All right. Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to today's special magistrate hearing. We've got several matters on the agenda today. We're going to start out with an administrative appeal. We are then going to go on to a the variance hearings and
then we will go with code enforcement. that'll be the new business and then we have some other code enforcement matters uh for compliance as well. So if you are here for variance, if you are here for code enforcement, you are in the right place. But we're going to start with the
appeal and then I'll go forward with a little bit more information in regard to the other uh two types of cases that we're going to hear today. Uh so I'll start by saying welcome to today's special magistrate hearing. Again, my name is Bart Valdez. I'm the appointed
special magistrate to hear today's cases. I'm a practicing attorney and have been a member of the Florida Bar for over 25 years. I have been appointed this 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 this hearing. 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 all of the information provided as well as any written
submissions by anyone having an interest any timely submitted objections and the materials provided by the city staff. In the first case, the appeal, the city will present its case and uh report and then the appellant or the property owner
uh may ask any questions of the city's representatives. Uh, next, the uh, property owner will be able to present his or her case supported by any witnesses and evidences, and the city may uh, cross-examine each witness. Uh,
then I will go ahead and may have some questions and ultimately will render a decision on the appeal. 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. Uh, additionally, you are 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. Now, one thing that's important, this is for everybody in the room. If you wish to present any
information to me today, it is necessary that you swear affirm that you will tell the truth. Therefore, in just a moment, the city attorney will administer the oath and swear in any witnesses. If you expect to talk to me today about any matter that's before me, variance, code enforcement, or anything else, then you
must rise and be sworn. This includes any members of the public who are directly affected uh by any of the matters that are set forth on the agenda today. All right. Anybody that wants to talk to me today, please rise and be sworn in by the city attorney. You swear that the testimony you're
going to give today is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. The first matter that we have on the agenda today is AD 2026-02. This is an administrative appeal of an
administrative waiver for the property located at 410 Normandy. Is the city ready to proceed? >> We are. >> Go ahead, Mr. Tras. the city would uh call Joseph Petraia to present this um appeal of an administrative waiver. Joe,
can you uh first of all tell us what what your occupation is here at the city? >> Yes, my name is Joseph Petraia. I'm a planner with the city. >> And what are your responsibilities here at the city? >> Reviewing building permit applications for compliance with zoning and land
development regulations. Are you familiar with the application for this property located at 410 Normandy Road? >> Yes. >> And this uh was an application for the installation of a fence, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And when the application for the
fence to be installed on the property uh came in, did the city deny that application? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is this appeal today an appeal of that decision to not allow the fence to be installed? Yes, it's an appeal of the
decision that it meets the criteria for a waiver of that section of the code. >> All right. Could you go ahead and present your report then? >> Yes. >> So, this is for 410 Normandy Road. Um, it's an administrative appeal of the administrative dis admin administrative
waiver. Uh the request is to apply relief to section 11047 of the Madiraa Beach code of ordinances to allow a 6-foot privacy fence within 30 ft of the rear property from the seaw wall including relief from the required
open fence criteria. And more specifically, it's uh the 6T it's a application to request that the six-foot fence meets the criteria for administrative waiver. The specific code provisions are section
11047 which specifies the location and height of fences. Specifically B3 height for rear yards facing water for the required rear building line to the rear property line. All walls and solid fences abing
or facing water bodies must not exceed 3 ft tall. Open fences must not exceed 4 ft. Fences up to six feet are permitted adjacent to sewage lift stations, city pocket parks, and along residential property lines that are adjacent to commercial uses when deemed necessary by
the permitting authority to ensure life safety and security. However, a 6ft high solid or open fence may be allowed or required in the site plan review process for commercial and institutional uses. In regards facing the Gulf of Mexico, open and sand fences must not
exceed four feet and fencing that is raw iron in appearance must not exceed six feet. The other section being applied to this case is section 86-29 administrative waiver. Uh specifically subsection H allows for a property owner
that is denied an administrative waiver uh before presenting their grievance. Any circuit court or any other court of competent jurisdiction attacking the land development regulations or any of its terms and provisions shall first apply to the board of commissioners or petition to the special magistrate for
relief in such cases that may be heard and provided. Background The subject property is a corner waterfront lot with a single family home and rear yard swimming pool that currently are under construction. The
applicant has applied for a fence permit to erect the 6ft tall privacy fence in the rear yard along the street side property line as depicted in the site plan which is attached exhibit one uh attachment one exhibit A. The code express expressly identifies limiting
circumstances where six-foot fencing is permitted in waterfront rear yards. The subject property does not fall within one of those enumerated exceptions. Shortly after the permit application was denied, primarily due to the height the applicant inquired to the city about the
possibility of obtaining a variance or administrative waiver to the strict requirements of the code. Following staff review, the city informed the applicant that a variance would not be recommended due to the strict criteria now required and that an administrative waiver would not be approved by right,
but the decision can be appealed by the board of commissioners or the special magistrate as outlined in section 86-29H and section 2-505 of the city's code. Outlined below are the three criteria that are required for an administrative waiver
under the general provisions and staff's findings for each of the three criteria. The first finding is that there are special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location, surrounding so that the strict application of the LDR
deprivives the property owner privileges by other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district. The findings is that the property had special circumstances due to its location and surrounding adjacent to the
publicly traveled street and sidewalk. The city's land development regulations allows for sideyard fences, including sideyard fences facing the street to be up to 6 foot tall and waterfront rear yards do not typically above the street.
Second criteria is that the approval of an administrative waiver includes conditions of approval as necessary to ensure the adjustment granted does not constitute grants of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
within the same zoning district. The staff findings that other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district that share the same street frontage limitation that this property faces in the rear yard do comply with their rear yard fencing requirements. The applicant does however
provide the properties below that should be considered. The first one is 510 Normandy. This property was granted a variance in 2007 which is included in attachment three to allow for a six foot tall fence for the 12 foot of the rear yard 12 ft of the
rear yard which appears to be consistent with the fence that is currently on the property which is shown in attachment two. This variance documents the bridge height as justification for the variant since the bridge is already at least 6 ft tall. 410 Normandy is not under a
bridge but it is directly exposed to the street. The fence code in effect at this time at the time of this six-ft tall fence being permitted has been included in attachment 4 and did not allow exceptions for properties that are and
at the time that code did not allow exceptions for properties that are adjacent to city pocket parks or along residential property lines that are adjacent to commercial uses as the code now allows. The first iteration of this code update was adopted through
ordinance 2018-02 where the city commission found it necessary to provide relief from certain fencing restrictions where differing adjacent land uses may result in increased impact upon residential lots.
And that's shown in attachment five. 500 Crystal Drive is another example. The fence for this property was permitted under permit number 3177 in 2018 included in attachment 6. No variances or or admin waiverss have been
approved for any fences on this property. The code allowed for a 6ft tall fence to extend up to the edge of the covered concrete which is the approximate location in the rear yard where the 6ft tall fence drops to a 4ft
tall picket as required by the code. It does appear that the last panel of the six foot tall fence encroaches beyond the covered concrete which may have been missed during the permitting and inspections. However, the rear 20 foot of fence complies with the rear yard on
water standard 14205 East Parsley. The code allows for 6ft tall fences in the rear yards that are uh adjacent to commercial uses which is why this one is allowed. and 360
145th and 1455 North Beayshore. Both of those fences that are shown in those pictures are not street adjacent and appear to predate the current regulations or cannot be readily verified through available permit records. In addition to
the above properties referenced by the applicant, city staff also found 498 Crystal Drive to have received variances for a fence adjacent to the street in a rear yard facing water in 2003 and 1979. Both of those variances have been
included in attachment 3. And like 501 Normandy, however, these variances reference the bridge as a justification for the variance. The first page of attachment two shows an aerial of the subject property in relation to the three street adjacent properties that
were discussed. The third required criteria for administrative waiver is that the administrative waiver is consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other adopted plan or policy of the city. And the staff finds that the administrative waiver would not grant would only grant
relief from the fence height requirements of the land development regulations which is an allowable use of an administrative waiver under section 86-29. And these fence regulations are not required under the city's comprehensive plan and are therefore consistent with the comprehensive plan and are not in
conflict with any other plan or policy of the city. The staff conclusion is that the unique feature relevant to this applica application is that the rear yard is adjacent to a public street and sidewalk. Of the examples provided,
those that share a similar circumstance to this applicant, 501 Normandy, 500 Crystal, and 498 Crystal are all at least partially under a bridge that is already approximately the same height as the 6T fence. and two of the three were
not permitted to extend the six- foot tall fence the full length of the rear yard. Each of these fences, however, were permitted before the code was amended to allow for 6ft tall fences adjacent to city pocket parks and commercial uses in order to not
constitute grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district as required under their general findings criteria B for an administrative waiver. The city may be creating a precedent to allow for all waterfront rear yards that
are street adjacent and exposed to public view to erect fences to the same height proposed by this applicant. The plain text of the code provides exceptions for rear yard fences adjacent to sewage lift stations, city pocket parks, and commercial uses providing the
intent to shield the rear yard from public view. This request potentially expands the enumerated exceptions in the code beyond what staff can comfortably interpret administratively. Staff is unable to make the necessary finding to
approve the administrative waiver administratively and therefore refers the matter for final determination by the special magistrate and an appropriately noticed public hearing. Should the special magistrate determine that the administrative waiver criteria has been satisfied, staff recommends at
a minimum imposing a condition pursuant to section 8629G, limiting the 6ft tall fence only to those portions adjacent to the public rightway as depicted in the site plan provided in attachment one, exhibit A,
along with any other conditions deemed necessary to ensure consistency with the intent of the land development regulations. And the attachments, the first attachment is what was submitted with the application, including both the
administrative waiver application form and the administrative appeal application form. And the exhibits were each provided by the applicant, including a survey and the proposed location, the existing public sidewalk and roadway
exposure, public access and city maintenance exhibit, comparable neighborhood waterfront, fence examples, neighbor support letters, fence permit application and plan review correspondence,
administrative correspondence and appeal record. the fence specifications and then attachment two is additional photos provided by the city of comparable waterfront fencing. Attachment three is 510 Normandy road
and the two variances and the variance that was granted for that one as well as 498 Crystal the two variances that were granted for that fence. Uh, attachment four is the fence code that was in effect in 2007 as referenced in the staff report. Attachment five is
ordinance 2018-02. Attachment six is 500 Crystal Drive's permit for offense. And then attachment seven is the public notice and mailing information. >> You're asking for all those documents to be received into evidence.
>> Yes. Did the city also receive some letters from neighbors or friends uh relative to this application? >> Yeah, so the city received uh three in addition to the two letters in support included with the application, three
additional emails in support. >> Okay. And those are the ones you handed me this morning. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to go ahead. So those are from Joyce Borsa. >> Yes. Um, Jim and Elsa Nolan. >> Yep.
>> And Kathy Rzzy. Rassie. Okay. >> I'm going to go ahead and submit those into evidence as well. I'll hand them to the special magistrate. >> All right. While you're walking up, Mr. Tras, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages 4
through 116 of the agenda packet. And as exhibit number two will be the notice of intent to be an affected party. And the emails that you just referenced.
All right. All right. Thank you. I have no other questions for Mr. Petle. Okay. All right. Are Courtney and Wesley McNeel or anyone on their behalf here today? All right. Come on forward.
All right. Uh, real quick, ma'am. The first thing that you get to do is this is a quasi judicial proceeding. So you can cross-examine or ask questions of Mr. Petralia. You don't have to. And in just a moment I'm going to give you an opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me about the appeal. But do you
have any questions for Mr. Petraia? >> Um I thought about something this morning that was in the staff report um that's called a city pocket park and I tried to figure out what that definition is. We have a uh neighboring adjacent
property to us where there's city benches, there's, you know, trash cans, people enjoy the waterfront, they fish, they hang out. Is that considered a pocket park? >> So, we didn't consider that to be a pocket park. Um I can double check if we
do have a specific definition on that but pocket parks that's generally the intent of that code was for along some I believe it's like parsley has lot lots of lands that are designated as city parks specifically as the parcel as a
park. So that's what the intent was with that code section. >> Okay. >> All right. Anything else? Any other questions you have? And you don't have to ask questions because again in a moment I'm going to let you tell me everything you want. But if you have any other questions you can ask. anything else? >> No. Um, Videlia sent you an email. She's
our uh direct neighbor. I don't know. When you said the names, I missed that one. >> Was she I believe she submitted a letter in support. >> In support. Yeah. 404 Normandy. >> I believe that is included attachment
one. Exhibit. Let me double check. Exhibit E. >> I didn't have it until a few days ago. So, wasn't included in my stuff. She emailed you directly. I'm not sure what date she just >> um I might have missed that then. Let me let me double check.
>> What was the address or the subject? >> Um fence for 410 Normandy Road from Vidalia. Did she say what day? It was just a couple days ago. Would I be able to look at the
attachment? >> Yes. Okay. Yes. I apologize. If there's another letter of support, um I can hand that to the city attorney. >> Thank you. >> We have no objection to that being received. >> All right. Mr. Pragley, will you walk
that over to me and I'll attach that as exhibit number three so it's in the record. Thank you. Give me one moment to take a look. All right. Uh, Mr. Pragley, one question I have. Just want to make sure that I
understand the city's conditions because it looks like everything's right away. I'm looking at page number 24 of the exhibit packet. It looks like a site drawing with a red line that goes all the way
down. Is is it the city's position that uh if I were to grant this appeal then the 6ft fence would would go all the way along this red line. >> Correct. And just to clarify that the
city code defines a rear yard on the water to be from the water's face of the seaw wall even if the property line isn't directly along the seaw wall. >> Okay. All righty. Okay. Uh, just sit tight. I don't think the city has any other witnesses, but
let me check with Mr. Tras. >> I do not. >> Okay. All right. Uh, that concludes the city's presentation. So, now is your opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me. I have read everything. I have looked at the code provisions and everything like that, but you're welcome to call witnesses. You can, one of you can talk, both of you can talk, whatever
you want to do. So, uh, ma'am, would you like to go first? >> Sure. My name is Courtney McNeel and we live at 410 Normandy Road. Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing us today. Um, first I'd like to thank the special magistrate and the city staff with all their time and consideration of our application. I won't repeat
everything in the written submission, but I'd like to briefly highlight the point that stood out to me after reviewing the staff report. That's section, and I didn't include this in the documentation. That's section 110-447B3. Um, that code specifically recognized that a 6ft fence may be appropriate in
certain waterfront situations, including adjacent to city pocket parks. My understanding of the intent behind that provision is that it recognized the need for privacy, security, and separation when residential property is directly exposed to public activity. Immediately
adjacent to our property is a city-owned and citymained public space containing benches and is regularly used by the public for sitting, fishing, gathering, and enjoying the waterfront. Therefore, uh whether or not this area is formally designated as a public park or a pocket
park, it functions as a public gathering space immediately adjacent to our property and creates the same privacy and security concerns that a pocket park provision appears to intend to address. As st as staff noted in their report, our property has unique circumstances
because this portion of the rear and sideyard is a directly adjacent to a public street and sidewalk. Unlike a typical waterfront rear yard, our pool area and outdoor living spaces are exposed to constant pedestrian and
vehicle traffic. Staff specifically recognize these unique uh circumstances in their finding. This fence is intended to provide security and safety for our family, I'm sorry, and our minor children. Um
we are not requesting relief simply because we prefer a taller fence. We are requesting relief because of configuration of our property is unusual and creates circumstances that are not typical of most waterfront lots within the city. We also submitted photographs, comparable neighborhood examples, and
letters from neighboring property owners confirming that the proposed fence will not negatively impact our views or their views, sorry, and in uh enjoyment of their properties. We respectfully believe the requested fence is consistent with the intent of the code, satisfies the administrative waiver
criteria, and provides a reasonable solution to the unique circumstances of the property. I'm sorry. Um 99 of% of the people that walk by our house are really great people and we love meeting them, but every once in a while, a homeless person will come by and is staring directly into our backyard. And
we just want our kids, we have a 5-year-old and an 8-year-old. We just want them to be able to enjoy the backyard and not have creepers staring at them. And I know that's not that's um emotional, but that's really why we're here. I just want to protect my
children. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Tr, any questions? >> I have a few questions. Um Miss McNeel, are you planning on putting a fence on the other side of your property? >> Yes, we're going to put a 4ft open. Uh we're actually going to put back what
was there. So before the storm there was a fence. Um we had to redo our seaw wall and so did our our neighbor Vidalia. She also had to redo our seaw wall. Um so we're going to put back what was there. >> Okay. So a 4ft fence along the boundary of your properties
>> with our neighbor. Correct. >> Have you um thought about adding landscaping along the edge of the road to uh to provide that privacy that you're looking for? Uh well, we're doing the landscaping today, but we're trying to I mean, I don't want
this huge bush and uh you know, that would take years to accomplish. I understand the staff sent that picture to us, but that just seems like something that could take five or 10 years to accomplish. >> Um so, the landscaping that you're in
the process of installing then >> it's grass. >> Okay. But I'm talking about hedges, shrubbery, bushes, palm trees, anything like that? >> Not on that end. No. >> Okay. But you acknowledge the fact that if you would have put a 6ft um hedge along that
property line, it would do the same thing that the sixoot fence would do. >> We already have sea grapes at the city and that's in the packet. Some of there is a city um maintained grounds there. um they have given us access to our
dock, but there is a large sea grape um there. So, there is a hedge there that the city maintains and uh it's just always collected with stuff and I go in there regularly and try to clean out underneath it, but I just don't want
more of that. >> All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. >> All right. Mr. McNeel, would you like to say anything to me today? Nothing said at all. >> All right. Sounds good. All right. Just sit tight. Mr. Tras, anything? Uh,
>> nothing conclusional. >> Okay. All right. Uh, ma'am, uh, Mr. Mr. Mal, I do find that you have met the, uh, appeal criteria. I find that a waiver is appropriate based upon the unique facts of the case. And I, if I understand the city's position, uh, the
condition would be that the six-foot fence would be able to run on this red line. So, I'm going to go ahead and grant the appeal and uh let you know put in my order that you can conduct you can construct the 6-ft fence. Like I said, I can't grant you a building permit,
right? So, you're still going to have to go through the city process, but I am going to attach as an exhibit this page 24. So, it's clear that the sixoot fence can go along that red line. Okay. >> All right. Thank you for your time today. That concludes the first hearing.
