redoing the shirt. Madame Magistrate, ready to proceed. All right. Good morning everyone. I'm going to call to order the town of Lockachi Grove special magistrate code enforcement hearing. It is June 2nd. It's 9:05. My name is Amity Barnard. I'm the special magistrate for today's hearing.
First thing I'm going to do is swear anybody in who's here to speak on any items on today's agenda. So, if you're here for a code enforcement matter, if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hands. including town staff. Do you all swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank
you. And uh is there anybody on the computer? Any remote attendance? Okay. Will you let me know if anybody pops on there, please? Okay. Thank you. A little bit about process. Uh I think most of these hearings, if not all, are violation hearings this morning. So when you hear your case called, the town is
sitting at the table in front of me. They will remain seated there. You can come to the podium that's to my right there. the town will put on its case first. They'll present any evidence that they have, call any witnesses that they'd like to call. They'll show me the evidentiary case file that they have for the case. Uh once they're finished with
their side, it'll be your turn to present any evidence you have. Cross-examine any witnesses that the town has called. Show me any documents that you have with you this morning. Uh once I've seen both sides and heard testimony from from everybody, I'll make a final ruling and you'll get an order that reflects that ruling in the mail. So, keep in mind that all of your
testimony this morning is given under oath. Um, with that, I'll turn it to the town to call its first case. All righty. Your honor, at this time, we have nothing for additions or deletions to the agenda and nothing on continuences. So, we'll move forward with violation hearing/new business. The first item on
the agenda is Barbara and David Loren. The property address is 14925 24 Circle North, uh, Lock Hatche Grove, Florida. The case number is 255040038 and the violation sections are section
92-010 which is RV registration. Raise your right hand for me sir. Do you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. And John, I've already read your first case into the record.
Parker and David. Good morning. John Suarez representing case 255040038. Uh I am a code officer for the town of Lockachi Groves. The property address is 1492524 Circle North.
Um the notice of violation notice of hearing was posted on the property on April 11th, 2025. It was also posted in town hall and sent via certified mail via US United States Postal Service.
Um, the correction date was April 29th, 2025. An inspection on May 1st, 2025 found the following items in violation. Code sections 92010 an RV permit inspection and maintenance requirement. The property
has one RV on site without a permit or affidavit. Um, this case was continued and the property owner did come in. Um the town is not opposed. They requested 90 days to come into
compliance to either get an affidavit or permit and it was continued at the last hearing. It was continued at last. So there's an order granting continuence in the file. Yes, there is. Okay. They're asking for 90 more days. They're asking for 90
days. What day did you mail your certified mail? And did you get the green card back? We did. Let me make sure. I'm sorry. No, he did not. But I have been in contact with the property owner. He was aware of the meeting. He did show up today, but he
did leave right now with the agreement of 90 days to come into compliance. Okay. I spoke to both David Lorenz and Barbara Lawren. Okay. Do you have your evidentary case file? Yes. Thank you.
So when you in your testimony about service, you've posted the order resetting the violation hearing. Is that what you posted? The order was sent via certified mail and regular mail. Posted. It was not posted on the property. It was just
I called the respondent as well. That's how we provided service and that is why they showed up as well. So if your green card didn't come back though, how do you have service? The green card. Well, the green card for when we sent the order certified
mail that came back. I mean, but that's the only thing that was sent was the order. And with the verbal communication with the property owner, he was aware.
Why did they why did they not stay for the hearing? Um he we were in agreement and they were so upset even though they agreed to the agreement, they were upset with the order, they just wanted to leave because they got emotional. Okay.
because I do not agree with the code on the books. So, is your testimony then that you have actual service? Cuz I don't see a sign I see a delivery attempt here for the order, but I don't see a green card in the file. My testimony is just that we sent the
order certified mail and regular mail and I was in verbal communication regarding the dates. All right. Given that the respondents are not here, let's uh move to the next case and return to this one. Yes, ma'am. Before we conclude the hearing,
at this time, your honor will take item eight on the agenda and move that as item two. And that's the case for um Jazelle Jazella and Leonardo Palensuela. And that is case number
255040066. The violation sections are 175-170 175-10 175-240 20-017 20-010 B2
20-010 G3A. The address uh the address of the property is 2793 C road, Lock Hatcher Groves, Florida. Your honor, John Suarez, code officer for the town of Lockache Groves,
representing case number 255040066. Property address is 2793C road, Lockache Groves, Florida. The property was posted with a notice of violation notice of hearing as well as a stop work order of April 23rd,
2025. Uh the a notice of violation notice of hearing was also sent April 23rd, 2025 certified mail. We had a correction date of May 6th, 2025. An inspection was performed on May
8th, 2024 and May 31st, 2025. found the following items in violation of the code. Sections 175170, section 175 1110, section
175240, FDA required site development plan, and section 200017 prohibited use. And the following code sections were found to be corrected on May 31st, 2025. Sections 200010 B2 and section
200010 G3A. Outdoor storage of items included but not limited to piles of pipes. The outdoor storage was removed. There were dog kennels that were within the 50 50t setback. Those were also
moved. contact with the owner by code officer D'Angelo Campo. He met with the owners and her son Leo on May 24th and May 31st was granted access to the property. It was confirmed that they have moved the dog kennels, outdoor storage and the
fill and tiles around the pond areas. They were told they needed uh a business tax license for operating um what's going on in their property, your honor, is they were operating they
were they have a business. They keep material on their business and they they have storage of business items. Even though they do not operate on business, they store items such as pipes, wood, and other materials on the property.
Um, I've spoken with the property owner. He did say he admitted to storing items from the business on the property. What kind of business is it? Um, they do pole barns. They do um So, it's a construction company. You could say
that. Okay. The town recommends a respondant be found in violation of code section 175170, 175110, and 175240 and 200017. Um because of the nature they had a pond
that they filled in with material and essentially created a a wall also which we have photos of that a flood a site development plan would be would be needed and also there were
multiple buildings erected after 2015 2016 that changed their topography and also requires a site plan. So an FDA would be required and also because of the business storage it's a prohibited use per the town.
So give me a little bit more detail on that. What what zoning district is this and what uses are allowed and what is this use? Well the bonafideed egg but the storing the items are outside their bonafide agricultural use. So storing
like um they have items such as the pipes that they moved, but um they have storage of wood. Um they have trucks coming in and out of trucks um bringing in items or taking out items
per their per their company and that's happening on a daily. Okay. So the trucks have the name of the business on the side or um Mr. Craig Lure is here and he's willing to testify on that behalf. Okay.
What zoning district is this? This is uh agricultural residential. Their property use code is a gra soil. Okay. And construction company that type of use is not permitted. Not permitted. Okay. All right. Anything further from
you, Mr. Suarez? Are there any additional witnesses from the town? Mr. Craig, would you like to speak on a little more what's going on with the property? Were you sworn, sir? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Give me your name, please. Craig Lowry and your position with the town. Uh,
public works superintendent. Thank you. Go ahead. So, um, upon on the property when I, um, was on this the granted access to the property next door, we had seen where all the pipes were and everything. And you could see that there was construction business coming in and
out on the property. They're storing um equipment there, attachments to like their skid stairs and everything as the pipes and everything. Um like they said, they did remove as uh D'Angelo said, they removed the pipes. I have not been out back to the property since cuz that was the initial call to go and
investigate. Okay. So, but we did see the the companies coming in and out of the construction companies. Um, I can't testify saying I saw an actual business on the trucks, but we did see, you know, company trucks coming in and out transporting material in and out of the
property. And when you say trucks, what kind of trucks are you talking about? You talking about semi truck? Are you talking about their trucks? They're, you know, F250s, the business trucks. Big pickup trucks. Okay. Okay. Anything further? No, ma'am. Okay.
