morning one and all before we begin I'd like to first introduce myself I'm Lonnie Groot special magistrate for the city of Coco Beach and I'd like to introduce also miss Danielle Crawford who's serving as clerk today to these proceedings um and I'd like to make a couple of introductory remarks some of you will know these by heart others maybe knew um first of all obviously today like any other proceeding in Florida is a proceeding that's subject to the government in the Sunshine Law anybody who wants to watch can come in and watch anybody who is on the city's YouTube channel can can also view it uh if they are so um obviously bored that that's what they would like to do this morning so but it we welcome one and all to these proceedings and and uh we want to implement the state laws relating to government transparency to the maximum extent unlike other proceedings however this is not a public hearing this is a proceeding that is a quasi judicial one in which the city is the quote unquote prosecutor and the respondent is the quote unquote defendant in a in a case in which evidence is presented and the law controls and I evaluate the evidence evidence versus the the law and come to a conclusion an inter an order I have to announce the order under state law at the at this proceeding but there's actually a written order that is issued subsequent to these proceedings uh the the county will excuse me the city will present its case and after it's through and the respondent has the opportunity to inquire cross-examine for legal terminology the the city the respondent will then present his or her or its case and the city can cross-examine any witnesses to those proceedings to that part of the proceedings uh all testimony is made under oath that's required by Statute there's some folks who want to appear by means of teams today that's the program that the city uses and they are on they are connected to this meeting I guess that's the appropriate way to say it and but they are not going to be Witnesses because I cannot swear them in remotely okay but they're observing it and can make comments unless the city were to object and I were to sustain the objection that they shouldn't even be uh appearing or making comments because they're not under oath but that's up to the city whether or not the city does that that make sense okay okay everything today is going to be electronically recorded there'll be minutes taken and the minutes will be reviewed and approved at a subsequent meeting um that's the way things work that's the way the Florida the statutes are designed to work and the city's very good about making sure things occur that way so I'm present M Crawford's present City's present and I don't know who's present for each case but we will figure that out as we go there's no W there's no minutes to approve today so at this point I'm going to swear in all of you who plan on testifying today now I know that there's an attorney present for a case and I forgot which case it is it's was Caitlyn Lewis uh from the law firm of lacy L I'll answer to anything is she going to testify just in case she better stand okay that's a good idea okay let's go you state your first name please full name sorry yes sir J yes sir thank you yes sir Dar G yes sir you're next Josh G okay do each of you sol s the testimon you're about to give and the matter not here be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth self you got yes all five witnesses are sworn okay the first case on the agenda is case number dc- 24-3 with the respondent being Jennifer Murphy is that to be brought before us today yes okay you may proceed uh good morning my name is jaier Masa I'm a CO enforcement for the city of kovic uh third case is going to be number dsce 24-3 and respond is Jennifer Murphy she is presented by teams meeting and the address 323 West Oola the co violation is responding to violation of the city C ordinance section 26. 5-21 and and that and this time she is in complaints so what I'm going to do is give you the evidence and uh tell you what's what we want okay you'd like me to take the file into evidence is thank you is Miss Murphy on team yes Miss Murphy are you there I am here but I'm having a hard time hearing well does it help if I move it over here I don't is there is the mic in here yes I'll move it here you might have an odd Vision looking up at my face but that's the way it goes I'm trying to bring them can you hear me better now I can hear you fine yes okay good thank you good uh like I said you're not I cannot swear you in because you're remote okay but I will take your comments unless they're objected to by the city no there's no objection so what's been presented to me I don't know if you can see it or not is the case File relating to your case uh do you have any objection to it being considered considered I don't know what's in there but um I know and and no no offense but that's because you're not here and you know if you really you know it's really your your obligation to be here and that's not said in a harsh manner that just the way it is so uh I know you don't know what's in it cuz you're not here but I'm going to admit it the evidence uh as the city's composite exhibit for this proceeding okay but you what I heard you say is that the first section that is cited as a violation M Murphy's in compliance yes okay what about the second one all of them all of them oh she's in compliant yes okay so what is the city asking for then uh the city required that the special Master find respondent to have B violated the city code ordinance sections so that if the respond is found to be an violation of the same