Mr. Tras, city ready? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Uh, good afternoon everyone. Uh, welcome to the special magistrate hearing for today. My name is Bart Valdez. If you're here for a code enforcement case, you're in the right
place. We've got an appeal that we're going to deal with first and then we'll move on to the code enforcement. So, if you're here for code enforcement, just sit tight for right now. Once 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've been appointed to this position in accordance and with the authority set forth under Florida law and the city Madro Beach Code of Ordinances. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented today in these uh requests. 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. At this time, I have read and reviewed all of the hearing materials provided to me, any written submissions by anyone having
an interest, uh, any timely submitted objections, excuse me, and the materials provided by the city staff. 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 in writing and the the appellant and the city will be provided with a copy by mail. Additionally, you're advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a building permit. You still must obtain a building permit for any work you
intend to do on your property. All right. We're going to go ahead and swear everyone in today right now. Uh if there's anyone who would like to present any information to me today, whether it's part of the appeal or whether it's part of the code enforcement proceeding, then the city attorney is going to go
ahead and minister an oath and swear in any witnesses. So again, if you expect to talk to me about anything today, whether you're a member of the public, whether you're a participant, a party, then I ask that you go ahead and stand and be sworn. Mr. TR, can you swear everybody in please? >> Everyone that's going to speak, please
stand up. Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. The first matter I have today is application AD2026-01.
Uh this is an appeal of the city's determination of that the nonconforming forplex may not be rebuilt. Let me just get the appearances here. Uh who is here on behalf of the applicant? >> Good afternoon, Mr. That is Jose Petaro
on behalf of Miss Alpa. >> All right, sir. Spell your name for me real quick. >> S P A T A R O >> S P >> A T like Tom. A R O. >> Okay. Mr. Sparo, have you and Mr. Tras talked about how you want to conduct the appeal today?
>> Uh, we have, sir. >> Okay. Step up to the step up to the mic. Mr. Tras, how do you want to proceed today procedurally on this one? >> So, uh, what we'd like to do is to go ahead and put Mr. Petraia on. um have him present the staff report and all the
background of the case so that it's in the record and then uh the appellant would have the opportunity to add any additional information after that whether it's through testimony or documentary evidence. >> Sounds good. You agree to that? >> I that that is agreeable and um after Mr. Trash presents I anticipate asking
Mr. Bagley some questions and then having Miss Alpa provide some testimony to you as well. >> Okay, that sounds great. and we'll go ahead and excuse me. Each side will be permitted to cross-examine the parties who testify. So, with that, I'll turn it over to the city. Mr. Tras, >> so the city would call Joseph Petralia
um as its witness today. Joe, if you could state your occupation and your job responsibilities here at the city of MadiRaa Beach. >> Sure. My name is Joseph Petraia. I'm a planner with the city of Madiraa Beach and my primary responsibilities include reviewing building permit applications
for compliance with zoning and flood plane regulations. Are you familiar with the property and the applicant for the property located at 100B Street here in MadiRaa Beach? >> Yes. >> Okay. And were you the person responsible for reviewing the permit application?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And as a direct result of that, did you make a determination that the property owner could not proceed with the forplex that she wanted to rebuild on the property? >> Correct. >> Okay. And did you issue a staff report and recommendation for today's hearing
as a result of an appeal of that decision? >> Yes. >> Okay. And could you go ahead and go through your staff report and recommendation, please? >> Sure. So, the application is AD 2026-01 uh for Samantha 100 B Street, Madiraa
Beach, Florida 33701. Request is appealing the city's determination that the non-conforming forplex may not be rebuilt. The specific code provisions are section 110-93 intent concerning non-conforming property structures and losses
structures and uses. Three non-conforming structures where a law lawful structure exists at the time of the passage or amendment of the land development regulations which could no longer be built under the terms of the land development regulations for reasons
of restriction on area, lot coverage, height or other characteristics of the structure or location on lot. Such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions. Uh provision B being that a
non-conforming structure or portion thereof if damaged by fire, natural elements or force to an amount equal to or exceeding 50% of its current fair market value as of the day immediately preceding such damage may only be reconstructed in accordance with the
provisions of article V of the chapter regarding the district regulations for the district in which it is located and the flood plane management regulations established with chapter 94 of this code or otherwise provided in the article. Section 110-95
C local business tax required. Failure to have a current required local business tax receipt were applicable in force at the time of the declared disaster would prevent section 110-95 from applying. And then additionally 110-96
uh under B6 occupational license required. Failure to have a current required occupational license in force at the time of the declared disaster will prevent the section from applying to their property. And these are just excerpts from the code. Uh the full code
of ordinances or this particular chapter with the full sections has been included with the agenda packet. background. 100B Street located in the R1 zoning district had a leg le legally non-conforming forplex that was assessed to be substantially damaged from the
2024 hurricanes with the September 26th, 2024 as the declared date of disaster. On January 7th, 2025, the city recommended responded to an email inquiry sent by the applicant's contractor where they were informed of the structures non-conforming status and
they were provided information applicable to the requirements for rebuilding the forplex and that's been included as attachment 8. The email includes the code section currently being appealed which outlines the occupational license/BTR
requirement. At the time of correspondence, the city had not reviewed the property's BTR status, nor did the applicant or contractor provide the BTR status. The structure was issued a demolition permit on March 5th, 2025 and demolished thereafter. On May 20th,
2025, the city met with the developer for a pre-application meeting. The meeting was focused on the specific development standards for the building and to not address the presence and/or status of their BTR. In December 2025, the developer submitted a building permit application to rebuild the
forplex. And it was during this review process, it was discovered that the property did not have a BTR in effect at the time of the disaster, resulting in the permit denial issue on February 5th, 2026, which is attachment 9. On March
3rd December on March 3rd, 2026, the applicant submitted this administrative appeal to be heard by the special magistrate challenging the city's permit denial. Staff findings. The pre-existing forplex at 100 B Street
was constructed in 1948, which is before the property was mapped into the R1 single family residential zoning zoning district. Based on Panelis County Property Appraisers website, the parcel is 10,520 ft, which equates to approximately 16.6
units per acre with a forplex, which not only violates the city's zoning district permitted use regulations shown in attachments 2 and four, but it is also in violation of the current density requirements of the city's comprehensive plan of 7.5 units per acre by more than
double. Chapter 110, article 3 of the city's land development regulations includes all the regulations for non-conformities. This article was recently amended through ordinance 2026-02 which was adopted on March 4th, 2026.
However, none of the adopted changes impact this application. The full article, including the newly adopted changes, has been included as attachment five for the special magistrates review. While there are sections of the code that allow legally non-conforming uses to be rebuilt, retained, or even
rebuilt, none of the provisions apply if the property was operating without the legally required occupational license or business tax receipt. It is important to note that section 110-96 states occupational license is required because before 2007, a business tax
receipt was referred to as an occupational license under the city code as shown in attachment 11. as provided in attachments 6, 7, and 10, as well as confirmation with the public works department that one of the units had
garbage and utilities under a different name. Is the city's position that a business tax license was required at the time of the disaster and that the property was being rented out illegally without one? In her application supplied with this appeal, the property owner acknowledges that a business tax license
would have been required to retain the forplex under the provisions of section 110-96, but that it may be retained under section 110-93 due to contradiction. Section 110-93 is however very explicit that
non-conforming structures and uses are both lost if damaged in excess of 50% of the structures value. If section 110-93 had already allowed for the non-confirming use to be rebuilt, there would have been no need for the city
commission to add sections 110-95 or 11096. In fact, the clause highlighted from ordinance 19 1994-824 and attachment 12, which is the ordinance that added the current section 110-96 to the code, explicitly states
that before the section of the code was added, structures damaged in excess of 50% of their fair market value would only be able to be rebuilt in full compliance with the zoning district's regulations. City staff acknowledges the applicant has been working in good faith to
rebuild the forplex and recognizes the requirement was not identified during earlier meetings. Staff al also recognizes the loss of three of the four dwelling units is a significant consequence for not having a business tax receipt and that the property owner may not have even been aware a business
tax receipt was required to rent the units. However, in consideration of the various factors, staff were unable to identify a code compliant basis to permit the reconstruction of the forplex. While staff will be working on ordinance updates, including a
comprehensive update to chapter 110, article 3 non-conformities, it is still in the very preliminary with all of the changes yet to be fully discussed or reviewed and approved by Ford Panelis, the local planning commission, and the city's board of commissioners.
That concludes the background and staff determination from me as the planner that reviewed the building permit application. Um, also I included attachments 1 through 13 uh which have been labeled with the various
code sections um and email correspondence in the packet and that's goes up until agenda packet page 79. Archo, could you go through and go through each attachment? Tell us what it is and what's the significance of it
being attached to the uh staff recommendation. >> Sure. So, the application and supporting materials attachment one um is the applicants application to appeal before us today.
uh which includes the applicant's position as well as their uh the city's form for an administrative appeal being completed. Attachment two is the city's zoning map uh which identifies the property in the R1 zoning district.
Attachment three, uh, section 110-157 of the city's code of ordinances, uh, which highlights what's allowed in each an overview of the uses for each zoning district. And then
section 110-177 is the specific permitted uses for the R1 zoning district. Chapter 110 article 2 uh which was recently amended through ordinance 2026-02 is attachment 5 that's the full
non-conforming code section as recently amended. Attachment six uh chapter 14 article 3 division 4 talks about when a business tax receipt is required
uh as well as section 62-33. Attachment eight is the initial email exchange between the city and the contractor which is before the permitting process began uh where they initially where the contractor initially
asked the city on the options for the property. Attachment nine is the building permit application plan review letter that was sent in on 2526. And then attachment 10 is the
applicant's email response to that plan review letter. Attachment 11 are is a page or a few pages from ordinance 2007-11 which relates to the non-conforming
section of the code. as well as attachment 12 is ordinance 1994-824 which also relates to the non-conforming section of the code. And then attachment 13 is the public notice mailing and
posting for today's hearing. All right. So I have a few questions for you then. First of all, if you could go back to ordinance 1111, which is attachment 11. That ordinance is actually doesn't have anything to do with uh non-compliance or
um non-conformances. It actually has to do with business tax receipts, does it not? >> Uh hang on one second. >> On page 61 of the packet. Thanks. Uh, yes, this is the ordinance that changed the term for a business tax receipt to
occupational license. So, yes, I'm that's correct. This is for BTR iss not for the non-conforming section. >> Okay. Um, did you determine whether or not um the city has a business tax receipt or an occupational license
to this property owner that is the subject of the appeal? Yes, there has been no business tax receipt applied or issued for this property. >> All right. I don't have any other questions of Mr. Petraley at this point.
I would tender in the evidence though pages 5 through 79 of the agenda packet and ask that they be received. >> Mr. Sto initially do you have any objection to me bringing into evidence is exhibit number one pages 5 through 79
of the exhibit packet >> okay uh so with no objection we'll go ahead and accept into evidence I will accept into evidence is exhibit number one the portion of the packet pages 5 through 79 Mr. Saro uh this is your opportunity to
cross-examine Mr. Traglia, as you know, I'm going to give you a full opportunity to tell me anything you want, but this is your opportunity for cross-examination, Mr. Petraia. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh, good afternoon, Mr. Petraia. Here we go. Um, first of all, thanks for chatting with me earlier um before we
started. I appreciate it. The um maybe working backwards first. The denial of the permit application um at this time is based solely on the non um payment of the business tax
receipt. Is that correct? >> Uh nonapplication and payment of BTR, the lack of a BTR. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Um, so while during a permitting process, there may be other issues that come up that the city would go back and forth with the applicant about, um, as it
stands today, the only thing that's that's delaying this is the BTR. >> Correct. And then the permit would be reviewed for other, but this is the only thing that's holding it up at this time. Correct. >> All right. And um can you put into the
record what the BTR is from a financial standpoint? >> Yep. It's uh required when a rental unit is being operated in the city uh business tax receipt for verifying that
it was it's rented legally and meets standards to occupy tenants. >> How how much is the tax? I believe it's $9.73 for the annual fee per unit and a $70 inspection fee. >> Okay. So,
this was a and this property prior to the hurricane and prior to demolition was a 4unit complex, >> correct? >> Okay. So, we're talking fair to say $40 a year at most, 30 if Miss Alba was living in one of them and renting out
the other three >> plus the $70 inspection fee. Correct. Okay. And is that an annual tax? >> Yep. The BTR fee is annual and then the inspection fee is every two years. >> Okay. So,
we are also talking about um what as it relates to a penalty if prior to demolition or prior to the hurricane I guess the city had determined that Miss Alba or the previous owner was renting out the units and not paying the BTR.
like what would have happened? >> Uh if the city determined before the hurricane that it was being rented out without the BTR, then we would send letter to the owner letting them know that they need to apply for a BTR. And then once they obtain the BTR, it would
be business as usual. >> Okay. And you said, I think you told me before that there was potentially like a 20% fee that sometimes gets waved. >> Yeah, correct. >> So 20% of another 110. So maybe another $20 if even and I believe the uh fee is
only on the $9.73 per unit inspection fee. So yeah, >> another8 $8 >> potentially correct. >> You indicated that the only thing that's currently delaying the permit is the
BTR. Um, is it accurate that the code that you're relying on does not allow you as the planning reviewer to accept payment after the fact? >> Correct.
>> Can you explain why that is? It's not clear that there's a section of the code to allow us to accept payment for BTR after it's been demolished >> after it's been demolished
>> or not specifically after it's been demolished, but as the current state staff couldn't find a way to accept a BTR. >> Did you attempt to? >> Uh, yes. I reviewed with the city attorney and the community development
director um and we couldn't find a feasible route. >> Okay. Sorry, I'm flipping through your packet. We're talking about 110 95 C95. >> Correct.
>> Hang on one second. That's one of the sections particularly uh for rebuilding we usually use 110 96. So particularly would be 110 96 C uh 96 B6 but also 11095 C. Yes.
>> Okay. So the general non-conforming structure statute wouldn't no hurricane right more than 50% damage the property wouldn't have been able to be rebuilt. Um,
possibly. There have been situations before the hurricane where it was determined like for example 11095 even without a hurricane if it's damaged more than 50% in any capacity it could be rebuilt if they had a BTR.
>> Well 11095 and 11096 are are there to allow people with non-conforming structures to rebuild. >> Correct. >> All right. and you cited both and I think you covered this and I believe Mr. asked you about the ordinance you added,
but the business acts receipt that's talked about in '95 and the occupational license in '96 are the same thing. >> Correct. >> So, it's just one violation. >> Correct. >> All right. And your reading of it is that once the hurricane happened, if that wasn't paid, there's no way ever to
get around it. The person can't pay the tax, can't rebuild. >> Yes. >> All right. So, is it fair to say that for a period of the better part of a year, Miss Alpa was
communicating with the city verbally and in writing about rebuilding this property? >> Yes. >> Okay. And in those communications, were you aware that she was attempting to rebuild four units like the structure that was there before? >> Yes.
>> All right. Uh, and in when did you issue the permit to demolish? >> Uh, the city issued the permit to demolish. Um, I believe I have it in the staff report, but it was after we sent the initial email and before
the new build's permit application was applied for. The structure was issued a demolition permit on March 5th, 2025. >> Okay. So, when the permit to knock the building down was issued, the city did
not determine that there was a BTR issue or that Well, I'll start. Stop there. when you when you allowed her to knock the building down, they you nobody at the city reviewed the BTR issue.
>> Correct. That's a demolition permit is just approval that it meets the code to be demolished, which if we denied that, um there would have to be some It's very unlikely that the city would ever deny somebody the ability to demolish the structure. >> Okay. But you did that knowing she was
attempting to rebuild it. >> Correct. It wasn't cross reference, but yes. All right. And what do you mean? >> Like we didn't the city wasn't aware didn't cross reference that there wasn't a BTR >> until unfortunately the rebuilds permit
was already applied for. >> Right. So you didn't you didn't check on that. I'm going to say you the city didn't check for the BTR and allowed the building to be demolished. And before dur before and after that permit to demolish was issued, you um on
behalf of the city were engaging with Miss Alice Ba's architect to talk about the structure. >> Correct. >> And you were answering questions about the nonconformity and the specs and the setback and things like that. >> Correct. >> All right.
So, your denial, did you tell me that it was kind of like an automated email? >> The one that said you need the BTR? >> No, that I I wrote that email. Okay. >> So, that's when I first reviewed the building permit application.
>> Uh that's the first thing I checked for and then I realized that there was no BTR. So, I requested the property owner provide some documentation. >> Okay. In that email, your initial email, you indicated that the permit couldn't be issued because of that, right? >> Correct.
>> All right. Are you aware, and I might ask you something you don't know here, um, are you aware of anywhere in the ordinances that talk about allowing residents to
rebuild um, anything in those ordinances that references that there should be some type of tax implication >> other than 110 95 and >> right. No, I'm talking about the ordinance the like ordinance A24, the
land development code. >> Uh what uh page on the agenda? >> Uh 49. Your stamp is 49 of item 5. So 49 of the agenda packet is where the city emailed the
>> applicant the code sections. >> Can I show you which page I'm >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, please. >> Sorry, I'm looking. >> Okay. Oh, gotcha. That's version. Okay, I'll pull that up. One second. So, will you just I I don't know if Mr. For Mr. TR tell and and the record which
page is it on the actual >> I'm finding it. One second. It's page 61 of our current agenda packet. Okay. >> Um, sorry. Ordinance 111. Is that the one? >> A24. >> Oh, sorry. Hang on one second.
It's attachment number 12. Let me find the page. So that's beginning on page 63 of the current agenda packet. Did you find it? >> Yeah. 8 page 63 of the current agenda.
