This case was complied.

This case was pulled from the agenda.  Permit was applied for.

Case was pulled from agenda. Work did not require a permit but was completed.  Owner was urged to use only licensed contractors.

Building Department Coordinator Shaun Coss read the findings of the case. He explains that the property owner purchased the property when the violation already existed.  Since he has become owner and became aware of the violations, no action has been taken to remedy the violation which was to obtain permitting for repairs done before his ownership.  The owner was under the impression that if the unit was used for storage and not for a residence that the violations would not have to be addressed. When the property was posted, Mr. Coss had the opportunity to explain to Mr. Sands that the violations would still have to be addressed.

Mr. Sands gets sworn in. He responds that when he received the property that he did pull some permits, and his uncle told him that he needed some "specs".  He said that he didn't know how to get specs for stuff that's already in.  Home Depot gives you specs for doors and windows when you purchase them, but if you already put them in, how do you explain how you put them in?  He states that he wasn't there when the windows and doors were put in and that all repairs were made by his uncle.  The Special Magistrate (SM) clarifies that the case came to him in June of 2018. He states that his uncle, Witney Darling, who gave the house to him, told him about the permits in June. Special Magistrate asks if he owned it in June.  Mr. Sands states that he thinks he received the property in May.  He explains that there are 2 houses on the property. He is living in one and the one in the back does not have power, or water.  It is just a structure with windows, and doors,  so he started using it to store things. He stated that when he spoke to Mr. Coss, he was told that he needed to get an engineer to get a change of use.  One office that he contacted charges $300 to do the inspection.  He was trying to get the money together. He states that Mr. Coss told him he would need a blueprint to make it a storage structure, and perhaps it would be better to continue on with the repairs.  Mr. Sands explains that since the wires have been pulled out, and there is no water connection, that repairs would require thousands of dollars that he does not have.
The Special Magistrate asked what his intended use of the structure is.  He said that it's already being used for storage.  It's a roof with windows, and a door that locks.  There is no plan to have someone live there. She asks if he were to convert it to storage with the help of an engineer it would be $300?  Mr. Sands explains that the $300 is just for the inspection. SM asks who charges $300?  He states that it's some office here in Fort Pierce.

The SM asks Mr. Coss what the likelihood is of Mr. Sands being able to convert the structure into a storage unit.  He states that it is likely, but probably more expensive than just completing the repairs that have already been started.  It is not common in residential occupancies as it is in commercial occupancies.  Mr. Coss explains the requirements of when change of occupancy occurs.  A Change of Occupancy permit is required to insure that the requirements of the new occupancy is according to the Florida Building Code.  It would be far more expensive to meet these requirements than to just continue on with the repairs that have been started with a proper permit.  Either way, an engineer will have to be involved to certify that the windows and doors were installed properly.  Alternatively, if a contractor became involved he could take these items out and start over to avoid an engineer.  All items would have to be inspected before the final inspection stage.
SM asks if demolition is a possibility.  Mr. Sands asks the cost of a demolition.  SM states that she does not know, but states that Mr. Sands needs to decide whether he wants to bring in an engineer and see what could be done, and how much it would cost for it to be brought up to code, and to see what is feasible.
The SM asks if 60 days is enough time for him to decide what he will do with the property.  Mr. Sands states that he will get an engineer to see what would be best for him.  The SM explains that it does take time due to the amount of damage still existing in this area, and sometimes in getting an insurance company to agree.  She explains that she is willing to give him 60 days, but when he comes back he should have a decision as to what he will be doing with the property.  He agrees with that time period.
SM grants the extension and advises Mr. Sands to keep in touch with Mr. Coss
 

The named violator has been provided notice of this hearing, but has failed to appear.  After consideration of the evidence presented, a default judgment in this matter is hereby entered.  In the event the violation is not remedied within  60 days after the date of the Order Determining Violation, there shall be imposed a fine pursuant to Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., at a daily cumulative rate of $100.00. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal the decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Shaun reads the facts of the case. Unit 103 is the location of the violation.  A permit was issued for some electrical work.  At the time of inspection, it was noted that some additional work was done that was outside of the scope of the permit issued. Walk-in coolers had been installed, and some of the electrical work did not meet code. The tenant installed the cooler without the permit. Also,  the electrical service for Unit 103 was being provided from Unit 104, which does not meet the required codes, which is why it's before the SM.  An owner's representative is present and Mr. Coss spoke to her prior to the hearing, and he thinks that she now understands what needs to be done.  Metro Electric, the contractor holds the current electrical permit should finish their work, and the tenant or owner hiring an additional contractor (mechanical contractor) to obtain a permit for the installation of the cooler.