ordinance again the city May invoke repeated violation state so basically it's a no fine standing order you don't you're not asking for a fine you're just asking for so M Murphy what the city is is asking for is an order that finds you in compliance but that you were in violation and that there's no fine because you became came into compliance but should a subsequent a future violation occur you would be subject to a double fine okay you understand that but yes sir so yes that's that's what the would do you have any objection Miss Murphy commenting if she'd like to no Miss Murphy what would you like to say and and remembering you're not you're not I'm not considering this as under oath this is just comments sure I can just comment um I know that I came into compliance I I was um given a way to pay for the past two years I just uh this is my first time in actually Court I'm typically a rule follower so I did not ever intentionally break any City uh ordinances and as soon as it was brought to my attention at the end of last year um I've worked with the state uh to get licensed and then also um the city and unfortunately there were some pending um permits that hadn't been closed out which resulted in me getting a letter um I do the letter that I did receive though from February stated that I was running three airbnbs there were two which which at the time I didn't know was not allowed so as soon as that letter was sent to me in February uh on February 22nd I um stopped having two rental units at my home uh which is the subject property and then I had one and I continued to proceed to um get everything I needed to be in compliance with the city for that one unit but have decided to sell my property and it'll be uh on the market here um I've moved out so I know longer live at that residence and I'll be selling the property so and I've withdrawn my short-term rental application all right uh do you have anything further ma'am I do not what what about the city does the city have anything further no okay so what I'm going to do in this case is enter an order that finds that the respondent was in violation of the two cited code section 26- 5-21 and section 13-2 and that the the respondent came into compliance that there's no fine based upon that but that the uh respondant would be subject to the statutory repeat violation fine amount in the future should a future violation occur is that what what the city is requesting yes that's what I'll enter all righty thank you Miss Murphy best of luck and selling your house thank you all right so the next case sir yes the next case is going to be case number cbpd 23- 397 resent the respon is green Joseph the address is hang on a second are you gonna skip the Massie hearing and go to the next case the next case I have on the agenda is the Joseph Green case which is a Massy hearing yes you going to skip that no no you want to do that one yes okay so the so the Court violations respond with finding violation of the city of Coco of ordinance section 3-32 fence was fences and walls which state portion of fence constructed with the 15 ft of any W away may be constructed on maximum highight 4 ft uh the respon was ordered to complain with the code 3-32 L by April 9 2024 the daily of 20 $25 will be in pus until the fence is complete um they came with an agreement and there was a proposed that is that supposed to be done and with 10 days we're going to give it 10 days and that's going to be on April if it's going to be uh 10 business days and that would be April 24th okay so as I recall like you said there was a order that was entered gave a compliance date of April 9th or else the fine commence right but the city and the respondent through legal counsel have agreed to extend that by 15 days to have the compliance date now be April 24th yes mistr may have be heard just a late quick record as long is the city are you through right okay sure um your honor Caitlyn Lewis uh on behalf of Mr Joseph green uh regarding case number cbpd 23- 476 and today we're before your uh uh your honor uh for uh compliance Hearing in regards to the hearing and order you um signed on February 21st 2024 regarding his notice violations of 6-4 subsection C 3- 32 subsection l in which case the order did state that U Mr Green had 45 days to correct um the fencing um issue before the um city and um that would have been April 9th 2024 which was yesterday um and by way of background and I have told City personnel that I was going to lay a quick record on behalf of my client that um he made several attempts um to correct the fence um two in particular um on March 14th he had the um fence revised March 15th uh we had code uh enforcement officer uh Danielle Casey Crawford come out as well as Javier they took some photographs he was under the impression that it was in compliance um and then there was um some discussion that he may not have been in compliance so he revised the fence again and made follow oops sorry about that made followup contact um with the city both on the 18th and 19th and the 20th finally on the 20th um the city came back out um to look at his fence um revised again um and then he was informed that it was not in compliance and he asked um for further um direction as to how to comply um because he was under the impression the revisions would comply um on March 22nd he did receive an email from uh Miss Danielle um letting him know that um that same code section 3-3 to subsection four that it need to be 4T um we have been in um in touch your honor with the city um personnel as well as the City attorney who are very Cooperative um in our efforts we have agreed um to a 10day b 10 