Afternoon. We're going to go ahead and get started. My name is Sher Setin. I am the special magistrate for uh Simol County. The way the process works is um the county will present its case first and it will provide all of its witnesses
and any evidence it has. You will be able to cross-examine any of the county witnesses. However, you will not be able to present any evidence or witnesses of your own until such time as the county has completed its case. Once it completes its case, it will then be your
opportunity to provide any witnesses or or evidence that you have. I will make a decision here today as to whether there is a violation or not. If there is a violation and you're here for the first time, you stand to have a penalty of up to $250 a day imposed for each and every
day after the time frame given that the violation remains. If you are here for a repeat violation, you stand to have a penalty of up to $500 a day imposed for each and every day that a violation remains after a time period for compliance has been provided. So, we're
going to go ahead and get started. If you do have an agenda in front of you, please do not follow it in order because we will not be going in order. Um, we have a method to our madness up here. So, bear with us. If you've signed in, you will be called, I assure you. Okay,
we're going to go ahead and start with 25. Um, wait, let me I'm sorry. 2277 CESM and that is BNB Land Holdings LLC James Betts.
Yeah. Good afternoon, Madam Magistrate. Actually, I did not approve the consent agenda. So, let me do that first before we get to you all. Um, I'm going to The consent agenda is provided where um the county is requesting continuences. I'm going to go ahead and
approve the consent agenda with respect to 246362 CESM, 2520 CESM, 2521 CESM, 2522 CESM, and 2523 CESM.
And if I have any county uh staff members that are going to provide any testimony, if we can do swearing in, please. Do you all solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Okay. Thank you. And then we'll go ahead and swear you in, sir, if you're going to provide testimony. 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. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. This is for case
22-77 CESM, the property owner of B andB Land Holding LLC at 3468 East State Road uh 436 Apopka in Semino County. The violation charged, excuse me. This case was originally heard by the special
magistrate on October 13, 2022, and an order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of January 12th, 2023. Uh, several affidavit of non-compliance were filed by the inspector. On February 13, 2025, an order was issued extending
the compliance date to May 7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $395.80. The cost to process the case for the inspector totals
$1,17028 for a total of $1,5668 for both the inspector and the clerk. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issues an order imposing the administrative cost totaling $1,5668 and require these costs to be
paid within 30 days or the fine will constitute a lean on the property. This concludes my presentation. So the property is in compliance. It is not in compliance. Okay. So that I need some
testimony regarding why it's not in compliance and if we are looking to have the the um lean imposed. All right, let me get the case file and Inspector Brent Griffin is actually here to provide some testimony regarding the permit applications. Thank
you. Okay, those go back submitted got interior alteration and then the next slide. So that's plan review correction since December. So, I just need to tell her
there's no corrections that have been done since December, right? Yeah. Yeah. They haven't we haven't heard anything back. So, the applications are just there. I'm Brent Griffin, Simol County Building Inspector.
Um there hasn't been any stuff done with the property since December um 1216 of 2024. Well, we were back here though on January 9th in February 13th,
which is what got us to the continuences. Was the property owner I'm I'm assuming Alexis, can I have the orders? I'm assuming that each of those times there was an indication that the property owner was working with you.
We're on our fifth amended order. Order was issued extend there. So, is your mic? No. No, our mics aren't on this one. I don't have the corrections printed out in here. Good afternoon, Megan Zenorski.
Um, for planning, um, it appears that they're still in review for their small site plan for planning that they're still working through correction comments. Um, I just pulled the small site plan. So, they have not gotten through what needs to be approved, which
is a small site plan, um, in order to submit that back for their building permit. So, they haven't gotten through us to get through their corrections for a building. Okay. And are they continuing to provide you with um
respond to comments? And I'm not the project manager for that project. I apologize. So, I'm not familiar. Um give me one moment to work through. Um it appears that the last resubmitt
um there looks like there might have been a gap of a couple of months um but I don't know with drafting um from engineer I would wait to hear back from what the applicant as far as what documents needed to be resubmitted. Um,
but it does look like there was a span of maybe 60 days from when they got their comments to when they resubmitted. Um, which sometimes can be typical depending on engineers um, getting documentation back to staff. Um, but it
seems like they did then resubmit um, in April and then again May. So, it does look like they're they're being cyclical and they are submitting um but that we they do not have an approved site plan at this
point. Okay. Thank you. So, does the county have um any objection to provided I hear something from the respondent that gives me good reason for
the lack of a final site plan submitt. Um, do you have any objection to continuing the matter to enable them to finalize that part of everything? No, we do not. Okay. Um, 90 days. And is this
um part of the electronic case file? Um, this screen it is. Okay. Would you like to submit the electronic case file into the record as evidence? Yes. Okay. Do you have any objection to the electronic case file being submitted?
Okay. All right. Do you And I see you have someone new. Do you want to Okay. I was just up with Joy Giles and she said it's already been admitted. Can I swear you in New Zealand the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Okay. Yes. So Tara Rose on behalf of respondent this is our general contractor Ken Nelson and so he was just here to essentially reiterate those comments so you can just let them know what's happened since I was just up with Joy Giles. She said it's been approved
on her end. The last person has to prove it is Jim Potter and from what I understand he's agreed to everything we've sent him. So it's just a matter of days it sounds like before we'll be able to proceed and get it over with. Okay. So are we talking 30 days that it would
take? I mean, just in case I would say cuz this is only the second submission. I would say give us 60 just in case. But I from what she's saying, it could just be, you know, a week or two possibly. But again, that's not to say Jim Potter is going to stamp off on it because I don't know that for sure. Okay. Does the
county have an objection to a 60-day continuance? Um, we're thinking 90. Okay. Just to give them a little extra time. Okay. Even better. I think we No objections. Okay. All right. then we will go ahead and continue this matter
um the compliance date um to let me pull that calendar up. Sweet. So that looks like August 13th with a compliance hearing date of August 14th. Sorry.
Okay. Then that's what we will do. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. August 13th with a compliance hearing date of August 14th. Okay. And I do not see McGra Love here, is he?
That's not fair. The county attorney's office is waiting. attorneys. What about the translation? And is the translation necessary on that one? Do we know? Okay, then we'll pray. Okay, next case
25001 CESM Josh Kinsney and Andre Lancaster or Andre Lancaster, I'm sorry, is the property owner. Oh, I have it right here for my face.
Look at that. Who would have thought? Try it looking there. God chair. I don't know. I didn't know we had one. Oh, hey, look at that. There we go. And will both of you be providing
testimony? Okay. If I could swear you both in. Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And can you state your names, please? Josh Canel, Andre Lancaster. Thank you.
Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 25-1 CESM is for the property located at 115 Larksburg Drive in Altoont Springs, which is owned by Andre Lancaster. The violation charged is Seminal County Code, Chapter 40,
Appendix A, section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of an addition to the back of the house without the required permit. The next slide shows our case summary, which is as follows. We had our initial inspection on February 1st, 2024. Sent the notice to the respondent
February 5th, 2024 and compliance dates and extensions that were given are shown on the screen as well as the follow-up inspections for the site visits as well as computer inspections. The results of those reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. This
screenshot from the property appraisers website shows that Andre Lancaster is the record owner of the property. The next slide shows the photograph of the notice of this hearing that was posted on the property April 23rd, 2025. This is a photo of the addition to
the back of the house. The violation uh this was taken during the inspection on February 1st, 2024. This is a photograph of the same violation taken April 17th, 2024. And these photos were taken January
30th, 2025. This slide shows the permit applications that have been applied for and issued uh for this parcel. The permit number 25-552 for rebuild storage is an application that was received January
14th, 2025. Um it will correct uh the violation and it's currently under review. It has not yet been issued as a permit due to required corrections that were submitted to the applicant April 16th, 2025. This slide shows the plan review
workflow routing slip for that permit application. Uh the task for the corrections is currently on the applicant side awaiting those documents to be uploaded. The next slide shows a copy of chapter 40 which they are in violation
of and our recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-1 CESM. It is determined that the respondent is the owner of record of the property located at 115 Larksburg Drive, Alultimont Springs in Seminal County as determined by the
property appraisers records in possession or control of the property and in violation of the seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. It's further recommended that uh the special magistrate order the respondent to correct the violation on
or before July 9th, 2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall obtain the required permit for the cited violation. If the respondent does not comply with the order, a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day that the violation continues or is repeated after
compliance. Uh the respondent must contact the inspector to verify uh compliance. The inspector on this case is Brent Griffin. I'm Brent Griffin with Simol County Building Division. I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk
and request it be entered into the record. Okay. This concludes our presentation. Do you have any objection to the documentation that is in front of you, the electronic case file being submitted into the record? No, not at all. Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and
accept it into the record. I will also for the record note the letter that was received um from your builder um Sunstate Plans LLC um indicating that they have um been
working with the building department related to the submittals. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Um, so that gives us until July 9th and that means we have to get the inspections done as well by July 9th. That's just the permit. Try to get the
permit through. Okay. Yeah, cuz they they said they'll get it back to us soon. But every time I talk to them, we have everything gets pushed out couple weeks. So that's why we're here. We were going to request another continuance. So I got into this after everything had
already been started to help him finish through the process. So, I'm kind of like taking lead with uh contacting Sun State Plans to get everything situated and done. Well, you can let Sunate Plans know that
I've accepted their letter as their word that they're going to follow through with this. And so, um then I think that you probably can't achieve obtaining the permit by July 9th. Yes. Could I get a copy of that emailed to me so I can send that over to them? So, you'll actually
get a copy of the order and you can provide the order to them that indicates July 9th is your compliance time. Got it. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. We'll um go ahead and order that compliance be achieved by July 9th
or a fine in the amount of $150 a day will be imposed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, the next case 2528
CESM GRE2 King Greek King LLC. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So much help is amazing. I love it. Your inspectors are the best. Thank you, J. Okay, sir, can you raise your right
hand, please? 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. Can you state your name for the record, please? David Basquez. Great. Okay. Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, building
division. Case 25-28 CESM is for the property located at 2385 Pine Street, Ovito, Florida, which is owned by Grey King LLC. The violation charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation
is interior residential alterations to include but not limited to removed and replace trusses, main meter base and weather head, electrical and enclosing a wallwind opening without the required permits. The case summary is as follows.
The initial inspection was conducted June 3rd, 2024 with a notice to the respondent sent June 3rd, 2024 as well. The compliance dates and extensions provided are shown on the screen as well as the follow-up inspections from the on-site visits as well as computer
reinspections. The results of those inspections are that the violation remains on the property. This is a a screenshot that shows the property appraisers website showing Grey King LLC as the record owner of the property. And we have a picture of the
notice of hearing for this hearing which was posted on the property April 24th, 2025. These are photos of the interior renovations and the meter base taken during the inspection on May 30th, 2024. And these are photos of the outside of
the residence showing the exterior renovations. Uh this was taken during the inspection June 21st, 2024. This is a photo of the enclosed window/wall area taken April 28th, 2025. And this is our screen showing the
permit applications that have been received uh for this parcel. There have been no permits issued to correct the violation. There are two permit applications uh submitted regarding the particular violations here. Both of them have been overdue with corrections on
the applicant side for over a 100 days each. Uh the next slide shows the workflow routing slip. Uh this is for permit 24-16717. These are examples of some of the comments that have been left by plans reviewers from multiple departments for
that permit. You're good. This is the the next permit. Same thing. This is where the workflow routing slip is. As of May 7th, this was currently over a 100 days overdue as you can see. And those are examples of the comments that have been left in association with that permit
application. This is a copy of chapter 40 in which they are in violation of excuse me. The recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-28 CESM. It's determined that
the respondents are the owners of record of the property located at 2385 Pine Street in Ovido in Semino County. As determined by the property appraisers records, they're in possession or control of the property and in violation of the Seminal County Code, chapter 40,
appendix A, section 105.1. It is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondents to correct the violation on or before July 9th, 2025. In order to correct those violations, the respondent shall obtain the required permits for
the cited violations. If the respondents do not comply with the order, a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violations continue or are repeated after compliance. Uh, the respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance. The inspector assigned to
this case is Brent Griffin. I'm Brent Griffin, Siminal County Building Inspector. I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request it be entered into the record. This concludes our presentation. Do you have any objection to the electronic
case file that's been presented to you being um submitted into the record? Um no, I don't have any objections. I believe there is uh two case files, two separate case files that were submitted. Three. Three. This is the first one.