Theresa Lewis is sworn in.  She agrees with Mr. Coss's summary of the situation at the property.  She adds that the owner has given permission to the tenant to install the coolers.  The same contractor should be in to get the permit for that.  The SM asks for clarification of the type of property and if this case is just about permitting.  Mr. Coss states that it is about permitting and that it's a strip plaza with several units.  Ms. Lewis states that there are 12 units and she is the manager.  The SM asks if 60 days is sufficient to get the permit. Ms. Lewis states that she feels sure that the tenant has already contacted the electrician to come out and that they are aware of the situation.
The SM finds that violations exist and grants 60 days to get necessary permitting, or a fine of $100 per day will begin to accrue, and 30 days to appeal.

The named violator has been provided notice of this hearing, but has failed to appear.  After consideration of the evidence presented, a default judgment in this matter is hereby entered.  In the event the violation is not remedied within  60 days after the date of the Order Determining Violation, there shall be imposed a fine pursuant to Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., at a daily cumulative rate of $100.00. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal the decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case.  The violation is that the garage is enclosed, windows installed without a permit.  Ms. Ceren is sworn in.  She states that she tried to put the windows in but the lady (in the Building Department) said no - so she is now going to just put in the garage door and no windows. She felt that she obtained the permit, but Mr. Coss clarified that she applied for the permit, but that it was rejected due to the fact that windows either need to be impact or shutters provided.  Ms. Ceren explained that she is no longer getting the windows, just the garage door.  Mr. Coss asks Mr. Julin to show the photos to Ms. Ceren. Ms. Ceren explains that she showed the windows to the lady, and the lady said it's not approved for hurricanes, so Ms. Ceren is just doing the garage door.  SM tries to determine if Ms. Ceren has a permit for the garage door.  SM asks who will be installing the garage door.  Ms. Ceren says she is licensed and will be doing it herself.  Mr. Coss shows that the permit she refers to is in "plan check" which means that it is not issued.  The plan review shows that it's pending because it's rejected.  She needs to submit a revision that included a revised window/door form which shows how many openings are being replaced, then it could be re-reviewed.
The SM explains to Ms. Ceren that she has to back to the Building Department and submit a revision.  SM asks if she can take care of this within 30 days.  Ms. Ceren says she will take care of it right away.
SM continues case for 30 days to allow Ms. Ceren to get the necessary revision.
 

The named violator has been provided notice of this hearing, but has failed to appear.  After consideration of the evidence presented, a default judgment in this matter is hereby entered.  In the event the violation is not remedied within  60 days after the date of the Order Determining Violation, there shall be imposed a fine pursuant to Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., at a daily cumulative rate of $100.00. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal the decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case.  He explains that he reinspected and that the plumbing was satisfactory, and complied.  He was not sure about the mechanical violation.  Brenda Williams is sworn.  The SM clarifies that the plumbing violations have been complied, and asks where they are with the AC.  Ms. Williams states that they are just awaiting the delivery of the AC unit, which is expected within 72 hours.  SM asks if it's a window unit or a freestanding unit.  Ms. Williams states that the AC person states that it can be repaired, but she is thinking of replacing it.  She further states that it is a central unit, but that they also have window units that heat and cool as well.  All of hers have both, so that they heat or cool the rooms that they are in.  The SM asks when the AC person is expected out.  Ms. Williams responds that it should be this week.  She states that she is trying to comply several cases simultaneously.
The SM asks if there are tenants at this property? - Yes.

The SM finds that the 2 plumbing violations (IPMC 504.3 & IPMC 506.1) did exist but has been cured as of now.  With regard to IPMC 603.1 Mechanical Equipment, the SM finds that the violation does exist, and grants 60 days to obtain a permit, and comply with all the permit conditions and cure the violation or the fine of $100 per day.

Ms. Williams states that she will get it done.  Mr. Coss asks her to update her address. It is 5648 Spanish River Road, Ft. Pierce, FL 34951.  Mr. Coss asked if the ownership is still with the corporation? - Yes. Ms. Williams offers her PO box address privately.
 

