WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=abY40oCGokc

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: abY40oCGokc):
- 00:05:24: Initial Discussion and Pledge of Allegiance Ceremony
- 00:30:40: Introduction of Special Master and Agenda Explanation
- 00:32:48: Case 1: 1004 New York Avenue - Code Enforcement Presentation
- 00:36:55: City Attorney Justifies the Recommended Fines
- 00:39:10: Testimony from City Building Official, Bob Deathridge
- 00:41:34: Fire Marshal Richard Tons Testifies Regarding Safety Hazards
- 00:44:13: Respondent Mateo Hodo Explains Project Delays
- 01:02:45: Fire Marshal Explains Fire Hazards in Vacant Building
- 01:06:40: Building Official Discusses Structural Integrity and Permit Expiration
- 01:08:34: Hodo Rebuttal on Safety Concerns, Firefighter Risk
- 01:13:22: Clarifying Location, Communication with Owner, and Code Questions
- 01:15:25: Discussion on Compliance Timing and Fencing Requirements
- 01:19:07: Moving up Fire Suppression, Recommencing Work
- 01:22:17: Certificate of Appropriateness: Disapproved Restaurant Windows
- 01:33:09: Expediency for Existing Plans vs Fighting for Windows
- 01:33:55: Mitigation vs Active Building, Boarded Windows
- 01:37:42: Evaluating Code Compliance Against Project Goals
- 01:41:22: Interior Inspection and Clarifying State and City Roles
- 01:44:17: Establishing Milestones and Seeking Building Plan Approval
- 01:46:12: Application, Historic Boards, and Site Issues
- 01:50:18: Enforcing Building Codes Against Unrealistic Desires
- 01:55:31: Clarifying Building Code and Dedication for Exterior Progress
- 01:57:41: Partial Ruling: Dangerous Risk of Fire and Next Hearing
- 02:09:22: Case 2: 501 Kentucky Avenue - Unpermitted Work Complaint
- 02:15:36: Code Enforcement's Presentation: Lack of Permits & Alterations
- 02:19:14: Respondent Ruffing Alleges Code Enforcement Harassment
- 02:26:52: Unable to Testify, Ruffing Faces Ruling Against
- 02:32:25: Testimony about Framing vs Flooring Concerns
- 02:39:37: More Time to get Permits in Place
- 02:40:47: Ruling and Understanding Violations
- 02:42:53: Case 3: 2278 Jessica Lane - Pool and Vehicle Violation
- 02:43:16: Code Enforcement Presentation: Pool Water Unmaintained
- 02:47:51: Ruling on Unmaintained Pool Violation
- 02:48:25: Case 4: 1451 Kingston Way - Unlicensed Rental, Vehicle Violations
- 02:48:42: Code Enforcement Presentation: Landlord, Vehicles in Violation
- 02:52:09: Jointly Responsible For Permit Issue, Vehicles From Landlord
- 02:55:16: Adjournment of Meeting
- 02:55:31: Meeting Ends


Part: 1

1
00:05:24.560 --> 00:12:13.680
you. >> Yes, sir. If other respondents don't show We'll probably first Did you shorten shiny. Yeah. We have one scheduled

2
00:12:13.680 --> 00:29:49.360
should be here. He's here. >> We got here at 2:00. That's a question. Say something. Did I put something order. Begin with the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag

3
00:29:49.360 --> 00:30:40.720
of the stands one nation indivisiblebody standing rightuth. Thank you. The clerk reminded me to introduce myself. I'm Drew Smith. I'm the code for special master for the city

4
00:30:40.720 --> 00:30:57.120
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

5
00:30:57.120 --> 00:31:13.559
been received. will find 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 and that proceeds.

6
00:31:14.159 --> 00:31:29.200
>> 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

7
00:31:29.200 --> 00:31:48.960
individuals present here for case uh this case the 1004 New York Avenue which is 2025 960 Sinclair LLC hotel LLC and also the Kentucky Avenue. >> Okay. >> So we with the special magistrates and

8
00:31:48.960 --> 00:32:05.279
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

9
00:32:05.279 --> 00:32:19.840
registered agent location of violation 104 New York Avenue St. Cloud Florida >> and again Dan Maner for the city. So officer Neil will present to you on this case today regarding the ongoing violations at this property located in

10
00:32:19.840 --> 00:32:36.360
downtown St. Cloud. Also here will be the fire marshal, Mr. Richard Hunks, who also present to you, and Mr. Bob Deford, the city's building official, is here also for possible testimony. And with that, I'll turn it over to

11
00:32:48.240 --> 00:33:03.679
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 to evidence the following items. Copy of the courtesy notice sent to the owner and

12
00:33:03.679 --> 00:33:19.919
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 of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner. the

13
00:33:19.919 --> 00:33:35.360
registered agent and posted on the property in 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 of the code sections in violation. Copy the cost incurred if the

14
00:33:35.360 --> 00:34:13.440
special magistrate finds the respondent in violation in the amount of $35647. On October 1st, 2025, I had a meeting with Tisha Manning, Jason Miller, Richard Tons, and Dan Manser, the city attorney, about the condition of this property and the

15
00:34:13.440 --> 00:34:34.399
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

16
00:34:34.399 --> 00:34:49.440
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

17
00:34:49.440 --> 00:35:10.079
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

18
00:35:10.079 --> 00:35:25.440
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

19
00:35:25.440 --> 00:35:44.079
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

20
00:35:44.079 --> 00:36:02.440
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.

21
00:36:03.599 --> 00:36:23.920
It is the city's recommendation that the respondent 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

22
00:36:23.920 --> 00:36:39.839
$1,000 a day until compliance is met. The city would like to also recover the costs incurred in bringing the case before the magistrate in the amount of $35647 to be paid within seven days of the written order of the magistrate as well.

23
00:36:39.839 --> 00:36:55.520
And that concludes my presentation. >> Mr. Quest, >> I'm sorry. >> 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

24
00:36:55.520 --> 00:37:11.920
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

25
00:37:11.920 --> 00:37:28.079
you and my question for you is uh what's the justification or what's the the legal uh support for the thousand 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 has been building and it's been in this

26
00:37:28.079 --> 00:37:44.000
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

27
00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:59.280
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

28
00:37:59.280 --> 00:38:15.839
six months now and they continue 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

29
00:38:15.839 --> 00:38:30.640
fine. >> Well 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 the city passed by ordinance. I'm sorry. >> Thank you. That that's what I was looking for. Thank you. I thought you

30
00:38:30.640 --> 00:38:52.720
you' brought that at a prior hearing but I wanted to make the record on this one too. the reason for the escalating or the legal basis uh 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.

