Good morning one and all. This is my name is Lonnie Groot. I'm the special magistrate for code enforcement matters relate for the city of Cocoa Beach and uh glad to see everybody here today. Before we begin, are there any changes
to the agenda in case anybody needs to leave who doesn't need to be here? >> Uh, the only change is that we've postponed uh 140 North Bard. Let me look at that case. >> That's case number 24176, right?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, if anybody's here for that case, FDK, Inc. case number 24, 176. >> Yes. >> Relating to 140 North Boulevard. That's going to be continued.
Okay. >> Yes. So, while we're talking about today's hearing, the next hearing is June 10th of this year, and I have reviewed the minutes of the April 8th, 2026 meeting. They're in order, and I've I've approved
them. So, before we go to uh hear any cases, let me just go over some some issues, comments, processes here. Uh this is a code enforcement process. This
isn't a public hearing process. Most hearings that happen here are public hearings where anybody and everybody can and should come in and express their views. These are hearings between the city as the petitioner and the respondents who are the usually the property owners could be other people.
And although we're much more lax and less formal than a court proceeding, it really is similar to that because the city presents its evidence. The respondents can cross-examine the city's
witnesses. Uh the respondents can present their testimony and evidence. The city can cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents. after all the evidence is in and the case is closed, uh, I make a decision. Um, within a few
days that the si oral decision is put into writing and the written order is distributed to the city and to the respondents. And that's essentially the process. It's created under Florida statutes and we adhere to the Florida
statutes here. Um, like I said, this is not a public hearing. to anybody who just wants to come in and say, "Well, here's what I think." Unless they're called as a witness by the city or called as a witness by the respondent that they're not heard. We're open. We're in the sunshine. We're
on YouTube for any person who is a so wants to enrich their experience so much that they're watching or we'll will watch later on. I have done it. I'm a geek in that respect sometimes. So, uh, but we are open and in the sunshine, but
this isn't a public hearing. With that being said, one other procedural matter is that the testimony that's given in these hearings is under oath. So, anybody who plans on giving testimony today, please rise and raise
your right hand and I will swear you in. Okay. Let's start over here with the city. >> Homer. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Daniel Crawford. Yes. >> Patricia Hayes. >> Patricia Hayes. Yes, sir. >> Back in the rear. >> Jes
>> up front, please. >> Vanessa. >> And yes, sir. >> Richard Anderson. >> All right. Do each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in the matters not here will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Help you God. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. The first case before us today is
case number 25-282. The property owner is Coco Restaurant LLC and the um address is 24 North Orlando Avenue. Okay.
>> Oh, there's also a Is there two property owners? >> There's one property owner, but uh the >> Oh, I see. 329 Railroad Avenue, Inc. is the property owner and Coco Restaurant LLC is the business owner on the site, I suppose. >> Yes. They're the tenant.
>> Okay. Yep. All righty. So, this is an aerial view of the property um outlined in blue. On January 15th, Co uh 2025, Coco Restaurant LLC started the online
business tax receipt application under uh applicant Annie Draw Its. On September 30th, 2025, utilities coordinator Matt Broadick wrote in the online portal that a 750galon grease trap interceptor needed to be installed.
All grease, fats, and oils were being directly sent to the city sewer lines. On October 16th, 2025, a notice of violation was issued to both the property owner and the tenant. On October 20th and 21st, 2025, the NOVs
were received and signed for by both parties, respectively. On October 27th, 2025, Daniel Papovic, the manager of Cocoa Restaurant LLC, emailed city planner Corey Hall, confirming he knew what size grease trap he needed, but needed guidance on where
it could be located. Cory Hall referred him to utilities inspector Donald Jenkins. On December 9th, 2025, utilities inspector Donald Jenkins walked the property with uh manager Daniel Papovich. On January 2nd, 2025, the fire department completed their
inspection of the certificate certificate of occupancy, and that should be January 2nd, 2026. On February 5th, 2026, Daniel Papovich stated he was unable to access the BTR application. Uh, our BTR clerk, Kristen
Harris, added him to the application the same day. On February 18th, 2026, the BTR was paid and issued. A $250 late fee was included. On February 18th, 2026, a revised notice
of violation was issued to the business owner and property owner. On February 26 and 23rd, 2026, the revised NOVs were received and signed for by both prop parties, respectively. The revised NOV included the following
remaining violations. Section 13-30, Certificate of Use, section 105.1 required. Section 110.1 general. The codes were cited as Cocoa Restaurant LLC had been operating the
business since January 2025 without a certificate of use and had installed an accessory structure without permits. On March 13th, 2026, a civil citation was issued for section 19-38.
