Check one, two. Hey. Hey. Check. One, two. Hey. Hey. One, two. Check. One, two. Check. One, two. Hey. Hey. I was wondering if you. >> Yes, sir.
We just have other respons don't show up. >> Hey, how are you? See you shortly. Yeah, We have one scheduled should be here. He's here.
That's a question. Did I put something order. with the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the standice Swear.
Thank you. The clerk reminded me to introduce myself. I'm Drew Smith. I'm the code enforcement special master of the city of St. Cloud. My role in these proceedings is to be an independent trier of fact. Uh I am not employed by the city. I am retained for precisely that purpose to sit in these proceedings and and act as an arbiter of fact. Uh
the order of proceedings for each case will be the city will present its evidence and testimony. After that has been received, I will offer the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine if there's any cross-examination or to offer their own evidence and testimony. When I've heard all the evidence, then I will enter a verbal ruling today which will be
followed in the mail by a written order that >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Dan Manzer, city attorney. So, just to update you on the agenda, the second case listed on the agenda, 509 Ponderosa Drive. That case will be no problem today.
And um I also believe that we have individuals present here for case uh this case of the 1004 New York Avenue which is 2025 960 St. Cloud LLC hotel LLC and also the Kentucky Avenue.
>> Okay. >> So we with the special magistrates indulgence we'd like to take those. >> Absolutely. Whatever order you would like. I'm happy to take them in that order. Would you want to take uh 104 New York Avenue first. >> Yes, sir. >> Go ahead. >> Case number 2025-960
St. Cloud Hotel LLC owner David Fong registered agent location of violation 104 New York Avenue St. Cloud Florida >> and again Dan Manzer is for the city. So um officer Neil will present to you on this case today regarding the ongoing
violations at this property located in downtown St. Cloud. Also here will be the Marshall, Mr. Richard Hunks, who also present to you, and Mr. Bob Death, the city's building official, is here also for possible testimony. And with
that, I'll turn it over to officer. Good afternoon, Pam Neil, City of St. Cloud Code Enforcement Officer. I am presenting this case for the property located at 104 New York Avenue. At this time, I would like to enter into evidence the following items. Copy of
the courtesy notice sent to the owner and the registered agent. Copy of the updated courtesy notice sent to the owner and the registered agent. A copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail to the owner and the registered agent. Copy of the statement in violation and notice of hearing sent
by certified mail to the owner, the registered agent, and posted on the property and city hall. A copy of the affidavit of posting. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Evidence of mailings. Copy of the deed to the property. Copy the code sections in
violation. Copy the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds the respondent in violation in the amount of $35647. On October 1st, 2025, uh, I had a meeting with Tesha Manning, Jason Miller, Richard Tons, and Dan Manser, the city attorney, about the
condition of this property and the permits being disapproved and never obtained. Um, and I took four photos On October 2nd, a courtesy notice was sent to the owner to the mailing address on property appraisers and the
registered agent. On October 7th, an updated courtesy notice was sent to the owner to the mailing address on the property appraisers and the registered agent. On October 22nd, I checked and the permit was still disapproved. The owner did not provide the required
documents to finish processing the application. I took two photos. On October 22nd, a notice violation was sent to the owner to the mailing address on property appraisers and to the registered agent by certified mail. On December 8th, I checked and the permit
had been resubmitted and was still disapproved because the owner still did not provide the required documents to finish processing the application. On December 8th, a statement violation and notice of hearing was sent to the owner to the mailing address on property appraisers and to the registered agent
by certified mail posted on the property and city hall. An affidavit of posting was completed and I took three photos. On December 30th, I checked and the permit was still disapproved. Um, still not not providing the required
documents to finish the application. On January 16th, I checked and the permit was still not obtained. And now there is a roof panel on the middle dormer hanging and another starting to lift. I took three photos.
That's where the panels coming off. It is the city's recommendation that the respondant be found in violation of allowing the building to rem remain a safety issue and danger to the public and to have the permit obtained by
January 30th by January 30th, 2026 or pay a fine of $1,000 a day until compliance is met. The city would like to also recover the cost incurred in bringing the case before the special magistrate in the amount of $35647
to be paid within seven days of the written order of the magistrate as well. And that concludes my presentation. >> Mr. >> Are you predicting my question? >> Um, probably. But I also want to clarify something before I answer your question.
Uh so the the uh recommendation from the officer to clarify the city is requesting not just a basically obtaining all required permits but correct correcting the dangerous situation regarded to the to the building. So that's what we're really
looking from a compliance perspective. >> I have some questions there but not for you. And my question for you is uh what's the justification or what's the the legal uh support for the thousand a day? Well, I think it's important to remember and the building official here can testify to you as the length of time
this building has been in the state that it's been building and it's been in this is a project that has been ongoing for several years and uh the city has been trying to work with the property all that time. >> The factual basis, yes, I'll ask the witnesses that I'm asking you the statutory basis for the thousand.
>> Well, I think it's it goes back to the the three criteria that's set there. the significance of the violation which is obviously this is serious which the fire marshall and the building official will talk to you about. Uh we believe one of the most important parts here is the cooperation of the respondent respondent
has this permit has been has been this building has not had a permit for over six months now and they continue to not move forward to get the permit as well as continuing to work on this project for years. So they have not cooperated with this with the city. So those are the two criteria set forth in the
statute. >> That that's what I'm looking I'm just looking for the statuto reference of what gives me the authority to impose a fine of >> then the other piece is the city's ordinance that we our ordinance since we are a population above 50,000 allows us to adopt uh to have the enhanced fine
the city passed by ordinance. I'm sorry. >> Thank you. That that's what I was looking for. Thank you. I thought you you'd brought that at a prior hearing but I wanted to make the record on this one too. That was the reason for the escalated or the legal basis. code enforcement. Thank you.
So, you heard some of that exchange and what I'm going to ask you and I know you have other witnesses you will present. Is there anything more that code enforcement wanted to tell me about the condition of the property or are you going to be relying on the other witnesses? >> Um, I'm going to rely on >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> You could have come up. Mr. Death, I just asked him to explain the history of the building and the building permits and all where we sit with regard to a existing building permit or the lack of a permit for >> Okay, >> Bob Deathridge, building official for
the city of St. Cloud. Um, this project has been going on for over six years. Um, there's still they still have not covered up the the interior structural members of the building. Uh the stairwells are still
open front and rear. Uh you know, god forbid anything happens in there, you you never put a fire out. The building has no windows, so it's not completely watertight. We haven't been in it in quite some time, so I have no
idea what type of damage there is inside the building because it it's all structural framing. Is there a permit issue for the building? >> No, there there is no permit for the building now. Uh they have satisfied uh building department comments. Um but
there are other departments that have outstanding comments that have not been satisfied. >> Do you happen to know what those outstanding comments are? Uh there's no certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation board and zoning had a comment about
a twostory addition on the back of the building that was not included in the certificate of appropriateness. >> Any other questions? In your opinion as a building official, does building in it current state a serious threat to public health?
>> It most certainly does pose a serious threat. >> I have no further questions. >> Also asks you important presentation by the officer Neil on this one of the bigger issues as
she as a building official also referred to to do with the condition of the building with regard to fire suppression and the fire department's ability to address a tragedy essentially building and that's one of the one of the code violations. >> So I I just heard from a witness that
that there was a fire in there. There'd be no way of putting it out. So I'm assuming you're going to elaborate on that for me. >> Yes. Good afternoon. Uh Richard Tons, fire marshall for the city of St. Cloud. Uh so yes, in my opinion, this building is unsafe and life safety hazard not not
only to our fire crews but also to the general public. Um as the building official uh stated there is no uh drywall protecting the structural members of this building. So it's essentially a giant tinder box uh with open stairwells which makes it a chimney
for very quick rapid fire spread. Um, over the years there hasn't been any windows on the building, so water intrusion has gotten in, allowing for probably wood to rot, making it even more unstable. The fire sprinkler system was removed years ago uh so that they
could do um uh work inside because it was in the middle of timbers and stuff that had to go in place. And um to this day, the fire sprinkler system, all the piping is still removed uh with no no efforts being made to to correct that.
Uh so if a fire should break out, it's going to spread rapidly. We've already given our firefighters um the order. If there's no life safety hazard in the building, we're not going to add to that life safety hazard and put them into an area that's uh weakened and also has an
open elevator shaft that they could fall down into. And um should this building have a significant fire in it um the chances of collapse are there and there's buildings very close to that. >> How close is the how close are the buildings surrounding it? That was one
of my questions for you. >> Oh yeah, it's it's it's not very far. I'd say 15 ft probably >> close enough that you would be concerned about fire spreading to other buildings >> uh spreading or a collapse destructing that or also onto 10th Street which is a busy street is probably only 10 ft
between the building and 10th Street and New York Avenue. >> So do you have any >> I have no further questions have anything else? >> No, we don't. >> Any further witnesses? >> Thank you. >> No,
>> I may have some more questions once I hear from the respondent but respondent is present. The respondent can come up before we start. I don't think you were sworn in earlier. >> Do you swear from the testimony you give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Absolutely. >> And if you start by setting your name
and your relationship to the property. >> My name is Mateo Hodo and I am the project manager for the property. I've been the project manager for it since uh 2019 till today. >> Okay. And so you've heard the city's position and you've heard the city's concerns. What What do you want me to hear?
>> Well, uh, I'd like you to hear my side. Um, so the moment the first violation came, I contacted the code enforcement officer and requested a site meeting to point out all of the code violations so that we can correct them. Uh, I was told
that the number one concern was that we didn't have a permit. So the permit we've been working on getting it since July of this year. It's when we reapplied. So our old permit expired and we were asked to resubmit all the plans to 2023 codes as the code cycle changed.
Um we submitted in July. The city responded very fast. By the end of July, our architect and MEP engineer commented uh responded to the comments and made uh all the responses ready and they were
ready for submitt since August. Um my understanding was that it was submitted and my understanding was that the city requested that we submit civil drawings as well. Therefore, we had to hire a site surveyor to survey the building, give us accurate locations, and develop
civil plans. And then I was told that it was requested all together at once. Uh I'm not sure what happened. Uh but um I didn't realize that that process was not going through as I was letting our
general contractor manage it between him as the city requested that the general contractor manages all that. um until the code violations started coming in and then I started getting involved on what was going on. Um we did submit the plans to the city. There was an error
from the city's perspective on reviewing them. They reviewed the long the wrong files. This is why the permit was not approved in December. Uh as of right now, um I have Can I bring this to you? >> Anything you show me, I'm going to have
to keep. So, as long as it's a copy. >> Yeah, it's a cop. >> Show if you'd show council first. Make sure you didn't have any objection to it. >> Um, so the only thing that is um it's the historic preservation. Uh, we are requested to apply for a new certificate
of appropriateness and we're told that that is expired. Uh, and uh I requested information today in order to reapply for and get on the next HPB meeting. As far
>> we don't have any objectives to this. It's also consistent with what >> so that is all the records from when we applied to where we stand today. Um and on the last page you will see that um building is approved, mechanical is
approved, electrical is approved, um everything is approved besides um certificate of appropriateness >> and zoning >> and zoning which is because of the certificate of appropri um
worked directly with the state. I believe um it was Lucas from the Historic Preservation for the state of Florida to get it recognized as a historic landmark, including all of the design that was changed since then. And it was approved, including the
restaurant and the buildings out back because what my goal with the project is is that this building has been vacant for over 30 years. And uh prior to me getting involved, this was a big can of worm that no one could figure it out. I mean, we had to rebuild the building
within a building. So we had to support what was there. Remove all the old existing structural walls. Dig out the old existing foundation because it wasn't proper for this building. Pour new foundations and then fix all of the
floor levels. Then do new loadbearing walls over the new foundations and make it as a monolithic slab with cold joints so that it's all one. And we have um repaired the structure from foundation all the way to the roof. The structure
is very solid. Uh that structure is not going anywhere. The reason why it's in that in the stage that it is is because our permit is expired. We had to re-update our plans for all the MEPs and
electrical and plumbing. Um the building is actually being monitored. The fire chief is fully aware. We pay for monitoring for fire. Uh and it's live. And if a fire were to go the monitoring would go off, which I'm assuming that we
will probably get into it in time before it spreads anywhere. Um, I have zero concern if the building totally burns down. The building is not going to collapse on another building. It has three layers of brick on the outside and it has a 2x6 wall on all the perimeters
on the inside. Let's say the entire structure burns down on the inside. That building has zero chance of actually tipping over and falling. it will literally be like a chimney and everything would go up. Uh, but it's being monitored. There is a fire monitoring system and it's live and it's
active and it has been active ever since we took off the old sprinkler system. The building has been designed for a new sprinkler system. Uh, we will test it for DBA to make sure that the radios work in case of a fire uh later on. So,
everything is in plan. The there was a little misunderstanding on the permitting process. That's why it took so long. But the permit should be active now and the HPB certificate of appropriateness, I'm sure it will be resolved one way or another. The buildings in the back, even when I was
working with the state for approving the changes that we made and the whole thesis on this is because we're trying to unify the entire building and make it one. Um, and it was approved and then later on I was told that the restaurant is separate and it has earned its own
significance of historic preservation. So um a new certificate of appropriateness was provided to us with the restaurant remaining as is. Now the restaurant has we're going to do a lot of structural changes to the restaurant even though the restaurant seems
attached to the building. If you were to come inside the building you can see that it's not really attached or not attached properly which is what the problems with this building have been for so long. whoever has done work on it before has not really done quality good
work to make sure that this building is never a problem for this community ever again. And that is my uh it's my promise to the building itself that I'll make sure that as long as I'm involved with it until I am done with it at the very least that structure and that facade
will not be a problem for this community ever again. My goal is to not allow anything to happen to that building to turn into blight again. I want to respond back to the flying panel on the roof. We're we have been in a lawsuit for the roof for now almost over a year.
