all right good morning everyone I'm going to call uh to order the code enforcement magistrate hearing for February 21st 2024 folks need quiet so that we can continue with the hearing thank you very much so this is the code enforcement magistrate hearing from Martin County for uh February 21st 2024 at 9:00 a.m. if you'll please rise join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right please be seated I'm going to try and call these cases in the order of uh folks that arrived here and have U have business before the hearing so the first case is going to be um actually it's down about number four on the docket it's case number enf 2023 11163 the responded is capital c Inc and it's a violation case and officer counselor is going to testify you are too as well sir all right all right if you'll uh both raise your right hands do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give it will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you go I do I do all right I'm sorry I to got one more witness that was a little all right and uh oh Miss Bradley and Sir who are you I am the owner of capital c of capital c okay name is Cory Crowley all right if you'll just both raise your right hands thank you you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you got I swear all right and U you said Ford Mr Ford Mr Crowley Crowley crowy c wle y c r o wle y okay Mr Crowley um this is a violation hearing we're going to hear from the county first they're going to present their evidence uh assuming that they make what the law calls a primacia case meaning if everything they say is is accurate correct uh I can find you then responsible for the violation the burden then flips to you and then you'll be able to present evidence you'll be able to question the officers if need be and um and we'll just continue and see see where we are at the conclusion you can you can remain there and look at the monitor in front of you or you can sit down and listen to their case I'm fine okay all right very good all right so we're going to hear from the county officer counselor are you going to testify yes my name is Chris councelor I've been sworn in I'm a co-compliance investigative for Martin County the respondent capital c Inc and a representative is present the case concerns the property at 4878 Southeast Commerce Avenue located within Stewart Florida located within Martin County this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of the Martin County the property owner is capital c Inc which is county exhibit one on January 2nd 2024 I responded to a complaint of camping on a vacant lot I inspected the property at the time I observed camping and multiple recreation vehicles parked on the property which is an undeveloped vacant lot at the time I photographed the property the photographs actually show what I saw then it's marked this County exhibits 23 45 6 and 7 with a screenshot of Internet ads that were sent with the complaint as exhibits 8 and n two five this is just showing out ofate tags and I'm sorry how many RV it's time I there's three possibly four yeah four all right six seven eight was one of the um this is one of the ads that was sent with the complaint and exhibit nine another ad going based upon the investigation a notice of violation to Capital C Inc on January 3rd 2024 Markus County zit 10 noce I CED the following Martin County code violation section 3.11 permitted uses and section 3.21 c.2 processor uses for the use of RVs for overnight staying or living purposes and the notice of violation of respondent was given until January 8 2023 to correct the violation was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so due to the nature of the violation I notice of hearing was also issued by certified mail on January 3rd 2024 and is marked as count exhibit 11 do 10 is my initial noov signature 11 there's a hearing CES at the time I signature on January 12 2024 code enforcement had a meeting with County Legal staff the CRA representatives and growth management to review the details of this case and what codes were appropriate based on the location and nature of the violations based on the me upon the meeting an an amended notice of violation was sent also I'm Sor excuse me an amended notice of violation and notice of hearing were sent to Capital C Inc on January 25th 2024 marked as County exhibits 12 this is the amended noov where we updated the codes to include section 101. c.1 development order required section 12. 63.2 pointb permitted uses within the port cero Redevelopment zoning district and section 12.1.0 47h development standards for uh the RV usage as Living Spaces on the property and the notice of violation and respondent was given until February 16 2024 to correct the violation of informed they need to contact Martin County C enforcement upon doing so the amended noov the updated codes my signature 13 is the amended notice of hearing upd codes and my signature for today's hearing of February 21st return receipt was not received so on February 9th 2024 I posted the property a photo of the posting the f David posted are Mark discount exhibits 14 and 15 my posting 15 is my affidavit posting there has emails correspondence with the owner where the code the code the violations were discussed and what would needed to be done to correct the violations uh I and County staff have inspected property multiple times in February to show that some RVs have camped at the property for numerous nights those photos are marked as County exhibits 16 through 27 this goes back to uh February 9th I want pay attention to this RV right here on the corner this is the one basically it's been there multiple nights so in case it's argued that it's just for overnight staying tiit 7 February 9th again February 9th that's exhibit 18 exhibit 19 this is the rvn question that's been there multiple nights this is um this is on February 16th still there 20 exhibit 22 is February 16th 23 is um February 19th 25 there's the rvan question that was there since the 9th 26 27 the 19th and okay with no compliance on the property I went to the property again on February 20th 2020 saw that the property was still in violation as it was being used as a campground at the time I figured out the property the figs ACC show what I saw then and marked as my final exhibits exhibits 28 29 30 31 32 and 33 so starting with exhibit 29 these are all taken as of yesterday harveyan question from the ninth is still there on the corner Long View of the property 32 and 33 uh request that all counties exhibits be received in evidence based upon Testament your honor if I if I might at this point there's a couple of the witnesses we want to hear from before we wrap up the case Okay um I'm assuming that you're still asking that the exhibits be entered into evidence yes all right so um okay I first do you have any objection to the any of the exhibits that have been and I haven't seen any of limits ever oh they were not on your screen no I mean that's the first time I'm seeing them but I've never been shown any evidence all I was sent was the notifications typically when I get a code violation I get pages of photos and so forth of the evidence that I'm able to then correct okay but you had an opportunity to here now but I've never been able to see the evidence to be able to correct that is the evidence I know but I'm telling until this meeting I have never seen these fot me either right but I can't correct something I don't understand well if my grassp was overgrown and you show me grassp pictures then I would understand that and don't argue with me that's not going to work let me just set tell you that what you've been shown shows the alleged violation except there's two cases not one and I'm not quite certain which one we're talking about we're talking about the one that involves the particular piece of property that been shown two identical pieces of property side by side so which are these photos for I'm not I'm not certain can I clarify Aran yes yeah this this uh case consists one contiguous piece of land however it has it's divided in half for tax purposes it has two PCN numbers the violations of the evidence all are common to both pieces of property with one one exception one exhibit that'll be on the uh the southernmost piece but these these exhibits that we just saw apply to both pieces but because of the way the ordinance is written because there's two tax Lots involved we have to bring two separate cases I I I propose that the the second lot the case number case number 0159 there is no parking on that lot all the parking is on the Northern end so I would like this case removed or provide evidence that there's parking on that lot well well we haven't heard that case yet let's well I mean my point is they're hand they're saying both cases at the same time which which I can't understand because I'm being accused of development orders and they have to provide proof of development which happens on a specific property I have two separate properties we aren't there yet okay we just aren't there yet your honor if you look at County the back to County exhibit 9 UM based off that diagram basically what we're talking about for this first case would be exhibits see the lot where it says 13 14 15 and 16 where it does say parking anywhere here with the erors indicated within the ad that's the that's the first that's the casee we're talking about right now is that lot that goes the section 13 14 15 and 16 is what this appr and then what is the the next case that I haven't heard yet the next case will be for the last 9 10 11 and 12 well 90% of the photos in this that he just presented are not on this case so we have a problem in terms of evidence I dispute the fact that that all of the photos he said are for the case we're talking about it's not the same piece of property okay hang on let's go back okay we can go by one by one and I can show you that picture there has a one RV on one piece of property and one RV I don't know what that picture there is when is that's on the screen okay that's number 24 that's exhibit two I'm going back to exhibit two exhibit two yeah so we need to look at these photos in terms if we're talking I believe we can only talk about one case at a time and I've never that fair we were talking about the first kids which is number 9 it's uh 163 okay great we'll talk about that case so let's look at the evidence with regards to 163 and remove almost all of these photos they do not they do not apply okay can you identify uh the looking at exhibit I'm looking at exhibit three is it pops up as exhibit well maybe my numbers are different than your numbers you look at that photo that that proper that that is not the property that I'm being that we're discussing today neither is the lot that he mentioned the RV that he singled out for uh complaining that it was there for multiple nights is certainly not on that lot it's on the corner of the other lot the way they're arguing this case makes it impossible for me to comply I I don't even understand what I'm doing because the evidence is muddled yeah it's not exactly how I'm viewing it but um let let me just tell you that we do need to be clear as to which vehicles are parked on which parcel for identification purposes okay so I'm looking at what you've got marked as exhibit two hang on just a second do you know which parcel that is I'm going to pull up the property appraiser for you Mr M or Mr no the answer is no she has to pull up the property appraiser I can tell you if you'd like to answer um no I'm I'm not ready to hear from you and as a matter of fact I we're still working with the County's case um I I hear your objection but I'm not even ready to rule on it at this point so okay so this will show you a better understanding of the lots that are tied to this first case you can use the church as a reference in the photos you can see the lot goes to the edge of the church and that that this gives you a general reference of where we are when you look at the voots which is lot number five behind the church maybe two or three photos in that whole set of photos that's evidence with regards to the case they're talking about all right and I'm addressing the county now what I'll go through each pH basically exhibit two yes that the church in the background chur in the back yeah so basically based off his stating the church as the Divide line all three of those RVs two on the left AR but yeah three this would apply to the next case not this what he's saying is not this case this is just a far view basically not this case right but there's it still shows the three down at the far end of the property on the other case who knows who knows who knows me just one piece of that doesn't relate shouldn't be enough to say we have to go back to the drawing board and get this things stra no that's that's really not true I may throw out some of these exhibits just because they don't line up with their case but but that's not actually true if if in fact one piece of evidence shows that you're in violation of the code then I can find you in violation yeah but I have three separate violations typically there's just one violation I have three so we need to go back I don't I think the right proper course of action is to send us back and have us negotiate something I'm interested in in applying my I just can't the proper course is for me to hear the evidence and then hear you okay that's my okay and you're you're you're trying to jump in where you don't belong at the moment all right so we're at exhibit 16 yes basically uh in the front of the picture I would say these four RVs are probably located in the northern property which but the exhibits to the far distance would be applied to this case 17 this would apply to the uh other property other property 19 this one clearly is on the property in question for this case 20 it's just same day picture but that one in the background 21 again the one in the background same date so 22 23 uh this one would be on the border between the two properties basically using the church as the reference 24 churches reference I would say at least this one would be on the line but then you have this one and this one with both apply to this case this was taken the 19th uh then we'll jump I'll go to the 20th we have a a line of RVs 29 these would apply to the next case to the northern property these ones here on the front would apply to this case that's are actually on the other property but one using the churches a reference I would say that one applies to this case 32 and then exhibit 33 these would probably apply to the next case all right so tell me we may have to go just photo by photo but tell me which of these exhibits do not apply to this case so 33 your honor I I I made a list if you wish we would stipulate to the exclusion of three 4 5 6 7 16 17 18 29 and 32 let's go one by one let's start at number three three okay do we agree that that's not um on this particular property yes number three okay next four which one four we would exclude four well four shows the ones at the far into the property down here I stand corrected that one pertains to both attains to the case in question okay five five we would exclude okay six six we would exclude okay seven seven we would exclude eight Eight's the ad okay Nine's the ad advertising the parking all right photos down further 16 I should one in the background here all right 16 the background photos are on this property good 17 17 would