All right. Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to today's special magistrate hearing. Uh we'll be hearing two different matters today. Both variance matters and code enforcement. We're going to hear the variance first. So if you're here for code enforcement, you're here in the right place. We just need to
run through the other items on the agenda first. And the first one will be the uh variances. Welcome to the city of MadiRaa Beach variance special exception use 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 and
I've been a member of the Florida Bar for approximately 25 years. I've been appointed to this position in accordance and with the authority set forth under Florida law and the city of MadiRaa 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 read and reviewed the applications with all attachments, any written submissions by anyone having an interest, any timely submitted written
objections, and the materials provided by the city staff. In all cases, the hearing will be conducted in the following order. First, the city will present its case and staff report, and the applicant may ask questions of the city's representative. Second, the applicant will present his or her case supported by witnesses and evidence, and
the city may cross-examine each witness. Third, public comment will be solicited or received from parties directly affected by the variance. Individuals testifying do not have the right to cross-examine the parties. All public comment will be limited to three minutes per person. Fourth, public participation
will then be closed. I'll deliberate and then make a decision to grant or deny each variance requested in the application. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will exert every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness is afforded to all parties. After my decision today, I 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 minutes, the city attorney will administer the oath and swear in any witnesses. If you expect to talk to me today during the hearing on any matter, then you will need to rise and be sworn. This includes members of the public who are directly affected by the
variance and may wish to provide public comment. Also, if you plan to present anything to me today in the code enforcement matters, please rise and be sworn. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. All right. Anyone that's going to speak today, stand up, raise your right hand. I'll swear you're under oath. Are you going to speak today? Okay. You
swear the testimony you're about to give is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Okay. Thank you. All right. The first matter on today's agenda is V 2025-06 for the property located at 13212 Bokeh
Sega Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? We are ready to proceed. The city would call as its witness, Andrew Morris. Um, Andrew, if you could state your occupation here at the city of MadiRaa Beach and your job responsibilities here at the city.
Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Morris. I'm the long range planner for the city of Madira Beach Community Development Department. Uh, I I review ordinances, comprehensive plan amendments, and I also uh uh review variances. Okay. Are you familiar with
the variance request and the application filed for the property located at 13212 Bogousie Avenue? Yes, sir. Did you review the application that was submitted by the applicant? Yes, sir. Okay. Did you prepare a staff report and
recommendation for that application? Yes, sir. Okay. If you could go through your staff report and recommendation, please. And if you could pull that mic closer to you so that we can hear you. Okay. Okay. No problem. Let me just uh get to the
Okay. Um so the variance 2025-06 is at uh the property address 13212 Bokea Avenue. Um the request is uh for a side setback variance from uh 15t total
to 5 ft on each side. a rear setback variance from 25 ft to 12 ft. A front setback variance from uh 20 ft to 15 ft and uh structures coverage variance from uh 04 to.5.
Uh and then the specific code provisions are related to uh the section 110-206 setback requirements and section 110-208 maximum lock coverage. For the background, the existing duplex at 13212 Boka Avenue received substantial damage
during Hurricane Helen from storm search flooding. The applicant can use section 110-96 rebuilding after a catastrophic loss to rebuild a duplex on a non-conforming lot. The applicant is applying for a variance because it would not be possible to build a new duplex that meets the required front setback
for the R2 zoning district. Section 110-96 does allow for a duplex to be built back to the existing non-conforming side setback and rear setback. Uh the side setback and rear setback are included in this variance request because applicant would like to propose side and rear
setbacks that reduce the non-conformity and make better use of the regular shaped lot. Applicant is asking for a variance for lot coverage because of the regular size of the lot. The proposed duplex would still meet uh the floor area ratio and impervious surface ratio
requirements in the major beach code of ordinances. Located below is a summary table that shows uh our two zoning district setbacks, the existing setbacks and the proposed setbacks. We just put the table up and as you can see that um
the applicant's proposing to um try to reduce the non-conformity for certain uh setbacks compared to the existing uh variance criteria and analysis. Special conditions and circumstances
exist where or which are peculiar to the land, building or other structures for which the variance is sought and which do not apply generally to the lands, building or other structures in the same district. Special conditions be considered shall include
but are limit to the following uh circumstances. Um, substainer regular shaped lots, significant vegetation or natural features, residential neighborhood character, uh, public facilities and architectural andor engineering considerations. For today,
uh, for this variance, um, the criteria for the, uh, substandard or regular shaped lot, um, the residential neighborhood character and the architectural and or engineering considerations are the main ones. And uh the lot at uh 13212 Bogous Avenue was
originally platted in 1935. The lot was platted before the current setback requirements and lot area requirements were adopted in the mad reach code of orances. The lot is both regularly shaped and substandard. The lot does not meet the minimum land area and lot size requirements for a duplex in the R2 zoning district. It would not be possible to build a new duplex as
intended by section 110-96 if it had to conform with the front setback from the R2 zoning district. Uh the existing residential neighborhood where the duplex is located has older and non-conforming residential structures that have non-conforming setbacks because they are located on irregularly shaped or substandard lots. Pros
setbacks would balance the maintaining existing character of the neighborhood while reducing the non-conformity. If these other neighboring structures were rebuilt, most likely they would need similar variances to rebuild with a similar front setback. Uh the existing duplex flooded during Hurricane Helen
and was declared substantially damaged. the proposed duplex would meet all current Florida building code and FEMA requirements and be more resilient compared to the previous structure. Um the next set of criteria is uh the special conditions and circumstances do
not result from actions of the applicant. A self-created hardship shall not justify variance. Existing duplex was built in 1938. The lot plot was approved in 1935. Both the lot and existing duplex were created before the R2 zoning district land minimum building
site area requirements and setback requirements were adopted. Applicant did not uh self-create a hardship since both existing structure and lot plot were created before the current land development regulations went into effect. The next said the criteria is granting the variance will not confer on
the applicant. any uh special privilege that is denied to other land buildings or structures in the same zoning district. Uh there are other neighboring R2 zoning district properties with substandard regular shaped lots with non-conforming
structures on them. For these properties to be able to rebuild after catastrophic loss, they would need to apply for similar variances. By granting this variance, applicant is not receiving any special privilege compared to other neighboring properties. The next one is the 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 subp part B of this code or section 14205 of the code of orances and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Uh requiring the applicant to meet the front setback requirements would not allow for the duplex to be rebuilt for
the applicant to be able to rebuild their duplex after a catastrophic loss. The proposed variance is necessary. Um and then the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land. The proposed setback and lock coverage variances would be the minimum amount of variance needed to make possible reasonable use
of the property. The proposed setbacks would make the property closer to being conforming compared to the existing duplex. And then the next one is the granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the city land development regulations or the code of orances when it relates to
14 205 and that such a variance will not be inurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general intent purpose of the sand city land development regulations.
