##VIDEO ID:I0mzAp1e0y0## e good afternoon everyone welcome to the city of madira beach variance and code enforcement matter just a couple of announcements for anyone in the audience today uh there are three matters on the agenda today the first one will be a variance and then we had uh two code enforcement matters I'm told that the second code enforcement matter which is c463 for the property located at 435 South Bayshore Drive uh that hearing will not go forward today it'll be continued for 30 days so if you're here on that code enforcement matter you don't need to stay because we're not going forward with that we're going to do the variance first as I indicated so I'll talk about that one but if you're here for code enforcement uh you're in the right place we'll go after the variance welcome to the city of madira Beach variant special exception use special magistrate hearing my name is Bart Valdez and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases I'm a practicing attorney and have been a member of the Florida bar for over 20 years I've been appointed to this position in accordance and with the authority set forth under Florida law and the City of madira beach code of ordinances it is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented today in these variance requests as such I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings today's matters will be in the order that they appear on the agenda at this time I have read and reviewed the applications with all attachments any written submissions by anyone having an interest any timely submitted written objections and the materials provided by the city staff in all cases the hearing will be conducted in the following order first the city will present its case and staff report and the applicant may ask questions of the city's representative second the applicant will present his or her case supported by Witnesses and evidence and the City May cross-examine each witness there public comment will be solicited or received from parties directly affected by the variance individuals testifying do not have the right to cross-examine the parties all public comment shall be limited to three minutes per person fourth public participation will then be closed I'll deliberate and then make a decision to Grant or deny each variance requested in the application formal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this proceeding however I will exert every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness is afforded to all parties after my decision today I'll issue an order the order will be reduced to writing and the applicant in the city will be provided with a copy by mail therefore please make sure that we have your current address Additionally you advised that I do not have the authority to Grant you a building permit you must still obtain a building permit for any work you intend to do on your property if you wish to present any information to me today it is necessary that you swear affirm that you will tell the truth therefore in just a moment the City attorney will administer the oath and swear in any Witnesses if you expect to talk to me today during the hearing on any then you need to rise and be sworn this includes any members of the public who are directly affected by the variance and may wish to provide public comment also if you're here on the code enforcement matter go ahead and out rise and be sworn in now can you go ahead and swear everybody in Mr tras everyone that's going to speak if you could stand up raise your right hand I'm going to swear you on oath you swear that the testimon you about to give today is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you okay the first matter on the agenda today is variance 2025-the Harbor Drive is the city ready to proceed we are go ahead Mr tras City would call Joe petraglia Joe you've been sworn in just a few moments ago if you could State uh your o your occupation here at the city and your responsibilities yep I'm a planner with the city uh my responsibilities include but not limited to reviewing variance applications plan applications and building permit applications and helping uh assist the public with any of those applications okay are you familiar with the variance application for the property at 15308 Harbor Drive here in Mader Beach yes okay did you prepare a staff report in a recommendation based upon the application that was received yes okay could you go ahead and present the staff report and recommendation please sure application is V the property owner is David Hudson property address 15308 Harbor Drive madira Beach FL 33708 parcel ID 09 3115 52632 00 0340 legal description loan Palm Beach fifth ad block 29 replat lot 34 the zoning is R1 future line uses single family residential residential Urban the request today is to encroach 6.04 ft into the rear yard setback to accommodate the required egress Landing balcony elevated walkway necessitated by the elevation of the structure above the base flood elevation the specific code provision is 110-1 181 setback requirements two rear yard water front Lots is 30 ft background the home at 15308 Harbor Drive is a legally non-conforming structure meaning the home was built before the zoning and setbacks were created and does not meet the current setbacks in the code section 11093 3E of the city Land Development regulations owners that wish to elevate a newer an existing structure are exempt from the setback requirements as long as the existing as long as the structure remains in the existing footprint this structure currently encroaches 2.54 ft into the required rear yard setback however the applicant is requesting to further encroach into the already non-conforming setback by an additional 3 and 1/2 ft modern house and building movers Incorporated submitted a building permit application number 202 24-27 62 to elevate the existing structure above the design flood elevation on July 19th 2024 City staff reviewed the permit application and sent several comments one of which being that an encroachment into the rear yard with stairways and an elevated deck are not permitted uh those comments were sent uh a few days later on July 23rd 2024 on December 27th 2024 the applicant submitted this variant's application without discussing the specifications of their quest in detail with City staff previously on September 10th 2024 along with the responses to other inquiries regarding the building permit application City staff advised the applicant that a rear yard setback variance would not be a viable option after reviewing the request City staff advised the applicant that the plan submitted with the variance application were yet to be submitted on the building permit application that the request does not address any of the other building other outstanding building permit comments including but not limited to side setback requirements or elevation requirements and that the request would not be supported by City staff sheet e.1 of the most recent set of plans that were uploaded to the building permit application at the time of this variance being applied for is also included with this staff report to variance criteria and Analysis criteria one is that special conditions and circumstances must exist which are particular to the land Building or other structures for which the variance is sought and which does not apply generally to the lands buildings or other structures in the same district special conditions to be considered shall include but are not limited to the following and the applicant went with e architectural Andor engineering considerations if the proposed project utilizes architectural and or engineering features that would render the project more disaster resistant staff findings there are no special conditions or circumstances that exist which are particular to the lot the lot size lot width and lot depth all exceed the minimum required in the zoning District an argument can possibly be made for architectural and or engineering considerations that are particular to the building since the proposed plans include elevating the structure in accordance with FMA and city flood plane regulations however this is the standard requirement which applies generally to the lands buildings or other structures in the same district and throughout the city the special circumstances to this structures that there are are currently doors in the rear of the building which encroach into the required setback however there are several similar sit structures in the city with similar configurations if a new house were to be built on the lot it would render the project more disaster resistant than elevating the 60y 67y old home and the new structure would also be required to meet the required setbacks criteria two the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the applicants from the actions of the applicant a self-created hardship should not justify a variance findings the building was constructed in 1985 1958 prior to the adoption of the setback requirements and is presumed to have had rear doors in the same location this does not result from the actions of the applicant so this criteria may be met however a variance must meet all required criteria three granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands buildings or structures in the same zoning District findings all new construction and substantial improvements such as this one would be required to meet the required rear setbacks except were in the same footprint as the existing structure granting this variance would confer a special pav that is denied to other permit applicants four literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District under the terms of the Land Development regulations so Part B of this code or 14-25 and would work unnecessary and undue hardship in onto the applicant findings other p p post firm properties in this zoning District are required to meet the minimum setback requirements or be built within the same footprint of the existing structure although it may be more expensive for the property owner to build a new more disaster resistant structure or reconfigure the rear of the existing structure to surrender the need for an additional landing and the setbacks that other properties in the same zoning District are required to adhere to section 2507 C specifically states that Financial law standing alone is not sufficient justification for a variance five the variance criteria the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land findings in the applicant's response to this item modern house and building mover is incorporated mentioned that the walkway is required to provide access to the rear doors and provide egress the Florida building code only requires one means of egress to a single family home which is already being provided Elsewhere on the submitted plans additionally per Florida building code the minimum width of such lining is 36 in which is 6 in less than what is being proposed the Florida building code also provides an exception for exterior balconies less than 60 s ft that are only accessed from a door which should be permitted to have a landing even less than 36 in both options along with the options