Uh, the $100 citation was issued per utilities coordinator Matt Broadick's direction as the business had been operating without an approved grease trap for over one year. As of this time, the certificate of use has not been obtained. The COU cannot be issued until
an approved grease trap is installed and approved. No building permits have been obtained for the accessory structure installation. Additionally, no building permits have been obtained for the grease trap, further delaying the COOU. This uh is a picture of the accessory
structure. It's like a refrigerator with a wooden box around it, unpermitted. Uh this is just an example of the restaurant celebrating one year in
operation. Uh this is a picture of that accessory structure from yesterday. It's still there. Still no permits applied for. >> And are both the property owner and the owner business owner are are respondents. They're both cited, right?
>> Yes. Okay. >> All right. Is the respondent here? Either of the respondents here? Railroad Avenue, Inc. Cocoa Restaurant LLC. Are either the respondents here?
Mr. Palmer, would you do me a favor and go call the halls? All the halls for anybody who's interested is an old old old process or old timey courouses when the clerk would go out through the courthouse and
call the halls for individuals. is to make sure that everybody who's supposed to be here has an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Palmer has called the halls and uh no respondent has appeared. So what would the city propose in terms of a penalty? And may I ask so
the the environmental violations being handled separately, the grease trap and the violation of I suppose the city's federal permit because there's grease and stuff going into the city system that's untreated. >> Yes. which is a danger to everybody. >> Yes. >> The entire system. Okay. That's handled
se rehandled separately. Okay. What does the city propose for these violations? >> Um we respectfully request uh that you find the respondent in violation of uh these code sections here. Certificate of use, the Florida building codes required
in general as well as the grease trap ordinance 19-38 um authority. and that addresses the the grease trap issue. Um, we would like the respondent to have until May 31st, 2026 to bring the pop
property into compliance by paying for the civil citation, obtaining a building permit for the accessory structure and the grease trap and obtaining all approved final inspections and subsequently obtaining the COU. >> And if they don't, what fine do you
propose? Uh, we would like to address daily fines at the Massie. >> You just Okay. You want? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the environmental issues are being handled separately. the under the
>> Yeah. through Yeah. citation and >> that's all. Okay. Okay. Did you want the PowerPoint introduced into evidence? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. This so admitted without objection. Um, in case number 25-282,
it'll be my order that the respondents have until May 31st to come into compliance with all the cited codes and that should they not do such uh during the course of the Massie hearing, a fine
will be established for each day of violation. Is there anything further on that case? >> No. >> Okay. The next case is case number 26-33. The property owner is Mary Ellen Morris
and the address of the property is 1,800 Minute Man Causeway, Unit 19. >> All right. Uh, so the respondent is Mary Ellen Morris, 1800 Minuteman Causeway, Unit 19.
Here's an aerial view of the condo from property appraiser. On February 10th, 2026, the Cocoa Isles HOA provided evidence of a bed bug infestation to include pictures of the infestation, a treatment estimate from
Robinson Home and Outdoor Incorporated, and letters written by the owner to the HOA disclosing the bed bug infestation. On February 17th, 2026, a notice of violation was sent to the owner. On February 23rd, the owner received and
signed for the Nov. On February 23rd, 2026, the owner called to confirm that there was a bed bud installation uh that had been going on for years. She stated she was indigent and couldn't afford professional treatment.
On February 24th, community paramedic Sheri Mahavey and the owner discussed the possibility of obtaining professional treatment at no cost to the owner. The owner was then put in contact with a community paramedic volunteer Steve Hoskins.
Sherry Mahaf, Steve Hoskins, and an exterminator from Truly Nolan met with the owner and further discussed the process of exterminating the infestation. They stated they would provide a dumpster for the owner to dispose of excess clutter to make the treatments as effective as possible and
provide the professional bed bug treatments at no cost to the owner. The owner would need to find alternative living arrangements for 2 weeks while the professional treatments were completed. On February 26, 2026, the owner called me to decline the services. She stated
that she did not want to get rid of any of her possessions and did not want to find alternative living arrangements for 2 weeks. We all asked the owner to reconsider and she declined. On April 8th, 2026, a notice of hearing was sent to the owner and posted to property. On
April 13th, the notice of hearing was received and signed for by the owner. And here are some images taken from uh the exterminator. These are images of bed bugs.