Okay, we're moving on to the variance special exception uh portion of the hearing. In case you weren't with us uh earlier, welcome to the city of Madira Beach variant special exception youth special magistrate hearing. My name is Bart Valdez. I'm the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I'm a
practicing attorney and have been a member of the Florida Bar for over 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. This time I have reviewed 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 only 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 3 minutes per person. Last, public participation will then be closed. I'll deliberate and 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 you will be provided with a copy by mail. Additionally, you advise
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. All right. If there's anyone here that's going to talk on any of the variance matters and you have not already been sworn in. If you were not sworn in initially and came in late, uh, then
please rise to be sworn. Is there anyone? Okay, a couple people go ahead and raise your right hand. >> This where the testimony you're about to give today is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Great. Okay. Okay, the first
matter on the agenda is VR 2026-02. This is for the property located at 13301 Golf Lane. Is the city ready to proceed? We are ready to proceed. Go ahead, Mr. Just wanted to make sure the special magistrate has received the
notice of intent to be an affected party from Joanne Clayven. We received her notice approximately June 17th. Um, and also attached to that notice would be a letter from Miss um, Clayben. Are you
here, ma'am? Miss Clayben, are Joanne or Jerry Clayben, K L A B N, are you here today? >> Okay, >> we got one person walking in. I don't know if >> that is not him.
>> Okay. All right. uh let the record reflect that I have reviewed the statement provided uh but since Miss Claybin's not here today uh unless she walks in or Mr. Claybin walks in then they won't have the ability to obviously cross-examine. So
>> thank you. >> We'll just move forward. >> All right. So um the city would uh call as its first witness today um Andrew Morris. Mr. Morris, can you please state your name, your occupation,
and your job responsibilities here at the city? >> Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Morris. I'm the longrange planner for the city of Madera Beach Community Development Department. Um, I handle various uh planning tasks like uh writing ordinances and and uh res doing
resonings, but also I handle uh variance applications like uh what's what's here today. >> All right. Um, are you familiar with the um, application that was submitted by Miss Graham on behalf of Robert Bellow for the property located at 13301 Gulf
Lane here in Mader Beach? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. And are you the individual that reviewed the application um, and acted upon the application? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. And did you prepare a staff report and recommendation that you want to submit today? >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. All right. Will you go ahead and make your presentation relative to your staff report? Okay. So, here's staff report for variance 2026-02. First, I'm going to go through the uh request from the applicant. Um relate to
what they're requesting. So uh the first request was section was variance for section 110-231 and one reduce front yard setback from 20 ft to 3'4 in. The next one was section
1 110 231 4 uh reduce the north sideyard setback from 5t to 3 ft. And then the next one was section 110428. reduce the southside yard corner lot set back from 10 ft to 3 ft. And the next
one was section 110 423 intersection visibility reduction of the cross visibility area by 20 ft 11 in. And then after that was uh section 11096 rebuilding after catastrophic loss to allow a storm damage building to be
replaced with a new structure while decreasing seac non-conformities on all sides and eliminating ISR and parking non-conformities. In my uh staff report, I I included the the code sections reference, but I'm
just just going to go to the um background. Okay. So, um this accurate residential structure on the property was built in 1938. Uh the elevated residential structure on the property was built in
1987. The property has previously received two variances. Variance 82.12 allowed for the property owner to build a second living unit on the property above the 100red-year flood level and reduce the sidey door setbacks to 5 ft. Variance 85.14 reapproved the previous
variance that had expired allowing the property owner to build a second living unit on the property above the 100redyear flood level and reduce the sideyard setback to 5 ft. In 2024, the Acrade residential structure received flood damage from hurricane Helen. The property owner would like to
replace the existing Acrade structure with an elevated FEMA compliance structure. The variance request is to allow the property owner of 13301 Gain to replace their grade non-conforming structure with a new residential structure that is closer to being conforming than the current structure. The new structure would have
four parking spaces located under the building to meet the parking requirements for two residential units. The property would be brought into compliance with the impervious surface ratio requirement of 0.85 for the R3 zoning district. Located below is a table showing the existing structure
versus the proposed structure setbacks and various other land development regulation requirements. And uh in my staff report I included a table showing what was required by code um the existing and then what is being
requested by the applicant to show that uh the current uh structure encroaches into our right of way and and into all all the setbacks and what's being proposed would be more compliant.
Let's go here. Uh the next part of the staff report is uh the section 2-507 variances criterion analysis. Uh special conditions and circumstances exist which are to the land building and other or
other structures for which the variance is sought which do not apply generally to the land lands buildings or other structures in the same district. Special conditions to be considered shall include but are not limited to the following circumstances. So for this one
um the ones that were relevant were a which is substandard or irregularly shaped lot. The property would be considered both substandard and irregularly shaped lot for two residential structures located on a corner lot. The existing residential density and structure footprint is
protected by a section 11096 rebuilding after catastrophic loss. Current grade residential structure encroaches into the public rightway creating a safety hazard. Rebuilding the structure in the same footprint would not be possible and attempting to meet the required setbacks would not allow the property own to retain the existing residential density.
The proposed variance would allow for a reasonable use of the property. The next one is C. Uh the proposed variance would maintain the existing neighborhood character since other neighboring structures have similar setbacks. Removing the structure encroachment into the ride ofway will significantly
improve intersection visibility safety while maintaining the traditional development pattern of a block face. And then the next one is E which is the architectural and or engineering considerations. The proposed replacement residential structure would be compliant with the current FEMA Florida building
code and fire code requirements. Existing structure was built in 1938 and flood during Hurricane Helen. The proposed replacement structure would be more disaster resistant than the existing structure. Next set of criteria is um the special
condition and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. A self-created hardship shall not justify variance. The existing structure was built in 1938 which predates the Madar Beach land development regulations. The footprint of the existing structure encroaches into the public right ofway and would
not be possible rebuild a residential structure within the existing footprint. Property owner has the right to retain the residential density of their property because of section 110-96 rebuilding after catastrophic loss. The variance request is not because of a self-grade hardship. Any uh the next one is granting the
variance will not concur on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. Any property owner with an act grade residential structure has the right to retain their residential density and rebuild back into the same footprint for single family homes. The existing
structure currently encroaches into the public rightway and it would not be possible to build a new residential structure encroaching into the public right ofway. The first variance would allow for the construction of a single family home that would not confirm this applicant any special privilege. Other neighboring properties are also able to
use 110 96 rebuilding after catastrophic loss to retain existing residential density. The proposed setbacks would not increase non-conformities and would bring the structure separation setback fully into compliance. Liberal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the right rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development regulation subp part B of the code or section 14-205 of the code of ordinances and would work on necessary and undue hardship on the
applicant. An ER3 zoning district property with an accurate residential structure that was damaged during hurricane Helena has the right to retain their existing residential density because of section 11096 rebuilding after a catastrophic loss. The existing footprint would not be buildable because the rightaway encroachments and it would
not be possible to build a new residential structure that would meet all the required setbacks because of the second structure on the lot. Literal interpretation of the land development regulations would deny the property owner the right to retain the existing residential density. Um the next one is the variance granted
is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land. The variance granted would be the minimum amount of variance required to make reasonable use of the land. Without granting the variance, it would not be possible for the property owner to retain the residential density that is
protected by section 11096 rebuilding after a catastrophic loss. proposed variance would be the minimum amount of variance required to protect retain the existing residential density while reducing the non-conformities of the property. The next one is the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the
general intent purpose of the city land development regulations or the code of orances when it relates to section 14-205 and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to public welfare.
The proposed variance would not be detrimental to public welfare or harmful to nearby property owners. The proposed variance would remove the encroachments in the public rideway of the existing structure. The new structure would allow for the required parking for both residential units for the property to be shifted under the new structure.
Removing at grade residential structures and replacing with flood plan compliant structures would be in harmony with the general intent of the land development regulations related to the v variances. Under staff recommendation, city staff recommends the approval of V2026-02
with the following conditions. The roof overhangs may extend one foot beyond the approved reduced setbacks for the building and they cannot extend into the public rideway. The drainage system plan must be designed to make sure water will not drain onto the adjacent neighbors
property. Uh three is the demolition permit for the Acurate residential structure must be applied for by September 25th, 2026. And after that, I included a a draft of the recommended special management order that lists uh
what the applicant is uh requesting. And attached is the application and support materials from the applicant and the public notice mailing and posting. Um, that concludes my my staff report.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Um, I believe someone um stepped in. I'm not sure if this Are you Mrs. Clayben? Are you Mrs. Claybin? You are. >> I'm here. >> Okay. All right. Just wanted to make
sure. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> All right. Um, so, um, I don't have any additional questions for Mr. Moors. I would tender into evidence pages 117 all the way up through 170. Ask that they be
received into evidence. All right, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence pages 117 through 170 of the agenda package as exhibit number one. All right, looks like the applicant may be represented by council Jane Graham. Miss Graham, are you here?
>> Come on up. How are you doing today? It's a pleasure to meet you. >> Miss Graham, as you probably know, you have the right to cross-examine uh Mr. Morris on anything. I interpret his testimony basically as approving exactly the um application requested subject to a few
of his conditions. So that's how I interpreted his testimony, but feel free to ask Mr. Morris any questions you have if you have any. >> No questions. Thank you very much. >> All right. Very good. The city have any other witnesses? >> No additional witnesses. >> All right, Miss Graham, it's your turn to present any information you want. You
call any witnesses that you want. Um, this is your part of the presentation for whatever you want to tell me. >> Great. Thank you very much. Um, we have a short presentation. I'm not sure. >> All right. And is that Miss Graham? Is that this document right here? Okay.
Would you like me to uh introduce this and put in the records exhibit number two? >> Yes, that would be great. >> Mr. Trash, any objection? >> No objection. And that that document includes all the other exhibits uh that were emailed also with the with the presentation. >> Excellent. Thank you. And is there a
clicker? >> Um, >> yes, there is a clicker. So, hang on just a moment. >> Maybe just tell Mr. Morris. >> Yeah, Mr. Morris, if you wouldn't mind being the uh >> the human clicker, Graham, just tell them when you'd like to go to the next
slide. >> And this is going to be a pretty quick uh presentation. Anyway, good afternoon. My name is Jane Graham. I am an attorney at Sunshine City Law. I represent Mr. Thank you very much. Robert Bellow Jr. in this variance request. With me today
is Mr. Robert Bellow. If you'd like to stand up as well, we have architect Jared Weaver, transportation engineer Tony Alex, and contractor Patrick Haska. My client very much appreciates all the time that staff has taken to work with
him to come up with um this variance request which is really the culmination of efforts in looking at what is the minimum necessary and and what works the best in a very irregularly shaped and unusual property.
Um this is at 13301 Golf Lane. These are the requests for relief. I'm going to go through all of this very quickly because everything has already been covered very well by Andrew Morris. This is the site plan. This is a table that is in the staff
report which I think really sums up the request very well because it shows that the proposal brings the law more into compliance than it was before. And so it shows the required the requirements, the existing and the proposed setbacks. And so this actually makes it more
compliant. We look at a variance under section 2-507 for the criteria. Won't go through all of that. Um it is a substandard a regularly shaped lot. The existing building does not meet any of
the setback uh current standards and the redevelopment will bring it more into compliance. It is compatible with the residential character and it makes the house more disaster resistant. These are not the result of actions from
Mr. Bellow. There's no special privilege. This doesn't deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. And I think what's interesting about this is that this is specifically from the staff report on page six that explains why the
existing footprint would not be buildable because of the right-of-way encroachments and it would not be possible to build build a new residential structure that would meet all the required setbacks. So this is a very unusual piece of property and configuration and so this is something
that makes it work does not result from oh okay let me go back a second yeah and it is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the city land development regulations and I think you know the
really big thing here is that it's making the property more flood plane compliant Mr. Bellow has support from professionals. We have Mr. Jared Weaver here. He'll testify in a second, as well as several contractors who have looked
at this and told us, "Hey, this is the minimum variance you can have. This is, you know, very unusual piece of property, but this is making it work." In conclusion, Mr. Bellow has met the criteria for a variance. City staff supports the variance, and Mr. Bellow
has no objection to the proposed conditions provided by the staff. You have any questions? >> I have no questions. Um, since you're council, there's no cross-examination of you obviously. So, um, how do you want to handle your
experts that are here today? Would you like to call them up and just go through their bonafetase and and put their comments in the record? >> Sure. That sounds great. >> Perfect. Yeah, I'd like to call up architect Jared Weaver right now. Is there a specific slide you'd want me to go back to or
>> um the the one that's purple? >> Yeah, go back. Yeah. All right. >> All right. Good afternoon. My name is Jared Weaver. I am a registered architect in Florida. Um, I was asked to review the architectural design of this
project for its conformance in compliance with FEMA of zoning, fire, building, and code requirements. As was stated before, the irregular shape of the lot as well as the legal two family unit density of the existing
parcel made re replacing a a new proposed building on the site difficult and challenging because what was allowed before with the ATRA building uh what did not conform at all to any of
the um requirements that are required by uh local zoning and building uh requirements. The proposed design provides off- streetet parking, impervious surface ratio, a FEMA flood plane design, and
building and fire code compliance while reducing the actual structural footprint of that atgrade property with the new proposed footprint. The variance requested is the minimum required to correct all of these nonconformities that have been mentioned in the staff
report as being now conforming from the previous iteration of the building. But whenever you have a non when you have an irregular use of a when you have an irregular sized lot, there needs to be some compromise. And that's why we are asking for these variances to the
dimensional the dimensional variances that we are requesting from the north south um ele um setbacks. So in summation, we are trying to puzzle out as many different parts of the project to be in compliance with the the
building the state uh the building and the FEMA zone the FEMA regulations and in doing so we are asking for these smaller concessions with the variances on the dimensional variances. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Weaver. Mr. Tras any cross-examination?
>> No, thank you. >> Okay. >> And actually really quickly I'd just like to get his resume. >> Oh yeah, absolutely. Just show it to Mr. Tras. I doubt he's going to have any objection, but just show it to Mr. Tras first. >> And while we're waiting on that, uh, >> thank you. Hi.
>> If Miss Joanne Claybin or Jerry Claybin, have you come in to the hearing chamber? I do not see anyone saying they are the Clavenins. >> Okay. Um, all right. I'll go ahead and accept in
as exhibit number three, Mr. Weaver's report and qualifications. All right, Miss Graham, you want to go ahead and call your next witness? >> Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. Tony Alex, a transportation engineer, and he
also has a presentation. >> Hello, sir. How are you today? >> Good. Good afternoon. Good afternoon again. Uh my name is Tony Alex. I'm a Florida registered professional engineer. Um um I I've got
28 years of experience. Um I do a lot of projects for Florida Department of Transportation as well as uh municipal clients and my resume is uh provided. Um I've been hired to do two analysis. Number one, uh whether vehicles can make
the turn from Gulf lane to the garage. Number two, is there any um side distance issue at the 133rd Avenue and G lane intersection? Um so, so whenever we look at any um intersections, the first thing we look
at is any history of crashes. Um there are no crashes in the last 5 years um relating to intersection or site distance. Um we did um an analysis uh for site distance uh based on the criteria
provided in the Florida green book and um uh based on our analysis you can see the line of sight um the building is outside the line of sight and the build the proposed structure will not um uh
impact the line of sight and um um since the new construction will remove the on street uh parking it will actually improve the visibility and also uh eliminating the encroachments into the rideway.
We also did um auto turn analysis um to make sure vehicles can make that turn into the garage. So um the graphics that's shown here is the vehicle making the turn going into the garage and coming out of the garage. That concludes my presentation.
>> Mr. Tras, any crossexamination? >> No questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Alex. I appreciate that. >> Mr. Special magistrate, I'd like to tender Mr. Alex's resume into the record. >> So, Mr. Tras, I don't have any objection. >> It's the same ones attached to the
packet. I have no objection. >> Okay. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number four the qualifications for Mr. Alex. At this time, I also have two letters I'd like to enter into the record. One is from general contractor Patrick Haska
is who is here today, but he's not going to testify, although he is available for questions if needed, as well as a letter from another contractor, Mr. Robert Rogers. both uh speak to the fact that they have looked at the re the variance
and based on the unusual combination of sight restraints they believe that this is the best design and minimum practical configuration to help the property. >> All right. Again, if you can just give that to Mr. Tr. Let me see if he has any objection. >> It's the same one in the packet. Yeah,
it's these are also the same ones that are in the packet. No objection. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And now I'd like to call my client, Mr. Robert Bellow. >> All right. As Mr. Bell is walking up, for the record, I'll go ahead and mark
as exhibit five and exhibit six. The two letters, exhibit five will be the letter from Mr. Patrick Pulska. Exhibit six will be from Robert Rogers. >> All right. Hello, sir. How are you?
