[0:14] Good afternoon, the August 20, 20, 26 special magistrate hearing is now in session, special magistrate John Hare and will be presiding.

[0:24] The procedure for today's hearing is as follows. As each case is called, the city representative will present the case. Once the presentation is complete, the respondent will have an opportunity to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, your relationship to the property,

[0:43] and then present your testimony.

[0:46] After testimony has concluded,

[0:48] Special Magistrate Heron

[0:50] will consider the evidence and issue of ruling.

[0:54] If you are found in violation of the code

[0:56] and administrative fee of $175 will be imposed,

[1:01] the fee cannot be waived or reduced by the Special Magistrate.

[1:05] Special Magistrate Heron,

[1:07] you have been provided with a copy of the minutes

[1:09] from the July 16th, 2026 hearing.

[1:14] Yes, I have reviewed them and they have been signed.

[1:19] Let the record reflect that the minutes have been approved.

[1:22] Kindly silence all electronic devices at this time.

[1:26] Everyone who intends to testify today, please stand and brace your right hand.

[1:35] Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give

[1:39] is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[1:44] Thank you, you may be seated.

[1:48] The first case on the agenda is item number one,

[1:52] under certifications, SM-26-095,

[1:58] 3090 West Oakland Park Boulevard, officer Angel Smith.

[2:21] Okay, officer Andrew Smith, presenting facility of Oakland Park, this is for case number SM2600953090 West Oakland Park Boulevard owner owner is couple family T.R. Bakes, Robert and Gillian CBS.

[2:40] violation is for section 8.7 B trash slash graffiti this is 33,000 not a

[2:50] Crohn original hearing date was 618, 2026 fine amount was 250 dollars per day

[2:57] starting retroactive to the date the violation was first noticed which was

[3:02] February 13, 2026 plus $175 admin fee

[3:10] so I went here to speak to

[3:12] matter.

[3:15] Yes, good afternoon. Monique Jerome on behalf of Cople Hanson and Biggs.

[3:23] Just want to ask, do you need a copy of the owner's letter of authorization?

[3:27] You can provide it to the inspector and we'll enter that into the record.

[3:33] And do you need a copy of the invoices or?

[3:39] No, I mean, it's in compliance at this time.

[3:45] So what are we doing here?

[3:49] We're here to request a reduction in the lean.

[3:52] We believe good cause exists to support our reduction

[3:55] consistent with Florida Statue 162.09,

[4:01] and the City Code Section 28.7B with the three factors

[4:06] to consider concerning our request.

[4:09] I'll tell you what what I generally and for those in the audience who potentially are in the same situation as a general rule, I'll reduce cases that are

[4:19] have been coming to compliance down to 10% which in your case that would be down to $3,300 plus a hundred seventy five dollar admin fee for a total of three thousand four hundred seventy five dollars

[4:30] Payable within 38, is that acceptable?

[4:33] Yeah, could we get 60 days to pay?

[4:36] Okay.

[4:37] Okay.

[4:37] Thank you.

[4:38] All right.

[4:39] In case S.M. 26095, address record 3090,

[4:43] West Oakland Park Boulevard, owner of record,

[4:45] the Comple Family Trust.

[4:48] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon,

[4:52] which I will accept into the record.

[4:54] The staff report and find that the matters properly

[4:56] We'll discuss a match rate, find that the property isn't compliant.

[5:00] With the section of the city code, it was cited for and the notion of violation. That compliance

[5:06] however was passed the date set forth in the set of order. As a result, a fine of $33,000 is a crude

[5:12] plus the $7,5 dollar admin fee. A grant reduction of that amount to $3,300 plus the $7,85 dollar admin

[5:21] fee payable within six days if it's not paid within six days in a revert back to the full amount.

[5:27] And at that point, city staff can record in order to that effect and it will become a lean against the property.

[5:34] Any questions?

[5:35] Thank you.

[5:35] Best of luck.

[5:44] Next slide.

[5:45] I'm number 13 under new cases, SM2615618181 Northwest 31st Court, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[5:57] Code Inspector Veneron behalf of the city, a presenting case summer SM26156, the property address is 1881 Northwest 31st Court, owner of record according to BCPA,

[6:10] is cyber SFR holding LLP.

[6:15] Manly addresses 600 gallery of Parkway, sweet 300 Atlanta, Georgia, this is not a homestead property.

[6:21] Surface was attained by certified mail posting of the property in city hall.

[6:25] This case was open on May 12th of 2026 by my observation.

[6:30] The following steps were conducted to obtain compliance.

[6:35] Notice of violation was issued and posted on 512th of 2026.

[6:40] The property was cited for the following city code ordinances.

[6:43] Section 24.65 unlicensed vehicles.

[6:47] It's prohibited to park and store an unlicensed vehicle at this residential property.

[6:51] There was contact with the property owner and anyone

[6:55] referenced this property.

[6:57] The city is requesting 30 days to comply

[6:59] or $150 per day.

[7:02] I'm submitting as evidence for the case file.

[7:05] Notice a violation.

[7:06] Photos depicting the properties.

[7:08] Condition of legal posting, BCPA per now.

[7:11] Notice to appear at the David's service and supporting evidence.

[7:15] There is representation here for this case.

[7:19] I'm going to take your name for the record, please.

[7:21] Thank you.

[7:22] Good afternoon Kevin D.ism.

[7:22] behalf of the property owner.

[7:25] You heard the staff recommendation.

[7:28] Do you have any questions?

[7:29] Do you want to dispute that there are allegations of fourth and

[7:34] no violation in the case file?

[7:38] Yes, so we spoke beforehand.

[7:40] I can show the magistrate photos.

[7:45] I originally came here with the idea that we were in compliance.

[7:49] And after a discussion with the Code enforcement officer, the position is that, as of this morning, the car reappeared.

[7:59] Now, all the feedback that we've gotten is that the tenant has complied this issue.

[8:03] Now, if that's not the case, which tenants sometimes lie, then we need to start action to remove them.

[8:13] I understand, you know, and certainly the officer can testify I do know that as a matter of routine procedure in this city as well as virtually every other city that has a code enforcement system.

[8:29] The inspector will go by the properties that are scheduled for hearing either the day before the day of to determine whether or not there's a compliance or not.

[8:38] So was that inspection conducted?

[8:43] And the vehicle was still there.

[8:44] But again, it may not be there anymore.

[8:47] Because I go by these properties on a daily basis.

[8:50] On a regular basis.

[8:52] So you may have a tenant who, to put it politely,

[8:59] is shall-game.

[9:01] They do appear to be operable.

[9:06] But from the photographs that are in the city's file,

[9:09] There are at least three vehicles there on the on the on the dates and the photographs where the vehicles were there that don't have any plates and so that that becomes the violation.

[9:23] You know, I don't have any problems with you know, granting and ordering as as recommended by staff 30 days.

[9:32] And it's just a matter of working with the inspector to verify compliance, you know, I obviously have to take him at his word.

[9:44] I'm not saying that they, you know, the photographs are the photographs, which I will accept in the record.

[9:49] But if he's saying that as of today's date, then you know, it may be as you indicated an issue with the tenant.

[9:55] And that's outside my authority.

[9:58] understood, if I may.

[10:00] For men, I have no reason to question the code enforcement officer. I personally never inspected the property, so I can't definitively say one way or the other. I, my thought, after speaking with the code enforcement officer, if there was a way to roll this in the next month, to see either A, if the tenant, did comply, and if I can produce more evidence, one way or the other, or if he did it, and he's lying, then we need to initiate the eviction action, which is going to be substantially more than 30 days.

[10:28] The seven day notice the cure alone is going to take us some time and then we still need to file.

[10:35] You know, we're really just slicing the pie a different way, you know, sort of right to left left right.

[10:42] We still end up with the same amount of slices in the same place.

[10:48] Question.

[10:48] Because what's going to end up happening is, you know, I give you the 30 days,

[10:55] So, which is what the recommendation staff is, and we come back here,

[11:04] and this is between you and your client, they're paying you to come back second time, as opposed to the 30 days, you know, the 30 day time period to come back is the same, so either it's incompliance within the next 30 days or it's not, and the fine would begin to run.

[11:23] Or we postpone it, and again, the client is potentially out of the money to have you come back again.

[11:34] And I, as often as I'm over here, sometimes come over there.

[11:39] And we do what the client tells us to do.

[11:42] So, to staff have any objection to that.

[11:45] I mean, you know, you are going to have to interact with the code officer of regular basis

[11:53] because again, it may be unfortunately not the first time I've seen this here in other

[12:00] locations.

[12:01] It's just a shell game where the tenant is moving the vehicles when they know you're

[12:08] coming out or someone on behalf of the landlords coming out and they just, and they reappear.

[12:13] I don't know if he's selling the vehicles or working on them or what, but

[12:19] When I spoke for the first time with the tenant

[12:22] Those two vehicles are our licenses those vehicles were for the sun and an F.U.

[12:28] And he asked me to give him an extension because he was trying to get the paperwork and so forth and get them registered

[12:33] I did. I was a Curtis in those that afterwards when I saw that it didn't happen

[12:38] I went ahead and issued the notice violation, but could be fair, there's only one vehicle left there, it's the accurate.

[12:45] That's left, the other cars are gone, that were unlicensed.

[12:48] But again, if...

[12:50] All right, Bill, by there.

[12:51] Do you have a distraction to continue the matter for 30 days?

[12:56] I mean, we're, you know, like, as I said, we're some degree back the same place in 30 days.

[13:02] Either it's been resolved or you're coming back before me and, you know, because you have a...

[13:08] problem with the tenant, not necessarily with with with the city. So to speak. So based on the evidence

[13:15] and the communication between the officer and the tenant, the city would not object to another

[13:19] extension. All right. Then in case S S M 26, 156, address record 1, 8, 8, 1 North West 31,

[13:28] court owner of record, Cerebrus, SFR holdings to L.P. We'll continue the matter for 30 days.

[13:37] Obviously, if you have obtained a card from the inspector, make sure you do before you leave

[13:43] and follow up because he will have to go out and re-inspect prior to the hearing next month.

[13:53] And hopefully we'll get to disposal and resolve before then. We won't have to come back

[13:58] or I will, you won't have to come back.

[14:02] Thank you.

[14:02] A question, do we know that hearing date now?

[14:05] Or that's a notice in the next day is September 17th.

[14:13] Same time, same location, same bat channel.

[14:18] Thank you, everyone.

[14:19] That's a lot.

[14:29] Next is item number eight under new cases.

[14:35] S M 26 1 50 1 0 0 1 with Oakland Park Boulevard officer Angel Smith

[14:49] is there someone here on behalf of

[14:53] Lose

[14:54] Is this this is Lose home center right I heard the case number it wasn't

[15:00] Let's talk a little bit. Before we move on, this was on the agenda last month, I believe, or the month

[15:11] before, and we pulled it. You often staff pulled it, but at the time I had mentioned that this

[15:17] particular matter creates a problem for me, because my firm does work for lows and other

[15:29] public, normally what would happen and this situation, this matters, then we'll get referred

[15:37] to the city's code enforcement board, which doesn't have the problem I have.

[15:42] And then you have to appear before them.

[15:45] You know, obviously we're in an open forum, you have the opportunity to say whatever you

[15:50] want to staff in the way of trying to resolve the matter before you leave here today or find

[15:55] what needs to be done, but for the reasons I stated on the record, I, you know,

[16:01] ethically, I am prohibited from hearing this matter, and it would have to be

[16:06] rescheduled and reset before the code enforcement board because of the conflict

[16:11] and interest I have through my law firm.

[16:14] I understood Anna Barton on behalf of Lowe's.

[16:17] I was not aware, and I don't believe there's any paperwork showing that this has been

[16:21] called for hearing in the prior month, so I'm not sure what that's about.

[16:26] But you can take a look at the file.

[16:31] There is the notice of violation hearing as well as the underlying notice of violation.

[16:37] What would normally happen during the course of the hearing is staff would part of their presentation.

[16:45] Their testimony would indicate or testify that they followed the statutory and code procedures for noticing the hearing.

[16:52] And that's in the file, you know, again, historically 99% of the time, 99.9 when they testify

[17:02] that they follow the procedures for noticing, it's that it did go to the corporate center,

[17:10] not necessarily locally, because that's what shows up on the Broward County property

[17:17] And that's what you have to follow pursuant to chapter 162.

[17:23] So, you know, there was a notice issued.

[17:26] Right, and perhaps the code enforcement officer can help me hear was this

[17:30] issue was a hearing issue last, because we've been in contact.

[17:34] And this is the first hearing notice that I'm aware of in this case altogether.

[17:38] I was not aware that there was a hearing notice or that this is the second time that it's been set.

[17:43] there was a a prior hearing scheduled either last month, no, or a month before and it wasn't

[17:50] held staff would approve the matter and reset it. Okay. This is the first hearing. This is

[17:58] the first hearing. Okay. And but we never received notices of a prior hearing and I did have an

[18:03] opportunity to look at the record that the code enforcement officer put together and I don't see

[18:09] that there was any notice for a July hearing.

[18:13] So I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

[18:16] Oh, this notice went out, give me a moment.

[18:20] I'll tell you, let me give this.

[18:22] And maybe this is all for not, if it's going to be reset,

[18:25] but I just want to make sure that I'm not missing information.

[18:30] I have that the violation notice and the date case established

[18:37] was June 18th and then the next document we have is a notice of hearing that sets today

[18:46] as the hearing date. So the notice of violation

[18:53] was

[19:07] issued on 1618-2026 appears

[19:15] And the notice of hearing,

[19:29] I don't see the date, but it does state on it that the hearing

[19:33] is today on a compliance needed to be obtained.

[19:42] I copy this notice of violation hearing was mailed deliver to the above, violator at the

[19:46] address state below, honor before 8, 10, 20, 26.

[19:52] Right. So that's why I'm confused about the July year that was never noticed.

[19:57] The July year ends and I don't have an in front of me. May have been.

[20:00] Council before notices even went out. Okay, that was the case. You would never receive a notice. Okay.

[20:05] The contracts with the record shows, because it shows, and actually I do have questions about that because

[20:12] what was, well, before I get into the record and questions given the conflict.

[20:17] So how do we proceed here? Do we proceed and we just have a vote board?

[20:22] What will happen is that a new notice of hearing will be generated, and it will be sent.

[20:27] And I will tell you that unless you make arrangements here, and believe me, I, because, as I said to the previous attorney, it's a lot of times I'm over there, and part of the problem that I experience with some of my corporate clients is that notices go to Virginia, and, you know, next thing I know what I'm getting requests for one of my colleagues, hey, can you go to hearing tomorrow?

[20:54] because that's the first, you know, we know of it here locally.

[20:59] So, you know, you can make arrangements with Inspector to receive a copy.

[21:05] But in order to comply with the state statute and the city code,

[21:09] notice we'll have to be sent to the corporate address that's set forth on the

[21:14] the Broward County Property Prices website, which is in North Carolina.

[21:21] So, you know, and I don't know how it trickles down internally, this I said before, and that's the same issue, but it will be scheduled and I don't know when the next code board meeting meets, they may be able to staff may be able to, should be able to tell you that.

[21:43] I believe the next code board may be not October, but I don't have the exact date.

[21:46] My recommendation would be to get with in this Smith and maybe explain what has to be done exactly and more than likely you'll be able to comply before that hearing

[21:55] We've been happy. Okay, there'll be no rule in today. Okay, so there's no fine. There's nothing that will happen today.

[22:01] So I will I will save everyone's time and not get into the specifics of the case or what's going on and then I'll be in touch with officer Smith.

[22:10] All right. Well, thank you.

[22:16] Hold on, ma'am, don't leave. Hold on a minute. Did I say lows or home depot?

[22:25] Lowes. Lowes. The last time. Because home depot is also on the schedule. Now that I see

[22:33] it, it's literally happens to be the one just before your case. I'm trying to think. Where

[22:39] do I have the conflict?

[22:43] Was last time?

[22:44] And maybe that's why you have a recollection of it being punted one day.

[22:48] Can you take us, just don't leave.

[22:50] Let me, let me inquire.

[22:54] I don't have a reason why I don't tell you.

[22:59] If you give me a moment,

[23:04] I will ask my assistant to check very quickly.

[23:21] You're not called.

[23:23] Give me a moment.

[23:23] So,

[23:46] hey, I need you to do something very quickly.

[23:51] Check to see if we are system-wide or not.

[23:53] We represent Home Depot or those above the stream.

[23:59] I know we have a conflict with at least one of them.

[24:04] And then either email me or text me.

[24:08] Okay, thanks.

[24:12] All right, let's, we'll call back.

[24:17] case SM-26156. No, I'm sorry. SM-26150 in a moment and call the next one.

[24:30] Okay, not home depot. Oh, next one is home depot as well. Who's the representative?

[24:36] Same issue, ma'am. So I'm checking to see whether or not I have a conflict with one of the two.

[24:44] So I'm trying to find out which one it is so I can let one or both of you leave and as the same thing.

[24:52] It'll be scheduled before the city's code enforcement board which staff can provide you that.

[25:00] Information, you know, after.

[25:03] Tracy Lundschleiger, but Greenberg, Troy. So I understand conflicts.

[25:08] Yes.

[25:11] Yes. Let's go with the next one.

[25:14] Next is item number eight under certifications. SM260 to 1, 3, 5, 6, 0, northwest, 5th Avenue, officer,

[25:24] Gilbert, the narrow.

[25:37] It's effective in our own behalf of the city presenting KSSM 26021 property address of 3560 North West 5th Avenue

[25:47] Onore record is Samir and Fatima Abdullah

[25:53] The actual amount of 17,850 dollars is non-accruing. They have complied as of August 17th of 2026

[26:02] And Mr. Samir's here

[26:08] Sorry, your name is for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Tamir Abu Zaykh. I'm the owner of 35-16 our voice. Hey, Tavini.

[26:15] Okay. You are in compliance?

[26:18] Yes.

[26:19] What do you want?

[26:21] Same thing?

[26:22] Yes.

[26:23] All right.

[26:24] As I said before, again, for the benefit of anyone in the audience.

[26:28] You come for me.

[26:30] And any of these accrued fines.

[26:33] standard reduction is 10% which in your case would mean instead of

[26:38] 17,000, 850 dollars, put the 175 dollar admin fee.

[26:43] You would owe $1,785 plus a 175, which is a total of 1,960 payable within 30 days.

[26:52] Is that acceptable?

[26:52] Understood.

[26:53] All right.

[26:54] So in case of some 26.02.1, address record, 35.60, northwest 5th Avenue,

[27:00] on a record some year I would add and I'm not sure if I got them right. I'm going to

[27:09] accept into the record the staff report and find that the matter is properly before the

[27:13] special magistrate and based upon the MS testimony presented here this afternoon I'm going to

[27:17] find that the special magistrate's prior order of finding the property to be in violation of section

[27:22] 5.3A permits requires the code of work on park has been complied with but was complied with after

[27:28] the date set forth in the, uh,

[27:31] it's a special mass rate order.

[27:32] It's a result of a fine of $17,000 in the $50.

[27:35] It's a crude plus $175 admin fee.

[27:38] I'm going to reduce that amount down to $1,785 plus $175 admin fee.

[27:44] For total $1,960 payable within 30 days.

[27:47] If it's not paid within this 30 days,

[27:49] it'll revert back to the full amount plus the admin fee

[27:52] and staff will record an order of that effect

[27:54] and it'll become a lean against the property.

[27:56] Any questions?

[27:56] That's the luck, thank you.

[28:04] Next slide, I'm number 11 under certifications, SM-26026490 Northwest 37 Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[28:29] Inspector Venero on behalf of the city, presenting case SM-26026 property address of 490 Northwest 37 Street.

[28:39] This property was cited for work without permit.

[28:43] It has been in compliance as of 717 of 26.

[28:46] There's a non-accruity amount of 13,200 and the property owner is here.

[28:55] Your name for the record, sir?

[28:57] Tima Fijsubillian, owner.

[28:59] And you're the property owner?

[29:01] Yes.

[29:01] Okay.

[29:01] You're in compliance.

[29:03] Finally, sir.

[29:05] And I would love to ask you to pay attention to that.

[29:09] I was a victim of contractor fraud and I was doing everything that I could to make it in compliance

[29:17] and I was never intended to do any illegal things.

[29:22] And if it's possible, sir, if you can wave this entirely, that would be great.

[29:29] I understand, I, you know, can I mean, you for asking, I mean, it's nothing wrong for asking,

[29:35] but I have to treat everyone the same way.

[29:37] otherwise, you know, I get accused of, you know, an equal treatment, and therefore, I will

[29:44] give you the same relief that I have offered to the other property owners who've come

[29:48] before you, which is to reduce your accrued find down to 10%, which in your case would

[29:53] be $1,320 plus the $175 admin fee for total $1,494.

