##VIDEO ID:Mp5cRp8sz8c## good morning everybody this is the January 8th 2025 meing of the Coco Beach special magistrate and uh my name is Lonnie GRE I'm the special magistrate and uh there's no one in the audience right now so I assume there's no respondents here is that correct M correct okay so although I know this is viewed on YouTube or maybe viewed on YouTube I'm not sure uh I'm not going to go through the normal pro proceedings that explain the proceedings since there's no respondents here unless the city would rather I do so no that's okay okay then um M Crawford is here representing the city Michael Bryan is here as the clerk to the proceedings and uh code inspector is here code enforcement officer excuse me is here also on behalf of the city and I understand there may be some changes to the agenda that you would like to make yes um so there's an old business case uh that I wanted to go over first however because the respondent isn't here and he's the one that requested the meeting maybe we should just go Okay order we just charge on then with the cases in order are there any changes to the agenda that you would like to make uh yes there are some postponements um so the first case we would like to postpone you want to continue that to the next meeting that to February please okay that's it's so continued okay um the third case I third yep third I would like to continue okay that case is contined till the next meeting and I would like to uh continue the fourth and fifth case as well fourth and fifth Matt is that Brendan Miller yes Brendan Miller and then Richard borer will be at the February special magistrate Richard borer okay those two cases that are Massy hearings are also continued which leaves us with the rest of the agenda yes okay then the first case we'll call today is case number DS c-24 d325 the respondent is donabel respondents are donabel Dean and John Dean yes the property address is 412 Banana River bevard I see somebody just walked in this is our city manager oh okay how you doing sir hi hi nice so um let me make call the Halls donabel Dean or John Dean donabel Dean or John Dean Donna Bel Dean or John Dean I've called the Halls three three times and no one has appeared so the city May proceed all right um so this is in reference to 412 Banana River Boulevard um if you could go to the next slide there we believe that they are in violation of section 6-4 C permits um we ask them to please obtain a permit for a shed that they erected on their property um if you go to the next slide uh we also believe that they are in violation of code section 3-33 accessory structures um their shed is uh positioned right on the the property line and does not meet the required setbacks um before I continue can I enter this into evidence yeah I was just going to ask you if you had it okay yeah just please let me grab you're not Mr Dean are you sir no David okay thank you so I have a copy if you like okay thank you and you'd like to offer this into evidence yes pleas so admitted we could go to the next Slide the violation was first observed on October 21st um I first sent a courtesy letter on October 22nd um they did receive the letter they called the city um and stated that they would be pulling a permit um this was in November uh the 25th uh no permit was pulled so I went ahead and sent a notice of violation um as well as a citation on December 9th the citation was in the amount of $100 um a site visit was completed uh and the respondents Met our building director Dave again they stated that they would be pulling a permit um however still no no pullit uh permit has been pulled um on December 23rd I went ahead and sent the notice of magistrate hearing and we are here today uh and this is the shed um in reference it's not um strapped down it's not on a concrete block that I can see and it's just right on the the property line where it should be you know 5T from the property line and 5 ft from the water so it's a side setback violation and a rear setback violation yes um so if we go to the next slide essentially uh we are asking that a permit be applied for within 10 days and that the the shed be repositioned within 10 days if either of those are not completed uh within that date set we would like to issue a daily fine um of $50 a day until in compliance all right does the city have anything further no and I see that neither of the Peters uh Deans have uh appeared So based upon the evidence presented at the case at the hearing today I'm going to find that the respondents are in violation of section 6-4 C of the city code and sections 3-33 of the city code and provide that the respondent shall come into compliance by obtaining the correct permits and remedying the setback violations within 10 days which is January 7th of this year and should the respondents not come into compliance as to either of the code violations a fine of $50 per day shall run from the date of non-compliance until compliance with the $50 per day being for each violation separately and not collectively have anything further the city has on that case nothing further okay all right which takes us to a Massie hearing uh since Mr derderian is here would we be able to that would be great okay sir would you like to be heard now that would be great I apologize I am sick as a I'm sorry more serious than would you why you just why don't you said over here unless the city manager would like to get sick I'm joking you know under normal circumstances I would have called and asked to reschedule this but well if you it's been such a struggle getting to this