[Code Magistrate Hearing on December 4, 2024.]
[00:00:05]
GOT A GREEN LIGHT. CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS A HEARING RELATED TO CASE NUMBER 22, DASH 0271. PHOEBE MASSACRE BEING THE RESPONDENT. MR. BURKE, THIS IS YOUR MOTION. I'LL LET YOU HAVE AT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT, AND I WANT TO ALSO THANK EVERYBODY FOR ACCOMMODATING MY SCHEDULE. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. MIGHT HAVE SEEMED TRIVIAL TO SOME, BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME AND LES TO BE ABLE TO CELEBRATE TOMORROW. SO THANK YOU ALL. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. AS A AS I'VE STATED IN MY MOTION HERE, THIS MORNING, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PHOEBE MASKER AND THE MATTER THAT WE'VE THAT YOU'VE ANNOUNCED BEFORE US TODAY AND IT'S ON AN ISSUE REGARDING THE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO DEMOLISH OR REPAIR THE PROPERTY THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THIS, IN THIS CASE, TO MISS MASKER. THE ISSUE REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE IS ITSELF, AS I'VE STATED IN THE MOTION IS DEFECTIVE. IT DOESN'T GIVE MISS MASKER THE ANY ANY NOTICE OF WHAT THE ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE ORDER MIGHT BE, OR WHAT THE SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT THE PROPERTY. SO THAT SHE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AT A MEANINGFUL HEARING TO SAY, WELL, I'VE DONE THESE THINGS, OR I DIDN'T DO THESE THINGS OR WHAT HAS HAPPENED. NOW, WHAT I WAS HANDED BEFORE, JUST AS WE GOT STARTED HERE, WAS A COMPLIANCE REPORT. I'LL NOTE THAT IT'S DATED DECEMBER FIFTH, BUT YOU GUYS ACCOMMODATED ME, SO WE MOVED IT TO DECEMBER 4TH IS REALLY WHAT THE DATE PROBABLY SHOULD BE ON THAT NOTICE. THAT TO ME PROVIDES A WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE TO MISS MASKER. BUT NOW, HAVING ONLY BEEN GIVEN THIS, IT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A DEFENSE OR EVEN DECIDE WHETHER SHE WOULD INTEND TO CONTEST THE FINDING. WHAT DOES THIS DO? IT STATES WHAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION MIGHT BE, AND I ONLY QUICKLY REVIEWED THIS AS I WALKED IN THIS MORNING, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE VIOLATION HAS TO DO WITH THE WHAT? WHAT'S THE WORD EXPIRATION. SORRY, EXPIRATION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT MISS MASKERS HAD PULLED FOR THE PROPERTY.
SIGNIFICANT TO THIS CASE IS THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY MISS MASKER, THERE'S ALSO A TENANT THAT IS ON THIS PROPERTY. WHAT THIS COMPLIANCE REPORT, WHILE IT STATES WHAT THE ACTUAL NOTICE OR THE VIOLATION OF THE ORDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN, IT STILL DOESN'T GIVE HER AN IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE CORRECTED ON THE PROPERTY. AND THAT'S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THERE IS A TENANT THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY. AS I STATED A MOMENT AGO, WHO IS LIVING IN A PIECE OF THE PROPERTY HAS HIS OWN SEPTIC SYSTEM, POWER ET CETERA. IF THE INTENT IS TO REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM THE PROPERTY, THEN THAT GENTLEMAN NEEDS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HIS POSSESSORY INTERESTS ARE BEING AFFECTED. AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FOLKS ARE, AS IT RELATES TO REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY. I WILL STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT MISS MASKERS HAS NOT DONE NOTHING WHILE SHE'S BEEN OUT THERE. SHE HAS TO DATE SPENT OVER $58,000 ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT IS IN VARIOUS THINGS OF TRASH REMOVAL FOR DUMPSTERS ABOUT 3 OR 4 TIMES DUMPSTERS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE PROPERTY AND REMOVED. AC REPAIR, DUMP, STUMP GRINDING AND OTHER THINGS TO REPAIR THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY. IF THIS IS RELATED TO JUST THE PERMIT BEING EXPIRED, IT WOULD SEEM THAT BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMEONE'S PROPERTY INTEREST HERE, THAT THE ABILITY FOR MISS MASKERS TO REINSTATE THAT PERMIT TO COMPLETE WORK INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR OR WHATEVER THE CONTINUED VIOLATION MAY ALLEGE TO BE THAT THAT WOULD BE AN EQUITABLE DECISION TO BE MADE HERE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT SHE HAS SPENT IN EXCESS OF $58,000 ON THE ON THE PROPERTY. BUT AS I SAY HERE TODAY, THE REAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE ARE THAT THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE FOR THIS MORNING IS BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE. IT WAS SENT WITHOUT ANY NOTICE OF WHAT THE ACTUAL VIOLATION WOULD HAVE BEEN. THE NOTICE WAS DATED ON A DATE OR I'M SORRY, THE WORK TO BE DONE WAS DATED ONLY 13 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTICE. WHILE THE CODE SECTION GIVES THE RESPONDENT AT LEAST 21 DAYS
[00:05:04]
WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND OR REQUEST A HEARING. SO SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND BECAUSE THAT NOTICE IS DEFECTIVE, IT WOULD BE MY REQUEST THAT YOU FIND THAT IT'S NOT IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE THAT THE NOTICE ITSELF WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE THAT YOU ORDER. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO PREPARE A NEW NOTICE. AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME, LIFT ANY PROHIBITION THAT MISS MASKERS HAS SO THAT SHE CAN PULL THE PERMIT, AS SHE'S ALREADY ATTEMPTED TO DO ONCE. BUT IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY SAID THERE WAS A DEMOLITION ON THE PROPERTY OR SIMILAR TO A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CASE. PERHAPS MISS, IF MISS MASKERS DETERMINES THAT SHE CAN'T GET ENOUGH DONE WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, AND THAT SHE SHOULD BE THE ONE TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, THAT AT LEAST SHE'D BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR THAT PERMIT AND SEE IF SHE CAN GET THE PROPERTY. GET THE DEMOLITION FOR LESS THAN. WAS IT $36,000, I THINK IS WHAT I SAW IN THE IN THE COMPLIANCE REPORT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU, SIR? THE ISSUE REGARDING SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE VIOLATIONS ARE. I MEAN, THE ORIGINAL ORDER ENTERED IN THIS CASE LOOKS LIKE 14TH OF FEBRUARY. YES, SIR. IT SAYS THAT SHE HAS 60 DAYS, WHICH IS LONGER THAN THE NORMAL TIME TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. AND THERE ARE A SERIES OF OPTIONS FOR HER.ONE REGARDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE PREMISES AND THE OTHER IS REPAIRING THE UNFIT OR UNSAFE STRUCTURES AS FOLLOWS. AND AGAI, THERE'S A LITANY OF THINGS THERE. SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY SAY, YOU KNOW, THE. THE FIFTH TILE ON THE SEVENTH TRUSS IS DEFECTIVE OR NOT NAILED WITH SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF NAILS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT THERE IS A REASONABLENESS TO THE. THE ISSUES RAISED. THE THERE ARE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE NOTICES WERE MAILED. SENT CERTIFIED AND REGULAR TO THE ADDRESS LISTED. BOTH AND THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE USE. AND I THINK THAT THEY WAS THERE A POSTING AT THE COUNTY BUILDING. THERE IS A POSTING AT THE COUNTY BUILDING. THERE'S A POSTING ON THE PROPERTY AND WE SEND IT REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OF RECORD OR ADDRESS OF RECORD. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S COMING BACK. IF THERE IF THAT'S A CORRECT ADDRESS, IF IT'S ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS. AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE 13 DAY ISSUE. I GUESS YOU CAN SAY THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN VALID. BUT FOR THIS HEARING AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT IT'S BECOME MOOT BECAUSE THE HEARING HAS EXTENDED IT BEYOND THE 21 DAYS. MY PROBLEM IS THAT THIS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THIS IS BASED ON A COMPLAINT OR REPEATED COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE RESPONDENT WAS PRESENT AT YOUR HEARING. THE FIRST HEARING IN REGARDS TO THE IN THE FIRST ORDER. IT WAS CLEAR THAT WE WERE NOT AT THAT TIME. AND I HAVE SOME OF THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THAT HEARING. OR I HAVE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY. LET ME JUST SAY THAT AND AT THAT HEARING, WE WERE NEVER DISCUSSING THE PROPERTY. THE HOUSE OR THE WHERE HER TENANT LIVES. IT IS ALWAYS IT WAS CLEAR AT THE HEARING WHAT BUILDINGS WE WERE DISCUSSING, AND IT WAS THE MAIN BUILDING. AS FAR AS YARD DEBRIS, STUMPS, THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORDER. AND AGAIN, THE RESPONDENT WAS HERE AT THAT HEARING. AND THE. THE $38,000 THAT IS THAT'S A HIGH NUMBER 58,000. 58,000. OKAY. NO, IT'S NOT 58. IT IS 35. EIGHT. 61.
[00:10:09]
IT'S DUE TO. OH. I'M SORRY. I BEG YOUR PARDON? I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH SHE SPENT. MY. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUIET. IT'S SPENT. YEAH. YEAH. WHAT? SHE SPENT IS JUST A FACT.I MEAN, I YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CONSTITUTES MITIGATION. THE DEMO, LIKE YOU SAID, IS 35,861 29, BUT NOW IT'. WHY IS THAT SO HIGH? THAT'S A BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE HIGH NUMBER. YEAH. BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF ASBESTOS THAT'S LOCATED IN THAT WAS LOCATED IN THE HOUSE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE ASBESTOS SURVEY ITSELF? NO. SO WHICH WAS $800 MORE. SO IT WOULD BE ANOTHER $800 FOR THE ASBESTOS SURVEY. OKAY. AS IT RELATES TO THE ASBESTOS SURVEY, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOW REQUIRED BY FEMA. IS IT FEMA OR DEP? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T CONTROL THAT ISSUE. NO WE DON'T. AND I BELIEVE IN YES. AND IT IS THE ASBESTOS THAT HAS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. OKAY. SO. BACK TO YOU. YEAH.
THANK YOU. THE ISSUE IS THE ORDER DOES. IT DOES NOT DIRECT WITHIN THE WRITTEN ORDER ITSELF THAT'S RECORDED. DOESN'T SAY WHAT SPECIFIC BUILDINGS WILL BE REMOVED OR SHOULD BE REMOVED OR WHAT. WE'RE PART OF THAT HEARING. OKAY. SO, SO THAT I'M, I'M MORE COMFORTED TO HEAR AT LEAST THAT WE, THAT THERE ISN'T AN INTENT TO TAKE DOWN THE TENANT'S PROPERTY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT IT DOES ADDRESS ACCUMULATION OF TRASH AND JUNK, DERELICT VEHICLES, ACCOMMODATION OF DEBRIS. AND THEN IT ALSO SAYS UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURES. AND MISS MASTERS HAS TAKEN A LOT OF TIME TO DO THAT. MY ISSUE IS WITH THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT SAYING THAT, THAT IT WAS THAT SHE HAD VIOLATED THE ORDER ITSELF. IT JUST SIMPLY SAYS THE OWNER OR OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE BAY COUNTY ORDER, IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT BAY COUNTY WILL PROCEED TO REMOVE THE VIOLATIONS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. AND WE'RE GOING TO START ON NOVEMBER, ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 11TH. MY POINT TO THAT IS IT DOESN'T GIVE THE RESPONDENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHICH OF THOSE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR THINGS MAY HAVE BEEN THE VIOLATION. SHE DOES RECEIVE MAIL AT THAT SPOT. DON'T KNOW WHY THE REGULAR MAIL WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED. I SUSPECT THE CERTIFIED MAIL THE TENANT PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO SIGN FOR IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T FOR HIM. IT WAS ONLY BY BY THE FACT THAT MISS MASTERS HAD ACTUALLY GONE TO THE PROPERTY TO BEGIN SOME WORK ON IT, ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, AND DISCOVERED THAT THE POWER WAS TURNED OFF. SO SHE CALLED THE POWER COMPANY, WHO TOLD HER, OH, THERE WAS AN ORDER OR A NOTICE TO CUT IT OFF BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED. THEN SHE CAME TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO FIND OUT. AND THAT'S HOW SHE ACTUALLY GOT SERVED WITH THE NOTICE WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I STILL MAINTAIN IT'S DEFECTIVE. I APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF THE HEARING DURING THE TIME OF IT, BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE COMING TO BE HEARD ABOUT, THEN YOU HAVE A DEFECTIVE NOTICE. WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK THAT I THINK THAT THE ORDER DOES SET FORTH SUFFICIENT DETAIL AS TO WHAT IS EXPECTED BY WAY OF MEANS TO CORRECT THE ISSUE AND. TALKED ABOUT ADDRESS THE UNFIT OR UNSAFE STRUCTURE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. YOU EITHER GIVE A DEMO PERMIT OR YOU GET GET THE DRAWINGS, ETCETERA TO REPAIR THE ISSUES. IF THERE HAD BEEN A 13 DAY DESTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY, YOUR ISSUE MIGHT BE AS IT RELATES TO THE NOTICE MIGHT BE MORE CONVINCING, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY TO ME, BUT THEN IT IT TALKS ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS EXIST ON THE PROPERTY AND IT IT TALKS ABOUT ACCUMULATION OF TRASH, DERELICT VEHICLES, ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS, UNFIT OR UNSAFE STRUCTURES. THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND THERE WAS TESTIMONY SHE DID APPEAR I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SHE DID HAVE NOTICE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE REGULAR MAIL WASN'T. OR WASN'T ENOUGH FORWARDED TO HER
[00:15:01]
BY, I GUESS, HER TENANT. BUT THE MAIN THING, OR ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME, IS THIS HAS BEEN THE. TOPIC OF NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND THE COMPLAINTS, YOU KNOW, JUST AS SHE'S ENTITLED TO OWN HER PROPERTY AND MAKE APPROPRIATE USE OF IT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE NEIGHBORS ARE ENTITLED TO YOU KNOW, THAT SAME COURTESY, SO TO SPEAK. SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE WHAT KIND OF TIME FRAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, MISS? WITHOUT GOING TO IN DEEP WITH IT OR IN DEPTH WITH IT. BUT MISS MASTERS IS NOW AT A POINT SHE HAD SOME ILLNESS. UNFORTUNATELY, ONLY TWO WEEKS AFTER THE HEARING. IN THIS CASE, SHE GOT COVID FOR THE FOURTH TIME AND THAT SLOWED HER DOWN.AND SO THERE'S NOT A NO NO ONE'S HERE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS IN THE ORDER THAT HADN'T BEEN COMPLIED WITH. IT'S JUST THAT WHEN SHE WAS FINALLY ABLE TO DO THAT, SHE'S BEEN PRECLUDED FROM DOING IT. AND SO SHE HAS ALREADY BEEN TO THE PROPERTY ON THAT DAY TO GET IT, TO GET IT DONE. I SUPPOSE IF WE HAD A 30 DAY EXTENSION, SHE COULD BRING THE BRING THE PLANS IN, OR WE COULD AT LEAST MEET WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT TO, TO GET A SPECIFIC PLAN. AND IF SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, THEN IT SEEMS, YOU KNOW, THE ORDER HAS IN BOLD PRINT. YES, SIR. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT TO CONTACT AND INFORM CODE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY PROGRESS OR DELAYS IN BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. AND YOU KNOW, PAST EXPERIENCE IS ALL I HAVE TO GO ON CODE ENFORCEMENT. I MEAN, IF SHE CALLED AND SAID, LOOK, I GOT COVID AND YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT'S BAD OR IT'S NOT SO BAD, BUT THE DOCTOR SAYS I CAN'T DO ANYTHING. SO ON AND SO FORTH. CODE ENFORCEMENT WORKS WITH EVERYBODY. AND SO THAT'S. I DON'T WANT TO BE THE VICTIM OF A STORM. I'LL JUST BE BLUNT WITH YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. NO, ABSOLUTELY. I'M JUST I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I AND I UNDERSTAND $35,000 IS A KICK IN THE POCKETBOOK. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S A HORRIBLE NUMBER, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ASBESTOS IS BAD FOR US. AND YOU KNOW, AND YOU GOT TO PUT IT IN THE RIGHT LANDFILL AND ALL THAT OTHER SORT OF STUFF. SCOTT, AS IT RELATES TO GETTING. PERMITS AND STUFF LIKE THAT AT THIS POINT IN THE. PROCESS, I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WORD TO USE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL LOCKED OUT BECAUSE OF THE DEMO AND ALL OF THAT SORT OF STUFF. WHAT IS THE OR IS THERE A PROCESS BY WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE IF SHE WAS TO REAPPLY? SHE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT EVERYTHING ALL OVER AGAIN. ALL NEW NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE OF BUILDING OFFICIAL COMMENCEMENTS. I MEAN, BASICALLY START FROM SCRATCH. WELL, APPARENTLY BUILDER SERVICES SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S THIS MAGIC ORDER IN THE FILE THAT.
RIGHT, RIGHT. AND ONCE, ONCE THE PERMIT HAS ELAPSED, 180 DAYS WITHOUT ANY INSPECTIONS OR PROCEDURES FORWARD, THE PERMIT GOES VOID AFTER 180 BUSINESS DAYS OR WHAT EVER. JUST IT'S CALENDAR DAYS. IT'S START TO FINISH. SO ONCE THAT HAPPENS WITHOUT WITHOUT EXTENSIONS OR INSPECTION OR INSPECTIONS FOR A PASS, EVERYTHING STARTS, STARTS OVER AGAIN. AND WE'VE HAD ONE PERMIT EXPIRE ALREADY, RIGHT. WHICH WAS MISS MASTERS GOT THE PERMIT THE DAY OF THE HEARING.
RIGHT AFTER THE HEARING, SHE WENT IN AND APPLIED FOR IT BECAUSE SHE DID BRING THE PLANS IN DURING THE HEARING. AND I'VE REVIEWED THEM IN THE HALLWAY BEFORE THE HEARING. SHE WENT IN THERE AND GOT IT. GOT EVERYTHING. GOT HER PERMIT. AND THEN THERE WAS NO INSPECTIONS AND 180 DAYS ELAPSED. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE? YEAH. SHE DID. I MEAN THAT THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE. I'M SAYING, IS THAT THAT HAPPENED TO DO WITH WITH COVID AND A COUPLE OTHER THINGS. AND SHE DID IN THE MEANTIME, SHE HAS SPENT AS I SAID, WHEN I GOT THE NUMBERS MIXED UP, $58,000, REMOVING VEHICLES, GETTING STUFF DONE. SHE'S ACTUALLY DONE INTERIOR REMODELS THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE AN INSPECTION AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. GETTING IT PREPARED TO BE DONE. SHE'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, HAVING COVID. SHE ALSO HAS A BUSINESS. AND SHE WOULD TELL YOU THAT SHE LAPSED ON THIS. BUT IN OCTOBER, ON THAT DAY, SHE SAID, ALL RIGHT, IT'S TIME TO GET OUT
