Thank you. Good morning everyone. I'm going to call to order the um code enforcement magistrate hearing for Martin County on this tax day, April 15th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. 9:01. I guess if you'll please stand, join me in the
pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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.
>> I'm going to try and take everyone um in the order that you all came in. >> Um your honor though, if we can just a quick application before we begin. Okay. Um the first case on the uh docket ENF20610429 Hoffman. Um uh we're requesting it be
removed. We've given them an extension. The uh >> Okay. Um Okay, I got it. It So we don't really need to continue it. >> No, we don't need to continue. There's substantial compliance. All of the debris has been marshaled together, but it's still on the edge of the property awaiting Waste Management to remove it.
So as soon as it's removed, it'll be in compliance. >> Okay. Got it. All right. So, we're not going to hear that case today. First case that we are going to hear is the Coral Wind Cove uh incorporated case. It's case number ENF 2026
010324-01 and folks are here on behalf of uh Coralin Cove. >> Coralin is here and so is the occupants. >> Okay. All right. So, uh this is a violation case. So, what we're going to do is hear from the county first. I'm
going to swear them in and then they're going to testify, present evidence at the conclusion of the county's evidence, assuming they make what the law calls a primapacia case, meaning everything uh that they have presented would lead me
to believe that violation does exist. Then the burden flips to the respondents to uh testify, to present evidence, to um uh perhaps uh cross-examine, question the county if that's the case. But um
are you all uh here on behalf of the association? Is that or the corporation? >> Yes, sir. I'm here on behalf of association under president. >> Okay. So, I'll I'll ask you to come up and you can um stand at that podium if
you like and you'll watch the evidence being presented or you can actually just sit there and look at it up on that TV screen. Um because at the end of it, I'm going to ask if there's any objection to any of that evidence. So, all right. Okay. So, we're going to hear from the
county. While you're there, I might as well swear you both in. If you'll 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 will help you guide? >> I do. Yes, sir. >> All right. And your name again for the record? >> Parish.
>> Okay. And you're the president? >> President of Forin Codes HOA. >> Okay, great. Go ahead. Um, >> my name is Maria Espa and I have been sworn in. I'm a senior code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, Coralin Koving, is present.
This case concerns a property at 5400 South Southeast Jack Avenue unit G2 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 Coralin Cove, Inc. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit 1. On January 28th, 2026, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed trash on the side of the property and under the carport. At that time, I photographed the property. The
photograph accurately shows what I saw. Then, marked this county's exhibit number two. This is the carport side of the home and um trash and debris on the side. >> Okay. >> Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to the owner on
January 30th, 2026. marked this county's exhibit number three. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violation section 67.201B nuisance declared trash etc general ordinances Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was
given until February 13, 2026 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement. Upon doing so, the occupant of the home came to our office on February 12th, 2026. I explained the violation and gave him additional time
to correct it. However, compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on February 20th, 2026. Marked this county's exhibit number four. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on April 2nd, 2026, I posted
the property and the Martin County Admin Building. The posting and affidavit of posting are marked as county's exhibits five and six. Five is a posting at the property. the front door uh screen room door and the affidavit of posting is exhibit
number six. Therefore, I went back to the property on April 14, 2026 and saw that the cited violation had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then marked as county's exhibit seven and eight.
Seven is the side view again of the carport area. You can see all the trash and debris. And number eight is the other end of the carport. Just a different angle, different view. I request that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based
upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondents be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by May 29th, 2026, 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 requested the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. >> Okay. All right, sir. And I'm sorry. You're going to have to tell me your name again. >> Orville Parish.
>> Mr. Parish. Okay. >> All right. And um Mr. Parish, any objection to any of the county's exhibits? >> Um no, sir. the residents of Corwin Cove is actually who called code compliance code compliance subsequently um Mr. Tucker is in the process of being evicted. >> Okay.
>> And we wish a continuence for at least 30 days. >> All right. So So uh you you don't actually reside there. You have a tenant. >> No, I have a I have a place there also. Yes, >> you do. But but you're also evicting the tenant. >> No. No, he actually is a rental. He's a
rental. This is a retirement community. >> Okay. Okay. >> And we have 76 owners and 20 rentals. And he's actually one of the rental rental properties. >> Okay. All right. All right. I think I understand. Um
Okay. Uh so without objection, I'll accept into evidence exhibits one through eight. Unless you've got something else to tell me, I'm going to find that violation does exist. >> Right. other than we we wish a continuence and he is in the process of being evicted.
>> All right. I um the county is is asking for compliance by May 29th. >> That seems like enough time to clean out the trash. >> I would agree. >> Okay. All right. So, um so I'm going to
find based upon the evidence your test. Your >> honor, if I might just uh interject a little bit. Um if I may ask a question to Mr. Parish. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Um, >> have you begun the eviction process? >> Yes, sir. >> Has notice been served on them? >> Yes, sir.
>> Do you have a hearing date? >> Uh, it was it was supposedly going to be this Monday the 20th and as of yesterday, the judge asked for additional financial information. So, we do not have a new hearing date yet. Um your honor, the the county would not be adverse to granting continuence in
this case because um we don't know whether by considering that the the judge hasn't set another hearing date form whether it wouldn't be able to comply outside of any you know fault of the respondent. Well, I I think what I'm looking at is
evidence uh significant evidence of um of the violation that's been charged and I've heard the evidence and I think what I' what I would what I'm going to do is I'm going to find that the violation does exist. Now,
the question is, do you need more time to comply than May 29th? I mean, that seems to me that that'll be enough. We do not. >> Okay. All right. So, so based on on everything, I'm going to find that the violation does exist and I'm going to
order compliance on or before May 29th, 2026, failing which a fine in the amount of $100 a day will acrewue. I am going to award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion
of the hearing and then it's so ordered. If you want, you may also take a copy of this order uh with you. That may somehow help you in the other proceeding. I don't know. Okay. And I'm just going to say my hand
delivery. All right. And if um if you um follow Miss Bradley, she'll give you a copy of the order. Okay. All right. Let's see. Uh the next case is the sheer bomb case. It's um ENF
20262000 500 and it's Penelope K. Sheerbomb. Unless what? She >> is she here? >> Yeah, she's right here. >> Okay. My understanding is that you came
in second. That's how I've got you on. >> That's how I got it, too. >> Is that all right? >> Everybody good? >> Yep. >> Okay. And then we'll get back to you, Miss Espott. I thought that
>> All right. Okay. And Officer Carrasco, if you'll just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I'll help you go. >> I do. >> All right. And M Sherbomb, just if you want to look at the at the monitor,
you're welcome to do that. And then I'll call you up and then we'll go from there. Okay. All right. >> My name is Deborah Krasco and I have been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, Penelopey K. Sheerbomb is
present. This case concerns the property at 2930 Southwest Cornell Avenue in Palm City, 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 Penelopey K. Sheerbomb. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one. >> Okay. >> On February 4th, 2026, Michael Humphrey, code compliance inspector, inspected the property. At the time, he
observed overgrown grass and inop boat trailer. at the time he photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what he saw then and are marked as counties exhibits two through five. That's the door tag.
