Citizen's Advisory Committee - Special Meeting

Good morning. I'm calling to order the city of Port St. Lucie's special magistrate hearing for July 15, 2026. It's just after 9 o'clock in the morning. My name is Keith Davis. I'm the special magistrate appointed by the city to preside over today's hearing. I'd like to invite you to start the morning by standing with me and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everybody. And then please swear in the city staff who will be testifying for the city on the agenda items we have today.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have previously reviewed and approved the June 24th Meeting minutes. Are there any late abatements or postponements on our agenda this morning?

Yes, special magistrate. I will begin with our building violation cases. Item number two. Investigator James LaPonza. Case number 32413. Respondent Ricardo Mears. Respondent address 374 Southwest Majestic Terrace is a postponement. Item number four, investigator James LaPonza, case number 32410, respondent Maribel Roman and Hector Ferran. Respondent address 590 Northwest Cornell Avenue as a postponement. Item number five, investigator James LaPonza, case number 32421, respondent Emerald Hills Investments, LLC. Respondent address 1617 Southeast Port St. Lucie Boulevard as a postponement. Item number seven, investigator James LaPonza, case number 32393, respondent Pierre Delva, respondent address 2173 Southeast Gaslight Street is late abatement. Item number 10, investigator James LaPonza, case number 32353, respondent Ivan Todorov and Oskana Todorov, respondent address 2833 Southwest Seaside Road is a postponement. item number 12 investigator james lapanza case number three two four three six respondent la playa real estate holdings llc respondent address 1264 southwest biltmore street is a postponement Item number 13, investigator James Ponza, case number 32433, respondent 2100 Southwest Conant, LLC. Respondent address 2100 Southwest Conant Avenue is a postponement. Item number 15, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32383, respondent Aaron Muhammad. Respondent address 1862 Southwest Idaho Lane is a late abatement. Item number 22, Investigator Jennifer Bonatter. Case number 32437, Respondent Shops of Bougainvillea, LLC. Respondent Address 1333 Southwest Gatlin Boulevard is a postponement. That concludes our building violations. Moving on to our certification of fine cases. Item number 34, investigator James LaPonza, case number 32317, respondent 2766 Edgar Street, LLC. Respondent address 2764 Southwest Edgar Street is a late abatement. Item number 35, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32303, respondent 11950, Tradition, LLC. Respondent address 11950, Southwest, Tom Mackey Boulevard, Suite 109, is a late abatement. Item number 37, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32378, respondent Tanya Rosa Gonzalez-Borrego. Respondent address 392, Southwest, Butler Avenue, is a late abatement. Item number 39, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32362, respondent Gateway 26, LLC. Respondent address 2833 Southwest Brighton Street is late abatement. Item number 40, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32211, respondent Gabriela Calderon and Miguel Perez. Respondent address 873 Southwest Hangverland Avenue is late abatement. Item number 41, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32191, respondent Harbor Village 18, LLC. Respondent address 1234 Southwest Gatlin Boulevard, number 102 is late abatement. Item number 42, Investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32335, respondent Krisha Dorius and Alan Dorius and Alexandra Dorius. Respondent address 1025 Southwest Sultan Drive is late abatement. AND ITEM NUMBER 45, INVESTIGATOR JENNIFER VANADDER, CASE NUMBER 32229, RESPONDENT CATTISAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, RESPONDENT ADDRESS 451 SOUTHWEST BETHANY DRIVE, SUITE 100, AS A LATE ABATEMENT.

THANK YOU. WITH THOSE ITEMS NOTED, THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF MS. ROJAS AND HER MODIFICATION VACATE, GET HER ON HER WAY.

My name is Evelyn Rojas. I'm with the City of Port St. Lucie Ling Services Department. These modifications are a request by the applicant. They are heard as a matter of city policy and are not mandated by Florida statute. City Council holds these lings and they are considered to be assets of the City. Per City Ordinance, the Special Magistrate has the authority to modify these lings. Agenda Item 48. have been agreed upon prior to this hearing and require an order to be signed by the special magistrate. This completes my orders for today.

Thank you, and I will sign that order modifying the lien. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have the Zoom case set up to go?

Yes, we should be all set with that. And if we are able to start introducing cases, then we'll allow them to go first.

I'm sorry?

If we can begin with our introduction of cases, then we're going to have them go first.

Okay.

So that would be item number 47. Investigator James LaPonza. Case number 31805. Respondent Siobhan Properties, LLC. Respondent address 155 Southwest Peacock Boulevard.

Okay, I have, is it Mr. Patel? You may be muted, sir, if you could unmute yourself. Now I can't see you either.

Can you hear me?

I need to be able to see you and hear you so that we can swear you in and hear what you have to say.

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Can you see and hear us okay? Okay.

Yes, I can.

All right. So I'm going to hear from the city first, Mr. Patel, and hear about the case. Once the city's concluded its presentation, I'll come back to you, have you sworn in, and then I will be happy to hear from you, okay?

Excellent. Thank you.

All right. Very good. You can proceed when you're ready.

Good morning. My name is James LaPonza, and I've been sworn in. This case concerns the property at 155 Southwest Peacock Boulevard, Fort St. Lucie, Florida. On December 9th, 2024 an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation. City ordinance 150.105.1 and Florida building code 105.1 commercial alteration. No permit. On March 1st, 2025, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received. On March 21, 2025, the respondent entered into a joint stipulation agreement admitting the violation exists and agreed to obtain compliance by June 24, 2025. A review of the building department records indicate compliance has not been obtained. A request to respond at Chevron Properties LLC be ordered to and required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter not to exceed $10,000. The city has incurred costs in the amount of $500 in conducting the investigation, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. This case was... Actually, there was a lot going on. There was a lot of exterior work, interior work starting. This is only addressing the interior work. The rest of the work has been permitted. Okay, so the interior work that was being done is... In the main lobby, I guess they're going to add a second floor and add more guest rooms and remodel the bathrooms and whatnot. There's been several extensions given. It's been in front of the magistrate. I believe this is the third time.

The third time they've been here and the previous two have been extensions? Right. Okay.

They did get a permit. The permit expired, the contractor took themselves off of the permit, so now there's no permit for the work that was to commence.

So they had a permit, they had a contractor, the contractor walked, took his name off the permit, now they've got neither a permit nor a contractor. Correct. Okay. Okay. Um... All right, Mr. Patel, let me get you sworn in, please, and then I'll be happy to hear from you.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

And please state your name for the record.

Lincoln Patel.

Thank you.

All right, and you are a manager of Chevan Properties LLC, is that correct?

I'm one of the owners of the property.

Okay. All right, the floor is yours, Mr. Patel. If you have any questions... For Officer LaPonza, you may ask them. Otherwise, you can tell me about what's going on with this case.

