All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to call to order the code enforcement magistrate uh hearing for Martin County for uh November 19th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Please 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. Um
we have a few folks here this morning. I'm going to try and take you in the order that um uh that has been recommended to me. The first case is going to be uh Karen Bender and it's KC ENF 20240312
87-01 and this is a fine reduction request and I see that um Mr. Waters is here on behalf of Miss Bender. Okay. All right. So, we're going to hear from the county
first and then um Mr. waters. I'll have you come up to the podium. Okay. You raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm testimony about to give will be the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth? So, I'll help you go. >> I do. >> Okay. Um, what have we got? >> It's a fine reduction.
>> I see that. >> So, my name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County. This case concerns the property located at 3254 Northeast Highland Avenue, Jensen Beach in Martin County, Florida.
On September 17th of 2024, a stipulation and agreed final order was issued by the code enforcement magistrate Karen Bender for section 105.1 Florida building code permits when required incorporated by section 21.1 general ordinances Martin County code
and exhibit one is the property appraiser showing that Mrs. Oop well it's not that one is though showing that Mrs. Bender is the property owner. Yes. >> Um, exhibit two is the recorded
stipulation that was put in place. Okay. >> Compliance was required by July 26, 2024. On August 20th, 2025, an affidavit of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in
the amount of $17,800, which is exhibit three. Um, pursuant to section 1.98B, general ordinances, Martin County Code, no code enforcement lean shall be reduced to a value less than 10% of the total fine amount or 10% of the value of the
property, whichever is less. The portion of the lean attributed to cost shall not be subject to reduction. Staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted. The respondent was responsible for the violation and brought the property into compliance and has offered to pay $1,780 to resolve the
outstanding fines which have occurred. And the reduction request from Tyson is exhibit 4. >> Okay. >> And that concludes my testimony for this one. >> All right. Any um objection to my accepting exhibits one through four into evidence? >> Uh not at all.
>> No. >> Okay. So, without objection, it's so ordered. And um the county commission has obviously now allowed me to do these fine reductions, but they've also made it so that it's it's pretty much uh plug
and chug uh with the amount. So, I don't really have any discretion. >> We're I'm I'm here today just to really say thank you to staff. They've worked closely with us. It took a little longer than we anticipated hoped for, but staff was there along the way. We tried to keep them informed and now we're happy to say the property is in compliance.
So, we're grateful for this reduction request. >> Okay. And I've already read the fine reduction stipulation. Um I did that actually before the the hearing and note that uh it does uh it is signed by Karen
Bender on behalf of herself and I'm sure Miss Bradley is going to sign it momentarily. And then I can sign that. >> There you go. >> Okay. I've now seen Miss Bradley sign it. On behalf of the county, I'm going
to approve the agreed order in this case. All righty. Um, we'll get you a copy to take with you. >> That's wonderful. Thank you very much. And again, thank you to staff for working with us. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If you just uh wait for Miss Bradley, she'll she'll get it.
>> Okay. All right. And the next case is actually the first case on the docket. It's um Judy M. Ehart. Miss Eart, you're here. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. And it's case number
ENF 202580527. And um Officer Carrasco is going to testify first. We're going to hear her. This is a violation case. >> Yes, sir. >> Assuming that Mr. Carrasco makes what the law calls a primmaaccia case, meaning that everything she said is
correct and accurate and would allow me then to find you uh guilty for the violation, then the burden flips to you and I'll call you up and and just like Mr. Waters, I'm going to ask you to stand at the podium, speak into the
microphone, I'll swear you in and then we'll go from there. In the meantime, the county is going to present evidence and that evidence is available on the monitor uh directly in front of you. Okay? Or actually, you can either way
you can come up and stand and see it on that monitor as well, but you may be more comfortable right where you are. So, okay. All right. So, um Officer Krosco, did I swear you in? I did not. Okay. Um, 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'll help be govern. >> I do. >> All right. Whenever you're ready. >> My name is Deborah Krasco and I have been sworn in. I am a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, Judy M. Edart, is present.
This case concerns the property at 1285 Southwest Tropical Terrace, Stewart, Florida in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Judy M. Eckard.
