Code Enforcement/ Magistrate - Special Meeting

Alright. We'll call this hearing to order at 02:00 on 12/11/2025. The 11/13/2025 minutes are approved. Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Edgewater Code Enforcement Hearing. My name is Ryan Knight.

I'm 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 for each respondent to the city in accordance with Florida Statute 162.07, 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 execution of any order.

The city will present its case first as it has a burden of proof. Afterwards, the respondents will have an opportunity to respond. At this time, please silence all cell phones. If you will be offering any testimony, can you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

First up on the agenda is old matter 25 dash one two two eight five three.

Good afternoon. So this case was a case for a tree per that was cut down without a permit. We had requested for a continuance on it based off of a document not being produced in time. I have since procured that document for Oakleaf Preserve, the proposed specimen tree mitigation form here, and it does show on that first page where that number came from for the request from the original, from the development services director of the twelve sixty six seventy three there.

Okay. So what I have in the file looks like was this part of a development agreement? Was.

It was a part of the original development agreement. Believe it

was in.

05/07.

The only issue I have is under section 21 dash 5,510 of the land development code which is enforcement of removal of a tree without a permit. It provides that the historic specimen tree is removed in violation of the section shall be replaced at a ratio of two inches per one inch of caliper loss. In lieu of physical replacement, City Council may impose a fee of $37 per cross sectional square inch loss or in combination or a combination thereof.

Correct. And then because of the PUD being a specific regulation for that development that was agreed upon with the city, that code, the PUD would supersede that code.

Okay. And I have the request as tree mitigation fine of 1,200. Is that supposed to be $12.66 73?

Correct.

Is there anybody here for the respondent? Alright, seeing none. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 25Dash122853, we'll find that there was a violation of the code as stated in the citation 32. We'll order that the respondent shall be subject to a civil fine in the amount of $300 Additionally, pursuant to the development agreement, there shall be a fine free mitigation fine in the

first

quarter a no other fines of applied. 19. Next matter, new business seven a, b, and c. Case number 24Dash121696 and that's a, B, and c.

Good afternoon. My name is Myron Sam Miguel, code supervisor for City Edgewater. This will be case number 24Dash121696 for Citation0034. Property address is 1103 South Ridgewood Ave in Edgewater, Florida 32132. Parcel ID of 743306030010.

The owner is all Florida Plumbing and Electric. This case began in November 2024 when a concerned resident, Jim Fox, brought to code enforcement's attention that the All Florida Plumbing property had never completed their permit for the concrete wall along East Turgot. The building color, and the outdoor storage exceeding the eight foot variance approved wall. The following violations were investigated and found to be valid. 21 dash 36 o three for commercial outdoor storage exceeding the height of the fence.

21 dash six forty point one zero, the building color must conform to the approved colors and percentages for Ridgewood Corridor Agreement. Seven dash one for the Florida building codes one zero five point one permit required. The color of the concrete wall must match the approved permit. All Florida plumbing has been in business at this location since 1994. In 2018, the business expanded the structural footprint by attaching an addition to the original principal structure.

This warehouse was permitted under 18 Dash148 permit. At this time, the color of the building was painted in violation of the building color. In 2021, permit 21Dash2492 was obtained and approved for the chlorine tank on the northwest side of the property. The approved chlorine tank is a part of the commercial outdoor storage violation that exceeds the height of the fence on the lot. In 2022, permit 22Dash3131 was issued for an eight foot high fence with stucco wall along the East Hurgot Road.

This was supposed to be painted a tan slash beige color as noted in the permit. However, it was never painted that color and remained white causing the violation of the permit required. It should be noted that there's currently an active code case for a violation not having a conditional use permit for the property caused by the expansion of the storage building in 2018. This code case is currently in mediation and may change the corrective actions required for any nonconformity currently on the property, including but not limited to all outdoor storage and warehouse storages. All notices and provisions of chapter 10, article 27 have been complied with.

The staff recommends that the special magistrate find the property in violation of the codes, the citation of $75 for each violation totaling $225, and a daily fine of a $100 per day per violation that exceeds past 01/15/2026.

Anybody further respondent?

Yes, sir. Edward Thompson on behalf of All Florida Plumbing and Electrical Supply. Sir, I'm here with Mr. And mister Clayton Beasley Junior, the two owners of the of the business. First, I want to enter into evidence an affidavit of mister Beasley Senior.

Yeah. And I would like to call Mr. Beasley up to testify please.

And sir, you were previously sworn in,

I have. Thank you.

Mr. Beasley, could you please state your full name? Clayton Eugene Beasley. And sir, you are an owner of All Florida Plumbing and Electrical Supply Company. Is that true? We're partners with my son. Okay. Mr. Beasley Junior, is also here. Okay. And sir, on you signed an affidavit that we've marked as an exhibit to this hearing. Do you remember preparing that affidavit, sir? Yes, sir. Okay. Is everything in that affidavit true and correct?

Absolutely. Are the statements in that affidavit based on your personal knowledge? That is correct. Okay. Sir, when did all Florida Plumbing and Electrical Supply Company begin doing business at 11:03 South Ridgewood Avenue in Edgewater? We bought the property in 'ninety three. Okay. Now,

as far as the actual opening date, I'm 100%, I'm not sure. March.

'93 or '94, okay. And I'll ask you just to answer. Sure. Okay. The business sells plumbing and electrical supplies and services to its customers. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And the business began the outdoor storage of materials on the northern storage area of its property in 1994. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And you added an outdoor chlorine storage tank to the property in 1995. Is that That's correct. Okay. And mister Sam Marcos just mentioned the tank being relocated. So, the tank was relocated in 2018 and 2021. Is that right, sir? That's correct. Okay.

