All right. Good morning one and all. My name is Lonnie Grew. I'm the spe special magistrate for code enforcement for the city of Cocoa Beach. and we're here today to to hear the cases on the agenda uh for September 10th today. Uh before
we begin, are there any changes to the agenda? Nope. No changes. Okay. So, I don't No one gets to leave early or anything like that. So, um, first thing I'm going to do today is approve the minutes of
August 13th, which have been kindly provided to me, and as required by the attorney general of the state of Florida, and I have approved those minutes. But the next thing I'm going to do is
I think there's some new faces here today. Are there new faces? It looks Yeah. No, you're a new You're a new phase, aren't you? Okay. Well, let me just go over real quickly what the procedures are today. We're going to hold queside judicial hearings,
which means they're s like a like a judicial hearing. They're not public hearings like the city council would have here, uh, where the public can come in and speak. Only people who are witnesses can speak and all testimony is
given under oath. Okay. So, the city will be presenting its case and presenting its evidence. And after the city's witnesses speak, whoever the respondent is, can ask questions of those witnesses. And after the city's
through entering into evidence what it desires to enter into evidence, then the respondent, typically the property owner, uh then presents their case and their testimony, like I said before, is under oath and the city can cross-examine, ask
questions of the respondent. At the end of the hearing, when all the evidence is presented, I'll make a determination orally, which will then be put into writing within a couple of days and be distributed to the city, distributed to the respondent, and that
will be the written order based upon the oral order today. Uh, can the city think of anything I missed? Okay. So, let's before we uh start the
uh docket going, anybody who plans on speaking today, testifying, we need to stand up, raise your right hand, and we'll take an oath. We'll start with you. Tell me your name, please. Joseph. Yes, sir. Francis. Yes, sir.
[Music] each of you solemnly spirit testimony you're about to give in the hearings matters now hearing will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the hoo you got it thank you all right the first case on the docket
is case number 24-95 and uh the respondent is twisted Tides I don't know what kind of entity that is. Joseph Holstein
is the said to be the business owner. Is the city ready to proceed? Yes, sir. Okay, you may proceed. Um, first off, I just let you know that um, Miss Crawford isn't feeling well today, so I'll be presenting this to you um, in herstead. Uh, she is here to answer any
questions that you may have. So, we'll try to get through this. Okay. Respondents Twisted Tides uh care of Joseph Holstein who is the business owner. Address is 211 East Cocoa Beach Causeway. Partial ID is on the slide.
Legal descriptions on the slide. On May 14th of 2025, the special magistrate yourself found the respondent in violation of section 13-2 license permit required. Section 5-04 prohibited signs. Section 6-4 permits.
Uh section 19-40 general requirements section 19-32 regulations section 19-43 existing gravity grease and interceptor design installation requirements section 19-50 best management practices and accidental
discharge prevention. On May 14th, 2025, uh, yourself put into order that the respondent pay the $250 fine that was issued to him via citation for not obtaining the business tax receipt in a
timely manner. Uh, the respondent was ordered to correct all violations uh by June 13th, 2025. If compliance was not achieved by that date, a fine in the amount of 100 for the first day of non-compliance and 200 for every day of subsequent non-compliance will be
imposed. As of September 9th of 2025, the respondent has corrected the following violations. Section 19-40, section 19-32, section 19-50,
and section 6-4. As of September 9th, 2025, the respondent has not corrected the following violations. The uh section 13-2 license and permit uh BTR has not been obtained yet.
Section 5-04 prohibited signs. All flag signs have are still present. They have not been removed. Section 19-43 existing gravity grease interceptor design installation grease tank has not been approved by the utilities department.
This is a picture of the flags outside that uh were there in July 18th and that's September 9th. The flags are still there. Can I absolutely under the city code? I don't recall. Are those defined as flags or are they defined as
banners or how what are they defined as? They're they are banner flags I believe. But they are but they're specifically under the prohibited lesson and signs. I'm just curious. Yeah. [Music] We do have a property representative here. He is actually the property owner,
not the business owner, if I'm correct. Correct. Okay. Um he would like to speak on on his behalf. Okay. Do you have any questions of the city at this time? Yeah, cuz I He's saying that you uh said that we had to have anything by June
Sunday and I didn't see no notification about that. If you guys had a hearing and now you're you're asking Yeah, I'm asking this uh in June, but I had everything done by June, but you had a hearing before that.