[30:00] $5, which payable within 30 days.

[30:03] Okay.

[30:04] It sounds good.

[30:05] All right.

[30:05] It's like I don't have five.

[30:08] As the case, SM26026 address a record, $490 northwest 30-seventh street, owner of record,

[30:16] to me, is a billing.

[30:18] I hope I got that right.

[30:20] Going to find that the, basically, on the other testimony presented here, the afternoon,

[30:25] I will accept into the record staff report, find the matters properly before the special

[30:29] administration, make a determination that the previous order of the special

[30:33] mastery has been complied, but came in a compliance passed the deadline

[30:39] set forth and said orders a result. A fine of $13,200 has accrued. It's no longer

[30:45] accruing plus the $175 admin fee. It will reduce that down to $1,320 plus the

[30:51] $175 admin fee for total $1,495 payable within 30 days if it's not paid

[30:57] within that time frame, then it will revert back to the original amount, and then staff will

[31:01] record an order to that effect in the public records that will become a lean of the

[31:05] property, which I'm sure you don't want.

[31:08] So, just make sure you go ahead and get that paid within the third day, thanks.

[31:11] Thank you for coming.

[31:13] All right.

[31:15] Next slide.

[31:15] Number nine, SM-26-022-2819 North Oakland Forest Drive CH, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[31:35] Inspection of the narrow presenting case, SM260022, property address of 2018 North Oakland Forest Drive Clubhouse.

[31:46] This is a violation for Section 5.3.

[31:51] Permission required.

[31:53] The property has an amount of $8,500.

[31:57] dollars, not a crewing. I believe that it was evaded and you gave it on the last hearing

[32:04] a 30-day continuance. But as of yet, I believe that the permits have not been cured.

[32:10] Madam,

[32:15] your name for the record.

[32:16] I can be a police astro, like the club kind of name association.

[32:26] I remember you coming before me.

[32:30] We, as staff said, we held the fine advance pending submission of the proper paperwork for the permit.

[32:40] What's the hold it?

[32:41] I had some communication issues I believe in exactly what needed to be completed at the property.

[32:48] We've been able to, since then, we've been talking with Antonio a lot, we have a new vendor that is handling everything he's working with not only the chief plumbing inspector, but also the Department of Health.

[33:02] He is working also with an engineer. They are getting the permits together.

[33:08] We work just recently notified of additional items that need to be included, including the backflow devices we need to separate.

[33:15] So, it seems to be continuous additions to what needs to be done and they've not been able to focus on just the permits because there are a lot of other issues that are encompassing this.

[33:29] And we want to get them all resolved it once.

[33:31] My contractor has asked if we could get an extension to get the permits submitted.

[33:36] Get everything in order so we are 110% in compliance with both Department of Health and the City of Oakland Park and the permits that are required.

[33:45] And everything is up to par.

[33:48] He asked me if I could request 90 days,

[33:52] because we do still have to do permits of mission.

[33:58] Obviously, the request for 90 days,

[34:01] I'll make an inquiry of staff to see what their position is on this,

[34:06] but I'll make one observation before staff responds.

[34:11] I understand and appreciate the concept of trying to wrap up everything

[34:16] and at one time, but I will give you some unsolicited advice, but the city is independent

[34:30] of the Department of Health, and while you may have issues with them, and I certainly

[34:35] encourage you to resolve those. You know, at the end of the day, I only have jurisdiction

[34:43] over the city's case. And let's assume for the moment that, based upon your request, I give

[34:52] you additional time, but yet you're still, and your contractor still running into problems

[34:57] with the Department of Health, not the city.

[35:00] And at that point in time, you know, as they say, you have to cut or, you know, fish cut bait, how you're going to proceed, because the, you know, the city is going to start, you know, the fines will start accruing.

[35:14] So I have three pools and two hot tubs, so it's a lot to control right now.

[35:20] Okay. So I do ask for staff.

[35:27] I would refer this to my supervisor.

[35:29] He has fun.

[35:32] Thank you, sir.

[35:33] Is the pool currently open?

[35:36] Yes, it is.

[35:37] It's currently open even though it's.

[35:38] One is to are.

[35:40] The health department is allowing this pool to be able to.

[35:42] Yes, absolutely.

[35:43] They have, they have no problem with this pool.

[35:45] We've got, like I said, there's three pools, two hot toasts.

[35:49] And we're trying to tackle all of them, all of the above.

[35:53] And it's been a long process.

[35:54] It's been very challenging because of everything involved.

[35:58] We just secured the new vendor this month,

[36:01] actually, the Brussels poll company, just this month,

[36:04] and he's been working with Anthony.

[36:06] And it was brought to our attention that all three pools

[36:08] need to have a separate backflow device

[36:10] so we had to look into that.

[36:12] It's just been a lot of back and forth.

[36:15] This needs to be done now.

[36:16] So now we have to stop what we're doing

[36:18] and jump into that immediately to satisfy the request.

[36:24] The city would be agreeable to 60 more days at this point with fine starting to occur again after the 60 if they still don't

[36:32] Compliance so that's that's what we'll do well. We'll give 60 days and again. I you know, I would

[36:40] Purely because it's all I have control over or that I'm involved in is you may want to focus on

[36:47] you know the

[36:49] cities and, I can't speak for the Department of Health, what they may or may not assess in the way of potential fines for whatever they need to be their violations.

[37:01] So, you know, 60 days if you got to get the permit in for the city work and, you know, then we can consider the additional things.

[37:14] But if it's not brought into compliance within that 60-day timeframe,

[37:19] the fine will start accruing in, retroactive to the initial date.

[37:25] So there's going to be that much more of a fine accrued.

[37:30] We will be done with the health department today, literally today.

[37:33] So tomorrow they will focus on the permits and everything else.

[37:37] I'll tell them to put back flow on the back burner.

[37:40] Okay.

[37:41] All right.

[37:41] That's okay.

[37:42] SM-26022 address,

[37:47] 19 North Oakland Forest Drive,

[37:51] owner record,

[37:52] Oakland Forest Property Owners Association.

[37:55] I have reviewed and the dated staff report.

[37:59] It's in the record.

[38:01] Find the matters properly for the special magistrate

[38:03] and grant the request of both the applicant

[38:08] and the city or the property owner

[38:11] of 60 day continuance, if the required permits are not obtained within that 60 day time period,

[38:20] then the fines will begin to accrue retroactive back to the original date and at some point

[38:29] staff can bring it back for certification at that point. So, you know, wish you the best and obviously

[38:36] stay in contact with the inspector to make sure that you get in compliance.

[38:44] All right.

[38:45] That's what?

[38:45] Okay, thank you.

[38:46] Have a great day.

[38:47] Thank you too.

[38:53] I'm sorry.

[38:55] Oh, here.

[38:56] Let

[38:59] me see.

[39:13] Hey.

[39:14] You have an answer?

[39:17] Yeah.

[39:18] I'm in the middle of the hearing.

[39:19] I'm in the middle of the hearing where the issues come up.

[39:22] So I need an answer now.

[39:41] but they both pop up.

[39:57] Okay.

[39:58] All right.

[39:59] All right.

[40:07] We're talking about agenda items 7 and 8 on the agenda. I've been informed that either current or past colleagues of mine have represented both entities, they appear to have been at least some of them closed, but we don't know for sure.

[40:32] So just in a matter of months of caution, I'm just going to punt and have both matters

[40:38] referred to the city's code enforcement board to remove that concern or that issue.

[40:46] And so you know, you all can also move forward with some level of certainty and staff can

[40:50] move forward with certain levels of a level of certainty.

[40:54] And I just, you know, obviously tell you all that everything and the same thing I've said

[40:59] everyone who's come before see if you can work things out with staff before you have to go before the

[41:04] code enforcement board and save yourself in your clients some time and trouble.

[41:09] Best of luck, both of you. So the city withdrawals SM26149 and SM26150 from this agenda.

[41:16] All right. Best of luck. Thank you for showing.

[41:32] Two in one time. One hearing.

[41:34] first time that's happened.

[41:39] No,

[41:42] I'm not.

[41:46] I'm surprised that, you know, because as you all know, we

[41:51] we run these through our internal conflict check before I even come here and they don't

[42:07] in 2006, zero to five, one, nine, three, zero,

[42:10] Northwest, 33rd, Ford, Officer, Gilbert, Bernero.

[42:22] Inspector Bernero, presenting KCCM, 26, 025,

[42:26] property address of 1930, Northwest, 33rd, court.

[42:30] O'Nore record is Christopher Lick.

[42:34] The actual violation has been complied

[42:37] as of July 17th of 2026.

[42:40] There's a non-accruing amount of $7,000,

[42:42] And a representative is here on behalf of the owner.

[42:50] Sure, your name for the record.

[42:51] Right, Hustler.

[42:53] On behalf of the owner.

[42:55] You've heard what I've offered to the other property owners.

[42:58] I'd make the same offer to you.

[43:01] A little bit more, I think, than that.

[43:04] We have, I spoke to Officer Richter.

[43:07] Officer Richter has a email on file that the permit was supposed to be issued on the ninth.

[43:14] But the chief building inspector had went out of town before this happened, and it was supposed to be occurred.

[43:21] Hold on, I understand I appreciate that.

[43:25] All I have to base, I can base my determination on and what's in the record is,

[43:31] one was the permit issued.

[43:33] And that's, you know, the circumstances of when or how it might have been delayed.

[43:38] You know, that's part of the process of getting a permit from any governmental jurisdiction.

[43:46] So, you know, you have staff as a group has stated that it was issued from further date.

[43:56] Is there any further reduction?

[43:59] The date was actually corrected to reflect 717.

[44:02] So that is the correct date, taking a consideration that the chief, you know,

[44:08] a permit inspector was going on vacation in the sheet.

[44:11] I would assume that someone else could have issued the permit on behalf of the city.

[44:16] And is there only one person within the city who issues building permits or

[44:21] approved building permits on behalf of the city?

[44:24] Again, the code officer and director.

[44:28] I spoke with Patricia at the chief structural inspector.

[44:31] She went on vacation for two weeks.

[44:33] She advised me that this permit should have been issued the day

[44:39] she before she left.

[44:41] She did not get to it, but it was issued.

[44:44] It was passed in her book as issued and passed plain review.

[44:49] That is why the...

[44:50] And what was that date?

[44:53] July 17th.

[44:54] I confirmed with her.

[44:56] I thought they said July 9th.

[44:57] That's our year.

[44:57] No.

[44:58] Okay.

[44:59] Yeah.

[45:00] And what was the five? It would be reduced down to $700 plus the $175 admin fee for a total of $8, under $75, payable within 30 days.

[45:12] Yes, sir.

[45:14] All right. This case, SM-2625, address record, $193, North West 33rd Court, owner of record-christ for Lake.

[45:24] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, I will accept into the record of the staff report and find the matters properly before the special magistrate and the in said case make a determination that the previous order of the special magistrate finding the property to be in violation section 5.3 a permits required city code of a compartment park has been complied with but was complied with past the date set forth and said order as a result of fine of $7,000 as a crude plus the hundred seventy five

[45:52] I'm sorry, $175 admin fee. I will reduce that down to $700. Plus the $175 admin fee for total of $185 payable within 30 days, but it's not paid within that time frame, then the fine will revert back to the full amount and staff can report in order to that effect in the public records of Broward County and the same shall constantly need to get to the property.

[46:19] Next slide, I'm number two under new cases, SM-26144-1510 North West 41st Street, Officer

[46:29] Tetskardina.

[46:38] Officer Tetskardina, City of Oakland Park, Case Number, SM-26144,

[46:43] Property of Justice, 1501 North West 41st Street, The Honor of Recorded is Mr. Juan

[46:48] Deep Benitez. Service was obtained by a certified mail posting to property and City Hall.

[46:54] This case was opened based on my observation.

[46:57] The property was cited for section 24, 64, B1, commercial vehicle, and section 24,

[47:04] 80, I3, grass parking, residential.

[47:08] On May 12th, 2026, I noticed was a violation was issued to Mr. Lombonite desk for non-compliance

[47:14] of the above mentioned violations of the municipal code.

[47:18] My observations, while portraying my assigned zones, I observed multiple vehicles parked

[47:23] on the grass at the property on several different occasions

[47:26] over the course of several weeks.

[47:28] I initially issued a courtesy notice

[47:30] advising the residents of the violation

[47:32] and requesting that they discontinue parking on the grass.

[47:36] Despite the courtesy notice and the notice of violation

[47:38] that I issued the violations continued to occur,

[47:42] the city is requesting the following,

[47:45] do the recurring nature of this violation

[47:47] and the prior warning and violation issued

[47:50] the city's requesting a one-time fee of $250, $250,

[47:54] regardless of compliance in an order to remain in compliance.

[47:58] I am submitting as evidence the case file includes

[48:01] the notice of violation, photographs, BCPA print out,

[48:05] notice to appear,

[48:11] let me step back here for one second.

[48:16] The fines, I did amend the fines.

[48:20] So due to the recurring nature,

[48:21] I'm not gonna go through where that.

[48:22] we're going to give them 15 days to correct the violation and if they don't correct it would be

[48:31] $150 per day. So I'm going to strike the recurring nature of the violation. The violation again

[48:39] so I submitted the affidaves of service, the code case history report, and the code case history,

[48:44] details report, photographs of the code case postings, USB tracking number, and this is the city's case.

[48:59] May I mean your name for the record?

[49:01] Veronica Sorano and I'm the owner's daughter.

[49:04] Okay.

[49:07] You've heard, yeah.

[49:09] I get it.

[49:10] I hear it.

[49:10] Yeah.

[49:12] So, you know, I've looked at the photograph and you're more than welcome to you.

[49:15] It's okay, trust me, I know.

[49:17] You know, we're...

[49:20] I think what I'm hearing from staff and just sharing with you from what I'm...

[49:26] But, you know, this is Pierce B.A. recurring issue and needs to be taken care of and

[49:33] looked at the photographs.

[49:34] I mean, we're not talking, you know, a lot of times I'll have a case like this where,

[49:39] you know, there's one car that's parked on the grass.

[49:42] I know.

[49:43] You know, they're parked all over the yard.

[49:46] Yeah, I know.

[49:47] This is something I spoke to my dad about, too, because he has a business and he has

[49:51] his work.

[49:51] tricks in his personal car, but I told him it's too many cars, but you know, I, I, yeah, so, you know,

[50:00] The commercial vehicle with a box truck can't be there at all other than just, you know, whoever it is coming for lunch, it can't be parked there in a permanent basis or overnight.

[50:16] So, you know, commercial vehicles are recording the city zoning code need to be maintained and parked overnight and kept in commercial zoning districts, not residential neighborhoods.

[50:28] And so, and then separate from that obviously is the multitude of cars and the parked all over the grass.

[50:37] You know,

[50:40] I'm going to find unless you tell me something compelling, which I've not heard so far,

[50:46] I'm going to find the property in violation and give you the 15 days, you know, and hopefully it gets resolved.

[50:52] to get, you know, in theory the cars could be moved as soon as you leave pick up the phone

[50:58] and call, you know, hey, they need to be removed and I'm not saying because I guess in theory

[51:10] I don't know necessarily the zoning district you could potentially expand the driveway to

[51:19] That's what I was going to say. I'm sorry. That's what I was going to say.

[51:22] One of the things I want to ask today just for my dad because I've been told him to come here

[51:26] and ask, you know, if we want to expand, if there is a problem, like is there a certain,

[51:33] you know what I mean, like you would, you would have to talk to the zoning department.

[51:39] The zoning department, the planning, which is, you can, while you're here, you can make an

[51:43] appointment to speak to someone about what that process is. You might be able to get space for

[51:52] two additional cars on the driveway, my guess, but if there's more than that, there's going to,

[51:58] you know, a more permanent solution is to wear those vehicles from maintain, has to be,

[52:03] they can't be on the grass. I would suggest you bring a copy of a survey. If you can get a copy of

[52:13] I'll be a lot better.

[52:18] All right.

[52:19] Then in case SM26144, add just record 1550.

[52:24] By the way, I'll start reading you said 1501, not 1510.

[52:29] I believe it's 1510.

[52:35] OK, 1510 Northwest 41st Street, owner record 1 beneath this.

[52:41] I'm going to accept into the record staff report

[52:44] and find that the matter is probably

[52:46] before the special mass trait.

[52:48] And based upon the honest testimony presented

[52:49] to hear this afternoon. I'm going to find that the property and property are in violation

[52:53] section 26, I'm sorry, 24.64 B1 commercial vehicles and section 24.80 I3,

[53:01] grass parking residents, a zoning district, a C code of Ocon Park, give the property under 15

[53:06] days to come into compliance by removing the vehicles. If not, a fine of $150 a day for each

[53:13] and noncompliance thereafter and also assess the 175 dollar admin fee. So 15 days, the vehicles have to be moved in 15 days.

[53:23] You can then meet with staff and talk to staff about a long-term solution. But in the meantime.

[53:30] That's okay.

[53:31] I did finally get a response from my assistant,

[53:55] the Home Depot, Home Depot USA, Inc.

[54:01] Low's home centers with different names as well.

[54:08] We have done more side builds, more comfortable.

[54:13] Next slide, I'm number three under certifications, SM-26031-4750 northeast, sixth avenue officer

[54:24] will sink in terror?

[54:30] Spectacle can tell on behalf of the city. I'm presenting case S and 26,

[54:34] 031 for the property located of 4750, notice six avenue.

[54:39] Code case 2020, 0917, 970.

[54:47] The property was cited for 5.38 per misrequire.

[54:52] The only permits are still pending and in reviews is the interior renovations.

[54:58] And it is 15th up.

[55:00] Some 500 dollars a current original hearing was $2,026 to be comply by $6,019,026. The final amount is $250 per day.

[55:19] Your name for the record, sir?

[55:20] Good afternoon. Are you Sharma?

[55:23] Okay.

[55:24] And you are one of the property owners?

[55:26] Yes, sir.

[55:30] So you originally had a hearing back in June.

[55:38] And based upon the amount of the fine,

[55:41] I'm trying to tell you some of my educated guests,

[55:44] were you here?

[55:45] My older brother was.

[55:47] Okay.

[55:48] All right.

[55:50] You know, you need a permit.

[55:53] So what's, you know, what's going on?

[55:55] Because you're still not in compliance.

[55:57] All right.

[55:58] So we have permits submitted

[56:00] we're working with an engineer from March 6th.

[56:04] I have like an agreement signed with the engineer, we have windows and driveway permits already closed.

[56:12] The only permits that are left are interior renovations like Mr. Wilson said.

[56:17] And the engineer is actively working on revisions and I have like a proof like paper that he gave me as well and a letter signed by the engineer.

[56:27] And he says that at any moment now, we should have the permits close, but we are out of good faith still working.

[56:34] As soon as we got the violation, we've been working with the engineer.

[56:39] And yeah, I'd have like the letter signed by the engineer. I don't know if you want to take a look at it.

[56:47] Here's the issue that we have, procedurally.

[56:53] The matter before me is to make a determination, whether you're in compliance or not,

[57:00] because the order we already had a hearing where the violation was deemed to exist, and

[57:07] you were given a period of time to come in compliance.

[57:14] I'm suspecting that your older brother didn't tell you what I'm about to say to you and, again, for the benefit of everyone here, is if you're here on a violation, which is the first step in the process.

[57:32] If I always tell everyone, if you're running in a trouble, getting a permit or getting whatever

[57:38] approvals it is that you may need to come into compliance, you need to make sure that you're

[57:44] talking to the code enforcement officer and you're asking for an extension of time.

[57:49] Because if not, we get to the stage where we're at here today, on your case, where three

[57:54] months have gone by, and nothing has been, you know, the process has not been completed.

[57:59] And in a vacuum now, I'm being asked by staff to an under the state's law and the city code to make a determination that you're still not in compliance and authorize staff to record an order to that effect and that

[58:21] a $15,000 or $15,500 of fine has already accrued and continues to accrue on a daily basis in

[58:30] the amount of $250 and I can tell you the reason why I assessed the $250 fine when your

[58:38] brother was here is you did work without a permit period and so no one knows if that work

[58:45] safe. No one knows if it's up to code and people and lives are at risk and yes you're working

[58:51] with an engineer. I don't know if he's if that letter indicates that he's already reviewed and

[59:01] and you know because I know sometimes the particular with the building certification,

[59:08] the engineer has to submit a record, a letter saying it's safe while they finish the the improvements.

[59:14] I don't know if that's what they provided.

[59:17] Mr. Charmin, let us, you give, you give 10 days to go and confirm that there's no danger

[59:23] or something by a licensed guy, prevent any danger to the people, but he let us go inside.

[59:31] The other thing you want to take in consideration, he lives in New York, he's not in charge

[59:34] of the property. Mr. Charmin has a major, major surgery in New York. He's prevented

[59:42] to do a lot of stuff.

