good evening everyone i'd like to call to order the village of Bis Camp Alliance Board meeting for Wednesday April 16th time is 6 o'clock please call the role jamie Anderson Dale Benton present rodula
Berontos Judy Hammerberg Michael Len here Ashley Bnee Green Darin C grant Rafael Gutirez Vanessa Cherry present evening again everyone this is a
meeting of the village of Biscane Park Code Compliance Board the board is authorized pursuant to chapter 14 of the villages land development code to ensure compliance with the villages code of ordinances the members of the board are citizens and residents of the village of
Biscane Park who volunteer our time and are not paid for our services the purpose of each hearing is to give any alleged violators the opportunity to contest the decision of the code compliance officer which resulted in the issuance of a notice of violation and to determine whether a violation of the
villages code has occurred or is occurring we are not authorized to dismiss violations based on hardships ignorance or the fact that others may be guilty of the same violation these hearings are conducted in a quasi judicial manner our
responsibility is to act much like a judge in a court and that is to hear cases presented by the villages code compliance officers and to hear contradictory arguments presented by the alleged violators we are not authorized to change the code the village commission is solely authorized to enact
or revise codes conversely neither the commission nor the village manager have the authority to overrule the findings of the board pursuant to chapter 162 of Florida statutes orders of the board can only be appealed to the circuit court of Miami Dade County we have the authority
to assess and order the payment of civil penalties to to issue orders having the force of law to command whatever steps are necessary to bring a violation into compliance and to assess administrative costs in order to make a finding upholding the code compliance officer's
decision we must find that there is substantial competent evidence that the name violator was responsible for a violation of the relevant section of the code as charged all documentary evidence presented by the parties must be submitted for placement in the hearing
file no documentary evidence will be considered unless the alleged violator or code compliance officer submits a copy for the hearing file each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses to introduce exhibits to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any
matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination to impeach any witnesses regarding of which regardless of which party first called them to testify and to rebut the evidence against them if you intend to address
the board you haven't signed in yet please do so also anyone will wishing to address the board tonight please stand raise your right hand so that you may be sworn in you're reminded that this board is quasi judicial and giving false testimony can be
penalized please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth may be seated i do do we have any additions deletions etc
no additions it needs to be to sign in [Music] any additions or deletions no additions and we're ready to call the first case dorian Grant code compliance department
for the village of Biscane Park first case we're calling on the agenda is in new business 7.2 and it's for the address 771 Northeast 116th Street it's case number CE-25-0092 Jenny Johnson property
owner and council is on Zoom they were found to be in violation they were found to be in violation of section 16.4 14.1 double fee permits for a dumpster that was on the property without a permit the property owner was
out of the country and the contractor created this violation however the property owner came to the village in good faith paid the fines and this case is now in compliance we're asking the board to close the case he's a good
Second all in favor i oppose motion passes 5-0 thank you the next case on the agenda is in old business under section 66 6.1 it's for
the address 826 Northeast 121st Street case number EN22-383 for Jan Roots and wife Dennis um this is a petition from two attorneys for a rehearing this is regarding a
violation FBC code and Miami date county code and safe structures the description of this violations was um village came to ask for an intent to lean for professional services for a case prepared uh for the Miami date county
and safe structures board uh for invoice number for the record 000021200.05 dated March 5th 2024 in the amount of $10,000 we have the village attorney present and council present for the mortgage company brad can I ask you to come
forward please so we're rehearing because the the uh property owner's attorney was not properly noticed last month legally what is our responsibility in
terms of noticing our responsibility is noticing the property owner we send them certified mail we noticed them by certified mail which we did we emailed the attorneys each attorney there are three attorneys on this case and we emailed each attorney
um the continuence because the initial um notice was sent in Janu for the January hearing case was continued to February we noticed the attorneys by email and we noticed them in March again for a continuence however the original
notice everybody was noticed so legally we don't necessarily have to adhere but out of fairness we should it's up to the board i would say out of fairness we should i mean it's not a
legal requirement obviously but gentleman took the time to be here and hopefully we can rehearing it would be fair how does anybody feel one concern very quick concern i'm sorry so
would you state your name and your relationship to the property yes my name is Caleb Hazing i represent the mortgage serer you know Matthew Kramer is not here present at the moment
and he's the one who basically filed for the rehearings right i've been notified that Bill Riley was supposed to be in attendance on his behalf as a step in counsel i apologize so you represent the mortgage company
correct but we don't have an attorney for the property owner we don't have um anyone representing the property owner right now just uh Bradley Weissman village attorney and just so that Oops I think I just broke it no just so the record's
clear I am not here as an in an advisory capacity to the board i am here representing the village on this matter so so there so the board's aware of what my capacity is here today um I would I would would suggest um and I understand the position that the board members have
already allocated but before you make a formal decision I would suggest that you you take note of several things one council that's present here today who represents I'm I'm sorry the mortgage the mortgage holder mortgage service sorry um they were present at the last
hearing and had an opportunity to be heard um council for the property owner was not present however the property owner I would submit was properly noticed as it is indicated in your file and provided by Miss Grant as Miss Grant
has also um provided the court and she can give sworn testimony if needed there were emails that were sent to both Mr kramer Mr riley and Miss um Sllo Rogers indicating that the February hearing was
being continued and being rescheduled to March so there was formal notice uh with well obviously there was notice to the councils with regards to that hearing and I would also just um state for the record that neither Florida statute
16212 nor any provision in the vill's code specifically requires any type of notice whatsoever to council um the the statute um 162.12 deals specifically with notices and code enforcement matters and it
requires notice to be sent to the alleged violator um and that and it sets out how that notice I know you're all aware how that notice so I won't read it going into it we knew there is no legal responsibility and now that I'm hearing the gentleman present is
not representative of the property owner I have to take back what I said i I just don't see the point i have to tell you there's no new evidence that they have presented i still stand by my vote in
March because there's no new evidence we know it was a flat rate because it was a flat rate there was no need for fictionalized documentation and as was said last month the village cannot be required to
provide a document that does not exist that's not how public records work so how does everyone feel i mean I I just want to point out that the the attorney for the property owner is the one that wanted the re-haring we
spending all of our time talking about whether it we should or we shouldn't and the attorney for the property owner is not here right was properly noticed so I mean I mean listen it's a you know there's no reason to go forward if you make a motion or you make an ask you got
to be here on the other end but so I I I don't see any reason to go forward resend my comment i my motion would be that we do not rehear i'll second all in favor i I
now so the original order stands the original order stands for intent to lean now I do I need a motion to make a suggestion on the order of enforcement i'm a little uncomfortable
with the word fine it's not a fine it's a fee and I should have caught that before signing how does everybody feel take a look at the order of enforcement so everybody can see what I'm referencing
it's the fee i'm parsing words i realize that but it isn't a fine we will we have taken notes we will make a correction we'll amend the order and have you sign it that all right with everyone
yes that's perfectly fine yes okay need to be a motion for that oh amending the order to be safe just to be safe I will I'd like to make a motion to amend the order of enforcement from the March 12th meeting to replace the word
fine with the word fee i'll second the motion all in favor i I I motion passes 5 um I would like to bring to the attention of the board that Mr bill O'Reilly is here they are truly representing the owner is
you just rolled on needs to be sworn in please raise your right hand yeah okay sorry do you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth okay and and again I apologize uh again if you would identify yourself and your relationship to the property so my name is Bill Riley um my office is located at 16343 Southwest 256th Street uh
Homestead Florida and I am uh the representative the attorney for the property owner um and I was the attorney who appeared at the unsafe structures board um and we came here um a colleague
of mine Matt Kramer uh someone who filed uh the request for the re-her um because we didn't have the notice and nobody showed up at the March 12th hearing and I believe and correct me if I'm wrong but one of the attorneys from the lender
also requested for the rehearing that's when I knew I was running late with the traffic and and my surgery but I thought maybe she would be here to do the presentation as well has nobody appeared from them oh hi how are you no I haven't met you
in person yet fortunately I don't represent the property owner and they wanted you here oh okay okay great okay great um so um the purpose of today's uh meeting is that we had two hearings
before the unsafe structures board the unsafe structures board ultimately ruled in favor of allowing additional time for the property owner um and uh I was the lead attorney at that hearing i appeared
uh on both occasions i did 90% of the uh presentation uh before the board um the person who we're here about today with his invoice of $10,000 um spoke at one of the hearings i don't
believe he spoke at the second one um spoke at the first one yes ma'am i'm going to stop you just a moment there seems to be a continuing misconception even though it has been explained right from the
