e e good morning it's on mute on your end I don't know if you can hear me but I can't hear you but it shows it it's on mute e Mr German can you hear us now I can hear you yes thank you so much okay very good sorry about that um I just everybody and you're an attorney so you technically don't need to be sworn um I'm not sure which item you're here here for presume maybe the second but just standby um I'm going to turn it over to the town to call and thank you thank you and the first case was 23514 the prop was here provid so compli okay so you're pulling that one from the agenda okay very good2 LC 16169 is for building permits um this property was found in violation on March 4th and it was given to comply by April 4 and set for uh plan assessment hearing on today's uh hearing uh we hand deliv the order from mry to Muro the property and um but it was here for for the property owner or the of the tenant and so is uh K ger um the attorney for the Lana holding the com and what's the status of compliance uh of all the um structures that need a perimeter on the property they apply for two permits um two temporary um tents I believe and U both permits have been denied uh have the latest update as yesterday uh both applications have been denied uh for by both um ja and the other Rie is ging those are Town reviewers yes who who are they uh one is theing part and the other one is the building official okay applications cling and one for um P okay the file there is an application for fame ball and one for carding and both have been denied for the record that those are two out of um over 25u there per and for the other structures no permit applications have been submitted to date not yet okay so what's the town seeking in terms of Remedy today the town is seeking to start um find on the property um up to 50 day uh given that we put all the structures on one evolation it will be just one fine for all the comitted um structures and is there a cost recovery she didn't here for today's hearing I think we we put it there but it's uh it will be the standard 23405 up to the last that we use there for the violation hearing [Music] all right anything further from the town I okay who's are you GNA speak sir or just your attorney I I'll let Millo my client representative speak on the factual aspects of it and then maybe if I could chime in thereafter I think okay sure thank you thank you and I guess let's start with the documents on Mr German Mr since um your client is here and since you are appearing remote I'm going to have Mr M show your client the the evidentiary case File as we typically do in these hearings um and at the end I'm going to ask him whether or not he has any objection to those documents it looks to be the the original case File which just the newer documents uh up in the front of the case File thank you any objection to that case File being entered okay thank you and just so the record is clear I know who you are but can you state your name for the record last name all right and Mr German your client doesn't have any objection uh do you have anything to add with regard to the documents being entered no okay very good thank you all right so with that in case 2424 I'll enter the towns evidentiary Case Files composite exhibit one without objection go ahead Mr Millo explain what's going on so we've been through the process of getting permit for the per building on site we have besides those two canopies that have been submitted application for them we have out 10 structures containers and other structures canopies um throughout the property that haven't still been submitted because we kind of threw a plan out with builing official with Jack that we would start with those two canopies in order to reopen the park because the park has been closed a month and a half approximately okay so and we are working on the reviews so if you take a look at the reviews since we firsted application than that before and we corrected and we're still working on some correction that's why it's not still approved um from the comments that Jack building official name in regard to those two applications what's your estimated timeline for submitting the other permits applications 10 other structures we did agree that we would BR off all structures if it was a case of reopening the park after those two canopies which are essential to operation um once they are approved by fire and by town which are the canopy and the caring application that you have there canopies temporary structors okay and once we get those approved we would work on others so we didn't we didn't have a timeline for the other ones but there are some that are more complicated I would say since they're container structures a lot of that on FL building code and and other structures that are part of our facility so your decision was to focus on the two that would get you to a path of reopening the facility faster got Jack a lot toce and hug at the same time to course we focus on those two so it was kind of an agreement but of course we want to okay anything further from you sir Mr German yeah the only thing I would like to add um is that at the present time the park is not able to operate it's racetrack which is really the money maker aspect of the track um we've been told that the town um is not standing in the way of opening up the golf mini golf or The Paintball but the reality is the it's it's financially not sustainable to keep the even those limited operations open unless the tracks open so at the present time uh the Situation's very financially tenuous because the track's been shut down for I believe about a month at this