>> Good afternoon. Um, so before we kind of wrap up our presentation, I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone at city staff. Um, over the past several years, SPA staff has spent a considerable amount of time in reviewing this property, evaluating alternatives,
answering questions, and working through the unique challenges associated with redeveloping a narrow corner lot containing two existing residential structures while complying with modern flood plane, parking setback, and building code requirements. This has been a long process involving multiple
design iterations and numerous discussions. Throughout the process, staff has remained professional, thoughtful, and solutionoriented. While they were there were certainly challenges along the way, I always felt staff was generally trying to find a path that would allow the property to be
rebuilt in a manner that improves compliance with current regulations while preserving its existing residential density. I appreciate the time, effort, and expertise that the staff devoted to this application, and I want to publicly thank them for their hard work and their commitment to
finding the minimum practical solution for this property. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on. Mr. Bellow, don't go away just yet. Mr. Tras has the right to ask you some questions. Mr. Tras, any cross? >> No questions. >> All right. Um, real quick, just give Miss Graham a minute so she can hear
what I'm going to say. Um, Mr. O just want to your attorney said that you have no objection to the conditions that staff has imposed. You have no objection to the conditions staff has imposed. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Miss Graham, what else would you like to share with me today? >> All right. Uh Mr. Special magistrate, I
believe that that concludes our presentation. Um we would just like to briefly address the letter of opposition which was sent by Miss Clayben. And I'd like to briefly call up Mr. Weaver again just to address some of the issues from
the architectural perspective. >> Sounds good. >> Good afternoon. The the letter of opposition had requested a few options or alternatives which we've actually looked
into in order to see if they were viable options. We might have even looked into those before the letter. itself because we just got it on Friday. The um there were some things that she was concerned about with the the the north um setback
being 3 ft instead of the 5T um required. And that was why can't we just raise the building up out of the flood zone uh on peers, which we cannot do because part of the existing structure doesn't meet any of the setbacks and part of it is actually outside of the
property line. So, we can't just take the building and raise it up. um knowing that it's full well not part not within the property setback lines. And another question she had was why can't you just shorten the width of that space and maybe elongate it? Uh so we looked into
that as well and by doing that we are try we are then pushed against trying to make the parking happen underneath the footprint that we have which is rather small. In order to have um a parking a
parking a twocar parking uh scenario on the north setback, we need that 34 ft of space. If we were to reduce it to 32 so that we could be compliant with her with the 5- foot setbacks on the north um yard, we would
not have space with the design that we've created for the for the cars to be able to park and it would also reduce the traffic um patterns being able to get in and out of Gulf lane. So, there was a lot of issues with just shrinking or putting a diet on the width of the
building. Another condition was well why why couldn't we just go up with the building um to potentially shrink the building in its width as well because currently it is um it has a grade level and then it has a first floor living level above
grade and she suggested why don't you go higher by doing that that creates more point loads on the ground level which may increase the which most likely will increase the foundation the column sizes which would increase the pinching of our first ground floor which is for the
parking. So in order to maintain the parking uh requirements of the this project our design tries to thread the needle to accommodate the building size which happens to be smaller than what was originally there. The the size of this
building is actually smaller than what was there before. And we're trying to um to minimize this the impact of the building and also create parking. But unfortunately in order to do that we need to ask variance for the site setbacks and that is what we're trying to say is why we are requesting for this
variance. It's the minimum required in order to allow the use of this building uh as intended. >> Thank you Mr. Weaver. Any questions? >> No. >> That that was great. Mr. Weaver, you very much addressed every concern uh that it looks like Miss Clayben addressed. And for purposes of the
record, I'll go ahead and accept her notice of intent to be an affected party as exhibit 7 as well as her comments. >> Thank you. All right, >> thank you very Graham. Anything else? >> No, that is all that our case. >> Uh, have a seat. If there's any members
of the public who come up and comment, I'll give you and Mr. Tras an opportunity to address that in a minute. All right. Are there any members of the public that would like to provide comment on V2026-02 for the property located at 13301 Golf Lane, Madira Beach, Florida. Okay. Going
once, going twice. Okay. We'll close public comment. Mr. TR any final words? >> No, sir. Thank you. >> Miss Graham, anything else you want to tell me? Okay. Uh, based upon the excellent presentation by Ms. Graham as well as her expert witnesses and the uh
staff report of Mr. Morris. I do find that all the criteria have been met and that the requested variances are granted subject to the city's conditions which the applicant has agreed to. All right, that'll go ahead and conclude uh V 2026-02.
You guys are free to go. And is that all that those we're going to move over to code enforcement now. Is that right, Mr. >> That's correct. All right. >> Okay. While Miss Graham and Mr. Bell and their crew clear out again, welcome to the city of Dear Beach code enforcement hearing for the third time today. My
name is Bart Valdez. I'm the special magistrate appointed to hear today's cases. Uh, 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. Uh, today's matters will be heard in the order 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. Uh, if you've not already been sworn, you're going to need to be sworn in in just a moment. In
these code enforcement cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. The respondent 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 the respondent or property owner will be provided with a copy by mail. You're advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance permit or special exception of
any kind in this hearing. 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. All right. Is there anyone who came in uh late who plans on talking to me about any of these code enforcement cases that has not already been sworn in? Okay, go ahead, ma'am. Uh stand up, raise your right hand. Just try asking you do the oath.
>> Swear the testimony you're about to give today is going to be the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The first case we have for the code enforcement is 2026.015. That's for the property located at 350 Boka Drive. Is the city ready to
proceed? >> We are. Go ahead, Mr. Ask. >> The city would call Deputy Snider on this case. Uh Deputy, if you could state your full name, um your occupation, your job responsibilities uh with the sheriff's department as it relates to code enforcement here in Madera Beach.
>> Deputy Cory Schneider, Penelis County Sheriff's Office, community policing in the city of Madira Beach, and I perform code enforcement services for the city. Are you familiar with this property located at 350 Bogga Drive? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And is this a property that um
that you've had involvement for uh with before relative to a code violation? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um and when was the last time that you were involved in a code violation on this property? >> Well, let me just back up. I'll just
show you the an order previous order that the special magistrate entered. the special magistrate order um is at page 204 of the packet and um it was signed by the special magistrate in November 17, 2025. Do you recognize that that order?
>> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And is that reflect the case that had been before the special magistrate for the same property? >> That is correct. >> Is it the same property owner? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. And is it the same code violations as we're here on today? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. And uh did the did the special
magistrate find a violation within the last 5 years on these same code violations with the same property owner? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um did the property eventually come into compliance with the previous code enforcement uh order?
>> Yes, they did. >> Okay. Is the property now in violation again? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Okay. We're going to turn to the front of the packet then and I want you to first of all do you um this property itself is owned by whom? And how do you know that?
On page 171 of the uh code enforcement packet the the property is owned by Happy Horse LLC uh TR and Robin Mills Trust. Uh the site address is 350 BOAGA. This is all per the Penel County Property Appraisers website. >> All right. And when was your uh
inspection of this property? most recently uh relative to this code violation. >> Uh so our attention was uh directed back out to the property from uh the neighbor Mike uh Cavalero on April 13th uh regarding the condition to have
deteriorated back into its original state. >> All right. Did you go out to the property on April 13th? >> About approximately a month later 5:18 I did uh go out to the property and conducted a reinspection of the property. >> And what did you find when you went out to the property? The pool was half full,
green and black and uh numerous tree debris, dead palms, dead branches surrounded the property area from the front. >> And on the side, >> is this property vacant? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. When you went back out to the property, did you follow up with a courtesy notice or a letter to the
property owner? >> I issued a notice of violation due the repeat status of it. issued a a notice of special meditate notice of violation uh to the addresses that were in the property appraisers website. Uh mailed the letters
uh both certified and regular to the the uh contact address. >> And what uh code sections did you um say that they were in violation and that the code violation notice? >> Section 1468, which is maintenance of vegetation, trees, and plantings and
landscaping. Uh section 1469, maintenance of exterior premises 1470, general maintenance and international property maintenance code 303.1 for swimming pools. >> When you sent the uh notice of violation, did you attach photographs to
that notice? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And um someone working that up there. Okay. So on the screen that you'll see some photographs following up in the packet. Can you explain each one of these photographs one by one as to what they depict? Uh the neighbor gave us consent
to take pictures from his side of the property. Uh the picture in on page 178 depicts the pool and it's green and brown and black condition there with debris inside it. Uh the dead palms that are visible in the in the foreground of
the picture there. Uh 179 shows palm debris palm uh palm debris around the pool deck. 180 is uh from the sideyard palm debris
again from the 181 is palm debris. 182 is additional palm debris. In fact, I think in one let's see here 183 I believe that's a rat trap that might be on the property there in the the first part of the picture there. Palm debris. Those are the pictures are taken on that
date. Okay. When you sent this code violation notice to the property owner, did you set forth a specific time frame you wanted the property to come into compliance? >> Yes, the compliance was uh
letter was sent on 526 with a compliance date of 63. >> Did the property come into compliance as of that date? >> No, it did not. >> Is it in compliance as of today? >> No. >> Okay. Did you then um once you sent that code violation notice, did you get any
have any contact with the property owner? >> No, I have not. >> Did you then follow up and then issue a um special magistrate affidavit of service? >> Yes, I did. >> And when when did you do that? >> The uh notice of hearing uh statement of
violation were all completed on 610. >> Okay. And the affidavit of service then would reflect what? Uh the affidav affidavit of service was that the property was posted, the city hall was posted, and that the notice of hearing was mailed both certified and regular to the property, the listed address of the
property owner. >> Okay. And um when you sent the um notice of hearing, did you also send the photographs again or did you send additional photographs? Uh there were additional photographs that were taken at the time prior to the uh a
reinspection was was reinspection was uh conducted on the 69 I conducted a reinspection and took pictures of the property at that time. >> All right. >> And then on 610 the notice of hearing after the service statement of violation were all male both certified and regular.
>> All right. If you could go to those photographs then that you took and explain and to the special matter right which each one of the photographs reflect page number. >> As court of this as part of this case I actually posted the property with the uh notice of violation having history that
the property uh doesn't typically get its mail. So I posted the property with a statement with a notice of violation which actually had the reinspection date on it that was present in my reinspection on the 9th. uh the condition, the palm debris, tree debris
uh in the property. >> You go by page number if you would. So >> yeah, 189 depicts 188 depicts the uh my attachment of the notice of violation to the property. 189 shows palm debris on the property.
190 shows uh just a a a shot of the sideyard from from the neighboring property. Uh actually from the street from the front. That would be the street view there. Uh 1891 is from the street. Uh 192 uh
that is actually the pool uh which is very dark in color. 193 shows the pool, the dark green from the neighbor's uh roof deck, which he allowed permission for me to go up there and take photographs from. 194 is has a a a portion of the green
pool in the background. 195 is upside down, but it shows uh dead dead palm debris. 196 dead palm debris. Uh 197 similar 198
uh the presence of palm debris, dead dead limbs, palms. >> Okay. And then the rest of the photographs in the packet >> uh 199 shows the uh the return of the mail which was addressed to the address that's in the property appraisers uh
website. >> Okay. >> Uh we've already talked about that. Okay. All right. So to summarize then, the property is still in violation of the cited code sections
and it has been in violation since your inspection on May 19th, 2026. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And um it being a repeat violation, what is the fine that the city is looking for relative to these uh violations since
May 18, 2026? >> The city is asking for $500 a day. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I have uh no other questions of the deputy. Not sure if property owner is here or not. >> All right. Uh one question, Mr. Snyder. What is the position or do you going to
defer to Mr. Tras on what to ask for for how long to bring the property into compliance? >> Well, I'll I'll answer that question. So, it is a repeat violation. So, there would be no compliance date. It would be the we'd be asking for the fine to begin to run as of the date of the inspection as a direct result of it being a repeat.
>> Gotcha. >> Thank you. Okay. >> And we would tender into evidence uh pages 171 through 211 of the agenda package. I ask that they be received. >> All right. I will go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one,
pages 171 through 211. All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner, Happy Horse LLC, the Robin Mills Trust? Anyone here on behalf of the owner, the respondent? Okay, seeing none, we'll open it up to
the public. Are there any matter members of the public that have knowledge of this code violation like to come forward and be heard? Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Mr. Trash, uh give you the closing. Um we think that it's it's clear that the testimony and evidence
has showed there is a violation of the cited code section. We ask that you find the property and repeat violation, order a fine of $500 a day from the date of the inspection, which was May 18, 2026 through the date that it actually comes into compliance.
Okay. All right. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Snyder, the agenda items, and everything else, uh I do find that the property is in violation. There'll be a $500 uh per day fine based upon fact is a repeat violation
and that fine will run from May 18th until the date the propertyy's brought into compliance. >> Thank you. >> All right, let's move on to the next matter. Uh this is 2026.6 for the property located at 1416
North Beayshore Drive. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes. >> Go ahead, Mr. D. >> Call Deputy Snder again. Deputy, if you could state your um your name, your occupation, your job responsibilities as it relates to Madiraa Beach. >> Cory Snder, Penel County Sheriff's
Office, Code Enforcement, Community Policing Unit, and I perform code enforcement services for the city of Madira Beach. >> Are you familiar with this property located at 14016 North Bay Shore Drive? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And is this a case that had been started by a different deputy uh with
the sheriff's department? >> That is correct. >> And who was that deputy? >> Uh that deputy is Brian Mitchell. >> Have you familiarized yourself with the information that Mr. uh Deputy Mitchell had prepared in this case? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. And are you prepared to testify
today on behalf of um uh the sheriff's department relative to this case? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. All right. Is this a case that came to you as a proactive case or was it complaint driven? >> This was a complaint from the neighboring property. >> Okay. And what was uh first of all, when
did that complaint come in and what was the complaint? Actually, there were multiple complaints on the property, but the original complaint uh came through city hall where we had uh the neighboring resident with a city commissioner and the neighboring
resident and two of at least one of the city staff met at the the the neighbors property and let's see here and at which time we conducted an inspection. I'm trying to find the very first complaint that we had here.
Let me see. Got a statement of violation. On April 19th, 2026, uh, Deputy Mitchell and I were at the property adjacent to 14016 North Bay Shore. uh based on a uh the complaint.
>> All right. And and what was the complaint? >> Uh the complaint was garbage, trash, debris, inoperable vehicles, tree debris, uh miscellaneous uh litter, filth, and debris on the property. >> So, did you inspect the property that the complaint was being made of?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And did you expect inspect it on that same day? >> On the 19th, it was inspected. >> Okay. And did you find that the violations existed on the property as has as as it was relayed to you and Deputy Mitchell? >> Yes, we did.
>> Okay. Did you um take photographs or Deputy Mitchell take photographs that day of the property reflecting the code violations that existed on the property? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. And um I'd like you to go ahead and first of all tell me who owns the
property and how you know that who that person is. According to the Penel County Property Appraisers website, uh the property located at 14016 North Beayshore uh belongs to owner name Kim Appan, A P L I N.
>> All right. So, uh did do you have a copy of not only the website print out for the property appraiser but also the tax tax collectors print out too? Does it list the same owner? >> County property appraisers
>> or is it just a county sheriff? Let me just have the Penelis County Property Appraisers website. >> All right. So, um once the uh inspection was done, did the city issue or did you issue a notice of violation uh to the property owner?
>> Due to the volume of the the issues on the property, Deputy Mitchell issued a courtesy letter to the property owner uh to try to get some sort of compliance. Uh the courtesy letter was issued on 32026 and it had a 10-day correction period. >> And what were the code sections that
were being cited? Uh section 1469, maintenance of exterior premises, garbage trash, uh debris, accumulations of filth, abandoned inoperable vehicles, uh holes, pits, uh any condition of private property which would which evidences rodents, ferments, pest or
insect infestation, nesting or habitation, maintenance of vegetation, trees, planting and landscaping. >> Okay. And you took you said you took photographs or Deputy Mitchell took photographs when he went out there on that day. Yes. >> Okay. And if you could go to the page
numbers of the photographs and explain what the photographs depict. >> Uh it starts on page 217. 217 is a picture of uh the backyard of the property which has fence panels, dead debris, uh chairs,
um junk, trash. Uh 218 shows an open garage door again with items filling the garage door, some sort of bird cage or something, down trees. Uh it's it's you you can't even you can't even physically walk back through
there because of the the the volume of tree debris that's in the backyard. That's on 218. >> Okay. 219 uh shows the presence of an RV that's in the property. Uh the the RV does the RV hasn't moved in in many years. The owners have always kept the
the registration updated, but since the storm in 24, the RV is filled with stuff in the driver's compartment. So, even if it was drivable, it's it's loaded full of refues and and boxes and stuff. So,
the the registration is valid, but it hasn't moved prior to the storm and has has stuff in the passenger and driver's uh seat area. >> Okay. All right. When the uh when the code violation courtesy notice was sent, did
it ask the property owner to bring it into compliance within a date certain? >> Yeah, we gave a so the issue the 320 it was issued for the courtesy letter having a 330 uh 2026 correction period. Did it come into compliance within that time frame? >> No, it did not.
>> Is it in compliance as of today? >> No, it's not. >> All right. Did the city issue a um statement of violation, a request for hearing? >> Uh we did. We actually went two steps. Um Deputy Mitchell actually contacted the
property owner to uh by phone and they requested additional time for corrections. Deputy Mitchell actually gave them until 4:30 26 to comply. on on 56. Um the property uh a
reinspection was completed on 56 2026 with no corrections to be made to the property bringing into compliance. At that point on 57, Deputy Mitchell issue a notice of violation letter having a reinspection date on 514. >> Okay. And um did you take did he take
additional photographs when he was out on that uh date? >> Yes, he did. >> Okay. And can you go to those photographs and explain what they depict? >> Uh 226 shows the presence of the RV still in the front yard. 227 shows the
front yard with uh garbage, trash, potters, planters, plastic bits of some sort. 228 shows the the sideyard with plastic plastic tubs, bins, uh a washer and dryer on the the left side of the
property with a with a cord. Uh 229 is that same image. 230 is a closeup where you can actually see in the backyard there's barbecue grills, miscellaneous items,
uh plastic storage tubs, tree debris, tarps of some sorts. 231 is a similar image. Uh 232 shows a down fence, concrete block, Purex laundry bucket in the
backyard. 233 shows the the RV in the yard and it's stuff piled up past the steering wheel in the in the driver's seat. >> All right. So, um with those photographs
having been taken, the notice of violation given and the property not being in compliance, did the city issue then a a notice of hearing for today or request for hearing and the notice of hearing? >> Yes, he did. >> Okay. And um was that posted on the property?
>> Yes, it was. >> Was it sent by certified and regular mail? >> Yes, it was. >> Okay. Have you heard from any additional information from the property owner after the first um uh extension of the compliance state was made? >> Not to my knowledge. No.
>> Okay. All right. How much time do you think it would take to bring the property into compliance? Um >> based on the time, I would give no more than 30 days to come into compliance. >> Okay. And if it's not in compliance within 30 days, what do you think uh a
reasonable uh fine would be based upon what is happening out at the property? >> $250 a day. >> All right. All right. I don't have any additional questions for you. I would tender into evidence though um pages 212 through 242 of the agenda packet and ask
that they be received. All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence is exhibit number one, pages 212 through 242 of the agenda packet. All right. Is the owner here? Anybody on behalf of the owner, Kim Appan? I also noticed a name
in an email, Anthony Johnson. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner of the property? Okay. All right. Right. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about this code enforcement violation that would like to come forward and provide
testimony? Seeing none, we'll move on. Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? Um, in uh just in summation, we ask that you find that the property in violation of the cited code section. Order the property to come into compliance within 30 days.
That would be July 23rd, 2026. should it not come into compliance by that date, we'd ask that you um enter a fine of $250 a day for every day the property remains in violation of the cited code sections. All right. Based upon the evidence and testimony provided, I do
find the property is in violation as set forth in the notice. The owner will have 30 days to bring the property into compliance, which will be July 23rd, 2026, or a $250 fine will be imposed, and the uh corrective action will be what was set forth on the record in the
notice of violation. All right, let's move on to case number C24-94 for the property located 315 140th Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? >> We are, and the city would call Connor Mechco uh to be the city's witness on
this case. Um, Connor, if you could state your occupation, your job responsibilities here at the city. >> A code compliance specialist and I handle code cases for the city. >> Are you familiar with this property that is located at 315 140th Avenue?
>> Uh, correct. >> Is this a case that is a proactive case, uh, code enforcement case, or is this a complaint driven? >> This is a proactive case. >> Okay. And um who's the owner of this property?