beginning the charge from the building officials company is not based on the time he spent at a meeting it is based on the case preparation for a case that goes back decades that's that was said in December and
code manager Grant explained it then and it's said again in Mr kramer's letter it's not accurate sir sure and I and I don't bill for my time just at the hearing either i do preparation as well um
and and that's part of the our presentation is that no nobody really just bills for that time for the hearing they also do the preparation so we've asked for background documentation with regard to this lean or this uh
$10,000 um we've gotten some some documents none of them were provided before March 12th the ones have been priv provided since then um have not been uh detailed they're not itemized invoices not that I've received at least they won't be sir it was a flat
rate there will not There does not exist well that Well okay well if that's the case if it's a flat rate then that violates Florida Statute 6 um and I I'll recite it for you um we did go ahead
go ahead oh I'm sorry i thought somebody wanted to interrupt so um Oh yes let me uh I just wanted to pull it out here so it's chapter 612 i mean I'm sorry chapter
162 um and part of that chapter discusses about code enforcement leaves and cost recoveries and it has to be efficient has to be equitable
and if there's a flat fee the property owner should have notice of the flat fee should agree to it beforehand um as part of the appeal to the unsafe structures board we have to pay the county a fee and at times
there's cost recoveries there too i've been practicing as a zoning attorney in this town for 24 years i've never received a a a flat fee um invoice for an unsafe structure board hearing even
remotely of $10,000 i don't charge my clients $10,000 to do an unsafe structure board hearing um it is arbitrary um we think it's capriccious and we think it is uh certainly not efficient not
equitable which is re reason we came to this board um because when you think of what a property owner should do um should be assessed for and should be liable for it needs to be something that
is equitable um in this case if you talked about somebody who's making $500 an hour which I'm sure this individual does not make and and if he doesn't make the $500 an hour um that would be if he made $500
an hour that's 20 hours associated with just reviewing that and preparation attending that case that is exceedingly um too much time um I don't spend that much time so you do realize this case is
not a recent case i realize it is decades yes and that's why sitting in this board can confirm it is decad in 1996 it's been a vacant abandoned property since then and but that but that but that's aside the point is the
question is when did this indiv individual get hired and I would like to question him but I don't see him in the audience today and if he's not here then I have a due process argument because I have the right to question him about his invoice
when did he get hired what is his normal rates i'm sorry did you have something okay so what my what the uh attorney was telling me now from the um the lender
was that and he's right that this is a request for a rehearing so I'm getting ahead of myself when I say that um I have a due process argument what we're saying is that we have grounds to question this invoice we
think it is and we think that the grounds are are are are pretty obvious to be honest with you to be candid with you um if the reharing is requested then that individual should show up and we should have the right to question him
um so I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself in all fairness with me that's very interesting just said that because Kramer in his email says undersigned council is not requesting
that's what he just told me because because I'm getting ahead of myself because we're here for a reharing requesting a reharing this is not the reharing itself this is the reharing so that's why it's a little bit confusing that's why I got just as confused as you did a moment ago so um
so I had the same uh uh I had the same u transgression so I apologize about that but they're right it is a request for a reharing and that rehearing would be at a different date when we had the right to question that individual um but again um I know that
it goes back a long time but this individual wasn't hired at that time he wasn't reviewing information that goes back you know a decade he wasn't hired 10 years ago if he was hired 10 years ago and if he testifies he was hired 10 years ago I won't I won't have the
objection um but that's not the case um that's just not that's not the facts that I understand to be truthful so um so that's why we're here uh just to recap we're asking for a rehearing um we would like to have the
opportunity to say what is fair what is equitable what should be actually charged to a homeowner and uh sir let me that's the whole purpose let me uh interrupt because this is again it's a motion for rehearing right yes sir yes sir so you're asking for an opportunity to to
to argue the things you're trying to get into now at another time well I'm g I'm giving you like a background yes but yes sir but what is your you know what do you say to the fact that you know we've already ruled on this what is the basis to for the rehearing what is it what is
it grounded in so so let me elaborate on that i mentioned at the beginning but on March 12th uh when you had your hearing there was no notice no notice to who no notice to the property owner no notice to their council which is me Mr kramer
well you you were late you were late so yeah sure i'm I'm sorry well I think that Miss Grant had gone through in detail about the things that were done so so there was notice i I I object to that
there was notice i don't believe that there was notice um they knew I was council record i've been council record not only at the unsafe structures board but at meetings with them on emails with them i didn't receive noticed well is there is there a statutory requirement that you as a council of record receive
notice yes I believe there is statute i believe there is so I believe I believe it all falls with under 162 the code enforcement statute and when you have an attorney that appears a record this is a quasi judicial proceeding it's not judicial of course but it's quasi
judicial and those elements um of of of equity do come into it and I believe that I'm entitled to notice okay and you're basic and you're basing that on Florida statute 162 partially and partially case law and partially the
rules under that we fall under under quasi judicial pro is there a particular case that kind of leads on this that allows for the um uh you know the proposition that Florida statute is 162 is interpreted as such that um that a
attorney of a property owner is the right to get a notice of a hearing in a quasi judicial structure they're required to Yes ma'am receipt from your office that says there's a thank you on that from your office back to us
okay but the question still stands because I'm I'm I'm curious to know if there's case law to rely upon outside of Florida statute 162 and I think Mr weissman you're Are you here for this hearing on behalf of the Biscane Park okay
okay so I I Yeah because I know I'd like to hear from from you but I just want to No no no i would like to hear from you after okay you still have any questions an opportunity to be heard and I I would want you to be heard mr riley is that not from your office saying thank you to
motion at the bottom that says that it will be heard in March so it says that we're requesting a continuence no look at the bottom of the letter it has the date in March at the very bottom of the letter oh it's an email and it does say continuence to March 12th right yes and
you're saying you weren't noticed on it no notice sir so there was notice you have the notice in your hand and the receipt from your office that says "Thank you." Yes so this is not notice this is an email okay um when you when
you get notice it's a statutory required notice okay that Well let's get back to that was the property posted i would like to know i'm curious yes sir go ahead i'm sorry we We have the opportunity to ask the questions today and the question I have pending for you is that under Florida statute 162 which
you relied upon to say that the attorney of a property owner uh is required to get notice of a quasi usual hearing such as this and then you also mentioned that there was case law that was also reliant upon uh your argument so I'm asking you is there a particular case that that
stands for that proposition or are you just relying upon the statute there's case law and there's statutory uh language that goes into this and it should be as a a matter of judicial notice that when an attorney appears in
any matter the attorney's entitled to have notice okay that that's that's our fundamental judicial system of due process and fairness okay when you appear and you represent you you appear as an attorney for a client every
judicial proceeding that exists in our United States has that same procedure um whether it's judicial I happen to know a little bit about that i know that you said that you've been practicing for 24 years i've been practicing for about 35 years so I'm aware of you don't think
you're entitled to notice on being my question to you is under the statute that you just relied upon this is you're required to get notice as as an attorney for a property owner you also said you relied upon case law i asked you what case it was this is your motion for
reharing so you you should be here ready to argue all the reasons why you should get a reharing i am ready to argue so do you have a case name for me i'm ready to argue bec I don't have a case specifically it says an attorney is required to have notice i think it goes for judicial notice but but you did you
did rely upon the statute and I do want to hear from Mr weissman because he is the the village attorney and I I'd like to ask him that question sure but I I also want you to know that this board and I've only been on this board what two or three years we have seen more
attorneys on this property than I can count so I would say you're at least the sixth or seventh we've met with this case in the last few years really i'm the only one I know of me and No no no no honestly you know I don't know of any
other ones who the attorney changed regularly but anyway not the point come forward so Mr weissman did the question that I just asked uh councel under Florida
statute is is uh your interpretation of it that the attorney for a property owner requires notice of a quad judicial uh hearing such as this under um chapter and again just for the record Bradley Weissman village attorney um under
chapter 162 specifically 162.12 which deals with notices and in code enforcement matters um the only requirement is that the violator or in this case the property owner is to receive notice um and it prescribes the
manner in which notice should be had which is either by certified mail posting under certain circumstances but it lays out there is nothing in chapter 162 that would prescribe or require that notice be given to council for the property owner okay so you don't see
anything uh in your analysis of the statute is there any case law that you're aware of that that expands upon the notice requirement to the attorney for a property owner or as a statues as a violin not that I'm aware of it as I stand here today um I would also
indicate and I what we're here for today is an issue that's basically a due process claim on a motion for rehearing with council asserting that he hasn't had an opportunity to cross-examine the chief building official with regards to the
agreement that he had with the village as it relates to the inspections and not not just the presentation of this matter to the unsafe structure board but to the inspections that were done whatever research was done meetings that were had