Okay. Is Miss Mary Ellen Morris here? Miss Mary Ellen Morris. Mr. Palmer. Sorry about this. You get your exercise this morning. Thanks. No sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer's
called the halls and they responded as not present. Um, >> did staff want to introduce the PowerPoint before I >> Yes, please. >> Okay. It'll be so admitted without objection. What does Truly Nolan volunteered to to do this gratuitously
or was was the city going to pay Truly Nolan? >> It was going to be um the community paramedic Steve Hoskins was paying. Yep. >> Okay. What's the recommendation of the city?
>> So, based on the evidence, uh, we respectfully request that you find the respondent in violation of the entire notice of violation and order the respondent to immediately bring the property into compliance by retaining a licensed pest control professional to
perform all necessary extermination treatments uh to fully eliminate the bed bud in infestation. Um, and if compliance is not achieved, we request the authorization to abate the bed bug infestation, assess all associated costs
um, as permitted by applicable code and law, and place a special assessment lean on the property. Okay. Okay. In case number 25, excuse me, 26-33, I'll find the violation of the code as
cited and will authorize all remedies that are available under the the city code um to be taken by the city, which will include, I know, especi the
opportunity to the city to to perfect a special assessment lean against the property for the cost of the city to abate the the um violation and the public health issues there which are
clearly present and there may be some obviously there may be some judicial issues too with an inspection warrant or anything like that but maybe not too but that's just that's just an aside. So that'll be the order that'll be issued in this case.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Case number 26-7. The >> the city would like to remove that from the agenda. >> Oh, that was okay. That's moved
and 24-176 was going to be continued. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, case 25-60. The property owner is Roger Scrugs and the address is 1391 South Orlando
Avenue. You may proceed. >> All right. Um, so this is the property information from property appraiser and eagle view of the property. Um, at the October 8th, 2025 special magistrate hearing, the respondent was
found in violation of the notice of violation and ordered to attain compliance on or before November 8th, 2025. Section 702, Means of Egress, section 10-22, enumerated conditions uh
were were the uh codes found in violation. On October 14th, 2025, the orders were signed for and received by the respondent. On October 28th, 2025, the orders were posted to property and city hall.
On November 10th, I contacted Byron Evittz from the Elk Lodge and requested veteran assistance in providing physical labor to help the respondent clean out his carport. On November 14th, uh Mr. Ev contacted me back, stating that the respondent denied the offer. On January
21st, 2026, I met with a respondent on the property and I stressed the importance of cleaning and removing the items from the carport for safety and to avoid daily fines. On March 26, 2026, I again posted the orders to property.
On April 23rd, 2026, the respondent signed for and received the notice of Massie hearing. On April 24th, I posted the notice of Massie hearing to the property and city hall. On May 8th, the respondent came to city hall and showed me pictures of the property, and I
explained that the carport was a fire hazard and not in compliance. On May 11th, the respondent came back to the city and spoke with me and my supervisor, Brian Palmer. The respondent showed us new pictures of the property as well as letters written uh to the
city and the special magistrate. So, this was the state of the carport uh 2 days after he was supposed to be in compliance. Uh January 21st,
April 24th, um May 12th. >> This isn't the one with the bees. No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is uh Mr. Scrugs here? >> He is not here. He had work obligations. Um he did write a letter stating that he
was wanting time beyond May 13th to come into compliance. >> Beyond May 13th. Okay. I don't You said that he said he wrote a letter to me. >> Yes. >> I never received a letter just for the record. >> Oh, okay. I >> I don't recall receiving a letter.
>> I think it's on my desk. >> What? >> I I believe it's on my desk. >> Okay. So, he wrote it through the city. >> Yes. >> Okay. I wouldn't That's okay. >> Okay. >> Because just for those who are here or anybody who happens to be listening,
that's I hear what's said and done at hearings. Unless there's a procedural issue that is being heard, I don't hear anything outside of hearing. So, I'm never making decisions outside of
hearings. Uh, all that matters to me is the evidence that's presented and uh it would be unethical to make decisions outside of hearing. So, that's >> Yes. The property owner requested us um provide this um to you at the
>> at the um at the hearing um on be on on his behalf. >> Okay. You don't have to do that, by the way. Most cities and counties do, but you don't have to because it you're supposed to come to the hearing, but appreciate that. So, he wants what's the city's position about going beyond May
13th for a fire hazard? >> Um, no. I I I believe that we are um interested in an uh going through on daily fines until he is found in compliance. Can you go my original order with it? Can you go back to that?