Overgrown grass grass and the tires flat there. And that's just over view of the whole property. Okay. >> Based on the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Penelopey Kirbomb on March 12th, 2026, marked as county's
exhibit 6. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violations. Section 67.201A 2011 A Nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general Martin general ordinances of Martin County code and section 91.34A
general inop inoperable vehicle ordinance Martin County code in the notice of violation the respondent was given until March 19th 2026 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so I did do a
reinspection on the property March 20th 2026. The photo photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits seven and eight. There's the flat tire.
And then back here, well, some of this was cut back here was still overgrown. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on March 23rd, 2026 and is marked as county's exhibit 9. The return receipt was not received on
March. So on March 31st, 2026, the property was posted as well as the Martin County admin building. The affidavit of posting and the posting itself are marked as count as exhibits 10 and 11. There's 11 showing posted at the property. No call or letter from the
owner was received within the allowed time. Therefore, Rachel Bradley went to the property again on March, I'm sorry, on April 14th, 2026 and saw that the cited violations had not been corrected. At that time, she photographed the property. The photographs accurately
show what she saw then and are marked as count as exhibits 12, 13, and 14. I request that all of the Martin County um of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the
respondents Penelopey K. Shear bomb be ordered to comply with the the cited provisions of Martin County code by May 29th, 2026 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per violation for every vi 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 reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. >> Okay, Mr. Sure. Mom, just before you testify, let me just ask the county.
>> Is did Miss Bradley come back into the >> No, she's >> she's still out there. I was going to have her testify as to what she saw when she actually >> I was took those. >> I was actually there too if you want me to. >> If you'll raise your right hand, John, >> 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 God. >> I do. >> All right. So on the day that you were out there and uh saw the photographs being taken, is that a an accurate representation of what you saw? >> It is.
>> All right. And am am I seeing this correctly? It looks like they may have come into compliance and then fell out of compliance again before the >> I believe they had a partial compliance because I don't believe the backyard was fully cut.
>> Okay. So, I think they did some of the front and the tire was still flat. >> Okay. >> On a >> All right. And and I couldn't tell that necessarily from 13, but correct. That's your testimony. That's correct. That's fine. Okay. >> All right. Good. Thank you. Um
>> Col. Um Okay. Come on up to the podium. And um are you both going to testify? Um, I think this is my husband and he >> I'll do the does the work. So, if you'll both raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm the testimony I'm about
to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth help you come? >> Yes, sir. >> And your full names? >> John Sherbomb. >> Okay. And >> Penelopey Sherbomb. >> Okay. And Miss Sherbomb, you're the sole owner of the property. >> Well, we're married. So, >> is it a is it a rental or do you reside
there? >> It's a private residence, your honor. your honor. And it's solely in her name. Uh she had purchased the home uh before we were married. >> Okay. >> So, >> and and do you reside there? >> No. >> Okay. You don't? Okay. >> We used to. >> Got it. I All right. So, um you've seen
the county's evidence 1 through 14, heard the testimony of Officer Carrasco and and um M Mr. Clondo. Any objection to any of that? Uh there were >> just just what let's just limit it to what you saw on the screen.
>> Sure. There were uh there were photographs dated April 14th. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh I was over on the 16th and took care of uh the the mowing the lawn and putting air in the trailer tires. According to the letter that we got, uh
we have until we had until March 19th. >> So we were actually 3 days ahead. March, April, >> uh, >> March. >> Oh, I'm sorry. This is March 19th. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, that was April.
>> Okay. So, we're in April and got sorry, my mistakes are okay. Yeah. No, I um I got it. Okay. So, without objection, I'm going to accept into evidence exhibits 1 through 14. Um, I you you've now are testifying that
you're now in compliance. >> Yes, sir. and and that's great. I I mean that's a good thing to do. The problem, of course, is you have to get an inspection of the property for it to be cleared by the county. And and that's
good information for you and for anybody else that's similarly situated. The the only way that that this violation clears is when the county goes out and actually inspects it. And the the notices tell you that that that's what you have to
do. Okay? >> You got to call them to to have them come out and take a look and say, "Yep, >> you're good." Uh and then and that'll take care of it. However, however, we find ourselves here at this hearing. So,
what I'm going to have to find is that the violation does exist until until you call them and you've now told them that uh that that it's clear. So, they'll be coming out to take a look. But, um but
unfortunately, based on the evidence, I'm going to find that a violation does exist. I'm going to give you until May 29th to comply. you won't need that because you tell me you're in compliance. Now, if you did not comply
by that time, then there would be a fine in the amount of $100 a day. But here's the ouchie part. There are costs associated with this hearing and with the inspection, everything else that we're going through. It's $575 and it is going to have to be paid to
the county um at the conclusion of this hearing. And I I would tell you if it ever happens again, and for anybody at home that's watching, just know that if you contact the county directly, when
you get one of these notices of violation, you may be able to work out some sort of a stipulation that that you agree that the violation does exist, but you're going to fix it within a certain period of time. costs are significantly
lower because all all I've got to do is just look at it uh and approve it and and then it's a done action. So >> So you could have saved yourselves some money just by doing that. I'm sorry, but
not everybody pays attention to all the paperwork. Not everybody contacts the county, you know, when when they find a violation notice. So With all with all due respect, your honor, um I just read this again that in my it's not clear in
here that says that we have to we should contact the county when the violation is uh remedied. Uh I I I don't see it in here. Maybe I'm missing it. Could you know? >> Let me see if I can point it out to you.
>> Uh let's see. RA is on it. You want to go to six. >> Okay. If you look at exhibit six and actually just go to the top of page two of exhibit six, >> two,
>> it will tell you. So it says failure to correct the listed violation by the date specified may result in presentation at a hearing. Uh the code enforcement magistrate is empowered to levy the fines. And then it tells you what what basically what happens. Should you
require additional information regarding the notice, please contact the building department. And it gives you all their contact information. And let me just see also says in the Yeah, it's very
>> And the notice of hearing may give you more information. >> Nope, that's not it. >> Well, that's interesting. They just keep saying if they have questions regarding this. >> Yeah, that's >> all very interesting.
>> Any any staff comment? >> Well, the notice does give the contact information. >> Oh, it does. >> And then it specifically says if there's any questions um as to what the violations are or how to clear it is to call that. So that >> yeah, I'd love that paragraph to be a
little clearer. Yeah, as Mr. Shirvon points out, uh it doesn't say, "Oh, by the way, if you don't call us, >> bad things happen." >> It might point out a call when the notice of hearing was was received as to
why they would if they thought they were in compliance would have cleared all this up long before we got here. I no question. And I I think you've had enough notice, but um it it would be a lot better
if um if it actually said what what I was telling the sheerbomb. So, and of course the notice of hearing is just the notice of hearing, but the the notice of violation gives you notice
that you need to take action by um March uh 19th. That didn't occur. So, I mean, there's enough to continue on with the case.
But like you, I wish it was more clear. >> And I'm going to ask the staff to to look at that and see what you can do about that paragraph. >> Have a paragraph in bold that states agent responsibility to contact them upon.
>> Okay. >> All right. And it it does tell you that that paragraph does tell you that code enforcement magistrate can levy fines up to $1,000 a day. >> Yes, sir. >> So, we're not doing that.