exclude right there by the church 18 I would exclude 18 exclude okay 19 from the this is would be taken tell me about 19 the 16 this would apply because there's okay 20 20 would basically a far way shop showing that same camper that was in exhibit 19 okay 21 still shows same camper in the distance exhibit 22 similar to exhibit 21 23 actually that's the church this would be from the 19th in the church's reference I would say that one applies 24 I would say these three apply based off the positioning to the church 24 applies 25 wouldn't exclude okay 26 I would exclude for the exclude from this case 27 so full shot of the two properties together I would say count because it basically shows these ones at the far end just from a different angle 28 on the same RVs this is the 20th it's my first dat 29 I would exclude 30 say this these ones apply because these two in reference to the church same vehicle different angle there's the church I would say it applies 32 there's the church there's the two campers exibit 3 I would say this one could be excluded all right um Mr Crowley come on back up the um the county has now stated that they are willing to exclude 35 6 7 17 18 25 26 29 and 33 are you in agreement with that there's additional ones that do not show my property and I'll will use that as a basis of appeal that the evidence is muddled and I can't understand it they would we would go back and clean it up and I can have a clean case and I can I don't think there's a legal basis called muddle but this improper evidence they are presenting evidence on something that is not my property if one single if one single photo has nothing on my property that you include in this case I'll use that as a basis for appeal at the Circuit Court okay I recommend that they we just go clean it up and come back next month I'm willing to um what's the County's position no not at this point we order so County wants to go forward it's their case and um any other evidence you wish to exclude no y all right so um do you have specific exhibit number that you want excluded more than these I'd like to exclude all of them yeah because because even some of the ones that are that uh well I'm not going to listen this is a parcel numbers you need surveys we need you know to understand what's going on that's all I'm saying I'm not certain what the C what what the rush is with the county let's get some surveys and we can take some pictures I'll go out there myself and I'll and I'll point to the cars and I'll make certain it's all clean I'm not I'm not trying you can't hide parking RVs on a piece of property but as as of right now uh you know this is getting this is is only going to get Messier as we go forward I have a long list of reasons why it just makes sense to go back to the table which I've been trying to talk to John um my last communication with him is we're not going to agree let's go to the magistrate and he wanted you guys to come here and negotiate it but I've reached out I'm trying to understand the code I'm doing this because I believe I'm within my rights which is why I plan on taking this to Circular Court okay you'll see that more as we go forward but as you can see already the basis for this whole thing is is your understanding is that you have the right to use use your property as an RV park no I don't have a right to use my property as an RV park I'm not using my property as an RV park the definition of RV park precludes that I charge which I do not charge people are parking on my lot which I'm legally allowed to by section article 12 table PS5 permitted uses says I'm able to have a parking lot you I object to this that we haven't finished presenting our case in Chief yet that's that's really we are get in the cart before the horse so let's let's um any more questions for me now you want um I I I do you said you objected to all the evidence I object everything okay I'm hearing in objection the whole I feel like I'm being harassed okay so over your objection I am going to exclude items 3 5 6 7 17 18 25 26 29 and 33 but I am going to allow the remainder of the evidence into evidence so so we We'll add those to the next case I guess I mean how are we going to do that we are I it's up to the county to bring it evidence um okay all right so you have another witness well after the after the evidence I want to have a couple more questions for officer counsel and then so You' you've got everything into evidence other than the ones that I just recited exactly okay so officer counselor uh directing if you could direct us to uh exhibit 9 and what does that show this is basically showing that ad that is listed um advertising the park and who placed that at downtown Sno parking authority I'm sorry who uh one acre hosted by jamesc I accept that that's my advertisement okay all right so um directing your attention to um the map where we have 13 14 15 and 16 on the upper on fif Lots 15 and 16 um what is in what is written on the map there on the advertisement it says parking anywhere here no in in a little small small Corner uper left hand corner fire pit or Sandy Beach and the pitches to the right are they pictures of that fire um the questions are for the go the council yes the pictures are showing the fire p and the and the P pick includes uh pilings that have been driven into the ground correct sir and sand that has been placed on the property yes sir oh oh sorry they not picking me all right let me start um the the photographs to the right show pilings that have been uh placed into the ground yes sir sand that has been placed on the ground correct and a stone fire structure that's been placed on this lot also correct all right no further questions for you at that time at this time I'd like to call Mr Paul Schilling good morning Mr Schilling good morning you've been sworn in yes your honor I'm Mr Shilling are you employed by Martin County yes and what is your position growth management director and is the director you you're the highest ranking official in the growth Management Department yes and is is growth management responsible for the issuance of development orders yes and can you tell the court what the the um definition of development of land is so a a development means and I can read the definitions of section 10.2 pointb point2 so development means the carrying out of any building activity mining operation the making of any material change in the Redevelopment or modification of an existing use or appearance of a structure or land which creates additional impacts or the dividing of land into three or more Parcels so forth and so on so in essence any change to vacant land requires a development order so um generally those are accomplished either by way of the development review process which issues a development order but depending if it's a minor or major development which are approved by the board of County Commissioners and as well as building permits we which we participate in that review as well with the building department so changes to land whether it be clearing uh filling um constructing either vertical or horizontal require either building permits or development orders the operation of a parking lot require a developing order yes um and are you familiar with the piece of land that's the subject of today's hearing yes is there any development order in place for that land no no further questions for this one okay do you have any questions Sir Mr Schilling well there is no development order for a parking lot if there was then thousands of vacant commercial properties across Martin County would be in violation and if I'm in found in violation I'll go and start doing those codes I can name uh the Twisted tuna parking lot is got millings over objection your honor there's no development order any other property other than one with well I'm just saying that there's my I challenged and Paul and I know each other and I'm willing to have this conversation but there's no building permit for parking so I go according to table section 12 table PS5 my property is in the pelona Redevelopment area and I am legally allowed to have a park lot is that correct the permitted uses do I believe indicate that a parking lot is a permitted use however um a development order is it is not exempt from a requirement for a development order I say that it is because there's no building permit I've been to the building department and there is no specific building permit for a parking I'm I'm in a circle like you know I could go there and they say they need to go get a building permit but I can't go to the building department and get a building permit because the one doesn't exist parking lots are typically created as an accessory use and so they're part of an overall development order there is and has never been a development order issued for a parking lot in Martin County except for in Small cases where a developer wants to do like a little small sales office or something like that that's the only time that's ever been done never been done so I'm the first person that's being cited for having a parking lot without a development order let me just ask one question Mr Schilling if a development order were to be issued in this case who would be the issuing authority would it be you or would it be the County Commission uh more than likely it would be myself as the growth management director as a designate for the County Administrator okay but you've never had an application for a development order for this particular parking lot no sir okay have you had an application for any parking lot there are a couple um instances in which and I can't name them which may have been Standalone parking lots facil uh facilities that were done as part of ecosystems and and uh Trail heads uh those in fact also had development orders because they had other improvements whether they be drainage because we're not I can get into all the particulars of all this but um the requirements of a parking lot is not just pave it and you're done ped it there are technical requirements and a process to go through in order to develop a parking lot I'm not developing a parking lot I'm using it wait a minute okay say it's like that's the point that's the issue here let Mr Schilling speak and and the majority of cases the parking lot is ancillary and accessory to the primary which is a medical office or a office building or for for all intensive use yes any primary use yes sir so so you wind up with um in this particular case the use of a parcel or perhaps two Parcels that um where the primary use as intended by Mr Crowley appears to be a parking area for RVs no a parking lot a parking lot I'm I'm only allowed to have a parking lot I'm not allow allowed to have an RV park so I have a parking lot that's been my argument from the beginning and all of the evidence is this is a development order so when he was when the attorney was talking about the sand and things like that possibly who's asking you know are those part of the development there's no evidence in their case presented towards those things so that was a little bit unfair on his part what they have presented evidence for is use and they're using the development code to say that I've developed something I haven't done anything to the lot it's a sand lot with grass I haven't paved it put millings down I've done nothing to the lot so there could be no development I haven't done anything and if there was development as the attorney may have suggested that maybe sand is somehow development or putting a pilot in the ground or having some removable bricks is some type of development then I would like to have those pictures and have that conversation with the code enforcement officer so I Mr Shilling do you have anything more you want to tell me I I'm available I I'd like to ask that question because he muddled it again have the county ever issued a development order for a parking lot just a parking lot I I say for certain just say no I I would imagine we have no but I can't say yes or no then the answer is no no that's that's not correct either I know but I can't I it is a no because they haven't because I've done my research since why I'm here we can have this meeting next month if you want to answer this question you'll get to argue your case okay if you have any questions for Mr Schilling now would be the time to ask like I'd like to know because that's better than I don't know he answered the question presumably to the best of his ability and he's not certain okay well the county hasn't I'll enter the record that'll be a basis of my appeal I'll be the first person in the history of Maron County to be cited for not having a development order on an empty piece of land actually Mr Schilling's uncertainty concerning the parking lot you're going to site me me and use your power to hurt me on his uncertainty I mean you know let's have this conversation and come back next month it is not my intent toed hurt you speaking to you please be quiet Mr all right let me let me ask you one question looking at exhibit 8 exhibit 8 look at exhibit 8 where it says RV camping at 5039 attractions that invite our viers to stay overnight yes it's called Harvest host okay is that the property we're talking about that's my understanding yes okay and does it encourage RV camping it would appear to yes I I accept that I accept that I have a website on harvest host that allows people to P to park their cars and to stay overnight for free I accept that but that's not what this violation the first violation is about the first violation is development order not a use order like like we're having a conversation about doing something this is where it gets complicated I don't have a structure I couldn't even comply with the development order because it's a use order like you know what I mean like I didn't do anything if if a development order would remove the structure take the sand away get rid of the pons I'll do that right now and I'll be in compliance and they're arguing that I'm using the property therefore if I had just had cars parked here I wouldn't be here so why is having you know Vans parked here the the the code says I am allowed in section 12 Storage storage or parking of recreational vehicles including but not limited to Boat Trailers camping trailers these are all allowed providing that nobody Sleeps in them these are allowed uses in in my district if I just parked those Vehicles we wouldn't be here we're here because of sleeping in them understand they have no evidence in this case because you removed all those photos understand the development orders do allow uses in some uses don't imply I need a development order there's uh there's vegetable stands across the county if I have an agricultural piece of land and I want to put a vegetable stand I just do it I don't need a development order I get a BTR business tax receipt if I could go down to the growth management right now and say for example I own the property next door and I went down and it used to be a house and typically you would need a development order but in the CRA you don't you just go get a BTR and you're allowed to use the property the fire department came and put the lights up and I have my now I didn't have I don't have a development order neither does my neighbor who has a veterinarian's office so to change the use you don't need a development order because I'm in a CRA so I can't get one because I go to the office there's no BTR for me to use my Mt lot so if I could get a