Okay. So, um no, it's that those two will be handled separately and they have separate record that go with them. Perfect. Okay. We'll go ahead and um accept the electronic case file into the record. Would you like to provide anything further, sir? Um, should I wait
for the other uh records to be presented? No, you're going to do each case separately. There are separate Yeah, there are separate individuals who handled the cases. Okay. So, this is my first time going through this process. Okay. Surprised um for um I don't I
don't know if I should have any objections. Um we as soon as we learned that we were we had an issue and we were violating uh any um construction um process uh we immediately stopped uh what we were doing and I stopped the
contractors at the time. Uh so we haven't that's why no work has been performed since uh it we took it took us a little bit of time to be able to uh contact engineer a general contractor
and um an architect. So it was three different steps that we took towards um working towards um being in compliance with the whole process with uh Seino County. Um, some of them have moved into bigger
projects which have made uh the process of us working through the system a little bit harder because it's harder for me to get a hold of them and for them to uh move work along. Um, so that's why I trying to see how I can
figure out a way to start a maybe change into me being the the only reason we have a corporation is for financing from the bank. That was the only reason we started a a corporation. The corporation is basically just me uh with a different
name. Uh, and it was just for financing purposes for a construction loan. But you can't do owner builder as with a corporation. No, I would need to refinance my property, my personal property, and try to pay it off so I can start doing the work on my own um for uh
the the county, which I didn't know was as something that I needed to do. So then that means you have not secured anyone at this point to we we understand we do have somebody secured but it's been hard to get uh yesterday I tried to contact him in three separate locations
while I was moving around the offices and uh we uh we were we were supposed to communicate no communication happened as soon as I get out of the today I'm planning to contact him again see where we're at. I'm trying to for him not to
dismiss erh our work together to put it that way. I'm trying to make it easy for him so we can just move through the process, get along and get the project finished. Well, I would um just a a little piece of advice, if he's not responding to
you, it might be time to get someone new to help you. Yeah. Because now this is going to affect you. And if he doesn't comply within the time frames that you're given, it doesn't hurt him, it hurts you. Yeah, definitely.
Um, so the county is giving you till July. And the other thing that is happening in the background that you're not aware of is they're incurring costs as this progresses. So if you come back here in July and you haven't done
anything or been completed what you're supposed to complete, then they're incurring more costs, which means once you do finally come into compliance, you're going to have a lot of of costs racked up. So, you need to be mindful of that as well because that doesn't hurt
your professionals, that hurts you. Um, so I'm going to go ahead and um um do you think that you can get a permit by July? I mean, I would hope so.
Uh we're we're pretty uh far along the process right now. We're just uh needing some licenses to be submitted and some insurance that I should be able to cover so we could go into that process. But his permits expired, isn't that correct?
Or about to his Well, his application is just very overdue. It's 149 days, I believe, is the the oldest one. So, technically, an application may time out in the digital workflow after 180 days.
Okay. So I think it's 180 or 180 days. You're knocking up against that door. Yeah. Time elapse 179 days. Yeah. So is the the workflow is going to stay open. We can give the permit texts a heads up and just let them know that you're in the
process. Um I just need to get started, get moving on the permit application as quickly as possible. Yeah. Because if I'm given till July, I don't want the workflow to stop. If we've given him till July here, the workflow needs to at least stay open till that point. Okay.
Gotcha. Understood. Okay. So, we're going to go with July. That means you um come into compliance by July 9th and you have a compliance hearing on July 10th.
And if you do not come into compliance um by July 9th, I'm going to oppose a penalty of $250 a day. Street. Okay. And if you will just stay seated. Our next case is 2529 CESM. And
I will remind you that you're still under oath. I'm moving. I'm moving. I'm moving. I'm moving. I thought you were Cara. Thank you. And Officer Hall, you were sworn in originally until I'm sorry. Good lord.
Officer Hill, Smol County Sheriff's Office, Code Enforcement, East Region. This is case 2529 CESM, Gray King LLC. Registered agent is David Vazquest. This property is located at 2385 Pine Street in Ovido, Florida.
Violation charge is Siml County Code, chapter 95, section 95.4 4 as defined in 95.3A rubbish. My initial inspection was May 29th, 2024 with notice to respondent on June 6th and July 9th of 2024.
Compliance dates were June 24th and July 23rd of 2024 with multiple followup inspections including yesterday. One was conducted in the morning and then one was again conducted about 6:00 last night. The results of my followup inspection is the violation of rubbish
still remains on the subject property. These photos were taken on my initial inspection on May 29th, 2024. There is some rubbish um in the front of the house and on the side of the residence. These photos were taken on May 29th,
2024. These photos were taken on June 28th, 2024. These photos were taken on June 28th, 2024. tree debris and some type of gas cylinders. These photos were taken on
July 8th, 2024. These photos were taken on the same date. These were taken on July 24, 2024. The tree debris remains um these violation still remains in front of the carport and in the backyard on July 8th,
2024. These photos were taken day of posting on April 24th, 2025. These photos were taken on the same day. A photo of my posting on April 24th,
2025. These photos were taken yesterday morning. The rubbish um in front of the carport was removed. Um but other rubbish remains on the property. the next slides. Um some the trash bags and the old drywall remain along with the
cylinders and these photos were taken on the 7th. There's now a new house being built kind of behind it. Um the the blue arrow on the left shows the marker for the property line. So showing that this tree debris is on um Mr. Vasquez's property.
The suggested recommendation based on testimony and evidence presented in 2529 CESM is determined that the respondent Grey King LLC David Vazquez is registered agent or the owners of record located at 2385 Pine Street in Seminal County is determined by property
appraisers records in possession or controller property and is in violation of seminal county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3A. It is further recommended that the special magistrate issue an order for the respondent correct the violation
honor before midnight of May 23rd, 2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondant must remove the rubbish from the property. The respondent does not comply. A fine of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated. So, just a little background information. This case was open May of last year. I received a
phone call from Mr. Vazquez on July around July 3rd of last year. He said that he was out at the property that day. He took some photos, sent them to his vendor, and he said the rubbish would be removed by that Saturday. I had asked him about the vegetation violation
because he did not mention that, and he kind of hesitated and said, "I'll get that taken care of as well." So then I went out on July 8th and the violation still remained. I had not heard from Mr. Vasquest since last year until yesterday. I received a voicemail
stating that the rubbish violation was in compliance. So, I went out again last night around 6:00 and determined that the only rubbish that was removed was a small pile in front of the carport, not the bags of trash or the um old drywall or the tanks in the backyard. This
concludes my presentation. Okay. Would you like to submit the electronic case file into the record? Yes, ma'am. Do you have any objection to the electronic case file being submitted into the record? I don't have any objections uh of it being submitted into the case record. Thank you.
Okay, it's your turn. Yes. Uh, so if I see it here as page six in my in the well, basically since since page five, um, yes. So, all that rubbish was taken
care of. I had a a vendor come in and take care of that rubbish, which was uh some debris from uh the previous construction. They were not supposed to leave it there. They were supposed to take it um and they left it in the front of the house. Some
of the rubbish I did not recognize, so I understand it might have been somebody that dropped it off uh there, but we still took care of it. That's the one in page um six and five. Um I believe the officer um
doesn't have any additional pictures of the area because the rubbish was taken care of. Um and then going from there, uh when we received the notice of additional rubbish, we understood it was the one in
front of the carport. So, um I contacted again, uh another landscaping company uh to take care of the of that rubbish. That's the one shown in page 8. That should not be there any well, that is not there anymore. I sent pictures
yesterday regarding that. Um, uh, we were not aware that we needed to take care of basically the rubbish in page nine. That those two gas cylinders, we did not pay too much attention to them
to be honest. They're in the back of the house. They're not in the not in the front of the house. Uh, so we did not understand. We we didn't receive any notice of what were the violations. So, we just kind of went by common sense and then took care of the rubbish in front
of the house. Um, as far as the one presented in page 10, um, we are actually we were uh presented the property as it being um where uh the house currently is, the
old house currently is and the new house is being built. So, they presented the whole lot as the property. Uh we just found out that the lot had been segregated into lots 7 and 7A. Um and that is where uh the officer noticed
that there is now an entryway through the basically the left side of the building. And as you can see, I believe is in the um in the last page, you can see where they basically they the page
17. Uh they basically cut away through that area and that's where I believe all that stick rubbish came from cuz it honestly doesn't make any sense uh where from my property that rubbish came from.
um if need to be taken care of then we would work towards that. That wouldn't be an issue. We just I honestly don't usually drive in that direction or I just figured I I didn't pay too much attention to that area cuz I didn't
notice it that well. It's it it basically leads to the road that was currently uh made by my now um but neighbors in the back. You can notice it's basically a trail to
the back of the new property. Okay. But you're you're being told that the debris does need to to be picked up. And it if it it looks rather old to me, so it looks like it's been there for a while. It doesn't look like it's newly
cut brush that would have been cut from a recent path. Yes. I don't know how long they've been working there. Um, I had to be for for my work purposes. I had to be out of town uh for the last couple of months. That's where I make my
income and I just purchased this property um from some excess money and I didn't want to waste it. So, uh so we're trying to fix it little by little. So, it takes a little bit of time for us. We just noticed recently that there was a
building being built in the back of a house being built in our what supposedly was our part of our property. Uh but now we the vend the seller divided the lot into seven and 78 but that's a different
situation. Okay. So, I think that you you can see by the pictures what all is required under the um the ordinance for you to clean up off of your property. And if you have any questions, you need to contact Officer Hill. She will gladly
meet you out there and walk through with you everything that needs to be removed. But I think that what is left on this property from both your testimony and officers hill officer Hill's testimony
can be removed by um May 23rd. And so I'm going to go ahead and order that the offending rubbish be cleared from the property by May 23rd or a fine in the amount of $250
a day will be imposed. And let me make sure that you understand that after you clean it up, you can't allow it to accumulate back on the property. Even if someone else is bringing it in, it's still your responsibility. So, if you're not here
or in town, you need to have someone that's watching the property because a second violation of this type stands to have a penalty of up to $500 a day. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Going to go ahead and call 2530
CESM. Is this your last one? Yes. Thank you. Officer Hill, Sim County Sheriff's Office, Code Enforcement, the East Region. This is case 2530, CESM. Respondent is Grey King LLC and David Vazquez, registered agent.
This property is located at 2385 Pine Street in Novito, Florida. Violation charge of SEL County Code Chapter 95 section 95.3 95.4 is defined in 95.3B uncultivated vegetation. My initial inspection was May 29th of 2024 with
notice to respondent on June 6th and July 9th of 2024. Compliance dates of June 24th and July 23rd, 2024 with follow-up inspections including yesterday morning and in the evening. The results of my inspection was the violation of uncultivated vegetation rem
remains on the subject property. These photos were taken on my initial inspection on May 29th, 2024. This is the uh side and backyard. These photos were taken on the same date. Backyard as well. This photo was taken on the same
date. Another shot from the backyard. These photos were taken on June 28th, 2024. These photos were taken of the um front front yard on June 28th, 2024. These photos were taken again on
June 28th, 2024. This backyard sideyard. These photos were taken on July 8th, 2024. And this is the backyard. These photos were taken on July 8th as well. This uh was the front yard and
backyard. Photos were taken on July 8th. the backyard. So were taken on July 24th, 2024. Backyard and front yard. These photos were taken on the same date. Another um photo taken from the
sideyard. So those were taken on July 24th of the backyard. Photos were taken on July 24th as well. Photos were taken on the day of posting on April 24th, 2025.
