e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e and uh thank you for all Rising please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance pled of aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right please be seated this is a continuation of uh hearing that was begun um at the regular February hearing and it's uh two cases with the same respondent it's case number uh enf 20231 0163 uh which had already begun and then case number enf uh 20 241 0059 the respondent is Capital C Inc and uh not for the record that Mr Crowley is here on behalf of the corporation and um also that uh the uh violations are identical it's two contiguous Parcels of property uh as the evidence uh showed in case number I'll just call it 163 that's the ending numbers of it and uh so uh I think if I remember correctly we had almost concluded if not concluded the 163 we were close to the end but since the continuation there was supplemental as the court directed if you want so there is supplemental evidence and testimony in that case to now present okay and and let me just note for the record too that um I received from the county uh a a memorandum of law uh as requested on the 8th of um honor before the 8th of March and that's U will be entered into the record as well along with um a witness list and uh petitioners witness list naming uh five uh County staff members and then petitioner supplemental offer of proof in both cases is 059 and0 and 163 so um I have the the 1 163 supplemental offer of proof it's it's long and I don't know that I don't know that every bit of it is required but I guess we'll see where the evidence leads so let me just swear in the witnesses you'll raise your right hand to swear affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you guide I do all right and I see Mr counselor Mr Schilling what um what have you got for I need to begin with an application your honor um consider concerning um exhibit number 15 in this case 163 that was entered into evidence um that was a clerical error it's an Affidavit of posting um the um wrong case it was an affidavit from a different case that was actually entered into evidence so it would request the court now at this point strike exhibit 15 that's previously entered all right may I see it please I yes it is an entirely different case all right that that exhibit is is stricken all right anything else no at this time I turn it over to off counselor to continue with uh picking up uh where we left off at exhibit 33 was the last one entered into evidence okay okay this case was continued from the special magistrate held on February 21st 2024 um so since that uh to replace exhibit 15 exhibit 34 is the correct Affidavit of posting for when I posted the property and then going forward on March 6 2024 a meeting was held with the respondent with just a second okay all right um okay all right I'll I'll deal with that in a little bit okay go ahead okay on March 6 2024 a meeting was held with the respondent code enforcement the building official and the growth management director a stipulation agreement was offered but agreement cannot be met at the February hearing exhibit 15 showed the wrong posting affidavit and the correct one is printed as County exhibit 34 exhibit 35 is an aerial photo showing the condition of the property prior to the 2022 purchase of the property and this is basically showing that um it's a vacant unimproved lot okay exhibits 36 37 38 and 39 are photos dated from March 1st March 4th and March 5th showing RVs remain on the vacant unproved lot some for multiple days so okay so this was subsequent to the to the hearing just prior to today's hearing right this is all new evidence so exhibit 36 uh March 1st basically con um focus your attention on the on the the gray school bus RV park there another exhibit 37 this would be from March 4th school bus is there RV still there with some campers 38 showing two campers people got Chairs set up RV still there that's March 4th March 5th still there and then exhibit 40 and 41 uh that's exhibit 39 and then exhibit 40 and 41 are emails from the respondent discussing violations and reviews from campers that have camped on the property on the vacant unapproved lot exit 40 was it basically this is the correspondence from Mr Crowley to the county okay if you'll just roll that up a little bit okay uh it's a couple Pages all right this was basically just um trying to set up a meeting all right this was all in the supplemental material sent to me right correct I've seen this before so okay all right um and then this is a basically an email that he sent us basically from a review that he received received for um people who had camped on the property yes okay I also read that okay before and then exhibit 41 is the final email and our final exhibit I request that these additional exhibits be received in evidence based upon the testimony evidence I request that the respondent capital c Inc be given a no repeat order if I can just break into it we're going to we're going to we have a little bit more Chris so we'll do that we'll do the final wrap up at the end okay right okay who we who else I have the Paul Schilling all right Mr Schilling good morning but if I could suggest can we move the uh supplemental exhibits into evidence first before right all right let me ask Mr Crowley any objection to the I I have to where you in let me just raise your right hand do you swear affirm testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth or nothing but the CH will help you got I do all right and uh you've seen exhibits 34 through 41 any objection um there are many photos in that uh there's many objections but I don't dispute the facts and I think you understand the facts um so I don't have any I don't think it's going to make a difference well if there were a legal objection I would entertain it but hearing none I will accept into evidence the County's exhibits 34 through 41 okay Mr Shilling morning your honor good morning what you got for me I have some the first thing I'd like to do is ask ask Mr Schilling some uh questions about his background um so I believe you had previously testified Mr Schilling that your current position is growth management director for Martin County yes that's correct and how long have you held that position since approximately May of 2020 okay and prior to that what position did um Let me let me back how long have you been employed by um Martin County just over 17 years and has it all been in the growth Management Department yes it has okay so prior to your position as growth management director what was your position I held several positions through uh through my tenure here um start uh going backwards from a current position uh deputy director Deputy growth management director Deputy growth management director development review administrator principal planner senior planner zoning compliance technician okay and prior to your employment with Martin County um were you employed in a private corporate thing in the growth in the growth management growth development field yes I was employed by a surveying and mapping firm in South uh south of here and um part of my how long how long was that employment approximately eight years okay so um so basically do you know remember when you started with that the first what year uh had some information here bear with me it would have been eight years prior to 2006 so 1998 correct so so since 1998 to the presid you've been continuously employed in the um development and administration of growth management yes okay at this time your honor I'd ask to Court the qualified as whis witness as an expert in the man in the field of Land Development regulations okay any objection to that I have an objection because he's the plaintiff and he wants to clim as being the witness if he had somebody independent from that I would accept that okay then let me just clarify the plane of of course is Martin County in this case he is an employee of Martin County but but I can tell you just based on personal knowledge uh his his background qualifies him as an expert the difference and the significance to you is that that enables him to offer opinion testimony so he can give you an opinion or give the the hearing an opinion but it's an opinion perhaps he can also of course testify to facts but but that that would be the witness for any County employee so the only thing you're benefiting by making him a expert witness yes is his biased opinion because he so the way this works is uh don Donaldson gets to decide which of these gets done through their agents and U Mr Schilling is his primary agent in the growth to management so the opinion of the county is expressed through Mr Schilling and so he can't be an expert witness offered um unbiased opinions while being in a biased role Yes actually he can I know but I'm making the point that it's even at the last meeting when we were talking about his terminology for example when it came to um has I asked him for example has there ever been a parking lot created in Martin County objection your onor the the respondents I'm hearing argument it's okay uh the respondents should be limited to W deer on the on the uh Witnesses qualifications all right I'm saying even at the last hearing I asked has the County ever created a parking lot and he said maybe instead of no that's the bias I'm talking about he knows the answer he doesn't know all right it's up to me to figure out the difference I can't rely on on that expert testimony necessarily I would I would I would submit to any expert with his qualifications in an independent role yeah and and actually I'm going to find that he is an expert just based on my personal knowledge of Mr Schilling for the last since 2004 or any anyway I said he is an expert in another case he would be appropriate not in a case he's pressing that also enables the the attorney to ask questions that are somewhat leading you'll be able to respond you'll be able to ask questions as well okay go ahead and and Mr Shilling you are qualified as an expert okay U Mr chilling are you familiar with the subject property that we have yes okay um and is the big property currently vacant land yes okay would the parking of vehicles on any kind of on vacant land constitute a modification of the land yes and such modification would then require a development order before such use would be used correct yes that's correct okay is there any to your knowledge has any development order ever been issued for either of the subject partials of land this case or on well just for this case no sir okay uh your knowledge has an application for a development order ever been um received for this parcel of land not a development application on the on the one portion we have had a pre-application but that is not a development application that is simply a conceptual plan okay unrelated to this case Okay um can you tell the the Court what the definition um in the County ordinance is article 12 is of is a parking lot it would you like me to read it if I can find it here real quick okay well well let me let me let let me read it to you and tell me if that is correct is a parking lot as defined in article 12 a a principal use of land for the purpose of providing short-term par parking of operable Motor Vehicles to support nearby land uses according to article 12 yes okay um you're familiar with the use of the property that was being made during this case correct correct okay is that parking in your opinion related to any nearby land use no sir okay going back to um the classification of the property as vacant land is an accessory use allowed on vacant property no sir accessory use requires a primary use okay and is the parking of recreational vehicles boat trailers and similar articles prohibited as an accessory use in the port salano cra yes and by the parking of such vehicles on vacant land can I clarify should yes uh for example if someone were to have a residence something of that nature yes then those would those accessory uses would be would be uh appropriate okay so let's explore this the the concept of a primary use a primary use means then in your opinion there is some other structure