All right. Good afternoon everybody. Uh we're here today for the variance special exception use special magistrate hearing as well as the code enforcement special magistrate hearing. We're going to do the variance case first and then we'll move on to the code enforcement. So, if you are here for code
enforcement, you are in the right place. Uh, just stick around and we will get to the code enforcement matters after the variance hearing. Once again, welcome to the city beach variance special exception special magistrate hearing. My name is Bart Valdez and I'm the appointed special magistrate to hear
today's cases. I'm a practicing attorney. I've been a member of the Florida Bar for over 25 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 heard in the order that they appear on the agenda. At this time, I have 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. The city will present its case and staff report, and the applicant may ask questions of the city's representative. The applicant will present his or her case supported by witnesses and evidence, and the city may cross-examine each witness. Public
comment will then 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. 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 will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and the applicant will be provided with a copy by mail.
Additionally, you're 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 few moments, a city attorney will administer the oath and swear in any
witnesses. If you expect to talk to me today during the hearing on your variance, then you will 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 in the code enforcement case and you plan on speaking during those uh cases,
please also rise and be sworn. Mr. Tras, >> anyone that's going to speak, stand up, raise your right hand. I'm going to swear you under oath. All right. Now, we got everybody right. You swear that the testimony about to give today is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> Okay. I didn't get an audible sound from half of you. Okay. Thank you. All right. The first matter today is V 2026-01 for the property located at 422 137th
Avenue Circle. Is the city ready to proceed? >> City is ready to proceed. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. City would call Joseph Petaglia uh for the city's witness in this case. Joe, if you could state your occupation, your job responsibilities here at the city.
>> Yes, my name is Joe Pataglia. I'm a planner too for the city of Meteor Beach. I'm a certified flood plane manager. My primary responsibilities include reviewing development applications for compliance with the local regulations. >> And how long have you been employed here at the city? >> About two and a half years.
>> All right. Are you familiar with the variance application that is on the agenda today? Variance application 2026-01. >> Yes. >> Okay. And are you the person that prepared the staff report and recommendation? >> Yes. >> All right. And why don't you go ahead and present your staff report?
>> Sure. So this is for V 2025 2026-01, excuse me. Trying to pull it up. Sorry, just pulling it up on the screen. application is V2026-01. The applicant is Paul Misillo. Uh also the property owner and this is for the
address 422 137th Avenue Circle, Madiraa Beach 33708. The zoning is R2 low density multifamily residential. The request is to increase the maximum structure coverage from 40% to 48%. And the specific code provision
is section 110-208. Maximum law coverage subsection one. Maximum area of a lot or parcel to be covered by structures shall be 40% of the total area. Background. On March 17th,
2025, Paul Misilla, the owner of 422 137th Avenue Circle, submitted a variance request, V2025-03, to reduce the required setbacks on the lot with the plan to build a new home within the newly requested setbacks. The
variance was granted and helped to address and partially correct the pre-existing and extremely non-conforming setback issues on the site. See V2025-C3 for further details. With the focus of the variance being adjusting the
setbacks, the proposed footprint of the new structure was not reviewed by staff for compliance with other code requirements. As a result, it was overlooked that the proposed footprint created a violation of the zoning district's 40% structure coverage limitation. With the pre-existing
structure coverage at less than 36% which is in exhibit 2, the most structure coverage the property being able to obtain by rate by right being about 35% uh had the lot been vacant and no variance granted shown in attachment
three. There is no byright allowance to exceed the structure coverage limitation. On October 17th, 2025, the applicant submitted building permit application 2025-4294-BGDR to build a new home in maximizing each of the setbacks that was approved under
the variance V2025-3 which was denied by the city on December 3rd, 2025 partially due to the structure coverage issue. Subsequently, the applicant met with city staff to discuss his options where city staff informed the applicant that the structure
coverage violation does not appear to meet the criteria for a variance. However, the applicant decided to apply due to the high cost and burden to redesign the plans. The plan submitted with the building permit application as well as the comments from the city have
been included as exhibits four and five. Due to the circumstances, city staff have waved the normally refundable normally non-refundable 1,800 variance application fee for this hearing. Criterion analysis.
The first criteria is that a special circumstance and condition must exist which is peculiar to the land, building or other structures for which the variance is sought and which do not apply generally to the lands, buildings and other structures in the same district, same zoning districts. Special
conditions to be considered shall include but are not limited to the following substandard or irregularly shaped lot. If the site involves the utilization of an existing lot that has unique physical circumstances or conditions including
irregularly shaped, narrowness, shallowness, the size of the lot is less than the minimum required district regulations. Um, and that's the one that staff is recommending. The aerial from panel's county property appraisers website provided in exhibit 6
shows that the lot lot 30 in the image is sim similar in size and shape to those around it. However, lot 30 is not perfectly squared and is substandard being only approximately 3,000 square feet as opposed to the 4,000 square feet
required for a single family home under the zoning district regulations for a minimum site area. The depth is also about 5 ft less than the minimum required 80 ft. Staffs finds this criteria to have been satisfied.
However, a variance must meet all six criteria. Criteria two is that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The self-created hardship shall not justify a variance. Staff findings. The applicant purchased the
property in 1989 and although the house which meets the structure coverage requirements was built before the 40% lock coverage requirement was codified. This coverage requirement has existed since at least 1971 per ordinance number 1971-380
and the plat for lot 30 was approved in 1941 which would indicate that the applicant bought a property that they knew the size limitations of. V 2025-03 was stated to meet this criteria as the pre-existing home already had a legally
non-conforming setbacks which were not the result of the actions of the applicant. However, the pre-existing structure met the code requirements for structure coverage. Criteria three, granting the variance will not confer the applicant any special privilege that is denied to
other buildings, leather lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Staff findings in viewing the aerial provide as exhibit six. It can be seen that lots 20 through 30, lot three being 30 being the subject
property all over for similar depth, shape, and area. Of these lots, the only one that city staff has a copy of the permitted new building plans for is 316 137th Avenue Circle, which was built in 2017,
as shown on the permitted site plan provided on exhibit 7, 316, 137th Avenue, was forced to rebuild under the 40% structure coverage required by code while also adhering to more stringent setback requirements in effect at the time. Based on the site data table on
sheet A1 of permit number 1247, the structure coverage for 316 137th Avenue is 35.77% which is more than 12% less than what the applicant is requesting through this variance.
The second and most recently built house of the group is 244 137th Avenue Circle built in 2001. Although the city does not have the permitted plans or a survey of this property on file based on Panelis County Property Appraisers data
in attachment 8, the property appears to have approximately a 36% structure coverage, more than 11% less than what the applicant is requesting through this variance and under the city's 40% structure coverage requirement. Allowing the applicant to violate the structure coverage would create a special
privilege that was denied to other property owners in the district. In his application, the applicant provides two examples of properties that currently exceed the 40% structure coverage requirement. The first example brought by the applicant is 420 137th
Avenue Circle, which was granted V 2013-01 on March 14th, 2013 to reduce the front setback from 20 ft to 13 ft and proportionally increase the structure coverage. The applicant for today's variance obtained a similar front
setback reduction through V2025-03 while also receiving a reduction to the side setbacks to their side setback and rear setback which V203-01 did not approve. It is important to note that this variance was approved prior to
ordinance 2019-16 being adopted in June 2020, which now requires all six variance criteria to be met in full rather than just the majority of the criteria, making a variance stricter to obtain now than it was back when that variance was granted.
Since the adoption of ordinance 2019-16, the city has been making an effort to correct non-conformities rather than create new ones as the city has an extensive history of approving variances that would otherwise would not have been approved. It is also important to consider that variance 2013-01
was granted for an existing structure to allow for better configuration of parking, not a new structure which would which will have the parking on the ground floor like this building will. In the staff report for V 2013-01 starting with criteria 3 as well as on
the order it is explicitly stated that the variance was needed specifically for this purpose that the home's historic integrity was to be maintained and that a new structure would have to conform to code requirements. Additionally, as stipulated of ver as a stipulation of V
2013-01, as stated in criteria six of that staff report, the property owner was required to remove the shed, which is another item that counts towards the maximum structure coverage. Due to the reasons provided, staff finds that the examples
presented in exhibits 7 through 10 are more comparable to this project. But nonetheless, if V 2013-01 was to cons be considered, it should be noted that the site was still only granted a 46% structure coverage based
on the staff report, which is less than what the applicant is requesting through this variance. V 2013-01 has been included in exhibit 11 for the magistrate review. The sec second example provided by the
applicant is 429 137th Avenue Circle. Although the applicant references this as a variance, there is no variance granted for a structural coverage at the site. The number referenced should be RDV209-01, which is a redevelopment application to be able to maintain the non-conforming
density, not to be confused with V209-01, which was for a variance for an unrelated property that was withdrawn. This property was already over the structure coverage, which city code allows to be rebuilt to maintain the non-conforming structure coverage within
the same footprint. This example is further discussed in criteria six. Okay. Criteria four is that a 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. Sub part B of this code or section 14-205 of the code of ordinances and would work undue an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. A literal interpretation of the code would allow for structure coverage of up
to about 1,29 square feet which is 3,22 square ft lot based on a based on the sign and sealed plans times 40%. Plus can levered rooms or balconies which do not count against the structure coverage and
multiple stories. The previous structure occupied 1,66 square feet based on the property appraisers website and was only one story. Additionally, as demonstrated with the exhibits referenced in the previous criteria, several other houses
on similar lots have been able to or are being required to adhere to the 40% structure coverage requirement. With this evidence, staff finds that that a literal interpretation of the code would be reasonable and would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other property owners properties in the same zoning district. Nor would it create an undue hardship on the applicant. Criteria number five is that the grants variance granted is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land. staff findings is that
based on exhibit seven and eight I outlined in criteria three which both have similarly sized and configured lots the previous building structure coverage and and the building and the previous building structure coverage the request to increase the structure coverage by
over 12% from what was existing is not the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the land this variance is being requested out of convenience not necess not necessity criteria six the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purposes of the
city's land development regulations or court of ordinances when it relates to 14-205 and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff findings. The 40% maximum law coverage standard has been established in the city code since at least 1971 and variances to this request are rarely granted reflecting its importance in implementing the intent and purpose of the land development regulations. The
standard exists to limit overdevelopment, maintain neighborhood character, protect drainage, storm water function, and preserve open space and environmental quality. Granting the requested variance to increase the structure coverage would be inconsistent with these objectives as it would
intensify development beyond what is permitted for similarly situated properties potentially contributing to increased runoff reduced pvious area and visual overcrowding. Such impacts may be injurious to the surrounding area and detrimental to public welfare by setting
an adverse precedent and undermining the longstanding regulatory framework designed to protect community health safety and character. It is also important to take into consideration that 429 137th Avenue Circle, one of the examples brought to
attention by the applicant, was permitted to exceed the structure coverage um and as such received numerous complaints from the public for being permitted to sorry, let me restate that sentence. It is also important to take into
consideration that 429 137th Avenue Circle, one of the examples brought to attention by the applicant, was permitted to exceed the structure coverage, has received numerous complaints from the public for being permitted regarding these objectives.
The staff recommendation is that city staff recognizes that it was due to the approval of V2025-03 and a lack of warning from the staff that led the applicant to believe to reasonably believe that they would be able to build a new home in the reduced
setbacks that were approved. For the reasons discussed, however, city staff cannot recommend approval of this variance. and then included um I listed all the attachments that were referenced in the
report. Um and then I'll just jump to the aerial real quick and then in criteria three I mentioned lots 20 through 30. Uh so just to put it
a visual on the screen that's attachment six and then the subject property is the one in red which is lot 30 and then the other ones mentioned are also within this vicinity.
That's the end of the staff report. >> Okay. Uh Joe, if you could also go over the notice requirement, whether it's been met, and uh the documentation reflecting that that notice requirement has been met. >> Sure. So, following the code of ordinances, uh
public notice of mailing and posting has been done and that's been included as attachment number 10, which I'll show Attachment 10 begins on page 97 of the agenda
packet. Uh the affidavit of posting uh was done by Lisa. Uh affidavit of mailing also done by Lisa. And then I we've included a copy of all the mailing labels to the adjacent properties within 300 ft that
received uh notice of the hearing. Uh we included a copy of the public notice that was mailed as well as a notice of intent to be an affected party. Uh the city did not receive any notices of intent uh for or against the application.
And then on page 105 is a picture of those postings. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. >> All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages 3
through 105 of the agenda packet. Uh, M. Petra, I just want to make sure I understand the city's position is that the applicant has not met criteria 2, three, four, five, or six. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Is the applicant here?
Anybody on behalf of the applicant? All right. Who wants to speak first? And again, I'm going to give you an opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me. This is your opportunity, however, to cross-examine Mr. Petra to ask him any questions. So, >> okay,
>> come on up. Uh, give me your full name, please. >> All right, Mr. Misilla, this is your opportunity to ask any questions that you want in regard to the testimony that you've just heard. Again, this is cross-examination only. I'm going to give you a chance in just a few minutes
to present any evidence you want to present to me. Say anything you want to say to me and show me any documents you want. But do you have questions for Mr. Petralia? on page three of your report. Um, you mentioned that I should have known the limitations of my property when I
bought it in 1989. You you mentioned that I should have known the limitations of my property when I bought it 1989. Is this in page three of the packet or or or my report? >> Three of the Well, it's the special
magistrate. It's the uh Yeah, it's your >> criteria two. >> It's page three of your report. It's >> okay. So, page five of the packet. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, you say that it would indicate that the applicant bought a property that they knew the size limitations of. >> Yes.