These photos were taken yesterday morning and same date. Sorry, garden and backyard. These swears were taken yesterday as well of the backyard. The suggested recommendations based on the testimony and evidence presented in case
2530 CSM. It is determined that the respondent Grey King LLC David Vasque has res registered agent are the owners a record located at 2385 Pine Street located in Simol County determined by property appraisers records in possession or control of property and is in violation of Simol County Code
Chapter 95 section 95.4 is defined in 95.3b. It's further recommended special magistry issue an order for the respondant to correct the violation honor before midnight of May 23rd 2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent must remove all uncultivated vegetation excess of 8 inches in height from the subject property. Spondent does
not comply with with the order. A fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance. Forgot to add, I did call Mr. Vazquez back last um last last night. Um his voicemail said text is better. So I did text him at 5:41 um
last night and I did not receive any any contact back. This concludes my presentation. Would you like to submit the electronic case file into the record? Yes, ma'am. Do you have any objections to the electronic case file being submitted? No, ma'am. Okay, I'll accept it. Okay. Yes. Um, I would for
both cases, I would just like to mention that we were victims of vandalism and I think that's probably why they got called in initially and then a lot of that produced debris from the cleanup and that was part of it. Um, we have no
objection to um taking care of the lawn by basically the the maintenance of the lawn by May 23rd, 2025. Uh, as I said, if I don't know if the officer remembers, the backside of my house was basically a forest. Um, we purchased the
property as a a rehab property and that was our intention to fix it up and get it um under order and and get it fixed. We have stopped since we received a stop order. Um be but we have uh the best
intentions to comply with everything that the building and the permitting and zoning and any department requests from us as well as uh code enforcement. We should we we don't have any any complaints or any issues. We and I'm I apologize for um I probably saw the
phone call or didn't see the phone call but you know Florida we get like calls every day for cars for solar panels for everything. So you if you don't know the numbers you usually don't answer. That's why I usually ask to receive a text message. I will look for your text
message uh ma'am and then I'll try to keep uh your phone and my um in my in my uh my uh my book my cell phone book thing. So um uh so so so we can keep in
constant communication and everything is under compliance. Okay. I would and I just want to let you know that I understand the whole stop work thing, but even though you stop work where without a permit, you still need to keep your grass mowed. You still
need to keep your the lawn clean and those sorts of things. So, these other two cases are somewhat unrelated. It didn't mean stop all work and stop maintaining your property. It just meant stop working where you don't have a permit. Okay. So again, I'm going to go ahead and order um that you come into
compliance by May 23rd, but then you have to have regular lawn maintenance on the property because if you don't, your next violation could be much higher. Um so compliance by May 23rd with a penalty of $250 a day if it's not clean, if it's not mowed by May 23rd. Perfect. That
should not be an issue. I think the the the company that did the work yesterday would definitely be able to do the work the constant um taking care of the property. Okay, great. I don't know if the gas tanks needs to be removed. I don't know how that works cuz if I
missed that the gas tanks, but I'm just Do you mean those the cylinders? Those are gas tanks. Those are propane tanks. So if if they're going to be used for cooking or or washer dryer right now, they're not being used. are just laying
in the backyard, so they're considered rubbish. But if it's something that he's going to use in the future, then he needs to put it someplace like in a shed or a garage or somewhere else that's not just laying out in the yard. Well, we'll do that. That's not an issue. That wouldn't be an issue. I would do it that
way. Okay. And I um do the clerk has given me a note um do need to set your compliance hearings for these cases because you're on an off date. So May 23rd, your compliance date. However, you'll be expected to come back here on
June 12th the and you'll receive that in the order. Okay. And that is if I did not say it for the record, that is the same for the 2529 CSM case as well. Okay. Thank
you. Next case 2425 CESM Amed and Sakina Neurom Muhammad Amedurham. You repeat the case number please.
2425. Thank you. Yes. 24. Which one is that? Good afternoon. For the record, McGregor Love 215 North Yola Drive. Yes, sir. It's page 13. You're good. Thanks, sir. Appreciate it.
Hm. Oh, he's Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 2425 CESM. Property owners Ahmed and Sikina Nuro Muhammad located at 846 Isle Point in Sanford. This case was originally heard by the
special magistrate on April 11th, 2024 and an order was issued giving the respondents a compliance date of July 10th, 2024 with a meeting scheduled July 11th, 2024. On March 13, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to
May 7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $345.31. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector cost uh totals
$66146 for a total of $1,6.77 for both the inspector and the clerk. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issues an order constituting a lean retroactively back to May 7th, 2025 at $50 per day and
continues to acrue until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. Inspector Brent Griffin is here for any follow-up questions. So, the property is no longer is still not in compliance. Correct. It is not.
Okay. And where are we with permitting? You can pull up the global screen. This is the retaining wall, right? Looks like they submitted a permit application uh for the retaining wall, but it's been in plan check status awaiting those required corrections. And
the next slide, does it show the So, these are the drainage comments for the permit application. And the next slide shows the natural resource comments which were submitted in April 2025. And there we've got zoning
corrections that were submitted in February 17, 2025 that have yet to be resolved. And that is those are the corrections. Okay. And there is um flood plane manager. Is is that the
zoning comments? natural resource officer because we have zoning natural resource and then drainage that's involved. Okay. And I think though that the um our drain Jim Potter who's does drainage
might have mentioned the flood plane shows impact to the flood planes with no compensating storage. Is that what you're talking about? No, I'm talking about the code which talks about the flood plane manager being able
to address building and construction within a flood hazard area, but we have a conservation easement that specifically says no construction permitted within the conservation easement.
Okay. And I did receive um a memo and I'm going to make the same ruling that I made before. Okay. Um the um I do do give some
um weight to the fact that you have a code that says that within a flood hazard area, which the memo that was provided that you did receive a copy of says that this
property is located in a flood hazard area. So taking that as a true statement that this property is located in a flood hazard area, then your code kicks in as to which parts of that um whether
whether you can evaluate construction within that easement. Um, I can entertain that and I can entertain the flood plane manager assessing whether construction can occur in this easement area based on the
factors of your code. Um, but that's where I am with this. So, if if there is and I I certainly will give Mr. um love an opportunity to respond as well, but I want to give the county um the opportunity first um to speak to
what steps have been done with the flood plane manager. Thank you. Uh Na Borer, deputy county attorney for the record. I am the one that prepared the memo that you received regarding the county's um opinion on the
status of this conservation easement um as far as the language on the plat and also the existence of this area being in a uh in the flood plane in the flood hazard area. Um, the county has an administrative
code that allows for certain that allows for conservation easements as they pertain, you know, to a conservation easement or wetlands or ones that are in flood planes due to flood planes to be um
released if uh they were done in error. The county has also interpreted that administrative code to allow for exchanges per se of conservation easement area if it can be shown that the property can find another location
on the property for compensating storage. I relayed that information to Mr. Love in a telephone call and told him that it's the county's opinion that um we this is a conservation easement. They're in a flood hazard area. And therefore, they would need to take the
steps that are required in the administrative code to be able to show why or how they can provide this compensating flood compensation on the site somewhere else if they're going to leave the retaining wall in place. I
spoke to Mr. Potter about that. We've we've offered this. It's been done in the past, albeit a long time ago, but it's been done in the past with um we've had another property more recently last year ask about it and this is the opinion that we've rendered. So I've
rendered that same opinion to Mr. Love um and he can speak for himself, but in our opinion um and I know the violation here is construction without a permit. So to rectify the violation, they need to get a permit. And the county's opinion that
to get that permit, they would have to go through this process to see if they would be able to do an exchange of the conservation easement, not a release because it's very clear that we can't release it unless um unless it was done in error. So if you're not in a flood
plane or if they can show that they're not or historically historically I should say have not been in it you know since the plat was recorded and they did the initial permitting on this. So that is the process that the county will con will would need to consider before um issuing the permit. Okay. Thank you. And
and I have I'll echo what Nissa said and I have no objection to the process that she's outlining. I appreciate her taking a phone call um last week I I believe it was and because it wasn't clear from my reading of the memo whether the county was still objecting in principle to
processing the permit at all or whether they were merely saying we have the authority to review it consistent with this process and in speaking with her as you just heard uh it's the latter which we have no objection to because initially when speaking with the
county's environmental department Sarah Hartg Um, that was more or less the process we were discussing before, which is we can we can process this, but we need to know that what you're doing is not going to adversely affect the neighboring property owners. I think the
administrative code just provides a more formal process for that. So, that's I've instructed my client to have his engineer work with the county's engineers to meet to figure out what that process looks like. Um, but to answer, you know, uh, Naya's comments, I
agree that that's that's our conversation and and we have no objection to going through that process. We do need some additional time to do it. Um, I would suggest two additional months. Um, but again, this is an engineering and review question that's a
little bit outside the scope of my understanding of how long it will take. Okay. And I and I just let me clarify for the record that it's it's not really a process for your engineer to work out with the county. It's the county's process. So, he's going to have to follow it and he's going to have to
comply. Correct. And then if for any reason they determine they are permitted under this process to determine that they're not going to grant a permit as well, that may be the result. Okay. Yeah. So, as long as we're clear that this doesn't mean that this is an
automatic permit. No, no, no, no. We were I I I merely was hoping we could get past the sort of and understanding that they that the county had the authority to to start the process because that's that I think initially that was the the hangup is that the county didn't believe they even had the
authority to review anything here. As long as there is a process to to go through, we will follow that process and follow whatever the conclusion is. Okay, good deal. Um do you have any objection to 60 days? No. Okay. All right. Then I will go
ahead and continue the compliance date for 60 days out which would be um compliance by July 9th with a compliance hearing of July 10th. Thank you, your honor. Appreciate it. Thank
you. Thank you. You wrote that down. Okay. The next case is 2534 CESM Juan GT Olazabal. Here we go. I'm so sorry. You're sorry.
Um, Maria Vega Guazado. I think you get it right. I'm sorry. I don't want to continue going down that path of misprononunciation. Yep. My turn.
Okay. Anyone who is going to provide testimony, if you'll please 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. And can you please state your names for the record? Franchesco Vega. Okay, good deal. Thank you.
Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Uh, case 2534 CESM is for the property located at 3464 North County Road 426 Geneva in Semino County, which is owned by Juan GT Olazabal Segoia,
Maria M. Vega, Guisado, Hana M. Olazaba Vega, and Francesca Ovega. The violation charged as seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 1051. The violation is remodeling the house with possible trust replacement without the required
permit. This is our case summary for our case. The initial inspection was completed April 1st, 2024 and the notice to respondent was sent the same day. The compliance dates and extensions are shown on the screen as well as the most recent inspections and computer
follow-up inspections. The results of those reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. This slide shows the copy of the property appraisers website showing that these owners are the record owners of the
property. This is a photo of the notice of hearing for this hearing which was posted on the property April 24th, 2025. This is a photograph of the main structure. It was taken during the last inspection on April 24th, 2025. And in
the left corner, it shows the remodeled uh house with the roof repair. This is a photograph of the main structure taken during the initial inspection on uh March 26, 2024, showing the exposed trusses and the roof repair.
The following slide was or pictures were taken August 15, 2024, showing updated roof repair. And this is another photo taken September 3rd, 2024. And again in October 17th, 2024,
this was the state of the house remodeling and the roof repair. This is a copy of the permits that have been submitted or issued for this parcel. It shows that no permits have been applied for or issued in regards to this
violation. Uh there actually go back one more. There is a permit 21-5153. The first one up there that says type R435. That is an issued permit to demo and rebuild a room due to termite damage. It has expired without
inspection. And in order to close that permit out, they're going to need to submit a new application with updated plans. And the next slide shows chapter 40, which is what they're in violation of. The recommendation is based on the
testimony and evidence presented in case number 2534 CESM. It is determined that the respondents are the record owners of the property located at 3464 North County Road 426 Geneva in Seminal County as determined by the property appraisers
records. They're in possession or control of the property and in violation of the Seminal County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. It is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondents to correct the violation on
or before July 9th, 2025. In order to correct this violation, the respondents 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. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin. I'm Brent Griffin, Simone County Building Inspector. I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request to be entered into the
record. Okay. Do you have any objection to the electronic case file being submitted into the record? Um, so I'm here to translate like what my parents kind of wrote. Um, so they're the current owners. Well, we're the current
owners. You're you're one of the owners as well. Okay. Um and uh we purchased a property with the existing violation. Okay. So, do you have an objection though to this document which has been Okay, I'm going to accept it into the record. Thank you.
Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Sorry. It's like my first time ever like um uh the first contractor told us that it was easy to um resolve like resolve it with the count county but then they
requested additional documents and steps and then the first contractor went uh bankrupt um which caused significant delays with um you know solving everything. And then we hired a new
contractor that spoke with Ruth from building department. Yes. And um we updated the plans and although the violation is like still open, we haven't finalized like the construction or anything because nothing
has buil built yet. and we're now ready to move forward with the construction and commit to like complying with all the code requirements. But we need more time since we um have the new contractor and
the other one went bankrupt. We cannot um do this like super quick cuz we need more time and um so we can get the violation solved with the new contractor. So, the county is offering July 9th. Do
you think you need more time than July 9th? Um, I think maybe just because we want to make sure everything's done and we can move forward. Okay. Um, with the new contractor cuz the
other one caused significant delays since he went back out. So, yeah, probably. How much more time do you think you need? Sorry, I'm asking them. No, you're fine. September. Um, so he's saying he doesn't know
specifically how long it would take for the new contractor to um, you know, solve all of this. So he said September if possible um so we can resolve everything. Okay. Does the county have an objection to
September 10th as that's two additional months from what you had offered? No we don't. Okay. Then what I'll do is I'll go ahead and um give you till September 10th with a compliance hearing date of September 11th. Okay. or you
will um stand to have a penalty imposed of $250. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. So 911. Yes. Okay.
