Village Commission - Regular Meeting

Last. Then.

Are we?

That's it.

Thank you.

Okay, are we ready? I'd like to call to order the Village of Biscayne Park Code compliance ordinance for August 19th. It is now 6 p.m.

If you clerk with me, spell the words.

Janie Anderson. Yeah, Blanton present, but they'll have their own toes. Judy hammer bird. Michael and not during the grant. I feel good Terrence when as a cherry present.

Even you get everyone this is a meeting of the village of this in part.

So compliance board.

The board is authorized pursuant to chapter 14 of the village's land development code to ensure compliance with the village's code of ordinances. The members of the board are citizens and residents of the village of Biscayne Park. We volunteer our time and will not pay for our services. The purpose of each hearing is to give any alleged violators the opportunity to contest the completion of the code, which resulted in the issuance of a notice to determine whether a violation of the village's code has occurred or is occurring. We are not authorized to dismiss violations based on hardships, ignorance, or the fact that others may be guilty of the same violation. These hearings are conducted in a quasi-judicial manner. Our responsibility is to act much like a judge in a court, and that is to hear cases presented by the religious co-compliance officers and to hear contradictory arguments presented by the alleged violators. We are not authorized to change the code. The village commission is solely authorized to enact or revise codes. Conversely, neither the commission nor the village manager have the authority to overrule the findings of the board. Pursuant to chapter 162 Florida statutes, orders of the board can only be appealed to the circuit board of Miami-Dade County. We have the authority to assess and order the payment of civil penalties, issue orders having the force of law. to command whatever steps are necessary to bring a violation into compliance and to assess administrative costs. In order to make a finding upholding code compliance officer's decision, we must find that there is substantial competent evidence that the name violator was responsible for a violation of the relevant section of the code as charged. All documentary evidence presented by the parties must be submitted for placement in the hearing file. No documentary evidence will be considered unless the alleged violator or code compliance officer submits a copy for the hearing file. Each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses who introduce exhibits to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in direct examination, to impeach any witness regardless of which party was called them to testify and to rebut the evidence against them. If you intend to address the board and have not signed in, please do so. Anyone wishing to address the board, please stand and raise your right hand so you may be sworn in. You are reminded that this board is a quasi-judicial board and giving false testimony can be penalized.

please stand up raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth do we have any additions or deletions or changes yes we do

Um, the addition is our, is the second case we will call, we'll call one case first and then call it second because one that abatement, correct.

Call your first case. First case.

The first case on the agenda. I'm sorry. My name is Doreen Grant. I'm the co-director for the Village of Biscayne Park. Good evening. First case on the agenda is in Section 8, fine reduction. It's 8.1 for the address 120-25 Northeast 8th Avenue. Case number CE-25-0592 for Andrew and Lamise Wilson. This is a fine reduction. They were violated under Section 8.431F, property maintenance. The exterior wall awnings were in need of cleaning. They have since come into compliance, and we filed an affidavit of compliance. The outstanding fine is $10,750. They are offering $250. Our recommendation is $750. Questions from anyone on the board? Let me just pause the last one.

If you both would introduce yourselves and your relationship to the property.

I'm Lamise Wilson, owner.

Andrew Wilson, owner.

Laurie Joyce.

We don't want to just say we don't want to pay anything since we fixed it. But $750 sounds a little bit too much. It's going to take away from my budget of doing better for the house. And, you know, as you guys know from last time, I'm about to do my windows. So $750 sounds a little bit steep to me. I honestly think that the administration fee of $250 should be enough. But I don't want to offend anybody or go against the rules since I'm learning about this. So you tell me what we can do. But 750 is a lot. It's going to take out of my budget. I'm doing my windows.

I'm going to be quite honest. This went on a long time. While there was indeed a great deal of communication from you folks at SCAF, it was a lot of adversarial situations and you drag on. 250 does not take into account the significant amount of SCAF time that went into all the processing, all the back and forth, the times you came in front of the board. Personally, I would not be comfortable accepting too.

But no, I, I, I would. I don't think that we could have made this opinion of us. And so I'm told that 2024 works at this end of this violation. Almost seven, eight, nine months later, I thought that there was another endorsement. Second, or in October. Second, in several cities where there was a fine of 250 and an administrative vehicle. So that in and of itself, we're not apt to. That's why I was offering 500 to just cover those. And then there was another order of influence . We're here today, so I am in, yes, I will .

So you don't, what is it that you guys think is appropriate?

The first thing we have to do is make a motion on your retirement. In the case of CE25-0592, the property is now in compliance. They're offering $250 for their fine reduction. I would make a motion to not accept $250. I'll second.

Well, the village has... All in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 4-0.

Every time it comes before the board, our employees put together photos and a whole packet for us of all the communication, all the photos. It's a tremendous amount of time. And we feel it's something there that they get first for what they did. The city gets first for the work that our staff does. Each time we have a large packet of information that we have to go over and that staff has put together. So 250 doesn't cover.

You heard what staff is suggesting. I would, the ball again is back in your court to make the next offer.

But I mean, the miscommunication was not only... I don't know if this works. Miscommunication was not only our fault. I feel like the village has a little bit of responsibility. Ms. Grant has a little bit of responsibility.

What we're talking about is the level of work that's gone into the various...

The level of work didn't even need to get to that point.

Right. 750 is a lot of money, you guys.

Come on. 750 and we're working on the house and we're trying to get it better. I mean, it's like you're shooting us in the foot a little bit. I understand the administration. Then maybe hire somebody that can communicate to us village residents, not somebody that wants to come into our house and not be nice to us.

We want to make the next offer.

I can't do $750. I just can't. It's not in the budget. It's, you know, come on. So we said $500. And you guys know on that either? No $500 either? That's not good enough?

Second. This is my second time here. But if the miscommunication didn't happen, we would have been fine. Okay. so i think that um village's offer of something to screen with um i wouldn't like to see them as or suggest more but i think that's nice um i'm just saying so uh i'll make a motion to deny on the case of cd dash c by mt by 52.

What do you suggest we do, ma'am?

I trust you, ma'am. What do you suggest we do? The offer has to come from you.

You've heard The suggestion from staff, you've heard our reasoning behind not being, quite honestly, I was surprised that staff came in at 7.50 when you consider the amount of work that's gone into it, but I respect them. They know the amount of work it took. I respect them totally, and I certainly will not contradict them, at least not right now. So you know where we are.

I mean, it is what it is. I guess 7.54.

but make an offer of $750. Yes.

Make a motion to accept clients in case CE25 does 0512 to accept their offer of $750 and the funding does.

I'll second.

All in favor? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. You're with me. I'm to be paid by September 9 or the fine revolves that was reverts back to its original state.

You want us to be by September 9.

