Code Enforcement/ Magistrate - Special Meeting

all right we will call this meeting to order uh first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes the july 7 2026 minutes are approved all right good afternoon welcome to the city of edgewater code enforcement hearing my name is ryan knight and i am the special magistrate for the city of edgewater these hearings are open to the public under Florida's government and the Sunshine Law. The procedures of this hearing are that due process is emphasized to each respondent and to the city in accordance with Florida Statute 162.07, subsection three, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Hearsay is admissible, but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Any decision made today may be appealed by sending notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of any order. The city of Edgewater will present its case first as it has a burden of proof. Afterwards, our respondents will have an opportunity to respond and present evidence. At this time, please silence all cell phones. If you will be providing any testimony today, can you please stand up and raise your right hand to be sworn in? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give today shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All right, first order of business, case number 25-123-167A and B. This is for 2945 Umbrella Tree Drive.

Good afternoon. My name is Myron San Miguel. This is going to be case 25123-167 for citation 0666. The property address of violation is going to be 2945 Umbrella Tree Drive in Edgewater. The owner is James R. Perry. On December 15, 2025, the city received a complaint that people were living in the shed on the south corner of 2945 Umbrella Tree Drive. Upon inspection on December 16, 2025, Officer Jacob McLaughlin, who no longer works for the city of Edgewater, contacted the property owner, who explained to Jacob that there were people living in the shed and that he had also done work to the shed to add the porch. James further explained to Jacob that there was also a septic system in the ground with sewer lines connecting to barrels under the expansions that have been there for years. None of the work done was permitted. The renters have since vacated the property and there's no longer anyone living in the shed carrying that portion of the violations. Many conversations were had with the property owner by both Jacob, myself, and various leadership throughout the city. On April 30th, 2026, a meeting was held at Development Services with the City Manager, Directors of Development Services, Code Enforcement, the Fire Chief at Public Works, and myself were all present during this meeting. It was explained to the property owner that to come into compliance, he would have to permit all of the work done or remove everything from the property that was done. The city agreed that pumping the barrels empty and filling them in with concrete would satisfy that violation. A notice of violation was given and sent certified on December 16th, giving until January 16th. Multiple extensions were then given beyond the deadline of the original notice of violation, subsequently leading to a citation issued on July 16th, 2026, after still nothing was done to cure the violations by the property owner and to comply with any of the following violations. Permits done with that required, excuse me, permit required for the plumbing electrical and the expansions to the original accessory structure and the barrels for the makeshift septic tank. And then 21-43.04 for well field zone standards. At this time, all notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. The city recommends and requests that the citation of two violations, $75 per violation, be levied and daily fines per violation of $250 per day start and begin after the date of September 1st, 2026, given how long that this case has still been open.

Thank you. Is there anybody here for the respondent? All right, please come to the podium and state your name and address, please.

Is this it? Yes, sir. My name's James Perry. My address is 2945 Umbrella Tree Drive, Edgewater, Florida, 32141. OK.

Now's your time to present any evidence that you may have.

Okay, I have some binders for the magistrate and for the city, and it will help in understanding my side of the case.

Okay.

Am I allowed to keep you at this?

Yes, sir. You can just hand them to me and hand them to the city.

Thank you.

I'll just note that the respondent has provided me with a binder with a table of contents that looks like there's 11 separate sections. We will enter this as part of the record and into the evidence.

Okay, well, first of all, I'm very nervous. I've never been through a hearing like this before, so I'm gonna do the best I can. If I over, you know, us old guys usually ramble, so if I start to ramble, Your Honor, I appreciate you stopping me.

That's fine, sir. This is your time to present your case, so you can take your time. Okay.

Well, before I actually start, I just wanna ask Mr. Miguel, One question, why are we here anyway?

We are here because you are in violation of having an accessory structure that you expanded upon that has an unpermitted addition to the front and the back with electrical and sewer that you placed into it that needs to be cured by either removing them with a demo permit, as discussed in our meeting in April, or permitting them and going through the process to legitimize what you currently have in place.

okay my understanding of all of our meetings was not to gather more information about me but to help me qualify for the to rectify the problem i have met with mr miguel with jacob with the city manager with uh ryan solstice is ryan here today no okay i met with uh Greg Laracy, I tried to meet with everybody to come up with an inexpensive and equitable solution to this problem. And the problem itself should have never even started. So I don't know why we're here. I tried to work with them. I thought at the April 30th meeting that we had an understanding. My understanding was I had four months to start the compliance process because it's the middle of summer outside. It's hot as heck. I told Mr. Miguel that I was the one who was gonna have to do the work because I live on Social Security and I can't afford people anymore. I have a 16-year-old daughter, just stating facts here, Your Honor. And after the meeting, the meeting was breaking up, Mr. McGill made the comment, I'll even give you four months. That's how I got that information. That information shows nowhere, not in the case history, not in nothing. And after April 30th, I heard not one peep from the city about anything. I was under the impression I had four months to start the process. I even went to the code enforcement building, I guess the building department, and about, I don't know, about two or three weeks ago to get a permit to pour concrete and demolish the building. The reason I didn't put, I didn't actually execute the permit, I still have it right here, was because I know I'm gonna go to the meeting, I know there's probably a 99% chance that I'm not gonna win this case. However, I figured I'd give it my best shot, so. Question for Mr. Miguel. Why I had no community.

You can just call me Myron. My last name's San Miguel, so you can just call me Myron, sir. It's probably easier.

I appreciate that.

That's fine. We'll just.

We've had a real, I don't, I'm under the impression we had a real good working relationship until I get this notice. I'm thinking, I'm in, you know, I'm on the process, I'm in the process of rectifying the problem. So when I get that notice, needless to say, I am shocked. So I refer you to a, I believe it was July 2nd conversation when you called me. You remember that conversation?

No. What specifically are you referring to? Because I want to just make something really clear on this whole process. A special magistrate process is to either It's for the city to present a violation. And we are in, hey, city's saying there's a code violation here. You have the opportunity to say, yes, there's a code violation. No, I disagree. I don't think I'm in violation.

I'm saying no, I disagree. I'm not in violation based on the information that I'm going to present. Now, am I allowed to present that information?

Absolutely. Yes, whatever evidence you have, let's go through it, and then you can present it to me and show me what you have.

Okay. So my question for you, again, Myron, is do we have a July 2nd conversation?

So, sir, if you have any evidence in here, let's go through that first. The city is essentially saying you have an accessory structure that was built without a permit.

I'm saying based on my information, Your Honor, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I was told by a building inspector in 2020, he was there for an air conditioning final inspection, and I said, I have documented evidence to prove that I actually talked to the guy, I asked him if I need a permit to build a clubhouse for my daughter. This is where it needs context, but evidently I'm not gonna be able to get that context. Is that correct?

No, I'll let you give the context, but this is specifically involving a shed.

Okay. Well, some people would call it a shed. Some people would call it an ATU. Some people would call it a clubhouse. So right there in itself, there's a dispute. Now, according to the building inspector in 2020, when I was building it, I did not need a permit for a playhouse, clubhouse type thing. So it wasn't until six years later that I'm finding out that, yes, I'm violating the building code. Now, they're telling me, I don't know what structure they're saying that I'm violating the building code for. Is it an ADU, a clubhouse, or a... What's the other thing? Shed. So I'm confused, and I'm trying to clarify this because I want to do what's right. I'm not here to argue with the city. I thought I was working with the city. I can answer that question. I thought, excuse me, yeah, go ahead.

