Oh my god. call this um special magistrate meeting of August 14th to order. I'm going to start uh with the consent agenda. Uh well, actually, first let me explain to you how the process works
before we get into that. Um you uh will be called the cases are called. They're not called in any um particular order. So bear with us. If you have signed in, you will be called. Um the way that the process works though is the county will present its case
first. It will present all of its witnesses and any evidence that it has. You will be able to cross-examine witnesses, but you will not be able to present any evidence of your own until it's your turn to go. Once the county has arrested its case, it will then be your opportunity to provide any
witnesses or evidence that you have and the county will cross-examine potentially your witnesses. I will make a decision here today as to whether there has been a violation or not. If you are found in violation, you will give a period of time to come into
compliance. If you don't do not comply within that time period. If you're here for a firsttime violation, you stand to have a penalty of up to $250 a day imposed. And if you're here for a repeat violation, you stand to have a penalty of up to $500 a day imposed.
So, we're going to go ahead and get started. Um, but I am going to entertain the consent agenda first. There's one item on the consent agenda and I'm going to um with respect to case number 2528 CESM Grey King LLC, I'm going to accept
the recommendation to extend the compliance date to September 10th, 2025. All right. And the first case we're going to call is 25 2005 CESM Sonia Herertado.
Are there two? >> Okay. So, she doesn't even talk about if you'll go ahead and have a seat. Yes. >> Anyone from the county who is going to be providing testimony, if you will raise your right hand, please to be sworn. 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. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Can you state your names, please? >> My name is Sonia. He my husband. >> And >> Dennis Colantes. >> Okay. And are both of you going to
provide testimony? >> Uh, just me. >> And you're authorizing him to speak on your behalf? >> Yes. >> Is does she have an is there a language barrier? Uh, yeah. Kind of. >> Okay. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and swear you 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? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you explain to her that um that she ask if if it's okay for you to be giving testimony on her behalf or if
she would like to speak? >> Okay, sounds good. just my wife. >> Okay, thank you. Ruth Goldstein, building division. This is case 25-5 CESM. Sonia C. Herado at
3408 Gleeves Court, Apopka in Semino County. Description of violation is installation of a mini split AC unit without the required permit. On June 12th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to August
13, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for August 14th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $177.82. The administrative cost to uh process this case for the inspector cost $56,965
for a total of $74747. Uh recommendation is the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to August 13, 2025, continuing to acrue at $250 per day until compliance based off of recent permit activity. Um
the inspector Brent Griffin is here to make an additional recommendation. >> Okay. >> I'm Brent Griffin, Semino County Building Inspector. Um we're recommending to give them an additional 30 days. >> Okay. with the permit process >> and they're currently not in compliance
at this time. >> Yeah, they're not >> they're not in compliance. Their permits working through the process. Um they just provided energy calculations which was needed in order to push the permit through. That just was provided today. So we're we're on the home run stretch here.
>> Okay. Are you okay with an additional 30 days or Okay, that will be sufficient for you. You're going to continue to work with the county and get them the what they need? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Then I will go ahead and um
provide a compliance extension to September 10th with the hearing date compliance hearing of September 11th. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks.
3 4 6 8 and that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. It's my wife blood. I can't I never The next case is 2462 CESM Mount Zion Baptist Church of
Midway. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Ruth Goldstein, building division. This is case 24-62. DESM Mount Zion Baptist Church of Midway Incorporated is the record property
owner at 2001 Cypes Avenue Sanford in Seminal County. The description of the violation is installation of a structure without the required permit. On April 10th, 2025, the special magistrate issued an amended order extending the compliance date from May
7th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for May 8th, 2025. On May 8th, 2025, an order was issued scheduling the respondent for a meeting on August 14th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this
case for the clerk totals $27,776. The administrative cost for the inspector is $68,266 for a total of $95,9.72. The recommendation is the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean from August 14th at $50 per t per
day continuing to acrue until in compliance. Um this case as well has had recent activity in the permitting process as of today this morning and this afternoon. And the inspector assigned to the case is Brent Griffin who would like to offer a secondary recommendation.
I'm Bren Griffin with the Seminal County Building Division. We would also like to recommend 30 more days. >> Okay. What's What's going on with the property? >> Uh the gazebo remains on the property.
Um they've had some drama with the contractor who initially applied for the permit. As you see on the screen, there are a couple of permit applications since 2024 that have been submitted. Uh the bottom two where it says gazebo inactive that was originally
applied for in November. It went inactive due to the contractor uh no longer pursuing the project. the gazebo um application underneath that was also voided due to activity and he recently contracted with a new contractor who has
reassigned it to uh a a young lady who has been diligently working on this for the last 12 days or so and is has just now gone through the pre-screen process and the plans are now in review. So, it'll have to go through building
review, planning review. Um, but we've finally gotten the permit to where it needs to go for those plans to be reviewed by the building department. Once that's approved, we get the payment, permits issued, and we're good to go. >> Sir, can you raise your right hand,
please? Do you solemnly swear from the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Can you state your name, please, for the record and your affiliation with the church? Uh Johnny Perry, uh Deacon, >> Mr. Perry, do you have a problem with um
or are you concerned with just an additional 30 days or do you think you can get this accomplished after speaking with your new contractor? Can you get it accomplished within the 30-day period that the county is recommending? >> Yes, we Yes, I think we can. >> Okay. Um, and the county does not um,
foresee that there's a reason why they wouldn't be able to finalize this in 30 days. >> No, we do not. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to go ahead and extend the compliance date to
September 10th, 2025 with a compliance hearing of September 11th, 2025. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The next case is 2277
CESM BMBB Land Holdings. Can you both raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Can you please state your name for the record, and your affiliation with the case?
>> Kenneth Nelson. I'm the new contractor. >> James Betts. I'm the owner of the business. Okay, go ahead. >> Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. This is for case 22-77 CESM for BNB Land Holding LLC is the
record property owner of 3468 East State Road 436 Aopka in Seminal County. VI a description of violation is that they have constructed a masonry wall with electrical conduit in the back portion of the property as well as a
shed type structure at the front of the building without the required permits. On May 8th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date from uh to August 13, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for August 14th, 2025.
