Ah, shoot. Hey, Hey. Hey. Hey. Ah, Oh, hey. the magistrate for Simino County. We're going to go ahead and get started.
The way the process works is the county will a case will be called. The county will present its case first and all of its witnesses, any evidence that it has. You can cross-examine its witnesses, but you will not be permitted to submit any evidence until it's your turn to go.
Once the county has closed its case, it will then be your opportunity to pro provide any witnesses or evidence that you have. I will make a decision here today as to whether a violation has um occurred and I will provide you with an
opportunity to cure that violation. If you do not cure the violation within the time period that you are provided, you stand to have a penalty of up to $250 a day if you are here for a firsttime violation and up to $500 a day if you are here for a repeat violation. We do
not follow the agenda in the order that it's printed. We have our own method to our madness up here. So, please bear with us. If you have signed in, you will be called. If you haven't signed in, you need to sign in. So, please make sure that you get in contact with a member of
county staff if you have not. So, the first case that we're going to hear today is 25 51 CESM Eric Rios
and Joselyn Rios. Go ahead and swear in any county witnesses that are going to be providing testimony today. If you will stand. County witnesses. Only county individuals at this point. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Perfect. Now, let me go ahead and swear you in as a translator. Do you solemnly swear, affirm the testimony you're about to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English will be to the best
of your ability. So, help you God. I do. Thank you. Now, we're going to go ahead and swear him in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, building division. Case 25-51 CESM is for the property located at 501 Grove Court in Altoont Springs. Uh property is owned by Eric I. Rios
Rios and Jocelyn E. Rios. The violation charged to Seminal County Code Chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of sheds and storage container without the required permits.
The slide shows the case summary. The initial inspection for this case was held August 8th, 2024. The notice to the respondent was also sent August 8th, 2024. The compliance dates and the extensions provided are shown on the screen, as well as follow-up inspections
that were conducted on site and via the computer. The results of those reinspections were that the violation remains on the property. And the next slide shows uh the property owner as Eric I. Rios Rios and Joselyn
E. Rios. This next slide shows a photograph of the notice of hearing for this hearing. It was posted on the property June 30th, 2025. These are photos of the sheds and a storage container as well as the field
notice of violation shown on the left which was taken uh these photos were taken August 8th, 2024. The notice of code violation was left on site. These are more photos of the shed and the storage container that were taken during a later inspection December 19th,
2024. Additional photos of the shed and storage container taken during the inspection January 16th, 2025. And more photos from the inspection on April 17th, 2025. During the inspection July 9th, 2025,
the inspector knows that the sheds remain on the property. This screen shows a copy of the permit history associated with this parcel. An application for a shed was received September 6th, 2024. It's shown on the
screen highlighted in red. It's actually uh pardon me, it's for two sheds. Uh one is 10x 20 and one is a 10 by8. Uh this permit will correct the violation once it is issued. However, it's currently under review and there are corrections still required
associated with the plan review. Good. This slide shows the workflow for that permit application. That's permit application number 24-13599. The corrections task was submitted back to the applicant on July 3rd. There are
comments from the building uh building plan review team and I believe those are all the comments that uh are required at this time just building. The next slide shows uh the comments from the building review team. They need to clarify how each shed is anchored to
the earth. Next slide. This is a copy of chapter 40 in which they are in violation of the recommendation. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-51 CESM, it is determined that the
respondents are the record owners of the property located at 501 Grove Court, Alultimont Springs, and 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 violations on or before September 10th, 2025. In order to correct this violation, the respondent shall obtain the required
permits for the cited violations. And 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 respondent must contact the
inspector to verify compliance. Brent Griffin is the assigned inspector to this case. You can Yeah. I'm Brent Griffin with the Sim County Building Division. I have presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and request to
be entered into the record. This concludes our presentation. Okay. Is there any objection to the electronic case file being submitted into the record? Yes, there is an objection or there is not an objection. There is an objection.
There is you. You do not. What is the objection? He needs to speak into the microphone. receiving the notice of the unpermitted construction that field I'm I'm sorry I don't Hello.
Okay. Yes, it's good to enter as evidence. Okay. I'll accept it. I'll accept the electronic case file into the record. I do have a question. Um, so there are two two sheds and the container. So there the permit that's in
process is for the two sheds. Can the container receive a permit? Uh, the scope of work on the permit application appears to be a 10x20 shed and a 10 by8 container. Okay. So, it's for the container and one
shed. Yes. And so, there's one shed that is not included in the permit application. Correct. Okay. There is a third shed. It's behind this. So, right here. Yeah. Exactly.
He's stating he no longer has a container. Okay. And when was the last time you all were out there? I was out there yesterday. And did you see the container? I didn't see the container in the front, but I didn't have access completely to
the back of the property. Um, but I can go by and verify um if it's gone because it was right where that mower's at. So, that's the picture from yesterday. Um, so I like I said, I can go by and verify
if that's gone or we can get rid of that portion of the uh permit. But it from the picture it appears that it's not there. Okay. But it also the records show that you all have pulled you have a permit
that's applied for for a shed and a container. I can show the picture. He has a new survey showing whatever is on his property. Okay, so let me let me do this. Wait,
hold on one second. Um, from the county standpoint, the permit that he has applied for says it's for a container. and a shed. He's stating it's only for the shed.
Okay. One shed. Are there two sheds on the property? So then the permits need to be for the two sheds on the property. The first time he came has been there for 5 years and that he was told he did not need a permit.
Okay. Unfortunately, that information is not correct. So the permit that you have applied for, can he amend it to include both the sheds as opposed to the the container in the shed?
Yeah. So he I mean he can amend it to get rid of the container and then there was notes that he needed to add the other shed. It says two sheds on here. Oh, does it? Yeah. Okay. Oh, yeah, it does actually. 96. One says a container, I thought,
but it says two sheds. One is 10 by 20 and then one 10 by 8 container. So it it really is kind of misleading. So he'll need to clean that up. If it's two sheds, he needs to correct. And I think it's
clear enough for your purposes that he could amend it slightly to just be for the two sheds. Yeah. If the container's gone. Okay. So, do you feel like there is any reason you could not fully receive your permit by
September? See, look. You can have it done. Okay. That's what the county has requested. So, I'm going to, if you're fine with that, then I'll go ahead and order that you bring the property into compliance by
receiving a permit for any of the unpermitted items. If you've removed the the container, then that should satisfy this portion. But you still will need a permit for the two sheds, including the one that's been there for 5 years.
Okay. And so I'm going to order that you come into compliance by September 10th. And if you do not, that you will have a fine imposed of $250 a day. There will also be a compliance hearing
scheduled for September 11th at 1:30. Okay. Do you have anything further you'd like to add? 14. He's asking how he can rectify the the permit and go forward from here.
You want the building? You just have to go talk to the building department in the front and they can help you out with it. These are a copy of his review comments to Okay, thank you.
Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and back up since I got ahead of myself and I'm going to approve the consent agenda allowing for the continuence um
recommended in case 2531 CESM Yahoo Properties LLC. Okay. The next case that we're going to call is 2533 CESM Dominga Deina.
