Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that the violations do exist and the violators who are not present are deemed to have admitted guilt. He further ordered that they be given the number of days recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer on the case summary sheet to come into compliance or they would be fined the amount also shown on the summary sheet.
 

Investigator Coss read the facts of the case and presented photos which were marked as composite Exhibit 1.  He stated that all of the violations have been corrected except the water heater and some electrical problems.  They had a plumbing contractor come out and apply for an "after the fact permit" for the water heater; however, he did not correct the electrical problems concerning the water heater.  The property owner is working with an electrical contractor to bring everything up to code.  Mr. Dwight Dovel, Property Manager, was sworn in for testimony.  He confirmed the previous statement reference the contractors and agreed 60 days should be enough time to correct the problems.

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that a violation does exist and that Carole Mabus has committed or is responsible for the violations. He ordered that the violator has 60 days in which to apply for the permit and comply with the conditions of the permit. In the event the violations are not cured or complied within the time period given, a fine of $100.00 per day will be assessed for each day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal his decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that the violations do exist and the violators who are not present are deemed to have admitted guilt. He further ordered that they be given the number of days recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer on the case summary sheet to come into compliance or they would be fined the amount also shown on the summary sheet.
 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that the violations do exist and the violators who are not present are deemed to have admitted guilt. He further ordered that they be given the number of days recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer on the case summary sheet to come into compliance or they would be fined the amount also shown on the summary sheet.
 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that the violations do exist and the violators who are not present are deemed to have admitted guilt. He further ordered that they be given the number of days recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer on the case summary sheet to come into compliance or they would be fined the amount also shown on the summary sheet.
 

Building Department Investigator Shaun Coss read the facts of the case and presented photos which were marked as Exhibit # 1.  Hector and Lorenzo Guerrero were sworn in for testimony.  Officer Isaac Saucedo was sworn in and acted as translator. 

Investigator Coss stated that the owners had obtained a permit to do the roof but they tore down the exterior wall and the interior of one of the units had been demolished.  This work exceeded the scope of the permit.  The owners stated that they did not have the time and were financially unable to continue with this project and decided they would try to sell the property. 

Investigator Coss stated that if they sold the property he would just close the case and start a new one on the new owners and because it is borderline unsafe the city may condemn it.  They asked if they obtained a permit and if they did sell the property would the permit transfer to the new owner.  Investigator Coss said as long as the contractor obtains the permit. 

SM Blandino stated that since they already started the project, they could not go back, so they were required to obtain a permit to finish the job.  He reminded them that if they obtained the permits within the 60 days it would give them another 6 months to comply and if they are showing progress Investigator Coss has the ability to extend additional time.  Investigator Coss said the only alternative was to hire a contractor and apply for a demolition permit to tear down the garage.  He stated if they obtained the original permit they would have the additional time, but if they obtained a demolition permit they only had the 60 days to comply.  They asked for additional time and Investigator Coss said Staff would be agreeable to 90 days to obtain the permit.

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that a violation does exist and that Hector & Lorenzo Guerrero has committed or is responsible for the violations. He ordered that the violator has 90 days in which to apply for the permit and comply with the conditions of the permit. In the event the violations are not cured or complied within the time period given, a fine of $100.00 per day will be assessed for each day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal his decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Building Department Investigator Shaun Coss read the facts of the case and presented photos marked as composite Exhibit 1.  He stated that the church had fallen into financial difficulties and relocated to another building that was being used primarily as a print shop.  Once they moved into this building they also ran a school and ministry which now changed the usage from a business to an assembly hall.  They did not obtain a permit for this change of usage. 

Pastor Ronald Hodge was sworn in for testimony.  He stated that he is the interim missionary pastor and he was brought in to help with difficult situations.  They were previously under the ordinances of St. Lucie County but are now governed by the city.  Investigator Coss stated he was concerned that there was no life safety plans currently being used.  He recommended 60 days to obtain a permit and comply with the conditions of the permit.  Pastor Hodge acknowledged that they should be able to get this done within that time limit.

Margaret Arraiz did state that once they get the permit issued, there was normally an additional 6 months allowed to comply with the conditions of the permit. 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that a violation does exist and that Faith Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce has committed or is responsible for the violations. He ordered that the violator has 60 days in which to apply for the permit and comply with the conditions of the permit. In the event the violations are not cured or complied within the time period given, a fine of $100.00 per day will be assessed for each day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal his decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Officer Avery read the facts of the case and presented photos which were marked as composite Exhibit 1.  Jean Lade was sworn in for testimony and his daughter Christine Lade was sworn in as his Creole translator.  Mr. Lade agreed he would have the violations corrected but asked for more time which Officer Avery agreed to allow him 20 days. Mr. Lade said 20 days should be enough time.

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that a violation does exist for section(s) 16-46, 16-47, 16-48 (1) (5), 16-46, 16-47, 16-48 (11) and that Jean Lade & Marie Norzelus has committed or is responsible for the violations. He ordered that the violator has 20 days in which to comply with the city code of ordinances. In the event the violations are not cured or complied within the time period, a fine of $25.00 per day will be assessed for each day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The violator has 30 days in which to appeal his decision in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County.
 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that the violations do exist and the violators who are not present are deemed to have admitted guilt. He further ordered that they be given the number of days recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer on the case summary sheet to come into compliance or they would be fined the amount also shown on the summary sheet.
 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino that the violations do exist and the violators who are not present are deemed to have admitted guilt. He further ordered that they be given the number of days recommended by the Code Enforcement Officer on the case summary sheet to come into compliance or they would be fined the amount also shown on the summary sheet.
 