Yep. So this was a case of we entered into a contract with what was supposed to be a licensed contractor. He had all the certifications or what presented to be. We're currently in the lawsuit with that original contractor for falsifying documents and a slew of other issues. So putting that aside, that was the 2024 where this initially got brought to our attention. We since had cured the contractor issue, hired a new contractor, got all the appropriate permits, got the work completed to get the building back into proper working order so that there's no safety violations or anything of the such. That contractor completed the work for the remaining interior guest rooms, which Mr. LaPonza reviewed and associated inspectors and completed all the guest room work, which has now been completed, as well as all the exterior work, which has also been completed and closed out. the pending work that was supposed to be done by the last contractor. The reason that it didn't get completed is that the drawings that were done by the architect, which we thought were close to final, once the contractor submitted those for the extension of the four additional rooms in the lobby area and converting the meeting room into an additional guest room and an expansion of a fitness center, The drawings needed some revisions, which we did take care of. And once those finally did get approved by the city with all the correct corrections that needed to be made by the architect and the subcontractors by that point, and once the permit was issued, the contractor didn't have the bandwidth to complete the work had another job to conclude so we paused that project since there was no active work being touched or in product in progress he removed himself from the from the permit so that the permit was still there if we were to get a new contractor and we're still looking for the appropriate contractor to do this work adding three rooms above the lobby is a very specialized work and we want to make sure that when we're hiring this next contractor, we're hiring the right person so that there's no issues when inspections are coming and things like that. We've interviewed four different contractors. just didn't give us a good feel that they understood the scope of work and we're going to be able to handle it. Since last week, we RFP'd the scope of work for an additional six contractors that we've been recommended by other people, and we're waiting to hear back and get their credentials and references. And again, since there's no current work being done or anything in the middle of being done, we want to make sure that we're not rushing to get this done, but we're doing it correctly. And once that RFP is, once we get responses from it, we select a contractor, then that contractor will come to the city to apply for the permit and go through the steps from there.

It looks to me like this is a very old case. There was a joint stipulation agreement back in the day. Yes. Do you have that handy? Does it, because if I'm, Did it require compliance by June 24th of 2025? June 24th, 25th. And did it indicate that daily fines would begin to accrue after that if compliance was not achieved in accordance with the agreement?

I'll let you take a look at it. I beg your pardon? I have it here. I'll let you take a look at it.

Yeah, if you can let me see that, that'd be fine.

Mr. Patel, I have the... Yeah, and some of the history on that is that that was for any work that was, that joint stipulation for was any work that was done without a permit and out of compliance. All the remaining work that's left to be done is new work, which there's a separate set of drawings which was requested by the city, which is what the permitting process took longer, because when we created the new set of drawings for the new scope of work, that's what was taking longer but since all these permits were tied under one master permit originally that's where some of this is getting a little you know hairy and in the process but the work that was originally that flagged all of this all of that work that was unpermitted originally has all been completed with permit and closed out the only work that's remaining is new work that's left to be completed which is the addition of four rooms, the expansion of a fitness center, adding and relocating the public restrooms.

So your argument is that the settlement agreement doesn't apply to the outstanding matters that are before me this morning?

Correct, and there is a different permit number that was also issued for this new permit that has since expired. But since they were all tied to the parent, the original violation, that's kind of how it's a little, I guess, messy how it's filed.

It's all under the same case number. Let me have the city address that issue or that argument.

Okay, so when I originally went out there, there was, like I said earlier, there was a lot of things going on. They needed a reroof. They were doing the parapet wall expansion or extension, redoing the portico, and doing interior work as well in the lobby. The picture I have up right now is the picture of the lobby as we saw it on that day. So everything was addressed on that day and became one case. They did get a reroof permit. They got a permit to do the alterations on the exterior of the building. However, there's still no permit for the interior work because now it's expired.

Okay.

But that, Mr. LaPonza, that work right there, that's no new work that has been touched. That's just drywall that was removed to do an investigative work so that the structural engineer could prepare the drawings, which has since been approved, but no work except for drywall was removed in this picture. So nothing was attached, nothing was, and it's still, the only thing that has been done is those wood panels have been removed and the drywall was put back so that it's back to the original condition as far as the lobby, those lobby work is concerned.

My contention is that the work had started. There was actually I-beams onsite ready to be installed.

Correct, but as part of the joint stipulation, we need to have a proper contractor that's certified. So those drawings were pulled separately because we were asked to have three sets of drawings, one's for the guest rooms, one for the exterior, and then one for this expansion. So we did submit those as three separate sets of drawings. the two sets of drawings have been approved and closed out and the work has been completed. The extra set of work, we're still debating if we can even find a contractor that's certified properly to do that work in this area that we're comfortable with. And until we find that contractor, we're not gonna just let anyone touch it, otherwise we're gonna be exactly where we are, where we were two years ago, which I don't think any of us wanna do, especially with it being such a structurally intensive project. So even if we decide not to move forward with any of the remaining work, it's not, we haven't started the work. We haven't started expansion on that work and we haven't started the relocation of the additional restrooms and fitness center. So until we start any work, we're allowed to walk away from any scope of work, even though it's permitted. we're not in the middle of any work. We're at a clean stopping point. If we were in the middle of putting in I-beams and then we decided to walk away, yes, we have an issue. But the contractor, we purposely stopped it where we stopped it because the contractor that had the permit wasn't able to complete the timeline before his next job, which that's why he said that he wanted to, we needed to stop the project. We've been looking for a new contractor that's properly certified to do this scope of work, and until we find one, that work is not going to begin.

I have a very simple question. Is the property in compliance right now with all of the commercial alteration and re-roofing issues or not? Is that a question for me or whoever wants to answer it? I mean, let me ask. Is the property in compliance today with with?

I don't know. I have not visited the property since we let them take the stop work order notice off the building when they got the permit for the interior work.

All the interior permits have been closed out. The roof permit has been closed out. Electrical permits have been closed out. Plumbing permit has been closed out.

I'm specifically speaking about the lobby work.

An expansion of the restroom, but I mean, are they closed out because they were inspected and approved or were they closed out because the contractor left the job and left the permit and the work wasn't done.

We have, we have closed out certificate of occupancy on the guest room and exterior work. The lobby work. Was an expansion and again, there was no new work that had started. So there was no flag. As far as I know, we haven't, at least we haven't received any violation of anything for the lobby. That's a continuing violation. So when we got all of our inspection reports from the previous contractor, that was one specific question I asked that and we received close out of all of it. The only thing that's new and we received the permit for this expansion after the rest of everything else was closed out. So yes, it's all tied to a parent. case number but in the in the permitting eyes it's three separate permits we had an exterior permit a guest room permit and a common area permit because that's what was requested by the city the common area permit was issued and no work has begun on that permit so that work has not been completed It has not begun. So a permit was issued, but no work has started.

Which means it hasn't been completed either. Correct. Okay, so let me ask this question. The last two times this case was at a hearing, what were the extensions for?

The extension for the first one in 2024 plus or minus was due to having a improper contractor, which was removed from the project and all work had ceased at that point. Then we were on a search for a new contractor, which we had the extension to get into contract with that new contractor, which we did and completed that work. And then now we're in the process of trying to find the proper contractor for this expansion.

