All right. Good morning one and all. Calling to order the uh meeting of the co city of Cocoa Beach special magistrate. We're only having one hearing today and the the folks who are at the hearing today uh not everybody
was at the prior hearing because we are having a rehearing today. Not everybody was at the prior hearing, were they? >> Yeah. Correct. Y >> everybody was. >> No. >> No. That's what I mean. Hey. >> Okay. Well, real quickly then, I'll go over the the procedures.
Um these are hearings, adversary hearings. uh they're they're public hearings and that the public can come and watch and the the the public is is invited to be board watching YouTube
uh either live or recorded. So they're public hearings in that regard, but they're not public in that the public can come in and speak on any item unless somebody is called as a witness for either the city or a respondent. Okay.
Uh so these are evidentiary hearings between the city and the respondent. In this case obviously we're going to rehear a case with some new people involved. Um and the city has consented to that. And
so what will happen is everybody who's going to speak provide testimony as a witness will be sworn in to tell the truth. Uh the city will then present its case. Thank you. The city will then
present its case and any witness for the city can be cross-examined by the respondent and then the respondent will present the respondent's case and the city can cross-examine the witnesses for the respondent. At the end of that hearing
process, I'll make a decision uh announce it publicly and then within a day or so, we'll enter a written order. and uh that written order will be distributed to all the parties and
that's the that's the process. Okay. Uh so that being said, well since we do have the minutes now, I I'll approve them later. Maybe we I'll hold off on approving the minutes of January 21. The next hearing date is
March 11th, by the way. March 11th, 2026. So, the one case before us today is the re-haring of case number 25-54. Uh, the respondent is Coconut Grove Yacht Club, Inc., and the reg resident
agent is Mr. Bazil. I think I said that right. So this so since we're really we're back to where we were as if there was no hearing and so we're going to we'll start a new in the city. Go ahead and present your
case. >> Okay. Um should we be sworn in as well? >> Oh yeah. Minor detail. I that's right I mentioned that. Everybody who's uh going to testify today, please stand up and raise your right hand. Oh, we got a lot. Okay. Would you start here? Please
say your full name. Brian Palmer. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Danielle Crawford >> over here, sir. >> Jay Cast >> back in the back. >> Edward Richmond >> back in the next the back row. >> James
AJ. >> All right. Do each of you solemnly swear that the testimony about to give the matter now be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help you to God. >> Thank you. >> All right, M. Crawford, you may proceed. >> All right.
Um, so the case we're hearing today is 25-54. The respondents are Coconut Cove Yach Club, Inc., who is the owner, as well as Island Time Marina, um, who I believe is purchasing the property from the owner.
Uh, the address of the property is 398 West Cocoa Beach Causeway. And the parcel ID and legal description is above. Here is an aerial view of the property in question. It's essentially just the
parking lot. From January 9th, 2023 through April 15th, 2025, staff observed an unpermitted parking lot, accessory structure, and trash and debris on the property, which resulted in three previous code enforcement cases, all of
which were closed per previous director's direction. During this time frame, the city chose to work directly with the respondents to attempt to resolve the violations on the property. On April 15th, 2025, a notice of violation was sent to the respondent,
Mr. Betazil, which was received and signed for on April 21st. On August 25th, 2025, a revised notice of violation was sent to the respondents addressing violations on the property to include section 105.1 required Florida
Building Code 110.1 General Section 4-01 General Procedures of the City of Cocoa Beach. Section 3-33 accessory structures 10-22 enumerated conditions.
And I believe that is all respondents were asked to apply for and obtain a permit for the constructed parking lot and accessory structure, obtain all approved final inspections, apply for and obtain a site plan for the parking lot, and to remove all trash and
debris from the parking lot. On August 25th, 2025, the NOV was mailed via first class and certified mail as well handd delivered. On September 2nd, 2025, the certified mail was received and signed for by the respondent, Mr. Betazil.
On September 22nd, 2025, the respondent, Mr. Stadler, received and signed for his copy of the NOV. On October 13th, I reinspected the property which remained in violation. Also on October 13th, a notice of
hearing was sent via first class and certified mail to both respondents. On October 20th, the certified mail was received and signed for by Mr. Betazil, who relayed the information to Mr. Stadler. On October 24th, the respondent handd delivered the FD permit to me and
confirmed receipt of the NOH. On November 12th, 2025, I met with Mr. Stadler on the property. On November 13th, the special magistrate hearing was held and the respondents were found in violation of the notice of
violation in order to obtain compliance on or before November 20th, 2025. If compliance was not achieved, a fine of $250 a day would commence until compliance was achieved. The respondents were not present. On January 21st, 2026,
the respondents requested a re-haring which was granted. On January 27th, the notice of reharing was mailed uh certified in first class mail to both respondents as well as posted to property. Uh Mr. Betazil signed for his certified
copy on February 3rd. And as of uh February 11th, neither the building permit or the site plan application for the parking lot have been approved or issued due to insufficient information. No building permits have been submitted for the
accessory structure. Much of the trash and debris on the property has been removed. However, some dilapidated watercrafts, trailers, and building materials remain. At this time, the FD permit was uploaded uh to both the building plan and the site plan. Uh the
building permit is awaiting zoning approval and city engineer approval. And the the site plan is awaiting planning review, fire approval, engineering review, storm water review, and administer administrator approval.
Um, so now we're just going to go through some pictures. Uh, this is the beginning of the construction of the parking lot from January 9th, 2023. Just more construction pictures from 2023. the committed parking lot.
Some examples of the the vehicles and the trailers that were previously on the property but have since been removed. Um in the right hand corner you'll see uh the accessory structure that we're talking about. Um and this is from October 2025.
