Oh, All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to call to order the code enforcement magistrate hearing for Morton County for uh July 16th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. If you'll please rise, join me in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, please be seated. If you have a copy of the docket, uh
we're going to go a little bit out of order, but not too much. We've got uh some folks here uh for cases. We're going to take those first. And the first one is uh the Mariner Village Property Owners Associate uh Owners, Inc. It's
case number GMD uh 2025 050295. And um Miss Elder, you want to make your appearance. You're on behalf of the county. Correct. Elise Elder on behalf of the county. Okay. And um let's see. Are both of you
going to testify, Mr. Mitchell? Very potentially. Yes. Okay. So, if you'll both uh 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. I do. All right. And somebody's here on behalf of Mariner Village. Cotch is here on behalf of Mariner
Village. Edward Cotch. Okay. All right. Mr. Cotch, um you can actually either come up to the podium and watch on that monitor or you can watch above you. This is a stipulation.
So presumably everything is ready to go, but let's hear what the county's got to say. They're going to make a little presentation first. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we did enter into a stipulation agreement. My name is Jerry Mitchell and I've been sworn in. I am a site compliance officer from Martin
County. The respondent Marin Village Property Owners Incorporated is the case. And in here on behalf of Marina Village Property Owners Incorporated is the board director Edward Cotch. This case concerns the four properties located at 5014 Southeast Marina Village
Lane Stewart in Martin County, Florida. According to the official records of the property appraisers of Martin County, the property owner is Mariner Village Property Owners Incorporated. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership for each parcel is marked as county exhibits one, two, three, and
four. This is uh the first one. Do I need to enlarge that for you, sir? No, actually I've got it on on another screen so I can look at it independently. But that that parcel ID number encompasses the uh the pamp the preserve areas and
the wetland areas on the property. County exhibit two is the recreation area owned by the property owners association or Marina Village Incorporated. Three, this is regarding the street trees within the community.
and exhibit four property appraisers direct of ownership is for the lakes on within the community. Okay, on October 19, 1990, the property received an approved plan unit development zoning agreement PUD and a
preserve area management plan PAMP with the development order issued for Marina Village. The PUD agreement established an overall landscape plan for the property to include the protection of street trees. The PAMP established the protection of preserve areas which are
to be left undisturbed and maintained free of exotic vegetation as well as established plantings within and around the lakes. The Mariner Village site plan depicting these areas is marked as county exhibit 5. So here we're u the exhibit provides for
15.27 acres of protected wetlands which is depicted in green and 35.2 acres of protected native upland habitat and that's depicted in tan. The two lakes comprise of 14.5
acres and they are depicted in blue. Okay. The approved landscape plan uh is marked as counties exhibit six. The landscape plan provides for the location of the perimeter. Thank you, Dar. Perimeter landscape buffers and street trees to be
planted within the rightway of the development. What we're going to point out here is um where just in the top right left hand corner here, I'll zoom in so we can see it. And and we're looking at the street
trees are to be planted within the rightway uh between the sidewalks and the edge of the road. So I just we're kind of calling that out. This is but overall this is the landscape plan that was approved for the development uh in 1990.
Okay. Okay. The environmental division of the growth management department staff performed an initial site inspection on April 3rd, 2019, and performed several subsequent inspections over the past six years. The
inspections found that the protected street trees have been removed, that the preserve areas were not being maintained free of exotic vegetation, that prohibited mowing activities were occurring within the preserve areas behind some of the properties, and failure to maintain the plantings within
around the lakes. What are the prohibited mowing activities? uh some some of the homeowners along uh some of the areas were it their backyard they kind of extended it by mowing into it. So they were encroaching into the
encroaching into the preserve area in this particular it's the upland preserve areas in this particular case staff has been working with Mariner Village Property Owners Incorporated board to resolve these issues. On May 21, 2025 a meeting was held with Mr.
Edward Cotch to discuss a path forward to bring the property into compliance. At that time, Mr. Cotch said that the board was amendable to entering into a stipulation agreement with the county to bring the site into compliance. Based upon the investigation and
discussion with Mr. Cotch in lie of a notice of violation, a stipulation was sent to Mr. Cotch on behalf of Marina Village Property Owners Incorporated for their review. In the stipulation agreement, I cited the following Martin County code violations. It's going to be Section 10.14G,
failure to comply with the conditions of an approved development order, land development regulations. And also section 4.7, violations, registration, and set aides, correction hearings, land development regulations, Martin County code.
On June 12th, 2025, I hand delivered a notice of hearing to Nicole Rivier, community association manager for Mariner Village Property Owners Incorporated for the July 16th, 2025 hearing and affidavit to hand delivery was executed. The notice of hearing is
marked as county exhibit 7 and affidavit to hand delivery is marked as county exhibit 8. So here I issued it on like I said July or June 10th and it's for and then here's the affidavit delivered. Okay.
On July 3rd, 2025, Marin Village Property Owners Incorporated did agree to enter into a stipulation agreement. The stipulation was signed by the legal representatives of the Mariner Village Property Owners Incorporated and the agreed administrative cost of 575 was paid today prior to today's hearing. I
request that all the county exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent Marin Village Property Owners Incorporated be order to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by the specific compliance deadlines outlined in the stipulation
agreement and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in amount of $500 for every day the violation continues thereafter. At this time that concludes my testimony. All right. Um, Mr. Cotch, if you will raise your right hand, do you swear or
affirm testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got it. Yep. All right. And your full name and uh your address? Edward J. Cotch Jr., 4895 Southeast Mariner Village Lane. Okay. And what's your affiliation with
the association? I've lived there for 21 years. Uh, and I've been a director about 12 of those 21 years. And are you authorized to discuss this case with us today? Absolutely. Uh there was a motion at our
last meeting that I'll be the liaison between the county and our attorney uh going forward. Okay. And your attorney is not present today. Okay. But she has reviewed everything. All right. And and I'm sorry, who is that? Abra Ross. Okay. And and Miss Ross has reviewed the
stipulation. Okay. All right. Um, you all are satisfied with the stupulation, I'm presuming, because I see uh signatures by Sheri Moore, who um is president, and Norman Cohen, who is the
corporate secretary. It was a unanimous vote. Okay. And Mr. Mitchell, I see your signature on behalf of the county. All right. Miss Elder, anything you I was just going to add that we negotiated the stipulation with their attorney, Deborah Ross, but you just got that covered, so I'm good. Great. Okay,
good. Thank you. All right. So, I I have reviewed it. I did that quickly before you all came up and um it looks like it's a long-term fix. Um it it's got you going from uh the first trigger time looks like
it's January 30th, 2026 and then after that it's all the way out to uh January 30th uh 2032. So each year you're going to have um some sort of review and inspection and
and reports submitted and uh so there are things that that you all will have to pay attention to for a long period of time. Our our goal is to have this completed within two years. Okay. But but even so um you you still
have monitoring reports that will be due after that. So Okay. All right. All right. As long as you understand that and I understand that the costs in this case have been paid to the county in the amount of $575. Okay. All right. So, I'm going to find
that it is appropriate to enter an agreed order um approving the stipulation. And um I will order that that you all abide by the the stipulation failing which there will be
a fine in the amount of $500 a day, which is steep, but it, you know, it looks like this has been going for a long time. So, it's actually going to be $1,500 a day. Yeah, because there's there's three of them. Okay. So,
so even so that's Yeah, it's okay. All right. So, it's so ordered. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we'll get a copy of
this uh agreed order out to you. Okay. Okay. All right. Let's see. Our second case is um the Barguthi case. It's Shahir Bergi
and it's uh Hi, good morning. And it's uh ENF 20254310 and uh it's uh permitting violation as alleged. And Miss Switzer is going to testify. You're going to testify too, sir. Right. All right. Good. So, if
you'll both raise your right hands. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got Yes. Okay. Very good. And you can watch on that monitor and then uh after we hear from the county, uh we'll see where we
go with the case. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Whenever you're ready, Miss Switzer. My name is Kelly Switzer and I've been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Shaher Gabok Boi uh is is
present. This case concerns a property at 8379 Southeast Windham Street in Hobesound, Florida 33455, also known as 11150 Southeast Federal Highway, Hobesound, Florida 3345. 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 Shahir uh Bargoi. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one.
On April 7th, 2025, an expired permit letter was emailed to Shaher Burggoi. A copy of the letters sent to the applicants are marked as counties exhibits two and three. So this is the first one and the second one. On April 11th, I
inspected the property and found that all the work was completed without an approved building permit. At the time, I photographed the property and the photograph accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as county's exhibit 4 and five. So, there's this the stucco work on one
of the permits and then there's a shed I'm sorry, there's a shed in the back and then this is just another view of the whole property in the back. All right. So, let's see. We're looking at
stuckco in the front of the home. Okay. And then the shed in the rear of the property that is behind the commercial business. Okay. Okay. on exhibit six is the aerial of the parcel showing the shed installed as well.
