that on. Okay, that's on. All right. Hey everybody. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Don Wyn. I am a Florida bar licensed attorney specially appointed by the city of Titusville to serve as the magistrate for today's code enforcement hearings. Uh, these public hearings are quasi judicial in nature. While formal rules
of evidence do not apply, fundamental due process will be observed. Everyone with the case today will have the opportunity to present testimony. You may also present evidence or call witnesses to testify on your behalf. Please note that there is no public comment portion during code enforcement
hearings. To speak on a specific case, you must either be the respondent or a witness called to testify. Everything you said today, everything said today will be recorded. All testimony will be given under oath. When you are sworn in, please state your name and provide your current mailing address so we have an
updated record for sending any orders. Um, the city will present its case first. Information will be displayed on the screens and documents may be provided by the city as evidence. The city's PowerPoint presentation will also be entered into evidence unless there are any objections. After all evidence
and testimony have been presented, I will make a ruling. My ruling will be reduced to writing and mail to you. At this time, I'll swear in all witnesses. If you intend to testify for your case, please stand and raise your right hand. Oh, sorry, sir. All right. Um, do you
swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you all. You may all be seated. Uh let's go ahead and go to the approval of last month's minutes. I have them here in front of me. I've reviewed them.
I discussed it with my partner, Mr. Fong, who I did. So, I'll go ahead and mo motion to uh approve those minutes. And we'll go ahead and move to the first uh uh item on the agenda, which is the lean reduction hearings. Uh so, the
first case is 24-93. Um the owner is DWB Developers, Inc. So, the original magistrate uh case number was 24-93. Um, this is the lean reduction request hearing. Our applicant and current owner
is DWB Development, Inc. Uh, our mailing address, 846 North Coco Boulevard, Sweet C, Coco, Florida. And that's for our um owner. The violation address is uh
tax ID 221 810 0 on uh Louisiana Street. And the original violation was subsection 302.4 4 for overgrowth. So, the case was originally heard
September 9th, 2024. The respondent did not attend the meeting. Uh, the respondents were given until October October 12, 2024 to correct the violations. And if compliance was not achieved, a finely amount of $100 per day,
commencing October 13, 2024, and continuing daily until the violations were corrected. administrative cost in the amount of $198.974. Massie hearing was rescheduled and held on December 9th, 2024.
Again, the respondent um did not attend the meeting. Uh the city uh I rep presented uh testimony that they had failed to correct the violation on or before the October 12th, 2024 deadline
and that at the time of the December 9th hearing that the violation was still occurring and the fine amount of $100 per day uh was started October 13, 2024 and the administrative costs were imposed.
So on March 25th, 2025, uh the property achieves compliance uh verified by myself and the total acred daily fine was $16,400 with the administrative cost being $198.97.
On May 19th, 2025, the code enforcement department received the Delpret is here um to speak on behalf of the owners. So, this is the property appraiser information uh for
uh the property on Louisiana. Uh it is a vacant lot uh on Louisiana Street. The rest of the lots in the subdivision have been uh built on. This was the photo from the uh Massie
hearing taken uh December 4th. from the Massie hearing presentation again and this was from July 1st when I went out to get pictures for um today's hearing. Um the property um since March
has been maintained um and the owner has stayed in contact with code enforcement. So, as of December 9th, 2024, uh the property is found to um be in violation and a fine was imposed on March 2025,
2025. Compliance was achieved and an application for the lean reduction was received on May 19th of this year. Uh the respondent is requesting a reduction in the amount of $16,000.
and Mr. Delpret is here. How are you, sir? Thank you. Um the property was purchased on um October 20th of uh 2023
and um we moved our office on January 1st of 2024. Subsequently, all the notices to get the um
um the grass cut wasn't delivered to us. And actually just today I found out from uh um your code enforcement agent that the uh the property that our office address our
mailing address is still not changed in the uh Bard County tax records. So I I I didn't get the u the um the notices and then somehow they contacted the
agent who happens to be a partner. Uh we weren't in compliance and that's when we started taking care of it, you know, in a much better way. So, um, since I've known that the neighbors and the
community is has been upset over the overgrowth, I've been trying to be as good of a neighbor as I possibly can. Uh we even have the uh the concrete edged and uh I have a contract with a landscaping service that goes out there
every other week and I had a put down on the uh on the area so it wouldn't grow that fast and uh um that's basically what I say. Um $16,000 seems
it it would devastate us. So yeah, I I I don't know what else to say. Um it's uh Mr. Delret. Yes, I'm pronouncing that correctly. Um what is your mailing address now? Well, I I would appreciate that you send
it to my home mailing address this way. Um have you given that to officer May? No, I'll give it to her now. Can you can you go ahead and provide it for the record? Yeah, you'll get immediate response if you send it to my home mailing. You want it now? Yes. Yeah. 4801
Durango. That's D U R A N G O place. That's West Melbourne 32904. And I assure you any correspondence there will be immediately addressed. I
think uh the code enforcement agency uh agent could attest that I been very compliant in trying to Right. You know, be as as as cooperative as possible. You you said you did find out eventually
because of the was it the registered agent that let you know? Registered agent let me know. And what is his name? Uh Travius Williams. Is he the owner of the Sauter Satar Corporation? Right. That's correct. And you say they are also owners of DWB?
Well, he's a partial owner of DWB. Uh the whole idea is uh we're currently trying to buy they're contractors and and and real estate agent and uh we have a little corporation where we try to buy some
land and try to eventually build on it. This piece of land happens to be very um nice and I may consider it for a personal residence. So I really don't want to get the people there upset. I don't want to, you know, them to be mad
at me before I even move there. Did you have something you wanted to add, officer? Yes, sir. I just wanted to ensure that proper notice and mailings were done by the code enforcement department at all times. Right. And I just want that to be
where so in the documents that you provided me, uh, Officer May, I see you have two addresses notated there. Um, are those the uh office I'm sorry, are those the mailing addresses notated on the property appraisers website and I would imagine on Sunday biz as well for the
corporation. Uh, correct. So the Coco address is the listed owners information from Bavar County Property Appraiser. Yeah, I see that. And the 6905 North Wickham, that's the address I found listed for Sultter Corporation.