And both times, that was properly permitted? Absolutely. And approved. Okay. And both the outdoor storage and the chlorine tank, those uses began before the city of Edgewater adopted its use code. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So have you been operating the business this entire time as a legal well, I'm sorry. Since the adoption of the current rules, have you been operating the business as a legal nonconforming use?

Correct. Okay. And are you aware of correspondence from the city attorney to one of the neighbors, in fact, of the neighbors who precipitated this action against you, mister Jim Fox? We are. Okay. And sir, I'd like to enter into evidence next exhibit, exhibit two, a letter dated 04/14/2023 from Jim and Jennifer I'm sorry, it's from Aaron Wolf, city attorney for City Of Edgewater to Jim and Jennifer Fox.

Can we have that read into the record?

If you want to read it, you can. It has been entered as Well, an

it's in there as going to be an exhibit to the record. But sir, I just want to bring to the special magistrate's attention that on the second page, paragraph at the top this is, again, from the city attorney to Jim and Jennifer Fox, who were two neighbors of the subject property. Your letter also raised concerns regarding all Florida plumbing conducting pickup and delivery of product from the swale and or street of East Target Avenue. As you know, parking is limited at the business location as this business has been in existence for many years well before the codes that are in place today were enacted. Therefore, the business is currently operating in a legal nonconforming manner with limited parking.

As the business storage site is located on East Turgett Avenue, it is reasonable and lawful for pickup and delivery of product to occur, as you described, due to the business operating in a legal nonconforming matter. And down at the bottom, the last paragraph states, you also raised concerns regarding outdoor storage at the business not being hidden by proper fencing and the business dispensing chlorine at the site. As stated above, the business is currently operating in a legal nonconforming manner as it existed prior to the adoption of the existing land development code. The existing fencing was erected prior to the current restrictions. If the fencing were suffer damage of 50 or more, it would have to meet the new standards in place today.

With respect to the preexisting chlorine tank, a code enforcement case was opened when the tank was relocated without a permit. The owner subsequently corrected the violation by moving the tank back. I hope that I have addressed all of your questions and concerns. Sincerely, Erin R. Wolf. So the city has acknowledged in the past that the chlorine tank and the outdoor storage, which are two of the three violations at issue here, were legal nonconforming uses. And that's our position.

May I ask a question?

I would like to add, though. So

it's a legal nonconforming use for both the outdoor storage in general and the chlorine tank. And then just shifting then to the subject of the wall, the masonry wall that's there now actually exceeds what's required. All Florida wants to be a good neighbor. They have taken action to beautify their building and their premises. And one of the things that they did was they replaced their chain link fence.

That's all that's required is chain link fence with slatting. Took that out. They put in a masonry wall, eight foot high along the front, along the side, in the back. In the rear, it's down to six feet. There was no nothing in the permit said what color nothing in the permit that said what color the the wall would be.

So I just handed him the permit that does show that their color is supposed to be tan and beige at the end, and that was the approved permit in 2022.

Okay.

What date was the letter written that you're referencing from the attorney Aaron Wolf, please?

Well, that was 2023. Okay.

Is what you just handed him with that permit? Is that in the We have

That is, and I'll take it up to show it to you as well because there's a lot of documents.

Okay. And I would like if you could show me then, where does it say where does it say? Is that the last?

Yeah. Right here. So where it says wall permit.

That's on a picture.

So this is a file that was within the permit, the approved permits right here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, So, but I just want you guys to see where where I see in the system, and this is all we have to go off of. So when we go from the permit here, and we go to the documents that were within it, and I go and I look at the corrective actions requested, that's what I see, and that's why the violation was noticed for that. Because in the permit, it says the primer's white, but the wall final paint is tan and beige. So that's what was approved, tan and beige.

Apparently, this just to just

to point out. And so we're clear on the record. Can you just explain what you're talking about? I know you said it was in the packet. What specific page is that? Or what's

the So it's gonna be specific to the permit number 223131 back in 2022, in 10/17/2022. It was the permit request for them for their wall. Okay.

Thank you.

Follow-up on that.

The letters exhibit number two and city. I don't see these notes in the packet for the agenda that I have printed out. Yes, if we could just hold on to that and we'll mark that as an exhibit as well.

Mr. Knight, I just want to point out that the and for the record, the requirement that the wall be painted beige annotation basically printed on a photograph on the very last page of the whole permit package. It's not included in the actual document itself. And also, on the statement of let's see that. The plan review corrections Basically, sir, the the the bottom line is all Florida was never told that it had to be tan or or beige.

So that's I I would agree with that. They were never told that from the city. They presented that as to what that they would have. What my understanding is, the request for corrections was received to them of it needs to make sure that it's painted the surrounding color, and they submitted the photo into the permit application of this is the color that we're going to go with. And that's why it shows in the photo the primer's white, then the final color should be tan.

Mr. Beasley would like to clarify

on that.

Certainly, go ahead, sir.

First off, the picture that everyone's seeing is a picture of my store, our store in Daytona Beach. It's not the picture of the wall in Edgewater. It was submitted by the company that was putting the wall up. Our wall up there is also white. It's not beige.

We don't know where beige ever came in and and how they got the picture. We were never privy to any of that. If they had wanted to know what the color of the wall would have been, it would have been that gentleman right there. They should have called or had us come back down. I also want to note that to correct our not beige wall to be white, we've tried to pull a permit to paint the wall white, and they will not issue a permit to us to just paint the wall white because the wall's going to be white. It matches the trim of our building. Who would paint their wall beige with a white trim? You wouldn't do it at your house. So the reality of it is is that's not the wall. That's not our picture, and we want the wall to be white.