[00:20:04]
THERE AND GET THIS PLACE DONE. AND DID NOT REALIZE SHE MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THE PERMIT LASTED FOR A YEAR. THAT WAS THAT'S HONESTLY WHAT IT WAS. AND THEN SHE WAS PRECLUDED FROM FROM DOING THAT. AND MISS MASTERS. MASTERS AND I BOTH APPRECIATE THE STALL AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS INTENDED TO BE. THIS IS A THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURE THAT SHE'S A CONTRACTOR SHE BELIEVES CAN BE SAVED. AND SHE'S PREPARED TO ACT SWIFTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT GET BACK IN THE GOOD GRACES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. OKAY. I REALIZE THAT WE'RE COMING UP ON THE CHRISTMAS SEASON AND THE HOLIDAYS, AND NOBODY WANTS TO WORK. BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 30 DAYS TO GET THE PERMITS BACK IN FRONT OF THE BUILDER SERVICES AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. AND RESUBMIT THOSE THINGS. AND. THE YOU NOW HAVE WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL A DETAILED. REPORT AS TO THE VIOLATIONS OR THE EVIDENCE OF NONCOMPLIANCE. I'M GOING TO FIND THAT AS OF TODAY'S DATE, DECEMBER THE 4TH, 2024. THE RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.THAT THE VIOLATION SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF FEBRUARY HAVE NOT BEEN MET, AND THAT SHE HAS FAILED TO HIT THE A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND OR A BUILDING PERMIT UNDER THE DIRECTIVES OF THAT ORDER, AND THAT FURTHER HEARINGS, AS IT RELATES TO COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED. BECAUSE SHE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THAT ORDER. BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE HER AN EXTENSION OF 30 DAYS TO REAPPLY AND GET HER NECESSARY PERMITS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DIRECTIVES IN THE ORDER. THAT BEING EITHER A BUILDING PERMIT AND OR A DEMOLITION PERMIT. IF SHE CAN FIND SOMEBODY CHEAPER. GREAT. YEAH. THAT'S WONDERFUL.
BUT EVEN THOUGH IT'S CHRISTMAS TIME, SANTA'S SLEIGH IS MOVING ON, MR. LEWIS. JUST TALKING WIT.
MR. THORPE. THAT WOULD, IN FACT, GIVE HER SIX MONTHS. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD CONSIDER DISCUSSING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT A 90 DAY EXTENSION. SO OF THAT PERMIT OF THAT. PERMIT OF THAT, THE EXPIRED PERMIT IN WHICH CASE THEN SHE WOULD HAVE 90 DAYS TO GET A PASS OR A FAIL INSTEAD OF SIX MONTHS. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL. SHE NEVER. SO ONCE IN THAT 90 DAYS, WE'RE STARTING THE CLOCK AGAIN HERE. YES. SO IN 90 DAYS, IF SHE CALLS FOR AN INSPECTION AND SHE GETS A PASS, THEN THAT THAT PERMIT WOULD BE EXTENDED. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE IF SHE PUT A NEW ROOF ON, SHE GOT A BUILDING PERMIT, PUT A NEW ROOF ON, AND THEY WENT OUT THERE AND INSPECTED IT, THAT WOULD SAY, OKAY, YOU'RE IN THE CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN I THINK SHE PUT THE ROOF ON WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO I'M NOT SURE IF SHE GOT THAT CORRECTED, BUT I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. YEAH. I WASN'T AWARE OF THE YEAH, THERE WERE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN I THINK THE FIRST HEARING SHE DID UNPERMITTED WORK. SHE'S A CONTRACTOR. YEAH. THAT THAT CAUSES ME SOME HEARTBURN, QUITE FRANKLY. I MEAN, SHE'S A CONTRACTOR. IF SHE'S A CONTRACTOR, SHE KNOWS THAT SHE'S GOT TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT. SO NO UNPERMITTED WOR.