Yeah. That's what is listed on Sunbiz as the uh uh office mailing address and the registered agent address for DWB on Sunbiz with your last annual report filed in April of 2024, which would have been after you guys moved. So, you know,
you updated with the state that the 6905 North Wickham is your address. Um, now that being said, I do I I do believe everything you've said here today. I do believe had you personally known ahead
of time, you would have taken action to remedy it quicker than it was done. The issue is you alone are not DWB. DWB is multiple people apparently and apparently the notice was properly sent to those addresses that they had on
record. Um, and so that's I mean that's unfortunate what you're saying. Um the the the address on Wickcham when was that when according to the annual report on Sunbiz which is you know the secretary of state
for the state of Florida uh it was last updated in April of 2024 and that was the address was given for DWB. So, you know, as far as code enforcement can tell, that's the correct mailing address, right? And and according to you, you're, you know, so tired. I believe the I believe the addresses
were going the letters were going to Coco. I see uh in this document you gave me, were were notices also get being sent to that uh 6905 Wickham? Yes. Yeah. Find a copy of the notice of violation
for you. There's no structure, right? Is completely in it was just a vacant lot of land. Correct. That's correct. Yes. Okay. So, this is how Guess I don't have a copy of the original a
violation, but I have the certified letter that was returned. Mr. Delprat, do you know how your partner came to find out about these notices? And when did he inform you? I was
I believe I was informed in the early part of this year. I I'm not sure what month. Mhm. Um see the first two letters here even in December of
one is December of um 24 and the other one is yeah both of them in December of 24. They're they're at the sent to the wrong address and then they were returned. Wrong address as in what address? Uh 864
Coco Boulevard. 864 or 846. 846. Okay. Sorry. All right. Good. One is the wrong address. One is an old address. Right. So, apologize. I thought I had put a copy. Okay. That's fine. Um this is how the notice,
right? So, and that's how it was mailed out. Yeah. The issue is the, you know, the the city can only send the mail to addresses that are available on record. And if you don't have it updated on the tax records or property appraiser or on
the secretary of state's website, there's no there's not much more information that the state or I'm sorry, the city is able to go with. Um, so unfortunately, excuse me, unfortunately in the with other properties. Mhm. Let me let me just continue. So I I I'm
I'm saying this to say I'm not so much uh moved by the oh you know we didn't receive proper notice via mail argument. I'd be more concerned because there's other factors we can consider when it comes to like reducing a lean. So one of them is the gravity of the violation and obviously I know you know there's no
structure involved. You're not talking about an immediate danger. One of the other ones that we can take into account is uh um because you solely individually are not the owner. It's the corporation. So, I'm trying to separate the fact that I feel like the corporation knew or should have known earlier. I'm talking about you cuz you're here today. So, how
soon after you personally found out? Did you actually take care of it? I took care of it immediately. I I mean uh I believe when I was first uh contacted, you're listening, right? Yeah. But Mr. Wright, uh I I took care of it the next
day. We we got the the property cleaned up and then since then I've gotten a lawn company to cut it um every other week and we put down a retardant
to slow the growth down so it you know and I I try to keep it as nice you know if it was my own house you know curb is at you know the sidewalk is edged and everything uh people in the neighborhood would be uh fine walking
past it, you know. Right. Officer Wright, is that accurate as far as you has he been responsive and, you know, kept in contact with you as he's been doing these uh more corrective actions and maintain in March. He he's been on it. It's been
maintained. I haven't had it come into violation since that point. I think the strongest determining factor for me in making a decision though is the uh um the amount of the enforcement lean compared to the market value of the property. I don't think I saw any information as regard the market value, but I can't imagine. Well, I would
imagine 16,000 is significant proportion to the value 4,000 for the property. What is it? I paid 34,000 for the property. Do we have the uh um what is the value here on the market value?
Okay. 103. The appraised value, you mean? Well, the appraised market value, I'd say. Okay. Um, do you have any other financial hardships or any other factors you'd like me to consider in making a decision?
I $16,000. I don't know. I'd just have to probably uh give up the piece of land, but you know, I can't couldn't possibly afford that. No, I understand. You know, I I I cons, you know, a fine
would be re, you know, a reasonable fine. I could understand that, you know, but uh when we're talking in thousands and stuff like that, it I mean, I do think that there is uh I do think a fine is appropriate. I'm not going to be reducing it by 16,000. I
will be reducing it. I'm trying to articulate and hopefully reach a number that I feel is reasonable. I mean, the fact of the matter is I do think that notice was properly sent. And it sounds like you probably need to talk to your partners about the mailing addresses and
the lines of communication when like significant or you know serious legal notices are coming through. So there's not a lag time. If you're the one that's going to be handling these things, you know, they need to know that to the extent those come in, they need to give it to you immediately. Right. That's why I offered you your my uh Of course. Of course. But you'll have to
also make sure that those are properly reflected in all the other records as well, right? Um so I do think a fine is appropriate. Um I'm just trying to think, you know, how much of reduction I feel is fair. I don't know if the city has anything else or otherwise I'm just going to pick a
number. No, sir. All right. Okay. Um, so I reviewed the lean reduction application and the city code provision that is applicable and I've considered documentary evidence
including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff and the respondent. Um, in making my ruling uh I am considering the factors uh that are set forth in city code 31-71.
Specifically, I am paying most attention to the gravity of the violation being that there is no immediate uh harm, no structure, anything falling apart, anything quite like that. No immediate danger to anyone. Uh but most importantly, the uh amount of the enforcement lean compared to the market value of the property. Um I'm less uh uh
I'm less influenced by the notice aspect because I think due notice was provided. Um how however I will recommend that the city council reduce this lean to um reduce this lean to $3,000 uh based upon the factors outlined above. In addition to the lean amount,
the lean will include uh uh will be I'm sorry, the cost incurred by the city will be added to that amount which is $198.97. Altogether it would be $3,198.97. It is so ordered. Um, you will receive a
written order from today's hearing which will just be a recommendation to the city council. You'll have notice and opportunity to city to attend the city council meeting where the recommendation will be considered. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Will will those be mailed to uh record
or I I I think we have to continue sending it to the Sunbiz address. May I mean we if he's been told we would provide the copy but I think it's imperative that we continue on with proper service with the other
of course. Yeah. Yeah. So to the extent that the clerk needs to add this 4801 Durango, please ensure that it is added um for the mailing list for him. Okay, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. I believe that is 25- I'm
sorry, we're we're done with the lean reduction hearings. So we'll move on to the Massie hearings. The first of which is 25-27. And uh, Officer Flanigan, I'll let you take it away. Oh, yes, sir. For this case, I have a
notice of hearing for you. Thank you, officer. Go ahead. Good. Again, the address is 1435 Brook Drive. Uh, and the only violation at the time that we're coming back to is the roof and drainage. Uh, notice of hearing and everything was
posted at city hall on June 30th and certified and signed I'm sorry, certified mail on June 11th and signed for on they signed that should be no that it was signed for, but I apologize. It's on the affidavit. They travel through time.
Uh, this case was originally heard on March 10th. The respondent was found in violation and given till noon on April 11th, 2025 on a at April at the April 14th, 2025 Massie hearing. The respondent was here and if you remember correctly, sir, this was the issue with
the mailing sent to the name is familiar, but I don't remember. Yeah, the mail the mailings apparently were there was an issue with the mailings. They weren't going to the proper place and it was a vacant house at the time and he didn't have the proper address. Uh, and at the time we
agreed to extend the violation for 60 days. And if he didn't comply and have the roof finalized by um June, I believe it was June 14th. Um, right. The fines would be retro back to April 11th. Okay.
Um, as of today, the roof is still in not in compliance. He has put some shingles on, but it hasn't been done and complete as of yet. Um, here are the original pictures back in July 29 that we presented.
And that was back in February. That was April just before the meeting if you remember correctly. And here's June of 25. You can see you did start the roof um couple weeks ago. And as I went by today to check for compliance or not, it's still not complete and still
hasn't the permit hasn't been signed off and approved. Should be noted that the permit was not issued until the day that you were given him given him to comply and that was in June. Um and again the property hasn't been put in compliance
as of today. It's still in violation. So recommend I guess the recommendation would be to sorry have the respondent pay the amount retro back to April 11, 2025 for the $100 today and continue
until he corrects the violation and he is not here today. We resolved all the mailing issues, right? Oh, he you said he signed for this one. He signed for it. We sent it to the Bara address like he requested. Um, and he made contact saying that he was going to be here and have no idea why he's not.
Have you had contact with him otherwise during the inspe scheduling inspections? Anything reached? No. What date did you say he filed for the uh permit? I applied for the June. Uh, I apologize. I thought it was should be in there. It was like June.