One second, please. [Music] Well, I could The order says the respondent shall attain compliance with all provisions of the city code found to have been violated herein and shall attain such compliance on or before June
13, 2025. And if such compliance is not attained, it is hereby ordered that a fine of $100 per day, etc., etc. Did you receive this order? No. Okay. Did we send it to him via certified mail?
Well, certified mail and hand deliver. And that's for this hair. This is the order. This was the order that was sent to the uh to the property and was also hand delivered to the property. Okay. So this so that that's the document was received
at the the business by hand delivery. Yeah. August 14th and that is the order. Correct. Okay. Then that that okay this past June that's what I'm saying today. But what we're what the what the city is stating is that we um posted the
actually handd delivered this order after you um put the order into record. We handd delivered this order to the property itself. On what day? One second. I have the [Music]
I believe on May 29th. Yes, May 29th. So, the order was hand delivered prior to the compliance date. You agree with that? Well, I'm not going to She delivered. I'm not Can you Can you come up here? Thank you.
If she delivered, I'm not going to say she didn't or didn't. I just don't recall receiving it. But you have But you But this is from August 14th is what I'm saying. Okay. So, it has the it has everything in it. But you don't have any evidence showing that the order wasn't delivered prior to
No, I'm not I'm not denying it. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, okay. Go ahead then. Um, for the BT, do you have any other questions of the city? You want to make a statement? It's in regards to the BTR. Okay. The BTR couldn't be completed due to the
uh liquor license that um got lost in Tallahassee first and then in Orlando. So, they're working on that now. So, other than that, I don't have no statement because the city of Cocoa Beach has been very kind to me. So, help me
recall the statute. I can pull it up obviously, but there are certain state licenses that can't be issued until a business tax receipt, local business tax is paid. Do you recall that? [Music]
But this isn't I don't think liquor license is one of that. Actually, that's a question for you, too. Do you It's your license. So, It's a liquor license attached to the building. So, it's not like a the new liquid license that's removable. So, it's attached to the building and well, it regardless of what the statute
says what the there are some provisions in chapter 205 of the Florida statutes that say, as I recall, that say you can't get that state license until you pay your business tax regardless.
You have to pay your business tax. Correct. Yeah. I have no argument about that. I don't think the the city's not requiring you to have a alcoholic beverage license to pay your business tax. We actually have our business tax professional here that you could I mean
she could answer that question. We we swore you in right? No, let's swear you in then. State your name, please. Kristen Harris. Miss Harris, she solemnly swear testimony about given matter truth. Whole truth. Nothing but truth. Help you guys. Yes, I do. Thank you.
So, does the city require when someone is a restaurant or whatever, a bar to to prove that they have the liquor license before they have pay the the tax? They they have to show us that they have
a state license before we can issue the BTR. Okay. So, [Music] In this case, if he doesn't have the liquor license, he can't pay the
business tax. Well, he can um he paid tax, but the document only is we do ask to see proof of the state license, but the BTR is really just a receipt that you paid the tax, right?
So, has he paid it? No. Also, I if I could interject, the the reason why the BTR hasn't been issued is because of both fire department and utilities haven't been able to approve their portions um of the
the BTR because he hasn't been able to um successfully pass a fire inspection or a utilities inspection. Okay, I got you there, too. And I'm not criticizing the city in any way, shape, or form, but I have been a local government attorney
since 85. Good lord. Uh [Music] the way and you need to check obviously you need to run by this by the city attorney. But the reason that the
statute was changed from what was called the occupational license tax to the b local business tax statute is b partly because this very reason because it's not a license
and actually some contractors used to use that as a scam. I'll say it because it was they would have on their truck licensed and insured. Well, they the license was that they got
their local their occupational license which wasn't a license. It was a payment of a tax and the insure was that they had required workers compensation insurance which did nothing for the consumer. Okay. So they this legislature
changed it to local business tax cuz that's all it is. Mhm. And the attorney general has said you can once again check with your the city attorney that you can't check zoning or anything like that
before you pay the tax. It's just a tax. It's sort of like if I was going to go pay my income tax to the US government, they're not going to say, "Well, you know, we're not accepting your money because uh you you didn't get your national park
pass and you're supposed to have one before you go in national parks. They're going to take my money." So, check with your city attorney. But the city the city does agree with that. It uh business tax receipt is not regulatory. Um they can pay their business tax. The concern of the city is
that this business has been open for over a year. Oh, I have got you there. And they have not done anything moved forward with anything about obtaining these things. So, I got you. I got you. And I'm going to find Okay. Do you have any other evidence?
