##VIDEO ID:ES6zfrcsrwc## [Music] [Music] [Music] go ahead and get started my name is Sher SE I'm the magistr for um s County the way the process works is the county will present its case and it will provide any testimony any evidence that it has has and um you will um obviously be able to cross-examine any of the witnesses that the county presents but you will not be able to present any evidence of your own or testimony until it's your turn to go once the county has finished its case then it will be your opportunity to provide any Witnesses or evidence that you have for your case I will make a decision here today if you um are here for the first first time and you are found to be in violation and you do not come into compliance within the time period provided you stand to have a penalty of up to $250 a day imp post if you are here for a repeat violation you stand to have a penalty of up to $500 a day imposed if you do not comply within the time given if you do have an agenda in front of you uh we don't follow it in order we uh kind of have our own uh process here so please know that you will be called if you have not checked in with the county I encourage you to do so um at this time we're going to go ahead and call case 2277 cesm first BNB land Holdings hi good afternoon good afternoon will you be providing any testimony with I will just be presenting okay perfect so can I have everyone from the county who will be presenting um providing any testimony today please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony that you give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you good afternoon Jason Rucker simal County building department inspector uh this is case number 2277 cesm uh B&B land holding LLC um this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on October 13th uh 2022 and an order was issued given the respondents compliance date of January 12th 2023 an Affidavit of non-compliance was filed on January 24th of 2023 um also an affidavit non-compliance was filed August 6th 2024 um there have been several um non-compliance uh filed by the inspector um on August 8 2024 an order was issued extending the respondant to compliance date of November 13 2024 and on November 14th um it was extended again to December 12th on December 12th an order was issued extending the compliance date again to January 9th um the amend administrative cost in this case for the clerk is $36.89 the administrative cost to process this case for the inspector was $1,363 for a total of $1,343 and 27 cents uh recommend special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean retroactive back to January 8th 2025 and continue to acrew at $50 a day until in compliance um they have been working with the county trying to get their permits and I'll let you I'll let them speak but they're not in compliance at this time they not all right okay um good afternoon Cara Groves here on behalf of B&B landh holding um I am hopeful that perhaps today is the last day um we shall see I have one um exhibit that that are some email exchanges uh since the last hearing that I'd like to enter um but before I give these to you just by way of recap um last hearing I had thought that we were close to completion so we had um the meeting with the building department um in November I believe Jason was there um and we had thought that that portion of it was all done but I had some confusion because we were still getting comments back and there's like two or three different permits open so what I did is following our um hearing is I sent a detailed email to um the folks that still had remaining comments so Building Department um in planning and zoning and so in that email which is the exhibit I'll give to you here it outlines the three different permits that are active and it was my effort to say okay where are we is this completed what do we need to do next and so what I am hopeful will constitute proof that we actually are compliant with the code enforcement violations um Joy Giles who is the principal planner for uh Planning and Zoning she did respond in detail um and she did confirm that building department has approved the work for the block wall in back of building and to add awning which is this violation technically the permit isn't issued yet she says because there is a separate site plan for the kennels for Planning and Zoning to review that is separate and apart from the violations for code enforcement so we have gotten new comments for the Planning and Zoning but based off of this email based off of the comments that are remaining I do not believe there are any related outstanding to this actual code violation um so I'd like to just approach and and and give this to you so you can read it and then I also sent this to Jason does the county have any objection to the emails being entered into evidence okay no I don't he thank you thank so Megan zorski project coordinator um for Planning and Zoning um I'm Vaguely Familiar on the periphery um I received a phone call the other day from another division asking what the status of was with this project um because they were waiting to re-upload some responsive documents um and I I'm aware but they so part of the problem is they need that pnz stamped County site plan in order for the permit to be issued so without the approved County site plan they won't be able to get their permit issued so being in a holding pattern waiting for them to respond to Counting comments for the pnz site plan puts them in a holding pattern for their building permit as well so the pnz site plan has been submitted though it has been submitted they're working with joy and other staff members there's I believe there's some drainage comments outstanding too from engine from development review engineering so they're working with staff um and they have been proactive they were working with other divisions to find out the status of their project so they have been actively working on that small site plan um they're just in a holding pattern on their building permit because they can't move forward without that PNC approved site plan for their building permit so it looks like to me from the email exchange that the comments the the emails started just right after our last hearing so it's they right they submitted and they've been back and forth communicating submitting um and I believe over the holidays it was just kind of the LOL with staff being out and how things happen with holidays so I think now they're back in the active review process um okay so do we think that it will be done by the February meeting or they may have their pnz issued site plan by then if they continue on the trajectory that they're going they may I can't speak to whether or not they're going to be able to resolve all their comments I haven't reviewed the project um so you could bring them back to see if they get that issued but I whether or not they would make it through all of their building comments with that site plan I don't know but the building comments have been cleared up okay so so if they were to get it issued then yes they would be in compliance by February how quickly does the building permit get issued after comments from Planning and Zoning almost immediately so if that's all that's holding it up is the pnz once they resubmitted the building permit with their pnz stamp site plan it would be within 48 Hours okay then do you have anything further no I mean we're happy to do the additional 30 days um if if that's your um ruling okay I would um I'm going to go ahead and continue compliance till February 12th and um hopefully February 12th will be the last time that uh we see one another yes thank you appreciate it thank you um Alexis make sure this is part of the thank you next case is 2465 cesm with the property address of 322 North Shadow Bay the exempt property owner okay good afternoon for the record Mary Robinson planner code enforcement officer Miss Robinson let me let me swear in the respondent real quick before you okay you solemly swear airm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you right this is a an update on this project from um the last time we met it's uh 322 Shadow Bay Boulevard is now in compliance as of December 30th 2025 I'm going to share just a brief timeline of what occurred between um the September and now on October 1st the small site plan was submitted for the restoration of the drainage pip on this subject Pro product excuse me property on the same date the small site plan was approved by County staff uh after that the once the property owner retained a contractor to complete the work a preconstruction meeting was held on the site and the site work permit was issued the final inspection on on the work was done November 19th and County staff closed the project out on November 21st 202 and found that the system was working as designed the project engineer submitted the engineered as buils and the development review manager approv those plans on December 30 2025 subsequently myself as code enforcement officer submitted Affidavit of compliance on December 30 2025 to the clerk and now I'm just going to share a few photos just for the record I want to clarified December 30th 2024 I'm sorry 2024 still trying to get that it's usually the other way [Laughter] around okay this first photograph is the damage pipe that was what was removed this next photo is a working progress this next photo is an interior shot of the pipe once it's in the ground and the final two photos this is a photograph that was taken by um our engineering inspector around December 30th a resident told them they had had a heavy rain the night before and as you can see there's no flooding and this was taken the same day December 30th 2024 of the subject property and there is also no flooding so this particular issue is closed and in compliance perfect and do you have any testimony regarding costs that um were incurred by the county yes the cost of the administrative costs including the clerk the development review manager and myself the code enforcement offic come to $1,246 64 okay thank you do you have anything you'd like to add um just one of the pipes that you see in one of her photos um that goes out to the pond and then they you didn't see the previous manholes which one of them were damaged um and then the pipe that she showed was definitely damaged if I didn't put cement in those areas which was just a small area in front of my lawn in my house it would have been more of a disaster for me so again I apologize um but I had a situation that was you know not being addressed at the time when I begged for mercy and apparently it comes to conclusion I had to take care of it myself and it's a noon proof system and as you seeing the streets are fine I can't answer for their infrastructures that need to be addressed but that's not my job to address it but I'm appreciate the time and the correction that had to be done on my property by myself and for the community absolutely and I appreciate that um and I think that this is probably a testament to um relying on our professionals and making sure that um before you change a drainage pattern on your property even if it is your property that you should probably hire an engineer and go through the proper channels to make sure that you're not disrupting anyone else around you and and that is important for everyone to know that the drainage systems in the State of Florida a lot of times are tied into to one another and you can have some serious impacts on your neighbors and you are absolutely correct I did attempt to do that in the beginning but for some reason I was being swayed away but I have to give compliments to Vlad simosi and Mary Robinson for doing their due diligence and assisting with my due diligence and satisfying this project so the county has incurred um some costs associated with um the enforcement and those costs are borne under their um codes by the respondent who was responsible for the the violation so I have um costs in the amount of $1,246 64 on the part of the county that would be imposed against you how long would it take you to pay those those is that minus the uh Rick uh bill that I paid for the permit is that minus the amount of 600 and something no that's just uh staff time is what this is we did not include the site work permit fee okay so that's been taken care of by me earlier when I met with you right that is not these are separate and apart costs associated with the County's time bringing it here um before me for me to hear the the matter all of those things have a for different entity I can pay that right now if you like okay well I'm going to give you 30 days I I'm want to get it over with okay okay absolutely but I'm going to um find that there are um costs on the part of the county associated with this matter in the amount of $1,246 and 64 C and I'm going to provide you with 30 days to pay that you actually need to wait till you receive the order to pay it because they won't have the ability to process it without the order so that should be processed in a few days and you should receive it in a few days I receive it in the mail or will they contact me typically typically in the mail is the way you'll receive it the cler the the special magistrate clerk will be mailing out the order okay and then I just um come here to the office and pay for it okay thank you thank you I appreciate it thank you may I be excused oh yes all right the next case 2457 cesm Marque Lawnwood [Applause] LLC Hi how are you good afternoon good afternoon anyone who is going to provide testimony if you'll please raise your right hand do you solemly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Jason Rucker simal County Inspector this is case number 2457 CSM is for the property located at 855 North US Highway 1792 in Longwood um violation charge of simal county code chapter 40 appendix a 105.1 uh violation is the installation of illuminated bathroom signs low voltage control uh at panel controller at panel penetrations through the firewall with electric um added a kitchenet and change of occupy uh the initial inspection was done 1128 of 23 um notice to the respondent was was 12123 um there were a couple compliance dates and the