you This is the Newsborneabeeche Code Enforcement Special Magistrate hearing of July 17th, 2024. I call this meeting to order and I approve the previous minutes. The procedure of this hearing are to provide due process to the respondent and the city in accordance with Florida's statute section 162.073, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceeding. Here say it is admissible but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Are there any questions? Seeing none, any decision made today can be appealed by sending a notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of the special magistrates order per 162.11 Florida statutes. Madam Clerk, will you swear in all those who intend to testify? the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the legislature. The legislature will be in the name. In the matter to which you're about to give testimony do you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The witnesses have been sworn in. Thank you. We will proceed to old business for a. First The first case is 1505 North Peninsula Avenue, Hermitraut 1 presenting. Good afternoon. This case is case number CE0127-2024. It's 1505 North Peninsula Avenue. The owner is Jessica L. Pickleman. The violation is for section 26171 permits required. It's property is owned to R2 single family residential. On May 29th, 2024, the special magistrate found Jessica L. Pickleman and entity in violation of NSB code 26-171 and gave until July 10th, 2024, to bring the property into compliance. If the magistrate found that the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $50 a day shall be imposed for each date of violations exists. The board order was posted on the property on May 30th, 2024. The board order was mailed certified milk to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 1st, 2024 and News of Mernibiach. The building department has a permit right now for this in work and it's in the review process. And this case needs to be continued again to allow time for this to be completed and with this information it's my recommendation to the special magistrate the owners trying to comply that we continue this case again to the September 25th hearing, 2024. I also request the magistrate set a new compliance date of September 13th, 2024. And at that time, if the property's not in and the property's not in compliance, I will ask the magistrate of a fine of $50 a day to run for each day beginning on September 13th until the property is brought into compliance with the fine not to exceed the maximum amount of $10,000. Okay, is anyone here on this matter? Yes, sir. Would you like to speak? Are you in agreement with that? If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address? I would like to speak on behalf of the owner of Jessica Pichelman. Sir, into the microphone please. Get your name and address. Name? Did you say in the mic, right? Name and address. Oh, of course I'll start there. Sean, SEAN, P. N. Pitchellman, P. I. C. H. E. L. M. A. N. I'm the spouse of Jessica Pitchellman who's the title donor. If you're ready for me, essentially Mr. Troutman has helped us out tremendously for continuing to get whatever compliance is necessary from permits. Moving things around, we are working towards the ultimate goal of getting this all resolved. And so we appreciate an opportunity to get it extended a little further. Excellent. Okay, thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Appreciate you coming. I find that this case should be continued to the September 25th, 2024 meeting and that there should be a new compliance date by 2pm on, I'm sorry, a new compliance date of September 30th, 2024. And the September 25th meeting is at 2 p.m. Our next case is 824 Downing Street, Herman Trout-1 presenting. Okay, this is CE-0258-2024. 824 Downing Street, the owner is Casey John, the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is on May 29th, 2024, the special magistrate found Casey John stepping back in our entity and violation of NSB code 26-171 and gave until July 10th, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the magistrate found that the violation were not corrected by this date, a fine of $50 a day shall be imposed for each day, the violation exists. The violations exist. The board order was posted on the property on May 30th, 2024. The board order was milled certified milk to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 18th, 2024 and New Sumerna Beach. I've spoken with Mr. Stefan back many times concerning this issue. He wants to comply. However, the cost of obtaining the necessary paperwork to submit to the building department left him a bit astonished and feeling like he didn't know how to proceed. So I spoke with him recently and he stated that he was going to hire an architect to make a drawing to submit to the building department and change the space, the use of the space from like a Airbnb type of rental to just like a she shed, a little wreck area or something. He's stated he will do what's necessary to put the property into compliance, including removing any fixed yours, sinks or whatnot. Anything that he installed, whatever they tell him to do, he said he was going to do. And having spoken with him and hearing him state, he has a plan to comply. He's also here to speak. It's my recommendation to the magistrate to continue this case until September 25th, 2024. I also request the special magistrate set a new compliance date of September 13th, 2024. And if the property's not brought into compliance at the September hearing, I will request a fine of $50 a day to run for each day beginning on September 13th, 2024, until the property is brought into compliance. And the fine not to exceed the maximum amount of $15,000. Okay. Thank you and is the owner here? Yes. Mr. Stepin. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate you giving me the up to speak as he stated. You should address the same as this. No, I live at 7.91 West 7th Street, News Murrubiche. Thank you. And I did share that on the document I signed already. But yeah, I was very surprised to know that I couldn't really make that an apartment anyhow. So the coding doesn't allow it. I had no choice but to switch or demolish. So obviously I'm switching. And I do have a person that doing ASBILT drawing. He's already in process of doing that. He shares me that by the end of July, I'll have the drawing ready. And then we need to do obviously removal of other things and what have you. And I appreciate if your honor would allow me that opportunity it'll September to continue doing what I'm doing and diligently resolve the issues. Definitely thank you so much for coming today. Thank you. I continue this case to the September 25th, 2024 special magistrate meeting at 2 p.m. and with a new compliance date of September 13th, 2024. The next case is 2-1-1-6 Ocean Drive, Shelley for Unpresenting. Good afternoon. This is case number CCSM01902024. Properties located at 2116 Ocean Drive. This property is owned by two single family residential. On May 29, 2024, the special magistrate found David S. Gruska and or entity in violation of 26-171 permits required, section 26-902, vacant property registration, and section 1300.01.12 dumpsters, and gave until July 10th, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the special