No. Okay. This is a Massie hearing to determine whether or not you're in vi still in violation of section 13.2 5.04N and 19-43. Okay. And you have no evidence to show that you're not in violation. Correct.
What are those three violations? Well, that's what the city was saying earlier. I can 5.04 is prohibited signs, which is what I asked about. They're still there. And the last time we had a hearing, last time we had a a hearing with or a meeting in general
about the signs. I was told that moving forward just you're fine with it because I got I got in trouble took them down and then they said just you're fine moving forward. Up or down? Huh? There the original originalation was not from
this one you see in the picture. It was from a a banner flag saying open. We're open. Okay. I'm going to find that you're still in violation of that code. Okay. And 19-43 is existing gravity grease interceptor. the grease trap. Is it the grease trap? Is that what you call them
here too? Grease trap for like stepping down from the Federal Reserve Board's Board of Governors. So, oh, I'm sorry. A podcast came on that I was listening to on the way here. Shows you what kind of geek I am
listening to stuff like that. uh you don't have the correct facilities installed that the utility department's requiring in regard to the grease tank right
they want us um they so when we talked about this grease tank they submitted this to the previous owner and got lost for now three years and I said so now you're putting this on me which should have fell on the previous owner Well,
that's an interesting statement you make, but it's just not true. That's a prop. The city can disagree with me, but that sounds like it's a real property issue between you and your seller. Well, as to saying he's never received anything, so that's what I'm concerned
about. I was only aware about it because the city made me aware about that they serve it to him. I mean, I I've sat on I hate to keep saying I'm so old and experienced, which that's not the point. The point is is that the current owner of real property
for better or worse is obligated to have that real property in compliance. the the classic example and I'm sure the he has experienced this is somebody buys a home,
okay, and they start doing some other construction and the building inspectors notice that the windows are new, aren't the or aren't the original 1976 or 1990 windows or whatever, and that they're
newer. And then they look at the data and there's no in there's no permit for those windows and then there's a violation for no not get having a permit for the windows. The windows were in when the new owner bought the property
but guess what it's the new owner's obligation and it gets to be really messy. I don't know about you have that issue here in the city here but in Simino County when I was magistrate there we had it all the time. because you have to prove that the
windows were installed correctly or the right windows and all that. The burden is on the new property owner. You are the new property owner. If you have issues with your seller, that's another story. Okay. So, like I said, the city of the beach has been great to me. So, but I'm going to find that that's in
violation, too. All right. Now, let's go to the business tax receipt. Is the city just going to accept the man's money? I mean that talk to your city attorney, but it's it's not regulatory. The inspections, some
jurisdictions do that, but it's really not part of the process. And some jurisdictions, and I've written ordinances to do this, have a separate annual inspection with, by gosh, a separate annual fee because the business tax is just a tax. It's not associated
with the inspection. We can charge for the inspection. This is the city has a certificate of use that goes along with post tax receipt. That's what you're that's what goes along with the inspection, right? You charge a separate fee for that. Um I don't Yes. There you go. Bingo.
So, congratulations. You get to pay the business tax and the inspection fee, which is a good thing. And it's a good service. You get basically have your property inspected at a discounted rate on an annual basis for fire safety. And what else does the city inspect?
Utilities. What's that? Utilities. So, so I'm going to find that a Massie hearing is really not the right mechanism for business tax receipt, but it sounds to me like the city's ready to take your money and give you a business
tax receipt, but you still got to get certificate of use. Mhm. And you still got to go get your liquor license, but you get to pay your tax. I'll pay the tax. There you go. So, I'm going to find that those three
codes are still in violation in this Massie hearing. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any anything further um on this this particular case? [Music]
Our original recommendation would be to lean the property. However, speaking with um uh Miss Crawford, we're the city is willing to ask for 30 more days to come into compliance. Well, that's okay.
So, what the city just said, and you should appreciate this, is when if when I enter the order, Okay. they can go, the city can go and record it right away and it becomes a lean on your property and since it's not homestead is commercial,
it's foreclosable. I mean, you might have someers involved and all that, but anyway, but the city's saying they're going to give you 30 more days to come into compliance before they they record that lean. Okay? And I'm not going to put that in
the order unless you you just you can just take the order and not determine not to record it for 30 days if you want to. Well, your previous order did state that. Yeah, I'll say 30. That's true. Yes. But still, it's still a you could record
it right away. They're they're apparently not going to even record the order until you're non-compliance, which is a nice thing to do, a businessfriendly thing to do. I appreciate it. Well, don't that's for the city. Do you appreciate? So, that's
what you'll have 30 days additional to comply from the date of today or this of the order. Date of the orders. The day of the orders. That's even more than 30 days. Okay. So, that'll be the order that's issued.