follow-up inspection via the computer and uh site visit the violations remain on the property uh next slide shows that they are the owner of record Marquee Longwood LLC is the owner next slide shows that they did rece reive their notice and then here are some pictures of the electrical violation taken and some installation of some equipment that would have required the electric uh outlets for the kitchen net taken uh wiring through the wall there on the one picture um next screen shows the permit applications for the address uh violations were received 1123 22 and 1225 um the applications received um was submitted in response the previous violation um uh due to the permit expiring without inspections the violation associated with the previous case was add added to the violation for the case presented today um permit 221 19842 remains on hold due to building official requiring revised plans for the kitchen and assembly occupancy um the application received one 1225 uh will be completed in tandem with permit 22198 42 uh permit 2533 has been in plan check status since 1724 due to required Corrections submitted for electrical plan from uh electrical plan review um this page shows that where it's uh at in workflow and um that there still needs to be corrections made next slide is our code section um showing that it requires a permit based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2457 cesm it is determined that the respondents are the owner of record of the property and at location 855 North US Highway 1792 in Longwood in possession and control of the property and in violation of simol county code chapter 40 appendix a 105.1 uh further recommend special magistrate order the respondents to correct the violation honored before March 12th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondents shall obtain the required permits for the cided violation if the respondant does not comply with the order a fine of $50 will be imposed for each date of violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request it be entered into record that concludes my presentation do you have any objection to the uh documentation before you being um accepted in Tex evidence I have no no objections okay thank you we'll accept um the electronic case file into the record as evidence you can go ahead all right good afternoon uh just set the stage here I'm Doug brown with Matthew tbrown construction we're a general contractor uh and this is Lynn Marquee she's a landlord and owner um uh within the presentation you saw opav view 360 they're a tenant that has since been evicted uh for failure to pay rent and for all of the code violations that we laid out today um what we have done with permit 22- 00001 19842 is uh we were as the general contractor we were partially engaged by the tenant opav viw 360 uh we presented a budget to build out the plans that were approved by the county those plans included additional bathroom facilities on site he was trying to change the occupancy to assembly uh and for us to have an assembly occupancy he needed to pay for the bathrooms that were going to be built within the facility uh Britney Barker and team worked with us to uh facilitate eight tcos on the property which arguably is probably the longest set of tcos in s County History uh ultimately the tenant who was evicted was unable to pay for construction cost that did not happen but to get that TCO we ultimately made all modifications to the building to remedy the mechanical the electrical not the plumbing cuz the bathrooms were done any framing uh or finishes that were done without a permit so ultimately I was removed from the permit because Mr Pike uh laid out that ultimately I was responsible for what was going on within this building um without a permit and he was operating the business as a assembly occupancy that was not the case so that the tenant was evicted and then we proactively have met with the county uh a couple months ago we've engaged an architect and we have an updated set of plans that show it will supersede the previous permit so that it remedies the entire uh modifications to the building which has already been done Panic Hardware firewall s Electrical uh so we're here today um to say that we're fully engaged and we're in plan review with this upset updated set of plans with the county okay um Jason I don't see where you tell me I see that there were followup inspections by the computer and site inspections that ended in September of last year but were you are you aware that they're working with staff yes we I was in one of the meetings and okay that that came in uh I believe it was in December early December late November early December okay so you they have been working with you okay um how long do you think it's going to take you to finalize everything to get the permits uh so we're in plan review currently uh with the County's approval of the plans the modification to the building is a mere formality to open up one side of drywall to show the screw pattern uh on on the the doorway um cuz it the space was separated between we'll call it front of house and back of house and uh so we're ready to go as as soon as the plans are approved then we can facilitate inspections okay so the county has um suggested March 12th as a compliance date which would be the date of our next hearing is of our March hearing is March 13th um do you believe that March 12th is sufficient for you to do everything I mean Bas you know what the comments are and what the exchange is that way um so you'd probably be in a better position to judge if you think what they're asking you to do is something that can be complied with by that time I I totally agree that we can comply with a timely turnaround and approval of the plans okay so the County's really good about telling me if they if there's been a you know hold up on their side so then we'll go ahead and go with the March date because if you're following through and they're following through um then there shouldn't be a problem whatsoever okay um I'm going to go ahead and find that there is a violation of um simol county code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 and that um the property should be brought into compliance by March 12th 2025 with a compliance hearing to be held on March 13th 2025 and if the property is not or the um VI ation is not complied with by that date that a fine in the amount of $150 a day will be imposed okay thank you thank you thank you 2427 cesm Jean perier Pierre 74 2474 okay tell me your name is it John Pierre Jean Pierre John Pierre okay great if you'll go ahead and raise your right hand anyone providing testimony do you do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you Jason Rucker simal County building department um this is case number 2474 cesm is for the property located at 666 in Ceno way and Altimont a violation charge simal county code chapter 40 pendex a 105.1 subcription of violation is installation of a black rod iron fence with two gates and a slab with plumbing an electrical in it that requires permits uh the initial inspection was done on 1128 of 23 uh notice to the respondent was 1128 23 and another was sent on one 2524 uh there've been they've been given a a few compliance dates um followup inspections uh on site and via the computer resulted in the violation still remaining on the property next slide is the property appraisers record that shows that Mr Pierre is the owner record um the next photo shows the notice of hearing that was posted and at that time I was able to uh look at the property and verify the violation still existed uh next photos are of the laab with plumbing it's back in there a little ways kind of hard to see this is the original notice that was posted 1128 of 23 and then uh some more some photos and the violation Still Remains and here are some photos from 1227 24 that the violation remains um the aerial image here show um in 2020 that there was a chain link fence on the property uh the next slide shows that uh that the black rod iron fence was uh put in this screen shows that there have been no permits applied for uh to correct the violation this is a copy of Aron requires a permit based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2474 CSM it is determined that the respondant is the owner record of the property located at 666 in Ceno way alamont Springs in possession of control of the property and in violation of the semal county code chapter 40 appendex a section 105.1 further recommend uh the special magistrate order the respondant to correct the violations on or before March 12th 2025 in order to correct the violations the respondent shall obtain the required permits for the sided violations if the respond on it does not comply with the order a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondent must contact the inspector to verify compliance I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request it be entered into record that concludes my presentation do you have any objection to the electronic case File that's been presented here today being submitted into the record no okay thank you it will be accepted do you have anything you'd like to add sir I'd like to say a couple of comments I've can you give your name for the record please uh my name is John Ral r a u okay I've known Jean Pierre for quite a few years and um tried to help him through some traumatic experiences in his life uh as an elder in the Spring Meadows 7th Adventist Church we have some Outreach missions and when this came to my attention uh only a couple of days ago I immediately contacted some of our members and they have unanimously all agreed to without pay to do whatever needs to be done to try to assist him in getting this accomplished so it will protect the safety of the neighborhood and his family in his house I think he well I'm not a psychiatrist but I am a Vietnam veteran and I know what PTSD is all about this man was harassed horribly in Haiti by the Tommy Toms who were working with the government and he just I believe I would call it just blocks out when it comes to anything to do with the government I understand that it doesn't make it go away and it doesn't change the fact that we've got to get things done immediately to there um I have a Contractor License in the county uh who has agreed and has contacted the uh several people in the office to determine what would be needed and we are prepared to move immediately on that and we will assume all the cost to get this done for him okay fantastic um the county has provided divided March 12th as a compliance date so I just noticed that that's very very generous and I really appreciate it okay then if there are no objections to that Mr um John Pier do you have anything you would like to say no okay then we'll go ahead he's going to need a variance for the fence ma'am that fence does not meet um our height requirement nor our setback requirement um so I would ask that you at least give him 90 days before you bring him back because our cut off date is Friday so I could give him my card we could get the application in tomorrow but if that's not possible for them I mean they're volunteers doing it is um so if if it's not possible not that would be for the February if not we would at least have them on then for the February for the March at least for the fence variant they could still submit the fence application we could get them going if you wanted to put them on for the April yeah I think I'm going to actually give them a little longer just because I'm I'm I just wanted to make you aware it's at least 90 days given the variance um issue that they're going to have um and that's without knowing the full scope because this is the first that I'm hearing about the others and I know they're going to need a gate access it looks like they might have a gate Access Control we're going to have to have traffic engineering review um for a multitude of um and without knowing I'm I think it's a five or six foot fence um minimum so so height and what other type of variant set well it's going to be a setback it's it's one or the other so I would do a front yard setback um but we're going to have that but it's going to be a gate Access Control permit a fence permit um and a variance and the variance and then whatever other um slab and then you said there's Electric and Plumbing there Electric and Plumbing ripped in under a slab that never got well we'll be happy to work with yall to find out exactly what all we need to get done I'm going to walk you my card so you can get in direct contact with thank okay so let me explain the variance why that's a little different when when something has been put in that is doesn't match the code um then you have to request or you can request in certain circumstances of variance from the code to match what it is that you are trying to accomplish because this is in place already it makes it a little bit difficult however it still can be done um and there is a a process that you can follow um so um and that process does take 90 days with their deadline being Friday and you having to her volunteers um um you're probably looking um more like you'd be set to have everything in place in February for the March hearing which then if it gives you 90 days I'm going to actually give you until May 7th um which is the day before the next hearing May 8th I think that um that should give you sufficient time and of course if you're doing everything that you need to do and turning everything in and complying with all of the requests of the county we'll make sure that's done and you're still not in compliance by the 7th if the county tells me that there's you know has been everybody's been working together then we'll re-evaluate it again at that time um but I am going to go ahead and find that there is a violation of simal county code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 for failure to have the proper permits for the fence and some electrical and plumbing and slab um and I'm going to give you until May 7th 2025 to come into compliance or you will have a fine of $50 a day imposed and there will be a compliance hearing set for May 9th at 1:30 thank you very much your honor and thank you