So are you saying that all the drywalls can put back up, everything's back to the way it was originally?

That's correct. That was all done by the previous contractor. Okay, was that drywall inspected, sir? Yes, according to the contractor. I wasn't there because the contractor was the one holding the permit when all this was done.

That was done by River Ridge. Is there a record of that inspection in the city's files? I can try to look that up.

And I think I can even, I'm not sure if there's a way for me to send the closeout permit of all these permits, but I have those certificates from the contractor. Because in order for me to close out with the contractor, that was one item I wanted to make sure was clear with the city that everything had been closed out properly so that there is no pending issue. Because if we're not able to find a proper contractor to complete this scope of work, we may just not complete the work at all. Because we're not going to just have someone, we can't just hire anyone to do this scope of work. It's a very specific type of work that needs to be done. And until we find the right person, it's not going to get completed.

We have the permit pulled up here. I don't know if you can see it. I see it, but they don't have any inspections completed on that expired permit for the interior renovation.

So that's the right now.

What I'm hearing right now is there's no permit for the interior work, but according to Mr. Patel, the interior work is is been either put back the way it was and is done. and is no longer in violation of any building code. Is that what I'm hearing?

That's correct. And if we need to have another inspection done, happy to meet anyone at the property whenever we need to if the records are showing different, or I'm happy to provide what the contractor provided me to the magistrate or the permit office.

So if the city sends an inspector out there to look at this, what they're going to see is a complete interior that looks like it's supposed to look. It's not under construction, that it's code compliant, and that if I was to walk in there and do business, it would not appear to me that there was any construction going on. 100%. So, okay. When's my next, I mean, my thought is to have you guys go out and inspect it, see where we are. Well, if I can interrupt you, I'm sorry.

We can't inspect it because there's not an issued permit at this time. Part of the problem is if it was put back, if the sheetrock was put back up on the walls, that sheetrock would have needed inspections.

It would need an inspection under the active permit. Right. Okay. Or with a separate permit. No, you're right. Okay. Okay. Does anybody have anything else they want to put into the record? I know what I'm going to do with this. First of all, I'm going to find proper notice. Based on what's been presented to me today, this was under a joint stipulation of settlement that was not complied with. So I was not a party to that stipulated settlement agreement. It's not for me to change the terms and conditions of an agreement between the city and the respondent But I will order that the stipulated agreement be enforced I have not seen evidence of that the property is in compliance as contemplated by the stipulated agreement, especially given Mr. LaPonza's last comment, which is very well taken, that in order to put everything back, it would have had to have been under a permit so that it could get inspected. When the contractor walked away and everything was put back, there was no permit, so there's no mechanism by which to inspect what happened. So you guys are going to need to figure that out behind the scenes. If the new contract needs to be brought on board and a new permit pulled so that whatever the current conditions are can be inspected and that can be closed out, that's fine. But that's what you're going to have to do. That is my order for this case, for this code enforcement case. And that will have to be, I mean, you got some work to do behind the scenes with the city on this one, Mr. Patel, but that is my order. All right, thank you everyone for being here. This is a complicated one, but I think that's the right conclusion. Here's your stipulated agreement copy back. All right, thank you everybody. Okay, where to next?

We are going to jump back to our building violation cases. And we're going to begin with, excuse me, item number 11 for our building violations for this party that is present. This is for Investigator James LaPonza. Case number 32448, Respondent Edgar Jasmine and Josiane Jasmine. Respondent address 340 Northwest Placid Avenue.

Got it. Good morning, sir. Good morning. And whenever you're ready, I'm with you.

This case concerns the property at 340 Northwest Placid Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On May 13th, 2026, an inspection was performed and photos taken showing the following violation. Windows, no permit. Violation of the building code 150.105.1 and city code of ordinance 105.1. Notice of hearing was sent on June 17th, 2026. On June 24th, 2026, proper service was achieved. by certified mail return receipt received a request to respondent edgar jasmine and josiam jasmine be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of the city of port st lucie by august 19 2026 and if not in compliance by that date they'd be required to pay a fine in the amount of 25 for every day the violation continues thereafter not to exceed 2 500 The city has incurred costs in the amount of $335 in conducting the investigation, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien unless compliance is achieved by the compliance state. I'd like to give a little bit of background. Sure. The respondent actually filed a complaint because he didn't get any inspections on the windows that were installed by a contractor on his home. Okay. So at that time I spoke to him and let him know that we would follow through with the notice of noncompliance to the contractor. But if the contractor did not comply, that he would still be responsible for obtaining the permit for the house. Okay. All right.

And then so where are we today? Does permits no permit? No permit. No permit. Okay.

Okay.

Anything else from the city?

No, sir. Let me get you sworn in. Is it Mr. Jasmine? And then I'll be happy to hear from you.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And please state your name for the record.

First name, Edgar. Last name, Jasmine. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jasmine. The floor is yours. If you have any questions for Officer LaPonza, you may ask them. Otherwise, you're free to tell me about what's going on with this case.

Thank you.

If I can get you a little closer to the microphone also, that'll help me hear you better.

You can hear me now?

Thank you. Okay.

Yeah, it's the first time I'm doing this type of work. I usually hire a contractor to do anything for me. I never, as a homeowner, try to get a permit because I hire licensed people. So this guy come over, they put a... some advertised in my mailbox i caught a few of them of course i think the one who was a little bit comfortable with me so he come and take measure after it takes all the measurement about four or five days later it really start getting cold so what happened he called me he said look instead waiting, I got all your windows sized and I got man not doing that much. If it's okay with you, next three, four days, I will get the installation. Yes, I agree on it, but I specify I need a city inspection. I even pay him extra amount of money because when I tell him I need a city inspection, it was less money. And I mentioned that three times to him, he charged me a lot more money. After he charged me money, But I don't pay him cash. I was going to give him down payment. He told me to hold it. So he did all the paperwork with San Quentin Bank, which I'm paying now. When I called him to stop payment, he told me, no, it's just like a credit card they give it to me. So I have to take him, either get an attorney, either take him to Department of Building. And that's what I did. I am the one who bring myself here to the Department of Building because I was not happy. And I feel like I've been victimized because I was 75 years old. So the guy is 40 years old. Well, he know what he's doing. He really get me. So I never have to take no permit for no work done. Everything has to be done by the contractor. That's the way I know it, but now things probably change. I don't know what next.

So where we stand today is that the windows were installed, but there was no permit and no inspections?

No permit, no inspections. All right.

And did you say that you're in litigation with this contractor right now in court? Did I misunderstand you? I wasn't sure if that's what you said or not.

No, this morning when I got here, I signed a document with the office here. They tried to get him back to take care of business. So when, I don't know when this thing took place.

Okay, so I did send the contractor a notice of noncompliance and gave them ample time to obtain the permit. they applied for the permanent was denied because they didn't provide all the paperwork that they needed. Um, so therefore there's no permit. Okay. So when they didn't comply, the notice of noncompliance was activated. It was sent to the state because they never got the permit for the work. So the state will be handling that.

