The meeting’s most issue was the case concerning the property at 12873 Collecting Canal. This property was cited for zoning violations due to approximately 20 tractor trailers parked on-site. A violation order had been issued on June 19 and mailed out on June 21. The magistrate confirmed a new compliance date of September 4, maintaining a fine of $250 per day from the previous order. Taylor affirmed the agreement on compliance, and the town confirmed it had good service for the hearing.

Following this, the case of property 23092 at 13710 OK Boulevard was addressed. This property faced a violation of Section 87-030. The property was found in violation on June 19, with notification by certified mail on June 21 and hand delivery on July 2. A representative from the landscape service provided an update on the tree mitigation process. Mr. Matos from the town confirmed that the property remained out of compliance as the permit had not yet been approved. Shannon Lee, the respondent, explained that the application had been submitted two weeks prior but had encountered delays due to communication issues between the consultants and the town regarding fee payments.

Jim Fleshman, the town planning consultant, elaborated on the complexities of the tree removal issue. Some trees were located on the subject property, while others were in the county’s right-of-way. He expressed his intention to issue a town permit and notify the county, as previous attempts to coordinate a joint permit had failed. The magistrate sought clarity on the status of the permit application, emphasizing the need for a simplified understanding. Fleshman confirmed that while the permit was under review, it would likely not be extensive as the landscape plan was expected to mitigate the tree removal.

The magistrate expressed a willingness to extend the compliance date to October 1 and set a hearing for October 16 if compliance was not achieved. Lee agreed to the proposed timeline, emphasizing that they were working towards compliance. The town’s case file was reviewed, and the magistrate confirmed that the documents would be entered without objection. The discussions about the permit and compliance issues underscored the procedural complexities inherent in the hearings.

Another topic involved a property on Southern Boulevard. The representative appeared via Zoom, and the attorney confirmed that the parties were cooperating in good faith to resolve issues related to a bond on the property. The magistrate acknowledged the necessity for a continuance and set a hearing date for September 18.

The meeting also addressed a case involving a property owner who had requested a hearing due to prior mail issues that prevented her appearance at a previous hearing. The town had agreed to reset the hearing for today, with the respondent signing a notice regarding the violation and request for re-hearing. The magistrate clarified that the hearing was a motion for re-hearing and that the respondent needed to explain the appropriateness of such a motion without delving into the merits of the violation. The respondent confirmed her identity as the sole owner of the LLC in question and acknowledged previous correspondence directed to the town.

The proceedings then transitioned to an update regarding the respondent’s argument for a rehearing. The magistrate expressed that the town should not provide testimony at this stage, as it was the respondent’s opportunity to present her case. The respondent was invited to explain her reasoning for the request, focusing on the claim of insufficient notice rather than the specifics of the violations themselves. The details surrounding the cases were methodically addressed, with the magistrate ensuring proper protocol was observed throughout the discussions.

The property owner expressed grievances concerning ongoing issues with a neighbor, Barbara Briggs. The speaker recounted several incidents, including unauthorized access to their mailbox, which led to interactions with the sheriff’s department. An incident report from May was referenced, where the sheriff’s deputy advised blocking the neighbor’s number after receiving disturbing text messages. The speaker claimed that they had not received proper notification regarding a hearing that took place on July 17, stating, “I got no notice of the 17th hearing.” This lack of notification was attributed to the neighbor potentially intervening before the documents reached them. The magistrate acknowledged the difficulty in the situation and noted that the town had fulfilled its legal obligation for service by sending notifications via certified mail and posting on the property, despite the speaker’s claims of not receiving these documents.

The magistrate emphasized the importance of legal service, stating, “I have to ensure that the town has legal service before I proceed to hear anything about the case.” The magistrate and town representatives discussed the necessity of obtaining a permit to rectify the violations in question. The speaker expressed frustration over living without electricity or running water for four years and emphasized the urgency of resolving these matters before the closing date. The statement, “I just need to get this resolved so I can get pay what I’ve got to pay and I can be done with it,” highlighted their desperation to move forward.

The town reiterated the need for the property owner to obtain the required permit. The magistrate expressed sympathy for the situation but maintained that the compliance timeline had not yet lapsed, making it difficult to alter previous rulings. The property owner noted that they had submitted multiple permit requests since acquiring the property in 2020 but faced ongoing issues with communication and processing from the town. The magistrate asked for the case file to be reviewed.

The discussion transitioned to another case concerning a residential vehicle. The town acknowledged an error in the notice of violation related to this case, leading to a request for vacating the prior order against the property owner. The speaker confirmed their understanding and acceptance of the town’s request to vacate the previous order, stating that they would comply with any future notices. The magistrate clarified that the vacated order meant the violation would essentially be dismissed, but the town could reissue a new notice if necessary.