City. First thing I'd like to ask you to do if you've got your cell phone with you, please silence it or cut it off so that it doesn't interrupt our proceedings today. With regard to our proceedings, we'll take the matters in the order that they appear on the agenda. The city will present their case and support of the action that they are requesting in each case. And then I'll hear from the owner or the representative of the owner and anyone else who has an interest in the matter, be it a tenant or a neighboring property owner or whatever. After I've heard all the evidence and testimony, I will then make a decision with regards to the evidence, anything and everything that's in the agenda packet will be a part of the permanent record unless there's an objection and I ruled to indicate that it will be excluded. If you're planning on giving testimony today, if you're going to come up here to the table and talk, or if you're going to talk from the podium, I would like for you to take a note if you would, please raise from the podium. I would like for you to take a note if you would. Please raise your right hand with me. Do you solemnly swear a firm that the testimony you give here today will be the truth and the whole truth? I do. All right. Thank you very much. First action item on the agenda today is the approval of minutes from our May 16, 2024 proceedings. I've reviewed them. They are here to be an accurate reflection of what a transpired on that day. Any comments, questions, concerns for anyone who was present? Okay, those are approved and will be a part of the record of these proceedings. Okay. Your honor as a housekeeping matter and the event that an order is entered and the commission of costs are awarded with those costly payable within 30 days unless they are not stated otherwise? Yes. Unless I state otherwise, and if I fail to state it, any costs assessed today will be payable within 30 days of today's state. First item on the agenda is under the consent agenda. This is a request by the city for me to enter a supplemental order imposing a fine. In these particular cases, these are cases that have already been heard, there's already been a determination that there was a violation on the property. The city is now asking me to enter an order assessing the fines of a crude since the date for compliance has passed. So, first case is case number 2021 dash 0, 0, 0, 3, 2. This is properly located at 850 and 870, US 1792. I believe that's, I'm'm sorry my name is George David I'm the agent for Sam Kim. Okay, very good. I believe the address is 1850 1870 I'm sorry. What did I say? 850 I'm sorry. That's what I'm gonna say. That's what I was reading. That's just not what it's okay 1850 and 1870 thank you Mr. Watson. Case number 2021, triple zero 32, 1850 and 1870. Highway 1792. This is a certification hearing. The property is not in compliance. The property includes two well houses building address 1850 and 1870. The property was cited for the code's listed prior. The last supplemental order imposing fine was on 1214-23 and the ad-dative non-compliance was on 06-0624. Property posted on 06-2024 notice of hearing mailed certified and regular mail on O6O724. Property Postings and mailing. All pictures took on the property. We took on O6-0624 property is not in compliance. Individual Bay Ass-Bills plants have been received on 06-1924 and have been submitted for review by building official and fire marshal. Master water meter and backflow have not been installed to date. Staff recommends finding the violation continues to exist. Certified fines of $47,250 for $189 a $250 per day. Board administrative costs of $47,18. Okay, thank you. Anything further from the city? No. Okay. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Would you say to your name for a record, please? My name is George David. I'm the agent representative for Sam Kim LLC owners of the subject. And Mr. David, what would you like for me to take inspiration? I would just like to make a couple of statements for the record that of course as usual we are trying to comply with these issues ongoing, unfortunately, but I think we're coming down to a closure on this, or very close at this point in time. We've come, overcome a lot of the major hurdles and it's a matter of tying up some loose ends. I do believe on some discussions I've had with Mr. Watson and some of the other city officials here, particularly with the building department. We last go around, we had a visit, a site visit with everybody involved to do a walkthrough, determine existing conditions relative to the occupancy of the building. Basically, who was in the building? What were they doing? Because there's a little bit of confusion about the BTRs on that property. And in the past, Ms. Bailey had put a not a moratorium, but basically a hold on all existing BTRs and new BTRs. No issue, and and no renewals. So everybody just kind of been a holding pattern at the moment. What we're trying to achieve at this point in time is get everybody into this sunshine, I believe all the businesses that are there existing are illegal within the zoning codes and the man use codes and such like that ULDR would support the businesses that are current there in the property now. I believe that the discrepancy lies in the fact that the original developer stated that the building was to be used for dead storage only and over The building was to be used for dead storage only and over the years and that was 15 years ago I guess when that was done. And we've obviously inherited the building through purchase, not inherited the building but we inherited these issues which again we're trying to bring to compliance. So the sort of the long of this go round is now to establish, we've ever come to the physicality of the life safety issues with the virus, print books and things like that. Now we're addressing the actual