAY AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED.
>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.