Uh and of course, if if you and it does tell you too that the costs of of prosecution are added to the penalty. So, I think I think you've got enough notice there. Um,
and you were told to comply by March uh 19th, which you didn't do. Okay. I'm I It's enough. But good point. Good point. >> Uh, one other point, your honor. >> Yes. >> It's my understanding that code enforcement is not permitted to
investigate claims based on anonymous complaints. >> That's correct. under the law, they either have to tell you uh they don't have to tell you, but you may ask if if there was a complaintant
or uh whether they happen to drive down the street and see it. And and so that that's a change in the law in the last couple of years and it it uh does affect how uh the code officers do their
business. So, if they get a complaint, uh, they have to log that complaint. They've got to, uh, know who it was and be able to tell the respondent, uh, who actually made the complaint. If they did not get a complaint and they
just happened to see it, then um, then you will hear them testify early on, which Miss Carrasco did, that it did not come about as um, as an anonymous complaint. So either that means
there was a complaintant or she happened to just see it. >> It was Michael that saw it. >> Your honor, she did testify that it was an anonymous complaint. >> Was not. >> No, no, it was not. >> Was not. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. And that the the language there is a little tricky too, but And I'm sorry.
>> Michael Humphrey, um, another code officer is the one that saw it. >> Actually saw it. Okay. >> And then it was my area, so I followed up on It's It's one of the code officers who actually saw it. >> Okay. Okay. All right. All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and issue the
order in the case. Um, make sure that uh that you uh have someone come out and take a look in the next couple of days and that'll take care of it. But you do have to abide by
the order. >> We were there yesterday. I actually you know what I was going to say that um that Miss Bradley could give you a copy of this if you want but they're going to be out in the next couple of days. They'll they can give that to you. Do you want to do it now?
>> Okay. Is there any way that you know you have a man in the field who you can call him on the phone and say, "Hey, drive by. Is it done?" I honestly I don't know how the county does that, >> but uh do you all have each other's
contact information? I know you've got the main >> I have my information. >> Yeah, you've got the main number and you know how to reach them, right? >> No, I've not heard from him until today. >> I can give you a number. >> Yeah, if you'll give if you'll give Miss Kasco the number then. Yes, sure. Yeah,
we'll take care of that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Good luck. >> Thank you, your honor. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, sir. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. uh the Lopez cases and those are uh
I'm looking at um ENF 2026 010 149 and ENF 2026101 150 is it the same property or is it >> the same owner >> but uh >> two different properties
>> two different properties okay so let's do the 149 case which is the owner is uh Francisco Lopez and is Mr. Lopez here? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. All right. So, uh you can look on the monitor and we're the county
will present its evidence or you can come up and sit up front wherever you're comfortable. You can actually sit right behind Miss Espott if you want or you can sit up there. You can stand there. We got lots of places.
Okay. All right. Whenever you're ready. You've been sworn in. >> My name is Maria Espot and I have been sworn in. I'm a senior code compliance investigator from Martin County. The respondent, Francisco Lopez, is present. This case concerns a property at 5152
Southeast Kingfish Avenue in Steuart, Florida and 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 Francisco Lopez. A copy of the property appraiser's record of ownership is
county's exhibit one. Also note in exhibit 1 that this is a residential vacant property. On January 14th, 2026, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed a vacant lot being used for parking and
storing along with an RV being lived in. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits 2 3 4 and five is the aerial view of the lot. I will zoom in for you.
So this is the view off of Solerno and you can see the RVs here. Everything's open and there's vehicles uh being stored there. Three is the view off of Kingfish. There's the vehicles, just a different
angle. >> Okay. And it looks like that lot is paved. >> Um, it was um paved without a permit, but they've returned it since to grass. >> Okay. All right. >> And number four, you could see items
stored on the property along with the vehicles as well. Number five is an aerial view of the property. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to the owner on January 28th, 2026, marked this county's
exhibit number six. However, due to clerical issue with the code, an amended notice of violation was remailed on April 1st, 2026. The amended notice of violation is county's exhibit number seven. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County Code violation.
Section 12.63.2.B permitted uses in the Port Solerno redevelopment zoning district general ordinances Martin County code. In the amended notice of violation, the respondent was asked to immediately correct the violation since I had already explained it to him on the phone in February how to correct it and in
person at the property as well. This property is in Port Solerno in the CRA. Exhibit 8 is the map that shows that this is a CRA zone.
Compliance was not achieved and an amended notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on April 1st and is marked as county's exhibit number nine. On April 2nd, 2026, I posted the amended notice of hearing at the property and the Martin County Admin Building. The
affidavit of posting and posting at the property are exhibits 10 and 11. 10 is the affidavit posted on the RV. 11 is the affidavit of posting.
>> Okay. >> While posting the property, I also took additional photos showing that the property was still in violation. And I also noticed plumbing connected to the RV. The follow-up photos are marked as county's exhibits 12 through 15. 12 is uh showing there's I guess beer
cans and other items, tires. 13, you could see uh some plumbing connected here. 14 is a different view, different angle.
15 more items stored behind the vehicle. Now the vehicle has a flat tire. I sent an email to the health department to verify if the plumbing was hooked up. And exhibit 16 is the email response from the health department. I'll zoom in
for you. >> 16. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Therefore, I went back to the property again on April 14, 2026 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, marked as county's exhibit 17. All the items and vehicles remain on the property. I request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I requested the respondent,
Francisco Lopez, be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by May 29th, 2026, 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 requested the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. >> Okay. Um All right, sir. If you'll come up to the podium and if you'll raise your right hand, do
you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give? will be the truth, all truth and nothing but the truth. So hope you got sir. Oh, >> he he's his daughter will translate for him if that's okay.
>> Yeah. And I'm sorry, what is your name, ma'am? >> Miss Tatiana Lopez. >> Okay. And that is your dad? Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, go ahead and and just translate what I said and it's an
oath to tell the truth. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> See? >> See? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. So, um does let me just ask you, does your father understand what is
>> being presented? Okay. >> All right. And does he have any objection to the county's exhibits that have been presented? Any like a technical objection to any of them? Yeah,
propuse propuse. >> Okay. evidence. >> All right. So, without objection, I'll accept into evidence the counties exhibits 1 through 17 in this case. Now, >> 20%. >> Mr. Lopez, do you have something you
wanted to tell us? Is that what I understood was going on? >> Yes, I think he wants to explain something. Uh, >> okay. Um he was wondering if he can still keep like cuz some of the trucks there like we move them. There is a couple things
that are stored there but the other rest are our proper like vehicles and um so he said that he'll move that out but he said that if he can still like he can't park anything there at all at all even though like he owns it. >> Yeah. And and the way I understand the
ordinance since it's a residential lot >> and it has no home on it, no permanent structure that no, you you can't park anything on it. U so that's that's I think the answer to the question, but I
does he agree that he's not in compliance today? Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Yes. He knows that. Okay. Yes. >> All right. So, I I I think I understand enough of the
situation based upon the evidence and your testimony as well. Um, uh, Senior Lopez, I'm going to find that a violation does exist on the property. I'm going to order, uh, you to comply by May 29th,
2026. Failing, which there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per day. Uh, that should be plenty of time to remove the vehicles. And then uh there are costs in the amount of $575
that have to be paid to the county as a result of this hearing. So I'm going to go ahead and issue that order. And um if if your dad has got questions, he
really should u talk to uh officer Espott directly. They can they can chat about uh what he needs to do to comply. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, I'm sorry.