occupancy of the building. So I believe we can do a consensus of the way to go about this is to identify and establish who is there, what they're doing there. I do not have a total record of the BTR records of that property from what Miss Bailey explained to me previously. Some of these people have like, outboard licenses and bulk counting licenses. Some of we have bulk counting licenses and she was refusing to issue the like, outboard licenses at this time because of the ongoing code enforcement issues. That's my belief and my understanding of those conversations. At this moment in times, Mr. Watson made reference to a as-built plan which was developed through my agency or submittled to the city of Lake Alpord to identify the structures within the building and the tenants that are occupying them or the uses. The tenants would be involved, identify their exact name and legal aspect of it, would be identified by their ATRs or none or whatever they're doing there on that level. I didn't do research into that aspect of it. So, what the next step is from what I'm understanding is to get out of this designation of a storage only building into a quote unquote multi-tempered building, multi-use building under the zoning code, C3 zoning code would be to take these steps of identifying what's there, what's in the building, and then applying for a change of use for the property. Which is now what I intend to do upon review of these documents that I submitted. If they're sufficient, good, if you need to add more information, we're willing to do so. This was just a preliminary step. And if we can continue on on this light kind then we're ready to come in the door with a with a change of use application for the property. I believe once that's done we should be able to take the next step into checking the list off one more time. Or you said Mr. Watson in August is the renewal cycle for the BTRs? That is correct. Yes. So we're shooting for that date to get this straight now with the city. Okay. And I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm going to meet you in a row. Aye, this is a property that has been divided into bays and separate. And then we're in there separate businesses. Yeah, I'm just trying to refresh my recollection of it. The original plan with Mr. Matzen had when we came out. They show some of the documents I believe. I reviewed the city records. There was a big stack of this high that we wanted to rip. And basically the intent of the use of the building was to sub-divided into equal number of bays, 20 in each building. One building is a little larger than the other by very little. So the base in one building are basically 1500 square feet each. The base in the other building are 18 hundred square feet. Now that was the master plan for the building. Then we bought the building. A lot of that was never completed. Those demising walls were never there. There was even floors that weren't even poured yet in that building. As time went on, as I was familiar with the building when it was purchased, but I was not involved in the management as I am today. So what happened was as time went by, tenants came and went, build outs were done, some permitted, maybe some not permitted. I don't know the record of that. So there's really an inaccurate record on file with the city of what really is transpired over the years. Some people got occupational licenses, some people didn't. So it's really a mismatch. So what we're trying to do now is straighten that all out and kind of start from scratch, not from scratch, but straighten the mess out the confusion out. So we have an idea to be, you know, fully compliant legal within the confines of the, you know, the city there. So that's the intent. So the next step would be make sure we provided the appropriate information for the building description and then the next step would go through these BTRs and but somebody's got to give us the authority to apply and get them before we didn't have it. And basically that was predicated on the fact that until we got all these going enforcement issues that that wouldn't happen. We weren't allowed to get VTRs or anything, but it's a catch-22 because we can't straighten our tenants out unless somebody lets us apply for the proper licensing. So therefore you can never kill the code violation. Right. Right. Yeah, I know there's a lot of moving pieces in this puzzle. Well, for purposes of today's proceeding, I'm going to go ahead with Grant the C's request to enter the supplemental order, certifying the additional fines that have accrued an amount of $47,250. How clear it was. And assessing the additional cost for the city in the amount of $47.18. That's cost will be payable within 30 days. Linda. Thank you. You want to pay that? Yes. No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so just to further my statement is I'm going to now, since we've now submitted this evidence of existing conditions, the next step is to I inquired with the clerk outside on the methodology of what is next. He suggested a contact Erica with the city planning office and devise a protocol in order to approach this next step. So in the meantime, we're going to try to do that, try to get a meeting scheduled so everybody can sit down, figure out how to go about this. And then we will also request at the same time with our application the ability to have these tenants sort of applying for VTRs. I don't know who's got the authority to approve that because of this code situation. Mr. David, yes, I'm sorry. It's okay. And I certainly appreciate the efforts that you're making on the land use and zoning side of things in order to rectify a situation that seems like you inherited. But for purposes of today's hearing, this particular venue is only... It's going to understand. I just don't want to get... You know, we start to get additional testimony on the record. I don't want to have to seek out a turn and provide. I'd like to be mindful. We are aware. I just want to make it a statement on record that that is our intent. Okay, thank you. I'll wrap it up. Hopefully we get out of this by the next, next hearing. Very good. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Yes sir. Thank you. Okay. Next is case number 2024-0014, property addressed 10, 80 South Lakeshore way. Anyone here on that matter? And then Mr. Watson? I'm your big call. Okay. Call the article on that you have the you change of use Case number 2024, triple 014 located at 1080 South Lakes, Norway. Code cited, Reception 32-1 and 32-2 of the Lake Alfrecode Boardnances, Section 32-61, abandonment prohibited. Lake Alfred Codabordance is Section 302.1, and Section 302.4 of the minimum property maintenance code. Notice of complaint was mailed out on 312-24. Notice of violation issued on 040924 inspection date was on 060624 days allowed for correction ratey seven days. Apedave of violation was on 060624. Notice of Violation was male certified in regular male on 040924 and notice appearing mailed certified in regular mail on 060624 and property was posted on 060624. Property postings and notice appearing mailed certified in regular mail on 060724. This is a picture of the front door way on the left, the area to the right, and a view from the east of the front yard and debris in the center and right photos. All in violation of 32-132-2 with the LAC and 302.1 of the MPMC. Picture on the left is at the east side of the house, Joan Condor, and storage of materials and violation of 32-1 and 32-2 of the Lake Alfred Code of Ordinances, and 302.1 minimum property maintenance code. Pick up truck loaded with Joan, and unlicens is in violation of Section 32-1 and 32-61 of the Lake Alfred Code of Ordinance's Center and Writer of Duncan Degree, tall bleeds and grass and violation of 302.1 and 302.4 of the MPMC. Picture on left is of the front of the property on 042524. The junk into pre-installed materials and violation of 302.1. Picture on right is looking from west to east. The backside of the property portions of the backyard have been cut. Porsions have not been cut. Fall weeks and grass remain in violation of Section 302.4. Minimal property maintenance code. Picture on left and center are of the side of the property. Take on on 042524. Junk into brain storage and material remain in violation of 302.1. Endover growth in violation of 302.4 of the MPMC. Picture on right is looking from West East, the back of the house and picture on right also took on 042524 about building and golf and tall weeds and grass in violation of 302.4. All pictures taken on 060624 at the time of posting. Picture on left of west side of property junk in debris and storage of material remaining in violation of 302.1 and overgrowth in violation of 302.4. None license vehicle remains on each side of house in violation of 32-61 of Lake Alfred Cote of Ordinance. There had been no verbal or written response from the resident or the property going regarding notice of complaint until today. Staff recommendations have spined that violations continue to exist the out 30 days and 50 dollars per day or administrative costs of $95.16. One question I have is there's the citation for Section 32-61 abandonment prohibited. That's a non-relations vehicle on the property. Oh, so that's with reference to the vehicle. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Anything else from the city? No. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Would you stay for days to the record please? My name is Eve Larell Hunter. I'm Sally's daughter. Okay, and I'm beside it. We've resided the residents. All right. What would you like for me to take into consideration today? We're aware of the We're aware of the stuff in front of the house inside of the house. We're working hard to get it picked up He was helping me until he ended up in the chair He was helping me until he ended up in the chair. Hopefully this is temporary, but in the meantime, it's just me trying to get stuff picked up. The truck was licensed until recently. Losing his income, I couldn't renew the registration, waiting on the mechanic to come fix it and once it's fixed. Get it relic so we can both have a vehicle. I'm just asking for some extra time to get stuff picked up, we're separating stuff out to stuff, you know, that we could take the scrap and other stuff that would be put to the road for garbage or stored in the garage. Okay. How much time do you think you'll need? 30 to 60 days. Okay. The little white e-weather too. It now is the time, once the order is entered in the time period of set, if the property is on a compliance, then a fine will begin to accrue. So if you think it may be 60, it might be wise to ask for more or less. I don't want to tell you what's a request, but make sure that you give yourself sufficient time to bring the property and the compliance. 90 days? Certainly would be done by then. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any response from the city, the one that, which the city attorney's given on the request for a additional time? No. We have no problem with that. And it looks like he got a lot to do there. Yes, sir. So I don't want to, if it ain't what's possible for you to not have to come back here. Yes, sir. Brother, in an order today, that'll make that a possibility. You know, so what I'm going to do in case number 2024 dash 0 0 0 1 4, I will in order to find into that violations did exist and continue to exist on the property. The owner of the owner's agents will have 90 days to bring the property in compliance or a $50 day fine will commence to accrue. In addition, I'm assessing the city's cost the amount of $95.16. Those are payable usually in 30 days. If you need additional time to pay that, let me know now so that I can progress for that. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We will. You can do it in the 30 or do you need additional time? Additional time? Okay. I'll make that 60 days for the payment of the cost. Okay. All right. Good luck to you. Thank you. All right, next is case number 2024 dash is 0 0 0 1 7. This properly located 13-15 Melrose Street. Anyone here on that property? And Mr. Watson, the properties from here out will be represented by the gentleman. I assume you're making your rep also representing the lake Alfred lot. The several properties are there with the lake Alfred lot. That's what I was about to ask you for all if it's okay with the respondents that will the city can present its case in total and then we can we can treat a lot of the intersephal order is depending on the adjudication, but Rather than go case by case we'll just treat it collectively. Yeah Let me ask this so we're looking at separate addresses But all these properties are generally located They're all on the road street. It's a development by Highland homes and I would defer to our interim community development director, Your Honor, but this is a planned subdivision. I do not believe there have been any takedown in the lots of the lots are still owned by the developer owner prior to takedown. So that's why you have different entities potentially owning lots, but they are all at this point in time. They have not been taken down a soul to a third party correct. There's a single lot that has been. I see one. It looks like it's under construction at this point by a property owner. Okay. Yes, I do recall that a little yes. Yeah, that's the one but there's still a construction company that is representing that lot. So based on what the city attorney said, I might understand that the violations as to each case are pretty much uniformed throughout. That is correct. Some of most of the ones that have structures on them were found to be, we'll have to read through each one, of course. Let's see, I'm asking for my general. For the record, we'll read through them. Some of the lots were storage of full dumpsters on vacant lots, which was storage of materials. And on the construction sites that had structures on them, most were overflowing dumpsters and trash around the dumpsters and unsafe conditions. Okay, well let's get started then. How are you all going to present it to find me? What are the easiest? I will present it to you. Okay. Okay. 2020-4-0117-315-Mailroads-3. 3 Decoration of a NUCIS Demand for Correction. MPMC Section 108.5, 1.5, 0.8, MPMC Section 302.1, Sanitation and Storage of Material. Property is under construction. Notice the violation and notice the hearing was mailed certified and regular mail on 06 of 07, 24. Property was posted on 06 of0724 and property was posted on 06-0724. N-L-H-Mail, certified and regular mail on 06-07 302.1 on the minimum property maintenance code. Nets Code. Property was re-inspected at owners' requests on 0613 and found to be in compliance. South Corrections for Case 2024-2007. 17 is defined to violation collect corrected prior to hearing, sitting recommends no fine being imposed, or to a administrative cost of $64 and $3 cents. So you've run out of that, would be an order of finding violation, no fine imposed, awards that he costs in any future violation of the same cited provisions of our code would constitute repeat cases. And now that I see and understand, so all of these cases are incompliance at this time. All of these cases are incompliance at this time. All right, very good. How do you want to handle this? You want to handle response to each one? Or do you want to just go through the laundry list and then come back? And I don't, and I'll ask you gentlemen, what you would prefer if you have a preference. So my understanding is that the same four violations were called out on every single one of these. That is correct. So we have a variety of different stages of construction from nothing on the lot of all of it. They can't not another construction all the way through to a house that's literally ready to turn over to a customer. However, you all want to handle the four identical violations for various ones. We did that in your answer. Let me get your name for the record please. Please leave. Okay. In your relationship? In a regional production manager with animals. Okay. Hi. Your honor basically what we have is on the vacant lots that were storing full dumpsters. They were a hazard. And plus the storage of material on vacant lots is against code. Okay. Alright. Is I'm trying to streamline this as much as possible but I don't want to deny anybody do process here. So, and that's what I'm going to defer to you gentlemen, because I want you to feel like you've had an opportunity to address each one of these, and if you have an objection or an argument against what the city is advancing, I want to make sure you have an opportunity to hear. At the same time, if we're going to sit here and go through the same exercise on each case and if you all are just going to nod your heads in agreement or at least acceptance, then I'd like to save us all the time to do it that way. I agree. Let me get your name to please. Sean Miller, Director of Production for Hyalohomes. If there's anything I could ask you, just for clarity and clarification, we were notified on 6-5 by Mickey the Building Officials that there was an issue on site and asked us to get it cleaned up by 6- six carl came out to photos. I started taking pictures on six five. This has been an ongoing issue. I believe the city manager has also received calls on it. Nick Madison called me and said that he had went as far as he could go without getting satisfaction and I was turned over to go enforcement. For my view on it, so 6'5 is the first that I'm aware of an issue. 