>> Uh Nella Goff. >> How do you know that? >> Uh based on the Penllis County property appraiser website. >> Okay. And that's reflected in pages 243 through 245, the agenda packet. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Um what was the violation that was found on this property? Uh this was 1470 general maintenance um specifically for for um the roof um being damaged.
And what code enforcement officer or inspector found the violation on this property? >> Uh this was Grace Mills back in 2024. >> Is Grace uh still employed with the city? >> No. Why has this case sat since September of
2024? >> Um, it was Grace's case and it is just now been taken to try to clear out older cases. Um, we were trying to prioritize more life safety cases and uh after the
fact remodel permits um where they were actively renting out. So, this was a less um dangerous case to the city. >> Okay. When Grace was working the case, did she go out and inspect the property
and find a violation of section 14-70? >> Correct. >> Did she issue a uh courtesy notice of code violation? >> Yes. On September 17th, 2024, >> is that reflected starting at page 246 of the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> Okay. When that uh courtesy notice was
sent, did it attach uh photographs of the property? >> Uh correct. >> Okay. And can you explain what those photographs depict and do it by page number, please? So 248 it shows the um the roof that is damaged. Um you can see
the damage to the roof. Um that can also be seen on 249. It's a zoomed out picture showing the damaged roof. Okay. Um, and when that courtesy notice was sent to the property owner, did it ask for the property owner to come into
compliance within a certain date? >> Uh, yes. The follow-up date for compliance was October 1st of 2024. >> All right. Did the property come into compliance with that date? >> No. >> Um, did the city issue a notice of code violation? >> Uh, yes.
>> Okay. And is that start reflected starting at page 250, the agenda packet? >> True. And that was sent on October 22nd of 2024. >> Did it include those same photographs that you had shown earlier? >> Yes. >> Okay. Was that sent by certified in regular mail?
>> Uh, true. >> Okay. So, um, has the property been reinspected recently? >> Yes, last week. >> Okay. And who was the person that did that inspection? >> Uh, me. Okay. And when you went out to
the property, what did you find? Uh the roof was still in disrepair and needed to be repaired. >> Okay. Did you have the opportunity to talk to the property owner when you were at the property? >> No, I have not seen the property owner. >> Okay. Have since then, have you talked to the property owner since this case has been reopened?
>> No, I have not heard from the property owner. >> Okay. Did the city uh prepare a statement of violation request for hearing as reflected on starting at page 270, the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> All right. And the city also issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? Yes.
>> Is that reflected starting at page 260? Okay. >> And uh when the when these documents were prepared and sent to the property owner, how were they sent? >> Um regular and certified mail and posted at the property and at the city.
>> Okay. If you could turn to page 262, tell me what that photograph depicts. >> This is the posting of the property. And the following page, uh, photograph 263. >> This is the posting downstairs at city hall.
>> All right. And did you issue an affidavit of service reflecting the fact that it was sent by regular mail, certified mail, and posted at the proper city hall? >> And is that reflected in page 255? >> Yes. >> All right.
So, it's your testimony today. The property is still in violation of the cited code section. >> Correct. >> Okay. What do you think a reasonable period of time would be to bring the property into compliance? >> Uh 30 days and $100 a day afterwards. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. I have no other questions. I would tender into evidence the documents that are in the agenda package starting at page 243 all the way through 264. >> All right. Go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages
243 through 263 of the agenda packet. All right. Is the owner here? Anybody on behalf of the owner here? Nella Goff or anyone on Nella Goff's behalf here today? All right.
Let the record reflect the respondent is not present. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about this code enforcement violation that like to come forward and provide testimony? Seeing none, we'll post close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? Um,
just to ask that the code enforcement special magistrate find the property in violation of section 14-70 of the city's code. Order the property to come into compliance by July 23rd, 2026. And if it's not in compliance by that day, order a fine of $100 a day for every day
the property remains in violation of th that cited code section. >> All right. And is the corrective action to repair or replace the roof? Is that essentially the corrective action? All right. >> Yes. Okay, I'll go ahead and find that the property is in violation as set forth in
the notice of violation there. The respondent will have 30 days to bring the property into compliance by repairing or replacing the roof and thereafter if the property remains not in compliance, then $100 a day fine shall be imposed. >> Thank you.
Okay, let's move on to the next case which is C2-153 for the property located at 530 Lillian Drive. Is the city ready to proceed? >> The city is ready to proceed. Go ahead, Mr. >> We'll call again Connor Mechco. Connor,
if you could state your occupation here at the city and your job responsibilities. Uh, >> code compliance specialist handling code cases for the city. Are you familiar with this property that's located at 530 Lillian Drive? >> Uh, yes.
>> Is this a proactive case or is this complaint driven? >> Uh, proactive. >> And um, who is the owner of this property and how do you know that? >> Uh, per the Penllis County property appraiser, it's Gabriel Decandido,
Patricia Decandido, and the trust of Gabriel and Patricia Deandido. Okay. And is that reflected on the uh Penelis County Property Appraisers printout starting at page 264 of the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> Okay. What what was the violation in
this case? >> So the violation in this case was 8652 um when required for work without a permit. >> And what work? Well, first of all, when was the inspection done on the property
to determine if there was a violation or not? So, the courtesy notice was sent October 28th of 2025. Um, it was found then um through realtor.com because it was for rent. Um,
and in that listing it showed pictures um provided pictures of work that was done without a permit posttorm. Okay. Did this water did this uh property have water uh damage? >> Correct.
>> Okay. Approximately how many feet of water were in this house? >> Three. Approximately 3 ft to four feet. >> And the photographs that you found on realtor.com. Well, first of all, was it you or someone else in your office?
>> Um this was I believe me. This was me. Yes. >> All right. So, did you um make copies of the printouts from realtor.com? >> Um physical today? >> Yeah. No. Did they're in the packet?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And if you could just go through the photographs and tell us what those photographs depict in each one starting at page 269. >> So on page 269, that's the initial listing also showing the property with the the address and it's being for rent
actively. Um 270 was more of the description. Um the description says, "Welcome to this remodeled um three bed, two bath waterfront bungalow. Features new
kitchen with countertops. Um brand new dock, concrete seaw wall, fence backyard. So it's just a description stating that they've remodeled recently including the kitchen." >> Okay. And if you can go to the next photograph >> 271 is a picture also from realator.com.
Um it shows the kitchen and a living space. Um you can see baseboard trim. Um you can see it looks like fresh drywall and paint. Um and you can see that kitchen with the um the new countertop.
>> All right. And next photograph, page 272. This shows also the kitchen. Um it looks like new cabinets and that countertop as well. Um 273
also just more of the the walls, the trim, and you can also see the electric was low in the home. So that is assumed to be replaced as well. >> Okay. When you determined that there was a violation, did you said you had sent
this courtesy notice of code violation? What date was that sent? >> The notice was sent on October 28th, 2025. >> Did you get a response to that letter? >> No. >> All right. Did the city follow up with a
notice of code violation for the property? >> Uh, yes. A certified notice was sent on November 13th of 2025 >> and it was the same code section that you had cited 86-52. >> Correct. >> And did you include the same
photographs? >> Yes. >> All right. Did you get a first of all, how was that sent? >> Uh certified mail. >> Okay. Did you also send it by regular mail? >> Uh no, that was just certified. >> Okay. And did you get a response after that letter was sent?
>> Um I did not. Did the property owner sign for the green card on that prop on that notice? >> Correct. And that's seen on page 282. >> Is the property in compliance as of today? >> As of today, no. >> Right. And have you had any contact
whatsoever with the property owner? um since the posting and the letters were sent out um the owner sent on his behalf a contractor um in the state of Florida to apply and obtain a permit. Um I
believe the contractors here today, but he has been working for the last week to apply and submit for the remodel permit for the uh property to come into compliance. >> All right. Before we get to that, then let's just go ahead and talk about the statement of violation. And did the city
issue a state violation request for hearing as well as a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Correct. >> And those are reflected at pages 285 and 287. >> Yes. >> Um were those notices sent by regular and certified mail? >> Yes. And posted on the property and at
city hall. >> Okay. Did you take photographs of the posting on the property and at city hall? >> Yes. That's seen on page 289 and 290. >> All right. Thank you. All right. How much time do you think to bring this property? Well, first of all, what has
to happen to bring the property into compliance? >> They need to obtain. So, uh, after the fact interior remodel permit needs to be issued to come into compliance. >> And how much time do you think that it
will take to get that building permit issued? >> Uh, 30 days. >> If the property is not in compliance within 30 days, what do you think the fine should be and why? $250 a day. Um,
because it is actively being rented. >> And why would it be actively being rented be of concern to the city? >> Because of life safety. Um, work was done and the city is not aware. It hasn't had any inspections. We're not aware if the work was done correctly.
So, it's a life safety issue to the the current tenants or any prospective tenants. >> All right. Thank you. I have no other questions of Mr. Me echo with tender into evidence pages 264 through 290 of the agenda packet. >> All right, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages
264 through 290 of the agenda packet. All right. Uh, is Gabriel Deandido, Patricia Deando, anyone on the owner's behalf here today? >> All right, come on forward. >> Right, sir. What is your name?
>> Hello. My name is Wellington D Silva. I'm a project engineer with Masara Florida LLC and Blueprint Construction. >> Tell me how you spell your last name, sir. >> Uh DA space SI LVA CGC license number 1533245.
>> Gotcha. All right. Mr. Dilva, as the owner's representative today, you have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Mechco. I'm going to give you an opportunity in a minute to tell me anything you want to tell me. You have any questions for Mr. Meco you want to ask him? >> Uh no, sir. Not at the moment. I do not. >> All right. Sit tight. I don't know if Mr. Tras has any other witnesses. >> No other witnesses.
>> All right. Uh, Mr. Silva, tell me what you want to tell me about this one. >> Yes, sir. Um, I'm here representing Mr. Gabriel Decandido and uh his late wife, uh, Patricia Decandido. Um, Mr. Decandido's wife was the person responsible for all the properties that
they they own. And uh, Mr. Mr. Gabriel was never involved in any of the maintenances or purchase or any affairs of the nature. So once his wife passed away, unfortunately he was a victim of unlicensed contractor trying to do contractor work for him and uh taking
his money and not completing the work or applying for permits. So I was uh contacted uh contacted by one of Mr. Gando's friends that I've completed work for in the past and uh I will be taking responsibility for the work that was completed illegally on the property at
530 Lilian Drive moving forward and that's why working with Mr. echo on proceeding with the permitting and all the paperwork necessary to make sure the uh property is compliance. >> All right. Great. Thank you, sir. Mr. Trask, any questions? >> Sir, how much how much time do you think it'll take to pull the building permit for this property?
>> Yes, sir. Um, I would like uh 30 to 45 days if possible. I've already started with the process and submitted the paperwork I have available. >> All right. So, you think that if it was 45 days that you would you would definitely have the building permit by? >> Yes, sir. That is correct. >> Okay. All right. Um, thank you. That's all the questions I have for you.
>> All right. I have no questions. Uh, sir, just have a seat. Just sit up close here and then I'm just going to call for public comment. See if anybody members of the public would have a seat for now. >> All right. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about this code violation that would like to come forward? >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public
comment. Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? Just ask that you find the property in violation of the cited code section and give the property owner the 45 days uh to come into compliance. not in compliance with that date a $250 a day fine for every day the property remains
in violation of that cited code section. >> All right. I do find based upon the testimony provided and the evidence that the property is in violation is set forth in the notice of violation. Uh based also upon the admissions that there was no permit uh there is a violation clearly here. Uh based upon
the testimony I do believe that 45 days is a reasonable time to bring the property into compliance. Then the compliance will be to obtain the after the-act building permit. And then after that 45 days, there'll be a $250 fine if the property is not in compliance. So,
thank you for coming today, sir. I appreciate it. All right, we'll move on to the next one, which is KCE25-162 for the property located at 15403 Gulf Boulevard. Is the city ready to proceed? >> We are. And I would call Mr. Mechco
again. Mr. Mr. Mechco, if you could then again state your occupation, your job responsibilities here at the city. >> Uh code compliance specialist. I handle code cases for the city. >> Are you familiar with this property located at 15403 Gulf Boulevard?
>> Uh yes. >> Okay. Um is this a proactive case or was this complaint driven? >> Uh this proactive. >> And um who's the owner of this property and how do you know that? Um on page 291
through 293, the Penllis County Property Appraiser showed that um Tori Elvier and Elvier are the owners of this property. >> Okay. And um you said that this is a proactive case.
What was what was found to be a violation of the city code? >> Um this was 8652. So work without permit. >> Okay. And how did the city find out that there was a violation of that particular code section?
>> Um this was also a property for rent. Um this was listed on Zillow. >> Okay. And um were you the person that found it on Zillow? >> No, I believe this was Taylor.
>> Okay. And uh when it was determined that there was a violation, did you uh print out um the photographs that were on Zillow? >> Yes. >> And are they in the agenda packet? >> Yes. The pictures start on page 296. >> All right. If you could explain to the
special magistrate what each one of these pictures depict. Looks like there are two on 296. >> Correct. So these pictures were all from the um listing on Zillow. Um, this one shows a bathroom that looks freshly
remodeled. Um, you can see a vanity there. Um, page 297 is more living spaces. Um, you can see what looks to be fresh drywall, paint, trim, and there's also low electric outlets
um on this property. Also, the um the door you can see looks to be new. All right, next photograph. >> Um, page 298 shows the listing on Zillow. Um, putting the property for
rent. Um, you can see more pictures. You can also see the kitchen um with cabinets. Um, possibly new flooring. Um, just more work done. The cabinets also not matching the the upper cabinets.
>> Did this property experience water damage? >> Uh, correct. Approximately how much water was in this house? >> We expect approximately 3 to 4 feet. >> Okay. When it was determined that this uh remodeling had been done, um did the
city issue a courtesy notice of code violation? >> Correct. Um a courtesy notice was sent on November 4th of 2025. >> Okay. And is that reflected starting at page 294? >> Yes. Of all those photographs attached to the courtesy notice when it was sent
to the property owner? >> Yes. >> All right. And did you get a response to the courtesy letter? >> I do not believe so. >> All right. Did the city then issue a notice of code violation? >> Uh, yes. That is on page 299. >> All right. And did it give did it site
the same code section 86-52? >> Yes. And it included the same pictures. >> All right. Did the city get a response to that letter? Um, >> I do not believe so. >> Did you send it by regular and certified mail? >> Certified mail.
>> All right. And um, did did the city follow up after that and and issue a statement of violation and a request for hearing followed by a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes, that was on page 306 through 309.
>> And how was that sent to the property owner? >> Regular certified. And then on page 310 and 311, you can see the postings at both the property and downstairs at city hall. >> And did you uh um show that on your affidavit of service starting at page
304? >> Correct. >> All right. Is this property currently rented? >> Um it is currently for rent. >> Okay. >> All right. Um so what would the property owner need to do to bring this property into compliance?
uh they would need to uh apply for and obtain and have an issued um after the-act repair building permit um for the property. >> And how much time do you think would be a reasonable period of time to come into compliance?
>> 30 days. >> And if it's not in compliance in those 30 days, what do you think the reasonable amount of fine would be for that code violation? This one would be $250 a day due to life safety because it was found to be for rent.
>> All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for you. I would tender into evidence the agenda packet starting at page 291 through 311. Ask that it be received into evidence. >> All right. I'll accept an evidence as exhibit number one, pages 291 through
311 of the agenda packet. Are Tori Elvier or Olden Elvier here today? >> Yes. >> Tori. Okay, come on up. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, ma'am, in just a moment, I'm going to give you an opportunity to
tell me anything you want to tell me about this particular case. You have the right to cross-examine or ask questions of Mr. Mechco. Do you have any questions you want to ask him before I turn it over to you to just tell me everything you want to tell me? >> No. >> Okay. Mr. Tras, city have any other witnesses? >> No, sir. All right, ma'am. Thank you for
coming today. This is your opportunity during the hearing to call any witnesses you want to call, show me any documents you want to show me, or just tell me what's going on here that you'd like me to consider. >> Um, after the flood, I um pretty quickly hired a licensed insured remediation
contractor to go in and dry everything out and see what the damages were. I was actually traveling afterwards, so I kind of left it in their hands. And I had worked with this company um it's rapid response before in a condo association. So I trusted them. Um they came in and
did the flood cuts. I had previously had permitted windows installed and doors that were very high quality impact. Um and I had a team that helped me seal and sandbag and prepare for the flood. My
house is also above three. The subfloor is about 3 foot high, so I have some room under my house for water to flow through. So, I feel like between that, plugging the drains, flipping off the electrical switches, and just prepping
for the storm, I was pretty prepared for it. Um, the licensed insured contractor that went in only did twoft flood cuts. He said the water line was between about 8 and 10 in throughout the house. I already had tile installed in parts of
the house. The bathroom, the back room, all had tile that we were able to salvage. And we just dried it up and did the minimal cosmetic repairs, which was lower cabinets, vanity, um vinyl, waterproof flooring, interior
doors, and interior trim and paint. So, it was minimally um I lost my word. It was minimal cosmetic damages that we
repaired. I actually spent from the time it was finished in February, from about February through this February at the house most of the time where it wasn't. I had a few renters in there, but I was
there um refernishing, making it feel like home. It's my vacation home and I hope to retire there someday. So, um, I have already contacted a general contractor to help me work through this process and I would just like enough time to pull the after the fact permits
and get it taken care of and come into compliance with the city. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Tras, >> ma'am, um, I just so want to confirm then um, was there electrical work done in the house when uh, after the flooding? minimal electric work, but it
had already been updated previously and they opened up the walls two feet. So, they went above the electrical outlets just to make sure. >> Okay. And so, you did replace the kitchen cabinets, >> the lower cabinets. Yes. >> And you replace the bathroom vanity. >> Bathroom vanity.
>> Right. >> The flooring in the living room and the bedrooms. >> Okay. All right. With all that being said, how much time do you think you need? I mean, my contractor can get on it ASAP. I'd say I'd say 45 days just to be safe.