point okay well let's um this the way this works are you familiar with this not really okay since this is a Massy hearing that which means were you in the issue is is whether or not you were in compliance as of the date you were supposed to be in compliance with the prior order that was issued and the city is now going to present evidence about that you'll have the ability to cross-examine M Crawford and then any other witnesses that may be brought forward and then you can come and present your case and the city will have the opportunity to cross-examine you also and I'll make a decision at the end of the evidence being introduced that's the way it works so Mr offer you may proceed yeah can I just say one thing I was under the impression that that's exactly what we were not going to do um well let's you can raise that at the appropriate time but I'm going to let Miss Crawford present her case and then you can present your case yeah I was going to say can I have let him look over the presentation first for [Music] [Applause] okay so I don't understand what this is I me I understand what's on this paper get to this point well let's is this is this a Massy hearing or is this something different this it's it's old business um so Mr deran requested to be here so that we could uh reduce a lean oh this is a reduction of the lean okay then scratch that we're going to Flip Flip the order of presentation cuz you it's his request oh right that's and that's okay then then M Crawford gets to sit down you get to take her place and you get to present your rationale for the redu the reduction is that what you're going to ask for well you go ahead and take this take go ahead and take the podium and and you can present whatever you'd like what I'd like to do is explain to how we we actually got here and it was let's let's before we do that then and you know what we forgot to do M Crawford we forgot to swear you in but that's okay that's wherewe you been for this this hearing are you going to testify sir later later okay all right would you state your full name again just David derderian Daniel Crawford John C do you see Solly SP the testim about to give it man not hear the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth self you gu I do I do Mr Crawford separate oath for you okay do you solemly swear that the testimony you gave in the prior proceeding was the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth s God I do thank you now we may proceed okay thank you um are all these people on this list in in the room here what list are you talking about the one that she just handed me I haven't seen this before Well here here's the way we're going this is your request to reduce the lean okay so just say whatever you want to say and if you need to call a witness call a witness uh and if they're here they're care if they're not they're not and uh Mr C can cross-examine you after after you make your presentation and we'll see how we go from there okay fair enough um you'll have to uh excuse me I don't know the exact dates on a lot of this uh but that's part of why I'm here today um roughly 9 years ago um someone had complained to the then current code enforcement person about an illegal uh garage sale next door to me uh I guess when uh the gentleman's name is Robin I I don't know his last name but uh Reland so he was a prior code enforcement yes he came out answered that complaint and he found that they did not have a a permit for the garage sale on I think it was a Sunday I actually was not there uh it's my understanding based on what Robin told me he told me all this uh so we had a discussion about it so based on that the person that was being complained about tried to deflect the ticket that he was going to receive and point the finger at me and said hey there's a set of stairs there look how rickety they are okay uh I guess Robin looked at it and then wrote a ticket okay so fast forward um I got the ticket we went to court on it uh it was a fixed Court you mean it's special magistrate spe yes yes um it was determined at that point to fix or repair or replace so and understand I bought this house during the crash in 2011 so there were you know there were cosmetic things wrong with it uh a lot of them um so without actually looking at the staircase uh immediately what I did was I appi I applied for a permit to rip the stairs down and put a new setup uh so I submitted the permit application and then shortly after that the I was given the approval uh to tear down what you know whatever I was going to replace at that point I actually looked closely at the stairs um I actually realized that this set of stairs that was a whole flight up wasn't even attached to anything it was just leaning up against the the platform and there was only one bolt in the side of the house like a uh a wood screw kind of lag bolt holding the whole thing up I I didn't even know that so rather than tear it down and go through an expensive process at the time because I was short on money um I I was having some minor health problems um I determined that the stairs you know minus a couple of boards which I replaced um was salvageable and that it could be fixed and not torn down okay so fast forward from there I I did all that fixed it 6 years later the stairs is still standing no issues no nothing happened there you know no one got hurt there were no problems with the stairs uh at that point I came into a little bit of money and I had decided to tear the stairs down they weren't the best looking they they were functional but you know I came so I came up with