point and we're just trying to do whatever we can possible to get the track opened in the in the view of the town as soon as possible so that's really where our focus is because financially this operation is on the verge of um not being able to really have a pathway forward given the track being shut down I I would like the uh you to be aware of the fact that the state has approved the operation of this track many times over um from a safety inspection and otherwise standpoint but the town has said that it is not allowing the track to be open based on safety concerns mainly the B building official um so it's it's a very tough situation to be fully transparent on it because there there's frustration on um because of the fact that the town has previously allowed this track to remain open um there were never any safety incidents or or concerns raised previously of any meaningful level um the state has allowed this track or approved the track uh with its inspections um but as we sit here right now the track cannot be open based on the town's position from their building official and so because of that that the financial aspects of this operation is completely shut down and the the operation is on the verge of essentially closing down for good um and so financially speaking um its ability to pay any fines is really non-existence at this point number one and number two um you know with the inability to open for all intents and purposes at this point based on what we believe is an unfair position me taken by the town respectfully um I just want want everyone to be aware that we're doing everything we can um but the reality is that with this track not being open and the go-karts not being able to run uh it's financially unsustainable and and we are running on fumes or maybe even less than fumes as it relates to the longevity of this project sadly and what's your estimated timeline for um getting the remaining comments addressed as it relates to the two open permit applications yeah Mr Avalar probably would be better able to answer that but I've been told that as it relates to what is preventing the track from being open in the building official's eyes um that could potentially be six months and and we simply just do not have six months of of no Revenue coming into into this project go ahead Mr avlar so about the comments for the two canopies I believe in in two weeks that would be covered been back and forth contacting our architects who working on comments that Jack issued I don't think those would take very long to be very honest so I would say two to three weeks maybe we're finishing up some plans and I'm just talking about those two um per applications the other ones of course they all depend and just important to to to mention that we're going through the rezoning um application as well so that's what um Cody mentioned about six months submitted application we got reviews from the DRC and we are working on those reviews with our planner Urban Design in West pal for to resubmit that application that just go ahead I'm sorry go ahead it's not only submitting application also that I guess let me ask the town attorney then so the the rezoning application in my mind doesn't have anything to do with these code enforcement uh with the code enforcement violations is that correct these building permits can be issued with or without the rezoning so I the short answer to that is no they cannot um the zoning um review cannot be approved um basically the the building application does get routed through zoning and it can't be approved at the very end if they don't have um a land use approval so they they are currently in a residential Zone district and they um began a commercial operation and um in addition to operating this commercial use that's not a permitted use within the zoning District they constructed multiple unpermitted structures there's a separate case that has um already been before your honor for purposes of addressing their violation of the landuse yes I remember so I this this issue arose because the current uses of the property continue to expand thereafter and the building official went out and inspected and this case followed so I think at this point we're at the point of fine assessment a lot of the arguments that were made to you would be more appropriate for addressing the land use case which has a stipulation associated with it I think for purposes of today the respondent was already found in violation the respondent is the land own owner Lana land hold Holdings LLC which is different than um Mr German's client who's actually operating the business on the property um so they are unpermitted structures on the property um yes some permits could not have been cannot be approved without the appropriate zoning um the two one at least one of the two permits that was submitted um could be approved on a temporary basis and I think that's what um the respondent who's present today was working with the building official to do but we're not at that point yet so as of this time there are no permits issued with regard to this property and um the town's position is that fines should start running um if in one there uh compliance is achieved of course um the respondent like any other respondent is entitled to come in and ask for a fine reduction I guess I'm trying to rep my mind around why the why the structures are tied to the use why the building I understand zoning has to sign off but if if so you're telling me that one of the two temporary tents can be permitted but the other can't it's my understanding from it's my understanding that and the respondent testified that