A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit 1. On August 18th, 2025, I inspected the property. I observed the trash in disrepair. I'm sorry, the fence in disrepair and
trash. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as counties exhibits 2 through 5. There's trash along the side of the fence or different angle of the yard
and then the fence. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Judy M. Echart on September 17th, 2025 marked as county's exhibit 6. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County Code violations. Section
67.201b, nuisance declared trash, etc., general ordinances of Martin County code, and section 21.99, accessory structures, general ordinances of Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until October 1st, 2025 to correct the
violations and was informed the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. Compliance was not achieved and notice of hearing was issued by certified mail October 8th, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 7. The return receipt was not received in
October 29th. I posted the property and the Martin County admin building. Affidavit affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 8. No call or letter from the property owner was received within the allowed time. Therefore, I went to the property
again on yesterday, November 18th, 2025, and saw that cited violations have not been corrected. I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw and are marked as county's exhibits 9 through 12. So, there was some items obviously
cleaned up, but there was still a lot of things in the yard itself. Here we have some tires and gas can and then the fence. Again, I request all of the county's exhibits
be received into evidence based upon the testimony and the evidence, I request that the respondent, Judy M. Echart, be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by December 31st, 2025, and if not in compliance by then, be required to pay
the fine in the amount of $100 per violation for every day the violation continues thereafter. The county has incurred a cost of 575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's
hearing. >> Okay, Mr. Eert, um, come on up to the podium. You'll raise your right hand. Do you swear a firm testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, off you go. >> I do. And your full name?
>> Judy Margaret Ehart. >> And where do you live? >> 1285 Southwest Tropical Terrace in Stewart, Florida. >> Okay. So, you actually reside on this property? Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Um I the photos seem fairly compelling.
Um unless you have any objection, I'm going to accept those and all the exhibits into evidence. >> I have no objection, your honor. I'm going to get this cleaned up by the 31st. >> All right. >> So, without objection, I'm going to accept into evidence the county's
exhibits 1 through 12 in this case. All right. Looks like you've gotten some of it done. >> Yes, sir. >> Looks like you got more to do. Um the fence for sure. And and I I know you're
not charged with it, but I'm looking at vehicles and I'm wondering if all of those >> all vehicles are running. All vehicles have insurance tag, everything. >> Okay. Okay. Just posing the question. >> Yes, sir. >> And I'll basically protect you. All
right. So, you've got more work to do, fence work and cleaning up the property, and you think you can get that done by the end of the year? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. So, anything else you need to tell me?
>> No. >> All right. Um, so based upon the evidence, your testimony, and and uh officer Krasco's testimony, I'm going to find that violations as charged do exist on the property, and I'm going to order you to comply own or before December
31st, 2025, failing, which there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per violation. There's two violations there >> per day. And um and I am going to award cost in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county.
So I mean it is your property. You got to take care of it. >> Yes, sir. >> So all right. Um >> is it possible that I could have the picture sent to an email or something? >> Those photos?
>> Yes. >> Do we have a good email for you? >> I can give you one. Yes. >> Okay. and just give that to Officer Carrasco and and she can um take care of that. >> And then my email information is on that
paper >> that you have. >> And do we have a good phone number, too? >> Mom, I can give you one. I'll write that down. Thank you. >> All right. I've signed the order, so
we'll get a copy out to you as well. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. >> All right. Good luck. >> I'll take care of this. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, let's see. the traveling case. That's yours as well, officer Krosco. So, it's case number
ENF2025900009-01 and the respondent is Travel Link LLC. And whenever you're ready, Go ahead. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, whenever you're ready. I'm sorry. >> My name is Deborah Krosco and I have been sworn in. I am a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The
respondents respondent Travel Link LLC is not present. This case concerns the property at 3801 Southwest Greenwood Way, Palm City, Florida in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint.
According to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Travel Link LLC. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one. On September 8th, 2025, I inspected the
property. At that time, I officer Wrong case. >> You're on the last case. >> Oh, I'm sorry. As far as that goes. Okay. You are correct. My bad. So, we'll go back to exhibit one.
