[00:00:04]
>>THE CLERK: EVERYBODY RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE FOR THE RECORD.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: WE HAVE ALL THE BIG BOYS HERE THIS MORNING.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: BIG BOYS AND BIG LADIES. ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARE READY. FIRST
[A. 17-898 Ext. of Time 1450 Bell Avenue Railside LLC Shaun Coss]
CASES NOW MADE TO A. CASE NO.: 17-898, ADDRESS 1450 BELL AVENUE, RAIL SIDE, LLC IS THEOWNER. >> PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> OR, COULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> DARREN OFF SINK. >> TO USE -- SWORN IN WILL WILL
WILL. >> WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO
THE CORPORATION? >> I AM A MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
RAIL SIDE, LLC. >> YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK
>> ARE YOU EXPECTING ANYBODY ELSE FROM RAIL SIDE OR LEGAL COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT THIS
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. QUICK SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS CASE NO.: 17- -- 1450 BELL AVENUE THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY RAIL SIDE LLC. 4447 REALTY LLC OF 4510 SW. PALM CITY, FLORID . THIS CASE WAS INITIATED ON APRIL 5, 2017. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION. THE VIOLATIONS FIVE Ã1.101.2.1 UNSAFE BUILDING. PERMIT REQUIRED. EXPIRED PERMIT. AND 22 Ã79 COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS APPROVAL.
THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AUGUST 2, 2017 AND THAT WAS AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION REGARDING THESE VIOLATIONS. AS YOU MAY RECALL THERE ARE A SERIES OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THIS PROPERTY, STRUCTURES ARE IN VARIOUS STATES OF DISREPAIR.
SOME OF THESE STRUCTURES ARE OCCUPIED SAFELY AND OTHERS ARE NOT OCCUPIED AND ARE PROHIBITED TO BE OCCUPIED UNTIL THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO SAFE CONDITION.
THERE HAVE BEEN PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED THAT HAVE SINCE EXPIRED. AND INITIALLY, THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE TO ALLOW TROPICAL RECYCLING TO OCCUPY ONE OF THE STRUCTURES.
TROPICAL RECYCLING IS NO LONGER THERE. HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE STILL OUTSTANDING AND STILL NEED TO BE MET.
PART OF THOSE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE TO COME UP WITH A PHASE 2 SITE PLAN THAT WAS GOING TO INCORPORATE A NEW STRUCTURE, APPROXIMATELY 2000 SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS 1500 SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT BUILDING. THERE WAS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS -- SORRY -- THE PERMIT FOR THE SITE WORK REQUIRED A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALK CONNECTION. THAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING. ELECTRICAL PERMITS, WHICH HAS EXPIRED, WAS GOING TO BE REVISED AND INCLUDED IN PHASE 2. THAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING. AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SITE PLANS OR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR PHASE 2.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS CASE CAME BEFORE YOU AND IT WAS CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. TO INQUIRE ABOUT MODIFYING THE EXISTING AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED -- PROPOSING AN EXTENSION. FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR. -- THIS GENTLEMAN AND MS. HOFMEISTER REQUIRING WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE. SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF FOR THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION. THOSE ISSUES ARE STILL UNRESOLVED. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS NOT
[00:05:07]
ACHIEVED ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT. I PREFER THE EXPIRED PERMIT OR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PHASE 2, WHICH MR. OFF SINK STATED AT THE LAST HEARING THAT IT WAS HIS INTENTION TO ABANDON PHASE 2, NEW IMPROVEMENTS AND TO FOCUS ON REPAIRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PHASE 2 COMES TO FRUITION OR NOT, THERE ARE MAJOR STRUCTURAL ISSUES ON THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE. WE DO HAVE THE ARCHITECTS REPORT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR HEARING THAT DOCUMENTS WHAT THOSE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES ARE.FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OR AFTER MEETING WITH MR. OFF SINK, I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, THE CITY ENGINEER AND NONE OF THE PARTIES UNFORTUNATELY ARE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH MR. OFFSYNC AND THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION. ALTHOUGH THOSE TWO ALL OF THOSE PARTIES ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR IF MR. OFFSYNC HAS QUESTIONS OF THEM. THE STAFF WILL HOLD OFF ON A RECOMMENDATION UNTIL THAT TIME.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES MR. COSTA WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR
FROM TENDON FIRST? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM
MR. OFFSYNC FIRST. >> HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
>> SO WITH RESPECT TO TURN PHASE 2, IN MY MEETING WITH THE CITY, I DID ADVISE THAT WE ARE ABANDONING PHASE 2. AND AS A RESULT, THE -- THE ITEM 40 MORE DETAILED SCOPE OF ELECTRICAL WORK SORT OF BECAME AN ANALOGY. AS WE ARE WILLING TO REMOVE ANYTHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT PERMITS. ALSO. WITH RESPECT TO PHASE 2, THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN AFTER PHASE 2. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COUNTY, WE ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO DO THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DOING THAT AT SUCH TIME AS SIDEWALKS ARE BROUGHT ON EITHER SIDE OF BELL AVENUE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF, THERE WAS NEVER AN AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF AS THERE WAS A DISPARITY IN THE PAYMENT AMOUNT AND THE VALUE OF THE LAND. I HAD SPOKEN TO THE CITY ABOUT THAT AND I HAD INQUIRED ABOUT THAT. I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK ABOUT THAT TODAY.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THE MAILINGS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THOSE MILLINGS ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30. WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THAT AS OUR FORMER TENANT HAS LEFT BEHIND PILES OF GLASS, WHICH ARE EMBEDDED IN THOSE MILLINGS AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOMEONE INTO DISPOSE OF THAT AS WELL AS OTHER THINGS THEY LEFT ON THE
PROPERTY. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: WE DID
THEY LEAVE THE PROPERTY? >> THEY LEFT THE PROPERTY AS OF
OCTOBER 31. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY.
YOU MAY CONTINUE. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MR.
KOSS, YOU HAVE WITNESSES? >>SHAUN COSS: YES. MR. OFF SINK REFERRED TO A COMMUNICATION REGARDING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF MS. HOFMEISTER HAS BEEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THAT SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER.
>> COME FORWARD. MR. OFSINK, MOVE OVER AND LET HER COME IN. GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING. >> WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF THE SIDEWALK, THIS IS NOT A CITY SIDEWALK. AND AS THE CONDITION READS, IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE COUNTY. IF YOU WERE TO GO ONLINE THERE IS A FORM FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF OPTIONS AND HE CAN VERY WELL GO ON TO THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE AND
[00:10:04]
DO THIS PAYMENT IN LIEU. I CONTACTED THE COUNTY AND THEY HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HIM YET BUT IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOR OUR ROLE IN THIS MATTER TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT FEE IS. WE ONLY DO IT FOR WHEN IT IS ON CITY PROPERTY.BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THE SIDEWALK ISSUE ON THIS PROPERTY IS VERY MINOR AS COMPARED TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON ON THIS PROPERTY. AND THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING DONE WITH THE CLEANUP.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE A STEWARD OF THAT PROPERTY. AND A STEWARD OF THE LAND. AND I DO NOT FIND IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THAT HAS BEEN DONE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MA'AM.
THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES?
>>MR. OFSINK: YES. YES, I DO. SO TROPICAL RECYCLING LEFT THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 31. AND THEY LEFT A HUGE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS THAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF TON . YOU KNOW, WHILE I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT DISPUTE THAT WE ARE A STEWARD OF THE PROPERTY, THIS CLEANUP, BASED ON THE ESTIMATES THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR, IS GOING TO COST BETWEEN ONE AND $2 MILLION. AND, THAT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE LAYING AROUND.
AND WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION CONTINUE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE AND ULTIMATELY, IF WE HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP OURSELVES, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO DO THAT. BUT THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMPLICATED SITUATION.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: WHAT ACTIONS HAVE YOU TAKEN AGAINST THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY?
>>MR. OFSINK: WE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST TROPICAL AND ITS PRINCIPAL AND WE'VE RETAINED SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL, WHO IS ADVISING US ON NEXT STEPS WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE RECYCLABLE MATERIALS CAME AND HOW TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THEM AND WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF THAT, IF TROPICAL IS UNWILLING OR UNABLE
TO REMOVE THEM. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS?
>> I DO NOT. I WILL DEFER TO STAFF.
>> I DO NOT, THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: DO YOU HAVE OTHER WITNESSES, MR. KOSS?
>>SHAUN COSS: IF MR. ANDREWS OR MR. THOMAS THEY WOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THE RECORD,
THEY CAN COME FORWARD. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GOOD
MORNING. CITY ENGINEER. >> THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS THE FACT THAT WE DID -- IF YOU RECALL, THIS HAS BEEN A WHILE AGO. WE HAD THE CASE WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS PUT DOWN MILLINGS ON THEIR PROPERTY, USED FOR PARKING. THEY DID IT WITHOUT -- MILLINGS IS NOT AN APPROVED MATERIAL TO UTILIZE AS WELL AS NO DRAINAGE WAS PROVIDED FOR IT. AND I JUST WANT TO KEEP ON THE RECORD THAT WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AT SOME TIME. PARAGRAPH I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS GESTATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE REMOVED BY JUNE. WE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THAT IF IT IS IN FACT REMOVED AND RESTORED BACK TO A NATURAL CONDITION.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR.