magistrate found that the violations were not corrected by this data, fine of $25 per day, per violation shall be imposed for each day the violations exist. The board order was mailed, certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 3rd, 2024. The board order was posted on the property on May 30th, 2024. The property was inspected on July 17th, 2024, and the following violations remain. And that would be the Section 26-171 permits. And I'm requesting that the special magistrate continue this case until the September 25th hearing. So the property owner will be allowed a little more time. He had some expired permits going back several years. And he's going to have to contact the contractor and have him basically cancel the permit. He needs to start all over and he is out of state and he's going to be having surgery this week so I figured the September by the September 25th hearing should be ample time for him to resolve this issue. Did you want to change the compliance date? We'll keep it the same as originally stating. Okay and so the only remaining did I understand you correctly that the dumpster issue has been resolved? Yes ma'am. So it's just the section 26-171 permits required. I continue this hearing to the September 25th, 2024 special magistrate hearing. The next case is 1512 Beacon Street on Parks presenting. Oh, by the way, just for the record, there was no one on that last matter. Was there? I apologize. I'm sorry. Yes. If you could please come on up and state your name and address. Sorry about that. It's July. My name's Kathleen Flusus. I live at 2136 Billoway and Newspot at Beach. I'm one of the five properties that's 21-16 ocean and that and they've done a little work on the back but there's been a deck that's been collapsing on the very Southwest corner of the property on the Southwest corner of the property what is collapsing is a deck deck and that and they couldn't code it before because it was covered with weeds so they couldn't see it to code it but now he cleaned some of it off. I saw him clean some of it off but you can see that it's rotted out. It's a raised deck. It's three steps down but it's raised so there's a underneath that part somebody's going to fall through. It's been like that for a long time but okay and that plus his weeds he's got like a cut the weed that takes off over the properties to the south. It's in there. He doesn't clean it up so it's just a little I have brought some pictures to submit. Okay and actually we it's not the little, I have brought some pictures to submit. Okay, and actually, we, It's not, the landscaping's not done. Okay, understood. And so anything that has not been charged, you would make a complaint with code enforcement. So we're scheduling to hear the issue of the perm, lack of permits, but on that particular issue with the deck, if you could get with Ms. Friend and give her those pictures, then she can deal with that. Plus is a fence that's fell down and it's laying right back by the deck on the side that's been there for years. Okay. And that. Yes. the side that's been there for years. Okay. And that. Yes. No, that's very helpful if you would. And the way it's done, done. Please, if you use something. Some of them. Okay. Give her that information. That would be awesome. I appreciate it. I'll leave her the pictures. A copy of the pictures. Thank you. Thank you very much. Excellent. And ma'am, before you go, make sure you sign in this. Thank you very much. All right. OK. Ready? Are you ready, ma'am? I'm ready. OK. The address is 1512 Beacon Street Case 0-0, 8-2024. This property is zone R2, single-family residential. Violation cited was LDR 504.01, General Zoning regulations, section 26, dash 1711 permits required. And Section 74-146 local business tax. Be advised that LDR 504.01 is now in compliance. Section 26-171 is now in compliance. Section 74-146 is not in compliance. On May 29, 2024, the magistrate found Brian Garnsey and or entity in violation of section 26-171 and gave until July 12, 2024 to bring the property in the full compliance. If the magistrate found that the violations were not, excuse me, were not corrected by this date, a fine of $50 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists. Additionally, per Florida statute 205.053, a one-time fine of $250 would be imposed for operating without a BTR excuse me. The magistrate's order was mailed certified, mailed to the property owner and was returned as uncleaned. The magistrate order was posted on the property on May 30, 2024. To date the violations of Section 26171 have been corrected and complied prior to the compliance date of July 12, 2024. The violation of section 74-146 remains. However, a BTR application is in the process and being processed. It is my recommendation. The magistrate continue the case to August the 28th, 2024, hearing to allow for the possibility of a BTR being issued since it is in the works and if not then we will impose the fine as previous order. Okay is anyone here on this matter? is 2824. The next case is 2824. The next case is 2824. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The next case is 2803. The Okay. All right. Addresses 2803 Saxon Drive, KCCSM 0323-2024. This property is owned by our two single family residential. Violation cited LDR 802.04 storage on residential lots, recreational equipment, LDR 802.06 living in recreational vehicle. This is actually in compliance at this time. LDR 802.07B, trailer storage and section 26-171 permits required. On May 1, 2024, CO compliance received a complaint of people living in an RV trailer and using a portable toilet that had a bad odor. On May 2, 2024, I observed an RV trailer on the property appearing to be occupied as living space due to water and electrical hookups with the sliders non-ins extended. I observed a portable toilet on the property that did appear to be in need of servicing. Additionally, there was a utility trailer parked on the property in what would be considered the front yard. I also observed the new fencing and utility servicing post that with conduit had been installed. A check of the permit system found no permit for the work that had been done and there were expired permits in the system. The property was found to be in violation of LDR 802.04 LDR 802.06 LDR 802.07B and section 26-171. On May 15, 2024, a notice of violation and hearing was posted on the property with a initial compliance date of June 3, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mailed to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on May 18, 2024. On June the 12, 2024, an inspection found that the RV trailer had been removed from the property. On several inspection cents, I have observed that the utility trailer remains on the property and there are no other changes to the property except that the portable toilet has now been moved closer to a neighboring structure near their window. A check of the permit system found no changes to permit application status or the expired permits. At the current time there is no structure of any kind on this property, therefore it is appearing to be a vacant lot. It is staff's recommendation, special magistrate, fine carl and Luam Baker and or entity in violation of LDR 802.04, LDR 802.07B and Section 26, stash 171 and given to July 31, 2024 to bring the property in the full compliance. If the owners do not come into compliance, excuse me, it is staff's recommendation to impose a fine at a subsequent hearing in the amount of $50 per day per violation until the property is brought into full compliance. Find not to exceed the maximum amount of $10,000. Is anyone here on this matter? Is anyone here on this matter? Seeing none I find responded in this case in violation of city codes as charged except for 802.06 which was complied And that responded correct the violations before 1 p.m. on July 31, 2024. In the event responded does not comply by the state of finding the amount of $50 per day for each section of code that remains in violation will be imposed. For each day, the violation continues past the enforced day to date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is 607 Jefferson Street, bar Boba Lack presenting. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Okay. Just case number CESM-0176-2024 Property Location is 607 Jefferson Street. Zoning District is R3 single family residential. On March 6, 2024, while conducting a fall-up inspection at this location for a previous case, I had noticed a fence and a new shed had been installed. On March 6, 2024, an inspection was conducted and also permits were checked to see if these items had been permitted and no permit was on file for the work that had been completed. On May 16, 2024, notice the violation and a notice the hearing was hand delivered to the property owner, Kenneth Howard, with an initial compliance state of June 6, 2024. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on May 18th, 2024 at 607 Jefferson Street. On July 3rd, 2024, the permitting system showed a permit application was submitted on July 1st, 2024. And the building department had started review of the permitting package that was submitted. As of July 26th, I'm leaving for the town. Strike that on July 16th, 2024. The building department has not received. There's resubmittles that are needed for the shed and I believe the fencing. He's also put in a driveway and some other stuff that was included in this notice that I discovered it before I sent it out. So the resum middle has not been submitted as of yesterday. So it's my recommendation, the special magistrate find Kenneth Howard and or entity in violation of sex and 26 174 a permit required and Give until August 14th 2024 to bring the property into full compliance If the owner does not come come in to compliance that staff's recommendation to impose a fine It is subsequent hearing in the amount of $50 per day not to exceed $10,000 All right is anyone here in this manner in the amount of $50 per day, not to exceed $10,000. All right, is anyone here in this matter? I find responded in this case, in violation of City Codex, charged in that respondent correct the violation before 1 p.m. on August 14th, 2024, in the event respondent is not comply by this date. Finally, the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Thank you. The next three cases, 258 Milton, 804 Hope and 909 Live Oak have been withdrawn. The next case we will hear is 536 North 60 freeway. Jason Yates presenting. Bye. the good afternoon. Good afternoon. This is case number C-0-5-81-2023. Property location is 536-northixi-freeway. And the zoning is B-3 highway business or highway service business. On 7, 6, 2023, Code Compliance received a complaint regarding business license tax receipts for no business license tax receipts for multiple online and physical businesses at the property. On 7, 26, 2023, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of section 74-146 local business tax and LDR section 504.01 general zoning regulations and LDR section 504.02 regulations by zoning district. On 727-2023 notice of violation was posted on the property with initial compliance date of August 23rd, 2023. A copy was also a male certified male to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on 731-2023 at 12 p.m. To date, no changes have been made to correct the lack of BTRs. I also, while doing some research, found a total of 14 businesses using the same address to operate from. No changes to the parking lot area were made either which are required to come into compliance with the planning and zoning regulations. On 7-8-2024, follow-up and spec shall show no changes have been made. It's the staff's recommendation to the special magistrate to find cryptocurrency, mining, ink, and or entity and violation of section 74-146 local business tax and LDR section 504.02 regulations by zoning district and give until 816-2024 to bring the property in full compliance. If the owner does not come into full compliance, it's a staff's recommendation to impose a fine of a subsequent hearing in the amount of a one-time fine of $250 per BTR and $50 a day for the zoning requirement until the property is brought into full compliance. So, I just wanted to kind of give a quick back story for the record real quick on top of what I just spoke of. So, this case has been going on for about a year and there was some hiccups along the way. There's a lot of confusion that was kind of going on between the business tax licensing between our business tax specialists, trying to understand some of the properties that were listed. And then along the way, again, zoning, planning kind of came into and had their requirements of a parking lot Or a parking area where the city I believe wants to have them marked and handicapped spots and things like that so Like I said, this kind of been going on for about a year and originally we were only aware of the few and so I just wanted to Give you I got a printout of all of them here. That okay with you. Yes please is anyone here on this matter? Okay sir can you provide the gentleman of printout as well? Just show him okay just show him see if he agrees. So here more of the actual work I'm on here. So here, like I had all these active, and these are all showing that they are still currently active. And there was a total, like I said, a 14, whether they were between some of them are very similar, but they're missing ink or things like that on them so that's kind of what I found that was tied to the property. Okay so what do you want me to say? Nothing at this moment will let you have your turn but I just wanted him to show you what. This is the first time here in this because I was told the last time you went out of property that I didn't even need to show up because everything was fine. Okay. That was back when we were doing this a year ago. It was trying to just get the BTR. We were just trying to get the BTR information taken care of. And so since then, like I said, there's been a lot of different other city agencies having their requirements and so I have planning and zoning here and I don't know if they would like to speak on their behalf of their department okay okay if you wanted to sit down and look at what what you've been given there and see and then you can discuss it when you come back up. Okay. Yeah, I just had a I don't know if you're done with your presentation. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so my question is that the One of the businesses at least one is not allowed in that zoning district Well originally what it was is we believe there was like a car It looked like maybe a car repair was going on in the back and then it looked like from what we could kind of tell It appeared that in the photos that are submitted here that maybe the cars were being repaired and then trying to sell them Out in front of the business and it wasn't zoned for that. And so since then I don't know if that business exists anymore. I didn't see it according to the new stuff that I discovered. So I didn't include that into it. The other part of the zoning, right. The other part of the zoning was just for the required parking lot and I guess spaces that are supposed to be allocated for, I guess, parking handicap, yeah, things like that. Okay, and maybe some kind of configuration of the parking lot. Right, and like I said, I do have planning zoning here and if you wanna speak, if they're okay with. Okay, please. Yeah. My name is Robert Maython, I'm one of the senior planners from the city planning department and I'd be glad to answer any questions from planning this, Dr. Ritz and our LDR. Okay, great. Yeah, so you agree that with Mr. Yates that the issue now is one of just, what exactly does the applicant or does the owner have to do? He has to give you a drawing of the parking lot showing handicap. So we don't show in the record that we currently have a permitted use for the front building. So they needed to apply for a BTR, which they did. The BTR trigger does that there was no current use, so you have to do a change of use application. We had a pre-application meeting. It was some time ago, probably nine months or two a year, probably. application meeting it was some time ago probably nine months or two a year probably And at that time It was going to be an office use and so for this particular zoning area It is in a special parking district so they required to have one parking spot for every 600 square feet office space But at least at the very first or at least one parking spot has to be a handicap accessible parking spot And so during that pre-application meeting, there was a representative from the building department that told them that he would accept a parking spot across the front, since they have access all the way across the front, if they only needed one parking spot, other parking spots could be somewhere else on the property. But whatever minus square feet, they had to have one for every 600. So they need two parking spots, one has to be handicapped. So at that point, we just have not received the change of use application to the state. To show that you know, to have a permitted use assigned to this property, which then would allow for BTR to be approved. And in order to get a permitted use assigned to the property, And in order to get a permitted use assigned to the property, is that just a matter of the BTR application? Or? Well, what happens is the change use application normally has a floor plan. And that floor plan you also show if you have parking and where they're at. That change use application is reviewed by the plan department, the city engineer's office, the building department, the fire marshal, and the utilities, and it's the utilities. And if all those five departments are satisfied with whatever criteria that they need for a place to be occupied, then we'll prove the change of use application to whatever the permitted use that's allowable in that B3 zoning district. At that point, they can apply for a BTR. We'll prove the BTR for zoning, and then the build apartment or fire marshal will do whatever inspections for the site to prove the bill. Were they aware that they needed to, the owner was, it part of that meeting you had that he had to file a change of use application? It was the meeting was for a change of use. Currently right now we don't have any records that show there's current businesses in there. So, for our LDR, if you don't have any records that show there's current businesses in there So for our LDR if you don't have a permitted use or a BTR for six months then all uses are considered terminated uses And you got to reestablish use for the property Okay, okay, so the change use would establish the use It could be an office use and if they had four or five different office businesses and BTRs that'd be fine It's just parking is based on square footage. And we have to show it need to have a handicap parking spot. And I think that's really where we're at with the plan department and application showing the site with a handicap parking spot would provide for us to approve. I can't answer for the other departments, but. Sure. OK, thank you so much for coming up. Sure. All right. Mr. Yates, did you have anything further or you want to? No, that was, I just wanted to state that with our business tech specialists who had to step out from my knowledge of what she addressed to me about that is that I guess she had contact at the beginning where they were trying to go that route and trying to get their BTR. And then like Mr. Mathen said that it triggered or somewhere and then somewhere along the way, just everything kind of got voided on her side because of the time of not having these things done or the way that the city requires them. Yeah, the required time that it takes to get it. So, there was a lot of confusion also I guess about what businesses were actually there, what businesses were operating. So again, that's kind of why I started digging and then I just kind of ended up coming across 14 what appeared to be they show active on our sunbiz information list that are all tied to 536 North Dixie. So, and that's what I presented to the gentleman here. So, again, I just, I really don't know what's active, what's not active, I don't know what's still operating. But according to what we have, it shows that there's 14 active. So, I just wanted to get that on record. Okay, thank you so much. And sir, if you'd like to come forward, please state your name and address for the record. Danny Hunt, HUNT. Danny Hunt. I'm sorry. Could you say that one more time? Danny Hunt, HUNT. Not H-O-N-T. H-U-N-T. Like ketchup. Like ketchup. Like I'm going to go hunt. Got it. 536 North Dixie Freeway. Okay. This is, it's interesting because what I was told was I haven't been in any of these meetings with these people, you know, just employee. And they told me that everything was fine and I didn't even have to come to this today and one of the girls said, well you should just go ahead and go just in case. So these businesses, all these businesses do not or have not existed. We're an internet business. So I have one employee that sits at a computer all day and runs multiple websites. What I was told, the last time they were there, was somebody was going to, they suggested we put a handicap parking in the front. We have no customers. No one ever comes to our business, but one employee. That's it. So we don't need parking, except for that one person, and she parks over to the side over there. And I was told that they said that they were gonna send us a recommendation of a handicap parking in the front. Why, I don't know, but whatever. We don't have any customers. No one ever comes to see us. We're an internet business. We do business all over the United States. And no one ever comes to see us. It's all done via computer. So I don't understand half of what's going on here today. So what is your position to