>> Sorry. You know what? I wasn't even looking at that monitor. I was looking at the computer and I was on the right case. I was like, >> okay, my apologies. >> What are they talking about? >> Okay. Exhibit one is the property appraisers record of ownership. On
September 8th, I inspected the property and at that time, I observed a parking lot with random items. I spoke to a manager about the issues and left a door tag with him. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits
2 through six. So, that's the door tag I left with him. And then this is just random things uh on the property. >> So,
all right. So, this is multif family. Is it >> um >> or is it maybe I just haven't heard enough yet. >> It's the golf course. >> Okay. >> But what you're looking at I'm I'm the complainant that it's the country club.
>> Hang on, ma'am. Hang on just a second. I can't really >> take any testimony without you being sworn in and and frankly unless the county calls you, you're a an observer. I just answered question.
>> Okay. >> At the time that we were looking at >> Okay. Um >> again, there's more random items here in the parking lot of the >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> That's exhibit four than exhibit five.
>> And this is six. This pile continues to grow. Doesn't really change there. So, um, based on the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Travel Link LLC September 24th, 2025, marked as county's exhibit
7. In the notice, I fi I cited the following Martin County code violations. So, there's seven. Section 67.201B, nuisance declared trash, general ordinances of Martin County. In the
notice in the notice of violation, the respondent was given until October 1st, 2025 to correct the violations and was informed the need to contact Martin County code enforcement. Upon doing so, I did do a reinspect of the property October 6, 2025. The photographs
accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits 8 through 10. Okay. Yes, sir. >> Tell me about your your October inspection. What did you >> Oh, >> it looks like they may have cleaned up
some of it, but not all. Like eight eight doesn't look like look like it did before. >> Right. Correct. So, they haven't really done anything like >> they have. These No, these water tanks here have now like weeds go growing
through them. And yeah, there hasn't been much change with this at all. >> Okay, >> like I said, it's there's just more pallets here. Compliance was not achieved and a notice
of hearing was issued by certified mail October 7th, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 11. The return receipt was not received October 29th. I posted the property and the Martin County Admin Building
affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 12. No call or letter from the property owner has been received within the allowed time. Therefore, I went to the property again on November 18th, 2025 and saw that the cited violations had
not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as counties exhibits 13 through 16. Those have not moved. Okay. >> I request that all of county's exhibits
be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent Travel Link LLC be ordered to comply within the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by December 31st and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the
amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount of 575 conducting this investigation and requests that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing.
>> All right. And if if I understood, you you said you did talk to somebody from >> when I first went there to drop off the um door tag. >> Mhm. >> I spoke to a gentleman who said he was
the manager like of the golf course. >> Okay. >> And I explained to him what needed to be done and he said he would take care of it. And that was the last time I've talked with anybody from there. >> All right. But that was back in September,
>> correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. Anybody here on behalf of Travel Link LLC? Looking out, seeing no one. Uh, without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through
16 in this case. Based upon that evidence and your testimony, Officer Carrasco, I'm going to find that violation as charge does exist on the property and order compliance on or before December 31st, 2025, failing which there'll be a fine in the amount
of $100 per day and uh further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. Okay, ma'am. Thanks for attending.
>> Wanted to know what y'all did. >> Yes, ma'am. For sure. >> You won't hear from him because he's not responsive to anything. So, thank you very much. >> All righty. Okay. Um,
the next case is ENF2025 090361. Officer Kroska, that's also your case. The respondent is Russell Dansero. And whenever you're ready.