No, there you go. No, that was that's um it was the Friday before the gotcha last hearing and we're sure he's not out in the hallway or anything. No, he's not out there. All right. Well, makes my job kind of
easy. All right. I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and the respondent did not appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at 1435 Brook Drive in Titusville, Florida,
32780 remains in violation. Um, let me see. Get the exact violations that are going on. It's just a roof permit, right? Yeah. Yeah. Um
specifically, uh uh the respondent is still in violation of city code 6-109 2018 IMPC section 304.7. Um no repairs or corrections have been made pursuant to the order uh entered
previously and the property is not in compliance um as of today. Therefore, I find that the city has established a continuing violation of the offers of provisions. Accordingly, a fine of $100 per day is imposed uh commencing on
April 11th or April 12th. April, the order that I entered says retroactive to April 12th. For your recommendation says April 11th. Let me see. They were supposed to have compliance originally by April 11th, but my uh
order from uh uh the April hearing said uh April it'll be retroactive to April 12th. Correct. All right. All right. Sorry. So, a fine of $100 per day is imposed commencing April 12th, 2025 and continuing daily until the violations are corrected. The
co additionally the cost of $251.80 80 cents has not been paid. Uh a certified copy of this order will be recorded in the public records constituting a lean on the subject property. The respondent is required to notify code enforcement once the property is brought into compliance so
that code enforcement can verify and confirm. Excuse. Yes, sir. The the costs have been paid. Oh, they have been paid. Yes, sir. All right, let me fix that. So, the costs have been paid and will not be added to the subject lane. Sorry about that.
Oh, okay. I see that have been made. All right. Thanks for catching that. Okay. The next item on the agenda is also a Massie hearing. This one is for Robert Kirk. Uh 25-33. I'm sorry. Robert Kirk and Crystal Kirk Cook.
So I have two items to submit. Uh the first is the affidavit for the notice of hearing for today's Massie hearing and the second is a copy of the um
cost of recovery. Give me one second. So once again, this is the Massie hearing, the second Massie hearing on case 25-33. Uh respondents Robert C. Kirk and Crystal Kirk Cook. Uh Mr. Cook is here
today. Our violation address and mailing address are the same, 925 Cleveland Street in Titusville, Florida. Um we have hearing is uh for code violation subsection 304.14
and that's for windows. So the notice of today's hearing was posted at city hall and on the property on July 1st, 2025. certified and first class mail was sent July or June 11th and the certified
letter was signed for June 14th of this year. So again, this case was originally heard March 10th, 2025. The respondent was present and um provided testimony. Uh the respondent was found to be in
violation of the stated codes uh and specifically um to correct section 30414 hon or before noon of July 11th, 2025. Um or a fine in the amount of $100 per
day per violation commencing uh July 12th would be issued in the administrative costs in the amount of 21658 were imposed. So, the original Massie hearing was heard uh June 9th. The respondent did
not attend. Uh reinspection took place July 11th around 12:45 p.m. Um the property still remained in violation. There had been no permits pulled through the building department for the replacement of windows and the windows on the house
were found to be damaged and or boarded. Um, I did speak to Mr. Kirk um on the phone um that same afternoon and got permission to take pictures on the property and we did discuss today's hearing and the status of the repairs.
So, these are the uh photos taken uh or from the initial hearing presentation. We've got uh I'm sorry. So, these are windows along the front of the house. These are along the south side of the house.
Uh, this is on the front again. And the backyard. So, these are my uh photos taken July 11th. Um, so we've got the two windows on the south side are still boarded. Uh, two more bedroom windows still
remain boarded and damaged. Uh, two more windows on the front of the house um on the living room and then um are damaged. They're broke. They're not boarded, but the glazing is broken.
And then on the back of the house, we do have a damaged window. So conclusion of fact for 30414 um multiple windows still remain um inoperable or damaged and no work has
started to um correct that violation. We're just here today on the 30414 not for the degree. All right. Correct. Uh 1223 was found to be in um violation at last um last month's um hearing and the $100 a day
uh was imposed at that time. Okay. Right. Mr. Kirk, how are you? You you may stay seated. I think you I think we spoke. Okay. Like she said, that first notice is March 25th.
To all fairness. Okay. My aunt was Jessica. She was murdered March 4th. My brain was scrambled. Okay. I'm trying to make excuses. Okay. But and my situation, I've been very ill, very,
very ill. I also told you when I was here before that I'll either have them fixed and be in the process of doing that or I will bring a buyer with me that's going to put a contract together. Well, me and
him been going back and forth for the last 60 days. We finally came to conclusion last week because I dropped my price another $10,000 on the house. I'm going to sell I'm going to Alabama where my grandkids are. I don't even I
was born in Titusville 1961 and after what's happened to my aunt, I don't even want to be here. I'm just sick to my stomach, you know, and the way everything's but you know, I didn't get enough time when I was in here talking to you before. I should
have got more time and and I was I was justified that I really was. But, you know, uh and I'm new at this. I don't you know, I've never been situation like this before, but u Mr. Fry can tell you
that we have come to an agreement uh and the house, you know, contract is being drawn up and we think we think we'll have me on the way to Alabama in 30 to 40 days and he's taking it the way it is. There's a couple renters in the
house. Most of them are gone, but there's a couple renters in the house. He's going to deal with that. That's all being taken care of. And And like I explained to you before when I was here, I got in over my head, I, you know, have one section of my house
and that's that can be a horror show if you don't do it right. There is people who do it are very successful at it. They get a good return on their investment, but I wasn't one of those. I did get a few good ones. I had one man for nine years and uh he was good and
ex-marine core guy kept everything clean and nice but and just like last week when I called him up you know I talked to her on the phone standing that everything in the backyard was cleaned up was nice and then I had one of the
guys because I don't get around good you know I have to get around with a cane and stuff or a wheelchair and uh he brought pictures back to me and showed me and that's when I made up my mind. That's when I got him on the phone. I said, "Hey," I says, "Let's make it happen." I said, "I've got to go Monday
back in front of the majesty and uh I I'm done with it. I'm over and they're they're all upset with me right now because they don't know where they're going to go, but I don't really give a damn." I said, "You know, you should have done more and stuff." So,
you know, and the only sad part about it is a couple of them are good. and they could pay their bills and do what they're supposed to. But I I can't worry about that, you know. But I'm just what I'm asking you if you give us extended
60 days and he, you know, because soon as he takes it, they're gutting it. They're rolling in there with a container and that's what they do. That's, you know, and they have to work fast because, you know, they use barred
money and they have to get done and get them get them flipped. You know, that's what they are. And he's got a track record of doing several throughout the county. And it's him him and his sister. His sister Ashley, she would have been here today. She was giving birth to a
new baby. And the uh sister works for Adam's Homes also, and they have this little side business of flipping homes. But you know, that's that's that's all I'm asking, you know, just you know, give me
one more extension. She's been real great to work with. Uh she's the one that brought the officer to my house when she saw what I was going through and helped me get some of the mess cleaned up. Uh three of them that was in
my house ended up in uh the Wayne Ivy Lodge, you know, and that's where they're at right now. But just like I said, I learned a lot about that time. You know, um if I was to ever do
anything like that again, I would give it to a professional real estate company that handles all that type of stuff. And I wouldn't do it myself, you know. But that's basically all I had to say,
you know. Officer Wright, does the do the windows or anything appear in any better condition than they were 90 days ago when we when we met here for this? No, sir. They're in the same condition. Are there any Is this the type of work that requires a permit or
if they're replacing the glaz, right? Yeah. Um it would not require a permit, but um if you're replacing multiple windows on a house, then yes, the the permit is required. He's going to get it. I understand all that and I I hear what
you're saying and and you know the issue is this is this sort of Massie hearing. All I'm here to do is determine whether or not the violation still exists. Um we're not here to relitigate whether you needed more time as of you know last
April. You know we gave you 90 days at that time. Um and you know for the which was an extended period beyond what was already granted for the other violations. And so, um, I can't go back now and say, you know, uh, uh, we're going to give you more time because this is simply a yes or no question. Does the
violation, which we gave you 90 days to fix, is it still in violation? And it appears that it's still in the same condition as it was before. Listen, I was on the phone to Clay and I was going to and I've even told her,
Clay at Coastal Glass and Window, okay? and you call his phone number right now any work for this month and next month because they're over booked. Okay. So, and so I went to uh Home Depot and