BTR and have a business we wouldn't be here in the first place but because the county doesn't have anything regarding running a parking lot I can't be legal okay and you understand that a BTR business tax receipt is not a license it's not a permission to use the property for anything it is for the beekeeper it is for the for the vegetable stand it is that's what they use these for there's tons of lots all over the county the country club uh doesn't the country club vegg does not have a a license Edis on cenro doesn't have a license it's a tax I know but my point is those don't have development orders and those properties are being utilized as a use those properties do not have development orders it's not relevant to this case everything I'm saying is relevant to this case well I'm sure you see it that way and I'm sure you want to do what you want to do I want to just understand what I'm in violation for what can I do to the property to become a violation they want me to change the use but they haven't asked me to do anything to the property these are development violations so what can I do to the property to be in violation What can I do I haven't made a par if I put down millings for example and made a parking lot then they could say take the parking lot a lot way I could do something but I can't go home right now and do anything to my property I can't look at my property and make any change changes if they want to site me for use they're welcome to but they didn't the first two violations are development which there is none well let me ask you this why couldn't you just have all of the vehicles removed and then no longer be in violation well if that's I was trying to work with John to show me the code but as you can see I think that they've and this isn't the first time they've done it they had this is the amended case the first time we hear that I got a not notice it was section 3.11 my point is this is something rare you know and I'm used to doing things that are in this this scope of rareness if there was one thing for example it's very it's illegal to to a park uh RV as an accessory use I would be in violation it's illegal to charge I would be in violation it's illegal to there's a lot long list of things that I would agree with the county that I if if I had a public piece of property I couldn't Park the RV on the street I would would be in violation there's a long list of things that I would agree that I would be in violation they would have one specific code and they would say this is what it is but because they don't have one specific thing they've created three different things and if I was just parking cars on there instead of RVs I wouldn't be here okay that's why that there has been no other cases in the county opened on parking lots because I wouldn't be here the reason is that I'm here is because there's RVs which I'm allowed to have parking but the reason I'm here is because they're staying overnight but that's not a development issue I'm allowed to park them so what am I going to do go home and say everybody nobody Park on my lot ever again because I lost this case no the the question is can they Park overnight we haven't even gotten to that question in the code yet but I can certainly Park cars there and I can certainly Park RVs there and I can certainly Park I can store boats there I can do everything that allowed because that's allowed okay and I'm not certain of the the issue of being able to park Vehicles there it's a commercial parking lot it's permitted use PS table PS5 in the article 12 says it's a par using parking lots as a permitted use but it's not developed as a parking it doesn't have to be developed as a parking lot to park a car there I can I it's not an airport I just park a car there like everybody else does that's my point before the attorney interrupted Twisted tuna the fisherman the church everybody uses empty lots say parking lot all over the county are we going to have a thousand cases here because I'm going to go talk to every person who doesn't have a development order that Parks cars I have pictures of the church that's in a residential area they're not permitted to have a parking lot I don't want to open a case on them but if my neighbor says I have long grass then I'm going to tell you that he has long grass too and we're going to be in a twist twist of Fu all right let me hear from the county if if and you've probably had an opportunity to look at the code sections of these um violation well your honor like once again I haven't yet finished presenting my case in Chief and we're arguing points of you have more oh yes okay that's why we need to go back this is going to take all day I like all day I I like all day too but I mean there's things here we could do if John would just talk to me which he hasn't he hasn't reached out to me this the original violation on January 3rd I had a hearing date of January 17th let the county finish their case okay let's let the county finish their case okay at this time I'd like to call Rachel's Bradley M Bradley you've been sworn in yes sir and you're an employee of M County yes sir but um are you familiar with harv host yes I do how are you familiar with it I have the app and I've used it so so you're a a a member of Harvard host yes sir and what is Harvest host so we have to pay a membership fee for a year it allows you to if they are registered on there that you can use their sites to camp on um they are one night stays that they do advertise on them um what they do is it's no charge they do ask that you Pur purchase like there's ones that are wineries so they ask that you purchase their wine as you know and part of the deal with being allowed to stay there and that's kind of what that's set up as okay so for a member of Harvard host to stay on any property they have to pay a fee yes to harvest host so I pay I pay a membership fee yearly to harvest host to be part of it and is there anything in the Harvest host membership that uh encourages members to utilize the businesses providing this or spend any money there um by the ads they put on their ads like the one that we stayed at like I said was a winery so they put on there that they do their own wine making and stuff like that so it's kind of inferred that they want you to you're encouraged yes to purchase their products as an incentive for staying on their property no for the questions any questions from M Bradley have you ever had to pay a host or is that encouraged or is there any fee for the hosts no other than the purchase exactly so what it means is that's free and that's important because the definition of an RV parking lot requires that I collect a daily or rental basis fee which I do not so I mean I've been on the other side of this where I've had to have in order to have a food truck I need to have you know an operating business which is only in the definition it's not in the actual code when you go read what a what a a food truck is but the definition enforces me to do things that are not in the code you know what I mean like it says a food truck is a business that operates on another business so the same thing is true in this case if I in order to be an RV park if you look at the definition of RV park and Mr Schilling can could confer that now um that I'm correct it says I must charge a daily or rental basis which I do not this is a core to the argument because they're saying I have created some type of RV park and I'm saying I have not I have a parking lot and I accept that people stay overnight but it is not according to the code and RV park and therefore I'm not in violation of that ask Mr Schilling if if in fact what Mr Crowley says is correct and he does not charge is it permissible under the county code in your opinion to allow vehicles to park on their property no under what there are well and why is that number one there is a development order requirement on that property to construct a parking lot which I haven't done number two the permitted uses do not permit a recreational vehicle park nor a campground on that property nor does the land use in fact recreational vehicle parks are permitted only in a several districts which are commercial zoning districts I can name them Limited commercial Community commercial General commercial Waterfront General commercial and Waterfront Resort commercial and PR which is public recreational the county has a facility out on Locks Road um there are some non-conformities which were established decades ago that may still be in operation but the fact of the matter is a recreational vehicle park and any uh Campground cannot be cited on this property okay this is a little bit like Uber or um I don't know what's another thing you know these things were this I'm doing something that's new Harvest host is a new technology uh I'm bringing people my point is my point in general is I understand why we're here but but Uber was here and you know all these other companies were here at the same time and they and they suffered through it this is an issue for the County Commission to talk about in terms of making the code better not to cite me what let me just caution you again okay this is not a conversation and although you've tried many times to make it that we're still hearing from the county I'm asking questions Mr Tu is asking questions and you are able to ask questions at the right time okay but you're not presenting your case yet you're going to get to do that if you want although you've blurted it out mostly let me ask either Mr Schilling or actually anybody at at the county um if if Mr Crowley does not charge and if Mr Crowley allows vehicles in this case we've seen RVs um Park on his property um is there any evidence that these vehicles have parked overnight my understanding is yes several not on this case because we eliminated all those photos you not the the the photos in the uh that are in evidence show numerous Vehicles day after day after day over more than one day I dispute that and if and also if I could if that answers your question I have another point I want I don't know that it does because I what I'm I guess asking is are they in the same place have they moved have they has anybody observed them um parking overnight have you um you know just CU just because you see a vehicle parked in a particular parking space on two different occas occs doesn't necessarily mean that it was parked there overnight that's exactly correct like your I can I can follow up on that if you wish would with officer counsel and clarify that point please officer the the RVs that you have observed on the property um were any were any of these in a i way to explain have any kind of stabilizing or uh disc disconnected from trailers right they showing showing some SE semblance of permanency yes okay and um how often did you uh inspect the property over time every day every other day every on average at least every other day and uh and when you inspected these on every other day was there any time that you noticed uh vehicles that were in a semi-permanent position on one day that was still there on your subsequent expection yes and did that happen more than once yes and on one specific occasion when the case first started back in January um one of the people who actually went up to the RV and asked them how long they' been staying they they stated they had been there a week yes and and and and these um vehicles that you stated that you'd seen uh parked for more than one day were any of those Vehicles parked on the particular piece of property we're talking about on in for this case the southern piece yes I think that clarifies your point your honor um I what do you mean when you see semi permanent what what does that mean basically there's been um based off the different recre recreational vehicles I've seen at the property some have been the motor homes which is the one unit other units that have been at the property have been ones that are towed in and they've been completely disconnected from the towing vehicle anchored and established you know where they put out the the Footers to stabilize the camper a separate from the towing vehicle so it's like a trailer camper yeah like a pool behind or fifth wheel if I had a this is May I make a comment no hang on can you show me what you're talking okay that's exhibit 18 yes um B I'm just using this as an example is not in evidence okay I'm just showing this is what I'm referring to as one of the pool behinds not an Evidence so please don't refer to it that's is that I's looking for that I can make a comment no this is the type I'm referring to as you can see there's no tow vehicle they here they've parked this here that is in evidence not attached okay basically you can see yeah all right so your contention is that that vehicle was parked overnight because it's not attached to anything cor I'm allowed to store things and you're um your visits to this location were close enough in time that you would see or did you see this vehicle over and over yes that photo is not in evidence because that's on the well it shouldn't be because the the line of the church is number 2 yeah the corner Line This angle this photo is at an angle that that that piece of uh it's already been an in evidence it'll be the basis to the appeal then that we're having this conversation about a piece of evidence that's not on the property all right I'll note your objection it's um the list is growing yeah you might want to write that down it's exhibit 23 okay but even if it was it doesn't prove that they're living there I'm allowed according to 12.10.7 to have storage units don't argue your case okay you you'll get plenty opportunity to do that I'm just saying their proof their evidence doesn't prove that anybody's living there all right so any other Witnesses any let me let me ask another follow-up question well councel any time um observing the the vehicles that were parked on this Souther lot Did You observe any indication of people being present such as uh chairs being out barbecues um people sitting outside yes I've seen people walking dogs from the campers and they have they'd have portable portable furniture set up around where the where the campgrounds were yes just like someone's backyard um okay and I wanted to address also the the issue of the ordinance as far as uh rental um respondent has stated that this requires him to correct Collective fee um actually the definition of a recreational vehicle park and land that ldr section 3.3 is the commercial use of land to provide spaces for two or more off fees or a daily fee or a short-term rental I don't there there is nothing in the statute or the ordinance to require the fee to be collected by the property owner it just requires that a fee be paid this is the the respond in place to solicited people on website from an uh organization that requires a fee to be paid to use the land they are paying a fee for a short-term rental even though they are not paying it to therefore it is a recreational vehicle that's a stretch and this case is getting ridiculous well let's go back to the table and have this case next month will you agree that we can have this conversation over over a conference table instead of wasting everybody's good time I I'm more than happy to come back but that argument is crazy that argument that that this membership which charges whatever I have no control of I have not collected or do not charge a daily fee and therefore according to the they're