>> My name is Deborah Krasco and I have been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Russell Dan So is not present. This case concerns the property at 6422 Southeast Claremont Place, Hope Sound,
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 Russell Denuro. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is
county's exhibit one. On September 16th, 2025, code compliance specialist Michael Shanahan inspected the property. At that time, he observed high grass and weeds. He photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what he saw then and are marked as
counties exhibits two and three. Based upon the investigation, he issued a notice of violation to Russell Danero on September 17th, 2025. Marked County's exhibit 4. In the notice, he cited the following Martin County Code violations. Section
67.201A, 2011 nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances of Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until October 1st, 2025 to correct the violations and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon
doing so. October 1st, 2025, he did a follow-up inspection which is marked as county's exhibits five and six. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail October 2nd, 2025 and is marked as
county's exhibit 7. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on October 22nd, he posted the property in the Martin County Admin building. The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 8. A photograph of the posting is Marx
Countyy's exhibit 9. No call or letter from the property owner was received within the allowed time. Therefore, I went to the property on November 18th, 2025 and saw that the cited code violations had not been corrected. At that time, I
photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits 9, I'm sorry, 10 and 11. I request all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence. Based upon
the testimony and the evidence, I request that the respondent, Russell Dano, be ordered to comply within the cited provisions of Martin County Code by December 31st, 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 the 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. Um anyone here on behalf of
Russell Danero? Looking out, seeing no one without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through 11 in this case. Based upon that evidence and your testimony, I will find that uh violation as charge
does exist on the property. order compliance on or before December 31st, 2025, failing, which a fine in the amount of $100 per day will occurr on further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the
conclusion of this hearing. >> Thank you. >> And you're welcome. It is so ordered. Okay. All right, officer Switzer, if you raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. So, I'll help you. >> I do. >> Okay. And let's see. This is the Reich case. It's um ENF202580188-01. And um respondent is William Walter Reich Jr.
and this is a stipulation. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. What have we got? >> All right. My name is Kelly Switzer and I've been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, William Walter Reich, Jr. is not present and has
entered into a stipulation of agreement. This case concerns a property at 8418 Southeast Beagonia Way, Hob Sound, 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 William Walter Reich Jr. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one. On August 8th, 2025, John Colando, code compliance administrator. Rachel Sprdley, Nuisance Abatement Coordinator,
and and I inspected the property. At the time, we observed a retaining wall that was leaning and in disrepair. At the time I photographed the property, the photographs accurately show what I saw then. It is marked as counties is exhibits two through four.
Um, this is a side angle of the retaining wall. >> That's two. Okay. Three is um the the board's kind of starting to to pop out. And then this is a kind of a top angle showing that it's bulging here.
Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to William Walter Wright Jr. on August 15, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 5. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County Code violation section 21.99 accessory structures general
ordinances Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until September 4th, 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail
on September 22nd, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 6. This case was removed from the docket for the September so that Scott Brewan, assistant building official, could review the photos that were taken. Upon first review of the photos, he did not
find the retaining wall to be failing. As of October 14th, 2025, the complainant removed the bushes in front of the retaining wall and submitted updated photos. His photos are marked as county's exhibits 7 through 9.
He's removed the bushes in front so you can clearly see the bulging of the uh wall. This is just a long angle. And then there's another angle that he submitted. >> Okay. So the that retaining wall goes basically across the whole rear of
>> of his property. Yes. >> Scott Brewan reviewed the new newly submitted photos and determined that the retaining wall is in fact failing. Therefore, on October 17, 2025, we issued an amended notice of hearing for the November hearing. The amended notice
is county's exhibit 10. The owner has been in contact with with us and as of November 18th, 2025 has entered into a stipulation of agreement and the agreed fees of 350 have been paid in full. I request that all the county's exhibits be received into
evidence. And based upon the testimony and evidence, I request that the respondent, William Walter Reich, Jr., be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of Martin County Code by January 30th, 2025, and if not in compliance by then, be required to pay a
fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter. >> Okay. >> And this concludes my testimony. >> January 30th 30th, >> 206, 2026. >> Okay. I'm going to actually just amend that one little
>> my apologies >> thing here. I don't think that's significant since January 30th, 2025 is long gone. >> All right. Um Okay. So, without objection and Mr. Reich is not here
obviously and Um, based on the stipulation, I'm going to find it is appropriate, one to accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 10 in the case and also to approve the stipulation. Looks
like there's an electronic signature. >> That's correct. >> By Mr. Reich. >> He is out of state. >> Okay. All right. And you received that in the normal course of business. How did you get it? He sent it uh via email. He's also going
to mail it if need be. >> All right. And it does call for compliance owner before January 30th, 2026 failing which of fine in the amount of
$100 per day will acrue. And note for the record that um $350 has been paid to the county for costs. And Miss Switzer, you've also signed on behalf of the county. So, I'm going to go ahead and approve the order.