You you need to come forward and have a seat, sir. Yes. And then I don't think he had Rios Rios that gentleman that just spoke but his name was at Ray Rivera.
So that's his name is Rios Rios. So I Okay, let me go ahead and um swear you in, please. You saw my swear affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, ma'am. Can you please um state your name and identify your relationship with the case? Uh she's my mother-in-law. My name is
Raymond Rivera. And Mrs. Depina is your mother-in-law. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And she's authorized you to be here and speak on her behalf today? Yes. Okay. Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator, building division. Case
25-33, CESM at 5214 Orange Avenue, Winter Park. This is owned by Dominga I. Deina. The violation charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is
installation of a shed with electric and plumbing and replacing the main house building drain to septic tank without the required permits. The case summary is as follows. The initial inspection was conducted April 26, 2024 with the notice to the respondent sent the same day, April 26,
2024. The compliance dates and ext extensions provided are shown on the screen as well as the follow-up site inspections and the inspections done by computer research. The results of those reinspections are that the violations remain on the property.
This screenshot from the property appraisers website shows Domingo Ipena is the record owner of the property. This is a photograph showing a copy of the notice of hearing for this hearing posted on the property June 30th, 2025.
The next few slides are going to show the shed with the plumbing and electric. All of these photos were taken during the inspection April 26th, 2024. There's additional photos of the shed with the plumbing and electric. Okay.
And this is a photo that's showing the main house drain to the septic tank that which was replaced without a permit. These photos were taken April 26, 2024. This is showing the uh plumbing line on the property. And additional photos of
the unpermitted plumbing taken August 26, 2024. And here's photo of the unpermitted shed uh taken July 9th, 2025. This slide shows the permit history for
this parcel. There were two applications received May 3rd, 2024. There's a permit for the permit application for the laundry room and the shed. Both of these applications are currently under review. They have not yet been issued as permits due to corrections that are required by
building zoning and drainage departments. This is the plan review workflow for permit application 24-6642 which is for the laundry room. This shows the progress of the application and the task is currently uh on the
applicant side uh with corrections required. So I don't have is it a a laundry room addition? Is it go back to the uh photo? It's a shed that has a laundry or a laundry facility
within it. Okay. But it's still just the sh a shed with plumbing and electric, right? So it's not cuz cuz then on the permit slide, it shows me a shed and a laundry facility, but I thought there
was only one shed that might have been taken from the description of work on the application. I can verify what exactly the verbiage is on the application for that because it's really just one item, right?
One one building. Now, there may be electrical permits and plumbing permits that go along with that shed, but for the installation of the shed, but it's really just one facility. I'm going to have to defer to the inspector who is on site.
Okay. It is constitution. Yeah. Yeah. So it would be just the one facility, the shed with the laundry room in it. Okay. And then why is are the does the permit slide is it showing
that are there electrical and plumbing permits that go along with that? Why is it showing as two separate because there are two separate numbers too? Permit numbers. The top permit is the alteration permit.
the one that says uh 24 and the number is 6642, the one that's labeled as laundry room. Uh the type is R434, which is a residential alteration permit. Okay, without looking at it specifically, that might be where the electric and plumbing that ties into the shed.
Those two permits may be working together. And we do have correction comments from building um and drainage for both of those applications. And then what's the next permit? The A A328 is a permit type for shed. That's a
residential shed. So that R434 is an alteration permit. Um I we would have to go back and look specifically at the description of work on the application and the trades assigned, but that might be the electrical and the plumbing portion and
it ties into the structural permit which would be under the shed. Okay. Okay. So, nonetheless, there's a shed. It has electric and plumbing in it that are tied to the main house, and that's a problem. So, yes. And if you need it, there is a copy
of the permit application for 24-6641 that's labeled shed on the slide showing there. The description of work says shed and laundry room and shed, electrical, and plumbing. Okay. And is there another permit that's still required that hasn't been applied
for that's related to the the change out of the drain to the septic tank? That's what it is. Mr. The laundry room permit application 6642 says that it's a it's converted to
toilet and sink laundry room move to shed out back out outdoor to shed outdoors. So it would appear that both of these permit applications are being tied together for the structure
that's being cited. But what's the septic tank? The the replacing the main house building drain to septic tank without the required permits. What's that? It's not going to be covered under the alteration permit. That'd be dependent on the plans.
Is Jay Ham here? just saying that they need a letter from the Department of Health for the existence of the county. The plumbing work could be tied into the alteration permit that's listed as laundry room. It just kind of depends on
what the plans that they've submitted and the county has already submitted multiple. That's not what I'm asking. There's another part that says replacing the main house building drain to septic tank. Does that need a separate permit?
That might be in the alteration as the plumbing work possibly. I I can't I can't go off a might. I need a must. I mean, it should fall under the plumbing part of the permit. It would all I mean, the sewer would be tied in for plumbing purposes also.
Okay. So, that's one permit for related to the plumbing. one permit and they may all be combined, but the issues are plumbing and electric and installation of the shed. Yes. Okay. That's what I'm looking for. Okay. I was just digging through here trying to figure it out.
No worries. I just want to make it clear in the order. And so that's why I'm trying to make sure that I have all of the required permits. Okay. Okay. And however, once it gets to you all and the permits are completed, it
doesn't matter to me how you all what you call them. I just want to make sure I'm calling in the right thing in the order. Okay. Um, do you all have any further testimony? I I believe you do because I stopped you right in the middle. I'm sorry. No, you're good. Uh, I don't even know where this came from. I think you were
you stopped at the end of these comments. Yes, they have comments for both. We kind of went over that already. Which one is this? 6641. Okay, so this is the laundry room application. These are the comments that were submitted by
zoning, drainage, and building review. Um, this slide shows the uh chapter 40, which they're in violation of. And the recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-33 CESM. It is determined that
the respondent is the record owner of the property located at 5214 Orange Avenue, Winter Park 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. Is further recommended that the special magistrate order the respondent to correct the violations on or before September 11th, 2025. In order to correct those 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. Inspector uh Brent Griffin was assigned to this case. I have presented a copy of this
presentation to the clerk and requested be entered into the record. I'm Brent Griffin with the Sim County Building Division. Do you have any objection to the electronic case file being submitted into the record? Um, as far as the plumbing that goes
wrapped around the house is no longer there. We're actually doing it from the uh the side of the house which was the original laundry room converted into a bathroom. Now we're running the plumbing through the front. Okay. So, do you have any objection to the electronic case file being submitted?
Somebody else had done this. Now, I'm trying to correct the mistakes and buy more time to fix the job and get the permits. Okay. Um, so I'll accept the electronic case file into the record. Um, I understand that you're you're trying to
fix something someone else did and I do understand that you have submitted permit applications. Um, do you believe that you will be able to complete the application process by September 10th? Uh, I also do my own home renovations for real estate, so I'm trying to fit it
into my schedule. So, I think I can have it done by September 11th. It would just be the application process, not the work. Okay. Okay. Yes, I can. Um, okay. So, what I'll do is I'll go ahead and order that the property by the
violation on the property that there is a violation of Simol County Code Chapter 40 um for failure to have the necessary permits. Um, I will order that the property violation be brought into
compliance by September 10th or a fine in the amount of $100 a day will be imposed and um there will be a compliance hearing on September 11th. Okay. Okay. Fine. Thank you. That's it. All right. Thank you.
