We will call the meeting to order right at 2 o'clock. at the outset I have reviewed the menace of the February 26, 2025. Special. We will call the meeting to order right at 2 o'clock. Just at the outset I have reviewed the minutes of the February 26, 2025, special magistrate hearing and approve those for the background. Just a quick overview of business today and then we will get into this worrying and of witnesses and city staff. As the case numbers are called we will read the full case number in the address. If you are interested in speaking to a case make sure you've signed up with Teresa. If you have not, if you want to come forward state your name and address we can get you signed up afterwards. We will do a staff presentation on each case and then anyone in the audience who wants to speak will have a chance to respond there and then and we we will have any questions and a decision. With that we will move on to the swearing end of city staff respondents and witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand. In the matter to which you are about to give testimony do you swear or affirm to tell the The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the process. In the matter to which you are about to give testimony to use swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The witnesses have been sworn in. Perfect. Thank you, everyone. All right, for our first cases afternoon, we have CCSM 028O 2024. That's the property located at 25-06-millenn avenue. Good afternoon. Barbara Boblack presenting KCE-028-2024. Property location is 25-06-millenn avenue. On January 22, 2025, a special magistrate found Richard Perham and or entity in violation of section 26-171A Permits required for construction of an accessory structure without permits and gave until March 19th 2025 to bring the property into compliance On January 24th 2025 the board order was posted on the property The copy was also mailed certified mail property owner on January 23rd, 2025, and was signed for and accepted on January 25th. Mr. Purrham has been in contact with me with updates regarding finding a company to work with him and on his engineered drawings that are required for the permit. I have a copy of the contract for you. Thank you. And in speaking with Mr. Perham throughout this process, with him now having a contract for the drawings, He anticipates that the process will take an additional six to eight weeks. So it's my recommendation for the special magistrate to continue the hearing until May 28th, 2025, to give the contractor and the property on her time to complete the drawings and submit the permit application to the city. Perfect. Just the only question here, the date on this is 317-2025. Is that correct? I know that's correct. Has the owner submitted the permit or not yet under the permit? He's still waiting for the drawings to be complete and then he'll submit the permit as soon as he gets their drawings. He is here. If you have any questions for him? Perfect. Yeah, that would be great. I'll say if anybody from the audience wants to speak to this item, including the property owner. Yes. Just a quick question for you. I just want to make sure you're aware that the contract here says permits will be obtained by the owner so they'll give you the drawings and you'll submit those to the city. So ladies, when I'm coming here, it isn't it? From that, move forward from there. And we are, I'm hearing a recommendation to continue this case to May 28th. That should give you just about eight weeks. I know the project timeline here says four from the date so that should leave plenty of time. That's what he's telling me today. By then, I'll come down and fight for the permit. Okay. Perfect. All right. Is there anything else you want to add? I don't have any other questions. Okay. Well, then based on the background and the testimony provided today, we will find that this property will be continued until May 28th, 2025 for a review Thank you Thank you And I may have said May 25th, but it's May 28th. I'm just reading it correctly Our next case here is CCSM 06382024, property located at 103 North Orange Street. Good afternoon. On 11 13 20 24, the special magistrate continue this case until today's hearing. Peggy Garriks and or entity in violation was founded violation, I'm sorry. Of section 26-171A permits, if the special magistrate found that the violations were not corrected by today's data fine of $50 a day, shall be imposed for each state of violation exists. The board order was posted to the property on 1114 2024 and a new notice of hearing was posted on the property March 6 2025. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and was in and is currently available for pickup at the USPS office of March 15, 2025. Today, a new contractor has come into assist with getting the necessary permits to correct this violation. As of 318, 2025, a permit has been applied for. It is my recommendation to the special magistrate to continue this case until the April 23rd, 2025 special magistrate hearing to allow time for the new contractor to obtain the needed permits. So I'm just asking for some type of continuation only because we have a new party coming in and they're trying to actively correct the situation. Sure. And the current situation on site, the permit exercises and after the fact permit. So there's no work needed afterwards. Everything's been done. Right, yeah. So everything's been done. What they're trying to do is actually, they're trying to go back and figure out how it was constructed, make sure it was properly done, to make sure they get engineered drawings. So they're trying to do it all in reverse. And so it's taken a little bit longer than they were expecting. However, as soon as I had noticed with them, they did immediately start trying to put in for permits to try to get things done. So. reverse and so it's taken a little bit longer than they were expecting. However, as soon as I had notice with them They did immediately start trying to put in for permits to try to get things done. So I just wanted to kind of grant them a little more time And the debris pile that's in the photos has that been removed? Yes. Yeah, that was removed. Those are your older photos It's removed within the next couple days. Okay, perfect sounds like great progress. All right. Thank you Is anyone on the audience wish to speak to this item? All right. Seeing none based on the testimony provided in the evidence in the record, we will continue this case to the April 23rd, 2025, especially from the registry hearing. Thank you. brings us to our next item. So 4C, that item was withdrawn. That's the 405 Bouchel Drive. So we will go to 4D CCSM, 047, 2025, 448 Bouchel. 448, who shall? This is case number CE0047-2025. Violation cited as Section 42-13. Violation for Code Enforcement and Hazard Abatement. On February 26th, 2025, the special magistrate found Bouchille Island One Condominium Association Eek and or Entity and Violation of NSB Code 42-13, code enforcement hazard abatement and gave until March 14th, 2025 to bring the property into full compliance. If the special magistrate found that the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $250 shall be imposed for each day the violations exist. The board order was posted on the property on March property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of a president's website. It was refused code compliance, meld it to an additional address, discussed at the hearing the hearing and the Mel was signed for and accepted on March 3rd 2025 at 1042 and Daytona Beach To date the property remains in noncompliance I Discuss this with the fire inspector Bread God of law and the fire marshal and they stated that this place has had ample amount of time to gain compliance. So with that, it's my recommendation to the special magistrate to impose a fine of $250 a day to run for each day the violation exists, commencing on March 14, 2025 and continuing until the property is brought is brought into full compliance, this fine's not to exceed a maximum amount of $60,000. And the last time we discussed this item, I believe it was stated, and we'll hear from, management if they are here in a moment, that they would likely have everything resolved, but the sprinkler system,ler system Which would take eight weeks is that the status or are there still other remaining violations? The fire marshal's here to speak with this I would like to say that the fire departments this this case started last May and The fire departments have been out there at least ten visits to this place I've been out there several times to do the working code compliance. There's been a lot of times given if they would have contacted this could all have been taken care of. Sure. We'll hear from the fire department. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Lane. I'm the City Fire Marshal. And we have been in correspondence with the property since last May, May 16 was the first visit. The sprinkler's, the fire sprinkler system had deficiencies that were listed. Our inspector was out there today. And the actually yesterday and today the work is being completed. It is not completed as of today. There's still one condor unit they do not have access to. But in the nature of the severity of the safety issue, I would concur with the current officer. No, and is that work that's being completed right now now? Is this sprinkler system? It is. Everything else? Okay. Thank you. Right? Does anyone in the audience would speak to this item? State your name and address for the record. How many names do you have in the property manager? So you were correct when I was here last time. We made arrangements for the fire company to do this repair. They did say it was going to take quite a bit of time to get the equipment in. I stated at that time they did say it would take five to seven days to complete it. It is correct. There's only one building that they're still trying to complete. whether there was no way I could have met today's date, as far as the length of the non-compliance, when... It is correct there's only one building that they're still trying to complete. So there was no way I could have met today's date. As far as the length of the noncompliance, when we received the original proposal for this portion of it, the sprinklers, we contested it, tried to work with a fire suppression company. I requested and was granted graciously a meeting with the inspector, explained to him what I was going on, asked for advice or any recommendation he could give. He stated at that time we could get an independent inspection or another company to come in that was cost prohibitive and because the repair was so expensive, the option