ready okay good morning everyone i'm going to call to order the uh code enforcement magistrate hearing for uh March 19th 2025 if you'll please uh rise join me in the pledge of allegiance
pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty liberty and justice for all okay please be seated um first case is not the first case on the
docket i'm going to call out of order we've got some folks here for it it is uh the Rio Garage LLC case ZNF2024070638-01 and um and it's a violation case um and the allegation is
failure to obtain a building permit when required miss Bush you're going to testify folks you're here on behalf of Rio Garage yes okay so what we're going to do is we're going to hear from the county first presumably they'll make what the law calls a primmaaccia case
meaning that if everything they say is correct that I I there's enough there to find you uh responsible and guilty for the the charge after that uh the the burden then flips to you you can present evidence
you can uh discuss the case you can tell me your side of it and and then I'll make a ruling and we'll go about our business so so we're going to hear from the county first i can swear you in since you're standing there where I'm swear all three of you in if that's the
case okay go if you raise your right hands do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God all right and I I know Miss Bush Officer Bush tell me your names please crystal Powell
crystal Powell powell okay miss Powell and what's your relationship to Rio Garage LLC i'm the um manager of the entity okay and um and sir what's your
name tom Walters property manager tom Walters and Mr walters tell me again what your relationship is to the corporation uh the property manager property manager okay but but Miss Pal you are the actual manager of the LLC
legally yes got it okay all right good so we're going to hear from the county first you can stand there or you can sit in that first row and then look up at the monitor um that'll that'll have the presentation
and the evidence on it as as will the monitor directly in front of you so okay all right Miss Bush good morning good morning off we go what do we got my name is Tamika Bush and I have been sworn in i'm a co- compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent Rio Garage
LLC is present this case concerns the property at 1140 Northeast Dixie Highway in Jensen Beach Florida 34957 in Martin County Florida this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint and according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County
the property owner is Rio Garage LLC a copy of property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit [Applause] one on August 14th 2024 the property was inspected and at that time code
enforcement investigator observed a sign with no permit none electric a split unit AC at that time the property was photographed and the photographs accurately shows what we saw then and is marked as county's exhibits 2 through 5 exhibit two is the front of the building
and the address okay exhibit three being the split unit AC that was installed exhibit four is a p a photo of the sign exhibit five is the rear of the building based on based upon the
investigation I issued a notice of violation to Rio Rio Garage LLC on September 30th 2024 marked as county's exhibit six in the notice I cited the following Martin County violation section 105.1
FBC permits when required and incorporated by sections 21.1 general ordinances of Martin County Code in the notice of violation the respondent was given until October 30th 2024 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code
enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved upon inspection observed a metal structure in the rear of the property without a permit an amended notice of violation was issued on November 15th 2024 and is marked as
county's exhibit 6 i'm sorry seven six is uh yeah the original that was when it was Miss Espott's case now it's yours yes sir and you've amended for a metal structure and new
sign okay so all right and the photo and the structure is this structure okay the awning in the rear that's eight um I I broke your your train of thought you go ahead and just tell me the tell
me what you need to tell me and then we'll go from there in a minute notice of violation was issued on November 15 2024 and was requesting compliance by December 5th 2024 upon reinspection the photograph of
the property um there was a photograph of the property of the metal awning structure on the property that had not been permitted the photograph actually shows what was seen then and is marked as county's exhibit 7 through 9 well 8 through nine sorry and so eight
is the front of the building which shows that we're still at that property and nine being the structure that's in the rear the awning in the rear which exhibit five shows a better photo of it than nine does
compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on December 17th 2024 and it's Martin is county's exhibit 10 11 i'm sorry yeah 10's still a photo 11 is the notice of hearing yes
okay all right that was for the January hearing yes sir yeah go ahead the owner complied with the sign violation in the removal of the split unit AC the unpermitted structure remains on the property a permit was submitted in additional time was granted an amended
notice of hearing was issued on February 5th 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 12 okay okay the return receipt was the return receipt was not received in the property and county administration was posted on
March 5th 2025 the post is marked as county's exhibit 12 13 and the affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 14 i'm sorry the the affidavit of posting is marked
as exhibit 13 exhibit 14 is the property permit screenshot showing that the permit was still not issue resubmitt required yes sir
hey we can actually read these today that's good um the last couple of hearings it's been a little rough trying to read this okay good and exhibit 15 is the day before which is March 18th 2025 showing that it still exists at the
property as of yesterday um the permit still has not been issued and as it shows there but they also reviewed it on yesterday and stated that a resubmiddle would be
required um and it was denied by the CRA in our building departments wait a minute the building department required a resubmitt right prior and so this is this is a new
resubmitt that was for yesterday okay so basically what happened in this case is they they were to get a permit for it right and then the permit was denied they resubmitted the permit was denied
and prior to the hearing just so that they can try to obviously comply before the hearing they resubmit it so yesterday it was reviewed and this is the the uh the this is what's left for for them to
do when to resubmit okay so it was denied but it is still permittable is that what you I do not know if it's permittable okie dokie all right well
then let's see if anybody else can tell us um hang on just a sec you all want to come up and tell me what we've got i I would tell you at the moment I don't have a primage case let's find out
what's what you know about it you've heard the counties um the county's testimony and their evidence any objection to any of it looks pretty easy to me um there's a few things I don't really agree with wait a minute