There is there is an inspection from the manufacturer of the roof uh next week on the 26th at 11:00 a.m. that I'll be present for. I was told not to touch anything on the roof since the legal case started, but I personally um
hurricane proved the building. So I took all the scaffolding off the as you saw on the picture, it's only the skeleton of the scaffolding. So which is secure to the building. If any strong winds come, it will not take it away. And they did and nothing happened. But when I
water when I waterproof the building and behind all of the plywood windows, there is plastic. So there is no water damage to the building. All of the wood members are absolutely intact and fine. And uh
when I closed that dormer, that panel was was actually bent. And I'm thinking that it was bent by the roofers because they tore the bottom of the dormers apart because they were leaking even after final inspection failed from the city on the old permit prior to it
expiring. So that panel, it's actually screwed every six inches as per manufacturer recommendations all the way up. And then the panel that comes to the valley of the dormer, it's also locked into it. So when I was closing the dormer window, I
actually looked at that one because I didn't like the way it looked and then I thought about actually removing it. But to remove it, um it it was very unsafe to actually remove it, especially without tie downs from the top. Even though I was told not to touch the roof,
I was going to remove it if I felt that that panel would fly off. But that panel, it would really be impossible. to fly off by the amount of screws that it is secured and the way that it's locked at the valley up top from the panel
that's on the side of it. Does that make any sense? So then I was going to cut it because I didn't like the way that it looks. But then I remember that I was specifically told by the attorneys not to touch anything on the roof and leave it as they left it. Therefore, I didn't
even cut the panel. I left it. I closed the dormer window, dismantled all the scaffolding prior to the old permit expiring, secured the entire building. So, there is no entry point to the building unless someone decides to either cut a piece of plywood because
that's also three/4er plywood that's on all those windows or break in. But if somebody wanted to break into a building, they could break into any building. Uh the fencing is secured, the scaffolding is secured, that panel is safe, the building has monitoring and uh
I finally resolved the miscommunication and misunderstanding on the >> and I also >> um I When did the permit expire? >> I believe uh maybe building official.
>> I'll ask if it was it was July. I believe it was either end of June or this year. Yes. And the moment that the old uh permit expired, we applied for the new one. >> Why did the old permit expire?
It's a good question. Um, uh, the old permit expired. That's a That's a really good question. I think it's, uh, mainly to update all the plans to make it so that everything is to 2023 codes because >> that's not why building permits expire.
Building permits expire for inaction. >> Inaction. Um, yes. So maybe there was slow action. There was action, but >> building permits don't expire for slow action. Building permits expire for inaction. building permit expired. >> I was told that there was no work that
qualified to pass an inspection. I wanted to build the additions in the back. I could not build the additions in the back because um there is um I was I if you notice on the pictures, the scaffolding in the back of the building
to where the twotory additions are uh is has been removed because I was getting ready to pour the foundations for the building in the back and I was actually getting ready to run the underground plumbing before I poured the foundations because the mechanical room is in that
in the back twotory building. Um, when I was getting ready to do that, as we started digging, we figured out that the plumbing service that's coming from the street into the building, uh, it's incorrect. It's sized at 4 in while our building requires 6 inch and it's
actually pitched wrong. So, the street is actually dumping into our property rather than falling back into the street. So the water line, it's a 1 inch water line when our plants require 2 and 1/2 in water line. So the water supply
and the drainage is not proper. Therefore, I couldn't pull a plumbing permit to run underground plumbing before I could do the addition of the buildings in the back. That's why that stopped. >> So you say the existing infrastructure is not sufficient for the building
>> as of right now? No. the the existing infrastructure um is 4 inch there is three supplies one of the supplies is less the the technicality of it the the concept of it is what I'm trying to
understand so the existing infrastructure let make sure I understand correctly what you're trying to to tell me you're saying that the infra the existing infrastructure does not fit the plans that have been prepared for the building. >> Correct. >> The Zixen infrastructure, it's a 1-in
water line, which would be more for a single family domestic, and it's a 4 in drain that is actually not pitched properly. >> Was that not known when the plans were prepared? >> I don't know. It was kind of hard to tell because the the pipe that comes up
from the ground, it's a 4 inch new PVC. But once we started digging down, we actually found out that that 4in PVC is actually connected to a clay pipe under the ground that's also 4 in. And uh the pitch is incorrect. It actually pitches
towards the property, not away from the property. So my plumbing contractor uh did not feel comfortable to um do the underground work to get ready for that. And I contacted uh Tohjo
water and u met them on site and um started a process for them to review and correct that. I haven't had an active permit. Therefore, I haven't followed up with them before we stand on that.
Um, and also I forgot to mention to you sir, the uh the buildings in the back were never considered as historic significance throughout my entire time in this project and u
this project has been brought to historic preservation more than once and it has been approved. >> That's neither here nor there for me today. You know the case that's been presented to me is we have an unsafe structure. So this is what my question is and this is why I contacted the code
officer and I wanted a site meeting so that I can be pointed at and be told what is really unsafe because no one can enter the building unless they choose to break into the building which is posted for passing and um the local officers
like officer McDonald or uh Fujier they they know the building so everybody keeps an eye on the building. Uh the building very safe for anyone entering. And >> but what I'm hearing you tell me is the building the building is safe because if it catches fire, there are people paying
attention and they'll catch it in time. No, >> that does not tell me it's a safe building. >> If the building catches fire, the monitor should go off, >> right? The monitor will go off. But you're not telling me that it's a safe building. You're telling me that if something happens, it'll get caught in. >> But what would make it unsafe? Like what would start a fire in there? There's
nothing in there that would start a fire. The building is very clean. Is there any electricity turned on? >> Only to the fire monitoring and the uh Wi-Fi, >> but there is electricity in the building. >> Correct. Uh and the pole is outside of the building, the temporary pole, and it
powers the monitoring system and the uh Wi-Fi, but uh there is nothing in there that would cause a fire. And if it does catch a fire, every single floor is monitored. And and there is more monitored
sufficient where it was sufficient. >> Right. But telling me it's monitored is not the same as telling me that it's safe. And that's why I want I want you to talk to me about the safety of the building, not the safety of the mitigation of the building. >> No, I understand. But this is where I lack the understanding myself to what
makes it unsafe. >> I will I will ask the city witnesses to come back up and and give testimony on that. But just as a lay person, you know, as far as fire codes go looking at it, I see a building that is somewhere in the middle of construction without
construction being completed or moving forward, which to me signifies potentially unsafe building. >> I can see that and and I agree with that. But we couldn't work on it. We couldn't work on it because we didn't have a permit. >> Understood. But it's not the city's
fault you didn't have a permit. >> Correct. That is correct as well. But here we are. >> Let me let me ask you to step back for a minute. I may have further questions for you or I will give you the opportunity. Yes, sir. >> May respond questions. >> So sir, you are not a licensed general
cont. >> I am the project manager. I'm not general. >> I am not. >> You are not a structural engineer. >> No, I'm not. >> You are not engineer engineer. cificate. >> So, I am the owner's project manager for
the building. >> Yeah, I'll I will and I'll ask if you have anything else. I'll give you an opportunity for I do have some further questions for the city's witnesses if you just take a couple steps back and maybe take a seat back here. Don't go too far though because I'll invite you back up. Yes, I would like to start with fire if you don't mind.
So you heard you heard the dialogue and the the main question both respondents as well as mine would like to have a better understanding of what the what the genuine risks are with the building in its current state. >> Yes sir. >> And and I think he had the very specific how would a fire start? I think that's a
fair jumping off spot for you maybe. >> Okay. And I have a few other points I had heard if I can address those as well. So, as far as a fire starting, there's several uh things could happen. Like, um Matteo said, there is electric going to the building, at least parts.
Electric's a huge um cause of fires. Um homeless people coming in. Arson um is always a possibility because it is a vacant building. um lithium ion batteries that are associated with the construction tools
inside those are a huge problem nowadays nationwide worldwide uh with starting fires. Lightning, it's a natural thing that uh sets buildings on fire. So, a fire can definitely start in any building. Uh we do have fires that
start, excuse me, in vacant buildings. Um, and as far as his comment about the alarm monitoring for the fire system, yes, there is heat detectors in the building that's monitored and I have confirmed recently they're monitored.
Excuse me. But the heat detectors were in lie of the sprinkler system that was removed. The sprinkler system is going to put a fire out. heat monitors. I mean, wires can be cut, phone lines go down. Uh, alarm panels malfunction. They
malfunction all the time. So, it's supposed to be a monitored sprinkler system in that building. Um, is what it was designed to have. Um, a fire can definitely spread rapidly in that building. As we said before,
there's no uh protected structural members in the building. Talk to me a little bit more about that. Help me understand that better when you say the protective structural members and how that slows down a fire. >> Uh drywall drywall does have a protection rating to it which protects the structural members, the um the the
studs, the floor joists, the rafters, the structural members of the building. So all of that is it's wood. It's it's kindling. It can definitely burn should a fire start in there. with no fire um sprinkler system, that fire is going to grow even more rapidly. And the fact
that we've given our firefighters the order if there's no life safety hazard known in there, do not go in. So that's going to further slow down any fire suppression in the building, which further eats away at the structural members of the building. And a collapse
regard regardless what he said is possible. uh brick buildings they do collapse because of structural members coming down because that's the integrity of the structure. What is in that building? And you may not know the answer to this question, but if you do,
fill me in. What is structurally holding up the brick for that building? >> Uh, I can't answer that. >> Building official probably. >> Okay. >> And then just uh one other thing to clarify. I'm sorry, two other things. Um, the building hasn't been vacant for
30 years. Um, it has been uh there have been businesses in that building just in the past 10 years, uh, right before they started construction. And the last time that we were in that building to perform a um inspection related to any of the permits was 2021. No work has been done
that require the generation of a inspection of any of the permits from a fire code standpoint. So do you have any >> I have no further questions at this time. >> Thank you. >> If I could have the building official. >> Yes, sir. My first question it goes to
the structural integrity. So you've heard this question of you know if if it were to catch fire you know what is the what is the collapse risk of the building and and you heard my question is what's holding up that brick? Well there there is a
metal stud structure inside the building. They they actually built a building inside a building and attached the existing brick to that. Uh, but as you may or may not know, metal in a fire
elongates and loses its strength. The Twin Towers in in New York, that's a perfect example of that. Yes. >> Uh, as to the permitting process itself from building department's perspective, why did the permits expire?