So at that time very similar condition November and I believe these vehicles have recently been removed the building materials that we were talking about. >> Okay. So just to summarize as of today
what are the alleged violations? They still need to obtain a building permit for the parking lot that has already been constructed and they need a site plan for that uh parking lot. >> So nothing all the violations are still
>> and as well as the accessory structure. Yeah, correct. >> Okay. And did you want to ask for the PowerPoint to be introduced in the evidence? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. >> Mr. Bedazelle. >> Yes, sir. Do you have any objection to the PowerPoint?
>> Okay, it'll be admitted. By the way, I'm looking this direction, but there's a screen here that has the same thing that's behind me. So, I'm not facing out or anything. All right. Does the city have any further witnesses? >> Um, just wanted to note that the the
director, David Dicki, is here as well as the building official, Jay, and our storm water uh engineer, Morgan. Um, and they're here just in case there are any additional questions. >> Okay. Does the respondent have any cross-examination of Miss Crawford?
>> Uh, yes. >> Okay. Come on up then. Well, that microphone is working right. If you want to sit down and be comfortable that so you can ask Miss Crawford questions now. >> Miss Crawford, you and I have spoken a few time. All right. Let me introduce
myself. AJ Bedisel. We've talked a few times. It's nice to meet you >> finally in person. So, we have spoken a few times, correct? >> Yes. >> All right. The the applicant because I signed it, but Mr. Stadler applied for a permit in 2023. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> He's pro he's provided a site plan. Can I ask you what you have no site plan? >> The site plan has been applied for, but it's insufficient and not approved. >> All right. Have you notified him? >> Yes,
>> you have. >> Mrs. Will you come up here, please? >> Okay. Well, hang on. >> Oh, we're not allowed to do that. >> Well, you can call him next. >> Oh, okay. >> But go ahead and finish your cross examination. >> So, >> and by the way, just so you'll be heard real well >> closer to this. >> Yeah, I talk really loud cuz I don't
hear that good. But you talk now. >> So, >> Oh, okay. Perfect. the first time that you and I spoke roughly I think it was probably six months ago um when I first got the letter of violation and I said hey we
applied for a permit we've talked to uh Tanja McCoy McCoy we had a group conversation and she says we're going to work this out amicably um and you said okay I'll get with Mr. Stadler and I said okay and then I followed up with a phone call and you told me we're going to deal directly
with Mr. Stadler, we don't need to involve you anymore. Is that correct? >> Yes and no. >> Okay. Please. >> That's why I sent the notice of violation to both you and Mr. Stadler because the property is still technically owned by you. >> You you required to. That is correct. Yes.
>> But you did state to me >> that we're going to just deal directly with Mr. Staller. We don't need to deal with you. Didn't mean you weren't going to send me notification. >> Okay. >> No, you tell me. Answer. If you don't if I'm if I'm mistaken or you don't believe that's correct, tell me.
>> Yeah. And I have directly worked with James Stadler. >> Okay. All right. And then you told me you had gone out to the property uh a few times and then we f I followed up. You told me tell me and I'm saying what
I remember. You told me all we need is the not D permit by the way. By the way, I never signed it. It's a postal center they signed you. And you had up there, Florida Department of Environment Protection. That's not who signs a permit. It's St. John's Water River Management. Okay. I called you and I
said, "Hey, James got the James got the S SJ permit." And I go, "That's all we need, correct?" You go, "That's it." And I said, "Okay." I emailed it to you. He handd delivered it the next day. Okay. Am I correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, after that I think oh we had the notice of the hearing and I contacted you and I said we're good to go right. Your exact words may not have been good to go but that was all that you needed to issue
the permit because the permits why is it taking three years to get a permit? >> Because James Stadler has supplied insufficient information and has been contacted by multiple representatives of our staff. >> Okay, we'll cover that later. Um, so
once you told me that all we needed was the St. John's Water River Management Permit, then the permit for the city could be issued. And my response to you was, "Well, let's cancel the hearing then." And you go, "Nope, hearings cannot be cancelled." But you told me I
didn't need to be here. Yes, you did. >> Because James Dadler can come. >> But wait a second. I'm the respondent, right? >> So that's your decision. >> Okay. But you're I have a property for 23 years that you're trying to put a
fine on me and then you told me to back off by not back off literally. You didn't say back off. You said I will deal directly with James Stadler. You said I will deal directly with James Stadler. And I said, "Okay, that's fine cuz I live three hours away from here. So that makes it easy." And I didn't do
any of the work. So um my point to this is you told me not to come. Then they had the hearing. I was embarrassed and humiliated and I had to reach out to everybody to say, "Hey, listen. I was told not to be here, which is not fair for a property that I've
owned for 23 years, you know, and I told you in the beginning I had sold it to Mr. Stadler. It's a contract for deed." Yes, I did. That's why you're dealing with him. >> It's not been sold. >> Uh, yes it has. Yes, it has. It's called a contract for deed. Are you familiar
with real estate law? >> Absolutely not. >> Let Let me jump in here for a second. Okay, I don't I want to hear the facts and I have I'm going to make a decision based upon the facts, but the question I
have is the well statement I have and then the question the issues are whether the codes have been violated. Okay. Y >> I mean there is an issue of due process if you don't get notice and you don't
get an opportunity to be heard. But >> you're not arguing that you don't have notice now cuz you're here. >> No sir. Not >> and you're and you're not arguing that you don't have an opportunity to be heard because you're being heard now. >> Correct. >> So those things really don't matter.