The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $42563. The administrative cost for the inspector totals $1,27740 for a total administrative cost of $1,73.3. The special ma the recommendation is the
special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to August 13th continuing to acrue at $50 per day until in compliance. This is another case where recent permitting activity has occurred today actually um giving the
inspector uh additional recommendation uh to give them an additional 30 days. Correct? >> Yeah. >> Brett's here. >> Could you go pro provide me with what's going on in the case? >> Um they're just at payment stage.
>> So they've done everything other than payment. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. and the um the the fact that um they've done everything but payment.
Had they had it been sitting or what do you have? Mhm. >> So I think it was due to contractor issue. Here's all the pages. That's the last page. Turn the page.
It was a contracting issue. Julie Heird, Semino County Building. So, they had a previous contractor issue that uh the contractor left Mr. Bats and so he hired Mr. Nelson to take over the to take over the permit. So, um Mr.
Nelson is very he's been very diligent in getting the permit issued. Actually, it was right up until 25 after 1 that they issued the permit. So, or I'm sorry, he just has to pay then it will be issued. >> Okay. But it was due to a contractor issue.
>> Okay. And everything that the county has asked for, they've provided >> at the at the last minute. Uh they were through the permitting process and then uh they threw in a site plan that was needed. So that's why the permit sat for
I would say >> there were seven review cycles. >> Yes. >> Of this permit. >> Yes. So they worked to get that. We pushed it through. We uploaded it. We pushed it through and then like I said, uh if he goes outside, he can pay for his permit. It'll be issued.
>> Okay. Are you all intending to pay for your permit today while you're here? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. >> Yes. >> Um yeah. >> Do you have anything you'd like to add? >> Well, we don't want to say too much, but
the site plan, it was determined we didn't need to do another site plan. We did a survey and did all that. went through the planning zoning that was started in December of last year and it took time to get all that in process and you know get everything back at the county and get reviewed. Then they told
us we had to have a uh pre-construction meeting and then as of like the middle of last week it was we were told that wasn't necessary. We didn't have to have the site plan and then we went through the last couple stages with Julie and everything got resolved. So >> Okay. But it's been a it's been an
ordeal. >> Well, I appreciate you sticking with it. I think that um following through with what the county has asked you is what is part of the reason why I don't have a problem um continuing each time the compliance
state. It's when the communication stops is when I have a concern. So, if nothing else, if there if you run into any issues, again, just make sure you communicate at all times. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and continue. Yes. >> One last thing.
>> May May I politely ask that the fees be wavered for the court costs? I've already paid one lot of fees for the courts >> related to the permit itself. Correct.
So, to the code enforcement issue. He's already paid 900 or some dollars. >> There was administrative costs, I believe, that were paid 900 something dollars, right? >> He's already paid. >> Have I ordered them? >> It was a prior.
>> When When did I order them? >> I think you're right. I typically don't order them until >> I know they did, >> but it is weird that she imposed fines without >> Yeah, they were ordered. >> Yeah, >> originally.
Okay. And then you came back. There was an extension after the fact. Yeah. In the amended order. But this has been amended six times. So, we're on the seventh. I don't What happened with the
second amended order? And the >> what are the new co the new costs that you gave are in addition to the 900. >> These are the total costs from the beginning of the case. >> So you didn't take into consideration
the $900 that had been paid the 9006 in that >> the amount that we received from the clerk was the 425. I I I don't know if the 900 was originally part of that. >> So, you received a new Well, there's
obviously the 94 is in there somewhere for that that to be $73. Actually, you've got the estimate of cost, right? >> I know. I I mean I realize this case has been going on for three years, but
>> Oh, she's got puppies. She's got everything. Okay. So, this hasn't taken into account the 900, but then there are additional 400 clerk fees. Okay. So, what's going to h need to happen is I'm not I normally don't rule
on fees and costs until you're in compliance anyway. So, that's why I'm a little thrown off by what made me order these fees and costs back then. Um, so >> I'm going to ask that the county get
this straightened out taking into account what you have paid to this point to show me what is remaining and where we are and where that came from. And then at the compliance hearing on September 11th, I'll make the decision
related to the fees. Okay. Thank you. >> You said September 11th. >> September 10th is the right is the compliance date. September 11th is the um the compliance hearing. >> Thank you. >> You're all set. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Next. Oh, wow. If you guys want to go to the front, please. >> Ask for Derek. >> Thank you. I'm gonna pay attention to that from this point forward, but Okay.
The next case is 2562 CESM Sabira Properties LLC. Where is this? And the power of attorney was provided previously. Okay. >> Canvas.
Candace. Canvas. >> Hi. >> Good morning. Can I go ahead and swear you in? Do you summarly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Can you please state your name for the record? >> David Hourback, speaking on behalf of the uh building owner. >> And you actually have a a power of
attorney to speak on their behalf. Okay, great. Thank you. >> That was a new case. Okay. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. This is for case 25-62 CESM for the record property owner of
Sabira Properties LLC. This is for the property located at 157 Candace Drive, also at 9202 South US Highway 1792 in Mland, Seminal County, Florida. The violation charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1.
Description of this violation is installation of an exterior sign with electric without the required permit. The case summary is as follows. The initial inspection was conducted on July 16th, 2024 with notices sent to the
respondent on July 17th, 2024 and December 19th, 2024. The notice of violation was amended on December 19th, 2024 to include the exterior sign with electric. Uh the previous notice of violation that was sent out on July
17th, 2024 was for other violations that have since come into compliance and are no longer uh part of this case. Compliance dates and extensions provided by the building division are shown on the screen. Follow-up inspections uh
both on-site and via computer are also shown. The results of these reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. This is a screenshot of the Semino County Property Appraiser Office showing that uh Sabira Properties LLC is the
record owner of the property. This is the notice of hearing for this hearing which was posted on the property July 28th, 2025. And we also have a copy of a signed uh certified receipt that was returned uh
for that notice of hearing. It's sign it was mailed to the registered agent of the property owner and was signed January 17th, 2025. These are photographs of the exterior sign with electric that were taken during the inspection December 4th,
2024. These are additional photographs to display the electrical connections there. and more photos taken February 3rd, 2025 of the exterior sign with the electric.
