Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

WHEN A CALL TO ORDER THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARINGS FOR JULY 20, 2022.

[CALL TO ORDER]

IT'S 1:00 PM ON JULY 20TH.

MY NAME IS JAMES BEADLE.

I'M THE PERSON THAT WAS APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF PALM BAY TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FROM APPLICANTS TO REDUCE THEIR CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS.

THE GENERAL PROCEDURE IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND.

BASICALLY PRESENT THEIR CASE AS TO WHY I SHOULD REDUCE THE FINE.

GIVE WHATEVER FACTS YOU WANT TO PRESENT.

AT THAT POINT, THE CITY WILL THEN RESPOND TO THE INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE CITY PRESENTS. THAT'S JUST THE GENERAL PROCEDURE.

I'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO THE CLERK TO SWEAR IN ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TESTIFY, AND WE'LL PROCEED FROM THERE.

[SWEARING IN]

IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THANK YOU. MAYBE IT.

OUR FIRST CASE TO BE HEARD TODAY IS ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA AT CB 2215421 AT 1638 SAN SONG STREET

[PETITION FOR RELIEF]

SOUTHEAST. AND THE CODE OFFICER TODAY IS ANGELICA SNEED.

YOUR HONOR. MY NAME IS EDWARD SUAREZ.

MY WIFE AND I ARE OWNERS OF SILVER PALM HOMES.

AND I'M HERE TO ASK THAT THE PENALTY IS ON THE ON TWO OF OUR PROPERTIES THE 1638 ON SOWING AND 3175 TILDEN BE REMOVED.

THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES FROM CANADA, WITH CANADIANS, CITIZENS, AND WE'VE BEEN DEALING ALL OF THESE ISSUES FROM CANADA WITH ALL THE DIFFICULTIES THAT WERE GOING ON SURROUNDING COVID.

AND ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACTOR NOT FULFILLING ALL THE OBLIGATIONS ON THE CONTRACT, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO COORDINATE AND TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES IS IMPORTANT ISSUES.

AS A RESULT, ALL OF THESE THESE LIENS WERE ON ON THESE PROPERTIES.

AND THE ONLY THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE WAS FOR US TO BE HERE.

AND WE CAME LAST OCTOBER HERE.

AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY TO RESOLVE ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

AND WE'VE ACTIVELY KNOW MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE THERE ON THESE ON A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES WERE RESOLVED WITH THE CITY.

AND WE WE BELIEVE THAT SINCE NOW THAT WE'RE HERE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE ISSUES AND THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE THESE KIND OF ISSUES GOING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. THE CITY'S POSITION REGARDING THIS, PLEASE, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

FOR THE RECORD. ANGELICA SNEED, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER, CITY OF PALM BAY.

THE CITY HAS NO OBJECTIVE OBJECTION IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE COLLECTED OF $750.

OBJECTION TO THAT, SIR.

NO, THANK YOU.

NOW. THIS IS JUST FOR THIS ONE CASE.

YES, I WILL.

I WILL. OF COURSE I WILL.

YES. THIS HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM DOING THAT? NO. THERE'LL BE AN ORDER ENTER TO THAT EFFECT.

THANK YOU. AND THEN FOR THE NEXT CASE IT CB 2210221 AT THE 3175 TILDEN ROAD SOUTHEAST.

IT'S THE SAME ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES AS WELL.

WHAT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO JOE ANGELICA'S NEED FOR COMPLIANCE? OBVIOUSLY, IF PALM BAY CITY HAS NO OBJECTION, A REDUCTION OF THE LINE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE COLLECTED OF $750.

DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT? NO, SIR. IN ORDER UNDER TO THAT EFFECT FOR 30 DAYS.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT CASE TO BE HEARD.

WANT THESE ALL TOGETHER SINCE THEY'RE THE SAME? OR DO YOU WANT THEM SEPARATE? HAVE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

THE SAME PROPERTY? YES, THE SAME PROPERTY.

THE NEXT CASE TO BE HEARD IS ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA.