You're here for this one, sir? Good morning. What's your name? And you're going to spell your last name so I don't totally get it wrong in my order. All right, there we go again. Good morning, your honor. Patrick Bartholomew.
My last name is spelled B A R T H E L E M Y. I'm with Stormwater J. I'm representing the Palenuelas. Um they're they're elderly. Um they had a doctor's appointment this morning because they have some health concerns they're dealing with. Um so you're their agent
or you their representative or you the business on site or I'm serving as their owner's rep. You know I'm a vice president of a civil engineering firm. More than likely I'll be the one hired to achieve approval of their FDA. Okay. For you know the buildings that the town
believes were constructed post 2015 or 2016. And the reason why that date is important is from what I understand that's the kind of line in the sand where the town has said, "Okay, this is where we took over permitting or this is where anything that was constructed after this that we don't have a record
of a permit. You need to come in and get a permit to address that." Okay, let me have you pause there. Mr. Suarez, can I see your case file, please? Yes. And uh Mr. Suarez, just real quick, did I did I hear that you guys were able to confirm on Saturday that the roof tile
has been removed from the pond bank? The roof tile was removed from the pond bank. Okay, though those piles were left, I believe beside the bank. So, the roof tiles still Okay. So, the roof tiles are still on property. They need to be removed. Correct. D'Angelo Kempo, code compliance officer at the town of
Los Angeles Groves. So, I was inspecting the property over the weekend on Saturday when I met with the son's uh owner, Leo. Their roof tiles was removed out of the pond, but it is still visible on the property at the entrance. There's still the piles. I believe the son said
he was going to keep it on there, but it did not seem like he was going to have it removed right away. He did also mention possibly spreading it to other ponds at at a previous meeting, but we did inform him not to do so at this time.
My understanding is that, you know, I'll be contacting them shortly after this meeting. My understanding is that the roof tile will be removed from the property entirely. It just may not have happened yet because they were literally working up until the day before the inspection. Yeah, but definitely significant amounts of tile was removed
out of the ponds and out of the banks, but it's not fully complied with the code section. As well as the walls around them, according to the code, it is not an approved use to allow it for the FDA application. There are walls around the
pond. I believe the owner mentioned that it's being used to keep the integrity of the pond from all the rainwater and such, but with the FDA application, I'm sure we can go over a route of approvals to keep the integrity of the wall of the pond, but the walls isn't allowed at
this time. Yeah, just to clarify, the pond was, from what I understand, dug by the owner. It's man-made. He has some animals on the property was so that they could, you know, cool off, drink water, etc. um over time just from erosion the pond
banks were sloughing into the pond essentially filling the pond in naturally. So what he was trying to do is reestablish those pond banks albeit without a permit. Um that being said I'm sure when we come in with the FDA he'll be looking to restabilize those pond banks and possibly expand the ponds or just reestablish them as they were
originally intended. Um just to clarify, he wasn't trying to fill the ponds in. who was trying to reestablish the pond banks because they were sloughing off. So, Mr. Suarez, did they comply with the outdoor storage items by the date you specified in the notice of violation?
Yes, your honor, they've complied with outdoor storage. Okay. So, those sections are falling off. Yes. Okay. Yes. So, just to be clear, what I'm what I'm really here today to ask for is time to resolve the FDA issue. I'm sure the
town can attest. They know kind of the time frame of what it takes to get an FDA submitted as well as reviewed and approved by their consultants. Um, and you know, we're in the process. The owner has already, you know, tried to get things moving as fast as he can. He's already hired a surveyor to survey
his property, which is a first step in, you know, a firm like mine creating a plan and submitting a permit. um survey is going to take close to 30 days. Um then for us to do our work and get everything submitted, another 30 days and then on the town side, I would say it's going to be 60 to 90 days to go
through the review process and get the permit approved. So there just wasn't time between them being cited and today to really do much of any of that. Um, so I, you know, my my ask would be, you know, 120 days, 150 days in order to get
everything ready, submitted, and approved so we can resolve the issue of whatever structures were constructed post 2015 or 2016, whatever that line in the sand is, so we can get that taken care of, as well as anything they want to do with those ponds as far as stabilizing those ponds.
All right. What's the town asking for in terms of remedy? At this time, your honor, but the town is requesting a finding of fact that the violations exist regarding the site development, the FDA, as well as the prohibited use. Well, let's be clear
though, finding a fact means they've come into compliance. Isn't your testimony that those are not in compliance? Well, that the violation exists. That's a standard violation. And the finding of fact is that they didn't cure the violation by the date you gave them in your notice of
violation. So that are you asking for a finding a fact on the outdoor storage? Then give me give me one moment to confirm. Okay. Sorry, your honor. So, yes, we do want a finding effect regarding on the complied
violations and also the town is not opposed. What the town would like is 30 days for the application, the FDA application to be submitted. And we are not opposed to 120 days of compliance regarding the
FDA. I'm sorry, your honor. 60 days for the uh site for the FDA to be issued. That I mean, if I submitted tomorrow, the town would not be issuing the permit in 60 days. It's 30 days per review per review cycle. and the town's
consultant engineer um at least in my experience the last three and a half years has never issued a permit without making a comment. So that means I'm looking at at least 60 days of review time minimum and it could be 90. Not to mention the fact that we still have to survey the property. I still have to prepare the plans and the drainage
calculations and submit them for review. So that's why I was asking for 120 days because that's a realistic timeline. 60 days is unrealistic. It can't happen in that amount of time even if I submit it tomorrow. What's the town's response? I can submit an app. I'm sorry. What's the town's response?
According to our public works director, it can be done within the 90-day time frame. The corrections can be submitted within 30 days and then that allows an additional 60 days for the approval of the permit. And according to our public
works director, Richard Galant, that can happen and that is reasonable. Okay. the photographs. I just want to make sure we can kind of get through the paperwork here. There's a lot of photographs. The the photographs of this pipe material under the pole barns, is that what you're talking about? That is
the compliance. They moved the um No. Well, that's the um outdoor storage that came into compliance and now it cannot be seen from the neighboring properties or the the road. So, that is a compliance of the outdoor storage. So, it got moved from somewhere else on the
property to here. Okay. Those pictures are because he was um Mr. Campo was allowed access. Okay. So the date of compliance on the outdoor storage is May 31st then. Yes.