trying to add they're trying to change the name daily fee in order to make me culpable like come on I'm the citizen here you're here to protect me anything else you want to present no we okay all right so should I finish prob well I can finish my let me just finish my I'm sorry I got confused yes okay based upon the testimony evidence I request that responded Capital C Inc be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by February 28 2024 if not compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 $100 per per violation per day for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has incuded the cost in the amount of $575 conducting the investigation request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing okay good all right so now we've heard the County's case got anything you want to tell me well let me let me tell you what happens if if um on this development order if if I lose the the consequences are I can't use my law for anything until I go to Paul and say Paul can I use it as a parking lot which he's going to say go get a building permit which I can't get so they're basically you know taking my property from you so I have a food truck next door and I do use this property I'll give you an example if that's my RV in this picture which I'm not saying that it is and I I just have it stored there for 3 or 4 days I may come back here as a repeat offender I might not be doing anything and he might just be able to take one picture and say and nobody's living in it because by section 12.10.7 I'm allowed by right to store uh boats trailers camping travel trailers motorized dwellings as as an accessory use which I argue that I don't have an accessory use but my point is like they're going to take all the rights away because I'm going to have to go to development order which I can't get tell me what that section of the code is 12.10.7 which I'm accused ofu development standards and uses says that if I have a primary use such as a building that I can park these things beside my building they're saying that that they they've cited me for this as that I'm and so therefore I must have some I was going to ask you what the purpose of letting people Park on your property is and it sounds to me like you're telling me that you have an adjacent use a commercial use I do yes and what is it I it's a my personal office and on that property and I've gotten a BTR from Paul and from the growth management I have one food truck on that property but it's my personal office and I have one food truck and I have a garden the main reason for bringing them in there is because I'm developing the town and I'm attracting customers which when I have 20 people coming from out of town they go to krabbies they go to Basin they buy that vegetables and so we're just trying to make Sero you know more popular there's no I'm not making any profit from this and if you rule against me I will not only not make be able to invite people of the town to spend a nice time I won't be able to use my property as a parking lot and then so if I park my truck there for 2 days am I going to get sighted that's what's going to happen if you if you roll against me well you know there there are cases and and things that um other cases that I have looked at where where there was an adjacent use a a primary use like the same it's a different PCN isn't St the same piece yeah same situation and and uh that owner who owned two properties together one that had an office on it with a little talk about my case please I I just would like to rule on this there's so much to talk about today besides the story other person you don't want me to explain I just want I just want to I want you to understand that I'm not charging a daily fee I I think I understood that there's no there's no allegation that you charged a daily fee there is an allegation that through Harvest host people paid money to actually be on the the property because they paid a subscription and therefore I'm culpable for that that's pretty tenuous and thank you and so you know I'm I'm trying to look at the evidence here I'm trying to present the evidence even though I'm passionate about it because I feel it's been a lot of work for me and I've had to and as you can see I'm dis passionate about it no you're very patient thank you I'm just trying to understand the case trying to understand the County's case I'm trying to understand yours but you're not giving me much opportunity here sorry I'm just upset about the whole thing okay all right so back to my analogy if you had two parcels and you do there are there are many examples um of where the county has successfully brought cases where somebody would have a a primary use and then use their adjacent property without without a development order for some other use that was not allowed but never parking lot no some of them have been parking lots no never there has never been a case brought here for a un a parking lot that has had no development order oh contrer I and maybe it was some other section of the code I'm not sure but but you've got uh permitted uses and that's but mine's permitted problem mine's permitted table PS5 of article 12 says mine's per I okay your point about people parking on a lot that's not permitted yes the church does that now the church is in the residential subject district and they have a big sign that says parking only I'm not going to I don't want to open a case and tell the church they can't use their parking lot let me ask the county permitted use in the public in the port Sela Redevelopment zoning District um you've cited section 12. 6.03 2 pointb permitted uses is your contention that the use of this V lot for parking is not permitted no it is pered the reason the reason we use section 12.63 Point 2B is because we're saying that the use of the par property being used as a campground can you ask a question does he answer the question I am paring lot I am yes or no he asked about parking lot and then start talking he's asking why we use the code stop that code the reason we use that code is because the permanent use of a campground Recreational Park is not allowed if you ask your question again he has hasn't answered your question you asked if parking isn't permitted and and how do you get to how do you get to Campground through you get to Campground through exhibit eight that's part of it yes that's one of our exhibits was that he advertised it as a campground there's RVs people camping in RVs on the lot so therefore the reason we use that code is to say a campground recreational vehicle park is not a permitted use for this property within the CRA because your contention is that Mr Crowley is attracting RV camping says RV camping correct but there evidence for parking is is based on a long series of questions from the attorney the proper question would been have you been there overnight and taking pictures the answer is no I can park my RV every day in the same spot and and take the same pictures and have the same evidence and that doesn't prove that I because the same exhibit says that there are wineries breweries farms and attractions that invite our veers to stay overnight thousands of them all over the country it's very popular and it's a blessing for the community but this is your ad no that's the Harvest host ad Harvest host says we have thousands of places normally it's a winery or some place that has a lot of land that says hey why don't I have harv Park here was a good idea 20 years ago somebody came along created the website that's like I said like uber and these other sites that are new and now people like myself said hey this is a great idea I can bring people to the community to spend money I don't have to build buildings the idea is that I'm not trying to build infrastructure because I don't want to have to build buildings once I start coming to the development review I've got to build a $4 million building I'm trying to use the things in a very soft way the community wants so you had nothing to do with no the creation of this ad no I created the ad within the application I posted this photo and a couple other photos then I defer to to exhibit 9 which is the ad that he testified that he posted yeah this is my ad on a website that does this for for thousands of people all over America does it or does it not say primitive camping it's not about what does it or does it yes or no yes or no sir does it or does it not say prevent Prive camping I didn't read it but I'll take your word for it the point of it is a series of photos in the afternoon doesn't prove overnight sleeping it proves that maybe the car was there because you can infer that but I can take the same photos maybe of his house where he has an RV next door it doesn't mean he's sleeping in it just means it's parked there for a series of nights these people oftentimes travel they get in the middle of night they come around they park in the same spot because that's what people kind of do there's no proof here and the second thing is there's no proof that I'm I'm expecting money the proof that they're offering and the evidence that Rachel gave are that it's free the attempt by the attorney to to extrapolate that I'm somehow benefiting from a $99 service paid to some other website is is is very tenuous as you mentioned okay so then looking at exhibit 9 which you posted which says primitive camping best for self-contained campers no toilet showers or portable water at this hip Camp um 1.25 acre vacant lot leveled with crushed rock and shell and grass fire pit no hookups two blocks from manity pocket lots of restaurants nearby and excellent Latin Market vegetable stand beautiful breeze it's the kind of spot that you can get comfortable in it is my lot please text me at this number to let me know you are staying I'm not charging anything at the moment but my intent is to gather feedback about the location and demand blah blah blah and then it tails off that's exactly my intent I'm not charging anything okay so so can this be an RV camp as you've advertised it no I can't because the definition says I must charge a daily or short-term basis and it says very specifically I'm not charging anything I'm saying come enjoy the community go spend your money and that's what these people do these are half million dollar sometimes quar million dollar vehicles more expensive than people's homes and they come here they want to go to the seafood restaurants the reviews I have 90 reviews in 6 weeks they're braving I wouldn't have 90 reviews that more people the RV Community is very connected you know I get eviscerated in the paper is uh you know not having good PR but that's only with the angry locals more broadly I have excellent PR you can go talk to anybody who's staying here and say my God I love this place I have never known portelo and I love it so there's another side to this whole thing that's much bigger than you know the political con the reason that we're here in the first place is because 60 people were organized to complain they were additionally organized to honk hard horns and so forth to my argument more more broadly this is a political issue that we should go and talk about fixing the code you know we have to go through this first but I hope you see that you're welcome to to do that of course but um but I have to deal with the code that exists I understand that's but I'm making a point and I hope that my passion doesn't hurt my my argument that very specifically in this case I cannot be a recre we can we can resolve this one piece if you'd like you can you can roll if you'd like that if I am indeed a recreational park if I am indeed a recreational park to your rolling I have two choices I can either go back with uh you can give me some time to comply and I can work with the code enforcement officer and what will my what will my um compliance be like it would be tell ready to go away stop advertising and you know and end it it's very simple for me to comply I'm not charging any money I don't lose anything the second option would I go to the circuit court because I feel agreed which I may depending on the evidence and the way to the evidence here is one tenuous argument from the lawyer that somehow I'm benefiting from a a $99 fee versus all the other evidence from from Mrs Bradley to myself to the ad on the paper that there is no fee and if there is no fee therefore there can be no recreational park okay um understand that that I have not seen or heard anything about this case understand prior to this morning that's why I'm focusing on this one definition so you know what you know because you've lived it the county knows what it knows because it's lived it that's why you're focusing on this one line and unfortunately that does not transcend to me that's what the circuit Court's for sometimes well no I I mean I'm happy to hear this case and to can continue hearing the case the problem is that that I think I'm going to need a little bit of time to digest so I'm I'm looking at this I'm not to the point where I can clearly find a violation and I'm not to the point where I can clearly say accept that you you're right I can't say that either I don't even know that I'm right until we go through the process all right this is what this is for I I I also think that I'm that we probably should resolve this not a month from now but sooner yeah and so what I'm what I'm thinking is that um we ought to look at our calendars and come up with something in a two week kind of time frame where we can hear the remainder of this case will you honor if I might interrupt you for we we've been sort of distracted by this RV park but that's just one part of it the evidence clearly shows development activity there's been pilings put in the ground there's been structures put in there's been Phill put down that's development the the the the property the the subject parcel is in violation it has no development order take besides the besides the the parking issue it needs a development order for those for those things there the parking issue itself the RV park is one part of it just parking if it's it's an empty lot that's all it's allowed to be used for you couldn't Park anything on the empty lot it would be storage it's not allowed every other every other commercial property in the county is allowed except for me there's never been a case brought you're not might be allowed to talk so the I I think I understand what you're saying but but in in fact the question I guess is whether or not you could improve the lot to any extent can you put a fire pit on it yes can you allow yes if I need to take those and being in compliance I'll go do it now what am I going to do with the sand I'll move the sand to the next space on the lot it's a sand I mean it's crazy what he's saying not only is it tenuous it's crazy like it's just insane if there was a building on the lot or anything at all building this is pylons this is somebody this is Landscaping this is not improvements but can you improve the property at all without permit I uh haven't really heard any clear evidence on that we didn't we by Design did not bring a 105 one violation for that in case the respondent does want to apply for development order for something that would be allowed on it um the compliance in this regard would mean you can leave this that stuff is there until such time as development order is put in remove the RVs have no more overnight over parking on the lot return it to a vacant lot which