I'm calling to order a code enforcement hearing of the city of Cape Canaveral. Today's date is December 1st, 2025. My name is Rick Geller. I'm special magistrate appointed by the city council to hear code enforcement cases pursuant to Florida statutes chapter 162 and
article 6 of the city code. This is a quasi judicial evidentiary proceeding. The burden of proof is on the city to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a code violation exists. In other words, I will determine based on the
evidence presented to me uh this afternoon whether it's more likely than not that a violation has occurred. Uh any alleged violator will have an opportunity to submit rebuttal or exculpatory evidence, including testimony. At my discretion, I may allow
a member of the public who has relevant personal knowledge to testify, even if not called by one of the parties. Uh, anyone who would like to testify, we we do have a a sign-in sheet at the front of chambers there. Would ask you to uh please sign that and indicate who
you're providing testimony for. Upon request, an alleged violator may ask relevant and material questions of any city witness and vice versa. The city may ask relevant, immaterial questions of any witnesses for the responding party. I may exclude evidence that I
deem irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. Uh, in determining the amount of any fine, I will consider the gravity of [snorts] the violation, any actions taken to correct the violation, and any history of previous violations. Under the city
code in the Florida statutes, I may assess and order the payment of a fine of up to $250 per day per ver per per violation. And if it's a repeat violation up to $500 per day, or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible, $5,000. I may also award
the cost of any repairs or remedial actions uh taken by the city. At the conclusion of the hearing, I will issue findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence of record and in order again [snorts] both both here from
the bench and I'll memorialize that in writing. And I uh endeavor to do that uh within a week um certainly this week since we're at the beginning of the week. The uh city will record a certified copy of any order imposing a
fine which will become a lean against the land where a violation occurs as well as upon any other real or personal property of the violator. Uh any order that I issue may be appealed by any agrieved party to the circuit court for
Bvard County within 30 days. It is the responsibility of the appealing party to obtain a record of these proceedings. and appeal is limited to the uh record presented before me. And administratively, I will mark the city's
agenda packet as uh the city's exhibit one. The PowerPoint slides, if there are any, will be uh exhibit two. And at this point, um I'm going to ask anyone who intends to offer uh testimony uh and evidence to please u be sworn in.
You swear that You swear that the evidence you shall provide shall be the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> Thank you very much. >> This is case number 25-206. Uh, Mr. Gargani, are you ready to proceed?
>> Yes. Thank you. Your honor, is this microphone on Pat? >> Yes. >> Okay, >> you're fine. >> So, my name is Anthony Gargani. I'm the city attorney for Cape Canaveral. Um, I'm here to present on behalf of the city. With me is Gerald Coats, the senior code enforcement officer, and
Connor Ford, the senior planner for the city. To the extent that testimony is needed, uh they may testify. Generally, this case was probably decided on the papers. Um you have been provided a copy of um the exhibits to
the notice of violation. All that information has gone to the respondent. And um we have some additional documents that I want to submit during the presentation which I will do at that time. Generally this is a case involving
the unlawful subdivision of land. This is a case that uh we're going to present about 15 PowerPoint slides which I think um will kind of tell the story of a deliberate indifference to the city's subdivision regulations. Notwithstanding several notices that the respondents
have received regarding um the illegal subdivision of land at issue in this case, they still proceeded intentionally with marketing the property as four townhouse units. So, let me go through our presentation.
The properties in question, their addresses are 115, 117 Jefferson Avenue and 119 121 Jefferson Avenue. The subject property consists of two platted lots, lots one and two, point
set of place and um that's based on a recorded plat >> from 2022. >> Yeah. Let me let me just ask you because I'm not real familiar with how parcel identifications are are done. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh but but there are asterisks uh
asterisks one asterisk before the 1.01. Everything before the blue there's an asterisk. Do you are you able to tell me what that means? >> Yes. The um respondents have proceeded to go to the Bvard County Property Appraisers office and get four tax
parcel IDs for the two platted lots. >> Okay. And the numbers that were issued by the Brevar County Property Appraiser consists of the asterk 1 and the asterk 1.01. Those two parcel IDs are related to
platted lot one. And similarly with respect to um asterk 2 and asterk 2.01 01. Those two tax parcels um are related to lot two and those are just parcel IDs for tax
purposes that the BVAR County Property Appraisers issued. Okay. >> At the respondent's request, not the city's request. >> That that makes sense to me. And and I'm going to be real nitpicky here. There some of them have the the like asterisk one and the others are asterisk-10
1.01. Is that is that a typo or does it matter where the asterisk goes? And and if you don't know off top of your head, that's fine. I could we could look that up. >> Yeah. Um >> I'd have I Let me get back to that. >> I just want to make sure that that >> might be a typo.