Can you just run your cursor over that shed? Sure. It's right here. Okay. Yeah, if you'll turn that off, sir. That would be great. Is off. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Based upon the investigation, I
issued a notice of violation to Shaherb Burggoi on April 28, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 7. 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 for the expire expired applications for the stuckco work on the home and the shed installed on the commercial property. both completed without an approved building permit. In the notice of violation, the
respondent was given until May 26, 2025 to correct the violation and was informed the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. On May 27th, 2025, I checked the permit status. The permit applications remained expired. Since compliance was not achieved, a notice of hearing was issued
by certified mail on May 30th, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 8. The return receipt was not received. So I posted on on June 25th, 2025, I posted the property and at the Martin County Administrative Building, the post, a photo of the posting and affidavit of
posting are marked as county's exhibits 9 and 10. There's my posting, my affidavit. A stipulation of agreement was offered to the respondent to allow more time to correct the issues that were preventing his permits from being issued. The owner
refused to sign the stipul stipulation. Therefore, I checked the permit status again on July 15th, 2025 and saw the permit applications were still not issued. A screenshot of the permit status is marked as county's exhibit 11. Um,
at the time, I also went to the property and all completed work was still on site. My follow-up photos are marked as county's exhibits 12 and 13. There's the home and that's the shed still installed. I request that all county's exhibits be
returned into evidence and based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent Shahir Bargothi be ordered to comply with the cited provisions with the Martin County code by August 29th, 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 of an amount of $575 conduct $575 conducting this investigation and request that that count the county be reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. This concludes my testimony.
Okay. I'm I'm going to find that there is a primmaaccia case. So we are going to continue. Um you've been sworn in Mr. Morgothi. Let me just get your full name and your address. Name is Shahar Buti. My address is 661 Zabrina sends in Beach, Florida.
Okay. And what do you have to tell me? Um, this this thing wasn't done intentionally. I I stuck with a whole building in Stewart. They never asked me for a permit. They gave me $10,000 towards stuck in the plaza and Stewart. We stuck with a wall. All of a sudden,
you need a permit in Marin County. Uh, unfortunately, I was uh in John Hopkins from the 7th of February for a major surgery for my daughter. So it put me behind. My daughter's still there, too. You know, I'm in Tampa Bay area. Uh I tried to reach her a couple of times on the phone to see she wants me
to remove the stuckco and apply for a permit or what is the issue. She never returned my call. And um now uh all I need from you, your honor, is more time. We applying for the permits through uh in the beginning they told the tenant
for the shed, you need to file, you get a permit for the shed. My tenant put the shed there. It wasn't me. And uh when Bush when Miss Bush was handling the issue, she asked him to the owner has to do it. So I went down and did it and all of a sudden they wanted a contractor to
do it because it's a combo. Um do you you had a contract? Now I have a contractor, Mr. Jeff, Mr. Jeff Walsh is trying to get the permit for both of them. Okay. So he's been working on it for the past couple days with them and we are going to get the permits and we are going to get it done. All I need is just more
time, your honor. Okay. All right. I I get that. Actually, what Miss Switzer said was that they had offered you a stipulation. You could have saved yourself a couple hundred bucks and some grief.
Maybe the time wasn't right for that. Um I don't know how you negotiated that, but that's that's water over the dam. Um I based upon your testimony, unless you've got something else you need to tell me. I was in Tampa area for three
months for major major major surgery for my daughter, a brain surgery in John Hopkins. I was in John Hopkins for two weeks, three weeks in in Tampa General Hospital. I mean, I wanted three of me to do what I do, you know. Yeah, I know. And I understand that family comes first, but uh unfortunately
the way the code is written, you have still have to take care of the if you needed a permit, you needed a permit. Your honor, I gave it to Jeff Walsh while back. the girl was on administrative leave and she she she's the one who pull all the permits and do all the paperwork and recently she just
got back two weeks ago with him and she's she's on it. Okay, good. Good. And so hopefully that takes care of it. Um let me just see. All right.
All right. Well, based upon what I'm hearing, uh it looks to me like there's a violation. So, I'm going to uh unless you've got any objection, I'm going to accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 13 in this case. And based upon that evidence, your testimony
and Miss Switzer, I'm going to find that a violation does exist on the property. I'm I'm happy that you're going to cure it. The county has asked for compliance by August 29th. It'll be done, your honor. Okay. So if if that's okay, I'm going to
go ahead and approve that date for compliance failing which if you don't do it, there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per day. Okay. So unfortunately to bring us all here, there is there are costs in the amount of $575.
Those will have to be paid to the county um at at the conclusion of the hearing. So, okay. I I I'm sorry for the family situation. I hope that resolves itself favorably and
um hopefully you get this done. The order will come out and then but even before that um you may want to get your permits in order and get going. I I know he's in process of doing it. He spoke to everybody, you know. I mean, she Marty spoke to everybody in there
from the Jeff Walsh U. Yeah. Building building and I and I just happened to be a neighbor of his, so I I know who he is. He's good guy. So, okay. Very good. All right. Okay. Let's see. Number three.
Looks like it's going to be the Schafler case. It's Kurt H. Schaefer. Anybody here on behalf of that case? Okay. And it's uh KCNF 202540285. And Miss Krasco, you're going to testify.
Um sir, if you want to remain seated, you're perfectly fine there. If you can see the monitor, that's good. Okay. Good. Miss Krasco, you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. So be God.
I do. Okay. What have we got? [Music] My name is Deborah Carrasco and I have been sworn in. I am a code compliance investigator for Morton County. The respondent, Kurt H. Schaefer, is
present. The case concerns the property at 3169 Southwest Cornell Avenue, Palm City, Florida 34990 in Mount Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the
property appraiser, Martin County Property Appraiser, the property owner is Curt H. Schaefler. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counties exhibit one. Okay.
On April 8th, 2025, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed overgrown grass, overgrown grass, and trash was seen as I walked onto the property. The photographs took photographs and left a door tag
with the owner. At that time, I did photograph the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits 2 through 7. That's me leaving him the notice. Mhm. The grass
the items in the driveway. So on May 20 I'm sorry on May 7th 2025 compliance was achieved for the grass. This is marked as count as exhibits eight and nine. Okay.
So, the grass was cut, so I took that off. However, Mr. Schaefer then told me that he was not ready for inspection um and did not want me on his property. So, based on the investigation, I issued
a notice of violation to Mr. Schaefer on May 8th, marked as county's exhibit 10. Sorry. In the notice, I cited the following Martin Code violations. Section 27.201B, nuisance declared trash, etc. General
ordinance ordinances, Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until May 22nd, 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 violation was issued by certified mail on May 30th and is marked as county's exhibit 11. Okay. The return receipt was not received. And on July 2nd, I posted the property in the Martin County Admin building.
Affidavit post is marked as county's exhibit 12. And the posting of the property is marked as count as exhibit 13. There's 12. The affidavit and 13 where I posted this property. No call or letter was received from the owner
within the allowed time. I did reach out to Mr. Schaefer by telephone and tried to get a date I could come by to inspect the property. He had previously told me I was not allowed on the property. I have tried several times to call or if I see him, I'd stopped by the property and
asked him if he was ready um for me to take photos and each time um I was met with him not wanting me to come onto his property. Therefore, I did call him again on yesterday, but I did not receive an answer and no return call. I
was unable to take any photographs of the property um the day before photos like we usually do. I request that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent, Kurt H. Schaefer, be ordered
to comply with the cited provisions of Martin County Code by August 29th. and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount of 575
conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. Okay. Uh Mr. Schaeer, come on up to the podium if you will.
If you'll raise your right hand. Before I raise my right hand and swear, can you explain to me what the penalties are for telling halftruths or lying? If you want to testify the law, correct? Raise your right hand.
Can you explain to No, no, wait a minute. Wait a minute. I understand. This is the courtroom that I'm running, not you. And so you listen and then we'll deal with whatever it is you want to tell me. Okay? Or ask me.
Okay? 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? Absolutely. And your name? My name is Curt Harry Sheffller. And your address?
3169 Southwest Cornell Avenue, Palm City, Florida 34990. Okay. Now, question. What are the penalties for if I were to twist the truth? Well, I'm I'm going to look at the
county attorney, but it it seems to me that if you were to perjure yourself, there are statutory penalties for perjury. sworn testimony given in a in a court or an official
proceeding has has uh certain penalties. I don't know them off the top of my head, but uh that's not maybe the issue, is it? I'm just trying to get it on the record.
Okay. And Mr. Schaefer, who else is in attendance here? I see Mr. Tui. Yes, we have Mr. Tui. What is your name if you don't mind? Would you like to get a list of everyone
who happens to be in the room? Yes, please. No. No. There are members of the public. There are members here for other cases. I help out this gentleman's. You have my name. You know, Miss Carrasco. You know, Mr. Tui.
And I would object, your honor, if if someone is going to testify, they'll put their name and name on a record name. They will. They will indeed. Um, curious to understand. I've never been in a situation like this before, so I'm trying to understand what's going on here.
Well, I'm going to help you through it. Okay. I appreciate that. I'm really going to help you through it the best I possibly can. But it means for you to be respectful uh of the process and of the people that are are working here. I apologize if I
I suffer from anxiety and I get stage fright right now. I'm okay. I'm very no reason to be no reason to be nervous. This is a very relatively simple process. What what you're being accused of is not taking care of your
property by allowing it to have various bits of of trash and things stored outside that don't belong out there. Um the the issue about the tall grass and the overgrowth has been taken care of.