We'll pay for we'd be happy to pay for a permit for the wall to be white because guess what? It's already white. And it's really not why we're here. We're here more about the yard. Thank you.

Sir, one last one last thought on the on the wall, even if which as mister Beasley stated, as I've stated, and I think as the evidence shows, there's no violation here. But even if you determine that there is a violation, we ask that no fines be imposed based on the ambiguity here. But even then, the ambiguity makes it it so that there really is no violation. I also need to address the color of the building, the yellow color of the building. That's one of the violations as well.

As, again, stated in the affidavit, and I can ask Mr. Beasley some questions about that as well. Sir, when was your building painted yellow? The main building?

2000 yeah. Okay.

First of all, that building predates the current regulations.

Correct. That's correct.

Yeah. Which the Ridgewood Corridor design standards were in 2012. The other issue, sir, is what is prohibited. Loud, garish colors, black fluorescent, neon colors are prohibited. Our belief is that that yellow is not loud, garish, fluorescent or neon. Obviously, it's not black. If nothing else, the regulation is vague. It's just it should be void for vagueness just based on it's a subjective standard. Most importantly, the building's been there for years. It's been painted in color for years.

The back building was duly permitted, passed, and it was allowed to be yellow. So we have the issue of, again, legal nonconforming use for the front building and for rear building. That pink color was approved

years ago. It has a name. It

does have a name. It is Benjamin Moore. Delightful yellow. Delightful yellow. Which

is what it's called legally.

I mean, it's a mainstream color. It's not obnoxious for us. So that is important. That's important to the business. I do want to point out also, sir, just there was mention made in the report to you about a conditional use that's been applied for.

There is mediation pending on that, potential litigation pending on that, also a variance. And what the reason the background on that is, is that All Florida was actually trying to be a good neighbor and not just rely on legal nonconforming use. They were actually trying to upgrade their facilities to meet current code to the maximum extent possible and get a conditional use in a variance for everything else. That was actually originally granted by the zoning commission. But then one of the neighbors appealed it to the city and then purely for political reasons, we believe.

And that's the city council as a political body. Purely for political reasons, an appeal by the resident neighbor was granted. But that's really a separate issue from the legal nonconforming use, which is what we have here. The chlorine tank and the outdoor storage restrictions. And therefore, these uses are allowed.

Again, the color of the wall, we discussed that. And the color of the building predates the regulations and was also approved by the city. So this isn't about politics. This is about the fair, equal, equitable application of the law. And the law requires that the citations that have been issued against all Florida plumbing and electrical be dismissed.

Okay. Thank you. City, would you like a response?

Thank you, mister Knight. Aaron Wolf, city attorney. Business underwent a substantial expansion in 2018. At that time, it lost its legal nonconforming status. So it is required at this point to comply with current regulations.

As far as the commercial outdoor storage, I don't think there's any question that the outdoor storage, storage racks and the height of the chlorine tank exceed the height of the wall by about four feet. So that is a violation of the city code. As to the building color, the issue there is simply too bright. The code prohibits gaudy or garish colors. And in the opinion of city staff, the building color is simply too bright, too bright of yellow, more of a highlighter type yellow color.

And so the color needs to be toned down to comply with the code. As far as the wall color, again, the picture submitted with the permit for that indicates it's to be a tan or beige color. Instead, it's left as a white primer So we would ask that the violations be sustained and a daily fine imposed.

One more thing. Just want to rebut the notion that the business was expanded in material way. And I'll ask Mr. Beasley. Sir, you started using the you started outdoor storage there in 1994?

Yes, correct.

Okay. And you started the chlorine, you have the outdoor storage tank there starting when again, can you tell us?

'ninety

five. 'ninety five. Now the building, you added a building, is that correct?

Or is that

correct. An And that was 2018? That was '20 Okay. Did you expand the outdoor storage in any way?

No, not at

all. And did you expand the use

of the chlorine storage? We did not. We pulled a permit to move it where they wanted us to. And we did that twice because they messed us up on the first one. They let us put it where we thought we could put it. And then we found out that wasn't right. And we moved it happily with another permit. Three permits, three times.

Okay. Same size tank the whole time?

Never changed it at all. Okay. Yeah. That's exactly right. What size is that tank? Eight fifty gallon? Yes. Actually, less of the tank is visible now because of the wall being eight feet and nothing protrudes higher, nowhere near four feet that he stated he's wrong about that. And also, like to if I could, Ed. Sure.

When we had our original planning and zoning, we won seven-zero with that board sitting up here. They ask us to do things, take things off the top of the rack, would we be happy to do that? Moving the rack, taking hold on a second, taking things off the tops of the racks so they wouldn't be as visible. We did all of that, put a stop sign coming out to the road, changed business hours for shipping and delivering, all achieved, all done. Nobody from the city ever showed up to see if we got it done.

We did everything they asked us to do. We put out flyers to our customers to try not to use Turaga, which they have every right to do. We asked trucks not to park on the side or block the road in any way. All of this has happened. We sent out three seventy five statements to our vendors about changing our receiving and shipping hours to try to help too. None of what we had to do, we just did it to try to get along. Our point is we shouldn't be here. We are legally nonconforming on everything that we've done. We went along. We brought in front of a minor here, which we've got no hard feelings here, but we were asked to come and do a few things and all this would just go away.

