##VIDEO ID:jk9TYmetp4o## e good afternoon everyone welcome to the city of mad beach code enforcement hearing my name is Bart Valdez and I'm the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases I'm a practicing attorney and I've been a member of the fora bar for over 20 years I've been appointed this position in accordance and with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida Statutes it is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented as such I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings today's matters will be heard in the order that they appear on the agenda every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence argument or comments to offer related to the specific case it is being heard if you wish to speak today it is necessary that you be sworn in by the City attorney in all cases the city has the burden of proof the city will present its case first the respondent or property owner then will be given the opportunity to refute the city's allegations formal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this proceeding however I will exert every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness is afforded to all parties after hearing all relevant evidence I will issue an order the order will be reduced to writing and you will be provided with a copy by mail Additionally you advised that I do not have the authority to Grant you a variance permit or special exception of any kind my role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and to provide you a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means is available to you please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if you wish to present any information to me today it is necessary that you swear affirm that you will tell the truth therefore at this time the City attorney will swear in all Witnesses anyone's going to speak on this these matters today stand up raise your right hand or be sworn under oath you swear the testimony about to give today is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth thank you there's one other person that's going to be coming in I'm gonna have to swear them okay sounds good Tom just uh let me know Mr tras when that person comes in and before we get to that person and I'll make sure that he gets sworn in thank you all right first case on the agenda today is case number 22 or 2024 3724 for the property located 14133 North Bayshore is a city ready to proceed yes we are and this uh item is now in compliance um the property owner did pull the required building permit Friday afternoon um and so we're removing this one from the calendar all right okay we will move on to the next case is case number 2023 366 5 for the property located at 13062 GF Lane is the city prepared to proceed yes and this property is in compliance as well they came into compliance just after the notice went out they a permit has been issued for this one as well so we're removing it from the calendar all right we will remove that second case as well all right we will move on to Old business the first case we'll deal with is 2022 3526 for the property located 590 Normandy Road Mr tras is the city ready to proceed on this one I think this is a request for an extension of time is that correct that's correct it's the motion that is pending um based um on the filing made by the property owner Mr vet Garten and he's in the audience today all right uh Mr vestgard you here all right come on forward sir and just for the record give me your name and address and then this is your motion so I'm going to let you go first and tell me what you want to tell me and then Mr trass can respond uh tow west garden 590 Normandy Road um call the motion for extension of time and most of it is covered in the motion um the one thing that changed from last time I was here till now is the um City made a ruling for allowing the Shady structures so now I'm applying for those permits and uh taking a little bit longer than expected but uh it's in process Marsh has been very helpful with all that so hopefully we have that taken care of within the next month or through so you're asking me to give you more time to come into compliance is that what you're asking me for today yes all right Mr tras how do you respond to this motion so the property owner was given 90 days well first of all this case came before you in February we are now at the end of August so six months have passed Mr vestgard was given 90 days to come into compliance um in the original order on March the 5th he was given another 49 days to come into compliance um in the order that was entered on May 24th um and now he's seeking another 90 days to come into compliance which would put this thing out at 7 and a half months uh to obtain a building permit and that's just not acceptable to the city the city um would object to any further extensions being given all right and Mr tras since I'm with you I'll start with you is it just the building permit for The Cheeky Hut or is there some other permit or other approvals that the owner needs to come into compli so he was cited with a violation of section 86-52 failure to obtain a building permit so the building permit is dealing with the Hut cheeky Hut or Hut or whatever you want to call it um so that's what he had to do get a building permit for that building that's already on his property and in his motion he is telling you that he's asking for additional time so that he can move that cheeky Hut to a different location on his property all right Mr vestgard I'll go back to you then what's been the delay in getting I understand your argument that this city has changed its ordinances or done made a change to allow The Cheeky Hut but you need to pull a permit what what's the issue in the delay in pulling the permit why do you need another 90 days uh so I applied for permit and so there's two things going on right now it's functioning as a playground which is no permit required but then uh Mr tras required me to come with plans for a residential playground and I ask City for an example since he's requesting it