>> Thank you. Okay. And let's see. All right. Miss Bradley, you're up next. This is case number 11. Yes, sir. -0055176. The respondents are Richard and Adrien
Shaen Walder. And the reason I remarked when I said 11 is that that means it's a 2011 case, right? >> Okay. When if you'll raise your right hand, you >> already swore me in. >> I did. Good for me.
>> All right. So, you've been sworn in. This is uh I see the names on the order are different, but that's probably because the property is transferred. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. You're going to tell me about it, so go right ahead. >> Okay. My name is Rachel Spradley and
I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County. This case concerns the property located at 1511 Northeast 35th Terrace Jensen Beach in Martin County, Florida. On October 17th, 2012, an order finding violation was issued by the code
enforcement magistrate to actually it was issued to the Hermanskys. Um, >> yeah. >> So, it was issued to Carl O. Hermansky and June R. Hermansky, which >> they're the current owners. >> No, they were the prior owners. >> Prior owners.
>> So, Richard and Adrian are the current owners. >> Let's see. Let me catch up with you here. I'm not even going to try to pronounce their last name. >> Valder. >> There you go. >> So, exhibit 2 is the original order that
was issued to herskies. >> Okay, this is still trying to find >> um So, you have to This one's a little messed up in there. If you go to the 11 case, but then go down to where it says
ENF204, somehow the exhibits got flipped around. >> Okay. >> Okay, I'm with you. >> Okay. So they were issued the order for sections 105.1 Florida Building Code permits when required incorporated by
section 21.1 general ordinances Martin County code and section 91.34A generally inoperable vehicles general ordinances Martin County code >> compliance was required by December 19th of 2013 for section 91.34 inoperable
vehicles and section 105.1 Florida Building Code was February 14th 2013 and for section 105.1 Florida Building Code number four in the order because this order was kind of broke up. Um on
July 19th of 2013, an affidavit of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in the amount of $15,400 plus cost in the amount of $575. Pursuant to section 1.98B, general
ordinances, Martin County code, no code enforcement lean shall be reduced to a value less than 10% of the total fine amount or 10% of the value of the property, whichever is less. The portion of the lean attributed to cost shall not be subject to reduction. Um, Richard and
Adrien Joan Walder >> are the current owners of the property pursuant to a warranty deed recorded in official record book 2642, page 1776. Martin County, Florida public records, the respondent has no remaining interest
in the property. And exhibit three, sorry, is the affidavit of compliance. >> Okay. >> With fines and costs. >> And we have the deed somewhere. >> I don't, but I can pull it up for you if you want me to. Okay. Yeah, let's make that part of the record.
>> Okay. And exhibit four is the their request for the reduction. >> I'm going to say the deed is five. >> Okay. Let's see what we Let's see. There's a copy of the deed. >> All right.
>> Mr. Hermansky >> 2013, >> correct? And that property transferred without anybody flagging the >> Yes, sir. >> code enforcement action.
>> Wow. Little surprise for the Shan Valders. >> Yes, their attorney was a little surprised. >> Okay. Not good for the title company. All right. So, we're going to make that deed
exhibit five to exhibit make it exhibit five. >> Um, anything else to tell me? >> So, staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted. The current owners were not responsible for the violation. However, they have offered to pay $1,540 to resolve the outstanding
fines which have occurred. And that concludes my testimony for >> All right. Plus cost. Plus the um the costs I believe were actually paid. >> Should be ordered to pay 2115 within 30 days. >> Yes, I'm sorry. Plus the cost. So yes,
$2,115 >> is the total. >> 2115 with costs. All right. Um, and um, in your in your agreed order. >> Mhm. It's there.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm looking at it. I I've now looked at this is the second one, and I've just noticed this. It's probably been in there forever. See where in the last line it says the fine should revert to the acred amount. >> I'd love for that to say shall.
