And if you'd also if we' start off by uh joining me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation with all. And if anybody is going to give
testimony today, if you just stay standing and raise your right hand. Anybody giving testimony? Do you als you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony you give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. By way of introduction, my name is Drew Smith. I am the hearing officer for the city of St. Cloud. I'm not an employee of the
city. I am not an attorney for the city. I am a private practice attorney, but my role in these proceedings is to be an independent trier of fact. uh the order of each case. Um the city both the the speed program cases as well as the code enforcement cases. The city will go first. They will present to me the
evidence and testimony that that supports their case. When they're done, the respondent may come to the podium. If you have questions for the city's witnesses, let me know and you may you have the opportunity to cross-examine them. If you do not have cross-examination, we can go straight to your direct testimony and you can tell
me anything you'd like me to hear about your case. If you have documentary evidence, you're welcome to submit that. Just understand that anything you submit I have to keep for the record. So, make sure you give me a copy. Um, with that said, and I know that the police department notified the clerk that the first two cases today are not going to
be heard, but I'm actually going to have her her call them just so that we can get on the record that they're not being heard. So, if you would, clerk, if you'd call those that first case. >> Notice 24411, Jonathan E. Sarah, petitioner.
Notice 27273, Harry James petitioner >> notice three. >> Well, hang on a second. >> Just if I could, Mr. Smith, Dan Manzer, city attorney for the city of St. Cloud, just to update you a little bit on the
agenda tonight or today. Uh, we we already there is responded here, Miss Ibera, for one of the speed zone cases. And then we have individuals here for case 2025-130 JRFM Enterprise and then 2025272
AMSAE properties. So if uh uh you could uh we'd like to take those cases first. >> Take them in that order. One, two, three. Starting with Abara then J JRFM and then AMSA is number three. >> That's right. Thank you.
>> Notice 30822. Natalie E I petitioner >> and of course this is a speed zone violation case and uh the police is it corporate college is going to present to you on this case Mr.
>> Okay. >> Hi good afternoon Sergeant Collie St. Cloud Police Department assigned to our traffic division. I'll go through my spiel and then I will show you the evidence that we led us to here. On August 28th, 2025,
approximately 1609 hours, a 2016 BMW SUV varing Texas tag of Sierra Yankee Charlie 69 correction 6091 was traveling northbound on Michigan Avenue approaching Michigan Avenue Elementary. The vehicle entered the school safety zone was captured on
camera and LAR traveling 27 miles an hour in a posted 15 mph zone. The incident was then forwarded to the police department for review. On September 5th of 2025, investigator Monao reviewed the evidence and he found problems believe that the vehicle was in violation of St. Cloud City ordinance
2020 sorry 2024-48. A notice of approval um was approved and then it was mailed to the respondent. on 11:117 2025 a couple days ago, Officer Monio, he is out sick at the
time. So, I reviewed all of the information and I agreed with everything that he found and I support that there was a violation uh for the BMW that he initially issued the uh speeding um notice violation for. So, kind of go through and show you the evidence that
led us to to get here today. So, this notice of violation that was that was sent to the respondent. And the next one's going to zoom in a little bit more so you can actually see the vehicle information on there. There we go. So has the date, time, location, also the vehicle description
along with the tag in itself and the date that it was approved. It's in the bottom right hand corner. Um, as the vehicle is approaching this the school safety zone, it does pass a sign that says that it is the speed limit is in uh photo enforced and it does give the times on there showing that when it's being enforced.
The vehicle then continues into the school safety zone. This one here passes the 15 mph flashing beacon. Um, in the on the top of the page, you'll have the posted 27 mph uh speed zone. I'm sorry. 27 mph uh that it was going in the 15
mph speed limit. Vehicle continues on through. It just progresses through a closeup of the tag so we can verify that it does match what is on the the notice of violation. And then there is a video of it showing that the light is flashing and the
vehicle progressing through the school safety zone. This is the camera log. It shows that the when the camera did a self test, it did it prior and after that the violation was captured. Um, both of them the same day.
There's a radar calibration certificate showing that has been calibrated within the last year of the violation. The serial number on here matches the one that is listed on the citation. This the administrative uh hearing letter that the respondent requested a
hearing today maybe. There we go. And the staff recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case is determined that the petitioner or the authorized individual was the owner or correction the operator of a 2016 BMW with the Texas
registration of Sierra Yankee Charlie 6091. uh it was driving 27 miles an hour in a 15 mph school safety zone and this is a violation of the city of St. Cloud city ordinance 20248. Um in addition to the original cost uh
there is a cost affidavit that goes along with it preparing the case for everything. Um it would be an additional $8949 as well. And that concludes the presentations. If you have any questions, I'm here. >> And the citation amount, the citation
amount as written was $100. Correct. >> That is the original citation amount. I believe that there is a an additional $50 charge that goes on there for uh for someone who responds to this and if they are found guilty, uh we would request that the $50 goes away and that be replaced with the $8949.
>> Okay. So, you are seeking today $100 $18949. >> Correct. >> Okay. Mr. Bar. Mr. Bar. Not not you.
Is she present? Sorry. >> Then then I have some questions for you, Dan, and how the city wants to proceed. So before before the meeting commenced, the the clerk advised me that that there has been a non-dely on the change of
address notice that was sent to Miss Abara. So that gives me some reluctance to proceed since if we if we move the hearing and she's not here and if we if we have a certified male that came back. M >> and Mr. Smith, I agree with you. We I
apologize. I misunderstood who was present for here. We we were aware of that and we assumed as we started out that of the three cases there was one respondent here. So we were okay with this being rolled over to the next meeting and this and we can deal with it
then. Then I will then I'll take that as a motion to continue. >> Yes, sir. >> That motion is granted. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate you pointing that out. I apologize for the confusion. >> Not a problem. It happens. >> All right. And since I'm up here, I just wanted to also point out something that I missed. The case number 2025243
on the agenda. Uh Jordan, uh that I guess that's Jordan Anthony. Uh that case is being null pro by the city. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you. So, >> case number 2025-130
JR FM Enterprise LLC owner location of violation 1508 Illinois Avenue, St.Cloud, Florida. >> And I believe the respondent is present for this case. >> Okay, great. I just want to make sure. So, and we're the city is obviously
ready to proceed uh on this case and uh this is a violation of uh of the city's land development code section 22 2.2.7 and 10-3 related to uh work being done um without required permits in the code.
officer. >> Good afternoon. Alex Miller, code enforcement officer for the city of St. Cloud. At this time, I would like to enter in evidence the following items. Copy of the observation notice. Copy of the courtesy notice sent by regular mail. Copy of the notice of violation
sent by certified mail. Copies of the statements of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property in city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation affidavit of posting evidence of mailing.
Copy of the code sections of violation. A copy of the deed to the property and a copy of the cost incurred and the magistrate finds the respondent in violation at the amount of $438.79. On February 20th, 2025, code enforcement received a complaint that work was being
performed at this property without the required permits. Upon arrival, I verified that new windows and doors have been installed and some interior renovations were in progress. I attempted to contact the property owner, but I was unsuccessful. An observation notice was left with the
worker on site explaining the violations and a copy was mailed to the owner by regular mail and three photos were taken. >> Officer Miller, if you would just narrate a little bit. What am I looking at? What is it that you want me to see in these photographs? >> That is a brand new door installed at
front in front of the house and new windows. Can you go back to the door? >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, I see it. There is a door in that it's dark and I was seeing no door, but now I see it. Now I see it. >> Dark. Thank you.