I want to be able to answer that question. So if it started out as a clubhouse and you ask a building official or a building inspector, is a permit needed for a clubhouse, the answer is going to be no. But when you take in, you add electrical and plumbing, and you move someone in to live in that structure, that structure then becomes an ADU.

You're absolutely right, I guess. But my information at the time, and who better to ask than a building code inspector, whether or not I needed a permit for the unit.

Okay, at that time, I think you said 2022. Was there any 2020 2020? Was there any electrical or plumbing related to that? Yes.

Yes, Your Honor, there was, but he did not say I needed a permit for any of that. He said I did my definition of a clubhouse. And his definition of a clubhouse automatic are obviously we're different. I'm looking for here it is. I don't know if I gave it to you in the packet or not, but here's a copy of the building inspection, the air conditioning inspection, and a copy of the receipt for the air conditioner. And two days ago, I actually got his name, because his last name is real tough to explain. So you said I could give some context. Well, here it is. you got that copy your honor i don't see it in here okay well i'll give you these yes sir if you'll notice 6 17 uh 2020 i think is on the final inspection

Yes, sir. I see it written on here.

OK. So he told me I didn't need a permit. Now, when a building inspector tells you, do you need a permit, and you ask him if you need a permit for a clubhouse, and he says, no, you don't. And six years later, I asked the same question in the building department, and they said no either. And they didn't give me any context to that no. So I'm a little bit confused. Anyway. let me move on i'm not going to give you the i'm just going to say that i moved up here in 2017 with my daughter she's eight she was seven at the time i'm a little bit old elderly you can tell so i had to move her away from a christian school in florida had to rip her away from her friends i had to uh bring her up here where she knew nobody. She had to change schools. She's a wonderful young lady. And what I was trying to do was overcome the problem that her mother wasn't around, I was the only person that she had no support system at all. So I wanted to make sure that she was able to make friends. She's very shy. So yeah, I went over the top when I built the playhouse. I went over the top when I built the clubhouse. I didn't want little 10-year-old or eight-year-old or seven-year-old girls in a sleepover at my house because I'm 70 years old. How would the parents feel if they sent their kids to a sleepover? And so I constructed the clubhouse. You have pictures of the clubhouse, I think, in front of you. I never tried to hide that from anybody. I was under the impression I didn't need a permit. The building inspector told me. The guy that's going to inspect anything told me I didn't need a permit. Now if you'll see on those pictures that the playhouse, it's got a slide, it's two story, it's got a sun deck. I have a lot of experience in building things and I have a lot of experience in landscaping. So if you look at the exterior of my house, I didn't do that for me, I did that for her.

So I had to enroll her in in the one thing I just want to ask you a question about you gave me this invoice looks like for the installation of a three ton 14 seer heat pump system.

Right? That was for my house.

Okay, so This is for your permanent residential structure?

Yes, Your Honor, yes.

Not the shed or the accessories?

No, no, no. That was for my clubhouse. That was for my residence, I'm sorry. It was for my residence. The building inspector came to do a final, and that's when I asked him about, I'd already built the playhouse. You can see the big two-story structure in the pictures. I've gotten beautification award from the city.

I don't care about all that.

My objective was to make sure my seven-year-old daughter had enough so that she could make friends, have sleepovers without having to explain her 70-year-old dad. I'm 77 now, seven years ago. So in 2020, I'm not gonna go through the rest of it. I think that's enough context. In 2020, I got a notice violation from the city. The notice violation said, There's people living in your, they call it a shed, I think. I tried to go to the city right when I saw the violation. Nobody would talk to me. That's when it was in the old building. So I knocked on the door. This was during COVID. I understand, I'm not saying that they were not doing their job. But I went over, they told me to go to the fire station. I think there was a notice on the door. I went over to the fire station. The guy had a mask on, you know, it was COVID. So, I know what happened. My brother moved over here from Orlando with his wife. She just had brain cancer surgery. They wanted to come and stay with me because they had lost their apartment in Orlando. I said, well, you can't stay in my house. I said, I do have a clubhouse out there. It's not much, but you're welcome to stay there until you find a place to live. So it was, I think, August 10, 2021. Is that a correct statement? I don't know offhand. I'm asking you, Your Honor, because I gave you a copy of that violation, I believe. Courtesy notice. It was a courtesy notice. You see that in your, in the folder there?

Okay, but what does that have to do with the current violation that we're here for?

It does have everything to do with it. It's the same building, same type of violation. The difference is, in April 2021, or August 2021, they didn't have, I mean, somebody inspected They issued me a courtesy notice. When I went to the city, I tried to explain that my brother and his wife didn't have a place to stay. They were staying there temporarily, but I couldn't tell that to anybody because nobody would talk to me. So this was dated August 10th. By September 3rd, I was going to his funeral because he died in that clubhouse. And ever since then, my little girl won't play in that clubhouse. She's afraid. But the interesting thing about that 2021 violation you're on, there's a couple things, actually. Number one, it doesn't list any structural deficiencies. Now, they had to have inspected it in 2021.

So the 2021 violation that I have was just for people living in the shed.

Exactly. Just for people living in the shed. There was nothing about the structure at all. So I'm under the impression still there's no violation. I built a clubhouse. It's cool. It's just that there's people living in it. That's my impression. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Nobody ever told me. Another interesting thing about that notice, Your Honor, when I asked the FOIA request, at the bottom of that notice, the smaller version, because I tried to print the bigger version, I couldn't get the very bottom. It has an address on it, 2815 Silver Palm. You see that?

Yeah, the highlighted portion. It looks like 2815 Silver. I can't read the rest of it.

Yeah, well.

Silver flagged Walt down, it looks like.

Yeah. Somebody flagged Walt, the same Walt, the same building inspector that was at my house, giving me a final. Somebody flagged him down. He took the complaint, called the office. The problem with that is the same as in the case history of that 2021 violation, is that it was taken anonymously. They didn't report who called in the complaint.

So the Florida statutes have changed over the years.

Now it's a requirement that- It was required starting July 1st, 2021. I checked.

Okay. This was August 10th. Okay. But I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with what we're here for today.

Okay. Well, the interesting part is when you read the case history, which I also gave you, uh it was the courtesy notice and at the bottom it said fire and safety standards in compliance so and and the next page fire and safety standards in compliance so they must have re-inspected the building at that time august i don't know i don't know what the exact date is They must have reinspected the building because it said it was in compliance. All right, now we're gonna move.

Hold on, so what I'm looking at for the fire and life safety standards on the courtesy notice that you provided me on B2-A, in order to come into compliance, it says please remove the occupants of the shed as it is not approved for residential use.

That's correct.

I don't see anything where the city would have gone out there and actually inspected it. The only thing that they were asking was for the occupants to be removed.

But their own case history says it was re-inspected. Not arguing, it just says it was re-inspected. And if I can take a minute, I can find that. Mr. Knight, can the city make it? September 10, 2021. Re-inspected, corrected, case closed.

Okay, one second. Let me let the city reply to that.

I'm just trying to fully understand. He's bringing up a completely separate case from five years ago. What that has to do with the current violations that the city's been working with you on for a year, almost. I'm not quite sure I understand what relevance this has to why we're here today for the violations that I've cited you for and that the city's been trying to work with you through.