>> Right. I just want to make sure in any order that I that I enter that I correctly identify the the parcels. >> I'll try to clarify that on rebuttal. >> All right. Appreciate it. >> Okay. So the so so so the property is owned R2 medium density residential and
[clears throat] the owners are Babber Enterprises LLC Enterprises Inc. There's a little quirkiness to this case, your honor, that we spelled out. Um, there there was a conveyance by Vger Enterprises LLC by deed to this
Whitakine Enterprises LLC and Whitakine Enterprises LLC based on our research is an entity that we believe is non-existent. So, VJ Enterprises uh would be the apparent last valid record owner of title with respect to one of
the conveyances. So, we noticed both Winn Wine Enterprises LLC and uh VJ Enterprises LLC. >> Okay. So, is is VJ then a respondent as well at this point? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> There's an abundance of caution, >> right? They may not even be aware that there's a cloud on title, but we wanted in an abundance of caution to list them as respondents. >> Okay. And >> serve them. >> All right. And they've been served
[clears throat] as well with everyone else. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll let you proceed. >> Okay. So, with respect to the notification summary, we posted the city uh Mr. Mr. Coats posted the property on November
14th. He posted each of the four units that exist on the two lots. Then we sent also that same day certified mail and we [clears throat] have confirmed return receipts from Babber Enterprises both the manager and the registered
agent. We also have the registered agent from Vjger confirmed. Um notices were left for VJ Enterprises the manager. um on 1120 with respect to Whitakayine Enterprises Commer Inc. and LLC, the
non-existent corporation. Apparently, uh that notice was attempted to be delivered on 1117. They uh in in Harmony, Florida, and the notice was forwarded to uh Denver, Colorado,
and notice left um on 11:25. So, so, so we did get so v so we being the city did get veger under >> you know they they received proper notice through the registered agent the manager may apparently
if there is a manager it was forwarded then to some to some entity uh rel I'm assuming a well this is going to to to widak I guess which is the the recipient that property was transferred to. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> And and where kind Enterprises, Karma, Inc., they're listed as [clears throat] the owner of record on one of the lots and the LLC is listed on one of the others. >> So when we say was forwarded, it was
Verger who forwarded it. >> No, it was forwarded by the United States Post Office. >> Thank you. By USPS. And if I may approach, >> yes, >> I will submit for [clears throat] the record a summary of the of the notices
>> as well as copy of the United States Postal Services records regarding >> All right. Why don't we uh we'll call the city's exhibit 3. And >> I apologize for the voice. I'm getting over a little bit of a cold.
>> No problem. Okay. And oops. So then, as I mentioned early on, the nature of this case is an unauthorized subdivision of two platted lots
[clears throat] as well as an illegal marketing sale of two duplex buildings as four townhouse lots in violation of the city's subdivision regulations and comprehensive plan. point set a place which was platted by
the city in 2022. Depicted on the screen are the two subject lots. [clears throat] Lot one would be to your left. Lot two would be the lot to your right. >> Mhm.
>> With the blue line being the common boundary between between the two platted lots. >> Okay. >> Excuse me. >> What if you go back? What's the date of that plat? >> 2022. [snorts] >> Thank you.
>> Unfortunately, I can't blow it up, but I think it's um I'll get into that in the PowerPoint presentation. I believe I have the right date. >> All right. >> [clears throat and cough] >> So if you go to the property praises website, which we did on several
occasions, you will see that um lot one and two points set a place [clears throat] have now been split into four tax parcels which are noted in red.