it's got to be a legal objection to either the form of it or or some other thing the content i mean if it's a photo it's a photo if it's So photos are are accurate just Okay well choice of words
but that's okay but not the I'm not worried about that i'm worried about the uh the photos being correct and the the documents being uh what they were whether that's right or wrong and you can you're going to
tell me whether it's right or wrong but so it sounds like you really don't have any objection to any of it it would have to be a legal objection right i mean it looked Yeah like it came right okay so without objection I will accept evidence the county's exhibits 1 through
15 now we can talk about them tell me what the story is um so the county received a complaint from an upset prior tenant at that location of course right and um as soon
as re we received the notification we immediately went to our tenant and told them they needed to cure or you know we move forward with an eviction at that time they submitted
something in December but it wasn't the permit that they needed to submit um so then when we were notified of that come January they resubmitted the permit um the hearing in January was postponed and
um because there was movement on obtaining the permit and there's been movement ever since i personally spoke with a contractor yesterday and she said
that there's um a couple things that need to be like uh work that needs to be done in order to be you know pass inspections based on what the county's comments are but it's
permittable um that there's no denial and they just need to resubmit a a few things they also said that there's issues there's be they're being asked to supply things and documentation for
items that have to do with a building being built back like in the ' 60s and ' 70s whenever it was built because she's saying that they're not county doesn't have them whatever it is that's what she's being told okay
um we also when it comes to the tenant we keep saying hey as long as you're the case is progressing and the right direction the goal for everybody is
compliance and the hearings will be postponed because that's what Tama has said so it was quite a shock when um this one wasn't postponed um because up until it everything was in
the county's review up until earlier this week so it's like a holding pattern you know um where we can't resub the count the contractor cannot resubmit things that they don't know that they have to be resubmitted you know right until the county tells them what it is
that's that's still wrong right exactly yeah no I' I've got that and I notice on the on the docket sheet itself it says stipulation um and it's not being brought as a stipulation which means that you all haven't signed an agreement
correct are you are you looking for time is that That's what we're looking for we're looking for time to be brought into compliance well all right i I think um I mean based on the the evidence and
your testimony as well as Officer Bush's I could find a violation easily enough but I'm I guess I'm curious as to why why you didn't enter into a stipulation i had a conversation with I don't know his last name John at the
county i guess I believe it's Mr colando hi yes I had a conversation with him yesterday yes i told him my concerns about the stipulation that um number one it says like all of our right
like everything is waved and also as of a specific date Mhm i'm agreeing that all these fines can be imposed no matter what and I said and look as of today everything's in the county's review okay but but understand if I find you guilty
right I'm going to do the same thing and and it's going to cost more because of the cost right the costs aren't 300 this is a conversation we had had i just told him like my concern like with the stipulation that's all but it's
Well the the violation order isn't any better not you know not as far as you're concerned um I I don't Do you still have that stipulation is that still there i I mean is it in your file do you have
it did you print it because all I'm saying to you is that you're better off to do it than you are to let me rule on it and I'm happy to if you sign it
you okay with that county okay well I I I point out two things one this case is pending for 6 months at September the application was only made at the beginning of this year so half of the time went by with no mush whatsoever and the cost are for bringing something to
hearing which is where we are stipulation is done beforehand since we've incurred the cost uh the county would object to not then getting the cost since we're here all right i I'm I'm in the let's make a deal mode here this morning let's see if we do you have
it i just gave it to you oh where is it what are the terms of the stipulation uh honor before June 30th okay so that's enough time permit i probably would not have given you that much time and your
honor you if I may you signed it you swear affirm testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I do i I did position oh John Colando uh code enforcement administrator i did explain that yesterday that's why I offered the
stipulation but we did want it back yesterday so we could do it prior to hearing of course all right so June 30th $100 a day yes would you
Well just All right so all right so it it requires compliance before June 30th on or before $100 a day thereafter if you fail to comply and $350 in administrative costs
to be paid basically now and that's that's it um so I if if I rule it's $575 in cost then the terms would be the same or more strict
so yes no i mean I'll rule i'm happy to rule i just have one other question sure this is a beneficial owner of Rio Garage yeah i had a doctor's appointment that I didn't know was going to be so late come on up here and raise your right hand do
you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth all truth of nothing but the truth so help you got it i do and your full name sir ryan Timothy Daring and Mr daring what is your relationship to Rio Garage LLC i'm the owner of the property of the
land of the land okay all right okay speaking to the we yeah we don't really have a problem sign that stipulation we hired an attorney to help us with this
situation and so we gave the tenant a 6 day notice to either get this fixed back at the original time or else we had a victim well now my attorney is telling us that since the county agreed
to let him submit a building permit application and we agreed to let him do that I want to go and a victim right so we're in this catch 22 now because now that we all agreed to let him do this and we agreed and the county accepted
the permit now it's in their preview so we can't evict them and we can't do this and now if we sign this thing and and it's still in the county now we're in this catch 22 that we signed this give up our rights and we're going to get fined but I can't evict a guy my hands are tied to do anything i I tried to hire my own contractor i'll take the
building down i'll do all that stuff but right now my hands are tied i'm in two different courts now because I can't evict them because we gave the rights to do it and we the county accepted the permit now if they would just deny them great that would be I that's what I'd hoped to happen today if the county would just say no you had enough time