>> Yeah. A24. the whereas is is there anything in here that talks about paying taxes to >> do you understand my question? >> Uh no. >> No. Okay. If if like I said if you don't know the answer that's fine. You're not you're not completely familiar with this code, right?
>> Uh this code you're asking me if this particular ordinance requires a BTR, >> right? At this code is not in use anymore. or let me find real quick where it would have been. >> It's not I'm sorry, you included it, so
maybe I'm >> Yeah. No, it's it's to be included. Um it's just showing the history of how the code evolved. >> Okay, fair enough. >> And this one did require uh ETR as well. >> All right. So
before I turn over to Miss Alba, is there anything that as far as you can tell the city you're allowed to do to move this project forward? >> Uh, no. The city couldn't find a way to move the project forward.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Tras. Anything else for Mr. Mr. Dragley, before I >> That's redirect if that's okay. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. So, Mr. Dragley, let's talk about a couple things. Let's start off with uh the ordinance that we that was just being referred to, ordinance number 824.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um that ordinance was adopted. What year? You want to go to the signature page, which is on 69 of the agenda packet? That ordinance was adopted on the 18th of October in 1994.
>> So since 1994, there's been a requirement that an occupational license be uh in existence um if the property owner was going to rebuild after catastrophic loss. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. That has not changed over the last 31 years. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. I also want you to turn to attachment number eight in the agenda packet that starts on page 45.
>> Yes, >> this is an email string um that was going back and forth between who? >> This is between the city and the applicant's contractor. Okay. When this
email was provided, what what what was the time frame? Give me a date. >> Uh so this was sent on January 7th, 2025, which is when the city sent the code section regarding the rebuilding regulations
which also includes the BTR. >> That was the question I wanted to get to you. So when the code provision was provided to the architect or the property owner on January 7th, 2025, it included the entire code provision
>> uh that related to uh catastrophic loss rebuilds. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that did include sub paragraph 6 which required the occupational license. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, I just want to boil this down into its simplest terms and tell me whether
I'm accurate on this. Okay. The property is zoned residential, >> correct? >> Yes. Single family residential. >> All right. So, only a single family residence can be placed on the property as of right now. Correct. >> Correct. >> It had a forplex on the property before.
Correct. >> That made it a legal nonconforming structure. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. A legal non-conforming structure has to come into compliance with the current code once the structure is destroyed by at least 50% of its value. Correct.
>> Correct. >> What's the reason why the city wants nonconforming structures or non-conforming uses to come into compliance with the current code? >> Because it's more compatible with the future land use and the city's comprehensive plan um and the countywide
rules and regulations. >> Okay. So, but there are exceptions to that uh not being able to rebuild. And those are the two code sections you've been talking about today, 1105, 11096. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so the 110-96
is basically saying we understand the fact that there is a requirement that this property be brought into compliance with current code, but we're going to create an exception. Correct. >> True. >> All right. And that exception is set forth in detail in 110-96.
>> Yes. >> One of the conditions to that exemption is the business tax receipt. Did I get that correct? >> Yep. >> All right. >> So, there is no legal right for a property owner to rebuild a non-conforming structure
unless he or she meets all the requirements of the code under 110-96. Correct. >> True. Yes. >> All right. >> All right. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. >> All right. Does the city have any other witnesses you want to call at this time? Mr. Tras,
>> I just have a question uh for Joe as to whether or not I need to call his client under my case and chief or does he want to present I cross-examine? Do you have an objection to me? And the reason I'm asking is is because I'm going to be tendering in some evidence that I'm going to be providing to her. Can we do
it in your case and chief? >> Absolutely. >> Okay, sounds good. So then I'll and again if there's something that comes up and you need rebuttal time, we'll do that as well. So Mr. Sparo, then this is your opportunity to call any witnesses you want to call, provide any information to me you want. Um, and I
will say this, after we're done with all the evidence, I'm going to have some legal questions for both you and Mr. Tras as well, but feel free to present to me anything you want to present at this point in time. >> We'll um call Samantha Alb and I'll ask uh do you want her at the podium or at one of the >> Yeah, go ahead and step up to the
podium. This is being broadcast, so there might be other people in the city that are interested in this. Plus, it's easier for your court reporter to get a record. >> Okay, perfect. >> Would you um state by your name? >> Yeah. Samantha Alspa. My last name is A
L S P A U G H. >> Okay. And as the appellant, are you the property owner at 100B Street? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh when did you buy the property? um end of 2021.
>> And prior to uh well, the property was damaged in which hurricane? >> Hurricane Helen. >> Prior to Hurricane Helen, how were you utilizing the property? >> It was um three rentals and then I actually bought it as a primary. So, I lived there.
>> And tell um tell us how much um did you pay for the property? >> Um 8.24. 24. >> Okay. And uh do you have a mortgage on the property? >> Yes. >> How much do you currently have? >> 622.
>> When you say 824 and 622,000, sorry. >> 824,000 >> and 622,000. >> Okay. And as a revenue generator of the three units you weren't living in, what um what was the revenue on those?
Um it would have been anywhere between five and six depending on um I had a long-term tenant and then I did um six month leases as well. So it varied >> five and 6,000 per month >> per month.
>> Uh since Hurricane Helen uh has any of the property prior to demolition was any of the property uh livable? >> No. Um, >> at what point did you engage with the
city of Madira Beach about um demolishing and rebuilding the property? >> Yeah. So, we had actually I actually don't know if the city put these on, but there was a lot of meetings that people did in throughout October and then I started engaging with the city directly in November of 2024.
from November of 2024 until January of 2025. Um what did you do with the property? >> Um we had done um mitigation so took all the interiors out and that's when I had started talking to a general contractor
and an architect as well. >> And what um what did you do in terms of mitigation? >> Uh we did took all the sheetrock out. all the sheetrock and all the cabinets and pretty anything anything that um touched >> do >> for mold.
>> So um prior to the demolition um how much did you spend on mitigation and your >> So prior to uh it was about $21,000.
>> All right. Um, so at what point was your demolition permit uh authorized >> in May or March? March, I'm sorry. >> March of >> 2025. >> All right. And leading into the demolition, can you
give uh the magistrate a synopsis of what your understanding was from the city of the rebuild? >> Yes. So, we had a couple different email exchanges, my architect as well um on
the options that we had because we know that it is a 4unit and a non is a non-conforming and a an R1. So, we specifically asked um questions around zoning around the size that we can rebuild back. Um, we
even talked about um, actually I wanted to bring it up to kind of a single family and asked if I could just build town homes and sell them individually so they look like single families. We went through the land use of you can't do town homes but the city doesn't dist distinguish between a condo and an apartment building. So those are option
both options of what you can build back. Uh, I even talked to a penllis county tax appraiser on tax IDs if I decided or you know I was allowed to do condos. Um, we discussed zoning setbacks. Um, I was told that it's current
um, regulations. Um, I can I can go in. Do you want me to go into my interpretation of >> So, >> sure. I want you to tell them your understanding of >> Thanks. >> Um, ma'am, this is your opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me. So, like I said, formal rules of
evidence don't apply. You tell me your arguments. Lay them out for me. Mr. Trash will be able to cross-examine you. So please feel free to tell me what you want to tell me. >> Awesome. So um Joseph did put in his emails, you know, as long as it applies as long as section 110-96 is followed.
Um and then 110-95. I read those. Um 110-95 uses business tax receipt, if applicable, and 110-96 says occupational license.
the city as I read it 110-96B6 the occupational license looks like a catch-all phrase to everything above a single family home is a when I read that an a single family home does not
need an occupational license or no one would be able to rebuild their single family home after this destruction when I look at 110-95 it says business tax receipt are applicable. I will say this is my own interpretation, but that residential does not need an
occupational license. If we look at section 62 of the code, there's a definition section for local tax schedule, which I did look at, and it's rentals of five units or more. Mine's four purchases of residential. So
my reading of the code as a non-code person um was that an occupational license and business tax receipt is not relevant to me. >> So Miss Alpa, at the time that you were provided that information, did you at
that point realize that you were not in compliance? >> I'm sorry, which part? >> When when you got the email about the what you just said, the occupational license, etc. Did that flag to you that you weren't in compliance and you were never going to be issued a permit?
>> No. When I looked at 110-96, you look at the um B, which is um duplex and triplexes, I believe, and then there's one um that's on the nonconforming multif family that adheres to the same as the duplexes. So, I read those two as
being applicable to me. >> Okay. after the demolition permit was issued. Um, how much like we talked about kind of pre January 2025 since then and prior to
not being issued the permit, how much have you spent? >> $74,000. >> Can you walk through um what you've spent on? >> Yes. So after the email correspondence, after we um demoed it, uh we actually
scheduled um a meeting in May with the specific fact of knowing that I would like to rebuild four units in a non-conforming R1 zone. We sat with the city. We reviewed the plans before the simple fact knowing that something like
this would be close to $60,000 and $80,000 in engineering cost. So, we set with the city to understand what I could rebuild before I engage those assets because it's a lot of money. Um, and the really only feedback we got is that I
need to have a drainage pond and I have to plant eight trees and that I should probably put elevators because snowbirds come down here in six or six months. Um so after that um my architect re-engaged the plans and re-engaged with a mechanical, a
structural and civil engineering firm. Um and there's still obviously the second part of their invoices that haven't come yet because we haven't started building. But um altogether it'll be about 120k.
>> But you spent $74,210 >> after May. >> After May before Uh, the current per post was denied. >> Yes. >> Is there anything else you want to share with the magistrate before Mr. Tra asks you some questions? >> Um,
no, I don't think so. >> Uh, well, I'll ask you this. When you were first notified that you weren't going to be uh given a permit because of the business tax receipt, um, did you attempt offer to and in fact attempt to
pay whatever taxes were going with? Uh yes, I um I responded to Joe's email um and actually said, "What do we have to do to remedy this?" Um that that was a dire uh mistake on my part and that I don't feel that the punishment fits the
crime. Um but I did ask if I would be able to pay um the back part of it. >> And you were advised based on the code that the payment wouldn't change. Is that correct? I do not believe that that question was actually answered in the
response. The response was that um he would forward my email to Mr. Tras. >> Okay. Were you at any point allowed to remediate the non-payment of the BTR? >> No. >> Tender. >> All right. Mr. TR, um let me just jump
in here. I hope I don't steal your thunder. I I am looking at your February 6, 2026 email, Miss Alspa. Just so I'm aware, is do you dispute the city's position that you never had the BTR, the occupational license prior to Hurricane Helen?
>> No, I don't dispute that. >> Okay, no problem. Mr. Tras, go ahead. Just a few more questions. Is this the first time that you've ever owned rental property? >> No. >> Okay. Do you own other rental property now? >> Yes. Not in Florida.
>> Okay. Not in Florida, did you say? >> Yes. Not in Florida. >> Okay. Have you ever um rented or owned rental property in Florida other than these units? >> No. >> Okay. Um as a landlord, what other state are you a landlord in? >> Virginia.
>> All right. Is there an occupational license requirement in Virginia for rental of your properties up there? >> No. >> Okay. this letter um the email that you sent to the property I mean to uh to Joseph Petraley here at the city which is
marked as uh page 59 of the agenda packet. It was sent on February 6, 2026. That's the email that you were referring to earlier. Correct. >> That you were asking whether or not that you could pay the late um yes business tax receipt fees. Correct. Is there any
other email that you've sent to the city where you've discussed um the business tax receipt? >> Only in the um formal appeal document that I that I sent um right before the during the appeal window. >> Okay. All right.
Earlier, uh Mr. Kraglia had testified that he had sent an email or been involved in an email between the city and your architect. Did um and that email was dated January 7th, 2025. Um did you see that email?
>> I did not. >> It was never provided to you by your architect? >> No. >> Okay. Did you ever discuss the contents of it with your architect? Uh yes, I I discussed not maybe nec necessarily the content of that email directly, but that email just referenced
and snipped the section 110 95 and 96 of the code. So we had already we had already talked about that because I did not think it was relevant to me. >> Okay. So did the architect tell you that there is a requirement of the code that you have to have a business tax receipt or an occupational license?
>> No. And I do not believe that the um architect was on that. I believe that was just my general contractor. Um, Rob Robert Copenha. >> If you show it to me again, I can let you know. My my architect's name is Alex. >> Yeah, he's not on there. It's just to, uh, robopenhabber.com.
>> Yes. My general contractor. >> Okay. So, back to my questions then. Did you have a conversation with your contractor about this uh, email? Yeah, it would be the same response that I that I gave you as far as one section says business tax receipt if applicable,
one says occupational license and if you look at both of those together and being where applicable, it looked like it was commercial only. >> But did you discuss that with your contractor? >> Yeah, I talked to both him and my architect about it. >> Okay. And that would have been done
approximately what time? The January 2025 time frame. Uh, I would it would have been as the emails exchanged. >> Well, the email we're talking about right now is January 7th, 2025. I'm just trying to get a time frame. >> Yeah. And so there was additional there
was also communication at the end of January as well. Um, in which um we had still further discussed what we could build even after this section was sent to my um general contractor.
>> Okay. So this was about 2 months before you applied for the demolition permit. Correct. >> Yes. >> After having the discussion with your contractor or your architect or both about the occupational license requirement, did you ever ask the city about that requirement? >> I did not.
>> All right. Thank you. I have no other questions. >> All right. Any redirect? Mr. Sparo, I don't have any questions. So, any more questions for this witness? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Taro, would you like to call any other witnesses or would you
like to put anything else into evidence for this portion of the hearing? >> No other witnesses or evidence, sir. Just like to make an argument at the appropriate time. >> Yeah, sounds good. Um, okay. That appears to be the end of the applicant's
case. Um, Mr. Tra, a little bit different procedural posture than normal. I mean, normally we'd go to public comment by people affected at this point. What's your And I don't know whether there's any members of the public that are here to comment on that. >> I think we should definitely ask because it is a public hearing. It's required to
have been published as a public hearing. >> That that sounds fine. We'll go ahead and do that. Before we get to that, are there is there anything else you want to put on in the form of a rebuttal case or reply or anything like that, Mr. Trust? >> Yes, sir. No, sir. >> Okay. All right. Are there any members of the public that would like to come
forward and provide public comment in regard to appeal number 80 2026-01 for the property located at 100B Street, MadiRaa Beach, Florida? Any members of the public?
Going once, going twice. Okay. No members of the public. All right. Um, Mr. Petaro, since this is your appeal, I'm going to let you go first for your closing statement, then I'm going to kick it over to Mr. Tras, and then I'll let you have the final word as well
since it's um since it's your appeal. So, go ahead, sir. >> Thank you, sir. Um this is in essence a life sentence for a misdemeanor. Um I uh Miss Alspa um testified. I mean,
clearly she did not a she didn't know she was supposed to be paying a BTR before Hurricane Helen. Uh she, you know, made attempts to on her own review the code and clearly was uh clearly misunderstood it. I'm not suggesting
that her testimony as to what the she thought the code says is what the code says. The the issue here is that um there are you know a number of reasons that the denial of the permit is legally
inappropriate. Um it is it's an excessive fine. It's a violation of the concept that the land development code should be in compliance with um the
city's comprehensive plan. The fact that there is a tax hook that should simply be a fine in the land development code is completely inappropriate. Um, and I understand that some of those things might not be what normally come before
the magistrate. Um, but what I would ask the court or would ask you to look at related to that is the penalty for not paying your business tax receipt in MadiRaa Beach if you're found to have not paid it by the city is to
pay about $10 per unit. And because it has been piggybacked onto the land development code, it now is causing, let's say, at the bare minimum, $75,000
of costs that the the property owners incurred. Not to mention the fact that it was purchased for over $800,000 with the anticipation that it would be a revenue generating 4 unit property that is now not being allowed. And so, um, I
think that you could grant Miss Alice's appeal for any of those reasons, but I would also suggest that, um, while I appreciate that, uh, Mr. Petraia and the city I I sincerely believe have been working in good faith with Miss Alpa just like she's been working in good
faith with them and I think Mr. Petraia read the code and did what he reasonably believes the code says. The fact that Miss Alspa was ignorant of the law isn't a necessarily a defense to not paying it. But the fact that the
city moved forward and allowed demolition permits to be issued and allowed her to substantially rely and spend money on something where they didn't catch it either shouldn't penalize her. So what I'd ask the court to do at the very least is find that
based on the year of interactions between the property owner and the city including the issuance of the demolition permit to find that the subsequent issue of the business tax receipt being identified by the city was
too late in the process and grant the appeal to issue the permit at this time. >> All right, Mr. Just a few questions for you and I read pages 12 through 15 and I know there were at least two
cases that were cited there. I read those two cases. I is there any other case law you want me to consider dealing with this type of ordinance to support your arguments? I just want to make sure there's no other cases I'm aware of or you're aware of that you'd like me to
review dealing with this particular ordinance because I understand your arguments you're making. Sure. Um, but are there any other cases that would give me guidance on interpreting uh a similar uh provision? Because I understand your argument saying, "Hey, look, she didn't pay the, you know, the
it'd be $70 or something like that or maybe even less and didn't do it. Now she's only going to be able to develop or put one single family residence versus four." I get that argument, but are there any cases that will guide me to get to that conclusion?
Let me uh Well, there are what I would say is if if you're willing to entertain the excessive fines argument, then I'd ask the court to delay ruling and allow me to supplement and provide them to Mr. Tras because I certainly didn't give him
cases ahead of time. Um but if that argument isn't going to move the needle, then I would say no. there'd be cases on that about how um civil penalties do implicate the excessive fines clause and there certainly have been cases in
Florida where that's been found to you know be sufficient to at least move litigation forward. Um so but again having not provided to council ahead of time I'd ask to just allow to supplement on that. I you know if if that's something you're considering.