So we paid the $1,200 to try to make them happy and this thing turned into this. Legal nonconforming is everywhere. As I pulled up in this place here today, I saw legal nonconforming with a handicapped parking place right out here. It's supposed to be 18 feet from the front to the back. It's not. Got out of measure today. They are nonconforming with a handicapped parking place. None of them parking places up here. It's in a small city. It's everywhere. We've been in business. We want to be part of the community. We're sick and tired of being picked on. It's a beautiful wall. Everybody that lives around there has a couple of people in the back here who want to speak on our behalf.

We do everything we can to make it as nice as we can. Take a look at our place. It's absolutely gorgeous. Thank you.

And sir, what would you say to their argument that from the substantial expansion in 2018 that the property lost its legal nonconforming use.

That's not true. I mean, they built it. They added a building to the back, to the rear, but it didn't materially change the use of the property. And the issue here about the issue is that the city is going after is the outdoor storage and the chlorine tank. Yes, sir.

Yeah. To add to what we did for storage, before we put the building up, we had three containers, because we needed over the years, we added them in. Legal or non legal, I don't know. We'd have them like everybody in this town has Connex containers. We agreed that we would take all that out, take everything out of the yard, and put it inside of a building. That's exactly what we redo. All we did was just put a storage building up. We didn't change the footprint of the yard or change anything in the yard at all.

So in other words, it didn't expand. It it just actually improved the overall look by taking Connexes away and putting what used to be in the

Connexes in Inside the building. Building. In

Okay. Thank you.

So mister Knight, part of what kinda brought us here today with these and why this case has gone on for the year, which is unusual for these types of violations, is because miss mister Clay is is correct in the fact that they were in a nonconformity status up until 2018 when they added this building structure. What should have happened in 2018 was a conditional use permit. The zoning for that property, I believe, is light industrial, and under the land development code, it states that any outdoor storage is a conditional use, meaning they need a conditional use permit. We had a meeting, we all agreed, they did go and request a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board that was approved, but unfortunately that was overturned by counsel. So that kind of brought us here, because because of that overturning, they have lost that nonconformity status, which is why these three violations are considered in violation now at this time.

Okay. And

if I could just add, under nonconforming uses, section twenty one seventy one of the Land Development Code, it specifically states that nonconforming uses shall not be expanded, which is exactly what happened here when they added a building structure to the existing business. That then caused them to lose nonconforming status in 2018.

Sorry. I I have one more exhibit I think would be helpful, and I'm gonna ask mister Beasley some questions about it. It's these these are printouts of a of a PowerPoint presentation. And Mr. Beasley, you've seen this before. Just on the first slide, the title slide, is that photograph of your building now?

It is.

Okay. It shows the fence there. That's the old fence that has the slats. Is that right, sir? Yes. Okay. But as far as the building itself, is that pretty much what the building looks like now?

That's exactly what it looks like.

All right. And to the photographer's right closest to the street there, that's the original building?

It is.

Okay. And then the building in the back is the other building, That's correct. You've already testified that the footprint has not expanded.

Is that right? We've shrank the yard. No, we have not.

Okay. And everything that's in that building that's stored in that building now used to be stored in Connexes on the same It did. Footprint. That's correct.

All

right. Then the third page is a timeline of the property. You've reviewed that before, haven't you, sir?

I'm sorry. Say that again.

Have you you've seen I this know, yes. This timeline accurate based on your knowledge of the

history Yes. Of the

Okay.

And then the next page is there are three aerial photos satellite photos, perhaps. It says continued storage use, 1995 to the present. And are those I know especially the one on the left is kind of blurry and it's in black and white. But does that accurately depict the property as it appeared?

In 1995. It does.

Okay. It looks like the photo actually is apparently dated 1999. But is that still the same as it looked in 'ninety Well,

in 1995 when we bought it, it was a junkyard. And we took about 25 loads of stuff out.

Okay. So that's what it looked like after you guys got it?

Absolutely.

Okay. And then the next, the setter photograph, the one in the middle is dated 2004. That shows the same footprint. And then the next one is 2018. And is that before the addition was built?

That's before the addition, correct.

Okay. So the addition is just Behind it. Behind the

building Right that's visible there, right behind it.

Okay. You didn't expand the footprint of

the No. Property

And property zone B3 Highway Commercial, is that right?

That's correct.

I'm flipping to the there's a page that says photos of screening.

Yes.

And the photo on the left, what the fence used to look like with the slatted gink.

You can see all of the racks through the fence. Okay. Can see a lot of the racking, of course.

Okay.

Now it's eight foot high.

Okay. Now, and then the photo on the right shows the current masonry wall. That's correct.

All right.

It also shows that no parking signs

have been

put there by the city. Yeah. Okay. No further questions about that. So Mr. Knight, the position is and what the facts are is that this property did not lose its nonconforming status merely by adding a building, which just merely essentially beautified it, cleaned up the mess, put the outdoor connex things inside.

Thank you, sir. Sidney, anything else? Okay. I just want to go through what the exhibits are. So exhibit number one will be the affidavit. Exhibit number two would be the letter from the attorney. Exhibit three will be the photos or the sort of PowerPoint package that you presented. And then exhibit four will be the city permit notes that that you have there. So at this point, I am going to take this under advisement. I will issue a binding of fact, conclusion of law in order within one week. So you all will have that and that will be transmitted to you. Other than that, if there's anything else?

Nothing else, sir.

All right. Thank you very much.

Nothing for the community.

Did you all want to speak?

As we can now? Okay. Thanks, sir.

Thank you. Next one we'll do is 7 e case number 25Dash12309825Dash123098.