What really matters to to me in the case is whether or not the violations exist. But what you just raised also has raised the issue and I don't have a deed in front of me. I don't have any instruments in front of
me. But I guess what I'm asking you is to clarify your question is or your position your position is you don't own the property. >> No, no, sir. The property is still titled in my name. It's called a contract for deed. When Mr. Stadler pays
me in full, then it gets transferred to his in his case. >> So, we're all all the right parties are here dancing then. >> All the right parties are dancing. >> So, the the fact that there's a contract for deed is and I know I know what a contract for deed is cuz that's what all
Florida land sales used to be. >> That's right. >> Yeah. That's right. and uh you know and um the the equitable purchaser doesn't get titled until they paid all the the sales proceeds to the title owner and
actually they're at risk until then. But anyway, that's another issue. >> But okay, but we have the right parties here. So, let's talk about whether or not there's a violation. >> All right. And so my my point of that was
I was okay with you just dealing with Mr. Stadler, but to say that I didn't need to be here is an incorrect statement. So um did you receive the special exception that I received on the property back in
I think it was 2012. >> Yes, I have seen it. >> Okay. So the containers were allowed I mean we we did all the refurbishment for the uh entrance to the gateway. Not me personally, but the company that did it. And we had probably six to eight of
those trailers on there. Never had a problem because it fell into special exception. We're allowed to have six. I think it was up to six vehicles. Five. My apologies. Five. >> Hang on a second. This is This is helps me. It helps the record. It helps the viewer because you're you're asking
questions and Miss Crawford's either nodding nodding doing nodding. I don't know what she's doing. you. Well, it appears that you're saying nodding yes, but is this is there a special exception that authorizes the trailers?
>> Yes, sir. >> Well, okay. You're saying there is, but you're asking Crawford's question. You're asking Miss Crawford questions right now. >> Okay. >> So, that's the question that >> the assertion that is being made is that the special exception authorizes the
trailers now as accessory structures. That's the question, right? Okay. >> Well, we're not wasn't really trailers. I think the containers the trailers are gone. Containers. >> The container. >> The the the structures that are in viol
alleged to be caused the violation, are they approved by means of a special exception? Is that your question? >> Yes, sir. And from my understanding, and I can refer to my director, Dave Dicki, um, but that special exception was granted
at a time when that parcel was connected to 400 West Cocoa Beach Causeway, and that parcel has since been split and sold. So, we were under the assumption that the special exception no longer applied. >> Well,
not there's no evidence before me about anything. So there's an alleged violation. The testimony so far is that there is a violation. There's no your testimony, but there's no document showing me that
>> y that there is no violation because of the special exception. So that's where we're at right now. >> Okay. Well, your honor, she did admit that there was a special exception. But then she also went on and said it relates to another address which >> which which is the address which is next
door which I used to own the Marina. But the thing is and I love that word assume. You said well we assumed that it doesn't apply anymore. Well I was never notified of that. Hey by the way your special exception doesn't apply anymore cuz I had it for going on for I think I
I could be wrong but I think 10 years 8 years. Well, since James is the owner, we had the meetings with James and James was informed. >> I'll I'll I'll call in. >> Well, per you. James is the owner. >> Pardon me. >> Per you. James is the owner. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, >> and just so everybody will know that I know what the legal status is. You're the owner. Mr. Stratford >> Stat Stadler >> Statler, I'm sorry, is the equitable
owner under a contract for deed. So, you're the correct respondent. The city's the correct petitioner. So, we're still okay. >> And he owns the adjacent parcel, >> which means I don't know what that means. See, >> 400. you mentioned.
>> To me, it means nothing right now because all I have is a alleged violation for a particular tax parcel with particular codes and I've got particular evidence from the city, >> right? Um, so as I mentioned earlier, I
I don't live here anymore. Okay. So, I'm I had to talk to you. I talked to James uh when we originally he told me that no permit was required. That was probably prior to you to do the uh parking lot. Um, I'll I'll call him up here and and
and and cover that with him. But, um, so you told me, "Oh, yeah, all this stuff is is still on there." So, I'm glad you were honest cuz I just parked there and none of that stuff is there. The tra uh the we won't call it a trailer. The container is still there. So technically
if the the container is gone, the trailer's gone, the trash is gone, then the only outstanding violation is the fact that there is no building permit, which I've never received any uh any information about the building permit
that I mean why it's denied because you know in Florida sunshine law statute 553, you got 60 days on a commercial, 30 residential when you have to either deny I issue the permit or you have to uh
approve with conditions, but we were originally told that we didn't need a permit, but I that's you were that was before your time. So, I'm not going to ask you a question about that. So, would you say then that the only outstanding violation would be that there's no permit
>> and we can't use a container because the container is I don't have I can't prove it here today. You know that there's a special exception and you assume that it's not supposed to be there anymore. So would you agree with that? >> No. >> You don't agree with that? >> No. >> Okay. What else? >> Just just
a moving things >> Yep. >> along for everybody's sake. Unless there's evidence showing the allegation is that there's containers on the tax parcel and the containers are unauthorized under the
code as accessory structures. Correct. What is that what the city's assertion is? Yes. On that Okay. And your assertion is they're lawful because there's a special exception that allows them. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the city disputes that.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So there's no evidence showing me otherwise. That's so the there is no agreement that there is no violation. There is an asserted violation. I'm saying that so you'll know there's an asserted violation there. >> Right. Well,
she does admit receiving the special exception. The the city of Cocoa Beach has the record records of the special exception. So I think if in you know I always wanted an update list when they were doing the B. All right. What's been taken care of? what hasn't been taken
care of. But if they have the records and they had the opportunity to review those records, then it could be determined. I mean, they have better that's, you know, they have those files. They could have looked at it rather than assume it. >> I'm talking far more than I normally do and more than I really like. But just so
you'll know, the the city could have all sorts of records. Any jurisdiction could, >> right? But the city is alleging that there's a violation here because those the containers that are still there are unlawful. So it would be up to you to get the
records to show that they are lawful. You see what I'm saying? If the city's not producing them, which the city is not, then what we did, sir, the what what surprises me is on the burden of proof. She she said she said um that she
has she has the special ex exception and that they just assumed that it doesn't apply anymore. But nobody questioned me. Nobody you never reached out to me. You say, "Hey, that container there, James handed me James gave me this James gave you the special exemption." >> I don't know where it came from. >> Okay. But you you did receive it.