a design excuse me um so I came up with a design submitt did some new plans and a new application for a new permit it's at that point right then when I did that um the lady in the building department I believe her name was gig is that correct okay so submitted the new application um I was friends with somebody that was in the construction business and I came up with the design I drew up the design um and at that point we decided well we're going to tear the whole thing down and put something else up that looks better uh at that point gig had asked me what do I want to do with the old permit I said what old permit I never had a permit to begin with well the application that you made well okay I thought that that one because it wasn't paid for it was just an application after 6 years expired well come to find out that the repairs that I did apparently robin never inspected them you know he was notified but he never came out I never thought twice about it now in that time period of that six years I had a stroke uh you might not be able to tell but the left side of my face is paralyzed so part of my speech problem is because the whole left side of my face does not move um so we concentrated on tearing the stairs down and putting a new set up um that set was inspected everything passed there were no issues um I complained you know about this $98,000 I'm not sure what the number is but it's absolutely ridiculous I think it's $89 or $98,000 uh fine and they said well too bad you know there's nothing we're going to do about it you have to pay it I mean the stairs cost me $3,500 to replace the whole thing create a new set of stairs uh a intermediate landing and then an upper balcony so shortly after that I had a heart attack and a stroke second stroke and a heart attack so fast forward to today because of what somebody explained to me I'm here to beg for a reduction in this fine uh because I'm disabled I am on disability full disability I don't work I really don't have any money I get $215 a month from Social Security Disability okay so I've got numerous things going on you know I've got a torn ACL I've got uh neuropathy in my feet from the heart attack I have an artificial heart valve I've got a scar all the way across my chest where they pulled my heart out you know fixed it so uh I've got paralysis in my face I've got four pinch discs in my back which I just recently three weeks ago had surgery on um you know I've had limes disease my eyesight on a yearly basis is actually deteriorating to the point where glasses only last about 6 months uh all of this considered I can't pay this ridiculous fine it it's it's outrageous I mean anybody outside of you know Cocoa Beach looks at it and they laugh at it and say how can that possibly be I mean it to me it looks like there was a mistake made somewhere after I fixed the original steps I I I certainly didn't mean um to not comply with the order I mean I did right away within days um apparently where the uh shortcoming is is that Robin was supposed to inspect what I did and he never did and now today he doesn't work for this uh for the city anymore I mean nobody will tell me why he got fired other than he got fired but I can tell you that I've seen some of his actions throughout the years and they're less than honorable you know I mean I learned that he was actually trying to bid on the house that I bought and so he was kind of had an attitude about the house because he lost it and I got it I mean when I did that I didn't even know who he was you know but I I learned this you know years later so with all the problems that I've got I I'm on a daily basis in pain beyond belief you know I'm right now I'm working to make sure that they don't cut my feet off I have neuropathy so bad that my feet I I can't feel them I can hardly walk um you know I'm very unstable I mean just standing here you know it hurts and as time goes on you're going to be able to hear it because I can't do this much longer I do need to sit down so please do it any time no I I just want to finish I I mean you know I apologize to anybody that was involved I mean you can use a microphone sitting down I suppose oh you need to oh okay [Music] okay you know the worst part is the four pinch disc that that hurts a lot I see Dr Dr Armstrong on a daily basis um I can hear you okay good so I mean I didn't mean to disrespect anybody or to not comply with what was going on I mean immediately I did I dis like I said I discovered that a flight of stairs that I don't know I think maybe it was probably 20 to 30 ft long in length and you know going a full story high uh was only a t Ed by one bolt right in the center of the stairs and against the house now I didn't do that and I don't know who did because I did try to look to see like were there ever any permits pulled for things like that and there's nothing actually there's not even a set of blueprints on record for the house itself with the city it was built in 77 so apparently there wasn't that let me ask you a question you may have said it but I didn't get it then is this your homestead yeah yes I live there okay fulltime and matter of fact I'm the only one that lives there but you know so I do have caregivers i h i can't mow the lawn I have to have someone come in and do that I have a actually have a lady that comes in and does that for me you know I have a housekeeper that takes care of the house uh and certain amount of meals and does quite a bit of work for me I mean all of these things that you know we all take for granted all of a sudden for me has become an absolute nightmare