I assume that's something he has for the city ask for everyone that does a residential playground if not it's a discrimination and uh they couldn't provide me a sample I reached out to a lot of Engineers I went to engineering school so I reached out to a lot of Engineers that are throughout the country and in the Tampa Bay no one's ever dealt with a a plan for residential playground so no one can really give me an example of what the city is looking for on a paral parallel I applied for the uh permit for a shaded structure within the new city code where they allow to build those now so on the parallel applying for that permit as well and that's a pending I said review to okay so you've already applied for that permit it just hasn't been issued yet yes all right Mr trash back to you if the permit that and if you need to talk to any of the city staff while I'm asking you please feel free to do so the permit that he's applied for the second one which deals with the cheeky Hut number one is that your understanding as well that that permit has been submitted to the city and what would be the turnaround time for that permit so I'm going to hand this over to Marcy she's been sworn in and we're talking about the application itself Marcy has there been an application to move the cheeky Hut so that's kind of what I was looking for clarification on with the permit that he submitted um there is a new Hut depicted on the plans but there was no confirmation if that was a brand new one or one to relocate and it seems like there's been conversation where it was originally going to be relocated then the existing one was going to actually not be relocated and be turned into a playground so it's been a little bit confusing so in order to issue the permit for this new cheeky Hut I asked for confirmation on are we relocating the existing one or we leaving want are we arguing to leave the existing one there because it's a playground and now we're building a new one so it's just kind of gotten kind of a little just weird sideways to be honest with you so we were looking for clarification before I issued him a permit for that one because I couldn't really discern exactly what what was what was going to happen in the backyard all right Mr vest Garden what's the answer to that question are you building two chy Huts or we just have the one there and we're trying to get it permitted so long story short she I sent an email answering those questions about a week week or two ago 10 days ago so there is an email answering all those questions um the the Hut is currently being used by my daughter as a playground the city ordinance says you can build build a playground anywhere you want in your property so I'm saying this is a playground I'm going to do a climbing wall I'm going to do Swing Set uh the ninja ropes all that stuff so she can play in it if the city allows a playground according to the city ordinance that will become her playground if not I'm going to move it to another part of the property and make it into playground at another part of my property okay so I think the answer to question is there G to be one cheeky Hut and you're telling me you're not this isn't going over an outdoor kitchen this is you want to make it a playground yep okay even if you get the application to have the cheeky Hut there in your backyard you're not going to use it to cover a anything going to use it as a playground y okay Mr TR I guess I'll start with you assuming that the applicant does what he says and he's applied for playground how much time would it need would the city need to process reason we need to process that application one way or the other approval or or denial I i' ask Marcy I don't know the answer to that question so you know to to's point playgrounds are do not require children's playgrounds do not require a permit um but I don't know how we go from it being a designated cheeky Hut to now just calling it something different and adding more features to it I just don't know how to move forward honestly with that aspect of it as far as you know just calling it something different and adding a few features I just like we have to be very careful with you know how we proceed forward I have no issue with getting him there I just don't know that how I justify calling it a cheeky hat and then just changing what we're calling it and adding more features to it solves the problem so I'm a little concerned about about that part of it and so honestly at that point in time I'd probably have to lean on Tom for some legal input on it I just um just puts me in an awkward situation and how I'm viewing the permit so there are outstanding there's outstanding information that you need to process the uh the application for the building permit is that what you're telling the special magistrate yeah I think it would be helpful if we could visit the site maybe I could better understand understand what it is I know you did send some pictures but contrasting that with what was constructed there as The Cheeky Hut and the features underneath I just would feel more comfortable if I could put my eyes on it have better Clarity work with you on getting the solution getting you a new cheeky Hut I think if we work together and I can get on site and do that I think there's some reasonableness so I think for that part you know time would be necessary um if we can move in that direction if you're okay with a site visit and and working through that I'm I'm okay with that I guess Mr vear what I'm struggling with is if I recall correctly this was a you know cheeky Hut that was built over I thought it was an outdoor kitchen but I might be getting it confused with something else I I don't recall you ever arguing earlier in our earlier hearings that this was truly a playground I thought you said and I I got your argument I I mean I understood your argument the city was making you know going through changes you thought that these were permitted all over the city and hadn't been approved I I I followed all your arguments but I I'm struggling with this playground because I don't recall you ever