as a res result of leading up to ultimately the presentation that was made to the unsafe structure board by by the chief building official representing the representing the village in this matter um I would suggest to this board most respectfully that council did have
that opportunity to to cross-examine the chief building official had he been here and I'm not I'm not speculating nor do I care to speculate why whether it was strategy or whatever reason that council did not appear but I believe I would
submit to the board that um as we've stated there is no specific requirement for council to receive notice under chapter 162 i'm not aware of any case law that would require it um plus the record reflects that m that um Mr mr
riley I'm sorry make sure not misstating your name no I'm sorry give me one minute mr riley that the Riley firm was in fact noticed that they were noticed on February 6 of 2025 at 12:24 p.m an
email was sent to the office indicating that the February hearing was being res was going to be continued at the request of the village and was going to be rescheduled to the date of the hearing in March which was March 12th and that was as you've all pointed out was
acknowledged by Mr riley's firm so the bottom line is that the hearing was March 12th that's the one where all of this cross-examination could have taken place and that's the one where where they did not show up that that's the vill's position and that um that the chief building official did provide
testimony before this board um I believe it's Mr kramer did I Mr mr mr hazison mr h i'm sorry mr hazison hazen hazen was here on behalf of the mortgage holder or the serer and uh also had the opportunity if he so if he so choose to
cross exam and and and just so I can kind of put it all into perspective here the the the statute that you would uh we were just talking about that doesn't require that you know the notice to the attorney uh you're saying that irrespective of the fact that there is no statutory requirement and none were was needed uh your part of your argument
is that you know irrespective of that notice was provided and acknowledged by the Riley firm correct and and there's no specific notice that's required so the fact that notice was given is sufficient exactly okay receipt was acknowledged which that to me would be critical we can say we send
an email but we all know what can happen it also says continuence um I I just want to make sure um our position is clear um we did not receive an itemized invoice the itemized invoice uh they say it doesn't exist they say that it's a
flat fee we never agreed to the flat fee we never received the proper notice under the Florida statutes we still contend i don't I'm setting aside the email at the moment the property owner under 162 did not receive the exact notice that's required under the statute
if you would like me to belver that point I can if we don't get an opportunity to be heard I will I will file a request in court we will go under court to say we have not received due process because it's just not equitable that a property owner gets a $10,000
flat fee that can't be justified why is it not $100,000 why why is it not $25,000 we never agreed to anything remotely like that i'm ready to make a motion so if we want to have if we want to and I understand your position and I understand your motion is going to be and I respect that but I want to let you
know that I will be filing a request in court to appeal this matter because this is not the way that you treat somebody so with that said if you would like me to if you would like me to um expand upon the notice that the clerk
was talking about I'm happy to do that if not um I just want to give you the transparency of of of where I need to proceed i think there's no harm in having another hearing that can avoid all those other steps so we could have our due process and if we had our due
process then I wouldn't have to take those extraordinary steps again sir due process could have occurred last month you were noticed the building official was here mr weissman was here i'm sorry
it was says continuence you can see my condition today okay i had to have reconstructive s shoulder surgery okay this regardless of myself and my my existing condition okay um I'm asking
for a one-time rehearing so I can question the witnesses we did not and and again the property owner notices I'm contending are are are are not uh correct okay if if you want to avoid if you want to
avoid those extraordinary steps we could have a 1hour hearing that avoids that if not I want to be transparent and I don't mean to be aggressive or anything like that i just want to be transparent tell you what our next steps are because that's just the $10,000 fee of a flat
fee is just not without some type of evidence without some type of backup material is just not appropriate and we and we didn't have any of those informations before the March 12th hearing and that's not disputed uh it's actually requested we just have
one hearing for one hour and I'll ask no more than one hour to have that hearing and you can rule at that time and before I make my motion Miss Grant what notice was provided to the property owner or the violator or whatever you want to call it uh as the statute points
out with regard to the March 12th hearing yes it was how it by certified mail okay and I I think that Mr weissman said that's one of the methods under statute 162 to what address can I ask to what address because the address is the
question that's the def the deficiency sure what was the address the certified mail certified mail by statute we are supposed to use the address that's in the tax assessor's
um on the tax assessor's role that's what we use that's where we send our certified mail it's to another attorney okay we always send our certified mail to them but we um we make sure we email the
attorneys just in case this mail doesn't get to the to the property owner we email the representing attorneys i I'd like to make a motion in I think it's case number EN 220383 is that it
yeah 220383 uh you know based upon the evidence and that was aduced today with regard to the motion for re-haring and it's Florida statute 162 the lack of any case law that says it expands uh beyond that I'd like to make a motion to um deny the the
uh motion for reharing I'll second it to deny deny the rehering I'll second it motion to deny the reharing all in favor I any opposed motion passes is 5
4 i'm so sorry sorry thank you the next case the next case we are going to call is um section 6 point section six and it's under 6.2 as for the address 860
Northeast 120th Street case number CEN-24-701 for Katherine Brownell next case is for her as well i'll call them together for the record it's CEN-24-702 katherine is on Zoom with us today
uh if the board recalls these cases have appeared before the board I think two or three times uh we were unable to locate uh Katherine fortunately we have um Katherine was very ill and that's why
she was not able to respond uh to the notices uh she's requesting an extension um in order for her to go through the process of applying for permits so she can comply with her violations an idea of what a realistic time frame
would be katherine is on Zoom and she can speak for herself you're sworn in was sworn in hi Katherine hi can you hear us yes I can
ma'am I my qu my question was you're looking for an extension can you help us to figure what are you looking for what is a realistic date for you well um real estate agent and I'm going to
sell the duplex so I I I'm I'm not quite sure how long permitting and that kind of stuff um needs but um he he said that he would
oversee and take care of getting a a a driveway in there and any violations that may have been incurred who is he uh uh uh he came down there spoke to
you i think Jeff uh Jeff I'm sorry i have to go look up his last name you have to forgive me my memory is not good now i think he's on the line is there Jeff on the line jeff is the realtor but he's not here i I don't
think so that's for another case oh okay that's for another case yeah i didn't I don't think he was aware of this this meeting so is the house listed or is it being sold to Jeff no no he's the real
realator and he's uh he just just in the past two weeks has gone in and looked at the duplex and said this is what needs to be done and so that's what we're going to be doing okay
so that I can get it on the market are you prepared to put it the driveway in and then put it on in on the market for sale yes if that's what I have to do yes
and I mean I can understand the need for um the the driveway [Music] so um there you be able to uh have a permit pulled by May the 20th
uh we're in April May i do yes I do i do believe so that would um give you a little over a month to um get the uh plans your survey and then
uh the uh permitting process to have a driveway full um permit pulled would have to go for planning and design okay and they meet they will meet um on May the 5th and May the 19th
may May 5th and 19th yes yes ma'am you would need to it would they would need the design would need to the application and design would need to be uh submitted a week before that okay they could review it and then they would hear it on
side on May the 5th or May the 19th would that give you time i I I'm I guess it'll be enough time i guess unless there's some type of problem with uh whatever design is submitted
let's go to June well ma'am in all fairness why don't why don't we give you sufficient time until uh June 15th till June 15th that's really June 15th that That's um
to have a permit pulled and uh begin the uh Okay i I I will get in touch with him tomorrow and and let him know what transpired and I I will have him and I do have an attorney but
she's she's worse off than I am but um I'm sure we can get this done but your realtor can co-sp speak to the code and building people here yes we've met with him before want to make the motion
um yes so if if that sounds good to you ma'am I'd like to go ahead and make a motion that a and case number I'm going to do it for both of the cases the duplex correct and um that on case number
CN-24-701 and case number CN-23- 4 702 702 that a violation has occurred and give the property owner until
uh June the 15th pull a permit if not uh if not commencing June the 10th 16th a $250 fine thereafter
violation fine is $250 and there's an administrative fine of $250 total okay it's a it's a violation fine of 250 and a uh administrative fine of 250 okay well
each case Oh for the one as a whole for both cases combined um because I think the design go as a whole the owners of one person yes um and for the permit to be pulled for both properties by June
15th by June 15th i second that okay we have a motion in a second all in favor i I any oppose motion passes 4 thank you Katherine i want to thank
everybody for their help today thank you ma'am for coming into the meeting thank you good evening next item is 6.4 for the address bear with me just a second i'm sorry i want deal to if you would deal repeat the
fines so I get them accurately the fine is the violation fine is $250 okay plus an administrative got it and then the daily and 250 i just wanted to make sure because my stinks combined yes
the next item 6.4 for the address 11:05 Northeast 117th Street case number CEN-23-449 property information protected we are asking for a revised order of
enforcement um property owners here they were found to be in violation of chapter 5.6 six of street market for their driveway which does not meet the standard the design standards set forth in section 5.6.7 mr stephano is
here commission um as a representative of the property he he's the property owner so has there been I see that there was a back and forth between I'm guessing that's the contractor in
