[Code Magistrate Hearing on January 9, 2025.]
[00:00:05]
ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS TIFFANY SARAH. I'M GOING TO BE YOUR MAGISTRATE. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL TODAY'S MEETING TO ORDER AT 901 ON THURSDAY, JANUARY THE 9TH. I WILL GO AHEAD AND SWEAR EVERYBODY IN ALL AT ONE TIME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND LET THE SECRETARY SWEAR YOU IN. GOD GAVE US THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE AND START WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT TELLING YOU WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON AFTER THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO LISTEN TO WHATEVER WE NEED TO HEAR. I WILL JUMP AROUND THE AGENDA SO WE CAN TRY AND DEAL WITH WHO IS PRESENT. FIRST. WE'LL DEAL WITH LETTER G ON THE AGENDA. IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT. CASE NUMBER 23 02482. I HAVE NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE.
LET'S BEGIN WITH THAT ONE. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 1302 EVERETT AVENUE. CATHERINE ASHMAN, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER. THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2023 AND WAS FOUND IN REPEAT VIOLATION. BAY COUNTY CODE 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF A UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE, TRASH, JUNK AND UNSCREENED UNUSED PERSONAL PROPERTY. THE RESPONDENT DID APPEAR AT THE HEARING, ALONG WITH HER ATTORNEY, JACOB COOK. THESE FIRST PHOTOS ARE PHOTOS TAKEN THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THAT INITIAL HEARING. JUST TO REMIND YOU THIS, THESE FIRST PHOTOS WERE SHOWING THAT IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PRIOR TO THE. THOUGHT IT WAS. YES. THIS WAS. THE ORIGINAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WAS CONVERTED BY THE RESPONDENT INTO APARTMENTS. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAVE 30 DAYS TO REMOVE THE JUNK AND TRASH, AND PROPERLY SCREEN OR STORE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND 60 DAYS TO CORRECT THE UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE OR A FINE OF $2,000 WOULD BE IMPOSED AND SHOULD THE VIOLATIONS REMAIN, THE MAGISTRATE DIRECTED STAFF TO ABATE THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT TO CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY IN WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTED, AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, THE RESPONDENT ADVISED INSPECTOR THORPE THAT SHE WOULD BE OBTAINING A LETTER FROM AN ENGINEER SAYING THAT SHE HAD HIRED HIM TO FOR THE REPAIRS. ON OCTOBER 23RD, 2023, MISS BOUCHARD CALLED AND ADVISED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ALMOST CLEANED UP. ON THE 24TH OF OCTOBER, 2023, INSPECTOR THORPE RETURNED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM A MR. KHAN WITH SON ENGINEERING, BUT WAS UNABLE TO REACH HIM ON THAT DATE. ON OCTOBER 2623, AN INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED. STILL PHOTOS FROM. SHOWN TO YOU AT THAT HEARING. OCTOBER 26TH INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION. ON THAT SAME DATE, MR. KHAN SPOKE TO INSPECTOR THORPE REGARDING THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER AND THE ORDER WAS EXPLAINED TO HIM AT THAT TIME. ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2023, INSPECTOR THORPE RETURNED TO CALL FOR RETURN TO TELEPHONE CALL FROM MR. BUITER, WHO STATED THAT SHE THAT THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING AND THE ADDITION AND THE ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS SHE MADE DID NOT AFFECT THE STRUCTURE. SHE FURTHER ADVISED AGAIN THAT SHE HAD THREE OPTIONS. SHE WAS. SHE WAS ADVISED BY MR. INSPECTOR THORPE THAT SHE HAD THREE OPTIONS, WHICH WAS TO RETURN THE STRUCTURE BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FLOOR PLAN, CONVERT IT TO A DUPLEX, OR DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE SHE FURTHER. SHE WAS FURTHER REMINDED THAT THE FIRST TWO OPTIONS WOULD REQUIRE ENGINEERING. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS OCTOBER 26TH FOLLOW UP INSPECTION OR POST HEARING INSPECTION, THERE WAS SOME WORK BEING DONE WITH THE TRASH, JUNK AND DEBRIS, BUT IT WAS STILL IN VIOLATION. ON OCTOBER 30TH. CODE
[00:05:08]
ENFORCEMENT OF 2023 CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS NOTIFIED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER ON NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023, A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM SUN ENGINEERING ON NOVEMBER 20TH. INSPECTOR THORPE SPOKE WITH THE MR. KHAN, WHO REQUESTED ANY ADDITIONAL PHOTOS THAT WE MAY HAVE OF THE EXTERIOR PRIOR TO MRS. BHUTTO'S PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. HE ALSO ADVISED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO DO A COMPLETE INSPECTION OF THE INTERIOR DUE TO IT BEING FULL OF MATERIALS. HE ALSO REQUESTED. HE STATED THAT HE HAD REQUESTED THAT MISS BOUCHARD CLEAN IT UP AND REMOVE A WALL AND CEILING WHERE THE ADDITIONS WERE CONNECTED, SO HE COULD SEE THE DESIGN THAT WAS USED. AND INSPECTOR THORPE IS HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS HE MAY HAVE HAD WITH THE ENGINEER ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2023, BLUEPRINTS WERE SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERED MR. KHAN FROM SUN ENGINEERING ASKED IF HE WHOOPS, DID I. I'M REREADING IT ON A OKAY. DECEMBER 12TH, MISS BOUCHARD EMAILED INSPECTOR THORPE, CLAIMING SHE HAD SUBMITTED ALL REQUIRED REPORTS AND PLANS. IT WAS RELAYED TO HER THAT INSPECTOR THORPE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KHAN AT ENGINEERING SUN ENGINEERING, AND THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO CONTACT HIM TO FINISH THE PLANS. RE INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE APPEAL OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT REMAINED IN VIOLATION AND NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WAS SUBMITTED BY MISS BUTTER. THESE ARE THE REMAINING VIOLATIONS OR THE INSPECTIONS. ON JULY 11TH, 2024, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED NOTICE THAT THE HONORABLE JUDGE WILLIAM S HENRY HAD AFFIRMED THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ORDER THAT'S ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT B ON JULY 19TH, 2024, AN ASBESTOS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED AT THE COST OF $800. ON AUGUST 27TH, 2024, A NOTICE OF INTENT WAS SENT CERTIFIED REGULAR MAIL STATING THAT WORK WOULD BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 9TH OF 2024.THAT WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE BUILDING ON AUGUST 28TH OF 2024, DURING A PRE BID INSPECTION.
THESE ARE PHOTOS STARTING IN PHOTO 46 OF THE PRE BID INSPECTION. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE PHOTOS, THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION. THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED BY A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE COUNTY AT A COST OF $4,846 AND UPON INSPECTION ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2024, THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. NOVEMBER 13TH THE NOTICE SECOND HEARING WAS SENT. THE NOTICE WAS DELIVERED TO THE RESPONDENT ON NOVEMBER 16TH OF 2024. THE NOTICE WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT? NOT AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO HACK, MA'AM? ALL RIGHT. JUST GIVE ME YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MY NAME IS MUSSARAT BATAR, AND I'M PRESENTLY AT 2413 PARKWOOD DRIVE, PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA.
32405. I NEED TO KNOW, MA'AM. THE WHOLE THING IS THAT THIS MISS KATHY AND YOUR. WHAT DO YOU CALL SCOTT THARP? THE LAST HEARING THAT WE HAD, THEY COME AND TOLD YOU LIES UNDER OATH AND I HAVE. WELL, I'M NOT HERE TO DISCUSS. I'M JUST TRYING TO TELL YOU, MA'AM, THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY ENTERED AN ORDER. THE LAST HEARING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE JUDGE. I AM NOT HERE WITH JURISDICTION TO OVERTURN HIS RULING, AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO. ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, IS THERE ANYTHING NEW YOU WANT TO DISCUSS? YES, THERE IS NEW TOO.