>> For lack of progress and how what what forget the specifics of this case and just walk me through the process. How long does it take for a permit to expire? How long with without any activity does it take for a permit to expire? >> 180 days.
>> So essentially six months, >> correct? >> And does that mean no per no inspections being called in? Is that is that is that the trigger for that 180? >> Right. No inspections being called in and the only thing that's been done in there is framing there. There's been no
mechanical, electrical, or plumbing work. We can't go in there and approve a framing inspection until the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work are done because we have to verify that no structural elements have been
compromised by the installation of those. >> I see. Okay. Nothing further for building now, unless you have anything else you'd like to add. Uh, respondent. Yes. So, you heard the testimony on the the
fire concerns and the structural concerns. I heard what you had to say earlier. Do you have any rebuttal to that though? Anything that you would say to say that they're wrong other than your personal opinion? >> No. Um, not really. Uh, the only thing um that I
question is if there is a call or the monitoring the heat sensors go off, why would we let it burn, you know, why would we not go there and try to assess and catch the fire out? Because um one, if it catches on fire,
it's not going to it's not going to go all like that in a matter of five minutes. Yes, I understand that there is no sheetrock, but it's still under construction. So, basically, all of the structural uh is not 100% complete because all of the MEPs needs to be done
still. Um There is no ratings on the walls. It's designed so that it has a sprinkler fully sprinkler system and monitored system and the proper rating on all the walls to meet all the code requirements on the plans and which are
approved. It's designed to be that we haven't gotten there, but that's what we're working towards. In the meantime, or let's say this down period between the two permits, um if a fire spread out, it would kind of be a to the entire community and the building itself to
just let it burn just because there is nobody in there. >> And I think you have just hit the nail on the head for why the city is bringing this case. >> This is what I how I read the case is that you have put the fire department in a position of having to decide do I save
the building or do I put my or or do I put my firefighters lives at risk. So let me turn your question around. Yes. And why should one firefighter put his his life at risk to save that building and the condition that it's in when it's in that condition because of your delay? >> So, as far as the structure itself, the
structure is in a sound condition. The only thing that >> that's not what I'm hearing from the experts. >> So, is there anything structurally that's unsound for that building? Then maybe you should bring them and ask them again. Uh or maybe they should walk the building inside on all the floors. What
I've heard was because of the state of construction that it is not in a state of construction that has the the the things that slow a fire down. >> That's what they are telling me and that's what I'm hearing. >> So, we haven't gotten to that point. >> I understand you haven't gotten to that point and that's my point. You haven't
gotten to that point because you have not progressed on your work. >> Am I wrong? >> No, you're not wrong. Then why should a firefighter's life be put at risk because you have not been progressing productively on your work?
>> So we have been progressing. We just haven't been progressing on the um to the point that >> you could not you could keep a permit from expiring. That is a failure. >> Um
I mean we're we're at this point. It wouldn't even make any sense for me to into a discussion or a conversation for that. You know, it's already gone. It's already passed. We're here. >> Uh we're here now and we can do what we can do to move forward.
>> So, let's talk about that then. And let me go ahead. >> And one more thing, there is no lithium ion batteries in the building. Every every all the tools are are out in the trailer out back. Um, so the only thing is just the power going to the fire
monitoring system and >> lightning. >> Lightning >> and lightning starts a lot of fires in central Florida. >> Lightning would hit the metal roof. We don't know. >> I mean, go ahead. >> Um, and as far as the vacancy of the
building, yes, the tenant was there and it was on the restaurant. The restaurant is the only one. >> Yeah. How long it's been vacant is not part of what what's concerning me today either. So, >> it is not. But, uh, as where we stand today, uh, we are it looks like we're
approved and we'll get ready to get going. >> It sounds like you're close to getting the permit. >> Yes. Um, >> let me ask let me ask code enforcement before before I invite you up, Dan. I do have some pointlity
on the owner. >> Okay. Sure. >> Is there do you have questions you'd like to ask respond? >> Are you the owner aware that you >> Yes. And I actually asked him to ask if he could be pres >> I have a couple questions for code.
Okay, could you step back for a minute? >> Yes, sir. >> I'm asking code enforcement this question. If there's a better witness in the room, feel free to to ask that witness to tell me who it is and we'll call them up. But I'm asking code enforcement because this is more of the typical IPMC, you know, analysis of it,
which code enforcement has certainly come to do. One of the violations that you brought is the attractive nuisance to children who might play in the building or structures. Is there any is there any open access points of this building?
I haven't gotten up close to it to to Lily to go around the whole building and really look. >> So, help me understand the attractive nuisance complaint or or allegation. >> Well, it's just it's you anybody could
break into that. >> Anybody could break into my house also, right? And that's why that's why I'm I'm specifically asking are there access points because typically with attractive nuisances, we're talking about open access points. I don't believe there's any open.
>> Okay. Um, let me go ahead and I'll ask building the same question. If you would just come up and and I'll ask that question just to make the record to make sure that >> a building's perspective too. Is building department aware of any open access points that would make this make
entry entry itself the attractive nuisance? Because that's really the concern. If somebody sees an access point, oh, I'm going to go play in there. I'm going to go sleep in there. >> Currently, no. We have had uh the windows broken out in the front of the building, >> but they're not broken currently. >> They're boarded up.
>> I'm going to ask Dan, you to come up be and maybe more to coordinate than anything else, but I want to have a conversation on timing. So, the request that's been made is to uh have the location brought in compliance by January 30th.
Permits in hand by January 30th based on what I've heard. Maybe I've got a couple of questions there. But complete compliance as in work completed, not by January 30th. >> Yeah, that would be unreasonable, >> right? Um, but I know that's part of what the city is asking for is to have
some kind of benchmark for once permits are in hand, moving it forward. That's correct. Is keeping that permit alive sufficient to achieve that, >> not allowing the permit to expire so that those permit those the work has to continue being done. The inspections
have to be being called in so that that permit stays alive. Is that enough or is there more detail the city wants built into that plan? I think we would want more detail built into that plan. Uh, as the history has shown and as you have gleaned from the
testimony provided, this permit, the old permit was in existence for a long time and extended and then ultimately expired due to lack of performance. So, we would want to avoid that sort of extension of any existing permit. So I do think it's entirely within the scope of of the
authority to to set a time limit on when that permit >> could when the work would have completed even if there was an appropriate permit >> and I'm happy to consider that. I just need to hear what it is. >> You know it's it's tough the um um let
me answer it this way. As you heard that most of the city's concern right now is the condition of that building the way it is and the uncompleted state and the But there is no active construction going on and the building is vacant and and is empty. You couple that with the location of that building in probably
the most high traffic area, pedestrians, vehicles, other buildings going on, it it aggravates the circumstance as it relates to a dangerous structure. So to go back to some of the questioning you had earlier with regard to we talked about the attractive nuisance piece, the
location of this building I think makes it more of an attractive nuisance other than the fact that it may be sealed for um to restrict access. I think that's part of what goes into that. So the what the city would be really looking for is
issuance of that permit and then to address some the make sure that the dangerous structure elements of it the issues fire protection or taking care of the issue of fire suppression suppression and ultimately u either some sort of restraints or some sort of
fencing or something that is in place to basically seal the building off. >> Is there room to fence that building? >> I'm not aware. I don't know there is or isn't. Uh there was At one point there was some fencing up when they were doing original demolition as I remember uh initial demolition on it. But as you
heard, one of the big issues of it is is the lack of fire protection, fire suppression systems and all that. And we would think that that at the very least would have to ultimately be taken care of would have to be taken care of fairly quickly. >> Okay. >> We understand this is a very difficult
case and it's a different project, but you know, the city's been been patient a long time on this project. to this point. >> Let me get the respondent back up. As to fire suppression, is it feasible to move in the fire
suppression system sooner rather than later? >> It's part of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Assuming you have the permits issued, assuming can you can you prioritize the fire suppression both for why we're here today, but also for the
the safety of any workers who were in there because to your point, there might not be lithium ion batteries in there today, but as soon as work starts being in going on in there again, it will. So, is it is it feasible to move up and get done sooner rather than later the fire suppression so that anybody in that
building has at least that protection going? Can it? Yes. Um, it's it's all part of the design. It will all be done together. Um, >> is there any reason not to move the fire suppression? >> Yes, it would be in the way. What is that reason?
>> It would be in the way for all the other stuff. They have to be in congestion together because once you run a sprinkler pipe down, if anything, uh, you don't want it to be in the way of something else. Um, the building is fenced. Uh, so I figured I would answer that question.
>> Okay. So, it already is fenced. >> It's been fenced. It's been fenced ever since construction started. And the fence is locked and there is no access within U. >> Is there any access to any any access through the fence to the building anywhere? >> Uh, yeah. If you unlock the gate. Um,
>> but if the gate is closed and locked, then the access would be the building would be secured. If someone wanted to break in, yeah, like you said, they could break into your house >> through, but they'd have to would they have to break in through the the fence? >> They have to go in through the fence or they have to break in through the >> go over or through the fence before they could even get to the building
>> or they would break in the windows of the restaurant, which is on 10th Street and it's it's >> and not fenced >> and not fenced. It can't be fenced because it's it's literally right outside. >> Um there hasn't been any breakings though for the for the amount of time that
there haven't been tools stolen, no breakins, no nothing. >> Well, there's no tools in there. You just said >> I understand, but when we were working, like we were working prior to the permit expiring and there were all sorts of tools. >> Well, and understand that from a city's perspective, working and not working, that's one of the reasons why not
working makes it an attractive nuisance is because there's nobody there keeping an eye. >> Yes. My goal is to get it working again. And and what I want to get it working is as soon as possible. >> Once those permits are issued, how soon will you be how soon will you have crews in that building? >> Right away. But uh my understanding is that the permits are issued. The only
thing it's uh certificate of appropriateness which has nothing to do with uh any of the other aspects of that >> Mr. That's that's not >> the certificate of appropriateness because this is a historic >> it's a condition to the permit being issued.
>> The permit cannot be >> I saw that in the office. >> So the permit has not been issued yet and but the permit is waiting on that. Is the certificate of appropriateness the only thing holding up the permit? >> Yes. >> When when will that when will that go
before the historic board for hearing? >> Do you swear affirm testimony give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Um it is not scheduled. >> Sorry, your name entitled for me. >> Tisha Manning zoning manager. Um so the permit is currently um disapproved by
the COA because the permit number one what was submitted is outside the scope of what the um certificate of appropriateness approved in July of 22 originally approved. Um and also the certificate of appropriateness expired
in 2024. So in for him to get back before the board, he would need to resubmit his it doesn't necessarily have to go back for a resubmitt of the application. He needs to apply for the extension and he needs to submit the plans that were approve previously
approved and that's the work that he needs to complete. But in conversations um with the applicant and our department, he wants to change the plans. So if he changes the plans then he needs to go back before the board.