February i think he got Denanishia yes yes there was some communication with um with the contractor um Stephano was not well for for a long time october when Denanisha put out that it
had been rejected right okay the next contact wasn't until February wasn't until February fortunately we reached out uh to Stephano and then he came to the office and let us know what happened um he has fell out with his contractor and he's started from scratch he got all
the paperwork um from the office and it isn't they are now going through the pro process of resubmitting the permits we met with him twice in the office he is in the pipeline oh yes he came to the office we met with him twice we had a
long meeting in the conference room he explained to us what happened and um he's now redoing the paperwork i I did everything ma'am i I paid all the fees surveyors I hired a contractor uh the guy just I don't know i've been
having big problems with him huge problems i may end up having to get somebody else because I I'm ready to go i even took out a loan and I'm going to have to resubmit it florida can be a challenge yes anyone who's done work on their home I I promise you
I'm on it i' I can prove it i've got everything here everything i've I made everybody aware of it we went over it uh and I get that what What's going Basically your your contractor is holding you up he's just
not showing up i mean I if you'd like to read my cell phone the letters I've sent this guy we read it it's okay the original the original Are they Is he contacting you or is he just No he's just I don't know what his problem is how long has it been it's been months so
I don't know what to do i'm going to I may have to I'm going to have to fire the guy and get somebody else and he So you got money that he owes you work for i don't even care i just want to get this done with i I'm just I'm ready to hire somebody and I even inquired as to
how I find somebody decent and they said that they couldn't give me any names biscuit party said we can't give you names so every time I see a driveway now I'm stopping i'm getting business cards i'm doing everything I can i I I don't know what to do i I'm disabled i It's
killing me but I'm doing it i I had the same problem and I I ended up hiring some a former member of the board that who did driveways and he recused himself and he did it but I had the same exact problem and I I I don't know what to say i feel sorry about it i want to comply i
I've done everything i've got all the paperwork everything's signed everything's They even He even lied to Miss uh Grant and I showed it to him the guy lied to her he did am I wrong Miss Grant i'm I
That's correct i He lied to her i see no problem i'm sorry i just have a question because I see there's a daily fine right has the daily fine kicked in yeah daily fine kicked in back in first we don't know so so what had happened is what had
happened in the other cases he pulled the permit he started submitted the permit so the daily fine didn't kick in but said I mean I'm going to respectfully disagree it doesn't say the order of enforcement doesn't say apply
for a permit it says pull the permit he has not pulled a permit those daily fines should have started in October ma'am hang on ahead Mr british i'm so sorry that's right go ahead go ahead go ahead now I understand she's right he
submitted the permit like he says the the contractor submitted the permit but did not go through with it so what happened in the past was correct what happened in the past was once the application process started we gave them a little bit of leeway and that's what
happened here they applied before the fines would start running however we are asking for a revised order of enforcement i don't believe that been this board's intent when we say pull the permit we mean issued and paid for and issued we don't mean just fill out the
paperwork right what what were you asking for you were asking for something a revised revised order that says um that changes the date of compliance and the fines would be up to the board if
you want to do the um administrative and u violation fine that's on that's on us at this point it should have been done i don't think it's fair to retro it gentleman doesn't know it's being retroed right i'm I much as I don't like
what happened I don't think two wrongs make a right so what I would like to do is change the date i'm being realistic a different deadline being June 15th and if he doesn't have an actual
issued permit by June 15th then the 250 daily fines and that's to pull the permit paid for yes not just apply but have the permit in your hand may I say something yes sir sorry that's
all right ma'am uh he had submitted to the board I I can't design yeah he had submitted the drawings the plings and they rejected it right he rejected it and he never corrected it and brought it
back in that's why we've upped the date I know this has been kind of a perfect storm of issues so that's why we will well I'm sorry depending on how my board feels I'm suggesting moving the compliance date to June 15th but that
means you have a permit in hand if not then a $250 daily fine will commence on June 16th i understand ma'am according to my my board I think you might need to get into the contractor that's what I think I'm going to do sir i'm not I'm
not gonna I This guy's not he's not he's not responding it's time to let him go i'm sorry i'm sorry in case number CN23-449 a violation has occurred give the property owner until June 15th to
I'm sorry to interrupt no should should the motion be to revise revise the order thank you yes we're not changing i appreciate the revis August 7th
my motion will be to revise the order of enforcement from August 7 2024 to change the compliance date to June 15th of this year 2025 if not if a permit is not pulled and paid for and
issued by then then then on June 16th the $250 daily fine kicks in understood second that all in favor i motion passes score zero good luck thank you everybody sir contractor currently putting them
in ask next item 6.5 for the address 11450 Northeast 10th Avenue a summer cen-22-105 Alejandra Bowers and Audra
McCullum we came here for an intent to lane they were found to be in violation of chapter 5.6 off streetet parking for a driveway that doesn't meet design standards um property owner is
here there has been some issues there uh we have met with the property owner in the office uh we have been to her property uh and met with her there we have been in communication by email and telephone um she has been trying to do what to do what she's supposed to do
however she has a life-threatening illness she has been in and out of hospital we have seen the evidence of that read the email yeah obviously she she has been through a lot and we are asking the board um to give
her some time honestly I'm sorry i need you even though I know who's to introduce yourself and your relationship to the property sure um I'm one of the owners of the property Audra McCullum uh my ex-husband's name is still on the
property he was supposed to have paid off the property um in 2019 he has not done that i'm sorry um I've and I've taken some sedatives so that I wouldn't start crying because the
whole I'm sorry I don't worry please don't apologize so um we we can So yes I am here um he has he is not going to be taking responsibility for any of this um that's
fine um I have been speaking with Darene i um tried last year I believe or maybe it was at the very beginning of this year but I think it was last year i contacted um a contractor
uh who did the driveway of the house located directly behind mine it used to be owned by uh Audrey it faces the park and I really liked how they did her driveway so my neighbor behind me Carlo gave me his contractor's information
they came out to my house i got an estimate from them but the thing is and I'm not sure if you're familiar with Audrey's design of her driveway it kind of has like it starts like a semicircle and then it's like a pad and it just
stops and I was like "Oh that's kind of neat." And then I was like "Yeah I like that let me get the same thing." And then I thought about it and I was like It's kind of weird no that's I'd strike that from the record it can be tricky yeah so I just thought
you know what my two sons are getting older one's about to turn 15 they're going to want to be driving i might as well do a full semicircle so that when we exit face later on yeah so yeah i thought like if I'm going to do it let me do it
right um so I had them come out again they quoted me for at 7,200 for they're going to widen a little bit if the plans are approved they are working on the drawings um from I believe he measured and it's 8 ft
right now the width of my driveway which just goes to my garage they're going to uh widen to 10 and then do a 10 semicircle realistically give us a date what do you think believe it'll be just dependent on
how quickly the uh meetings go and the uh permitting process he told me that once the paperwork is um approved that it won't take him he he he said two days now I know how concern is our
requirement is that you pull and have obtained a permit technically via the permit you've got six months oh it'll be done as as once I get it realistically when realistically when do you feel you
can have your contractor in place and have he he's applied for the permit he's working on the draw i I have the money to pay for it i the the thing will just be dependent on June 15 work for you i'm
sorry i can't hear june 15th work for you as being finished or permit your permit in hand i believe so if if the um if the does that mean the design has to get approved first though right yes yes
there there would be um one two three uh e um planning and design uh meetings prior to that each meeting you have to have your design and and uh applications submitted a week before correct right a
week before so June the 9th is the um furthest away that means you would have to have it uh submitted by June the 2nd which gives you a little over a month to have for your contractor to have the all the stuff i asked him to have it
submitted today and he was going to try to have it ready so wait a minute so that would be so much the better we're trying to work with you want to give you Yeah no I and I really truly appreciate it because I I'm sorry I missed all the previous meetings but I was shut down
because if if your um contractor something else is needed then you have two more hearings that he can get the um design get whatever was missed and resubmit it so that would be three hearings you can make an earlier hearing
in case stuff happens you can correct it and still make the the fines state may we make a request to the board yes the property owner has a fine that has been running and I believe as of today is at $98,000 we would like to ask the board to stop
the fines once she complies she can come back and ask for a reduction that that's that was part of what I was going to ask about well actually not really to even stop them but to note that she might ask after it's completed ask for a fine
reduction and give the circumstances but she in other words Audra we'll stop the daily fine approval we can't make it go away we can't even talk about a reduction until your project is
completed and final right but complet I understand that then you can come back present your case and go from there okay i mean I I I'm I'm counting on him today is Wednesday i mean I'm if if I had my
way you guys would already have these drawings it hopefully if they're in by Friday but you're saying the first he would have to have them in by June 2nd that was the latest the latest that's for the last hearing there's one on May
5th so you would have the um sometime at the end of April you'd have to um have the plans to make that May 5th May which is even better week earlier and then one for May 19th you'd have to have it by before 12 do I need to appear at those