And um I I'm not actually going to change it in this case because the Shaun Balders have already signed the uh stipulation and and you have also signed the stipulation, Miss Bradley, on behalf of
the county. I just think going forward that would be a >> I I think your honor because it used to be a recommendation to the board that it should and going forward it would it will say shall >> Yeah. Good. Okay. And um note for the record that um that they are now
required to pay $2,15 total. So okay. So ordered um and I did accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through five in this case. If I did not that's so
ordered as well. Okay. Uh, next is the Decker case. >> Yes, sir. >> This is uh ENF 202530167 and the respondent is John Allen Decker. And this is also a stipulation.
>> Yes, sir. And this is actually a stipulation for more time to the original order. So, this one's going to kind of be short and simple here for you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> So, we issued an order to Mr. Decker
um that you signed and put in place back in August, giving him until October 31st to come into compliance with having windows and the exterior of his property repaired.
Um through kind of no fault of his own, the windows have been delayed. He did bring in the paperwork showing that they've been ordered and all of that. So, he's waiting for the windows to be delivered. So, we've granted him ex an extension, which is the document that's
in front of you. >> Okay. So, compliance was ordered by October 31st. >> Yes, sir. Um, and is there some sort of request on his part or did he just do that orally?
>> He he just we spoke to him. He came into the office, brought me all the paperwork showing that he had ordered his windows but was waiting. >> So, we agreed to extend his time off of the original order. >> All right. >> To give him the time to get the windows in.
Okay. All right. And basically, you're taking it from October 31st, 2025 to February 28th, 2026. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. I I think that's appropriate. And I see Mr. Decker has
signed on behalf of himself and M. Bradley, you've signed on behalf of the county. Um, and all right. Has he he has not paid the cost? >> No, sir.
>> Okay. We didn't charge him costs on >> on this. This >> Yeah, I I see that. Okay. All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and approve the stipulation. Um, you had a couple of exhibits.
>> One and two. Yes. >> One and two. Okay. So I'm going to accept one and two into into evidence and u prove the stipulation as submitted. Okay.
All right. Next is um Mitchell Landis. It's uh KCNF 202280992. And again, whenever you're >> Okay. >> My name is Rachel Spradley and I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County. The
respondent, Mitchell Landis, is not present. This case concerns the property located at 4966 Southeast Primrose Way Stewart 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
Mitchell Landis. A copy of the property appraiser's record of ownership is county's exhibit one. On August 29th, 2025, officer Michael Shanahan inspected the property and at that time he observed high weeds and grass. At that time, he photographed the
property. the photographs accurately show what he saw then and are marked as counties exhibits two and three. So that's exhibit two and then exhibit three. >> Okay. Based upon the investigation, he issued
a notice of violation to Mitchell Landis on September 3rd, 2025. Maris Countyy's exhibit 4. Oh, actually this was Michael Joseph that issued this. >> Yes, it was >> not Shanahan. Sorry. I have three
Michaels right at the moment. So, Michael Joseph actually issued this. I'm sorry. Um, and he violated it for section 67201A nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondant was given until September
10th, 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. On September 10th, 2025, Officer Shanahan did a follow-up inspection and is marked as county's exhibits five and six.
So, this is exhibit five and this is exhibit six. >> Was officer Shanahan? >> Yes, I believe so. >> Okay. He put it was so
compliance was not achieved in a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on September 24th, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 7. And officer Shanahan did send this one out. >> Sharing it. >> Uh the return receipt was not received.
Therefore, on October 22nd, 2025, he posted the property in the Martin County Administration building. The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 8 and the um posting on the property as county's exhibit 9. No caller letter from the property owner
was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went to the property again on November 18th, 2025 and saw that the sighted violations had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then in our marked as county's exhibit 10.
Um, I request that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent Mitchell Landis be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by December 31st, 2025. and if not in compliance by then be required to pay
a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and I request that the county be reimbursed that amount at the conclusion of today's hearing and that concludes my testimony for this one.