AND I'M. I'M GOING TO REVERT TO WHAT THEY SAY IS. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DOES BUILDING SERVICES HAVE THE DISCRETION TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXTEND IT FOR 90 DAYS, DESPITE YOUR REQUEST? DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THE PERMIT HAS BEEN EXPIRED FOR. I CAN GO IN THERE AND ASK THEM IF NOT, SHE CAN. YOU KNOW, IF KATHY WANTS, SHE CAN DO THE RESUBMITTAL. IF SHE DOES DECIDE, I WANT TO THROW THAT INTO TO REMOVE IT HERSELF. DEMO IT. YOU MEAN AS THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE SHE IS LISTED AS PROPERTY OWNER AND NOT AS AN LLC? SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THE ASBESTOS REMOVAL FOR SOME REASON. DEP HOLDS HANDCUFFS ON US AND THEY REQUIRE US TO DO IT, WHICH IS I THINK IS UNFAIR, BUT IT HAPPENS. SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE JUST TO THROW
[00:25:04]
IT OUT THERE, SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR THE TWO STRUCTURES WOULD PROBABLY BE 7 TO 10,000 IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THE ASBESTOS, BUT SINCE IT'S 4000FTS OF ASBESTOS AND THEY HAVE TO LINE THE HOUSE, SPRAY THE CEILINGS, REMOVE EVERYTHING, IT IS A LONG, TEDIOUS PROCESS FROM ANOTHER CLIENT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT MR. THORPE IS TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IT IS. IT IS ODD THAT THAT THE RESIDENT, IF IT'S JUST A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT, YOU CAN GET THE YOU CAN GET THE ASBESTOS EXEMPTION, BUT CODE ENFORCEMENT OR ANYBODY ELSE.THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. GOOD POINT. OKAY. ANY GOVERNMENT OR CITY ENTITY OR FUNDING. YES. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME LIKE FIVE MINUTES TO RUN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND CONFIRM THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING. I WANT TO I WANT TO MOVE THIS THING ALONG. I'M TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORS TO MOVE THIS THING ALONG SO WE DON'T GO FOREVER.
SIR, CAN I GET YOUR FULL NAME AND A GOOD MAILING ADDRESS, PLEASE? MIKE BURKE. OKAY. BURKE.
16215 PANAMA CITY BEACH PARKWAY PCB 32413.
ASHMAN TO GET AN ANSWER FOR THA.
[00:31:58]
THANK YOU. I'VE TALKED TO THE SENIOR PERMITTING CLERK, AND BECAUSE SHE'S IN THE SIX MONTHS THAT SHE HAD THE PERMIT, NEVER CALLED IN A REQUEST FOR A SINGLE INSPECTION. THEY CAN'T EXTEND IT 90 DAYS. HAD SHE HAD SHE CALLED IN AN INSPECTION THEN THEY COULD HAVE, BUT SHE'LL HAVE TO RESUBMIT EVERYTHING. PAID THE WHOLE SAME COST AND ALL THAT. ALL RIGHT. I GOT A RESPONSE TO THAT. I MEAN, YEAH. NO, NO. I KNOW THE I KNOW THE CONCERN IS, IS THE. WE DON'T WANT TO BE BACK HERE AT SOME OTHER POINT IN TIME BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A STALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO AND I FULLY APPRECIATE THE SIX MONTH EXTENSION THAT, THAT IF A NEW PERMIT IS, IS ISSUED. SO PERHAPS WE CAN HAVE A, AN AGREEMENT OR AN ORDER THAT SAYS THAT IF SHE MISSES A TIMELINE, WHAT YOU DID IN YOUR FIRST ORDER, WHICH WAS KEEP US INFORMED IF WE MISS A DATE WHERE SHE'S SUPPOSED TO EMAIL, CALL OR DO WHATEVER IN A 30 DAY PERIOD OR MONTHLY, SHE'S GOT TO GIVE A CALL FOR AN INSPECTION OR SOMETHING. THEN THAT THAT ENDS IT. BUT BUT AT LEAST SHE COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY OR DECIDE THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT I CAN'T GET IT DONE IN SIX MONTHS. AND I NEED TO DEMOLISH IT. AND SHE CAN DO IT CHEAPER. YEAH. WITHOUT THAT ASBESTOS STUFF. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BACK TO SQUARE ONE, I GUESS YOU'D SAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 30 DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT ALL APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION TO BUILD A SERVICES AND OBTAIN EITHER A.CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, A BUILDING PERMIT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF YOU JUST DECIDE I'M TIRED OF THIS JOB, I WANT TO GET IT DOWN AND SHE CAN GET A DEMO PERMIT AND GO FROM THERE. THAT HAS GOT TO BE OBTAINED WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT OR A DEMOLITION PERMIT WITHIN 30 DAYS SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS ORDER OF THE 24TH. I'M FINDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY, THE 24TH, AND THAT AT THAT POINT, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ISSUE THEIR NOTICE OF PENDING DEMOLITION OR WHATEVER THE WHATEVER Y'ALL CALL NOTICE TO PROCEED NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE CONTRACTOR. YEAH. AND. AT THE END OF 30 DAYS, I WANT CODE ENFORCEMENT TO NOTIFY
[00:35:10]
ME IF THE. BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN OR BUILDING OR DEMO PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED. AND IF IT HAS NOT, I WANT IT IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULED FOR A NONCOMPLIANCE HEARING OR A COMPLIANCE HEARING TO YOU KNOW, I WILL WAVE THE WAND OVER IT RATHER THAN THEM WAVE THE WAND OVER IT, SAYING NONCOMPLIANCE. THE. RESPONDENT AS IN THE ORDER OF THE 24TH FEBRUARY 24TH, SHALL REMAIN UNDER A CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO KEEP CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFIED OF ANY PROGRESS OR DELAYS THAT RELATE TO THIS MATTER. AND FAILURE TO DO SO AGAIN WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER, AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE 24TH. WITH SOME CLARIFICATION, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMITS, IT'S THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL ORDER WITH THE STRUCTURAL FORCE. OKAY.IT'S GOT TO SATISFY BUILDERS SERVICES, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE. OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THEM. OKAY. YOU CAN WAIVE THIS AND YOU CAN'T WAIVE THAT. RIGHT. THAT'S THEIR JOB. THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE PAPERWORK IS SUFFICIENT. RIGHT. SO IT'S THE SAME STUFF THAT SHE HAD SUBMITTED. RIGHT. OKAY. ADDITIONALLY, THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CALL FOR AND PASS AT LEAST ONE INSPECTION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE SEEING THAT THIS ISN'T MOVING, WE'RE GOING TO FAILURE TO DO THAT WILL BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER. AND AT THAT POINT, CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN NOTICE A NONCOMPLIANCE HEARING. ANYTHING ELSE? JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, IT'S FEBRUARY 14TH, NOT 24TH. IT'S THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THAT'S IT. OTHER THAN THAT, NO, SIR, I APPRECIATE IT. JUST SO WE HAVE THE RECORD, BUT NO, NO NO, NO. THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL HERE. WOULD YOU PREFER TO GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE IT FOR COMPLIANCE HEARING JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OR BECAUSE YOU'RE YOUR NEXT COMPLIANCE IS IN FEBRUARY I BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU'RE OUT IN JANUARY. CORRECT. YES, I'M OUT IN JANUARY. SO THAT'S 60 DAYS, MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM TODAY OR MARCH 12TH WILL BE 90 DAYS NON COMPLY WITHIN 60 DAYS. SO MARCH 12TH WOULD BE THE NEXT ONE. THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN THAT WOULD BE 90 DAYS RIGHT. OR CLOSE TO IT.
LET'S TENTATIVELY SCHEDULE IT FOR THAT. OKAY. AND IF IN THE EVENT THAT SHE GETS A PERMIT INSPECTION AND PASSES, YOU CAN TAKE IT OFF THE DOCKET. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ORDER OF COMPLIANCE HEARING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MARCH THE 12TH OR WHATEVER.
WHICH CAN BE WAIVED IN THE EVENT THAT SHE GETS A PASS ON AN INSPECTION. ANYTHING ELSE? NO, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO ALL OF YOU, PARTICULARLY FOR ACCOMMODATING ME AGAIN. WELL, I HOPE YOU STAY AWAY FROM THE COVID BUG AND KEEP ON TRUCKING WITH THE WORK UP THERE. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.