THERE WAS AN ORDERED BY THE FIRST DCA. THE CASE NUMBER IS 1D2 2024 DASH 1974. IT WAS OPENED ON AUGUST 7TH OF 2024, AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AFTER THAT. IF THEY HAD TO DEMOLISH ANYTHING. AND THE PICTURES THEY ARE SHOWING YOU IS AFTER EVERYTHING HAD BEEN CLEANED UP, THEY'RE REPLAYING THE SAME PICTURES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MA'AM, THEY WERE REMINDING ME OF THE PICTURES. THIS BEGAN WITH PHOTOS BACK IN 23. I HAVE A REALLY GOOD MEMORY, BUT THEY WERE JUST SHOWING ME WHAT I HAD ALREADY SEEN PREVIOUS TO THIS SITUATION. SO WHEN THEY ARE
[00:10:06]
SHOWING YOU ALL THE PICTURES TO REMIND YOU OF ALL THAT, I HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL YOU THAT, LOOK HERE, ALL THIS THING WAS CLEANED SO IT WASN'T UNDER VIOLATION AT ALL, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. BUT THEY ARE REPEATING THE SAME PICTURES TO BRING IT TO YOUR MEMORY, SO THAT I HAVE NO GROUND TO STAND ON. OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS OR CHANGE ANYTHING. PRIOR TO JULY OF 20 FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING HAS HAPPENED. THE JUDGE MADE A DECISION ON THE APPEAL, DETERMINED THAT THAT ORDER IS AFFIRMED. ANYTHING FROM JULY 24TH FORWARD. I LOOKED AT, I HAVE SEEN THE PHOTOS AND AT NO POINT IN TIME DOES IT LOOK LIKE THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE UNTIL OCTOBER 28TH, WHEN A DIFFERENT PERSON OR A DIFFERENT GROUP? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THIS THING, MA'AM, THAT THE PICTURES ARE NOT THE SAME. THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN THIS IMPOSE THOSE DATES ON THEM AND DISPLAY IT TO YOU ALL. OKAY, I'VE GOT PROOF OF THAT. AND I HAVE PROOF OF THEIR LIES, TOO.SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, MA'AM, YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER THE CASE IS OPEN IN THE FIRST DCA AND IT WAS OPENED AND THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMOLISH ANYTHING TILL THEN BECAUSE THE COURT HASN'T AGREED TO ANYTHING YET. AND THEY WENT AHEAD. AND DID YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW? THE JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER ON JULY OF 24, AFFIRMING THE PREVIOUS ORDER THAT WAS ENTERED BY THE MAGISTRATE THAT STOOD. SO IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE ANY APPEAL OF THAT, YOU HAD A CERTAIN TIMELINE TO DO THAT. AND WE DID IT. WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT STOPPED WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE OR PROPERLY. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN BE STOPPED BECAUSE FIRST DCA HAS OPENED THE CASE AND THE CASE IS STILL OPEN. THEY HAD 60 DAYS TO RESPOND ON THAT. OR THEY RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION. I DON'T HAVE WHATEVER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE DCA. THEY DID NOT GET IT. IT'S THE CASE NUMBER ID 2024. DASH 1974 OPENED AUGUST 7TH OF 2024, AND THE ATTORNEY CALLED THEM UP AND TOLD THEM THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN CASE. AND THEY SAID THEY SAID OKAY. AND NOW IT'S JUST LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A PROOF OF IT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY WE ARE GOING HERE, BUT THEY HAVE DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING. IT'S JUST LIKE, HANG THE PERSON BEFORE THE JUDGMENT COMES. OKAY, SO THEY DEMOLISHED EVERYTHING AND HERE IT IS ALL CLEANED UP AND THE CASE IS STILL IN THE COURT. OKAY, WELL, THE CASE THAT THE JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER ON, I HAVE THE JUDGE'S ORDER, AND I'VE LOOKED AT THAT AND THE JUDGE'S ORDER AFFIRMED WHAT WAS IN PLACE PRIOR TO THAT. AND ALL THESE PICTURES THAT THEY ARE CONSTANTLY DISPLAYING. THE RECORD CAN ONLY TAKE ONE OF OUR VOICES AT A TIME. THE ITEM THAT THE JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER ON SAID THAT HE AFFIRMED THE PREVIOUS ORDER THAT WAS IN PLACE BACK IN 23. HE ENTERED THAT ORDER IN JULY OF 24. I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, MA'AM, I DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION I CAN PAY YOU, BUT THE JUDGMENT IS STILL NOT DONE BY THE FIRST DCA.
THE COURT IS STILL OPEN. THE CASE IS STILL OPEN THERE. OKAY. YOU CAN ASK THEM IS I DON'T HAVE THAT CASE. WHAT I HAVE IS THE APPEAL THAT YOU OR MR. COOK FILED ON THE ORDER THAT WAS ENTERED BACK IN 23. JUDGE HENRY ENTERED AN ORDER AFFIRMING THAT IN JULY OF 24, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYTHING WAS ACTUALLY THERE WAS A THERE WAS A HEARING ON THE EIGHTH OF THIS MONTH ON THAT CASE THAT I DIDN'T GO TO. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S IMMATERIAL. WHEN THEY OPENED THE CASE IN THE FIRST DCA THAT MY ATTORNEY OPENED UP A CASE IN THE FIRST DCA. SO THIS BECOMES HE SAID, THIS IS THIS WON'T REALLY MATTER. OUR ATTORNEY HERE TODAY IS YOUR ATTORNEY HERE TODAY. NO.
MR. FLETCHER, IS THERE A REASON THAT HE'S NOT PRESENT TO PRESENT ANY INFORMATION? NO. THEY WERE THEY THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S THE CASE IS STILL OPEN. I TALKED TO THEM THIS MORNING. AND THEY SAID YOU HAD TO TELL THEM ABOUT THIS THING. THE CASE IS STILL OPEN IN THE FIRST DCA AND IT WAS OPENED IN AUGUST 7TH OF 2024. AND THE CASE HASN'T COME INTO HEARING.
AND HERE THEY HAVE ALREADY DEMOLISHED EVERYTHING AND THEY'RE BRINGING ALL THE OLD PICTURES AGAIN AND AGAIN TRYING TO PROVE THEIR CASE. TALKED ABOUT THIS. THEY'RE BRINGING THE
[00:15:02]
OLD PICTURES TO REMIND ME OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT BACK IN 2003. AGAIN, I HAVE A REALLY GOOD MEMORY, BUT IT BEGAN IN 23. I'M GOING TO BE REFRESHED ON PHOTOGRAPHS OF WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE THEN. WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE JUDGE'S ORDER. NO, MA'AM. I HEARD HER WHEN SHE SAYS THAT. OKAY. ON THIS, IT WAS STILL NOT CLEANED UP ON THIS. IT WAS NOT CLEANED UP ON THIS. IT WAS NOT CLEANED UP. IT WAS ALL THE TIME IN VIOLATION. THAT'S WHY THEY WENT AHEAD AND DEMOLISHED EVERYTHING. SO THEY ARE BUILDING UP THE CASE LIKE THAT ON THIS DATE, THAT DAY, THAT DAY, THAT DAY, THAT DATE. IT LOOKS LIKE NOTHING GOT EVER CLEANED. AND THEY ARE THE ONE WHO CLEANED IT FOR $7,000. WELL, THEY SHOWED ME A PICTURE OF IT IN COMPLIANCE.WHERE IT HAS BEEN. WHERE'S THE LAST PICTURE? THIS IS THE CLEANUP. THEY DID. THEY DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT WAS THE CLEANUP? THEY DID. OKAY. SO SHOULD I PAY YOU THE FINE WHEN THE CASE IS STILL IN THE FIRST DCA? I'M PRETTY SURE I DIDN'T EVEN GET A REQUEST FOR A FINE YET. I THINK MAYBE YOU'RE JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION OF WHAT I'M GOING TO DETERMINE, BUT I HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION. THE ONLY CHOICES I HAVE IS I MADE A DECISION. AT ONE POINT IN TIME, THE JUDGE AFFIRMED THAT DECISION. THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HAS BEEN FILED IN THE DCA CODE. ENFORCEMENT SAYS THEY DON'T HAVE A COPY OF ANYTHING. THERE IS NO ATTORNEY HERE TO GIVE ME AN UPDATE ON WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HAS BEEN FILED. ALL RIGHT, MA'AM, SO ACCORDING TO THEM, I OWE YOU THIS MUCH MONEY TODAY. I DIDN'T EVEN GET A. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR OUR RECOMMENDATION? YES. IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DETERMINE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COST OF THE ABATING, THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS. ENFORCEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,646 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST. THAT THE MAGISTRATE IMPOSED THE FINE OF $2,000 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST, AND THAT UPON RECORDING OF THE SECOND ORDER IN PUBLIC RECORDS, BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, COSTS LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND IN WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTED AND AGAINST ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ASSESS THE COST OF ABATING THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT AND CHAPTER 21 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE, AND THAT IS ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED BY ME AND AFFIRMED BY THE JUDGE. ALSO. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE? NO.
WHAT I WANTED WAS THAT LET THE FIRST DCA DECIDE BEFORE THEY BEFORE I PAY YOU THIS MONEY.