Uh this is a photo of the front of the store there in May 2023. This is a uh the slide shows the permit history for this parcel and this address. A permit application has been received. It was submitted August 4th,
2025 for the sign with the electric. Uh the application is currently under review. It has not yet been issued as a permit due to uh site plan department review. So it looks like it's still currently on the county side going
through the review process as of August 8th, 2025. This is a copy of chapter 40 which what they are in violation of and the recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case
number 25-62 CESM. It is determined that the respondent is the owner of record of the property located at 157 Candace Drive Mland in Semino County as determined by the property appraisers records. they're in possession or control of the property and they are in
violation of seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. It is further recommended that the respondent uh further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondent to correct the violation on or before October 9th 2025. In order to
correct this 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 the violation continues or is repeated after compliance. The respondent must contact
the inspector to verify compliance. Inspector Brent Griffin is here for any additional information. This concludes our presentation. >> I'm Brent Griffin with the Sim County Building Division. Can you please submit this and evidence? Do you have any um
objection to the electronic case file which has been presented here today that you have a copy of being presented into the record as evidence? >> No ma'am I do not. >> Okay, I'll accept it into the record. Um do you have anything that you would like to add related to what the county has
presented? I do see that there has been a a permit um application submitted um and they have asked for a compliance date of October 9th. I would just ask if we go maybe 30 days more past that because we don't know if we're going to
have any issues with the site plan review and then taking it from that point going forward. >> Okay, we are in August. Does the county have a problem with November 12th um for a compliance date
instead of October 8th? >> No, we do not. Okay, then I will go ahead and >> give you a compliance state of November 12th and if you are not in compliance by
November 12th, a fine in the amount of $250 a day will be imposed. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> That was our recommendation. Okay, the next case is 2476 CESM
Michael Shadine. Hey, 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? >> I do. >> Can you state your name, please, for the record and your affiliation with the case? >> Michael Shadon, the property owner. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. This is for case 24-76 CESM, the property located at 1760 Mullet Lake Park Road in Geneva Semino County. The record property owner of Michael S. Shidoan. The description of
the violation is installation of an addition, a pool, and accessory structures without the required permits. On June 12th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to August 13th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for
August 14th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $99.82. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector is $757.111 uh for a total administrative cost of
$856.93. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to August 13, 2025 at $100 per day and continuing to acrue until in compliance. Inspector Brent Griffin is here for any
follow-up questions. Go ahead. >> Inspector Griffin, can you um let me know what's going on with the property? >> So, there's two, but nothing's happened. >> Since when
520 sorry, 720? >> Um, so they have uh two permit applications. um from 721 and 85 and nothing has happened towards those two per
applications. >> Go back to that slide for a second. >> Those are the two permit applications uh Brent's talking about. Uh they have been submitted. They have just been stuck in the corrections at plan review. One of them has been in corrections since
August 5th and the other one has been in corrections since July 21st, 2025. >> Corrections meaning sub. >> Yeah. Go to the next slide, Julie. There we go. So on this one, this is the
workflow for the pool and deck permit number 25-7609. Corrections were submitted to the applicant July 21st, 2025. Looks like they were accepted by the applicant, which means they've acknowledged that there are corrections. We just haven't
seen a response from them. And on the next two slides, you'll see the comments that were submitted. This is just a snapshot of as an example of what the unresolved uh comments are for that permit application. And then the next couple slides here, we've got the
workflow for the Pullbar permit application 25-6621. Uh the applicant has accepted the corrections task as well. That was more recently submitted August 5th, 2025, and we haven't gotten uh any response yet.
It's likely they're still working on the corrections. The next slide shows a snapshot of the electrical uh comments that were provided. >> Okay, sir. >> Okay. I thought there was three permits.
Do y'all y'all not show the one? There is there's another fence permit, but that doesn't have anything to do with the case that's being heard today. >> Oh, okay. But anyways, on the pole barn, you asked for an electrical drawing and I thought we'd sent that in. I know
we've tried to. We tried several times to scan it and send it in and your system wasn't working, but we thought the last time we did it, it had went in that drawing for the electrical. Do you have a contractor, sir, that is
um drawing those plans for you? >> I do have for the pool. I do have a contractor that's doing a um a TDH curve, I think is what it was called on
the swimming pool. And on the electrical, I did it myself. No, I don't have a contractor that drew it. I drew it up myself. >> Okay. And it and it appears like there are com there are comments from the county on the electrical review plan. So
are you aware of those comments? >> Yeah, that you wanted a layout of everything and that's what we drew I drew up. Alls it is is a a a box out there with a one plug that that's all that's in the electrical. It there's no
lighting or anything. And I drew it on the plan that we sent in. I think the plans examiner is here today that actually made those comments. So, he could stop by the building division and request to speak with an electrical plans examiner. Um, specifically Ken and
he may be around uh back from lunch. He may be able to address your concerns. >> Okay. >> And if it's a task thing, are you operating the e-lan by your on your own or are you having the permit technicians upload documents into e-lan for you >> or are you doing it? >> My wife's doing it.
>> Your wife's doing it. Okay. Um, if it's an upload issue where you can also verify with the permit technicians at the front counter if your wife has uploaded that document and it's just a matter of completing that task button. It's just one click and that's what essentially throws the ball back to the building division for review. If that's
all it is, then the the building division can go ahead and just usurp that step and launch it back into the review process. >> Okay. Do you have a inspector or something that can actually come out and walk over everything with
us and try to push this along or you can't do anything until there's a permit pulled? >> Uh, no. Unless it's a a code violation instance. Our inspectors are only going to be walking the property looking at the structures if there is an issued permit.
>> Um, >> yeah. Unless there's something that needs to be arranged with the code enforcement inspectors to where a site visit is needed to determine what type of permitting. >> Yeah. >> You know, plans are needed. >> Okay. Well, it's just it's just been
dragging on and this email back and forth just it don't seem to be getting anywhere >> because it's been a year and a half we've been dealing with this. >> Have you tried to go to the counter to talk to someone to understand? Yeah, I've been over there several times and
every time that I go over there, they give me another stack of forms to fill out like this. We fill them out, send them in, and it just then we everybody has their questions and it just it's dragging on and on.
>> I I think if you get with Ken today, he can probably help you out with it just by what you can explain to him so that he can kind of lead you in the right direction for what exactly you need. So Ken with the electric division. >> Yes. He's the uh electric um chief plans
examiner. >> Okay. >> And on this slide on the right here, this shows the comments for the pool and deck permit. That TDH calculation you were talking about, that looks like that's going to need to be uploaded. But looking at these, those submission
comments are pre-screen comments, which means there may be some administrative forms that are still needed. Um the application right there, a completed owner builder statement is needed. So you're the only person that can do that and they need your signature on the owner builder statement. Um so these are
administrative forms that can be handled at the counter. That last comment is a plan review fee. So they can't actually send your plans into review until I think it's 20 bucks or something until that fee is paid. And that can also be done at the front counter. Um, but the
TDH calculation is is not something I don't think they can help you with at the front counter. >> Yeah. >> What your contractor's working on. But some of those items definitely can like list the owner of record on the contractor company as the contractor company. Sounds easy peasy.