31
00:38:52.720 --> 00:39:10.800
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 for that? >> Um, I'm going to rely on Okay. >> Thank you. If we could have the building come up, Mr. Death, I just asked him explain the

32
00:39:10.800 --> 00:39:28.079
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 >> Hi, Bob Deathridge, building official for the city of St. Cloud. Um, this project has been going on for over six

33
00:39:28.079 --> 00:39:45.920
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

34
00:39:45.920 --> 00:40:02.800
you know, god forbid anything happens in there, you you'd 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

35
00:40:02.800 --> 00:40:22.160
the building because it it's all structural framing. >> Is there a permanent building? >> No, there there is no permit for the building now. Uh they have satisfied uh building department comments. U but there are other departments that have

36
00:40:22.160 --> 00:40:37.520
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

37
00:40:37.520 --> 00:40:57.680
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, this building in it current state a serious threat to public health.

38
00:40:57.680 --> 00:41:17.200
>> It most certainly does pose a serious threat. >> I have no further questions. also ask Richard talk about as you'll see in the presentation presentation by the officer Neil on this

39
00:41:17.200 --> 00:41:33.440
uh one of the bigger issues as she as official also referred to has to do with the condition of the building with regard to fire suppression and the fire department's ability to address a tragedy essentially the building and that's one of the one of the code violations

40
00:41:34.800 --> 00:41:52.000
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 marshal for the city of St. Cloud. Uh so, yes, in my opinion, this building is unsafe and a life safety hazard, not

41
00:41:52.000 --> 00:42:09.040
not only to our fire crews, but also to the general public. Um, as the building official uh stated, there is no uh drywall uh protecting the structural members of this building. So, it's essentially a giant tinder box uh with open stairwells, which makes it a

42
00:42:09.040 --> 00:42:25.599
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

43
00:42:25.599 --> 00:42:43.280
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.

44
00:42:43.280 --> 00:42:58.480
Uh so if a fire should break out, it's going to spread rapidly. Uh 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

45
00:42:58.480 --> 00:43:14.880
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 building surrounding it? That was one of

46
00:43:14.880 --> 00:43:35.440
my questions for you. 15. >> 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 uh destructing that or also onto 10th Street, which is a busy street. It's

47
00:43:35.440 --> 00:43:52.079
probably only 10 ft between building and 10th Street and New York Avenue. >> So, do you have any >> I have no further questions. Do you have anything else? >> No, we don't. >> Any further witnesses? >> Thank you. >> No.

48
00:43:52.079 --> 00:44:13.760
>> I may have some more questions once I hear from the respondent, but respondent is present. Did the respondent come up? Sir, >> 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

49
00:44:13.760 --> 00:44:28.960
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?

50
00:44:28.960 --> 00:44:45.280
>> 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

51
00:44:45.280 --> 00:45:02.880
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.

52
00:45:02.880 --> 00:45:18.560
Um we submitted in July. The city responded very fast. By the end of July, our architect and MP engineer commented uh responded to the comments and made uh all the responses ready and they were

53
00:45:18.560 --> 00:45:35.920
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

54
00:45:35.920 --> 00:45:51.440
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

55
00:45:51.440 --> 00:46:07.040
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 the plants

56
00:46:07.040 --> 00:46:23.560
to the city. There was an error from the city's perspective on reviewing them. They reviewed the wrong the wrong files. This is why the permit was not approved in December. Uh as of right now, um I have

57
00:46:28.400 --> 00:46:45.200
>> 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 copy. show if you'd show council first. She didn't have any objection to it. >> Um so the only thing that is um it's the historic preservation. Uh we are

58
00:46:45.200 --> 00:47:02.880
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

59
00:47:02.880 --> 00:47:21.599
>> 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. U and on the last page you will see that um building is approved, mechanical is

60
00:47:21.599 --> 00:47:40.319
approved, electrical is approved, um everything is approved besides um certificate of appropriateness >> and zoning >> and zoning which is because of the certificate of appropriateness. >> Now a couple years ago I actually um

61
00:47:40.319 --> 00:47:57.440
worked directly with the state I believe um it was Dr. 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

62
00:47:57.440 --> 00:48:12.960
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 worms that no one could figure it out. I mean, we had to rebuild the building within a

63
00:48:12.960 --> 00:48:28.079
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

64
00:48:28.079 --> 00:48:42.960
floor levels, then do new loadbearing walls over the new foundations and make it as a monolithic slab with coal joints so that it's all one. And we have um repaired the structure from foundation all the way to the roof. The structure

65
00:48:42.960 --> 00:48:57.760
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

66
00:48:57.760 --> 00:49:15.359
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 and the monitoring would go off, which I'm assuming that we'll probably get into it

67
00:49:15.359 --> 00:49:30.800
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

68
00:49:30.800 --> 00:49:47.839
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'll literally be like a chimney and everything would go up. Uh, but it's being monitored. There's a fire monitoring system and it's live and it's

69
00:49:47.839 --> 00:50:04.400
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,

70
00:50:04.400 --> 00:50:20.319
everything is in plan. The there was a little misunderstanding on the peritting 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

71
00:50:20.319 --> 00:50:36.960
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

72
00:50:36.960 --> 00:50:53.280
has earned its own ificance 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

73
00:50:53.280 --> 00:51:10.400
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

74
00:51:10.400 --> 00:51:27.440
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

75
00:51:27.440 --> 00:51:45.040
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.

76
00:51:45.040 --> 00:52:02.160
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

77
00:52:02.160 --> 00:52:17.599
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

78
00:52:17.599 --> 00:52:34.880
I waterproof the building and behind all of the pied wood 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

79
00:52:34.880 --> 00:52:50.480
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.

80
00:52:50.480 --> 00:53:07.839
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 value 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

81
00:53:07.839 --> 00:53:24.480
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

82
00:53:24.480 --> 00:53:40.720
panel, it would really be impossible for it to fly off by the amount of screws that it is secured and the way that it's locked at the valley up the top from the panel that's on the side of it. Does that make any sense? So then I was going to cut it

83
00:53:40.720 --> 00:53:55.920
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 door or window, dismantled all the

84
00:53:55.920 --> 00:54:11.599
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 3/4 plywood that's on all those windows or break in. But if

85
00:54:11.599 --> 00:54:28.000
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

86
00:54:28.000 --> 00:55:06.000
and misunderstanding on the >> and I also >> um I think When did the permit expire? >> I believe um maybe building official. >> I'll ask you. >> It was it was July. I believe it was

87
00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:25.119
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,

88
00:55:25.119 --> 00:55:40.640
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 >> it's not why building permits expire. Building permits expire for inaction.

89
00:55:40.640 --> 00:55:57.359
>> 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. Why did the building I was told that there was no work that qualified to pass an inspection.