OKAY. WELL I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM THE FIRST DCA, NOR DO I HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO TELL ME THEY FILED ANYTHING. OR WHY IN THE WORLD WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HAS BEEN FILED, SO THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. OKAY. CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS NEVER SERVED ANY KIND OF NOTIFICATION. OKAY? YOU WERE NEVER SERVED, AND NOBODY CALLED REGARDLESS OF SOMEBODY CALLED. I DON'T KNOW THAT SOMEBODY CALLED. THEY MAY HAVE CALLED, AND IT HAS TO BE SERVED TO US. YOU OKAY? A PHONE CALL SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING IS NOT SERVICE. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE RECEIVED THAT PHONE CALL. BUT THERE'S 13 PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE, SO I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM. OKAY. SO I WRITE YOU A CHECK FOR THIS, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT YOU HOLD THE CHECK TILL THIS HEARING. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RESPONSE IN 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER. SO. WELL, IN ALL HONESTY, IT'S JANUARY OF 25. IF YOU'RE SAYING WHATEVER WAS FILED IN THE DCA WAS FILED IN AUGUST OF 24, WE'RE WELL PAST AUGUST 7TH. YEAH. SO WE'RE WELL PAST 30 DAYS. NO NO NO NO NO. THEY JUST RECENTLY GOT ANOTHER ONE ASKING FOR A RESPONSE TO IT. SO I WAS WONDERING I HAVE TO I HAVE TO CHECK UP AND GET THOSE LETTERS FROM THE ATTORNEY. I DON'T HAVE THEM TODAY WITH ME BECAUSE OF THESE HOLIDAYS. THEY WEREN'T ALL CLOSED. AND THIS WINTER THING DIDN'T HELP US AT ALL. SO, OKAY. WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU NEED TO ACQUIRE FROM YOUR ATTORNEY, UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE NOT HERE, SO I CAN'T HELP GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. I'M GOING TO ENTER THE ORDER OF RECOMMENDATION BY CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF ABATEMENT. I WILL FIND THAT AS OF THE PHOTOS I LOOKED ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2024, THE PROPERTY IS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITED
[00:20:01]
VIOLATIONS. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE? WHAT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IS WHEN THEY TOLD ME TO HIRE AN ENGINEER, THE ENGINEER WAS HIRED. THEY TOLD ME TO PRESENT THE REPORT. WE DID PRESENT THE REPORT. AND THEN MR. THORPE SAID ON THE ON THE THING THAT YOU CAN NOW GO TO THE SPECIAL SERVICES AND GET THE NECESSARY PERMITS. AND NOW THE WHOLE THING IS BACK AGAIN AND THEY COME AND DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. SO, I MEAN, WHERE IS THE TIME LIMIT THEY GAVE ME? MR. THORPE NEVER GAVE ME. I HAVE HIS, WHAT DO YOU CALL THE RECORD STILL THERE. AND THE WHOLE THING IS SUCH A MESS BECAUSE I'M AN I SPENT MONEY ON EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. AND HERE IT IS. THEY DEMOLISH THE BUILDING, AND I'M. I'M IN THE WRONG. AND WE CLEANED UP AND EVERYTHING WAS GONE. SO I SAW PHOTOS RIGHT BEFORE CLEANUP WITH A PRE-BID INSPECTION, AND THE PROPERTY STILL HAD NOT BEEN CLEANED. IT WASN'T CLEAN UNTIL A DIFFERENT COMPANY CAME IN AND CLEANED IT. NO MA'AM. AFTER THEY TOLD US TO CLEAN IT, THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED UP. OKAY, BUT THEY KEEP BRINGING YOU PICTURES. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. THE PHOTOS, THE SUPERIMPOSE, THE DATES. OKAY, WELL, I THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY, MA'AM. I'M NOT SAYING THIS THING, BUT THEY DO PUT THE DATES. UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT I DO HAVE EVIDENCE. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. CAN I PRESENT IT TO YOU ANOTHER DATE? NO. TODAY IS YOUR DATE OF YOUR HEARING. YOU DIDN'T ASK ME TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. I CAN EVEN THE WARRANT THAT THEY GOT. I HAVE EVIDENCE, OKAY? THIS IS THAT THEY DEBATED ON FOR YEARS. I KNOW THAT, OKAY, BUT HOW DO I GET TO YOU, MA'AM? HOW DO I GET TO YOU? SEND ANY. YOU HAD AN ATTORNEY? NO, NO, I NEEDED TO TALK TO YOU MYSELF TO TELL YOU WHAT ALL HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. HOW CAN I EVER GET HOLD OF YOU AS A PERSON TO TELL YOU WHAT ALL HAPPENED HERE? THEY PRESENT YOU. THEY SWEAR ON THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE. OKAY, SO WHEN THEY DO THAT, HOW DO I PROVE TO YOU WHERE YOUR ATTORNEY PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION? HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY DURING THE ORIGINAL HEARING? WHEN I ENTERED AN ORDER, THE JUDGE SAID THAT WAS AFFIRMED AND THINGS WERE DISCOVERED AFTER THAT. MA'AM, PLEASE. THE THINGS WERE DISCOVERED AFTER THAT. MY DECISION IS ABOUT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME. IT WAS DISCOVERED WHAT THEY TOLD YOU IN THE COURTHOUSE WITH THEIR HANDS UP THERE IN THE AIR, THAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. AND THEY WEREN'T. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I WASN'T IN THE COURTHOUSE AT ANY POINT IN TIME. THE HEARINGS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED IN THIS BUILDING, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THOUGHT IS THAT? I WAS AT ANY OF THE COURTHOUSE, AND ANYBODY RAISED THEIR HAND AND SWORE TO ANYTHING. WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS THE SAME INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD AND YOUR ATTORNEY HAD DURING THE HEARING. IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT DATES WERE IMPOSED, I'M SORRY. WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, MA'AM, WHATEVER YOU GOT THE INFORMATION AND THE HEARING AND THE SWEARING, THEY DID UNDER OATH, WHICH YOU DENIED BECAUSE OF, I DENY THE MOTION THAT OUR ATTORNEY DID WAS TO SORT OF SUPPRESS THE MOTION OF THEIR SEARCH. RIGHT. AND IT WAS DENIED BASED ON THEIR EVIDENCE. AND THEY SWORE UNDER OATH. OKAY. AND THE JUDGE SAID THE SAME AS I DID. WHATEVER YOU'RE BELIEVING THAT WAS A LIE OR INCORRECT. THE JUDGE DIDN'T FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT EITHER. THE JUDGE AFFIRMED. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT NEW DISCOVERY, MA'AM? THIS IS A NEW DISCOVERY. SO AT WHAT STAGE DO I COME AND TELL YOU THAT? LOOK HERE, IT'S YOUR DECISION. YOU HAD A HEARING TODAY. YOU DIDN'T BRING ANY EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME TODAY OTHER THAN ALLEGATIONS THAT, MA'AM. BUT BELIEVE ME, I DID NOT. I THOUGHT THAT YOU ALL ARE DISCUSSING THIS. FINE. SO I BROUGHT THAT THING. I SAID, OKAY, IF YOU HAD EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION THAT QUOTE ITEMS WERE SUPERIMPOSED WITH DATES, THAT EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION I WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO HEAR YOU'RE READY. RIGHT THERE. CAN I HAVE ANOTHER HEARING WHERE I CAN BRING YOU THAT? I CAN LITERALLY BRING YOU ALL THAT. NO. THIS IS YOUR HEARING DATE. ALL RIGHT. SO CAN WE HAVE ANOTHER HEARING DATE? CAN WE HAVE ANOTHER HEARING DATE? NO. NOT ABOUT THIS CASE. NOT IF SOMETHING ELSE IS BROUGHT BEFORE ME ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. AND I DON'T NEED TO BRING IT ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY IF THIS IS THE WAY THEY ARE DOING IT. MA'AM, I NEED YOU TO BE VERY AWARE OF IT. THAT. LOOK[00:25:02]