both could but in any event NE no per per I got that so that that's kind of um at this point they're still not in compliance um so it's the town's position that fine should run go ahead sir add of that file chose boms are not accessible um structures are accessible playground and and climbing wall that had no pyramids electrical wall that was done without pyramids so there's many structures and and and work that was found in that property that is not perent so for the town of seeking is that these structures and and work to be applied for and obtain a permit so they can be inspected and be safe for the public I I get that that part of this is very clear my concern is is if if they can't actually get the permits structure that is is this linked to the the so that that's what I'm trying to drill down to which ones are and which ones aren't and and can they is there a path toward compliance that's not relying on the rezoning because at the last hearing a 30-day timeline was given for compliance and that certainly wasn't based on uh an understanding that a rezoning application had to be process before building permits were to be issued so that's my concern is is I very clearly the buildings are there and are not permitted and very clearly they're they were required to comply by a certain date it concerns me that only two applications have been submitted there's no reason in my mind why all applications have not at least been submitted to the town regardless of of whether they're issued that to me shows a good faith effort that you're trying to come into compliance with with my previous order um but realistically my concern is is how many permits are going to be held up because of the rezoning and what's the timeline on on ultimately that being approved by the town or or fully not even approved but fully processed by the town right so to answer your question um I can only represent to you that only one of those applications that was submitted could get zoning approval okay um so again still a Town's position that fine should run because they didn't meet that criteria um I understand um your concern with regard to the other structures um again this the land use case is working its way through the system it's been to development review Once um comments were sub comments were provided to the applicant and um it kind of stalled there um so the rough estimate that we've given to get all of that process is about six months may may I uh go ahead yeah to the court um it's it's somewhat of a car before the horse issue here um and just just so the court remembers we have a stipulation with the town that allowed this operation to um be open on a limited base basis and that was going on for I believe over a year and then the new building official came in and took a different position and essentially shut down this track um we made a proposal that the unpent structures which were open in accordance with the stipulation um and go through the permanent process will be roped off until uh those are properly approved uh but the track will remain open which obviously allows the the critical income Street to come in I thought we had an agreement with the town on that point and then the building official disapproved that agreement so now we're in a situation where everything's kind of held up um based on land use approvals and permanent things um and and clearly we're trying to to work through these issues in good faith we've been in front of uh the town on this on various occasions the town has worked with us the town has had some turnover which I believe they would acknowledge has led to delays on approvals for my client as well um so I believe that there's some fault to go around on each side here if I'm being fully uh candid with the court but ultimately the notion that my client should continue to get fined while it's clearly working its tail off to get these structures permanent and get the the operations reopened I believe is is overly punitive and fundamentally unfair um particularly when we have a situation where the main aspect of the location which is the track which had been operating in accordance with the stipulation with the town for a long period of time now the new town uh um the uh building manager comes in and says no it can't be open based on safety issu isues even though there's never been identified to us any safety issues with the track by the town even though the state has approved this track from a safety and otherwise perspective multiple times over for many years um and we're just caught in a essentially situation where we're handcuffed we're not told what is wrong with the track um the track has a history of operating without any incidents the state has approved the track but the town uh new official has taking the position the track can't be open and so there's no Revenue coming in either and so we're just in a really really dire situation and I know a lot of this isn't necessarily in front of um this court here today but I think it's important to put it into context as far as what's going on um because it's it's it's really unfortunate and there's a lot of people's jobs who have been lost um as a result of the Town taking this position with the track um the whole operation is is essentially in serious Jeopardy um and I think that fundamentally unfair positions have been taken by people who are not in that courtroom today um well let me ask you this Mr German I I I'm I am sympathetic to the fact that this is a little bit uh complicated there's a lot of moving Parts here but the one very clear thing is is the testimony here today and the case File that's before