very much to the department for working with us thank you thank you 2476 cesm Michael shro sh sh close enough can you go ahead and raise your right hand please sir do you solemly swear airm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Jason Rucker simal County Inspector thank you this is case number 2476 CSM uh as for the property located at 1760 mol Lake Park Road uh violation charges the semal accounting code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 uh installation of an addition a pool and accessory structure without the required permits um the initial inspection was uh 125 and 24 a notice sent to the respondent on February 2nd of 2024 um there have been given uh several compliance dates and extensions uh followup inspection and and uh on site in computer um the violation remains on the property next slide shows that Michael shador is the property owner and we record the property through the property appraiser um this is a copy of the certified green card that was returned n for the notice of hearing next slide is going to show several pictures of the work that is being done I was just out there yesterday and the the work Still Remains on the property and no permits in the system no no permits um there is a an accessory structure that was permitted in ' 07 detached garage um assigned to a different address which is off of perch it remains open and it's expired uh because of outstanding inspections that weren't done next picture shows uh fence and sheds on the property permit is needed for the fence it's required aerial images from 2020 showing uh unsecured pool on a property and there's not a fence permit either no um what's that yeah he does sorry about that um shows a new structure installed on the property this next photo this is screenshot no permits have applied for um or issued since the violation all right this is the code section next slide is the code section uh that was cited based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2476 CSM it is determined that the respondent is the owner record the property located at 1760 mol Lake Park Road in possession and control of the property and in violation of the Simo county code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 I further recommend that the special magistrate order the respondent correct the violation to honor before March 12th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondant shall obtain the required permits for the sight of violations if the respondant does not comply with the order of fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondant must contact the inspector to verify compliance I have presented a copy of this case to the clerk and request it be entered into record this concludes my presentation do you have any objection to the electronic case File that's been presented to you um being accepted into evidence no okay I'll accept it into evidence do you have anything you'd like to add I just want to say that we've been working with an architect for the last year trying to get everything we need to turn in for permitting and it looks like within the next couple weeks he'll have finally have everything ready for us to go in for permitting on all these issues now there were several things like the pole barn the structure on the back of the property when I first bought that kit to put in I had looked up on the uh website County website and it said if you're agricultural you don't have to a permit to put a pole barn up and that property is agricultural but after talking to the uh inspector they said that there's different categories of agricultural and I don't meet that category so because he's he's not Bonafide a he's not G1 okay correct I'm a five A5 okay so I have the engineering for the pole barn I have the engineering for the pool and the I'm waiting on the architect to get his drawings done so okay so the county has suggested um March 12th as a compliance date um I should be in for all my permits by then okay yes all right well then I'll go ahead and uh find that there is a violation on the property for failure to have the necessary permits um in violation of simol county code chapter 40 of pendex a section 105.1 and order that you come into compliance by March 12th 2025 or incur a fine of $100 a day and the compliance hearing will be set for March 13th okay thank you even if I have all my permitting I still have to come back for that hearing if you have your permits um you the compliance at the compliance hearing the county can still ask for its cost to be assessed okay um so you don't have to come but if you want to say something about that you might want to come I'll come back okay thank you sir thank you thank you I'm I'm sorry I think I skipped uh I jumped so let's do 2425 cesm uh Robert and Carolyn kado C I knew I was going to get it wrong if I said the long a or the short a whichever one I was going to get it wrong the number 2425 75 75 I which did I say not 25 thank you okay if you'll raise your right hand please do you somly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you [Applause] Jason Rucker semal County building department inspector this is case number 2475 cm is for the property located at 1341 bywood Drive Geneva violation charged is the simol county code chapter 40 append a section 105.1 ascription of violation is the installation of a mobile home but I think that it's it's actually just a dwelling unit um the initial inspection was done on February SEC or sorry February the 9th 2024 notice to the respondent was February 9th 2024 uh there were several compliance dates and extensions given and uh reinspection were done both on site and via the computer and the violation remains on the property um next slide is property praisers records and shows that they are the owner of record of the property next photo shows when I was out there in December and posted the property and these are the pictures of the dwelling unit so is it considered more of a manufactured home uh I'm not really sure because it it is kind of like that but it's they've had to get engineering for it and they' had some issues as in with a tag no okay all right this screen shows that there have been no permits for um that particular structure dwelling unit uh permit application 231 16771 uh was for installing the pre-engineered dwelling unit remains in plan check um and for review for various departments um I believe they were having trouble finding a designer to be able to uh make it work and meet the requirements that our code requires but I'll let them speak to that but you have had contact with them yeah oh yeah we're been in contact with they they call me all the time okay let me know what status they're in they they had several other violations on the property that they have corrected so they did they have gotten some stuff completed um this this next slide just shows the workflow um and where it's at what status it's at in our system for plan review uh this is a copy of the Simo county code um chapter 40 penex a based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2475 cesm it is determined that the respondents are the owner of records of the property at 1341 bywood Drive in possession of control of the property and in violation of the Simo county code chapter 40 FX a 105.1 I further recommend the special magistrate order the respondant to correct the violation on or before March 12th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent shall obtain the required permit for the cited violation if the respondents do not comply with the order a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance I I have presented a copy of this case to the clerk and request it be entered into record that concludes my presentation do you have any objection to the electronic case File being submitted into the record okay I'll accept it do you have anything you'd like to add sure Rob C property owner so we've been confused and frustrated with this whole process um recently we've been contacting Jason but prior to that when we came down here to the permit office just to get some questions answered uh we were told that unless we had a uh Power of Attorney from our contractor they couldn't answer any questions for us which seemed very weird but you know like like I said we've been able to talk to Jason now and and seeing the in prepping for this we watched some other hearings and realized that we can contact Jason anytime time had we known that we we would have been a little bit less confused frustrated in October 2023 we hired um Bressler construction as our contractor and unfortunately he had to leave um and we hired um Dave Howell from Sun State plans to do our engineering and Dave uh took three months to get us our first copy and he delivered the copy to us in hard copy and they weren't sealed uh and not knowing any different we paid him the full amount for his Services when I gave the when we finally got the digital copy in February um or January we gave those to the contractor and the contractor said there's problems on here you need to get him to fix so we went back to Dave and asked him to make the corrections August of 2024 we still hadn't gotten anything and I've got a stack of emails going back you just where are we where are what's our status yeah he finally came and sent somebody out uh to look at the thing the the the structure and make the changes and uh still nothing a month two months later finally in December I said look they're they're bringing us in for a hearing because of this issue and I still don't have the corrections that you've made well in December they December 9th they sent uh they sent the corrections and I said okay I'm going to have a look at these myself because before I just took the digital copies and sent them to the contractor I opened them up and the foundation plan is wrong the site plan is wrong the floor plan is wrong the utilities electrical plan is wrong dimensions are wrong I'm going to have to find a whole new engineer it's been a year with this guy to to get all the drawings redone in order to be able to submit the drawings for permitting for permitting so and I'm out the money yeah and ironically in prepping for this the 88th hearing of 2024 Dave Howell was the reason another group had issues yeah so we're finding a pattern anyway we we we'd like an extension is what we're looking for and because I've got to get a new person and because those plans those drawings have to go to the county and then I got to get them back from the county with any I'm asking for at least 90 days okay does the county have an objection to providing them with 90 days which would take them out till April 9th no okay no obje do you think that they're going to be able to do what they're trying to do within that time period if they find a designer I would think that they could okay the problem is going to be if they're able to find a designer and have that done I mean so this structure is permittable as far as I know we're waiting on plans to make sure of that but on its face it's permittable it's not improper there are no zoning issues there are no um I'm aware of part of the issue with the the delay also is because we had to get a whole new survey for the property in in April and they didn't get started on that until May and then when we submitted that then we were told we had to get a topographical survey done got that and that took additional time all of those should be up to dat now well there's some errors they're fixing some errors and we'll have those this week oh so you haven't submitted those then we we not the corrections not the corrections there there were some things our contractor gave us a list of three pages of things that they were looking for and one of them was the the road had to be concrete millings or something similar and not Sugar Sand and that wasn't on the the the topical the other thing was um no branches or things like that that overhang the road part of fire it's it's all site plan related which is probably all site improvements that they've done already that aren't on their existing survey that if they updated their survey would show which is why they were updating um and having a topographical survey it would show their finished or their grading plan and their finished floor elevation those kinds of things that they needed to get their Building height their drainage plan those kinds of things were all comments that I'm seeing um on the permit and a lot of it because they have an existing pool when they removed the old home to put this in and they they had a lot of sight related issues that they couldn't get pasted without an updated either an engineered drawn site plan and that would have cost them as much as having a new survey done so they went the route of getting a new survey so I understand that but if they have an architect or an engineer on board 90 days if they can turn it around is not unreasonable okay well just to be safe what I'm going to do is I'm going to have you um come into compliance by May 7th awesome um and our compliance hearing date would be May 8th so I'm going to find that there is a violation on the property for failure to obtain the necessary permits in violation of seol county code chapter 40 of pinix a section 105.1 I'm in order that the property be brought into compliance by May 7th 2025 or incur a fine of $100 a day for each and every day thereafter that the violation remains with a compliance hearing set for May 8th 2025 wonderful thank you thank you 2478 cesm Jose castanada Mary Ella wpo are right okay okay can I get you to raise your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Jason Rucker simol County Inspector this is case number 24 478 CSM is for the property located at 113 Oak Street Altimont Springs um in violation of the simal county code chapter 40 pxa 105.1 um description of violation is install installation of a large shed the initial inspection was done on 10 323 and notice to the respondent was the same day of 103 no sorry it was 1013 of 23 um compliance dates and extensions were given um followup inspections both on site and via computer uh showed that the violation Still Remains on the property this is the proper pressure sheet that shows