Feb 12, 2026 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING FEBRUARY 12, 2026 IS CALLED TO ORDER. CAN WE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE.

I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[a. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

>> PLEASE REMAIN STANDING IF YOU'LL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH?

THANK YOU. >> BEFORE WE GET STARTED DOES ANYBODY NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF AN INTERPRETER OR HEARING DEVICE? IF SO, JUST MRS. BECK KNOW.

WE CAN GET ONE PROVIDED FOR YOU. THIS MORNING IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU HAVE ATTORNEY HOLMAN FOR CITY OF FORT PIERCE MR. COSS FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. MRS. LUNA FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE FOR YOUR BACKGROUND, THAT THESE PROCEEDS ARE GOING TO BE LIVE STREAMED AND RECORDED. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO RECEIVED CITATION OR A VIOLATION, WE'RE GOING TO REFER TO YOU AS RESPONDENTS THAT MORNING. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCEEDING WILL UNFOLD. FIRST, THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS CASE THROUGH EVIDENCE. THAT EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE TESTIMONY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, INVESTIGATORS, POLICE OFFICERS OR OTHER WITNESSES. THE EVIDENCE MAY INCLUDE PHYSICAL ITEMS SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHS. WE'RE GOING TO REFER TO THOSE AS EXHIBITS. THE STANDARD OF PROOF THIS MORNING IS WHETHER VIOLATION HAS BEEN PROVEN BASED UPON COMPETENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

YOU AS A RESPONDENT WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE LEGAL OBJECTIONS AND CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES. ONCE THE CITY HAS FINISHED PRESENTING THE CASE, YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A STATEMENT, PRESENT YOUR OWN WITNESS TESTIMONY AND PRESENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS. THEN I RENDER A FINAL RULING.

I ASK EVERYBODY CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. ANY COMMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

[5. BV2025-00190 209 Avenue D Units A, B & C Nole, James Joel Smith]

MAY WE HAVE THE FIRST CASE PLEASE. >> WE WILL BE HEARING, CASE 5, BV2025-0 '01 09. UNITS AB AND C, JAMES NOLE AS THE OBSERVER

>> GOOD MORNING. >> MY NAME IS JOEL SMITH, CITY OF FORT PIERCE INVESTIGATOR/BUILDING INSPECTOR. THIS MORNING WE HAVE CASE BV2025-00190.

LOCATED 209 AVENUE D, UNITS A BAIBAIN -- AND B, OWNER JAMES N. THE CASE INITIATED AUGUST 5TH 2025. OWNER IS JAMES NOLE. VIOLATIONS ARE IPMC111.1.1.

UNSAFE STRUCTURE. IPMC304.10 EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS, DECKS, PORCHES AND BALCONIES.

IMC304.6 EXTERIOR WALLS. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE SAFE AGAIN. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE OCCUPANTS VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITION IS REMEDIED. NUMBER TWO, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DAMAGE EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS, DECKS, PORCHES BALCONIES.

OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE THE DAMAGE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUEST THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXIST, VIOLATORS WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMIT UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE. $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. SO FAR CHANGE OF OCCUPANTS

[00:05:02]

STAMPED AND DATED THAT WERE TAKEN BY ME. >> IS IT MR. NOLE.

DID YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD? YOU WANT TO STAY THERE? IF YOU PLAN ON BEING HEARD YOU

WANT TO COME FORWARD. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE PICTURES? THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE TIME STAMPED ON AUGUST 6TH OF LAST YEAR.

DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES MA'AM, I DID. >> DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY AND

ACCURATELY DEPICT THE VIOLATION. >> YES MA'AM. >> THE CITY MOVE IN EVIDENCE

POSITIVE EXHIBIT 1. >> I'LL ACCEPT THIS IN EVIDENCE AS CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.

>> MR. SMITH, HOW DID THIS PROPERTY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? >> I APOLOGIZE.

I DO BELIEVE THIS WAS A COMPLAINT FROM A CITIZEN. >> COULD IT BEEN SOMEBODY THAT

LIVED IN ONE OF THESE UNITS? >> NO. A PASSERBIER SAW A NEIGHBOR.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? MR. SMITH? >> NO MA'AM.

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY. >> IT'S MR. NOLE.

MR. NOLE, TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? >> I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO. I PLAN TO RENOVATE IT. NICE BUILDING.

>> THE PICTURES HERE -- I'M THINKING YOU SAW THEN WHEN THEY WERE FLASHED UP ON THE SCREEN.

THESE WERE TAKEN IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR? >> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT'S THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY NOW? >> SAME.

>> WHAT'S THE HOLD UP THERE? >> I'M WORKING ON GETTING -- HIRE A CONTRACTOR.

I WENT AHEAD HAD PLANS DRAWN UP FOR IT. I GOT THE TRUST ENGINEERING DONE. I FINALLY GOT THE WHOLE ENGINEERING PACKAGE STAMPED.

I GOT GET A CONTRACTOR. >> OKAY, SOMEONE IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO GET THIS UP TO SPEED? EXCELLENT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?

>> I THINK IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S NO OCCUPANTS IN THIS UNIT.