>> [snorts] >> Now they became tax parcels which we'll get later on in our presentation based on an application that was submitted by the respondent Babber [clears throat] Enterprises requesting that the tax parcels be issued.
>> Has the city made any um or sent any correspondence to the property appraiser saying this was this is an error or should not have been uh should not have been granted? >> We have not at this time. >> Okay. And here's a an aerial picture of the
two duplex buildings [clears throat] that are at issue. So on August 16th, 2022, that's the date that the city council approved the plaque for point set a place. The plaque
contained three legal lots only and that included lots one and two. There's a lot three which is not subject to this proceeding. It's currently undeveloped owned by a third party. The plat is not platted for town houses.
[snorts] There are no interior lines for townous, no HOA common elements, no requirements um under 110-372 of the city's townhouse plat section of the code. >> [clears throat]
>> So the August 16th, 2022 plat is the last and only lawful subdivision of the property. [snorts] On February 13th, 2025, the [snorts] city
reviewed um the internet, realized that um the respondents were marketing the property for town houses. We issued a a warning [clears throat] letter on February [snorts] 13th that was sent by myself. Copy is in the
package and attached as an exhibit to the notice of violation. City advised the property is permitted only for two duplexes which the respondents received building permits for [clears throat] they and the letter clearly states that the property is not
approved or platted for townous. At [snorts] that point, the owners are once again placed on notice that they have actual notice that the use limits and subdivision restrictions that are applied in this case.
Moving on on April 4th, 2025, that's the date that the um signed application filed by the owners with the BVAR County Property Appraisers Office, they request that the appraiser create four parcel
IDs. The [snorts] application, interestingly, explicitly states it's [clears throat] for tax purposes only. It does not imply suitability for parcel development. It directs the owner to contact local land development or planning and zoning for
development questions. This application is yet another um situation where the the respondents are put on notice um that the tax split does not create legal lots. From the city's perspective,
[snorts] the owners do not contact the city as instructed. So, [clears throat] at this point, if I may approach >> Yes. >> I'd like to submit for the record the two applications
that the respondents submitted to the property appraisers a property appraiser. I [clears throat] for your convenience um your honor, [snorts] I've tabbed two pages. And on the on the tab page, you'll note
that um it was signed by Janet uh Babber um Paramo um which is one of the you the managers of one of the uh respondent entities. >> All right. >> Here are the two applications.
>> Thank you. We we will uh mark these collectively as cities. [clears throat] Let's make them separate. So, we'll do um let's just do this collectively, make it simple. Cities exhibit four. Okay.
>> May I proceed? >> Yes, you may. So from at least February of 2025 through November of 2025, excuse me. Apologize again,
>> take your time. Um the owners the owners market the property as townhouse lots and that's despite the February warning letter that the city attorney provided them as well as the April notice in the
application from the property appraiser. On top of that, in addition to the building permit that [clears throat] was issued for two duplexes, they nonetheless market the property as four tax the four tax parcels as
[clears throat] town houses individually salailable units with separate pricing for each of the units which can be seen in the exhibit attached to the NOV.
I apologize again. What's had this happened at an oral argument too in front of the fifth DCA? >> Take your time >> over a cold. [snorts] [clears throat] >> They they market the property as four separate lots
>> and salailable individually. They list the property for on Zillow as well as Remax Aerospace Realy marketing [snorts] these you know purported townhouse units to innocent
third parties. We also when we sent the the notice to the um respondents [snorts] uh back in February, you know, we also noticed the realtor um regarding regarding this as well.