me is that there have only been two permit applications filed since the March hearing so if your position is that you're doing everything you could to to try to get this going and get into compliance why are there not permit applications for every one of the buildings on site that requires a permit why were those not submitted prior to today's hearing yeah I think that Mr Avalar probably can best address that because he's on the ground floor on those issues but it's it's certainly not for lack of triner incompetence but if I can turn it over to Mr avlar on that point I'd appreciate it it's obviously a fair question okay Mr AV go ahead [Music] Mr German they're just switching out the batteries no problem the microphone no problem thank you I'm not sure how good you can see from the computer you'd be surprised how efficient this actually works and I appreciate you allowing me to attend this way sure Mr Avalar just there we go just to clarify the two perit like I said this was not decision that came from us this verbally agreed with Jack that we would take this approach of two perms only because he agreed and we of a lot of un structors most of the uned structur go ahead sorry strer things go ahead sir strike while the AR is hot it's quiet so we both agreed on that we would start with those two because there are multiple unpermitted structures on site and most of those unpermitted are containers like I said so that anchoring it's a complicated structure there's not much on the FBC so we agreed to it's not something that we wanted to take this approach of course if we didn't and of course important to mention the park has been closed business has been closed since March 3rd if I'm not mistaken so it's a month and a half and of course no no Revenue coming in employees still being paid including myself so owner still honoring that that payment to some employees some employees have already lost their jobs so the idea with Jack when we spoke in the beginning of March was let's focus on these two because his words were that we once they are approved we could reopen the park rope off the other structures and then work like a domino one going one to the other because it would take a lot of time especially with the the team that we have of Architects not not many to take care of all those plans of all the other structures so it it was a plan that was set in the beginning it wasn't something we're just going to do two and that's it no the idea is of course getting all permits but this was a with Jack unfortunately he's not here he could confirm that that's what we agreed on so the park could reopen and we we thought it would be reopen in a week or two so we could have the park open people coming in and eventually start working on the other structures that need to be permitted so just to clarify that it wasn't something that oh let's just do to because that's what's going to make us reopen and then we'll stop there no this was a plan that was set um the beginning of March to FOC focus on these two unfortunately those two had a lot of comments that we're still working on we got fire approval basically for those two from the fire department there's still some comments which Jack and that we're working on okay what's the town's response you I just want to put on the record that um I was part of that conversation with Jack on um agreeing with um the manager uh of pette to uh do partial applications or apply for uh separate structures so they can reopen as a facilitation for them to um stay uh in business uh that doesn't mean that the town ever agreed to just apply for two uh structures and you know take whatever time for the for the rest uh it's important that we mention that uh because they they brought the history of the of the property uh the town has been working with this property for a couple of years already trying to put them in compliance with um unpermitted uh instructors the electrical work that was done um over two years ago uh the town has been working within trying to get everything that has happened in the property permitted and instead they have been adding more structures to the property without obtaining the permits um part of that case that they U mentioned on that stipulation agreement one of the conditions was that they will uh submit a site plan with all the work that was done in the property to permit all the structures and they didn't comply with uh with the deadlines for that stipulation agreement so that's why we are where we are now okay but you're so you were at the same meeting that Mr Avalar was at with the building official and your testimony is that there was not an understanding or there was not an agreement on the part of the town for them to submit only two application two building permit applications but he but the building official agreed to review separate um structures applications so part part of the part can reopen so that wouldn't be closed for the entire length of all all the other permits so the agreement was to part part and partial out the permit application so that some could be processed more timely and others could be processed after the two most critical is that what I'm correct hearing correct okay Mr Avalar any anything else I'm sorry come back to the uh microphone just so Mr German can hear you and so the recording picks you up yeah just to confirm that that was never plan like oh it we'll set the the other permits aside no it was just a matter of refocusing or focusing on those two the two most critical so it's basically a business decision like the fastest path toward the most critical no not at all once those two are approved