I mean I can't lift up a basket of clothes so it's it's difficult and I'm struggling with everything right now and until you know I guess until I have a surgery on my back again where they're going to you know remove half of the back of my spine and then fuse it all together I may be stuck like this forever um you know but that answer does not sound very good to me at the moment so the point is is that I I did everything that I was asked to do and I didn't mean to ignore anything and if somebody thinks that I did well part of it was because of the heart attack and the two strokes I mean I I I didn't give it a second thought because the stairs were fixed you know and they lasted 6 years beyond that date until I decided to tear them down myself so in essence there really wasn't a whole lot of deterioration going on it's the fact that whoever built them to begin with did a poor job you know and I would you know I would greatly appreciate at this point because I think I acted in good faith that I shouldn't have to pay for anything I didn't do anything wrong I I mean I waited for Robin and you know he never showed up it was and it was an Omission uh you know in in part by me I just assumed that he had you did not call Mr Reland and ask him to come out for inspection oh I I did but never yeah but you know he never he never responded so I I just assumed I I you know it it wasn't out of malice or anything like that I just assumed that he had done it I mean I only live half a mile away from the city so you know and when I went and got the new permit like I said at that point that's when I discovered that there was this issue is nobody sent me any letters there no bill was ever sent uh apparently the city filed a lean against my house I never even got notice of a lean I had to go and verify that on my own I I mean the city failed in multiple areas you know in my opinion I I think at least they should have sent a letter after I don't know 6 months or a year you you would think that maybe they would do that I don't know I mean I don't know what the policy is but it just seems like you know a logical and responsible thing for a city government to do but you know I never got anything and I would have addressed this a long time ago if that were the case you know and and in closing on this please keep in mind that I've had to argue and yell and scream and beg and plead to be here today for like the last 6 years this has been a six-year effort just to get to here because they didn't want to cooperate they thought that a $98,000 fine is reasonable for something that only cost $3,500 well here we are today so let's see what m m Crawford do you have any questions other the I do not have any questions no cross examination okay do you have any other evidence you'd like to submit I I would just ask the city to you know be kind of magnanimous about this and dismiss this and let this go I I mean whatever you assess me right now means that next month I won't be able to pay all my bills I barely get enough from Social Security to cover what my expenses are and I have no money left because of all the medical problems that I've had I've spent you know my insurance has covered more than a million dollars o of surgeries and whatnot in the last six years based on you know of my heart I've got you know I've got an artificial heart valve an aord heart valve so and that was 5 years ago and and I know that because the warranty on the valve expired in November when I had the surgery so it's a 5-year warranty on it you know I'm I'm post fiveyear surgery and still not anywhere close to being normal well let's uh see what the city has to say on on its side and then you like I said you can cross-examine the city too so okay would you like me to sit back over there where just you don't have to move that far I guess if you could just move that chair out the whatever's good for you yeah you're having trouble walking I don't yeah I don't want to get you s it's just the flute but holy cow all right M CRA um so I'll go through it really quick I just wanted to put together like this is his um this is his house is uh his home it is Homestead uh you go to the next one uh let's see so way back in August of 2016 uh the order was made uh with a $50 a day fine uh we he had like a day and a half to correct the violations no no that's not well hang on M Crawford gets this okay you can ask her questions after she's through with and all of this I'm this is just from what I can see in in documents um so not like personal knowledge um so if you go to the next slide what is the total of the of the lean right now so if you click ahead it's it's at 97,2 55 97 what now 97,2 15555 okay um and that's because the daily finds didn't end until August 28th 2021 so it was a little over 5 years if you go to the next slide um so just understandably um it is a huge fine uh so what we did was we roughly calculated um what we would call hard costs and just going through again just old documentation and just some new um assessments this is what we've come up with um and this would be our suggestion for the lean reduction oh okay so under the city code which I I understand it does have the ability for the special magistrate to issue an order what the city is asking for is not is agreeing limiting its request for I guess is the best way to say it is only to recoup administrative cost which yes you're calling the hard cost yeah administrative cost yeah that's a good word and uh and forgive the Bas basically the lean yes in its totality okay that's so the let me just clarify again the city