The RC zone district is a residential zoning district that does allow for lowdensity multif family structures. A proposed duplex would not be injurious to the area involved and would not be detrimental to public welfare. Uh staff recommends or city staff recommends approval of VR 2025-06
uh 13212 Bokeh SGA Avenue. Attached is the applicant's application and support materials and the public notice uh mailing and posting. All right. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Uh, so in its simplest terms, I want just want to go over a couple things. In its
simplest terms, the current property is located with a front yard setback 3.56 ft away from the property line. However, they're they're changing that to 15 ft. So, it's it's the front yard setback is
going to be better than it is currently. Correct. Yes, sir. But it's going to be less than the required front setback of 20 ft. Correct. That's the need for the variance. Correct. Okay. And let's talk about the sideyard setbacks. So they're
currently 3.53 ft and 8.58 ft. And they're wanting to make it 5T on each side. So at least on one side it's going to be um be put in a better position than that currently exists with regard to the side setback. Correct. Correct. All right. So
when this application was sent out, the notice of this application was sent out to the public, did did the city receive any correspondence objecting um to this variance or in um favor of this variance? Uh I we did not receive
any comments or affected party forms um within the uh before this public hearing. All right. All right. I don't have any other questions for you, Mr. remorse. At this time, I would tender into evidence the city's agenda packet
item pages three through uh 39 as be received into evidence. All right, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, the agenda packet, which is pages 3 through 39. Also note that that does include the report
from Design Freedom, Inc. as well as sketches and photographs as well. And I have reviewed all of those in preparation for today's hearing. All right. Uh is any is anyone here on behalf of Design Freedom, Inc. or the property owner Longline Investments LLC?
All right. Come on forward. Can you give me your name, please? Kathy Sworel. All right. Uh ma'am, you've heard the testimony of the city. I'm going to give you an opportunity in just a minute to tell me anything you want to tell me, but you do have the right to cross-examine Mr. Morris on his
testimony. Do you have any questions for Mr. Morris? I do not. Okay. Uh, sit tight. You might be up next. I don't know if Mr. Tras has anyone else he intends to call. No other witnesses today. All right, ma'am. This is your opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me. Again, I have read and
reviewed. I assume it's your report for Design Freedom, Inc. So, I've read all that. I've read the photographs. I've I've seen everything that's all in the record, but if there's anything you'd like to add, uh, please feel free to add that. If there is public comment, I'm going to give you a chance to come back up after public comment as well and and
do any kind of reply. But what would you like to tell me or share with me about this application? Um, only that uh I'm the architect and uh my client uh bought the property and the property next to it, which is the next item on the agenda. Um, he has been renting it out
uh long-term annually. He bought both of the properties last year. Uh he did some remodeling to make them look better and obviously they both got flooded. And so both properties he intends to um to keep to rebuild um you know if if the city
allows uh and to then to continue to rent rent them out. All right. Thank you. Mr. TR, any cross-examination? No questions. Thank you. All right. Um ma'am, just sit tight now. I'm going to call ask if there's anybody in the public that wants to comment on it. If there is, I'll give
you a chance to come back up. All right. Uh, this is the opportunity for public comment in regard to variance 2025-06 for the property at 13212 Bokea Avenue. Is there any member of the public who's affected by this variance that wants to provide comment?
Going once. Going twice. Okay, we'll close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? city, we just ask that you accept staff's recommendation approve the variance as applied for. Okay. Uh based upon the testimony of Mr.