The named violator has been provided notice of this hearing, but has failed to appear.  After consideration of the evidence presented, a default judgment in this matter is hereby entered.  In the event the violation is not remedied within  60 days after the date of the Order Determining Violation, there shall be imposed a fine pursuant to Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., at a daily cumulative rate of $100.00. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal the decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case.  Mr. Torres is sworn in and states that he is in agreement of Mr. Julin's statement of violations.  He adds that he just found out about this case a week prior to the hearing because the notices were sent to North Carolina and he lives in Ft. Pierce.  He asks to meet with Mr. Julin so that he can see what needs to be done at the property.  He states that he intends to comply.  The SM explains that it was sent to NC because that's the address on the Property Appraiser's website.  He realizes that it needs to be changed.  He tells the SM that Mr. Julin told him that he would need to hire a contractor and that he is willing to do so.  Sm asks if he lives on the property?  - No he does not.  She asks if someone lives there? - Yes.  Mr. Coss asks that Mr. Torres provide us with the correct address.  He states that is address is 514 N 17th Street, Fort Pierce, FL 34950.

The SM finds that the violations do exist and that Mr. Torres is responsible.  She grants 60 days to obtain a permit, get necessary inspections.

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case.  He states that the violations still exist.  Rosemary Spaetz representing the owner, and gets sworn in.  She states that all the repairs have been made.  The tenant broke the faucet, so they replaced the whole thing. She states that the mold has been taken care of by a professional company.  She states that these are concrete block buildings and if they take a shower and there is no air flow, so they'll have to work out something like doing an inspection every 3 months.  They're instructed to do a quick wipe down with a light bleach solution after a shower because concrete holds moisture.  Since they don't do it, management will have to do an inspection every 3 months.  All the issues were addressed months ago, and she was remiss in getting back in touch with Mr. Julin.
The SM asks if Paul was able to inspect for compliance? - No. Ms. Spaetz states that she spoke to Paul and she is making arrangements to have him inspect the property.

The SM agrees to continue the case to allow Paul to inspect to see that all violations have been addressed.  She states that if all the violations have been cured the case will be closed.  If they are still present, the case will be re-scheduled for next month.

Ms. Spaetz is the property manager.
 

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case.  Ms. Spaetz states that what they found was with the toilet and the bathroom sink.  The management could not find the electrical problem. Mr. Julin explains that he tested an outlet with a polarity tester and it was unsafe.  He explains that if the breaker is tripping, there is something wrong.  Ms. Spaetz asked where the outlet is located.  Paul shows her the picture, and she says she will check into it.  The SM confirms that the sink was repaired.

The SM finds that the violation IPMC 605.1 Electrical Equipment still exists.  She will do an R & D (Review & Determination) regarding IPMC 506.2 Sanitary Drainage Systems.  SM grants 30 days to cure the electrical violation, or be fined $50.00 per day until the violation is corrected.  30 days to appeal.

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case. Rosemary Spaetz is present for this case and has already been sworn.  She states that there are screens on all of their units, the sewer cap was put back on, the kitchen faucet was replaced, and a company come in and got rid of the mildew.  She reiterates that the management company has decided to do a 3 month inspections because the tenants do not keep up with the mildew.  The SM asks if Mr. Julin has had a chance to re-inspect these units? - No.  SM asks if they will be meeting next week.  Ms. Spaetz replies yes, and that she will notify the tenants of an inspection even if they are not available.

The SM decides to do a Review and Determination for all violations, based on Ms. Spaetz' testimony.  Mr. Julin will have to go out to the property to make sure that all the violations have been cured.  If they have not, these cases will be called back before the SM.
 

Paul Julin reads the facts of the case.  Ms. Spaetz states they went in several times to repair the windows, and all the windows were replaced, and that they are jalousy windows.  The window on the NW side, they continue to have problems with.  It's difficult to get parts for it.  The tenant was notified that they wanted to get in to replace the window, and they've had problems with the tenant.  The unit is now vacant and they would like to do many repairs to it.  That one window needs to be replaced because they cannot get parts for the old window.  She realizes that a permit is required for this work.

The SM found that a violation exists and 30 days was given to cure the violation or a fine of $50 would be assessed.  30 days for appeal is provided.

Ms. Spaetz asks for 60 days in order to complete all the work needed at the property including the window.   The SM reminds her that once you get a permit, you have 180 days to complete the work, and to keep in touch with Mr. Julin.  Ms. Spaetz agrees.