THERE HASN'T BEEN FOUR YEARS I OWNED IT. IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE IN HARM'S WAY. SINCE THE PHOTOS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, WE DID GO RENDER REPAIRS TO THE FENCE. WE GOT IT PAINTED AND LOOKING NICER.

ANY OTHER HOLES WE GOT PATCHED UP TO GET THE PERMITS APPROVED. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM EITHER OF THE PARTIES? IT IS THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST.

THE VOITTOR WILL BE DIFFERENT DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER. NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. MR. NOLE, YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION. THANK YOU FOR STARTING TO GET THIS RECTIFIED.

[1. BV2025-00138 311 N 13th St Fig Properties Management LLC Joel Smith]

NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> NEXT CASE. IS CASE C1BC2025-00138, 311 NORTH 13TH STREET, FIG PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LLC IS THE OWNER.

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M JOEL SMITH. CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

BUILDING INSPECTOR INVESTIGATOR. TODAY WE HAVE CASE BV 20 2025-00138.

LOCATED 311 NORTH 13TH STREET. THE OWNER IS FIG PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LLC.

[00:10:04]

THE VIOLATIONS WE HAVE ARE IP IPMC111.13. STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. IPMC604.1 ELECTRICAL FACILITIES REQUIRED.

CORRECTIVE ACTION, OBTAIN A PERMIT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE FIT FOR HABITATION. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE OCCUPANTS VACATE THE STRUCTURE UNTIL THE CONDITION IS REMEDIED. RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUEST THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THE VIOLATIONS EXIST. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER.

NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AS OF NOW, RENOVATION PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON FEBRUARY 9, 2026. I DO HAVE PHOTOS THAT WERE TAKEN BY ME.

HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF THE PHOTOS, MY TIME STAMP APP WAS NOT WORKING.

I DID TAKE THESE PICTURES ON 1/15/25. I HAVE A SET OF PHOTOS FOR YOU GUYS. IF THERE'S SOMEONE OUT THERE REPRESENTING THAT WOULD LIKE TO

SEE THE PICTURES. >> FOR EVERYONE ELSE, IF YOU SEE YOUR PROPERTY CALLED PLEASE COME

TO THE PODIUM. YOUR NAME PLEASE? >> MY NAME IS FRANCIS.

>> MR. SMITH HAS SOME PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THOSE

BEFORE THEY ARE HANDED UP? >> MR. SMITH YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT WHEN YOU TOOK THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND YOU TOOK THEM. DO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE THEM?

>> YES MA'AM. THIS PICTURE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NO METERS.

THERE'S NO ELECTRIC AT THE HOUSE. THERE WAS NO ELECTRIC CONNECTED.

>> AT THIS TIMER THE CITY WOULD MOVE IN EVIDENCE EXHIBIT 1. >> I'LL ACCEPT THIS INTO

EVIDENCE AS CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> YOU SAID THERE WAS ADDITIONAL

-- THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU CAN SEE. >> I WAS JUST NOTING THAT IN PICTURE D YOU CAN SEE THE METER CANS AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE NO METERS.

THERE'S NO ELECTRIC TO THE HOUSE. I WANTED TO POINT OUT.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO MA'AM. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE

CITY. >> GOOD MORNING. TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> AT THIS TIME, WHEN THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN, IT WAS A DUPLEX.

ONE OF THE METERS HAVE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE. WE HAVE METERS ON.

THE SECOND ONE I HIRED A CONTRACTOR TO PULL THE PERMIT. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS.

WE ALREADY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. MY CONTRACTOR IS WORKING ON IT. >> OKAY.

JUST TO CLARIFY, ONE OF THE UNITS IS FINE IT'S OPERATIONAL. >> YES.

>> THE OTHER ONE IT STILL NEEDS WORK. >> PERMIT TO APPLY WAS DENIED.

WE GET THE PERMIT DENY FEBRUARY. MY CONTRACTOR IS WORKING ON IT. >> IS THERE ANYONE LIVING ON THE

PROPERTY? >> NO ONE LIVING ON PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.

>> THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED 60 DAYS. DO YOU FIND THAT'S ENOUGH TIME

[00:15:09]

FOR YOU AND YOUR CONTRACTOR TO GET TO WORK? >> YES.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES? >> NO SIR.

>> THANK YOU. A VIOLATION EXISTS. THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS. AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED.

COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBE IN THE ORDER OR FINE OF $250 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. IF YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IF YOU SO CHOOSE. I THANK YOU FOR COMING TOWN THIS MORNING AND FOR SETTING THE BALL

[2. BV2025-00181 1226 Easter Ave Equifirst Properties LLC Frank Remling]

>> NEXT CASE. 4C2. BV2025-00181.

1226 EASTER AVENUE. EQUIFIRST PROPERTY LLC IS THE OWNER.

>> GOOD MORNING, SIR. WHAT IS YOUR NAME? >> BERNARD MARTIN.

>> WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY? >> I'M A TENANT.

>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE CITY TO SPEAK.

WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO YOU. >> GOOD MORNING. I MY NAME IS FRANK REMLING I WORK FOR CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS INVESTIGATOR AND INSPECTOR. CASE EFFICIENTED JULY 29TH 2025. THE OWNER IS EQUIFIRST PROPERTIES LLC, 801 NORTH POINT PARKWAY, SUITE 141, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA. THE VIOLATIONS, BUILDING CODE 105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED. IPMC305.3, INTERIOR SURFACES, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE OBTAIN A PERMIT THAT WAS REMOVED. MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO ■THE CEILING AND THE WALL DAMAGED BY A WATER LEAK. RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUEST THAT A SPECIALLY MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXIST, THE VIOLATORS GIVEN 60 DAYS TO ON STAIN A PERMIT AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. AS IT STANDS NOW, RENOVATION PERMIT APPLIED FOR ON 9/9/25. IT WAS REJECTED. WITH NO REPLY TO REVIEW COMMENTS TO DATE.

I DID TAKE SOME PICTURES . THIS WAS A COMPLAINT. HE'S A GENTLEMAN WHO CALLED THE

COMPLAINT. >> SIR, DO YOU NEED TO SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> HE WAS THERE WHEN I TOOK THEM. >> MR. REMLING, THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DATED JULY 29TH OF LAST YEAR. DID YOU TAKE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> YES, I DID. >> THE PHOTOGRAPHS TRULY DEPICT THE VIOLATIONS AS YOU OBSERVE

THEM? >> YES. >> THE CITY MOVES EVIDENCE THETY

COMPOSITE ONE. >> I'LL ACCEPT THIS IN EVIDENCE AS CITY COMPOSITE ONE.

>> MR. REMLING, HAS THE PROPERTY OWNER BEEN NOTIFIED? >> I BELIEVE.

THEY WERE SENT THE LETTER. >> HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS?

>> I HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMMUNICATION. I DON'T KNOW IF ELIZABETH HAS OR

NOT. >> NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.

>> QUESTION, I KNOW THERE'S A REGISTERED AGENT, KERRY LAW GROUP.

HAVE THEY BEEN NOTIFIED? >> YES. >> THANK YOU.

MR. MARTIN. GOOD MORNING. TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. LAST FRIDAY I WAS WALKING OUT MY DOOR TO GO TO WORK AND I FOUND

[00:20:01]

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, HE GOT IT. WE FOUND OUT HE DON'T OWN IT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

>> YOU INITIALLY RENTED FROM ONE PERSON, ONE ENTITY AND NOW -- >> SOMEONE ELSE OWNS IT.

IF I COULD, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK MY CASE WORKER WAS LOOKING INTO IT.

I REMEMBER HIM SENDING ME A MESSAGE SAYING HE FOUND -- THE NAME OF THE PLACE IS CALLED VISTA PROPERTY LLC. APPARENTLY THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY NOW.

THEY HAVEN'T CONTACTED NONE OF US ABOUT NOTHING. >> I'M ASSUMING THAT AT THE TIME

OF THE VIOLATION, IT WAS THE OWNER WAS EQUIFIRST PROPERTY? >> THAT'S WHO I WAS PAYING MY

RENT TO. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?

>> NO, NO REPAIRS. OTHER THAN THAT, WHEN THAT GOT DONE, THIS OTHER STUFF THAT NEED TO BE DONE. NOBODY HAS CAME. I HAVE A AC UNIT HANGING BY THE

WIRES FROM THE WALL. >> YOU MOVED IN WITH IT LIKE THAT?

>> NO, SIR. IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT. WHEN I FIRST MOVED IN AND LOOKED AT THE PLACE. YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY WATER DAMAGE NOWHERE.

IT HAPPENED OVER A COURSE OF TIME. IT WAS LIKE -- I KEPT CALLING THE GUY. I WAS TELLING THE INSPECTOR WHEN HE CAME, I KEPT CALLING HIM AND HE WOULD IGNORE ME. AT THE TIME I HAD A ROOMMATE. SEEM LIKE HE WOULD POND TO MY ROOMMATE AND NOT ME. I HAD HIM CALL. FINALLY HE ANSWERED.

WE WERE LETTING HIM KNOW, THE CEILING IS BUCKLING IN THE SHOWER.

MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, WHAT CAUSED ME TO CALL THE CITY WAS SUNDAY MORNING I'M GETTING READY FOR CHURCH AND THE CEILING COME DOWN ON ME WHILE I'M IN THE SHOWER.

I'M DIVING OUT THE SHOWER TO KEEP FROM GETTING HURT. I'M LIKE IN A FETAL POSITION ON THE FLOOR. I DID WHAT MY PTSD AND STUFF. I'M TREMBLING.

MY ROOMMATE BUST IN THE DOOR P DUDE YOU ALL RIGHT. IN THE END, I END UP HAVING TO CALL THE CITY BECAUSE I'M CALLING HIM. HE STILL WOULD NOT RESPOND.

AFTER I SHOWED THE DAMAGE, I SHOWED WHEN THE CEILING FELL DOWN, I SHOWED HIM I HAD TO GO TO A HOSPITAL. ALL OF THAT. IT WAS JUST LIKE -- HE IGNORED

IT. >> YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY PERSON LIVING AT THIS PROPERTY?

>> I AM NOW. MY ROOMMATE, HE MOVED TO CALIFORNIA IN OCTOBER.

>> UNDERSTOOD. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?

>> NO. >> JUST FOR CLARITY. SHAUN COSS, I HAVE OFFICIAL RECORD FROM THE ST. COUNTY CLE. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME TO SAY THAT EQUIFIRST NO LONGER

OWNS THE PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT OF CLARITY.