Thank you very much. But the still have the trash on the property and so that's observable from off your property on the street apparently and um I'm I've seen enough
of the evidence. I'm sorry I'm also a little hard of hearing. Can you repeat you said something about on the property and Yes. What I said was that uh you have asked Miss Carrasco basically not to
come on your property but these violations are observable even off the property from the street. Doesn't much matter one way or the other. they have been observed and you haven't called for reinspection of the
property which is um potentially a problem for you because if I find you guilty of the violation which right now I have no reason not to uh the penalty will be uh complying
within a time certain and thereafter there will be a fine in the amount of Looks like about $100 per day. Okay. So, so I'm going to ask you, is there any reason why you can't uh remove the
trash and debris and and outside storage things that don't belong out there to take care of your own property? It is quite a task to undertake in my current situation.
Um, but before we get to that, can I see the photograph, the exhibit? I don't have the number here that showed why she was there in the first place. Sure. Your honor, before we uh look at any exhibits, I would ask they be entered
into evidence. All right. Any objection to any of these exhibits? I mean, you you saw them presumably going through. if you want to talk about them, it's it's better to have them all entered into evidence. So, I'm going to say without
Can we flip through them again so I can see the one that I understand? That you don't understand. Well, they went through pretty quick. She was reading her prescripted.
All right. So, I I'm I'm fine with that. Let's actually look at those photos again. It looks like uh from 3 till about 8 or 9. So we've got u there's tall grass. I can see that.
Okay. More tall grass and weeds. Five shows some items outside stored. And six shows a whole bunch of things out there.
Sure. I have a lot of stuff as Martin County Code Enforcement Deborah Carrasco has stated to me when she was found on my driveway. Incidentally, there's out of out of violation. She said, "You
got a lot going on here." Yeah. Well, and I do. Yes, you do. Absolutely. Yeah. And I want to know. And there's nothing wrong with her coming on your property, incidentally. I mean, she's an officer of the county. She has that responsibility to be able
to contact you and and come on to your property. So, what I want to understand though is why she picked on me in the first place. I asked her specifically who reported me and she pointed to her heart and she
says, "This is me. This is all me." Yeah. And she also testified that there was no anonymous complaint. That's that's correct. Okay. That's that's exactly right. I understand here that the Martin County
code and what was the date that you posted my property? Your honor, once again, I would get if we're going to discuss these, they need to be entered into evidence. Can we ask for an answer from the respondent? So the question is any objection to any
of the exhibits? Looks like we went through the photos. They're just photos that were taken. The photos are factual. Okay. Photos on that time and date. All right. So So unless there's an objection, which I didn't hear, I'm
going to accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 13 in this case. Now, uh, any more questions regarding the You want to look at the exhibit two. Is that correct? No, I think you
I've seen it already, sir. This one. So, here is here is what I was given. Okay. Um, need to turn on the TV on the table
so we can all see it. I don't know if I turn sideways. There we go. There we go. Oh, no. That's sideways. I can't see it. There we go. Okay. All right. So, if we go back to that picture of the tall grass.
Let me see. This has my address up top here. Okay. This was written on 47. Okay. Let it go away. But no time. Oh. Turn that back on.
There we go. It went back in control of that. Okay. So, I heard a car door slam and I looked out and I saw a county truck. I expected and looked at it and said, "Oh, they're reading the meter." And then I said,
"Hey, wait a minute. I just received the water bill." So, I got dressed and I went outside and I found Martin County Code Enforcement Inspector Carrasco on my driveway and she was not
she was bent over and she was writing and I presume she was writing. I'm gone again. She was writing this extra remove trash items from driveway. You can see here it was highlighted for weeds and trash and
debris was added. Okay. And what's the point? My point is is why was she on my driveway in the first place? She was posting this. She entered into my
my private domain that is out of sight of the roadway. Does the driveway not connect to the road? It does connect to the road. If you go back to the where I can produce my own photographs.
So that's my property. Also my property. So my my point being is that my mess was obscured from the public view. And then I have here I have Martin County code
that discusses about the high weeds. Objection. Your weeds are irrelevant at this point. Well, the relevance is is that she that the Martin County codes it says weeds over please address your comments to the court. Martin County code says that
weeds over 18 in or actually no it says weeds over 12 in and I don't see any weeds that are over 12 in on that property in those pictures that she that she submitted. Actually today that's not relevant
because you've taken care of the issue. You've mowed the the lawn and you're good. But my point I don't know about that. She had no right to post me and therefore she had no right to come up
onto my property to view the mess in my carport that is out of sight from from the public. Do we know what the dimensions of a cinder block are? Objection. Relevance.
18. They're 8 in by 8 in by 8 in by 8 in by 16 in. What is the relevance? The relevance is is here's some photographs that I've taken with cinder blocks placed about my yard and none of those weeds that she showed
were I use those as a reference. She had no she had she doesn't have a picture of weeds that are taller than 12 in. Therefore, she had no right to sight me in the first place. I propose is that either she had a directive from somebody
to go look at that guy's house or she's just fishing for some explanation to get onto my property. If we come back here and if you look at your pictures, they were taken on the
8th. This was written on the 7th. And so it was almost like this was prepared maybe at her desk from an anonymous complaint and then it was brought out to my property on the 8th. I re I found
Deborah I found a woman on my driveway anonymous 428. She said that she was okay. Right. I I I say that it's not a clean bust. It's almost like there's something
else going on here. This was April. This is the water. This is the rain for the last four or five months. Relevance, your honor. Objection. How could the wheat be growing if it's if it's not raining? So, my yard was not necessarily
overgrown beyond the 12 in. Okay. But that's not I mean look it's observable. If you look at exhibit three, exhibit four gone. I mean I can see it.
Exhibit four. It's pretty clear. That's exhibit four. No. Yeah. Exhibit three and exhibit four in. They're probably about 6 in. Your honor, speculation objection, your honor. This is all speculation. The
pictures of the um cinder blocks are not not taken when the weeds were there. They have no relevance unless the weeds were present with the cinder blocks. Other than that, it's all speculation. If I had cinder blocks on my yard, I would definitely have enforcement barking my heels.
I think I think I've heard enough. I think I've seen enough. Um, unless you've got something new to present, I'm going to find that violation does exist on the property. I do want to make a statement that
Supreme Court had ruled that a man has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of his home. And the curdilage was defined as a place where a Girl Scout might come up to sell you cookies, but if you didn't answer
the door, she would know to leave that position. I feel like Martin County Code Enforcement Inspector Deborah Carrasco violated my Fourth Amendment rights by
using this overgrown grass which was not over the 12-in limit to come onto my property to post this because she was looking to see because she suspected that there was more going on under there
and she found it. I don't think that this was a clean bust. Okay. I I don't I don't see evidence of of any of that, but um your honor, if I just might uh address the point respondent brings up
about the fourth amendment. The case respondent refers to specifically has to do with the common um the um the right of a person e either a private person or a government agent to enter onto a
property through a defined path to the front door. Yeah. Through the curdilage as f furthermore specifically holds that anything observed during that is not protected by the fourth amendment because it's in plain view. Yeah. I don't I don't know that we
really need to have a constitutional argument here. The case is fairly simple and um Mr. Schaefer, you've tried to make it confusing and obtuse, but the result is
nonetheless that the trash and debris still needs to be cleaned up on your property. And so I'm going to based upon the evidence, the the exhibits 1 through 13 that are in evidence, your testimony, Mr. Shafler and and Miss Carrasco, I'm
going to find that a violation as charged does exist on the property. I'm going to order you to comply by u August 29th, 2025, failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per day will acrue and I'm going to further award costs to the county in the
amount of $575 to be paid uh at the conclusion of this hearing. So, I think it's much simpler than you've made it and you just need to uh take care of your property and I'm it
is so ordered. What is the $575? Can I have an accounting of that investigative fees? Because on I think it was December 13th or 16th, this court awarded $575
in a case where they used a helicopter to fly over a piece of property. And I know the cost of operating a helicopter. So, how is it that my investigative fees are just as high as a
helicopter? It is proportional. And um I have looked at those costs in the past, not for a while, but um but in in my mind it was justified based on the universe of of
investigations um performed by the county. So code enforcement um inspector said that she tried to contact me yesterday and I didn't answer. I have no record of any phone call coming in. Okay. I I don't know what to tell you,
but I do know we're done here, and I wish you well, and I hope you are able to take care of your property in the future. Okay. I have no money to pay this fine. I I'm sorry, sir. We're We are The case
is over. I've uh executed the order. It's now up to you to comply. Okay, that's it. Next case. And I don't think I've got another one numbered. We're going to go up to the
top of the docket. It's uh Metalist Homes LLC. Uh Miss Krasco, that's also your case. It's ENF202530350. And um it's also a trash and weed case. Okay. Whenever you're ready. [Applause]
My name is Deborah Krasco and I have been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Morton County. The respondent is Jere Jeremy Lamaster. Is present. Is not present. Is that Metalist Holmes? Yes. Is anybody here? You are here on
behalf of Metalist Homes. Okay, good. Is case concerns the property at 835 Southeast Highland Avenue in Stewart, Florida, Martin County, Florida. The case was not generated from an anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the property appraiser, Martin County, the property owner is
Jeremy Lamaster. The copy of copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one. On March 7th, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed the trash in the lot, abandoned trailers. At that time, I photographed
the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked counties exhibits two and three. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Jeremy Lamaster on April 1st, 2025. Marked County's exhibit 4. In the notice, I cited the
following code violations. Section 67.201B. Nuisance declared trash. General ordinances of Martin County Code. Was that okay? Well, I'm sorry. So, excuse me. Exhibit five was the notice of violation.