>> So, you're saying I I envisioned having a hurricane destroy my house. The city tell me that I cannot rebuild that house or fix it and that I would not be able to build a house after I got a variance to build a 30 to 48 house that I should have known all that in 1989 when I was
27 years old. >> No, the my response to the criteria was more that the code existed, the 40% structure coverage uh existed, but no, I didn't wasn't intending that you would predict all of these unforeseen circumstances. Well, the way you wrote
it was would indicate that the applicant bought a property they knew the size limitations of. That's all. Um, next, uh, staff findings, same page. You mention as shown on the permitted site plans on
exhibit 7, 316 137th Avenue was forced to rebuild under the 40% coverage required by the code. Do you have any documentation that they applied for a variance or they tried to build a bigger house? >> I search for any variances that they >> But you have no knowledge that they were
forced. >> Correct. So I guess the a more accurate way to say that is that they did adhere to. I don't have any documentation that they were requesting something further and were denied it. No. >> Yeah. Well, I think I'd look at writing things like that in the future when you
say you were forced to do things when they obviously there's no evidence at all that they were forced to do this. Um the house at 240 on the next page. Um the second most recently built house of
the group is 244 137th Avenue built in 2001. You say that allowing the uh actually you say that they met the code >> requirements. Let's see. Although Penelis County data appears
36.6%. You say you're talking about how great it is and how it's under the 40% coverage, but did you look at the fact that it doesn't meet setback requirements? >> No, I only went we didn't have that documentation, so I went with what I had. >> Pretty easy. If you look at the same property appraiser website data, the
building is 40t long. >> The lot is 75 ft long. There's only 35 ft left and there's 45 feet required for setbacks. >> I was just focusing on structure coverage. >> And then you also say uh another one you
say no. Uh allowing the city Okay. You say allowing the applicant to violate the structure coverage would create a special privilege that was denied to other property owners in the district. You have no proof they were denied.
>> You don't have proof that they they applied for any more that they had a variance that was denied. >> But you're saying they they wanted to build bigger. You don't know that they wanted to build bigger. They may have wanted to build a small house. >> That's possible. Correct. um
on 420 137th Avenue, my next door neighbor, you referred to the variance um was from the front setback from 20 ft to 13 feet and you uh and a proportional increase in structure coverage.
The you also stated that that is 46%. And the if you use your current method of measuring structure coverage including support columns, it's 47% not 46%. 1% less than I'm asking for the way you're measuring it. Um I'll go into
that later but uh and you you kind of play at you say which variance uh you say that the variance I'm requesting is that I variance 253 receive reduction in side setback and rear setback as opposed to this property
but their property is six feet off the seaw wall. There's a reason they didn't request a variance from the rear because their existing house is six feet off the seaw wall with the first support column. Okay. Um,
the city has an I thought this was interesting. You said the city a little further down you say the city has an extensive history of approving variances that otherwise would not have been approved. What did you mean by that? >> Uh just in the city's history for
example um in the 70s and 80s we granted a lot of flood plane variances. Uh so it was more a general statement that we're trying to bring things into conforming into conformance. Next page. Well, that's where the 47% comes in is on the next page. You say it's 46%
structure coverage, but based on your your measurements, it'd be 47%. >> I just grabbed that from the staff report on the on that variance. >> And actually, the magistrate granted them a proportional increase to meet whatever they were building to that size. He didn't and
Grant the 46. Um you mentioned uh the second example that I have 429 137th Avenue um redevelopment 2019 or redevelopment application 2019-01. Um,
you say this property was already over structure coverage which city code allows to be rebuilt to maintain the nonconforming structure coverage. Can you show me that in a code? Does I have a copy of that ordinance and it doesn't
say anything about that? >> Yep. So, it's an interpretation. I'll put it up on the screen. So the ordinance says that single family may re rebuild within the same footprint if it complies with all other codes. Um,
and the way that's that always been enforced is that the same footprint if it's already if the footprint is over the structure coverage, then that same footprint can be rebuilt. So, it doesn't specifically talk about setbacks either, but obviously that's implied. So, that's just been the way that the city's interpreted the code.
>> So, it says you must comply >> with all other >> other existing regulatory codes and provisions of the land development regulations. >> Correct. And our interpretation is that >> you haven't you have nothing in writing this. >> I I'd object. >> Let him finish. You ask him a question. I want to hear the answer. Go ahead,
sir. >> So our interpretation is that when it says maybe rebuilds within the same footprint uh historically and currently the same footprint means either setbacks, structure coverage, anything to the actual footprint. So obviously it
wouldn't be our interpretation would be that it uh if we were forcing them to meet the structure coverage it wouldn't be the same footprint. So and when it says all other codes the way we interpret that is anything that isn't specific to the footprint such as ISR.
>> But you have no list of which of those codes it is or not have to be applied. No, I agree that this code is can be interpreted multiple ways and it's a code section we're working on re rewarding and revisiting, but that's historically how we've interpreted it.
And I'll apologize. I'm a little emotional because I bought this house in '89. kind of been living in it my whole life and I was kind of planning on living there the rest of my life and I feel like I'm really getting kicked at uh trying to rebuild the structure but I am a little more emotional than I
normally would be. Um the next staff findings um the previous structure occupied 166 square feet. It's actually a little bigger. It's 185. If you're considering
structures including decks then it would 1180 square feet just to clarify that. Um you say additionally as demonstrated with exhibits referenced in this previous criteria several other houses on similar lots have been able to or are
being required to adhere to the 40% structure coverage requirement. Oh, from what I saw, you had two that you brought up and one you have no records on, but you kind of got the information off the property appraisal website and the other one and you have no evidence no evidence
that either one of those tried to build anything bigger or chose to build anything bigger. >> Yep. >> Um >> I I can speak to if you would like me to. >> Yeah, sorry. >> Uh so I could have re I should have rewarded that. Originally I had four exhibits um and two of them that I took
out were um people that are trying to rebuild over the 40% on similar lots and we told them that they would have to require be required to adhere to that. They haven't submitted building permit applications and I took those exhibits out. I just forgot to reward that. Um,
so the exhibits presented were examples that that the city brought were examples of people that were uh that the permit issued had them adhering to the 40%. You made a statement. The variance is
being requested out of convenience, not necessity. I think that's a difference of opinion we both have between that I have with you on that. I got a or my substantial damage letter from the city required me to rebuild. I came to the city and got variance request to build a
30 by 48 building and I'm here again because of what happened after that. Question. Questions, sir. Questions. >> Sorry. >> Okay. You need to be asking questions, not making statements. >> Okay. Um, the standard exists to limit
redevelopment, maintain neighborhood character, protect drainage. Doesn't your ISR requirement protect drainage, not structure coverage? >> That also protects drainage. Yes. >> Yeah. But how does ISR includes the structure?
>> So your impervious surface ratio if I'm meeting that requirement then I'm not potentially causing drainage problems >> potentially. Correct. Yes. I'm not an NG. You would actually be better to speak to that than I would. So I would agree with you. >> And I am meeting the ISR requirement.
>> Correct. >> Um you say the same thing on and storm water function. The ISR is related to storm water not structure coverage because the ISR contains you would agree. >> I would say the structure coverage
factors into that but the ISR is more important >> but it's part of the ISR. It is included in the ISR. Correct. >> You mention potentially contributing to increased runoff, reduced pvious area.
Same comment. Isn't that the impervious surface ratio that I am meeting? >> That's correct. That should have been rewarded to take the pvious area out of it. You are meeting the ISR >> and increased runoff. >> Um increased runoff. I'm not I'm not sure. structure coverage could there
could still be more runoff but you are meeting the ISR. >> Well, I I take issue because it says such impacts may be injurous to surrounding areas detrimental to public welfare. You have pretty seriously strong statements and you're throwing in things that aren't true. You're saying
that I have more than I'm allowed and I'm going to create more runoff when I have the same surface area everybody else is allowed. Impervious surface ratio is I'm meeting that requirement. >> You are meeting the impervious surface ratio. Correct. Um,
and the last one is the 429 137th Avenue that was allowed to rebuild within the existing footprint. You say the structure. You say um it was permitted to exceed the structure
coverage has received numerous complaints from the public for being permitted regarding this precise objective. Are you sure the complaints were about structure coverage or were they about parking? So the complaints that I'm aware of were that they there
was an increased drainage which could have been I'm not they might have also been over the ISR. I'm not sure if they are or weren't. Um but uh my objective there was saying that uh there they were able to violate the structure coverage uh through the rebuilding after
catastrophic loss or the redevelopment process. um and possibly as a result, possibly not as a result. The city also received received uh complaints about drainage and other issues. >> What other things are they allowed to violate? >> To my knowledge,
uh >> I don't know everything that they were able to violate. I just know they were able to rebuild in the same footprint which we interpreted as able to violate the setbacks and structure codes. >> How much room do they have for parking in front of their garage? their parking requirements. I'm not sure
if they met those or not >> because most of my neighbors are complaining about the vehicles parking in the road because there isn't enough room in front of the garage to park and their setbacks were way violated on that property. It's not the impervious surface ratio that people are complaining about. It's the fact that
they're parking in the road. At least my neighbors and I live there. But that's enough. Uh oh, and I got a few more, I guess. Uh I I guess I could ask you about one more.
>> If these are the ones with the solar panels, I'm forgetting the name. Eco Village. No, >> they're just six homes that were built in. >> I'd object. This is outside of the I'll >> the course of the >> direct examination. He's not.
Sorry. I'm not an attorney. I always make mistakes like that. >> Sir, do you have any other questions for Mr. Tragia? >> All right. All right. Mr. Tras, anything else? >> City has no additional witnesses. >> All right.
Okay. Uh, at this time, Mr. Misilio, it's your opportunity to come tell me anything and everything you want to tell me or defer to somebody else. That's fine. >> Can I have a a neighbor first? >> Sure. That that that'll be fine. Sir, just give me your uh full name. >> Yeah,
>> I'm Richard Marunis. I live at 401 137th Avenue Circle. >> Richard, please uh just spell your last name for me, please. >> M A R K U N A S. >> Okay. >> I live lot 85. I've been there for 13 years. >> All right. Sir, what would you like to
tell me in support of the application or about this application? No, I I um I just you know you know um approve you know based on like what I've seen the his like building plans and as he he talked about earlier and I'm just you
know kind of surprised some of the other newer homes that were built and and and all of the complaints made compared to what what he's trying to build. So, you know, I'm I'm just here as a, you know, a neighbor to, you know, prove. So,
>> all right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Tras, any questions? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. You have a seat. All right. Sir, what else would you like to tell me and show me? Hopefully there's some overhead that can Oh, there isn't. That's going to be a pain. >> Well, that's all right, sir. What you
can do is just show Mr. Tras anything that you want to show me. Once you show him, you can show me and then I'll take a look at it and listen to anything you have to say. >> Okay? >> There's no rush, sir. This is your time, your opportunity. So take your time and we're here as long as we need to be here
so you can be fully heard on everything. >> I appreciate that, sir. Okay, that's fine. >> No objection. All right, I'll go ahead and mark as exhibit number two the variance request support letter
signed by David Erinsson. And exhibit number three will be the variance request support letter signed by Daho Matthysse and Jerry Matthysse. Give
me one second, sir, just to read these. All right, sir. Go ahead. I'd like to start with how we got here. Um, and if I can find the drawing, I'll have them look at that, too. Um,
not those. It's from Yeah, that's not in the packet. >> Okay. All right, sir. You want me to put this into evidence for today's hearing? >> Okay. Do you need it to refer to during
your testimony? >> Okay. I'll go ahead and accept it into evidence. Any objection, Mr. Tras? >> No objection. I'll go ahead and accept it into evidence as exhibit number four. >> Yeah, sure. >> Just I I can I tell you what, I think
I've got that in here somewhere. >> The same one. >> Yeah, page 77. All right. Why don't you take this back, Sery? You can talk from it at the microphone. I'll look at it here in my packet. I I know I saw that somewhere. So, give me one second. >> Yeah, he included the whole package from the previous area, I believe.
>> Yeah, give me one moment and I'll find that. I could have swore last time I was here we had an overhead, but I guess not. >> All right, sir. I'm looking at it. Go ahead. >> Um, it's actually the one from the previous. I'm just
>> I might not have included that. I apologize. It's not in the packet. There's a similar one on page 21 of the packet, but it's not >> I'm looking at this right here. >> Yeah, it's totally different. >> Okay, then go ahead and describe it to me and then >> it's not >> Okay. All right. Go ahead, sir. Just
talk at the microphone. So, we've got a record of it. Go ahead and tell me what you want to tell me. >> Um, if you look at that drawing, it says in light blue proposed FEMA compliant single family residence. And there's arrows pointing to the box. If
you look at the dimensions, it says 30 feet wide. 48 plus or minus feet long. So, it's 30 by 48 is the proposed residence. And then the dash line shows the existing residence. The >> if you look at the blue box towards the
bottom of the page. >> Okay. Both of those. >> Well, the dark black line represents the home and that's what those setbacks were asked for was the 30x 48 building. And then the side setback we made it bigger
so it was reasonable. It was 6 feet and we we went to well it's point4 in the very front. That was what we needed a variance for. So we'd have 30 feet wide. But that is the building that I got a variance to build was 30 by 48. And that's the only reason I wanted to show
you that was because it was pretty specific that I had dimensions and it's not a building envelope or a setback envelope because that would be parallel to the property lines. It is as it says FEMA compliant new residence proposed residence. So that's
where I was started at. Um and this is in the packet. The next drawing um they have on the screen. I can give you a copy. >> Okay. I I definitely have that one. So
>> it's page 21. We don't need another copy. >> All right. Do you want me to put it in the record as an exhibit or do you want to heave it? Okay. Um, >> sure. I'll go ahead and mark this as exhibit number five. As you can see on that one,
I highlighted the actual building that is on the first floor in blue. So, the house on the left is the Matthysse home that was referred to. It's 420, I believe. I'm starting to get
my addresses mixed up, but it's my next door neighbor's house that was mentioned in the staff report, and that's the one that they added the garage on to. Um, but as you can see, the original house is the dashed line. The garage is way bigger than the
original house. The rear setback, well, what this exhibit shows is what I'm proposing to build is the blue area, which is smaller. It's 1140 square ft of first floor building. My garage. Their first floor area is 147
ft measured to the columns. This whole thing has come up because the city says structure coverage should be measured to the support columns and one of their ordinances. And other parts of the ordinance, they say it's measured to the building walls.