no your contractor should be okay but I will tell you it's always better to have the homeowner there in case the question comes up i have always gone when I've had Is it possible to appear by Zoom i'm not sure but it's I'm
I'm asking okay go and you fill things out i will do my best to be there if it's possible by Zoom if for some reason I'm at my bonds I don't care how good a contractor you have it's still your world right right no and if there's a question then
it gets booted till the next meeting rather than you could answer it now i see i will do my very best to make all the Can I ask why there are three uh meetings you only have to go to one if
it's approved you only have to go to one we give you enough time so that if it's not ready for this next meeting at the next meeting or if there's a problem at one meeting and they want something revised you've got a
couple of meetings i mean is there something I would think that So it would be a 12 i'm gonna help you out i'm gonna go ahead and make a motion this will help you out and then all of your questions should be to the answer yes to
you know how to run a meeting yeah yeah this is only for your code here um for the issue before us i appreciate it getting the permit talk to them okay over there so in case number CEN-22-105 I'd like to make a motion uh
to stop the daily fines that are acrewing from the order enforcement and to give the property owner until June the 15th to have a permit pulled and issued if not the fines will um will
revert back to the day and um continue thank you i appreciate your consideration all in favor i oppose motion passes 4 Z thank you very much thank you Audra good luck
question audrey you don't have to stay for the rest of the meeting the next item is 7.4 with the address at 981 Northeast 113th Street it's case number CE-25-0064 renee
Alvarez he was found to be in violation of chapter 16.14 fee permits he installed an air conditioner without first obtaining permits u Mr alvarez has since applied for permits last night
yes and um it's not installed space during the flood um the water damaged the the mini split and I was replacing the mini split so I wasn't installing something new i was just replacing what was there but according to code Yeah I
know i know now any questions from the board um I I have no questions you know I saw I was made aware um I I went ahead and I had to find a person no you should have gotten that permit first okay right i
know now yes yeah so you haven't paid for the permits yet you applied yes so you need to make that payment for us to consider this case okay so as of as of today we don't consider this compliance okay so tomorrow I'll come by and I'll pay for it pay for it
yeah you have to pay double permit fees because you didn't didn't get the permit before you did the work right okay if there's no questions can I have a motion it seems I'm here sure number
C-25-0064 fine has violation has occurred fine of $250 and have the permit hold by mine I don't think they don't go in in front of do they no no right so you
don't have to worry about the order um May 14th would be fine today's the sixth I mean April i know april mhm
30th april 30th and have a permit uh issued by April the 30th if not a daily fine of $250 um given the double permit you'd like to wait yes great i'll second thank
you all in favor i any oppose motion passes 4 Z all right guys um I'll miss you until the next time this going to All right next item 7.6 6 for the
address 10910 Northeast 9 Court case number CEC24-0114 for Prime Royalty Network LLC in care of their registered agent Garcia Alonso Raphael they were found to be in violation of chapter
5.6.7 of street parking the driveway parking surface surface does not meet an approved driveway approach they are asking for an order of enforcement now they have applied for a permit and their permit has been
approved by PND and that permit is now under plan review so this would be a finding of fact they paid for the permit yet they have paid for the permit it's under review it was approved by PND
if I may add um they haven't paid because the permit is under review so once it No once Yes once it hasn't been really fully approved approved then they pay at the Yes thank
you thank you so yeah so so so what's the issue here that that the parking not correct this is a Yeah this case was issued last year
who did it go after it's in building review right now right enz approved it right it's going to go through the different phases of the building review once approved they'll pay for it and they'll have a permit so what's the violation why why is he here we um issued a violation because their
driveway doesn't meet standards yes we issued that last year um Oh I see november sorry december the 30th March 31st yeah in December we had just recently
bought the property about 5 days before that and then we got the the violation and we we had some financial issues because we had just bought the property so I did go ahead and ask for an extension on the on the driveway and then when it was when the extension
ended we we applied for the permit and I came here last time April 7th and got it approved was this the the property that the older gentleman that didn't have a computer and everything was trying to Okay this is a different You know what I'm talking about right yeah I know
which one you I was say I don't you may have gone before some another No it was with the planning and design board no he's talking about the planning and design April 7 yeah um on case number
CEC-24-0114 I'd like to um give the property owner until the table that's until next Well no I'd like to um give the property property owner assess an administrative fee of $250 and
give the property owner until uh May the 5th to to um have an issued permit okay yeah I'll second that what is it before PNZ right now it has been
approved so that is in review okay so he has no Yeah and he has no control over when the permit gets issued once it's in process he submitted for the process it goes from different to different um So is that enough time for
May it says that it could be reviewed up to the 25th of uh April if I get it accept approved on the 25th the 26th I already have the driveway i have it done within the day after we don't need to have it done we just need the permit paid for yeah i mean if I could pay for
now right now I would but I have to wait for it to be approved 250 admin no violation fine okay right he's been working with them give them expenses i understand agree no no no i totally agree and May 5th to have the permit pulled and paid for or a daily fine of
$250 if you haven't gotten it by then you may want to talk to the um thing about asking for an extension of course you'll start getting a $250 fine on May the 6th daily fine if the permit has not been pulled and issued okay paid and
issued what if what if it's not approved by the board by the um by the department that's in right now ask for an extension an extension okay this grant please okay and then pay two and pay 250 together with the fee of the permit yes all in
favor this motion passes 40 we're seconded three good to go thank you sir you're good thank you good evening good luck next item 7.7 for the address 11133 Griffin Boulevard
case number CC24-0086 Modesta Molina and Sarah what number is this here for a progress report is 7.7 okay found to be in violation of 5.6.7 off street parking existing parking surface
does not mean does not have an approach oh we don't have a permit in the system as of today no I can basically we don't have a permit in the system but I believe he has all the paperwork scanned it's ready to be filed i was
hoping to file it today but I just got everything on an email today from my contractor so I can file it today tomorrow I have I can show you got all the notorized and all the stuff in it just took a while to get the surveys and
you know um to get somebody to do surveys nowadays is but I'm ready to file tomorrow so seven and you have everything there so we can help you
I was going to say at the very least I think we need to set a deadline on Yes in um keeping with the ones that we did earlier of
I think that's because again it allows for that little wiggle room and we know it's got to happen you ready to make a motion yes I'd like to make a motion in case number um CEC
24-0086 the violation has occurred property owner until June the 15th to secure and issued permit if not daily fine of $250 addition to
the $250 i'll second all in favor i any opposed motion passes 40 appreciate it thank you sir have a good night good luck i'll get it done good guy he's a busy guy and honest
with many should have told that person that just walked out give him the name he's busy that's why it took a little while right right i got everything all right good luck good
we are moving to section eight of the agenda fine reduction section 8 point item number 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 and 8.6 these are
for the address located at 720 Northeast 117th Street for case number CEN-24-381 CEN-24-383 case number CN-24-596 case number CN-24-652 case number
24-653 and 654 Property owner Jeffrey Icon is on Zoom with us today he Jeff can you hear us jeffrey he is
well he's unmuted um he is okay so these several cases uh were issued for several violations all cases are now in compliance and we have filed affidavit of compliance for all the cases am I reading this correct that the offer was
for $1 that's correct have all the um um has all of the is this every citation been complied with as to date yes all the the citations are now in compliance i have several questions and the total
of all the cases together is over 30 by one um you can do one by one or you can do the total it's up to the board i think in this case we need to do one by one because four of them do not incur dailies no I saw that that's why they're
different exactly i think in this case we do have to I have no problems with that i've got um several questions you speaking to the microphone so he can I'm sorry if you turn to the It's not
easy to turn your If you turn to the page that has the breakout of all the violations that resulted in the leans and everything else there are five I'm guessing those are admin
citations three four of them are 25 and one of them is 75 well there are no admin citations all of them were post them back years oh Linda oh oh okay in the in the LIN search there are open
um admin citations yes you're right and we have two open permits open permits that's correct this house has been vacant uh for many years um and when we cited the property no one was living there
so two open permits and five open admin citations that's concerning um one's an AC and one's paint if you have this page you it should be in the first one
i have to submit to the court that to the uh board that the permit that's open was issued in 2017 okay this is before this property owner even owned this property okay all right so that's neither here nor there what about the
five admin citations the admin citations are they No these have been during um his ownership they have been in the last couple years yes
correct they were all Yes two were issued in 2023 and three were issued in 2024 so that's his current property owner correct and I would like to read them onto the record case number CEN-23-437 for $25
cen23-438 for $25 cen24-382 for $25 cen24-5942 $25 cen24-655 for $75 we really should need to deal with those
too i'm not even Yeah I'm sorry to interrupt over here i'm not even sure why I received those citations so I kind of I I'm assuming if my assistant didn't pay it it's because we're still not sure why we were given any of these