[59:43] I mean, there's many communication with me.

[59:45] I don't have an objection to, you know,

[59:49] according to the current representative

[59:54] that they feel that the permit will be issued within next year.

[1:00:00] Five to ten days, giving time on both sides, which then would bring them into compliance.

[1:00:08] I don't have an objection to conting the matter for 30 days, but I'm telling you that if you're

[1:00:16] engineers saying, hey, it's going to be done. You need to make sure that it's done, because then you can come back

[1:00:22] And potentially ask for reduction of the accrued fine, because, again, as I said before, you're at 15,500 and

[1:00:32] accruing on $250 a day, so 30 days is going to be that much more.

[1:00:37] So the sooner you can get the permit issued, it'll stop the fine, stop the bleeding, so to speak, and then you can come back and ask for a reduction of the accrued fine.

[1:00:49] And I had a question, because we've been working with the engineer for almost nine months now,

[1:00:57] I believe, is it possible to stop the cruel of the fine and just to stop the cruel of the fine.

[1:01:06] And we'll show it like, I like to think that we've been showing good faith, just we've been working with the engineers.

[1:01:10] And I understand what you're saying my concern or my issues that I have is that, as I said before,

[1:01:22] I give the admonition or the statement that look if you're running into trouble,

[1:01:28] make sure that you talk to the officer and get back before me.

[1:01:32] And so, you didn't.

[1:01:37] And while you have been working with staff,

[1:01:39] I will tell you that if you had come back before me,

[1:01:42] and they had said the same thing, and you said the same thing,

[1:01:44] I would have given you an extension of time up front,

[1:01:47] and no fines would have accrued to begin with.

[1:01:50] But here we are.

[1:01:51] We're doing this, as they say, anyone take this wrong,

[1:01:55] ass backwards,

[1:01:58] the extension of time

[1:02:00] should have been requested up front, rather at this point in time.

[1:02:05] So, you know, does staff have any issues

[1:02:07] with holding the fine in the bans during the 30-day period?

[1:02:13] I can tell you that if you don't,

[1:02:16] it's going to revert back to the full amount.

[1:02:19] Why, within 30 days, you said?

[1:02:22] Yeah, so, you know, if you don't get it resolved

[1:02:27] And the permit issued when we come back here in 30 days, it will revert back so the $250 per day will be put back into the pot, so to speak, if I hold in the bants during that time period.

[1:02:44] I understand, I mean, so like Mr. Wilson said, my brother's the one who was in charge of the construction and he had a really bad back accident

[1:02:52] his wedding week and he's in New York right now. I'm from New York, we're from New York and we bought the house for our parents

[1:02:59] and they haven't been able to move in just because the permits are having been closed.

[1:03:04] So right now he's still recovering from back surgery and like he told me about the letter a couple weeks ago and he was in contact with Mr. Wilson.

[1:03:14] up until, you know, the accident.

[1:03:16] So, I honestly don't have the full picture of what should be done,

[1:03:20] and what shouldn't be done.

[1:03:22] All I know is that out of good faith,

[1:03:23] we have been working with the engineers.

[1:03:26] If I knew that we needed to request the extension,

[1:03:29] I know my brother did.

[1:03:31] We would have definitely just kept in contact with Mr. Wilson

[1:03:34] and asked for that extension.

[1:03:37] So, I was hoping that we can maybe get that fine,

[1:03:42] I understand that we can't leave it, but also like an extension as well on the permits.

[1:03:52] The differential between now and 30 days is going to be $750.

[1:03:57] I give you the mitigation request, assuming we come to compliance.

[1:04:10] So, City would go with the 30 day continuous, however, we would like to find to continue when they come back before you, for the certification, it could be looked at at that time.

[1:04:19] Yeah, I mean, let's keep the fine accruing now.

[1:04:23] Just as if you heard one of the cases before, if you get the permit issued, let's say in two days or three days or whatever, it stops then.

[1:04:33] And so, again, that's the incentive to get the engineer and to complete the process and get the permit issued.

[1:04:44] So, you're not at risk for that entire time.

[1:04:49] So, we'll grant the request and the agreement of staff for 30 days, but we'll continue to find a cruel and we'll, you know,

[1:05:00] Consider that when you come back for the mitigation. Okay? Do you have any questions?

[1:05:07] I did have one more question. Or when the permits are issued like the application numbers, does that count as an issue,

[1:05:17] or are you talking about like full approvals? Well, in your case, because it's an after the fact, it's

[1:05:27] okay.

[1:05:27] There's a master permit and this, the master permit covers everything,

[1:05:36] but you have a particular trade, or a component of it, probably if it's an injuring, I guess, a structural interior.

[1:05:48] So, you know, it would be, for purposes of calculating the accrual, the fine, it's the date and permit is issued.

[1:05:58] Okay.

[1:05:59] Okay.

[1:06:01] So in case SSM-26031, I will accept into the record, the updated staff report, which includes the

[1:06:10] property owners letter from their engineer and find that the matters properly before the special

[1:06:17] magistrate and in case S-SM-26031 address the record 4715 Northeastern Avenue owner of record

[1:06:28] the Sharma family. We'll give a 30-day continuance to the case for an update

[1:06:37] So, September 17th, 2026.

[1:06:41] Thank you so much.

[1:06:43] Best of luck.

[1:06:45] Next item is number 14.

[1:06:48] Under certifications, SM-26-091.

[1:06:52] 1990, Northwest 33rd Court, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[1:07:13] Inspector Venero, presenting case SM-26-091.

[1:07:17] Property address 1990, Northwest 33rd Court.

[1:07:22] The violation was Section 23.1A abandoned vehicles and Section 24.65 on the license vehicle.

[1:07:31] An accruing amount of 15,200, okay, and it has come into compliance.

[1:07:39] There was more than one vehicle at one point, one of the vehicles is along along the property.

[1:07:46] But as you see in the picture, this is both there.

[1:07:49] that has a tree growing out of it with no tag and the tires all down to the ground and

[1:07:56] it's still the same way and hasn't changed. So it's the boat that's. Yes, sir. Okay, everything else is.

[1:08:08] I remember and I do see the picture and kind of, I have to laugh, I'm not, I don't take it personally,

[1:08:19] But not often that you see a tree growing in the middle of a boat parked in a driveway.

[1:08:27] So what's going on?

[1:08:28] I mean, you're up to $15,200 in fines because of that boat registration.

[1:08:36] I have completed the registration already.

[1:08:39] That's been done as a two weeks ago.

[1:08:43] For the vessel?

[1:08:45] Yes.

[1:08:45] Okay.

[1:08:45] But it's not the decals on.

[1:08:48] It is.

[1:08:49] Okay.

[1:08:50] Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

[1:08:52] Let's.

[1:08:57] So.

[1:08:59] My understanding is that.

[1:09:04] The trailer has to have.

[1:09:07] Up to date registration.

[1:09:09] The vessel needs to be updated registration.

[1:09:11] And you have both.

[1:09:13] Okay.

[1:09:13] We provide them to the inspector.

[1:09:27] I mean, yes, we'll enter it.

[1:09:30] Are there some other side of the boat?

[1:09:33] So he doesn't see the actual, can you,

[1:09:35] hold on, what in his hand?

[1:09:38] Can you make copies of those?

[1:09:40] Because otherwise, we, you know,

[1:09:42] they can't be at a, made part of the record.

[1:09:44] And that's part of the compliance determination.

[1:09:47] As long as you, either today or in some boat,

[1:09:51] he's taking a photograph of them,

[1:09:53] Yes, and you take a photograph on the can you show me a photograph on the other side of the boat

[1:10:00] All right, so I

[1:10:07] date that he acquired the decals. As long as the decals are fixed, and we can calculate

[1:10:19] when the date on the registrations updated as the date of compliance, and then work our way

[1:10:28] backward on what the amount of the crude finance, right? And also, the trailers, the tires

[1:10:34] are flat on the ground, if you look at the pictures. And I understand what's

[1:10:48] been

[1:10:49] cited was unlicensed vehicle, so just before you leave here, what staff is saying, you

[1:10:59] got to get that thing, you have to get the trailer and a state where it's now licensed, but

[1:11:08] you also need to get it to where it's operable. Otherwise we're going to be back here.

[1:11:11] Actually, as it looks, I know what it looks like, but it is operable.

[1:11:16] Okay, you can tow the vehicle. You can tow the vessel. So right now, yes, I can tow the vessel.

[1:11:21] I have actually three tires, one tire that is flat out of the whole vehicle, which I will

[1:11:27] As far as the tree, that has been taken care of, I vote, but it is, I'm sorry, it's just stuck.

[1:11:38] So one of the things, the reason I have that vote is, I was in a vote accident about 10 years ago,

[1:11:45] and I haven't been able to drive a vote for the last two years.

[1:11:48] It's a vote where two of my best friends passed away that we used to work on with it,

[1:11:52] so I really don't want to get rid of it because the last thing I remember of them,

[1:11:57] actually PSO was there to rescue me on that day in Daniel Beach so I'm trying to put

[1:12:04] in compliance but for the past two years I've been unemployed so it's been very tough

[1:12:09] and I've been living here I've been traveling to a fine work, traveling to O'Kala back

[1:12:15] and forth I was living there six days a week I didn't see them notice when it was first posted

[1:12:21] I saw the second notice for the meeting unfortunately I couldn't make the meeting

[1:12:25] because I just got, finally got a job, and it was my first training, and if I would have missed that,

[1:12:32] that's a job I haven't had for two years at the point. And that's the reason it looks that way.

[1:12:37] 13, 4.

[1:12:39] All right.

[1:12:44] So, again, just optics.

[1:12:49] I understand.

[1:12:50] But sometimes you don't need a piece of unsolicited advice.

[1:12:56] If you haven't already, and I think you may have said that you did, but getting that tree out.

[1:13:03] Get that tree out for there, because I suspect I don't know for sure that someone probably in your neighborhood goes by your home on a regular basis and says,

[1:13:14] No, our neighborhood, I don't want to see.

[1:13:19] But clear the person in our neighborhood that doesn't like my

[1:13:22] northeast. Okay. If they have contacted a single time, every single

[1:13:27] person in my neighborhood that's a minority. There's a person down the

[1:13:30] block. They never call on that their boat is there. Unregistered flat

[1:13:33] tire on the grass. Look, you're you're doing from from the perspective of

[1:13:39] what you've been cited for. You're done everything that you need to do. Your

[1:13:43] compliance, all I can suggest to you is, you know, try and clean up, you know, wash,

[1:13:49] pressure clean.

[1:13:50] If you have the ability to outside that boat, remove the tree.

[1:13:54] So it looks, you need to go to for a boat to be there, you know, you know, just because

[1:13:59] it's, sometimes perception becomes reality for people.

[1:14:04] But based upon what you've provided, you are in compliance.

[1:14:07] You're still, we came into compliance past the deadline, but instead of a $15,200 fine,

[1:14:16] based upon the date, you're down to $13,400.

[1:14:21] What I've done is for everyone else, we'll do the same thing for you.

[1:14:25] I'll reduce that down to 10%, which would be $1,340 plus the $175 admin fee, which is my math sucks.

[1:14:36] excuse my language. That's why I'm an attorney not an engineer.

[1:14:42] $1,515.515. How long would you need to pay that?

[1:14:48] So like I said, I just started working. I've been unemployed for the past two years.

[1:14:53] I don't know what's the longest you can give me, but I'm really, 60 days.

[1:14:56] I can write feedback and it possibly will be 90 days.

[1:15:03] 90 days, okay?

[1:15:07] And again, again, for the, so you, I don't see you again, the optics of cleaning up the boat, we'll, we'll, we'll improve your chances of not being back before me, probably pretty significantly.

[1:15:24] I'll accept these into the record, update the staff report, find that the matter is

[1:15:29] probably before the special mass rate, and in case S S I'm 26091, the address

[1:15:34] the record, 1 9 9 0 and Northwest 33rd Court and the owner of record Thomas Rodriguez.

[1:15:40] I'm going to find that the special mass rates prior order finding the property to be

[1:15:44] in violation of Section 23.1A, abandoned vehicles in Section 24.65 and licensed vehicles

[1:15:50] city code of open part have been brought into compliance, but we're brought into compliance past the deadline set 4th and said order as a result a fine of $13,400 plus the $175 admin fee

[1:16:04] I will reduce that down to $1,340 plus the $175 admin for total of $1,515 do and payable in 90 days.

[1:16:21] Thank you, and best luck.

[1:16:25] Next slide, I'm number one under new cases.

[1:16:28] a 726-143-4029 Northeast.

[1:16:34] Six Avenue officer, L'Artarsha Briggs.

[1:16:38] I'm sorry, before we move.

[1:16:39] Miss Thomas, just keep in mind that if you don't come into compliance,

[1:16:44] don't pay within 90 days.

[1:16:45] It'll go back to the full amount.

[1:16:46] I mean, that's just for the tire for it.

[1:16:48] I'm sorry.

[1:16:49] No, no, you're in compliance.

[1:16:51] If you don't pay the fine.

[1:16:54] All right.

[1:16:56] Yes, next.

[1:17:08] COVID-19.

[1:17:10] Sorry.

[1:17:12] Thank you.

[1:17:13] Thank you.

[1:17:13] COVID-19 force, my officer, Natasha Rick Stel, for the City of Open Park.

[1:17:17] Property address is 4029 North E67, on on record is Matano Realty Management LLC.

[1:17:24] Service was obtained by certified mail, posting it to property and city hall.

[1:17:29] This case was opened based on a complaint.

[1:17:31] The property was cited for section 2480, B3C of street parking to the rear parking area was in a state of disrepair with visible cracks and holes that required attention.

[1:17:45] All cracks and holes in a rear parking need to be repaired to restore surface to a safe condition.

[1:17:52] Section 8.78 overgrowth.

[1:17:55] There was overgrowth on the property that needed to be cut in maintain.

[1:17:59] I have not made any contact with the owner.

[1:18:02] On 414-2026, a complaint was filed with the seat of open part.

[1:18:07] I investigated the complaint and the case was opened on 428-2026.

[1:18:12] As of 8-2026, the overgrowth has been complied.

[1:18:17] However, the All Street Parking has not been in compliance.

[1:18:20] The city is asking for 30 days to comply for $150 per day.

[1:18:25] I'm submitting evidence is the case file, including notice of violation, photographs,

[1:18:31] BCPA printout, notice to appear, affidavis of service, co-case, detail report, photos

[1:18:38] of posting, USPS tracking report, and this is the city case.

[1:18:45] What was the recommended fine?

[1:18:47] 150.

[1:18:49] Your name is the record, sir.

[1:18:50] Here's the firm Martinez.

[1:18:52] And your relationship to the property and the property owner, which is Montana Real

[1:18:56] management LLC. I am the manager at the body shop. Okay. I am. Have you seen the photographs?

[1:19:03] You know, do you have a, I understand what we're talking about? Yeah, they're coming

[1:19:07] on Wednesday to get that sink. Okay. So, you think that they told you they can get the,

[1:19:17] to it, black topping done within 30 days?

[1:19:25] I will, if it gets taken care of, all that will be doing payables, the $175 admin fee, I will

[1:19:32] say to you what I've said before, make sure you're talking to and communicating with the

[1:19:37] officer.

[1:19:38] She indicated before that there's been a lack of communication.

[1:19:41] I would suggest that if there's any issues whatsoever that you reach out to her, get scheduled

[1:19:48] come back for me to ask for additional time so we're not in the next stage, you know, imposing

[1:19:54] a fine against your property. So, or the shop property.

[1:20:00] Do you have any questions? All right. In case SM26143, the address of record is 4029, Northease 6th Avenue, the owner of record is Montana Realty Management LLC. I am going to accept into the record the staff report and find that the matters properly before the special magistrate.

[1:20:20] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, including representative of the property owner, I'm going to find that the property

[1:20:28] property owner are in violation of section 248-08-0-B-3-C, off street parking.

[1:20:36] The violation of section 8.7-A overgrowth has been complied according to staff.

[1:20:43] Give the property owner 30 days to come into compliance with failed to do so within that time frame of fine of $150 a day.

[1:20:49] for each day and non-compliance that are after, and also assess the $175 admin fee.

[1:20:56] Next slide, I'm number four under certifications.

[1:20:59] As sum 26, 057, 4900 power line road, officer Tetskardina.

[1:21:10] And for those of you in the audience, just you understand,

[1:21:13] we take the cases in the order in which you signed up.

[1:21:16] So there's unfortunately a poor soul out there who's going to have to sit through

[1:21:21] most of not all of this hearing, and so we get to your matter, but let me tell you I can tell you with 100% certainty that even after you are gone, whoever you may be, we will still be here hearing cases, because every time there are a number of property owners who don't even show up, and so we will be hearing those cases last.

[1:21:43] Thank you for your patience.

[1:21:45] Officer Ted Skardina, City of Oak and Part, the address of the property is $4,900,

[1:21:52] power line road, the owner is $4,900, power line LLC, violations were, $24,80, B, 2, D,

[1:22:02] Obstreet parking, section, $5.3 permits required, there's $19,500 not accruing the original

[1:22:14] be complied on 531-2026. The fine amount was $250 per day, plus $175 administration fee.

[1:22:23] And they've come into compliance.

[1:22:32] The name for the record, sir.

[1:22:33] Peter Papas, John Amazer, 4900 power line up.

[1:22:37] Okay. Your in-compliance, I'm making an edgicated guess you are here to request a reduction

[1:22:44] of the fine.

[1:22:46] Okay. As I said before, I will reduce down the amount

[1:22:51] from $19,500 plus the $175 admin fee to $1,950 plus the $175 admin fee for total of $2,125 days, $125.

[1:23:06] $125 payable within 30 days. Is that acceptable?

[1:23:10] I'd like to request 60 days, please.

[1:23:13] It's a hotel, a hotel business is down.

[1:23:16] Really bad. On top of it, it's all off season.

[1:23:18] All right, 60 days.

[1:23:23] Do you have any questions?

[1:23:25] No questions.

[1:23:28] Accordingly, in case SM26057 address record 4900 power line road,

[1:23:34] owner of record 4900 power line LLC,

[1:23:37] I'm going to accept into the record staff report

[1:23:41] and determine that the matter is probably before the special

[1:23:44] magistrate and based upon the amount of testimony

[1:23:45] percent here this afternoon. I'm going to find that the property and property on our

[1:23:49] R and compliance with the special mass rates previous order finding the property

[1:23:54] to be in violation section 2480B to the off street parking and section 5.3A permits required.

[1:24:01] City of Oakland Park code however that compliance was passed the date set forth and said order.

[1:24:08] As a result of fine of $19,500 as a crude I will reduce that amount down to $1950 plus the

[1:24:15] 75 dollar end in fee for a total of $2,125 payable within 60 days if it stopped paid within

[1:24:22] that time frame, it's a revert back to the full amount and staff will then record in order

[1:24:26] to that effect in the Public Records Broward County and I'll cost two to lean against the property.

[1:24:30] Okay. Thank you.

[1:24:33] Next slide on number six under certifications, SM26097, 3, 4, 7, 2 northeast, 5th Avenue officer,

[1:24:43] car lock.

[1:25:02] Officer Carl Lock and City Vulcan Park. This case is a presertification, SM-26097, address record, 3472, north-east, fifth avenue.

[1:25:13] Owners wearing group incorporated. The violation was section 24, 79, 1, D3, outdoor storage. The amount per day for the violation was 300. The compliance date was supposed to be 5, 4, 26. The resolution date was 6, 2, 0, 0, 6.

[1:25:31] We're currently at 14,700, not a crewing.

[1:25:35] The original hearing date was June 18th, 2026, and it went retroactive to the date

[1:25:40] the violation was first noted on March 4th, 2026, plus the one's only five admin being.

[1:25:46] I have been in touch with the owner's son, the representative he's here to speak with you.

[1:25:51] He sent an email with some pictures from last night that he wanted to make sure that you

[1:25:55] saw to show what he's doing and his attempts to clean up the property.

[1:26:00] I also went out this morning and took pictures, so they're in there for you to see as well.

[1:26:06] The city is seeking the certification of the full fine of 14,700,

[1:26:11] basically based on the history of this property and the repetitive nature of this violation.

[1:26:16] So I included a 2020 war violation for your record.

[1:26:20] This was heard in 2025.

[1:26:22] It then was read into the record and became a violation on record and then in

[1:26:30] in 2006 we had the repeat of fence and I do know that a code enforcement officer

[1:26:35] is working on another violation because if you look at the pictures although it

[1:26:39] was definitely cleaned up the dumpster is still there there are still wooden

[1:26:43] crates that are there and there will probably be a new case opened on the

[1:26:48] property.

