Code Enforcement/ Magistrate - Special Meeting

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(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 thirty days of the execution of any order. The city of Edgewater will present its case first as it has a burden of proof. Afterwards, the respondents will have an opportunity to respond and present any evidence. At this point, if you will be offering any testimony, can you please rise and raise your right testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

All right, first case, case number 20Five-one22200 and of

first

the first question? For the

record? Question My name is Brian the Wagner and I think live out in Holly Hill at my dad's house. Jasmine Partridge is the one that lives at 31 Pine Brook. Okay. So originally, we had been here June 10, I believe it was. And it was stated that if we needed additional time to advise before the July, and we had. But there was a mix up somewhere along the lines. And originally, Mr. Jacob had approved the extension. But then Mr.

Myron had said wrote another email stating not to proceed and he wasn't providing the extension email due to us doing work after the stop work order. But it was a misunderstanding. We had a pool up already before we had come into court on the June 10. But I guess he was unaware of that. And he thought that because we had put the pool up, it was working after the stop work order.

And I don't know if you have access to the files or not of everything that's been submitted thus far from all parties. But I have a picture on my phone. I meant to print something up. I got a million other things printed. But showing that the pool had been up prior to court that day.

So we did not continue to do things afterwards. And again, I know it was just a misunderstanding, but that was the basis of not granting the extension. And then, thus, starting to include fines. But we have already We had a partial inspection yesterday on the work. They I got the report here from where mister Sean had been out yesterday.

There are a few things that he said the engineer needs to address in the letter that he had wrote, which I also have a copy of the engineer's note as well letter as well. It took a little bit longer to get the permit approved, waiting on the letter from the engineer as well as miss Delaney had been out of town a couple times within the past month. I believe she actually got back yesterday. She was out for a week and a half this last time. And then before that, I couldn't tell you what date it was, but she was out for another week last month prolonging process.

And I get people need to take time off and everything. I'm not trying to say anything like that. But because of that, they took a little bit longer. So we did get the permit approved Monday. Monday afternoon evening time. I think it was around like three or four. They finally were able to get around to it and approve it. And then work continued again Tuesday and Wednesday, yesterday and Tuesday, trying to get everything resolved before having to come in here. But again, mister Sean's report stated that we needed to get a couple things addressed by the engineer.

In my recollection recollection from this case and from the review of the file, this case didn't have anything to do with the pool, correct? It was shed and the roofing

permits that you

needed to get. And the order that was entered in this case provided that needed to comply I question.

Think think engineers trying to get everything resolved before then, as is with a lack of them getting back to me or willing to take the case until we finally found somebody the July. I think like two days before the July, we finally found an engineer willing to take the case. And we put the deposit deposit down a few days afterwards, after we had resolved everything that mister Myron had said to address before paying them and wasting money. And then got them working on it. It just took them a little bit longer to get it done than we would have liked just due to the fact that they already had other cases they had to work on as well.

Okay. So, at this point, you do have a permit issued

Yes,

from the city? Sir. Is there anything else you'd like to say before I let the city speak?

Think that covers it. City,

do you have a position on this?

The confusion near the deadline of the July 31 in the extension with in addition to the stop work order being violated was initially in the initial magistrate of June. Your directive towards them was to contact us a few weeks prior if there were any issues so that we could give additional time if possible. And I believe it was three or four days prior to the date that we were reached that they reached out to us to let us know that they needed additional time. So due to the due to how late that we were notified that things were going south, we decided that they wouldn't be able to have an extension as well as the pool situation. I can say, as the one that was inspecting and taking the pictures, I don't recall seeing the pool when I was in their backyard with them looking at the deck and everything.

Yeah.

Okay. So the correspondence that I have in the file shows there was an email. It looks like the first one sent on 07/29/2025 and that Mr. Wagner essentially talking about then, get the full then, construction to be completed?

We haven't been contacted prior to this that the permit was actually issued or that the violation was corrected. I found out today after checking the system in preparation for this that the permit was issued on the September 8. So no affidavit of compliance or anything has been filed yet.

Is there anything else that you would like to add, sir or ma'am?

I mean, I thought that she had emailed a week in advance. Maybe it had been a few days. I'm not completely sure. It would have been one for me. I do have a bunch of emails printed up.

And I know that's not completely the point anyways. But again, there had originally been an approved approval for the inspection. But something along the lines of after he had spoke with his supervisor, mister Jacob, I guess, afterward is when it had been denied. But originally, July 29, was we are allowing a fifteen day extension so you can get the building plans and permits. The new deadline is August 15.

And then again, afterward is when Mr. Myron had sent an email saying, please do not move forward with the engineered drawings at this time. So again, and I get that there was some sort of confusion. And I believe him when he says he doesn't recall seeing the pool. But it is in On Digital Files on y'all's behalf of the videos that had been submitted as a complaint against us. You can see the pool in that video and that predates the court appearance back in June.

Okay. So the earliest email I have is July 29, which is two or three days before the compliance date as noted in the order. Do you have any correspondence or any email correspondence before July 29 with the city?

That would be on her.

I can look. I think that because we were in contact with so many engineers of believing that we would be in compliance, it sounds like it's my nature to wait till the last minute and be like, oh, no. I don't think that we got it. We have enough time. The soonest I see is July 27.

For my sense, I've got one from May 20 where we're talking about the engineer, but that, again, was prior to court. This is about the extension. Yeah. So just for the extension, all I have is July 27 where I realized, look, we didn't get the stamp. We didn't secure any kind of proof of engineer.

We're going to need more time. Okay. I've got August 24 and August 25 where I had been sending things to like the permit office, just trying to get clarification. But as far as asking for extension, I see July 27 in my outgoing.

Ryan, I might be able to shed some light on this. Ultimately, what happened with this case was it got too close to the deadline, and not enough had moved forward from it. They hadn't fully secured what was requested of them. I understand there was some confusion and some things going back and forth between development services and the building official requesting stuff from them and some of the staffing to review some things. And they did.