to seal off the doorways or reconstruct the house to have a balcony that fits within the current footprint would all be reasonable use of the land and are less non-conforming that is what than what is currently being requested by the applicant six granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the city Land Development regulations or the code of ordinances when it relates to 14-25 and that such variants will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to Public Welfare findings as mentioned in the background of this report the structure is legally non-conforming and section 110-91 of the non-conforming article of the city Land Development regulations states that this article is intended for the discourage and continuation of non-conformities as they're incompatible with the provisions of the city comprehensive plan and the code this variance request not only perpetuates the non-conforming rear setback requirement but also makes it further non-conforming the setback requirements for this zoning District were adopted with a lot depth minimum of 80 ft which this lot exceeds by 20 ft three staff recommendation staff recommends the denial of V 2025-the submitted by Joseph pagle at planner 1 which is me the city of mider Beach Community Development Department along with the application uh I've included the variance application forms the plans submitted with the application the plans that were last submitted on the building permit application as of the time of this variance application being submitted a survey of the existing house a public notice of mailing packet and posting pictures uh the staff report that I just read is on pages 3 to8 of the agenda packet the application uh which was revised on the 9th of January and applicant responses are on pages 9 through 18 page 19 is the redline site plan submitted with the application page 20 is the most recent site plan that was submitted and reviewed by the on the building permit application at the time of the variance being applied for and I believe the applicant is still working to revise that for the building permit application page 21 is the existing survey page 22 and 23 are the mailing labels 24 is the notice of intent to be an affected party form 25 is the public notice followed by posting pictures on page 26 affidavit on mailing on 27 and an Affidavit of posting on page 28 thank are you asking for the special magistrate to receive into uh evidence the packet starting at page three and ending on page 28 correct okay um did the city receive any notices of intent from um anyone that was interested in becoming a party and affected party to this variant application no has the city received any correspondence either for or against this application neither okay um then uh has had the staff report been provided to the property owner or the applic it was provided to the applicant and the property owner was copied okay um since the variance application was received have there been any changes requested to the variance application itself I'm not talking about the building permit application but the variance application uh since it was applied for it was slightly revised but this packet fully includes every all the revisions that were reviewed nothing has changed since this packet was put together okay so just for clarity sake then this sh the the shape of this lot is not Irregular at all correct correct okay um the lot currently exceeds the minimum requirements for the lot size of the property yep and the lot width and depth and the depth correct correct all right so is it the city staff's position that um that the variant should be denied because of the fact that there is a option that is available to the property owner that would lessen the impact or the um uh the the uh encumbrance back into the setback is that one there are few options available that would be less non-conforming okay and can you tell us what some of those option would options would be that would make it less nonconforming sure so in uh the criteria I believe it's three for the minimum necessary I mentioned of let me double check so criteria five the minimum necessary some of the options that would be less non-conforming uh include putting a balcony that the per Florida building code does not have to be 3 ft wide if it's just against the sliding glass doors um putting a balcony if they wanted to do a wrapper on porch like they're proposing uh the Florida building code would allow it to be half a foot less than what's being proposed uh other options would be to seal up the door and turn into Windows or rebuild the footprint so that a balcony could be in the existing footprint um or build a new home within the required setbacks or within the current footprint what about Shifting the um the property forward yep so there's uh the front setback is being exceeded right now so if the house was shifted forward there would be and if I go to the survey so on the screen is the survey of the current house the required setback currently is being exceeded uh I believe the required is 20 ft and right now the house is about 23 24 ft so another option that would be less non-conforming would be to shift the house forward which would mean less of a setback encroachment if they still wanted to uh wrap around porch in the back uh it's still if the house was shifted all the way to the front set back they still and they wanted to still do a a 3 and 1/2t wide wrap round porch it would still be non-conforming it would need a variance or some other modification to be conforming but it would be less non-conforming that's than what's being proposed currently all right thank you those are the only questions that I would have for you I would tender into evidence uh Pages 3 through 28 of the packet ask that they be received all right I'm going to go ahead and receive into evidence as exhibit number one Pages 3 through 28 of the agenda packet all right is there anyone here on behalf of the applicant all right who wants to come forward okay all right well sir before you do anything give me your name my name is Dave Hudson and I live at 1538 Harbor Drive okay Mr Hudson at this point in the hearing you have the right to cross-examine or ask questions of Mr Petr about what he just testified to in a few minutes I'm going to give you an opportunity to present to me anything you want to present show me pictures uh call witnesses or anything else like that but would you like to ask Mr pagle any questions no okay Mr tras anyone else on behalf of the city city has no other witnesses that it's going to call all right anything else at this point in time you want to tell me Mr tras or any other documents you want to put into evidence not at this time thank you all right great okay U Mr Hudson come on back up all right this is your opportunity in the hearing to tell me anything you want want to tell me you can call other Witnesses you can uh present evidence documents to me and this is this is your show so tell me what you'd like to tell me first I'd like to present presentation showout to Mr tras first and then if he doesn't have an objection I'll take a look at it thank you I I don't have any objection this is basically Mr Hudson's uh presentation to you today all right go ahead Mr Hudson walk me through what you'd like me to see here okay um first of all you get a picture of the backyard um so this is what we're talking about and you can see that there is a porch there um that does extend out 9 ft already um so the first page of the presentation basically just talks about the variance and adding a walkway um and the removal of that 9t um porch covering um and then the next page um the staff un like the second page um talks about um no discussion with specification um and things with the building department and um there's some reasons for that um the permit was entered in early in July and the 17th is when it was finally entered into the um the permit system um the response not yet um the response oh from the the city um on the that first one only had one line um that said um encroachment into the rear yard with the stairway and the elev deck are not per permitted um so the um contractor tried to get more information on that and sent in emails um and none of those came into um madira Beach and after um early in September um put in a a request for information and um Claire came up with um that the Software System we City had a new software system called Barracuda I think um was blocking any emails that came in so all of the requests for information um they also stated that there were phone calls that were not returned um but it's um because it's in this document I wanted to show you these just emails that came in and the only important thing is that the dates are in that period are you are you going to submit these into evidence Dave sure okay hang on just a second do you have an extra copy that that I can have or is this the only copy that you have there's two copies you have is that is all right it's the exact same thing yeah okay okay I have no objection only the only thing this is showing is it's that there were emails sent in um there are more of them um but this was just to examples that show that something was happening um so on September 10th um the city requested said we should have request a meeting so we did that on the 13th and on the 19th um the meeting that this says didn't happen um took place at 2:30 in the afternoon so if you go to the next page the September 19th meeting the attendees for the city were Marcy Forbes and Joe um modern movers um was Rush Carlton who is the um architecture um and he was on the computer and myself and the meeting went I thought very well um rush and U Marcy basically talked over top of our heads on some of the things and made jokes about driving piles and having them go too far down and things like that um Marcy offered to mark up plans um and um everybody at the time they were talking a 4-foot um walkway along the back and everybody had agreed to it in this meeting um and so we have from Mar see thank you okay I have no objection to this being received in evidence the important part um where it's a note from Marcy back to Modern movers and I was copied on it um that said um thank you for all the information um if you put the information into it not all the information for the permit has to be in um the variance application um to handle um that part of um what the city has said and then oops and I'm sorry I only have one copy of this so this is not an email to the city this is an email amongst the architect and someone else at the architect's office okay is the architect here today to prove up this document is there anyone that either was addressed to or wrote it that is here today to to yeah M Alonzo is on this one it's from Rush Carlton to alonsz Modern movers.com okay so this is just a discussion am amongst the two of them correct that's what it looks like yes all right no objection and this is what rush got from the meeting and it matches with what I believe was said in the meeting um and this is what the the city this is what Marcy agreed with and so we thought we were all in the clear and um we just needed a um a special magistrate meeting