2535 CESM Arisa Casa LLC. Muhammad um S. Hussein. That's a new case, right? Yes. Where's your assistant? order. That makes sense. Thank you. You ready? Go ahead. Oh, let me go ahead
and swear you in, sir. I'm sorry. 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, I do. Can you please state your name for the record? Ralph ODM, Destiny Construction and Consulting LLC, general contractor.
Okay. Do we have anything saying that he is permitted to speak on behalf of the property owner? I do not. Okay. Who's the um Are you the registered agent? I'm the registered agent for the contractor company. I was
hired by the owner and I'm speaking on his behalf. Gotcha. Have we had any contact with the property owner for this case? We have to check the case notes. Uh
I can't recall off the top of my head if we've got any phone calls. Okay. Oh, I do have in the record um that you did send a letter um as the con um the contractor of
record. Yes. So on behalf of the owner. Okay. I'll recognize that um in the record for your authorization to speak. Thank you. Thank you.
Ruth Goldstein Building Division. Case 25-35 CESM is for the property located at 1954 Boat Club Road Oido. The violation charge, oh sorry, it's owned by Arisa Casa LLC. The violation charge is seminal county chapter 40, appendix
A, section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of covering over the front door, addition to the rear of house for living space, replaced electric meter base and hose bib without the required permits. Our case summary screen shows
that the initial inspection was conducted June 19th, 2024 with the notice of violation mailed to the respondent June 24th, 2024. Compliance dates and extensions provided are shown on the screen, as well as follow-up inspections for the on-site visit and
computer reinspections. The results of these reinspections show that the violation remains on the property. This is a screenshot from the property appraiser office website showing that Arisa Casa LLC is the record owner of the property. The slide shows the notice of
this hearing posted on the property April 23rd, 2025. and a photo of the violation, the covering over the front door, which was taken during the inspection April 23rd, 2025. These photos were taken during the
inspection on October 2nd, 2024, showing the covering over the front door, the meter base, and the hose bib. Next slide. And this is a copy of our permit applications that have been submitted uh for this particular parcel. It shows
that an application was received on April 28th, 2025 for an addition. This has not yet been issued due to outstanding corrections that were submitted to the applicant. AP uh May 1st, 2025. This is the workflow routing slip for that permit application that was
submitted. Um it's in plan check status, which means there's still corrections that are required. Um the applicant has I believe accepted the task as of today but nothing has been uploaded. This is a copy of chapter 40 in which they are in violation
of based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-35 CESM. It is determined that the respondent is the record owner of the property located at 1954 Boat Club Road Oto in Semino County as determined by
the property appraisers records in possession or control of the property and in violation of seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. It is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondent correct the violations on or
before July 9th 2025. In order to correct the violations, the respondent shall obtain the required permits for the cited violations. If the respondent does not comply with the order, a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violations continue or are repeated after compliance. The respondents must
contact the inspector to verify the compliance. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin. Hi, I'm Brent Griffin with the Semino County Building Division. I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request to be entered into the record. Do you have any objection to the
electronic case file being submitted into the record, sir? No objections. Okay, I'll accept it. Thank you. It's your turn. Okay. So, as stated, I'm Ralph ODM, uh the contractor record, uh representing the owner of the property.
Um what we wanted to make sure that we do is the correspondence that you do have was submitted to uh make sure that there was something on file so that we have documentation that we are proceeding with getting this corrected. Um we reviewed the latest comments um
that are showing on the permit. So uh we are moving forward with getting getting that taken care of. And the other thing is that we're going one step further with also employing uh a private provider to also accelerate trying to get the inspections and reviews done so
we can get this closed out as soon as possible. So uh with the date that was given by um Inspector Griffin, we have no problems with uh pushing forward to achieve the permit as required and our hope is to actually close out by that time. Fantastic. An overachiever. We
like that. Okay, we'll go ahead and um give you a um compliance date of July 9th or a fine in the amount of $250 a
day will be imposed. Um I will tell you, ma'am, I highly suggest you give them an additional 30 days. there's no site plan included with what they've already uploaded and given the zoning district that it's
located. Um they may need an additional time or we may be putting it on the consent agenda for continuence anyway. Are they not in a um is their zoning not appropriate for what they're trying to No, it's not that. They're
with the front porch edition and the the dimensions of that porch, they're pushing being close to the front yard setback. So, it may be an administrative adjustment. So, with the additional 30
days, they would be right in line with falling into being into compliance within that additional 30-day time frame. Okay, thank you. Okay, even better. Now you have um I'll go ahead and extend it out till August 13th as a
compliance date with um a compliance hearing on August 14th with um a penalty of $250 a day if the violation is not corrected by August
13th. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. If I can just recommend that you contact the um permit customer service team regarding the private provider aspect of it, you may have to resubmit a new application and start the process over since this has already begun as the contractor, but check with them. If you
just come out of this building, turn left, you can go to the front counter and double check. Okay, thank you so much. Email me and Okay. Okay. What you're looking for? Okay. Nope. Okay. Next case. 25 36
CSM. Yanni Delpino. Sorry, I thought they weren't here. Okay. Whoever is going to provide testimony, are you both able to provide testimony? Yep. Okay. No translation necessary. No. See? Yeah. Yes or no?
Yes. You do need translation. Yes. Okay. You go ahead and state your name for the record, please. Karina. Okay. Karina, can you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of your ability? I do. Okay. Now,
we're going to swear you all in. Do you solemnly swear affirm? The testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So, help you God. Thank you. Yes. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 25-36 CESM is for the property located at 1282 Pendleton Drive, Altoont Springs, which is owned by Yanni D.
Delpino. The violation charged is Semino County Code Chapter 40, appendix A, section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of a retaining wall, lean to and rear addition/encclosure without the required
permits. This is a slide showing the case summary. The initial inspection was conducted June 26, 2024. The notice to the respondent was mailed July se uh July 2nd, 2024. Several compliance states and in
extensions were provided are shown on the screen as well as follow-up site inspections and inspections done via computer. The results of those reinspections are the violation remains on the property. This slide shows the property
appraiser office uh record showing that Yanni de Delpino is the record owner of the property. This is a copy of the signed certified return receipt that we received from the notice of hearing for this hearing. On April 24th, 2025, an
inspector conducted a driveby inspection. The subject violations are in the rear of the property and are not shown in this particular photo, but are in the next few slides. During the inspection on August 15, 2024 and August 29th, 2024, these
photos were taken showing the lean to on the left side and the addition/ enclosure and the retaining wall on the left uh the right side of the screen. This photo was taken August 29th, 2024, illustrating the retaining wall and the
enclosure. the returned uh the certified mail was returned to the county. So in response, a copy of the letter and notice of violation was posted on the front door and it was further handed to
the property owner on site uh July 30th, 2024. This is a copy of the permits for this particular parcel that have been submitted. We have an addition permit that was submitted February 4th, 2025. This has not been issued as a
permit. The application has been in plan check status uh due to requ corrections required from various departments since March 27th, 2025. We have not received any permits for the leanto or the retaining wall at this
time. You go next slide. Next slide. Yeah, thanks. This is a copy of the corrections that were submitted to the applicant for that permit application. The task remains on the applicant side
as of April 29th, 2025. This is a copy of chapter 40. This is what they're in violation of. The recommendation is that based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 2536 CESM, it's determined that
the respondents are the record owners of the property located at 1282 Pendleton Drive in Altimont Seminal County as determined by the property appraisers records. They're in possession or control of the property and in violation of Seminal County Code Chapter 40, appendix A, section 105.1.
It is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondents to correct the violation honor before July 9th, 2025. In order to correct those violations, the respondent shall obtain the required permit for the cited violations. If the respondent does not
comply with the order, a fine of $50 uh will be imposed for each day the violations continue or are repeated after compliance. The respondent must contact the inspector to verify compliance. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin.
Hi, I'm Brent Griffin with the Simol County Building Division. I've presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and requested to be entered into the record. This concludes our presentation. Do you have any objections to the electronic case file that's been presented and
shown um to be entered into the record? I see. Yes. Okay. Thank you. It will be accepted. I'm not sure that microphone is working. Hello. Is it working? I don't think it is. So, you're going to probably need to use one of these. Thank
you. Okay. Okay. he has a form to enter as evidence um that he's submitted. So, if you will hand it to these ladies over here first to see if
they know what it is and an owner assigned owner builder affidavit. Okay. So, a signed owner builder affidavit. It's an owner builder permit, but it's as of it was signed in February. Do you
all have this? Yes, we do. That is actually in relation to this permit application on the screen. Go back to the workflow or not the global that that one. It goes with the addition, not the wall.
If that was signed February 4th, 2025, it's likely the copy of the owner builder statement for that permit application. The owner builder statement doesn't have any identifying factors on it other than the address, the property owner's name, right? So, you don't know what it's for. But in the the addition,
this is something. Is this different than the lean to or the wall that we're here for? Correct. Okay. Applications haven't been received for the wall or the lean to, but we do have one for the addition, which is that's part of that
permit. Okay. Okay. So, the um county is is recommending that you have until July 9th to get the permits on these two additional structures that are on the property.
soon state club. So he's saying he isn't sure who to um Sunstate Plan, I believe is what he said. Sun state plan. Oh, he has a he has a contractor.
Okay. So, according to him, the contractor is supposed to be taking out the permits, but he hasn't. Okay. No. And the the problem with that is it's your
responsibility. Not not his I mean it's his responsibility if you've paid him to do it, but it's your responsibility. So, he's asking if he has to come here in order to take out the permits um and
how to do that. He will need to see the building department. So, he'll need to go to the building department in order to do that. But his contractor should know what to do. I would think he if he's applying as owner builder, he'll want to go talk
with the permit staff to make sure that they know the updated processes. Um the contractor should be able to submit online without having to come in. He's pulling owner builder. Okay. So, I'm going to recommend um do let's let her
tell him what everyone has said before we continue. Um building. Okay. I'm going to recommend that they meet with um building and planning staff regarding the addition. The plans that
they've submitted show a kitchen inside, which means it's an ADU, not just an addition. as an owner builder, that's extremely difficult to navigate. It's going to take them more than 60 days to get through that process. I'll give them my card and we can
schedule a group meeting and sit down with them so we have an interpreter so it's easier for them to navigate. Okay. So, he does have a permit application then for the addition. Correct. And that's the comments that I made, but clearly there's a language.
So, we need to schedule a meeting so that we can sit down and kind of hash through that. Okay. Um, but then the retaining wall is separate. So, you do you do have one permit or one application. I'm sorry. And you will need another application or
to amend this application if that's allowed. I He needs two applications. three separate permits total for these violations. Okay. So then the violation. So now um they're asking if they could
just remove it. The return wall. That is a possibility. The retaining wall. Yes. Wait one second. So he has the application for the addition. Do you all are you here?
You're here violating him for not having a permit for the addition two then. Correct. The addition and the separate lean to and the separate retaining wall. Okay. Okay. Since they're all separate structures, they would need separate applications. If he removes the retaining wall or the lean to as long as
there's no electric, mechanical, or plumbing, then he doesn't need a permit to remove it. Once it's gone, the is removed from the violation. Okay. Can you tell him that? Yes. the you said which one? The electric
one. You said if any of them, the wall or the lean too. Okay. They do need the permit to to remove it if it has electrical attached to it. Okay. Okay. nothing.
