* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE CITY OF MELBOURNE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE STAND AND FACE THE FLAG FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. MY PLEDGE OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. PLEASE BE SEATED FOR GATORS, ROSE. UH, I'LL NOW READ THE OPENING STATEMENT. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF MELBOURNE UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE. PURPOSE OF THIS BOARD IS TO PROMOTE, PROTECT, AND IMPROVE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF MELBOURNE BY PROVIDING AN EQUITABLE, EXPEDITIOUS, EFFECTIVE, AND INEXPENSIVE METHOD OF ENFORCING THE VARIOUS CODES ENFORCED WITHIN THE CITY. THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING ALLOWING FOR LESS RESTRICTIVE PROCEDURES OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THESE PROCEDURES SHALL REQUIRE RELEVANT PRESENTATIONS AND APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT THAT WILL BE DETERMINED AND MANAGED BY THE BOARD. ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE THE BOARD IS PRESENTED UNDER OATH. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IS ALSO EMPOWERED BY THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE TO LEVY FINES FOR VIOLATIONS UP TO $250 PER DAY, OR $500 PER DAY FOR REPEAT VIOLATIONS. RESPONDENTS AND OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE REQUESTED TO BE PRESENT AND MAY ALSO BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY. IF THE RESPONDENTS AND OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT PRESENT, THE CASE MAY STILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. THE PROCEDURE THAT BRINGS YOU BEFORE THE BOARD IS INITIATED BY THE CITY CODE OFFICER WHO PRIOR TO BRINGING THE MATTER TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION ALLOWS SOME PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE PARTICULAR VIOLATION TO BE CORRECTED. IF THE VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED WITHIN THE TIME IT IS A REPEAT OR REPARABLE VIOLATION, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING IS FILED WITH THE BOARD AND A HEARING DATE IS SET. IF THE VIOLATION IS CORRECTED, IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE RESPONDENT NOTIFY THE CITY CODE OFFICER ASSIGNED IN CONDUCTING THE HEARINGS. THE ATTENDANCE SHEET WILL BE FOLLOWED FIRST AND THEN THE PUBLISHED AGENDA, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE BOARD. EACH CASE WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BRINGING THE COMPLAINT WILL PRESENT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CASE. A RESPONDENT MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD QUESTION THE CODE OFFICER AND PRESENT WITNESSES ON THEIR BEHALF. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, THE BOARD WILL RENDER A FINDING OF FACT AND ISSUE ORDERS AS NECESSARY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS MEETING, YOU MAY CONTACT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE AT 3 2 1 6 0 8 7 9 0 5. AT THIS TIME, WE REQUEST THAT ALL CELL PHONES, PAGERS, OR OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES BE SET THROUGH SILENCE OR VIBRATE POSITION, AND THAT ALL CALLS OR LAPTOPS BE USED OUTSIDE THESE CHAMBERS. I'LL NOW TAKE THE ROLL CALL MR. DEN. MR. JORDAN IS EXCUSED. MR. TEAL? HERE. MR. LOOMER? HERE. MS. FULTON? HERE. MR. TI? HERE. MR. SAM? HERE. MR. GRAVES. MR. GREG. CHRIS RESIGNED. OKAY. MR. MAKWARD, WE ACKNOWLEDGE BRUCE'S RECENT PASSING AND EXTEND OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE TO THIS BOARD. AMEN. I'LL, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ME MINUTES FROM THE LAST HEARING. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. MAKE SOLE MOTION? YES, SIR. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. THE MOTION PASSES. NOW GO FOR THE CODE. OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS. THERE ARE TWO ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CITY. ONE IS THE NEXT HEARING IS JUNE 3RD, 2026. AND A STATEMENT FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. UH, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW, THE CITY'S ANNOUNCING FOR THE RECORD A BOARD MEMBER'S [00:05:01] CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FROM THE MARCH 11TH, 2026, HEARING BOARD MEMBER LOOMER DISCLOSED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ITEM 27 OF THAT AGENDA. MEMBER LUER WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE VIOLATIONS FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. THAT IS IT. THAT IS IT. YEP. OKAY. WE'LL NOW TAKE THE, UH, TESTIMONY SWEARING OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS AND STAFF, ALL STAFF WHO PLAN ON TESTIFYING OR WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING TONIGHT. IF, IF YOU CAN STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. YOU MAY BE SEATED. I PROFFER TO THE BOARD ALL OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS AND CITY STAFF AS EXPERT WITNESSES AND SUBMIT THEIR RESUMES, SUBMIT THE RESUMES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, AND THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHAT WAS IT? BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. ANYBODY ELSE? UH, CITY ENGINEER. CITY ENGINEER. OKAY. INTO THE, UH, RECORD. UH, ABSENT ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE, THESE INDIVIDUALS, UM, SHALL BE DEEMED EXPERT WITNESSES. I ALSO SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD ALL DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS WITHIN THE CASE FILES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS, AS WELL AS ALL DEEDS AND PROPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE LISTINGS REFERENCED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. THESE EXHIBITS ARE OFFERED TO THIS BOARD AND RESPONDENTS FOR REVIEW AND ARE AVAILABLE AS EVIDENCE IN THE HEARINGS OF THESE CASES. WITH THE CHAIR'S PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO CALL A FEW CASES OUT OF ORDER THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN COMPLIED WITH OR ADMIN POSTPONED. HERE WE NOW, SO THE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED ARE CASE, UH, WE'LL START WITH CASE NUMBER 20, CASE NUMBER 2023 DASH 0 1 1 5 0. ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 20, CASE NUMBER 2023 DASH 15. THAT IS COMPLIED. NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 26, CASE NUMBER 20 26 2 8. ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S ITEM 26. CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 0 0 2 8 COMPLIED. ITEM NUMBER 28, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 0 3 6. ONCE AGAIN, 28. CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 0 3 6 COMPLIED. ITEM NUMBER 31, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 2 5 1. ITEM NUMBER 35, CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 0 7 7 5. ITEM NUMBER 41, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 3 3 1. ITEM NUMBER 42, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 5 1 4. THE NEXT CASE IS ADMIN POSTPONED, AND THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 36, CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 0 0 9 4 5. ONCE AGAIN, THAT CASE IS ADMIN POSTPONED. UM, NEXT WE HAVE A LIST OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FILLED OUT THE SIGN IN SHEET. I THINK I MAY HAVE SEEN SOMEBODY OUT THE CORNER OF MY EYE WHO CAME IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED IN ON THE SHEET, UH, PLEASE SEE ONE OF THE, UM, UH, INSPECTORS IN THE FRONT SO YOU CAN SIGN IN. THE FIRST CASE WITH THE BOARD'S PERMISSION, I'LL CALL IS ELBOW CREEK. THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 47. IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THAT CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. IF WE COULD HAVE APPEARANCES ON THE RECORD FOR THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. OBJECT. SPIRE. ON BEHALF OF ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. JOE CRAWFORD, DEAN MEAD LAW FIRM ON BEHALF OF ELBOW CREEK, TOWN HOMES, INC. UH, I ALSO MUST NOTE JUST, UH, AN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF, THERE'S OTHER ENTITIES IDENTIFIED EMT, UH, STEVEN CORDELL INC. STEVEN CORDELL JR. AND STEVEN CORDELL S AS WELL. THANK YOU. [00:10:06] UH, PHILLIPS EAST FOR, UH, THE GEN JANA GARCIA TRUST, THERESA DEMAR HERE FOR THOMAS DEMAR AND PAULA LUNDGREN. AND I'LL WORRY FOR MYSELF. ALRIGHT. UH, I THINK THERE'S TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS. IF YOU CAN COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, INSPECTOR HAROLD, UH, WE ARE HERE ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN MADE AND WHAT IS THE CITY RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDING? UH, AS OF TODAY, WE STILL HAVE THREE OUTSTANDING, UH, LOTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DEEDED BACK OVER TO THE, UH, HOA AND THE LOTS REMAIN SPLIT, UH, INDIVIDUALLY, WE STILL HAVE THE REMAINING VIOLATIONS OF THE PERMITTING ISSUES, UM, INCLUDING THE TIKI, THE STORM WATER, UH, CHANGES, THE, UH, UH, SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS, THE DOCKS FENCE AND ET CETERA. SO THESE VIOLATIONS STILL REMAIN OUTSTANDING. UH, WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY AT THIS POINT? THE CITY'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS FIRST TO START A FINE AT A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DAY INDIVIDUALLY FOR THE HOA ONLY, AND THEN FOR ALL OTHER REMAINING PARTIES, EXTEND TO JULY 7TH, 2026. OKAY. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHO MRPI, I SEE THAT YOU ARE AT THE, UH, PODIUM. FIRST, UH, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE BOARD OR DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR HAROLD ABOUT HIS STATEMENTS? IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DEFERRED. UH, HE STATED, UH, FINE OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DAY PER HOAI WASN'T AWARE OF THAT BASED UPON MY DISCUSSION WITH, UH, WITH ANOTHER COUNSEL. I THOUGHT THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER WAS GONNA BE DEFERRED. NO, THE ONLY ITEM, THE ONLY PERSONS ARE, UH, DEFERRED ARE THE OTHER PARTIES OUTSIDE OF THE HOA INDIVIDUALLY. THERE IS A CIVIL SUIT THAT HAS BEEN FILED FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER INDIVIDUALLY. SO AS, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, WE USUALLY EXTEND OUT UNTIL THAT LAWSUIT HAS BEEN TAKEN. BUT THE HOA IS NOT IN THAT LAWSUIT, AND THESE MATTERS HAVE GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. IT'S, IT'S THE CITY'S POSITION TO START A FINE TODAY FOR THE HOA ONLY INDIVIDUALLY. IS THAT A HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY, A DAY PER DAY STARTING NOW? CORRECT. AND ALL OTHER PARTIES EXTEND TO JULY 7TH? I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU IDENTIFY, THERE'S NINE VIOLATIONS HERE, I BELIEVE A, B, A THROUGH I. CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHICH ONE IS, OR MORE THAN ONE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOA? ALL OF THEM. THEY'RE ALL WITH THE OS. OKAY. IT CAN YOU ASSOCIATE WHICH OF THE VIOLATIONS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPER OWNER? ALL OF THEM. ALL OF THEM. BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS FILED AN APPEAL OF THE, OF MARCH'S FINDINGS. OKAY. AND FOR THE OWNERS, CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHICH OF THESE NINE VIOLATIONS? SO FOR, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP AT THE TOP THERE, MICHELLE, FOR MR. AUBREY, THERE ARE VIOLATIONS OF, HE STILL OWNS PART OF THE, UH, HOA PROPERTY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEEDED OVER. AND HE HAS WORKED WITHOUT PERMIT ISSUES, INCLUDING THE TIKI, THE STORMWATER, THE, UH, SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS, AND, UM, THE DOCK. THEN GO BACK TO THAT MINUTE. THEN THE DENMARK, THEY IS THAT DENMARK D MARK, D MARKS GRID. THEY STILL HAVE A, A LOT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEEDED BACK OVER. AND THEN THE GARCIA'S THE SAME THING. THEY STILL HAVE A LOT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEED. THEY HAVE SIGNED A DEED BY, HAS IT BEEN RECORDED? WE HAVE THE DEED TO BE RECORDED. IT HASN'T BEEN RECORDED YET. IT HASN'T BEEN RECORDED AS OF TODAY. SO AS OF TODAY, IT'S NOT RECORDED. SO IT'S NOT DEEDED BACK OVER. SO, SO, UH, THOSE ARE THE PARTIES. AND THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER INDIVIDUALLY WHO'S, UH, UH, ALL THE VIOLATIONS THERE AND IS, THEY ARE APPEALING THE LAST, UH, FINDING AND THE, THE WAY WE, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE ARE LOT NUMBERS. DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO OWNERS, [00:15:01] DEVELOPERS? YEAH. YOU'LL SEE, UH, WELL AT LEAST ON THIS MAP, YOU'LL SEE THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS FOR, UM, FOR THE THREE OUTSTANDING PROPERTY OWNERS. OKAY. THERE'S A TRACK, 3.1, TRACK, 3.22 T, 3.2 T, 3.1, AND T 3.9. THOSE ARE OUTSTANDING TRACKS. ALL THE REST OF THE TRACKS ARE UNDER THE HOA AND THE DEVELOPER. OKAY. SO WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? CITY'S RECOMMENDATION AGAIN IS TO START A FINE AT A HUNDRED DOLLARS STAY STARTING TODAY AGAINST THE HOA ONLY INDIVIDUALLY. AND THEN THE SECOND, UM, MOTION WOULD BE TO EXTEND COMPLIANCE TO JULY 7TH, 2026 FOR ALL OTHER PARTIES. THAT INCLUDES THE DEVELOPER INDIVIDUALLY AND THE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS INDIVIDUALLY, I BELIEVE. MR. SPIRE, YOU WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF ASKING QUESTIONS OF MR. HAROLD. UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. UH, IS IT RELATED TO THE FINES OR IS IT ABOUT, BECAUSE IT'S, I LOOKED AT WHAT YOU WERE SENT OVER TO US AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS ABOUT THE FINES. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE TRYING TO RE-LITIGATE WHAT WAS NOT RE-LITIGATE. I JUST WANNA MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE AND WHERE THOSE POWER, UH, PDFS ARE. KEEP GOING. KEEP GOING, KEEP GOING. RIGHT THERE. I DO. IS THERE A SPECIFIC ONE YOU WANNA OPEN UP FIRST? NO. WHAT I HAVE IS A PACKAGE FOR THE BOARD FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD. I PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD. NOW. I'LL SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO THAT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. OKAY. SUBMIT. IF YOU WOULD DO THAT, WOULD YOU PROVIDE THEM TO CITY ATTORNEYS, PLEASE. OKAY. EACH ONE OF THESE ARE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU. MARK, I PROCEED. CAN I PROCEED? YES. OKAY. IT INDICATED I REPRESENT ELBOW CREEK TOWNHOMES, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND I'LL BE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO THAT NAME, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CRITICAL AS FAR AS THIS, UH, THIS MATTER'S CONCERNED. THE, UH, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PROBLEM IN WITHIN, WITHIN THIS PLAT, WITHIN THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION. UH, FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE, UH, THE TABS I'VE GIVEN YOU IS TAB TWO IS THE, UH, I'M SORRY, TAB TWO IS THE PLAT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT, IT'S A HIGHLIGHT. THAT'S THE ONE YOU HAD. AND IT SHOWS THE NAME OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION. AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT PORTION. IT'S PULL UP. IT'S ALSO UP ON YOUR SCREEN. I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT PORTION. IT IS, UH, YOU CAN READ IT'S ELBOW CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ELBOW CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. THAT'S NAMED ON THE PLAT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE TAB THREE, WHICH IS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, THAT IS ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ON THE PLAT ITSELF. TAB FOUR IS A PORTION OF THE DECLARATION OF VES RESTRICTION, WHICH IS A RECORDED VES RESTRICTION. AGAIN, IN PARAGRAPH TWO C, IT IDENTIFIES THE ASSOCIATION'S, ELBOW CREEK, TOWN HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SO BASICALLY THE NAME OF THE ASSOCIATION IS ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ON THE PLAT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE, ON THE PLAT, I'M SORRY, ON THE DECLARATION OF COV COVETS RESTRICTION, WHICH IS AGAIN NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS TAB THREE, I'M SORRY, YEAH, TAB FOUR. THE SECOND PAGE, WE'VE IDENTIFIED PAGE FIVE. SO WE HAVE THE FRONT PAGE, WHICH IS THE RECORDED DOCUMENT, AND WE HAVE PAGE FIVE, WHICH IS THE SECOND DOCUMENT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SUBPARAGRAPH B UNDER THAT, IN THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION, IT SAYS THAT ANY DEDICATION OR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSOCIATION MUST BE APPROVED BY AT LEAST TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTES OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING IN PERSON AT A MEETING FOR A, A MEETING CONVEYED FOR SUCH PURPOSE. IT MUST BE EVIDENCED BY RECORDED CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSOCIATION, EXECUTED BY THE ASSOCIATION WITH THE FORMALITIES FROM TIME TO TIME REQUIRED FOR DEED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SO THIS DOCUMENT SAYS THAT ANY TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY, THERE HAS TO BE A CERTIFICATE, UH, AS A RESULT OF A DULY CALLED [00:20:01] MEETING, UH, ATTACHED IN MADE PART OF THAT DEED. TAB FIVE IS THE WARRANTY DEED DATED JUNE 4TH, 2021. THAT IS THE DEED FROM ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES, LLC TO AND ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES LLL, C'S DEVELOPER TO ELBOW CREEK HOME TOWN HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. THAT IS THE DEED. GOING TO THE ASSOCIATION AND IDENTIFIES TRACKS 1, 2, 3 AND R ONE, THAT PLAT, AND THOSE ARE THE COMMON AREAS. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT TAB ONE, I'M SORRY, TAB, TAB TWO, AGAIN, TAKE A LOOK. IT'S A TWO PAGE PLAT ON THERE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IDENTIFIES A TRACK ONE, TWO, AND R ONE. TRACK ONE AND TWO IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ALONG US ONE. THEN YOU HAVE R ONE, WHICH IS PADDLE PADDLEBOARD COURT, WHICH IS THE DRIVE. AND THEN YOU HAVE TRACK THREE, WHICH IS LONG EL CREEK. SO THAT IS THE DEED THAT CONVEY THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSOCIATION. IF THEN YOU LOOK AT TAB, TAB SIX, TAB SIX IS THE DEED OUT OF ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC. IT'S NOT THE CORRECT NAME, IT'S NOT ELBOW CREEK. TOWN HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. THAT IS THE DEED OUT OF ELBOW CREEK TOWN HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC. SO WHAT YOU HAD BY TAB AND TAB FIVE, IT WAS THE DEED OF THE COMMON AREAS INTO THE CORRECT ASSOCIATION. TAB SIX IS THE DEED OUT OF INCORRECT ASSOCIATION. THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT NAME OF THE ASSOCIATION. SO IN FACT, THERE NEVER WAS A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY ALONG ELBOW CREEK TO THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, OF COURSE, IT WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSOCIATION. TWO UNDER THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTION, WHICH IS THAT SECOND PAGE THAT I INDICATED TO YOU, THAT IS A RE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY DEEDS HAVE TO BE, HAVE TO BE THE RESULT OF A MEETING FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE, HAS TO BE CERTIFICATION EXECUTED WITH THE SAME FORMALITY OF DEED. THAT DID NOT OCCUR. THE DEEDS NEVER WERE TRANSFERRED OUT OF THERE. SO, UM, MR. SPARA, I'M GONNA OBJECT, UH, BECAUSE ALL OF THIS, NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER THERE'S A FINE THAT SHOULD BE IMPOSED TODAY. THIS IS ALL THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, UM, AT THE LAST HEARING OR PRESUMABLY THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS. UM, THEY AREN'T, THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DO THIS. UH, NOR IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO LAY A RECORD FOR THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. THE TIME FOR APPEAL IS 30 DAYS. UM, THAT TIME HAS PASSED. SO I'M OBJECTING TO IT, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORM TO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE OBJECTION. THE FACT IS THIS IS A RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED ALONG. CAN YOU USE THE MIC FOR MR, PLEASE? I'M SORRY. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN PASSED ALONG FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, GIVING TIME TO WORK THINGS OUT. THERE WAS A MEETING AS MY UNDERSTOOD, MAYBE I UNDERSTOOD IT, CORRECT. CORRECTLY AS A MEETING WITH MR. CONLEY, THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND, UM, UH, AND, AND, UH, MR. CRAWFORD BASICALLY IS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS GONNA BE PASSED OVER JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. SO THIS REALLY GOES TO THE FINE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE A FINE IMPOSED. NOW THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE IS THAT THEY HAVE NAMED THE ASSOCIATION. THE ASSOCIATION, IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE 26 LOTS, 14 OR LONG ELBOW CREEK 12 OR LONG US ONE BY IMPOSING A FINE ON THE ASSOCIATION, EACH MEMBER OF THAT SUBDIVISION IS A MEMBER OF THAT ASSOCIATION. YOU'RE I POSING. AND THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR PROPORTIONATE CHAIR WHAT'S HAPPENED. THERE'S BEEN A CLOUD. THERE WILL BE A CLOUD ON EACH MEMBER OF THAT ASSOCIATION, WHETHER THEY LIVE ON THE CREEK OR WHETHER THEY DON'T, IF I CAN CLARIFY THAT. AND, AND MR. SPIRE, IF YOU CAN CLARIFY, IS THE HOA, HAS IT EVER BEEN PASSED OVER TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR IS IT STILL UNDER THE DEVELOPER? UNDER, UNDER THE STATUTE. UNDER, UNDER, LET ME, I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. UNDER THE STATUTE, ONCE YOU HAVE 90% OF THE, OF THE LOTS SOLD IS AN EFFECTIVE TURNOVER TO THE ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN TURNED OVER REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER FORMALLY BY THE ASSOCIATION, BY THE, UH, UH, BY THE, BY THE DEVELOPER. THE FACT IS, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY EACH HAVE AN UNDIVIDED ONE 26TH INTEREST IN THE ASSOCIATION BY IMPOSING A FINE ON MATTERS THAT ARE IMPROPER. GOING BACK TO EVEN THE [00:25:01] CITING OF THE, THE CITATION IS IMPROPER FROM A DUE PROCESS STANDPOINT. THE, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION YOU'VE IDENTIFIED TRACKS C ONE, C TWO, C3 C FOUR. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PLAT, WHICH IS A PLAT NUMBER TWO, THERE IS NONE OF THOSE IDENTIFICATION. YOU HAVE A TRACK THREE, YOU DON'T HAVE A C ONE, C TWO, C3 AS YOU'VE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR, IN YOUR, UH, IN YOUR DOCUMENTS. SO THERE'S NOT IDENTIFICATION, THERE'S NEVER BEEN DUE PROCESS, THERE'S NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED OF WHAT IN FACT THEY'RE BEING HELD LIABLE FOR. AND ALL OF THAT IS UNTIMELY AS THIS HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECIDED, UM, AS MOST RECENTLY AS MARCH OF LAST, OF THIS YEAR AND LAST YEAR. SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. YOU'RE TRYING TO LAY A RECORD SO THAT YOU CAN GO AND APPEAL, BUT THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS COME AND GONE. WE ARE NOT HERE FOR THAT. WE HAVE A CROWD FULL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALL COME HERE TODAY FOR THE TOWN HOME FOR THIS CASE. AND THEY WERE HERE AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING. THEY PUT THEIR ISSUES ON THE RECORD. YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT YOUR ISSUES ON THE RECORD LAST YEAR. NONE OF THIS WAS RAISED AT THAT TIME. THE BOARD HAS ALREADY RULED. AND IF YOU DID PUT IT, I DON'T RECALL, BUT IF YOU DID PUT IT ON, YOU DIDN'T APPEAL LAST YEAR. SO THE TIME FOR THAT HAS GONE. SO I'M OBJECTING AGAIN AND I, I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD MAKE A RULING THIS TO WHETHER WE'RE GONNA GO FORWARD. AGAIN, I'M ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH THE, THE MATTER BEFORE THIS, BEFORE THIS BOARD. I THINK IT'S CRITICAL. THE MATTER HAS BEEN FINISHED, SIR, IT WAS FINISHED LAST YEAR AND IT WAS FINISHED LAST MONTH. AND, AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT EVERY TRACK THAT WAS IN VIOLATION IS CITED ON THE NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT. IF I AND ALL ORDERS SENT OUT BY THE BOARD, IF I CAN RESPOND, LOOKING ON YOUR NOTICE OF VIOLATION, YOU HAVE A TRACK 3 1, 3 0.1 3.2 GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO 3.313. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS ON THE PLAT. THAT THAT IS NOT ON THE REPORT. THOSE, THOSE TRACKS WERE, UH, IDENTIFIED THAT WAY BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS BECAUSE THEY WERE SPLIT OFF FROM THE ORIGINAL TRACK, WHICH WAS A, THAT IS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING TO NOTIFY THE INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR RIGHTS. IT'S A DUE PROCESS SITUATION. THEY WERE NOTIFIED PROPERTY BY STATE STATUTE CHAPTER 1 62. CODE ENFORCEMENT IS REQUIRED TO CITE THE PROPERTY AS, UH, IDENTIFIED IN THE PROPERTY. APPRAISERS. AND THIS IS WHAT WE DID. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS THE PROPERTY, THE PARCEL NUMBERS IDENTIFIED. THEY DON'T IDENTIFY AS TRACK T THREE 11, T THREE 10. YES, THEY DO. YEAH, I, I DISAGREE WITH YOU, SIR. THAT'S WHERE I GOT THESE NUMBERS FROM. THE, THE, THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS BY IMPOSING A FINE ON EACH PRO ON THE ASSOCIATION, IT BECOMES A LIEN ON EACH PERSON'S PROPERTY. IT'S A SLANDER OF TITLE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS, WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE OR, OR REALLY HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO HAVE THAT, UH, THAT, UH, LIEN PUT ON HIS PROPERTY. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING BY YOU IMPOSING A FINE TODAY ON EACH PROPERTY OWNER, THE, THE CITY. IF I CAN, AGAIN, IF I COULD ASK TO PROCEED, CERTAINLY THE OBJECTION IS NOTED BY, BY, UH, BY COUNSEL. BUT I'D LIKE TO FINISH MY PRESENTATION. IF YOU COULD FINISH IT A COUPLE MINUTES, THAT'D BE FINE. THAT WOULD BE FINE. THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, AND I'LL TRY TO MAKE IT FAST. THE, THE, UH, WE THINK THAT IT'S IMPROPER. WE THINK THAT THE FINE IS IMPROPER. UH, NOW THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE FENCE. THE FENCE WAS PUT UP. THERE WAS A FENCE PUT UP. THERE'S AN ISSUE ABOUT THERE WAS NOT A PERMIT OBTAINED, AND THERE'S SOME CO THERE'S SOME, UH, VIOLATIONS AS TO BREEZEWAY. UH, THE, MY CLIENT OR THE ASSOCIATION PAID, I SENT FENCE COMPANY SOME $55,000 TO PUT THE POST, TO PUT THE SIGNS UP THERE. FOR SOME REASON, HE DID NOT OBTAIN A PERMIT, AND HE HAD CONSTRUCTED INCORRECTLY. WE SUED THAT INDIVIDUAL, THAT FENCE COMPANY WHO'S SINCE GONE OUT BUSINESS, GONE AHEAD AND HIRED A SURVEYOR WHO'S HAD TO COME OUT THERE AND NOW LOCATED THE FENCE. I'VE CONTACTED MR. KELLEN. AND ALSO, SO, UH, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAID, LOOK, COULD YOU HAVE SOMEBODY COME OUT THERE TO THE SITE AND SHOW ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT ISSUES YOU HAVE HERE? SO WE DON'T GO THROUGH THIS, THIS THING AGAIN. AND I THINK I PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT EMAIL. THE RESPONSE IS, WE DON'T FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO COME OUT THERE NOW. SO I THINK IT, IT'S A MATTER OF TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED AT THE PRESENT TIME. WE HAVE, AS FAR AS THE, THE, GIVE YOU BACKGROUND ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THE LOTS, WE FILED TWO AGAINST THE HOMEOWNERS. WE HAVE NOW 10 LOTS. I THINK I I HAVE ANOTHER ONE, PROBABLY 12. WE CAN HAVE IT RESOLVED. A I THINK THAT RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. WE'VE EXPLAINED TO HIM SEVERAL TIMES. THE REASON WHY CITY CANNOT GO OUT THERE AND IDENTIFY ALL THE POINTS OF PROBLEMS IS THAT'S WHAT YOU DO DURING THE PERMIT PROCESS. ANY REPUTABLE CONTRACTOR PUTS IN A PLAN TO INSTALL THE FENCE IN THE LOCATIONS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AT, THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, AND IT GETS REVIEWED BY THE CITY, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY [00:30:01] DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING. THAT'S YOUR STARTING POINT, NOT STAFF COMING OUT THERE AND DOING IT FOR YOU. THE, THE PROBLEM IS THAT STAFF HAS CONTINUED ADDING VIOLATIONS HERE FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. TALK ABOUT LANDSCAPING, TALKS ABOUT SETBACK. WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS ISSUE RESOLVED. WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT A RE GETTING RESOLVED. IT'S A MATTER OF TRYING TO GET SOME COOPERATION FROM STAFF. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR. UH, SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN ORDER TO PUT A FENCE UP, FIRST, YOU GOTTA HAVE A SURVEY OF WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT THE FENCE, AND THEN THAT SURVEY HAS TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEERING. NO, YOU GET A SURVEY AND YOU, THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITS A PERMIT APPLICATION, RIGHT. FILLING OUT ALL THE PAPERWORK WITH THE SURVEY AND GOES THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS. IT GETS REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING. SO NONE OF THAT HAPPENED HERE, BUT NOW THEY'RE WANTING THE CITY TO COME OUT AND SELL THEM WHAT'S WRONG. CORRECT. AND THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT A JOB. THE CITY SHOULD BE DOING CODE ENFORCE. SO REGARDLESS OF THAT, IF YOU PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, YOU'RE GONNA END UP WITH A CART IN THE WRONG SPOT. NO, I, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND THE, SO I, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HEAR ANY MORE ABOUT FENCE. I AGREE. I SENT AN EMAIL, UH, EXPLAINING THAT TO HIM WHY IT WASN'T IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO COME OUT THERE AND DO THAT FOR THEM, THE PROPER PROCESS AS YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT WITH THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION. SO DOES THAT NEED ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE CODE? SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO START A FINE OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY FOR THIS 2-YEAR-OLD CASE AGAINST THE HR ONLY, AND YOU WANT TO EXTEND COMPLIANCE DATE FOR THE REMAINING PARTIES UNTIL JULY 6TH, THE REMAINING PARTIES, YES. UH, DO WE NEED TO HEAR ANY MORE TESTIMONY FROM THE THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD. THERE ARE OTHER INDIVIDUALS, THOUGH. THERE ARE OTHER IN, UM, OTHER ATTORNEYS AND, UM, THERE'S OTHER ATTORNEYS AND ALSO THERE'S SOME INDIVIDUALS WE HEARD LAST HEARING FROM THERE WERE SURPRISED THAT SOME OF THE, UH, THAT THERE WAS LITIGATION, I GUESS. AND, AND TIMELINESS IS AN ISSUE UNDER 1 62 0.06 AND THERE'S SOME FURTHER DOWN LEGALESE. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE LAST HEARING, WE DID AN AMENDING FIGHTING A VIOLATION FOR TWO CITED VIOLATIONS. ONE WAS THE ALTERATION OF LAND ON AUBREY'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THE OTHER ISSUES WITH THE DEVE, THE DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, UH, IMPROVEMENTS TO THE, UH, SHORELINE. THOSE WERE THE TWO VIOLATIONS WE ADDED. AND THEN WE ADDED ANOTHER PARTY. 