business day extension which would put us at Wednesday April 24th should the court um oblig that um for corrective action as well as the city has provided us with a sketch or drawing if you will that will shows um how the fencing should be done and I do for your way of background the the elevation has to be measured from the neighbor's property and the neighbor's property has several different height elevations and so that's creating some confusion as to where um the measurements are the city has provided me with that sketch which I will provide to my client so he could come into compliance the order does say 25 days if he does or $25 a day fine if he does not comply um and we are still agreeable to that amount but we expect compliance by that date okay so what I what I heard was that I entered an order on February 21st which I recall the compliance dat in the order was April 9th that there's been couple of inspections that at the one of the inspections it appears that there was a improvident statement that compliance had been attained is that is that correct no we never say that you never said that and I'm not testifying that just by way of background that's from myed so I'm not go there then but you agree that the new compliance date should be April 24th which you said 10 business days I haven't calculated if that's 10 business days I'm going to say April 24th so and we are all agree on that correct yes then I'll enter an order that'll be nun prot tunk back to yesterday uh so there won't have be an issue about a $25 fine one day so and making the no fine having run and a compliance date of April 24th so if it's not all in compliance by April 24th down on April 25th the fine will commence running and uh for clarity is it a $25 fine per day $25 in the original order as in the original order I appreciate we all agree on that yes okay all right then that's the order I will enter thank you for your time and I appreciate the city's cooperation let me present the evidence is that the file yes with offense okay M Le you don't have any objection to be providing me with a copy this morning and I'm going to receive the case file into evidence as composite exhibit one in this case can I say something regards to this case that case yes well I'm going to the property well hang on hang on hang on I have there's a real simple simple answer to your question we would have object to that um mate it's it's a compliance here so the respondent is not asking to call you as a witness is the city asking to call this gentleman as a witness please yes your honor with all due respect verbal order was just entered and the pirate parties agreed I I got you but what questions were you going to ask him questions I was going to no no no no this is not like I said at the beginning I don't know if you you may have gone out in in the lobby at the time but this isn't a public hearing so the public and I I asked the question of the Attorney General about that because I'm a special magistrate and work for other cities attorney general made it clear this is not a public hearing so unless the city or the respondant calls you as a witness I'm not going to hear you okay so we have the respondent saying not going to call you as a witness and objecting that you be called as a witness so now I'm asking the city what are you going to ask I don't have any question then the order will be entered thank you and I'll be glad to send you the Attorney General opinion or actually I'll give it to Miss Crawford and she can provide it to you but this is not a public hearing okay you call me as a wit that's the city and that's the respondent and they both are not calling you as Witnesses magistrate is this U matter uh concluded this this hearing is is concluded thank you is there another case to be brought before me today yes in all and unfinished business okay as case number CPD 23- 397 respond is klt east coast LLC address at 637 South Orlando and they have seven ation code and one of them is going to be 10-22 the other one section 32.7 that's an impc and a section 304 that1 is another impc and let me present the evidence okay now is anybody here on teams yes okay who is that for this case because this is a this is a LLC so I don't know who I got steuart Goldman Stuart gold got rich a yes yep we are both here representing KT he and before I what's capacity are you in relative to the limited liability Corporation um I am we are both owners part owners of the KT at east coast and general Partners so if we went the sunbiz we would see your name on this that is correct okay uh does the city object to the any com I can't swear these folks in because they're remote do the city object to them making comments during the course of this yes we do you do no no okay she say no no so the city does not object to hearing comments from these folks no okay they will not be under oath so they will only be comments Mr Goldman and Mr Rick a what's the last name uh oh can't hear he's on mute it's AMS oos okay you got you know that okay let me help him but he he was on mute oh so Sor if a Mr Amos could you take yourself off of mute sir okay you can say anything no you saying say something that's not obscene or anything like that just let us hear you I keep going in and out of mute how about now okay there you go okay now the city only mentioned as I heard section 10-22 and section 32-7 right yes and section section 302 3041 3024 302 that .7 and section 304 that1 okay all right what about section 605 which is also on the agenda yes that too you you're also alleging 605 yes okay now 32-7 wasn't on the agendas there's a big Blank Space there was that not sure let