But then if you're going to keep them, you need an application for each separate structure. Um, maybe show a picture of it. Maybe this. Oh, on the left side. He's saying that that was already there
when he purchased the property. It doesn't matter. It still needs to be permitted. Okay. He's saying the water filter was already there when he purchased the property. Mhm. But we're talking about the
the structure itself. So, is there a water softener under the structure? the water filter that goes to the house. So like a softener. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And that was there when they purchased the property. That's not on the
violation, but but it's the structure over it. Okay. He's saying that it was removed. over the place with him. So he's saying he he removed the water softener and the structure. No, the
structure is gone. Then the struct if the structure is gone and there's no like MEP's mechanical electrical plumbing in there, then we can go out and verify that and remove it off electricity violation. Oh no. Okay. He's saying the addition was
removed. Okay. Okay. So, he's saying that the addition was removed. Are these two buildings the same building, just a different angle? So, when I went out there on the 24th and I knocked on the door, nobody answered, so
I didn't want to go to the back of the property. Um, did you get those pictures? Are those the same same structures? Jason Brooker, Simol County Inspector. No, those are separate buildings. Okay.
And so those are two separate buildings. Which one is he saying is removed? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, he's saying the top around it is removed on which picture?
Okay. On the left. Okay. This one. So, that would be the structure around the water softener. That would be the lean to structure, right? Okay. So then the other one is still there with a permit that we're trying to get.
Okay. So yeah, so the right one still exists and then the retaining wall is a separate permit. So in addition to meeting with staff in addition I think you need to meet onsite as well
with the building inspector to make sure that he can verify okay that that's been removed. one um the lean two, right? So, if the if the lean two and the retaining wall get removed, then we can remove them from the violation. If not, then he'll
just have to get the applications for those in addition to the addition. All right. Okay. So, he's saying he can remove the And if he gets them removed, I can give him my card and then he can just call me and I can go out there and I can remove it off there.
He's saying that he can show you the plans from when he purchased the home that it was already existing there and that that doesn't matter. Okay. Um all of the all of the structures need to be permitted. Okay.
Okay. Yep. So, he's just saying that because even though the prop the structures existed while he purchased the house that he is the one that is responsible for taking out the permits. Yes, sir. So,
um, do you think you need that the county would need more time than August to get everything um, all of the various meetings? I I would suggest 90. And I'm
taking advantage of the time that you had while you were talking um to the respondent and coordinating the meeting with our chief plans examiner to um go ahead and get staff so the applicant doesn't have to take the initiative. We're going to reach out to them with
the appropriate staff members and try to coordinate that meeting from our perspective so that we can get the appropriate staff together first. Perfect. Okay. Then I will go ahead and um order
that you bring the property into compliance in compliance by August 13th with a compliance hearing date scheduled for August 14th or a penalty in the amount of $100
a day. for the will be imposed. Okay. Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you. Okay. Where? How long? 10 minutes. Okay. We're going to come back at 3:30. We're
going to take a break till 3:30. Okay. Perfect. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Christmas. This is all orange.
We're going to call case 2043 CESM Nive Castillo. Where am I? Over here. Oh, they were She is here. Oh, I think they were here. Okay, then let's go to
2455 CESM Marcato Musa Marbel Marcato Musa. That worked out nicely. Take it every time. Right. Yes. Now I can go and take mom too. Yes.
Happy Mother's Day to every mother. Oh, that's so nice. That's nice. Thank you. He's really winning now, right? What was that? He's really winning now. Let me go ahead and swear you in. Do you so only swear affirm testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, building division. Case 24-55 CESM with property owners Mary Bell and Elsa Marcado Muso at 1667 Kingston Road in Longwood, Florida.
This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on September 12th, 2024, and an order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of November 13, 2024 with a meeting scheduled for November 14th, 2024. On April 10th, an order was issued
extending the compliance date to May 7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th. An affidavit of compliance has was filed by the inspector after reinspection on April 24th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case
for the clerk totals $199.65. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $57,7721 for a total for both the clerk and the inspector of $776.86. The recommendation is the special
magistrate issue an order imposing the administrative cost totaling $776.86 and require these costs to be paid within 30 days or the fine will constitute a lean on the property. The case is in compliance. This concludes my presentation.
Okay. So, the county has incurred costs in the amount of $776.86 in the prosecution of your case. How long will it take you to pay those costs? Um, if your honor can uh have a consideration with me and wave any type
of balances in it. Um, and then I can get that paid 15 days, 30 days, whatever you impose, your honor. So then you're fine with 30 days.
Um, yeah, depending on your honors, uh, judge ma'am. So, you're are you asking for a full waiver of the fees? Whatever you decide, your honor, I'm in your to be honest with you, I'm in your hands. Whatever you decide to think that
it's reasonable. Remind me about the continuences. You give me were the what were the reasons for the continuences? the variances, ma'am. No, the continu we gave some continuences.
Um, do you know why we needed you needed continuences? Uh, the last time that I was here in April, your honor, was um we I asked for a continuence because we we didn't have um some of the uh instructions within the permit that uh
it was completely processed, your honor. Right. But we started back in November. Yes, ma'am. So we had a hearing actually in September, gave you till November and extended the compliance date to April, right? And then was missing just a few piece of
administrative forms to complete the permit process which he got handled. So guess it was just two continuences. Okay. The case file will help. Would it be in the minutes? With that long gap of time though
between November and April, that tells me that he needed something else done. There was a situation that um the first time the I applied for a variance. Then after that I applied for another variance and that was the November gap.
Okay. And and then we met um and we had almost everything done. So you didn't catch one of the variances. Wasn't that what it was? Excuse me. We that the staff missed you needing the second variance. Wasn't that what it was? It
was It was staff error um on the zoning side that we missed one of the variances. Okay. Then what I'm going to do is I'm going to split the costs with you and I'm going to order costs.
Sorry, math was not my strong suit. $350, I think it is. Sorry. Okay. $38,843 to be paid within 30 days. I can do it in 15 if you want. You Okay. Again. Okay, great. Um, 30 days, I'll be out of
the country. Well, as long as it's done within the uh the 30-day period, you're good. Okay, ma'am. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, if you don't mind repeating that number for me, 380 38843.
Okay, perfect. I'm pretty sure you don't know your honor, but the staff do they accept u debit cards or anything in the I am not sure. Does the county accept credit cards? So, checks. Checks. Check or cash? Check
or cash. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. I dismiss. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. That's a military. Okay. Yeah, he did. But that's okay. He'll find
out. Collins. Here we go. Collins. Maybe. Okay. Okay. The next case 2043 CESM um Nineve Nive Castillo. Charlie has it memorized. She has it memorized.
Six bodies. I get you to 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, I do. You'll state your names for the record, please. Victor Garcia. Okay. My name is Nin Vega Castich. Thank
you. So pretty when you say it. This is case 20-43 CESM Nv Castillo at 209 Collins Drive in Sanford. This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on June 11th, 2020. An order
was issued giving the respondent compliance date of August 12th, 2021. Several affidavit of non-compliance were filed uh by the inspector after reinspections. On February 13, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to
April 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for April 10th, 2025. An affidavit of compliance was filed by the inspector after reinspection on April 4th, 2025. On April 10th, 2025, the special magistrate approved a continuence
request from the county scheduling a meeting for May 8th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $868. The cost to process this case for the inspector totals $875.70.
The totals for both the clerk and the inspector is $1,647.34. The recommendation is the special magistrate issue an order imposing the administrative costs totaling $1,647.34 and require these costs to be paid within 30 days or the fine will
constitute a lean on the property. This concludes my presentation. Good afternoon. Um the county has incurred costs in the amount of $1647.34 in prosecuting your case and has requested that you pay those costs
within 30 days. Um would you be able to pay them within 30 days or do you need a longer amount of time? This is the amount or or maybe is this is the whole thing just to to pay for the basically
for the well I think like last two weeks we paid $600 to over here to building but that's I guess for the permits only right to pay the permits because we already paid permit fees. Okay. So when you got your permits issued, this is an
extra charge. These are the right the administrative cost to process the case with the special magistrate. So in this case, if we pay like this amount, this we have only 30 days to pay. We have a little bit more chance to pay like into
payments, make into payment. Well, I can give you enough time out um to I don't know that the county takes payments. They probably do not. So I but I can give you enough time out. Okay. And uh so but this what do I send in the check
to the building department or how this will work? It's through code enforcement. Okay. But it would be you'll get an order that tells you exactly where it needs to be sent. Well have any of these come? We we know for
sure like last time when we have the the meeting, right? the meeting. Um, we're going to do, I believe, one or two more inspection at the building, right? Correct. To to check it, make sure everything is is by the code. If you
have an issued permit, there are inspections assigned to that issued permit. So, once you have completed all of those inspections and get approval, then the permit is closed out. Okay. Now, she wants to know if you have a little reconsideration too. Yes. if you
can go down a little bit on the amount. And so was this um guest cottage installed by you all or was it on the property when you purchased the property? It it was on the property. It was there when you purchased the property. Yeah. She just bought the
house like um October 13 19 26 2006. Okay. And when they purchased it, was it being used as a guest cottage? I mean,
or was this something that they We've had so many inspectors on this case from the beginning. I believe it it went back and forth from the purpose of the structure. Correct. It was guest cottage, then it was storage, then back to guest cottage. Well, the burn it was
um when she bought the house, it was already there, but on this the sick bag, it was the issue, of course. And uh so whoever was living there before he have it on that little house. It was I guess
it was his office because it was an AC unit. It was, you know, it was not a guest. So now we just converting that one for a guest like we just have a bed and we try to following everything what
the the county say what what it needs to be done and that's what been following but for any reason it take so long because our the engineer or architect it taking so long to sending the approval to to the to the um to the
department. So, but we almost done basically. So, we just wanted get a fix and and fix all this, you know. So, the the only problem that I'm having um looking at the history of the property
is that this case started back in 2020 and you were given what you needed to do back in 2020. Yeah. And didn't come into com. There was actually a in 2022 you were brought here and you got
an order extending in 2023. So there was a really big gap of time where you Yeah. Yes. The only thing like I say you know what happened is the engineer every time when we call in he takes so much time to send in
everything and this is the last like for example the last three months we've been calling and calling and calling to him and we give you the information from the from the inspection guy and also he doesn't even call he was in Puerto Rico
and he coming back he always say to not and he doesn't send in the approvals, you know, to to the county, right? And now he's just sending he just sending but we know he's is a long time
but two months if she say if if you're going down we can just pay this one today a little bit at least if you're going down. I don't bring check but but you have to go get it. Yeah. Okay. So, I'm more inclined to give you more time than I am to reduce
the costs because the costs were incurred by the county. And I I understand that you had a contractor, but if your contractor was not responding to you that many times, that's your responsibility. Correct. I know. So, um had there not been such
gaps of time here, it it might be different for me. Um, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you um 120 days to pay. Okay. So, I'm going to order $1,647.34 to be paid within 120 days or
will be a lean against the property. Oh, that's good. We We just paid before that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. at a wagon. Okay, the next case is wagon. Little red radio flag.
2407 Amanda and Christopher Jagger. Merkel. Thank you. Hi. Thank you. Can I go ahead and swear you in? We 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. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division 24-07 CESM for the property owners Amanda and Christopher Jagger located at 1480 Mirkwood Cove in Ovido, Florida.
This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on March 14th, 2024, and an order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of August 7th, 2024 with a meeting scheduled for August 8th, 2024. On November 14th, 2024, an order
was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of May 7th with a meeting scheduled for May 8th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $212.60. The administrative cost to process this
case for the inspector totals $741.80. The administrative cost to process this case to date totals $954.40 for both the inspector and the clerk. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order
constituting a lean retroactively to May 7th, 2025 at $50 per day and continues to acrue until in compliance. Okay. So, can anyone give me testimony as to why we're not in compliance?
What's global screen? Uh, there are no permit applications issued or applied for even for the violations. Okay. Have we had any contact with the property owners at all? I I have not. Brent Griffin is the inspector assigned
to the case. He can come down and testify if he has um received any correspondence. Brent Griffin, Seminal County Building Division. I have not received none either. Okay.
Okay. So, this was the the main thing was getting through the wetland mitigation process on this one. Um we had done the study and gotten the um the updated survey and at the beginning of
this year we kind of bounced between two contractors. I I tried to attack this kind of two different directions, see if we could get a contractor to get a an application started and then also what the next steps were for the mitigation process.