>> We were talking [cough] about talking about your your February letter that was also sent to the realtor. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. So, the marketing represents, you know, units as separately platted townhouse lots contrary to the city
approvals in the 2022 plat. [cough] [clears throat] [snorts] >> Did Did the realtor uh take down the listing after receiving your your letter? >> Uh, no sir. Okay. >> In fact, in November, prior to the NOV,
>> the property was still being listed by the same realtor. Okay. for the um for townhouse town houses. >> So, beyond [snorts] it' be beyond the the scope of of this proceeding, but I I wonder if there's some some uh license
licensing uh issues that someone if someone were to pursue. I mean, if if an innocent third party were to purchase one of these, then they're being misled by by the realtor. Uh well, anyway, again, beyond the scope here. one would thank your honor and um
>> hence the uh the serious nature [clears throat] of this by notice of violation. >> So um it's se on September 22nd 2025 [snorts] the respondents uh finally get the certificates of occupancy issued
for the two two uh two lots and the two addresses. Each [snorts] of the cos designates the buildings on each of the lot as a duplex. [clears throat] So this is yet another
notice to the owners [snorts] about the official use classification from the building official confirming duplex use, not townhouse use, duplexes, two family buildings. Despite this, they continue to market as
four townhouse lots even after the certificate of occupancy is issued by the building official. The actions of the respondents are just a continu continuation of, [snorts] you know, an unauthorized
subdivision of land. After receiving the plat approval for two lots [snorts] and [clears throat] duplex cos for each platted lot, they continue to market for sale each unit as a separate townhouse lot. They [snorts] represent four lots
to the public when there are only two platted lots and then they rely on a county parcel tax ID which is only for tax purposes as a means to market the property as townhouse lots.
City's position is constitutes a division of land without city approval under 98-31A. In addition, it constitutes a violation of offering to sell unapproved lots in violation of 98-31B.
[clears throat] Not even. And also to emphasize, it's just a misrepresentation to the public regarding what they have to offer for sale. So the specific violations of the code and comp plan [clears throat]
city's comprehensive plan requires the city to enforce subdivision regulations and zoning regulations. Chapter 98 which I just touched upon to 98-31 sub paragraphs A and B are applicable in this case. In [snorts]
addition, chapter 110 zoning, which is also cited in the notice of violation, requires town houses to be on individually platted lots and in compliance with 110-372 [clears throat] at SEC.
The four tax parcels do not comply with minimum lot width and area requirements for R2 zoning and duplexes based on the tax parcel configurations on top of you know everything. So the
owner's conduct violates each of these provisions [snorts] and as we stated in the notice of violation we believe >> I wonder if you just go back. I'm I'm I'm taking some notes from from this year. So 110 372
>> uh town houses require individually platted lots >> and then the um Okay, that's that's that's that was a citation I needed. >> Thank you. >> And [snorts] there are other requirements for townhouse lots. You know, that's
you know that's one of the most relevant provisions. They have to be on platted lots as well as other design and criterion be in the proper zoning designation etc. >> Are you are you or could someone develop
town homes with R2 zoning? >> There are the R2 zoning um permits single family and two family. >> Okay. So you couldn't not even have Well, I guess a townhouse would be single family if it or or does the code
look at it differently here? >> That's that that's kind of speculative >> or or single family meaning a is individually an individual house, not not not a detach or attached house. >> I'm not sure that that's a question I
don't know and not prepared to answer. And I don't know if I don't know if the anyone there from the um >> but I would also planning department. >> That's not really what's at issue in this particular case. And >> at this point, Humpty Dumpty really needs to be put back together again if I
can use a you know a children's fable. >> Um >> that's just not what was permitted in this particular case. Every step of the process, we're based on the platted lots, based
on duplex, two family building. That's Humpty Dumpty in its complete unfractured. >> Yeah. >> State. So, >> so the violations which I I think I did I I touched >> Yeah, I think we hit this. >> Yeah.
>> I might have gone in the wrong direction. [cough] As we noted in the notice of violation, this is a situation that [snorts] required an immediate notice of hearing. Our opinion is it's a serious and immediate threat um [snorts] especially the third
potential third innocent third parties. The owners have received multiple layers of notice about the about the existing lots, the 2022 plat, the February 2025 city warning letter, the April 2025 partial
split disclaimer and the property praises application process and also again in September when the cos were issued for duplexes. The owner by owner's violations meet the criteria for ser serious and immediate
threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. [snorts] Pursuant to 162.06 06 sub paragraph 4. Because their actions compromise the city's ability to regulate land use and permitting, the creation of illegal, unpermittable, unfinancable parcels,
uh, tax parcels, a disruption of the city subdivision controls approved by the council, and a potential for consumer deception, [snorts] and fraudulent real estate transactions. Unless there's any questions at this point, I will sit down and reserve some
time for a rebuttal. And >> and and I'm I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I I would agree. Um I I see how this would be a serious threat to to general welfare. Um health and safety, is that is that just kind of lumped in together? Is there anything specific
dealing with health and safety? >> It's it's just lumped in together. >> Okay, that's what I figured. Okay. Yeah, it's more of a very serious situation involving consumer protections, >> right? >> And um you know >> Yeah. It and and let me ask this.