>> On February 18, a reinspection was conducted and confirmed that the property was still in violation. A courtesy notice was sent via regular mail. On February 28th, while working on another case, I received information from a previous tenant indicating that
the new owner was converting the garage into an apartment. The garage door had been removed and the window on the side of the garage had been replaced with a door. I contacted the workers and advised them that a red tag had been placed on the property and no further work was allowed until the required
permits were obtained and non photos were taken. This is the they removed the window and replaced it with the door. the work that was going on inside of the garage.
Uh you can see the garage door when the property was bought at the error and this is when they removed and replaced and there's no longer a door. And here's the red tag that was placed at the property. On March 4th, I
verified that the property was still in violation. A notice of violation was sent to the owner reassertify mail. On May 1st and July 3rd, the property was posted with a statement of violation in notice of hearing. However, I was advised to place the case on hold to allow the owner to obtain the necessary
permits and two photos were taken of the posting. On October 31st, after several emails and phone calls with the owner and no progress towards compliance, a reinspection was conducted. It was verified that the permit application was
still in disapproved status and had not been obtained and the property remained in violation. statement a violation. The notice of hearing was mailed via certified mail and notices were posted at the property in city hall. An affidavit of posting was created and one
photo of the posting was taken. I have also provided additional um information on the folder with the permit reviews and the permit application that nothing has been done since August November 14. And today I
verified the permits have not been obtained and the property remain in violation. It is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing repairs and alterations to be performed prior to obtaining the required permits by the specified deadline. The city recommends
that the respondent be given until December 12th, 2025 to obtain the necessary permits or remove all unpermitted work. If compliance is not achieved by the date, a fine of $250 per day should be assessed until compliance
is met. The city also requests that the cost incur bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $438.79 be paid within 7 days of the written order by the special magistrate. And this concludes my presentation.
>> Have permits been applied for? Yes, sir. I I provided with that information in the folder. >> Is there an issue with what's been applied for? >> Um there require more additional information and um nothing has been
submitted since August. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Respondent. And if you'd start by stating your name and your relationship to the property for me. >> Uh my name is Jose Rodriguez. I'm one of
the owners on the property. Um so I guess in response we I hired So we have permits for the doors and the windows. Those were approved and they're on on the property. I'm not sure why they're not showing, but I have a copy of them that were for the windows and the doors. Um >> when you say you have permits for the
windows and the doors, what do you mean by permits issued by the city? >> Correct. Yes. >> For the installation. >> Correct. >> Okay. So those were approved and know then later on then we got we were stopped for the other work that was being done. I immediately hired a company to get the the the plans and the
permits and unfortunately the company that I've hired has just been really non non um they're just non-compliant. I've been emailing back with with the code enforcer that was and sending her the emails and showing. So I've been kind of held hostage. Um that's why it's taken so long to get them. But I did get a
notice um an email just last week saying that they had resubmitted the plans with the proper information that was missing. Um and so I'm waiting on that. Um I mean really that's the only reason why it's taken so long to get this, you know, corrected and and rectified. It's not that I'm trying to be defiant or
anything like that, but unfortunately I made the mistake of hiring this company that basically hasn't been respons. I paid them the money and, you know, I I just I don't have any more money to keep dishing out and hiring someone else to do plans and permits. So, they keep telling me that they're g that they're working on it, but it's been, you know,
I understand completely. It's been a long long time to get this um taken care of. >> Okay. So, the city has requested December 12th for permits in hand hearing. If I could
just take two steps aside, I'm going to bring you back to the podium, but I'm going to ask the code enforcement officer a question. Okay, >> officer Miller. >> So, it did I did I misunderstand? So, do you have record of there being permits issued for the windows and doors? Did I miss that? >> Yes, sir. But the permits for the
windows and the door have actually expired. So, he had not come and um had done any inspections. So, the permits had expired >> and after he was cited for the permit for the windows and the door, he was advised if he was going to do any additional work, he will need to obtain
permits first. and he proceed to re remodel the garage without permitting first. >> And I don't know, so this is a question I don't know if you will know the answer to this or if anybody in the room might when he comes in or as the company he's
hired works through the permitting issues, can they reopen the window and door permit at the same time that they're so they can roll that into this new permit, the reopening into the new permit? They could, but it would just be as easy just for them to get an extension on the permit for the windows
and the doors. The contract. >> Okay. So, they are they are still in the place where they can get an extension. They get they don't have to do a full new permit to get those. Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. That's why sir, you can come back up. >> I if I may. I think there's a little bit of confusion because
>> initially when we started the work, we were we were the code enforcer came out back in February and she's fined us for the windows and the doors. there was no other work that had been done or that she had mentioned. So yes, we did continue working forward, but that we didn't see the issue with it. Then she
visited back and then she saw other work and then she said, "Wait, hold on a second. You guys need to stop." And that at that time that's when the the the red tag was put on the window and we were told that we had that I needed to get proper permitting and and architectural drawings. >> The reason that I it wasn't it wasn't
that I was making matters worse for you. I wanted to understand, you know, where the the discrepancy may be and just for your understanding, make sure that the company you're working with dates, uh, make sure the company that you're working with understands they need to be
making sure that that the window and door permits are active because building permits have a lifespan. And if there are no if there are no permit, if there are no inspections performed within that lifespan, the permit will expire. And that's what they're testifying to me today is that the permits are actually in an expired state.
>> So qu if I may ask a question. So we had got the doors and the windows installed and we had the permits. Should I have then called and had someone come out and say, "Hey, look, this has been done." >> If those had been inspected, regardless of the of the of the result of that inspection, if the inspection had
performed, that would have triggered an automatic extension of that permit. So, but that's what I'm hearing is that yes, you had permits issued, but they're in an expired state. It sounds like there's depending on how long they've been expired, it can be easier or harder. It sounds like you're in the easier group where it's just a reopening it and not
having to submit applications again, which would be much harder. So, just make sure the company you're working with understands that they need to get those window and door permits also reactivated >> extended for so that we can basically close everything up. >> Yes, sir. Exactly right. That way you can do exactly that and just close everything out, have one final inspection. If it goes well, everything
is closed out all >> um I'm a little bit reluctant, especially this time of year. We're coming into Thanksgiving December 12th and it sounds like there's a fair amount of work to do. So I'm inclined to extend that out for another month and and go to Well, it doesn't help me go 25
>> to January. >> You have you have January 19th you actually you you know the counter didn't go that far. So, I'm going to extend that out to January 19th for the the compliance date just in case there's any wrinkles and to get you through the holidays. Yes, sir. >> I have a question. Does that mean that I have to have the does the work have to
be completed or we have to at least have the allowed permits that allow us to do finish >> the request that's been made to me is permits in hand? Okay. So, that means that the permits have been issued by the city. Any notes that have been issued, any revisions, anything that you need to come up with more information, that process needs to be have been completed
by January 19th. Okay? and you or whoever it is that's responsible for picking up those permits needs to have come in and paid for them because one thing I see some places is permits will be issued but then they won't get come and pick picked up. It has not you have not obtained a permit until it has been paid for and picked up. So those are the
things that have to happen by January 19th. Were the windows and the door permits paid for? Because I know I paid them money for but >> yes, you just have to get an extension. >> Okay. I just need an extension. Okay. >> The license contract has to do. >> Okay. Okay. They have to come in and do it. I can't pay. Okay. Understood.