or use of the property existing beforehand correct and that's what allows you to then Park and something use something not just it doesn't just apply to Vehicles it's structures and other things that are deemed accessory there must be some other primary use in place first that's correct the the accessory uses are dependent and in conjunction and associated with the primary use for example a a a residence with a guest house a residence with a boat dock uh a commercial business with an outbuilding an ancillary to the primary building um parking expansions things of that nature so then um in your opinion as as the you know growth management director if you if a person wanted to just park vehicles on a piece of land it would require a development order because that would be the primary use of the land correct and without a development order no such parking would be allowed that's correct no further questions for this witness all right um Mr Carley do you have questions from Mr Schilling yes uh you may need to do it for him would you please read the definition of parking lot again sure pursuant to article 12 section 12.1.4 parking lot or a parking lot is a parking lot of structure operated as a principal used for the providing of short-term parking of operable Motor Vehicles to support nearby land uses and your point to Mr Schilling was your your question was uh does this lot support any nearby land uses and his answer was objection I did not ask if this lot supports any nearby land that's why you were trying to Define that this wasn't a parking lot you were trying to exclude this as a parking lot if you want to let me just tell you and caution you you can't just have a conversation with him and you can't argue with him you can ask questions and and uh elicit I'm not I'm not a lawyer actually I know a little bit of room please yeah and I've tried to give you as much room probably more than than I should have but than I deserve uh um I'll ask the I I understand your point let me try and ask that question because I'm curious about it as well let me see if I understand correctly what what you've said and I I was also looking at the definition of parking lot and and there's a definition of parking lots and garages in 3.3 the glossery of terms for the entire Land Development code it's slightly different than the one that's in 12 but I'll read that to you just to refresh your memory it says um uh parking lots and garages a public or private parking lot or parking structure operated as a principal use for the purpose of providing off street parking or storage of operable Motor Vehicles including trailers but specifically excluding the parking or storage of construction equipment so sounds like you can park anything except for construction equipment on a primary use uh principal use is how it actually calls it parking lot is that correct that's correct and does that require a development order yes okay that's that's all I wanted to know okay you may have has the county ever issued a development order for a park parking lot Mr Shilling for a standalone parking lot I'm not aware of one I had the same question at the last hearing I remember you asking I would have thought by now that we would had the answer for I he's an expert I just answered the question no no that's what he's saying is no okay well his knowledge no okay so I'd like to enter this into evidence this is a building application you're onon it this is not the I'm I'm asking him a question if he this is his Department building application you know development reviews is that something that you have already submitted to the department this is from the Department this is from the building department so I'll let me ask record yeah we're it's it's to his expert opinion about whether the county has so not only is it his expert opinion it's his job all of these anything to do with this here's my point I went to the building department and asked to give me all of the development order reviews for parking lots Martin County and the only one that they had was this one which was were a temporary parking lot for a uh sales building for Banyon Creek I think so I submit this into evidence as the county has never because I went and did the research issued a development order for a standalone parking lot the county stipulates to that they agree they have no he said maybe I said no oh the county has never okay they said to his knowledge no so right and I would also submit that I have submitted to the to the code I have so much paperwork here sorry about oh these so not only have they not ever issued uh a development order has the county here's I guess I have to put this a question has the county ever initiated a code violation for parking on a legal commercial lot for not having a development order legal or illegal no uh an illegal would be a residential a ex Center I'm saying has the county ever initiated a code enforcement hearing for the lack of a development order for cars parked on a permitted use property a commercial property has the county ever pressed this argument that a development order is require because under oath you said that if cars park on an empty lot then they need a development order and I'm saying has the county ever prosecuted that I can't excuse me I can't answer that definitively uh people Park vehicles in a lot of places and I'm not sure at times for example in the rways whatever the case is if there's a development order a previous approval or a a um existing parking lot associated with a restaurant or something then of course we wouldn't prosecute that unless the vehicles were abandoned I'd like to submit into evidence uh on March 1st of 20124 I did a code complaint g once again objection it's it's not respond he's not presenting his case in Chief he's just supposed to be cross-examining a witness it's not the time to present evidence you read definitions to the expert witness I'm reading stuff to him too yeah but if you get it you're going to get an opportunity to do that this is like cross-examination if you've you know I was making the points so we were making the points about parking and he said he said in his expert testimony that if I'm parking on a property that's I have a permitted use to park my cars but if I do then I'm in violation of not having a development order and I dispute his his testimony on that okay because because there's never been a prosecution he's never prosecuted this case against anybody and they don't exist Mark County's never created a parking lot but you're going to get a chance to argue that okay well I'm just arguing I'll argue my point but I'm arguing against his expert testimony I can move to the next Point what yeah ask a question or sit down is there any primary use on my property of the two properties that are subject to the violation no okay has there ever been any development order issued on my property not that I'm aware of no would a development order be required in order to have an accessory use yes that's important your honor because one of the codes that they use says accessory uses are not permitted to have overnight RV parking correct so the fact that I can't have an accessory use because I have no primary use that section of their whole argument falls apart that's why it's important that we've established this facts no I I disagree but but I because I've now read the code in the last couple of weeks so um let you go ahead and ask your questions what my question was is if I don't have a primary use can I have an accessory use and he agreed that I cannot have an accessory use so therefore when we get to that argu I want that to be there is no there cannot be an accessory use because there is not a per use that's that's a very important point we'll make that point later when I make my argument I'm trying to differentiate the question okay but what you're going to learn is that recreational Vehicle Parks as a primary use are not permitted in the in the yeah IO I accept that okay and if you accept if and if you say to me right now that that do you accept the County's argument that I am operating in a recreational vehicle park this whole thing I would comply because of course it's illegal of course a recreational vehicle park is illegal okay now but I mean I'm not but my argument is I'm not doing one because I read the definition so we can I was going to ask the next question is is by definition am I a recreational vehicle bar when you read the definition it says I must charge Y and I can't understand how unclear that is the fact that it's free I can't see how I fit into the category if some I Mr Schilling and his expert testimony and his intent I understand clearly they wrote the code and they said I don't want a recreational vehicle park I can't understand aent I just have to read the law and when I read the rules I said I don't have if I do this and don't charge since I don't have a primary use I'm I can't be an accessory use I'm not a recreational vehicle park because I'm not charging if I charge the dollar boom I'm done I'm out of here I'm illegal but because I'm not I'm not charging anyway I'm trying to ask a question instead of my thank you for giving me some go ahead anyway my further point is these are a series of of uh code complaints for this very issue does parking on a vacant commercial property requireed development order and there's been no action from from the from the code enforcing on these issues you want to show those to Mr Schilling and ask questions about them or what do you want to do it's I guess it's his department so I guess John can answer the questions I don't know how this whole thing works as an well I would like to review if if we're going to be accepting evidence now I'd like to review it first I I'm my point is these These are code cases I open that have that are for the exact same issue I'm using my lot for the core of this case um your honor is that what I your honor close enough the coure of this case is whether I need a development order to park cars that's that's what this whole thing rests upon and that's what these issues are for is I I can open a thousand of these all over Martin County and get zero compliance okay again that's argument but your honor um May I just make a make sure Mr Tu can see what before yeah before anybody says anything not discussing these today I don't think but my my point is that there's a clear distinction between and what we're talking about today is parking vehicles on sites as opposed to running and and maintaining RVs and campers okay I agree with that okay so I just want to make that clarification there are people perhaps parking in places they shouldn't be perhaps off of parking lots in conjunction with other uses primary uses for example if a restaurant expands into an area potentially without a development order a church may have grass parking that's not officially part of a development order but it's ancillary and accessory to the house of worship so we have those throughout the county and in a variety of circumstances they predate the code in fact so uh we need to keep all this in mind today I think would be helpful here's a question if if I didn't have RVs parked if I just had cars parked what would we be here today would you have pressed this case yes yes it would be a parking lot without a development order so when Ranger Construction rented my property on behalf of the county to store construction equipment on my property which I have leases for here that that which you're very well aware of because you were a part of the project that was okay but I can't park cars there a a temporary use first of all I wasn't necessarily involved in that I'm I'm aware that there were some temporary uses with respect to think asphalt millings and Equipment as part of a public works project for repaving of resurfacing of of a roadway um but that doesn't negate the fact that a development order is required for a permanent operation even temporary I I'm just I'll make the point I would like to answer is because the thing is we're here because of the RVs I accept that I just want I want the expert witness to say that's why we're here and I want the expert witness to admit