is and and sir you need listen sir listen to this carefully what the city's position is you can correct me if I'm wrong is Crawford is it it is proposing that an order be entered forgiving the lean in is totality except for the administrative cost which is have Ur recruited the city has incurred since its exception of this case in 2016 which is getting to be a decade long in the total amount of $2,199 52 so do you have do you have anything further nothing further do you have any questions of the city now and you feel free to sit down and and ask your questions while you're sitting down okay um well first I'd like to say thank you that's a pretty pretty generous offer um well maybe I can I I typically don't interject myself at all in this are you you familiar with code enforcement proceedings very much no sir okay I've never I've never been in violation of a code in my life well let me just and unless you object M Crawford no I don't let me just I've been doing this since 1985 when I got out of the army Jag Corp okay and what is Not Unusual is for cities to strictly adhere to the amount of the f what is very typical is to have a reduction uh formula where they might allow a reduction of the fine and the lowest I've ever seen is like sford I think is like 50% or I think you can get down to 10% based upon certain criteria whatever but all jurisdictions that I'm familiar with ensure that they recoup the administrating cost which is what the city has called hard cost but their administrated cost but Crawford has characterized them as that also so you're right it's a very generous offer if you will to totally eliminate the lean well not not eliminate the fine I know what you're saying yes I understand because if you don't if and if you don't pay the administra cost I assume that the city's going to want the typical language in the ORD say revers back to the if the fine isn't paid if the administrative cost aren't paid within some number of days which you're going to propose I suppose then the elimination of the fine doesn't occur so what you're arguing about is $2,199 52 so now you can ask M Crawford your question okay I hope that helped no actually yes it does I mean it clarifies what I assumed was the case um you know I I look at this and I can understand some of it um I would just like to go on the record as saying that uh for Daniel Crawford David Dicky Becky Vos and oh Lonnie oh that's you right L you're you're Mr group yes okay I can't see that though I can I'm up there it's the last line okay you're on there um minus you this is from the last go ahead I'm sorry thank you um I just I was just see me up there okay so minus minus you I don't really I don't really know who these other people are other than Dave Dicky which I had conversations with okay well let's just do this Mr Crawford do you know who the people are I do then why don't you just yeah I can go through take that as a question who are these people and go ahead and answer the question is who are the people can I bring you one so you can see okay thank you [Applause] I I will say you're you're when you just got when you just had a city go down $98,000 you're somewhat quibbling but you're free to do that i' just like to understand I okay then I'm sure miss Crawford wants you to so would you just outline who the people are and I would only ask one thing you know just based on my income um I mean I right now I don't have $2,200 to just hand no let's get to that you you asked the question M Crawford is willing to answer it okay unless you don't want the name of what the people are anymore um it's not pertinent to finishing this let stop that okay all I'm asking is um I'll take the 2199 52 uh but is it possible to uh make some installments well here's what I imagine the city's going to say and I'm not arguing the city's case it's possible that the city could agree to that but what you may not have heard earlier is if you fail to pay them on time it's going to revert back to the 97,000 plus right so uh I want you to understand that if the city does agree to that okay how about a credit card what yeah what would work for you is that would be my question M Crawford there's oh perfect cuz I don't know about Finance we swore you in earlier dud yeah Jake has still building official um speaking with Administration on it too and then depending on what you could do we would be open to doing some installments and working with you on it um you know 90 days 6 months something like that that that you could do and work with I I probably could work with six months okay well we're at the stage where we need to go beyond probably so then we would be okay with 6 months You' be say's okay with 6 months are you okay with 6 months yes okay y'all need to to um check me on this cuz I am the world's worth this I was going to say don't ask I come up with 36659 per month for 6 months it looks like Javier is maybe checking the math it looks like Javier is also checking the math yes that's correct all right I this is recorded my wife needs to see this okay okay so what I hear is a consensus between the city and the respondent that the respondent will pay starting when in the when can you make your first payment uh February 1st okay starting February 1 and on the first day of each month for six months for the following five months that is listen to me now you're going to make three a payment of 36659 but if should you f fa to make those payments the Fine's going to revert back to the amount and all you will get is a credit on the amount of the fine does that make sense yes that is that