that Jose and morela are the owner of the records of the property uh this is a copy of the certified sign return notice to hearing and the next several pictures are of the shed in back of the house some were taken in 23 some early in 24 and I was just out there two days ago and uh the violation remained now this slide shows that application for an accessory dwelling unit um has been in plan check since April 2024 um requires Corrections from multiple departments and that's the most recent permit that was applied for this slide shows the corrections that are needed um from our system from plan review this is the code section that requires a permit this is a copy stating what is required for the permit based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2478 CSM it is determined that the respondents are the owner of record of the property located at 113 Oak Street are in possession and control of the property and are in violation of the semal county code chapter 40 appendix a 105.1 I further recommend the special magistrate order the respondents to correct the violation honor before March 12th 2025 in order to correct violation the respondent shall obtain the required permits for the cited violation if the respondents do not comply with the order a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request it be entered into record that concludes my presentation do you have any objection to the electronic case File being submitted into the record as presented okay I'll accept it into the record do you have anything you'd like to add H yes thank you for the opportunity to talk in um my name is Jose castan and my mom marela Restrepo we are the owners of the property we buy the property in 2019 so I have here the information uh when we buy the the property ER you know in the survey and everything um I can pass the information everything will be there so so when in 2023 we received uh information from the building department about we have a violation we don't realize because you know we we had the closing in 202 2019 and we realized that we when we buy the property they had this issue so finally in 2023 and immediately we called the building department and say okay what can I do so because I buy the house but I don't know how that issue so in this case uh they say you can find a general contractor somebody that can probably help to get the permit and everything like that so I uh follow the process to find somebody to hell in this process ER I find somebody and this person is not here today because I have a daugh in the in the hospital but he told me you know I give you the information and he proceeds to um um say apply for the permit and everything and I asked Maybe when we have the the timing or frame time for complete that but he say no at this time so finally the last time that I know he give me a l a long list like a couple pages that we need to organize and uh when I say no time frame so we are in the process to you know to to to everything okay in the same so but after that I receive this letter that coming here first time hearing the hearing public hearing uh we are here to to know to so the team because when we buy the house we don't realize that we have like that so my m is not going to speak English I I have the person that is in car CH ha and I don't know you give me the opportunity to you know to to see how can we fix the the problem the county is um requesting that you come into compliance by March 12th do you believe that that's something that you are able to do I I don't think because it's all you know the leas is huge and I think they say sometime resolve some sometimes unsold I don't know if we can give you a little more time because I don't know three months is is too chore for for complete everything it's a big one it's long long long thing okay so let me hear from Miss zorski she may have some additional information related to the actual if there are variance requirements or or something they are at minimum well first and foremost they're going to need a rear yard setback variance for the prop for the existing structure it does not meet the minimum um rear yard setback for the zoning District okay they also um it's an Adu according to the proposed um floor plan um but it's a little deeper than that it's the floor plan that's been provided is a duplex which is not allowed so they have the existing residence which we refer to as a primary dwelling unit in this case and then the duplex in the rear which is the Adu which is only allowed to be a single dwelling unit not a duplex so they can have this this shed structure accessory structure could be made into a single family dwelling unit they could have an accessory dwelling unit it goes another layer deeper than that that the structure is oversized for the size of the house that they have from what I can cuz they haven't provided me a response to the comments that I've asked for So based on what the property appraiser has for the living area based on their report and based on the floor plan that they've provided me running numbers while I'm sitting here listening to testimony um they're approximately 180 square feet oversized for what they're allowed um they can apply for an administrative adjustment which would give them another 10% but it's still it's still oversized so they could alter the floor plan is there a variance capability for that that's the administrative adjustment would give them that 10% but that's still a cap okay but we could there's things that we can do they could convert part of it to a len ey make it exterior living like there's things that we can do to make it work but they need to respond to comments they could come in and meet with staff there's things that we can do to work but I've not had any response to any comments since April 10th of 24 okay let me ask this did were when you purchased it was it a living quarters when you purchased it or is it just become a living quarter it's I had the survey here so it's the the structure everything there when we buy right but now that someone is actually using it to live in it's not just an accessory structure so there are different regulations that control so now that someone's living in it you have other things that come into play that you have to comply with it's not just a considered a shed one and done it's not just a permit anymore there are other issues that you're going to have to comply with if it's going to be a living quarters for someone okay so what can I do well and so that's what they were um Mrs norori was trying to explain that that it's going to be a little bit more involved process okay so um but you've got you have to respond to the information that has been requested of you since April because if you don't respond to the information then they can't help you get to where you need to be yeah when I talking with my contractor general contractor he take care because I don't know the process for permit or anything like that ER I pay for that you know and he said no don't worry we can't let the pyramid he normally give me a feedback something happened but they the only thing that he gave me was say we need to do this one but no frame time so they don't let me what when we need to complete I don't know so I pray myself here the first time to see to hear about that so I don't know so I'm going to have Megan give you her card okay so that you can get in contact with her because it it sounds to me like there are some outstanding things that you need to provide to her in order for you to move forward with some of the requirements um because of the way that the structure is being utilized I understand that it was there when you purchased the home that still does you're still responsible for making sure that there are permits on your property but now that the use is being used as a dwelling unit it changes the the process a little bit more okay okay so am I safe for May [Music] um I don't know okay um know what the variance maybe just for a variance but not for all of the other issues so if they converted it back to a storage unit because I don't believe the storage unit was permitted correct so if they if they ended up having to convert it back to just the quote unquote shed the variances because the shed is oversized as well for the setback they would need um potentially a size it might be over the size limit the 50% allowed I I didn't run those numbers so they might need a they might need a size variance for the shed and a rear yard setback but those could run at the same time so they would at least need a rear yard setback for the shed so either way if they decide to convert it back to a shed they're going to need a variance so if they decide to convert it back because an Adu is too much work they could do that but you could bring them back to at least see if they're moving forward with the variance cuz at least that's the bare minimum of they could start the application process so is it your desire to maintain this as living quarters uh you still want to be able to live in it right yeah but but it's possible to take the permit on everything for what we have right now you it is possible with certain revisions probably but if you want to stay having using it for someone to live in then that's going to be a longer process than just converting it back back to a storage facility or storage shed but the floor plan that you've provided shows two units you're only allowed one unit the only thing when when you buy the house yeah they they show me only the dimension that see don't show me so there aren't two units on that back there are two units so are two people two separate families two people yeah yeah okay that's not allowed okay so that will not be able to continue okay so what can I do in this case you can make it one one only mhm oh so like close one and lift one or well storage and maybe ad door one for leing I don't know so you're going to have to it's it's too large also okay for an accessory dwelling unit so you're going to have to make some other modifications to it as well but the very minimum you would be allowed to have one accessory dwelling unit okay all right but you're going to need to work with Megan and you're going to need to continue through um all of the processes that the county has you go through so I'm going to give you until June because I think that there is a lot involved here but if you're back before me in June and you haven't done anything or you haven't followed the County's process that's going to be a problem so I need you to make the decision on what you want to do and I need you to go through whatever they're telling you you have to go through the process okay and make sure that your contractors are complying with what they're requesting as well okay okay okay so I'm going to go ahead and find that there is a violation on the property for failure to have a permit for the um additional structure on the property in violation of seminal county code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 and going to order that you come into compliance by June 11th 2025 or you will have a um penalty of $150 a day if you um and then you'll have a compliance hearing set for June 12th okay okay thank you thank you 2479 cesm alyso laruen and dokey Rodriguez hi um is the property owner present you he is the property owner okay who is Frankie Rivera myself okay and which are you doy Rodriguez my wife oh yeah okay are you alicio okay fantastic can you both raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Jason Rucker simol County Inspector this is case number 2479 CSM is for the property located at 1035 Carbone way naakka violation charg is the simol county code chapter 40 pendex a 105.1 uh the violation is installation of three sheds without the required permits uh the initial inspection was done on 12823 notice to respondant was 12823 there have been several extensions and compliance dates uh given um follow up in inspection on site and via the computer uh show that their violations remain on the property next slide shows that they are the owners of record via the property appraiser uh the next slide shows uh where notice was posted for the hearing today here are the photos of the shed sheds that were taken this slide is a copy of the final letter uh was personally served uh photos that were taken on 121 1924 show that the three sheds are still remaining on the property uh there's an aerial photograph to as well that shows where the locations of the sheds are um this screen shows no permits applied for for or issued for correcting the violation for the shed um there's several permits that have been pulled for carport a porch that was enclosed in a solar but nothing for the sheds uh the slide shows the uh simal county code chapter 40 pinex a 105.1 the requirement for a permit based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2479 cesm it is determined that the respondents are the owner record of the property located at 1035 Carbone way in possession and control of property and in violation of the semal county code chapter 40 fex a 105.1 a further recommend special magistrate order the respondant correct the violation onor before March 12th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent shall obtain the required permits for the cited violation if the respondents do not comply with the order of f of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance I have presented a copy of of this presentation to the clerk and request it be entered into the record that concludes my presentation thank you do you have any objection to the electronic case File that's been presented being submitted into the record as evidence no okay I'll accept the same okay so um can you go back into the other screenshot when you have the top of the view and just for the record Mr Rivera Frankie Rivera yes okay um so we demo the the one and two so on the three we are requesting um the permit as a carport but we get uh the denial requesting some engineering documentation so we're trying to get all the documentation from that one he bought um that kind of place that delivery stuff called Amazon and there's no information provided with that like that um any kind of specifications of like a Florida