we're going to cancel your permit we'll sign this thing and then I can evict them but right now we're in this catch 22 okay but understand if I rule which I'm about to do cuz I got to move move the docket on but what does that if you rule what does that mean it means that
I'm going to give you less time i'm going to probably give you until the end of May and it's still going to be $100 a day thereafter and I'm going to charge you $575 in cost no I understand that but I'm saying that doesn't help me out because it's still the building department so we'll sign the thing that
you're talking about we have no problem with that but is there How do I I'm asking your advice I guess where do we go from here i can't give you advice all I'm telling you is that that it's unusual that I see a stipulation that that on the docket that turns into a
violation case because they didn't sign the stipulation which is always going to be a better deal than than having it come here and me making a ruling and finding
that that you're responsible which that's what the evidence shows so so we signed the stipulation today and then we just and you pay the 350 and and then you do what you need to do between now and June 30th to either get the permit
or get the tenant out and get the thing down all right so we could go to the building department and say "Hey if this guy's not giving you guys what you need then I guess we'll have to talk to the building department." Yeah and I can't give you legal advice on that yeah see I' I'd hope John our attorney had this
all figured out and then he that all of a sudden he dropped a bomb on us and said "Well we can't do anything now." I I know what I'd be doing if I were in your shoes but you know it's I'd sign this okay thank you all right get your checkbook out too cuz you need to pay
350 bucks that's got to accompany it so all right unusual i I get it but actually all right while you all are doing that
let me just put this on the record um so the stipulation calls for compliance on or before June 30th uh 2025 failing which uh find the amount of $100 per day will
acrue and um there are costs in the amount of $350 to be paid to the uh to the county today all right now failing witch
um you know this thing comes back to me so you got to pay it and then otherwise it's 575 and plus because there'll be another hearing so make sure you take care of it sir i think she has some additional
concerns she stated it to me but I don't know if you want to hear those what what concern what no it was it was more of a question that would be a question for him oh not John no for the magistrate because it's his order it's the
magistrate's order so Oh it is um that on the call yesterday my one concern my main concern with the stipulation was like if it says June 30th and the ball is in the the county's hands still as
like it was yesterday right yes and he's like he said "I'm not going to find you or levy or put a lean on your property if it's still in review and um in the count you know in the county's lap okay
without you having default or defaulted." If um there is a hearing in June and you would need to get yourself on the docket uh for some sort of relief you may want to talk to your attorney about that um prior
to June 30th okay okay so okay I hear you so the building department if if it's their suggestion that things are moving along pretty good and they agree with us get on the docket a couple weeks before
that or if if if it's not resolved then you need to come back before the the magic date not after because Well what what she's saying if they're happy with the progress but it's not resolved can they just send a letter to you or do we still have to come to
court and do the whole thing no um my my agreed order that I'm about to give you says you've got to comply by June 30th okay and it's up to you all to figure out how to do that so can we cancel it the permit or comply by June 30th so if
he's not getting it done and we get him just to Your honor I think these are all questions that they can call and talk to me about and we can discuss plus you can talk to your own attorney about it you know it's not it's not up to me to tell you how to comply it's up to me to tell you you must comply all right who is
Seth Ellis that's the registered agent we don't need the registered agent it was either or okay so uh the Miss Powell you've signed now on behalf of um uh the owner it's Rio Garage
LLC and I guess that's another corporation excursion Management LLC what's that that's the man that's the legal manager of Rio Garage okay all right and Miss Bush you've signed on behalf of the of the county i'm going to find that it's appropriate to enter the
agreed order cut the check so you don't get any of us in trouble okay we'll get you a copy of the order thank you all right um basically you've just saved
yourselves a couple hundred bucks but you you need to comply so okay all right um your honor we have one more at the the last one on the docket that just come in oh we do okay we'll
receive a copy of that yeah miss Bradley if you just follow her she'll get you a copy of the order all right um okay so you've got this other case the Bashant case yes sir gregory J bashant it's case number ENF
2025 010345 uh violation case for failure to obtain a building permit and and 67201B trash on the property yes okay all right um I'm going to swear you in we're going
to listen to the county's evidence okay if you raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I'll help you out yes and your full name sir nick Galato gua
g L O tta yes galata correct all right and what's your relationship to Mr bashant or the property manager property manager okay all right okay let's see what the
county's got my name is Tamika Bush and I have been sworn in i'm a co- compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent Gregory J bashant is not present the case concerns the property at 2682 Northeast Pine Avenue Jensen
Beach Florida 34957 in Martin County Florida this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is Gre Gregory J bashan a copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit
one on January 15 2025 I inspected the property and at that time I observed a fence installed with no permits and overgrowth at the property at that time I photographed the property the photographs actually shows what I saw then and it's marked as county's exhibit 2
okay which what property is it the 2682 is this property here here's the fence that's in concern the replacement of the fence and the overgrowth okay based upon the investigation I issued a
notice of violation to Gregory J bashan on January 23rd 2025 marked as county's exhibit 3 and in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violations permits when required incorporated by sections 21.1 sections 105.1 FBC general
ordinances of Martin County code section 67.201A nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances of Martin County Code in the notice of violation the respondent was given until February 23rd 2025 to correct the violation and was
informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved and the notice of hearing was issued by Certified Mail on March 5th 2025 and is Martin County's exhibit 6 all right let me just see six okay and