Yes, ma'am.

So we can just go there and give them a check or credit. Great. Okay, thank you guys.

Thank you.

Next case on the agenda is The 5 section by the addition.

Right let the record show that Michael and not is here. Clear on the motion that in 50 to be paid by. On favor.

The next case is under Section 5, additions, deletions, and changes to the agenda. This is an addition. 5.1, admissibility of police. Oh, is that what we're doing? No, we're doing 5.2. I apologize for that. 5.2, we had two additions that I should have recognized that in the beginning. So we're going to do 5.2 because the gentleman is here. So it's for 1060 Northeast 120th Street. It's case number CEN 26-0294, Carla Lombertini and Augustine A. Conti. We are asking for an order of abatement in this case. A tree had fell, and before you is a police report dated May 25, 2026. This was an act of God, I have to say. a tree fell from their property, their private property fell over onto public property and completely obstructed the street. So police had to be called to the scene and they had to immediately call for abatement. We had to clear the street. So in situations like this where You know, the tree came from private property. The city cannot take responsibility for that. They had to charge the property owner for the vendor.

Before we go any further, I mean, in the case of total transparency and honesty, the property owner in this case used to occasionally reach out to Bob when Bob was on the commission. And a couple of times since he's reached out to him, he's in fact contacted Bob regarding this Bob knows better than will involve himself in any code issues. So the only advice he gave Mr. Conte was he might want to meet with a manager or meet with one of the parents.

Thank you for the disclosure. The chair did let me know ahead of time that she would be making that disclosure and respectfully thankful for that. Mr. Would you like to go to the

Good evening, everybody.

I need you to identify yourself and your relationship to the property.

Yes, my name is Agustin Conti. I'm the owner of the property in discussion. I want to give you packages of this, but I only have one. I'm going to show you a little bit so you have an idea of what we're talking about. I'll be brief. I know your time is important. Good evening, Chair Anderson and board members. My name again is Agustin Conte, owner of 1016 or this 120 since 2009. I wish we didn't have to spend our collective time on this tonight, but after receiving the amendment and dismissive email response from the bill as manager, I'm here not just over a disputed bill, but for moral reasons to stand up for what is right and hold public officials accountable for how residents are treated. I asked the board to dismiss case CEN 260294 because no code violation occurred and that the administrative process executed by staff was fundamentally flawed. I care deeply about our local canopy. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I fell in love with this game park. My property features a massive black olive tree with five columnar stems, which means branches that fall off. It's not one tree. It's a big tree that has five big branches stemming from there. A tree carries so much that years ago I turned down my children's request for a treehouse specifically to protect its health, not within reason. I had no reason to believe that a treehouse would create a problem. It's just, you know, out of love for the tree. I have maintained it responsible for the 17 years that we've been here. I show in my records my last full professional training was on March 19, 2023. Three years and two months later,

Should I show you this? Oh. Okay. I didn't know this. Okay.

Should I proceed reading or?

Okay. All right.

As I said, the professional dream was on March 19, 2023, three years and less than two months before this event on May 25th of this year, well between the standard three to four year cycle that I was recommended. On May 25th, a branch failed to show solely the unusual structural angle of that specific stem. Responding police officer Frank Celiano, who was incredibly supportive, I must say, he stated repeatedly that this was an act of God reassuring me, don't worry, the city will clean the street. Central to this hearing is my official complaint regarding staff conduct that morning. The village called a private contractor to my lawn and public director John, who I didn't know, walked past me. I learned this after the fact without introducing myself. This was a very stressful event for me and my family. We were very grateful that nobody got hurt. It was a big branch that damaged one of my cars significantly. When I approached the contractor, I wasn't directed what to do. The contractor told me that I would have to pay for the damage in my site. I said, okay. And that's when Director John from FAR interjected in showing me with his boot into the grass. He marked five feet from the pavement. on the street from the curb, and loudly declared everything past the mark was my financial burden. Under that direct official instruction, I negotiated on the spot and paid the contractor $600 out of pocket to clear my private loan immediately, which he did. It was only later when I called the contractor to question the additional invoice that was handled to me, that was days after, where somebody from the city, yes, while I was, did you deliver the notice? Okay. I was taking pictures of my car when I received a bill addressed to the city for $800. And that was an address to me. I felt that I was wrong on its own. And I called immediately the contractor and he said, I'm sorry, I billed you for what you're supposed to be billed. I billed the city for what the bill's supposed to be billed. So I dismissed the bill because it wasn't under my name. Under the direct official instructor, John, I negotiated on the spot and paid the contractor $600 out of pocket to clear the loans. When I submitted my formal complaint regarding Director Jones' misconduct, Village Manager Albert dismissed it outright, claiming in his response that he was there that morning.

We are not here to get into personalities, personality conflicts. We really are here dealing with what you were presented with, in fact, being for service. The village had a legal responsibility to get them cleared off, get that street open. And yes, because that street came from private property, the bill will be generated to the homeowner. And we can talk about a lot of things, but we're not going to get into personalities and who should have behaved differently and whatever. We weren't there.

I understand. All right, I'll finish in regards to the tree. I'll skip that part if you allow me. I was always worried about this tree. Determined to ensure the total safety and worry about my upcoming family vacation, I acted immediately. I consulted two separate arborist professionals, choosing a recommendation that preserved the health of the tree rather than unnecessarily canning it down. On June 5th, Right before leaving on vacation, I paid $1,800 out of pocket for a comprehensive one-third crown reduction trimming, and the tree has been completely safe, balanced, and sound ever since. I acted in total good faith, maintaining my property, resolved the loan immediately for $600, and invested another $1,800 to ensure permanent safety. And my reason to request this to be dismissed is because, as Doreen said, and as the police officer said, there was no storm that night. And as the arborist says, which I have no problem at all in bringing you their assessments, I just didn't know that I had to present this just like a court case, the fact that I did not neglect the... health of the tree or the care for the tree. I understand it is your decision that I have to pay that. I'm not here to discuss that, but I'm here for what I feel is right. And I care about that tree a lot. And I did everything I could. And this was simply an act of God. And for that reason, I'm asking you to dismiss the case. Thank you.

If one of my trees fall and it falls out into the street, and it's an act of God, an act of Wilma the Hurricane or whatever, it's still my responsibility.

Well, if it's a storm, I understand the city intervenes. It's not just if there is a hurricane or a storm, the relationship between who pays and who doesn't is very different than the single situation, in my understanding.

Hurricane on me. I have to pay for the cleanup.

I'm kind of interested in, can you guys hear me? Yes. I'm kind of interested in the discussion that you had with this guy, John, you said his name was?

The public.

Yeah. John Jenkins.