we would immediately work on the next one and then the next one so that's always a plan we're stuck unfortunately on those yeah and I guess I guess my point to you and what I hope that you'll do after after today's hearing is you know you can you can focus the most effort on the two that are most critical to you but you can't lose sight of the other building and what I wish you would have done coming here today was have at least all the permit applications submitted where you are in the Pro that at least shows to me that you are trying to fully comply with my previous order that's my concern is that um as we sit here this morning only two applications have been submitted I understand there's a back and forth process um but in my mind you're you're a ways of way still from compliance and that concerns me especially given the length of time um that that this has all been going on on this site just sorry to interrupt just to to mention that although we haven't submitted applications for the other ones some of the structures particularly Museum and some of the containers we already have some plans that are finished and some in the process of being so although we didn't submit those because we want to submit something that possibly doesn't come back with inter riew you want to get the most complete okay so so just to put that on the record to mention okay I appreciate that additional uh testimony Mr German anything further from you nothing further from me thank you all right anything further from you Mr Matos or town attorney no your honor no your honor all right all right I've entered the case File so what I'm going to do is These Fine assessment hearings are are a a tricky place because my my previous order required you to do certain things by a certain date as we sit here today they're not they're not done so um I'm I'm going to start a fine but as the town attorney said and as I will certainly Echo um I understand that that this is a complicated case there's a lot going on on the site I also understand that you've made a business decision to try to focus on the two most important ones to try to get the the the facility back open at least operational in part um so I certainly you know once compliance is achieved There's an opportunity to come back to me for fine mitigation hearing I'll certainly entertain all of your efforts between the original violation hearing and that fine mitigation Hearing in terms of what you've done to comply and to comply as timely as you could and I'll take into consideration everything that you've done everything that the town has done and you know that'll be the hearing to to do that but um procedurally I'm at a place where the previous order said you had to do X Y and Z by April 4th in this case um which was get all the building permits for all the unpermitted structures that has not been uh done so I am going to start a fine running um and again you'll have the opportunity once compliance is ultimately achiev to come back for fine mitigation hearing but um in an attempt to keep you driving toward the Finish Line uh as timely as as you can get there I'm going to start that fine and and again I'll I'll re-evaluate when I see you again for fine mitigation hearing uh so with that said in case 2424 I've entered the case File I'll find based on the Affidavit of hand delivery uh that the town had good service for this morning's hearing I'll find based on the testimony of the Town sta staff as well as the respondent and his counsel as well as the evidence in the documentary uh excuse me the documents in the evidentiary case File that the respondent remains in violation of section 05- z40 a through b for the uh structures that remain unpermitted as of this morning's hearing I'm going to assess a fine in the amount of you don't have the number of days calculated do you I I do not I I apologize um let's do a little I'll do a little math here just give me a second 13 days is what I get is that what you get um so 3,250 that's what I'm getting all right so I've uh based on the evidentiary case File as well as the testimony I found that the respondent remains in violation that section the previous order required compliance honor before April 4th so I'll assess to find in the amount of $3,250 that reflects April 5th through today that fine will continue to run until compliance is achieved and that'll continue to run at a fine amount of $250 per day which is the fine amount reflected in the order finding violation I will reaffirm have the administrator of costs for the March hearing been paid I don't believe so all right I will uh assess or award the town administrative costs in the amount of 23405 for today's hearing and I'll reaffirm the administrative cost for the March 4th hearing also in the amount of 23405 so Mr Avalar I would encourage you to get the remaining permit applications in do everything you can do um and if if ultimately you come back to me at a fine mitigation hearing come back to me with a chronology of what you've done from the the March violation hearing date through compliance so that I can see the timeline of how fast you did things between uh certainly between today's hearing and ultimately compliance so that you can paint a picture for me that you all did everything you could to get into compliance as quickly as you could and I'll certainly take that in consideration uh at fine mitigation hearing okay so with that I'll issue an order that reflects all of that anything further from the town I see that's the last item on the agenda yes all for to that thank you all right I'll adjourn the hearing at 9:49 thank you thank you e e