arguing that this was a playground before I recall the previous arguments were this is a cheeky Hut it should be allowed because the city is going to address this issue number one and number two there's cheeky Huts all over the place and and I think number three argument was that this was put by the you know the indigenous seminal tribe and didn't require permit I think those are the arguments as I recall you making and so it I mean I'm not trying I'm going to try to give you I'm going to give you more time I mean the city's saying they're willing to work with you but what I don't want to do is be back here three months from now because you say this is a playground and it's being used to cover an outdoor kitchen and we're back here on some kind of use issue I want to you seem to be wanting to come into compliance I want you to come into compliance a city wants you to come into compliance so are we really talking about a playground here or are we talking about a cheeky Hut to cover your outdoor kitchen so in the original hearing the first hearing I did argue the playground and got dismissed by Mr tras it's all on video so you can review that video and you see that I argued it and he just shut it down um so my daughter already uses that as playground she uses the rafter has monkey bars and she climbs around and she wants swing sets in there since I can't utilize it for what I intended it for she may as well utilize it for what she wants it for so but but is are you being told that you can't utilize it to cover your outdoor kitchen I mean because I'm not hear that the Ci's told you that yes okay I mean I just don't recall that but again maybe I maybe that wasn't an argument that was made Mr TR do you want to add anything to to this conversation I know I asked him a few questions I don't have anything to add I just think the ball keeps moving in a different direction based upon the input that he's getting and we would just like him to file a building permit application with a plan with everything that he plans to do and then we can make a determination whether or not it meets city code and if it does he'll get his permit if it doesn't we'll tell them that we can't issue the permit but the bo the the order of the special magistrate is obtain a building permit go ahead Miss for so what I was however it didn't meet the setback requirements even for our new code um and it I can't remember if there was a height issue as well but there were a few there was at least one component that deemed it not able to be permitted as a cheeky Hut structure in that location um so that's when it morphed into either relocating it or building a new one somewhere on site where it would be permissible so that's kind of where that he did try to submit a permit but it doesn't meet our criteria all right here's what I'm gonna do Mr vestgard I'm gonna Grant your motion for 30 days not 90 days 30 days again I'm here the whatever this is the third Monday of the month so you can come back before me maybe 30 days to try to to work with the city I would encourage you to make an appointment and come in versus email I'm sure the the cities like the rest of us that get inundated by emails I think it be more efficient for you to try to come in and make an appointment and talk with them so I'm going to give you 30 days to do that my concern is that you know even if this thing is a playground I mean I just I think you're going to be back here before me if you try to make this thing into a playground and it's not really a playground if you need if there's a setback issue or something like that I also sit and and consider variances I don't know whether this would qualify for a variance or not I don't know but I would encourage you to work with the city on this and see if you guys can work it out I'll give you 30 more days to do it and if that doesn't uh cut it then you can come back before me and see me again okay thank you all right okay anything else on that one Mr tras no all right I'll prepare just a simple order 30 days I'm not going to set another hearing on that if the city needs to set a hearing on we can certainly do so all right we'll go on to the next case which is case number 2023 3699 for the property located 314 129th Avenue all right Mr tras I understand this one I I read through the agenda materials I understand there was a letter sent from I I assume this person is somehow the manager of the LLC or the owner of the LLC that is the respondent so Mr TR ask how does the city want to proceed on interpreting this letter that he sent and dealing with whatever procedural due process issues he raised or anything else um well first of all um Mr KS is in the audience Mr KS has been um given the authority by Mr wolson to appear on his behalf and speak on this particular issue so I'm going to let him um step forward I'm going to need to swear him in though he's the individual I said I needed to swear in uh but the city was being uh careful even though we believe that we've got prop for service on the LLC parodo uh we wanted to make sure that if Mr Wolfson had any arguments other than proper service that he would have them address today all right Mr Carn come on forward give us your address your affiliation well first of all go ahead Miss swearing Mr TR you raise your hand you swear the testimony you're about to give today is gonna be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you all right Mr K what's your address and what is your affiliation with the entity here that is the respondent it's parodo LLC so my name is William CN my address is 400 150th Avenue Unit 400 madir Beach Florida um I'm the owner's representative for Paradox and uh they have uh joining properties that uh I'm a general contractor and developer they have a um permit application in for a 10un building right under the a joining property there so I'll be building that for them so well M two things I'm I'm I'm here to discuss okay go ahead number one um I disagree with Tom I don't believe that notice was given properly due to it was sent to an old address was not sent to his new address there