Yeah, he showed up at the scene, and I didn't introduce himself or anything. I felt pretty bad, but as I said, that's supposed to be.

Irrespective of that, he made a representation to you that you were responsible for. He measured off five feet. Yes. Hold on. I have to say my whole statement before you speak.

Sure.

So he told you that he marked off five feet and said you're responsible for five feet going forward into your property, and that's your responsibility.

Yes.

As a consequence, you made a deal with the contractor to clean up the area that was five feet in that he marked off with the tree that fell and paid the contractor for what was the debris that fell from the tree five feet in on your property.

Correct.

And there was still obviously more tree that was in the road, right?

Right. He was already working on the street based on what they determined. And only when I approached the... The contractor, I find out that, you know, based on the direction of this guy, John, that I had to pay for that. And he told me they were paid for the rest. This is what you need to do. And based on that information, I negotiated with the contractor. How did I know that I had to pay for the whole thing? I would have probably make a different deal or I would have been armed, equipped to... Do you have evidence of the payment? Yes, I have the bills. Yes.

There's two separate things, because yes, the private property, he would be responsible. He could have told Joe, no, the tree guy, no, I'll take care of what's on my property, not even dealt with. And Joe's tree service would have taken care of what was in the city's property right-of-way, would have taken care of that, built the city, the city would then build the residence. So it's two separate things. His deal with... Joe could have been yes, no, that's too much. That's not enough.

Yeah, I understand that. But what I'm getting hung up on is there was a representation made to the homeowner. Did he make any representation to you about what was going on? Who was responsible for what's out in the streets?

You're talking about John?

Yeah.

Yes. He clearly said, in fact, he only intervened when he saw me talking to him, again, without introducing himself or anything, and he marked with his foot, this is five feet from the pavement with his foot, counting five feet, and from here on it's you. That's what he said. And that from here on is exactly where I had my hedges. So I said, okay, and that's when I proceeded to discuss with the private contractor. Had I known that I had to pay for everything, I would have discussed a different deal or I would have arranged it differently. I have to say that the contractor was already working and clearing the street. Okay. It wasn't, I was after the, he started with his crew that, okay, what I'm going to do with this. It was a very stressful situation for everybody. I didn't feel supported at all by the city, but again, supposedly this is not important, but I feel it's incredibly relevant to what I had to pay. And then realizing later on that I had to pay another $800 that the contractor didn't care to explain either. That's not his job.

So your hang-up is that if I would have known, this is you saying I, if I would have known that I was responsible for the whole thing, I would have negotiated another deal with Joe, the contractor.

Absolutely. Absolutely. I was misleaded by this guy, John.

Okay.

This was Memorial Day. It's a miracle that anybody even came out. I don't know how much negotiating you could have done with any other vendor to get a better price when it was Memorial Day.

Well, I don't think just like there wouldn't have been a negotiation. The city was taking care of it to get it so that we could have a happy time. So the city would have taken that, it just would have been what this gentleman had to do. On his property, once again, he could have said, no, I don't, I see where there may have been a misunderstanding of what was being said or not a clarification, but I don't see where, if what he said was correct, that John misrepresented anything, so from five feet back is your responsibility. The $800 bill. Meaning the city is cleaning it up, but on your property, that you have to take care of it or it'll sit here.

Is the $800 strictly for what had to be done on city property?

And we have that mic louder. I can barely hear you.

Is the $800 bill, does that include them cleaning up on your side?

No, no. I have my bill to my side that was $600 that I can show you. And days after.

Yes. $600, if I understood you correctly, was to clean up what was on your side. The $800 is what is owed to the city for the cleanup on the city side.

I'm so sorry. I have to say I'm very sympathetic to the property owner because what happened was obviously not intentional. Oh, no.

Or neglect.

In a normal situation, what would have happened would have been I would have been called to that scene. It was a holiday, so unfortunately I couldn't be worse. Right. But Rafael or myself would have been pulled to the scene and we would have offered the owner of the property to do the job himself or hire someone to do the job.

So you would have given the homeowner the opportunity, even though it was in the public roadway, to do something about it?

The tree fell onto the swell. We would have given him a day or two days to clean it up or pay someone to clean it up. In this situation, and I want him to understand, the reason why we had to move it from level zero to high level was because the public street was blocked and that became a state issue. We cannot go against what the state requires us to do. We cannot block a public right of way. An ambulance was coming on that day and couldn't go through that street. This whole village would shut down. The police had to do what they had to do to clear the street, which is we had to have a vendor right away. We had to have John out there. John could clear that street. If he could cut the street and clear the street, we wouldn't have had a vendor. But it was a much bigger job. So John did what he needed to do, and I wasn't there so I can't speak for him and what he did.

Well, that's what I'm getting hung up on. What is it that we have to say about the alleged misrepresentation?

I cannot comment on that. John is not here. If I knew this was going to come up, I would have had him come and testify.

Right, but I felt directly impacted by his actions that day. Nobody told me what to do whatsoever. He only said that, and that's wrong because I had to pay. He didn't dare to explain.

His public street was blocked.

That's very clear, and I...

Police would have been out there, which the police, when you read the report, they were out there.

The police didn't.

Five hours. And we are not even charging the property owner for that. In normal situations, we would have charged them $75 an hour.

So let me ask you something. Have you determined by virtue of what you've testified to as a misrepresentation about the difference between the amount that you're getting charged now and the amount that it would have been?

Yes.

What?

I haven't come up with a number. I used the same vendor to end up trimming the tree. I think he's a fantastic vendor. I would have probably dealt with it differently, certainly differently. I would say probably in the order of, I don't know, 1,000 to 1,200, something along those lines.

i'm talking about both i'm talking about the whole scope but what i can do is from personal experience and um i did have an extremely large uh branch ball also and it was a seven thousand dollar branch and it was um the reason it was so expensive is because once it's on the ground it is more of a hazard to the workers cutting a tree that's branched on the ground than in the air. I was a little taken aback, but you know, it was a big branch and I learned a lot. And once again, the trees that we have are well maintained and we have them every two, three years come out, the others, and they take them, but it helped. And it was the mixed citrus

And you paid the $7,000? And the five hours that you're talking about, Doreen, that was five hours of who, the police out there?

And there's no invoice that's being charged to the homeowner for that? I went through the report with him because I wanted to make sure that, you know, we are not just representing the city. We are representing you as a resident as well.

I didn't feel represented at all. The police did a fantastic job, by the way, I must say.

essentially fee for service and if you remember when we hear fine reductions we do not touch fee for service this makes it a little bit different i appreciate the frustration nobody wants a bill of any size that they didn't expect but again i think dale thank you for explaining it so well two different issues Both have to be dealt with. And thank God there was somebody available on Memorial Day.