Typically uh if if if if I were to issue an order imposing fines, I think the statute uh would require some kind of delay um before it is recorded in the public records. Um it would seem to me
that there would be no um nothing that would preclude the city from recording any order that I would issue here today onto these onto these lots. Right. Are are you aware of anything that would prevent >> you anything that would preclude us from
>> Okay. I'm I'm just saying in terms of of of protecting innocent third parties. >> Yeah. The statute I mean I'm going to address it on in closing. >> Okay. But as you know the statute and [snorts] we've notified the respondents at this point. >> Okay. And are the are the respondents
here? >> Yeah, I believe so. It is a pending code enforcement action. >> Yeah. >> Property owners are required by law >> to notify any potential transferey and that's under chapter 162. >> Right.
>> At the very least if there was any transfer they would have to provide the notice of these proceedings. >> Right. that and and the statute says if if they do that and they don't provide the notice, >> it's a presumption of fraud, >> right?
>> So with that, I mean, the statute doesn't specifically address recording the initial order. Okay. >> But nothing in the law prohibits us from doing that. >> Okay. All right. [clears throat] >> Okay. I would like to hear from the uh representatives for the property. Is
that either of you? Please, if you if you would um come to the microphone. >> Yes, you must go up there so that way your your what you state is recorded uh for the for the official record. [snorts] [clears throat]
>> If you please uh introduce your yourself. >> Does she need to be sworn in? >> Did you did you uh um raise your hand if you're going to be offering any any testimony? >> Looking at me, so I guess I would need to be sworn in. >> All right. Uh, please raise your right
hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, I'll help you God. >> Yes. >> Thank you much. >> Okay. I'm Jan Babasmo. So, Babber LLC is me.
>> And I'm sorry. And Jan Bab and your last name? >> Pasmo. >> How do you spell that? >> It's P A R A S M O. >> Pasmo. All right. Miss Pasmo. Okay. I've been in business myself,
retail business for teen years. >> Just before we move on, could I could we have an official uh address for the record? >> Uh 685 Hermitage Circle in Palm Beach Gardens. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Is that good? >> Yes. Thank I I I'm being accused of doing all kinds of fraudulent uh things, which is just beyond shocking to me. >> I've never done anything fraudulent in
my life, nor do I know anything about building. Unfortunately, my ex-husband, Gary Whitikin, Whitakin Enterprises, did all the building. I just backed the building of it. He got
the permits. He did everything and unfortunately came down with terminal cancer. And >> okay, >> I got a notice in February about uh not advertising as duplexes
>> and Gary could hardly talk, but I tried to get something out of him uh because he lives up here. I live down there in Palm Beach Gardens. He said, um, "Hey, look, it's going to be okay. You just
need to get, um, the parcels separated for taxes or whatever." He could barely talk. He said, "Get a hold of Michelle." And I'm trying to find out Michelle who. He couldn't find the number. >> Okay. >> Anyway, later I got Michelle's number
and said to her, "Gary, I guess y'all talk about this. need to separate the properties first. >> And before you move on, who is Michelle? Do you have a last name? >> Uh uh um from landmark title. >> Okay.