was one address on the uh property appraisers report and there's another address which was his old address which was on sunbiz I believe the city picked it up from sunbiz and not the but that's not here nor there my client is uh ready willing and able to comply with the order one of the things he was worried about in redeveloping he owns that parcel of property there and then just to the left of it he owns that parcel he's in the process of trying to build another um it's zone for nine units but due to structure and how it's built there's only going to be eight units but he's in the process of doing that and uh he was worried about setback and if he tore that structure down that it would create a setback issue because it's my understanding is this existing setbacks or grandfather did and hav't studied all of that and worked with the architect I don't believe he's going to have any structure um any setback issues at all um what we're asking today is some time because by the time he received the notice you had already had your your meeting your last meeting and said I think it was $250 a day or something like that was a penalty for it I want to make sure two things number one not interested in paying $250 a day for not being compliant due to the fact that I don't believe the notice but I'm not an attorney was was properly served I have uh JVS uh uh demolition Local Company here tears down hundreds of buildings for me and I've already reached out to them we want to get the building demoed um he just doesn't know if he has to get the ASB bestest notification there's two 10day periods there that are required plus the time that it would take to do any remediation before that building gets torn down so what I'd like to do is get a 45 day extension to get this permitted and get it down JVS can get a permit over the counter I believe for the next day I think it's I don't know if it's a residential structure I know there's multiple units in there so I don't know how they they deem that but uh either way we'll get the building down like I said within the next 45 days all right thank you Mr Carn um Mr TR this is kind of one of these hybrid things where it's you know I think more argument than anything else but I'll give you the opportunity you want to cross-examine Mr Carns on anything or ask him any questions just anything okay all right Mr K just stay there Mr tras how do you want me to deal with that I mean I certainly I don't know about the the notice issue in the mailing I mean I I recall it was posted at the property I recall it was posted at City Hall I I found notice was proper soic I got it but but unless the city wants me to to revisit my ruling based on those procedural due process you know I'm I I do believe there's a valid basis for notice at the same time if the city wants to reset this for hearing and believes there's a notice issue that needs to be cured you we can do that as well so how do you how do the city want to proceed on this one we can proceed today um and and do the case all over again if that's um I would prefer to do it today than to set it off another 30 days since this is a life safety issue this is a building that basically needs to come down immediately and if we send it out another 30 days and we're going to be back here with the same arguments um but I do have the packet uh that was received into evidence I'll go ahead and provide that to you and I have an additional one for Mr um KS if he'd like it all right well why don't we do that Mr TR I think that's a a good solution since the owner definitely has a representative here today so Mr K what we're going to do is uh so that you can address any argument that the city makes in regard to this proceeding we'll go ahead and have the city present its evidence of the violation and then you'll have the right to cross-examine the witnesses I certainly understand what you're saying and and that we're not disputing that anything that it's not conforming it it needs to come down and we want to get in compliance with it so there's no there's no issue in regards to whether we want to tear it down or not we want to tear it down we want to tear it down ASAP so I don't know if we need to I I'll defer to Mr tras as to how he do that whole exercise or not because I'm standing here saying we're guilty we didn't tear it down I'm just saying we didn't receive that notice and I didn't get it until after the hearing but I can tell you I do a tremendous amount of building and development around here I assure you that the structure is going to come down I'd like 45 days is what I'd like just in case of that ASB bestus issue but if there isn't a need for that asbest there's no reason why we can't have this building down in the next couple of weeks so I'm ready willing and able to perform before I move forward with putting on Grace uh to prove up the case Mr Carn we can go through this case all over again like we did the last month or you can just wave the argument that the proper service um was not given that's the argument right now that is that that we're facing in this letter that was written so if you wave that on behalf of the um property owner we can move forward and talk about timing but if if you if you're not willing to wave that notice issue that he raised then I need to go ahead and put on the witness and we'll try the case all over again right now so I have I have no issues with moving forward and waving my right I just want to make sure that I well I'm not saying you're waving any rights I'm saying on the record that you're waving the um notice argument that was in the email that was sent by Mr Wilson either a yes or a no and we can go from there well if I'm not being fine then I'd say I'd wave it but if that fine stays intact then I don't want to wave it okay we're gonna go ahead and put on the case then um so so you're saying that you're going to can find this gentleman what I'm saying is is we're going to go ahead and do the case overw worth right now so we can address the notice issue okay okay you can have the seat Mr Carn it'll be a couple minutes thank you