was made just to take that money and put it towards this repair Everything else has been taken care of but there is no way that we could meet today's date to finish all five buildings And we knew that ahead of time And I remember I recall that discussion The last unit remaining is that scheduled. What is your projection on on that will become? This week. This week? Yes. OK. OK. Got it. All right. Is there anything else you think is relevant? So that is the final issue. Yeah. Well, everything has been done except for the sprinklers. For this ad. I knew when I was here in February that it couldn't even start to March 24. they did everything they could do to get it done before then. No, but it's not for lack of trying. Right. I don't know. Sure. when I was here in February, that it couldn't even start to March 24th. They did everything they could do to get it done before then. No, but it's not for lack of trying. Right. Sure. My understanding is they can't get into one of the units because the person is in that unit is on a cruise. That's not correct. That's actually the board president. We have access to all units. We can get them in every unit. Dignifiers on the property, they are in constant contact with me. And if they need to get into something, we will get them into something. I've not heard that. That's the first time. Well, I talk about. We're talking about 75 units, ma'am. No, no. OK. I talked with the fire inspector this morning. He said they can access one of the units, because a person was out of town. So it is what it is. I, they got everything else done and set this one building. They didn't have access. One unit. One unit. So based on the discussion last time was if you close out everything else and this is the only item remaining, we would have that discussion at this time. So what I am going to do is provide that the city should be fully in compliance by April 1st to give you the rest of this week to get that last unit done. If the property is not in compliance by April 1st there will be a fine implemented that day of $250 a day until the violation is cured and it is your obligation to provide notice to the city that the inspection is ready. We will remove the door if we have to. Certainly. You appreciate that very much. Thank you. We will work on that order. That rolls into the next one which is CCSM005O 2025 462 Bouchel. So 462 Bouchel 464 Bouchel and 466 Bouchel are going to be presented back to back. Perfect. These are all the same property owner. It's Bouchel Allen one condominium association. And this is case referencing case 4.62 0.0 5.0-2025. 464, Lucio is case number 0, 0, 51, dash 20, 25. 466, BUSHIL, is 0, 0, 52, dash 20, 25. I'd like to say this is all the same owner. BUSHIL, Allen, one condominium association. And it's all, the violation cited is 42-13. Violations Code Enforcement has her debatement. On February 26, 2025, the special magistrate found Michelle Allen, one condominium association and or entity in violation of NSB code section 42-13, violations code enforcement hazard abatement and gave until March 14th, 2025, to bring the properties into full compliance. And if the magistrate found that the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $250 a day for each day, the violations exist will be imposed. The board order was posted on the property on March 4, 2025, and the same issue with some of these properties with the address not being updated. But code compliance, mel to an additional address and discussed we discussed it at the hearing and the mail was signed for it accepted on March 3rd 2025 it's 1042 and Daytona Beach Florida. On March 25th 2025 I've received a call from the NSB Fire Inspector of Fred Godawa he stated that the property is now in compliance. All of these properties. 462, 464 and 466 were now in compliance. So it is my recommendation to the special magistrate to impose a fine of $250 per day, menacing on March 14th, 2025, and running to March 24th, 2025. It's a total of $2,750 for the 11 days that the properties out of compliance, each $2,750 for each property. And I would like to also, I would also like the special magistrate to find the property in compliance on March 25th, 2025. I would also like to note that if the property falls into non-compliance within the next five years for the same code, that this property will be treated as a repeat violation and will be subject to increased fines. And that specific review is related only to 462. Correct the same fact. No, it's related to all three 4.62 4.64 and 4.66 those were all the they're all the same property owner just different buildings and they all had the same compliance they we milled the mill all at the same time and we're recommending the same amount of fine for for everyone $2,750 and all to be found in compliance on the 25th of March. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Would anyone in the audience like to speak to this item? And again, just for these items, state your name and address. Yes. So,'m understanding correctly, those are the same violations that relate to the sprinklers, because all of the other violations have been cured. So, I'm actually getting retrofined for something that I could not have repaired before that due date. Based on the time we discussed it, the last that's you said as a fourth March 14th I couldn't get him repaired until March 24th so I am requesting that that not happen Okay, and do we have a similar fact question for the fire marshal Were there interim inspections before compliance to show that the fire sprinkler system was the only remaining item at that time? Okay. So then based on the testimony provided the evidence of the record and in large part the discussion we had at the last meeting about the feasibility and check-in of this property and the timing of the contractor. What I'm going to do for all three properties, for 462, 464 and 466, I'm going to find the property in compliance as of the date stated by the inspector. I am going to note in each order that a repeat violation would be treated, another violation within five years would be treated as a repeat violation but we are not going to establish a fine based on the testimony from the last hearing and the timing of check-in. Thank you. I also add that the Volucia County Property and Papers website still has incorrect addresses that are being returned for those properties. We would caution again that notices a violation only go to that address on the record and it is imperative to get those updated so that you get our correspondence. Thank you. That brings us to 4-H CCSM 0 05-3-2025, 3,700 South Atlantic Avenue. the C-E, K-C-E, 0, 0, 5, 3, dash 2025. So hey. the C.E. C.E. C.E. C.E. of the violations code enforcement hazard abatatement. On February 26, 2025, the Special Magistrate Found Mariners Cov Condo Association and or Entity and Violation of NSBE 42-13, Violations Code Enforcement Hazard Abatement and gave until 14th, 2025, to bring the property into full compliance. If the special magistrate found that the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $250 shall be imposed for each day. The violations at this exist. The board order was posted on the property on March 4th, 2025. The board order was was milled certified milk to the property owner, and was signed for and accepted on March 5th, 2025, the board order was milled certified mill to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on March 5th, 2025 at 1007 AM in New Sumerna Beach. On March 12th, 2025, Fire Inspector Gatawa asked code compliance for a continuance of one month as this property, as property owners were working towards a acceptable solution. So with that being said, it's my recommendation to the special magistrate to set the compliance date to April 23rd, 2025 and continue this case to the April 23rd, 2025 hearing. Perfect. And based on the discussion at the last hearing, I know there are a handful of issues on this site but the key factor was that foam installation on the stairs. Has there been a permit applied or worked on for that aspect specifically? None that I know of. They're working with a contractor. Okay. Perfect. As of this morning, there is an active permit for that property. It was found either yesterday or day before. It is actually sitting in my review queue for approval of the materials along with about 30 other sense of plans. So there has been an active permit pulled for this. They are working to our compliance on it. Perfect. Thank you for that. That is good news. I'm glad to see that one moving forward, especially on that aspect of it. Based on the testimony provided in the evidence in the record, for KCCSM 05-3 2025, we will continue this case to April 23rd, 2025. That brings us to new business. The first new business This is CCSM of16 2025 same property they were split. So both physical addresses, 4393 and 4395 cell c misdrive. On 10, 8, 2024, code compliance received the complaint regarding the house. On the property that was demolished with a permit. However, the surrounding trees and land clearing was not permitted. On 10-8, 2024, an inspection was conducted, and the property was found to be in violation of LDR 604.051 tree preservation. On 115, 2025, a notice of violation was posted on the property with the initial compliance date of 317.2025. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and is in a pre shipment status since 1.15.2025. As of 324.2025, no permits have been applied for at this time. A follow-up inspection shows that the property is still in violation. And is my recommendation to special magistrate to find, imagine, operations LLC and C-Mist, cell C-Mist, 4393 land trust and or entity in violation of LDR604.051 tree preservation and given until 5, 5, 2025 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it is recommendation to impose a $500 per day. Per location based on the two split properties until the location. So there's a whole formula I have Channing from Development Services here. He can kind of go a little bit deeper in depth on what the requirements are in order to get this corrected. There's whole calculations of things like that of how many trees need to be replaced and How they can go about it the property owner is aware of how to do this what the steps are needed I have heard nothing. I don't believe that he's heard anything as well So if you have any in-depth questions about how to correct it He can definitely come up and that behalf. If not, we do have people that are on the street that are here that live next to it that they wanted the opportunity to speak about the issue as well. So that's kind of where I'm at. And I did note in the background, it looked like they got a demolition permit for structure