what the city intends yes now I would like to point out that I'm not done with surgery and my days are numbered if I wind up in the hospital and miss a payment I still would appreciate you know at some point catch in it up within the 6 months no extension on the total time I understand that but I'm going to tell you something and I appreciate your health issues okay but that just my tell me if I'm wrong my my my experience with Government after all these years you know is that's going to cause a problem because now we're back to why was it Miss and then there there's a dispute about that and if there's some way I I know I you can do it Auto automatically oh okay that's there you go I didn't know we could do that just do it automatically and that's that's fine and there won't be an issue I don't have a problem with that okay that sound like a the way everybody wants to go on this city and the respondant yes okay an order will be entered to that effect then okay thank you sir thank you thank [Applause] you thank you okay now we are at Massie hearings yes sir correct yes case is case number CB pd- 23711 the respondent is Beach Street play LLC and I'm going to call that was the first call Beach Street Place LLC president no Beach Street Place LLC I've called three times and no respond as appeared Miss Crawford you may proceed thank you um so as you mentioned this is a Massy hearing um if you could go to the next slide keep going have to okay so here um so there were some agreements uh that we put into order uh we asked that the respondent O could you go back we asked that the respondent um remove the dis uh the fence that was in disrepair by July 31st which is completed uh replace the rotting and loose stair treads by July 31st that has been completed um provide the engineer report and apply for building permit for the roof by October 2nd that has not occurred um adjust laundry door opening that has not occurred add a ramp to the laundry room this has been completed if you go to the next slide uh this is what was put into order on July 10th app um those are the dates again so they the orders were provided uh via email as most of the mail comes back uh keep going completed yes please um so on July 14th uh the respondent uh sent this in good faith just showing that he was working work on um completing the roof project on August 16th uh there were some preliminary plans sent via Coastal Construction LLC um the respondent informed us that he spent $20,000 uh for plans that he did not intend to go through with due to the expenses um which is is fine but the the engineer reports still weren't submitted we can continue so after the date of compliance um I reached out to the respondent um again asking for the engineer reports and again trying to be as generous as possible extending um that compliance date to October 25th for the engineer reports and November 1st for submitting that permit um I did not receive a response on October 18th um the respondent provided another document from another roofing company uh that again they weren't engineer reports um yep okay continue back one go back one yep uh so again sent this preliminary um engineer report that was it's it doesn't have a seal it's not signed it was looked over by uh Chief Building official Jay Castillo it's we couldn't accept it um so if we could continue um again informed the respondent that this this couldn't be accepted um so went ahead and sent the uh Massy hearing not uh completed the postings yep completed that posting there's the Affidavit of the postings um reached out about the Massie hearing uh via email um he stated he was pulling a roof permit in the following days this was back in December and to make a very long story short there's still a permit has not been applied for we have not received engineering reports and that date of compliance within uh the order that you set was October 2nd 2024 so here we are in January um just on Monday again received some more documents unsigned not sealed not in your reports this does appear to be a contract with a local roofing company and from what I understand uh the respondent was on the phone with the Chief Building official this morning um so if we could grab Jay and we can um kind of relay what the respondent but the the respondent is not in compliance he's not here he's not in compliance he's not contesting it so you can call the witness if you'd like but yeah I would like Jay just to relay whatever uh the respondent wanted to relay what was the daily fine again so I don't believe we established um a daily fine it just said yes this is Riley okay um you have the prior order Andy yeah I do if you could actually go back and then I'll grab it um in the order it stated that we could find him up to 500 $ for repeat violations um so what the city would ask for is for a daily fine to begin today for every day um that he remains non-compliant and I will gra but but he was not in a repeat violation no at the he he was had not this the original order was not for a repeat violation correct so this would really not be a repeat violation this would just be a fine initial fine on the first violation which was not established but we we have go ahe you we have unless you cond justce me otherwise established that he's not in compliance would so you go ahead and yeah uh J Castello building official um I did talk to Riley this morning he did call um so just I guess just to get some information CU unfortunately I didn't hear what we started with here on was uh he did uh state that he got the which is listed up there um it's a general