is all that it is allowed to be used for absence of development work that's not true otherwise every other vacant lot including the Twisted a parking lot the church's parking lot where the where the boat where the fish boats all of those bacon Lots the where the you know the the cars for every bacon lot would have to have a development order I as long as I'm permitted I can park cars there which I am permitted which Paul wouldn't say yes directly but it should look up look it up and answer is yes may I add well let me responded is mixing up permitted uses with authorized uses the permitted uses in the zoning is mly a laundry list of the things which would be allowed and things that are not allowed excluded is is our V Parks allowed as parking lots but you you have to then apply for development order development order then leads to whatever necessary permits grading fill Etc I'm past you guys right now I'm looking at Wednesday the 13th can we find out if this room is available you want we're going to do that and see if we can um get everybody back here can you make some specific rulings to to narrow this down a little bit in terms of what door that they're going to be talking about so I I am going to require you all to meet prior to that time to see if you can stipulate to any any facts or the law I would like that I would like that very much if we stay the law and in the meantime I'm going to ask that um that I get a copy of all of the evidence not the ones that I've excluded just the evidence that is is in and I would request we do this in two separate cases with distinctions and surveys we are okay well this we haven't so far because there's still pictures in here from the that are not appropriate for this lot I I asked you specifically about that and you said oh I object to everything so that I so that I can appeal it when when you guys include well no no that's I didn't I didn't accept the evidence and therefore it has to be accepted I said they presented things I don't know the details I don't have a survey but if you want me to accept it generally then I'll let's move on to the next thing but I don't have the tools to to understand even where those pieces of property are what I would like you to do is be able to articulate any objection to each piece of evidence yes and that's what I'm saying is that the county should we should work together I hope and I'm love to work together I would love to sit down with Paul Paul's a very busy person the 13th available yes sir so I have her booked right now from 9 to noon on the 13th okay all right I I'm going to continue this this case and the case that follows the the case enf 2024 01059 case I'm going to continue both of them uh until 9:00 a. on the 13th and I'm also and I'll issue an order to this effect that uh requires the county and and you to meet prior um to that time to see what um what stipulations you can you can agree to as far as fact or law and uh if we can if we can narrow that down um I would also invite um either of you to uh submit anything you want in writing regarding the law or the facts prior to that time submit this document so um you have a document that you want submitted it's that's okay that's what you were G to ask for okay I give it to the uh I give it to the provid with a copy at the beginning of the hearing all right any objection to no to this let me just take a look all right is this basically your case in writing yes exactly right okay all right now there's there's some things in here that um I wrote this not having access to the photos so so a big part of my thing here is I don't have any evidence and so my point is how was I supposed to comply like for example if the if the attorney would have sent me a photo of uh my fire pit and said I have to remove it I wouldn't be here now I would have already uh complied but I wasn't given any photos these photos of these RVs I you know I could have parked them someplace else I wasn't given any chance to comply I you're going to have I think that opportunity and you have theoretically you have because you've gotten notice as a violation and that that normally prompts a respondent to say gee the county must think I'm in violation I know they think that here and then find out why I know but we're here because I've read the rules as well okay and I'm I'm the laws for the people not for the government to abuse me with it all right now objection I'm going to accept into evidence the respondents exhibit its three pages dated February 21st 2024 um just simply titled magistrate Hy Martin County Florida and I'm going to mark it as um respondents exhibit one and that is also in evidence thank you but I my point was because I didn't have the photo so my arguments are about lack of evidence so when you read this and so for you just have to take that into consideration all right so so here's the deal what I would like for the county to do is produce copies of all of its evidence only the photo exhibits that were permitted if you have any question about that I've got the list and and all of the remainder of its exhibits and send a copy to Mr Crowley send a copy to me so that I have it well ahead of uh the 13th understand and a transcript to our meeting would help help you as well maybe or some results um I I think I've wrote written enough notes for that I I don't need a transcript but I and it's available the video will be available to you anyway so my reason I ask that question is I would like nothing more than to resolve this today maybe we can go to the office and that there's no need for you because this has been a conflict and and we've come to you as a as a media um mediator little in some way it's not as a judge except that's not my role either I know but I'm asking if you could compel the county that we just record we've had voluminous contacts with the explaining what the violation was and how to come into compliance no there has been I I you mentioned removing sand may possibly you have there's no document that said you just inferred and you wanted to color me with that all right that was unfair mrti we've we've been we've been on this thing for an hour and 20 minutes and I think that's enough I have a question what can you tell me again what exactly you want me to send say it again what exactly do you want me to email to you guys I would like could you try again oh my gosh quiet I would like all a copy of all the evidence okay and me too and a copy to Mr Crowley but I don't want obviously the exhibits that have been excluded okay so you want me to send for this case that we just heard the exhibits that you accepted yes and then for the other case you want me to send you everything yes okay and to Mr Crowley yes okay understand that the second case nothing's in evidence at this point understand okay all right do you want to set a date your honor for the submission of that in any written uh well can that be done by Friday yeah the 8th all right so by the 8th you're going to submit submit evidence all right and um no where are we we can meet today I mean there's also meeting pending no I in by the 15th submit the evidence well you're on the 13th wait a minute hang on wrong date 23rd okay 23rd so by this Friday when this Friday send the evidence out okay and what about any written um memorandum yeah that by the by the eth okay and if we can meet by Friday and you can compel the county to do that that would be helpful Mr may I all right I'm going to I'll draft an order and hopefully email that out to you do we have a good email address for you uh yeah John has an excellent email address for me okay and if yeah Mr n Mr your honor may I just uh for practical sense and purposes um give you my opinion on where we may end up here no okay okay no no thank you no I I I mean obviously you want to share that with your staff and and with uh the County's attorney but um but no at this point um I mean unless unless what you've got to tell me is actually probative and we'll resolve it then that no I I'm I'm not to a point where I even understand enough of the I think I understand the facts what I don't understand is whether or not any of that constitutes a violation and so that's really what I want to focus on and I will do that thank you um because that's basically Mr Crowley's contention that yeah sure I've got RVs on the property and so what I'm allowed to do that and and I can use my property basically the the way he has so desired the the purpose of my comment was the in essence and then I'll be quiet is in essence that there is no method to uh authenticate or authorize an RV park on what could be considered a parking lot so and I don't have that that jurisdiction or ability to get to the point that that would ever happen Okay but the County Commission does right yes sir okay here we go I believe I like that direction I believe this is a political issue as Uber was and and a lot of other sites Airbnb is a good example became a and went to the state capital so this is just something that's a a reverberation for something that's I think even Rachel because she uses it everyone would agree I'm not harming anyone I want to I want to look at the three sections that have been charged yes of course and see if I see any basis for the charge thank you that's been my intention I I'm feely admit to the facts I'll vly oppose Mr tun's uh attempt to tenuously attach payments you know overnights and things like that let's just stick to the facts about what I'm doing I'm more than happy to admit them I I mean normally in other cases there might have been and had you been represented there might have been a motion to dismiss early on based on something I've I've bring attorne with me next heard it but I but I hav been able to actually see it my apologies be more professional okay all right okay so those two cases are are now continued but I will get an order out uh today hopefully this afternoon sometime maybe tomorrow morning that that um formalizes that and then we'll go from there all right okay um my apologies to folks who are are here for cases that um that uh still have to be heard I it's unusual that we have any case that goes this long but um but we have today the the next case I'm going to call is um respondent is Robert sweat it's enf 20231 0568 and anybody here on behalf of Mr sweat room is okay thank you it's Robert pwat got him thank you no we got him he's right here okay my apologies I as I was saying maybe you didn't hear me but people getting up to but in fact uh it's unusual that we have a case that goes an hour and a half uh and especially one that isn't resolved all right this is case NF 20231 0568 and um Mr sweat this is also a violation case we're going to hear from the county as I I think you were here in the beginning when I talked about if the county makes a prim of facia case then the burden flip to you and then we'll go from there you can tell me what you need to tell me all right and let's see this is uh officer fiser if you raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth old truth and nothing but the truth so I'll be gone I swear all right so we're going to hear you can stand there if you like or you can sit down and look at the monitor that's up on the wall there okay morning your honor morning oops M Bradley I need your help here sorry sir great thank you you on just a second officer okay I'm with you my name is Nicholas Fischer and I have been sworn in I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County respondent Robert P SWAT is present this case concerns the property at 8617 Southeast Oleander Street oown Florida 33455 in Martin County Florida this case is not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County property owner excuse me property owner is Robert P SWAT a copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is County exhibit number one on October 20th 2023 I inspected the property at the time I observed new windows slf frames installed without a permit and trash and debris on the property at that time I photograph the property the photographs accurately shows what I saw then and it's marked as counties exhibits numbers 2 through six exhibit number two front-facing view of the property with the new front exterior window and some trash and debris Building Material in the front in front of the white van new window here and here okay the bit number three just a left exterior view of the front of the property oops exibit number four just a close-up view of that trash and debris Building Material zibit number five front facing view of the entryway to the front door of the property uh trash and debris here as well and another new window right here next to the front exterior door fibit number six uh the door tag I left to get in contact with the respondent I've also attached a screen shot taken from Google Street View dated January 205 2015 depicting the previous windows marked as County exibit number seven and as you can see from the screenshot taken uh these are older Windows based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Robert P sweat on November 22nd 2023 marked as County exhibit number 8 in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violations section 67. 