>> What he could put on the property and and questions of that kind. >> Okay. And and I that's not a question I can answer. Um it's it's a matter of what the zoning uh district allows and then you just have to talk to the
county about um how to how to comply with the code. Okay. >> Okay. That's fine. >> Okay. All right. Good. All right. So, uh that's this one. And you said there's another >> Yes. >> Same same family. >> Yes. Yes, sir.
>> All right. Okay. And so let's we're going to move on to the next case. >> Okay. >> And it's uh KCNF 2026 010150.
And um th this I guess is the same. It's the same Francisco Lopez >> and same violation. Yes. Different property. >> Same violation, different property. Okay. All right. Whenever you're ready, we're going to
hear from the county. >> My name is Maria Espa and I have been sworn in. I'm a senior code compliance investigator from Martin County. The respondent, Francisco Lopez Rea, is present. This case concerns a vacant lot at 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 Francisco Lopez Rea. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit 1. On January 28, 2026, I inspected the
property. At that time of I observed storage and parking on a vacant lot. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what I saw then. Marked as county's exhibits two and three is the aerial view of the property. Two is a vacant uh residential lot with
vehicles and some trailers and ladders and items. Number three is an aerial view of where it's located. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to the owner on January 29th, 2026. The notice of
violation is marked as county's exhibit number four. However, due to clerical issue with the code, an amended notice of violation was remailed on April 1st, 2026. The amended notice of violation is county's exhibit number five. In the amended notice, I cited the
following Martin County code violation section 12.6.03.2.B permitted uses in the Port Salerno redevelopment zoning district general ordinances Martin County code. In the amended notice of violation, the respondent was asked to immediately correct the violation since I had already explained to him on the phone in
February how to correct it and in person at the property. This property is in the Port Salerno CRA and exhibit 6 shows on the map that this is a CRA property located in
>> Mhm. Compliance was not achieved and an amended notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on April 1st, 2026. Marked this county's exhibit number seven. On April 2nd, 2026, I posted the amended notice of hearing at the property and at the Martin County admin
building. The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit number eight. While posting the property, an employee of the owner asked me why I was there. I explained the violation and told him to have the owner contact me. I did not hear from him at that time. Therefore, I went back to the property
again on April 14, 2026 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, marked as county's exhibit number nine. The vehicles are still there.
I request that all the 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 May 29, 2026. if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 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 reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. >> Okay. Are these properties adjacent?
>> They are across from each other. So let me go to the CRA map. Let me zoom in for you and explain. So, the property that we're talking about right now is this one. >> Yes. >> This is the one from the prior case across. >> Okay. >> He lives next door, but the property is not under his name.
>> Okay. Got it. Um All right. I Your dad has seen the evidence. Any objection to any of the pieces of evidence? Same same question that we asked before. He knows that he's avault.
>> Okay. Fine. So, without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through nine in this case. Um, it's the same violation. You can't park on the vacant lot. Uh, even though you own it, since
there's no house there, it um there's no parking allowed. And does your dad understand that? Okay. All right. So, without objection, I'm going to accept uh into evidence. I'm going to based on the evidence and
the testimony of both parties. I'm going to find that violation does exist on the property. I'm going to order compliance on or before um May 29th, 2026 failing which there'll
be a fine in the amount of $100 per day uh which will acrue and let me just ask the county these are two identical properties immediately adjacent. I would like to collect one cost if that
if the county has no objection. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. >> I don't know. >> Or to split them up. I mean, it was the same investigation. >> No, your honor. Actually, it were two separate investigations. Let me just ask
the the officer. Were they initiated at the same time or at different times? >> Let me just double check before I answer here. >> They got to be at the same time. >> One was January 14th was when January 28th. I'm sorry. Um, that's incorrect.
It's uh January 14th >> and the other one was >> January 28th. And in and during the course of the investigation, did you take any of these photographs or inspections at the same time or did you make different uh different trips to the properties to do >> there were different trips on occasions
and some might have been the same day like the posting was the same day but there were different trips cuz they had different um notices on when to come into compliance cases. >> No, you're right. I think I think it's pretty much st these are two separate invest even though the properties are adjacent with the same owner. it it
wasn't contemporaneous as far as what was being done. >> That that was what I was thinking it might have been because >> they're immediately adjacent. So >> okay. All right. >> One other thing your honor if I might just for clarification pro purpose because of the language barrier. Um we've talked a lot about vehicles and
parking and everything. If we can just make clear to the respondent that this violation also because storage it's not only vehicles but items, tools, tires, boxes. They can't be anything. vehicles, items, materials, nothing on the property to for it to be in compliance.
>> So, so when the you understand what the county is saying, if it's a residential lot that and it's vacant, it has to be totally vacant. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So based upon the
representations of council and the additional uh testimony from officer espion going to find it is appropriate to award cost in the amount of $575 in this case as well. So there's two
costs that have to be paid to the county. >> And I'm going to go ahead and >> say >> issue that as well upon successful prosecution. Okay. >> I think I think that's right.
>> Okay. All right. Um again, if so, >> Mrs. Bradley, do you want to make copies? >> Can I have something real quick? >> Yes. Um, so just to make sure no one like no one came up and was like called her and like asked like said anything
about it or like was she just came did she just come around? >> That that was done on a sweep. Um both of your properties along with your neighbors property that was a vacant lot as well and several others have the same violation. >> Okay. Because I remember when I had called um around the first time you had
said that the neighbors had complained. So um and then when I like asked you you said yes. So, I just like want to like clarify that so like if someone did call or like complain or something. >> No, I did a sweep and the neighbor brought it up. However, I had already a case open for you for the same violation
as them. >> May we know who that neighbor is >> because um we had talked to my other neighbors that live around there and they also like it was like a couple years ago before we even owned that lot. Like they used to have like I think like a little shed and a trailer. So, she said she didn't find that.
>> She removed the trailer. >> Yeah. Your honor, any information like that has to come from a freedom of information request because it has to be processed to make sure there's no protected information involved. >> So, so you understand what council's saying. Uh he's saying you're going to have to actually make a request and then
the county will respond to it. >> Okay. Why can't I make that request? >> So, I you can make it through Miss Espion. That's fine. >> All right. That's fine. >> Okay. All right. >> Just has to be written. >> Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. Um and Miss
Bradley will give you copies of the order or orders, two of them. Okay. Good luck. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> You're excused. She'll She's right in the back there. >> All right. Um Miss Espia, you're still
up. We're going back to the Huff case. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> All right. So, it's um Mary Huff and Robert Huff. It's case number. >> Uh your honor, I'm sorry. We do have one more person here. Uh >> the Mills Stanley,
>> correct? >> Yes. Sorry. >> Okay. Happy to take you, Mr. Mills. Stanley Mills. Is that it? >> All right. We'll take you. >> Sorry about that. >> No, no, no. That's that's fine. And I
know folks come in and out of here all the time. So, um, >> got caught up. >> Mr. Mills, we're going to hear your case. You're going to hear from the county first and then we'll get to you. If you just want to keep your eye on the
on the monitor, you'll be able to see the evidence being presented. Officer Shanahan, um, uh, you haven't testified today, so if you 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, off you go. >> I do.