My email specifically here was to address the fact that we, as the city of Edgewater, didn't want to tell you to go and get engineer drawings unless everything within those drawings was already kind of reviewed and looked at. We have no interest in residents spending money unnecessarily if we know that what you have currently is going to get denied. It wouldn't make any sense for the city to request or require you guys to go and get drawings, knowing that we weren't going to approve it anyway. So my request to you guys in this email and the intention behind it was to make sure that you are certain with Development Services that whatever preliminary plans you have, they've either reviewed or looked at and kind of given you a thumbs up or however that was going to play out. Unfortunately, because of the process taking as long as it did and because this was complaint driven and the severity of how much that you guys have put back there, the violation wasn't specifically for work done without a permit for just the one or two items.

It was for don't do work without a permit. Don't put anything back there that includes or requires a permit involved in it. To touch base on the pool real quick because you brought it up, the original pool that you had was a circular pool. You put up a different pool, which would require a permit because it's a new different pool. You are allowed to put up in the video. Yep. So you are allowed to put up a pool and take it down. But when you change the type of pool that was originally back there based off of the documents that we had, That's why my mention of even having a pool without a permit was brought up.

Right. And you and

I We aren't splitting semantics here as far as like, oh, you have four and a half things instead of four things without a permit. The whole goal was to continue the process moving forward so that you guys can get what you need to close out and finalize everything for documentation purposes.

Did do that? You told us to tell you if we needed

since there wasn't a solidified engineer. There was discussions with engineers, and people can get quotes all the time from contractors without finalizing and signing a contract that says, we agree to do this work. So our process continued to move forward. And my suggestion or recommendation to them, sir, was to daily fines are going to start, request a hearing to come back and request a reduction of those fines from you, depending on how far along we are in this process to date. So given that you guys have the permit, given that you're now working and going through everything, and it sounds like development services had approved everything from the engineer drawings. Is that correct?

Yes. So, mister Sean

And

to be very clear, I just want to make sure on the same page, the city is concerned that everything that you have that's built that's in the backyard that needs a permit has one that's on documentation and paperwork, so that if there's ever a question or you guys have something that comes up again, we have it documented for you as much as for the city that what you have back there is allowed.

Right. And and you and I had gotten into depth about the pool and I do understand it.

Stop for one second.

Okay. Yes, sir.

Is is that a copy of the permit? No, that's the

inspection report from Mr. Shaw yesterday. So

you would both agree that the city did issue a permit on September 8, correct? Okay. Yes. We have that. So really in order to overturn the order imposing the final, you have to show me some kind of violation due process or something like that.

The order does state that the corrective action shall be by 07/31/2025. The evidence has shown e mail correspondence on July 29, which is two or three days before that deadline regarding engineering services and securing that, but there's nothing concrete that says we have secured engineering services or anything like that. The record does show that on September 8, the city did issue a permit for that. However, that is after the deadline of 07/31/2025 to come into compliance. So, I don't have any basis to overturn the order imposing the fine lien.

So I will uphold it at this time. I will say that you do have a permit right now. You can get that work completed and done like Mr. Or like Myron said, then you can come back and ask for a reduction in the fine and the lean. But the important thing is to get the work done.

So so the main concern for us right now is sorry. Just bring this up. This is a copy of an email from Habitat to Jasmine stating that if a lien is put on the house that we are at, she is at risk of losing the house completely.

Sorry, it's not something that I can necessarily take into consideration. Right now, we have a violation of the code. We do have an order with that and we do have a compliance date that was after the date given in there. We'll say, if you can get the work done as soon as possible and there is a lien reduction to this, then the city will file a release of the lien. And that lien will not be on the property.

I was worthy of having more time. I thought it was just a open ended. If you tell us you need more time, we'll give you more time. And now, like, based on the way that Habitat phrased this conversation based on collaborating with my neighbor and edging them towards this, this is what they seem to have wanted all along, right, was the need placement. And I feel like I've done everything in my power to avoid that happening. Right? Like, I I don't wanna split hairs. I'm not trying to argue. I just don't want to be homeless.

So I unfortunately have an objection. The city of Edgewater has not been in collaboration with Habitat for Humanities.

And filed multiple complaints when nothing was going on. There was no noise. She said, cops at my house claiming we're blaring music when we're not, claiming we're doing more work when we're not, right, with the woman who works in representation from Habitat, both of them sitting here moment. The

last time.

Jennifer telling Ayesha, well, this is what you need to do. You need to call code enforcement. You need to complain. Even though they've got their own structures in their yard, and I've been nothing but agreeable with my neighbor in compliance with my mortgage holder. She's gone as far as not only to jeopardize my mortgage, but to contact my homeowner insurance with inquiries of is my home up to date on its hurricane hazard. Like, above and beyond, I've even have police reports where I've gone where she's using the video that she screams. She has multiple Ring cameras aimed at my backyard and they text me, I don't like what your little boy just

said understand back you to have some issues going on with your neighbor, but it's not really pertinent to this right now. It's not really evidence for this case right now.

Sorry. Thought hearsay was evidence. And the fact that

I feel Well, it's not relevant.

Collaborating with my mortgage lender to use the city against I don't think it's the city. I just want to be in compliance and not be homeless. And I didn't understand that I needed by this date to say this is what I need for more time. I'm not an idiot, but I did feel like it was vague. And I thought that I did what I was supposed to do by reaching out and then doing what we were supposed to do.

So I just want to real quick, sir, if you're telling us that you have a permit and it's on file that a permit was issued, all that's left is for us to confirm that the permit that was issued is accurate and depicts what you have based off of all of the data, And then we'll do an affidavit of compliance and daily fines ceased based on the date that the permit was issued.

Planning and Development just did an inspection in our home yesterday.

No, no, understand that.

So it has to be through code enforcement.

So they want to do an inspection?