Okay. Is this a, um, SITUATION, I DON'T KNOW, IS THIS AN OWNER BUILDER KIND OF THING THAT CAN BE DONE? IT CAN BE, YEAH. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, MR. JASMINE, WHAT'S YOUR INTENT HERE? ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE PERMIT? ARE YOU GOING TO GET AN OWNER BUILDER PERMIT? ARE YOU GOING TO HIRE ANOTHER CONTRACTOR?

WELL, SINCE I SAW A DOCUMENT HERE, AND ONE OF THE STAFF SAY THEY GO TRY TO GET HIM BACK, So if it doesn't work, if I have to pay a fee here, I will pay the fee because I don't know, I've been victimized really good this time. And this is the first time that happened.

Yeah, you're a member of a big club and there's plenty of people who had bad experiences with either unlicensed contractors or things that just don't go right. But so, you know, this, now that it's been, presented to the city. The city's doing its job by making sure that the project complies with the Florida Building Code requirements for permitting and inspecting, so that's going to need to be done one way or the other. I'm happy to give you additional time to get that taken care of, but I need to know what your thoughts are and what you're going to do and how much additional time to give you.

Well, additional time, I don't know exactly how long. how long your office will take to touch with them. Because I signed document with him since January. He went to April to try and get the permit. So that's when he had all the intention.

TO SCHOOL ME THAT. THIS IS NOW IN THE PROCESS, BUT MY INTENT IS BY NO MEANS TO ASSESS FINES AGAINST YOU FOR THIS. I WANT TO TRY TO HELP YOU GET THROUGH THIS, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE GOTTEN THROUGH CORRECTLY.

I THINK THE CITY IS WILLING TO OFFER A JOINT STIPULATION, 90 DAYS OR WHATEVER. Beth is going into the back to see if he has signed it, a joint stipulation. But we'd be willing to offer that so that he has time to take care of it.

Good morning.

What do you got?

Hi, how are you? So this is, right now the staff has asked if you would like to sign a joint stipulation, which would allow you more time to bring things into compliance. Apparently, you did not want to sign the joint stipulation because you wanted the opportunity to speak, which is your right, absolutely. Just so you know, we've already sent the notice of noncompliance to the contractor. We can't make the contractor get a permit. If they choose not to, the state is going to address them. We've done everything that we can to try and make the contractor to do the right thing by getting the permit. At this point, because it is your property, it's ultimately your responsibility to make sure that the work that took place on your property is permitted. So we would recommend at this time that you sign a joint stipulation allowing you more time to bring the property into compliance.

Okay. All right.

Click on that. Permit. Maybe they supplied all the documents you needed.

Yeah, we can certainly take a look at the permit and see what documents were submitted by the contractor. From what I see, just very quickly without really looking, is that we were missing the layout of the windows. But if we have the specs for the windows, it may be something that you can quite easily do as a homeowner. And we can walk you through that process. But in order to obtain more time for compliance... the best thing that you can do is sign a joint stipulation, and then we can work with you through the process.

I would be glad. As a homeowner, like I say, I'm mentally ill now, so not so much I could do.

So I just... Well, the work has already taken place, and what we're looking for is a permit and for the window to be inspected. The work has already taken place at this point, so you're probably going to need an engineer to take a look to perform the inspections on the windows. But we can help you through the process as a property owner to obtain the permit. We can walk you through that. And that might be your best bet. And we would not be, it is your right to sign a joint stipulation, and we would not be opposed to giving you more time so that we can help you through. Okay. Okay. We do see that they did provide some of the documentation that you're going to need, and so it should not be that difficult a process for you. Okay. Thank you so much.

So typically when I'm presented with a violation of a joint stipulation, I will not step into that. My only ask would be that if you go that route, Is it possible to put into the joint stipulation that the special magistrate has authority to continue the matter? I'm not going to get into – I don't want to see Mr. Jasmine get hit with daily fines, given – certainly not at this point.

Absolutely. And buildings are – as opposed to code enforcement, our fines start on the compliance date. So when somebody signs a joint stipulation and they're provided a new compliance date – and then say they've signed a joint stipulation, they come in front of you and they ask for additional time, it doesn't go all the way back.

Thank you for explaining that. Yeah, you're welcome. One of the things I asked on the last case that I was like, all right, this is going to go all the way back.

Yeah, no, yes, no, we do it.

So that's my concern. I mean, I don't think Mr. Jasmine's done anything wrong based on what I've heard. In fact, he's probably done MORE RIGHT THAN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE A PAGE IN THE BOOK OF NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED IS HOW IT'S UNFOLDING FOR YOU, UNFORTUNATELY. IF YOU GUYS CAN MAYBE OFFLINE EITHER AGREE TO A STIPULATION THAT CAN ROLL THIS DOWN THE ROAD 90 DAYS, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT AS WELL. GIVE YOU TIME TO GET THIS BUTTONED UP CORRECTLY. AS I SAID TO YOU, MY INTENT IS NOT TO impact you, but it needs to get done correctly. And it sounds like the city has done what it can do to put pressure on the, or at least advise the state to address this contractor's bad behavior, but that is now at the state level. The city's done what it can do, and then the state will look at him and his license that they gave him and do whatever they can do. But in the meantime, you've still got to get your windows permitted, inspected, and closed out. So what I know about the city is 90 days should be plenty of time. Assuming you continue to act in good faith, the city does the same, that should be more than enough time to get this buttoned up. So if you guys can have an offline conference, I'll take the next case. And if you can work that out, great. If not, bring it back and we'll go from there. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, where to next?

Next, we have item number 14. This is investigator Jennifer Vanatter's case. Case number 32424, respondent Home Biz, LLC. Respondent address, 1947 Southwest Biltmore Street.

Good morning. Good morning.

Where did it go?

This case concerns the property of 1947 Southwest Biltmore Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On April 10, 2026, an inspection was performed and photos taken showing the following violation. Commercial interior with electric plumbing and AC, no permit. Violation of Florida Building Code 150.105.1 and City Ordinance 105.1. Notice of hearing was sent out on June 15th, 2026. On July 2nd, 2026, service was achieved by posting property with notice of hearing. I request that the respondent Home Biz LLC be ordered to and comply with the cited provisions of the City of Port St. Lucie Code by August 19, 2026, and if not in compliance by that date, that they be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues thereafter not to exceed $10,000. The City has incurred costs in the amount of $510 in conducting the investigation, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien, unless compliance is achieved by the compliance date. On this one, we did have a commercial interior which combined these units, 1947-1949, and that also included the removal of the wall in the warehouse space. They were open to each other. So here you can see that they've built out in this. This is supposed to be the warehouse space. It's supposed to be an open warehouse space. There's now been an addition added into there. Inside of that first room where you saw the small window, there is a sink that has been added, added electric lighting. This is just some of the additional electric. And then this is the also additional office space here. And then this little break area, we don't have anything on file for it. This is kind of in the lobby space when you first enter into the unit. And so here you can see in red what the changes that I noted while I was there.