That's a fair question. I didn't realize that. I'm giving him a little bit of leeway. Okay, no, I understand. I'll weigh that appropriately.

i i i understand that but the context is it was built in 2020 late 2020 early 2021. the city had five six years to bring this case if there was a violation the city was at my house because there was a they got a they got a complaint about a canopy that i had in my driveway i immediately took the canopy down there was an inspector there Several other instances, somebody complained about there was a little bit of trash in the street. I don't remember, I'm not gonna bore you with the details, but another city inspector came. Another time there was an issue with flowers that I had planted in the front yard. That case was, the inspector inspected the case and they said it wasn't, there was no problem. So... The Sunshine Law says, let me put it this way. If the state, if the city is gonna hold me to a standard, then they should be held to the same standard. That's all I'm saying. They took the case, they took the complaint in 2021 without accurately identifying the complainant. That's a violation of the law. So I'm gonna go from there. But the problem is, I thought I was helping to comply. I talked to Joe Mahoney. We had a meeting on April 30th. I had a previous meeting with Joe Mahoney in February requesting the meeting for April because I'm trying to get everybody together. I'm trying to find out exactly what I'm supposed to do. But I never got a clear answer. Everything I was told was ambiguous. Either you tear the thing down or if you do it, you have to get certified They're talking about hundreds and thousands. They're talking $20,000. There is no way in, that's the reason why I had the meeting. I was looking for an economical way to comply. Now, if you see the email, I asked for a copy of the emails from the city, the correspondence. I got 140 pages.

Oh, it's fine. It's not formal like a court, so we have some leeway.

There's 140 pages. That's what's left of the 140 pages after all the stuff that didn't matter.

I'll just describe what you handed me. It looks like a copy of the citation, 0666, and then some email correspondences, it looks like, with you and the city.

I have a little bit of a... My point is I'm trying to have conversations. I'm trying to comply. But they're trying, and they were very nice. I even complimented Joe Mahoney when I had the February meeting with him about how great they were. Josh McLaughlin was a wonderful young man. I had no issues. I never argued with him. I let him on my property. I walked the property with him. I gave him an opportunity to help me, direct me to find a way to comply. They used that opportunity to gain evidence against me so that they would have a more powerful case when they came to court. That's fine. You know, that's what they're doing. I do have a couple questions. Sorry.

Slow down. It's okay.

Let me get a drink of water.

Do you want to sit? You can sit here.

That's okay.

You sure? Yeah.

Okay. Thank you, though, for the offer. You've been very nice this whole time, except after April 30th. I don't know what happened.

Well, let me talk about that, because you said April 30th there was a meeting with the city. And according to you, they said you had four months to come into compliance.

No, to start compliance.

Okay, and I'm showing that the citation you received was first issued around December 15th of 2025.

I can explain that. Totally can explain it. First of all, it wasn't me that, they asked me for a copy of the lease, which I immediately sent them a copy of the lease. If they actually looked at the lease, There was no requirement for a deposit. There was no requirement for a security thing. As a matter of fact, the young lady had a little boy. They loved the playground set. They'd come up and ask me if they could stay there for a while until they got their act together. I said, yeah, I got a violation before, so I'll give you a chance. If code enforcement or anybody comes and says, you have to leave. So I think I did the right thing because the little boy had a safe place to stay. He had playground equipment there. I probably was in violation. I'll give you that. But I think I did the right thing. She couldn't even pay half the time. You know, it wasn't about making money. It was about helping somebody. Yeah, if I made a few bucks, I would have been happy about it. But after I told her about the...

I'm trying to stay towards the issue of having a building permit. And the second part is the septic tank system.

Okay. First of all, the notice of violation, Your Honor, of 12-16-2025.

Is that right? Right around there, yes.

Okay. Okay. I don't see anything that says anything about a septic tank in there, do you?

So the citation that I am looking at looks like it was first observed. Pardon if I misspoke. First observed on December 15, 2025. The date of the citation is July 16, 2026. The nature of the violation, there is a section 21-43.04. well-filled zone standards, and in nature of the violation, does say septic tank system installed for accessory structure.

I'm sorry, you finished, Your Honor? Yes, sir. My question is, was there anything in the original notice of violation of December, maybe I misunderstood, 12-16-2025 about a septic system? The notice itself, the one I got.

So you received a notice and you also received a citation. The citation does reference the septic system.

Okay. Well, I'm working with the city. They sent me a notice in 2025. I never expected a notice of hearing at all because I was trying to work with them. So I don't know what happened between April 30th and July 2nd of this year, when he actually called me and asked me, why didn't you call me? I said, what do you mean, why didn't I call you? I said, you gave me four months to start the compliance. It's summertime. He says, no, I gave you a June 1st deadline. Isn't that what you said? Do you remember the conversation?

I do. Yep. So we talked because we did give him a June 1st deadline in April at that meeting to start the process and come up with a game plan and to contact us and let us know what's going on to keep us informed that the city has done everything that they could to continue to work with you. So much so to allow the residents to finalize their lease because we weren't trying to cause undue hardship, right? And we were trying to work together up until then. You requested that meeting. I put the meeting together. We sat down. We discussed it. Unfortunately, where we defer in different roads of where this path now leads us is there was not a reasonable way for you to come into compliance. outside of what we gave you options for which was permit the structure which was going to cost you money demolish the structure which is going to cost you money or any of the other things we tried to discuss unfortunately there was just not a path that we could connect with um to continue on. So we gave you your options. We gave you time to do them. I stated that if you needed more time beyond then, so much so that we see movement forward, that you have to at least go down to the building department and apply for a permit. That costs you nothing to start the paperwork. And none of that was done. So at that time, I gave you an additional month hoping we'd hear from you. Never heard from you. So that's when I called you in July, asked what was going on, what was the status, and that given the length of time of this code case and the health and safety risk of you living near a canal and having a 50-gallon drum that you turned into a septic tank underneath a shed with extensions that weren't permitted, we needed to continue to move forward. So at the hearing, this is your chance to ask I need this much more time by this deadline in order for me to fix the issues of the violations, or daily fines of an agreeable amount will continue.

OK. Sir, let me ask you a question. I don't. I don't. Hold on one second. Have you applied for a building permit?

I got the paperwork for a permit. I did not actually turn it in, because when I went back to turn it in, she gave me more paperwork. And then that was last week. But there are a couple things I would like to point out. In the emails that I gave you, Your Honor, there's interaction between all the department heads. And it all stops on April 30th. I mean, there's a lot of correspondence. But I don't understand why it stopped on April 30. Did they get angry because I asked for a meeting? I have no idea. My whole time, I have been trying to find a way to comply with this. And I'm actually kind of angry that you would not communicate if I had a June 1 deadline. I didn't hear a June 1 deadline. Isn't it true that you told me while we were all leaving that meeting that, hey, I'll even give you four months? Did you ever say that statement?

I stated to you that if you start the process and you need any time beyond June 1st, that I would be more than willing to give you up to four months past that, so much that there's movement forward in communication. Yes. That is 10% of our conversation.

Okay.

However, there is a huge portion of it, and even to this date, sir, the challenge we have is that there has been nothing done to come into compliance with the violations. The city has... precedence and a standard and a responsibility to continue the code enforcement process. That's why we're here today. You need more time. We're willing to work with you to give you more time, even further than today, to come into compliance and empty the 50-gallon barrel tanks, fill them with concrete, and then start the process with the development services section of this side of the violation, right, for the shed. We're trying to figure out that timeline.

I am willing, as I said, I am willing to comply. I have always been willing to comply. The problem is that there is ambiguity in the process. That's the problem. I said, I did not hear in my conversation with you on July 2nd, I said I never heard a June 1st deadline. I never got a notice of a June 1st deadline. I have no idea other than the fact he said I'll even give you four months. That's all I heard. Now, my question is, did I get a notice for the June 1st deadline? Did anybody that was at the meeting confirm that there was a June 1st deadline? I am under the impression I have until September 1st to begin the process. Why would I not think that? I got no official notice. You're saying you gave me June 1st. I heard four months. I'm willing to comply. I'm not arguing whether it's a clubhouse or a ADU or whatever you want to call it, a shed.