all right the city would call Grace Mills Grace if you could um state your name and your occupation here at the city of madir beach my name is Grace Mills I'm a co- compliance officer for the city of madir beach okay are you familiar with this property located at 314 129th Avenue East here in Mader Beach yes okay is this a proactive case or was this complaint driven this is proactive okay and was when you say proactive was this a proactive case on your behalf or was it another city employee it was another city employee Mr DeSantis and he brought the property to your attention correct okay and um when did you go out to the property to determine whether or not that there was a violation at that property at 314 129th Avenue East um the date that Mr STIs was out there on the property to determine if there was or not a violations was August 21st of last year okay so almost an entire year ago correct okay and when um when you went out to the property what violation did you determine that existed on the property um there were multiple that I can state from the letter if we want to go through that yes um starting with the first courtesy letter it was sent November 1st 2023 um and it stated the Declaration of an unfit structure for what we posted it also had exterior maintenance um overhanging and overhead loose objects on the property there was also evidence of um insect infestation within the walls is as well um floors interior walls and ceilings of the structures um had some damage to them uh floors would you like me to read out each ordinance for you what would be easier no I just want you to tell me generally what you found out there and we talk about the um ordinance sections later okay might be easier to go through the photos than in that case um see so as you can see in a few photos um supporting beams okay hang on a second so on each one of these Pages I'd like you to note the page number in the packet that we have and then tell me what you're seeing as a violation of the city code um 16 is the first page that I'll start with I think that's one of the rear patios um loose overhang in the over or in the upper hand corner on the right um a supporting beam in the center that is has some deterioration on it which is a structural member 17 is a shot from below onto the second level you can see that the overhang is uh badly deteriorated some loose objects as well 18 is an interior photo of the flooring just showing that it's um pretty bad state of disrepair 19 um is one of the walls I believe this is on the first floor um there seems to be some leakage there 20 is a depicting a ceiling on the property I don't know if that's water damage or some kind of intrusion 21 is just showing the backyard um vacant 22 is actually depicting um I believe those were bees by Mr Dan santis that he quoted that were actually inside of the walls and in the interior of the property 23 is actually just depicting the outdated electricity on the property um no deterioration or anything there 24 is the second story balcony um with some deterioration Mr DeSantis felt that it wasn't safe to even walk on as that is a second Story 25 is um let me go down I believe that's the floor underneath on the Second Story and if you go to 26 that's the ceiling above it where you can actually see directly into the outside okay so once you went out to the property and found these violations did you go back to your office and look up to see who the property owner was yes okay and when when you did your search of who the property owners did you look at the tax collector and property appraisers websites I did yes okay and if you could turn to page three of the packet yes so is this um a print out from the Property Appraiser's office that's correct and what where does it reflect that the mailing address is 149 Oak Terrace of Highland Park Illinois okay and is that where you sent your notices in this case yes okay and I'd also like i' like you to turn to page eight of the packet eight eight yes so you went to sunbiz.org to determine where the registered agent has its address is that correct that's correct yeah and what address was listed on sunbiz um that was of July 19th of this year it reflected 149 Oak no Terrace is that the same address that you mentioned to moment ago yes okay so you've issued a courtesy notice of code violation I'd like you to turn to page nine of the packet when was that issued November 1st of 2023 and did it list the code sections if you can just go through those numbered code sections that were in violation on the property yes do you want me to read them off individually just the code section numbers um section 1491 which is the unfit structure SE section 1469 maintenance of exterior premises section 1470 general maintenance thank you and did you ask the property orderer to bring the property into compliance within a date certain yes and that date was November 15 of 2023 did it come into compliance by that date no okay when you sent the courtesy notice did you attach to it the um placard for unfit human occupancy and then all the photographs that you just went through a moment ago that's correct the unfit for human occupancy is on page 12 and 13 and then the following photos were attached to the letter as well okay and since the property did not come into compliance by November 15th did you issue a code violation notice I did yes okay and what page is that in the packet that is Page 27 starting on 27 okay did you send that letter U by regular mail and certified mail yes that's correct and did you send it to the address that you had mentioned that was at the tax collector and sunbiz yes that's correct okay and in that notice of code violation did you set a date certain for the property to come into compliance I did that date's November 29th of 2023 and obviously didn't come into compliance by that date it did not and then you issued a not of hearing a statement of violation request for hearing in this case to bring it to the special magistrate yes that is correct and that was sent July 19 2024 okay and that's on pages 48 and 49 of the packet correct