CB 226202222621222262222 AND

[00:05:03]

2262322. AT 1915.

AGORA CIRCLE SOUTHEAST.

SO WE ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, BUT WE ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY AND THE OWNERS.

SO WE'RE REPRESENTING THEM.

BUT IT SEEMS YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

YES. I'M JERRY ROMERO.

YOU SPELL YOUR FIRST NAME? G I R.

A LAST NAME.

R. 0RO.

AND MY NAME IS SANDRA MORALES.

UM, AND WHAT'S YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY OFFICE? AND SHE'S THE OFFICE MANAGER.

THE SECRETARY? SHE'S THE DIRECTOR.

EITHER OF YOU. AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION.

SHE IS. SEE DOCUMENTATION AS TO THAT.

YOU'RE REPRESENTING YOUR DIRECTOR? I DON'T HAVE UNLESS THE CITY IS GOING TO CONTEST THAT, I WILL ACCEPT.

OKAY. WE SHOULD.

I JUST NEED. I NEED.

I NEED. LEGALLY AN AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY TO BE.

SHE IS AN OFFICER FOR THE COMPANY.

YES. YES, SIR. SO.

YET. I HAVE TO. OKAY.

GO AHEAD. THE CASE THAT WE HAVE IS THE FOLLOWING.

WE ARE REFINANCING THE PROPERTY IN 1915, AGORA SPHERICAL, AND WHEN I REDOING ALL THE PAPERS, THE BANK SENT THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE LIENS IN THE PROPERTY FOR $17,000 AND WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY FOR WHAT IS THE THE SITUATION.

SO THE BANK INFORMED THAT WAS FOR ANY INSPECTION THAT WAS NOT DONE AND THE PROPERTY IN 2009 2019 FOR MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE OWNER'S UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING END UP IN THE CITY WAS DONE ANY WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WHEN WHEN THE THE EMPLOYEES DID THE INSPECTION IN 2018 AND THE PROPERTY WHEN WE ONLY CHANGED SOME DOORS AND APARTMENTS.

THESE ARE FOUR COMPLEX FOUR APARTMENTS AND WE DIDN'T DO ANY CHANGE IN THE PROPERTY LIKE THAT.

THE BUILDING JUST CHANGED THE DOORS.

SO WHEN THE INSPECTOR WENT TO THE PROPERTY, APPARENTLY EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING WAS GOOD.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBSERVATION AND WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY INFORMATION, EMAIL OR NOTHING ABOUT ANY LIENS OR ANY OBSERVATION THAT IN THE PROPERTY.

17 ZERO SEVEN CANADA STREET SOUTHEAST AND PALM BAY 17.

EXCUSE ME. 1707 CANNAVA.

THAT SEVEN 1707 WAS THAT ALL OFFICE THAT WAS WAS RENTING BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS FINE? SHE SAID, WELL, THAT'S THE OFFICE I WAS TEMPORARILY BEING RENTED BECAUSE THE INITIAL OFFICE FOR THE BUSINESS, IT WAS BURNED DOWN.

WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THIS, BECAUSE THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP IN THE PAST.

THE CITY IN YOUR CASE OR ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE ADDRESS THAT'S BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OR THE TAX COLLECTOR.

1707 ADDRESS IS THE ADDRESS THAT THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU NOTICES FOR.

OKAY. SO IF YOU DIDN'T IF YOU WEREN'T THERE ANYMORE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY OF PUTTING IT, THAT'S NOT ON THE CITY TO GO OUT AND FIND OUT.

YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO KEEP A CURRENT ADDRESS WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND OR THE TAX COLLECTOR.

OKAY. OTHERWISE, THEY THEY JUST SEND NOTICES TO WHATEVER YOU'VE PROVIDED TO THOSE ENTITIES.

THAT'S ALL THE STATUTE REQUIRES THEM TO DO.

SO WHICH? BECAUSE AS OF.

IN THE LAST MONTH.

THE CANOVA STREET ADDRESS IS STILL THE MAILING ADDRESS FOR THIS PROPERTY.