So it sounds like you just need a little more time.

I need the city to be reasonable. And in the code process, I mean, in this, maybe I'm wrong. The Florida Local Government Code says that it's to provide an equitable, expeditious, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcement. I mean, how to spend $25,000 to keep the shed equitable or inexpensive, and how is a 77-year-old guy supposed to go out and start pouring concrete in the middle of the summertime?

mean that's why i thought i had four months i understand that sir but as of right now you are in violation of the city's code of ordinance by not having a permit for that structure which the codes you provide for um and then having that septic so just want to be clear i was told by a building inspector in 2020 didn't need a permit he didn't elaborate i was told two weeks ago by a city employee that works in the

permitting department, I didn't need a permit. Now, and they had ample opportunities to check the property on many occasions, including in August of 2021, never got a violation. The interesting part of all this, the person who anonymously complained in 2020 is the same person that complained in 2026, or 2025. My question is, at what point does the city have any responsibility in all this? I mean, I'm getting bad information about a permitting process, about a deadline, and now they're taking me to the hearing for a magistrate. I don't get it. I want to comply, but how do I comply? And how is it inexpensive for me to tear down the shed or to get engineer's drawings? I mean, that's not reasonable. A reasonable thing to me, Your Honor, will be to have them bring a building inspector out there, tell me what I got to fix, and I'll fix it. Why do I have to have an engineer drawing? I mean, the thing has been there for six years. I'm sorry I'm getting a little animated. I know I can feel it. I'm trying to be fair. They're not trying to be fair.

So there's certain life and safety issues on a structure like this, especially when you have electrical and plumbing and stuff like that, that the city has to look out for. So one of, it looks like on the violation notice, the city put, there's three options that you have for the corrective action. One is to obtain a permit Two would be to remove the porch, restoring the shed to its original state, which would also require a permit. And option three is to remove the shed in its entirety. It looks like your best option for this would be to work with the city and get a permit for this.

Your Honor, I would love to do that. But in order to get a permit for the structure, they want me to get engineer's drawings. I checked. Engineer's drawings are $4,000 or $5,000 just by the engineer's drawings. They said that I'm also in violation of a variance. To comply with that, I would have to, I don't know. Did they have a survey for that? I don't know. I don't know anything. They didn't give me any information. I thought they were working with me. Instead, they were working against me the whole time. And Myron made a comment. I was burning leaves in my yard one day. He comes by. He says he's there because he sees smoke. Am I right? Remember that?

We were responding to a yeah, illegal burn behind his house because he was burning a four by four foot pile of leaves. And I was happened to be with one of the lead firefighter lieutenants who turned his truck around and we stopped at your house. Yes, that is correct. For the record, there was smoke coming out of his garage, and we thought the house was on fire. So, yes, we stopped because we wanted to make sure something was on fire.

I don't dispute any of that. He's absolutely right. I'm the one who brought it up, okay? And I appreciated the fact that he was checking. The first thing about what he just said is I wasn't burning a four-by-four-foot pile of leaves. I was burning it in a fire pit. Okay, but the important thing of that meeting... Again, Mr. Knight, relevance to the...

I don't need to know about that. Let's stick to this.

There are two questions I'd like to ask him about that meeting. May I do that, Your Honor?

I decline to answer. It has no relevance to the violation... It's not about the fire.

It's about his...

In this case, then, yes.

It's about this case. Because he was working with me the whole time. They let the girl stay in there. I was very appreciative of that. They were very, very, very nice. Okay? They actually attended the meeting. The city manager, he did. Ryan Solstice did. Everybody came to the meeting. That was great. I appreciated that. I even wrote a thing on Nextdoor about how wonderful the city has been in the last five years, and I am under scrutiny by the Country Forces Department. Two questions. Number one, when I asked you, I said I'm a little bit worried. about the hearing. He said, as he's walking up to his truck with the guy with him, he says, don't worry about it. We'll take care of it. He says, we work for you. Did you make those statements? I don't recall.

It sounds like something I'd say, but again, it has no relevance to the violation, sir. No, it does have relevance. I just want to make sure we're on the same page, sir. We are here today because the city has been working with you. We have done everything that we can within our legal ability and our code enforcement process to give you an opportunity to come into compliance. Are you of the position that the city failed in explaining what the violation was and what you needed to do to correct that violation? That is a question. Are you of the position that the city failed to tell you what the violation was and what you needed to do to correct the violation?

I can answer both those questions. First question, did the city tell me what was wrong? Well, in the notice of violation, they did generalize and say what was wrong. Yes, they did. As far as, what was the second question?

In any of the conversations, in any of the meetings that we had to include with the city manager, the director of all the departments, and myself on April 30th, when we left that meeting, are you telling me that you still did not understand or know what the violations were and what you needed to do to correct those violations?

First of all, I understood what you said were the violations, yes. Secondly, we had a meeting. We discussed many options just beside those two or three, beside what was in the notice of violation. Ryan Solstice, I don't know what his head is now, everybody keeps moving around.

He's the Director of Development Services.

Okay. He came out to my house, we talked about accessory dwelling units, whether or not that would qualify, did I have enough space in the property, could I keep the, I asked him, could I keep the old thing up until we, you know, he said by December they would have all the drawings and everything. I was excited about that, even though I didn't need it at the time. I wanted to use wood from the old building if I was going to tear it down to maybe construct it in the new building. So I asked him, you know, was that possible? He said he didn't know. Myron, I think, was at the house one time, and I said, if I tear it down, can I store the T-111 in the backyard? Right? Did I ask you that question? You did. Yeah. Do you remember my answer?

I didn't say it was illegal because that would infer criminal stuff, but I didn't say it was illegal. I said it's against the code to have outdoor storage because you don't have a fence to put it behind. But again, the city has nothing further in this matter, sir. We request until September 1st and all of our recommendations.

So, sir, let me ask you that. The city is requesting you to come into compliance by September 1st, 2026. Is that enough time for you to come into compliance, which would be? One, to get a permit from the building department. And then two, would be to either remove the septic system or fill the tanks that you have out there with concrete.

OK. My question, before I answer that question, is how is my alternatives inexpensive based on the code?

So that's really not something that I'm I'm supposed to consider, I'm supposed to look at the evidence and figure out if it's a violation of the city code. So I understand a lot of stuff is expensive, especially with construction, but I really can't consider the cost to come into compliance. I'm essentially only looking at whether there's a violation of the code or not. But I can tell you the city seems like they are willing to work with you. What I would probably do is give you until September 15th or September 30th for you to come into compliance on these two matters. And then if not, there would be a daily fine that would be imposed. So my question is, would that give you enough time?

Well, in the context of time itself, yes. In the context of should I be out there in the summertime pouring concrete? I mean, it's 94 degrees outside. If that's what they insist on me doing, you know, I'll take a chance because that's the only option I have. You don't consider it a clubhouse. I violated the code, I guess. So how much additional time would you be willing to allow me or the city be allowing me until it cools down a little bit, please?

I'd be in agreeance until October 1st. I would agree to October 1st, if that is a better suited timeframe. We can't let it go 14 months with a code case like this. So October 1st would probably be the most that the city could afford to go through.