I've had I've struggled with the contractors because I didn't want to they didn't want to open the application process unless I have the mitigation letter. And then as I went through contact with Dr. Storm Richards who did my um initial wetlands assessment, I talked to a couple of engineering firms
because there's a decent list of things that need that go into the mitigation application. And as of last month, I finally got under contract with a an engineering company that will take me the rest of the way through the
mitigation process. Um, they need to do a they need to do a site plan and a couple more things to go along with the stuff that I have. And then from what I understand, then they get back how how many mitigation credits I need to
purchase. And then they're going to help me talk to banks that hold those mitigation credits so that I can purchase those and then finally get that letter. And then once I have the letter, the the same company that's doing this says that they can open a project for me
to get the engineering plans for the structure itself too. So hopefully that with the letter I can get the permit application open and we can kind of go through that process. I can give you the contract that I opened up with them if you want to see that.
Okay. I I do not. But do does the county have is the is what um Mr. Joerger is saying is that in line with what is necessary for him to get
permits for the this structure. This this property is located in Black Hammock which is notorious for wetland areas. to mitigation credits would be appropriate. Um, however, without seeing a survey, I don't know if there's
any easements or conservation area indicated. So, I would highly suggest that you come and talk to planning staff as well um with a survey to see if there's anything additional that may be encumbering your property that may need to be addressed as well, just so that
you're not running into any additional issues. Last time, last time, um, it seemed like that wasn't the the case, that that wasn't going to be We did send you guys a copy of the survey after we got it in the email, we had a different person before who was doing it than him. I've never The building division is
going to be separate than zoning requirements as far as your setbacks we were talking about. Yeah, it was the environmental lady that we were talking to originally. Sarah. Sarah. Sarah Sarah. Okay. So, she reviewed it. Then you're good to go. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't have anything
showing on your survey that would come just it's just the wet land that we've got to take care of through the mitigation. Perfect. So then that should be as long as you're doing that and you're dealing with Jim Potter as far as your mitigation credits and your drainage then you should be good to go. So that is going to take them a significant amount of time. The
engineering firm is telling me 90 days to have the application in place to know what the credits are. He said it could be extensive because I have to wait for banks that have allocated credits to be able to purchase them and that may take
some time. Okay. So, go back to the the photo. This the that building is the accessory structure that is not permitted. So, there is a primary structure on this you all live in. Okay. Correct. Yes. All right. And was this there when you purchased the house or
you all added it? No, it's uh it was it's a long story fight with her father-in-law who put a bigger structure than we had agreed on. And then it was what took time originally was I couldn't do anything until I could get through
the process of making sure that he had no ownership, potential ownership of the structure, making sure that he couldn't come back and harass us anymore. Um, and then once we got that done, then finding out the initial, okay, we we needed to redo the survey and get the wetland study, which we went ahead and did that.
I I wish we had gotten further in the a lot of time that you had given us here um on this last segment. It was just a struggle trying to find a firm that would kind of take us up on this. Yeah, we kept trying to get a contractor to help us first and then after the like fifth one said they couldn't help us
without the mitigation, we started finding an engineering firm for the mitigation instead. Okay. And um this um no one's living in this structure now. No, it's just storage right now. Okay. Um, I'm going
to continue your compliance time to November 12th with a compliance hearing of November 13th.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. What's 2474 CESM Jean Pierre The stack's getting smaller. It's the last one. Can I get you to 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? Can you state your name for the record, please? Tom Panton. Thank you. Thank you. And your affiliation with the case? Uh, we're a good family friend of John Pierce, and there's a little bit of
a language barrier, so I'm here on his behalf. Okay. And do we have anything in the file about his Not what I have from last time. What's
the You're a different representative than the last time. Yeah, last time it was my father-in-law. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division.
Case 24-74 CESM. Property owner Jeanie E Pierre at 666 in Cenino Way in Altoont Springs, Florida. Violation is for installation of black rot iron fence with two gates and slab with electric and plumbing installed without the required permits.
This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on January 9th, 2025, and an order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of May 7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals
$1841. The cost to process the case for the inspector totals $52.70. The administrative cost to process this case for both the clerk and the inspector total $6111. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order
constituting a lean retroactively back to May 7th, 2025 at $50 per day and continues to acrue until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. Okay. And can I get some testimony regarding the compliance global
screening, please? Thank you. There are no permit applications uh issued or applied for for the violations. Okay. And um have we had any contact at all? Yes, I believe you have been emailing
our building permit customer service team and myself. I've been copied on the emails regarding getting an application started uh as owner builder. As owner builder proceeding with owner builder. So, as recently as yesterday and I believe this morning
too, this gentleman had reached out to uh our per senior permit technician and they were helping him guide through the process. Okay. And um the in between period though, the in between period, uh Mr. Pier was trying
to get a hold of the person that did the work originally on the property to kind of rectify the situation. And at first he was able to get a hold of him. He was saying he would do it, do it, put in the application, the appropriate applications. I'm so sorry. And uh that
person has now disappeared. Why is Mr. Pierre not here? He there's a couple reasons. There's a little bit of a language barrier and also he's had some things in his life and he's very u he's got some PTSD as
far as uh dealing with government stuff. So yeah. Okay. So, the concern I'm having, and I I understand that, and I'm um sympathetic to that, but I'm having a hard time with you giving me testimony about how he
feels. Okay. Um, and if he were here, then it would at least let me know that he knew the importance of this as well. Um,
so is does the county um have an objection to um giving him more time or are we to the point where we're not going to be able to get what he needs done done. Part of the issue for me is we gave them
a significant extension of time the first time they came in. Um, not that I'm opposed to giving them another extension, but they are going to need a variance for the fence. Um, it does not meet um, I believe front and side street setbacks because of the height of the
fence. So, if we give another extension, it's going to be at least for 90 days for them to be able to obtain the variance and then apply for the permit to come into compliance.
Um I've been told that the gate is manual um and that it is not locked. So if that's the case, we have one that's one less hurdle to um go through. So but
that is the obstacle that we currently face is that a variance is needed to bring this fence into compliance. And it seems to me like that was the original discussion which is
why in January when he was here we gave him until May. And I have spoken to several different people along the way that have promised that there was going to be a variance application. I provided variance application several times over and we have yet to have a variance
submitt. I have it I have it right here. I have all the paperwork ready to go right here. So I am not opposed if you would like to s you know bring it back to ensure that we have the submitt and it's set for
compliance so that it's on our consent agenda and that way we don't bring it before you unless it's actually moving forward. Um but okay so but our cuto off date is
tomorrow. So if he's for for June, so if he's going upstairs after this, there's your answer. Okay. Um so then you've heard everything that they've said. So if you have a completed
application, I think that's going to um help. Um, what I'm going to do is I'm going to continue your compliance date till June 11th. And I know that you're not going
to be in compliance on June 11th. Um, but if you haven't gone through the variance process to submit the variance, then I'll know that that the intention is not to come into compliance. No, it's all right here. I
have everything ready to go. Okay. And I appreciate that, but there could be some things that you're still lacking that you need and you need to follow through and get those things to them. Um because there will be a um compliance hearing on
June 12th. Okay. And if there is no no moving toward getting the variance to make sure that we can get the building permits ultimately, then at that June 11th hearing, I'm probably not going to be as sympathetic
to the situation. Could we possibly get 60 days? Just because I'm not going to be here on June in the country on June 12th. Well, someone does need to be here. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um and I recommend that Mr. John Pierre be here as well, even if it's to just fill the
seat and nod his head. Okay. Um being understanding of it, but I will continue to June 11th and hopefully everything will have been submitted by that time because that will help me know that you intend to go through the process to get your permit. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
That's the uh fence portion of it. Uh there was a an electrical and plumbing as well. Um I believe there was but those are all part of the permits. So those permits if you can go forward with getting those
without the variance then let's start that process now that will help you as well. Okay cuz uh whatever was done he just wants to eliminate. He doesn't want to move forward with it was an outdoor kitchen or something. I don't know what it what they were doing, but uh they
want to just eliminate it and just Yeah. Tell me. Okay. There. Yeah. There was a slab with electrical and plumbing. You still have to get a demo permit. I'm sorry. Right. Um to make sure everything's capped off and Okay. taken care of properly. Okay. And then
the slab portion of it. Are you going to demo the slab, too, or are you going to leave the slab? We would like to leave the slab if possible. Was there a permit pull for the slab? No, but if nothing structural is going on, it doesn't need a permit. Maybe for the concrete. Um,
did you guys put any structural steel or anything in there? Do you know if they put I don't know. I didn't do the I didn't do the work. I I'm not sure. Um, can we get the concrete tested or is there is there another way around that? I wrote that a long time ago.
I mean, the only other thing that could be an issue is a termite treatment for the slab with it being against the existing structure. Um, getting a termite certification and then if there's any structural steel that was in involved
with like a footing or anything like that, um, you would have to get a like an asbell permit for the slab as well. Okay. Um, if you were to demo it, then it would fall under the demo permit.
Because the demo permit, if if he decides he wants to demo everything, the demo permit would fall under the electrical, plumbing, and the slab all. He should be able to pull a demo permit for everything. Okay. For the concrete and then whatever plumbing and electrical you have. But if you'd like to keep the concrete, we can do asbuilt
then. Yeah, you there's like a is there an asbuilt permit that he can pull for the concrete? He just needs to show it where it is. Okay. Yeah. So, you just have to show it on the survey um where it would be at. Okay. And then submit for a slab permit. Okay. But they can
walk you through all of those things. Perfect. Okay. And as long as I see progress at the June 11th or June 12th hearing for the June 11th compliance, then, you know, I'll be understanding,
but I need to see that. I'll make sure it's done, your honor. Today, good deal. Thank you. Thank you. 2519 CESM Stacy and Anthony Locassi. And please have you 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. Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division, case 25-9, CESM. Property owners owners are Stacy A and Anthony D. Locassio located at 219 Steven Edge Drive in Longwood. The violation is
installation of a concrete block wall without the required permit. This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on April 10th, 2025. An order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of May 7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th,
2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $26366. The cost to process the case for the inspector totals $649.99. The administrative cost to process this case for both the clerk and
the inspector totals $91365. Uh recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean retroactively to May 7th, 2025 at $250 per day and continues to acrue until in compliance.
Um, can you go to the global screen? Thank you. This shows a permit application has been received for a wall on April 10th, 2025. Do we have a And the current plan review workflow routing
slip shows that looks like they still have corrections that are required and it may actually be still in the fire review cycle as of the 6th. Um but that is why it is not in compliance yet. The permit is still
working through the cycle. Okay, this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Yes, sir. How much time do you need to come into compliance? It looks to me like they're working toward there are five overall. I think if that's an older slide or a screenshot,
uh I believe it has been completed. It says uh res. Yeah, this is outdated. No review was required by fire. I guess they reviewed it and decided that no uh no review was necessary. There are a total of five review comments. Three of
them are only I had to get a site survey and then I needed to put the site survey together with the site plan. So that will resolve uh three of their comments. So there's only two outstanding comments. Uh, I would ask that the I don't know if
this is the proper venue for it, but I would ask that it be characterized as a landscaping BM because it's not a it's the only item that I can find that approximates its use in the in the yard.
There was railroad ties just stacked up around the pool area to keep sand from the area around the pool from getting into the pool. That's that's the only purpose that it's just meant to be a wall that looks
better than some the railroad ties and wouldn't rot. The old railroad ties are rotting out. I don't know if you can see them from one of the pictures, but they pretty much rotted out and sand is going from the around surrounding landscaping into the pool.
Well, it's not considered a burm, but no, this is not the place for um for that determination. You'll have to have the county makes that determination, but I'm telling you 100% it's not a burm. I can't find any a burm is earthn. So,
that's not earthn. That's masonry. So, that's a building structure. So, that's why the building permit is necessary. Okay. I mean, I don't know what to classify it as. And one of the uh comments refers to details for a wall
and uh to show code compliance, but the applicable codes are not clear to me. I I mean, it would fall under a retaining wall at that point. Um it definitely wouldn't fall under a BM.
Um it is a a uh structural wall assembly um that was put there. Yeah, my pool is green. Stop looking at it. I see you looking at my green pool. No, that's
fine. I mean, it's there, you know, to obviously he's staring at it. I see I see the judgment in his eyes. I was trying to figure out that was a pumpkin in there. the um like I know like you said it's probably to divert the water um but it
is a structural wall CMU wall um I would put it under a partition wall retaining wall um something to that aspect.