YEAH. SO YOU NEED IT.

YOU NEED TO CHANGE THAT.

[00:10:01]

YEAH, EXACTLY. ALL THE DOCUMENTS, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO RENEW THE TAGS BUSINESS RECEIVED ALL THE ALL THE COMMUNICATION WE ARE RECEIVED IN THE P.O. BOX, THE P.O.

BOX. THAT ISN'T [INAUDIBLE] AS WELL.

THAT MAY VERY WELL BE.

BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU IS WHAT YOU HAVE WITH AN ADDRESS IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY DOESN'T COUNT, SO TO SPEAK, FOR PURPOSES OF CODE ENFORCEMENT.

THEY SEND OUT NOTICES.

ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE OR THE TAX COLLECTORS WEBSITE AND USE THAT ADDRESS THERE.

THAT'S ALL THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO DO.

SO AT BASE BECAUSE.

YOU'RE. YOU'RE.

WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO SAY THIS? THAT. CAN I.

CAN I JUST. SURE.

THE THING IS THAT THE OFFICE THAT WAS RENTED WAS JUST A FEW DOORS DOWN.

SO THAT MAILBOX AND THAT WAS STILL BEING CHECKED AND WAS STILL EVERY SINGLE DAY, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD CHECK TO SEE IF THE BUILDING BURNED DOWN.

BUT THE MAILBOX, EVERYTHING WAS STILL THERE THAT COULD BE RECEIVING MAIL.

I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. ALL IN ALL, I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU AS FAR AS YOU'RE SAYING, YOU DIDN'T GET NOTICES.

I UNDERSTAND WHY IT HAS TO GO TO WHATEVER ADDRESS THAT THEY PUT IN THERE.

SO FUNCTIONALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT YEAH, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE HERE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE POST OFFICE OR WHAT HAPPENED.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE TOO IS.

NO. THE CITY'S ONLY OBLIGATION, LIKE I SAID, IS TO MAIL IT TO THAT ADDRESS.

AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT BECAUSE OF SOME OTHER ISSUE THAT'S NOT ON THE CITY, SO TO SPEAK.

OBVIOUSLY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND I MEAN, THAT WAS THE WHOLE PROBLEM.

AND WE WERE BLINDSIDED.

WE HAD NO IDEA BECAUSE SINCE WHEN THEY CAME AND DID THE INITIAL INSPECTION, WHATEVER THEY FOUND THAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED, IT WAS FIXED AND THE INSPECTOR KNEW THAT IT WAS FIXED. SO THEN EVERYTHING WAS FINE.

THAT WAS BACK IN 2019 AND SEPTEMBER, CORRECT? SO THEN THAT'S WHY WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS ANY PENDING ISSUES OTHER THAN A FINAL INSPECTION, WHICH THE FEES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR.

AND AND SO WE WERE WAITING ON THAT.

BUT HAVE YOU SEEN THE PAPERWORK AS TO WHY THESE FINES WERE IMPOSED? I'M SORRY. I'VE SEEN THE PAPERWORK FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AS TO WHY THE FINES WERE IMPOSED.

BECAUSE THESE CASES ARE JUST THIS YEAR.

OKAY. CAUSE CODE ENFORCEMENT, THE ANONYMOUS LINKS.

WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING.

WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS LEANNE'S ON THE PROPERTY.

HONESTLY SAYING IT'S ALL IN THE PACKAGE.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, AND WHAT IT SAYS IS IT'S A FIRM OKAY TO REQUEST A BUILDING PERMIT AND IT SAYS NO, A FRONT DOOR, FRONT DOOR AND OR WINDOWS WERE INSTALLED.

WITHOUT A PERMIT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE VIOLATION.

OKAY. SO BUT THERE'S SOMETHING.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER JUST FOR THE FRONT DOORS, IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

REESE. YES, AND I'M GUESSING WHAT I'M WAITING FOR THE CITY, BUT I'M GUESSING THAT EACH ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS IS FOR OTHER FOUR UNITS IN THIS BUILDING.