>> Okay. >> And can Ken help him with these things as well? Any of the permit technicians at the front counter can assist with these corrections shown on the screen with the exception of the payment of the plan review. I mean they can accept your payment and the TDH calculation but Ken
can address the concerns for the other permit application. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, how long do we think that um um because each time we're given let's see what we gave last time.
>> It was 60 days last time. >> Okay. So, our original compliance was March. So, each time it looks like we've given 60 days. Um
maybe 90 in between and then 60 again. Um I want to do this one last time. I don't want to keep giving extensions. Um, but what I need then is for you to be mindful of the fact that you've you were
on amendment number three and without some sort of I and I understand that you are capable of of doing the work on your own and I appreciate that, but sometimes um to get us over the
hump, we need to hire someone to help out with with maybe navigating the system. And so I'm going to give you 90 days, but if you're finding after about 30 that you're not making headway, I think
it might be in your best interest to get someone to help you um to get this accomplished because I do not want to have another extension past November 12th. >> I don't either. >> Okay. >> I want it done.
>> Okay. So, I'm going to extend your compliance date to November 12th with a compliance hearing of November 13th. Um, and so please, when we're we're on November 13th, when we're back here, I
want good news that you're in compliance. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. What's service right? >> So nice. >> And the new guy
get his feet wet. Okay. Next matter 2510 CESM Joseph Migliago Mglakio. Migliaio.
Okay. Good deal. Good afternoon, sir. Can you 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? >> I do. >> Can you please state your name for the record and affiliation with the case? >> Joseph Migliacho, homeowner.
>> Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, building division. This is case 25-10 CESM for the property located at 922 Lewis Place, Longwood in Seminal County. The violation charged is
seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of a shed without the required permit. The case summary is as follows. The initial inspection was conducted March
21st, 2024 with the notice to the respondent mailed out March 22nd, 2024. The compliance st dates and extensions provided by the building division are shown on the screen as well as the follow-up site inspections and inspections via the computer. The
results of these reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. This slide shows the Semino County property appraiser uh showing that Joseph G. Miglatiau is the record owner of the property
located at 922 Lewis Place in Longwood. Here's a copy of the uh certified return receipt uh that was received uh signed by the owner. That was for the notice of this hearing.
And here's a photo of the shed that is in question. This was taken during the initial inspection March 21st, 2024. And these are additional photos of the shed taken May 13th and June 24th, 2024.
These photos were taken during the inspection on February 25th, 2025. And finally, updated photos of the shed taken uh August 13, 2025. This screen shows the permit history
associated with the parcel. There is a permit application that was uh submitted back on April 25th, 2024. However, it was subsequently voided due to over 180 days of inactivity. Uh prior to the application being voided, there were
corrections submitted to the applicant. Uh those corrections were from drainage and zoning departments. In order to proceed, a new permit application must be submitted and no other permit applications have been received at this time. This is a copy of chapter 40 in which
they are in violation. And the recommendation is that based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-10 CESM, it is determined that the respondent is the record owner of the property located at 922 Lewis Place in Longwood in Semino County as
determined by the property appraisers records. They are in possession or control of the property and they're in violation of the Seminal County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondent to
correct the violation on or before October 8th, 2025. In order to correct this 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 the
violation continues or is repeated after compliance. Uh the respondent must contact the inspector to verify compliance. Inspector Brent Griffin is here for any additional uh questions if needed. >> I'm Brent Griffin with the Sim County Building Division. Can you please submit
this an evidence? >> Do you have any objection to the county submitting the electronic case file which is in front of you and which has been shown here today into evidence? >> No objecting to that at all. The whole situation I do. >> Okay. So, let me take one thing at a time. It'll be your turn. I'm gonna
accept the electronic case file into the record as evidence. Okay. Now, it'll be your opportunity. >> Okay. I tried. It's not It's not about applying for I did apply for the permit. And when Ruth had sent me an email that was going to expire to renew it, I
called and spoke to some. I said, you know, Ruth sent me a email. I want to renew the permit. Um, and he went online, looked, well, you can't because you're, you know, you're going to court. I said, ' Okay, I'm I'm just doing what I was responding back to an email. It's not about the permit. It's you won't
give me a permit because you're telling me that they told me that that property right there is the association owns it and it's landscape buffer and you can't put nothing in there. I said, well, everyone else has sheds back here. Um
nextdoor neighbor, he's got a second one put up even between this. He had the first one before me, then a second one. And I had pictures of all of them. There's 10 lots on that side. And there's at least three more sheds. There's a concrete slab with a on with a
screen enclosure. There's everyone has structures in there. And I did a a pictures of all of them. And like why can't I put one? Everyone else can. So that's the issue. It's not about the building. I stopped building it because I was told, you know, when I got this, so I did stop building it. Um, but the
issue is you're not allowing me to put something that everyone else has and it's no different. And when I told them when I was here, I said, "Well, why can't I when everyone else has them?" Well, that's not our problem. I'm like, "Well, what am I supposed to do?
I don't I don't know who else to turn to, but every the association there's like, "Yeah, that's your property. You you you you can do whatever you want. You maintain it. You can put something back there. We have no issues at all." And I said, "I know everyone else does." I said, "But you guys don't want me to put mine. You're not allowing me to to
put a shed up there, and I'd like to know why." So, um, the the reason why your shed got the issue on it was because it's all new construction.