'CAUSE WE FAILED TO ADD THE DEVELOPER AS AN INDIVIDUAL. SO THOSE TWO VIOLATIONS, AND THE DEVELOPER HAD 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THAT MARCH HEARING THE DEVELOPER'S, ATTORNEYS DID THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY ARE HERE. AND THEY'RE GETTING THE, THE COURTESY OF THAT EXTENSION UNTIL THAT, UH, UH, UH, APPEAL IS, IS, UH, RESOLVED. OKAY. I'M, I'M, I'M COMPLETE. I'D LIKE TO PROFFER A PACKAGE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY PART OF THIS FILE. MR. TE, DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE A MOTION READY? WE SHOULD BE. IS THAT EVERYTHING YOU ALREADY GAVE ME? UH, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. IS ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD? OKAY. WHAT'D YOU HAVE BEFORE THE EXTENSION DATE OTHER THAN JULY 7TH? I SAID SAY AGAIN? JULY 7TH. JULY 7TH, YES. THE, FOR THE ATTORNEY. FOR THE DEVELOPER. AS I UNDERSTAND, UH, GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT I WANT TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION. ONE IS, I WAS THE ATTORNEY WHO SPOKE TO ADAM CONLEY TODAY AND WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WOULD BE RECOMMENDING NOT JUST A, UH, AN EXTENSION TO COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPER GROUP, AS IT'S CALLED IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDER THAT I'LL GET TO HERE IN A MOMENT, BUT ALSO FOR ALL OF THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER GROUP HAS PUT TOGETHER A, A, A PLAN TO RESOLVE CERTAIN OF THESE ISSUES THAT, UH, AT LEAST IN THEORY, THE CITY ATTORNEY MR. CONNOLLY WAS ON BOARD WITH, WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL TO THE REASON THAT, UH, THIS EXTENSION IS, IS, IS BEING HEARD AND RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TODAY. AND NO TIME DURING OUR DISCUSSION WAS THE EXTENSION DRIVEN BY THE APPEAL. UH, I AM THE ATTORNEY THAT FILED THE, THE APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER GROUP. BUT I WANNA BE CLEAR TO THIS BOARD WHAT IS UP ON APPEAL. WHAT IS UP ON APPEAL IS NOT ONE PARTY VERSUS ANOTHER OR THE DEVELOPER GROUP, GROUP AS THE, UH, APPE SEEKING A RESOLUTION. IT IS THIS BOARD'S ORDER DATED MARCH 18TH, 2026. [00:35:02] AND THE REASON THAT ORDER IS UP ON APPEAL, AND IT'S NOT A, YOU DON'T PARSE OUT THE ORDER IN APPELLATE LAW AND YOU SAY CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF THE ORDER APPLY TO THESE PARTY AS ANOTHER COMPONENTS OF THE ORDER APPLY TO THESE PARTIES. THEREFORE, BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER GROUP IS THE ONLY ONE THAT BROUGHT UP THE APPEAL, ALL THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO ANALYZE IS THE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPER GROUP. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. THE APPEAL GOES UP ON THE ORDER. IT IS THE ORDER THAT WE ARE ALLEGING IS ERRONEOUS. AND THAT WAS A ORDER THAT THIS BOARD ENTERED. AND SO I THINK I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE OF STAFF RECOMMENDING THE EXTENSION AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPER GROUP. I THINK THERE IS TRUST, A LOSS OF TRUST BETWEEN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND A LOSS OF TRUST WITH MY CLIENTS. AND NOW THAT ANNA LONG AND I ARE INVOLVED, I HOPE WE CAN BRIDGE THAT GAP AND FIX THIS PROBLEM. BUT I DON'T THINK THE, THE, THE PROCESS FOR DOING THAT IS TO IMPOSE FINES ON THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION PENDING THIS PROCESS. 'CAUSE AGAIN, IT IS THE ORDER UP THAT'S UP ON APPEAL. SO I HAVE PROVIDED A VERY ROBUST, UH, PACKET TODAY. I DON'T PLAN TO GO THROUGH THAT BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE STAFF NOR THIS BO UH, BOARD HEARTBURN. WE, WE WANT THE EXTENSION, WE WANNA FIX THE ISSUES, WE WANNA WORK AMICABLY AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. BUT I DO THINK IT'S RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING WHETHER THE EXTENSION SHOULD BE WRIT LARGE AS IT RELATES TO ALL PARTIES, OR JUST AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPER GROUP AND EVERYONE ELSE, AND NOT THE ASSOCIATION, WHAT THE ISSUES ARE IN THIS BOARD'S MARCH 18TH ORDER BECAUSE THEY ARE REPLETE. SO IN THAT ORDER, THE BOARD FOUND COLU FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AGAINST ECT MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY NAMED STEPHEN CORDELL INC. IT IS A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS NOT REGISTERED. IT IS NOT A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP. IT DOESN'T EXIST, RIGHT? SO WHAT THAT ORDER SAYS IS WE HAVE MADE AS A BOARD FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND WE HAVE SILAS, WE HAVE SILENCE. WE HAVE CITED AS A VIOLATOR, AN ENTITY THAT DOES NOT EXIST. THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT'S GOING UP ON APPEAL. I'M GONNA OBJECT AGAIN, BECAUSE AGAIN, ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AT THE HEARING. AND IF YOU WANNA PUT THEM IN YOUR APPEAL, WE CAN HASH THAT OUT THEN. BUT AT THIS TIME, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE IS THERE GOING TO BE A FINE OR IS THERE GOING TO BE CONTINUANCE? AND I, AND FOR THE, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE LAYING THIS OUT TO SAY IT SHOULDN'T BE, UH, APPLIED TO EVERYBODY HERE. I, I GET THAT, BUT IT'S A NON-ENTITY. IT DOESN'T EXIST. GREAT. PUT THAT IN THE APPEAL. THE THIS BOARD DOES NOT NEED TO HEAR ALL OF THAT TO TONIGHT. THAT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO WHAT THEY ARE DECIDING. IF YOU WANNA SAY THERE'S AN APPEAL, DON'T GO FORWARD, THAT'S FINE. BUT REHASHING THESE EVENTS, BECAUSE THERE'S A COURT REPORTER HERE THAT WE CAN NOW CREATE A RECORD. THE RECORD WAS LAST MONTH. THE RECORD WAS ACT, AND I MISSPOKE WHEN I SAID THIS CASE WAS DECIDED LAST YEAR. IT WAS ACTUALLY 2024, IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT WE HAVE HERE WHEN THIS CASE WAS DECIDED. AND THOUGH THAT TIME PERIOD HAS PASSED. SO AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE, IS THERE GOING TO BE A FINE IMPOSED TONIGHT NOT TO RE-LITIGATE THE ISSUES OF THE PAST. ONE QUESTION I HAVE WITHIN 1 62, THERE'S THE INFERENCE OF TIMELINESS AND WHO KNOWS WHAT WHEN. AND LOOKING AT JUST THE SIMPLE SUMMARY OF INFO INFORMATION I HAVE IN ON OUR AGENDA, I CAN'T DETERMINE THE WHEN PORTION. I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT TAKE TIME AND GO OUT AND DO A TIME SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, BECAUSE I FEEL IT'S UNFAIR. AND I UNDERSTAND HOW THE HOA OR COA WORKS, EVERYBODY PAYS THE PAINT. SO IF WE FIND THE ASSOCIATION, WE'RE FINDING THE OWNERS ALSO. I GET THAT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN THE OWNERS ACTUALLY KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG. AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE'S DIFFERENT DATES OUT THERE FOR WHEN THINGS WENT DOWN. ALL, ALL PAR ALL PARTIES WERE NOTICED AT THE SAME TIME IN WHEN THIS CASE STARTED. ALL PARTIES. ALL PARTIES, OKAY. E EXCEPT FOR THE, UH, OFFICIALLY IT WAS NOT THE, UH, DEVELOPER, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW, THEY WEREN'T CITED SPECIFICALLY. OKAY. SO THERE WAS NO LITIGATION. IT ALL HAPPENED AT ONE TIME. ONE FELL SWOOP. EVERYBODY KNEW EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. CORRECT. THE DEVELOPER INDIVIDUALLY KNEW, BUT WAS NOT OFFICIALLY NOTICED UNTIL THE MARCH HEARING. SO IT, WHEN I'M USING THE WORD LITIGATION, I MEAN, THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL PROCEEDING CORRECT AT THAT TIME FOR THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL? FOR THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL. OKAY. EXCUSE ME. WHAT IS THIS GENTLEMAN'S NAME? I DIDN'T HEAR IT. MY NAME IS JOSEPH CRAWFORD. OKAY. THANK. HE'S THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEVELOPER. [00:40:01] I DIDN'T HEAR IT AT, THANK YOU. IF I MAY, UH, ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT YOU POSED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, AND I THINK IT'S THE CORRECT ANSWER. YOU ASKED ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE APPEAL UNDER 1 62. WE CANNOT RELY OR LOOK AT PRIOR ORDERS OF THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD THAT ARE NOT FINAL ORDERS AND PREDICATE OUR DEADLINE FOR APPEAL BASED ON NON FINAL ORDERS. I WOULD BE BOOTED OUT OF COURT THE MOMENT I FILED IT AS A, UH, AN IMPROPER APPEAL OF A NON FINAL ORDER, THE MARCH 18TH ORDER THAT IS UNDER APPEAL THAT RELATES TO ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPER GROUP. THE ORDER THAT IS ON APPEAL IS THE ONLY FINAL ORDER. IT SAYS AT THE BOTTOM, THIS ORDER IS FINAL PURSUANT TO 1 62 1, 1 RESPONDENT MAY SEEK AN APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE RENDITION OF THIS ORDER. THAT IS THE ORDER THAT IS UNDER APPEAL, AND IT WAS TIMELY FILED BY THE DEVELOPER GROUP. AND IT IS THE ORDER THAT WILL GO UP ON APPEAL AS IT RELATES TO ALL. SO AGAIN, I SEEK NOT TO GIVE STAFF NOR THIS BOARD HEARTBURN AND, AND CREATE ISSUES WHEN WE ARE NOW WORKING TOGETHER, HOPEFULLY TO RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. BUT I JUST MUST POINT OUT THAT IT IS NOT ONE ENTITY TAKING AN APPEAL UP. IT IS THAT WE ARE TAKING THIS ORDER UP THAT THIS BOARD ENTERED. AND SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE, THAT THE BOARD OBVIOUSLY AGREE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS IT RELATES TO EVERYONE ELSE. AND I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD DEFER IMPOSING FINES TODAY ON THE ASSOCIATION. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. UM, I WANNA MAKE A MOTION IN THE CASE TO GET ON WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH A NIGHT'S SESSION. EVERYBODY HAVE A, WE NEED TO TALK, WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THE OTHER PEOPLE. LET, LET ME ASK HIM ONE QUESTION FIRST. I'M, I'M LOOKING AT 1 62 11 AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE ORDER APPEAL GOING TO THE FILE, ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF AN ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. SO THAT IMPLIES TIME. IF WE WERE TO START A FINE TODAY OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS ON THE ASSOCIATION, WHO KNOWS WHEN YOU'LL, YOUR CASE WILL BE HEARD. SO I THINK FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE FAIR, I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S FAIR FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE CIRCUIT COURT SCHEDULE OR ANYTHING ELSE TO BE CHARGED. YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA DIVVY IT UP A HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY, BUT STILL, UH, IT IS GONNA COST MONEY AND IT'S COSTING MONEY RIGHT NOW FOR YOU GUYS TO BE HERE. SO, UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE OWNER OUT THERE. I'D LIKE TO HEAR EXACTLY WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS ONE OF THE OWNERS. JUST, JUST FOR, JUST FOR NOW, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT SURE. AND THEN I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YES, SIR. UH, AS THE TIMING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT PROCESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M HERE FOR THOMAS DEMAR AND, UH, PAULA LUNDGREN. HE DID COME ALL THE WAY OVER FROM THE WEST COAST OVER IN, UH, UH, SAFETY HARBOR LAST MEETING TO BE HERE. BUT HE CAN'T ALWAYS COME THIS FAR FOR HIS INVESTMENT PROPERTY. SO I'M HERE TO STATE THAT HE'S BEEN, HE SIGNED THE DEED OVER AND HE DID THAT ON THE SIXTH. AND LIKE YOU SAID, EVERYTHING TAKES TIME. IT'S, YOU CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT JULY 7TH HAS BEEN GIVEN OUT FOR THOSE OWNERS AND THAT, BUT HE IS PART OF THAT HOA AND, AND TO GET FINED A HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY, ALL OF THESE OWNERS CAN'T AFFORD A HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY. AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE HOA BACK TO US YET. WE PUT THAT OFF WITH HOPES THAT THE BUILDER WOULD'VE GOTTEN SOME OF THESE DONE. AND PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SOLD AND DONE, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME SIDE DEALS GOING ON THAT THE BUILDER IS TRYING TO SOLVE. AND ONE WAS JUST WITH CHERYL DEAN AND, AND JAMES ENNIS IN MELBOURNE WITH ONE OF THE OWNERS THAT HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE LEVERAGE WITH THE BUILDER. BUT MY BROTHER, BECAUSE HE'S INVOLVED WITH AN ATTORNEY, COULDN'T GET INVOLVED WITH THAT PART. SO THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THIS COURT. AND TO SAY, OKAY, YOU'RE GONNA GET FINED. THERE'S A LOT GOING ON AND EVERYONE IS TRYING TO NEGOTIATE AND, UM, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. AND I'M AN OUTSIDER LOOKING IN TO FIND AN ASSOCIATION A FEE WHEN THEY'VE EVEN ASKED THE CITY ALONG THE WAY TO HELP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. AND NO ONE WILL GIVE THEM RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR OWN ENGINEERS AND DO THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER THING. MEANWHILE, WE'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH DEALS THAT ARE TOUGH. UM, THE ONE THAT, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? WE, YEAH, WE'RE WAITING FOR, [00:45:01] UH, SPARROW TO GIVE MY BROTHER THE DEED, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S BEING HELD UP. I SINCE THE SIXTH, UM, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO COME HERE WITH THAT DONE SO YOU COULD SEE THAT THINGS ARE BEING DONE. OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE OWNER. OKAY, SIR, YOU WANNA TAKE IT AND THEN TURN IT BACK TO THE ATTORNEY? YEP. THANK YOU. UH, ED AUBREY. YEAH, THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS WE WERE TOLD, HEY, THE LAWYER'S GONNA FIX THIS. THE BUILDER'S THE LORD, THEY'RE GONNA WORK ALL THIS OUT. CHILL, RELAX. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. THEN AFTER THAT, WE FOUND OUT THAT WASN'T GONNA HAPPEN. I CAME UP HERE AND MET WITH CHERYL D AND, UH, JEFF HIGGINS. I BELIEVE IT WAS, OKAY, WHAT'S BROKE? HOW DO I FIX IT? I DON'T DO THIS FOR A LITTLE, HOW DO I FIX IT? WELL, THIS IS WHAT'S BROKE, BUT I REALLY CAN'T TELL YOU HOW TO FIX IT. I GO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? I CAN'T TELL YOU? SO I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS THING FIXED, USE COMMON SENSE, WHATEVER. AND THEN IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT THE POINT, I THINK IT WAS YOU THAT SAID, HEY, THERE'S YOUR MAN RIGHT THERE, MARK. YOU POINTED AT MARK HARRELL SAID, THAT'S THE GUY TO TALK TO. AND I MET WITH MARK ABOUT A MONTH AGO, AND HE GAVE ME SOME INSIGHT ABOUT WHAT TO DO. AND I'VE GOT SOME ENGINEERS, I'M TRYING TO GET THE, THE, THE PAVERS AND ALL THAT STUFF ADDRESSED OR WHATEVER, BUT I THINK EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY'S GOT A, A, A HAND IN THIS DRUG OUTCOME. I EVEN CAME TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SPOKE MY THREE MINUTES. AND I WAS TOLD BY CITY COUNCIL, MAN, MAN, I'M COMING TO YOUR PLACE. SET UP AN APPOINTMENT THREE TIMES, DIDN'T SHOW, AND THEN FINALLY SAID, GIMME AN EMAIL, GAVE IT TO 'EM. AND THEN FOUR MONTHS LATER, AND I'VE GOT THE EMAILS, I'M DIGGING INTO IT, I'M WORKING ON IT, GONNA LET YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA HELP GET THIS RESOLVED SO YOU CAN ENJOY YOUR PROPERTY. I KNOW YOU DON'T WANNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF. I SAID, THAT'S CORRECT. I JUST WANNA ENJOY MY PROPERTY THAT I PAID FOR. AND, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. FINALLY, I GOT A CALL FROM THE CITY MANAGER, AND I DON'T THINK, I THINK IT WAS THE OTHER, WAS IT YOU OR NO, I THINK IT WAS THE OTHER GUY, LAWYER. KELLY CONLEY. CONLEY. WELL, CONLEY'S, THE OTHER GUY I'M CALLING CALLED ME AND SAYS, OKAY, UH, YEAH, WE'RE NOT SURE. THE COUNCILMAN DOESN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT. I GAVE HIM A DETAILED EMAIL FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS AGO AND NOW THAT'S WHAT I GOT. BUT I'M SAYING THAT'S DRUG STUFF OUT. I MEAN, WE, WE ALL WANT RESOLVED. WE DON'T WANNA BE SITTING HERE TWO YEARS LATER. WE ALL WANNA IT RESOLVED. AND I THINK WE CAN DO IT. I THINK WE CAN DO IT WITH COMMON SENSE. IF EVERYBODY JUST TOOK A THING AND RELAXED. I MEAN, I KNOW THINGS WENT WRONG, BUT I STILL THINK WE CAN FIX IT. AND WE ALL JUST TRY NOT TO BATTLE. I'M NOT HERE TO BEAT NOBODY UP AND BLAME NOBODY. LET'S USE COMMON SENSE TO SIT DOWN. LIKE I DIDN'T SEE THE THING THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY'RE WORKING OUT A, A, A DEAL. BUT I MEAN, I, I GOT A DOCK THAT'S A SMALL FOOTPRINT. I WALK OUT MY HOUSE AND I SEE THIS LITTLE THING. IT'S FOUR FOOT BY, UH, 30 FOOT IT, 120 FOOT SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT RIGHT ACROSS THE WAY FROM ME. IT'S GIANT DOCK. I'M SORRY, A GIANT DOCK WITH A HUGE BUILDING AT THE WATER. BUT THAT LITTLE THING THERE IS, IS A PROBLEM. AND THEN THE, THE NEW PLACE, THE JET SKI PLACE, THEY BUILT DOCK. THEY EXTENDED THE SEA WALL. YOU CAN LOOK AT IT FROM THE SURVEY, FROM THE GPS EXTENDED THERE, CHANGED THE TERRAIN, BUILT A WALL THAT WE WERE TOLD ABOUT THE FENCE. WELL, THEY GOT A, THEY GOT A GIANT BLOCK WALL OUT FRONT NOW, AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE RIVER DOWN THERE. YOU CAN'T SEE THE RIVER WHERE WE'RE AT. IT'S 15 FEET BELOW THE ROAD. OKAY. I THINK I GET THE G OF. OKAY. BUT ANYHOW, IT'S, IT'S BEEN FRUSTRATING FOR US TOO. WE WANTED TO GET IT RESOLVED. IT, LIKE I SAID, I GOT THE ENGINEERS AND THEY'RE SUPER BUSY. THE FIRST GUY THAT DID THE, THE JET SKI PLACE, HE SAID HE WAS TOO BUSY. THEY'RE BACKED UP FOR MONTHS. SO I'M TRYING TO GET THE, THE ENGINEERING STUFF DONE JUST SO I CAN PUT IN THE PERMITS FOR, FOR MY PORTION OF IT THAT, THAT I GOT CITED FOR OR WHATEVER THIS HOA DOES THAT, CAN EVERYBODY TELL ME, IS THAT AN A DEVELOPER'S HOA OR HAS IT BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE OWNERS? THERE'S NOTHING TURNED OVER TO THE OWNERS. THE MIC. IT HASN'T YET BEEN TURNED OVER. IT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER, BUT ALSO CITED THE STATUTE THAT PROVIDES THAT IN EFFECT, WHEN YOU HAVE 90% OF LOTS SOLD, IT IS TURNED OVER TO THE ASSOCIATION. IT HASN'T FORMALLY BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE ASSOCIATION, BUT IT IS, ALL THE MEMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. THEY'RE ALL AFFECTED BY IT, BY THE ASSOCIATION. BUT THE DEVELOPER STILL A COMPARABLE FOR THE DEVELOPER STILL CONTROLS IT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE, HE WANTED TO TO TURN IT OVER, BUT THE MEMBERS WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT UNTIL THIS MATTER'S RESOLVED. SO IF, IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION TO THE OTHER TWO ATTORNEYS, IS WHAT HE'S SAYING, CORRECT. THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY, UH, 'CAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. THE STATE STATUTE THAT HE'S, HE'S PROVIDED TO US SAYING THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL UNDER DEVELOPER'S CONTROL. I THINK WHAT THE STATE, I THINK WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS IS THAT WHEN 90% OF LOTS ARE SOLD, THAT'S WHEN TURNOVER SHOULD HAPPEN. BUT THERE IS A PROCESS BY WHICH THAT TURNOVER IS FORMALIZED. SO IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC, IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALIZED ALONG LAW FIRM OF DEAN MEADE, FOUR 20 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 700, ORLANDO 3 2 8 0 1. ALSO HERE. ARE YOU AN ATTORNEY MA'AM? I AM. OKAY. THAT'S DEAN MEET IS THE LAW FIRM. UM, THE TURNOVER IS NOT AUTOMATIC WITH RESPECT TO VOTING RIGHTS. THAT'S THE PORTION YOU'RE SPEAKING OF. WHAT MR. SPIRE SPOKE OF IS THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL STILL CAN BE ASSESSED AS A MEMBER OF THE HOA ONCE THAT UNOFFICIAL [00:50:01] NUMERICAL MATTER IS MET OF DEVELOPMENT BEING SOLD OUT BY 90%. SO WHILE THEY AREN'T VOTING IN THE MAJORITY AT THIS TIME, THEY STILL WILL BE ASSESSED. I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE KIND OF GOING WITH THAT. SO THEY'RE GOING WITH THAT. SO THE, YEAH, SO THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE PER DAY DOESN'T GO TO THE UNDERLYING DEVELOPER. THAT'S THE BOTTOM QUESTION. THERE'S YOUR BOTTOM ANSWER. SO WITH THAT CLARITY, NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT BEFORE TODAY, THE CITY WOULD RECOMMEND ALL PARTIES EXTEND TO JULY 7TH. AND HOPEFULLY CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT, MARK? SORRY, MY FAULT. UH, GIVEN THAT INFORMATION. 'CAUSE IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING, NOT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY GAVE US TODAY, THAT THE, THE DEVELOPER WAS STILL UNDER COMPLETE CONTROL AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD NO LIABILITY IN ANY FINES. SO HOPEFULLY, UH, THIS HEARING WILL PERK UP THE NECESSITY TO GET THIS RESOLVED. IT'S GONE ON FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS NOW. THEY'VE BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. WE'VE MET MANY, MANY TIMES WITH CITY STAFF, WITH ALL THESE IDEAS THEY HAVE, BUT THEY'VE NEVER MOVED TO TAKE ACTION ON ANY OF THEM. AND NOW WE WERE HERE WITH THE, WITH THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF A FINE AND, AND, UH, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPER AS AN INDIVIDUAL. AND WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SOME NECESSITY TO DO SOMETHING. SO THE CITY WOULD, UH, CHANGE HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT ALL PARTIES GET EXTENDED TO JULY 7TH, 2026. ONE THING I WILL ADD TO THE RECORD, 'CAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP, UM, HOW COME THE CITY HASN'T TOLD PEOPLE WHAT TO DO? THERE IS A REASON WHY WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE TO, AND I, I, MR. AUBREY DIDN'T BRING THIS UP, BUT I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO MR. REY AND I EXPLAINED TO TO HIM, BUT I DON'T THINK I WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS AS TO WHY THE CITY DOESN'T SAY YOU NEED TO DO THIS, THIS, AND THIS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COME UP WITH. WE CAN COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT NONE OF YOU WILL LIKE. BUT IT IS BETTER IF YOU COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT YOU CAN LIVE WITH AND THEN COME TO US AND WE CAN TELL YOU WHETHER THAT'S ACCEPTABLE OR NOT. BECAUSE IF WE COME UP WITH SOMETHING, SOMEBODY WILL NOT BE HAPPY. SOMEBODY WILL COMPLAIN, SOMEBODY WILL FIGHT. THEY WILL NOT BUY INTO IT. YOU NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND DECIDE, WE ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO FULFILL, THAT WE ARE HAPPY WITH, AND THEN WE WILL APPROVE IT. SO THIS IS THE, THAT IS WHY WE DO NOT TELL YOU, YOU HAVE TO DO, YOU HAVE TO CREATE A DOC. WE DON'T TELL YOU THAT. YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE, AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT CREATING SLIPS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT WAS SOME, YES, THAT IS A DISCUSSION THAT YOU ALL HAD AND YOU'VE PRESENTED THAT TO US, OR YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT IT TO US BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT FORMALLY YET. WE WILL REVIEW THAT AT THAT TIME. SO THAT IS THE PROCESS AND THAT IS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE. WELL, I'M CONCERNED WITH, UH, IS THE FIDUCIARY AND, AND DUE DILIGENCE OF THE BOARD ADVISING THE OWNERS WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT WHAT AND WHEN THEY KNEW IT. IF THE BOARD, IF THE HOA IS STILL UNDER THE GOVERNANCE OF THE OWNER, THEN THEY PROBABLY KNEW WHAT THE OWNER'S INTENTIONS WERE. AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT UP SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PROPER, I WOULD THINK THAT THE HOIA SHOULD TELL THE OWNER, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. 'CAUSE I KNOW IN THE CONDO WORLD, THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. SO I'M NOT SURE OF YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION. I'M, AND PART OF THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION TO START A FINE IS TO BRING THESE PARTIES TOGETHER TO WORK TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF SOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DRAGGING OUT. THEY, THEY'RE NOT COOPERATING WITH EACH OTHER. THEY'RE NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER. THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, BUT NOT WITH EACH OTHER. AND SO THIS WAS AN IN OUR INTENT TO TRY TO BRING THIS TO A CLOSE BY FORCING THEM TO THE TABLE. I, I THINK YOU'VE DONE THAT. AND I, AND I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT HERE. AND I ALSO, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO TAG THE OWNERS FOR SOMETHING THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT AND HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BECAUSE OH, THEY KNEW ALL ABOUT IT FROM DAY ONE. WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL. THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROL. YEAH. I MEAN, IF AND ARE THEY ACCOUNTABLE UNDER, UNDER CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION? YES, THEY ARE. 'CAUSE ANY, ANY OF THE FINES WOULD GO, AS THEY SAID, WOULD GO AGAINST THEM AND THEIR PROPERTY. SO THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN WHAT'S GOING ON. YEAH, BUT NO CONTROL. WELL, I, I WOULD, UH, I THINK MR. TEAL HAD A, A MOTION READY EXCUSE, EXCUSE ME THEN, OR YOU SIR. EXCUSE ME. MARK THE, SO THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL THE HOMEOWNERS, CORRECT. OR PER HOMEOWNER. THAT, THAT'S UP TO THE HOA THAT, THAT'S, YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. I I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT OPERATES. IT GO AGAINST THE HOA PER DAY, WHATEVER THAT TOTAL AMOUNT WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT. BUT WE'RE WE, WE'VE, WE'VE, UH, UH, AMENDED OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION. WE'RE NOT GONNA GO WITH A FINE BASED ON CURRENT INFORMATION TO EXTEND ALL PARTIES TILL JULY 7TH. OKAY. THANK YOU, MARK. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION THEN. MR. [00:55:01] CHAIRMAN, MAKE A MOTION THAT IN CASE NUMBER CCE 2024 DASH 0 3 12, THAT WE EXTEND THE COMPLIANCE DATE UNTIL JULY THE SEVENTH. AND HOPEFULLY THERE'LL BE SOME RESOLUTION BY THE PARTIES. ALL THE PARTIES IN THE CASE NOT PARTY A MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT EXCEPT FOR THAT LAST PART. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION, UH, BY MR. UH TEAL AND A SECOND BY MR. SAM. DO I, UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL AGAINST. I HEAR NONE IYE VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. YEAH, THAT IF WE CAN HAVE ONE SECOND. I KNOW DARCY'S ON THE LIST WHO DARCY IS. OKAY. NEXT UP IS ITEM NUMBER 17, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 9 0 6. PROPERTY LOCATED AT NINE 10 WHITMORE WHITMEYER DRIVE. ALRIGHT, INSPECTOR GERMAN. ACTUALLY BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN WE GET, UH, APPEARANCES ON THE RECORD? CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND HOW YOU'RE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? SCOTT HERBERT. I'M THE CONSULTANT. OKAY. DAVID DARCY. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER'S SON. OKAY. CAN YOU BOTH RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. YES. ALRIGHT. INSPECTOR GERMAN, WE ARE HERE ON NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE? YES, WE HAVE, UM, STARTERS. WE HAVE THE CITY ENGINEER HERE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. YES. YEAH. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PAGE, UM, FIRST SLIDE ON THE LEFT IN 2021, THIS IS FROM THE BREVARD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS, UH, AERIAL EAGLE VIEW. AND YOU SEE FROM 2021, THERE'S THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF THE BACKYARD. AND THEN IN JANUARY OF 2026, YOU SEE THAT PHIL'S BROUGHT IN THE CHANGE OF THE SHAPE. THE SHORELINE HAS CHANGED. AND INSTEAD OF TAPERING DOWN, IT GOES OUT AND DOWN. AND, UH, THERE'S, I CAN GO THROUGH ALL THE OTHER VIOLATIONS AS WELL. UM, THERE'S AN UNSECURED POOL. AND THEN AFTER THAT, THERE'S, UH, WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. B IS, UM, THEY DID, UH, REPAIRED THE POOL. THEY DID SOME WALL WORK, CONCRETE WORK, AND THEY REMOVED AN EXTERIOR STAIR WITHOUT A PERMIT. C IS, UH, THEY DID LAND ALTERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM CITY ENGINEERING WITH THE ENTIRE BACKYARD IS HAS THE FILL. AND, UM, AND ALSO IN THE, THE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE PHOTO LOWER, UM, 'CAUSE THE PHOTO'S NOT BIG ENOUGH. THERE'S ACTUALLY CONCRETE ALONG THE SHORELINE. UM, D IS, UH, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WHERE, UM, THEY'VE CHANGED THE SHORELINE WITHOUT ANY PERMITTING FROM ENGINEERING. AND THEY'VE ALSO INCREASED THE IMPERIOUSNESS WITH THE, UH, CONCRETE ALONG THE SHORELINE. AND ALSO IN THE UPPER RIGHT PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY HAVE, UH, LARGE CONCRETE ROCK MATERIAL THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THE FRONT YARD. AND NOW IT'S IN THE BACKYARD. THAT'S, UH, INCREASING THE IMPERIOUSNESS OF THE PROPERTY. AND THAT'S ALSO THE, UM, YEAH, THAT'S CHANGING THE STORY LINE WITHOUT ENGINEERING PERMIT. UH, E NEXT ONE. UM, SO THIS IS A, UH, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITHOUT ANY BEST, WITHOUT ANY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN USE. SO YOU SEE THE TURBIDITY BARRIER, THE YELLOW ITEM OUT THERE IN THE WATER. YOU WEREN'T SURE WHAT THAT WAS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED. BUT ALL THE OTHER THINGS REQUIRED. UM, THE, THE ACTIVITY'S NOT PERMITTED AND THERE'S A SILT FENCE, BUT IT'S SUBMERGED. IT'S NOT DOING ITS JOB. AND THERE'S OTHER I STEPS THEY NEED TO TAKE WHILE THEY'RE DOING CONSTRUCTION WITH THE PERMIT, INCLUDING MORE SILT FENCING. THEN THEY HAVE, UM, AND THEN F IS, UH, OPEN STORAGE INCLUDING VEGETATIVE DEBRIS. AND THEN THE CONCRETE ROCK MATERIAL THAT'S NOW IN THE BACKYARD, G IS, UM, BOAT TRAILER STORED FORWARD TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE LINE. UH, H IS, THEY CREATED THAT [01:00:01] CONCRETE WALL WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND YOU SEE ON THE LEFT, THAT'S A PICTURE FROM DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR WHERE THE FORMS WERE THERE. AND YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT AND YOU CAN SEE THE CONCRETE WALL IS TALLER AS WELL AS THEY DID REMOVE, I'M SORRY. THEY, UM, STARTED, UH, PUTTING THE FENCE POSTS IN BEFORE THE FE FENCE PERMIT WAS ISSUED. AND THEN MOVING ON TO I, UH, ELICIT DISCHARGE. THEY HAVE, UH, PVC PIPES STICKING OUT TOWARD THE WATER. UM, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. UM, THEY NEED YOU TO HAVE THOSE PIPES REMOVED. AND THEN, UM, J THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THAT THEY HAD THE, UM, STAIRWAY REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND THAT ALSO IS LEAVING THAT AREA IN AN UNSAFE CONDITION. AND THEN I BELIEVE THE CITY ENGINEER MAY HAVE SOME THINGS TO SAY NO, I THINK ACTUALLY COVERED IT FAIRLY WELL. UM, THE VIOLATIONS HERE MOSTLY STEM FROM, SORRY, THE VIOLATIONS HERE MOSTLY STEM FROM WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT. UH, THE CITY WAS NOT CONTACTED, UH, REGARDING OBTAINING ANY TYPE OF PERMITS FOR WALLS. STRUCTURES, UH, CHANGES TO THE SHORELINE, CHANGES TO THE STORMWATER CONFIGURATION FOR THE SITE. UH, THE CITY ISSUED SEVERAL STOP WORK ORDERS, WHICH WERE, UM, IGNORED. UH, ADDITIONALLY, CITY STAFF, UH, BOTH FROM THE STORMWATER SIDE AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, HAVE REQUESTED ACCESS TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY CODE. UH, THEY WERE DENIED ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY. UH, WE'VE HAD, UM, MULTIPLE SITE VISITS THAT WE'VE HAD TO PERFORM FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE PHOTOS AND PERFORM INSPECTION. UM, BASICALLY WITH THIS, WE'VE HAD A, UH, HISTORY OF BOTH NON-CONFORMANCE AND REFUSAL TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF ON EITHER BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, UH, OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS, UM, AND OR CEASING ACTIVITIES, WHICH WERE IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE STATE STATUTE. UM, AND, UM, BASICALLY ANY TYPE OF REQUEST MADE BY STAFF TAKE CARE. UH, WE HAVE HAD COORDINATION WITH FDEP. UH, THEY'RE COMMENCING THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES, UH, ACTION SEPARATE OF US. BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE ON SITE EARLIER THIS WEEK FOR A CORDIAL SITE VISIT, WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUS, PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED. UH, THEN THEY WERE, AGAIN, REFUSED ENTRY TO THE SITE. SO, UM, STAFF HAS MADE NUMEROUS EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH THIS PROPERTY OWNER TO BRING THEM BACK INTO CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CODE, BRING THEM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE REGARDING STORMWATER, AND GET THEM TO OBTAIN THE APPROPRIATE PERMITTING AND FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE COURSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS RESISTED THOSE EFFORTS AT EVERY TURN. SO WHEN WAS THE, UH, INSPECTOR JEREMY, WHEN WAS THE DATE OF, UH, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION? OR WHAT IS THAT DATE? THE, UH, MOST RECENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT AND POSTED 3 25 26. AND THE, UH, MOST RECENT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT AND POSTED 3 25 26. AND THAT, UH, RECENT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS POSTED AGAIN ON 4 9 26. AND AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU POSTED THE PROPERTY WITH STOP WORK ORDERS? I POSTED IT, UH, THREE TIMES. AND IN BETWEEN THOSE TIMES, HAVE YOU OBSERVED WORK CONTINUING? YES. WHAT IS, OH, GO AHEAD. NO, NO, GO AHEAD. THAT WAS IT. OH. UM, WHAT IS THE, UH, CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT FINES COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY ON THE PROPERTY. UH, SEVERAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND WORK THAT HAS OCCURRED HERE WOULD BE CONSIDERED SEVERE AND IRREPARABLE. ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN EXTREMELY BELLIGERENT WITH STAFF AND HAS BEEN EXTREMELY RESISTANT TO ANY TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION, UH, ANY TYPE OF EFFORT TO GET THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE THROUGH, UH, LESS AGGRESSIVE MEANS, UM, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THIS BE TREATED AS SEVERE AND IRREVERSIBLE, AND THAT THE FINES START AT $5,000 FOR BOTH THE FILL WITHIN THE LAGOON, UH, THAT MODIFIED THE SHORELINE, AND ALONG WITH THE STORMWATER VIOLATIONS FOR THE ILLICIT CONNECTION, WHICH IS THE PVC PIPE, UH, THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PHOTOS, UH, EXTENDING FROM THE NEWLY FILLED SHORELINE. IF, IF, IF I CAN CLARIFY FOR THE CITY'S [01:05:01] ENGINEER WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR, FOR ITEMS D AND E, A FINDING OF IRREPARABLE VIOLATION AT $5,000 FINE. ONLY $5,000 FOR D, $5,000 FOR E AND THEN THE REMAINING VIOLATIONS, HE'S REQUESTING A, FINDING A VIOLATION WITH A COMPLIANCE DATE OF 4 29 WITH A, UH, UH, THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN WE COME TO THE NEXT HEARING, AND HE'S CONTINUING TO DO WORK WITHOUT GETTING THOSE PERMITS, WE CAN ASK YOU TO RETROACTIVELY BACK TO 4 29 AND ASK YOU TO ASSESS A FINE STARTING THEN. BUT IF HE DOESN'T, YOU MEAN, YOU MEAN APRIL? I'M SORRY. UH, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. YOU MEAN APRIL 29TH, 2026? YES. YES. APRIL 29TH, 2026. SO FOR DE, THE CITY ENGINEER IS ASKING FOR A FINE OF $5,000 EACH FOR TOTAL 10, AND FOR THE REMAINING VIOLATIONS, A FINDING OF VIOLATION, UH, UNTIL 4 29, 26, OR A FINE UP TO TWO 50 PER DAY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE, UH, MAR, UH, JUNE 3RD HEARING. MR. CHAIR, ONE OTHER QUESTION. UM, I DON'T RECALL. I DON'T, STATUTE WISE, WE'RE, WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO A A, A CERTIFYING A FIVE KA SINGLE FUND. 'CAUSE NORMALLY WE ONLY DO UP TO 250 A DAY. SURE. SO UNDER STATE STATUTE FOR IRREPARABLE VIOLATION, YOU CAN DO A ONE-TIME FINE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS UP TO $5,000. THAT'S MY QUESTION. CAN YOU GIMME A LEGAL DEFINITION OF WHAT IRREPARABLE MEANS? MM-HMM . IRREPARABLE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT CURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO, UH, LET'S TAKE THE, THE LAST CASE THAT WE HAD, UH, WITH THE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY HAVE LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN DEEDED TO SOMEBODY ELSE. YOU CAN CURE THAT BY RESTORING THE PROPERTY TO THE CONDITION WHERE IT WAS ONE LONG LOT. OR, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY BEGINS TO INSTALL, UH, A FENCE. WE CAN SAY, HEY, YOU NEED TO GO AND GET A PERMIT, OR YOU NEED TO REMOVE THE FENCE. YOU NEED PERMIT TO REMOVE THE FENCE. OR YOU CAN GO BACK AND REVERSE IT. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IRREPARABLE HARM, IT IS THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT FIX. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THINGS ARE NOW DUMPED INTO THE LAGOON, THE ODDS OF YOU BEING ABLE TO PULL OUT THAT GRAIN OF SAND OUT THERE AND PULL IT BACK IN IS IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CURE. NOW, UH, THE STORMWATER VIOLATION IS SIMILAR. THE, THE WATER THAT IS PASSING THROUGH THAT PIPE IS AN ILLICIT CONNECTION. IT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE. UM, THERE WAS NEVER ANY ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT BEFORE THIS OCCURRED. IN FACT, THERE WERE SEVERAL STOP WORK ORDERS GIVEN, UH, TO PREVENT THAT FROM OCCURRING AND STILL OCCURRED THAT WATER THAT HAS ENTERED THE LAGOON IS IRREPARABLE. WE CANNOT GO BACK AND COLLECT THAT WATER AND PLACE IT BACK TO WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO BASICALLY, EVEN THOUGH WE, WE ARE GONNA BE, WE MAY POSSIBLY DO IT FINE, THE FINE STILL WON'T FIX THE PROBLEM. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. MR. CHAIR, ONE OTHER QUESTION. THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE IRREPARABLE VIOLATIONS HERE, AND YOU, YOU'RE ASKING YEAH, THE CITY'S, WHICH ITEMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO AS IRREPARABLE? WHAT ITEM NUMBER? JUST DNE. JUST, JUST D-N-E-D-N-E. WHAT ABOUT I JUST DNE. OKAY. I WOULD IS IRREPARABLE. I, I, WE DON'T CARE. WE DISCUSSED THAT IN, IN, UH, PRE-HEARING AND WE DETERMINE DNE WOULD BE THE ONLY TWO THAT WE WOULD APPLY NOW. SO I SCRATCH YOUR RUBBER WALL THERE. MM-HMM . OKAY. UH, MR. CHAIR, ONE OTHER QUESTION. SO ONCE WE ASSIGN A FIXED FINE, UM, AND IT'S IRREPARABLE, THERE'S NO, UM, INCENTIVE THEN TO GO BACK AND TRY AND, UH, UH, CHANGE THE SHORELINE, FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW IT, I KNOW THERE CAN'T BE CHANGED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION, BUT YOU COULD CHANGE IT BACK SO THAT, UH, IT'S NOT GONNA BE, UH, YOU KNOW, A A, AN ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD, FOR EXAMPLE. SO THOSE KIND OF CORRECTIVE PROCESSES WILL BE DETERMINED ONCE HE ACTUALLY STARTS PULLING PERMITS WITH THE STATE AND US. I SEE. AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CORRECT THIS. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. SO LET ME JUST SUMMARIZE THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'VE GOT A IRREPARABLE FINE OF $5,000 FOR ITEM D AND ITEM E FOR A TOTAL OF 10,000. SAY AGAIN FOR A TOTAL OF 10,000 D RIGHT. AND THEN ALL THE OTHER ITEMS, A FINDING A VIOLATION. FIND A VIOLATION, INITIALLY VIOLATION TWO 50 OR RE A FINDING A VIOLATION WITH A COMPLIANT STATE OF 4 29. RIGHT. OR A FIND IT AT 2 54 9 UP TO 2 54 29. [01:10:01] RIGHT. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE AGENDA ITEM, OR THE ITEM CODE IS 33 FOR AN IRREPARABLE VIOLATION WITH FINE. SO IT'S GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE COMPLEX THINGS. I WOULD DO IT IN TWO SEPARATE ORDERS. ALRIGHT, SO, SO LET'S DO THE, UH, IRREPARABLE VIOLATION FIRST, OR TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. I MEAN, BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE DO NEED TO HEAR FROM MR. HERBERT. YEAH, YOU DO. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. OKAY. IT GOT TIED UP. SO APPARENTLY THERE'S SOME MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. FIRST OF ALL, THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN 82-YEAR-OLD WOMAN. OKAY? AND SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS, IS THAT BIG DECK THAT WAS BACKED THERE HAD COLLAPSED A LOT OF THE BRUSH THAT HAD BEEN OVERGROWN, AND A LOT OF IT DIED. SO HER SON CAME IN AND TRIED TO CLEAN IT UP FOR HER. THAT'S WHERE THIS HOLE STARTED. OKAY? THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND IT WAS CLEANING UP THE BACKYARD TO GET IT AS A, AS A, YOU KNOW, NOT A CONTRACTOR, NOT ENVIRONMENTAL PERSON. HE JUST THOUGHT HE WAS DOING A FAVOR FOR HIS MOTHER. SHE'S THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY? THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT. SO IF THERE WERE NOTIFICATIONS, SHE'S 82. ALRIGHT? AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NOTIFICATION THAT FIRST STARTED ONLY A MONTH AGO. OKAY. NOW, AS FOR THE IMMINENT SAFETY, AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT PULLING PERMIT, HE JUST PULLED A PERMIT FOR A FENCE PERMIT. HE GOT THE PERMIT, WHICH IS ONE OF THESE REQUESTS. PUT THE FENCE IN, PULL A PERMIT, PROTECT THE POOL. HE'S TRYING TO FIX IT. AS FOR RESTORATION SHORELINES, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. SHORELINE RESTORATION IS A COMMON THING. IT'S VERY COMMON. I MEAN, WE DO BEACH RESTORATIONS ALL THE TIME. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT IT, IT'S NOT THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE. NOW, ON TOP OF THAT, AS HE'S BEEN MOVING FORWARD, UM, HE HAS CONTRACTED JOE REESE WITH DREAM DOCS. HE'S A GENERAL CONTRACTOR WHO HAD A PHONE CALL MEETING TODAY WITH THE CITY TO TRY AND GET THIS THING MOVING FORWARD. SO TO SAY, HE IS NOT TRYING. HE IS TRYING. ALRIGHT. NOW, YES, POSSIBLY. THERE, THERE WAS SOME FILL, BUT REMEMBER WHERE THAT BUILDING WAS? DID HE PUSH FORWARD? I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT THE THING WAS HE'S TRYING TO STABILIZE THE SHORELINE ON TOP OF IT. AGAIN, NOT AS A CONTRACTOR, AS A SON TRYING TO FIX HIS MOTHER'S PROPERTY, NOT REALIZE WHAT'S GOING ON. OKAY. BUT HE IS MAKING THE EFFORT TO DO THAT. NOW, AS THE CLAIM ABOUT, UM, NOT WORKING WITH AND NOT HAVING MEETINGS, THERE'S AN EMAIL THAT ACTUALLY WENT OUT. HE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM HAVING A FIELD MEETING AS LONG AS HE CAN HAVE HIS REPRESENTATIVE THERE. OKAY? NOW, I CAME ON FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE OF THE HOUSE. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS MEETING. I WAS OUTTA TOWN ON MONDAY, BUT I WAS ON A PHONE CALL WITH THE STATE WHILE THEY WERE THERE, AND WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS THERE. SO I TRIED TO DO IT FROM DISTANCE, ALRIGHT? BUT HE, I'M FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE. I SAID, I EVEN, I SAID, WAIT TILL I GET THERE. AND I ASKED THE STATE TO RESCHEDULE SO I COULD BE THERE TO WALK THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS. OKAY? NOW, HE DID TELL ME, AND IF I'M SPEAKING OUTTA TURN, THE ONLY THING THAT HE HAS DONE ADDITIONAL WAS TO REMOVE A STUMP. AND MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SAY ARE BEING REMOVED HAD COLLAPSED. ALSO, THAT PIPE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BEING DISCHARGED IS CONNECTED TO THE DOWNSPOUT OF THE HOUSE FROM THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE SEVENTIES. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DISCHARGE, HE'S GOT, HE'S GOT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF HIS NEIGHBOR DISCHARGING HIS. WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T DON'T. BUT I'M, BUT THE DIS HOW ABOUT THIS? THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS SOME OF THIS DISCHARGE COULD BE COMING FROM THE NEIGHBOR AND HE'S GOT PROOF AND HE SENT THAT TO THE CITY AND HE HAS A POLICE COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DISCHARGE, IT'S COMING ONTO HIS PROPERTY FROM PIPES. SOME OF THE PIPES ARE COMING FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. WHY ISN'T THAT BEING ADDRESSED? AND WHY IS HE BEING, OR HIS MOTHER BEING BLAMED FOR THAT? SO I THINK ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I, I UNDERSTAND THE PIPES ON THIS PROPERTY. WELL, THAT PIPE GOES TO THE ORIGINAL STORM FROM THE, FROM THE HOUSE BACK IN THE, IT GOES TO THE GUTTERS. YEAH. IT'S GOT THAT PIPE IS FROM 1970. ASK HIM DO THEY HAVE 1970? I WOULD LIKE THAT STATED IS THAT PIPE FROM 1970? THE PIPE GOES FROM THE DOWNSPOUT. AND THOSE WERE THE, UH, PVC PIPES THAT CAME OFF THOSE DOWNSPOUTS, THAT PIPE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1970. THAT I, I I, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE PRIOR CHANGED IT OR MOVED IT, KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT'S CONNECTED TO. BUT THE ROUTE AND THE CONNECTION THAT IS OFF THE DOWNSPOUTS, YOU CAN SEE THE DOWNSPOUTS ON THE SIDE. THEY'RE PAINTED, THE BACK FELL. I'M WELL AWARE OF WHAT IT'S CONNECTED TO, SIR, BUT WHAT I'M ASKING AND WHAT WAS JUST STATED, THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING. IT'S COMING FROM, THE ORIGINAL PIPES ARE FROM 1970. IT'S COMING FROM THE DOWNSPOUTS FROM THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1970S. WHEN WAS THAT PIPES WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE PARSING WORDS RIGHT NOW. RIGHT? YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT HE'S ASKING. SO LET ME ASK IT DIRECTLY. I'M NOT NO, NO, NO. LET ME, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION. LET QUESTION IS NOT, ARE THEY CONNECTED TO SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE? ARE THOSE PIPES FROM 1970? I DON'T KNOW. WE CAN'T PROVE IT, BUT WE KNOW WHERE IT'S CONNECTED. YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO TAKE, WE'D HAVE TO CUT THE PIPE AND TAKE IT OUT FOR TESTING. SO, AND, AND ALSO [01:15:01] THE THING, THE OTHER THING I WAS GONNA SAY IS, AND UH, FOR THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON HERE, HE HAS NO PROBLEM MOVING, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES AND THINGS OFF OF THE PROPERTY. BUT A $10,000 FINE FOR TRYING TO CLEAN HIS MOTHER'S PROPERTY. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME FRUSTRATION, BUT AGAIN, HE, HE REQUESTED AGAIN, REPRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, AND TRIED TO ORGANIZE IT THAT WAY. CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? UM, HAD, DID HE APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR ANYTHING? YEAH, THE FENCE. YOU JUST GOT THE FENCE PERMIT? NO, NO. I NOT LIKE THE OTHER MAJOR VIOLATIONS. LIKE FENCE PERMIT, NOT DEFENSE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER STUFF. THE, THE, THE CHANGING THE SHORELINE PULL REPAIR PERMIT. AND ALSO, UH, THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY I PUT IN FOR A, UH, IT'S CALLED A, UM, IT'S, IT'S FOR THE RR, WHICH IS SHORELINE. WHICH IS FOR THE SHORELINE. AND I PUT IN, IT'S CALLED AN EXEMPTION PERMIT WITH THE FDEP. AND I WAS WORKING WITH A LADY NAMED MRS. SCHULTZ. OKAY. AND, UM, IT WAS COMING TO, YES, WE'VE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION, WE'RE REVIEWING IT. AND THEN, UM, THEY GOT A PICTURE FROM, I THINK IT WAS JAMES EIS FROM THE CITY. AND, UH, THAT'S WHEN I GOT A CALL FROM THE FDEP RIGHT BEFORE I WAS LEAVING ON MY TRIP. AND THEY SAID THE COMPLAINT WAS FROM THE CITY THAT YOU HAD CUT DOWN A MANGO TREE. AND THEY SENT A PICTURE OF A MANGO TREE THAT'S ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. AND THE CLAIM WAS THAT I CUT IT DOWN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S LIKE A STATE VIOLATION, WHICH I DID NOT MM-HMM . UM, AND THEN THAT TOOK, UH, MY EXEMPTION PERMIT AND THEN THEY HALTED IT BECAUSE NOW THERE'S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION ON ME BECAUSE OF, UH, PERSON IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. JAMES ENI CONTACTED HIM AND SAID, I CUT DOWN A MANGO TREE, A MAIN GROVE TREE, WHICH I DID NOT IF, IF I CAN. UM, WHEN THE CITY FIRST RECEIVED THIS COMPLAINT IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, I WAS THE INITIAL INSPECTOR OUT THERE. AND I MADE IT CLEAR TO THOSE CONTRACTORS THAT WERE OUT THERE WHO WERE UNDER, THEY'RE NOT HIS PURVIEW, ACCORDING TO THEM, THEY'RE NOT. THE SON HIRED THEM TO COME OUT THERE IN DECEMBER AND I TOLD THEM THEY CANNOT DO THAT 'CAUSE THERE'S NO NO PERMITS. WE SENT A NOTICE IMMEDIATELY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, HIS MOM, THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED. WE MET WITH HIM AND HIS SISTER AT CITY HALL TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES. AND WE WERE WORKING, TRYING TO WORK WITH HIM. AND HE ASSURED US HE WAS GONNA WORK WITH US. BUT HE NEVER PULLED ANY PERMITS AND HE CONTINUED TO DO WORK WITHOUT, THE ONLY THING HE WAS ALLOWED TO DO IS PUT UP, UH, UH, EROSION CONTROLS, SUCH AS THE BARRIER, THE YELLOW BARRIER HERE, AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL. THIS IS THE ONLY THINGS HE WAS ALLOWED TO DO, BUT HE CONTINUED TO WORK ON THAT PROPERTY WEEKLY, EVEN THOUGH WE KEPT GOING OUT THERE AND TELLING HIM NO AND POSTING THE PROPERTY TO STOP WORK. IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF HIS 80-YEAR-OLD MOTHER. HE'S BEEN INVOLVED SINCE DAY ONE. HE'S HAD MEETINGS WITH US. WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH HIM DIRECTLY AND WE SENT MAIL DIRECTLY TO HIS PROPERTY AT, OR HIS MOTHER'S PROPERTY, AND WE POSTED THE PROPERTY. HE'S WELL AWARE OF THE CITY'S, UH, INVOLVEMENT IN THIS AND FOR HOW LONG. AND HE'S BEEN INVOLVED SINCE DAY ONE. HE HAS BEEN PURPOSEFULLY TRYING TO STOP US FROM DOING OUR INVESTIGATION. HAS PURPOSELY NOT PULLED THE CORRECT PERMITS. A FENCE PERMIT ISN'T THE MAJOR ISSUE HERE. ALL THIS OTHER STUFF HAS A LOT MORE, UH, NEEDING TO BE DONE OTHER THAN A FENCE PERMIT. MR. CHAIR, WHEN WAS IT, UH, FIRST POSTED IN VIOLATION? 3 25. UM, THE ORIGINAL NOTICE, I THINK SHE SAID THE FIRST NOTICES WERE SENT, UH, SORRY, THREE FIVE. FIRST NOTICE WAS SENT 12 30 25. AND THE SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT. 1 15 26. WHEN WAS THE FIRST POSTING OF, UH, STOP WORK ORDER? OH, THE FIRST POSTING OF THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS 1 15 26. AND THE SECOND ONE WAS POSTED 2 24 26. THE THIRD ONE WAS POSTED 3 18 26. AND EACH AND EVERY TIME THE WORK JUST CONTINUED. NOT LITTLE BIT, A LOT FROM THE R WRAP BEING STORED IN THE FRONT TO RECENTLY, CURRENTLY NOW ALONG THE SHORELINE INTO THE BACKYARD, NEXT TO THE RETAINING WALL, NONE OF THE WORK STOPS. SO LEMME JUST CLARIFY THAT YOU'VE ISSUED, THE CITY HAS ISSUED THREE STOP WORK ORDERS, BUT THE WORK CONTINUES WITHOUT A BILLING PERMIT. CORRECT. FOR WHETHER IT'S BY A CONTRACTOR OR AN INDIVIDUAL. THE WORK HAS CONTINUED AFTER RE WORK STOP AND, AND NOT A LITTLE BIT, NOT NAILING A NAIL HERE AND THERE. [01:20:01] WE TALKING ABOUT, WE NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING RIGHT HERE. MAJOR EXCAVATION, MAJOR CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR ALTERATION FOR, AND EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW BEFORE YOU DO ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SHUT UP. ESPECIALLY ALONG THE WATER. YOU GOTTA HAVE ALL KINDS OF PERMITS BY A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT SHED PUT IN THE BACKYARD HERE. THE, I DID NOT PAY ANYBODY. THOSE WERE FRIENDS THAT HELPED ME. UM, MICHELLE SAID YOU NEEDED TO CLEAN UP THE FRONT YARD. AND I HAD, I PURCHASED THE COCHINA ROCK FOR THE PERMIT THAT I WAS GETTING THROUGH THE STATE, AND SHE SAID I NEEDED TO CLEAN UP THE FRONT YARD. AND I, AND I CLEANED IT UP. I MOVED IT TO, TO THE BACKYARD. AND NOW I'VE GOT A CONTRACTOR, JOEY REESE. AND THEN WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION TODAY ABOUT WHAT DO WE NEED, UM, WHAT DO WE NEED, WHAT ENGINEERING PLANS DO WE NEED? ALL THAT STUFF. SO NOW I HAVE A CONTRACTOR WHO CAN HELP ME WITH THIS PROCESS. MR. CHAIR SLOWING DOWN. UH, IS THERE A REASON YOU DIDN'T, UH, IS THERE A REASON YOU CONTINUED WORK WITH ALL THE STOP WORK ORDERS? THERE'S THREE OF THEM IN OXY OF WORK. THE, THE, WHEN, WHEN THEY SAY I CONTINUED WORK, THE ONLY THING THAT I DID WAS I MOVED THE ROCKS BECAUSE THEY SAID CLEAN UP YOUR FRONT YARD. THAT'S, THAT'S PART, THAT'S ARE THESE THE ROCKS ALONG THE SHORELINE? THEY'RE NOT ON THE SHORELINE. THE ROCKS WERE THE ROCKS. OKAY. ON THESE PHOTOS. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL. THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE ORIGINAL ROCKS. THERE WERE, THERE WAS TONS OF CONCRETE WHICH SUPPORT THE POOL, THE BASE OF THE POOL. WHERE ARE THE ROCKS THAT YOU MOVED FROM THE FRONT YARD. NOW THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE SHORELINE. THEY, THEY ARE UP AGAINST THE FENCE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WAITING FOR THE R RAFF EXEMPTION PERMIT FROM THE STATE TO THEN PUT ALONG THE SHORELINE. BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOWHERE NEAR THE SHORELINE. I WAS, WELL, MR. CHAIR, MR. AERIAL, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT'S DONE THOUGH. I MEAN, JUST A LOT. THEY PUT UP WALLS AND MOVED A BUNCH OF DIRT. IF YOU CAN NOTE THE AERIAL ON THE LEFT, HOW FAR THAT POOL IS FROM THE SHORELINE. AND HE'S SAYING THAT THE ROCKS CAME FROM THIS POOL AREA VERSUS WHERE THEY ARE NOW ALONG HERE WHERE THE BOAT IS. ARE THOSE ROCKED? LOOK, I I HAVE A PICTURE HERE OF, OF WHERE MY, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE BOAT WHERE MY BOAT WAS AT? THE BOAT HASN'T MOVED. IF, IF I ENCROACHED ON THE SHORELINE, IT WOULD'VE BEEN ALL OVER MY BOAT. AM I LOOKING AT A ROCKY SHORELINE WHERE THAT BOW OF THE BOAT IS POINTED? THIS, UH, THE RIGHT UPPER, UPPER RIGHT. WHERE, WHERE ARE WE LOOKING AT THAT? GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE THE RIGHT UPPER RIGHT. CAN YOU GO BACK ONE? CAN YOU GO BACK ONE, UH, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THERE'S A LOT. IS THAT, IS THAT ROCKY? WAS THAT LEGACY? WAS THAT THERE ALWAYS YES. YEAH. YES, BECAUSE THERE'S A POOL, THERE'S, THERE'S LIKE A HUNDRED TON POOL THAT'S COUNTER LEVERED INTO THAT HILL. AND WHEN THEY PUT IT IN, IN 19 WHATEVER, 70, WHATEVER THAT IS, EVERYTHING THAT'S HOLDING THE POOL WAS ALL OF THIS MASSIVE ROCK. AND THE SO THIS, THIS ROCK HAS BEEN THERE? YES. SINCE, YES. AND, AND, AND THEN, THEN WHEN I CONTACTED THE FDEP, THEY SAID, IS THERE EXISTING ROCK MATERIAL? I SAID, YES, FROM THE POOL. AND MRS. SCHULTZ SAID, OKAY, NOW THIS IS THE PERMIT YOU NEED. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT COCHINA ROCK ON TOP OF THAT. SO THAT'S THE PROCESS I WAS DOING FOR, FOR THAT. THE FRONT YARD FOR THE YOU'RE SAYING THAT I'M STILL WORKING. I WAS TOLD CLEAN OUT THE FRONT YARD. WELL, I'M, I I NEEDED TO CLEAN IT OUT. OKAY, WELL I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION. THAT IS, YOU, WERE THEY, THE INSPECTOR WAS DENIED ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, WHICH, WHICH INSPECTOR? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? INSPECTOR JERMAINE, YOU GUYS FOR I, I I NEED REPRESENTATION. I'M NOT IT NO TIME IN HISTORY. DO YOU GET A KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK? I'M HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. I'M HERE TO HELP YOU . SO, SO I HAVE REPRESENTATION RIGHT NOW. BUT, BUT, BUT WAS SHE'S A YES OR NO QUESTION? WAS SHE DENIED? YES OR NO? WOULD YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW THAT I TRIED TO WALK UP TO THE HOUSE AND I POSTED THE GARAGE, BUT NOBODY WAS AROUND. AND BASED ON THE, UH, I MEAN TO TELL YOU THE SITUATION, I DECIDED, DECIDED TO JUST GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE. OKAY. SO, SO, SO NOBODY, HE NEVER PHYSICALLY SAID, YOU CANNOT COME ON MY PROPERTY. STORMWATER ENFORCEMENT STAFF WAS DENIED ENTRY. SO SOMEBODY, SOME OFFICIAL FROM THE CITY WAS DENIED ENTRY. CORRECT. WHY? WHY, WHY WOULD, WERE THEY DENIED ENTRY? WELL, IF YOU SAID HE WAS HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, HE PUT AN EMAIL OUT AND SAID, HEY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU COMING, BUT I WANT MY REPRESENTATION THERE. PLEASE SCHEDULE WITH ME ABOUT THAT. AND THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SIR, I, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION WORKS. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT CODE CONTEMPLATES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION WORKING. WE HAVE RIGHTS TO [01:25:01] ACCESS AT ANY POINT IN TIME TO ENSURE THAT THE WORK IS BEING DONE IN A CORRECT MANNER IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PERMIT. THE SECOND PART OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE RESIDENT WAS TOLD TO CEASE WORK AND THEY FAILED TO CEASE THE WORK. RIGHT. A BIG PORTION OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE RESIDENT HAS CONFLATED THE ORDER THAT THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO OCCUR. YOU GET A PERMIT, THEN YOU PERFORM THE WORK. THAT WAY THE STANDARDS CAN BE ENSURED THAT THEY'RE MET THAT WAY WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE SURVEY DOCUMENTING WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WERE. NONE OF THAT HAS OCCURRED TO THIS POINT. OKAY. CAN I GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM YOU, ANNETTE? YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT, AND I KNOW THIS FROM PERMITTING. YES, YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS WHEN HE'S MAKING A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC THING, WHICH HE SIGNS A SECTION THAT SAYS THAT. BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU AS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY WITH NO WARRANT CAN JUST COME ONTO A PERSON'S PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY, WITHOUT ANYTHING. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. NOW, IF IT IS A PERMIT IN PLAY, WHICH YOU JUST SAID, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A SECTION IN THE PERMIT THAT THERE'S A SIGNATURE WHERE HE GIVES AUTHORIZATION TO COME IN. BUT AT THIS POINT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT A PERMIT. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO YOU'RE, SO YOU CAN COME ONTO THE PROPERTY SO THE CITY OF MELBOURNE CAN COME ONTO THE PROPERTY. I'LL GLAD TO PROVIDE THAT CLARIFICATION FOR YOU. RIGHT. SO, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE CITY OF MELBOURNE CAN COME OUT TO SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY FOR NO. WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ANY SORT. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND HIS POINT. YEAH. BUT LET HIM AMPLIFY WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO SAY. OKAY, THANKS. SO THERE'S TWO THINGS. CODE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS WHEN ANY WORK IS OCCURRING ON A SITE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT OF ENTRY DEVELOPMENT WORK. THIS IS DEVELOPMENT WORK AS DEFINED BY STATE STATUTE. SECONDLY, THIS IS IMPACTING THE CITY'S MS FOUR PERMIT ENGINEERS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE A RIGHT OF ENTRY ON PROPERTY THAT IS ENSHRINED IN STATE LAW UNDER 4 71. WE CAN GO ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENFORCING PERMITS OR LOOKING AT SITUATIONS THAT INVOLVE THE NATURE OF OUR WORK. IN THIS CASE, THIS WAS VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY'S MS FOUR PERMIT, WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. OUR STORMWATER ENFORCEMENT STAFF WAS DENIED ENTRY TO THE SITE. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS REPRESENTATION, THEY WERE VIOLATIONS OCCURRING TO THE CITY'S MS FOUR PERMIT. OKAY. ONE QUESTION. ENGINEERS OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE RIGHTS OF ACCESS, JUST LIKE SURVEYORS HAVE RIGHTS OF ACCESS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. OKAY? THEY CANNOT BE TRESPASSED IF THEY'RE DOING THE COURSE OF THEIR WORK. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHY DIDN'T YOU COME UP BY WATER THEN? SIR? THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT WE ACCESS BY WATER. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT. THAT IS WE HAVE RIGHT OF ENTRY PERIOD. OKAY? THAT IS NOT FOR THE RESIDENT TO DECIDE. THAT IS NOT FOR THE CONSULTANTS TO DECIDE WHEN A STOP WORK ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED. WHEN THERE ARE VIOLATIONS OF OUR MS FOUR PERMIT, WE DO HAVE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSPECT THE MS FOUR SYSTEM, WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. WHAT'S YOUR MS RI DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR MSR FOUR, MS. R FOUR PERMIT. WHAT IS THAT? MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM WATER SYSTEM PERMIT. THAT IS A PERMIT THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO ADMINISTER UNDER FLORIDA. DEP HAS PASSED THROUGH FROM THE US EPA FOR THE CLEAN WATER ACT. OKAY. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT PERMIT. THAT WAS JUST ASKING THEN YOU NEED TO EDUCATE YOURSELF, SIR, BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY STANDARD PERMIT. IT IS AROUND THE UNITED STATES IN EVERY AGENCY. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING. I'M JUST ASKING WHAT WAS THEIR, YOUR SPECIFIC PERMIT. JUST, OKAY, I JUST HAVE 1 1 1. I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING. WHAT YOU JUST STATED IS ALL DOABLE UNDER THE LAW WITHOUT HIM HAVING APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FIRST? YES, SIR. WITH RESPECT TO THE STORMWATER VIOLATIONS WHICH WERE OCCURRING. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA KNOW. NOT NOT BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT, NOT ANYTHING ELSE. I UNDERSTAND O ONCE HE STORM WATER, ONCE HE PUTS IN A PERMIT AND A PACKAGE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME, COME ON THE PROPERTY AND, AND INSPECT IT AT THE PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, VARIOUS PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT. CORRECT. DEPENDING ON WHAT'S GOING ON. BUILDING PERMITS, LIKE HE'S INDICATED, WE HAVE RIGHT OF ENTRY BECAUSE THAT'S A PORTION OF THE PERMIT. GOTCHA. WHEN YOU ARE ILLEGALLY DISCHARGING TO WATERS OF THE STATE OR WATERS THAT THE CITY HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON REGARDLESS OF A PERMIT OR NOT. CORRECT. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD SIR, COULD YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT YOUR, YOU HAVE LICENSING IN OR WHAT YOU ARE AN EXPERTISE IN? OKAY. MY NAME IS THAT, TECHNICALLY IT'S DR. SCOTT HERBER. I'M A BOARD CERTIFIED ECOLOGIST, SENIOR ECOLOGIST BY THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, CERTIFIED AT WETLANDS CERTIFIED, A PA MOLD, ALL THAT STUFF. I HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM OVER 20 YEARS. I'M ALSO A LICENSED BUILDING CONTRACTOR AND A LICENSED MARINE CONTRACTOR. AND THERE'S PROBABLY A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF IN THERE THAT I'M NOT REMEMBERING AT THIS MOMENT. BUT I CAN SEND YOU MY CV IF YOU LIKE. ALSO PUBLISHED RESEARCH SCIENTIST. I WAS A PROFESSOR FOR 20 YEARS AND ON AND ON AND ON AND I STILL DO RESEARCH NOW, LICENSED. ARE YOU LICENSED IN BREVARD COUNTY? YES. OKAY. YES. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON. MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M READY TO MAKE, MAKE A MOTION. I, UH, MR. TEAL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION IN CASE NUMBER CE 2025 DASH 0 0 9 0 6 [01:30:01] TO START AN IRREPARABLE OR ISSUE AN IRREPARABLE FINE OF $5,000 FOR ITEMS D AND E FOR A TOTAL OF $10,000 AND FIND THE PROPERTY OWNER IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN, UH, UH, $250 A DAY FINE. UP TO $250 STARTING, UH, IF NOT COMPLETED, NOT CORRECTED BY JULY OR EXCUSE ME, 4 29. 4 29 20 26. SO THE IRREPARABLE FINE IS FOR ITEMS D AND E? YEAH. AND THE REST OF YOUR MOTION IS FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS? EXACTLY. OKAY. TO BE FOUND AN INITIAL VIOLATION, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? RIGHT. FOUND AN INITIAL VIOLATION. INITIAL VIOLATION. OKAY. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. TEO. SECOND BY MR. LOOMER. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 15. CASE NUMBER. ACTUALLY NO, BEFORE WE DO THAT, YOU WERE ON 23 AND 24. 23 AND 24. ITEM NUMBER 23. ACTUALLY I NEED TO START WITH 24 'CAUSE THEY CAME IN FIRST. ITEM NUMBER 24, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 6 0 4. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 81 VILLAGE PARK DRIVE. UH, RUTH ANN ON CIRCLE. WHICH ONE IS IT? WHICH ONE IS IT 24? YEAH, IT'S 24. 