Okay. And there's some photos from March in here. Is this Does this case go back that far? That's when they were initially um filling in the pond. That's when the initial c complaint came in. And Mr. Craig Lure and I believe Mr. Campo did go out to the property to
witness the filling of the pond with the material and the wall. But it didn't get cited till May. Did not get cited. We were doing our due diligence with the case. So, can you can I ask you to approach and show me in these photographs from
May 2nd? They're kind of dark where the construction just so I see what the materials are. Yes. Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand the outdoor storage part. Just walk me through these photos. This is the pond. So, this outdoor
storage, but you can see the wall and the material. And so, show me explain to me all the violations as you as you go through these. Like, I just want to make sure I see where the filling is that requires the FDA permit from these photos. Okay. And the storage. In this photo, you would see the dog
kennels here. It's within 25 ft of the property line. Okay. I know it's hard to see, but we visually observe and the dogs. Okay. Against the fence line. Okay. Here are just photos of the structures that the town says were built after
2015, 2016 were required in the FDA. I do have pictures of the aerial if you would like to see that and it's the same multiple structures were built after 2015 2016 those outdoor stores that became uh
complied they were moved into the uh into that that There's no issue with that. Again, more structures. Just the paddics. They have an um they do have horses on site. That's right. Um this is just our
drainage. This is the neighbor's property and this is their property and the dogs are on this side. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry if there's just multiple photos of the structures. So So that's that's the alleged violation. Then it's the construction of
the structures without an FDA permit. The structures and the pond that was that was being Okay. My client's already trying to resolve the pond issue by removing the material that was put in the pond. The FDA is really based on the fact that there was buildings that were erected some years ago that were the
town has no record of an FDA permit for those buildings. And to be fair, you know, I think a lot of I know um because I used to handle engineering permitting in Wellington for Wellington. Um a lot of property owners of a land get confused with the state statute which
allows them to build a structures on a land without a building permit. do whatever they want without they don't understand that they have to get a permit related to flood plane and flood development. So I believe that's what happened in this case. Okay. And so we will clean that up. And with all due
respect to the public works director, you show him the case file. Continue, sir. Sorry. Yeah. With all due respect to the public works director, I would recommend that he perhaps look at the timeline of how long it takes to get an FDA in Lockxachi Groves. It is 90 days is not sufficient from start to finish. Maybe he doesn't understand the front
end of what we need to do, but you know, bare minimum, it's going to take 45 days to get a surveyor. the surveyor is already hired, but it's going to take two to three weeks to get that survey ready, and then it's going to take me two to three weeks to get everything ready and submit. I don't want to submit an incomplete package. I don't want to see submit an application without the
plans being properly drawn or the drainage calculations being done correctly. I want to submit a complete package so we have a chance of maybe getting through the review process in 60 days as opposed to 90 or 120. So, you know, I'm coming here asking for a realistic time frame time frame. I really think it's going to probably take
150, but I'm asking for 120. And you know, if we can come, you know, into an agreement on that, I think I can actually get it done in that time frame versus taking an unrealistic time frame today and then we end up with fine certification or something else. So, yeah. So, so just so you understand, I hear what you're saying. My goal is
never to be punitive. So, you're here this morning, right? You're asking me for more time. I'm going to give you time necessary. What I'm cautious about is giving blanket amounts of time that then I don't see you for, let's say, 120 days, right? So, there's a way for me to get you back to the hearing to tell for
you to tell me what you've done in the last, let's say, less last last 60 days, 90 days, just so I know that you're diligently going through the the process because what I see unfortunately regularly is people say, "Well, I submitted to the town on, let's say, May 1st, and then the town gives them
comments on May 2nd," and they don't do anything with the comments for 30 days. That's not diligently going through the process. So, I I hear you. I'm happy to give you time because my goal is to get you into compliance, not to punish you or or be punitive from a fine perspective. So, I'm happy to give you a reasonable amount of time to get there
um based on what you're doing. Let's do the easy part, which is the documents. Go ahead and look at that case file. That's the case file that the town is asking me to enter into the record. It in includes the notice documents for today's hearing, a whole bunch of photographs of the alleged violations. Mr. Suarez is going to explain them to
you, and at the end, I need to know if you have any objection to the documents. Okay. Hi, good morning, Special Magistrate, uh, D'Angelo Campo. If we can let them do that and then I'll hear from you. Okay, no problem. Thank you. Thank you. Just so the record isn't picking up to
conversations. Yeah, that's fine. I I mean, I know we we already had a meeting here in town hall to go over all the violations, your honor. So, I'm I'm well aware of more or less what's in this file. So, you don't have any objection to that case file being entered? I John, is anything new in here other than the pictures that
were taken this weekend? No. Okay. So, I I've seen this previous so I I know what's kind of what the core issue here is. I don't want to take a bunch of the court's time here to go through a pretty But you can take as much time as you want. I I want to make sure that you you have time to see what's in there. If if you want to go through it, this is this is the time to do that. So, don't feel
bad about time. You have as much time as you need to go through it. [Music] And then uh since we haven't touched on it yet, the issue related to business tax receipts and whatever is going on with the business on the property, they've also uh they're about to engage,
they have engaged or about to hire uh an attorney to help them with those issues. So that's gets a little bit outside of my engineering scope. Okay. Um, so that's that's another case that we're looking at here today that they are actively trying to resolve and get taken
care of. So it doesn't look like the business tax component is part of this case, but the use violation is part of this case. So yeah, so the attorney would be the one handling that. Is he here today or she? No, no, no. He, like I said, we're in the process of engaging him, getting him hired. Okay. Work on
that. What's the town seeking in terms of the use violation? Hi, good morning. So in regards to like the town where we placed a stop work order within a specific time frame with in regards to the homeowner applying for the
application. It was done it's not going to be done in such the time manner that we're requesting it to be completed by the town is requesting for the homeowner to apply for the flood plane development application within 30 days compliance. Mhm. An additional 60 days could be
given for review. Total of 90 days total because I believe the stop work order was done in what March, April or so because the homeowner is applying for it or is in review to apply for it now. So much time has gone by for this case to be reviewed and gone through the steps
towards the special magistrate hearing. What was the stop? I'm not sure I understand the stop work order there. Was it for construction? For the FDA permit application for the the tiles put around the embankments. Okay. As well as the other uses on the property. So your
point is you you issued that back in March. So the owner's been on notice for two months now. Yes. And we're open on giving additional time but time through this through the order granted by the Spectrum Magistrate. Okay. Instead of just like what you said, we don't want to go x amount of time without any
compliance being met. We would rather give the additional time to correct it by specific time frame. If it's not corrected, the town will bring the case back forward to a fine assessment hearing. Were they were they officially noticed in March or was it April 23rd? Because I'm looking at the green cards here and it looks like April 23rd was
the the furthest back it goes. I think what he's saying is that there's a the stop work order was posted on the property in March. Is that correct, Mr. Campo? Yes. Yeah. March 31st to be clear. Your honor, I think our superintendent has Yeah. So the excuse me ma'am the uh subreorder was issued by
myself and Mr. D'Angelo on in the end of March I want to believe. So we the property has had time to come in compliance already. So we're you know we are extending this you know with the 90 days will be over 120 including the 90
days we issued it over you know what is it probably 60 days ago to be fair. the March 31st, I believe the stop work order was related to the roof tile being put in the pond, which the owner was removing actively last week, and now it's just piles that need to be taken off the property. So, that was really
what the stop work order was. There wasn't any other work that they were trying to stop him from doing, but the stop work order would consist of an FDA because it was an FDA violation if he was going to keep the roof tiles in the pond, but he's removing them. But he still has to get an FDA with all the
buildings and everything as well, right? But the buildings became known recently. I hear I hear what both both both sides are saying. I I get where you're both going and you're going in very different directions, but I I understand what both parties are saying. Yeah. So, I've reviewed the file. Like I
said, it's not really anything new. Okay. It's what I already have reviewed and seen previously. So, no objection to the case file being entered into the record? No. Okay. All right. All right, with that, just so that the record is clear, in case 2540066, I'll enter the town's
evidentiary case files composite exhibit 1 without objection. All right, Mr. Suarez, can I have that case file back, please? Just for the record, your honor, we have been in touch with Mr. Patrick for past couple weeks and um still we have not
seen anything submitted as when it comes to FDA permit to be submitted. I know he's diligently working with the property owner, but yeah, I mean we've been in contact. That's fair. Step one is a surveyor has to be hired and surveyed the property. And that doesn't happen overnight. That
takes weeks to get that done. We've already hired a surveyor. So, we're headed in that direction, but it's not anything that I snap my fingers and it happens. All right. So, let's um I guess as it relates to the buildings that the town's alleging were constructed that changed the topography, what evidence do
you have? Do you have aerials or do you have something that shows me that those buildings weren't there? I have arials, your honor. May I approach? Yes. And actually, show them to uh the respondents representative first, please. Three dates here. They're all Google
images on And for the record, your honor, we did go over the aerials in our meeting two weeks ago. And who was in that meeting? It was myself in the town. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Any objection to those aerials being added to the case file? No, they look like they're straight from Google Earth with dates included. So assuming the dates are correct, I have no objection to that. Okay, thank you. to face off and the town doesn't have any record of
any FDA permits going back to 2014. We do not have any record of any FDA permits. Okay. prior to that. All right, Mr. Suarez, one more question. You have two certified mails returned in here. What What were the two things that
were sent? Your testimony, I think, only included something the notice being sent in May. So, what was sent in April? So, we sent an original notice of violation, notice of hearing in April, and we had to add violations And so we
rescended that and we let the property owner know as well as Patrick to renotice with the additional violations. Okay. All right. So Mr. Suarez, just one more question on the uh outdoor storage. Your
notice of violation was dated May 16th and gave them 14 days to comply. So that's compliance by May 30, right? Yes. Your photographs are dated May 31st, which show compliance, right?