Lowe's and I could get military discount there and the windows that are in my house are standard. Don't take no special order or nothing but you know sometimes they have them, sometimes they own you. Sometimes you got to wait on a
truck and uh so you know then that's when me and him got more serious in our negotiating. Uh and then I really wasn't sure if I was going to uh have the guys that I needed to help put them in. Uh I
was kind of wishy-washy there and so you know that that's where we're at. We could if I could just get you know I mean me and him were just talking we think he'll have me done in 30 to 40
days I can get that y'all see me no more I'll be but it's not about you Mr. occur. It's nothing personal against you. Even if you were to for instance sell it and the closing occur within 30 40 days, that doesn't fix the violation in and of
itself. Then we have a situation where whether it be this gentleman or some other buyer coming saying, "Oh, we bought it in this condition. We need 60 days to fix it, right?" And so I I understand what you're saying. Um but again, my charge
here today is just whether or not it's still in violation. That's all there is. Okay. Let me ask you this. Would you be okay? Me and him were just talking about uh the six windows that are bad. Okay. And we went ahead and got started on those, pulled the permit, got started on
those and started replacing those till we got the closing done. I mean, you know, to to satisfy y'all, you know, she'll tell you I call her when the grass gets mowed. I call her, you know, every time we do something positive, I call her and I let her know. It's I'm
not a person that you know, it's just out to do something wrong. Now, do I have a couple people in my house that, you know, does stuff like, you know, stuff that was piled on the porch last week. The porch was perfectly clean and it was pressure washed and the front of the house was getting ready to be
painted, you know, and they went and did that to me, you know, when I got up and I saw it, I just, oh, and then I didn't know there was stuff still in the backyard. We hauled a bunch of stuff out of the backyard and But again, the the the issue that you're you're you're
you're putting us in is now you're saying wait till after I sell and then we have to hold another this exact same hearing with the new owner. And so that's but whereas if we get to that date, do you want us to go ahead and get started since the windows?
Well, I would recommend you get started immediately, but the windows is is you know the deal breaker here. So if you want us to get started on them windows, we will. The short answer is yes. If the windows are repaired, you call me. I come out and do an inspection, verify that it's in
compliance, we put that violation in compliance on that date. Yeah. Okay. All right. would be noted with with a potential new buyer here to know that there are already $3,700 in fine acrewed
from the original hearing as well as $216.58 in cost of the city and this would be time to know come and know now as opposed to coming in hearing saying I didn't know right and I think that's a good point so
if you or you know another sub a different buyer uh comes and you know you get the title work you will see that there is a lean already on the property for other code enforcement violations. Now for this one it will start acrewing um
commencing on July 12th. Um but to the extent you can get it done immediately that might just be minimal. Right. So um what is that other one that you say that's against it right now? What is that first one for trash junk and debris?
Okay. It's still ongoing. How much? I was per day or it was $100 per day. $100 per day. And that started on June the 7 and you're currently up to 3,700 or 37
or 37 days currently. So, um, okay. Thank you all. Um, I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and the respondent did appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at 925 Cleveland Street, Titusville,
Florida, 32780, remains in violation. Specifically, um the windows 304.14 have not been fixed and the property is not in compliance with the previous order dated April uh 14, 2025.
Therefore, I find that the city has established a continuing violation of um the efforts at section uh 304.14. Accordingly, a fine of $100 per day is imposed, commencing on July 12th, 2025, continuing daily until the violations
are corrected. Additionally, the cost of sorry, you gave it to me. What are the cost? 58. 21658. 21658
uh has not been paid. So certified copy of this order will be recorded in the public records constituting a lean on the subject property. The respondent is required to notify code enforcement once the property is brought into compliance so that code enforcement can verify and confirm. So Mr. Kirk as soon as you get
that done that clock stops ticking and that lean is less I went here in June and she knows this and I asked her did I have to come because she came in the house came back to my bedroom and saw how sick I was. Okay. Otherwise I would have been here. Okay. I don't play that game. If I'm in
trouble and I need to face it, I go to it. I've been here since 1961. My family has a very good reputation. Okay? And you know, so I I don't I do not play that game. And so I think you need to reconsider because she did not tell me
that I was going to have a fine recurring every day, every day, every day. That and now he's telling me $3,700 something dollars. That's not right. That's totally not right. You know, I said I couldn't be here and she knew I and I asked her I asked her point blank.
I said, "Look, you know, I said, you know, again, it should be noted that Mr. Kirk was president when you made that initial ruling." Yeah. And it was beholden of him to return or have some representative in his behalf.
And Mr. Kirk, yes, we did postpone it additional 30 days as it was, right? But you also said sir if you go back and check the notes okay you need additional time because you know we even said that at the time but right now we're talking about the
windows and everything like that and what we're talking about is and something that's and again I've already ruled but the issue is that no efforts have been made. Huh? No efforts have been made. It's in the same condition as it was three months ago. No permits have been pulled. No
evidence to show that you've made any such efforts. So we're going to check on the permits. told me where it's at. And again, I've never had to do this before. Okay. Well, we'll get busy. We'll get busy. Thank you, sir. Getting it done as quick as we can.
All right. Thank you, sir. All right, move on. I think that concludes the Massie hearings. Oh, it's just simple matter. Is it still in violation or not? Anyway, now we're
on to u there's no continued hearing. So, now we're on the initial hearings portion. Um, the first matter is 25-68 and this is for the owner, uh, Ratliff. You go. And I have three items for you, sir. The
notice of violation affidavit, notice of hearing vi affidavit, and the cost recovery for $216.50. Thank you, officer. Uh again, this is 160 Park Lane for junk and debris. Oops. There we go. Uh the
initial inspection was on March 19th, 2025. Violation was posted on the property was given till April 3rd, 2025. The correct violation, it was mailed to as well on March 20th. certified in first class that it was posted on the property in city hall on
June 30th. On March 19th, 2025, u observed several debris items in the front yard after receiving a complaint. Observe furniture, miscellaneous trash, and other items. I posted a vi notice of violation at that time. Inspection found the property remains in violation for
the junk and debris. There's been no contact with the owner. Uh there's been junk items coming and go. Uh this is the initial violation. back in March uh with the debris in the driveway. Uh and this was a same in the front
yard, different debris, furniture, and items in the front yard. Uh this was the followup back June 30th. Um the washer in the driveway. The vehicle is also inoperative. There's no tag on it. When I walked up the post that I could see it from the back
driveway, um there's another picture of the front yard. There's like a microwave and different furniture items in the front yard. And as of today when I went by, there's still debris and items in the front yard and that junk vehicle. Uh the conclusion
of the fact the property has numerous items of junk and debris in the front yard in violation of city code. Uh the recommended is to remove all the junk and debris from the items and the vehicle as well. Store inside out of view or remove it from the property.
uh ordered a respondent to be assessed the administrative cost of $216.58. If the respondent does not comply by August 8th, it is requested that a fine of $100 per day be imposed each day until the violation is corrected and to contact me for reinspection when it is
done and the respondent is not here today and no contact with the respondent. You said no contact at all. All right. I have accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that respondent Evelyn Louise
Ratliff is the owner of the property with the address 160 Park Lane, Titusville, Florida 32780. Find that all required notices were provided in accordance with chapter 163 Florida statute and city code and notice was met for this hearing based on evidence presented. I find that
violations of section 12.23 23 of the city code which uh is regarding uh junk and debris um exists upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but have either failed or refused to do so. The corrective actions for these
violations is to remove all the junk and debris items from the property or store inside out of view. I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $216.58. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given until August 8th, 2025 to correct the
violations. Respondent shall be responsible for notifying the code enforcement officer of completion of such corrections who shall then confirm the status of the violation. If respondent fails to correct the violation by August 8th, 2025, a fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day until the violation comes into
compliance. Further and future violations of the same section shall be classified as a repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Breard County. It is so ordered. All right. Move on now to me a second.