>> I've seen a picture of it. >> A picture? >> Let me let me ask this then. Here I am again. Miss Crawford, are you going to call who was your witness about the planning aspects of this? >> Yes. I would like to call um my director, David Dicki.
>> Okay. We'll wait till Mr. Cross examination is complete. All right. So, all right. Well, let's Well, all right. For for the sake of moving this along, we're going to say the container is is is u the container is a violation. So, other than that, we got what? Building
department and >> Yeah. the building permit and the site plan. building permit and site. >> Well, can I jump here? I because I want to make sure I'm deciding on the right thing. I understand that there's some trash and debris. >> I just drove by the property yesterday.
It has been removed. >> Okay. So, there is none anymore. So, that's that's not a violation anymore. So, it's just the finalization of the permitting process and the the structures,
the containers on the property or container >> just one >> and the site plan. >> Well, the permitting process >> the permitting process violation container violation, right? Okay. >> Okay. Um All right. So, that's it.
That's that's it for cross Okay. Are if the containers are a violation, are you ready to or container? Is there one? >> Just one. >> If the container is a violation, >> are you ready to move it? >> I I I don't think it's worth fighting over.
>> Mr. Stler. >> Okay. >> Well, this you need to talk now >> because that question's kind of pertinent right now because this may move things along. >> Can I talk? You go talk to it. You can talk to each other wherever. You can even leave the room for a second.
>> Well, you can call him as a witness now. M the city really should unless you >> unless you agree to him being called out of out of order. You do? >> No, we agree to that. >> Okay. Go ahead. May I submit the special exception for the record?
>> Let's show it to the city first. >> Yeah, it's good. >> Yeah. Yeah, you're good. >> Where do I submit it? >> Can I let it? >> This is Will you make a copy of this for >> so for the record? Okay. >> Absolutely.
>> Well, not now, but just after the hearing so we can return this back. Otherwise, it's gone. That's where I'm going with that. Oh, I did. >> Okay. All right. Eddie >> tell everything he's going to be here with contacted David.
>> Obviously, you're relying upon the highlighted part as the authorization, right? >> That >> that's what you're you highlighted. That's what you're relying Okay. Okay. All right. You can go ahead with questions now. >> I question >> while Okay. >> Yeah. Well, the city's agreed to go out
of order here. >> Oh, okay. Appreciate it. Um, you've already been sworn in, James. James, Mr. Mr. Stadler is the owner of the marina for the past what uh which is adjacent parcel to 398. >> 12 years. >> 12 years. Uh did we enter into a purchase and sale agreement
approximately November of 2022? >> Yes, we did. >> Yes, we did. And so from that you inferred that you are the the equitable owner. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um once once you took that parcel over, I got you the special exception.
You told me that you were going to pave it, that the it was in need of paving. Is that correct? I mean, parking. It was in need of parking in that area of town. It's been a nightmare there ever since beforehand. >> So, could you please explain to everyone today the process that you've went
through? >> Yes. I I want to start with with every sir. Um, >> is this something I could give you? >> The thing is once you give it to me, it's gone. I mean, I'm just saying this is all in order of from three and a half
years of >> Yeah. >> documents, paperwork, things that the city requested. But let me start at the beginning. >> You want to submit this to the record? >> You said I want >> I got to ask permission. Can I >> It's gone once you submit it. That's >> It's gone. No, I don't want >> All right. Okay. Right. Yeah. We don't
want Okay. >> All right. >> Back in uh December 22. >> Well, hang on a second. I want to be it's gone assuming the city if the city will probably agree to make a copy and for you to return to M for the record
>> you can make a copy >> but then the issue arises is has the city reviewed all this stuff >> no >> and if you haven't are would you want to continue once cuz that's normal. Yes, we we haven't reviewed what he's about ready to speak on, but if he would like
to speak on what you have. >> Yeah. I mean, it's just >> and just let us know kind of what you have and what you're what you want to submit >> just to get this thing over. >> Okay. As long as you're not relying upon it being evidence for me to make a decision >> is if it is, you have to submit. >> But you're making the decision, right?
Certainly. >> Yes. I >> I want to start at the beginning and actually none of these people were even here in December of 2022. I went into the city hall and I said I need to speak to someone who about doing a parking lot. So I met with Randy
Stevenson. >> Okay. Can I I'm sorry to interrupt but I really am trying to help everybody. >> Are you going to talk about the containers? >> No, I'm talking about the beginning of this whole thing. The very beginning. >> But okay.
Once again, what really matters is whether or not there's a violation, not the history. So, let's take things one at a time. You're relying upon the special exception for the containers, right? >> No, I was speaking right now about the beginning.
>> I know, but I want to take these things one at a time because there is there is no violation about the the the the trash and debris anymore, >> right? >> That's cleaned up. >> That's cleaned up. So, that's off the table. >> Yeah. So now let's put back on the table one thing at a time.
>> Okay. >> The container. There's one. Now >> your assertion is that the special exception allows it. >> Yes, sir. >> What's the tax parcel number for this this case? The the property involved in this case. I don't did you
>> um it >> I don't have the power. >> Oh, it's at the beginning. >> This is all there. It is 24 37 34
CI 46. you would like to talk about the permit. >> Okay. So, let's >> take this thing one at a time. The special exception refers to that tax parcel and it allows a maximum number of five
boats/trailers/vehicles/units may be may use the unimproved outdoor storage area without required site plan improvements but subject to condition two above any increase in this number requires we're not talking about increase
increase. So condition two above is applicant must permit and install opaque fence andor screening on the north and east to buffer the storage area on the north and east. >> Has that been done? >> No. >> Okay.