>> Okay. >> So if moving forward with existing plans, conforming existing plans, no hearing is required. >> We would just need to apply for an extension. Correct. >> The extension of what's expired. Is that correct? So it' be reopened and then extended. Is that how that would work?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I think I understand. Thank you. And let me get the respondent back. So did did you I think I understood that. Did you understand? Well, >> no, no, really. Can you please? >> So, as I understand it,
the certificate of appropriateness is expired that we were already on the same page on. In order to get the permits issued, either that expired certificate of of appropriateness will have to be extended, reopened and extended, which
you could do by submitting the currently submitted plans that you that were submitted before. Yes. So the work that was originally planned, submitting those plans that that could form the basis for the extension which could be done without
hearing. But if you want to change the plans now to something that was never heard before, that will be a new certificate of appropriateness and will require to go through the entire process again. >> So this is where I'm a little bit confused because they are the same plans. The design on the plans is the same as the first certificate of
appropriateness. >> If they're the same that but that's what that's what was just testified to that if it's the same as what went through the first process, then all you have to do is submit those plans. So this this plans have been redesigned on architectural, structural, uh historic,
all of the aspects since 2021, 2022 now. And these plans is really what I fought through the state to get approved. And I did get approved. And the first certificate of appropriateness that I received is in
accordance with all of the changes including the restaurant in July of that same year. Three months later, um I was told that the there was a mistake and that the restaurant gained its own
significance separate from the existing structure. Therefore, the restaurant has to be remained the same. So the new certificate of appropriateness that I received in July keeps that restaurant remaining the
same. The struggle that I had with all the changes that I made for them to for them to be approved on. It all stands on the thesis of reuniting and making everything one. So that from this point forward, ever since the fire that it
burned down in 1909 and it got rebuilt in 1910, it has had the most major rebuild ever since. It literally is being brought back from the dead. And all of this addition that was done the restaurant which was added in the 60s at
some point all of these additions that were done are now being unified as architectural design structural and all that. Now when I when that came to me and I was told that the restaurant has to be remained the same and I had to
provide a rendering that kept the restaurant the same but kept the building as it's redesigned. Um, at the time I really didn't have the the time and energy to go back and and refight for it and as I was just got done
fighting for it and why it's being redesigned this way and why it got approved. So this is where I'm standing a little bit confused here because I have two certificate of appropriateness. I have one in February or March which if I may be allowed I can pull it up from
my phone because it's saved in my files. Unfortunately, I didn't print it because I didn't think it was going to be part of the conversation. So, I have a certificate of appropriateness sealed and stamped with everything as it is as all the design as all the plans stand. And then I have a certificate of
appropriateness which I think what um they're referring to is the one that keeps the restaurant the same. Right? So, what am I being asked for here? like what plans do I because in order for me to keep the restaurant the same then I should not touch it but that restaurant
is not structurally sound. >> Do you understand? >> I understand your question and >> I just want to clarify issued under the city's historic preservation ordinance was issued in July 2022. So I'm not sure what February
that's from the state that's beyond >> Miss Manning has That's correct. The certificate of appropriateness we issued was in July of 2022. Um what >> So let me let me first cut to the chase of what I what I hear the confusion may
be is that we have the term certificate of appropriateness being used by two different jurisdictions for two different forms. The state issues in their processes certificate of appropriateness but that has nothing to do with the city of FL the city of uh St. CL's code of ordinances and your
processes. Am I understanding? >> Correct. Because he did go through the state for some type of um um designation from the state as well. But what he's talking to when it comes to the restaurant is he originally submitted in his certificate of appropriateness for the restaurant to have and I don't know
the terms but to have the windows that stop probably about you know chest height. Well, then he wants to now come back or came back and wanted to submit for the windows to be the full length and the board at that time disapproved it. So, the current plans that are
submitted to building show the windows at full length. That is outside the scope. >> And that's the 2022 certificate of appropriateness. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And so that's outside the scope of what was approved. He needs to leave the restaurants the windows where they're at. Chester >> or he has to get a new certificate of
appropriateness. >> Correct. Yes sir, you can come back. >> Did you Did you understand that? I did. >> So I I did as well. So part of this entire renovation for the building is in order to make the building actually
function for all involved the windows that are existing on that restaurant. Um if you're >> So you're going if if you're about to tell me why the windows should be allowed to be changed. That's not something I can decide here.
That's the That's the historic board's role, not mine. I can't make that decision. But what you're hearing is if you want to if you the the quickest path to moving forward is to reopen and extend the 2022 certificate of appropriateness, which means moving
forward with the plan as it was in 2022. If you want a new certificate of appropriateness to change those windows it sounds like or if you want to change those windows that's going to require a new certificate of appropriateness which will extend the process for sure also injects uncertainty because you may not
get those windows approved and if I heard right they were already disapproved the first time. >> So this is running into what you want versus what historic board has said they'll allow. Well, um, may I ask how many certificates of appropriateness
have been issued for this project? Because it's been more than one. >> Okay. >> How many certificates of appropriateness have been issued for the project from 2019? >> Um, I don't know if one was issued prior to 2022. I can find out. It'll just take
me a moment. The most recent one was issued in July of 2022. If I could access my table, my tablet or my phone, I have all the records. So, this restaurant has been approved as a certificate of appropriateness in different designs.
>> Right. But with the windows, was there an approval with the windows? >> Yes, it was. It was in 2022. Um, if I could access it, I could tell you the exact date. It was three months prior to the one that uh they're referring to. It
was approved once. And that's what I'm fighting for. Why? Because I think that it will be detrimental to the building and to the restaurant in order for those windows to stay the same, it doesn't function as a restaurant in that type of
design. And just because someone made a mistake 50, 60 years ago, it is my responsibility to make sure that this project gets the right tools in order to function and do its job later on. And I believe that this is the
right thing to do for this building. And this is what took me so long to fight and get that approved once. So my answer back to you is that I will fight for those windows. And if the restaurant loses historic significance
because we want to do that design, so be it at the end of the day. But that restaurant has been approved with different designs more than once. >> Well, I know this many missing went to to look that up. But how many
certificates of appropriateness? We'll we'll get the answer to that. But >> I understand it's I understand it's significant to you and what you want to do with the building. Correct. For what I have to do here. >> Again, that's historic board work, not the work I have to do here. What we have here is a certificate of of
appropriateness that has expired and an inability to move forward with permitting until the certificate of appropriateness is renewed. And the quickest path to that is renewal of the of the 2022. But if he wants to fight for his windows, you know, I want to know how long it's going to take for
that process. And so we'll wait for Miss Manny to come back to answer that question. >> Tell you if if they do want to start a new process to get a new going I said historic preservation boards
regularly. So it's probably going to take at least 90 days >> if that's the issue we have and I would also point out that even if there was a certificate of appropriate issued they have a two-year lifespan. So that one would have expired also.
>> Yeah. No, and I don't think it was being offered as really mitigating to this case. It was more towards the uh the hope the historic board will do what was what was approved before if there was before. As long as we're in a holding pattern, can I can fire, would
you mind coming back up? Is there anything that could be done to mitigate the risks in this building, you know, prior to construction beginning moving forward, you know, permits being issued. Is there anything that could be done
while all the permitting resolves? >> The best thing would be to try to get the fire sprinkler system at least functioning. Obviously, during construction, it wouldn't be up to code because I mean, there's no ceilings and walls. It would change over time as
construction progresses. But having a functioning sprink monitored sprinkler system in place would at least um since we've told our guys not to go inside to add a life safety hazard. A sprinkler system basically
adds hose lines in place to fight an active fire to keep it at bay. I don't know how that would >> Yeah, that's my concern is that if he submitted for that for a suppression system that wasn't code compant, we're just going to have another rejected permit.
>> Yeah, it would be it wouldn't be easy. It would be definitely a modified system to as a placeholder until the building's constructed to the point to where the permanent sprinkler system could be added.
>> Okay. I don't have a good path through that, but we'll keep working on it. Um once permits are issued, once permits are issued and work recommences, the project is moving forward. What would make this structure
any different than any other work in progress structure in the city from a from a from a life safety fire hazard risk system? Most other construction projects have an end date and we um
>> No, the permit is the end date. That's what I'm asking. >> Okay. >> Why Why should I treat this one any differently than I would treat any other active permit situation? >> Active permit situation. Um we're we're in the building a lot more for inspections throughout the
construction process. Like I said, we haven't been in there for any permit related inspections since 2021. And I I I'm again I'm assuming it turns back into an active job site. So, you know, compared to any other rehab project in the city, what would make this one is there anything that would
make this one different than than than another older building that is in the pos in the process of rehabilitation from a life safety fire hazard factor? >> Nothing I could foresee that would keep it from being considered other than
making sure that construction progresses. so that we can be in there for routine inspections for the progress. >> Okay. and other um factors in the building would have to be shored up and safeguarded such as the open elevator
shaft and we would have to make sure that there's no holes in the floor which um we have seen in the past and and um there's there's a lot of construction factors that would probably have to be brought up to par for NFPA 241 which is um
fire safety regulations for active construction sites. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> While come on, Mr. Is it Mr. Matos? Is that your last name or first name? >> That's my first name. >> Okay. What's your last name? >> Hodo. H O D. >> Hodo. Mr. Hodo.
>> Yes. Um everything has Even the even though the elevator >> you're going to tell me everything is safe. >> Yes, because I have >> I that's that's what I'm struggling with because we're not the evidence isn't there yet. And that's actually where I I'm about to
go. So, let me let me ask you to put a pen in that thought. If you need to come back to it, I'll certainly give you the opportunity, but let me let me try to work through this a little bit because let me tell everybody my concerns. And it is it is a challenging case. uh but it's certainly one I think can get
worked through. But there is a big just black hole in and the questions I'm able to ask and to get two-sided answers to because I can ask the question, I'll get yours. Everything is safe inside >> and and I don't I don't doubt your sincerity or honesty, but different perspectives see things differently.
I'm I'm inclined to continue this case to allow to require and it sounds like you already are are open to this. So to accept the offer of the respondent to say come in and talk about what are the safety issues because I would like to
know what the interior of that building looks like. I would like to hear that because I'm being asked to find that it's unsafe and I see a condition from the outside that suggests to me yes it is unsafe. I think there is enough on the outside to find that it is unsafe,
but in crafting a what's the right way of fixing that without knowing the in without knowing the condition of the inside, I certainly can't answer it. And and I don't think fire or a building who has had to leave. I see. I don't think you guys are in a position to answer
that either until you know what you're dealing with. And so if we were to if the city were to go in there and see holes in floors, see the kind of things that they've seen in the past that they're concerned about and and I were to hear that, you know, here,
I would have cons I would share those concerns and that would factor into how I would order this to be cured. But I don't have that evidence and I think it's key evidence for this case. >> Absolutely. And if I may, um, the holes that the fire marshall is relating to,
it's they are through the subfloor and they were originally from the shoring because remember we had to shore the existing structure while we were working on it. But those those have all been patched and the other hole was for the old SP sprinkler pipe that went through.
There is no holes on the floors and even the elevator shaft that's unfinished has has a >> and this is why actually I was short circuiting this line because I'm sure you're going to tell me everything inside is safe. And again, I don't doubt your sincerity or honesty. It's just the two different people can look at the same thing and see two different things
and I want the other set of eyes. >> This is why I requested a site inspection. >> I requested that site inspection since October and I was never given it. >> Thank you. I think it's a it's obviously a good idea that the city city has not been able to get in that building because there haven't been any work done. There
haven't been inspections called the building obviously is we we didn't pursue any sort of inspection warrant to be able to address it which would have been our next step. So I do think that is a initial step that would be beneficial towards trying to resolve this. >> I just find it I I'm finding it very
difficult. Again, I I can say from the outside I can say, "Yeah, there's some things there that can that need to be cured, but it sounds like the real issues are inside." The reason why I'm being asked to, you know, structure a plan for life safety sounds like it's
more about the inside of the building than the outside, but I don't have any testimony except the respondent who tells me everything is fine. >> Right. Well, well, yes. And I I agree. Not I don't want to challenge any of those any of his testimony to be able to do it. >> Yeah. Again, it's just different perspectives. I get that and and fire
might go in there and not and there may the concerns may be reduced too which the other thing is it might not be as bad as we feared. >> Right. And they and I did just talk to the fire marshall and fire chief who here and they they would be uh uh they would like to go in the building because they want to address it to see what the real life safety issues are. So
obviously they can be prepared if they have to deal with it in a in a in a uh hopefully an unfortunate situation. Uh but however, we understand the the the special magistrate's desire to maybe to continue is we would we would ask that at least something be done with the
ability to get this final permit pulled or at least obtained. Uh I do think that the respondent does need some motivation to be able to address that. >> Miss Manning is back. So now she can fill me in on
what what you found. But I also have some questions for you. Yes sir. Thank you um magistrate. Yes. So um the uh applicant was correct. He did have two certificate appro appropriateness issued in 2022. One was
issued in April. Um and I have it here and I'm going to provide it to you for your records. Um that basically outlines everything that he can do as well as the renderings of what was approved by the board. Well, his project was then brought back again in June as he stated
because the significance of the actual restaurant itself and on those renderings you it will show that he has the chest height windows and that's what was approved by the board >> in the April approval. Were the windows part of that consideration?