Looking at 25-70. That's BAF Asset 6 LLC. Again, I have a hearing notice affidavit, violation affidavit, and the cost recovery of the same $216.58 24658.
Okay. 216. All right. Yeah. On this recommendation actually 216 58. All right. Okay. uh ready avenue. This is for a parking
violation. Initial inspection was in February 12th, 2025 and it was given till March 27th to comply. Notice of violation was mailed certified in first class and notice of the hearing was also posted certified and posted at city hall and on the property. Uh received a
complaint reference referring to several vehicles parked on the front yard. I observed four vehicles at the time parked on the front yard in violation of city code. Um after doing the posting and doing the mailings, I received emails from the property management
company um expressing that they had correct the violation, but I would go back and found that there it was still in violation. I received another email last week stating that it was corrected. Um but I informed them I'd still be coming to the viol or to the hearing
today. This is just a quick description of the parking violation. There's no off- streetet parking in front yard, rear yard, sideyards, unless it's driveway or designated parking space or area. Uh these are the vehicles as of the initial violation, parked all over the
front yard. Same thing back in May 27th. Um this was in February. Several vehicles on the front yard. Um this was of June 23rd. This is the one I sent back to the property management company, explained to them that it had
not been corrected. Um, this is tenant occupied. Um, she was under the impression that it was. Um, as of last week, I explained to them that it was um, I'm sorry, since last week, I have not seen any violations on the property, but I explained to them that I would be
still coming to the prop to the magistrate hearing. Like I said, uh the conclusion of the fact that there were vehicles parked on the front yard against city code and the vehicle for the recommendation, the vehicles need to stop parking on the grass and only park in the allowed areas.
Um they'd be ordered to responded of the 216. That was a I don't know why that is, but um does not comply by August 8th, 2025 and a $100 day each day for the violation if it continues. I think
this is going to be more of a finding a fact. I believe the violation has been corrected, but I would go with your recommendation if it's okay for a finding a fact that if it doesn't occur again that they would be notified and the fine would start from then the city would would would recommend
justifying a fact in this matter. Is that usually how you do it for these sort of more like I guess you would say like transient violations that can be remedied but they can come back. Is that usually how you Yes. and and then that would expedite our next time with that property in violation. We can come straight to the
hearing. Okay. As being found as a repeat violation at that time. But but just out of curiosity, so how would that work for officer Flanning and you would just go out there or would you just wait to hear reports say there's parking out there again? I I it's it's close to a main street. So
I do check it at least once or twice a week or if I do get a complaint again and then if they do park on the street the violation would start on the day they they get notified and at that point we would set it for a Massie hearing. Is that what we would do? Well the fines Yeah. basically actually we would bring it back as a
repeat violation. Oh I see. I see. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure I I don't think I've done just a simple finding of fact before. So, let me make sure I I use the correct language. I'm just a robot. I can just read the script.
Um, all right. BAF's not here. No, the registered agent, no one on their behalf is here. Nobody's here. Okay. All right. I've accepted and considered documentary evidence, including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that respondent BAF Asset 6 LLC
is the owner of the property of the address 2765 Liberty Avenue, Titusville, Florida 32780. I find that all Florida statute and city code and notice was met for this hearing based on the evidence presented. I find that uh the property was in violation of section 20-58
um of the city code regarding uh parking regulations. Um specifically vehicles were parked on the grass uh in front and on the side of the of the property. uh
the corrective actions well appears to be corrected as of the time of this hearing. Um to the extent that any future violations occur, uh we'll just How would you word that part? Actually,
if you would, sir, that the violation was corrected as of this meeting and from here forward any future violations would constitute a repeat violation. Got it. To be brought back in front of this hearing.
Got it. All right. So as of the date of this hearing uh in the any future violations will be brought back uh before this uh special magistrate for repeat uh violation hearing. Um additionally I find that the city has
incurred costs in the amount of $216.58. Um such amount shall be included with the order. Um that's it really right. They have to have pay the cost. Okay. Further and future violation of this future hearing uh before this magistrate certified
order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. Sorry about that. Thanks for handholding me through that. Thank you, sir. All right. Okay. We are at 25-71.
George Raymond Donald or don't know Donald Senior Trust me to have them speak first. Okay. All right. So, I have uh three items to for submitt. The first is the notice of
violation and affidavit. The second is the notice of hearing and affidavit. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of $12853. Thank you. So once again, this is the initial
hearing for case 25-71. Our respondent is George Raymond Donald Jr. Trust. The violation address is 8251 Windover Way in Titusville, Florida. And our mailing address is 70. So there's uh four
violations right now. It's section 6-109 of the pro international property maintenance code subsection 20 uh sorry 302.7 for accessory structures 304.1 for general exterior
uh 301.3 is vacant structures and land and 305.1 uh general interior maintenance. So the initial inspection was completed January 31st of 2025. A copy of the
notice of violation was handd delivered to apply was April 30th, 2025. Certified in first class mail was sent to the respondent on January 31st, 2025 with the return receipt being signed on
February 6, 2025. Uh today's hearing notice was mailed uh certified in first class on June 11, 2025 and the certified copy was signed for on June 14th of 2025. So a little bit of background uh one of
the buildings on this 2024. I reviewed building department files in um January of this year. found no permits issued for the rehab of the structures nor um for removal of the damaged structures.
Um I contacted the owner and um scheduled a on-site meeting with George Donald Jr. Uh we did meet at the property. We walked the property um all three buildings. Um there's three buildings and two fuel canopy islands.
So, all structures show signs of um deterioration um to the exterior walls and roofs. Um we've got um signs of vagrant activity, people entering the property or going
onto the property, uh graffiti, trash, things of that nature. Um again, photos were taken for the file and the notice of violation sent. So, I've stayed in contact with George uh Donald Jr. on this property, tracking the
progress and and what we can do with the property. Um, currently all the violations remain active on the property. Um, we um the Donalds do mow the property and try to pick up grass on a or trash on a
regular basis. It's just an ongoing problem on the site. So, just to give you an eagle view photo of the um property, it is outlined there in blue. Um this was an old truck stop.
Um so, we have three buildings and two fuel canopies. So, this is a picture of the two fuel canopies on the property. Um they continue to be vandalized and broken into. Um and then the canopy structures
themselves um they're old metal canopies, signs of leaking and deterioration. So this is the first of three buildings. This is the old um convenience store. This is the um restaurant bar that was
damaged by fire in April of 2024. And this is the third building. It's uh it was intended to be um a strip center. So our conclusion of facts. Um so for the accessory structure, this is dealing with the fuel um islands specifically.
They continue to be damaged by vagrants and um graffiti. Um our general exterior maintenance for all three buildings. All all the buildings have damaged to roofs and exterior walls. The elements do
enter into the interior of the building. for uh vacant structures and lands. Um the buildings are in insufficiently secured against entry. Um the prop basis for um by vagrants and then for general
interior maintenance due to the damage of the roofs and walls of the buildings, the interior of each building um are unsanitary. So, we're requesting that the order uh the respondents be ordered to correct
the violations on or before noon of September 5th, 2025. Um we are requesting that um permits are pulled to either bring um the all the structures into um m to do maintenance
on the buildings and bring them into a habitable condition or to remove them from the property. And if the respondent does not comply by September 5th, 2025, we are asking for $100 per day per violation be imposed.