>> Okay. Anybody here on behalf of Mitchell Landis? Looking out seeing no one without objection I'll accept evidence the counties exhibits 1 through 10 in this case. Based upon that evidence on your testimony, I'm going to find that a violation is charged does exist on the
property. Order compliance on or before December 31st, 2025, failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per day will acrue and I'll further award cost in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county
at the conclusion of this hearing. And it is so ordered. And hang on just a second. Let me just catch up here. Okay. All right. Next is the Hoffman case.
This is case ENF2025 Z 10000 539 Raymond W. Hoffman. And again, whenever you're ready. >> My name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in. I am the nuisance baitment coordinator for Martin County. This case
is a repeat violation case and the respondent Raymond W. Hoffman is not present. This case concerns the property located at 7290 Southeast Eagle Avenue, Hope Sound 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 Raymond W. Hoffman and the property appraiser is exhibit one. >> Okay. Um, this property was previously brought before the Martin County Code Enforcement Magistrate on January 19th
of 2022 and an order finding violation. I'm sorry. It's not the property. It's the owner that was previously brought before you >> for the same violation. >> For the same violation. Yes, sir. >> So, >> but different property. >> Correct. For an order finding violation.
And that's marked as county's exhibit two. >> Got it. So, this was the original order that was put in place. >> Um, on March 17th, 2022, an inspection was conducted of S the Sandy Lane
property and the violations were all corrected. A copy of the affidavit of compliance with fines is marked as county's exhibit 3. So, this just shows that he did actually bring that one into compliance. >> Okay. Um, on October 21st, 2025, offer
officer Michael Shanahan inspected the property and at that time he observed trash and debris stored outside. At that time, he photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what he saw then and are marked as Kenny's exhibits four and five. So, exhibit four,
there's just kind of trash. >> The word outside is >> there's it's all underneath this carport. It's >> ruined outside. >> Yes. Okay. And then there's some more stored back behind this RV and all along here.
>> Okay. >> Uh based upon the investigation and previous history of the property, Officer Shanahan issued a repeat notice of violation to Raymond W. Hoffman on October 21st, 2025, which is marked as county's exhibit six.
In the notice of violation, he cited the following Martin County Code violations as repeat. Section 67.201.B nuisance declared trash, etc. General Ordinances, Martin County Code. In the notice of repeat violation, the respondant was informed to comply with all violations immediately and also
informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. A notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on October 21st, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 7. On October 22nd, 2025, a follow-up inspection was completed and is marked
as count as exhibit 8. Um, the return receipt was not received. Therefore, on October 22nd, 2025, Officer Shanahan posted the property and the Martin County Administration building. The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 9.
And then the actual posting >> is exhibit 10. Um, at that no caller letter from the property owner was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went to the property again on November 18th, 2025 and saw that the cited violations had
not been corrected at that time. I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits 11 and 12. So, 11. And I seriously have to figure this iPad out. >> Looks pretty much identical.
>> Yes, sir. There's been absolutely no change to this property. It looks exactly like Officer Shanahan's photos do. The trash is still behind the RV. >> Wow. So,
>> have you had any record of of re him notice? >> That part? Well, we posted it, so I But other than that, I can't answer that. I >> Yeah, I I'm talking about actual notice, not not legal notice.
>> I don't know, sir. I believe officer Shanahan spoke to his son if I'm not mistaken because you have another case and they actually there's another one up there for you for Mr. Hoffman also and they clean that property up. >> Okay.
>> So, um I request that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent Raymond W. Hoffman be found as a repeat violator in order to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code immediately. and be required to pay
a fine in the amount of $250 for every day starting October 22nd, 2025 and every day the violation continues thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and I request that the county be reimbursed this amount at
the conclusion of today's hearing. And that concludes my testimony for this one. >> All right. Anybody here on behalf of Raymond Hoffman speaking out? seeing no one. Um, without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 12 in this case. And based upon
that evidence, I find that a violation of charge does exist on the property in order compliance to be achieved immediately. Um, and that a fine in the amount of $250 per day shall begin on uh October
22nd. Yes, sir. >> 22nd, 2025. And I'll further award um additional costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county. Now, I don't know whether
that's in the order, but it's >> it is now. >> Let's see. Yeah, it is. Okay. >> All right. No. Okay. So, I see Mr. Hoffman is back again with a repeat
violation. All right. This is case number ENF202510540. And uh the respondent is also Raymond W. Hoffman. And what's the story with this one? >> So, my name is Rachel Sprdley and I have been sworn in. I'm the nuisance baitment
coordinator for Martin County. This case is a repeat violation case. Also, the respondent, Raymond W. Hoffman, is not present. This case concerns the property located at 7540 Southeast Eagle Avenue, Hope Sound in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from an
anonymous complaint. Um, according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Raymond W. Hoffman. A copy of the property appraiser's record of ownership is county's exhibit one. Mr. Hoffman was previously brought
before the Martin County Code Enforcement Magistrate on January 19th, 2022, and an order finding violation was issued to him and is marked as county's exhibit two. So, this is kind of a repeat of the other one.