6'6 is when I'm aware of the car went out. 6'7 is when we had the site postings put up. Site postings were on 6.7. And then by 6.13 we had everything cleaned up and cleaned up to acceptance. Moving forward just for clarity in the process of how it works. Is there a published, like some of the other citations and sites that I've seen up there have had written notice and various other things and then certain days to clean up where ours were zero days, it would have been nice to kind of cut in that little bit of a forward notice. In these cases, the result would have been the same. But we would have cleaned up and done what we needed to, not denying the photos or what's on the site. It would have been nice to be afforded that. We could have had a lot of stuff done ahead of time as we went to the extent where we are today. Generally speaking, the reasonfulness and the time that's provided or allotted to obtain or to achieve compliance is at the discretion of the code official and or the building official and because this was a nuisance condition deemed detrimental health safety welfare. So the time period there was immediate compliance. However, like with any relationship, I think communication is key. And I've spoken with both of you on the phone before on other matters. And I know that you're not opposed to communication. Sure. So if for whatever reason you might have one dumpster or something like that that happens to be at a point where you can't get it taken away on a Friday, I would reach out to the city and let them know. Sure. Because there have been an abundance of calls and complaints that have come in as related to the construction materials and the location and the condition of the dumpsters on that on that particular project site. So just to communicate with staff and I would go about it that way and I would defer to our interim hearing development director for any additional information. Just as additional comment and insight I know I've worked with the gentleman from Highlands Homes before on other issues. If I thought that I needed to reach out to you guys or George or anybody else on something as simple as in a site cleanup, I probably want to do it before it got to this point. That being said, this is probably the half dozen times that this has come up to me. I've heard citizen concerns, our inspectors have gone out there. I thought just in communication with the site superintendent who should be responsible for that, that that would have addressed this. but after doing it a half dozen times it just got to the point where it almost looked like the city was being unresponsive so the the point here wasn't to necessarily throw the book at you but just in order to get attention and get compliance we're not looking that make this a repeat or have y'all come back I know you guys are busy and you've got a lot of construction that you all need to do, but at the same time it just got to the point where it would improve and then it would get worse and then it would, so it felt like Groundhog Day after a while. So we felt like we needed to do something different in order to get compliance on this issue. issue. And just for a little bit more clarity, the dumpsters on vacant lots, and I know Seth, you had said that anything beyond this would be opposed to our repeat offense, correct? And in fact, this full disclosure, we do the best that we can, you know, and even with the vendors that we have, we do have some issues with some vendors, even if communication has passed on to the construction manager. Sometimes the vendors that we have. We do have some issues with some vendors, even if communication has passed on to the construction managers. Sometimes the vendors earn some response as we would like them to be. My biggest fear is, is in just painting a scenario, I have a home and we pull a dumpster, I shouldn't say aye, but we have a home, we pull the dumpster in order to floor driveway. They move the dumpster onto an empty lot and can't hold it off or move it exactly that day. You only can come around at any point of time and we should be a repeat pilot. Yeah. Right. That's not the city's intent. The city's intent is to achieve compliance but at the same time if it's one dumpster that's one thing. If you reach out to the interim community development director and say hey the vendor refused to come out this Friday's or anything else that we can do. It's just creating a safe environment for not only the residents that are adjacent, but to any resident or citizen that might traverse the subdivision. Just stay in contact with the city. We're not looking to penalize anybody, but I think what the city manager or interim community development director had stated. We receive quite a few complaints on an ongoing regular basis. So if you're in communication with the city and it's a nice, litid incident, I don't see the city trying to penalize you for that. It is to reiterate the city attorney's points. We're not going to come out there and do a white glove inspection. Like we understand that's a construction site, you know, reasonable allowances need to be made. But as you can tell from the picture, it's got a repeat nature. It just became too much and too consistent of an issue. You know, we'll keep an eye on it. I know you guys will have a higher sensitivity level to it as well, but yeah, just coordinate, collaborate, if we see something. The first time you're going to know about it from the city isn't when you get the notice of the repeat violation. We'll pick up and give you a call. There's a reasonable response there. We'll work with you you but at the same time We're not gonna have a repeat of what you saw in those photos either so is Mickey still a good source of contact or should we go through Ryan? Staffs a good the building inspecting office Mickey is probably a good good if you know that there's going to be something there. Hey, we're going to get this picked up, you know, the following week or wherever, you know, you