own the property? I own the property. I own the businesses. You own the business. OK, so this list that Mr. Yates provided you of all these corporate kits and crown jewel and SB watch. Are these all your internet businesses? No, these were businesses at one time that were associated before I bought the business. Atlantic stamp of sale was an old business down in Miami. Dwight Image Jackson was a business in Chicago. Prompt engineering is just a domain name. Rankin rent is a domain name. SIP happens as a domain name. Never been a business name. This is never been a business. cryptocurrency mining was a business at one time it was dissolved back in 2022 and that's cryptocurrency mining ink was dissolved in 2022. So what is the business? I'm sorry. I have the papers of the work was dissolved back in 2022. So you're saying because Mr. Yates found them to be active on sunbiz. No, they're talking about... Yeah, it could be sunbiz is just not up to date, but what is the business that operates there? Today there is a business there called... Let me see what it's called actually Actually, I don't even know. Oh, crown jewel tag. Oh, OK. And that is we do, we have several DBAs under crown jewel tag. There's cryptocurrency tag when it was off. your script or currency and result. So honestly, I don't know what you want me to do. I really don't know. I'm very confused. So you can speak with the senior planner that's here. that's here. This was. See when I bought this company those were old businesses that had been around so I don't know. I don't understand why these names you know Mark's core pets we have a domain I mean Internet site for that we have an Internet site for Internet and SB watch and we have an Internet site for us those we have site Internet sites for those but they are just just DBA is under Crown Jill Tech. There's one corporation and the rest of the B.A. under that one corporation. Well the one thing that I see right here is that it says this document. For it being dissolved, I mean is it a whole different number than being of the registration numbers that are filed under that name. So this starts with a G. The one that you use handyman starts with a P. It has a whole list of numbers. There's a secondary one, but it also starts with a G. It's not the same. It's not the same. It sounds Mr. Hunt like you need to get your records cleared up. But that's sort of not the main issue here. I think we can worry about the record keeping, but I think the main issue is what the, see Mr. Senior Planner back there can explain to you as you need to file this application for a change of use of the building. Okay. From, you know, because they don't have anything active in the building. So that's your first step. And the question is, can you get with the city and get this accomplished by August 16th, which is the date. I can't see the little, but I mean to tell everybody what we want to use it for is pretty separate. You do your part. If you do your part, then you won't be fine. As long as you do your part. It's simply an office for one person. That's the use. Got it. Okay. So these records are just, they're apparently things you just paperwork you need to get cleared up. Because we play sales tax on everything we do, so it's... Oh sure, sure, but I'm just saying as far as all these entities that you have your address listed. Yeah. Obviously it's just a matter of clearing up. Yeah. Clearing up with the Department of State what the situation is. As far as getting your application filed. So my intention Mr. Hunn is to go ahead and take Mr. Yates' recommendation which is to give you into log 16th to get done what The senior planer will explain the change of use application and then once that's done Then you can do the BTR and then you'll be home free If you yeah, just set up that handicap part he's paying so set up that handicap. Part case pay. So. Yes. Yes, please. Thank you. So. I find respondent in this case. Oh, yes. Mr. Hunt, if you wouldn't mind signing up there. Sorry about that. It's okay. I find respondent in this case in violation of city code as charged and that responded correct the violation before 1 p.m. on August 16th, 2024. In the event responded does not comply by this date. A fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for the violation of LDR section 504.0202 for each day, the violation continues and a flat fine of $250 for the BTR. The respondents further further to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. Our next case is 1551 Dixie Freeway. It is a business that is on the parcel with the address of 1421 South Dixie. Shelley Friend presenting. This is case number CCSM0391-2024. The property is located 1551 South Dixie Freeway. This property is owned B5, Planned Shopping Center. On May 10th, 2024, while conducting inspections in the area, I observed a shed in the back of the building and signs on the window and a sign near the street. On May 10th, 2024, the property was found to be in violation of sections LDR604.12D, sign permits, and Section 26-171 permits required. On May 22, 2024, I noticed a violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 6, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on May 28th, 2024. On June 6th, 2024, a follow-up inspection showed that permit was not applied for for the shed and the signs were not removed and also the permit was not applied for the signs either. It is staff's recommendation, the special magistrate find Emerald Eagles LP and or entity in violation of LDR604.12D signs, sign permits in section 26-171 permits required. And given till August 21st, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's staff's recommendation to impose a fine at the August 28th, 2024 hearing. And the amount of $50 per day per violation until the property is brought into full compliance. The owner's name is Emerald Eagles LP or is it Eagles Emerald LP? Oh, let me double check. I might have one. Let's see here. Is anyone here in this matter? It would be. Let me double check. Our Emerald Eagles. Emerald Eagles LP. Emerald Eagles. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the.m. on August 21st, 2024. In the event responded does not comply by the state. A fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each section of code that remains in violation. For each day, the violation continues past the force data date the respondent is further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order Our next case is 314 Columbus Avenue Shelley friend presenting this property is located 314 Columbus Avenue case numbers CC SM 0 412-2024 the property is located 314 Columbus Avenue, case number CCSM0412-2024. The property is owned R3A single family detached and attached residential. On May 17, 2024 while conducting inspections in the area, I observed a forensic sign in the front of the residence mailbox. Further research indicated that the property did not have a business tax receipt. The property was found to be in violation of Section 74-146, local business tax imposed on May 17, 2024. On June 7, 2024, I noticed a violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 24, 2024. And a copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 10th, 2024. The owner applied for a business tax receipt on June 12th and he did have inspections. Actually I was there today and still failed for a GFCI. So it's my recommendation that the board find read Leaventhal NR Entity and Violation of 7174-146 local business tax imposed and given to August 8th, 2024 to correct the violation and to bring the property and the full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it is a staff recommendation to impose a one time fine of $250 at the August 28th, 2024 hearing. Thank you. Is anyone here on this matter? I find responded in this case in violation of city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation for 4 1 p.m. on August 8th. 2024 in the event respondent does not comply by this date a fine in the amount of $250 will be imposed. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. Our next case is 529 Washington Street, shelly friend presenting. This is case number CCSM 0493-2024. Properties located at 529 Washington Street. This property is on mixed use. On June 12, 2024, I received a call from my supervisor saying that a new door and window had been installed at this property. I looked in the system and I could not find a permit for this for the door or the window. On June 20, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of section 26-171. Permits required. Section 26-914, Section 13, outdoor storage. Section 26-914, Section 2, exterior surfaces. Section 26-914, Section 3, protection of exterior surfaces. Section 26-914, Section 4, exterior windows and doors. Section 26-914, Section 4, exterior windows and doors, Section 26914, Section 8, landscaping, and Section 24, or excuse me, 26914, Section 9, trash and debris. On June 20th, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of July 10th. Copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 24th. 2024. On July 12th, a follow-up inspection was conducted and the following violations remain. Section 26-171 permits required. Section 26914, Section 2 exterior surfaces. Section 26914, Section 3 protection of exterior surfaces. Section 26, Section 914, Section 4 exterior windows and doors. And it is staff's recommendation, the special magistrate, find Gloria Hill Evans, Robert L. Hill, Christie M. Hill, and Barbara L. Hill, and our entity in violation of Section 26-171 permits required, Section 26-914, Section 2 exterior surfaces, Section 26, 914, section 2, exterior surfaces, section 26, 914, section 3, protection of exterior surfaces, and section 26, 914, section 4, exterior windows and doors. And give until August 21st, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it staff's recommendation to impose a fine at the August 28th, 2024 hearing in the amount of $25 per day, per violation until the property is brought into full compliance. Okay, so they complied on 26914 subsection nine and subsection 13. Yes. And subsection and the 8, the landscaping. Okay. Is anyone here on this matter? I find responding, this is case and violation of city code as charged with the exception. Well maybe I'll read what they are in violation of. 26171A, 2691423 and 4 as charged. Others have complied. And that respondent correct the violation before 1 p.m. on August 21st, 2024. And the event that responded does not comply by the state, a finding the amount of $25 per day for each section of code charged. We'll be imposed for each day the violation continues past the enforced day to date. The respondent is further order to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Our next case is 2541 edgewater avenue. Shelly friend presenting. This case number CCSM 0423-2024, property is located at 2541 Edgewater Avenue and this property is owned R2, single-family residential. I'm A21, 2024, while conducting inspections in the area I observed a forensic sign in the front yard of the residence. Further research indicated that the property did not have a business tax receipt. This property was found to be in violation of section 74-146, local business tax imposed on May 21, 2024. On June 21, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of July 8, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on July 3, 2024. On July 3, the business tax receipt was applied for. They made an application. However, I have not been to the property to inspect it. So it is staff's recommendation, the special magistrate, find Robert Burr and or entity in violation of 74-146 local business tax imposed and given to August 8, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into full compliance, it's my recommendation to impose a one-time fine of $250 at the August 28, 2024 hearing. Is anyone here in this matter? I find responded in this case in violation of city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 1 p.m. On August 8, 2024 in the event responded does not comply by this date. Finding the amount of $250 will be imposed. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is 401 Flagler Avenue, Beverly Abramsome presenting. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. This case, CCSM0957-2023 is 401 Flagler Avenue. This property is on M.U. Mixed-U Central Business District. On November 20, 2023, co-compliance received a complaint regarding signs. On November 27, 2023, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of Section 26171A permits required. On June 8th of 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property within an initial compliance date of June 24th, 2024. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 10th, 2024. Over the past eight months, there's been a lot of activity and accepted on June 10th, 2024. Over the past eight months, there's been a lot of activity and growth on this property. The property owner was allowing people to park on this property without going through the proper channels and there were temporary signs erected without the required permitting or a BTR for the business being advertised. On July 12th, 2024, a follow-up inspection showed violations still exist. Signs are still erected. A temporary sign permit was issued, but it expired on June 28, 2024. There is now a new wooden sign that is unpermanent. The hurricane shutters or onings, as I call them, there is a context box that is unpermitted. The hurricane shutters or onings, as I call them, there is a con-ex box that is on site with no permit. There's electrical work that's outside that was installed without a permit as well. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the Special Magistrate find 401 flagler LLC and or entity and violation of section 26171A Permits required and given till august 9th 2024 to bring the property into full compliance If the owner does not come into compliance, it is my recommendation to impose a fine in the amount of $50 per day until the property is brought into full compliance The fine amount is not to exceed $25,000. Okay. I noticed you didn't cite sign permit section, but does this encompass the signs then? The permit? It's permit. Because there was, you have to get a permit for temporary signs. And there was a have to get a permit for temporary signs and there was a permit issued they issued them for a certain time frame I'm not sure if it's 60 days or six months but there was a permit issued okay for the temporary signs and I guess that gives them time to get a permanent sign in place. But that permit has since expired. OK. All right. And they're allowed to have this. The common. Build board sign on their property? No. OK. Yes, have a permit. Get it. Well, yes, have a permit. But it looks like is is related to his business. Is the business a real business? Yes. Is anyone here on this matter? Please come forward. You will need to be sworn in also. Go to the microphone. Could you raise your right hand and be sworn by the clerk. Thank you. Raise your right hand. State your full name. My name is Ignacio Varsatelli. In the matter too, what you're about to give testimony do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. The witness has been sworn in. If you could please state your address. I leave in 1210 North Atlantic. Nusmi Navich. Okay. Thank you. And I have my business in 401 Flagler Avenue. All right. Thank you. And are you planning to apply for the permits you need? I already did. You did. Yes. OK. For the record, my understanding was that we was totally on compliance, and I apologize to the city if we make any mistake. Because we receive a certificate of occupancy that I will give copy of all the documents on December and then the certificate of use with all the permits because it was a total of 18 permits open. We was in construction. So I thought that some of the issues that are addressed to me in this case was already part of this certificate of occupancy. But I review with my contractor and my contractor diligently went and request the two permits that are pending is at 31 fits of fencing around the resume areas. And the other one is in the 100 and 10 feet of fence east-west. And then the other one is on the hands of the architect, our engineer architect, Charles Adams, who is finishing all the plans to finish the the onions that are in the property. About the sign, the property is currently for lease. So also have the opportunity to have the signs announced for lease. But anyway, because we apply as a temporary sign, we will also renew our sign or find the ways to have that sign permanent. All the billboards, we follow the compliance on the measurements of the signs that are allowed. On this four by eight, that particular sign that I see in the picture. So yes, we want to comply with with everything we don't want to be. Okay so but you understand that the city doesn't have an application for a lot of these permits that you're talking about for the awnings and the sign and the electrical work so those need to be submitted by your architect and all of that. You understand that? Sorry, they're here. Do you want to take a look at that Miss Abramson and just see if you can explain. Let's let Miss Abramson speak for a moment and. It's a listing for the active. Active listing for the sign to be there. Listing you have the property listed for sale? No. For lease. Please. This permit is for fence, which is actually lattice work around the bathrooms. OK. And this is for the rest of the fencing, which weren't part of this violation. The violation is for the electrical. There's some fans that are on some very large posts out by the parking lot that don't have permits. He also has extension cords outside. The onings, the signs are not permitted. Those are the things that are in violation. Not these. I didn't create a violation for these because I know that there's a permit and that it's issued. Okay. So you don't have an issue as far as those permits go. It's other things that you mentioned that you're in the process of applying for and Miss Abramson was going to give you till August 9th to get everything done from your end that you can do. Is that does that work for you August 9th? Yes. I will find out whatever the city needs to be in compliance and we will. Okay, awesome. So yeah, if you don't get it done by August 9th, then you would start to incur a fine potentially. If we come back of the next in the August meeting and there's nothing done, then there potentially could be a fine imposed. It will be done. It will be done. Yeah, okay. So if you could get with the city and make sure that your people get all these applications in. I was definitely yes. Thank you and my apologies for the wasting of time in the city. No, no, no problem. And did you already sign sign I don't think no Did you sign here if you could sign over there, please sir? So I find respondent in this case in violation of city code as charged in that respondent correct the violation before 1 p.m On August 9th, 2024. In the event, respondent does not comply by the state of fine and the amount of $50 per day for each section of code that remains in violation. We'll be imposed for each day, the violation continues past the enforced day to date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order. The next case is 302, it has been withdrawn. We have one case in repeat business for 1194 North Peninsula Avenue, Beverly Abramsson presenting. the property is 1194 North Peninsula Avenue. This property is owned by one single family residential. The violation cited with section 76 is section 26-171A, permits required. On May 14, 2024, co-compliance received a complaint regarding construction or the erection of a metal fence on top of a block wall. On May 14, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of Section 26171A permits required. On March 20, 2024, case CCSM0094-2024 was heard and the property owner was found in violation of this section 26171A permits required. On April 24, 2024, a fine of $250 per day was imposed. On May 17, 2024, a notice of repeat violation was hand delivered to Justin Pennington on site. As I was going to post it. A copy was mailed via certified mail to the owner and address of record GSPP development LLC in New Orleans, Louisiana. The USPS website shows that it's moving through the network. There was also a copy mailed via certified mail to the mailing address listing on Sun, on SunBiz website. For, I don't know how to pronounce this word, but it's Metery, Louisiana. Okay. And also the USPS website shows that this one is moving through the network. A copy was mailed via certified mail to the registered agent listed on the Sunbiz website. The name of that is registered agent solutions incorporated. And that was located in Telehassy Beach, Florida. That notice was signed for and received on May 21, 2024. Copy was also mailed certified mail to Justin Pennington who is showing as the principal address at 10 Cunningham Drive, New Smirna Beach. The website shows, the USPS website shows this notice is moving through the network. I also mailed a copy via a certified mail to Gregory's strategy who showed as the authorized member of the business. That was also in New Orleans, Louisiana. The USPS website shows that one was moving through the network. On July 12, 2024, a follow-up inspection showed no change in site condition. I was also told that the building department went out there today and there's still been no change in site conditions. Therefore it is my recommendation that special magistrate find GSP development at all C and or entity and violation for a repeat violation of section 26171A permits required and impose a fine of $500 per day commencing on May 14, 2024, and continuing until the property is brought into full compliance with fine not to exceed maximum amount of $15,000. And who was Justin Pennington? He was listed as Justin. So there's a lot of people listed within the