Um, I believe our chief building inspector found it doing another inspection in the area. Um, and that's how I got brought up. As far as the other structures go, they're still going to need a permit. So, somebody would have to basically tell on them, call on
them. >> Well, and and I'm not here to do that. I, you know, but that's the only thing I have to help me like, you know, I don't understand. And, and yes, the one next door to me is brand new. Okay. He had that shed installed literally maybe a
month or so or two before mine was, you know, before I started mine. And um it's I don't want to get everyone in trouble, but everyone else has something there. Permit or not, I don't know. And then I don't want to. Obviously, you can see what I see. And I went over with a, you
know, with a drone and got all the pictures. And I just I don't understand. You going to make everyone take all theirs out now? And >> so, like I said, the the only way that that we'll go out there, Seminal County actually goes off of homeowner complaints. We don't actually drive
around and see it. Um, unless we're doing an initial inspection somewhere else and we happen to pass by and notice it. >> Um, with that shed on your property, it has brand new Hardy board on it. So, you understand see that
>> if they're buying pre-manufactured sheds and putting them back, we may not be able to see that. Um, but like I said, for them >> it would have to go off customer complaints and basically turn them in for us to go out there and see it unless we catch
them in the act of building like your property was caught is how that would work. So, I guess my question is you you all are enforcing a private homeowners uh private homeowners associations
easement. >> Actually, if we have a planner available that can provide testimony for the correction comments that were provided for the permit application that was voided out. Can you go to that global screen real quick? If we have someone that can check on their laptops to tell
us what were the correction comments submitted by drainage and zoning for application 24-6160. I don't have those physically printed out, but I'm assuming that is where the answer lies. >> I I resubmitted those. I brought those to her and I thought what
>> the drainage one she said to draw a plan and bring it back to me and I did. >> Gotcha. Okay. So then it got voided out due to inactivity. That's what uh we would we would like to see or a while ago. That's what I >> Oh, we don't have a laptop available. Okay. So, we can't actually access cuz I do not have the um comments from
drainage or zoning in front of me. But it's likely that if it didn't pass that review, it it was subject to review that location, they weren't allowed to have the shed in that location. And that might be where the conversation ended because the application then went into a void status after nothing was done.
>> Okay. Um, >> but you're not showing me what what conversation that was had with him. So, I'm >> But but someone just said something about an easement. I'm not sure which one of you said it.
>> A landscape buffer is what it is. It's >> a landscape buffer. Yes. So then is that a requirement of the Semino County code that landscape buffer or is it a landscape buffer that is the homeowners association's landscape buffer?
>> The association that told me that we don't maintain that you guys do. It's yours to do whatever you want on it. We we sprinkler it. We we've been I said, "Okay, who gonna pay for all the water that I've irrigated and I have a side loft that do the same thing." So it homeowner association is not the issue.
>> It would have got hung up at review if your site plan showed it to be outside of your property line in an easement and there would have been comments. >> You just said if you don't you're not you're not telling me. >> Right. I don't have the comments in front of me. You're right. >> We would need a planner to come provide
testimony for that. >> I'm trying to find where I drew. She just told me to go and mark this and and where which way the water flows and that and I did I did that. Um >> you don't have access to the internet. >> That's why
>> do you want >> Angie Gates plan are you able to provide testimony at this time or >> I was going to ask if he had a copy of his site plan with him then I would be able to answer >> with the site plan. I I do. >> Okay, then let me go ahead and swear you 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. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> And if that's not enough, I have other ones, too. So, >> okay. According to the copy of the survey, he built a shed on property that
doesn't belong to him. So, it's not going to be permitted regardless. In order for this to be approved, the subdivision would have to amend their PD. >> So, what is what is he showing that he his shed is built on? >> It's in a tract.
>> Okay. And that tract is behind his house, but it's not >> Yes, ma'am. is so it's adjacent to >> it is adj it's the rear tract >> and track it's labeled as track B. It could be a landscape buffer, but it was
required at the time of the development of the >> And can you tell from that's a survey, so you probably can't tell, but um whether the tract was open space, vacant land, what >> I can I got pictures of everything if
you want it. Without having the dedications of the actual plat itself in front of me, I wouldn't be able to tell you that there's a wall there >> in it. Start with the first one. >> So, it's probably a landscape buffer and
wall easement, but that's just but it's not within the bounds. >> It is not on his property at all. >> Okay. >> This goes this is me. This is a section here. >> So, do you want this? you can look at them on a and a special >> don't tell my neighbors I I showed
anything please. >> So sir what what has happened is although you may be taking care of that property and maybe that's a a different issue that you need to pursue but it is not
within the bounds of your property. So you can't get a permit to put a shed on someone else's property. >> My next door neighbor got a permit for his. Well, I don't know whether your next door neighbor got a permit for it or not, but what has happened is where
your shed is located. It's in a a se separate tract of land that is not within the bounds of your property. And the survey that you have provided shows that. So, >> and right, my whole point is that
everyone has something back there. >> Okay. But but everyone's not before me right now. You sound like my child when she comes home and tells me, "Well, Lexi got a bad grade, too." I So, >> I need to I can't impose upon you
enough. It strictly is because it's not within your property boundary. So, if you've been doing something to cultivate the property, to take care of it, then maybe you have a different cause of action and you should probably go see an attorney. um about
>> that piece of property, but right now as it sits, it's not within the bounds of your existing property. So, the county can't give you a permit to put something on property that isn't yours. >> Even with approval from association,
>> you would probably have to show an easement from them. And then I don't even know whether that would be something that the county would allow because they have setback requirements and those sorts of things. So I just a yes it's fine with us. No they would
that would not be permitted. >> So how do I go about taking care of this then? What I mean what would be my next step then? >> Removal of the shed from its location. >> Got a concrete slab.
>> But the concrete slab is not on your property. So, are you going to go No, I You're right. I don't want I don't want to bring your child into again. No, but I'm saying if if somebody else is doing it, then they're going to be met with the same
situation if it's in this area that is not on their property. And I'm not entirely sure. Uh it looks to me like that's a sideyard of yours or maybe >> the whole the whole property the the whole right side is all the sideyard also. Correct.