>> Yes. >> I don't have it. >> The original order stated that he was supposed to be in compliance on November 8th. >> I got that. But was there >> Did I impose a daily fine after that? >> You did actually impose a daily fine of
$250 a day. >> So, okay. So we're purely in a Massie situation then? >> Yes. >> So >> I'm not sure. >> All right. In case number 25- for those who were interested in in
hearing a Massie hearing is just a deter when there's an original hearing. There's a like you've seen in some of the prior cases there's an order that says come into compliance by a date certain. The city sometimes says we'll decide the fine later and makes that
recommendation. Sometimes there's a fine established on that date and then the property owner or the respondent has the right to come in and say I was in compliance by the date I was ordered. Don't put the fine on me. And that's what a Massie hearing is. So
Mr. Scrugs had the right to come in and say I was in compliance on November 8th of 2025. The evidence shows that he was not. I think he pretty much admits he's not, at least through your testimony and probably the letter, too. So, uh, I'm
going to find that the respondent was ini was in continuing was continuing to be in violation of the code provisions that he was found to be in violation of on the date of
compliance, November 8, 2025, and continues to be in violation of those provisions. and that the the fine of $250 per day was in effect effective on
uh November 9th, 2025 and is run through today and continues to run at $250 a day until compliance is attained. There anything further on that case? >> No, nothing. >> Okay. Next case is case number 25-178.
The property owner is Patricia Hayes. The address is 327 Barello Lane in Cocoa Beach. >> Yes. Uh so here is an aerial view of the property from property appraiser.
At the March 11th, 2026 special magistrate hearing. Their respondent was found in violation of section 10-22 enumerated conditions prohibited section 304.1 exterior structure section 304.10
exterior structure uh respondent was ordered to remedy all violations on or before April 1st, 2026. If compliance was not achieved, daily fines would be assessed. On March 11th, 2026, after the hearing,
I spoke with the respondent and relayed the verbal orders and informed her that a copy of the orders would be mailed to her soon. Respondent stated she was working diligently to clean the yard. On March 20th, 2026, the certified mail containing the orders was signed for and
received. On April 22nd, 2026, the notice of Massie hearing was posted to property and city hall. The respondent called to discuss the need for the upcoming hearing, and I explained that the property was not in compliance and needed to be claimed. I stressed the importance of compliance as daily fines
could be issued. On April 23rd, 2026, the certified mail containing the notice of Massie hearing was signed for and received. Um, so here are some images of the property. Uh, this is from April 24th.
Oops. Um, just some clutter in the front yard. This is behind the the large boat. These are images of the carport. The carport. Um, and I believe this is the the front
entryway, but there is another means of egress or right there. Uh, this is from May 12th. >> Okay. Is Miss Hayes here? >> Yes. >> Miss Hayes? >> Yes. >> Oh, there you are. Do you have any
questions for Miss Crawford? Sir, I would like my caretaker to please answer because I have very hard time hearing. I'm deaf in one ear and my caretaker is Bill right behind
me. >> Okay, that's not to be overly technical, but only the city have any objection to that? >> No. >> Okay. Did you have any questions of Miss Crawford, Mr. And what's your name again? I'm sorry.
>> Okay. Do you have any questions of Miss Crawford? >> Well, I just like to know who signed for that letter cuz nobody as far as I know is that the house received the letter from them that there was a letter obviously, but I don't know who signed for it.
>> There says she didn't. I know I didn't. Um if there was somebody that signed for it that >> Okay. Okay. Well, that's a good that's a question. Can the city answer it? >> I'm not 100% sure who signed for it other than a tenant maybe in the home,
but that's why the orders um and the not, right? That's why the orders and the the Massie hearing notice were also posted to property. >> There's attempting to answer the question. >> There's no way that >> there's is there a signature there?
