Okay. All right. It's 2 o'clock on April 10th, 2025. We will call the meeting to order. My name is Ryan Knight, and I'm a special magistrate for the city. The procedures of this hearing are that due process is emphasized to each respondent into the city and accordance with Florida statute 162.0.7 subsection 3, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed, and shall govern the proceedings. Here say is admissible, but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Any decision made today may be appealed by sending notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of execution of any order. The City of Edgelwater will present its case first as it has a burden of proof. Afterwards, our respondents will have an opportunity to respond. Please call the first case. Or actually, do you swear the people in or do I do that? Okay, if there's anybody that will be giving testimony, please rise and raise your right hand. If you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. First case, case number 24-00101-1A. Good afternoon. My name is Myron Sammigal. I serve as the Code Supervisor for City of Edgewater. This is going to be on the next slide. Good afternoon. My name is Myron Sam. I serve as the code supervisor for city of edgewater. This is going to be case number two four dash one eight one under citation number zero zero two three. The property address and violation is sixteen twenty six orange tree drive and edgewater Florida three two one three two. The owners are David and Suzanne Jacobich. Their mailing address is 135 Jenkins Street, suite 105 B, box 351, St. Augustine, Florida 32086. This case originally opened up in November of 2024, due to a call that came in from central dispatch in regards to some dogs fighting and attacking each other. Upon arrival, the dogs were found loose and running at large. We were able to get them secured and speak to the tenant, excuse me, who lives at this property. They rent, and these dogs have a history, unfortunately, of getting out often. And they had severely injured one of the animals. And speaking to the renter at the time, he stated that the dog of injury only had superficial wounds. Unfortunately, those wounds were actually life threatening and he ended up oner surrendering that dog to the Indian River Animal Clinic where the dog was subsequently had to be euthanized. So we've had a history here with challenges with animal problems becoming public nuisance, part of our process with animal control in coming on two cases like this is to ensure that all the animals are up to date with rabies that they're spayed and neutered and that they're coming into full compliance with all the code regulations within the city due to the fact that the dogs were not vaccinated or up to date with spaying and neutering. That is the course of action that we followed through with. It took them a very long time to do that so much so that the property owner had to issue them a seven day notice to be evicted if they don't come into full compliance with that. Unfortunately, the some of the dogs were re-homed outside of city limits. So that was kind of part of their recommendation to come into compliance. And that is what they chose to do. They were waiting on the one dog to receive the paperwork for updated rabies vaccines. Everything else had come into compliance by the end date before this magistrate hearing. However, beyond the deadline given of the notice of violation. All notices sent to the property were sent certified and posted on the property at the time, as well as given to the property owner with confirmation from him. That's the renter, Mr. Van Cleef, has come into again full compliance with the spain neuter and the rabies so at this time we would just request a finding effect that they were beyond the date of the notice of violation given and the citation has since been paid so beyond that if it happens again we would consider them a repeat offender for having animals without the complot proper compliance. Okay so at this point there's no request for a fine of 250 per day because they are in compliance and obviously the animal is fader neutered. Correct. Is there anybody here for the respondent? No sir. So there's nobody present. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in case number 24-0010181A, we'll find that there is a respondent is in violation of City of Edgewater City Code, section five, dash three, seven. As listed in the notice of violation, filed in this matter, considered the gravity of the violation and the actions by the violator to correct the violation in any previous violations by the violator. Respondent has paid the citation, that after the date given for the notice of compliance. So there will be no fine and post today, however, the record will reflect that there was a finding of fact that Section 537-37 was violated. reflect that there was a finding of fact that Section 537, 5-37, was violated. If there's any future violations, it can be subject to repeat violations and repeat offender. Has there been an affidavit of compliance filed for this case? Yes, sir. There's a affidavit for the notices. And then the the other thing Mr. Knight is I believe because if there was multiple counts of this, given multiple dogs, I think there's a A, B, and a C, right, Ms. Cemeter? Andy. So if that record could just reflect that for all four of us. Sure. I was sort of unclear, was there one dog that hasn't been spayed or neutered? There was up until recently so that dog has now since been spayed and neutered with evidence provided that it was finalized. Okay, so yes that will apply to cases ABC and D under the same case number as far as the binding effect and the order goes Anything else for these cases