>> Well yeah and I I'll ask Mr. Tr the same question. And so let me ask you this. Do you have any comment over the intent of these of these two particular ordinances, section 110-95 and and 110-96? You have any authority over the
intent other than what the city has provided in their ordinance going back to 1994 that had this language in there? Anything else you want to talk to me about the intent of these ordinances? And you see what I'm doing here. I'm trying to read the plain language and then I'm trying to get to the intent to make sure that how I interpret these is
consistent with the plain language and the intent of the ordinance. >> Sure. I would again I I would ask the court to limit a supplement on on the comprehensive land use and land development regulations. There's um the the argument is that what this code is
is a land development regulation that should be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And so again, I I would ask the court to allow me to supplement with that there. It's it's our position that the inclusion of
the business tax receipt as a mandatory um pre-existing condition to this exception to the non-conforming
structure code is is inappropriate. and is not in line with what the comprehensive plan is and what Florida and Florida's legislature has in the past said is the point of the comprehensive land use plan. >> All right. And and to that extent I know
that I think there was some argument it may have been in what Miss Alpa provided that there may be some state statute that was passed in regard you know following uh the hurricanes. me. Is there any state statute I need to
be looking at or legislation I need to be looking at to guide me in how I'm supposed to interpret these two sections? >> Um, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just I'm I'm trying to go back and look at what Miss Alba put in her argument. Or maybe you assisted in it.
I'm not sure. >> No. No. Um, Miss Alba's appeal uh she uh put together and filed before we were retained. So that's why I'm that's why I want to not necessarily rely on that. I'd rather I'd rather if if the court wants a a legal brief, I'd be happy to
do that. I just would rather do a fresh one and again, you know, make sure that council has time to respond. >> And that sounds fine. And in regard to the demolition, I mean, what I'm I I understand the equitable estoppel argument or at least what what you're
making there. Wouldn't the property have to be demolished anyway? I mean, wouldn't that have to be something that would have to occur whether or not she can redevelop or not, seeing as it was determined to be substantially damaged following the hurricane? >> I don't think we can answer that because
that wasn't the plan. So, that assessment was was not made. >> Okay. I I mean I understand where you're going with it, but I think that that >> chases down a conclusion that we could never at this point make because they didn't attempt to do that and now the
property is gone. >> Is it is the argument or is your is your position because one of the things I know Miss Alpa said that she didn't believe section 110-95 and 110-96 applied specifically to her property. If I understand one of the arguments she
made is that 110- 96 was in it. It didn't apply because 110-933 applied. Is it your position now that 110-95 and 110-9596 apply to this property and these you
know these facts we're talking about or is your argument that this doesn't even apply at this point? >> Those it's it's our position that 95 and 96 apply. >> Okay. Um, and I, you know, I I think it's I think it's important to to your
assessment what her understanding was, but I think the reality is from a standpoint of the code being proper and then at what point she was notified. The way the code is written, had they
sent that to her and she read it and understood it, it's it's still a life sentence, right? It's not like she could have had she read that then correctly, she still couldn't have come down to city hall and paid the $40 or the $110.
>> And is there along those lines? I mean, I if I understood what Mr. Petraia said, they they tried to look for a way in the code of ordinances to see if this could be paid retroactively, but there was nothing. Did you find anything in the code of ordinances that would allow her
to pay the or pay the local business tax or apply for and obtain the occupational license in in retrospect or or retroactively. No, the current I and that's why I used that's why I gave that analogy. The
current city code is if using this particular instance at the time of Hurricane Helen when the property was damaged, if you weren't paying your business tax receipt, the land development plan that is promulgated to allow people who had
non-conforming structures to continue to have that non-conforming structure doesn't apply to you. It's a it's an orange and an apple field or an apple and an orange field since we're in Florida. >> I I think I understand. But but is there any authority you're aware of where I can you know my understanding is my role
here is to interpret these ordinances based upon the plain meaning of the ordinance and and if there's an ambiguity then than the intent of the uh of the city. And so I don't believe I have any authority to rewrite these ordinances as unfair as it may be. But are you aware of anything you know if it
and again I'm not saying it's fair or unfair. Um there's yeah the the city in its at least 1994 ordinance expressed its intent. I understand that this would be R1. It wouldn't be allowed to have four you know units on this unit if it
was otherwise uh so you know if it was built today and these uh ordinances didn't apply. So I understand the intent but is there any authority you're aware of because I'm not aware of any that would allow me to rewrite these ordinances as they're written. >> No. what we're that and that's why I
frame the argument like I did. I I think that the the amb I mean there's the there's the constitutional arguments that we've discussed, but the the ambiguity really falls in the factual and practical application of the code in
this particular instance being in the exchange between the city and the property owner and then the property owner's reliance on it. So, no, I don't I don't think that you can sit here and say, "I'm going to rewrite the code this, you know, and and change it." I do
think I do think you could find reasonably based on Miss Alpa's reliance on her and her vendor, her contractor's interactions with the city that the
finding of the specific business tax receipt issued by the city occurred past the point of no return and they should be compelled to issue the permit. >> But but let me ask you that. So would it matter, right? in in the sense of there's evidence here in the record
before me that she was told this as early as January of 2025, right? The she was sent the entire ordinance. But would it matter anyway? In other words, if she was told the day after the hurricane, she came into the city and said, "I want
to redevelop my four units." And and she says, "I'm apply immediately for a building permit." And she's told at that point in time that you can't do it. You don't have the business tax receipt. You can't do it. You don't have, you know, these sections will not apply. You're not going to be
able to come in and to build for >> it would it would >> How would it matter at that point? Cuz it >> financially I Okay, I understand that she spent the $74,000 or $80,000 or whatever it is. I get that. >> If I understand the city's position, it's look, we only looked at what she
applied for at the time and that was demolish the property. anything else she did in planning on building, you know, that's something separate. So, is that what you're saying is if the city would have told her right away, she wouldn't even spent the $74,000 planning to
rebuild the four units and therefore that's enough for the equitable estoppel to kick in here and me to say I can't enforce this ordinance because the city didn't tell her soon enough that she wouldn't be able to do what she wanted to do. That that's my argument and I
would suggest um not that I think that this is a major sticking point but probably closer to 100,000 because she spent 25 before that and I'm not suggesting my client would have walked away and left a rotting piece of property here in beautiful Madira Beach had she been told the day after but she
did certainly spend more than 74 trying to get the property and I'll accept I'll accept your reputation as your representation is 100,000. All right. Anything else you want to tell me sir? Okay. Miss Alpa is raising her hand. She wants to confer with you. So, if you wouldn't mind just conferring with her
real quick. >> Question. Uh, no, we're all set. Thank Thank you for uh being being the eyes in the back of my head. >> No, no problem, sir. I know it's a little different configuration in the courtroom like we're all normally used to being in. So, um, okay, Mr. Tras, I'm
going to let you do your statement or or however you want to do it, but I'm going to ask you some of the similar questions I asked to uh Mr. Spataro, but go ahead, Mr. Tras. >> I just want to focus on the code itself. So, section 110-93, it starts out the first paragraph. It is the intent of the
land development regulations that these nonconformities shall be considered to be incompatible with the permitted uses within the city districts. such nonconformity shall not be enlarged or extended in any respect. That's the intent that um it's specifically stated
in the code. As for the actual non-conforming use, I think it's clear through the testimony from Mr. that the city has determined that the structure to be nonconforming. It's a non-conforming constructure structure because of the fact that it's four units
um and only a single family residence is allowed in the zoning district that he has testified about. He further provided that the non-conforming structure once it's damaged by 50% of its current market value and I don't think there's any dispute here so far that there is uh
that it wasn't uh damaged more than 50% of its current market value. The code is very specific. It may only be reconstructed in accordance with the provisions of article five of this chapter regarding the district regulations for the district in which it is located in the flood plane management
regulations established under chapter 94 or is otherwise provided in section 110-95. So it's very clear that the only way that they would be able to rebuild is if they brought it up to code. And that can be done a couple of different ways.
They could demolish the structure. They could um bring um the structure up, elevate the structure, or they could leave it the way it is. Obviously, we didn't want them to leave it the way it was having been damaged. The code is very specific, and I want to
get to the issue relative to can you pay the fee in a in in a rears? And the answer is no. Why? Because it really isn't about the payment of a fee. It's it's really about what the code provides. The code says failure to have a current required local business check
receipt where applicable enforced at the time of the declared disaster will prevent this section from applying to this property. That's under 110-95. 11096 says failure to have a current required occupation license enforce the time the declared disaster will prevent
this section from applying to that property. It's not about collecting the fee. It's about having it in place before it actually happened. And and I just want to make it uh absolutely clear that special magistrate understands that really it's not just about the business
tax receipt. When you when you rent properties in the city of uh Madiraa Beach, you have to comply with the code. One of the provisions of the code is you have to have a business tax receipt. But as part of that, you have to have an inspection of the property. Why? because we want to make sure that if anybody is
renting a property in the city of MadiRaa Beach that it meets current code uh requirements. So it's not just about the business tax receipt, it's not just about the dollar amount to be paid to the city, but it's also to do the inspection as Mr. Petraley has mentioned. It's critical that we understand that these properters are
being rented and that's the reason why um I want to talk about the excessive fine argument. There is no fine. The city has not issued a fine. Um the city has said
there's a legal requirement for you to pay this business tax receipt and do an inspection and pay the $70 inspection fee. But it does not say that if you don't do that and that's not the reason why she's here that she is here because she has to pay an excessive fine. She's here because of the fact that she applied for a building permit. And it's
clear from her testimony that she absolutely knew that there was a requirement of a business tax receipt and occupational license. She testified that she had conversations with her contractor and her architect before they actually did any work on the property. Um I take that back. They may have done
the um the rem remediation by taking off the drywall. I think that was the testimony, but it was as of January 6th or 7th. Uh they were aware of the fact that the business tax receipt was necessary. That's two months before the uh demolition permit was applied for and
it's four months before the demolition actually occurred. So I think it's clear uh we've gone over the intent of the code, we've gone over the exceptions of the code and we've gone over the conditions of the code. They have not been met. I understand the position Miss Alpa is in. It's terrible
that we had 800 or so homes in the city of Mader Beach that have been affected by that those hurricanes. We we understand exactly what she's going through, but we can't make exceptions to the code. We have to apply the code to everybody the same exact
way. We can't backtrack and try to fix something because the property owner didn't do what she or he was supposed to do. So, we can't change the code. We can only apply it going forward. And it's clear from the testimony of Mr. Petraia, this these provisions have been in
existence for over 30 years. anybody can read the code. Anybody can understand what the requirements were and Miss Alma specifically knew it. She downplayed it because she didn't think that they really applied, but there's no question that they applied in the code. Um, as
for the cases that were cited um by Miss Alba, one of the cases doesn't exist. Um the case of Metro Dade County versus Breal 625 Southern 2nd 1245.
That case does not exist. I don't know where she got that. I went ahead and pulled out the provision or the section uh the reported decision at 6251 1245. That's the case of Gordon versus Freeman. I I
had difficulty with that one as well. And I saw the other one. It appeared to be a Bert Harris act claim. I don't know if it stood for the proposition cited, but yeah. So, the other one does exist and it does deal with the Bert J. Harris claim um and that process there. It did
not deal with the type of um issue that we've got here. So, in summary, we we feel bad for Mrs. Alspa. We tried to find a pro a provision in the code that will allow us to allow her to build. We don't have
one. Therefore, she has to comply with the current code. Therefore, that's the reason why the decision of um Joe Petraia was given. Um after a lot of thought and consideration. Um but we're asking that you find that uh Joe's
determination that the non-conforming forplex may not may not be rebuilt be upheld. Um and then we'll deal with whatever else we have to deal with subsequent to that. So >> all right, Mr. Tras. Um same question
you asked of Mr. Spataro. Are you aware of any case law specifically interpreting section 110-95 or 110-96? Either these specific provisions or similar provisions that I need to look at in reaching my decision. >> I don't believe you need to look at any
other decisions. Um, and I'm not aware after being the attorney here for quite a long time that these provisions that there was an uh an opinion issued on these particular provisions. >> All right. >> So, and then, you know, it sounds like Mr. Spar agrees with me and I think you
agree with me that I I can't rewrite these the codes. My my role here is to interpret what is written either the plain meeting or if there's an ambiguity in the plain meeting than to to define the intent. Would you agree with me on that? >> Yes. So, I would direct you back to section 2.5 2-505 dealing with the
application to appeal. It specifically provides what you can and cannot do. Um, but it's very clear that what you're basically determining is is whether or not um the decision made by the administrative officials should be upheld or not. It doesn't give you the
legal authority under uh section two of the city's code to rewrite the city's code. >> Okay. I I agree with that 100%. Um, Mr. Tras, this is more of a procedural question. I mean, I I think I have enough information to rule, but do you
want to have any more time for briefing on this issue or anything like that? >> I do not I don't think it's necessary. >> Okay. All right. Uh, anything else, Mr. Tras? >> No, sir. >> All right, Mr. Star, I told you I'd give you the last word, so come on up. Yeah, absolutely.
Just very briefly, sir. Thank you. Appreciate council's time. So, um I I appreciate the position of the magistrate as far as the, you know, abilities here. Um as I said, um I I
think that without rewriting the code, you could make a factual finding about the um timing of the application of the code and that it was improper. Um, and I I
would say this as it relates to just a couple things that that council said. First of all, I think that um the suggestion that Miss Alice's testimony was that the code didn't really apply to her is a um inaccurate representation of what she
said. Um and and the reality is if if it wasn't about the fee and there wasn't a in essence a fine being here, it was about the inspection, then the city would have done something about this in the years before that Miss Alpa owned it
or the previous owner had it. Now, I don't know what the previous owner did, but as Mr. Petraia testified to, the reason he found out about this was because the utilities were in different names. So, Miss House wasn't here hiding that she was renting the units out. It wasn't like she was collecting money and
putting everything in her name. If the city was so concerned about the 1948 structures quality and sustainability, they would have checked the utilities ahead of time. that this has gone on where
Miss Alpa was never notified that she had to pay this minuscule city tax or pay what you know in comparison to the value of the property and how much she was spending on it a again minuscule inspection fee and as I said before
ignorance of the law may not be a defense but that doesn't mean that the city can be ignorant of it as well and then say, "Well, that's your problem, too. You made a mistake. That's your fault. We have made a mistake. That's that's your fault, too." That that just
should not be how this operates. And I think that the the magistrate can make a finding based on that. And I appreciate council and Mr. Protagonist's time. >> All right. Uh thank you, sir. Mr. Tras, I'm going to have you prepare the order. I would ask that you run it
by Mr. Spitaro. Uh Mr. Petara, I don't I believe that um you everything you the case law you represent is accurate. However, I don't believe I need more briefing on at this point in time. However, if you want to include some additional case citations to establish your record for purposes of appeal, I
have no problem if you want to put that in a footnote in the order that Mr. Tras is going to prepare. U this is an appeal of the staff's interpretation of section 110-95 and 110-96 as I see it. Uh based upon
the testimony provided, the undisputed facts and the legal argument, I do find that both section 110-95 and 110-96 applies to this particular property. I do find that the city's interpretation
of section 110-95 and 110-96 as it relates to Miss Alpa and her property is consistent with the plain meaning and and what is written in the actual code provisions. I also find that the city's
determination is consistent with the intent of uh the the provisions and the city's uh provisions that are set forth in the code. Uh just like the city, I'm not unsympathetic to Ms. Alspa's arguments. Uh but it's undisputed that
there is no local business tax receipt and no occupational license. I do believe both of these apply to the property. And it says that in the event that if you don't have the required local business tax
receipt under section 110-95, then it will prevent this section from applying to that property. Similarly, uh 110-966 says failure to have the current required occupational license in force at the time of the declared disaster
will prevent this section from applying to that property. uh based upon the uh plain language of the ordinance uh and those specific sections, I do find that the city was correct in saying that they cannot allow the uh nonconforming use to
continue and be rebuilt as a forplex. Um in regard to the equitable estoppel argument, ma'am, I'm again not unsympathetic to your situation. I I'm I'm not convinced that you wouldn't have had to demolish the property anyway, but I certainly understand the arguments that you're making. Judge or appellet
court may disagree with me on those arguments, but I I don't think it would have mattered. I think you would have to de demolish the property anyway. Uh and you know, and this is not that that that concludes my ruling unless you have some questions, Mr. Tras. Ma'am, I I'm
constrained by what the city code says. I would encourage you, however, as a resident of the city to come back before the city commission at one of its meetings, and you're welcome to explain my ruling and and tell them how unfair it is if if that's what you believe. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all. And if
the city amends this ordinance and and whatnot and they can somehow grant you relief, you know, they're the legislative body. All I can do is interpret what the city says. So, uh, you know, again, uh, wish you the best of luck and, uh, you know, please, uh,
Mr. Sparo, just work with Mr. Tras. I want you to make sure you have all the legal arguments that you want in that proposed order. I don't want you to have to wave anything or anything like that for purposes of appeal. And so, if there's additional case law that you want to put in there, then feel free to do so. I I do agree with Mr. Tras, I
guess, going back to the order. I I don't find this to be a fine. I think it's I'm not reading it that way. Uh but uh you can put that in there. Mr. Traxxas, do you have any questions about my findings or rulings that you need clarification on? >> No, not so far. No, thank you. >> All right. Very good. Thank you all very
much for coming today. >> Okay, that concludes uh the lengthy part of the agenda today. Does the city need to take a break? Are we ready to move into the code enforcement hearings? >> I think we're ready to go. >> Okay. All right. Thank you guys for
sticking around. Welcome to the city of Madiraa Beach code enforcement hearing. Uh my name is Bart Valdez. I'm the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. As you heard earlier, I'm a practicing attorney. I've been a member of the Florida Bar for over 25 years. I've been appointed to this position in accordance and with the
authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the order that they appear on the agenda. Every effort will be made to hear all
persons having relevant evidence, argument, or comments to offer related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today and you have not already been sworn in, then just a few moments are going to need to stand and be sworn. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. The
respondent or property owner then will be given the opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will exert every effort to ensure the fundamental fairness is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be
reduced to writing and you will be provided with a copy by mail. Additionally, you're advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance permit or special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and to provide you a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means
is available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline. All right. If you wish to present any information to me today, it is necessary that you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth. Therefore, if there's anybody that
walked in during our prior hearing was not previously sworn and you want to talk to me today, please stand up and raise your right hand. Anybody? Looks like we got one more. Mr. Trash, go ahead and administer the other, please. You swear that the testimony you're about to give today is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. The first matter on the agenda is case number C25-137 for the property located at 913 Bayoint Drive. Is the city ready to proceed? >> City's ready to proceed.