90
00:55:57.359 --> 00:56:13.680
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

91
00:56:13.680 --> 00:56:28.000
re 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.

92
00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:43.599
Um when I was ready to do that. As we started digging, we figured out that the plumbing service that's coming from the street into the building, u it's incorrect. It's sized at 4 in while our building requires 6 in and it's actually

93
00:56:43.599 --> 00:57:00.240
pitched wrong. So the street is actually dumping into our property rather than actually falling back into the street. So the water line, it's a one inch water line when our plants require 2 and 1/2 in water line. So the supply and the

94
00:57:00.240 --> 00:57:16.400
drainage is not proper. Therefore, I couldn't pull a plumbing permit to run on the ground 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

95
00:57:16.400 --> 00:57:35.920
>> as of right now. No, >> the the existing infrastructure um is 4 in. 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

96
00:57:35.920 --> 00:57:50.960
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 existing infrastructure

97
00:57:50.960 --> 00:58:08.000
it's a oneinch water line which would be more for a single family domestic and it's a 4 in 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

98
00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:25.760
tell because the the pipe that comes up from the ground, it's a 4-in 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

99
00:58:25.760 --> 00:58:46.079
pitch is incorrect. 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 uh for that and um I contacted uh Toho

100
00:58:46.079 --> 00:59:04.160
Water and met them on site and u started a process for them to review and correct that. I haven't had an active permit. Therefore, I haven't followed up with that before we stand on that.

101
00:59:04.160 --> 00:59:19.200
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

102
00:59:19.200 --> 00:59:35.280
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

103
00:59:35.280 --> 00:59:51.839
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 stri passing and um the local

104
00:59:51.839 --> 01:00:08.400
officers like officer McDonald or uh Fuier they they know the building so everybody keeps an eye on the building. Uh the building is very safe for anyone entering. And >> but what I'm hearing you tell me is the building the building is safe because if

105
01:00:08.400 --> 01:00:24.480
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. >> But what would make it unsafe? Like what

106
01:00:24.480 --> 01:00:41.359
would start a fire in there? There is nothing in there that would start a fire. The building is very clean. >> Is there electricity turned off >> 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

107
01:00:41.359 --> 01:00:56.559
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

108
01:00:56.559 --> 01:01:12.640
is more it's monitored to where it's 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

109
01:01:12.640 --> 01:01:29.839
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

110
01:01:29.839 --> 01:01:45.440
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

111
01:01:45.440 --> 01:02:02.240
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 I ask respond questions? >> So, sir, you are not a licensed general

112
01:02:02.240 --> 01:02:29.119
cont. >> I am the project manager. I'm not the general question. >> I am not. >> You are not a structural engineer. >> No, I'm not. >> You are not engineer. >> You have any certificstructionstructionstruction? So, I am the owner's project manager for

113
01:02:29.119 --> 01:02:45.760
the building. >> Yeah, I'll I 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 there. Don't go too far though because I'll invite you back up. And yes, I would like to start with fire if you don't mind.

114
01:02:45.760 --> 01:03:02.559
So you heard the 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 you heard the very specific how would a fire start? And I think that's a fair a jumping off spot

115
01:03:02.559 --> 01:03:19.920
for you maybe. >> Okay. And I have a few other points I had heard if I can address those as well. Uh 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

116
01:03:19.920 --> 01:03:35.920
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,

117
01:03:35.920 --> 01:03:54.480
worldwide, uh with starting fires. U lightning that'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

118
01:03:54.480 --> 01:04:12.319
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

119
01:04:12.319 --> 01:04:29.280
sprinkler system that was removed. The sprinkler system is going to put a fire out. The heat monitors, I mean, wires can be cut, phone lines go down. Uh, alarm panels malfunction. They might malfunction all the time. So, it's supposed to be a monitored

120
01:04:29.280 --> 01:04:45.760
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. So, >> talk to me a little bit more about that.

121
01:04:45.760 --> 01:05:01.440
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 the studs, the floor joist, the rafters,

122
01:05:01.440 --> 01:05:17.599
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

123
01:05:17.599 --> 01:05:33.039
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

124
01:05:33.039 --> 01:05:49.359
possible. 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

125
01:05:49.359 --> 01:06:06.319
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

126
01:06:06.319 --> 01:06:21.440
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

127
01:06:21.440 --> 01:06:40.319
that require the generation of a inspection of any of the permits from a fire code standpoint. So >> do you have any questions at this time? >> Thank you. >> If I could have the building official. >> Yes sir.

128
01:06:40.319 --> 01:06:54.720
>> 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,

129
01:06:54.720 --> 01:07:11.039
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

130
01:07:11.039 --> 01:07:30.559
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,

131
01:07:30.559 --> 01:07:47.280
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

132
01:07:47.280 --> 01:08:02.640
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

133
01:08:02.640 --> 01:08:19.920
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

134
01:08:19.920 --> 01:08:34.080
structural elements have been compromised by the installation of those. I see. Okay. Nothing further for building now unless you have anything else you like to add. uh responded.

135
01:08:34.080 --> 01:08:52.080
>> 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?

136
01:08:52.080 --> 01:09:08.400
>> No. Um not really. Uh the only thing u that I question is if there is a call or the monitoring the sensors go off. Why would we let it burn? You know, why would we not go there and

137
01:09:08.400 --> 01:09:24.719
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

138
01:09:24.719 --> 01:09:41.199
structural uh is not 100% complete because all of the MEPs needs to still um and there is no ratings on the walls. It's designed so that it has a sprinkler fully sprinkled system and

139
01:09:41.199 --> 01:09:58.080
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

140
01:09:58.080 --> 01:10:14.080
the two permits, um if a fire spread out, it would kind of be a waste of 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

141
01:10:14.080 --> 01:10:30.159
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 firefighter's 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

142
01:10:30.159 --> 01:10:45.360
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

143
01:10:45.360 --> 01:11:02.480
building? Then maybe you should bring them and ask them again. Uh or maybe they should walk the building inside on all the floor. >> What I've heard was because of the state of construction that it is not in a state of construction that has the the things that slow a fire down. That's

144
01:11:02.480 --> 01:11:16.960
what they're 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.

145
01:11:16.960 --> 01:11:32.880
>> 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

146
01:11:32.880 --> 01:11:49.280
>> 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 to even get in into a discussion or a conversation for that. You know, it's

147
01:11:49.280 --> 01:12:04.239
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

148
01:12:04.239 --> 01:12:21.679
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.

149
01:12:21.679 --> 01:12:38.560
>> 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. restaurant is the only one that is >> yeah how long it's been vacant is not part of what what's concerning me today

150
01:12:38.560 --> 01:12:54.400
either. So >> it is known 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

151
01:12:54.400 --> 01:13:19.719
>> let me ask let me ask code enforcement before before I invite you up Dan I do have some point for the record please because my LLC is not located. >> Okay. Sure.