Okay, I'm maybe I can I I can't find the FBC code that applied to this sort of structure. If it's retaining wall, that gives me a place to start. So 30 days. Uh can I get 60 because uh I
may have to get a detail from a PE structural for the just to draw up the detail to include with the drawings. Uh I know I can answer all the four of the five comments I can answer today and just consolidate all that information
onto one plan set. I I am an electrical engineer so I know that sometimes it's difficult to get into the work queue of other engineers. So especially for a small item so uh I would request 60 days. Is there any objection to No, I
don't have a problem with that. Um, you have my number, too, so you can call me tomorrow and I can get help you out with a code to send you. I don't have it off the top of my head, but I'll get it over to you. Okay. Then I will go ahead and continue
your compliance date to July 9th with a compliance hearing on July 10th. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Can you delete that picture, please, with the pool? Crop that out or something. Aren't you
the sovereign citizen? If we come back to reinspect for the next hearing, maybe you can have it cleaned up and we'll enter that into evidence. Yes. I can't remember the top of my head. Okay, let's go back to new cases 2531 CESM Yahoo
Properties LLC. to that I can say makes me want to sing. Thank you. Here we are. Sir, can I get you to 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, ma'am. And can you state your name for the record, please? Ven Singh. Thank you. Sure. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 25-31 CESM is for the property located
at 9250 Overland Road in Apopka which is owned by Yahoo Properties LLC. The violation charged to Semino County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is roof repairs exceeding one square and
installation and removal of solar panels without the required permits. This is our case summary slide showing the initial inspection which was conducted May 30th, 2024 with a notice of violation mailed to the respondent June 4th,
2024. Compliance dates and extensions provided by the county are shown on the screen as well as follow-up inspections for on-site inspections and computer inspections. The results of those reinspections are that the violations remain on the property.
This screenshot from the property appraiser website shows that Yahoo Properties LLC is the record owner of the property. These are copies of the signed certified return receipts that we received from the owner and the registered a uh registered agent uh from
the notice of hearing that was mailed out. This is a photo of the unpermitted solar uh reinstallation and the roof repair. This was taken during the inspection on May 31st, 2024. These photos were taken during
inspection August 20th, 2024, showing the violations still on the property. And this slide shows all of the permit applications that have been received or issued for this parcel. It shows that permit application
24-14954, which is the first one on the screen that says solar, that was received October 2nd, 2024. The scope of work for that permit is solar removal and reinstallation, but it has not yet been issued due to outstanding required corrections. This next slide shows the
workflow routing slip for the permit application. Oh, the corrections task was accepted by the applicant May 5th, 2025. Oh, go back one more slide. Sorry, I was too slow. This is the uh plan review correction comments uh that were
submitted for that solar permit application. Next slide. Okay, this is chapter 40 in which he is in violation of our recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-31 CESM. It is determined that
the respondents are the record owners of the property located at 9250 Overland Road in Apopka Semino County as determined by the property appraisers records. are in possession or control of the property and they're in violation of seminal county code chapter 40 appendix
A section 105.1. It is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 9th, 2025. In order to correct these violations, the respondent shall obtain the required permits for the cited violations. If the respondents
do not comply with the order, a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violations continue or are repeated after compliance. The respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin. Brent Griffin, Seminal County Building
Inspector. I presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request to be entered into the record. And this concludes our presentation. Do you have any objections to the electronic case file that's been um provided uh submitted into the record? Well, I have no problem, but the trouble is I've been
having a GC started since September. Let me one thing at a time. I'll let you go in a second, but let me So, you you have no objection to this document being submitted into Okay, I'll accept that. I do have a couple questions before you
you start. So, there's a solar permit and an alteration permit. Is the alteration permit I must I I think I missed it. Is that the alteration permit that's issued? It just got issued. Um and what do you have the scope of work? The exact scope
of work on that. Yeah, we can get the exact scope of work. It was just 14641. Yet there were additional violations in this case. Those were
removed when this alteration permit was issued. So right now the violations are just the roof repair and for the solar panels which were removed and reinstalled following the roof repair. Okay. So, no um no roof permit at all.
Correct. And then were those cuz I'm I'm seeing the there are two solar panel two sets of solar panels on the roof. So, I'm showing three colors of
roof with solar panels on two of the sections of roof. and that's showing on the property card as well. Um, and that was taken a year ago or year and a half ago. So, which
part is which part is is in is offending, if you will. The roof repair was done. Obviously, probably Oh, no.
I'm sorry. So, you're just asking basically what area of the roof where the panels were removed and put back. Yeah. And what part of the roof repair are we talking about? Because I want to make sure that he understands what it is. That was Randy was there. So, I mean the
the roof repair is there's still no permit for that. Correct. No. So, there's still no repair for the the roof repair. Um, but if you look in photo five, okay, or um on the 53124, it's the one that runs across where the power
lines at. Mhm. Um the brown roof. Yeah. And then the same area or same photo is where the panels were removed and put back after the roof was fixed. So the the the photo to the left, it's
not showing me the same area, right? Because I'm saying the same area on the um on page five. So page five, picture on the left, the same building. I understand that it's the same building, but it's different
angles. So I'm sorry. The the picture on the right shows the roof repair. Yes. And then the picture on the left shows what where the solar panels were taken off and put back. So they weren't there was no roof repair done there. It was just solar panels were taken off and put
put back. We have roof roof repairs exceeding one square from Randy. But the the the issue is is the roof repairs are exceeding one square. So when they didn't pull a per permit didn't get approved for the one square, they exceeded the scope of work.
You mean one square foot? Yeah. 10 by 10. Maybe a 10 10 by 10. Okay. So, 100 100, right? Inch. Well, yeah. 100 square square foot. Yeah. Okay. So, and with that being said, that's
where the panels were removed because they exceeded the scope of work. But do you do you see what I'm saying? If you show the property card, the front property card, see where the left hand side is brown roof you were showing me. Then the
middle it's lighter gray. Then on the end it's darker gray. No, it's the building have a separation. The building have a a call set down step down. Okay. So the grays
are the same color roof that it's just a step down so it looks darker. Right. Right. Okay. But there doesn't look to me on the brown side. No, the brown is different color. Like there was there were solar panels put on there. So were
solar panels removed? No, never did. Does he have a permit for the installation of the solar panels to begin with? No. No. Does he have to? Yes. If you do a roof Yeah. If you do, um the solar
itself will need a um permit just for the solar installation so we can go out and inspect how it was installed and that it meets the fire setbacks um for the roof itself.
So really it's installation of solar panels, not removal of solar panels. Jason, Simol County inspector. Typically when they re- roof, they have to remove the solar panels. Re-roof, put
the solar panels back on. So, it would be for both. But he didn't roof. He didn't re- roof where the solar panels are. He only re-roofed in the brown part. And the brown part doesn't have solar panels on it. Well, that's not what my understanding was. I thought
that's where they did the new roof. See the where the solar panels were at. So is the new part the brown part or the black part? Okay. So the roof was repaired. Let me ask a question. Is not repairs at least
25% of the roof? No, they said 100 square feet. No. May I ask a question? In general cases, is 25% allowed for repair? That's all by 10. 10 foot by 10 foot. That's it.
That's all the repair. I thought based on the county record was 25%. No sir. Okay. So yeah. So that was repaired and um like I said I was repaired by people who does that work. Which side was repaired sir? The
brown the brown side. The solar panel was never whatever it was on came on from there on never removed. Did you um repair any other roof other than the brown area? No,
but there was there was never a solar permit pulled ever, right, to even install them in the first place? No, that's So, I mean, he would basically need to get a permit for, like you said, the installation of the solar panels. So, we would have to fix that for the
installation and then he would have to have the product approvals and um the details for the attachments for how it would be attached to the roof and where they're attached at to meet the fire setbacks and all that. Okay. So, your
notice of violation, does it talk about Let me see the notice of violation. So if I remove when we were talking earlier, are the solar panels removed? You never did. It was all You never put them on there. Yeah, I did put it on. Okay. So are they removed? Are they
still on the roof? Oh, they're still in the roof right now. Okay. But I can take them out I mean tomorrow if you want or as soon as possible. So even even if you take them out, you're still going to have to get a permit. Still have to have a permit for that. So you would have to have a permit to remove them as well as the installation. Well, I have the GC
who finally after many many months finally get the approval for the demolition. Okay. So, can he use the same demolition permit for removal solar panels? You can you just have to get electrical added to it and and whatever MPs are in there as well. Have it
removed. The electrical is in there already from electric. Okay. Yeah. So, you just need to get a demo apartment to have them taken off the roof. For additional permit, you want you done the current even you don't just get a demo permit, remove them and then I mean
because the installation at that point is not going to matter cuz you're taking them off anyways. Okay. Sorry Bill this one my question the permit what I have right now is right now for demolition for interior and for electrical and everything that's included would that permit work the permit is 14 641 scope
of work you you would have a change of scope of work for the solar panels to be removed so I just let him add it down to that okay I'll let him do that appreciate it okay but what you're in violation of here is not having a roof permit for the construction that you did
on the roof separate and apart from the removal of the solar panels. So, if you intend to remove the solar panels and you follow through and get your permit um amended to do that, okay, you won't be back here for that reason. But if you
don't do that, you will be back here for not having a permit for those solar panels. Okay? Then the other part is the roof repair that was done without a permit. You need a permit for the roof repair that was done as well. So, that's what we're here for today.
So, um, the county has suggested that you could have till July 9th. Okay. Okay. To get that permit. Okay. Okay. Appreciate that. Okay. Then, um, I'm going to go
ahead and order that you bring the property into compliance by obtaining a permit related to the roof repair by July 9th, or you will have a fine in the amount of $250 a day
imposed. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a good day. You, too. Oh, you want to stay for freaking Okay. Crossed freedom. Okay. Is lean. Okay. Yeah.
This one's a big one. Yeah. Bye. Have fun. Okay. Yeah. Scared the pants off of Julie. He was kicked my chair. And then she jumped and I jumped. Yeah. Dog was under there and he like
flinched. I heard his head. Don't ever grab her legs. Don't freak out. Either his head or your leg hit this and that made me. And then I saw him and he was like, "What's going on?" All right, let's
do 2532. Cesmla Rodriguez Santos and Mandy Reyes Hernandez. Ruth Goldstein, building division. Case 25-32 CESM is for the property located
at 3021 Freedom Trail in Ovido, which is owned by Erland J. Rodriguez Santos and Mandy J. G Reyes Hernandez. The violation charged the seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violations
are installation of heat pump on the side of the house and interior and exterior alterations to the pull barn including mechanical, electrical and plumbing without the required permits. The case summary slide shows that the
initial inspection was conducted January 3rd, 2025. Notice to the respondent was mailed February 3rd, 2025. Compliance dates and extensions provided from the county would be February 17, 2025 and March 6, 2025. Follow-up inspections are
shown both on site visit and via computer. The results of those reinspections are that the violations remain on the property. This slide shows the uh property appraisers website showing that Erlan J. Rodriguez Santos and Mandy G. Reyes Hernandez are the record owners of the
property. This photograph shows the notice of this hearing which was posted on the property April 24th, 2025. This is a photo of the main structure on the property when you first pull into the driveway. The heat pump, which is subject to this violation, is
on the right side of the main structure, as indicated by the arrow on the screen. And the pull barn is behind the main structure shown in the red box there. This is a photo of the pole barn located behind the main structure subject to this violation. These photos
were taken during the inspection January 3rd, 2025. The next set of slides will show photos taken during the inspection on February 18th, 2025. These are the photos of the staircase to the poleb barn as well as the
deck leading up to the pullb barn. These photos were taken January 3rd, 2025 to show the electrical and plumbing alterations made to the pole barn. These photos show the mechanical alterations made to the pole barn taken
February 18th, 2025. and more photos from February 18th showing the electrical alterations in the pole barn. These are additional photos that were taken the same day to demonstrate the electrical alterations. And these photos show
electrical and plumbing alterations. These were taken February 18th. This is a photo of the pullb barn stalls showing the electrical and more electrical photos.