can either call or send an email and copy it to me. And then that way we're just we're in the know. I think as the city attorney suggested to, if it's one site or hey, we've got to get this picked up by the end of the week or the following week that's that's not unreasonable where it becomes unreasonable is when it's every site and then it's you know going on for two three four weeks and it's just sitting there you know as you're well aware when you build a construction site and there's no one there you You guys kind of got carte blanche, you know, for the time being. But as owner occupants kind of come into the area, yes, it's still a construction site. But especially because you guys are so deep into the process now and you got kind of that last, last handful of lots, you know, as your attention is waning and going to other projects, you've got more and more eyes on what's left. So my recommendation or encouragement is just let's sprint through the finish and just QC and have your sight superintendent put eyes on it and just make sure that they're on top of it as good as they can be. And we'll work with you on it. We appreciate that. I'll see. And then the only other thing I just wanted for a little bit of clarity is I know we talked about the link out for lots LLC, which is under Clayton Properties Group as well as Scott and Christina McCullough, who may or may not be here. The issues on those lots, and even though they're listed as the owners, we would like to take responsibility on those fines that they are in compliance at this time. What will happen is those orders will go in and be filed and an after-aivative compliance will be filed along with it as long as payment is made in a timely manner. As a matter of equity, Ryan, the only way to avoid the repeat scenario for a property owner that's been cited for a violation and it's been adjudicated would there have to be some finding a record to find that there was no violation as related to that law because we can't substitute owners. A record title owner is a record title owner is record title owner. So for the purposes of these particular cases, if it's the testimony of the respondents that they have performed those activities in the law without the owner's consent, the benefit may find based on those facts that there'd be no violation for that particular case, so that way the property owner is not penalized for the acts of the third party, but that would be at the discretion of you and the magistrate to make that determination. I have no objection to that. Is that your testimony, gentlemen? Yes, sir. So you gentlemen are representing both Clayton Properties and Lake Alfred Laws. You're here on their behalf. We're on the behalf of Clayton Properties Group. And I don't want to say I'm a representative of Lake Alfred LLC because I do not, you know, I'm not employed by that company and I don't want to give any false testimony on that. But Clayton Properties Group is who I employ with. employed by that company and I don't want to give any false testimony on that but playing property screwpuzoo I employed this and I'm also you know Scott and Christine I'm just saying in behalf I know that the reason why that Mr. Carl went out there and these are listed on theirs because of you know tradition violations based off of what Clayton Properties Group did not those owners the ones that are listed under under lake offer lots are the vacant lots currently the ones that are under construction are the ones one that's homeowner owned the rest of plate properties group. So that's why all items are tied to Okay, this is how they're designated. So for purposes of today you're assuming responsibility. Yes, I maybe don't represent them, but you're assuming right, responsibility for that. Yes, sir. Okay, the concern I have is, and are the McCulloch here? They all aren't in McCulloch. They were noticed at the only address I had, which was a house under construction. Yes, sir. It's I may ask the policy of the government. The address on my name is Stephen Miller, no relation to him. The reason why there's an address there with an owner on it is most likely that there is a CP type loan and in that financing the buyer closes on the law before construction starts. Right. That then gives them title of that piece of property that affords them a that piece of property that towards them a better rate of building a house. So they do not live there yet. We are building a house and they would close a modified on the loan at the end of destruction what's the years of taint. So we are really responsible for that property but we still represent the McCulloch for the destruction process which is the violation occurred and here's my concern for the McCullochs that they're gonna move in there and I don't want them to be in a repeat status going forward but as to Clayton properties and Plake out for lots as I understand it properties and click out for lots as I understand it. They're either the developer or the builder and those entities will assuming everything works like it's supposed to transfer title in it will be in the hands of somebody else going down the road and repeat a thunderstorms will not be concerned at that point for those lots. So what I would like to do is unless somebody has an objection, I'd like to, and if, based on the testimony of the respondents here on our confirming that they didn't have the authority of the property owner to use the property in such a manner. The city would move to dismiss case 2024-001-8. Therefore, there would be no order finding violation and there would be no repeat offender status. I would attach to the property owner and the event of violation of the same code sections of the LDC. Okay, we're talking about 18. 