Okay. And nothing's been applied for at this point? No, sir. Okay. All right. Anything else you need to put into the record before I hear from her?

Not at this time.

Good morning, ma'am. Let me get you sworn in, and then I'll be happy to hear from you.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. And please state your name for the record.

Ariana Veneziano.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. The floor is yours. If you have any questions, you may ask them. Otherwise, you can tell me about what's going on.

Well, this is the first notice that we have. We're willing to pull whatever permits are necessary. We weren't quite sure what we had tenants in there. And now we have new tenants. And when the new tenants, I guess, had their inspections done, that's when this came up. So we're fine with pulling whatever permits are necessary and correct it.

Do you have a contractor at this point?

It's for electric plumbing and AC. or like, um, cause that we're not quite sure exactly what needs to be done.

So do you want to, you don't have to get an architect and engineer to draw up plans for you because it's commercial property. You have to get PNC approval prior to any building permit. Once you get PNC approval, the contractor can apply for the permit. They're going to apply for a commercial interior with all the subcontracts for the electric plumbing and air conditioning. Okay.

So this is going to take a little bit of time, I would think. Is this like a 90-day... Do we need to bring it back, or do we need to set it, just go ahead and set a compliance date?

Right now, this is just the violation hearing. I mean, it's not a life safety matter that can't be done by a joint stipulation. If they have somebody that's available that owns the property or is authorized to sign for the property owner.

I mean, I could enter an order finding violation, set a compliance date down the road, or I could just continue the hearing to a future date and see where we are. Tell me what you prefer.

I mean, as of right now, they've got 30 days out to get something started. I mean, I don't... Since this is the first time I've had anybody show up, nobody's reached out to me or anything like that, I don't want to kick it down the road further out and then come back here in 60, 90 days and they've not done anything.

We'll definitely get started on whatever needs to get started. I've been calling the city. They gave me two phone numbers to call. I've left messages, but I haven't heard back from anybody to see what I needed to do.

Okay, here's what I'm thinking.

If we wanted to do 60 days, the city would be okay with that.

I was in September, so that's... I think, is September 16th a building agenda? Here's what I'm going to do. I'd like to reset this hearing for September 16th. I'm not going to take any action today. But when you come back on the 16th, what I'm going to want to see is that you've gotten down this road with your... your professionals, the engineer, the architect, whatever you need, and hopefully even by then maybe have a contractor to get the permits. But, yeah, that's what I'm going to want to see. We come back in September and nothing's happened.

Oh, no, we'll definitely.

No, just to let you know, at that point I would definitely set a hard compliance date which will implicate daily fines if it's not met. But based on what I'm hearing is, you know, from you and from the city, I'm willing to do that. So this matter is continued to September 16th. And I think everybody understands where we're hoping to be by then.

Thank you.

All right. Do you have any questions, though, before we wrap this? No. All right. Thank you for being here. Other than having to drag you back then. Sorry about that, but we will see you then. Okay. All right. Thank you, everybody.

Next, we'll move on to our building certification of fine cases that are present, beginning with item number 27, Investigator Darren Subrian, case number 32318, respondent Geiger Properties of Florida, LLC, respondent address 1062 Southeast Port St. Lucie Boulevard.

Good morning, everybody.

Larry, you're ready. OK. This case concerns a property at 1062 Southeast Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On November 14th, 2025, an inspection and photos were taken showing the following violations. City ordinance 150.105.1, Florida building code 105.1, commercial interior with electric, no permit. On February 11th, 2026, proper service was achieved by posted property with notice of hearing. A violation here was held on March 25th, 2026. Based on the evidence provided by the special magistrate found that the violation exists and ordered compliance to be achieved by April 22nd, 2026. A review of the building department records indicate compliance has not been achieved. The city requests that the respondent, Geiger Properties, Florida LLC, be ordered and required to pay a fine of $100 for every day the violation continues, thereafter not to exceed $10,000. The city has incurred costs in the amount of $510 in conducting investigation, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. Sorry. There was an inspection, a business tax inspection conducted at this property. Our records show us that there was basically this wall has been added, and there's like an office space at the back, and there's been electric added as well. There's a wall here, which wasn't there on the original plan that we had. I'll show you further. You can see it there, back, there. And there is electric added into that wall as well. See in the corner there? in the bottom left-hand corner. OK. Our plan shows that there was this more electric there. Our plan shows that it was basically from the front door to the back, it was just wide open, and one restroom in the corner. Since then, a wall's been added, and electric's been added in that wall. So none of this stuff's got permits. The last contact we had was in May. We spoke to someone in May, and since then there's been no other contact, and there's been no movement, no application for a permit or anything. And that's where we are at the moment.

Okay.

Yeah.

Has there been no change in circumstance since the March 25th violation here? No.

There's been a bit of contact before that. Someone's called before. The last person I said called on May 26th. After that, we haven't heard anything. There's been no notes, no contact, no application for a permit or anything.

Okay.

Yeah. Do you need to put anything else into the record before I... No.

Okay. Good morning, ma'am. Let me get you sworn in, and then I'll be very happy to hear from you.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And please state your name for the record.

Ashley Ludlow.

Thank you.

Is it Ludlow? Ludlow, yes. Ludlow, thank you, ma'am.

you have any questions you may ask them otherwise your floor is yours to tell me about what's going on absolutely so I just took over this case from one of our other managers I am now managing this property okay so we do have plans plans have been received from an architect we are within a week away of going in for permit with those so since there was a transfer from one manager to me there's been some catch-up that we had to do there was a couple things that the architect also left off the plans so I've now had those amended and we are ready for permit okay

So you're asking for some additional time to get this, what are you?

30 days.

30 days sufficient? Does the city have any objection to a 30-day continuance on this?

I mean, we didn't hear anything until today about this architect. I mean, at this point, yeah, I don't really mind 30 days. But there's been no contact until now. No one's made contact with us. So we don't know if 30 days is going to make a difference.

Well, I'm willing to give the respondent the opportunity to do that. It sounds like you've, since you've taken over, you've kind of done some forward progress and lit some fires and got some things going. So why don't we continue this hearing to my, what would it be, August? 19th continue this to august 19th and by then uh let's see uh where see where you are all right thank you ma'am i appreciate you being here okay

Next, we have item number 31, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32245, respondent Cameo Corner, LLC, respondent address 481 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard.

For some reason, all these numbers got jumbled up after we put them in, so I'm having trouble finding it. You got it? You found it? No. This case concerns the property at 481 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On August 14th, 2025, an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation. City Ordinance 150.105.1 and Florida Building Code 105.1, commercial alteration, no permit. On October 28th, 2025, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received. A violation hearing was held on November 19th, 2025. Based on the evidence provided, the special magistrate found violations exist and ordered compliance be achieved by December 17th, 2025. Our view of the building department records indicate compliance has not been obtained. I request to respond at Cameo Corner, LLC. Be ordered to and required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day. The violation continues thereafter not to exceed $10,000. The city has incurred costs in the amount of $510 in conducting the investigation, which is, uh, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. This was a very complicated case. It was a residential structure at one point. Uh, it became commercial and then it's been divided up into like three different spaces. I know there's an architect or an engineer that we met with. He's currently working on getting plans to us so that they can obtain the permit. I think that was supposed to happen last week, but I don't know where it stands at this point.