Yes. Mr. Cample went on May 31st. Okay. So that's technically then not a finding of fact because they did comply by the time you prescribed in the notice of violation, right? But the violation existed. So the finding fact would be that it exist that it existed. Well, no.
It they it existed when you when you sent the notice, but you gave them 14 days to bring it into compliance, which they did. Yes. So the violation as we sit here today didn't it it wouldn't be a finding of fact technically. You're correct. Okay.
So, in terms of remedy, what the town is seeking is the dates that you specified for the FDA and then the same dates for the use violation. For the use, we'd like to see 30 days. And what what does compliance mean there? Compliance is a ceasing of uh the
trucks going in and out for the material and any storage of their of anything attributed to the business which is prohibited. Okay. It's not with their bonafide agricultural use. Some the way it's been
explained to me by the owner is some of the materials that's on property is for his operation that's on property meaning the farm itself. And not you're so you're saying not related to a separate business. Correct. Some of the material. I'm not claiming all the material. I'm saying some of the material. My point is is that when they
come back out to reinspect, there will still be some material on the property. He runs a farm. He needs things like wood for fences and some drainage pipe to fix drainage issues on the property. So, there will be some material, but large in part, I think most of it will either
be removed or be resolved through the attorney and however he's going to sort that out. Again, that's over my head. So, I'm going to let the attorney handle that side of it. Okay. All right. Well, just make sure you keep in touch with the town. So, make sure
you understand that when I issue an order, it says you have to comply by a certain date, but the town doesn't have an obligation to go back to check compliance. You need to call your client needs to call the town and ask for compliance inspection. So, make sure when when you think you've got that section complied that you call the town. Yeah, absolutely. um to have them come
do a reinspection. Okay. All right. Anything further from the town? Nothing further, honor. Anything further from you, sir? Um, no. I mean, I I I can't speak for,
you know, the the business tax or the business issue. Um, and how long it's going to take to get that resolved. You know, I guess I would respectfully ask for 60 days versus 30 just to allow us more time to get that resolved in a you know, reasonable time frame, but I don't really know what that's going to take.
Yeah, the trouble is that you if the attorney is handling that part, they're not here today and they've been cited for that section, the use section. The BTR is not on this uh list of code section. So, that's not before me today. But the use is the operation of the construction company on the on the egg residential site is here.
I will establish a compliance state for that. [Music] Um, you know, the good news on on things like that if there's it doesn't appear that there's any business signs or any I don't see any pictures of trucks being stored on the property. So, getting the material offsite even while the attorney works with the town and and works on
getting whatever the ultimate uh goal, you know, finished is to get at least getting the materials off temporarily. That that is reasonable within the 30-day period. All right. So, let's get some
dates here out several months. Is a town going back to just Mondays? Well, well, we're going to be committed today. So, should I shoot for Mondays? Okay. Once it goes on the paper, we're committed. So,
what's that? No, I was just saying it would definitely be a Monday. Okay. So, I'll aim for the Monday dates. All right. So, we're sitting at June 2nd. If it's too far, we could do a Wednesday. If if timing works better, we could do a Wednesday. We could have this
one on Wednesday. Okay. Excuse me, ma'am. The um the property that is next door. Would there a lawyer here? Would we like to speak before we go into full judgment on this case?
That would be the gentleman back here. Is the town calling them as a witness? Yes. Um and I think they've been sworn in also. Mhm. Okay. Is is it both of you? Well, I need you to come to the
microphone, please. So, I'm going to have you sit down, turn sir, and I'm going to call you back up. Okay. And please state your name for the record. My name is William Yan Y ahn. and I own a ranch at 2668 C Road, which is Kitty Corner to this property. Your honor,
very briefly, I just don't want any wishful thinking here. This gentleman basically barred code inspections from coming into his property and doing anything initially. So now all of a sudden, he's got religion, which is great. There are trucks coming in out of this property daily. They're not
18-wheelers to be fair, but they're not F-150s either. Material is brought in every single day. Employees go to that job site every single day. I see them and I hear them from my ranch. So does my adjacent neighbor whose attorney is here today. So all the other issues
aside, the FDA, he has to be in compliance. Obviously, we heard that today. But the biggest issue is he's running a business there. And moving the material into a commercial building that he's built on site without a permit is not acceptable to us. He's going to continue to run the business there. So
all that material needs to come off the ranch. And even though he may need some material for fencing or what have you, I can assure you that most of the material there is construction related material for his business operation. And that's not fair to us. That's not right. So with with all due respect to the
gentleman, they've had plenty of time to take care of this. He's just kicking the can. As to the roof tiles, just a quick footnote, you don't need a 30-foot embankment of roof tiles to prevent a pond from washing in. He was filling in the pond. He got caught. That's fine. But I just want let's we need to be fair
about what's happening there. It's not it's not right. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Hi, I'm I'm John Reynolds. I'm an attorney. I represent um an adjacent property owner who was concerned enough about the situation to to hire me to
come on on their behalf today. Sir, please speak into the mic. I'm sorry. Um and again the concern is the the ongoing business operation and so the the outdoor storage this this had become a construction yard uh to a certain extent and simply by taking the outdoor storage
and and moving it indoors where it's not uh seen. It's still part and parcel to a construction operation. And again my understanding is that these trucks are coming in daily. They're bringing in materials. They're taking out materials. Um and it's just not fair to the
adjacent property owner. And so that is I think the biggest concern for my client. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir, for that testimony. Mr. Bartholomew. Having heard that, I'm going to give you an opportunity to respond. Uh to be fair, you know, I'm a
civil engineer. Um I got involved in this maybe a month ago at most. Um you know, my role here would be to resolve the FDA for whatever buildings were constructed within the last 10 years without permits. Um, as far as what goes on there on a day-to-day basis, I'm not there every day. I've driven past the
property once, maybe twice at most. I haven't sat out there to see what was going on. When I was there, it was quiet at the time. I did not see any vehicles entering or leaving the property, but I was there for 5 minutes at the most once or twice. So, I can't really speak to that, and I don't want to speak to that because I just don't know. Um, I don't
know how heavy the traffic is or how often it's coming in and out. Okay. All right. I just wanted you to have an opportunity to respond. Yeah, fair enough. Mr. Suarez, do you know the name of the business that's operating there? Have you seen the trucks coming and going? He
gave me his business card, the property owner. I believe it's clear choice. Okay. Did you witness the trucks coming and going? I mean is is what the neighbors don't have any reason to misrepresent what's happening but so
when I spoke to the property owner he was coming in in his own truck and there was a work truck behind him two pickup trucks okay as well as Mr. The Craig lawyer witness trucks coming in and out as well. Okay. Correct. Okay. So, on his business card, he does
state that he's he's building pole barns and such. I mean, and he did admit that he's storing business. So, I we do believe wholeheartedly that things are going in and out, materials in and out all day. Okay. Okay. Anything further from the town?