>> Corporate ownership. It will have to be the necessary have to be the contractor. >> I understand. >> Mr. Manzer. >> And thank you, M. I just wanted So, we're talking about compliance. Make sure he clearly understands if you do get the permit by the compliance date that they've set for January of 2026. That permit has to remain active. It can't expire
>> again. So, is there do they say on there like you have 30 days to >> you you're going to work with a contractor, correct? >> Your contractor should be well aware of that uh and be able to do that. So, just make sure >> and is it possible to get as well. You have to talk to the well that would be a bu that would be a no that would be a
building department issue related to the permit once the permit is issued but for right now >> given an allotted time is >> the permit the permit will state all of that on its face I believe but until the permit's issued and I think it's six months I think it's six months those permits the initial lifespan
>> total of 100 yeah 180 days a typical permit it's 180 days and just to clarify as my understanding it is it will continue if there is at least one final approved inspection. So you have to get an approved inspection related to
permitted work and then it will continue and deal with that. The per your contractor should be well aware that >> um so the city has also part of their request as to the first part I'll go ahead and start working through my ruling. As the first part I am going to order that there is a violation based on
the evidence testimony presented to me. I do find that there there is a violation. uh will order that the violation to be cured by respondent obtaining the necessary permits by January 19th, 2026. If not brought into compliance by that date, a fine of $250 a day will run from
that point forward. >> So very important to comply with that date. If you have any difficulties, let code enforcement know early so they can work with you to help resolve those issues. And I do I continue to to speak with the current lady that's been doing or this code enforcement.
>> You can we can work with her, but you'll have to go to the billing department and get the per. >> But he's saying if I have any issues >> just to keep code enforcement in the loop is what I meant by that. Yes. >> Not that they can fix the issues for you, but just let them know that you're working because that will be relevant to me if we're back here again. How hard
you were working to get it done on time. >> All right. And Mr. Smith, I apologize. There's been a lot of other discussion, but did you address the fine administrative costs that we >> about to get there? >> Oh, thank you. >> And my where I am leaning on that and and what I intend to do is again I want
the money spent right now on getting to compliance. So, I am going to order the the administrative cost because otherwise the taxpayers have to pay for it. um or the administrative costs paid, but I'm going to tie that instead of the seven days requested, which is what I typically do, but due to the amount and everything going on, I'm going to extend
that out to January 19th, 20 2026 also, so that you can make sure you work, you get those contracts pulled first. >> Is that the 400 something? >> Yes, sir, it is. And everything I'm ruling today, the verbal, it will be condensed down into a written order that you will get in the mail. So, everything I'm saying today, you'll have a document that you can go and refer to if you have
any questions afterwards to refresh your memory. >> Okay? And that's all I have. Did you have any other questions for me before we close up this case? >> No. No. You've pretty much hit them all. And so I I need to get this code of the firm. >> Stay on top of that company.
>> And if they can't get it done, find another one. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Uh and actually what I actually would one recommend when you get this order from me in the mail, make a copy of it, email a copy, send it to them and say you guys have to stay on top of this or it's my pocketbook that's going to get hit. Is there anywhere that I can like I
mean are they like BB like department of like real is there anywhere that I can go >> is it the board of and I don't know if this is something that would fall into that realm but there is a there is a board of and I forget what it's called for the construction industry in Florida
>> industry licensing >> it's through DBPR >> yeah so so here's and again I don't mean to elaborate but I did do go there because I I also do real estate so I looked up the license and and the the gentleman is deceased. So >> that you were working with >> well at least the person that holds the
GC license. I don't know if maybe that's why it's taken so long for them to comply and help me through this. >> Very well be the case and you might need to start looking for another company to work with. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yes, sir. >> Case number 2025-272
AMSE Properties LLC. owner location of violation 606 Pennsylvania Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. >> Again, Mr. Smith, this is another violation case with regard to work being done without required permits. Officer Miller is going to present to you on it
today, and I'll just turn it over to her. She does such a good job. 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 observation notice. Copy of
the courtesy notice sent by regular mail. Copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail. Copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail. Posted at the property and city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation, affidavit
of posting, evidence of mailings, copy of the sections in violation, a copy of the deed to the property, and a copy of the cost incurred if the magistrate find the respondent in violation in the amount of $390. The respondent is here.
On March 19, 2025, code enforcement received a complaint regarding sing a single family dwelling that had been divided into several apartments which were being advertised for rent. I was able to verify the online listing which advertised both the individual
apartments and the detached garage that had also been converted into an apartment. There were no permit permits on record for this conversions. I contacted the owner who stated that he was at work and he will call me back later. An observation notice uh was
issued was sent by regular mail to the owner and a photos were taken. This is some of the unpermitted work he did. um a water heater um replaced the um some of the fixed some of the deck around the property
as well as new AC. And this is the listing some of the pictures I was able to find online um that were advertising for rent. March 24, the owner came into the office uh to obtain information about the cor um about correcting the violations. I I
had advised him that he would need to apply for the necessary permits and hire a licensed contractor to address the work that had been performed. On April 1st, a reinspection was performed and it was verified that no applications were on record in the system. A courtesy
notice was sent to the owner by regular mail advising him to correct the violations. On April 14, I verified that the property was still in violation. A notice of violation by certified mail was sent to the owner. On June 3rd, I verified that an incomplete application
was submitted and it was disapproved due to missing information. On July 17, July 14, August 11, September 8, several emails were exchanged with the owner and the contractor requesting updates regarding
the missing information required by the city. I was advised that they were working on providing the necessary documentation. Additional time was granted for the permit to be obtained. On October 31st, a reinspection was performed and verified that since
August, no additional information has been submitted to the city and the property is still in violation. Stina violation and notice of hearing was mailed by certified mail posted the property in city hall. An affidavit of posting was created and two photos uh of
the posting were taken. November 14 and today I verified that the application is still shown in disapproved status and because it's missing information. It is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing work to be performed prior to obtaining permits
and not meeting the zoning conformity by the time specified. The city will recommend that the respondent be given until December 12th, 2025 to obtain the permits or remove all all the work performed or a fine in the amount of $250 be assessed until compliance is
met. The city will also request that the cost incur and bring in this case before the magistrate in the amount of $390 to be paid within seven days of the written order by the special magistrate. And this concludes my presentation. responding.
>> How you doing today, sir? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. >> Uh, thank you, Alex. >> Start with your name and name in relationship to the property. >> Yes. Uh, Anthony Kanan. I'm the the owner of the property. >> Okay. >> Um, so yeah, we've been speaking with Alex for a bit. I know, uh, you know,
we've communicated and I did hire an architect and a a contractor as well. Not to beat a dead horse like the last guy, but um architects are just taking absolutely forever to do things. Uh this guy has received a lot of notes from the
permits applied for and has just been, you know, not responding. And >> where are you in the process to the extent that you're able to? How can you help how can you help me understand where in that communication with with your team you are in getting what you need to get this resolved?
>> Yeah. So, uh, I'm more in contact with the the contractor than I am with the architect. Um, and the contractor told me like, you know, the architect's portion is not my job. So, you're going to have to get in direct contact with the architect and kind of push him along so that we can do what we need to do.
Um, so I've already paid the architect money. Um, I think I just need to be more intentional with the architect so that he can get done what he needs to get done. and so we can move along with the process.
>> Um, like you heard me, we we're not there yet because I still haven't ruled, but there will be a ruling today. And assuming that it is to find that there's a violation and I order you to do something, just like you heard me tell the last respondent, when you get that in the mail, the first thing I want you to do is send that to your architect and
say a little bit more than what I told the last respondent. Not just say, "This is impacting my pocketbook, but if it impacts my pocketbook, I'm going to make sure it impacts yours, too." Because you have that right. You have you have hired them to do a job. Is their responsibility to do that job for you? >> Absolutely. Yeah. Uh I mean I'm a St.