In the notice, the respondent was given till April 8th to correct the violations and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. Shortly after that, on April 11th, I did issue an amended notice of violation to
include section 67.201A, 2011 a nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances of Martin County Code. The amended notice violation, excuse me, is exhibit 8. I'm not sure what happened here.
Okay. Okay. I don't have amended eight. Exhibit 8 is the is the notice and I see 67201 A and B. Okay. Okay. Well, not sure what happened there.
And then we're up to exhibit 9, which is the amended notice of hearing. And that's for today's hearing. Yes. There's the amended notice of violation. Yes. Okay. Oh goodness. Let's see. I had a
compliance date of April 25th, 2025. Again, the respondent was informed the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement. A reinspection done wasn't done on 4925. Those pictures that's unfortunately my exhibits are all messed up.
Okay. Sorry. Um, do you but your script is there? Yes, sir. The exhibits actually are in pretty good order um on the the PDF that I've got. So, I'm looking at six and seven are photos. Correct. And I see the
I see the high weeds and um and and some the boat and some other things around with the boat looks like it's got a whole bunch of things stored on it. Exhibit eight is your amended
notice of violation. Exhibit nine is the amended notice of hearing for today's hearing. So yes, sir, we're up to exhibit 10. Compliance was not achieved and I posted both the property and the Martin County Admin building. I have them marked as
exhibits nine and 10. Okay. And it's actually looks like 10 and 11. Yeah. Okay. And that's affidavit of post. Mhm. Uh no call or letter was received from the property owner uh within the
time allowed. I did get a call from the tenant but the property was not in compliance. Um therefore I did go to the property on yesterday uh July 15th and saw that the cited violations had not been corrected. Um I
know that there was conversation between Mr. Lamaster and um people in the office. Okay. Um, so at that time I photographed the property and this is what I saw on yesterday
and that's 12, 13, 14, and 15. Okay. Yeah, I see all of those. Okay, sir. All right. So, I request all the exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and the evidence. I request that the respondent Jeremy Lamaster be ordered to comply with the cited
provisions of the Martin County Code by August 29th and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day thereafter that the violation continues the county has occurred a cost in the amount of 575 conducting this investigation and
request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. Okay. Hey, we made it through. I know when it gets out of out of sequence it's tough. I apologize. All right. Um, someone's here on behalf
of Metalist Holmes LLC. All right. And if you come up to the podium, sir, if you raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you go. I do. Uh, Jeremy Lamaster, Medalist Holmes.
Okay. And who is this gentleman? Morning, sir. My name is Barry Rhodess. All right. And then are you the tenant? Yes, I'm the tenant. Oh, okay. If raise your right hand. I didn't swear you in. 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 hope you can. Yes, sir. All right. Okay. So, Mr. Lamaster, Mr. Rhodess, whoever is going to talk first speak first. Um, I'm going to address the issue of the the trailer with the uh
I won't call it debris with things on it. Um, okay. I had a back surgery here a while back and I've had some some health issues, but I'm not going to use that for an excuse. Um, when the county came out, I had some stuff on the ground on sheets of plywood. They asked me to get it off the ground. And I spoke with the county
and they said, quote, "As long as it's up on a trailer or in a trailer, I don't have a problem with that. It's just the debris laying on the ground." And I believe you look in the picture there, you'll see one black box at the corner of the pontoon boat. And that's where
you're looking at exhibit six. Okay. Yes, sir. Let's look at that. Oh, this is a tree. This is a vacant lot. Okay. Is that the one? Yes, sir. You'll see a piece of aluminum. That's the guard. That's the rail that goes around the pontoon boat. Okay. Yep. I I can When that picture was taken, you'll see
the rails around. I hadn't I just hadn't set it up there yet, but you won't find any debris on the ground. I I put it up on the trailer like I was told you have to do. And then you'll see a little What about all the stuff that's in the background where the other trailer and the
the one is an RV titled in my name. So there's no it's not debris, it's an RV. The white trailer with the red band around it, yes, is the trailer I was putting other belongings in.
Okay. And all the other stuff that's just sitting there on the grass. You'll see those are black boxes. Yeah. And they were going over to you see a black box on the corner of the pontoon boat. They were in a process of being transferred over to put up to take off
the ground. Other words, I was following the rules of the county and putting it up off the ground. She said, "As long as I kept it mobile, it would be all right." Quote. Say, "It look pretty at this time." No, it doesn't, sir. It's all up on the trailer now and it doesn't look like this. This was uh
April 9th. So, I did follow the the rules. All right. Let me just see. I don't think we've got a That's not how it looks at this given time. All right. And we don't have a later photo of the boat, but uh because I'm
looking at 12, 13, 14, 15. All right. Um, let me let me just ask both of you. Um, the counties presented uh exhibits 1 through 15. A lot of them seem probitative. I unless there's an
objection, I'm going to enter those into evidence. Are we good? Some of them are good. But we're not we're not here to argue that the biggest thing is um so he um when we got rid of the trailer park, he was managing the
trailer park and then when we wiped it all out and going to do all development, he's taking care of the property. Okay. So, wait. Before we do that though, okay, I I'm going to accept the exhibits 1 through 15 into evidence so we can talk about them and and go back and forth and
look at them if we need to and and accept them for what they are. Okay. So, now tell me your story. Can I say a little bit? Can I say a little bit more to bring it up to his Okay, Mr. RHS, go ahead. the uh I came in one day and the sign you noticed
there on the ground that they stuck in the ground, it had a uh postit on it, it said lot to left quote for me. Okay. Lot to left. I have two cases. So I immediately called the code
enforcement number 288. My phone's not on right now. 288 something. Left a message, but it's my fault possibly for not going in detail. So, I didn't leave the case number of of the paper or anything, but I said, "This is Barry Rhodess, and I just want more information to what needs to be done. I
got your your sign, your your uh case thing here, but I'd like to have more information so I can give it to Jeremy, and I didn't receive a call back. I'm not putting blaming anybody, but I just didn't receive a call back." Okay. So, you were you were thinking I tempted to do what was right. You were
thinking that it may be beyond your responsibility that I might have been I wanted to take responsibility. Okay. But I didn't get a call back and I didn't follow up on that. Maybe I should have driven there. Maybe I should have made it more, you know, more clear with a case number because they do have a lot of work to do.
All right. And uh well, then I also sent it to the wrong person. And I gave I I photoshopped it to another lady that does business with metalist, but I made the mistake not knowing that she was a you know a direct connection. So I did I did what was
right, but at the same time I I failed in the total thing. But uh Mr. Lamaster would I'm sure he'd had it everything done if he had known it. So I'm the one that dropped the ball apparently, but I did try the best I could as a layman. All right. And when I look at the photos,
I mean, there looks like there's still stuff around, but but by now, you know, between April and today, you may have gotten a good bit of it cleaned up. And by yesterday, I'm looking mostly at at vegetation.
In the exhibits that were from yesterday, it's u exhibits 12 through 15. Look, just looks like tall vegetation. We We have more recent pictures that we took this morning. Okay. When I found
about it, found out about it. I called uh Rachel. Well, I tried to call everyone. Then I finally got a call back uh from Rachel. She was in a meeting. So, and then her and I discussed it. So, I said, "Oh, I can't get a crew over there today, but I'll do it tomorrow morning." So, we brought six guys over there.
Um, I did email uh uh Rachel um pictures which I can show off my cell phone or uh I'd like to just put in the evidence just for you know our purposes of just covering it just to let you know that as soon as I actually knew that what it actually was, we just went ahead and
took care of it the following day. All right. And when you say Rachel, you're talking about Miss Bradley. Yes. Yeah. And um and so presumably she's got those somewhere in her system, but they she's going to come speak.
All right. Miss Bradley, if you raise your right hand, do you swear from testimony you're about to give will be the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got it. I do. All right. So, he did email me pictures this morning showing the guys are out there. They are in the middle of working and mowing the grass. I can show them to you if you
want to see them. Yeah. I I think that's probitative because if it's enough maybe we don't even have to include that maybe So there's one.
