order we'll start off with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all so for the respondents in the audience I don't think I recognize them so my name is Drew Smith I'm the code enforcement special magistrate for the city of St Cloud I'm not employed by the city I am hired as an independent FactFinder so my role in these proceedings is to hear the evidence and make an independent decision on on the evidence and and testimony that's provided to me the order of each case will be code enforcement officer will present the city's case when they are done if anybody would like to ask a question of the code enforcement officer or any other Witnesses the city presents you have that opportunity otherwise if there are no questions I will hand it over then to the respondents and you will have your opportunity to present to me anything you'd like me to hear when I've heard all the evidence and received any testimony you have or when I've heard all the testimony and received all the evidence you have to submit I will enter today a verbal ruling that will be followed in the mail by a written order that usually goes out either the end of this week or early next week so probably next week you'll have a written version of the order that I entered today and uh with that clerk you may call our first case case number 20231 1946 soia sock owner hung lay owner location of violation 11 California Avenue St Cloud Florida yes uh anybody else who's going to present testimony today if you'll stand where you are I'll swear everybody in stand where you are and raise your right hand anybody giv EV anybody given testimony no Witnesses testimony do you all swear from the testimony you giv today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you good afternoon April Bennett Community compliance officer I am presenting the case for the property located at 11 California Avenue at this time I would like to enter an Evidence the following items copy of the courtesy notice sent by regular mail to the owner of record and the Tenant copy of the notice of violation sent by regular mail to the owner of record and the Tenant copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail to the OWN owner of record and the Tenant copy of the statement of violation and notice a hearing sent by certified mail to the owner of record posted on the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation Affidavit of postings evidence of mailings the code section in violation of a copy of the D to the property and a copy of the cost incurred if the magistrate finds the respondent in violation in the amount of $ 24469 and they are not here thank you on December 12th while on routine Patrol I observed an accumulation of miscellaneous items in the rear yard and unsightly condition an above ground pool without a permit and a fence and disrepair and an expired permit for the fence at this location three photos were taken on December 13th a courtesy notice was sent by regular mail to the owner of record and the Tenant on January 2nd a reinspection was performed and I verified the violations were not corrected three photos were taken on January 3rd a notice of pause you one second in the photograph there's a lean to that fence is that an actual lean or is it just the the photograph it's leaning a little bit but that was not the intention of the photo the missing um okay sections were more the intention um on January 3rd a notice of violation was sent by regular mail to the owner of record and the Tenant on January 16th a reinspection was performed and I was able to verify that the fence was repaired curing that violation however the accumulation unsightly condition expired permit and no permit for the pool were not addressed three photos were taken on January 16th I received a call from the tenant to discuss the violations and additional time to cure the violations was granted on February 5th a reinspection was performed and I was able to verify that there was progress being made on cleaning up the property however it was still in violation the permit was not obtained for the pool defense permit was still exp in expired status two photos were taken on February 6 a notice of violation was sent by certified mail to the owner of record and the Tenant both notices were signed for on February 22nd a reinspection was performed and I was able to verify that additional cleanup had occurred however it was still in violation the permit was not obtained for the pool and the fence permit was still in expired status three photos were taken on February 28th a reinspection was performed and I was able to verify that the violations were not corrected to photos were taken on March 4th a statement of violation and notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner of record posted on the property and City Hall and an affidavit was completed one photo was taken on March 12th a the certified mail was signed for by the owner of record on March 14th I received a call from the tenant advising that the fence permit was closed out and he had applied for the pool permit I was able to verify that the fence permit was closed on March 12th and the building department confirmed that an application for the pool was received on March 14th on March 18th a reinspection was performed and the property is not in compliance I was able to observe accumulation in the rear yard in an unsightly condition I also verified that the pull pull permit was denied by multiple departments four photos were taken where's the pool it's inside the fence you can't see it unless you're looking through the slots of the fence um when the fence was damaged I was able to see it when he put the repaired slots up I couldn't see it any longer but it's still above ground above ground yes I on March 19th I was able to verify that zoning will not be approving the application for the pool um due to it not meeting the setback requirements I also received a call from the tenant advising that he's just going to remove the pool since the application will not be approved it is the city's recommendation the respondant be found in violation of allowing accumulation of solid waste and debris and unsightly condition an expired fence permit and no permit to be obtained for an already installed above ground pool at this location and not corrected by the time specified the city would recommend that the respondant be given until April 1st to correct the violations or a fine in the amount of $250 a day be assessed until compliance is met the city would also request the cost incurred in bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $244 69 to be paid within 7 Days of the written order by the special magistrate and that concludes my presentation so let me walk through the violations uh accumul of solid waste and debris that one's still that they have not completely fixed that right correct have they made any recent progress on it or they made some early progress and then that just kind of stopped they're it's they've made a little bit of more progress on it yes it's just not enough to bring it completely into compliance and the fence permit the fence permit is good that's closed out now yes okay pull like got okay so then based on the evidence testimony received I'll find in favor of the city find the respondant was in violation related to the expired fence permit uh that that has been cured but the Cure was made after the time set the notice of violation but before today's hearing find the respondent is is still in violation related to the accumulation of solid waste and debris and also still in violation as to the installation of a pool without proper permits we'll order the respondant to cure those remaining violations by April 1st if not brought in compliance by that dat a fine in the amount of $250 a day will run until compliance is met we'll also order the respondent to pay the administrative costs incurred in incurred by the city in Prosecuting the case in the amount of $ 24469 that amount will be due within 7 Days of the date of my written order thank you case number 2024 d18 siia so owner H leay owner John B Bergen tenant location of violation 11 California Avenue St Cloud Florida same property same property good afternoon Pam Neil Community compliance officer I am presenting this case for the property located at 11 California Avenue at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the notice violations sent to the owner and the Tenant copy of the notice violations sent by certified mail to the owner to both addresses and the Tenant and posted on the property and City Hall copy of the statement of violation notice of hearings sent by certified mail to the owner and the Tenant and posted on the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation copy of the Affidavit of postings an Affidavit of mail ings copy of the deed to the property copy of the code sections in violation copy of the costs incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondant in violation in the amount of $296 15 and he's not here on January 3rd 2024 while on routine Patrol I noticed a white van with an expired tag at this location the tenant told me the van belonged to his brother and that he would get it taken care of I took two photos on January 22nd a reinspection was performed and the van was still there I took one photo on January 23rd a notice violation was sent to the owner and the tenant on February 7th the reinspection was performed the van was still there in violation I took one photo on February 9th the notice violation was sent by certified mail to the owner to both addresses and the Tenant on February 26th the reinspection was performed and Van was still there I took one photo on February 28th 2024 a statement of violation notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner and the Tenant and posted on the property in City Hall an Affidavit of posting was completed and I took one photo on March 4th a reinspection was performed and the van was gone it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing an abandoned vehicle at this location and the city would like to also recover the cost in bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $296 15 sense to be paid within seven days of the written order the magistrate as well that concludes my presentation I think you answered any question