Cloud resident, lived here for a long time. I love the city. Uh you know, I definitely don't want to be in non-compliance with something. I, you know, I want to do what needs to get done. And uh if I could do it with my own physical hands, I would do it, but I don't know how to do any of that stuff. So, >> and again, corporate corporate
ownership, you would not be able to anyway. You have to use a contractor because of the corporate ownership, >> right? Uh so again, city has asked for December 12th. one to be consistent and two based on what I'm hearing I'm also going to extend your compliance date to January 19th. Um very important get on
that architect early and stay on him until you have those plans because until contract is right until they have those plans they cannot come to the city and get and get those permits. It's a beautiful looking deck. I want you to be able to keep it. >> Yes sir. um because that is the as you
hear in the presentation, one of the options in re in resolving non-permitted work is to remove the non-permitted work, but I don't want you to have to do that with that deck. And I also don't want you have to pay $250 a day if if you know because other people aren't doing the job that you've hired them. >> Yes, sir.
>> So stay on top of them. Uh is there anything else you'd like me to hear before I rule on the case? >> No, no, no. Thank thank you. >> Based on what I've heard, then I will find in favor of the city find that there is a violation as described in the notice of violation. I will order the respondent to cure that violation by
January 19th, 2026. If not brought into compliance by that date, a fine in the amount of $250 per day will run until compliance is met. We'll also order the respondant to pay the administrative costs incurred by the city in the amount of $390.89. That amount will also be due January
19th, 2026. >> Thank you, sir. >> Sir, and as as you've already heard me say, there will be a written order. We will have that have that in the mail and again get that to your architect as soon as you get it from me. >> Thank you sir. >> Case number 2025-769 Rachel Ruffen owner location of
violation 501 Kentucky Avenue St. Cloud Florida. >> Mr. Smith I'll just turn this one over to Officer Miller. will present to you a case on these land development code uh violations related to again uh work and without permits.
>> Good afternoon again officer Miller for the city of St. Cloud. This time I would like to enter into evidence the following items. Copy of the observation notice. Copy of the courtesy notice sent by regular mail. Copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail. Copy
of the statement of violation notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property and city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Affidavit of posting. Evidence of mailings. Copy of the sections in violation. A copy of the deed to the property. and a copy of the
cost incur the magistrate finds the respondent in violation in the amount of $34248. The respondent is here on August 20, 2025. While verifying another complaint, I observed that the property had high grass and weeds,
overgrown vegetation, and the dwelling was missing the street numbers. An observation notice was issued to the owner and two photos were taken. Sorry. Three. >> So this these photographs you're showing me the high grass and weeds. >> Yes, sir.
>> Are is that are you seeking any relief as to the high grass today? Just so I understand. Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> I don't want to interrupt flow however you need to with your presentation. I just wanted to make sure I understood what I was being asked to rule on today. >> Yes, sir. >> On September 3rd, a reinspection was conducted and I observed that the property remained in violation. I also
noticed a sign on the door of the accessory structure located in the rear yard advising the landlord not to enter the rented property. Additional additionally I observed that a tech had been added to the rear of the main dwelling without permit on record. I
verified that the owner applied for a permit in 2024 to convert the accessory structure into a living unit, but the permit was never obtained and the permit is now in abandoned status. A courtesy notice was sent by regular mail and five
photos were taken. This is the note from the tenant saying that um the landlord should not enter the property. She also had a phone for rent sign in the front yard. the weeds and the deck and the rear of
the house on the weeds. On September 10, Officer Bennett and I met with the owner of the property as she requested an explanation regarding the violations. I advised the owner of the violations and explained h on how to
correct them. Four forests were taken deck the grass and the weeds vegetation. On September 17, I verified that the property was still in violation. On September 18, a notice of violation was
sent to the owner by certified mail and six photos were taken. This is the property before she bought it. U this is accessory structure. Um, sorry. This is the accessory structure
that's located in the rear yard and she added um sliding door in the front. And this is the rear property without the deck. And this is the deck that she added to the back of the property. On November 5th, a reinspection was
performed and observed that the grass had been mowed. However, no premise had been obtained and the property remained in violation. A statement of violation and notice of hearings was sent by certified mail hand delivered the notice to the property owner posted city hall
and an affidavit of posting was created and three photos were taken. This is the rear access accessory structure located on the rear yard and somebody's living in the accessory structure. November 14 and today I verified um the
there's still no permits on record. It is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation for allowing repairs and alterations to be performed prior to obtaining the required permits and for failing to meet the zoning conformity by this but the the specified deadline. The city
recommends that the respondent be given until December 12, 2025 to obtain the necessary permits or remove all unpermitted work. If compliant is not achieved by the date, a fine of um $250 per day should be assessed until
compliance is met. And the city also requests that the cost incur and bring this case before the magistrate in the amount of $34248 to be paid within seven days of the written order by the special magistrate. And this concludes my presentation. Um sir, I also have attached the permit
application that had been abandoned on the folder and uh when she requested to turn that into a living unit and there were some impact fees that were required to be paid in order to convert the structure into a living unit. >> So that I understand then the the
permits were issued by the city but never picked up. She applied, she put an application, but when she was advised that she will have to pay some impact fees, she then not did not proceed with the application and the permit application has been abandoned since 2021. >> So no permit was ever issued.
>> No sir, not for the deck or the accessory structure for this for the for the deck hasn't even been applied. >> Sorry. >> There was never an application made for the deck. There's no record of application for the deck. And as to the >> accessory structure >> accessory structure,
>> there is an application but it has >> application for permits. Was it never processed? >> Was processed was processed but then she didn't finish the process when she was advised that she had to pay impact fees. >> I think you can get some help.
>> Okay. Sorry. Thank you. >> Okay. And so she applied the permit in January 4th of 2024. And then um I'll tell you what why I'm
asking what I'm trying to understand. Were there any zoning or other issues that prohibited the issuance of the permit or was the only issuance for the application abandonment the issue regarding impact? >> She needed to provide additional information. Okay. Go ahead. >> I haven't this morning.
>> Yes ma'am. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And if you'd start by saying your name and title for the record, please. >> Tisha Manning, zoning manager for community development. So, yes. So, she applied for the application in January of 24. Um, so just looking at
the review comments on the application, um, it did have several disapprovals from building, um, civil site as well as zoning and impact fees. Um, currently right now the application is
abandoned status and the total amount that would have been due for this application for that unit is $55,560.70. >> Okay. And the reason why I was why I wanted to get onto the record and into the conversation the the 2024 per so
everybody is because my job is to find is there a violation and what's going to be done. If I do find there's a violation, what needs to be done to cure it? And in a permit application situation, one of the things that can be done is to obtain permits. And as I'm looking at the 2024 permit, I question
or the application, the abandoned application, I question whether or not this this structure where it's located would be able to be approved. I just so that when I when I engage in conversation with the respondent that I'm kind of doing that with an understanding that this may not be
something that could be permitted at least where it is. Am I am I understanding correctly? >> So we >> I know you can't answer that question until you have an actual application to review. But just so that I can kind of help her understand her options. Am I understanding correctly that there is a probably a pretty good chance that this
probably can't be where it is as >> it can actually be permitted. We would of course have to look at setbacks and things like that, but understanding that it was already an existing accessory structure. It pro more than likely already adheres to the required zoning setbacks. So, she may be able to convert
that into a residential dwelling. She would just have to go through the proper process. >> Okay, that's what I that's where I was trying to get to so that I understood that. Thank you. >> If there's nothing else, I have no further questions for the city right now. Mr. Sabara, >> even though I know who you are, if you would state your name and and your
relation to the property. >> Hi, I'm Rachel Ruffing. I'm the owner of the property. Thank you so much for taking your time today to allow me to speak. Um, I have several things I'd like to talk about. U, we can start with whichever one you'd like. Uh, >> start where you want to. >> Uh, when I bought the house, the deck
was already there. It's been there for five years. It's not attached to the house. It's floating. Um, Alexis had observed it, but If you look at the property pictures that she had just provided, that was I don't know what year they were taken, but it was prior
to when I purchased it. When I purchased it, it was >> pause there. Can we get back to that photograph that that you so that we can all see it? >> What year was that? That was the um I have to look at my records, but that was when she actually
purchased the property. I will um I got it from um from uh Zil Zillow when she purchased the property. >> Okay. But do you know the date of the photo? Do you know what date that I know when you might have looked at the photo? Do you know that the vote the date that Zillow took the photo? >> No, sir.