152
01:13:22.080 --> 01:13:43.360
>> Is there a Do you have a question you'd like to ask to respond? >> Are you here? Is the owner aware that you >> Yes. And I actually asked him to ask if he could be present via Zoom and directly from >> I have a couple questions for code.

153
01:13:43.360 --> 01:14:01.840
Okay. Is that could you stop back for a minute? >> Yes, sir. >> And 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. asking code enforcement because this is more of the typical

154
01:14:01.840 --> 01:14:19.040
IPMC, you know, analysis of it, which code enforcement has certainly come to do. One of the violations that you've 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?

155
01:14:19.040 --> 01:14:35.760
>> I haven't gotten up close to it to to ly 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

156
01:14:35.760 --> 01:14:50.239
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.

157
01:14:50.239 --> 01:15:06.800
>> 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 and make sure that a building's perspective too. Is building department aware of any open access points that would make this make entry

158
01:15:06.800 --> 01:15:22.760
entry itself the attractive nuisance? Because that's really the concern if somebody sees an access point is oh I'm going to go play in there. I'm going to go sleep in there. >> Currently, no. But we have had uh the windows broken out in the front of the building. >> But they're not broken currently. >> They're boarded up.

159
01:15:25.600 --> 01:15:42.000
I'm gonna 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.

160
01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:58.400
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

161
01:15:58.400 --> 01:16:14.159
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

162
01:16:14.159 --> 01:16:34.000
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

163
01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:49.920
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

164
01:16:49.920 --> 01:17:06.800
authority to to set a time limit on when that permit >> could would when the work would have to be completed even if there was an appropriate permit. >> 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

165
01:17:06.800 --> 01:17:22.960
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 fact that 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

166
01:17:22.960 --> 01:17:38.400
in probably the most hightra 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

167
01:17:38.400 --> 01:17:54.000
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 permit. I think that's part of what goes into that. So the what

168
01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:11.040
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 are taking care of the issue of fire suppression suppression and ultimately u either some

169
01:18:11.040 --> 01:18:26.320
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 if 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

170
01:18:26.320 --> 01:18:42.960
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 would have to be taken care of fairly quickly.

171
01:18:42.960 --> 01:19:07.440
>> Okay. >> We 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,

172
01:19:07.440 --> 01:19:26.159
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

173
01:19:26.159 --> 01:19:42.320
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

174
01:19:42.320 --> 01:20:03.440
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?

175
01:20:03.440 --> 01:20:17.920
>> 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,

176
01:20:17.920 --> 01:20:34.640
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?

177
01:20:34.640 --> 01:20:50.960
>> 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. 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

178
01:20:50.960 --> 01:21:07.520
>> 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 on the side. >> Okay. >> Um there hasn't been any breakings though

179
01:21:07.520 --> 01:21:23.280
for the for the amount of time that um there haven't been any tools stolen. No breakings. No. >> 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

180
01:21:23.280 --> 01:21:40.400
perspective working and not working and that's one of the reasons why not working makes it attractive nuisance is because there's nobody there keeping an eye on >> 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

181
01:21:40.400 --> 01:21:57.760
that the permits are issued the only certificate of appropriateness which has nothing to do with uh any of the other aspects of that >> and Mr. That's that's not >> the certificate of appropriate because this is a >> it's a condition to the permit being

182
01:21:57.760 --> 01:22:17.040
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

183
01:22:17.040 --> 01:22:39.280
before the historic board for hearing? Do you swear or affirm the testimony? You give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Um it is not scheduled. >> Sorry, your name and title for me. >> Tisha Manning, zoning manager. Um so the permit is currently um disapproved by

184
01:22:39.280 --> 01:22:56.320
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

185
01:22:56.320 --> 01:23:13.120
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

186
01:23:13.120 --> 01:23:29.280
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.

187
01:23:29.280 --> 01:23:45.360
>> 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?

188
01:23:45.360 --> 01:24:00.960
>> 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? >> No, no, really. Can you please >> So, as I understand it,

189
01:24:00.960 --> 01:24:17.199
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

190
01:24:17.199 --> 01:24:33.679
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

191
01:24:33.679 --> 01:24:50.400
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

192
01:24:50.400 --> 01:25:05.199
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,

193
01:25:05.199 --> 01:25:21.600
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

194
01:25:21.600 --> 01:25:38.239
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

195
01:25:38.239 --> 01:25:53.840
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

196
01:25:53.840 --> 01:26:09.760
same. The struggle that I had with all the changes that I made in order 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

197
01:26:09.760 --> 01:26:26.800
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

198
01:26:26.800 --> 01:26:42.239
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

199
01:26:42.239 --> 01:26:58.159
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

200
01:26:58.159 --> 01:27:13.360
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

201
01:27:13.360 --> 01:27:29.360
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

202
01:27:29.360 --> 01:27:45.920
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

203
01:27:45.920 --> 01:28:01.360
it's not structurally sound. >> Do you understand? >> I understand your question and >> the only certificate of issued under the city's historic preservation ordinance was issued in July 2022. So I'm not sure

204
01:28:01.360 --> 01:28:16.639
what February means on it. That's from the state. That's beyond the scope of the city. >> Miss Manning has >> That's correct. The certificate of appropriateness we issued was in July of 2022. Um what

205
01:28:16.639 --> 01:28:32.800
>> 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 issues in their processes, certificate of

206
01:28:32.800 --> 01:28:48.080
appropriateness, but that has nothing to do with the city of FL the city of St. Cloud's code of ordinances and your processes. Am I understanding that? >> 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

207
01:28:48.080 --> 01:29:04.800
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

208
01:29:04.800 --> 01:29:21.679
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

209
01:29:21.679 --> 01:29:38.560
was approved. He needs to leave the restaurants the windows where they at >> 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

210
01:29:38.560 --> 01:29:54.560
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

211
01:29:54.560 --> 01:30:10.480
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

212
01:30:10.480 --> 01:30:26.719
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

213
01:30:26.719 --> 01:30:43.520
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.

214
01:30:43.520 --> 01:30:59.840
>> 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?

215
01:30:59.840 --> 01:31:17.040
>> 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

216
01:31:17.040 --> 01:31:32.159
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

217
01:31:32.159 --> 01:31:48.000
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

218
01:31:48.000 --> 01:32:05.040
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

219
01:32:05.040 --> 01:32:21.199
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

220
01:32:21.199 --> 01:32:37.280
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.

221
01:32:37.280 --> 01:32:52.639
Well, I know there many many 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.