Morris as well as the testimony of Ms. Serchi, am I like SWSL Sorcel? Okay, got it. Uh I go ahead and find that the uh application is sufficient, meets all the criteria to grant variance and therefore
that variance will be granted. Let's move on to the next one which is V2025-07 and this is for the property located at 13230 Bokea Avenue. Applicant is Design Freedom Inc. owner is Longline
Investment LLC. Is a city ready to proceed? Yes, we are. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. Um, the city is going to call Andrew Morris. So Andrew, if you again if you could state your occupation and your job responsibilities here at the city of Madira Beach. Uh good afternoon. My name is Andrew
Morris. I'm the longrange planner for the Madira Beach Community Development Department. Um one of my tasks that I do is review variances. Um like the one in front of us, uh let me
just Okay. So you've you've had the opportunity to review the application for the variant the variance application for 13230 Bogga Avenue. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. And once you reviewed that
application, did you prepare a staff report and recommendation? Yes, sir. All right. If you'd go through that staff report and the recommendation Okay. Uh the request is for side se variance. uh
from 25 ft total to uh 5 ft total, a rear rear setback variance from 25 ft to 12 feet and a front setback variance from 20 ft to 15 ft and that is specific code provision is section 110-206 setback requirements. Um the
existing duplex at 13230 Bokea Avenue received substantial damage during hurricane Helen from storm surge flooding. applicant can use section 110-96 rebuilding after a catastrophic loss to rebuild a duplex on a non-conforming lot. The property owner is applying for variances because it
would not be possible for the new duplex to meet the required front setback for the R2 zoning district. Section 110-96 does allow for a duplex to be built back to the existing non-conforming side step setback and rear setback. The existing side setback and rear setback are included in this variance request
because applicant would like to propose a side and rear setbacks that reduce the non-conformity and make better use of the regular shape lot. Located below is a summary table that shows the R2 zoning district setbacks, existing setbacks and the proposed setbacks. Um
and uh let me scroll. Okay. So, that's the what's required um by and and this uh lot is a regularly uh shaped it's it's a very triangle-shaped lot. So, that's why cuz when people see that 25 ft total, they think but it's like a the
lot's like a a very very irregular shape. So, that that's and it part of it goes out to this intersection um that makes it would be difficult to use that part. So that's why the reduction looks like it but in
reality um a lot large part isn't usable. Um the next set is the variance criteria and analysis. Um this one uh meets the substandard or regular shaped lot uh the residential neighbor character and the architectural
andor engineering considerations. The lot at 13230 Bokea Avenue was originally planned in 1935. The lot was planned before the current setback requirements and lot area requirements were adopted in the Madira Vikto ordinances. The lot is both a regular shaped and substandard lot does not meet the minimum land area
and lot size requirements for a duplex in the R2 zoning district. The lot only has three sides since it is a triangle shape. The lot width gets smaller the closer the lot gets to the intersection. Applicant would not be able to rebuild the duplex if it had to meet the front setback in the R2 zoning district. The
pres variance allows for the applicant to rebuild their duplex and make reasonable use of the substandard and regularly shaped lot. Existing residential neighborhood where the duplex is located has older non-conforming residential structures that have non-conforming setbacks because they are either located on
irregularly shaped lots, substandard lots or were built before current setback requirements. The proposed setback would balance maintain the existing character of the neighborhood while reducing the non-conformity. If these other neighboring structures were rebuilt, they would need similar
variances to rebuild a similar front setback. The existing duplex fled during Hurricane Helen and was declared substantially damaged. The proposed duplex would meet all the all current Florida building code and FEMA requirements and be more resilient compared to the previous structure. The
next set of criteria is the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant itself. create hardship shall not justify a variance. Uh the duplex was built in 1942. The lot plat was created in 1935. Both the duplex and lot plat
were created before the R2 zoning district land minimum build site area requirements and setback requirements. The property owner did not create self-created hardship since both the structure and lot predate the current zoning requirements. Granting
granting the variance will not confer on the applicant. any special privilege that's denied to other land, building or structures in the same zoning district. Uh there are other neighboring or two low lowdensity multif family zoning district properties with
substandard and irregularly shaped lots of non-conforming structures on them. For these properties to be able to rebuild after catastrophic loss, they would need to apply for similar variances. It would not be possible to rebuild the duplex if it had to meet the required front setback. Um the next was
the literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land de development regulation subp part B of this code or section 14-205 of the code of ordances and would work
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant under staff findings requiring the applicant to meet the front sack requirement would not allow for the duplex to be rebuilt. The applicant has the right to rebuild after a catastrophic loss and other neighboring properties have the same right to do that. For the applicant to be able to rebuild their duplex after a
catastrophic loss, the proposed variance is necessary. The next is the variance grant is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of land. The proposed setback variance would be the minimum amount of variance needed to make poss reasonable use of the property. The proposed setback would
make the property closer to being conforming compared to the existing duplex. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the city land development regulations or the code of orances when it relates to section 14-205
and such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Under staff findings, the proposed variance is in harmony with the general intent. Purpose of the city land development regulations R2 to low density multif family residential zoning district is a residential zoning district that does
allow for lowdensity multif family residential structures. The proposed duplex would not be injurious to the area involved and would not be detrimental to public welfare. Under staff recommendations, city staff recommends the approval of V2025-07 uh 13230 Bokea Avenue. attached is
applicants uh application and support materials and our uh public notice mailing and posting. Couple of questions for you then Mr. Morris. So with regard to the front front yard setback, the current is 2.68
ft to 734 ft and it's actually going to be um 15 ft under this proposed application. So it would lessen the encroachment on the front yard as it currently exists. Correct. Correct. And with regard to the sideyard setback,
it's currently 2.9 ft to 14.91 ft. They're proposing a 5-ft setback. And therefore, also, at least on one side of the property, it lessens the encroachment from the current uh structure. Correct. That is correct. And because of the triangle shape, it it
it's hard to measure. It's a three-sided lot. So, okay. And um this uh application has a um diagram in if you could turn to page 60.