>> Okay. Whenever you're ready. And let's see. Case number 26 02014 7. Ready? My name is Michael Shanahan and I've been sworn in. I'm a code
compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Stanley Mills is present. The case concerns a property at 8146 Southeast Ren Avenue, Hope Sound, Florida 33455 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 Stanley Mills. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counties exhibit one. On February 13th, 2026, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed
violations for trash and debris. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as county's exhibits two through five. >> Every single thing was identical. The same >> one is just kind of a general um
>> view of the front of the property. You see some of the stuff underneath the carport. Three is the stuff under the carportion back. >> Four is the door tag. >> And five more stuff on the side of the
house. >> Charging. >> Based upon an investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Stanley Mills on February 26th, 2026. Marked this county's exhibit six because they demanded an affidavit >> in the notice I cited the following
Martin County code violation section 67.201b and 2011b nuisance declared trash etc general ordinances Martin County code >> in the notice the violation the respondent was given until March 12th 2026 to correct 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 March 16th and is marked as county's exhibit The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on March 31st, 2026, I posted
the property and the Martin County Administration building. The affidavit is marked as exhibit 8. A photograph of the posting is marked as county exhibit 9. At the time of the posting photograph, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw
then and are marked as county's exhibits 10 through 12. >> I circled some of the things that were shown. >> More stuff underneath the carport. >> And again, more stuff. >> No call or letter from the property
owner was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went to the property again on April 14th, 2026 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 are marked as counties exhibits 13 through 15.
>> Right. Oops. >> 13 is just a general view of the front. Still stuff on the side here. Still stuff in here. Exhibit 14 still shows the stuff on the side and the stuff in the carport. and
15 shows the carport. I request that all the county exhibits be received into evidence. Based upon that testimony and evidence, I request that the respondent, Stanley Mills, be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by May 29th, 2026, 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 request that the county be reimbured in the amount at the
conclusion of today's hearing. That's the end of my testimony. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Mills, come on up to the podium. 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 hope you got it. >> I do. >> And your full name and address?
>> Stanley Mills. Um 8146 Southeast Ren Avenue, Hoop Sound, Florida. >> All right. You're the owner of the property. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um you've seen what the county's presented 1 through 15. Any objection to the exhibits? >> I do not.
>> Okay. So, without objection, I'll accept those into evidence and now we can discuss them. Any questions, comment, testimony you want to give? >> Uh I had a lot of paint on the porch.
I'm a um a painter by trade. >> The paint has all been removed and took to Martin County Landfill. And uh some of the boxes right there on the left front is uh boxes that go in my vehicle to work with. And uh all the other stuff
has been removed uh on the porch along the side. I wasn't aware that I needed to do that, but I will take care of that also. >> Okay. Well, I I mean I see the improvement from um let's say exhibit
three and then comparing it with exhibit 15. I mean, you can see it's uh getting there. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I it looks to me like you just have more work to do. >> The porch is the porch is taken care of.
I'll take care of the side. Uh I just have a question. There's two a canoe and a um kayak which belong to my son. Is it okay to leave that there beside the house? >> I'm sorry. What is it? >> A canoe and a kayak. >> And I
>> it's it's on the other side. >> It depends on how it's stored and where it's stored. And you can talk to the county about that. >> Okay. If not, I'll have him come and take them. They're not mine yet. And I would tell you just by looking at 15, I couldn't tell you that everything was
okay there. I mean, it looks to me like >> I agree. >> You've still got a lot of things that need to be uh either removed or um or stored correctly. So, but again, talk to
the county about that. And I have one question on the photograph on the side of the house where the wood is that was for my chimana. >> Uh is it to be removed also? >> Can we see that in 14 or no?
>> Yes there in the front of the bucket. >> That's the >> um right there. >> Right here. Stack it. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Debris or what is that? It's wood for my the chimana there to burn >> or for the for the burner.
>> Yes. >> Um >> I think it just needs to be stacked and stored properly if it's if it's firewood that you use. Yeah, that's different yet. But but but again, I mean it can't look like a pile of debris. >> Okay.
>> Which is what it >> understand >> looks like. just >> to anybody that's, you know, not um I mean, anybody looking is going to think that. All right. So, I based upon
the evidence and your testimony, Mr. Mills, and and the counties, I'm going to find that a violation does exist on the property. I'm going to order you to comply by May 29th, 2026, failing which there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per day.
um looks like you're well on your way and that probably isn't going to affect you. However, there are costs in the amount of $575 that have to be paid to the county as a result of the hearing. So,
that's that. Let me >> and at this time when I do all that I I still need to call uh county. Okay. >> Yes, you do. Because they still have to come out and inspect it once you're done um cleaning everything up.
>> And that number is on the other papers I received. It's on this paper. It is um that's on the notice of violation. I think also on the notice of hearing if I remember correctly. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Let me just see. >> Yeah, it's on the notice of violation. >> Yes, I I see it now. Thank you. So that should be okay.
All right. Um, you're here, so we're going to give you a copy of the order. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else here on cases? >> Yes. Um, Mary Huff. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No. >> All right.
All right. So, we'll hear the Huff case next. It's uh ENF202590306-01. Um Mary and Robert Huff, I guess, is how the property is titled. And um Miss Huff, what we're going to do is hear from the county first and then I'll
swear you in and we'll go from there. >> Okay. >> Okay. And you can if you look at that monitor in front of you, the county is going to present some evidence. At the conclusion of the evidence, I'm going to ask if you have any objection to it. And if you don't, then we'll proceed and and
we'll go from there. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. So, Miss Espott's already been sworn in. Let's hear her testimony in this case and then we'll we'll see where we are. Okay. >> My name is Maria Espot and I have been sworn in. I'm a senior code compliance
investigator for Martin County. The respondents, Mary Huff and Robert Huff, are present. This case concerns a property at 842 Southeast St. Lucy Boulevard 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 Mary Huff and Robert Huff. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one. On September 15th, 2025, I inspected the property. At that time, I observed high
grass, exterior damage to the main home, roof damage to the detached garage, and an inoperable vehicle. I'm sorry, an inoperable boat. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then, marked as county's exhibits 2 through 12.
Two is the driveway area from the view from the front to the rear. The inoperable boat high grass you could see throughout. Three is a closer view as you keep walking further to the back area. This is a
detached garage behind. Four, the inoperable boat. M >> five is a view uh from the back facing the front of the home. So this is the
the back of the main home and this is the side of the detached garage along with the grass and the inop boat there. Six, I'll zoom in. You can see the exterior damage and rot on the top.