>> Okay. So, it is your it's your backyard though. >> Yes, that's my that's the backyard. Correct. >> Okay. >> It's it's everyone's backyard. Uh it's 50 ft from from my home, I guess. >> Okay. And so if you have if someone else has something that's in that tract
that's outside of the boundary of their property, then I doubt they have a permit for it. Well, they Okay, not to be a dead horse, but that shed that you see immediately next door, that's a second one. He had he got a permit for that and then he put another
carport right in front of it. So, >> so I don't I don't see anything on the survey. I'm looking at your survey. >> It was It was on the picture I was showing. It's here. You He has two two structures on his end and they did pull permits for so and he even told me that
I got permits for these. Can I see the picture that you're talking >> I'll show you the one just so the >> you know that's on this survey >> you're it ends here this little tract right here so it's possible that
property back here in their yards is not in a separate >> No the whole um I don't I didn't bring the uh the the paperwork from the association that whole easement all around those 10 homes. It's 50 ft
from the center line. It's almost from a middle other side of the sidewalk. There's a a brick wall, >> then a sidewalk. We're on this side of the brick wall. Then it's another it's like 10 ft from the brick wall is our property is associations plus another
40. So 50 feet is what the easement and that whole street is the exact same thing. It's It's I mean I didn't bring the paperwork with me for that. Um >> yeah, you all might want to go out because this guy has he's got a
property. I mean he's encumbering that same tract. It looks like >> every everybody is >> You also have a fence in that tract. It looks like >> Okay. So, um yes, we all got fences in that. >> Is it your fence or the next door neighbor's
>> That one is mine. That one was, you know, there before we bought the house and everyone has fences in their backyard doing the exact same thing. And he said, "Well, no one can have fences there." I'm like, "Well, this is crazy. I mean, how do you close off your backyard and
you know, the association when you bought the property is this is all your property. You got to maintain it all." And that's why I said if I you know I spoke to the president and he goes no that's you maintain you pay the water you know cut it you do everything about it everyone does I don't go they didn't
understand Mike didn't understand you know what's going on I we have no problem with it at all >> madam magistrate >> okay I'm going to I'll >> okay >> if I can go ahead and swear you in >> absolutely >> do you solely so affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> I absolutely do. Uh my name is John
Martin. I'm the manager of code enforcement for Semino County. Um and I would respectfully ask at this point if the magistrate would continue this case uh 60 days to allow us to look into the logistics of these property boundaries and make a determination as to which is
the best way to proceed at that point. >> Okay. Then that's what I'm going to do. You have been ordered to be here today. So what will just happen is the there will just be a continuence. So, you'll receive an order in the mail, but
they're not you. You are being told that you're going to be expected to be back here on September, no, October 8th. Okay. >> Okay. >> At 1:30, >> they'll send me They'll send me a
letter. >> Yes, they will send you a letter, but we are letting you know here. So, they're just going to send you a letter, regular mail. They don't they don't have to. >> I understand. I understand. >> Um that on October 9th, you'll be back
here and we'll hear this case once um the county has been able to process everything. Um do you have another copy of this survey or is this something? >> Um I I do. I I have plenty of them. >> Are you okay with this being submitted into the record as well?
Yeah. I'm not I mean, here's uh I got I don't know which one I gave you, but it's the same thing. >> Yeah. So, you're fine though with me keeping it for the record. >> That's fine. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> Okay. Then I'm going to continue this case um
to October 9th. Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anything that I can do meanwhile or not? anything with association or >> um I think someone will be in contact with
you one way or the other. >> You can speak with >> I think Mr. Martin is going to speak with you from >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Alexis, >> make sure that I see the Yeah. When we
>> come back on this one Exactly. >> Cuz I would talk too Orisa Casa LLC. Orisa Sport Club. Let me put this back real quick a lean earring. Okay, this one we have
not made. Okay, so this one is just Okay, so just so you know. Thank you. >> Just make Ruth Goldstein Building Division. This is for case 25-35
CESM. It's for the property located at 1954 Boat Club Road, Ovido, Florida, Semino County, which is owned by Arisa Casa LLC. The description of the violation is installation of an addition to the rear of the house for living space, replaced
electric meter base, and hose bib without the required permits. Uh, this case was originally heard by the special magistrate on May 8th, 2025 and an order was issued giving the respondents a compliance date of August 13, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for
August 14th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $88.91. The administrative cost for the inspector totals $62,321. The total administrative cost for both
the clerk and the inspector is $71212. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to August 13th, 2025 and continuing to acrewue at $250 per day until in
compliance. Inspector Brent Griffin is here as well who was assigned to the case. >> I'm Brent Griffin with Sim County Building Division. Can you please submit this evidence? Well, what I need is you to give me some evidence regarding why they're not in compliance.
>> They have uh some corrections that were needed to be done. Um I think the task was actually accepted today or yes yesterday the 13th,
right? >> Yes. The application was submitted in April. It's been, as the screen shows, it's been through a couple of rounds of pre-screen corrections before it has hit plan review. The most recent corrections were submitted to the applicant on August 11th, 2025, and the task was
accepted yesterday. I don't believe any uh further documentation has been uploaded in response to the comments. And this is a snapshot of some of the comments that were uploaded to the system. >> Okay. Okay. And are these administrative things? Are these things that
>> actually that last comment there is says that you're going to need a septic permit or a no action required letter from the health department. Uh that can take some time. Uh so depending on on where he's at in the process with the
other corrections that it could take 30 days or longer. >> Okay. And if we're dealing with a state agency, sometimes longer is probably the more. >> And again, depending on where he's at in the process, I don't know if he's already started that or not. That was
just anformational. It could already have been started before the application was submitted. I don't know. >> Okay. Okay. Sir, um, can you 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, I do. >> Can you please state your name and your
affiliation with the case? Ralph ODM Destiny Construction. So I have been representing the owner was here on the previous um the previous um appear hearing. Yeah. So um right now um we've
submitted some updated information to get the permit through as requested. Um what I know what triggered the sewers initially when we submitted um I was under the understanding that they were connected to actually city sewer versus
septic. So we'll proceed with the process for the sewer to get the letter or whatever is required from the state. Um as far as the additional comments uh we had submitted some documentation because a lot of times we do private provider to help expedite things for an approval standpoint. So, we just need to
do some updates on that. And um I got some clarification also on the actual meterbase issue. So, we're moving forward with that or what have you. So, we want to continue to push through and uh hopefully get some type of extension to get this caught up and get that
permit. >> Okay. Issued. >> How long do you think it's going to take you to get the permit? >> Um basically a 30-day 30 or 45day extension should be good as far as getting the actual building permit. Just like they stated, the only thing I'm just kind of concerned about is how
quickly we'll be able to get the sewer letter since it's coming from the state agency side of things. >> So, I have a quick question. Yes, magistrate. >> Did you start this permit application as private provider from the beginning? >> Uh, I believe yes, I believe we did that
we did upload it. I just can't I can't remember. I think we started it that way, but there were uh there were completeness check comments that came up initially. >> Okay, cool. Just want to make sure cuz if you you can't go back and forth. You got to like pick one and with it. So, if you didn't start it that way, >> right? Yeah.