>> They were and they were full length. However, when he brung it back, he brought it back at site. Yes, sir. >> And you you actually don't have to show me those. I'll accept the testimony because It's ancillary to this. It's more to help me understand what's going on. As I understand the respondent's position though, he wants to try to get
the full length windows and the April find or the the April approval of those windows at least suggests that there is a possibility. It's not outside their own possibility for those to be approved. So, he wants to go through the new certificate of appropriateness
process. If he were to do that, how long would that take? >> Um, he would have to submit his application. has to go for review. I'll say I I want to say at least 60 days and that's rushing it. >> Mr. Manzer and I are both thinking probably closer to 90.
>> Yes, >> sir. So we obviously understand the seriousness of the situation and and the building and the uniqueness of this and it is a complex issue. We agree with that. We would sort of implore the special
magistrate we need from the city's perspective, from the community's perspective, some sort of milestone that has to be accomplished on this place. And we'd ask that before we leave today, something along those lines. >> And I I have something along those lines. Whether it makes anybody happy, I don't know, but I I have something in
mind. >> And Um, and of course, as you know, uh, we did ask for a significant amount of a fine. It's obviously within the, uh, discretion of the special magistrate given the circumstances to be able to address this, but this is a significant issue for the city as a whole and for
the community. And that's why we did that. >> Respondent. So, you heard if you're going to seek another certificate of appropriateness, you're probably at the earliest or 60 days out, more likely 90 or more. And there's the possibility that it does not
get approved. >> And if it doesn't get approved, then the restaurant loses significance, >> okay? >> Historical significance. >> That's not my decision to make. I >> I am an understanding. >> My focus is on the building.
>> So, How soon do you believe you can you can submit that certificate of appropriateness application? >> I can submit it right away. >> What is right away? >> Today, tomorrow. >> I suspect there's going to be enough information that it might not be something you can put together in 24 hours.
>> Okay. Within the week, within the next week, if Miss Manning >> Yeah. Let me ask Miss Let me ask Miss Manning. Is do you think that's realistic given what you know? Is it realistic for that for an for a new certificate of appropriateness to be to be submitted within a week?
>> Um, I do believe he will be able to submit it within a week. Okay. Um, and then we can go through the review process. I do want to state for the record though. Um, and reading his original approval in April. Um, and it does say here that the historic
preservation board also approved staff to further coordinate with the state historic preservation office regarding the request for the 2 by two windows. Um, and it states that shutters, awnings, overhang or balconies with the exception of the overhang over the main
entrances are not approved. So I I would correct but I would urge you to go back and look at this approval and understand that they disapprove those windows the first time. So it's quite likely they would disapprove them again.
Is it possible to submit or is it possible in the process of the review? Is it possible for him to submit an application for the full length windows? And should the board react negatively to those and it be moving towards towards
denial for to substitute in the old original form of windows and move forward with the standing with that certificate of appropriateness application. Would it be possible make that modification as the process moves on? I understand that I'm looking at
this a way of getting to permit so he can be begin fixing the building as fast as possible. >> Correct. So my suggestion would be that he go ahead and file for the extension for what he currently has approved so that way he can start working toward his permit. We can approve his permit with
what he currently has approved and he can still go through the certificate of appropriate process to make those changes. Should the board approve those changes, then he would just modify his permit. >> That seems to me to be a very realistic and and good compromise. Thank you. Let
me Did you understand that? >> I think so. But >> so you could you could what zoning is saying is you could reopen and extend the 2022 the most recent 2022 permit which was the original shape of windows.
Get that certificate of appropriateness issued, get your permits issued, begin working again, get the work moving forward at the same time as you are submitting your new certificate appropriateness for what you want to
change that window length. That kills two birds with one two birds with two stones maybe because you have to do two things. But it gets the city to a place where work is moving forward. Everyone can take a deep breath because work has started again and we don't have
to worry about the building anymore. We can all worry about which windows ends up being. But you also have a path forward on that. You are not locked in to the original certificate of appropriateness because you can ask for that new one that would amend that aspect of it. But it keeps you from
being held up while you're waiting to see if the the preferred windows are approved. >> Sounds Sounds like a good compromise. >> Okay. I guess what what has me puzzled is that back in 22 the structural
>> this is not a qu these are not questions I could answer. This is the historic preservation part and that is outside of what's in my purview. >> I'm just looking at the safety of that building and trying to get us back to work moving forward. >> Yes. And and and this is the reason why we're here. It's like I lack an
understanding of what really is making that building unsafe and what really is making that building at risk. >> And so >> how can I address that? >> We're going we're going to address that. >> Yes, sir. >> And I and I and I understand where where we're heading and hopefully we're getting this something that we could be
can be met in accordance with what we presented. But I do think for purposes of everybody's understanding the last statement by Mr. Hod is exactly the issue that the city has with this. There appears to be a lack of understanding about compliance with
state codes, state building codes and the desires for this building which are well well basically reached the unrealistic range. That's the problem that the city has had to deal with this project since its inception is they are is the fact that they refuse and
categorically have refused to follow them moving forward with the building code because they want to do some things that are beyond the scope of the code and all that. our office, the city's building department, the planning department, historic preservation can only can only comply with the codes that they that they have jurisdiction over.
And so I think that's part of it, this issue of the lack of and this is why the city is bringing this back and we're seeking for a significant fine in this case because we do think the respondent needs to have a message delivered to him that this project needs to move forward and can't drag on any longer.
Miss, >> come on up. I think we're we're talking about two different things because uh >> you're not let me tell you from the city's perspective because I I work for other cities. Okay. >> And from a city's perspective, you seem to be a very creative person
just as you present. >> You have to do with this kind of project. >> I don't because it's existing. I >> I don't doubt it. But safety is paramount. Progress moving forward. Getting from pro project start
to project completion is paramount. And the creativity cannot take precedence over the practicality. And that's what was just expressed to me is there's some challenges that really really want this,
but code says you have to do this. But I really really want this. And I've heard it here today. There has to be difference given to building code. Florida building code trumps everything. >> Sure. >> Fire protection code trumps everything else. >> Sure. >> City code. Then everything has to be
done according to code. It is your job to make yourself understanding of those codes. It is not the city's job to teach you or educate you. It is uh I cannot remember his name. He was a simol county judge. He would, Judge Sloop is who it
was. Whenever he had a prosay uh respondent or or party in his courtroom, if that party would say, "But judge, I'm not a lawyer." Judge Sloop would say in his style, "Yes, you are. Yes, you do." "No, no, your honor, I don't have a
lawyer." "Yes, you do. You chose to be prosay. You are your own lawyer. I expect the same level of competence from you as I expect from those gentlemen in ties in the back of the room. That's what I'm telling you now. If you are going to manage this project, I expect
the same level of competence from you as a general contractor would have even though you are not a general contractor because it is your job as project manager to under understand the codes that you are subject to. >> And I do and I don't think that >> but you just told me there's confusion. >> Well, there is confusion >> and you just told me you don't
understand. >> No, no, no. Uh I wasn't in agreement with the statement. Why? Because I don't think that we're not in compliance with the code. On the contrary, we've been very code compliant on all aspects of this project and have actually determined to be so that it's right for
the project. So that statement is is really invalid from my perspective. And we're talking about a change to a structure that we're actually bringing back from being completely demolished to life to which we're fighting for rights
in order to make it right so that it does function correctly. I mean, isn't that within our rights? >> You are fighting for the building. I understand that. >> Yes. So, the design is code compliant. All of the aspects of the design are code. >> The design is not code compliant until you have that certificate of appropriateness. That's what we're held up on.
>> Exactly. But the it was the same design back in 22. So it was the same design for April 22 and it was the same design for July of >> but not your most recent 2022. The windows have changed. The windows of the are the windows of the sticky wicket. And so I want to give a path. I want to
work with you to give a path there, >> please. >> But I also need you to work with me, which is why I'm saying these things to you. I don't want to hear if I ever have to if we ever and we will because that's where we're going. We're moving towards at least at least one more hearing. I do not want to hear well I didn't
understand or I was confused. I don't want to hear any of those things because it's your responsibility to make yourself understanding. >> Sure. >> If you're going to manage the project, you have to understand you have to be the lead. Do not wait for the city to tell you what to do. >> And I and I'm I'm full agreement in
that. my understand my lack of understanding what what is making the building unsafe from outside from inside from entry point of life safety and from inside of what what can I do >> that's a good segue to satisfy that for where for for where I'm headed today yes
sir >> I just want to point a couple first I think it needs to be clarified the building doesn't meet the code until the certificate of the compliance is issued and that's been the part of the issue and the deal with it all I understand we'reaching some sort of compromise. The
city is the city's also willing to to try to work on something to do this as we think what would go somewhat a long way to at least showing that there is some dedication is if the if the permit could be issued as quickly as possible and then some work would be done that we
could sign off on most particularly some of the exterior work on the building so that the building could at least look like it's under under construction be able to do that. There's there's plywood on the board. You know, the windows, we've been promised that the windows would be replaced for coming on a year
now. The promises in place and maybe maybe the uh respondent could get that done fairly quickly. We could at least have some showing that they're trying to cooperate with us. >> Okay. So, you you heard that kind of olive branch. I I think it was a little
bit. How quickly could you once permits are issued or are reissued? How quickly could window installation in that building. >> So windows have to be manufactured for the building. Uh we have all we have all ordered the windows for the dormer. They have been sitting in the site. We
couldn't do them because the roof just >> Are the windows in or not? You have windows or Oh, for the dormer. You have the dormer windows. The lower windows are not in production yet. >> Correct. But they can be ordered and be in production. And then the >> What's that production? How what's the length of that production process?
>> I would have to double check. The last time the last time that I did check it was three months. >> Okay. >> But you can get that order in as soon as really you don't even have to wait on permits to get that order in. How quickly could you have the order in for
the windows? >> Um I would have to double check with the owner, but I'm thinking by the end of the month >> before this time next month. >> Yes. >> Okay. Anything else from anybody? No sir.
>> All right. What I'm going to do is actually I'm going to enter a partial ruling today and continue other matters as as we've kind of discussed in the course. I do find that just from the exterior the length of time this has been an inactive project. I do find there's sufficient evidence to find that
it is uh dangerous risk of fire collapsing uh IPMC 111.1.5. Uh the general IPMC that leads into all of those is 101 excuse me 111.1.5 dangerous structures of premises. I am
not finding the unsecured structure which is 111.1.5 sub7 vacant structure unsecured. This is the attractive nuisance to children who might play in the building or structure. I do not find that it is currently in an unsecured state. It may have been in the past but all the evidence I heard or
testimony I heard today was that there are no there are no breaches in that today. So I am not finding that the 111.1.5 sub77 exists as the building sits today. I do find that 111.1.5 dangerous risk of fire collapse 11.1.5
dangerous fire resistant. Um the responsibility 301.2 it's not really a violation section. So really the the three violations that I'm finding are 111.1.53 globally and then within that 111.158
dangerous risk of fire 11.1.510 dangerous fire resistance resistance the cure to that for today and again I am continuing the case so that we can revisit and deal with the cure in more
detail once the city has been allowed to see the condition of the interior of the building, but from an exterior perspective by February 6th, which gives you two full weeks after the
after this week, this week plus two to have the application for extension of the July 2022 certificate of appropriateness in
that will be submitted by February 6. I'm not going to enter anything in my order about the new certificate of appropriateness that you want to seek. You are free to seek that, but that is you can do that with
that application afterwards. You can do that once the work has started. I just want this to move get to get permits issued and work to commence again. And the fastest route to that is to get that original certificate of appropriateness reopened back up, which then gives you time to work on if you want to change or get a new certificate of appropriateness
for the different windows in the restaurant. So, I'm not foreclosing that. I'm just not ordering you to do it because that's again ancillary to what we're dealing with here. If you will get the application in for to renew or to extend the July 2022 certificate of appropriateness, that at least gets you
able to move your permits forward. Do you understand? Do do you I'm I'm not No more debate. I'm not just Do you understand? Not do you like it? Do you understand? Okay.