The SM asks if the parties speak English.  The parties identify themselves as Gabriella Campos, Jose Campos, and Luis Bonilla respond affirmatively.  Then Ms. Campos states that she is there to interpret.  The SM asks City Attorney and Mr. Coss if that is ok, or if a City staff member needs to be the interpreter.  Mr. Coss explains that it's ok if she interprets, and that she is required to say things word for word on both sides.  She states that she understands that.
Paul Julin reads the facts of the case while the translator Ms. Campos interprets. Mr. Julin explains that the work appeared to be in order when he did an inspection, however he then found out that  the person who did the work was not the owner, which means he is not able to pull the permit for the work that was done. That's where we stand with this case.  The SM asks who the permit was issued to. Mr. Coss states that there was no permit issued.  He tried to apply for the permit as an owner/builder, but since he's not the owner of the property.  He supplied our office with a Power of Attorney, but that is not sufficient to pull a permit.  The SM asks if the work has been approved.  Mr. Coss states that the work was done without a permit.  SM asks who did the work.  Mr. Campos explains that he works for a construction company, who is a licensed contractor, so I did the work.  Mr. Coss says that the contractor that he works for can pull the permit.  Mr. Campos explains through the interpreter that he came in last Thursday and tried to pull the permit and was told that an engineer had to pull the permit, just for a small closet and 2 - 4 x 4 pieces of wood that I added to the wall, they're telling me that an engineer needs to pull the permit, that my contractor couldn't do it.  Mr. Coss states that there is some miscommunication, an engineer cannot pull a permit, but anytime framing has been done, an engineer has to provide signed and sealed drawings, which would be submitted with the permit application.  Mr. Campos asks who does he need to deal with - an engineer or a contractor, or both?  Mr. Coss explains that his primary contact should be a contractor, and it's the contractor's responsibility to deal with the engineer.  SM acknowledges that there has been a miscommunication.

The SM states that she will continue this case for 30 days, so that it can be determined if they need a contractor or engineer, since the work is already completed.  Mr. Campos states that when the contractor came to the Building Department that he was told that he couldn't do anything, he needed an engineer. Mr. Coss states that an engineer is needed to do the signed and sealed drawings.  He explains that anytime framing is involved - it has to be designed.  He further states that 2 x 4's whether they are load bearing or not... it's required to be designed by an engineer.  Any type of framing, according to the Florida Building Code, is a level of alteration.  Mr. Campos states that he doesn't understand why that is necessary.  The SM tries to determine if the 2 x 4's were new or replacements of existing 2 x 4's.  Mr. Coss states that these are additional 2 x 4's, but Mr. Campos states that there was some damage to some of the wood, so he replaced it.  The SM asks if anyone from staff has gone out there to see what's been done other than the pictures in the file?  The response was - only Mr. Julin came out.  SM asks Mr. Julin if this was replacement work or new work.  He responds that the work was done before he inspected.  He explains that when he took the photos, the house was locked and he took them from outside looking in through the windows.  Mr. Campos asks who gave Mr. Julin permission to access the home because some of the photos could have only been taken inside the home.

The SM grants 60 days, Mr. Julin will have time to inspect, and if things are not resolved by then, you will be back before the SM.  Mr. Campos asks what he needs to do get an engineer or both.  The SM explains that, that's why she is providing 60 days, so that they can get with Mr. Julin and decide what needs to be done. Mr. Coss explains to the tenants that when they visited the Building Department, the Plan's Examiner determined that an engineer was needed.  He adds that it would be helpful if, while they are here, they speak with the Plan's Examiner.  The SM states that she would like a visual inspection to determine the extent of the work.

Mr. Coss reads the facts of the case and explains that this case was recalled from the last hearing.  He explains that all violations except for 2, Section 5-1.105.1 Permit Required (for the water heater), and IPMC 304.7 Roofs and Drainage.  SM continued this case from the last meeting to allow the owner to speak with a contractor or engineer to determine if the roof damage is structural or cosmetic.  The owner, although notified, is not present and has made no contact regarding this case.  Staff requests that the 2 remaining violations be found to exist at this property.

The SM found that the violations do exist and the violator, who was not present was deemed to have admitted guilt.  It was further ordered that they be given 60 to come into compliance or the fine of $50 per day would begin to accrue until violations come into compliance.

The named violator has been provided notice of this hearing, but has failed to appear.  After consideration of the evidence presented, a default judgment in this matter is hereby entered.  In the event the violation is not remedied within  60 days after the date of the Order Determining Violation, there shall be imposed a fine pursuant to Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., at a daily cumulative rate of $100.00. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal the decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.