HERE. THIS THING IS NOT RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAVE A FAIR TREATMENT IN THIS COURT. AND IF THE FAIR TREATMENT IS SORT OF ALL BENT TOWARDS FAVORING THEM TOWARDS ANYBODY. SO THEN THEN WHAT ARE WE HAVING THE HEARINGS FOR? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY ARE REPEATEDLY BRINGING THE SAME PICTURES OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHICH ARE NOT TRUE. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. I KNOW THAT. SO CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXTRA TIME FOR THIS MONEY THAT YOU ARE ASKING ME? I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR ANY MONEY. I DON'T WANT YOUR MONEY. WOULD I ENTERED AN ORDER? IS THAT YOU OWE MONEY FOR BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AND THE FINE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT GOES EITHER TO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR TO YOUR, EXCUSE ME, THE TAX DEED THAT'S FILED OR WHATEVER LIEN IS ASSOCIATED. IT IS NOT TO ME. SO WHO DECIDES ABOUT THIS? FINES. THEY DECIDE. I JUST DECIDED. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK YOU. CAN YOU GIVE EXTRA TIME, LET THIS DECISION COME IN BECAUSE THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO RESPOND TO IT, THAT IF THERE IS SOMETHING PENDING WITH THE DCA, MAYBE YOUR ATTORNEY NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE CONTACTED AND PROPERLY SERVED NOTICE OF IT ALL I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME AND I HAVE ASKED CODE ENFORCEMENT. ALL THEY HAVE IS YOU ALLEGING THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN FILED. OH, OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL CONCLUDE TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT. CASE NUMBER 20 3-0482. PROPERTY ADDRESS WAS 1302 EVERETT AVENUE. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THAT BRINGS US. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE HERE. DO YOU WANT TO START AT THE TOP? WE'LL GO BACK TO LETTER A ON THE AGENDA. IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT.CASE 20242915. PROPERTY ADDRESSES 8230 KLONDIKE ROAD. ALL RIGHT. ON JUNE 1ST, 2023, THE BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE FOUND THIS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF A BLIGHTED MOBILE HOME. A COPY OF THAT ORDER IS ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A ON JULY 15TH, 2024, AN INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED BY INSPECTOR THORPE AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE MOBILE HOME HAD DETERIORATED AND IT WAS DETERMINED NOW TO BE UNSAFE FINDS FOR THAT, BLIGHTED CONDITIONS WERE STOPPED AND THE CASE WAS. THIS CASE WAS OPENED FOR THE VIOLATION OF 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF AN UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE. THIS SLIDE NUMBER TWO IS AN AERIAL VIEW FROM DECEMBER 23RD TO FEBRUARY 20TH FOUR. IN THAT TIME FRAME, THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLUE. IT IS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF BAY COUNTY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS YOUNGSTOWN OR BAYOU GEORGE AND B BAYOU GEORGE. IT'S KIND OF IN THE SAME AREA AS THE FREMONT CASE FROM YESTERDAY. IT. THIS IS A SLIDE JUST TO SHOW TO INDICATE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN A FLOOD ZONE. AND WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO START WITH INSPECTOR THORPE BECAUSE HE INITIATED THE UNSAFE, UNSAFE, UNSAFE CONDITIONS. MORI MAGISTRATE, INSPECTOR THORPE, BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT. I SUBMITTED MY CREDENTIALS FOR THE RECORD ON JULY 15TH. THIS MOBILE HOME WAS DISCOVERED SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE ASPHALT SHINGLES AND THE DECKING HAD BEEN TARPED OVER SEVERAL TIMES WITH DETERIORATION, TARPS BLOWING OFF PENETRATION. ALSO IN THE IN THE DECKING, FASCIA AND SOFFIT IN THE REAR ROTTED OUT SEVERAL AREAS WHERE IT'S MISSING. CLOSER VIEW THERE SOFFIT AND FASCIA DAMAGE, WATER PENETRATION THROUGH THE WINDOWS, ALL THE MOLD ON THE INSIDE THERE SEVERAL HOLES IN THE BACK VINYL SIDING WHICH IS PENETRATED THE SHEETING ON THE OUTSIDE AND ROTTED DOWN TO THE BOTTOM PLATE. THE SIDING WAS LIFTED OFF ALL AROUND ALONG THE BOTTOM, INDICATING THAT THE NAILS WERE PULLED OUT BECAUSE THETED. THISE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES, MA'AM. ALL THE MOLD IN THE WINDOW AND THE MOISTURE. I THINK IT PREVIOUSLY RAINED BEFORE THAT. THE YARD WAS PRETTY MARSHY. AND ALSO IN THE SLIDE NUMBER EIGHT. THAT WINDOW BROKEN? YES, MA'AM. WINDOW WAS BROKEN. AND THE MOBILE HOMES GOT
[00:30:02]
KIND OF A LITTLE SAG. IF YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WINDOWS THERE. ALL RIGHT.AND SLIDE NINE THERE. JUST YOU CAN SEE THE, THE DETERIORATION AND THE SAGGING AND THE DECKING AND MORE TARPING ON THE BACK THERE. AND THERE'S THAT CLOSER VIEW OF THE BROKEN WINDOW.
MOISTURE PENETRATION INSIDE THE WALLS. THE DECK OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE THERE IT'S IN SLIDE 11.
IT'S PARTIALLY COLLAPSED ROTTED OUT IN THE CENTER. THERE'S THEY PUT SOME PLASTIC GARAGE FLOORING ON ON THE DECK WHERE IT WAS ROTTED OUT. THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS I COULD GET UP THERE WITHOUT IT COLLAPSING. AS IT SITS VACANT AND NOT TAKEN CARE OF. UNFIT. UNSAFE. ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2024, INVESTIGATOR RAYMOND SCOTT WAS ASSIGNED THE CASE AND HE INITIATED INITIATED HIS FIRST SITE VISIT ON OCTOBER 8TH AND HE IS HERE TO TESTIFY. MORNING. MAGISTRATE RAYMOND SCOTT, COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATOR I SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS, EXHIBITS AND.
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO GO WITH IT. BASICALLY, ALL OF THE PHOTOS THAT'S REMAINING ARE BASICALLY GOING TO BE THE SAME. THERE'S NO CHANGES IN THE PROPERTY AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE. ON SEPTEMBER THE 12TH OF 2024, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER OF RECORD USING THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. THE CERTIFIED IRREGULAR MAIL NOTICES WERE RETURNED AS NOT DELIVERED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER THE 12TH AND THIS HEARING DATE. AGAIN, RE INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NO CHANGES AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. OCTOBER THE 15TH OF 2024 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING WAS SENT, CERTIFIED AND REGULAR MAIL TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE.
THE CERTIFIED IN REGULAR NOTICES WILL RETURN NOT DELIVERED ON DECEMBER THE 12TH. A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY, AND ON THE 19TH AT THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMUNICATIONS WHATSOEVER WITH ANYBODY THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY.
ON JANUARY THE 6TH. THE PROPERTY HAS NOT CHANGED HANDS AND IT WAS RE INSPECTED ON JANUARY THE 6TH AND REMAINED IN VIOLATION. AND THERE'S NO PERMITS BEEN PULLED. AND THE CASE IS SCHEDULED FOR COMPLIANCE HEARING ON FEBRUARY THE 13TH OF 2025 AT 1:00 PM. THAT CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY.
COUNCILMAN. CODE ENFORCEMENT AT THIS TIME, JUST A RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. GO AHEAD PLEASE. IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DETERMINE THAT THE ADDRESS, 8230 KLONDIKE ROAD, YOUNGSTOWN, FLORIDA, IS LOCATED WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF BAY COUNTY AND SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE. THE PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT THAT A VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE 17 DASH TWO EXISTS IN THE FORM OF AN UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE AND THAT THE MAGISTRATE SET A REASONABLE TIME OF 30 DAYS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE BY ADDRESSING THE UNFIT, UNSAFE MOBILE HOME, AS FOLLOWS. APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE. REPAIR OR REPAIR THE UNFIT UNSAFE STRUCTURE OR MOBILE HOME BY. IN THIS CASE, THE FIRST THING THEY NEED IS A SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE DETERMINATION FROM THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGER TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. THE BAY COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THE APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A MOBILE HOME MANUFACTURER, SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC MODEL OF THE MOBILE HOME TO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR ENGINEERING PLANS OR BLUEPRINTS TO SHOW THAT THE DEVIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL HOME TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT, DIVISION. REPAIR OR REMODELING OF MOBILE HOME. MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL REQUIRE THE USE OF MATERIAL AND DESIGN EQUIVALENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ROOF SYSTEM, WALL FLOOR SYSTEM, WINDOWS, EXTERIOR DOORS, AND OF THE MOBILE HOME.
STRUCTURAL REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT SHALL REQUIRE THE USE OF MATERIAL AND DESIGN EQUIVALENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PLUMBING REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT SHALL REQUIRE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND DESIGNED EQUIVALENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPAIRS MUST BE MADE BY A DESIGNATED PERSON, AS DEFINED BY THE FLORIDA STATUTE. 320 .8245.