I had one question but I think he answered it oh wait it actually was a question for the attorney do you want do you want me to do you want want the owners and the Tenant to be jointly and severly how do you want the relief structured in this the I think he should be okay yes sir thank you really the liability on this one is for the cost but you want the tenant on the hook for that I'll include them uh so I will find in favor of the city find the respondent was in violation for allowing abandoned unregistered vehicle on the property find that had that violation was cured but it was cured after the date set in the notice of violation for cure and accordingly the respondent is responsible for the city's administrative cost and prosecution in the amount of $296 15 that amount will be due within 7 Days of the date of my written order thank you case number 20 23- 1954 preferred Vista LLC owner location of violation Neptune St Cloud Florida Jack morgon for the city uh good afternoon your honor um just a some general comments not on opening statement or anything um compliance officer Miller will present the case and um Miss Tisha Manning is here as well uh to answer any questions and order to Pro provide testimon evidence with regard to doing a bit of a a a deep dive on the property uh in question uh but just to put it in context I've had multiple interactions with my partner who because we've looked into this to try to see if there's something in the records that we could not locate that would somehow evidence um a basis for the violation that we believe exists to be permitted we find no such history of anything and so that that's uh that's where we are as of this afternoon respondent is here uh Council for respondent is here and I'm sure they'll make a capable representation to it but officer Miller will give you the uh uh the outline and as I say Miss Manning is here as well for your ratification okay and since you an opening do you have any objection to council if you have an opening since the city took one I'll give you the same opportunity no okay yes ma'am good afternoon Alex Miller Community compliance compliance officer for the city of St Cloud at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the notice of violation sent by regular mail copy of the notices of violation sent by certified mail copy of the statement violation and notice of hearing sent by certifi mail posted at the property in City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation affidavit postings evidence of mailings copy of the Cod sections in violation a copy of the D to the property and a copy of the cting Cur if the magistrate finds a respondent in valuation in the amount of $337 42 on December 11 you have a binder I'm sorry and was Council for the respondent Prov a copy of the binder on December 11 2023 during routine Patrol I observed cattle roaming around this location and a bar wire fence was installed at this property I verifi that there was no permit on record and this property is swn for Highway business and having the cattle and the bark wire is prohibited and the property was in violation of the city codes our City Records reveal that there is an application for a side development submitted on August 29 2023 to build apartments at this location copy of the application is on file I believe on December 14 a notice of violation was sent by regular mail to the owner agent to correct the violation on December 27th a reinspection was performed and verified that the violations were not corrected I called the honor and left a voicemail advising advising him of the violations on December 28th a notice the violation was sent by certified mail to the owner agent to correct the violations and two photos were taken on January 25 after verifying that the property was not in compliance an amended notice of violation by certified mail was sent to the owner agent for the violations to be corrected posted the property in City Hall and two photos were taken February 2nd I verified that the violations were not corrected I worked together with the planning and zoning department to verify that there was no agreement on record with the city that allowed uh the bar wire and the cattle at DIS location no agreement was found an accession document documents um can be provided to the um defendant on March 4th a reinspection was performed and verified that the violation still is not corrected in photos were taken on March 8th a statement of violation and notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner agent posted the property in City Hall an Affidavit of posting was created and one photo of the posting were was taken sorry on March 15 I verified that the violations were not corrected and the property is still in violation and two photos were taken it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing a bar wire fence to be installed prior to obtaining a permit and having livestock where the use is prohibited with the son inconformity and not correcting the violations by the time specified the city will recommend that the respondent be given until April 30th 2024 to correct the violations or a finding the amount of $250 B assessed until compliance is me the city will also request that the cost incur and bring in this case before the magistrate in the amount of $337 42 cents to be paid within seven days of the in noted by the special magistrate and this concludes my presentation don't don't don't go far I might have a couple questions and I'm going to ask councel if he has any questions for you just so I understand the city's position as to what violations you're seeking relief on as the fence there's two there's that the barbed wire fence is not allowed in the zoning District correct and the fence that is there regardless of barbed wire or not was not permitted was there was no permit issued for it correct and then the other violation is the location of cattle which I take I take the case to be that the code does not allow cattle to be kept on Highway business zone property that's correct so okay something just council did not have questions ofer I wanted to prop for Miss Manning to give her testimony to about her research property from the okay and is it Mr mandor did I say that right do you have any questions for the code or the community compliance officer just one come on and if you would just state your name for the record too for me even though I just said it um in regard to the ordinance that restrict P that mic up a little bit so they can make sure they get it you on the recording in regard to the ordinance that restricts where the cattle can be placed you stated that it was Highway business was that city code section 8-5 I just I just want to make sure A5 will be I believe I have pull that mic I I can't hear you either loud sorry the 3.2.2 Land Development code um Point um B states that um agriculture districts um if there's agriculture they can have and maintain bar wire but this is not agriculture um zoning sorry what was that but I think the question was related to the restriction on livestock right was that the question Council yes which as I'm looking at 8-5 and I think that that is where it that that provides language related to the keeping of livestock but I think the question was related to to 8-5 yep 8.5 yeah 8.5 that's a city code and so as it relates to 8-5 and just to ask a followup question to to council's question is this property located within 150 ft of Residential Building yes it is right across yes it's right across the street there it's a apartment complex okay thank you can I just get clarification from officer Miller for you your honor yes Mr go ahead the violations are captured within Land Development code sections 3.2.2 B 3 3.3.1 F and 13.3 and 3.4. 11a of the Land Development code correct correct and also section five city code yes sir okay question one second I'm just making sure that I don't I was looking at 320 to make sure that I didn't have any questions about that okay I have no further questions for this witness you can introduce your next hello if you would state your name and title for the record first please yes Tisha Manny zoning manager for Community Development um so when this case was brought forward Al Alex did come to me and so I did thorough research on this property to ensure that when it was annexed into the city it was not annexed with any special conditions of you know bringing forth livestock or Bob wire and things like that so in my research it was discovered this property was let me I don't thr off but let me when was it Annex just so I have the historical background in my how long annexed in 1988 okay and it was two Parcels that were annexed and one partial was one parcel was annexed and aign uh zoning designation of R3 and that is the one I believe in which there building the apartments on now and the second parcel was Annex and assigned a highway business zoning neither of those zoning districts support livestock or the use of a bob wire fence that is only permitted in agricultural zoning districts anything further from this witness no that that was it and Council any questions for this witness your excuse thank you any other Witnesses from the city sir okay respondent your to turn I Council you seen it oh just make sure it's just it's have an objection and the cop keep for the you can have this one when I'm done with it you can have it I don't need to take it back with me thank you so as has already been discussed uh my client preferred Vista was noticed for violations of the following St Cloud development code sections 3.2.2 B3 3.31 F 13.3 and 3.41 a in violation of St Cloud city code section 8-5 I will go in order um turning to section 3.22 B3 that section does not exist it ends at 3.2.2 B2 but it appears that they're citing to C subsection C3 which is under the caption residential dwelling districts as is also been discussed this property is zoned for Highway business not residential dwelling or in a residential dwelling District so this section of the St Cloud development code does not apply to my client's property however even if it did under the Florida Right to Farm Act which was enacted in June 16th 2000 um cities and counties are prohibited from enacting ordinances or adopting ordinances that would restrict or otherwise prohibit Farm activities on property do you have a copy of the legislation yes I do thank you I also have can I sure you're going to the General okay may I proceed or let me give me a minute to review and so that so that I keep up with you okay Jack do do you want to look at these just while while he continues if you'll com back once he's had a chance to look at them just so he's seen them too now you can go thank you so um as I was saying the fla Right to Farm Act was enacted on June 16th of 2000 um and essentially provides that a county or municipality may not enact ordinances or adopt ordinances that regulate restrict or otherwise impede farming activities um on property is that every property everywhere or are there limitations to it there are limitations to it it has to be a Bonafide farming operation um a property in order to be deemed a Bonafide farming operation is one of the requirements to receive an agricultural exemption under 193 section 193. 