fines we everything was done in compliance with the proper dates with proper everything and we're still here now you know sitting for an hour and a half to get on this call i need you sir i need you for the record state your name and your relationship to the
property can you take yourself off of Can you put yourself on the camera i can't see you please open your camera i can now i'm not in the country but I can there you are there you are and has he been sworn in
okay good yes thanks okay so should we attack 81 first for the record this is a nonh homesteaded property it's nonhomesteaded
it's a nonh homesteaded and it's vacant okay in the in the first one agenda item 81 there are no daily fines the only fines that are there are the violation fine and the admin fine
and then the applicable filing fees i am not comfortable reducing the basic fines i mean once we've adjudicated that there's a violation I don't think it behooves us to go and lessen those basic code
violation and admin fine i agree i'm in totally total agreement because um it's been our um um stance from prior cases that do not wave or reduce the administrative cost or the um initial
fine right or the filing fees against the code would you like to make a motion yes well actually it's not a motion it's $1 there is a motion right i my motion would be that we do not accept
the $1 offer i'll second that all in favor motion passes 40 then my motion would be I'm sorry because I would have to make another motion for it to stand wouldn't we no it's
already is what it is it's alreadying a a It's already assessing an interest charge of 18% okay um so we do nothing um we make can explain to the property owner that
we're rejecting the offer of $1 hear you okay due to their the costs that are um outstanding on 8.1 are due to uh the ruling finding of a violation
occurred and the administrative costs that were assessed to it as well as as well as the fi um filing fee associated with placing the lean for that violation you also have um the on that case a
uh interest charge it's acrewing daily so on the first violation sir and if you've got them in front of you it's cn24-381 that fine amount we are saying will stand we are not accepting a reduction on that
okay now to same thing with agenda item 82 with for this one how much is the f the fee on that uh on that
611 19 that's that's as of today yeah I mean there's an interest so you'll have interest acrewing until this is paid at 18% at 18% so you'd have to get an up
to date total when when it's paid and on violation 24-383 same principle it's no daily it's just the uh code and the admin and then the interest that's accured in the filing fees so I there's nothing to
reduce it by my motion is that that stands and again what were these before in violation of this one was a fence maintenance issue sir right so I mean was paint do you do you expect
Okay so again these are all violations that unless I live in Biscane Park or I've been in the neighborhood no one's reading the laws that the paint has to be up to a certain par and the fence has to be up to a certain way as well so you
know it's one thing to ask to request me be in compliance another thing to make me pay for fees which I don't think are fair or relevant to my situation you asked for something I came into compliance now you want to tack on the
interest and fees and you think that's fair on my part to have to pay all these sir every property owner be they absentee or otherwise has a responsibility to follow the laws and rules and it is the same
way in every municipality we are not unique you are unique i've never received a fine for that in my in any property and I've had many other properties in Miami okay there was a hearing and there was an order of enforcement the hearing was
on September the 18th of 2024 and that's where your violation came into place you had given you had been provided notice at the time but the findings of that uh order of enforcement were that a violation had occurred and you were assessed a fine of right never received
notice never received any of that especially in September but either way okay his assistant attended the hearing your your assistant attended that hearing I believe okay and Okay so
you're basically telling me that we were not in compliance at the time so I mean you're saying the fees were assessed at that time is that correct i would like to bring it to the attention of the board that this is a
fine reduction hearing it's we are not litigating the case it's true oh you're right thank you you're right Darin thank you for that reminder yeah we're here solely to deal with fine reductions we are not rehearing the original cases
okay and the next one is CN24-596 and that's also a property maintenance again only the code violation the admin fee and the acred interest in filing fee so I would I
would mo move that that fine holds you make a motion to deny the $1est correct i'll second the motion all in favor hi i'm not even sure why I'm here exactly
to pay for court fees again when I'm being denied from even negotiating i appreciate you guys sir we do not negotiate on the basic fine the fine for the infraction the ad
isn't that why I'm here okay please we have two more at the end we have one more in this situation then there are two that incurred daily fines those are the ones we will negotiate on we do not negotiate on the code and the admin and
the acred interest so there's one more having to do with the swimming pool and that is the 24652 i would move that we do not accept the dollar that fine stays as is second
it all in favor i motion passes 40 okay now on item 8.5 we are making a recommendation of $2,000 i'm sorry the fine owed is over 14,000 we are making a recommendation of
2,000 again miss we were in compliance from before the date there is no reason I would have to pay another dollar excuse me go ahead let Miss Grant finish
we are making a recommendation of $2,000 which we believe will cover cost and the time it has taken it took um to come into compliance this is in case number CN24-653 again I make a motion that the dollar Mr
khan offered is not acceptable second it all in favor i approve okay now on the swimming pool issue 14,47619 as of the date of
this form it's probably gone up from there sir what is your offer on that a dollar i've already rejected that sir did you miss that part i have i've been in compliance from before the
date of expiration there is zero reason that I'd have to pay the fact that your compliance officer cannot get onto my property is not my issue he was able to give me violations it is actually sir it is show me in the statute where it says that he has to
have access in order for you to charge me the fines okay please i'm not an attorney we're getting sir we're getting nowhere do you want to make an offer no I'm not making an offer i will appeal if I have to everything was in compliance from before that date i have emails i
have pictures i have everything done that was sent in i refuse to pay another dollar for everything that I'm already giving you i will appeal if I have to i'm not paying you guys i'm just letting you know right now i'll get an attorney i'll get everything on top of this this is ridiculous okay we're getting nowhere
we have muted him you can go ahead and rule we have muted him so there's no one to negotiate with i mean so therefore the fines as they are stand everything stands we can't
negotiate anything i agree with Dorian i I think that's a very fair number we can but we can't negotiate with ourselves why Why would I want to negotiate with a number when I was in compliance from before the date that you you requested of me i I don't understand why would I
pay sir you There's a fine that goes along with the violation there's a fine that goes along with the administrative fee there's a fine uh cost that goes along with the filing fees those need to be I just
wanted to have a question of the um of the of Dorine and the code as to date there's been no um has there been any uh has there been has there been any compliance to that we know of has the has this been
rectified so yes those violations were rectified and the fines stopped yes yes in November stopped as of the date that we that the village was able to go out there and verify verify and that was explained to Mr con that we had to get on the property in order for us to get
our own pictures of compliance right so it was from we're just looking at the period November 18th October the 2nd through November the 18th correct so a total of $47 until the village was able to get onto the property within days
validate that compliance had been met that's correct thank you so I think made a motion and Judy I Judy seconded it we'll deny the $1 and no okay so one second if you're telling me the minimum
administrative fees like you guys had with the last cases which you say you can't obviously reduce then yes I'm willing to pay those fees but above that any fee that he couldn't get onto the property when I wasn't aware that like I need to be in compliance with him being on the property somehow he's able to
give me three violations then didn't come onto my property but he couldn't get me into compliance without coming on my property i thought that was interesting i'm willing to pay the minimum fees but a dollar above that I don't think is fair sir you keep sticking with your dollar
that's really not how negotiations work again like I said I'm willing to pay your administrative fees i'm willing to pay whatever you said your minimum fees are but to pay two grand I don't even have the money i'm not like I like I
couldn't even afford it like the reason why work wasn't done on the property is because I've had a lot of issues with it y'all need to go into my personal reason for why work wasn't done but hitting me with more violations and more fines is not helping the situation especially after I came into compliance and sir
it's a non-homesteaded property that makes it a business oh now there are the two remaining cases that have the larger daily fines you've made it apparent you don't want to negotiate on them so they
will stand as is for the moment and they will stand acrewing 18% interest okay as I said if you're willing to take the minimum fees you guys have I'm willing to negotiate that that's what I'm
willing to pay so you denied so let's bring it he said he would be willing to pay the um for this next one it was uh 500 and a filing fee of 2119 so if I
understand you correctly you're offering $521.19 which is a $250 violation plus the $250 admin fee and the filing fee of $21.19 correct
that No yeah that's the one we were hearing 58.5 so the that's what and that's all that you're offering on that when the total amount comes out to $14,476 because there was a daily fine I
mean a total daily fine for $47 47 days of $11,750 so I didn't mean to I just wanted to clarify was that your offer $5219 correct okay
my motion would be to not accept i'll second all in favor i motion passes 40 sir had you let us on the property let the village validate we wouldn't be here with this this daily fine of this yes
and you you can be gracious enough to to dismiss it as well and so you're aware that everything was done prior to the compliance date so you're not aware of any such things you are like like he just said he knows that if we would have let him on the property the right date
this wouldn't be happening right now so if you would be gracious enough to give me that reduction that would I would appreciate it but you just don't want to you're putting You're putting words in his mouth that is not what he said you did not allow code on property it took 40 i didn't allow code
on property because I felt like the only way he gave me those violations was to trespass on my property and if he trespass he can trespass again okay you are very much in control of your own fate you chose to handle it the way you You're right i'm going to take this higher up also i'm also going to take