We have to do an inspection. So we have to look at everything and evaluate in order for officer Jacob to do an affidavit of compliance. And then the daily fines would be from July 31 or August 1, whatever the order was, till whatever the date is that they issued the permit. And then what the special magistrate is explaining is, once we do that affidavit of compliance, you can then file for a reduction and come back because it's not fully in compliance until we look at it and then right, wrong, or indifferent verify that compliance. So once that's done, right, and everything's on record here, we'll be able to come back.

You will be able to request a reduction from him, but he can't do that at this time because we haven't told him that we've checked it. Does that make sense? Yeah, we'll schedule it so that you're there when we're there. We can't just come onto your property and inspect stuff without anyone home.

Certainly. So here's what's going to happen. I am going to uphold the order imposing the fine and lien. Okay? That's the first thing.

Second thing, you do have a permit now. So you can work with code enforcement to have an inspection for that. Once they are able to inspect it, which I imagine would be pretty quickly, then they will issue an affidavit of compliance. That affidavit of compliance will also be recorded in the public records. So if you need anything for Habitat, you can tell them that the property is in compliance as soon as you have that and that you are requesting a reduction in the fine or the lien that's on the property from the special magistrate.

So once you make that request, you come before me again and I will look at the case again, make sure that everything is fine, that the affidavit of compliance has been filed, and then we can talk about a reduction in the filing.

And they wouldn't have the authority to seize my home or evict me between now and me seeing you again?

So I can tell you there would be a lien on the property. Normally when the liens are on the lower threshold, which is what this would be, I wouldn't imagine that they would want to seize the home. Usually, it takes a substantially larger amount in order to do that. But one thing that you can let them know is that you are still in the process of appealing the fine and lien or asking for a reduction for the fine. Yeah.

So the important thing is to get that data of compliance. So once you have that, once they have inspected it, then you can show Habitat that the property is in compliance. And that's important because then they would know outstanding issues and that there are no outstanding non compliant issues at all. All right. Anything else?

City has not approved. Okay.

Thank you very much. All right. Next case, under new business, case number 20Five-one21979.

This case is in relation to 2311 South Ridgewood Avenue. I am officer Jacob McLaughlin. This address is owned by Pelican Plaza LLC. On 02/22/2025, it was identified by supervisor San Miguel that there were old dismantled light poles on the property that presented safety concerns. Myself and San Miguel inspected the property.

There were cigarettes littered in the grass adjacent to the parking lot, and there were multiple damaged power pool foundations along the parking lot. On March 5, I posted a notice of violation. On March 11, I received an email from Alina, the property manager for Pelican Plaza. She had the garbage and trash cleaned off the property, including the cigarettes. Upon reinspection, it was discovered that the damaged Power Pole foundations were still in place. Pictures were sent to Alina to help clarify what the violation was. On March 13, I received another email from Elena. She stated the power pole foundations were intentionally there and being used as a barrier for new power poles they installed. The new power poles were connected to the wiring from the old foundations. I confirmed with the building department that they did not acquire a permit for the work that was done.

We held a meeting with Ivan, the property owner, and informed him he needed to remove the old power pole foundations entirely as they were not being used for their intended design and they were a safety hazard. They agreed to place temporary barriers in front of the pole foundations to prevent vehicles from hitting them until they resolved the violation. On June 18, we received an email from Jason Voles, who is a consultant for Pelican Plaza. He stated they're redesigning their parking lot and they're working on acquiring a permit. They provided site plans and a letter confirming they hired an architect.

This new plan involved removing and replacing the power poles, so an extension was approved until July 31 for them to apply for the permit. On August 1, there was no permit on file and they did not send any update. I emailed them to see why they have not contacted us and why there is no permit on file. On August 8, I received an email from Ivan saying that no progress had been made and they postponed the work they intended on doing. Due to the length of time that they were already given, I posted a citation for 10 dash 500 commercial maintenance standards.

On September 5, I received an email from Ivan stating the old Power Pole foundations were removed and the remaining service was repaired. I reinspected and confirmed that the violation had been corrected. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10 Article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a citation for $75 for violation of ten-five 100 commercial maintenance standards as a violation was corrected on September 5 no daily fines are being requested at this time.

Is there anyone here on behalf of Pelican Plaza LLC? Seeing nobody here based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 20Five-one21979, I find that the respondent is in violation the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter. I've considered the gravity of the violation and the actions by violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator. I order that the respondent is subject to the citation in the amount of $75 As noted in the file, since the property is in compliance, there will be no daily fines ordered in this case. Next case, case number 20Five-one22363.

Good evening. The Menek Properties LLC is the owner of the property located at 515 North Ridgewood Avenue in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section 10,500 minimum standards of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On August 21, that should be 2025, code enforcement started a case for the list location reference to the minimum standards ordinance due to the exterior appearance. During this time, some violations were worked on, and extra time was given.

This was under the previous ownership. On 11/05/2024, I was directed to close the case as not to hold up the sale of the property. It was agreed that the new owner would work on the issues once the sale was completed. On 06/17/2025, I again was directed to start a new case under the new ownership as a business license was being applied for. No current progress was for correcting violations has occurred. A courtesy notice was issued with the correction date of 07/17/2025. On 08/01/2025, we conducted an inspection, noted some minor repairs were corrected. The inspection was conducted with supervisor San Miguel. Notice of violation was conducted with the correction date of 08/18/2025. On August 4 sorry.

I met with the property owner. Yes. On 08/04/2025, I met with the property owner. All issues were discussed and pointed out. I was informed that thousands of dollars have already spent on the interior of the building, and if he couldn't open to make the money, then he couldn't correct the exterior issues. The owner advised he is going to apply for a $50.50 grant the city offers for the US 1 corridor. The property owner was advised to apply for the grant and speak with supervisor San Miguel to possibly get an extension for the issues. On 08/18/2025, there has been no contact to schedule an extension with this with supervisor San Miguel and no application for the grant. Due to these findings, citation zero six four four 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 chapter 10 article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends the special magistrate find Diem Manique Properties LLC in violation of ten five hundred minimum standards of the code ordinances and assess the citation fine of $75 and daily fines of $100 a day if not corrected by 09/21/2025.