>> Go ahead, Mr. City would call Holden Pinkard as its first witness. Uh Mr. Pinker, if you could state your occupation and your job responsibilities here at the city. uh building compliance supervisor and some of my duties are issuing building code violations and
city ordinance violations. >> All right. Are you familiar with this property at 913 Bay Point Drive? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Who who owns that property and how do you know that? >> Uh Bridget Le Point. Um and that's through Penelis County Property Appraiser. Okay.
>> In the agenda packet, I'm going to refer to a couple of different pages in the agenda packet. Starting at page 80. Is that the printout from the Penelis County Property Appraiser for this particular property that we're discussing now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Does this case come before code
enforcement as a proactive uh code enforcement case or was this complaint driven? >> Uh the city received a complaint. >> Okay. And what was the complaint the city received >> uh that there was a sailboat in the rear yard of the the property. Okay. And um
when that complaint was received, did someone from the city go out to the property to see whether or not there was a violation of a code provision here in the city? >> Yes. >> And who was the person that did that? >> Uh that was I say that was myself and Grace Mills at
the time. >> Okay. And Grace Mills was whom? >> Uh she was a code compliance officer. She's no longer with the city. >> Okay. So, when you went out to the property, what did you see? >> Uh, I saw the sailboat that was up against the side andor rear of the
property. >> Okay. And why would that be a violation of the city code? >> Uh, it would be storing of an abandoned vehicle andor boat. >> Okay. Did um did you issue a courtesy
notice of code violation for this violation in the on the property? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. And what code section was cited as being in vi they were in violation of >> uh it would be section 1469 specifically
um section two abandoned inoperable and unlicensed vehicles or boats. >> All right. when you uh issued this first uh violation, this courtesy notice of code violation, and I'm referring to starting at page 85 of the agenda packet, what
was the date that that was issued by the city? >> The initial notice was mailed on October 7th of 2025. >> And when the uh courtesy notice went out, did it go by regular mail, certified mail? How did it how was it provided to the property owner?
>> The courtesy notice was sent um regular mail. >> All right. In that courtesy notice, did it ask the property owner to take corrective action? >> Yes. >> And what was the corrective action that the city was seeking >> uh to remove the sailboat from the property?
>> Okay. Do you know how the sailboat got in the backyard of this property? >> My understanding is that the sailboat um somehow got to the rear of that property due to the the storms. So, the hurricane's in September of 2024.
>> Okay. When this courtesy notice was sent, did you give the property owner some time to bring the property into compliance? >> Uh, yes. The follow-up date was 2 weeks from the date the initial letter was sent. >> All right. Did the property owner Well, first of all, let me back up a second.
When this letter was sent, uh, did it were there anything attach was there anything attached to the letter? U if you're referring to the photograph um that's included. Yes. In the courtesy. Yes. The photograph.
>> Okay. So, let's turn to page 87 of the agenda packet. Page 303 of the courtesy letter. >> Um can you explain what's in what's in this picture, this photograph? >> So, this is a street view looking at the
property and you can see the sailboat in the rear leaning against the property. Um, and that would be the side slash rear yard. >> And what property are we talking about in the in the photograph? Looks there are two homes. Are we talking about the photograph of the home that's to the
left in the photograph? >> Yes. The property to the left is the 913 a point drive. >> Okay. Did the property owner bring the property into compliance within those 14 days that that the city requested? >> No. >> Is the property in compliance as of
today? >> As of today, no. All right. Did the city issue a notice of code violation? >> Yes. >> What date was that done? >> That was sent on January 6th of 2026. >> And when that notice of code violation
was sent, did it site the same code sections you had just testified to? >> It did. >> All right. And did you ask again for the property owner to take corrective action? >> Yes. >> Was it the same corrective action? >> Yes. >> Okay. This notice of code violation, was it
sent by regular mail, certified mail? How was it sent? >> The cur or I'm sorry, the notice of violation was sent certified mail. >> Okay. Did it attach the photograph that was attached to the courtesy notice? The same photograph? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Is that reflective then on pages 88 through 90 of the agenda packet? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did the property owner um get in contact with the city after the code violation notice was issued? >> Uh yes, we did receive a response. I
believe it was two separate responses. Um one is included in the packet. >> All right. So, starting on page 91, this is a letter that you received in response to the code violation notice. >> Yes. >> All right.
Um, this letter seems to be written by um, Bridget Le Point. Did you have any conversations with her after this letter was received? Uh, I believe after the first response letter that we receive received, we did have a brief discussion
um here at city hall and I believe shortly after that the certified mail was sent and we received the second response which is the one we're looking at now and I don't believe I've heard anything since. >> Okay.
If you could turn to page uh 93. What is is is this just the envelope that the letter came from? Mrs. Le Point. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um you've just testified the property is still not in compliance. Did the city go ahead then
and issue a statement of violation, a notice of hearing, a request for hearing? >> Yes. >> All right. I want you to turn to page 96 of the packet. 96. Is this a statement of violation request for hearing that you had sent to the
property owner? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's your signature on page 97? >> Yes, it is. >> All right. And did you also issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes. >> And is that shown on pages 98 and 99 of the packet? >> Correct.
>> And when was the notice of hearing provided and the statement of violation provided to the property owner? Uh, both documents were provided on March 27th of 2026. >> And how was that provided to the property owner?
>> Regular mail, certified mail. The property was posted and the notice was also posted here at city hall. >> All right. I'd like you to turn to page 94, please. Did you prepare this affidavit of service reflecting that all of those attempts on service of the
notice of hearing was sent? Yes. >> Regular mail, certified mail, posting at the property and posting at city hall. >> Yes. >> Okay. And did you also take photographs of the posting of the property and the posting at city hall? >> I did. >> And are those reflected on pages
101? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. How much time do you think that it would take to bring the property into compliance? Well, first of all, let's back up. How long has the boat been there? I don't know exactly. I would guess at
least since the storms of September 2024. >> Okay. How much time do you think it'll take to get that boat off the property? >> 30 days. Okay. If the property owner doesn't get it off the property within 30 days, what do you think a reasonable
daily fine would be based upon um what has occurred at the property? Uh it is hurricane season or quickly approaching and I think it would be the 250 per day >> and that's because of the fact that you
want it out of the property because of the hurricane season coming up. >> Yes. >> All right. You think it's a life safety issue and where it's at in the hurricane season? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I don't have any other questions for you. I would tender into
evidence pages 80 through 101. um of the agenda packet. >> All right, I'll go ahead and accept evidence as exhibit number one, pages 80 through 101 of the agenda packet. All right, as um Bridget Le Point here or anybody on behalf of the property owner
uh for the uh 913 Bayoint Drive. All right. Uh who wants to come talk first and be the representative? All right, sir. Give me your full name, please. >> Audi Glenn Lewis. >> Uh, spell that for me.
>> A U D I E G L E N L E W I S. >> All right. And uh, sir, what is your relationship to uh, Ms. Le uh, Le Point or the property? >> Uh, I'm a part owner and I also am married to Miss Le Point. Okay, that
seems qualifies. All right. Uh, sir, this is your opportunity to ask questions or crossexamine Mr. Pinker about his testimony. In just a few minutes, I'm going to give you an opportunity to tell me anything you want to tell me, call witnesses, uh provide documents or anything like that, but this is just your opportunity to
cross-examine Mr. Pinker. You don't have to cross-examine him, but if you have any questions about his testimony, this is your opportunity to ask him. So, do you have any questions for Mr. Pinker? >> I have a lot of them. >> All right. Go ahead, sir. And again, remember this is just questions right now. So, you're going to have a chance to argue to me later, but this is just questions right now.
>> Okay. Let me uh uh let me uh the first thing I do is uh we've received those uh we've received those letters in the mail that you mailed out.
Uh I would disagree of the uh c the that they were certified. only one was certified and it went to not to our home address but it went to a business address. Uh but uh in those mailings they specifically asked us to do something
and so I would hold up the one this is the one from October 7th. >> I I'd object this is time for cross-examination and he's making statements. >> Go ahead, sir. Just go ahead and ask Mr. Pinker whatever question. Okay. Go ahead.
>> So uh Mr. Pinker in uh this October 7th mailing it says corrective actions and it gives uh two it says sailboat must be removed from the property and please reply with a plan of corrections before
the follow-up date listed the follow-up date was October 21st of 2025. So did you receive a follow-up uh response? I'd received a follow-up response. I would have to check on the date because the initial response letter wasn't
included with this packet. >> Oh, okay. So, you're you're saying it wasn't included. So, then uh so my wife didn't show up at city hall on the 20th of October 2000 and uh and uh and 20 uh
last 25. She didn't show up there at the uh at the uh city hall and demand that you guys sign for the packet. >> Demand that she >> Yeah, she brought a a packet in to address what you told us to do. You told
us corrective action had to be the sailboat removed from the property and please reply with a plan of correction before the follow-up date listed, which was October 21st by your own letter. And our response would have been given to you and signed by city staff on October
20th of 2025. So, and uh and in fact, didn't you meet with my beautiful wife there? >> Okay, hold on a second. Hold. We're going to follow a very specific format for this hearing. Okay? And and it works
and it's what this code requires. >> Okay? >> This is your opportunity to to ask questions of Mr. Baker. >> That's what I'm doing. asking question. >> I know, but then Miss Le Point wants to speak and and I want you to know you have a chance for her to speak. You guys are going to have all the all the due process in the world. But in order for
this hearing to work and for it to make sense, this needs to be questions of Mr. Pinker. >> Yeah, that's what I'm doing. >> But when I see Miss Le Point start standing up and asking >> I think she misinterpreted when I said that he meet with her. >> Fair enough. >> She decided to >> Okay, so let's let's just keep with
questions at this point. Okay. So, you did you meet with my wife that day when she brought the packet in? >> I don't recall the date, but she did come into city hall and I did have a conversation with her. Yes. >> Okay. All right. And uh if the uh we can
provide that later if you want, but uh we do have signatures of staff accepting the uh the plan. So, we did submit a plan on this one. Now uh to the second one, the one that was dated in uh January,
we also responded to that one and responded to it uh well, it was impossible to respond to it exactly the way they said because they actually all they did was change the date on the first letter. They changed it to a January date and then they sent the same
exact letter requesting response by October 21st of 2025. That was a 2026 request and it did not come by certified mail. It came by regular mail. Not that that matters too much, but uh it did. And we
responded to that one as well. We actually put into it. We responded to it and then we put in the plan of action again, the same plan of action. Actually, we copied it exactly the way it was and we sent it back. So, did you receive that one?
the uh plan of action from us stating that uh that you guys were going into history, but we sent it to you a plan. We gave you a plan of action, a very specific plan of action.
>> I received the second response. Yes. >> Okay. Now, uh I want to ask uh did you uh did anybody after receiving those two plans of actions from us, which is what you asked for? You said
sailboat must be removed from property, please reply with a plan of corrections before the follow-up date listed. And we did it both times. We provided that with you. So my question is, did anybody from city staff respond back
to us with what they were going to do to comply with the plan of action that was sent forward? Did you or anyone else on your staff or anybody else do that? >> No. Okay. So basically, uh we don't have
an argument that we waited too long. We actually met every date and we submitted what they requested us to submit and we submitted them on time. Even though the first one required us to do it, we didn't actually receive that letter because it went to the office first, not
our home address. It went there first and the staff over there forwarded it to us. So, we actually received it on the 19th of October and we responded to it and we did it hand carry with them resigning for it because there was no other way to get it
to them on time. We couldn't even send a FedEx with a guarantee for that. >> Sir, let let me and again I don't want to cut you off, but I I want you to understand the this portion of the hearing is for questions. >> I'm I'm But let me just let me explain to you. I've read your letter. I I think
I understand your position. Your position is, if I understand it correctly, this boat washed up. The fire department or somebody put it in your backyard. The city needs to take steps to remove it. Am I summarizing your position fairly at this point? >> Well, that's a little understated, but
yeah. Uh, we don't own a boat. We didn't own the boat. It's not our boat. Somebody else's boat. And somebody took it into their own hands to change the circumstances. >> I I think I'm following you there. I'm following you. Basically, >> we weren't even here. We were in Europe. >> Understood. And And if I understand what
you're saying earlier, if I understand the purpose of this cross- examination, it's to say to the city that you were proactive. You took steps to provide a plan of what you perceive provide a plan a very good plan. >> Okay. So you see for sir I'm following your arguments here but what I'd like
you to do is ask whatever additional questions you want to ask of Mr. Pinker so we can get on to the real meat of this is you telling me what you want to tell me. So any more questions? >> Yeah I'm just asking the question. Uh because we had sent these plans of actions in there as you requested both
times. Uh, is there a reason that staff nobody responded back to us with how to do it? Do they need it to schedule it to do anything? What was the reason that we never uh heard back from staff?
>> I'm not I'm not sure. Um, I received your the if by plan of action you're referring to the document that's on the screen. I didn't take that as a plan of action. >> Oh, okay. So even though it has detailed
steps in the plan of action, none of that was considered a plan of action by you. Okay. Uh and then on the third one, uh you sent us a third one uh recently. And uh
in that statement, uh you said that you posted on our house. You said you posted on our house. You also posted here. >> You said you sent it by certified mail. Certified mail. We can we can definitely know it happened because the same staff
forwarded that certified mail uh envelope to us >> and they took a picture of it because it was so late in coming. Uh they took a picture of it to send to our camera. Unfortunately, they didn't take a picture of the back pages of what he
mailed. The staff didn't realize that there was stuff on the back. So we got the front pages of the certified mailing as pedgers which we have in our phone which if you want to see them. Uh so we didn't get the other detail. Uh so my
question is to you um I'm wondering where you posted it on our house. Uh you said you did it on the 27th of October. If you've been out the house, you probably know that we have cameras everywhere. Mhm.
>> There's not a single part of that house that doesn't have camera coverage uh including a doorbell. Uh so with the that camera coverage, my problem was when I went back to look at the cameras, I found no indication that anybody we
were actually gone that day too. The day you claim 27th, we actually were in Missouri. We flew to go to a 50th wedding anniversary with my brother and his wife. So we weren't here. We actually left at 3:00 in the morning that day. So, we wouldn't have seen you
ourselves for sure. Uh, but we did check the cameras and we've seen no evidence that you were at the property or that you or anybody else was then or since. So, we're wondering if you can explain that to how you could come and post it.
Posting not be there presently and how our cameras don't have cuz they definitely record for longer than the amount of time that since we could still pull them up today if they were there. So, can you explain that to me? >> Sure. Uh, I didn't personally post it.
Uh, Taylor Davis and Connor Mego to my right did. And that's why we take the timestamp of the posting. >> Okay. Uh, >> that's included in the packet. >> Is this her? So, where was it posted on her house? And, uh, how did you escape camera view?
>> No, sir. There there's evidence right here. This is the picture he's talking about. It was posted on March 27th, 2026. And and I don't want to cut you off, but these really aren't relevant questions for me because you're here today. You got notice of this. So, unless you're going to make an argument that you didn't haven't had proper
notice, which is hard when both you and your wife are showing up here for me to understand how you didn't have notice of today's proceeding. That's that's the real purpose of what he's saying. Let me let me finish, sir. It's to show that you got notice so you could be here today. So again, I'm I just don't know
if I find these relevant. But again, I I sense you really want to tell me a lot, but this is not the time to do that. Why don't you go ahead and I'm going to give you a chance to ask maybe two more questions of Mr. Pinker, unless you have other relevant questions, and then let's get on to where you and your wife can tell me about your
>> So I since he transferred it to his colleague, uh I'll just ask the same question, which is uh how did you post it? Where did you post it? And how did you do it without us having it picked up by camera? >> So she is not testifying at this point. >> Okay. I'm going to substain the
objection because again this is for notice. So do you have any other questions of Mr. Pinker about this violation? >> No. Let me just ask of course. Do you have anything? >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So I think we've asked enough questions. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Tr, is
there any other witnesses you want to call on this one? >> Yes. So I called John Mort. John, if you can step forward, why don't you go ahead and sit right here at this microphone. Turn that on. And sir, if you can just please spell your last name for me.