And then So we had a lovely neighbor uh cuss me out this morning for us going to clean up and mow the grass. Making making too much noise, were you? Um no. Um She felt there was a need to cuss me out and told me to effing get off her
property, which I own the property. So, I had to call the sheriff. So, this has been a great morning. So, these are the pictures that he did send me this morning showing that they are out there working on cleaning up and mowing. All right. So, that's good. It's doesn't
look like it's completed yet. So, it's probably about done right now, honestly. But and I are going to go meet after. Okay. um just to make sure that anything that they want done, we'll just take care of. All right. So,
I based upon your testimony and and the evidence 1 through 15 plus the county's uh testimony, I'm going to find that violations actually do exist on the property or did maybe until this morning. But, um nonetheless, I'm going
to order you to comply by uh August 29th, 2025. failing, which there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day. Sounds to me like they they may just simply be resolved.
Hopefully, that's the case. And um and unfortunately, of course, because of having to come to the hearing, I am going to award cost to the county in the amount of $575 to be paid um at the conclusion of this
hearing, your honor. Yes, sir. Last word. Um, I don't believe the fine is fair. I made a a conscious effort to reach out to the county. It'd be no different in two attorneys working together if you Okay. No forward and and respond.
Mr. Rhodess, just for clarity, there won't be a fine if you're in compliance by the end of August. Yes, sir. I understand. I'm talking about the $500 for being here. This could be corrected without if they'd have picked up the phone. Yeah. I This would have to happen. Unfortunately, there's very little I can
usually do there because those costs really do get incurred. Can Can we just um just uh respectfully request just uh 48 hours just to because we we tried to address this um and they
said they couldn't stop it from coming here even though we were going to send people in the morning just so you know. Um well I I mean I did you talk about a stipulation I did not. He had these conversations with Rachel. Okay, Mrs. Bradley,
come over here. Any discussion of stipulation? No, sir. Okay. Cuz I I mean that's usually available and um I'm I'm looking at your honor. Actually, we did I did put it in an
email. I'm sorry. I think you did mention it. And the the thing was they just said that since they had her come and take pictures, we weren't there yet. It was going to have to move through, but just, you know, go over the stuff with you and just tell you exactly what's going on. So then we
can get it all taken care of. Okay. But I mean, we're just requesting that we just have uh Rachel just meet me out there after what she already agreed to do. Let me explain one thing. after after the date set for compliance by the officer. If even if you are in
compliance, you would be subject to receive what's called we call it a do not repeat order. Okay? Which means that um there there would be no fine, but but you're ordered not to repeat it, failing, which then there's a
$500 a day repeat violation fine. But even there, there are the costs are incurred. So, so I I there's really not much argument there is have something on a record for
something that we're already there correcting. Yeah, I I get it. But it's so it's like too little too late. I mean, I'm this doesn't hurt you from that standpoint because you're going to bring it in compliance.
when we we got the clarification of what actually need to be taken care of that Barry unfortunately was supposed to take care of the grass and his debris but him being a tenant me as the owner only have so much right to just rip everything out
I get it so just to clarify yeah no I appreciate that but I but nonetheless even if it was completed work if all the weeds and all the trash was gone And
uh I would tell you that you'd be subject to this do not repeat order that would still produce these county 48 hours is no problem. They don't disagree with that. They've already said that to me. I I don't you know we would
we would object respondents own evidence indicates the violation continued to exist as of the start of today's hearing. So clearly the cost for the hearing are proper. Yeah. No, I I think we're we're not I think we're done with that objecting that there there wasn't overgrown grass.
We're just objecting that we're there just finishing whatever. Like I said, Rachel and I spoke last yesterday. What? About 3:00, Rachel? Yeah. Something. Yeah, about 3:00. And then, you know, I mean, right now it's already done. I guarantee you it's already done. But,
you know, as far as the stuff on the trailer, Rachel did say that it just needs to be on the trailer for him. Um, which she's going to go just show me right after hearing, you know, whatever it is. And, uh, you know, okay, if that's the case, then it will
be over. Well, we we tried, like I said, we were trying to just address it and then I when I got in touch with Barry about the issue and asked him why he didn't take care of his stuff, that's how this all came up. Just so you know. Okay.
But I I wasn't in like, you know, worrying about it because I assume that he already did what he did with the county. You know, I I mean, your case is not is not dissimilar from the the immediate prior case. It's a matter of timing.
um and a matter of completeness. And so, you know, I I I I understand what you're saying, but there were points along the way where from April until today, u things could have been achieved and and
handled differently by yourselves and and so, you know, we find ourselves at this hearing where I've got to adjudicate it. And so that's basically what I've done. Now I'm just asking you not to make any ruling until we go out. I I've already done it. Already done it.
And and so from that standpoint, it's a it's a completed action. I'm going to call the next case, which happens to be yours. Your honor, if you could just one more point on this as far as compliance goes. Yes. If we could go back to to exhibit number six.
Oh, okay. I I don't know. It It's the the county's position. The county hadn't had uh stated that putting the debris on a trailer would uh constitute compliance. It's the county's position that this boat is not a
trailer. So, putting the the all of the debris on top of the boat is our position would not be compliance if it's inside a trailer, inside a utility trailer, but the boat itself is a boat. It's not a storage trailer. Your honor, I just wanted to make that make that
clear. I I think I understand that. I hope that Mr. Roads does as well, your honor. Well, he had he had testified that he was placing the objects on top of the boat to achieve compliance, if I understood it correctly.
If you'll notice, the things I put on a boat is what goes on the boat. This is a floating patio. You'll see a charcoal grill. You'll see plastic chairs. So, you're not finding debris. It wasn't debris on the ground to start with. It was parts to build the
pontoon boat. And everything you see up there, guardrails, chairs, charcoal grill, and I believe that's a battery box. Boat related is what boat related. Yes. Okay. You'll even see a hang a cushion hanging down the side. Doesn't look real nice. It needs to be flipped back up. Those are boat related.
Yeah. And and I appreciate the fact that it's not debris of any kind. And I appreciate that was a photo taken in April and it could be different today. But and I also like to say that I'd like to work with the county through Mr. Mr. Nick. We'll give them direction when we go out on site today. I'm going to
meet him out there. So we'll see what we have going. So So later today they're going to be out there anyway. So but I I do want to say that uh I did mention a negative thing about the telephone with the county. But also I would like to say I like to stay on good terms with them. I didn't mean to be derogatory in any way.
I'd like to work with them and do everything I can. Well, I don't It wasn't meant personal. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So, next case, Mr. Lamaster, don't go away. Your honor, we're going to continue that case. Okay. This is case number ENF 2025
030354 and to the August. Okay. The case is being continued. to August.
What's the hearing? I believe it's the 20th. All right. So, at the request of the county, that case is being continued to August 20th. Mr. Lam Master, you hear me? Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. Uh, next case. Miss Switzer, you're back. This is, uh, Louie Christie. Anybody here on behalf of Lewis Christie? Louie Christie.
Seeing no one. The case is case number ENF202520818. And the respondent is Louis B. Christie and Miss Switzer, whenever you're ready. My name is Kelly Switzer and I've been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The
respondent in Louis B Christy is not present. This case concerns a property at 8464 Southeast Petway Street, Hobtown, Florida 33455. 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 Louis B. Christie. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit 1. On February 29th, 2025, I inspected the property and at the time I observed an um the property with an inoperable vehicle and missing sight address from
the home. At the time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then is marked as county's exhibits two and three. So, this is the inoperable vehicle here and then there's no address on the front of the home. Based upon the
investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Chris um Louis B. Christie on March 17th, 2025. The notice of violation is marked as county's exhibit 4. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violations. section
section 91.34A generally inoperable vehicle general ores Martin County code and section 4.769 site addressing land development regulation in the notice of violation the respondent was given until April 4th to correct the violation and was
informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so a follow-up investigation was conducted on April 24th 2025 where section 7 uh excuse me section 4.769 9 was now in compliance. However,
trash and debris were now observed in the back of the yard. My photo photos for my follow-up are marked as county's exhibit 5. So, there's some bricks and tarps laying in the backyard. Okay, let me just see what I see here.
There's some um right in here. There's some some building materials of some sort. And then this is like a a tarp of some sort. Okay. Therefore, an amended notice of violation was issued on April 20 April
29, 2025. The notice of viol uh sorry, the notice of violation is marked as county's exhibit 6. This is to include the additional code of section 67.201b, nuisance declared trash, etc. General ordinances Martin
County code. In the notice of violation, respondent was given until May 19th to correct the tw the violations and was informed the need to contact Martin County Eco Enforcement upon doing so. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on June June 7th, 2025 and is marked as
county's exhibit 7. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on July 1st, 2025, I posted the property and at the Martin County Administrative Building, the posting and the affidavit of posting are marked as counties exhibits 8 and 9. Here's my
posting. Okay, my affidavit. I received a call from the property owner and he stated the that he removed the inoperable vehicle and it was explained to him that he needed to still remove the trash from the back of the property. Therefore, I went to the
property again on July 15th, 2025 and saw the cited violation had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what I saw then is marked as county's exhibit 10. So, the inoperable vehicle is now removed. Gone. Yeah.