461 Florida Statutes um the property does have an a agricultural exemption um and there is case law you know livestock and cattle are farming activities this St Cloud development code section 3.2.2 C3 which it still applies to residential dwelling districts but even if it did apply to our client's property was enacted on December 14 2000 which nearly six months after the Florida Right to Farm Act was enacted well C3 C3 if we're talking C3 why would C3 violate the Right to Farm Act C3 just said you can't have barbed wire yes well this is saying C3 applies to residential residential dwelling sure I I I I understand your argument why it doesn't apply but I think you just said that if it applied it would be but this part wouldn't be this wouldn't violate right to F act C3 wouldn't yes it would it it just said you can't have barbed wire it doesn't say you can't have cattles well in order to have cattle I've seen cattle raised without barbed wire okay that's fair um well I guess besides that I think I think there's other I think there's other codes you might want to make the argument too that's why I didn't want you to focus too much on C3 when there might be others you want to argue correct so turning to the next set violations there are three related to permitting section 3.31 F section 13.3 and section 3.41 A let me catch up with you [Applause] okay while I'm catching up explain to me your the interpretation of the Right to Farm Act you're presenting to me basically if I understand it you may still be fleshing it out so if I'm jumping ahead that's okay I can wait but just while I had this little pause let me ask the question that's Weighing on my mind so if I accept the Right to Farm Act says that no City anywhere can adopt any zoning regulation that would prevent somebody from a bonafied farm operation what keeps my neighbor from having a Bonafide Farm operation and putting a farm next to my house that was the intent of the act I don't think it was but I'll let you explain to me why it was I believe in subsection one the purpose of the Act was to protect farming operations from increasing pre pressure of UR existing farming operations yes yes Bona when was your far when was the farming operation on this property established before it was purchased in October of 2022 and continued all the way through the when was the ordinance adopted the ordinance with these ordinances the one that we had just discussed was it a Bonafide farming operation when these ordinances were adopted I don't believe that would be an issue at the time because in order to be a Bonafide farming operation you have to be engaged in those farming act activities for more than a period of one year right but the if if I'm understanding what you're arguing is that the Right to Farm Act prevents a local government from enacting an ordinance that would take away an existing Bonafide farming operation take away their rights to continue that operation yes I from enacting to takeway uh I believe so but so I'll jump over within the Florida Right to Farm Act under subse or section six it provides that property classified as an agricultural land pursuant to section 193. 461 the city cannot restrict regulator otherwise limit an activity on a Bonafide farming operation uh or Farm activity right but what if the ordinance pre predated that because I think the Florida right the Farm Act yes no not the act the establishment of the Bonafide farming activity because I agree with you the Act was adop was enacted or the legislation was enacted to protect existing farming operations yes but if the ordinance was adopted when there was if the ordinance restricting farming this is why my neighbor can't tear down their house and build a farm because there there's not a farm there now the ordinance that says no this is a residential district predated the establishment of the farming operation which as I'm looking at the facts that's what I'm seeing here too a similar fact pattern so I'm that's why I'm engaging in this to kind of let you know where I'm thinking so you can address how I'm thinking so I can understand your arguments in context of what I'm thinking so as I let me let me know if I'm missing the point here but as I've said this this property has historically been used for agricultural what I'm looking for okay since well before it was purchased in 2022 it had received a 5-year agricultural exemption for citrus trees well before it was purchased when was that I believe it recently expired um so they bought it in 2022 recently expired 2018 2017 okay was there was there an existing agriculture activity at the time these ordinances that we're talking about were adopted I not aware of what no I I do not know so this this is this is my hurdle and I'm telling you so you can try to overcome the hle as I understand the Right to Farm Act it says that a local government cannot adopt a law that prejudices an existing farming activity if there was no existing farming activity at the time of adoption of these ordinances they cannot violate the Right to Farm Act if you want you can take a minute and speak with your client if we need to take a break and you want to think about that a little bit of the question of whether there was a farming operation at the time that no I'm telling you the the fact issue that I'm struggling with and that without a fact that shows without facts that show there was an existing agricultural activity that was meant to be protected by the Right to Farm Act at the time the city adopted the ordinance I don't think the city was prohibited from adopting the ordinances that they did I don't think the Right to Farm Act says cities can't adopt ordinances that say you can't put Farms here what cities can't do is adopt ordinances to say that farm can no longer be here okay well I'll move on from that that isn't really dispositive of the issues um so just recap section 3.20 2 B3 that does not exist C3 only applies a residential dwelling districts or client's property zoned commercial business turning to the other three violations that relate to permitting uh section 3.3.1 F 13.3 3.4 111a section take one at a time okay so I'll start with 3.13 titled permit and permit fee required provides it shall be unlawful for any person firm or Corporation to construct erect alter repair enlarge move or demolish any building or structure or to erect install enlarge alter repair move correct or replace any electrical gas mechanical or plumbing system or cause any such work to be done within the city without first making an application and obtaining a permit here the issue here is a bark wire fence we didn't construct any building fenes or structures that's a structure fenes or structures under building code fenes or structures okay well under Section 60454 statute any non-residential Farm building farm fence or Farm sign that is located on land for a Bonafide agricultural purpose which is as defined in Section 1 193. 461 is exempt from Florida building code in any County or Municipal Code or fee so the fence the farm fence would be exempt from the three violations issued by the city of St Cloud that relate to the need to obtain a permit and not paying a permiting fee in advance okay lastly the remaining violation is section 8.5 livestocks en livestock enclosures the city presented evidence that we were precluded from having Livestock on the land because we were zoned for Highway business we were issued a violation for having livestock within 150 ft of any residence building we do not believe that the livestock enclosure was within 150 ft of any residence building but if it is determined to be so my client has no issue with pushing back livestock enclosure to comply with Section 8-5 um in all for the reasons that presented we do not believe that the residential dwelling uh provision applies to the property we believe that the property the farm fence is exempt from Florida building code and county or Municipal codes or fees such as the St CLA development code and that section 8.5 do you have a copy of that legislation by the way the exempting legislation for the fences yes I it included in Tab four oh you have it here never mind legislation 60450 for statutes what's Urban agriculture do you do you have to know at 604 473 defines it as 60473 Urban agriculture uh no I not have a copy of that in front of me that's right I can pull one up that's what I asked about it's referenced in the St in the same statute so the definition of urban agriculture for anybody who's not looking at it so I guess another of you are just I didn't looking down I didn't see what yall are doing Urban agriculture means any new or existing non-commercial agricultural uses on land that is one within a dense urban area as described in 38.0 651 3A I don't know what that says yet but I'm interested in that too not classified as agricultural pursuant to section 193. 