Good morning one and all and welcome to the June 10th meeting of the uh Coco City of Cocoa Beach special magistrate for code enforcement purposes. My >> is your mic? >> Yep. There. Is that better? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. My name is Lonnie Groot and I
serve as special magistrate. And before we even begin, let's check one thing out. Is there any changes to the agenda, Miss Crawford? >> Uh yes, sir. The first case DSCE26-47 um has come into compliance and does not need to be heard.
>> Okay. So, the only matter on the agenda is a request for extension. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that being said, what I'm going to do is unless anybody thinks it's necessary, and I'll do it, is I'm not going to go over the procedures
again except to notice that for those who are uh watch maybe watching on YouTube or anybody who's here uh for the first time, these are code enforcement hearings. These are uh matters that are quai judicial. the city
is one party, the respondant is another, and they're not public hearings in the common sense of the way of the word, and that the public doesn't just come in and say, "Oh, I think this about that or I think that about this." Only people who are called as witnesses by one side or
the other are heard and uh decisions are made based upon the evidence. Um, actually, I sort of did go into most everything. Uh, but is there anything you think I'm missing, Miss Crawford? No. No. >> Okay. So, that being said, uh, whoever
plans on testifying on the request for extension case number 25-54, would you please rise and raise your right hand? >> Would you say your full name, please? >> Daniel Crawford. >> Yes, sir. >> Jello.
>> Okay. Do each of you solemnly swear that matters the testimony you will give and the matters not will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the help you God. >> Yes. >> Thank you much. All right, Miss Crawford, you may proceed. >> Great. So, we're here for DSC25-54.
Uh, the property owner is Coconut Cove Yacht Club. Uh, property address, parcel information, and legal description as above. >> I just uh above is the aerial view from property appraiser.
of the of the property, which is essentially just a parking lot. On February 11th, 2026, the special magistrate hearing was held and the respondents were found in violation of the notice of violation and ordered to obtain a building permit for the
accessory structure within 30 days and obtain a building permit and site plan for the parking lot within 120 days. On February 18th, 2026, the orders were mailed via certified and first class mail. The certified mail for Mr. Betazil
was signed and received on February 23rd, 2026. The accessory structure was removed within 30 days and compliance was confirmed. Several emails were exchanged between Mr. Betazil and city employees discussing the option to remove the unpermitted parking lot and
return the parcel to its original condition. On April 24th, 2026, Mr. Betazil requested an extension to bring the property into compliance. We explained that we could not offer an extension, but that he could request one from you.
On May 15th, 2026, Mr. Betazil informed city employees that he begun removing the unpermitted parking lot. On May 21st, 2026, Mr. Bedzil informed me that he was ready for a reinspection. I informed him that the b the debris
needed to be removed before I could inspect for compliance. He denied needing to remove the construction debris. On May 22nd, 2026, I inspected the property and observed that the parking lot had been excavated and remaining asphalt debris had been placed into
piles. I again informed Mr. Betazulvia email that the asphalt needed to be removed in its entirety for compliance to be achieved, not excavated and piled up as debris. I further explained that the building materials could only be stored on properties with active permits
per section 15-23.1. Section 15-23.1 is above. Mr. Bedisel stated that he believed that he did not have that he did have active permits on the property and referenced PZ2319
and BP237. Both permits are incomplete applications for parking lot in which substantial information is missing. Final permit fees have not been paid for and building permits have not been issued. On May 29th, 2026, a notice of hearing was
posted to property, city hall, and mailed via first class and certified mail. As of June 3rd, 2026, the piles of asphalt remain on the property, and I did reconfirm that as of yesterday as well. Here's an image
of the excavated parking lot from May 22nd. posting to property. Again, the same piles and this is an image from yesterday. Um, above is uh a screenshot of BP23-7,
which is the building permit for the parking lot. Um, as you can see, the final permit fees have not been paid. A building permit has not been issued. PZ23-9 uh similar fashion final fees have not
been paid and it has not been issued. >> Did you want to introduce the PowerPoint? >> Yes, please. >> Did you have any objection to the PowerPoint being introduced in evidence? No. Okay. So, it's so admitted. So, when did the 120 days run? The 30 days were
in compliance for accessory structures. >> Yes, sir. >> When did the 120 days run? >> It actually ends tomorrow. >> Okay. And you agree with that, correct? You agree?