So here's what I would do. I would agree with October 1st. What I would say is between now and that date, whatever you're doing, whatever actions you're taking, make sure you let code enforcement know. going and filling out paperwork and trying to get a permit, let them know so they know that you're working on it. If we get to a point where October 1st rolls around and you're pretty close to getting the stuff done or you're showing substantial progress, then we could maybe revisit it and talk about not imposing the daily fines, a brief extension given the facts and circumstances at that time.

I would like to also point out, Your Honor, I've done probably 200 hours worth of research on this since I got the notice. I don't, this is as a citizen, not a violator. I'm still a citizen of this city. I love this city. I like the people that work in this city. But at some point, you know, when you're trying to work with them and then all of a sudden they turn into snakes, I'm sorry, but I mean, that's probably not a good analogy. I thought we had a good relationship, so I'll do whatever is required. The only other thing I would point out, Your Honor, in doing all this prep is I put in the pocket of the concerns that I have about this process. I didn't bring it up at the meeting. Many of these concerns deal with dealing with the city itself. I'm a citizen, I don't know the code. I'm sure the building department doesn't know half the codes. I'm sure the code enforcement, they probably have to look on their little computers. I'm sure that that's the case. The fact of the matter is, I was, there's no accountability for a city that waits six years to verify, it's right, I'm on Roberts Road, you can't miss it. There's been lumber out all over the place. Nobody ever stopped me one time and asked me what I was doing. So yes, I will comply with whatever you order. And I had no animosity. I just think the whole process was a little on the unfair side. It's kind of skewed toward the city. That's it.

Thank you, sir. Anything else from the city?

I just want to bring a point of clarification to something he's brought up a couple times due to the public nature of these hearings. You mentioned a section of 162 that talks about cost-effective compliance and that type of statement. That specific section of 162, does not refer or speak to the cost of your compliance. It speaks to the cost of a code enforcement process through the special magistrate hearing and how it's not costing you, the citizen, the resident, the violator, legal fees and that type of stuff, both for you and for the city, it's a cost-effective process to bring about compliance to a violation. Not an inexpensive way to fix the issue.

It's referring to an informal proceeding. Correct. I see. Instead of going to a court.

So the city has no limitations. Let me understand that. No limitation on enforcing. They can come 20 years later, according to the law.

So the fact that the city may not notice it, there are specific rules in Florida where they're not allowed to go onto your property if it's in the back to perform inspections. There's various reasons why that happens. I see it a lot. And sometimes there's just structures that are constructed Not known until years down the road that there wasn't a permit for that.

So they can impose pretty much any solution they can. Doesn't matter about cost. This is why I wrote that. Because there are some areas where I think maybe the city or whoever does these things could take a look at it. Like I said, I'm not angry. I just want to be treated fairly. I want to get due process, and I thank you today. I think you did a good job of giving me due process. I maybe can argue with your ruling, but other than that, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak, and we'll go from there.

Just to be clear, the violation that you have, the city does have discretion when it comes to certain corrective actions, but when it comes to permit requirement, that's state of Florida building code. That's not us setting that standard of what you need to do to come into compliance. That's state regulatory.

Well, I don't want to continue arguing, but is that the same building code, the state building code, that differentiates between an ADU and a clubhouse?

That depends on zoning definitions of the city, correct?

OK. All right. Got to be an attorney.

All right. So based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 25-123167A, Find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the citation and or notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation and any previous violations. I order that the respondent shall correct the violation on or before October 1st, 2026. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the Notice of Violation and the Notice of Citation, specifically to obtain a building permit for the accessory structure. If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine of the amount of $250 will be imposed for each day the violation continues past October 1, 2026. The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I will say, like I mentioned before, whatever steps you're taking, let code enforcement know and make sure you keep them in the loop for that.

I have a couple questions. Will I get a copy of that?

Hold up. I still have one other one to rule on and then I'll be happy to answer your question. Case number 25-123167B, based on the testimony and evidence presented in that case, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the notice of violation and or citation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, the actions to correct, and any previous violations. I order that the respondent correct the violation on or before October 1st, 2026. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation and the citation issued in this matter for the septic tanks. If the respondent does not order or does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of $250 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past October 1st, 2026. The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Okay, do you have a question, sir?

Yes, will I get a written copy of the order? Yes. The second question is, do I have a right to appeal this decision?

Yes, sir. So you can appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and orders.

Is that 30 days from today, Your Honor?

No, it'll be, well, yes, because I'll sign this today. So it will start, the clock will start.

Okay, if I appeal this, will you suspend the order until the appeals process is over?

Once you appeal it, I would not have any authority. The circuit court would have authority since it would be appealed to the circuit court but the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order will still be entered, but the next step, which would be an actual order imposing a finer lien on the property, would not occur until after October 1st. So from now until October 1st, no fines would be accruing on the property.

Okay, so, but I do have the right to appeal it?

Yes, sir.

And then the circuit court would actually, what circuit court is it, Your Honor?

It would be in Volusia County. I don't know if it would be in the land branch or the Daytona branch.

Where would I get that information?

You would have to either contact an attorney or do your own research.

As to where the circuit court is for my area?

Yeah, so Volusia County has two locations, the land office, the Volusia County office, or the Daytona office. I don't know what judge would be assigned. I don't know if it would be in DeLand or Daytona Beach, but you would still just file it with the clerk of court for Volusia County.

Clerk of court, okay.

They would assign it to a court.

Okay, and I'm just trying to get the information as free as I can. Okay. Notice of hearing. Do you have any more rulings that you have to rule on?

No, sir.

We are done. What about the fine that was imposed on me?

You're talking about for the citations? Yeah. Yes, for each of these, we'll order that the citations will be upheld in the amount of $75 for each violation. There are two violations, so it would be a total of $150. Okay.

Well, in the order, I'm not arguing here again. I'm just showing that the notice of violation, I think, only requests $75.

It's $75 for each violation. There's two violations. So it would be a total of $150.

So I guess I have to follow that order. But that means I don't need a week or two. OK. You wouldn't consider waiving those?

unless the city wanted to stipulate to it you heard him sounds like a deal to go walk over and walk over and grab a permit

I got the permanent when I get the permit when you have to go notify you so you can come and pay the fine works for me sounds like a deal I don't think we ever had to be here to begin with all right problem thank you you have a good day

Okay, next case will be case 25-1, or sorry, case 26-55. This is 3042 South Ridgewood Avenue.

Hannon Land Company LLC is the owner of the property located at 3042 South Ridgewood Avenue in Edgewater, Florida. It is found in violation of Section 2153.02 Stormwater Permit of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances. On January 26, 2026, I was informed by Supervisor Sam McGill of the Code Enforcement Division that he had received an email regarding work being done on the property without a permit. I arrived and observed a very large area where millings had been placed down for a driveway. No permit was obtained for any construction work and a notice of violation was subsequently issued to an employee unseen. Later that day, development service director, supervisor Sam Miguel, and I met with the property owner, Roy Travis. During this visit, it was discovered that a cement pad was also being poured without a permit. A stop work order was subsequently issued. The owner advised the remodel of this location was for two additional businesses, Instructions on how to obtain proper permits for the construction was given and a correction date of April 10th, 2026, or April 1st, 2026 was given due to the owner advising he was leaving the country for a while. On July 21st, 2026, there has been no contact with the property owner, no efforts made to obtain permits for the work that was done. Citation 0557, notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. No contact has been made with the owner or tenants of the property since original contact. A subsequent notice of violation was issued this date for the cement pad poured without a permit. A correction date on that was given for August 10th, 2026. Staff recommends a special magistrate fine Hannon Land Company LLC in violation of section 21-5302 stormwater permit and assess the citation fine of $300 based on the city's fine schedule and a $200 a day daily fine if the violation is not in compliance by August 23rd, 2026.