I SEE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY IS 60 DAYS. MR. COSS, BASED ON YOUR BACKGROUND AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IF I WERE TO ORDER 30 DAYS, WOULD THAT BE A REASONABLE

AMOUNT OF TIME? >> YES, SIR. >> GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN SUCH A STATE AND WE HAVE SOMEONE ACTUALLY LIVING AT THE PROPERTY, I THINK TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. I'M GOING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE RECOMMENDATION OF 60 DAYS.

THIS COURT FINDS THAT THE VIOLATION EXIST. THAT THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN A APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS FOR 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.

A FINE OF $250 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. MR. MARTIN, I'M SORRY YOU'RE DEALING WITH THIS RIGHT NOW. I THANK OU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND I HOPE THIS GETS RECTIFIED SOON.

THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> NEXT IS 4C4.

[4. BV2025-00189 1112 Rosedale Ave Bowman, John; Pereyo, Johnathan & McFadden, William Miles Keller ]

[00:25:12]

MCFADDEN ARE THE OWNERS. >> SUBJECT IS BD202500189. 112 ROSEDALE AVENUE.

CASE INITIATED AUGUST 5, 2025. OWNER IS JOHN F BOWMAN. MCFADDEN.

VIOLATION IS BUILDING CODE, EXPIRED PERMIT REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RENEW PERMIT, RBLDG2024, 00608 OR OBTAIN A NEW PERMIT FOR THE NEW ROOF INSTALLATION.

RECOMMENDATIONS, THE CITY REQUEST THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINE THE VIOLATIONS EXIST. THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.

OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 PER DAY BE

ASSESSED. THE PERMIT IS STILL EXPIRED. >> DO YOU HAVE -- THERE WILL BE

NO PHOTOGRAPHS? >> THERE'S NO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE PACKET.

I THINK IT'S JUST BECAUSE THE EXPIRED PERMIT. >> HOW DID THIS CASE COME TO

YOUR ATTENTION? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> IN THE NEW PERMITTING SOFTWARE THAT WE UTILIZE, IT PROVIDES REPORTS OF EXPIRED PERMITS.

THE DEPARTMENT IS ENFORCING EXPIRED PERMITS. >> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH

THE PROPERTY OWNERS? >> I HAVE NOT. >> ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD?

>> NO MA'AM. >> NOTHING FURTHER. >> GOOD MORNING, SIR.

HOW ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR NAME? >> JOHN BOWMAN.

>> WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY? >> OWNER.

>> TELL ME, WHAT'S GOING ON? >> AFTER THEY FINISHED MY ROOF, THEY PUT THE INSPECTION PAPERS ON MY FRONT WINDOW. THEY SAID THE INSPECTOR WILL BE HERE.

YOU SEE THEM TAPED TO THE WINDOW. I DID.

NOBODY EVER CAME. >> I SEE. OFFICER KELLER AND MR. COSS, DO

YOU HAVE ANY RECORD OF ANY OF THIS? >> THE CONTRACTOR NEVER SCHEDULED THE INSPECTIONS IN OUR SYSTEM WHICH IS WHY THE PERMIT EXPIRED AFTER 180 DAYS.

ULTIMATELY, ANY PERMITTING ISSUES DO FALL BACK ON THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THE OWNER DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS RECREATION IF THE CONTRACTOR DOESN'T RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

AT THIS POINT, THE PERMIT DOES NEED TO BE RENEWED. THERE WAS AN INSPECTION THAT WAS MISSED. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PROGRESS INSPECTION THAT WE CALL A DRY-IN INSPECTION. THAT'S AN INSPECTION OF THE UNDERLAYMENT BEFORE THE ROOF COVERING IS INSTALLED. BECAUSE THAT INSPECTION IS MISSED, THE CONTRACTOR ALSO HAVE

TO PROVIDE AN ENGINEER LETTER IN LIEU OF OUR INSPECTION. >> MR. BOWMAN.

ARE YOU STILL IN TOUCH WITH THE CONTRACTOR? >> FIRESTONE ROOFING.

>> YOU STILL IN CONTACT WITH THEM? YOU CAN STILL GET A HOLD OF

THEM? >> IT WAS ACTUALLY DONE THROUGH BETTER EARTH.

THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE PANELS UP FOR THE SIGN. WHEN GOT THE LETTER THE FIRST LETTER FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, I GOT A HOLD OF BETTER EARTH.

THEY GOT A HOLD OF FIRESTONE AND THEN IT CAME BACK A FEW DAYS LATER SAYING EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN CARE OF. THAT WAS ALL I KNEW UNTIL I GOT THIS HEARING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONTRACTOR MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE BALL HERE. I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION HERE TO GIVE YOU 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. IN LIGHT OF THE SITUATION, I

[00:30:06]

WITH THE CONTRACTOR SO THEY CAN CLEAN THIS UP FOR YOU. >> OKAY.

>> EXCELLENT. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES?

>> NO. >> A VIOLATION EXIST AND THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED FROM THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED. WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU MR. BOWMAN FOR COMING

DOWN. NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 5B1.