>> Yeah, we did. We did. Okay, no problem. >> Okay. Because there's a different agency involved and we know that that's part of it. I'm actually going to give you until November 11th. >> Okay. >> Okay. um to come into compliance. And so I
will amend the order to provide you till November 11th for your compliance um deadline with a compliance hearing of November 12th. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All righty. >> Wait. No, wait. Hold on. >> I looked at the wrong Yes, it's November
12th with November 13th as your compliance hearing. >> Okay, no problem. Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay. 2557 CESM
Alciadis sufer this one too. Okay. Ruth Goldstein Building Division. This is case 25-57 CESM for the property located at 5405 Justine Way, Winter Park, Semino County. This is
owned by Elcides S. Suf. The violation charge to Seminal County Code, Chapter 40, Appendix A, Section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of mother-in-law suite to include kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and removal of electric and conduit from the
ceiling replaced with junction boxes without the required permits. The case summary is as follows. The initial inspection took place October 22nd, 2024 with a notice to the respondent sent October 22nd, 2024. The
compliance dates and extensions provided are shown on the screen as well as the follow-up inspections for on-site visits and computer reinspections. The results of those reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. And this is a screenshot showing uh the
property owned by Alcides suf per the property appraisers website records. This is a photograph showing the notice of hearing for this hearing which was posted on the property July 28th, 2025. These are photos of the subject
violation showing the mother-in-law suite at the rear of the residence. This was taken during the initial inspection December 5th, 2024. These are additional photos taken November 7th of the interior of the mother-in-law suite. This includes a kitchen, bedroom, and
bathroom. Then we have additional photos of the interior. And this these are photos taken October 22nd, 2024 showing the electrical conduit and the junction boxes installed on the ceiling of the screen room.
And more electrical conduit and junction boxes taken October 22nd, 2024. The notice of the violation and a copy of the final letter were posted on the property January 25th, 2025 due to the
certified mail being returned. That's a copy of the letter and where it was posted uh at the door of the property. This screen shows the permit history associated with this parcel. Permit application 25-41 shown on the screen as a garage
alteration. It was received January 10th, 2025. This would correct the violation. However, it is currently under review. It has not yet been issued as a permit due to required corrections. These were submitted to the applicant uh January 13, 2025.
This screen shows the plan review workflow showing it's been through one review cycle and the task is currently on the applicant side uh awaiting accept or no, I'm sorry, it has been accepted, but nothing further has been provided.
This screen shows a snapshot of uh the building review comments that were provided for that permit application. and this is chapter 40 in which they are in violation of a recommendation is that based on the testimony and evidence presented in case
number 25-57 CESM it is determined that the respondent is the record owner of the property located at 5405 Justine way Winter Park in Semino County as determined by the property appraisers records he's 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 respondent to correct the violation on or before October 8th, 2025.
In order to correct this 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 the violation continues or is repeated after compliance.
The respondent must contact the inspector to verify compliance. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin, who is available for questions. >> I'm Brent Griffin with the Sim County Building Division. Can you please submit
this for evidence? >> I will um accept the electronic case file into the record as evidence. I will find that the property owner has um been properly noticed to be here today
and is not present to participate. I will find that there has in fact been shown a violation of Simino County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1 and I will order that the property be brought into compliance
uh with the county's code by October 8th 2025 or a fine in the amount of $250 a day will be imposed. Next case 2529 C October 8th. Yes. October 8th compliance date with an
October 9th hearing. >> The 8th is the compliance date. The nth. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> With Okay. Okay, the next case 2559 CESM Samuel Law Blow Blue
B L E U S What is wrong? Why can't I find anything right now? There we go. Ruth Goldstein, building division. This is case 25-59 CESM. This is for the property located at 1449 Shadwell Circle, Lake Mary, Semino County, which
is owned by Samuel Bloom. The violation charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of lath and stucco on the house without the required permit as well as interior renovations exceeding
the scope of work for issued permit number 17-17298 and pool renovations exceeding the scope of work for issued permit 18-1682. The case summary is as follows. The initial inspection was conducted
February 28th, 2024 with a notice to the respondent mailed February 29th, 2024. Uh several compliance dates and extensions were provided shown on the screen as well as follow-up inspections of both on-site visits and computer reinspections. The results of those
reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. This is a screenshot of the property appraisers office showing that Samuel Blue is the record owner of the property. And this is a screenshot of the notice
of hearing for this hearing. It was posted on the property July 28th, 2025. And here we have photos of the exterior alterations which include lath and stucco on the main residence which was taken during the inspection February
28th, 2024. This is a picture of the notice of violation that was left on the property uh at the front door February 28th, 2024. A stop work order was also posted on the property on the front window February
29th, 2024. Per these inspection results, the violation was revised to include scopes of work from the previously expired permits as the work observed on site exceeds what was previously approved.
These photos show the L and Stuckco and the exterior renovations on the main residence which were taken April 5th, 2024 and May 6th, 2024. A notice of violation was posted on the property May 13, 2024 due to the mail
being returned to the county. And these photographs show a copy of the final letter. Uh the final letter was dated September 24th, 2024. and it was posted on the property October 22nd, 2024 due to the mail being returned. The
inspector also uh handed the letter directly to the owner and that is a copy of the affidavit of personal service signed by the inspector on the screen. These photos were taken during the inspection February 3rd, 2025, showing
the Lath and the Stuckco installed. and closer pictures of the structure taken February 3rd, 2025. And the most recent inspection we conducted was August 13, 2025, showing the construction.
The violations remain on the property. This is a screenshot showing the permit history for this parcel. There are no permit applications received or issued for the L and Stuckco worth work work that has been performed on the house. The top permit application
there labeled pool 8 uh permit 18-1682 was issued in February 2018 to demolish the existing pool and build a new pool. The permit below that is permit number 17-17298 that was issued in February of 2018 to
construct an addition with a master bath and summer kitchen, remodel the kitchen bar area, replacing stairs, installing new windows, and drywall replacement. Both of these permits were applied for and issued to resolve a previous building code violation.
Um the previous case number 16-83 was brought into compliance upon the issuance of these permits and both of these permits have since expired without the required inspections. Okay, we're good there. Next slide. This is a copy of chapter 40 in which they
are in violation of and the re recommendation is that based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-59 CESM it is determined that the respondent is the record owner of the property located at
1449 Shadwell Circle Lake Mary 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 is further recommended that the
special magistrate order the respondent to correct the violations on or before October 8th, 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 respondent must contact the inspector to verify compliance. The inspector assigned to this case is Brent Griffin, who is here to enter the case into the record.