Seven, some more exterior damage uh surrounding the window. um possibly rotting. Number eight is as if you were entering the backyard between the detached garage and the end of the home, the high grass,
that's a shed. Um you could see right here some uh damage. Number nine is just another view. >> You see all the high grass, some of the exterior damage there. 10 is this is the
back of the main structure. And if I zoom in and you see to the left there's exterior damage and high grass surrounding. 11 is the detached garage. That is the roof that's damaged with the
high grass surrounding it. And 12 more high grass surrounding the detached garage. >> Okay. >> The home appeared to be vacant. So, I left the door tag with the neighbors uh at the neighbor's property so I could possibly get information how to get in contact with the owners. However, at
that time, I was not successful. I issued a notice of violation to the owners on November 6, 2025, marked this county's exhibit number 13. In the notice, I cited cited the following Martin County code violation. Section 67.201A,
Nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County. Section 21.110 Exterior structure general ordinances Martin County Code Section 21.115 Roofs and Drainage General Ordinances
Martin County Code and section 91.34A generally inoperable vehicles general ordinances Martin County Code. In the notice of violation, the respondents were given until December 8th, 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 December 15, 2025, marked this county's exhibit 14. I received a call from the owner, Mary Huff, December 10th, 2025. I explained
the violation to her. She stated she didn't live locally and requested additional time. Therefore, I extended her time. As of March 4th, 2026, the inoperable vote was removed, but all other violations remained. Therefore, I amended the notice of hearing and mailed
it by certified mail on March 4th. The amended notice of hearing is marked as county's exhibit number 15. The return receipt was not received. So on April 2nd, 2026, I posted the property and the Martin County admin building. The affidavit of posting and
posting at the property are marked as county's exhibits 16 and 17. 16 is the affidavit. 17 is the posting at the property. I called the the owner back on April 8th, 2026. She stated she had been
speaking with a contractor, but I checked and there were no permits applied for. I explained that the case had been open since September of 25 and I could not extend her time longer. Uh therefore, I went back to the property again on April 14th, 2026 and saw that the cited violation had not been
corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then marked as county's exhibits 18 through 26. So this part was mowed as far as the driveway, but there's sections of high
grass on on this side um by the tree. >> And the boat is >> the boat is gone. Yes, sir. >> See that? >> And there's um tree debris on the left. Um number 19 is just you know walking towards the back you could see the
exterior damage still exist. 20 more exterior damage. 21 is high grass along the actual home. 22 the roof of the detached garage with some high grass surrounding it.
23. high grass on the edges. Um I don't know if that's trash or not on the floor. 24. This is facing the rear of the property. And if I zoom in, you could see that
there are sections of high grass. 25 another view of the damaged exterior of the main structure. 26 is uh leaving the driveway to exit the
property, the high grass on the side. >> I also did a permit search and see no permits had been applied for. The permit history is county's exhibit number 27. There's only one permit from I believe that's 2012
and that's all there is as far as the history on that property. Looks like 2002 >> or I'm not sure if it's 12 or two to be honest with you. >> Two. >> Oh yeah, two. Right here. >> February 20th, 2002.
>> I request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent, Mary Huff and Robert Huff, be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by May 29, 2026. If not in compliance by then, 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. I'd like
to add that a contractor did call me >> um about doing the repairs and I asked him to please try to get the permit at least applied for but um he has not as of this morning but she has been trying to get someone to get a permit for this property.
>> Okay. So notwithstanding um what I'm looking at on exhibit 27, there actually was an application filed for a permit. No, this is the only permit on file which was from 20 2002, I'm sorry.
>> Okay, so the contractor hasn't had filed yet. >> Okay, got it. All right. Um, Miss Huff, um, let's see. Let me just swear you in first. Do 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 guys. >> I do. >> All right. So, you've heard the county. Any objection to their exhibits? >> No, your honor. I >> Okay, so without objection, I'm going to accept those into evidence. Tell me what
you need to tell me. >> I have tried and tried. I've called at least 20 roofers. >> I got like six call backs. They went out. I got out of all of that, I got one
roofer to give me an estimate. I tried to call him to tell him ask him when he's going to start and get the paperwork done. >> That's okay. And I I don't know whether you've talked to one another, you and
Miss Espott. Is it the same contractor we're talking about? Yes, she she had him call me and we've been in communication. Um, but he said he was going to get a permit and that didn't happen. >> All right. So, sounds like at least you've got a
contractor, but he hasn't applied, hasn't started, hasn't >> I've asked him to go in and apply for a permit. >> All right. >> Did he indicate to you how long the work would take to complete? >> No.
>> Okay. Um >> because at first they most of them all said it's too small of a job. It didn't pay them to go out and do it. >> Mhm. >> And I said do the whole roof
if if that's what it takes. Do the whole roof. It is very frustrating. >> Okay. Um well I wish I could uh take some of your frustration away but I can't. Um, it
looks to me like based upon the evidence, your testimony, that violations do exist on the property still remain, you know, even the the tall grass, there's still clumps of tall grass. >> Pay for a yard, man.
>> Yeah, it looks like what he did or she just went in there with a mower, but >> I brought I bought an edger and brought it up to him. It's in my car right now. >> Okay. So, that's that's going to help a bit, too. Um,
but then the exterior of that structure needs to be repaired and along with the roof. So, >> what I need is about some time. This guy, I think he seems reputable and
very nice and just getting him to start it. >> Okay, we're at midappril. I'm wondering if the county would agree to extend the time for compliance. Looks to me like
based on the the pattern here that it may need to go until the end of June instead of the end of May. >> Go 60 days. >> Any any objection? >> No objection, your honor. >> All right. Good. All right. So, I'm going to I'm going to set the date for
compliance uh to June 30th. >> Thank you. And hopefully that's enough time. >> I hope so too. >> But u make sure that you stay in contact uh with the county. I I understand that
you're not uh residing in the area and as a result it gets a little difficult to handle property outside of the county, but stay in touch >> with uh Thank you, Miss Espott. She she appreciates that, I'm sure. Um, and then
uh that way uh hopefully you can avoid um any any problems. I'm I'll give you until the end of June failing which there's a fine in the amount of $100 per
day that will start um July 1st uh for each of the violations. So you want to get all three of them taken care of. There's the weeds and the overgrowth and then there's the the exterior of the
structure and then the roof. So those are the the three things. Now I am going to award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county uh at the conclusion of the hearing. So
um they can tell you how to how to take care of that. I'm going to sign the order as presented except for the date for compliance which I'm changing now. All right. Um,
okay. All set. Um, we'll give you a copy of the order to take with you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> All right. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you to both of you. Mr. Huff, thank you for coming. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Alrighty. Uh, let's see.
Who's next? Have you got a case? Are you observing? >> Your honor. >> Well, my name is Thomas Arnold Tucker. I live in Corwin Cove. Our absentee present association lives here.
>> Okay. So >> I was I Yeah, there's my summons from Maria. Come up to the mic. Okay. >> Okay. That handicap. >> Let let me let me ask you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, all truth, and nothing but
the truth. So help you God. >> Do. >> All right. And your full name, sir? >> Thomas Arnold Tucker. >> Okay. And your affiliation with Kora Wind Cove, Inc.? >> Yes. What is it? >> I'm a resident there. >> You're a resident. And did you just come
to observe? >> No, sir. Your honor, he's the tenant in the prop in the subject property. >> Oh, the tenant. You're the tenant. Okay. That case has been heard and resolved.