[1. 23-2173 1206 Orange Ave Delicieux, Edson & Dorleans, Marie Shaun Coss]

>> THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY EDSON DES SOIUX AND DORBIT LEANS.

ALL THE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED. THIS MATTER CAPE BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JANUARY 12, 2024. AFFIDAVIT WAS RECORDED JANUARY 6, 2026.

THE FINE ACCRUED FROM MAY 13, 2024 TO JANUARY 6, 2026. THE FINES TOTAL $60,330.

WHICH INCLUDES $30 IN RECORDING FEES. THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN. ONE WHETHER THE REQUESTED PARTY IS A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT RESULTED IN THE LIEN.

YES. NUMBER TWO, WHETHER THE REQUESTING PARTY IS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED TIMELY COMPLIANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THE REDUCTION BELOW THE MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE, 5.4B1. NUMBER THREE, WHETHER THERE'S CURRENT CODE ENFORCMENT ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER COMMON OWNERSHIP. NUMBER FOUR, THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LIEN REDUCTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER LISTEN THE PAST 24 MONTHS.

THERE ARE NONE. STAFF IS RECEIVED THE REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION OF LIEN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS OFFERED TO SETTLE THIS LIEN FOR $2000. STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO ACCEPT THE

OFFER. >> GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN. WHAT ARE YOUR NAMES?

>> EDSON DELICIEUX AND YOU SIR? >> ZACH. >> MR. DELICIEUX, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP HERE?

>> MY BROTHER. >> WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? >> BASICALLY WITH THIS PROPERTY IN THE BEGINNING, HE WAS HIRING AN ARCHITECT. WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY.

THERE WAS A LOT OF VIOLATIONS. WE COULDN'T GET IT APPROVED. WE DECIDED TO DEMOLITION THE

WHOLE HOUSE. >> WHEN DID THAT TAKE PLACE? >> TWO YEARS AGO?

>> WHAT WAS THE HOLD UP? WHAT TOOK ALL THIS TIME? >> THE HOLD UP WAS -- PLANS NEVER GOT APPROVED WITH THE B STRUCTURE AND STUFF. THEN WITH THE VIOLATIONS KEEP

[00:35:07]

BLEEDING. >> IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WANT TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?

>> NO. >> MR. COSS, ANYTHING FURTHER? >> HEARING THAT THE PARTIES HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT, I WILL NOT DISTURB THAT AGREEMENT. I WILL ENTER AN ORDER REDUCING THE $2000 TO BE PAID. MR. DELICIEUX, IF I GAVE YOU 30 DAYS TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT, COULD YOU MAKE THAT HAPPEN? HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU NEED?

>> EVERY MONTH. >> SO 20 MONTHS? >> HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULES ALLOW FOR SIX MONTHS. ALLOW ME TO REVIEW THAT.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THE RULES ALLOW FOR THE TIME TO BE EXTENDED UP TO 12 MONTHS.

>> MR. DELICIEUX, I'M BOUND BY THE LAW HERE. THE MOST I CAN GIVE YOU IS A

YEAR. CAN YOU MAKE IT HAPPEN? >> YES.

>> EXCELLENT. I'M ORDERING THE REDUCTION $2 TO BE PAID WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

IF IT IS NOT PAID, IT'S GOING TO REVERT BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL $60,000.

WITH 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO

MY ATTENTION. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE PLEASE.

[1. 23-2413 210 N 23rd St Tucker, Kimberly, Jonathan, Tamara & Johnet Shaun Coss ]

>> THE NEXT CASE. CASE 5A1. 23-2413, 210 NORTH 23RD STRIDE. KIMBERLY TUCKER JONATHAN, TAMARA AND J JOHNET ARE THE OWNERS

>> MR. COSS. >> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS CASE 23-2413 FOR 210 NORTH 23RD STREET. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY KIMBERLY TUCKER, JONATHAN, TAMARA AND JOHNET. THE CASE WAS ISSUE -- ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS PROVIDED ON THE SUMMARY SHEET HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THERE WAS A ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION ON FEBRUARY 9, 2024. A NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME WAS RECORDED MAY 9TH, 2024.

AFFIDAVIT WAS RECORDED SEPTEMBE. AFFIDAVIT WAS COMPLIANT STOPPING THE FINES WERE RECORDED NOVEMBE.

THE FINES ACCRUED TO TOTAL OF $2370. THE $70 RECORDING FEES.

THERE WERE THREE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IN THE REDUCTION OF THE FINE.

ONE, THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE. ANY AND ALL ACTION TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION OR THE VIOLATIONS ARE NOT CORRECTED BY THE ORIGINAL VIOLATOR, WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN BY OTHER OWNER OR PARTY TO BRING THE VIOLATION IN COMPLIANCE.