Um, also between now and the next hearing, I want you I'm going to to this continuence. We'll we will have a the city will renotice. Um, but we'll be back here our next hearing date of
February 18th. So, I'm going to continue the conversation regarding cure of the condition until the parties can present additional evidence as to the situ the condition of the interior of the structure at the February 18th hearing. And I will supplement my order at that
time as to what needs to happen beyond what I'm ordering to happen right now. But what I want to happen, and I will include this in the order, between now and that hearing, when you're here at that next hearing, I want you to be able to testify to me. Yes, we have ordered the windows at least for the ground floor because once those are ordered,
once they come in, you can get them in and you can solve that aesthetic problem. >> Yes, sir. >> I would like to the the thing is that I would like to order all the window. >> I understand what you'd like to do >> because >> I understand what you would like to do,
but this is not about what you would like to do. This is about what needs to happen. >> I understand. Um, >> and if you want to order all of the windows, you certainly can, >> including the restaurant as is as >> I am not foreclosing you from ordering all the windows. What I'm saying is the
ground floor windows ordered before I see you next time. And if that means ordering all the windows, so be it. But I want the ground floor windows because I want to be able to see that if I see when I see a case that's had boarded windows for more than six months.
>> Yes. >> I'm more often than not going to find a violation for the simple fact that those windows have been boarded for more than six months because those windows are supposed to be functioning. Your windows have been boarded for a very long time now. >> I will I will order the windows. >> All I'm asking >> the ground floor also includes the
restaurant. So this certificate of appropriateness >> I will I I will ex I will accept the restaurant windows from that. So all windows except for the restaurant windows because I understand you have some uncertainty there until you've gotten to go through your certificate of appropriateness process. >> Thank you.
>> And and in that regard I will order the windows of the main building for the second and third floor. So basically, as an exchange, I will order all of the windows, all the floors of the main building and leave the restaurant and the additions out back until the certificate of appropriateness gets
resolved. >> Is that >> are the other out buildings also are those windows that you're changing or are seeking to change in the certificate of appropriateness? >> So the the the entire thing has been unified to one design. >> I'm just so >> Yes. Okay. Uh but the buildings in the
back were never part of any historic reservation value. It was just the restaurant that >> I see. So, but until you know what you're doing with the restaurant, you will not know what >> window. So, I would rather not order them right now. >> So, I'm going is would the out buildings
be an appropriate description of those? What they're calling the buildings outside? Yes. Okay. So, the out buildings and the restaurant is how I am referring to those. Um but the main building windows all main building windows will be ordered before February 18th.
>> Okay. So for now that is what my my order is. Yes sir. >> Can we ask one thing? Would like if you put in the order at least a requirement that the respondent allow the fire department in the building officially in the building to >> That's a given. That that that's my jumping off spot. Yes. I'm sorry. That is my expectation is that between now
and February 18th, the city will have the opportunity to inspect the interior of that building because the February 18th hearing is so everybody can come back here and and and present to me what is the condition of the inside of the building. >> We would just request that you put that in your order. >> It will be. It will be. Yes, sir.
>> I'm sorry. The staff just asked if we could we would like to do that inspection at least two weeks before the next hearing. >> Do you have are there any problems with that? >> I would like to inspired. >> So, the inspection to occur prior to >> Can we do it next week? >> That's between you and them. I'm just giving you a deadline. Uh, prior to
February 5th, 2026, the inspection to occur. >> U, I'm I will speak in more detail on potential fines if my order is not complied with next time. But if these things that you've agreed to do today or
you know that you've agreed today to do before I see you again one to get that application for certificate of appropriateness in by February 6th and to have the inspection performed by February 18th.
>> I'm sorry. February 5th. I'm just going to tie those to the same date. It's easier for everybody. February 6 for every for the inspection as well as to have the certificate of appropriateness uh application extension application uh submitted. If those things don't
occur, I will consider imposition of fines up to the statutory maximum. So I I will consider it, but I don't have any expectation that you're not going to follow through on the things that you've told me. And then if we need to, we will have a deeper conversation about that when we get into the more detailed cure after there's some more evidence that
can be presented to me on the interior of the building. >> Yes, sir. visit yourself. >> I do not want to have a visit myself because I am not an expert and that's complicates everything for hearing process. Um I'm sure the city will will
take pictures of anything they're concerned about. If you would like to take pictures of anything or videos, you are more than welcome to. I would be happy to view it, but just as this process works, if the city sees something that they are concerned about and they think is a violation, they are
going to document that, take a picture of it and show it to me. So, I expect that if you were not to take any pictures or any video that anything that they're alleging is a violation that that is I mean that there there will be pictures of that.
>> I have a question. If we inspire February and meeting anything that they make a list of for me to fix. Is it possible for me to fix them prior to the meeting?
>> By all means. As long as it doesn't require a permit. As long as it does not require a permit. >> Okay. And then how do we determine that? >> That would be Is there >> I don't think there's anything there. Okay. >> Yeah, that would all I can tell you is
to interface closely with the building department. >> Yeah, we would ask that his general contractor and the project's general contractor and whoever architect have direct contact with the city staff so that they can explain all this stuff to them. Again, Mr. Hod is not a general contractor. He's not an architect and we
need to be directly with the professionals. Is it would it be possible to this when this inspection gets scheduled, would it be possible for you to coordinate and have your general your general contractor there for that because I think that would be very helpful. Uh is there any merit to having the architect there from the city's perspective? Would it be helpful to have
the architect there? >> Is it possible it would be helpful to have the architect there? >> Well, that's up to the >> I understand. But from the city, Is it possible if the city would like to have the architect there? I would ask you to if you could have the architect there, please have the architect there. >> We want to make sure that we are
addressing the issues with the professionals that will be the ones designing the cure. >> It just cuts down on the the gobetween. And so, you know, the the building experts can talk to building experts without having to be translated through a lay person. And I find myself in that
middle often also, so I understand the predicament. And so, if they're able to be there, certainly it'd be helpful for you to have them there. Is there anything else on this case that anybody needs at this point? >> No, sir. >> I will I will hold on administrative
cost until the next hearing before we move before you call the next case. Let me get my notes somewhere. Okay. Thank you. >> Case number 2025-1076 Rachel Ruffin owner location of
violation 501 Kentucky Avenue St. Cloud Florida. So the next case we're going to hear as was just called in by the clerk officer um Alex is your she'll present on this case. I just give you a little heads up. This is a case that you might recall you
heard uh at a prior hearing with regard to other violations on the property and accessory structure that was being used and I believe a a deck that was done without a permit. There is some additional impermitted work on the premises and that's what this case is about. Uh >> so this is not the the same the same
situation I heard before. This is new new work that's been done or just additional work that was discovered >> additional work that was part of discovered as part of the process. >> Good afternoon. Alex Miller, code enforcement officer for the city of St. Cloud. At this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items.
Copy of the stem of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property in city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Affidavit of posting. Evidence of mailing. Copy of the code sections in violation. A copy of the deed to the property. A copy of
the cost incur if the magistrate find is responding in violation and the amount of $38.3. And the respondent is here and was provided with copies of the case. On November 26, 2025, a statement of violation and a statement of hearing was
sent by certified mail to the owner post to the property in city hall. An affidavit of posting was created and one picture of the posting was was taken. This case is to show u the evidence that accessory structure was converted into an apartment by the current owner after
purchasing the property in 2019. uh pictures were obtained for the property from the property appraiser Ariel Bur's eye imagery which show that the property was in the same condition in February 2020th and the the images
also indicate that the remodeling of the accessory structure occur occur uh sometimes after February 2020 and to show two pictures and I have provided with bigger pictures on the folder for you to see because this It's not quite clear on the
beginning of the folder. >> Tell me what I'm looking at here. >> Uh, this picture is shown right here that um on on January 2020 from the bird's eye view uh from the property appraisers the you can see the accessory structure
did not have the sliding door. >> Where do I see that? >> Um, it's it's on the picture that I show you. I'm sorry. It's the same picture, but it's you can see it better on the paper. >> Where on the structure am I looking to see? >> The the the arrow indicating that's a
accessory structure on 2020 when um Miss Ruffing purchased the property in after 2019. >> Can you approach? >> Yes. >> What is it you want me to see? >> Okay.
I see. Okay. So, what was just what was just pointed out to me was on the bottom of the structure there, the bottom right. >> You're showing me in this photograph, there's a sliding door in this photograph. >> It is not there, but you can see >> what is what is that in the bottom right corner?
>> That is just the accessory structure and there's no sliding door in at that time on 2020th. >> Okay. And then on the next picture you can see that there is on December on the picture that was taken from the aerial bird side on December 2022 that now
there is a sliding door installed on the accessory structure. >> Okay. I actually see a couple of changes between those two photographs. I see it looks like a window was removed. >> Correct. >> And then the sliding door was put where that window was and then a little bit to the right of it. Yes. Okay.
And this is a picture that I took um back in um 11 of sorry on 1112 2025. Um in February 2023 the owner was issued a notice of violation for the work performed on the accessory structure
without a permit and for allowing an individuals to reside in the unit. On March 17, 2023, Officer Neil and I met with the owner. Uh she stated that she had not performed any work in on the structure and that her father had only
been sleeping there while visiting. She further stated that the accessory structure already had all the improvements completed when she purchased the property. She advised that the she would not conduct any additional work and the case was subsequently
closed as notified and three photos were taken. This is the interior of the property in 2023. Is this work that you're saying is that the city is alleging was not permitted? >> Correct. >> Didn't have permits. >> Correct.
>> That's a new >> the eaves. >> Correct. Just on that side. >> Same. Is this eaves? Okay. >> Yes, sir. Um, and again, the owner submitted a permit application in January 2024 to bring to try to um get this legal, but
she never uh obtained the permit or completed the process to obtain the required permits. Um, on January 15, a reinspection was conducted and it was verified that no permit had been issued for the residential repairs and alteration, including window um door
replacement, electrical work, plumbing, and miscellaneous improvements. the property remains in violation. Um, I also verified that the owner is attempting to sell the property and advertising the accessory structure as a mother-in-law suite despite there not
being permit on record for the structure. Um, it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of of allowing repairs and alterations to be performed and not correcting the violation by the time specified. The city recommends that the respondent be
granted until January 30th, 2026 to obtain the required permits for the conversion of the accessory structure into an apartment or to remove all the unpermitted work. A compliance is not achieved by the date a in the amount of
$250 per day should be assessed until full compliance is met. And the city will also request that the cost incur bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $38.3 to be paid within 7 days of the written order by the special magistrate. And
this concludes my presentation. >> Don't go far. I may have a question for you. >> Yes, sir. I just want to make sure I understand what permits it is the city is alleging are required because as I read the
evidence packet, it looks like this is work without building permits, but in your request relief, you referenced a permit to allow the back to the accessory dwelling unit permit. it is an accessory
whether there's a screen door and new eaves. Is that somehow tied to the accessory dwelling unit in a way that I'm not understanding or is this just a building permit issue? >> This is a building permit. So this is them um back in represented the case. >> I remember I just want to make sure I
was understanding. So this is this is building permits we're talking about. So it doesn't have to be approved as an accessory dwelling unit. They just have to get building permits for the work that we >> Yes, sir. Okay, I understand. Thank you, Mr. Ruffing. >> Yes, sir.
>> Um, Rachel Ruffing, owner of 501 Kentucky. We've met before. I wanted to be on record that I had filed a formal complaint against code officer Alex Miller this morning with her supervisor, Christopher Eldon, um, for harassment because she has been harassing me for
years. I went through this packet here and I looked at some of her pictures which was her evidence. >> First of all, let me let's let's start with the one I have a question about. >> Yes, sir. >> So, are you you're welcome to approach and look at
the the blown up version, but >> between 2022 and 2023, I definitely see a change in that structure. >> Um, she also provided a deed. >> I I just want to know was there a change made to that structure? That's the question I'm asking you right now. Uh, no sir. So, what I'm telling you is I
didn't even own the property until >> I understand that you were given it to by your uncle, I think, right? >> My father. >> Your father. >> But work still has to have permits regardless of whether or not we bought it after the work was done or were given it after the work was done. >> Was there a change made to that to that
structure between 2022 and 2023? >> Not as far as I know, but I know that she's going to present more evidence. >> I'm looking at a picture from the property appraiser where I see in one photograph >> in January of 2020. I didn't buy this property until November. >> I I I'm not asking you if you did it.