THOMAS IS COMING. >> YOUR HONOR, I REPRESENT THE PERMITTING ISSUES AND THE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. SO THE PARKING IN THE GARBAGE AND THOSE THINGS ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THIS PROJECT STARTED MANY YEARS AGO. AND THERE WERE AGREEMENTS MADE AT THAT TIME THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE POINT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HELP THEM COMPLETE SPACE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IN THE FUTURE.
THEY WERE GIVEN APPROVALS BASED OFF THE CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD COMPLETE CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PROJECT, WHICH NOW WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF COMPLETING. WHICH IS A CONCERN. WE ALSO HAVE AN AREA OF THE BUILDING THAT SUFFERED A ROOF COLLAPSE, WHICH IS GOING TO REQUIRE ENGINEERING AND MUCH THOUGHT AND EXPENSE TO REPAIR, WHICH IS A NEW ISSUE. AS WELL AS WE HAVE CERTAIN PERMITS THAT HAVE EXPIRED IN THE PAST. SO, WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT IN
[00:15:02]
THE PAST WITH CERTAIN OF THESE ISSUES AT THE ROOF COLLAPSE IS A NEW ISSUE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS RECENTLY COME UP. BUT WE JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVEMENT OR THE EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS AGREED UPON AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONCERN IS AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE NOT -- IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WE ARE NOT WILLING TO EXTEND MORE TIME OR RENDER MORE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT THAT HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY.>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO, MA'AM. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THANK YOU. STAFF?
>> MA'AM, THANK YOU. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DENIED THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION IN ORDER THAT FINES OF $250 PER DAY, WHICH WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER -- VIOLATION DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 NUNC PRO TUNC AUGUST 7, 2017. THE STAFF FEELS THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CONDITIONS SET NOT HAVE BEEN MET, THAT BEING THE FAMILY TO SECURE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, FAILING TO SECURE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALK CONNECTION, REVISION RENTAL FOR PERMIT 17-Ã 425 FOR THE ELECTRICAL PERMIT, FAILING TO REMOVE THE MILLINGS, AND FAILING TO OBTAIN PERMITS FOR THE REHABILITATION OR DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS A, B, C, D AND E.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. -- >> FOR MYSELF, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE REMAINING ISSUES ARE. SO, THE -- I GUESS THE FIRST ISSUE WAS THE
ELECTRICAL PERMIT, 17-425? >> YES, SIR.
>> WHICH, THAT -- THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABANDONING IN CONNECTION WITH PHASE 2. SO WHAT WAS THE SECOND ONE?
>> THE WORK WAS STARTED PRIOR TO THE PERMIT BEING ISSUED. SO THAT CANNOT SIMPLY BE ABANDONED. THAT PERMIT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. SO WHETHER IT IS TO REMOVE THE ELECTRICAL WORK THAT IS PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED WITHOUT A PROPER PERMIT, THAT CAN BE DONE. OR IT CAN BE TIED INTO THE OVERALL BUILDING RENOVATION OR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING.
>> OKAY. >> THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES, THEY ARE GOING BACK TO ARCHITECT GOLDEN BOX REPORT DATED JULY 20, 2018. THERE WAS AN INSPECTION REPORT OF THE FIVE BUILDINGS THAT DETAILED WHAT THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES WERE. SO TO CURE THIS CASE, ULTIMATELY WE WOULD NEED EITHER AN RENOVATION PERMIT OR TECHNICIAN PERMIT FOR EACH OF THESE BUILDINGS ADDRESSING ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE
OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT. >> OKAY. AND WHAT -- WHAT
ELSE? >> THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALK CONNECTION IN THE REMOVER OF MILLINGS.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, I GUESS WITH RESPECT TO MR. GOLDEN BOX REPORT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS. WE HAVE ALREADY FILED ONE REPAIR PERMIT -- EXCUSE ME.
ONE DEMOLITION PERMITS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE PLANS FOR REPAIRS AND ARE PLANNING TO FILE FOR ADDITIONAL PERMITS. WITH RESPECT TO THE MILLINGS, WE'VE ADDRESSED THE MILLINGS, BOTH MYSELF AND THE CITY. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DEDICATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT SUCH TIME AS THERE ARE SIDEWALKS BROUGHT TO BELL AVENUE. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NOT ANY IN THE AREA. AND THE PAYMENT IN LIEU, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THIS DISPARITY BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND THE PAYMENT. YOU KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WILLING TO TAKE UP WITH THE COUNTY.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO, MA'AM.. THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: WELL, THIS CASE WAS INITIATED BACK IN APRIL THIS CASE WAS INITIATED BACK IN APRIL 2017. EXTENSIONS WERE GRANTED A FEW TIMES. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY ALL PARTIES, I AM GOING TO DENY THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION AT THIS TIME WERE THE REQUEST FOR
[00:20:04]
>> THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GOOD
[C. 19-1848 108 N 8th Street De Villegas, Matha Orrego Ed Smith]
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: NEXT CASE?
>> THE NEXT CASES 5 C. CASE NO.: 19- Ã1848. 108 N. EIGHTH STREET MONTA ARRIGO IS
THE OWNER. >> WE WILL HAVE A TRANSLATOR IN THIS CASE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE TRANSLATOR PLEASE.
>>THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> CAESAR FLOREZ. >> (WHEREUPON, THE TRANSLATOR
WAS SWORN IN.). >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU AND RESCHEDULE TO TRANSLATE FIRST PERSON NOT SHE SAID HE SAID BUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IT IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE PARTIES I WENT TO THE STORY IT HAS TO BE A WAY TO THE STORE.
>> YES. >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: WILL WE
SQUARING THE PARTIES NOW, TOO? >>THE CLERK: MOVE FORWARD.
>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> CAN YOU TRANSLATE THE OATH THAT SHE'S GOING FORWARD, PLEASE? THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AND SIR, ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK AS WELL?
>>. >> (WHEREUPON, THE PARTIES WERE
SWORN.). >> SIMPLE WAS HIS RESPONSE? IS
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED.
>> GOOD MORNING. I MR. SMITH THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE ARE HERE FOR CASE NO.: 19-18-48. 108 N. EIGHTH STREET. MARTHA AND BORREGO DVA
GIVES. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. I
HAVE TO TRANSLATE THAT. >>MR. SMITH: THE CASE INITIATED
JULY 19 >>MR. SMITH: THE CASE INITIATED JULY 19, 2019. WITH OUR FINDINGS, WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE ALSO RECEIVED A COMPLAINT THAT THE WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
>> WE ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, WE WENT TO THE PROPERTY AND FOUND THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN
DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GIVE THEM
TIME TO TRANSLATE. >>MR. SMITH: AND WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE PICTURES OF THE WORK THAT WAS BEING DONE.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU MAY SHOW THEM TO THE OWNERS.
[00:25:16]
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WHILE THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS, CAN I INQUIRE OF THE WITNESS IF THE PHOTOS FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU SAW THAT DAY?
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YES. AND YOU HAVE TO TRANSLATE THAT.
>> YES. >>MS. DE VILLEGAS: CAN I
RESPOND NOW? >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: I GET.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF COUNCILL.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO VIEW ALL OF THE PHOTOS.
>> YES. >> WE WOULD MOVE THE PHOTOS AND
AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: SO
ADMITTED. >> AND WE ARE GOING TO PUT THOSE ON THE SCREEN SO THAT THEY CAN VIEW THEM.
DO YOU WANT TO WALK US THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHS, TELL US WHAT YOU SAW?
>>MR. SMITH: YES. THE FIRST ONE IS THE PLACEMENT OF THE STOP WORK ORDER. BEFORE THE STOP WORK ORDER. THIS WAS WHERE THEY -- THERE WAS A BATHROOM THERE AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME FLOOR PLYWOOD AND STUFF THAT WAS TAKEN UP, SHOWING THIS WAS ON THE UPSTAIRS.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GIVE HIM TIME TO TRANSLATE.
>>MR. SMITH: AND THIS IS A BETTER VIEW OF WHAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING OUT WITH THE FLOOR
BEING TAKEN UP. >> WHEN YOUR RETURN -- REFERRING TO THE PHOTOS, CAN YOU JUST IDENTIFY THEM BY LETTER JUST SO THAT WE KNOW FOR
THE RECORD? THANK YOU. >>MR. SMITH: ALL RIGHT.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. FLOREZ --
>>MR. SMITH: AND THAT WAS D. E SHOWS THE REPLACEMENT OF SOME OF THE CEILING. THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE CEILING ON THE DOWNSTAIRS UNIT.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: HOLD ON. GIVE HIM TIME TO TRANSLATE.
>>MR. SMITH: F IS ALSO SHOWING NEW WOOD THAT WAS INSTALLED, ALONG WITH SOME OF THE ELECTRICAL THAT WAS -- HAD BEEN DEMOED AS WELL.
AND G SHOWS A LIGHT FIXTURE WAS MISSING INSIDE A CORRIDOR.
THIS IS ALSO H. H SHOWS A NEW FRAME WALL, SUPPORTING THE CEILING IN UNIT Y.
THIS IS BASICALLY A CONTINUANCE OF THE DEMOLITION. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS -- THIS IS I
[00:30:04]
AND THAT WAS APARTMENT D. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GIVE HIM TIME TO RESPOND.
>>MR. SMITH: AND THIS WAS ALSO -- THIS WAS J. IT'S SHOWING THE PICTURE OF THE SUPPORT OF THE TRUSSES GOING FROM THE UPSTAIRS WHERE THEY PLACED TWO BY FOURS TO TRY TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE ROOF. SO THAT -- THIS IS -- K IS DEPICTING A PICTURE OF -- THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT. IT DOES NOT HAVE A LETTER ON IT.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THERE IS A K HERE ON THE SCREEN.
