The most contentious discussion surrounded the property on Normandy Road, owned by Mr. Vestgard. This case had been ongoing since February, with Mr. Vestgard requesting another extension to comply with city codes. He cited delays due to the city’s evolving ordinances and noted that his permit application for the Cheeky Hut was under review. The city, represented by Mr. Tras, opposed the extension, arguing that Mr. Vestgard had already been granted ample time—six months—to secure a single building permit. Mr. Tras emphasized that an additional 90 days would prolong the compliance timeline to seven and a half months, which he deemed excessive.

Mr. Vestgard expressed frustration over the delays in his permit application, attributing them to the city’s requirement for specific plans for a residential playground. He suggested the lack of clarity in the process could be seen as discriminatory, though he confirmed his application was under review. The magistrate, concerned about the shifting narrative regarding the Cheeky Hut and its potential uses, emphasized the need for clear intent behind the permit application to avoid future disputes.

The magistrate ultimately granted a 30-day extension for further discussions with the city, advising Mr. Vestgard to engage in direct dialogue rather than relying solely on email communication. This decision aimed to expedite the resolution process and ensure compliance with city regulations.

Another case involved the property located at 314 129th Avenue. The discussion revolved around procedural concerns raised by Mr. K, a representative of the respondent LLC. He argued that the notice of violation had been sent to an outdated address listed on Sunbiz, rather than the current address with the property appraiser. Mr. K sought a 45-day extension to address required permits for demolishing the existing structure, citing the need for asbestos notification.

During the proceedings, Mr. K also raised concerns about a daily penalty of $250 for non-compliance, arguing that the notice had not been properly served. The magistrate stressed the importance of swift action due to the life-safety implications of the building. The city, represented by Mr. TR, preferred to proceed with the case without delay, highlighting the proactive nature of the investigation initiated by another city employee, Mr. DeSantis.

City compliance officer Grace Mills testified that an inspection of the property nearly a year prior had uncovered multiple violations, including structural deterioration and insect infestation. Despite Mr. K’s assertions, the city maintained that proper notification procedures had been followed, sending notices to the address listed with the property appraiser.

The magistrate acknowledged the complexities of the case but emphasized the urgency of addressing the safety risks associated with the property. The magistrate’s final decision required the property to be brought into compliance by October 10, 2024, with a daily fine of $250 thereafter if compliance was not met.

The final discussion involved a property owned by Paradox LLC on Oak Terrace. The property had been in disrepair for over a year, and both parties agreed on the necessity of demolishing it. The representative for Paradox LLC requested a 45-day period to complete the demolition, which the city did not oppose. However, the city requested that a daily fine of $250 be imposed if compliance was not achieved within the 45 days, citing public safety concerns.

The magistrate confirmed the existence of violations based on evidence and testimony, establishing a new directive that required the property to be brought into compliance by October 10, 2024, with a daily fine of $250 thereafter if compliance was not met.