>> I'm sorry. I represent. >> Okay. So, >> I'm a building official. >> Okay. I thought I'm I misunderstood. Okay. So, okay. So, would you will you announce your presence? You you're an attorney then? >> I'm sorry. >> You're an attorney?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Would you announce your presence? And >> uh Jason Gordon, 299 local near Cocoa Beach uh for Coconut Co. >> Okay. So, you represent the owner of the property, correct? >> And you agree with the 120day calculation? >> Yeah. Find it. I would say that I don't
think he was sworn in, though. That's at He has an option. Attorneys, you're not testifying, are you? >> I'm just presenting presenting arguments. >> Okay. Okay. That's okay. I appreciate that. I Because I forget sometimes and people walk in sometimes. So that's
fine. So you're just you're presenting argument. Okay. Is the city through with this presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you have any objection to the power being introduced? >> No, I do not. >> Okay. So it's it's introduced then. And I'm sorry. I thought you said
is and is that a city shirt? >> Yes. >> Okay. See, that's that's called color blindness and vision issues. So anyway, >> we just like to have access to some of the pictures in the presentation. >> Well, they're all public records and I'm sure this >> I mean today for the screen just to show
>> Oh, maybe Miss Crawford can help you there. >> You're totally welcome to like which one? Which one? >> Just go to picture. That one's fine. >> Okay, >> that's fine. >> Okay. So you you're through then? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. You may >> that's it. >> Go ahead. Sure. >> Okay.
>> Good morning. This is a very complicated but basic case and I'm going to what we're dealing with is a tenant that has been giving us a hard time in trying to get this done. Uh with my my client I know they said there was several emails between uh my client and the city.
There's been over 150 emails from what my client told me. So there's a lot of correspondence going back on this. Uh he even to clear the slot uh there was police was needed because the tenant was blocking a lot with cars. So uh it it's it's been uh trials and tribulation to
get even where we are today. Uh my the engineer has quit recently. Uh the the person that laid down the asphalt has refused to come down to fix it. the the the the what they're complaining about, which is what's in the picture, is the bios.
>> Can we back up just real quickly? I want >> established a basic some basic facts here. Can we establish some basic facts here? >> Okay. >> See if it we're in agreement. Okay. >> So, the the city's position, and Miss Crawford, you correct me if I'm wrong,
is that the reason the 120day compliance has not been attained is because no permit has been issued. because no permit has been issued and then the piles of debris >> but no permit has been issued and to
allow the current status would be although you haven't charged a nuisance that's not a case before us what you're saying I understand is that to allow the condition that's been left to stay in effect would be a violative of the city
code in of itself because it's a nuisance okay so >> I what the position was and maybe uh is that he would be in compliance if these piles of asphalt were removed. >> Okay. I'm glad I'm glad I asked that question then because what I understand
and let's get this cleared up. is the the pile is a separate issue >> except except for the fact that if the city was to say okay we're fine with things being left they would be saying
that we're fine with a nuisance and you're not going to say that is what I understand >> correct you want the law to return to it original >> no so but the basic position under the order is that no permit has been issued
correct So that's the issue. >> Okay. We have well my client he's referred me to two permits that are active right now online. PZ23-9 and PB23-7 which are one's a site plan review for
that parking lot. >> Okay. Can we stop there because I'd like to were those two those two permits the ones. Okay. Can maybe this will help. Can can you can you take the clicker >> for lack of a better word? I'm sure it's
called something else and go to those >> you you flew past them with just >> this is seven and n seven and 19. Is that what we're talking about? Okay, let's go to seven first since that before 19. Okay, so the city's position is there's been an application but it's
not been perfected because the fee hasn't been paid. Is that >> there are several deficiencies uh that are preventing him from even paying and preventing the permits from being issued. There are multiple deficiencies.