18 Scott and Christina McCullough. Okay, staff has no objection. I think we've got this. This is what the site looked like. And that's where they looked like when it was cleaned up. Yeah, I don't, I don't it doesn't seem like they're seeing debate as to whether or not there was a violation on the site. I just don't want the McCullough's getting cited cited for down the road and I'm good with that. And they find out there and repeat offenders status over something they didn't have anything to do with. I just don't want to put them in the next position and it sounds like nobody else does either. So that's the case is dismissed. So on the others, and again, I want to afford everybody back to the due process here, but if the testimony is going to be the same on every lot generally, unless you gentlemen have an objection, I would like to just uniformly deal with all these in one fell swoop. Pinter in order that there were violations, the properties now in compliance, assess the cost in each case, the 6403 or across the board. Okay. And so you are going to get hit with a little bit of an out of pocket there. I think it would leave you after the removal of the McCulloch case. I think that will leave 11 cases. Your Honor, we do have residents that do want an opportunity to speak. Okay. All right. Very good. Don't mean to, don't mean to deny anybody that opportunity. So yes, if there, if there are people here that want to speak, please come forward. Yes, Your Honor. My name is Richard. I have 942 in Bernice, where I've been trying to address this issue for over a year. I've called my many a time to bother this issue and I'm not going to be bashful about it. I've been told I have to be a good neighbor and I don't know who Ryan is contacts but it comes up every month or so when they're doing construction. I have to pick this garbage about him but I I had to pick things up out of my yard, okay, in reference to these full dumpsters. It blows into my yard, I had to pick it up. And I get told I had to be a good neighbor. I understand construction debris because my family was in construction for many years, okay. If we left that construction, our construction site like that, my grandfather had us in Wheatwood, and Thunton Haines Lake in our heartbeat. Okay. You know, it's very disappointing when the developers get away with what they get away with and they get basically a slap on a hand and they go back to doing the same routine over and over again And they have no respect for the properties that are around them and they just do it over and over again And it's basically a $64 bond in each site and And they still have a lot of lots down in there. They're going to develop my concern is this that these other lots. They're not going to the way I'm the way I'm hearing this. They're not going to be on repeat. But fender because a lot that we're talking about are going to be developed in on your way. That's incorrect. Let me just so you understand. Excuse me. I'm trying to incorrect. Let me just so you understand. Excuse me. I'm trying to help you. Excuse me, Mr. Cleed. It's my turn to speak. Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to give you useful information. Let him send you. He does to me many times. I'm speaking. He cut me off. But I think what he's certainly. Okay. I think what he's wanting to share with you is something that I like to finish because I like to finish and I'll be done all right I have kind of Commission is meeting in the dress this and it's never been addressed The only way this guy addressed is When I sent that email to the mayor and all the sudden it's getting addressed proper way now. And Ryan knows what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure he knows what I'm talking about. That's the only reason we're here today. Okay. It shouldn't have taken me to do what I did to get it to this point. Okay. We're dragging people in here for different issues about garbage in their front yard. Every law enforcement officer in this community is a code enforcement officer according to their own statutes and their code enforcement. Any police officer riding down through their shinsman, riding in the thick, or at least informing the code enforcement officer, I get told by Ryan they had the staff meeting all the time. Right? None of this was brought up in the staff meeting because evidently nobody wanted to go down and address it. And I hope you take what I'm saying to heart because they're walking out of here with a cheap bond the way I see it. And they want to be able to say okay, Ryan, like if I call again because there's four dots behind me that need you to up to bow and I call Ryan because it's just blown on a yard and they get a week to clean it up Basically let's slap on the hand So let me start here not in the Development you're in a joining property. I'm right next to where they're where they're building these house I'm right behind. I'm in the development You are in the development. I'm in the development. You are in the development. I'm in the development so your honor. But the thing is, is I see it every day. Okay. I see it every day. They're getting deliveries delivered off at 6.30 in the morning. Okay. that's another issue. I know where I talk about it. Don't say no. I'm here. I'm here because I'm right. Yes, my name is Dawn Eisert. I live in 942 in Vanessa. I'm here for a couple of the women. You got these, you got to develop a room around P in every way. We have witnessed the contractors playing games and not using the poor department when we're walking along and they're thinking it's funny. It's not funny sir. It's not funny. There's children who live in that neighborhood. And we as women don't need to see grown men having a contest seeing who can urinate the furthest. And I hope you've got, would you like that for your daughters and wives to see the honest, sir? No. Why should we? No, I'm not. Why should we? No, I'm not. Why should we? And we're really true. And we have brought it up so many times and we've just been