what's four and five additional photos of the property okay all right the return receipt was not received in the property and county administration was posted an affidavit of posting is marked as counting exhibit seven and 8
exhibit 7 being the posting at the property exhibit 8 being the affidavit of the posting okay there was no call or letter from the property owner within the time allotted therefore I went to the property again on March 18th 2025 and saw that the sighted violations had
not been corrected at that time I photographed the property the photograph actually shows what I saw then and is marked as counting exhibit 9 and this is yesterday yes so basically the fence is still there but they don't have a permit they have complied with
the um cut and mowing of the lawn areas and here's a um exhibit 10 is the property screenshot for permits showing that there is no permit for the fence
okay got it at this time I request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence and based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Gregory J bashan be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of
the Martin County Code by April 30th 2025 2025 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting the investigation and
request that the county be reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing okay all right um Mr gl any any objection to any of those exhibits the one through 10 well the only objection I have it it's not a
new fence okay we'll get to that but but the photos are accurate the Okay so without objection I'll accept into evidence exhibits 1 through 10 now what are you telling me as far as the fence it's a looks like a replacement of
sections of one blew section of that fence down okay and um as you can see it was older and and so we took the opportunity to just uh put new material so it's not a new fence and
it's not a it's not a um it's just it's just a repair from from storm damage okay and we did take care of the the overgrowth that you can see like these palm leaves and such are from from neighbors seem to think that that's a
good area to dump um but we've we but that's cleared out of there that's that's not an issue today okay okay so but the fence when we've had cases like this before where where there was enough damage to the fence that the people
replaced sections of it and and I the county basically uh the position is that that you still need a permit to replace
um the fence or parts of the fence so Um and the owner didn't do that i Were you the one that actually arranged for the No I wasn't but um and I apologize for letting it get this far there's just too many cooks in the kitchen on our
side people you know think being handled and it's not all right i I I mean there's certainly enough evidence to find the violation exists and so I'm going to go ahead and do that um based on the evidence and testimony
of yours as well um find that the violation exists give you until um April 30th should be enough time to get a fence permit yes sir and and then um if you don't do that
it'll be $100 a day i am going to have to charge you 575 bucks for the pleasure of coming here so um is that are the they are those are the costs incurred so all right I'm going to go ahead and issue the
order and um you just need to take care of it get the fence permit done okay and we'll get this out to you do Do we have a email address for you probably not i I'll information maybe just give that to Miss
Bush and then and we can go from there thank you sir okay oh okay mr cla we'll get you a copy now all right two other um two other matters
since we don't have any anybody else um out in the audience waiting uh two other matters I'm going to take care of now uh last Friday March 14th um we received um an email from Carara
Groves concerning u case number ENF202201797-01 which was um the Chason Charles Chason case from uh I think it was March of 2023
3 and um basically on behalf of the land owner um and Miss Miss Groves is an attorney uh she's asking that we consider a reconsideration request on
the order finding violation um executed by me March 17 2023 um and uh and I know that that also went to the staff and officer counselor you
were the officer is that correct correct on this case all right and she's saying as a brief recap my client failed to show at the hearing and an order was entered against him no lean proceedings have been
initiated as far as she knows but of course the order itself is the is the lean um and then my client maintains that he was not on notice of this hearing until last year when he went to
submit a building permit and was required to pay magistrate fees be prior to getting the permit through miscommunications with code enforcement he believed that obtaining the egg classification for the upcoming
year would undo the order to resolve the code enforcement case egg classification was denied and Miss Groves was hired um the client now has copies of his code
enforce of his file he believes the mailed notices for this case were sent to the wrong address further none of the notices tied with string to the gate as shown in the code enforcement file were actually on his gate when he visited the property
he doesn't reside there or doesn't live there finally the incorrect analysis of the non-residential farm building statute under uh section 60450 Florida statutes was performed by code
enforcement and misrepresented to my client emails between code enforcement and my client show that code enforcement took the improper position that Mr chason could bypass a building permit only if he had the ad classification this is not consistent with Florida case
law or the plain languages of section 604.50 it appears members of the property appraisers such as Dawn Shinsky also knew that Miss Chason was not required to apply for the ad classification in order to obtain
protections under Florida statute 604.50 and the respondent would like the opportunity to call said witnesses at a rehearing overall its response position that he did not receive proper notice in violation of due process and thus reharing is
proper further because code enforcement maintained an improper position that Mr chason was required to obtain a building permit for what was otherwise a non-residential farm building and exempt under 604.50 50 a reversal of the order
is warranted and respondent would appreciate the opportunity to submit an affidavit and address the 604.5 case law in a full motion please advise at your earliest convenience on how you'd like to proceed so that's the the email that
was received and um I have not responded directly to it uh I I really do want to hear from the county and understand the county's position i I don't specifically remember this case um and I could
probably look look through it but um I I found at the time that it was that notice was proper and that um and I would not have issued a violation order
um if I felt otherwise as you know and um not only that but the time for appeal of this case was 30 days from the the rendering of the of the order um
presumably Mr jason could have appealed my decision at that point and didn't um but but I think if I'm reading this correctly what they're saying is it it