And we are asking that administrative costs in the amount of $12853 um are imposed and to contact code enforcement when the violations are corrected. Thank you. And this is Mr. Mrs. Donald.
All right. Um, I have a stack of papers for you. I'm sorry. What is your name, ma'am? I am Julie Donald. I am George Senior's daughter-in-law. Are you the trustee of the trust or? He has just signed a POA. Okay. Which I'm going to hand you a copy of.
Or here, I'll just give you all of it. He's given me a POA to come and speak. His health is terrible. He's got COPD. He's lucky to make it to the bathroom. And he was really just not Um, no. Those are all copies that I made for you.
I made sure that Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. But, um, as she has stated, yes, the buildings are old, tired, and an ugly mess. We understand that they need torn
down. My father-in-law is a very proud, very private, and very stubborn man. He has just with at the beginning of May handling all the things that are going on and has asked
for that. So now I'm trying to play catchup and find out and do everything that I can to help him out. Um I'm flipping through my papers. As far as the fire is concerned,
kind of upset. It was a five alarm fire and nobody notified him that his building was on fire. He found out when he went to drive by to check on the property later. Um, so as far as the code enforcement and um
getting everything removed, it was kind of misunderstood that if it was under a contract that that would halt the proceedings, but apparently that is not so. It is under contract. It is under contract as is, but I've learned a lot
since he's asked me to help in the last month. Um, so I've given you a copy of the contract and everything else. There's also an EPA issue that's been ongoing with it. The map that's in there in color is an
old map. I've given them permission. We're in the process of scheduling a July 29th uh date for them to come out and do soil sample testing again because apparently there was supposed to be a a cleanup project out there starting back in the
'9s. And I don't I'm just trying to again play catchup and see where we are. So we they have to get new soil samples, get a new report and a new plan. I want to make sure that whatever
contamination they might find out there. Um, since getting the code stuff and asking to help, I have gotten at least four bids and I have another one that should be sending me a bid on email as we speak.
We have spoken with my father-in-law extensively and we think we have him talked into getting some kind of financing to cover the demolition of the of the buildings because they are oblied on Titusville.
It's 100% agreed. Um it's just a matter of getting him to cooperate. We understand it. He's in very poor health. My husband is an only child and um push comes to shove shove.
He is the sole trustee. So you're So you're the daughter-in-law trying to convince the stubborn father-in-law to do something. Yes. Very much so because he takes all his frustration out on his son and he can't do that to me because I So your husband's like, "I'm not dealing with it. You deal with it." Okay, I got
you. How long has the family owned the the property? He has owned it probably since what, the 80s. Okay. So when it was operational as a truck stop, he was operating it. He built the truck stop. He bought the property vacant. He built it himself.
He's he's it was that was his life. He was that was his castle. He was king having to close it down and let it go and realizing that this the endstage of COPD has taken away all of his, you
know, just losing any of your abilities to do things is so frustrating. and he just he takes it out on everybody. Um my husband has run interference and and tried to save May from him. She's been a godsend and been very sweet.
We've done everything we can to try to help keep Yeah. everything as as in compliant as possible. Um we do understand that the buildings need to come down. Like I said, I'm getting the quotes. Um the sorry I'm looking at the uh purchase
contract and I noticed you said it was ASIS but it very much is not AS is. They have a 120day inspection period plus two additional extension options that can take this out six months. Yes. Yes. I understand that this is a
year-long thing because there's the the due diligence portion and then there's the permitting portion. Are the buyers expecting you to raise the property before the closing? Is that what the expectation is? I don't know.
Prior to the signing of the contract, I explained everything to him with the situation of what's going on with this property. My husband, my son, my father-in-law, my mother-in-law, we're all in on a group phone conversation. But the real estate agent will deny it
all day long. My parents or my in-laws don't remember the conversation at all. My husband and my son remember me saying, "Uh, before this contract is signed, what about all these things here? How are they going to be handled?" And
right, my voice was not heard. Apparently, I needed to scream and jump from the roof. And the reason I asked that is because, you know, and I think you have acknowledged the same as well, is like there's obviously um it's not just that it's an eyesore, it's also a liability,
right? And that's a lot that can happen between now and I guess the final cut off date of all their inspection periods would be November, December time frame. And so there's a lot that can happen between now and then. Exactly. Exactly. And we're we we're very close to having him talked into
getting financing to haveate between the demolition and the EPA folks so that we don't crosscontaminate potentially. You guys deal with that yourselves, but it it would be challenging for you to get financing
with these existing potential issues. Right. Right. Property that he owns. Okay. Okay. I was going to say that's against that property. I wouldn't I wouldn't even a bank would laugh him right out the door. So, you've heard the the the you know
the city uh express what the violations are. There are certain ones that can be remedied quickly like securing the vacant structures and stuff like that. Um he has done everything he can to board up every single opening that there is.
But where the building burned down, there's just unfortunately entryways that are impossible to board up. It's like whole walls are missing. So, usually, you know, the city asks for, you know, or or we'll give you 30 days from these hearings to um
to get the violations fixed. I guess given the, you know, the gravity and the, you know, the extent of these violations, the city has asked for 60 days for you guys from to September 5th. So realistically between would you be able
I can try to board up a couple I can try to up I can try to board it up. Uh it's just so hard with vagrants and stuff like that. It's um I can do what I can. I usually work with May and I call her
when you know whenever we get things the vagrants are relentless up there. Yeah. They tear things up daily. He was just boarding, reboarding things up where they tore other stuff up the other day because he drives by and checks on it
almost daily for um damage or new damage or new places where people decided to use it as a dump instead of driving two miles down the road to the landfill. Right. Is this a We would just love to have it cleaned up
and gone as much as the city would. This uh proposal for this demolition work is just to tear down all the buildings or just a couple of It is to put everything back to nature. It's supposed the proposals I'm collecting need the canopies torn down. I need all the concrete removed and I
need the tanks removed. Did you accept this proposal or is this just out? These are none of these proposals have officially been accepted yet. Got it. I've got, like I said, one more that's literally supposed to be working on the proposal. I see the scope on there. These are different ones. Okay.
Um, but there are, I think, four in that pile and one more coming. And, uh, then, like I said, um, I'm hoping to convince him to do like an equity loan on his house or something where he could write it off on taxes and
pay at least get the building demoed. I almost forward progress on on getting at least the liability part taken care of. And it's unfortunate because I feel like if you guys were in charge, these decisions would be made, but you're not in charge. Yeah. And so I almost feel like being stricter
on you and having an order be stricter on you will make it easier for you to say to him, "Hey, this is serious." you know, well, I've already told him that if he doesn't do what we tell him he needs to do at this given point that you that the city of Titusville is like they're going to find you $250 a day and then they're
going to put leans on it and they're not going to want to do that for very long. So, it says if you don't do something, they're going to take your property and then you won't have property to sell on that contract that you have. So, basically, I keep telling him that he's going to lose his property if he doesn't do something. Mhm.