THE PERMIT FOR THE ROOF REPLACEMENT WAS OBTAINED AT A LATER TIME, A PERMIT FOR THE TRUST REPLACEMENT WAS OBTAINED, INSPECTED AND CLOSED. THE NUMBER OF TIMES VIOLATOR FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHERWISE ADMIT OF GUILT WAS ZERO TIMES. PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTED THAT THE FINES WILL BE WAIVED

[00:40:04]

REDUCED TO THE COST OF $1343.9. >> WHEN WE RECEIVED A LETTER CONCERNING THE FINES, I HAD THOUGHT THAT -- I'M THE ADMINISTRATOR OVER THE ESTATE. I THOUGHT ALL REPAIRS AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE AND OVER WITH. WE WASN'T AWARE THAT IT STILL NEEDED A PERMIT FOR THE TRUSS. WHICH THE CONTRACTOR TOLD US. TOLD US THAT EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETED. I SPOKE TO THE INSPECTOR, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND HE TOLD ME ALSO THAT EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETED UNTIL MR. BECK SENT ME A LETTER AND SAID THAT THE TRUSSES NEEDED PERMIT. I SAID I WASN'T AWARE. THEY SENT US A LETTER SAYING WE WERE BEING FINED. I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT UNTIL THE FINE WAS LIKE $1700.

I SAID I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY FINES. NO ONE SENT US NO LETTER OR NOTHING SAYING THAT WE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PERMITS. WE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER SAYING WE'VE BEEN FINED. I WAS SPEAKING -- KEEPING IN CONTACT WITH MS. BECK LETTING HER KNOW WE WEREN'T AWARE. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE MAGISTRATE TO DROP ALL FINES BECAUSE I'M NOT ABLE AND I AM ON SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY. I'M NOT ABLE TO PAY ANY FINES.

I'VE BEEN IN THE HOSPITAL THAT'S HOW I MISSED MY LAST COURT HEARING.

I WAS RELEASED FROM THE HOSPITAL FROM SURGERY. SORRY FOR MISSING MY COURT DATE.

>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION. MR. COSS.

DO YOU HAVE A BACKGROUND ON WHAT HAPPENED HERE? >> THE INITIAL PERMIT DID NOT SATISFY ENTIRE SCOPE OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE INITIAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WERE BOTH SENT TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS ON RECORD, 207 NORTH 22ND STREET. THE MAIL WAS RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE.

THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED. THE SERVICE WAS PROVIDED IN THIS MATTER.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE IF MS. TUCKER WASN'T AWARE OF THE CASE. THE VIOLATION AT THE TIME AND THE INITIAL HEARING. SERVICE WAS PROVIDED ADDITIONALLY AND THE CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE SEPARATE PERMIT WAS REQUIRED FOR THE REPAIR OF THE TRUSSES.

ROOFING CONTRACTORS ARE NOT LICENSED OR ALLOWED TO REPAIR TRUSSES THAT REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMIT, SEPARATE CONTRACTOR UNLESS THEY ARE ALSO CERTIFIED AS GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR BUILDING CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THE WORK WAS OUTSIDE THEIR SCOPE AS LICENSED AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE IF THAT WASN'T COMMUNICATED WITH MS. TUCKER. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S STILL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RECOUP THE COST OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF THE CASE.

>> MS. TUCKER, ANYTHING FURTHER FOR ME? >> YES, I HAD SPOKEN TO MS. BECK AND ASKED HER WHY I DIDN'T GET A LETTER CONCERNING ABOUT THE TRUSS AND SHE SAY SHE JUST HAD THE TIME WHEN SHE SENT ME THE LETTER TO LOOK OVER OUR CONTRACT.

SHE DON'T LOOK AT EVERY CONTRACT THAT SEE THAT THE PERMIT ISN'T DONE UNTIL SHE GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. I SAID, HOW IS WE GETTING FINED IF WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON? SHE SAID, WELL, YOU DO HAVE A CHANCE TO GO TOWARDS THE MAGISTRATE AND EXPLAIN IT TO HIM AND LET HIM KNOW THAT WE WASN'T AWARE OF THE TRUSSES AND THE CONTRACTOR DID TELL ME THAT HE HAD A TRUSS CONTRACT CAME OVER. I SPOKE TO HIM.

I'M THE ONE WALKED HIM THROUGH THE HOUSE AND I SPOKE TO HIM. HE TOLD THE GUY HOW MUCH HE WAS GOING TO CHARGE HIM FOR THE TRUSS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DIDN'T GET THE PERMIT.

[00:45:01]

WE WASN'T AWARE. LIKE MS. BECK SAID, I THINK SOMEBODY DROP THE BALL NOT GETTING BACK TO US LETTING US KNOW THAT EVERYTHING WASN'T COMPLIED WITH THE PERMIT AND THE PROPERTY. WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW. THAT'S MY FIRST TIME GOING

THROUGH THIS. >> THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME SOME MORE BACKGROUND.

MR. COSS, JUST TO CONFIRM, THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WAS $2370? >> YES, SIR.

I THINK I'VE HEARD ENOUGH. MS. TUCKER, WHILE I SYMPATHIZE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.

IT APPEARS SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE BALL HERE. I DON'T SEE ENOUGH HERE TO REDUCE TO ZERO. IF I WERE A SAY, I DIDN'T KNOW WAS GOING ON, THE LAW WOULD MAKE NO SINCE. THE LAW WOULD HAVE NO USE. HERE, I HAVE A RECORD OF YOU GUYS BEING SERVED AT THE PROPERTY WITH THESE NOTICES. I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH MORE TO GO OFF OF HERE. WHILE YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED, WHY DID THE BALL DROP, AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ENOUGH HERE TO REDUCE TO ZERO. I DO SEE ENOUGH TO REDUCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST.