222
01:32:52.639 --> 01:33:09.520
>> 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 is 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

223
01:33:09.520 --> 01:33:24.480
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 Man to come back to answer that question. I'll tell you if if they do want to submit start a new process of

224
01:33:24.480 --> 01:33:55.199
it's going to take as I said present issue 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

225
01:33:55.199 --> 01:34:12.639
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

226
01:34:12.639 --> 01:34:29.040
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

227
01:34:29.040 --> 01:34:46.080
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

228
01:34:46.080 --> 01:35:03.679
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.

229
01:35:03.679 --> 01:35:20.080
I don't know how that would >> Yeah, that's my concern. My concern is that if he submitted for that for a suppression system that wasn't code compliant, 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

230
01:35:20.080 --> 01:35:41.120
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 on it. Um once permits are issued,

231
01:35:41.120 --> 01:35:55.840
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

232
01:35:55.840 --> 01:36:11.360
risk? >> Uh 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

233
01:36:11.360 --> 01:36:27.520
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.

234
01:36:27.520 --> 01:36:45.119
>> And I I I 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

235
01:36:45.119 --> 01:37:01.760
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.

236
01:37:01.760 --> 01:37:17.440
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

237
01:37:17.440 --> 01:37:39.560
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.

238
01:37:42.400 --> 01:38:02.000
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 So even the Even though the elevator >> you're going to tell me everything is safe.

239
01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:16.560
>> 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

240
01:38:16.560 --> 01:38:36.320
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

241
01:38:36.320 --> 01:38:52.800
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

242
01:38:52.800 --> 01:39:09.920
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

243
01:39:09.920 --> 01:39:26.800
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

244
01:39:26.800 --> 01:39:42.320
without knowing the condition of the inside I certainly can't answer it and and I don't think fire or 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

245
01:39:42.320 --> 01:39:58.080
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

246
01:39:58.080 --> 01:40:15.199
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 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

247
01:40:15.199 --> 01:40:31.280
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

248
01:40:31.280 --> 01:40:46.560
>> and this is why actually I was short circuiting this line because I'm sure you're going to tell me everything inside is same. 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.

249
01:40:46.560 --> 01:41:07.840
>> 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

250
01:41:07.840 --> 01:41:22.800
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

251
01:41:22.800 --> 01:41:38.800
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

252
01:41:38.800 --> 01:41:54.320
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 with that. We're not I don't want to challenge any of those any of his testimony to be able to do it. >> It's just different perspectives. I get that and and fire might go in there and

253
01:41:54.320 --> 01:42:09.920
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 were 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

254
01:42:09.920 --> 01:42:25.280
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 continue is we would we would ask that at least something be done with the

255
01:42:25.280 --> 01:42:40.560
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

256
01:42:40.560 --> 01:42:56.800
what what you found, but I also have some questions for you. Yes sir. Thank you. U magistrate. Yes. So um the uh applicant was correct. He did have two certificate of pro appropriateness issued in 2022. One was

257
01:42:56.800 --> 01:43:12.480
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

258
01:43:12.480 --> 01:43:28.800
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?

259
01:43:28.800 --> 01:43:44.719
>> They were and they were full length. However, when he brung it back, he brung 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

260
01:43:44.719 --> 01:44:00.800
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

261
01:44:00.800 --> 01:44:17.199
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. Maner and I are both thinking probably closer to 9.

262
01:44:17.199 --> 01:44:41.440
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> 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

263
01:44:41.440 --> 01:44:57.679
magistrate we need from the city's perspective, from the community's perspective, some sort of milestone that has to be accomplished on this base. 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

264
01:44:57.679 --> 01:45:13.840
mind. and and 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

265
01:45:13.840 --> 01:45:37.679
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 60 days out, more likely 90 or more. And there's the possibility that it does not get approved.

266
01:45:37.679 --> 01:45:56.239
>> 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 in understanding. >> My focus is on the building. How soon do you believe you can you can

267
01:45:56.239 --> 01:46:12.480
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,

268
01:46:12.480 --> 01:46:27.280
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

269
01:46:27.280 --> 01:46:42.880
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

270
01:46:42.880 --> 01:47:01.040
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

271
01:47:01.040 --> 01:47:19.040
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?

272
01:47:19.040 --> 01:47:33.600
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

273
01:47:33.600 --> 01:47:50.400
original form of windows and move forward with the standing with that certificate of appropriateness application. Would it be possible to make that modification as the process moves on? Understand that I'm looking at this a way of getting to permit so he can be begin fixing the building as fast

274
01:47:50.400 --> 01:48:05.199
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

275
01:48:05.199 --> 01:48:22.400
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?

276
01:48:22.400 --> 01:48:37.920
>> 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

277
01:48:37.920 --> 01:48:55.239
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.

278
01:48:55.280 --> 01:49:12.239
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

279
01:49:12.239 --> 01:49:28.400
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

280
01:49:28.400 --> 01:49:48.000
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

281
01:49:48.000 --> 01:50:04.239
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

282
01:50:04.239 --> 01:50:18.639
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 something that we could be can be met in accordance with what we presented. But I do think for purposes

283
01:50:18.639 --> 01:50:36.000
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

284
01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:52.000
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

285
01:50:52.000 --> 01:51:08.719
and all that. Our office 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

286
01:51:08.719 --> 01:51:28.880
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

287
01:51:28.880 --> 01:51:45.920
>> 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 doubt it because it's existing.

288
01:51:45.920 --> 01:52:02.719
>> 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

289
01:52:02.719 --> 01:52:19.159
over the practicality. And that's what was just expressed to me is there's some challenges that really really want this but coach says you have to do this but I really really want this and I've heard it here today.

290
01:52:19.199 --> 01:52:34.800
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

291
01:52:34.800 --> 01:52:51.360
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

292
01:52:51.360 --> 01:53:06.800
respondent or or party in his courtroom, if that party would say, "But judge, I'm not a lawyer." Judge Loop 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

293
01:53:06.800 --> 01:53:23.440
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

294
01:53:23.440 --> 01:53:38.719
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

295
01:53:38.719 --> 01:53:54.800
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

296
01:53:54.800 --> 01:54:10.800
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

297
01:54:10.800 --> 01:54:25.679
that within our rights? 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 till you have that certificate of appropriateness. That's what we're held up on. >> Exactly. But the it was the same design

298
01:54:25.679 --> 01:54:42.960
back in 22. So, it was the same design for April 22 and it was the same design for July of >> not your most recent 2022. The windows have changed. The windows are 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.