Okay. The next case is case number 25-91. The property owner is Michael Sarco. The property is addressed at 300 South Orlando Avenue and you may proceed.
Morning. Um, the respondent, Michael Sorco for 300 South Orlando. Can I reopen the last hearing for a second? I'm sorry. I'm reopening the last hearing. Did you want to introduce the PowerPoint and evidence? Yes. I I didn't get a copy. That's okay. We didn't do a copy. However, we will
get you a copy of that. Okay. But the Do you have any objection? the the documents that were put on the screen. You have any objection to those being introduced in the evidence? Okay. They're so admitted and that hearing is now concluded. Here we go. Um on July 9th, the special magistrate
found the respondent in violation of section 13-2 license permit required and section 26.5-21 registration required. On July 9th, the special magistrate put into order that the respondent pay the $250 fine for not obtaining the business
tax receipt in a timely manner per Florida statute. And the respondent was ordered to correct all violations by August 9th. If compliance was not achieved by that date, a fine in the amount of $100 for the first day of non-compliance and $50 for every day of subsequent non-compliance would be imposed.
On August 12th, I confirmed the listings were still active. This is unit one's listing and it is still active as of yesterday. This is unit 2's listing that was active August 12th and again yesterday. And unit 3 was active on August 12th and
again today. [Music] Okay. Mr. Sarco, Mr. Saraka. That's right. You would uh would
you go just call the hall one time? I called twice in here. We're going to call the hall and see if anybody present. Oh, you're unless you want to hang around and I wouldn't
[Music] No. Okay. We've called the hall. So, the respondent although having an opportunity, he's been noticed. Correct. Yes. Although having an opportunity to attend
and uh present evidence is apparent determined not to and there's not an attendance, you may proceed. Um, based on the testimony and evidence evidence presented at this hearing, staff respectfully requests the magistrate find the respondent in violation of the magistrate's order and impose a fine of $100 for the first day of non-compliance
and $50 every day thereafter retroactive back to August 12th until compliance is confirmed by the code officer. [Music] All right, we will enter an order imposing a panel and lean on that on that case based upon that evidence.
Thank you, sir. Okay. The next case is case number 25-157 and the property owner is Francis Dugan and the address of the property is 79 South Bard Avenue and I understand that
there's been a request that this case be reheard. Yes. Okay. And uh and let I I recall the case. So, you just want to have M the respondent come up and tell me why I should rehear it.
Yes, sir. Okay. [Music] Good morning, special magistrate. My name is Francis Dugen, owner of 79 South. Sorry, I mispronounced your name. No problem. Uh, I'm here requesting a
re-haring. The last hearing, the city alleged violations under three sections of the code. You dismissed the occupancy related charges under section 26.5-53 and 26.5-58 and the official meeting minutes reflect
that. Quote, Mr. Groot clarified there is no evidence Mr. Dugen rents beyond the allowed occupancy and confirmed that the only issue is misleading language in the advertisements. End quote. The only issue remaining The only remaining issue was alleged misleading advertising under
section 13.1-4 and you direct me to work with the city to make sure my listings were clear. I did that. I updated my listings and the city has acknowledged in writing that the titles and descriptions are no longer issue. However, in the same email, the city tried to tie back
occupancy, stating that quote, "The only thing left would be updating the maximum occupancy to be in compliance with city code." End quote. occupancy was already dismissed and bringing it back through section 13.1-4 is not what the code was created for. As
I understand it, section 13.1-4 was intended to address cases where a single family rental that's capped at 8 advertises that they sleep 10 or 12. This is not the situation here. Also, at the last hearing, Deputy Director Mr.
Palmer Palmer even said on the record, quote, "If the advertisement said each unit sleeps eight or five, that wouldn't be misleading." End quote. That's exactly what my listenings now do. They clearly state the occupancy of each unit consistent with the ordinance. With
respect, this has felt less like a safety or compliance issue and more like a disagreement over wording. I've worked in good faith to fix it, and the city itself has admitted my titles and descriptions are not misleading. There was never any evidence of over occupancy or confusion. Guests weren't
misled and even the original complaint why this all started acknowledged it was two units. The complaint details said, quote, 79 South Bard is advertised 10 for two units. End quote. That shows there was no actual confusion from the start. I want to be clear. I'm not
trying to fight the city. I've done everything to comply, but this enforcement feels like it's going beyond what the ordinance was written to address. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that a reharing be granted in this case be dismissed. Okay. Does the city have anything in revital?