Is there anybody here for the respondent? Nobody here. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 20Five-one22363, 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 the notice of citation filed in this matter. I order that the respondent correct the violation on or before 09/21/2025. Order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation.

If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past 09/21/2025. The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement, for compliance and to arrange Board. We Board. Board. We do have some people here.

We do have quite a few cases left. Know some have multiple parts, but sir, we'll start with you. If you want to come up I can call your case so you don't have to wait around here. Do you have a case number sir? So that is l on the agenda. We will I'm sorry. Say that number again.

It may have been withdrawn because there was a confusion about having a permit.

Alright. What's your name?

Bob Aglador. 2507Guava. We had a building permit. And when they asked to do a get a permit to clear the lot, cut the trees, went down to City Hall and they said that the building permit was the was your permit to clear the lot.

Okay. Is there an address associated with

2507 Guava.

Sir, that citation was withdrawn from magistrate. There was a confusion when it was initially given.

Okay. Sorry, you do not have a case here, so you're not around. Thank Thank you. All right. Next, if you have a case, can you please come up and let me know what case it is so we can hear it? You don't have to wait around. Number 25Dash122551.

This case is in relation to citation 820, for the address 468 Palmetto Street. The owner is Dandrea Scott. On 07/21/2025, code enforcement received a complaint stating there were two decks built at 468 Palmetto Street without a permit. I inspected the property and identified two decks adjacent to each other in the rear of the property. The decks were built on city property as they are built into the lake. I spoke to Scott, the property owner, and his son. They stated they had the first deck for years and that they decided to build the second deck recently. There were no permits on file for either deck. Research identified that the first deck was built sometime between April 2024 and December 2024, and the second deck was built this year. I told them they need to either get a permit or remove the decks.

On July 31, I reinspected the property. There was no permit on file and the decks were still there. I posted a notice of violation on 08/01/2025. On August 11, I reinspected the property with supervisor San Miguel. There was still no permit and the decks were still present.

Various other violations were identified on the property and a separate code case was created. Regarding the decks, a citation was posted for seven dash one Florida building code 105.1 permit required. On August 12, supervisor San Miguel spoke to the property owner and informed him that if he if he removed the deck by 09/11/2025, no daily fines would be requested. Today, on, September 11, one deck I reinspected the property and one deck was deconstructed, the other one is still there. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10 Article 27 have been complied with.

Staff recommends a citation for $75 for violation of seven-one Florida Building Code 105.1 permit required. If the violation is not corrected by 09/21/2025, staff recommends daily fines of $250 for every day that the violation is not in compliance. Additionally, if the violation is still present on 09/21/2025, the city will conduct a formal survey and remove the deck letter on the city property.

Representative for the respondent, you please state your name? Okay. And what is your relation to the respondent? Okay. So your first name is Scott then? Yes. Okay. Alright, Sir, what would you like to say?

I'm just took down the one deck and I'm working on the second one. I just talked to a neighbor who's going to help me when he gets back from Utah. I'm just trying to come up with money to do this stuff. I wasn't expecting this to happen when I built a second deck. So all my money has been spent to get it removed, and now I got one more to go.

Okay. Do you have any interest in obtaining a permit from the city for the deck or anything?

No. Because I did, but they told me it couldn't happen because it's in an easement. It's past my property line.

Okay.

So I have to remove it. If I didn't have to, I would. I mean, it was put there. It was someplace for me. I just go out there and just sit and look at the water.

I understand. So the city is requesting that it be removed by 09/22/2025. Is that enough time for you to have that deck removed? I know you said you were getting some help from a neighbor.

Yes. He said he was supposed to go to Utah and come back, I think, Sunday night or he came back maybe this Sunday night. But then he's going to get in contact with me about renting a machine to pick it up and get it off that area.

Okay. I

was going to talk to the people across the street that are building a car wash. They have a machine or two over there to see if I can hire them to come do it before him, but I haven't been able to get a hold of anybody to do that.

Okay. Is there anything else that you would like to say?

No. I mean, if it's got to come down, that's what I'm going to have to do.

Okay. Is

the deck able to be moved if so, how do we acquire it? Does it go about getting there like to

where it's okay to be? I can't tell you that just looking at the picture. I don't know where the city property is or where the easement actually is. Maybe something you could speak with the city about.

You'd have to get a survey done and then you'd have to go through the permit process with the building department to see if they'll allow it where you're intending to place it. Well, the permit would have to be issued in order for you to come in compliance and they're not going to issue the permit until the survey and everything is complete. So it would be difficult to get all that complete in the time given.

I already have a survey. I have a copy of it right in my phone. I just got it from the title company the other day.

So if you have a survey, you can take it to the city and the building department. They should be able to assist you as far as whether you'd be able to even get a permit in the first place, whether it is on your property or the city's property.

Correct. Your two options for the corrective action are to either get a permit issued or to remove the deck. So either of those would fulfill the correct the violation. Remove the deck from the property, from the city's property entirely.

So if I pick the deck up and move it over in the picture by the pavers on my property, that's gonna be okay.

You would still need to get a permit for the deck in order to come in compliance if

you did that.

Even if it's not mounted in the ground.

Correct. Yeah. Generally, you would get the permit prior to building and installing the deck, but you can get it afterwards, which is the case now. But unfortunately, since we're already at magistrate and at this point in the process, the time is limited to get everything complete depending on magistrate, of course.

So you are going to have and I am going to order, I'll go through it, but it needs to either be removed or have a permit by September 22. If for some reason you can immediately go to the building and see if you can get a permit to either have it there or have it moved somewhere else, then my suggestion would be to get into contact with code enforcement as soon as possible and let them know. Otherwise, if it is still there and there is no permit, then you're going to be looking at a daily fine for any time past September 22. So you need to to work on it as soon as possible.

Sir, can I ask a quick question?