that if I was using this for anything else which I've been using and everybody else is using everybody wants them to use parking cars that we wouldn't be here this is whole and part about RVs and ask an answered your honor the witness just testified we would be here yeah and that's that's correct what what Mr Tu is saying is absolutely right Mr Schilling answered answer it I know but I'm making the point that you're you're jumping ahead any more questions for Mr Schilling okay go ahead and have a seat all right anything else yes let me just see what and now that I've seen it I would enter an objections that it's irrelevant none of them have anything to do with the subject fil uh that's the subject of this case live uh okay uh these are these are records from Martin County uh there are five pages of I don't know exactly how you would call them but but they indicate that um there are at least five situations where people have used if I could clarify a little bit your honor they're called requests for services they're the record of the online complaint system any citizen when they believe there's a violation can um reported and that's the form that it reaches the code enforcement division okay so these are nothing's been adjudicated here this is just a just a citizen complaint the citizen of an alleged violation and I agree the these are not relevant and I'm not going to entertain them okay um yeah it would have been different had they been actual cases open by the county all right hang on too early that's the point that they haven't been open okay and you'll argue that um anything else Mr Shilling not at this time thank you your honor any any further Witnesses no no further Witnesses your honor I would turn it back over to office of counsil to wrap up the County's case go ahead based upon the testimony evidence I request that the respondent capital c Inc be given a no repeat order as the violations have been corrected before today's hearing but not before the initial compliance date in the notice of violation the Count's incuded the cost of in the amount of 575 hour conducting this investigation and requested the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing and that concludes my testimony that's the first testimony that I've heard that Mr Crowley is in compliance yes basically um March 7th was the last day I witnessed RVs being parked on the lot okay as of yet yesterday um I have I can submit this picture on SC you do that to Mr Crowley first that's a my oversight your honor I was going to ask the question and establish that but the distractions I lost my place and I forgot to ask the question of this witness okay just may I see this looks like a bacon lot bacon commercial lot okay so basically what the county is requesting is a no repeat order basically since the respondent didn't meet the request to comply the violations by the violation letter but he did comply with the violations prior to today's hearing we're just asking that in order to not repeat the violation be ordered against the property and is this just as to that's just the lot in case number one 163 correct I have a separate picture for the other case all right any objection to this photo not to the photo no all right I'm going to accept it as exhibit number 42 which I'm going to mark on the back for whoever's whoever is recording okay thank you honor all right that that actually has been ented as exhib IIT 35 this one has yes no oh no I'm sorry once again i' I've gotten you this is that was our areal view of it vacant this is this is the uh the latest view I'm sorry okay would are on it's there 42 all right well um wow I actually I don't need to hear that's I don't need to hear argument as to whether or not you're currently in violation well that's I'm I am in violation there's cars parked there now this has happened to be a few days where there wer in cars park all right and I understand your point about their point but I want to I want to have a decision on this case I don't want to I you're going to get a decision on the case no no well I mean I want to be able to argue what they're doing now is they're saying he's not in violation here's my recommendation that nullifies the whole case and I don't get to argue the case and I'm saying I in violation and and that's not true I don't accept their evidence I haven't just a few people haven't pared in a few days and they they had 25 days of evidence and 3 days says that I'm not using it um so let me just take a look if I might direct the Court's attention to exhibit 12 which is the amended notice of violation which provides the compliance State all right a defendant inist he's guilty yeah I I don't think there yeah I I had read that before thank you yeah all right um okay so essentially the county has rested its case in 163 so Mr Crowley what do you got to tell me so much um I'd like to make a motion to dismiss based on so many things and I would I would just ask since you've been very gracious with me in terms of my lack of understanding of the process that if you do disagree with the dismissal that you give me some I have a lot of paperwork and a lot of history with this property if you can give me some guidance in terms of how to argue to you I guess would be the question I don't know like because there's three sections if let me if I say I motion to dismiss and you say Mr Crowley I deny your motion but you agree with one of the three or two of the three three points that that would be helpful tell me the basis for your motion okay the basis for my motion is I have no primary use therefore I cannot have an accessory use and therefore the third violation can't apply that whole section it says four accessory uses and we can read the definition of accessory use but but under oath Mr Tumi asked Paul Schilling what an accessory use was and he said you needed to have a primary use under oath Mr Schilling said I do not have a primary use I've also have evidence here which I'll submit that Lisa wler from engineering department says that I don't have a primary use and leise Elder the assistant County attorney also says I don't have a primary use because I applied for permits for having a temporary parking lot and they said that I can't have a temporary parking lot because the definition precludes primary use therefore that that third section is just totally garbage I don't I don't even apply H their point earlier was as an accessory if I if I was an accessory use I could park cars there legally that's true but as an accessory use I could not have them sleep overnight and so mhm you know I I let me tell you when I read through the materials and and read um your argument which you offered in writing yes uh and which I accepted as an exhibit so I I fully considered that one of the difficulties that I see with the County's case is in that accessory reuse section I don't think I need to get that far um this is the long way of telling you I am going to deny your motion to dismiss but but I think it's it's more simple than you've made it I'm certain it is all right and and the first thing is um can you use vacant property without a development order do you need a development order to use your vacant property and as you pointed out it is a commercial paral um and and I think the answer to that is yes you must have a development order to use your property for any kind of commercial use okay and parking is a commercial use in this particular case in this particular instance it is the second thing is if you were going to allow RVs to park there you couldn't get a permit to do that because because it's not a permitted use and so what you've got is this dichotomy between I've got this piece of vacant land I now invite RVs to come and park there and I don't have a permit either for a parking lot or for an RV parking park because I can't get one of those that's right but I can't park anything there because even though that's a primary use I don't have a permit to do it and if you if you had a permit presumably you would have to build it as a parking lot you'd have to pave it you'd have to land landcape it you'd have to light it you'd have to do all of the things that people do when they own parking lots but you haven't done that you just have this vacant piece of dirt that's got a fire pit and couple other little things on it um but you you have started to develop it and you've asked people to come use it yes cannot do that without a permit well I'm saying that there is no such permit I well there there there would be but you haven't applied for it I gone and applied for permits I've I've applied for a parking permit and a temporary parking permit and the documents I gave you from Elise Elder and from the county attorney said that I couldn't get a temporary parking permit and the reason I applied for a temporary parking permit was because I don't I don't need to go through the whole development order process they can give me something temporary I was like this is great this I read the whole code 16,000 times and I finally found a solution I can have a temporary parking permit cuz with a temporary parking permit I don't need need a development order I don't need all these other things okay but you still have to apply for and obtain it but I can't and and in those letters they said I cannot apply for it because I don't have a primary use no no there there is a in the salero district a permitted use is a parking lot that's correct I'm glad you read that I brought that with me but I won't have to put that in there it is but now that it's permitted if you look at the list of permitted uses it says Church restaurants all kinds of different things all all of those and all the code that Mr Schilling has written is about doing something building things and I understand all of that I am just that parking is the only thing permitted that that hasn't been thought through by the county and it hasn't been thought through because they've never done it steuart's bought brought a lot of parking lots and that's what this whole argument is about I don't think you understand that or maybe you do that I'm a public figure in portar I've been in the in TC Palm I've been in WP TV I'm all over Facebook and I apologize my argument is political issue my argument is this is entirely a political issue and because because there is no parking permit I never had a problem parking there when Ranger Construction was parking their their trucks on behalf of the county when I had car shows just like all the other things that go on in Martin County the the the fishermen parked their boats um you know Twisted tuna has a lot that does not have a development permit I could go on and have a thousand of these that don't have permits the only reason that we're here today is because of the me being a public figure and having a lot of complaints right I I I'm not aware of that that issue that that you are a political figure and a public figure but I that's articles my fault I'm sure anyway um I that's not relevant to the issue that's in front of me I'm being handed documents what is I'm just this for the evidence these are the printed news articles about the Sero uh opposing parking because Martin County is renowned for tying themselves to trees in order to stop development again I that's political and I I mean you're talking to the wrong person as far as I'm trying to make a legal point but I but there's a political aspect to this as well because I wouldn't be here at all like I'm the first person in the history of Martin County that's being prosecuted for having cars on a on a permitted use that's my entire point that I didn't see at your honor okay and I don't know even know what that is but and and these these articles I would object to as being irrelevant to the case at point that I think there's been no Mr Schilling has been presented as an expert I'd like to I'd like to qualify myself as an expert and submit this these articles as evidence to my ability to create passion at the very least yeah I this really has If you deny it though I can't use it in appeal but it almost has no evidentiary value it goes towards the fact that that here's the point we're we're we're um arguing