SO, YES, THERE IS THERE'S PROBABLY GOT CITED FOR A DOOR FOR EACH UNIT AS MY GUESS.

SO IT'S BASED OUT OF THAT.

OKAY. BUT AT LEAST I CAN KNOW MEANS TO ME SO.

CAN. PLEASE DON'T GET.

NO. OKAY. SO THAT'S SO I GUESS THAT'S WHY IT ENDED UP INTO BEING A LEAN BECAUSE WE HAD NO IDEA WHEN THE INSPECTOR CAME AND DID THE INSPECTIONS AND EVERYTHING THERE WAS WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF.

I DON'T I CAN'T ANY OF THIS.

AND I. AND I REALIZE IT'S JUST.

WE DIDN'T KNOW. SO NOW TRYING TO REFI.

WE FIND OUT THAT THERE'S LIENS AND ALL THIS ISSUE.

SO PRETTY MUCH WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PLEAD TO SEE IF AT THIS POINT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE TO BRING THOSE FEES DOWN.

THE CITY HAS SAID, YES, THAT'S THE CITY'S POSITION REGARDING THE FOUR CASES.

REGARDING THE BOARD CASES, THE CITY HAS NO OBJECTION AND THE REJECTION OF THIS LIEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATION FEES ARE COLLECTED, WHICH IS 750.

THE CITY IS ALSO LOOKING FOR 15% OF THE LIEN, WHICH IS 1001, 37 TOTALS TO 1887.

THAT WAS FOR CASE 2262022.

AND THEN WE'RE READING ALL OF THEM.

I'M GOING TO GO. DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU THE DECISION FOR ALL OF THEM, CONSIDERING ALL OF THEM.

RIGHT? YEAH. SO TWO, TWO, SIX, TWO, ONE, TWO, TWO.

THE CITY HAS NO OBJECTION TO REDUCTION OF FINE AND WE JUST ARE ASKING THE CITY'S ASKING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES OF 750.

THEY'RE ALSO ASKING 15% OF THE LIEN, ONE FOR 11 1137 TOTAL $1,887 FOR

[00:15:01]

CASE 2262 222.

CITY HAS NO OBJECTION TO REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN, BUT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE COLLECTED OF $750.

THE CITY IS ALSO ASKING FOR 15% OF THE LIEN, WHICH IS $1,137 TOTAL 1887.

AND FOR CASE NUMBER 2262322, CITY HAS NO OBJECTION IN A REDUCTION OF THIS LIEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL CITY'S ADMINISTRATION FEES ARE COLLECTED OF $750.

CITY IS ALSO ASKING FOR A 15% OF THE LIEN, WHICH IS $1,137 FOR A TOTAL OF $1,187.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

WHEN DID. WHEN.

WHEN DID THESE NOTICES GO OUT? DID THEY GO OUT? OKAY. SO I HAVE HERE THAT THE NOTICE ORIGINALLY WENT OUT IN.

THIS HERE STATEMENT. DATE NOVEMBER 18, 2021.

STATEMENT OF VIOLATION DATE.

IT WAS POSTED.

ON DECEMBER 1ST.

SO CAN I CAN I JUST.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN THEY SAY POSTED? WELL, NOT NOT REALLY.

AND CAN I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE SO JUST JUST FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY FOR SOMETHING COMING UP IN THE FUTURE, WE DON'T WANT THESE KIND OF I MEAN, WE'RE A COMPANY THAT ABIDES BY ALL THE RULES AND WE TRY TO FOLLOW EVERYTHING AND PAY ANY FEES.

DO SO. MONEY IS NOT AN ISSUE.

I MEAN, IF WE KNEW, WE WOULD PAY IT AND TAKE CARE OF IT.

SO WHEN THE INSPECTOR COMES OUT, ARE THEY NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S PERMITS OR ANYTHING OR IS THAT OUT OF THERE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

THAT'S MY MY POINT.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

THE ITEMS FOR WHICH YOU ARE CITED IN THESE COMPLAINTS OCCUR TWO YEARS AFTER WHATEVER YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE INSPECTOR WAS OUT THERE.