this it's not right not so um just to restate the motion um there was a offer of $221.19 500 $521.19 um it was um
made a motion jamie Jamie second like to make another offer sir okay excuse me like to make another offer sir if not we'll proceed to the next case i mean $1,000 total
i mean we have to What did the village recommend on this one 2,000 $2,000 i'm going to trust staff they know the amount of time effort went into all of this and what that's a cost to the village so I'm
going to trust staff i make a motion on the end 24-653 that we do not accept the offer
i'll second all in favor i any opposed motion passes 40 make another offer i can't afford any offer i don't know what you want me to tell you anything I'm giving you I can't even afford like I can't afford to pay you
something I can't I don't have you you heard you heard what uh the one of the members said that they are putting a lot of weight behind what the village recommendation is the village recommendation is $2,000 um you know we can't direct you
what to make an offer for but you know what you have the potential to get this thing resolved for today is a lot less than $14,000 so just keep that in mind do you want to make another offer or not that's like saying I should I should accept uh a six-year sentence for shooting someone instead of a 25-year
sentence when I didn't shoot someone it's It's hard for me to accept when I don't have the money i'm I'm sorry like I understand where you're coming from i'm trying to be as fair as possible here um you know I I understand you guys have paperwork costs and your
filing costs and all that and I'm trying to work with you here but I I don't know what else to say you know you want to charge me six to eight grand on all these cases yeah I can't afford that right now for me to pay two grand for this case the second case may be the
last case may be a different story is this but but again this is 2K for one violation i still have on top of that the violations before as well which okay again this this it's not it's not something I can afford i could afford two grand for all of them and I can't
afford two grand on each there's always an easy way to avoid fines getting to this level and that is to work with code to come into compliance you chose another route sir that's why we're sitting here tonight
he doesn't want any I I don't but I don't I don't I don't see what time what costly matter sir you know what other people are here for reductions who want to work with us sir if you're you're not going to go along with what has been put
out here then we might as well end the conversation we do have folks that have patiently waited but because I'm not getting a sense of negotiation with you you understand where we're coming from you understand the costs involved and
why we're advocating for that price but you're not willing to go there so I I'm willing to give you something for it i'm not willing to give two grand i I don't see what other cost could have been by waiting for me to come come into compliance doesn't cost you $1,500
okay then there's no point in hearing the last two cases no there is a we should say no on the other one okay all right so on this one it stands as is and continues to acrue
okay there's one more case also maintenance and cleanup uh the swimming pool was the mosquito breeding ground same principle it's 14,79 what is your offer on the last case sir
$1,000 i make a motion to not accept the $1,000 offer second all in favor okay sir anything else no okay thank you sir
what's the end motion what's the final motion everything stay on it the four that were no daily fines involved they do stand and then I have
to say the other two do also because you wouldn't negotiate second business to negotiate facilitate facilitate city that's a post zero
thank you and I remember very well I'm sure we all do that he would not allow the code officer back that we're here where we are tonight next yes the next case is 8.7 this is
for case um number CN-24-289 located at 931 Northeast 120th Street it's owned by 931 Northeast 120 at LLC asking for a fine reduction fine
fine is $7,500 our recommendation is $1,000 and the offer in this case is 150 I believe again we're in the same situation that would be below our code fine and the admin fine
so I'm going to go right on and say I would vote to reject the $150 offer say what the uh fine was i'm sorry it was um painting it was painting the total fine is 7500
it was 200 it was a daily fine daily fine of 250 of course the admin of 250 the um code fine of 250 is it was um exterior painting required and and uh Dorian you you said that the recommendation from the millillage is a
thousand and and you took into account the the time that Jill had to Yeah it took for to compliance um and how many times we brought it to the board administrative cost and how many inspections were done you think that's a fair and reasonable amount
$1,000 that's a fair and reasonable amount for the time that you all put in there i believe so all right i mean based upon is a is a $150 offer that's what the offer is um yeah i didn't know what was the administrative fee but if the city
recommends 1,000 we'll take it you'd like to make the offer oh I'm sorry then we'll like to make the offer for 1,000 as per city recommendations all right well I'd like to make a motion based upon the ORA tennis uh amendment
to the fine reduction to $1,000 on um CEN 24289 [Music] uh to uh accept the $1,000 uh fine reduction amount for the property at 931
Northeast 12th Street i'll second it all in favor i motion passes 40 thank you thank you so much yes do you want to come and see me in the office tomorrow absolutely thank you so much you have a nice
evening thank you yes that case is under item 7.8 this is for the address 11 1920 Northeast 11th place case number
C25-0178 Alina Perez they were found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1 property maintenance there's uh a top um over their roof and that's against the code uh we are asking for an
order of enforcement in this case um into the evidence uh we presented a letter that was sent by councel for Miss Perez and um notes from village attorney Dorene does Miss Perez have um a copy of
Brad's no we didn't that's critical i think she would definitely need that that's the only We can provide that to her please i'm sorry could you identify yourself sure i'm Alina Perez i'm the property owner for providing this because that's a
really critical i will tell you during Hurricane Wilma I lost my roof and I did a battle with the insurance company what I did was I documented photographic stuff and that was able to stand so I was able to move
forward based on the photographs we took of the exterior of the roof the interior of the roof and and therefore right leg goal right so
in other words if if you see what Mr weissman has pointed out you can insist they come memorialize the way it looks now and you can go and move forward you don't have to deal with because he
admits it could take you years yeah I have a trial set for Oh I have a trial set finally for August and mediation set for June um citizens has been a nightmare who is your judge
oh I have no idea i'd have to ask my lawyer is it filed in Miami it is in Miami Dade County i have the case number um but I think you have my case the case numbers in in the backup yeah as you can see by what the village attorney has said and obviously you're going to want
to reach out to your attorney you can begin the process of moving forward as long as they come and memorialize it inspect it take their pictures you don't have to wait and you probably don't want to wait through a
hurricane season yeah i mean I was trying to wait for the trial because I was told by the attorney if I took the if we took the tarp off and I didn't fully repair the roof that then I could it could impact my case meaning I'd have further damage what the villagers
attorney is saying yeah yeah but in light of the fact that she has a June trial can we give her Yeah no till July August mediation in June and trial in August
it's a 24 case so the the chances that you go to trial are probably pretty minimal um unfortunately because it's it's a fairly new case so you probably won't go to trial i think mediation is probably your best chance um I think what the issue here is and I
deal with these cases is that is that uh what what what kind of claim is this like is this is a roof claim it's a roof claim based on what it was a storm in 2022 just an unnamed storm was No it was a one of the hurricanes i can't remember the name of the hurricane so you're
saying you had a wind created opening yeah it was a wind created opening they did accept my claim but grossly underpaid i couldn't do anything with the roof and so then we I don't know I got a lawyer and they've been dealing that that since yeah that's actually
good for you the fact that they accepted as compensible and it's just a matter of like how much so you've already cleared that hurdle so it's really going to be a damages trial which tells me it's probably going to get resolved um I would hope so that's my hope i just
want to fix the roof so what what I'd like to see us do is give even an August date but and hear me out on this the only reason I want to give a deadline with the potential for a daily fine is
we're finding too often when we don't incentivize nothing gets done we keep doing this forever yeah if in August it still hasn't been heard it's still Well it I shouldn't say that because as you can
see by what Mr weissman has said you can go forward but yes with the hearing and the mediation coming this close there's no point in telling you go get a roofer and fix the roof right now but obviously it can be done so I would like again to
set an August deadline but set the $250 daily fine if there are more extenduating circumstances Miss Pres can come back in front of us for an extension i like incentivizing so what would she have to do she'd have
to come come here and and seek an extension by the August uh we've dealt with with cases like this before it's not unusual unfortunately okay what do you do to go ahead and make a motion so we can understand what when
it do you know when your court date is in August so they gave the attorney a a 3-w weekek trial period of starting at the beginning of August no it's a cattle call so basically every case that is on that August trial docket they'll go through the case calendar to say you
ready no judge we got a problem okay so we'll continue are you okay you're number one you're number one back up you're number two back up so that's what I'm saying it's a and they and they they'll rank the cases based upon uh oldest to newest so the 24 case is going to be at the bottom of the list so you
can only try one case a week really so there might be 50 cases on there and only three cases potentially will get tried but I would also show the the email from Billy's attorney to your attorney because that gives you some
wiggle room then to get started but how about if we make well for our August meeting that we ask for compliance by August 12th if not a $250 fine daily but if
there are issues things are still not where they need to be for you to go forward come back at the August 13th meeting okay how do I do that should I put myself on the docket call the village or if I need to come back you would you would call the
village and ask to be heard okay right it'd be up to you otherwise a fine will start right yeah just keep keep in touch with code and just kind of let them know where you are and what's going on so nothing gets lost in the translation
okay i'm hoping June we can yeah let's say you don't settle let's say you don't get reached at trial then come to the August meeting and say "I needed I need an extension or a continuence because it just got moved till November or whatever but tell us what the story is then."