>> What do you mean even paying? >> They're missing engineering information. We don't we don't pay for the final credit until all documents have been provided. Can >> what if the applicant and this is
something I've dealt with in my career as a local government lawyer. What if the applicant says, "That's all I'm submitting. Here's my money. Here's my application." Then >> the permit would not be >> I know it wouldn't be issued, but would the application be accepted?
>> No. >> See, I think >> that's that's that's the issue then. That >> hang on. The building official wants to >> Yeah. Let's get because I want to get these foundational things set forth before we even start talking about the extension.
>> If an applicant comes in >> and says, "Here's my application. Fill it out." >> Well, it may be incomplete in your view, but that's all I'm going to give you and here's my fee. Deny it if you want. Approve it if you want, but that's my application. You would accept it,
wouldn't you? >> So, the application's been accepted or submitted and then we've done reviews. Now, It may be correct insufficient. >> Now the application is insufficient to issue the permit. >> I got you. But it's accepted. >> But is accepted as an application for permit.
>> So no offense to Miss Crawford, but that was a little bit misstated in that it will be accepted. It just may be denied. >> Correct. >> Okay. So is it your position that the application is fine, perfected? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Pending for right now.
>> Okay. And do you agree now that that's the application as it is? You can deny it, you can approve it, but it's submitted >> because you got the application form, you got the fee. >> Correct. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. The Yes. For the review. The review
>> for the review. It's not It may be totally unapprovable. >> Correct. >> It may be perfect, but it's submitted. >> Correct. >> So 23-7 is a submitted application. >> Correct. and subject to approval or denial. It hasn't been approved or
denied yet. Right now, you're just saying it's insufficient. Correct. >> And you're telling the applicant it's insufficient. >> Correct. >> And if the applicant says that that's it, that's all I'm giving you, then you're up to it's So, what's your position on that application? There we go. >> Showing active online.
>> Okay. It's we're agreeing with that now. >> Okay. Uh that's it. Thank you. >> Right. >> Uh >> we're agreeing that it's active. It may be denied and I just heard it's likely to be denied but >> it's an active application. >> It's an active application
>> active which which means it's still being worked on which means it hasn't been denied. >> The permit has not been issued which is what the order said >> but the application's active and the permit uh is still pending as far as I'm concerned if it has application is pending. >> It's pending.
>> So in in online it shows active status. I don't know what that would mean then. >> Okay. Well, it means it's just it's just pending, >> which is a better word than active. >> Okay. Well, let's go to 2319. Is that >> uh 23-79? Yes.
>> Now, are we at the building official? Are we at the same position status on 2319 and we're on 237? There's an application that's been filed with the papers.
The fee has been paid, but whether it's approved or denied, that's the next step. >> From what I can see, yes. I haven't reviewed that one just recently, but yes, I would say >> under the same. >> Okay. Is your understanding is that that one's insufficient, too.
>> Yeah, I would like to defer to our >> Okay. I know this is a little odd, but let's get the B. >> Well, maybe I can explain it a little bit easier. you do the site plan first and once that gets approved then you go for your building permit. Well, they
applied for both applications but did the work anyway without getting approved. >> That's a second that's a second issue. But okay, the the application itself on 2319 is there, >> right? >> The form has been filled out. The fee has been paid. It's premature.
>> It's correct. >> That's your position. >> It's not been approved by >> but it's not been approved or denied. So that's where we are on those applications. But in both situations, the permit has not been issued. >> Right. Well, what we're trying to do is put the property back to
>> I got which we have the asphalt sitting there. He's trying to, I guess, move forward with the permits to redo the parking lot and actually put the asphalt down. To remove that asphalt is between about $16,000 to remove it and he's going to reuse it. >> This is it's for the purpose of reusing.