I mean, I empathize with you, but the bottom line is that you know that with regard to if a tree falls down in your neighbor's yard or in a public right-of-way, that was your tree, and there's a responsibility for that. It sounds like your beef is between $200 and $400 in the grand scheme of things, between $1,000 and $1,200, aside from the personality, misrepresentations, and all that. But if you get down to the numbers, That's a number that was incurred by the city, and you were not charged for the time that the police were out there directing traffic.

Saying that the streets have traffic is almost laughable with all due respect. I understand how that functions with the police, but thinking that I have to pay for the police to direct traffic on my street is something that it's... It's hard to swallow.

If you have to close off the street for construction or anything else, the contractor has to pay for police to redirect.

Right, but my taxes don't pay for the police to... No, you did.

You're not getting charged for that.

Okay, thank you. So I have to be grateful for not being charged by the police. I'm trying to understand how things work.

They have to stay on scene because it was a safety issue. Pedestrians, animals... vehicles, so they have to stay there to make sure everything is removed from the public street before they can let public use it again.

Thank you.

If there's nothing else, I'd like to make a motion. Case number CEN-26-0294. I'd like to pledge to the board an initiated order of abatement for $800 to be paid by In September, we are one third. Fine.

By September. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Would you like me to go ahead and put the addition 5.1 on the record? Or would you like us to go ahead with the rest of the agenda?

Is that an addition? Another addition?

Addition 5.1.

Yes, I would like to put it on the record that the village attorney will not be able to attend this meeting tonight.

However, I would like to enter into the record admissibility of police officer sworn incident reports at code enforcement board hearings requirement for in-person testimony. So the village attorney gave a legal opinion and it was provided to every board member.

Absolutely.

Exactly. That's what I was thinking. Okay. So actually, why don't we table it? And then we can go from there.

Okay.

Table to the end. We should number the one we just certified to.

Yeah. Hold it on. Yeah. Item.

6.5 6.6 and 6.7 is that for the address 9.23 North is a 108th Street. The first case number and 20 dash 0, 4, 1, 3, Brandon Lennon JTRS and well, I'm so people JTRS we are here for an order of authorization to foreclose. They were found to be in violation of Chapter 16, permits required, double fee permits. The garage enclosure was, the garage was enclosed without permits. And this is an old case. It's gone through adjudication. Now we are at the end of the process where the village is asking to foreclose on this property. Can I read all the cases? You want to do them one by one? Read them?

Well, it looks like three of them. No, I'm sorry. Two of them we would take back. Those are the pieces. Yes, and the other two aren't.

And the other, correct. We are going to ask for intensive. We'll take 6.4 and 6.5 together.

I read six point to the record.

Same address, same property owner. Case number is EEN 19-1953. Found to be in violation of Chapter 16 permits require double fee. A wooden fence was installed without permits. I mean, there was other construction work that was done. and add it into the same case. Unfortunately, it shouldn't have been that way, but we'll go with the wooden fence installed without a permit. We didn't issue this violation. It's from the past.

Right, right. April 3, 19.

Yeah. That's our question. Is this a homesteaded property or not? It's not homesteaded, yes. It's not homesteaded? It's homesteaded. It is a homestead.

Yes, it's homesteaded. I didn't see the name, so I'm going to shoot.

It's homesteaded and in a trust.

This is 6.4, you said? So this was adjudicated back in 2019?

2019 is when this particular violation was issued at 6.4, and 6.5 was issued in 2020.

Okay, so it's just been accumulating daily fines?

Yes, through education and we filed the lien and it's been accumulating.

The lien was filed for $82,300 and the ongoing daily fine of $50 continued. That was back in January the 17th. And there And what communications have you had with the homeowner since 2019 about this?

He's very cooperative, I have to say. It's just that the family has gone through some issues and it was a little bit difficult for him to take his time. I mean, I had this conversation with him today as well.

I mean, is a part of it not getting permits? And double fees?

I applied for a permit last year, but.

I'm going to ask you. Oh, yes. Your name and your relationship to the property, for the record.

Brandon Lino, owner.

Hold on a second.

With regard to the permits, what is happening with the permits?

Because that's something that you would come down and you would have conversations with. You can get it. You can't. You pay the double fee. You come for an abatement or a dispensation on the fee. But none of that has happened, right?

It hasn't happened yet, and Brandon would be able to explain why. They've had issues in the family, and that's why he hasn't. However, we have communicated. I've given the options, you know, of how he can come into resolution with this, and several times.

Okay, so you gave him options how long ago?

I would say over the years, maybe a couple times.

Yeah. And have any of those options been moved on?

Yes. Some of them, he has been able to comply with the swimming pool and some other stuff that was there, the smaller violations. But this particular violation for the garage is a big one. The garage was converted into a room.

But now, that's what I'm actually focused on, because with regard to that, he did it without a permit, right?

He applied for a permit, I believe, a while back, but that permit stalled. It was abandoned.

He abandoned it. OK.

more than slightly disconcerting is that there are four major situations, all of which are significantly old. All right, sir, I'm going to ask you straight away. Deal just with the first one, the one that has the big thing. He's talking to Mike.

It's kind of hard to hear you. He's talking to Mike.

It's hard to hear you, Cheney. That's my guy.

I hear you, but it's kind of hard to hear you. What was the question?

The one that's gone on since 2019. You're right. Sorry. Better? Better?

Yeah, much better.

Thank you, sir. The one that started in 2019 that has multiple issues starting with the wood fence. Realistically speaking, what is your plan?

Okay, I hired a contractor, a professional contractor, and the permit's been put in actually as of last night. So that's for the garage and for the double fence. This issue has been ongoing. It's basically straight up neglect. It's family issues, it's hardships, but at the end of the day, this should have been taken care of. And it's just negligence at the end of the day on my behalf, so I take full responsibility. But I do ask for grace and extension saying, hey, you know, Going forward, I will be in communication with her because now I'm back home, now working from home now. So these issues should be doctored up.

You said that you hired a contractor and he applied or you applied for a permit last night?

He did not apply, but he actually uploaded all the documents and applied for it last night.

Doreen, are they all there?

He has to go to P&T. They'll have to go to the planning and design review board, but the documents are there.

Okay. As for what's on this first case, electrical, mechanical, plumbing.

That's for the garage and the double fence fee. Both fence and the garage.

Correct. Yes.

I'll say yes, and it's because the violation for the for the garage conversion has all the mechanical, the plumbing, and electrical work.

And the permit has been paid for for the double fee and all that stuff?

Before he pays, yeah.

But he did everything to get it there. OK.

So at least in terms of the first case, EEN 19, 1953, All applicable permit applications have been submitted. Okay.