and the idea was that if um she was going to have her part marked up by um noon the next day and then Rush would get the architecture Parts done and then the um we would have it in by the 27th um for the October special magistrate meeting so I assumed everything was fine and we were going forward all right but then hurricanes hit um plans were not submitted um and the October magistrate special magistrate meeting was canceled so that's this was the first meeting since that time um and it was kind of a shock to see the um City's position um that they put in for this meeting so I'd like to address some of the other ones um one of the big points is granting a variance um which creates a special privilege um denied others and part of this is um if you look on the very first page um with the picture you will see um you can see houses next to mine and there's four of them there they all have the same um setback that my house does so if any of those houses need to be raised um they would need something special done for those too um and looking at uh the property appraisers um map um houses three down the other side also um has setback issues and there's several more on just Harbor Drive so on one street um we're getting there's a large a fairly good percentage of homes um that are going to have the same problem that mine does if raising is an option um and we have other streets in town of old home they're going to do the same thing so part of this is um all properties um conforming and non-conforming should be allowed to raise our houses so whether we do that with an ordinance or do it with um a special magistrate so that special magistrate can decide whether things if they're asking too much or if they're asking for just saving their house um they could make that decision um also they talk about having allowing a Ono um structure um in the Florida code and to me that seems to be aimed towards like these micro houses and things of 400 square feet where they don't have room for more doors um I have to believe um once a house has been elevated and you can't climb out a window window to safety if the first um if the door is blocked is not a a very sustainable plan um and for example during um Helen um three of the five houses in my place um ended up being blocked by um locks that were had saltwater intrusion or debris um so I'm glad that I had um five places I could get out of um and I still ended up having to climb through window to get in um because I the first time I because I didn't realize that the locked doors were going to remain locked um destroying existing house and rebuilding would be a stronger home um if you want to look at the house um it's across the water there's a greenhouse it has solar panels on top and a sailboat on a lift um or if you wanted to wander over at any time you can go through it and see um the house has hip roofs it has concrete roof tiles it has hurricane windows and doors um so replacing it might be better but you climb around in the attic and the beams are huge um and I don't think they would build a house that way now so all we're trying to do is protect it from flooding by raising it um I think if you were worried about wind I don't think a new house would be better than the one that's there um Financial loss you can't um standing alone is not sufficient for a variance justification um maybe not so um ability but lifting cost for that house $325 ,000 um destroying it and rebuilding um from what the neighbors are that are doing that would be over a million dollars um so saying cost is not something to consider it has to be um because I'm taking all of my money out of my 401k or half of my money that I have out of my 401k to pay for just lifting it I can't afford to tear it down and buy a new house um and then if you we talked about a little bit before if you look at the house um it has that porch there which most anybody would say a porch That's is intruding in the setback and it's out there at um depends on how you explained it it's 11 feet if you use add the 2 and 1/2 ft that the house is back it's really sticks out um 8 ft to the Post and 9 ft to the end um and that will be at the same height as where the walkway is going to be um but the walkway is only going to be out 3 and 1/2 ft where this is going out to 9 ft so possibly somebody can say that that intrudes more but I think the 9 ft intrudes more than the 3 and A2 so it seems like the to approve a variance you need to have some reasoning justification um for raising it makes that structure less likely to be damaged in a storm um for safety um retaining the existing egress with a rear walkway reduces likelihood of being trapped by by fire flood wind damage oh something that I missed earlier is in the cost thing people talk about dollars everybody likes dollars but there's also a Time portion of that um you guys are all young so you have lots of time but I'm 66 and you raise the house it will be done in six to eight months and people and you're living in it again to tear it down and rebuild I'm guessing will be three years so if I have 10 good years left or whatever um do people really want to do I want to spend three of those treading water and waiting for the house to be built even though I can't afford it anyway um so big part of this is I really want the city to come up with a plan um to raise houses because it is cost effective compared to tearing them all down um and there's many houses in the city that could go that direction um I thinking that setbacks um are all were initially done for um site views and things like that you didn't want to block your neighbors's view of the water um and five years ago or whatever um the commission came up with um basically that each homeowner um is only entitled to their view out their backyard so that was when they decided that they could um do use Hedges and fences no not fences Hedges or trees along the edge of their boundary towards the back towards the water um because before that you couldn't do it because it would be blocking somebody's view um so if all we're worried about is a straight view we're not blocking anybody's view from this um and I don't see a safety issue with um building a walkways to get out of the house um so I hope you will consider consider um allowing this all right Mr Hudson stay right there first of all just as a housekeeping matter I'm going to go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit two your presentation here today I'll accept into evidence as exhibit number three the email from Mr Rush Carlton dated August 1st 2024 accepting evidence is exhibit number four what appears to be an email dated Friday September 20th 24 and then a string of emails between Mr Carlton and others including yourself with the first email being dated September 26 2024 that'll be exhibit number five all right Mr Hudson I'm going to give you an opportunity to keep telling me some more information or call other Witnesses but Mr tras as the attorney for the city has the right to ask you questions at this point so I ask that you answer Mr trash questions if he has any I just have a few Mr Hudson just for clarity's sake the shape of the lot that you own is not irregular in shape it's rectangular correct correct okay and you agree that the lot size exceeds the code requirements currently correct okay you agree that your lot exceeds the lot width requirements of the current code correct and you agree that the lot exceeds the lot depth requirements currently in the code backup I think it meets the rear the the width code correct I can double check if it meets hold on a second this is cross examination o do you you can either answer the question yes or no or I don't know I don't know about the width okay the the rear please ask that question again okay so my question to you was is that you agree that the lot exceeds the minimum code requirements for lot depth in other words how deep the property is yes okay um you also agree that the landing doesn't necessarily have to be 42 in wide behind the home it could be at least 36 in wide pursuant to the code you agree with that correct yes can I talk a I got a couple more questions for you so and you agree that you could move the house forward if you're lifting the house you could move the house forward to lessen the impact on the rear yard setback too couldn't you not without infringing on the front setback okay so do you know how far if you were to well first first of all do you know where the house sits with regard to the front yard setback no we showed it up there all right so let's if we could um pull up that exhibit so I can ask Mr Hudson a question about that Mr pagia yeah that's the one okay so you see in that survey it reflects that your house sits back is it 24 ft yes 20 yes okay and do you agree with me that the front yard setback is 20 feet under the code yes okay so there's four feet there between where the house currently sits and where the front yard setback sits that you you could adjust the the structure correct in the drawings that they came up with the stairways that they have to add by moving the lifting the house um go towards the top there's a landing turns around and comes back and that will stick out and use up some of that for feet okay so we're in agreement then that there is some area of land between the front property line in the structure when it's moved that will still give you some um relief in the backyard if you were moving the house stru if you moving the home forward correct whether it's 4 feet 3 feet two foot or one foot there is still some area there that could be moved forward correct correct and it would lessen the impact of the encumbrance in the backyard correct yes okay and just to um address these emails and so forth that you had submitted into evidence um you were just submitting these for the purpose of showing that the staff report may not have been accurate with regard to responses you're saying that there some responses went they just weren't received by the city because of the fact that there was a email or a software block correct okay um and as for the email that you were referring to from Marcy Forbes a Community Development engineer and and spe specifically with your meeting with her and Mr petraglia there was never an agreement by the city that they would agree to a variance it was just that you had to go through the variance process isn't that correct correct okay but it it didn't it sounded like they would that the city would before the variant okay you you didn't receive any emails from the city saying that they would recommend approval of the variant no okay thank you Mr hson all right uh Mr dutson I um have some questions for you but I want to let you finish your presentation are there any other Witnesses would you like that you would like to call uh any other documents you'd like to show me do you want to say anything good afternoon sir will you please give me your name good afternoon my name is Alonzo Milan um I am representing um modern movers and uh Alonzo Please spell your first and last name for me uh Al NSO last name m i l n all right and you are the um applicants architect engineer what's your title I'm a CFM uh project manager for flood