the legal points that they've made their points are complicated Mr tuli's complaint against me the the memorandum of law is 40 pages there's 1 2 3 4 5 6 s eight nine people out here you know opposed to me their evidence is muddled and full of mistakes and they had to take out different things it's just me up here against them and it's never been anybody else except for me because there's a political issue behind all of this and I'm saying that we we I'm going to argue the points I'm trying to make the points about the definitions but I want everyone to understand I expect the county to open in a thousand cases the same way you can't complain about my lawn and not enforce the neighbor's lawn you well actually they can do that as well but you realize that my job is to cut through all of that I'm not talking to you I'm talking to health court simple as possible understand and I don't expect I'm going to I'm I'm going to deny your your motion to bring that into evidence it's those are not they're anecdotal there's no way to authenticate them I mean if Mr Fort noi was here you might be able to to bring them in but I I just don't see how that's possible as denied as to those two uran um county has no objection whatsoever they going to evidence um as a a statement against interests considering they established the County's case um all right this is a letter or an email from Lisa wixer subject is the coffee shop August 4th 2023 you're submitting that yes okay it's copy of a County record okay so she's discussing the opportunity to reservice and restripe Southeast Sero Road and two people's Capital Pro oh and capital project administrator okay we did something similar around 2015 when an on street parking was added along Southeast commerce between cero and seawork after further review of The Land Development regulations I don't believe the vacant site will be eligible for a temporary parking lot Land Development regulations require the County engineer to determine that off street parking requirements of the primary use cannot be met and that the primary use meets all other requirements of the Land Development Regulation Code and comprehensive plan since the site is vacant and there is not a primary use on the site I cannot determine that the parking requirements uh can it says she says cannot be meant but can could be I think is what she meant and sign Lisa wixer and then there's a an slightly earlier July 25th 2023 email from Elise Elder s County attorney regarding the Salo coffee shop pre-application meeting uh it has to have an independent primary use to utilize the temporary parking provision signed a lease okay so my the reason you're moving these inevidence county has no objection I'm going to accept them into evidence as exhibits two and three I think we have one of yours one yeah so so my my point about this is I for more than a year I've been trying to use my property and I've been to growth management many times and I talked to Clyde dull and talked to talked to Paul and I've been you know shut down every time um I thought the temporary parking thing was going to be great but uh the county Assistant Attorney and the County engineer said that I needed the primary use we've established that I don't have any primary use to my pointing earlier but if I can't if I don't have a primary use then all of that accessory use is is garbage all right my point is then I went and said okay let me build an actual parking lot and the difference was if I started putting millings down and I started doing Creations the engineer said yes at that point for example when Ranger Construction was using my property on behalf of the county they parked their equipment they had port-a-potties on the property um not without a development order Paul's going to argue that it was a temporary use that's not in the code they just did what they wanted to do um I wanted to put millings down when they were finished because they were doing the surfacing of the roads so I had a long conversation with the county I said what makes the what's the difference between because I didn't want to have to go through the development order process because I'm going to be building big buildings there eventually I don't want to spend half a million dollars now and then $10 million later it's like it was the waste of money so I said what's what's the minimum I need to do in order to make this not a parking lot and the the answer and there is no definition of what the difference between an empty lot and a parking lot is that's kind of the whole problem so I said well if you put an impervious surface uh if you put millings down and they had plenty Ranger Construction had lots of millings I was like yeah cover the surface make it into a real parking lot and I didn't do that because if I had done that then I would be here in violation of building a parking lot without a development order so I didn't do that and I have it now simply as a grass lot and the county said yeah it's fine Ranger Construction used it they parked their vehicles there now it's a grass lot and I said great I didn't make a parking lot that was the whole point now I'm being you know pressed for for having a parking lot and the difference between a parking lot and not a parking lot apparent to them is not just millings or some type of construction you know to me a marina looks like a marina when there's no boats there or a church looks like a church when there's no people there a parking lot looks like a parking lot when there's no cars there the picture that they presented as evidence it's a vacant lot I'm just permitted to use it for parking like everybody else in the county is like the the car dealerships and the restaurants the churches for Christ sake when they anybody who has overflow parking if you if you agree with the county is going to be susceptible to being brought here under charges trumped up charges under political circumstances in order to twist my arm and say hey we don't like what you're doing in the community we want you to get get out that's what this is that's my point like they're trumped up charges I went through the process I said what makes it a parking lot I avoided doing that we started parking cars the county used it there was never a problem this is an issue about RVs not about whether I need a development order to make my parking lot if if you decide that I do have indeed an RV park even though I don't agree then I'm then I'm culpable which is why I stopped doing it but if you decide that that I need to to your point earlier that you said that I need need a park I need a development order in order to park cars on an empty that's that's that's dangerous because if that's the case I'm going to use that exactly thing and can continue to press my cases against all the other thousand people in the community like this has to be fair and you has to be fair and and that's once it's fair I will argue the point about the definition I made the point several times about the excess reuse I can't imagine that that could possibly be accepted I'll make the same exact point about the other two cases I I think I made it about the development order so my my motion for dismissal is still here you were trying to help me saying that it wasn't going to be denied but I wanted to understand exactly under what terms and you started going down that path and I made made my arguments would you please address my motion to dismiss and I'll be quiet motion to dismiss is denied now I do you have anything else you want to tell me am I still arguing my case you are okay so I'm not an RV when I was a kid we had to go to South Carolina to buy fireworks and some guy figured out that if he made people sign a document that says that the fireworks are to scare birds then uh then Lo blood it's legal so he found a loophole you know I go to the fair in hob sound and they're selling raw milk that's illegal but if I sign a document saying it's for my my animals it's legal the point is I don't understand the County's intent I just understand the rules and when you look at it from a rules base there are ways to do things that people don't intend the creation of the 401K is a good example the government didn't create it that some clever accountant created the most important Retirement System in America by manipulating the rules so my argument is the definition of being an RV park requires that I pay that I charge and if I did charge then I wouldn't be here arguing my point because I would be you know I I let me just tell you and I I think we can maybe shorten this whole process a lot certainly what you're saying and what the county has saying applies to both cases I mean there's no question about that I can consider them easily that that way as as the same issue and I don't think I have to get as far as the RV park issue I I can limit it to the fact that that um that there is such a thing in the code as a parking lot there's definitions for it there's there's in both uh article 12 and and in section 3.3 there's a definition of what a parking lot is and you're making a new definition because you're saying cars parked on an empty lot as a parking lot up until this point that those have always been vacant Lots no I'm not saying that I'm saying if you want to use it as the primary use for parking then you have to get a permit and be a parking lot you can't just park vehicles on a vacant lot and call it good so if I have a restaurant and I own a lot next door I intend to use that as parking for my restaurant I would need to go through a development order you would get a development order for an accessory use for an immediately contiguous adjacent property and in likelihood that would be granted if it was common ownership County might require you to to put a Unity of title on the property but but but it would be essentially where your overflow parking would go on a new parking lot permitted by the county in your case you've got this Standalone lot that that I and I think I understand based on the two hearings I mean your your desire is to encourage uh development and use of the port Silo area yes maybe that's altruistic and maybe it's self- serving but or some combination of the two that doesn't matter but but to do that if if you had come to the county and said look I got this Nifty lot and it's right in the middle of everything and I want to create a parking lot I've been trying for a year there's no there's no permit I can't go get one well yes you can the only one that's ever been given is this one that you wouldn't accept into evidence in the history of Martin County this is the only permit that's ever issued for a parking lot this is my overall argument Stuart makes lots of parking lots for their citizens Martin County doesn't just make them they want to take them away they want to make mine illegal I mean this is you know modu tie yourself to all the trees in order to stop the development you you're almost now arguing against yourself and saying I use my point is like for example Twisted tuna has uh the history of the Twisted tuna are you familiar with the area in Port celo somewhat okay so it was uh fins and then objection your honor Twisted is irrelevant I'm allow to make an argument I'm saying that they have a parking lot that they purchased after the development of the property that was a vacant lot and they used it for the seafood festival and it's primarily purpose is parking for employees etc etc etc been there for a long time okay totally accessory to the property totally built for the property no development order and there never will be because it's one of the cases that I brought that'll never get prosecuted all right and you understand why that's not relevant here because in your case there is no it's not your use is not accessory to anything it actually is I own the property next door just like Twisted tuna I have the then Paul can Paul do I have a office a permitted use office on the property next door there is a there is a business office that's received a business tax receipt for a commercial office office uh immediately to the West a very very small lot with a um an old home that was converted yes okay and do I have the permitted