He's finalizing at this point.

Okay, you can just put your name on the record. You're still sworn in from the last case.

Ashley Ledlow.

Thank you, Ms. Ledlow. You're still under oath. So you're here for this case as well?

Yes.

The floor is yours.

Perfect. So the architect has been going back and forth with the city to find out what would be allowed because there is a fireplace from back when it was a residence. Okay. I believe that he has landed on that it has to be covered. So I'm just waiting on those final drawings to come in to give my contractor some direction on what we need to do. And then once I have those plans, we'll apply for a permit. But he has been in touch with the city to get these plans completed.

Is the fireplace issue the only thing that's outstanding here?

So it's kind of all in one.

That's sort of what's holding it up.

Yeah.

Okay. Do you think this is a 30-day time frame like the last one as well?

Yeah, we're at the tail end.

I would be inclined then to bring you back for both on the same agenda and hopefully have them both wrapped up by then.

Yes.

So let the city be heard on that if you want to object. The city would be fine with that. Okay. Then that's what we'll do. We'll roll this to the, what was it, the August 19th agenda, and we'll see you back on this one too. Beautiful. Okay. Thank you. Are you done? I'm done. Okay. I'm done. See you next month. Okay.

Next we have item number 33, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 31816, respondent Brian DiMatteo, respondent address 307 Southwest Belmont Circle. Okay.

GOOD MORNING. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN PROCEED.

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE PROPERTY AT 307 SOUTHWEST BELMONT CIRCLE, PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA. ON DECEMBER 11, 2024, INSPECTION WAS DONE AND PHOTOS TAKEN SHOWING THE FOLLOWING VIOLATION. City Ordinance 150.105.1 in Florida Building Code 105.1, electrical service change and residential rewire, no permit. On March 12th, 2025, proper service was achieved by posting the property with a notice of hearing. On March 25th, 2025, the respondent entered into a joint stipulation agreement admitting the violation exists and agreed to obtain compliance by May 27th, 2026. A review of the building department records indicate compliance has not been obtained. I request the respondent, Brian DiMatteo, be ordered to and required to pay a fine in the amount of $50 for every day the violation continues thereafter not to exceed $5,000. The city has incurred costs in the amount of $335 in conducting the investigation, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. This complaint came in from a neighbor. Service the breaker panel the service panel was hanging off the house With wires hanging out of it as you can see in the picture here It was being propped up with a board There was still like trick going into the house we responded back to the property again with the property owner and the chief electrical inspector who deemed it to be unsafe, and I believe FP&L had cut off the power at that point. I believe there's been people living in the house since then, probably with a generator. I'm not sure.

I mean, that was my first question. This has to be a safety concern. It was a big life safety issue, yes.

Mr. DiMatteo did apply for a permit and has since expired with no inspections.

Okay. And then this is under a joint stipulation agreement? Correct. Okay. All right. Anything else you need to put into the record? No, sir. All right. Mr. DiMatteo, let me get you sworn in, and then I can hear from you.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. And please state your name for the record.

Brian DiMatteo.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DiMatteo. If you have any questions for Officer LaPonza, you're free to ask. Otherwise, the floor is yours to tell me about the case.

I don't have any questions. The issue was a few years ago, like three years ago, I got sick. I had a heart attack. I was in the hospital. And since then, I've been staying with my sisters. So the people that were staying at the house destroyed the house, even ripped out the wires and everything. I mean, so I had, I had to go through court and everything here and get a permit, which I did. Uh, everything seemed to be good, but then when it came for the guy to come do the work, he took my money and I haven't heard from him since.

I see.

So I took the loss and said, OK, I extend my permit so I could get another guy, which I did. And these are guys I pull up to a construction site. Hey, you do electric. Could you do this? OK. I gave them another down payment. Same thing. I haven't heard from him since. And I'm disabled. I can't afford, you know, so I have to save up all, you know, try to save. And that's where I'm at now. I mean, and I do have a 73 year old woman staying there with her 16 year old daughter. I mean, granddaughter and they're living off a generator. So being in the situation I'm in, uh, I concluded, well, the best thing to do is just to sell a property cause I can't afford to fix it. I can't do anything. I'm disabled. So I recently have a contract, uh, was Dan Toback. He's known in the city. He's well aware of all the issues with the house, with the property, the electric, and there's more. And he's, we signed a contract. He's willing to take care of all that and everything because I'm just unable to do anything.

So is he a contractor or a hand? He buys houses. He's a real, he's a flipper. Okay.

Yeah. Flipper.

Got it. Okay.

He's well aware of all the issues, the electrical and everything, and he's going to take care of all that, but we have to get through this first, you know.

Well, okay. I understand what you've told me. I understand. But you've probably heard me say it earlier today, you know, this was a case with a joint stipulation agreement. I'm not going to interfere with the terms of that agreement. And beyond that, I mean, this... I guess the power's turned off to the property, but that still makes me nervous seeing the exposed wiring. And I don't think it's probably not. There's probably some.

There's no box on it. I mean, no meter on it or anything. So there's no way to hook power up to that. Right.

So the generator's being used. That's probably not allowed either. I don't know if there's something that implicates the use of a temporary generator when it's not a situation where the power's out. Not my problem for this morning. But based on everything I've heard, in this case, I really don't have a choice. I will find proper notice. If I find the property remains in violation, I'll grant the relief requested by the city, certify... certify the fine and order the stipulated agreement be enforced. Let your real estate guy know that that's what happened so that he can get on this as quickly as possible and get the fines to stop running so that doesn't impact the ultimate closing of the property.

Compliance will be achieved when permits are finally issued and completed for the electric.

So he needs to get a contractor, he needs to get the contractor to get the permits, he needs to get the work done, inspected, and approved, and that'll stop the daily fines.

Okay, so I could tell Dan, the guy that's buying the house, you know, do all that, and that'll stop everything?

The lien will stop when he gets the permit completed with the inspections.

Okay, okay, great. All right, good luck, sir.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next we have item number 43, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32385, respondent Rosario Gamboa, respondent address 4267 Southwest James Street.

This case concerns the property at 4267 Southwest James Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 17, 2026, an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation. City Ordinance 150.105.1 and Florida Building Code 105.1. Site built shed no permit. On April 30, 2026, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received. A violation hearing was held on May 20, 2026. Based on the evidence provided, Special Magistrate found the violation exists and ordered compliance be achieved by July 15, 2026. A review of the building department's records indicates compliance has not been obtained. I request that the respondent, Rosario Gamboa, be ordered to and required to pay a fine in the amount of $25 for every day the violation continues. thereafter not to exceed $2,500. The city has incurred costs in amounts of $195 in conducting the investigation, which summons to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. I do believe the last time that we were here before, the property owner had stated that he was going to have the shed removed, and I don't believe that's been done.