mitigation all right all right U Mr Milan what would you like to tell me so we do agree that the possibility of um there are alternatives um to to being that we can do to fit that 4 foot or 30 or 3 and A2 foot walkway in a bag to think this is already 312,000 project um a vertical elevation is completely different than having to move Building forward even if it's 6 in um per our calculation we're estimating that probably around taking north of 880,000 just because we have we have to bring the dollies move it forward set it down and then shift up the house for elevation um that drastically reduces the uh viability of that option due to the Homeowner's uh income um so not only that but if you notice on that survey shift in a house 4T minimal Landing to have the most compact steps we can do is 7 ft so it gives you a 3 and 1/2t walk uh stair with a 7 foot walk I mean an interconnected landing and you can come forward so by then if we shift the structure forward while the actual house will be in compliance the steps will now be uh encroaching in the new proposed setback um what we were proposing in the rear walkway was to sort of Canever that structure so that we were not actually increasing uh the footprint of the house at the proposed first floor um in addition if you notice uh all the concrete that is around the house what we wanted to do was also increase uh reduce the impervious surface ratio of the house and this is something we were talking contemplating with our architect to um at least have a trative to where look even if we are having a walk with her accessibility we are making the U the lot or bettering the lot uh for that purpose of flood plane um with regards to Mr Hudson talked about his neighborhood pretty much the elevation certificate that you can also see that was been provided already and admitt it shows that the area is in AE with a base flot elevation of 11 this being identifi as a coastal AE Zone means that the uh lowest horizontal member has to be above that requirement that means that this minimal requirement is 14 ft so the house being at 5 foot I know that the intent for non-conforming structures is to let them Elevate within the existing foot burn of the house but even when just to get to DFE so just to get the design flood elevation you will have to have steps no matter how you construct them that will extend past the existing for front of the house um I do have to agree with Mr Hudson that for a majority of homeowners or the community of M Beach uh unless their income is substantial uh in today's construction cost to recreate that house at that same elevation would take really north of May million dollar and that's just basic n nothing special no no special finishes and although yes the the structures adjacent the new structures adjacent to his house um have been built vertically uh it it it equates different at at this point I would say with the intent of keeping that Community here and and we're willing to work with Joseph uh Mr paga uh I would like to have a war after and see what we can do because we also have a couple more projects that are going to face the same um issues and rather than waste y'all's time I rather just address them in the front um what other alternatives to that would be interior steps having a enough of a clearance for us to have interior steps would reduce his um living space by roughly about 50 to 60 sare ft uh for a house that's already that small so the Duke Energy requirements of of three and a half by 5 foot Landing also requires would be an an impeachment that we are working on to fix so with all that in mind my my question is what about those homeowners that can't like this is the max they can afford is that being taken into consideration when when submitting the these alternative Solutions although Florida has a minimum requirement of one or a primary means of erress um and that would be the front and the event of a a fire happening in a front the expectation would be for the homeowner to climb out the window and throw himself out to the ground 14 feet um at this age I'm I'm 33 I may survive that fall but I out uh Mr Hudson will so so taking that into account what what are those possible solutions that we can come to not only for this project but all the other projects that may have received a substantial damage letter um that need to go through because I'm it is my understanding that if those properties are not uh mitigated either they have to be demo or else the community rating system from a or Beach may take a hit so is that you know is that taken into account as well that's I just wanted to take you know you guys takes on it if if there's something that I'm not seeing or something that we can do with the homeowner move the project forward we will U but we just wanted to express uh why we designed that project that way all right thank you Mr Milan I have a couple questions but I'm gonna let Mr TR go first and ask any questions he has so the one of the first things that you said was that you agree on behalf of your client that there are other Alternatives what are those other Alternatives that you determine other than what have already been discussed today I I agree with he uh the Mr P's remarks that there are other ways like shift in structure Shi in the structure forward um that are alternative solutions to that that problem um however it it's it's a viability of those options what other Al Alternatives were you talking about other than the ones that Mr pagle went through in his um testimony so we've minimized the scope to what we feel is absolutely necessary so that's we've taken some of those into account um and and like I said it we I do agree but what he's saying that there are other Alternatives but in for the particulars of this project we feel strongly feel they're not viable um for resilience of the structure all right let's talk about your testimony about interior steps it is possible to have the structure have interior steps underneath the structure once it's lifted your testimony was that's not viable because of the fact that it would reduce the Interior Space by I think you said 50 or 60 square feet but that is another alternative then correct yes uh that is uh the only thing also I forgot to admit would be you are now cutting into a 50 over 60 uh eural concrete slab and as we see the zoning orance change so that the building codes from back then so there's it's not really we can't really guarantee that by cutting into an existing slab in structural Integrity of that slabwood hole that there wouldn't be any potential structural cracks that may develop after the project has been settled um so every time we come across something like that we strongly advice against it I don't have any other questions for you thank you for your time Mr I do have a couple questions so what I'm looking at right there on the screen which is page number 21 out of the agenda packet this is the the current survey and the green lines show the outline of the exist existing structure is that right is that what I'm looking at correct if you and Mr pagler Miss Mills if you can go back to the uh page before that I believe it's it would be page 20 of the agenda packet tell me what I'm looking at right here on page 20 what is this I'm sorry front is this the proposal like how once it's lifted what it would look like or what are we what am I looking at here yes so I believe that's the stairs so yes the stairs yeah goes in front yeah so that's a the proposal for um a front switch but we call them a switch back or us turn Okay because and the reason I asked this I'm just saying is has the house been shifted back from where it currently is is that the plan no okay cuz I still see that green outline there but I don't see the house sitting over that green outline so I'm trying to understand and there's no right or wrong answer I'm just trying to understand that is that why we're asking for the variance because it's no longer going to be within that green outline that was on the survey no sir I believe that might be a uh an error and an R part from uh design and overlaying the actual structure onto what's that uh the survey okay and then then let's go back so I understand it because there's some we've had a lot of talk about age but uh but my eyes have difficulty reading the red writing on the first page so if you can go to page 19 of the agenda package what am I looking at right here and if you need to walk closer to the screen to look at it please feel free to do so I do go ahead I got at the 23.9 so what is this what the home presently looks like or would this be in the after condition after it's raised okay that's underneath to leave it as Sur so the roof that I take it there's a roof overhang and then I see what appears to be a black line with what appears to be pilings drawn on it or something like that is that the walkway we're talking about now okay right up there okay and then what is there anything significant because I can't read on my printout what is written in red on this drawing is there anything that is in red writing in red that is material to what I'm considering today I'm just saying if there's anything you'd like to read to me or you want to explain to me what that says I'm I'm all the years because I can't read it so if it's important to your argument on why this variant should be granted tell me what that says I've got a blown up copy of it if it would be helpful yeah may maybe so you can keep that all right so it looks like what these are these are the variance calculations here and Mr tras is it all right if I go ahead and Mark this as exhibit six so it's in the record all right I think that's a great idea helpful to both the applicant and the City okay yep all right Mr Milan um anything you want to tell me about I can read it now so is there anything you want to tell me or point out on this particular drawing we were we were uh yeah Mr Hudson I pointed out that's it shows a little thinner in the drawing uh because this accounts that the rofie of that overhang okay um like you know anything we can do uh and work to make this resing and come to a resolution of this project so that we can move forward mitigate the structure for flood uh for future flooding um you know we're open to to work with the city per department is zoning planning to to come to a solution for this and the next eight projects that we have pending in this area all right all right sir I asked a lot of questions so I'm going to give Mr trash the opportunity if he has any questions of you based on the questions that I asked uh no thank you all right um okay don't go far Mr mil I may have some more questions Mr Hudson are there any other Witnesses you'd like to call or any other information you would like to give me today in considering this variance request no the only comment I have is yes if you're looking at it from the moon um those solid the dark black lines um that's what would show out from underneath the eaves on the walkway so in the overall scheme of things the eaves pretty much take up that whole um 42 in that is there all right uh Mr Hudson here's what I I need and you can take a moment to talk with your team here today so there's six criteria