>>MR. SMITH: I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS PART THE UNIT NUMBER BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION.
BUT THIS UNIT IS ALSO WHERE THE DEMO WAS BEING TAKEN PLACE.
IN THIS IS SHOWING -- L IS SHOWING THE FLOOR JOISTS OF THE UPSTAIRS UNIT WHERE THERE WAS SOME BAD WOULD AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME REPLACEMENT OF SOME WOOD, BUT IT WAS BAD WOULD ON THE FLOOR JOIST. THE PARAGRAPH M IS ALSO SHOWING BAD WOULD ON THE FLOOR JOIST. LETTER AND IS AS WELL SHOWING WHERE THEY TOOK UP THE WOOD IN THE FLOOR JOISTS ARE ALSO -- SOME OF THE FLOOR JOISTS ARE IN BAD CONDITION. AND BACK TO D.
>> THAT'S HE. >> OUT. O WAS SHOWING A FULL PICTURE OF FULL MAGNITUDE OF THE JUDGMENT WHAT WAS DONE OF COURSE ELECTRICAL LEFT WITHOUT WALLS AND PLUMBING WAS DONE PLUMBING WITH FIXTURES HANGING IN THE FLOORS HEBASICALLY MISSI IT. IS THERE A P?
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YES. >>MR. SMITH: P IS ALSO SHOWING WHERE THEY REMOVED WALLS. THE SAME UNIT REMOVED WALLS AND THIS IS SHOWING TO THE MAGNITUDE OF WHAT WAS LEFT BEHIND, WHICH WAS THE PLUMBING AS WELL AS ELECTRICAL PIPES, UNSUPPORTED AND LIGHT FIXTURES UNSUPPORTED. AND OF COURSE THE FLOORS IS STILL MISSING.
Q WAS UNIT Y DOWNSTAIRS THEY WERE USING IT FOR STORAGE, BUT THEY ALSO DID A LOT OF DEMO IN THERE AS WELL. WE REMOVED WALLS AND ALSO REFRAMED AROUND THE BATHROOM.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: HOLY. GIVE THEM TIME TO RESPOND.
>> AND ALSO REFRAMED AROUND THE BATHROOM AND THIS WAS A PICTURE OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS
[00:35:06]
PROJECTED TO BE USED INSIDE THE UNITS IN THIS IS R.R SHOWING A PICTURE OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PROJECTED TO BE USED INSIDE THE UNIT. S IS SHOWING THE ENTRANCEWAY WHERE THERE WAS NO DOOR. T IS SHOWING THE FLASHING, IMPROPER
FLASHING ON THE ROOF. >> CAN ASK THEM IF THEY KNOW
WHAT -- OKAY. >>MR. SMITH: U IS ALSO SHOWING THE FLASHING. AND THIS IS -- V IS ALSO SHOWING THE FLASHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND W IS A CONTINUANCE OF THE FLASHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. SMITH?
>>MR. SMITH: NOW. >> MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING
QUESTION? I'M SORRY. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YES.
>> YOU MENTIONED -- IS THERE MORE THAN ONE UNIT IN THIS BUILDING? IS IT DIVIDED INTO
SEPARATE UNITS OR APARTMENTS? >>MR. SMITH: YES.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: HOLD ON. GIVE THEM TIME.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. SMITH?
>>MR. SMITH: YES. THERE IS A TOTAL OF TWO UNITS UPSTAIRS AND ONE UNIT DOWNSTAIRS.
>> AND HOW MANY OF THOSE UNITS DID YOU INSPECT?
>>MR. SMITH: I INSPECTED ALL THREE OF THOSE UNITS.
>> INTO THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU OBSERVED APPLY TO ALL THREE UNITS?
>> YES. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING
FURTHER. >>MR. SMITH: THE -- THE OWNER SUPPLIED FOR A DEMO PERMIT ON UNIT D AND UNIT Y. BUT DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN DENIED DUE TO THEY NEEDED STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PLANS. THEY NEEDED TO PROVIDE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING PLAN. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: HOLD ON.
GIVE THEM TIME TO TRANSLATE. >>MR. SMITH: FOR ALL UNITS.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. SMITH?
>>MR. SMITH: YES. THE VIOLATION -- THE VIOLATIONS ARE SECTION 5-1.105.1, PERMIT IS REQUIRED. AND THE IPMC 304.7 ROOTS AND DRAINAGE. -- ROOFS.
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE INTERIOR DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION WORK TAKING PLACE. REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ROOF WHERE IT IS DAMAGED. THE RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY
[00:40:03]
REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR FIND OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. SMITH?
>>MR. SMITH: NO. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THANK YOU. AND WOULD EITHER PARTY LIKE TO
RESPOND? >>MS. DE VILLEGAS: YES.
>>MR. DE VILLEGAS: YES. I HAVE A LOT OF PICTURES. FROM THE APARTMENT FROM UPSTAIRS. 40 PERMIT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, APPROVED AND CLOSED.
I EXPLAINED THAT TO SHAUN. -- SHAUN. SHE RECOMMENDED THAT SHE WOULD TALK TO THE INSPECTOR THAT TOOK THE PICTURES. SHE GAVE ME AN APPOINTMENT TO TALK WITH THEM FOR TWO DAYS LATER AND THAT'S WHAT I DID.
I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE PICTURES OF THE APARTMENT UPSTAIRS. ABOUT CORRESPONDING THE PICTURES TO A PERMIT THAT WAS ALREADY INCURRED.
I THINK THAT IS THE RECORDS FOR THE CITY PICTURES NEED TO BE -- (AWAY FROM MIC) -- IN THE RECORD OF THE CITY. THE PICTURES ARE FROM D. -- I., K, L, M, N, O, AND P.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER?
>>MS. DE VILLEGAS: THE INSPECTOR TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO TALK TO SHAUN. AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO RESPOND TO ME. HE NEVER RESPONDED TO ME.
>>MS. DE VILLEGAS: ONLY WHEN I RECEIVED THIS LETTER TO COME TO COURT TODAY.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. MR. CAUSE.
>> IF I COULD CLARIFY. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ALLOW YOU
TO DO THAT. SPEAK SLOWLY. SPEAK T>>SHAUN COSS: THIS WAS INSPECTED BY WILL WHO IS NO
[00:45:04]
LONGER HERE. MR. SMITH HAS INSPECTED THIS PROPERTY AND IS FAMILIAR WITH THESE VIOLATIONS.>>SHAUN COSS: I UNDERSTAND THE RESPONDENT'S PERMISSION THAT THERE WERE PREVIOUS PERMITS ISSUED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RESPONDENTS THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUS PERMITS ISSUED. AND THAT WAS FOR DEMOLITION WORK IN 2015.
DEMOLITION WAS ONLY FOR DEMOLITION. IT DID NOT ALLOW FOR ANY REPLACEMENT OF TRUSSES, ELECTRIC, PLUMBING, CHEMICAL SYSTEMS. THE STANCE POSITION THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THAT THERE IS NEW WORK THAT IS BEING COMPLETED. AS EVIDENCE WITH NEW FLOOR JOISTS IN THE NEW SPOOL OF ELECTRICAL WIRING.
MR. SMITH COULD TESTIFY THAT THAT COLOR WIRING WAS NOT USED IN THE YEAR THAT THEY RESPONDENTS ARE ADVISING THAT THE WORK WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE. , THE YELLOW WIRE WAS NOT USED UNTIL RECENTLY. MR. SMITH CAN PROVIDE CLARITY ON THAT.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU HAVE TO TRANSLATE WHAT SHE SAYS.
>> ALWAYS TELLING MY HUSBAND THAT THAT PICTURE THAT WAS TAKEN, THE CABLE WAS NOT THERE.
I EXPLAINED IT TO HIM. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING
FURTHER? >>MR. DE VILLEGAS: CAN I
RESPOND. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ARE YOU
DONE, MR. CAUSE. >>MR. DE VILLEGAS: THE PICTURE THAT YOU SEE THERE, THEREFORE MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED. BUT THAT YELLOW CABLE, WAS NEVER USED TO REPLACE ANYTHING UPSTAIRS. NONE OF THE PICTURES THAT THE CABLE WAS USED UP THERE. THAT CABLE THAT YOU SEE THERE WAS LEFT OVER FROM MY HOUSE AND IT WAS KEPT THERE FOR STORAGE. WE USED THIS APARTMENT FOR STORAGE. THE FLOOR, THAT SECOND APARTMENT, THE FLOOR ON THE SECOND-STORY APARTMENT THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED, WAS FROM THE APARTMENT THAT THE PERMIT WAS PULLED IN 2015. AND WAS NEVER TOUCHED AGAIN. THE OTHER TWO APARTMENTS, WE HAVE APPLIED FOR THE TWO PERMITS FOR THE OTHER APARTMENTS. THE PROBLEM IS ON
THE FIRST FLOOR. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY.
ANYTHING FURTHER? NO. IN THE FIRST FLOORS WHERE THEY DID THE WORK.
[00:50:08]
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER FROM STAFF.
>>MR. SMITH: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN THIS
BUILDING? >>MR. DE VILLEGAS: EIGHT.
>>MR. SMITH: THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM EITHER PARTY?
>>MR. SMITH: NOT FROM STAFF, THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AT 10 EXISTS AT 108 N. EIGHTH STREET AND THAT MR. AND MRS. DE VILLEGAS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION. NOW WHAT I AM GOING TO DO, -- TO SEE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE SUMMARY SHEET.