SO I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO KNOW THAT I ALL I ALL I'M HERE IS IS TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO TELL ME AND WHAT THE CITY HAS TO TELL ME.

SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

I MEAN, I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE HAS TO BE SOME SOME KIND OF RESPONSIBILITY HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU TRUST THE PEOPLE THAT KNOW TO COME OUT AND INSPECT AND CHECK AND.

WELL, LET ME LET ME PREFACE PART OF THIS IS THAT.

THE PROCESS THAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE CITY SENDS OUT A NOTICE SAYING THAT YOU VIOLATED THE CODE IN SOME FASHION.

THAT'S HOW IT STARTS.

AND THE INITIAL NOTICE GIVES YOU A PERIOD OF TIME TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND SAME THING.

IF THEY DON'T GET THE MAILING, THEN THEY POST THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS ALLUDING TO WHEN SHE SAID THAT THEY POSTED THE PROPERTY.

AND THERE'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING IN THIS PACKET THAT SHOWS THAT IT WAS POSTED, MEANING THEY PUT A NOTICE UP ON THE PROPERTY SOME.

WHERE, BUT SOMEPLACE ON THE PROPERTY.

AND SO THERE WAS A VIOLATION.

THE PROBLEM YOU MAY HAVE IS IF YOU HAVE TENANTS, BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TAKEN IT DOWN AND DIDN'T LET YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.

I MEAN, THAT'S BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS ALSO.

SO GETTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT, THE BEST THING FOR YOU TO DO IS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ADDRESS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY INITIALLY SEND NOTICES TO.

IS THE ADDRESS THAT YOU HAVE LISTED WITH THE PROPERTY FOR.

YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE NOTICE.

AND THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU'RE ASKING FOR WHATEVER THE TRIGGER IS, SO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.

THAT'S WHEN YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THEM AND THEY GIVE YOU TIME TO CORRECT IT.

ONCE YOU GET THAT NOTICE AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT CORRECTED BY THAT TIME, THEN THEY BRING IT IN FRONT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, WHICH THAT HEARING IS.

THAT'S A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD.

AND YOU CAN COME AND PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD BEFORE THEY EVEN ENTER AN ORDER.

FINDING A VIOLATION AND DETERMINING WHAT A FINE.

THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.

SO. WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE THINGS GOT MESSED UP, SO TO SPEAK, WAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING WITH NOT HAVING THE RIGHT ADDRESS, BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU THE ABILITY, THE ENTRY POINT WITH THE CITY TO TRY AND RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK. YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE VIOLATION BEING OR THE FINES BEING REDUCED TO WHAT THE CITY SAID.

HUH? I WILL TELL YOU THAT I WOULD.

750 IS GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT FOR EACH CASE, BECAUSE THEY DID HAVE TO TAKE THE CASE BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING.

I MEAN, BUT THE 15% IS PRETTY STEEP.

BUT I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE FEES INVOLVED IN EVERYTHING, BUT IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S.

WE CHECK THE MAIL BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE MOVED TWO STORIES DOWN.

AND SO THE MAIL WAS CHECKED EVERY, EVERY DAY AND NOTHING WAS RECEIVED.

[00:20:03]

SO I UNDERSTAND THEY DID MAIL IT OUT.

AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT 50% IS IS PRETTY HIGH BEING THAT.

SO I MEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT? 15%. RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DECIDE, IS THAT FINDING OUT WHETHER YOU HAD AN OBJECTION TO IT.

BUT I'M JUST PUTTING, YOU KNOW, THE SEVEN FIFTY'S PRETTY MUCH GOING TO HAPPEN.

I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO ENTER AN ORDER REDUCING THE FINE TO THE $750 IN EACH CASE.

AND. REDUCE THE EXTRA TO 10% CASE.

SO IT WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL 700 AND.

$8.38. BE IN ORDER.

OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

WE'RE FORGOT TO ASK YOU ONE QUESTION.