And if I'm reading this um application, page 60. Correct. The red version uh the red triangle would be the actual size of the structure that could be built on that property if it met all the sideyard, front yard and rear yard setback.
Correct. That is correct. So they would only be able to build 170.25 ft square foot home if they uh had to meet the uh setbacks. Correct. That that is correct. Okay. With regard to this application, has the city received any correspondence
for or against the application? We we have not. All right. And so there's no notices of intent to be an affected party either. Correct. That is correct. All right. Um I have no other questions of Mr. Morris. I would tender into evidence pages 40
through 76 of the packet. Ask that they be received into evidence. All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence pages 40 through 76. the agenda packet which again I note for the record does include the application and report from Design
Freedom Inc. as well as the sketches, photographs, and other documentations to support the application. All right, ma'am, I assume you're coming back forward on this one as well. Uh just for the record again, if you can just state your name for the record and then your position or relationship to the applicant. U Kathy Swell, architect with
Design Freedom, Inc. All right. And uh ma'am, this is your opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Morris like I did last time. You can tell me anything else you want, but you have any questions for Mr. Morris? I have no questions. All right, stick tight or stick there. No other witnesses. Thank you. All right. Anything else you'd like to share with
me about this application? Uh similar to the previous application, which my client also owns, uh he purchased the properties uh last year, he did some updating to them. He uh rents them out uh long-term uh annual leases. Um
obviously because of the storm last year, both of them were flooded and he intends to rebuild them so that he can uh rent them out in the future. Okay. Uh Mr. Trash, any cross-examination? None. All righty. I think I do not have any
questions either. All right. Uh ma'am, just have a seat real quick. Uh, are there any members of the public who are directed affect directly affected by this variance proposal that would like to provide public comment? Any members of the public that want to provide
public comment on V2 2025-07 for the property located at 13230 Book Sega Avenue. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? Just a summary. The city is asking that you approve the variance application
2025-07. All right. Uh based upon the staff report, testimony of Mr. Morris, as well as testimony of the applicant and materials provided, I do find that it meets all the criteria necessary to grant this variance and we'll go ahead and grant this variance.
All right. I believe that concludes all of the variance matters. Is that correct, Mr. Tras? It is. All right. Uh if you're here for variance, you guys are welcome to uh to leave. If you're here for code enforcement, you're in the right place. Welcome to the city of Madira Beach code enforcement hearing. Again, my name is Bart Valdez and I am
the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I'm a practicing attorney and I've been a member of Florida Bar for approximately 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 have not already been sworn in, then you will need to be sworn in in just a moment. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. The respondent or property owner then will be given the opportunity to refute the city's 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 advise that I do not
have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or special exception of any kind. My role in this hearing 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 anyone wishes to present any information to me today, it is necessary that you swear affirm that you will tell the truth. Therefore, at this point in time, if there's anyone else who was not previously sworn in
that wants to present any information to me today, please rise and be sworn. Did we miss anybody? I believe he's already been sworn in. Okay, you've already been sworn in. Okay, great. All right. The first case on the agenda is C25-73
for 9006 Baypoint Drive. Is the city ready to proceed? We are. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. Call Holden Pinker. Holden, if you could state your occupation, please. Your job responsibilities here at the city of Madira Beach. Uh, I'm the building compliance supervisor and one of my
duties is to issue building code violations. Okay. Are you familiar with this property located at 906 Baypoint Drive? Yes. Is this a proactive case or was this complaint driven? Uh, this was a proactive case. All right. Who's the owner of this property and how do you
know? uh PLC Home Design LLC um from the Penelis County Property Appraiser. Is Bill Tran also an owner of this property? Yes. Okay. Um did you have an opportunity to go to this property to determine whether or
not there was a code violation on it or were you given that information by another city employee? Uh I did have the opportunity to go out there. Um the the violations uh that we
that I found were um section 1468 which is maintenance of vegetation. Um 1469 maintenance of the exterior premises and 1470 um general maintenance of the exterior
specifically uh the floors, interior walls, um all the the roofing and the walls and ceilings on the interior. Okay. When you determined that there were these three code violations to the property, did you issue a courtesy
notice of code violation? Yes. And what date was that? Uh that was May 12th of 2025. Is that reflected starting at page 83 of the agenda package? Yes. When you sent out this uh courtesy notice of code violation, did you send it by regular
mail and certified mail? The courtesy notice was mailed with regular mail. Did you receive the regular mail back here at the city? That I don't know. Okay. When you sent out the courtesy notice of code violation, did you attach photographs to
it? Yes. Okay. Could you turn to the page uh 86 of the agenda packet? Are these the photographs that were attached to the courtesy notice of code violation? Yes. And if you could tell me, were you the person that took these photographs or was it someone else at
the city? Uh, I did not take these photographs. No. Okay. Do these photographs depict the property located at 906 Bay Point Drive? Yes. Um, can you um explain to the special magistrate which each one of these photographs
depict? Uh, sure. So, the top left and the top right you can see the windows have been removed I think from um or from storm damage. So, the property is unsecure. Uh, the bottom left, uh, you can see inside the house and
some ceiling damage there. Um, and then the bottom right is the rear of the property. Um, the roofing, you can see some of the roofing material is missing and then the sliders are blown out as well as the the other windows.