299
01:54:42.960 --> 01:54:58.800
>> 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

300
01:54:58.800 --> 01:55:15.360
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

301
01:55:15.360 --> 01:55:31.679
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 for where for where I'm headed today. Yes sir. >> I just want to point a couple. First, I

302
01:55:31.679 --> 01:55:48.000
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 to deal with it all. Um, I I understand that we're reaching some sort of compromise. The city is the city's also willing to to try to work on something

303
01:55:48.000 --> 01:56:04.560
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 work would be done that we could sign off on most particularly some of the exterior work

304
01:56:04.560 --> 01:56:21.440
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 and 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 the respondent could

305
01:56:21.440 --> 01:56:38.239
get that done fairly quickly. We could at least have some showing that they're trying to cooperate. >> Okay. So you you heard that kind of olive branch I think it was a little bit how quickly could you once permits are issued or are reissued. How quickly

306
01:56:38.239 --> 01:56:53.520
could window installation begin 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.

307
01:56:53.520 --> 01:57:08.960
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 moment >> What's that production? How what's the length of that production process? >> I would have to double check. The last time it the last time that I did check

308
01:57:08.960 --> 01:57:26.800
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? I would have to double check with the owner, but I'm thinking by the end of

309
01:57:26.800 --> 01:57:41.599
the month, >> but before this time next month. >> Yes. Okay. Anything else from anybody? >> All right. What I'm going to do is actually I'm going to enter a partial ruling today and continue other matters

310
01:57:41.599 --> 01:57:57.960
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

311
01:57:58.080 --> 01:58:14.400
u the general IPMC that leads into all of those is 101 excuse me 111.1.5 dangerous structures premises I am not finding the unsecured structure which is 111.1.5 sub7 vacant structure structure

312
01:58:14.400 --> 01:58:30.960
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

313
01:58:30.960 --> 01:58:48.239
sub7 exists as the building sits today. I do find that 111.1.5 dangerous risk of fire collapse, 111.1 dangerous fire resistant. um the responsibility 301.2

314
01:58:48.239 --> 01:59:04.880
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 111.1.510 dangerous fire resistance resistance the

315
01:59:04.880 --> 01:59:21.360
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

316
01:59:21.360 --> 01:59:51.920
perspective by February 6th, which gives you two full weeks after the after this week, this week been plus two to have the application for

317
01:59:51.920 --> 02:00:06.800
extension of the July 2022 certificate of appropriateness in that that will be submitted by February 6. I'm not going to enter anything in my

318
02:00:06.800 --> 02:00:23.840
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

319
02:00:23.840 --> 02:00:40.159
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

320
02:00:40.159 --> 02:00:57.119
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?

321
02:00:57.119 --> 02:01:16.639
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

322
02:01:16.639 --> 02:01:31.920
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

323
02:01:31.920 --> 02:01:47.360
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

324
02:01:47.360 --> 02:02:04.400
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

325
02:02:04.400 --> 02:02:19.920
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

326
02:02:19.920 --> 02:02:36.320
windows, you certainly can, >> including the restaurant as is. As is >> 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

327
02:02:36.320 --> 02:02:51.840
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

328
02:02:51.840 --> 02:03:07.360
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 I will accept the restaurant windows from that. So all

329
02:03:07.360 --> 02:03:23.440
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. >> 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

330
02:03:23.440 --> 02:03:39.440
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?

331
02:03:39.440 --> 02:03:55.119
>> So the the entire thing has been unified to one design. >> I'm just so >> Yes. Uh but the buildings in the back were never part of any historic preservation value. It was just the restaurant that >> I see. So, but until you know what you're doing with the restaurant, you

332
02:03:55.119 --> 02:04:13.360
will not know what would >> So, I would rather not order them right now. >> So, I'm 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

333
02:04:13.360 --> 02:04:29.199
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? We'd like to if you put in the order at least a

334
02:04:29.199 --> 02:04:44.639
requirement that the respondent allow the fire department in the building officially in the building. >> 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

335
02:04:44.639 --> 02:05:04.480
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. >> And the fire 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

336
02:05:04.480 --> 02:05:18.880
that? >> I would like to in as soon as possible. >> 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.

337
02:05:18.880 --> 02:05:34.960
>> 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

338
02:05:34.960 --> 02:05:52.080
appropriateness in by February 6th and to have the inspection performed by February 18th, I'm sorry, 5th. February 5th. I'm just going to tie those to the same date. It's easier for everybody. February 6

339
02:05:52.080 --> 02:06:08.639
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

340
02:06:08.639 --> 02:06:25.719
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

341
02:06:32.639 --> 02:06:48.400
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

342
02:06:48.400 --> 02:07:04.400
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

343
02:07:04.400 --> 02:07:19.440
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

344
02:07:19.440 --> 02:07:41.199
inspired February and the next meeting anything that they make a list of 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.

345
02:07:41.199 --> 02:07:59.360
>> Okay. And then how do we deterine that? >> That would be Is there >> I don't think there's anything there. Okay. >> Yeah, that would all I could tell you is to interface closely with the building department. >> Yeah, we would ask that his general

346
02:07:59.360 --> 02:08:15.920
contractor and that 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

347
02:08:15.920 --> 02:08:31.920
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?

348
02:08:31.920 --> 02:08:47.440
>> 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 addressing the issues with the professionals that

349
02:08:47.440 --> 02:09:04.239
will be the ones designing the cure. >> It just cuts down on the the go between 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

350
02:09:04.239 --> 02:09:22.239
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 class until the next hearing.

351
02:09:22.239 --> 02:11:06.159
Before we move, before you call the next case, let me get my notes in order. Okay, thank you. >> Case number 2025-1076, Rachel Ruffen, owner, location of violation 501 Kentucky Avenue, St.

352
02:11:06.159 --> 02:11:24.560
Cloud, Florida. So, the next case we're going to hear is was just called in by the clerk officer um Alex. Is this your case? 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

353
02:11:24.560 --> 02:11:40.719
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. So this is not the the same the same situation I heard before, but this is new new work that's been done or just additional work that

354
02:11:40.719 --> 02:12:02.880
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 statement of violation and

355
02:12:02.880 --> 02:12:19.199
notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property and 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

356
02:12:19.199 --> 02:12:45.520
the magistrate found this 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 sim of violation and a sim of hearing was sent by

357
02:12:45.520 --> 02:13:02.079
certified mail to the owner posted 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

358
02:13:02.079 --> 02:13:20.719
purchasing the property in 2019. uh pictures were obtained for the property from the property appraiser Ariel Bur's eye imagery which showed that the property was in the same condition in February 2020th and the

359
02:13:20.719 --> 02:13:35.840
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

360
02:13:35.840 --> 02:13:51.360
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

361
02:13:51.360 --> 02:14:07.599
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

362
02:14:07.599 --> 02:14:29.840
>> the the the arrow indicating that's the 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?