[1:26:51] Well, are we in compliance or not, because it says $14,000,000 not accruing, but it sounds

[1:27:01] to me that from your testimony it may not be in compliance?

[1:27:06] Well, it is falling out of compliance again, but my case was a complied.

[1:27:10] Since then, it's gone into non-compliance, and Officer Rick's Dell will be probably opening

[1:27:14] a new case on it.

[1:27:15] Well, one thing at a time, all I have before me is case SM26097, you are in compliance.

[1:27:25] Okay.

[1:27:27] All right.

[1:27:28] But it may come back before me in a future day or likely to come back before me.

[1:27:34] All right.

[1:27:36] Your name for the record, sir.

[1:27:38] All's greenberg.

[1:27:39] And your relationship to the property.

[1:27:41] I'm the property manager.

[1:27:42] That's my father's the owner.

[1:27:44] Okay.

[1:27:44] But you are in compliance, however, we'll find a $14,700 has a crude, plus the $100,000,

[1:27:53] $75,000 admin fee and according to staff, we'll be back but here before me, I hope

[1:28:00] we'll not.

[1:28:01] What do you want to do?

[1:28:03] I would please request for a fine reduction.

[1:28:06] I grant you that request to reduce the fine down from $14,700 to $1,000 to $1,000.

[1:28:14] $1,470 plus the $175 adman fee, doing payable within 30 days, that is a total of $1,645.

[1:28:30] Is that acceptable?

[1:28:33] May I please request a 60 day to pay that?

[1:28:37] All right,

[1:28:42] I've been giving people, you know, some leeway here, frankly, you can ask staff. I generally don't. It's just 30 days or not. Why is 60 days? I'm just kind of, you know, I'm going to, again, if you come back, if any of you all come and inform me, and you're asking for more than 30 days, as we come up in the, any one who still remains here, please start explaining why additional time is needed.

[1:29:11] We have had quite a lot of expenses with the owner of that business.

[1:29:17] We have had to pay for a chunk removal a couple weeks ago, and he amounted to $800.

[1:29:26] Are you saying because of that, you're not able to pay within 30 days?

[1:29:30] Again, it's...

[1:29:31] We are able, but we would still use this request a 60 days to...

[1:29:38] I'll give you 45 days.

[1:29:40] Okay,

[1:29:44] we're here in case SSM-26-097, 3472, Northeast, fifth Avenue, owner of record,

[1:29:50] Rang Group Inc.

[1:29:52] I'm going to accept into the record of Staff Report and find that the matter is

[1:29:57] for the special mastery and basically on the end.

[1:30:00] This testimony presented here this afternoon. I'm going to find that the property and property owner are in compliance with the violation section 24.79, 1d3 outdoor storage, but that compliance came after the date set forth in the order for compliance.

[1:30:14] As a result, a fine of $14,000, $7,000 as a crude plus $175 adman fee.

[1:30:19] I will reduce that amount to $1,470 plus $1,000, $1,000, $5,000, $1,000 for a total

[1:30:25] of $1,645 payable within 45 days.

[1:30:32] Any questions?

[1:30:33] No questions.

[1:30:34] Thank you.

[1:30:35] All right.

[1:30:36] Best of luck.

[1:30:36] Thank you.

[1:30:39] Next is item number 14 under new cases.

[1:30:41] S-M-26-157-1857 Northwest 29th Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[1:31:03] Code and Force Venero, I'll be presenting case number S-M-26-157, property address is 1857

[1:31:11] Northwest 29th Street, owner of record according to Brown County and property appraisers

[1:31:16] is Dane Mowat.

[1:31:18] Manly addresses 60-20 Shakewood Circle apartment 202C Tamarack.

[1:31:24] This is not a home set property.

[1:31:26] Service was obtained by certified mail posting on the property in City Hall.

[1:31:30] This case was opened on May 29th of 2026 by my observation.

[1:31:35] The following steps were conducted to obtain compliance.

[1:31:38] The notice of violation was issued on 529-2026.

[1:31:44] the property was cited for the following city code order and violations.

[1:31:48] 24.4 B1 use permitted light industry.

[1:31:53] Multiple vehicles are being stored at this vacant lot,

[1:31:57] which is not permitted in use and does not comply with the city code requirements.

[1:32:01] This constitutes an unpromoted use of the property.

[1:32:05] Section 23.1 a abandoned vehicles.

[1:32:08] Multiple vehicles are being stored in the front of the gate of the property,

[1:32:12] which is prohibited regardless of whether the vehicles are licensed or operable.

[1:32:17] This condition is in violation of the city code requirements.

[1:32:22] There was no contact with a property owner or anyone in reference to this property.

[1:32:26] The city's requesting 20 days or 150 dollars per day per violation.

[1:32:31] I'm submitting as evidence.

[1:32:32] Notice the violation photos depicting the properties condition and legal posting.

[1:32:36] the BCPA per now. The notice to appear F. A. David a service, a supporting evidence.

[1:32:44] I believe there's someone here to speak for that property.

[1:32:48] Sorry, your name for the record of my Francis.

[1:32:50] And your relationship to the property?

[1:32:52] I'm the lazy guy.

[1:32:54] You could pull that up, speak in the micro.

[1:32:58] There will be some parking over there.

[1:33:06] You're essentially the tenant?

[1:33:07] Yes. Okay. Have you had any communications with the property owner regarding this issue?

[1:33:14] Yes.

[1:33:14] Okay. So, because normally the property owner is ultimately the entity responsible for what happens on their property.

[1:33:25] So, you know, I don't know what your level of communications are with the property owner.

[1:33:31] I don't know why the property owner chose not to come here.

[1:33:36] Maybe he might be able to analyze.

[1:33:38] He wasn't available so.

[1:33:39] Okay, so he's well, whether it's you or him, you know, the alleged violation as

[1:33:48] demonstrated by the photos is that, you know, you're using the lot as a vehicle storage

[1:33:56] lot.

[1:33:57] That's not allowed.

[1:33:58] Period.

[1:34:00] It's the city code does not allow it there, so the cars are going to have to be removed.

[1:34:06] It cannot be used for that purpose unless you go through the very, very lengthy process of having the city,

[1:34:14] which they may or may not grant you a request to reason the property.

[1:34:19] It's not allowed.

[1:34:21] That's as simple as I can say it for your benefit and for the benefit of your landlord.

[1:34:28] that use is not permitted in the city at that location.

[1:34:34] But for the containers that you have on there,

[1:34:38] they've been there for 25 years.

[1:34:41] Then what he needs to, he needs to take the initiative.

[1:34:49] I'm assuming you've not been the tenant there for 25 years.

[1:34:53] Twenty-three years.

[1:34:54] I'm sorry?

[1:34:55] Twenty-three years.

[1:34:56] You have been.

[1:34:57] Yes, okay. So, either

[1:35:01] The property may or may not qualify for what's called a legal non-conforming use, or it doesn't.

[1:35:10] I can't make that decision, it's not a decision for me to make, and you would have to meet with city staff to find out whether or not you meet the criteria under the city code to continue to have this here.

[1:35:23] And just so you understand, you will have to demonstrate through verifiable evidence that this has been there for those 23 years.

[1:35:33] Going back to whenever the zoning code may have changed.

[1:35:37] Because if this zoning code that applies this property is older than 23 years or 25 years, doesn't matter.

[1:35:45] It's not allowed there. And I don't know that, but you will have to find that out.

[1:35:53] I, you know, based upon what what he's told me, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt to meet with staff and continue the case for 30 days for determination whether or not they qualify for a non-conforming use provision on the code.

[1:36:11] But if not, you're going to be back here on September 17th, if you don't remove the vehicle.

[1:36:18] So you have to one, find out from the city, if you meet the criteria and you're eligible to keep them there, if you're not, you got to get them removed.

[1:36:28] Because that's, again, I don't make that decision, I just hear the evidence and make a determination.

[1:36:34] I get, just like you do, I receive the code as it's presented to me by the city council who have adopted those rules.

[1:36:45] And I just make a determination whether or not you as a property owner or a tenant are in compliance with those rules and regulations are not.

[1:36:52] That's my job.

[1:36:54] If I can add to that as well here on her is that includes the vehicle that doesn't include the vehicles in the right of way

[1:37:03] There's a barbecue truck and there's cars in the right away with you and I have spoken before

[1:37:08] Those have to be moved immediately

[1:37:10] Those do not conform to that. Those are cars that are partly legally that we could tow right now

[1:37:16] Those in the right away, which you know with the right away is have to be moved immediately

[1:37:20] OK, so in the event that we have to move those

[1:37:25] the storage containers that are over there,

[1:37:28] we're going to need more than 30 days.

[1:37:30] We have to explain what to do with that.

[1:37:44] Do you, um, um, does this

[1:37:49] municode, um, keep the the catch lines for one

[1:37:54] of the abrags that were adopted?

[1:37:55] All right, so let's give me a moment.

[1:38:28] We know what, um, what the zoning designation is for this property.

[1:38:34] It's light industrial.

[1:38:35] It's light industrial.

[1:38:36] Okay.

[1:38:37] But this is an empty lot and that's what it's registered on.

[1:38:39] No, no, no.

[1:38:42] One thing at a time.

[1:38:44] Let's get to

[1:38:47] light industrial.

[1:38:49] I don't know commercial light industrial districts.

[1:39:24] Okay.

[1:39:25] So, the initial zoning designation for this property was adopted by the city of Oakland Park on 10, 17, 1990.

[1:39:39] So, since 1990, the zoning on this property prohibits this use, I need to ask that staff verify that the initial regulation adopted in 1990.

[1:39:58] includes that, you know, that prohibition.

[1:40:00] It's ordinance 090-21, adopted on 10, 1790. It was the zoning regulations were updated in 2006 through ordinance 02008, which was adopted on an 035, which was adopted on 5306 and 11908.

[1:40:27] So, if the initial regulations adopted in 1990 say that this is a prohibited use, you know, if you weren't there before 1990 and staff showed me a photograph from data, an aerial photograph from 1994, showing that this lot was totally empty at that time.

[1:40:47] I'm sorry, 1998, so that's going back 25 years, so as you testified, so you would have

[1:40:59] to be able to show, again, if this is prohibited used in the zoning district and it was adopted

[1:41:09] in 1990, they got to go, and as the chair's representative stated, whatever's in encroaching

[1:41:21] or going into the right of way, they have the right to remove on their own because it's

[1:41:29] obstructing the road for pedestrians and vehicle traffic.

[1:41:34] So that has to be removed as well.

[1:41:36] That's not before me.

[1:41:37] they can do that unilaterally. They're just telling you as a courtesy, hey, move them or they're

[1:41:43] going to start telling themselves and that's their right. It doesn't have to come before me

[1:41:48] for determination. They just need to verify that it's over the property line and an encroaching

[1:41:54] onto city property before they can take the action to remove whatever's encroaching into the road

[1:42:01] So, again, I'll continue the matter for 30 days to allow you to investigate and make that determination and allow staff to look into it.

[1:42:15] But I can tell you in advance that if we come back in 30 days and the information is, is it the pierce to be that this is all the way back to 1990 that these regulations exist.

[1:42:27] I won't have any other alternative based upon the evidence but to find the property and to be in violation of code.

[1:42:37] And then that has to be moved.

[1:42:40] It's going to take less than more than 30 days.

[1:42:43] We can talk about that or you can come to some agreement with the city.

[1:42:50] Once you determine or determine whether or not this can even be there to begin with.

[1:42:56] as far as, you know, yes, I, I, the, the law requires me to give you a reasonable period of time to come in a compliance.

[1:43:04] And we can talk about that.

[1:43:06] When we come back, if, or alternatively I said, you can work that out with staff directly and potentially not have to come back before me.

[1:43:15] But, you know, to make it very simple, either you're in violation of the regulations or you're not.

[1:43:20] And you have to find out from staff as to when these regulations, as they, you know, specifically apply,

[1:43:29] doesn't appear or go back to 1990.

[1:43:32] If that, in 1990 the city said, this isn't allowed.

[1:43:38] Then looking here at the master business list, give me a moment.

[1:43:46] What

[1:43:49] would this be considered in one of the code storage?

[1:44:01] Part of the issue also serves vehicle storage as an accessory use and there's no primary use or building on that slot.

[1:44:13] This city would also like to enter into record the area shot of BCPA from 19.

[1:44:17] Yeah. When we come back, if need be, yes, you will show the introduced into the record,

[1:44:25] the prior historical photographs. Let me see. Just a generally storage boat.

[1:44:32] Let's see.

[1:44:33] Yeah. Let's see.

[1:46:03] Bear with me. Yeah.

[1:46:09] Outdoor storage in the I1, the box is empty in

[1:46:15] the I1.

[1:47:02] It appears that there is a

[1:47:04] designation of H-25, and I don't know what that

[1:47:15] going down,

[1:47:23] so, yeah, I'm like, I'm

[1:47:24] going up here in there.

[1:47:40] Okay.

[1:47:43] Okay.

[1:47:44] Okay.

[1:48:07] So this is just a vacant lot.

[1:48:17] So, sir, as best I can determine and looking through the code, this use, this location is only permitted

[1:48:35] as what is called an accessory use and that means there has to be another primary use there.

[1:48:48] Let's say, for example, a car repair shop and outdoor storage is allowed there.

[1:48:55] So you would have to have that use and there is a specific limitation on that, which is

[1:49:10] 25.

[1:49:16] Yeah, they access for use to a primary use so you, as it currently exist, it looks to me.

[1:49:27] This isn't allowed, but I'm going to give you 30 days to work through that issue with City staff.

[1:49:32] I suggest that before you leave here today,

[1:49:37] it's still three o'clock, so staff should be here that you go to the planning and zoning department and schedule meeting with them.

[1:49:45] as soon as possible to have this discussion and find out whether or not this can be allowed in this particular location.

[1:49:55] If it can't, then again, I would strongly suggest that you work with...

[1:50:00] Staff to agree to a time frame to remove all the vehicles. Otherwise, you're going to be back before me.

[1:50:08] And we're going to have this discussion all over again with me ultimately making decision.

[1:50:14] And not only making that decision, but as part of the process for the course of effect, imposing a fine if you don't come into compliance.

[1:50:23] So, as I said, I would strongly recommend that you immediately meet with staff as soon as possible.

[1:50:31] Make the appointment here before you leave.

[1:50:34] Obviously take care of the issue that the deputies are the Sheriff's Office identified

[1:50:39] of the cars encroaching into the right away.

[1:50:42] They need to be removed.

[1:50:45] And if staff ends up advising you that you can't do this here,

[1:50:49] work with them to come up with a deadline that is agreeable to both the parties for the removal

[1:50:55] and you won't come back before me. Okay, so in case SN-26157 address a record 1-857 Northwest

[1:51:06] 29th Street owner of record Dane Molot, the matter will be continued for 30 days.

[1:51:24] Next slide, I'm number 12 funder certifications, SM-26-065-2731 Northwest-26 Avenue Officer Wilson.

[1:51:36] I'm sorry.

[1:51:37] Gilbert Venero.

[1:52:15] Inspector Venero, presenting case SM-26-065, property address of 2731 Northwest-26 Avenue.

[1:52:24] property owner is Andrew and Joanna Jones. This is an amount that's been

[1:52:30] accruing for $9,900. The original hearing date was April 16th of 2026 with a

[1:52:37] compliance date of June 15th of 2026. The final amount was 150 per day plus the

[1:52:43] admin fee. As of this date, they still haven't gotten the the permits at

[1:52:50] But the property owners are here to represent and speak on the behalf of the issue.

[1:53:17] Your name for the record, please.

[1:53:19] Andrew Jones.

[1:53:20] Mr. Jones, obviously I assume you are the property owner.

[1:53:23] Tell me what's going on.

[1:53:25] We've been working on this for a while.

[1:53:28] At this present time, we do have some of the permits.

[1:53:31] The windows and doors.

[1:53:32] We would advise that the same contract today.

[1:53:35] We're doing the windows and doors.

[1:53:36] It's going to be taking on the whole project.

[1:53:39] he's just waiting for the they're working on the master permit. So there are some some of

[1:53:44] additional information that you'd be talking about between the engineers and so DC. So that's

[1:53:51] what we are now. So like every time we talk to them they always say they're working on it and it's

[1:53:56] going to be done today. I love you know just keep a crew in time. So at this point we talked to

[1:54:03] But again, Mr. Jones, it should be in the record, you know, basically what we say and we need

[1:54:07] to generate contract, it's show on record at that top to the code it wasn't on.

[1:54:12] So they have the documents to say that they are, but it's not on record.

[1:54:39] Officer,

[1:54:42] permitting where they're saying that they've submitted, they've gotten some

[1:54:47] of the permits, but they have, obviously, some of the trades that can you enlighten.

[1:54:51] Well, the main issue was the addition to the property in the back, and one originally,

[1:55:00] When they came, the issue was that the contractor never pulled the permit and obviously was given in the run-around. That's the reason why he looked for a brand new contractor to continue with this. And this is what you're saying. As far as the windows and the other things, that wasn't the issue about the permits at least for us. It was the actual, if you looked at the pictures, the addition in the back of a house that they extended the house. So that's where they're working out of this

[1:55:29] point.

[1:55:35] So where are we at with that? I mean, the the point is as well taken that, you know,

[1:55:42] the while you're going through the permitting some other issues appear to have been identified

[1:55:47] that needed correction as well and that I commend you for taking care of that. The issue

[1:55:57] or concern that I have is I've said to some other people who've come before you is, you know,

[1:56:03] We're in the stage of the process where staff is asking me to make a determination, whether

[1:56:10] you're in compliance or not, because the length of time that's gone by.

[1:56:15] And, you know, kind of the window for getting back before me and asking, hey, we need more

[1:56:22] time is, you know, should have happened prior to this time.

[1:56:27] And so really, I have realistically two options available to me into you, which is do what I've done with some of the other property owners,

[1:56:37] which is give you a additional time, and basically say, you know, we'll, we'll be back here in 30 days.

[1:56:45] If you haven't resolved this, and in the meantime, it's fine, continues to a crew.

[1:56:49] And so, you know, that is your incentive, obviously, to try and take care of the problem as soon as possible, you know, I have a lot of people who, unfortunately, you know, come before me, who kind of same situation where, you know, I contract or said they were going to take care of it or, you know, they told me I didn't need to permit, you know,

[1:57:17] Unfortunately, you're caught up in that and here you are.

[1:57:25] So, your current contractor, have they indicated how long it will take to get this completed?

[1:57:36] Yes, we came into a contract with Green Innovations and since June 23rd they got the first piece done.

[1:57:44] We talked to them on a regular basis and they keep saying the same thing. My wife may have some comments

[1:57:50] No, I mean based on Johan Jones this month

[1:57:53] spoke with them probably 30 minutes before coming in and they are indicating that they're working on the corrections and getting ready to

[1:58:01] Hold on quotes submit the subs and so

[1:58:06] Yeah, I mean he

[1:58:11] He gave us information. We signed again for the engineer to take over the project. They're doing the whole entire project.

[1:58:19] And so he was saying the revenue to the engineering that did just resolve and answer in some work questions.

[1:58:25] And everything should be on the master permit should be good.

[1:58:28] That's what we got.

[1:58:32] Were you all here for the original hearing?

[1:58:34] Okay, so if I didn't say this then, you know, I apologize, I apologize, I'm repeating myself.

[1:58:44] You're getting a permit after the fact, obviously.

[1:58:49] And what you really need and your working toward is getting an engineer who will

[1:58:57] Certify, issue in some minutes that I'm saying, hey, this complies with the code, and, you know, you're, you are from what I can tell you're doing all the things that that you need to do,

[1:59:13] unfortunately,

[1:59:18] and I say this, being in your shoes on behalf of other people that I've represented on them on the other sides.

[1:59:26] You know, I can't tell you, unfortunately, the issues that you're experiencing with your

[1:59:33] engineer are not uncommon, you know, I've on behalf of clients like what are you going

[1:59:40] to submit the plans, what are you going to have this completed, and in the meantime, the

[1:59:46] clock is ticking on the accrual of the fines.

[1:59:50] Like I said, I can, there's two things that I can do at this point.

[1:59:55] I can give you additional time, the fines will occur, or I can.

[2:00:00] And certify the amount and tell staff, you know, hold off on recording the order for 30 days to allow you an attempt to try and resolve it.

[2:00:13] If I certify it, then you don't have to come back before me. Not only will you continue to resolve the permitting issue with staff, but you also would resolve the accrued fine directly with staff.

[2:00:29] And you wouldn't have to come back before me or we continue it and you come back before me in 30 days for an update and you know, but the end of the process of this sort of what's called the certification process.

[2:00:47] You don't get resolved within that 30 days they will record an order and technically become a lean against your property.

[2:00:53] Well, that sounds severe.