contractor roofing contractor um that he's going to do a permit with them they should be submitting today or tomorrow on a permit um to look to repair it um my issue with this situation is we believe that the roof is not properly attached um engineering was asked to the property maintenance ASP yes and and um engineering was asked so we could determine whether or not strapping and stuff was required I am open to as the building official to with a GC a licensed GC contractor to maybe once the permit is met or pulled to go out there meet with him and see what is existing there because Riley again this morning said that he's had some uh other people said that the roof is perfectly fine so now we're getting two different cont so just me as the building official I need to set up on it and see um I did tell uh Riley that we were proceeding with the ma you know case it's been delayed too long he been taking too long to come to this point and all of a sudden last minute say this is going on that I said so I don't think that's going to affect the case going but that I am open to it and if I can go there see this uh determine that yes strapping is not needed or strapping is existing then you know then I guess we would handle it accordingly but in the meantime he's not in compliance with the prior order corre so what's the city suggesting as a daily fine commencing tomorrow 50 actually today we can it's been longer I mean me personally and for the city I would say $100 a day okay so the city is asking for a $100 a day fine commencing today and we'll get this order out today I mean I do have the previous order if you wanted to look at well I was did you want to I was going to ask you do you want to introduce that yes please okay for this thank you okay um and I know the respondent isn't here in person but he is on the phone I don't know if you would be willing to well I'm I'm willing I don't know if did we go through this recently with somebody else no thought we did one couple point back we did um and I believe we determined we would accept it if it was like face you could see face yeah and also the person can't it won't mean anything because it's not sworn testimony right so if you want to have have him make argu argument for or against what you're suggesting on the phone I have no problem with that but it won't be accepted as evidence it just be argument call say oh he's on the phone does that make sense I think he he would still like to be heard but I understand it if you have no objection then I'll listen to the the argument okay does he has he heard what you just was was said okay well we'll fill him in when I don't know how to do this I'm going to take them off take them off mute and maybe put them on speaker and maybe that'll be enough to where well the key is whether the all right hi Riley we're going to we're going to try to have you communicate with the special magistrate if you're ready sound good I'm good could you say something hey Riley go ahead and uh just speak loud say speak loud for a second hey can you hear me J yeah that's are you able to hear me okay yes he can hear you okay it Riley so yeah it's Riley and so the Magistrate's going to give you a couple things first and then he'll allow you to speak okay can you can you hear me yes I can hear it's a little faint but I can hear okay what the city is proposing is that you be found that you did not come into compliance and that a fine com commenced today in the amount of $100 per day until you come into compliance so I cannot hear what I cannot listen to you as a sworn witness because you're not here to be sworn but I can listen to you and have it recorded about what your argument is about for or against agreeing or not agreeing to that resolution at this time okay um okay let's put him back you guys record this right yes okay let's put them on the mic then okay okay I'm by got you by the microphone you can go now Riley okay so the basically the difficulty's been so originally when we we we're getting the roofer placed this was two years ago the roofer stopped and said hey I like I want to get this re-engineered and I want to completely off this roof let let me interrupt real quick see you're going into testimony that doesn't all that doesn't matter right now the only thing you can talk about is whether or not you agree to the $100 a day or you think it's too little or too much or whatever that's all we can hear right now okay well I I guess my question is is I'm going to be pulling a permit today to replace the roof will that stop the fine because that's the process I can't guarantee how long it's gonna be and not want to spend $3,000 a month or $100 a day basically if I am in the process of getting it replaced and the permit's being pulled today well that's between that the city's expressed their position if the city wants to modify it that's slip to the city so yes I did uh let the magistrate know that I spoke to you before and that you were looking to pull the permit today and that if the permit got pulled today and I could meet that GC and again it's ands and IFS and we find out that it doesn't need strapping and stuff then yes we would definitely consider that um if it drags on and stuff like that then you know no we would not consider removing the the fund let me suggest something having just heard with I'm not arguing for you or yeah I understand it sounds like you want to work with the respondent what if you say it'll start file will commence in 15 days unless an Affidavit of compliance is filed can we do what whatever number of days you want I I would