Last name spelling M O R T E L L I T E. >> All right, sir. Go ahead, Mr. Tras. >> All right. So, you were sworn in earlier. You're going to need to speak up so everybody can hear you. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. So,
What is your occupation here at the city and what are your job responsibilities? >> I am the deputy chief of the fire department. I am uh responsible for the daily operations and training of our personnel. >> Okay. How long have you been working for the city of Madira Beach in the fire department? >> For the city of Madira Beach a little
over two years. >> Okay. And before that, were you working at another fire department and with the similar responsibilities? >> Yes, sir. I was uh the deputy fire chief of penel sun coast. uh retired there with 30 years of service. >> Okay. Are you familiar with this
property that we're talking about today? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um did you uh prepare an incident report uh which is dated 9:26 2024 but it was prepared by you on
October 28th, 2025. >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you explain the reason why you prepared an incident report with regard to this particular property? >> Uh I was asked to do this by the fire chief uh pertaining to a complaint that
was made. >> Okay. And when you prepared this report first of all were were you present on September 26, 2024 when this activity occurred that's being talked about in the report? >> Not at the residence. No.
>> Okay. Who was present at this resident on that date? >> Uh, Lieutenant Wazalooki and Eric Hublus. >> Okay. And are both of those uh firefighters with the fire department? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and did did you interview both
um of those individuals to prepare this report? >> I did. >> Okay. And can you explain to me um what happened on September 26, 2024 at this property at 913 Bay Point Drive that required the preparation of this
incident report? >> Yeah. Uh we were operating in storm mode at the time due to the uh oncoming storm. Uh we received a call for service out there to the location uh with report of a sailboat a drift uh and near and on
the property. uh we're operating in reduced uh service due to the storm weather and conditions. At the time, tidal waters had already exceeded the seaw wall and were encroaching into residential areas. Uh the initial apparatus that was sent out
there could not reach the location due to the water depth. So, our our uh high water vehicle was deployed to access the area safely. Upon arrival, the two persons on that apparatus, located the vessel in the rear yard of the reported address, sailboat was found listing in
close to the proximity of the residence, presenting a risk of structural contact and damage. Our personnel conducted a thorough search of the vessel to check for occupants and victims. No persons were located on or around the vessel, and the owner of the vessel was not on scene or immediately identifiable.
During operations, neighbors at the scene approached the personnel to insist that the vessel be removed from the property. However, fire department personnel explained that given the ongoing storm conditions, safety concerns, removal of that vessel was not a viable option at the time. But our department's pri priority is to ensure
life safety and prevent further property damage. The crews mitigated any additional damage to both the vessel and the resins by securing the sailboat in its current position using the vessel's existing ropes, some straps found on board, and the anchor. These measures were taken to
stabilize the boat and prevent it from drifting further or impacting any structures. Uh it was reported to me that there were no injuries, no additional hazards uh were identified at the time of the operation and the scene was left secured and no further fire
department action was required. Okay. So, the sailboat that we're seeing in the photograph that is on the screen today was in that location when the fire department arrived. Is that correct?
>> To the best of my knowledge. >> And that's where the boat was tied off so that wouldn't damage either one of the homes to the left or the right. >> Is that accurate? >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, >> do you know who owns this vessel?
>> I do not. Okay. Um, when you prepared this report, you said it was prepared uh as a direct result of the uh fire chief asking for it to be prepared. >> Correct. >> Okay. And do you have a copy of it today where we could submit it into evidence for the special magistrate? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Is there anything else that you wanted to mention that maybe uh was not in the report that you think is important for the special magistrate to know about this sailboat in this backyard? I cannot think of any.
>> All right. Thank you. I would tender into evidence the report uh dated September 26, 2024 prepared by this witness. >> All right. I'll go ahead and accept an evidence as exhibit number two. The uh incident report prepared by Mr.
Mortleti. Thank you. >> Anything else of this witness, Mr. Tras? >> No, sir. >> Don't. >> Okay. just like you did with Mr. Pinker. Do you have any questions you want to ask of uh Deputy Chief Moretti?
>> Thank you. Uh first off, I want to say uh being a retired Army officer myself, I have nothing but the highest regard for any first responders uh and uh deputy chief included. Uh love
them. Worked with them many times myself and uh as a logistics officer, so I want to say that up front. Thank you for service and uh we do appreciate it. Um now on the day of this occurrence, I I know you said you were not present, but
uh you've interviewed the lieutenant and the other uh uh fireman that was there on that day. Uh what's I'm not hearing is that this boat was still in the water. It was not on our land. It was in the
water. And uh we had 10 or 12 neighbors send us pictures and videos of this whole event, including those trucks, those high waiting trucks. I had one neighbor sent me all the pictures of them. They were parked in her driveway. Uh so uh can you from your
interviews with those other two uh firemen uh tell us approximately where this boat was out in the water and how far away it is from this current resting position? Uh if I if I understand your question,
there's two parts there. U I cannot say for sure where it was based on where it is. I have not been out to the location, so I don't know where it is right now. >> All right. >> Uh so I can't tell you whether it has moved since they attempted to secure it in location, but it was my understanding
from uh my interview with them that it had already breached over the seaw wall. >> Okay. on or inside of your yard. It was not floating upright. >> Okay. Uh so um
and the anchoring I heard you say rope and and um an anchor off the vessel. Uh did they mention two ropes and an anchor off the vessel? >> I do not recall exactly the number of
ropes. I do remember them saying that they used ropes, a strap, uh ratchet strap that they used as well as the anchor system. >> Okay. The the ratchet strap is new to me, so I'm not sure of that. But uh anyway, um so I understand did you guys
have any contact uh you or those officers with the sheriff's department and their involvement with this vessel, this abandoned vessel? This is not our Just so everybody's clear, this not our boat. So, >> I cannot speak for them. I did not ask
them whether or not they had any involvement with the sheriff's office. Uh the only invol I mean here hearing of what's going on from the sheriff's office that it was still there. That's the only involvement that I've had with the sheriff's office. >> Okay. So, so you weren't the one that notified the the sheriff's office that
it was now ground and it it no longer presented a hazard to the neighborhood or the houses or anything. The crew that responded out there made that notification to our dispatch when they were >> to your dispatch. Correct. Is that something that's connected to Penllis County Sheriff's Department or the Marine Unit or any of that?
>> We share a dispatch center. >> Oh, you share. So, they would be listening in. >> They should have received that information. >> Okay. So, in your conversations with these two uh firemen uh chief, uh did they they
never said anything about this boat being tagged multiple times since August second by the marine sheriff's division and and them tracking the owner, Richard. Uh don't quote me, it's something like Richard Texaria.
>> No, there there would have been no information prior to us going out there. >> Okay. So, so on the day you went, it was just the distress call where they thought maybe somebody because I talked to the neighbor that called that the uh he called it a 911 call. They I think they originally thought somebody was on
the vessel, right? >> I don't know whether or not we got word that there was or was not anybody on the vessel. I do know that it came in from a 911 call. >> Okay. All right. Honey, you have anything else you want to ask?
This is asking him. >> The only question, excuse me, the only question that I would have to ask him is that if he wasn't present at the location of the incident, why is he the one here today? Because he's
he can't answer all those questions because he wasn't there. Why is he the one here to represent the fire department if he wasn't present the day of the incident? I don't understand what the question exactly is. >> Why are you the person here answering
for the fire department if you were not present at the incident location? >> I'm responsible for our personnel and I did the interview of those individuals to bring that information here. I I just have one follow-up question and it's because uh we had obtained uh a very
extensive report that we got through public records request through the sheriff's office uh a while back and one of the things they mentioned there which I don't know how fire departments operate you know uh so I don't know if this is true of you but they kept
mentioning uploading photographs to their database and for every time they would have an interaction with this this abandoned boat issue and they're tagging it and all that stuff. Uh did you guys have uploaded uh is that normal for uh
for so you wouldn't upload? >> Not not for us. No, we do. The sheriff's office carries body cameras. We do not. >> Okay. Uh am I allowed to to show him some of these pictures that we've got that are his fire department there? >> Just show Mr. Tras first if you want to
ask him questions about those pictures. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. I just want to bring your attention to the location of the boat. It's obviously in water. Uh it's not in our yard. It's uh at that
time. >> I I'd object. I mean, if he has specific questions, does he know where these photographs were taken, who took them, what the day was, if you have specific questions, I think that's appropriate, but otherwise sending them or showing these photographs and making statements, that's not cross. >> Okay. Well, I thought it was apparent on
the photographs that they're from the 26th. >> Let me roll in the objection. The objection sustained. If you have any specific questions you want to ask uh this witness about those, you can do so subject to Mr. Tri's objections. And again, sir, I want you to know it may be more effective for you instead of asking
him questions for you to tell me whatever you want to tell me about this. >> Okay. I'm just Well, I got the opportunity for the guy that interviewed them. We weren't here. We were >> Fair enough. So again, if you want to ask him questions, please feel free to ask him questions, but also understand this. I'm going to give you an opportunity to show me those photos and
tell me whatever you believe those photos. >> All right. first time. Well, actually, I I was in here once for a variance to an audience when we were building the house, right? >> Fair enough. So, do you have >> But that's it. >> Fair enough. Do you have any questions for this witness specifically about those photographs? >> Uh I was just wondering if if that looks
like the lieutenant and the uh I know those photos are bad, believe me. Uh they uh it shows they look like similar uniforms to what you're wearing, but uh you know, I don't know. >> Yeah, two people. I do see two people,
but I can't tell you. >> Yeah. And I I actually had we didn't print them out, but we had pictures of the of the I call them duck vehicles. Those those high water vehicles you can use to get into into an area that's uh too too big. Anyway,
so it doesn't trigger anything else for you with your uh with your conversations with the uh lieutenant and the other form of the question. I'll sustain that objection. Anything else for this witness that you want to ask specifically about those questions? >> No, I think that's great. I appreciate
it. Thank you so much for your service. >> All right. We'll see you, >> Mr. Tras. Who else would the city like to call on this? >> No other witnesses for this case. >> Okay. All right. Uh, it is your opportunity, sir, to come forward and tell me anything you want to tell me. Call any witnesses you want to call. Uh, provide any documents, evidence,
anything you want to provide to me. This is your opportunity to present to me your case. You you want these first? >> Just anything you want to show to me? Just I ask you to show them to Mr. Tras first. >> Well, he's just saw them in the back. >> Okay. Mr. Tras, you have any objection to this witness showing me these photographs?
>> No. >> All right. Now, sir, let me ask, are these for me to keep and put into the record here today? >> Yes. >> All right. Great. Uh, we'll go ahead and I'm going to mark these as exhibit number three to today's proceeding.
All right, sir. Go ahead and tell me what you want to tell me about these photographs or anything else you want to tell me about this particular code violation. Alrighty. Um, so we did respond to each one of those things. I have here a copy
of the signature from staff. Uh Holden Pinker is the one at sign for it on 102025. Uh do you want a copy of this now or or should I be taking to Mr. Tras first? >> Just show to Mr. Tras and if he has no objection I'll take a look at if he does have an objection I'll evaluate that.
>> I start with that because uh it shows clearly that we did comply on time. All right. Okay, I don't have any objections to this. >> Okay, we'll go ahead and mark this as exhibit number four to today's
proceeding. All right. Uh so we were asked in the uh letter that was sent to us, the warning order or whatever they want to call it, whatever it was called, uh to remove the boat and
give them a plan of action and uh and timeline for doing that. So, uh, our corrective action, which is what they asked us for, was a we demand that the responsible party, the city of Madera Beach here after city, remove the
abandoned boat that they caused be stored on our property immediately or within a reasonable time frame and to do so at their expense and without causing additional harm to our house, property, seaw wall, or landscape. Uh those pictures that we show, they
show that when they came over here that they and they anchored it to our palm tree. It shows three ropes going off of. If you look at the pictures, there was a rope on the side, a rope in the front, and a chain off the front. Uh the rope
off the side went to actually to our the things that's one of the support beams that goes up the house. uh which that broke off at some point because we found the residual rope uh from it breaking
loose. And uh the we also uh have uh the residual rope from the rope that was attached to the palm tree in our yard. It's still there. We didn't move it. And then the anchor uh was wrapped around the palm tree. And uh you can see in
those pictures that the bolt was originally a lot further up. was actually close to our other neighbors to our left's boat uh near there uh and uh that's where they tied off the chain. Uh the firemen would have done that
originally. So in it was in the water and it was not in our property. Matter of fact, it's quite a bit further down where you see the evidence of when it crossed over during the hurricane itself. And that chain that was there straight in into the water, which is
what they hooked it to. It was in the water and they just went straight from the boat to the to the palm tree. It later became during the storm, it became something that wrapped around our other palm tree. It cut into it because the other palm tree sets out further than
that one does toward the water. And when the chain and the boat was being pushed down the thing, it actually cut like a 3-in chain. The chain cut into the tree about two or three inches. And so it's actually part of the tra the tree now.
And it's uh its position on our property is still taunt. The chain shows itself as it's not a loose chain like it shows in those photos you're looking at. It's not a loose chain. It's a taunt chain wrapped through our second tree. and
then to the in location which is as far as the boat could get uh because it was chained to our property and so and uh it's not leaning against which uh Holden said it is
actually slammed against our house. It put a uh luckily it was a concrete filled pillar all the way down to the footing that it slammed into. So, it took out about a 3-in chunk of the concrete, and it's listed probably 30
40% this way, uh, against the house. And it's it's a large boat. It's this is not a, you know, I've never owned a boat. My wife, we don't own boats. We don't even have a dock. So, we're not boat people. We love looking at them in the water and
watching people go by. That's great. But, uh, I I don't want to work on them. I'm not a fisherman. And I'm not I don't have any real interest. Now, I like big boats. You know, we like to go out on cruises. That's more our taste. Uh so, uh this
boat um is actually 42 ft long. It's over four stories high with the mast. It's leaning against our house at a serious tilt, uh wedged up against it in the concrete, but it it the mast we have
a three-story house. the mast is way above the third story. That's why I say it's probably a four-story mast and and that's with it leaning. Uh so that boat has been sitting there since this happened. Uh what's problematic about
that boat is that owner Richard Texaria and we've actually got copies if you want them from the sheriff's department detailing the all the detail prior to September 26th that the fireman said uh that boat was abandoned and was floating
around several places in the area and kept getting tagged by the sheriff's department. They kept having conversation with thing to remove it or they were going to send it to salvage that all the way back to August 2nd. So long before the hurricanes come or came
there was that boat was known to be a problem and it didn't show up in our yard or behind our yard I should say until the 26th. So, uh, but it had been all over the place prior to that and they listed as
an abandoned vehicle and they kept warning the, uh, owner that he had to take it out of the water. Nothing happened. So, from our perspective, as people who never owned a boat, don't have a dock. Uh, we look at it as, uh,
somebody took advantage of and and here's the real crux of it. We've spent over a year battling the insurance company on getting they wanted to to lowball us and and I'm sure and at least we're lucky. We're one of the few in our
neighborhood that had a hurricane ready house. We had electricity up high on the first floor and we had lots of protection. We have the the high-grade windows all stuff cuz our house was completed 2017. So, uh, matter of fact, uh, Frank DeSantis who works for the
city, uh, he was a great help to us when we were building it. Uh, great inspector and he did, you know, came out there and I probably bugged him more than anybody in the world. He I used to send him emails all the time, anything cuz I was owner operator. I was owner builder. My
wife and I were down as owner builders. Uh we had lots of contractors come in and help, but we controlled it because we wanted quality in that house. Uh and I'm glad we did because uh you know, we didn't suffer the same fates other
people did in our neighborhood, especially we got friends and neighbors that uh have one-story houses that are still not back in their houses, still waiting on work. One neighbor actually tore their house down already right across the street from us. And so it's
an ongoing thing. We recognize that. I don't want to dismiss that cuz that's, you know, our problem isn't remotely as big as theirs. Uh so, but it's not our boat. It wasn't our decision to tie that boat and anchor it to our yard. Uh
we don't and we actually have keep responding these things. the city. The last response when we couldn't get them to they've not been answering at all anything that we've sent them even though we gave them very specific things we wanted done. Uh we wanted them to take responsibility for the fact that
they put the boat in our yard and they kept telling us we were storing a boat. Well, we have no boat to store and we never stored a boat in our life. So, we take issue of that that they're telling us they're going to charge us $250. This latest one said up to $500 a day for
non-compliance and keeping the boat there when it ain't our boat and we never put it there. So it sounds ridiculous to us that they would matter of fact it was so ridiculous sounding to us we were wondering what the motivation behind it was. We were seriously
wondering what the like I feared that my wife's black. That was part of the motivation. Maybe they just thought well you know what we could pick on her. She's about the only one in town. So, we can pick on her cuz I'm trying to find out what the motivation cuz to me, if
you were the person who did something, why are you coming to me to undo it if I didn't put the vote there? I understand the fire department had to make a decision. Uh, but uh it complicated our insurance. For instance, when we filed
our claim, we filed a claim, waited for them to answer, they came back with a bad answer. We hired a public adjuster and then subsequently an attorney to follow through. We finally got resolution out of it over a year, right? But one of the
things that was very apparent early on when even our public adjuster that we hired, he told me early on that they couldn't take any responsibility for the sailboat or the seaw wall because there was human intervention.