Okay. Thank you. When you sent this courtesy notice of code violation, did you receive any um contact or communication from the property owners? No. All right. Did you set us a date certain as to when they were to comply
with the courtesy notice? The date to comply was May 26th of 2025. All right. So, they didn't they did not comply by that date. Correct. Correct. Did you then issue a notice of code violation? Uh, yes we did. And what date did you do
that? Uh, that was May 30th of 2025. And is that reflected on page 87 of the packet? Yes. All right. U, did you cite the same code sections that were cited in the courtesy notice? Yes. All right. Did you attach to it the same photographs that were attached to the
courtesy notice? Yes. Was this sent by certified mail and regular mail? Uh, yes. And did you receive back the regular mail here at the city? Uh, no. The I don't believe we received the certified back either. At least I did
not receive it. Okay. When these were this notice of code violation was sent, did you set a compliance date in the that notice? Uh, yes. June 13th, 2025. Did the property come into compliance by that date? No.
Did you have any communication from the property owner? Uh I have not. No. But we did receive the green card signed back today for this for the notice for this hearing. All right. Do you have that today? Uh yes. Okay. Cuz we'll need we'll go ahead and submit that into evidence if you
have that at the end. All right. So after you issued the code violation notice, did you um set this case for hearing? Yes. Did you issue a statement of violation
request for hearing on June 25th? I did. Yes. And is that reflected on page 97 of the packet? Uh, that's correct. And when you sent this uh statement of violation, request for hearing, did you also um send a
notice of hearing itself? Yes. And was that reflected on page 94 of the packet? Correct. Did you also issue an affidavit of service for this case? Yes. And can you tell the special Well, first of all, is
that on page 92 of the packet? That's correct. And does that reflect that you mailed a copy of the notice of hearing ver uh via certified return rece requested mail? Yes. On June 26th? That's correct. And did you also send it by first class mail on the same day?
Yes. And did you also post it at the city hall and at the property? Yes. Okay. Is the property still in non-compliance? Correct. Yes. All right. Could you turn to page 99 of the packet and tell us
what that photograph depicts? Uh page 99 is a photograph of the notice of hearing posted at the property. Okay. And page 100, what does that photograph reflect? That photograph reflects the notice of hearing posted here at city hall. All
right. How much time do you think it would reasonably take to bring this property into compliance? Uh the corrective action is to yeah they're going to have to either apply for and obtain a building permit or remove the structure. Um I think 30
days based on the condition of the property. Um there's life and health safety concerns and it's un not secure but 30 days. Okay. And do you have a recommendation as to the daily amount of the fine if the property is not brought into compliance within 30 days?
The maximum the $250 a day. What's the reason for that? Uh based on the life and health safety concerns. Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for um Mr. Pinker. I would tender into evidence pages 77
through 100 of the agenda package. Ask that be received into evidence. All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages 77 through 100 of the agenda packet. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner
PLC Home Design LLC or Bill TR? Anyone? All right. Uh, let the record reflect there is no one who has appeared today on behalf of the owner. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge or directly affected by this
code enforcement proceeding that would like to provide public comment? All right, come on forward, sir. And sir, what is your My name is Matt Goldman. I live at 908 a point drive. Purchase you're a next door
neighbor. I am next to this mess. Okay. Yes, I am. I purchased the home in March of 23. Mr. Tran uh purchased this home in May of 23. Um we were both affected
uh from the storms of December of 23. Uh and the home has never been uh lived in. And I'm speaking of 9006. Uh the the doors were blown out at that time. So, I think it's important to note that the home uh has not been in this condition
just since Helen or Milton. This has been going on since December of 2023. Um the home is currently uh is missing part of the the roof. Uh has standing water in the home. We have um live
animals, snakes, rats, and it's becoming a health and safety hazard to not only my family, but uh the the neighbors as as well. And um there's been no activity on this home since it was purchased at all. Um
I was hoping that uh since the time has been extraordinary and the home has been in this condition since well before May when it was found to be out of compliance that um we could
further speed up the process of uh whatever we're going to decide today in terms of fines or costs because this isn't a new matter. This has been going on since I purchased the home. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Anyone else from the public that
would like to provide public comment? All right. Seeing none, we'll close it down. Mr. Tras, I'll give you the final word. City would ask that you find the property owner in violation of the cited code sections. Um, give the property owner 30 days to come
into compliance should the property not be brought into compliance within 30 days to order that a $250 a day fine will be issued for every day that the property remains in non-compliance. All right. Thank you, Mr. Tras. Based upon the evidence provided to me, I do find that the property is in violation
of all the uh code violations noted. U Mr. Goldman, I appreciate you coming in and providing testimony because certainly based on your testimony, it justifies the imposition of the highest fine possible. That's $250 a day based upon the health, safety, and welfare
issues. I am going to give the uh the owner 30 days just as of a as a due process matter. Uh if they don't do that, then there'll be a $250 a day fine that runs on that property that ultimately become a lean on that property. So hopefully the owner once
the owner receives my order will uh you know take action within the next 30 days. But thank you for coming in today because your testimony was very important to my ruling. So thank you for that. I appreciate that. All right. Uh we'll go on to the next matter which is
C25-71 for the property located at 1460 Myiramar Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? City is ready to proceed. Go ahead. Um the city would be calling Mr. Pinker. Um Holden, if you could tell us
your name, please, your occupation here at the city, and your job responsibilities. Uh, Holden Pinker, building compliance supervisor, and one of my duties is to issue building code violations. Are you familiar with this property located at 14060 Miramar Avenue? Yes.