>> Um not that she didn't do anything illegal either. She gave me a form to sign to get the separation. I knew nothing about it, but Gary said, "This will make it fine and convert them into town houses," not knowing anything or
what I'm signing or whatever. I'm sorry to be so stupid, but I was not. >> So, this is this is this this apparently is the the application that went to the property appraiser. >> It was an application. So, I'm assuming
it was she was presenting it and had me sign it. >> Okay. So, I'm assuming that's what you're talking about. So, uh we did that. I was told in May that um that got done. It was official in May
that they were split and separated. Didn't receive any other kind of notice, but we did address the February notice and Gary said, "This is what you have to do to correct it." And after that, I I don't know how. Again, I I know nothing
about it. Sorry. Um that makes them town houses. >> Okay. Did you Did you reach out to anyone at the city's um planning and zoning department, building department, any any city department to >> No, at that time I'm again I
I'm so sorry for ending all of this. I didn't know who to >> talk to. Gary did all the talking. He he couldn't he was not in any shape to call at the time. But in February, we did cease advertising them. He said we did
not. Um, we ceased advertising them as town houses and went to duplexes. But then when I was told about this subdivision, then you could just stupidity. >> So then then the advertising
>> um reverted reverted to town homes. >> Town homes. >> Okay. >> So they were continued to >> nothing was malicious. they continued to be advertising as town homes until we received this um notice of a code
violation. So, we stopped immediately even though the attorney is saying they were still continued to be advertising. I don't know where you got that information from. But, no, we stopped as soon as we got your notice. I mean, it was >> Could you talk into the microphone? I I
just want I just want the the the the record to reflect what you're saying cuz if you're not talking to the microphone, then >> I'm so sorry. I I never do this. >> That's okay. That's okay. >> Okay. So, I'm trying to contain myself. Um >> take your time. >> Anyway, unfortunately,
um Michelle from the title company was doing this and then unfortunately my exhusband died. >> Okay. >> And excuse me, in April. [snorts] So I was to handle all of this
which was I run a business so it was just overwhelming. >> Mhm. >> And um next thing I know is I I got the letter from the attorney and that was in
November. [snorts] Again nothing was done malicious. Unfortunately I didn't know about all these laws. I've never heard so many laws in my life. >> Okay. >> Um and codes and >> Okay.
>> I I I think I un understand what happened here. Uh do you want to anything before we turn it back to the city >> again? I mean, I'm I'm just terribly sorry I came here today to see what I can start doing to
um get things back in order. I do have a question. >> Um to have the parcels split into four, which uh the landmark title,
they weren't doing anything wrong to my knowledge, but I believe the attorney is saying that was illegal. If it's illegal, why did they let them do it? I mean, I don't understand any of that, but they were able to split them
for the taxes. >> If it was illegal, why did it get done or >> Well, that that's that would be a question for the property appraiser. >> They didn't check. Apparently, they didn't check to verify that there was a
separate parcel for each um for for each of them would be my would be my supposition. Okay. I don't know, but the survey at the time that possibly was presented, again, I don't know, um said
on the survey or they had to change it to say duplexes, um or she submitted it as duplexes to change still for the parcels and the taxes, tax IDs, and then
we received the tax ID numbers. And >> who is chief? You refer to chief. You said our chief. >> No, no. Michelle from Landmark. >> Michelle. Okay. >> Got this done. Again, nothing illegal on
her part. This is what I asked her to do because of Gary as saying that's what we need to do. Didn't know he wasn't going to be around to finish this through. Um, so if you could tell me what to do,
I'm more than happy. >> Okay. Well, well, I I I will be issuing an order uh requiring remedial action based on what the city has told me and what and what what you've represented. Um, anything before I let the city um have the microphone back?
>> Who are you addressing? >> I'm addressing you. Would you like to add anything before before Mr. Gargani returns to the microphone? >> Oh, um I Yeah, I just he said there was several a bunch of notices out there. I
I don't know what he's talking about. I know we had the February and then this November >> notice, so I I'm clueless on all these notices. >> Well, those are two notices. >> Oh, well, he was saying multiple notices, I wrote that down from his
statement. >> Um, and the reason uh Gary didn't sign obviously, is because he's not here anymore. So, that was forwarded to his sister's address. >> Okay. in Colorado. >> Okay. >> To clear that.
>> Okay. >> So, I I don't know what else to say except I'm here to see what I hopefully y'all can guide me and tell me what to do cuz >> Okay. >> Sounds like I have a mess on my hands.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Do anything intentionally. Okay. >> I understand your testimony. Thank you, Chani. Any any rebuttal? First, >> my condolences to you regarding your
ex-husband's passing. The only the only thing that we have to add um your honor is just the remedy that we're seeking, which I believe will answer um her question hopefully.