who is here for the respondent come on up sir please just state your name and address uh roy travis hannon 3042 south ridgewood okay how you doing today good how are you so i own the property i leased the property to primes produce back in 2019. part of the contract was they're required to to put additional parking in, which they got a permit for. They did the engineering for. The engineering went through the city process. The engineering was approved. The work was never done because of COVID. They ran out of employees, so they had to take their crew and go to their other stores. And then they never followed through on that store because of COVID. So they've been renting the building since then, until last year. So I contacted the engineer because we had another tenant interested in the property. I contacted the engineer, and he poured me all the paperwork, and it was approved by the city for the additional, I think it was 50 parking spaces with the stormwater retention. I put the base in based on the permit that was approved. I came to find out that I met with Ryan and that it had lapsed, like just before, and that the stormwater requirements had all been changed. My engineer, as a National Guard, went to Saudi Arabia, so I had to start from scratch again. the office and I've talked to Ryan four times he said he was gonna prize them of code enforcement of what we're doing that didn't happen I guess so there has been communication all the way through meetings with Ryan with the developmental services we're not trying to do anything other than get this done the engineering the engineering has been It's being done by David Glunt here at New Smyrna Engineering. The geo engineering was just completed last week. He has all the plans done except for the geo stuff, which he needed for the stormwater. So it's all in process. And we've tried to get the permit two times. My contractor went down there. They would not accept the complication because the plans weren't there, the final plans for the stormwater. They wouldn't accept the application.

We couldn't get the permit.

So it should be done here. David said that, oh, I think probably in the next couple of weeks he should have all his stuff done since the geotechnical stuff is done now.

Okay, so it sounds like you're Nearing the finish line, honestly.

Yeah, we're up. Hopefully.

The city is requesting compliance date of August 23rd, which is 10 days from now. Is that going to be enough time?

Yeah, I don't think they're going to have it done in 10 days. No, I don't think so. OK. Yeah. Originally, when we talked, we didn't know that my other engineer, we were going to lose that. So we had to start all over. So let's push the clock back a little bit. OK.

What about 30 days if I went to September 15th?

Oh, that would be great.

Would that give you a little bit of time?

I think we should be done by 30 days. I sure hope so. I can't see any reason why not. The drawings are almost finished.

City, would you be fine with that?

30 days?

Yeah.

Okay, and as long as he's under the understanding that the city does not approve asphalt millings as a driveway surface, that it has to be concrete pavers or asphalt.

Yeah, it's all engineering.

Okay.

Yeah, 30 days is fine. I'll put it at 32, just so we have a nice date of September 13th. But I'll discuss that in my order. Do you have anything else, sir? No. OK. We do have a citation for $300. I am going to have to impose that, which I'll address in the order.

We didn't do anything against the rule. We had an approved engineering plan to put the parking lot in.

Right, but it lapsed at some point.

Well, that's another time date.

So I'd appreciate if you'd waive that, because that

The application fee and the permitting fee is extravagant as it is.

I understand, but that violation is set by the city, that number, for $300 for this particular violation. So unfortunately, I am going to have to find that it is in violation.

Why is it in violation?

It's because you don't have a stormwater permit.

valid stormwater i do well i did i did you guys changed the rules not current though it's it's really out of my hands i didn't i didn't do any of that so i mean there should be some responsibility taken by the city in this in this instance the rules changed and our stuff became null and void this is sort of out of my hands too because i have to look at it and see if it is in violation if it is then i have to impose the fine i think that's just salt in the wound i think it's unreasonable to imply a fine for that i really don't have

much leeway on this as far as the citation goes. So based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-55, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation, any previous violations in order that the respondent correct the violation on or before September 15th, 2026. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice or in the citation, which would be to obtain a stormwater permit. If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past September 15th, 2026. The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement and to arrange for an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order or to produce a documentation that shows you are in compliance with this order. Yeah, I have a question. Hold on one second. I still got to get through this. There's also a citation, the amount of $300 for this case. I will uphold the citation in order that that amount be paid to the city. All right. Yes, sir.

i'm a little confused on the what you just said about the continuation of the we'll get the permit and then the work will be done when our contractor starts to work on it on the parking lot the driveway so the only thing you have to do by september 15th is to have the stormwater permit apply for it you need to have the permit if

Like I said before, if something comes up, the most important thing you can do is let code enforcement know. If there's a snag where you need a week or something, let them know. You all might be able to work something out and maybe get an extension. But as of September 15th of this year, you're gonna have to have that stormwater permit.

Okay, so the permit will have to be, but so the permit,

The construction doesn't have to be complete or anything like that.

Yeah, but the application for the permit, I understand that the city process is going to take several months. When we file the application for it to go through everything, Ryan has already told us it's going to be several months again, just like it did the first time, that it has to go through everything, goes to DOT. I mean, it's not going to be give the application and we're going to have a permit. That would be great. I would applaud that if that could happen, but that's not realistic. You guys are going to have your part done. I have no control of that. And there's no reason to have a stormwater permit. We have no impervious thing on the property.

Well, it's what the city requires, so What I'll say is if we get near September 15th and you're in the process, you have the application, you're waiting on, I don't know, approval or a meeting, let code enforcement know.

Right, which you said could take several months.

Yeah, just let code enforcement know and then they can always schedule another hearing here to either extend the order or amend the order to push the date back if they see that you're working on it.

All right.

All right, that's all. Thank you, sir. Okay, next case, case number 26-345-2729, Lime Tree Drive.

Nancy R. Conray is the owner of the property located at 2729 Lime Tree Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of Section 2136, Subsection 1, Subsection 2, accessory use of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances. On May 2nd, 2026, I received an email from Heather Larkin of Development Services, reference to the listed location having an outstanding permit and no response from the property owner after several emails were sent for corrections. I arrived to make contact with the female. I advised her of my reasoning for being there regarding the information I obtained. She indicated this was her mother's residence and she would inform her. While on scene, I observed several accessory structures on the property, which per code only allows two per size of the building lot. Votals were taken of the violations. On June 10, 2026, after nearly a month with no contact from the property owner and the violation not corrected, a notice of violation was issued with the correction date of June 21, 2026. arrived on June 21st 2026 for an inspection noted no change to the property however and notice sorry about that fiction notice no change in the property notice however I noticed that there was a notice of public hearing in the front yard that was posted by the city I confirmed with development services that a planning and zoning board meeting was being held on July 15, 2026, case number VA2617, to determine if a variance to allow for a fourth accessory structure on the property. The results of the meeting determined the variance did not pass and the property owner needed to remove two accessory structures from the property and place an apron pad in the right of way leading to the new garage structure placed on the property. On July 30, 2026, no attempt to correct the violation. Citation 0561 notice of hearing was issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends this. Special Magistrate find Nancy Conray in violation of section 2136 subsection 1 subsection 2 accessory use of the code ordinances and assess the citation fine of $75 and a $100 a day daily fine if the violation is not corrected by September 13th, 2026.

Okay, who's here for the respondent?

My name is Nancy Connery. I live at 2729 Lime Tree Drive, Edgewood. I have been trying to do those. As a matter of fact, I've got one of the sheds cleared out. I tried to find someone to move it. The aviary, my son, two daughters, and a grandson was there over the weekend. We were taking it down. We've got the roof off, some of the sides. So I am trying to get in compliance with that. And to the garage, I've called three people. None of them have got it with me. I have a friend who said he could help me do that. So I am trying. OK.