>>MR. DE VILLEGAS: YES. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THAT WILL BE MY RULING. I'M GOING TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. AND YOU CAN READ IT ALONG AND INTERPRETED IN SPANISH AS I SPEAK.
I FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS. THE VIOLATORS ARE BEGINNING 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 OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS, AND FOR ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE WATER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED UNTIL
THE PERMIT IS COMPLIED WITH. >>MR. DE VILLEGAS: WHAT DOES
THAT MEAN? >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GET WITH MR. SMITH, TALK WITH HIM ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS AND MAKE SURE YOU ARE COMPLYING WITH THE CODE. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. ANY QUESTIONS?
>>MR. DE VILLEGAS: ASKING ABOUT THE $100. WHEN DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT?
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. ONCE THAT PERMIT IS OBTAINED YOU HAVE 180 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. THAT'S SIX MONTHS.
IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WAS COMPLYING WITH THE PERMIT, THEN YOU SHOULD GET WITH MR. SMITH SO THAT HE CAN HELP YOU OR MAYBE HELP YOU JUST TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF.
IF YOU DON'T, YOU WILL BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THIS COURT AND I WILL FIND YOU $100 PER DAY UNTIL THIS MATTER IS TAKEN CARE OF.
[00:55:01]
>>MR. DE VILLEGAS: I UNDERSTAND.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THANK YOU TOO, MR. SMITH.
>>MR. SMITH: THANK YOU. NEXT CASES FIVE NEXT CASES 5D CASE NO.: 19-Ã208-5211 AVENUE A.
[D. 19-2085 211 Avenue A Hatfield, James Paul Julin]
JAMES HATFIELD IS THE OWNER. >> GOOD MORNING.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MADAME CLERK?
>>THE CLERK: WITH THE RESPONDENTS RAISE THE RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN.
(WHEREUPON, THE PARTIES WERE SWORN.).
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. JULIAN.
>>PAUL JULIN: GOOD MORNING. THIS CASE IS 19- 28 -- 208-5211 AVENUE A, JAMES HATFIELD. THE CASE WAS INITIATED IN AUGUST OF 5 AUGUST OF 2019. THE IPMC 304.1 EXTERIOR AND THE 304.9 OVERHANG EXTENSION, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS, THERE IS A CONCRETE OVERHANG OVER THE BUILDING AND DO TO AGENT TIME, THE STEEL, THE REBAR STEEL THAT WAS IN THE CONCRETE IS STARTING TO EXPAND BECAUSE IT'S RESTING. AND IT IS CRACKING AND CAUSING PIECES TO FALL AND SOME CRACKS THAT ARE MORE SEVERE THAN OTHERS BUT STILL WE FIND THAT IT IS DANGEROUS. NOBODY KNOWS ONE A PEACEFUL FALLOFF AND IS IN NEED OF REPAIR.
SO, SO TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS IS NECESSARY TO -- WHAT DID YOU TAKE PHOTOS.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GO AHEAD. >> I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE PHOTOS THAT YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT?
>>PAUL JULIN: I DO. >> DO THEY DEPICT WHAT YOU SAK
>> WE WOULD MOVE THOSE AS A COMPOSITE BUT CAN YOU GIVE A CHANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT TO
RECEIVE -- TO SEE THEM. >>PAUL JULIN: SURE.
>> THERE IS A SEPARATE PACKET OF PICTURES. BEHIND YOUR SHEE .
>> I ALSO HAVE ON HAND THE PERMITTING IN WHICH TO DO THE REPAIRS.
>> OKAY. LET'S LOOK AT THE PICTURES.>> YOU HAVE SEEN THEM COUNSEL NEEDS TO SEE THEM.
>> WE MOVE THEM AS AN EXHIBIT. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THAT WILL
BE CITIES EXHIBIT 1. >> THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU'RE WELCOME.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. BROOKS, US STARTED TO RESPOND. YOU MAY CONTINUE IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> I WAS JUST SAYING THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE REPAIRS, WE HAVE A PERMIT APPLICATION TO ADDRESS IT. AND WE WILL BE -- I WILL BE TAKING IT UPSTAIRS.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. >> TO BE PROCESSED.
>> THAT IS WONDERFUL. NATALIE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING.
>> NO, MA'AM. >> I THINK YOU GOT THROWN INTO
THE. >> (LAUGHING) I RECALL THAT WHEN YOU WERE HERE THE LAST TIME. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY? OKAY. THERE BEING NO FURTHER EVIDENCE, I FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AT 211 AVENUE A AND THAT JAMES HAVE THIS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION.
I WILL GIVE HIM 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED
[01:00:11]
INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, COMPLY WITH OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE WERE NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR BE FINED $100 PER DAY. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.AND GOOD LUCK. >> THANK YOU. I THOUGHT THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE HERE FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION THAT I WAS HERE FOR LAST MONTH? THE
CITRUS. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: I
REMEMBER. HOLD ON. >> THAT WAS COMPLIED.
>> OKAY GREAT. >> AND THEN I DO HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO HE BE HERE FOR TOMORROW. YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TOMORROW CAN WE
ADDRESS IT TODAY? >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YES.
IT'S A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT. >> NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: BY -- BY .
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MADAME CLERK?
>>THE CLERK: THE NEXT CASE IS 6 A CASE NO.: 18-2622, THE ADDRESS IS 602 N. 22ND STREET,
[A. 18-2622 602 N 22nd Street CJBR N 22ND ST LLC Shaun Coss]
CJBR NORTH 22ND STREET LLC IS THE OWNER.>> GOOD MORNING. >>THE CLERK: (WHEREUPON, THE PARTIES WERE SWORN.)
>>SHAUN COSS: THIS IS A REQUEST FOR -- ANDRE BERRIDGE IS THE REGISTERED AGENT OF THE ADDRESS. THE VIOLATION WERE FIVE WERE 5-1.105 POINT WERE FIVE-1.105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED.
PERMITS WERE REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL ELECTRICAL PLUMBING AND OTHER WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN MARCH 2019. THEY EXPIRED IN OCTOBER WITHOUT HAVING THE PROPER INSPECTIONS. WHEN THE PERMITS EXPIRE, THE FINES BEGAN.
SINCE THAT TIME, THE PERMITS HAVE BEEN RENEWED. THE WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE WORK IS BEEN INSPECTED. AND THOSE PERMITS ARE CLOSED.
WHEN THE PERMITS WERE CLOSED, THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE FINES ARE $4300, INCLUDING RECORDING FEES.
THERE IS THREE CRITERIA FOR THIS REDUCTION. THE GRAVITY OR THE EX SERIOUSNESS OF THE -- ANY VIOLATIONS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS. THE OWNER MADE NECESSARY REPAIRS AND BROUGHT THE PLIGHT -- PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE. THE NUMBER OF TIMES HE WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER PROCESS -- THERE WERE NO OTHER CASES FOR THIS VIOLATOR. STEPH IS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THIS CASE. TO BE $1224.36. OF THAT, THERE IS A SOFT COST OF $650 FOR THE 13 MONTHS THAT THIS CASE REMAINS OPEN. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE
TO REDUCE THE FINE TO $575. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING
FURTHER? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: SIR, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN.
>>THE CLERK: AS FOR HIM AND. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: I'M SORRY. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE STATES OFFER?
>>MR. BARRETT: I GUESS IT'S FAIR.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. THEN, BASED ON THE STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, I WILL REDUCE THE FINE TO $575. YOU HAVE -- HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO PAY IT?
>> SIX MONTHS. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: IS THAT AGREEABLE WITH THE CITY? OKAY. SIX MONTHS TO PAY. I GET THEM SET UP WITH A PAYMENT PLAN OF
WHATEVER AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT
[B. 17-2315 1222 Avenue G McNair Empire LLC Shaun Coss]
[01:05:11]
NEXT CASE IS 7 B. CASE NO.: 17 Ã23105 -- MCNAIR EMPIRE LLC IS THE OWNER.>>THE CLERK: WILL THE RESPONDENT RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE
RECORD PLEASE? >> JEANNIE MCNAIR.
>>THE CLERK: (WHEREUPON, THE PARTIES WERE
SWORN.). >>SHAUN COSS: THIS IS CASE NO.: 17-2315 THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY MCNAIR EMPIRE OF PORT ST. LUCIE FLORIDA.
THIS CASE WAS INITIATED ON NOVEMBER 29, 2017. THE VIOLATIONS WERE THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 305 THIS CASE WAS INITIATED ON NOVEMBER 29, 2017. THE VIOLATIONS WERE THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 305.3 AND 304.7 ROOF SEND CHANGE. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU AND AUGUST 1 ROOF SEND CHANGE. THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU AND AUGUST 1, 2014 AN ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION WAS PROVIDED 60 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY. ON OCTOBER 2, 2018 A 90 DAY EXTENSION WAS GRANTED.
ON JANUARY 8, 2019 THE FINE STARTED AFTER THERE WAS NO PERMITS TO REPAIR THE ROOF.
AN ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND OPPOSING LIEN WAS RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019.
SINCE THAT TIME, MR. MCNAIR HAS HIRED A CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO REPLACE THE ROOF.
THAT WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND INSPECTED IN THE FINES WERE STOPPED.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINES ARE $18,530 IN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS GENTLEMAN CAME BEFORE YOU MAYBE TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO FOR A PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON I BELIEVE IT WAS LEARNER -- AND WE ENTERTAINED A PARTIAL RELEASE TO REDUCE IT TO $500. THAT MATTER DID GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. HOWEVER, PAYMENT WAS NEVER MADE OF -- FOR THAT. SO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE THAT AMOUNT AS WELL.