Okay. Okay. Anything else you need to put into the record? Not at this time. All right, let me get you sworn in, sir, and I'll be happy to hear from you.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

And please state your name for the record.

Mikel Ramirez.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. The floor is yours. How are you? Well, you can see when I came two months ago, I stated that I was on dialysis. I tried to knock it down. I mean, I got a quarter of it down, but I do need more time. Like today, I cut my treatment today just to be here. If you could give me a little bit more time.

How much more time are you asking for?

Maybe 30 days, I guess, because I'm by myself. I have no one.

I'll ask what's the city's position on that request?

If he has started some removal or there's been some movement,

I have pictures if you'd like to see.

You said so you're sort of in process, but you need a little more time to wrap it up. I'm in process.

And also process of all these hospitals in Florida that I go to.

And tell me again, I know you said it, but tell me again what you've gotten accomplished so far.

I got a quarter of it knocked down. Well, yeah, a quarter of it that I started. I have five little girls help me this weekend, so I had to rip some down. But I'm by myself, Your Honor. I mean, 30 days will give me a... Did you say you have pictures of what progress you've made?

Yeah. Can I see that?

Let's see what you got. Yeah, yeah, sure. It's not a lot, but I started...

It looks like he's got a couple walls taken down and starting to take down some framing. Okay.

Well, so I will give you 30 more days, but I'd be very hard-pressed to do any more after that. That's fine. So I just want to let you know, I mean, I'm willing to work with you. Right. But you get to a point where, you know, just... ONLY SO MUCH I CAN DO. SO WE WILL RESCHEDULE THIS HEARING FOR THE AUGUST You'll have to come back on August 19th. I don't know unless there's a way for you guys to talk offline and the city can verify that it's in compliance before then.

Yeah, if he lets me know whenever he gets it done, I can always do a site visit to verify.

If you can get it knocked down, the city come out and inspect, then you don't have to come back here. Oh, that would be great. But you need to let them know that the work is done so they can come out and take a look. Correct. All right? Otherwise, I'll have to see you back here next month. No, I don't want to do that. I understand completely. All right. Then that's what we'll do with this case. All right. Thank you, sir. Good luck. Thank you.

This is not my cell phone number and my email there, so whichever. Okay. Okay, give me a couple options to get in contact with me.

Thank you.

Next, we have item number 44, Investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32266, Respondent Lincoln Antonio Valeriano and Maiti Valeriano, Respondent Address 2326 Southwest Fidelia Terrace.

Sorry about that, Magistrate. That's okay. Okay. This case concerns a property at 4,260 set. Oh, wait a minute. I've got the wrong one. I'm so sorry. gonna get it together i promise this case concerns the property at 2326 southwest scudella terrace port st lucie florida on september 2nd 2025 an inspection was done photos taken showing the following violation city ordinance 150.105.1 and florida building code 105.1 residential remodel with electric plumbing and air conditioning no permit On November 21, 2025, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received. On December 1, 2025, the respondent entered into a joint stipulation agreement admitting the violation exists and agreed to obtain compliance by March 24, 2026. A review of the billing department records indicates compliance has not been obtained. Before I go into the recommendations, Mr. Lincoln, I know that he's been here. A COUPLE TIMES, HE ALWAYS SHOWS UP. HE HAS BEEN WORKING PRETTY DILIGENTLY IN TRYING TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE. HE DID APPLY FOR A GARAGE CONVERSION AND AN ADDITION PERMIT. THOSE HAVE BEEN IN PLAN REVIEW FAILED STATUS. THERE'S BEEN SOME REWORKS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OVER TIME. I BELIEVE THE LAST ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS ON THE 6th, AND IT FAILED AGAIN ON THE 8th. But I think that we've been discussing it this morning about possibly having a change in the way that his permit is structured because he's got a couple of things that have been built that need to be taken care of for this violation. And there seems to be some mix-up. And I would just go ahead and say that the city would be okay with postponing this and giving him time. And I would recommend that he come to the building department if you have time today. so that we can have a discussion on how he can try to get this rectified easiest way possible.

All right. And it's Mr. Lincoln. Let me get you sworn in, sir, and then we'll hear from you, too.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do.

And please state your name for the record.

Lincoln Valeriano.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Yeah, so what can you add to this?

I have a big problem. I'm waiting for my architect. I'm waiting for the city, you know? It's in the middle. I can't do nothing. But the last time I put the last paper, June 5, I think so, Friday, the last Friday, he say, hey, I need everything for now, you know? I talked to my architect. My architect have a condition in the hospital. I'm coming back with the house. It's a big problem. She's working now, but I don't know. I don't have time. I don't know.

And the city is sort of indicating that they understand the issues with the plan review and maybe there needs to be a pivot in the way this is being approached, which would require some more time on the code enforcement case. What are you thinking? Just like a 60, 90...

I think it would probably be, if his architects had some issues and stuff, I mean, I don't have an issue putting it out an additional 60 days so that, you know, she has time to get everything, or they have time for that.

So the city is suggesting that we reschedule this until September, the middle of September. I think it's the 16th. And to give you an opportunity, as suggested, maybe come into the building department, meet with the folks that you need to meet with, and we can get the architect straightened out. get the permit application straightened out and get the get this up back on the right track does that does that make sense to you yeah yeah okay well i'm happy to do that so we'll reset this matter for september 16th and hopefully by then you'll have some forward progress with some uh sitting at the table with the right folks in the building department all right good luck sir thank you yeah

Next, we have item number 46, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 31851, respondent Morningside Commons, LLC, respondent address 1898 Southeast Port St. Lucie Boulevard. OK.

Good morning, sir. Good morning. One more.

Oh, thanks for pulling that up, I need all the support today, apparently. This case concerns the property at 1898 Southeast Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On January 9, 2025, an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation. City Ordinance 150.105.1 and Florida Building Code 105.1, commercial interior with electric and plumbing, no permit. On April 1, 2025, proper service was achieved by a certified mail return receipt received. A violation hearing was held on April 23, 2025. Based on the evidence provided, Special Magistrate found the violation exists and ordered compliance be achieved by May 28, 2025. A review of the building department records indicates compliance has not been obtained. I requested the respondent Morningside Commons LLC be ordered to and required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for every day the violation continues, thereafter not to exceed $10,000. The city has incurred costs in the amount of $510 in conducting the investigation, which some is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. Regarding this property, they did obtain a permit. back in, they applied for it in August of 2025 and it was issued in November of 2025. There was no inspections signed off on and the permit has since expired. Records show that they were provided email notification on April 14th, 26, April 28th, 2026, May 14th, 2026. The permit expired on May 14th, and then there were additional notifications that were sent out twice following that.

Okay. Anything else you need to put into the record?

Not at this time.

All right. Let me get you sworn in, sir, and I'll be happy to hear from you.

Do you swear or affirm that statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

And please state your name for the record.

Nicholas Calero.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. If you have any questions for the city, you may ask. Otherwise, the floor is yours to tell me about where we are with this.