I just have a question for the city. The citation has accessory use and the corrections are to remove the two structures and obtain a permit for the apron pad leading to the garage. Is that right?

She has four accessory structures on. One of them newly put in was like a garage. So in order to keep that structure on the property, she has to have an apron pad leading up to that garage. So yes, two removed and an apron pad put in.

I'm assuming you're planning on keeping that garage structure. Yes.

I'm getting rid of the 8 by 14 one. Like I said, I've got it emptied out. I've called the guy I bought it from to see if he could move it. I haven't pulled back from him. And the aviary, like I said, my son and daughters and grandson, they're taking it down. We've got the roof completely off. and started on the sides already. So that should be down within a couple of weeks. It's just been so hot and rainy. It's been hard to work continuously on that to get it down. And I know I have to get permits for the garage which when i find someone like i said if my friend is going to help me then i'll get the permits myself to do it i just have to find out who's going to do it first okay and the city doesn't have a problem giving her a month longer to october 13th of 2026. okay i know the two sheds will be gone by then hopefully within a week or two okay

that sounds good and you've heard what I've said to the other people in here especially regarding the permit sometimes there can be hold ups but if you're going through the process and trying to get it done let code enforcement know so they know where you're at or what the hang-ups are and if we need to adjust anything well I talked to someone in the building department a week ago

I told her, my son and everybody was coming that weekend. She says, well, if you get it down before then, let us know and we'll come out. So I have been talking to someone.

Okay. There is also a citation in here. Yes. Obviously, there are too many structures on the property, so I am going to have to uphold that in my ruling. But this point will have until October 13th. to get these into compliance.

Well, I did try to pay the $75, but they said I couldn't, they didn't have it in the system, that I'd have to wait until now to be able to pay it. I mean, I had the check wrote, so it's still wrote, all I have to do is take it in.

Okay, sounds good. Then I'll go ahead and issue my ruling. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the citation and notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation and previous violations. I order that the respondent correct the violation on or before October 13th, 2026. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation and citation. If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation continues past October 13th, 2026. The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. The respondent is also subject to the $75 citation in this case, and I will uphold that. All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Next matter is case 26-514. It's 3433, Unity Tree Drive.

can go. Okay. I'm the new code enforcement officer David Meyer. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you, sir.

Raymond Johnson is the owner of the property located at 3433 unity tree in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section 10 400. Property maintenance of the city at Edgewater's code of ordinances on July 15 2026. While on patrol, I observed the listed property to have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. A property check revealed the property has had prior violations for code cases, the property maintenance. As a result of my findings, a nuisance abatement violation was issued with the correction date of July 25th, 2026. Along with repeat citation of 0853, notice of hearing, and it was posted to the property, sent certified to the owner, and also posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. The property's vacant, and no contact has been made with anyone representing the property. Staff recommends that Special Magistrate find Raymond Johnson in violation of Section 10-400, property maintenance of the code ordinances, and assess the citation fine of $150.

However, since this is, the citation has been issued, there has been a representative of the party, and I believe he's here today to.

Okay, sir, you can come up. Just state your name and address, please.

My name is Michael Hosmer, 612 Navigators Way in Edgewater. I am Raymond Johnson is in Beachside Rehabilitation. He's been in it for the last three and a half years. He's also a life member of the Moose Lodge in Edgewater. He's been through all the channels. I am the president of the Moose Lodge here. He's also a Navy veteran. We found out about this, or I found out about this not even two weeks ago, I think I started in communication. I had a work crew out there Sunday. We cleaned the place up. We got rid of the car. I was told the blinds. We really busted butt out there. So me personally, I would like to see everything gone away, if that's a possibility. We will have work parties out there to clean up the back of the yard. I've got somebody who's going to mow the yard every two weeks. Eventually, we've got to get the water back on, the power back on. That's going to take time. But the yard, the car, that has been taken care of. So I'm hoping that, like I said, he's in Beachside. I'm trying to get him to Moose Haven, which is a senior residency up in Jacksonville. He's fully entitled to that. It just takes time. But in the meantime, we will, the Moose Lodge will take responsibility for the yard and cleaning out the house. So I'm asking that anything and everything that he owes you gets thrown away.

OK. Yeah, there is a citation in this case. The city is not asking for any fines since the property looks like it has been remedied. From where I sit, I have to look at to see if there's a violation and a citation. It's something that would be up to the city as far as the citation goes for that. And I don't know what their position is on that. You said the owner, Mr. Johnson, he is like an assisted living.

OK.

No.

Thank you.

So he's at Beachside Rehabilitation. He's been in it for the last three and a half years. Moose-wise, he's fully entitled to Moose Haven. I'm trying to get him there. I would prefer, like I said, no family. I would prefer the house go to Moose Haven versus Beachside. uh so we're working on that or personally i would like you to go to our moose lodge and we can sell it we can have the donations we can buy our own building instead of renting but that's neither here than there so yes i would like to see whatever i can do you know the moose lodge will take responsibility keeping the place up and and hopefully getting power and all that stuff on i mean we're not required to have power right we don't have to do any of that okay We will do, even if I get to get a generator to get the clean, we will take responsibility of that. So whatever I can get waived, dropped, thrown away, because otherwise it's probably coming out of my pocket.

And regarding this case, sir, there's been prior cases with daily fines and liens on the property. I think his understanding was he was gonna show up to see if he could get a reduction in the liens in the property. That's something he's told that he needs to go through the process and speak with our directors regarding that. And once he gets that set up, then the city can work with him regarding that. Okay.

I'm a nice guy.

No, I understand the situation. I appreciate the moose sludge. stepping up to take care of this property. Here's what I'm going to do for this. Since he is in some kind of assisted living facility.

And basically Social Security and Medicaid.

Yeah, and there's nobody else living there. What I'll say is if it happens again, there will be a $150 fine for this. I appreciate the actions that you all have taken once you found out about it. Cooler weather. I mean, we can do a lot more. Sounds like you got somebody out there pretty quick to take care of the property. Um, so what I'll do, I'll going to dismiss the citation for this one, essentially with the understanding that, you know, the moose lodge fails to, um, take care of the property or have the weeds grow back, then I am going to have to enforce the $150 fine. I understand. Moving forward. So please make sure that you're on top of that. As far as the other actions you got to see the city with that see what you can work out with that especially if it's something that the new sludge might be interested in having at some point okay thank you do I get a will I get a report of that because I'm not on file do I have my address sure we can get you I'm sure the city can get you a copy of that okay that's it that's it sir thanks guys very much All right, next up is case 26-398, 3212 Pine Tree Drive.