parking on that property for my my use um as long as you constructed the Ada space yes you do oh I my point is that my lot is accessory just like to twist tuna's lot to my little business I have food trucks on that business sometimes I park my farther so my commercial lot is accessory to a use that I have they're different pcns or different Lots now I could combine them and make them into a parking lot again you you have not applied for a permit to do it I tried and Lisa Wexler said I can't your honor may I um there's a there's a distinction between actually utilizing property on a temporary basis kind of informally with a temporary use permit of of some sort um there's a there 's also a a there are requirements to construct a parking lot in which you invite patrons so meaning that parking lot would need to be built to current standards it would need to have all the striping the paving the the ADA requirements the associated drainage Landscaping so there is in fact an ability to construct apply to construct a freestanding parking lot in that area we just haven't received that application okay the the commercial boat ramp doesn't have striping and that's a County property I can I can the county can come here and and start arguing sandprint doesn't have uh a lot of striping and the required parking the boats are parking in the sand so I mean this is my point like Port has been arguing about parking for 30 years you know and I'm and the reason I wanted to submit these documents is because I have been pushing for parking for the past two years because I don't want ports Seno to turn into downtown Stewart okay we're going to grow and the county should have bought this property a long time they should have bought my property a long time ago and so the County's push back there's a thousand member group against me um one of the members is here some people there's actually an audience for this hearing the point is Martin County doesn't want parking Martin County has never created parking Martin County doesn't want to think about parking Martin County can't help me every way I went down the road to get parking for this property there's nothing I I go to the county boat docks there's no striping and nothing else this Milling is on top of dirt I could go down to sand sprit and say the same thing I can go to Twisted tuna there's 100 I can go down to the keys for example imagine and see all the different Shell Rock parking that's informal you're going to say that the whole state needs to start calling all of these things you know uh developments in order to get development orders no that this is Florida this is what you do you put your sandals on you walk across the shell parking lot you go to the bar and have a few beer no different than what I'm doing okay I'm I'm going to I think stop this and probably end it I think I've I think I've heard enough I mean I I've I've read the materials and I've heard your argument now over and over I well the argument is not for you to be honest with you it's it's for the Circuit Court that's why I've been making the argument so and I can't bring new evidence all they're going to do is just listen to this conversation and they'll make their determination well they they don't really listen to anything like that but do you have a record of the do you have a record of the proceeding yeah they're on YouTube okay all right [Music] um okay I as to 163 uh case number based upon the request of the county I am going to uh find that you were in violation in order you not to repeat the violation failing which you would be subject to a repeat violation which is an enhanced fine so so I urge you to if you have a political argument make it to the correct body it is not me I all I can do is look at the code hear the evidence and determine whether in fact there is or was in this case a violation as to um the case number endings U 163 and and I would tell you that um that I am finding that a violation did exist regarding the use of your vacant lot commercial lot vacant commercial lot that's fine it doesn't matter it's a vacant lot makes all the difference well maybe to you and maybe politically it does but but it's a vacant lot being used uh as a parking lot without a permit and um and that alone would find you in violation um the um the other question let me get to that sorry this may take me a minute okay the the question regarding uh 12.1.0 4.7 H um has to do with um with the parking of recreational vehicles and trailers uh and they're only permitted as an accessory use and I believe that to be the case however and I and I think in their um in their Sub in their memorandum of law you may have seen point three but I don't know that that really has uh a lot of bearing on this case other than the fact that the parking happens to be RVs that's right only if it was anything else it'd be okay well it wouldn't be okay and that's what my first point either it's an accessory use and it's okay according to your point or it's not an accessory use and it's illegal to park at all it's not a permitted use in but I can park my truck there you you can as long as it's not a construction my point is you if you determin that that that this applies that I'm allowed to park there if I was an accessory use you can't park there without a permit you have to have a permit to use that lot whether it's temporary or permanent it goes one this the point about the accessory use Cuts both ways if you say that the parking is accessory and you're going to apply this whole accessory use thing and the list of things that you said are permitted then RVs are permitted okay RVs are permitted to park there as an accessory use I I dispute that I say I don't have an accessory use according to that code that doesn't apply RVs are not permitted to park there okay you you're missing the point I think I am and the the point is that accessory use also has to have a permit you can't just do it what's my primary use your primary use would have to be parking lot or something right I can't have a the primary use and the accessory use can't be the same otherwise it's just aals b equal c aals c you're never going to be able to park RVs there no I I I don't disag I don't dispute the fact that the RV because they aren't permitted in this I never disputed the fact about the rvps but that's what you've got well that's the point of this case facto everything in the whole world was fine until RV started parking there okay so that point of that all of their arguments though are about everything else if you accepted that that's my my my point earlier your honor I said if you say that I I genuinely have an RV Park which is what the county genuinely believes and a lot of people genuinely believe when you drive by and and you sell these cars there you're like that looks like an RV park how can that be possible and it's the same argument I made with the fireworks it's possible because the county has never considered people just parking places for free on private property if it was public it would would be illegal if it was an accessory use it would be illegal if I was charging it would be illegal there's there's a long list of things that would make this illegal but the fact that it's a private property where parking is permitted and I'm not charging I don't fit the definition of being an RV park I can only read I can't I can't I can't go into Paul's brain I well it's not Paul's brain that you have to worry about it's it's actually what the County Commission intended which they wrote which said I had to charge and in fact you have the right to rely on common understanding and meaning of those words exactly I don't dispute that that's not an issue and and I don't think that the county is charging you with that what saying I have an RV park well they don't really say that what they are saying is the second whole section says the complaint read the complaint it says you are illegally you operating at RV park without a development order that's what the count is saying that's what that's what that's what they're saying if you don't believe that that I actually have an RV park based on the definition then this whole case becomes very difficult to prosecute either I am or I am if I if I am an RV park if you say that I am and you want to go directly against the definition which means that I charge you know this is being recorded this this will be the Crux of the of the of the appeal the point is I'm not charging therefore I am not an RV park and you and to your point earlier I have the I have the right to read the rules and try to interpret their intent that's my right as a citizen can I offer some clarification your honor consider things are getting muddied up again there's three three separate violations here they're independent of one another and in a way interconnect either they're independent or interconnected one of the two uh number one the development order you've already ruled on that's sort of overarching that's the biggest that that's the overarching thing the um the excessive reuse um violation is adjacent to that is also stands on its own because even if there weren't multiple RVs parked even if there was no RV park being ined if there was one parked on it there's no primary use it cannot be there the second prong of that violation would you let me finish please sir I'm the argu aren't I I mean I did the same thing to him but he's a lawyer he should understand the rules hang on he can't make this long argument he he understands the rules trust me go ahead where was it the second prong of of the accessory use is even if it was permitted they can't be occupied that's the that's the Crux of that violation that we need the repeat order that regardless of whether you get a development order for a parking lot or for a vegetable stand or for a skyscraper an RV could be parked there then as an accessory use but cannot be occupied for any length of time that's the gravamin of that violation if it was an accessory use which there can't be because there's no primary use that's why that whole section is null and void if it's an accessory use I can park cars there but I can't sleep there if it's not an accessory use then it's a primary use and then Paul says that I need to have development order well then go ahead and Rule and tell me it's an accessory use and I'll use that piece of code to park cars there I won't let them sleep overnight because that would be illegal in an accessory use but if you determine that that the using of my lot is accessory to some imaginary primary use then I'll apply that exact code to the use of my lot let's go back any repeat violation that they want to bring me forward let's go back to the original premise that I'm standing on and that is you don't have a permit for anything I'm not doing anything well yes you are that's the problem that's the that's the what am I if you say Mr Crowley I believe you have an RV park based on the definition and based on the County's evidence that I will accept your ruling and use that as the basis for my people I just would wish you're trying to you went to the beginning and said you don't need to talk about anything you went to the end and said that we'll talk about that I would like you to answer this one question which would which I would walk out of here and agree with if you if you determin that I am an RV park based on the definition please just say so I've been asking this question for two hearings and nobody's been able to say you won't say do you do you believe that I'm an RV park based on the definition of RV park based on what the evidence shows me and the definition do you I understand the definition let's read it again can you read the definition one more time please just to be clear the definition of an RB part it's in my does the court wish me to do this please okay let me find it ah I think I've got it I got it someplace oh I got it here I have it right here okay all right recreational vehicle park is a commercial use of land to provide individual spaces for two or more recre vehicles on a daily basis or no on a daily fee or short-term rental basis for tencies of less than six consecutive months right and so since I