All right. Is this a proactive code enforcement case or was this a complaint? Uh, we did receive a complaint. All right. What was the complaint that the city received? Uh, that work had been done in the property without the required permits.
All right. Who's the owner of this property and how do you know that? Uh it is DN, excuse me, DNR realy and Estates LLC uh based on the Pis County property appraiser. And is that reflected in the
printout uh starting at page 101 of the agenda package? Yes. Okay. When was the complaint received for this code violation case? The complaint was received the same day that the courtesy notice of code
violation went out and we had received pictures of the bathroom that was remodeled. All right. So, we'll talk about the pictures in a minute. Let's talk about the courtesy notice of code violation. Um, if you could turn to page 105 of the agenda packet. Is this the courtesy
notice of code violation that was sent? Yes. And it stated May 7th, 2025, correct? So, that would have been the date that you received the complaint. Yes. All right. Could you go ahead and look at uh the photographs starting at page 107? Um are these the photographs
that were provided to you by the um complaintant? Yes. All right. Could you tell us what these photographs depict, please? Uh the top left left photograph is a shower that is u being remodeled.
Um the top right is more of um the remodeling and the tile work being completed. And the bottom left depicts the flooring and what looks to be the electrical panel exposed and being
worked on. All right. So again, could you explain how the city got these photographs of the inside of the house? uh a an unlicensed contractor had come into city hall and provided the photographs.
Okay. When you um prepare this courtesy notice of code violation, did you send it by regular mail? Yes. Was it returned to the city? Uh no. All right. Was it sent by certified mail? Yes. Okay. And did the
city receive um a a receipt return receipt for the certified mail or did it get the certified mail back? I don't believe that we've received the signed return receipt for this mail. All right. So, let's go on to um well, first
of all, did the city provide a compliance date and that courtesy notice as to when the compliance would be required? Yes. What date was that? May 21st, 2025. Did it come into compliance by that date? No. Did the city issue a
notice of code violation? Yes. Could you turn to page 108 of the packet, please? Is this the notice of code violation that the city sent? Yes. Um, and what date was that sent? Uh, this was mailed
May 21st, 2025. Was it sent by regular mail? This mail was sent certified. Okay. Did the city receive the certified uh mail back or the green card back? Not that I'm aware of. No. All right. When this
notice of code violation was sent, did it attach some photographs? Uh, yes it did. All right. If you could turn to page 110 of the packet, agenda packet, are these the photographs that was sent with the not notice of code violation? Yes. All right. Can you
explain? There's some typewritten material at the top of the page and then there are some photographs. Can you tell us what we're looking at? Sure. The typed um screenshot on the top is the leasing advertisement from Zillow. Um
and in the description, three beautifully updated units are now available for lease. Each unit has been fully remodeled down to the wiring with high-end finishes, high-end finishes and upgrades. Uh the top left photograph is
of the new kitchen. The top right is the uh shower being remodeled. The bottom left is the kitchen and the bottom right is the new shower and bathroom. Okay. And what was the date that the city gave
for the property owner to bring the uh property in compliance? June 4th of 2025 when the no notice of code violation was sent. What was the actual code violation? What code section? Uh section 86-52
when required. And what does that code provision actually provide for? Um and when the cost of repair or modification does not exceed $500 or does not require or does not result in a structural change. uh in a nutshell that no permit
was acquired but in this particular case a permit was required. Yes. And that's the reason why they were cited with that code section. Correct. Correct. Okay. Did the property come into compliance by the date listed in the notice of code violation? No.
Did you issue a statement of violation and notice of um a request for hearing? Yes. Could you turn to page 116 of the agenda package? Is this the statement of violation request for hearing that the city issued to the property owner? Yes. Is the city
also issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? Correct. And if you could turn to page uh 114 of the agenda packet, tell me whether or not that this is a copy of the notice of hearing that was sent to the property owner. It is. All right. And did you um issue an
affidavit of service in this case? Yes. Can you turn to page 112, the agenda packet? Can you tell me what this affidavit of service tells the special magistrate? that a notice of hearing was sent with
regular mail, certified mail, and the property was posted in addition to city hall being posted with the notice of hearing. Okay. If you could turn to page 118 of the agenda packet, there's a photograph
there. What does that photograph depict? This photograph is a posting of the notice of hearing at the property. All right. And page 119 is another photograph. What does that photograph depict? That is a photograph of the notice of hearing posted here at city
hall. All right. Has the property owner obtained the building permit that's required to bring the property into compliance? As of today, they have not. We did receive a permit application that was applied for on June 28th.
And is the city u processing that permit application? Yes. Is there anything that the property owner needs to do at this point to have the permit application processed any further or is it all just requirements of the city at this point?
Um right now the permit application is under review. There's no further action they need. Okay. How much time do you think it'll bring to take the to bring the property into compliance by having the permit actually issued?