>> There's a signature. Can I see the signature? >> Can I see the signature? >> And that's for this hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Should
Just so you'll know. Okay. That the notice that you're I don't know if that answered your question or didn't. >> Well, it answered who signed it and then why you didn't receive that. >> Okay. Well, the >> the only reason I'm interested in it is
because I'm wanting to make sure that notice of the hearing was provided. Okay. The fact that you're here, that solves that issue. So, that's only an issue for y'all to figure out about who signed it. But for my purposes, you're here. We can
proceed. So, >> do you have any other questions of Miss Crawford? Okay. Do you all have any evidence you want to submit? >> No. Okay. So, what does the city propose then?
>> Um, based on the testimony and evidence presented, uh, we would like to respectfully request, uh, that, uh, the daily fine of $250, uh, be issued until the property is adequately cleaned and all items are removed and
compliance is confirmed. And going back to my order, the date of compliance was March 30, March 11th. >> No. Uh, it was April 1st, but I verbally told, uh, the owner it was April 11th by
mistake. So, I told her April 11th. >> Okay. So, you want the fine to commence on April 11th, which is actually giving the property owner a month. >> Yes. I got that right? >> Yes. >> So, this what the city the order
actually said March 11th that you had to come into compliance. Apparently, the city by phone or somehow told you March 11th, April 11th. So technically it was your obligation to come tell the city that you were in
compliance on March 11th, but the city's actually going to cut you some slack, for lack of a better word, and not have the fine run starting on March 11th, but instead on April 11th, if I got the position of the city correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So that's actually a big benefit. But in any event, once you get the property in compliance, you can work with the city about the ultimate fine, I suppose. >> Yes, absolutely. >> But it still is a safety hazard. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay.
>> So, in case number 25-178, I will find that the property continues to be in violation and was in violation on the compliance date, which was March 11th, 2026. But the fine that was adjudicated in the
prior order will will commence on April 11th, 2026 and continue until compliance is attained. >> Okay. Any questions? Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Is there any way that I can have an
extension so that I can get a dumpster and get it clean? >> Well, that's not that's not for me. as between I I'm just here to today like we I me I know you didn't probably hear it so well but I don't hear so good either out of one of my ears. So I I normally people
complain I talk too loud so hopefully I'm not yelling. Okay. So my only role today is to find out whether or not on the date that you were had to be in compliance with the code, which was March 11th, whether you were
in compliance with the code on that date. That's my only role on in a Massie hearing. So whether you get an an extension or not, the city's not supporting that at this time. And uh if
you want to talk to them later, that's between you and the city. But Miss Crawford's indicating to me that there's no desire for the city to be to extend the compliance date. And when there's a public safety issue, which there is in this case because
firefighters can't get in, firefighters can't get out. People that are trying to save can't get in, can't get out. The the the material is combustible. It appears to me at any rate. And that is a big issue with city and county governments.
>> And we can always discuss lean reductions. >> And at the end of the day, once you come into compliance and the total amount of the fines determined, you can talk to the city about reducing that. And I can't tell you what's going to happen,
but the city has been relatively liberal in that regard in the past. I can say that objectively. Does that make sense? >> Makes sense. But when you live on a limited income,
that's there's no way that I could pay $250 a day. I get $1,600 a month. >> Well, I can't tell you. I I I can't predict the future, but I can tell you like I just said, and I I can only say it in the way I'm saying it because I
can't The city has been very good about working with property owners who work with them, work with the city in terms of coming to compliance and aren't totally recalcitrant
or or ignoring this the needs of the city to maintain public safety that's sounds technical I guess but or lawyerly but it's not that's as simple as I can get
that make sense you can relay that yes I see you nodding your head okay the next case is site citation matter and it's citation number 1018 are they both the same person
>> yes sir Okay. And citation 1019. Uh, the property owner is Vanessa Lavoy Olsen. >> Lavat. See, I tried to be fancy and put the
>> It's very fancy. >> Okay. And John, you're fine. >> Yan. John. Jan. Sigetti. Boy. >> Yeah, it's a Danish name. Yes. Boy. >> Boy. Okay. And the address is 933 South
Atlantic Avenue. And would you state your name for the record again? Is you're you're you're not this is your first appearance, isn't it? >> Yes, sir. My name is Sam Muma. The partial ID and the legal description are up on the slide.