So there was, in other words, the hurricane didn't put that boat there. It's clear by what they can see and take pictures of that somebody intervened. So that chain, that taunt chain there, laying up with the boat up against our
house means that somebody did that. It wasn't God. It's not a God act. got and clearly the boat the direction of the travel of the boat with the chain it wouldn't have hit our house cuz the boat we know for sure that it
wasn't at the end of where it was going because it's got a even today you can go out there the chain is completely you could swing off of it it's that tight >> yeah I I I understand I fully understand your argument sir it's not your boat you didn't put it there it's your position that the fire department did something
to cause that boat to be on your property >> in Penllis County we that's why we put it in there when we sent our uh letter of of our corrective action. We put it together specifically to deal with the uh the fact that it's not our it wasn't
our problem wasn't our decision. Wasn't anything in in my mind uh whoever made that decision, the city officials and including contracted uh policing, which is what you guys have here, they have here. I mean, they've got Penllis County
Sheriff's Department working as contracted policing outside of their role of Penllis County Shures, which they also have that role. So, they had a role to play. The fire department had a role to play. And then, of course, Holden had a role to play that
responding back. And what we get is we get you didn't respond, you didn't do anything when we did. We we think it's a very normal process that the responsible party is the one who deals with it. And as an example, I
mean, I I can imagine and and I got the greatest respect for the fire department and the sheriff's department. You know, I've been retired 29 years in the military. Anybody wearing a uniform I have got a lot of respect for. But what I don't understand is why we are being
penalized for something we did not do. who were not present or anything. And then I sent in another request to the city on the second time they did it because they weren't responding requests. We put the same action plan in the second letter. And uh and then in that letter, I included that uh a public
records request to get the conversation going on inside the thing. Well, they did one thing really good. They sent us an invoice request. And I about fell out of my chair when I read it. $16,700
they wanted us to pay by bank uh wire transfer to pay for them giving us the information that proves that they did it. >> So I I and sir, I think you're repeating yourself. So I fully understand what
your argument is. Mr. Trash, do you have any questions of this witness? >> I have a few questions if he's done. >> All right. Any anything else you want to tell me before I turn over? giving you some stuff because it sounds like to me that you don't have all the letters because uh I only Do you have more than
one letter? >> I have what the city provided which is pages 80 through 101 of the agenda package and then I have the two exhibits or the two-page incident report. I have your photographs and I have your letter. Again, I'm happy to accept anything you
want to show me today. All I do is ask you show Mr. Tras first. >> Okay. Uh, another factor here that I'm I'm looking at my notes here for this meeting is that uh it actually said in the part that we never got there was no notice on our house. We didn't get that
one. But the one that was sent to us uh by text message, a photo of the thing, it didn't show uh the requirement to have 5 days participation to call in extra witnesses and stuff. I actually
went scrambling around my neighborhood trying to on the day before Good Friday, which is when we found out, uh, trying to get people engaged to come here today and that half the people are gone, visiting
family, out of state, one of them's out of country in the Panama Canal on a cruise. Uh so a lot of these key players that sent us photos, sent us uh videos uh aren't here. And so uh
I'm going to Oh, you got ones of all these. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. >> Did you make a cop? Did you make a copy of this? >> Yes, I did.
>> Okay. I'm asking my wife for the proof that we also complied with this one in time by our certified receipt. The second one that came in, we went down and we had enough time to mail it by return receipt requested and certified receipt. So, we did that. I'm asking my
wife to give me the copy of it. >> Oh, yeah. >> Evidence, >> right? Oh, there's the copy of the receipt. Uh I I we're agreeing it was certified, so I don't think we need a copy of that.
Uh so what I've got here is I've got case master reports from the Penelis County Sheriff's Office uh for that boat and the incidents related to the boat. And uh and I also got a copy of the uh return she requested thing that was met.
And then I'm giving and honey, you know what else is missing here is did you give me the the the latest one we just sent. >> Okay, that's that. Am I missing anything else? Make sure I'm not leaving out anything you guys
need. Now, the one thing and and I know you're you're a lawyer 25 years with the with the Florida law, so you know this thing already, but uh what I provided them as a operation as a plan, a corrective plan
would I know in my years of being an officer and submitting stuff all the time, especially I was an environmental officer as well, so I dealt with tons of this kind of stuff all the time. Very hard to deal with stuff. my plan would have met anything that uh
I had. It it names who's responsible and gives them a way to to fix it. So, we haven't delayed any. We don't have any time under our belt where we've missed a thing. So, show us mispronounced your name. Sorry.
>> Oh, it's okay. And we're not problem people. We're not. You know, if you talk to Frank Dantis who used to be at the city, he used to tell me all the time, he said, "Audius, you're my favorite house to visit." He'd say, you know, everybody, he said, "The
code requires one or two things. you guys always do three or four. He goes, I never worry about you guys doing what you're supposed to do. You always do it uh with it even in this uh turbulent time that uh we're in.
We he helped us build a very nice hurricane ready and and you know compared to others we are really well done served but uh I do regret though. We lost a BMW with 44,000 original miles.
You know, at hurt. >> We was a very nice BMW. I just need to ask my clients. Okay. So, if I can respond to a couple of the documents. Um, the city has no
objection to the letter that uh, Miss Le Point sent on October 19th. The letter January 14th, which is already in the packet. I don't have any objection if he wants to put another copy in. Um, the receipt from the post office. I don't have any objection to that uh, being
received in evidence. I'll bring them down in just a moment. I just want to talk to you about these other ones. >> Okay. Uh there is an incident report from the sheriff's office uh for activity that was occurring back in August 2024 um about the boat to me. I'm objecting
on the basis of relevance. It's not relevant to what's happening today. So I'd object on that. >> Uh so >> hold on. Let him let him finish his objection. Get everything on the record and I'll rule or then I'll hear from you. >> Rule. >> Mr. Pinker will testify. As I was just
going over, the invoice is a fishing scam. This is not from the city of Madira Beach. >> It's who? >> It's a It's a >> It's a cyber scam. They're trying to scam me out of money. It's not something the city actually sent. >> You're saying that invoice we received didn't come from the city? >> This did not come from the city of Madera Beach.
>> Okay. >> Good thing you didn't. >> Wow. >> Um and then the two emails that were sent by Miss Le Point to the company that was fishing for money. I would object to that, too. uh since the city did not receive those and and Mr. Pinker
will testify to that if need be. So, objecting to this, >> objecting to the reports, >> no objection to the letters and the um postage receipt. All right. >> Okay. Wow. >> All right. Let me sort through this just for one second. So,
>> no. >> All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and accept as exhibit number five. The documents Mr. Travis identified that were not objected to. Okay. Now,
>> two police reports. >> Okay. Then we object to you object to both of these. >> Okay. All right. All right, I'm going to go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number
six, the police reports. And the reason why is they do reference the vessel being on the property in this. Yes, sir. They actually closed out the
case because they said it was above water line and and clearly not a danger to other boats or other things anymore being anchored the way it is against our house. And I I don't know if it's pertinent or not to you or not, sir, but uh I
actually tried to get the boat, the sailboat into the initial thing with the u u I didn't know at that time. My neighbors hadn't come out of the woodwork telling me all the stuff they told me. I've had 10 or 12 neighbors send me
pictures and videos of the stuff going on and and we know all of them. So they people we know and they sent us pictures and we only gave you a handful but we got a lot and I got every one of those pictures of those big trucks that the
firemen used and we got all that stuff. But uh uh I purposely uh I put it into my original submitt to the insurance company. I did not know at the time, obviously to me it was, you know, debris
in the yard and if anything else, but because it was chained and tied and and all that, I couldn't get and I tried hard. I had my own attorney helping me and uh nobody would and even the umpires
end up coming into the case later. Nobody would agree that the sailboat was their responsibility or the seaw wall damage was their seaw wall was their responsibility because of the intervention. >> All right, let let me just thank you sir
for that. Um I if this is all a a scam and a fraud and I have no reason to believe it's not um I'm going to go ahead and let you the city can explain this to you but I'm not going to accept that into evidence because I don't think it's relevant of any any point that I'm considering today. Uh, but everything
else I'll accept into uh into evidence. All right. >> Okay. Well, then we will uh apologize officially to the city for blaming them for sending us a $16,700 invoice that they didn't send. We didn't >> Well, it's a it's a good thing you didn't pay, sir. All right. Anything
else you want to tell me about this particular violation before Mr. Trash has some questions for you? I don't want to ignore my >> Well, you finish first and then I'll let her come up and tell me anything you want. So, anything you want to tell me individually. >> I think I'm good.
>> Okay, then sit tight. Mr. Trust, you have some questions for this witness. >> Mr. Lewis, I have a few questions for you, sir. >> Sorry. >> Okay. >> All right. So, the we've established the boat has been in your backyard since um September
2024, correct? Yeah, it's been there since the hurricanericanes, the two backto-back hurricanes. >> All right. Have you um done anything to that sailboat? Have you um modified it in any way? >> Modified it? In what way would I modify
it? I'm not a boat person, so I know nothing about boats. I I have my knowledge. I could write on a matchbook and you could you could read it in a second or two. No, I don't own boats. I don't mess with boats. The only thing I will say we did uh which is in the
letters already is uh uh when Trump got reelected or elected whatever you want to call it. I don't know if it's re-election or election but uh when he got elected uh my brother and I had the idea to scrape off the barnacles cuz it was a pretty ugly boat. Uh it used to be
full of barnacles >> and uh it was already pretty bad. We decided to uh take the barnacles off and paint it red, white, and blue. That bottom portion that's normally under the water, under the water line. And we put on there uh something that means a lot
to my wife and I in our service to the military and all that is uh prayer warriors unite. Fight, fight, fight. Praying for our President Donald J. Trump. Okay. Uh, now I can tell you that stuff. I've had to reglue those letters in the time that
that boat's been sitting on there while we've been waiting on the city. I've had to reglue those letters on there probably 20 times cuz they keep falling off of and uh I go out there in the yard and look and if a letter's off, I put some glue back on it, stick it back
where it was. I've been doing that uh since then. And we even put Christmas lights on it uh at Christmas time to But other than that, no, I don't have any uh uh My brother Ray climbed up in
the boat to find out how big it was. He found a registration inside of it. He climbed inside of it and looked for the registration of the boat. >> I think you've answered my question. You didn't. So, you've painted the boat and >> No, we painted the boat is too far. We
painted the underbelly of the boat, which had barnacles on it before. >> Okay. You painted a portion of the boat. >> Yeah. portion of the boat, okay, >> with uh that had uh barnacles and we removed the barnacles and scraped them off and painted that bottom portion of the boat. >> What else have you done to the boat?
>> What else have I done to the boat? Yes, sir. >> Other than put lights on it, take pictures of it. >> Okay. >> Nothing. >> All right. Have you attempted to remove the boat from your backyard? >> Uh the only thing I did was during the time of the high hurricane stuff, you know, when everybody and their brother was going out and soliciting, ringing your doorbell and all that kind of
stuff. It was happening all the time right after the hurricanes. We didn't even get back into town until November 12th. >> Okay. >> So, we had uh we have people that have our code and go check on stuff, including our our landscaper. And so,
>> I don't need to know any of that. My question to you was, >> well, >> have you done anything to have the boat removed from your >> The only thing I did was I took two quotes from uh No, I guess there was three things I did. I took two quotes from people that came by specifically to
ask me uh if I needed somebody to pull the boat out of my backyard. Both people told me the same thing, except they were 5,000 off. The first person told me it would take $20,000 to put a crane in the water, but it has to be in the water. They told me because the power lines and
everything else going forward, you can't do it because it's it's obviously too tall of a boat. So, I had one quote me 20,000. This these are verbal quotes. So, I didn't get anything from him but a verbal quote. One guy told me 20,000 he could remove the boat. He lift it out of the backyard and put it back in the
water and tow it away. And another one quoted me 25,000. It was almost a week later, maybe 10 days. It wasn't very long from the first guy. And and then I also had my brother was visiting me one
time. Uh this was uh later last year uh from Missouri. He owns a huge salvage AR uh uh business in Bloomsdale, Missouri. And he came down and looked at the boat
to see if the easier thing might be just to land salvage it and carry it off on a flatbed, cut it up into pieces, he said with some kind of a special torch. He said it could be cut up and he said it the it's an aluminum boat and he said it's high-grade aluminum so it could be
cut up and carried off for salvage. >> All right. So, you've answered my question. >> Okay. That's the only three things I've done other than, you know, given the uh city uh my plan of action because I think they owned it. They touched it. They owned it. They kept me from getting
it paid for the insurance company. So, >> well, your plan of action was demanding the city to go out to your property, remove the boat, demanding the city pay for all costs of uh fixing your seaw wall, demanding that the city repair, replace all your landscaping.
>> No, not all the landscaping, just the landscaping affected by the boat coming on shore. >> Threatening the city with costs and damages. um and uh that you're threatening to assemble a comprehensive legal team uh
against the city. So that was your plan of action. Did I get that all correct? >> No, that actually the plan of action doesn't include that. The rest of the letter does. So yes, if if we didn't get the city to do what the city should be doing, we were going to go after we even
talked about going to DHS and getting their help. uh because if you're going to remove sovereign immunity from a municipality, you need their help in Florida. So, yes, we did do that and uh that was our intent if we got nowhere. But we have been waiting patiently in my
mind, very patiently. That is a monstrous sailboat sitting against our beautiful house that we've only been in 8 years. It's a beautiful cell, beautiful house. If you go inside the house, one of the main bedrooms in the front of the house, that's all you see
out the thing is that boat. And if you go to the upstairs bedroom facing that, you see the mast and those torn up uh sill things. So you it's definitely ruined the view. And plus, it's it's huge. It's trying to walk around the
yard. Even a yard guy who mo been mowing our yard for he was mowing it before we even had the house. >> Just a couple more questions. If the special magistrate finds you in violation and orders that the property come into compliance, how much time do you need to have that boat disassembled
in your backyard and uh removed? >> Okay, that's a two-part question in my mind. First off, the you what you said was in fact you said that that we threatened you with lawsuits and all that stuff, but what we received from our perspective is you guys threatened
us with $250 a day fines for something we had nothing to do with and you said you were going to do it and you've taken months to do this once we actually got anything from you. My question to you was how much time do you need to remove the boat if you're found in violation?
For all I know, the special magistrate won't find you in violation. I'm asking you if he does find you in violation. >> Well, I would I guess just the natural uh business negotiator in me says at the very least the amount of time the city's already wasted. So, 6 months, I guess,
and I'm going to have to figure out how to get that boat out of the backyard and how to to do it. And uh if you do it and I don't know, to me it there'd be no reason for that to happen, but it's not our boat. We didn't put it there. We had nothing to do with it. We weren't even
in the country and uh I don't think a civil court would >> Thank you. You answered my questions. >> All right. >> All right, sir. I do not have any questions. Um do you have any other witnesses? Miss Le Point, would you like to come up and provide some information to me today? I was just
>> I was just wondering whether the uh the report that we got from the sheriff's department if that was going to be admitted as evidence because that boat had been sitting out in a bay much further away from our house when it was
tagged. was tagged two or three times and and the tag was saying that it was going to be removed and salvaged and that owner was not held responsible for what he didn't do and here we are responding for something that he did. Is
the report that we got from the uh from the sheriff's department is that going to be admitted admitted as evidence? >> Yes, both the there's two reports. There's one dated August 10th, 2024 and one dated August 2020 21st, 2024. They are both admitted
into evidence as exhibit number six. >> Thank you, sir. I just wanted to make sure that was because Mr. Trash Tras was saying that it was um >> he was saying it's irrelevant. I understand his objection. I overruled his objection. I'm giving you the
benefit of the doubt and bringing them into evidence. So, don't go anywhere. Now, Mr. Mr. Tr gets to ask you questions. I don't know if he'll have any, but he does. >> Questions. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. U Miss Le Point, Mr. Lewis, is there anything else you want to tell me? I'm going to open it up to public. Well, I'm going to go ahead and see if the
city wants to call any rebuttal witnesses and then open it up to public comment. Is there anything else you guys want to tell me at this point? I'm going to give you the final word after the public comes up. >> Question. I didn't think it was necessary. >> Come on up to you speaking the microphone, sir. Uh yeah, we we have a
ton more of video on our phones and and pictures on our phones if those are for any interesting body. Uh I thought because the fire the deputy fire chief uh basically endorsed the fact that the uh the chains were theirs, the gropes were theirs, all
that stuff. I didn't think that you needed more pictures. >> No, I understand the high rolling vehicles out there. So, a lot of the pictures to me that we that we that neighbors sent us the videos. We got a bunch of videos sent to us. >> Sir, I I don't think I need those because I understand the argument that
you're making. If I can distill it down, if I understand your argument, this isn't a it's not your boat. You didn't create it. You're not storing it there. If I understand your argument, it's both a combination of the Penllis County Sheriff, I guess, and the city fire department that somehow uh got this boat onto your property, and it should be somebody else's responsibility to remove
it. Did I summarize your argument fairly? >> That's a great great summary, sir. I I that that shows I'm following along here and I understand. Okay, Mr. Trash, do you want to call any rebuttal witnesses at this time? >> Um, no rebuttal witness. >> All right. If there's anything after public comment, I'll give you the other chance to do it. All right. Um, Mr. You
sit aside. I don't know if there's any members of the public that want to comment, but if they are, this is the portion of the hearing where any members of the public that have knowledge about code enforcement violation 25-137 for the property located 913 Bayoint Drive can come forward. Any members of the
public? All right. And ma'am, remind me, were you already sworn in in this case? >> Okay, Mr. Tras, >> no problem. Mr. Tras, can you please swear in um this member of the public? >> Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And ma'am, what is your name? >> Lori Hopkins. >> Can you bring the microphone down? >> Oh, sure. >> Yeah. Lori and then last name. >> Hopkins. >> All right. Miss Hopkins, what would you like to tell me about this code violation? I've lived at 912 Baypoint Drive about 32 years. I'm directly
across the street, so I'm not one of the neighbors in the back where I view the sailboat, but I was home. I'm in a threetory. When I went up to the window and looked out, I saw the high high water the day before the storm. It was
probably 2 or 3 in the afternoon. Then I saw a truck come by. I realized later it was the American Legion high water truck and I saw some people jump out over there. They went in the back of that property at 913
and I don't know what they did. I heard later that a neighbor a few doors down had seen a boat out floating in the open waterway and was nervous about the storm. Called it in. And so I guess when they came out they
decided to tie it to this private property and then the truck drove away. So, um I guess my main concern I was sitting working at my computer and I was
listening to this meeting online and my main concern was that any of us, you, me, any of us could be involved in getting ready and preparing for a storm. Maybe at home, maybe not. but that a member of the public could come put a
foreign object on our own property, maybe without our permission or with it, tie it up, cause damage, which I can understand safety, why that would have been very necessary for our city to do that.