23. UH, HE CALLED 23. IT'S 23 OR 24. WHICH ONE? WELL, WHICHEVER ONE YOU HAVE. BOB, LET'S GO, LET'S GO. 24. I YOU CALL HIM 23. I CALL 23. LET'S CALL, LET'S GO 23. RUTH, DAN, CIRCLE FOUR. 3, 2, 2. RUTH, DAN, CIRCLE ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THAT CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD OVER HERE. UM, ALRIGHT. CAN EVERYBODY RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. AND CAN EVERYBODY STATE THEIR NAME AND HOW THEY'RE RELATED TO THE PROPERTY? CARRIE, BRO. PROPERTY OWNER. JAY BRO. PROPERTY OWNER, YESENIA PEREZ, OPERATIONS MANAGER WITH COMPLETE SYNTHETIC TURF. THE CONTRACTOR BILL HATFIELD WITH COMPLETE SYNTHETIC TURF. ALRIGHT, UM, INSPECTOR KELLER, WE'RE HERE ON NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATION IN THIS CASE? UM, THE RESPONDENTS, UM, INSTALLED ARTIFICIAL TURF IN THEIR BACKYARD WITHOUT ANY PERMITTING AND IT'S CAUSING A STORM WATER ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORS. WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROVIDED? UM, IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT ON SEPTEMBER FOUR OF, OF 2025 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT ON MARCH 11TH, 2026. IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? UH, THESE ARE AERIAL PHOTOS JUST SHOWING, UH, THE BEFORE AND AFTER, UH, BEFORE UH, THE ARTIFICIAL TURF WAS INSTALLED. AND AFTERWARDS. AND WHAT CONFIRMATION DID YOU HAVE THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF WAS INSTALLED BESIDES THE AERIAL OBSERVATION? UH, THE, THE, THE COMPLAINANT NEXT DOOR. AND UM, UM, AND THE RESPONDENTS HAVE, UH, INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE HIRED A CONTRACTOR WHO'S, WHO'S HERE TODAY, UM, TO INSTALL THIS. AND WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY? THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THE RESPONDENTS IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN TILL JULY 7TH TO COMPLY OR FINE UP TO $250 PER DAY. RESTATE THE VIOLATION CONTINUES. ALRIGHT. UM, AND WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE HERE. UM, LET'S START, MS. BRO. YES. OR MR. BRO? UH, OR IF BOTH OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR KELLER OR ANY COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? UM, JUST GOING BACK TO COMMUNICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US OF, UM, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IS BEING ASKED OF US AS HOMEOWNERS, UM, I FEEL IS UNREASONABLE FOR PROVIDING ON. CAN YOU SPEAKING TO MIKE PLEASE? THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS OR ASKING US TO COMPLY? UM, THERE IS A COUPLE ITEMS I FEEL IS UNREASONABLE AS A HOMEOWNER. UM, ASKING FOR CALCULATIONS OF THE UNDERLAYMENT FROM A CIVIL [01:35:01] ENGINEER IS ESTIMATED AROUND $5,000, UM, TO BE DONE. BUT TO GO BACK TO THE INITIAL, UM, CODE LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED, UM, I ACTED ON IT AS SOON AS I RECEIVED IT. AND, UM, CALLING THE CITY TO FIND OUT THE LAND ALTERATION PERMIT, YOUR PERMITTING DEPARTMENT COULD NOT HELP ME. I CONTACTED THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I WAS GIVEN A, UM, INVOICE FOR UNDERBRUSH CLEARING. I QUESTIONED THAT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT IS UNDER THE TURF. I GOT THE RUNAROUND OF WHAT PERMIT TO PULL BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH PERMIT IN THE CITY OF MELBOURNE TO PULL FOR TURF. I HAVE GONE AND CO CONTACTED THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I'VE COME IN PERSON, I'VE TRIED TO PLEAD OF WHAT CAN WE DO TO FIX THIS. I DO HAVE VIDEOS OF WHAT THE YARD DOES, WHAT MY YARD LOOK LIKE BEFORE THE TURF. WE HAVE CHILDREN, WE HAVE A DOG, AND GRASS DOES NOT GROW. IT IS NOTHING BUT MUD. THE NEIGHBOR THAT HAS COATED US, SHE HAS NOW SINCE PUT HER TWO DOWNSPOUTS UNDER GROUNDS THAT DID CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT SHE SAID WAS FLOODING OUT HER YARD. SO THE PICTURE THAT HAS THE RED CIRCLE, THAT WAS JULY 4TH WEEKEND. WE PROBABLY HAD A HUNDRED PERCENT CHANCE OF RAIN AND DROUGHT. WE WERE OUT OF TOWN. WE CAME BACK, MY HUSBAND GOT ON THE ROOF, PULLED OUT A COUPLE GATORADE BOTTLES, A BALL, AND THE DOWNSPOUT. THEN I HAVE ANOTHER VIDEO ON HERE IN AUGUST. AND THAT SWELL THAT THE, THE NEIGHBOR HAS CLAIMED THAT, UM, CAME AND FLOODED HER BACK PORCH, WHICH STILL HAVEN'T SEEN PROOF. I DON'T KNOW IF CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS PROOF OF THAT. UM, I ALSO HAVE A TEXT MESSAGE THAT THE OTHER RESIDENT ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER HOUSE WAS FLOODING HER YARD. SO SHE SAID IT WAS A NUMBER OF ITEMS. SO SINCE SHE HAS PUT HER DOWNSPOUTS IN UNDER GROUNDS NOW, ERRORS, NOT REALLY A LAKE IN THE BACKYARD, THE, WHAT WAS IT, TWO WEEKS AGO? WE HAVE A VIDEO MY HUSBAND TOOK. THERE IS NOT THIS LITTLE RETENTION AREA. THERE IS RETENTION OUTSIDE OF OUR GATES BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE PROPERTY HAS FLOWN, FLOODED SINCE 2017 WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE. WE'RE HERE TODAY TO ASK IF THE CONTRACTOR WE HIRED TO COME IN AND DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO UNDERGROUND TO RECREATE A SWELL OR SOMETHING TO FIX, SAID OVERFLOW RUNOFF ON THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT I FEEL THAT WITH HER PUTTING HER DOWNSPOUTS UNDERGROUND HAS KIND OF HELPED THE SITUATION. UM, MR. ROSE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THE, OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODS. IT'S ALWAYS FLOODED. ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT WAS OUT THERE TIME, TIME AND TIME AGAIN FOR THE RETENTION PONDS OUT FRONT. THEY SAID THE WRONG FILL WAS USED. THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODS. IT'S ALWAYS FLOODED. SO I CLEARLY, LIKE SHE SAID WITH THAT PICTURE, THE ONLY REASON THAT IT FLOODED LIKE THAT OUR DOWN SPOT WAS CLOGGED. ALL THE WATER WAS GOING STRAIGHT OVER THE GUTTER AND JUST PILING RIGHT THERE INTO HER YARD ONCE THAT WAS FIXED. IT HAS NOT BEEN LIKE THAT SINCE. AND WE'VE DONE NOTHING BUT STRIVE TO GET THIS RESOLVED. I JUST, IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE GETTING PUSHED TO DO, UH, SOME CRAZY ENGINEERING STUFF THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS HAD TO DO THIS. NO ONE ELSE HAS HAD TO GET THIS CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THEIR TURF IN MELBOURNE. IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO THIS. WE'VE TRIED, WE'VE OFFERED EVERYTHING UP TO, TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND I'VE PROVIDED A SURVEY, UM, BACK IN JANUARY. IT WAS DELIVERED, UH, TO MRS. STRUB THAT WAS, UH, ASKED US TO COME IN PERSON TO FILE THE LAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND DO THIS BECAUSE I SAID I REFUSED TO GET THE CALCULATION TEST DUE TO COST. IT'S UNREASONABLE. AND I WANTED SOMEONE TO HEAR OUR SIDE OF THE STORY, UM, AND NO RESPONSE. SO I CONTACTED THE ENGINEERING'S BOSS, JENNY CITY MANAGER, AND THEN THAT'S WHEN SHE, UH, GOT, I THINK IT'S MARK. THANK YOU, MARK. WHEREVER, IF YOU'RE IN HERE, , UM, YOU HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE MOST RESPONSIVE PERSON IN THE WHOLE BUILDING FROM YOUR [01:40:01] PERMITTING DEPARTMENT TO ENGINEERING. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT US AS A HOMEOWNER THAT PAYS TAXES, WE'RE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS IN OUR YARD AND LOOK FOR A SOLUTION. AND THE MATERIAL DOES HAVE SPECS FOR DRAINAGE AND STUFF. IT'S JUST, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. OVER. YES. A COUPLE QUESTIONS. NUMBER ONE, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THE ARTIFICIAL TURF? 1000. OKAY. DOES IT PERK? YEAH. DOES IT PERCOLATE? YEAH. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO WATER DOES GO, WATER GOES DIRECTLY THROUGH IT? ABSOLUTELY. AND IS NOT INHIBITED AT ALL BY THE MATERIAL TO CAUSE IT TO RUN OFF. SO WE HAVE THIS, IT'S JUST LIKE NATURAL GRASS. WE HAVE THE CITY ENGINEER TO HELP WITH THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS ALSO. OKAY. WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION THEN. THE, THERE'S A FLORIDA STATUTE OUT THERE THAT SAYS, REPLACE GRASS WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF IN ORDER TO CONSERVE WATER. UH, HAVE YOU RUN ANY TESTS WITH THE ADJACENT YARDS REGARDING PERCOLATION TO SEE IF THEIR INSTALLATION IS BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE SURROUNDING AREAS? UH, NO SIR. WE HAVE NOT RUN ANY TESTS ON PERCOLATION. THAT WOULD NOT GENERALLY BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO DO THE COMPLAINT, UH, ORIGINATED TO US THAT FLOODING WAS BEING CAUSED. WE WERE MADE AWARE THAT THERE WAS THE ARTIFICIAL TURF INSTALLED WITH RESPECT TO THE PERCOLATION. THAT HAS BEEN A QUESTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED ADEQUATELY TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE DETAILS PROVIDED HAVE THE ARTIFICIAL TURF MATERIAL SITUATED OVER GRAVEL WITH A LAYER OF MARBLE FINES AT THE BASE OF IT. UM, THE MARBLE FINES DO NOT HAVE A ADEQUATE PER RATE. UM, WITH THAT LAYER BEING IN PLACE, THAT THAT EFFECTIVELY ACTS AS THE, THE BARRIER BECAUSE THAT IS THE LOWER PERK. WHAT WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS FAIRNESS. AND THAT IS, GIVEN THAT THIS IS REPLACING GRASS AND GIVEN THAT THERE ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND GIVEN THERE WAS FLOODING HISTORICALLY, WHY NOT DO A PER TEST OF THE ADJACENT AREA IN THIS AND SEE HOW THEY COMPARE. IT MAY NOT BE YOUR JOB, BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, THAT THAT IS NOT THE, THE PART OF THE BOARD'S SCOPE OF AUTHORITY. THE, THE, THE OTHER AREAS ARE NOT AT QUESTION. HERE. THE VIOLATION IS THIS PROPERTY. THE CITY'S NOT GONNA GO OUT AND DO PERKS ON OTHER PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE A VIOLATION. THERE WAS A, THERE WAS WORK DONE WITHOUT PERMIT. THERE WASN'T A PERMIT, THERE WASN'T, YOU DID NOT OFFER A PERMIT FOR TURF. THERE, THERE, THERE, AS I EXPLAINED TO, UH, I FORGET YOUR NAME, MRS. ROSE. MRS. BRO, IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHAT PERMITS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. 'CAUSE THEY WEREN'T NAMED PROPERLY IN THE SYSTEM. AND SO I CLARIFIED THAT WITH HER AND I HOPE THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED. THAT THE PERMIT THEY INITIALLY PUT IN WAS, UH, BEING REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FINALLY AT, AT SOME POINT IN THIS PROCESS. UM, SO THERE DEFINITELY WAS A PERMIT APPLIED FOR, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHAT IT, WHAT THE, THE TITLE OF IT WAS CONFUSING. AND SO WE WORKED THAT OUT AMONGST THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 'CAUSE IT EVEN, THEY WERE CONFUSED. WE'VE EVEN HAD FRIENDS CALL TO ASK ABOUT PERMITS FOR TURF. AND THEY WERE TOLD THERE IS NO PERMIT FOR TURF. THERE ACTUALLY IS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE, THESE TYPE OF COMPANIES TYPICALLY DON'T KNOW. THEY PUT IT IN. NO ONE COMPLAINS. WE DON'T KNOW. WE GOT A COMPLAINT ON THIS ONE. AND THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD IS CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT PERMIT YOU NEED THOUGH? CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT PERMIT YOU NEEDED? YES. IN 2025, FEBRUARY, 2025. WELL, WE, WE CAN DO THAT AT ANOTHER TIME. BUT YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S THE VIOLATION THOUGH, SO YES. AND, AND WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT THAT PERMIT IS AT ANOTHER TIME. WE CAN'T GO INTO COMPLETE DETAILS HERE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THE VIOLATION. SO WE WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT PERMIT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT WE WERE, THE VIOLATION IS A MODIFICATION TO A DESIGNED STORMWATER SYSTEM. THIS SUBDIVISION, AS NOTED, WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE EARLY 2010S, 2017. THE ENTIRE STORMWATER SYSTEM FOR THAT SUBDIVISION IS PERMITTED. WHAT I DON'T WANT ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THE DRAINAGE FLOW, EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT SUBDIVISION IS DESIGNED. THERE ARE PERK RATES, THERE ARE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS RATES FOR EACH OF THE LOTS. EACH OF THOSE ARE SET. MM-HMM . SO THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE REQUESTED AS PART OF THE PERMIT IS TO VALIDATE THAT THIS SITE STILL MEETS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PERMITTED FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. WHAT WE DON'T, SO YOU CAN'T, UM, JUST AS A, FOR A HOUSE, YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE THE ENTIRE SITE OF THE HOUSE 100% IMPERMEABLE. IT'S DESIGNED FOR A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IMPERMEABLE. [01:45:01] AND THAT RUNOFF THEN GOES TO THE STORMWATER POND FOR THE SUBDIVISION. THAT STORMWATER POND IS SIZED BASED OFF THE PERCENTAGE AND PERMEABLE FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. IT'S, SO ONCE YOU'VE EXCEEDED THAT THRESHOLD, YOU'RE NOW IMPACTING THE ENTIRE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SO EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IF YOU START MAKING THOSE CHANGES, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE NOT IMPACTING CITY THE OVERALL FUNCTIONING OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM CITY. IT IS THE CITY OF IT IS ONE SECTION, UM, OF THE YARD. BECAUSE THE, TO THE RIGHT, THAT LITTLE PORTION, YOU CAN SEE AT THE END, IF THAT WATER WAS FLOWING INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD YARD, SHE COULD BE CALLING THE 9 1 1 EVERY SINGLE TIME IT RAINED ON US. SO JUST TO BE, IF I SHOW YOU VIDEOS THAT ARE ON HERE, THERE IS ONE SECTION FROM FENCE POST TO A FENCE POST THAT I FEEL IF WE CAN PULL THE TURF BACK AND LOWER IT DOWN, RECREATE THE SWELL, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THERE'S THREE THINGS HERE. I DON'T WANT THE BOARD TO GET INTO THE WEEDS OF HOW THE CITY'S GONNA RESOLVE THIS. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD IS, IS THERE A VIOLATION OR IS THERE NOT? AND HAS THE CITY PROVEN THEIR CASE? WHAT'S THE ISSUE? THE SECOND THING IS THAT, UM, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY IS NOT GONNA GO OUT TO OTHER PROPERTIES AND START DOING PERCOLATION TESTS. UH, IF THEY HAVE A PLAN, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY DO, WE'RE GIVING THEM TILL JULY TO FIGURE THAT OUT. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE PERMITS, PUT IN THEIR PLAN, THEIR PERCOLATION, WHATEVER THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WANTS, AND PUT THAT THROUGH. AND WHEN THEY REVIEW IT AND IT GETS APPROVED, THEN THEY PROCEED WITH THEIR PLAN. UM, THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR IN THIS SITUATION. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. IS THERE A VIOLATION ACCORDING TO THE CITY? WE BELIEVE THERE IS. IT IS UP TO THE BOARD TO MAKE THAT DECISION. AND THEN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO GET A PERMIT. AND THEY HAVE THAT, UH, WE'RE REQUESTING AN EXTENDED TIME PAST THE, THE JUNE HEARING TO THE JULY HEARING. THEY GIVE THEM MORE TIME, UH, TO, TO TRY TO GET THAT PLAN IN PLACE. AND DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS AT THE JULY HEARING, THEY MAY BE ALREADY WELL ON THEIR WAY AND WE MAY RECOMMEND AN EXTENSION. BUT THE REALITY HERE IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS STILL FLOODING OR NOT, IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT, THEY BELIEVE IT. THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM IS OKAY, IS DID THEY DO WITHOUT A PERMIT? ARE THEY REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT? A PERMIT? THERE WAS NO PERMIT. WE DID NOT PERMIT. AND WHETHER THE CITY PRESENTED ITS CASE TO PROVE THAT THE CASE EXISTS, UH, THE VIOLATION EXISTS. AND HOW MUCH, IF THE BOARD DECIDES THERE'S GONNA BE A FINDING, HOW MUCH TIME WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM. I UNDERSTAND. MY, MY POINT IS THAT IN ORDER FOR EVIDENCE TO BE SUBSTANTIVE, WE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. WHO, WHY, WHAT, WHERE IT IS UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PULL, PUT THOSE THINGS TOGETHER WITH THEIR PERMITS. NOT THE CITY YOU STILL HAVE PERMIT TO PULL. I UNDERSTAND. HOLD, HOLD ON. I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE WITH THE WATER. AND EVERYBODY IN TOWN HAD WATER, STANDING WATER. EVEN IF YOU HAD ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS MM-HMM . CORRECT. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, UH, THE WHAT AND WHEN QUESTION, HOW LONG DID THAT WATER STAND? AND THAT WAS THE, THE REASON FOR THE IMPERIOUS IN PERCOLATION BECAUSE IN ORDER TO COMPARE, YOU NEED TO, TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO BE FAIR. SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT. IT'S NOT TO GO AND, YOU KNOW, CREATE A PROJECT OUT OF THIS. IT'S, AGAIN, IT'S NOT IN THE BOARD SCOPE OF AUTHORITY DETERMINE THAT THE BOARD'S SCOPE OF AUTHORITY IS DETERMINED. IS THERE WORK WITHOUT PERMIT IN THIS CASE? THE CITY ENGINEER HAS, HAS TESTIFIED THAT THERE IS, OKAY. HE'S, HE'S, HE'S MADE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM. HE'S, HE'S PUT TOGETHER THOSE THINGS. THEY NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A PROPER PERMIT. I'VE TALKED TO THEM. UM, THERE IS A, THERE IS A WAY TO CORRECT THIS. THEY ARE JUST HOPING THAT THIS CAN STAY AS IS AND THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE'VE OFFERED TO DO MULTIPLE THINGS TO FIX IT. AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN US WHAT PERMIT TO PULL, SIR. YOU STILL HAVE NOT, THERE WAS NO PERMIT REQUIRED AT THE TIME. MR. KELLER, WHAT IS THE VIOLATION THAT THEY ARE CITED FOR TODAY? IS IT NO. IS IT A TURF OR WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SITE OF THE VIOLATION? UH, IT'S, IT'S WORK WITHOUT A PERMITS AND CAUSING, UH, STORM WATER ISSUES. UH, AND WELL DISRUPTING THE STORM WATER ISSUE, I GUESS WOULD BE THE SHORT ANSWER. DISRUPT THE, THE STORM WATER THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED WHEN THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION WAS DESIGNED. THIS IS SUBDIVISION, AS THE ENGINEER COMPLAINED EARLIER, EXPLAINED, WAS DESIGNED A CERTAIN WAY AND THEY, UM, LET, LET'S JUST, LET'S NARROW THIS DOWN. MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT IS THE VIOLATION? WE'LL, I'LL GET TO THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT IT IS, BUT WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC VIOLATION THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED IT'S, UH, STORM WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS? THEY, THEY, I JUST, OKAY, LET, LET'S STOP THERE. THAT'S MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT IS THE VIOLATION, [01:50:01] UH, MR. ENNIS, WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOMEBODY TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER, UH, MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS OR ANYTHING AFFECTING THE STORM WATER SYSTEM OBTAINING A PERMIT BEFORE THE WORK IS PERFORMED? AND WHAT IS THAT PERMIT FOR? IS IT FOR INSTALLATION OF, UH, THE TURF OR WHAT IS THE PERMIT GOING TOWARDS? THE PERMIT IS TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER PROPOSED CHANGES ARE STILL IN LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL PERMITTED DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. WHAT COULD BE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALTER THE STORM WATER SYSTEM? CHANGES IN IMPERVIOUS AREA, CHANGES IN THE RATE OF PERCOLATION INTO THE SOIL, UH, CHANGES IN THE GRADES TO THE STORM WATER SYSTEM ITSELF THAT INFLUENCE OR OTHERWISE REDIRECT THE DESIGNED STORM WATER FLOW PATTERNS. WHAT WOULD, UM, BE REQUIRED FOR SOMEBODY TO GET A PERMIT IN ORDER TO, UM, UH, ASSESS WHETHER THE STORM WATER SYSTEM HAS BEEN ALTERED OR AFFECTED? GENERALLY A SET OF ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS INDICATING WHAT THE NEW PROPOSED, UH, STORMWATER ROUTING PERCOLATION RATES AND OR GRADES WOULD BE FOR THE SITE AFTER MODIFICATION. HAS ANY OF THAT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY? NO, SIR. IS THAT REQUIRED BEFORE ALTERATIONS TO, UM, INSTALLATIONS THAT WOULD AFFECT THE STORMWATER SYSTEM? UH, UH, BEFORE A PERMIT IS GRANTED OR BEFORE IT'S ALLOWED, I SHOULD SAY? YES. THOSE ARE REQUIRED FOR WHEN YOU'RE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO A EXISTING PERMANENT STORMWATER SYSTEM. OKAY. UM, I, I THINK MR. I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME, SIR. THE GREEN SHIRT. I HAVE BILL HATFIELD. BILL HATFIELD. MR. HATFIELD, IT LOOKED LIKE EARLIER YOU WERE GOING TO ASK SOMETHING. OH, THERE'S A COUPLE ITEMS. UH, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HOUSE BILL 6 83? I'M NOT. IF YOU WANNA TELL ME WHAT'S, OKAY, SO I'LL JUST ONE SECTION OF THAT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES ABOUT, ONE QUICK, QUICK QUESTION IS THAT, IS THAT IN PAST OR IS IT STILL IN? IT'S PASSED. OKAY. IT'S GONE. SO DO YOU KNOW THE STATUTE NUMBER? CAN YOU TELL ME? UM, 6 83 6 8 3. OKAY, I'LL GLADLY SEND IT TO YOU. OKAY. NOT, NOT A PROBLEM. BUT IN THERE, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DEVELOP MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SYNTHETIC TURF INSTALLATION, COVERING FACTORS LIKE MATERIAL TYPE COLOR, PERME PERMEABILITY. ALL RIGHT. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS WE KEEP GOING BACK TO PERMEABILITY AND THAT'S HOW IT INFECTED OR AFFECTED THE FLOW OF THE WATER ACROSS SHEET RUNOFF. WELL, IT'S EXTREMELY PERMEABLE. IT'S ON TOP OF 89 STONE. THE MARBLE FINES ARE DUSTING TO GO ON TOP. SO WE CAN PULL THE TURF AROUND WITHOUT DISTURBING THE ROCK WE'VE PUT DOWN AND COMPACT IT. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S TO THE EXTENT WHERE IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE DRAINAGE. AND THAT'S HOW WE DID IT. NOW, WE CAME OFF AS GRADE. WE CAME OFF THE POOL AND THE POOL HAD BEEN INSTALLED PERMITTED. WE GO DOWN FOUR INCHES FROM GRADE FOLLOWING THE CONTOUR SLOPE THAT EXISTS ALREADY. AND WE FILL THAT AREA WITH THAT 89 STONE, THE ROCK. SO THE WATER IS STILL GOING TO FLOW ACROSS THE SUBSTRATE. THE PERMEABILITY IS THERE AND IT'S STILL GONNA FLOW IN THE SAME DIRECTION. SO WE DID NOT PULL A PERMIT BECAUSE BACK IN 2022, MYSELF AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COMPANY MET WITH TODD CORWIN, WHO AT THAT TIME I BELIEVE WAS THE ENGINEER. NO, WHO WAS TODD CORWIN THEN? UH, CORWIN. TODD CORWIN WAS A, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEE. OKAY. THEN THERE WERE TWO OTHER PEOPLE THAT WE MET WITH. AND THE AGREEMENT WAS THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE TO PULL A TURF PERMIT UNLESS THE HOA REQUIRED IT. AND THE THING THAT BROUGHT THIS ALL ABOUT WAS A LADY NAMED NA, NATALIE CAMACHO IN THE SANCTUARY, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS DENYING HER THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT TO, TO PUT IN SYNTHETIC TURF. SHE WAS FIGHTING IT. AND WHAT THE HOA SAID WAS, IF THE CITY WILL ALLOW IT AND PERMIT IT WILL ALLOW IT. AND THEY MADE A ONE TIME EXCEPTION BECAUSE WITH TODD AND TWO OTHER PEOPLE, I'LL GLADLY SEND YOU THEIR NAMES. AND THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES SAID, YES, YOU CAN DO THAT. NOW DID HE GO OUT, DID THEY CHECK IT AND EVERYTHING? YES, THEY DID. BUT THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING. I WALKED OUTTA THAT ROOM WITH YOU DID NOT NEED A PERMIT FOR SYNTHETIC TURF ANYTHING UNLESS YOUR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION REQUIRED IT OR REQUESTED IT. [01:55:01] WELL, HOW DOES THE, THE FLORIDA STATUTE APPLY? THERE'S WORDS IN THERE ABOUT, UH, WHAT YOU, WHAT THE CRITERIA IS. WELL, WHAT, BASICALLY WHAT IT'S SAYING IS IT'S CHARGING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITH DEFINING PERMEABILITY AND HOW SYNTHETIC TURF CAN IMPACT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING STORM RUNOFF. OKAY. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO DO. THE, THE STATUTE'S BEEN PASSED, BUT WE HAVE NO RESULT YET. DOES ANYBODY KNOW ON THE CITY SIDE WHAT THAT STATUTE'S ALL ABOUT? I AM, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE, THE STATUTE. UM, BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S STILL NOT ADDRESSING THE UNDERLYING ISSUE. I UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT ISSUE, BUT AS FAR AS THE OTHER PERFORMANCE ISSUES PERMIT THE, A JUDGMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT PART OF THE PERMIT, UH, OF PART OF THE, THE CODE CASE. WE NEED TO HAVE ENGINEERED DRAWING SHOWING THAT THEY ARE NOT CHANGING THE PERMITTED STORMWATER SYSTEM FOR THE SUBDIVISION. THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEING DESCRIBED HERE IS LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE WATER, THE, THE WATER FOR AREAS IN A SUBDIVISION WHEN IT'S PERKING INTO THE GROUND THAT IS RETURNING TO THE GROUNDWATER TABLE THAT IS NOT RETURNING IN SOME LATERAL FLOW JUST NECESSARILY TO THE STORMWATER POND. OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, SO I, I JUST, COULD YOU BE REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO CLEAR THIS UP? I MEAN, IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF PERMIT IT IS AND WHAT, WHAT SPECIFICALLY DOES THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NEED TO GET THIS? 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SIMPLE THING. UH, IS IT JUST A SET OF DRAWINGS WITH, WITH A SPEC SHEET FOR THE, IT'S A, IT IS A SET OF DRAWINGS AND IT'S AN ANALYSIS, CERTIFIED ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM THAT SET, YOU KNOW, THAT PROVES TO US THAT THE PERC RATE THAT IS BEING INDICATED IS A AT EQUAL REPLACEMENT FOR THE PERC RATE FOR SOD. SO THEY'RE GONNA NEED TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AT $5,000, WHICH IS UNREASONABLE THE, THE SOD SYSTEM AT, AT, I SAID WE'VE BEEN GIVEN SOME TEST RESULTS, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS, THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE SITE. SO WHERE WE'RE AT IS WE BASICALLY SAID YOU HAVE TO TREAT IT AS IMPERMEABLE AND EITHER PROVIDE THE STORAGE THAT YOU MAINTAIN IT ON THE SITE AND A CALCULATION FOR THAT, OR YOU NEED TO RESTORE THE SYSTEM TO THE ORIGINAL PERMITTED FUNCTION. IF WE REMOVED FOUR INCHES OF SOIL AND ORGANICS AND INSTALLED 89 STONE, AS I'VE DESCRIBED, TO A DEPTH OF THREE INCHES, IF I CAN GIVE YOU LAB TESTING THAT SHOWS THAT THE TURF PERKS AT A MINIMUM OF 32 INCHES PER HOUR PER YARD. AND WE DID THAT. IF IT WAS MUCH MORE THAN THAT, WE'D WATCH NOAH'S ART CRUSHING MY CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY. BUT WE CAN SHOW YOU THAT AND WE CAN SHOW YOU WHAT 89 STONE PERKS AT. AND I CAN ALSO GET YOU DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS THE MOST IMPACTED PART OF SOIL IS THE TOP FOUR INCHES. WELL, MR. CHAIR, UH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, YOU, YOU DON'T NEED TO CONVINCE US 'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT THE ENGINEERING PEOPLE. I JUST WANT IT TO BE REALLY CLEAR WHAT WOULD TAKE TO CLEAR THIS MATTER UP? 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE FOR A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF SOD, UM, WE'VE, WE HAVE PROVIDED A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF REQUIREMENTS TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION IN WRITING TO THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS. UM, I, OKAY. I I GOT, WE, WE, WE'VE GIVEN THAT DIRECT DIRECTION IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO A THOUSAND FEET OF SOD. I DO AGREE. IF THIS WAS JUST A THOUSAND FEET OF SOD, THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A DI MINIMUS. HOWEVER, IF EVERY RESIDENT IN THE SUBDIVISION DECIDES TO REPLACE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF SOD, WE NOW HAVE A POTENTIAL FAILING STORM WATER SYSTEM THAT CAUSES FURTHER FLOODING. HAVE YOU DONE THAT TO EVERYONE THAT HAS SOD IN MIL? HAVE YOU GIVEN THEM, HAVE THEY PROVIDED YOU WITH THAT TEST? WE'RE WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION. I I WHAT I, WHERE WE'RE AT NOW IS MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH ON THIS. I THINK THERE IS A CODE VIOLATION. EVERYBODY AGREES THERE'S A CODE VIOLATION POTENTIALLY. WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERMIT WE NEED IS. WE STILL NEED, THE CITY'S MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND ONCE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, [02:00:01] THE CITY'S MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND WE MAKE A MOTION. IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE GONNA START PAYING ANY MONEY. OKAY? IT'S GIVEN YOU GUYS UNTIL JULY THE SEVENTH FOR ALL OF YOU TO TALK TO ALL OF 'EM. COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S AGREEABLE TO EVERYBODY, TO WAY TO WORK IT OUT. AND THEN YOU C COME BACK BEFORE US AND WE, THE DATES, IT'S, IT'S SOLVED BEFORE JULY THE SEVENTH AND IT, IT GOES AWAY. I'VE TRIED SINCE SEPTEMBER. GET UNDERSTAND THIS RESOLVED, UNDERSTAND, AND TO THE WENT DOWN. YOU TALKED TO THE RIGHT MAN OVER HERE. BUT I THINK THIS GENTLEMAN NEEDS TO TALK TO THAT GENTLEMAN IN MY OPINION AND GET EVERYTHING SQUARED UP. 'CAUSE WE DON'T CARE. ALL WE'RE TOLD IS THERE'S A VIOLATION AND THEY'VE ASKED US TO MAKE A, A JUDGMENT ON IT. WELL, AND WE'RE FINE BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE. WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT IT. WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS NOT TO HAVE TO PAY A $5,000 TEST TO PROVE THE UNDERLAYMENT TO RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT THE PEOPLE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE TO THAT. I CAN'T GET ENGINEERING TO RESPOND TO ME. I CALL EVERY, I'M KNOWN AS THE TURF. I WALKED IN PERSON, WALKED DOWN UP. I HAVE GO RIGHT UP TO THAT. I HAVE THIRD FLOOR. OKAY. BUT IF ONE THING Y'ALL NEED TO DO IS PULL THE ORDINANCE THAT TALKS ABOUT REPLACING GRASS WITHOUT A JUDICIAL SURF, THE CITY ADMITTED THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF IT. MAKE THEM AWARE. LET THEM READ IT. OKAY. AND THEN WE'RE GIVING YOU THE TIME TO EVERYBODY COME TO A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE STATE SAID WHEN THEY WROTE THAT STATUTE. OKAY. WE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S OUTSIDE OUR WHEELHOUSE. SO WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO PERMIT AND THERE SHOULD BE ONE. AND TOMORROW, IF YOU ALL CAN GIMME A CALL AND WE'LL SET UP A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING, OR ESPECIALLY YOU GUYS OVER THERE WHO SEEM TO HAVE THE PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THESE, THESE INSTALLATIONS WITH ENGINEERING AND MYSELF AND THE CODE OFFICER, SIT DOWN AND SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW IT'LL HELP YOU. UM, BUT TODAY WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE VIOLATION IS, WHICH IS BASICALLY WORK WITHOUT PERMIT FOR THE STORM WATER ALTERATION. WE'RE GIVING YOU TO JULY 7TH TO TRY TO COME TO A CORRECTIVE ACTION. WE'LL SET UP SOME KIND OF MEETING ONE-ON-ONE. SO WE CAN TALK IN PLAIN LANGUAGE ABOUT THE ENGINEERING ASPECT OF IT AND THE PERCOLATION. AND YOU TWO SEEM TO BE THE MORE EXPERT IN THOSE. YOU NEED TO BE THERE AND TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT. BUT FOR TODAY, WE NEED TO FINISH THIS UP WITH A, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE IN VIOLATION, NOT HOW TO CORRECT IT ALL RIGHT. AND WHATEVER PERMIT ISSUES THERE ARE, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT WHEN WE MEET. BUT THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN, NOBODY IN THIS BUILDING CAN TELL US OTHER THAN DANNY SAID TO PULL A LAND ALTERATION FLAT PERMIT. AND I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH HER. HOW DO I GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF? WELL, NOW YOU NEED TO COME DOWN IN PERSON. COME DOWN IN PERSON. WELL, NO ONE'S AVAILABLE AGAIN ON THE ENGINEERING FLOOR. SO FROM OUR PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION THAT I'VE, I'VE TRIED TO, I'VE HELPED YOU UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THIS MUCH BETTER. CORRECT? I, I UNDERSTAND. I CAN READ. THE PROBLEM IS, IS I'M A FULL-TIME MOM. I WORK FULL-TIME. I'VE TRIED COMING IN HERE. I'M KNOWN AS THE TURF LADY ON ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 'CAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I CALLED ALL DIFFERENT TIMES, ALL DIFFERENT DAYS OF THE WEEK AND STUFF. THIS HAS TAKEN PART OF MY LIFE AWAY. I MEAN, IT'S THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. THE, THE LADY'S YARD IS NOT FLOODING OUT ANYMORE. AND WE WENT OVER THAT TOO. SO THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THAT. LET'S SET UP A MEETING AMONGST ALL OF US AND TRY TO GET YOU TO WHERE YOU NEED TO BE. BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. AND I'VE TRIED SINCE SEPTEMBER TO TALK WITH SOMEBODY TO GET THIS AND NOT STAND BEFORE YOU GUYS HERE THIS EVENING. AND, AND WE'VE TRIED DOING THE SAME THING WITH YOU AND IT JUST HASN'T BEEN WORKING OUT. YEAH, MA'AM. WE, WE DON'T DEAL WITH THE HOW HERE, HOW, HOW THINGS GET DONE IS OUTSIDE OUR WHEELHOUSE. WE ONLY DEAL WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US, WHICH IS A YES OR NO ANSWER TO, UH, IS THERE A PERMIT OR NOT A PERMIT. AND I UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT A PERMIT. THERE'S NO SUCH PERMIT. CORRECT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE ACTUALLY. SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. MS. STEELE, UH, CAN WE POSTPONE THIS TILL JULY 7TH? I'LL MAKE A MO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS CASE NUMBER CE 20 25 20 DASH 0 0 6 0 2 UNTIL THE JULY 7TH MEETING. CAN [02:05:01] I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? YEAH. SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. STEEL TO POSTPONE THE MEETING TO THE JULY 27TH. WAS THAT IT? SECOND JULY 7TH. JULY 7TH. SECOND BY MS. FULLER. JULY 8TH MEETING. JULY THE EIGHTH. JULY 8TH. CORRECT THAT TO THE MEETING. JULY THE EIGHTH, SECOND BY MS. FULTON. ALL IN FAVOR? A AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED NAY. ONE. NAY. OH. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED MOTION. SO ORDER, MOTION PASSED. SO IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, HEY GUYS, WE STILL NEED TO SET UP SOMETHING. HAVE A BETTER DAY. ALL THIS MEANS IS WE'LL BE BACK IN JULY IF IT'S NOT TAKEN CARE OF. GUYS, GET TOGETHER, GET WITH HIM. GET WITH MARK. I NEED TO CONTACT YOU TOMORROW TO GET A MEETING SET UP. AND THEN ALL THIS NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE JULY 8TH. I'M JULY 8TH. THAT'S CORRECT. HAVE TO COME BACK IN HERE ONCE RESOLVED, WORKING ON IT. PLAN IN AND AM I BEING FINED? NO. NO, MAN. YOU'RE FREE TO GO. YOU'RE, NO, YOU'RE FREE. LET SIT. I DON'T, I THINK MAYBE SHE HAS IT. I DON'T, HE HAS LIKE, TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. IT'S THE FIRST TIME I MET HIM. YES. FIVE MINUTE RECESS. I SECOND THAT. FIVE MINUTE RECESS. OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? ALRIGHT, HEAR YOU NOW. ITEM NUMBER 24, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 6 0 4. UM, I SEE SOMEBODY AT THE PODIUM. SIR, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. NOTHING'S DONE. AND WE HAVE SOME OTHER PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE. UH, FIRST SIR, SIR, HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? UH, I'M WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. OKAY. A DIRECTOR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU ALL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. AND CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAMES? MRS. JUNE LEWIS. I AM A HOMEOWNER. AND SIR TIM HUGHES, PROPERTY OWNER. OKAY. AND I DON'T THINK I ASKED YOU YOUR NAME, SIR. CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR NAME? ROY MALOTT. OKAY. INSPECTOR KELLER. WE'RE HERE ON NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATION IN THIS CASE? IT APPEARS TO BE AN ALTERING STORM. WATER SYSTEMS REQUIRE PERMIT. YES. AND THE, UM, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. THE, THE HOA, UM, YOU KNOW, IS DOING, UH, THE DUE DILIGENCE, TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE STORMWATER ISSUES, BUT THEY'RE NOT ENGINEERS. AND, UH, SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING, UM, DOESN'T JIVE WITH WHAT YOU IT, IT, IT SHOULD BE DONE. THE, UM, AND THE CITY ENGINEER, UH, AND I AND MARK AND, AND OTHERS HAVE MET ON SITE, YOU CAN SEE, AND THAT ONE PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE LEGS OF, OF A NICE MEETING ON SITE. AND, AND, UM, THE HOA HAS RESPONDED. THEY'VE HIRED A, AN, AN ENGINEER TO HELP HIM WITH THIS. UH, I KNOW THAT WAS LOOKING GOOD. UM, BUT AS OF LATE, UH, OR AS OF FEBRUARY, THE UM, ENGINEERING ENGINEER FOR THE HOA HASN'T BEEN RESPONDING TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. SO THIS ISN'T MOVING FORWARD. WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION? SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2025 WAS A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT. AND FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT. WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO, UH, FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN UNTIL JUNE 2ND TO COMPLY, OR A FINAL UP TO TWO 50 BEFORE I, UH, OKAY. BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO MR. MILLOT, UM, UH, MR. ENNIS, WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATION OR WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CAN YOU GIVE THE BOARD? UH, SO THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION HAD RESULTED FROM A, UH, TRASH RACK SYSTEM THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE CONTROL STRUCTURE. UM, THE GREAT INLET THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE ON THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT IS THE CONTROL STRUCTURE FOR THE POND. THIS, UM, UH, ELEMENT OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM BASICALLY DICTATES WHAT THE WATER LEVEL OF THE STORM STORMWATER SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. THIS IS WHERE THE WATER IS MAKING ITS, UH, FINAL, UH, JOURNEY THROUGH THE STORMWATER SYSTEM OF THE SUBDIVISION. AND THEN IT GOES FROM HERE AND IT DISCHARGES INTO THE CITY'S MS FOUR SYSTEM. SO THIS BASICALLY CONTROLS HOW THE WATER GOES. UM, THE HOA HAD PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED A TRASH RACK. WHAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO DO WAS TO KEEP DEBRIS FROM ENTERING INTO, UH, THE STORMWATER SYSTEM, UH, THROUGH THAT INLET. UM, UNFORTUNATELY, THE DESIGN HAD LED TO WATER BACKING UP BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE CONTROL STRUCTURE, WHICH HAD CAUSED, UH, SUBSTANTIAL ELEVATIONS IN THE WATER. WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, THERE WAS SOME LOCALIZED FLOODING THAT HAD OCCURRED IN THE ROADWAYS. UM, THAT TRASH RACK WAS REMOVED BY CITY STAFF, UH, DURING A STORM EVENT IN ORDER TO RESTORE FLOWS. UM, THE [02:10:01] HOA WENT BACK OUT AND ATTEMPTED TO CREATE A SKIMMER, UH, BACK ON THE FRONT OF THE DI DEVICE, WHICH IS THAT SHEET METAL, UH, ITEM THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, NEXT TO THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL'S FEET WHO WERE IN THAT PICTURE. UM, THAT PARTICULAR SKIMMER, UM, IT'S INTENDED TO KEEP DEBRIS AND OIL FROM EXITING THE STORMWATER POND AND GOING OUT TO, UM, THE CITY'S, UH, DRAINAGE SYSTEM. UM, IT WASN'T DESIGNED CORRECTLY OR INSTALLED CORRECTLY. UH, SO A LITTLE BIT TOO CLOSE TO THE STRUCTURE, WHICH RESTRICTED THE FLOWS. AGAIN, RESTRICTING FLOWS INTO YOUR CONTROL. INLET BASICALLY CAUSES ELEVATED WATER LEVELS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. AGAIN, UM, THAT COULD LEAD TO FLOODING. UM, WE MET ON SITE, UM, THE HOA DID ACQUIRE THE SERVICES OF AN ENGINEER, IT'S MBV ENGINEERING. UH, THEY REACHED OUT TO US WITH A PROPOSED DESIGN, WHICH WAS ADEQUATE, BUT IT WAS MISSING SOME, UH, MINOR ELEVATION DETAILS THAT WE NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ANY CHANGES TO, UH, HOW MUCH WATER WAS RETAINED IN THIS POND, AND THEREFORE HOW MUCH WATER WOULD BE KEPT IN SYSTEM DURING A HEAVY RAIN EVENT. UM, WE PROVIDED OUR COMMENTS, UH, IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. UH, WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE ENGINEER SINCE. UH, SO WE'RE NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW, IF HE'S STILL NEEDING ADDITIONAL TIME TO COLLECT THAT PARTICULAR SURVEY DATA. UH, IT'S JUST WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WHATSOEVER THAT, UH, THE REQUESTED INFORMATION WAS TO BE PROVIDED. SO, BUT I SAID THE HOA HAS BEEN WORKING TO, UH, CORRECT THE, UM, MODIFICATIONS TO THIS PARTICULAR INLAND MR. MULAH MULAH. YES. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER, UH, INSPECTOR KELLER OR THE ENGINEER MR. INES? UH, NO. THEY'VE, UH, THEY'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN, UH, UH, COMPLETING THIS RELU RESOLUTION OF THIS, UH, OF THIS PROBLEM. OKAY. UH, INITIALLY THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. UH, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE STATUTES, WE, OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE WAS THAT WE, WE WERE RESTORING THE, UH, SKIMMER, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. WE WERE RESTORING IT BACK AND WE DIDN'T NEED TO PERMIT BECAUSE THE, THE STATUTE SAYS YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT IF YOU'RE SIMPLY DOING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. HOWEVER, ON SITE, UH, THEY WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY TO US THAT THAT WAS AN INADEQUATE FLOW. SO WE, WE DID CONTRACT WITH AN ENGINEERING FIRM, UH, TO GO DESIGN THAT, AND THEY SUBMITTED IT. AND I JUST FOUND OUT TODAY THAT THEY HADN'T RESPONDED TO YOU. I'LL GET WITH THEM TOMORROW AND SEE IF I CAN'T, I'LL GET AHOLD OF, UH, THE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE. SHE RUNS THINGS. YEAH, I BELIEVE SO. WANDA KESSLER WOULD BE LOOKING FOR, YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE. ALRIGHT. UM, I HAVE MR. HU YEAH. MR. HUGHES. YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS? UH, THE COMMENTS WAS THAT, UH, THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE. UH, MY HOUSE HAS JUST BECOME ONE FOOT OF FLOODING BECAUSE OF THIS OUTFLOW BOX. UM, AND IT'S MY, I'VE, UH, I CONTACTED THE A HJ, UH, WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND REPORTED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT THE, THE FIX ACTION THAT THEY SHOULD DO. UM, BUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS UNDER, THEY'RE IN CHARGE OF MAINTAINING BUT NOT MODIFICATION. THERE'S MODIFICATION JUST, UH, WITHOUT A PERMIT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND MA'AM, UM, I DON'T HAVE YOUR NAME ON ON IT. I'M SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR NAME. IT'S, UH, JUNE LEWIS. LEWIS. MS. LEWIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANY QUESTIONS? I'M, I'M THE RESIDENT THAT ACTUALLY FILED THE COMPLAINT. I'M THE FIRST ONE THAT FLOODS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE, I'VE LIVED THERE 25 YEARS, AND OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN SKIMMERS PUT ON THAT OUTFLOW BOX. TIME AND TIME AGAIN. THE, UH, STREETS AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT HAS REMOVED THEM. WHEN THEY'RE REMOVED, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE HAVING NO PROBLEM WITH WATER, HIGH WATER FLOODING. WHEN THAT SKIMMER GOES BACK ON, WE'LL HAVE HIGH WATER FLOODING. I, AND WHEN WE DO THE HOA WILL BE SUED. AND A 30 INCH HIGH SKIMMER IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GET 30 INCHES ABOVE, THAT'S GONNA TAKE A LOT OF WATER IN THAT POND TO GET UP THAT HIGH. YOU DON'T MAINTAIN THE UNDERFLOW OF THE SKIMMER. [02:15:01] THE LAST ONE THEY HAD ON THAT THING THERE, THAT PIECE OF ALUMINUM, THAT WAS ALL THE WAY DOWN IN THE MUCK. HOW IS WATER SUPPOSED TO GET TO FLOW UNDER? IT CAN'T. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I MET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND I SHOWED HIM, WHEN THAT GOT PUT BACK ON THERE, I SAID, THIS IS NOT GONNA WORK. LOOK AT IT. CAN YOU GET, SEE HOW WATER GETS UNDERNEATH THERE? HE WENT AND PUT A PIECE OF WOOD DOWN. HE SAYS, NO, THERE'S NO WATER GETTING UNDERNEATH THERE. SO THEN IT'S GOT TO GET HIGH ENOUGH TO FLOW OVER THAT. ALL WE WANNA DO IS BE ABLE TO LIVE IN OUR HOMES AND NOT HAVE FLOODING. THAT'S WHY THE CANAL'S THERE IS TO KEEP THE WATER AT BAY FROM ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES FLOODING. AND THIS IS, IF THIS CONTINUES AND THIS IS APPROVED, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONTINUOUS PROBLEM. OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. LU. UH, MY QUESTION IS, IS AS I KNOW HOW SKIMMERS WORK, I HAVE SOME, A VERY ELABORATE, UH, FISH TANKS AND WE DEAL WITH A LOT OF SKIMMERS. NOW, WHAT THE SKIMMER IS DOING IS KEEPING THE RUBBISH FROM GOING IN. OKAY. WHERE DOES ALL THE RUBBERS COME FROM? IT'S COMES FROM A LOT OF IT PICTURES. IT, IT COMES FROM SOME OF THE, UH, MAYBE THE APARTMENTS, UH, THAT ABUT UP TO IT. AND ALSO PUBLIX, I'M SORRY. NO, NO. I I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, BUT THAT, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD A PERMIT ISSUED, AND WE KNOW THAT ONE PERMIT ARE ISSUED. THE CITY ENGINEER LOOKS AT ALL THESE THINGS. IT LOOKS AT THE REQUIRED FLOW STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE CITY UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. THAT'S PART OF THAT REVIEW PACKAGE WHEN THEY DO THE ENGINEERING. SO THE ONLY THING I, WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH, I BELIEVE, IS WHETHER THERE'S A PERMIT AND HOW MUCH TIME BEFORE HURRICANE SEASON Y'ALL NEED TO GET IT DONE. WELL, I'M JUST ANSWERING THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION THERE. I I UNDERSTAND MA'AM. BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT I THINK MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR TWO. UM, SO THIS STR OUTFLOW BOX STRUCTURE HAD A MODIFICATION OF SOMETHING PUT IN FRONT OF THE OVERFLOW. ORIGINALLY, IT HAD A, UM, CHAIN LINK, UH, BOX THAT WAS AROUND THE TOP OF THE STRUCTURE. UH, THAT WAS, UM, A CLOGGED UP DURING A STORM EVENT. UH, OUR STREETS DEPARTMENT REMOVED IT IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE THE, THE FLOODING THAT WAS OCCURRING AT THAT POINT IN TIME. RIGHT. UM, THE SKIMMER THAT IS SHOWN IN THIS PICTURE, UM, MS. LEWIS IS CORRECT. IS THAT WELL, UM, YEAH, THE, THE SKIMMER IN FRONT OF THE OUTFLOW BOX, THAT COULD GO AWAY, RIGHT? UM, IF IT IS AWAY TRASH RACK, YEAH, IT IS. IT IS A WAY. UM, THE SKIMMER THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE, TO REPLACE THIS, THAT THE ENGINEER IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE DESIGN FOR, UH, IT WILL HAVE TO MEET THOSE MINIMUM UNDERFLOW UH, CHARACTERISTICS. THE, THE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE, THE BLADE AND THE, WELL, SPECIFICALLY THIS OUTFLOW BOX WAS APPROVED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS BUILT. UH, ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DIFFERENCE. ST. JOHN'S. RIGHT. SO IF THEY TOOK THIS SKIMMER OFF THE FRONT OF IT MM-HMM . AND ALLOWED THE WATER TO GO THROUGH IT, AND ANY DEBRIS THAT WAS IN THE RETENTION POND TO FLOW INTO, YOU SAID THE CITY SYSTEM OR IS IT THE COUNTY? COUNTY, COUNTY. IT'S COUNTY DISH. HERE, IT'D BE THE COUNTY'S, UH, EVERY SOURCE SYSTEM. BUT THEY HAVE THE SAME RULES. WE DO. SO RIGHT. THEN EVERYTHING, IT'D JUST BE A NORMAL SYSTEM WITHOUT A SKIMMER. I MEAN, IT DOESN'T, IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T HAVE A SKIMMER ON IT BEFORE, DID IT? YES. SKIMMERS ARE A STANDARD FEATURE FOR CONTROL STRUCTURES. UM, IT'S INTENDED TO DO, JUST AS YOU'D INDICATED, PREVENT DEBRIS FROM ENTERING THE SYSTEM. IT'S JUST, IN THIS CASE, IT DIDN'T HAVE THE APPROPRIATE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FACE OF THE SKIMMER AND THE FACE OF THE BOX. RIGHT. AND I UNDERSTAND I HAVE DESIGNED OUTFLOW BOXES. ARE WE GETTING AWAY FROM ALL ABOUT THAT? WE'RE GETTING AWAY. BUT WHAT I'M QUESTIONING IS IF HE TOOK THAT SKIMMER AWAY, THEN EVERYTHING WOULD CORRECT. IT WOULD FLOW. IT WOULD FLOW UNRESTRICTED. OKAY. CORRECT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORKING ON A DESIGN AND WHEN THEY GET THE PROPER PERMIT, UH, DONE, THEY'LL HAVE A PROPER WORKING SYSTEM. CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO THE, THE ONLY QUESTION WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A PERMIT ISSUED. AND I THINK NO, THE CITY'S, WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? FINE. IN VIOLATION GIVEN UNTIL JUNE 2ND. NO. FINE. A FINE IN VIOLATION. FINE. AND [02:20:01] GIVEN UNTIL JUNE 2ND TO COMPLY OR A FINE OF THE $250 PER DAY FOR EACH DAY, NEVADA. SHE CONTINUES BEYOND JUNE 2ND. OKAY. SECOND OR SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM, UM, YEAH, JUNE 2ND, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUNE 7TH, JUNE 2ND. SECOND. I CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION HAS, HE'S MAKING CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CASE NUMBER CCE 2025 DASH 0 6 0 4 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE IS CITED, AND ALL THE PROPERTY AND THE RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND TO COMPLY. OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED FOR EACH STATE OF VIOLATION CONTINUES BEYOND SAID DATE. I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN, SAY I. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. I SAY I SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 15, CASE NUMBER 2023 DASH ONE SECOND 0 8 0 0. CORRECT. 0 0 8. ZERO ZERO. UM, MR. FARRELL, CAN YOU, UM, MAKE AN APPEARANCE ON THE RECORD? CERTAINLY. MICHAEL FARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE BRIDGEWATER GROUP OF BREVARD INSPECTOR GERMAN, WE'RE HERE ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS IN THIS CASE? YES. UM, THERE, THERE'S BEEN NO PROGRESS. THEY, THEY STILL HAVE THE UN PERMITTED ASPHALT AND THEY'RE STILL IN VIOLATION OF C AND D. UM, THEY STILL HAVE THE UNPERMITTED ASPHALT AND THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, PERMIT ISSUED FOR THIS. SO THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, REMOVE IT AND SHOW A SURVEY THAT SHOWS THAT THE STORM WATER PATTERN IS ACCEPTABLE OR THEY CAN, UM, GET THE PERMIT ISSUED. AND, UH, THAT PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED. WHAT IS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? UH, THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT, UH, THE BOARD START A FINE OF $50 A DAY. UH, MR. FARROW, DO YOU HAVE MR. FARROW OR FARROW? PHARAOH? PHARAOH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, INSPECTOR GERMAN OR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE COMMENTS. UM, THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS. IT JUST HASN'T BEEN PROGRESS THAT THE CITY CAN REALLY OBSERVE AT THIS POINT. SO THE PLAN TO DEAL WITH THIS IS ACTUALLY THEY'RE SEEKING PERMITS TO BUILD, I BELIEVE, A STRUCTURE ON THE BUILDING AND CHANGE LAYOUT, PARKING, ALL OF THAT. AND SO THERE'S ENGINEERING WORK THAT'S BEING DONE. AND THE ADDRESS, 30 10 PHILLIPS STREET. PHILLIPS STREET IS A SMALL ROAD. IT ONLY EXISTS ON THIS PROPERTY. IT'S PARALLEL TO US. ONE BETWEEN US ONE AND THE RAILROAD TRACK JUST SOUTH OF UNIVERSITY. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A PHILLIPS, UH, OIL STATION AT ONE POINT. NOT A GAS STATION, BUT LIKE A FACILITY WHERE THEY STORE FUEL, THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, THEY'RE SEEKING TO VACATE PHILLIPS STREET SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD WHERE IT WAS. THEY'RE WAITING FOR APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND FOR THAT STREET TO BE PROPERLY VACATED BY THE CITY. UM, TO ENGINEER THE REST OF THE SITE, TO, TO SEEK THE PERMIT, TO REMOVE THE ASPHALT OR TO SEEK THE PERMIT, TO PUT THE ASPHALT. THERE WOULD BE UNNECESSARY EFFORTS THAT WOULD BEAUTIFUL. UM, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE LONG TERM. SO RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THEN EFFECTIVELY CHANGE IT ALL WITH THE NEW SITE PLAN, AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE WASTEFUL OF RESOURCES, BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESOURCES AND THE CITY'S RESOURCES IN REVIEWING ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS ON THIS. I THINK PERHAPS THE MISTAKE WAS IN NOT SEEKING TO ROLL IT OVER A LITTLE BIT LONGER GIVEN WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT YOU NOT IMPOSE A FINE TODAY. THAT YOU FIND THAT THERE IS PROGRESS BEING MADE ON THIS, AND THAT WE DEFER THIS OUT EITHER TO JUNE 3RD OR EVEN TO, TO THE JULY 8TH HEARING, BECAUSE I THINK THE STATE HAS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE VACATING OF THE ROADWAY, ALL OF THOSE PROCESSES. SO PROGRESS IS BEING MADE. IT, IT JUST MAY BE NOT EVIDENT TO THE CITY IN THIS IMMEDIATE TIMEFRAME. ENGINEERS HAVE BEEN HIRED. THE OWNER IS WORKING TO TRY AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE. HAS APPLICATION BEEN PUT IN FOR THE VACATE WITH THE STATE OR THE CITY? I, I, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON THAT APPLICATION. OKAY. SO THEY HAVE MADE SOME KIND OF APPLICATION TO THE STATE AT VERY LEAST. I DO. AND THEN THE NEXT STEP IS WHAT? THROUGH THE CITY? I BELIEVE SO, BELIEVE, I'M NOT SURE THE VACATE PROCESS IS WHY. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. UM, I KNOW THE CITY DOES VACATE, BUT IT DEPENDS ON IF IT'S A STATE ROAD OR, OR A LOCAL ROAD. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ROAD. SO, UM, I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE A LOCAL ROAD. RIGHT. [02:25:01] BUT THEY NEED APPROVALS FROM DEPARTMENT. GET THE CITY RIGHT AWAY. WHY ARE THEY GOING THROUGH THE STATE? IS THAT PART OF THE PROCESS? I, I, I BELIEVE THEIR ENGINEERS TOLD THEM THAT THEY NEEDED APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA CHANGE THE ENTRANCE ON UNIVERSITY. AND THAT'S WHY THEY NEED THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. OH YEAH. IF YOU GET AN ENTRANCE WAY THROUGH THERE, YOU'RE GONNA NEED SOME SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THAT. SPECIAL APPROVALS. YEAH. UM, GO AHEAD AND GIVE THEM TILL JULY. OH, OKAY. OR RECOMMEND TILL JULY. UH, YEAH. THE CITY CHANGES ITS RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, EXTEND COMPLIANCE TO JULY 7TH. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. OKAY. CAN I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? MR. MOORE CHAIR? I MOTION THAT ALL THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2023 DASH ZERO 800, UM, REMAINS IN NON-COMPLIANCE. THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER, THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE BE EXTENDED TO, UM, UH, JUNE 2ND, 2026. JULY 7TH, JULY, JULY 7TH. I'M SORRY. JULY 7TH. JULY 7TH. ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMENTS? SECOND? NOT A SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? AYE. VOTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. DO YOU HAVE A CARD FOR HER TO I DO. A CARD? YES. THANK YOU. UM, NEXT ITEM IS, WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO NEXT? THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM SIX, UH, ITEM 25. WE HAVE THE, THE, THE, UH, BUILDING OFFICIAL INVOLVED IN THAT 1 25 OR, UM, RIGHT NOW, ERIC AND LESLIE AUSTIN. ARE THEY HERE OR IS IT JUST THE NO, THE, UH, THE RESPONDENTS, UM, HAVEN'T INDICATED THEY'RE GONNA SHOW. WE DO HAVE, UH, COMPLAINANTS FROM THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE. UH, AND UH, AND I KNOW WE LIKE TO HAVE THE RESPONDENTS HERE, BUT THE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SIX O'CLOCK, IT'S EIGHT 30, THE RESPONDENT AND WE HAVE THE, THE, UH, CITY STAFF. YOU'LL BE OKAY. WE HAVE CITY STAFF. HE'LL BE OKAY. WE HAVE A FLIGHT. HE'S YOUR BOSS. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT DOING 25, WE'RE NOT DOING 25 OF THE RESPONDENTS AREN'T HERE, SO WE HAVE TO TAKE THEM. OKAY. LAST, LET ME, I JUST TO, JUST A QUESTION. SO IF THE, IF THE, UH, THE, UM, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ISN'T THERE, WE POSTPONE IT. AND HOW MANY TIMES CAN THEY DO THAT? NO. IF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY'S NOT HERE FOR TODAY'S HEARING. OH, AND WE HAVE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. YEAH. YEAH. WE'RE NOT GONNA LET OUR WITNESSES TESTIFY UNTIL THE END. IF THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT HERE. NOW, IF THE RESPONDENTS ARE HERE AND THEY SIGNED IN, THEN WE'LL TAKE 'EM IN ORDER. OKAY. BUT IF, BUT THEY'RE NOT HERE, THEY GOTTA GO LAST. WELL, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT TIME IF THEY'RE NOT HERE? THE SAME THING. OKAY. IF WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE GO LAST. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE ALL GOOD. THE REASON IS THAT, UM, PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS. AND SO PART OF DUE PROCESS IS THAT, WAIT A MINUTE FOR CLARIFICATION. 'CAUSE I I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WHAT, UM, THE, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL IS TRYING TO INDICATE IS HE'S GONNA LET THE, THE, THE CROWD, EVERYBODY ELSE IS HERE GO. AND THEN WHEN ALL EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN HEARD, AND WE STILL HAVE NOTHING LEFT BUT THEIR COMPLAINANTS, THEN THEY'RE GONNA BE HEARD. THIS ISN'T GETTING POSTPONED TILL NEXT HEARING. RIGHT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THE RESPONDENTS AREN'T HERE, UH, AND WE HAVE, UH, OTHERS TO BE HEARD, WE'RE GONNA HEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT HE MEANS. LET ME, LEMME EXPLAIN ONE THING FURTHER. WE, PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO PROCESS, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM. SO IF WE CALL THEM BEFORE, UM, IF WE CALL THEM EARLIER AND THEY SHOW UP LATER, WE HAVE THEN ESSENTIALLY POTENTIALLY NOT GUARANTEED, BUT POTENTIALLY WE HAVE VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS TO CONFRONT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THEM. SO THAT'S WHY UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE TO TAKE PEOPLE FIRST. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE BEING INCONVENIENCED BY THIS. I I I I'M LOOKING AT THE TIME. I UNDERSTAND. BUT WE GOT TO, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY, OTHERWISE WE WILL ALL BE BACK HERE AGAIN DOING IT ALL OVER AGAIN IF THEY GO UP AND APPEAL IT BECAUSE OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. AND I KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO COME BACK HERE AGAIN AND DO IT AGAIN. SO IT'S, THIS IS THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO BE HERE, ONE AND DONE. BUT IF THEY DON'T SHOW UP, IF THEY DON'T SHOW UP AT THE NEXT MEETING, ALSO, DO WE POSTPONE IT AGAIN? WE'RE, WE'RE NOT POSTPONING IT. WE'RE NOT POSTPONING IT. WE'RE NOT POSTPONING IT SEQUENCE. WE'RE JUST NOT TAKING IT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. BUT WE WOULD TAKE IT THEN, EVEN THOUGH THAT WE'RE TAKE IT TONIGHT. WE'RE TAKING IT, WE'RE DOING IT TONIGHT. OH, DURING THIS HEARING? YES. LAST BUT NOT WRITE THIS SECOND. LAST. OH, OKAY. YEAH. THE NEXT CASE IS, OR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER LOOKS LIKE 40. NO, PEOPLE DIDN'T WRITE NAMES ON THESE. IT LOOKS LIKE MARK THORNTON. THAT'S CONCERNED NEIGHBOR. THAT'S, UH, WESTSIDE FOR 15 AS WELL. 'CAUSE THEY, THEY DIDN'T WRITE THEIR, THE ITEM NUMBER. I, I CAN'T DO THAT. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM [02:30:01] NUMBER 43, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 5 1 8 43 I. AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 4 0 5 2 4 0 1 STONE STREET. OH. CAN YOU BOTH RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM? ARE YOU TESTIFYING TO, SORRY, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND HOW ARE, WHAT'S YOUR NAMES? I'M EDGAR TORRES. CO PREPARATORY. OKAY. ANDY MAL PREPARATORY. AND HOW WERE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? UH, EXCUSE ME. UM, OH, NO, NO, NO. GOING IN ENGLISH. OH, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. OKAY. WE ALL, SO CAN YOU, UM, HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? HOW, HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? WE ARE THE OWNER. UH, WE ARE THE OWNERS. OKAY. YOU'RE BOTH ARE THE OWNERS? YES. OKAY. THERE'S MORE, MORE OWNERS. WE ARE ON LLEC. OKAY. OKAY. UM, INSPECTOR KELLER. WE'RE HERE ON NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE? OH, INSPECTOR ANDRE, HOW ARE WE? CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE? HE IS IN DISP REPAIR THE ROOF, AND THERE'S ROTTED WOOD ON THE PROPERTY. IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED OR DEMOLISHED. AND I'M LOOKING AT, UM, BUILDING STRUCTURE, PROPERTY AND YARD MAINTENANCE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE ROOF HAS, UM, MASSIVE, UM, DETERIORATION CORRECT. AND BOARD OPS BEYOND ONE YEAR. WHEN DID YOU FIRST NOTICE THAT THE BOARD, THE WINDOWS WERE BOARDED UP OR THE DOORS WERE BOARDED UP? UM, ON AUGUST 5TH, SIXTH, UM, 2025. WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROVIDED? 9 4 20 25. WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF HEARING PROVIDED? 3 13 20 26. UM, MR. TORRES OR TO, IS IT TORRES? YES. MR. TORRES OR MR. MTOR? UM, DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE BOARD OR FOR THE INSPECTOR OR FOR THE, UH, BOARD? NO. ANY QUESTION? WE, WE HAVE, UM, TALK WITH THE INSPECTOR BEFORE AND, UH, WE KNOW THAT IT'S, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE, UH, DEMO DEMOLISHED. AND, UH, WE JUST WANT SOME TIME TO, TO MAKE THE, THE, THE, THE WORK WITH THE CONTRACTORS AND PERMISSIONS. WE JUST, UH, WANT MORE TIME. OKAY. WE GONNA DO THAT? OKAY. INSPECTOR ANDRE, WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION AGAIN? THE CQ, THE CITY RECOMMENDED PROPERTY BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN UNTIL JUNE 2ND TO COM COMPLY WITH A FINE OF UP TO $250 A DAY BE ASSESSED. OKAY. JUST ONE QUESTION. DO YOU, UNDER YOU, YOU DID SAY YOUR INTENTION WAS TO DEMOLISH? YES. YES, SIR. YES. IT'S GONNA BE DEMOLISHED. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HEARD THAT. OKAY. CAN I HAVE A MOTION, UH, INITIAL FINE INITIAL VIOLATION? UM, WELL, SURE. UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I'M, I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE'LL FIND YOU IN VIOLATION. BUT YOU, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE A FINE, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE ACTION. YES. AND WITH THAT I'LL SAY I MOTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE TO SIDE, UH, PROPERTY IN ALL RESIDENCE, UH, IN, UM, CE 2025 DASH 0 0 5 18 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE IS CITED IN ALL CITED PROP, UH, PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONSE BE GIVEN UNTIL, UM, JUNE 2ND, 2026 TO COMPLY OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 A DAY. BE ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY. THE VIOLATION CONTINUES BEYOND SET DATE. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SAM AND A SECOND BY MR. THI. DOES BOYD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A A AYE. ALL OPPOSED HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO, THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 11. [02:35:01] ITEM NUMBER 11 IS CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 0 0 2 6. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 EAST AVENUE. C. SIR, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? I'M TRYING TO GET, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME? SCOTT TUCKER. HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? I'M THE OWNER. OKAY. UM, INSPECTOR GOSLIN, WE ARE HERE ON, UH, NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THIS CASE? UM, VIOLATION. A THE OVERGROWTH PROHIBITED HAS BEEN COMPLIED BEFORE THE HEARING. AND VIOLATION B WAS RECRE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE RED, SUBSTANTIAL RESTRICTIONS. AND THAT'S PARKING THE BOAT, UH, IN FRONT OF THE FRONT LINE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS STILL IN VIOLATION. OKAY. UM, WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROVIDED? 1 28 26. WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF HEARING? 2 26. 26. AND WHAT IS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND IN NONCOMPLIANCE AND GIVE UNTIL 7, 7 26 FOR COMPLIANCE. AND JUST AS AN FYI, THE INSPECTOR'S NOT GONNA BE HERE FOR THE JUNE HEARING, SO A LOT OF HIS CASES WILL BE RECOMMENDED FOR THAT JULY HEARING. UH, SO THE JULY 7TH? CORRECT. MR. TUCKER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR GOSLIN? ARE ANY COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING. I'VE LITERALLY WAS ABOUT TO MOVE THE BOAT LAST NIGHT, BUT, UH, THE, I HAD TO REPLACE THE BATTERY TO BE ABLE TO LIFT THE ENGINE SO I COULD TOW IT AND THE ONE OF THE CABLES IN THE BATTERY BROKE, LIKE SNAP CLEAN OFF. SO IT LOOKS LIKE I'M GONNA HAVE TO GET SOMEBODY OUT THERE TO REPAIR THAT, BUT AS SOON AS I CAN GET THAT REPAIRED, I CAN MOVE THE BOAT OUT. OKAY. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. CHAIR? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. YOU SAID FIND AND NON-COMPLIANCE, YOU MEAN INITIAL VIOLATION? YEAH, THE INITIAL VIOLATION. OKAY. OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? UM, SURE. UH, I MOTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE SIDE OF PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2026 DASH 0 0 2 6 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE CITED, UH, THAT THE CITED PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONSES BE GIVEN UNTIL JULY 7TH, UH, 2026 TO COMPLY OR APPLYING UP TO TWO $50 A DAY. BE ASSESSED FOR EACH DATE VIOLATION BE ONSET DATE SECOND, THI SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MR. THI WAS SECOND. ALL OPPOSED. HEARING NONE IYE VOTE. AYE NUMBER ONE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER ONE. ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT NUMBER ONE. THERE IS NO NUMBER ONE . I ALL ORDER GETTING CAN WHO IS, UH, WAS SHE WAS WITH THAT? YEAH. THERE'S NO CASE NUMBER ON THIS ONE. WHO IS, UH, STEVEN RUSSELL. ARE YOU HERE? STEVEN RUSSELL. OKAY, NEXT IS MARK SAN KOIC. SPEED. WHAT? I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. WHAT'S THE AGENDA NUMBER? THAT'S, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT ITEM NUMBER WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. THERE WAS NO ITEM NUMBER PLACED ON THE SHEET. IT'S BE 13 NUMBER 13 CHRISIA. ITEM NUMBER 13. CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 0 1 2 4. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 0 0 1 SOUTH HICKORY STREET. UM, INSPECTOR GOSLIN, WE ARE HERE ON A, UH, NEW VIOLATION. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATION IN THIS CASE? I'LL LET INSPECTOR LER, UH, ANSWER THAT QUESTION AS HE'S THE FIRE CODE INSPECTOR. HELLO. BOARD. UH, MY NAME'S CARL LER. I'M WITH THE FIRE PREVENTION. UM, ON OCTOBER 21, UH, 2025, WE INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AT, UH, 1001 HICKORY. UM, AND NOTICE THAT MANY OF THE DOORS, UH, TWO SETS OF DOUBLE DOORS WERE NOT IN OPERATING, UH, PROTOCOL AS FAR AS, UH, EXITS. UM, THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING ATTEMPTED TO REPAIR SOME OF THE DOORS, UH, WITH A LOCAL COMPANY, DID NOT GO WELL. UH, SO WE WENT OUT, UH, SEVERAL TIMES ON REINSPECT, AND ON THE THIRD TIME WE GAVE THEM A RECOMMENDATION TO CODE BOARD. AND SINCE THEN THEY HAVE REPLACED ONE SET OF DOUBLE DOORS, EMERGENCY EXIT DOORS. UH, THEY DO HAVE THE OTHER DOORS ON SITE AS OF TODAY. THEY JUST HAVE NOT BEEN INSTALLED. UH, SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY ARE COOPERATING. UH, FINALLY. UH, BUT IT HAS BEEN SOME TIME SINCE OCTOBER 21 ON THE FIRST INITIAL INSPECTION. [02:40:02] YOU SAID IN 2021? UH, 10 21. OCTOBER 21 OF 25. ALL RIGHT. DR. GOSLIN, WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION MAILED OUT? THE FIRST FIRE NOTIFICATION WAS ON 2 10 26. AND WHEN WAS THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT OUT? 3 11 26. AND WHAT IS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? DEFINED IN VIOLATION AND COMPLIED BY 4 27 26, UM, RETROACTIVE. THE THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THAT EXIT DOOR IS REQUIRED SAFETY AND IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED FOR SAFETY REASONS. IN CASE OF A FIRE, PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXIT THROUGH THE DOOR. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE EARLIER DATE? YEAH, IT'S AT THE, UH, IT'S AT A, A, A FUNERAL HOME WHERE THEY DO HAVE VIEWINGS. AND SO YOU DO HAVE SEVERAL TENS AND 2030 PEOPLE OR MORE. NOBODY'S TRYING TO SNEAK OUT. NO. WELL, MY, MY, MY QUESTION WAS, THIS IS AN ACT OF BUSINESS, SO YES, SIR. SO IT IS A YES SIR. FIRE VIOLATION CODE. YES, SIR. IT'S IMPORTANT. NFPA 1 0 9. YES. SO ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE, THIS SET OF DOORS HAS BEEN FIXED, UH, REPLACED AND THE OTHER ONE SHOULD BE HAPPENING, UH, FAIRLY SHORTLY ACCORDING TO MR. UH, SITZ OVER HERE. CORRECT. UH, SO MR. CHAIR QUESTION THEN. SO THE IMPLICATION OF A RETROACTIVE, UH, FINDING A VIOLATION IS THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION TO FINE OR THERE WOULD BE A MANDATORY FINE. IT, IT'D BE AN OPTION FOR THE BOARD TO FIND THEM BACK TO THAT DATE. OKAY. AT THE, AT THE NEXT HEARING. IF, IF IT'S NOT CORRECTED, IF IT IS CORRECTED, YOU WON'T BE SEEING THEM. GOTCHA. SO IS THAT I BELIEVE NUMBER ONE? YEAH. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION. WELL DO WANT TO GIVE, HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I, I'M SORRY. I OVERLOOKED, UH, NO COMMENTS. NO, I, UH, MY NAME IS MARK SITZ, GENERAL MANAGER. UH, WE ARE OWNED BY A CORPORATION, UM, AND I'VE BEEN MAKING EVERY EFFORT. I, WE UNDERSTAND THE DANGER OF HAVING THAT DOOR, THAT ONE DOOR IS OFF THE GARAGE, SO IT'S NOT REALLY PUBLIC, BUT IT'S STILL IN DANGERS, THE EMPLOYEES. AND WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT. SO THAT WAY ONE DOOR IS FIXED, AND AS CARL SAID, THE OTHER DOORS ARE ON SITE READY TO BE FIXED. ALL I COULD SAY IS IT'S REALLY HARD TO FIND GOOD HELP AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET THESE THINGS DONE. OKAY. WE KNOW. OKAY. SO THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS INITIAL VIOLATION. YEAH. OKAY. I, I MOTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE, THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2026 DASH 0 0 1 24, UM, BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE IS CITED AND THAT THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN UNTIL APRIL 27TH, 2026 TO COMPLY. OUR FINE OF UP TO $250 BE ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY. THE VIOLATION CONTINUES BEYOND ON SET DATE. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. UH, SOM. AND, UH, SECOND BY MR. TEO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SOLE ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 16, CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 0 0 2 1 3. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 0 6 BLUFF DRIVE. SIR, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, SIR. INSPECTOR GERMAN, WE'RE HERE ON, AND ACTUALLY, WHAT'S YOUR NAME? PATRICK HAW. AND HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? I'M THE OWNER, INSPECTOR GERMAN. WE'RE HERE ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS IN THIS CASE? SO THE CHANGES FROM LAST TIME WAS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE UPPER RIGHT, THERE USED TO BE SOME WINDOWS THAT HAD BROKEN GLASS IN IT. AND ALL THE AREAS THAT ACTUALLY HAD HAVE WINDOWS THAT BROKEN GLASS HAS BEEN REPLACED. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY, UH, IMPROVEMENT SINCE THEN. UM, THEY'RE STILL IN VIOLATION OF, UH, A BUILDING MAINTENANCE REQUIRED. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THEY'RE ALSO IN VIOLATION OF, UH, BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED. AS WE MENTIONED LAST TIME, THEY DID GET A PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE UPPER RIGHT WINDOW AND THE UPPER RIGHT PHOTO THERE. UM, BUT ON THE LEFT YOU SEE THE, UH, INTERIOR RENOVATION WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THE, UH, WINDOW, MULTIPLE WINDOW OPENINGS, UH, ENCLOSED WITH GLA WITH, UH, CONCRETE BLOCK AND STUCCO. AND THERE'S NO PERMITS BEEN APPLIED FOR, FOR EITHER OF THOSE TWO THINGS AND, AND NONE OF THE, UH, ADDITIONAL BLIGHT CORRECTED AT THE PROPERTY. WHAT'S [02:45:01] THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? UH, THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD, UH, START A FINE FOR THE NEW OWNER OF PATRICK SHAW AT $50 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED. UH, MR. SHAW, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR GERMAN OR ANY COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? UH, I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS ACTUALLY. UH, I HAVE THE PROPERTY SINCE DECEMBER OF 2025. SO FIVE MONTHS. IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME I'VE BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. UH, REGARDING, UH, THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE UNDER SIX SECTION A, ALL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN SECURED TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS AND TO ENSURE SAFETY. THE PROPERTY IS NO LONGER IN A STATED DISREPAIR THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BLIGHT OR POSE A SAFETY CONCERN. ANY ADDITIONAL REPAIRS, IF DEEMED NECESSARY, WILL BE COMPLETED BY APPROPRIATELY LICENSED CONTRACTORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND PERMITTING. BASED ON THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE UP TO THIS POINT FOR SECTION A, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT SECTION A BE, UH, DEEMED COMPLIANT AND FORMALLY CLOSED. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? INSPECTOR GERMAN? UM, I WOULD NOT, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS WITH PAINTING, UM, AND BOARDING AND SECURING THE PROPERTY. UM, BUT THERE ARE STILL, UM, THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT THAT THERE'S THE CARPORT, WHICH HE HAS SECURED, BUT THE CARPORT HAS NO ROOF. AND THE, UH, MIDDLE PHOTO AT THE BOTTOM SHOWS JUST ONE WALL THAT HAS THE WALLS AND DISREPAIR AND WHEREVER, UM, THERE IS NO WINDOW OPENING THAT HASN'T BEEN CONVERTED TO OR NOT WHEREVER. THERE AREAS WHERE DOORS AND WINDOWS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN REPAIRED, THEY HAVE JUST BEEN BOARDED. SO THAT'S ADDITIONAL DISREPAIR. AND THEN THE, UM, THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT, NOT ONLY DOES THE CARPORT NOT HAVE A ROOF, BUT THE ROOF OF THAT TALLER BUILDING IS IN DISREPAIR WITH LIKE A TREE GROWING OUT OF IT. SO WE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE, UH, IF I CAN. EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE TAKEN CARE OF. ALSO ADD, UM, MR. UH, MICHELLE WHO WAS THE NAMED PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO MR. SHAW URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. AND WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT OR REGISTERED AGENT OR OWNER OF THAT? PATRICK SHAW. AND WHEN WAS THIS CASE FIRST OPENED? I HAVE GO LOOK THAT UP. MARCH 27TH, 2024. YES. AND THE ORIGINAL HEARING WAS IN APRIL OF 2025. SO MR. SHAW TESTIFYING THAT HE JUST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY END OF LAST YEAR IS MISLEADING. HE ACTUALLY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROPERTY SINCE THE PREVIOUS OWNER, WHICH WAS THE COMPANY. SO I WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR. THIS IS THE SAME CASE. WE DECIDED THAT NOW THAT HE'S THE NEW OWNER, IN THE LAST HEARING, WE FOUND HIM IN VIOLATION. AND BECAUSE OF NON-REAL PROGRESSIVE PROGRESS IS WHY WE'RE, UH, ASKING FOR A FINE TO START ON HIM SPECIFICALLY. WE CAN'T START THE FINE AGAIN ON THE BUSINESS 'CAUSE WE STAYED THAT FINE BECAUSE THE BUSINESS NO LONGER OWNS THIS PROPERTY. SO OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THAT. HE'S STILL BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE SINCE DAY ONE AND PROGRESS HAS BEEN MINIMAL AT BEST. I HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FROM DAY ONE AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DISSUADE THAT. I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THAT I'VE OWNED IT SINCE DECEMBER OF 2025. I'M JUST STATING FACT THAT'S ALL. UH, AS FAR AS THE DISREPAIR, I HAVE DONE ALL THE REPAIR THAT I AM ABLE TO DO, UH, SINCE MS. GERMAN PUT A STOP ON THE PROPERTY, STOP WORK FROM LAST YEAR. SINCE THAT TIME I HAVE WORKED WITH SEVERAL CONTRACTORS TRYING TO GET THIS WORKED OUT. THE LAST CONTRACTOR I TALKED TO, UH, AND I'LL USE HIS WORDING BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE. UH, AS, AS FOR CONTRACTORS, I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE GETTING INVOLVED IN A PROJECT LIKE THIS. CURRENTLY. I HAVE TOO MUCH EXPOSURE. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FROM A CONTRACTING STANDPOINT, HAVING TOO MUCH EXPOSURE. BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET HIM OUT TO FIX [02:50:01] THE WINDOWS IN QUESTION THAT WERE BLOCKED BY A CONTRACTOR THAT WE HAD HIRED UNDER URBAN PROPERTY TO FILL THOSE WINDOWS IN. THEY DID NOT PULL THE PROPER PERMITS. AND AFTER HAVING A ENGINEER GO OUT THERE, THEY STATED THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE PROPERLY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE EXPECT THAT. HOWEVER, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S BEEN ASKED, INCLUDING THE WINDOW IN QUESTION UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER, I SPENT $3,000 TO GET A WINDOW REPLACED FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE, BUT WAS DONE IMPROPERLY BY THE SAME CONTRACTOR. WE'RE TRYING TO GET THINGS DONE AND DONE CORRECTLY. FAMILY FRIEND. I WILL TELL YOU IT IS VERY DIFFICULT WHEN YOU'VE GOT A PROJECT LIKE THIS AND YOU'VE GOT THIS. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR CERTAIN THINGS TO BE CLEANED UP. THAT WAY I CAN ACTUALLY GET SOMEBODY IN THERE THAT WILL DO THE WORK. I MEAN, I, WE'VE GOT THREE THINGS HERE. BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT INSPECTOR GERMAN HAD MENTIONED IS NOT LISTED IN THIS ORIGINAL THING. EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN HERE I'VE DONE, INCLUDING SECTION B. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. I THINK IT'S BEEN COMPLIED. B IS COMPLIED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS IT. SECTION ITEM B B'S BEEN COMPLIED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS IT. IT IS, LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE, THE LAST WORD IN THIS, IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH. YEAH. COMPLIED. SO IT COULD STAY IN COMPLIANCE. WOULD, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, IT IS, YOU GOT ONE. A LITTLE OVERWHELMING, I'LL TELL YOU THAT. UM, AS FAR AS SECTION C, THE ONLY THING THAT I'VE GOT THERE THAT I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION IS THE, THE WINDOWS IN THE FRONT, THE FOUR WINDOWS THAT HAD BEEN BLOCKED IN. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING A CONTRACTOR TO UH, EVEN COME IN BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING ELSE THERE. THERE'S A WHOLE INTERIOR DEMO THAT WAS DONE. AND HE, AND BEFORE HE EVEN STARTS REMODELING THAT INTERIOR, HE, HE ONLY NEED PULL PERMITS FOR THAT TOO. UM, THE CITY'S POSITION STILL IS THAT THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE A AND PERMIT C ARE STILL NOT, UH, CORRECTED AND STILL IN VIOLATION. SO AS FAR AS A MOTION GOES, WE STILL HAVE A OUTSTANDING STATE FINANCE AT 63 50. NO. SO IN, IN EARLIER IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A STAY OF FINE UH, AT SOME POINT BECAUSE HE CONVINCED THE CITY AND THE BOARD THAT HE WAS MAKING PROGRESS. AND FOR SOME TIME HE WAS, AND THEN HE CHANGED THE NAME FROM IN OWNERSHIP FROM THE COMPANY HE WAS OWNED TO HIS OWN PERSONAL NAME. I TAKE OFFENSE WITH THE WAY YOU'RE MAKING THAT SOUND CHOICE, STEVEN. THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. IT'S JUST STATING FACTS. STATING FACT. SO DO WE UNDERSTAND THE, YOU FIND THE FINE DIDN'T TRANSFER OVER TO THE NEW OWNER. IT, IT DOESN'T LEGALLY IT DOES NOT TRANSFER TO THE LEGAL OWNER BECAUSE HE WAS NOT NAMED SPECIFICALLY IN THE ORIGINAL CITATION. THE BUSINESS WAS. SO WE HAD TO TAKE ANOTHER APPROACH. AND THAT IS IN THE LAST, UH, WHAT WAS IT? UM, THREE 11. THREE 11. WE CITED HIM SPECIFICALLY 'CAUSE HE'S THE NEW OWNER, BUT HE WAS THE REGISTERED AGENT IN THE, IN THE PREVIOUS CASE. PREVIOUS. SO THE PREVIOUS, SO BEING ONE IN THE SAME REGISTERED AGENT, THE NEW OWNER DOESN'T, HE'S IN HIS NAME CHOICE. FINE. DOESN'T GO WITH ALL THE REGISTERED AGENT JUST RECEIVES MAIL BY LAW IS, HE'S NOT A A RESPONSIBLE PARTY. HE, HE'S, HE'S NOT A CITED PARTY. HE'S JUST THERE TO RECEIVE NOTICES. OKAY. YOU DON'T CITE THE REGISTERED AGENT. SO, UH, IN THE MEANTIME, SINCE THE STAND FINE, HE CHANGED IT OVER TO HIS OWN PERSONAL NAME. SO WE HAD TO BASICALLY EAT THE FUND. RIGHT? BASICALLY BASICALLY EAT THE FUND CALL. WHAT? IT'S, OKAY. SO WHERE ARE WE AT? SO OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO, UH, UH, FIND THAT THE VIOLATION STILL EXISTS TO START A FINE AT $50 A DAY AND LIEN THE PROPERTY UNTIL, UH, SUCH TIME THESE VIOLATIONS ARE CORRECTED. MY QUESTION IS, IS DOES THE, I KNOW IN THE PAST, LIKE IF THERE'S A BIG FINE, SAY A HOUSE HAS, YOU KNOW, $5,000 WORTH AND SOMEONE BUYS THE PROPERTY, THAT FINE STILL IS ON THE PROPERTY, THAT THAT'S A NEW BUYER MUST TAKE CARE OF THAT. THAT IS CORRECT. AND WHAT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? BUT THE OWNER IS NOT RIGHT. THE THE ENTITY ITSELF DOESN'T GET CITED. [02:55:01] I MEAN DOESN'T IT, IT DOESN'T GO WITH THE PROPERTY? IT DOESN'T GO WITH THE PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T GO WITH THE PROPERTY. IT DOES GO WITH THE PROPERTY. BUT NOW THAT HE'S THE OWNER AND WE TRY TO RESTART THAT FINE. IT, IT CAN'T GO AGAINST THE BUSINESS OR, 'CAUSE IT'S NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. WHAT ABOUT THE PREVIOUS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RESTARTING. YES, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FINE THAT'S ALREADY INCURRED. IT GOES AGAINST THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE THERE FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF. OKAY. BUT NOT HIM SPECIFICALLY. OKAY. OKAY. HE WON'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS UNTIL HE SELLS THE PROPERTY. OKAY. IN THIS CASE. OKAY. SINCE HE'S NOW THE OWNER AND WE WANT TO RESTART THE FINE, I CAN'T RESTART IT AGAINST THE OLD PROPERTY, UH, OWNER. I HAVE TO START IT AGAINST THE NEW ONE. THANK YOU ALL. BUT THAT AMOUNT IS LIKE A, IS IT LIKE A LIEN AT ALL ON PROPERTY? IT'S A, IT IS A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S THERE WHEN THAT PROPERTY ACTUALLY GETS OVERS. YEP. OKAY. CAN CAN I SAY ONE OTHER THING PLEASE? YES, SIR. UH, THIS ALL STARTED, THE REASON THAT IT'S IN MY NAME SINCE DECEMBER IS BECAUSE WE WERE GOING UP TO, UH, THE THIRD FLOOR TO GET EVERYTHING TAKEN CARE OF. ULTIMATELY, WHEN IT CAME TO TRYING TO PULL A PERMIT FOR THIS, THE ONLY PERSON I COULD GET WAS TO GET A GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COME OUT AND PULL A PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THE BUSINESS NAME. AND THE GIRLS UP THERE TOLD ME, LOOK, IF, IF IT'S YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY, YOU CAN PULL A PERMIT. OKAY? SO WHEN THAT PROPERTY WAS TITLED IN MY NAME, I WENT UP THERE TO PULL A PERMIT. GUESS WHAT THEY TOLD ME? WELL, YOU DON'T LIVE ON THE PROPERTY SO YOU CAN'T PULL A PERMIT. SO I'VE BEEN TOLD ONE THING AND THEN WHEN I DO SOMETHING TO GET IT DONE, I GO BACK UP THERE AND I'M TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I, I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY HERE, RESIDENT OF THE PROPERTY. I MEAN, I'M, CAN YOU ALL CLARIFY THAT? SO THE BUILDING OFFICIALS HERE, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THAT? YEAH, HE CAN. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU CAN DO WORK ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY IF YOU ACTUALLY DO LIVE THERE. SO THOSE TWO THINGS HAVE TO GO TOGETHER. YOU, YOU CAN DO IT IF IT'S IN YOUR NAME. IF YOU ARE THE OWNER, YOU CAN DO IT, BUT IT HAS TO BE IN YOUR NAME. SO YOU CAN'T HAVE IT IN YOUR CORPORATION'S NAME AND THEN SAY I'M GONNA DO THE WORK ON MY OWN. ALSO, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT IN YOUR NAME AND THAT NOT BE WHERE YOU'RE LIVING AND THEN DO IT ON YOUR OWN. THEY HAVE TO BOTH BE THERE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL TELL US THAT. WE'LL CONFIRM THAT. AND I THINK WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION TWO YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST STARTED, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. STEVE, STEVE IN BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF MELBOURNE, HE HAS AN OWNER BUILDER. HE CAN PULL A PERMIT IF HE OWNS A PROPERTY IN HIS NAME, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO LIVE THERE, THERE, HE ONLY HAS TO OWN THE PROPERTY. RIGHT? SO I NEED TO KNOW WHO YOU TALKED TO TO FIX IT. THE, AS SOON AS YOU WALK IN THE DOOR. YEP. UH, THE TWO GIRLS THAT SIT RIGHT THERE. OKAY. YEAH. THAT, AND THAT MAY BE A MISUNDERSTANDING FROM THEIR PART. NORMALLY HOMEOWNERS LIVE IN THE HOUSE, THEY ARE RENOVATING OR BUILDING, UH, BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY THEY HAVE TO LIVE THERE. THEY JUST HAVE TO OWN IT AND THEY CANNOT SELL IT OR LEASE IT FOR A YEAR. SO IF YOU THAT YOU WERE PLANNING ON FIXING IT UP AND SELLING IT, YOU COULD NOT PULL AN OWNER BUILDER PERMIT. THAT'S THE SAME. IT'S THE SAME THING. IF I HAD, IF I OWN A LAND AND I WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT LAND, AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, I CAN PULL A PERMIT AND BUILD A HOME ON THAT LAND. YES SIR. I DON'T HAVE TO LIVE THERE TO BUILD A HOME. OKAY. YOU CAN'T SELL IT WITHIN A YEAR. ONE, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I'VE GOT IS I'VE GOT TWO AREAS RENTED OUT. CAN'T DO THAT. SO IF YOU TOLD THEM ALL THIS INFORMATION, THEY GAVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWER. YOU CANNOT RENT THE HOUSE OUT AS AN OWNER BUILDER AND THEN BUILD IT OR RENOVATE IT. OKAY? SO IF I, THE BEST THING FOR YOU, IF I KICKED THEM OUT, SEE THAT MAN OFFLINE AND HE'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. OKAY, WE'LL DO THAT. SO I THINK WE'RE GONNA START A FINE TODAY FOR $50 A DAY, SIR. . REALLY? AND PLEASE YOU GOT YOU. YOU GOT IT IS TOO LATE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN YEARS. I'VE BEEN DOING EVERY I I UNDERSTAND. AND I'VE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS STUFF. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY FROM TWO YEARS AGO UNTIL NOW, I'VE HAD A PAINTER OUT THERE PAINTING THIS THING TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE. I KNOW I'VE, BUT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IT FOR TWO YEARS. OKAY. AND IT COMES TO FOR US, OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE AT? WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION? WHAT'S THE RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION? CITY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD START THE FINE WITH THE NEW OWNER AT $50 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES SIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN THE CASE. YES SIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN CASE NUMBER CE 2024 DASH 0 0 2 1 3. THAT THIS BOARD STARTS A FINE OF $50 A DAY STARTING TODAY AT FIRST. DO I HAVE A SECOND? THAT'LL BE UNTIL [03:00:01] THE VIOLATION IS CORRECTED. I THOUGHT SOMEBODY SAID A LIEN. SAY AGAIN. I THOUGHT SOMEBODY SAID A LIEN. YEAH, ONCE THE FINE STARTS IT, THE LIEN'S FILED TOO. YOU'RE NOT GETTING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE MOTION IS TO START A FINE AT $50 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED AND LIEN THE PROPERTY AND LIEN IN THE PROPERTY. THAT'S, THAT'S THE GENERAL, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY. READY TO VOTE? YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS? SECOND. WELL DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND DOWN HERE. SECOND. YOU HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, SECOND. MS. BOLT. SECOND. NO DISCUSSION. NO DISCUSSION. OKAY. YOU READY TO VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. ALL AGAINST SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 12, CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 1 1 8. UH, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 24 EAST NEW HAVEN AVENUE, APARTMENT 1 0 2. SIR, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YEAH. WHAT'S YOUR NAME? TROY. STEFAN. AND HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? UH, OWNER. OKAY. UH, INSPECTOR GOSLIN, UH, WE ARE HERE ON NEW BUSINESS, BUT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE CASE? THIS LOOKS LIKE THIS IS A FIRE CASE AS WELL? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UH, SO I PERFORMED A ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION AT THE PROPERTY, UH, OCTOBER 10TH, UH, 25. AND NOTED, UH, SEVERAL DEFICIENCIES THERE. UM, A FIRE ALARM PANEL ISSUE, UH, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS WERE OUT OF DATE AND THERE WERE SEVERAL SPRINKLER, UH, DEFICIENCIES NOTED ON THE LAST INSPECTION REPORT BY THE FIRE CONTRACTOR. UM, SINCE THEN THE UH, PANEL HAS BEEN REPAIRED. UH, THE EXTINGUISHER, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS WERE REPLACED AND ABOUT 90% OF THE REPAIRS FOR THE SPRINKLER HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. I TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR TODAY. UM, THERE ARE STILL A FEW ITEMS THAT HAVE TO BE PERMITTED AND REPAIRED AND THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF ANY ISSUES, BUT I, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PLEASE, UH, FOLLOW THE TIMELINE OF, UH, ANNUAL INSPECTIONS AND QUARTERLY INSPECTIONS IN THE FUTURE. MM-HMM . UH, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME TO THIS BOARD HEARING AGAIN. UM, AND THAT'S IT, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, NOTHING THAT WE, WE, WE, FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS WE'VE BEEN COMPLIANT WITH ALL INSPECTIONS. UH, WE HAD TO, UH, GO TO A DIFFERENT COMPANY, I THINK MIDDLE OF LAST YEAR, UH, WHICH WAS DYNA FIRE BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS GUY STOPPED WORK, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T, WASN'T DOING IT ANYMORE, AND DYNA FIRE WASN'T DOING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO. THAT CAUSED A DELAY. SO IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY, 'CAUSE I ASKED THE CITY GIMME SOME GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS 'CAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE PUTTING UP A FENCE. THIS IS A FIRE SYSTEM WITH SPRINKLERS. I DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE AND I DON'T KNOW MANY PEOPLE THAT DO. SO WE GOT A TP ONE OF THE MOST REPUTABLE COMPANIES TO DO THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. AND THAT'S THEIR JOB TO DO THE INSPECTIONS AND TO KEEP EVERYTHING UP TO PAR. AND THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. THEY'VE DONE 90% OF THE WORK. UH, THERE'S TWO SPRINKLER HEADS FOR THE, UH, SUSHI RESTAURANT THAT'S IN THERE. UM, BECAUSE EVERY REST, THERE'S TWO RESTAURANTS IN THERE, IT'S A SUSHI RESTAURANT. UM, IT WAS NOTED BY AN INSPECTOR THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PROPER, UH, ONE OF THE, UH, UH, HEADS, ONE OF THE HEADS WASN'T PROPERLY PLACED IN ONE OF THE AREAS, SO THEY WERE NOTIFIED BECAUSE THEY'RE THE TENANT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO THEY WERE NOTIFIED TO DO THAT WORK. SO A TP IS ACTUALLY, THEY NEED TO PULL THE PERMIT. THE PERMIT IS FOR THOSE TWO SPRINKLER HEADS AND HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES THE CITY TO GET THAT PERMIT. PLUS THE RESTAURANTS, UH, THEY'RE CLOSED ON MONDAY. SO I ACTUALLY, A TP IS GOING OVER THERE EACH MONDAY TO GET COMPLIANT AND, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GONNA TAKE, UH, FOR THE CITY TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT. SO I'M JUST SUGGESTING IF YOU COULD JUST STAY IT FOR 30 DAYS, I'M SURE A T P'S GONNA DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AND BE TOTALLY COMPLIED. THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS A, A FINDING AND, UH, COMPLY BY 6 2 26 INITIAL FINDING A VIOLATION, UH, COMPLIANCE [03:05:01] STATEMENT. WHAT WAS IT? UH, SIX TWO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. LET'S, LET'S GET THE SEIZE RECOMMENDATION FIRST. SO, FINDING INITIAL VIOLATION AND, UH, COMPLY BY 6 2 26. OKAY. I'LL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT TO THAT. I MEAN, 90% OF HAS ALREADY BEEN TESTIFIED, HAS BEEN DONE. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 10%. SO TO FIND A, A VIOLATION OF THE, THE WHOLE THING WOULDN'T BE FAIR. SO THE, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION, AND EVEN BRINGING THEM HERE, UH, INITIALLY WAS THE FIRE, UH, PREVENTION SECTION'S TESTIMONY, UH, AND RECORDS THAT THEY'VE HAD ISSUES HERE BEFORE. AND BY BRINGING THEM AND GETTING A FINDING TODAY, THEN THE NEXT TIME THEY HAVE ISSUES, THEY CAN BRING IT BACK AS A REPEAT. OKAY. SO BASICALLY IT'S INITIAL FINDING WITH NO FINE, JUST GIVE 30 DAYS TO FIX IT AND WHATEVER, CORRECT? YEP. OKAY. CAN I HAVE A, THERE'S NO FINE, NO, FINE. ALL. SO I, I MOTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENT IN CE 20 26 0 0 1 18 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE AS CITED, AND THAT THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN INTO 6 2 20 26 TO COMPLY, OR, YOU KNOW, OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 A DAY BE ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY OF VIOLATION CONTINUES BEYOND SAID DATE. I, I'LL SECOND THAT. SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. ANI, A SECOND BY MR. TEO. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I HELD THE DISCUSSION YET? NO, NO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL AGAINST IT. WAS I HEARING NONE? AYE, VOTE AYE. SOLE ORDERED. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 22. CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH NUMBER ONE. SEND TWO 50 VIOLATION, TWO 50 A DAY. ITEM NUMBER 20 20 22 DASH 2025 DASH 0 4 4 3. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 67 TUSKEGEE AVE. MA'AM, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. WHAT'S YOUR NAME? VALERIE BRADSHAW. AND HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? UH, IT'S MY SISTER'S PROPERTY. IS MY GRANDMOTHER'S. OKAY. UH, INSPECTOR KELLER, THIS IS NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? UM, UH, HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT OUTSIDE STORY AND SOME OTHER THINGS. UH, BACK IN, UH, JULY OF LAST YEAR, BEEN WORKING WITH THE, UM, THE, UH, KAREN SCOTT, WHO'S, UM, OUTTA STATE, AND SHE HAS BEEN SENDING SOMEBODY PEOPLE BY TO, TO DO SOME WORK ON THE PROPERTY. UM, THEY DID REMOVE SOME OF THE OUTSIDE STORAGE AND THEY REMOVED A, A PORCH THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN DISREPAIR, UM, THE PORCH ROOF. UH, THE, BEEN SOME, UH, PROGRESS, THEY TRIMMED UP THE TREES AND QUITE A BIT, AND WHICH WASN'T PART OF THE VIOLATION. UM, BUT WE STILL HAVE SOME OUTSTANDING, UH, VIOLATIONS. AND AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE JULY. WE HAVE SOME, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDES, SO STILL SOME OUTSIDE STORAGE, UM, AND, UM, STILL AND SOME EXTERIOR, UM, MAINTENANCE REQUIRED, UH, MOSTLY WITH THE SOFFITS AND THE FAS, UH, THAT ARE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN WE HAVE, UM, THE FENCING IN DISREPAIR AS YOU CAN SEE ON, ON THIS SLIDE. AND SHE KEEPS SAYING SHE DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE, REMOVE THE FENCE BECAUSE OF, OF THAT. UM, SHE'S AFRAID THAT ONE NEIGHBOR'S GONNA ENCROACH. UH, AND I'M NOT SURE, I DON'T SEE THAT THE, THE, THE NA THE PROPERTIES ON, ON THE SIDES. UH, THE FENCING IS EVEN IN DISREPAIR. THIS IS PHOTOS RIGHT FROM THE STREET. SO I'M, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO, UM, IMPROVE THE, THE CURB APPEAL OF THE PROPERTY. SO, UH, WE'VE GOT SOME FENCING DISREPAIR THERE. WHAT'S THE, UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATE? UH, JULY 15TH, 2025. UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT AND NOTICE OF HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT ON MARCH 11TH, 2026. WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY? THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION AND GIVE UNTIL JUNE 2ND TO COMPLY, OR A FIND UP TO $250 PER DAY FOR EACH DAY. THE VIOLATION CONTINUES. MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? UH, YES. THE OFFENSE THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT HAS BEEN FIXED TODAY, AND THE SOFFIT, WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED TOMORROW. SO SHE'S DOING WHAT SHE CAN AND, UH, I'M NOT ABLE TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M ON DISABILITY. SO SHE'S DOING [03:10:01] WHAT SHE, SHE CAN DO. SO, AND, UM, AND SHE'S ALREADY GOING THROUGH, SHE WAS GETTING THE ROOF FIXED, BUT THE GENTLEMAN, THE CONTRACTOR THAT SHE HAD, UM, TOOK THE MONEY AND USED IT FOR HIMSELF. SO, UM, SHE'S GOING THROUGH THAT TRYING TO GET THE MONEY BACK FROM HIM. SO SHE'S GOING TO COURT FOR THAT. IS THIS THE LADY THAT CAME, FLEW IN ONE TIME AND TALKED? NO, THIS IS, THIS IS A NEW CASE. THIS IS A DIFFERENT CASE. OKAY. YOU'RE NOT FROM, OKAY. NOT, NOT FAMILIAR. OKAY. UH, SO WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO BOND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION AND GIVE UNTIL JUNE 2ND. OKAY. I HEAR A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. MAKE A MOTION AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE CITED PROPERTY, ALL RESPONDENTS IN CASE NUMBER CE 2025 DASH 0 0 4 4 3 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CITED THAT CI PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND, 2026 TO COMPLY. OUR FILE OF UP TO $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED FOR EACH STATE OF VIOLATION CONTINUES BE BEYOND SET DATE. ANY DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MR. SAM? OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. TEO, SECOND BY MR. SAM BOARD. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. NO. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. AYE, VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 19, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1683 NORTH HARBOR CITY BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 0 0 9 0. SIR, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO. WHAT'S YOUR NAME? GLENN MULLEN. AND HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? I'M THE OWNER, UH, INSPECTOR GERMAN. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS NEW VIOLATION? YES. SO, UM, WE HAD, UH, A PREVIOUS CASE ON THIS WHERE, UM, CE 2022 DASH 360 3, WHERE, UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF A, UM, REPEAT INOP WELL VIOLATION OF IN OPERABLE VEHICLE PROHIBITED, WHICH HE HAS, UH, INOPERABLE VEHICLES THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY AND ALSO OPEN STORAGE OF JUNK AND DEBRIS. BUT THIS CASE IS A REPEAT BECAUSE HE WAS PREVIOUSLY THE PROPERTY, HE WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF A AND B ON, UH, 5 3 20 23 WITH THAT FINDING AND ORDER SENT 5 10, 23 OF THE PREVIOUS CASE, CE 2022 DASH 0 0 3 6 3. AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING IN THIS CASE, THE CURRENT CASE FOR REPEAT VIOLATION SENT 3 4 26. AND THAT, UH, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS POSTED 3 13 26 AND 4 9 26. SO WE HAVE THE SAME VEHICLES AND DISREPAIR, BUT THEN SOME NEW ONES, THE, UH, BLACK LAND ROVER WITH NO TAG, AS WELL AS THE, UM, TRAILER IN THE UPPER LEFT THAT IS ACTUALLY MISSING. UM, IF YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, THAT TRAILER HAS, THE SECOND PHOTO FROM THE LEFT ON THE TOP IS A BROKEN TAILLIGHT ON THAT TRAILER. AND, UM, SO THERE'S MORE VEHICLES, BUT THERE'S MORE DISREPAIR OF THE VEHICLES. AND THERE'S ALSO OPEN STORAGE OF JUNK AND DEBRIS. SO WHAT'S NEW FROM LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, THE SAME JUNK AND DEBRIS, BUT WE HAVE, UM, THE TRAILER FILLED WITH THE ITEMS AS WELL AS BOARDS AND A TIRE AND THE SAME LAWNMOWER FROM LAST TIME. SO IT'S THE SAME JUNK PLUS MORE, PLUS MORE, AND THE SAME VEHICLES PLUS TWO MORE VEHICLES THAT ARE INOPERABLE. AND THE PREVIOUSLY INOPERABLE VEHICLES THAT ARE STILL THERE ARE IN MORE DISREPAIR WITH THE MISSING WHEEL AND BROKEN WINDSHIELDS AND MISSING SIDE MIRRORS, THINGS LIKE THAT. ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION? YOU, YOU ACTUALLY, I HAVE ONE THING. YOU GAVE THE, UM, THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO NEED FOR A NOTICE OF VIOLATION SINCE THIS IS A REPEAT, BUT DID YOU STATE THE, UH, NOTICE OF HEARING DATE? YES, SIR. OKAY. YES. AND WHAT'S THE, UM, THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY? THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD FIND THIS PROPERTY IN REPEAT VIOLATION OF THE CODES, AND, UM, [03:15:01] STARTING A FINE TODAY OF $250 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED. MR. MULLEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR KELLER? ANY COMMENTS ON THE BOARD? UH, YEAH. UM, FIRST OF ALL, I I, I'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH SOME HARDSHIPS WITH, UH, SEVERAL FORECLOSURES ON MY PROPERTIES JUST RECENTLY THAT I'VE SURPASSED. AND I HAVE ONE MORE FORECLOSURE THAT I'M DEALING WITH. UM, IT'S KIND OF PUT ME BEHIND ON A LITTLE BIT OF THINGS, UH, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD MY FINANCIAL OR, UM, HARDSHIPS AS WELL, UH, WHERE I WASN'T ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, DO CERTAIN THINGS WITHOUT MONEY, YOU KNOW? UH, BUT I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY. I, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING CARE OF THE YARD AND, AND CLEANING UP TRASH AND ALL THAT. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINED, UH, WITH THE LAWN LANDSCAPE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, LEAVES, UM, SWEPT UP, UH, THE, UM, THE TRASH THAT WAS INSIDE THE, UM, THE TRUCK WAS REMOVED. UH, AND, AND I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE, UM, THE NEW, THE NEW HEARING CASE, UH, UNTIL JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. UM, SO I, I, UM, YOU KNOW, GOT RIGHT ON IT AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, UH, IN FACT, MY SON'S STILL THERE WAITING ON ME BECAUSE I, I, I LEFT HIM THERE TO, YOU KNOW, FINISH CLEANING UP SOME, SOME THINGS. BUT, UM, WE, WE AIRED UP ALL THE TIRES THAT WERE LOW ON AIR. UH, ALL THE VEHICLES WORK. UH, THERE, THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THAT. I JUST HAD MY VEHICLES THAT WERE VANDALIZED AND WITHOUT MONEY TO REPLACE THE WINDSHIELDS THAT GOT SMASHED IN WITH SOME KIDS THROWING ROCKS. YOU KNOW, I, I HADN'T HAD THE FUN, THE FUNDS TO, TO REPLACE THOSE. UM, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE VEHICLES SITTING, YOU KNOW, I GOTTA TAKE THE GAS OUT TO, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PUT FRESH GAS IN TO, TO, YOU KNOW, START IT. UM, BUT MY PROBLEM WAS, IS THAT, UH, RECENTLY I TRIED TO LOCATE THE KEYS, UH, TO TAKE CARE OF THIS, AND I, AND I MISPLACED THE KEYS. SO I'M JUST WORKING ON GETTING THOSE, YOU KNOW, THAT SHOULDN'T BE LONG TO FIND THOSE. UH, SO, UM, I, I, I THINK WE GET IT. I'M SORRY. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEM. SO, UH, CITY RECOMMENDATION AGAIN. OH, THE CITY RECOMMENDS, UH, FINDING THE PROPERTY IN REPEAT VIOLATION AND STARTING THE FINE AT $250 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED STARTING TODAY. BUT, BUT I'M ALREADY BEING FINED. I, I, I'M, I'M GETTING CLOSE TO THE MAX. FINE, ACTUALLY, I'M STILL BEING FINED ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, AND THE, THE, THERE'S NO NEW VEHICLES HERE, AND I, AND I DID REMOVE THE ONE TRAILER. THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CASE WHERE WE CAP THE FINE AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, AND A LOT OF MR. MULLEN'S PROPERTIES ARE THIS WAY. AND TO ENCOURAGE SOME KIND OF PUSH TOWARDS COMPLIANCE, WE, AND IT'S UNDER STATE STATUTE FOR EVERY DAY A VIOLATION EXISTS. THE CITY CAN COME BACK EVEN AFTER A FINE HAS BEEN CALLED, UH, CAPTOR PAUSED AND ASK FOR THAT FINE TO START AGAIN. IN THIS CASE, UH, WE BROUGHT UP, BROUGHT IN A NEW CASE FOR THE REPEAT SO THAT WE CAN BRING AN EXCE, A MAXIMUM FINE AMOUNT TO TRY TO PUSH FOR THESE PROPERTIES TO BE RESOLVED. AND SO HE'S WRONG TO SAY THAT THERE IS A FINE ALREADY RUNNING ON THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS CAPPED, AND WE HAVE TO BRING THIS NEW CASE TO START A NEW FINE. SO WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE THAT DOES HAVE AN AMOUNT DUE MM-HMM . AND WE HAVE A NEW CASE WHERE WE WANNA START THE FINE, CORRECT. A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FINE. I'D MAKE A MOTION TO THIS CASE. GO AHEAD, MS. THI YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN, IN CASE NUMBER CCE 2026 DASH 0 0 0 9 0, THAT THIS BOARD STARTS A FINE OF UP OF $250 A DAY STARTING TODAY UNTIL THE REPEAT VIOLATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED. ANY QUESTION? UH, WELL, UH, YEAH, ACTUALLY, UM, YOU MIGHT WANT TO RE REDO THAT AS ITEM NUMBER SIX. 'CAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT RECORDING A LIEN TOO. UM, YES, YOU WANT TO LIEN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST READ IT. SIX. ALL THE SIGNS WILL HAVE LIEN LANGUAGE IN THERE. YEAH. RESTATE, RESTATE IT AS NUMBER SIX. MAKE A MOTION THAT AFTER PREVIOUS BOARD FINDINGS CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS, IN CASE NUMBER CCE 2026 DASH 0 0 0 9 0 BE FOUND IN REPEAT VIOLATIONS. THE CITY CODE DECIDED, AND ALL CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS BE ASSESSED A FINE OF $250 PER DAY BEGINNING TODAY. ON EACH DAY THE REPEAT VIOLATION CONTINUES AND AUTHORIZED AND RECORDING OF A LIEN. I'LL SECOND THAT. MR. LUER SECONDS IT? YES. [03:20:01] OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION SECONDED BY MR. LOOMER. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? I'M GONNA NEED THAT. OKAY. I, I WON'T ANYWAY. WE'LL GO. WELL GO AHEAD. WELL, NO, WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION. I JUST WANTED TO, UH, I I THINK $250 A DAY IS, THAT'S PRETTY REMARKABLE. FINE. SEVEN, I THINK SO REMARKABLE. HIGH, REMARKABLE LOW. I'M ALREADY CHARGED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. I MEAN, I JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO, TO, TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. IF YOU GUYS GIVE ME, TOLD THE NEXT HEARING TO HAVE THE VEHICLES, UM, TAKEN CARE OF, I, I ASSURE YOU THAT THERE'LL BE DONE. SO WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE, ITS NOT MONEY MOTIVATING AT ALL. IT'S NOT ELIMINATION ALL THE FINES ON ALL THE PROPERTIES. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON. I KNOW THAT. YEAH. IF I HAD MORE PROPERTIES, I'D BE GETTING FINED ON THOSE TOO. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST BECAUSE I'M WHO I AM. THEY, THEY, I THEREAFTER ME. WELL, ANYWAY, WE ALREADY VOTED AND IT'S DONE DEAL. 'CAUSE IT PASSED. IT DID PASS. SO UNFORTUNATELY, UH, IT DID PASS AT $250 A DAY. YEAH. BUT I'M HAVING THIS HARDSHIP THAT WITH, WITH CURRENT FORECLOSURES, I'M LOSING MY PROPERTY. CASE CLOSED. IT'S CLOSED. WE, WE ORDERED IT. IT'S CLOSED. HOW MUCH? A DAY. A DAY? YES, SIR. HOW MUCH A DAY? 250. $50. TWO $50 A DAY? YES, SIR. OH MY GOD. THAT THAT'S KIND OF HIGH. UM, REALLY HIGH. I WAS JUST ASKING TO HAVE MORE TIME, YOU KNOW. HEY, TALK TO HER. NOT US. WE'RE DONE. WELL TALK, TALK TO HER SINCE, SINCE TODAY, BECAUSE WE'RE DONE. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE CASE UNTIL JUST TWO DAYS AGO. IT'S 32, SO WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE. STAY RIGHT THERE, MR. MULLET. NEXT CASE NUMBER 32. CASE NUMBER 32, OR ITEM NUMBER 32. CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 6 0 1. THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1684. AVOCADO. MR. MOLAND, YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN. UM, IS THIS YOUR PROPERTY AS WELL? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. INSPECTOR DURANT. UM, WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS, UH, NEW VIOLATION? UH, YEAH, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF MR. MULLEN'S PROPERTIES. UM, IT HAS HISTORY AS WELL. UM, I DON'T THINK THIS ONE COULD GO AS A REPEAT BECAUSE IT, I THINK THE LAST CASE WAS IN 2018, WHICH MADE IT OVER FIVE YEARS AGO. BUT, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, VIOLATION, A THE BUILDING STRUCTURE PROPERTY AND YARD MAINTENANCE, UH, THE PROPERTY'S BEEN BOARDED UP FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UH, THE EXTERIOR NEEDS A LOT OF WORK DONE TO IT. YOU GO TO VIOLATION B INOPERABLE VEHICLES, RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT. THOSE BOATS HAVE BEEN BACK THERE FOR PROBABLY A BETTER PART OF 10 YEARS. UM, THEY'RE, ALL OF THEM ARE INOPERABLE. GO TO THE NEXT ONE. UH, FENCE AND WALL PERMIT REQUIRED. THAT PHOTO THAT YOU SEE AT THE, AT THE BOTTOM LEFT, UH, WAS TAKEN FROM THE ALLEYWAY, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE, THE 2018 CASE. THAT WAS A PHOTO TAKEN MARCH 31ST, 2023. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S NO FENCE ALONG THE ALLEYWAY AT THE PROPERTY. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THAT TOP PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE, THE, UH, FROM THE SAME ALLEYWAY, FEBRUARY 24TH, 2026, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FENCE WAS ERECTED. UH, NO PERMIT WAS OBTAINED FOR THE PERMIT. UH, YOU GO TO VIOLATION. D UH, NUISANCE O OPEN EXTERIOR STORAGE. UH, THERE'S A LOT OF ITEMS THAT HE HAS IN FRONT OF THE CARPORT AREA IN THAT TOP PHOTO. THE BOTTOM PHOTO, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF, THERE'S, THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF STUFF. UH, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS THERE. THERE'S SOME STUFF HANGING ON THE FENCE, UH, BECAUSE HE, HE HAS A GENTLEMAN STAYING IN AN RV, UH, ON THE ADJACENT VACANT LOT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. UM, WHICH MR. MULLET OWNS AS WELL, I BELIEVE THAT'S IT. YEAH. WHAT'S THE, UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATE? YEAH, THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED OUT ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025. THEN AN AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED OUT ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS MAILED OUT ON MARCH 10TH, 2026. ALL MAILED TO THE, THE OWNER LISTED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE. AND THEN THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY ON APRIL 9TH, 2026. WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? UH, THE CITY RECOMMENDS A FINDING OF VIOLATION AND SET THE COMPLIANCE DATE FOR 6 2 26, OR A FINDING OF UP TO $250 PER DAY [03:25:01] FOR EVERY DAY THE VIOLATION EXISTS. MR. MULLEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR DURANT OR ANY COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? UH, UH, WELL, UM, I HAD, UM, UH, MET WITH, UM, UH, MR. DURANT, UH, BACK, UM, IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE ISSUE, UH, THE ONLY ISSUE WAS, UH, FOR THE, UH, THE YARD BEING MOWED IS NEEDED TO BE MOWED. AND, AND, AND THERE WAS NO, UH, OTHER, UH, AND I ASKED HIM, I SAID, THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I HAVE TO DO BECAUSE WITH THE BOATS AND STUFF, YOU KNOW, UM, THEY WERE ALL ORGANIZED AND CLEANED UP AND, AND, AND, AND PUT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY'RE NOT SCATTERED ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND IN FACT, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT WITH THE FENCE THERE UNTIL YOU, UM, UH, UH, GO ONTO MY OTHER PROPERTY. AND, UM, UH, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST, YOU KNOW, TRESPASS ON THE OTHER PROPERTY JUST TO TAKE A PICTURE FROM MY SIDE PROPERTY ONTO MY OTHER PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD DO THAT, BUT, UM, IT, YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE HIM. IT'S ALL NICE AND ORGANIZED AND CLEAN. THE ONLY ISSUE WAS IT WAS THE, UM, THE, THE YARD AND I, AND I KEPT THE, THE MAINTENANCE WITH THE YARD. HE, HE AND I, AND HE SAID, YEAH, THAT WAS GOOD. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HE, HE WAS, YOU KNOW, UH, IT WAS ALL SIGNED OFF. THERE WAS NO ISSUE UP, UP UNTIL, UH, JUST RECENTLY, WHICH, WHICH I'M, LIKE I SAID, I'M JUST FINDING OUT ABOUT, ABOUT THE OTHER STUFF. BUT THE, UM, UH, THE, UM, UH, UH, THE, THE, AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE WINDOWS BEING BOARDED UP. I MEAN, THOSE WERE UP IN THE HURRICANE, YOU KNOW, I COULD JUST TAKE THOSE DOWN. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. UM, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WAS AN ISSUE UNTIL JUST, JUST LIKE TODAY ABOUT THAT. UM, BUT THE, UH, UH, THE FENCE THAT WAS, UM, UH, A PREVIOUS FENCE WAS THERE, UH, AND, AND A LOT OF THE FENCE PIECES WERE TAKEN DOWN AND THEY WERE UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS, THAT WAS PUT BACK UP, YOU KNOW. BUT, UM, THE, THEY, THEY SAID THAT THEY NEEDED ME TO HAVE A SURVEY TO PUT, UM, TO, TO, TO GET THE PERMIT AFTER THE FACT. AND I, AND I, AND I, I JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS FOR THE SURVEY, SO I WANTED TO ASK IF, IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, SINCE, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A LONG, IT SAYS IT'S ALONGSIDE THE, UM, THE ALLEYWAY. UH, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WOULD, UM, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A WAIVER AND AN EXEMPTION EXCEPTION TO, UM, UM, JUST DO LIKE A DIAGRAM OR A SKETCH, UH, OF THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF HAVING A SURVEY. IS THAT POSSIBLE? THE, THE BOARD CAN'T GRANT YOU THOSE EXEMPTIONS. UH, ANYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED FOR ANY KIND OF PERMIT IS UNDER THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. AND SO ANY REQUEST LIKE THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THEM. WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY, MR. MULLIN, TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE. UM, YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE, AND YOU KNOW HOW THE PROCESS WORKS BASED OFF OF THE FACT THAT THIS, THE PREVIOUS CASE YOU HAD WAS A REPEAT VIOLATION. SO, YOU KNOW THAT WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT WE FIND PEOPLE IN VIOLATION. WE DON'T FIND PEOPLE IN VIOLATION. IF THEY'RE FOUND IN VIOLATION, THEY'RE GIVEN A DATE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. TODAY IS SIMPLY, ARE YOU IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE? SO, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE THAT STATES THAT YOU ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE? I THINK THAT'S, I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY IT. I'M NOT LIMITING YOU ON THAT REGARD, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE IS BEFORE THE COURT, THE, THE PANEL TODAY, ARE YOU IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE? RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND. UM, YEAH. I'M NOT ALL PREPARED WITH ALL, ALL THAT, ALL THAT STUFF RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW? BUT IF YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN GIMME SOME MORE TIME FOR THE NEXT HEARING, YOU KNOW, I CAN HAVE, UM, THINGS TAKEN CARE OF AS WELL. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THERE, THERE'S A TREND AND, AND I THINK WE GET THE TREND. SO, AND THERE'S A LOT OF FINES OUTSTANDING. AND I THINK I, YOU HAVE HELP DOING ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE. I, I DON'T THINK YOU DO. I I WENT TO THE BOARD, UM, YEARS BACK AND I ASKED THE BOARD, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, A SITUATION, YOU KNOW, I, I, I, YOU KNOW, I, EVERYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO ME WITH LIFE EVENTS AND THINGS. AND THEY SAID, WE'LL, JUST SELL A PROPERTY. AND, AND I SAID, OKAY. SO I, I, I, I GO TO SELL A PROPERTY RIGHT AFTER THE BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT. AND I SAID, OH, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL JUST, I'LL DO THAT. I DISCOUNT SOMETHING. AND, AND I, AND I HAD A BUYER, AND, AND, AND I COULDN'T SELL IT BECAUSE I WOULD'VE TO COME UP WITH MONEY TO PAY OFF THE MONEY I OWE, PLUS ALL THE FINES AND, AND TO, TO SELL IT. AND THEN I, I WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO, I WOULD LOSE MONEY. I WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY MONEY. IT WOULD COST ME MONEY TO SELL. WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT MR. MOLAND, THAT THE FINES GO WITH THE, WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEREFORE, UH, WE READY FOR A MOTION? I THINK WE, WE'VE HEARD MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. TEO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND CASE NUMBER CE 2025 DASH 0 0 6 0 1, THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE CITED PRO, ALL RESPONDENTS BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE. AND THAT THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONSES BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND TO COMPLY, OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 FOR AN DAY BE ASSESSED [03:30:01] FOR EACH STATED VIOLATION CONTINUES TO BE ON SAID DATE. ANY QUESTIONS? THEY HAVE A SECOND? YEAH, I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A, UH, MOTION BY MR. UH, KEEL AND A SECOND BY MR. SAM. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. I A ALL OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. I SAY, AYE. SO ORDERED. OKAY. ALRIGHT, MR. MOLEN. UH, NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 33, CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 0 8 8. YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN UNDER OATH. YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH. IS THIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1693 NORTH HARBOR CITY BOULEVARD, YOUR PROPERTY? YES, SIR. INSPECTOR DURAN, WOULD YOU IN TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS NEW VIOLATION? UH, YES. THIS IS, UH, THAT A VIOLATION OF VIOLATION EIGHT, BUILDING STRUCTURE PROPERTY AND YARD MAINTENANCE REQUIRED. UH, THIS, THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN BOARDED UP. WE REQUIRED A NUMBER OF YEARS. UH, IT'S PRETTY STRUCTURALLY, UH, NEED SOME IMPROVEMENT STRUCTURALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS, YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, VIOLATION B OF THE NUISANCE, OPEN EXTERIOR STORAGE. THIS IS AROUND THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S, UH, ADJACENT TO THE ALLEYWAY. UH, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE, THE SECTIONS OF OLD FENCING AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, TIRES, WOOD, ALL KINDS OF STUFF BACK THERE. YOU GO TO VIOLATION C UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY A SWIMMING POOL IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. UM, IT HAS NO WATER IN IT HAS SOME, LIKE, SOME KIND OF ROCKS OR BRICKS OR SOMETHING IN THE BOTTOM OF IT WITH A, LIKE A PUDDLE IN, IN, IN THE BOTTOM, UH, VIOLATION D WITH THE FENCE GATE AND THE WALL MAINTENANCE REQUIRED. UH, THE POOL IS SECURED, BUT THE FENCE THAT IS UP IS MAYBE, I WOULD SAY A MAKESHIFT FENCE. IT'S THE ORIGINAL FENCE IS LEANING. SO ALL OF THE OTHER EXTRA SECTIONS OF FENCING ARE KIND OF, UH, LAID UP AGAINST IT, UH, JUST TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE CAN GET IN. WHAT IS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATES? YES. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED OUT ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS MAILED ON MARCH 11TH, 2026. UH, THEY WERE BOTH MAILED TO THE, THE ADDRESS AND THE OWNER LISTED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE. AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY ON APRIL 9TH, 2026. WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? YES, THE CITY RECOMMENDS A FI UH, FINDING OF VIOLATION AND SET THE COMPLIANCE DATE FOR JUNE, UH, SECOND 2026, OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 PER DAY FOR EVERY DAY THE VIOLATION EXISTS. MS. MULLAND, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR DURAN OR ANY COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? UH, HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU GET MAXED OUT ON PROPERTIES? , IT'S, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I JUST, IT'S YOUR HONOR. YEAH. THIS STATUTE ALLOWS US TO FIND YOU UNTIL YOU'RE COMPLIED. I MEAN, I'M NOT, NOW THE CITY DOESN'T USUALLY DO THAT IN THESE CASES. THERE IS AN INCENTIVE FOR THE CITY TO TRY TO CLEAN UP THIS AREA AND THE HISTORY BEHIND THESE PROPERTIES. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY COOPERATION FROM THE OWNER, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO INSTILL THE IMPORTANCE AND STRESS THAT THEY NEED TO BE CLEANED UP. SO, YEAH. YEAH, STATUTORY, WE CAN FIND YOU UNTIL THEY'RE DONE, RIGHT? FOREVER. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, I CLEANED UP ALL THE BACK. A LOT OF IT WAS, UH, VAGRANTS, UH, WITH, UH, DUMPING STUFF BACK THERE. UM, THE, THE FENCE PANEL, UH, IT, IT, IT'S STILL BACK THERE. UH, AND THAT'S, UM, STACKED AND, UH, UH, I JUST HAVE TO MAKE A, UM, A DUMP RUN TO COCOA WITH THAT. BUT I WANTED TO REPLACE THAT FENCE THAT'S ALL ALONG THERE. AND SAME THING, I NEED TO HAVE A SURVEY TO GET THE FENCE PERMIT. I ALREADY TRIED TO DO THAT, AND THEY SAID I NEED A FENCE PERMIT. I MEAN, I NEED A, UM, A SURVEY TO GET THE FENCE PERMIT. I DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO A COMMERCIAL SURVEY. IT WAS SEVERAL THOUSANDS DOLLARS WHEN I CHECKED. AND, UH, AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE ARGUMENT THAT THESE THINGS DON'T EXIST TODAY. SO YOU'RE, SO THE CITY'S TESTIMONY IS THAT YOU'RE IN VIOLATION TODAY AND YOU HAVE NO TESTIMONY THAT SAYS THAT YOU'RE NOT CORRECT. WELL, ARE YOU IN VIOLATION OF THESE ITEMS TODAY OR NOT? THAT'S ALL CLEANED UP BACK THERE, EXCEPT FOR, UM, UH, EXCEPT FOR JUST, JUST FOR LIKE, UM, THOSE TIRES THAT GOT DROPPED OFF THERE. THOSE WILL BE REMOVED TOMORROW THEN, THEN YOU SHOULD BE DONE BY JUNE 2ND. BUT, AND THERE'S NOTHING BOARDED UP ON THERE EXCEPT, UH, THERE WAS, UM, ONE DOOR THAT I, I BOARDED UP BECAUSE I [03:35:01] DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO BREAK IN. AND I COULD TAKE THAT DOWN. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE DOOR AT ALL, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S BOARDED UP. THERE'S NO WINDOWS BOARDED UP. NOTHING. AND YOU SHOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 2ND, CORRECT? UH, I YOU THINK THEY WOULD WORK WITH ME GETTING A PERMIT FOR THAT FENCE? BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAIN OUTSIDE OUR WHEELHOUSE. IT'S OUTSIDE MY WHEELHOUSE. YEAH, BUT I, I'LL HAVE THAT, UM, I'LL HAVE THAT. I'M WORKING ON ALL OF 'EM. I HATE TO SAY I, I'LL HAVE 'EM ALL DONE BY, BY BY JUNE 2ND. UH, I INTEND TO DO THAT. UH, LIKE I SAID, I, I HAD ALL THESE FORECLOSURES THAT JUST, JUST, JUST LAST MONTH, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST WENT THROUGH AND, AND, AND I GOT ONE MORE I'M WORKING ON, BUT I COULD STILL, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, FOCUS ON YOUR MR. ABOUT YOUR FORECLOSURES, MR. MOLEN. THAT'S OUR YES, SIR. WE DON'T DEAL WITH FORECLOSURES. WE'RE DEALING WITH WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAS BEEN CLEANED UP, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE SHOWN US THAT THERE'S PROGRESS BEING MADE. AND SO FAR ALL WE SEE IS THIS SNOWBALLING EFFECT. SO, UM, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO WITH THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. TEO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 33 THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CASE NUMBER CE 20 26 0 0 30 88, BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE, DECIDED I'LL DECIDE PROPER, NO RESPONSE TO BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND, 2026 COMPLY OR FINAL OF UP TO $250 FOR A DAY BE ASSESSED FOR RESTATED VIOLATION, CONTINUED ON SET DATE. ANY DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? CAN I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MR. SAND. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION BY MRT. SECOND BY MR. SAM. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. ALL FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. AYE. I MEAN, I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. I VOTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 25, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 8 3 7. WE HAVE, UM, SOME NEIGHBORS FOR THAT CASE. YOU WANNA COME ON DOWN THERE? DAVID? GOTTA WAKE HIM UP OFF . BLESS Y'ALL FOR STICKING WITH US. YEAH, WE'RE SORRY. ALL RIGHT. INSPECTOR KELLER, WE ARE HERE ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS IN THIS CASE? UM, THERE'S STILL A, A, A PULLBACK UNFINISHED POOL PROJECT BACK THERE. THE, UM, UM, RESPONDENT WANTS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS, UH, BABY BARRIER, AS YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO THERE IS, UH, COMPLIANT WITH, UM, STATE STATUTE AS FAR AS THE POOL BARRIER. UM, AND, AND THAT HASN'T, UM, THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT DOESN'T, I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS THE, UM, DISTANCE OF THE, OF THE BARRIER FROM THE, FROM THE WATER. UH, IT, I THINK HE ACTUALLY INSTALLED SELF-CLOSING, SELF LATCHING GATE ON THIS BABY BARRIER. UM, BUT WE STILL HAVE AN UNFINISHED PROJECT. HE DID PASS AN ELECTRICAL INSPECTION. UM, HE DID APPLY FOR A, A, UH, A POOL INSPECTION TO CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT THAT FAILED. UM, AND HE, LIKE I SAID, HE DID APPLY FOR, TO TRY, UH, TO, TO TRY TO SHOW THAT THIS, UH, POOL BARRIER WAS THE, UM, WAS THE, UH, AN ACCEPTABLE, UH, AN ACCEPTABLE, UM, BARRIER. BARRIER. BUT IT, BUT IT'S NOT. IF YOU, THE OTHER SLIDE, UH, CALLEN, IF YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE, IT'S JUST A RUNDOWN OF THE, OF THE RIGHT THERE. THAT'S A RUNDOWN OF, OF THIS CASE, UM, WHICH I'M TESTIFYING TO IT. YOU CAN SEE THOSE LAST PARTS OF THE NOTES, THOSE, UH, NOTES THAT ARE SMALLER. IT'S BECAUSE THAT WAS BEFORE THE LAST CODE BOARD CASE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST NOTE THAT'S BIGGER THAT, UH, ON MARCH 11TH, THIS CODE BOARD FOUND THIS PROPERTY OWNER AND THIS RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION. AND TODAY, UM, WITH THE PROJECT STILL NOT FINISHED, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO, UH, COMMENCE A $50 A DAY. FINE. ALRIGHT. WE HAVE A FEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE HERE. IF YOU CAN ALL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO. AND CAN YOU ALL STATE YOUR NAME AND HOW YOU'RE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY? STEVEN RUSSELL, PRESIDENT OF THE HOA MARK THORNTON. I'M, UH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HOA [03:40:02] NOAH WRIGHT, TWO HOUSES DOWN A RESIDENT. ALRIGHT. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DO EITHER ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, INSPECTOR KELLER OR ANY COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? I DO HAVE A QUESTION. UH, CAN YOU, UH, SPEAK INTO MIKE SPEAKING JUST FOR THE RECORDING SPEAKING? EXCUSE ME. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IT SAYS THE ONLY THING REMAINING TO INSTALL THE LIGHTS, SOME MINOR CONCRETE WORK. SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOL BEING FINISHED. DID YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT OR DID HE MAKE THE, I JUST TAKE IT FROM AN EMAIL FROM ERIC AUSTIN AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S HIGHLIGHTED. SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING FINISHED. THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE. CAN YOU ALSO TELL ME EXACTLY HOW LONG THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN GOING ON? UH, THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, UPPER NOTES THERE, THE PERMIT WAS, UH, ISSUED ON, UM, 2020 MAY OF, UH, 2021. IT APPLIED IN LIKE MID, UM, 2020, BUT IT TOOK HIM MONTHS TO GET THE PERMIT EVEN ISSUED. AND HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE HAD TO RENEW THAT PERMIT? RIGHT. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE NOTES, IT, IT'S BEEN EXTENDED. UM, 1, 2, 3, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS WILL BE HIS FOURTH EXTENSION. SO THE ORIGINAL PERMIT PLUS FOUR EXTENSIONS. RIGHT. AND PLUS ALL THE TIMES WHERE THAT PERMIT WAS JUST SITTING OUT THERE EXPIRED. HE'S, HE'S BEEN GIVEN, UH, AMPLE TIME, UH, REASONABLE TIME. AS YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN USE THE TERM REASONABLE TIME WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. HE'S BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE TIME TO, UM, TAKE CARE OF THIS. AND WHEN NOTIFIED JET, AGAIN, ONE OF HIS RESPONSES IS, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING FINISHED. THAT'S THE SAME ATTITUDE WE'VE GOTTEN. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD WANT TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, IT, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT FIVE YEARS FOR ANY KIND OF A PERMIT LIKE THIS TO BE OPEN, UH, TO BE WORK, YOU KNOW, WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT, UH, TO BE REISSUED LIKE THIS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THIS GOING ON ANYWHERE. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE HAD A ROOF PERMIT AND PUT A BOOT TARP ON THEIR ROOF, NO ONE WOULD PUT UP WITH THAT FOR FIVE YEARS. YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CAN CONTINUE FOR FIVE YEARS. HE WON'T TALK TO US. I'VE NEVER MET THE MAN. IF HE, IF HE WERE HERE TODAY, I WOULDN'T KNOW HIM. AND WE'VE LIVED IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD FOR YEARS. YOU KNOW, HE, UH, HE WON'T RESPOND. UH, HE JUST SHY AWAY FROM US. AND I'M SORRY. I KNOW HE'S BEEN QUITE A, QUITE A THORN IN YOUR SIDES AS WELL, AND I, I'D LIKE TO GET THIS DONE. SO NONE OF US HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS MAN AGAIN. YES, SIR. YOUR QUESTION. OH, I THINK YOU MR. UM, I'LL JUST ADD, IF WE COULD GET THE CITY'S HELP, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, SOME, UH, I DUNNO, NOT, NOT TO CARROT, BUT SOME STICK MOTIVATION, THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. UH, UH, THE CITY'S TRYING TO MOVE THIS PER, UH, POOL PERMIT FORWARD AND, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE BOARD'S HELP. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS, UM, THE FIRST TIME IT'S BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD, HE IS ALWAYS BEEN SENT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. GIVEN AN EXTENSION. YOU THINK, OKAY, HE'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT NOW. YOU KNOW, COVID IS OVER, HE IS GONNA MOVE FORWARD, HE'S GONNA DO THE RIGHT THING. UM, BUT THEN IT DOESN'T. SO THIS TIME HE WAS SENT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION LAST YEAR, SENT A NOTICE OF HEARING, UH, HE GOT A, UH, A, A PULL ALARM INSPECTION THINKING THAT'S GONNA EXTEND THINGS AND NO, THAT'S NOT GONNA EXTEND THINGS YOU NEED TO DO MORE. UM, AND SO HE, HE, HE'S AS OF LATE IS, UH, TRYING TO DO THINGS, BUT HE WANTS TO ARGUE THAT THIS BABY BARRIER IS AN ACCEPTABLE, UM, PULL BARRIER. AND, UM, HE'S GONNA GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THAT. AND WHILE HE'S GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THAT, THE CITY RECOMMENDS YOU GET FINED $50 PER DAY COMMENDING TODAY. HOW COME? SO LITTLE AMOUNT? WELL, $50 A DAY ADDS UP PRETTY QUICK. 'CAUSE HE'S, AND AGAIN, HE'S GOT SOME MORE WORK TO DO. HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET A, A FENCE, UH, MY ESTIMATION, HE'S GONNA GET, NEED TO GET A FENCE AROUND THAT BACKYARD OR PUT THE POOL ENCLOSURE ON AROUND THIS POOL THAT HE HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED. SO THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. BY THE TIME HE GETS ONE OF THOSE TWO THINGS DONE, IT'S GONNA BE SUBSTANTIAL FINES AT $50 PER DAY. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S MY ESTIMATION. UH, THAT'S THE, THE CITY'S, UM, UH, RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN BOARD TO MAKE THAT, UM, DETERMINATION. WHAT'S THE ADDRESS OF THIS PROPERTY? WE CAN'T PUT THAT ON THE RECORD TO, UM, IT'S, IT'S CONFIDENTIAL FOR FLORIDA STATUTE PURPOSES. SO WE CAN'T PUT THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE IT'S HOA WELL, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT'S ALL I, OR SOMETHING I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAS, HE HAS RIGHTS TO PRIVACY. OKAY, THAT'S [03:45:01] FINE. AND HE'S CLAIMING THOSE RIGHTS. OKAY. I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN OMISSION. I GOTCHA. NO, TAMMY, UH, SHE WOULD'VE HAD IT ON THERE IF WE NEEDED TO BE ON THERE. , MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. WELL YOU CONCUR. THE CITY'S, YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. MR. CHAIRMAN. TWO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AS CI OF PROVE OUR RESPONDENTS TO CE 2025 DASH 0 8 3 7. HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER BE ASSESSED, A FINE OF $50 A DAY BEGINNING TODAY FOR EACH DAY OF THE VIOLATION CONTINUES AND SHALL BE RECORDED AS A LIEN. ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL SECOND THAT. SECOND. WHATEVER STEVE IS HERE. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. THIEL, SECOND BY MR. LOOMER. ONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. ONE. HEARING NONE. I VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT. UH, I THINK THAT'S THE LAST ONE. . WE'RE IT EVERYONE ELSE HERE WORKS WITH YOU? AH, YEAH, EXACTLY. GOODNIGHT. EVERYONE. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. UM, I THINK THAT'S THE LAST OF THE OUT OF ORDER. SO WE'RE JUST GONNA GO IN ORDER NOW WITH, UM, NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE. NUMBER NINE, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 4 0 3. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1509 NORMAN STREET. INSPECTOR GOSLIN, WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS, UH, UNFINISHED BUSINESS? UH, THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO CHANGES, UH, NO CONTACT FROM ANYBODY CLAIMING THE PROPERTY, AND CITY'S GONNA RECOMMEND STARTING A FINE AT $25 PER DAY. A MOTION NUMBER? YEAH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION. UM, I MOTION THAT THE SITE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RE UH, RESPONDENTS IN CE 2025 DASH 0 4 0 3, UM, HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S, PREVIOUS ORDERS BE ASSESSED TO FIND $25 A DAY BEGINNING TODAY. UH, FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATIONS CONTINUE AND SHALL BE RECORDED AS A LIEN. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. TEEL. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY QUESTIONS? ONE. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. MR. LOW, DOES MR. DEFILLIPO, UH, DOES HE OWN THAT PROPERTY? AS FAR AS I KNOW, YES. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY MORTGAGES ON THE BREVARD COUNTY CLERKS OR, AND NOBODY'S LAID ANY CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY SINCE HIS PASSING. OH, OKAY. THAT'S WAS, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. NOBODY HAS CLAIMED OWNERSHIP. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE READY TO VOTE? WAIT, NOBODY ELSE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. ALL OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. IYE VOTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 10, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 4 0 9. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1921 ELIZABETH STREET, INSPECTOR GOSLIN, THIS IS NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? UH, THIS CASE IS A DERELICT BUILDING, UH, MARK ANGER THE ROOF, EXCUSE ME, THE ROOF IS COLLAPSING. YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT. THERE'S MULTIPLE, UH, INOPERABLE VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S OVERGROWTH, LANDSCAPING'S REQUIRED, UM, NUISANCE OUTSIDE OPEN EXTERIOR STORAGE. THAT'S IT. UH, FIRST NOV WAS 6 30 20 25. AN AMENDED NOV WAS SENT TO 25 20 26 AND THE NOH WAS MAILED 3 9 20 26. WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION TO FIND IN VIOLATION WITH A COMPLIANCE DATE OF 7 7 26 OR FINES OF UP TO $250 PER DAY? ANY QUESTION I MOTION? OH, GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIR. I MOTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING THOSE, UH, CITED PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2025 DASH 0 4 0 9 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODES CITED AND THAT THE CITED PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN UNTIL 7, 7 26 TO COMPLY OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 PER DAY BE ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY OF THE VIOLATION CONTINUES BEYOND SET DATE. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. KADI. THANK CO. I'M SORRY, THANK KADI. I'M SORRY. OKAY. I HAVE A, UH, MOTION BY MR. [03:50:01] SAM, UH, SECOND BY MR. TI. ANY QUESTIONS? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. ALL OPPOSED HEARING NONE IYE VOTE. AYE. SO NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 13. SO NUMBER 14, CASE NUMBER 2022 DASH 0 0 1 2 5. PROPERTY LOCATED 1618 CYPRESS AVE. INSPECTOR GERMAN, THIS IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? THE REMAINING VIOLATION IS DEFENSE AREA BETWEEN THE GATE AND THE NEIGHBOR'S. BUILDING THAT FENCE AREA. STILL DOES NOT HAVE A PERMIT OR, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER WAY TO COMPLY IS THAT, TO JUST REMOVE IT. BUT, UM, IN THE MEANTIME THEY HAVE A CIVIL CASE, A LAWSUIT ABOUT THE PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT TO REACH A CONCLUSION BEFORE WE MAKE ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION. SO THE CITY IS GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD STAY THE FINE TO 8 26 26. EXTEND THE STAY OF FINE. OH, EXTEND THE STAY OF FINE. EXTEND THE STAY. YEP. SAY THAT AGAIN. EXTEND THE STAY OF FINE MOTION. STAY OF THE FINE. NUMBER 13. AND THE FI MOTION, THE FINE AMOUNTS $8,800? UM, YES, I THINK SO. MR. CHAIR, I MOTION THAT, UH, ALTHOUGH THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2022 DASH 0 1 2 5 REMAINS IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER, THE PREVIOUS STAY OF FINE ORDER SHALL BE EXTENDED WITH THE CURRENT FINE AMOUNT OF 8,800 UNTIL THE HEARING ON, UH, 8 26 26. SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS SECOND BY MR. TEAL? ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. WHAT? EXCUSE ME. I DO HAVE ONE. UM, NO LIEN? NO, IT'S AN EXTENSION. NO LIEN. WE'RE STATING THE FINE. OKAY. THE FINE HAS, I'M SURPRISED IT HAS A LIEN. WE'RE JUST EXTENDING. YEP. OKAY. SORRY. OKAY. NO, NO PROBLEM. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 1818, CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 0 0 8. UM, THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 46 OSAGE AVE. INSPECTOR GERMAN. THIS IS NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE? SO THIS PROPERTY AT 7 46 OH SAGE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN VIOLATION. AND THE LAST HEARING IN CASE CE 2025 DASH 0 4 6 8, THE BOARD FOUND THE PROPERTY AND RECURRING VIOLATION OF OVERGROWTH ON TEN ONE TWENTY FIVE. WITH THAT FINDING AN ORDER SENT TEN EIGHT TWENTY FIVE. AND, UH, RECENTLY I, THIS YEAR WE SAW IT THAT IT WAS OVERGROWN AGAIN. UM, I WAS OVERGROWN FROM 1 9 26 TO 2 16 26. AND THEN THE CITY HIRED CONTRACTOR IN ANOTHER CASE BROUGHT IT INTO COMPLIANCE AND I SAW THAT IT WAS IN VIOLATION AGAIN FROM 3 31 26 TO THE PRESENT. UM, SO WE SENT THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE REPEAT VIOLATION THAT WAS SENT 2 3 26. AND THEN I POSTED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE REPEAT VIOLATION ON 2 4 26 AND 4 9 26. SO THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN REPEAT VIOLATION. UH, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD FILING THE PROPERTY IN REPEAT VIOLATION FROM 1 9 26 TO 2 16 26 AND 3 31 26 TO THE PRESENT WITH, UH, RECOMMENDING UNTIL COMPLIED. UNTIL COMPLIED. YEAH. WE'RE RECOMMENDING, UM, A FINE OF $50 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED JUST FOR THE RECORD HERE. AND, AND THE BOARD'S, UH, UH, UNDERSTANDING THE CITY'S BEEN MOWING THIS PROPERTY FOR YEARS AND WE'RE TRYING, AND, AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE A CHEAP YARD SERVICE FOR THEM. HUH? AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IT TO HEARING TO UP THE ANTE A LITTLE BIT TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET IN THERE AND START DOING THIS THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF HAVING THE CITY PAY FOR IT. UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING THIS REPEAT VIOLATION FOR THE PERIODS OF 1 9 26 TO TWO 16 FOR 39 DAYS, THAT TOTAL FINE IS 1009 50. AND THEN [03:55:01] SINCE IT'S AGAIN IN VIOLATION FROM 3 31 A FINE OF $50 PER DAY UNTIL COMPLIED ON THE, UH, MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. QUESTION ON THE ONE NINE TO TWO 16, THAT'S ALSO A $50 A DAY NOT GONNA DO PUBLIC. YES. THAT WAS A $50 A DAY FINE. YEP. AND, UM, HOW MANY DAYS WAS THAT? 39. 39 39. SO THAT FINE TOTALED 1009 50 AND THEN WE'RE RESTARTING AGAIN ON THE 31ST OF MARCH AT $50 A DAY UNTIL COMPLIED. SO, UM, THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION, BUT A SPECIAL, SPECIAL READING. YEAH, IT'S ONE OF THOSE WEIRD ONES. UM, YOU CAN DO IT IN TWO MOTIONS IF YOU'D LIKE. YEAH, LET'S DO IT THAT WAY IT'S EASIER. OKAY. I MOTION THAT, UH, AFTER PREVIOUS BOARD FINDINGS, UH, CITED PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2026 DASH 0 0 0 0 8, UH, BE FOUND IN REPEAT VIOLATIONS THAT CITY IS CITED AND THAT THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS BE A ASSESSED WITH FINE OF $50 A DAY FOR THE PERIOD OF 1 9 2 6 THROUGH 2 16 26. UH, AND, AND, AND, AND CONTINUE AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF LI SO THAT'S FOR THE FIRST PART. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD MEMBERS? NOPE. NONE. SECOND. HAVE A SECOND MR. TEAL. OKAY. HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. TEAL. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. HEARING NONE IYE VOTE. AYE. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 20, CASE NUMBER 2020. WE WE TWO TWO PART MOTION. OH TWO PARTS. I MOTION THAT AFTER, UH, PREVIOUS BOARD FINDINGS, THE SITE IS PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2026 DASH 0 0 0 0 8 BE FOUND IN REPEAT VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CODE IS CITED AND CITED PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONSE. BE, UH, ASSESSED TO FIND $50 A DAY BEGINNING MARCH 31ST, 2026 FOR EACH DAY. THE REPEAT VIOLATION CONTINUES IN AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF A LIEN. SECOND MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. THIEL. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED HEARING NONE SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 20, CASE NUMBER 2023. OKAY. 20 ALREADY COMPLY WITH NO, UH, I'M SORRY, COMPLIED. NO FINE. NEXT CASE IS, UH, ITEM NUMBER 21, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 4 0 6. PROPERTY LOCATED AT, UH, 26 20 THROUGH 26 32 AURORA ROAD, INSPECTOR KELLER. THIS IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY PROGRESS WITH THE CASE THERE? THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS, UH, AND THERE'S BEEN PROGRESS, UH, UM, OVER TIME. UM, A LOT OF THE OVERGROWTH HAS BEEN REMOVED, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE EVEN WANTING THE OVERGROWTH REMOVED. THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE, UM, RETENTION AREA. UH, THE, SO, AND IT HAD THE MACHINE OUT THERE. YOU KNOW, THEY GOT, I STALLED WITH SOME RAIN. UM, BUT THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK WITHOUT A, THE CONTRACTOR ON SITE, UH, TODAY AS A MATTER OF FACT. AND THEN THE FENCE, UM, THAT WAS IN DISREPAIR, UM, GOT, UH, GOT REPLACED. BUT YOU CAN STILL SEE THEY STILL NEED TO REMOVE SOME OF THE OLD FENCING. UM, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO EXTEND COMPLIANCE UNTIL JUNE 2ND. HMM. CHERRY TAKE A MOTION? YEAH, SURE. UH, I MOTION, UH, THAT ALTHOUGH THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2025 DASH 0 4 0 6 REMAINS NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER, THAT THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE BE EXTENDED TO JUNE 2ND, 2026. SECOND I A MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. PETILLO. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE REMAIN OF THE BOARD? NONE. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP. HEARING NONE AYE VOTE. AYE IT. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 27, CASE NUMBER 2022 DASH 0 1 9 5. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 0 1 NORTH HIGHWAY A ONE A. THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 27. INSPECTOR DURANT. WE'RE HERE ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS. UM, WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? UH, YES. UH, PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE MADE PROGRESS. UH, 4 6 26. UH, THEY RECEIVED A NOTICE TO PROCEED AND THE AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FROM DEP. [04:00:01] SO NOW ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GET THEIR, GATHER THE PAPERWORK SO THEY CAN GET THE PERMIT FROM THE CITY. SO THE CITY RECOMMENDS TO CONTINUE THIS TO EXTEND THE STAY OF FINE AT THE CURRENT AMOUNT. $6,000 UNTIL, UH, 6 3 26. MOTION. OKAY. 6 3 26. ALRIGHT, MR. SAM, I MOTION THAT ALL OF THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2 22 DASH 0 0 1 9 5 REMAINS IN NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE BOARD'S. PREVIOUS ORDERS, UH, THE PREVIOUS DAY OF FINE ORDERS SHALL BE EXTENDED AT THE CURRENT FINE AMOUNT OF $6,000 UNTIL THE HEARING ON 6 3 26. SECOND. MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. TEAL. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? NOPE. NOPE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. AYE. VOTE AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 29, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 1 8 1 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 38 SARNO ROAD. INSPECTOR DURANT, WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF THIS CASE? UH, YES, THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS MADE. UM, THAT SITE RIGHT THERE SHOWS THAT, THAT THOSE PHOTOS FROM, UM, FROM ACTUALLY FROM THE LAWYER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, IT SHOWS, UH, DUMPSTERS BEING HAULED OFF FROM THE SITE. UH, THEY GOT RID OF, UH, A LOT OF THE PELICAN TRASH DUMPSTERS AND DVI DUMPSTERS. UH, THEY STILL HAVE SEVERAL MORE, BUT THEY'VE MADE, UH, SOME PRETTY GOOD PROGRESS. YOU CAN SEE DOWN BELOW THERE'S THE MIDDLE PHOTO WITH THE ORANGE FENCING. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE, UH, THE RETENTION AREA THAT WE COULDN'T SEE FROM THE AERIAL, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS SO OVERGROWN. SO THEY, UH, TRIMMED THE, TRIMMED ALL THE BRUSH FROM AROUND THAT. AND NOW YOU CAN, NOW YOU CAN, UH, SEE THAT TOOK PHOTOS OF THAT. THE TWO PICTURES AT THE BOTTOM TO THE RIGHT JUST SHOWS, UH, THIS AREA THAT WHERE THEY CLEARED DUMPSTERS AND JUNK DEBRIS, ALL KINDS OF STUFF THAT THEY HAD BACK THERE. SO THE CITY CITY RECOMMENDS TO EXTEND THE COMPLIANCE DATE TO 6 2 26. MR. CHAIR, MR. SAM MOTION THAT ALTHOUGH CITED PROPERTY, NO RESPONSE IN, UH, CE 2025 DASH 0 81, UH, REMAINS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER THAT THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE BE EXTENDED TO 6 2 26. SECOND. MOTION. MOTION, SAM SECOND BY MS. TE, ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR VOTE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? VOTE NAY. HEARING NONE. I VOTE. AYE, SOLE ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 30, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 1 8 9. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 35 BURNS AT INSPECTOR DURANT. THIS IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? UH, YES, THE OWNER HAS MADE PROGRESS, UH, A THE, THE TRAILERS, BOTH TRAILERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SO THAT A IS COMPLIED. UH, B THE OVERGROWTH, UH, THE GRASS WAS CUT TODAY, SO THAT WAS, THEY COMPLIED WITH THE OVERGROWTH TODAY. AND THE INOPERABLE VEHICLE, THE VE THE, THE VEHICLE IN THE TOP, EXCUSE ME, TOP LEFT PHOTOGRAPH. THE PURPLE CAR HAS BEEN REMOVED, SO THE ONLY THING LEFT IS THE WHITE VAN. SO THE CITY'S GONNA RECOMMEND TO EXTEND THE COMPLIANCE TO, UH, 6 2 26. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. MIKE. MR. LITTLER? YEAH. IS THE VAN I, I SAW THE TAG ON THE VAN. IS IT A CURRENT TAG? UH, NO IT'S NOT. UH, OKAY, IT'S 25. YEAH, BUT IT'S, IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S OPERABLE. YEAH. IT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CURRENT TAG. OH, YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN MAKE A MOTION IN CASE NUMBER CCE 2025 DASH 0 1 8 9. MR. BOARD EXTENDS THE COMPLIANCE DATE UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND 2026. THAT MY BED TIME. SECOND MOTION BY MR. TIP. YOU GO HEAR A SECOND. SECOND THIS SECOND BY MR. CAT. ANY QUESTIONS? NONE. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. AYE. HEARING NONE. AYE. VOTE AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM. IS ITEM NUMBER 34 MAKING THESE THINGS UP OR WHAT DID WE DO? 33? UH, WE DID UM, 30, ACTUALLY 33 WAS, UH, YEAH, WE GOT 33. [04:05:01] YOU ACTUALLY, OH YEAH. SORRY. YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. UM, THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1517 VENITA DEL RIO. CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 0 3 9 6. INSPECTOR ANDRE, THIS IS NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THESE VIOLATIONS? UM, VIOLATION. NU B HAS COMPLIED, WHICH IS WORK WITH WITHOUT PERMIT. UM, WE GOT ITEM A WHERE THE CONDITIONAL USE, THEY VIOLATED THEIR CONDITIONAL USE AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE APPLYING FOR THE NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALL THE PAVERS WITHOUT, UM, AN ENGINEERING PERMIT. WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION? AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT OUT ON ON 10 23 24 NOTICE OF HEARING SENT OUT ON 2 26 26. WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? CITY RECOMMENDED PROPERTY BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN UNTIL SIX TWO TO COMPLY OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 A-A-B-S-S I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MR. TI. 37. I MOTION THAT THE RECEIVING NOTICE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE UH, 2024 DASH 0 3 9 6 BE FOUND IN INITIAL VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE AS CITED WITH, SORRY, UM, AS CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDERS BE GIVEN UNTIL 6 2 20 26 TO COMPLY OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 PER PER DAY BE ASSESSED FOR EACH DAY. THE VIOLATION CONTINUES BE ON SET DATE. I'LL SECOND MR. LUER. SECOND. WHICH ONE? MR. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. COUNTY SECOND BY MR. LUER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. AYE, VOTE AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 37. CASE NUMBER 20 25 0 0 0 2 9. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 0 9 PRINCE F INSPECTOR ANDRE, THIS IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS IN THIS CASE? YEAH, THE PROPERTY OWNER DID OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE, UM, FOR THE ELECTRICAL. UM, SHE HAS NOT TAKEN CARE OF THE WATERS YET, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE'S LIVING THERE RIGHT NOW. SO, UM, AT THIS POINT THE CITY WOULD LIKE THE EXTEND COMPLIANCE TILL 6 2 26 BOARD MAINTAIN A MOTION. YEAH, SURE. UM, I MOTION THAT ALTHOUGH THE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN, UH, CE 2025 DASH 0 0 0 29, UH, REMAINS NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER THAT THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE BE EXTENDED TO 6 2 26. I'LL SECOND THAT FIRST BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. LOOMER. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF VOTE. AYE. AYE. NA AYE. AND ALL IN OPPOSED SAY NAY. NAY. OH, SORRY. OKAY. STEP HEARING NONE. I VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 38, CASE NUMBER 2025. DASH 0 0 9 1 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 0 6 WILLIAM STREET, INSPECTOR. ANDRE, WE CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE OBTAINED A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF AND HE'S MOVING ALONG TRYING TO RE-INSTALL THE ROOF. SO WE'D LIKE TO EXTEND COM. THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND COMPLIANCE UNTIL 6 2 26. ANY QUESTIONS? MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? JUROR I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH SURE. UH, I MOTION THAT ALTHOUGH THE SITE OF PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2025 DASH NINE ONE, UH, REMAINS IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDERS THAT THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE BE EXTENDED TO 6 2 26. ANY QUESTIONS? SO I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. TEAL. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. AYE. VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. [04:10:01] NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 39, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 0 1 4 6. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 10 JAMES STREET, INSPECTOR ANDRE, WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS? THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS STARTED THE ROOFING JOB BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE IT IN TIME BEFORE THIS HEARING. SO THE CITY WILL LIKE TO REQUEST A EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE UNTIL SIX TO 2026. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? GERALD? ENTERTAIN A MOTION. UH, MR. CHAIR. I MOTION THAT ALTHOUGH, UM, THE SITE OF PROPERTY IN ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2025 DASH 0 0 1 4 6 REMAINS NONCOMPLIANCE TO THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER. THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE SHALL BE EXTEND TO SIX TO 26. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. TI. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 40, CASE NUMBER 2023. 2025, EXCUSE ME. DASH 0 0 3 0 8 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 8 0 5 DAIRY ROAD. INSPECTOR ANDRE, THIS IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? THIS PROPERTY, THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN MO MOVING FORWARD, GETTING RID OF EVERYTHING ON THE PROPERTY. HE PROBABLY HAS LIKE ONE, UM, DUMPSTER LEFT TO REMOVE, SO WE'D LIKE TO EXTEND COMPLIANCE ONTO 6 2 26. ANY QUESTIONS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION? UH, SURE. MR. CHAIR, I MOTION THAT ALL THOSE CITED PROPERTY AND ALL RESPONDENTS IN CE 2025 DASH 0 0 3 0 8 REMAINS IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD. FOR THESE ORDER THAT THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE BE EXTENDED TO 1626. RIGHT HERE. SECOND. SECOND. A MOTION BY MR. SAM, SECOND BY MR. TEAL. ANY QUESTIONS? NOPE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. ALL THE OPPOSED SAY NAY. AYE. I MEAN, SORRY. WHERE WE ALL ARE HEARING NONE? I VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 44, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 5 7 3. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 2 2 EARL AVE. INSPECTOR ANDRE, THIS IS UNFINISHED, UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROGRESS IN THIS CASE? THERE HAS BEEN NO PROGRESS IN THIS CASE AND AT THIS POINT THIS YOU'D LIKE TO START A FINE AT $25 A DAY. ANY QUESTIONS? I HEAR A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. TEO A MOTION I DECIDED PROPERTY ALL RESPONDENTS IN CASE NUMBER CCE 2025 DASH 0 5 73 HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S, PREVIOUS ORDERS AND ASSESS THE FINE OF $25 A DAY BEGINNING TODAY. FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUS AND SHALL BE RECORDED AS A LIEN. YOU SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. TEO, SECOND BY MS. BOLTON. OH, SORRY, . OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. I VOTE. AYE. SO ORDERED. NEXT ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 45, CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 7 1 4. INSPECTOR ANDRE, THIS IS NEW BUSINESS. WHAT CAN YOU TELL THE, UH, BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? UM, ITEM A HAS COMPLIED WITH THE OVERGROW. UM, ITEM B IS OPEN STORAGE OF JUNK AND DEBRIS AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE BY WHERE THE POOL PUMP IS AND INSIDE THE POOL CAGE. AND THE POOL IS ALSO IN THIS REPAIR. WHAT'S THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF NOTICE OF HEARING DATE? NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT TEN EIGHT, TWENTY TWENTY FIVE. NOTICE OF HEARING SENT OUT ON 1 29 26. WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION YOU RECOMMEND THE PROPERTY BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN STILL JUNE 2ND, 2026 TO COMPLY OR A FINE OF UP TO $250 A DAY? AND I HAVE A QUESTION, SIR. YES, MA'AM. UM, SOMETIMES I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE LIABLE [04:15:01] FOR THAT FENCE, I MEAN THAT POOL MM-HMM . I MEAN YOU CAN, CHILDREN CAN GET IN THERE. MM-HMM . IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH THE SECURITY OF THE POOL? THERE IS, BUT THERE'S ALSO A FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE POOL. YEAH, BUT THE DOOR'S NOT BUSTED WHERE THE KIDS CAN GET IN. NO, THERE'S A FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY. YEAH. I DON'T SEE IF I THOUGHT THE POOL. OH, I SORRY. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. FORGIVE ME, IT'S LATE. OKAY. WE GOOD? MM-HMM . MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. YES SIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD. A MOTION ALL AFTER PROCEEDING NOTICE SIDE OF PROVE OUR RESPONDENTS IN CASE NUMBER CE 2025 DASH 0 7 4 BE FILED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE DECIDED ON ALL CITED PROPERTY AND RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND, 2026 COMPLY OR FINAL OF UP TO $250 FOR DAY B. ASSESSED TO STATED VIOLATION. 10 ON SET DATE. HAVE A SECOND, SECOND MOTION BY MR. TEAL. UH, SECOND BY MR. TI. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL THE OPPOSED SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. AYE VOTE. AYE. SO LAST CASE, CASE NUMBER 46 OR ITEM NUMBER 46, CASE NUMBER 2026 DASH 0 9 5. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 0 0 RACE STREET INSPECTOR ANDRE, THIS IS NEW BUSINESS, BUT CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD ABOUT THIS CASE? IT IS. HOME IS IN APPEARED A ROOF, THE ROOF AND STRUCTURE MEMBRANES, UH, IN DISAPPEARED THE WALLS AND IS IN DISAPPEARED AND UNPROTECTED. THE PROPERTY IS UNSECURED. UM, THERE'S SOME OVERGROW THERE. EXTERIOR STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN UPWARD VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY. WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION? NOTICE OF VIOLATION. HOLD ON. THIS IS NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT OUT ON MARCH 5TH, 2026. NOTICE OF HEARING SENT OUT ON MARCH 17TH, 2026. WHAT'S THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? THE CITY RECOMMENDED PROPERTY BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND GIVEN UNTIL JUNE 2ND, 2026 TO COMPLY FOR A FINE OF UP TO TWO 50 A DAY. BE ASSESSED. MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIR. A MOTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE CI OF PROPERTY, ALL RESPONDENTS IN CASE NUMBER CE 2026 DASH 0 0 0 9 5 BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODES, DECIDED THAT CITED PROPERTY, ALL RESPONDENTS BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE THE SECOND, 2026 COMPLY, OR A FILE OF UP TO $250 FOR AN DAY BE ASSESSED FOR EACH STATED VIOLATION CONTINUES BEYOND SET DATE. I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. TEO. SECOND BY MR. SAM. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. AYE. I MEAN, SORRY. . I VOTE. HEARING NONE, I VOTE. AYE. MOTION PASSES AND I MAKE A MOTION WE GET OUT OF HERE. RAISE. WE GOT WHAT? DO CALL, WE STILL GOT A COUPLE STEPS TO GO THROUGH. OH, OH, OH. YEAH. OKAY. SO, UH, WE'RE AT THE BOARD. STAFF COMMENTS? BOARD. HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO. NONE. CITY. OH, COME ON. BOARD HAS NO COMMENTS. BOARD HAS NO COMMENTS. CITY HAS NO COMMENTS. UH, JUST A I'LL MAKE MOTION. AJOUR. I SECOND THAT MOTION A SECOND. OKAY. WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA SAY? JUST A RECOGNITION OF, UH, MR. MAKWARD WHO WAS QUITE A CHARACTER AND A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD FOR NUMBER, NUMBER OF YEARS. UH, AND IT'S A SAD PASSING FOR HIM. SO YEAH. WAS HE THE REAL OLDER GENTLEMAN? HE'S GUY, YEAH. I THINK HE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS MORE LIKE THE, THE FISH. THE REAL OLDER GENTLEMAN DID YOU SAY? YEAH. . THAT'S IT. ALL YOUR GRAY HAIRED GUYS STAND UP. CAREFUL. SEE YOU. I SAID OLDER. YOU NOT OLDER. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SECOND THEN TO AJOUR, JUDGE. THEL. THERE YOU GO. GAVEL. ALRIGHT, GOING ENFORCEMENT. I'LL GO COURT AS ADJOURN. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.