And can I ask another question of the village? How far in advance, I mean, is there any, let's just have to go to PNC. PNC meets every two weeks. By the end of September, there should be three meetings that he could attend. The first one, they need to have two more meetings. Yes. I don't have my sheet with me.

I do, but this one's hard. Thank you. It's kind of hard. I'm going to change the dates a little bit.

I believe it's the 20th. It could be the second week.

If it'd be safe to say by the end of September, there would have been. September, yes. OK, there would be at least three.

28th. September 28th?

No, it isn't working, definitely.

September 28th appears to be their last meeting.

Yeah, it says the 21st, but it also says the 28th. Do we know which one?

28th, okay. Okay.

I'd like to make a motion on case number EN19-1953 to table to bring this back before us. Give the rest to the property owner until when is our hearing in October? Okay. I'll give the property owner until October the 16th to have fully issued permits that relate to this case before us.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 4-0.

So what you need to do is, yeah, at least get, no, he's not.

No, no, you still got several more.

Oh, for this one, you just need to make sure you get your permits, a fully issued permit by then, then come back to force with regards to the foreclosure issue.

Okay, and that's for the expansion toward the gate. So you guys are talking in code.

That's this first one on case number 19, 1953. That was for the- The fence, the garage.

Right. So the point is, the daily fines and the lien will still hold until all this is settled. I understand. But we'll hold off the foreclosure. Right.

Okay. We're just tabling it. Get your permits. Then we'll come back and force. Okay. Give us some time.

I read 6.5. Would you like to rule on that one as well?

That's the garage enclosure. Oh, yeah, that's the garage enclosure. So, Gil, if you want to make the motion.

Case number EEN-20-0413. Table the case until October. I mean, the property owners to comply with having all applicable permits issued by October the 16th. and table the case into our October 21st hearing.

I'll second. Michael, second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes 4-0.

And by issuing of permits, it means the permits are also paid for.

Well, they won't get issued if he's not paid for.

I don't want him to think that because he applied.

Good point, yes. obtaining a permanent involves actually paying for it, not just the application. Sometimes there's been confusion, not with you, but without. I understand. Thank you. Okay.

Michael.

Michael. Okay. Six, six.

Uh, Next slide. 6.6, are you going to post this?

6.6, same address and same property owner, case number CEN-23-506. We're bringing this case for intent to lien, and the reason is this particular hearing was missed, and we wanted to give the owner the benefit of due process to have the intent to lien hearing. The amount that has accumulated will stay the same. However, we want to give them the opportunity of due process. So we are asking for an order of intent to lien. This was for violation section of section 1.9 for the swimming pool, which I believe has come into compliance. But we wish there are some fines that have accumulated and we wish for them to have the opportunity to get this order.

How much are the fines?

Last time I looked, $99,500. For the pool? Yes. From the time the order was done to compliance.

The notice of violation was first given in December of 23. You came in front of the, well, this came in front of us in January of 24. You complied two years later, almost in March of 25. So yeah, it did. accumulate quite a bit.

I'm not sure because I know the pool thing is that I corrected at the same time the issue was put on my door. I'd like to see evidence. I'm not sure I went two years with a green pool.

Yeah, he did come into compliance and I did verify with the code office. I looked at the photographs and he did come into compliance, but we just want to make sure we do the right way and give him the...

So if he's in compliance, he can apply for a fine reduction.

He can apply for a fine reduction for these two pieces.

That would be six. I was always under the impression the intent to lien was for the garage and the double fence, the fee for the fence, but the pool, I wasn't sure about that.

No, those are totally different. Right now, as far as you being able to ask for a fine reduction, it's on the two pool cases. Okay. The ones that were done, were done. All right.

Okay.

If he were to apply for a fine reduction by September 4th, would that be time to get on our agenda?

Yes.

Hold on. This is going in my head. So you're saying I need to comply, right, with the pool? Yes. Okay.

Apply for reduction on these two things.

Oh, I have never applied for the reduction, you mean?

Okay.

I understand. All right. So I was just saying that.

I'll say you're in compliance.

Yes.

You have a large fine on both cases. All right. Yeah, quite a bit of fine on both cases. Okay. And if you're in compliance, what a resident can do is ask the bill or reduction, bring it back before us for a reduction going, you know, why I'm asking for reduction.

Our goal as a board is to get things in compliance and make everything safe for the community.

Okay. Okay, so if no more questions make a motion in cases see one of the time in KC n dash two three dash 506 there was a violation the property owner is coming to compliance give the property owner until September 4 to go into village hall fill out a fine reduction request come back in front of us in September. and we'll see where it goes from there. Should he not apply for the fine reduction in time, then set the intent to lien. Okay.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0.

So we have a date on September 4th.

Yes. Well, he does, and then he'll be at our hearing.

I would recommend you deal with it before September 4th.

I'll see you at 10. Okay.

Next 6.7.

Same thing in 6.7.

I'll read out the case number. For the record, CEN-23-507, same property owner and same address.

So this is the other pool case that you are in compliance. But again, it has $101,250 in accrued fines. So I would make the same motion that by September 4th, preferably before that, go into Village Hall. fill out the fine reduction request, come back in front of us in September for the discussion. If we don't do that by September 4th, they will file the intent to lien. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. We will see you in September. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you for your patience and energy.

All right, sir.

Who seconded that one? I did.

Next case is under Section 6, Old Business, and it's 6.3. It's for the address 915 Northeast 118th Street. It's case number CEN-24-697, Yan Zhang Gregory, Campbell White.

Did I read that right?

Authorization to foreclose. 6-3? 6-3. I'm working a violation or dwarf of one hearing issued on the section 16 point 14 double fee permits construction plans to the rear of the property that was installed without a permit. The fine has run up to a $120,500. Homesteading property. So they had applied for a permit at one time, but this permit was abandoned. It is a homestay.

And this was adjudicated at one time?

April the 23rd. If we actually there was In May, yeah.

And Doreen, what communication have you had with the homeowner in that time?

I've been in the village for a few times, but I haven't been in communication with Doreen.

I don't remember any communication.

I uploaded everything to the website. Everything. Yeah, I've uploaded all the measurements, all the photos. I've uploaded everything to the web-based thing. A long time ago. Yeah, I mean, I think in October or November of last year.

I have two applications here for the one that you did in 2024. This is the copy, and then there's another one that was done in 2025, also for the fence, but both of them were abandoned. In fact, this one has an outstanding fee of $268. It went to PNZ, approved at PNZ, but it never went through for the rest of the building review.

I don't know what you're saying. I've uploaded everything I've been asked to upload, and this has just kind of fallen through the cracks.

I'm saying that you did that. If you didn't pay the money, it was approved, but then you didn't do anything about it.

Nobody asked me to pay any money. I didn't know it was ever approved. I never received an email saying it was approved.