Thank you. The next case is 2548 CESM Ziki Yinakosu and Irene. I apologize that was a butcher.
Can you please state your name, sir, for the record? My name is Pedro Lopez and I'm representing uh Secu and her uh wife. Okay. And 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 affiliation with the case? He's my godfather. Your godfather. Okay. And he is giving you authorization to be here today and speaking on his behalf. I have a power of attorney to represent him in different properties that he got.
Okay. Record. Do you have a copy of that that you can provide to the clerk? And can they keep that copy? Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Micia. Oh, this I know this.
Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator for the building division. Case 25-48 CESM is for the property located at 6350 North Ronald Reagan Boulevard in Sanford. This property is owned by Ziki and Irene Yen Kumusu. The violation
charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is demolition and rebuild of the pool screen enclosure without the required permit. The case summary is as follows. The
initial inspection and the notice to respondent were both conducted July 12th, 2024. The compliance dates and extensions provided for this case are shown on the screen, as well as the follow-up inspections for on-site visits and
inspections via the computer. The results of those reinspections are that the violation remains on the property. This screenshot from the property appraisers website shows Siki and Irene Yenakumusu are the record owners of the property.
This is a copy of the returns received certified return receipt for the notice of hearing for this hearing. And when the inspector drove past the property on July 9th, 2025, the violation remains uh behind the new
fencing that has been installed on the property. These are photos of the demolished pool enclosure which were taken September 17th, 2024. On October 22nd during the inspection, the pool screen enclosure had been
replaced without a permit. mail was received for the the amended fi and uh the amended notice of violation and the final letter. Due to the return mail, a copy of this letter was posted on the property. It was handed to the
owner Ziki on 10 uh October 22nd, 2024. This is a photo of the replaced full screen enclosure taken during the inspection December 6th, 2024. And this screen shows the permit history associated with this parcel. An application for a pool enclosure was
received on October 15, 2024, which would correct the violation. The application number is 24-16136. This application is currently under review. It has not yet been issued as a permit. There are uh outstanding
corrections required for building and zoning departments. This slide shows the workflow routing slip for that permit application. It shows that the plan review step has been submitted back to the applicant with corrections as of
March 27th, 2025. This slide shows a copy of those plan review comments for the permit application both from building and zoning. And this is a copy of chapter 40 in
which they are in violation of. The recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-48 CESM. It is determined that the respondents are the record owners of the property located at 6350 North Ronald
Reagan Boulevard 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 is further recommended that the special
magistrate order the respondents to correct the violations on or before September 10th 2025. In order to correct the violations, the respondent shall obtain the required permit 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. Brent Griffin was the inspector assigned to this case. I'm Brent Griffin with the Simone County Building Division. I presented a copy of
this presentation to the clerk and request to be entered into the record. Do you have any objections to the electronic case file being submitted into the record? Yes. Okay. What are your objections? This information here is not correct.
Okay. What's not correct? We have a situation here. I didn't have the pleasure to meet him before. No, no, no. In what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what documents in here are incorrect. You can provide your case in a moment.
Okay. I I approve it. So, you accept. You do not object. Okay. Then I'll accept the electronic case file into the record. I have a question. Um the zoning workflows indicate that
the structure does not meet SEPX. So if the structure does not meet setbacks, there's no way he can get a building permit in two months. I'm looking for the comment from zoning that says a variance may be needed due to the setbacks. There's m there it is.
There were multiple corrections on here. So the slideshow doesn't show each single correction. There's multiple pages, but I'm looking at a copy of the workflow that or the comments report I can give to you right now that does say from zoning include all setbacks on the site plan
and the proposed area of work may not meet the front yard setback of 50 ft for this zoning district. Wait, the front yard setback, the pool screens in the backyard. It says, "Please contact Semino County Planning Office to apply for a variance,
but from a front yard setback for a backyard structure." I'm looking through all of them now. I believe we have a representative from planning that may be able to discuss these in more detail. Um, I'm only seeing front yard set back on here, but it does say that the site
plan is illeible and incomplete as well. Um, if you want to read Oh, you did. Okay. But I mean that was back in March. Yeah. So there's not been anything since March from zoning
right here. That was all sight include. That's probably why she's asking for the front front yard set backard. just mention. So, I'm not understanding the the 50 ft
front yard setback issue for a backyard. So, if someone can provide some testimony on that. on the um 32725 comment. Mhm. Um she doesn't have that. I have it. Oh, you do? It says that it appears there was a
taking for the road which reduced your front yard. Please com provide a complete site plan. They're probably asking for a site plan for the entire property just to make sure. um that it meets that saying that it that
it reduced their front yard. Yeah, that's it. Dagmar Sigra, deputy director, development services. Um because of the location of the lot, it's kind of like a um a sort of like corner lot the way
that it houses positioned. That's why part of the south of the pool of the screen enclosure me needs to meet the front yard because of the way the house is positioned. But the survey that was provided did not was not clear enough to
really read the number of the setback. That's why it says that it may. So because of the survey you cannot read that number clearly. That's why that comment was made. Okay. And was there a taking on the property that would have
and if if there is a taking, let me ask it this way actually. If there is a taking, does Simino County have a forgiven forgiveness for a taking of theirs? Unfortunately, no. They will that will be a hardship that we would then request
the for approval of the variance. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, it appears that a variance would be needed. So, for the process, how long
um would the variance process take? I'm sorry. Couple months at least two from the application once everything okay. All right. Okay sir. So we already understand that point
exactly that we're having with the site plan also is that when we bought the property the property was abandoned. Okay. And we start to clean the all the property and we find out there was damage on on the roof by a tree that
fell on the roof. and that same tree fell on the on the cage. So what we did, we remove part of the um roofing area. We replace it with wood
and we just put some underlignment. We never did anything on the roof and we got cited by the sheriff department code enforcement because of that um open cage that we have. Okay. We didn't have any screens.
And we talked to the to the um code enforcement and says, "What do we need to do?" I says, "You need to enclose it." I said, "But if you see, we need to fix the bottom part so we can secure
that the right way because of the tree." She says, "You know what? You're right. Just fix that and I will clear this." If you look on the record, she clear us about that. Okay. Just because you're cleared through the code enforcement department
for the pool enclosure doesn't mean it was done properly. I I mean you you need to have like I was trying to say before I didn't have the privilege to meet him before this um day because there's another inspector that is going to our home and
he has been talking to us and we have been here a couple of times and that inspector not only tell us that it was okay he asked me to remove a carport that has been in that property since 1982 and approved And we have been
paying property taxes for that space over there. Does the county have another inspector that would have been out there? Um Jason Rucker was out there prior to me. Okay. Okay. All right. When we when we talked to him, we said
we don't have any issues to follow, you know, guidelines. But he was there when the chief uh code informants was. He agreed to that. He tell us that we need to move the carport. No matter it was there and got permits, we just move it out. We just took it out.