But the trash is still remaining. All right. So, um county is going to move to dismiss the inoperable vehicle charge. Correct. Yes, your honor. Okay,
I agree. It's dismissed. Okay, so we've got the trash and debris in the back and I'm I'm looking at over that pile of of what looks like trash that's put out for pickup. Is that correct? Correct. That's the trash in in question. Yeah. This in the front is out by the road to
get picked up. All right. Okay. Okay. I request that all of county's exhibits be received into evidence and based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Louis B Christy be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County code by August 29th, 2025 and if not in
compliance by then be required to pay a fine of 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 request that the county be reimbursed this amount at conclusion of today's hearing. This concludes my
testimony. All right. Thank you. Anybody here on behalf of Louis B Christie looking out seeing no one without objection I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through uh 10 in this case based upon that evidence
and um your testimony I'll find that a violation of 67201B trash still remains on the property order compliance on or before uh August 29th 2025 failing what you
find in the amount of $100 per day will acrue and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing and let me just
make sure. Yeah. Okay. So, in your recommended order, you've already removed the the vehicle. Okay. All right. Very good. So, ordered All right. Um, let's see. The next case, also yours is, um, Linda Tumi Richards.
And anybody here on behalf of that case? It's ENF 2025300001-01. And the respondent is Linda Tumi Richards. Seeing no one. Miss Switzer, whenever you're ready. Okay. My name is Kelly Switzer. I've been sworn in. I'm a co- compliance
invest in investigator for Martin County. The respondent Linda Tumi Richards is not present. This case concerns a property at 18346 Southeast Birdie Lane in Tquesta, Florida 34 33469. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint. According to the
official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Linda Tumi Richards. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one. Okay. On March 4th, 2025, I inspected the property and found a screen patio
partially enclosed with plywood with no built approved building permits. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph photographs accurately show what I saw then and is marked as county's exhibits two and three. There's um plywood up here and some sort
of sheathing material. This is just another angle of the of the patio. And exhibit four is the real estate listing from 2021 that shows what it looked like prior. And that's and there's all windows here
in 2021. Uh based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Linda Tumi Richards on March 26, 2025. The notice of violation is marked as county's exhibit 5. 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 Orin's Martin County Code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until April 25th, 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement. Upon doing so,
a follow-up in a follow-up inspection was conducted on May 29, 2025 that shows the wall is now covered with stucco. My follow-up picture is county's exhibit six. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail
on June 5th, 2025 and is marked as county as exhibit 7. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on June 25th, 2025, I posted the property and at the Martin County Administrative Building, the posting and the affidavit of posting are marked as county's exhibit 8 and 9.
There's my posting. Okay. And my affidavit. No call or letter from the property owner was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went to the property again on July 15th and saw the cited violations had not been corrected. At the time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately
shows what I saw then and is marked as county's exhibit 10. and it's still still stuck in in place. A screenshot of the permit history showing no permits on file for the work being completed is marked as county's exhibit 11.
I request that all counties exhibits be returned into evidence and based upon the testimony and evidence, I request that the respondent, Linda Tumi Richards, be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by August 29th, 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 of amount of $575 conducting this investigation and requests that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. This concludes my testimony.
Okay. Anybody here on behalf of Linda Tumi Richards? Looking out, seeing no one. Without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 13 in the 1 through I'm sorry, 1 through 11 in this case. Based upon uh that evidence, your
testimony, I'll find that a violation as charge does exist on the property and order compliance on or before August 29th, 2025, failing what to find in the amount of $100 per day will acrue. And I'll further award costs in the
amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, Miss Espot, this is the several names. Victor Nolasco.
Um, and Francisco Perez, it looks like always hard to tell when the property appraiser does this to the names, but um, Miss Espat, if you'll raise your right hand. This um, do you swear or
affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you got it. I do. All right. This is case number ENF204. Uh 12305-01 and whenever you're ready. My name is Maria Espa and I have been
sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Victor M. Linez Nolasco and Franciscoca A. Perez Perez are not present. This case concerns a property at 3464 Southeast Jefferson
Street in Stewart, Florida 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 owners are Victor M. Linez Nolasco and Franciscoca A. Perez Perez.
A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counted exhibit 1. On January 13, 2025, I inspected the property due to a complaint received for an unpermitted structure in the back of the property. While on site, I observed a new fence on one side of the property,
trash, and I could see the structures roof located behind the fence. I left the door tech for contact from the owner so I could gain access to the rear of the property to get a better visual of the structure. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are
marked as counted exhibits two to five. Two is a front view. I'll zoom in. This is the trash in the front. Uh, moving forward, you'll see the difference between the new fence and the older fence. Number three, this is the
structure that used to be in the back in 2024. Exhibit four shows the new structure that appeared in 2025. And number five is an u a street view from 2024 what the
fence used to look like. Based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to the owners on January 23rd 2025 marked as county's exhibit 6. In the notice I cited the following Martin County code violation section 67.201b
nuisance declared trash etc. General Ordinances Martin County Code section 105.1 permits when required incorporated by section 21.1 General Ordinances Martin County Code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until February
22nd, 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement. Upon doing so, I went back to the property on March 12th, 2025 to make contact with the owner. I left the door tag. Once again, this inspection is marked as
count as exhibits seven and eight. Seven is a door tag where I asked them to please call me. Eight is just a street view. And if I zoom in, there was better lighting. You could see that the wood is is new.
Shortly after leaving the door tag, the owner called me and stated I could meet his wife on the property, but it could only be very early in the morning. Therefore, I went back to the property on March 18, 2025 and was granted access to the backyard where I seen the unpermitted shed. I explained to the
owners that the trash had to be removed and they needed a fence permit and also a permit for the shed or they could remove the shed. The photo of the shed is marked as county's exhibit 9. It was very dark very early in the morning, but this is what you saw in the aerial.
Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on March I'm sorry on April 9th 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit number 10. I spoke to the owner on May 8th again May 8th 2025 and he asked for additional
time because he was planning on removing the unpermitted shed and would apply for a fence permit. On June 12th 2025 I went to check if the structure was still on the property and it was. This photo is marked as county's exhibits 11 and 12.
11. If I zoom in, you could see the roof is still there. Okay. Right here. Mhm. 12 is another view. And you could still see that the fence and the trash remains.
Therefore, I amended the notice of violation for the hearing in July. It was mailed by certified mail and regular mail. The amended notice of hearing is marked as county's exhibit 13. The return receipt was not returned. So on June 24th, 2025, I posted the
property and the admin building for Martin County. The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 14. I went to the property again on July 15, 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 this is marked as counties 15 through 18. 18 is the permit history. 15. You could still see the uh new fence, the trash still here.
16. A closer view of the new fence and the structure in the back. 17. The trash. And 18. There has been no permits since 2018. I request that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based
upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the that the owners comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by August 29, 2025, and if not in compliance by then, be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day. The county has incurred a cost
in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbured this amount at the conclusions of today's hearing. Okay. Anybody here on behalf of Victor LZ Nolasco or Francisco
Perez Perez? Looking out, seeing no one. Uh, without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 18 in this case. Based upon that evidence and your testimony, I'll find that it violations as charged do exist
on the property and order compliance on or before August 29th, 2025 failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per day will acrue and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid
to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. So ordered. And next case, also yours is um NNW LLC. It's case number ENF202530577.
And whenever you're ready. My name is Maria Espria and I have been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, INW LLC, is not present. This case concerns a property at 2971
Southeast Fairmont Street 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 NNW LLC. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership
is county's exhibit 1. On March 6, 2025, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed a damaged fence and trash. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then. And I marked this county's
exhibits 2 through 5. You could see trash here. And I'll zoom in so you can see the side of the fence that is damaged right here. What are the boards missing or It's missing a big gap towards the back area right here. And the ones that are
here towards the end, um, they are all all over the place pretty much. And then there's the trash in the front. Three is just a front view showing you that the address I was at. and four shows
a screenshot of a street view of what it used to look like when it was completed all the way down and not missing. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to INW LLC on March 19, 2025, marked as county's exhibit
number five. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violation. Section 67.201b nuisance declared trash, etc. General General Ordinances Martin County Code section 21.99 Accessory Structures General Ordinances
Martin County Code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until April 18, 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 and regular
mail on June 16, 2025 and that is marked as county's exhibit 6. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on June 24th, 2025, I posted the property and the Martin County admin building. The affidavit of posting is
marked as county's exhibit number seven. No call or letter from the property owner was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went back to the property on July 15, 2025 and saw that the cited violation had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The pro the pro the
photograph accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as county's exhibit 8. And nine is a permanent history. Eight shows that the trash remains and you could also say the fence is damaged
and missing a section. and nine permit history shows. I believe it's 2005 was the last permit. I requested all of the counting county's exhibits be received into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence, I requested the respondent be ordered to
comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by August 29th, 2025. If not in compliance by then, be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day for every day that violations continue thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount
of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. Okay. Anybody here on behalf of NNW LLC?