>> Okay. So, you do not know the date that this photore I let her answer, please. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> No, I you're fine. I don't need the the background commentary, please. Okay. >> Respectful. Okay. I'm talking to you. Yes. >> Oh, yes. I don't know.
>> When somebody else is testifying to me, I don't need you giving >> Okay. I commentary. Okay. I don't know when that photo was taken. >> I I know, but I was asking her is the point. When I'm asking her a question, I don't need your I don't need your motions when I'm asking her a question. I've had the answer to the question
that's been resolved. Okay. You may continue. >> You may continue. So, when I purchased the property, the deck was already there and it's been a floating deck. It's not attached to the home. >> Whether it's floating or not, that doesn't that has no bearing on the permitting issue. The timing to me does. So, that's why I'm interested in that
issue. >> And I don't know when it was done. So, I apologize for that, but I just don't know. This photo was taken off Zillow. When I purchased the home, it was already there. >> Okay. Uh, now can I get you to roll forward to I think it's the next photo in the series, but it's the one that
shows the What am I from respondents? What is What am I looking at in this photo? >> Are you asking me? >> Yes, I'm asking respondent. What am I looking at this? >> That is a side view of where my deck is. So, I have a tarp up for privacy. It's
just a side view of the deck. >> Okay. So, that's just a privacy screen. privacy screen that I I built like um a little screen or whatever and then I put the tarp over it just so I didn't have people looking into my yard so the
deck was already there. >> Okay, you may continue. >> Um what would be the next issue that we have to talk about, please? >> It's it's your case. You are presenting to me. I'm not going to tell you how to make it. Okay, let's go to um the apartment
if we could. She said that I had people living there. Um actually, what I did was I took two homeless people from city hall and I let them come to my home and they live outside of my home so they didn't have to live at city hall and so they stay in my backyard for free. And
that's the picture which she had of them with a table. I let them live there at my yard for free. >> Okay. Their names are Richard Borchik and Gordon Meling. >> Okay.
>> So, if you would like to provide the picture, if you wouldn't if you wouldn't mind, please. >> The chairs I let them sit in. Um, but that was that's their stuff right there. That's their stuff. They stay in my backyard.
So, they're not at city hall. And if you don't um there's an officer that they know. I don't know his name, but um if you need validation for that, you can I can bring them here so they can tell you that they have removed themselves from city hall
and they are now living in my backyard. >> That is their thing. >> Question for the code enforcement officer. >> The chairs were related to your case. How? That was just proof that it appears that somebody was living there, but I actually was there on Monday and the
door of the apartment was open and I see mattress and somebody was staying inside and they shut the door before I could take a picture, but somebody's staying in there, slipping in there. >> Okay. >> And is the zoning portion of the case
violation of single family zoning? Is that the the zoning or the apartments coming up? >> Tisha Manny. So the zoning conformity is because anytime you convert any type of extra units into living a dwelling um
then you have to go through the permitting process which she did apply for. She just did not complete. So at this time she's continuing to use it as a dwelling but hasn't completed. But you are not you are not presenting the argument that the property is being used for other than single family
residential. That is not part of the case. That's what I wanted to get to. Thank you. >> And and Miss Ruffing, you may proceed. Uh actually, I I have a question to you. So, you say that these two people are living on your property. >> They are living in my backyard. >> Where do they sleep? >> In the backyard.
>> Do they ever sleep on the deck? >> No. >> What if it's raining? >> They go. >> You are born under oath. If you lie to me, it is perjury. I understand they will go to city hall or I will let them in my house. >> Have they ever slept on the deck?
>> No, they sleep inside if I want to bring them in if it's raining or cold, but most of the time um they will go back to where their camp is. It's not It's where they keep all their stuff. They call it camp, but I let them stay in my yard. And a lot of the time they'll sleep in
the alleyway, too. So, I'll give them blankets and pillows and provide for them and >> Okay, you can proceed. >> Did you have anything else? You can proceed. >> Okay. Um, we we're talking about the ADU
uh portion of it where I applied for the permit. It was because um it was converted into a mother-in-law suite. And so, >> when was it converted into a mother-in-law suite? >> I'm not quite sure. It was I'll be honest with you, Alexis, and I'm so
sorry to say this to you. I feel like she's been harassing me for a little bit and she keeps coming to my house all the time and asking me to like do things and I'm like, "What do you need me to do?" She said, "I need you to go get a permit." I said, "For what?" She goes, "Well, you have to convert this into an ADU." So, I went down last year and I
applied for it because this is what she told me that I needed to do. she she has been at my house for a very long time and I said, "I don't understand why I need to um apply for this." So, I did. And so, I was like, "Okay, we're going to convert this." And it was after um they had just passed the law to make it
because it was just like a mother-in-law suite or whatever. And she's like, "You have to convert it into an ATU so you can rent it." And so, I went down there to do it. And then after I did it, they said there was impact fees of $55,000. And I said, "Well, I cannot pay the impact fees of $55,000. So, I don't
understand why I have to have a permit to do this. And so, that this is when I abandoned the permit because I couldn't pay the impact fees. I have a unit that's on my property which I'm allowed to use because it's mine and nobody lives there, but it's my space. I'm
allowed to use it for whatever I want to. It's not rented. She saw her rent sign and she said that she saw it, but that is for the inside of my regular home. Doesn't mean that it's for the unit. I tried to rent it at one point. She
told me I wasn't allowed. >> When did you try to rent it? >> There was a lady I let live there and >> it was last year. >> So about the same time that you were telling you just told me that she told you you had you had to have an ADU and you didn't understand why. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Excuse me. The beginning of this year.
We're in 2025. Okay. Okay. So, um I I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to do it. She said you can't have anybody living there. I said, "You have to leave." I had to evict the lady because she wouldn't leave because >> So again, so that I understand what you're telling me because I'm starting to hear inconsistencies. You told me a
minute ago that in 2024 you applied for a permit because you were told you needed to to make that into an accessory dwelling unit. >> That's correct. >> You just told me that you didn't understand why you couldn't have somebody living there in 2025. >> Well, I didn't know that I had to have a permit to have somebody living there
while I was like doing an ADU. Like I thought like she was making me make it an ADU, but it was still just a mother-in-law suite. So I didn't really understand the difference between the two. It was my space and I was letting somebody live there. And then I had to evict her
based on what she told me I needed to do. And here we are. >> Okay. I'm I'm still I'm trying to understand again the gaps in the testimony because on one hand, you just finished telling me that you didn't think you needed an ADU. you she kept on telling you you needed to have an ADU.
You didn't think you needed to have one in 2024 >> to explain the permit application that I have in front of me. >> Correct. >> But then we get to 2025 and you tell me you were renting it to somebody to explain the for rent sign. But then immediately after that you tell me but I didn't understand why I couldn't rent it
to somebody. Did you not remember the conversations about the ADU? >> There's a difference between ADU and mother-in-law suite. I'm allowed to rent things on my own property. I thought that I had to convert it to an ADU and this is why I went through the process of doing it. But they asked for me to do
driveways and pay impact fees and I thought that that's what I had to do. Just >> understand it. What is the difference between a mother-in-law suite and an accessory dwelling? >> I'm going to let her explain that. >> No, I want but I want to understand your understanding of it. I'm going to ask them their understanding of it, but I want to hear your understanding first. >> I didn't know the difference to be
honest with you. I only did what I >> You just told me there is a difference. >> There is a difference. >> What do you understand that difference to be? The difference is I'm supposed to do an ADU and pay impact fees and have a renters's license which I didn't know that I needed even though I had somebody living there because it was just a
mother-in-law suite and I'm allowed to have people in my property. >> Okay. But you just told me you you told me there's a difference between an accessory dwelling unit and a mother-in-law suite. What is it that you understand that difference to be?