The interior of the pullb barn is shown on this slide. These were taken February 18th, 2025, showing the living space has been created inside of the pullb barn with a kitchen. These photos show electrical and plumbing alterations that were
performed. This is a photo of the bathroom that's inside the poleb and a bedroom. And we have many splits installed which are mechanical alterations taken inside the bedroom and the kitchen of the pullb
barn. And this is the laundry room which shows the electrical panel and a tankless water heater. This photo of the heat pump was taken January 3rd, 2025 and February 18th, 2025. This is located on the main structure on the side of the
house. There's a photo of the pullb behind the house. This was taken April 17th, 2025. And this slide shows all of the permit applications that have been submitted uh relating to this parcel. None of these photo photos. None of
these permit applications have anything to do with any of the violations in this case. Next slide. Wait, hang on. Do I have more on there? Hang on. I'm getting there. Yeah. Next
slide. This is chapter 40, which is what they're in violation of, and the recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-32 CESM. It's determined that the respondents are the record owners of the property located at 3021
Freedom Trail Ovido in Semino County as determined by the property appraisers records. They're in possession or control of the property and in violation of Seminal County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. It is further recommended that the special magistrate order the
respondents to correct the violations on or before July 9th, 2025. In order to correct these violations, the respondents shall obtain the required permits for the cited violations. If the respondents do not comply with the order, a fine of $250 will be imposed
for each day the violations continue or are repeated after compliance. The respondents must contact the inspector to verify compliance. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin. Brent Griffin, Sim County Building Division. I presented a copy of this
presentation to the clerk and requested be entered into the record. And this concludes our presentation. Okay. I have a couple questions. Um the electronic case file will be accepted into the record. Um at what point does a pole barn stop becoming a pole barn when it's
enclosed and someone lives in it or could live in it? Is it still considered a pole barn structurally? I think that's just what the notes were listed as. Um I mean cuz it is probably turn into a
structure, right? It's a structure with a probably turn into an ADU. It it it's more like a a mixed use because the bottom level is a pole barn. It's it's being set up to use be used for horses and then upstairs they built it out to
be an ADU. So So then doesn't it lose its pole barn status once it's been built out like that? Okay. Well, nevertheless, they would still need a permit for the polebar. They're not exempt. They're not an a property or anything. Well, they're they're listed
as a single family. They're listed as a Yeah, but they don't have the but they don't have the a exemption, right? No. Okay. Um All right. would probably fall under an ADU
structure for the second floor and then some kind of storage underneath Dagmary Cigara deputy director development services based on the zoning
I swear you in I'm sorry no you tell me affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do good deal all right so based on the definitions of in in the land development code um when is a structure that is a livable structure
is no longer a barn it becomes an accessory structure okay and we have regulations on size for accessory structure and we have regulations for accessory dwelling units as well I'm not aware of how big this property is in
regards to acreage but I know that we have a percentage that it cannot exceed and it seems to me that there's a possibility that is already exceeding that. So in in regards to the land development code, this is no longer a barn. This is an accessory structure.
Okay. Or an accessory doning unit. Okay. So that would be a separate that would be a separate in regards to the building. But the yes situation, they have their own codes of occupancy and all of that that I'll let this expert speak on. Okay. So, I'm going to call it
a structure. Um, I'm just I'm just clarifying for the record, but I want to I'm going to call it a structure. So, it's alterations to a structure because the structure did exist. Was there a permit for the pole barn at one time? That's
my we don't have the full thing. I can't remember. Not only shows 2023 because there's like four pages of I don't know if I have those records available. That's okay. Okay. So, let's go back a little bit and
talk about notice. I see the um property was posted. Did we attempt mail certified and regular? And what was the outcome of the mail attempt? I think I almost found it.
You don't. So, do we we don't have green cards, but we don't have return mail either. It was sent certified. But do you Oh, do you have something returned? We do. We have a lot. I know the clerk. I I'm not sure. Okay.
Oh, wait. What's that a copy of, though, Alexis? Because that might be the returned card. Yep. That's it. It It was The whole thing was returned. Yes. Yeah. I mean, at least for ours, our final letter was returned. I can't I don't think we've
ever received a signed green card ever in the history of any of our cases for this particular property. Okay. So, that's going to be my next question. What gives rise to this being a repeat offender? I stand corrected. We did. Someone signed for the NOV.
uh the repeat offender. This particular property has multiple building code violations. I don't think they have any more land development code violations. I think they got that all buttoned up. But we have several cases for this property. One of which is
a lean case which is also on the schedule for today. Okay. This is just the new one. And previous one was the previous case, excuse me. I believe the lean was imposed in November 2024 for a different reason though. Yes. If I'm correct, it has to do with the
exterior portion of the property like the PA driveway, the stairs, um items on the main structure, the fencing. So, still a violation of chapter 40 section 105.1 needing a building permit, but just for a different reason. Yes.
Okay. Okay. Then I'm going to find that the property owner is properly noticed to be here today um through mail that was sent that was returned and posting on the property thereafter. I'm going to find that
um the property owner had notice to be here today and failed to um to attend to provide any meaningful testimony. I'm going to find that um there is in fact a
violation of chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1 for failure to have the necessary building permits for the alterations to the structure on the property including mechanical,
electrical and plumbing without the required permits. I'm going to find that the property owner needs to bring the violations into compliance by June 11th, 2025 with a compliance hearing date of
June 12th or have a violate a fine of $500 a day imposed. It's not just on two means in cases. Almost done. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Next case.
2472. CESM. Erlene Rodriguez Santos and Mandy Reyes Hernandez. Oh, here you're quick. Case Ruth Goldstein Building Division. Case 24-72 CESM. Property
owners Erland J. Rodriguez Santos and Mandy G. Reyes Hernandez located at 3021 Freedom Trail in Oido. The description of the violation is interior alterations of the main structure to include mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and building
without the required permits. This case was originally heard by the special magistrate January 9th, 2025, and an order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of March 12th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for March 13, 2025. The case was continued
per the county from March 13th uh to the upcoming meeting of May 8th, 2025. An affidavit of non-compliance was filed by the inspector after reinspection on April 16th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk
totals $188.15. The cost to process the case for the inspector totals $636.60. and the administrative cost in total for both the clerk and the inspector is $824.75. The recommendation is for the special magistrate to issue an order
imposing a lean retroactively back to March 12th, 2025 at $500 per day and continuing to acrue until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. Okay. So, at the time that this matter was
originally imposed, it was a repeat violation too because of prior um cases, which is why they have the penalty of $500 a day. Okay. That's for stuff on the inside.
This case for all this stuff. And then can you tell me was the order um how we sent the order to them? We sent we sent it certified mail. That's perfect. So, they signed the green card for the March 13th. Um, what
about the continuence of May 8th? Did we send a notice of hearing to them by certified mail? Okay. So, and you received nothing in return, no green cards or anything? Just you turn you turned Okay.
You you got returned mail from the notice of hearing for today's hearing. Well, what did you get green cards for? Must be in there. I didn't get anything. But if you got the green cards from the original order, the finding of fact, that would have had the compliance date
on it. So in in March in the the original order, the January order that they re that they signed for, they knew to be here for March 13th. However, you all continued the case to May 8th. You sent a new notice of hearing that they
did not re return green cards on. And were those returned to you? What are those envelopes over there? March. But I thought you said they signed for March. They had signed the one. Those are for the letters. Okay. So, we had
sent it to multiple addresses and they did not sign. Was the new updated order for today's hearing. Was it um sent to both addresses? It was sent to the one that they signed originally. Yeah. The address that they
actually signed for, it was sent to that address. That only. And was that address the address in the property appraiser? Which address was that? Was it 10042 John Adams Way? The mailing address is where they signed. Okay,
perfect. Um, did we post the property related to the hearing that was rescheduled for today? And this is what I'm seeing here. Okay. So, the property was posted on April 24th saying that they needed to be
here for today. Yes, I posted on the 24th. Okay, perfect. I'm going to find that they um had adequate notice to be here today for this compliance hearing and they have failed to um show for the
hearing to present any um evidence to the contrary. a finding that they are still in violation of the order dated January 9th, 2025, and that they did not come into
compliance. I'm going to ratify my prior order dated January 9th, 2025. Um, which imposed a lean of $500 a day or imposed a fine of $500 a day
starting back on March 12th, 2025. And I am going to find that there were costs of the clerk of 18815 and costs of the inspector of 63660 for a total of8.2475 that will be imposed against
the property and um must be paid within 30 days or um a lean can be filed against the the property. Thank you. Not yet.
We're on it. Julie, which one's that? Should be pile. Oh, it's my bike, right? Like the hell is it? Oh, we haven't done bywood yet. We don't know. Maybe it's not this one.
his face. Okay. 2475 CESM Robert and Carol Cado. That's page. Oh my gosh. You got to hurry up. I'm sorry. Which one's No, I was told I got to get you out of here by five. For real?
No, I'm teasing you. Totally teasing you. Ruth Goldstein Building Division, case 24-75 CESM. Property owners are Robert L. and Carolyn A. Kato at 1341 Bwood Drive in Geneva. Description of the violation is installation of new bowel home without the required permit.
This case was originally heard by the special magistrate January 9th, 2025 and an order was issued giving the respondents a compliance date of May 7th, 2025 with a hearing scheduled for May 8th, 2025. The administrative cost to process
this case for the clerk totals $263.66. The uh total to process the case for the inspector is $55,626. The administrative cost to process the case for both the clerk and the inspector totals $819.92. The recommendation is for the
special magistrate to issue an order constituting a lean retroactively to May 7th, 2025 at $100 per day and continues to acrue until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. the order that was uh entered on January
9th, 2025 with a compliance date of May 7th, 2025. Was it um received by the property owner? Okay. It was received through certified mail and the green cards were
returned. Yes. Signed. Okay. I'm going to find that the property owners had um adequate notice to be present today and they have failed to be present to provide any testimony to the contrary. I'm going to find that the property is
in violation of this magistrate's order um requiring building permits before May 7th, 2025. Um, I'm going to ratify my prior order ded January 9th, 2025 and impose a lean
or fines um recordable as a lean back to May 7th, 2025 with um the fine um of $100 a day to continue to acrue until such time as the property is brought into compliance. I'm going to find um costs of the clerk
in the amount of $263.66 66 and cost of the inspector in the amount of $556.26 or a total administrative cost in the amount of $819.92 to be paid within 30 days or it
they will be um a lean um can be recorded as a lean against the property. Thank you. And the final case 23 258 CESM 1815 Larking Avenue 12
LLC Ruth Goldstein Building Division case 25-08 CESM at 1824 Lake Street in Ovido. The description of the violation was installation of a well canopy, multiple mini split units, AC units,
multiple doors, and construction of the rear deck without the required permits. On February 13th, 2025, the special magistrate issued an order giving the respondents a compliance date of May 7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th, 2025.
An affidavit of non-compliance was filed by the inspector after reinspection on April 10th, 2025. On April 10th, 2025, the special magistrate, That is a repeat. I'm so sorry I'm reading that twice. The administrative cost uh for to
process this case for the clerk totals $26,58. The administrative cost to process the case for the inspector totals $743.72. The administrative cost to process the case for both the inspector and the clerk totals
$1,8.80. Recommendation is for the special magistrate to issue an order constituting a lean retroactively back to May 7th, 2025 at $250 per day and continuing to acrue until in compliance. This concludes my
presentation and the order that was entered in this case on April 10th providing them until May 7th to come into compliance. Was that received by the property owner? Yes. I'm
seeing green cards were received signed um indicating that the property owner had um adequate notice to be present today to provide any testimony to the contrary. I'm going to find that there is still a violation existing on the
property for failure to obtain the necessary permits related to the um various um construction activities that occurred on the property without the necessary permits. And that the
um prior order of Wait a second. Let me go back. There was an order originally of February 13th and we continued from April 10th, the original compliance date to May 7th. So the May
7th continuence order, is that the one that was received with the green cards that were signed? Okay. Yes. I'm I'm being told that is. Okay. And so the property is still in violation. The notice was properly received and the
respondent has failed to attend the hearing today. I'm going to find I'm going to ratify my prior order dated February 13, 2025. That was amended on April 10th, 2025.
I'm going to um find clerk costs in the amount of 26508 and inspector costs in the amount of 74372 for a total cost of $1,880 to be paid within 30 days. And
I'm going to impose the fine as of May 7th in the amount of $250 a day. And both can be recorded as a lean against the property. Thank you. All right, that's it. And I still have
four minutes. Nice. Cue the classical music. That's right. Okay. Where's the gavl? Wait, I got to prove it. So maybe I'm gonna break into my four
um professionals have have uh suggested using the the gavvel to wake him up to no not to wake him up to indicate when the cases are changing each one when we're finished so we can turn it off. Okay. I am going to approve the minutes
from the April 10th, 2025 um meeting and I'm going to confirm that the next hearing will be held on June 12th, 2025. We are adjourned.