me look at this it's 302.7 now this is a prior case where the order is I don't know why that one looks different it does doesn't it yeah it does well 32-7 is still not on here I think it's 302.7 yes 302.7 302 okay you said okay got it okay all right okay got it you may proceed then okay the respon was granted one day from July 12th to 2023 to apply for a permit and start working on and start working on the unsafe condition and violation the property of a daily F of $250 per day will be imposed starting on July 12th 2023 on all violations are in complaint at the September 13 Mass hearing the respon was found to reming violation an ordered to pay $250 a day until the violation until the violations were corrected this orders and f post Le was recorded with the county and will be a total $68,000 by today however to the respond knowledge the F has been stopped by core enforcement officer raand of September 17 2023 the day the final tenant move out of the property according to respond and a note finding the city system officer R told the respondent that the day agreement the day will be fine to stop if all the tenants were move out this property and you can see in exhibit a the offic and Robie intend to fight an affidavit to complain with the special Magister and um to proceed to agreement with the you sign Cod enforces official Danel Crawford and respond R government so what the the city request now as the special magistrate to approve the agreement that we have on section and uh on exhibit a uh on September 17 2023 to order respond to pay 16,500 fine total I I I understand this is okay so Mr Mr Goldman did you hear all that CU your signatures on the uh on the agreement yes I I did hear a little like soft in like the hearing on this side but yes I do have that document and and although you're not under oath I keep saying that okay you're you're here making comments and representations as to the limited liability company and Mr Amos Mr Mr Goldman speaking on behalf of the of the company is that correct yes that is correct he lives in Coco Beach and is the primary one that has handled this okay so what I understand the city and the respondent liability limited liability company you're asking me to do is enter an order because that's I I won't sign the agreement I'll enter an order revising the prior order that fines compliance was attained on September 17th 2023 and that the fine that is the total fine due will be $16,500 that's your understanding well this partially so wait I was gonna speak on our behalf today hang on hang on one second let me is that the city's intent yes okay so the city's intent was to find that you although you really weren't in compliance that the city improvidently found that you were in compliance on September 17 2023 and that had you been in compliance the fine would have then ceased and that it would have total $16,500 at that time and the property is in compliance now right yes okay so Mr Goldman what's your issue with that thing that's what this agreement says so the city wouldn't change that agreement but we wanted it to be a maximum of that amount and asked for a lesser amount and the reason being is I only follow code enforcement every time they told me to do something or fix something I responded in two days they told me electric was an issue I called for a permit sent out an electrician in two days and had it resoled in three days I was never notified that I needed to move out any tenants to stop the lean until after the special magistrate hearing old code enforcement officer did not follow protocol correctly as stated by the Coco Beach and I don't believe I should be fined for two months because I was never notified of a I would be fin until and as soon as he told me I need I responded immediately I mean it is I my and I'm asking Mercy that basically almost removed to two days because I responded notice notice to all my tenants to move out if this city asked me to my tenants out in July I would have but they did not and unfortunately I was just the parent authority of code enforcement officer who was working at the time he's resigned now he told me you're not going to be fine you're good then the special magistrate hearing happened in September I unfortunately was unable to attend I travel a lot for work I met him at the property two days later he goes you're not GNA be f as long as you out he even made a note of that and they have a note of it saying that the fines immediately to be ceased and he told me it was going to be removed and unfortunately I didn't know better he has a parent Authority if someone told you 100% good everything's taken care of's going to be removed I don't know what more I need and he told me you're 100% clear good to so I was just following protoc I was just following his authority and unfortunately his authority potentially cost me $16,000 the only reason I even signed that doent was they told me like I'm worried that the city of beach I'd be liable for $68,000 even though he said that stop 17 so I was protecting my my lawyer advised me to sign it because worst case scenario but I could always ask for reduced amount I tried making an adjustment agreement to say maximum of that amount City would not sign well but you are you I see I consider the agreement binding but are you are you asserting that you're you're recanting from the agreement that I just don't want to be worst case scenario I got fin that much and I'm okay with it but I'm asking to see if City would be willing to negotiate less because unfortunately fine if you see my responsiveness based off of all the evidence to by the city I only responded right away I understand