And if you measure mine to those support columns for the open porch in the back, the open balconies, I violate the code. But if you don't measure to those three columns, I don't violate the code. What I built for the first floor, the walls, meets the code. They told me we
got to measure to those three columns that are put in for hurricane uplift to help my balcony not blow off. The city even told me if I take those three little boxes you see at the edge of the porch, if I remove those three
columns, I can build this exact house. They have no problem with the balconies if I don't have those three columns holding them up. >> Okay, the I'll show you one more. Okay, thank you.
>> No objection. >> No objection. Okay, Mark, this is exhibit number six. All right, sir. Go ahead and tell me what you want to tell me about this exhibit. I brought that to show that that balconies are separate from the building structure. The building structure is held up by the garage wall.
The balconies have their own trusses going out and they're being supported by those three columns. If you cut off all that in red or pink that I highlighted, the building is still fine. the building the building trust that can levers out I believe four feet on one on
the kitchen which is the bottom but it doesn't can lever out on the whole thing and all that is held up by the garage which is the blue area highlighted that meets their code and they're saying that those three support columns that hold up
those balconies and the roof over the balcony are part of the building coverage and so they're that's the whole reason we're here Um, >> okay. I understand. >> And if you look at
City of Madiraa Beach Code section 82-2, I guess I ought to give you a copy of this too, although it's in the codes, but if you look at the code for building, they say it's an enclosed structure with walls and a roof. If you look at the definition for lot coverage under
section 82-2, it says lot coverage means the percentage of lot area covered or occupied by the base of buildings, including attached or unattached accessory buildings. And I I have an extra copy of this. I'll give you that, too, if you want it for
reference without looking it up. Okay. I I object to this, but I don't have any objection to the code itself. So, you want to take that off? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No objection to it being received.
>> Okay. I'm looking at uh code section 82-2 definitions and it will be a one two three four fivepage exhibit. It'll be exhibit number seven.
All right. Sir, what would you like me to specifically look at in exhibit number seven? >> If you look on uh the second page included there, um it's labeled page four of 26. It has the definition for building means
enclosed structures with walls and a roof. The uh and then the lot coverage is on page labeled 14 of 26, which is the fourth page.
And at the very top it says lot coverage means the percentage of the lot area covered or occupied by the base of the buildings including attached nonattached accessory buildings. It doesn't say anything about open porches. Okay. Okay. So, if I think I understand
your argument based on the definition of building, your uh I should only be looking at the area of the building that is in blue on exhibit number five because it's an open porch and under
what you believe is a proper interpretation of building that would not be part of the building and therefore the only area that would require the calcul calculations area in blue. Am I following you? >> Yes. And then I wouldn't need a
variance, but they I understand there's a process for a um appeal of a city decision. So I guess maybe that falls under you too hopefully. Okay. >> But that's um and Okay. So we got
Well, and are you familiar with floor area ratio? Go ahead and tell me what you want to tell me, sir. >> Sorry, I can't ask you questions. I know. Yep. >> You You tell me what your is. >> Floor area ratio is the it's measured in
this code to be the outside of the enclosed building walls. And the floor area ratio that's allowable for my lot is 08 or 80%. But they don't want and I haven't well I kind of forgot to tell you who I am but I was on the I sat on the planning
commission for the city of Madira Beach for a number of years in the past and I was actually there when that building within the structure coverage was approved and I actually objected to that approval of that ordinance. Um but that's just some of my background. I'm
also a registered professional engineer. Um, I specialize I'm an expert witness for the Florida Department of Transportation. Currently, I have my own business. I do expert witness work in imminent domain. Um, I do land development, permitting. I work with 7-Eleven. Um, I used to do a lot of
Walgreens and BP oil, but not anymore. Um, and I've done residential subdivisions up to 250 homes. Um, so that's just a little bit about me. Um the so we've gotten that information there.
So that's the way the the code reads through. Um there's another part of the code, but he's not going to let me give it to you either. Uh um so basically there's another section of the code if I can find my piece of paper here
that states that when you measure Oh, here it is. But they won't let me give it to you. Um, if you look under maximum coverage code section 110425,
it's in a miscellaneous section of the code. It's not in the zoning um R2 residential which governs the point 4 and the point8. Um uh what I started to say about the 08 was if you if you didn't have any sort of structure
coverage or or um building coverage regulation, somebody could potentially try and build 0.8 or 80% of a one-story building on your lot. So they've have some sort of a regulation to help you keep it to an average of 40% on each
floor. Because they give you 08, it can be two stories high. But by having a lot coverage or building coverage, then that keeps you from expanding a huge flat one-story house with that 08. And that kind of is the way it regulates it. Um,
I think the problem here is measuring it to these columns because floor area ratio does not include the open porch, the open balcony. It specifically excludes the open porches. So that's why they don't object under floor area ratio to building the open balconies. But when they go down to this what they're
calling structure or they kind of goes back and forth but the the building coverage that is in the code the section that I'm uh I'm being asked to abide by um it's
it yeah they said I was I would needed to abide by section 110208 which is the 40% in um coverage lot coverage. But then when we went to the meeting, they came up with the idea, you got to measure to the columns because I thought I was buying and that's where everything
went out of whack. Um, so if you if you look at maximum coverage, it's um yeah, there's another section. So 110 208 says 40% for lot coverage. Then there's another section that's in the miscellaneous I believe section of the
code that says section 110425 maximum coverage land coverage by principal and accessory buildings or structures on each lot shall not be greater than is permitted in the district as set forth with schedule and lot use lot yard and bulk
regulations where such principal and accessory buildings are located and they say buildings again and then the next sentence is what's causing solve the problem. The next sentence says, "Lot coverage shall be figured from the line where the building
wall meets the grade or the support columns reach the grade." Could I cut off that part and give it to him? >> Sure. Yeah. You want to use the edge of the So, I can't enter comments by me into
for you to look at and not have them be ev evidence. Can't they just be exhibits or something? Or sorry, Mr. Tras, >> I objected to the evidence that you were submitting. >> Yeah. Well, what if it's submitted as an exhibit, not evidence?
>> It is evidence. if it's an exhibit or your testimony. >> Okay. It's why I'm not a lawyer. >> It's okay. >> I love you guys though because I work with you all the time. >> So, I have no objection to that being re
received in evidence or judicial notice be taken. >> That That's fine. And I do have it right here in my code of ordinances, but I'll go ahead and attach this as exhibit >> make sure I've got it right here. I think we're on exhibit number seven at this point. >> No. Uh seven was land development code
section 82- So this would be number eight. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. >> Exhibit eight. >> Okay. >> Is admitted and it's section 110-425. argue that.
Um, okay. Um, I would like to show you the a photograph. of the property next door. That's the photograph of the front of
the property that was allowed to build the garage. And that goes to 47% coverage based on measuring to the columns based on the survey that I have. I can give you that, too. All right, Mr. Tras, any objection to exhibit number nine being this
photograph? Accepted evidence as exhibit nine, >> the photograph that you just provided. >> Okay, thank you. No objection. This is just a survey that goes. >> All right, we'll go ahead and accept this into evidence as exhibit number 10.
Yeah, I would object to this. I mean, you can you can submit them, but I'm going to object to them. Objectives relevance. >> Okay, sir. Let me just first of all, let me understand what I'm looking at here. What what am I looking at? The first
one, this one right here. What am I looking at? >> It is three homes that were built in 2020 that all have 47% lot coverage based on the way the city calculates it. They're new construction. There's three of them. And the other
sheet is three more right behind them. And they all are 47% coverage. >> All right. And Mr. Trash, your objection. >> Yeah, I object as not being relevant to this variance. >> And are these homes in the city of Mader Beach, sir? They're in R2 zoning in the
city of MadiRaa Beach and they were built in 2020 and 2021 after the code that was brought up that required all six variances to be or conditions to be met and they all violate this to the same extent that I'm asking or well almost 47%.
>> All right, I'll go ahead and accept them evidence over the objection. It'll be exhibit number 11. house 2020. >> Is it the same house? >> Same objection.
All right, sir. So, you're telling me that this proposed exhibit is a home that you believe exceeds the 40% >> I rule set forth in the ordinance. >> I can give you the actual property data card from the Penelis County property
appraiser for the house. >> And this is in the city of Mader Beach. >> It's in the city of Mader Beach. It's R2 zoning. It was built in 2020. The address is 355 Bokea Drive. >> All right, sir. I'll go ahead and overall Mr. Trash exception, excuse me,
objection and admitted as exhibit 12. >> And it's 48.2% coverage, more than I'm asking for. >> Okay. >> How many of these do you have? Can you just submit them all at one? >> Okay. I can't give you the rest.
>> And this is >> it's the one I just >> Oh, okay. >> Same objection relevance. >> Okay, I'll go ahead and accept it over the objection exhibit 13. And that's the property appraiser data that creates the
calculation that's written by hand by me on this sheet. It's 48.2% 2% coverage based on the city's calculation to the columns. Okay. An interesting note about well I don't know about that one but about the six others that I showed you
are if you didn't include the balconies they're really close to 40%. They're like 41% when you round up. It's like 40.8. So they if you were just doing the building area or or even the columns that support the actual enclosed
building then it wouldn't be over the codes. Um as far as I know there are no variances on those properties and they were allowed to be built. Um, so these are seven examples of properties built within 2020 and 2021, including the one
in my neighborhood that was built to 53% coverage that was mentioned in the staff's report. Um, that all exceeding the coverage. Um, I can verify that those six houses weren't built in existing footprints because I've looked at the historic aerials. Um,
so there's there's multiple well there's eight, nine, six, seven, eight, eight properties that are brand new construction within well 2020 and 2021 that are very similar to what I'm asking and I'm not really ask I
mean I think the code ought to be fixed personally um or the way they interpret the code needs to be fixed um but other people have been allowed to do this in many many places they didn't object when I came in and got the variance for the
setbacks and only place that comes up is this one section where it says how to measure it in a miscellaneous section that I gave you the section of the code and it has an or it says the building walls or
support columns well is it building support columns the way it's written build you know you measure to the building walls or support columns to me you're measuring the building. It's pretty clear, but they've taken it into their view, at least recently, they're viewing that it's to support columns
that support anything. And that's the big gripe. Um, we don't need the variance if it's ruled that they need to measure it to the walls or support columns that are only supporting the building. Um, or grant the variance if they want to keep measuring it that way because they've done it on all the
other houses. Um the fact that um you know could I have built a 10,000 square foot house? Yeah. But am I going to spend a million dollars, half a million dollars to not build a home that's marketable in this current world
and current economy? Um all of those houses are the same lot size. That was another point. The six I showed you that are new construction are on the same within five feet of the lot I own. And they were allowed to do that. Um there's tons of examples in this city. I have
plenty more um that I found on Google Earth that are within the city that were allowed to do the same thing. And I didn't look at all of them, but um the um
yeah, that's the big issue is the way that's being measured. Okay. >> What are the other pages? You showed me one page. Can I can I just have them all, please? You did. >> That is uh
Yeah, that's exhibit number four. I I can't hear what he's saying. >> Are you asking me to introduce this as an exhibit because I believe it's already in the agenda packet. >> All right, then I I've got it's already in evidence, sir. So, why don't you go back to the microphone and just tell me or you want to show me more exhibits? Okay.
All right. And so this these two documents you're representing to me are examples where you believe they exceed the 40% uh structures cover more than 40%. >> Yes. And and uh >> a lot
>> one of them shows the location of the six homes um that are on the other exhibits that you have. >> Okay. And then there's an extra home on it that's 51%. And then the other sheet shows the location of the other home that I gave you the documentation on um
on the waterfront. That's 48% um the address that should be written on it. Mask. >> No objection. >> All right. Go ahead and accept this into evidence as exhibit
number 14. A two-page exhibit. Um, >> all right, sir. What else would you like to tell me today? >> Um, that's pretty much it. Um, I Well, let me let me just say that my home has room in front of the garage the way I've
designed it with the front of the house to park multiple cars in the driveway, two cars without being in the road and park two cars inside the garage. I won't be creating the problems that the other
house on the corner is creating. Um that that was brought up that they had complaints about it. Um that house they allowed them to build within 3 ft or less. I think it actually encroaches in the rightway at the corner of the building, but their driveway doesn't have enough room to park any cars. It's
less than 20 feet. It's like 13 feet on one end and maybe 15 on the other. Um, so they they permitted that house in the corner across the street from mine. Um, with no suitable parking outside of the garage and they're not using it. They're parking large trucks in the road. Um,
the coverage, they got a yard in front of it. I mean, the coverage isn't the problem. The side setbacks they gave them are really close to the property, like three feet um, for the whole thing. Um, and so their roof gutters, I think, are draining down on people. Um, it's
got issues, but not because it's too much structure coverage. Um, and that's it. I just want to build my house. If you can help me find a way to approve a variance or something.