Not is there a current advertisement to look at? I have Yes, sir. [Music] This is uh just one of them. We have them all. This is the current listing. As you can see, that's highlighted
underneath. It says 16 plus guests. The misleading portion of this is um any individual could look at this and say 16 plus guests. They can go to the dates for prices and they could add dates and they could add 16 plus guests.
Misleading. Does that mean I could put 16 plus guests in one of the units, four of the units, two of the units? Who knows? It doesn't doesn't explain what what you can do here except for you can have 16 plus guests.
One sleeps 20. What sleeps 20? It's misleading saying that could I call him and say I could put 20 people in the same unit? Can I put 20 people in the same bedroom? I I I have no idea. That's to to the city. That's misleading.
[Music] sleeps 10 10 guests [Music] 10 10. [Music] Let me back up and go through those again. I want
Let me go to the beginning. Yeah. [Music]
That makes no sense. That that one, doesn't it? Four units. Each sleeps five and you got 16 guests down there. Four * 5 is 20, right? Yes. So, it's But I mean, and Yes. I mean that's
Smithly just in the in its fact that if I'm reading the top like you just did and I add up everything definitely now makes me as a reader say what's the 16 apply to and over here I can
I don't have to say how okay go can we go to the next one to each [Music] So now you got four. Ignore the bedrooms for a second, but
four * 5. Now you're at 20. It's still ambiguous what you're talking about, right? [Music] But at least that Go ahead. The next one, please. [Music]
Two. Two bedroom two. Each sleeps 2 * 10 5 is 10. Okay, [Music] that was the last one. Two
* 5. [Music] But when you check availability, you're checking for a unit, right? That's once again when you go into availability, you
put in the guests. Like on the very first one, I went in, I put in the availability. I put in 16. It went to 16 plus guests. I put in two dates. It said reserve this unit for $3,000. Which unit? I don't know. It just said reserve. I'm sorry. I I apolog.
And it gave me a price. I had no idea what unit I was reserving. If I was reserving every one of them, one of them. I I don't know. Well, that in in itself is misleading because you do you you are you are you reserving one or you reserving two? There's two advertised.
It's not clear that you're say entire unit. Well, the intermental unit is inco beach, but doesn't say the you're renting the entire rental unit. So, aside from the numbers, it's ambiguous and misleading about what you're renting.
And you're right that you're talking about language, but that is what misleading is about, language. And I see the city's point about how this is misleading, not just in terms of the
number of potential people res staying there, but just generally amig misleading about what you're renting. So the I don't know if you're if you're in concerned with that or not, but from my perspect you come back up. I'm
absolutely. I'm sorry. I don't know my No, my bad. I don't know if the city's concerned about that aspect of the misleadingness, but from me being a person who's brainless, doesn't know a thing about it, just coming in and looking at this for the
first time and saying, "I want to rent something, right? I put check-in date to checkout date and I put for this one five am I renting both units or I'm just one
with I put 20 if I put 10 still what am I running one unit two units it's not clear that's misleading [Music] Can somebody else cut it put in the same
thing? And can can can I put in September 16th through September 17th, five guest? Somebody else come in and put September 16th and put se September 17th, five guest, and they we each get a separate unit.
I have no idea because it doesn't the ad doesn't inform us how or inform the the the renter what they're renting for it. It says there's two units says it sleeps five and then it says 10 guests
when you go in. I do know for the very first one, I didn't do them all, but I did for this one, put in two dates, a check date and a checkout date, and then I 16 plus guests. I got you. And
unless there's more to it than these particular pages show, where are the bedrooms? Where are the bats? That's misleading because there was one of them that said five beds.
Go back. I think there's two nets. I thought I saw one that said there it is. [Music] Four bedrooms, five beds.
Where are the I would assume that three are in one and two are in another, but I don't know that. Yeah. So, you're right. The the issue is words. That's the inherent issue with misleading our words. And I
see the city's point about these still being misleading. They're clearly ambiguous. The city's asserting that that ambiguity is misleading. I agree with that because as a consumer, I'm looking at this and I be I can I
could be mled as a person of although wife disagrees no intelligence, you know, uh I don't know what I'm getting. So I have something else for for sale.