>> To be honest with you, I don't really know the difference. They were telling me that I had I had had something that needed to be different from what I had. I have a mother-in-law suite where I was letting a woman live and they told me that I wasn't allowed to have her live
there unless I converted it to an ADU. So, I applied for the permit. >> So, let me let me understand that's in 2024 that you're talking about. >> Well, yes. So, and you just told me that in 2024 you understood that you could not have somebody living there unless
you had an ADU. >> I'm sorry. Pardon me. They said I had to have an ADU, but I didn't need to have an ADU because I was allowed to have a mother-in-law suite. >> And that's the point that I'm trying to get your understanding of. Why do you keep telling me that? >> Because I abandoned the permit for an ADU because of the impact fee. So, I
didn't think I needed to have that because they wanted me to do different things, but it's still my property so I could rent it. Your argument is based on you are telling me there's a difference between accessory dwelling unit and mother-in-law suite and I'm asking you what is that difference in your
understanding so that I can understand the party's positions in this case. >> If I can be completely honest with you it would just be the city's difference because my home is >> I need to know what your position is. I can't know if there's a difference unless you tell me why you believe that you don't have to have an accessory dwelling unit to have somebody living in
the accessory dwelling. >> Because it's just a mother-in-law suite. >> And what is the difference between a mother-in-law suite and an accessory dwelling unit in your understanding? Why are you telling me there's a difference? What make the argument is what I'm asking you to do. If I was in front of a judge and I told the judge something and the judge said, "Help me understand why
that argument should prevail, Mr. Smith." accessory dwelling unit is supposed to have a driveway and has to be 10 ft on each sides and all these other things that require permits and stuff, but it's already been there since 1982. It's just a mother-in-law suite.
It's just a place where people can go. If I want to go in there, I can go in there. My kids can go in there. I don't really know the difference. So, um, the only thing I can say is she asked me to apply for a permit for an ADU and I did it and I didn't I
couldn't afford to pay for whatever it was, but it's still my property. It's still like it's still something that I own. It's mine. It's been there since 1982. I'm allowed to have people in my space. So, I really just don't know why they wanted me to convert it. I can't pay for
that. Now, if I can just take two steps aside. I'm going to ask planning to come up. And from the city's perspective, is there a difference between mother-in-law suite and accessory dwelling unit? >> So, an accessory dwelling unit is um a
space that is used for living. Um, and from what I'm understanding, she is renting that out. So, it is being used for living. It contains um I don't know what it contains. I'm going to be honest. I don't have any photos of that, but it is a if it is classified as a
dwelling, which means it has a bedroom, a bathroom, kitchen, then it is a dwelling and is considered an accessory dwelling unit and then therefore has to be permitted. I can pull up the exact definition of accessory dwelling unit.
>> Mr. Smith, if I could. >> Yes, m is there a definition in the city code for mother-in-law suite? >> No, sir. So for purposes of the term mother-in-law suite is a common vernacular term that's used it. The city code refers to an accessory structure
being used for living quarters. And it doesn't matter whether it's a mother-in-law or a neighbor or anybody else. And so there is no distinction within the city code between a the word that we've been the phrase that the respondent has been bringing up mother-in-law suite and an accessory
dwelling unit. The city considers them to be the same. a mother to to play the elementary school logic games. The a mother-in-law suite is always an accessory dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit may or may not be a mother-in-law. That's probably
mother-in-law suite is a form of accessory dwelling unit >> and that's consistent with my understanding. >> So before planning leaves, I think I have another one for you. So, you testified that an accessory
dwelling unit has a kitchen. >> One second, please. Just going to pull up so I can give you the exact definition. It's hard when you're working under pressure. It >> always is. I know the feeling.
>> Okay. Um, so a dwelling is a building or portion thereof designed um exclusive for residential occupancy including one family, two family or multif family dwellings. Um, and then it goes on to say that it must include
a self-contained living unit containing sleeping, living, sanitary, and kitchen facilities. >> So, kitchen and sanitary key components here. >> Yes, sir. >> Does the city have any evidence that this dwelling unit that this accessory
structure has kitchen or sanitary facilities? Um, in the, um, folder, I was able to find some information, some pictures when she had posted the property for rent. She charges $1,000.50. >> I think you had those in your presentation. Can you go to those
presentations? >> Um, no, I don't have it here, sir. I didn't include the pictures in the presentation, but they're on the package I attached to your to your for evidence. >> Is it this? >> Correct. The ones that have the pictures. Are you sure you didn't show these in
your presentation? >> No, sir. That was in the other 606 Pennsylvania. >> Yes, sir. >> Very similar. Okay, ma'am. I'm gonna ask you to I'm going to approach you. I'm not going to make you navigate over here. First question I'll ask about ask you about those photographs is do you
recognize what they're photographs of? >> Uh yes sir I do. >> And what are those photographs of >> of the mother-in-law suite that I have? >> And does that contain kitchen and sanitary facilities? >> It has a refrigerator and a sink. So no.
Okay. Does it now moving from beyond the photographs then does that what you're calling a mother-in-law suite does it contain a kitchen? >> It does not. >> Does it contain any cooking appliances? >> It does not. >> Okay. Does it include a bathroom?
>> It has a bathroom? Yes, sir. >> Okay. Is it a What kind of bathroom is it? Is it a full bath or half bath? >> Um, it has a toilet and a sink and a shower. >> Does Does it have a range? >> It does not. >> Does it have an outlet for a range? >> No. Does the city have anything to rebut
that testimony? No. going to moving away from the use of accessory structure into the permitting. What What alterations is it? Is it just the deck itself or are there other
alterations to the deck that code enforcement is presenting to me? No, the deck just was built without permits and inside the So there's no permits on record for even for the accessory structure for electrical, plumbing, uh for the replacement of for the um adding
the sliding door in the front. None of that has permitting. So even if um I don't know if you want to add anything, but there's no permits on record for anything for anything. >> I I see council has something for me. But before we get there, let me while that's fresh while that's fresh in my head, I want to ask the respondent question about what officer Miller just
testified to. Um, Miss Miss Ruffing, there is the the glass door. Is it your testimony today that the glass door installed it on the structure was was prior to your owning the property? >> That's correct. >> And when did you buy the property? >> Uh, actually my um stepfather brought he
bought it and he put it in my name. So, I've owned it, but I've only been there for about five years. >> And when was it put into your name? >> Uh, like I said, five years ago. So, 2019, I think. What? What are we? >> And so that sliding door predates 2019.
>> I have to do the math, but it's there. >> It predates your your ownership. >> As far as I know, sir. Yes. >> This is a critical point for me. So, I need is is your testimony that that screen that that glass door predates
your ownership of the property? >> I am not aware of any alterations or repairs prior to this, but if he made them, then then he did. I I wouldn't have I wouldn't have known. >> Okay. Would those repairs have been made prior to your ownership of the property?