>> So what on the north? There's these there's there's there's >> Is that why this isn't allowed as an accessory use or is it they're just not adhering to the special exception >> or both? >> Uh going back to Randy Stevenson or our
our previous director, I believe where the storage area is located is now a different parcel because it's become 400 West Cocoa Beach Causeway. Do you know what I mean? Because that parcel was split. >> Yeah. But is it is that this parcel that
we're talking about today part of one of the two parcels that was in the special exception? >> Yes. Yes. >> Then >> yes. >> See the thing is this language doesn't say only for a particular area. It relates to the entirety of the
>> the whole thing. >> Yeah. The entirety of the properties that were under the application for the special exception. At least that's the way I read it and I've read it, you know, because at the very beginning it says legal description of property see
attached legal description exhibit A. Well, that's not here right now, but in any event, partial ID numbers and it gives two, one of which is the one that's on the screen right now. You see what I'm saying? So the only I don't
>> it would be allowed if that condition was met. So if the the violation wouldn't be the code I mean I'm not trying to make a case for or against
the the violation wouldn't be the accessory use provision. It would be you violated the special exception because you didn't comply with condition two which required screening. >> Does that make sense? >> That does make sense. >> Which requires what was
>> it? Condition it says you can have those five up to five >> subject to condition two. And the condition two is applicant must permit and install opaque fence and or screening on the north and east to buffer the storage area which is where
those things are located on the north and east. >> So you said that has it but >> there is a f there's a fence on the east side with the condos separated. Yes. >> Is that right? Did you agree to that? >> I even got a permit. >> Hang on. This you say it is
>> on the east side. I'm so sorry. on the east side of the the storage container. >> Avenue must permit and install opaque fence andor screening on the north and east to buffer the storage area on the north and east.
>> I guess I'm just confused because it's not my area of expertise on the north and the east of the storage unit or just the property >> storage area >> then no. >> Okay. Well, >> got defense. >> I see we're going to have a witness here that Okay, go ahead. We're going to let
you you guys finish because you called out of order. Um, >> but anyway, so that's still on the table. Okay, now let's go to >> just as a little sidebar on that. Uh, Tony Caribella was the development manager or service, I forget the title,
and Rob Ryland. I dealt with them on that. The reason that that was never installed is the Essex house is adjacent. Essex House Apartments, which is 390 West Coco Beach Causeway, and if I put up a fence or an opaque fence, the first four people wouldn't be able to
see the water. And I said I said, Tony, I that's I won't be a good neighbor. >> Well, I'm going to tell you again. I'm talking far more >> right now that still is on the table. And right now I can tell you this is a matter of law that when a special exception says something or a code says
something and you come to me as the building clerk and I say, "Ah, don't worry about it." What I just said means absolutely nothing. >> That's correct. >> The code means controls. Otherwise, me, the building clerk, could amend the city council's commissions code. Otherwise,
me, the building clerk, could say, "Oh, don't worry about these special exceptions. I'm just going to change it anyway." >> He was number two command. took well at but I understand. >> So that's still on the table and apparently there's going to be more witnesses. So let's talk about the per
see on the permitting the applications are in they're being processed right is that >> that's correct. So, so what's the I don't know the the dispute is that you
haven't gotten the final permit yet, the approval of the permit. You've applied. So, what is the what's the city's position about the violation is they haven't gotten a
permit, but they've applied for a permit. So, how much time do they need to get the permit? How I guess I'm confused by the how much time do they need? >> How much time until the permitting process runs it course and they'll
either the permit is approved or denied. >> Well, I Mr. Magistrate. >> You want me to respond? >> Uh Dave Dicki, development services director. >> I'm going to go out of sequence here trying to figure out how to get this thing to to the conclusion.
>> I agree. I think we need to focus here. Um, I've been working with this gentleman on the left, on my left, for over a year. I informed him on site with him specifically face to face that he needed to in order to
get this permit addressed and out the door. There was a number of things that needed to be addressed. One specifically was the storm water plan. Uh, the other was the St. John's permit. The other was an FDOT permit. Um, as we've heard today, St. John's permit, they I think
they self-certified uh with St. John's. So, that's been addressed. Uh, FDOT, I don't know the status of that. >> Um, that's not going to be an issue for us to hold up our permit, though, >> because you can't under state law.
>> Statute precludes us from doing that. >> Legislature did wonderful things. >> That was an interesting bill. Um and the third item that we have that's outstanding is the city building permit. Um the holdup there is the storm water
plan. Um we've there's been several submitts uh by the engineer of record for this project. They're still inadequate. They're not addressing the city's minimum code requirements to uh sign off on a storm water permit. Um I
have documentation here. multiple times have we contacted their storm w the the PE for the project and still no answer no submitted information. >> So the issues remaining
really the issues are whether or not that once container is in violation and whether and getting the permit because of the storm water with the storm water plan approved. >> I don't have a problem with the the conx boxes. However, the problem is they need
to be permitted. The use of the conx boxes there is fine. I think the special exception allows that. >> Yeah. And it says it does say well actually what has to be permitted is the opaque fence andor screening.
>> Yeah. The the the boxes have not been permitted. In order to set a conx box on a piece of property, there has to be a building permit issued and our building official has to determine whether they've been properly secured for uplift for wind um considerations.