doesn't none of that matters to them because um apparently Mr chason's case is that he didn't get actual notice now notice as we know under the statute is
that um that that the code enforcement must pursue uh the address that's on the property appraisers's record of ownership and that's what you do and that's how I determine whether notice was was given
and then either by certified mail by posting hand delivery um any of those methods are are fine so I I I guess I would have to review the
case file to to to know what I did but if I may Erin before we even get into the specifics of uh the request the uh the county's position is that the request is improper on its face
um a request for rehearing is a creature of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure right which is available only to a final judgment and it must be done within 15 days of rendering that final judgment a request for reconsideration does not
appear anywhere in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure it's a it's a common law practice that the the Florida courts have upheld it applies only to nonfinal orders so once a final judgment is made there is no there is no possibility for a a
motion for reconsideration and that has been addressed even though it's not a rule that uh procedure for trying to use that for a uh a final uh judgment has been disallowed by the courts and finally the the the most uh telling
thing with this is the Florida rules of civil procedure do not apply here uh the magistrate's hearing is controlled solely by section 162 of the Florida statutes which provides the only remedy for either party respondent or
petitioner is to appeal a final judgment of the of the magistrate to the circuit court within 30 days since the 30 days uh period has long passed I would I would submit that it's improper even to consider the uh the uh questions of
service even though as the court said that's a threshold requirement in every case and the fact that a final order was rendered by Irana shows that the the service was proved to be proper at the time
yeah and I think that's probably the the key issue um is that I would not have I would not have issued a um a final order in this case if if I was not satisfied that the
county had done what it should have done to um provide notice and therefore due process um I I guess what I could do is is treat
Miss Grove's email as a motion and and deny it just send her um an email in reply denying the her motion and and basically
note that it's untimely it's way past the 30 days she had to to file an appeal and if I might suggest your honor if you're going to treat it as a motion could you make your response as an order denying that motion and so stating
untimely since it's been done on the record yeah no I I mean unfortunately um we didn't ask her to attend we didn't telephonically or otherwise but but I it
is I feel like because of the way she's cast this I wish I wish she had done this a little more formally um the other alternative would be requested to submit a motion which would then you've already decided is going to
be denied so well it would be a waste of judicial asset i mean unless she's got something else she wants to to tell us i mean I don't I don't have any objection to doing that and we could maybe hear it telephonically
you and me and Well once again 162 controls more than 30 days have gone by it's improper to do anything after this point this tribunal just does not have the power to do anything other than what 162 allows
well I I mean there is that section um I think it's in 16209 that where where it does give me broad powers to to um issue orders issue but that that um
as but but I would argue that the the 30-day um cut off for appeals trumps that you'd issue issue orders up until the time that the final order and then there's no revisiting after 30 days um
yeah and I'm I'm not inclined to to revisit the case other than the fact that uh she may have a case for fine abatement or reduction but that would be up to her as well okay all right
um I think what I'm going to do is it it requires some response and um it really is unusual to get it in this form instead of um something a little more formal but
I I think um her request for reconsideration isn't proper i I think it's that perhaps that simple that I just could treat it as a motion and and deny
it by way of an order and and let her then um respond to that yes that we I guess she could appeal that but Exactly yeah okay all right
um Okay we've spent enough time I think on that i don't know that there's much more than that i will I will deal with it yes ma'am i just need to interrupt you for a second on his order you guys remove Oh yeah no that's going to come out okay um and will you open the
computer yep thank you all right so that was that was the first issue that I had to deal with the second one was um I had issued um an order granting continuence and issuing
instructions in the case number ENF2024100023 which was County versus Lawrence H grub and Dana Collins and Terresa Collins um and it it came after we had taken evidence and
testimony and um in my order I I note that uh there was this open um decision that uh had been deferred and referred
back by the Golden Gate Neighborhood Advisory Committee to growth management department and at the time the growth management department had not ruled on the request for relief and um and so when I realized that
that's when I issued this order continuing the case until today so and and officer uh counselor you were the one that that uh testified so if you'll raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth all truth and
nothing but the truth so I hope you got it i do okay so what Okay so just as a follow-up yes GMD did make a final decision and they denied his alternate compliance okay basically denying his ability to have that structure permitted so the permit was
denied he since canceled the permit because in the meantime he went ahead and took it down okay violation he removed the violation so it's in compliance it's in compliance okay good all right so um yeah no no reason then
for him to appear and and that'll um that'll take care of the case i suppose I procedurally it's still an open case so order dismissal
i I think that's probably the best under the circumstances so based upon um further testimony from officer counselor and the facts of the case being that uh the owner is now in compliance uh I'm going
to go ahead and dismiss the case uh it's case number ENF202401 00023 respondents Lawrence H grub and Dana Collins and Terresa Collins okay okay so that's dismissed thank you
all right um okay and let's see i guess we're back to the top of the top of the batting order and that's the Heron case uh case number ENF20241100083 Katherine Herren and the
estate of Edward Herren um violation case and we have a new face if you'll raise your right hand sir do you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God i do and have a
seat and tell me your full name and your position michael Joseph i am a code compliance investigator for Martin County okay welcome Mr joseph thank you all right
all right whenever you're ready go ahead my name is Michael Joseph and I have been sworn in i am a code compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent Katherine Herren and Edward Herren estate is not present this case concerns the property at 6460