don't charge a daily fee I cannot be airgo cannot be I don't fit the definition you when you if you did bullet points on the definition you'd be like RV is sleeping you know blah blah blah and one of those things would be if it was reversed and I had a list of requirements you can be pretty well sure that Paul would hold me to everything when it's in the reverse this way oh four out of five is good enough he's an RV park even though he doesn't charge no it's isn't how it works and and um the county has argued well you may not charge a daily fee and you may not uh have short-term rentals but you're paying somebody those people are paying someone and they've asked me to accept that as as the payment even though it's not coming to you and that's pretty iffy so no I have more difficulty with that argument than some of the others but the fundamental principle is you now have a primary use on a vacant lot that has no permit and I can I can stand on that all day and and I agree with you and you're not going to win that argument anywhere if you if you if we agree here now that my primary use is an RV park which I've asked and I still can't get an answer the best I got from you was maybe to say that it is or isn't am I in RV park or am I not can I expand since since the court mentioned about the fee um the definition is quite plain there is no verbiage in the definition that addresses who collects the fee there is nothing that requires the property owner to be the one that collects the fee it merely requires that some sort of a fee or rental Arrangement the gra of that the legislative intent is a business use of the property in order to provide parking for the recreational vehicles the court cannot add language to statutes that the legislature did not put in there that is a basic Cannon of statutory interpretation and another basic Cannon is that legislators what they write they write things for a reason they mean what they say hope so and they didn't say in there it has to be the owner that collects the fee it's just a business Arrangement it is Undisputed from the testimony that the people who have utilize this flot for recreational vehicle purposes had to pay a fee in order to be able to access the property it's a business Arrangement it satisfies the legislative intent of the definition of a recreational vehicle park and and and I'm sure you appreciate how tenuous that that is um tenuous doesn't mean it doesn't exist yeah yeah I I I hear what you're telling me I think I think the the simple answer is I and I can find the violation just based on the fact that that you don't have a permit I know but I keep asking the simple question the whole question in this whole case and and you won't give me an answer I don't understand why am I a recreational you're you're very willing to make a determination about me having needing a development order and you're very willing to make a determination about me being an accessory use why are we slipping and sliding past this determination about whether I'm a recreational vehicle park or not how many times do I have to ask the same question you you've you read his memorandum of law he said the exact same thing here again we've heard this argument three times you've said it's tenuous at least six times in the past two hearings let the county lose a little bit and say hey Cory you're not a recreational vehicle park it's not going to be the end of the world the problem is that de facto you are you know they are RVs and they are parked on on your property and and that's his argument that's the that I have to somehow read intent I that if it was reversed I would have to check off every list on Paul's thing for me to development but four out of five is good enough for the county I can appreciate the intent it looks exactly like an RV park I don't dispute the fact that RVs are parking there this is called the future Uber had the same arguments Airbnb had the same arguments Harvest host is having the same arguments in every small community all over town and it starts here in Code Enforcement where people don't understand what we're trying to do we're bringing positive things here's here's I this to evidence Harvest host 120 reviews in 60 days every one of them raving it says very clearly advertisement I do not charge and I I just want to understand you made the point for his point uh in gravitus I don't know what it was that somehow I'm supposed to understand the intent I read the rules and the rules say I have to charge and I'm not charging and so am I so am I or am I not and it's not up to you to any of us to actually decide if we can't read it and understand exactly what the County Commission meant doesn't mean that they don't need to fix the code because they may they do but um but I I can't get to RV Park in this case I just can't I can however looking at 12104 78 tell you you can't have people sleeping overnight okay here's my point either I'm an accessory I'm in VI if you make me in violation of the second section with the accessory uses then what you're saying is that I have a legal accessory use and then then this is the list of things I can do now your point though let me let me finish one of the prohibitions of RVs they they can park there for example as an excess use but they can't sleep overnight I wouldn't be here if I knew that I was using my property as an excessive use because I didn't know that I was in violation but what you're saying is you're using it at least to a certain extent as an accessory use I didn't realize you had the adjacent property you are using it as an accessory use without a permit but there's no what we've already established that there is no primary use for the property exactly but my point is if you read the definition of accessory use which I provided in the document that I gave you I probably have it in here someplace the accepted definition of accessory use implies primary use I'm just talking about the facts BAS just using definitions that's not even facts here this is just okay I I think I've heard enough and and I and I'm ready to rule in this case so I am going to order you not to compete and I am going to order you to pay cost in this case I am going to um I'm going to strike the the violation having to do with RV park because I just can't get there I I don't think based upon the the way the the money if any is paid because I I didn't see that all I saw was the website um so so the the 101 C1 violation and the 12.1.0 4.78 uh violation stand I'm going to get rid of the 12.6.1 point2 pointb thank you by ation cuz I just don't see it and just for the record of your honor I would object to that yes understand all right um any reason I can't apply this to the' 059 case as well do we need the evidence do you want that in either of you both of you maybe you could just you're on it is separate matters um I mean if you're going to charge me 525 for each you know let's just get rid of that one and I'll comply with this one and you know I'm going to comply I'm not I never I didn't leave here to comply I'm going to submit it to the specific court all right but if we're going to try both cases the same then you should at least charge me the same I'm I'm afraid I don't understand the saying what he's going to say is he's going to find me guilty of the second case and charge me another $525 so if we're going to skip that whole process at least if we if you AR if we've argued $525 worth a time or we're going to skip the whole second one just make it at least one that's all I'm asking if you could ask the judge for that to reduce the fee to 525 I'm not um I still don't are you agreeing to consolidate that to not hear the evidence in the second case as long as I only have to pay one $525 so so in other words you don't want to pay the fees in the second case we're going to agree that we're not going to argue with otherwise we can spend the next two days is arguing the second case too that's a that's a county we can start all over again we've incurred the cost basically well you're honor the County's position is we've incurred the costs uh of Prosecuting investigating both these cases including now two hearings so we're not at the uh we're not at the the place where we' be willing to wave the the the cost in the second matter let's get let's buckle up I got donuts all right let me let me just ask you you've seen the County's request for exhibits 1 through 64 in the 059 case do you have objections to those oh I I'm not why every time I ask a question I can't get an answer if I can the question was and I asked the attorney to do it if we can just combine the cases we don't have to go through the list of he said no I know he he said he's not going to recommend it you can do what you want you can make my case you can make my charges zero if you want to well I'm asking you now I'm not inclined to do that I'm inclined to stay here for another you know to argue this whole second case you have them them present the evidence exactly the same way that they did and put it into the evidence and spend another two hours here I'm just saying if we're going to argue the cases equally then I should just pay one fee you realize of course the costs are based upon actual cost they did simultaneously they're that's the been whole argument that everything's the same there's no difference the only difference is that I have different PC not just them but me the more you keep me here I'll get our money more inclined I am to charge the cost understand but I'm more inclined to stay here and get my money's worth if I have to pay for it oh gotcha oh that's that doesn't play well um all right if I remember correctly the the bulk of the exhibits that we looked at in the 163 case that were rejected were photographs that applied really to the ' 059 case that is correct your honor that's correct okay and um but there were separate and and um I guess several exhibit that have to do with uh the original charge and then the amended charge and that sort of thing so no let's go ahead let's let's hear the ' 059 case at least to that point and then we can decide we'll get the evidence you whatever is coming in or out and then you r on the 063 you just said I did and so it's 525 in fees it's 575 575 in fees and I'm guilty of not having a development order and of having an access for years and then if I don't you're having having used the the um overnight sleeping you cannot so if I don't have overnight sleeping since I'm not an RV park I the interpretation of that is I'm not going to end it back in here incorrect you need a permit right but I'm saying there's no RVs park there but if I park my truck am I going to come back here and I don't know you have to talk to the county about that I mean I'm asking we're doing it now is like would I be in violation if they decided to I mean I told you I'm a political figure and you know do I need higher security I'm going to be dragged in here again again you know it's like a mini Donald Trump all right right not my job my job is to show you whether you're in I I can answer that there's it's a vacant land there is no parking of any vehicle allowed on vacant land at any time because I don't have a permit but if it's an accessory use which you've already successfully then as an accessory use I'm allowed to park and store things there you're actually expanding the use of my property not not without a permit no I can as an accessory use no well I I don't I don't need to park I don't need to go to the county to get a permit to park but AR next to my house are you kidding me your house is not there you're arguing that one is because I the second section of your of your section says I can't park cars there because the of anaccessory use this is where I'm I'm losing my mind actually I think we're done with with um the 163 case okay we'll make the same ARG have a seat I'll do a better job the second time after and we're going to we're going to hear the 059 case all right hang on just a sec let's see I have ask one question are all of these hearings um I don't see the the person taking pictures in this hearing are they all recorded this one's being recorded as well be available to the public being