Those per those boxes have not been permitted. >> Okay, I got you. Because it does the the approval in the site plan which does say without required site plan improvements, but that doesn't say without building permit. That's >> correct. also doesn't say that the conex
boxes require a building permit when that was >> that the your the Florida building code trumps the the legislature has trumped the city and counties of the state in many many ways one of which went to your
advantage because of the FOT permit the city can't withhold their per its permit because you're waiting an F dot permit doesn't mean it's legal to move forward without the FO permit permit, but the city can't stop its permitting
process because of FDOT. On the other hand, the Florida Building Code subsumes everything local. So, if a if a building permits needed, the building permits needed by state law and building Are you a building official? Who's
>> our building officials back here? >> Oh, the building that Yes, sir. the building official is charged with adhering to maintaining the Florida building code and if you don't there's a problem cuz he big problem
>> he can get disciplined so where I'm going with that is you need a building permit for the struct for the the container and you're home free on the ftop permit basically but you do need the storm water plant so the question therefore
arises how How much time is needed to get the building permit applied for or >> the as far as I know the building permits for the conx boxes are not applied. >> That's what I mean. How much time do you
want for the building for them to >> apply for the building permit? >> It's a pretty straightforward application. >> I know. How much time? >> 30 days. >> 30 days. They want 30 They want you the city wants you to apply for a building permit for that. I will sir. I
>> can't. Okay. Well, that's if you said I will, that that's resolved. The next issue becomes how much time does the city need to have or require for the the sto the
the process so they can get site plan approval, right? Yeah. Which requires the storm water plan. How much time does the city want that to occur within? I mean, I know it was yesterday or yesterday, six months ago, but how much time now?
>> Yeah, I mean, the we've been well, we've been working on this for a long time. My understanding is the only issue that's still outstanding to get the site plan approval process moving is the submittal of a sufficient storm water plan. >> Okay. What do y'all say about storm
water plan? >> Well, I I submitted all that. I have >> well it's not how it's >> somebody don't have I did submit all >> m Mr. Magistrate, I will say that that is correct. The app the permit has been applied for. There was a sufficiency
review done by our staff. The the minimum requirements were not addressed. >> I understand that whole process cuz I've written codes to have that process. How much time do you need to go through this second sufficiency review or whatever whatever until you finally get to it to
the point where you either it's up or down? Well, we provided the sufficiency review to the engineer 120 days ago at least. >> It's not been submitted yet. >> This I'm not saying this is what the deal is. I'm going to ask y'all if if
you agree cuz >> how much time do you think it'd be reasonable? We're talking about 30 days to apply for a building permit for the >> container. >> Container. So, how much time to get through the
site plan process for the parking lot? >> Your honor, >> let's go. You want go ahead and you want to hear what they proposed? Go ahead. >> Sure. >> I met with uh David Dicki. >> Yeah. back in uh I got I got tons of
stuff here, but in November, I mean uh it was in July. No, it was in maybe of 25. And you met with me and Danielle in Corey Hall. >> That's correct. >> And
because uh you said the only thing you need now is the St. John's River permit. >> I for my engineer. >> I did not say that. >> You did say that. I did not say that, sir. >> What did you say? >> You said I don't you don't need the FDOT
permit. >> May 1st, 2025. >> In May, >> staff met with Mr. Statatler and informed him the storm water comments remained unressed. May 12th, 2025. Email sent to project
engineer requesting update. No reply. Um, let's see. November 4th, 2025, staff spoke with Mr. Bedzil to inform him that Mr. Stadler not addressing items as contained in the
NOV. We've been working with the with this property owner for over a year to get these get these minimum comments addressed and we've still yet to get any information back as as we've requested.
And we want this project to happen. We want this project to move forward. We're just asking for some basic information that our code requires. >> How many days do you think you need? >> I you know, it's it's been three and a half years, sir. I don't know what I
got. I need to take this from the very beginning before these people were even here. >> What I went through, who I spoke to to get the permit. Can I tell you about that? You can, but I'm going to tell you, I'm trying to save everybody's
time. I'm my it really it really in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what who said what to whom and all that because what it's what the code says and the code says you need this permit and the city saying we're
not going to give it to you. We're not going to grant it. They don't give anything. I'm not going to grant the the permit approval until everything is submitted and approved. The item that's omitted
right now is a valid approvable storm water plan. Have I got that right? >> S got storm water. >> So how long >> I do have storm did submit. >> I can't approve it. No, but the thing is, let me ask, did you submit a site plan? Cuz we were told no sight plan was
>> No, there's a site plan submitted. >> Yes. Yes. >> All right. Um, and it's just coincidental that when I talked, that's the reason I asked, "Hey, does the hearing get cancelceled?" I said, "Danielle, do you have everything you need for the permit?" And you told me all we need is the SJ permit. >> That's what we got then.
>> All right. So, I don't know why your board says FD, but anyway, >> I think we're trying I think we're making this more complicated than it needs to be. I I want to explain the history here because you're making it sound like I don't remember talking to you unless >> I've never talked to you before. >> You just said that you that you talked to me.