Nothing further, your honor. All right. Anything further from you, Mr. Bartholomew? Excuse me? No, your honor. Okay. Uh, Mr. Suarez, I didn't hear a fine amount in your remedy. In the event of non-compliance with any of the dates that I'm about to give, what is the town
seeking? The town is requesting $250 a day for the um site development. Those are the sections 175, the three violations together. if not in compliance, if they do not apply within the 30 days, and also the same amount, $250 a day or the uh prohibited use
after 30 days. What was the three violations you referred to on the first one of compliance or Yeah, the you said you you just said a day for two different things. I caught the second one was prohibited use. What was the first one? I'm sorry. It was the three sections of uh 175. I believe it's 175,
110, 175, 240. Is that the FDA? That's the FDA. Thank you. That's what I was hunting for. Let's see. All right, bear with me. I'm just getting the dates that far out. All
right. In case number 2540066, I've already entered the evidentiary case file. I asked the town to make sure that these aerial photographs get stuck in this case file permanently. I've entered those the main case file as well as the three additional aerial photographs as
composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'll find based on the notice of violation and the testimony of notice violation, notice of hearing, the posting affidavit, as well as the signed certified mail that's in the case file, uh, that the town had
good service for today's hearing. I'm going to find based on the, this is kind of going to be a bunch of separated parts here because there's a bunch going on. With regard to the prohibited use, I'm going to find based on the photographs in the case file, the testimony
uh of both sides here this morning, that the respondents in violation of section 20-017 or the uh construction company use that is operating on the site, which is in violation of the town's code. I'm going to require the respondent to
comply with that code section by uh removing any materials that are affiliated with that business and sessation of whatever truck traffic is coming in uh and out of the site for that business within 30 days. But let me give you a hard date
there. That would be by July 7th. In the event that that use is not discontinued and all materials removed on or before July 7th, I'll assess a fine of $250 per day for each day that that violation continues to exist on the property. Because of what I'm going to
order next with regard to the FDA, I'm just going to set you for one fine assessment hearing. So, the fine assessment date uh for the prohibited use will be September 1st in the event of non-compliance. With regard to uh the other sections listed in the notice, I'm
going to find based on the photographs in the case file, the testimony of the code enforcement staff as well as and public works staff as well as the respondents representative that the respondents in violation of sections 175
170 175 110 175240. And I'm going to require you to apply for submit a complete application for an FDA permit. uh on or before July 7th. Again, that's approximately six or excuse me, 30 days. I'm going to require that the FDA
permit be issued on or before August 29th. In the event of non-compliance with either of those dates, a $250 a day fine will be assessed for each day that the violation continues thereafter. I'm going to set
this uh portion of the compliance uh for a status/fine assessment hearing and that's going to be on September 1st. So, if you don't have the FDA permit issued by August 29th, you're going to come back to me on September 1st. Um I would ask that you bring everything you need
to show to me what you've done between today, June 2nd, and August 29th. Um, your job at that hearing is to demonstrate to me that you your client has been doing its due diligence to get through the process in that amount of time. Um, at that hearing, if you can
demonstrate to me that the issue, the reason that you don't have the permit is because there's been delays that are caused by the town and not your client, I'm happy to give you more time because, as I said before, my ultimate goal is to get you into compliance, your client into compliance. So, I'll set that for statusfine. That way, if if the facts
demonstrate that you need more time, I'm able to give it to you. uh at that hearing. Okay. So, it'll be a statusfind certification hearing depending on where we're at in the process and your determination. The Yeah, the order That's right. The order
will say that you must comply by those dates that I just read into the record. And then it'll say if you do not comply, you're you're to appear at a statusfine assessment hearing. At that hearing, I can do either. I can give you more time or I can start a fine running on August 30th. Um but again that'll be dependent
on what you tell me at that September 1st hearing. Yeah, for sure. For sure. Our goal is to get submitted within within two months. If we can do it faster, we will. Um so that's September 1st is well three months from now. So hopefully we will
have been submitted and then that's issued though. That's issued. No, I know. I know. Get submitted within the 30 days. Understood. So you know I know how long these things take. I do it for a living. So, right, you know, hopefully we'll be submitted depending on how quickly I get the survey, how quickly we can get everything ready and submitted, will definitely be submitted within, I
would say, 60 days. And then hopefully the town has given us at least one round of comments by the time I come back here on September 1st. And that's Yeah. And just just bring everything you have, but get the permit application in by the 30 days, whether it's depending on the length of the comments. Typically, we get back into the town
within a week or two of receiving comments. Yeah, that's what I'm looking depending on the complexity of the comments and how many comments we have. So, if we have four or five comments I may have already resubmitted by that point depending on when the town got back to us. If I've got two pages of comments, we may be in the process of trying to get his pass. Right. So, bring
all that all that information with you. I also see a cost recovery sheet. Is the town seeking its administrative costs? Uh, yes. Um, $2345. We're requesting administrative costs at this time. And your honor, we're also requesting a status hearing
in the July date just to make sure that it was applied for and we could stay on top of uh compliance. You want to come back a month from now for me to tell you that I'm in the process of getting everything ready?
That's what the town is requesting to make sure that the submittal of the application. But if he doesn't comply, the fine starts running as of July 8th and on on September 1st, I'll assess a fine for that entire period.