SUBSECTION FOUR SUBMIT A DETAILED ACTION PLAN, INCLUDING TIMEFRAMES, OUTLINING THE NECESSARY REPAIRS FOR THE STRUCTURE TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND ALL MANUFACTURE, SPECIFICATION, ENGINEERING PLANS OR BLUEPRINTS.
[00:35:02]
MUST PASS PLANS. REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED. THE PERMIT INSPECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY BAY COUNTY BUILDERS SERVICES DIVISION OR DESIGNEE. REPAIRS MUST BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTION PLAN AND STRUCTURAL REPORT. ALL BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTIONS MUST BE COMPLETED AND ALL PERMITS MUST BE FINALIZED IN ORDER FOR THE REPAIRS TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE. IF AT ANY TIME THE REQUIRED PERMITS UNDER THIS ORDER EXPIRE, THIS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER. 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 THAT IF THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE ACTIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER, A FINE OF $1,000 SHALL BE IMPOSED. SUCH FINE SHALL BECOME A LIEN ON THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL. LOCATED IN BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, NONCOMPLIANCE SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO HAVE OCCURRED IF THE RESPONDENT OBTAINS DEMOLITION OR BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN A TIME FRAME SET ABOVE, AND THEN ALLOWS THE PERMIT TO EXPIRE, BE CANCELED OR REVOKED BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY, OR BECOMES VOID FOR ANY REASON. IN SUCH CASE, THE COUNTY MAY ENTER ONTO THE PROPERTY 30 DAYS AFTER SUCH EXPIRATION, CANCELLATION, OR REVOCATION OF SUCH PERMIT AND ABATE THE VIOLATION THEN FOUND TO EXIST. BUT IF THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE ACTIONS OR FAILS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS ORDERED. THE MAGISTRATE AUTHORIZES COUNTY STAFF TO ABATE THE CODE VIOLATION BY REMOVING THE UNFIT, UNSAFE MOBILE HOME AND A AND TO ASSESS THE RESPONDENT WITH ALL REASONABLE COSTS OF REMOVING THE VIOLATION. ENFORCEMENT ABATEMENT INCLUDES DEMOLISHING ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS PROHIBITED BY THE BAY COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. REMOVE ANY AND ALL POWER POLES. REMOVE ANY AND ALL TREES THAT POSE A DANGER TO THE ABATEMENT PROCESS. FILLING OR CRUSHING ANY UNSECURED SWIMMING POOLS AND CRUSHING ANY UNPERMITTED, UNSAFE OR ABANDONED SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS. ANY ADDITIONAL UNSAFE CONDITIONS OR ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE IDENTIFIED DURING THE ABATEMENT WILL BE SECURED. AND THAT CONCLUDES RECOMMENDATION. FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. OH, IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? WHILE THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED. AT THIS TIME, I WILL SET THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 20242915 PROPERTY ADDRESSES 8230 KLONDIKE ROAD. MOVING ON TO LETTER B ON THE AGENDA. IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 20240289 PROPERTY ADDRESSES 1792 4TH APRIL AVENUE. ON JANUARY 22ND, 2024, WE DID RECEIVE A COMPLAINT OF DERELICT VEHICLES ON THIS PROPERTY. IT IS LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF BAY COUNTY. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW TAKEN BETWEEN DECEMBER AND FEBRUARY 2324, JUST FOR LOCATION PURPOSES. IT'S HARD TO SEE BECAUSE IT'S WAY UP THERE, BUT THERE IS THE. YEAH. IT'S EASIER TO SEE UP THERE. THE THIS IS THE PROPERTY. THIS IS 231 HERE. AND YOU HAVE THE DOLLAR GENERAL UP IN FOUNTAIN, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. AND JUST A. SLIDE THREE AGAIN TAKING THAT, THIS IS AN OLDER AERIAL PROPERTY LINES ARE NOT CORRECT. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY JUST FOR THIS PICTURE, THE A LOT OF THE PICTURES ARE TAKEN FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY OFF DOWN TO THE LEFT RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE BACK PROPERTY. THE PERSON THAT OWNED THAT PIECE HAD CLEARED IT, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A FENCE ON THE BACK PART OF THEIR PROPERTY. GOT IT. ON JANUARY 23RD, INVESTIGATOR RICK MCKINNON INSPECTED THIS PROPERTY AND HE IS HERE TO TESTIFY. GOOD MORNING. SOMEBODY JUST TURN A LIGHT ON. YES. ALL OF A SUDDEN I COULD SEE COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SIR. INVESTIGATOR RICK MCKINNON WITH BAY COUNTY CODE. I HAVE SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR THE RECORD. NOTICES ARE INDICATED IN THE REPORT. PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A ON THE 23RD. I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE 23RD INSPECTION THAT ORIGINALLY WAS FOR DERELICT VEHICLES. JUNK, TRASH. ON FIVE. SOME SIX. UP. SO THAT I'M LOOKING AT THESE PHOTOS. ARE[00:40:03]
THEY DERELICT BECAUSE OF THE TAGS? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. NO TAGS. AND THE FACT THAT ONE OF THEM DOESN'T HAVE A WHEEL. IS CONTROL SEVEN. AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO MORE ON ON THE RIGHT FURTHER. NO TAGS, FLAT TIRES, TRASH CAN FULL OF TRASH. IT'S OVERFLOWING AND FALLING OFF TO THE GROUND.UNSCREENED OR JUST IN GENERAL JUNK. AND YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE BACKGROUND MULTIPLE RVS HERE.
YES, MA'AM. AND THIS IS FROM THE BACK SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. SO YOU HAVE THE MULTIPLE RVS. THEN YOU HAVE SEVERAL DERELICT VEHICLES OFF TO THE RIGHT. NEXT PICTURE PLEASE. IF IT SHOWS UP NOW, IT'S A OKAY. AFTER DOING THE INSPECTIONS, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO INFORM HIM ABOUT THE CURRENT VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY ON APRIL AVENUE EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY BEHIND HAD BEEN CLEARED, COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN REFERENCE TO MULTIPLE RECREATIONAL TRAILERS IN THE BACK, ALONG WITH DERELICT VEHICLES IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, SHE STATED THAT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS LIVING THERE DID NOT LISTEN TO HER, AND IF IT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED, I SHOULD TALK TO THEM. I STATED SHE WAS WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD. SHE THEN WENT ON ABOUT THE COUNTY ONLY WANTING TO TAKE HER PROPERTY MONEY AND THAT SHE WOULD BUILD A FENCE ACROSS THE BACK. AND I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT ONCE THE VIOLATION WAS SEEN, IT NEEDED TO BE ABATED BEFORE THE FENCE WENT UP OR IT'D BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION. SHE STATED SHE COULD NOT TELL HER WHAT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY, AND THE CALL ENDED. THAT WAS THE LAST I HAD WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. ON THE 21ST. I WENT BACK FOR A RE INSPECTION. NOW THE FRONT HAD BEEN CLEANED ALONG WITH SOME OF THE VEHICLES HAD BEEN REMOVED, SO THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN STRAIGHTENED UP A LITTLE. AS YOU CAN SEE. BUT THE BACK PART HAD NOT. AND THAT WAS THE MAIN CONCERN OF THE COMPLAINANT. SO BETWEEN FEBRUARY THE 20TH OR CORRECTION, MARCH 26TH TO JULY 27TH, THE PROPERTY WAS RE-INSPECTED AND REMAINED IN VIOLATION. WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON 19 KEEP GOING. THEY WERE CONSTANTLY CLEANING UP THE FRONT AND DOING WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM WAS THE ISSUE OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE THE BACKYARD. 17TH AGAIN, THEY ALMOST CLEANED UP COMPLETELY. FRONT YARD, BUT NOTHING WITH THE BACKYARD. AND IF YOU LOOK OFF TO THE RIGHT, FURTHER RIGHT IN THE BACK IS A PILE OF CONSTRUCTION OR DEBRIS AND DOING FURTHER RESEARCH LATER ON, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FROM A DEMOED MOBILE HOME THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT RESEARCH I DID. BUT AGAIN, THE FENCE IS EVEN IF THEY HAD PUT IT UP, IT WOULD STILL BEEN IN VIOLATION. SO THEY'VE CLEANED UP THE FRONT. BUT AGAIN LEFT THE BACK THE WAY IT WAS. JUNE 5TH, SAME WITH THE BACK.