Um, I ordered compliance on or before May 29th. >> Well, I I was at Maria's office up there in Willoughby. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And she told me, you know, uh, just look like you're doing something, which I have a picture on my
phone of a big pile of trash alongside the road. It was there for two weeks. >> Okay. >> One of the residents called Waste Management and they came by with the claw truck and picked it up. >> Okay. Let me just stop you. That case has been heard. It's It's basically over
and I you you came in too late. >> No, sir. I was here before 9. >> Well, your honor, he was here, but he wasn't the respondent. >> He's the just the tenant. >> Well, if he's the person responsible,
well, the person responsible is the association. That's why and they're the ones evicting him. And that's why I try to bring up that they um until the eviction, they can't clean it up. >> Yeah. So, anyway, that's the case is over. I if if you needed to be heard,
you needed to be heard when it was ongoing and I we were not even aware. I I didn't know that you were even here. >> There's the summons taped to my screen porch up here. >> I I don't know what you're looking at,
but it's the >> If it's a notice of hearing it's the notice. >> Yeah, it's just a notice of hearing. It's not a summon for you. And I was in Maria's office uh about two months ago and she told me just you know make it look like you're doing something. Yeah. No,
>> she wasn't overly concerned. >> That's okay. No, I I can't. >> Can I ask you questions about code violations? >> You you can but not to me because I can't answer them. But the county can answer them. >> Well, who do I go see then? >> Uh Maria would be fine or whoever in
>> her office in Willoughby, right? Over Willoughby. >> Yeah, exactly. It's It's off Willowbe on Runky Street. >> I've been there. >> Okay. >> I was there a couple months ago, sir. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I can leave now. >> Yes, sir.
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Where are we? >> I believe we're at uh Sean Ranger. >> All right. >> At the bottom of first page. >> I got it. Thank you. It's ENF2026200054. And the respondent is Sean Ranger and
Officer Humphrey. You're going to testify if 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 up you got >> I do. >> All right. Whenever you're ready. >> There's nothing wrong with that. Okay.
>> My name is Michael Humphrey and I have been sworn in. >> I'm a code and compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, Shawn Ranger, is not present. This case concerns the property at 9754 Southeast Hidden Court
in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from an anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the property appraiser in Martin County, the property owner is Shawn Ranger. A copy of the property appraiser's record of ownership is county's exhibit 1.
On February 5th, 2026, Kelly Switzer inspected the property. At that time, she observed inoperable vehicles, trash, and debris, and overgrowth. At that time, she photographed the property, and the photographs accurately show what she saw and is marked as
county's exhibit 2, three, and four. These are the inoperable trailers. >> Mhm. >> Uh based upon the investigation, she issued a notice of violation to Shawn Ranger on February 10th, 2026 marked as count as exhibit 5.
In the notice, she cited the following. Martin County Code violations section 93.34A uh inoperable vehicles. Section 67.201A uh weeds and undergrowth.
Section 67.201B uh trash. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until February 27th to correct the uh the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so.
On March 5th, Kelly Switzer did not or did a follow-up inspection and found no change. The photographs are marked as counties exhibit six and seven. Okay. Compliance was not achieved and a notice
of hearing was issued by certified mail on March 6th and is marked as county's exhibit 8. The return receipt was not received on or before March 31st. So therefore, I went to the property and the county administration building and posted both.
The affidavit of posting is marked as county's exhibit 9. I also photographed the property that day. The photographs are marked as county's exhibit 10 and 11. No call or letter from the property owner was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went to the
property again on April 14th and saw that the cited violations had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property and the photographs accurately show what I saw and is marked as county's exhibit 12, 13, and 14.
Okay. I request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent, Shawn Ranger, be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by May 29th, 2026,
and if not in compliance by then, be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per day per violation every day for the 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 Sha Ranger looking out seeing no one. Uh without objection, I'll accept to evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 14 in this case. Based upon that
evidence, I'll find that uh violations as charged do exist on the property and order compliance on or before May 29th, 2026 failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day will occur
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. All right. Next is the Mullings Proctor case.
This is KCNF 2025120501 and it's uh Gloria um I guess Mullings Proctor is that correct? Life estate and Hroshi Proctor.
>> Not sure. You can never tell with the way the property appraiser does this. Officer Shanahan, you've been sworn in. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you. My name is Michael Shanahan and I have been sworn in. I am a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Gloria Mullings
Proctor and Hroshi Proctor Life Estate are not present. This case was concerns a property at 7931 Southeast Asaro Lane in Hopestown, Florida 34 3345 in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint.
According to the property or to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Gloria Mullins Proctor and Hroshi Proctor Life Estate. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit number one.
On December 22nd, 2025, Officer Kelly Switzer inspected the property. At that time, she observed inoperable vehicles, high grass, and roof damage. At the time, she photographed the property. The photographs actually show what she saw then and are marked as counties exhibits
2 through 4. Two shows the roof, some of the roof damage here, and there's a car here. >> Three again is the roof, and then the car, you see, I mean, there's holes in the roof here.
And for again, uh, pretty much same picture. >> There's a car in there somewhere. >> Yeah, there's a car right here. Actually, there's two cars there. >> Based upon an investigation, Kelly Switzer issued a notice of violation to Gloria Mullings Proctor and Hiroshi
Proctor Life Estate on January 5th, 2026, marked as county's exhibit 5. In the notice, she cited the following Martin County Code violations. Section 91.34A generally inoperable vehicles general ordinances Martin County code section
67.201A 2011A nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code and section 21.115 roofs and drainage general ordinances Martin County code in the notice the violation of respondent was given until January 20th
2026 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. The case was reassigned to me in mid-March and I did a follow-up inspection on March 16th, 2026. At the time, I photographed the property. The photographs actually show what I saw
then and are marked as counting exhibits 6 through 8. Six shows the front of the house um with a high grass. Seven again is the front with high grass. Eight is where the car is in the roof.
You can actually see the cars this time. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on March 17th, 2026 and is marked as county exhibit 9. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on March 31st, 2026, I posted
the property and the Martin County Administration building. The affidavit is marked as county's exhibit 10. A photograph of the posting is marked counting's exhibit 11. I spoke with Mr. Robert Giddings, the homeowner's nephew, who advised he is
helping his aunt with the problem. The homeowner is a 94 yearear-old relative who has not lived at the property for some time. Mr. Giddings indicated he is in the process of having the violations resolved. Therefore, I went to the property again on March or on April 14th, 2026 and saw that the cited
violations had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photographs actually show what I saw then are Maris County exhibits 12 through 14. Now, 12 is kind of the entrance to the um property. It's just overgrown. Um it's like a driveway
going into the front of the property. >> Mhm. >> 13 is again the front of the property. Uh some of the grass had been mowed. It looks like they did try to mow it, but there were still still sections of high grass um around the house. And then 14, the cars were removed.
However, again, there's high tra I mean high grass and some other debris here. Um which wasn't on the violations, but they are aware of it. >> So, I go ahead. >> All right. Uh thank you. And I I'm looking at a stipulation.
>> Mhm. >> That's in front of me, but I also note that it's the name of Gloria Mully's proctor is typed in. I did do we know whether she's actually signed it? >> Yes, it was done through uh Docu Sign, which we have a copy of the Docu Sign.
>> Okay, >> good. Let Let me just verify that if you will. >> Okay. >> We may actually even add that into evidence. All right. And and Mr. Giddings is >> the nephew. >> Does he have a power of attorney? Do we
know? >> His wife has a power of attorney for Gloria um Mullins's Proctor. >> We don't. But we were not we did not receive a copy of that cuz she did. She signed it or pretty much signed the electronic copy of it. Not the wife.