It's not sitting there to decorate the property. So, how much of an extension beyond? >> We're looking for 90 days because the engineer walked off recently. We're trying to be reasonable on this. We're trying to get this moving. My my client has done he's done everything he could to keep this thing moving. There's a
lawsuit sitting on my table ready to be filed against the tenant for some of some of the things that happened before this uh mastur. >> Let's do this real quick because this might what's the city's position on the 90-day extension? >> The city is not in favor of an extension. >> Okay. None whatsoever. Okay.
>> Well, we know that this is supposed to be punishable. You know that a person that doesn't comply, we know that this is supposed to be a punishment for not complying. He is he is trying to comply. He's working hard to comply. He's already there's one lawsuit filed from the tenant. There's another we're filing
a lawsuit against the tenant. This this is we have a lot of uh obstacles in our way, but we're moving forward with this as fast as we can. He's out trying to get an engineer. the asphalt company that mislaid in the first place. They they they they walked away. We have
we're going after their insurance company uh on that issue. So, this this became a mess. And we know I'm I'm not saying the landlord's not responsible. We know the landlord's responsible. He owns the property. But in this case, he's as they would say, he's a victim of circumstance. He's trying to get this to
comply. And I don't understand the city's position in not wanting to give the extension, especially since he's been in constant touch with the city on this. You don't understand it. Well, let's do this right now. What is the city is the city Let me ask a question
then. If I'm don't get what I understand to be the answer, then you can go on further. Is the city's position that you don't want agree to the extension because there's a nuisance on the site or what's the city's position? I guess
>> because it is a nuisance and also because we have explained to him countless times what compliance will look like and he has told us over and over again in email that he's just simply not going to do it and this has been an is an an ongoing issue since at least
>> 2019 2018 we've been asking him to get the the PZ permit and the building permit >> and it's it's been years. >> Okay, good deal. It's only been there recently since we were able to get cars and able to get past tenants blockage to
get that lot ripped up. It hasn't been an eyes saw very long, let's say that. And to a point where the city should be upset over it, especially since since the day it's been ripped up, he's been trying to get this thing taken care of uh months. So, I don't again don't understand the city's position on this
uh when he's trying to get it to to a position where it will be in compliance and paved. So, they'll come out with a double win on that. that the nuisance has only been there recently. What I understand the city's position is, and you correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not that the fact that the
nuisance, i.e. the asphalt piles has been there a relatively short period of time. It's that you've been dealing with this permitting issue since 2018 2019. That's the problem. I'm just >> And that start with the tenant. The tenant was the problem. There's false
there's a police investigation which I believe uh uh was was being conducted. I don't know if it's still being conducted uh Uber. But wait, you're not some documents in this matter that were that were uh recorded with the clerk's office that were not that were signed for a
different property that wasn't was a misdirection. >> Uh that that that they how they got the paving done. It's there's there's false paperwork involved in that. But like you said earlier and we all know is true the property owner is responsible >> right we understand that but
>> so back in 2018 2019 the property owner is responsible in 2026 the property owners >> but I don't believe that it's been paved that long you know I don't believe it's been paved since 2018 2019 uh but let's just say for argument sake he has from the time that he's been involved he's
been pushing pushing pushing as fast as he can that's all we could do if he hasn't I could see the city coming in saying let's get, you know, rack the fines up. I've been doing this a long time. Uh where that's that that's the purpose is to try to get it done. Uh he's been trying and moving and moving
as fast as he can on it with all the obstacles in his way. Uh and the city wants to come in and and uh and basically uh find him or pen penaltize him for the fact that he's that he's trying the best he can. Uh I don't believe that's what this is for. This is
for to give him time to get this done and get the city so everybody will be happy at the end of the day. everything's in compliance and and and good. Uh to start finding him now when he's showing uh there's no argument that he keeps on pushing forward and moving
towards uh compliance uh that uh it just wouldn't make sense at this stage. >> Well, let's talk about that in terms of the you're concerned about finding right now. >> I'm concerned about finding. I'm concerned about extra pressure on on on the owner. Well, let's let's flush that
out because and let's hear what the city's perspective is. This is not on the agenda for a Massie hearing determination. >> No, it's just on for an extension of time to comply. >> I got you. And the fine is not in place. There's no fine in place now.