THERE ARE SEVEN CRITERIA FOR THIS LIEN REDUCTION. GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION IS MODERATE, ANY ACTIONS TAKEN TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS, HOWEVER, THE VIOLATOR DID HIRE A CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT. THE WORK WAS COMPLETED AND THE PERMIT WAS CLOSED.
THEN THEY LEFT -- LENGTH OF TIME.
THIS WAS PREPARED WHAT WE WERE DOING A PARTIAL RELEASE AND SOME OF THESE FACTS HAVE CHANGED. THE LENGTH OF TIME TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. IT WAS APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS ONE MONTH. THIS PROPERTY DID COME INTO COMPLIANCE EARLIER THIS MONTH. THE NUMBER OF TIMES A VIOLATOR HAS BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, WAS TWO.
THE NUMBER OF VIOLATION NOTICES THE VIOLATOR RECEIVED IS SEVEN.
WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THERE ARE EXTENUATING FACTORS PREVENTING TIMELY COMPLIANCE SUCH AS HARDSHIP, THE OWNER CLAIMED A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP PREVENTING THEM TO MAKE REPAIR . OTHER PROPERTIES WERE SOLD IN ORDER TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT THERE ARE PENDING VIOLATION PROCEEDINGS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY BY THE RESPONDED AND THERE ARE NONE.
STAFF IS CALCULATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IN THIS CASE. THIS COST TOTALED $2521.
THERE WILL BE TWO CITY COMMISSION FEES AS PART OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COST. ONE WAS FOR THE PARTIAL RELEASE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PAID AND THE OTHER FOR THIS LIEN, WHICH WOULD ALSO RELEASE THE LIENS ON ANY OTHER PROPERTIES THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ENCUMBRANCE ON THIS POINT.
THE STANCE RECOMMENDATION IS TO PRODUCE THIS LIEN TO $1500.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. MCNAIR, HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN?
>> YES. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: IN YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT STATEMENT MADE BY THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE?
>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE THAT IT TOOK ME SO LONG. EVERYTHING IS WHAT HAPPENED. IT TOOK ME SO
[01:10:06]
LONG BECAUSE I WAS GOING THROUGH A LITTLE HARDSHIP AND I WAS GOING THROUGH THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ACTUALLY OWED ME MONEY TO REPAIR THE ROOF. BUT AFTER GOING BACK AND FORTH, HAD TO GET A PERSONAL ADJUSTER INVOLVED TO GO OUT -- AFTER THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THEY DID GIVE ME PARTIAL PAYMENT FOR THE ROOF AND THE WHEN THEY GAVE ME THAT, HAD TO PUT WHAT -- HAD TO COME UP WITH OTHER THINGS TO GET IT DONE.SO THAT BEING SAID, AFTER ALMOST A YEAR NOW WE FINALLY GOT IT DONE. I APPRECIATE THE CITY WORKING WITH ME AND THEY WERE VERY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I WAS GOING THROUGH.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK IS I CAN PAY IT TODAY IF IT REDUCES THE 1500 2000, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR MY FAMILY. WISHING EVERYBODY A MERRY CHRISTMAS BEING THAT IT'S
THE MONTH OF DECEMBER. >>MR. BARRETT: UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS ONLY AND SO WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
IN A WAY, THIS FILE WOULD BE REDUCED TO A THOUSAND SINCE IT WAS ALREADY A COMMITMENT TO PAY THE $500 FROM THE PREVIOUS PARTIAL RELEASE, WHICH HAS STILL NOT BEEN PAID.
THAT ORDER FROM THE CITY COMMISSION DID PROVIDE A TIME PERIOD TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT.
THAT TIME PERIOD HAS SINCE EXPIRED.
THE STEPS RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO LET THAT PARTIAL RELEASE LIE AS IT IS AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FULL RELEASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1500.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: SO THERE IS STILL THE OUTSTANDING $500 FOR THE PARTIAL RELEASE?
>>SHAUN COSS: CORRECT, MA'AM. >> CAN I -- AND I PAY THAT -- HOW DOES IT -- HOUSE DOES IT GO? CAN I PAY THAT AND GET IT TAKEN CARE OF?
>> UNFORTUNATELY THAT TIME WAS EXPIRED WHEN ONE IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THE PROVIDED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAYS TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT AND THAT TIMEFRAME HAS COME AND
GONE. >> OKAY. DO I -- AN IPAD ALTOGETHER? AND BE DONE WITH IT?
>>SHAUN COSS: MY RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TO SET ASIDE THAT PARTIAL RELEASE LIEN AND INCORPORATE THE $500 INTO THIS LIEN REDUCTION SO YOU WOULD ONLY BE MAKING A PAYMENT FOR THIS LIEN REDUCTION WHICH IS A FULL RELEASE WHICH WILL RELEASE ANY OTHER PROPERTIES ENCUMBERED
BY THIS LIEN. >> OKAY. I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT EXCEL THE $1500. ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? IN THIS CASE?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH
>> OKAY. YOU DO UNDERSTAND -- IS THE ADMIN FEE ENCOMPASSED IN THIS TOO?
>>SHAUN COSS: SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ADMIN FEE, THERE'S AN ADMIN FEE OF $250.
>> ALL RIGHT. I WILL REDUCE THE LIEN FOR FULL RELEASE TO THE $1500. THIS GOES TO THE CITY FOR APPROVAL. DO WE KNOW WHEN THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION DATE IS?
>>SHAUN COSS: THE NEXT ONE IS JANUARY 6. WITH THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, I AM NOT SURE IF WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL. WE WILL LET MR. MCNAIR KNOW THAT IT WILL EITHER BE JANUARY 6 OR JANUARY 20.
>> OKAY. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I HAVE A CLOSING FOR A PROPERTY -- THIS MONTH. ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THIS FRIDAY FROM NOT MISTAKEN. HOW I DO THAT AS FAR AS -- AND I SHOW THEM THAT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING A REDUCTION BECAUSE WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, THEY WILL HOLD BACK LIKE IN ESCROW FOR THAT SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS BEING THAT EVERYTHING -- THERE WAS A FINE ATTACHMENT PROPERTIES THAT ISELLE WANTED STILL SHOWS UP AS 18,530. THE TITLE COMPANY WOULD NEED SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT THE FINE WILL BE 15 -- OTHER THAN I COMPARED TODAY AND GET OVER WITH BUT YOU SAY GO TO GET IT REPROVED THROUGH ANOTHER COMMITTEE? FOR ME, THE CLOSING WILL HAPPEN BEFORE THEN. SO WE TRY TO RECTIFY IT OR SHOW SOME KIND OF INFORMATION SO THE TITLE COMPANY CAN USE THAT AT THE CLOSING.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GO AHEAD. >> I THINK THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL STILL ISSUE AN ORDER BUT THAT ORDER IS NOT FINAL UNTIL THE COMMISSION
VOTES ON IN JANUARY. >> OKAY. THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO NOW IN TERMS OF PROVIDING PAPERWORK.
>> OKAY. >> AND THAT IS CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE THE ANSWER I WOULD GIVE HIM.
>> OKAY. >> 'SOKAY I HAVE A COPY OF
THAT. >> IT'LL PROBABLY BE LIGHTER
LATER TODAY OR TOMORROW. >> OKAY. AND THEN YOU CAN CALL
[01:15:06]
AND SEE IF IT'S READY. IF IT'S READY, YOU CAN GET A COPY AND TAKE IT WITH YOU TO YOURCLOSING. >> OKAY. WHICH DEPARTMENT DO I
GO TO FOR THAT. >> WILL DEAL WITH LIZ.
[B. 18-2935 Ext. Req. 325 S 13th Street Dantilus, Jean Shaun Coss ]
>> THANK YOU. MERRY CHRISTMAS. >> MERRY CHRISTMAS.
>>THE CLERK: CASE NO.: AP CASE NO.: 1829 Ã35 ADDRESS 325 S. 13TH STREET. JEAN DON TOLES IS
THE OWNER. >> THIS IS CASE 18 Ã219 3543 25 S. 13TH STREET THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY JEAN DEN TILLIS. THIS CASE WAS INITIATED DECEMBER 11, 2010. VIOLATIONS ARE FIVE- 1.105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED AND FIVE-1.105.4.1.2 EXPIRED PERMIT. THE PERMIT NUMBER IS 13-2204 AND 18-1358. THE NEW PERMIT IS BEING REQUIRED FOR A STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION THAT WAS MADE ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THIS MATTER PREVIOUSLY CAME BEFORE YOU. THE ORDER DETERMINED A VIOLATION WAS ENTERED.
FOLLOWING THAT A 90 DAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION WAS GRANTED. ON NOVEMBER 15 I RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM AN ARCHITECT, VALERIE SLACK REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE SIGNED AND SEALED DRAWINGS FOR MR. DEN TILLIS. THIS MATTER HAS COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. THE STAFF IS AGREEABLE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND TO OBTAIN THE RENEWAL OF THE PREVIOUS
PERMITS. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER? ANSWER, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND STATE YOUR NAME AND BE SWORN? (WHEREUPON, THE PARTIES WERE SWORN.).
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AND YOU HEARD THE STAFF'S COMMENTS THAT THEY WOULD BE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU BE GRANTED 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND A RENEWAL OF THE PREVIOUS PERMIT.