461 I think you've you stated that this property is zoned agricultural yes or not zoned agricultureal but designated agriculture pursuant to 19346 one yes three not zoned as agricultural as its principal use and four designated by municipality for inclusion in an urban agricultural pilot project and nobody has testified to me that this is that um I emphasize that and because I think another potential hurdle that I may need you to overcome to be convinced is number three which was not zoned as agricultural as its principal no you've covered that because this isn't zoned agricultural as principal use so not a hurdle for you hurdle for them well I've got everybody waiting for me I'm going to go ahead and look at 38065 1 which was referenced in there for that dense urban area I hate it when they have definition sections that aren't in alphabetical order here we go 6 3 I get it now all right so the subsection is entitled exemptions for dense Urban land areas and it says the following are exempt from the requirements of 38.6 but now I understand that they are also they're referencing this in the other section that we were looking at as the definition these next few subparagraphs as the definition of what a dense urban area is dense urban area dense Urban land area would be any proposed development in a municipality having an average of at least 1,000 people per square mile um of land area and a minimum total population of at least 5,000 any proposed development within the county including the municipalities located there and having an average of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area again that 1,000 per square mile tends to seems to be the main thrust of what makes it a dense urban area to the extent anybody needs to factor that into an argument okay I I've humored myself long enough let me get you let you get back to your presentation okay um so regarding 64.5 um I guess did you have any questions on that what what you had looked into rather its applicability I don't have any more questions for you I understand your argument and I will give uh the city a chance to respond but I understand your argument on yes sir um so to be clear we're not as it was mentioned earlier uh my client obtained a conditional use permit they're required to obtain a permit within a specified conditional use permit for multif Family Apartments okay um they're required to pull permits within a specified uh period of time we're not asking to be allowed to have these cattle and Barb Wire on here for you know for forever we're asking that we're able to keep the cattle and Barb Wire on the land we'll push the fence back to comply with 8.5 um just until we anticipate to break ground which is would be the end of December 2025 or if ground break happens earlier than that obviously we would be willing to remove the cattle before then um but the agricultural use on this land which has gone on for a very long time longer than the cows have been alive what was the agricultural use prior to the cattle being on the property cattle and citrus okay um it has benefited the uh the neighboring properties and the City of St Cloud um there's been a history prior to my client purchasing the property of a homeless population that was camping out that was subsequently remediated when they cleared the land for the citrus trees the property was previously cited for overgrown grass that was also taken care of by the introduction of cattle which continue to graze and prevent the grass from growing beyond what is permitted under the city code um when we first received notice of the section 8-5 violation we had offered to push the fence back I do not believe we heard back in response to that request but you know my client's here to resolve this um so if it is determined that they're in violation they are more than willing to push the fence back to be in compliance that is all thank you okay don't go far I might have questions for you for okay I think you're safe for the minute I do have some questions for the city you you can don't I may ask you to come back up but let me ask them a couple of questions and probably more for the attorney than the code enforcement officer so you've heard the arguments and I I hear some Merit to some of them I I've said what I believe is right on the Right to Farm Act and the timing of everything and on that that issue I think the existence of the code prior to the any at least anybody presenting anything to me today that there was an agricultural use at that time I think that is fatal to their Right to Farm Act however I I I am leaning in their Direction on the zoning issue because I'm looking at the notice the notice of violation which sites 32.2 B3 I agree I think that was meant to be C3 um although that was to yeah that's the barbed wire that's the existence of the barbed wire on the property um but 32.2 C3 is not cited in the notice of violation however subsection 4 does f does does give the statement of the statement of the violation which is failure to prohibit whether allow barbed wire fence to be installed prior to obtaining a permit um so I I I am struggling a little bit with the B versus C but more significantly because I don't think the fence is the major issue in the case um is the location of the cattle and the use of use of the property as agricultural because I I see where 3.20 uh or I'm sorry 3.3.1 F was cided but 3.3.1 f is not the zoning categories 3.3.1 F again is seems to be more towards the fence and the development of property and so have I do I think the livestock was focused more in section 8-5 let me which is uh with the restri rtion of that operation and and if I could not to interrupt your your thought no no I'm happy for the interruption but there's the the fence albeit the barb wire would not be something permittable uh there's no permit is is was technically what the violation was with regard to the fence but the but the the livestock is uh is what's driving the violation we do have I've got a packet of history on the property going back to 1988 when the application was made to change from agricultural to Highway business and contained in those documents and Council has a copy of this packet is a statement of intended use which is dated June of 1988 which sets forth I'm I'm I'm okay nobody has argued to me that there was agricultural existing on there and at and when these ordinances were adopted so that argument hasn't been made so I don't I'm not going to ask you to rebut it I thought I I thought I I heard that no no no I was saying that nobody has made the argument there was agricultural at the time of ordinance adoption which I think is critical to the Right to Farm Act analysis and to the to the city's to the city's benefit on the argument the way I the way I interpret the the application of law to these facts as to the fence and and I left this out when I was trying to let everybody understand my thought process so far respondents attorney cited to 60450 and I think I think he gave you a copy of it in the packet but if not you're you I have it borrow this one why does that not apply here to exempt the construction of fence from permitting well it's for one it's arguable whether the lands are used for Bonafide agricultural purposes it's it's zoned Highway business we don't have anything but uh council's position that it's a Bonafide use for agricultural purposes and it's been historically and it goes back to the application in 1988 for the stated intended use to be um as I as I mentioned and had a moment ago uh identified uh consistent with what their subsequent acts have been for multif family uh development which was which was uh mentioned um with regard to the conditional use statement by Council um specifically statement of intended use type of use industrial commercial professional single family residential multif family residential Etc commercial and multif family that's sub1 submitted and in the packet dated uh June 28 1988 with regard to the property so that's more consistent with where this is going the property is not in our estimation a Bonafide agricultural use it's it's a it's a use that's being uh uh adhered to at the moment but there it's it's uh they're going to develop the property number one um we think they've been properly cited with regard to that violation which is really what's driving it because the barire fence is obviously tied to the containment of the livestock which if we we're confident if the livestock are re res situated uh then then the fence issue will be readily resolved and we tried to readily resolve this with uh with the respondent certainly in the spirit of amicable resolution we have a very good relationship with uh with council's office and and and so forth um I do want to and I can profer testimony from Miss menning there is no conditional use permit on this property there is none it's what what what's happening in the future is outside of the case today um so I I I don't need I I I don't need any evidence as to the conditional use permit unless it somehow relates to what's going on right now well only in so far as it was presented as part of the the intent by the respondent for the treatment of the property but I think that that belies a position that it's a I think they were more I think they were they were that that was more of of an ol of Branch trying to give opportunities for everybody to work together and and maybe allow something to stay for a little while longer but that's not for me to decide right that's that you know confident that that can be uh readily achieved uh after a finding of non-compliance um certainly the end of 2025 would be something outside of the city's uh realm of reasonable but um but I think that section 85 is pretty clear that the violation exists and has nothing to do with that section with with a building or a fence uh or any structure it just simply has to do with the livestock itself I'm looking for the definition of uh Bonafide agricultural activity can either if you point me in the right direction in one of these binders it's probably going to be in is it in your binder do you know what to have that thank you and what subsection am I looking for for that do you know off top of your head since I took your copy here highlighted yes thank you okay so I'm gonna again for everybody's benefit I'll read this out loud this is 193. 