>> Okay. All right. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. >> Okay. I don't have any questions. Um, thank you very much, ma'am. I appreciate it. All right. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about the alleged code violation at 15403 Gulf Boulevard that would like to come forward? >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public
comment. Mr. TR, anything else? Um, I just ask that you find the property owner in violation of the cited code section. Uh, give the property owner 45 days to bring the property into compliance as requested. And if it's not in compliance, the um, establish a fine of $250 a day for every day the property
remains in violation of the cited code section. >> All right. Based upon the evidence provided in the emissions of the respondent, I do find the property is in violation. Uh, Miss Alvier, I'm going to give you 45 days to bring the property into compliance. And the compliance is
that you actually get a building permit issued uh for whatever work required a building permit. Okay. I'll also say this. If you are having trouble finding a contractor, if there's some hold up getting the permit or something like that, then ask the city, you know, ask
to come back before me, okay? Because if you're making substantive progress toward getting this property brought in compliance and it sounds like you're going to, but you need a little bit more time, then just come see me. I'm here once a month every month. So, just come see me. We can add you on the agenda as old business. You might have to sit
around for a little while. We'll add you on so that you're not having fines being accured because of some technical issue. Okay? All right. So, have a great day. That concludes your hearing. All right. Let's move on to
case number 25-182 for the property located at 1 3105 Bokea Avenue. All right. Is the city ready to proceed?
>> We are. And I would call Mr. Meco again, another one of his cases. Um Connor, if you could state your your occupation here at the city and your job responsibilities here. >> Code compliance specialist um handling code cases. >> Are you familiar with this property
located at 13105 Bogga Avenue? >> Yes. >> Okay. And is this a proactive case or complaint driven? >> Proactive. >> And uh who's the owner of this property and how do you know that? Um pages 312
through 314 um the Penelis County Property Appraiser um list the owner as Christopher Nog guy no gosh. >> All right. And what was the violation in this particular case?
>> So this was also 8652 for when required. This was work without a permit um specifically for a fence and for turf installed without a permit. >> All right. And um when did the city first became aware of
this violation? >> Uh the courtesy letter was sent out December 11th. Um we initially took pictures timestamped um de December 3rd of 2025. >> Okay. And if you want just go through
those photographs that you have by page number and explain what the photographs depict. >> So 317 actually shows both the turf and the fence. You can see the turf and what looks to be a putting green um installed over the utilities and all the way up
through the property to the right of way. Um, you can also see the fence that was installed on the property with a sign of the the fence installation company. Um, and then page 318 is the
other side of the house showing more fencing that was installed. All right. If you could go back to photograph 317, this artificial turf that was installed or is it installed in the rightway as well as uh on private property? >> Correct.
>> Okay. at one point had it been completely covered covered over all of the um sanitary sewer caps? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And did the property owner once advised go out there and have the sewer caps uncovered?
>> Yes. >> Okay. After uh it was determined that there was a violation and the city issued a courtesy notice of violation. Correct. >> Uh correct. Is that the courtesy notice shown on page 315 of the agenda packet?
>> Yes. Okay. >> And were these photographs that you just shown uh went over, were they attached that courtesy notice? >> Correct. >> Did the property owner contact you immediately after having received the notice of courtesy notice? >> Uh, no.
>> And did you issue a notice of code violation? >> Yes. On page 319. >> Okay. And um what was the code section that was cited in that notice of code violation? >> Uh still 8652 for work without permit.
>> Was this uh notice of code violation sent by regular and certified mail? >> Uh this was sent by certified mail. >> All right. And it it included the same photographs as the courtesy notice. Correct. >> Correct. >> And when it was sent by certified mail, that's reflected on page 323 of the agenda packet.
>> Uh yes. >> Did you receive the green card back from the property owner? I don't believe so. >> Okay. Have you had any contact with the property owner? >> Yes. >> Okay. And when was your last contact with the property owner? >> The most recent contact was today, but we have also had contact with them
previously um since since this has started. Um they have applied for a after the pack fact permit for the fence. Um it is still in permitting. They need to send in um a revision to
it. Um they haven't pulled anything yet for the turf. >> Why is it a violation uh of the city code 8652 to install astro turf or synthetic turf? >> So for the turf specifically um per our
code, the turf needs to be permitted as if it were uh pavers or turf. We have a permit for turf, pavers, um driveways. Um it's to ensure that it meets the ISR which is the impervious surface ratio.
Um we need to make sure that the turf is if it is impervious that it meets the the standards of the property. They have to have a certain percentage of pvious surface um to allow drainage. So that is
a reason for requiring a permit for the permit for the turf. My apologies. Um it's also technically um work over $500 and it requires a permit in the city. So that's for the turf. >> Okay. So the property is still not in
compliance with either the the turf permit or the fence permit. >> Correct. We do not have an issued permit for either. >> Did the city issue then a uh statement of violation request for hearing followed up by a notice of
hearing for today's hearing? Correct. Pages 326 through 329. >> All right. And did the city then send that by regular and certified mail? >> Yes. And it was also posted at the property and at city hall. >> And you took photographs of the two
postings? >> Correct. That's on page 330 and 331. >> All right. Did the city issue an affidavit of service reflecting all of those? >> Yes. That's on page 324 and 325. So, what does the property owner need to
do to bring the property into compliance? Then >> the property owner will have to have after the fact permits issued um to have the turf and fence either permitted or they will have to remove it if it's not able to be permitted.
>> All right. How much time do you think it would be uh necessary to uh obtain compliance? >> Uh 30 days. And what do you think the daily amount of the fine should be if it's not in compliance by that date?
>> Uh $100 a day. >> All right. Thank you. I have no other questions for Mr. Mecca. I would tender an evidence pages 312 through 331 of the agenda packet. >> All right. I'll go ahead and accept an evidence as pages 312 through 331 of the
agenda packet is exhibit number one. All right. Is the owner here? Christopher Nagage N O G A J or anyone on uh his behalf? Anyone here? Okay.
Are there any members of the public that have knowledge of the alleged violation at 13105 Bokea Avenue that want to come forward and provide testimony? Right. Seeing none, Mr. Tras. Anything else on this one? We'd ask that you find
the violation of 8652. Order the property to come into compliance by um July 23rd uh 2026. That's 30 days or uh $100 a day fine for every day the property remains in violation of the cited code section. >> All right. I do find based upon the
testimony and evidence the property is in violation is set forth in the notice of violation. 30 days is a reasonable period of time to bring the property into compliance. Thereafter, there'll be a $100 a day fine. And the corrective action is to obtain the after the-act building permit for the fence or turf or
remove such items. Okay, let's move on to the next one which is C26-37 for the property located at 2301 146th Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes, the city would call Connor Mechco
um on this case as well. Connor, if you could state your occupation and job responsibilities here at the city. code compliance specialist. I handle code cases. >> Is this um case a proactive case or was this a complaint driven?
>> Uh this was a proactive case. >> Okay. And um who is the owner of this property and how do you know that? So, starting on page 332, um, based on the Panelis County Property Appraiser, the
owner is, uh, Felix Lopez as well as Jessica Annette Tabach and Vanessa Lin Lopez Guerrra. All right. And how did the city determine that there
was a violation of a particular code here in the city? Um, this was found through Verbbo. There was a listing of the property for rent. >> Okay. And what did the listing provide?
>> The listing uh showed that the it was being rented for $197 a night. Um, it also showed provided pictures of the um work that looks to be done post storm.
All right. So, let's talk about the property itself at 230 146th Avenue. Um, is did this property experience flood damage? >> Uh, correct. >> And approximately how many feet of water were inside this house?
>> This one was estimated at uh 3 feet. >> Okay. And um when it was determined that there had been some work done on the property, did the city issue a courtesy notice of code violation? >> Uh correct.
>> Okay. And is that listed starting at page 335? >> Yes. >> And what was the code section that was cited to as have been violated? So this one was for 8652 for work without permit
um as well as 110201 um for rental um for less than the allowable um term in the zone. Um and then 14130.4
um requiring a BTR to rent the property. All right. Did you attach anything to that courtesy notice that you had sent? >> Uh, yes. The courtesy notice, uh, it attached the Verbbo listing and the pictures.
>> All right. What I'd like you to do is just to go through them starting at page 338. And let's talk about the Verbbo listing, the dollar amount. Does the Verbbo listing specifically provide as to how often this property could be rented? >> Yes. So, this it states that it could be
rented for um $197 per nightly um which is well below the allowable term of uh of this zoning district. >> What is the allowable term for renting
in this zoning district? So this zoning district um is R2 low density multif family residential and that provides for um a period of no less than 3 months. Okay. So if they ch change the Verbbo
site saying that it could be rented for more than 3 months, they would be in compliance >> uh with section 110 2011. they would still need a BTR um to rent per 14130.4,
>> but right now it's being rented by day. >> Uh as of the listing, um I have since heard from the property owner and the property owner has stated to me that um he planned on living in the home now and
that they would not be renting the property further. >> Okay. So, let's talk about the the photographs that were being that were shown on Verbbo. Did it also give a an analysis or summary of the work that was
done? Um, it it showed pictures showing um host storm work that was done. Um the description doesn't specifically say um remodeled, but it does provide um the
arrangements and um what is provided at the property. >> All right. If you could go through the photographs and explain or tell us what these pictures depict. >> So page 338, um it shows the listing um
with the description and the dollar per night. Um, page 339, um, includes more pictures. Um, it shows an outdoor kitchen, um, outdoor kitchenet with cabinets and appliances
outside on a patio. Um, it shows a living room, which looks to have had um, baseboard and possibly the walls redone. Um, you can see a kitchen with cabinets, um, appliances,
um, also walls. If you scroll down, still on page 339, um, the kitchen with those cabinets as well. Um, and another living space with, uh, the walls and baseboard.
Um, page 340 was more pictures showing rooms, um, bedrooms with also the walls and baseboard done. Um, shows a half bath with a vanity. Um,
and then you can see the bathroom again with a a large vanity in here. Um, page 341 showed the listing, the location of the listing, and once again showed that outdoor kitchen um on that
on that outdoor patio um showing the the outdoor kitchenet area with the cabinets and appliances. >> Okay. So, after this courtesy notice was sent to the property owner, did the property owner contact you?
>> Uh, no. All right. Did the city issue a certified notice of code violation? >> Uh, yes. >> Is that reflected starting on page 342? >> Correct. >> Okay. Did it attach the same photographs as the previous uh courtesy notice?
>> Yes. >> All right. And did the property owner bring the property into compliance within the time requested in that letter? >> No. >> All right. What how was that letter sent? Was it specific >> certified mail? >> Okay. And is that reflected starting at
page 349, the certified letter copy of that? All right. Is the property in compliance as of today? >> Uh, no. >> All right. Um, did the city issue a um statement of violation request for
hearing followed by a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Uh, correct. On pages 353 through 358. And how did you send that? >> Regular mail, certified mail, and
postings at city hall and at the property. >> Did you take photographs of the posting at city hall and at the property? >> Yes. On page 359 and 360. >> All right. Thank you. Um, so what does the property owner need to do to bring this property into compliance? There are
three cited code sections. So to bring it into compliance, if they were to continue renting it, they would need to obtain a BTR, a business tax receipt to be able to rent in the city. They would also need to um change the listing to
become a um minimum of 3 months for a rental period based on their zoning district. Um if they were not to rent, they would not require um either of those. So, they can choose to not use it as a rental property. Um, the final one,
8652, the work without permit, the owner would require um a licensed contractor to pull a uh a permit and obtain an issue um after the fact remodel repair permit. >> How much time do you think would be
necessary to bring this property into compliance? >> Uh 30 days. And if it's not in compliance within 30 days, how much would should the daily fine be and why? >> Uh $250 a day due to it being listed for rent
>> for life safety issues. >> Thank you. Um I don't have any other questions for Mr. Mecca or tender into evidence. Um agenda item packet pages 332 through 360. >> All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages 332
through 360 of the agenda packet. All right. Is Felix Lopez, Jessica Tobac, or Vanessa Lin Lopez Guerrero? Anyone here? All right. Come on forward, sir. Give me your name, please. >> Felix Lopez.
>> Say that again. >> Felix Lopez. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Lopez, in just a moment, I'm going to give you an opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me about this violation. You have the right to question or cross-examine Mr. Mechco based upon his testimony. Do you have any questions for
him, sir? >> No. No. Actually, he's very helpful. I've been talking to him for a little while already. >> Well, that these city representatives are fine people, so I'm sure you'll find them all to be helpful. >> That that is true. That is true. >> All right. Okay. Uh, just hold on one second. Does the city have any other
witnesses? >> No other witnesses. >> All right. Mr. Lopez, what would you like to tell me about this violation? >> Well, as I explained to him, uh the house has not been for rent for for for a long time. Actually, I neglected in a way. Uh not been able to uh uh to get
involved in and talking to him and everything. I had a procedure. I was at the hospital. I was staying at my at my daughter's house. Uh this is my my normal house. This is my regular house. This is uh you know, home exempt and everything else. So that's that's where I live as of now. So the house is not
going to be rented anymore. Uh I did that because I I needed a house to to stay at. So that's I I went ahead and repair it right away. Um other than that, you know, if I need 30 days or 45 days, I don't know how long it will take
uh for for us to get a permit. Uh I already engaged for an engineer to actually helped out as well as as a general contractor. I got a general contractor already that that I have talked to. The company name is Diet Construction and the engineering I
already forward him the contract that I signed with that engineering firm to be able to help me out with this thing. So, uh I don't know. All right. >> No, thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Tras, any questions? >> Just a few questions. Mr. Lopez, if you could pull that microphone up closer so
I can we can hear you a little bit better. So, um, so it's your testimony today that you're living in the home now? >> Yes. >> Okay. And how long have you been living in the home? >> Uh, I would say, you know, close to probably a year or
so. Uh, the re the reason that that it was rented was because, uh, like I said, I had a procedure which I went to the hospital and I stayed at my sister at my daughter's house and in the meantime rather to, you know, to get some income, uh, the house was rented uh, uh, like
that. But uh it's not going to be done anymore. >> Have you taken an off of the VBO listing? >> Uh taken it off? Yes. Yes, sir. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the the house is no longer being listed with any rental agency, correct? >> No, sir.
>> Okay. All right. And um the pictures that were shown on the VRBO website reflect um some work done on your home there. Can you tell us exactly what work was done? Okay. Uh the uh the house actually
sits uh if you look at the house uh in that in that particular picture, you could see that the house probably got four steps to the house. The water that penetrated into the house was not as much as some of the other houses. Actually, it took a while for the water
to get uh to I would say uh 18 maybe 20 ines at the most inside the house. Uh some of the other houses obviously, you know, they got a lot more water in it. Uh we had had some other uh issues with with water at one time and there's a
house across the street which got water right before this this last storm where it damaged the whole entire neighborhood. But uh uh you know it took a while for the water to reach the that height and then actually the water uh recided much faster because you know
because of the height of the of the house. So uh I would say you know about maybe 20 24 in I think at the most inside the house. >> So what was the work that you did inside the house? >> We did uh we had to replace the doors.
They swell up the doors got you know bad. the cabinets, uh the electrical, we did the electrical as well, the drywall, the insulation, things things of that nature. >> Okay. How much time do you think it'll take you and your contractor to pull
that building permit that's needed? >> Well, you know, it actually it depends on on on the contractor as well as uh the uh the city to give us the permit. So, if the city, you know, gives us the permits in in 30 days, we'll we'll have it in 30 days. If we if it gives us in
45 days and it'll give us in 45 days. I don't know how long will it take for the permit to to uh turn around. >> What have you been doing since February to get the permit? >> I haven't done anything. >> Okay. So, why do you think that that the
that the city should feel that you can get it in another 30 45 days if you've done nothing since February to get the permit? if we submit the uh for for for the permit uh with with I guess the contractor or the the engineer. I don't
know how long will it take the city to give us the permit. >> All right. So, my question to you is what have you done since February 26 when you first got the first notice to get the building permit? What have you done? >> I didn't receive anything. I didn't I didn't I didn't have this uh this this
information until recently. So, I didn't uh even though it might have been sent in February, I didn't get it then. >> Okay. All right. I understand. All right. Thank you. No other questions, Mr. >> Mr. Lopez. >> Mr. Lopez, is there any other witnesses or anything else you'd like to tell me?
>> No. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Are there any members of the public that have knowledge about this particular code violation would like to come forward and provide information or testimony? >> All right. Seeing none, Mr. Tras, I'll let you close on this one. >> Yeah, thank you. Um the city would just ask that you find the property um in
violation of the cited code section 86-52. The testimony I've heard today is in compliance with the other two. So we're not going to proceed with those. Um but ask that you find them in violation of section 86uh 52 and order the property to be brought into compliance within 30
days. And if not in compliance within 30 days that the $250 a day fine would be uh issued for every day that remains in violation of the sighted code section. All right. Based upon the testimony of the emissions of Mr. Lopez, I do find that the property is in violation of 86-52.
The corrective action will be to obtain the after the-act building permit. I'll give Mr. Lopez, you have 30 days to get that permit and thereafter will be a $250 fine. Again, if you run into trouble, there's some issue or whatever, you know, please come see me because the
fines will start occurring. All right, that concludes that particular code enforcement hearing. Let's move on to C25-161 for the property located at 231 East MadiRaa Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes, the city's ready to proceed and uh
we would call Taylor Davis for this case. Um Taylor, if you could um state your uh job occupation or your occupation here at the city and your job responsibilities. My occupation is permit and code compliance specialist and I create code
violation cases here for the city. >> All right. For this property that's located at 231 East Madiraa Avenue. Are you familiar with this property? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is this a proactive case or complaint driven? >> Proactive. >> Okay. And who's the owner of this
property and how do you know that? >> Uh page 361 of the agenda packet. Owners are Dallas Nash and Reena Curtis. That is judging by the property appraisers office website. >> And um what was the code violation on this
property when was first cited? >> Um this one was 8652 work without a permit again. >> And how did well first of all who was the person that determined that it was in violation? >> Uh me. >> Okay. And when you determined that it was in violation of section 8652,
what was the basis of that? Uh, we found it on Zillow for sale or rent. I don't remember one of the two. It doesn't specify. I just got the pictures from the website. >> All right. So, when you found it on Zillow, did you
issue a courtesy notice of code violation? >> Yes. And that's on page 367. >> Okay. And you cited 8652 as the violation. >> True. Did you attach photographs to that uh courtesy notice?
>> I did. Those start at page 369. >> And if you could explain each one of these photographs that were attached to the letter as to what what they depict. >> Yes. So the upper photograph is all new cabinets. Looks like new backsplash,
electrical, obviously new appliances, countertops, and then the lower of that one is new sink. and wall tiles. And then page 370, uh, new walls, trim, electrical was
raised, new doors, and then the lower of that, new interior doors. Again, new trim, new walls, electrical was raised. >> Did this home experience water damage from the hurricanes? >> Yes. >> Approximately how many feet of water were in this house? >> This one got about 3 ft.