but not for any grading work or tree removal. That is correct. So there is a I don't know it off top of my head but if they are trying to get to a structure that is surrounded by trees they have I think it's like a 10 foot that they can kind of get to the property if they have to take some stuff down. There was no there was no okay there was no permits there was nothing. They just went through and just started to clear the land completely. Obviously grading, changing the elevation, there's just a lot of things that went wrong and they just continued to keep doing it so that's where we're at. And as a requirement, I see the violation that we're looking at is for tree preservation, which I understand. What about the land clearing aspect? Is there a permit needed for that change of grade? So with the grading aspect of it, they have originally, when this all took place, it was one parcel. They were pushing real hard to get it split into two so they could start building. I know engineering came out. They spoke to them the day that we were there. I was trying to figure out what to do. We're actually trying to prepare for Hurricane Milton because the properties across the street are lower. We're afraid of mudslides running into their property. Just trying to get things straightened out. As far as I know, I have not addressed any of the grading issues. If more or less was the trees. When they finally start to, if they clear this issue up and they start building, at that point I guess is when we can start kind of addressing yeah. But currently the trees were just the, they just went through and took down pretty much everything so. And that we're just trying to get it correct at this point. Absolutely. Okay. Perfect. Thank you for that. Before we have neighbors come up I I just want to confirm is the property owner here to speak. All right, with that, we will open up in general if anyone in the audience wishes to speak to this item. If you'll come forward and state your name and address for the record. And actually real quick, I do have the mitigation letter from Channing if you want a copy of this. So you can see it. Okay. I say we saw a little bit in the backup. So this is perfect. Hi, my name is Casey Reed and I'm at 4392 South Seamist Drive just directly across the street. I'm just here to request a plan to replace the trees and restore the canopy that they removed. You know, on average, Selsea Mischrive, every lot has probably 20 trees. So this is a heavily tree area of each side. So I mean, I feel like a reasonable way to approach it is, you know, they're dividing this lot into two. They've removed just about all the trees that were there I mean could they put plant put back 10 trees per lot? I don't know I just I was as a concern neighbor. I'd like to see the canopy restored so So it looks like they will be planting 442 trees Requirement is four hundred and forty two trees. Well, requirement is. Okay. Yeah. My name is Channing. I work in the planning department. Compliance coordinator with them. So if you want clarity on the replacement criteria. So essentially in our violations and penalties section. Any person found in violation must after being found by the CODE compliance board being in violation, replace 100% cross sectional area of the trees removed without a permit. In this case, we had a demo permit for the structure and essentially, you know, there was access to that structure so they didn't necessarily need to go outside of the access with their room. a demo permit for the structure and essentially, you know, there was access to that structure so they didn't necessarily need to go outside of the access with their removal equipment. They did remove the structure, but also cleared the lot, which we do not issue land clearing permits for single-family properties either. So that's where this is a little different as well. For that 100% cross-sectional replacement, that's based on the amount of trees removed and they actually had a tree survey so we were able to calculate. I couldn't measure every tree on the ground because I couldn't tell if one was, you know, from this area, one was a crown from a different tree. So that was based on the tree survey that they had submitted. They have submitted building permits for these properties. So they are aware of the situation it's noted in our system that there is a pending code violation attached to the new parcels each identified based on the original violation. So those were separated between 43, 93 and 43, 95 appropriately to make sure that the cross-sectional area was covered. Now, if 100% cross-sectional area cannot be planted back on site, which if they are building on these properties that's probably unattainable, the only other option for single-family violations is donation to the city for you some public property. So the difference can be calculated. You know if they can restore that canopy they had about a 93% canopy coverage on that lot and they're down sub 20% at this point. So you know in character with the neighborhood we would like to see the canopy restored, but, you know, that's up to you in the magistrate. So. So, from a practical standpoint, the, so you're saying the 442 trees, have we allocated that among the two lots of how many trees per line? Correct, and that's broken down in the mitigation outline. So let me pull that