So if the permit application the the issue for us is just that this has been going on for so long and the owners have known about this for going so on for so long like we said you know the the you know as you indicated our stop work order was issued back in what
March and they haven't taken the action so I understand they want to give it a try but I'd like to get some definitive If they have to come back here in 30 days, they should be able to tell you at that point, yes, we've at least filed our FDA. If I wait for 90 day, I'm not
saying fine assessment. I'm just saying let him come in and talk to the court and let the court know what actions they have taken just by the fact that it took him so long to get Patrick hired and then we met with Patrick like two, three weeks ago. We told him then that an FDA was required. Now he's telling us he
still needs to do a survey. So I mean again it's the actions of the violator that cause concerns on behalf of the village on the town to make sure that they are taking the actions. So that's the only reason why I'm asking for them to come back in our next meeting in July
just to be able to explain to you yes we filed this even if it's just in in you know just saying we did it because I you know my feeling is I'm not having another opportunity to come back here until September. I mean what's the leverage to get them to to do the action? You've heard the neighbors here
have indicated that this activity can't continue. Well, the the the leverage is that if if you if the town doesn't have a permit application in by July 7th, I will assess a fine beginning July 8th on September 1st going retroactively back to July 8th. I don't need to hear from
them anything about how they submitted the permit or did anything. If if you don't have a permit, I'll start the fine and the fine will run for that entire period. And I guess my my response to that is again the residents get no relief until September if they don't take any action, right? Because they're
not going to know until September on whether they've gotten their permit or they haven't gotten their permit because that's when you're setting the hearing. So I'm just saying I'd like them to come in front of you and explain why they've taken no action if they haven't taken no action through through
you know the next our next hearing which would be in the July meeting. And by the way, I also have to let you know the September meeting is Labor Day. Oh, that we need. So, we're going to have to move that September 8th, next Monday. September 1st is Labor Day. So, I just wanted to
make sure we didn't schedule it for a holiday and then have to come back and change it. That's the only reason um you know, your honor, just to be to be honest, is that you know, and I'm not saying it's Patrick's fault. That's not what I'm saying here. the owner has had sub substantial time in which to stop the activities and you know we've just
they ignored the stop work order. They've ignored us in the past. I I'm just I'm just concerned if we don't come back to you until September that again I I get it that they didn't if they don't do it that we assess the fine back to that time period. But where's the
satisfaction of the adjacent property owners? But I will defer to your okay decision. Okay. So again, the FDA is related to buildings that were built some time ago.
The buildings I do not believe is what the owners are complaining about, the adjacent owners. I think the complaints are related to the business that's being run. And you've already stated that we would come back in July to discuss. You gave us like a 30-day time frame to address the issue of storage. Yeah, that's point. you you're not coming back
to me until September 1st for both. That's that's her point. The compliance date is July 7th, but there's no hearing, right? So, when is the September hearing date going to be the 8th? Is that what you're bumping it to? Okay.
98. Okay. Okay. Well, I understand the town's position. From my understanding, the property owner has been operating as he's been operating for years. And to ask him, it's a business that he relies
on. to ask him to move everything and get everything done in basically a 30-day period, a little bit more than 30 days because that was when the official notice went out in April, end of April. To ask him to do that is not so easy. I realize that the neighbors that have moved in are of a different nature.
They're not contractors. They're equestrians. You know, they may or may not be doing something. Yeah. Well, and and let let's let's let's bring it back here. I've already made the ruling. I'm not going to change the ruling. Um, I'm not sure that it's fair to have to haul the respondents back into to a court
hearing. I think it's sufficient for the perspective of the neighbors that they know that a fine starts running the next day. I understand your concern, but because I presume you're going to ask me to then have a cost recovery for that hearing and I'm not sure that there's much they can tell me. It's either did you apply for the permit or did you not? And you will have that on the record at
the September hearing date. So, I'm going to keep what the order is that I that I ordered with the exception of I have to modify the fine assessment hearing date. Thank you for catching that holiday. Um, that did not even register my brain. The the hearing, the order will reflect a September 8th uh status/fine assessment hearing rather
than the September 1st date that I rattled off uh earlier given the holiday. But understand and relay to your clients, you know, I understand that they issued the stop work order in March. They didn't send you a notice of violation until May. So, you should
relay to your client that they got two months free. Um, they could ho have, the town could have, and I'm not sure why they didn't set you for a hearing uh based on that March 31st stop work order. They could have set you for a hearing and had you at at a hearing in April. Understood. Um, so you may want to communicate that to your client that
they're upset with me because I'm giving you time in addition to the time that they think that they've given you. Um, so just relay to your client that it took longer than it needed for to for you to even be at this hearing. So, um I understand that 30 days is is
time to to stop the business activities, but that's in light of the fact that a stop work was issued in March, uh and we're two months past that. So, he's had already two months to to rectify that. So, yeah, and we'll do everything we can to try to get a full and complete FDA submitt by July 7th. It's going to be
tight because, as I stated, survey typically takes three to four weeks. So, and and that's fine, but you you will be best served if you have submitted something even if there is something missing by that July 7th date. Uh because that to me is your good faith effort to try to comply with my order
and not to delay based on surveyors and every other thing because again, if you had started to retain your surveyor on March 31st, you probably would have a survey in your hand already. So, I'm trying to give you latitude here. I'm trying to give you time. Um but it's not an open-ended uh amount of time. Okay. Understood. All right. All right. So,
you'll get an order that reflects all of that in the mail. Um, and keep in touch with the with the town obviously as you go through the process. Okay. Yeah, we will. All right. Thank you, sir. Next case. The next case on the agenda is the second item on the agenda but third item
of the day. The American Print Tax Investment Inc. The property address is 1876 E Road. The case number is 255030101. The violation section is 92-010 which is RV registration and I don't think we have any respondents here
at the time. Good morning D'Angelo Campo code compliance officer at the town of Lockx Groves. The case number is 2550330101. Respondent's name is American Printax Investment Inc. The property address is 1876 E Road,
Lockxahhatche Gross, Florida. On May 3rd, 2025, the NOV was sent to the respondent by certified mail to the respondents. The NOV was served by posted notice on May 3rd as well, 2025 at the property and at town hall, but a copy of the post-edited notice was
mailed to the property owner. The correction date was on May 19th, 2025. An inspection on May 27, 2025 found the following items in violations of code sections
92-010 RV permit inspection and maintenance requirements. The property has one RV on site without a permit or affidavit. Contact with the owner. No contact has been received yet from the property owner at this time. The town recommends a respondent be found in violations of code sections
92-010. It is recommended that the respondant be given until July 2nd, 2025 to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $100 per day for each day the violations continues to exist. It is also recommended that administrative costs in the amount of
$2345 be assessed and ordered to be paid to the town of Lockxahhatchi Gross. In the event the code compliance division is not contacted as required and/or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine assessment hearing be held before the special
magistrate on July 7, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. at the town of Lockatric Groves, 155 F Road, Lockxatric Gross, Florida. It was also found that the green card from the certified notice that was sent was also signed by the property owner as well.
All right. Thank you. Do you have old affidavit in here from March? Yes. What was that? What's the reason for that? I believe the property was renoticed at at that time. Believe at one point it was scheduled for a previous hearing, but it was rescheduled and renoticed with the new certified
letter, but with the same. No prior order by me. No prior order. Okay. So, it never got on an agenda for whatever reason. Fine assessment. Okay. Well, this is a violation hearing for Yes. For the first stage of hearing for a new business for violation hearing. Yes.
Okay. So, there's there's not been a violation found for the RV. No. Okay. And you said one RV and no uh permit RV on site. No permit or affidavit has been signed by the property owner. Any communication with the respondent? Nope. Not at this time. Even with the signed green card and posting that was done on
the property. That usually works once they sign for usually. But in this case from the waves of properties we have cited, we've been getting compliance from several property owners, but there have been a few who have not come into compliance at that time.
And it's the white camper type. Yes. Thing. Okay. Is that a tiny camper? I believe there's two, but it's a bit difficult to tell from the photos. There's one that's clearly visible. And I think there's a smaller silver, if I remember, camper.
Okay. Yeah. But I believe if they were to ever come in, we could clarify how many campers or RVs are operated on the property at that time. Okay. All right. For the record, is
anybody present for this case? Seeing none, the respondents are not present. Anything further from the town? Not at this time. All right. In case 2530101, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection.