That's citation number 837. I am code enforcement officer Jacob McLaughlin. This is for the property 2220 Kumquat Drive, which is owned by Stephen Hendrix and Mary Masters. 2220 Kumquat Drive has had six cases with code enforcement since 2022 involving trailer storage parking and inoperable vehicles. On 04/11/2024, an order was imposed on the property for violation of section 10 subsection section ten one thirteen inoperable vehicles resulting in a 75 citation fine.

On 11/19/2025, we received a complaint regarding a truck parked in the side yard of the property with expired tags. I confirmed that the tag expired February 2023 and that the truck was parked in the side yard. I attempted contact, but no one answered the door. On November 20, I posted a citation for chapter 10 section one thirteen inoperable vehicles due to this being a repeat violation. I also posted a notice violation for chapter 10 section one fifteen parking in residential areas with a parking diagram attached.

As this is a repeat violation for section one thirteen, I instated daily fines of 500 per day until the violation is corrected. Between November 20 and December 1, I received a no contact from the property. On December 1, I reinspected and met with the resident. He showed me the registration papers showing they registered the truck earlier that day. They also moved the truck to an appropriate parking space. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10 Article 27 have been complied with. Staff recommends a citation of $150 for the repeated violation of Chapter 10 Section 113 inoperable vehicles. As a violation was corrected on December 1, daily fines of $500 per day from November 20 to December 1 are requested, totaling $6,000.

Is anybody here for the respondent? Yes, sir. Come on sir. Just go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Steve Hendricks. 2221 Comquat Drive, Edgewater, Florida. And I I have this problem with my grandson, but, I mean, I don't but I just wish that and I yeah, I mean, I'm responsible for the property, me and my daughter. And I was just wondering if I could get it reduced from like $500 a day to $100 a day and I just pay it. It's not going to happen again because I'm leaving.

Okay. Where are you going to, sir?

I don't know. I'm going sell the house. I got a flipper once it has got a pool and everything.

Okay. So

The only way I know to get rid of my grandson, if you all know the truth. Tonight.

Well, it your vehicle or your grandson's vehicle?

It's his.

Looks like you received a citation on 11/20/2025. Did you take any steps to have the vehicle removed or anything?

I moved it.

Or registered the vehicle?

Yeah. We we yeah. He had insurance on it, but he just well, I put it in the backyard to close the gate. But after I saw the diagram of where you're allowed to park everything, was in the wrong.

And what kind of this is a food or sorry, thought it said a food truck. It's a Ford truck on the side of the road.

Yes, sir.

On the side of the house. Okay. And I have the previous violation was 04/11/2024. It's Citi. What would your position be if daily fines were at $100 a day for twelve days for a total of $1,200 as he has requested?

That'd be acceptable. That'd be fine.

Thank you.

Is there anything else, sir?

No. No. I just I'm sorry that all this happened. But Myron's always been a complete gentleman with me and everything. And I just met Jacob, so he's good too. I mean, work with me and talk with me.

All right, sir. Thank you very much. So based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 20Five-one23098, find that the respondent was in violation of the city of Edgewater's code of ordinances as provided for in the citation filed in this matter. And that the respondent has corrected the violation and I order that respondent refrain from repeating past.

So,

04/11/2025. So this is a repeat question. Violation. I will uphold the citation in the amount of $150 and the daily fines will be $100 per day from November 1 to the sorry November 20 to December 1 totaling $1,200 Okay, sir. Okay. That was it. Thank you very much.

All right.

Yes, sir. Okay, case number 20Five-one22970.

This is in reference to citation number 836 for a 3120 Silver Palm Drive owned by Betty Mae Walls. On October 17, I received a complaint from Cheryl Morris at 3116 Silver Palm. She stated that Betty May at 3120 Silver Palm was continuously setting her car alarm off at random points throughout the night and sometimes during the day. Cheryl had recordings and called the police who told her it was a code enforcement issue. We've been monitoring the situation since September 22.

I met with Cheryl and she showed me multiple videos of a car horn going off repeatedly. The videos were taken from her bedroom and guest room. She told me that sometimes it is the car alarm, but sometimes it is the horn going off from locking the car repeatedly. This is not an isolated issue and the car horn and alarm goes off almost every other night for an unreasonable length of time, sometimes over 20 consecutive honks. The neighbors wanted to try and work it out themselves prior to contacting code enforcement, but the noise disturbance hasn't stopped.

I delivered and mailed a notice violation for Chapter 10, Section 23, Subsection one, Specific Noises Prohibited Horns and Signaling Devices. On November 5, I received an email from Cheryl that the horn honking continued that morning at 02:47AM. Additionally, she called me at 09:35AM to tell me that the horn was going off at 09:26AM as well and that she had a video of the incident. I met with Cheryl and Carrie Richardson from three thousand one hundred nine Silver Palm. Cheryl, Carrie, and Cheryl's lawn care worker, Chris, heard the car alarm going off over 25 times at 09:26 in the morning.

They provided me the video and Cheryl and Carrie filled out voluntary statements to document the disturbance. Chapter 10, Section 23, Subsection one specifically covers horns, signaling devices, and other similar devices. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile or other vehicle is only authorized as a danger warning and for no other reason. After reviewing the video and the statements, I hand delivered a citation on November 5 for Chapter 10, Section 23, Subsection one, Specific Noises Prohibited, Horns and Signaling Devices. All notices and provisions of Chapter 10, Article 27 have been complied with.

Staff recommends a citation for $75 and no daily fines are requested at this time. We also have Cheryl is on teams available to give her statement regarding the activity on November 5.