>> Uh I would say yes, possibly. He like I told you, he just put the house in my name. >> Okay. I gave you take two steps to the side. And Mr. Manzeris, you have something to tell me. Well, you asked the question regarding the city having
any information to rebut the testimony related to the the the accessory unit that's out there. And I think Miss Manning has some information that might be relevant to that piece. uh with regard to the uh things
>> before before we get back to the the the accessory unit why I'm asking the line of questioning that I am as to the timing of of any alterations was I'm trying to determine whether or not this
falls into the category of that two-year-old statute I think now where that where the legislature dealt with the the prior owner alterations where if there's not a safety issue and I'm trying to see where this situation fits into that statute because the
legislature has created it's resolved this issue that that some old properties that have old alterations where permit records no longer exist and it's it was unknown whether or not there was never a permit issued or if the permit just was no longer of record anymore. And the legislature dealt with that by saying if
I remember it right that before a certain point that if there were alterations made if there was not a safety issue then there was not clear whether or not there was a permit or not or or when those were those were made that those were not or those fell into a
special category in code enforcement and not into the old categories that we used to take in code enforcement which was don't care if you if you had a permit don't care if you don't care if you owned it when that was done or not. the fact it still has to have a permit and and that has been pulled back a little bit by the legislature. I'm trying to
figure out where this fits in that in that >> well my understanding that intent of the legislation was to go back before there were records related to permitting that deal with some of those older issues where most municipalities didn't have records going back 40 50 years. So the
city has maintained records back from when this property was built which I think the respondent said was about 1985 I think she said. Okay. So, so we the testimony through the code enforcement officer, there is no permit for that deck and that's
already been our testimony. That was a base of temporary. The other point is, and I would ask the respondent, so how long did your stepfather own this house? >> Uh, yeah, I'm sorry. We need to swap you so we can have her on the microphone. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I should know better. >> Um, like I said, I think he originally
purchased it in like 2018 or 2019. He just put it in my name. >> So, I do believe Mr. Smith that >> Well, and we were getting there. That was coming out. I was kind of going the same place because even what I'm thinking that was for a buyer in good, a
bonafide purchaser, commercial purchaser as opposed to this, a property being handed, >> right? And that was part of that was what we were going to. So, that was that point. And if >> planning yes planning >> could address the plans that were submitted with regards to assuming those are the plans that when they filed for
the ADU permit. >> Yes. So I do have the plans that were submitted with the permit for the accessory dwelling unit. Um and it does show um the installation of a 220 vote. Um I don't again the application was
abandoned so she may not have gone through with these actual plans but it does have um the 220 vote which is for the stove as well as looks like a outlet for maybe a dryer as well because there's two 220 votes shown
on the plants. >> Okay. And remind me the code language again for the accessory dwelling unit. Was it cooking facilities or was it a kitchen? How did it create >> cooking facilities? >> Okay. Okay, Miss Ruffing return again.
You heard that issue raised. So, in the in the permit that was submitted in 2024, there was included in that permit the it would have there would have been the installation of the of the range voltage. Was that ever performed?
>> No sir. >> Okay. Because the code is cooking facilities and not kitchen. I would interpret kitchen to mean the range. Is there are there any countertop
normal standard voltage appliances that can be used for cooking in that dwelling unit? >> No sir. >> And it is your testimony to me today that no one is living there. >> No one is living there. >> No one is sleeping in there. Not even not even on a rainy night. Not any way. Not any Not ever.
>> Not ever. It's just used for cover and shelter for the two friends that I found at city hall. Will >> you say is is the accessory dwell or I'm sorry is the the the accessory unit being used for cover and shelter for your two friends?
>> Only if I let them go in there for a mediocre amount of time. They do not live a mediocre amount of time >> an hour at the most. >> They don't use the facility, but they are homeless. So sometimes they have to put food in my refrigerator.
So, they're keeping food in your refrigerator. >> Do they come and go at their leisure? >> No, it's locked. But they >> Do they have a key? >> No. I'm the only person that has a key.
>> Nobody stays there. It's just me. It's mine. >> Do you keep it? Do you ever keep it unlocked? >> I do not. >> Mr. Manis, >> can I see the pictures, please? >> Well, Mr. Smith, we have a couple points on this so we can just clearly understand what we're talking about. And
I think your recent line of question got to where first step is regardless of whether this is per this is an ADU, it's set up with living quarters, people cannot be living in those premises. They cannot be living in front. I frankly think it is a little
unreasonable and somewhat disingenuous to basically say I have people living in my yard. I have a completely built out, as you can see from the pictures, apartment unit with a sha a full shower, refrigerator, sink, a spot for what
looks like a dishwasher and cabinets, sliding glass doors, nice hardwood floors and all that. and individuals are going to be I'm going to let individuals live in my yard. She also testified that at one point she did have it have a tenant in there that she had to evict.
So we do think that there's evidence that this these premises have been used as an unpermitted living accessory living unit and we are going to we she has plenty of time to come in compliance. All you got to do is make sure nobody's living there or go get a permit and then we won't and and we can
address that issue and there won't be any issue with regard to a code violation. Um, but I think these pictures are clear that we that were part of the packet. This is a fairly this is a builtout accessory unit as a what looks like a one-bedroom uh maybe a
studio type of apartment. So, we just want to make sure that she realizes that after the compliance date, if you are to still find she can't have anybody live in there unless she wants to get a permit to permit it as an accessory dwelling unit. I think we're probably approaching
closings here on this one. Miss Ruffing, anything else that you would like me to hear before I roll? Um, if I may, I can have my husband send you pictures of the current state of the ADU, which shows
that no one is living there and there is no stove or anything and no one is inside. There's nothing in there. >> It's not necessary. Okay. So if I could say so the this Zillow repent this Zillow ad that was on these
pictures came from sorry Red Fin. Was that something that you posted? >> Um that was when I had the woman that was living there but then I was told she wasn't allowed to live there and then she squatted there and I had to evict her because the city told me that she wasn't allowed to live there. So I had to pay the money to go down to OciOla
County and evict her to get her out because I didn't know that she wasn't allowed to live there. >> And so Mr. Smith, if I may, we can change our recommendation a little bit if it's okay with you with with um attorney. >> I will I will entertain I will entertain. I would listen. >> All right. So with regard to the unit
structure, I think the testimony is clear that at one point there was an individual living in that thing. She just the respondent just did that. If you are inclined to basically find that as we sit here today property is not >> that actually is what I am inclined to find
>> living that the property was at least in violation in the past. It is in compliance today and if necessary we will bring it back as a repeat violation >> and that actually is going to be my finding. That's exactly where I was was headed on that because I think based on the evidence that's been presented today
I have this refereing testifying to me nobody is living in that unit today. I I do have struggle with the same issues that have been raised throughout this hearing and I would say this. If you have two people that are living in your yard and if at some point of the
day they are allowed to use that unit, it is being used as a living unit. If you are telling me they are residing on your property and that is one of the spaces they use for any portion of the day, that is being used as a living unit. And I do find that that was a violation. I accept your testimony today that it is not going on anymore. The
significance of that though is if it happens again and we have another case about this with the same testimony and the same evidence being presented and I find that you have two people two people living on your property and they're using that whether they're it doesn't matter to me if they spend 23 hours of
the day outside and one day in there. It is being used as a living unit for that portion of the day. It is being used for them to take care of the living aspect of life to keep their to keep I'm ruling now and I don't need to hear more.