Um, oh, and and I was told that if I remove those three columns, I can build what I've got on it. I do have to modify the floor area ratio by moving the wall two inches to make it fit that. But they said if I could come up with some creative way to brace the balcony or
they don't mind the balcony being there, but my structural engineers said it's not realistic. Um, but those one foot columns, there's three of them that hold up the balcony. They if I remove those, the engineer said there was no problem. >> All right, sir. I just want to make sure
I understand your argument, but then Mr. Tras is going to have the opportunity to ask you questions. I I think your argument is number one you don't even need a variance because under your interpretation of the code using the definitions that you've cited to me the
what you plan to build is within the 40% of the total area. Am I following you on that argument? >> The enclosed walls at the ground floor are within 40%. My floor area ratio will meet the 80%. my imperous surface will
remed it. If you don't measure to those three columns that are supporting the balcony, then I don't need a variance. If that's not possible, then I want a variance granted like the other properties that have been allowed to build so I can have the same thing other
people have been able to do. >> Gotcha. So, you you believe you meet all the criteria and that this would be consistent with the other properties that you showed me. Am I following your arguments? >> Yes. and and the additional burden that the city already approved me setbacks to
build a house like this house the same I mean it's the dimensions they approved and they come back a year what almost a year later the variance expire in March um and tell me oh well we got this other section of the code it says building walls here it says building walls
building walls but over here it says building walls or support columns because of that you need to cut 8 ft off of your house or either lose 8 ft of balcony or lose 8t of rooms or you know that's the only solutions or get rid of
the three columns which are needed for safety for hurricane wind loads. Um so that's that's my argument. >> All right. Thank you sir. I understand. Mr. Tras >> can I have exhibits 11 12 and 13? Miss Marcilla, I've got a few questions
relative to some of the exhibits that you had sent, specifically exhibit number 11, which is the photos. If you could stand over there, please. >> Thank you. That way we can hear you on the microphone. I'm just going to hold up the exhibit
and then have some questions on it. So, this is exhibit number 11 that you created. Do you see it from there? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it lists three properties on it. 14910 North Bayshore. 14912 North Bay Shore.
14914 North Bay Shore. Did you um do a public records request for these properties? Determine whether or not there were variances issued on any of these properties. >> No. >> Okay. Next, I want to show you
your next exhibit of again exhibit number 11. You're showing properties located 130, 148, 140, 138, 150, 138. Should that first one be 100, 130, 138?
Because they're all side by side, aren't they? >> Okay. So, that's typographical error at the top. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, did you do a public records request to determine whether there were variances given on any of these three parcels? >> No.
on exhibit number 12 is showing 355 Bogus Siega. You have another photograph of it too. And then you have given me or the special magistrate the Penelis County property appraisers website printout.
Did you do a public records request on this property? See where any variances were issued for this property? >> We did not have time. Okay. When you originally filed your application for variance, had you ever filed a variance application before?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, you know how the you know how the process works then, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. In your first variance application, did you ask for the special magistrate consider and approve the same variance that's being sought today,
which is allowing you to increase the maximum structure coverage from 40 to 48%. Was that included in the original application? >> No, because no one had told me I needed it because the way I read the code, I only need 40%. I only need the the
building area which meets the code. >> Nobody pointed the didn't point out to me the section of the code that says measure to the walls or columns. >> Okay. And didn't you testify earlier that this is what you do as an expert
witness? These types of applications, these types of development orders, these types of things in different municipalities and counties that you represent. >> I do eminent domain. It includes everything pretty much. And I don't specialize in doing these type of things. I'd be a lot more polished at it.
>> Okay. I don't have any other questions for Miss Misilla. >> Thank you, sir. >> Sir, are there any other witnesses or any other evidence you'd like to give to me today? >> Uh, no. >> All right. Thank you. Have a seat. All right. This is the opportunity for the
members of the public that are affected by the variance to come forward and provide any comment. Are there any members of the public that would like to provide comment on the V2026-01 for the property located at 422 137th Avenue Circle? Any members of the
public? All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment, Mr. Tras. Uh, anything else? Any rebuttal? Anything like that? >> Yes. I'd like to call Marcy Forbes as a rebuttal witness. >> Okay.
>> Marcy, were you sworn in earlier? Okay. I just have a few questions for you. First of all, can you ex um explain um what your occupation is here at the city and your job responsibilities? >> Yes. I'm the community development director and I help with the planning, permitting, building, flood plane
management, everything under that department. >> Okay. And and what is your background? >> I'm a civil engineer and um yeah, so my background is doing design and plan review, similar to what I do now. >> How long have you been working for the city?
for the city. Um, a little over four years now directly. >> Okay. Are you familiar with this application being heard today? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Misilla did a very good presentation on the position that he has
on this and he specifically has mentioned uh the city's um analysis or interpretation of the code provisions on how that maximum lot coverage is calculated. Um can you explain to uh the special
matter rate the code provisions why the city has taken a position that it has relative to that calculation? >> Yeah. So historically with the structure coverage um to what Paul was describing is it it reads that you measure to the
building walls or the column supports. And so we always measure to whichever one if you have columns that exist beyond the walls, we've historically always measured to those because it is supporting a structure up above, whether
it be additional buildout of the footprint of the living structure, balconies, any of those components. That's that's how we've measured it as the structure coverage. So historically, it's it's been the same uh since I've been around. Um that's how we've enforced it. I'll say that.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. >> Sir, would you like to ask any questions of Miss Forbes? You can cross-examine her as a rebuttal witness. >> That a no? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Tras, anything else?
>> Um, just to summarize if we can do that. >> Um, so the staff has prepared this report. It's been received into evidence on exist exhibit number one pages three through 105. The staff went through each
and every one of the criteria that are listed in the code that are required to be met. Um staff has testified that it has not met um criteria three, four, five, and six.
And I believe that you had asked a question as to whether or not two was met. It doesn't look like he's met any and and the the response from Mr. Protaggle was is that included number two. Um so Mr. Misel's application has
only met one of the six criteria. Um and therefore we believe that it's appropriate for you to deny the variance request because it has not met all six criteria. As for Mr. Misilla's argument that staff has misinterpreted the code section, there is a process to go
through. um if he wants to go through that process of challenging staff's interpretation of the code, uh I believe you are the person that would hear that, but that's not what's before you today. Uh the city has not been put on notice that that is something that is going to be argued that interpretation. Uh so
we're not prepared to respond to that. Um so um if the variance is denied and Mr. Misilla wants to uh you know appeal the decision or the interpretation of city code uh or staff's review of the
city code, he can do that as one more step, but uh we're asking that you find that the criteria has not been met and deny the variance application. All right. Thank you, Mr. Tras. Uh sir, thank you very much for your presentation. It it was great. Um you
know, very thorough. Unfortunately, for the application, as the ordinance 2019-16 says, I have to find that you meet all six criteria and that there's a hardship. So, it's an and uh and in regard to at least number four and five,
as I understand it, the denial of the variance would not uh prohibit you from building on the property. And therefore, I I do have difficulty finding that you meet all of the criteria, even though I certainly understand what your arguments are in regard to one of the criteria,
which is that the city has permitted this to be exceeded. In regard to the definitions, so that the record's clear, the section 110-208 does not use the word building. I know you had had talked specifically about
the definition of building. That's not set forth in that ordinance. It says the maximum area of a lot or parcel to be covered by structures shall be 40% of the total area. And then there's an exception for town homes. And then uh
specifically also looking at 110-425 that you uh noted. Let me get to that section. Again, that doesn't it talks about buildings or structures on each lot shall not be greater than that is permitted. And it
says and I I see what you're saying. The lot coverage shall be figured from the line where the building wall meets the grade or the support columns reach the grade. So, I understand the city's interpretation. I understand your interpretation of that. Uh but again
what I see in regard to the actual language is the maximum area to be covered by structure shall be 40% of the total area. And so again I your definitions
were very helpful to me. I appreciate I did factor that in. I did you know look at those issues. I'm I'm not basing it on a floor area. uh analysis because that's not what I understand. But structure does mean
anything constructed or erected. Uh the use of which requires permanent location on the land or attachment to something having permanent location on the land. Structures include buildings, walls, screen enclosures, fences, advertising signs, billboards, swimming pools, and
exterior mechanical equipment such as air conditioning compressors. And so I, you know, I think the city's, at least what's before me today, uh, structure would include everything. However, I'm going to deny the variance,
uh, because I don't believe it meets criteria. However, it's going to be without prejudice for you to come back and argue what Mr. Tra said there at the end. If you believe the city has not properly interpreted this ordinance, you have the right to appeal that. and I'll hear that and and I would, you know, if that's what you want to do, I certainly
encourage you to do it because then Mr. Tras could give me case law or or you know, prior decisions that would influence that and and you may very well be right, sir. So, it's without prejudice, but for purposes of today, I'm going to deny the variance. Say that. Say what?
>> Sure. Go ahead. The definition you just read included swimming pools. And so if they want to do this point four and they're using that theory of structure, then every home in my neighborhood that's been built recently is in violation because every one of them has a swimming pool
behind it. >> I think that's why you ought to talk to city staff, sir, and then come back if you want to appeal their interpretation of that. It's without, in other words, my decision today is simply denying the variance that's performing. All right? So, it's assuming that you needed a variance and that and I'm denying it for
the reasons I said. I don't think you met all the criteria and can show a hardship. However, if you want to come back and appeal those issues and make these arguments, I will hear them. This is without prejudice for you to do that. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Is that the last variance we have? Yes.
>> All right. Does anybody need to take a break or are we ready to go on to the code enforcement? >> I think we're ready to >> really look more to staff. You guys ready to go on? Okay. All right. Okay, folks. Welcome to the city of Madiraa 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 I've been a member of the Florida Bar for over 25 years. I've 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 the matters 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 that is being heard. If you wish to speak today and you've not already been sworn, then you'll need to stand and be
sworn in just a few moments. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. The respondent or property owner will then be given the opportunity to refute the city's allegations. 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 relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and you will be provided with a copy by mail. Additionally, you are advised 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 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, it is
necessary that you swear affirm that you will tell the truth. Therefore, is anybody uh going to talk to me today that has not already been sworn in? Is anybody come in since we started the hearing that wants to talk to me, including members of the public? All right, I assume everybody's been sworn. All right, Mr. Tras, are we ready to
move on to case number 2025.6? 06 for the property at 545th Avenue. >> We are. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. I'm going to call Deputy Snyder uh as the city's witness on this case. Deputy, if you could explain um your occupation, your job responsibilities
here at the city of Mader Beach. >> Deputy Cory Schneider. I work for community policing in the city of Midair Beach. I'm a contracted city deputy. Uh my duties include patrol and ordinances or uh v uh and code enforcement issues and uh
enforcing those ordinances. Okay. Are you familiar with this property located at 545th Avenue? >> I am. >> Okay. And this case is here as a direct result of a complaint or is this proactive enforcement? This was a
complaint from the city marina located at 503 150th. >> Is that right next door to 545 150th? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. And what was the complaint that you received? >> The complaint was that uh post uh 2024 hurricanes, two vessels were on the
property and in uh dilapitated, sunken, dismantled condition on the property. >> All right. Did you go out to the property to see whether or not that there was a violation that existed? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And when you went out to the property, did you find that violation? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Um, I'd like you to I'm going to
turn your attention to page 106 of the agenda package starting at 106. Uh, is a print out from the Penllis County Property Appraisers Office for the property located at 545th Avenue. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> And is this a print out that you printed out to establish who the owner of the
property is? >> Yes, I did. >> And who is the owner of the property? >> Uh, the owners are Dean Puit and Maria L. Puit. >> Okay. Once you re went out to the property, determined that there was a violation, what code section did you determine there was a violation of
>> uh section 34-129 uh allowing to remain on private property restricted. >> Okay. When you determined that that violation existed, did you talk to Mr. or Mrs. Puit about the um alleged violation? >> Yes, I did.
>> Okay. And approximately when did you do that? For the first time, >> uh, I issued a courtesy letter, uh, spoke to him in person and issued a courtesy letter on, let's see here, back it up. Uh, 10 October 18, 2025.
>> Okay. Before we get to that, I want to back up and I want to cover a couple of things. So, if you could turn to page 109 of of the packet and explain what this aerial photograph is. >> According to the Penel County Property
Appraisers website, the uh property includes a submerged land within that property. What you're seeing in the red is submerged land owned by uh Mr. Puit and his wife. >> Okay. And the next page in the packet, page 110, this is the print out from the tax collector showing Mr. and Mrs. Puit
are the owner of this property. >> That is correct. Okay. All right. Now, let's go back to your courtesy notice. When you issued the courtesy notice to Mr. or Mrs. Puit, uh, did you send that by regular mail or certified mail or both? >> The courtesy notice was mailed by regular mail.
>> And in this notice, did you specifically set forth the code section that was being violated? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And um when did when you sent the letter, did the letter contain a u some idea as to what the property owner would have to do to bring the property into compliance?
>> Yeah, it was uh remove inoperable, sunk, and dismantled vessels from property with a correction date on it. >> Okay. And what was the date that you were asking for the property or come into compliance? >> Uh the correction date was uh listed as October 29th, 2025.