So you've got to follow through to reach out. You don't just apply and then wait for something to happen.

Well, they were asking questions.

for more information and I gave them more information and then- Once you upload the paperwork and your permit starts going through review, it goes to the first inspector for review. That inspector will either approve or deny. It was denied. So they give you notes, they write notes in there that you were supposed to either provide this document or this is missing and that's how you go from there. Two years later, June 10, 2025, the review was done on June 17 and disapproved. So that was up to you now to connect with the reviewer and say, what do I need to do here? There's a disapproval. You receive a message once they've been approved.

Yeah, I received an approval.

So what was approved? He already did it.

It's been approved.

Oh, it wasn't approved. So on June 17th or whatever you said, it was disapproved or disapproved? Okay. And because why?

In his photo, yeah. He can read the comments to us.

But it was it was an after the fact permit correct. After the fact, it's still treated like a regular permit right so he's right, but what was wrong with it, that it was that was just disapproved.

Unless i'm missing it I don't see the disapproval.

I don't see it either.

On June 12, 2025, 9.01 a.m. Is your speaker working? Hello, hello, hello.

That's working better. You got to just get closer.

It says, please highlight the location of the replaced fence over the provided survey. The application reads it is near the rear property line, but the survey of existing conditions shows a CMU low wall all along. Please be aware that the finished side of the fence must face the neighbors. heard the provider picture of the new fence, that seems not to be the case. Please clarify.

So the ugly side is on the outside?

Yes.

Yeah. So that's what they're saying, that you put the ugly side on the outside. That's not supposed to be.

I didn't put up a new fence. I replaced an old one when I bought the property. So just tell me what you want me to do to fix this. Like in English, just dumb it down.

One thing I can share with you, having very, very recently gone through a pretty intensive permitting process in my own home, You don't, I'm going to strongly urge you, you just don't go onto the system, plug in your information, and not keep on top of it over and over again. Things will pop up. Things that need, the faster you fix them, the faster this gets cleared. So there is a responsibility on the homeowner for consistent follow-through. Don't just totally depend on what you put in the system. that's critical to making it move faster, we might not still be here. Now, Dorian, does he need to start all over? Absolutely. Okay. They're old. The applications are, what, a year, two years old.

So in English, it sounds like you have to apply for another permit. It sounds like they will approve it if you put the good side on the outside.

Well, apparently there's more to it than that. It looked like from what I was reading, positioning, setback, et cetera, there may be more to it than that. So we probably don't want to get into that in specifics, just in case, because we're not out there.

You can find out when the building official will be, once you get your permit, find out when the building official will be at City Hall and meet with them.

Actually, if it's not imposing, since there seems to be question as to positioning, would that be something perhaps they could come out before he applies? Because once the gentleman applies and he gets rejected, it's kind of like get this moving now for him.

I know the building official only comes in certain days.

Yes. We're fortunate that the assistant comes in basically every day. So if he can come in tomorrow or Thursday, for sure, they'll be there tomorrow, both of them.

What time?

They come in at 2 o'clock.

All right. I'll be there tomorrow at 2 o'clock.

And this would be almost another incident similar to what we had before. We go around. If there's no questions, I'd like to make a motion on case number CEN-24-097 to give the property owner until October 16th to have a fully issued permit. If not... Yeah, if not the village.

Authorization to foreclose?

Pardon?

What they're asking for is the authorization to foreclose.

Yeah, if not the village to move forward with the authorization to foreclose.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0.

If you run into any problems and need some extra time, then you need to talk to the village.

Thanks. Good luck. On the new business under 7.1. 1016 North East 114th Street KCE-26-0229 property owner is 1016 North East 114th Street LLC in care of the registered agent Northwest registered agent LLC. PB, Lupita D Montoya, be asking for a border of enforcement and non compliant compliment violation of section 8.4 so seven for three. PB, Lupita D Montoya, lot maintenance and clean up, they have. PB, David Ensign & This was in front of us a little while ago, wasn't it.

Yes. And we had this sort of last month, but it hadn't been agendized properly. So we tabled it 171.

Hi.

Questions from the board. So if you would identify yourself and your relationship to the property.

Okay. My name is Joherson Roman. I work for the owner for the property management. So we have a problem with mice. Sorry, I don't speak English very well, but I'll do my best.

Better than my Spanish. Go for it.

So we have, I hope, is what's isolated incident because we have two inspections. The lady who did the claim to the city, he called the Department of Hotels and Restaurants. We had an inspection, so they told us and they give to us like a report. We're excited that the house was clean. They didn't find evidence of mice. So maybe it was a mistake. Someone left an open door and the mice getting by mistake or something like that. Because that's where for us.

Well, in reading the inspection reports, it doesn't say that there never was an infestation. It just says what's being done to control it.

It is a different report from the city. I sent an email to Vanessa, I think. It's a different report. It was two reports.

Yeah. This is what we got.

No, other one from the Department of Hotel. Oh, I see what you're saying.

I understand, sir. But the point.

Same address.

That's from the private company that we have for monthly best control.

Private company versus from the state inspector. But we have a second report from the city. The thing we have to be concerned with, it's one thing in your own private home. when these little critters get in and do whatever they do at South Florida. But you're running what is essentially a public facility. The standards have to be met at a high level to assure public safety, hence why your owner received this citation. Anderson.

Questions, comments? Yes. Correct. When I inspected the Airbnb myself, I found mouse traps. Mouse traps. Yes, because we call it the best control people for do that just in case, I mean.

Those mousetraps were there when the lady was renting the place. And when I came there, there was another person renting the place.

He's part of the best control monthly we have.

And then there were droppings by the pool.

you know, maybe the houses surrounding of vegetation everywhere.

I mean, I, I don't believe a guest that's coming from another city is leaving the door.

I know the, this was a very, in fact, we give them a full reform to, I mean, we, we have the same surprise for us.

Okay. There are any, no other questions. Would somebody like to make a motion?

C-26-0299 that a violation had occurred as now, well, seems to be mitigated now and assess a fine of 250 and administrative costs of 250.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, sir.

Thank you to you. Have a good night.

You too, sir.

The next four cases are in no business, and they're under 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5. The address is 807 Northeast 11th Place. First case number CE-26-0355, property owner, brief corporation, in care of their registered agent, Alejandra Rosenthal. Now, for all four cases, we are asking for orders of enforcement for several maintenance issues. So will I read them one at a time?

I need to leave. Oh. In this particular case, I'll be straight up, again, in the interest of transparency. Although the email I sent staff regarding this case did not precipitate the citation. They were in the process of it. The mere fact that I sent an email means I will be recusing myself.