Okay. I I don't I don't have any um anything showing me about the removal of that, but that's not what you're here for today. Okay. Um and so what you're here for today, regardless of what someone told you in the field, it wasn't this gentleman. And this
gentleman is telling you that you have to have a permit. and he has in he has shown where he's provided notice. Um, and so I understand that you haven't seen him before today, but the property owner hasn't made a an attempt to
contact him either. And that's part of your responsib from him. Mhm. Yes, you did. It's in the He provided testimony regarding the notice that you received from him. The notice was signed for for today's hearing. So, contact could have been
made with this gentleman. Who signed that? I I'm not sure. I I don't know who that was, but somebody at the property signed for it or we wouldn't have gotten the green card back from the post office. So, um someone signed. Um,
so I I'm not really sure, but you're here, so you had to have known about it somehow because I follow all the information and and I've been seeing everything. If you see on record, we asked for another permit to do the roof. No, but sir, you just said you've not
received a notice, but then you're here today. You're putting me in a position right now very uncomfortable because I'm trying to speak to you properly and you interrupt me when I was trying to say I came here for request another permit for my roof and that's when I find out about
this because for us this was a ca a closed case then we find out oh we just told the the deputy that we're going to reinforce this and put it back because we never demolish anything. They told us
to do it. We didn't put a new one. That's exactly the same one that has been there since 1982. The only thing that full screen that that So the screen is the screen is new. Okay. All that he can go we can show him that
we painted and put the new tensors because of they don't have nothing on the top. Okay. But the whole skeletor was there since 1982. We didn't move anything at all. And if you see the pictures over here,
it's exactly the same one. So even if you take the structure down, you still have to get a permit to reapply to put it back. Even if you use the existing materials, you paint it, whatever you decide to do, it still has
to be attached per which still has us coming out there to check everything so that we can go and make sure that everything's fastened correctly. It's not blowing all over the neighborhood. That That's not a problem. The only problem we have here,
but you're now you're interrupting him when he's providing testimony. He's trying to force me to accept what the county want us to do. Oh, sir, let me just tell you right now, he's not doing that. I am. Yeah. Exactly.
And I'm going to because that's what we're here for. And so you can either decide to work with the county within its codes because right now you're not working within its codes. Not an issue. The issue is about money. Right now they're asking me to pay
$10,000 to come on compliance for something that was there already. That's not fair for us. Why do I need to pay $10,000 for an engineer report? The the guy was told me and a new survey.
I'll tell you what. Um, I'm going to give you the time necessary to follow the county's code. Uh, if you choose not to follow the county's code, that'll be your decision. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that is 10. Let me finish,
please. If you decide not to follow the county's code, and quite frankly, this isn't your property. So, if the property owner decides not to follow the county's code, then you're going to have a fine imposed. So, I am going to be mindful of the fact
that you need a variance. And so, I'm going to give you until December 10th to come into compliance. If you do not come into compliance by December 10th by receiving your building
co your building permits for the pool enclosure, you will have a fine imposed in the amount of $250 a day. Thank you. Can I add something real quick, too? Sure. When I went out there yesterday on for the follow-up inspection,
um I realized that the fence is also unpermitted, so they're going to have to actually get a permit for that as well. I was just about to ask that. So, not part of this case, but you will have a separate case and you will be back here
if you do not obtain a permit for the fence also. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, The next case is 2547 CESM namesh investments
first. Thank you. Did I pronounce that properly? You did. I should have been listening. Okay, tell me what it is. Really? Ganesa. Ganesa. Whenever I try to pronounce the G, I'm usually wrong. So, okay. Can you
state your name, please, for the record, sir? Uh, Nikon Patel. Okay. Can 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, ma'am. Can you please state your affiliation with the case? I'm one of the owner of the location.
Okay. Thank you. Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator for the building division. Case 25-47 CESM for Ganesa Investment LLC is for the property located at 1823 Longwood Lake Mary Road. The violation charged is
Seminal County code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is work completed for new lighting and electrical conduits without the required permits. The case summary is as follows. The initial inspection and the notice to the
respondent were sent August 14th, 2024. The compliance dates and extensions uh provided for the case are shown on the screen as well as follow-up site inspections and inspections done via computer research. The results of these reinspections are that the violations
remain on the property. This screenshot from the property appraisers website shows Ganesa Investment LLC is the record owner of the property and this is a copy of the received certified return receipts for the
notices of hearing for this hearing. The inspector conducted an inspection July 9th, 2025. photos on the screen showing the uh property where the violations were located. This slide shows from the inspection conducted on the or excuse me today on
the 10th, not the 9th. Uh the in shows that the lighting has been removed from certain areas of the structure and replaced with new lighting. These are additional photos showing the same violation there. And previous to
this uh inspections were done August 8th, 2024. And this shows the exterior electrical and the lighting. Additional photos taken September 23rd, 2024 and December 3rd, 2024 showing the electrical and lighting installed on the
building. Next slide. All right. And here's a copy of the uh global screen showing the permit history for the parcel. Shows permit application number 19-17412 which is shown as site lighting on the
screen that was issued which uh corrected a previous uh code violation is now expired. Uh next slide. This shows a copy of chapter 40 in which they are in violation of the recommendation is based on the
testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-47 CESM. It is determined that the respondents are the record owners of the property located at 1823 Longwood Lake Mary Road in Longwood Semino County as determined by the property appraisers
records. they are 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 the special magistrate order the respondent to correct the violations on or before
September 10th 2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall obtain the required permits for the cited violation. If the respondents do not comply with the order, 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 and inspector Brent Griffin was assigned to this case. I'm Brent Griffin with the Sim County Building Division. I presented a copy of this presentation to the clerk and requested be entered into the record.
Thank you. Do you have any objection to the electronic case file being submitted into the record? No, ma'am. Okay, I'll accept the electronic case file. Go ahead. Oh, I just want to know because the the permit that was before we took over the
business cuz we took over that end of the 2022 and we was not aware that the previous owner has pulled the permit and did any light work. So, when we took over, we took it as it is. We didn't change anything. And uh I see
that there's another change because we just sold the business to somebody else, you know. So So you don't own the business anymore? No, only the property. Oh, you own the building. Okay. Okay. We own the property. So they changed another light. So obviously I'm going to have him or myself including we're going
to have electrician pull the permit and get this corrected so that way he's back to the normal compliance, you know. Okay. And then any um work that was done prior to if there was other stuff that was done There's nothing just a light I think. I'm not sure. Okay. But that there are some things
that were other things that were changed other than that one light. Correct. So they they did have stuff that was there they that they have removed. Um so then that stuff's fine. The stuff that where we're at is if they get the 19
permit reissued then it will get them in compliance with the case. Okay. Okay. So how long do you think it will take you to come into compliance? Do you think you can do it by September 10th? The That's what the county is is asking. Yeah, we I just need to hire the electrician to pull the permits and
that. So, that should bring it to the compliance if I'm not making because I'm not sure what the 2019 had it in there. So, I'm going to have the electrician to get a copy of that. And uh if you don't mind telling me where do I get the copy
for the old permit so that way he knows exactly what was in the permit and public record whatever he does for the new permits or public records. Yeah, we have a public records department that can get those uh plans for you. All the application documents and the approved plans can be provided.