Miss Morris, are you able to hear me? Okay. That's alright. It's a little hard to see but it looks like you. If you could just raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Okay. Thank you. You may go ahead. Okay.

And I know okay. I know in the city's file that they produced for the agenda agenda today, there were four videos. I did review those videos. There was one that was I think around a minute long or so. Is that the one that you're referring to when you said there was okay.

So so that video with the car alarm going off over 25 times was that did that occur on 11/05/2025? Okay, ma'am. Thank you very much.

Is Carrie Richardson here? No. Okay. The only other thing is that we do have a I do have a statement from Carrie Richardson, which was added to the evidence where she Okay. Agreed confirmed everything that miss Cheryl said.

I did see that. Thank you. Perfect. Alright, ma'am. Please state your name and address for the record.

Betty May Walls, 3120 Silver Palm Drive. I apologize. The drawbridge went up, so I was a few minutes late. And I don't know if you guys had called me prior. But what I would like to say in response to that is I do not honk my horn multiple times. I did not have this problem years ago. Prior to this car, I didn't have that problem with my black Lexus. If that was the case, I don't know why she didn't do something about it then. To me, this is more of a personal issue. Yes.

There was an incident where my car alarm did go off, I couldn't find the keys in time. But if even so there may be a video where where a car alarm went off, but this does not happen every day. This isn't multiple times a day. She she's not telling the truth. I mean, if you wanna ask I'm like, she has her little friend that's gonna, you know, state what she wants her to state. But, I mean, we can call. I mean, I can ask the neighbor across the street. We can call any one of my children. I mean, just out of blue, I don't have a statement. If I need to get a statement and submit it, I mean, I can get plenty of statements to submit that.

I have children that go to school. My daughter's in high school. If that was the case, I'd be waking my children up all throughout the night. And and in regards to she saying she called, the police and that, they said this is, like, an ordinance thing. No. That's not true. What happened is she doesn't like me, and she went to my mortgage company and and told them all kinds of stuff about me that wasn't true. So they did, like, an investigation and said that there's nothing they can do. I'm not behind on my mortgage. I'm up to date.

My escrow's ahead, and that if she has any problems to call the police. So that's when she started these multiple calls. And I don't know. And then one one day because because I had to have fire in my house. I was out front, like, in my driveway, and I heard, like, oh, someone just honk, and then, like, I didn't hear nothing to honk, where I literally yelled, that's not me because I had a feeling she's doing some kind of recording.

So whatever recording she has, I would like to see my vehicle, not just the noise of a horn honking because I believe that if if they she does have any videos more than one, then it's staged because, yes, my alarm did go off one time when I could not find the keys. But as in two, like, even even I mean, not even once a week. I mean, if and if that's the case, she like like I said, yeah. It did go off. I did not find my keys. Yes. I did get a key fob made. I'm on a fixed income myself, and it was 200 and something dollars, because I was having issues with the key. But prior to the key issue or whatever, I I I haven't had a problem since. You know? And and, like, she

to

me, like, personally, it's just like, it's it's ridiculous. This is so ridiculous. And and and okay. So my car alarm accidentally goes off. I don't believe that is just for, the citation. It's not like I'm making this noise happen on purpose intentionally with malice intentions. You know, it accidentally went off. Okay. That that that that goes for a a verbal or or, like, a written notice. But we it looks like I've had all these all these things because she blows up this this complaints. So, I mean, in all due respect, what I should get I believe what's fair, like, it's an accident. I mean, like, it's an accident. My car alarm went off. Couldn't find the key fob. Okay?

Then I should be getting a a a notice to, you know, be careful. But, I mean, to sit here and and give me a citation, I think, is extreme. And, also, based on my circumstances, I don't I don't trust me. I don't wanna annoy this lady. Her voice is annoying enough for sorry. But I don't wanna annoy this lady. I want peace. I I really do want peace. And and I feel like she just has a vendetta against me. I think it has to do with my ex husband or whatever. But I like like, for example, I have literally went above and beyond to try to make peace with this lady. I really have. Like, my, my there was there was a my ex husband was, supposed to do some work for her or whatever. We're we're not together. Have a restraining order on him, actually.

And, he didn't complete the job. And just out of respect, I felt like I should at least try to, you know, make things better. So she had this issue, and I had me and my three adult children and one child that's a minor all go and help her. Well, she didn't help. She watched. But we went and pulled, like, these lily pads out of the pond at or what she calls a pond. They're a big ditch out back. Like, it's like a whatever. But, basically, my children and I and trust me, they they did not wanna do it. We went out there for two days, probably about three hours each day. We all got poison ivy. I had to go to the hospital. I'm not, like, after no medical bills or nothing. What I'm trying to say is, like, I go I've done everything I did I I could to make peace with her. I'm not intentionally trying to annoy her.

That's the last thing on my mind. I got too much to worry about, and I feel I don't feel I should be cited for an accidental alarm going off. And if she has these multiple car horns, I would like to see my car in the video because I don't take it past this lady to stage whatever. And, yes, yes, it has accidentally went off one time, but not multiple times a day, not throughout the week, and not in my car prior.

Okay. Do you have you mentioned you could get some statements or have some statements?

Yes. We could call them right.

Anybody here well, we can't call them on the phone, unfortunately.

Think they're here in person. Like that?

Or on the phone. If you could get them on here with Yeah.

I can do that.

Within five minutes

Yes, sir.

If you want to Yes, sir.

I could do it right now.

Want them to testify, they're gonna have to show an ID and swear under oath.

Yes, sir.

Okay. In the meantime, city, do you have a response?