okay and did you set forth the same code sections that you cited earlier which is 1491 1469 and 1470 that's correct all right um and did you issue a notice of hearing for the 29th day of July um yes that's correct on July 19th 2024 okay and with regard to today today's hearing well let me just finish this pack then we'll go to today's hearing um now after the when the notice of hearing was prepared uh did you actually send it by regular mail and certified mail both yes okay and did you also post the property yes and you issued an Affidavit of service reflecting that you posted the property as well yes there's actually a photo of the property posted on July 19th okay and U that is on page 57 of the packet yes that's correct did you also posted at City Hall yes that's reflected on page 58 okay and with regard to today's hearing after you received the letter from Mr Wolfson um did you issue a notice of hearing for today yes okay and if you could look in the packet that we've got for today's hearing on page 74 is that the not of hearing that you gave to uh Paradox LLC yes so was s a regular and certified mail okay now there's a different address correct and where did you get this address for this notice 5837 teal lane Long Grove Illinois that was sent via email he let us know about that and then going to the property appraiser um for an updated version okay when you say he you miss mean mron yes okay and that was also referenced in his letter or his email that he sent to you on page 75 and 76 correct yes okay so you issued the notice of hearing did you also post the property yes I did okay and when did you post the property let me get down to that just one moment um that would have been August 15th of 2024 okay and that's a picture of it on page 82 of the packet it's correct and did you also post it at City Hall yes page 83 and it was August 15th as well okay and then once you did that you issued an appid AV of service which is reflected on pages 72 and 73 correct yes and that affidavit shows that you sent the notice of hearing by regular mail by certify mail and you posted the property of the most recent notice of hearing correct that is correct yes okay and the property is still a not in compliance correct correct okay has there anything been done on the property since the last hearing that we had on this case um there has not no okay all right those are all the questions I have for Miss Mills I would tender into evidence the packet from the Meet last meeting which was Pages 3 through 58 and it also tender in the evidence the packet for today's hearing which is Pages 72 through 83 um of the agenda packet for today all right I'll go ahead and accept into evidence as exhibit number one Pages three through through 58 of the original agenda packet as well as Pages 72 through 83 of today's packet all right Mr K this is your opportunity to cross-examine miss Mills you don't have to ask her any questions but this is your opportunity to ask her any questions I'm going to give you the opportunity in just a few minutes to tell me anything else you want to tell me but do you have any questions for Miss Mills this time uh only question I have is I don't know what date she had for you said there was a November was the first notice that you had sent out is that correct November November 23 the first notice let me go back to that Mr Carn I'm looking at a print out from the property appraisers website dated November 1st 2023 at 1:20 p.m. and it lists the 149 Oak Terrace address as the mailing address for the owner okay and the print out was the address again sure that was the 149 Oak null Terrace right that's the incorrect address okay and that well according to the property appraisers website as of November 1st of 2023 the owner parodo LLC was still listing that as its mailing address there also the printout from the sunbiz so Paradox LLC apparently tried to do some kind of filing with the state and that was dated July 19th 2024 so that's uh just about a month ago and that also lists 149 Oak null Terrace Highland Park Illinois that helps your questioning M that was picked up off of the property appraisers in no sir sunbiz so that's the Division of Corporations with the Department of State I'm familiar with it I'm familiar with it so I don't know when date wise because I don't have it and I don't think you have it either I don't know when it changed on the prop property appraisers what date that was but once again the the correct address is the last notice that you sent out and Mr car I don't want to derail you this was your opportunity to ask Miss Mills some questions so do you have any more questions for her I don't think so okay no problem all right thank you sir uh Mr tras is there any other witness the city wants to call the city has no other Witnesses on this case all right sounds good Mr Carns this is your opportunity to tell me anything at all you want to tell me about this particular violation make any arguments you want to make provide me with any documents or call any witnesses that You' like to call I have no Witnesses I just again as I stated I don't know when the address got changed and whose responsibility it is to change it I just know that from what Ivan Wolfson has explained to me that it went to the wrong address he never received it until after you made your your your your notice I have the correct uh address here as 5837 TL lane Long Grove Illinois I believe that is the uh address that you got off of the property appraisers to send this last notice out so once again we stand here ready willing and able to comply because of the address snafu or whatever I wasn't involved back then I just I don't don't think it's right for uh Mr Wolfson to be charged uh daily Fe when he's ready willing and able to perform and he's engaged me and to to do that and and that's exactly what I'm going to do so get it torn down just as quickly as uh as possible all right thank you Mr KS Mr TR do you have any questions for Mr K I do Mr KS have you been out to the property I was just there the other day and it's in bad shape okay were you out