AND I'VE TRIED TO HERE OF JUST CONCENTRATED MOSTLY ON THE BACK. THERE'S THAT PILE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO. SLIDE 36. 36. YES, MA'AM. SEE THE INITIAL PILE? IN JULY 17TH WHEN I WENT BACK TO DO AN INSPECTION, NOTHING HAD BEEN CHANGED. ON THE 19TH IS WHEN I SENT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THE PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CONTACTED. AND SHE DID RECEIVE IT ON THE 27TH FOR THE CERTIFIED. FROM 15TH TO THE 16TH, THE PROPERTY WAS REINSPECTED AND REMAINED IN VIOLATION. THIS IS AGAIN WHEN I GOT CLOSE TO VIDEO OR PICTURES OF IT. IT DOES LOOK LIKE A MOBILE HOME OR WHAT'S LEFT OF ONE. SOME OF THE TRAILERS OR RVS IN THE BACK. 16TH. NO INDICATION OF ANY CHANGES FROM THE PROPERTY ITSELF. ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THE PILE IS GETTING BIGGER BIGGER.
BUT I ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER TO MENTION THAT THIS TIME THE GRASS HAS GROWN TO SO. A NOTICE OF
[00:45:10]
HEARING WAS ISSUED FOR THE PROPERTY. IT WAS POSTED ON NOVEMBER THE 6TH, WHERE THE PROPERTY ITSELF. I WENT BACK ON JANUARY THE 2ND LAST THURSDAY. FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY IS CLEAN. IT'S JUST THE BACK PART. YOU SEE FROM OVER THE WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ROADWAY THAT THE TRAILERS IN THE BACK. AND THEN WHEN YOU GO AROUND TO THE SIDE ON SIDE 64, THE DEBRIS IS STILL THERE. AND THIS LAST INDICATION IS THE DUMPSTER. AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, I NEVER GOT ANY INFORMATION FROM THE RENTERS THEMSELVES. I NEVER CONTACTED EVEN THOUGH I POSTED THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHERE WE STAND AT TODAY IS THE NO INDICATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT AT THIS TIME? JUST THAT THIS IS SCHEDULED FOR A COMPLIANCE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 13TH AT 1:00. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? NOBODY IS HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? YES, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DETERMINED THAT THE ADDRESS 1792 4TH APRIL AVENUE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF BAY COUNTY AND SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 17, BAY COUNTY CODE. THE PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT THAT A VIOLATION. BAY COUNTY CODE 17 DASH TWO EXISTS IN THE FORM OF DERELICT VEHICLES AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND JUNK, BUT THE MAGISTRATE SET A REASONABLE TIME OF TEN DAYS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BRING THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE BY REMOVING ALL JUNK CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND ALL ALL BUT ONE DERELICT. DERELICT VEHICLE TO INCLUDE THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. I GUESS THEY CAN ALSO TAG THOSE. I THINK WE SOMEHOW THE VERBIAGE HAS GOTTEN REMOVED FROM OUR TEMPLATE. I NOTICED THAT YESTERDAY TOO. THEY CAN ALSO TAG AND REGISTER THOSE VEHICLES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT TO CONTACT AND INFORM CODE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY PROGRESS OR DELAYS. BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. THAT IF THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODES, ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER, THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE FINED AN INITIAL FINE OF $200 AND A DAILY FINE OF $25, TO BE IMPOSED AFTER THE 10TH DAY, FOR A PERIOD OF 20 DAYS, OR WHEN THE PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. SUCH FINES SHALL BECOME A LIEN ON THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, LOCATED IN BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA. BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AFTER FILING FOR A PERIOD OF 20 DAYS, THE MAGISTRATE AUTHORIZES COUNTY STAFF TO ABATE THE CODE VIOLATION BY REMOVING ALL JUNK CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, DERELICT VEHICLES, ALL BUT ONE DERELICT VEHICLE, AND ASSESS RESPONDENT WITH ALL REASONABLE COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ANYTHING ELSE FROM HIM? NO. ALL RIGHT. WITH NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY. PROPER NOTICE BEING PROVIDED, I WILL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. THAT WILL CONCLUDE TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT. CASE 20240289 PROPERTY ADDRESS 17 NINE 24TH APRIL AVENUE. MOVING ON TO LETTER C ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 20240322 PROPERTY ADDRESS 8306 BRANDON ROAD. THIS IS A. SECOND HEARING TO IMPOSE LIEN AND INVESTIGATOR JUSTICE WILL BE PRESENTING THE CASE. OKAY. GOOD MORNING, MAGISTRATE TIM JUSTICE, SENIOR INVESTIGATOR, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT. I HAVE SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR THE RECORD. MY NOTICES ARE ATTACHED AS WELL AS MY EXHIBITS. THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR BAY COUNTY ON THE 6TH OF JUNE, 2024, AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE 17, SECTION 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF DERELICT VEHICLES, JUNK TRASH, OVERGROWTH, AND UNUSED OR UNUSED UNSCREENED PERSONAL PROPERTY. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE TEN DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, OR AN INITIAL FINE OF $200, AND A DAILY FINE OF $2,025 WOULD BE IMPOSED FOR 20 DAYS OR WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE. HERE ON JUNE 19TH WITH PHOTOGRAPH FOUR. AFTER THE INITIAL HEARING, THIS IS LOOKING BACK AT 8306 BRANDON TOWARD I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SOUTH. THAT IS THE FRONT OF THE PARCEL. A LITTLE BIT OF[00:50:05]
OVERGROWTH AROUND IN THE FRONT HERE ON PICTURE NUMBER FIVE. PICTURE NUMBER SIX, YOU HAVE A DERELICT VEHICLE SITTING HERE TO THE RIGHT WITH SOME OVERGROWTH. YOU CAN SEE THE OVERGROWTH. THE ZOOMED IN PHOTOGRAPH HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH SEVEN. SOME OVERGROWTH AND ON SCREEN PERSONAL PROPERTY ALONG THE. THAT'D BE THE WEST SIDE OF THE MOBILE HOME OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. PHOTOGRAPH EIGHT. THIS IS OFF OF YUKON. BUT IT DOES HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS AS 8306. IT RUNS PARALLEL TO YUKON AT THAT INTERSECTION. THIS IS LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE EAST BEHIND THE MOBILE HOME. AND THIS IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE VIOLATIONS WERE DURING YOUR HEARING. DURING THE HEARING, YOU CAN SEE SOME JUNK AND TRASH AND OVERGROWTH. FROM THIS YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE RED PICKUP TRUCK. THERE'S I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A TIRE ON IT AT THAT TIME. LEANING TO THE LEFT. PHOTOGRAPH NINE. YOU CAN SEE A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE THAT'S UNKNOWN IF THAT TAG AT THIS TIME WAS DERELICT. IF IT WAS DERELICT OR NOT. YOU CAN SEE THE RED PICKUP FURTHER IN THE BACK. YOU CAN ALSO SEE ANOTHER RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ON TOP OF A PAD CONCRETE PAD IN THE BACK THERE. SOME OTHER UNSCREENED UNUSED PERSONAL PROPERTY AND OVERGROWTH ALL OVER THE BACK PART OF THIS PARCEL HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER TEN. AND JUNK.FINES WERE IMPOSED. I'M SORRY. FINES WERE IMPOSED ON JUNE THE 17TH, 2020 FOR ON THAT DATE ON JUNE 19TH. EXCUSE ME. I RETURNED A TELEPHONE CALL TO MR. STEVEN CARTWRIGHT. CARTWRIGHT? CARTWRIGHT. HE'S THE GRANDSON OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. I EXPLAINED THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER TO HIM AND THE. AND THE VIOLATIONS AS OF THE INSPECTIONS THAT WERE CONDUCTED EARLIER THAT DATE. HE SAID HE WOULD PASS THAT INFORMATION ON TO HIS GRANDMOTHER. JULY THE 9TH.
REINSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED AGAIN. THIS IS LOOKING BACK TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 12. LOOKING BACK SOUTH, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THERE WERE LITTLE TO NO CHANGES HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 13. DERELICT VEHICLES REMAINED. THE OVERGROWTH AND JUNK REMAINED.
AUGUST THE 27TH. THE NOTICE OF INTENT WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, STATING THAT WORK WOULD BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, 2024. ON THE 28TH OF AUGUST 2024, WE WERE ABLE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY DURING THE PRE-BID INSPECTION. THIS IS THE ACTUAL BACK OF THE PROPERTY OF 8306. WHEN WE WALKED THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE JUNK AND OVERGROWTH, UNUSED SCREEN, PERSONAL PROPERTY. THERE'S NO TAG ON THIS. THAT'S WHY I OBTAIN THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON THIS RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. THERE IS ONE OF THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT WAS UP AGAINST THE SIDE OF THE YUKON ROAD SIDE. OBVIOUSLY THAT'S DERELICT OR JUNK OVERGROWTH.