pushed away and said, oh, it's just boys being boys. I'm sorry sir, this children who lived there. And I'm hoping that your daughters or your wives don't have to witness what we have when we're walking and the men think it's fun. You have to come up to the microphone. I don't have to respond correct. Correct. But let me say this to the concern about this just to slap on the hand and that it's not going to apply to future lots that they may do developing that are not included on this list. The way and I'll let the city attorney confirm this but he was trying to bring to the attention of the solution of the sol is that the violation by this entity, if they commit another violation similar to that, into what's the time period set? The violation will, when the violation is identified by the code official, there will be zero days for compliance. The fine will begin to run from the date that the violation is notified or identified by the code enforcement official. That is the significance of a repeat violation case. The property was in compliance prior to hearing. There is nothing for the city nor the property owner to do at that point for a first offense case. That's why there is significant risk involved with a repeat violation case. And I'll just let you gentlemen know if it comes in for a repeat case, I will be asking for a max fine per day, which is $500. And that will begin to run, begin on the day that the violation is, and that will still be up to the magistrate on whether or not to enter that order. But make clear that the repeat violation status isn't just to that particular lot. It applies to any violation within the limits of the city. Any lot or property owned by the by the owner within Polk County. So not even the subdivision. So if these entities are the property owners own lots or property anywhere in Polk County, those fines attach to those properties and the significance for a project developer is that they cannot sell an encumbered lot. Well, but the repeat offender status isn't confined to just repeating the same violation on the same lot is the same owner same same same same owner same property same owner any property any property. So, so the trigger on a repeat is that the fine starts to run from the day the violation is detected. No matter how long it takes for them to get it up here in front of me, from the day it's detected, whatever fine I determine will be the fine to success for every day that it is out of compliance. So. You're on it. I have another question. It has taken over a year for the city to finally do something about this. And what I want to know is why. Why Ryan? I can't address that. I just serve as special magistrate to determine the cases that are brought before me. And I'm really hoping this is a wake up call for Highland homes because it is hurricane season. And I'd hate to see anyone in the community get hurt and I hope they've taken heed probably not about the urinating in the contest what go on. It's very lured behavior. We have witnessed so much stuff and I'd like to address it. Right, right. And that's something that's beyond a purview of what is before me today. But I think the gentleman there here have heard you. I hope so. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So it's unless the city says differently differently and unless you gentlemen have an objection, I would like to just, based on the testimony that was presented on the one case, applied that across the board to all the cases. I'll enter an order finding that the violation did exist, the properties now in compliance in each one of those cases and assess the $64.3 as the ad menace of the city cost in each case that will be payable in 30 days. Is that okay? Let the record reflect that they're nodding their heads yes. Yes. Okay. Any concern by the city from me handling them this way? No, Your Honor. I would just like to call out the case numbers individually. Any concern by the city from me handling him this way? No, Your Honor, I would just like to call out the case numbers individually Okay, I'll do that So in case number 2024 Dash zero zero zero one four That's wrong case. Sorry. Got to that one. What case are you starting with? I'm starting with case number three on the agenda. Case number 2024, dash 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 7, in compliance, $64,000, $3,000, city costs, assessed, payable in 30 days. Case number 2024, dash 0, 0, 0 2024-0018, that one's been dismissed. Case number 2024-0019, same treatment as announced in case ending in 17. Case number 2024-0020, same treatment as announced in case number 17. Number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number 7, number same treatment as case ending in 17. Case number 2024 dash 0 0 2 5 same treatment as case ending in 17. Case number 2024 dash 0 0 0 2 6 same treatment as in case number ending in number 17. Case number 2024 dash 0 0 0 2, same treatment as case ending in 17. Case number 2024-00028, same treatment as case ending in 17. Case number 2024-00030, same treatment as case ending in 17. Case number 2024-0 zero three two same treatment as case ending and seventeen I think that covers them all. Certainly let everybody know in the city commission that I'm not the only one that says zero zero zero zero zero dash two zero two four. So Carl's want to got me in the habit. Carl's one that says quadruple and triple and all that. Well, I can't keep up with his zero. All right. Anything else? Everybody good with that? No, I just... All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. And thank you to the citizens that shared out this well. All right, anything else to come before me today? Next hearing date will be July 18th. Thank you everybody, we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm off the most important. When you do make sure that your stomach is unidentified, if you're around here.