>> After the letter was sent, did you speak to Mr. Puit about the courtesy notice and the code violation. >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And approximately when did that take place? >> Uh I have I've been there at least a dozen times over the last three months. Um the exact date I couldn't tell you,
but the the answer was I'm working on it. >> Okay. So he did not bring it into compliance by October 29, 2025. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. When you sent that courtesy notice, did you also attach to it some photographs of the sunken vessels? >> I did. >> Okay. Okay. If you could turn to page
113 of the packet. Um there this is a photograph. Is this one of the photographs that you took and attached to the courtesy notice? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Can you explain to the special magistrate what we're looking at here? Uh in in the uh the the
center uh rear of the photo, there's a vessel that's almost down to the uh pass the correct terminology for a vessel, but um the uh the midline of the boat, there's a red stripe on the top. The midline has sort
of a rub rail, I think is what it's called, but you can see that it's it's uh sunken. There's a an accumulation of marine growth along the hole of the vessel with the one with a red top. Uh that vessel is actually sitting on the bottom on that property. Uh it's
dismantled in portions. Uh there's windows missing along the water line or above where the water line would be in this photo. And then there's a second vessel here, the Philadelphia Phil looks it looks like it says Philadelphia Freedom. That one there also which is attached to the seaw wall is also
sitting on the bottom and then and as you can see from the back it's dismantled in various areas windows uh hatches compartments and sitting on the bottom. >> Okay. And then next photograph on page 114 is this just another photograph of
those two boats? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So the boat in the background with the red line is the same. We could probably figure that out. Uh the boat in the foreground, the one right up against the seaw wall, was that the Philadelphia Freedom that you were just mentioning?
>> The the one in the center is not um one that I was addressing because it was a it's a floating vessel. It's the one in the to the left missing a window there. All white with sort of a blue trim over the the cockpit area. And then the one that's submerged with the red line
around it. And you can see the top is I think it was some sort of I think they call it a fly bridge, but it is actually falling off in this picture. Okay. >> When the property did not come into compliance on October the 29th, did you
issue a notice of violation for this case? >> I did. >> And when did you do that? Actually, the the the letter was was dated incorrectly on 1119, but it was actually 11:14 was the date of the inspection and the issuance of the letter because the
inspection date was um 7 days after. So on improperly dated 1119, it should have been dated 11:14. It was mailed on 11:14 and posted on the property on 11:14. >> All right. Did that mention the same code section? >> It did.
>> Did it Did you send that by regular and certified mail? I did. >> Okay. And when you sent that notice, did you attach some photographs, too? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Can you go through the photograph starting on page 117 of the packet? >> Uh, a little bit closer up picture of
the vessel. Um, submerged. Uh, the water is is almost to the the top deck. It's the rear of the vessel appears to be submerged in the photograph. One with the white vessel with the red line. >> Okay. and page 118. That next photograph,
>> uh, two two vessels in this picture here, uh, the vessel to the light, it's a just a the front third of it. Um, also sitting on the ground, partially dismantled. Uh, the one with the red line is still submerged. >> Okay, next page. Page 119 is another
photograph. What does that depict? >> Uh, dismantled, sitting on the bottom. um growth of uh organic or marine vegetation along or uh marine material along the bottom of it dismantled tied up to the seaw wall.
>> All right. And page 120 is the last photograph >> that actually >> there's a couple more, but >> yeah, 120 actually shows a partial hull of some sort of vessel that's broken up. You can see um some sort of railing on
it. It's a a part of something. I saw that actually afterwards and taking my photographs when I zoomed in that it was the remnants of some other vessel. >> Okay. And then the next page >> uh 121
>> 121 again uh just the vessel uh its condition it's sitting on the bottom. Okay. When you sent the notice of violation to the property owner, what was the compliance date that you told the property owner it needed to be in comp
they needed to be in compliance? >> It was, let's see here, uh 11:22 2025. >> Did it come into compliance by that date? >> It did not. >> Is it in compliance as of today? >> It is not. >> All right. Did you issue a statement of
violation request for hearing for today? >> Yes, I did. >> All right. All right, I'd like you to turn to page 122 of the packet. Starting there, if you can explain to me what this document is. 122 is the uh statement of violation request for hearing dated January 8th,
2026 to Dean Puit and Maria Puit at their uh address on file from the property appraisers uh listing uh the violation detail of the dates that I inspected, reinspected, and mailed uh the notices including the notice of
hearing, affidavit of service, affidavit of posting, and special magistrate special magistrate paperwork. work set for today. >> Did you send that by regular and certified mail? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Um lastly, I want to show you maybe not lastly. Notice of hearing. If
you could take a look at that on starting at page 124. Does that give the property owner notice that the hearing is going to take place today starting at noon? >> Yes, it did. >> Okay. Did you send that by regular and certified mail as well? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Lastly, I want you to turn to page
um 127. This is an affidavit of service. And if you can explain to the special magistrate what this document is uh this was the is this the notorized copy of uh the service that on
the 8th day of January 2026, I mailed a copy of the notice of hearing. uh the order. Uh the 8th I uh mailed the notice of hearing through first class and regular mail. Uh I also attached a copy of this notice of hearing on the
property located at 545th uh parcel number ending in 0200 which includes the submerged land on the property. My signature uh it was notorized. Okay. And then there is some photographs followed if you can explain starting at
page 129 what these photographs depict. There would have been a I did a a final inspection uh on the date that the special magistrate paperwork was mailed. These are photographs of the vessels uh
the condition of the vessels, the posting on the property uh at 545th. the posting of the P paperwork at city hall, 300 municipal drive. And I think there's some I think that was it.
>> Okay. >> So, what efforts have you been able to tell that Mr. and Mrs. Puit took to uh resolve these violations on the property? Very little to none. at at one point he tried to float the vessel with the red red uh piping on it, but um and just
speaking with city marina staff just their efforts are f futile. They haven't been able to lift it off. It hasn't moved since uh October. The two vessels and when I speak to Mr. Puit personally, it's you know, I'm working on it. I'm working on it. So, nothing has been
resolved in in the the months that we have attempted to get him to remove the vessels. >> All right. How much time do you think that it would take him to bring the property into compliance? >> Seeing as that I started this in October, I'd ask for no no more than 30 days to come into compliance.
>> All right. And if the property is not brought into compliance within 30 days, what do you think the appropriate dollar amount of the fine should be uh every day that the property remains in violation of the cited code section? >> I believe $250 a day would be appropriate. >> And and what is the reason and why you believe that would be appropriate?
Uh the vessels as you can see in the the later pictures uh parts are removed from the the white vessel and they are hazard to storms uh floating parts floating
free becoming navigational hazards to other boers because there isn't anything that's set. There's nothing that would prevent any of these things or parts from floating off uh out into the waterways into the channels and which would be an obstruction or a hazard to anybody motoring out in in the bay or
in inter coastal area. >> All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for Deputy Snider. I would tender into evidence um pages 106 through 133 um of the agenda packet. >> All right. All right, I'll go ahead and accept an evidence as exhibit number
one, pages 106 through 133 of the agenda packet. All right. Um, are the Puits here or anybody on behalf of the owner respondent here? All right, we're here on 2025. 06 for
the property at 545th Avenue. Anybody here on behalf of the respondents? All right, seeing none, we'll go on to public comment. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about this particular code enforcement matter and want to be heard?
Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? >> No, sir. >> All right. Based upon the evidence provided, I do find that the property is in violation as set forth by uh Deputy Snider. And in regard to the corrective action,
is it the removal or the clean? I just want to make sure I've got the corrective action right. Is it the removal of the vessels that you notated in on the record here? Is that the >> Yes, sir. I'm looking for removal of the the two vessels that are listed in the shown in the photographs.
>> Okay. That's what I'll do is the corrective action will be the removal of the vessels noted in on the record and in the agenda packet. And I do find that the violation did occur is occurring. I do find the 30
days is a reasonable time to cure the violation. Thereafter, it'll be a $250 fine per day. All right, let's go on to the next one, which is case number 2025.003 for the property located at 4th Street
East. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> City. We call Deputy Snder again. Deputy, if you could uh explain your occupation and your job responsibilities here at the city. >> Community policing uh with the sheriff's office. I've been with the city for since 2017. I also uh function as code
enforcement for the city of MadiRaa Beach. >> All right. Are you familiar with this property uh that is located on 4th Street East um uh that is in the agenda packet starting at page 134? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Is this a vacant lot?
>> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Is did this case come forward as a result of a complaint or is it a proactive enforcement? >> Actually, both. Previously, it had a uh had tall grass that I had noticed and I had addressed tall grass with the
property owners. This one specifically was from a rear neighbor that both uh that I believe emailed the city to complain. The email was forwarded to me um regarding rats, trash, and debris on the vacant lot, which backs up to his property.
>> Okay. Who's the owner of this property that we're talking about today? And how do you know that? on the vacant lot for the Penel County property appraisers. The owners of uh this Fourth Street vacant lot parcel number ending in 10150 is Dave and Junley
and Tove Tovich. >> All right. And how do you know that you said property appraisers? >> Property appraisers. >> Okay. And is that uh the printout on starting at page 134s is the printout that you uh completed uh when you started your case on this particular lot?
>> Yes, it is. >> Okay. And when you received the complaint, what did you do? Did you go out to the property to determine whether a violation existed? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. What did you find when you got out there? >> Uh an accumulation of
uh building materials, tree debris, uh later on sandbags accumulated later. Um fence panels. It what looked like it was a it's a some sort of tub. paint buckets, trash.
>> Okay. Did you um issue a courtesy notice of violation for the property? >> I did. >> Okay. And when did you do that? >> I mailed a courtesy notice on October 2nd, 2025. >> When you sent that notice, what was the
code section that you had cited for the violation? >> Uh section 1468. 1468 which covers uh vegetation trees planting and landscaping, vegetation, dead and dying trees, organic material and section 1469
which covers garbage, trash, debris, refues, accumulation of filth, broken glass, scrap metal materials, building materials. >> When you um sent this letter, did you send it by regular mail? >> I did. What was the date that you asked
the property owner to bring it into compliance? >> The reinspection date on the courtesy letter was October 13, 2025. >> When you sent the letter, did you attach photographs of the letter? >> Yes, I did. >> Can you turn to page 142 starting at 142 and explain the next couple of pages in
their uh the photographs? 142 shows an overgrowth of uh dead branches, paint bucket, uh a tub that's upside down that's on the lot. 143 is just a a view from the street.
And if you look to the back portion where there's a large tree, that's where the materials were uh are located in the rear of the lot. >> Okay. 144. >> 144 is broken branches, tree debris.
>> Okay. 145. >> 145 is another image of uh what appears to be paint buckets, the uh the the tub structure. On page 146, >> uh dead tree debris. >> When you sent this letter, did you uh
hear from the property owner? >> No, I did not. >> Okay. Did you um issue a notice of violation then? >> I did. >> What date was that? >> On uh on December 10th, 2025, I issued a notice of violation, mailed, certified, and regular mail.
>> Okay. If you could turn to page 147. Is this the notice of violation that you sent? >> That is correct. >> Did you send it by regular and certified mail? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Um and did that ask the property owner to bring the property into compliance by a date certain? uh by uh
December 24th, 2025. >> Did it come into compliance? >> No, it did not. >> Is it in compliance today? >> It is not. >> All right. So, let's take a look at the um things that were attached to the letter starting at page 150. If you could explain these photographs that follow.
>> 150 is actually from the other side of the property, which I didn't capture in the earlier letter, the courtesy letter, which is fence panels, uh chairs, and tree debris, broken, dead, and dying tree debris. Page 151. >> 151 is I think at this point it has
become someone's dumping ground. Now we have sandbags that were deposited on this. You can also see dead tree debris. Uh and I think that tub structure is in the center of that photograph taken from a different angle. >> Page 152.
>> 152. Just dead and dying tree debris. >> Page 153. uh a vantage from the street where the the materials were under that big vegetated tree area. >> And the last photograph, page 154 >> again, uh just the sandbags that were
deposited from a different angle. >> Did you issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes, I did. >> And is that starting on page 155 of the packet? >> Yes. Yes, it is. >> Okay. Did you also um uh prepare a affidavit of service? >> Yes, I did.
>> Starting at page 159, if you could take a look at that. Is that the affidavit of service that you prepared? >> Yes, it is. >> And what does that tell the special magistrate? >> Uh it says that on uh the 9th of January 2026, I mailed a a copy of the attach notice of hearing ver u by certified
mail. I mailed a copy of the notice of hearing first class mail. I on the 9th of January, I posted a copy of the notice of hearing on the property, the vacant property ending in parcel number 0150
and at city hall at 300 Municipal Drive. Uh my signature and was notorized. >> Okay. Um and when you sent that, did you attach photographs to that as well? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. If you starting at page 163, if you can go through the photographs that
follow. 163 is an overgrowth of uh dead material. There's some uh chair. You can see some of the fence panels in that 164. They are sideways, but there's again tree debris, dead tree debris. 165
shows an accumulation of sandbags, uh some sort of tub that's there from earlier. 166 again is uh just a different angle. Dead tree debris, sandbags, some sort of tub.
And then 167 is looking back out towards the street where my patrol car is. 168 shows the uh posting of the property with the uh special magistrate packet notice of hearing on a post on the on the property. And then 169 shows the
posting of the packet at here at city hall. in page 170. >> 170. >> 170 is a uh view from the street of the property with the posting of the hearing
packet paperwork. >> What does the property owner need to do to bring the property into compliance? uh clean the trash debris, clear out any dead uh tree branches, organic material, clean garbage, trash debris, and and
clean the dead branches. >> Okay. How much time do you think it will take to bring the property into compliance? >> Uh seeing as that started several months ago, I'd ask for 30 days. >> Okay. And if the property owner does not bring it into compliance, what is the appropriate dollar amount of fine for every day the property remains in
violation? I think two $50 per violation would be appropriate. >> $50. >> Is that what you said? >> I I believe so. Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for you. I would tender into evidence uh pages 134
through 170 of the agenda packet. Ask that they be received. >> All right. Go ahead and accept an evidence as exhibit number one, pages 134 through 170 of the agenda packet. All right. Are Mr. or Mrs. Analovich here? Anybody on behalf of the owner of
the property at 4th Street East? Anyone on behalf of the respondent or the respondents themselves here? All right. Are there any members of the public that want to come forward and provide public comment in regard to this particular code violation?