approvals or kind of stuff like that so um we went to an architect to try to draw the stuff but the engineers is indicating that he needs all the other documentations I've been trying to reach all the kind of informations in order to comply with that but it's been a little bit difficult on that so we have the permit for the other alteration that we have on the house but on that um I'm trying I wish to request on extension so we can get um address all the um carport or stage or that one okay do you have anything in the system regarding a permit that's been submitted yes see here the number one is on I apply on June yeah there's a there's one for carport so have they that is in plan check and is that what you're saying that's you're using this as a carport correct it's that's that's they're telling me that it's for a different location not that structure okay the permit application that's currently in plan check is for a carport that's in the driveway no but it's not it's actually off to the side of the house it's in the it's in the side of the house right it's it was a don't a mistake on the on the drawings when we did it on the paper it's right off the sidewalk on the side of the house correct so the the shed that you're looking at is right here right now right which is on the rear by the utility easement which was in line with the two that have been removed the one that's being that has a permit is on the corner that's actually a plan check permit that was rejected correct that's on that's currently awaiting response to comment and that's what he said if you pull up the the overhead aiel yeah he said that it's the number three is the one but this the one that's in can I bring you what's under well you could just tell me which one of those it's not it's not oh there behind the underneath the tree there's a driveway okay the draw it was a mistake with draw on the wrong place with draw over there but it's supposed to be on the where it's going to be the number three and it's a way of the East um of the Eastman and the utility then you need to revise your site plan because I can't review it until you revise your site plan correct but we we're trying to work with the other stuff that um it's requiring like uh engineering I cannot remember exactly because I was I came thinking that it was going to be for the other one not for the carport I'm sorry for the storage and it cannot encroach the 7ot utility easement no it's not it's away of that one it's like a I think it was 7 ft away okay and then um as far as the other structures go that those have been demolished the one and the two has been I need access to verify that because I can't tell it looks like they're still there over the fence it's hard for me to tell and I'm not allowed to take pictures over the fence so you guys would need to meet me out there and and let me walk in the backyard and did he de at that if he demolished did that need any sort of permit if it didn't have any Electric in only if it had electric did either of those have electric it doesn't have electric it was all the storage material he's a pler so all the um pluming tools and everything was storage over there okay so now it's a way to that one okay can you put back on the on the top view okay yeah whenever you want just pick a day and then we can meet you there okay well it wouldn't be him picking a day it'd be you all contacting him that's part of the requirement and what you'd get in the order so um part of you coming into compliance with with all of these various shed permits is contacting the officer having him meet you out there and showing either that they're not there or that they are permitted and so you've got kind of two things going on on this site you've got one that you do want to permit and you've got to work with staff to uh submit the proper documentation and to revise your site plan in order to move that out of the easement and then you've got these other two that you need to verify with Jason to make sure that they are no longer on site so um do you think that you can have all of that completed by March 12th for the one and two yes the three it's the one that we're um searching the the Florida Pro approvals required and that's the one that is taking a lot of times searching the right ones because based on that one is I I thought it was like a Carolina carport but it's not so it was rejected by the county so but but you know what you need to do oh yeah okay um so I'm going to go ahead and find that there is a violation on the property for failure to have the required permits for the sheds um in violation of simal county code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 I'm going to order that you come into compliance by March 12th um or a fine in the amount of $150 a day will be imposed and um a compliance hearing will be held on March 13th 2025 thank you welcome 2317 cesm Asset Management Services of America LLC if you'll go ahead and raise your right hand do you Solly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and if they met the truth yes I do thank you this is case number 2317 cesm located at 2323 Tusa Road uh in violation s county code chapter 40 pinex a 105.1 uh this case was originally heard by special magistrate February 9th 2023 an overol was issued for the uh respondant to comply by April 14th 201 23 and affidavit was of non-compliance was filed on April 19 2023 uh on December 12th 2024 an order uh was issued extending the compliance date to January 8th 2025 um an Affidavit of compliance was filed by the inspector after reinspection on uh January 7th 2025 the administrative cost for this case for the clerk are $177 182 the administrative cost for the inspector in this case was $969 43 for a total of $1,147 25 uh special magistrate issued an order imposing a total um $1,147 and 25 cents and require the cost to be paid in 30 days or a fine will continue and constitute a lean in on the property that concludes my presentation okay um so this was this one was really old I recall this one coming to the last meeting and there was was there a discrepancy with the County's records with with respect to whether there was a violation on this property still when when we were here before I believe that the violation was the the the gate correct the gate wasn't wide enough for fire but it is so fire but now they've changed it he's changed it and he's met all the requirements for fire oh the gate was changed yes okay okay this is the email up on the screen from fire that says that it has been and was the gate already 12 was it changed as of the last hearing or did you change it since the last hearing since okay okay so and that was part of the original violation the the gate okay the county has incurred costs in this matter um of $47.25 um I'm um part of my concern is that this was going on back in 2023 and there was was over a year and a half before you were reconed about this matter um but I do find that the county did incur some cost with respect to the case and that you hadn't fully complied um so I'm inclined to split the costs in half um rather than charge you all the costs um because of the length of time but I do find that you did cause the county to have to um incur some costs um so in splitting the costs with you [Music] um I will um order $550 in cost be paid to the county uh how long will it take you to pay that uh your magist I I do appreciate the kindness of U reducing the cost um in light of the uh but I I did try to resolve the issue at the time that I was requested and without rehearsing in the whole situation uh I did try to comply with all the requirements but there were additional requirements of fire that I wasn't aware but since now everything has been resolved um I'm going through a difficult time right now with money um can I get more time yeah absolutely um what was he not informed of the fire um issue or was the fire issue always part of the original violation there there was issues with him not having a ox box to be able to get in there for fire and then fire discovered that the fence was not wide enough may may I um so I I did back in when when the when the issue first started so um the fire department did ask me to put a patlock and I did that and at that time I thought the issue was resolved but I wasn't advised that they they needed uh the the gate to be wide and 12 in so I was never told that part and that's the second part that was done since the last meeting the the the padl was was put up uh uh back then in I guess June the first time that they required that so yeah the fence in the gate always required a permit from the beginning but I think that what came into play when the was inspected uhh they were only inspecting that okay they wait a second if you I mean I understand that you're saying they weren't thinking about it but when did the when did the gate width come to to be a thing and when was that communicated to the respondent probably when the fence permit I don't need a probably I need to know when when we went out to inspect the fence permit that that is when it would have come into play do you all have anything in your records where he was provided notice related to the the so I would imagine I don't I'm not the one that does the the review for fire but I would imagine that they wouldn't measure the gate or look at the width of the gate until the permit came in so until the permit with the site plan came in for a review that's when fire like I would for the width of the gate the setback of the gate the placement of the gate that's when all of Staff would be put on notice of width setbacks and all of those things so when he was told he needed a padlock he put the padlock on when the permit they don't know that it's not legal non-conforming previously existing they don't know the status of the gate when the permit comes in is when I would think that they would then say it doesn't meet the current standards because the permits then being come in for review okay let me state it this way did you receive any notice of there being um a width requirement for the gate and and if you did when did you receive that notice not for the with your owner um um in the last meeting I mentioned that I I came to the building department I met with uh Lis Parkers and the chief fire inspector Mrs Diaz she happened to be there at the time and we were talking about this issue with the and what I was told is that um the for fire department reasons and for medical assistance they needed a pad lock and I did that that's fine I can put the pck I did that was all that I was told until I got the hearing notice that I'm I was still under violation and that's when I okay so from 2023 the permit was never issued till we come before us at the last meeting and we discussed for the first time that there was a gate width issue yeah it was always for the gate it was always for the gate but not a width did she but it still would have been under not getting a gate permit by widening it can I have you give me some testimony I don't know if my oh there it is from what I understand is the gate requires a permit for fire code I might be misspeaking but it definitely requires a permit a per permit is not issued for this gate in particular because of the actions that he took by widening it at the advisement of the fire marshal in order to get get around this compliance issue Building Division has always required a permit for the gate when the gate was wind to satisfy the fire code requirements we dropped the violation saying it's in compliance because that's fires regulation but was the so there was doesn't have a permit does he need one per fire since he's wind it to this right here from Chris oterino said the gates been increased and has a fired KNX padl on it this should resolve Fire's issues that was all we needed from them to put the case into compliance so then there what there is a permit there is no permit it's just been widened to the the point that a permit is not required per fire so the orig we were unaware that was an option at the time this case originated and we cited him for the installation of a gate without a permit but you cited it under chapter 40 of pinix a section 105.1 which is failure to have a building permit right because the gate requires a permit but it doesn't if it's wide enough that is the way that I understand it from this email from fire but I don't have any testimony from fire I just have an email and I don't really and we don't have a code telling me that that's the case if I may add I don't know if that helps or not um so back in when I was submitting the the the site plans uh part of the requirements for the gate the existing gate was to add the location of the gate how far uh how the setback was uh in the side plans that that that was all that was required to get that uh existing gate approved on the side and and I think uh and and to add the padlock but then after that came this the issue with the width of the uh of the gate Megan zorski Megan zorski for planning if this was just done in January of this year all fence and Gates require a building permit especially a gate would have required traffic engineering approval if it's in the front yard setback so if this was done without a permit we would have required a building permit may I add but wait a second but I was just told that the building permit issue was dropped because fire said that we're satisfied so that there's no permit requirement anymore after he satisfied fire so because of the age of this and because of the lack of our information related to it and it's in compliance at this time I'm going to order that there no um fines attached or no fees attached um to this case and I'm going to find it in compliance thank you thank you very much um just just so everybody is um um more in peace with the situation uh Miss Miss Park Park Hurst MH she reply saying okay because you fixed this issue the U that you don't need the the permit for the for the gate so she's she's aware of the whole situation just just in case okay thank you thank you I appreciate itk okay so I'm just real quick I'm looking at the chapter 40 of penic a permits and there's nothing in here related to fire one way or the other so I don't know