I'm asking was there a change? >> I wouldn't know because I didn't get it until November. >> Do you disagree with these photos? >> Yes. >> What do you disagree with in the photos? >> Uh there was also a metal shed that was right in front of that door, which this picture is not really very clear, but you can go to the property appraiser site and see that there was a metal shed that was there.
>> But I see a window I see a window in one picture and a screen door in another. Do you disagree that there's a window in one picture and a screen door in the other? >> Yes, because that is not a window. Okay, I'm looking at January 2022, February 20 I'm sorry, January 2020, February 2020.
>> Yes, you >> are. >> Okay. It's not a window. Is the thing in that photograph the same as the photograph in December 2022, January 23 23? >> Um, from the aerial view, they are
different. Yes. But they're not very clear pictures. >> They're clear enough that I can see that's a change. And if you're going to play games with me, I'm not going to be patient with you. >> I'm not playing games. >> You are. >> I'm not. >> I cannot tell what this is to be honest
with you. And like I told you, there was a metal shed there, too. So, you know what? I didn't get this property until November, which was 11 months later than this picture was taken. And from what I know, this is what the property looks like. And yes, I am selling the home. And I was very clear to follow your instructions which you said last time
which was to put the code enforcement violations on there and which I did >> and and that's not part of it today. But I'm trying to understand if there were changes made to this property that did not have permits and I'm not saying you did the work but they're saying there was work done that did not have permits
and I'm seeing work was done. I'm seeing Freshwood and Eaves. Do you disagree that that shows what it looks like? >> Uh that building has been there since 1985. >> Okay. But do you disagree that the fresh what I see is fresh wood in those photographs. Do you disagree that that's
fresh wood? >> Uh I I really don't know the difference between the two. I'm not a carpenter. I didn't do it. >> Okay. >> So, can you testify to me that there has been no tra that there has been no unpermitted work done on the property? >> What I can testify to is that I am in
the middle of getting an attorney. I'm retaining an attorney and he has advised me not to answer any questions today at this hearing. What I did is just come to bring the evidence here and speak with you on my behalf. >> Okay. >> Then if if you're not able to testify though, I only have testimony from one
side and that side has presented to me evidence, competent substantial evidence that there is a violation for work done without permits on the property. >> And I don't know how you can make that determination by looking at this one simple picture that she posed from a a time before I even owned the home. >> I but I can see that the two pictures do
not match. I'm not saying you did the work, but I'm saying as the owner, you are responsible for making sure that all the work on your property is permitted. >> It's understandable. But there was also a metal shed there. So, is that a shed that's in front of that that's blocking the view, so you can't see what's there, or is it something else?
>> What's there gotten bigger, not smaller? >> But if there was something in front of it, then it would be, you know, hidden. The metal shed was removed after the hurricane. >> There is a clear change in this property. Do you have any further testimony you'd
like to offer? >> Once again, I filed a formal complaint against code enforcement officer Alex Miller for harassment for the past two years. I didn't own the home per this deed until November 21st of 2020. This picture was taken in January.
I wouldn't know about anything that was done with it. My home is on the market. I did exactly what you said to put in here about code violations for the new buyer. And I don't know if there's anything else that I need to reference, but let me take a look here.
She said here too, she had follow-up inspections on the 7th and the 15th. She didn't call, contact me. She didn't inspect anything unless she just came by my house. She's been trespassing. You can perform an inspection from the sidewalk.
>> That's all I have for today. >> Basically, I just testimony presented I find in favor of the city find there has been work done in this property without permits. I'm not finding that the current owner did it, but I am finding that that work has to be permitted. Um, specifically, it is the change in that
looks like front facade of the accessory building since it faces the main structure. Uh, so you have north south. I do not. But looking at the evidence presented, it is the forward-facing facade that changed from what looks like a window to clearly an expansion into a
screen door. The permits for that screen door would be to be would need to be submitted submitted uh by April, I'm sorry, January February. I'm going to move to February 6th consistent with the last case.
I also find that there has been work done on the eaves, the condition of the interior. Are you going to tell me that that's the same as it was when you bought it? >> What I'm going to explain is that she's got this picture that says 2023 and it's 2026. So, this is a three-year-old
um you know, door that's been there and then now all of a sudden it's an issue and I just don't really know what I'm supposed to do. >> Get permits for it. >> How can I get a permit for it when my house is on the market? >> Do you want to >> You can get a permit when your house
>> Yeah. No, there's there's there's >> No, you can't because there's a document that you have to sign that says that if you >> owner builder you can't get an owner builder permit while your house is on the market. Well, how am I supposed to pay for a general contractor? I called one. It was $5,000 for have him come out to do anything with it once I got this notice in the mail.
>> Inability to pay for a general contractor is not an excuse for allowing a a code violation to continue. >> So, a three-year-old code violation that is just now becoming a problem. You want me to rip the door out? >> I want you to either get permits or remove the work that was done without
permits. Yes. >> And Mr. It was testimony offered about the interior work specifically electrical work that was done and you were showing some evidence of that. >> And that's why that was my question. The the interior work. Are you going to tell me that that the condition of the interior of the structure is as it was
when when you took over took possession of the property? >> I am just going to take the advice of my attorney and not have any more testimony today, sir. Thank you. >> Okay. So, are you able to tell me that you did not have that work performed? Like I said, I'm just not going to have any more testimony today until I have my attorney present.
>> Okay. Well, then absent testimony that you did not have the that there has not been new work done on the interior, I am going to find that the work on the inside appears to be new construction and the city has testified that there is not permits for that construction. So, I also order that any of that construction will have to have permits submitted for it. Also,
>> I'd like to see the evidence, please. >> And I just asked you, can you tell me that that is not new? Can you tell me how that picture was obtained and if it's actually my property? >> Miss Miller, >> to the microphone, please. >> Back in 2023, Officer Neil and I went to
the property because M. Ruffing called to have an inspection or a meet inside the the shed that was converted into the mother-in-law suite that she's advertising online. And officer Neil can also testify that me and her went together to the property inside and took the picture while in the inspection.
>> So it is your testimony this was this was a photograph of the interior of the subject property. >> Yes. >> And you were inside the subject property with the permission of the owner. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Absolutely not. I have never given them any permission to be on my property
whatsoever. It is clear in my complaint that I've told you that she has trespassed and now this is considered breaking and entering if that is a picture of my property. Never once have I ever given her any permission to be at my home. And I would like to see the information that she provided that says there was anything that I was given in
2023 about this. >> I will ask you again. Did you perform interior work to that structure? >> Like I said, I'm not answering any questions. >> So, you will tell me testimony when you want me to hear something, but you will not answer my questions >> per the advice of my attorney. You're free to take that advice, but it is going to end up in a ruling against you
today. >> I'm sorry about that. >> I find that there's substantial evidence there have been interior alterations performed without permits. I will also order those to be included in that. So, we have eaves, the door, and the interior that appears to be work
performed without permits. My order is that permits for that work be submitted by February 6, 2026 or Theoretically, you could remove the work, but I think that probably would be more work for you. And the getting it
permitted is the easiest path. Uh, >> yes, ma'am. >> How do I go about getting it permitted when I cannot pull the permit? >> You will have to hire a general contractor or take the house off the market. >> But my house is going into foreclosure,
so I have to sell it. >> I cannot help the financial problems. My job is to enforce the code and your your structure based on the evidence has been presented is in violation of code. >> Can you please explain the interior violations that need to be repaired?
Because right now you've got >> All I see is a lot of new work on the inside and you not telling me refusing to testify about about that work. So I cannot tell you anything about it because you have the most knowledge about it and are refusing to testify. >> Well, I'd like to know what I'm supposed
to do for her six. get a permit >> so I can leave it exactly how it is and just file for a permit. Have them come out and do an inspection? >> You have to obtain the permit. You can't just file for a permit, but obtain the permit. But I'm going to order you to submit for that permit by February 6th.
>> And which permit is that? >> The building permit for the work that's been done without building permits. You can work with the building department and they can help you or they can work with your contractor to help you determine what needs to be included in that. But the work I'm seeing is eve
work, door work, and it looks like an entirely reframed interior. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I'd just like to say that Miss Ruffin has a permit application that she submitted in 2024 for the interior uh remodel and everything for the
structure, but the permit has since been abandoned. So, that's application that still exist in the in the system. >> So, are you saying it could be renewed? That is a question for the building. So >> my order >> I would like to say that it was Alex
Miller who made me apply for that permit. >> I had no intention of even doing that because everything was just the way that it was. She come to my house and told me about work being performed at the structure that did not have build building permits pursuant to the Florida building code. That's what this case is
about. and you have not given me evidence to to rebut what has been presented to me to say that no that's not new work no that pre-existed no there were permits for that work >> if you did not if it was work done without permits you can't and then you can be honest and say you know what this
was work done without permits >> well you know just because I put floors in or paint doesn't mean that I'm doing >> paint no floors yes it's it's a property owner's responsibility to know when I need a permit and when I don't >> but putting down new flooring doesn't require permit >> if you're doing sublo floors at will.
>> It didn't require subfloors. >> Okay. I'm seeing framing. We're not talking about flooring here. Can you explain the framing to me? >> I cannot because I don't know when those pictures were obtained. She says they were done in 2023. I have no proof or anything that she has done. Is it mine or somebody else?
>> Forget the evidence. >> How did she have work done in my home illegally? Did she trespass? Like >> did you have work done in that structure? >> I have done some minor repairs to it to make it a studio for me. Why am I seeing new framing in that structure? >> It's been there. >> Since when?
>> Before I owned it, >> right? Since when? When was it put in? Was it put in by your father? >> Were there permits obtained when that work was done? >> I wouldn't know. >> Do you have any reason to rebut or any evidence to rebut the city's evidence that they presented that there are no permits for that work?
>> What I would like to say is that she obtained those pictures. I just don't know how she obtained them and when she obtained them and if she was on my property trespassing and illegal. Her testimony is that she was on your property with your permission. >> I never have given permission for either one of those people to be at my home.
Several times I've asked her to leave. I've caught her sneaking around, taking pictures. I've asked her several times and I've even filed a formal complaint about it today to her supervisor. >> Do you have anything else to add? I would like to see the notice that she
allegedly provided me in 2023 when her and Pam came to my home and I allowed them onto my property. >> You don't provide notice for an inspection when you've been invited. >> Well, I wasn't inviting them and I didn't ask for them to do any inspection. What reason would I >> your testimony that they broke into your that they broke into that structure?
>> I believe that is what I'm alluding to, sir. >> Thank you, Miss Mo. Did you break into that structure? >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. And I do not find the respondent's evidence or testimony credible. The respondent is is clearly playing games in this proceeding and I do not
appreciate it. very knowledge of what's going on. I don't know where she got these pictures from. >> Can I get you to make your statements into the microphone, please? Work without permits, just so you understand, work without permits are
probably the most frequent code enforcement case in any jurisdiction. It is rarely a fingerpointing fault assigning issue. It is a simple fact of hey work was done. There were no permits obtained for
it. Florida the state of Florida has adopted a Florida building code that has rules for how things get constructed so that it is safe for everybody involved and cities will enforce that to the tea because it involves safety. It
is not about you're a bad person, you did something wrong. It is simply let's get it right. And my frustration with you is every time that I simply try to engage and let's understand what's going on and why it's important to cure, I
feel like you're obuscating. You are not being helpful in this process. I I'm trying to be helpful. Well, the thing is is I just don't really understand why all this is going on and why I'm having to deal with it. >> Do you understand why all work, all construction work that gets done in the
state of Florida has to have a building permit? >> Yes, I read it. >> Do you understand that this work did not >> putting down flooring in >> this? We're not talking about flooring. Nobody has said anything to me about flooring today. >> Okay. Well, you know, maybe that's what I did. I put some floors in there. That that's about it.
these pictures that she's taken. I'm curious about where she got them, when she obtained them, and how she obtained them, and why she's saying that it was my property. Like I told you, I was given the home from my father, and it's in the state that it's in. >> Right. And it appears that state has
unpermitted work in it as >> And now it's my responsibility to cure. >> As the property owner, it is your responsibility to cure. That's correct. >> Yeah. But the thing is, I have no money because I'm unemployed. So, uh, I really can't hire anybody to do the work for me. And then on this little piece of
paper, when I go to do a owner permit myself, it tells me that I can't sell my I can't sell my house for one year, but the house is going into foreclosure, so I have to sell it. So, I'm kind of in a trick sack here. And that's why I was looking for maybe some more time to have a real estate attorney present with me and maybe some more time to find
employment or any type of money, tax return, something to be able to uh cure. How much time do you think you need to get permits to get permits in hand? >> Well, um I filed my tax return and they said I wouldn't get it until March 2nd.