I'll put it on the record that the chairperson of the board has recused that self from this gate from these cases. So I'll go ahead and read the first case. We're asking for an order of enforcement found to be in violation of section 8.4.3.1. Exterior surface, the next case is case number CE 260356. Next case is CE 260357. And the next case is CE 26-0364. And to save the board time, I would like to mention that this property is under negotiation for a new purchaser. And they have already applied for a demo permit. So we are asking the board to give them time, the new owner, to go ahead and get this permit to demolish the property.

So is this the new owner?

This is the new owner.

Okay, this is the new owner. As of when?

How are you? I'm the contractor for the bill, for the new bill.

So if you could just identify your name and...

Yeah, my name is Carlos Bordogna, and I'm representing the property 118-06-07, Northeast 11th Place.

And when did you guys get possession of the property?

We are in between contracts right now, waiting for the attorney. But we already submitted a demo permit and fence for construction, for the new construction. So it should be happening in the next few weeks.

So you own the property already?

No, not officially, but...

The property is not... You represent the owner?

I represent the owner, yeah.

Oh, the current property owner?

The current owner, yeah, yeah. We're going to build for him.

And when did that change hands?

I learned about it recently last week was when I learned about it but I don't know when the contract yeah it's going to be a joint and where we're going to build for him this property has been sitting for like three years already or more and then that's where I jump in and I'm able to build it so

So on the first one, it's with the exterior walls, and that was issued under the buyer, and now this is being abolished.

Correct. And all of the violations were property maintenance violations. That's why I didn't bother to read them, because if the property is going to be demolished, all of those violations become null and void. They can still mow the yard. Absolutely. 100%. And once I learned that this gentleman will be working with the current owners to fix the property, I intend to have a sit down with him and let him know about the rest of the maintenance.

But I saw an email on August 7th from a Briff Corp. Is that you? Is that your email?

That's the actual owner.

Okay. That said that he was going to get it taken care of like in a day or two.

We did.

That's the long.

They did a lot of work.

Yeah, we did. They gave us five days for those violations, which is the facial of the house. They gave us five days and we took care of it on the first two days. That was us.

They've been in communication like every other day. He sends me, the message is too early. I don't like that, but I appreciate that they've been in communication.

Okay, that's important.

Yeah, we... Just give them the time to go through the... Right. And about how often do you think that would take...

We were going to ask for 60, but maybe you could give them 90 days to be realistic.

60 is fine. Yes, we're going to move fast.

Sometimes the blockage in the city.

So it's not when you submit is to get that to get it approved. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. 90 days is more realistic.

I'm also, I should be about two months from submitting plans for the new construction. If not less, but yes, we're moving fast.

But for the purpose of this meeting, I believe 90 days.

90 days, so it'll be safe to say for our year 12. Yeah. Well, we don't need to do it again.

Are you guys building another soulless square?

No, we're not doing those anymore. Did you see the one on the 121st? With the arches? Where the cabin was? Just a minute. That's awesome. That's going to be...

So, for our purposes, for a motion, 90 days, and then if not... we can assess fines.

Correct. If not, I would bring them back now for you.

But it'd be their responsibility. I don't want to have to hear it if we don't have to hear it.

No, I'll chase them.

And if yes, fines are removed?

They haven't assessed any fines. Okay. Oh, okay. Don't go through with what you just said. We will. They would assess fine. I'll bring all cases back for finances.

I just have one other question because I'd like to hold together some time. Well, except for with the overgrown grass. You said in a communication. Is this still overgrown?

No, they did cut it.

It is cut? Yes. Okay, so that can be dismissed.

Yes. Yes, we set up a landscaper for every two weeks.

Please. Yeah. All right. If there's no other questions, I'd like to make a case number, CE-26-0355 and 26-0357. It will probably go there until November the So November the 16th to have fully issued permits for demolition permits. If not, a $250 fine on each case, $250 administrative fee for each case. I'll second.

That includes 7.5. You only called 7.2 and 7.5.

Are you going to dismiss the other one?

7.5 is the wood face. That's the last one.

The roof signs of this color. It's the same symbol.

Overgrown grass is 7.3.

And then the seed one. That's 3.035. 7.5 is 0.36.

So that one will be November 16 as well.

I just don't have it. So sorry, guys. On 7K sub. that the property is in compliance and moved to dismiss.

I second.

All in favor?

All in favor? And on case number C. November the 16th to have all full permits in place, fully in place. If not, assess the fine of 250, administrative cost of 250 and a daily fine of $250. I'll second. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you very much. Good night. So the one with the arches, the three arches, like on that thing, what is that going to be?

Is that going to be like a door?

That's an entrance. That's like an exterior porch.

The door is going to be the one facing the road?

The door, it's back in.

The one that's back in. What are those three arches? Windows?

Yeah, it's just the opening. It's just a porch.

Very interesting.

I like that. You can swim by and look at it whenever you want.

Oh, great.

Good night.

You know why you gave it to me?

Other.

So that was two, three, four and five.

Okay.

I got to make my notes here for the orders.

Okay.

So the order for seven, two, seven, three and seven, five. So that's on 2, 4, and 5. And that would be Dale and Judy. Right, Judy? Yep. Fair with me.

I don't take shorthand.

So just let me.

Let me repeat it back just to be sure because I have to get the orders correct. So on 2, 4, and 5, give the property owner until November 16th to have a fully issued demo permit or else $250 citation, $250 admin, $250 daily. On 3, dismiss all. Now, my only question, and this is irrelevant at this moment, but I'm going to ask it anyway. We have a situation, ironically, on a property just north of this property where we've been hearing about demo for a long time, and it's still sitting there. You know what I mean?

Yes.

So we kind of made things, and we made them clean up. since the potential was that it was still going to sit there. Up north with me. Not this one.

This one already has a contract. That was the contract. That was the contract. Okay. They've already initiated...

Okay, because that my only reason for bringing my only reason for bringing that up, you know, I'm a bit nudgy about being able to justify everything we do. And if we've done one thing for one property, that is pretty much the identical situation.

The chairperson is right. And I have personally started following up on these cases and literally chase them.

They actually cleaned up pretty well on that other one. Okay, nevermind. Yes, they didn't. No, that's a different one. That's down the street. You can't keep track, Michael. Believe me.

With the time that has to go to North Miami, the one on the other side. But this one and there's a couple more. I literally have to get in there and push them. because some of it is not their fault because it takes a long time but I keep an eye just to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to do because I don't want those properties in that way so I take it upon myself to chase them we appreciate it believe me you know not easy writing and talking with only one hand The next two cases, we have Ms. Brownell on Zoom by telephone. It's in Section 6, Old Business, and it's 6.1 and 6.2. 860 Northeast 120th Street, the case number CEN-24701, and the other one is CEN-24702, Catherine Brown now, authorization to foreclose. This is a duplex that we violated for the noncompliant driveway. They have However, comply, the driveway is installed. However, the fines are still outstanding. We have 43,750 for each side of the property.