So based on the testimony, based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, we respectfully request that the special magistrate find the respondent in violation. City requests that the magistrate order the respondents to immediately cease
cease all marketing or representation of the property as townhouses or individually platted lots and direct respondents to comply with 162.06 06 sub paragraph 5 the seller disclosure
requirements for any transfer under the Florida statute with obviously the note and caveat that we would hope that during the pendency of this proceeding there wouldn't be any transfer without providing proper notice
of these proceedings to any third party potential buyer. Um second uh we ask that um the order require respondents to resend or consolidate the four county paral IDs
and restore uh the lawful two lot platted configuration. >> Yeah. >> Per the point set of place plat. >> Okay. >> And then essentially put Humpty Dumpty back together again. >> Okay. and then provide uh written proof
of compliance to our code enforcement. Uh we ask that uh the special magistrate require respondents to do this um um restoration by January 2nd, 2026 to
provide the city written proof of compliance. And if they fail to uh provide this proof of compliance, city recommends a fine of $250 per day for each of the four violations being be imposed until compliance is verified. And of course,
the city requests that all costs associated with enforcement of this violation be assessed against the respondent. That's a formal request. >> Okay? you know, with respect to the the respondents concerns, um, they submitted an application to get
the tax partial for tax partial IDs. Um, I would suggest that, uh, they contact the BVA county property appraisers office and ask that the original tax partial IDs be restored. That coincides with the two platted lots
in the point set of place. >> Yeah. plat and to remind the respondents that notwithstanding you know m Mr. The Whitakin may have been the primary person responsible for the permitting
and their contractor ABC concrete also being responsible for construction that they did apply for permits for two duplexes, one duplex on each of the platted lots.
The units are not city's position um available for individual sale, >> right? [snorts] They're duplex buildings from the city's perspective and I would hope that the respondents respect the decisions that were made by the city council and permitting for the city.
>> Right. And and so basically a townhouse will have individual ownership whereas a duplex will have one ownership over two different units. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I I think I'm >> Thank you, your honor. I think I'm [snorts]
ready to uh to uh issue my my findings and and conclusions of law and and order on this. Um I'm I'm going to find that the the respondents do own the uh the the subject properties, I'll call them, at 115 to 117 Jefferson and then the
other at 119 to 121 Jefferson. [clears throat] I find that the the zoning here is R2 medium density and that [clears throat] the the point set of place plaid established two different lots. Two
different lots and that of course is is in the record. We have a picture of of the of the two lots. uh that there were uh building permits issued to build two duplexes. That uh a duplex was constructed on each
of the two lots uh in accordance with the the development standards for the zoning district uh which allows for two family dwellings duplex uh under common ownership. that uh neither of the lots were
reviewed by the uh city's uh planning or building uh departments or divisions as as a townhouse project. That's that's very clear to me. Um I uh understand from the record that in early February the city uh learned that these two lots were being marketed
as four lots uh through Zillow and then Remax Aerospace Realy and that the city attorney sent a letter on uh February 13, 2025 advising that the properties were only u could only be per permitted for two residential
duplexes that they had uh uh that that there was a uh advice adisement in the city attorney's letter that the division of land within the city of Cape Canaveral must be approved by the city council in accordance with the requirements of chapter 98 city code. So
the approval uh could not be given by the property appraiser must be given by the city council. Uh at least at that time that's how plotting plotting was done. Uh on September 22nd uh 2025, the city issued a certificate of occupancy
on each of the two uh parcels here for a duplex on each one and that there was a request uh in I believe it was April. I'll get the the date down where there was a request to the Bvard County Property Appraiser to
create four individual tax partial identification numbers corresponding to each dwelling unit instead of instead of two units or or or two different two different parcels as the platting required.
Uh so uh I find that there that that the uh there has been created an unlawful division of land uh in violation of the plat uh in violation of the city subdivision regulations and also the comprehensive
plan of the city uh which requires uh that the um that the city enforce the uh the subdivision regulations. Uh I find that the uh the marketing of the subject property, it's unclear to me whether it's continuing as of now. Uh
the the testimony was that the marketing ceased upon receipt of the notice of violation, but um uh at at least at some point there was illegal marketing uh of the subject properties for four lots for four individual town houses.
