17:07One notable cases involved a property at 401 140th Avenue East, owned by Nancy Slinsky. Slinsky’s property suffered significant structural damage due to a hurricane in late 2024, leading to code violations under sections 1469 and 1470. The city initiated the investigation proactively, focusing on the maintenance and structural integrity of the premises. Slinsky was issued a courtesy notice of violation on February 25, which outlined the necessary corrective actions, including obtaining building permits or demolishing the structure. Despite the extension provided until March 18, compliance was not achieved. The city emphasized the importance of safety and health standards and recommended a daily fine of $250 if compliance was not reached. Slinsky expressed her frustration with the process, particularly the requirement for an erosion plan, and highlighted the urgency of demolishing the property, which she considered a complete loss. She also raised concerns about illegal dumping on her property, attributing the debris to actions beyond her control.

43:17Another discussion revolved around the property on Sunset Cove, owned by Kent Baker and Deborah Juli. The proactive inspection revealed that air conditioning contractors were conducting an equipment changeout without the required permit. Despite a courtesy notice and a subsequent formal notice of violation, the property remained non-compliant. Baker expressed frustration over the city’s substantial damage requirement, questioning its necessity given his intention to sell the property “as is.” The magistrate acknowledged the complications due to the substantial damage assessment and provided Baker a 30-day compliance period, with the potential for $100 daily fines for non-compliance. Baker was encouraged to engage with the city’s building department to address his concerns.

51:14At 14187 West Parsley Drive, property owners Mark Bard and Susan Reel faced violations for an interior demolition conducted without a permit. The case was proactively initiated by the city, and a courtesy notice was issued on December 2 of the previous year. Despite submitting a permit application, the property owners did not obtain an active permit by the requested deadline. Susan Bard expressed frustration over the permit requirement, arguing that the demolition work was minimal and necessary to remove mold after a hurricane. She raised concerns about the financial burden of obtaining permits and the potential costs associated with demolition. The magistrate suggested Bard consult with city building staff for further assistance and to consider the financial implications of non-compliance.

01:09:14The meeting also addressed a case involving an outdoor toilet, sink, and shower at a property owned by Mr. Tras. The presence of these fixtures was confirmed, and Mr. Tras expressed willingness to cap the toilet and sink to mitigate safety risks. The magistrate clarified the need for a demolition permit, which Tras initially believed would incur a fee. Upon learning otherwise, he agreed to apply for the permit promptly. Based on the evidence, a violation was confirmed, and a $200 daily fine was set if compliance was not reached within 60 days.

03:05Grace Mills, a code compliance officer, provided testimony for several cases, detailing violations and compliance requirements. Her role included outlining the timeline of events, photographic evidence of violations, and recommendations for compliance periods and fines.