MULTIPLE PILES OF UNUSED ON SCREEN PERSONAL PROPERTY OR WHAT WE WOULD CALL JUNK HERE ON THIS CONCRETE PAD WITH ANOTHER RV. THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF PILES OF IT ALL ALONG THE BACK HERE IN SLIDE IN PHOTOGRAPH 19. THE FRONT YARD, THOUGH, LOOKED GOOD. LOOKING AT THE INTERSECTION OF YUKON THERE IS SOME OVERGROWTH. THIS WAS TAKEN IN THE BACK. THAT IS THE MOBILE HOME IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER. HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 21, THERE IS SOME OVERGROWTH THAT WOULD REQUIRE TO BE CUT BY THE CONTRACTOR THAT WAS AWARDED THE BID. AND THERE WAS SOME ACTUAL HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 22, SOME ACTUAL JUNK OR TRASH THAT HAD BEEN THROWN UP INTO THE OVERGROWTH AT SOME POINT. AND THIS IS LOOKING AT THAT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND SOME JUNK LAYING AROUND ON THIS PAD ON PHOTOGRAPH 23. AND HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 24, YOU SEE MORE JUNK INSIDE OF THE OVERGROWTH.
OCTOBER 21ST RETURNED FOR A RE-INSPECTION. LET'S SEE. IT WAS CLEANED. YES. THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED BY A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE COUNTY AT A COST OF $4,995. AND ON OCTOBER THE 21ST, THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. THIS IS THE FRONT YARD. NEVER HAD TO CLEAN THE FRONT YARD. NEVER HAD TO MOW THE YARD GRASS IN THE FRONT YARD. BUT IN THE BACK YOU REMEMBER THE DEBRIS PILE AND TRASH THAT WAS HERE. AND PHOTOGRAPH 28. THAT WAS WHERE ONE OF THE I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS NEAR UP NEAR THE SIDE OF THE MOBILE HOME, YOU SEE THE MOBILE HOME IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER. SOME OF THAT OVERGROWTH HAD BEEN REMOVED. THAT'S WHERE THE RED DODGE SAT, AND SOME JUNK. THE PAD, AS YOU CAN TELL, HAD BEEN CLOSED CLEANED. THAT IS WHERE THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A SIDE WAS LOCATED. THERE WAS MORE JUNK. THIS IS TOWARD THE YUKON SIDE HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 32. IT HAD BEEN CLEANED AND THAT IS LOOKING OUT THE BACK GATE OF THE ROAD AT YUKON. AND PHOTOGRAPH 33. AND THE PAD HAD NOTHING LEFT ON IT
[00:55:04]
WHEN THEY CLEANED IT. ANYTHING ELSE FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT? OCTOBER 23RD A NOTICE, A SECOND HEARING WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE CERTIFIED NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED AND AVAILABLE TO BE FORWARDED. THE REGULAR NOTICE HAS NOT RETURNED. 25TH OF OCTOBER 2024 A COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY. ON DECEMBER THE 2ND, AFTER A RETURN TO TELEPHONE CALL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, CATHY MCMURPHY, CONCERNING QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS HEARING. I LEFT HER A VOICEMAIL. HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING SINCE THAT TIME. AND ON THE 19TH OF DECEMBER, A COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS POSTED AT THE BAY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY. THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROPERTY. YES, MA'AM. IT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DETERMINED THAT ONE THE RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COST OF ABATING THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,995 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST. AND TWO, THAT THE MAGISTRATE IMPOSE THE INITIAL FINE OF $200, A DAILY FINE OF $25, FOR A TOTAL OF $700 IN FINES PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST, AND THREE. THAT UPON UPON RECORDING OF THIS SECOND ORDER IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE COST LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ASSESS THE COST OF ABATING THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? WHILE NO ONE IS PRESENT, PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED.PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT. I FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE. ON OCTOBER 21ST, 2024 WITH THE PHOTOS I HAVE VIEWED. I WILL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT.
20210322 PROPERTY ADDRESS 8306 BRANDON ROAD. MEETING ON ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE A LETTER D. IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 20241888. PROPERTY ADDRESS 323 LEGRAND DRIVE. GOOD MORNING, MAGISTRATE TIM JUSTICE, SENIOR INVESTIGATOR, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT. I HAVE SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR THE RECORD. MY NOTICES ARE ATTACHED AS WELL AS MY PHOTOGRAPHS. THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR BAY COUNTY ON AUGUST THE 1ST, 2024 AND WAS FOUND TO BE IN REPEAT VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE SECTION 1702, IN THE FORM OF OVERGROWTH. THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE HEARING. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE FIVE DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, OR AN INITIAL FINE OF $300, AND A DAILY FINE OF $75 WOULD BE IMPOSED FOR 25 DAYS. OR WHEN IT CAME INTO COMPLIANCE. THESE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AFTER THE FIFTH DAY. YOU CAN SEE. I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.
LOOKING BACK AT THE 323 LA GRANDE. THAT IS THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF HEARING POSTING. YOU CAN SEE THE OVERGROWTH LOOKING BACK TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IN PHOTOGRAPH FIVE.
FINES BEING IMPOSED. I'M SORRY, I KEEP FORGETTING THAT FINES WERE IMPOSED ON AUGUST. EXCUSE ME. AUGUST 7TH, 2024. THANK YOU. ON SEPTEMBER THE 3RD, A RE-INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION. THE GRASS WAS GETTING A LITTLE TALLER HERE IN SLIDE SEVEN AND SLIDE EIGHT. ON OCTOBER THE 30TH THE PRE-BID INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED. PRIOR TO THAT, ON THE 29TH OF OCTOBER, A NOTICE OF INTENT WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, STATING THAT WORK WOULD BE CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER THE 11TH. DURING OUR PRE-BID INSPECTION ON THE 30TH OF OCTOBER, THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED WITH A COPY OF THE NOTICE INTENT ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE AND WALKED THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE OVERGROWTH WAS ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY. YOUR MAGISTRATE. THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED BY A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE COUNTY AT A COST OF $498, AND UPON INSPECTION ON THE 14TH OF NOVEMBER, 2024, THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. AND IT REMAINS IN COMPLIANCE. THANK GOODNESS, DUE TO THE COLD WEATHER AS OF YESTERDAY HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 18 ON NOVEMBER THE 22ND, A NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER USING
[01:00:01]
THE ADDRESS. 323 LA GRANDE, PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA. THE CERTIFIED NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED. THE REGULAR NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS VACANT. UNABLE TO FORWARD. A COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON THE 3RD OF DECEMBER, 2024, AND A COPY TO THE NOTICE WAS POSTED AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER ON THE 19TH OF DECEMBER, 2024. THAT CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM. IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT'S RECOMMENDATION THAT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DETERMINED THAT ONE. THE RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COST OF ABATING THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $498 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST.TWO, THAT THE MAGISTRATE IMPOSED THE INITIAL FINE OF $300 AND A PER DAY FINE OF $75, FOR A TOTAL OF $2,175 IN FINES PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST. AND THREE THAT UPON RECORDING OF THIS SECOND ORDER IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE COST LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS EXIST, AND AGAINST ANY OR OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ASSESS THE COST OF ABATING THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? WHILE NO ONE IS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. AND PLEASE NOTE ON THE RECORD THAT I FIND THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITED VIOLATIONS. ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE C20241888. PROPERTY ADDRESSES 323 LA GRANGE DRIVE. MOVING ON TO LETTER E ON THE AGENDA. CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 20241326. PROPERTY ADDRESS 2117 BENT OAK COURT. GOOD MORNING, MAGISTRATE TIM JUSTICE, SENIOR INVESTIGATOR, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT I HAVE SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR THE RECORD. MY NOTICES ARE ATTACHED AS WELL AS MY PHOTOGRAPHS. THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR BAY COUNTY ON THE 1ST OF OCTOBER, 2024 AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE SECTION 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF OVERGROWTH. THE RESPONDENT WAS PRESENT FOR YOUR HEARING THAT DAY. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS TO HAVE 20 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, OR AN INITIAL FINE OF $200, AND A DAILY FINE OF $25 WOULD BE IMPOSED FOR 20 DAYS, OR WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BORROWED INTO COMPLIANCE. WE RETURNED ON AUGUST THE 21ST, 2024. THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGES TO THIS PROPERTY AFTER THE INITIATION OF YOUR ORDER. FINES WERE IMPOSED ON THE 22ND OF AUGUST. EXCUSE ME, 2024. WE RETURNED TO THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER THE 1ST, 2024. NO CHANGES. THE OVERGROWTH WAS WELL AND SIX FEET TALL IN SOME PLACES, AS DEPICTED IN SLIDE PHOTOGRAPH SEVEN. OCTOBER 30TH. EXCUSE ME. OCTOBER 29TH. A NOTICE OF INTENT WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, STATING ON ON IT THAT WORK WOULD BEGIN ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER THE 11TH. WE CONDUCTED A PRE-BID INSPECTION ON THE 30TH OF OCTOBER 2024. THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED FOR PRE BIDS. HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH NINE. PHOTOGRAPH TEN. THIS GRASS HAD GROWN QUICKLY SINCE THE HEARING. OR A LITTLE BIT MORE IN SOME PLACES. LIKE I SAID IT WAS SIX FOOT TALL HERE IN PHOTOGRAPH 11. ON THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED BY A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE COUNTY AT A COST OF $449. UPON INSPECTION LATER THAT AFTERNOON ON THE 14TH OF NOVEMBER, THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. ON THE 22ND OF NOVEMBER 2024, NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL USING THE ADDRESS. 217 2117 BENT OAK COURT, PANAMA CITY BEACH TO REGULAR AND CERTIFIED NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING WERE RETURNED AS VACANT.