I'd just like to state that, we did go through the code enforcement process where she received a verbal from my supervisor, Myron San Miguel, and then she was given a notice of violation prior to the citation. We didn't go immediately to a citation for this case.

And those were he said that I was given a verbal and whatever other citation. Those were cases that was I was already not guilty of because it's it's not that's not what took place. This is a lot of this is fabricated. It accidentally went off. It didn't accidentally go off three times. This should be my first warning. This shouldn't be my citation. I those other ones shouldn't apply because this is not true. So if that was the case, then then this should be the the warning and see if it goes on or after that or whatever. But, I mean, I I don't feel like my the first incidents, I'm not guilty of.

That's this is not intention. You know? And like I said, I I've I've I have a restraining order on an ex. I've been a victim of a break in and a sexual assault at 19, so I suffer from PTSD, which I'm disabled for. And so, like, you know, like, I'm on I'm on high alert around my surroundings. I've even called the police and asked them.

Okay. Ma'am, hold on. Since I've allowed a witness for the city to testify via video, I'm going to give you an opportunity an opportunity to do that.

Okay.

But if you have somebody, you need to get them on as soon as possible. Okay. Otherwise

Is there a phone I can use to just call? Or can somebody call my like, I can give you a phone number and get

The one at

the I don't I I have to get on the WiFi. I I've had to use, like, all the money I've had. I'm on a fixed income, and I my house had a fire, and I for my living expenses, I have to, like So,

mister Knight, the city is not going to provide ability for her to call a witness. If she didn't call a witness prior to the hearing, we would object to her presenting one.

Can I have five minutes?

Yes. Just because I let the city testify via Teams. Five minutes, ma'am. Yes.

It's

gonna have to be on your phone, ma'am. Yes. Take a five minute recess. You can at the end, ma'am. We're in a five minute recess for right now.

Okay. Let's go back on the record. Okay, ma'am. Do you have somebody on the phone who's gonna offer testimony?

Yes, sir.

Yeah. So is it on your personal phone, is

on No. It's on the guy's phone out there. Cohen. Okay. Cohen, I'm gonna have to call you on a video, or can you call the courthouse on a video or Zoom or whatever, Cohen?

Are you are you kidding me?

City objects relevance of case.

Well, yeah, he didn't he didn't say it was okay.

Ma'am, hold on. Hold on.

He's hung up the phone.

Chance to talk. Okay. You did receive notice of this hearing. Correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

But I was given five minutes, and I had him on the phone. He and and within that five minutes, I mean, would take some one minute. He's he has a computer. He has everything.

You had up until this hearing to arrange for this.

Yes, sir.

So I did give you some time. Doesn't look like we can get somebody on the line at this point. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Can I know I know you had given the, with this last situation, you were they had given them five days to submit the video that had sound? Mhmm. Can I have through one day, twenty four hours, to submit my my, with a statement from my son and and and the witnesses I have? May I be given twenty four hours to submit witnesses before you decide on the outcome of this?

So I think the issue last time was we couldn't access the video.

No. They couldn't do this. Or no. The the officer did have sound.

He did have the video.

Well, he played it on his cell phone.

And we did have that. But it was included. I think we just couldn't play it on here for that hearing.

Right. And then the officer came up with his cell phone and went to play it and then hit stop.

Yes. And then I went back and reviewed it for the first one. So let me ask you this. Has your car alarm gone multiple times?

Has it gone off multiple times? Multiple times in what what time frame? In, like well no. I mean, like, it has gone off where, like, where it went off, like, a long time maybe maybe twice or something that I've since I've had the car. Prior to that, I never had a problem, and she's never even said anything to me about this even when I owned the black car.

I've never been she's never come to me at all till after the fact she had the issue with my husband and tried to contact my mortgage company who told her to call the police. So if this was a problem that was ongoing, even with with, like like she she texted me a few months ago and asked me if I knew somebody to to pull weeds. So, like, if she had such a problem with this, why didn't she come to me and talk to me about this? This is this is not something that's been ongoing. That's a lie.

Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add?

I just would I I would appreciate if you could just con at least give me till closing hour or or at least to the end of the day because I have all my children, three who are adults, they they go to school. All my kids are in college or or high school. I have the neighbor across the street that that already he because he wrote a statement for my mortgage company in regards to her. Like, my mortgage has a statement about how he gossips and starts trouble. All this. The guy right across the street. And that who who used to work for her? I mean, I can get that statement from him. I didn't think I needed all that. I I I I just this but I in all due respect, I do feel maybe a a warning.

It it this should count as my warning. I don't feel that this should count as my citation. And it hasn't happened since that day when they came and and issued me this citation, which was, like, hours after the you know, all this all this going on. So I I feel, in fairness, that if it happens again, then, yeah, it should be cited. Maybe if they if that's what they consider, a noise ordinance. But there's no malice intentions at all.

So, ma'am, I'm not entitled to or I'm not inclined to continue this case. I think you have had ample notice and ample time to secure any witnesses or any statements that you needed to secure. City, is there anything else you would like to add?

Just one more clarification that the notice of violation that was given prior to the citation was not in relation to the prior case, but was solely in relation to this case.

Okay. Well,

I didn't understand that.

The the notice of violation, which is what we give you prior to a citation. The one that I gave you guys was solely related to this case, not related to any previous case.

So I was given a a warning on this case and a citation at the same time?

Not at the same time.

You guys started issuing me citations from day one.

For this case specifically, you've been issued one citation, and the notice of violation was provided on October 17.

Okay. And on October 17, was given a citation. When was I given this warning? What date was that?