>>JEAN DANTILUS: YES. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ARE YOU
IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? >>JEAN DANTILUS: YES.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY?
>>JEAN DANTILUS: NO. THE STAFF WILL WORK WITH ME AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE SITUATION AND WE DID NOT HAVE TIME EITHER THE ARCHITECT ME, BOTH -- MY MOTHER JUST PASSED AWAY. WE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO FINALIZE THIS BEFORE THE MEETING -- EVERYTHING WILL BE WORKING FINE. I HOPE THAT EVERYTHING WILL WORK WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THANK YOU. I AM SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR MOTHER'S PASSING.
>>JEAN DANTILUS: ALL RIGHT. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: BASED ON THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PARTIES I'LL GIVE YOU 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND RENEWAL OF THE PREVIOUS PERMIT. I WILL EXTEND YOUR TIME, 60 DAYS.
>>JEAN DANTILUS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU'RE WELCOME.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING ELSE.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. >> SO JUST READ IN THE CASES
THAT ARE NOT HERE. >> I THINK WE HAVE CASES THAT
[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]
ARE BEING RESCHEDULED OR PULLED FOLLOWING CASES WILL BE RESCHEDULED TO THE JANUARY HEARING, 5 A CASE NO.: 16-2359, ADDRESS 1116 S. SEVENTH STREET, FRITZ MANN FELL SILENT AS THE OWNER. CASE NO.: 5H, CASE NO.: IS 19-2455, 2106 GULF VIEW COURT, JBM PROPERTIES LLC IS THE OWNER. ITEM 5J, CASE NO.: 19-2507, 431 N. 21ST STREET, BRITNEY GEORGES IS THE OWNER. AND LASTLY, ITEM NUMBER FIVE ITEM NUMBER 5K CASE NO.: 19-2533, 315 S. 17TH STREET UNIQUE, OR METH LIZ THERE IS THE OWNER.>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THE CASES HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY CALLED THEY WILL BE CONTINUED UNTIL
THE JANUARY 2020 DOCKET. >>SHAUN COSS: IF WE COULD -- I BELIEVE WE HAVE ITEM 7A THAT IS HERE NOW.
[A. 17-2805 3607 Oleander Ave House of Believers, Inc. Shaun Coss]
[01:20:05]
DO WE HAVE A PARTY PRESENT FOR ITEM 7A? YOU CAN CALL LIKE A.>>THE CLERK: OKAY. OUR NEXT CASES 7 A. CASE NO.: 17 -2805 THE ADDRESS IS 3607 OLEANDER AVENUE, HOUSE OF BELIEVERS INC. IS THE OWNER.
>>SHAUN COSS: WE HAVE A RESPONDENT PRESENT UNFORTUNATELY -- IF WE CALL HIM UP AND HAVE THEM SWORN IN AND MAKE SURE THAT HE IS AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
OWNER. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THANK
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: GOOD MORNING.
>> MY NAME IS DOCTOR -- I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE OF THE BELIEVER. I AM HERE TO
EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED, RIGHT? >>THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HANDED STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
>> EXCUSE ME? >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HANDED STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
(WHEREUPON, THE PARTIES WERE SWORN.).
>>SHAUN COSS: THIS IS CASE 70-2805, 3607 OLEANDER AVENUE, AND THIS IS A LIEN REDUCTION.
THE VIOLATION THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE FIVE-1.101.2.1, UNSAFE BUILDING AND FIVE-1.105.4.24 EXPIRED PERMIT.
THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU JULY 20, 2018. A 90 DAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION WAS GRANTED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018. FINES BEGAN DECEMBER 17, 2018 AFTER SOME OF THE ISSUED PERMITS HAVE EXPIRED. AN ORDER ASSESSING FINE IMPOSING LIEN WAS RECORDED OCTOBER 2, 2019.
AFTER THOSE PERMITS WERE RENEWED, THE WORK WAS INSPECTED AND THE PERMITS WERE CLOSED.
AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WAS RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 2019.
RETROACTIVE TO THE FINAL INSPECTION DATE OF JULY 25, 2019.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE FINES ARE AT $22,050. THERE ARE SEVEN CRITERIA FOR THIS CASE FROM THE LIEN REDUCTION. IT'S BEING A LITTLE SLUGGISH TODAY FOR SOME REASON. THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE MODERATION WAS MODERATE. ANY VIOLATIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECTLY VIOLATION. THE OWNER HIRED SEVERAL CONTRACTORS TO COME IN AND OBTAIN PERMITS. THE LENGTH OF TIME NECESSARY TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WAS 20 MONTHS. THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE VIOLATOR WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION BY EITHER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OR OTHER CAUSE A JUDICIAL PROCESS WAS ONE THE NUMBR OF VIOLATION NOTICES HE RECEIVED WAS TWO. WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT THERE ARE EXTENUATING FACTORS PREVENTING UNTIMELY COMPLAINTS SUCH AS HARDSHIP. THAT'S UNKNOWN. AND WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT ARE PENDING VIOLATION PROCEEDINGS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT WITHIN THE CITY AND THERE ARE NONE.
FOR THE RECORD STAFF IS AWARE OF A -- SOME TYPE OF MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND FIRE PERMIT SERVICES IN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY STAFF AS WELL AS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE CITY PROCEDURES THAT WHEN YOU HAVE ANY TYPE OF FIRE ALARM OR SPRINKLER PERMIT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO INSPECTIONS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN INSPECTION BY THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN INSPECTION BY THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST TIME THE INSPECTION WAS SCHEDULED, BOTH PARTIES WERE SCHEDULED, THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE INSPECTOR WAS DISAPPROVED -- THE INSPECTION WAS DISAPPROVED.
APPARENTLY, THE CONTRACTOR CONTACTED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY FOR THE SECOND INSPECTION. THE CITY STAFF WAS NOT AWARE OF WHEN THE SECOND INSPECTION TOOK PLACE. WE WERE LEFT OUT OF THE PROCESS. SO, THERE WAS NO INSPECTION FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THAT PERMIT EXPIRED.
ONCE THE ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND LIEN WAS MAILED TO THE RESPONDENT, THEY CONTACTED OUR OFFICE, TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY IT WAS STILL IN VIOLATION. IT WAS THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS HAD BEEN CURED. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DETERMINED THAT DUE TO THE MISCOMMUNICATION FROM THEIR CONTRACTOR, THAT THIS PERMIT HAD EXPIRED.
SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO VERIFY WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY APPROVE THE INSPECTION IN JULY 2019. WE HAVE PERFORMED ANOTHER INSPECTION AT THE PROPERTY AND
[01:25:06]
CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE AS WELL. SO THAT IS WHY THE ORDER -- THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE IS RETROACTIVE TO JULY 25. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WITH THE RESPONDENT PRIOR TO DISCUSSING A RECOMMENDATION.>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AND YOU HAVE BEEN SWORN? HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE
BY MR. COSTS? >> I AM HARD OF HEARING. I DID NOT HEAR HIM ALL THE WAY. I AM HARD OF HEARING.
WE HIRED THE CONTRACTOR AND IN THE CONTRACTOR THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PERMITTING AND EVERYTHING. SO, WHEN WE WERE DOING RENOVATION IN THE ISLAMIC CENTER, THERE WERE TWO KIND OF PERMITTED ONE. ONE WAS THAT WE WERE DOING SOME GENERAL MAINTENANCE THING AND WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PERMIT TO BE RENEWED.
WE HAD FILED SIX PERMITS. AND ANOTHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR HE PULLED THE PERMITS WE FINISH THE JOB ON TIME. AS FOR THE SPRINKLER, IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. SO HE MIGHT HAVE PULLED FIVE OR SIX OTHER PERMITS, BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF IT. WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CITY.
SO BECAUSE WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY PERMIT THAT HE PULLED. FOR THE FIRE ALARM AND FOR THE FIRE SPRINKLE. AND WE PAID MORE THAN $300,000 AND IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CONTRACT THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PERMITS.
ANOTHER POINT IS THAT THIS LIEN OF THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, I -- I RECEIVED ONLY TWO LETTERS AND NONE OF THEM WAS LIKE 35 LETTERS. SO IN THE FIRST LETTER, I FOUND, I IMMEDIATELY TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR OFFICE AND I TOLD HIM THAT YOU GO AND FILE THE PROBLEM WITH THE CITY.
SO THEY CAME AND THEY TALKED AND THEN I RECEIVED THE NEXT LETTER, WHICH WAS THIS ONE. SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, I'M UNAWARE THAT ANY RED FLAG OF SOMETHING THAT WAS BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR PERMIT SO THAT I COULD HELP INFORM THE CONTRACTOR ON TIME THAT YOU GO AND FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH THE CITY.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. >> AND THE ONLY THING A REPUTED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM AND THEN AFTER WEEKS ALSO THERE WAS A PENALTY. THERE WAS NO WARNING GIVEN TO ME SO THAT I COULD HAVE INFORMED THE CONTRACTOR ON TIME.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
MR. COSTS? >>SHAUN COSS: THE ONLY NOTIFICATION THAT IS SENT OUT CERTIFIED MAIL IS THE INITIAL NOTICE OF HEARING. ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES, THE -- THE MASSEY NOTICE NOTIFYING THAT FINES HAVE STARTED AND THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO A HEARING IS SENT REGULAR MAIL. THAT WAS SENT DECEMBER 19, 2018. AND THEN THE NEXT NOTICE WAS ONCE THE FINE AND LIEN WAS RECORDED AND THAT IS THE NOTICE THAT DOCTOR RAHMAN HAS RECEIVED AND IS THE REASON WHY HIS PRESENT THIS MORNING.