>> Okay. Um, when you um sent this courtesy notice to the property owner, did you attach those photographs that you just went over? >> I did. >> Okay. And did you send this by regular mail?
>> The courtesy went out regular mail. The notice of code violation went out certified. >> On this courtesy notice, did you get a response from the property owners? >> I did not. >> Did you then issue the notice of code violation starting at page 371 of the packet? >> Yes. >> All right. And did you cite the same
code section as being in violation? >> Yes. >> Did you attach to it the same photographs that you had just went over with the courtesy notice? >> I did. >> All right. And how did you send this letter? >> This one was certified. >> And is that reflected starting at page
375 and 376? >> Yes. >> Did you get a response from the property owners after the code violation notice? >> They submitted a permit application for an after the fact interior remodel, but that is still sitting in the queue. um with the plan reviewers because there's a couple things that they need to get it
issued. >> When did they um apply for the building permit and how long has it been waiting for their response? >> They applied Oh, wait. I'm on the wrong one. They applied in December.
Let me find you a day. December 19th is when it was created. And how long has the city been waiting for response or comments to um the needed additional information? >> Since January 29th.
>> Has there been any activity on that permit application then since January of this year? >> Yes, just not really what the reviewers are asking. That's kind of why it's still hanging in there. >> Okay. And what has happened in the last couple of months?
>> They submitted something for our building official, Kathleen, pictures of all the wiring and the electrical that was redone, but she was asking for an engineered affidavit uh sign and sealed plans signing off that it's safe. >> Okay. >> And they haven't gotten that to us.
>> All right. So, is the property in compliance as of today? >> No. >> All right. Did the city issue a um statement of violation and request for hearing for today? >> Yes, we did. >> And um a notice of hearing following that? >> Yes.
>> And are those reflected starting at page 379 of the agenda packet? >> True. >> Okay. And how were those sent to the property owner? >> Those were sent regular mail, certified, posted at the property, and posted here downstairs at city hall. >> Did you take photographs of the posting
of the property and at city hall? >> I did. >> Okay. Okay. And are those in the packet? >> Those are >> those reflected on pages 383 and 384. >> Yes. >> Okay. And did the city also issue or did you issue an affidavit of service reflecting
that? >> Yes, we did. >> And is that reflected starting at page um 377, the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what does the property owner need to do to bring this one in compliance?
>> Um, I actually spoke with her right before this hearing. Um, the corrective action on here is either the property owner and or licensed contractor needs to apply for and obtain an after the fact building permit to comply. I told her the two things that our building official needs in order to get it issued. And she said she'll have it by
the end of the day. >> Okay. So, how much time do you think it'll take to bring the property into compliance? >> 30 days max. >> Okay. And what do you think the dollar amount of the fine should be if it's not in compliance within 30 days? >> $250 for life safety.
>> Is the property being rented? >> She claims it is not. Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Um I'm going to tender into evidence pages 361 through 384. The agenda packet and ask that it be received.
>> All right. We'll go ahead and accept into evidence pages 361 through 384. or the agenda packet is exhibit number one. All right. Is Dallas Nash or Raina Curtis or anyone on behalf of the owners here today?
All right. Seeing none, are there any other witnesses that the city intends to call? >> No. >> Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to come forward and provide testimony regarding this code violation?
All right, that the record reflect there are none. Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? >> Just ask that you find the property in violation of the cited code section 86-52. Order compliance within 30 days and uh $250 a day fine for a day the property remains in violation of the cited code section.
>> All right. I do find the property is in violation based upon the testimony of Miss Davis as well as the exhibits entered into evidence. And I do find that the 30 days is an appropriate time to bring the property in compliance based upon where things stand in the
permit process. And thereafter, there'll be a $250 day fine. And the corrective action is to obtain the after the-act building permit. All right, let's move on to case number C26-18. And this is for the property located at
131 0 Bokeh SGA Avenue. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes, we are. And I would call Taylor Davis. Taylor, again, if you could state your occupation, your job responsibilities here at the city. >> Uh, permanent and code compliance specialist. I create code violation cases throughout the city.
>> Are you familiar with this property located at 13100 Bogga Avenue? >> Yes. >> And is this a proactive case or complaint driven? >> This was proactive. >> And who's the owner of this property and how do you know it? Uh, Penllis County Property Appraisers Office owner stated
as Media Social Network LLC. >> Okay. And how did you determine that this property was in violation of a code section of the city? >> Um, Connor and I were actually out driving around and saw some cabinet guys working. Um, their truck had their
company name, license, uh, phone number. Uh, we posted a stop work order and they needed a permit obviously for the work. >> Okay. Did this did the city issue a courtesy notice of code violation? >> Yes. >> All right. If you could turn to page 389 of the agenda packet. Is this the
courtesy notice that was sent? >> Yes. >> Um and what was that date? >> February 6th of this year. >> Okay. Um and what was the code section that was cited? >> 8652.
When you sent this um courtesy notice, did you attach photographs? >> Yes. >> If you could go through the photographs then that you attached starting at page 391. >> 391 shows the waterline on the inside of the window still uh like within the blinds.
And then 392 you can see that is through the window. More like of the water line on those blinds. Uh new walls trim, new interior doors. 393, same, new flooring, new cabinetry,
new countertops, appliances, and then again 394, same. And then our stopwork order on page 395. >> Okay. And all those were attached to the courtesy notice when it was sent to the property owner. >> True. >> Did you get compliance uh with that courtesy notice, a code violation?
>> We did not. >> All right. Did you um I think there were a couple other photographs we didn't go over. Let's go over the rest of the photographs. >> Yeah. 396 is the cabinet guy's truck. They actually once we stop work ordered
them, they went around the corner to the gas station and then got in the car that is next to the truck and then came back. We saw them um to try to do more work after we had posted the stop work order. That's the last picture I have. >> Okay.
Um, did the property owner bring the property into compliance? >> No. >> Did you issue a notice of code violation? >> Yes. February 20th on page 397 of the packet. >> Okay. Did you attach the same photographs? >> I did.
>> All right. >> When you sent that notice of code violation, did you send it by certified mail? >> I did. And is that reflected on pages 405 and 406 of the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> All right. Did you also issue a statement of
violation request for hearing followed by a notice of hearing for today? >> Yes. >> And are those reflected starting at page uh 409 agenda packet? >> True. >> Did you um send those by certified mail and regular mail >> and posted?
>> Okay. And where did you post it? at the property one through 100 bokeh and downstairs in the posting box. >> And did you take photographs of the posting? >> I did. >> Are those reflected on page 413 and 414 of the agenda packet?
>> True. Yes. >> Okay. Um, now before the hearing you handed me another photograph, um, and I that and I just want to go over that additional photograph. Do you have that photograph with you? >> I do.
>> Okay. Can you bring it up on the screen? >> You have you have Um, is there a HDMI plugin? >> Um, 268 Okay. Should be loading. There we go. >> All right. Who took this photograph?
>> I did. >> And when did you take it? >> September 3rd of last year. >> Okay. So, this case that we've got in front of us is reflecting a courtesy notice on February 6, 2026. So, this was four or five months earlier, this
photograph correct? >> Mhm. >> Is that a yes? >> True. >> Okay. So, is this photograph of the same property? >> Yes. >> Okay. And what does this photograph depict? >> So, this one is a debris pile that was sitting out on the driveway for a few
weeks. Um, we weren't quite sure what it was until we really got close to the property and checked it out. Um, it is a bunch of vinyl plank flooring and interior doors and amongst just other interior debris from the flooding, moldy doors.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> So, have you had any contact with the owner on this one? >> I have. >> Okay. And and what is uh the owner say with regard to the code violations? >> So, last week I had a long conversation with her and she claims to have not done
any work on the property. It was like this pre- storm and she has done no work. The cabinet guys that we caught doing work were never there. So her her statement since the beginning is she's never done any work in the home since the hurricane Elaine.
>> Okay. So she told you then that she's not going to be uh trying to obtain a building permit. >> True. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions uh for Miss Davis. I I do want to tender into evidence
pages 385 through 414 of the agenda packet and the additional photograph and also tender that into evidence. All right, we'll go ahead and accept as exhibit number one, pages 385 through 414 of the agenda packet. Exhibit number two will be this
additional photograph. All right. Is anyone here on behalf of the owner media social network LLC? >> All right. Come on forward. >> Good afternoon, sir. >> Sir, what is your name? My name is
William Anthony Cillo Jr. I'm just >> Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me just make sure I got that. William Anthony >> Cillo. S I V I L L O Jr. >> Okay. And what is your relationship to the LLC? >> I'm just a friend of hers that I've known for about 3 months now.
>> Okay. >> She just wanted me to basically report the findings of your proceedings. >> Um that's fine. Mr. Mr. Tras, how do you want to deal with this one? I mean, >> so he's obviously not an attorney.
>> Yes. >> He obviously can't represent her. >> No, sir. >> And uh he's he doesn't have anything to do with the property. So he's just an additional witness. So >> um I I would just treat him as like a public the public participating. >> That that sounds fine. And sir, the
reason that I asked Mr. Tras is in Florida, if you're an LLC, you have to be represented in these types of proceedings through a lawyer. Um, so I'm not going to allow you to cross-examine, Miss Davis, because you're not a lawyer, >> and you're not the uh, you know, member or manager of the LLC, but you can
certainly provide when we get to the public comment portion of the proceeding, if you want to provide public comment because you have some knowledge, you can do so. So, just sit tight, sir, for a few minutes. >> Mr. Trash, city have any other witnesses? >> Uh, we don't have any other witnesses. I just want to make sure that I covered
that um what was necessary to bring the property into compliance was the need for um after the fact building permit and the fact that city was looking for 30 days to come into compliance. Is that correct? >> 30 days for compliance. Um
>> $50 a day fine >> and $250 afterwards. Yes. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I cover that. I didn't know if my my notes weren't reflecting that. So I I understand. >> Okay. And Miss Davis, I noticed in the picture that was taken what, 11 days
ago, there's a Fren sign now in the in the >> True. We have more photographs um from the rental listing on Zillow, I think it was, um that are not included in those letters. The letters went out way before it was ever posted for rent, but now there's more
>> that I get. >> Okay. All right. Uh seeing as there is nobody here from the respondent and this nothing else from the city, right, Mr. Ask? >> That's correct. >> All right. Um any members of the public? Mr. um Anthony or excuse me, Mr.
Sevilla, do you want to come forward and tell me anything? >> Uh no, sir. I have anything to say. I don't have anything to say. I'm just here to report your findings back to her. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you. Uh are there any other members of the public that would like to come forward and >> provide any information regarding this
code violation? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? >> Just ask that you find a violation of the cited code section, order the property to come into compliance within 30 days, which would be July 23rd, and um issue a fine of $250 a day for every
day the property remains in violation of the cited code section should it not come into compliance. All right. Uh based upon the testimony of Miss Davis as well as the exhibits and evidence, I do find there's a violation. The corrective action is for
the owner to obtain an after the fact building permit for uh whatever work has been done in the in the home. I do note that it appears the property is listed for rent and if there was
unpermitted work done, that creates a health safety violation uh for unsuspecting tenants who may rent it. So, I do believe $250 a day is an appropriate fine and 30 days is an appropriate time to bring the property into compliance.
All right. Uh that concludes the hearing for CE26-18 for the property at 13100 Bokea Avenue. Let's move on to the next hearing which is C26-26 and this is for the property located at
13123 4th Street East. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes, the city would call Taylor Davis. Um, Miss Davis, again, if you can state your occupation and your job responsibilities here at the city, please. >> Permit and code compliance specialist
and I create code violation in cases throughout the city. >> All right. This are you familiar with this property located 131234th Street East? >> Yes. >> And is this a proactive case or was this complaint driven? >> Proactive.
>> And um, who's the owner of this property and how do you know that? Page 415 of the agenda packet, Penelis County Property Appraiser shows as Bilick Investment Group LLC. >> Okay. And what is the code violation on this property?
>> Another 8652. >> Okay. And how did the city determine there was a violation of section 8652 on this property? >> I found this one on a short-term rental website. All the pictures were Yeah. Go back.
All right. So, let's talk about this. Um, is this property um flooded during the hurricane? >> Yes. And we had uh demo pictures, I guess, from a previous owner. It's been sold since the storm and they rehabbed
all of it. >> All right. So, let's start with the um storm damage photograph starting at page 422. And if you could explain what these photographs are here. So that is the water line outside um on the water
heater. You can see the debris and water um where it sat up on like the upper third of that water tank. And then the lower is all the drywall gutted. >> And how did you get these photographs?
>> They had an interior demo permit. >> Okay. Okay. So, the property owner the the prior property owner came in and got the correct building permit to do the demolition >> originally. Yes. >> Okay. All right. And then you said you found photographs
on Zillow. >> True. >> All right. So, if you could go to those photographs, explain what you found. >> Those start on page 423. Um, the lower cabinets are quite different than the uppers. There's a new bathroom vanity in
the background. New appliances, countertops, um, new flooring, and then 424. Again, another shot of those cabinets, countertops, more of the gutted photos.
And here is the listing for sale on 425. >> All right. So, um, when you determined that there was a violation, did you issue a courtesy notice to the property owner? >> I did. >> And is that reflected starting at page 420? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, the property owner that you sent it to is was not the owner that did the gutting or the demolition of the property. Correct. >> True. >> Okay. So, this is the new owner, correct? >> Yes. The current owner. >> Okay. And when you sent this courtesy notice saying the property was in
violation of the decided code section, did you attach those photographs that you just went over? >> Yes. >> Okay. And when you sent the letter, did you send it by regular mail? >> Regular. Yes. >> And did you get a response to this letter? >> No. >> All right. Did you issue a notice of code violation? >> Yes.
>> And is that reflected starting at page 426? >> 426. Yes. And when you sent this notice of code violation, did you also attach to it the same photographs that you had just gone over? >> I did. >> Okay. And did how did you send that letter?
>> This was certified mail. >> Okay. And is that reflected the certified letter on page 432 and 433 of the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> Did you get any response to the code violation letter? >> No. The owner also owns another one that
has been through a magistrate hearing. So the father is lives local. He came and I guess warned his son about this cuz he wasn't getting any of our mail. So as of my own knowledge from the father, the owner is now involved. I
think we got a after the fact permit applied for just last week actually. >> Okay. And um is that application complete? >> No. >> All right. Is waiting for additional information then from the property
owner? >> Um it's just so new it hasn't even been reviewed yet. >> Okay. All right. Let's go back to the agenda packet. So did the city issue a statement of violation and request for hearing and then ultimately a notice of
hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. And those are in the agenda packet starting at page 436. >> Yes. How did you how did you send those to the property owner? >> Um, that shows in the affidavit of service. We posted at the property, posted downstairs in the posting box. We
mailed uh regular mail and certified. >> Did you take photographs of the posting of the property? >> We did. >> Is that reflected on page 440? >> True. >> And 441 is the photograph showing us posted here at city hall. >> Yes. Downstairs. >> Um, and you said you you prepared an affidavit of service. Is that reflected
starting at page 434? >> Yes. Okay. So, what does the property owner need to do to bring this property into compliance? >> Get this after the fact completed and all the documents that the plan reviewers are asking for. >> All right. And if it's not Well, first of all, how much time do you think that
will take? >> Uh, 30 days. >> And what would be the daily amount of the fine if it's not in compliance within 30 days? >> Um, for life safety, being that I saw it on a short-term rental website, I would say 250 a day after those 30. >> All right. Thank you. I have no other
questions for Miss Davis. I do would like would would like to tender into evidence pages 415 through 441 of the agenda packet. All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence pages 415 through 441 as the of the agenda package as exhibit number
one. All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner Bilick Investment Group LLC? Okay. Uh, seeing none, are there any other witnesses the city would like to call? >> No. >> Are there any members of the public who
would like to provide testimony in regard to this code enforcement case? Seeing none, we'll close it. Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? >> Just ask that you find a violation section 8652. Order the property to come into compliance by July 23rd. And if
it's not in compliance with that date, um, impose a fine of $250 a day for every day the property remains in violation of the cited code section. All right. Based upon the testimony of Miss Davis as well as the, uh, exhibits put into evidence, I do find the property in violation. Sounds like 30
days is the appropriate amount of time to bring the property into vi into compliance. Thereafter will be a $250 fine and the compliance will be to obtain the after the fact building permit for all the renovation uh work that requires a permit.
All right, let's move on to case number C26-44 for the property located at 13406 Bokea Avenue. >> Thank you. The city would call Taylor Davis for this particular case. Miss
Davis, um, is this, uh, well, first of all, are you familiar with the property located at 13406 Bogga Sega Avenue? >> Yes, I am. >> All right. And, um, who's the owner? Well, first of all, is this a proactive case or complaint driven? >> Proactive.
>> All right. And who's the owner of this property? >> According to Penelis County Property Appraiser, it is a John Vulpe and a Vincent Vulp III. >> All right. And what's the violation on this property?
another 8652. >> And how was it determined there was a violation of section 8652 of the city code? >> Sorry, could you repeat that? >> And how did you determine there was a violation of section 86-52 of the city's code? >> They posted for rent. Um, it's a
quadplex. There's four units and two are actually active right now. There was more ordinances. I forgot to add besides 8652. >> Okay. What are the other uh code violations besides 8652? >> 6233
for compliance required. Um section 14-130.4 license required no for no BTR and then section 6258 citation for delinquency not paying their business tax.
>> Okay. So let's talk about 6233. What is that violation for? >> Um, they do not have a business tax active currently right now. >> And what would they need that for? >> For conducting business using the Quadplex as a rental property.
>> Okay. So, that's just the generalized business tax receipt. Correct. True. >> Okay. And then section 14-130.4 is that's a different license. Correct. >> It was all relating to the same. Yeah. But that is a rental license in addition
to the business tax receipt license on the other code section. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And as for section 6258, um this is for a business tax receipt
that has not been paid for a prior year. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. When you sent this letter, did you attach to it anything? >> I put in the pictures from the rental
site. 2,000 a month. It's got some of the interior photographs in there. New appliances. >> All right, let's slow down. Let's go one by one. So, the um photographs on page 449 of the agenda packet.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, that one shows the rental listing amount. >> Okay. >> And the lower one of that is the I'm assuming it's a kitchen. I don't see cabinets, but I see new walls, new trim,
new countertops, and appliances. And then one below that, I see a new vanity, new shower tile, potentially a new toilet. 451, new shower tile, tub, vanity. Okay. Did this property um experience
flooding from the hurricane? >> Yes. >> Approximately how much water was in this building? >> Around 4T. >> Okay. So, in these photographs is it's depicting that work was done without a building permit. Correct.