There is a picture of the property >> on April 11th, 2026. >> Can you go back to the property real quick? I >> Yes, sir. a little bit. >> Okay, got it. >> On April 11th, 2026, civil citation 1018 was issued for having more than four
vehicles at a vacation rental in violation of the vacation rental agreement with the city of Cocoa Beach. Staff count counted seven vehicles and find the owner $750. On April 12th, the following day, 2026, civil tit civil citation 1019 was issued
for having more than four vehicles at a vacation rental in violation of the vacation rental agreement with the city of Cocoa Beach. Staff counted seven vehicles and find the owner $750. Here's a picture of the citations. It's a picture from April 11th with
seven vehicles. April 12th with seven vehicles. This is an email from the property owner stating uh that she had guested at the rental during that time period.
>> You want to introduce the PowerPoint to evidence? >> Yes, sir. >> And and you are what's your >> I am Vanessa. Vanessa. >> You're Vanessa. Do you have any objection to that PowerPoint being introduced in evidence? um objection would be because
>> I don't I don't I don't I just I asked the questions. I don't make the objection. >> And then >> what what was just shown? Do you have any objection? >> I guess no. >> Okay. This it'll be admitted then. >> Did you have anything you'd like to ask of the city? >> Yes. I'd like to say something about it.
>> You don't have questions though. Can you come? Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um No, >> no questions. No, I don't have any question. >> I wrote it. Sorry, cuz I get a little bit nervous. Um, so your special magician,
>> uh, I respectfully asked the city for leniency and reconsideration regarding the sitation. This was, uh, the first time I have ever encountered this issue. The situation occurred during the Cocoa Beach air show weekend, which is an exceptionally, uh, busy local event. I
do reside in the home. Um the guest who rented the property uh Alison uh Petrat an acquaintance is an acquaintance who I met last year in Coco Beach actually at the local restaurant. She rented the villa through Airbnb as I provided uh her with a discount rate during that
weekend. She invited me to stay in the property for the air show. That's why we kind of did a discounted raise. The way the property is is I can stay on the get suite. Um, she invited me to stay at a property air shop and I personally stayed there from Saturday to Sunday which they left Monday morning. Um, if
you have a friend also came by during the weekend because I personally uh owned the property and how did I write this? Because I was personally on the property and not absent while guests were there. I generally did not believe that vehicle over the no more STR limit
park within my own driveway uh my own private driveway would create an issue under any circumstances. I even move my own two extra vehicle to my own garage to make additional parking space and avoid any impact on the street or neighboring
neighboring property. Importantly uh all vehicle were parked entirely on my own private property. There were no block road, no block sideways, no safety hazard, no disturbance, and no complaint regarding noise or behavior. I also want to emphasize that when the property is
rented as a short-term rental, my Airbnb listing clearly state in multiple places, uh maybe I should have put pictures of that. I'm sorry. Multiple places um that only four vehicle are permitted under the city ordinance and
that guest are responsible for any fine resulting from variation. I make every effort to comply with the city rules and any communicate and sorry and to communicate those uh clearly with my guest which is why it's I mean I believe
it's never happened before. Um and when I said they're responsible to pay of course I'm just saying I will be requesting it whether it's through Airbnb you know the fines I understand you don't go find the people themselves. Um my confusion in this situation was especially uh was spec specifically
related to my own presence on the property as a homeowner/resident during the event weekend. As someone who lives at the property, there have been occasion outside the STR uh guest stays where more than four vehicle have been present. Sometime we have Christmas
party or whatever and we have maybe 15 cars or more. So I did not understand that in this situation would be treated the same way while I was physically there. I respectfully ask for leniency, reduction or dismissal of these fine based on the good face
circumstances. Uh my honor presence on site, the absence of any public nuisance or safety issue and my ongoing effort to comply with city regulations. >> Okay. Do you have any questions of the property owner? >> No.