like to recommend a week a week whatever I'd like to recommend a week and if he's got what he needs then so the city is now proposing that a fine commence in seven days unless an Affidavit of compliance is filed okay I'm fine with that I'm fine with that and then if if permit's pulled and everything starts well that's you can talk about that yeah well and that's something that you and I will talk about but as far as the magistrate goes if I'm not speaking out of turn here is you've got seven days to get to where we are and if if it doesn't happen then it's another magistrate or you know from there okay that's that's good with me that's good with me okay all right then I will all right I'm going to hang up on you rile all right thank you all right then I'm going to enter an order to that effect okay okay if if a fine if a if compliance if an Affidavit of compliance is not filed within 7 days a fine of $100 a day will start on that day or the day after it it'll it'll work out okay okay anything else on that case no nothing further okay so next case is case number dsce d24 d46 men and van Le T Lee Miss T Mr Lee I think it's Mr Mr Lee Miss to Mr Lee miss Tom Mr Lee called three times no one's present we may proceed um so this uh case has completely come into compliance and I'll be filing the Affidavit of compliance that's great it's good that's the goal isn't it yeah okay so the next case is case number DS c-24 d136 raciel Aragon Miss Aragon Miss Aragon M Aragon I've called three times no response M Crawford you may proceed thank you um so this case uh for Rachel Aragon at the property 645 South Atlantic Avenue on the next slide you'll see the property search um the property appraiser showing that she is um the owner the property is Homestead and the city believes that she is in violation of section 13-2 license permit required um we asked the respondent to obtain a business tax receipt for running her vacation rental business um at this property is this the lady who came down from Ohio or something like that no no okay um on the next slide we also believe that she's in violation of 26.5-in um we asked the respondent to register the vacation rental with the city as well um as obtaining that BTR and interestingly enough at the at the original hearing uh she had come into compliance for over occupancy but has since uh adjusted her listings and so now she is as of this time she's over occupancy again she is over yep well let me ask you this then yeah we need to I think Jump Ahead what was the fine in the original order um we could jump ahead so I believe it's $250 a day for each violation for each violation so keep going you're saying that there was not NE no compliance ever attained for the first two violations section 13-2 and section 26.5 D21 but there was compliance in section as to the section 26.5 53 violation and when did that violation come into compliance it had previously come into compliance before the September 11th hearing um but as of it's later in the slide but as of December 31st I believe she is now over occupancy so she came into compliance before SE the September 11th hearing okay with then after starting on September 31st she was in non compliance again yes so if you see here um if you back it up a couple of slides on Airbnb um she has the vacation rental listed over occupancy at 10 guests and then we also have um now we have two uh reviews also Just sh that she's continued uh to rent so she's a repeat violator and as to she's a unrebutted police repeat violator yes as to the last violation and how much of a fine do you suggest to be on that she's now subject to a $500 per day fine yes so for over occupancy it's a $500 dollar citation or fine and then for not having the BTR and not having the vacation rental registration those are each $250 a day oh that's right well it's not so you're asking for a o only a $500 fine for the not a daily fine do you have the order I do I do it's cold this place isn't it [Music] thank [Applause] you okay yeah I so for the section 13-2 violation that's under the local business taxt so the most she can be charged is 250 for the fine and whatever whatever the statute allows for a late payment of the tax and she hasn't paid the tax yet no she hasn't that continues to run as it as it was okay for for Section 26.5 D21 that fine is running at 250 a day and I'm finding that that violation was not corrected in this Massy hearing the first violation that that violation was found to ex exist period that's not something that would really be subject to a Massy hearing okay as to the third violation 26.5 53 you didn't the city did not ask for a fine and there was no fine assessed but the respondant was subject to a $500 per day fine for future violations which we are now finding that as of September 31st the respondent was in violation and the order takes care of that on its own but an order will be entered affirming all these things based upon this Massie hearing does that make sense yes and do the city want to introduce this packet inevidence thank you so much okay that's the order that will be entered which is basically affirming the prior order and finding that non-compliance with the second violation 26 .5 D21 and finding that the violation of 26.5 53 was corrected but has been repeated yes and therefore subjected the ACT respondant to a $500 for day fine as set forth in the prior order and that'll be the order that will be entered thank you okay I believe that is all of our cases for today okay there's nothing further to be brought for the special magistrate today we're journ