461 3 B subject to the restrictions specified in this section only lands that are used primarily for Bonafide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural the term Bonafide agricultural purposes means good faith commercial agricultural use of the land uh then we have sub one and determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bonafied the following factors may be taken into consideration a length of time the land has been so used B whether the use has been continuous C the purchase price paid C the or excuse me D the size as it relates to specific agricultural use skipping over a little bit there e whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently inadequate for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices leaving off a little bit of that one and then F whether excuse me whether the land is under lease and if so the effect of link and then G such other factors as may become applicable so why why is what is the city's argument that I should not consider this a Bonafide agricultural purpose I didn't hear anything offered by Council that meets any of those criteria in terms of the amount of time that's that's uh any commercial activity any proof of commercial activity uh lease term Etc all I've heard by way of testimony has been the future development of the property and the fact that there's Livestock on the property I haven't heard other than that there's a claim that there's been historic use of this property for livestock going back I don't know how far he he said it went back but we've got documents showing that they changed that agricultural use to Highway businesses as recently as 1988 and forward now now I think I see where where that was relevant to your argument so let me let me let you get that in now because now I think I see what argument you were making as to the 1988 the the the clarification or the Declaration of uses or what was it that you wereat intended use they what we have here you have I believe is it in the binder have you not submitted to I can give was it in the binder sir no this let Council see it Council has a copy okay Council has a copy go get give me the entire package thank you there's an application in 1988 to change the use from agricultural to Highway business and there's a myriad of documents that go back and forth with representation uh Council and so forth meetings with City and so forth but what I've got and I've turned to I don't have a page number but it's the statement of intended use it's this document intended use M which paragra that's what I'm looking at right now is it's it it flows from the top but the the critical components are contained in the top third of the statement of intended use under sign petitioners annexation property said petition being forth here withth filed Etc type of use number one industrial commercial professional single family residential multif family residential Etc underneath that commercial multif family says it right there now that's a change from the agricultural to the highway business that would seem to strongly contradict the statements of the historical use of this property as agricultural they made an overt change back at that time and there's been nothing and Miss Manning is here to fortify my position there's nothing that's changed that categorization s since such time so that that would first and foremost raise a significant red flag as to whether or not there's a Bonafide agricultural purpose being used on the property certainly that's it's permitted within the zoning which is really the it's meritorious yes but I don't think it's a it's a severe red flag I think the the impact at least as I read it it's relevant it's material to me yes well I I I don't read any and not that you're alleging bad faith but I I I don't think there's any unfairness in in Council opposing council's argument I I don't mean to suggest such because I as a developer and actually I I happen to know the bagia family because they're developer in one of the Cities I represent and and I have seen them with intention of eventually Building Development some commercial some some residential question even though I know that's their intent 5 years from now they may continue the agricultural until they break ground on that so I don't know that just saying in the future I intend to do this is the same thing as saying I I I'm never going to do this again no I I understand and and I'm not suggesting any kind of bad faith or anything of that nature I'm simply trying to point out some contradictions in the presentation of respondent's position with regard to the use of the property and again all the city is seeking is compliance and and a reasonable time from which to achieve compliance with regard to the Liv it's the livestock that's driving this case understood and the and the location of the livestock in a highway business district which is not when was the property rezoned uh that would be from Miss Manning to ma'am can you come and provide that I miss Manning will provide you all of that historic information the property was rezoned in conjunction with the annexation in 1988 was there an application made for the rezoning it is included with this annexation it states it in the the document is that in the packet that I was just handed yes it is let me find page um if you look on the very first page it says annexation and then it talks about the zoning is egg and it talks about the hold on that's so I apologize all show councel what you're going to show me show show councel for the respondent what you're going to show me before you show me please print a copy of this and provide it to the clerk please so right up under type of request hold on let me get there so I have application first thing I'm look at application site plan review process am I looking at the same thing you are yes sir and then you go down to type of request yes ma'am it says annexation and it talks about the existing County zoning and what they're changing it to when it comes in for annexation which is Highway business and R3 okay and who is the applicant for on this application um so it was William Baga okay anything else for your witness okay um where did oh there you are mind so you saw this but uh Alex if you would if you want to have that in front of you but so I think that is the most material piece of paper that I've seen because that is the owner of the property in 1988 when he's coming into the city affirmatively that I think is what the other document did not do what the statement of intended use did not do that is an affirmative is an affirmative act to take away agricultural uses and BR and put different uses on because the owner at the property at the time that he came into the city petitioned to rezone from agricultural to a use that would not allow agricultural I agree with you okay so I think that's significant to the case you're presenting to me would you like to rebut it yes so I'll start with the Bonafide farming operation those factors are in there in determining whether or not the the property is going to be issued an agricultural exemption property has an agricultural exemption therefore it has already been determined that is a bonifide farming operation did anybody tell the state that it was zoned for district that that that didn't allow for AG ultural property's either Z not zoned in ter the property appra but it's zoned by the city is is is what I'm asking did anybody tell the state when that was applied for that it was zoned in a district that did not allow agricultural I'm not aware of what was included in that application had the state been aware of that would the state still have issued an agricultural designation I would assume that the state would they don't always ask well in connection with having to apply for an Agricultural exemption assuming property records need to be submitted such as land size sale price all those factors in determining land use which shows the zoning of the property clerk ask me get you to speak in the mic a little bit yeah no problem so your argument really boils down to the state has recognized it as as agricultural as Bonafide the state by giving the agricultural designation the state has designated it has recognized it as a bonus agricultural operation otherwise they wouldn't have given it that designation that's that's the argument right yes you can't obtain an agricultural exemption without that that's 1 93461 yeah that's the the statute I thought you were asking if he had documentation that it had the exemption that's what that's what I'm asking I fair question I suspect though that that's really what the argument over cow is about it's keeping the tax liability down until they go vertical I wouldn't ask anybody that question because I wouldn't ask anybody to tell me that but that's what's going on so it says under 193 461 subsection three 3A I think Council was asking for documentation of the designation the property appraiser website if you go down to the bottom it's C it's classified as AC which is the agricultural exemption notice on the property sure col pull that up the relevance of well well I I'll respond to that subsection 3A of section 93461 lands may not be classified as agricultural lands unless a return is followed onor before March 1 of each year before classifying such lands as agricultural lands the property appraiser may require the taxpayer or the taxpayers representatives to furnish the property appraiser such information as may be reasonably May reasonably be required to establish that such lands were actually used for a bonafied agricultural purpose failure to make a timely application constitutes a waiver so I believe that the Property Appraiser's website and any classification indicating agricultural would be relevant but agree financial advantage to sub such a designation whether or not such such operation was actually in existence that's taken into consideration when they determine whether or not it's a Bonafide who determined whether or not it's a bon who are who as the argument plays out who is it that you're arguing has made the determination already that this is a Bonafide agricultural operation is it the state or the the property appraiser based off the subsection that I just read I didn't read the whole thing but I believe it would be the property appraiser who has to make the determination yes as much furnish property apprais are such information as May reasonably be required to establish that such lands were actually used for a bonified agricultural purpose in the 60450 exemption for Fence Farms from Florida building code and Municipal ordinances or codes references a Bonafide farming operation as defined in 1 93461 so since it's been determined as a Bonafide farming operation pursuant to 193 461 section 60450 exemption applies to this Bonafide forming operation