My concern is that when you get to a week or two after a storm, you start to pick up, you clean up, you try to get things back to normal. We had probably 11, 12 boats floating like a river up and down our street during that storm.
They were going everywhere in every yard. The sheriffs worked very hard to, and I'm just speaking from my heart because I didn't prepare. I just literally drove here when I heard the meeting. So they worked very hard and got every boat out
of all the yards, try to find the owners. But this boat was never taken care of. It even became a tourist attraction when everybody would come to the end of the culde-sac, stop and take pictures and say, "What's going on with the boat?" And I even asked code for
enforcement when they drove down the street, "What's going on with this?" And they said, "We can't do anything. It's not in the waterway. It's on a private property. we can't do anything. So, I guess I'm just saying I'm concerned if this were to be where
any of us as a homeowner would be responsible for this kind of an action when the person who tied it up for safety didn't then come back later and try to solve the problem and get things back to normal. And that's basically the
point I wanted to make. I'm also as a citizen a little bit concerned that when the correction corrective actions were sent in on two different times, the city never responded back either time to those. That also concerns me, but that's all I'd like to say.
>> Thank you for your comment. All right. Are there any other members of the public that would like to come forward? See, Mr. Lewis, this is why you have to testify into the microphone so the public listening can come in and uh support your arguments. All right. Are there anybody else that wants to provide public comment? All right, Mr. Tras,
I'll give you the last word on this one. >> So, it's clear that um there is a violation of the cited code section. There is an abandoned vote that is on the La Point's property. They have testified to it not being theirs. Um it
is a violation of section 14-69 PN2. We're asking that you do find the violation. Order the property be brought into compliance within 30 days. And should it not be brought into compliance within 30 days, that a fine of $250 a day be established for every day the property remains in violation of the
cited code section. And I with that in mind, I just want to address the issue of who put the boat there or how it arrived there. In our mind, legally, it does not matter. It would be the same thing as if somebody drove up into Mrs.
the point's driveway and left their car there or somebody has went into a vacant field and dumped off a whole truckload of construction debris. It is no different than what has happened here. It is obvious that the the fire
department did what it was supposed to do to protect life and property by um tying that boat down so it couldn't further damage the Le Point's home and Mr. Lewis's home or any other home. I think that that was um exactly what
needed to happen. Um but it's clear that the only person that has control of the property that Mr. Lewis owns and Miss Le Point owns is them. They're responsible for this inoperable boat that's on their
property that they have adorned with whatever. Um and um it is their responsibility to remove it. I'm was glad to hear from the testimony from Mr. Lewis that he has a relative that's in the salvage business has told him how it can be salvaged. Um but um I understand
that there is some cost associated with that. Um like any other code violation that needs to be corrected, there's cost associated with it. So we're asking that you find the violation and order the property be brought into compliance. I did ask, as you heard, um how much time Mr. Lewis needs to bring the property
into compliance. Um 6 month is unreasonable. We're going on 18 months that the boat has been in his backyard. It's time to have it removed. So that's my closing argument. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. >> D.
>> Okay. Come on forward, ma'am. >> Mr. Tras is saying that because the boat is in our backyard, it is our responsibility and that we are responsible for moving the boat for removing the the boat that's there. It is not our
responsibility because we did not authorize the fire department or the city to place that boat on our property. It's private property. It's not city-owned property. So if the fire department
decided to use to borrow our property to store that boat, they didn't get our permission to do so. If they did it because of a fact that they were trying to prevent further damage, they should have done that when the boat was still sitting out in a bay. Out in a bay. That
was the proper time to take care of that. Especially after it's been the proper the boat owner had been warned a couple of times. They've been tagged to remove the boat and they have not been removed. That should have been the proper time to remove it so that it doesn't pose future
danger to the properties on that bay. So when he's saying that it's our responsibility, if the city would pay for that boat to be removed, I would agree with that. But as far as us paying to get it removed, I don't think
so. I don't think that it is for us to do so. We never we never gave that a permission to use our property to store that boat because the city did that, not us. If somebody comes and places the car in our driveway, the example that Mr. tr
used. If they park the car in our driveway and abandon the car, that car registered to someone and we can find that owner and have them remove the car. It's the same concept with that boat. We didn't bring it there. They placed it
there because of a fact that they were trying to prevent the boat to create more damage. So why are we being held responsible for that? He's saying that we should be responsible for removing it. I don't think we should be. Sir, >> I I understand your argument, ma'am. Uh, as I said in the outset, my role here is
very limited. It's not to assign liability or fault or anything like that to the extent that uh if you believe you guys have a claim against the city fire department, the Penelis County Sheriff, my my role is not to make that determination. My role is very limited. It's to determine whether or not a
specific code provision has been uh violated. And in this case, it's the city's position that irrespective of how the uh boat ended up there, there's currently an abandoned boat that is being stored on your property. I
understand your arguments. This is different than a lot of the cases that come forward to me where it's somebody's own boat that they keep on their property and it's derelict and sinking and whatnot. This is different. However, Mr. Tras's analysis of the law is
correct. It doesn't matter how the it came to be on there. The question for me in this role wearing this hat is whether or not there is currently a code provision that's being violated. And in this case, the city's position is that
the fact that that sailboat is on your property and it's abandoned is a code violation. Now, I believe the city has met their burden to prove that. Now, that doesn't mean that the owner of the boat isn't responsible to you uh from a
liability standpoint. I'd have no opinion as to whether or not it's you have claims against the fire department, Penllis County. I have no opinion on that. I'm not your lawyer. I would encourage you to to talk to a lawyer about that if you think you have claims. I also am not unsympathetic to the fact
that it costs money to remove this. I heard your testimony on that and so I'm willing to work with you uh in that regard and provide you additional time to bring this into compliance. But to me, the way I look at it is and and again, if you believe that it's the fire
department that put that boat on there, then you know, please speak with council about that. But my role is limited to determine whether or not there's a code violation based on the evidence I'm going to find that there is. However, I'm going to give you more time. I'm going to give you 60 days to bring the
property into compliance. I don't know, maybe you want to go out and talk to a salvage company that can come in. Maybe now that the hurricane's done, the cost is going to be less. Maybe they remove it for free because they take ownership of it and they salvage it themselves. I don't know. I'm also not going to do a
$250 fine. I'm going to do a $25 a day fine. All right? So, I'm going to give you an incentive to get it removed, but I'm not going to penalize you for having this boat in your backyard to the extent that you didn't create the situation. Now, what I'd also encourage you to do is just like what I told the prior folks
that were in here, please come to your next city commission meeting, if you think I've been unfair to you and you think that the city should take responsibility for this, then I would encourage you to come and express that to uh the city council. But my role here
today is to determine whether a code has been violated. I do find that uh the issue is not whether you supplied a plan to them. The issue is whether or not the boat exists and it's an abandoned boat that's it's currently sitting on the property. And I find that there is. So again, I'm going to go ahead and find
I'm going to send an order. Uh 60 days to bring it into compliance. $25 a day fine thereafter. If you need more time, 60 days go by and you need your brother-in-law to come uh do some work on it, you need another 30 days, come back and see me. I'm here every single
month and I'll be willing to give you more time. But I also understand the city's position uh that you know they don't want it this close to your house. They don't want another hurricane coming and it knocking your house down or something. >> Let me just ask something pertinent because in my mind it's got that boat
has somebody's name on it, Richard Texaria or something like that. Uh, do we have any authority to cut that boat up into pieces because of your viol you're giving us the thing? >> What I can say is I can't give you legal advice, but I would suggest you pick up the phone and call a local lawyer in
town here uh, who can talk to you about that. And and again, I'm I'm a big fan of telling everybody that comes before me to get legal advice and what you can do and maybe it helps your situation that you're going to be subject to this fine and there's been a code enforcement violation. I would suspect that yes,
there's some liability on part of that person. Whether you can find that person or not, I don't know. In reading the report that you put into evidence, it looked like there was some warrant out for his arrest and he was arrested at some point. So, I don't know whether you can find him or can't find him. I also noticed in your report that there was
some dispute over whether or not the person Richard Tasher really owns it or it's the prior person. Again, I would encourage you to go talk to a lawyer and come up with who you believe is responsible for payment. All I can do today is determine that a city code has been violated. Give you a reasonable
time to bring it into correction. And that's what I've done here today, sir. So, I've heard everything you said. I understand your argument, but that's my ruling. >> Well, after hearing Mr. Tras, I have one more thing to add to your study of this, and that is uh it's not correct that the
city has impunity, pure impunity about anything they do. >> And I'm not >> under sovereign immunity laws, they do not have pure impunity. So to for him to make the declaration that because it violates code, they have no responsibility to that's like saying
that the fire department went out call for a fire, they go to the neighbor's house, start hatching up the roof and wetting it down and ruining it, and then halfway through it, they find out, oh this is the wrong house. >> And again, sir, I'm not here to let Let me just cut you off because I made my
ruling. We need to move on the agenda. Again, I encourage you to go seek counsel. If you don't like my ruling, please feel free to appeal it. You, you know, you have appeal rights. It's in the notice. You're welcome to appeal my ruling. Maybe there's a judge above me that says I'm wrong and you're right. So, you have all those appallet rights.
So, remember that. But that's my ruling for today. I'll send you a copy of the order. I will send it to the nine. Make sure I've got the right address. The 913 Bayoint Drive address will be where the order goes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your time today. All right. Let's move on to the next matter
on the agenda. CE26-27 and this is for the property located at 13313 Second City or Second Street East. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Let me see who these people are here for. If this is not their case, maybe
move them up. They've been waiting a long time. Which case you guys here for? >> That's D. >> All right. We'll we'll go ahead and uh based on Mr. Tras's uh statement, let's move you guys up. So, we will we will
now call CE25-157 for the property located at 13414 Gulf Boulevard. Is the city ready to proceed? >> City is ready to proceed. The city would call Taylor Davis as its witness. Taylor, if um you could state your job,
occupation, and your job responsibilities here at the city. I am a permit and code compliance specialist for the city of Madira Beach. I create code violation cases, posttop work orders, just those as a few. >> All right. Are you familiar with this
property at 13414 Gulf Boulevard? >> Yes. >> And is this case a proactive case or complaint driven? >> This was proactive. >> All right. And who is the owner of this property and how do you know that? >> Um Penelis County Property Appraisers Office, Paul Trader, and a Katherine
Trader. All right. And if you could turn to page 127 of the agenda packet, tell me, is that the printout that you uh made from the Penelis County Property Appraisers Office showing the owner of the property? >> I have it on 244. >> Okay.
>> So, um, this is where I had mentioned prior to the meeting that the city's the city's agenda package, they doubled up all the cases. So they're in two different locations in the agenda packet. Okay. So I'm looking at pages 244
through what? Through 270. No. Yeah. 270. Is that what I should be looking at? >> 244. Yes. To 270. >> Okay. All right, this is going to be so confusing.
Can you just go to agenda 5A, item 5A, and then go to page 127. >> Okay, I'm there. >> And just tell me the last page you're going to ask about, Mr. Tras, so I can
>> pull that out for our exhibit. Just want to make sure you she gets on it. You 127. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that's the same case that we're talking about. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we're going to we're going to go from here on 127 on the packet. It's
going to go to 153. Okay. So, um what what was the violation on this property? >> This was 8652. um working without a permit.
>> Okay. And you said this was a proactive case. >> True. >> Okay. And who was the person that did the inspection on this property taking it >> taking pictures from outside? >> You were? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And um when did you first go to the property to take photographs? >> Um just before the courtesy notice letter was sent out. November. If you could turn to page 136, there's some photographs there.
>> Are these photographs that you took? >> Yes. >> You can explain what is happening or what is shown in the photographs that start on page 136 and continue on after that. >> Um, and they're also timestamped for October 30th. So, you see new flooring.
You can see it in the boxes on page 136. You can see I believe that's new trim. And then you can see some new sheetrock outside also page 136 and some on page 137 as well. And then
new blinds. You can see drywall cutout on 138 and more new flooring and trim. >> Okay. When you found this violation, did you issue a courtesy notice of code violation? >> Yes. >> All right. And when did you do that? November 3rd, 2025.
>> Is that uh starting at page 134 of the packet? >> True. >> When you sent the uh courtesy notice, how did you send it? >> This one was regular mail. >> When you sent it, did you specifically provide a corrective action that needed to be taken?
>> Yes. Um property owner or licensed contractor will need to apply for and obtain an after the fact building permit. >> Okay. And did you give a time frame to do that? We gave them two weeks, November 17th for a compliance date. Okay.
>> In your estimation, did the the work shown that was being done or had been done, did it exceed $500? >> Yes. >> When you sent the courtesy notice, did you send the copies of those photographs that you testified to a moment ago
attached to that letter? >> Yes, they were attached. >> All right. Did the property owner bring the property into compliance by getting the building permit as required by November 17th? >> No. >> Has there been a building permit as you issued as of today? >> No.
>> Has there been an application for a building permit filed? >> As of today, I don't have anything. >> All right. Did you issue a notice of code violation on November 18th? >> Yes. >> And is that reflected starting at page
139? Yes. >> Did the property owner um was that sent by regular or certified mail or both? >> The notice of code violation was just certified mail. >> Okay. Did the city get the green card back? >> We did not. Oh, yeah. No, it wasn't
signed. >> Okay. Did the city then issue a statement of violation and a request for hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes. And is is is that in the agenda package starting at page uh 148?
>> Yes. >> In that statement of violation, did you uh continue to site the violation as section 8652, failure to have a building permit? >> Yes. >> All right. Did you also issue a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> We did. >> And what date was that done?
>> That was sent on March 27th, 2026. Did you also post the property and post city hall with the notice of hearing? >> Yes, same day. >> Okay. Did you take photographs of the postings of the property and the city hall? >> Yes. Shown on page 152.
>> Okay. So, as as of today, there is no um compliance with this code section. The property owner has not applied for and obtained a building permit for the work done. >> Okay. How much time do you think it will take to pull a building permit to get this work done?
30 days is reasonable. Okay. >> And if the property owner Well, first of all, let me back up a little bit. Is this a property? Is it vacant or someone living there? >> I see cars there every time I drive by. So, I don't know if it's actively being rented, but there's somebody there daily.
>> Okay. Um, should the property owner not bring the property into compliance within those 30 days? What do you think a reasonable uh daily fine would be? $250 a day if it's being rented for 30 days or fines accumulate after 30 days.
Sorry. >> All right. And what if the property is not being rented currently or there it's not being occupied? Do you think the fine should be the same amount? >> I don't know if or when they're the property owner is going to use it as a
rental. So, that's a hard question. >> Okay. All right. Um I don't have any other questions for Miss Davis. I I do uh would like to tender into evidence pages 127 through 153 of the agenda packet and ask that it be received into evidence.
All right, I'll go ahead and receive an evidence as exhibit number one, pages 127 through 153 of the agenda packet. Okay. Uh who would like to come forward on behalf of the respondents? >> All right, sir. You've been very patient. What is your name?
>> Alter. All trader. >> All right, sir. Uh just as you saw in the prior hearings, this is your opportunity to ask ask Miss Davis questions about her testimony. I'm going to give you a full and complete opportunity to explain to me whatever you want to explain to me after uh the
city's done putting on their case. Do you have any questions for Miss Davis? >> I don't have any questions. No. Um, I acquired the property in July and we're trying to get them fixed up and looking nice and used to be my parents place and we just want to make it right, get
everything permitted, up to code. Um, and just whatever we can do to work with that. I also have my contractor here to we assumption that permits were being made and he was having issues apparently with the MGO site which he could explain to you, but sorry I have a cold.
>> That's okay. All right. So, no further questions from Miss Davis right now. All right. Don't go far. I don't know if the city has any other witnesses or not. >> Uh, the city has no other witnesses. >> All right. Okay, sir. This is your opportunity in the hearing to tell me anything else you want to tell me. Obviously, I heard what you just said. Uh, are there anything else you want to
tell me? And you're free to call your contractor. He can come talk to me as well. Um, anybody else on your behalf? If you want to show me pictures, anything you want to tell me, you can tell me. >> I have questions for Mr. Trader before he sits down. >> Okay, hold on. What are we doing now? Are you just going to call your
contractor or do you have any? >> Oh, >> yeah. That's all. >> Okay. Then, Mr. Trader, go ahead. You made some statements, so Mr. Tra's going to ask you some questions, >> sir. You're the owner of this property, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And is the property currently occupied? >> Uh, the front one, a friend of my parents, is staying there, an elder
gentleman. >> So, is this a duplex? >> It's a two units. It's not a duplex. Two separate units. >> All right. So, >> there's two different rental units on this property, correct? Yeah, there's there's a 600 foot and 400 foot
approximately. >> Okay. And so you've seen the photographs that are shown up on the screen today. Is this in the unit where the pro where the it's currently being rented? >> I'm not sure. >> All right, we're going to pull the photographs back up.