They are keeping their food there. They're showering in there. They are using that as a living unit. So the significance of this is I'm not finding you in violation of that anymore. I am finding that you have been
in violation of that. If it happens again though, and if there's another case brought and I find again that it's a now that it's a repeat violation, I can find $500 a day for every day back to the first day it was first observed, the next time, the new time. So, it's
very important to resolve this issue. I also alluded to something else that I that I want you to understand. Inside or outside, your property is a single family property. That means you can't have unrelated people living on the property whether they live indoors or outdoors. That's
not the case code enforcement brought and I am not ruling on that. But I am encouraging you to understand the legalities of what you are doing because it could end up costing you as to the deck. The the fact that it was
passed to you as opposed to you being a bonafide purchaser has resolved the one issue I had on the timing of that. That deck needs a permit. And I'll explain to you why a deck needs a permit. I shouldn't have to explain to anybody who lives in Florida because we all know
that about once a year, we're at least going to have one big storm. We, Knock on wood, we don't get really late when we got really lucky this year. When hurricanes blow through, they have a tendency to lift things up and throw them onto somebody else's property, somebody else's house, somebody else's head. That's part of why Florida has a
very strict permitting process. That deck needs to go through the permitting process to make sure that it is safe for you, safe for anybody who may be on it, and safe for the neighbors to make if wind ever gets up underneath it. Can you understand that?
>> Yeah. Um, my house is on the market for sale because I just got laid off from my job. So, may I request some additional time? You will have to tell any potential purchaser about this code case in the ruling
because they will inherit this order. >> Okay? >> Just like I did. >> A little bit different because you have a duty under the statute that once there is a code case brought until that code violation has been cured and especially once one has been found, you have an
affirmative duty to tell any potential purchaser about that. if you fail to and if the sale closes, they can come back and undo that sale and and impose costs against you for having to do so. So, it is very important to be upfront with purchasers. >> I will. >> Uh so, that is my ruling. I do find that
as to the accessory dwelling unit that based on the evidence testimony presented today, I do not find that as we sit here today, there is any violation. I do find that there was a violation prior that has been cured. uh any future violations may be prosecuted as a repeat violation. As to the lack of
permits for the deck that exist, I do find that that that is a violation of the code. That violation must be cured. Code enforcement has asked for December 12th. I will do the same thing that I did in the other two cases and I will give until January 19th to have permits in hand for that for that deck. And it
may be unlike well unlike the others that the work may not have been finished yet. It could be as simple as after the fact permit inspection and you're done. So, it may not be that complex of a problem for you. And also, unlike the others, you are individual owner. You
potentially could come in for owner builder. I think I can't tell you that for sure, but I suspect that that as individual owner, you could be No, >> I can't do it because they said if I did it, um I couldn't sell my house for one year and my house was on the market. >> That's right. I wasn't thinking about that. And you have the house on the market. I had forgotten that the house was on the market. Thank you for
reminding me. uh will order the re administrative cost of prosecution in the amount of $34248 be paid within I'm sorry I will give until January 19th on that also 2026 uh if the permit violation is not
cured by January 19th 2026 fine of $250 per day like you heard on the other cases will acrew from that point forward. >> Thank you sir. >> Yes ma'am. Reduction of leans under 50,000 case number 2020-218
Progress Orlando LLC owner location of violation 4593 Ballard Trails Drive St. Cloud Florida >> and Mr. Mr. Smith, if we could uh I believe the the one there is a respondent for the last item on the agenda here and and there aren't responders for the other case. So, if
you're okay, we could maybe jump to that one. >> By all means, >> Rick Duon of lean over 50,000 case number 2023-1789. Jamie M. Damo, owner, location of violation 1512 Connecticut Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida.
>> And and thank you, Mr. Smith and Clerk. As a clerk read in, this is a lean that exists in excess of $50,000. It has to do with an abandoned vehicles, accumulation of truck, trash, and debris. Uh the the property was in front
of you in October of 2023, and a compliance state was set on March of 2nd of 2024. The property ultimately came into compliance in September of 2025 with a fine that had accured at $250 a day. Total fine accured to 149
$142,755.70 which includes $255.70 of um uh of administrative costs. Again, this is your review for recommendation to the city council for final approval. Uh the city manager has looked at this and we've discussed it with the city
manager and is entertaining a respon a offer from the respondent representative uh for to reduce the fine to amount of $5,000 pending a payment within uh within 7 days of the approval. I'm
sorry, within 30 days of the approval by the city council. Uh for your information, it's our understanding that the original respondent in this property is deceased, I believe. And uh the respondent that they representative responded is the may have been the sole heir, but at least took possession of
this house, this property from through the estate. >> And then do I also uh appropriately take from that that that is part of the city's reason for as significant a reduction as is being >> Yes, sir. That's exactly the reason for it. And and again, going to be my
question is is this a significant reduction? Why? >> It it is and it's and we we will have to explain that to the city council because they are particularly interested in these kind of cases and and I'm going to mispronounce her name, but Miss Shioini is here and she's I'm sure ready to
address you, but she has signed off on this recogni and that she's okay with the reduction to $5,000. >> And ma'am, you do not have to testify. I I have enough for to rule, but you're welcome to if there's anything you'd
like me to hear. I won't make you if you don't want to because I I have enough to hear to approve what has been requested. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't mind speaking. >> Only if you want to. I don't want to. You've waited this long. I want you to have your turn at the microphone if you want it, but some people would prefer
not to have a turn at the microphone. If you're going to talk, it's been a mess and difficult. So, >> you're good. You're good. Based on what's been explained to me as to the reasoning behind this reduction, I will recommend approval to the city council. December 11th. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Rejection of a lean under 50,000. Case number 2020-218 progress Orlando LLC owner location of violation 4593 Ballard Trails Drive St. Cloud Florida. >> And again, this is another request for
reduction. This one is under 50,000. So, it's entirely within the authority of the special magistrate uh due the original violation on this property was basically an unpermitted fence uh for on the property. It came in front of you on
a well I don't know August 19th, 2020. Were you serving as special magistrate then? >> Yes, I was. >> Okay. Time flies. Uh at uh uh and was set to be cured by August 31st of 2020. The fine accured at $250 a day to a
total of including administrative costs of $37,7140. After discussion with the city manager, the city manager has approved a recommendation to reduce the fine to a total of $9,250 payable in 30 days. And that is the staff's request of you today.
>> And I find that to be a reasonable reduction. So I will approve it. >> Right. Case number 2025-40. Shannon Halas, owner, location of violation, 705 Grape Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. >> And just so you're aware that there are
two cases on this, two lean reduction cases for the same property. So, um, >> did you want to consolidate? >> Might as well. Just so you can have the whole picture. >> Case number 2025-146, Shannon Halas, owner, location violation 705 Great Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida.
>> Right. So, so the first case 20254 is u basically allowing for unmaintained conditions on the property, broken windows, plumbing issues, uh electrical hazards. Uh and it it was presented to
you in March of 2025 with a compliance date of April 18th of 2025 and a set a fine of $250 a day. That property was finally brought into compliance on um May 5th with regard to the accumulation of junk and debris debris in the outside
junk uh storage outside I'm sorry outside the structure and October 20th 25 with regard to the broken windows and maintenance. However, a fine did acrew in the amount of $37,750
for a total of plus administrative cost of $329.70. I may have read that wrong, but the total amount of the fine is $42,329.77. The city manager um uh entertained an offer on this and then has recommended and requests that the fine be reduced to
$4,529.77 payable in 30 days. The other case is similar. However, it had to do with the permitting related to fixing the property which was never obtained. Uh that fine did uh under um acrew to a total of $24,517.77.
Again, the city manager has reviewed this and is seeking a reduction in that amount for case number 2025-146 to $2,692.77. So staff would re and the city requests your approval of the reduction of both of those fines amounts fine amounts the
amount stated >> and I do find both reductions are reasonable as stated and will order them approved as stated in the agreement between city and respondent in both 2025-4 I approved that reduction of lean and in 2025146 I approved that reduction
of lean again as set forth in the agreement with the city with the city and respondent >> thank you and that's all we have >> unfinished Business none. New business none. Next scheduled meeting January 21st, 2026. >> Anything else from city?
>> Nope. >> Thank you, sir.