[2:00:57] You can still, and ultimately, when you get it resolved, the law says, then they will

[2:01:04] remove that lean from your property subject to working out the resolution of the fine

[2:01:09] amount.

[2:01:10] And again, you don't have to come back before me.

[2:01:13] So you have a preference, sorry, okay, that's fine.

[2:01:22] So in KSS, I'm 26-06-5, address a record, 27-31, North West, 26 Avenue.

[2:01:31] The owner of record are Joanna and Andrew Jones.

[2:01:37] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, which I will accept

[2:01:40] into the record, the updated staff report, and find that the matters properly before the

[2:01:51] with the original order issued by the Special Mastrate,

[2:01:55] finding the property to be in violation of Section 5.3A permits required

[2:01:59] City Code of Oakland Park that they find of $9,900 as a crude

[2:02:04] and continues to accrue in the daily amount of $100 per day.

[2:02:09] And there's also doing payable the $100, $75 admin fee.

[2:02:13] I will certify that amount.

[2:02:16] Requested staff not record the order for 30 days to see if the property

[2:02:20] can resolve the matter within that time frame, and then also resolve the cumulade or

[2:02:28] fine directly with staff. Best of luck. Okay. And again, just continue to stay in contact with

[2:02:36] both code enforcement staff and the building department. Best of luck.

[2:02:46] Next slide on number

[2:02:47] two under certifications, SB 25 to 27, 160 northeast, 55th street officer Wilson King Taro.

[2:03:01] Throw me with respect to King Taro. We have for the city case number, SB 25 to 27 for the property

[2:03:07] located at 1-16, or is 55-3,

[2:03:11] co-case 2025-06, 1-3361,

[2:03:17] a property was cited for Section 5.38 per misrequire.

[2:03:25] A total of $38,750, a lot of current

[2:03:28] that we did not hearing was 2018, 2025,

[2:03:31] to be comply by 2018, 2025.

[2:03:35] the fine amount is 250. The property was cited for permits for inter, for the

[2:03:43] corporate enclosure, the friends, windows, doors and real-parts. The only

[2:03:49] pervy on records is for the capital enclosure and it's still in reviews.

[2:03:57] Name for the record, sir.

[2:03:58] It's good. Any got Ramos?

[2:04:00] Okay, Mr. Ramos is the property on it.

[2:04:04] You know what?

[2:04:06] We've got a fine of

[2:04:15] $38,750 and continues to crew in the daily amount of $250 a day.

[2:04:22] What's going on?

[2:04:23] So,

[2:04:26] after the first meeting I have with you three months ago, I hired a contract and we started with the

[2:04:35] painting. We were doing, I guess, the right way, but I started painting at the end, I

[2:04:45] been like $6,000 for the plants and for hand to start, but he always, everything I was calling,

[2:04:52] I was telling me that we need to wait or he was under control and at the end.

[2:05:00] Is it happening?

[2:05:07] Much like the prior, the ones that just came before you, where are you at with this contract? Do you still using him or is he?

[2:05:14] All right, now you can always ask me for everything I have to hear. They were here and you were with one like one morning.

[2:05:23] And I see the letter that you sent me or what? And never speak.

[2:05:29] You know, like, on that,

[2:05:30] anything in the record that's been submitted at all?

[2:05:34] Not in at all.

[2:05:35] Okay.

[2:05:36] I have to balance with me.

[2:05:40] Well, the problem is, and I appreciate that.

[2:05:43] You can provide the officer.

[2:05:46] But, you know, the plans,

[2:05:49] the science field plans need to be submitted to the city

[2:05:53] by a licensed contractor or an engineer or architect,

[2:05:57] just the case may be, you know, for it to be part into the system. So, you know, I have,

[2:06:05] you can, you can first give it to the inspector and then I'll put it in the file, but it's

[2:06:10] nothing I can do about it or with it because that's not within my authority. Again, much

[2:06:18] like what I said to the people who just were before you, you have really at this point

[2:06:22] to options. I'll certify the amount and ask staff to hold off and recording the order

[2:06:33] for 30 days to allow you that timeframe to try and get the contractor the engineer to

[2:06:40] actually file the paperwork with the city and get the permit. So, you know, you comply

[2:06:47] the violation,

[2:06:50] or I can continue it, and the fines continue to accrue in either event.

[2:06:58] But ultimately someone has to submit the appropriate plans to the building department, so

[2:07:06] they can be reviewed, approved, and a permit issued.

[2:07:09] That's the, that's the, that's the compliance for you is obtaining a building permit and, you know, I, I, I certainly understand and as I said, I've heard the similar explanations from other property owners and, you know, I can tell you is you have to keep plugging away, but you at this point, two options available, which would you

[2:07:41] I don't know what's going to happen in the future if I still pay him or continue with the process.

[2:07:49] I would like you to continue.

[2:07:51] You do have the option unfortunately.

[2:07:54] There's going to be a loss of what you've paid already is to find another contractor who's more responsive.

[2:08:02] I don't know what to tell you.

[2:08:05] Again, as I said to the people, I've been in your situation on behalf of my clients,

[2:08:10] where I have to call up the architecture of the engineer or the contractor almost in a daily basis saying,

[2:08:18] hey, what's going on?

[2:08:20] You know, unfortunately, that's what you're going to have to continue to do or find another contractor.

[2:08:28] I, at this point, I'm going to pay the seat, I'm saying the fine.

[2:08:32] I'm saying you didn't have a microphone.

[2:08:34] Well, then what I'll do is I'll certify the amount, as I said, just with the

[2:08:39] previous owner, to give you 30 days before that order is recorded.

[2:08:44] You get the problem resolved and then you can work with staff to get that fine reduced.

[2:08:50] The only thing is, I don't want to promise something like,

[2:08:54] I don't know how long it's going to take.

[2:08:57] I don't want this continue at the end.

[2:08:59] Well, that's the problem.

[2:09:00] It's going to continue one way the other.

[2:09:05] The way that the code works, the city code and state law that allows the city to do this is the

[2:09:19] stick.

[2:09:20] Carot and the stick analogy, the stick that the city has under the law is to impose these

[2:09:27] fines to motivate you, and I know you're motivated to get it done, taken care of.

[2:09:36] As I said to other people, you know, if you had asked for additional time earlier in the process,

[2:09:44] We may not have been at this stage as of yet, but, you know, we're here and so, you know, again, I have really two options to make available to you and both of them.

[2:10:00] Involve, unfortunately, the accrual of the fine. That's not meant to be negative, but once you

[2:10:09] get that resolved and get the permit issued, then you can ask staff for, you know, how do I get

[2:10:18] this fine reduced? Or in 30 days, you come back before me. But, you know, the solution to

[2:10:28] problem at the end of the day is getting that permit application submitted to the city, getting

[2:10:34] it approved, and the city issuing the permit. Until that happens, the fines are going

[2:10:40] to continue to accrue whether I certify them or I continue the case.

[2:10:44] I'm satisfied. The city would recommend a 60 day continuous and come back before certification

[2:10:49] for this. Okay, so 60 days and then we'll look at what's going on now. I would encourage

[2:11:00] you very strongly for your benefit to be behind your contractor every day because once the

[2:11:10] permit application is submitted and ultimately the permit issued, that will stop the running of the

[2:11:19] that the continuance that I'm going to give you, the closer to day one, which is tomorrow,

[2:11:26] as opposed to 60 days at the end of the 60 days, the sooner you get your contractor to submit

[2:11:32] the plans and get the permit, the sooner the finance will stop accruing and then we will deal

[2:11:37] with that in 60 days when we come back.

[2:11:40] Okay. All right. In case SP25227, address a record, 160, or northeast, 50-fist-free, owner of

[2:11:53] record, anger, rums. We'll continue the matter for six days to allow the property owner

[2:11:59] to hopefully get everything resolved and will then consider a fine reduction at that point in six days.

[2:12:07] That's a lot.

[2:12:10] Next slide, I'm number 15 under certifications, SM-26158, 1-851, Northwest 29th Street, Officer

[2:12:20] Guildler Benero.

[2:13:07] 15 under new cases.

[2:13:13] 15 new cases.

[2:13:14] All right.

[2:13:16] Jump to gun, but we'll get you out anyway.

[2:13:17] Okay, Inspector Benaro presenting case S. M. 26, 0.92.

[2:13:22] Probably address someone as one.

[2:13:34] That's for new cases.

[2:13:36] All right, let's just do that one.

[2:13:39] I don't know if he's going to repose.

[2:13:43] Is

[2:13:50] 26, 158, 1851 Northwest, 29th Street.

[2:13:55] All right.

[2:13:57] Okay, that's not the right case.

[2:14:00] That was for certification.

[2:14:01] This is for new case.

[2:14:01] I have it.

[2:14:03] All right.

[2:14:05] Okay.

[2:14:06] So, you got to get that one back.

[2:14:17] I feel like I'm at home and just doing what my wife tells me to do.

[2:14:23] So, the plan?

[2:14:24] Which one we hear for?

[2:14:30] 26158.

[2:14:30] Item 15 on the agenda.

[2:14:32] New cases.

[2:14:33] 158.

[2:14:35] Code enforcement, Inspector Venero, on behalf of the city,

[2:14:38] on presenting case SM26158.

[2:14:41] property address of 1851 North West 29th Street on our record according to Brewer County property

[2:14:47] appraiser is Damian and Kelly Carroll, mailing address of 2701 North West 154th Lane,

[2:14:54] Davy Florida. This is not a homestead property service was obtained by Certified Mail.

[2:15:00] Posting of the property and city hall, this case was opened on 529 of 2026. By my observation, the following steps were conducted to obtain compliance and notice of violation was issued and posted on 529 of 2026.

[2:15:14] The property was cited for the following city code ordinance of violations section 24 B1E use permitted light industrial multiple vehicles are being stored at a vacant lot, which is not permitted use.

[2:15:28] and does not comply with the city code requirements.

[2:15:30] This constitutes an unpromoted use of the property section 231A, abandoned vehicles,

[2:15:37] multiple vehicles are being stored in the front of the gate of the property itself,

[2:15:42] which is prohibited regardless of whether the vehicles are licensed or operable.

[2:15:46] This condition is in violation.

[2:15:48] This condition is in violation of the city code requirements.

[2:15:52] This property, there was a contact with the property owner.

[2:15:57] In fact, in two separate occasions, I spoke to Mr. Carroll.

[2:16:01] This is the neighboring lot of the previous case, and it's identical.

[2:16:06] There's no difference.

[2:16:08] The difference is that Mr. Carroll is putting an apartment to go ahead and zone this for.

[2:16:14] I believe a commercial structure, the store, heavy equipment, but it doesn't solve the

[2:16:21] issue of the vehicles being there because they're not permitted.

[2:16:24] So therefore, the city's requesting 20 days to comply or $150 per day per violation.

[2:16:31] I'm submitting as evidence, the case filing, including the notice of violations, photos depicting

[2:16:37] of the property, condition of legal posting, BCPA, per and out, notice to appear, FIDA

[2:16:41] a service as supporting events and Mr. Carol is here.

[2:16:49] Mr. Carol, I presume. Yes, sir.

[2:16:51] Okay. I'd like to speak on my own behalf for a minute, though.

[2:16:56] Oh, sure. It is absolutely your right.

[2:16:58] My property is nothing like the property,

[2:17:01] next door that you just dealt with.

[2:17:04] I've been working with the sheriff's office

[2:17:06] and signed up with towing companies and gone out there on numerous occasions

[2:17:11] and had these people towed off of my right away.

[2:17:16] I've spoken with the deputy that's present and told them

[2:17:21] that these people next door have nothing to do with me.

[2:17:26] So that truth be told were two totally different entities.

[2:17:31] No, for sure, we're dealing with them separately.

[2:17:35] I do have would make just one observation to staff

[2:17:41] as well as the property and the other case that is the one on the agenda just prior to this.

[2:17:51] It appears, this is off the memory because it's not too old that some of the photographs

[2:18:00] of the other case were also in this case file.

[2:18:05] It seems like they're similar because the properties are identical.

[2:18:08] And they both have, I mean, the officials in it.

[2:18:13] His property is basically on the right hand side, which is 1851.

[2:18:18] He's low.

[2:18:19] Well, it's on the right hand side.

[2:18:22] These two photographs, these two, two.

[2:18:24] Would you like to come up?

[2:18:26] One's look to the, you know, are identical to the ones that were in the other case file.

[2:18:33] These, and these two in particular.

[2:18:37] I don't know if they are, they're not.

[2:18:39] I just simply, we can't, you know.

[2:18:44] All right.

[2:18:46] Well, let's, let's, let's do this.

[2:18:52] Staff needs to look at both of these files and update them for the record to see if there are duplicate pictures in which is, yeah, which is which.

[2:19:04] That's not a, okay.

[2:19:08] If I can speak, are you doing that?

[2:19:11] So, probably the simplest thing is I've been to the building department multiple times.

[2:19:19] Two and a half years ago, when this problem first arrived, we asked for building permit.

[2:19:26] We've been two and a half years with the City of Oakland Park trying to get a building permit.

[2:19:31] I was here two weeks ago, and every time I come here, they say, I'm days away, you're

[2:19:39] days away.

[2:19:40] We're resimitting, we're this, we're that, I wouldn't even be here right now because everything

[2:19:46] would be inside of my building, if the city of Oakland Park could issue a building permit

[2:19:52] in a timely manner.

[2:19:54] So what it's worth.

[2:19:56] So this is this.

[2:20:06] The

[2:20:09] day of Milwaukee case, the prior one,

[2:20:14] this is a photograph that was introduced into evidence in that case.

[2:20:19] Okay.

[2:20:23] Same photograph introduced in this case. So which of the two does it go to?

[2:20:28] I'm looking right now.

[2:20:30] Okay.

[2:20:34] So let's go back. Essentially the same conversation we had with the tenant before.

[2:20:41] Or, do you have a business there?

[2:20:46] I, or just a tenant, I don't know if you lease this or so.

[2:20:51] So, so.

[2:20:51] Well, hold on.

[2:20:51] That's right.

[2:20:52] The reason why is because you can have this type of activity at this location, as an accessory

[2:21:00] use to a primary use.

[2:21:02] If you don't have a auto shop, again, with the example I gave, where you're storing the vehicles

[2:21:09] you're working on in the storage yard you can't have this use here and you know you're saying

[2:21:16] that you're working with city staff that's fine what I'm inclined to do at this point is

[2:21:23] do the exact same thing I did with the prior case which is continue the matter for 30 days

[2:21:29] so you as a staff can work through that issue and come back and tell me because as I told

[2:21:36] the tenant, the other property, same thing have is the here. If they tell you that, hey,

[2:21:44] we can't issue a permit. You're saying you've been going through it for two years. I don't

[2:21:47] know why they have it. Or however long. Don't know why they haven't issued you a permit. There

[2:21:52] must be some reason. Okay. So, you know, let's, let's find out what the reason why

[2:22:01] you can or can't do this. I believe I've been in close contact with my architect who's been

[2:22:09] in close contact with the building department and I mean literally everybody's on the same page

[2:22:15] that were days away. And I think this is a situation where in theory you might be able to do what

[2:22:24] you are allowed to do, but it's to put it in very simple terms, chicken for the egg.

[2:22:33] You need to have the primary use before you can have the accessory use of storage.

[2:22:39] You don't have the primary use, you don't get to the second one.

[2:22:43] I don't know the circumstances other than what's been presented here.

[2:22:48] They're telling me, or that there is no primary use here at this location.

[2:22:52] So we're back to the same scenario as the other owner, either you were there prior to 1990 doing this, which I doubt.

[2:23:04] Or you have gone through the process of establishing a legally operated business there where this is an accessory use.

[2:23:12] I have no desire.

[2:23:15] So I want to build a building.

[2:23:17] I understand.

[2:23:18] But then the vehicle's got to get removed.

[2:23:20] Yes, no, no, I agree.

[2:23:21] I absolutely agree but I'm not inclined to removing the vehicles until I start doing the

[2:23:31] building and here's the reason I say that because seven months ago I was days away from

[2:23:40] getting my building permit. I can only go by what I'm being told by the City of Oakland

[2:23:44] Parks there.

[2:23:46] I understand but the City of Oakland Park is here telling you today that you can't have

[2:23:50] vehicles there. You got to put the building first their first, you know, it is.

[2:23:55] Checking before the egg, you have to make the decision which you want to do. If the city

[2:24:00] comes back and tells you, which is what I understand that no, then in 30 days, I'll

[2:24:07] enter an order saying you have whatever reasonable period of time to remove the vehicles, if

[2:24:13] not a daily final start to accrue. And then it's up to you what you want to do.

[2:24:17] No, I feel like the building department is going to come through in the next 30 days.

[2:24:22] So the day I get issued the building permit, regardless, the vehicles will be gone in the

[2:24:29] 30 days.

[2:24:30] So if that's what needs to happen, that would be my strong suggestion, but that's up to you

[2:24:35] and you have the 30 day continuous to try and figure out what you can to can't do and

[2:24:41] just staff.

[2:24:43] you are and I just want to clarify files and make sure that the right photos are in the

[2:24:48] one. Well that particular photo was a duplicate and it belonged to case 26157

[2:24:55] the prior one. One of the others looked like a duplicate. All I'm saying is in. I will review it.

[2:25:00] Reveal them and make sure that the right photo grass or in the right file. Yes, sir.

[2:25:06] 30 day continuous.

[2:25:07] I don't be fixed in there.

[2:25:09] All right.

[2:25:13] KSSM 26158, 1851 Northwestern United Street, owner record, Damon and Kelly Carroll.

[2:25:20] 30 day continuous.

[2:25:25] Next slide, I'm number 13, under certifications, Assam 266067, 461 Northwest 35th Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[2:25:40] This is

[2:25:43] Dave Mowatt, and this is Mr. O'Carle.

[2:25:51] Inspector Benaro presenting case SM 26092 property address of 16 northwest 36th street owner of record is James Carpini.

[2:26:03] This is a violation of 24.65 on licensed vehicles at a crew in the amount of 7,600.

[2:26:12] The original hearing date was 521 of 26 with a compliance date of 625 of 2026.

[2:26:19] Find a amount of $100 per day and 175 admin fee and as of this date, it maintains the

[2:26:26] same.

[2:26:26] Nothing's changed.

[2:26:29] All right.

[2:26:30] This is case S726-092 owner-recker James Carpinon.

[2:26:36] Is there anyone here

[2:26:43] that they sign in and leave or all right then we'll just dispose of it.

[2:26:51] Again, case S S S M 26092, address the record once as you are in Northwest 36 Street,

[2:26:58] own a record James Carponin, is there any one of the audience other than staff to speak

[2:27:02] to the smatter?

[2:27:03] Seeing no one, I'm going to accept the staff report and find that the smatter is properly

[2:27:09] for the special magistrate on a certification request and going to make a determination that

[2:27:16] This special mass rate previously found this property and property under the violation of Section 24.65

[2:27:21] and licensed vehicles, City Code of Oakland Park, that the property is still in non-compliance

[2:27:28] as for today's date.

[2:27:28] As a result, a fine of $7,600 was accrued and continues to accrue in the daily amount of $100

[2:27:34] per day.

[2:27:35] Plus $100, $75 admin fee, I'm going to certify that amount, and authorize staff to record

[2:27:40] an order to that effect in the public records of Broward County and the same shall constitute

[2:27:45] to lean against the property.

[2:27:56] Next is item number 13, SM26, 067, 461, Northwest 35th Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[2:28:17] Inspector Venero presenting KSSM26, 067, property address of 461, Northwest 35th Street.

[2:28:25] One of our recorders Matthew Dodd.

[2:28:27] biolation is section 5.3 permits required, an accruing amount of $90,900, the original

[2:28:35] hearing date was 416 of 2026 with a compliance date of 615 of 2026, 5 amount of 150 per

[2:28:42] day plus 135 admin fee, the permits some have it issued but there's still some in review

[2:28:50] and we're still waiting. And there's a representative here.

[2:28:54] Sir, you aren't the last one. I saw you, it's all good to.

[2:28:58] I just seen all of you guys again. I was here two months ago.

[2:29:04] And thank you for giving us the 30 days I think to file the permits.

[2:29:10] And by the time when I left here 48 hours later, I went to the front.

[2:29:15] And I said, I have to pay the admin fee that the measure set for the today and I paid that.

[2:29:21] What's happening here right now is very, very simple here on it.

[2:29:26] Matt Dodd is a very, very good friend of mine.

[2:29:30] I don't do this for a living, but I represent him as a friend.

[2:29:34] He just purchased this house.

[2:29:36] He had an alcohol.

[2:29:38] He called my company to do some pressure cleaning for his residence, which we did.

[2:29:45] And at that time, he said, well, I need to get that fence replaced, I need to get this done, I need to get that done.

[2:29:52] I'm like, okay, we were told that we need to have a permit to change the fence, because the fence was all right and wood.