IT WOULD BE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY FOR NOT RECOUPED FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST.

IT'S MY ORDER THAT WE USE THAT FINE TO $1343.90. MS. TUCKER, HOW LONG WOULD IT

TAKE YOU TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT? >> I DON'T KNOW. HOW LONG CAN YOU GIVE US?

>> THE MOST I CAN GIVE IS 12 MONTHS. YOU'LL GET A COPY OF MY ORDER ALLOWING YOU 12 MONTHS TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT. IF IT'S NOT MADE WITHIN THAT 12 MONTHS, IT WILL REVERSE BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL $2370 AMOUNT. AGAIN, I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU AND I THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN FOR GIVING ME YOUR PIECE OF THE STORY.

I WISH YOU THE BEST MOVING FORWARD. NEXT CASE PLEASE.

[2. 24-438 308 Hernando St Kroll (TR), Joyce A Cohen Shaun Coss]

>> THE NEXT CASE WILL BE A CALL, PHONE CALL. 5A2.

CASE 24-438, 308 HERNANDEZ STREET. JOYCE A. COHEN IS THE OWNER.

I WILL BE CALLING HER SON, KR KROLL. >> HELLO.

>> MR. COHEN. >> YEAH, HI, GOOD MORNING. >> YOU CAN HEAR ME OKAY?

>> YES. >> GREAT. THIS IS ELIZABETH WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU'RE IN AUDIO ATTENDANCE OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING. I HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR TESTIMONY.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMY

YOU PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH? >> I DO. >> OKAY.

THE NEXT VOICE YOU'LL HEAR IS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> GOOD MORNING, MR. COHEN. HOW

ARE YOU? >> THANK YOU FOR MAKING YOURSELF AVAILABLE HERE.

I'M GOING TO PASS THE MIC DO MR. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING, THIS IS CASE 24-438 FOR 308 308 HERNANDO STR. PROPERTY OWNED BY JOYCE A. COHEN.

THIS CASE WAS INITIATED FEBRUAR. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION IN TIME. ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION

[00:50:08]

THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE GRANTED A 60 DAY EXTENSION ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025.

AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY EXTENSION ON JUNE 12, 2025. THERE WAS AN AFFIDAVIT NONCOMPLIANCE DECEMBER 9, 2025. STAFF RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTING THE HEARING AND EXTENSION OF THE TIME. WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT AN UPDATE ON THE PROPERTY AND WHETHER OR NOT OBTAINING THE PLANS AND THE PERMIT.

>> ALL RIGHT, MR. COHEN. PLEASE BRING ME UP TO SPEED. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> OKAY. I DO HAVE AN ENGINEERING. I SPENT ABOUT $4000 FOR THE REPORT. I FINALLY HAVE A PROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR FROM CREATIVE DESIGN CONTRACTING COMPANY WHO HAS -- WHO'S MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PERMIT REQUEST.

I HAVE A NOTARIZED PERMIT APPLICATION WHICH HE'S CURRENTLY PUTTING FORWARD.

I'M REQUESTING RELEASE FROM THE FEES CURRENTLY LEVIED IN CONNECT WITH THE DEBT PROJECT.

MY MOTHER PROPERTY, 308 HERNANDO STREET. HER MOTHER IS 82 YEARS OLD AND DECLINING HEALTH. I'M MANAGING HER AFFAIRS MOSTLY FROM NEW YORK, INCLUDING LIVING EXPENSES AND PROPERTY INCLUDING HER PROPERTY TAXES. THE SITUATION HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING DUE TO HER HEALTH CONDITION AND THE DIFFICULTY COORDINATING CONTRACTORS FROM OUT OF STATE. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT I'VE BEEN ACTING IN GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE THE DEBT. I OBTAINED A SPECIAL ENGINEERING TO HELP SUBMIT A PERMIT APPLICATION. UNFORTUNATELY, I EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT DELAYS AFTER DISCOVERING THE CONTRACTOR I INITIALLY HIRE WAS NOT PROPERLY LICENSED IN FORT PIERCE.

DESPITE REPRESENTING HIMSELF AS SUCH. RECOVERING THE DEPOSIT FROM THAT CONTRACTOR TOOK MONTHS AND FURTHER DELAYED PROGRESS. SINCE THEN I SECURED A PROPERLY -- SORRY. I SECURED A PROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR WHO IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE PROJECT. THE TOTAL COST OF THE REPAIRS IS APPROXIMATELY $15,000.

WHICH I'M COVERING PERSONALLY WHILE ALSO PAYING MY MOTHER'S PROPERTY TAXES, HEALTHCARE, INSURANCE AND LIVING EXPENSES. GIVEN THE DOCUMENTED STEPS I'VE TAKEN, THE ENGINEER ON FILE AND PERMITTING APPLICATION AND NOTARIZED AND PENDING. I'M MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR AFTER SIGNIFICANT DELAYS WITH TRYING TO FIND A CONTRACTOR WILLING TO TAKE ON THE JOB THAT WASN'T MISREPRESENTING THEMSELVES.

I'M ASKING A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF ADDITIONAL FEES AND CONSIDERATION FOR A REDUCTION OF WAIVER OF ACCRUED FEES OR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP ACCOMMODATION UNDER CITY POLICY.