>> True. >> Okay. When you issued this courtesy notice, did you receive a response from the property owner? I did not. >> Did you then issue a notice of code violation? >> Yes. >> And when did you issue that?
>> Um, that was sent on March 30th of this year as reflected on page 452 of the packet. >> And was the same code sections being cited? >> Yes. >> And was did it also include the same photographs and the in the courtesy notice? >> Yes. >> All right. Did the property owner
respond to that? >> Not that one either. No. >> All right. So, did you then uh issue a request statement of violation request for hearing followed by a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes. >> All right. And those are reflected starting on page 462 of the agenda
packet. >> True. >> Okay. And how did you send those to the property owner? >> Those were sent out regular mail certified posted there at the property and here downstairs. >> Okay. And um did you take photographs of the
posting of the property in city hall? >> We did. >> Those reflected on pages 467 and 468 of the agenda packet. >> Yes. >> All right. Has the um property owner applied for any of the required licenses
or the building permit? >> No building permit and no business tax. No. >> Okay. All right. How much time do you think it'll take to bring the property into compliance? >> I would say 30 days and then after the 30 days 250 a day for life safety.
>> And why would that be? >> Um there are currently two tenants in there and I see unit one and four is currently still for rent. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> I don't have any other questions for Miss Davis. do um want to tender into
evidence pages 442 through 468 of the agenda packet. Ask that they be received into evidence. All right. I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one pages 442 through 468 of the agenda packet. All right. Is there anyone here on
behalf of the respondent the owners? John Vulpi, Vincent Vulpi. Anybody here? All right. Come on forward. >> Vincent Vulpi. >> All right. All right. Um, Mr. Vulpi, you have the right at this point in the proceeding to
cross-examine or ask questions of Miss Davis based upon her testimony. As you've seen now in several hearings, I'm going to give you guys an opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me, but do you want to go ahead and cross-examine or ask questions? >> I I have one question. Did you notice
that there's a uh um a FDA uh Florida licensing permit in the window of the of the apartment when you visited? I did not. >> Okay. Right. >> All right. All right. Uh, sit tight. I don't know whether Mr. Tras has any other questions. >> I have no other witnesses
>> or any other witnesses. Okay. All right. Uh, so, Mr. Vulp, will you be the one presenting the case on behalf of the owners? Okay. >> Yes, I am. >> All right. Go ahead. You can um let me just tell you what you can do. You can call witnesses. You can uh provide any documents to me. Just show them to Mr. Trash first and then tell me whatever
you want to tell me about this uh case. >> Sure. As far as uh work being done, there was no substantial work being done on the property. There actually was a letter sent to us by the uh city of Madira Beach stating that there was no substantial damage to that property. It was submitted to them under FEMA's rules. They sent them to us. There was a
lot of damning done at that property as to keeping the flood waters out of it. So any of the pictures that you see that are posted in there, those were older pictures first of all, but they were also only cleanup is what we did in there. There was some paint to be done. Cleanup. They're all terazzozo floors
and there's all concrete inside there. That's a concrete CMU structure entirely all the way around. Um, as to the effect of the licensing, I uh we apply for um uh licensing through the state of Florida through the DBPR. They uh
license us as an entity that can do what's called non-transient tenant uh rental business license. Um, I did come in, they about, this is years before any of this, years before this, I came in and asked about a business license for
this. They asked us, um, I says, "Can I get a business license from this from the city? Do I require one? I'm licensed through the state." And they said, "Well, how many units?" I said, "Well, we have I have several units throughout the entire county, but that particular one has five units." And they go, "Oh, well, five units. Um, no, that's through
the state." So, that's my that was my impression that I do not require a license since I have five units. Um, >> I had it for 13 years. >> Yeah, I've owned this building for over 13 years. Um, as far as uh licensing, when I came in and showed that license
to the clerk at the time, she says, "Well, you have more units than than we actually uh require to um inspect." I says, "Okay, now what do I do?" And she gave me no further. This was years ago. This has got to be about 10 years ago.
Um, we only do long-term rentals on the place. Um, as far as the licensing goes, I have no problem buying a business license. No problem whatsoever. If it's required for us to buy our business license, uh, uh, I have no problem buying one. I came in and attempted to do so. They did not give me one. Said I
did not require one. >> Okay. >> All right. U, anything else you want to tell me before I let Mr. Tras ask you some questions? >> Nope. >> All right. Mr. I have copies of my state license and I've got copies of the last inspection which was a life safety inspection. >> All right. Why don't you show those to
Mr. Tras first and he may want to ask you about them. >> Copy from the state. >> Okay. >> And this is the life safety that was just done on it from the state inspector. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't have any objection to these. >> All right.
We'll go ahead and accept these. I assume, sir, are these copies that you'd like to put into the record? Okay. >> I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number two, the DBPR
license for Vulpi Apartments issued by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as well as what appears to be a lodging inspection report. >> Yeah, I believe that's Jan uh June June 17th that was done. All right. Anything else you want to tell me before Mr. Tras
asks you some questions? >> Nope. That's it. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. >> Sir, how many um how much water was in this building? >> Approximately uh I would say it was maybe three or four inches uh had come up through the damning that we had put in. We had damning. We had aquatic
dammings on the front and the back sides of the building. Um the approximate water damage was limited to flooring which was terazzo in there. We had uh some backup of mud and stuff that had come in and that was all vacuumed out, cleaned out and it was mitigated um
basically through a lot of washing. Um there was some small patchwork that needed to be done around the area and there was some repainting. >> Sir, you've seen the photographs uh that were already received into evidence. Correct. >> Can you turn to page 449? Uh, Miss
Davis, the bottom photograph, that's not Terzo, is it? >> That in there is not. That's tile floor. >> Okay. So, all the So, was this tile replaced then after the uh No, it was not hurricane. >> No, that is called lifep proof. It is a waterproof uh modular flooring.
>> Okay. >> On top of concrete. >> It sits right on the tozo. If you look at any other pictures, you'll see the Terzo floor. >> All right, let's turn to page 450. >> That's ceramic tile right there. >> Right on the TZO. >> Let me let me just get my question out.
So, um, this is not a Terzo floor either then, is it? >> Underneath the tile, it is. Yes. >> So, and this bathroom, was the ca was the cabinet, uh, replaced after the hurricane? >> No. Okay. >> Was any of this tile replaced after the hurricane?
Okay. Okay, if we could turn to page 451. So, here's another bathroom photograph showing tile work. Was this tile work done after the hurricane? >> No, it was not. >> Okay. When was this tile work done?
>> That tile work was original to the place that when I purchased it. >> Okay. And there's also a cabinet in this picture. Was the cabinet replaced in this bathroom? I don't recall if I replaced that from the original, but yeah, that was replaced, but not after the storm. >> Okay. Was it replaced before the storm?
Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah, that was replaced probably two or three years after I bought the uh the property. >> Okay. All right. I have no other questions. All right. Uh Mr. Vulpi, you like to call any other witnesses or give me any other information?
>> Other than my brother, he's the guy that uh works on everything with me, owns everything with me. That's about it. He's the only other person that can verify that this stuff uh that we did not work on any of these properties uh that required any substantial uh repair.
>> All right. I take it you're John Vulpi. All right. Come on up to the microphone. Tell me what you'd like to tell me. >> Um basically everything he said is exactly true. That's the way it happened. >> All right. And we've owned a building for 13 years. We have always had long-term rentals. Nothing but never had
any issues with anything. We tried to always follow the law, do what we needed to do. We have many buildings. We are licensed by the state for years and that's the way we ran our business. Never had any issues. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. TR, any questions of Mr. John Vulpy?
>> Um, just a few. Um, I didn't ask this question of your brother Vincent. Is there any drywall in this building? >> It's plaster. Old actual plaster walls. >> Okay. So, so are you telling me there's no drywall in this building then? It's it was all old before the type done with
actual plaster, not drywalled. >> Okay. When the water um gets into this uh plaster, is that require it to be replaced? >> It doesn't get into the plaster. That's why we didn't have to do it. It just needed to be washed down and painted. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh Mr. Vincent Wolfie, Mr. John Vulpy, anything else you'd like to share with me today? >> No, that's it. Thank you. >> All right. Uh let's go ahead and um you guys can have a seat. You sit up front. Are there any members of the public that would like to provide testimony in
regard to this code violation? All right. Seeing none, we'll close the code violation or close the public comment. Um Mr. Trash, I know we've been going over three hours. Would you like to take five minutes to discuss this? I don't know if you've had any discussions with the um respondents before and
particularly I have some questions about the business tax receipt and and how that interacts. >> We have five minutes that would be great. All right, we'll take a five minute recess and I'm going to step out so you guys can talk freely and then I'll come back in five minutes and we'll finish everything up. >> All right, everyone. We're back on the
record in regard to case number C26-44. I notice Miss Davis is not here. Um, >> Conor, can you find her? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. All right, we're back on the record. Um, Mr. Trash, based upon the testimony
that's pro been provided in the initial documents, does the city need to call any have a rebuttal case or anything like that? >> Yes. Um, go ahead. >> We we I'd call uh Taylor Davis uh back. So, Miss Davis, um, during the break, you were able to pull up a photograph of
the property immediately following the hurricane, correct? >> Yes. So, that is what's on the screen. That's from, uh, like Noah Fisheries. They've got aerials of all, uh, satellite pictures after the storm. >> Okay. And what is this photograph depicting in the front yard?
>> So, there's a debris pile with this one, and then it looks like trailers hauling stuff away on the left. Okay. >> And then pretty much every house in the whole neighborhood has a debris pile too,
indicating the neighborhood got water. Okay. >> And let's talk about the business tax receipt and the rental um code provision that has been cited. So when um to get a business tax receipt
for a rental unit, it requires an inspection, does it? >> True. >> Okay. So before the city could issue a business tax receipt, um the city would have to have someone go into the property, inspect the property. Correct. >> True. >> Okay. And during that inspection, then we'd be able to see every portion of the
building to see whether or not it had experienced any type of hurricane damage. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Um and you can't get a business tax receipt or a rental license without getting a inspection. Correct. >> Typically, yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I have no other questions.
>> All right, Mr. Vulpi, you'd like to cross-examine based upon that additional testimony. >> Um, I would just like to u ask whether or not the inspection that I put into the report that was uh done by the state of Florida, if that suffices for the uh inspection for the building um uh the uh
proper what's it called again? The >> a business tax license. >> Business tax license. >> Totally separate matter. >> Okay. Just letting you know it was inspected by the city. I would I would use the inspection by the state. I will not allow the building uh uh to be inspected by the city since I don't fall under their inspection rules. The state
says I fall under their inspection rules. They came in and inspected. They uh uh their inspection report is entered into um the record and uh it could be used as such for life safety. Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh Mr. Tras, you like to do a closing? >> Um I just have one more question for Mr. Vulp. Vincent Vincent >> Vulpi. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, sir, uh, if you could turn to the Penelis County Property Appraisers printout. >> That's page 442.
Okay, Mr. Vulpi. um up on the screen and I showed you during the break the printout from the Penelis County Property Appraisers Office. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And it shows that there are only four living units there. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. How long is it reflected there's only four living units there?
>> I have no idea. >> Okay. So, as long as you've owned it >> for when I purchased the building, there were five living units in that in that property. >> Is that because of the fact that one of the uh apartments was split in half? It's a split. It's a It was actually a split apartment or split uh unit.
>> Okay. But you're only being taxed based upon four living units, correct? >> I have no idea what I'm being taxed on. >> Okay. All right. I have no other questions. Thank you for your time. Okay. All right. Mr. Tras. So, closing argument. Uh the city would
ask that you find the property in violation of the cited code sections. First of all, 8652 for building permits required for work that was done inside the property. Um the testimony has been that there there was uh 3 or 4 feet of
water inside this building. In addition, you could see the uh the wood cabinets in the bathroom. Um those would have been required to have been replaced um if there were water damage three or four feet inside the
building. Um you've also heard testimony from um Miss Davis that after the hurricane and in the photograph there was a huge debris pile stacked out in front of the building um probably um from the interior of the building. We
don't know exactly what that is so I can't represent to you and she can't represent to you exactly what was in that pile. Um, we'd ask that you also find a violation of section um 62-33
uh the requirement of a business tax receipt because there is no business tax receipt that has been issued on this property. Also find a violation of section 14-130.4 license required. The city also requires them to have a license because it is a
rental unit and it will require an inspection for that to be issued. Um, and lastly, we ask that you find them in violation of section 62-58 for failing to pay the um the delinquent um tax on the property. So, we think that you've
heard sufficient enough testimony and evidence to find a violation of each one of those code sections. We're asking that you bring tell them to bring the property into compliance within 30 days um or a $250 a day fine. Obviously, if uh the inspection reveals that there was
no um repair done to the inside of the structure, then that property could be brought into compliance fairly quickly as the testimony has been from Mr. Vulpi. Um that there is none. So, the inspection would reveal that. Uh they will need the inspection to actually come into compliance with the other two
code sections. So, >> all right. And Mr. ask what's it I hear an argument essentially being made that's saying that somehow the DBPR,
you know, controls in this situation or preempts the city from requiring either the business tax receipt or the rental license. Can you speak specifically to those issues? I don't have the statute and I didn't have the opportunity to to research that issue, but um they would
keep talking about five rental units when in fact there were four on the property based upon what the property appraisers records has as four. That's how the case is being prosecuted as four. Um, and if there was some illegal split uh between
uh one of the apartments to make it two additional departments uh apartments, then that obviously would not have been um legally permitted. Um so our our our argument and position is there are four rental units there based upon what the
records show. And in that regard, the business tax receipt, the 62-33 would that would apply to all businesses that operate in the city. Irrespective of if
it's a chiropractor's office, a doctor's office, you know, lawyer's office where they're regulated by someone else, wouldn't they still need that business tax receipt under 62-33? >> They would. And is there any case law
or any other prior rulings by the magistrate here that you're aware of that would say that uh 14-130.4 would not apply under our present facts and under our present record even if
they have a license from the state of Florida? >> No, I'm not aware of any. Um, and so I I don't know how otherwise respond to that. I have not prepared for that question. I don't know legally. So would you like time to address that issue?
What I don't want to do is enter an order that's just facially invalid because there's case law out there that says that there is some kind of um >> understood, >> you know, issue there. I mean, here's what I'm thinking for everyone's benefit
in regard to 86-52. I don't believe the city has enough evidence right now to carry its burden that there was work that was done that required a building permit that didn't have it. In regard to 62-58, my interpretation of the testimony of Mr. Vulpi was they tried to come in and
pay it for whatever reason, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary that they were told they didn't need the business tax receipt. So, the delinquency, I'm not going to find they're in violation of that. I do find that it appears they're in violation of 62-33 the business tax receipt u because
I think that would apply to all businesses and I don't see any kind of exemption and so the question I have is whether or not as a matter of law there's an there would be a violation of 14-130.4 for based upon the fact that
the owner has obtained a uh it looks like and I don't know if this I assume this applies to the subject property uh but this Vulpi Apartments
license and so that's the one Mr. TR if you'd like more time on that. We can either bring this up as old business or bring this up as the first agenda item under new business and just continue it. Uh but I'd like to have that addressed as well. >> I think that's a good idea. Um we don't
want them cited for something that um or found in violation of a code section if it doesn't apply. So uh I would like to bring it back at the next special magistrate hearing and address that issue here so both of us can be prepared. >> All right. I'm going to do I'm going to give you guys the same opportunity. Okay. So, you heard my ruling on this.
What what I'm asking you guys and what I'm asking Mr. Tras is the city attorney to do is address the violation under 14-130.4, which is the rental license under the city's code. Okay. So, what we'll do is um if for whatever reason the next
agenda you you know you're out of town, you can't attend it, you know, please uh please let us know or let the city know. Uh but I believe we've already selected the next hearing date and I I you've got to renotice this, right? because I think our next hearing date is very early July. So, we might need to Would we need
to roll it to August? >> No, we'll get it done. >> Okay. Uh then I believe our next hearing time is in the first couple weeks of July. And so we'll right now I'll just um I'm not going to enter any order yet until we conclude the hearing. So, what
I'll do is I'll continue the hearing, meaning we'll just pick right back up here at our next hearing and both sides can address that 14-130.4. >> One question about >> Sure. Step up to the uh microphone. >> My question is I have no problem with
buying a uh a property what is it called? I don't even know what it's called. A property license or rental license or business license. I have no problem with buying that. I have no problem with that. That's not my issue. My issue is that they want to come back
and and in inspect it every year when I have an inspector every two years, I think it is by the city or something. They want to come and inspect them. My uh uh contention is that I'm inspected every single year by the state. >> No, I understand. >> I have to apply for it. I have to come in. I got to adhere to Mirror's laws and
all these other different laws that still >> And but I'm still willing to buy the license. I don't mind buying the license. That's not my issue. My issue is I I'm all for buying a license. I would love to buy the license. I came in to purchase the license. They just never sold me the license. >> I I understand that, sir. We're going to
>> I would I would I would definitely say if they allow me to purchase the license, I would have no problem with it whatsoever. >> Then you you can take that up in between now and the next hearing. Uh but you know, you already have for showing up today and for putting on the argument, you already prevailed on a couple issues and we're going to need to get to the
bottom of of one other. You heard what Mr. Tr said. the city, their goal is not to try to find you in violation if uh or not try to convince me to find a violation if legally there is no violation. Mr. Tras wants to research that. He has every right to do that on behalf of the city because number one
thing I want to do is I want to get this right up here. Okay? I want to follow the law. I want to get it right. So, uh that concludes the hearing or excuse me that that we will continue the hearing from this spot at our next hearing. Make sure you get with the city so you have notice and can show up. All right. Are we ready to move on to old business?
>> I think so. >> Okay. The first case I have is 2025.6 for the property located at 545th Avenue. Is the city ready to move forward? >> Yes, we are. Um, can would you mind if
we took these people since they've been waiting so long to try to maybe move them? >> Yes, absolutely. That's a good point. Sir, uh, what case are you here on? >> Sure. C2-160. >> What's the What's this address? >> 1419 West Street.
>> All right, let's take that next. That's H on old business. That's case 25-160 for the property located at 14190. All right, you can come on up, sir. >> Good afternoon, everybody. >> And what is your name?