[2:30:02] So, I was the one person that came to the city and I applied for the permit on his behalf. And I communicated with

[2:30:11] everybody here and everybody was very professional. We obtained a permit and we paid the permit to install

[2:30:17] a new thanks. Then he discovered later on that we needed a permit to do some driveway repair by the garage.

[2:30:27] we applied for a permit. We paid for the permit. When I met all of you guys, I was told

[2:30:35] that I had to pay an administration fee and I have to keep going with what's going

[2:30:40] on. And we are working, we are doing what the city wants us to do. Two issues, you are

[2:30:49] on. One, we were told that we had to move the AC unit from the front of the house.

[2:30:57] through the back of the house, met God when he bought this house, he bought this house as

[2:31:02] it, the way how it is. He had it, he paid for it. Now he's in a process of doing a refinance

[2:31:10] on the house. We discovered you are on it, that the city of Auckland Park already approved

[2:31:17] to have that easy unit and that location what it is today. I came personally, I met a

[2:31:24] lady, she was very nice, and then she said, okay, so you don't need to move it, you just need this.

[2:31:31] I picked up the phone. I called the G.C. and I told him, okay, we don't need to move the

[2:31:36] A.C. unit, we just need to get this calculation of the A.C. unit.

[2:31:43] He said, yeah, I know someone.

[2:31:47] I haven't heard back from him. I was like, dude, listen, I gotta take care of this right away.

[2:31:51] I personally, your honor, all two people.

[2:31:56] They own AC companies.

[2:31:58] I don't know, I need to do some calculations,

[2:32:00] but the AC unit in the front, nobody.

[2:32:04] If you know, if the city can directly towards someone

[2:32:07] that I can call today and ask them to go to that house

[2:32:11] and do the AC calculation for the unit,

[2:32:15] I'll be more than happy to do, sir.

[2:32:17] On June 15,

[2:32:23] the $150 fee start occurring.

[2:32:28] On June 26, the record shows that for the windows and doors everything was submitted to the city

[2:32:36] and it was in review. So we are complying.

[2:32:39] I'm here on behalf of Meddad, I'm trying to help him. I'm not a G.C., you know, and I just need

[2:32:48] assistant and I need something from the city that will allow me to show to someone or some

[2:32:55] type of directions to who can assist me so I can provide the information that the city of Auckland

[2:33:03] So, let's stop there and see if we can get some clarification and some assistance.

[2:33:11] And the key is to stop occurring on June the 15th, but the record show that on June the 26th,

[2:33:21] it shows that it was completed and it's in review.

[2:33:26] Why? Because I had to hire an architect to create something for the city, which was submitted by the G.C.

[2:33:36] And if it was sent to them for review.

[2:33:39] And now quite honestly, you're on or I'm getting to the point where I'm just going to get to the bottom line of this.

[2:33:44] I'm just going to get another G.C.

[2:33:46] And I'm going to stay on a top of every single day until one district is done and over with.

[2:33:52] All right, so a couple things, let's kind of roll back and go back to how we got here.

[2:34:03] Yes, sir.

[2:34:04] So we

[2:34:11] had a hearing,

[2:34:14] the original hearing date.

[2:34:17] Back in April.

[2:34:22] April.

[2:34:23] And staff entered into evidence various photographs and other items, one of them, or one of them in particular, but there's subrothers, is this photograph of someone actually doing the work.

[2:34:43] So it's pretty, it's evident from the photograph that the front door was being replaced.

[2:34:53] and work was on going. There is actually right next to the in the photograph.

[2:35:00] And the picture of the notice of violation is right there. I don't know why. They continue to do the work without the benefit of a permit.

[2:35:12] But really, at the end of the day, that is the issue. So you've started the process, let me, you've started the process. Compliance under the law, I said this before, some of the other people, is not when you submit the application.

[2:35:28] But when you actually get the permit, because while it may be in review, the building

[2:35:35] department, the building official, made the term in that there's missing information.

[2:35:40] And as a result, they can't determine whether or not the plans comply with the Florida building

[2:35:44] code or not.

[2:35:46] So even though you submitted the application last month, or back in June,

[2:35:57] The length of time leads me to believe that there's been an issue that has been identified

[2:36:04] by the building department that needs correction.

[2:36:09] So the only person who can, the only person who can correct that information is either a

[2:36:17] licensed architecture engineer for a licensed general contractor and to the extent that you have

[2:36:24] any of those individuals or companies working for you, they need to make sure that what

[2:36:32] they've submitted to the city company, I'm going to be on the top of it.

[2:36:36] And for the record of honor, you can ask the inspector, I've been working with him, he knows

[2:36:41] that I'm doing my best, and when he goes to a GC and that he goes to an architect,

[2:36:51] it's

[2:36:51] I'm not, you know, making any, I'm just making a statement that, you know, whoever did this,

[2:37:00] an ultimately Mr. Dodd, should have known that he needed a permit to do this.

[2:37:08] Yeah.

[2:37:09] And so that's why we're here.

[2:37:12] So again, procedurally, I'm being asked to make a determination you're not in compliance.

[2:37:18] And so we have two options, as I've explained to everyone else in similar situation.

[2:37:22] I can either give you 30 days to try and finish the process, and the fines will continue

[2:37:27] to accrue, and then once you get compliance, we can consider a reduction.

[2:37:32] Or I can certify the amount, and allow you to continue the process.

[2:37:39] But you won't come back before me.

[2:37:40] You'll just deal directly with city staff, both on getting the permits issued, and then ultimately reducing.

[2:37:46] but right now you're not in compliance. Mr. Dodd is not in compliance because he doesn't

[2:37:52] have a permit for the doors, the windows and what was the other thing that was set up?

[2:38:00] Your honor? I just wanted to verify we were checking in the system. The windows and doors

[2:38:05] are still outstanding. There's some questions about it, so he needs to go address that in order

[2:38:09] to finalize that. Are those the things that are still outstanding? Well, there's also something

[2:38:15] them accountable, but we're trying to figure out exactly what.

[2:38:17] And the AC, yeah, the AC, it's all right, sorry.

[2:38:20] You know, I cannot suggest to you who to use, it would be an appropriate for me to do so.

[2:38:29] I think staff is in the same position.

[2:38:31] Okay.

[2:38:31] I don't know why my guess, my educated guess, I don't mean to let.

[2:38:37] My educated guess is that whoever needs is going to do the calculations for you is going

[2:38:42] get, it was, it was, once to get paid to do so. Yeah. And so you just have to, you know,

[2:38:51] there's an yellow pages anymore. Yeah, no, no, no, no. I'm, is, is, you know, Google and start at,

[2:38:58] AAA plus air conditioning and, and go down to zebra air conditioning and, and within A to Z,

[2:39:06] find an air conditioning general contractor who would be willing to do that. All those type of

[2:39:11] service. Okay. Okay, just for the record of you on, or we would mind paying the fees from

[2:39:17] June to 15 until June to 26 because that's what everything was submitted. No, you're missing,

[2:39:25] you're missing, you're missing, you're missing, you're missing, you're missing. No, you're missing

[2:39:28] a critical key component here. It's submitting the paperwork. Okay. Does not get you into compliance,

[2:39:36] what you are in violation of, is section 5.3A of the Florida building code that says,

[2:39:43] before any of this ever occurred, you needed to get a building permit first. So, compliance is

[2:39:51] obtaining physically, the permit. Applying for it does not get you compliance.

[2:40:00] So that's why I'm being very clear and repeating myself. Okay, submitting the application is not compliance. Getting the permit is compliance. And in your case, once you get the permit, it shouldn't be that difficult, because the works are even done. Okay, it will have to be inspected.

[2:40:22] I do see the city's building official are there in the back and I'm making an educated guest.

[2:40:29] You probably agrees with me because we've worked together on some of these cases in the past.

[2:40:35] Mr. Heron, can I interject something?

[2:40:37] Absolutely.

[2:40:38] I'm looking at the permit and the reviews.

[2:40:43] The first review was in December of 25.

[2:40:48] It's the last time any reviews were done.

[2:40:50] Okay, so nothing's been submitted since, was there a general contractor back then?

[2:40:56] He had an AC contractor.

[2:41:01] Yeah, right.

[2:41:02] This gentleman's sitting here telling me that something was submitted in June, uh, virtual,

[2:41:10] I can't show that.

[2:41:10] I do.

[2:41:12] Again, I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm disagreeing with you, you all disagree with

[2:41:18] each other.

[2:41:19] Work it out.

[2:41:26] That's the reason why when we discovered that the thing was permitted by the city of

[2:41:32] Okay, I thought you were talking about this.

[2:41:34] That's when the lady had the city she said you don't need to move it.

[2:41:37] This is the only thing that I need that calculation.

[2:41:40] Yeah, but you still need a building permit application and the building permit issued for the doors and windows.

[2:41:47] Yeah, that's, you know, that's in progress in review, I see the progress between the GCN and the GCN.

[2:41:53] Okay.

[2:41:54] So again, back to where we kind of started, you have two options.

[2:41:59] I can certify the amount, which is approved as of today's date, $9,900,

[2:42:06] and continues to accrue in the amount of $150 a day.

[2:42:10] You can continue to do what you need to do to come into compliance,

[2:42:14] And you then will address the crude fine directly with staff or we continue it for 30 days

[2:42:21] If you get the permit within 30 days and we come back here, then I can consider a fine reduction

[2:42:29] But I want to make this absolutely clear. Yeah, I'm going to get the permit. So if you're so I'm gonna ask you

[2:42:37] You're on or what would you recommend to do if you were in his suit? I can't make your recommendation

[2:42:44] I'm essentially the judge here. It's would be an inappropriate for me to recommend.

[2:42:50] I give you your options.

[2:42:52] Has the city put a lane on his property because it's trying to do a refinance on his property?

[2:42:57] Not yet.

[2:42:58] Okay, so the amount is $9,000.

[2:43:01] $9,900.

[2:43:03] But it continues to accrue until compliance.

[2:43:06] If he went and paid it tomorrow, it's day after tomorrow, it'll start at 150, and actually

[2:43:13] 300.

[2:43:15] If you reduce it down to a certain amount, then would you give us 60 days for me to finalize

[2:43:21] everything?

[2:43:24] Yeah, I would get everything that has to have any days.

[2:43:27] I did at least 60.

[2:43:28] I'm not asking for 19, but I want to be on a safe side within 45 to 60 days.

[2:43:33] I want to have this behind us.

[2:43:36] I'll give you 45 days, okay?

[2:43:39] So in, and you...

[2:43:41] That's, that's fair, I'm not good at it.

[2:43:43] Okay, that's fair.

[2:43:44] All right.

[2:43:45] In case that's I'm 26, 067, address record,

[2:43:48] 461 Northwest 35th Street, owner record,

[2:43:51] Matthew Dodd will continue this matter for 45 days.

[2:43:56] Actually, from a practical standpoint,

[2:43:58] you'll be back here on October 15th, okay?

[2:44:01] So you have, you have till October 14th, the fines will continue to

[2:44:06] group.

[2:44:07] Okay.

[2:44:08] Thank you.

[2:44:10] Thank you.

[2:44:10] So the only thing that I need to, and the prizes, I'm going to pay the reduced price.

[2:44:18] We'll, we'll, in October, if you're in compliance, we'll talk about that then.

[2:44:23] So I don't have to pay nothing now.

[2:44:25] Not right now.

[2:44:26] God bless you.

[2:44:27] Thank you.

[2:44:28] Thank you.

[2:44:29] I'm just trying to put this on.

[2:44:30] No, I just want to make sure that you understand that every day that goes by the fine continues to get larger.

[2:44:36] I understand that.

[2:44:37] Okay.

[2:44:38] I understand that.

[2:44:38] But that is no lean.

[2:44:40] That was.

[2:44:40] No.

[2:44:41] Because it's trying to get a real.

[2:44:42] All right.

[2:44:47] So the matter will is continued to October 15th.

[2:44:53] Thank you.

[2:44:56] Next item is number one under old business.

[2:45:00] As I'm 26, 083, 401 northeast, 30 second street officer, Aaron Richter.

[2:45:27] Hold on, let's staff.

[2:45:34] Okay, so I remember, refresh my memory. I continued it to allow this young lady to see if we could get compliance.

[2:45:47] because from what I recall, a lot of the activities that we're taking place in your property

[2:45:53] were being done by maybe family members, and so where are we at, and we, and there's

[2:46:03] no, no, it was in the yard, in the tree.

[2:46:09] That's what it was, sorry.

[2:46:10] Aaron Richter City of Oakland Park, this was, this is actually all business because she's

[2:46:16] in conversations with me, she had just,

[2:46:20] she had financial difficulty with the roof,

[2:46:22] only the roof remains.

[2:46:24] So she can explain that.

[2:46:27] Okay, so do you need more time?

[2:46:31] Is that the, what we're here for?

[2:46:32] Yes, okay.

[2:46:34] Previously, I told you I was,

[2:46:36] was his spitting in his pool where we did this.

[2:46:39] Yeah.

[2:46:40] So I've, since I had a page one,

[2:46:43] you text, so I've just paid that.

[2:46:45] And I've completed the application and turned it in and out, so I'm just waiting on their response.

[2:46:54] So, that's all, but the other things I've met with the officer, you know, he said that the trees were good.

[2:47:02] Okay, I can get rid of those trees in the back, and that everything was, everything was in compliance.

[2:47:10] Yeah, so.

[2:47:11] Do you do? I don't know how long the process is going to take the ladies told me 90 days

[2:47:19] 90 days and she'll let me know what I'll come where there's yes or no

[2:47:27] I mean at that point I guess I have the

[2:47:31] Yeah

[2:47:33] It's very common for these app the grant

[2:47:39] processes have like

[2:47:41] an application and approval cycle,

[2:47:46] you know,

[2:47:49] since it appears that the all the violations

[2:47:51] except for the replacement of the roof and I think really that violation is related to

[2:48:01] the tarp more so than the, you know, all. So one, to the extent that you can if you haven't

[2:48:09] already, try and keep that tarp flush with the roof of the, you know, some of the pictures

[2:48:15] so that it's lifted up and, you know, try and, I know this sounds very stupid, but try and

[2:48:24] keep it looking as nice as possible, okay, for the benefit of you and the neighbors. And, you know,

[2:48:31] I've given the circumstances and knowing how sometimes the grant cycle works, I'll give you

[2:48:41] additional time to come into compliance, and we'll hold up on the accrual of the fine,

[2:48:50] given again the issues of having to work through the county, the CDBG grant process.

[2:49:01] So I will give you 90 days to come in a compliance.

[2:49:06] And this, you know, come back in 90 days to give us a status report.

[2:49:11] Maybe I don't know if I'll Director if you're willing to do so,

[2:49:14] as maybe put in a good word with the county.

[2:49:20] The CDBG people about, you know, the need to move this forward

[2:49:23] as quickly as possible if...

[2:49:25] I can do all the files.

[2:49:26] Yes. I believe I have the contact information.

[2:49:30] And best of luck.

[2:49:32] So in cases on 26 08 3, 401 northeast 30 second street,

[2:49:39] the owner of record Andrew Young,

[2:49:41] based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon.

[2:49:45] I'm going to make a finding that all the violations have been

[2:49:48] complied with except for the section 24.79.

[2:49:55] and point one E5B, exterior surface maintenance, give them.

[2:50:00] The property under 90 days to extension of time to come in compliance and hold the

[2:50:11] advance, the cruel fines in advance during that time period.

[2:50:16] Best of luck keep us posted or keep off-sure record posted.

[2:50:19] Okay? Thank you.

[2:50:24] I didn't see old business there.

[2:50:29] Next slide, I'm number 11 under new cases, Assam 26153.

[2:50:34] 3-001 Northwest 26 Street Officer Gilbert Venero.

[2:50:40] Code Inspector Venero on behalf of the city presenting case SM26153, the property address of

[2:50:46] 3,021 Northwest 26 Street, owner of record according to BCPA, is let's see Denise and Trickson,

[2:50:56] Brown Francis, the property mailing address is 3,021 Northwest 26 Street. This is a home

[2:51:03] Sir property, service was obtained by certified mail posting of the property in City Hall.

[2:51:08] This case was opened on March 26th, of 2026 by my observation.

[2:51:12] The following steps were conducted to obtain compliance.

[2:51:16] Notice the violation was issued and posted on April 26th, of 2026.

[2:51:20] The property was cited for the filing city ordinance violations section 24.105-155-D.

[2:51:28] There's missing grass and sod.

[2:51:29] In the furnace soil area of the property, section 2481-3, grass-parkier residential, there's

[2:51:37] prohibited parking on the grass at this property subject, but not limited to multiple

[2:51:42] vehicles.

[2:51:43] There was no contact with the property owner or anyone related to this case.

[2:51:47] The city's requesting 15 days to comply, or $150 per day, per violation.

[2:51:53] I am submitting as evidence for this case, the notice of violation, photos depicting the

[2:51:58] office condition and legal postings, BCPA printout,

[2:52:02] notice to appear, FAA service, and supporting evidence.

[2:52:06] I do want to add that in the pictures,

[2:52:11] we're not looking at just a couple of vehicles.

[2:52:13] Normally, on a daily basis, I see anywhere between

[2:52:17] nine vehicles parked on the grass.

[2:52:20] They seem to have activity there throughout the day,

[2:52:26] because I see a lot of movement coming in and out

[2:52:28] to the back. In the soil area, you can actually see that the soil is completely decimated,

[2:52:35] but it was actually replaced by gravel sometime last week. As of this week, I saw

[2:52:44] that they did place saw on top of the gravel, but the gravel is still present.

[2:52:51] Okay, you're named the record, please.

[2:52:55] Let's close to you, so we get you on the record.

[2:52:57] For example.

[2:52:58] And your relationship to the property?

[2:53:01] We are both ordered.

[2:53:04] You've heard from staff.

[2:53:06] Have you seen the photographs, or do you care to see the photographs?

[2:53:09] All right.

[2:53:09] What I'm happy with is the area that he's talking about, the sample, the gravel.

[2:53:15] It's very, very hard to keep the grass there.

[2:53:18] We've tried multiple times, as soon as the rain fall,

[2:53:22] the area is completely ruined.

[2:53:24] It's like a mudslide.

[2:53:26] So in order for us to keep that grass,

[2:53:28] we had to put the gravel in order to keep the grass

[2:53:31] where it is.

[2:53:33] So that's what the gravel is here at the first.

[2:53:35] You know, I don't think I, as the special magistrate,

[2:53:42] don't take this the wrong way, I'm going to say.

[2:53:43] I don't care how you come into compliance nor I do,

[2:53:46] I think that's certainly a city, just that you come in compliance if putting down gravel or something else to assist with drainage and whatever, I just will tell you that from personal experience, because I just laid down sod in part of my yard where I had this kind of similar issue, not necessarily with parking, but tree roots, I have a big oak tree in my front yard.

[2:54:14] And the roots were starting to come up and we're not allowing the grass so I had to come in

[2:54:22] and put down additional dirt to make it deeper and then put the sod on top.

[2:54:28] So I understand what you're talking about and how you do that is up to you.

[2:54:35] I do, I'm not a landscaper and I don't know whether or not the grass is going to stay there

[2:54:41] depending upon what type of gravel you put down, and if it's a mix.

[2:54:45] But the rain and the company, we just destroyed multiple times.

[2:54:49] Well, sorry, third time putting grass in there.

[2:54:50] What I can see from the photographs of the Swail area, and the reason why there's problems

[2:54:57] with the grass staying there is because the cars...

[2:55:00] Driving over it. I mean, you know, that's where they're driving over that swayal area to get to

[2:55:08] part of the cars in the front yard. And, you know, if you do see vehicles, if you, if very simply

[2:55:18] if they continue to transit that area, it doesn't matter how many times you do something or

[2:55:24] trying to take care of it, you're not going to solve the problem because it's the vehicles

[2:55:30] transient back and forth. They're going to kill whatever you try and put down there. And

[2:55:35] that's the other, that's the second part of the violation, which is the cars in that front yard.

[2:55:41] I mean, you know, the photograph show, you know, seven, eight vehicles.

[2:55:46] You've been here through most of the hearing that you may have heard the young lady who came here on

[2:55:53] on behalf of our dad. Maybe you can expand under the code. You'll have to go through the

[2:55:58] permitting process. You can expand your driveway to accommodate more cars. But they can't

[2:56:03] be parked on the grass. I don't make that rule up. The city commission does. And it's the job of

[2:56:10] staff to enforce that and bring the cases before me. And look at the photographs and there's cars

[2:56:18] part across your front yard and that you know and again I'm not I live in a neighborhood where

[2:56:27] my kids I've said this before my kids are our grown already and so I don't have but you know

[2:56:32] there's a lot of neighbors of mine who have expanding families and those kids are getting to the age

[2:56:39] where they're all driving vehicles.