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino found that the violations did exist but has been cured as of the date of this hearing. The violators shall be warned that if these violations reoccur, pursuant to FL Statute 162.09, the Code Officer may notify the Special Magistrate and request that a fine be entered.
 

Margaret Arraiz read the facts of the case and went over the 3 criteria of Rule 16 used in making a decision on whether or not to reduce the fines.  She explained that there are no liens recorded on this case; however,  there is a lien recorded against the property and it is being presented in the next case. Staff is agreeable to waiving the $33,630.00 fines.

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino after reviewing the 3 criteria required by Rule 16 and after considering the facts that the fines of $33,630.00 be waived leaving a balance due of $.00.
 

Margaret Arraiz read the facts of the case and went over the 7 criteria of Rule 17 used in making a decision on whether or not to reduce the fines.  She stated that Staff had received notice of a tax deed sale where there was excess funds in the amount of $512.01.  The new owner, after he found out about the fines and lien, contacted the office to find out what had to be done to correct the violations.  He did this right away and then submitted the request for lien reduction.  Staff is asking for an additional $1,000.00 to cover administrative costs.

Mr. Simon Castor was sworn in for testimony.  He stated regarding the lien that he did not know anything about it until after he purchased the property.  After he received the letter stating this fact he contacted the department and corrected the violations as requested.  He wanted to make the property ready to rent.

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino after reviewing the 7 criteria required by Rule 17 and to recommend to the City Commission to reduce the lien to $1,512.01 payable in 60 days. The City has already received $512.01 as excess funds of a tax deed sale which leaves a balance of $1,000.00 payable in 60 days if approved. If the Commission approves the reduction and if it is not satisfied within the 60 days the lien would revert back to its original amount of $108,530.00.
 

Margaret Arraiz read the facts of the case and went over the 7 Criteria of Rule 17 used in making a recommendation for reduction or rescindment of the lien.  She stated that when the case was initiated in 2014 by Officer Coss the Special Magistrate found the owner's Systec LLC was responsible for the violations and gave them 30 days to comply or they would be fined.  Mr. Charles Pitt, the tenant-operator was present at this hearing and testified to the violations.  Before the 30 days expired Mr. Pitt approached Mr. Coss for additional time and he was granted another 90 days to comply. 

During this time the area was transferred to Officer Avery.  When he inspected the property on February 10, 2015  the violations were not in compliance so he started the fines.  A letter was mailed to Systec LLC advising them that the fines were accruing.  On February 18 an inspection was made; the violations were now in compliance so the fines stopped.  Another letter was mailed to Systec LLC advising them the fines had accrued to a total of $2,030.00 and gave them 20 days to appeal before a lien was issued.

Staff did not receive any further communication from Systec LLC nor Mr. Pitt so a lien was recorded on October 15.  A letter with a copy of the lien was mailed to Systec LLC.  It was after this that Mr. Pitt came into the office wanting to know why a lien was placed on the property.  He was under the impression that he was in compliance and did not know anything about the fines until he was notified about this letter.  Staff gave him a copy of the file and afterwards he acknowledged that proper notice was sent.  He then asked that the fines be waived.  Staff explained that he would have to present his case to you and the City Commission for any reduction or to have the fines waived. 

A day or so later we received a letter from the attorneys representing Systec LLC appealing the lien, but once they received a copy of the file, they filled out a reduction request form also.

Staff is recommending to the Special Magistrate to reduce the fines to administrative costs of $1,200.00. 

Charles Pitt came forward and was sworn in for testimony.  He stated that he thought he was in compliance before the 90 days extension was up and did not know anything about the fines until after he was notified about the lien.  He stated that he understands that the proper notice was sent but that they were still asking that the fines be waived.  Ms. Arraiz entered the request from Systec LLC into the records for review. 

Mr. Pitt asked, "if there is a lien being recorded doesn't the city have to serve them or does a regularly mailed letter suffice?"  Assistant City Attorney McCain stated that the Massey letters sent out giving notice of the lien and that they have 20 days to appeal is appropriate.

Special Magistrate Blandino considered the amount being requested by the City and decided to reduce it to $750.00.  He asked Mr. Pitt if this was reasonable and Mr. Pitt stated that he thought it was an estoppel situation; that if he corrected the violations and spent his own money doing so, he was under the impression that there would be no fines.  SM Blandino stated that he could only make a recommendation and it would be the City Commission to make the final decision.  Mr. Pitt was advised of the City Commission meeting date and if he wished to address the Board to arrive early and put his name on the list to speak.

Motion was made by Frank M. Blandino Special Magistrate Blandino reviewed the 7 criteria required by Rule 17 and recommended the City Commission reduce the lien to $750.00 payable in 60 days. If not paid within that time the lien would revert back to its original amount.