how and without more information I can't um ascertain what had happened under the original case so okay do 2317 nope we just did that one sorry 23 20 2443 CM Wolf Ram nodding not not hangle thank you [Applause] you will raise your right hand please do you solemly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you Jason rer simal County Inspector uh this is case number 2443 CSM located at 220 Forest Drive um in violation of simal county code chapter 40 pxa 105.1 1 this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on August 8th 2024 and an order was given to the respondent to comply the date of October 9th 2024 with a meeting scheduled for October 10th 2024 um on October 10th 2024 meeting was canceled due to weather and was extended to January 9th of 2025 an Affidavit of noncompliance was filed by the inspector after reinspection on October 9th 2024 uh the administrative costs in this Cas for the clerk are 8757 the administrative cost to process this case by the inspector total $76.95 for a total of $945 recommend special magistrate issue an order constituted in lean retroactive back to October 9th 2024 uh and continues to acrew at $100 per day until in compliance that completes my presentation okay okay yes sir uh yeah so I did come in I sat here in August and you know I thought this was going to be an easy one I'll would just apply for the permit and get it sorted out um that wasn't that wasn't quite the case so uh if I could just bring a few points really quickly I know that I'm in violation uh of section 104 105.1 I just want to add that I purchased this property in 20122 with this structure already on the property um it's an old house it's it's from 1954 but I have not actually built repaired modified anything uh around this structure since we've moved in uh there's actually been a structure in place since 2006 as far back as I can on the prop pza website um so there's always been a structure there um it is I'm actually being taxed on it right now by the property appraiser it it was assessed I think in like 2019 somewhere around there I mean it's a prfect perfectly good shed um that being said I am trying to comply I'm doing everything in good faith to get it done um I applied for the permit after we sat here in August I applied for the permit in a August in September uh I couldn't get the permit because I don't meet some of the setbacks um I don't know you know when you know going back in time I don't know what the setbacks were you know however many years ago it was but regardless um I applied for a variance in October um I did not get my variance application approved because a piece of the shed is a corner of the shed is resting on a utility EAS mon so okay uh I then applied to the various utility companies Sunshine AT&T FPL um so I'm I'm going through that process now just in good faith I'm try I'm trying to get it done um but that's kind of where where I'm at right now I did get an approval letter from sunshine and AT&T but nothing from FPL yet so I'm just trying to I don't know what they're going to tell me I mean it could go either way um but that's that's kind of where it's at for me right now I mean I I am trying my best but I just I do feel like this is a really old structure that's been there for forever I mean I haven't touched it it's just it's there so um I would hate to have to demolish it it's really well built it's withstood hurricanes it's not on anybody's property it's not bothering anybody um you know I don't know if there's like a plan B for me that we can you know come to some other way of you know keeping it there so if he gets sign off by all the utilities what's the likelihood of does he have to come back for the full variance process again he will have to obtain the vacate first and then he'll have to go through the variance process so is it how was it is it a platted easement so it would just be vacation of a portion correct of the portion that's encroaching and it's I would say it's like maybe a 5ot or less Square fo like three square feet yeah square foot a lot it's small it's a small encroachment but it's it's enough it en I can see the electric line right next to it too so it's an overhead line so where where the corner of the shed encroaches um he may be able to get that little corner vacated um and then um be able to obtain the variance so unfortunately I think you are going through your plan B right now I I know yep um and I the vacate process typically takes um our customers about six months oh to get through because like the issue that he's um finding now getting through all the utility companies to get those letters and then get everything everything turned back in and the survey process to get his legal sketch and description turned in and then actually get through the public hearing process for that that's about six months so if he gets the vacate does he still have the variance problem is there still a setback issue yep if he met the setback he would not be encroaching into the eement okay the the thing that bothers me is you know fines like I I don't know how I would deal with any fines and you know well I'm not there yet I mean we did impose some fines that are a a daily fine that acrs in the event that you're you aren't in compliance or working toward compliance um I think in this situation I mean you have presented evidence and the county has agreed that you're working toward fixing the problem um and so and um Miss zorski has given me testimony that it would take you six months just for the vacate portion but then you'd have to go back through the variance process after that um so what I'd like to do is um to continue your compliance date but I don't want to push it out the eight months or so that it may take I want to make sure that you're still actively going through this process and the only way I can control that you're actively going through the process and still doing what you're needing to do is by peac mailing your compliance date because if you're back before me and you know four months and you aren't doing anything right you know and you haven't done what you need to do and I think that that's you know some of the problem that we've had with some old cases so if we are following them then it makes it it easier for me to say to the board of County Commissioners that you know this is why I made the decision I made right um so what I'd like to do is um have you back here in July um I think that is a good chunk of time it probably is the six months that um but I realize you still have some some work that you need to do because you still have one provider that needs to provide you now because that process is part of the vacation process I suggest that you submit your application for the vacation and start that process now because then you will be going through that process that you're going through right now anyway basically I did submit that application I paid the fee but I was until I couldn't they couldn't do anything until I couldn't get a date for the appointment until I got the um the for the vacation so so he has initiated that yeah until I'm not sure if he paid to fee he then he's in the process but they won't push it forward until he has all his letters I will add that staff has been working on an updated list of contacts for providers so you may want to touch base with the second floor and see if um they have an update contact point for that provider that you're missing a letter from well I I've been in contact with them they they're reviewing it now so I have perect I just wanted to make sure you weren't didn't have an old contact point because I know um staff has been working on updating that list okay then I am going to go ahead and continue your compliance date to July 9th 2025 with a compliance hearing set for July 10th okay thank you thank you we're going to go ahead and take a 10-minute break so we'll be back at 3:40 [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] n [Music] [Music] d [Music] oh [Music] we are back on the record going to go ahead and call 2553 CN bath assets 3 LLC 24 did I say 25 you said sorry exactly I transposed it was [Laughter] okay you go ahead and have you wage your right hand you saw me thrir the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes ma'am thank you Jason Rucker simal County building department this is uh case number 2453 CS cesm uh located at 3314 Curtis Drive um violation charges simol county code chapter 4 pendex a 105.1 construction without the required permit for offense this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on September 12th 2024 and an order was issued given the respondents a compliance date of November 13 2024 and November 14 2024 an order was issued extending the respondents compliance date to December 11th 2024 with a meeting scheduled for the 12th of December on the 12th of December in order was issued extending the uh case again to January 8th 2025 uh with a meeting schedule for today January 9th 2025 the administrative costs in this total for the clerk total $237 64 the administrative cost for the inspector in this case are $745 193 for a total of $983,000 that special magistrate issue an order constituting a retroactive lean back to January 8th uh 2025 and continue to accruit $250 a day until compliance that concludes my presentation okay yes sir okay um I have a permit I have documentation now stating I do have a permit approved okay go ahead um Megan and or Megan zorski for planning um unfortunately the site plan that was submitted does not contain the full scope of the fence that was installed only a portion of the fence that's under the current violation was approved by me um I was emailed the site plan earlier in the week um and provided um a review back to um Ruth and Jason um that a port the portion that I approved is only about half of what was actually installed so he needs to revise his site plan to show the full scope of the fence that was actually installed that's under the violation wait was he did he receive a permit though he did but it does not show the full scope of the work but he shouldn't have received a permit then right well what he provided to me for review was allowed to be permitted so I don't know if he's going to remove the other portion of fence to meet the vi to meet the violation it was my understanding that we're here because the fence itself was not permitted there was an issue with one of the uploaded docks and evidently at some point somebody highlighted stating that we could not see a front portion of the fence on the uploaded documentation for what is needed um we've got in the surveys I'm trying to get the whole per fence permitted since somehow since the pool was put in probably 20 years ago we're still stating this fence was never permitted we've had two hurricanes I'm trying to get the permit which I have documentation says the permits issued I know it now needs to be closed out but I also need to know what needs to be corrected so now I'm being told that oh wait the permit's issued but it's not you're still in violation I haven't had an opportunity to get the inspection of what is there now so I the revision is history here I am not following as to what needs to be done to be in compliance that's Curtis we're looking for paperwork now the the site plan that was submitted didn't have the full scope of work on it so but wait a second if he submit it's a site plan that doesn't have the full scope on it it's up to you all to look at it and say it doesn't have the full scope on it I'm not going to I'm not going to issue this permit he can he can pull a permit for one section of fence and come in tomorrow and pull a permit for another section of fence so that's what Megan was trying to explain is he's allowed to permit just one section that he did but he didn't comply with the violation because he needs to do the whole fence around the property and I don't always know that these are code violations when I'm reviewing the permits so I get a a residential permit and they're not always coded that they're code violations so is there I was trying to look for an aerial of the property and I don't see one can someone show me where the fence um it's the approv survey for defense okay this is the approved survey that I'm looking at and there's a highlighted yellow area off to the left um Can someone you want to put this up there and then show me where the fence what part's been permanent and what hasn't hey was the application for an entire fence for the permit Megan if you can confirm this on E planner nav line where you're at this is a copy of the approved survey associated with permit application 24-14 623 that is correct that is the approved site plan according to this the highlighting is is kind of faded here but you can see that there's definitely yellow highlighting for this gate closer to lot 13c and this fencing here I can't really tell it's just it's really f here this might be part of that site plan that approved site plan I need to know what parts of this fence are approved the left run from the house to the side and from that side Lot line is what I approved just the so this says not included is not included well that's part of the plot I believe portion is chain link which is not our Stockade correct so it's from the house to the side property line and that run down the side property line is what's approved on the site plan can can someone point to it cuz I have so you can you can probably do it over here on the okay so just straight down so from the house to the side property line and this run down the side property line that's what's been approved on the site plan okay where else is there fencing that needs to be approved the other side of the house so from the house to the side property line and then this side run as well okay do you see was was that not included it should have been because we don't have a permit for any fence so I would not permit a portion of the fence or direct my contractor we need a partial permit because from day one that myself and my assistant manager have been here you don't have a fence permit at all so anything that's ours needs to be permitted there was a question on setback which I think is where part of that