so I'm looking at the property appraisers page for the property where is it that you were saying that you thought the I believe at the very bottom I approach yeah absolutely here you mind AC I see the commercial AC other thing that I see though and looking at it is there zero exemptions what is this exemptions 0 would it show on the tax I don't know records but but the a exemption is an exemption right yes so I'm I I don't know why the if we're relying on the property appraiser for the determination I don't know why it would show 0 worth of exemptions if there was an a exemption on the property I don't know when the you need a mic oh so it says under the statute has the return has to be filed onor before March 1st of each year it is March 2020th I'm not sure how the time or process it would take for that to Beed so well then but if that hasn't been processed yet I can't rely on the Property Appraiser's determination that it's a Bonafide agricultural activity if the property appraiser hasn't made that determination yet would my client be able to offer test by all means let me swear I know let me swear man first thank your question is first do you swear from T Edward J spino do you swear from the testimon you give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you my my question is to the agricultural exemption and and what's going on there because it's the agricultural exemption that is being that appears to be being relied on in the argument to establish that this is an Bonafide agricultural operation and so I think Council was telling me in better coming few that there has been a return F or a return filed showing that this is an agricultural activity yes with have you received notification from the property appraiser that that's been accepted as an agricultural activity I've received an email from the gentleman that I met with at the county who uh earlier I mean last year in November and uh I he has acknowledged that yes the cattle are there and that we qualify for the Aggie exemption and that we should have a written notice any time any moment but we don't have it yet do we have a copy of that email or can one be provided I I don't I mean I have it in my phone but would it be possible to send it to forward at the city clerk I could I could try to do that yes or send it to your attorney your attorney can send it to the city cler one way or another can we can we get that into the record because I want to I want to weigh as much as I can and I know this is frustrating for everybody else but me but please don't don't think I am I am less than patient on this because I enjoy these cases I enjoy enjoy the exercise of it while you're doing that I have some questions for myself want to answer while he's doing that let me go ahead and move on to another issue I wanted to address probably with both both attorneys so find the right section 8-5 which I believe is what the city is relying on to establish the prohibition on cattle on the property because the the zoning code the zoning table was not included in the notice of violation there's I'm not misreading anything I know that's your argument and I tend to agree with your argument but I want to give the city an opportunity to tell me why that's wrong the zoning code was not included in your packets no no no it was not included in the notice of violation the actual table of uses there is a reference of 3.3.1 but it's a 3.3.1 f which goes to the again is back to the barbed wire but there is no citation of the section that includes the table of uses that gives permitted prohibited conditional Etc can can I have a moment yeah absolutely for and the reason why that which which code is what which code's my cite am I giving relief under if if it's solely as to the cattle Section 8 point 8-5 excuse me that's where the 150 fot requirement comes in and it is not a flat prohibition of you cannot have cattle in the zoning District it you can't have cattle within 150 ft of a residence and so that the math changes for me if we're only looking at 8.5 versus if we're looking at the actual table of uses in the zoning code because if it's 8-5 and to that if if the cattle either currently are not or can be moved so that they are at least 15 ft away from a residential structure I don't see where 8 8-5 prohibits cattle it does not it is not a blanket ban on cattle as I read it well cattle being somewhat transitory in my limited knowledge of agricultural but yes but that's what fences are for but correct but uh there would be a need for the written permission of those owners all owners within that 150 foot location which we no what what they were saying what what they had presented was that if if they are within 150 ft of a residence they'll move them so they're not 150 ft from a residential structure and and that may comply with Section 8-5 um there still the issue of the of the permitted use issue and that's that's my question about the code that's well if if that wasn't cited I can't I can't rely on that here we would certainly make an or tennis motion to have the testimony comport to the evidence but it's but the I they have to react to the notice of violation they're given I can't add violations here if they weren't included in the notice of violation even if they even if they you mean it's a different section you're saying if they were not put on notice of that that I think I would be inviting a due process appeal understood if if that if that is aside from the facts if that is the concern albeit with the strength of what's been presented from the city if that's the concern of the magistrate uh then certainly the city to fortify the position can certainly Ren notice and bring it back before you in April and and if that's the way that I we'll be right back here we as I that's why I started out my presentation which was not an opening statement but just to say hey we're trying to get this worked out we've had discussions I've been scratching my head saying I don't understand where uh the understood uh now I have a better understanding not a th% but I have a better understanding of the respondent's position on it uh but I still feel the city's uh position is the accurate one all respect to council and responded but if that's the Leaning of the magistrate that that uh from a comfort level that this be heard in April to allow the city to uh properly include the tables that are giving uh pause um we we certainly can do that let's talk about that anything anything you want to tell him so he can tell me before before I go to the next place because I I'm willing to explore both I think what you invited yes sir and sent to clerk if you'll send it to clerk she'll pull it up that way I make sure it makes the record because I hate looking at something and then somebody forgets to send it and then I doesn't make the record Claudia here's my name clockers at stcloud yes it's a same email that yall sent the notice to okay if I could you just so I understand your Honor's position on this so let me let me state it before you ask so when we look at zoning codes we're used to in some form or fashion r1a this allows you know single family residential minimum lot size X r1b r1c that's and so go down the line commercial Highway commercial Highway business whatever it is there's something in the code that says this is what's permitted in this zoning District or this is what's prohibited in this zoning District Andor understand oh I didn't know did you to respond just uh in reviewing with Miss Manning she can testify but the the there is no reference to Livestock in the zoning table for this particular right because it list I'm going to guess it lists permitted uses it does not list prohibited uses and you're going to tell me that livestock is not a prohibited use I understand that but was that code section that gives that table that shows these are the permitted uses cited as part of the violation and that's the key point to me is that that was not included in the notice of violation then we certainly would ask for a continuance we'll simply re notice it will include the sections and ask that we be heard in 30 days it's that's a possibility and and maybe that's the way that I'm leading to which obviously would give us time to potentially reach a middle ground so I'm going to I'm going to read the email for everybody's benefit good good I'm sorry sorry found from 2023 that I'm as okay so this one from 2024 well I'm guessing if the 2020 if this is all the 2024 one says 2023 would going to is going to be more determined but everything is good with your property you will receive certified mail in June or July informing you of the decision parenthetical I see no issues this is not saying it's been approved for the agricultural designation does the 2023 email say anything better for you okay so I don't think that gets you get you quite as far as you wanted it to get you but let's let's deviate now and let's talk about this because I think you kind of were of a similar mind to buy some time I understand you're going to want to buy more time than they're going to get I will leave it to you guys I'm not going to serve as mediator here that is not my role but I am inclined to withhold today I'm prepared to rule and I'll warn you both it would be a split the baby ruling you would win on a couple City would win unst but on the key point it would remain pending based on what I've seen and the arguments I've heard today and if I'm hearing it again whether this case or another one I would rely on what I hear as to this point when everybody's had an opportunity to prepare the arguments on this point if it were R noticed from what I've seen I think their case is better I could be wrong and and I'm open to changing my mind when I actually hear that part of it but I'm willing to withhold today or to to continue it today I'm sure they will go and Reen notice it it will be properly positioned you're wellmade and and I think accurate argument that this was not in the notice of violation magistrate you can't rule on it today was the right one but I think that they get it in the right way I think it could be a bad day for you and your client or for your client anyway and bad just meaning that I would rule the other way than you want me to so does anybody have an objection to continuing this case with a strong urging from