20101 subsection B nuisance declared crash General ordinances Martin County Code and section 105.1 of Florida building code permits were required Incorporated by section 21.1 General ordinances Martin County Code in the notice of violation the respondent was given until excuse me I forgot the deit number eight the notice of violation and the notice of violation the respondent was given until December 22nd 2023 to correct the violation was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on January 22nd 2024 and is marked as counting exhibit number nine but number nine the notice of hearing okay the return receipt was not received therefore on February 5th 2024 I posted the property with a copy of the notice of hearing a photo of the posting and the Affidavit of posting are marked as counted exhibits numbers 10 and 11it number 10 the posting on the front door of the property there a junct Appliance zibit number 11 the Affidavit of posting no call or letter from the property owner was received within the time allowed therefore I went to the property again on February 20th 2024 and saw that the S of violations had not been corrected at that time I photographed the property the photographs accurately shows what I saw then it is marked as cting exhibits numbers 12 through 14 subit number 12 the same front-facing view of the property with the new windows and a building material crash and debris number 13 bag material trash and debris cibit number 14 that front entry way to the front door showing that the posting was removed I have also attached a screenshot showing that no permit applications have been filed for the new windows marked as County's exhibit number 15 and this was taken on February 20th as well is showing that no permit applications have been filed or pulled okay for the windows I request that all the county exhibits be received du evidence based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Robert P SWAT be ordered to comply with the SED provisions of the Martin County Code by March 29th 2024 and if not in compliance by then you required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues there after the county has incur a cost the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimburse this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing okay Mr sweat you raise your right hand do you swear firm testimony about to give would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I help you got I do your full name and address Robert par sweat and your address address 8617 Southeast oana Street oown Florida okay all right um and you are the owner of the property yes all right and you've um seen now the County's exhibits any objection to my accepting items 1 through 15 no you're right okay so without objection I'll accept in evidence the Ken's exhibits 1 through 15 anything you want to tell me I didn't I I thought I could install a window cuz it wasn't impact cuz that's all they asked for it's impact I'm just installing a thermal window from a single hung window and I didn't didn't think it I didn't know that um I needed a permit to replace okay and now you do yes I do all right so um have but you haven't made application yet for the building permit Pro I was I was going to do it this morning but I wanted to get here on time okay that's that's a good thought um I wanted to make sure that if I pull a permit I pull a permit for the windows in which cuz I I thought it was just the two front windows we had a pro we had an issue with okay no it's it's any new window that even replacement windows need do need permits okay okay um all right well um all right what about the trash and debris and stuff that's around the property the trailer that that sits there that's exhibit that's I mean it it's got um tarps and um supplies on top of it but that's what he showed uh or is it the rocks that are um under by the tire um let me see I'm going back to just all the trash and debris uh that you can see your honor all right that's exhibit 13 correct and it's shaded but any building material bricks in front of the van the um edging for the Rope for the if it's any sort of be Building Material it's classified as trash and debris unless you have a permit pulled for that or if you're in the process of for edging of the if you're in the process of decorating something and it's out there that's generally fine but if it's just sitting there stationary not moving not being installed okay yes so so you've got um couple of trailers there you've got the closed trailer and I I don't know the the AC unit uh I'll move it from there I'll put it I'll put it to the the road well you you've got a a lot of things going on and um and some of which chairs chairs are fine and chairs are chairs and that's a not a an issue but but you do have a lot of other things around that uh are look like outdoor storage of trash cans I'm not not trash can you got it the day that somebody had had brought my trash my um recyclable up there instead of putting up there to the house uh you tell me the bricks there cor you got brick and you've got those clay pots and you've got other clay pots things that are just and I'm not I'm not going to enumerate them because it's not up to me to tell you what to do here it's up to me to see if there's a violation and I frankly do see uh violations of the code both for the lack of a permit and the the trash and debris okay and it is up to you then to get with the county and find out what it is you have to do to Comm into compliance you're right okay all right so so without belaboring it I'm going to find that uh based upon the evidence and your testimony Mr SWAT and the County's testimony that violations as charge do exist on the property and I'm going to order you to comply on or before March 29th okay uh 2024 so you've got over a month to comply U failing which I am going to find you in the amount of $100 per violation per day theoretically you could come into compliance with one and not the other but understand if if you're in violation of either of them or both of them the the fine still applies and it's and so it could be up to $200 if you're in violation of both or 100 if it's just one so it's per violation per day after the 29th after the the 29th so beginning um on the 30th of March okay all right and um based upon the the costs I'm going to award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county uh at um anytime after after this order is rendered so uh gosh okay yeah actually could have avoided maybe some of those costs had you gotten with the county and and uh stipulated to what I think you already recognize was a violation and is a problem so and the cost instead of being 575 would have been about 300 but I we're unfortunately beyond that so all right um we will do we have an email address for you uh yes okay did have you already given it to the county anybody all right just give it to the county it it doesn't need to be as part of the public record but uh or not for this hearing thank you I mean it does become public record but uh give that to them they can email the the um the order finding violation to you but I think you've you've got the gist of it and uh and we'll go from there okay good luck make sure they've got your your email thank you your honor okay thank you all right let's see the fourth case is the Gerson case anybody here on behalf of Eric or Gabriel Gabriela Ur Gerson one h i Mar the wrong one the wrong one Gerson is off yes sorry it's just not it's just not the one that okay all right so I stand corrected thank you Miss Broadley the the next case I'm going to call is um mcfl Holdings LLC and sir are you here on behalf of Corporation yes okay all right so this is case enf 2023 uh 03456 the respondent is M CFL Holdings LLC and Miss Switzer are you're going to testify yes you'll raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth help you go I do all right and this is also a violation case let me grab the right document okay all right whenever you're ready my name is Kelly Switzer and I have been sworn in I'm a code compliance investigator from Martin County the respondent owner of mcfl Holdings LLC is present this case concerns the property at 1235 Southwest 34th Terrace in Palm City Florida 34990 this case was not generated from anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property of appraiser of Martin County the property owner is MC FL Holdings LLC copy of the county a copy of the Property Appraiser's record of ownership is County's exhibit one on March 21st 2023 I received a case for an expired permit application for a new fence after inspecting the property I found that the fence was was installed without an approved permit at that time I photographed the property and the photograph accurately shows what I saw then is marked as County's exhibits 2 through 4 this is the expired permit letter okay number two and then there's the installed fence three and four all right and who is this being addressed to the letter yes ma'am uh actually it's probably the uh the contractor for the record because there was originally a Contractor on file who was no longer inv involved all right wait a minute now so Danielle gelle would be the contact for the original permit application subm submitt okay all right based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to mcfl Holdings LLC on March 23rd 2023 and is marked as County's exhibit 5 in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violations section 105.1 floor building code permits when required Incorporated by section 21.1 General orin's Martin County Code in the notice of violation of respondent was given until April 24th 2023 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved and a notice the hearing was issued by certified mail on May 15 2023 and is marked as County's exhibit 6 the owner contacted us requesting time to receive approval with the growth Management Department therefore an amended notice of violation was issued via certified mail on January 11th 201 24 the amended notice to appear is marked as County's exhibit 7 the return receipt was not received therefore I posted the property and at the Martin County Administrative Building the photo of the posting and the Affidavit of posting is marked as Count's exhibits eight and nine the application with growth Management Department for special variants has not been submitted therefore I return to the property on February 20th 2024 the fence Still Remains on the property and the photo of the fence is exhibit 10 this is just yesterday the permit application Still Remains in expired status a screenshot showing that the permit application permit status is marked is County's exhibit 11 based upon a testony in evidence I request that all the County's exhibits be received into evidence and I request that the respondent MC F Holdings LLC be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by March 29 2024 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has accur a cost of an amount of 575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing all right what about um what was marked as exhibits three and four we actually didn't really this is the the fence in question being installed that that's installed that's on the property okay is the installation the installation complete correct all right and so but the the permit application was there was was the permit ever issued no never got that far corre so it wasn't paid for it wasn't picked up it correct okay all right okay I think I understand all right um sir come on up to the podium if you will hey good morning Jeremy lamaster for the record uh Mr lamaster if you raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I'll you gone yep okay okay and your full name again jery Jeremy Lee master and your address oh it's I'm the owner of this 1235 Southwest 34 Terrace okay so we originally hired Daniel fence to do the permitting do the fence do everything from what I understand that they did it but didn't obtain the permit which we didn't know about which then um got in contact actually with Rachel um and the CRA and then tried to work out some of these Kinks then they kept on throwing it back from what I heard with Daniel's Fence that uh CRA was saying hey you could can't do a chain link fence I believe is what they were trying to say okay um so we're like okay well why why did they do this and I mean it went back and forth back and forth and then sometime during the record Daniel fence said you know what you know screw it I'm just going to pull it myself and not be a part of it which I don't know how they can actually do but regardless so I'm here trying to get you know Clarity on what we're actually going to be doing we submitted for um the the complete um variant submitt this morning um we you know I've had multiple meetings actually with um uh Susan on other projects and we've mentioned about the fence but there's never been like any kind of resolution of what we're actually doing other than she's just said all I think we're all Clarity what it is now let's just get it all submitted and we'll just review it and be done all right let me ask the county here is there an active case against Daniel's Fence no not at this time okay all right um so and and this really occurred what a couple of years ago yeah it's it's been going on for years so I we paid them I know $133,000 or something to Al do it be done so I didn't have to do it I can just take care of my other stuff for my other corporations and we get stuck with this and I mean you guys can see the Daniel's Fence signs right there on the left post um you know trying to clean this up um we're surrounded by Chain leak fence on the other two and a half sides but regardless is I'm not going to argue that I don't care about that but um C is going to review our uh what they call it alternative compliance and then uh we should be taking care of from there okay all right and I talked to them this morning again also and and you say you're testifying that you have filed that yeah I turned it in um to uh Barbara is that it all right Miss Bradley you've joined the conversation you're you're bin swor in yes sir so I actually just went over and spoke to Barbara counselor who is who takes in the alternative compliance paperwork um she does have the application so it is pending at the moment um there is one other thing that Mr lamaster needs to take care of in order for them to put it through and then once he does that they'll get it to the review process for everybody all right um me ask the county any reason I shouldn't continue this case because it looks like it could just go away if if the alternate compliance variance is granted we would have no objection to that all right all right so I'm going to continue this case to the March hearing I think it's the 20 20th March Rachel how long how long do you think this it'll take them to make a decision you know what they wanted Rachel yeah you need to get the barb wire off oh to take the Barb okay all right that's fine um I would probably give him until April honestly cuz I'm not I think it's a 30-day process so I think it's going to put him go before the CRA board well it has to go through no it it doesn't go it's just a review decision that they have to make so it's two different departments I believe that have to review it all right I'm going to continue the case then to April 17th and uh just as a matter matter of record you know I'm not going to physically be here on the 17th but I've asked um magistrate WB if she would take those cases so okay April 17th and we'll continue the case and I'll get U I'm sure it'll be resolved way before then and I'll get you an order out uh do we have an email for you yes they they have everything okay I just I'm I'm shocked as a contractor myself that the contractor can just be left alone I am so I can answer that for you it's Daniel fence is a State Certified contractor which it has to be brought before the state so Jeremy would have to file the complaint through the dbpr with the state we don't really go after State contractors because we don't regulate them well I if if in fact they abandoned the work the way you are contending they submitted letters to Rachel and and I mean it it it stinks and and Rachel and them they did a good job that's not about about them at all and you know it's just stinks that you know they didn't have to clean up their mess and they were kind of just left you know I was left hung out the dry and figuring it out I mean we tried to you know Rachel would know this I mean we tried to schedule many many meetings with CRA over and over and over and we have that in black and white I mean honestly I don't even know why we're here um that's a question for Kelly well because it's an open case no I know but there's a lot of stuff that's been going on in the background that everyone's all very very aware of all right I I would think you may want to consider filing that complaint but Mr Nick lety also going to put on record um if he does come into compliance prior to April 17th that we will just go ahead and close everything out and won't bring it back of course of course okay all right um good hopefully you get it resolved thank you I want it resolved too see you all right um oh you know what Mr lamaster I'm sorry will you come back back to the podium just while you're here um the exhibits one did I ask you if you had any objection to exhibits 1 through 11 I don't believe so y do you have any objection no I mean it was yeah was clearly because that actually helps clear what actually happened was there was they they were going off of whatever code well in the CRA code trumps their they had their own separate code so I think that's where the miscommunication happened for when they