Uh the email address is uh BP public records. I there might have a business card for it at the front counter of the building division if you want to pick that up before you go just out these doors to the left and the building division can get you that written down if you need to or request it there. You can get it today.
Okay. All right. Good deal. Okay. Hey, I'm going to go ahead and find that you are um the property is in violation of seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1 and order that you bring the property into compliance by uh receiving the proper building permits by
September 10th or have a fine of $200 a day imposed and a compliance hearing will be set for September 11th. Okay, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the next case is 25001 CESM Andre
Lancaster. 251. I never remember every time I do it different and I get mad at myself. Just pick a lane. You want to take the other one off your drive with the brakes on. That's fake.
Oh, I was going to say it's going to blow. Well, it's going to blow in my face. I guess that should be freaking out. 253. No, it's a new case.
Every time Hi, sir. Can you please state your name? Andre Lancaster. Okay. Do you u we 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. Thank you.
Case 25-01 CESM, Andre Lancaster for the property at 115 Larksburg Drive, Alimont Springs in Semino County. The description of violation is installation of addition to the back of
the house without the required permit. This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on May 8th, 2025, and an order was issued giving the respondent a compliance date of July 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025.
The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $177.82. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector total $716.94 for a total administrative cost of
$894.76. The special uh the recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean uh retroactively to July 9th, 2025 and continuing to acrue at $150 per day until in compliance.
Can I have some testimony regarding the the um violation? The violation is for the installation of the house or installation of the addition to the back of the house. Let's see if we can get to some of the photos where we can actually see it. There we
go. During the inspection on February 1st, 2024, this is what the inspector observed. There is a application in place with the building department for rebuilding the storage.
It was received Jul uh January 14th, 2025. It is under review. However, it has not yet been issued due to required corrections sent from the drainage zoning and building departments. The task was submitted back to the
applicant Jul uh June 30th, 2025 with corrections and it remains on the applicant side awaiting those completed corrections. Okay. And so it looks like there have been
back and forth with information being provided by the property owner. There were two review cycles. Okay. Yes. Okay. Sir. Yes. Hi. Hi.
So, it it appears that you're not in compliance with the order. Are you um have you seen these comments? Are you working on it? Is I hired an architect. Okay. Uh he's submitting all the drawings and
he's had the last four months to work on it. And then I have my son-in-law and each one working with the architect. A lot of it's done through electronic mail, which I don't understand or use. So, he's working with the architect and
uh I check with him each week and ask him, can you what is needed for compliance? I paid the architect in full. Everything is I I I expect that everything to be done by today as far as the drawings being approved because I have a red flag. I can't do anything
till I get approved. So I want to get approved very much. Uh and uh I don't think the approval process I was told by my son-in-law that the uh everything has been done
and that the uh the architect submitted everything. And he said by today and I said well timewise it's not very good because I'm supposed to be in court today. He said, "By today, uh, everything should be submitted and and
moving forward." So, I'm a little confused. I, uh, I'm sorry. I'm I'm in a lot of pain today. I have a foot infection that's costed me, uh, that flares up. Today is like a bad day. Sorry about that.
Um, so, uh, I would hope and think I I guess things aren't ready today. I'd like to come back uh and have the architect make sure that everything has been properly submitted
and approved because I don't I don't think it's not a major operation we're doing here. We're just adding a basically a storage room onto the house that used to be a room before
and the hurricane tore it down. So, I'm rebuilding a room that used to be on the house using the existing foundation. Okay. And you you still would need to have the appropriate plans and and permits um in order to do that. So, how long do
you think it's going to take for your architect to complete everything? I think 60 days should be more than enough. Okay. Does the county have any objection to 60-day continuance? No.
Okay. Then I will go ahead and um order that I'll amend my prior order and let me check my prior order dated May 8th, 2025.
And the new compliance date will now be September 10th, 2025. Okay, that'll work out well. Okay, then we will see you back here hopefully with a complied case on September 11th. Thank you so much.
Thank you. You've been excellent. I appreciate your help. Thank you. Did you write that down? I guess they're going to give us paperwork. Yes, you will receive an order. Thank you so much. Thank you.
It's nice working with Simma County. Good. Good. Good. Okay. The next case is 2532 CESM. Um Erlin Rodriguez Santos and Mandy Reyes Hernandez.
My feet are cold. Okay. Can I get both of 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 please state your name and affiliation? Miami Reyes, owner.
Erin Rodriguez, owner. Okay. Are the two of you going to provide any testimony if required? Okay. Ruth Goldstein, Building Division. Case 25-32 CESM is for the property
located at 3021 Freedom Trail, Ovido, which is owned by Erland J. Rodriguez, Santos, and Mandy J. G Reyes Hernandez. Violation charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1 for interior and exterior alterations to
a pullb barn including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing without the required permits. On June 12th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to July 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025.
The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $157.74. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector cost uh $716.94 for a total of $87468.
The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to July 9th, 2025 at $500 per day and continuing to acrue until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. So, can I have some testimony related to
the violation still existing on the property? There have been no building permits even applied. There was one applied for today and issued this afternoon for a heat pump. The heat pump is shown right there. Permit 25-5 10554
that was issued today that was removed from the violation. So, the only violations remaining on this case right now are those interior and exterior alterations to the pole barn. Okay. Thank you. That's a different case. Okay. Oh, yeah.
Um, so, uh, it's taken a while because we went ahead and, um, hire a contractor, the engineer, and I've been, uh, working on the process since the last, uh, court date. So, we got contract signed with the contractor. Uh, we have Miguel here, the engineer. I've
been meeting with Brent as well, which he has been helping me um letting me know what needs to be applied for and what we need to do so we can go ahead and do this. Right. Okay. So, basically, uh when I first bought this property, it was like an investment
property to start with and this was basically my first one. So, I hired someone and um I paid them basically in full to do the driveway, to do everything. I signed in OC's for them to pull permits and at the end I saw that they didn't basically they didn't pull anything and it was too late because I
already paid them afterwards. Um a couple months passed I hired somebody else to do that drawing of the house um basically to start remodeling and um I also paid like $1,000 upfront for them to start drawing it and they disappear on me. So I've been screw a couple like
three four times on this property. Um I understand that it took me a while to get here. prepare me some court dates. Um, I would I just basically didn't have the money or the funds and to be honest, I froze froze and I didn't know what to do with it until now that's late.