It's a little bit of a fudge, but you know, if if it sends the boot in the right place, um I I mean, I I would just, you know, I I I imagine, and I don't want to put words in Officer Wright or, you know, Officer Tollison's mouths, but I would imagine
if in two months time, if you have everything boarded up to the best of your ability and, you know, either have some type of permits pulled for the demo work or something other more concrete plan, more time would afforded at that time, right? Because I can't imagine you'd be able to and again, I'm just I'm just saying I
can't imagine if if you were to if you were to contact any of these, hey, we accept your proposal, even by September 5th, they're not going to be able to get the permits and be mobilized to demo that. Exactly. Exactly. It's it's not a short shortterm project, but I also don't want to kick the can down the road and then, you know,
No, neither do we. We'd like it done before he dies. He's that unhealthy. If I if Mr. Donald here was able to secure the other uh buildings, not not the one that's destroyed by fire because it probably has like 300 different
openings that people can enter to and you know, they communicate with you that you know um they have a plan and if that is moving forward the demo, they have you know the permit applied for and everything. Is that would the city, you
know, be agreeable to that? Is that something you think would resolve some of the more immediate concerns that the city has? I would and I think the stipulation on the permit is that the permit process be in its final leg or issued
not just I applied for state. Yeah. Because again, once once the demo permit's issued, yeah, there's six months for them to do that work and get the work done under the life of the permit. Okay. Um but you know,
I don't want to be here on September 5th. Yeah. I don't want to hear it be on September 5th and they applied for the permit on September 4th. Right. Correct. and and we've had that before where we've closed cases with the permit applied for and then I've come back and six months or a year later because the
permit was never completed and approved. So, um they they have worked with me. Um we want to make your life easier. I promise. I promise. Just need something, you know, in writing. Yeah. And and I think you
know having it more clear deadlines imposed in writing maybe will encourage your father-in-law help and um push comes to shove which my father is very much a person that craves control.
He needs to be in control of everything. However, with the COPD and everything it's starting to take its toll. He has full power of attorney over the trust. Right? Push comes to shove,
which will get extraordinarily ugly in our world. We can push to have him declared incompetent, but I don't want to have to go there if I don't have to. Okay. Um, that would be the last ditch effort, but we really want to get this taken
care of as much as you do. And I'm comfortable if you want to set a different compliance date with Yeah. I'm trying to think as far as, you know, securing the um structures from unauthorized entry.
That's just a 301.3, right? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. I'm inclined to keep that one of the strict deadline of September 5th. The other ones sort of all kind of fall together if they're demoing it completely. So
correct. Um, how soon do you guys anticipate making a decision on whether or not you have to demo the the demo all the buildings? one more bid today and I'm trying to stay on top of this. I've been on this 24/7 since me to help about
usually with these when you have, you know, a real estate transaction. You know, any type of work that you do on the property while you're during the escrow period, you have to coordinate with the buyer. Is that something that the buyer's expecting you to do or is it something I honestly have no idea, but I will be
in touch with everybody because I want to make sure all the eyes are dotted, the tees are crossed, and everything is done properly because their due diligence periods allows them to investigate and make sure that the property is suitable for the purpose that they're going to buy it for. Yes. What is the purpose that they're buying
it for? It is supposedly a very large corporation that buys dilapitated rundown places like the malls and like this gas station and ultimately they wanted to but they're not running a truck stop.
No, they ultimately wanted to put like a shopping plaza in there. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it would all had to be demoed one way or another, right? So, then obviously they want you what they were going to do. We we assumed they were going to demo it and and Okay.
Um and then all of a sudden we just took a little circle. All right. 60 days just to get the uh permit applied for. I feel like that's reasonable because you do need time to consider the bids
that you have. Mhm. Um I don't want to bifurcate it so that something's at 90 days to come back in, but then we need to because, you know, just having a permit applied doesn't really mean anything.
Um I know we're all stuck between a rock and a hard spot on this one. Yeah. Well, the problem is you have power of attorney to speak on his behalf, but not to.
So, he's kind of hamstrung me in a way because I can't lecture you because you don't make that decision. Yes. Yes, I understand. Um that the only way I was going to get the power of attorney was to to let him think that he was being
okay kept in the loop on everything. But I'm also keeping him in the loop as if I'm talking to a two-year-old. Yeah. What this this is my and maybe Glenn May, you can help me out, but if I say
in 90 days the permit has to be approved, you know, for them to do the demo work, but then they ultimately decide, hey, we don't need we can't do the demo work. We're going to sell it. And, you know, the buyer doesn't want us to demo the work. Now, where does that put us? There's just too many variables
when you're talking about it. There are a lot of variables in that. We we we could give them the additional time to get the application per permits for demolation to be submitted to the city. And then therefore, we can monitor as
they go forward. U they can continue contact with us and with me as we move forward and and see where we progress to. I I think that by then would be ample time to either have sold it, demoed it, or
we'd also know where we stand with the EPA in 90 days as well because they said that um they expect the final reports sometime in sear early September. But they're they're again that EPA
reports not going. Oh, absolutely not. I it would just affect you know like your decision the cost of who takes up what parts of the concrete. Corre correct but in all reality most of these would be resolved with with removal of buildings%.
If they were to submit an application no later than early September how long would it take the permit application for demolition to be approved or granted? It should take very long at all. I would imagine within so if they apply for it within 60 days and have it approved and not not completed but you know approved and
issued right within 90 days they should be able to achieve that. All right. Okay. All right. Same thing hold that. All right guys let me let me try to verbalize this. I'm I'm very bad at this because I'm now I'm off script again. All right. But I'm I'm I'm trying to be
fair. I appreciate it because um you know like like I said he's a very stubborn man and I'm doing everything I can to dig out of a very large hole. Oh yeah, we yeah I have in-laws too. All right. I have accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos
and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that respondent George Raymond Donald Senior Trust is the owner with the address of 8251 Windover Way Titusville Florida 32780. I find that all required notices were
provided in accordance with chapter 163 Florida statute and city code and notice was met for this hearing based on the evidence presented. I find that violations of sections um of IPMC sections 302.7 304.1 301.3
and 305.1 um exist upon the property and these are for accessory structures regarding the fuel pertains to all three buildings and their roofs and walls. um vacant structure and land regarding um securing the various buildings and then the last one is just general interior
maintenance. Um these all exist upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but have either failed or refused to do have refused to do so. Um the corrective actions for these violations are um as we discussed you
can be uh uh well you can remove all those structures um or repair them or uh and moreover secure uh all the structures from unauthorized entry. Um I do find that the city has incurred costs
in the amount of $12853. Such amount shall be included with this order. Um respondents shall be given until September 5th, 2025 um to September 5th or 25th. Early you said
September 25th. No, September 5th, 2025, sorry. To um secure the structures and become compliant with 301.3. So you have 60 days to secure the structures from unauthorized entry um to the extent they cannot be entered or
used as a place of harborage. But I understand the I don't know how to put it, but the fire damaged building um just do the best you can. You know, you're never going to fully secure that. Buildings are already pretty much mostly boarded up anyway, except for when
Well, then that's good. That'll be good. Then keep them that way. Um and then um you'll also be given to that same date to submit uh an application for a permit to demolish um the
structures. not to get it issued, just to have it applied for. Okay. Okay. Um you'll then be given until 90 days, so 30 days after that to complete that application process and have it issued by the city. Okay.
Um respondent shall be responsible for notifying the code enforcement offer officer of completion of such corrections who shall then confirm the status of the violation September 5th and then the date is 30 days after that which I guess would be um October 5th or
October the 10th 10th it would be the next okay um fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day per violation until the violations come into compliance. Um, and again, if the plans change with regard to demolition, with regard to the buyer,
please keep officer Wright apprised of any developments. Keep that line of communication open. Um, so any further and future violations of the same section shall be classified as a repeat violation. Certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. All right.
Quick question. Did you want a copy of this order sent to you as well as the That would be fabulous. laws have been pretty good about getting things to us, but they're starting to have selective um memory and thoughts.