I'll ask, is this a homesteaded property?

No, it's not. Oh, it has homestead? She doesn't live there.

It is homesteaded legally. Well... So Catherine, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Good evening. Good evening. And I go down there.

I go down only for a couple days.

But I live up in Palm Beach County.

Ma'am, bear with me a moment. I need you to please identify yourself and your relationship to the property. This is just for the record.

Oh, yes, ma'am. My name is Catherine Brownell, and I'm the owner of the property.

I think I remember when this came up the first time and Ms. Brownell was here, I think that she said she was speaking to a realtor. I think his name was, I forget his name, but he was going to sell it and then nothing happened and then the driveway went in, right? Does that kind of follow the timeline? Yes.

Well, the realtor was supposed to be working on getting the driveway put in. And then he didn't follow through. And I called a couple other people to come by and they weren't interested with it. And then I had a, excuse me, a contractor from up here in Palm Beach County come down and try to take care of the situation, which was putting the driveway in and everything.

I'm looking here that the property owner apparently has paid both the administrative and the violation fine. Am I correct? And at this point, what I would like to do is simply give her a deadline to come back and apply for a fine reduction.

When you're,

I think it's pretty safe that we suggested, you know, we do inform the residents what processes and it's up to them. Yeah.

And I believe we've given the timeframe of September the fourth. Correct.

And looking for the looking for the total here.

42,750? 43,750. Per case. Yes. Can you make communication with the owner, correct? Well, one thing I would like to get on record is

was that I understand most communications were being sent to the residents down there. But I had informed last year that, you know, anything that needed to be sent, to send it to this address up here. Because back, I don't remember exactly the date, but I believe it was in May that I had to fill out a form for a one-time payment. of $1,000, and that had all of my information on it, my new address, email, everything.

That was the $250, $250 on each case. However, there were still fines running before the driver was installed. Catherine, we do make it a point to email you every notice that goes out of the city to make sure you get it. And I...

I can say that I may have missed them. I cannot say that I didn't, okay? There's a possibility. I've had a lot of medical conditions, and I'm not really on top of all this stuff, I'm sorry to say.

But as far as the address she says she wants things mailed to, do you have that address?

Yes, we do. Okay. Dr. Hatchey, right? Yes, yes. Yes, we do have that address. Okay.

The police gave me the address.

The reason we don't really use that address, Catherine, is legally we are supposed to use the address that's in the property appraiser. So if you can change your address in the property appraiser, your mailing address, just the mailing part, we'll be able to use that address legally. So the reason we email is that extra thing to do to make sure she gets it.

Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of that.

Okay.

If she chooses to apply for a fine reduction, can she do so via email?

Yes. We can send her the information and the credit card authorization and she can apply for a fine reduction and can appear on Zoom for the meeting.

Ma'am, I don't know if you're hearing our conversation okay. If you so choose, at this point, you can apply for a fine reduction. You have daily fines that have accrued for both violations due to the time it took to come into compliance, which you are certainly entitled, now that it's complied, to come back and apply for a fine reduction. If that's okay with you, we will set a deadline for you and staff will send you the necessary information.

Okay. All right. I'm not sure how that works, you know. We'll explain.

We'll reach out.

Okay. All right. If that can be done, I would appreciate that.

Look out for the information in your email, okay?

Okay. I will.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion. In CEN 24-701 and 702, the property owner has now come into compliance. Give the property owner until September 4th to apply for a fine reduction. If not, institute the foreclosure.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Ma'am, staff will be sending you the information you need. They will be glad to explain all the steps. You'll fill out the form before September 4th. And if you want to, you'll zoom in. Well, we would like you, of course, to zoom in again for our September meeting so you can negotiate a fine reduction.

Okay, and when is the next September meeting? Bear with me. I will tell you that in a moment. The 19th? September 19th.

September 19th, ma'am.

The 19th, okay. All right, I have to submit before the 4th of September, and then I'll be hearing something on the 19th of September.

No, September 19th.

That's the meeting.

Wait for me.

It'll be the 19th. Sorry, 16th? 16th?

16th.

September 16th, ma'am. We're sorry. Okay.

All right.

I've read them both. Oh, yeah. I read both numbers. Thank you.

So we'll see you soon, and your driveway looks good.

Thank you very much, and thank you for all your help tonight, people. I appreciate it. You're quite welcome, ma'am. Thank you for Zooming in. Thank you. Have a great night, everyone.

Good night.

You too.

And next one. 6.8. Yes. I think seven, eight of them. From 6.8 to 6.14. The address is 11401 Northeast 8th Court. First case numbers. CEN-24-122. Property appraiser information protected under Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. Action order of authorization to foreclose was found to be in violation of Section 8.5 point 8.4.5D, scrum shutters or protective window cover placements that have been permanently closed, so there's no access through the windows. They're boarded up. No noncompliance, no communication from the owner.

Do we know if he's alive?

From the police, yes, they say he is alive, but not well.

And no family? Nobody's contacted you? Nobody?

PD did contact one of the family members.

Oh, I know this case. Yes. I don't know if I should say it on the record. Yeah, on the record, it's hard to say.

So there was no response to the doctor? We haven't. No.

No response whatsoever.

Well, if there's no questions, I'd like to make a motion.

Absolutely.

All of the following cases, CEN-24-122, CEN-24-156, CEN-24-708, CEN-24-709, CEN-25-0015, CEN-25-0360, and see yes to 0, 3, 6, 4. I'll second. All in favor aye any opposed motion passes 5, 0.

I would like to put it on the record as well that I am working with the building official to bring this case before the safe structure board of Miami-Dade County to get an order for demolition of this property.

Are we clear with all the cases?

And we open this to the board now to discuss 5.1, the addition, admissibility of police officers, police officers sworn incident reports.

This is absolutely exactly what I was hoping we would get. It just makes it so much clearer, that it gives us a better definition so we can be more comfortable with what our rules are or aren't, and makes it a simple process. I do note one difference, though. It can't be a straight police report like we were getting. It needs to be, please stop me if I'm wrong, an actual notarized statement. In other words, not... That's correct. Not exactly, Michael.

When did we get this? Is this in my... Is this an add-on? No, it was in our agenda.

It was in the package.

What number is it? 5.51. It was in our agenda packet.

I don't see it in my... No.

It'll be on your agenda.

Mine starts with 6.1. Well, it's...

I'll show you. Here.

Minutes, memorandum.

So in the past, it was memorandum. Yeah. No, I got this one.

Okay.

No, it just says memorandum. It doesn't say 5.1.