Okay. Um, how long do you believe it will take you to get the permits? I'll need to swear you in. If you'll step up to the mic. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am. Okay. Can you state your name, please? Yes. Mike Santiago. Okay. And what is your affiliation with the case? Um, I'm the professional engineer uh that was hired to basically work with rent and kind of legalize what we need
to complete for, you know, to to to be compliant. Okay. And how long do you believe is going to be necessary for you to get permits? As far as uh submitting the application, ma'am, well, to actually get a permit, submitting the application, not actually
receiving the permit, um I'm thinking that it's likely going to be about 5 months because we have to go in to actually get all the information from the existing property and try to establish what was there
before and what's proposed or there now to try to marry the two. Um there's going to be a lot of a lot of field work that I have to do. So, I'm I'm definitely asking for a lot of time. Um I'm thinking that it's likely going to be four or five months to be able to complete the package and have enough
time for uh the county to review the permit and issue it because the p the county is typically 30 to 45 days in their review. They issued that today. Oh, yeah. The heat pump. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. The the alteration one, I think, is going to be a little bit more complex cuz they're going to dig in to make sure that there wasn't any
structural modifications to the barn uh and such. So, as an engineer, I have I I I really like to try to be very methodical in our approach and give the county as much information as possible um and enough time for any revisions that are required that we can take care
of. So, had we not been doing this for two months already, I might agree with you. Understood. Um, so and I do appreciate the fact that you want to be um, you know, it's your name that's sealing the
I I completely understand it. Um, but I need um, this to happen more quickly. So, I'm willing to give 90 days. Um, and that means you're going to have to if if
the county will need longer, then you're going to need to work to get the stuff to them more quickly. Absolutely. And I appreciate that you are here today because that shows me that there is intent to make this to fix this. Um, but
I'm not going to give another continuence at all. Um because and now I'm speaking to you, sir. You sent her here by herself at the last meeting
to try to figure out what was going on with this. And I think that that is, excuse me, highly inappropriate. I understand that you froze, but she had to be here answering to this
by herself, and that's not fair. you own this property just as much as she does. So, I'm giving three months. I will not give another continuance. And because this is a repeat violation and that means that
you should have known you needed permits because you had a case before. So, if it's not done in 3 months, $500 a day will start as a lean against your property per day until there's a permit received. And I
will not give on any of the costs. I will put forward all of the costs that the county is asking for as well. So, if your engineer asks you for any information, I would get it to him the day before he asked for it. In other
words, on this. Okay. Okay. So I will provide you with a continuence until October 8th with a compliance hearing of October 9th. Okay. Thank you. 2528
CESM Greer King Greek Greek King and David Vasquez Ging LSC We're on Pine Street 28. I'll read it off this anyway.
All right. I mean, it should be like right here. I'll look. It's in there somewhere. There's got to be this up there. Yeah. I got a great day. I use this cheese jewelry.
Oh, just in case for that one. She's trying to tell me something. Oh, you had a hard time reading last time. No problem. Font size 397. Can you raise your right hand for me? Do
you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And can you state your name, please? David Basquez. Thank you. Afternoon. Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator for the building division.
Case 25-28 CESM is for the property located at 2385 Pine Street which is owned by Grey King LLC. The violation charged to Semino 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 replaced trusses, main meter base, and weather head and enclosing a wall/window opening without the required permits. Uh this case was originally heard by the
special magistrate May 8th, 2025 and an order was issued giving the respondents a compliance date of July 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025. The administrative cost to proceed for this case for the clerk totals $98.66.
The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $730.33. The total administrative cost for both the clerk and the inspector is $828.99. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issues an order constituting
a lean uh retroactively to July 9th, 2025 and continues to acrue at $250 per day until in compliance. This concludes my presentation. You'd like to hear some testimony related to the permitting, please.
All right. You want to go ahead? Yes, please. Go ahead. more questions. Yeah, talk other permit application. She wants to know where it's at. Talk about your inspection. 16671 has been applied for
um and it's under review and has not been issued yet. Corrections were submitted to the county for review on 792025. 729 to do 79. Oh, 2025. Okay. So, um
Okay. And what are those comments? Is there anything that this is actually going to be? Oh, you know what? I don't know if we have a It looks like according to this uh the slide here, this is the plan review workflow for that permit application
16771. And it's actually on zoning side. So they are currently reviewing it. There's no corrections for that permit submitted. So it's on county side. Okay. So do we have any idea how long it's going to take the county? Um it's like those reviews typically get
done within the same day. So it's likely that's going to be completed. Uh if it copy of the comments approvals, I do not see any in the PowerPoint. I
don't see documents related to that. If there's a lot of them, they can't fit in the PowerPoint. So, we just print them out. So, there's two here, Alexis. This is the comments that
were submitted. Uh, the paperwork that I just gave is the plan review comments that were previously submitted during the third review cycle. Those would have been the ones that the applicant would have reviewed to be addressing and would have
submitted during the fourth review cycle. Sir, do you have a a professional working on this um permit for you? Yeah, we have a couple. Uh, thank God. Uh, we have two engineers and a general contractor. Um, I just I I I've been
moving around a little bit and I stepped out for a little bit uh to go back to uh the front desk and they uh a couple of minutes ago it uh says status uh pre-issuance final verification.
So, it was approved at 2:15. So we you we were everybody was here and they were approval. So now we're waiting to pay on the fees, whatever the fees are. So we're happy about that. Yes. Okay. So super happy.
What I'm going to do is Sweet. I'll go ahead and continue it till the next meeting because I don't want to I want you to have that compliance and it seems to me like you've basically complied by you know the time period
that we've requested here. So um we'll go ahead and continue to the August compliance to August 13th with a compliance hearing of August 14th. what uh what would it require for us to be in
compliance? What is expected uh for uh August 13 so that we could be in compliance? If it you've got to have the permit in hand. Okay. So the permit uh we're just waiting to pay for it. If if if if it's available today, we pay for it today.
Have you already reviewed to make sure? So we were just waiting for the amount to be assessed or something. They said at 250 they did it. Do you want to um we have a couple more cases. Do you want to see if he can get full compliance and then we'd be able
it's at payment which means it's awaiting payment which means the permit has to be paid for and then it'll get routed back to building for issuance. So unless that's happened all Yes. So they're waiting to know what the amount that I need to pay is. Um
that's the pre-issuance review stage. There's a few things they button up before they send the task for payment. So, it likely may not be done today. We can confirm that. But another thing is inspectors going to have to review the plans once they get approved to make sure it satisfies all the criteria in
the violation. So, we have um electrical and enclosing the wall included theoretically would be all included on the same permit. We just have to confirm it. Okay. Then I I would feel better with us not rushing it. Let's I'll give you till the next meeting. So you come into
compliance by August 13th. Yeah. For for us, we've been waiting for for a year. It seems we we're we we have a mortgage that I am paying interest, just interest on because it's a construction loan. So, it's been a year of me paying uh like trying to get
through the process and everything put together. So, we're actually happy that this is at this stage of the process cuz we're just paying interest. We're bleeding money. Okay. Okay. So, we're just ready to get everything moved forward and hopefully the property finished. Okay. So, so we're in that direction.
Okay. Good deal. Then we'll go ahead and continue you to August 13th with a compliance with a compliance hearing of August 14th. About how much time should I expect before the permits are ready for payment and what would be the next step for us to move forward into construction?
I would say probably within a week within a week get everything back. Okay. And then I'll review um the comments and what was submitted and then I'll give them the okay if everything is correct
plans basically. So um next would you say Tuesday or is it the day the permit gets issued the permit team notifies us. We send the plans over to the inspector. He reviews it. And so whenever the day the permit is issued is the day the case will be
closed out and then we'll notify the clerk. Um the if the permit application's at pre-issuance, it likely takes 24 to 48 hours to get to issuance, you know, depending on if there's any weird problems. If the contractor's insurance is updated, there shouldn't be
any issues. Okay. So, I'll I should check in on Friday or Monday to so I can make the payment and then from there it might take a week before we can hopefully get So, I heard there's a notice of commencement after that.