Seeing none, Mr. Tras, anything else? >> No. >> All right. I'll go ahead and find that based upon the testimony of Mr. Snder and the other record evidence that there is indeed the violation set forth. Uh the property owner will have 30 days to bring the property in compliance or
thereafter a $50 a day fine. All right, let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is case number CE-25.99 for the property located at 410 Virginia Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed?
>> Yes. And we're gonna have Connor Mechco be the city's witness for this case. Connor, if you could u tell the special magistrate your occupation here at the city and your job responsibilities. A code compliance specialist. Uh I'm
responsible for maintaining the code with stop work orders um and just basically applying the code code enforcement. >> Are you familiar with this property at 410 Virginia Avenue? Yes. >> Okay. And how are you familiar with this
property? >> Uh this property went for sale um without pulling a permit. Um we saw that and found that they had done a complete remodel. Um we looked through Zillow. They had a posting also on the outside
of the house claiming to sell the house, putting the house up for sale. >> Who's the owner of the property at 410 Virginia Avenue? Hernandez Global Investment Group LLC. >> And how do you know that? >> Uh based on the Penllis County Property
Appraiser. >> Did you um create or print out this um website of the property appraiser? This starting at page 171 of the agenda packet.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And that's how you receive the information relative to the ownership of the property. >> Correct. >> Okay. When this um when this matter came forward, so it was really a proactive case then. Correct.
It wasn't a it wasn't complaint driven. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh when did it come in when did it become to the attention of the city that there was a violation of of the code? Uh, we sent a courtesy notice
on June 25th of 2025, so last June. >> Okay. When you sent this notice, did you cite the code section that was violated by the property owner? >> Yes. >> And what code section is that?
>> Uh, that's code section 8652, uh, which pertains to work without a permit. So, when the courtesy notice of violation was sent, was it sent by regular mail or certified mail or both? >> The courtesy was sent by regular mail.
>> Um, and when the courtesy letter was sent, did it tell the property owner what it needed to do to bring the property into compliance? >> Uh, yes. >> And what was that? >> They would have to or a contractor would have to apply for and obtain an after
the-act permit. >> Right. And did you give a date for the property owner to bring it into compliance? >> Yes. July 9th, 2025. >> Did it come into compliance with that date? >> No. >> Okay. When you sent the courtesy notice, did you send pictures attached to that
courtesy notice? >> Yes. >> All right. I want you to turn to page 177 of the packet. I have some questions about that. There are two photographs on that page. Can you explain what these photographs are and where you got the photographs? These photographs were provided by the owners, the sellers of
the home um on their Zillow. This is post remodel. Um you can see the bathroom that has been remodeled with new cabinets and you can also see a fully remodeled kitchen also with new cabinets and looks like flooring.
>> Okay. And if you could turn to page 178 and explain to the special magistrate what this exhibit reflects. >> This is the listing itself on Zillow um claiming to be fully renovated. >> Okay.
After you sent this letter, um well, first of all, is the property in compliance as of today? >> No. >> Has there been an application for a building permit issued or made? They have not received an issued permit, but they have applied for a permit. A
contractor has applied for an after the-act permit. They the owner also came in this morning and the contractor uploaded further documents this morning for their permit. So, it's not been issued, but they are now actively uh applying for the permit.
>> Okay, that's good to know. Um I'd like you to turn to page 179 of the packet then. Um this is titled notice of code violation. It's dated July 9th, 2025. Was this notice of code violation that was issued as a direct result of them
not responding to the courtesy letter? >> Yes. >> Okay. And do you attach the same photographs to the notice of violation? >> Correct. >> Okay. Was that sent by regular and certified mail? >> This was sent by certified mail. >> Okay. And when it was sent, um,
I'd like you to turn to page 164 of the packet. I'm sorry, 184 of the packet. Yeah, 184. Is this the same Zillow printout that was attached to the
courtesy letter? >> Yes. >> Okay. And if you could turn to the next page. Is this is just a blown up photograph for the remodeled kitchen. Page 185. >> Yes. >> All right. Page 186 is a photograph the renovated bathroom. >> Correct.
>> Page 187. Is that another bathroom or is that the same bathroom? >> Uh this is an additional bathroom I believe. Um this is just also from Zillow. Just additional pictures of renovations. And then uh page 188, that
photograph, what does that depict? >> Uh the garage, that's also from Zillow showing water heater, potentially renovations done, drywall. >> Okay. Um and the city issued a notice of hearing for today's special magistrate
hearing. >> Correct. >> That's starting at page 189. >> Uh yes. >> Was that sent by regular and certified mail? >> Yes. Did the city issue a statement of violation request for hearing starting at page 191?
>> Yes. >> All right. And then on page 193, starting at 193, is an affidavit of service. Can you explain what that is? um basically stating that the notice of hearing everything was mailed,
certified, regular um and it was posted at city hall and also at the property. >> On what date? >> January 16th of 2026. Okay. >> And um there's uh two more photographs
starting at page 185 and 186. Can you explain what those are? The first photograph uh shows the posting at the property and the second photograph shows the posting down at city hall
>> now that the city has received information relative to an application for a building permit. Um is the building permit application complete? >> The application is complete. Um, I'm not the plan reviewer, but it seems as if
they've addressed the comment of what was asked for by our plan reviewers. I don't know if it was done correctly, but they have you been meeting the expectations. >> Okay. How much time do you think then it
will take to finish the process for the permit to be issued? Seeing as how the information for the permit was just uploaded today, I think 30 days is enough time for it to be reviewed. >> Okay. And if the property is not in
compliance within 30 days, what do you think the appropriate dollar amount of the fine should be per day? >> A $100 a day. >> Okay. And what's the reason that you've determined it to be a hundred? >> Because there is not currently, to our knowledge, anybody inhabiting the
property. There's no tenants in the property. So, we don't view it as a life safety issue as nobody's currently being affected by the the property. >> All right. Thank you. That's all the questions I have for Connor. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mechco. All
right. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner? Hernandez Global Investment Group LLC. Anyone here to speak on behalf of the respondent or the owner? Okay. Seeing as there is none, we'll move on to the public. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about this code enforcement
violation that would like to come forward and be heard? Okay. No members of the public. All right, Mr. Tras. Anything else? >> No. Thank you. >> All right. And I don't know if I said it already, but I'll accept exhibit number
one, pages 171 through that 96. >> Yes. >> 196 of the agenda packet. and I will go ahead and find uh that the property is in violation as set forth in the testimony and on the record that the
reasonable time to bring the property in compliance is 30 days and they'll thereafter be $100 a day fine. All right, let's move on to the next one, which is CE-25-181
for the property located at 13 910 Gulf Boulevard. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes, we are. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> Call uh Taylor Davis as the city's witness. >> Taylor, if you could explain your occupation and your job responsibilities
here at the city of Mader Beach. I am a permit and code compliance specialist here for the city of Madera Beach. Some of my job duties include posting stop work orders and issuing code violations. Okay. Are you familiar with this property located at 13910 Gulf Boulevard?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Is this a proactive case or was it complaint driven? >> It was proactive. >> Okay. And what was um well, first of all, who owns this property and how do you know that? Um, property appraisers
office, Mediterranean of Madiraa Conniv Association, Inc. >> Okay. And do you know that because of the Penllis County Property Appraisers Office website? >> Yes. >> Okay. And is that the printout on page 190 starting at page 197 of the packet?
>> Yes. >> Okay. What was the actual violation that was found on the property? Um, we cited them for 8652 and 1470. Um, a couple different things. Uh, new
concrete pool barrier wall and pavers, exposed rebar, stucco, and wall separation. And then they have a temporary pool barrier fence that was never applied for. Um, so again, work without a permit. Um, expos Oh yeah, I
said expos. >> Okay. When you uh found the violation on the property, did you issue a courtesy notice of code violation? >> I did. >> And what date was that? >> That was December 12th of 2025. >> Did you send this by regular mail or
certified mail? >> This one regular. >> And when you sent it, did you set forth what the violations were and the corrective action to be taken by the property owner? >> Yes, that date was December 26, 2025. >> Okay. But you specifically listed in the letter what they needed to do to come
into compliance. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. And is that listed on page 207 or page 2011 of the agenda packet? >> Correct. >> Right. When you sent this courtesy notice, did you attach photographs to it?
>> I did. That starts on page 202. >> All right. If you could explain going through these photographs and starting at 202 what they depict. Um, so that shows the new wall, uh, retextured and everything. And then you can kind of see in the upper left hand side of this
picture that the temporary pool fence that wasn't applied for any permits, well, actually was voided. Um, that starts there and it's not it's in violation also because you can walk right in. So, there's a hazard with that.
>> And then new pavers also in that picture. The pavers around the pool. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the wall you're referring to, is that on the left side of the photograph? >> Left side. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Next photograph. >> 203. Again, pavers and then that knee
wall that is all brand new. And then yeah, pavers again. >> Okay. Page 204. >> Uh the fence. The fence where it doesn't completely block away the pool. So,
kids, pets, anything can uh potentially go in there. It's a hazard. >> Okay. Page 205. What does that photograph reflect? >> That shows uh Stuckco work that the wall is kind of separating. It's just cosmetic.
>> Okay. Page 206. You can see more so in the below picture um a lot of exposed rebar from the knockdown walls and then kind of some of the debris laying in the sand. >> All right. Did the property owner bring
the property into compliance when requested from the courtesy letter? >> No, sir. >> Is it in compliance as of today? >> No. >> All right. Did you issue a notice of code violation? >> Yes. >> Is that reflected on starting at page 207? >> Yes. >> When did you do that? That was sent out
December 30th of 2025. >> Okay. Did it include the same photographs that you had just gone through? >> Yes. >> All right. And again, you set a different date for compliance on that one, correct? >> Uh, yes. We gave him two weeks uh January 13th of 2026.
>> Okay. Well, it says the very bottom January 13, 2025. That That's a typo, right? That would >> That is a typo. Yes. >> Okay. 2026. Okay. Um, did you issue a since they're not in compliance a notice of hearing for today's case to be heard by the special
magistrate? >> We did. >> And is that starting on page 215 of the packet? >> 215. Yes. >> When was that notice of hearing dated? >> January 16th of 2026. >> When was it mailed? >> It would have been the same day.
>> And was it sent by regular or certified mail or both? >> Both. >> Okay. Did you issue a statement of violation request for hearing? >> We did. >> And is that starting on page 218 of the packet? >> 218. Yes. >> All right. Uh, if you could turn to page 220.
This is the affidavit of service. This is what reflects that you've signed an affidavit reflecting the fact that you had sent the notice of hearing u uh through regular mail, certified mail. You've also posted the property with the notice and posted city hall. Correct.
>> Correct. All with notice of today's hearing. >> Yes. >> If you could turn to page 222 and 223 and explain what those photographs reflect. >> 222 shows the posting in the front of the parking lot of the building. And
then 223 is the posting here at city hall downstairs. >> Okay. What does the property owner need to do to bring the property into compliance? Is it the same items that were listed in the corrective action on the courtesy letter? >> Corrective action. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, a licensed cor contractor will need to apply for and obtain an after the fact permit to comply with the newly constructed wall p and pavers. >> Yes. >> Um, the temporary pool barrier must fully enclose the pool for life safety measures.
>> Yes. >> They need to cap or remove the exposed rebar for life safety. >> Yes. They need to repair the stuckle on the wall where it's detached. >> Yes. >> And they need to repair the barrier fencing on the beach side. Correct. >> Yes.
>> How much time do you think it'll take to bring the property into compliance? >> 30 days. >> Okay. And um what do you think the dollar amount of the fine should be for every day the property remains in violation of the cited code section? I think $250 a day
would be appropriate due to the amount of violations at the property. >> Are you concerned about life safety aspects of the the pool being open to the public as well? >> Yes, absolutely. >> All right. Okay. I don't have any uh further questions. Uh Miss Davis, I would tender
into evidence um agenda item packet pages 197 through 223. Ask that they be received. >> All right. All right, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages 197 through 223 of the agenda packet. All right, is there anyone here
from the respondent? Anyone here on behalf of Mediterranean of MadiRaa Condo Association, Inc.? Okay, seeing none, Miss Davis, I just have one question for you. I want to make sure I understand because I'm going to put in my corrective action exactly
what I believe you have set forth. Can you just show me? I want to make sure I see on the pictures and it's clear on the record. Like I'm looking on page 213 of the agenda packet. It's two photographs, one above another. Yeah. Right there. Is that the top photograph
show the Is that the barrier fencing on the beach side that needs to be >> Yes. There was just parts missing. I assume the wind took them, but yeah, some of the debris is kind of laying in the sand there.
>> Gotcha. So that cor the corrective action for repair the barrier fencing whatever needs to be done is depicted on page 213 of the agenda package. >> Yes. >> Perfect. Okay. Uh all right. Are there any members of the public that have any knowledge about these this code violation that would like to come forward and be heard?
>> Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? >> No. Thank you. >> All right. Based upon the testimony of Miss Davis and the other items set forth in the record, I do find the violations existed and are in existence as of today. The respondent shall have 30 days to uh take corrective action or be fined
$250 a day thereafter. Miss Davis, has the respondent um done anything in response to this? >> I've heard nothing >> and and I just want to make sure for service of um my order and we can take a moment to look at
this. Is the I'm going to mail it to 13910 Gulf Boulevard, but on Sunbiz and Mr. Trash, maybe you can take a moment. I just want to make sure I'm also going to send it to their registered agent if that's at a different address. So, can somebody just look that up on Sunbiz and tell me what the address for the
registered agent is so I can send that. I just want to make sure nobody's arguing that they don't have notice of this of my order. >> I will do that. >> Okay, great. And I'll get that from you after the hearing so we can move forward. Mr. Tras,
>> thank you. Okay, we are now on to the old business portion of the agenda. I understand we've got a series of um some affidavit of compliance, some affidavit of non-compliance. Let's move on to the first one. CEB
08.07 08.07 08.24 24 09.39 all for the property located at 132252nd Street East. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. >> City would call Holden Pinkard.
Holden, are you uh first of all, if you can state your occupation and job responsibilities here at the city? >> Uh Holden Pinker, building compliance supervisor. Uh some of my duties include overseeing code compliance, um supervising inspections, investigations, and presenting cases.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with this property located at 132252nd Street East? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, I realize that these are very old cases. Um, how did you become familiar with these cases? >> Uh, I became familiar with these through
email and an effort made to pay them off. >> Okay. So, the city was requested to provide a payoff on these code enforcement lanes. Is that a starting point that it received? >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, was it determined that the
property was in compliance or not in compliance when the original request was made? >> I'm sorry, can you repeat it? >> When the original request was made for a payoff, did the city know whether or not that the property was in compliance? >> We did not have a specific compliance
date. No. >> Okay. So the city did you what records did you review to see whether or not these code violation cases had um come into compliance or not in compliance? >> I went through whatever files that I
could find and the earliest compliance date that I could find was through Google Earth and that was I think sometime in 2011. >> Okay. So when the request for the payout was uh provided to you, did the property
owner provide you with any information relative to when the property came into compliance? >> No. >> Okay. So what did you do to try to find a compliance date since the property owner did not give you that information? >> Just used uh went through our whatever
case files we had and that was not a fruitful search and I used street view for Google Earth. When you looked at Street View, Google Earth, what exactly were you looking at? >> Uh, the grass to see if the grass was cut. >> Okay. Is that what this ca these cases are all about?
>> Each one. Yes. >> Okay. And so you made a determination based upon the Google Earth search that it was in compliance at least by what date? >> You look at your affidavit of compliance on page 242. Uh that would be let's see as of May
31st, 2011. >> Okay. Is it normally your standard practice to search out compliance information for property owners or did you go out of your way to determine that there was a compliance date of May 31st, 2011? >> I did what I could to find the earliest
reasonable compliance date. >> Okay. All right. So, um the property is in in your mind according to this affidavit of compliance in compliance as of May 31st, 2011. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you don't have any information
that uh in your possession of legion believe that was in compliance any date sooner than that? Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um did you um for this hearing today, did you issue a notice of hearing to the property owner? >> Yes, I did.
What pro where did you send the notice? >> Uh this notice went to the 13225 second street east uh the same address that or same property owner andor address that is on the
uh orders. >> Okay. And when you set it for hearing, did you also uh prepare an affidavit of service uh for this hearing? >> Yes. And in the affidavit of service starting on page 240, if you could look
at that, can you explain what you did in that affidavit of service? >> That reflects that a notice of hearing was sent, regular mail, certified mail, that the property was posted, and that city hall was posted with the notice of hearing. >> Okay. So, what were and then the
affidate of compliance on page 242, you were the one that prepared that. That was your signature on page 243 and it was notorized. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. So, you're asking the special magistrate to receive into evidence the affidavit of compliance? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I have no
other questions. >> All right. First of all, um I'll go ahead and accept in You want exhibit number one to be the entire portion of this or just the affidavit of acceptance. >> Uh starting at page 224 going to 243. >> Great. I'll go ahead and accept in evidence is page 224 through 243,
exhibit number one. Mr. Pinker, I understand the compliance deadlines May 31st and I've read through these orders and some looks like it's stipulated amounts. Have these fines been paid? Are you asking me to enter an order along with the compliance setting forth the
total amount that would be due? >> I I've seen different documents where some have been paid, some have not been paid. I'm not certain which ones have been and which haven't. Um, >> well, let's we'll finish the hearing and
then what I'll do, Mr. Tras, is I'm going to have you prepare the proposed order. >> Okay? >> Or you can ask some follow-up questions of Mr. Pinker, I just want to make sure I'm setting forth the correct amount. I don't want to put in an amount if there's been payments made. So, and
unless you want to continue this hearing to next month or something like that. I'm trying to find a a way to do this. I take it someone has has come in and they're making some application where they need to deal with this issue. >> Right. Okay, Mr. Tras, how would you like to proceed on? >> Um, I'd like to finish the hearing. I believe there's someone here for this
case. And then, um, I'd be happy to prepare the order based upon your direction. >> All right, sounds good. Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent, the property owner, or anybody else? Again, the property is located at 13225 Second Street East. Anyone here on this one? All right, come on forward
and just give me uh your name for the record, sir. >> We do. Um, my name is Jeff Begins and I live at 429 Boca Drive, Madiraa Beach. >> Okay. And what would you like to tell me about this affidav? >> This one's interesting because this is speaking from a real estate broker perspective on this one. So, we brokered
this and a friend of mine owns it and um when we were going through the closing process, this was a very unique like first time anything like this ever come about. So, 17 years ago and four owners ago, somebody didn't mow the yard, right? and whatever happened, nobody
really paid attention to that. It just kind of went through four different owners and four different closings and four different title searches and everything along the way, which is odd. So, at the end of the day, um, when this was coming up to the closing, the research that came up that there was
that this was there, but it seemed like it was like a $2,000 initial fine. And the seller is like, man, it wasn't me. It was four owners ago, but if it's a couple thousand dollars from the initial find, he goes, I'll pay that. So, it's been escroed. And then consequently after the fact it looked like the number
could be like astronomically crazy. So it's kind of just a go back to I don't know who missed what where along the way 17 years ago but it's been in compliance. Somebody mowed the yard clearly since 17 years from then and four owners ago. So there's no way to kind of do this. So if there's a fair,
equitable, easy way to do this, the seller is willing to pay whatever the initial fine was even though it wasn't his just to kind of move it around. So that money is escroed. Has so has closing already occurred? >> Closing has occurred. >> And what how much is in escrow to pay this? >> Um $2,000 $2,100 or whatever the
original fine was something like that. >> Around $2,000. Okay. Mr. Tras may have some questions for you. And is it beggs? >> All right. Mr. Tras, >> I don't have any questions for Mr. Beans. >> All right. But you believe there's about 2,000 sitting in escar to pay the city if the city were to agree that that's amount that would be due payable.
Correct. We appreciate that. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Is there anyone Mr. Beans? Anybody else you want to call? Okay. And Mr. Beggings, I'm sorry. I I should have asked you. It's not really It's more of a legal hearing, but do you have any questions for Mr. Pinker? >> I do not. >> Okay. I don't think that'd be appropriate anyway. I think it's more
argument, but given the opportunity. All right. Anyone else on behalf of the respondent? >> All right. I don't think I mean, this is affidavit of compliance. We're not really in public comment, but I'll open up. Is there anyone members of the public that have any knowledge about this code violation
that want to speak? Okay, seeing none, Miss Trash, how do you want to deal with the payment of whatever is due? What What's the city's preference on that? >> We'd like you to enter an order finding the property was in compliance as of May 31st, 2011. Um, and as for the dollar
amount of the fine, I don't I don't think that you necessarily need to do that in your order as long as you just make make the determination was in compliance as of that date. Anybody requests a payoff on it, then we can provide that payoff based upon that compliance date. >> Okay, that's what I'll do. I'll just put in my order that the property was in
compliance as of May 31st. Mr. Begins, please work directly with Mr. Pinker and and the city and they may very well accept that amount. If not, I'm sure you can come back before me. I'm here same time every month. So, thank you. Okay, let's move on to the next one. Case
number 22, 2022 3343 for the property at 431 Virginia Avenue. And I also noticed there's a I guess a companion case for the same uh property. You want to do those at two different two separate hearings or deal with them at the same time, Mr. Tras? >> We can do them at the same time.
>> All right. We'll also deal with 2022 3445 for the property located at 431 Virginia Avenue. You ready to proceed, Mr. Tras? >> I am. Go ahead. >> Calling Holden Pinker. Uh Holden, you're familiar with this uh this case or these two cases, correct? For Mr. Ivanchuk.
>> Yes. >> 431 Virginia Avenue. >> Is um is the property in compliance as of now? Uh, yes it is. >> Okay. Did you issue an affidavit of compliance in both of these cases? >> I did. >> Okay. If you could turn to page 251 for
the first case and look at that affidavit of compliance, that provides that the property was in compliance for this case on October 15, 2025. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. And then if you could turn to your affidavit in the other case.
Um trying to get to that. So on page 261, the aid of compliance for the second case, it's the same compliance date, October 15, 2025. Correct. >> Correct. These were both uh a building
permit needed to be issued for the property be property to be considered in compliance and the permit being issued put both of these cases in compliance. >> Okay. Did you uh issue um notices of hearing for today's hearing in both cases?
>> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And did you also um issue an affidavit of service in both cases? >> Yes. >> Okay. Showing that the property was posted. You sent them by regular and certified mail and the city hall was posted with the notice of hearing. >> Yes.
>> On both cases. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. All right. I don't I don't have any other questions. The Have you had the Well, let me one more. Have you had the opportunity to look at the agenda packet starting at page 244 and ending at page 263? Those are both cases. Have you
familiarized yourself with all those exhibits? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. And you were the one that prepared these exhibits for this agenda packet. Correct. Correct. >> And you're asking the special magistrate receive them into evidence. Correct. >> Please. >> Okay. And and ultimately we're asking for the special magistrate to enter an order finding compliance. Correct.
>> As of >> October 15, 2025. >> Yes. >> Okay. I have no other questions. I would tender in evidence. Um it both of those agenda packages starting at page 244 and ending at 263. >> All right. Right. I'll go ahead and
accept into evidence as exhibit number one both agenda packages 244 through 263. And is the city asking me to put in any specific u amount of a fine at this point or just determine like the last
one that they Okay. All right. Is there anybody here on behalf of uh Mr. Mrs. Ivan Chuck or anybody here on behalf of 431 Virginia Avenue? All right, seeing none. Any members of the public that want to
provide comment in regard to this particular matter? Are you seeing none? All right, I'll go ahead and enter an order saying the property came into compliance as of October 15, 2025. Okay, let's move on to the next one
which is C25-131 for the property located at 1545th Avenue, excuse me, 154th Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes. So, call Holden Pinker. Holden, is this another one of your cases where you're asking the special magistrate to
find the property in compliance? >> Yes. >> What was required to bring this property into compliance? >> Uh, a building permit needed to be obtained. Okay. Did the property owner receive that building permit? >> Yes. >> Okay. And in your affidavit of
compliance, you're showing that the property was in compliance as of November 10th, 2025. Correct. >> Correct. >> That's the date that the permit was issued. >> Correct. >> All right. Have you had the opportunity to review the agenda packet starting at page 264 all the way to 273? >> I have.
>> And in fact, you were the one that prepared that portion of the agenda packet. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. You're asking the special magistrate to receive that into evidence. Yes. >> Okay. I have no other questions. >> All right. I'll go ahead and accept any evidence as exhibit number one, the
agenda packet, pages 264 through 273. And it looks like this one was brought into compliance before the fines would start running. But is anybody here on behalf of the owner of 154 154th Avenue? Anybody here on behalf of Olivia Land
and Sand LLC? All right. Uh, anything else, Mr. Tras? >> No, thank you. >> Go ahead and uh enter an order finding the property came into compliance as of November 10th, 2025. Okay. The next one I have is C25-71
for the property located at 14060 Myiramar Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? >> We are. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> Call Holden Pinker again. Holden, um, are you familiar with this particular case? DNR Realy Estates? >> Yes, I am. Okay. And was this a code
violation case where a permit was required and was not obtained? >> Correct. >> Okay. Did the did the property owner eventually um bring the property into compliance? >> Yes. >> Okay. Was the building permit issued then? >> Yes, it was. >> Okay. Did you prepare an affidavit of
compliance? >> Uh I did. If you would turn to page 283 of the packet, it's showing the compliance date of December 15, 2025. Is it that the date the permit was issued? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the property is in compliance as of today. Correct.