Can you give the secondary address on record, please? Our home address is 6787 Acre Woods Court 37. Say that again. Sorry, I was looking at something. 6787
Mhm. Acrewoods Court. Three words. Cocoa, Florida 32927. Just to have a secondary copy sent out. Okay. All right. And we we are going to we plan to stay on top of this for my father-in-law and keep pushing him and
right to get it taken care of. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And that takes us to our last uh matter because it looks like one's removed. Uh 25-120. Three items to submit. The first is the
notice of violation and affid affidavit. The second is the notice of hearing for today's hearing and affidavit. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of $163.75. Thank you. So once again, this is the initial
hearing for case number 25-120. Our respondent is Sarah and Rashis uh Investments LLC. Um Sammy Seard, I have that in the wrong order, I apologize, is the registered agent for the LLC.
The violation address is 5480 Wendy Lee Drive, Titusville, Florida. And our mailing address is 12707, um, Olton Circle, Orlando, Florida 32832.
So, we have two violations right now. It's section 30-39 uh tree removal permit required and section 30-83 um prohibition cleaning storage materials and equipment without
permit. So the initial inspection was completed on March 14, 2025. The notice of violation was posted on March 21st, 2025. 1st, 2025.
The notice uh to respondents was sent uh first class and certified on March 25th, 2025. The certified and first class letters for today's hearing was sent June 11, 2025. copies were posted at city hall
and on the property where the violation exists on July 1st, 2025. So, while I was driving in the area, um I observed a lot along Wendy Lee Drive that had been cleared of tree stumps
um and sighting. We had installation of silt fencing around the perimeter of the property. Um and I took photos for the file. I reviewed the building department files and found no active permits. Um
uh at that time though a previous owner had completed a site plan review for a condominium development um back in 2020 and 2021. Included in the reviewed documents was a
copy of a tree survey confirming location of size of trees that had been on the lot property appraisers website. So I did speak with planning and building department staff concerning that previous development um that site approval.
Um they confirmed that the site plan for the project had been approved but the required preconstruction conference to obtain site permits or obtain site permits was never scheduled um nor so a
letter containing all this information was um in the file and that dated um letter was March 21st 2021. After getting all that, that's when I returned to the property and posted the
notice of violation. So between March 28th, 2025 and April 2nd, 2025, I received phone call PI Homes, Fletcher Tree and Landscape and Carver Tree Services, all with questions
concerning my notice of violation. Um any previous approvals um I provided them with the same information I just provided you. Um the plan had oh sorry then I talked
to Sammy Seard the registered agent on April 21st 2025 concerning the violations at the property. Um he explained that it was their understanding that the approval of the site in 2021 gave the new owners
permission um to move forward with tree removal and site work. Um again we went over the history of that site plan approval, the March 2021 letter. um in our next step in the case that
this is an irreversible, irreparable violation with the trees being removed without permit and that we would be moving forward with scheduling a hearing. Um due to some scheduling conflicts, um we
missed getting it on the May of um Mr. Sammy during that um April conversation. So these are the two code sections. Again, section 30-39 is specifically for the tree removals.
Um and again, you cannot remove them without prior authorization. And then the 30-83, um this is for the site work. Um again, you're supposed to have approval for that site work and a permit issued prior
to doing any grade. So, this is a Eagle View map dated January 7th of 2024 um from the Boulevard County Property Appraiser website showing it to be a
fully wooded lot. Again, this is a copy of a um from the tree survey from that project um listing all the trees that were on that site
prior to the removal. This is my original photo from March 21st, 2025. We can see that all the trees and stumps have been removed from the property. So conclusion of facts um both section
30-39 and 30-83 um there were no permits in place at the time this work was take that took place. These violations are irreversible. We can't put that canopy back up. Um, so at
this point we just um we recommend that at the time of this meeting the property be found in violation of code section 30-39 and 30-83. Uh, order the respondents be assessed administrative costs in the amount of
$163.75 and impose a fine of $5,000 per violation as they are irreversible. 10,000 total. Yes. Or another amount of your choosing. Is the respondent here?
So, we have a representative of BPI Homes. Um, he was contacted directly by the property owner. Um, I don't know if you do you want to hear from him. Are you a Are you a licensed attorney or
No. I I was involved with the transaction when he bought it from the previous owner. Um I'm just friends with him. He had only asked me to come here to ask for it to be postponed as he's still dealing with family matters. He's out of the country.
Well, I can't say how long he's asking for. I don't even know how long these hearings go. Are they once a month, every week? Yeah. Unfortunately, I can't really. you would be considered just the public and there's no public uh comment portion of
these hearings. Um I hate that you sat here through all of that for me to tell you that. Um and as I understand it, this was rescheduled already at his request. Correct. Correct.
He he did uh he sent me an email uh last night and stated that he did for another extension or another postponement, but he never heard back and that's the last I had heard of it. All right, I appreciate it. You can Yeah, not much I can't I can't accept
any more information from you. So, um yeah, because you're not a witness or or or the representative of the owner, so I can't really um take anything of of that sort into consideration. self. Um
he he did call in and requested an additional hearing because he has said he was going on vacation again and I said that we had already postponed it once for you and you set this date. If you want to send a notorized
comment to us to read into the record, we'd be happy to do that and we have not ever received anything from that. When was the last time you talked to Mr. Sammy? Based on my records back in April, but Okay. So, sorry. Um, you said he
picked this date. So, you told him, "Hey, this is when the July date would be and he he said this is that that should work for me." Is so I in the notice of violation, it stated we'd be moving forward with scheduling a hearing due to the irreversible irreparable and normally we
30 days to respond, then we schedule it for May. So, at the time of the um April conversation, um we had already missed sending out the notice of hearing for May. So, that's when I explained that we would be putting it on for the June 2025.
He indicated that he was going to be out of the country and asked it to be postponed to the July. I got that approval um from Glenn at that time and that's why it was on today's well um
to any of the public that's here in attendance. If he were here, I'm not sure what evidence or anything you can provide to counter the fact that the trees are gone. So, I'm not really sure what a 30 day or 60-day delay would really uh uh
accomplish. So, um, to that end, I'm going go ahead and make my, uh, make my ruling, um, because the trees are clearly gone. Um, I've accepted and considered documentary evidence, including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that respondents Sarah and Kada
Investments LLC are the owner of the property of the address, 5480 Wendy Lee Drive, Titusville, Florida 32780. I find that all required notices were provided in accordance with chapters 163, Florida statute and city code and notice was met for this hearing. Based on the evidence
presented, I find that violations of sections 30-39 and 30-83 were committed upon the property. Uh and respondents were given a reasonable were given reasonable notice of that violation. Um
there are no corrective actions to um possible. Um, therefore, I will be uh imposing a fine of $5,000 per violation um as the violations are irreversible or irreparable. Um, additionally, I find that the city
has incurred costs in the amount of $163.75. Such amounts shall be included with the order. Um, let's see. How long do they have to pay? 30 days. Yes. Um respondent shall be given 30
days to pay uh the fine. Um they shall be responsible for notifying code enforcement of the complete uh of payment of same uh and to confirm the well you not have to confirm the status of violation. Uh further and future violation of the same section shall be classified as a repeat violation. A
certified order made. Thank you. All right. I believe that takes us to the end of the agenda. Um, we just have time for code enforcement manager report. Do you have anything to report? Uh, the only thing I have, sir, is we're
still working towards the resolution uh to replace Ryan as the alternate. Okay. Once the new city attorney's on board, we'll bring that forward. All right, sounds good. And then um we can talk more later. All right, perfect. All right, then I will adjourn this uh
hearing at uh 3:49. All right. Thank you.