>> Okay. Can I let me see if I understand correctly. Under the code, in order to rent the property, you have to have an agreement with this the city as part of the permit. Correct. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> Everybody, I'm going to ask you both and see if
>> Okay. >> On the particular dates, the property was rented. >> Correct. >> But it was rented at a discount rate. You discount rate. Did I get that right? >> Correct. So, but that wouldn't be >> That's not Okay. That's not really material, but I just wanted to see what
you're saying. I want to make sure I >> And on the the the dates that it was rented, >> the person who rented it also invited you to stay there. >> Correct. Only Well, not they were there from Friday and to Monday and that's
during the air show. Uh I I don't know how uh more um this is a person I met actually at Luna and then of coconuts and then we all had dinner at Luna uh a year ago Allison and we just kind of became acquaintance and she's stays here
and I told her I'm sorry >> the rental agreement makes you agree to have only four vehicles there. Right. >> Right. That's what I put on the listing. >> The property was rented during those two days. >> Correct. Sir, >> April 11th and 12th. >> Correct. So during those two days it was
under the control of whoever that tenant >> correct or >> whatever were right >> as Yes. And >> and they invited you to come visit too. >> Yes I stayed there. >> Okay. And that added the three other vehicles. >> Well that added
while we were there friends came to see the air show to to park like out you know we go around cuz we live on the beach. So >> that's how the seven vehicles got there. Correct, sir. >> Cuz they're four they're they had four as a under the code. >> Yes.
>> And I And you brought three more. >> Yes. Three more >> because they invited you. But they were actually the rent they they were under control of the promises cuz they rented it from you. >> Correct, sir. >> Okay. So my con and the city's position is that I
suppose tell me if I'm wrong is that the renter had control of the property and however those cars got here it was more than four >> correct >> correct >> whether >> correct >> and that's tell me why that's an incorrect position
>> okay um I won't say incorrect but uh by the Airbnb the way the property is I actually am allowed uh to rent 50% of the bedroom share meaning you can be on the property and 50% of of it is rented.
So it's not just the entire like for example the way the house is done and everything was done with the city. Uh I rent the guest suite area which is twobedroom uh cuz I'm a RS1 so I cannot rent to three or four different guest
the entire property. It's only one guest at a time. So either we have some people who stay in the area of the guest suite or some people stay in the front uh while we're present or a guest at a time that rents the entire uh villa and we are of course away because now we rented
the entire eight or I think it's eight bedroom. So it it's it's in your hand. Uh I'm just you know >> the the agreement with under the permit >> Mhm. says the city allows this this is about any
property owner. The city tell me if I'm wrong city. Okay. The city allows whoever whatever address it is under this code to rent their property as a as a vacation rental. Right.
>> Correct. And as a condition of doing that, as a condition of doing that, >> this that the unit owner can only have four vehicles there. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> But it's not I don't want to be on I don't want to
>> Oh, go ahead. You can ask a question. >> Oh, okay. Um I didn't think it was a condition that was imposed. It was imposed. It's not like can I do STR, but if you want to, you can only have Farcar. Uh, and I'm not arguing. I
totally I totally understand. This is why when it's rented, it's there's four car. Okay. >> I'm just trying to go about um the part where when I'm present on the premises, which I can still rent and they rent a part >> of the house, which is, you know, you up
to 50%. I know we went through that a year ago to make sure everything was correct. Um, and I'm on the premises. So then it becomes you know I wasn't I I understand it's a hearing so I'm not coming today to just want to change everything but this is where it's kind
of uh particular because I live in the home so the guests that come have four car >> but when I'm here I can also have you know rest of my family coming in here and we'll have more than four >> and I uh I know this today is not for
that but if I may if how we going to move forward with that to so you know I'm home or maybe I had an open house uh last October and they were not just in the driveway they were all over the street which I didn't know but I was present something was the
knock at the door and they're like we can't so of course we immediately remit to it um it would be great maybe or do you want me to put a sign that I'm home how do we go about >> let me let me do that I'm not advocating
one or together >> just as a person who has had se has seven daughters and at one time a lot of people had cars. >> Yeah. >> If if it was just a single family residence not rented. >> Correct. >> How many cars can you have there?
>> As many as you want. Once it becomes a vacation rental that changes there per the code. >> I got you. And and I'm not trying to but the reason for that is the reason you put a Tell me if I'm wrong. Yes, sir. I mean, I'm I've been a local government
attorney for 1985. I'm an old guy. The reason cities and counties put limits on the commercial use of property as opposed to the residential is because it monitors the number of people in
there indirectly sort of. >> Oh, what's >> because >> what does it mean? >> Because if how what's the limit of number of people that can be eight? >> Eight. So 4 * 2 is I'm a brilliant mathematician. 4 * 2 is 8.
>> The idea is that you can have b that helps the city control that the >> enforce the code about eight without really knowing >> gotcha >> how many people are in there.