Yes, sir.

Is this case just for the pool decks or does this

also include the shed? This case is solely for the decks. Okay.

It's important to note that if you don't come into full compliance within the timeline that we're discussing, that you would also be held liable for the cost of the removal of it for the city having to go out and do it. So I just want to confirm, is the twenty first long enough from your position to have that fully removed? Or is there a different time frame that you would consider to be reasonable to have it removed that would be agreeable for the special magistrate to put in his order?

I could get thirty days extra. If I have to do the removal, I'll be out there with screw gun, screw by screw. If my neighbor can't come and do it.

Well, I'd certainly hope your neighbor could assist you. So if I gave you thirty days to October 11, okay. Is there anything else? Sir. Yes, sir.

And thirty days can sneak up fast. Try to get the ball rolling on that as soon as possible. Based on the testimony of evidence presented in case number 20Five-one22551, I find that the respondent is in violation of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation and the notice of violation in this matter. I order that the respondent correct the violation on or before September 1, excuse me, 10/11/2025. The respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation.

If the respondent 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 10/11/2025. The respondent is ordered to contact code enforcement for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, there is a citation fine in the amount of $75 that will be upheld as well. So please get to work on that as soon as possible. And it's important that you stay in contact with code enforcement and let them know of any developments that you may have.

For instance, if you are working on getting a permit, let them know, so we can take appropriate action in

this case.

Alright. Sir, would you like to come up and say what case you're here for? Alright, sir. Were you previously sworn in?

No. Okay.

If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, whole the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, sir.

And you are here as a case number 20Five-one20Two-six85A B?

I believe so. 2621RoyalPalm? Yes sir. Yeah.

Okay. So I will let the city go first and then you will have a chance.

Okay.

Say what you would like to say. Case number 25Dash122685. There's an a and a B case. City, go ahead.

Catherine Schimmel is the owner of the property located at 2621 Royal Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section ten-five Subsection 1 And 4, outdoor storage and debris, and section 10 dash one twenty one, trailer storage of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On 08/14/2025, code enforcement received a complaint regarding the exterior appearance of the listed location consisting of items of outdoor storage. I arrived at the listed location and immediately observed appliances on the front porch, furniture on the porch, bicycles about the property, and other items about the front of the property. Also observed was two trailers on the property without registration tags on them.

Notice of violation was issued and handed to the property owner. She advised the items belonged to the tenants, and she would advise them to clean the property up. A correction date of August 2025 was given. On 08/25/2025, I conducted an inspection, noted no changes, and it appeared the outdoor storage increased. While on scene, I spoke with the male subject walking up to the residence.

He stated he thought he had longer to correct the violation and and walked right past me into the residence. Citation 0646, notice of hearing was subsequently issued. 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 fine Catherine Schimmel in violation of section ten five subsection one and four, outdoor storage and debris, Section 10 Dash 121 trailer storage of the city of code of ordinances and assists citation of $150 and daily fines of $100 a day per violation, which is $200 if not corrected by 09/21/2025.

I went out there for a reinspection today, and the violations are still not corrected.

Yes. We tried to get the trailers in the back.

Hold on, sir. Are you the respondent or how are you?

I'm just no, I'm here for my friend. She's back there. She's the owner of the property.

Ma'am, you are the owner of the property? Yes,

I'm a friend that's here

with her.

Okay. And what is your name, sir? Mike Anderson. I'm trying to get that cleaned up, I am.

Okay. Hold on. Does Mr. Anderson have authority to speak on your behalf, ma'am? Okay. Thank you, sir. You may proceed.

I think you can even see in the front though, there's water in that ditch. We don't have access to the backyard right now. We got stuck. And we can't the ditches won't drain. The water is there constant. When you're the backyard also, power easement in the back is flooded and it's flooded into the backyard. So it's a swamp back there. We couldn't put that trailer back there if we wanted to. I mean, I don't know what else to We're trying to get the trailer tagged. I mean, we just bought it not too long ago.

We're trying to get it tagged. The person that owns it has different issues with his license because of something that was towed back stores to a towing company or something that's attached to a license. He can't get it until he pays that off and then he can get the tag for the trailer. So we're trying like I said, we're trying to comply with that. As far as all the little stuff upfront, I cleared out in an hour. Know that the main issue is that trailer, know. I don't know what to do. I'm trying

So to help the main issue with the trailer is that it's not tagged. Right. So you need to get that done as soon as possible. What's the holdup for that?

The gentleman her tenant who owns it, but she's at work right now. He's got I guess he had a truck and trailer towed in the past and he couldn't pay all the storage on the trailer that they kept because he couldn't pay the impound. And all that got put on his license. So he's got to pay that off before he can get his license back and get that tagged. Mean, he's having trouble with that, evidently. That's what he told me.

It's an easy fix. All they have to do is put it in the backyard because it's not required to have a valid

registration if it's in the flood in the front and in the back. We have flooding issues on the property.

Believe there's a gate on

the right side of the driveway, right? No, there is not. Is it open so you It's can drive open. You can go back. However, where the neighbor's fence is in her shed, we can't get it back there, I don't think. I can try. I don't know about the neighbor's fence, but I could try. I mean, it would be off the site. Let me see what I can do once we get let me look at it. But measuring, I don't think it's you got maybe two inches clearance on either side. It's not going work.

Okay. The other issue with the storage and all that stuff outside.

Yes. I'm the one tenant that has that's always crap. I've been on him and on him about it, like I said. And he said he's going to move it, so he's going to move it. But at this point, I'm going to move it. I mean, it's to that point. I'm going take I'll just put it in the trash. Mean, what the hell? I'm sorry, excuse my language. Think we're past the point of trying to hang on to somebody. He used to live there. He left his stuff there. He keeps saying he's going to come get it. I'm getting rid of it. Mean, it's that simple.

Okay.