that I have to analyze I realized the city staff uh takes issue with the first criteria however I think that there you've presented to me enough evidence to where I think that there is uh you meet the first criteria the city agrees that you meet the second criteria where I'm having difficulty is the third fourth fifth and sixth criteria you've addressed the first and I think the second one in your packet but tell me how you believe your variance application meets the third fourth fifth and six criteria and the reason I say that sir is that you know I sit here to interpret the the code I certainly don't make the code that's what the uh the city does and its elected officials and this is a hardship variance meaning that you know there has to be a hardship for me to Grant it even though certainly I could be sympathetic to the fact you're trying to raise your property up and present flooding issues I certainly understand why you would do it but tell me about criteria 3 four five and six because the city's staff's position is that you don't meet those criteria so tell me why you meet each one of those criteria okay three I don't want it to be a special privilege I want the city to allow everybody um no matter what they're setback um to be able to raise their house and put a walkway to a stairs or whatever works if they have one exit to they put a stairs back there um I raising houses is a new Option I don't think people did that um 20 30 years ago whenever this um the ordinance was written with setbacks so the world has changed and City should change with them if at all possible so I'm not considering it as a special privilege I'm hoping that City will wake up and take care of residents okay in regard is there anything else you want to tell me about those specific criteria and if you want to take a moment to confer with your team that's fine too I just anything else you want to put in the record in regard to criterias 3 four five and six so I'm going to object um this is a witness this is not the applicant and the up and down back and forth I I would prefer that the testimony relative to the criteria be from one indiv ual versus up and down between the two of them yeah so Mr Hudson just tell me you take a minute yeah go ahead take a moment Joe while they're doing that can you bring up code section 110-93 to make it available for re I have some questions to you about that so we're not delaying this hearing 110-93 for for for for for sh for all right Mr Hudson what would you like to share with me that I don't have a very good memory um special privilege when this house is an existing house it was the same house as what it was when I purchased it it was the same house that it's way back when um you can't any new design they can design it for um what the setbacks and what the rules are at the time um here we're stuck because the building is already there so trying to to squish the building or do something to to make it fit um in today's rules um is mostly impossible um and I mean what we're trying to do is what FEMA wants us to do is raise our houses up out of the flood plane um so we have to stay we have to keep the footprint the way it is um um whether we could go to a 30 in um or 36 inch um width um the reason picked 42 was um whenever you get furniture delivered or anything big like that um they always want to use um in the picture you'll see that there's a big sliding glass door it's an extra wide sliding glass door all those things fit into they bring them in through that sliding or the sliding glass door um if you narrow up the sidewalk or the walkway too much you have trouble with getting the refrigerator thing turned and able to go in I don't know that for a fact but that was kind of the um the thinking that once it's all done are we going to be in trouble if we make that too narrow um the latest option which I didn't we talked about but I didn't realize was in that um the rear deck or the walkway is Canal levered so I believe in the setbacks and things um if that house were to be go through another 30 years and get torn down um that extra width of the walkway doesn't doesn't move as an entitlement for the future houses or whatever they only get what the footprint of the house is the foundation um and so we're staying with that footprint um and we're only going out 10 inches more than what the um overhang is going to be I see it as a small penalty for having safety and L and a nice and a you workable house all right thank you Mr Hudson anything else notate explaining what hardship well why don't you why don't you do this I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to let Mr tras uh call any rebuttal witnesses that he wants to call give me anything else he wants we still haven't done public comment so take a couple minutes to chat with each other and then I'll come back to you I'm still going to give the city the last word but I want to get everything on the record so it's everything's clear so why you guys chat and then I'll give you one final opportunity for two minutes to tell me anything else you want to tell me Mr tra do you want to call any other Witnesses in as a rebuttal yes I'd like to call Mr petle back all right go ahead so Mr petly have have you had the opportunity to pull up section 110-93 of the code do you have it available in front of you yes okay if you could turn to paragraph 3F I mean sorry 3E yes could you read that out loud owners of non-conforming residential structures in an R1 R2 or R3 zoning districts that wish to elevate their existing structure with the lowest habital floor above base flood elevation shall be exempt from the set pack provisions of article V of this chapter regarding District regulations regarding District regulations so long as the structure remains within the existing footprint okay so do you agree then the code all already legally allows the property owner in fact Mr Hudson to raise his house in the exact same footprint that it is right now yes okay the issue today isn't whether or not he should be able to um raise his home that's legally allowed under the code the issue today is whether or not he should be allowed to have this walkway across the back of his property they would encroach into the right into the rear yard correct yep and the width of it okay so so there was testimony I'm not sure if it was from Mr Hudson or his other witness that were talking about all the other houses going to have the same problem okay um so all the other houses that are going to be raised are legally have the right to be raised correct correct as long as they're in one of those zoning districts okay so there won't be any other problems if they rais their home in the same footprint that they currently exist nope not with raising it okay thank you all right Mr uh Hudson do you have any questions for Mr pagia based on his testimony he just testified to no okay come on up tell me anything else you want to tell me just the last couple minutes okay the thing I have is I've got three letters from Neighbors um saying they are okay or variance there's not many people in the neighborhood um so um these were the three I could find I have I have no objection all right we'll go ahead and attach those as exhibit number 7A 7B and 7 C and just give me one moment to look at them and the Johnny Ray is the closest neighbor he's right next door and he's the one that would be most affected by the um the walkway stairs being on his side thank you sir I have read these I appreciate that anything else uh last word anything else you want to tell me nope I apologize for this painful presentation you don't have to apologize at all I always want to hear everything you have to say and again there may be some issues that you need to take up with the city commission but I certainly appreciate everything you've told me so have a seat sir all right at this point in time we'll go ahead and take public comment for anyone who is directly affected by the variance is there any member of the public that would like to come forward and tell me anything about variant 20251 for the property located 15308 Harbor Drive okay seeing none we'll go go ahead and close public comment Mr tras anything else just briefly um staff recommendation is uh denial of this uh application based upon the fact that the criterias 3 four five and six have not been met under the code um this is not an irregularly shaped lot it is exceeds the lot size it exceeds the lot width it exceeds the lot depth and therefore is room for Mr Hudson to do what he needs to do within the footprint of the lot and the footprint of the current structure I think that the testimony from Mr Hudson and from his witness um Mr milon milon hopefully I pronounced it correctly both um testified that they believe that there are other Alternatives um that could be used to be um less of an encroachment into either the front yard or the rear yard setbacks um therefore um the city does not believe that Mr Hudson has met the criteria and his application should be denied that doesn't mean that the city staff isn't willing to work with Mr Hudson and his team to come to something that would be less of an encumbrance and that um we can work with him and maybe come back with a recommendation of approval on something that is less of an encroachment but we're asking that you deny the application as presented all right thank you Mr tras uh Mr Hudson in this sense in in these proceedings under a variance I'm required under Section 2507 of the city code of ordinances to find that the criteria has all been substantially satisfied and that a hardship exists and so for me to Grant a variance I have to find that the criteria has indeed been substantially satisfied I I wanted to give you every opportunity to talk to me about three four five and six because it certainly sounds like what you're planning to do with your property makes sense you want to raise the home up you want to try to make it more disaster resistant which is a good thing uh the the city staff just sees things differently and I don't have the evidence before me in which I can grant a variance as Mr tras indicated I would encourage you to try to talk to staff see if there's something that you can do to come into compliance and satisfy all of those criteria I'm here every month and so if you can satisfy those criteria maybe making one of the adjustments it sounds like maybe with the you know I certainly understand you made attempts to to meet with the city and that's fantastic maybe even made some progress and for whatever reason uh didn't get there I did notice the one thing where you know Miss Forbes did write you back and say encroachments into the rear yard C with the stairway and elevated deck are not permitted and that was on September 17th 2024 so I don't know where things went sideways after that but I would encourage you to meet with City staff and I'm going to deny the petition at this point in time obviously without prejudice you can refile the a petition and try to come back before me I do find that you made the first and second criteria U for the the hardship but under the code I have to show that you substantially satisfied all of the criteria so with that the variance