Uh 30 days. All right. How did you come to that conclusion? Uh based on staff availability and the amount of applications that we have in review now. Okay. All right. If the property is doesn't
come into compliance by having the permit issued within that 30-day period of time, have you determined what um the daily amount of the fine would be that you would recommend to the special magistrate? Uh this would be the $250 per day. And what what is the reason
that you've come to the conclusion it should be $250 per day? Uh we don't know who did the work or how it was done and none of it was inspected and that is a life and health safety concern. Okay. All right. I don't have any other
questions for Mr. Pinker. Um I would tender into evidence pages 101 through 119 of the agenda packet and ask that they be received. All right. We'll go ahead and receive into evidences exhibit number one pages 101 through 119 of the
agenda packet. Mr. Pinker, I've heard all your testimony and I appreciate you including in the uh in the materials the actual advertisement for this because I think it makes it pretty clear that they did new electrical and plumbing and drywall
work and fixtures. Uh does it appear to you based upon your knowledge and information that this would exceed $500 in repairs? Yes. And it, if I understood your testimony, I just want to make sure that the record's clear that this type of work would require not only a permit,
would also require an inspection. Is that right? Correct. All right. Um, okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner? DNR Realy and Estates LLC. Anyone here on behalf of the owner? All right. Seeing none, uh, are there
any members of the public who have knowledge of this code enforcement proceeding that would like to provide public comment? Okay, seeing none, Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? Just to summarize, the city is asking that you find the property owner in violation section
86-52 for failing to get a building permit for prior to doing the construction work at the property and assign a $250 a day fine for every day that the property remains in non-compliance after that 30 days. All right. I will find that the property is in violation. Uh the owner will have 30
days to bring the property into compliance and then $250 a day fine thereafter. All right, let's move on to the next one which is C24-115 for the property located at3025 Golf Lane. Is the city ready to proceed?
We are. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. Call Holden Pinker. Mr. Pinker, if you again state your name, your occupation, your job responsibilities here at the city of Madira Beach. Holden Pinkard, building compliance supervisor and one of my responsibilities to issue building code violations.
Are you familiar with this property at 13025 Golf Lane? Yes. Is this a complaint driven case or proactive case? This is a proactive case. Who's the owner of the property and how do you know that? Uh Brian B. Bayard uh based
on the Panelis County property appraiser. And is that print out from the property appraiser page starting at page 120 of the agenda packet? Yes. Okay. What code violations existed on this property when it was determined that it was in violation?
Uh section 14-69 maintenance of the exterior premises. Uh section 1470 general maintenance again the exterior of every structure on every or on accessory structure shall be maintained in good repair termite-free
and all surfaces therefore shall be kept painted or have similar protective coating and specifically under section 14-70 um section 11 the foundation and walls
shall be maintained structurally found. And did the city um issue a courtesy notice of code violation to the property owner for those code sections? Yes. What date was that done? Uh February 28th of
2025. Was that sent by regular or certified mail? Regular mail. When it was sent, was there a photograph that was attached to it or a couple of photographs? Yes. Could you turn to page 127 of the agenda packet? Is this one of the photographs that was attached the
courtesy notice? Yes. Can you tell the special magistrate what this photograph shows us? This is a photograph of the front of the property. Uh this was shortly after the storms. It It's difficult to tell in the picture,
but this home is in very bad condition. Okay. What if you could turn to page 128? And was this photograph also attached to the courtesy notice of code violation? Yes. And what does this picture reflect?
Uh this is the rear of the property. This faces the Gulf. Um so the storm when it came in the waves were crashing against this wall. And you can it might be difficult to see but the obviously the door is or there is no longer a door
there. Um but there is some some serious damage. Okay. Did the city um when it sent this courtesy notice, did it ask that the property be brought into compliance by a date certain? Yes. What date was that?
Uh March 14th, 2025. Did it come into compliance by that date? No. Did the city issue a notice of code violation? Yes. You turn to page 20 129 of the packet. Is this the the notice of code violation? Yes.
Hey, did it site the same code sections that you were referring to earlier? Yes. Did it include the same photographs that you were discussing earlier? It did. Yes. Okay. And was this sent by certified mail? Yes. Is that reflected
on pages 133 and 134 the agenda packet? Correct. Okay. Did you get a response from the property owner once you sent the letter, the code violation? We did. Uh page 135. This letter is not dated. Um,
in his in this response to he mentions our letter dated February 28th. I'm just not certain when we received it. Okay. So, in in this letter, he's saying that he's still dealing with FEMA trying
to get funds after the destruction of the house. He's also getting bids from contractor companies, it looks like, according to this letter. Did you receive any other correspondence from the property owner? Uh, I did not. I did receive
an email back in November uh that said mostly the same. Okay. Did the city issue a statement of violation and request for hearing? Yes. And is that reflected on pages starting
at page 141 of the agenda packet? Yes. Did the city also issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? Yes. And is that reflected on page 138 of the agenda packet? Yes. Lastly, um the affidavit of service, you entered you filed an
affidavit of service in this case as well. Correct. And what and that's page 136 of the agenda package. Could can you explain what that affidavit of service tells the special magistrate? Um, it explains that a notice of hearing
was posted or was mailed regular and certified. The property was posted and city hall was also posted with the notice of hearing. Okay. Then if you could turn to page 143 of the agenda packet.
There's a photo there. Can you explain to the special magistrate what this photo depicts? This is a photograph of the notice of hearing posted at the property. Okay. Does it also show the state of the
property? A little bit different photograph than the one that was attached to the courtesy letter. Correct. Okay. And what does this photo photograph depict other than the notice being posted on the property? Just the current condition of the property. Um,
you can see the front portion there is deteriorating. And page 144 is another photograph. What is that? That is a photograph of the posting for the notice of hearing here at city hall.