Southeast Lake Circle Drive Stewart Florida 34997 in Martin County Florida this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is Katherine Herren and Edward Herren Estate a copy a copy of the
property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one okay all right on November 6 2024 uh Deborah Carrasco the code officer assigned to this area inspected the property she observed damage to the exterior walls
she photographed the property the photograph accurately shows what she saw then and is marked as county's exhibit 2 through 4 so there's two i believe she's showing this area right here where there's damage to that exterior wall okay
exhibit three see the cracking there and the damage right there and exhibit four was a door tag okay all right based upon the investigation she
issued a amended notice of violation to Katherine Herren and Edward Herren estate on January 7th 2025 marked as counties exhibit five in the notice she cited the following Martin County Code violations section
21.114 exterior walls general ordinance Martin County code and 67201 weeds which has since since been removed due to an existing case in the amended notice of violation the respondent was given until January
28th 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so deborah did another inspection on 12925 exhibit 6 accurately shows what she saw then and there's exhibit 6 is
still in violation okay compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on January 31st 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 7 [Applause]
all right the return receipt was not received therefore on March 5th 2025 code enforcement officer Deborah Krasco posted the property and at the Martin Martin County Administrative Building the posting and affidavit are marked as county's exhibit 8 9 and
10 there's eight the affidavit of posting nine the residents posted and 10 a closer picture of the posting itself good got it okay no call or letter from the property owner was received within the
time allowed therefore I went to the property again on March 18th 2025 and saw that the cited violation had not been corrected at that time i photographed the property the photograph accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as county's exhibit 11 and
12 so there I mean the trees have since grown over but at the bottom there I can try and zoom it in you can still see that the area is still damaged and the cracks still right there okay and 12 is the same thing just from the different angle
got it i request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence and based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Katherine Herren and Edward Herren estate be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by April 30th 2025
and if not in compliance by then be required to pay fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and requests that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's
hearing okay all right so just so I'm clear um the weeds and overgrowth was taken care of or it was a case that was with a different code officer okay so she just there's there's an
order running from a previous on that gotcha okay so it's Yeah it would be super in this case okay sure all right um let's see anybody here on behalf of Katherine Herren or the
Edward Heron estate seeing no one without objection I'll accept evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 12 in this case based upon that evidence and your testimony I will find that violation as charge does exist on the property an order compliance honor
before uh April 30th 2025 failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per day will acrewue and I'll further award cost in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing i'm
just Yep it's in there okay all right and Miss Switzer you have the next case it's uh Sailfish Club at Jupiter Point LLC it's case number ENF2025010318 and if you'll raise your
right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I'll be gone i do okay [Applause] um good whenever you're ready okay
my name is Kelly Switzer and I've been I've been sworn in i'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent Sailfish Club at Jupiter Point LLC is not present and has entered into a stipulated agreement okay this case concerns a property at 18577
Southeast Federal Highway in Tquesta Florida 34 33469 this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is Sailfish Club at Jupiter Point
LLC copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one okay on January 22nd 2025 we started a case regarding an expired permit application for a shed installation i inspected the
property and found that there are two sheds that were installed without a part an approved building permit at the time I photographed the property the photograph accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as county's exhibit two so this is there's two sheds actually there's one behind this bigger
one um that neither are permitted okay yeah I can kind of see the roof of the other okay based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Sail Fish Club at Jupiter Point LLC on January 24th 2025 and is marked as
county's exhibit 3 in the notice I cited the following Martin County Code violations section 105.1 Florida Building Code permits when required incorporated by section 21.1 General Ordinances Martin County Code in
the notice of violation the respondent was given until February 14th 2025 to correct the violation and was informed the need to contact Martin County code of enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on February
17th 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 4 um a screenshot showing the permit application status um is marked as county's exhibit 5 uh and that's showing that it's um an expired application the owner has
entered it into an stipulated agreement on March 18 20 2025 and has sent a signed copy the original is being mailed to us and he has they have agreed they have paid the agreed fees of
$350 i request that all the counties exhibits be received into evidence and I request that the respondent Sailfish Club at Jupiter Point LLC be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County code by June 30th 2025 and if not in compliance by then be required
to pay an amount amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter and this concludes my testimony okay so um without objection I'll accept any evidence the county's exhibits 1 through
five in this case and based upon the stipulation which recites exactly what you just told me I'm going to find it is appropriate to enter an agreed order in this case and note for the record that um I'm sorry I do or do not have the
original signature i do not it's being mailed all right so I'll enter the order uh sign the order as soon as I receive the the original um Okay thank you good thank
you all right uh and the next case is the Brinsson case and Miss Bradley you're going to testify or No no Miss Espott's case is actually off the docket it was complied
okay that is in compliance um in Okay and so the next one is the permit uh fine reduction request okay and it's case number 10
037252 so old it doesn't even have a name i know okay let's see all right denton 2 LLC yes sir that was the case name at the time yes sir different owners now correct