363
02:14:29.840 --> 02:14:49.840
>> 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

364
02:14:49.840 --> 02:15:03.679
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

365
02:15:03.679 --> 02:15:20.560
birth 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

366
02:15:20.560 --> 02:15:36.960
the right of it. Yes, sir. >> 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

367
02:15:36.960 --> 02:15:52.800
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

368
02:15:52.800 --> 02:16:07.760
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

369
02:16:07.760 --> 02:16:24.480
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.

370
02:16:24.480 --> 02:16:43.120
>> Correct. >> That's a new >> the eaves. >> Correct. Just on the side. >> Same. Is this the eaves? Okay. >> Yes, sir. Um, and again, the owner submitted a permit application in January 2024 to bring to try to um get

371
02:16:43.120 --> 02:16:58.000
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,

372
02:16:58.000 --> 02:17:14.719
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

373
02:17:14.719 --> 02:17:31.359
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

374
02:17:31.359 --> 02:17:48.800
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 fine in the amount of $250 per day should be

375
02:17:48.800 --> 02:18:05.280
assessed until full compliance is met. And the city will also request that the cost incur on bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $38.3 to be paid within seven days of the written order by the special magistrate. And this concludes my presentation.

376
02:18:05.280 --> 02:18:26.080
>> 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,

377
02:18:26.080 --> 02:18:40.559
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. But is an accessory

378
02:18:40.559 --> 02:18:56.080
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 the um back in November presented the case when she was >> I remember I just wanted to make sure I

379
02:18:56.080 --> 02:19:14.479
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 >> correct. Yes, sir. Okay, I understand. Thank you, M. Ruffing. >> Yes, sir.

380
02:19:14.479 --> 02:19:30.319
>> 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

381
02:19:30.319 --> 02:19:45.840
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

382
02:19:45.840 --> 02:20:02.880
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

383
02:20:02.880 --> 02:20:18.880
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

384
02:20:18.880 --> 02:20:34.479
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.

385
02:20:34.479 --> 02:20:50.080
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.

386
02:20:50.080 --> 02:21:05.760
>> 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.

387
02:21:05.760 --> 02:21:31.920
>> Yes. >> Okay. It's not a window. Is the thing in that photograph the same as the photograph in December 2022, January 2023? >> Um, from the aerial view, they are different. Yes. But they're not very clear pictures.

388
02:21:31.920 --> 02:21:48.080
>> 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

389
02:21:48.080 --> 02:22:02.880
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 is to put the code enforcement violations on there, and which I did,

390
02:22:02.880 --> 02:22:17.840
>> 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

391
02:22:17.840 --> 02:22:33.600
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

392
02:22:33.600 --> 02:22:48.800
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

393
02:22:48.800 --> 02:23:04.319
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

394
02:23:04.319 --> 02:23:20.399
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 uh a time before I even owned the home. >> I But I can see that the two pictures do

395
02:23:20.399 --> 02:23:36.000
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?

396
02:23:36.000 --> 02:24:02.640
>> What's there has 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

397
02:24:02.640 --> 02:24:19.120
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.

398
02:24:19.120 --> 02:24:34.560
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.

399
02:24:34.560 --> 02:24:52.040
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.

400
02:24:53.920 --> 02:25:11.439
>> That's all I have for today. >> Basically, I was 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

401
02:25:11.439 --> 02:25:27.200
looks like front facade of the accessory building since it faces the main structure. uh have north south. I do not. But looking at the evidence presented, it is the forward- facing facade that change from what looks like a window to clearly

402
02:25:27.200 --> 02:25:41.760
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

403
02:25:41.760 --> 02:26:03.200
consistent with the last case. 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

404
02:26:03.200 --> 02:26:20.840
a 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?

405
02:26:21.760 --> 02:26:36.720
>> 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

406
02:26:36.720 --> 02:26:52.160
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?

407
02:26:52.160 --> 02:27:10.240
>> I want you to either get permits or remove the work that was done without permits. Yes. >> And Mr. was testimony. about the interior work, specifically the electrical work that was done when you were showing some evidence of that. >> That's why that was my question. The the

408
02:27:10.240 --> 02:27:26.880
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 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?

409
02:27:26.880 --> 02:27:43.280
>> 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

410
02:27:43.280 --> 02:28:02.399
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 work? And you said you can't. Can you tell me how that picture was obtained and if it's actually my property? >> Miss Miller.

411
02:28:02.399 --> 02:28:22.319
>> To the microphone, please. >> Back in 2023, Officer Neil and I went to the property because M. 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

412
02:28:22.319 --> 02:28:39.040
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.

413
02:28:39.040 --> 02:28:54.240
>> 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

414
02:28:54.240 --> 02:29:10.240
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

415
02:29:10.240 --> 02:29:26.800
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,

416
02:29:26.800 --> 02:29:43.280
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,

417
02:29:43.280 --> 02:29:59.280
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

418
02:29:59.280 --> 02:30:14.479
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 that's

419
02:30:14.479 --> 02:30:30.640
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 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

420
02:30:30.640 --> 02:30:46.240
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 February six. >> Get a permit >> so I can leave it exactly how it is and just file for a permit and have them come out and do an inspection. >> You have to obtain the permit. You can't

421
02:30:46.240 --> 02:31:02.240
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

422
02:31:02.240 --> 02:31:21.200
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 u Miss Ruffin has a permit application

423
02:31:21.200 --> 02:31:38.560
that she submitted on 2024 for the interior uh remodel and everything for the structure, but the permit has since been abandoned. So that's the application that still exist in the in the system. >> So are you saying it could be renewed? >> That is a question for the park. So

424
02:31:38.560 --> 02:31:54.080
>> 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 kept coming to my house and told me >> this is about work being performed at the structure that did not have build

425
02:31:54.080 --> 02:32:10.000
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.

426
02:32:10.000 --> 02:32:25.680
>> 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.

427
02:32:25.680 --> 02:32:40.720
>> But putting down new flooring doesn't require permit. >> If you're doing subfloors, it 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

428
02:32:40.720 --> 02:32:56.479
were done in 2023. I have no proof or anything that she has done. Is it mine or is it somebody else's? >> Forget the evidence. >> How did she obtain those work done in my home illegally? Did she trespass? Like >> did you have work done in that structure? >> I've done some minor repairs to it to

429
02:32:56.479 --> 02:33:13.280
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.

430
02:33:13.280 --> 02:33:28.640
>> 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

431
02:33:28.640 --> 02:33:44.720
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 like filed a formal complaint about it today to her

432
02:33:44.720 --> 02:34:04.720
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.

433
02:34:04.720 --> 02:34:21.280
Well, I wasn't inviting them and I didn't ask for them to do any inspection. What reason would I have? >> Is it 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

434
02:34:21.280 --> 02:34:55.439
credible. The respondent is is clearly playing games in this proceeding, and I do not appreciate it. You can be forthright with me. >> I didn't obtain it until November 2020. >> Can I get you to make your statements into the microphone, please?