Is this property still in violation of the sighted code section? Yes. Okay. What does it take to bring the property into compliance? the property owner will need to apply for and obtain a remodel permit. If that permit cannot be obtained, the the
structure would need to be demolished. Okay. So, um the cited code sections did not address a a required permit as being a compliance requirement. It is providing
right now that sections 141 14-69 14-70 are the actual violations. So even if they got the building permit that you had mentioned, they would still need to bring the property into compliance. Correct. Correct. Okay. Um how much time do you think it will take to bring this property into
compliance? Reasonable period of time. I think the um I'm sorry, the 30 days. Okay. And if the property is not brought into compliance within that 30-day period of time, um what was the recommended daily fine? Uh 250 per day
and again based on the life and health safety concerns. Okay. I don't have any other questions. So Mr. Mr. Pinker, I would tender in evidence the agenda item or the documents in the agenda package starting at page 120 and
ending at 144. I don't have any other questions. All right, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, the agenda packet, pages 120 through 144. Mr. Pinker, as Mr. Tr asked at the end, I just want to make sure for purpose of my order that it's very clear because usually what my orders say is
take the corrective action set forth both in the notice of hearing and on the record. So I want to make sure I've got the record clear here. The corrective action would be to either pull a permit to
correct the code violations and basically rebuild the structure or demolish the structure and clean and clear the property. Is that what I heard? Correct. Okay. And just out of curiosity, has this property had because
I I did note the owner said something to the effect of they're still dealing with getting FEMA funds after the destruction of the In fact, it says, "I'm still dealing with getting FEMA funds after the destruction of my house due to Hurricane Helena and Milton."
Did has there been a substantial uh destruction certification on this home? Do you know one way or the other? you know, are they even going to be able to rebuild this or is it going to really be a demolish the property and bring it up to code type situation? Whether it was
considered substantially damaged or not, I'm not sure. But this it based on the the property owner, it sounds like the the plan is for to demolish. Okay. And I'll I'll give them both options and and that way the the owner has a little freedom. Has
the owner, other than sending this undated letter, has the owner made any attempts to reach out to the city to try to uh work with the city in regard to this particular property, these violations? Not that I'm aware of. Just the other
communication that I received back in November, um it was from a Lauren Rubenstein. Um just an update. I I'll read it, but I just received an update from my client. want to make sure we keep this city in the loop. Mr. Bayard has been in touch
with FEMA and is waiting for a FEMA inspector to come to his home on Gulf Lane. Um, no one is currently residing in the home. Let me know if the city needs anything for my client or if you have any additional questions in the meantime.
All right, sounds good. Mr. Tra, do you have anything for Mr. Pinker after my questions? No, thank you. All right, is anyone here, Mr. uh Bayernard or anybody here on behalf of the property owner. Okay, seeing none, I will move on to public comment. Any members of the public that have direct knowledge that
want to provide public comment on this particular code enforcement proceeding? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? just ask that you find the violation of the cited code section. Uh give the property owner 30 days to come into
compliance and set a $250 a day fine for every day the property remains in non-compliance after that compliance date. All right. Go ahead and based upon the testimony provided by Mr. Pinker as well as the other materials, I do find the property is in violation is set forth in the notice. The corrective action has been set forth uh on the
record of the hearing today and so my order will reflect that as well and I'll go ahead and spell that out in the order as well. All right. I believe that ends the new I'm sorry. Did you Did you say 30 days? I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Trash. 30 days to bring the property
into compliance, $250 a day thereafter if the property is not brought into compliance. Thank you. All right, moving on to new business. The first case is case number 2024 37381
for the property located at 4268 North Beayshore Drive. Understand this is an affidavit of compliance. This property is now in compliance. Um the city is uh filing an affidavit of compliance. I ask that you receive that affidavit. It did
come into compliance um after the cited compliance time frame, but it is in compliance as of now. Um and there's just some additional background. Uh the lean has been released from the property. Um and so we're just trying to
close out the case file. Okay. So, you just need an affidavit of compliance as of what date, Mr. Dasque? The property came into compliance on 5:30 2025. Do you know Holden? Okay. I'm just
looking. May 30th. Yes. 2025. 5:30 2025. Yes. Gotcha. All right. Mr. TR, anything else on this one? No, thank you. I'll go ahead and enter order of compliance saying the property is brought into compliance as of May 30th, 2025. I I won't the order
won't mention anything about a fine since I understand that that matter's already been handled. Correct. Thank you. Okay. The next case that I have before me is case number 24-255 for the property located at 14239
West Parsley Drive. This is a request for additional time to bring the property into compliance. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. Yeah. So, uh, the special magistrate entered an order requiring that the property be brought into compliance.
This was a dock uh that was behind a home that had been damaged by the hurricanes. The dock obviously was damaged as well. Um, the property owner is concentrating on repairing the home. Uh, he has not
addressed the uh dock as of yet. Um, he did send uh the city an email address to Mr. Pinker. It was dated June 23rd of this year asking that an
extension be given to the end of August. He doesn't say what he's done to bring the property into compliance other than he's working on his house. city has no objection to an u an extension of 30 days, but we just don't think that
60 or whatever days to the end of August is reasonable. Um, so we're we have no objection at 30 days. All right. Is the owner here on this one? Okay. And I did read the owner's email. U
Mr. Tras, give me a date and I'll put it in the order. What what is the actual day that you want me to put in the order and I'll put it in there? Um 30 days from today. Okay. So, is that August 7th? August 6th. August 7th. August 6th. It would be good. And is that a weekday?
Um I can find out real quick. August 6 is a Wednesday. Okay. My order will give the owner until August 6, 2025 to come into compliance. Thank you. Is there anything else before me today? No. Thank you all for your
time today. Have a great day.