there in August of last year when the city first cited the property 20123 no I'm not I do own property across the street from there but I had no idea who owned that at the time okay when was your first uh time that you saw this property how many months ago oh just about three weeks ago three weeks ago okay after after he got the notice he called me and asked me if I could help I told him I'd be more than happy to help him get it now okay all right so did Mr wolson receive the notice of hearing for today's hearing he did okay and that's the reason that you're here on talking on his behalf that's correct he just couldn't fly down here from Illinois to make an he could not okay all right and so you don't disagree that the property is in violation of those three code sections right now corre oh no okay and and you don't disagree that the house needs to be demolished no okay it's ready to go okay and you don't disagree that a building permit for demolition can be obtained from from the city uh within 24 to 48 hours because it's an over-the-counter permit correct I believe that's correct and if if that's the case without the ASB bestus inspection then we could get it probably torn down next week but okay I just don't know if maybe Marcy knows if that type of property I know when I tear down I've torn down a ton of commercial buildings you've you've answered my question on that thank you so um are are you purchasing this property so that we can know for sure that the property is going to be torn down based upon your representations today because Mr Wolfson is the owner of the property you're not that's correct yeah so Mr will um wolson has engaged me for two things one to address this issue and get it them demolished ASAP he's engaged me to do the development services that are necessary for that property and the adjoining property so that he can build a eight unit building there he's also engaged me to be the developer and the general contractor on the property that he owns at 310 I think it's 310 okay so you don't have any intention of purchasing the proper you're doing a business relationship contractor developer that type of thing correct okay I've been paid to to be his general contractor and his developer gotcha okay all right I don't have any other questions for Mr KS thank you all right I don't have any questions for you either Mr Carn anything else you want to tell me today no I just I remember a guy told me years ago a word is called uh Rock monus and I said I don't know what rock monus is and he says well in in in my language it's have mercy on me have pity on me so I'm here asking you for some rck bonus today thank you Mr CN I do appreciate that and appreciate you coming and appearing on behalf of the respondent today all right this is the opportunity for public comment is there any member of the public that would like to come forward and provide public comment about this uh code violation here today okay seeing none we'll go ahead and close public comment all right Mr tras anything else I just want to uh just to go over a couple of things so the property has been in this state of needing to be demolished for over a year so it's been sitting there and the property owner has been aware of it for over a year uh because of the prior notices so and the property owner's representative Mr Carns is um admitted to the violations admitted that the property needs to be demolished and as requested a 45 day P time period in which to get the demolition uh completed the city has no objection to the 45 days that Mr KS has requested to to bring the property into compliance but we would ask that you establish the same dollar amount of fine $250 a day should the property not be brought into compliance within 45 days of today not 45 days from the day of the order uh but 45 days from today should you find that the violation exists on the property um we are very very concerned about the status of this property and it's been sitting so long um and so I'm just kind of just throwing out there that if Mr KS comes back at day 45 and needs more time to complete this that we would be requesting for additional um U protections to the public and that would be things such as fencing the property off with opaque uh chain link fence uh removing the water meter removing the power boarding up the doors and windows that type of thing so we're not asking for that at this point U but if he fails to do within 45 days um and he comes back here for an extension we'll we'll definitely be requesting that um for protection of the public all right and Mr trash how do you want me toess so um this would require um I got you Mr car maybe quashing the prior order okay and entering the New Order I don't think that the prior one needed needs to be amended as an example I think it should be quashed um and then have this order issued then there would be no questions about uh proper service all right yeah what I'll do is I'll set aside the prior order enter this new order with 45 days $250 a day day thereafter I'm going to do it a date certain I just looked on my phone it looks like 45 days from today is October 10th 2024 you guys want to check me on that real quick just want to make sure my computer my phone didn't go Haywire on me okay uh I'm going to go ahead and enter a date certain so that the property must be in compliance by October 10th 2024 or thereafter it'll be $250 a day fine I'm going to set aside the prior order enter New Order finding there is a violation I do find based upon the admission of the respondent as F the representative the respondent as well as the evidence in the packet and the testimony of Miss Mills that there is indeed a violation of all ordinance sections raised in the Nosa hearing and that the proper corrective action on the record is to demolish the property which the representative of the owner and respondent has admitted to all right Mr cars anything else you want to tell me before I close the hearing done well before that time frame thank you Mr TR anything else before me today no thank you all right that concludes today's special master