I'll find based on the affidavit of posting uh the notice documents which include an affidavit of posting and also a signed certified mail that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file and the
testimony of the code enforcement officer that the respondents in violation of section 92-010. I'll require respondents to comply with that section on or before July 2nd or a $100 per day fine will be assessed for each day the violation
continues thereafter. Uh in the event of non-compliance, I'll set this matter for fine assessment hearing on July 7th. And because I found respondent in violation, I'll award the town its administrative costs in the amount of
23405 for uh today's hearing prosecution payable within 30 days. Thank you. Okay, Madame Magistrate, the next item on the agenda is Orlando G um Guzman and
Raquel Guzman. The property address is 14873 collecting Canal Road. The case number is 255020158. The violation sections are 92-010 which is RV registration.
Good morning. D'Angelo Campo, code compliance officer with the town of Lockxachi Groves. The case number is 255020158. The respondent's name is Orlando Guzman and Raquel Guzman. The property address is 14873 Collecting
Canal Road, Locks Hatch Gross, Florida. On May 3rd, 2025, the NOVOH was sent to the respondent by certified mail to the respondents. The Novo was served by posted notice on May 3rd, 2025 at the property and at town hall. A copy of the
posted notice was mailed to the property owner. The correction date was on May 19th, 2025. An inspection on May 27, 2025 found the following items in violations of code sections 92-010 RV permit inspection and
maintenance requirements. The property has one RV on site without a permit or affidavit. Contact with the owner. No contact has been received yet from the property owner at this time. The town recommends the respondent be found in violations of the code sections
92-010. It is recommended that the respondant be given until July 2nd, 2025 to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $100 per day for each day the violations continues to exist. It is also recommended that administrative costs in the amount of
$2345 be assessed in order to be paid to the town of Lockahhatche. In the event the code compliance division is not contacted as required and/or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine assessment hearing be held before the special magistrate on July 7th, 2025 at
9:00 a.m. at the town of Lockxatric Groves, 155F Road, Lockxatric Gross, Florida. And is the respondent present? There is no respondents present. Thank you. For the record, the respondent is not present in case no one is apparent.
2520158. In terms of service, the green card was also signed as well. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Anything further? Not at this time. All right. In case 252 0158, I'll enter the town's
evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file, which include an affidavit of posting and a signed certified mail that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file as well as the testimony of the code enforcement
officer that the respondents in violation of section 92-010. And I'll require respondent to comply or respondents rather to comply with the that code section on or before July 2nd or a $100 per day fine will be assessed for each day that the violation
continues thereafter. In the event of non-compliance, I'll set this matter for fine assessment hearing on July 7th. And because I have found respondents in violation, I'll award the town's its administrative costs in the amount of 23405 payable within 30
days. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Magistrate. The next item on the agenda is item number four on the agenda, and that is Armando Pearls Jr. and Violet M. Pearls which is located at
33023 Brian Road. The case number is 255020186. The violation section includes 92-010 which is RV registration. Good morning. D'Angelo Campo code compliance officer with the town of Lockahhatche Groves. The case number is
255020186. The respondent's name is Armando Parales Jr. and Violet Empales. The property address is 13023 Brian Road, Lockxahhatchic Rose, Florida. On May 3rd, 2025, the NOV was sent to the respondent by certified mail to the
respondents. The NOVOH was served by posting notice on May 3rd, 2025 at the property and at town hall. A copy of the posted notice was mailed to the property owner. The correction date was on May 19th, 2025. An inspection on May 27,
2025 found the following items in violations of code sections 92-010 RV permit inspection and maintenance requirements. The property has one RV on site without a permit or affidavit. Contact with the owner. No contact has been received yet from the
property owner at this time. The town recommends a respondent be found in violations of code sections 92-010. It is recommended that the respondent be given until July 2nd, 2025 to correct the violations or be
charged a fine not to exceed $100 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that administrative costs in the amount of $2345 be assessed in order to be paid to the town of Loxahi Groves. In the event
the code compliance division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine assessment hearing be held before the special magistrate on July 7, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. at the town of Lockxahross, 155 road,
Lockxah, Florida. We also received notice that the green card was also signed by the property owner. That's always good. Yes, you're having good luck with your green cards today. That's I'm surprised everywhere I
do code enforcement on both sides that that still has not leveled out since co That's a giant. What is that? Like a motor home. Yeah, that meets the definition of RB in your code. Yes. Okay.
And this one, you also have a signed green card from back in March. Yes. I believe the property previously was noticed for a prior hearing, I believe, in March or April. Okay. But it was renoticed for a different hearing date. Okay. So, no formal fine. No, no, it wasn't heard of. Same situation. Okay,
great. Thank you. Excuse my memory. It's just hard to I know I can't remember all these RV cases. Usually the regular cases I can remember, but the there's so many of these RVs I can't remember. We've had roughly maybe two to 300. Yeah, I don't I can't keep them all straight. But as
long as you tell me that there's no prior order, I'm comfortable with that. All right. Anything further from the town? Not at this time. And your testimony was no communication? Yes. With with the respondents.
Okay. Okay. In case 255020186, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file which include an affidavit of posting and also a signed certified mail
uh for the most recent notice which is confirmed delivered on May 8th that the town had good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the photograph in the case, excuse me, the photographs in the case file, as well as the testimony of the code enforcement
officer that the respondents are in violation of section 92-010. I'll require respondents to comply with that section on or before July 2nd or a $100 per day fine will be assessed for each day that the violation continues thereafter. In the event of non-compliance, I'll set this matter for
fine assessment hearing on July 7th. And because I found respondents in violation of the listed code section, I'll assess the town's administrative costs for today's hearing in the amount of 23405 payable within 30 days. Thank you. All righty, Madame Magistrate. The
next item on the agenda is BZB Barn LLC. The property address is 968C road. The case number is 2550300 076. The violation section includes section
92-010 which is RV registration. At this time the respondents are not present. Thank you. Good morning. D'Angelo Campo, code compliance officer at the town of Lockachi Gross. The case number is 2530076. The respondent's name is BZB
Barn LLC. The property address is 968 C road, Lockxahhatchic Gross, Florida. On May 3rd, 2025, the NOV was sent to the respondent by a certified mail to the respondents. The NOV was served by posting notice on May 3rd, 2025 at the
property and at town hall. A copy of the posted notice was mailed to the property owner. We also received confirmation of a signed green card and that the notice was received by the property owner. The correction date was on May 19th,
2025. An inspection on May 27th, 2025 found the following items and violations of code sections 92-010 RV permit inspection and maintenance requirements. The property has one RV on site without a permit or affidavit. Contact with the owner. No
contact has been received by the property owner at this time, nor application or permit has been applied as well. The town recommends the respondant be found in violations of code sections 92-010. It is recommended that the
respondent be given until July 2nd, 2025 to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $100 per day for each day the violations continues to exist. It is also recommended that administrative costs in the amount of $2345 be assessed in order to be paid to
the town of Lockahhatche Gross. In the event the code compliance division is not contacted as required and/or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine assessment hearing be held before the special magistrate on July 7, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.