nothing further from the city So next case is case number 25-121813 three. Good afternoon. Officer Hayeswood, City of Edgewater Code Enforcement. The case you're hearing is QOZB2 LLC, which is the owner of the property located at 1525 South Ridgewood Avenue, Edgewater, Florida. Been found in violation of Section 10500 Minimum Standards of the City of Edgewater's Code of Coordances. Background to this is approximately January 15, 2025, Code Enforcement Receive, Civil Complaints Regarding. The appearance of the listed property which is a tire store that stores old tires in view of the public, the property next door is being worked on, and I monitored this location for improvements to next door property improvements. January 15, 2025, after no improvements observed, I issued a notice of violation and spoke with the tenant regarding the entire issues. Interest student advised to ease working with the owner to resolve the issues. Correction data on that notice of violation was given to February 25th, 2025. However, on January 23rd, 2025, Supervisor Sam McGill met with the tenant and informed and information on how to correct the violation was given on January 24th, 2025, a permit was applied for an eventually issued. March 27 27th, 2025, at the direction of San Miguel, Citation 0525, notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner and posted at City Hall. The tenant contacted, supervisor San Miguel, regarding the citation, advised it has been a struggle to get a fence company for the instill. The fence was installed prior to the hearing date. However, the rear of the property was not fence-dened, causing the rear neighbors to have a view of the tire stacked in the rear. Officer San Miguel contacted owner and stated the rear would need fence-den. An additional time frame was given to correct the violation before daily fines start. All notices and provisions of chapter 10 are 28 of being been complied with. Staff recommends the special magistrate fine, QOZB2 LLC and violation of section 10500 minimum standards. And assist citation fine of $75 and $100 daily fine, if not corrected by, which we gave them up to May 10th, 2025. Okay. Okay. Do not see anybody for the respondent. In this matter. Okay, based on the test 27 is presented in case number 25-121-813. I find that Section 10- in violation of city code section 10-500 city of bed water code of ordinances as listed in notice of violation filed in this matter considering the gravity of the violation and the actions by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator I ordered that respondent correct the violation on or before May 10, 2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation. The respondent does not comply with this order, a fine of $100 per day will be imposed. For $100, we'll be imposed for each day. The violation continues past May 10, 2025. The respondent is further ordered to contact the Code Enforcement Officer or the Code Enforcement Office for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with the SOAR. Next case, case number 25-121951. Yes, the address in question is 2904 Juniper Dry, Robert and Andrew Ingram is the owner of this property. And as water floor has been found in violation Section 10-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 while on patrol observed a black vehicle in the driveway of the list of location without a vehicle registration. During the course of this investigation it was noted that a dump truck and a black Mustang from this location was observed in the city right away with the list of location without a vehicle registration. During the course of this investigation, it was noted that a dump truck and a black Mustang from this location was observed in the city right away with the same violation. Right away violations were issued, a courtesy violation sticker, and placed on the windows of the vehicles, and a courtesy notice was issued for the vehicle in the driver with the correction date of February 24th, 2025. On February 24th, I conducted an inspection and noted no attempt to correct the violations. It was noted that the courtesy sticker had been removed from the Mustang in the right of way. 48-hour tow notices were left on these vehicles. Subsequently, a notice of violation was issued with the correction date of February 26th, 2025. As this officer believed seven days was sufficient time to remove vehicles from the property. February 26, 2025 another inspection was conducted. It was noted that the Mustang was now out of the city right away in place in the driveway. The black key was still in the driveway without a tag. I spoke with the owner and he advised that he was going to be removed from the property and the Mustang will be placed in the garage. indicated that dump truck as his dad's vehicle and he was not or he was aware of the notices the The owner requested for and was given an extension to correct the violations until March 5th, 2025. On March 5th, 2025, I arrived and noted the violations were not corrected. The key was still in the drive without a registration and the Mustang was now covered with the car cover. So, I'm going to take a look at the presentation 0523 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. Supposed to the property, sent certified mail to the owner and posted it at City Hall. All notices and provisions of chapter 10 article 20 had been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find Robert Andrew Ingram, Invigilation at section 10113, an operable vehicle, an assist to citation fine of $75, and an additional daily fine of $100 is being requested if not corrected by April 20th, 2025. Okay, seeing no one from the respondent here today. At least upon the testimony, evidence presented in case number. 