>> Although if you knew and we've had cases where there's been more as I recall there's been cases where there's been more. I know there's been cases where a person has had more than we're allowed and it was proven, >> but this this way the city's not interested in going to every house and
seeing how many people are in it. Correct. >> But you're interested in for inforcing the code. >> The four vehicle limitation allows the city to do that indirectly. >> That's the purpose. If you had seven daughters like me, God bless you. number
one. >> But if you had nine cars out in the in the driveway in the on your property legally parked. >> Mhm. >> Okay. But it's not I'm not using the property for a commercial purpose. >> Correct. >> When I >> I'm using it for an insane purpose.
>> Yeah. When I rent the suite area, which is shared home, when you rent the guest suite, you know, it's a whole attached house, but I can rent the two bedrooms over there. Uh and in the listing something it's it's four car no more than four cars but we are home so then
it's gonna be more >> silent on that issue ma'am. So >> yeah I'm just asking you can't have more than four car. So, should I change when I when it's the, you know, guest suite area? Should I say >> Well, hang on a second. This is more for
you guys to talk about later. But I can tell you that what the con the legal interpretation construction >> right >> of the code is and it would be any code written similarly
>> is that once the use is a commercial use >> so if you say I'm going to rent it one if you have four bedrooms and you only rent one >> you have tripped the wire >> I still >> as a commercial use and now you're at four >> parking spaces. Am I correct with the
city's interpretation? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> So, once you do anything, once you trip the wire, >> then it's four. >> Even if you're there, >> you're at the four. >> Understood. >> The only time you're not is when there's nobody, there's no commercial use. That being said, is the city adhering to
the amount of the fines? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And tell me a reason why not to besides >> um Well, it's not a reason not to. Uh it's a lot of money but it's uh it wasn't done on purpose. It hasn't
happened. I make sure it's for it's because I was there and as today now I understand what I'm going to do moving forward. So it because it's never happened. I was on the property which I think actually I might have been on property a couple time and then there might have been more cars and I guess
maybe you weren't there to take a picture that day. So I might have found it myself but I think it maybe happened two or three times. Um, so I'm just asking for a leniency and then I'm going to make sure that um, now whether I'm home or not, there's no more than four
car because like you say it trips the fact that it's rented. It has to be four car included mine. Now can I ask is that okay if I put my car there in the garage you know there in the garage so there's only four car up front. Is that fine? I
I'm just going through the whole thing because I don't want anything >> like you said that's a discussion for another time. He's going to hold his position. >> Uh this property has multiple citations and another ongoing case. >> Okay. Let me just ask you one other question. >> Yes, sir. >> This when you issue a citation, you
actually hand it to somebody, don't you? >> No, I sent it certified mail, sir. >> Oh, so that site those two citations weren't actually delivered on the date of the the violation? >> No. >> No, sir. They were sent by certifi >> which is what the code says.
>> But it's not like a parking ticket where you and you put it on the car and then you put one on the next day and and the person's on notice because >> we can do that as portion of the code, but it also the code also allows us to u mail it certified or even email it.
>> Okay. Well, anything further, city, >> anything further responded? I'm going to I I don't think I have >> I'm going to adhere to the uh >> Can we reduce >> the two citations and the fines that
>> Excuse me. >> Can we maybe reduce it or warning because >> nothing was done on on purpose or in bad faith or anything like this? I'm just asking maybe for a little leniency as a as a warning. This is the first time this um >> I have I have no authority to amend the
code and I have no authority to enforce the code except to find whether or not a violation actually occurred and whether the fine was the was within the parameters of the the code. There's no evidence before me that the that the uh
code was not violated and there's no evidence before me that the citation is is inconsistent with the code. It's 750 >> per day. per day. >> Per car. Per car. 250 per car. So three to 750 and then per day. That's $1,400.
>> I got I I have you. >> Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it that way. No. >> No, I don't. Like I said, I have seven daughters. It takes a lot to offend me. So, um you're fine. Uh, I think the city acted within its
prerogative and uh and and I'm going to adhere to the the two citations. >> Um, and as um >> and they'll I'll be I'll affirm the two citations. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Is there anything further to come before the special magistrate today? Anything further? Okay. Hey, once again, the next hearing date is June 10th, 2026. And uh that being said, we're journed.