were doing the permit when they sold the job to me and then that's why we're in all this mess now the chain link fence opposed to yeah you know the CRA is an overlay in that District yes okay all right so without objection I'm going to accept in evidence the Cy's exhibits 1 through 11 still continuing the case until uh April 17th yeah that's fine okay all thank you guys all right um let's see McDonald's all right um officer Amber if you raise your right hand he s affirm testimony about to give would be the truth old truth and nothing but the truth help you go yes sir all right and this is case number enf 2023 um 9258 McDonald's corporation is the respondent my name is Charles Amber edti and I've been sworn in I am a code compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent McDonald's corporation is not present this case concerns the property at 2900 Southwest Martin DS Boulevard pal City Florida 34990 this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official record records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is McDonald's Corporation a copy of the Property Appraiser's record of ownership is County's exhibit one okay on September 11th 2023 an expired permit letter was emailed to the contractor of record a copy of that letter is marked as Count's Exhibit 2 this was the uh expired permit letter email to Air Care Services okay based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to McDonald's corporation on December 12th 2023 and that is marked as County's exhibit 3 in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violation section 105.1 Florida building code permits when required Incorporated by section 21.1 General ordinances Martin County Code for expired AC change out in the notice of violation the respondent was given until January 11th 2024 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so on January 12th 2024 I checked the permit status and the permit remained expired since compliance was not achieved a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on January 6 202 January 16th 2024 due to a missing address I also issued an amended notice of violation to McDonald's corporation on January 16th as well they are marked as Count's exhibits four and five exhibit four is the amended notice a violation with the address added exhibit 5 is the notice of hearing all right the return receipt was not received so on February 5th 2024 I posted the property as well as handed a copy to the manager on duty a photo of the posting and the Affidavit of posting are marked as counties exhibits 6 and 7 exhibit exit six is my Affidavit of posting exhibit 7 is a photo of my posting okay I have spoken with the contractor of record by both phone and email and I explain the violation and what needed to be done to correct it I've also conveyed the same information to the McDonald's manager therefore I checked the permit status again on February 20th of 2024 and saw that the cited VI a had not been corrected a screenshot of the permanent status is marked as Count's exhibit 8 okay with that I request that all the County's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent McDonald's corporation be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County code by March 29th 2024 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and requests that the county be reimburse this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing okay so what is it they have left to do they were pass their three renewals mhm and they needed to contact the building the assistant building official and get him to pass their final inspection uh we had some emailing back and forth they did reach out and um he provided some direction to them and then they never followed okay so it was um an AC change out yes sir all right okay all right and anybody here on behalf of McDonald's Corporation looking out seeing no one uh without objection I'll accept into evidence the County's exhibits 1 through eight in this case based upon that evidence and your testimony I'll find that violation as charge does exist on the property and Order compliance owner before March 29th 2024 failing which a find in the amount of $100 per day will acre and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion this hearing okay uh your next case is the revocable living trust of Michael prud Hol 2019 with Michael prol trustee case number enf 2023 1 0427 and whenever you're ready thank you your honor my name is Charles ambered and and I've been sworn in I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent revocable living trust of Michael prome 2019 prud home Michael trustee is not present this case concerns the property at 3063 Southeast Grand Parkway stort Florida 34997 this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of mar County the property owner is revocable living trust of Michael prome 2019 prome Michael trustee a copy of the Property Appraiser's record of ownership is County's exhibit one okay on October 16th 2023 an expired permit application letter was emailed to the revocable living trust of Michael prome 2019 prome Michael trustee a copy of the letter is marked as County's Exhibit 2 all right based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to the revocable living trust of Michael prome 2019 prudo Michael trustee on October 31st 2023 and is marked as County's exhibit 3 okay in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violation section 105.1 Florida building code permits when required Incorporated by section 21.1 General ordinances Martin County Code for expired permit application for a new sign in the notice of violation the respondent was given until November 30th of 2023 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so on November 28th 2023 I checked the permit status and the application remained expired on that day I sent an email to the property owner to which he replied in his reply he stated that the sign was in and he also provided me with an attached photo of the completed work a copy of the email and the attached photo are marked as County's exhibits four and five in exhibit four I sent him an email advising him that his permit application for the sign was expired and to fill out the form that I had attach to extend out the application and if the work had not been started he may cancel the permit application by following these directions okay and and looking at exhibit 5 it's just the European custom casework that's at issue not the one above it yes your honor it's the bottom okay so it basically is a change out of the of the sign insert right yes okay got it um in uh the email he states that the sign is in see attached he paid and applied for a permit thinking with something this small it was merely a formality and asking if I could issue the permit inspect it and close it out um in my response I let him know that I could not that I was not a building inspector he was supposed to satisfy the conditions I provided him with a screenshot of them put on the permit application to turn it into an issued permit before before the sign was erected okay y I read that okay you know what I before you go on what I don't understand is that um that obviously this is commercial property uh he had to hire someone to do the work he's talking to you but we don't at least not in the evidence see who the sign maker actually was who we know who that was he did not have a contractor at this point in time he hired a contractor subsequent to that exchange okay his original application was for an owner Bill okay on December 19 2023 I checked the permit application status and the permit application remained expired since compliance was not achieved and notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on December 19th 2023 and marked as County's exhibit 6 on January 9th 2024 the property owner requested a 30-day extension which he was granted and an amended notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on January 11 2024 and is marked as County's exhibit 7 the return receipt was not received so on February 5th 2024 I posted the property a photo of the posting and the Affidavit of posting are marked as counties exhibits 8 and nine okay exhibit 8 is my affidavit exhibit 9 is a photo of my posting on February 16 2024 I offered Mr prudom the option of a stipulated agreement to which he declined I conducted a follow-up investigation on Fe February 20th 2024 at that time I photographed the property sign the photograph accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as County's exhibit 10 I checked the permit status again as well on February 20th 2024 and I saw that the property owner had now hired a contractor who opened up a new permit application on February 12th of 2024 which has been denied in review a screenshot of the original permit application status and the new permit application status is marked as County's exhibit 11 okay I request that all the County's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent revocable living trust of Michael prome 2019 prome Michael trustee be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by March 29th 2024 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per every day the violation continues thereafter the county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimburse this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing okay anybody here for the revocable living trust of Michael prud Holm 2019 seeing no one without objection I'll accept into evidence the County's exhibits one through 11 in this case based upon that evidence and your testimony I'll find that a violation as charge does exist on the property and Order compliance honor before March 29th 2024 failing which Ain in the amount of $100 per day will acre and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 uh to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing did um Mr prudom say why he wasn't willing to enter into a stipulation I have the email with me your honor I mean gosh if you if you offered to save me $275 I probably would agree uh yes sir in the email I uh said the hearing for the case is a few days away I'm reaching out to offer you another option to the magistrate hearing I've attached a proposed stipulated agreement where I'm authorized to give you 90 days to receive the permit the cost would be $350 instead of the $575 you would need to come into the building department and sign and pay by Tuesday let me know if this is something you would like to do his response was Charles I don't freely admit violation of code I applied for permit paid for permit County didn't issue permit okay okay some folks you can't help all right um next case iSell all right this is um case number enf 2023 07059 and the respondents are Richard and an Capelli and officer counselor are you going to testify again your sworn in yes and whenever you ready my name is Chris caner I've been and the Cod compliance officer investigator for Martin County the respondents Richard Capelli and an Capelli are not present this case concerns the property at 2929 Southeast endale Street located within Stewart within Martin County Florida this case was not generated from an anal complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser the owners of the property are Richard Capelli and an T Capelli a copy of the property appraiser record is County one on July 24th 20 23 I inspected the property at the time I observed concrete poured over sidewalk without a permit this complaint had been issued to us from the public works department at the time I photograph the property the photographs accurately show what I saw then and it's Markus County exhibits 2 through eight exhibit two is the property in question you can see the distinct there's a line between was the existing sidewalk and this property is a rental property Mr Capelli's tenants basically had poured a new layer of concrete over the sidewalk creating their own quasi Drive driveway apron three this is just showing the address of the property exib four you can see the this difference between this Where the Sidewalk is where the concrete was poured exhibit five that's you can see the hard line between the existing sidewalk and where the new layer of concrete was poured over top of the sidewalk that's exhibit five exhibit six showing the poort driveway in relation to the property there's the line exit seven and exhibit eight basically showing the concrete that was poured based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Mr uh to Richard Capell and anti Capell on July 31st 2023 marked as can exhibit 9 and the notice violation I cited the following Martin County code violation section 105.1 uh permits when required as adopted by section 21.1 General ordinances of Martin County and section 6721 B nuisance declared trash and debris which has been corrected and the notice of violation and response was given until September 1st 2023 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so I had spoken with the property owner he and he requested time because at the time in Golden Gate uh New Roads and water lines were being put in so basically he stated that he needed the time that once his the new water lines would put in he was going to take out the pre-existing septic tank and drain filled and then he was going to pull a proper driveway permit to do the work properly com the time was given but compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on February 2nd 2024 and has marked this County exhibit 10 for today's hearing here's my signature the violations the return receipt was not received so on February 9 2024 I inspected I posted the property a photo of the post in the f David a post in Markus County 11 and 12 11's picture of my posting exhibit 12i affidavit posting I have spoken with the proper own and discuss the violations of what needed to be done to correct it therefore I went to the property again on February 20th 2024 and saw that decided violations had not been corrected at 13 again you you can see the line between the existing sidewalk and the concrete that was poured 14 exhibit 15 and exhibit 16 exhibit 17 is a permit history for the property showing that no driveway permit has been applied for and or issued exhib exhibit 18 is a series of emails between our Department Public Works discussing the property of Mr Capell basically what it with the summary of the emails is basically within the emails Public Works had to go out because of the concrete laid and they basically had to do some corrective action to basically free up because since the concrete was poured over existing utility lines mhm Public Works did go out and basically make it accessible to the manhole cover but at no point did Public Works indicate that because they did that that they approved of the rest of the concrete being poured without a permit so the emails are basically a discussion from Public Works to us and to Mr Capelli basically stating that yes they went out and made and Public Works did work to gain access to the utility lines but a permit was still going to be required for the concrete work that was done as a driveway apron I request that all counties exhibits be received into evidence based upon the T testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Richard Capell and an Capell be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by March 29 2024 if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per day until the violation is corrected the Count's inced the cost