>> I'm Brent Griffin with the Seminal County Building Division. Can you please submit this as evidence? >> I'm going to accept the electronic case file into the record as evidence. I'm going to find that the property owner was um
there was after the returned mail, the mailing that was sent to the mailing address on the property card for the property appraiser um that there was personal service and posting on the property related to the vi notice of violation and notice of hearing for
today's hearing. Um, I'm gonna find that the property owner was properly noticed to be here today and has failed to um come to participate in the proceeding. I'm going to find that the property owner is in violation of Simol County
Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1 for failure to have the proper building permits for the work being completed on the property. And I am going to order that the property be brought into compliance by October 8th, 2025 with a
compliance hearing of October 9th, 2025 or a fine in the amount of $250 a day will be imposed. Next case, 2531 CESM Yahoo Properties LLC.
Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 25-31 CESM is for the property located at 9250 Overland Road, Apopka Semino County, which is owned by Yahoo Properties LLC. The description of the violation is
solar panel work without the required permit. Next slide. On July 10th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date from July 9th, 25 to August 13, 2025, with a meeting scheduled for August
14th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $16.92. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $7355
for a total administrative cost for both the clerk and the inspector of $81047. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to August 13, 2025 and continuing to acrew at $250 per day until in
compliance. This concludes my presentation >> and can you give me some testimony regarding why the property is out of compliance still to the global screen? Yes, there is a there is a permit application that was
submitted uh permit application 24-14641 submitted September 26th in 2024 which shows on the screen as demolition and electrical. That permit has been approved. It's pending payment. It's been pending payment since August
7th. Once the payment has been received, the permit can be issued and the case is in compliance. >> So, it's just payment. >> Payment and issuance. Yes, ma'am. >> And since August 7th, >> yes. >> Have we tried to make contact with him?
>> Yes, we have been in communication with the uh landlord on site associated with Yahoo Properties um who is aware of it and aware of the inspections required. I do know he's in active conversation with the fire department regarding inspections assigned to that particular permit. Um,
>> wait a second. I thought it was just payment there. Go back to the global screen. Yes, there are other permits here. He has uh inspections for that demolition and electrical permit that were previously inspected by fire. Um, the
permits been issued for their portion. He had to submit a revision for that permit to accommodate the solar work. That revision has been approved. It has not yet been issued due to the non-payment. So, the fire department has gone out there and has been inspecting
it as recently as the week of the 6th and 7th. Uh have had communication. I've spoken with the uh registered agent personally. Have informed him of the payment required and he was aware of this hearing.
So in addition to payment on the one permit, he has other permits that he hasn't. I that could be a bit confusing. The permit that's labeled demolition and electrical was issued. It did not include the scope of work for the solar
panel work in which he's in violation of. So he completed a revision to that permit to include the scope of work. That revision has been approved, but they have to pay for it. Okay. And then the roof repairs are something completely separate. >> Roof repair is a separate permit that
has been issued, inspected, approved. Um, when you have solar panel removal, you have to have a a re-roof permit with it. Sometimes you require an additional Brent can provide testimony for that. When you remove a permit, you have remove solar panels, you have to get a permit for it
before the roof can be redone. >> You want me to speak on >> I mean, you can't. I don't know how to explain that. >> So, I'm struggling a little bit to start a fine on someone that just needs to pay for their permit.
Um because that's throwing good money after bad. If has he said anything regarding whether he is going to pay for the permit? No. The last time I talked to him, uh,
he was communicating most with the fire department and trying to get power established at that site and is unable to do so because of the repairs. Okay. I'm going to give him 30 additional days to pay.
Um, and I want you all to communicate to him that he does not have a homestead exemption on this property and the fine is $250 a day. And if he does not
pay in the next 30 days, I'm going to retroactive the fine back to today. Um, I'll make sure that that's clear in my order as well. But, um,
there's no reason if he was given notice of that a couple days prior to this hearing that he couldn't have taken care of that. So, um, but I also don't want to charge someone
money for them to pay money. Okay. So, I will find that the property owner has been properly noticed to be here today and has failed to show to participate in this matter.
I'm going to find that I'm going to continue the case though the compliance date to September 10th. And if the property is not brought into compliance on September 10th
and there is not at that compliance hearing on September 11th is if there is not ex extingent circumstances shown for why the payment has not been made in the 30 days to close out this matter, then I
will impose the fine retroactively back to August 14th and I will reserve ruling on fine uh fees and costs for the September 11th hearing.
Okay. And 2536 CESM Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 25-36 CESM is for the property located at 1282 Pendleton Drive, Alimont Springs, Seminal County, which is owned by Yanni
D. Delpino. The violation charged to Seminal County Code, Chapter 40, Appendix A, Section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of a retaining wall, lean to and rear edition/encclosure without the required permits.
This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on May 8th, 2025 and an order was issued giving the respondents a compliance date of August 13, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for August 14th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this
case for the clerk total $79.16. The administrative cost for the inspector totals 7 $676.77 for a total administrative cost of $755.93. Recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a
lean to August 13, 2025 and continuing to acrue at $100 per day until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. I have some testimony regarding the non-compliance, please. Okay,
this screen shows the permit applications that have been issued and received at the parcel. A permit application 25-1611 shown on the screen as an addition was received February 4th, 2025. Uh it has been in plan check status
through the I believe that's the first review cycle. Corrections were submitted to the applicant March 27th, 2025. This is purely for the addition. Uh they have not submitted any comments back for
the building division to review. And there are no other permit applications received or issued for the retaining wall or the lean to. Um the screen right here shows the comments that were submitted for that permit application. Comments were submitted from drainage,
flood, mechanical, building planning and zoning. Okay, that's what we got. going to find that the property owner has been properly noticed to be here today and they have failed to
um attend to participate in the hearing and I find that the property is still in violation of Simol County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. I'm going to ratify my prior order of May 9th, 2025
and impose the fine of $100 a day effective October August 14th, 2025. I'm going to impose costs in the amount of total amount of $755.93
to be paid within 30 days. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and approve the minutes for the July 10th, 2025 meeting and confirm that the next meeting is
September 11th, 2025. We are adjourned. Heat. Heat.