AS I INDICATED TO THE PRIOR GENTLEMAN, THERE'S INCLUDED IN THE ORDER IS A PROVISION THAT HAS TO BE PAID WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

AND NORMALLY THAT'S 30 DAYS.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM PAYING WITHIN 30 DAYS? YES, WE YES.

THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE THE FINES GET REINSTATED IF THEY'RE NOT PAID IN.

NO. YES, WE CAN GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.

OKAY. IN ORDER.

MR. BEETLE, JUST TO CONFIRM, IT'S SEVEN 5838 IN ALL FOUR CASES, PLUS THE 750.

SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT INFORMATION THAT WE GET RIGHT NOW TO TAKE WITH US OR IS IT SENT THE ORDER WILL BE ENTERED.

I'M JUST ORALLY LETTING YOU KNOW WHAT THE ORDER IS GOING TO HAVE.

AND IS THAT COMING IN THE MAIL? I'LL EMAIL IT TO THE GAL WHO DID THE PETITION, SO I'LL EMAIL IT TO HER.

MR. BEADLE USUALLY SENDS US THE ORDERS BY FRIDAY, USUALLY.

SO THEN I'LL EMAIL IT OVER TO HER AND THEN GIVE HER A LINK.

SO SHE SOUNDS GOOD.

THANK YOU. THANK. IN OUR LAST CASE TO BE HEARD TODAY IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA OF 20050-192775 FRANCIS STREET NORTHEAST.

GOOD AFTERNOON. ERIC JOHNSON, THE OWNER OF 2775 FRANCIS STREET.

I GUESS THIS IS JUST A REOCCURRING ISSUE.

WE HAD SOLD THE BUILDING AND TITLE COMPANY, DID A SEARCH ON THE BUILDING AND FOUND THAT CITY OF PALM BAY HAS PLACED A $46,000 LEAN ON THE BUILDING FOR.

CODE VIOLATIONS AND.

I WAS NEVER.

THAT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO, WAS THE FIRST THAT I EVER HEARD OF THIS CODE VIOLATION.

I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I WAS NEVER SERVED OR I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY THE CITY.

THAT'S WHERE WE START.

THEN THE OTHER ISSUE, THE DATES THAT THEY HAVE HERE.

I MEAN, I HAVE PHOTOS FROM GOOGLE EARTH SHOWING THAT THESE VEHICLES WEREN'T AT THE WEREN'T EVEN ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THAT I WAS BEING FINED AND AN EXEMPTION.

TO THIS IS 73.22.

THIS IS A BUSINESS THAT WAS OPERATING AT THIS PROPERTY.

AND PART OF THE BUSINESS INVOLVES VEHICLES THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY.

ON THE PROPERTY WHEN THIS PROCESS WAS STARTING IN 2019.

I DID. I'VE ASKED THE CITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIVING THERE AT THE TIME.

IT'S A BUSINESS. IT'S NOT A RESIDENCE.

THE BUSINESS THAT WAS IN THE PROPERTY WAS ENVIRONMENTAL HAIR CARE, INC..

HIS OWN COMMERCIAL.

I BELIEVE IT IS. ON THE PROPERTY.

THEY DO CAN'T CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S A $46,000 WING.

[00:25:09]

INDICATED YOU HAVE PHOTOS.

ONE MORE OF THOSE TAKEN. PARDON ME.

WHEN WERE THOSE TAKEN? THE GOOGLE EARTH PHOTOS THAT YOU HAVE.

AND I CAN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THIS.

IF THESE ARE INSPECTION DATES OR WHY, MAYBE SOMEBODY COULD EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

BUT I HAVE PHOTO DATES FROM.

TO JANUARY 30TH OF 2022.

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THE PROPERTY.

JANUARY 10TH, 2020.

THERE ARE THREE VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY WERE PART OF THE BUSINESS.

JANUARY 31ST, 2021.

THERE'S ONE VEHICLE ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE WAS SENT A CERTIFIED.

LETTER. CAN ANYBODY TELL ME WHO SIGNED FOR THIS CERTIFIED LETTER? AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TRACKING JUST SAYS THAT IT WAS DELIVERED TO AN ADDRESS IN PALM BAY.