highlight came in because it didn't transfer into the system somehow when it was uploaded what made you think you were approving only a partial part of the fence some of those other PL in the yeah I'm going there I'm sorry they have about 20 files in the error folder so no you're fine take your time because again we've gone through you need a demo permit to correct def fence that you don't have a permit on and then we got multiple documentation of this form versus that form versions that were uploaded although this form isn't filled out incorrectly you actually need to use this form contract cont I can't tell from here so on the only other site plan that I have they showed the fence running [Music] from the side property line here this side this side and then along the rear they showed this side but it's showing on that they showed this side here no who who showed that side their previous site plan they submitted this site plan that I ultimately approved and one other site plan but but this one that is in front of them doesn't it have a fence showing on this over over here correct there's offence that was the previously existing fence but they didn't highlight that for being but they didn't highlight that they were replacing this so I don't know if they're doing something different what I'm approving is what they're highlighting this happens all the time I don't know if they have to change something and they're putting that under a different permit I don't know if the neighbor's pulling that permit I don't know what's happening I'm only approving what their highlighting that's their scope of work that's what they're indicating they're changing the original one sir did you highlight that no ma'am who highlighted that cuz it wouldn't have been highlighted by the surveyor it would have had been done by the cont that would have been done by the contractor I can't I don't have the access to see if it's an owner Builder permit or a contractor but if it wasn't the owner this is an LLC so actually the permit had to be submitted by a contractor because it's owned by an LLC not an individual so the contractor indicated on a couple different site plans different locations of the fencing that were being preped post the one Megan has up is the most recent site plan the contractor provided but there was a prior site plan that had the other side highlighted correct and no well it had this run that's was approved ultimately it had it them replacing the rear lot line here and then only the run on this side from the house to the side property line and you're saying they didn't replace the rear because it's not your fence it's chain link there a portion of it is chain link L that is not ours again on the first slide presented it says we had no fence permit and for the third time now that I'm here what do I need to do how can I amend this now can I come highlight that to show whatever wooden Stockade Fence is what I'd like to have permitted so we can go through the inspection to tell me what I'm allowed to now fix on a permit that's never existed for a home that's at a pool in excess of 20 years so it seems to me like it's probably a mistake on some someone's part that they meant to highlight that side strip and highlight it along the back on acent there's no permit I'm um is what that appears to make so um I don't have an issue if you want to extend it to see if you can get a revision yeah I'm not sure what needs to be done to revise it it's a revision he could if the contractor submitted it tomorrow or even this afternoon if he turned it in it's a site plan revision if it was routed to me tomorrow it' probably be approved by tomorrow afternoon okay they're turned around within 24 hours typically so can I give you the site plan and highlight whole fence you're the property owner has to be done by the contractor because it's an LLC sorry if you want to provide the highlighted site plan since you know where the scope of work is and then he can turn it in that would probably be the ideal way to handle that yeah you probably need to do the highlighting for him on it um knowing that it's both sides and the little strips connecting to the house as well so the side strips and down to the back of the fence but not The Back Fence and make sure it's the full copy of the survey because that was the other issue that I was having was they were splitting the survey in half yeah somehow there was an upload error with the system they had done it multiple times so okay so they need to reh highlight and resubmit okay um so I'm clearly going to continue this your compliance date um right now I think we're at we had a compliance date of yesterday so we're going to extend the compliance date to February 12th which is the next the day before the next hearing with a compliance hearing on uary 13th is there anything else we're missing besides reh highlighting this paper for again what I was told a permit was issued for non-existent fence no there's nothing else I can't answer that question for you um I just suggest that maybe after you resubmit maybe you contact the county to make sure um you've got from now till February 12th to make sure that everything's highlighted appropriately I thought as of December 30th with the email from everybody here that we were good to go so okay so if you will um do that um we'll continue the compliance date until February 12th 2025 with a compliance hearing of of February 13th 2025 thank you here thank you next case 2440 cesm Rebecca Wiggins Miss Wiggins if you will raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Jason ruer S County inspector this is case number 2440 cesm located at 1217 Gil Street poka um violation semal county code chapter 40 appendix a 105.1 uh this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on August 8th 2024 and an order was issued given the respondent the compliance date of October 9th 2024 with a me scheduled for October 10th and October 10th it was cancelled due to weather and was continued to December 12th 2024 December 12 2024 special magistrate issued an order continuing the case again to uh January 9th 2025 uh administrative costs in this case for the clerk or $227 15 administrative cost for the inspector in this case are $942 65 for a total of $1,698 cents um recommend the special magistrate issuing an order constituting a lean recor active back to October 9th 2024 and continues to acrw for $50 per day until in compliance um when I was out to deliver the notice here um for this hearing I was able to talk to her and she's been trying to get engineering for the carport and has not been having any luck but I'll let her speak to that just so you that concludes my presentation thank you yes ma'am would you have do you have something you'd like to add well you asked me last time to get a measurement of the carport and I did that I've got it right here if you want it it was a little wider than my driveway and they were Cur curious about that so from a standpoint for setbacks or something I don't so I don't know I can't recall if it's been explained to miss Wiggins but the structure is not attached to the residence and in this zoning District um no accessory structure can project in front of the primary residence so this carport is not going to be able to obtain a variance nor will it be able to be permitted so it needs to be removed it needs to be removed it can't be removed what why can it not be removed the lines go so far down I I wouldn't be able to afford to have it taken down I don't understand why she could have it cut at the pole at the poles it's an I paid anchors I paid for it and they should have permitted it but apparently they didn't you you actually can't have a carport that's not attached to your house on your driveway not in this zoning District not in a residential zoning District I can't hear not in a residential zoning District other people do they can be attached to your home so it would have to be structurally attached to the house or it can be in your sidey yard not projecting forward of the primary residence but it cannot be forward of the building line of the primary residents well why didn't the people tell me that when they were putting it up I don't understand I've lived in that house since 71 how long has the carport been there how long is it it's 20 ft no how long has it been there since 19 I mean 2013 honest when um at our last hearing I don't recall her being told that it couldn't be there yeah I've never been told that before either what made us make that determination I think that picture that I just saw saw I realized that it was not attached to the house the angle because technically that shadow the one that that one right there seeing that shadow between the sun between the house and the carport was what that what just triggered it for me I don't think because technically this violation is not even an appropriate violation because if there's no way for her to get a permit then she doesn't have a violation for not having a permit well the building division sites for permited construction the forward of the building line is the Land Development code so they're citing for building code and it needing to come into compliance for a building permit that's when if they were to apply for a building permit that's when it would come to me and they would not be able to obtain it because they would not be able to obtain a a variance nor would they meet setback requirements right but I would what I would have needed to know that before I entered an order saying that she needed to get a permit because when she before us I told her she had to get a permit I understand I apologize I did not realize that it was not attached to the house and she can attach it to the house and get a permit for it and it can be there how well they had pictures of it pardon me I'm sorry they had pictures of it on the paperwork that I've got here that it it shows that it wasn't attached I mean she can structurally attach it she could you know add another Breezeway make the roof connect I mean there's a lot of things they can do with these structures to make it comply that's up to her if she wants to do those things we don't tell them how they can make them comply we just tell them they have to get a building permit to comply but I'm struggling a little a little bit now with this this is more of a Land Development code violation than it is a building permit violation um if if I were to have somebody put an attachment from it to the house they're saying yes oh okay then that's what I'll do okay so that's something you're willing to do yeah it would still need to meet setback requirements so on your site plan it would still need to meet front yard setback side yard setbacks but yes it is a possibility that if it was structurally connected to the house that you could keep it okay and so maybe the individual who does the connection for you could get the permit for the full thing right okay we'll take care of it I mean I had no idea that they didn't get a permit the first time I had no idea and it's been 15 years almost so origin when we were here we were here back in August and um with a compliance date of October and so what has happened between October and and now and I realized we obviously canceled the hearing on this side because of the weather problems I got sick twice okay and you wouldn't have wanted me here okay okay so so you're you um now can actively start this process of getting this how long do you think it will take I appreciate it I mean the permit is one thing the permit has to come before she puts the new connection up correct and can she get a permit as long as she's showing the connection to the house and well and provided that setbacks are appropriate more than likely she's going to need a variance front yard variance okay because the house meets the front yard setback so more than likely the carport does not based on GIS I mean that can be off a few feet so she may so what that means is there's another process that you would have to go through to there are what's called front yard setbacks to where the structure that's in your front yard has to be set back from the road a certain amount of feet depending on what the zoning district is and this placed carport Port appears to possibly be in the setback and so you would need a variance first that says it's okay for you to have the carport in this location then you would also need the building permit showing that it connects to the house and we're looking at 4 months 6 months out but I would need a site plan so I I would suggest that she gets with that company that's going to make the attachment so they can assist her with that site plan so that she has a strategically designed site plan that she can present with her variance packet that shows the full cuz that whatever she's going to attach it with like if she's adding a covered porch type structure that goes along with it I don't know how she's going to design it that may encroach so that I would have that whole thing designed um I'm going to give her my card so you can be in contact with me we'll get you through the variance process and your contractor can reach out to me as well and I'll help them through the process okay okay so I'm going to continue this to July 9th um so you're compliance date is now July 9th with a hearing on July 10th thank you and that should give you sufficient time to get um accomplished what you need to accomplish okay just and please keep in contact with Miss zorski okay because she will walk you through the process if you maintain contact with her just to let you know that people on both sides of me have carports and mine is the same length down the driveway as theirs theirs are attached to their house though they are attached yeah okay okay okay well and it's very possible they have variances and all of those things also so what am I do is go ahead and take it down and build a a wooden one I'm sorry to cause so much trouble I really am no not at all not at all I'm just I think you're in the right uh hands now and you're as long as you maintain contact with the county and go through the process it should work the way that it's supposed to thank you thank you you 22104 cesm James