I'M NOT AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY. I'M ACTIVELY WORKING TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THE CONTINUED FEES HAS CREATED SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL BURDEN.

IT MAKES IT HARDER TO COMPLETE THE REPAIRS REQUIRED. I WOULD SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND ASSISTANCE. I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION. >> MR. COHEN, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED.

I COMMEND YOU FOR STEPPING UP AND GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND TO HELP YOUR MOTHER HERE.

RIGHT NOW, IT APPEARS THAT WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. AS FOR THE REDUCTION OF FEES AND FINES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ENTERTAIN THAT NOW. I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THAT

AFTER WE COME INTO COMPLIANCE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> BY ALL MEANS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO REVISIT THAT WHEN THAT TIME COMES. I NEEDED PROPERLY SET FOR HEARING AND WE'RE ALL HERE. MR. COSS, TELL ME, HAVE YOU HEARD ENOUGH TO GIVE A

[00:55:01]

RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY? >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL TIME ARE YOU

REQUESTING, SIR? >> I EXPECT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ACTUAL WORK UNDER WAY ON THE DECK WITHIN THE NEXT 30 TO 60 DAYS. I DON'T EXPECT IT TO TAKE VERY MUCH LONGER. I HAVE A CONTRACTOR FINALLY. I HAVE HAD ISSUES GET CONTRACTOR TO GIVE ME A QUOTE. TURNS OUT THE CONTRACTOR I HIRED WAS NOT PROPERLY LICENSED.

IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A CONTRACTOR REM REMOTELY. I'M FULLY ON TRACK FOR THAT NOW.

I EXPECT 30 TO 60 DAYS I REALLY HAVE PROGRESS ON THIS. GIVEN THE MOMENTUM THAT I HAVE

NOW WITH A PROPER LICENSED CREDITED CONTRACTOR. >> THANK YOU.

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO STAY THE ACCRUAL OF FINES FOR 60 DAYS TO

ALLOW FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT. >> JUST FOR MY BACKGROUND, ARE

THERE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS HERE? >> NONE W WHATSOEVER. THE APARTMENT TO THE DECK IS CURRENTLY UNOCCUPIED. I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS.

NO ONE USING THE DECK AND IT'S STRUCTURALLY STABLE. >> THANK YOU, MR. COHEN.

>> I WANT TO ADD TO THIS. THE INITIAL ADDITION TO THE DECK THAT MY MOTHER PUT ON PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE, IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT WHEN SHE INITIALLY HAD THE WORK DONE, THAT THE CONTRACTOR WHO DID THE WORK REPRESENTED HIMSELF AS BEING A LICENSED CONTRACTOR.

DIDN'T INFORM HER THAT SHE NEEDED TO DO ANY PERMITTING. THESE 82 YEARS OLD AND EASILY MISLED. SHE BELIEVED AT THE TIME THAT SHE WAS WORKING WITH A LICENSED

CONTRACTOR WHO WAS DOING THE WORK UP TO CODE. >> THANK YOU MR. COHEN.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PARTIES? MR. COHEN ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO SIR. >> FEMA GOING TO GO AHEAD -- I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GRANT THE REQUEST. MY ORDER WILL CONFORM WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY.

I'LL ALLOW STAY RECRUEL FINES FOR 60 DAYS. AGAIN, MR. COHEN, ONCE THIS IS ALL RESOLVED, BY ALL MEANS REACH OUT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO SEE HOW YOU CAN COME BACK

BEFORE ME TO TALK ABOUT REDUCTION OF THE FINE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH,

>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK GETTING THIS TOGETHER FOR US

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.

[3. BV2025-00031 1904 San Marcos Ave Balbuena, Edgar Allan Shaun Coss ]

IT'S BV2025-00031. 1904 SAN MARCUS AVENUE, EDGAR ALAN BALL BUENA.

ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS ENTERED 90 DAY EXTENSION TIME CREATED IN SEPTEMBER 17TH 2025. PRIOR TO ANY FINES BEING STARTED, WE'VE RECEIVED REQUEST OF EXTENSION FROM MR. BALBUENA. HE WAS NOTIFIED AND PROVIDED NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING.

IN THE ABSENCE MR. BALBUENA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF

[01:00:04]

THERE ARE PERMIT FEES THAT HAVE BEEN DUE SINCE FEBRUARY 4TH. WHICH THE CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE SAME. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY THE EXTENSION REQUEST.

ONCE THIS PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, THEY'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A

FINE REDUCTION. >> THANK YOU, MR. COSS. I'M INCLINED TO ENTER AN ORDER TO DENY THE REQUEST. THIS WAS OUR LAST ONE FOR THE DAY?

[a. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

>> I NEED TO READ THE CASES THAT WERE CONTINUED OR CAME INTO COMPLIANCE OR CONTINUED.

CASE BV2025-00188. 304 NORTH 15TH STREET. ALSO CONTINUED WAS BV2025-00191, 3215 JERSEY COURT. THESE CASES WERE ALSO CAME IN COMPLIANCE.

BV2024-00022, 801 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. BV2025-000180.

2550 AVENUE B. BV2025-00187. UNIT A.

BTHESE WERE ALL COMPLIED >> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.