>> I said staff spoke with you. Don't put words in my mouth. Listen carefully. >> I heard you say you you did a point point being is we we me have not and Mr. S have not been like foo on the city of Cocoa Beach. This has been a circle
going on pre the administration that you guys were here. Yeah. Nobody says wants to take responsibility. That that's fine. >> I'll take responsibility. >> Hang on. Hang on. This this is getting beyond beyond >> stay focused a a quai judicial hearing. It's good. It's ne This is good. And
that is negotiations. But from my perspective, this pure adjudicator special magistrate perspective. Okay. I need to find that there is or is not a violation. And if
there is, how much time to cure it? To me, I'm going to be very candid right now. What I see is yes indeed, there are the violations that relate to the permitting processes. Okay. There there
is not a violation about the declared nuisance and the and in terms of the accessory structure permitting process, the only thing you need is a building permit. Okay. So, and and y'all agreed
that I what I heard was that 30 days was a adequate time to get the building permit applied for for the accessory structure, the container. So, all we're talking about now is the site plan approval for the parking lot and we've
narrowed that to one issue which is the storm water plan per pro part of that permitting process and I'm going to find that hasn't been done. So there is a violation, but it seems to me that a
rational developer and a rational city can come up with a rational time in which that could be accomplished before a fine starts being imposed. So whether it's 30, 60, 90, 120 days, I don't know,
but I bet y'all do and I bet y'all can agree to it. I agree. So how much time do you need to do it? and then we'll bounce that off the city and those >> I guess I got to first see what is more requested because like I said when you and I met
you told me to get the uh St. John's River permit and then you guys would be able to issue me. >> But there's no doubt you're going to have to meet. There's no doubt in my mind or anybody's mind that you're all going to have to meet and talk about what the plan is, what it what it means, what the technical stuff is that all the
engineers do and all that. And how let's flip it this way. How much time would the city grant the developer to uh I know you've dealing with for a long time. You Yeah. But >> I think 90 days I think we should be
able to work through the the issues as I understand them. >> That's 1/4 of a year. >> So I I'm inclined to think that's reasonable. Would you tell me why it's not? >> I just need to see exactly now what more
do do we need other than this ton of stuff over here? >> Well, 90 days will give you I mean I have I I've been doing local government law since 1985. I mean, old, I believe you, sir. >> And and and I know that people can get things done when push comes to shove. I know it's hard to get consultants and
all that and get people to respond these days. Unfortunately, both sides. I heard from cities. I heard from developers. I can't get the engineer. I can't get the planner. I can't get the surveyor. You know, you lawyers are always responsive. No, >> I'm joking. >> Yes,
>> obviously joking. But how about 90 days? The city says 90 days. And if your things are close, my guess is you're going to say, "Oh, yeah." >> Yeah. We we I I I think what we'll do is we'll resend the sufficiency review that
we've done uh on the storm water plan that'll identify exactly what's left to address. >> Was that what I gave you the last time or is something before that? The plan before that? >> Yeah, that plan before that. Morgan, do you want to address anything as far as
>> Well, don't let's not get too weedy right now because I don't need the weeds, >> right? I just need I think 90 days is a reasonable period of time in which to address that >> that issue. >> Okay. >> But I'd like to have it on the record
agreed that 90 I like if you guys are this far from the >> I like this story at the beginning. If you're if you're close to the permanent approval at the end of exactly >> the city is going to work with you. Am I wrong? >> No. Or we'll bend over backwards to make this happen.
>> I I need to see what exactly what's still needed. >> And well, >> you you need to see what now witness. We're moving towards where we need to be. I want to bring another witness. I want to bring up the mayor, please, if I may. >> The who? >> Mr. Keith. >> The mayor.
>> Okay. Now, hang on. I don't know you, mayor. >> Uh, normally elected. Are you appearing here voluntarily? Okay. Um, and you and you want to appear?
>> I do. >> Okay. because I have had the joy one time of uh the reason I asked that question and I I don't usually deviate into words but it's not usual to have a >> that's unusual but
>> I had to appear at a personnel board one time on behalf of the city of Sanford's personnel board who subpoenaed two commissioners to the personnel board and I was the city attorney and I had to appear at the
personnel board to tell the personnel, it was a very wonderful meeting to tell the personnel board that that was a nice subpoena they issued, but they were the created body. They were not the creator and the creator did not want to appear in front of them and the two commissioners were not going to come
testify. So, it's this is an unusual situation. >> It is unusual. >> All right, Mr. Mayor, >> after. >> So, yes, my name's Keith Cape. >> You just want the mayor to speak or do you want to ask him questions? Okay. Um, it is unusual and I am an unusual mayor. Um, I do respect all of our staff. I
think they do an amazing job and I think he is correct. He's been he's been dealing with four different city managers in the process. He's been dealing with uh three different uh development service directors. Uh, a lot of a lot of information does get stuck
in the weeds, get get mixed around. um the violations with the the container or uh the the parking lot. I get it. And I can tell you as a as a character reference, a character witness, James
honestly from the beginning has been trying to go back and forth with the city and get stuff done. Um I don't think he has any malicious intent or to try to skirt the rules. I really don't. just after knowing him and going through this. I have talked with Dave Dicki and I know that he will try to do whatever
he can to help help you and make this as painless as possible. He's he he understands the situation. Uh he understands the things that have gone in the past. I think the problem that we've had and the problems that we have in the city, especially me being up there as
mayor, is is the lack of communication. In my opinion, this never should have gotten to this point for a special magistrate. We should have been able to have meetings uh because he needed information. He's old school. Look at you see this right here that the guy
doesn't he's not a computer guy. He He's not a phone computer guy. And the problem is is our staff is more modern. They're more they're more in this and that. He needs to sit down and talk to somebody and work this out. And I think that's his hesitation on the 90 days is
that he he just doesn't necessarily have faith that he's going to be able to work it out because he hasn't had time to sit and talk with the staff. So I think if we can as a staff if we can just say hey we really are dedicated to try to make this work as painless as possible. I think it would make it easier for him to