Ma'am, I think you're thinking of when I wrote you citations. Those were different. Those were directly to your driver's license. These are for the property. They're separate.

Okay. So you which was I was not guilty of. So this is a brand new case. So if it's a brand new case, I wasn't guilty of the other ones, then where's my written citation? Where's my warning?

Just to clarify, on October 17, you were given a notice of violation. That was the warning for this case, not for any other one. On November 5, you were given a citation.

So when were the two incidences happening? When did so, if this if that if that was my ticket on November 5, on October 17 when I was given a warning, I was not guilty of that. So therefore, where's my

Ma'am, the first one was a warning. The second one, because it happened again, you were actually issued these citations.

When would but but when he said there was a warning, that that was not the the warning that they gave me was the same day they gave me a citation at the same time, which I was not guilty of. That same day

According according to this, and, Cindy, correct me if I'm wrong, the warning was on October 17, and the actual citation was on November 5?

Correct. Warning warning meaning notice of violation on October 17.

On October 17, they did issue me a different ticket. It was a they did it two different ways. They did one against my license, one against my property. So they did give me a citation on October 17 also that I was not guilty of. Okay. And that was when they gave me the warning at the same time. But then they issued it a different way. They said, we're not only gonna put it against your land, we're gonna put it against your license. That's why there's these multiple things. If you can double check, when I was issued this the the day I was given the warning was the day I was of a of a citation. It's written the other way.

Just to answer that, the reason that I was the one that came and gave a notice of violation was because officer San Miguel was out of office on October 17, so there's no way that he gave you a citation on the day that he wasn't here.

Okay. They told me when I went in there, which I could probably pull up on my phone and then recorded my conversation with the guy when I went to codes to find out about the ticket. The guy says to me, well, we first, we issued it against your property. Then we issued you so this is, like, fourth third citation. We issue against your license. But the reason we did it against your license this time is because you have a Habitat for Humanity home, and we don't want the fees to pile up against your home. But in all due respect, now he's sitting here saying it was because somebody was out of office. No. I think it's just a way to try to, like, get at me whatever way they can. I feel if those two tickets were dismissed and I was not guilty of them, then they should be obsolete.

Therefore, in this case, this should be my warning or my written notice or whatever, a notice.

So that's a separate matter, ma'am. So this case is a completely new matter.

So So I was never given a I was never given a warning.

Okay.

My warning was given at at the time of a citation. That that was that. That I there was so if I was not guilty of that citation, October 17, then then when if this if I got issued a ticket November 5, when did this event take place? When when when November 5. When was I warned? What what happened? Like, I'm confused. Because if this is a onetime occurrence, November 5, what happened October 17? Why was I given a warning? For what? What happened then? What was the warning for? The citation that I was dismissed that I'm not guilty of? What was the warning for? Can I ask them?

Just a courtesy warning.

Courtesy warning of what event that took place? There was no negligence. There was no noise ordinance that took place. I was not guilty of that.

Okay. Well, this is a separate matter, so we're here for this matter. So okay anything else?

Nothing else sir.

Alright based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 25Dash122970 I found out the respondent is in violation of the city of Edgewater's code of as listed in the citation filed in this matter. I will uphold the citation fine in the amount of $75 ma'am. We can make arrangements to pay that. I would encourage you to if your alarm keeps going off and you need to get it fixed, you're going to keep incurring citations and or other code enforcement

fines. Okay. If I disagree with this decision, how do what's the protocol after that?

So you can appeal it within thirty days to the circuit court.

Well, do I go to, like, the Daytona circuit court? Don't know who the

circuit court. It'd be DeLand. DeLand Court have seventh circuit court in DeLand. Okay. So with that finding of fact, mister Nay, I just wanna confirm that that sets her as a repeat offender that if the violation does continue, she'd subject to a $500 immediate fine against her property. Is that correct?

Yes. A repeat offender.

That's correct.

It continues past today, if it happens again past today with this finding of fact, you would be subject to an immediate $500 leaned against her property per time it happens.

So okay. So anybody in my neighborhood, if their horn honks, or if they're honked, they're horn, that's noise ordinance violation? Or if their car alarm goes off?

If there's evidence establishing that it's constantly going off documented and

Can I see her evidence of my car alarm going off? Can she show the video or whatever? Whatever she submitted, can I see the evidence, please, so I know what I'm looking at? Because I don't believe this. Don't believe

I've already made my ruling, ma'am. So if you

So I can't see her proof of If you

would like a copy of what the city has submitted, then you can request that.

But I

should so so okay. Can I can I see the video? Can I get

the Yeah? We can give you a copy. Do you wanna come down to the code office?

Is it have my car in the in the video, or is it just a noise?

It's irrelevant to the ruling at

this point. No. It's not because it's a lie. Okay. Okay. But I so I'm I'm guilty of something, and I can't even see her evidence she submitted. She probably has somebody sitting there honking a horn. I'd like to see my car in the video. This is nuisance. And 21 times is bullcrap. Like, I mean, this is crazy. I'm gonna take this all the way, whatever I gotta do. Okay. Because I bet that video does not have my car in it.

And I've made my ruling. So other than that, that is all that we have on the agenda for today. We'll call this meeting to a close. Thank you.

Can I get something with the number or whatever? I go to the courthouse, they're not going know what I'm talking about. Can I get another copy of that today, like now? Can you verbally tell me so I can write it down? Okay. And and you gave me a warning when? October 17?

So we're I I'm done talking about

it. I'm not talking to you. I was

talking to him. Doesn't matter. Okay.

Let's Let's go.

Thank you.

Please step up. Thank you. Yep. We have done.