is denied all right we're going to move on to the next issue before me today which is the code enforcement hearing welcome to the city of madir beach code enforcement hearing again my name is Bart Valdez and I'm the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases I'm a practicing attorney and have been a member of the Florida bar for over 20 years I have been appointed to this position in accordance and with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida Statutes it is my role to fairly and objectively review these matters as they are presented as such I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings today's matters will be heard in the order that they appear on the agenda every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence argument or comments to offer related to the specific case it is being heard if you wish to speak today and you've not already been sworn in then you will need to be sworn in in just a moment in all cases since the city has the burden of proof the city will present its case first the respondent or property owner then will be given the opportunity to refute the city's allegation ations formal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this proceeding however I will exert every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness is afforded to all parties after hearing all the relevant evidence I will issue an order the order will be reduced to writing and you'll be provided with a copy by mail Additionally you advise that I do not have the authority to Grant you a variance permit or special exception of any kind my role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and to provide you a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means is available to to you please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if you wish to present any information to me today it is necessary that you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth therefore at this time if anyone has not been sworn in yet please arise and raise your right hand so the City attorney can swear you in anybody sneak in that didn't already get sworn in okay seeing none let's uh go on Mr trast for case number CE 2 4 -75 for the property located at 14110 East Parsley Drive thank you the city would call Grace Mills as it's witness today Grace if you could tell the special magistrate what your occupation is and your job responsibilities here at the city I work as a code compliance officer for the city of Mader Beach um in permitting and code violations okay and how long have you been working for the city approximately a little over a year and a half okay are you familiar with this property at for 14 1110 East Parsley Drive here in madira Beach yes okay and is this a code enforcement case that was a proactive case or was it a result of a complaint that was filed it was a proactive case Okay this uh property uh being at the address of 14110 East parley Drive have you determined who the owner of the property is yes um and if you look on page 29 of the packet it is the um page from the property appraiser parcel summary it's reflecting Aurora Investments Group LLC and RM Capital Group LLC okay so both of them are owners of the property then that's correct okay so um can you tell me when this code enforcement case first came to your attention um that you needed to bring a code enforcement case against the property owner it was August 12th is when it was brought to my attention from our building official Frank Dan santis he had gone out for an inspection um the house had an active permit on it for remodeling of such um however during the final inspection it was noticed of the violation so August 12th is when it was brought to my attention okay and what was the actual violation that was found on August 12th that needed a notice of code violation to be issued um when our building official went out to do the inspection he had noticed electrical work that had been done um under code 14123 of of the city and the ordinances um any new electrical must be underground and it was redone obviously above ground which is reflected in page 42 that is all new electrical work that our building official noticed at the final inspection okay so what when you um you have this picture up here on page 42 and it has some writing in red all new electric work is that something that was well first of all who took this Photograph Mr danis okay and who wrote this this wording all new electric work Mr desis okay and with regard to this Photograph itself what exactly is the new new electric work if you can point that out to the special magistrate is everything on the wall new yes and I would say that because if you look at page 41 um that is the pole as well as the boxes that are discarded if you look back to page 42 there's an allnew overhead poll um and appears to be new electrical boxes as well okay so what were the actual code violations what what code sections were being cited the code sections um it started with ordinance 8652 when required stating that they needed a permit if they were going to do the overhead work um the next ordinance would kind of scratch that out 14123 utility facil ities required to be underground um so both were stated for a need for a permit for the work um and then the one the second one would kind of go in hand with it that work was not allowed it needs to be underground okay so when we're talking about facilities need to be underground so in instead of this stand pipe in picture 42 that pipe would go down the wall into the ground to the closest electrical pole that's correct it would be buried underground okay and what you just showed another picture what was that oh yes um page 40 I forgot to mention that one that is showing it's still connected over head um that work would that wiring that you would see from coming from the house would be underground okay just for for um sake of explaining where the property is that is in violation is it on the left side of the photograph on page 40 where the garbage cans and the white wall are yes okay and the wire you're referring to is that block wire going up to that hole that has that canister on the top of it yes okay all right so when you found that the property was doing property owner was doing work without a permit and not putting the facilities underground did you go to the Property Appraiser's office to find out who the owner was is that why it is in the packet as the first couple of pages yes that is why it's there it's the first couple of pages um I just to identify the property own owner all right once you've determined that it was owned by two different llc's did you also uh check sunbiz the division of Corporation to see who those entities were and who the proper person is to serve in this case yes and that would start on page 33 is where I looked up on sunbiz for Aurora Investment Group um to see their principal address um and continued on page 35 is where the RM Capital group was search on sunbiz um in their mailing address as well okay so once you found out who the owner was and you did the sunbiz research did you issue a courtesy notice of violation yes and that's reflected on page 37 that was sent August 12th 2024 um standard mail when you sent this courtesy notice of violation did you um explain what the violation was in the letter yes and did you also um tell the property owner that you were going to be following up on a date certain yes at the end of that letter on page 38 my followup date's August 26 2024 okay did you follow up on August 26th or some date after that yes August the exact date August 26 2024 um my certified notice of code violation went out that was sent certified mail and these three photographs that you've been referring to those were attached the the um courtesy notice of code violation yes okay so not not only did the property owner receive the letter he would have and the notice of the two code sections but also the violation detail and the photograph showing them what it is correct yes okay so on August 26 was the property brought into compliance no okay did you issue a notice of code violation then I did okay and is that on page starting at page 43 of the packet that's correct and is this basically the same letter as the courtesy notice that you sent out it is yes CES the same two code sections and the same violations it's correct okay and when you sent this out did you send it out by um certified mail I did and that's reflected starting on page 49 followed up by page 50 but in the letter notice a code violation you attach the same photographs again correct yes correct okay all right and you sent it by certified mail um that's reflected on pages 49 and 50 correct okay did you receive a green card back from that notice we did not from that notice no okay so did you um issue a well first of all in that letter did you also give another follow-up date I did yes the third follow-up date was for uh let me get back up to there September 9th 2024 and it was still not in compliance as of that day correct correct all right so then did you issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing for the property owners I did yes that starts on page 51 of the packet all right can you go through each one of these notices of hearing and the statement of violation and the affidavits and reflect why there are so many in the packet and what they reflect sure um so starting on page 51 this is the notice of hearing that was sent to both Property Owners as reflected on the property appraiser since there's two of them um so that went to the property appraiser address with both owners on it and that is reflected through page 51 to 53 is going to be the notice the same went for the statement of violation went to the same address and same both owners from page 54 to 55 and Then followed up by the Affidavit of service that went to both owners at the property appraiser website from page 56 to 57 Pages 58 and 59 are the certified mailings of those mailings that I had just gone over to the property appraiser address with both owners um starting on page 60 since they were owned by two different llc's um I sent each individual LLC with their address that was found on sunbiz the same copies of the letters so page 60 is going to reflect the affidavit service for r at the sunbiz address starting on page 62 for RM at the sunbiz address that's going to be the notice of hearing and followed up by the statement of violation for RM at the sunbiz address is 65 um and that ends on 66 page 67 is going to start the same three documents for the magistrate except for Aurora Investment Group LLC sent to the sunbiz address so the affidavit service is going to start on page 67 the statement of violation is going to start on page 69 and the notice of hearing starts on 71 and again those are for Aurora Investment Group um based off of the sunbiz address those were certified scent and that's going to be reflected on 74 and 75 of the packet all right can you explain what pages 76 77 and so on the rest of the packet yes 76 through 77 is the certified of RM Capital group for the sunbiz address 77 is just the back of that um 78 is the posting of January 14th of these documents for the magistrate