>> Brian Rockowitz. Thank you, >> Brian. How do you spell your last name? >> R O C H O W I C Z. >> Okay. All right, Mr. Trash, go ahead. >> So, um, this case is spent was before special magistrate back on February
24th, 2026. Special magistrate found a violation of the cited code section 14-30 as well as um R 322.2.2. enclosing um an area below designed
flood elevation. You order the property to come into compliance by April 25th, 2026. Um the uh property is not in compliance. Uh the city issued an affidavit of non-compliance in the packet at page
552. um and also issued a notice of hearing for today's hearing and sent both the notice of hearing and that affidavit as well as an affidavit of service um to the property owner and we can get testimony for that effect um if there is
an issue with regard to that but the property is not in compliance as of yet and we're just asking that you enter an order finding that it's not in compliance. >> All right, sir. Um, first tell me what you want to tell me and then if we need to bring in evidence from the city, we will. >> Sure. So, I've been staying in constant
communication throughout this whole process. The first thing I got was in November. I was told to don't worry about it. We'll get with you. That's then they got with me in February. As soon as I got the letter, I came in and had a a meeting with them about the the
letter. So, you gave us 60 days, but I was told that long as I stay in communication, and I have I have emails, I have lots of correspondents that long as you keep reaching out and we see that you're working, no problems. I have correspondence saying that we're working
on it. The the the the work has been done. I was just waiting on my my engineer slash architect to complete his end of it, but there's emails and also things that were sent to Holden, which is not here. I guess he's no longer with
the codes, but that, you know, he had some illness and some loss in his family and they were backlogged and everything, but I have all that right here. But he has now sent all the engineer drawings and the past and everything like that stamped and everything before this meeting. How much more time do you think
you need to come in? >> It's done. I don't know. They should have the stamped plans. I I have them here. You should have them on your email. They had some email problems stating they weren't getting emails. Again, that's that's coming all the way from November when we were trying to send emails and I guess he was blocked
or something. I don't know. But everything's been done and you guys I have the pictures and the stamp and his pass and everything. It's been in it's been brought into code compliance, >> but you should have that in an email.
>> Okay, Mr. Trash, do you have any objection if I give uh the owner an extension of 30 days to July 23rd, 2026 to get the property in compliance? >> But I don't need an extension. It's done. You have they have the file. They
have the plans saying it's done with pictures. So, that was submitted. Granted, it's it was only a few I think it was last Wednesday. We were trying to get it in before this meeting, but they said I should still show up, but all the work has been done and the architect, engineer, and the third party provider
has sent you everything with with with uh schematics and pictures. I think we need to hear from Miss Davis on this. >> Yeah, let's go ahead and we'll just hear some testimony on this and then I'll make a decision. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> So, Miss Davis, you're familiar with this property at 14190 West Partially
Drive, correct? Yes, sir. >> Okay. Were you the person that testified at the hearing back in February on this case? >> Yes. >> All right. So, you know that the special magistrate found the violation. Did you also um go out and inspect the property or what what Well, first of all, did did
you make a determination that the property is still not in compliance? >> We've seen nothing. Uh I I've been in communication with him. He's right for the last few weeks. So, anything that his engineer has sent to us, there's no attached files. There's no nothing. So, we can't see. And it's also flood plane
related. This somebody from the city has to go out physically. >> Okay. So the documentation that the city is looking for, can he submit it in paper form versus electronic form if it's not being received?
>> I think his corrective action, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't even ask for a permit, but somebody does need to come and inspect it and we'll deal with wherever we need to put it for the record, but it is flood plane, so private providers. Well, I got the email, but you did not. I was CC on this email. >> Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Let
Mr. Tras finish and then you can ask your questions. >> So, what will it require to get the property in compliance? >> If Mr. Rockowitz is saying that everything is complied with and it's back to when it initially got its co, then uh one of our CFMs can go out to
the property if that's fine with him and resolve it. >> Okay. What did he need to do to bring the property into compliance? I would have to look at his letters. >> He just needed to bring the um bottom floor back to its lo uh what it was when
it was originally built. Correct. >> True. >> So he was only to have downstairs in the first floor parking of vehicles, building access or storage. Otherwise, all interior enclosed areas um had to be removed. Correct. >> True. >> Okay. So, if the city went out there and
did an inspection that's already been done like property owner is saying, that should be fairly easy to to confirm. Correct. >> If the city can go out, yes. >> Okay. Does is it going to require any plans or any other information from a building contractor, arencher,
engineer? >> I spoke to Kathleen Certo, our building official, last week, and she didn't specify what she would require, but she wants to be the one to go out and see. >> Okay. All right. Um, I don't I don't have anything else for Miss Davis.
>> Okay, sir. Anything else you like to tell me? I know you said you've submitted everything. So, here's what >> I have a copy. If he doesn't have it, I don't understand why they don't have an email when I have an email and I was CCD on it. So, why aren't you guys showing me this and putting it up there that shows the pictures, his letter head, his
seal of approve, his architecture seals and everything? Why do you not have that? >> It doesn't sound like their city's disputing that. It just sounds like the city has the paperwork they need. They need to schedule an inspection to go out there. >> Can I do you have the paperwork? >> Can I give this to her?
>> Show it to Mr. Tras first. Yep. Show it to Mr. Tras first. >> Thank you. >> He's looking also explain that >> I hire an architect. >> Give him one minute to look. I I get what you're saying, sir. I'm >> Yeah, >> let Mr. Tras look at that. >> No problem. I understand what you're
saying and and the fact you're taking steps toward compliance is very compelling to me. >> I don't have any object I don't have any objections to this. Um so I'll pass it down. >> Okay. I think you had asked her if she had
seen that those documents before and I I not noted they were dated about four days ago. So, let Miss Davis take a look at that and then she can answer any questions you want. I have not received any of this in the past or been forwarded any of this by
you. I've been forwarded other things by you, but it's not pictures or any of these inspection reports >> because our last conversation was go ahead and send pictures. I said I'd rather have my architect do it because I paid him, right? I paid him almost 2,000, but he submitted that via email
to Davis, all the headings that are on there. So, I don't understand. And he also CCD me. So, I don't understand why I got it, but you didn't get it when he when he sent it to everybody. Your name's on it. Holden's on it. There's a bunch of
people's names on that. >> Well, let's do this. And this is good for you, sir. What I'm going to do is I'm going to go ahead and enter an order extending the deadline 30 days. Okay? Okay. And if it's the city's issue because they haven't received something, then you come back and see me and I'll give you another. But I'm not cuz what the city's asking me to do right now is
find you're still not in compliance and certify a lean on your property and and enter a fine. So I'm not going to do that today. Okay? I'm going to go ahead and >> give you I'm going to extend the deadline to comply as if the original compliance deadline was July 23rd, 2026.
>> Okay? Please continue to work with the city to get an inspector out there. If there's a delay because someone in the city can't get out there in the next 30 days, come see me and we'll talk about that more. But but I'm going to I'm not going to do what the city's asking me to do. >> Can I can I ask you a question?
>> Sure. Far away. >> I don't the city shouldn't have to go out there. Okay. First of all, that's why I hired an architect and an engineer and he and he I'm paying him to do what they call private provider. Okay. He has no stake in this house. He has his licenses on the line. It's all been
done. He's inspected it. He's now shown you that it's been done and it's passed his engineering type thing. I Why does the city have to when he is equal to the city as an inspector? He's his own inspector. Sure. And I I can answer that question for you because the city can
send a person out there to ensure that the property is in compliance. And then what happens is when that occurs, there's an affidavit of compliance that's filed and then ultimately comes back before me and I enter an order of compliance. And you'll want that because if you ever go to sell your property,
somebody's going to do a title search on that property and they're going to pick up that there's a code enforcement issue on that property. And then they're going to want to see in the chain of title that there's an affidavit of compliance and an order of compliance so that whoever buys that house knows there's no more code enforcement issues on the
property. So, the city's going to go ahead and do what it normally does, and once propertyy's in compliance, there'll be an order entered by me saying the propertyy's in compliance. And you want that. That's a good thing for you moving forward. >> But, so that person's license and all that has is has as me paying him that
money didn't do nothing. I mean, I >> Well, sure it did because if that's what the city required for you to come into >> No, that was also private provider, which means he can inspect the work that I did. I I Here's the thing. I've lived out here for this many years. I don't
trust any I I I work with them and I I know they're doing their job, but they're going to maybe come over and say, "Oh, oh, maybe this is bad now." And next thing I I don't want them on my property. That's why I paid this person as a professional, and that's his job to inspect it, that it was done according
to what they wanted it and with the pictures that they asked for. And he did that. So, why do I have to have them come onto my property? >> All right. And if I already paid and and that guy is a state he's you know he's he's you know >> I understand sir I think I've answered the question as best I can answer you. I
can't give you legal advice. >> I know but you're saying that his inspection is no good then. >> I'm not saying his inspection is no good. I'm not saying that all. I'm not even >> So if they take his inspection as as as as fine and we can finish this. >> That's up that's you and the city. But I
can't give you legal advice. But what I can tell you is that the city has under their co under the code and under Florida law can come out and inspect the work that was performed and make sure that the corrective action was taken so that they can go ahead and file an affidavit of compliance. And then that
is what allows me to do an order of compliance. So again, if the city accepts that, great. Then we'll have a hearing and it'll be you'll be asking me to sign an order of compliance. But for now, what I'm going to do is I'm not going to enter uh certify a lean or anything like that on the property. I'm
going to give 30 days for this to get wrapped up. >> Okay. >> All right, sir. Thank you for your patience today and waiting. >> Thank you. >> All right. That concludes a hearing on that matter. Sir, what do you which case are you here on? >> 13414. >> 13414 G Boulevard. All right. Come on
forward, sir. >> Thank you for seeing me. >> All right, sir. Give me your name. >> Paul Trader. >> Oh, sir, spell your last name for me. >> T R A D O R. >> T R A D O R.
>> Correct. >> All right. And you're asking for an extension of the deadline to comply. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And how many days are you asking for to bring the property into compliance? >> We had originally asked for 30 days additional.
>> Okay. All right. Uh first, let me just see if Mr. Trash objects because if he doesn't that'll short circuit things. >> Okay. >> Mr. Trash, do you have any objection to an additional 30-day extension? >> So 30 days would put it June 6th which has already passed. >> Okay. >> Um so my suggestion is is let's bump it
to 60 days out and make it July the 6th. That would that would give 60 days in top. So and the city has no objection to that. >> Can you bring the property in compliance by July 6th? It might be now if Taylor could check because um I wanted my
contractor to be here but we didn't get the uh notice until Thursday evening in our mailbox. It was a certified letter but the certification was still attached to it. So we came down or my wife came here Friday. Nobody was here but Okay. What's
the um And do you need Miss Davis's attention for this one? >> Oh my god. This is Taylor. We've got a hearing going on. >> Okay. All right. Um, remind me on this on the corrective action as required.
>> So, the corrective action was to obtain a building permit >> 8652. >> Gotcha. Have you submitted the building permit? >> Yes. I've been in uh contact with my contractor this morning. Uh, he couldn't make it on short notice, but it was submitted, I believe, on the 22nd. Um,
we followed up with Taylor and she said the subs weren't signed on yet, but he does say the subs are signed on now. I believe he mentioned Dolphin Plumbing and Collins Electric and he said he resubmitted the drawing and he actually
did an additional one this morning on a graph paper just in case it wasn't good enough. So, okay, >> that's the information I got from him today and I, like I said, I wish he would have been here and instead of me having to speak on his behalf, he should be speaking on mine, but >> Okay, just sit tight. um
for a second. >> Okay. >> Miss Davis, do you know the status of the permit review? >> So, a permit application was sent to us on May 21st, it looks like, and it was
returned to the general contractor's review. So, it's been about a month since we've heard or seen anything since. It looks like you put in a new drawing today. Um, let me see if there's any comments. No comments of today. The previous comments, uh, please upload completed
subcontractor cards for all trade work. Drawing needs to be revised. Substantial improvement packet needs to be uploaded as a whole, not individual pages. Some seem to be missing. And it looks like only the drawing of those three things, only one was addressed.
>> Okay. Sorry, Mr. Tras. I'm highlighting or hijacking your job here of asking questions. May maybe we need to extend it out to 30 days from today and make it July 23rd. >> That's what I'm thinking is let's just extend it out 30 days from today. And um
sir, what I would encourage you to do, you can come back up at the podium. Um I'm going to go ahead and grant an order of extension to July 23rd, 2026. So that gives you another 30 days for the packet of the building permit to be approved and issued. You heard what Ms. Davis
said today about there might be a few things missing. So, I would encourage you to if not today, I know it's getting late in the day, follow up with her directly on that or she can direct you who else in the city you need to follow up with because I'm sure your contractor is busy. He may not know that there's a
a hard and fast deadline for this permit to be issued. So, I would have your contractor work with the city as well, but I'll give you another 30 days or I'll give you uh 30 days from today to get that building permit issued. >> Right. So, >> so it's worth your time waiting around all this to to get that extra time.
>> I want to say it wasn't, but um so there the sub count uh subs are not signed on yet. >> No subs. >> Oh, because he said this morning the plumbing and electric definitely was. I have a subcard that
Papaop signed saying that he's a certified building contractor, but I need ones for electrical, plumbing, and mechanical. >> Okay. Well, he's >> all right. >> Send me incorrect information. >> Just keep working with them. And uh it sounds like you're on the right path. So, all right. Uh I don't think there's
anybody else here. So, now let's go back up to the first case of old business. 2025.6 06 property located at 545th Avenue. >> All right. Um, and I'm just going to zip through these. If you need to hear testimony, I'll be happy to put it on,
but these are all compliance or non-compliance hearings. Um, the first one, Dean Puit, this is for the property located at 545th Avenue. I believe Mr. Puit was here earlier. He was, >> but he left. I'm not sure why. Uh but
there was a special magistrate order entered on um January actually February 11th finding the property in violation. The property is still not in compliance. The city has issued an affidavit of non-compliance.
This is a case where the boats were sunk in the water offshore. Um Deputy uh Snyder is here if you'd like to hear any testimony about that. Uh, but we're asking that you find that the property is not in compliance as of
the required compliance deadline. >> All right. Anything else in the order other than just finding the property not in compliance as of the compliance deadline? >> That's it. >> All right. Uh, no. I'll accept the affidavit of uh, Deputy Snider in regard to this one and I'll enter an order
non-compliance as of the compliance deadline. >> Thank you. >> Let's move on to case number C25-167 for the property located 515 129th Avenue East. So again, this is um Connor Mechco's case. Uh you had uh we had a
hearing before you on April the 6th. You entered an order on April 14th finding the property in violation giving compliance date of May the 6th. Um the compliance was uh international property maintenance code and general maintenance
of the property. Property is not in compliance. The city is submitting an affidavit of non-compliance um and asks that you receive that and enter an order finding it not in compliance. >> All right. Uh based upon the affidavit and the fact that there is no one here
on behalf of the respondent to contest it, I will enter an order non-compliance as of the compliance deadline of 5626. All right, let's move on to KCE-178 for the property at 575 Normandy Road.
Um, this property came before you as special magistrate on February 24th. You found the property owner in violation of section 8652, not having a building permit. You ordered the property to come into compliance by March 26th. Uh, the
property did come into compliance um after an extension of time was given. So, we're just asking that you enter an order finding the property in compliance timely. >> Okay. All right, I'll go ahead and enter an
order that the property was in compliance as of the extended compliance date. All right, next one is C25-127 for the property located at 1450 North Bayhore Drive. This property came before you on October 27th, 2025. You entered
an order on November 17th uh finding the property in violation of 8652 not having a building permit. you ordered the property to come into compliance before November 26, 2025. Um,
the city has prepared and submitted to you an affidavit of compliance finding that the property owner is in compliance as of June 12th, 2026. >> Okay. So, they came into compliance as of what date?
>> June 12th, 2026. So there would be a fine from November 26th through June 12th, 2026. A total of $199 days.
All right. What's the math on that? >> The math is $49,750. Okay. I will enter an order stating the property was not in compliance as of the compliance deadline. It came into compliance on June
12th, 2026 and therefore there is a fine for 199 days to my math can't be correct on that. I think I calculated at 250. >> Okay. 199 days times $100 would be $19,900.
Sorry, I calculated it two and a half times that. 199 days at $100 a day would be $19,900. >> Gotcha. >> Sorry. >> All right. So, I asked you to do the math for me, Mr. Tra. >> Okay. I'll go ahead and enter an order
determining the fine of $19,900. Anything else on that one? >> No. >> No. Okay, next one is case number C-25-129 for the property located at 15398 Second
Street East. Yes, this um has already been found in non-compliance. Uh the property um you entered an order finding it non-compliance in February of this year. It is now in compliance. the property
owner um brought it into compliance on sorry June 12th, 2026. So it was in violation from November 26, 2025 all the way to June.
And that one is also 199 days. That one at 250 puts it at $49,750. >> I put the wrong date on there. >> What was the date? I put the wrong date. Um, their permit was issued April 23rd
of 2026. >> April 23rd. >> Yes. My apologies. >> Okay, that saved a lot of money. I didn't do the math on that. So, it was out of compliance then from
November 26, 2025 through April 23rd, 2026. Somebody want to do a quick search of how many days that was and just confirm it's 250 a day. It is 250 a day according to the order. Can you guys figure out what that is?
How many days? 158 days. >> What? 250. >> And it was 250 a day on that one. Correct. All right. So, I have 39,500. Is that what the city believes to be the correct
amount of the fine? >> Sorry. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Anything else on that one? >> No. >> Let's move to C25-144 for the property located at 14097 East Parsley Drive.
>> So, this came before you in February of this year. You found the property in violation for fencing. ordered the property to commit pines by March 26 or suffer a $150 a day fine. This property
is in compliance as of June 12th, 2026. And um that would be 78 days at 150. Yes. And that totals $11,700. All right. I'll go ahead and enter an order of compliance as of June 12th, 2026 and put in the order that there is
a fine for 78 days and $150 a day for a total of $11,700. >> Anything else on that one? No. >> Okay. We've already dealt with items G and H. That takes us to item I, which is case number C26-27
for the property located at 13313 Second Street East. So, this property came before you on April 6th uh for not having a building permit. You ordered the property to come into compliance by May 6th um or suffer a
$100 a day fine. I'm sorry. $250 a day fine. Um, the property is not in compliance. The city has issued an affidavit of non-compliance. All right. So, you and the relief request is an order non-compliance as of
56, 2026. May 6, 2026. >> Correct. Okay. Based upon the affidavit and the fact that no one is here on behalf of the respondent to contest it, I'll go ahead and find enter an order of non-compliance as of May 6, 2026.
That's all we have today. All right. Thank you everyone for your participation today. I'll get these orders issued as soon as I can. Thank you.