>> Okay. She lives with him in in Canada. Um I just going forward I don't want to have an issue somebody coming back saying oh I never signed that. Um,
it looks like Okay. So, Mrs. Giddings is the one that has the power of attorney. Correct. >> All right. Maybe maybe what we do is try and get a copy of that for the file. I don't know that
it necessarily needs to go into evidence, but um and I think going forward when you use docysine, which is great, just um put that as part of the evidence. Okay, >> I'm going to add this
as uh as an exhibit 15. >> Okay. And I you see the issue, right? >> I I actually haven't reviewed the uh I wasn't aware of the docu sign until actually this morning. >> Okay. >> No, no problem with docuign. Show that
to to to council, but uh it's it's in Mr. Giddings name and apparently Mrs. Giddings is the one that actually has the power of attorney. There's a little technicality there. Robert getting
signed. >> Yes, I agree. It would be >> it would be preferable if it was much clearer as to who actually very apparently Robert Giddings transmitted the docu sign under his docuign account. But >> yeah, >> you know, it's opposition that it was actually the respondent who signed the
document. >> All right. So, >> my story >> in that case by and through her uh attorney. In fact, I'm going to say that um the M Proctor did execute the
agreement and officer Shanah and you did on behalf of the county going to find that it is appropriate to enter the order approving the stipulation which uh orders compliance order before July
15th failing which there's a $100 per violation per day which is I guess just Um the two now. >> Yes. >> The nuisance declared weeds and the roof and drainage damage. Okay.
>> All right. I think we're good to go. >> I'm sorry. Um that can go actually to Miss Bradley. That just mark it as 15
>> in this case. Okay. All right. Um, good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And Miss Brownley, you've got a stipulation as well. This is the Hobs, Inc. case.
It's ENF 2023 020423-01. And it's HOBS, Inc. >> Yes, sir. >> Also a stipulation. And what have we got here?
>> It's actually under, I believe, Bodie up there. >> I'm sorry. >> I believe the stipulation you have up there says Bodie on it. >> It does. >> It has a new owner. >> Okay. And I for some reason I know when Officer Kraco was testifying, I couldn't
>> I couldn't hear >> very well. So, I don't know whether that just needs to come forward or whether you need to amp up the mic or something. Anyway, if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the 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. All right. So, uh the the case is in the name of Hobbs and as you point out, uh the amended stipulation is from Bod Bhi Farms LLC. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. >> So, >> and you're going to testify. So, what have we got? >> My name is Rachel Spradley and I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance baitment coordinator for Martin County. This case concerns the property located at 14245 Southeast Kitchen Creek Road in Hope Sound, Martin County, Florida. So, this
one, Mr. Nicoleti, is just an extension of an original stipulation that we had, okay, >> in place with Hobbs Incorporated. Mhm. >> They have since sold the property to Bodie Farms and they have agreed to
extending out or we've both agreed, I'm sorry, to extending out the date until October 1st for him to be able to get a permit for the barn structure that has been built on this property. All the other violations that were on the stipulation have been rectified. Oh,
>> good. >> Yes, sir. >> So, this is just an extension of the original order. All right. And um other than let's see, you've got just one exhibit, right?
>> Yes. I just put the original order in there showing >> the stipulation >> that was what we were extending out. >> All right. All right. So, uh, looking at the at the stipulation, I'm going to find that it is appropriate to extend
the date for compliance for this one issue, uh, which is to obtain a permit for the barn structure until October 1st, 2026. And, uh, failing, which there is a fine in
the amount of $100 per day. The respondent is Bodi or Bodhi Farms LLC signed by Andrew Montgomery as manager and Miss Bradley you on behalf of the
county and let's just see and were there cost additional cost or no? >> No, sir. >> Okay. All right. Okay.
Um, let me just see exhibit. All righty. And um let's see. We're getting down there. Okay. Krytoff was the >> Kryto >> fine reduction stipulation that um I I reviewed midmon.
>> Yes, sir. >> And that um let's see. I did not bring a copy with me. >> I put it up there for you. >> Are you going to >> We need to put it on the record, but I >> No, I know we need >> I put the signed one up there for you.
>> Oh, you did? Okay, great. >> Good. Thank you. All right. This is case number ENF 2023 040720 Martin County versus um Brian and Sally Kritoff T
C R I T O P. And um this was a fine reduction request uh stipulation entered into by the cutoffs and the county uh midmon uh dated uh
7th and 8th of April. And um I considered it and executed the agreed order on April 8th, 2026 based upon uh the uh submitts to me
which included um which included I will tell you it included the original uh stipulation and agreed order requiring compliance uh by April 30th, 2024. four
and then an affidavit of um compliance and acred fines which was um issued on um August 14th, 2024. So, so there was that time period um in in
there and the fines acrewed uh to $21,100 and cost in the amount of $350, but they've now been paid uh and the fine has been
reduced to $2,110. >> Correct. >> Okay. So that's we that's what we did midmon and and that case now is as a part of this record and let's see then we've got um case number
ENF202590063 and it's the respondent is 5463 LLC. That's also a fine reduction stipulation. Yes, sir. >> And what have we got there? >> My name is Rachel Spreadley and I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County.
This case concerns the property located at 5279 Southeast Isabelita Avenue Stewart in Martin County, Florida. On December 17th, 2025, an order finding violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate 25463
LLC for section 67201A nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code and section 67201B nuisance declared trash etc general ordinance Martin County code. So exhibit one is the
property appraiser from that time. Exhibit two is the recorded order that was issued to 5463 LLC. Compliance was required by January 30th, 2026. On March 20th, 2026, an affidavit
of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in the amount of $9,400 plus cost in the amount of $575. Foley Investments LLC are the current owners of the property pursuant to a quiet claim deed or quick claim deed
recorded in official record books 3553 page 872 Martin County, Florida public records. The respondent has no remaining interest in the property. Staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted. The current owners were not responsible for the violation. However, they brought the property into
compliance and have offered to pay $940 to resolve the outstanding fee fines which have accured plus the $575. This fine reduction is in compliance with the requirements of section 1.98B general ordinances Martin
County code. So exhibit three is the affidavit of compliance with fines showing the balance due. >> And then exhibit four was the reduction request that we received from uh Foley Investments.
>> Okay. All right. And um I see attached to the stipulation the docy sign uh documents showing the the uh signatures and timestamps and things and I I think that's a good idea
to include that as exhibit five. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh, note for the record that Nicholas Ralph Ortuta as sole manager of FA Investments LLC has executed on behalf of, uh, 5463 LLC.
And let's see, do I have a any indication as to what his position is? Do they own the >> that LLC? >> He's the sole manager of the LL of the Foley Investments LLC. And >> because that's the new owner.
>> Oh, okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So, I'm going to find that it is appropriate to uh accept the fine reduction stipulation and uh note for the record that that Mr.
um Ralph Ortoule Ta has signed on behalf of the owner and Miss Bradley on behalf of the county. and go ahead and enter the order accepting $940 um plus
cost in the amount of $575. Total of 1515 $1,515. Okay. All right. Um let me just make a note there. All right. And um also note for the
record that the March minutes are are here. I've reviewed them um offline and I note that they're signed by the preparer and by um the code administrator John Colando. So I'm going
to go ahead and execute the the minutes from March of 2026. Okay. Anything else to come before us today? That's all. >> Great. Okay. So, the next hearing is May
uh 20th uh 2026 uh at 9:00 a.m. We'll see you all then. Thank you. Thank you. Stand