>> OKAY. AND WITH REGARDS TO THE -- THE LIENS, TOTALING $22,050, IS THERE A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY? >>SHAUN COSS: THERE. SCAN -- STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IN THIS CASE TO BE $1695.68.
OF THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A SOFT COSTS OF $1000 FOR 20 MONTHS AT THIS CASE IS OPENED. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THIS LIEN TO $750. AND THAT IS TAKEN INTO A FACT THE ISSUE THAT DOCTOR RAHMAN HAS HAD WITH HIS CONTRACTOR. UNFORTUNATELY THE CITY CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR SINCE THEY ARE A STATE CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR.
THAT ISSUE WOULD BE BETWEEN -- THAT'S A CONTRACTUAL ISSUE BETWEEN DOCTOR RAHMAN AND THAT CONTRACTOR IF YOU WOULD WISH TO PURSUE THAT.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: DOCTOR RAHMAN, DID YOU UNDERSTAND -- DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT MR.
GOSS WAS SAYING. >> CAN YOU REPEAT IT FOR ME?
>> MR. COSTS, REPEATED. TALK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.
>> SO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE WITH YOUR CONTRACTOR, UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT -- THE CITY CANNOT TAKE ACTION, DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST YOUR CONTRACTOR.
THAT WOULD BE A CONTRACTUAL ISSUE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR CONTRACTOR. HOWEVER I DO UNDERSTAND THAT DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT IS WHY THAT BEING -- FINALLY WAS ALLOWED TO
[01:30:02]
CONTINUE. SO TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DEFINED TO $750 AND THAT'S A REDUCTION FROM $22,050. AND THEN, IF YOU WISH TO PURSUE COLLECTING THAT FROM THE CONTRACTOR, HE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT ON YOUR OWN.>> I CAN UNDERSTAND. CAN I -- ARE YOU ASKING ME -- (AWAY FROM MIC).
>>SHAUN COSS: MY AUGMENTATION IS THAT THE FINE BE REDUCED TO $750.
>> BUT MY POINT IS, THAT IF THERE'S ANY FINE THAT WILL BE A DISPUTE BETWEEN ME AND THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR, AS SOME SAY, HE MIGHT HAVE PULLED SIX, SEVEN PERMITS AND YOU SHOW ME THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN ANYTHING. SO IF ANYBODY HAS TO SUFFER IT HAS TO BE THE CONTRACTOR AND THAT'S ME. SO IF THERE'S EVEN $100 I CANNOT BE GOING AFTER THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE I DIDN'T DO ANY MISTAKE. I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE I PAID HIM MORE THAN $300,000. AND IN THE CONTRACT IT SAYS THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PERMITTING.
>> LIKE YOU SAID, IF THE CONTRACT IF IS 100 PERCENT RESPONSIBLE, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO PURSUE THAT CIVILLY. THE CITY CANNOT TAKE ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR COLLECT ANY MONEY FROM A CONTRACTOR. WE ARE PROHIBITED TO DO THAT BY STATUTE. SO ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATE STATUTE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS YOU. SO IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN THE CITY COMMISSION GO ALONG WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE THE LIEN TO $750, IF YOU WISH TO GO AFTER THE CONTRACTOR TO COLLECT THAT $750, YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT THAT'S THROUGH YOUR OWN ENDEAVOR.
>> OKAY. THIS -- 750 THIS -- $750, RIGHT?
>> SO, IS GOING TO BE IMPOSED IF WE WERE SELLING THE PROPERTY AFTER 50 YEARS AGO BE INTERESTED IN THE BECOME SEVEN OR $50 TO BECOME LIKE 20,009 BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST ON THIS? SO ANY AMOUNT WE CAN LIFT LIKE THIS, IF IT'S ONLY 750, THAT'S FINE. I ACCEPT IT.
BUT IF THERE WILL BE A MARKUP ON IT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: 'SARE -- AHEAD, COUNCILL.
>> I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYBODY AGREES TO REDUCE THE FEE TO $750, CORRECT? IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> KNOW MY QUESTION IS THAT THE LOWLY -- LIEN WILL BE REDUCED FROM THE $22,000-$750.
>> RIGHT. >> 750 IS NO PROBLEM.
>> RIGHT. >> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, THE LIEN MEANS THAT IF I WAS SELLING THE PROPERTY AFTER 20 YEARS, THAT I HAVE TO PAY THE CITY 750. SO IF SEVEN OR $50 GOING TO BE INCREASING BY THE INTEREST OR NO?
>> THERE IS NO INTEREST ON THE $750. IF YOU PAY IT WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME THAT'S GIVEN TO YOU
TO PAY IT, YOU ONLY PAY 750. >> YOU'D ONLY DEPENDING JUST
GOT IN SAFE PAY THE 750. >> GO AHEAD. ADVISE HIM THAT THIS GOES BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> TWO THINGS. FIRST WELL -- THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE ON TELLING HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HERE THIS MORNING CAN ISSUE AN ORDER REDUCING THE LIEN TO $750. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID SO FAR? SHE CAN WRITE AN ORDER SAYING YEAH 750. BUT, HER ORDER IS NOT FINAL UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION VOTES ON IT. SO IT STILL HAS TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. AND IF THEY SAY YES, THEN THE 750 IS FINAL.
BUT THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO PAY IT -- YOU CAN'T WAIT.
>> FINE. WE WILL PAY IT RIGHT AWAY THERE BE NO INTEREST ON. THAT'S FINE. NO PROBLEM.
>> CORRECT OTHERWISE YOU GO BACK TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I
SHOULD CLARIFY? >> JEFF ANY QUESTIONS? NO.
OKAY. THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: BASED ON THE STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, I WILL REDUCE THE LIEN TO $750. $250 OF THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CHARGES. THIS IS NOT THE FINAL HEARING ON THIS MATTER. THIS WILL NOW BE REFERRED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY WILL VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT IT. IF THEY ACCEPT IT, THEN YOU CAN SET UP A TERM OR TIME WITHIN WHICH TO PAY IT. YOU CAN PAY IT ALL AT ONCE OR YOU CAN SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN IF YOU WANT TO. BUT IT HAS TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL RESOLUTION.
[01:35:01]
>> OKAY. FINE. THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YOU'RE
WELCOME. >>SHAUN COSS: PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION WILL INCLUDE THE TIMEFRAME. DOCTOR ROBIN, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY
>> HOW MUCH TIME DO NEED TO PAY THE $750 QUICKLY COMPARE RIGHT AWAY. NO PROBLEMS. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO PROVIDE 60 DAYS TO MAKE PAYMENT.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: I AGREE. I'LL GIVE YOU 60 DAYS TO PAY. BUT REMEMBER THIS MATTER WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. YOU WILL GET A LETTER TELLING YOU WHEN THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION DATE IS. IF YOU WANT TO APPEAR, IT WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO SAY CITY REDUCE IT FURTHER. IF NOT, THE CITY WILL AGREE OR NOT AGREE WITH WHAT I'VE DONE AND THAT WE WILL PROCEED FROM THERE.
>> OKAY. BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S BEEN REDUCED MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT BE REDUCED TO $750 AND YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO PAY THAT AFTER THE CITY MAKES ITS FINAL RECOMMENDATION.
>> WE WILL RECEIVE A LETTER? >> YES.
>> DO WE HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY MEETING OR NO?
>> THE LETTER WILL EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU OR SOMEBODY FROM STAFF WILL. HOW THAT PART OF THE
PROCESS WORKS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR COMING. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THE NEXT
[E. 19-2221 618 S 11th Street 10425-27 SW 177th Street LLC Tim Little]
ITEM. >>THE CLERK: IT WILL BE 5 E.
CASE NO.: 19-2221 THE OWNER IS 10425-27 SW. 1/77 STREET, LLC.. THE OWNER IS TIM A LITTLE.
>> GOOD MORNING. TIMOTHY LITTLE. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. LET'S SEE. WE ARE HERE FOR CASE NO.: 19-2221, 618 S. 11TH STREET.
AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY HAVE HIRED A CONTRACTOR AND THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR
PERMITS. >> I WOULD INQUIRE STAFF AS TO WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS AS TO THIS POINT.
>> AND SEE PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED, THEY'VE ONLY BEEN APPLIED FOR, IS IT YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS VIOLATION PROVIDE A TIMEFRAME TO COMPLY?
>> YES. 60 DAYS IS FINE TO GET THE PERMANENT AND COMPLETE THE WORK.
>> THANK YOU. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: DO YOU KNOW WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE PERMIT?
>> 12-2. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON TO GET A PERMIT APPROVED?
>> TYPICALLY A REPAIR PERMIT, IF THE SCOPE OF WORK ADEQUATELY COMPLIES WITH ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS, THE NET PERMIT IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED WITHIN TWO WEEKS. I WOULD SUSPECT THAT SINCE WE ARE GETTING INTO THE THIRD WEEK THAT EITHER IT'S BEEN REJECTED OR THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT MAY NEED TO BE MADE, BUT THAT IS JUST A SPECULATION.
UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO STICK THIS -- CHECK THE STATUS. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE A BRIEF BREAK, I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
[F. 19-2426 1508 Citrus Ave Louverture, Edmond Ed Smith]
[01:40:54]
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE I DON'T THINK WE NOTED THAT THE RESPONDENT WASN'T PRESENT. I WANT TO KNOW FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE IS NO ONE HERE FOR THIS CASE EITHER.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: IS AT THE LAST CASE WAS 19-2221, 618 S. 11TH STREET. THANK YOU.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: MR. SMITH, WHEN YOU ARE READY.