Um I do find there was a that this is a a serious threat to u to the general welfare. Uh I am concerned about uh innocent third parties uh who who may um purchase a one of these units, one of
four units, and thinking that they have that they have uh fee ownership of one of four units. When in fact that's that's just not how it works. when it's when you only have two two parcels that could be sold. Um,
so I'm concerned about that and um I'm going to include in my order a requirement that the city record my my order in the public records uh for each of these parcels to hopefully provide some protection to an innocent third party. Uh I do find that uh notice was
properly given. Uh we have we have um a whole exhibit on that city's exhibit three. Um the um definitions of of of what a townhouse is and a two family dwelling unit. Those are all in the in the zoning
code and make make clear what what is supposed to happen. Uh which were two um two dwelling units duplexes. Uh there's a violation of uh comprehensive plan policy land use 1.3.1
um [clears throat] uh which um well it's an in well why I find there there's an inconsistency with it not by the city but but by what has happened here uh that the uh I think the city is properly enforcing its subdivision
regulations. Um I do find a violation of section 98- uh 98.31 of the city code which does require the city council to approve of the of the u
uh subdivision of land the platting of land. Um I think there there may be some um administrative ways of doing that nowadays after after recent legislation but at least at the time all this was happening um that had to go in front of
the city council. Uh the that same statute or the same ordinance 98.31 says no owner of real property shall sell offer to sell or lease lots or tracks of land from such property without first having divided
such property in accordance with the requirements of this article. Uh and then there's a whole host of other requirements including surveys. Um uh no permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or structure uh or for electrical or sore
hookup on any lot or track sold in violation of this article. So a third party, you know, couldn't even get electricity um into these units if if they're sold in violation of the of the city code. So again, it's it's it's a serious matter. Uh there is uh a violation of section
110-372. says each townhouse unit shall be located on an individually platted lot. That's very clear that's not what was happening here. Uh as for as far as the um the um
advertising um there's there there's no first amendment protection for unlawful advertising. I'll I'll put that out there. So, I'm going to even though the the respondents have said they're no longer advertising, I'm
going to include in my order uh to uh immediately cease and desist from all marketing, advertising, or uh representing the subject properties as town as individual town houses or as four subdivided lots.
And then uh I'm going to require that the respondents coordinate with the Bvard County Property Appraiser to to resend or consol to resend the the prior division into four tax ID numbers and to
have them reconsolidated into two tax identification numbers um as as it previously was done. and I will uh accept the city's um request that occur by January 2nd, 2026. So, I
would I would urge the respondent to get with the Bvard County Property Appraiser this afternoon or tomorrow. They're they're open for a couple more hours uh today and start the process of of restoring it back to where where it has
to be under the law. uh and to uh furnish documentation of compliance by by January 2nd, 2026. I'm going to order the uh again, I think I mentioned this before, I'm going to order the recording of of this order by
the city uh as to each of these parcels to hopefully protect uh any innocent third parties. Uh I will offer this as as a word of caution that um that the the deadline is very serious. it it is um if there's a
failure to timely comply then then the code officer will request another hearing before me and at that point um I I I would be inclined to uh to find the respondents uh $250 per day per violation. I think there were four
violations uh here. So um that's $1,000 per day. You don't want to be in that situation. So please get this taken care of immediately. just go over go over there today, tomorrow, get this taken care of. Um, as I mentioned at the
beginning of the hearing, any any fines that I may issue for non-compliance would become a lean uh in favor of the city on on all real and personal uh property of the respondents. And also, if it's uh I think in this case, it would be non-homestead, real property is
subject to foreclosure. So, I would I would say by all means um get this taken care of so we don't have to go down that road to the parade of horribles. And um I I do appreciate um how this happened um and and the circum the unfortunate
circumstances of of your um former husband's passing. Um I I don't think that there was any maliciousness on the part of the respondent and I appreciate the respondent's willingness to uh get this remedied and um again I would urge
her to do so um promptly. Is there any further business uh for today? >> No sir. >> All right. In that case we'll we'll adjourn. Thank you very much.