The notice of commencement is required to be on site during the inspection. So, uh your permit once it's issued if you don't have that completed notice of commencement, the permit will be placed on hold. You will not be eligible to schedule inspections until you provide a
copy of that record. It may not be recorded. Check with the building department. It may just have to be certified uh notice of commencement. Can I check that today? And absolutely. And can you explain the process to me so I can start doing that today? The notice of commencement process. Yeah, your permit can be issued without
a notice of commencement, but you cannot schedule inspections without it. So your your violation will be in the clear even if you don't have your NOOCC prepared. Okay. But I can we can work on that today if I and where where should I head to? Go out these doors. Take a left. We'll
go through the double doors. You'll see the building division right there behind the glass. Sign in and uh Jacqueline or Alex or Brian may help you out. Great. Front door. Perfect. Perfect. That sounds everything. All right. Good deal. Thank you for listening and drinking. Happy happy Thursday.
Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you too. So, two months. There's a graveyard pile of workflows over here. He was Oh, he was the one who argued and
said he lived off the grid. recycle bin. Like he did so much work in the process. I'm like, why do you didn't slave hours and miss lunches over this stuff? Okay. Um I don't know. Do I have anyone else? I don't have anyone else that's signed
in. Oh, wait. What case? Someone in the back corner, too. Yeah, I don't. Did you sign in? I signed in outside. Oh, you did? What? Um, what case uh
or address? 220 Forest Drive. Forest Drive is in compliance. Oh my goodness. 24 what? It's in compliance. Did
Did we not know that ahead of time? Maybe they're just for costs, I believe, or Right. But I I want to know when someone's complied. I want to hear those first. We I don't even have where they're signed in. I can't go through those. I'm not going
to be able to do that. Okay. Um sir, if you'll come up. 2443 CESM. Uh our other one was a complied prior. Um North N um Wolfframe North Nagel.
Um, do you have his beame into compliance prior to hearing? Okay. So, we did get a continuance. Okay. So, the property is in compliance at this time. Can you give me some testimony on the fees and costs? I
believe that this case was um we entered an order for compliance on August 8th, 2024, giving till October um 10th, 2024. On October 10th, 2024,
uh we continued to January 9th, 2025. And then on January 9th, 2025, we continued till July 9th, 2025. And they're in compliance at this time. Yes, they came into compliance June 20th, 2025.
Okay. Um and so can you give me the um administrative costs in this matter, please? Yes. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk uh for 24-43 CESM is $227.15.
The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $716.94 for a total administrative cost of $9449. Okay. Do you have that amount?
Okay, I'm going to find um based on the continuences in this case, there were a couple of continuences that were required um to come into compliance. So, I'm going to split the county's costs with you and
order $472 be paid. How much time will it take you to pay that amount? Uh 30 days. Okay. I'll provide you with 30 days and it's $472 even. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. She's not on this list though. Steven edges our other compliance cases. It's okay. I just need to No, I think they're on complied prior. Let's see. And is she complied as well?
No, it's not even on here. That was a The next case is Annabelle Fernandez 2460 CESM. No ability to do that. No, you can. It was a process, but I'm
the one page or the two pages. I can do that. Okay. Case 24-60, CESM. Oh, Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator for the building division. Case 24-60 CESM is for the property
located at 1982 Longwood Lake Mary Road in Longwood, Seminal County, which is owned by Annabelle Fernandez. Violation charged is Seminal County Code Chapter 40, Appendix A, Section 105.1. The description of the violation is wood installation of a wood fence without the
required permit. On June 12th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to July 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $297.56.
The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $82,22.14. The total administrative cost is $1,119.70. Recommendation is that the special magistrate issues an order constituting
a lean to July 9th, 2025 at $150 per day and continues to acrue until in compliance. The case is not in compliance at this time. However, can you go to the global screen please? uh she has submitted a permit
application and it has been diligently going through the review process. Um the screen shows that permit application 25-10316 uh is in plan check status which means that it's still going through the review
process the plan review process and I believe the pre-screen review stage that was shown on the screen. Go to the last slide. This one that says 710. Well, the work workflow slide. You're good. I believe that has already been finished and routed back with corrections because
they have been going back and forth since yesterday and today. Um the forms that were uploaded a couple of days ago were not on the updated forms that the county just re the county just started. Um so the forms that she had submitted with a previous application were no
longer valid. um she had to redo those and those were submitted today for review. Uh so her permit is going through the flow. She obtained a variance for this particular application. So once it gets through the review process with the
correct documents, it should be issued which would correct the entire violation and the case would be in compliance. Okay. So the delay, the multiple delay is related to the variance that had to be obtained in order to move forward. Yes. her previous permit application
timed out due to inactivity. Uh so she had to reapply and then when she did reapply there were new forms that she was unaware of that had just happened in between that middle time. Okay. And so she has been providing the information as soon as possible. Yes.
It seems like yes. Okay. Okay. Um how much time do we think it's going to take for it to be completed based on where it is today? I would say less than a week. Okay. Even if I need a survey because I guess that that's like the last thing that I
left off on. How did you obtain your variance without a site plan or survey showing where I have a site plan and I submitted the site plan, but then one of the corrections was that I needed a survey like a like a I don't know something was incomplete about the site plan. Um upload a site plan serving the entire
building. Have So I realize you may not have had time to do it before the hearing, but I would encourage you to talk with someone at the building counter. um maybe even planning unless Dar can pull it up. Like right before the meeting I submitted a new site plan but I guess
I'm just like is the survey different than the site plan because the first time I applied for the permit which that application was canceled because then I had to do the variance application they accepted the site plan. That's why I'm wondering if something there's an element or specific criteria that's missing from the site plan that
the uh permit techs are looking for. Okay. If you've gotten your approved variance, I'm not sure what else you could be needing. Um, but perhaps here, she may be able to review that application and see where it's at, what the issues were. Um, if not, then go next door.
Yeah. So, if but if I do need a survey, I mean, would I think that would take longer than 30 days maybe? If you need a brand new survey, then yes, you would, but I I would wonder what planning has to say about that. You already have an approved variance with
what you submitted. So, I would have to talk with planning. Okay. So, what I'm going to do is I feel like she has continued to go through the process um and do everything that you all have requested. So, I'm going to go ahead and give you until September 10th.
If you can come into compliance before that, great. But I'll give you till September 10th to come into compliance so that we don't have a a problem. And the compliance hearing date will be September 11th. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Good deal. Um,
let's go ahead and hear that complied case. The 259 CESM. Okay. Stephen Hitch, I don't know if I put that one on there because it was a compliant earlier. Oh, I do.
You do have it. That means I should have it. Locassio, right? Yes. Number 10. Was he told he didn't need to be here because he was in compliance? Good question. That's in the case file. Do we know?
Um the 219 Stephen A. Yes, he he was in compliance. Um cuz he removed it. He was in compliance. But was he told not to be here today because he was in compliance?