AND I CAN'T GO BACK AND IT WON'T ALLOW ME TO EVEN TRACK.

THAT IT WAS DELIVERED.

AND THAT WAS OCTOBER 9TH OF 2019.

SO THE CITY SAYING THEY NOTIFIED ME ON THAT DATE CERTIFIED LETTER.

CAN ANYBODY TELL ME WHO SIGNED FOR THE CERTIFIED LETTER? IF.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES HERE.

SO, I MEAN, IT COULD BE HERE ALL DAY.

BUT HIS RESPONSE THE CITY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REDUCTION OF THIS LANE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE COLLECTED AT $750.

THE CITY IS ALSO ASKING FOR 11% OF THE TOTAL LEAN TO BE PAID, WHICH IS 5000 183 TOTAL OF $5,933.

AND IN REGARDS TO THE RECEIPT, WE JUST HAVE THE US POSTAL SERVICE TRACKING THIS AS IT WAS DELIVERED AND WE DO HAVE THE TRACKING NUMBER THAT MATCHES THE TRACKING NUMBER OF THE STUB THAT WE HAVE AND THAT WAS MAILED TO THE 2775 FRANCES STREET NORTHEAST.

OF ANY EMPLOYEES. AT THE TIME IT WAS EMPLOYEES.

AS PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THAT BUILDING EVERY SINGLE DAY AT THAT TIME, I MEAN, AS A DIRECT SALES COMPANY, WE HIRED EVERY SINGLE WEEK.

I MEAN, THERE'S SOMEBODY SIGNED FOR THE LETTER THAT WORKED FOR THE COMPANY OR SOMEBODY WAS THERE FOR AN INTERVIEW OR.

SO TWO THINGS. I MEAN, I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING, IT'S A BUSINESS THAT'S IN THERE ISN'T THE BUSINESS USES VEHICLES IS THE IS THE IS THE BUSINESS NOT QUALIFY FOR THE EXEMPTION BECAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HERE FOR THAT THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PERTINENT QUESTION TO ASK THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WHEN THEY ENTERED THEIR ORDER.

I CAN'T GO BACK AND REVISIT THE ORDER THAT THEY MADE.

THAT'S MY JURISDICTION.

QUOTE, UNQUOTE, IS LIMITED TO CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE FINE.

I CAN'T GO BACK AND REVISIT WHATEVER THEY DID.

ISSUES, I THINK CITED 73.22 OR SOMETHING OF THE CODE.

GOT FOUND IN VIOLATION 73.21.

SO. THAT'S AND AGAIN, THAT PROBABLY GOES TO ONE OF THE ISSUES YOU'RE RAISING.

BUT AGAIN, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT.

[00:30:09]

YOU ASK THE CITY OF QUESTION? IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CITY'S FILE THAT INDICATES THAT THERE WAS ANY EITHER MR. JOHNSON OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN THAT IS OFFICE REGARDING THIS CASE? THEY'RE IN HONOR ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT OUT.

NOTICE THE VIOLATION WAS SENT OUT.

NOW THERE IS NOT.

I'M GOING TO DO.

BASED ON THE CITY'S EVIDENCE, IT APPEARS THAT SOME SORT OF NOTICE DID GO OUT.

SHE WAS AS A PART OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF, SO TO SPEAK, IS ON THE APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH.

REDUCTION IN THE FINE.

BUT DENYING THAT THERE AREN'T QUESTIONS OUT THERE.

IT WOULDN'T BE A FINE IF I WAS NOTIFIED THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

AGAIN, A NOTICE WENT OUT.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO RULE AND WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM THERE.

OKAY. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR ME TO.

BRUTALLY. IGNORE THE PROCESS THAT DID HAPPEN.

BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE AG FOR THE 50 $100 IN CHAIN.

WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO REDUCE THE FINE TO $750.

I'M. DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE PAYING THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS? NO. YOU CHECKED IT AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.

I REDUCE IT TO THANK YOU.

THEY'LL SEND YOU A COPY OF THE ORDER TO.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND I'LL SIGN THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.