We're to this point. I'm just asking that you all give her a little bit of time, more time before we start finding her. She really can't afford it, but I don't know. You're going do what you're going to do. I just want to make you understand, it's not because we didn't want to comply. I mean, honestly, I tried to get that trailer in the backyard on this side over here, and that yard is so mushed, it's not going work.

Okay. So right now, the city is asking for a compliance date of September 21.

I can have it by then, definitely. Okay.

Are you

sure about that?

Yes, absolutely. I'm going to make sure. I'll have this picked up by tomorrow at noon. The trailer, I may take a few more days with, but yes, I mean that stuff is going be in the trash. Tomorrow is trash day, I believe.

Okay. Anything else, sir? No, that's it. Okay. There are citations in these cases too. Have those been paid? I don't believe so.

Okay.

First case, case number 20Five-one20Two-six85A. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case, I find that the respond ent is in violation of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter. I might order that respondent correct the violation on or before 09/21/2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the citation filed in this matter. If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of one was quarter was 19.

Of pleased of progress the for the first one, sir. Second one is case number 20Five-one20Two-six85 B, based on testimony and evidence presented in, this case, I find that the respond respondent is in violation of the City Of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter. I order that respondent correct the violation on or before 09/21/2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the citation. If the respondent does not correct the violation on or before 09/21/2025, fine in the amount of $100 per day will be imposed.

The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, the respondent is subject to a citation or to the citation fine amount of $75 Sir, it is important that once you do the property in compliance and move that and get the trailer taken care of that you contact code as soon as possible. So they can file an affidavit of compliance and you won't have any fines accruing on this.

Yes, sir. Thank you very

much. No problem, sir. You have a good day. Thank you. Alright. So going back, we are now on item c, case number 25Dash122460.

This case is in relation to citation number 821. It's for 2946 Royal Palm Drive, which is owned by Harold Arthur Baumler and Gaynell K Baumler. On July 2, while on patrol, I identified tall grass at the vacant lot on the corner of Royal Palm And 30th Street. Specifically, the right of way was overgrown and not being maintained. I called Harold Baumler, the property owner, and his wife answered. He stated that they hired a guy to cut the grass and that they live in Michigan. She said they will contact their guy and ensure he cuts the right of way. On July 15, I reinspected the property. The right of way was still overgrown, and now the entire property was overgrown as well. I called Mr.

Baumler. We stated their lawn guy quit after he was asked to cut the right of way. He asked me for an extension until July 28 as he will be in the area then and he will be able to resolve the issue. I granted the extension. On July 28, I reinspected and saw that the right of way was cut, but the grass and weeds on the property were still overgrown across the property. Also, there was overgrowth in greenery growing on the neighbor's fence in the back corner of the property. I tried to call Mr. Balmware, but he did not answer. A voice mail was left and a notice violation was posted. On August 7, I reinspected and saw no change.

Since Mr. Balmware was originally willing to cooperate, I left another voice mail and waited till August 12 to post the citation. As he did not contact me back and the violation was still present, I posted the citation for ten-ninety eight property maintenance duty of owner. We have a second case on this property as well and for abatement, and the property was abated and corrected on 09/04/2025. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10 Article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a citation for $75 for violation of ten ninety eight property maintenance duty of owner as the property was abated. No daily fines are requested at this time.

Seeing nobody here for the respondents based on testimony and evidence presented in case 20Five-one2200460 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. The respondent shall be subject to the citation fine in the amount of $75 There shall be no daily fines or assessed as the property is now in compliance. Next case, case number 20Five-one2200470 We

We questions located at 2214 Orange Street Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It's been found in violation of section ten one one five parking residential, section ten eighty outdoor storage, and section ten two zero seven accessory structures of the city Edgewater's code of ordinances. On 07/07/2025, Daniel of 2218 North Street Drive came into the code enforcement office and made a complaint regarding the condition and appearance of his neighbor's property. Stated there are sections of wood panel fence missing that separates the yards, which shows the violation. Upon arrival, I observed the south side of the listed property had several fence panels missing.

I also observed the fence panels stacked up next to the residence, grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches, and a race car stored in the backyard and screen missing from the enclosed swimming pool. Courtesy notice was subsequently issued with the correction date of 07/21/2025. On 07/21/2025, we conducted inspection and note the only violation corrected was the property had been mowed. Notice of violation was issued with the correction date of 07/31/2025. On 07/31/2025, I conducted another inspection.

I noted the fence screening had been repaired. I spoke with the property owner, he request extra time to correct the violations. He advised he was applying for a variance regarding the fence. At his request, an extension to 08/07/2025 was issued. On 08/08/2025, my inspection revealed no application had been made to apply for the variance for the fence.

As a result of the violations, citation zero five four three, notice of hearing, was issued. It was posted to the property since certified mail to the owner and posted at city hall. All notices of provisions, chapter 10 article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate fine Melanie Michael Amado in violation of section ten one one five parking residential, section ten eighty outdoor storage, and section ten two zero seven accessory structures of the code warranties and assist the citation fines totaling $225 violations have been corrected and no daily fines are being requested.

Seeing nobody here for the respondents based on testimony and evidence presented in cases 20 five-one 120 two-four 74 A, B and C, 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. The property is currently in compliance, so there will be no daily fines or lien assessed. The respondent is subject to a citation fine in the amount of $75 in each case, which would be case a, b, and c. The respondent is ordered to pay the citations fine in those amounts. Case 20Five-one22493.

Jenkins, Christian, and Margaret and Danny are the owners of the property located in 1945 Fern Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It's been found in violation of section 10 dash five subsection one four outdoor storage and debris, the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On 07/09/2025, code enforcement was instructed to patrol the area at Fern Palm Drive for violations in view of the public. I arrived at the list location and immediately observed the grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches along with appliances on the side of the residence and an abundance of items on the front porch and driveway. These items consisted of buckets, cages, plastic bins, and interior furniture.