I don't I have to check the notes. Oh, okay. I have I haven't talked to him. I talked to him yesterday. Yeah. Did you talk to him before? I can't remember and we don't have access to the
I did meet him on site yesterday. Um he demolished the wall. Yeah, I know he's in compliance, but was he told not to be here today? That's what I was getting. I Okay. Sorry. I um did not not tell him not to be here. Um
but you just told him he was in compliance. I told him that that I would get back with the office today because there was still a little portion of the wall left that he didn't completely demo and I wanted to go with the building official to determine if he was okay cuz I was fine with him being in compliance. Um
just because he took down like 90% of the wall and he's like I didn't have time to take the last bit down. So, I talked to the building official about it and we determined that he would be in compliance, but we didn't inform him not
to not come today. Okay. Can I have some testimony regarding the administrative costs that have been um accured in this case, please? I didn't hear what you said. I'm sorry. About what? The administrative cost? Yes. Uh the administrative cost for case 25-9
CESM uh for the clerk totals $13824. The administrative cost for the inspector is $730.33 for a total administrative cost of $86857. Our case didn't indicate that a phone
call was made telling him not to come to the hearing. Okay. Based on um the fact that he is in compliance and it only was one amended order that we had to go through, um I'm going to split the
costs with him um in the amount of $434 to be paid in 30 days. Okay. Next case. 25 2425 CESM Amed and Sakina Ner Mo Muhammad
and I am noting for the record that they have been represented by council normally that is not present. Okay. Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator for the building division. Case 24-25 CESM
is for the property located at 846 Isle Point Sanford in Semino County which is owned by Ahmed and Sakina Nuro Muhammad. The violation charged is Seminal County code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1 and the description of the violation is installation of retaining wall without
the required permit. On May 8th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to July 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $384.89.
The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $7152 for a total administrative cost of $1,99.91. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issues an order constituting a lean retroactively to July 9th, 2025
at $50 per day and continues to acrue until in compliance. Uh if you can go to the slide with the global screen. This slide shows the permit history associated with this parcel. A permit
application 23-16724 was applied for on October 24th, 2023. Has not been issued due to a variety of corrections. Uh in the last meeting with our zoning department, they have not heard anything from the owner with the
exception of an update request from the HOA. The permit application has remained in PC or planch check status due to these outstanding corrections and no further communications have been received from the owner since the previous hearing.
And there's a photo that our inspector Brent Griffin took of the retaining wall today which Julie can put up for us. The wall still remains on the property. And this concludes my presentation. Okay. I'm going to um
find that the property owner has been properly noticed to be here today and has failed to um be present either through representation or himself. I'm going to find that he is in violation of
the um orders with the most recent being issued as the sixth amended order that was issued on May 12th,
2025. um nun pro tunk to May 8th the date of the hearing and I'm going to ratify my prior orders and impose a fine of $50 a day
um as of today with costs in the amount of $1,99.91 being imposed to be paid within 30 days. Thank you. Okay. Okay. The next case
2440 CESM Rebecca Wiggins Ruth Goldstein program coordinator for building division case 24-40 CESM is for the property located at 1217 Gail Street in Apopkco Semino County which is owned by Rebecca A. Wiggins. The
violation charged is seminal county code chapter 40 appendix A section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of carport without the required permit. On January 9th, 2025, an order was issued extending the compliance date to
July 9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $266.73. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $1,22.99.
The total administrative cost for this case is $1,289.72. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issues an order constituting a lean retroactively to July 9th, 2025 and continues to acrue at $50 a day
until in compliance. Can you go to the slide with the permit history please? As of today based on this slide which is the uh global screen showing the permit history associated with 1217 Gail Street. No permit applications have been
submitted or issued for the violations on the property. previous slide. This shows that the certified return receipt for the notice of hearing was received and it was signed. I can't I see that it was received at
the county January 29th, but I'm not sure when exactly it was signed, but I can't make out the printed name either. Um, we have not received any further communication from the property owner.
Uh, and as of the last inspection, which I believe was yesterday, yes, the violation remains on the property. I'm going to find that the property owner was probably noticed to be here today and she has failed to be present um, herself or through any
representative. I'm gonna find that uh the property the violation of the building code still remains on the property and that the I'm going to ratify my last
all of my orders collectively but the last in particular giving till uh July 9th that come into compliance. I'm going to impose a fine of $50 a day starting July 10th and I'm going to impose costs in the amount of $1,022.99
to be paid within 30 days. Thank you. The next case is 2537 CESM revamp capital. Ruth Goldstein, program coordinator for building division.
Case 25-37 CESM is for the property located at 495 Howard Avenue, Longwood in Semino County, which is owned by Revamp Capital LLC. The violation charged is Seminal County Code, Chapter 40, Appendex A,
Section 105.1. The description of the violation is installation of a fence without the required permit. This case was originally heard by the special magistrate on June 12th, 2025 and an order was issued giving the respondents a compliance date of July
9th, 2025 with a meeting scheduled for July 10th, 2025. The administrative cost to process this case for the clerk totals $88.91. The administrative cost to process this case for the inspector totals $83,745.
for a total administrative cost for both the clerk and the inspector of $926.36. The recommendation is that the special magistrate issue an order constituting a lean to July 9th, 2025 and continuing to acrue at $250 per day until in
compliance. The notice of hearing uh on the previous slide was posted on the property due to the mail being returned. Go ahead. Next slide. This shows a copy of the permit history screen or permit history associated with 495 Howard
Avenue. There are no permits issued or uh applied for to correct the violation. The permit shown on the screen is not related to the fence violation. The violation remains as of uh July 9th, 2025.
You scroll. There's one of the pictures that shows the Here we go. There's the violation right there. That chunk of fencing and this concludes my presentation. Going to find that the property owner was properly noticed to be here today
and has failed to be present either through um by itself or any representative. I'm going to find that um the property is still in violation of the county's code for failure to obtain the necessary permits for the fence. I'm
going to ratify my prior order um that the property of I'm sorry of June 12th, 2025 that the prop and impose a fine in the amount of $250 a day starting today, July 10th, 2025, and impose costs in the
amount of $926.36 to be paid within 30 days. Thank you. Okay. So, that is the last case. So, I'm going to go ahead and set the next meeting for August 13th. Thank you.
We're adjourned. Oh, August 14th. Sorry. Oh, and we do have some other business today. And it is the introduction of code enforcement division manager John Martin. So, John Martin, if you want to
do the minutes or anything, that's we Oh, I went all kinds of out of order today, didn't I? No, you did really well. We We've already met um before the hearing, actually. Um, we will be
setting a time hopefully that you and I can sit down and talk about the future and some changes that are coming. Uh, we're currently working on some ordinances to facilitate some of the changes that need to be made. Um, we should have a team in place and ready to take off by October 1.
Okay. All the code violations cited in the county will be done by our department moving forward. um a lot of intricate details to work out, but and again, you and I need to have a sit down and talk about directions and and how things are going
to move forward so that we're we can all be on the same page moving forward. So, fantastic. I look forward to it. Yeah, it's going to be great. Absolutely. Good deal. All right. Absolutely. We will go ahead and approve the minutes
for June 12th, 2025. Confirm that the next meeting date is August 14th. Alexis 2025 out30. So we are adjourned. Thank you. by