Okay can I keep this or take a picture of it that's for you yeah okay i want to get it hasn't been seconded no it has not my motion would be that a permit to be obtained and put in place by August
13 by August 12th if not a $250 daily fine but with the property owner having the knowledge that if things do not work through as they need to for her to go forward that
she comes to the August 13th meeting for a progress report and an request for an extension a second i have a question is for a permit or removal of the tarp uh you've got to get that permit for the roof because just to take the tarp down
you should have got a roof problem yeah I know but the violation was for the tarp i'm just You need to have It's for the tarp but you need to have a permit paid for for the roof for the roof because in reality we look at it there's
a tarp on there the fair assumption is that there is a link there right a leak but doesn't mean the roof has That doesn't mean exactly might just be for a little bit of tar which you don't even have to get a permit if it's if the homeowner does it themselves it depends on the size of the damage i have a
feeling if there's been a an issue with the uh she's already telling us that she needs a whole new roof and basically if there's if there's anything that if it's more than 25% of the roof has to be repaired to get you the whole roof so that's what she's saying they're going for
this okay issued by 8 12 but with the knowledge that things are
still in and not working out at August 13th meeting with a request for an extension okay and couldn't she just go and get a roof permit and she's got six months to put it in so yeah so you can go get you can go get your roof permit
and you got six months to put it in so it'll be after your litigation so you might want to get the permit now so whenever you get the case settled you can they can just start doing the work yeah you don't have to wait for this to be adjudicated right get your roofer in place decide what you want and and then
wait for the money to come in after the settlement and then they can just go you have six months the only thing we look at for compliance is that you have a permit in your hand and you've paid for it but we know the roof isn't going to go on there overnight you know it's going to take time depending on what you
want etc etc so yeah okay so you may be fine with August 12th again if not okay I'm sorry did I get a second all in favor i motion passes 40 miss
Press thank you thank you have a good good luck next item 7.3 the address is 805 Northeast 115th Street case number C25-0152 for Daniel Lopez we were asked we are asking for an order of
enforcement they were found to be in violation of section 18.4 permitted days and hours of construction i would like to enter into the record police report number BP250 302000 224 in which the police officer
uh states that they were found um working on a Sunday March 2nd 2025 at approximately 11:35 in the morning there were three gentlemen working um and working on a Sunday is not allowed at all in the village
property owner is not here and nobody has any questions i'd like assess the fine of $250 and administrative cost a second can we get a pay by date oh to be paid by
um uh April the 30th no it's not an or mean we bring it back for intent I was going to say it's not a daily fine
not perfect gay and Judy all in favor i I any opposed motion passes 4 Z last case 7.1 address is 701 Northeast 119th Street it's for case number
C25-0248 Argenta Group Investments LLC in care of their registered agent Augustina Fernandez we asking for an order of enforcement for double fee permits section
16.14.1 they installed the driveway without permits yeah he's got the wood there i was going to say have they um now obtained a permit they applied but they have not obtained a permit they applied
on April 14th couple of days ago a couple of days ago i see the gravel's been removed right they removed the gravel they are trying to reverse it and apply for a permit so they can reinstall the driveway there's no questions do we have a motion
on case number C-25-0248 the violation has occurred of 250 administrative fee of 250 have an issue permit by June 15th if not a daily fine of $250
per day i'll second all in favor i any opposed motion passes 4 Z and those were all the cases we brought before the board tonight 75 oh they're for 75 you're right apologize
for that item number 7.5 is for the address 10831 Northeast 10th Avenue case number CEC24-0120 for Maria Laura Laos uh we were going to bring this for a progress report but we happy to report
that the permit has been issued yes permit has been issued for her driveway and work is about to start so we can effectively close the case right but I don't see where we've ever ordered
any type of administrative or anything we didn't or that if a violation had occurred and I mean this has been we've already had two orders i mean a notice of violation was in December the 30th of 2024 we had an order of enforcement of
February the 12th 2025ing it for March we had an order of enforcement in March of the 12th 2025 tableling until April to find out today that a permit has been
issued and when was it issued i believe March 15 march 15 2025 yesterday to bring this back before us with all the paperwork and everything and the villages code enforcement officer
going out and check if nobody I'd like to make a motion question case number-
24-0120 that there had there was a violation assess fine of $250 and administrative cost to be paid by um April the 30th is there a second april the 2nd no there is no second
nobody second it so I guess it fails and I just wanted a second to explain i'm I would have agreed with you 100% had we done it the first day yes but I feel like now we are penalizing her when she with us got her permit now to go back
and assess it but that's why we I I think it's critical that we rethink all these times when we don't and we kind of give a little leeway right maybe not but I've got it it fails that's fine
i'd like to explain my logic how about a motion on CEC 240120 that the owner is in compliance she's come along and that we uh and got the permit and about to start work that we dismiss
um or closed case second all in favor i motion passes 4 thank you and that was everything we brought before the board tonight
did everybody have time to read the minute any corrections six with me yeah that's one says failed 41 i thought it it was approved yeah 6 agenda item 66
should be approved 41 not failed oh and agenda item 75 i guess agenda item 75 should be Judy made the second because I voted against
that so I definitely would not have seconded it judy and okay agenda items 81 through 810 where it talks about when the fine
is to be paid we don't give a specific date so it should say to be paid by April 15th not on April 15th what's that item number so that's 81 through 810 yes they paid they received a check
before $10,000 after all that do we need to vote on Rodul tonight yes he did send um a message he did send us a message for the excused absence
make a motion to excuse Rodeno's absence all in favor i any opposed um before we close I want to let you guys know I'll be out of the country in September meeting and in August I will be at a
conference i'm going to try and schedule my June vacation around us august and September meetings 13th and September the 17th do we want to try to move you don't move this September i'm
gone the entire month okay um August i'll be back the week after you want to try how How does staff Michael and Dale how do you feel about trying to move August because I hate Judy to miss two meetings in a row though that's question staff would have
to give us some dates they're changed okay i have two trials two jury trials out of town in August one of them is definitely Do you have dates i I like August oh boy
but it's like that calendar i'm available until the 9th august uh the first week of How does everybody staff how do you guys feel about moving
it to the first week in August see you know I I'd really like us to like not have people but I'd really like not to miss anybody but it happens i didn't know what the date you know sometimes there's
and stuff comes up and if we can work around it you're better what do you guys think of the first week in August oh the July meeting is July 16th the commission meeting would be on the
on the Tuesday but Wednesday the 6 can you guys check and and let us know if August 6 would work either that or you might not have
a meeting because they're not gone we run at risk for not meeting right that's a very good point Judy so three weeks not that big a deal okay so August 6th august 6th that would
be great check the calendar to make sure there are no other events on August let's do that i can do that i can I would rather be I don't see anything on August to the city i'm sorry on August 6th so we
should be okay gentlemen that's okay august 6th i know august 6 yes sir vanessa do you send something out so I can send it to my secretary or how do you do that okay because if you rely on me it's never going to
happen you are your own oh yeah the minutes have not yet been adopted or are we going to any I'm sorry any more discussion anything anyone wants to talk about okay i need a motion to adjurnn
motion to adjurnn accept the minutes adopted i'll make a motion to accept the minutes with the changes and corrections we've put in second all in favor i all right motion to adjurnn j judy and Dale
for the minutes motion it was Michael i second and I made a motion to adjurnn which was uh seconded by Dale all in favor hi hi we have a question for
you you have to pay your landlord permit that's a landlord permit