25-121-951. I find that responded is in violation of city code section 10-113. The city of Edgelwater's code of ordinances as listed in notice of violation filed in this matter considered the gravity of the violation and the actions by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator. I order that respondent a corrective violation on or before April 20th 2025 in order to correct the violation and the emergency response, shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation. If the respond does not comply with this order, a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past April 20th, 2025. Responding is for the order to contact Code Enforcement Office or a a code enforcement officer for compliance into a range and inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, finally, the respondent is subject to a citation fine of $75. I'd like to go back to the case that we previously heard of case number 25-121951. Actually, I'm sorry, case number 25-121813. For the order, I failed to mention the respondent is subject to a citation fine of $75. I just want to clarify that. Okay, next case, case number 25-122-008. Okay. Right spend Thomas, Leshner-Lora, are the property owners located at 3404 in the Palm Drive, Florida. It's been found in violation of Section 1098 property maintenance of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordnances. On March 17th, 2025, Code enforcement received an email from City Employee Dan Whirl reference to an illegal utilities connection at 3404 India Palm Drive. The email stated the water was disconnected from this location and an employee checked on the 14th of February and discovered a new connection installed. Dernish check was discovered that the property had weeds in excess of 12 inches. No violation was issued with the correction date of March 27th 2025. March 28th 2025 a conduct and inspection observed no changes. Citation 0526 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It's posted to the property sent certified milk to the owners and posted it at City Hall. Excuse me, additionally in I bay with subsequently issued for the property. All notices and provisions of chapter 10, article 28 being complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find rights and time and send a lesson or a lower in violation of 1098, section 298 property maintenance and assess the citation of $75. Seeing nobody present for the respondent in this matter, based on testimony evidence presented in case number 25-122-008. I find that respondents was in violation of city of edge water city code section 10-98. As was in the notice of violation filed in this matter. Based upon the fact that the property is certainly in compliance, there are no daily fines or leans to be assessed. However, the respondent is subject to the citation fine of $75 in this matter. Any questions? No, they're not in compliance. Oh, were you simply obeying the system to you? Yeah, Mr. Knight, just for clarity, they are not in compliance and the city will be abating the property. We are just requesting an assessment of the $75 citation fee. Okay, so no daily fines are requested at this. Correct, because we will be abating the property. Okay, so to clarify the record, the property is not in compliance. However, there will be no daily fines or leans to be assessed at this time. Next up, case number 25-122-051A. There's also a 25-122-051B. I'm assuming we'd want to take these together. Correct. Okay, let's do that. Case 25122051 is actually an extension of 2512208 for the same address of 3404 India Palm Drive owners of the property rights, Mentama, Sleshtner and Laura are the owners of this property. It's been found in violation of Section 194 on lawful connection and Section 1922 tampering with meters and tap of the City of Edgewater's's Code of Organises. On March 17, 2025, Code Enforcement received an email from City Employee Dan Whirl reference to illegal utilities connection at 34-04 in a palm drive. Email stated that water meter was removed from this location and a City employee checked on the 14th of February and discovered a new connection installed. Email provided information and photos of the illegal hookup. I responded to this location and observed the possible area for a water connection covered up with fresh dirt. Due to the provided email and photos, citation 0526, notice I'm hearing was subsequently issued with the two violations. As posted the property sent certified mail to the owners and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions to chapter 10 article 20 had been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate fine rights meant Thomas and Lesnar Laura and violation of section 19 for lawful connection and section 19 22 tap rain with meters tap and assess the citation find of $300 per violation totaling $600. No daily fines are being requested as the water meter was removed from this location. Which would put this case and compliance. Thank you. Seeing nobody from the respondent present, based upon the testimony and evidence presented in case numbers 25-122-051A and 25-122-051B. I find that the Respondent is in violation of the City of Edge Waters Code of Ordinances Section 19-22 and Section 19-4. Consider the gravity of the violation and the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator. I order that respondent is subject to a citation fee of $300 in case 25-122-051A and subject to the citation fine of $300 in case 25-122-051B. I just find that she'll pay that as indicated on the citation. 1, 2, 2, 0, 5, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 The February 13, 2025 minutes of the Co-Inforcement Hearing are approved. Thank you for the reminder. And with that, we'll be adjourned.