okay all right what have we I have to swear you in um do you swear affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth old truth and nothing but the truth so have you got it i do all right so what have we got okay my name is Rachel Spradley and I've been sworn in i'm the nuisance abatement coordinator
for Martin County this case concerns the property located at 14959 Southwest 170th Avenue Indian Town in Martin County Florida on June 16th 2010 an order finding violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to
Denton 2 LLC and a copy of the property appraisers showing the new owner so it's Dennis Limited LLC now is the correct owner or the current owner rather I'm sorry all right Dennis
and the order was issued for section 67.201A Nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code compliance was required by June 30th 2010 on June 2018 the property was transferred over to the village of
Indian Town on September 1st 2021 Martin County received a payment from a surplus payment paid to a taxdeed sale in the amount of $2,923.91 the property was cleared in a 2022 aerial from the property appraisers
website so on this one it's a little different we did not do an affidavit of compliance due to it not being ours anymore right but the recorded original order is count's exhibit 2 and then exhibit three is showing the payment overage that we received from
the clerk for the tax deed sale the surplus funds okay um Dennis Limited LLC are the current owners of the property pursuant to a quiet claim a quick claim deed recorded
in official record book 3329 page 1398 Martin County Florida public records the respondent has no remaining interest in the property staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted the current owners were not responsible for the violation however they brought the
property into compliance and have offered to pay $0 to resolve the outstanding fines which have accured in addition staff has considered the $25,000 assessed property value of the property so we took the property value which is the
$25,000 and because we received $2,923 it was over the 10% okay and this is a copy of Mrs dennis's uh reduction request okay yeah and I actually I've got that up on my screen so I read it so
that concludes my testimony for Okay so uh without objection I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through four in this case based upon that evidence and the request for fine reduction in your testimony i find it is
appropriate to reduce the fine to the amount that was um paid basically to uh the county via the tax sale um all right so as far as this reduction
is concerned it would be zero because the county's already received the funds yes sir all right note for the record that it uh is electronically signed by Paul Dennis on behalf of Dennis Limited LLC and yourself Miss Bradley on behalf
of the county and I'm going to go ahead and approve the um agreed recommended order all right okay good and I'm sorry let me just do one other thing
okay all right next case is um also an oldie case number 130074577 douglas Taylor yes sir and what have we got there another fine reduction yes okay my name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in i'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for
Martin County this case concerns the property located at 6989 Southeast Ridgeway Terrace Hope Sound in Martin County Florida on February 19th 2014 a stipulation and agreed final order was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to Douglas Taylor for section
67.201b nuisance declared trash etc general ordinances Martin County code compliance was required by May 19th 2014 on January 15th 2020 an affidavit of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in
the amount of $389,700 so exhibit one is the property appraiser showing the new owners all right thw L Group LLC okay got it exhibit two is the
original recorded stipulation with Mr taylor all right and I'm sorry what kind of case was it it was a violation case for um trash and debris okay all right yep and then exhibit
three is the recorded um affidavit with acred fines all right okay um TWW or THW Florida Group LLC are the current owners of the property pursuant to a tax deed recorded in official record book 3434 page 2519
Martin County Florida public records the respondent has no remaining interest in the property staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted the current owners were not responsible for the violation however they have offered to pay $0 to resolve the outstanding fines which have accured the county received
payment from the taxdeed sale in the amount of $40,000 676.14 and exhibit four is the reduction request and that concludes my testimony
on this one all right so again um the $40,676.14 is greater than 10% of the value of a fine yeah okay so similar to the last case it is appropriate then to
um enter a fine reduction agreed recommended order reducing the fine to zero under the circumstances and note for the record that Haley Dumpford has signed on behalf of
THWFL Group LLC and Miss Bradley you've signed on behalf of the county so I'll go ahead and issue the agreed recommended order thank you and note that there's also an attachment
from Anders Wick who is general counsel for the um LLC advising that Haley Dumpford is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation okay all right um let's
see what else have we got uh the Gerson case yes sir okay and this is case ENF202300 uh 860 eric and Gabriella
Gerson and what do we got there also a fine reduction case okay yes sir yep go ahead my name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in this case concern I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County this case concerns the property located at 3502 Southwest Cocoa Palm Drive Palm City in Martin County
Florida on February 21st 2024 an order finding violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to Eric and Gabriella Gear for section 105.1 permits when required incorporated by section 21.1 general ordinances Martin County code compliance was
required by March 29th 2024 on September 13th 2024 an affidavit of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in the amount of $16,400 plus cost in the amount of $575 staff has determined that a lean
reduction is warranted the respondents were responsible for the violation and they brought the property into compliance and have offered to pay $1,697.50 50 cents to resolve the outstanding fines which have occurred by making a $100 payments each month for 17
consecutive months and said payments will be made on or before the 15th day of each month so on this one exhibit one is the property appraiser showing um Eric and Gabriella as the property owners
exhibit two is the recorded order that was originally put in place for the um needing a permit for the damaged roof and then exhibit three is their recorded order or affidavit of compliance rather i'm sorry showing the
existing fines that are due and that concludes my testimony for this one all right all right so without objection I'll accept an evidence the county's exhibits one through three in this case and