UNABLE TO FORWARD, A COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY ON THE 14TH OF NOVEMBER AND AT THE BAY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ON THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER, 2024. THAT CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY. THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROPERTY. YES, MA'AM. IT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAGISTRATE DETERMINE ONE. THE RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COST OF ABATING THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $449 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST. TWO, THAT THE MAGISTRATE IMPOSE THE INITIAL FINE OF $200 AND A PER DAY FINE OF $25, FOR A TOTAL OF $700 IN FINES PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST.
AND THREE THAT UPON RECORDING OF THIS SECOND ORDER IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE COST LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS EXIST, AND ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ASSESS THE COST OF ABATING THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT AND CHAPTER 21 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON
[01:05:05]
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? WHILE NO ONE IS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THIS PROPERTY, PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED. PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT UPON THE PROPERTY TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024 WITH THE PHOTOS I VIEWED. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT. CASE 20241326 PROPERTY ADDRESS 2117 BENT OAK COURT. MOVING ON TO LETTER F ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 20230322. PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 7100 BEACHWOOD BOULEVARD. CATHERINE ASHMAN, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER. AND I'VE SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT. FOR THE RECORD, THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON MAY 2ND, 2024 AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF AN UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AT THAT HEARING.HOWEVER, JESSICA ALBRITTON DID APPEAR AT THE HEARING. THESE, STARTING WITH SLIDE NUMBER THREE, IS PHOTOS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE TIME OF THAT MAY 2ND HEARING. JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY OF THIS PROPERTY. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE RESPONDENT HAVE 45 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OR A FINE OF $1,000 WOULD WOULD BE IMPOSED. AND THESE AGAIN ARE STILL. PHOTOS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 45 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OR A FINE OF $1,000 WOULD BE IMPOSED. AND SHOULD THE VIOLATION REMAIN, THE MAGISTRATE DIRECTED STAFF TO ABATE THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY IN WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTED. UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. ON JUNE 17TH, AN INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION. ON JULY 19TH. ASBESTOS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED AT THE COST OF $800. AND STARRING. THE SLIDE 18 IS FROM THE DATE 1819 ARE THE SURVEY. THIS IS BEHIND THE FENCE AND SLIDE 20. A LOT OF TRASH, JUNK AND DEBRIS. ON AUGUST 27TH, A NOTICE OF INTENT WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL, STATING THAT WORK WOULD BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 9TH. THAT NOTICE WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 28TH. DURING A PRE BID INSPECTION AT THE PRE BID INSPECTION, IT ALSO. REMAINED IN VIOLATION. THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED BY A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE COUNTY AT A COST OF $7,489. AND UPON RE-INSPECTION ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2024, WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. SEE IN PHOTO NUMBER 37. ON NOVEMBER 13TH, THE NOTICE SECOND HEARING WAS SENT. CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL. ACCORDING TO THE EPS, NO RETURN SERVICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE USPS TRACKING WEBSITE, IT HAS NOT UPDATED THE WEBSITE SINCE NOVEMBER 19TH, SAYING IT'S IN TRANSIT SO THE REGULAR MAIL HAS NOT RETURNED. A COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER ON DECEMBER 19TH. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY. THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE.
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROPERTY? YES. IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COST OF ABATING THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,289 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST, THAT THE MAGISTRATE IMPOSED THE FINE OF $1,000 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST, AND THAT UPON RECORDING THE SECOND ORDER ON PUBLIC RECORDS OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE COST OF LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTED, AND AGAINST ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT, AND THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ASSESS THE COST OF ABATING THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT AND CHAPTER 21 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? WHILE NO ONE IS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE
[01:10:08]
PROPERTY, PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED. LETHLOBAR COULD REFLECT OR FIND THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITED VIOLATIONS. ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2024. BASED ON THE PHOTOS I VIEWED AT THIS TIME, I'LL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT. CASE 20230322 PROPERTY ADDRESS 7100. BEACHWOOD. MOVING ON TO LETTER H ON THE AGENDA. IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE. HM23-00017. PROPERTY ADDRESS 5022 PALM AVENUE. CATHERINE ASHMAN AND I HAVE SUBMITTED MY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR THE RECORD. STARTING WITH SLIDE NUMBER THREE. THESE ARE GOING TO BE PHOTOS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE TIME THAT THIS THE FIRST HEARING, WHICH WAS ON JUNE 20TH, 2024. AND THE MAGISTRATE DID FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION. 17 DASH TWO IN THE FORM OF UNFIT, UNSAFE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND OVERGROWTH. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AT THAT HEARING. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO HAVE 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER. WHICHEVER. OR A FINE OF $1,000 WOULD BE IMPOSED AND SHOULD THE VIOLATION REMAIN, THE MAGISTRATE DIRECTED STAFF TO ABATE THE NUISANCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT TO CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY IN WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTED, AND UPON OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. ON JULY 22ND, 2024, AN INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION. AS YOU SEE IN SLIDE NUMBER TEN. ON AUGUST 27TH, THE NOTICE OF INTENT WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER STATING THAT WHEN WORK WOULD BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 9TH, THAT NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY DURING THE PREVIOUS INSPECTION ON AUGUST 28TH. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION ON AUGUST 28TH. THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED BY A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE COUNTY AT A COST OF $5,499 AND UPON INSPECTION ON OCTOBER 23RD, 2024, WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, AS YOU SEE IN PHOTOS NUMBER. 18, 19 AND 20. NOVEMBER 14TH. THE NOTICE SECOND HEARING WAS SENT CERTIFIED IN REGULAR MAIL. THE CERTIFIED NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED, UNABLE TO FORWARD THE REGULAR MAIL. DID NOT RETURN. A NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 12TH AND AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER ON THE 19TH OF DECEMBER, 2024. DOES CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION OR RECOMMENDATIONS? PLEASE GO AHEAD. THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COST OF ABATING THE NUISANCE AND ALL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT, AND THE AMOUNT OF $5,499 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST, THAT THE MAGISTRATE IMPOSED A FINE OF $1,000 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST. THAT, UPON RECORDING OF THE SECOND ORDER AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE COST OF LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTED AGAINST ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY ASSESS THE COST OF ABATING THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT AND CHAPTER 21 OF THE BAY COUNTY CODE. THAT CONCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? WHILE THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, PROPER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS PROVIDED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT UPON THAT PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITED VIOLATIONS. ON OCTOBER 23RD, 2024. BASED ON THE PHOTOS I HAVE VIEWED AT THIS TIME, I ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING ON CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE H M 20 3-00017. PROPERTY ADDRESS 5022 PALM AVENUE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS I HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA AND WILL BE RE NOTICED. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I'VE MISSED? I DON'T THINK SO. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER BUSINESS YOU NEED TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION? I DON'T HAVE ANY. ALL RIGHT. I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL TODAY'S MEETING TO[01:15:02]
CLOSE AT 10:17 A.M.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.