We're trying, we have a tenant in that space.

Okay.

And in order to get the work done, we're trying to relocate the tenant to another space in the building. We just obtained a space and we're trying to clean it up for them to move so we can get the. The work done OK. If we could have some more time.

Or I don't know how much additional time do you reasonably think you need at least three months 90 more days.

Or it's the city's position as of right now they don't even have a permit for it so they have to start all over again. Or if they could, I don't know that they can get it reopened at this point. That's not a question I can answer.

So you pulled the permit back in November, but you weren't able to get anything done?

Yeah, because we had no space to relocate the tenant to.

OK. Well, I'm going to give you a little more time. I'm going to give you 60 days. So light a fire and get this thing moving. And when I come see this again in September, I'm going to want to see some serious forward progress. Otherwise, I'll be inclined to certify the fine and just, you know. Then you'll be dealing with getting the work done and the fine accruing and then having to deal with the fine. Yes, sir. So that is my order for this. I'm going to give you one more shot. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Good luck. Yep.

That concludes our introduction of cases with parties present. If you'd like, I can move on to how parties are notified.

Okay. Thank you.

A notice of hearing or notice of the certification of fine was sent to the violator by certified mail return receipt requested to the address listed in the tax collector's office for tax notices or to the address listed in the county property appraiser's database. If the green card was returned, it was placed in the file and is either signed, unsigned, or unclaimed. 10 days before the hearing, the agenda was posted on the bulletin board in the lobby of Port St. Lucie City Hall. Also, a notice of hearing was posted on the property in question along with an affidavit of posting, which included a copy of the notice posted and the date and places of its posting. If the certification card was not returned to the building department then within 10 days before the hearing, posting is completed in the same manner as if the card was returned unclaimed as stated above. The photos shown at today's hearing are kept and maintained as public records of the city of Port St. Lucie's building department. And if you'd like, we can move to introduction of cases without parties present.

Yeah, so just for the record, with that process being applied to all the remaining cases, I will find proper notice for each of those cases, and you can put the remaining ones into the record at this time.

Okay. For our violation hearings, violators not present. Regarding the following cases entered into public record, our building compliance coordinators inspected the properties and found violations to exist. A reasonable date for compliance was subsequently given, but upon re-inspection, it was confirmed that compliance was not achieved. A formal notice of hearing was issued for today's hearing and the respondent has failed to appear. The city requests that the cases be found in violation of their respective listed code sections and be given until our next hearing date of August 19th to bring the property into compliance. Should compliance not be met, the city requests that a future hearing be scheduled to determine and impose an appropriate fine. I WILL READ OFF THE CASES. BEGINNING WITH ITEM NUMBER 1, INVESTIGATOR JAMES LAPONZA, CASE NUMBER 32418, RESPONDENT H.E.G. P.S.L. 2. RESPONDENT ADDRESS 1644 SOUTHEAST VILLAGE GREEN DRIVE. ITEM NUMBER 3, INVESTIGATOR JAMES LAPONZA, CASE NUMBER 31744, RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER GEORGE AND KIMBERLY GEORGE. RESPONDENT ADDRESS 962 SOUTHWEST DEL RIO BOULEVARD. Item number six, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32408, respondent Angel E. Falcone-Powlin. Respondent address, 340 Northwest Avon Street. Item number eight, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32403, respondent Gary Telemec and Marie Reyna Moise Telemec. Respondent address, 181 Southeast Lakehurst Drive. Item number nine, Investigator James LaPonza, case number 32399, Respondent Dallas, Port St. Lucie, LLC. Respondent address, 435 Northwest Enterprise Drive. Item number 16, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32416, respondent Gatlin Point 18 LLC, respondent address 1214 Southwest Gatlin Boulevard, number 110. Item number 17, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32409, respondent Tinto Enchilina International, Inc., respondent address 1802 Southwest excuse me 302 Southwest Tulip Boulevard suite B item number 18 investigator Jennifer Venator case number three two four zero six respondent Jonathan Victor and Annette Julia Bennett Victor respondent address 1802 Southwest Citadel Avenue item number 19 investigator Jennifer Venator case number three two four three one RESPONDENT M, AAAP PROPERTIES, LLC. RESPONDENT ADDRESS, 270 NORTHWEST PEACOCK BOULEVARD, SUITE 114. ITEM NUMBER 20, INVESTIGATOR JENNIFER VANADDER, CASE NUMBER 32426. RESPONDENT MACIAN, FLORESTAL, AND RONADE, TITUS. RESPONDENT ADDRESS, 4189 SOUTHWEST DARIAN STREET. Item number 21, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32427, respondent Austiniel Canes, respondent address 710 Southeast Essex Drive. And moving on to our certification of fine cases with violators not present. Regarding the following cases entered into public record, a violation hearing was held and a date of compliance was issued by the special magistrate. Upon re-inspection by a building compliance coordinator, it was determined that compliance has not been achieved for the violations of the respective listed sections of the code. A formal notice of hearing was issued for today's hearing and the respondent has failed to appear. The city requests that the fines be certified and administrative costs be assessed and awarded to the city. AND BEGINNING WITH ITEM NUMBER 23, INVESTIGATOR DARREN SUBRIAN, CASE NUMBER 32134, RESPONDENT WINSTON F. CHONG AND BLANCA ALVAREZZA, RESPONDENT ADDRESS 1389 SOUTHWEST BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. Item number 24, Investigator Darren Subrayan, case number 32324, respondent H-E-G-P-1-1-L, excuse me, H-E-G-P-S-L-2, respondent address 1624 Southeast Village Green Drive. Item number 25, Investigator Darren Subrayan, case number 32139, respondent Nicole Vasquez and Jonathan Vasquez, respondent address 837 Southeast Cavern Avenue. Item number 26, Investigator Darren Subrayan, case number 32315, respondent Vincent N. Batts, respondent address 226 Southwest Parish Terrace. Item number 28, Investigator Darren Sabrian, case number 32279, respondent AJ Bella Investments LLC, respondent address 2082 Northwest Commerce Lakes Drive. Item number 29, Investigator Darren Sabrian, case number 32322, respondent Jorge Perdomo Fernandez, respondent address 643 Southeast Preston Lane. Item number 30, investigator James LaPonta, case number 32342, respondent Boris L. Sotolongo-Reyes, respondent address 559 Southwest Rider Road. Item number 32, investigator James LaPonta, case number 32267, respondent Jessica Batista, respondent address 2990 Southwest Ventura Street. Item number 36, investigator James LaPonta, case number 32375, respondent QSRLLC, respondent address 191 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard. Item number 38, investigator James LaPonta, case number 32370, respondent Real Sub LLC, respondent address 3241 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard.

uh that concludes the list of cases with violators not present all right uh i will sign the appropriate orders for all the managers you just put into the record um let's see Is there any public to be heard? There is none. Is there anything else for the good of the order that we need to take up before we adjourn this morning's hearing? No. It is 10.40. We have concluded our business and are adjourned.