435
02:34:55.439 --> 02:35:10.399
>> 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.

436
02:35:10.399 --> 02:35:26.960
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

437
02:35:26.960 --> 02:35:43.840
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

438
02:35:43.840 --> 02:36:04.399
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. The thing is is I just don't really understand why

439
02:36:04.399 --> 02:36:19.600
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 and >> this is we're not talking about flooring. Nobody has said anything to me

440
02:36:19.600 --> 02:36:34.240
about flooring today. >> Okay. Well, you know, maybe that's what I did. I put some floors in there. That That's about it. But 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

441
02:36:34.240 --> 02:36:50.240
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. >> That's right. As the property owner, it is your responsibility to cure. That's correct. >> Yeah. But the thing is is I have no

442
02:36:50.240 --> 02:37:06.160
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 tricksack here. And that's why I was

443
02:37:06.160 --> 02:37:23.680
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?

444
02:37:23.680 --> 02:37:39.600
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 contractor. >> 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

445
02:37:39.600 --> 02:37:55.760
be honest with tear everything out. What what how can they obtain a permit? Were they supposed to do this? >> And 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

446
02:37:55.760 --> 02:38:12.399
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

447
02:38:12.399 --> 02:38:31.040
>> 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

448
02:38:31.040 --> 02:38:46.399
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. May I just >> Yes, sir.

449
02:38:46.399 --> 02:39:02.399
>> We're happy to revise the staff the city's recommendation regarding compliance. >> I think you originally talking about February 6, we'd go to April April. >> That's further than I was going to put that. I appreciate that. >> I mean, just to give her if she's if she's looking at a situation where she

450
02:39:02.399 --> 02:39:18.720
needs to get additional funds >> and banking on tax refund to be able to do that, the middle of April would be fine. >> So, April April 15th tax day, Miss Ruffing, how does that look for you? Is it giving you some time?

451
02:39:18.720 --> 02:39:36.280
>> 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.

452
02:39:37.840 --> 02:39:53.680
Anything else from you, Miss Rafing, >> before I rule? >> No, I'm 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

453
02:39:53.680 --> 02:40:08.479
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.

454
02:40:08.479 --> 02:40:24.720
>> 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

455
02:40:24.720 --> 02:40:47.359
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

456
02:40:47.359 --> 02:41:02.720
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

457
02:41:02.720 --> 02:41:29.200
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

458
02:41:29.200 --> 02:41:48.560
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.

459
02:41:48.560 --> 02:42:04.080
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.

460
02:42:04.080 --> 02:42:23.760
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

461
02:42:23.760 --> 02:42:39.359
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,

462
02:42:39.359 --> 02:43:00.399
so be it. Uh are there any anything further anybody needs on this case? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. >> R. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Case number 25635

463
02:43:00.399 --> 02:43:16.399
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

464
02:43:16.399 --> 02:43:33.040
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

465
02:43:33.040 --> 02:43:47.920
sent by certified mailed 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

466
02:43:47.920 --> 02:44:04.080
owner and emailed to the owner and posted on the property and 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

467
02:44:04.080 --> 02:44:35.200
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

468
02:44:35.200 --> 02:44:55.439
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

469
02:44:55.439 --> 02:45:12.960
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.

470
02:45:12.960 --> 02:45:30.240
On August 14th, a 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

471
02:45:30.240 --> 02:45:45.920
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

472
02:45:45.920 --> 02:46:02.160
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 a So on September 26th, another notice violation with the

473
02:46:02.160 --> 02:46:18.000
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.

474
02:46:18.000 --> 02:46:39.680
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 affidavitative of posting was completed and I took two photos. On December 15th, a reinspection was

475
02:46:39.680 --> 02:46:57.600
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 and

476
02:46:57.600 --> 02:47:16.560
property was still in non-compliance and I took a photo on each inspection date. It is city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing the pool water to be unmaintained and not in a clean and sanitary condition at this location and

477
02:47:16.560 --> 02:47:34.240
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

478
02:47:34.240 --> 02:47:51.120
to be paid within seven 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

479
02:47:51.120 --> 02:48:06.720
>> 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

480
02:48:06.720 --> 02:48:23.760
compliance by that date, a fine of $250 per day shall acrew until compliance is met. Also, we'll order the respondant 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 the date of my written order. >> Thank you.

481
02:48:25.439 --> 02:48:42.080
Case number 2025-9901 Hazel R. Johnson revocable living trust owner M. Dvalsski tenant location of violation 1451 Kingston Way CMI Florida. >> Good afternoon. Pam Neil, City of St.

482
02:48:42.080 --> 02:48:57.359
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

483
02:48:57.359 --> 02:49:12.479
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

484
02:49:12.479 --> 02:49:30.680
affidavit of posting. 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 a respondent in violation in the amount of $31,525.

485
02:49:43.439 --> 02:49:59.040
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

486
02:49:59.040 --> 02:50:16.880
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.

487
02:50:16.880 --> 02:50:33.200
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

488
02:50:33.200 --> 02:50:48.319
photo. On September 25th, a courtesy notice was sent to the owner and the tenant. On October 14th, the reinspection was performed and the vehicles were still in violation and there was still no active landlord license. And I took three

489
02:50:48.319 --> 02:51:12.080
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

490
02:51:12.080 --> 02:51:30.160
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

491
02:51:30.160 --> 02:51:50.439
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.

492
02:51:52.399 --> 02:52:09.600
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 respondonder be found in violation of

493
02:52:09.600 --> 02:52:26.960
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

494
02:52:26.960 --> 02:52:43.600
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 $31,525 to be paid within the seven days of the written order of the magistrate as well.

495
02:52:43.600 --> 02:53:01.120
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

496
02:53:01.120 --> 02:53:18.000
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

497
02:53:18.000 --> 02:53:35.640
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.

498
02:53:35.680 --> 02:53:53.439
will 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

499
02:53:53.439 --> 02:54:12.240
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 to the vehicles

500
02:54:12.240 --> 02:54:33.439
$50 a day. Again, one of those fines is respon if it be in its acrew only responsibly would be land only landlord would be responsible for the other or both uh would potentially be responsible for for the administrative cost. I'm just going to make both parties jointly and

501
02:54:33.439 --> 02:54:48.080
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

502
02:54:48.080 --> 02:55:16.240
$31526. That amount to be due within seven days of the date of my written order. >> Thank you. Unfinished business? None. New business? None. Next scheduled meeting February 18, 2026.

503
02:55:16.240 --> 02:55:31.720
>> Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you. Any further business from the city? >> You see, you give me a month off and I forget how to do it. Um question.