me everybody put their heads together and find a solution that doesn't involve a ruling for me because I have a feeling both of you might be a little unhappy with that at the end of the day uh respond it none okay then that is what I'm going to do I'm going to continue this again with the strong encouragement to to find a way of of resolving the issues because I think everybody everybody's Point here is is wellmade and and everybody's done a great job today um and and I know there's a future Development coming and I do know just because local government is what I do I do too and and I've happened to be in a city where the PES have developed other where the Bas developed property and this was exactly it they kept an a exemption right up until it went vertical and I know a lot of developers do that but so I will I will withhold ruling day and wait for wait for additional information whether it's next month or the month after okay yes sir Reen noticed which I assume City unless some resolutions unless some resolutions made if it's Ren noticed for April would we be able to request that it is withheld it's not R noticed for hearing until after the June or July decision for the a exemption that's that's between that's between City and respondent I'll stay out of that one but as far as notice I do expect all requirements of this of of Statute to be met in terms of reasonable time for compliance notice of violation reasonable time for compliance and then notice of hearing I I don't want to see notices that were done just to move it along I I want to see all due process observances made understood didn't think you needed to hear it but just for the record I'll say it thank you both Al have morec that Alex presented additional I'm sorry Alex had additional information yes you got both binders I did yes thank you and this and this was Alex no that was uh respondents attorney thank you case number 202 24-65 Chad a Cabot owner location of violation 8113 Pennsylvania Avenue can we stop we have one respondent left and he's been sitting here patiently and I hate to keep him okay this is your case okay okay good afternoon Pam Neo Community compliance officer I am presenting in this case for the property located at 813 Pennsylvania Avenue at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the notice violation sent to the owner copy of the notice violation sent by certified mail to the owner and posted on the property in City Hall copy of the statement of violation notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner and posted on the property in City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation a copy of the affidavit postings evidence of mailings a copy of the deed to the pro property a copy of the code section in violation copy of the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondent in violation in the amount of $282.92 on January 9th 2024 while on routine Patrol I noticed a blue Dodge truck parked in the rear yard that is inoperable at this location I took one photo on January 10th a notice of violation was sent to the owner on January 23rd a reinspection was performed the truck was still there I took another photo just I'm going to assume you're not talking about high grass and weeds was cured before the time set your Noti violation sir on January 24th a notice violation was sent by certified mail to the owner on February 5th a reinspection was performed and the truck was still there I took another photo on February 6th the notice violation with the new date was sent to the owner and posted on the property in City Hall an Affidavit of posting was completed I took one photo of the posting on February 8th I went to the property and took photos took one photo on February 21st and 26 re inspections were performed and the truck was still there and I took three photos on February 27th 2024 statement of violation notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner and posted on the property in City Hall an Affidavit of posting was completed on March 1st the owner called me and stated he removed the truck so I went to the property and the truck was removed and the property was now in compliance it is City's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing an abandoned vehicle at this location the city would like to also recover the cost incurred in bringing this case before the special magistrate in the amount of $282.92 to be paid within 7 Days of the written order of the magistrate as well and that concludes my presentation okay Mr it do you have any questions for the code enforcement officer before I excuse her from the podium you can come on up I'm Chad cat owner of the property and uh um one of my questions is that I was forthcoming with you yes you were and um I also mentioned to you that um I was going through a male forwarding of my address change and you I gave you the new address and stuff you also stated that you went off just with the county and property address was correct yes sir okay um now all the notices that were sent were they sent to the new address that I provided to you I don't remember you given me a new address if You' have gave me it was the foring address it was yeah I only had the PO Box correct that was the one and I gave you the new one I don't remember you given me that new one unless you gave it to me after I had sent it everything because if You' have gave me the new one I would have sent you another I would have noticed you on it but all I did was send it to the PO box and then I posted the property when did do you Mr ke do you remember when you spoke to the community compliance officer about the address um it was way after uh the first notice and stuff um I was in the process of mail foring had a CMI address what prompted you to to contact the community compliance officer uh because finally after several weeks of the M you got the notices I got the the notice and I you know called her immediately I took care of one of the violations which was the high grass um because that was a quick fix and then it was like the the how much time did it take to get the truck off of the property uh I was in compliance within the last violation the date that can I submit what I have yeah I may already have it let me save you the TR oh I don't no sir okay because I have the notice of violation letters and the last one I have is February 6 2024 um yes but I'd like to point out something on the evidence that I'm providing which I have right here is just the envelope to show the mail forwarding address I have that too I have the I have the return on I have the forwarded at the the envelope with the forward sticker on it just okay that's the post date on that is 25 January 2024 is that the same one you guys are looking at U mine's 29 of 24 is the foring address and this is in reference to February 6 okay uh you said something that I want to Circle back on M so the February 6th letter correct it get gives a sorry I'm not looking at 36 letter February 6 letter cites the abandoned vehicle viol and then States violation to be corrected within 10 working days from receipt of of the notice is it your testimony that that violation was cured by within 10 working days of February 6th I'd like to point out on that violation the very last line almost where it says I have 10 days upon receipt of the notice and she also did highlight the 10 days which I'm not I'm just when I received it being that goes to a PO Box there's a couple days probably discrepancy there okay did you get the January 24th letter no sir because it was addressed to my old PO box but you addressed the high grass and weeds that was yes when I finally got the first so you did eventually get the January 24th letter because it's the only one that cites High grass and weeds okay and when I did get that letter which I'm not sure of the exact date I called her and told her I was like I took care of it because I was actually going to do it that day so it's your argument that you you cured the the vehicle within 10 days of your receipt of the of of any notice of violation that's that cited that of the February 6th which states that it has to be done because I had a couple did you receive the January 24th before after contemporaneously with the February 6th notice I don't recall what exact dates when I received that because right now all I have is the February 6th Yeah well yeah I I'm not sure the date when I got the one with the lawn in the truck because I did have questions with her that's why I was coming forward to with her to find out you know because it's not wasn't abandoned it was operational I just used a different car well it wasn't operational it's not operational I had flat tires it was not an operational vehicle they weren't actually flat they were sunk in a little bit they were flat you couldn't you would have been unsafe on the road so so I I I will make the finding that it was an abandoned vehicle but the timing of everything is is important to me uh he's making an argument that he that the notice says he has 10 days from receip to cure the violation he is uh testifying today that he cured it within 10 days of receipt of the violation does the city want to make any argument on the definition of receipt if I can say something I did post the property too when did you what dat did you post it um I posted it on the on February 27th was my statement of violation notice hearing when was the property when are when when was your inspection that you saw the property be have been brought into compliance I posted it on February 6 fix the regular notice of violation so did you see the posting of the the notice on the property do you reside at the property um actually I'm staying with my mom she's elderly and helping her so and the photo she's providing of the posting was on February 6 did you see it that's my question is to your knowledge no sir when did you when did you first become aware that there was a notice a viol a code a code violation on this property for the truck either because if you found out about the about the grass you found out about the truck too I'm not sure of the exact date so I'm my arguing is when did you remove the truck it was I believe the 27th yeah 27th of February and is it your sworn testimony today that you did not receive any notice about the violation until at least within 10 business days