of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbursed this amount at conclusion of today's heing and that concludes my testimony okay I the um that apron of course is a good bit of it is on public RightWay yes so the county could go out there any day and just Jackhammer it out if they wanted to because it's on your RightWay correct but they've given since compell 10 P it it's a makeshift driveway so they're basically requiring him to get a permit which would then have it done correctly which I mean as it exists it's not done properly but they were hoping that he would file the proper channels to get a proper permit therefore fixing the issue okay but but I mean I I was looking at pickup trucks parked on the front lawn yes is there I mean County's not going to permit that basically what would be required is it's a me it's it's not a driveway that's up to code I would say but basically it is a makeshift driveway which is what the intent of why they poured the concrete I I believe or not if I understand your the question correctly when a permit application is is put in it would being a a apron driveway it would envelop the entire thing and the county would look at the whole thing where the truck trucks a park where the driveway is going the apron and all and anything that's impermissible would it would be denied for so if he got a permit it would be for something that complied with parking setback the other with the whole the whole thing as it is now it's just ad hoc Concrete Port over the over the RightWay okay all right but but you're not to the point of where you'd asked for an order to you to go and Abate the no no okay all right all right anybody here on behalf of Richard or an Capelli seeing no one I'm going to find um that uh it is appropriate for me to accept into evidence the County's exhibits one through 18 in this case let me get the right case 1 through 18 based upon that evidence and your testimony I'll find that violation as charged does exist on the property and Order compliance um honor before uh March 29th 2024 failing which of find in the amount of $100 per day uh so crew and a further award costs in the amount of $575 uh to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing and just note for the record that although the docket says there's a violation of 6720b that violation has been removed correct all right thank you sure thank you okay let's see the Gerson Cas okay gson case is next um it's case number enf 2023 um 1 0860 and the respondents are Eric or Gabriella Gerson and misser you been in whenever you're ready my name is Kelly Switzer and I have been sworn in I'm a code and compliance investigator from Martin County the respondent Eric gearon and Gabriella gearon is not present this case concerns the property at 352 Southwest Coco Palm Drive in Palm City Florida 34990 this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is Eric gearon and Gabriella gearon a copy of the Property Appraiser's record of ownership is County's exhibit one on November 6th 2023 I received a case from John colando Code Compliance administrator during a sweep of the area I inspected the property and found a tarp over top of the roof at that time I photographed the property the photograph accurately shows what I saw then and is marked as couny exhibits 2 and three um this is a tarp over the top of the roof it's just another angle Bas based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Eric gearon and Gabrielle gearon on December 7th 2023 and is marked as County's exhibit 4 in the notice I cited the following Martin County code violations section 105.1 Florida building permits when required Incorporated by section 21.1 General 's Martin County Code in in the violation the respondent was given until January 8th 2024 to correct the violation and was informed the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved therefore I issued a not um notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on January 30th 2024 and is marked as County's exhibit 5 the return receipt was not received therefore I posted the property and at the Martin County Administrative Building the posting and the Affidavit of posting is marked as County's exhibits six and seven posting my affidavit exhibit 8 is an email correspondence from the property owner's attorney requesting a one-year extension on the case this was sent to our count to our County attorney the County's response is exhibit nine okay hang on just let me look okay an exhibit 8 is a copy of the notice of hearing was that yes that was attached to the letter yes okay let me see exhibit okay okay and uh exhibit nine is our the County's response all right Red Dot I went to the property again on February 20th 2024 and I noticed the tarp still on the roof and no permit has been pulled at that time I photographed the property and conducted a permit search for a roof permit the photographs accurately show what I saw then and is marked as exhibits 10 and 11 so that's the property with tarp still on MH and 11 is the um a permit search Okay based upon the invest the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Eric gearon and Gabriella gearon be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by March 29th 2024 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter the county has conducted incur excuse me incured a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and requests that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing this concludes my testimony okay thank you I well I I guess we understand what the attorney was trying to accomplish but but in fact fact if the Gerson fix their roof it still just becomes then an element of their damages and I might point out that the the attorney's letter has a case number uh for his lawsuit of 2022 so this damage has been in existence since at least 2022 sometime all right so all right um anybody here on behalf of the gison seeing no one and the attorney already indicated he's not attending so based upon um I'm going to uh then accept inevidence the counties exhibits 1 through 11 in this case based upon that evidence and your testimony I'll find that a violation as charge does exist on the property in order compliance honor before um March 29th 2024 failing which have fined in the amount of $100 per day will acre and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing thank you yes ma'am thank you all right this BR no going to the end okay we're going to take you down here the Peterson case it's um case number enf 20231 20175 Samantha Peterson Victoria Ripley and whoever else Jennifer Beth somebody or let me just see who we got hard to decipher which names of first names and which ones are last names he had the same thing when we reviewed it all right and uh Miss Bush if you raise your right hand you swear our affirm testimony about to give will be the truth the old truth and nothing but the the true self you got yes sir all right whenever you're ready my name is Tama Bush and I have been sworn in I'm a co-compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent Samantha Victoria Peterson and Jennifer Beth Ripley is not Ava is not present this case concerns the property at 8534 Southeast Date Street in Hoptown Florida 33455 in Martin County Florida this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County the property owner is Samantha Victoria Peterson and Jennifer Beth Ripley okay on December 7th 2023 I inspected the property at that time I observed the installation of a wooden fence with no permits at that time I photographed the the property to photograph accolate shows what I saw then and is marked as County's Exhibit 2 based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Samantha Victoria Peterson and Jennifer Beth Ripley on December 21st 2024 marked as Count's exhibit 3 and in a notice I cited the following Martin County code violations section 105.1 FBC permits when required Incorporated by section 21.1 General ordinances of Martin County Code and a notice of violation the respondant was given until January 10th 2024 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so compliance was not achieved and the notice of hearing was issued by certified mill on January 24th 2024 and is marked this count as exhibit 4 the return receipt was not received the property was posted on February 5th 2024 and the administrative building on February 9th 2024 and it's marked as County's exhibit 5 I have spoken with the um respondents both respondents and at this time they still have not complied with the violations therefore I went to the property again on February I'm sorry on February 20th 20th not today and saw that the cited violations had not been corrected and this is a photo of the fence that still exist also a copy of the permit history and those are six and seven okay yes sir at this time I do request that all the County's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent samtha Victoria Peterson and Jennifer Beth Ripley be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the Martin County Code by March 29th 2024 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per day for every day that the violation continues thereafter the county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimburse this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing sir all right anybody here on behalf of Miss Peterson or Miss Ripley seeing no one um without objection I'll accept into evidence the County's exhibits 1 through 7 in this case based upon that evidence and your testimony I will find that a violation does exist on the property in order compliance honor before March 29th 2024 failing which of finding the amount of $1100 per day will acre and I'll further award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing thank you special magistrate thank you all right let's see we've got a couple of fine reductions the 071 that's on your list up there has been removed right at the moment oh the Trinidad yes case Okay so that's been removed so now we've got BF3 LLC yes sir and that's a fine reduction stipulation in agreed recommended order it's case number enf 2021 10 0063 Miss Bradley you've been sworn in whenever you're ready okay my name is Rachel Spradley and I've been sworn in I'm the Nuance baitman coordinator for Martin County this case concerns the property located at 3299 Southeast Garden Street in Martin County Florida on January 19th 2022 an order finding violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to baf3 LLC for Section 105.1 Florida building code permits when required Incorporated by section 21 .1 General ordinances Martin County Code Compliance was required by February 28th 2022 on December 1st 2023 in Affidavit of compliance with AC crude fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine of the amount of $50,500 Plus cost in the amount of $575 staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted the current owners were not responsible for the violation and brought the property into compliance and it offered to pay $10,000 to resolve the outstanding fines which have accured on February 25th 2022 a special warranty deed was recorded changing the ownership from baf3 LLC to BF4 LLC so it is technically the same people they just changed the name of the company they went from three to four I'm looking at BF assets for I'm sorry yes sir okay so that concludes my testimony for this one all right the exhibit exhibit one is the property appraiser showing the new ownership to baf assets for LLC Exhibit 2 is the original recorded order showing Section 105 that they were in violation of signed by uh magistrate worb exhibit three is the Affidavit of compliance with acred fines and costs that was recorded on the property and then exhibit four is their reduction request that they submitted okay and tell me again what the basis for the reduction is it's our standard practice okay no no well well they submitted the amount if that's what you're asking why it's more than the standard 10% they sent us the letter requesting to reduce it to the 10,000 so so it's basically the county accepting their yeah we're accepting their request and and am I are you telling me that these are all the same folks yes so it's it's they just Chang the name okay all right and so without objection I'll accept into evidence the County's exhibits 1 through four in this case and note that the stipulation recites what you have indicated and that it is executed by Kimberly Lewis the area manager for BF4 LLC um Corporation I wonder if she actually has Authority she does have the paperwork give um Power attorney or okay you want to see it uh yes please look I'll pull it out cuz I highlighted her name for you than the page that's turned is where her name is actually listed on there okay all right I'm looking at a certificate of signing Authority for baf assets 4 LLC signed by Victoria husband Chief compliance officer and or Management Authority Kimberly Lewis area manager has been named I'm going to go ahead and accept this into evidence as counties the entire thing is Cy's exhibit 5 now one through five all right um and I'm going to find that it is appropriate to enter into the agreed order note for the record that Miss Bradley has signed on behalf of Martin County and this say of course a recommended order that goes to the County commission for approval all right and um next case is the Mayo case it's enf 2022 0428 a-01 respondents are um Michael and Mary mayo and this is also a fine reduction stipulation yes sir my name is Rachel Spradley and I've been sworn in this case concerns the property located at 8082 Southeast hidden Bridge Court Jupiter in Martin County Florida on June 15th 2022 an order finding violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to Mary rigs mayo and Michael Mayo for Section 105.1 permits incor required when Incorporated by section 21.1 General ordinances Martin County Code Compliance was required by September 30th 2022 on February 1st 2024 and a David of compliance with accured fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in the amount of $48,600 the admin fee of $575 has been paid in full staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted the respondents were responsible for the violation however they brought the property into to compliance and have offered to pay $483 to resolve the outstanding fines which have accured and that con okay you're exhibits yeah exhibit one is the property appraiser showing that Mary and Michael Riggs are the owners exhibit two as the original order placed on the property exhibit three is the Affidavit of compliance with acred fines and exhibit 4 is uh the request from Mrs Mayo for the fine reduction well that's short and sweet reduce my fines all right um so um look at the station appears to be in order with objectional accept and evidence that C's exhibits 1 through four in this case and um note for the record that the stipulation recites the testimony has been signed by Mary rigs Mayo on behalf of herself and her husband and um and Miss Bradley on behalf of the county I will go ahead and approve the agreed recommended order in the amount of $ 4,830 uh to be paid to the county okay um and anything else to come before us that's all sir all right good all right well thank you all very much um um I will see some of you I guess on the whenever that was the March 13 yeah on the 13th okay and then the next regular hearing is March 20th here in Chambers okay thank you very much we stand a Jour thank you