um based upon the stipulation which requires $100 payments for 17 months due on the 16 or the 15th of each month have they made any payments yet no sir okay so it's just a brand new stipulation
correct all right and um also note for the record that um both Eric Gerson and Gabriella Gerson have executed on behalf of themselves and Miss Bradley you've executed on behalf of the county i'll find that it is appropriate to enter an
agreed recommended order okay i don't think I I can't remember another case that we had that where there was a payment plan been a while yeah all right um Okay Miss Bush you've been sworn in
this is case number ENF 202510008 and the respondent is CORE LLC and it's a 67201A weed case what have we got my name is Tamika Bush and I have been sworn in i'm a co-mp compliance
investigator for Martin County the respondent Cole's Corner LLC is not present this case concerns the property at 1814 Northeast Dixie Highway in Jensen Beach Florida 34957 in Martin County Florida this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint
and according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is Co's Corner LLC excuse me a copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counties exhibit one okay
on January 2nd 2025 I inspected the property and observed overgrowth of the property at that time I photographed the property the photographs actually shows what I saw then and it's marked as county's exhibits 2 and four exhibit two shows the overgrowth
here at the property exhibit four showing the same all right so three uh let's see looks like there is no two is there exhibit three was a was taken out it was the
same photo okay duplicate yes sir all right so uh exhibit two is um all the overgrowth and looks like stuff piled on the rightway right yes i believe the stuff that was piled
on the rightway was for pickup being that it was in this same one section and after going back to the property I noticed that that did not remain that it was picked up but it's just the overgrowth indeed and then four what am I looking at there
overgrowth as well on the opposite side of the driveway okay got it okay go ahead based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Cole's Corner LLC on January 21st 2025 marked as exhibit 5
in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violation section 67.201A nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances of Martin County Code in the notice of violation the respondent was given until February
4th 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on February 5th 2025 and
is marked as county's exhibit 6 although the return receipt was received the property and county admin administration was posted on March 5th 2025 the property posting and county
administration is exhibit seven and 8 your honor if I may just jump in here we received a uh email from the respondent Mr hot at 4:30 last night stating that the posting um had the incorrect date of
the hearing in a picture and indeed it looks like through an administrative error it was listed the hearing date is February 19th however the um certified mail uh which is the primary means of yes was received by him in addition we have
copious emails from Mr requesting an adjournment of today's hearing uh so he had actual f knowledge of the hearing besides uh having the 1001 100b knowledge uh okay um do you all have the
um certified mail i have a receipt and yes I have we printed it out we didn't put it in but I I think the signed green card showing that it is indeed the one at the bottom for Co's Corner and that was received on January uh
February 10th okay and we request that is that be entered into evidence as exhibit last um exhibit nine 10 [Applause] Okay
um All right so tell me again which which notice was wrong the notice the posting notice which it um it wasn't necessary but we've developed an administrative policy
of um doing both of of doing both because there's been so many um allegible green cards however this one here is clearly signed uh by the respondent okay and posting All right i It's not possible to really
read that um that posting notice the photo isn't clear enough to actually see it do you have a copy of that of the
posting what was posted on the property no maybe it's just in the photo itself but the the one I'm looking at um it's not when I zoom in i can't see it can't read it
that just it's still blurry okay all right well we would maintain it's a moot point anyhow because good service was obtained uh by the primary means right and once again the the respondent has demonstrated actual
knowledge of the hearing date yeah exactly okay all right um All right so Mr is not here on behalf of um I believe there's one more uh exhibit that Miss Bush has to Yes sir i interrupted her oh okay i therefore went
to the property again on March 18th 2025 and saw that the sighted violation had not been corrected at that time i photographed the property the photograph actually shows what I saw then and it's marked as counties exhibit 9 and that's the photograph showing the overgrowth remains
all right and this is the a picture of the um property on the side of it just so that you can see the height and the difference in it so I took the picture from this angle all right i request that all the county's exhibits
be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence i request that the respondent whose Corner LLC be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by April 30th 2025 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the
amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has incurred a cost an amount of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing
okay all right anybody here on behalf of Co's Corner LLC seeing no one without objection I'll accept evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 10 in this case which includes the
um United States Postal Service receipt for the mailing to Mr aught and u find that violation as charge does exist on the on the um property and the adjacent rightway to
the property and uh order compliance on or before uh April 30th 2025 failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per day will acrue and I'll further um award costs to the
county in the amount of $575 to be paid by uh the respondent at the conclusion of today's hearing thank you Special Mag i just ask you just amend the record for one thing uh there's actually only nine exhibits one through nine because exhibit three is
missing ah yes it is good catch very cute thank you thank Miss Bradley that's what you get the big That's what she gets the big bucks for all right one through nine and no three all right i'm going to change that
to nine and went away too miss Bradley was just trying to make sure we were paying attention this one's gone too all right all right and um also note for the record that uh I have reviewed uh
December January and February minutes and found them all to be consistent with the record and so I'm going to go ahead and execute those and get those on their way let's
see and That will take care of that one and Mr colando I need your signature on this side and let's see and now I got the January one and I'll
enter that one okay thank you and this was December all right so three sets of minutes taken care of and our next hearing is April 16th
april 16th okay and we will see you then we stand adjourned thank you thank you