up real quick. The yellow and green kind of breakdown. Yeah, yeah, correct. So a lot one, they removed 20 trees at 4 inch caliber. It would be 218 trees to replace. Lot two, they removed 18 trees total. at 4 inch caliper, it would be 218 trees to replace. Lot 2 there moved 18 trees total at 4 inch Caliper it would be 225 trees so that was what they can choose to replace the smaller trees or bigger trees we've just found that splitting the difference to present that mitigation is more ideal. That's perfect background and thank you for going through it. Mostly I want the residents to know at least the number of trees that were there will be replaced. They will be smaller because they won't be mature. But based on the recommendations here, many, many more will be planted to kind of get that mitigation. So perfect. Okay. Thank you. Based on that testimony and the evidence and the record, I will do these one by one. For case number CCSM 07152024, based, I already said based on the testimony, we will find that the property is currently in violation of LDR604-051 for tree preservation. We will order the property under to come into compliance by 1pm on May 5th, 2025, and notify the code inspector and request a re-inspection to determine compliance. If the property is not in compliance, a phone of $100 per day for each violation will be imposed not to to exceed a maximum of $10,000. I'm going to do the exact same thing for CCSM0016 2025. So we will find the properties currently in violation of LDR604051 tree preservation or to the property owner to come into compliance by May 5, 2025 and notify the code inspector and request a reinspection to determine compliance. If the property is found not to be in compliance as the date set above $100 per day, a fine will be established not to exceed a maximum of $10,000. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, no, sorry, come on up. so sorry about that. My name is Stephen Knott. I live at 43.91, South Seamist. It's the property just north of the subject property. First of all, I'd like to thank all the people with the city in trying to get it around it. Unfortunately unfortunately we were a little too late. But I can't the numbers that you hear about the number of trees. You can't imagine what was and what is now. It's strip mine. And there's also something that was brought up earlier in a conversation about the elevations and the grades. I have a block wall that separates my property from their property on the north side. And there's such unbelievable elevation changes. At one point, it's a foot over my six foot wall. At the rear of my property, it's probably 12 feet below. So there's a tremendous grading issue that I think deserves some special attention in permitting and working with engineering that goes through. The other thing that I would say is not that there's first degree or degrees of violation, but this was really done in bad faith. This was done intentionally. They didn't pull the permit for the septic tank. They're just not good people. And I would tell you that before you release a permit to them to build, I would get my money upfront for these trees. Otherwise, we're going to be in the same position at the end of the show. And I know you'd say, well, we'll hold over to the CEO. But if for whatever reason it falls apart during the middle of the construction, the city and us will be out the trades. So whatever you can do to help with, we'll appreciate. Certainly, and I will just say just for background. So you guys are aware of the different pockets. My role as magistrate is only to review violations before me. So the building department who would be reviewing the permit application for the site would review those grading issues. If there is a resultant violation they may be back before this board but the key on the tree conversation is we have just and I'm sorry that we got ahead of you and stating the finding required them to comply with that replacement plan by May 5th and so that should be before the building and if that is not complete then they will be fine and we'll bring it back before this board for. Thank you very much for your help. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Hi, my name is Nick. I'm at the property directly south of Separat. There's definitely, again, I'm going to bring up the grading issue, but there's definitely grading issue because whenever it rains there's a lake in front of my house and the house across the street. So there's a mountain of dirt right next door where the water falls goes right into my property in my house. We stood up here, a bunch of people stood up here, months before this happened in front of the commission. and we warned them about this. Nothing happened. They didn't do anything. Stone face. My basic right is that they destroyed everything. And just the basic fact that the bill is not here. He's in Orlando, and he doesn't care about New Smirno Beach. So I just want to put that in your mind, just think about that, all right? Because we're dealing with it, and he's living over there. And he's not. So he basically destroyed an ecosystem over there. And it's getting worse and worse. So I don't want to lay that upon you, but that's how we feel. And again, the grading issues is very bad. It's a dirt street as it is. So yeah, like I said, I stood here, talked about it, one people did nothing about it. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Gallagher, if you don't mind if we could address your order on this case. I think this case is slightly different than our normal cases, which don't always result in fines, which this one I'm not sure that we're result in a fine per day but maybe a compliance to either plant the trees or pay the fine associated with each tree. So I'm trying to come up with the. So the hundred dollars per day would be the tree replacement fine or is that number just? That number was typically what we would do for a standard violation right $100 a day but because these are trees they are required to have a replacement value which could potentially result in a much steeper fine or in the alternative a order indicating that no permits could be bill no building permits could be issued until they mitigate the tree damage, something along those lines. Because in retrospect, if we go the avenue of $100 a day, cap it $10,000 each property that's $20,000, then maybe under the tree violation would be around $200,000. $100,000. So, and I believe our ordinance does at least allow for the order to it reflect that you have to mitigate the tree a set of the fine. Okay. Then given that and then I do have a follow up. And one other thing and if Channing wants to come up here and help me with this, if you want to order certain trees to be put back on the lots, we could probably do a few obviously 400 and some can't be put back on one lot. But maybe the ones that were taken off, I think it's like 20 for one lot or 20 for another lot. That being ordered to be replaced back on the lot that would be potential, which would then to re-design their plans at that point in time. Okay, but if you want to help with that, you might be able to explain. that would be potential which would then force them to redesign their plans at that point in time. But if you want to help with that, you might be able to explain that all in the back of the night. And real quick, I just wanted to submit just a quick couple of images while chaining's getting ready to come up here. The free and post-perfect. Perfect. Yeah, no, this is great. I can give it a go if you think on the order or if you want to give me a. She's pretty good. So it looks like let me know if you agree. It looks like lot 120 trees were removed, lot 2, 18 trees were removed. I would like to suggest that each lot replant at least 20 each. So a little more than what was there previously because they're going to be minimum. If not more, I would like a full extent, but that's okay. So we can revise this to state. We will, I'll do it again for each one. CCSM, 0162025. This is 5395 Souththemist. We have found the property and noncompliance with LDR604-051. We have ordered the property to come into compliance with the Land Development Code. We are going to require a minimum planting of 20 trees to be relocated in addition to the full mitigation provided that if the trees trees are not planted beyond that number they will pay the tree evaluation for the replacement so for for single-family properties we can't assign Number of value. Yeah, correct. So it has to be trees so one for for one cross sectional area. So, and I think designating a minimum caliper size of the tree replaced on a lot because then we can calculate the difference to be donated afterwards. So if we say 22 and a half inch trees minimum, then I can go ahead and say if there's 22 cross 20 2.5 inch cross section or sorry caliper trees on each lot then I can recalculate that difference in mitigation for donation to the city. Does that make sense? Does that make sense? It does. I would like to ask based on your professional opinion, because they're not going to be mature trees, I think it would make sense to plant more than what was removed. Do you have an idea of based on the feasibility and survivability of these trees, if we were to double that, Could they fit 40, 2 1 1 half in trailer for it? In my opinion, no. Just because I know the situation that is happening around the city where they're trying to maximize the total structure size. And we don't want to plant trees just for them to forsake of planting. We want them to survive and thrive. I would say about 80% of these were healthy sand live oaks. I would recommend that they either be sand live oaks or live oaks species wise. And that also limits it. So if we want to have a variation of species that can be determined by, you know, the planning department or myself, that's fine. And at that point I think we could assess the survivability of each species is, you know, right-plant, right-place mentality. And I know 2.5 inches is is kind of a minimum caliper. Would it be helpful if it was upsized to four inches instead? So they're a little more mature. I know they're more expensive. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. You know, that would work fine. I'm just thinking if it's a little more mature, there's less time for growing in for impact to the right. Two and a half inches too. I wouldn't plan anything over six inches in the caliber. Okay. Okay. Okay. More then. I'm going to drag it. We'll get there. This is a unique case. Based on that, I'm just going to phrase a less of a formal order and say what I think we're doing. Make sure that we're right. And then we can write it from that. Yes. So each property will plant a minimum of 20. I'm going to say four inch caliber, minimum four inch, not two, six inch caliber trees within the site. And they will fully mitigate any other replacement costs for the land development code. And the variation on species should lean towards what was removed, but we will defer to planning staff for biodiversity. Yes. Okay. We will figure out how to write that up and I will make the exact same finding for CCSM 0715-4393. I know that The only other thing the question I have during building permit review will the grading be reviewed for a potential violation? I'm hearing that as a concern. I don't know. I would imagine that they would probably look at anything but if they have any questions I would suggest calling the building department on it. Perfect. So then for the neighbors it seems like you're active out there keep an eye out if you see anything if you have questions on the grading or impacts that you think may be a violation get in contact with the building department and they can go out and inspect. Okay. Thank you. That brings us to item 5c, which is 400 North Riverside, was withdrawn. So the last item of the day is CCSM0071225 at 206 Flagler Avenue. the to the rear of the building done without permits on 211-2025 and inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of section 26-171 permits. On 211-2025 and inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of section 26-171 permits. On 213-2025, a notice of violation was posted on the property with the initial compliance date of 314-2025. The copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on 222-2025 at 316-PM. As of 32424, 2025, no permits have been applied for. A follow-up inspection showed that the property is still in the same state as the data that complaint. It is my recommendation to the special magistrate to find 206 Flagler Property LLC and or entity in violation of section 26-171 permit and given until 525 5, 20, 25 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's my recommendation to oppose the fine $100 a day till the property is brought into full compliance fine, not to exceed 20,000. I just real quick on this. I've been speaking with the property owner. We've had communication. They are, it was, it needed to be found in non-compliance first in order to kind of get it longer extension date or continuation. And so they are also, they've done the work. Now they're trying to get engineer drawings to go through all that. It's taking them a little bit longer than they were hoping for. So I'm just trying to get them a date that kind of gives them a little more time to get kicked out to. But they have been actively in contact with me. And just a question on the work that's performed. So it's all complete on the site. There's no further work going on. Yes. So this photo that is currently up right now, that's actually that fencing is not their fencing. It was brought to my attention. It is the establishment next to it, which I will be addressing. But any of the wooden shutters, some of the decking, nothing in that photo, if we can go back again. Some of the decking, some of the shutters, there's stairs along the other side that what has been replaced. And just some of that stuff is borderline, I mean the stairs are structural, but some of the other stuff is almost kind of decorative, kind of, so they're trying to find a way to see if they can get all that stuff engineered, have drawing something get permitted and then allow to keep what they've put on. I think that date of May will give them, hopefully will give them ample time to be able to find somebody. Yeah, and that was my second question. That doesn't seem structural yet, but I wanted to make sure there was no intention of, this is a frame and they're gonna close it in. It's just they're putting this deck in. Some of the like the ramp on, if we can go back to one of the other photos, the ramp that's kind of going up into it, there's some like some of the hand rail has been replaced. On the side closest to the fence, there are set of stairs that kind of go up into it. I didn't see that initially I just saw all the new wood it was until I went back to meet with the property owners and I saw it unfortunately I didn't get photos of it at that time but you could clearly tell that wood and railings and steps and all that have been replaced yeah. Well, that answered my questions. Is there anyone on the audience who was just speaking to this? No, I don't see anyone perfect. With that based on the testimony and the evidence and the record, we will find for case number CCSMO 07-1 2025 for property located at 206 Flagler Avenue that they are currently not and compliance on with section 26171A permits required. We will order them to come into compliance by May 5th, 2025, and notify the code inspector and request a re-inspection. If we find the violation was not corrected by the date except for the above, a fine of $100 a day may be imposed not to exceed a maximum fine of $20,000. In this case, we'll return to the special mandatory on May 24, 2025 at 2pm. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we are at the end of our case list agenda with no repeat business, no lean reviews, any items from staff. Nothing for the attorney. All right, and nothing from us, so then we will adjourn at 253. Thank you, everyone.