meeting in front of the property and page 79 is January 14th at City Hall for the postings of this magistrate meeting okay this afternoon when we walked in on the deos there was a green card um the Green Card looks like it was directed to RM Capital Group LLC at 5118 Palmetto Point Drive Palmetto Florida 34221 did you would did you place this card on the D I did yes okay and this is the uh green card back from RM Capital Group LLC then that's correct that's the only green card we did receive back out of those mailings um but we did receive that that back and that was in relation to the notice of hearing for today the statement of violation and the Affidavit of service that's correct okay all right have you heard anything from either one of these Property Owners uh since the code violation was case was started I have not no okay has anyone in the building department received um any uh request for information or any other documentation on this not that I'm aware of there is no Ive permit for the violation okay within our department um have you been out to the property recently to see whether or not any further work has been done on this particular electrical work that we're talking about I did go out to the property on January 14th to post the notices for the magistrate um and the electrical work is still in place on the property okay but nothing further was done on it correct correct and was there a stop work order placed on the property there was not a stop work order placed on the property no okay all right so as of at least January 14th this proper as of today there's been no building permit issued for this correct correct okay um all right I don't think I have any other questions for you at this point Grace I would tender into evidence Pages 29 through 79 of the packet as exhibit number one it also tender into evidence the Green Card return receipt ask that it be Mar marked as exhibit number two all right and Mr tras I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number On's Pages 29 through 79 of the agenda package go ahead and note that it does appear that somebody signed for this green card or signed for the certified mail giving notice of today's hearing as exhibit two I also had some additional materials it looks like it's three pages of some kind of document did you see that Mr tras yes can ask I can give you some background on that um but let me just go ahead and call U Grace back I didn't realized that you had gotten a copy I knew I had gotten a copy so it was sitting on my desk when I sat down so okay so um Grace there were three pieces of paper on the deos besides the Green Card uh today can you first of all are you aware of those three pieces of paper yes okay do you have a copy of those in front of you yes okay can you explain into the special magistrate we'll just label them Pages 1 two and three because they're stapled together and tell us what each one of those pages reflects and why it was on the De Page number one is going to reflect the final inspection as I had mentioned there was an active permit on the house when this violation was found um this is a image of what the final inspection sheet was when our building official went out um it is a failed inspection as you can see on red of August 12th 2024 at 1026 in the morning um the comments Mr Dan sanis had failed the inspection mentioning that there are house numbers missing um if you look below he also met with a subcontractor Casey on site for the electrical upgrades that were not permitted told him that a permit was required and new electrical needs to go underground for per the city ordinances see attached pics those were the photos that were attached to the violations the three photos sent the permit cover sheet and electrical pic to Grace to create a co- compliance case because they have exceeded the 50% substantial Improvement rule that is when I started my violation page two is an actual outline of from file copy from the um approved permit showing what the submitted work would be if you see in Blue uh Mr DeSantis circled it saying that new Services need to go underground so that this was in the approved file um for the contractor to see and Page Three is communication um from let's see um as a formal response of plan review correction it there was questions from Mr santis um inquiring on existing panel panels and electrical data they had commented on that saying what they were going to change out and Mr DeSantis did comment back um in his red writing any new service change requires to go underground for um per section 1423 so this is just communication that we have had with the applicant um through per permitting through on-site meetings um that it had to go underground thank you I would tender that into evidence exhibit number three all right I'll go ahead and accept it into evidence as exhibit number three anything else for Miss Mills Mr tras no thank you Miss Mills and Mr tras I invite you to uh weigh in on this as well in preparing for today's hearing I read sections 14 uh- 101 14-1 122 and 14-1 123 and I just have a question for you miss Mills because Improvement is defined specifically here and says Improvement shall mean any addition or renovation performed on any structure which increases the heated square footage of the structure the cost of which including everything exceeds $15,000 the term improvement shall not include repairs made necessary because of damage from a storm event tornado or other natural disaster the and then section 14-1 1203 says utility facilities required to go underground it says new overhead utility service drops shall not be allowed permitting of all new construction or improvements of structures shall require all utility drops located on the lot to be placed underground so I just want to make sure I'm getting my my fact straight here on this one is the city's position that this is a new installation new overhead utility service or is this a would it fall under the Improvement of structures city has taking the stance that it is all new work as reflected in the photos there were the discarded electrical boxes um followed up by all new work of electrical so this would not be a repair we are seeing it as an entire replacement gotcha and so just to be sure though uh as best you can tell this looks like it was part of a permitted for some sort of I'm reading the permit says kitchen and bath remodel um the brief overview is kitchen and bath remodel there there was some electrical work in there as well in the description um this is just the title of it that would have fallen under what was going on at the house however the electrical work was not done to plan understood and then I see on page three of exhibit number three it's references some revised floor plan do you know if they as part of this permit that the owner did indeed increase the heated square footage of the structure do you know if that was part of the permit I don't know okay and just to be clear because I know we had some storms come by this certainly looks like it was before the Hurricanes but were these was this work done was it NE necessary because of damage from a storm event tornado or other natural disaster no this the final inspection date so after everything had been done was August 12th 2024 um our storms that affected the island were not until the end of September um so no this was not affected by any storm or natural disaster all right thank you Miss Mills uh Mr tras I know I asked Miss Mills a lot of questions so do you have any follow-up questions for her based on what I asked no I don't thank you all right is there any representative of Aurora Investment Group LLC or r capital Group LLC here any representative of the owner all right come on up sir and if you can give me your name and your capacity that you're appearing here on behalf of the respondents sure that's Eric Ling and I'm one of the partners with remm all right Eric how do you spell your last name l i n g Ling just like it sounds okay correct you are a manager of RM Capital group correct okay all right um sir you've heard what Miss Mills has said I'm going to give you an opportunity in just a minute to tell me anything you want to tell me but you have the right to cross-examine or ask questions of M Mills based upon what she testified to do you have any questions for her I I mean I I would first like to start with we started this renovation project May of 2023 oh no and I'm going to give you a chance to tell me all but do you have any questions for her based on what she just testified yeah so the the only correspondents that I've seen or any of us have seen was what I received and signed for okay in January I we didn't see anything prior to that um what I was aware of was the failed inspection um and Mr DeSantis did tell us why so the only thing that was added was a new electrical box there was absolutely no overhead work that was do and again I I want you to tell me all of this but right now do you have any question unaware the the only stuff that I was I to be very honest I didn't know the details of this hearing today until just now when you reviewed everything that you said you had sent out I haven't seen any of that all right I this is the first time seeing all of this stuff okay well I tell you what it doesn't sound like you have any questions for Miss Mills okay so um now why don't you go ahead and tell me I've been listening to everything you have to say sounds like this is the first you're hearing about this so what would you like to tell me about this well we we started this project in in May of 2023 um due to things that happen along the way it was delayed and we had a lapse in the permitting um because we just stopped work we had to pause it was a it was a capital issue we we needed to raise more funds to finish the project so and July I filed for an extension to continue with it um along the way we realized we needed to change out the electrical box and that's why that work was done during that period of the permitting um all new electrical was included in the original permitting so all new electrical throughout um it was a complete tear down gut and rebuild of the property and that's that's all in the original permitting you you'd be able to find it all in in there um during the so we had the failed electrical we were made aware of okay you got to take it underground I was very confused because we had we had no we had no knowledge of this so apparently this went into effect in 2024 I didn't realize extending a permit would would not extend it back to the original 2023 date um and apparently it did um but the we're we're talking two different things here because you're saying we did overhead work we did not we did not touch anything coming to the house it was only the electrical panel itself was upgraded all right sir anything else you'd like to tell me any other Witnesses you'd like to call or anything like that before I let Mr TR questions well so in in between all of this we had worked out with our electrician okay if this is our only option because like you said Mr DeSantis said we had to bring it underground we had worked out with our electrician to to get us a quote to bring it underground we' agreed to