>> No, that's the the other one. >> All right. Can you bring the microphone down in front of you so we can hear what you're saying? Yeah, it's the rear one. >> Okay. So, the photographs are of the rental unit. It's your testimony under oath today that that no one is occupying that unit. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. What work did you have? What work is being done in that in that unit? >> Mostly just flooring and drywall. The contractor would have a better understanding of that. But >> didn't you hire the contractor? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you sign a contract with the
contractor? >> No. It's all verbal >> pretty much. >> Okay. So, what did you tell them you wanted it done? Just >> get it fixed up. Drywall, floors. >> Okay. Why is the drywall cut out
>> from the water? >> Okay. So, when you say water, was there water damage to that to the unit? >> Yeah. I had to replace the uh insulation. >> Okay. So, >> all of the drywall in the unit was taken out? No.
>> Okay. So, how much drywall was taken out of this unit? >> He would have a better answer. I'm not sure. >> Have you not been to this property to see what's been done to it? >> Four feet, he said. >> I'm sorry. >> 4 feet. >> Okay. Sir, if you could sit down for a
moment. This isn't about you. >> Okay. So, these questions turn to you. If you don't know the answer, you can tell me you don't know the answer. >> Okay. >> Okay. Did you replace kitchen cabinets? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you replace or remodel the bathrooms?
>> No. The front one had a little bit, but the back one nothing was done to. >> Okay. So, besides the >> vanity, I'm sorry. >> Okay. So, the one of the vanity in one of the bathrooms? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, any sinks replaced? >> I believe the sinks were new.
>> Okay. Any electrical work done in the unit? >> No, just outlets. What do you mean just outlets? Outlets were replaced? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any lighting fixtures replaced? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, you agree that the work that's been done on your property is valued in excess of $500, don't you? >> Yes. >> Okay. What have you done to pull a building permit for this work that was uh done? >> I just went asked him to take care of
it. >> Okay. So, I've came down here twice actually to two also to talk to people, Connor and not Stephanie. Uh, the other lady there starts with S. >> Okay. So, youth you don't live here in Florida then. Is that what you're
talking? >> I live in Florida. >> Okay. When you say you're coming down here, where do you live? >> Simol. >> Across the bridge. Okay. >> All right.
What's the reason? It being now April, 6 months have passed since the original violation was cited. How come an application for building permit has not been attempted in the last 6 months? >> Don't know. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
>> All right, sir. I don't have any questions. Would you like to call your contractor up to testify? All right, >> sir. What is your name? >> Tom Hatton. Uh, sir, how do you spell your last name? >> H A T T O N. >> All right. Mr. Hatton, what would you
like to share with me about the uh code enforcement violation that >> I'm the reason that the permit's not fully in place, not the owner. We took on too many properties during the flood and it's just been confusing with the MGO system, but we have right now we're
in the process of u I should have the permit completely in the MGO system by tonight. And I've also got an electrician to sign on. All the only thing that was replaced was outlets, but I got electrician and an AC guy and a
plumber if needed to sign on within by tomorrow. So, >> all right. >> We don't need 30 days. We just need another 24 hours or 48 hours. >> Mr. Tras, >> sir, are you a licensed general contractor?
>> I work with one. Yes. >> That's not what I asked. Are you a general uh licensed general? >> No, no, sir. I'm rep I work for the company. I represent the company. >> Okay. What company is that? >> Papa APA SOP.
>> Okay. How many uh properties have you been working on in Madiraa Beach? >> On Madera Beach, just that one right now and one other. >> All right. Most of our work was in the city and on Treasure Islands.
>> So, what's the reason in the past six months since this this property has been cited that you haven't pulled a building permit? >> Well, we tried twice on the MGO system and I guess I don't we we don't we have someone that pulls them for us and I I I really can't give you a great answer
except that it's it's slipped by. >> Did you stop doing work on the property once the notice was issued? >> Yeah, we did stop. >> Okay. And we we did some other work afterwards though, but we did stop. >> We stopped initially. Then there was someone going to move in. Just being honest with you, they're moving into the property, the friend. So, we did a few
more things so they can move in, but we haven't finished the properties. >> Okay. The unit that we're showing the photographs of, >> has that unit been completed? >> Not completely. I don't think any of No, not completely. >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. I don't have any questions. All right. Uh sir, are there any other witnesses you would like to call or anything else you'd like to tell me today? You don't have to if you don't want to, but if you are, this is your opportunity. Is that a no?
>> No. I'm sorry. >> Okay. No other witnesses. All right. If there's any members of the public that have knowledge about case number CE25-157 for the property at 13414 Gulf Boulevard, now is the time to provide public comment.
Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else? >> No, I don't have anything else. Thanks. >> All right. Based upon the admissions of the uh owner and the contractor, I do find the violation uh occurred and is currently ongoing. I'm going to give you
30 days to bring the property into compliance. Thereafter, be a $250 day fine. If for whatever reason, sir, you find that you need more time than 30 days. Like I told the last folks, I'm here every month, but please come see me before that 30 days runs or or as soon
as close as you can if you have some issues with permit. All right. So, we'll uh I'll go ahead and get an order and send that to you and I'll send the uh Do you want me to send the order to the 10657 address or the 13414 address?
>> Okay. All right. That concludes the hearing on C25-157. Okay, let's go back to case number C26-27 for the property at 133132nd
Street East. Is the city ready to proceed? >> Yes, we are. Um the city would call Taylor Davis. Taylor, um this property, is this a proactive case or complaint driven?
This one is complaint driven. >> Okay. What was the complaint the city received? >> Um the next door neighbor Scott uh we have an email thread from him. He has been notifying us when the property is being rented out uh shortterm. So we
kind of assumed that it was redone and then he provided us pictures inside. And then we also found it on Zillow for sale. All new interior. >> Okay. So once you um received the complaint, did you determine who the
property owner is and how did you determine that? >> Penelis County Property Appraiser owner is Red River Property Group LLC. >> All right. And are you looking at starting at page 102 of the agenda packet? >> I am. >> Thank you. All right. When you um found
out who the owner was, did you go out to the property and determine whether or not a violation existed? >> Yes. >> Okay. When did you go out to the property? >> Um, we went onto the property shortly after the first time the neighbor notified us of the renters, but the
pictures are going to be from Zillow. >> Okay. So, when you went back to the office, I I assume that you pulled up Zillow. How did you find this particular property on Zillow? >> Um, just the fact it was for sale. We
saw that it was bought in January and I'm assuming flippers gutted it, redid it, put it for sale. >> So, you just plugged in the address here in Mader Beach. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I want you to turn to page 110 of the agenda packet and um
there's some photographs there. And if you could explain to me what these photo first of all, are these photographs taken from Zillow? >> Yes. >> Okay. And and were these listed under the address of 13313 Street East? True.
>> Okay. And uh it looks to me like there is um Well, why don't you explain to the photographs? >> Um 110 the upper picture. You can tell it's different cabinets down below than it is up top. And then appliances look new. You can
see new trim. There's actually like three different kinds of cabinets. And then the lower picture looks like brand new doors. And then page 111 again, new trim, new back door, new water heater,
new vanity in the bathroom. And then one page 112, you can see the property is for sale with all of those kind of same pictures in there. >> Was there any information on Zillow saying this property was recently remodeled? >> Not that I saw. >> Okay. Would this been one of the houses
here in the city that have um received flood damage from the hurricane? >> Yes. >> Approximately how much water would have been in this house? >> The area this home is in about 3 to 4 feet. >> Okay. All right. So, once you found on Zillow that the property had been
remodeled, did you issue a courtesy notice of violation? >> Yes. >> And is that what's depicted starting on page 108? >> Yes. When you sent that courtesy notice, did you attach all the photographs that we just went over? >> We did. >> Okay. Did you ever hear get a response
back from the property owner? >> No. >> What was it that you were asking the property owner to do to come into compliance? >> Um, have a licensed contractor, being that it's an LLC, apply for an after the fact building permit. >> All right. Did you set a corrective uh date, time,
a follow-up date >> for the courtesy? March 3rd. Yes. >> Did it come into compliance? >> No. Is it in compliance today? >> No. >> All right. So, the city issued then in a notice of code violation. >> Yes, we did. Shortly after that, March
3rd, it was sent out. Follow-up date March 17th. >> And you attach the same photographs as before? >> Yes, sir. >> How did you send that? How did you mail it by regular mail? Certified mail. >> Courtesy, regular mail, certified, certified mail. >> Okay. Did you get the green card back?
>> We did not. >> Okay. Did you subsequently issue a statement of violation and request for a hearing? >> Yes. >> And is that reflected on page 121 and 22 of the packet? >> Yes. >> Did you also prepare a notice of hearing for today's special magistrate hearing?
>> Yes. >> And is that uh reflected in starting at page 123? >> Yes. >> All right. And how did you send those the statement of violation the request for hear or the notice of hearing? >> These were sent by regular and certified and posted at the property and here.
>> Okay. So it was posted at the property and city hall >> and here. Yeah. >> All right. Did you issue a affidavit of service reflecting all of those? >> We did >> notices. Okay. And is that reflected starting on page 119? >> Yes, sir. >> If you could turn to the last two
photographs on this particular um case and tell me what those two photographs uh reflect. It's one page 124, I mean 125 and 126. >> 125 is the actual property. That is our posting of the affidavit of service, request for hearing, and statement of
violation. And the address is kind of in there on the mailbox. And then page 126 is the posting of the packet downstairs. >> Okay. How much time do you think it would take to get a building permit issued uh to
bring this property into compliance? >> 30 days. >> All right. And if it's not in compliance within those 30 days, what do you think the uh daily fine should be? >> Um $250 for sure for life safety because they are running it.
>> All right. I have no other questions. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Davis. That was very succinct. Uh anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Anybody here on behalf of the owner of 13313 Avenue East would like to come forward?
Okay, seeing none, does the city have any other witnesses? >> No other witnesses. >> There's any members of the public that want to come forward in regard to code enforcement case CE26-27 for the property located at 13313 Second Street East, please come forward now.
Seeing none, anything else, Mr. Tras, on this one? >> No. >> Okay. I'll go ahead and find the property is in violation based on the testimony of M. Davis as well as the uh exhibit accepted into evidence. I'm going to give the property owner 30 days to bring the property in compliance.
Thereafter, it'll be a $250 a day fine. All right, let's move on to case number C25-167. This is for the property located at 515 129th Avenue East. Is the city
ready to and I called it as 25-167. Is the city ready to proceed? Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Ask. >> Uh, the city would call Connor Mechco. Connor, if you could uh please explain to the special magistrate your occupation, your job responsibilities here at the city.
>> Um, I'm a code compliance and permit specialist for the city of Madira Beach, and part of my job entails uh citing code violations and enforcing them. >> You familiar with this property at 515 129th Avenue East?
>> Yes. And is this a proactive case or complaint driven? >> Uh, this was complaint driven. >> What was the complaint the city received? >> Uh, we received a complaint from a tenant upstairs about the living conditions and some maintenance issues
in her um in her unit. >> Okay. Did you go out to uh the property to see if there were was a violation of city code? >> Yes. >> Okay. And when did you go out to the property? Uh we went out to the property
in November. Um it was when we sent out the courtesy notice, so it would have been uh around November 14th. >> All right, let's talk about the ownership of the property. Um who's the current owner of the property?
>> The current owner is Absolute Control Trust. >> How do you know that? >> Uh using Penllis County Property Appraiser. Okay. Now, somewhere during the process of citing this case, the ownership changed.
Is that correct? >> True. They were using um quick claim deeds to move the property um between LLC and trust names. >> Okay. And and what was the um LLC's name
just prior to Absolute Control Trust? >> Real Estate Company LLC. All right. So, when the case was originally uh came to you as a complaint, did you issue a courtesy notice of violation to Real
Estate Company LLC? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that was done on November 14th, 2025. >> True. >> Okay. So, what was the violation that was cited in um in that courtesy notice? uh general maintenance uh which is
section 1470 also 1471 which is the duties and responsibilities of the operator and also 8652 uh which is when required for work without a permit. >> All right so when you went out to the
property did you take photographs of the property? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to turn your attention to page starting at page 162 and ask if you could explain these photographs. >> So, starting on 160, this is tile in the
bathroom floor that is cracked. Um, a big issue with this tile was it may not be able to be seen, but when standing on it, it's very like spongy and not stable. Um, that was one of her bigger concerns is the instability of the uh flooring itself.
Um 161 was from the shower tile in the shower that's broken and cracked. Um and the that's in the shower. This is on
page 162. It's um exposed wiring and electrical and that's in the unit itself um next to the water heater. um just all exposed. Um and then this was what she believed
to be termite damage and um she noted that they had bug problems. She believed termite um infestation in the property. And then 164 is where we posted a stop
work order because there was work done in one of the bottom units where it was remodeled. Um I think that picture um the updated picture that was taken is in that second um how you were saying it
was double posted. I think the revision including that picture is is probably further down in the packet. Um I can try to find the specific page. >> Yeah, why don't you do that because I did not print out two copies of the same
thing. So, page 302 of the packet. This picture is of one of the downstairs units. um showing work done um which is what prompted the 8652 for work without
permit. Um as you can see and this was taken from from outside but you can see through the window that there's new cabinetry um new appliances and also the drywall trim and flooring and everything is is brand new. Um, this property
received probably anywhere between three to four uh feet of water from the storm. So, this is all done post storm. >> All right. So, when you issued the courtesy notice of violation, did you attach these photographs that you're talking about?
>> Uh, correct. >> Okay. Is the property in compliance as of today? >> Uh, no. >> Okay. Did you issue a uh notice of code violation then for the property? >> Yes. Did it site the same code sections as the previous notice? >> Uh, correct.
>> Did it Did it attach the photographs that you just testified to in as well to the notice of code violation? >> Correct. >> Did you send it by certified mail? >> True. >> Okay. So, what does the property owner need to do to bring this property back in or
into compliance? So, the property owner would need to obtain um a building permit. They would need an after the-act permit for the work done um downstairs. And also, they would need to um resolve
the issues in the upstairs units uh the maintenance issues um such as the cracked tile and damaged subflooring and the exposed electrical. >> Okay. And in fact, you list out in your uh notice of code violation the exact
requirements for the property to bring the property into compliance. Correct. >> True. On page 174, you can see the violation details and corrective action. >> All right. So, um since the property did not come into compliance, you uh prepared a statement
of violation request for hearing for today. >> Uh yes, >> that was done on March 27th. >> True. You also prepared a notice of hearing for today's hearing? >> Yes. >> And that was also done on the same date, March 27th this year.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Did you also post the property and at city hall? >> Uh, correct. >> Okay. And did you issue a uh affidavit of service that would reflect all of that? >> Uh, correct. On page 181. >> All right. So, um,
how much time you take it would take to bring this property into compliance? uh 30 days. >> What if it's not in compliance within 30 days? What what do you think the uh daily amount of the fine should be? >> Uh I believe $250 a day um for life
safety issues because it is presently being occupied by tenants upstairs. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for um Connor. I would tender into evidence pages 154
through 184. ask that they be received into evidence. >> All right, I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one, pages 154 through 184. And then as exhibit two, the um I think it's page
302 of the agenda packet, which is the picture of the violation showing the work without a permit. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Absolute Control Trust or anybody here on behalf
of the owner of the property at 515 129th Avenue East. Okay. Let the record reflect there is nobody present on behalf of the respondent. Are there any members or anything else from the city? Mr. Tras. >> No. Thank you.
>> Are there any members of the public that have information about code enforcement violation 25-167 that want to come forward? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Mr. Tras, anything else on this one? >> No. Thank you.
>> All right. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Mechco as well as the documents accepted into evidence, I go ahead and find there is a violation or are violations as set forth in the uh the order, the respondent will have 30 days to correct the violation or $250 a day
thereafter. Um, I saw the notice was certainly proper under the property appraisers website on this one. Is absolute control trust is an actual trust, Mr. Tras? Is an LLC? Is it a court? I mean, do they have a registered agent in the state of Florida? I just
want to make sure I if they do, I serve it on the registered agent to maybe compel some action as well. I have the deed um that was um issued um on November 19th and it has an address in South Dakota. I can provide that to you.
>> Yeah. Will you just read that on the record and I'll just >> right >> put that in there. >> So this is Absolute Control Trust, a South Dakota trust. This mailing address is 204 South Main Street, Sou Falls, South Dakota.
The zip code has too many numbers. It says 571043. >> Okay, we'll figure that out. I'll look it up. >> All right, I'll also go ahead and send a copy of the order to that address just so that there's no question about it.
All right, I think that concludes everything in new business. We just got one matter old business. Is that correct, Mr. Tr? >> That's correct. >> All right. Uh the next case we'll call then is 25-178 for the property located at 575 Normandy
Road. I received uh what you provided to me that is a copy of my order as well as a request from a twin yin to Mr. Mechco. Uh so go ahead
and and proceed how you'd like Mr. Tras on this one. >> Yeah, judge. This is a a request for a extension of the compliance date. Um the city has no objection to a 60-day extension of the compliance date. Well, the compliance date right now was set
pursuant to your order March 26, 2026. So 60 days put May 26, 2026. City has no objection to that. >> All right. I will go ahead and enter. Anybody hear from the respondent? Okay. Uh based upon uh your representation,
Mr. Tras, I'll go ahead and accept as exhibit number one, the email, and the order, and then I'll go ahead and enter an order granting the respondent an additional 60 days to bring the property into compliance, which will be on or before May 26, 2026.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Are there any other matters before me today? >> That's it. >> All right. That concludes today's hearing. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.