Um he was violated for section 67201B nuisance declared trash etc. General ordinances Martin County code on March 4th 2022. An inspection was conducted and found that the Sandy Lane property had been brought into compliance. The affidavit of compliance is marked as
county's exhibit two or exhibit 3 rather. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Exhibit two. I can't see the second page but um you may just check your exhibit. >> Yeah. to make sure that it gets in there.
>> I'll check it. >> Okay. On October 21st, 2025, officer Michael Shanahan inspected the property and at that time he observed trash and debris were stored outside. Um, at that time he photographed the
property. The photographs accurately show what he saw then and are marked county's exhibits 4. So, you got trash stored up here behind the boat. >> And then exhibit five, there's trash >> in the carport.
>> Well, and on the side over here also, so it kind of spreads back in here. >> Okay. >> Based upon the investigation and previous history of the property, he issued a repeat notice of violation to Raymond W. Hoffman on October 21st,
2025, marked as county's exhibit 6. Um, let's see. In the notice, he cited the following Martin County code violations. 67201B, nuisance, declared trash, etc. General ordinances Martin County code. In the notice of repeat violation, the respondent was informed to comply with the violations
immediately and informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. A notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on October 22nd and is marked as county's exhibit 7.
>> Okay. Just going for I don't see a problem with the notice, but it's not a repeat notice. It's a >> Mhm. >> notice of repeat violation hearing or just notice of hearing. >> Yeah, we noticed that it it's worded
weird. >> All right, you'll fix it. >> Yes. Um the return receipt was not received. Therefore, on October 22nd, 2025, he posted the property in the Martin County Administration building. The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 8
and the photograph is that he took on that day are also marked as county's exhibit 9. Um no caller letter from the property owner was received on November 12th. Officer Shanahan went back to the property and found that the property had
been brought into compliance. So sorry, exhibit 9 is the posting. I know they're out of order, but they are not a problem. >> Exhibit 10 shows the property has been cleaned up. >> Okay. >> And then exhibit 11 also shows that the property's been cleaned up in
the back. >> And exhibit 10, that pile of stuff is out there for >> this is for the garbage and it is actually gone now. >> So, um, at that I request that all that the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and
evidence. I request that the respondent, Raymond W. Hoffman, be found as a repeat violator and ordered to pay the fine in the amount of $5,500 for the days that the property was in violation. 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. >> And that concludes my >> How many How many >> So it went from October 22nd to November 12th. 20. >> So it was 23 days, I think.
>> 22 >> 22 at $250 a day. >> 250. Okay. Um All right. Anybody here on behalf of Raymond W. Hoffman looking out seeing no one without objectional acceptance to
evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 11 in this case and find that violation as charge did exist on the property. It's a repeat violation and um I will order the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $5,500 based
on 22 days of non-compliance at $250 a day. a further award cost in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. >> Thank you. >> All right. And uh let's see. We've got
the minutes for the October 15th hearing. I've I've been through those and um have approved them. Note for the record that they're signed by um Jillian Colleine as the recorder,
John Colando as the code administrator, and now I'll I'll execute them as well. Okay. Anything else to come before us? All right. So that is all. >> Happy Thanksgiving to everybody and we will see you at the December
hearing >> 17th. 17th >> December 17th hearing. Okay. We stand journed. >> Thank you. >> Mhm.