of that date of this of what the date that you fixed it that's the argument that you're making to me is that you cured it within the time the notice you in which to cure it yes from the February 6th I'm asking you when did you first become aware that there was a violation on the property I don't recall the exact date was the date that you became aware of the violation on the property within 10 business days of the date that you removed the vehicle because that's the argument that you're making I'm asking you to testify to it I'm not sure on exact date I can't rule in your favor on I'm not sure I am not asking for an exact date I'm asking you to testify whether or not you you whether or not you removed that truck within 10 business days of you first becoming aware there was a code violation actually was yeah the the date the date that he removed it I'll accept his testimony I I want the the key point for me is when he's testifying he received that notice which I don't recall I don't have an exact date but your argument that she made is is that it was within 10 days of you removing the vehicle correct according to the continued violation on this letter I know what the letter says I'm asking you to give me sworn testimony that says yes or no I did not know about this code violation until no more than 10 business days prior to the date that I fixed it I can't do that sir because there was questions in regard in which you know I was trying to find out exactly what the grounds and stuff for what I had to do so okay I think that one fact seals it for me that and um so I don't I I don't I I don't think I need you to say anything else so based on evidence testimony I will find in favor of the city find the respondent was in violation cured the violation within the time allowed uh I understand the argument but without the the sworn testimony that says for a fact you did what your argument says you did I can't ru your favor so I am going to order you to pay the administrative cost those are $282.92 182 I am certainly willing to give it is that seven working days so uh it's actually it would be seven seven it would be seven calendar days but if you want more time I certainly can do that 10 days is I would give you 30 okay do you want 30 no okay well then I'll say 10 all right thank you thank you thank you for your patience also and thank you for your your good humor I appreciate that there you go case number 2024-the location of violation 1319 Jersey Avenue good afternoon Pam Neo Community compliance officer I am presenting this case for the property located at 1319 Jersey Avenue this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the courtesy notice sent to the owner copy of the notice of violation sent to the owner and the registered agent copy of the notice violation sent by certified mail to the owner and the registered agent copy of the statement of violation notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner and the registered agent and posted on the property in City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation evidence of mailing a copy of the deed to the property a copy of the code section in violation copy the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondent in violation in the amount of $286 and 40 cents and the respondent is not here thank you um I sense that the property is now in compliance yes sir if you if you would like to you're welcome welcome to present to me anything you'd like but if you would like to and you want to skip over some of the earlier notices and just get to the the ones closest to it coming into compliance okay do you want any of the photos or you don't need uh enough to make the record okay and if you want to go through all of it if that's easiest for you that is fine too it's not I'm trying to be respectful of your time it's I don't care about my own no that's fine um I took a few photos that was my posting sorry go back to the photo that's over8 inches yeah it's it's hard to right there see how you can tell the pictures um the property was in compliance on March 12th when I did a reinspection and what was the most recent notice of violation you sent what date was that the re the what the statement of violation or just notice the F the the last in time notice of violation February 12th think he was having a problem finding somebody to mow it is what it was I talked to him maybe twice okay just let me look at that notice okay and then you said you say did you think the compliance state is what it is the compliance date was March 12th okay so well after the time you allowed in the notice of violation yes sir and then you served statement of violation and notice of hearing on what date the 27th of February okay did you receive proof of delivery um I know he signed for one of them I'm not sure if he signed for it looks like notice of violations were signed for yes he signed and I don't see a green card for notice of hearing is the notice I'm looking at the posting on the property is that the notice of hearing yes and I think he did signed for that I got it right here okay what was the date that he signed for February 29th I sent it on the 27th anything else you'd like me to hear no did you want me to my recommendations no okay I I I have it in front of me that's how I was psychic I knew that you were going to tell me the property was in compliance I anything else you want to make the record with are you satisfied with the record that we've made we got the notices in we got the violation in we got the dates in Jack are you are you satisfied with the record we've made we got the notices in we got the dates in we got the violation in we're all good violation based on the evidence and testimony provided I'll find in favor of the city uh find the respondent was in violation for grass and overgrown weeds uh find that the violation was cured but it was cured after the date set in the last notice of violation for cure and based on that we'll order the respondent to pay uh the city $282 excuse me $286 42 that amount amount will we do within 7 days from the date of my written order thank you case number 202 24- 403 ih6 property Florida LP owner repeat violation location of violation 510 snail kite Avenue St Cloud Florida so I can't make your life easier on this one I'm going to need the record but go ahead Alex Miller Community compliance office for the city of St Cloud you just want me to go to the end or should go through the whole process go through the whole process yeah that's why that's why I say yeah because this one for what it is that one because it was in compliance that's why I shortened it up but this one I can't I can't do the same for you so I'm going to need to hear all of it okay at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation Affidavit of posting evidence of mailings copy of the csection and violation a copy of the D to the property and a copy of the coting curve the magistrate F finds a responding in violation of the amount of $27.96 and the respondent is not here thank you on February 20 2023 during routine Patrol I observed a commercial vehicle part park at this location and I also verified that there was no business tax receipt for a landlord license on record and this was was a repeat violation for the owner one photo was taken and the findings of fact were also attached to the binder on February 21st uh I verified that the commercial vehicle was removed and a statement of violation and notice of hearings was was sent by certified mail to the owner and agent posted the property in City Hall an Affidavit of posting was created and one photo of the posting was taken J January 15 and again today I verified that the violation has not been corrected it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in a repeat violation of allowing a business tax receipt for a land or license to not be obtained for this property and pay pay a fine in the amount of $500 a day commencing from February 20th 2024 the day the violation was F until compliance is met the city will also request that the cost in current being in this case before the magist in the amount of $27.96 to be paid within 7 Days of the written notor by the special magistrate this concludes my presentation so the commercial vehicle was cured yes sir this is is this a business that's been in operation lawfully in the past and just doesn't have a current BTR this is um I one of the borrower proper is IH property Florida the property has been rented since 2022 has it had a BTR in the past for yes it did it had from the previous this a renewal problem no no this is a new owner they they acquir the property um and they never obtain a new owner or new tenant new tenant new business in the space but the owner is the same right no it's a new owner I don't know about the tenant but I know it's a new owner so the property was purchased on June 2022 they the previous owner had a BT um landlord license and that was made inactive okay so the repeat nature of the violation is not as to the property it's as to the respondant that ih6 has been in previous violation of not having a BTR at other addresses within the city yes sir got it okay is this an office is that what it's being used for No it's it's a home oh this I6 owns it they're renting it the BTR is in relation to the rental to the rental permit yes sir I got it sorry that's that's where I was okay the reason why I was going down this line is because for what this is for a BTR violation even though it's a repeat I'm struggling with $500 a day for BTR violation it's not life and limb it's not Public Safety that's why I was curious as the nature of the operation it was if it was noxious or you know there was something that elevated it above just you know didn't get a BTR so I I am going to find in favor of the city order the respondent or find order respondent cure the violation not give a date because I will uh date the fines to February 20th 2024 but I'm going to reduce the requested fine amount to a fine of $100 per day thank you and I will also order the respondent to pay the administrative cost incurred by the city of 21796 that will be due within 7 Days of the date of my written order thank you yes ma'am thank you yes unfinished business none new business none next schedule meeting April 17 2024 any else in City no sir we adjourned