>> No, >> there's not going to be a fine in place tomorrow if I do nothing. Right. >> If nothing happens, if you hadn't filed a request for an extension, >> if nothing would have happened, the fine wouldn't be in place tomorrow, >> which is the proper procedure we
followed. >> Well, I understand. That's that's what we do. >> That's what I do. >> That's what we do. >> So, >> if I deny the extension, >> right, >> nothing can happen visa via fine until
at the earliest July 7th, actually July 8th, probably relative to a fine being put in place. So in essence, there is an extension
for till July 7th. >> But I'm just looking for a reasonable extension based on >> and the city opposes that. But I'm just telling you by the nature of the beast, by the nature of the process, >> there is a 30-day extension, >> right?
>> Somewhere around there. I don't know how it calculates. So, okay. You may proceed further if you'd like. >> I'm just at this point, uh, I think we point that out. I'm just trying to to get the extension in place. one that I
know like as the court just as just just point out we have one July 7th but uh it's with with an engineer that just walked off it's going to be we have to replace him and he's going to have to start from scratch again because he's you know that's that's the nature of that beast >> what is the reasonable extension period
>> I I'm saying we would go for 60 but we realistically 90 I guess I just don't want to come running back every you know if with more evidence that we try it again try it again if we could if we get 60 fine Uh, but 90 is would be would be a more realistic look at it.
>> And the city opposes that. >> Okay. >> And that's what we're looking for tonight. >> Is there anything further? >> No. >> Okay. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to deny the request for extension. When is this going to be agendaized for a Massie hearing >> for July 7th? >> Okay.
So on July 7th, hopefully the facts will have changed. The permitting pro something will have occurred that would make the city happier, make your client happier. Uh maybe the filing of the lawsuit will the
city reads it will indicate something to the city. I don't know. And but that doesn't need to be addressed now. So on July 7th, the Massie hearing is going to be agendaized
and the matter of extension will still be at issue. Actually, >> can we without every whether or not you're in comp your client is in compliance will be an issue and the notion of
a potential extended period of time will be an issue. And who knows, maybe something will happen between now and July 7th that will make the city more likely to agree with you. I don't know. You don't know. The city doesn't know it. Do you know at this point in time?
And so I'm going to deny the extension and with the understanding that this matter will be agendaized for a Massie hearing on July 7th. >> But in essence, there's no enforcement action, no finding that will commence for a month. the city, you you agree
with that and understand that >> you understand that. >> Can we add to the uh July 7th date another request for extension? >> Well, you can that's up to you. >> Well, I understand if I do it now. I'm sitting here now. Uh it's instead of redoing it all over again. Uh maybe we'll have an engineer to testify that
day to what's going on. Maybe >> Let me ask you, is there a written request for extension? I haven't seen it. >> No, you've accepted it as an oral. Okay, here you go. Oh, well, let me see if let me see if you the city and the and the respondent agree to this.
>> Do you agree to continue this request for extension until July 7th? >> Yes. >> Do you agree to >> Okay, then there's not even an order that needs to be issued. >> Okay, >> the request for extension will be heard at the same time as the Massie hearing. There you go. >> Okay,
>> perfect. Sounds good to me. >> Could you leave a card with the clerk or two cards? Do you have a card? >> Both times. At this stage of the game, I very rarely carry cards anymore. Okay. I I just I just want to spell your Oh, well I don't Never mind. I'm not issuing an order. I don't need to worry about spelling names correctly. Good point.
Okay. All right. So, we're done on that one. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yes, sir. >> Appreciate your time. >> Well, is there anything else further to become before the special magistrate today? >> All right. We're J.