Looking out, seeing no one without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through nine in this case. Based upon uh that evidence and your testimony, I'll find that violations as charged do exist on the property and order compliance on or
before August 29th, 2025, failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day will acrewue and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the
conclusion of this hearing. [Applause] All right, let's see. The Decker case. James Decker is up next. All right. This is case number ENF 2025
050614. The respondent is James Decker. And Miss Espot, whenever you're ready. My name is Maria Espay and I have been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, James Decker, is not
present. This case concerns a property at 3267 Southeast Birch Avenue in Stewart, Florida 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
James Decker. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counties exhibit 1. On May 13, 2025, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed vehicles, an RV, trailers, all on county
rideway, trash, and a damaged fence. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what I saw then and they are marked as count as exhibits 2 through six. Two shows the damaged fence. You could see some of the trash from a
distance. Three is a different view and you could see all the items located on county right away. Four, I'm sorry, go back to that uh sub three I guess it was. Explain to me. So
exhibit number six, I haven't gotten to it yet, but exhibit number six does show you the GIS. So basically what's in red is his property. The entrance that you're we're taking the picture from here looking in. All these items are on
county right away. Okay. So I'll go back to three. So is it like a street end or something that And he's got it fenced and gated. He has fenced and gated it
the county right away. Yes. Wow. Okay. Number four is just a different angle. Number five is just additional pictures. And number six is where it shows you
that this is all county right away. His driveway is this small piece that's right in front of his uh attached garage and then next door is a different property. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to the owner on May
15, 2025 marked his county's exhibit 7. In the notice of violation, I cited the following Martin County code violation. Section 21.99, Accessory Structures, General Ordinances, Martin County Code. Section 91.33, Abandoned in
the Rideway, General Ordinances, Martin County Code, and section 67.201B, Nuisance declared trash, etc. General Ordinances Martin County Code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until June 13, 2025 to correct the
violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so. On May 16th, 2025, I reinspected the property to try to make contact with the owner. I was able to speak with the owner and he agreed to clean up the trash. However, he stated he would not
address the fence violation and stated that the vehicles on the rightway weren't his. The photos taken during this inspection are marked as county's exhibits 8 through 18. These are all on rightway. Nine more items on the rightway.
10. 11. 12. Here you can see the trash. This is his driveway actually right here. And there's some high grass right here in the back. 13. A different angle of the rideway.
14. More additional pictures. 15. So, this structure that's here is his attached garage where he would park in front of it. And these are just items sitting there. Are they on his property?
Um, moving forward, there's it gets a little uh complex, but you'll understand in a minute. Okay. So, I'm just trying to go in the order so I don't get out of order here. Um, this is right in front of his attached
garage. All the trash, the grass in the back, patches of grass here. And 18 is just me uh taking a few steps back so you could see more of it. Since the owner was not willing to correct all of the violations, a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail and regular
mail on May 22nd, 2025, marked his county's exhibit number 19, and that was for the June hearing at that time. That same day, I posted the property and the Martin County Admin Building. The affidavit of posting is marked as
county's exhibit 20. While posting the property, I tagged all the vehicles for towing since the owner stated that they they didn't belong to him. I also took additional violation photos in their counties, exhibits 21 to 24.
21 is the trash right at the end of his driveway. 22 trash, grass, more trash on this side. 23 is just a a step back from that photo. And you can see I posted it on here. 24 just a
different angle. After doing further research, I amended the notice of violation adding adding 67, I'm sorry, section 105.1 for both the new fence the owner admitted to placing on the property and the attached garage remodel, both done without a
permit. In addition, I added violations for high grass 67.201A and section 3.201 C.2.1 for commercial vehicles. Going back to counties exhibits 11, it shows a commercial vehicle. Counties
exhibit 16. Going back to that one, it shows a fence without a permit and areas of high grass. Now, counties exhibit 24 shows the garage how it has French doors and they were
unpermitted. Counties 20. Exhibit 25 shows what it used to look like before the French doors counties. Exhibit 26 is a permit history. It only shows a single family residence.
I amended the notice of violation and that is marked as county's exhibit number 27. And the amended notice to appear is count's exhibit number 28. The amended notice of violation gave the owner until July 3rd, 2025 to correct
the violation, and the amended notice of hearing was for today's hearing. Both the amended notice of violation and the amended notice of hearing were handed to the owner at the Martin County Admin building in the lobby after the at the June 20 I'm sorry, June 18, 2025
hearing. The affidavit of hand delivery is county's exhibit number 29. After further research, I removed the new fence violation. The new fence is actually located on the parcel next door. I also removed the damaged fence
violation because the fence was located on county rideaway and the commercial vehicles, cars, and RVs as well because it was all in County Rideway. Uh since public works now has a case for this. Therefore, I went back to the property on July 15, 2025 and saw that
the cited violation had not been corrected. I also checked the permit status and it shows no permits have been applied for. The inspection is marked as county's exhibits 30 through 33.
30 is um high grass. This is in the front. So this is the entrance you were seeing. 31 shows the grass has grown a lot more. The trash still exists in front of there.
32, a different angle, more trash, high grass. And 33, another angle of the side of his property. The permit history, I do have a print out of it, and it's the same as the one you saw earlier, just a single family
residence. I request that all of the county's ex exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County code by August 29, 2025 and if not in compliance by then be
required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day for every day the violations continue thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and requested the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's
hearing. Okay. I'm just looking to see what we're left with as far as um the abandoned vehicles. Basically, you're you're not going to charge that. You're just missing that. Correct. Because that is all located on
county right away and public works now has a case. Remove them. Correct. Okay. All right. So, that's done. So, we've got 67201A 2011B and
uh 105.1 Florida Building Code and and that's it, right? The commercial equipment again on that was on the public right away. Correct. And that can be dealt with differently.
Yes. All right. Okay. All right. All right. Anybody here on behalf of James Decker? Seeing no one, uh, without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 33.
Um, based upon that evidence and your testimony, you'll find that violations remaining 67201A, 2011b, and 105.1 still remain on the property. Auto compliance on or before
uh August 29th, 2025, failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day will acrewue. and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing.
So I I guess I don't understand exactly looks like he's convert is it an office that he used? Can you tell or no? I can't tell what's inside but it it was
a attached garage according to the plans. Okay. And when they built the home, it's just got um doors rather than the the rollup garage door. Correct. Okay. All right.
Okay. All right. Well, all right. Um let's see. The next one is a Cassidy case. It's case number 20250 948-01. uh Sean T. Cassidy and Mark L. Cassidy
III and again whenever you're ready. My name is Maria Espa and I have been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. This case is a repeat violation case. The respondent Shaun T. Cassidy and Mark L.
Cassidy III are not present. This case concerns a property at 3240 Southeast Dominica Terrace in Stewart, Florida in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from an anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the property appraiser,
Martin County, the property owners are Shaun T. Cassidy and Mark L. Cassidy III. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit 1. This property was previously brought before the Martin County code
enforcement magistrate on August 12th, 2020. A stipulation agreement was signed and the owners agreed to correct the violations. The violations were se section 67.201b nuisance declared trash etc. General Ordinances Martin County Code and
section 91.33 abandoned in the rightway general ordinances Martin County Code section 3.420 M1 Indust Industrial District Land Development Regulations Martin County
Code on or before December 31st 2020. On December 31st, 2020, an inspection was conducted and all violations were corrected. A copy of the original order from 2020 and the affidavit of compliance are marked as county's
exhibits two and three. Okay. On June 12th, 2025, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed that the property again had trash and debris. Materials for the operation of the business were being stored outside and
vehicles were being stored on county right away. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then. And I marked this county's exhibits 4 through 9. Four, you can see their fencing is down. You can see all the items used to
operate their business. Five is a different angle. These are items on County Rideway. Six is the other entrance to the business. It's open. You could see everything that's there. Seven,
just another angle. You could see straight down. Eight, the vehicles on County Rideway. and nine. Based upon the investigation and the previous case of the property, I used a
repeat notice of violation and issued one to Shaun T. Cassidy and Mark L. Cassidy III on June 18th, 2025, marked this county's exhibit 10. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County Code violations as
repeats. Section 67.201B, nuisance, declared trash, etc. General Ordinances Martin County Code section 91.33 abandoned in the rightway general ordinances Martin County code and section 3.420 M1 Industrial District
Land Development Regulations Martin County Code in the notice of repeat violation. The respondent was informed to comply with all the violations immediately and also informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so.
A notice of repeat hearing was issued by certified mail on June 18, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit number 11. The return receipt was not received. So on June 24th, 2025, I posted the property in the Martin County Admin building. The affidavit of
posting is marked as county's exhibit number 12. Due to clerical error error, I amended both the repeat notice of violation and the repeat notice to appear on July 8th, 2025 and hand delivered both the same
day. The amended repeat notice of violation and amended repeat notice to appear and the affidavit of hand delivery are exhibits 13 through 15. 13 is the amended repeat notice of violation.
14 is the amended repeat notice of hearing and 15 was the hand delivery. Okay. Tell me what was the clerical error? Uh it said L um I'm sorry it said Martin County ordinance next to one of the
sections and it's actually a land development regulation. Okay. So it was a citation the M the M1 Industrial District uh violation your honor is in the LDR not general ordinances. Yes. Okay. All right. So, we're going with the July 8th
date, basically. Yes. Yes. Okay. On July 15, 2025, I reinspected the property and found that all the violations on the property have been placed into compliance. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what I saw
then and is marked as county's exhibits 16, 17, and 18. 16 shows all the screening has been placed up. all the items off the county rightway. 17 is a different angle
and here's uh screening as well and 18 is just a little bit further back. I requested that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondents Shanti Cassidy and Mark
El Cassidy III be found as repeat violators and be ordered to pay $250 per day per violation for the 33 days that the repeat violations existed on the property. The total amount due for the violations is $24,750.