[2:56:43] And so, you know, we're closely and soon to kind of reach

[2:56:49] at a tipping point in my neighborhood,

[2:56:51] kind of the same type of issue,

[2:56:53] where do you park your vehicles,

[2:56:56] luckily for most

[2:56:57] of my neighbors, they either have a driveway,

[2:57:01] it's large enough, or some of them are called dissacks,

[2:57:04] and they can park in parts of the cul-de-sac.

[2:57:06] But what do we do here?

[2:57:09] So the city is saying, hey, you got to remove the vehicles

[2:57:13] within 15 days and stop parking them.

[2:57:17] Now if you remove the vehicles and stop them from parking

[2:57:21] in your front yard, my guess is I can't guarantee

[2:57:25] that you're going to give that grass a better chance

[2:57:28] to grow and stay there and comply the other violation.

[2:57:33] But if you continue to allow the vehicles

[2:57:36] to come in and over that area. It doesn't matter what you do. It's going to kill the grass,

[2:57:42] keep you in violation of both sections of the code.

[2:57:47] So one of the jobs that I have here is to

[2:57:51] hear you and say, if I do make a determination, there's a violation. How long is it going to take you

[2:57:57] to comply the violation? They're recommending 15 days. I want to hear from you. Can you get the

[2:58:06] And that, I mean, not only do you have to move them, but they can't come back until you either expand your driveway to where they're parking on, you know, a hard surface, you can't park the code doesn't allow parking on graphs in the front yard, I, you know.

[2:58:22] Is it possible to get at least 30 days with the cars?

[2:58:26] Yeah, but, you know, again, it's got to be taken care of not, you're going to start

[2:58:32] in occurring a fine, which frankly I don't want any of you all to incur any fines.

[2:58:40] But that's the negative aspect of the process is, again, I said, I mentioned the course

[2:58:49] of the fact is that if you don't do it, you're going to start running a fine.

[2:58:53] I'll give you 30 days and you're honest, we'll see what goes from there.

[2:59:00] I want to interject, the soil area, the gravel has to be removed because the gravel

[2:59:05] is not permitted on the soil, and secondly, the gravel will roll the road and destroy the

[2:59:10] asphalt.

[2:59:10] Yeah, hold on, yeah, so

[2:59:16] come up to the microphone.

[2:59:22] Because the way has a road sets water serves down in our sweat.

[2:59:30] So every time the rain falls, it becomes a putt.

[2:59:33] So even since the day we bought the house, that's how it is.

[2:59:38] Yeah. So since we've been part of the reality, it gets worse. So that's why we bought the gravel because the first time we got the ticket, we did, we laid the grass. But the water came back and do it. Yeah. And somebody gave us the advice, the best thing to put the gravel make it a little harder and then we put the grass. So I, I, I kind of.

[3:00:00] And I understand that the yard is, you know, inverted. Here's the, here's the road. And it goes this way, partly because the cars, okay, I'm not going to show you what it looks like.

[3:00:14] And then partly because of the, of the yard being sloped as well, that water is going to accumulate in that soil area, which frankly is what it's intended to do, by the way, but it may be that it's so deep that something needs to be done to elevate it.

[3:00:39] So again, I said before and I don't take this the staff don't take this wrong.

[3:00:49] I don't care how you come into compliance, you've got to come into compliance and you need

[3:00:53] to work with staff to find a solution, because I hear what you're saying is that I looked

[3:01:04] the photographs,

[3:01:09] either you need to bring in soil or a mix of soil and aggregate to help

[3:01:16] fill that. So what you would do, I'm thinking, is put in a layer of rock first to fill

[3:01:33] of top soil. It's not that the grass isn't going to take root and the rock will help with the

[3:01:41] drainage. It's basically what's called a French drain and you put the soil and the side on top

[3:01:48] of the lower layer of rock but it can't be just rock and then the side on top of it because the

[3:01:55] You want us to put soil dirt on there?

[3:01:59] Again, you can talk to the city staff.

[3:02:03] There is people who are understand that process more than I do.

[3:02:11] I'm just talking, you know, so.

[3:02:13] That would be probably our burst.

[3:02:16] Our burst.

[3:02:17] Kevin.

[3:02:18] He was storm water engineering.

[3:02:19] Or the engineering department.

[3:02:22] Or engineering.

[3:02:23] I'm going to give you more time, okay? So to try and work out a solution, I think 15 days,

[3:02:29] given what we're all discussing here is it going to be enough time to allow you to meet with staff

[3:02:37] and figure out what level of repair needs to be done to that swell area to make sure that your

[3:02:48] grass stays there so we're not, you know, kind of kind of cut and lose.

[3:02:52] That case can it be at least 60 days because we still have to take the

[3:02:56] time.

[3:02:56] Yeah, I'm thinking about what would be a reasonable period of time given the variables.

[3:03:03] The one thing that you may want to do when you just mentioned about what you've spent

[3:03:11] already is certainly I would say keep watering the grass so it doesn't die.

[3:03:17] If it's not taking root, and it's, and it's, you know,

[3:03:22] palleted side that you put down, you can take it off and put it to the side.

[3:03:27] And if as long as you keep it, you know, moist, and it'll survive for a certain period of time,

[3:03:35] because I don't want you to have to spend another amount of money,

[3:03:41] whatever that may be, because, you know, you're trying to find the solution.

[3:03:45] And so get together with staff and see what information you can get from them about what

[3:03:55] would be the best way to stabilize that area and put it to the point where that grass will

[3:04:02] survive.

[3:04:03] And then again, of course, removing the vehicles and not bringing them back.

[3:04:09] I'll give you 60 days because I think it's going to take some time to figure out what you

[3:04:14] need to do to stabilize that area and come to a solution.

[3:04:23] But remove the vehicles now.

[3:04:25] So the 15 days to remove the vehicles, we're going to leave

[3:04:29] in place and you then have 60 days to take care

[3:04:33] of the landscaping requirement issue.

[3:04:37] All right.

[3:04:38] Any questions?

[3:04:40] All right, in case SM26153, the address is 3001 Northwest 26th Street.

[3:04:47] The owners of record are friction frances and the needs of brown frances.

[3:04:52] I'm going to accept into the record the staff report and based upon the evidence testimony

[3:04:57] presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find the matters.

[3:05:00] Properly before the special magistrate, and find that there is a violation of Section 24105, Section 1, A5D, Landscape requirements, and Section 24.8013, grass parking, residential zoning district, city code of Oakham Park. I'm going to give the property owner 15 days to come in a compliance with the grass parking provision, section of the code, and 60 days with regard to the landscape requirements, so they failed to come in a compliance with that timeframe.

[3:05:30] a fine of $150 a day to a crew for each day thereafter and the $175 and $15.

[3:05:38] So to summarize, you take care of the problem within the timeframes of the $15 and $60.

[3:05:44] The only thing that you will owe is the $175 admin fee.

[3:05:48] I don't have the authority to modify or waive it.

[3:05:51] If you don't, then that fine will begin to approve.

[3:05:54] I'll tell you the same thing I've said to everyone else.

[3:05:56] make sure that you're speaking to the officer, staying in contact with them.

[3:06:00] And if you're working toward compliance and, you know,

[3:06:03] things aren't working out, particularly with regard to the landscape issue,

[3:06:07] make sure you let him know, get you back on the calendar,

[3:06:11] and you can come back, tell me, hey, you know, we're still working through this problem

[3:06:14] with staff. We need additional time, and I'll consider that and give you this

[3:06:18] whole time. All right. Any questions?

[3:06:22] The officers are about to hand you as card.

[3:06:24] Please contact him with your contact number.

[3:06:26] That way I have our Arborist come talk to you.

[3:06:35] Next slide, I'm number 5 under Certifications, SM-26-077-47-11 northeast 18th Avenue officer

[3:06:47] car lock.

[3:06:51] COVID enforcement officer Coral Locke for the City of Open Park, SM-20607, cases up for

[3:06:58] certification, property address 4711 North East 18th Avenue, the owner is Heritage Partners

[3:07:04] LLC. The violation was section 2469 B3 Pool Fencing and Gates required. We're currently

[3:07:11] at 16,500, not accruing. The originally here in date was May 21st, 2026. It was to be

[3:07:18] by June 5th, 2026. The final amount was 250 per day plus the 175 admin fee. The property

[3:07:25] did come into compliance on August 10th, 2026, and there's a representative here from

[3:07:30] the property.

[3:07:33] How you doing, Your Honor? Your name for the record.

[3:07:36] Let me go, Pamphalona. Okay, and your relationship to the property. I'm basically a representative

[3:07:42] in the process of, I just signed a quick link to take ownership of the property. I was

[3:07:48] aware of two violations that we were given on the same date of

[3:08:04] August, I'm sorry,

[3:08:09] on

[3:08:09] 26, 26, so February 6, 26, we received the violation by Mr. Zaryn and Mr. Lockhart,

[3:08:17] one for the pool fencing gates and the other one for a front door, non-permated front

[3:08:22] I actually, we had a hearing on July 7th for the permit issue for the front door.

[3:08:31] As soon as we got both violations, I hired a handyman to take care of the pool gates.

[3:08:36] They basically got painted.

[3:08:38] He did a repair job on them.

[3:08:40] I don't think it was the best.

[3:08:42] Apparently, we came to court on July 7th.

[3:08:45] My partner, Mr. Austin, did, which she's actually very ill right now.

[3:08:49] And you know, I've been kind of taking everything on my own.

[3:08:54] Nothing was mentioned about the pull gates when we came to this hearing on the seventh of July.

[3:09:01] And Mr. Lockie told me that we had received the court hearing for the pull fences,

[3:09:06] but we never received the court hearing.

[3:09:09] I was under impression of the whole time that we were compliance when I painted them

[3:09:13] and got them basically repaired.

[3:09:18] And the other day, you know, I went to the house and I seen this on the door, a fine for $19,000.

[3:09:25] So, not being the compliance with the full gate.

[3:09:26] I immediately called a company to come out and, you know, they, Mr. Lockhees saw the gates.

[3:09:33] They completely re-did the front and made them compliant.

[3:09:38] But the whole time, you know, we've, from the moment they put the notices,

[3:09:43] we've been in contact with Mrs. Aaron and Mr. Lockhees.

[3:09:46] what my partner was in the stress and I just made contact with him last week when I got

[3:09:51] the gaze prepared.

[3:09:54] But yeah, let's all you're here, all I can say is that all-

[3:10:00] You're here for today, is the fence and gate issue. If there was another violation, it's either

[3:10:10] been resolved and it's not before me.

[3:10:13] Well, it's in the process right now.

[3:10:14] That's not before you, that's on the building case.

[3:10:16] That'll be back to you in the building site if it continues.

[3:10:19] Oh, joy. So we'll deal with that at that point in time, but you know, I'm looking through

[3:10:28] the file and you're more than welcome to, you know, it's your right to see this information as well.

[3:10:35] There was a notice of violation hearing on the gate sent out on somewhere

[3:10:53] back in

[3:10:58] April or May of this year.

[3:11:01] Where was that sent to?

[3:11:03] Was sent to Heritage Partners LLC at

[3:11:06] 4941 Northwest 48th Avenue in Tamarack

[3:11:11] It wasn't pleased on the door like these notices. Well, I'm gonna get to that as well. Yes, it was

[3:11:20] I'm not sure if that flew away or something, but we never got noticed of that hearing if not

[3:11:25] I would have called the company the same data to fix it. That's you know, that's my issue is not that we haven't been trying to be quite

[3:11:31] We just never received the notice of the hearing for those four gates. I thought they were in compliance when I tried to leave some of the first time around

[3:11:38] There's there's a two step process a notice of violation is issued and then a notice of violation hearing

[3:11:45] Which was the hearing that took place a notice of violation?

[3:11:47] No, no, this is a third one the one that you're that so there's been two notices

[3:11:54] sent to

[3:11:55] Heritage partners LLC at the address like provided to you there's a

[3:12:02] certified return receipt, and in a bunch of caution, this particular city, also post the property,

[3:12:12] and there's photographs in the file from the original hearing on this case that show, and

[3:12:20] there's affidavits in the record where the notice of violation and the notice of hearing

[3:12:25] were both posted one here on the side, not sure which one this one that looks like that's

[3:12:30] notice of violation. And the notice of hearing was actually posted on the front door

[3:12:39] and 5, 7, 20, 26. The notice of violation was posted on 2, 6, 20, 26 according to the

[3:12:49] date stamp. So, and it was mailed. So, the city doubled down, as I said.

[3:12:57] Right, sent the notice by mail, which is a requirement, and they also have the authority or the ability to also post, which by the way, they don't have to because

[3:13:09] mailing under the statute is actually sufficient.

[3:13:12] But they went a step further and also posted the property.

[3:13:18] So, you know, and so when I get these cases, if you've heard, you have sat through them, you'll hear me say,

[3:13:25] You know, this case is properly before the special magistrate, which is a legalese for saying I've looked through the file and all the notices that are required have been sent and therefore the case is properly before me because if they don't comply with these requirements, I will continue the matter and say you have to prove a service before you know, I can hear the case do process.

[3:13:49] But in this case, as I said, there are photographs in the file that indicate not only

[3:14:01] was opposing, but there's also the affidavits of service where under oath, the officer

[3:14:07] has tested an issue in a statement saying that they posted the property on 5, 20, 26, the

[3:14:18] that was the code

[3:14:30] enforcement case and then the notice of hearing and then the notice of

[3:14:35] violation was posted on February 6th, 2026, according to the affidavit in the photographs.

[3:14:42] So, and last but not least,

[3:14:55] like I said it was, hold on, the U.S. Postal Service.

[3:15:04] Attempted to deliver, but no one signed for the notice at the address, apparently, hold on, see. This is 1984.

[3:15:16] So, one of the notices, someone signed for, someone decided not to sign an accept service.

[3:15:26] So, that was signed for for the hearing date.

[3:15:31] The, the,

[3:15:39] your item was delivered to an individual at the address at 210 PM on February 23rd,

[3:15:45] 2026. So, someone signed for the notice of violation.

[3:15:49] Because the, the, the notice of hearing was sent out afterwards.

[3:15:56] So, the February date, there was a, there was a delivery attempt on May 4th of the notice

[3:16:03] hearing and whoever was at the address refused to sign to accept it, but it was then posted

[3:16:10] on the property.

[3:16:11] So I understand you didn't, but what I'm trying to say with all due respect as the special

[3:16:19] mastery, I made a formal determination that the city complied with the notice requirements.

[3:16:26] Back then, I can't explain why you didn't see it or how it didn't, I don't know how often

[3:16:32] you go to the property or if there was someone living there that may have taken it, I don't

[3:16:37] know that's, and don't take this wrong way, it's on you because the city has done all the

[3:16:47] things or did all the things that needed to do in order to present the case properly before me.

[3:16:54] With all that said, okay, you're in compliance and under the circumstances,

[3:17:05] I would grant you or give you the same relief.

[3:17:07] I've given everyone else that's come before me in similar situation. I'll reduce it down instead of you having to potentially pay a fine of $16,500.

[3:17:18] I'll reduce that down to 10%, which is 1,650 plus the $175 admin fee for a total of 1,825.

[3:17:28] If it's payable within 30 days unless you need additional time, and as I said before,

[3:17:32] and you need to tell me why you need additional time.

[3:17:35] And I'm giving you the same relief and courtesy.

[3:17:39] I've provided to everyone else in the same situation.

[3:17:42] But as I said before, I've already made a determination back in what may, when this case was presented to me initially, that city complied with the notice requirements.

[3:17:56] I can't explain why you say you didn't get it because the notice of violation was accepted in the mail, and there's photographs and affidavit saying that they posted both notices.

[3:18:09] And the only thing that was rejected was the notice of hearing, because whoever was at the address refused to accept it.

[3:18:18] Right, I understand that the heritage partners, that's the address of the company.

[3:18:22] And like I said, Mr. Austin, which Mr. Lockheed made contact with multiple times.

[3:18:26] He's been very sick and ill, so nobody's been there.

[3:18:28] That's why I guess somebody rejected the notice.

[3:18:32] I go to the property once in a while because I maintain it, but it has been vacant.

[3:18:36] I never saw a notice on a door. I would have took care of it right then there. Just like I did when I received the

[3:18:43] $19,000 notice. I called companies same day. I was hoping maybe you got some hard for me and just

[3:18:48] I am having hard. I'm giving you the ten for the introduction. I give everyone else. I said to someone else who asks well, hey, can you do something better for me?

[3:18:57] No, I got to treat everyone equally. Otherwise, I get into it. We get into trouble for not treating everyone fairly and equally.

[3:19:05] It was just honest mistake, it wasn't because I was

[3:19:08] I understand.

[3:19:09] I found it not to be compliant.

[3:19:11] And I appreciate.

[3:19:13] And I, as the city does appreciate, you know,

[3:19:15] that all I can say to you is you are aware of the issues,

[3:19:19] make sure that you're communicating, you know,

[3:19:22] and, and hopefully we can get the other matter

[3:19:26] resolved before it has to come back before me,

[3:19:28] the building permanent.

[3:19:29] So, I just got the permit today.

[3:19:32] So, I was happy, yeah, and then great.

[3:19:36] I didn't get that over with it.

[3:19:37] Then it won't have to, it won't, it will get pulled off the agenda,

[3:19:40] and you won't have to come back.

[3:19:43] We're here in case SM-26077.

[3:19:46] The address of record is 47-11, northeast 18th Avenue.

[3:19:50] The owner of record is Heritage Partners LLC.

[3:19:53] I'm going to accept into the record of the staff report.

[3:19:57] I'm going to make a finding that the matter is properly before the special.

[3:20:00] Special magistrate. It's here on a certification request. And based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the special magistrate's previous order, finding the property to be in violation of Section 24, 69 B3, pull fencing and gates required, code, section of the city of Oakland Park, has been brought in compliance, but was brought in a compliance, pass the date set forth and set order as a result of a fine of $16,500 as a crude.

[3:20:28] plus the admin fee of $175, going to reduce that amount to $1,650, plus the $175 ad

[3:20:40] been fee for a grand total of $1,825 payable within 30 days.

[3:20:46] Is it possible to get 60 days to pay that?

[3:20:49] Give me 45.

[3:20:51] Thank you.

[3:20:52] All right.

[3:20:53] 45 days.

[3:20:56] That's luck and hopefully I don't have to see you again.

[3:20:58] All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you.

[3:21:04] Next slide, I'm number seven under certification.

[3:21:07] SB 2517001830 Northwest 32nd Street,

[3:21:12] Officer Gilbert Benero.

[3:21:15] Inspector Benero, on behalf of the city,

[3:21:17] presenting case SP25 170 property address of 1830 northwest 30

[3:21:22] Secondary owner of record is Juliana Alvers Gutierrez.

[3:21:27] violation is section 5.3 permits required.

[3:21:32] There's an occurring amount of 23,500 with the original hearing date of October 16 of 2025

[3:21:38] to be comply by December 15 of 2025.

[3:21:42] The fine amounts were $250 per day plus the admin fee.

[3:21:46] Certification hearing was held on March 19 of 2026,

[3:21:51] a 90 day extension and fine abated were offered with a fine reduction.

[3:21:56] to reflect 2,350. If compliance was achieved within the time frame, and it has it as a

[3:22:05] bit.

[3:22:08] Your name for the record? John Wiggins, Representative Neoner.

[3:22:13] All right.

[3:22:19] What's going on? Actually, we actually did get the permit, but she has a

[3:22:24] separate permit that's on the property one for kitchen and bathroom, and then this was a

[3:22:33] At that time, we got everything together with the architects and the city got the permit, but somehow it got kind of looted between the kitchen and bath and the garage got co-mingled.

[3:22:43] So we had to cancel that permit.

[3:22:45] And now we're in the process of getting that second permit actually, I mean, the second review.

[3:22:51] We were told that probably by the end of next week, they should have the review done.

[3:22:56] And then I should be able to get this done.

[3:22:57] Just asking for an extension of 30 days.

[3:22:59] I think we can get this wrapped up.

[3:23:04] staff have any?

[3:23:09] So, no objection. Okay, because I have to tell you on behalf of the

[3:23:18] the Miss Alvers or Miss Futurism.

[3:23:24] She's got more breaks than I generally give. At

[3:23:30] this point in time, you know, unless this gentleman here at the end had just said what he did,

[3:23:37] I was ready to essentially enter the order that I had said I would, which was to go back to the full amount, because we're 90 days and, you know, so.

[3:23:50] We did get the permit and we did call the inspection in and that's off the process.

[3:23:55] Yeah, but, you know, my point is that when we were here three months ago,

[3:24:04] I am absolutely sure that we talked about all the violations and the need to get everything taken

[3:24:13] care of.