say yes the 90 days would work. So that that's all I'm getting at there. I he's a good guy. He really is. And I I know maybe the the um the paperwork maybe seems a little different, but it's because of the lack of communication. He's called multiple times, tried to set
up meetings, nobody's called him back from what I understand, but he's trying to get this done, but he he's not this send you documents type of guy. He's a let me show you what I got here. Uh so, I just want to say as a character reference, hopefully you guys can can make him have a warm and fuzzy feeling
that you can help him work this out within 90 days without it being super painful. and then he can feel comfortable and I just want this to go by smoother. But I know we have a great staff that can make it work. >> Okay. Well, you've heard from the city that they they want to work with you. 90
90 days is a a long time. That means there will be no fine for 90 days, too. >> So, that's a good thing, >> you know. >> But I want to hear you agree 90 days. >> I I I'm in agreeance to work that up, but you nailed it. the communication and
and anytime anybody's contacting me, I get right back to him. Danielle, >> you've been tough at the end there. You were great. But and now, you know, we have Oh, I didn't say this. So, I don't want to have an adversarial relationship. I was a general contractor in this city for over 25 years. So, I loved the city of Cocoa Beach. I built a
lot here >> and I always followed the rules and sold him his first car when he was 16. >> I don't perceive any, this is going to sound weird. I don't perceive any humongous adversarial relationship going on right now. I I see a problem-solving
>> situation going on and we've solved a lot of the problems and we're down to the the 90 days. Okay. >> And I just want to hear that you I don't have to hear that you agree, but it would be nice to hear that you agree because that's what the goal of code enforcement is compliance. The goal of
code enforcement is compliance with all the parties ultimately semihappy. doesn't happen all the time. I've had to foreclose on people's property before and you know I mean I've I've had handled literally thousands of code enforcement cases. So it's a very few
that you foreclose upon but some jurisdictions they they're directed that way. This jurisdiction is not. I sense it's a everybody on the staff is compliance driven. So I think you can do it within 90 days
and clearly the building permit that's a baby issue on the container. >> Yeah, that's that's that's not >> that's nothing >> that's nothing. Um I I just want to get back, you know, when you're dealing with what what are the are we just talking about storm water in a site plan? The
city's testimony today >> has been they cannot issue you, tell me if I'm wrong, city, they cannot issue you a site plan approval on the parking lot because they have not been able to approve a storm water plan. And that's
what and and largely because of lack of engagement with a consultant is what the city says. You all can agree or disagree on that. It really doesn't matter. But consultants are key when it comes to storm water. No doubt about that. They're the ones who cracks the numbers
and put the magic together to say compliance, non-compliance, and all that. So, I think 90 days will do it. >> Well, do we have agreement? >> I I'm in agreeance. >> Okay. >> Excellent. >> Bring up one more witness.
>> You can, but I can I'm ready to rule, but if you'd like to. >> All right. >> I mean, if you want to >> because it just takes it back to the very beginning. But you see that doesn't ma it matters I'm going to tell you it matters to city mayors it matters to
managers >> at different levels right Brian excuse me for I I feel like more of a mediator today it that matters I'm not saying it doesn't matter but from my limited I have a very limited perspective the code violated or not how much time for
compliance and if there is non-compliance how much is the fine after non-compliance that's That's my role with that >> and and know and the other things are very important but and they're important to me but not in this context. Does that make sense? I >> understand that make sense to the city.
>> Yeah. Can I say one more thing? >> Sure. If it'll be help >> I hope it's helpful. I hope it's helpful to these gentlemen. As I mentioned earlier, we want this to be behind all of us and um we're here to help you work through this. I apologize if you felt
like we haven't been communicating as well as we should have. That's my fault. If that's the case, um, I'll give you a card as we walk out. Please call me today and we'll set up a meeting ASAP and we'll work through this smoothly. I
don't think it's a big issue. I think we can work through it quickly. >> Thank you. >> Well, I'm going to before I enter order, let me just mention one thing because I keep telling you how old I am and how much experience I have, but you know, it's wonderful, isn't it? Uh but I have
never seen since 1985. Okay. A city agree to a motion for rehearing. Agree. So let's just rehear it because there was an order and I have had many
code enforcement managers say I won't say the words. Uh I I'll paraphrase, forget about it. When it came to a request for reharing, the order was entered. The order if they don't like the order, appeal it. Period. Okay. So,
this is very unusual that you have a city that has agreed to a reharing. And here's the result. It looks like there's a road to success from on everybody's perspective. So that being said, I'm going to find that there is no violation
of section 10-22 enumerated conditions prohibited, declared a nuisance, etc. I'm going to find that there is a violation of section 105.1 which are the required Florida building code permits inspections. The section
110 which is a general provision of the Florida building code and section 4.01 01, the general procedures of the Florida Building Code, and section 3-33 relating to accessory structures.
And I'm going to find that the section 3-33 violation, the respondent has 30 days to cure that violation by filing an application for a building permit for the
fencing. >> The container, right? >> Fencing of the containers. >> Oh, no, no, for the container only. >> Container. And if there is a condition or no condition that continues from the special exception, that will be handled in the building permitting process.
Building permit process. Okay. And then as to the other permitting issues relating to the parking lot, the respondent will have 120 days to come into compliance. Now, let's talk about the fine again. Is
the fine what's the fine uh desired by the city? We we'll discuss that at the Massie hearing if that happens. >> Okay. So, I I know you agree to that because what the city has just said is at the end of
the 120 days there won't be a fine unless a Massie hearing, which means a hearing that that you have to appear before me again. Sorry about that. And I determine whether or not the violations
still exist. the fine would be set at that date. It wouldn't be it's not being set today. Okay. Does that make sense to you? Yes, sir. And that's what the city wants, Mr. Paul. Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, that'll be the order that'll be entered in writing like I mentioned earlier and be distributed
probably sometime over the weekend or Monday. >> Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. Now, I'm going to revert back to the minutes of the meeting of January 21, 2026. >> I'm just going to I'm going to take
these with me and read them and I'll we'll we'll deal with them at the next meeting. Is there anything further to come before the special magistrate today, city? >> No. No. All right. That being said, we are adjourned.