what you're saying but I also understand that the city is saying they have an agreement here you signed it apparently your attorney advised you to sign it you didn't have to tell me that but you did and uh what what I'm going to enter an order doing this in accordance with the agreement now let me ask a question of the city because I I don't know this I know what other cities do and I'm gonna ask Miss Crawford okay can you hear okay you're okay yes okay yes and a lot of the Cities I work with once the order is entered by the code enforcement board or the special magistrate acknowledging the law which is that it becomes a right of the city Only the city council or commission or county commissioner Council can then take action do we have a process in C Beach for the same thing yes okay so Mr Goldman Mr Goldman if if I enter the order which I'm I'm planning on doing implementing this agreement like your attorney told you and like you mentioned you do have the ability to appear in front of city council and say I would like you to reduce this and make your case like you just did to me and like you said ask for Mercy Grace express your dissatisfaction with the way things were done whatever but that up be it be up to that box to then say we're going to reduce it we're not going to reduce it or we're going to wipe it out whatever they decide to do I've seen everything so you you could do that and and you would is the application made through you m Crawford okay so what you would do is what I would do if I was you assuming you don't talk to your lawyer about it okay is I would write a letter is there an application form or is it just a letter I believe just a letter yeah you just write a letter to Miss Crawford saying we'd like to go before the city council and ask them to address the amount of the fine in this case that's your opportunity okay the city told me last week they had no authority to do that only you did I couldn't hear you I'm sorry say that again last week in person Randy um I'm sorry I don't know last name is Randy currently um but the head of Code Enforcement told me he has no power to do that only you that's why I haven't done that I just feel like I'm you're not being you're not being jerked around and he's correct I have the ability to do it but I'm I'm going to do what this agreement says I got the other the only other authority that has the power to do that is the local government governing body which is the city council because it's it becomes it becomes just like you if you had a lean it' have to come somebody have to come to you and say Please Release us from the lean okay you're going to the city excuse me he told me the city had no power to do that so I apologize M Crawford just told me as it's happened before most cities have that ability the city commission Council or commission they own the right own they own the M they own the lean okay just like they own the well they don't own this country club I probably wish they did but they own Public Works unless you're renting that too uh there's some property that the city owns they can't only the city council can give that property away sell it buy some more property and you're in the same position saying you own a lean against me city of Coco Beach would like you to do something with it reduce it forgive it whatever you make your case but it's a it becomes a property right of the city does anybody disagree with me on that the city it's a city property right once the order actually the order entered now is a city property right I'm going to change it by reducing the fine essentially to $16,500 so now you're going to go to the city CC Council and say that fine that was reduced I want it further reduced or I want to eliminate or whatever and make your case and I don't know what they'll do if they'll do anything or whatever but that's that's your chancees that make sense thank you sir I appreciate that I appreciate your your update all right so is there anything further from the city so the whole the whole point of us agreeing with this 16,500 was because he wasn't a rush to seal the property well I understand you're obviously the city is trying to this the only thing that we're trying to do is help um and that's why he signed the agreement I understand and there's there's I mean there are some cities and counties out there I'm saying this to the city and you Mr Goldman and Mr uh Amos yes oh my gosh I remember the name that that the city is actually doing something to your benefit because I have seen cities and counties just be hardcore and the truth of the matter is co unless there's an Affidavit of compliance FY the statements made out in the fields don't really mean a whole lot that may not sound nice but that's the fact you need an Affidavit of compliance file that's what the statute says and you can come in and argue that's not fair but sometimes the law is not fair that's just the way it is but the the city has a larger lean right now than $16,500 it's agreed to reduce it to $16,500 and you have the opportunity to go ask the city to to reduce it even further I don't know whether you'll be successful or not okay thank you sir all right I'm good with that all right good so based upon that I will enter an order that implements the agreement that's dated April 5th by both parties as to this case okay all right is there anything further any other cases come before me today no okay are we planning on having a meeting May 8th does it look like we will okay the next meeting of the city of coka beach special magistrate will be on May 8th 2024 anything further from the city cord then we stand a journ thank you very much e