>> GOOD MORNING. EDWARD SMITH, ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
TODAY WE ARE HERE FOR CASE NO.: 19- 2426, 1508 CITRUS AVENUE ADMIN LOUVERTURE. THE CASE WAS INITIATED AUGUST LOUVERTURE. THE CASE WAS INITIATED AUGUST 27, 2019. THE CASE WAS INITIATED BECAUSE THE ROOF WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE PICTURES OF THE ROOF BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THESE PICTURES.
>> OKAY. >> THE THIS WILL BE CITY'S
COMPOSITE 1. >> HAVE YOU SEEN THEM?
>> I WILL WAIT SEEING THEM, MA'AM, THANK YOU.
YOU MAY CONTINUE, MR. SMITH. P>> THE VIOLATION WAS THE WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT SECTION 5-1.105.1, PERMIT REQUIRED.
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WOULD BE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ROOFING BEING INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY HUNDRED 80 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO. >> IS MR. ADMIN LOUVERTURE HERE ARE REPRESENTATIVE? THERE BEING NO WHEN I FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT ADMIN LOUVERTURE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I WILL GIVE HIM 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 FINE OR PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 A DAY BE ASSESSED. 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
>>THE CLERK: OKAY. THE NEXT CASE IS 5 G CASE NO.: 19-2430. THE ADDRESS IS 1912 AVENUE M,
[G. 19-2430 1912 Avenue M Osby, Louise Paul Julin]
LOUISE OSBY IS THE OWNER. >> WE CAN PROCEED WHENEVER
[01:45:06]
YOU'RE READY. >> THE CASE IS 19-Ã2430, THE ADDRESS IS 1912 AVENUE M, OWNER IS LOUISE OSBY.
THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON AUGUST 27, 2019. THE VIOLATION IS SECTION 5-1.105.1, PERMIT REQUIRED. AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A DRIVEWAY THAT HAD SOME MATERIAL ON IT THAT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED, YOU CAN'T USE THAT, THE MILLINGS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE THAT WAS THERE. AND SO, THAT IS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MAKE THAT CORRECTION TO THE DRIVEWAY.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. P>> OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS REPAIRE WITH NONAPPROVED MATERIALS OR --
>> THAT'S GREAT. >> AND ALSO THE WORK WAS DONE
WITHOUT A PERMIT, CORRECT? >> YES. OKAY.
>> DID YOU WANT TO SUBMIT THE PHOTOS AS AN EXHIBIT?
>> I'D LIKE TO. >> WE WOULD MOVE THE PHOTOS IN
AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THEY WILL
BE ADMITTED AS SUCH. >> WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? OR WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DEFINED?
>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE CITY REQUESTS THAT IF THE MAGISTRATE -- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE -- FINDS THE VIOLATIONS EXIST, THE VIOLATOR OR VIOLATORS BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT OR OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLETELY WITH ALL HER OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF
$100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY.
ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: ALL RIGHT. THERE BEING NO ONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT, LOUISE OSBY, NOR IS THERE REPRESENTATIVE HERE ON HER BEHALF, KIND OF VIOLATION EXISTS AT 1912 AVENUE M AND SHE'S IN -- RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATIONS. I'LL GIVE HER 60 DAYS TO ATTORNEY PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AT LEAST 180 DAYS OR THE PERMIT HAS BEEN COMPOSED --) CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT. I'M -- OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT CASES 5 I, CASE NO.: 19-2460. ADDRESS 520 N. 15TH STREET. JOSETTE
MATTHEW IS THE OWNER. >> OKAY.
>> OF THE CASES -- SO, THE CASE IS 19- 2460. THE ADDRESS IS 520 N. 15TH STREET. THE OWNER
IS JOSETTE MATHIEU. >> THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019. THE VIOLATIONS I WILL READ AS -- ALREADY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
IT'S QUITE LENGTHY. REPAIR OR REPLACE THE FRONT DOOR, MAKING IT WEATHERTIGHT. REPAIR OR REPLACE WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT -- A NONWORKING CONDITION. REPAIR OR REPLACE WINDOW SCREENS.
REPAIR OR REPLACE BARS ON THE WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT LOCKABLE FROM THE INSIDE. IF REPLACED, BARS MUST BE UNLOCKED WITHOUT A KEY OR A TOOL.
NUMBER 5 REPLACE ROTTEN WOOD ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. NUMBER 6 IS REPAIR OR REPLACE THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR THE PORCH/PATIO AREA.
ITEM 7, REPAIR OR REPLACE SMOKE ALARMS. NUMBER 8 REPLACE MISSING BLANK ON ELECTRICAL PLAN WILL.
[01:50:05]
NUMBER 9 REPLACE MISSING ELECTRICAL OUTLET COVERS. AND NUMBER 10 OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR COME -- CONVERTING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME INTO A DUPLEX.>> DID YOU TAKE PHOTOS? >> YES, MA'AM. WE DID.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT THEM INTO EVIDENCE?
>> I WOULD. >> NOTING THERE WAS NO RESPONDENT PRESENT THE CITY WOULD MOVE THE PHOTOS IN AS CITY'S COMPOSITE 1.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: SO ADMITTED.
>> AND WHILE WE ARE HINTING THAT UP, DO YOU WANT TO TELL US WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS SO HOW YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULE?
>> OKAY. THE RECOMMENDATION REQUESTS THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATIONS EXIST, THE VIOLATOR BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED, COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A OF $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM.. THANK YOU WILL.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I FIND THAT JOSETTE MATHIEU PRESENT -- WHO IS NOT PRESIDENT ÃPRESENT THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THAT HE OR SHE IS READ POSSIBLE PARTY FOR THE VIOLATION. I'LL GIVE YOU 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 GALATIAS DESCRIBED IN ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $250 BE ASSESSED YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. THAT'S IT.
>>THE CLERK: ONE LAST CASE. THAT IS CASE ITEM NUMBER 5B.
[B. 17-2703 4760 S US Hwy 1 O'Reilly Automotive Stores Inc. Shaun Coss]
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: YES. >>THE CLERK: IT'S CASE NO.: 17-2703, ADDRESS 4760 S. US HIGHWAY 1 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES INC. IS THE OWNER.
>> 17-2703, THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. CARE OF RYAN LLC PO BOX 061 THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. CARE OF RYAN LLC PO BOX 06116 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606. THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE FIVE-1.105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED AND FIVE-1.105.4.1 THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. CARE OF RYAN LLC PO BOX 06116 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606. THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE FIVE-1.105.1 PERMIT REQUIRED AND FIVE-1.105.4.1.2 EXPIRED PERMIT. THIS CASE IS FOR THE NEW ORALITY STORE THAT WAS BUILT ON SOUTH US1 ONE BACK IN 2017. AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO INSTRUCT AN ASSESSABLE ROUTE FROM THE RIGHT AWAY TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WITH THE ROAD WIDENING OBJECT THAT FLORIDA DOT WAS DOING AT THAT TIME, STAFF ALLOWED THEM TO OBTAIN THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND TO COME BACK AND COMPLETE THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT A LATER TIME. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS COMPLETED THAT ROADWORK IN THAT AREA. HOWEVER, O'REILLY STILL HAD NOT COME BACK IN TO RENEW THE PERMITS TO COMPLETE THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. SEE NOT JUST IN SOME TIME LAPSE THAT THERE WAS -- THEY JUST FORGOT ABOUT IT PER SE. I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH JOANNE RUBIO, WHO IS THE SOON -- SENIOR DESIGNER WITH CARGO. THEY ARE THE CONTRACTOR AND THEY WILL BE COMPLETING THIS PROJECT. THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT INITIALLY, SO THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HER THE EMAIL AS OF LAST WEEK AND SHE'S AGREED TO THE 60 DAY RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY BE PROVIDED 60 DAYS TO REMOVE -- RENEW THE PERMITS AND OBTAIN APPROVAL. AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED AND COMPLY WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. OR A FINE OF $100
PER DAY BX -- ASSESSED. >>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: THERE BEING NO ONE HERE ON BEHALF OF O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES INC., BUT BASED ON THE REPRESENTATIONS, MR. CAUSE CONVERSATION WITH THEM, I WILL FIND THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS AT 4760 S. US HIGHWAY ONE AT THE O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES ARE RESPONSIBLE. BETWEEN
[01:55:01]
STIPULATION OF THE PARTY I'LL GIVE YOU 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT, OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR INSPECTIONS AT LEAST EVERY 180 DAYS UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CLOSED. COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS AND CURE ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT OR A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BE ASSESSED. 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.HOWARD THEY NOTIFY? THERE BEING NO OTHER CASES?
>> FOR CASES REQUIRING NOTICE FOR STATE STATUTE 162.12, A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR CERTIFIED MAIL. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED IT IS PLACED IN THE FILE. THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED, AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WITH NOTICE OF HEARING ENCLOSED IS MAILED TO THE VIOLATOR. 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING A NOTICE OF HEARING IS ON REGULAR U.S. MAIL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ATTACHED.
COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED IN THE INSPECTORS FILE.
10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD OFTHE LOBBY OF CITY HALL. A NOTICE OF HEARING IS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF THE CERTIFICATION CARD IS NOT RETURNED, TO THE BILLING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING POSTING IS COMPLETED, THE SAME WAY AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED.
>>SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.