all of that before we moved forward with it and we could do anything permitting wise to to make that happen Helen hit you know that's the story everybody's dealing with nowadays um and once that happened we took on four feet of water in the house whatever we had to go through Insurance we've been waiting on insurance money to file for another extension of our permit and continue so we can remediate and and complete this project that's been going on far too long um and during the course of that we were going to take the electric underground properly like we were directed to do so but like I said before that being brought to our attention we just we had no no knowledge of having to to bring the existing because we didn't touch any of the overhead just the existing underground so that was all new knowledge to us we were not trying to violate anything we didn't realize we had um until Mr DeSantis mentioned it but like I said I I haven't seen any correspondence from the city until this summons and and that's it that's why I'm here all right Mr tras do you have any questions for Mr Ling I've got a few questions sir yes um so you don't disagree that these two code violations exist on the property right now you're just looking for more time in which to bring it into compliance isn't that correct that is absolutely correct but but but the overhead piece I I completely disagree with we did not touch any of the the overhead stuff okay um have you had the opportunity to review the code section that you were cited with um I have not okay I mean other than what was presented in in the certified letter that I received okay so you read that section 14-1 123 in the letter that you received to be here today correct okay okay and you understood that that statute that code section's been an existence for over 20 years here in the city of Madera Beach I realized that after reading that okay and you had a commercial electrical contractor do the electrical work on your property correct that is correct yes okay what was the name of the electrical contractor famous electric and does famous electric is it properly licensed in the State of Florida as electrician yes they are okay and did did they attempt to pull the permit for the electrical panel replacement or or is that someone else the that that was all to my knowledge included in the original permit um if if not I to my knowledge no they did not they were going off what was in the original permit for electrical okay um it was already approved so I mean beyond that I I'm I'm unaware if they tried to pull a permit or not what work has been done on this property since um hurricane hel hit nothing we've been waiting on insurance money to because uh once you submit for an extension you're on the clock um it's a three-month extension so I've been waiting on insurance money once received was going to ex uh submit for the extension but in the interim if I would have known that we had to proceed differently with the electrical we would have already moved forward and button the up so you have you have I was just unaware that we even needed to I didn't realize we were on a time I I just like I said this was the first correspondence that I received so I was just unaware okay so you have the capabilities then of getting this property into compliance AB absolutely without a doubt so what time frame do you think that you could you think you can get it done within the next 45 days a month and a half absolutely yes okay and we're we're talking specific to the electric corre yes nothing yes absolutely yeah yeah for sure right no we're not talking about prior to Helen hitting we we were already in the works of making this happen I just didn't know to what extent we needed to go because we didn't touch the overhead so so so that's still existing the only thing we touched was the panel so the panel was upgraded so who is the person then at these two companies that owns the property that the city should be dealing with is it you it should be me yes okay so what is the address that the city should be using for you personally um as a manager of this corpor 5118 pal meow Point Drive the one that I received the the this summons correspondence all can you repeat that one more time then because I was talking while you started sorry 5118 PA Meadow Point Drive in pal meow okay all right um that's my my home address and my corporate address okay that's good at least we we have that address now corre appreciate that um okay I don't have any other questions for you thank you Mr Ling just a couple questions um can you go back Miss Mills to either page 41 or 42 of the packet there there you go right yeah go to the next one here so Mr Ling if you see this picture this is what Miss testified too what I see in the middle of this picture is what appears to be a pole with two wires going out and if you go and then the old what appear to be old electrical junction boxes on the floor and if you go to the next page I see what it appears to me to at least be a new pole going into a new electrical box do you see that yes all right so you said you didn't touch anything over we didn't touch anything overhead so this this was previously a duplex um so the a meter had to come off there's some other stuff that came off with it I I can't tell you exactly what um I just know what we paid for all right let me I'm going to get what did you pay for all the work that you did um approximately the entire house wiring everything I I believe it was like 12 Grand okay and and for everything that was spent on the project how much did you spend to improve this uh you know the whole home everything uh I would have to look at those numbers I don't have that information off the top of my head right now is it over 15 grand for the entire renovation yes yeah okay for sure yeah but all of that was approved I'm not I'm we're on here on two things sir number one is this work that you see pictured here the electrical box okay and the city's position is that that was not properly per permitted and the and the second issue the city's raising is that because this is considered by the city a new uh you new you'd have to take those wires coming in the power coming in and put it underground that's the cities telling me those are the two codes that you violated that we're here on today correct now I I did speak with Mr DeSantis and I told him that that overhead was not new so the fact that it's mentioned is new is I mean this is this is new news to me let me ask you that is the this was a duplex and now is a single resident single family okay and is it all under the same permit yes no same address same same street address yes absolutely okay so as part of this project have you changed the square footage of the residents no we haven't all right it's all the original scope all the original permitting nothing's changed all right so I I want to make sure that I give you enough time to get this done you mentioned 45 days Mr tras asked you if that was a time so to do both the undergrounding which is what the city would require as well as get the electrical permit submitted and approved you feel confident 45 days you can do this um what what's the alternative well I mean if you want well let me ask you this is anybody living in this property right now no no no it's unlivable we we had finished it it was ready to because we were going to keep it as a rental um and we were all but finished before we failed the inspection and do you have a you have a a contractor still involved uh we we do yes and you have an electrical subcontractor some the electric the all the same players are still involved it was just a matter of filing for the for another extension all right correct okay anything else you want to tell me sir um no I I think that that we've covered it all right Mr tras I asked a lot of questions so do you have any followup questions based on what I asked just um on the photograph number 42 if certainly that is on the screen you don't disagree that that's a new pipe coming from the meter box all the way to the top correct I unless I go see that in person I I couldn't tell you but I know I know for a fact that we did not touch the overhead and and I did not pay for it okay let's move back to page 41 you see that pipe in the corner how it's all painted white I do okay and if we could go to page 42 it is this pipe painted white that goes from the meter box all the way to the top I can't tell okay all right so I'm I'm we're I'm here to make sure that we stay within codee and that whatever is required is is remedied okay so by no means am I saying hey we don't want to do this because whatever you say we have to do I'm going to do my only push back is if that was existing why do we now need to bring it underground okay um that that was that's the the only thing that that I have an issue with all right sir thank you very much you're welcome all right uh I'm opening it up for public comment is there anyone any member of the public who has information relating to this code enforcement proceeding that would like to come forward and address me okay seeing none we'll go ahead and close public comment um Mr tras I don't know if I heard from Miss Mills what you guys are proposing as a reasonable daily fine if the property doesn't come into compliance so it's the city's position that the property is in violation of section 86-52 and section 114-123 we're asking that you give the uh Property Owners 45 days which would be until March 13th of this year 45 days out uh should they fail to come into compliance within 45 days that a $250 a day fine would be instituted for every day thereafter that it remains in non-compliance all right thank you Mr tras U sir I'm going to give you a little bit more time than what the city has just driving around I see that there's still a lot of buildings that need work but it sounds like youve got a contractor so I'm going to give you 60 days to bring this property into compliance would encourage you certainly to talk to Miss Mills or Mr danis about this I do think that $250 a day is a reasonable fine for this type of violation because it truly is potentially a health safety issue anytime you know there's unpermitted electrical work even though it may have all been done 100% fine uh you know unpermitted electrical work just makes me nervous so um 60 days to bring it into compliance $250 a day fine after that sir if you have some issue as long as you're working diligently to try to bring it into compliance I maintain and Reserve jurisdiction so if you are getting close to that 60 days and whether it's an insurance issue inspection issue contractor issue you need more time please come see the city on that and you can come back before me if you want but that'll be my ruling today that I do find that based the evidence presented to me both code sections cited uh the city's Pro proven that there is a violation of section 86-52 as well as section 14-223 I'm going to give the uh owners 60 days coming to compliance and $250 day fine after that all right thank you that concludes the hearing on ce2 2475 is there any other matter before me today Mr tras no sir thank you that concludes today's hearing thank you all for coming for