televised isn't it being televised live televised live okay good now just want to make certain cuz I last time there was a camera in here but I guess he was from WPTV okay so no idea who he was all right okay so just to tidy things up this is still back on the 163 case um based upon the evidence and the testimony that I've heard I am going to find that um two violations as charge do exist on the property uh those being 10.1 point c.1 for failure to have any permit for the use of the land and 12.1.0 4.78 which uh requires that you can not have overnight sleeping which you have had in the past this is an order not to repeat um the county having found that you came into compliance oner before this hearing and uh the gravement of that is that if uh you later violate the uh code sections that have been charged then an administrative fine of up to $5,000 per day can acrew all right I am also going to award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of the hearing and it is so ordered and that's could just have an application on that for the sake of clarity your your honor and semantics the 10.1 c um it's not technically a permit it's a development order I think some of the confusion was permits refer to building permits the development order is a separate you need the development order before you can go and get a permit yeah and I I used it colloquially but um but Mr Tui is correct it's a development order it's a zoning issue really the use of the land and how how it's uh used all right okay now this is uh case number uh enf 20241 0059 the respondent is capital ink and um let's see the parties are all the same Mr Crowley is here on behalf of the corporation and um County staff is here on behalf of the county and um officer counsel are you going to testify yes sir all right whenever you're ready my name is Chris CER I've been sworn in I am a CO compliance investigator for Martin County the respondent capital c Inc representative ative is present this case concerns to concerns the property which is a vacant unapproved lot located next to 4878 Southeast Commerce Avenue within Stewart Florida located within Martin County this case was not generated from an anonymous complaint according to the official records of the property prer Mar of Martin County the property owner is capital c Inc a copy of the property appr record of ownership is County isit one okay and just to clarify use of the property is vacant commercial on January 2nd 20124 I I responded to a complaint of camping on a vacant lot I inspected the property at the time I observed multiple RVs camped on the VAC vac vacant unapproved lot at the time I photographed the property the photographs accurately show what I saw then and marked us County exhibits 2 3 4 5 6 and seven so canning two from January 2nd exhibit three different view showing multiple RVs four is the back of the first RV that was in the last picture so basically this P this RV here the blue and white one this is the tag on it can five is the tag of the gray one which going back to this picture would be this camper [Music] here this gray one here and then County at 6 is the third tag referring to the in the far away this camper here I could just interrupt you the I could ask the witness a question officer counselor considering the objection that was raised in the first cases the location um were these pictures all taken on the subject property of case in 0059 yes are all of the photos that are on in your presentation showing vehicles at least some of which are parked on Z case 0059 that is correct thank you continue please says County exibit on the uh tag County exhibit s is the ad advertising for as the ad permits uh self-contained campers for primitive camping on the Lots basically what we're showing here he provided aerial Lots 9 10 11 and 12 is where these RVs are currently loc were located on January 2nd and then exhibit 8 is a advertisement for camping that was submitted with the complaint it's kind of need was eight okay based upon the investigation I issued a notice of violation to Capital C Inc on January 3rd 2024 Marchers County exhibit 9 in that notice of violation I cited section 3.11 permitted uses and section 3.2012 c. c28 for accessory uses the notice a violation respondent was given till January 8th to correct the violation and was informed the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so due to the nature of the violation and a notice of a notice of hearing was also issued by certified mail on January 3rd 2024 which is marked this counting exhibit 10 on January 12 2024 code enforcement had a meeting with County Legal staff C and growth management and to review the details of the case and the permitted uses for a vacant lot and what codes were appropriate based on the location and nature of the violations based upon that meeting an amended notice of violation and an amended notice of hearing were sent to Capital C Inc on January 25th 2024 March as County exhibits 11 and 12 this will be exhibit 11 the amended noov where we updated to use the CR codes and we added the requirement for a Land Development order my signature with a compliance date of February 16th and this would be the amended and is to appear for the February 21st 2024 hearing with my signature and the updated codes okay and the notice I cited the following Martin County codes section 10.1 C1 development order required and order is required for any development of a property over a half acre section 12.6.1 2B permitted uses a campground is not a permitted use of a property per CRA regulations and section 12.1.0 47h using RVs for living purposes is not permitted on a property within the CRA and notice of violation respond was given until February 16th to correct the violation was informed of the need to contact Martin County Code Enforcement upon doing so the return receip was not received so on February 9th 2024 I posted the property a photo of the post in the affidavit post mark this County exhibits 13 and 14 that's a picture of my posting of the property County exhib 14 is an Affidavit of posting oops there has been email correspondence between the owner and the code enforcement discuss the violation to need to be done to correct the violations I and County staff have inspected the property multiple times in February and March to show that some RVs have Camp have camped at the property for numerous nights those photos are marked as counties exhibits 15 through 52 so basically I'll go through date by date January 17th RV's on the property a second shot RV's on the property property being camped January 17th RVs being camped in January 18th RV's being campon 19th uh particular um the pop-up trailer was there for multiple days other F January 18th January 19th multiple campers again January 19th January 23rd these two RVs spent multiple days on the property that was uh January 22nd J 22nd multiple different angle J 22 multi angle janary 23rd same camper is located in the same spot on January 23rd as January 22nd January 23rd January 23rd January 24th RBS have now been there multiple days January 24th just showing that the same campers are located in the same spot for multiple days at the other in property jary 25th campers there for multiple days January 25th same campers multiple days January 25th CER there now for multiple days go to January 26th new RV February 1st multiple RVs uh again the popup camper I'm going to show that that one itself had been there multiple days February 1st February 1st February 5th exhibit 39 pop-up trailer is there this camper still there exib at 40 February 5th EX at 41 February 5th different angle February 9th multiple trailers this one in the foreground we'll be shown that it was there for multiple days February 9th February 9th February 9th February 12th camper still occupying the same spot so been there multiple days since February 9th to February 12th February 12th February 16th campers now there also still located in the same spot February 16th exhibit 50 is February 19th camper is still there exhibit 51 February 19th just a different angle exhibit 52 uh February 19th that brings up so the case was continued until a special magistrate heading to be held on March 13 2024 on March 6 202 before a meeting was held with the respondent with code enforcement the building official and the growth management director a stipulation agreement was offered but an agreement could not be could not be met exhibits 50 exhibit 53 is an aerial photo showing the condition of the property in 2022 prior to the purchase of the property basically shown that it was a vacant unimproved lot exhibit 54 and 55 are emails from the respondent discussing the violations and reviews that he had received from campers that have camped on the property on the vacant unapproved lot4 is email correspondence between the respondent and the county exhibit 55 is another email basically where the respondent shared a review from one of his Campers at the property exhibit 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 and 63 are photos dated from February 20th and 26th March 1st March 4th and March 5th showing RVs remain on the vacant unapproved lot some for multiple days so exhibit 56 this is again the camper was there from previous pictures from February 19th February 23rd February 26 this particular RV is still there multiple days February 27th now there for multiple days exhibit 60 is now March March 1st this particular camper still there we have a truck now being parked there and a pull behind trailer c61 camper showing camping Ed because basically the gentleman was there long enough to grill outside 62 this particular RV is now been there multiple days and exhibit 63 I request that all counties exhibits be received in evidence based upon testimony the evidence oh Chris oh sorry just just at that we we'd ask at this point that the exhibits be anthon evidence all right any objection to any of those exhibits oh and just uh just to clarify then exhibit 64 would be the hard copy showing a picture from March 12 2024 s that the vacant unapproved lot was was clar any RVs or parking in general all right so 1 through 64 correct sir objection I just the stipulation is um would you accept that this pictures represent storage of recreational vehicles in addition to potentially sleeping in them but would objection that requires a conclusion from a witness it's up to the court to determine what the evidence shows does it look like storing could it could I could I make the argument that that I'm storing things there with all of those things when does it my point is does your evidence support an argument that I'm storing things would you agree with that would you agree with that your argument says I'm storing things objection I'm just asking the she they're presenting the pictures saying they're somehow overnight camping and I'm asking if the same exact pictures which I I think are accurate represent storing things I'm asking if they if they possibly could happen um cuz I'm going to use the storage as I think you can make that argument however let me ask too CU I'm I'm curious did you see people in and around those RVs yes sir okay because like I said I point out in the pictures there's there was a grills being outside people in chairs uh the the extension on the RVs were outside with the curtains drawn with people being inside so do you believe the use was more than just storage I do believe that the usage was more than just storage okay could it be storage well again you can argue that that's an argument saying you know make that point about the photos I support the photos but all right so without objection I am going to accept into evidence the exhibits 1 through 64 in this case yes sir and all right um and go ahead and finish okay i' call Paul Schilling at this point um I would ask if the the court would um take judicial notice of the qualifications specified in the last case avoid putting on the record and qualify him as an expert witness for Land Development so noted Mr Schilling qualifies as an expert okay so basically um Mr Schilling basically the same questions um what is your current position no no need oh yeah that's right I'm sorry