Jennifer Cardoba is the owner of the property located at 3212 Pine Tree Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It's been found in violation of section 10400 property maintenance of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On June 1st, 2026, code enforcement received a complaint of tall grass and weeds at the listed location. I arrived and observed the listed property to have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. The courtesy notice was issued with the correction date of June 11, 2026. However, it was corrected and changed to a notice of violation with the correction date of June 21, 2026. On the 21st of June, I conducted an inspection, noted no change. Due to the notice of violation abatement, it was sent to the mowing company for compliance. Subsequently, citation 0556 was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. Property appears to be vacant and no contact has been made with the owners. Staff recommends the special magistrate find Jennifer Cardoba in violation of section 10400 property maintenance of the code ordinances and assist the citation fine of $75. No daily fines are being requested as the property has been brought into compliance.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-398, Find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation and notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation and any previous violations. I order that the respondent is subject to the $75 citation that has been filed in this matter and no daily fines shall be assessed since the property is now in compliance.

next is case 26 um dash four one three three nine nine three oaks drive majestic oaks phase four homeowners is the owners of the property located at three ninety nine three three oaks drive in edgewater florida has been found in violation of section 1098 property maintenance of the city of edgewater's code of ordinances On June 4th, 2026, code enforcement received a complaint from Steve Misca, reference to tall grass at the listed location, which is behind his residence. I arrived and observed the listed location have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. I made contact with the property manager of this location and advised of the violation. They advised the property would be cut and taken care of. During this conversation, a request for an extension was given to July 25th, 2026, which was granted. On July 27, 2026, I conducted an inspection and noted no change. Citation 0667, notice of hearing, was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall along with the notice of violation abatement with a correction date of August 6, 2026. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends the special magistrate find Majestic Oaks phase four homeowners in violation of section 1098 property maintenance of the code ordinances and assess the citation fine of $75.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on testimony and evidence presented in case 26-413, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation and notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation and any previous violations. Order that the respondent is subject to a fine in the amount of $75 as listed in the citation and no daily fines shall be assessed since the property is now in compliance. Next case, 26-459-2104, India Palm Drive.

Mack Miller is the owner of the property located at 2104 India Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section 10400, property maintenance of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On June 30, 2026, while on patrol, I observed the listed property to have grass and weeds in excellence of 12 inches. Due to repeated offenses, a nuisance abatement order was sent for mowing with the correction date of July 10th, 2026 and repeat violation citation 0850. Notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. There has been no contact with the owner of the property. Staff recommends a special magistrate find Mac Miller in violation of Section 10400, property maintenance of the Code of Ordinances, and assess the repeat violation citation fine of $150.00.

All right, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-459, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation and notice of violation and or notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation and the actions to correct the violation and previous violations. Specifically, the respondent has been found in violation of this matter previously. that respondent is subject to a fine in the amount of $150 for the citation as a repeat violation. There shall be no daily fines assessed since the property is now into compliance. Next case, 26-485, 2nd Street Parcel.

Matthew J. Pickett is the owner of the property located at parcel number 743313090010 within the city of Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section 10400 property maintenance nuisance condition of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On July 9th, 2026, code enforcement received a complaint from Cindy Nichols, reference to the condition of the listed property being overgrown and entering the roadway. Check of the computer system revealed there has been one property maintenance case within the last year, with the most recent being September 15th of 2026. I observed the listed location have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. As a result, notice of violation abatement was issued. with a correction date of July 19th, 2026. Due to the reoccurring violation, citation 0665 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall. All the notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. No contact has been made has been made with the owner or the tenants of the property. Staff recommends the special magistrate find Matthew J. Pickett in violation of section 10-400 property maintenance nuisance condition and assess the citation fine of $75. The property has been voted and is now in compliance.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on testimony and evidence presented in case 26-485, Find out the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the citation and or notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation, and any previous violations where the respondent is subject to a fine in the amount of $75 as listed in the citation. No daily fines shall be assessed as the property is now in compliance. Next case, 26-515-402, Seagull Court.

Marcus A. Benneker is the owner of the property located at 402 Seagull Court in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of Section 10-400, property maintenance of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances. On July 15, 2026, while on patrol, I observed the listed property to have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. Due to the repeated offenses, a nuisance abatement order was sent for mowing with the correction date of July 25th, 2026, and repeat violation citation 0851. A notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at City Hall. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. There's been no contact with the owner of the property. Staff recommends the special magistrate find Marcus A. Benincur in violation of section 10400, property maintenance of the code of ordinances, and assess the repeat citation fine of $150.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-515, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation and or notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation and the actions to correct the violation and any previous violations. Order that the respondent is subject to the citation fine in the amount of $150 as a repeat violation. No daily fines or liens are to be assessed as the property is now in compliance. All right, case 26-551-2503, Tamarand Drive.

Adria Montforte and Gary Morgan are the owners of the property located at 2503 Tamarin Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It's been found in violation of section 10402 alternate method of enforcement of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On July 21st, 2026, code enforcement received a complaint from Amber Douglas reference to the condition of the listed property. Amber stated this is an ongoing problem and the owners of the property never mow their lawn. Check of the computer system revealed there have been four property maintenance cases within the last year with the most recent being June 10th of 2026. Observed the listed location to have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. As a result, a notice of violation abatement was issued with the correction date of July 31st, 2026. Due to the reoccurring violation, citation 50558, notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property and sent certified mail to the owner and posted at City Hall. All notices of provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. No contact has been made with the owner or tenants of the property at the time of this. Staff recommends a special magistrate fine Andrea Monforte and Gary Morgan in violation of section 10402 alternate method of enforcement and assess the citation fine of $75 if the property is not mowed by the owners. City will provide that service with the contractor. Since then, the property has come into compliance.

Okay. Thank you. We're seeing nobody here for the respondent. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-551, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation. Any actions to correct the violation and any previous violations? I order that the respondent is subject to a fine, a citation fine in the amount of $75. No daily fines shall be assessed as the property is now in compliance. Case 26-556-1843, Cocoa Palm Drive.

Sue Reed Vaughn, EST, is the owner of the property located at 1843 Cocoa Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section 10-400, property maintenance of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On July 23rd, 2026, while on patrol, I observed the grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches at the listed location. Through the repeated violations, a notice of violation abatement was issued with the correction date of August 3rd, 2026, and a repeat citation of 0560 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. As opposed to the property, since certified middle of the owner and posted at City Hall, all notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with. The staff recommends a special magistrate find Sue Reed Vaughn EST in violation of section 10400 property maintenance of the code ordinances and assess the repeat citation fine of $150.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-556, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation and or notice of violation filed in this matter.

Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation, and any previous violations.

Order that the respondent is subject to a repeat citation fine in the amount of $150. No daily fines shall be assessed as the property is now in compliance. All right, 26-564-3024, India Palm Drive.

Amanda Risely is the owner of the property located at 3024 India Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section 10400 property maintenance of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On July 27th, 2026, code enforcement received a complaint from Robert Clinton reference to tall grass at the listed location, which is a duplex. I arrived and observed the listed property have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches. Due to a prior citation for the same violation in September of 2025, repeat citation 0668 notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified metal to the owner and posted at city hall along with the notice of violation with the correction date of August 6th, 2026. All notices and provisions of chapter 10 article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find Amanda Risley in violation of section 10400 property maintenance of the code ordinances and assess the repeat citation fine of $150 and this property too has come into compliance.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-564, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this, citation and notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation, and any previous violations where the respondent is subject to a repeat citation fine in the amount of $150. No daily fines shall be assessed as the property is now in compliance. All right, case 26.

dash 5821821 kumquat drive nona moore chapman is the owner of the property located 1821 kumquat drive in edgewater florida has been found in violation of section 10400 property maintenance of the city of edgewater's code of ordinances on july 30th 2026 while on patrol observed the listed property to have grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches property check revealed this property has had repeated violations and code cases since 2013. As a result of my findings, a nuisance abatement violation was issued along with repeat citation 0582, notice of hearing. It was posted at the property, sent certified mail to the owner, and posted at city hall. All notices and provisions of chapter 10, article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find Nona Moore Chapman in violation of section 10400, property maintenance of the code ordinances, and assess the repeat citation fine of $150.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 26-582, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City of Edgewater's Code of Ordinances as listed in the citation and or notice of violation filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, any actions to correct the violation, and any previous violations. In order that the respondent is subject to a repeat citation, A fine in the amount of $150, no daily fines or liens, will be assessed as the property is now in compliance. All right, that will conclude the meeting. Thank you all.