sunbes and different companies in the bound Justin Pennington is the brother of Bo Pennington. They do have a company called Pennington Construction Incorporated, but it appears that Bo Pennington is the contractor, the licensed contractor, and Justin is his brother. That's what I've been told. He was here, Justin was here, and I think they had somebody else with them at one of the hearings, the previous hearing that we had for the other case. So is Justin listed on Sunbiz at some point if you go down the list of all the people that I sent a certified mail to, yes. Justin shows on there as the principal address at 10 Cunningham Drive. I don't know if it had a, I don't think that one had like a title beside it. Okay. It just had the address listed. But we finally got a signature. Well, I also hand delivered the notice on May 17th to Justin Penning-10. He was on site. I went to the property to post the notice and he was on site, so I hand delivered it to him. Okay. Okay. Did you say you did not post? I did not post. I hand delivered it to him. Okay. Did you say you did not post? I did not post. I hand delivered it to. But I do see a signature on a. Yes. Oh, that one was on May 21st. Yeah. Registered agent solutions incorporated was listed as the registered agent for GSBP. Do you remember what the other violation was? The block wall. The block wall. The block fence is on top of. On top of the block wall. So the block wall was unpermitted. I think they came in to get a permit, but I still don't think that inspections have been completed and final permit. I don't think it has been finaled. And now on top of that, he put the block fence on there. I know that additional mental fence. I cannot attest to that. Okay. Here's somebody that can. There was this keyboarding social. The area where that black fence is, there are a lot of have a six foot wall by our land development ordinances. That area where they have a fence is above the six foot maximum requirement. There's a particular situation here though because they are a lot is so much higher than the adjacent lot. They also have to have swimming pool protection and fall protection. So we may not get exactly six foot in this location, but it is slightly higher. We measured today that I think the fence was approximately seven feet from the existing grade. So we may be able to lower it around the foot. It was around 52 inches of protection there. So I think we could lower it. The wall was not touched. Nothing was done to the wall and the wall was over seven feet high. So the wall does is still in complete violation. Have you had any contact with any of these? Yes, I have. It's a Bose very upset about the wall figuring its property rights thing. And you know, it's talking in turnies and all that kind of stuff. But I was out there today, talked to Justin. It's his brother, super intended for the project. And I told Justin, he says, hit do whatever we ask him to do on the fence. I told him, I said, we could fix the fence by lowering the fence down because it's attached to the face of the wall. But there's attached to the face of the wall. But there's nothing I can do about the block wall. The block wall has to be cut and there's nothing that's been done to that. Okay. And so what we're saying is to impose this five, are you in favor of this $500 recommendation per day starting May 14th? I'll leave that up to you. I don't want to get into fines. I'll tell you there's a violation, but the fines I'll leave up to you. Okay. I just wonder, you know, in terms of your experience, would you say this merits that level of? This is a, they're putting it on a market for $11 million dollars. The house is going to be $11 million dollars. I'm going to leave that up to you. I don't want to get into fines. of your experience, would you say this merits that level of? This is, they're putting it in a market for $11 million. The house is gonna be $11 million house, so. Got it. Okay. Thank you so much for coming and talking. Thank you. Okay, so your reason for the $500 is just because there hasn't been any response and that there is potentially, is there a potential flood issue here? Because one is higher? There's been conversation. I've been in touch with Bo Pennington. Many people throughout the city have been in touch with Bo Pennington, who is the licensed contractor on the job. But he hasn't done anything. No matter what was said or what he says he's going to do, he hasn't done anything. No matter what was said or what, he says he's going to do, he hasn't done anything. And then on top of that, he's got the wall is onto his portion of the property, like 18 inches. So now this guy who is the next door neighbor, nobody's mowing the grass where they've raised the grade on that side of the wall and then left the 18 inches between that property and the other property. So now it's the grass is overgrown on there too. It just tells me that this guy the grass is overgrown on there too. It just tells me that this guy, these that this contractor is not going to do anything. That's why I just think that we should impose the fine that we're getting before he sells the house. Okay, thank you so much. And Ms. Pavley. I would just like to add to Beverly's history on this. Bo Pennington came in to City Hall two weeks ago. I explained to him what he needed to do either to lower the fence or remove it completely and he said that he would have it removed that day. That was two weeks ago. So Beverly is still chasing him down trying to get him to comply with both violations actually. So I recommend sticking with the $500 per day. Okay. Here again, just want to say about removing the fence. The fence cannot be removed because they have a swimming pole and they have to protect that fence. There are some fall protection requirements. Anytime you have higher than a 30 inch drop off, you've got to protect that with a guard rolling on a residential unit. It has to be a minimum of 36 inches high. So there has to be some sort of fence in there. It's just the fence is higher than what it needs to be. Okay. Okay, so it can be a fence, but it has to be lower. Lower. I don't think that's an issue with fence, I see. There's some permitting. There is a fence. Fence is not permitted. The wall, we've heard a permit in, but we can't approve the wall because the wall's too high. We can't do a final inspection. Got it. Okay. Thank you so much. Well, I appreciate that extra information so and just for the record that There is no one from the property at this hearing this hearing. So I find respondent in this case failed to correct the, I'm sorry, sorry, this is a repeat. I find respondent in this case in repeat violation of city code as charged based on the magistrate prior order entered against the same respondent for the same violation. A fine of $500 per day is hereby imposed from May 14, 2024. And we'll continue until there is compliance. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code enforcement officer to verify compliance with this order. I just want to make sure that you add in there that it can't exceed the... What was the matter? Okay, okay. Okay. Oh, right, right. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That is the last case that we will hear today. Okay. So any other business? No, then we are adjourned.