just I just said no need I'm getting more all right Mr Schilling you're familiar with the uh property that's the subject of this case yes I am all right and uh that property is vacant land yes okay and is the parking of vehicles of any kind on vacant land permitted without an development order not without a development order no okay and um is to your knowledge has development order been issued for this parcel no development order has been issued on this property the an knowledge is an application for development order of been issued on this property no okay um an accessory use of property under the code requires a primary use can you um can you expand on what a primary use of the property would consist of a primary use is the permitted use which the accessory has to be as as well but the the principle of primary use and I would use an example would be a restaurant as the primary use and then the parking lot is an an accessory to that use so if there was a restaurant that you know that had um multiple people and they had an accessory lot next store yes that would be an accessory used to that primary correct uh assuming it had a valid development order yes the primary had a valid development order yes and that and and that is um and that that sort of use is based on the use that the primary makes correct corre so if you if you have a primary use that doesn't require uh that doesn't require uh large numbers of people to access it then an accessory use of a parking lot really wouldn't wouldn't apply correct and I'm not going to ask what did he say I don't even know I mean he talked for five minutes I didn't even get I'm sorry I didn't realize you were bounding up to I don't I listened to him but I still can't understand understand what he said he said if you had a primary use is this an accessory use I do have a primary use next door so in his argument it felt like I was like okay great I can be a parking lot and then at the end he said well unless that business is small and doesn't need parking and I'm like you know let's just you're the lawyer we expect you to be straightforward with the facts I'm I'm being straightforward with the facts with the magistrate you're trying to muddle them and I admit that that there's overnight parking I admit that the park I admit all these things but don't don't because you understand the law don't try to Twisted please I don't I don't know that you get to have that conversation with Mr Tui let me just tell you Mr tu's job is to present the case in the best light possible for the county your job is to present your case in the best light for yourself and and frankly I think you've tried to do that and perhaps done it fairly well you've pointed out at least one inference regarding the the recreational vehic Park and you I tend to agree that it's too tenuous to say that that in fact in this case or the one prior um that that those people have paid money I agree but I couldn't pay a lawyer $800 an hour to do tenuous things they would reputation they would say Cory I'm not going to do tenuousness yet the county can pay someone to be tenuous okay I I do you have any other questions of Mr Shilling let me think Mr chilling are you familiar with the accessory use property that the uh respondent refers to I'm not sure what he's referring to uh well are you are you familiar with the use the permitted use on that property the coffee shop the proposed the property next door yes okay okay okay yes there's a there is a that was an old residence that was converted not all that long ago by the applicant into a business office business office I think it's not a retail location 500 square ft or somewhere thereabouts uh correct for for a private business use it's not for Public Access or actually I think it's the the um uh office for the Salo Port Authority downtown so it's a 500 foot private office building 660 okay six I was close no further questions okay well I have food trucks in that property which I'm in the reason I have the office in the first place and the reason I went through the BTR was so I can put food trucks on the property so the argument he's trying to make again tenuously this I don't have a need for parking you know how many people want to come and eat uh you know genuine Guatemalan tacos a lots my point is I have a my property has a primary use and a need for parking regardless of Mr I understand though that's not necessarily relevant he's making it relevant because they're making the case that I have an accessory use and Mr chilling said under oath that if I had a primary use then the parking lot would be accessory and I wouldn't need to be in a development hearing no that's not what he said and that's not the that's not my point is let's stop the development here that at least my parking would be accessory right we can agree to that no either we do or we don't the same we had last no no no you're asking the wrong person what what I'm what I'm saying to you is listen again okay because this is critical to everybody's understanding of what this is happening in this hearing you have people Park on a vacant lot without any development order not according to section three if you you keep on going to the first section we're not talking about that we're talking about the second part I'm saying like I can talk about anything I like I'm running point is the way to defeat me is to is to is to is to not say anything to me and the reason I'm trying to separate the issues is because they are separate but you I ask about accessory use and you talk about development order like let's at least talk about the same thing where they're making the case and the reason I'm making this point is because he asked Mr Schilling his expert opinion about excess reuse and the case has been made in the second violation that in fact my parking is an accessory use either and my point is either the county says that my parking is an accessory use in which case overnight sleeping would not be allowed or the county says it is not an accessory use and this whole section is garbage so one of the two things have to happen it is accessory or it is an accessory and I'm okay with either I just want a determination under understand that you could have an accessory use without a permit and that's what you got without a without a development order okay but am I you have people parking on a lot that's adjacent to other is it land that you own you're saying it's accessory it doesn't it doesn't qualify because you don't have a permit it's a vacant lot I just said under oath that if I had a primary primary use next door that my let's separate the the development order piece you keep on bringing that we're looking at this code here you can you did it with the RV parking I did not you did you looked at the definition that's what we're trying to do here we're trying to focus on on the definition of accessory use this is how this is where the truth comes out on my side rather than all this intent just follow me through okay follow me through they're making the case that my use is accessory my point is I'm okay with either if you tell me that section 12.1.4 .h applies because Mr Crowley your parking is an accessory use to some other thing if you say that to me I'll say fine but if you do say that to me what it means is I am an accessory use and then I can start doing this I can start storing parking including not Boat Trailers camping trailers I can start doing all of these things but they brought this case against me not saying I was doing the storage which is on my point about the photos is that I was having people sleep the only thing I can't do in here if you read this code entirely says provided they do not sleep or live another occupancy my point is if you apply this then it implies that I'm permitted to do all of these things which I'm not actually permitted to do in the CRA code I'm not so I mean how can you say I'm accessory now if I had a house in the CRA I would be permitted to do these things my point is either I'm in violation of storing things or I'm in violation of people sleeping in them I can't be both and my argument is is I don't have a primary use therefore I cannot have an accessory use if your argument is you have some primary use which I don't know what it is and I am in accessories airo I am prohibited from having people sleep in these things that I store I accept that what it means though when I walk out of here is I'm able to then make this into a storage unit I can store things on this property no or I'm not an accessory use and you throw this section out actually no I I I hear your argument permitted it says if you say accessory use it says okay I'm to argue with you I'm not going to argue with you that's not my job and it's not your job to argue with me I'm okay AR with them I'm just all right getting frustrated because we're trying to slice this in the pieces so that I can we can all digest it okay I'm I'm unless you have anything further I'm ready to rule well I have we haven't got to the development piece yet I have lots to argue yeah we got a lot to talk about we or talking about this accessory piece this 12.10 74 I'm asking a specific question the second for the second time it took me 10 minutes for you to say let's strike this this the RV section you could have just said let's rule on we're doing the same the same thing for a second time I would just like to ask you am I or am I not and accessory use de facto it could be am I or I don't have to rule that way it is you have to rule because if you if I'm not accessory I don't why won't you rule that's the key to the whole thing let my ruling is that you are not permitted to have people sleeping in those units why because you said I wasn't an RV park you have under what rule do do you make that R you have no permit under what rule though under what code can't they sleep there where under they can't sleep they sleep at the fairs under 12.1.0 4.7 Point age okay so you're saying I am parking that you're saying that this section applies facto because somehow I'm an accessory use def facto no you have no permit to be an access can't be both primary use and accessory use the reason you can't my point is if I'm not an accessory use because I have no primary use then all of the rules about accessory uses don't apply it's like saying you're a restaurant the rules for a restaurants apply and I'm really a car shop either I am or I'm not an accessory use all I'm asking is am I or am I not you're saying you are is that correct your honor may I if it helps the court uh there are there is not an ability to live in RVs or trailers parked on any property in the county other than designated Recreational Vehicle Parks and campgrounds so aside from the argument that the applicant is making there is no ability to Simply Park here and and stay in that vehicle um overnight or for any purpose or at any given time without the appropriate development order and the fairgrounds has that and irrelevant what the fairgrounds has and you're on if I could if I could expound on that it's not just the occupancy the mere fact of the things being parked there it's a permitted use as an accessory respondant seems to be confusing the fact that there has to be a primary use on the property before any EX ACC so strike 12147 for Christ no if I don't have an accessory use he just made the point for me you have it backward so you need the primary before the accessory I really have heard enough thank you so much I really appreciate this um based upon the evidence and the testimony both yours and the counties I'm going to find that violations of uh 12 uh 10.1 point c.1 and 12.1 04. 7.8 do U appear on this property and and I'm going to order you not to repeat the violation and to pay costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing understand again just the same as the other case if you violate the ordinance again you are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 per day for every day of violation so thank you and de honor are you dismissing the um I am the uh 12603 I am okay then so over over objection over objection thank you anything else to come before us no we're adjourned thank you sir thank Youk