[3:24:15] There were two separate permits issues.

[3:24:18] Look, this gentleman said, we'll continue it for 30 days.

[3:24:25] I'm going to do that.

[3:24:27] But I'm saying right now that it's so everyone's very clear that it's not taken care of.

[3:24:32] of, and the permits not issued and were resolved, my order here today is that it goes back

[3:24:41] to the full amount of $23,500, because you know, we're now 120 days.

[3:24:50] I understand, but plus I did the whole process, 120 days on top of the time period I previously entered when I first found the violation, which is

[3:25:00] Frankly, except for the very rare instances of the lady who the invalid property owner, where she's, you know, need some financial assistance and everything and she's going through the, I very rarely gives the type of relief to a property owner that I've given in this case.

[3:25:24] That's all I'm saying.

[3:25:25] I watch everybody today.

[3:25:26] I saw that.

[3:25:27] So I just want to make clear that we've got a 30 day window

[3:25:33] to get that permanent issue or it goes back to the original amount.

[3:25:38] And I appreciate.

[3:25:39] And then the point is that at that point in time,

[3:25:43] you can work with staff to then get the fine reduction.

[3:25:49] I'll certify the amount.

[3:25:51] It'll happen automatically.

[3:25:52] And no further action will be returned.

[3:25:54] I don't believe it's going to be a problem.

[3:25:55] It's like right now I got something right now from Jeanette Everett and she says she should

[3:25:59] have the read on by next Friday.

[3:26:01] And then it's just a matter of calling the inspections in and wrapping it up.

[3:26:04] So in case SPV 25170 address the record 1830 northwest 30 second street owner of record

[3:26:11] as your line of Alvarez and Gutierrez will grant a 30 day continuous if not completed, then

[3:26:18] You can prepare an order for my signature, for the full amount, and record it.

[3:26:25] You can then work directly with staff.

[3:26:26] Yeah, but I was going to say, what if I have an issue with the city not give me getting

[3:26:30] the permit?

[3:26:31] Well, then, again, I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I appreciate the point I'm trying

[3:26:41] make is that,

[3:26:44] and I'm really not trying to sound harsh, but

[3:26:51] people who come before me with

[3:26:55] these types of violations, it's because one or two things generally here, I didn't know

[3:27:04] I needed a permit or someone told me, someone told me I didn't need a permit, you know,

[3:27:11] And what I generally will say to people is that God bless the Florida legislature, not the

[3:27:19] city of Ocon Park, even though there are now some new exemptions to the Florida building

[3:27:23] code.

[3:27:24] Florida building code basically says that you touch the building and you need a building permit.

[3:27:32] And that should be the assumption of everyone who's thinking about doing something to their

[3:27:37] house.

[3:27:38] I understand, but can I, can I, can I, is sure?

[3:27:41] So, this issue is a covered garage.

[3:27:44] She had purchased the house.

[3:27:45] This work was done prior to her.

[3:27:48] So, this started from December, and by time that we got around,

[3:27:52] defines it and, and that's fine, that's, that is what it is.

[3:27:56] She did not do the work from a garage.

[3:27:58] So, I had to bring in a special engineer

[3:28:00] that had to do a concealed permit to be able to,

[3:28:03] to be able to say, hey, we accept this and we're doing it.

[3:28:06] So we actually got the permit, got it all done, called in the first inspection, and then the kitchen and bath were interlocked with that permit.

[3:28:15] So they made us cancel that permit and start the process again.

[3:28:18] So that's why we're in the delay that we're in.

[3:28:21] She did not do the work and then closed like a rock.

[3:28:24] If you have problems with the last time showing what you're closing from the title company.

[3:28:31] What I'm trying to do is in

[3:28:36] a roundabout way, it's just move the matter forward so you don't have to come back for me.

[3:28:43] If you have problems with the city on getting within the 30 days, my order will go into effect, but that doesn't mean I want to make it absolutely clear that you can't

[3:28:54] and shouldn't continue to work with the city.

[3:28:57] The only difference is that once you do get the permit,

[3:29:01] you won't come back before me for a fine reduction.

[3:29:05] You'll work directly with city staff.

[3:29:07] Then I'm gonna ask, since this has become a severity

[3:29:10] and I think it's totally unfair

[3:29:12] because of the situation that I just discussed.

[3:29:15] Can we move it the 45 days?

[3:29:17] I don't need to make sure I got this permit.

[3:29:18] No problem.

[3:29:19] I think I'll have it resolved in less,

[3:29:21] but I can't, I have no control

[3:29:23] with the building part of what's going to do.

[3:29:27] And because I believe it's unfair for you to say, right now, you're going to pay that

[3:29:31] $23,000.

[3:29:32] No, you're not listening.

[3:29:34] You're not listening.

[3:29:34] I'm not saying that that's your tone.

[3:29:36] That's the amount of fine that will be there.

[3:29:38] You can, once you come into compliance with the reduction at that point, you're going to

[3:29:42] enforce the $23,000 if I have no control over the city.

[3:29:47] And everything's been fair here to say, but this one I believe is not fair.

[3:29:50] You'll have the opportunity to deal directly with city staff once a fine is certified.

[3:30:00] I don't, it doesn't come back before me. Okay, that's the that's the that's the purpose of the certification process is you won't have to deal with me any more. You then would deal directly with city staff. You get the permit. Let's say.

[3:30:15] But if I don't get the permit, then you come back and say now she's the beginning of force, you have to pay that $23,000.

[3:30:22] You're going to get a done in the 30.

[3:30:24] Well, if you don't, let's play this out under your scenario.

[3:30:27] That was out.

[3:30:29] If you don't get the permit, then you're going to have to demolish the improvements.

[3:30:33] I can't tell the city to issue a permit to you.

[3:30:37] The issuance of a permit is based upon the determination, the fort of the city's building official,

[3:30:44] that the work that's being done and a permit

[3:30:48] is being requested for complies with the Florida building code or not.

[3:30:53] Once you meet the requirements of the Florida building code,

[3:30:56] under Florida law, the city has to issue a permit.

[3:31:00] So the disconnect and this scenario that we're talking about

[3:31:04] is if the city doesn't issue me a permit,

[3:31:06] it's because the city's building official

[3:31:08] is making the determination, the what's been submitted,

[3:31:12] still does not mean through it.

[3:31:13] saying, I'm saying, what if I don't make that 30 days?

[3:31:16] This is what I'm concerned about.

[3:31:17] Again, if they know we're going to get the permit,

[3:31:19] because that's not.

[3:31:20] I'll give you the 45 days.

[3:31:21] My point is that after the 45 days,

[3:31:24] my order becomes final and you will now

[3:31:26] deal directly with city staff and you won't have to come back

[3:31:29] before me.

[3:31:29] But there has to be an ending to the process.

[3:31:32] I'm getting a closure.

[3:31:33] I'm getting a closure on this.

[3:31:34] I had a closure and they've got rejected,

[3:31:37] because like I told you that we had the bathroom

[3:31:40] and the kitchen and somehow those comments got put on to that permit and I have no idea how

[3:31:46] that happened, but it's just that we had to deal with it.

[3:31:50] You know, I'm not trying to kick the can down the road.

[3:31:54] I don't have any control over that.

[3:31:56] I know.

[3:31:57] But I just want to make sure that I get this process done, so she doesn't incur that.

[3:32:01] I want to be able to come back and get it certified, so she has a 10% and we're done.

[3:32:05] You can, I would recommend you work with staff even in the process.

[3:32:11] I think 45 days will be more.

[3:32:13] Okay.

[3:32:13] So I'm going to talk to the tomorrow with the bill on the board.

[3:32:16] Okay.

[3:32:17] In case SB 25170 address record 1830 northwest 30 second street.

[3:32:23] As I said, the owner record is really in Alverska chair.

[3:32:26] We'll give a 45 day continuous.

[3:32:29] If it's not brought in compliance within that time frame as I indicated, my order will be self-excuting.

[3:32:34] And if it's brought within 45 days, come back and again, you don't even need to come back.

[3:32:43] You can ask staff for a reduction of the crude fines directly to that.

[3:32:49] She's well on the pay that.

[3:32:50] If we had the reduction, I was actually going to ask you, can we pay today?

[3:32:53] But that's fine.

[3:32:54] Obviously, I got to get this completed.

[3:32:56] Well, that's what my previous order did actually read as I'd given the discount.

[3:33:01] But we're not in compliance with that order.

[3:33:03] I know, but there's no circumstances to sue it.

[3:33:07] I know you don't want to hear about the circumstances, but there was.

[3:33:10] That's all.

[3:33:11] All right.

[3:33:13] You've got your 45 days best luck.

[3:33:15] Thank you.

[3:33:17] Appreciate you all sitting around waiting, you know.

[3:33:21] We're still here.

[3:33:25] I'm here.

[3:33:26] Yeah.

[3:33:32] Oh, yeah.

[3:33:33] Take off.

[3:33:39] Five minute break.

[3:33:41] All right.

[3:33:42] Let's take a five minute break.

[3:33:44] the time is close to 445. We'll reconvene it at 450.

[3:33:55] Thank you.

[3:34:04] We'll call the meeting

[3:34:04] back to order for 48. Next matter, McChase.

[3:34:09] For the record, under no cases, item number 1, SM26143 has been heard. Item number 2,

[3:34:18] of 26144.

[3:34:21] Has been heard.

[3:34:23] I'd number 3, SM-26145.

[3:34:26] 4160 north-west 12th Avenue of the search

[3:34:30] Tatscoadina.

[3:34:31] Tetscoadina City of Ocomparacase SM26145.

[3:34:36] Properly address is 416 north-west 12th Avenue.

[3:34:39] honorary recorders,

[3:34:41] hi a,

[3:34:41] kafari kafari kafari

[3:34:44] Service was obtained by certified mail

[3:34:46] across in the property and city hall.

[3:34:49] This case is based on my observation.

[3:34:51] The property was cited for 24.8,

[3:34:54] I3, Grass Parking Residential, Section 24.65,

[3:35:00] And license vehicles.

[3:35:03] 13.8, a, trash receptacles and section 8.7 overgrowth.

[3:35:10] On June 3rd, 2026, a notice of violation was issued to Hayak Kafati for noncompliance with the above mentioned violations of municipal code.

[3:35:21] Observation summary is a while portraying my signing. I observe multiple vehicles parked on the grass at the property on several occasions over the course of a several weeks

[3:35:31] Furthermore, trash receptacles were left on the swell after public words picked up their trash and there are on license vehicles on the property and the yard is overgrown

[3:35:40] Again, I initially issued a court code of synotips

[3:35:44] provides in the residents of the violations and requesting that they take the necessary

[3:35:47] corrective action, whoever it's to date the violations have not been addressed.

[3:35:52] The city is requesting the following. The city is requesting 14 days to comply with

[3:35:56] violations related to grass parking, trash receptacles, and overgrowth, and 21 days to comply with

[3:36:02] the violation related to unlicensed vehicles. If the homeowner fails to comply with the required

[3:36:08] within the required timeframe, I'll find of $150 per violation shall be imposed.

[3:36:16] I'm submitting as evidence the case file includes the notice of violation, photographs

[3:36:20] BCPA, pronounced to appear, affidabits the service, code case history report, and code

[3:36:26] case details report, photographs of code case postings, USPS tracking number, this is the

[3:36:33] city's case.

[3:36:33] Okay,

[3:37:14] we're here on case SM 26145 address record 4160 Northwest 12th Avenue, the owner of record is higher F.

[3:37:24] Carfati is there anyone in the audience to speak this matter other than staff seeing no one.

[3:37:31] I am going to accept into the record staff report and find that this matter is properly before the special magistrate on notices have been given.

[3:37:44] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the property owner and property are in violation of section 13-13.8A, trash receptacles section 24.8013 grass parking residential section 8.78 overgrowth and section 24.65 unlicensed vehicles.

[3:38:06] With regard to the first three violations,

[3:38:10] we're going to give the property number 15 days to come into compliance.

[3:38:14] With regard to the last recited violation,

[3:38:20] we're going to give the property number 21 days to come into compliance.

[3:38:23] If the property number fails to come into compliance with those deadline dates,

[3:38:27] a fine of $150 a day shall accrue for each violation and not compliance

[3:38:32] each day thereafter and also assess the $175 admin fee.

[3:38:42] Number four under new cases, SM-26146R-3450 northeast-19th Avenue officer car lock.

[3:38:53] Code enforcement officer car lock for the city of Ocomparc.

[3:38:57] This is case number 26146R repeat property addresses 3415 north east-19th Avenue.

[3:39:04] owner of record is Nina Katzenova, service was obtained by certified mail and posting the property

[3:39:09] in city hall. This case was opened based on my personal observation on June 26,

[3:39:15] 2020, the property was cited for section 13.88 trash receptacle to with trash and recycle

[3:39:22] receptacles were left out curbside for pickup on non pickup days. This property was presented

[3:39:28] at the June 2020 special magistrate hearing for continued violations of trash receptacles being

[3:39:33] on non-pick-up days, a finding of act was made in a line of 250 plus the 175

[3:39:39] admin fee was imposed. This find and fee have not been paid. I have not had

[3:39:44] contact with the owner, certified mail goes to the location and it's returned to

[3:39:47] the city is unable to forward. The property continues to violate the city ordinance

[3:39:52] as evidence by the June 26th, 2026 and the August 18th, 2026 photographs.

[3:40:00] The days of the week were a Friday and a Tuesday and the area pick up days are Monday and Thursday. The city is requesting a finding a fact that this violation has

[3:40:09] re-accured and is a repeat violation and due to the repetitive nature of this violation, the city is seeking a one time fine of $1,000.

[3:40:17] I'm submitting as evidence to the case folder, the following, the notice of violation, the BCPA printout, notice to appear,

[3:40:24] affidavits of service, photos of the violation in posting the case detailed report,

[3:40:29] a copy of the prior order of enforcement, and the returned certified mailings.

[3:40:34] That's the city's case.

[3:40:36] All right.

[3:40:37] We're here in case SM26146R,

[3:40:41] address record 3415 North East 19th Avenue,

[3:40:44] owner record Nina Cachinova.

[3:40:46] Is there anyone in the audience speak to this matter other than staff?

[3:40:52] Seeing no one, I'm going to accept into the record staff report and find that the

[3:40:57] matter is properly before the special magistrate, all notices required have been provided.

[3:41:03] And based upon the other testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the property

[3:41:06] and property on our own violation is section 13.8, transfer receptacles City Code of Oak and Park.

[3:41:12] This is a repeat violation and an irreversible violation.

[3:41:20] You know, once throughout their past, the deadline, that's the violation, going to impose

[3:41:27] a one-time fine of $750 plus the $175 admin fee.

[3:41:32] And to the extent that you may have any communications with Ms. Cachanova, please inform her that

[3:41:39] if we, if she comes back performing in the same violation again, it's going to be double.

[3:41:45] And it's only going to go up from there.

[3:41:48] And you know, some points you're going to have to pay the fines.

[3:41:54] So, that's that.

[3:41:57] Next is item five under new cases.

[3:42:00] S M 26 147 134 141 northeast 40th place officer, Karlach.

[3:42:11] Code enforcement officer, Karlach with the city of Ocon Park.

[3:42:14] This is case number 26147.

[3:42:16] the property addresses 1341, North East 40th place.

[3:42:20] The owner record is Taren Brittany,

[3:42:23] Jellon and Brian Patrick Wise.

[3:42:25] Service was obtained by sort of AdMail

[3:42:26] in posting the property in city hall.

[3:42:29] This case was opened based on a complaint

[3:42:30] received on June 29th, 2026.

[3:42:33] The property was cited for 24.79.

[3:42:38] .1D2 outdoor storage.

[3:42:39] To wit Adali, a tabletop, rope, plastic storage

[3:42:43] creates trash bags, backpacks, carpets, buckets, and woods

[3:42:46] were being stored in the front yard.

[3:42:50] There was a prior outdoor storage violation

[3:42:51] this location on December 8th, 2025.

[3:42:55] This violation was issued on June 29, 2026.

[3:42:58] And while posting the notice for the hearing,

[3:43:00] I met a parent of one of the owners cleaning the yard.

[3:43:03] We discussed the items that needed to be removed.

[3:43:05] I later met with Brian, one of the owners,

[3:43:07] and we also discussed the violation.

[3:43:10] Brian emailed me to reinspect the property

[3:43:12] on August 19th, 2026. I did and it has complied. The city is requesting a finding

[3:43:18] a fact that the violation did occur so that if it reoccurves, it will be a repeat offender.

[3:43:23] I'm submitting as evidence to the following. The notice of violation of the BCPA printout,

[3:43:27] the notice to appear, affidavits a service, voters of the violation and postings,

[3:43:32] the case detailed report, certified mail tracking sheet, returned certified mailing,

[3:43:36] and a printout of the complaint. That is the city's case.

[3:43:39] Okay, we're here in case SM-1 26147 address record 1341 northeast 40th place, owner of record,

[3:43:53] Ryan Patrick Jellon,

[3:43:56] and Terran Brittney-Wise.

[3:43:58] Hopefully got that right.

[3:44:00] There's anyone here to speak to this case.

[3:44:02] Seeing no one, I am going to accept into the record of the staff report and find the matters

[3:44:07] property before the special measure. And make a finding a fact that the property is in compliance

[3:44:16] for Section 24.79.1D2, outdoor storage. But, came in a compliance past the deadline

[3:44:22] set forth in the notice of violation. And therefore, it's a formal finding of fact, so any

[3:44:29] future violations can be treated as repeat violations. No final fee assessed.

[3:44:51] We continue with no cases, item 6, SM26148, has been complied, item 7,

[3:45:00] Assam 26149, as windows was drawn, item 8, SM26150, has been withdrawn, item 9, SM26151 has been

[3:45:29] 16SM-26156 has been heard, item 14SM-26157 has been heard, item 15SM-26158 has been heard,

[3:45:43] item 16SM-26159 has been complied, continuing with certifications item 1SM-26095 has been

[3:45:55] item 2, SP25, 227 has been heard. SM26031 has been heard.

[3:46:06] SM26057 has been heard.

[3:46:08] Item 5, SM26077 has been heard. Item 6, SM26097 has been heard. Item 7, SP25 on

[3:46:20] S-70 has been heard.

[3:46:23] Item 8-S M-26-0-2-1 has been heard.

[3:46:27] Item nine, S-M-26-0-2, has been heard.

[3:46:31] Item 10 and C-26-0-2-5, has been heard.

[3:46:36] Item 11-S-M-26-0-2-6 has been heard.

[3:46:41] Item 12-S-M-26-0-6-5 has been heard.

[3:46:46] Item 13S M26-067 has been heard. Item 14S M26-091 has been heard. Item 15S M26-092 has been

[3:46:59] heard. Item 16S M26-1110-1861 Northwest 28 Street Officer Gilbert Venero.

[3:47:09] And the crops get wild.

[3:47:11] Unbelievable.

[3:47:13] Inspect the better on behalf of the city presenting KSS M26-101-0.

[3:47:18] Property address 1861 Northwest 28 Street, owner of records peer and

[3:47:23] memo it.

[3:47:24] And the violation is grasped parking.

[3:47:27] The amount per day is $100.

[3:47:29] Compliance date should have been 628-26.

[3:47:32] Resolution date or was actually August 12 of 26.

[3:47:37] a non-accruing amount of 4,500 has been set, and there's no one here for this case.

[3:47:48] All right, this is case S-I'm 26, 1-1-0, address record, 1-8-6-1 northwest, 28-street,

[3:47:56] owner record, limo, Pierre, this is a certification matter.

[3:48:00] Is there anyone here to speak to this matter?

[3:48:01] Other than this case, seeing no one, I am going to accept into the record of the staff report.

[3:48:07] And make a determination that the matter is properly before the special magistrate, and in a

[3:48:12] said case, based upon the MS testimony presented here this afternoon, finding that the property

[3:48:18] isn't compliance with the special magistrate's order, finding them to be in violation of section

[3:48:22] 24.80, I-3, 1-3, grass parking residential zoning district, city code of Oak and Park, but that

[3:48:31] That compliance occurred after the date set 4th instead of order as a result, a fine of $4,000,

[3:48:37] $4,500 is a crude, no longer-cruing, and also the $1,075 admin fee.

[3:48:45] I'm going to certify those amounts and authorize city staff to record an order to that effect

[3:48:50] in the public records of Howard County and the same as South Coast to the lane against the property.

[3:48:57] Lysadam on the agenda under old business as I'm 26, 083 has been heard.

[3:49:04] Okay, we have come to the end of the agenda.

[3:49:09] Is there anything else to come before the special magistrate for the good of the order?

[3:49:14] Seeing and hearing nothing of the time is 503 we are here by adjourned.

Special Magistrate Hearing - Aug 20th, 2026

Agenda

Transcript