>> As of 12:15 2025. Yes. >> Thank you for that correction. Um, are you familiar with the agenda package starting at page 274 all the way up to 285? >> Uh, I am. >> All right. You're the one that prepared that packet, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. You're asking the special
magistrate to receive it all into evidence, correct? >> Yes. >> All right. I don't have any other questions. Tender into evidence pages 274 through 285. The agenda packet asked they be received. We're just asking for a um affidavit of complian order on
affidavit compliance be issued. All right. Um I'll go ahead and accept in evidence as exhibit number one, agenda packet pages 274 through 285. Is there anyone here on behalf of DNR Realy Estates in regard to the property
at 14060 Myiramar Avenue? All right, come on forward. >> What is your name, sir? >> My name is Rajin Rin. >> All right, spell out the first name and last name for me. >> R A L H A N >> R A O
>> H as in Henry, A as in alpha, N as in Nancy. >> Okay, last name. That's my last name. >> Okay. What's your first name? >> R A J A N as in Nancy. >> All right. >> All right, sir. And um the city has said
you are in compliance as of December 15, 2025. Do you dispute that? Do you agree with that? What's your position on that? >> We agree. We agree. >> We agree with that. We just come to carry on that conversation. My when my wife was here last time on October 27,
uh she was here if you remember uh she wants to talk a bit more about it. What happened u when the permit uh was extended till November 15 and we had submitted uh the general contractor has submitted the package on November 11th
from that date till the date of compliance December 15th. Um I mean where do we stand now? I mean, what are the are there any fines there or are those fines going to be voided? >> Well, here's what we're going to do. For purposes of today, I'm going to an order
saying your property is in compliance as of December 15th, 2025. You can then go talk to the city right after this hearing and if there's any fines, they'll tell you what those are. If you want to appeal those fines, just come back before, let the city know, and you can come back before me next month. Okay. >> I mean, >> I just don't know what they are. So, and
I don't, Mr. Tras, do we want to deal with that now or do you want to take that up after I enter my order of compliance? There are fines from November the 7th through December the 15th and the the I believe these uh orders have already been recorded and therefore the special magistrate has
lost jurisdiction of this case once those spe once those leans were recorded. I just need to confirm that. Um so you' be dealing directly with me or city staff on the dollar amount of the fine. >> Okay. >> So we we wanted to talk about the fines because >> we're not going to talk about the fines
today because it's not set for hearing. That's our position. >> Yeah. And so here you can talk about the fines. Here's my first step. This is good for you. I'm going to sign an order that says your property is in compliance as of the 15th. Talk to Mr. Tras in his office. If you dispute the amount of the
fines, come back and see me again. Okay? And then that'll be a separate hearing and then I'll consider reduction in the fines. Okay? So today I'm going to enter an order saying you're in compliance, which is what you need. So, you heard about the other gentleman came up here and said they're trying to sell the property. They couldn't get it sold
because it wasn't in compliance. So, now you're in compliance and then you can deal with Mr. Tras and you consider you can wait till after the hearing. We're almost done and you can come talk to him and he can give you more information. Okay. >> This property was is destroyed by the hurricane. You know that those
hurricanes came back to back and it was a big um impact on us. >> I I fully understand what you're saying. We all family members are together to get this property running so that you know we can be on the you know so that we can live and you know it should be
because we like to live here and we want to stay here. It seems like sometimes that you are punishing us because there is not delays from our side. We are trying to do whenever we are getting the paperwork or documents from the city and
Mr. holding is also helpful uh to you know when we but it is from the >> we have been communicating with your with the city on a regular basis >> and I'm not I'm not saying you're not sir I'm not punishing you let me finish I'm not punishing you I'm not saying you
did anything wrong in fact you've done everything right you brought the property into compliance what I'm saying is I can't reduce any fines today I cannot do that I don't even know what the n the number of the fines are as of today what I encourage you to do is talk
to Mr. Tras after today's hearing. If you cannot reach an agreement and you don't think the fine should be what they are, please just come back and see me when it's noticed and when I can consider it because if I were to reduce your fines today, the city could appeal and they'd win because it's not set for
hearing today. All right? So, we're going to go ahead and find that it's in compliance and then if you dispute the amount of the fines, just come back and see me and tell me everything you're telling me again right then and I'll consider it. Okay. And what about the permit? Because there are the permits have been charged to us and uh those
permits there are people who got the free permits and we were we got charged for those permit too. >> Like I said in my opening, I can't grant you a building permit. That's not something that's before me right now. But again, I encourage you to stick around after this hearing. The city staff will be here. If they can't talk
with you today, I'm sure you can set an appointment to come talk to them again. Okay. >> All right. Thank you guys. Okay, let's move on to the next one which is C9 or excuse me 25-91 for the property located at 11 Lynn Way. Is the city ready to
proceed? >> I just want to make sure we we heard testimony from the respondent, but did you receive the documents and the evidence and and make a finding? Yes, I'm going to go ahead and receive exhibit 1 C25-71
pages 274 through 285. I do find the property is in compliance as of 12152025. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I will enter an order as such. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Now, let's move on to 25-91 at 11 Lynn Way. City ready to proceed.
>> Yes. Again, uh Holden Pinker would be our witness. Uh Holden, are you familiar with this case 11 Lin Way here Madiraa? >> Yes. >> Okay. And is this another one of the cases where work was done without a building permit? >> Correct. >> Okay. And when the um original order was
issued, the order uh required the property to be brought into compliance by November 26, 2025. Uh did the property come into compliance timely? >> No. Okay. Did you issue an affidavit of
non-compliance then? >> Yes. >> Okay. If you could turn to page uh 293 of the agenda packet. >> In the agenda packet, it says the property uh came into compliance on what
date? >> Uh I have this property as not in compliance as of November 18th, 2025. >> Okay. on page 293. >> Okay. I'm looking at the order that was entered. It says that it had to come
into compliance as of November 26, 2025. >> Is it in compliance as of today? >> As of today, no. >> Okay. It's still not in compliance then. >> Correct. Okay. Were um were you the person that prepared the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> Okay. You're familiar with all the items
there, including the um notice of hearing and the affidavit. >> Correct. >> Are you asking the special magistrate to take into consideration the affidavit of non-compliance? >> Yes. >> Should we change be changing the date though in the affidate of compliance to
November the 26th versus November the 18th? >> Yes. So it was not in compliance on November 26th. >> Correct. >> All right. I tender in the evidence the
documents that are starting on page 286 through 295. Ask that they be received in the evidence. Um, and I also ask that you find the property not in compliance as of the compliance date, November 26, 2025. All right. I'll go ahead and accept an
evidence as exhibit number one, the agenda packet, pages 286 through 295. Is there anyone here on behalf of Olivia Sand, uh, Land and Sand, or anyone who wants to speak in regard to this violation of the property located 11 Lin
Way? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and find the properties not in compliance. I'll enter an order of compliance. It should be an order of non-compliance imposing a fine as of 112625 based upon the prior order and certifying the lean.
>> Thank you. Okay, the next one I have is another affidavit of non-compliance. This one is in case number 25-105 for the property located at 30 Len Way. Is a city proceed.
>> We're asking that um we continue this matter until next month so we can provide some additional information to the property owner. So we'd like it to be continued until February 23rd, 2025. >> All right. We'll go ahead and continue it to February 23rd, 2026. All right.
>> I'm sorry. 26 could catch. >> That's all right. We will now move on to the affidavit of non-compliance in regard to case number 25-127 for the property located at 14503
North Beayshore Drive. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes. City would call um Holden Pinker Holden. Are you familiar with this case? >> Yes. >> Is this another one of those cases that property owner did work without a building permit? >> Correct. >> Okay. And the order that was entered
provide that the property come into compliance by November 26, 2025 according to page 307 of the packet. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Um, did the property uh come into compliance as of that date? >> Uh, no, it did not.
>> Is it in compliance as of today? >> No. >> Okay. And did you issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing and an affidavit of service as well as the affidavit of compliance? >> Correct. >> All right. And are those set forth in the packet starting at page 306 going to
315 of the agenda package? >> Correct. >> In fact, you were the one that prepared that agenda package. Correct. >> Yes. >> You're asking that it be received into evidence by the special magistrate. >> Yes. >> And you're asking the special magistrate enter an order finding the property not in compliance as of November 26, 2025.
Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. I have no other questions. I'd ask that um exhibit 306 through 315 be received in the evidence and an affidavit order on an affidavit of non-compliance be issued.
All righty. I'll go ahead and accept that into evidence as exhibit number one. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner 14503 North Bayhore Drive? Anyone?
All right. Uh, seeing none, we'll go ahead and find the property's non-compliance. We'll go ahead and certify or impose a fine, certify a lean as of 11:26 2025. All right. All right. I see that we're now on 25-129
for the property located at 101107 154th Avenue and 153982nd Street East. This is another affidavit of non-compliance. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> All right, let's go ahead and move forward on that one. Mr. Tras,
>> so Holden, are are you familiar with this case um for these properties that were just mentioned by the special magistrate? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Um, is this one of those cases where a building permit was required and was not obtained? >> Correct. >> Okay. Did the special magistrate find
the property in violation ordered to be uh in compliance for the November 26, 2025? >> Yes. >> All right. Did it come into compliance as of that date? >> No, it did not. >> Okay. Um, if you could turn to page 324, the agenda packet,
>> affidavit of non-compliance. Do you have that? Yes. >> Showing a date of November 18th. Did you mean that to be November 26th did not come into compliance by November 26th? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, the property is not in
compliance as of right now. You mentioned correct. >> Correct. >> Were you the one that uh created this agenda package pages um 316 through 326? >> Yes, I did. Okay. And you issued a
notice of hearing, an affidavit of comp non-compliance, and an affidavit of service. Correct? >> Yes. >> You're asking the special magistrate receive all these into evidence, >> please. >> All right. I have no other questions. Um I would tender into evidence pages 316
through 326 of the agenda package. Ask that the special magistrate bind the property not in compliance as of November 26, 2025. >> All right. All right, I'll go ahead and accept an evidence pages 316 through 326 of the agenda packet. Is there anyone
here on behalf of Ocean Enterprise or anyone here on behalf of the owner of the property at 101 and 107 154th Avenue or 153982nd Street East? Anyone? All right. Uh seeing none, we'll go
ahead and find that the property is not in compliance as of November 26, 2025. I'll enter an order opposing fine and certifying the lean on that one. Okay. The last one I have on the agenda is C25-67
for the property located at 14210 North Beayshore Drive. This is an affidavit of compliance. >> Yes. So, the city would call Holden Pinker again. Holden, are you uh familiar with this case? >> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. And um this property owner was found to be in violation of section 14-69 maintenance of exterior premises. Do you remember that? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And uh the special magistrate ordered that he come into compliance the property owners come into compliance when November the 6, 2025.
>> Correct. >> Did um the property owner finally bring the property into compliance? >> Yes. >> And when did it come into compliance? >> Uh the November 26th of 2025. >> Okay. So about 20 20 days late, correct?
>> Correct. >> All right. Did you um issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes. >> Is it in the agenda packet? >> Yes, it is. >> Um did you also issue the affidavit of service and affidavit of uh compliance? >> I did.
>> All right. Did you prepare this agenda package starting at page 327 and going all the way through 336? >> Yes. >> All right. All right. You're ask the special magistrate to receive these in evidence, >> please. >> Okay. All right. I don't have any other
questions of Mr. Pinker. I would ask the special magistrate receiving the evidence those documents pages 327 through 336 and find the property in compliance as of November 26, 2025. >> All right. Uh thank you. I'll go ahead and accept in evidence as exhibit number
one, the agenda package pages 327 through 336. All right. Um, David Brown, Ronnie Brown, or anyone here on behalf of the property at 14210 North Beayshore Drive. All right, come on forward, sir. What's your name? >> David Brown.
>> All right, Mr. Brown, good to see you again. U, Mr. Brown, the the city is contending the property was brought into compliance as of November 26, 2025. Do you dispute that date? >> Um, I guess I do. Um, but it's a
question of how do we go in compliance? I don't want to say that work was done without a permit. The hazardous condition the day I had the hearing in back in October, I think I'd gone to see if I could stabilize the the roof panel myself and it came down because it had already been through all the, you know,
storms over the summer and everything else. So, I didn't indicate that at the time because we didn't have a permit for the work. Um, I did arrange for a roofer to be doing the work. it would have been finished by the last week of October, but then he wasn't able to publicly
permit because we had to file an SISD and that's currently under review. I have that number if that's relevant. Um, Mr. J know that though. Um, I think so. >> Okay. Well, let me ask you this. The the violation was not to pull a permit for the work.
It was to maintain the exterior. And I'm looking at it. >> Understood. Yes. >> Yeah. And so as I recall is basically to uh deal with the you know the condition of the you know the property. So do you believe you brought it into compliance before the 26th?
>> That's correct. >> And what evidence do you have of that that I can I can look at today? >> I think you can see enough of the the original um affidavit showed better pictures from the further southern portion of the house but the missing
hazard of uh metal roofing is gone. Completely gone. Okay. >> So, we do need of course to have the house in code compliance, but so I'd still need to get a roofer to do that, but also we have to get approval of the SISD permit. >> I understand what you're saying. Okay.
When do you believe is the what do you believe is the correct date when you brought the property into compliance for this specific violation? >> The original hearing was October, so it will be that weekend. Um, I don't think it shows
date. I didn't bring the paperwork in with me. >> Okay. But you believe it was before November 6th, 2025? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Did you call the city out to reinspect? >> No, because again, I I didn't know that this was allowed to be done. I thought you had to have a permit for demolition
or something like that. >> So, yeah. >> All right. Um, thank you, sir. Mr. Trash, do you have anything on this witness? >> Um, no, I don't. >> All right. Um, Mr. Pinker, has uh the respondent gone
ahead and submitted the whatever necessary application for the building permit and is everything on track there? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, Mr. T, how do you want to proceed here? I mean, I I think the evidence before me is that the certainly the property is in compliance by the 26th when the reinspection was called
for. So, I feel comfortable entering that order. Is there anything different that the city would like to do based upon what the applicant said? No, >> I don't really have any other information, >> right? >> And it wasn't definitive in his testimony as to when it actually came into compliance. So, I don't know what
date you could use other than the 26th. >> Yeah. I tell you what, sir. I'm going to go ahead and just enter an order saying that you are in compliance as of November 26, 2025. As I told these folks previously, the city will determine the amount of fines. If you believe that the
property was in compliance beforehand and you think there should be a reduction for that, work with the, you know, work with Mr. Tras's office on that. If you can't come to an agreement, please come back and see me and the city can notice it for hearing and hopefully you won't be the very last one on a long agenda next time if you come back. So, thank you for hanging out through the
end there. >> All right, Mr. Tras. Uh, so I'll go ahead and enter an order of compliance on as of November 26, 2025 on that last one. >> Thank you. All right. Is there anything else before me today? No. All right.
Thank you all for your time today. That concludes today's hearings.