A courtesy notice was issued with the correction date of 07/19/2025. On 07/21/2025, we conducted an inspection, noted the grass and weeds were in compliance, and the outdoor storage still existed. Notice of violation was issued with the correction date of 07/31/2025. Shortly thereafter, I received a call from a female requesting an extension for the violations. It was agreed that an extension to 08/13/2025 would be enough time to correct the existing violation.

On 08/13/2025, another inspection was conducted, and no change or improvements was noticed. Citation 0642, notice of hearing, was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property, sent certified mail to the and posted at city hall. All notices and provisions of chapter ten twenty seven have been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate find, Jenkins, Kristen, Margaret, and Danny, in violation of section ten five, subsection one and four, outdoor storage and debris of the code ordinances, and assess the citation fine of $75 and a daily fine of $100 a day if not corrected by 09/21/2025.

Seeing nobody here for the respondents, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 20Five-one2200493. I find that the respondent is in violation of the City Of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in notice of violation and citation filed in this matter. Order that respondent correct the violation on or before 09/21/2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation and or citation. If respondent does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of $100 per day will be imposed for each day.

The violation continues past 09/21/2025. The respondent is ordered to contact code enforcement and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, the citation fine in the amount of $75 is upheld. Next case, number I on the agenda 20 Five-one 122,576.

Jansen, it's Eric Anthony. He's the owner of the property located at 502 Sam Harper Court in Edgewater, Florida. He's been found in violation of section ten four hundred property maintenance of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On 07/23/2025, Wildland Patrol observed the grass and weeds at the listed location in excess of 12 inches. Door hanger was left with a reinspection to occur in ten days. On 08/04/2025, I conducted an inspection, noted no change. Notice of violation was issued with the correction date of 08/14/2025. On 08/14/2025, I conducted another inspection, again noted no change. Citation 0463 notice of hearing was issued. It was posted to the property since certified mail to the owner and posted at city hall.

All notices and provisions of chapter 10 article 28 have been complied with. It was discovered also that there was an abatement issued that was sent in today to have the property mowed. Staff recommends special magistrate fine Jansen, Eric Anthony in violation of section ten four hundred property maintenance of the code ordinances and assess the citation fine of $75 and $100 a day daily fines if not corrected by 09/21/2025.

Okay. Seeing nobody here for the respondent. Based on the testimony of evidence presented in case 20Five-one22576, I find that the respondent is in violation of City of Edgewater code of ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter in the notice of violation. I order that the respondent correct the violation on or before 09/21/2025. In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation and or citation.

If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past 09/21/2025. The respond in this further order to contact code enforcement and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, respondents shall be subject to a citation fine in the amount of $75 Next case, case number 20Five-one22591.

Ron and Lori Atkins are the owners of property located at 1869 Needle Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section ten four hundred property maintenance of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On 07/24/2025, Wildland Petra observed the grass and weeds at the listed location in excess of 12 inches. The property is a cleared vacant lot, which originally had a house on it, but it was demolished due to hurricane damage. A courtesy notice was issued with the correction date of 08/04/2025. On 08/04/2025, we conducted inspection. Note or no change. Notice of violation was issued with the correction date of 08/14/2025. Shortly after posting the notice, I received an email from the owner. He requested and was given an extension to 08/21/2025.

On 08/21/2025, I conducted inspection. Again, noted no change. Citation zero six four five notice of hearing was subsequently issued. It's posted to the property since certified mail to the owner and posted at city hall. Additionally, an abatement was issued to have the property note. All notices and provisions of chapter 10 article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a special magistrate fine Ron and Lori Atkins in violation of section ten four hundred property maintenance of the code ordinances and assist the citation fine of $75.

Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 20Five-one22591, 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. I order that the respondent is subject to the citation fine in the amount of $75 The property is currently in compliance. So there are no daily fines to be assessed. The The next case, case number 25Dash122606.

This case is in reference to citation 818. The address is 707 South Flagler Avenue owned by Tal Eden Olivia. On 07/17/2025, while on patrol, I had inspected the property and identified tall grass and weeds exceeding 12 inches in height. The entire yard was overgrown and unmaintained. I then issued a notice violation for ten ninety eight property maintenance duty of owner.

On July 28, during my reinspection, it was determined that the property appears abandoned and would need to be abated. I replaced the previous notice violation with a notice of abatement. On August 7, I reinspected the property and identified that the yard was still overgrown. I then posted a citation for 10 dash four zero two alternative method of enforcement. On August 14, the property was abated and the violation was corrected. All notices and provisions of chapter 10 article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a citation for $75 for 10 dash four zero two alternative method of enforcement. As the violation was corrected, no daily fines are requested at this time.

Okay. Seeing nobody here for the respondent. Based on testimony and evidence presented in case 25-one22606, 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. I order that the respondent shall be subject to the citation fine in the amount of case, case 20Five-one22613.

This case is in relation to citation 822. The address is 132 West Pine Bluff Street owned by Bartlett Dustin m. On 07/29/2025, while on patrol, I identified tall grass and weeds at the property. The windows were open, there were some clothes on the front porch, but there was a large lock placed on the front handle. The property appeared to have been abandoned. I posted a door hanger to try and make contact. On August 7, I reinspected the property. Part of the lawn was mowed, but the majority was still overgrown and nonmaintained. I posted a notice of abatement on the property. On August 11, I received a voicemail and an email from Dustin Bartlick, property owner.

He voiced that he had cut the part of the property he was responsible for and that the city was responsible for the right of way. I reinspected the property and saw that the backyard and the edges of the property were still overgrown as well as the weeds and grass surrounding the trees. The right of way was cut by the Environmental Services Department to assist with one of the neighbors who were having flooding issues. Supervisor San Miguel left a voicemail to Mr. Bartlich explaining that the violations have not been corrected and that it is the property owner's responsibility to maintain the right of way going forward.

On August 18, I reinspected the property. The backyard and side yard were still overgrown, and the trees and bushes had tall grass and weeds surrounding them. I posted a citation for ten-four zero two alternative method of enforcement. On August 26, Mr. Bartleck informed us that the violation had been corrected. I reinspected and confirmed that the grass had been mowed and the weeds were cut. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10 Article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a citation for $75 for ten-four zero alternative method of enforcement. As the violation was corrected, no daily fines are requested at this time.