at the town of Lockahhatche Groves, 155 road, Lockxahhatche Groves, Florida. Thank you. You have a photograph from May 3rd, I believe. Is there a photograph? You can approach May 3rd. I just need to see the
uh I don't see one with the RV from earlier. There might be a photo from May 3rd. There is not one. I don't believe so. [Music] Um, what's the proof then that there was
a RV there from the initial inspections after the fact? Believe 27th where the RV is right there. I think it was on the 27th. Well, that doesn't prove for me that there was an RV there on May 3rd. Do you want Yeah. when you sent the notice of
violation out. Um, do you want to do you want me to skip over this one and see if you can find a photo from May 3rd real quick? We have check on Okay. So, I'll I'll pause on this one and we can move to the next case and then if you want to double check that. Thank you. We're going to take a brief recess. He's
going to look for a photo. Okay. I should have that. Okay. So, we can move to the next case and then we'll come back to that to number five when Madam Magistrate, item six on the agenda, which is Amida Special Opportunity Investments LLC have complied. So, that case will be removed from the agenda. The next agenda is
Javier Gar is item seven on the agenda, which is Javier Garcia and Rosa L. Garcia. The property address is 1470 A Road. The case number is 2550 4004. The violation sections include
30-43, 30-44, and 20-015. Mr. Suarez, John Suarez officer on Lache Genting case number 254004. Property address of 1478 road,
Florida. The violations that exist on the property is helping open spending that is prohibited on the property without permit of 30-43 and section 30-44 permit is
required and section 2015 of permitted use. The copy of the notice of violation was a hearing was posted on the property of May
8th, 2025. It's also sent via certified mail on May 8th, 2025. Posted here at town hall. Uh to be up front your honor, this property was originally cited on April 1st,
2025, and we removed it from the agenda and recited it. So, in the violation you received on May 8th, it does give when we sent it out on 56, 2025, but it does say we alleged to have
found the violation on April 1st, 2025. Um, recommends that respondent be found in violation of section 3043, 3044, and 200015. It is recommended that the respondant be given until July 2nd, 2025
violations or be charged of firing not to exceed $100 per day for each violation continues to exist. Also recommended that administrative cost in $234 and five starts be assessed in order to be claimed to the town of Los Angeles
roads. At this time, your honor, it is Mr. to Craig lower that uh seen the violations and visited the property, inspected the property, and I'd like them to speak at this time. Okay. Go ahead, sir. Yes, ma'am. Craig Lawer, public works superintendent. Um
I've been in contact with the neighboring property that is the complaint at 1400 A Road. Um they gave me permission to access their property to take the pictures that are on file of the manure on the property. I've witnessed multiple times of trucks
coming in and out of the property because we are doing work on a-road as well as for the town. Um there is a manure truck comes in, they bring the manure in, they haul it out, but it's a consecutive the manure never leaves. It it may be they may bring in 10 piles
today, they may haul it out, but tomorrow there's another 10 piles. So, it's a constant it's a transfer station that they're running on this property. So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. So, the manure comes in on a truck. Does it get They bring it in on a smaller truck and then they load it
out into a semi and then the semi hauls it out, but it's a constant the manure never leaves. It's It's just a transfer station. They may bring in 10 loads. So, you mean all of it never leaves? There's always some pile there at all kinds because it's every day they're bringing in
material. Okay. Okay. Okay. Can I see the case file, Mr. Torres? Yes, your honor. And for the record, they do not have a permit on file for any manure transfer, which would be prohibited in general for the town. And also, they do not have
equestrian usage on their parcel. So, that I was going to ask you that is that the prohibited use violation? Yes. So, what's can you give me a little bit more on that testimony? As a notice violation, section 2000 five, sorry. Um plots located in
the agricultural residential zoning districts may be used for the following specified uses. Manure processing business prohibited in a residentially zoned area within the town of Lockachi Groves. Why we say in general if it's not for your bonafide a use where we
limit the quality quantities that it's prohibited in general if you understand where if you're a equestrian you're going to have manure to come you know to be you're going to produce your own manure on it's going to be going out. Yeah. You produce
most um a properties here they produce their own manure. They have it hauled out to somewhere or they can spread it on their property at theirelves at certain areas, but majority like this property has no a horse use or anything. So, they're bringing the manure into the
property, storing it there until they get a big enough pile, and then they load it out into another vehicle to haul it off somewhere else. It's essentially a business. Yes, it is a transfer station business. All right. And that's not an acceptable use or approved in the
town. Okay. Nope. All right. Let me see that case file if I may. Thank you. John [Music] Also to be up front, your honor, we do have uh pictures of the notice that we initially posted on April 1st, but
removed from the agenda and also um just prior cases of prior pictures of the manure just being on the property. Have you had any discussion with the respondents? No, we have not. No, ma'am. All right. And
[Music] Mr. Is it Lowour or Lowry? Lowour. Lower. L O W E R. Yes, ma'am. Okay. These are the photos you took at the back here. Yes, ma'am. And that's manure. Piles of manure. Yes. Okay. or
the untrained eye. Yep. I see a lot of it. I'm sorry. Yeah. What you're actually seeing is manure and shavings. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so as it relates to the permit, if this is not an allowable use, a permit
could not be obtained. Correct. Correct. Okay. So compliance in this case is remove the material from the site and stop bringing the material in. Okay. And Mr. Suarez, I think you intend this to go to fine assessment on June
7th. Is that right? In the event of non non-compliance. That's correct. Okay. All right. Anything further from the town? No, ma'am. All right. In case 254004, I'll enter the town's
evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection, noting for the record that the respondent is not present in this case. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file, which include an affidavit of service, an affidavit of posting, excuse me, an assigned uh green card, that the town
had good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the testimony of town staff, as well as the photographs in the case file that the respondents in violation of sections 30-43, 30-44, and 20-015.
require respondents to comply with those sections on or before July 2nd or a $100 per day fine will be assessed for each day that the violations continue thereafter. In the event of non-compliance, I'll set this matter for fine assessment hearing on July 7th. And because I found respondents in
violation, I'll award the town its administrative costs in the amount of 23405 payable within 30 days. Okay. And going back to item one on the agenda. After discussion with internal staff, this item will be removed from
the agenda and renoticed. All right. So item one is being pulled. Yes, ma'am. All right. And at this time, um, our next hearing date will be Wednesday, June 18th, 2025 at, uh, 9:00 a.m. And there's nothing further, uh, from the
town. I think we need to go back to number five real quick. We needed an additional photo. Understood. Thank you though. Very good. Thank you. Wishful thinking, sir. Trying to get out of
here. All right, I'll go ahead and add these case uh these five additional photographs to the case file. Please push your holes in there and get those so that they stay in there. Um, anything further on that case? Not.
Okay. Thank you for getting that additional confirmation. Uh, let me reopen case 2530076. For the record, the respondent is not present in this case. I will enter the town's evidentiary case files
composite exhibit 1 without objection, which includes the additional uh, five photographs that Mr. Campo just printed and brought to [Music] me. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file, which include an affidavit of posting and a
signed uh certified mail that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file and the testimony of the code enforcement staff that the respondents in violation of section 92-010. You wanted the same compliance
dates as the other cases, right? July 2nd, July 7th. All right. I'll require respondents to a respondent in this case to comply with section 92-010 on or before July 2nd or a $100 per day fine will be assessed for each day that the violation continues
thereafter. In the event of non-compliance, I'll set this matter for fine assessment hearing on July 7th. Uh because I have found the respondent in violation, I will assess the town's administrative cost for today's hearing in the amount of 23405 payable within 30 days.
Now, I believe we're finished. Yes. And as stated earlier, the next special magistrate meeting will be code enforcement hearing will be Wednesday, June 18th, 2035 at 9:00 a.m. Okay, perfect. And I do have that on my calendar. Uh, and with that, let's see
what time Verizon thinks it is. I'll adjourn at 10:48. Thank you. June 18.