So, once I get that, then I'd have to come down here and file the uh permits or hire a contract. >> You're going to have to hire a contractor if that house was going to be on the market, >> right? So, I'm going to have to hire somebody to do it. And I really don't know what I'm I'm asking them to do to be honest with tear everything out.
What how can they obtain a permit? What are they supposed to do? That is the challenge because nobody nobody in this room I think can testify to what was the condition prior to that work being done but there has clearly been work being done. So the the simplest path for that contractor to work forward with would be to get a permit for what has been done.
>> And so from what my understanding is is that he or she would have to get something for eaves even though it's it's been there for eons. and then a door >> and the interior work.
>> Unless you can tell me that that work was permitted and because the city is saying there is no permits for that for that interior modification. >> But I I'd like you to be just a little bit more specific about what the interior modification is because I'm allowing >> the framing everything that's new on the interior of that. The framing the
construction work you Yes, you can put new floor coverings down. You cannot build a new skeleton of a house, which is what's been done in that house. >> Mr. Smith, may I just >> Yes, sir. >> We're happy to revise the staff the
city's recommendation regarding compliance. I think you originally talking about February 6. We go to April April. >> That's further than I was going to push it. I appreciate it. I mean just to just to give her if she's if she's looking at a situation where she needs to get
additional funds and banking on a tax refund to be able to do that middle of April would be fine. >> So April April 15th tax day missing. How does that look for you as giving you some time? >> I appreciate that. Thank you.
Does that does that seem like a workable amount of time for you to get done what you need to get done on your end? >> I'm going to have to make it work. So, yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Okay. Okay. Anything else from you, Miss Ruffing,
before I rule? >> No, I just trying to understand what type of permits I have to get. So, just one building permit for the entire thing and have somebody come out and do >> it will be it it may you likely this is going to be something you're going to have to work with the building permit on and a contractor having a contractor
will be a huge benefit to you once you're able to hire one. Um, but whether it's one permit or multiple, that will be a decision that's made in that process. What I'm telling you is you have to have permits. >> Okay? And so, let's just say I get an offer on my house and I accept it. I've
made it clear in the listing that the B new buyer would have to take on the responsibility of pulling whatever type of permits for citations. >> You would need to update that disclosure to include this order that I will make today which you will receive in the mail. So just make sure that any disclosures you're making includes that
there wasn't the just the hearing last year. There's also this order. Just make sure they're aware of everything that's transpired. I guess that's all I have for now. >> Okay. >> Based on the evidence testimony received, I'll find that there is a violation for allowing repairs and alterations. The repairs specifically
just for everybody's benefit, the repairs and alterations that I see and the evidence is that uh front-facing door on the accessory structure that has been added. uh the eaves that have been replaced as well as what looks like to be substantial framing work conducted on
the interior of the structure. Um but for permits for all of that work to be obtained by April 15, 2026. If not brought into compliance by that date, a fine in the amount of $250 a day
will be assessed until compliance is met. I am going to abate the question of costs on this one. Abate until we see what happens with compliance. If Miss Ruffing is able to get a contractor hired and this brought into
compliance, I think that may be a win. She has expressed to me financial concerns. I don't want her paying $38 to the city when she needs to save her money for a contractor. So, I'm going to abate that question for the time being. If if this case resolves and the city would like to bring it back, I will
entertain a hearing on that alone. Um, if it resolves and I never hear it again, that's the city's prosecutorial discretion. And just so on that that's that's me saying I'm not saying you never have to pay the $38 for costs they've asked for. But I'm saying I'm I'm abating that
question now. I'm not deciding it now because I I want you to spend your money in getting compliance and I want to give you the opportunity of showing good faith that you want to work this and get it fixed or if it gets sold, you know, so be it.
Uh are there any anything further anybody needs on this case? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, M. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Case number 2025-635. Jerry Pekka Kamari, owner Jana Kamari,
owner, location violation 2278 Jessica Lane, CM, Florida. >> Good afternoon. Pam Neil, city of St. Cloud, code enforcement officer. I'm presenting this case for the property located at 2278 Jessica Lane. At this time, I would like to enter into
evidence the following items. Copy of the observation notice sent and sent and emailed to the owner. Copy of the courtesy notice sent and emailed to the owner. Copy of the notice of violations sent by certified mail to the owner and also emailed to the owner. Um, another
copy of the notice violation sent by certified mail to the owner and also emailed to the owner. Copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner and emailed to the owner and posted on the property in city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation.
Copy of the affidavit of posting. Evidence of mailings. Copy of the deed to the property. Copy of the code sections in violation. Copy of the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondent in violation in the amount of $346.78.
On July 17th, 2025, I received a complaint about the pool water at this location. On July 17th, I went to verify and the pool water was black. I took two photos. On July 17th, an observation notice and
photo of the pool water were sent and emailed to the owner. On July 29th, a reinspection was performed and the pool water was still not ma maintained and I took one photo. On July 29th, a courtesy notice was sent
and emailed to the owner. On August 14th, a reinspection was performed and the pool water was still not maintained. And I took another photo On August 14th, the notice violation was sent by certified mail to the owner and
emailed to the owner. On August 15th, the owner emailed me and stated they were trying to get someone to clean the pool. I gave them until October 29th to have the pool water clean and clear. On September 1st, the owner emailed me and asked me to perform a reinspection. On
September 2nd, a reinspection was performed and the pool water was a little better, but still not clear. When I got back to the office, I emailed the owner a photo of the pool water and I took one photo. On September 26th, I received another
complaint about other violations. I went to verify the car in the driveway had a flat tire. So on so on September 26th, another notice violation with the abandoned vehicle violation added was sent by certified mail and emailed to
the owner. On November 13th, a reinspection was performed. The pool water was not clear, but the vehicle was in compliance. I took one photo. On November 14th, a statement of violation notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner and also
emailed to the owner and posted on the property in city hall. An affidavit of posting was completed and I took two photos. On December 15th, a reinspection was performed and the pool water was black and worse than it was when I started the
case. and I took two photos. That's algae all on top of that pool water. On December 31st and January 16th, reinspections were performed. The property was still in non-compliance and I took a photo on each inspection date.
It is city's recommendation that the respondant be found in violation of allowing the pool water to be unmaintained and not in a clean and sanitary condition at this location and to have the pool water clean and clear by January 30th, 2026 or pay a fine of
$250 a day till compliance is met. The city would like to also recover the costs incurred in bringing this case before the special magistrate in the amount of $346.78 to be paid within 7 days of the written order of the magistrate as well. And
that concludes my presentation. >> You may have said and I missed it, but is the is there anybody residing at the property? >> No, they live in Finland. That's why I emailed everything to >> I see. Okay. Based on the evidence testimony presented, I find in favor of the city. Find the respondent is in
violation for allowing the uh pool water to be not be kept in a clean and sanitary manner. Order the respondent to have the pool water clean and clear by January 30th, 2026. If not brought in compliance by that date, a fine of $250 per day shall acrew until compliance is met. Also will order the respondent to
pay the administrative cost incurred in the prosecution of the case in the amount of $346.78. That amount to be due within seven days of the date of my written order. >> Thank you. Case number 2025-9901. Hesel R. Johnson, revocable living trust
owner M. Dvolski, tenant. Location of violation 1451 Kingston Way, CM, Florida. >> Good afternoon. Pam Neil, city of St. Cloud code enforcement officer. I am presenting this case for the property located at 1451 Kingston Way. At this
time, I would like to enter an evidence the following items. Copy of the observation notice issued to the owner. Copy of the courtesy notice sent to the owner and the tenant. Copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail to the owner and the tenant. A copy of the
statement of violation. Notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner and the tenant and posted on the property and city hall. Copy of the affidavit of posting. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Evidence of mailings. Copy of the deed to the property. Copy of the code sections in
violation. Copy of the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds the respondent in violation in the amount of $31,525. On September 15, 2025, I received a complaint about inoperable vehicles at this location. On September 15th, I went
to verify the complaint and there were two vehicles in violation. I also noticed there was a tenant at this location with no active landlord license. On September 15th, an observation notice was issued to the owner and the tenant, and I took five
photos. >> The flat tires, they were on the white car. >> Yes. Well, they were on both, actually, and both had expired tags. >> So, both cars had flat tires. >> Yes. >> Okay.
On September 25th, a reinspection was performed and the vehicles were still there in violation and there was still no active landlord license. I took one photo. On September 25th, a courtesy notice was sent to the owner and the tenant. On
October 14th, a reinspection was performed and the vehicles were still in violation and there was still no active landlord license. And I took three photos. On October 15th, a notice violation was sent to the owner and the tenant by certified mail. On November 26, re a
reinspection was performed and the vehicles were still there in violation and there was still no active landlord license. I called the owner and explained the violations to her. I took three photos. Was there an understanding when you explained the violation?
>> Yes, sir. >> On December 30th, a reinspection was performed and the vehicles were still there in violation and still no active landlord license. I took three more photos. On December 31st, a statement of violation notice of hearing was sent to
the owner and the tenant by certified mail and posted on the property in city hall. An affidavit of posting was completed and I took two photos. On January 16th, reinspection was performed. The vehicles were still there in violation. There were still no active
landlord license, and I took two photos. It is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing a rental property without a landlord business tax receipt license and abandoned vehicles at this location and to have the landlord license
obtained in the vehicles operable and with current tags or removed from the property by January 30th, 2026 or pay a fine of $250 a day until compliance is met. The city would like to also recover the costs incurred in
bringing this case before the special magistrate in the amount of $315.25 to be paid within the seven days of the written order of the magistrate as well. And that concludes my presentation. >> Both the since both the owner and the tenant are named as respondents
obviously the tenant is not responsible for the lensure violation. But are you looking for to have tenant and owner jointly and severally responsible for the vehicle violation? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. And that is that is going to be my
finding today. Then based on the evidence testimony received I find that the city has presented common substantial evidence. There is a violation of the city code related to proper lensure or proper permits to operate the rental of the property. uh
business tax receipt and rental permit need to be obtained by January 30th, 2026. Also, that applies only to the landlord. We'll find that the respondent and landlord are jointly and severally responsible for removing those vehicles
from the subject property by also by January 30th, 2026. Because of the difference be one of those applying only to the landlord and one applying to both. I'm actually going to break the fines down into two sets and have
I'm going to do $200 a day for the landlord license and permitting issue. As for the vehicles, $50 a day. And again, one of those fines is respon if it be to crew only responsibly would
be land only landlord would be responsible for the other or both uh would be responsible for for the administrative cost. I'm just going to make both parties jointly and severally responsible for the administrative costs incurred in prosecution because you have to go to the site. You have to go to the site. I
can't break down, you know, which which times were for the vehicle and which times were for the because you go to the site and you inspect everything. I understand that. So, both parties will be jointly and separately liable for the the cost of prosecution. The amount of $31,526 that amount to be due within 7 days of the date of my written order.
>> Thank you. Unfinished business. None. New business? None. Next scheduled meeting February 18, 2026. >> Thank you, Smith. Thank you. Any further business from the city? And we are
>> You see, you give me a month off and I forget how to do it. >> Um, question.