Okay. Seeing nobody here for the respondent. Based on our testimony and evidence presented in case number 25Dash122613, 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. I order that the respondent shall be subject to the citation fine in the amount of $75 There shall be no daily fines to be assessed as 102,034.

Afternoon. This is for case 25Dash122634, citation number 31. This is in reference to the property address of 2900 South Ridgewood Ave, Edgewater, Florida 32141. It's Popeyes. Eagan Family Trust LP is the owner. This is some citations for false alarms. City code ordinances chapter 12 dash 62 for repeat offenses of false fire alarms. On two separate occasions, It continued to occur. A citation, consequently, for one hundred and fifty hours of each offense was issued. The manager and staff are aware of the issues and explained that corporate and them are working to resolve the problems.

It's a relatively new restaurant business, they keep some challenges with their fire alarms. So with the way we are handling them now every single time after the third offense is a citation. So that's what these two are for. I believe they've been back multiple times this year already. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been applied with. We recommend the citation of $150 each times two offenses equaling $300 is levied. No daily fines.

Okay. Seeing nobody here for the respondent. Based on testimony, presented in case lost my sheet. Case twenty five dash one two two six three four, 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. I order that the respondent shall be subject to the citation fine, in the total amount of $300.

I think this order has 75. Changed, but there shall be no daily fines as the property is now in compliance. Next case, case 25Dash122644.

A brew, Rhonda, and Carlos j is the owner of the property located at 1855 Coco Palm Drive in Edgewater, Florida. It has been found in violation of section ten four zero two alternate method of enforcement of the City Of Edgewater code and ordinances. On 08/06/2025, while on patrol, I I arrived and observed the grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches at this location due to habitual status of this property. An abatement was issued for the property in citation 0542 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 chapter 10, article 27, have been complied with. Staff recommends a special istrate find a brew rondin Carlos jane violation of section ten four zero two alternate method of enforcement of the code ordinances and assess the citation repeat citation fine of $150

Seeing nobody here, for the respondent. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 20Five-one22644, I find out the respondent is violation of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the citation filed in this matter. Also find that on 01/10/2025, there was an order of we We We have the special magistrate. The have citation number amount $150 shall be upheld. There shall be no daily fines to be assessed as the property is now in compliance.

Alright. Case number 25Dash122669.

This case is in relation to citation 823, which is the address 2946 Royal Palm Drive, which is owned by Harold Harold Arthur Balmler and Ganelle k Balmler. This is the second case on the property that I've brought to this magistrate today. From 07/02/2025 to 07/28/2025, I had maintained contact with the property owner, Harold Balmer, who had informed me he was working on hiring someone to mow and maintain his vacant lot on 2946 Royal Palm Drive. The property has tall grass and weeds that are overgrown. On August 12, it was determined that mister Balmer no longer wished to cooperate as he was no longer responding to any contact attempts and the violations were not being corrected.

For this reason, a notice of abatement was posted on the property on August 12. On August 26, I reinspected the property and identified that the violations were still present. I posted the citation for ten-four zero two alternative method of enforcement. The property was abated and the violation corrected on 09/04/2025 all notices and provisions of chapter 10 article 27 have been complied with staff recommends a citation for $75 for ten four zero two alternative method of enforcement as the property was abated no daily fines are requested at this time

Okay. Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based on testimony and evidence presented in case 20Five-one22669, I find that the respondent is in violation of the City Of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed citation filed in this matter. I order that the respondent shall be subject to the citation fine in the amount of $75 There shall be no daily fines to be assessed as the property is now in compliance. Case 20Five-one20Two-seven01 A and B.

Rainy Mallett is deceased, is the owner of the property located at 1708 Bradford Road in Edgewater, Florida. Has been found in violation of section ten eighty three, neglected premise, and section ten five, nuisance generally of the city Of Edgewater's code of ordinances. On 08/19/2025, code enforcement received a complaint regarding the condition of the listed property. I was informed that the property is vacant and the neighbors are seeing rats coming from the property. I arrived and began speaking with neighbors regarding the issues stated.

The neighbor to the north confirmed he has seen rats climbing up the back walls of the residence. He also stated he has killed approximately 10 rats since January 2025. The residence was observed to have rotten wood around the garage door, front door, and areas in the back. Middle stack of roof appeared to be rusting and falling apart. There was a shed in the backyard that was in pieces and other items in the backyard. Additionally, there was vines growing about the property on the fence and growing onto the residence. Notice of violation was issued with the correction date 08/29/2025. On that date, I conducted another inspection, noting no change. Citation number 644, notice of hearing, was subsequently issued. It was posted to the property since certified mail to the owner, posted at City Hall.

On notices and provisions, chapter 10, article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends the special magistrate fine Renee Mallett in violation of section ten eighty three neglected premise and section ten five nuisance generally of the code warrants and necessitated Haitian fine of $75 per violation totaling $150 and a daily fine of $200 a day if the violation is not corrected by 09/11/2025. I put in here that it was recommended special magistrate issue an order request and the senate manager approve the expenditures to have the debris and trash and other items removed, but we abated the property, which is going to take care of that.

Okay. Thank you. Seeing nobody here for the respondent, based upon testimony and evidence presented in cases 20Five-one20Two-seven01 a and b. I find out the respondent is in violation of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances as listed in the notice of violation and or citations filed in this matter. Consider the gravity of the violation, and the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations by the violator.

I order that the respondent correct the violations on or before 09/21/2025 in order to correct the violations. Respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation and or citation. If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine in the amount of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue past 09/21/2025. The respondents further ordered to contact code enforcement and arrange for an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Additionally, the citation issued in 20 five-122.701A and B, both of those in the amount of $75 shall be upheld.

That is it. Anything else? Alright, we are adjourned.