So, this is only part of the advertisement. I have the full advertisement. There's a whole description that clearly outlines each unit and how they're separated. Um, for 16, and that's cuz once you get 16 or more, it caps it and goes to 16 plus.
Um, I'm legally allowed to have six in each unit. I'm never overstating that. There is more to advertisements than just this. And this, like we said, clearly states in the title, two two-bedroom units. It leaves five. So a total of 10 guests
we can have. Okay. And I can show you I can show you this with the fine. They just want me to lower the occupancy to to eight I believe but I'm allowed to have more than eight in two units. In two units and that's what I'm advertising two
units. It's right in the Torah. It's also in descriptions. There's more to the advertisement if you scroll down. That's a screenshot of the top. Does this does the city agree that the additional text clarifies the the the headings for lack of a better word? The
misleading is you're looking at what we're looking at. An individual comes on here, they look at this right here, they put in their dates and they go to 16. Well, this one 10 guests and they go 16. That's what's misleading is the fact
that you can rent. I have no idea what I'm renting. It says, you know, for the very first one, I didn't do it for this one. I can do it for all of them, though. But for the very first one, you're renting, it says, I think four units. Okay. I don't know. I'm renting
units. When I go on here, I'm renting right here is where I rent from. I mean, I could I could read all the, you know, the rest of the the whole below what he's saying that, you know, explains it all. I could also read all
of the people that have put in comments on it to see how good it is and everything to that effect. Where's the is the amount where when do you see the amount amount from the charge when you check once you put once you put in the dates and you put in the uh the the amount of
people. That's typical, isn't it? And then it once it it changes from availability to reserve. Okay. But it allows you to put in that many guests. I I just it doesn't I got a full grasp
now. I Yeah. It doesn't say like eight, you know, guests then, you know, for I'm just I'm going to deny the motion for rehearing. And I think you got there's a way to work this language out between you and the city.
So the city's stating if you half the advertisement, it could be misleading, but if you read half of any advertisement, couldn't it be misleading? And I also rent these individual units out. This is just an option for guests to book multiple units on one listing. The city would have to
go after every hotel in Cocoa Beach because you can go on multiple websites, put in 20 people and hotels come up and they're I don't think they're putting 20 people in one hotel room. It it's common industry practice. And there's no life safety issue. And again, this all started from a complaint
of a lady who puts in hundreds of complaints. And in her complaint, it said 79 Southwood Vard is advertising 10 for two units. So she understood it was rent. This listing is renting for two units in this case. Well, here's the first going to deny the
motion, but I can tell you you need to work with city on the language. I can also tell you I can also tell you that since having done code enforcement since 1985 again the old the deal of look look at neighbor's lawn or look at my neighbor's house look at my neighbor's
never works it does you know just like I have never been caught speeding I didn't say I'd never been sped but had I been caught speeding I can assure you I could sit there and say well Mr. high patrol and what about that car going by and that car going by? Well, they're writing
me the ticket and that that doesn't work. And you're l and the the legislature changed the law to say now you get to know who your complainant is. So at least you get to know who your complainant is because in the old days you could do it anonymously. and and to
her to the point where what she said it doesn't matter cuz I can tell you there's numerous occasions when someone complains I don't know if this is true in this city or not someone complains about uh an unpermitted window go back
to that and son of a gun when the county or city goes out to inspect unpermitted window that the neighbor complain about guess what they find a a septic tank violation or a unpermitted electrical work and all that and the city's not
bound to what the neighbor claimed about the city and say well that neighbor said that we went and looked at so the one thing do fix it where it's called 10 guests they want me to put eight guests but in two units I'm allowed 12 guests so the city to correct this issue is wanting me to undervertise
my my units I'm allowed more than 10 guests I'm actually advertising for less than what the code allows me and that seems the only issue with the city at this point is what circle circle there 10 guests. Well, I recommend that you work with the city and I'm going to deny the motion. I have tried, but the only issue is
changing the guests and they want me to advertise less than what I'm even allowed to. There's ways to crack this egg and I recommend that you work with the city either. So, that's that's the decision in this case.
Is there anything further to come before the special magistrate today? Yes, real quick. Uh sir, the um your last order gave him actually it's it would have it's there's a stay once he does ask for a reh um the city willing to stipulate and give him another till
another week till the 19th uh Friday the 19th which is next Friday uh to come into compliance. Okay. Thank you sir. I will enter with that compliance date then. Thank you. Everything gets resolved. Is there anything further to come before me
today? No, sir. That's all. All right. Thank you. We're journed.