cram and Linda crem you made it you finally made it I feel terrible you can you can and this is just clean up where when did we send a new notice never this is good and the affidavit they got an affidavit non-compliance which triggered and [Music] then they came back this isn't my order so this is Kim's they got an extension through okay so this wasn't it it was and it's back from 2022 okay I'm going to call this case 22104 cesm James and Linda cram I'm going to find that they are in compliance at this time and I am not going to impose any penalties or costs in this matter thank you thank you you have no idea how happy that makes me they have worked hard to get into compliance all right yes yes final inspection on the last one is tomorrow awesome I got the letter on the deck that'll be done that'll be done perfect and then we're getting a bulldozer and I'm personally driving it over the garage there you go we're out all right great thank you is that why you made to stay all this time had I known you were here in incompliance we would have heard you sooner so sorry about that I told him I said Best For Last probably not that's right no it is you're Best For Last there you go I said 11 permits just about to be done oh goodness yeah that's why I gave you that list it's like look at all of these and then I think I'm done and I find one from 2003 that the contractor didn't close was like well all done now thank you thank you see you you're welcome okay let's you want to submit that okay let's start back over 2472 cesm Jason Rucker inspector simal County this is case number 2472 CSM is for the property located at 321 Freedom Trail noo um violation charges seminal county code chapter 40 pinix a 105.1 uh interior renovations to include mechanical electrical plumbing and building without the required permits um the initial inspection was done on January 22nd to 24 um the respondent the notice to the respondent was January 22nd 24 compliance St date and extensions were given and a followup inspection shows that the Via onsite and via the computer show that the violations remain on the property uh this is the proper appraisers U picture of the website where it shows that Erin Rodriguez and and Mindy Hernandez are the owner records of the property uh this is a copy of a signed return receipt for notice to the hearing here are the pictures that show the renovations being done they're in the process of uh and it's is still there still right there at that uh they did exterior stuff as well windows um the screen shows no permit applications have been obtained issued for the interior alterations this slide indicates the code that we cited them for uh s county code chapter 401 appendix a 105.1 based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2472 CSM it is determined that the respondents are the owner of records of the property at 3021 Freedom Trail and in possession of control of the property and in violation of semal county code chapter 40 pexa 105.1 I further recommend the special magistrate order the responded correct the violation honor before March 12th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondents shall obtain the required permits for the sded violation if the respondents do not comply with the order a f a $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance the respondent must contact the inspector to ver verify compliance I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request that it be entered into record that concludes my presentation the electronic case File will be um sub um accepted into the record as evidence um can you give me information regarding this being a repeat violation was there um a prior failure to obtain a permit on this property or with this respondent repeat offender uh just meaning that this particular property and this particular property owner have multiple cases for unpermitted construction the last case had a lean imposed back in November 2023 this particular case is just regarding the interior alterations which include mechanical electrical plumbing and building the scope of work on the violation for the previous case that had a lean imposed was for different different violations within the building code but they were still failure to obtain a permit related yes and there's are they currently um active on the the property is there an active order and code case with a fine running yes the lean was imposed in November 2023 a stockwork order was issued on the property they continue to operate and have construction performed what were the prior um failure to obtain permits what what type of work installation of fencing Gates columns exterior staircase a pole barn addition drywall paper driveway and Courtyard and demolition of mobile home so that um went through an entire case do you have the the code enforcement case number on that 23-53 cm and um same um property owners correct and then um time passed and now here we are with violations again for different type of failure to secure proper permits correct correct okay I'm going to um find that the property owner erene Eran Rodriguez Santos and Mandy Reyes Hernandez have been properly noticed to um be at this hearing and have failed to attend I'm going to find that there is sufficient evidence to show that they are in repeat violation of seol county code chapter 40 appendix a section 105.1 and I'm going to order that they bring the property into compliance with the new permit violations by March 12th 2025 or a fine of $500 a day will be imposed this is a repeat violation because prior they have failed to obtain permits and they've done it again even though they've done it for the same they've done it for different reasons it's still failure to obtain a permit so it will be um $500 a day for each and every day after um April or March 12th uh 2025 and um this is not a homesteaded property okay next case 2336 cesm Patrick McCarthy and Nicole McCarthy Jason Rucker semal County Inspector this is case number 2336 CSM um I do need to tell you that he called me yesterday and said that he was admitted to the hospital and would be be able to be here today so um so let's go ahead and continue um till the next hearing date in February um I will not continue compliance I'll just continue the hearing okay ch they're in compliance yes they they are in compliance okay let me at that one a second no there are costs involved and some continuances so I'm going to um continue the um compliance hearing understanding that they are in compliance at this time but the um lean hearing will be held when they are um capable of coming on February [Applause] 12th okay 24 37 no 22 23 cesm Jason Rucker simal County Inspector uh this is case number 2213 cesm located at 499 Rocky bur Court um in violation of the simal county code chapter 40 pinex a 105.1 uh this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on February 10th uh 2022 and an order was issued given the respondent a compliance date of June 10th 2022 on June 9th 2022 special magistrate issued in order extending the compliance date to August 11th 2022 and Affidavit of non-compliance was filed by the inspector after reinspection on August 12th 2022 on March 9th 20123 special magistrate issued an order extending the compliance date to April 8th 2023 an Affidavit of compliance was filed after the inspector reinspected um an after for David of repeat violation was filed by the inspector after reinspection on June 12th 2024 an Affidavit of non-compliance was filed um by the inspector after reinspection August 6 2024 on August 8th 2024 special magistrate issued an order extending the compliance date to October 9th uh with a meeting of October 10th um and on October 10th uh we were closed due to wether conditions um November 14 2024 special magistrate issued an ex uh order extending the compliance date to January 8th 2025 with a meeting date of January 9th 2025 administrative cost process this case for the clerk total is $400 $455 the administrative cost to process this case for the inspector is $480 for a total of act up back to January 88th 2025 and it continues to crew at $500 a day until in compliance that completes my presentation I'm going to find that my um amended order dated November 18 2024 providing a new compliance date to January 8th 2025 was provided to the um respondent that shows a compliance hearing for today at 1:30 the um do you have where the green card was returned it was signed and returned I'm going to find that um they were fully notified to be here today for this compliance hearing I'm going to find that there is testimony and evidence presented showing that they are still in violation um as of the date um that they were to come into compliance January 8th I'm going to impose the fine of $500 a day effective January 888th 2025 and I'm going to impose costs in the amount of $910 35 cents to be paid um within 30 days and if not will um be recorded as a lean along with my order um encumbering the property and the respondent thank you 2437 cesm Jason Turner Jason Rucker simal County Inspector this is case number 2437 cesm uh located at 5725 North Road uh in violation of simal county code chapter 40 appendix a Section 105 5.1 this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on July 11th 2024 and an order was issued given the respondents a compliance date of October 9th 2024 with a meeting scheduled for October 10th October 10th had to be canceled due to weather um so it was rescheduled for December 12th on December 12th an order was issued extending the compliance date to January 8th 2025 with a meeting date of today January 9th 2025 the administrative cost to process this case for the clerk uh was $277 the administrative cost for the inspector was $875 70 for a total of $1,827 recommend the special magistrate issu an order constituting a lean director Act of back to January 8th 2025 and continues to acrew at 250 per day until in compliance that concludes my presentation I'm going to find that uh my amended order was the Green Card return sign on the amended order dated December 19th 2024 okay the green card was um signed and returned um so the amended order giving a compliance date of January 8th 2025 um was received with a compliance hearing date of January 9th 2025 at 1:30 and the respondent has failed to um attend I'm going to find that the property is still in violation and I'm going to um ratify my prior order um and impose the fine of $250 a day um starting on January 8th 2025 and I'm going to impose costs in the amount of $182.7 to be paid within 30 days both of which will um be recorded as a lean against the property until violation is complied and they uh fees are paid thank you 2468 [Music] cesm sorry you you pronounced that name I can't do it I'm going to pronounce way too many um consonant I'm certain Jason Rucker simal County Inspector this is case number 2468 cesm uh located at 1028 MX Drive naakka uh violation of s county code chapter 40 penic a 105.1 this case was originally heard by Special M rate on December 12th 2024 and an order was issued giving the responded compliance date of January 8th 2025 with a meeting scheduled for January 9th 2025 administrative costs for the clerk are $118.6 administrative costs for the inspector are $690 2016 for a total of $88.39 recommend that special magistrate issue an order con constituting a lean retroactive back to January 8th 2025 and continuing to AC crew at $250 per day until in compliance that concludes my presentation the um respondent was not present at the hearing where I imposed the order and fine on December 19th um no on December 12th 2024 um was the green card returned as being received okay was the first class mail um it was sent out by first class mail as well did we post the property at all with the property was posted December 27th okay perfect I'm GNA find that the um respondent was notified of the finding of fact conclusion of Law and Order imposing fine that was imposed on the 19th day of December back to the hearing date of December 12th 2024 and I'm going to um find that um that order did in fact notify of the hearing date for today um and that they have failed to appear I'm going to impose the fine effective January 8th 2025 in the amount of $250 a day and I'm going to impose [Applause] costs in the amount of $883 cents to be paid within 30 days 2469 cesm Jason ruer simal County Inspector this is case number 469 cesm located at 740 Old Lake Harney Road Geneva U violation of simal county code chapter 40 appendix a 105.1 this case was originally heard by special Magistrate on December 12th 2024 and an order was given to the respondant to comply um by January 8th 2025 with a meeting date of today January 9th 2025 administrative cost processes CL case for the CLK is 9866 administrative costs for this case for the inspector was $500 $52.70 for a total of $616 recommend the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean retroactively back to January 8th 2025 um and continues to ACR at 250 per day until in compliance that concludes my presentation was the finding of fact conclusion Law and Order um provided to the respondent I know it was mailed certified and regular um was it was the green card returned for the certified mail okay so the green card has been returned and the property was posted the um I'm going to find that respondent was uh provided with um the proper notice for compliance as of January 8th 2025 and that the respondent um has failed to show even though the order indicated that there would be a compliance hearing today at 1:30 I'm going to find that the property evidence has been provided to show that the property is still in violation and the fine I'm going to ratify my prior order order dated December 12th 2024 or dated December 16th 20124 I'm sorry um with a hearing date of December 12th 2025 I'm going to impose the fine and the amount of $250 a day effective January 8th 2025 and I'm going to impose costs in the amount of $ 6136 to be paid within 30 days okay I believe that's the last case um I'm going to accept the minutes from the December um hearing and approve those from the December 12th hearing and confirm that our next meeting is scheduled for February 1 2025 we're adjourned [Music] [Music]