And also, the county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and requested the county be reimburse this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. Okay. I Let me just ask you. It looks like you
had to send your notice back out on the 8th and that's only eight days. not 33. That's when you charged them basically. And I know you may have first observed it in June.
Well, that would only be for the one um LDR. You could calculate that way running, but the the other two are general ordinances and were properly cited uh 33 days prior. And also in between from the 8th till
the day before hearing I did um a very large amount of inspections also in between. I don't know if you Okay. But it but it I mean basically your testimony is that they were in compliance on the 15th. Were they in
compliance prior to that? No, they were not. Okay. All right. So, I I think it gets really messy if you try and go back to I I know the statute. I know 162 says
when it's first observed by the by the code officer. I I just and it was observed on that date and it was properly cited for for those two violations. Yeah. I don't know that that's the
calculation you want to use. I I I think I'm going to stick with my ruling and and say it's eight days at um $500 a day. Um well, it's 250 a violation, right? 250 per violation. $750 a day.
No, it's $500 a day because it's a repeat violation. Let me look. Capped 500 amended. Yeah. Yeah, that's the statute. Um, so I mean, so that's $4,000.
plus cost, right? Correct. All right. Um, let me look at your your draft order. And I I understand what what you're testifying to as far as you made your inspection on that date, the 12th, but
but I think they didn't get notice until actually correct notice until the the later time. So, um I'm I'm going to say that. All right. And it actually was continuing till the
15th. July 15th, right? Correct. Okay. not the 16th. So, All right. So, without um anybody here on behalf of of the Cassidies, seeing no one um without objection, I'll
accept evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 18 based upon that evidence and your testimony. I'm going to find that a repeat violation uh exists existed on the property. Um and it and it actually did exist from
June 12th, 2025 through July 15th, 2025. But notwithstanding that notice was given properly on the 8th of uh July. And therefore, I'm going to um find the
cassidies for the 8 days of violation that that were properly cited. That's uh at $500 per day, which is the repeat violation um fine for 8 days at a total of $4,000
plus $575 in cost to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. And I will amend this to say all of that. We have to look at that. I'll look at that after the hearing. But that's
that's basically my ruling in the case. So, okay. Um All right. Miss Bush, you're next. And looks like I don't have an order for the Okay, the Cronin case has been removed.
So, uh, that leaves us with the North River Shore LLC case, and it's KC ENF202520106. And the respondent is North River Shore LLC. And Miss Bush, if you'll raise your right
hand, do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you come. Yes, sir. I do. Okay. Whenever you're ready. My name is Tamika Bush and I have been sworn in. I am a co-compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent has entered into a
stipulation of agreement. The respondent North Rivershore LLC is not present. This case concerns the property at 869 Northwest River North River Shores Boulevard in Stewart, Florida 34994 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 North Rivershore LLC. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit 1.
Okay. On February 4th, 2025, I inspected the property and at that time I observed installation of a staircase prior to permitting. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as
counties exhibits 2 through 4. Exhibit two showing the property and this is the staircase from the roadway. Exhibit three being the same and exhibit four being a closer view of the staircase that was installed.
Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to North River Shore LLC, which is marked as county's exhibit 5. And in the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violation. Sections 105.1 FBC permits when required
incorporated by sections 21.1 general ordinances of Martin County. Okay. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until May 15, 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 June 3rd, 2025 in the Smartes County's exhibit 6. product. The return receipt was received the was
not received in the property and county administration was posted on July 1st, 2025 and it's marked this countyy's exhibit seven and 8. This is the pro posting at the um apartment property well the apartment door of the property
and the affidavit of the posting. Okay. and exhibit nine being a permit screenshot showing the permit is in process for the staircase. On July 10th, 2025, Robert Ham of North
River Shores LLC entered into a stipulation of agreement and final order to comply with said violations by October 31st, 2025 or a fine of $100 per day be assessed until compliance is achieved. The administrative cost of $350
has been paid and I am requesting that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence. All right. Okay. So, we've got the stipulation and agreed final order in front of us. That's um
so by October the original stipulation is overnighted to us. So we'll get you back the original for signature. All right. So the one I have in front of me is not it's not the original. He FedExed it to
us. He's out of state. Okay. All right. Um, let me just read through it. It's 10:31 25. Okay. So, without objection, I accept into evidence the county's
exhibits one through nine in this case. and based upon uh that evidence and the stipulation find that it is appropriate to uh enter an agreed order requiring
uh compliance by October 31st, 2025 failing which fund in the amount of $100 a day would acrew. And note for the record that um that administrative costs uh stipulated administrative costs in
the amount of $350 have been paid to the county. And uh the copy I have shows that Richard Heim um has signed on behalf of North River Shores LLC and we're awaiting the
original um which I will execute the agreed order when I get the original. Okay. And and don't forget you need to also sign on behalf of the county because this copy doesn't have that. Okay. All right.
Um, good. Okay, we got one more case and that's the Wallace case. It's um case ENF 2025 020426-01. Respondent is Stephen uh F. Wallace and that's also your case whenever
you're ready. My name is Tamika Bush and I have been sworn in. I am a co-compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Stephen F. Wallace is not present. This case concerns the property at 2308 Northeast Center Circle 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 Steven F. Wallace. A copy of the property appraisers record
of ownership is counties exhibit one. Okay. On February 17th, 2025, I inspected the property and at that time I observed overgrown grass, highways, inoperable vehicles, and trailer. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what I saw
then and is marked as county's exhibits 2 through 5. Exhibit two. This is the boat trailer and some of the high grass. Exhibit three, a lot more of the high grass in certain areas.
Exhibit four also showing the high grass and exhibit 5. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Steven F. Wallace on April 4th, 2025, marked as county's exhibit 6. In the notice, I cited the
following Martin County code violation. Section 67.201A, nuisance declared we undergrowth general ordinances of Martin County code. Section 91.34.8 generally inoperable vehicles general ordinances of Martin County Code. In the
notice of violation, the respondent was given until May 5th, 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 hearing was issued by
certified mail on June 24th, 2025 and it's marked county's exhibit 7. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, I posted the property in the Mark Martin County Administration on July 1st, 2025, and it's Martes County's
exhibits 8 and 9. Here it shows exhibit six, but it should be exhibits 8 and nine. The exhibits um proceeding are, I believe, are not in the uh exhibit
order, so I'll cite them as they are. Okay. Exhibit six being the posting. Well, no, it's really it's really nuh eight. Eight. And then the next one, your affidavit would be nine and the and the following
photo is going to be 10. They're one off. So, they'll be 10 to four. The photos will be 10 through 14. They have been corrected. All right. As long as as long as uh we have an accurate count. Yes, sir.
No caller letter from the property owner was received within the time allotted. Therefore, I went to the property again on July 15, 2025 and saw that the sighted violations had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately shows what I saw then and it's marked as
county's exhibits 10 through 14. This would be exhibit 10. And And what am I looking at there? This is the vehicle with the flat tire. Okay. But that wasn't You didn't mention that before. No, I said vehicles and trailers. So, initially it was the
trailer. That's two. And I didn't have Yes, sir. I I didn't your one case off. There you go. I didn't What's wrong with the trailer? The trailer tires are flat, too. I have other photos that would show it more closely, but these tires were
I just couldn't see it. Your testimony is fine, but Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So, that's we were there and 10. Yeah. 11. Exhibit 11 showing the overgrowth. And I'll get closer.
This is also more of the overgrowth that existed. Yeah. Exhibit 12 and exhibit 13. Let's see if we can Okay. See it here. Without me going onto the property, it's kind of hard to see, but the tires on
here as well as the vehicle are both flat. It is my testimony. Yeah. Well, I mean, you obviously you could have gone under the driveway, but Okay. 13. And then is there one more?
That's actually 14. Mhm. That's it. That's it. Okay. So, 1 through 14. Okay. I request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence. And based upon the testimony and evidence, I request that the respondent, Steven F.
Wallace, be ordered to comply with the cited f provisions of the Martin County Code by August 29th, 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 conduct conducting this investigation and requests that the county be reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. Okay. Anybody here on behalf of Steven Wallace? Looking out, seeing no one without
objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 14 in this case. Um, based upon that evidence, I'll find that violations as charged do exist on the property and order compliance on or before August 29th, 2025 failing,
which a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day will occur. And I'll further award cost in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. Thank you, special man.
All right. Thank you. Okay. And um I know that there were a set of minutes produced for the June hearing um but I have not reviewed them sufficiently. Um but I I will do so certainly by the
time we have our next hearing. So I do have them in front of me, but I'll I'll check them and go from there. All right. Anything else to come before us? No, your honor. All right. Good. Then in that case, we stand adjourned.
Thank