Citizen's Advisory Committee - Special Meeting

Good morning. Calling to order the city of Port St. Lucie special magistrate hearing for Wednesday, 05/20/2026. It's a little after 09:00 in the morning. My name is Keith Davis. I am the special magistrate appointed by the city to preside over today's agenda. I'd like to begin, as always, by inviting you to stand and join me in reciting Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag United Of States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Quick moment of personal privilege. I have a legal intern with me this morning. This is Mr. Flat Stanley Detour, who is my cousin's project.

So those of you who know who Flat Stanley is, you understand. Those of you who don't, I'll tell you what I used to tell my kids when they didn't know something. Go look it up. But Flat Stanley will be assisting me in this morning's hearings, and I just wanted you to understand why he's there. So that being said, if I could please get city staff and building compliance officers who will be testifying on the agenda items this morning sworn in. We'll start with that.

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. You can all have a seat. For the folks who are present for a case, when your case gets called up, since this is a public hearing, I need you at the microphone so I can hear you and see you, and that will be the one over here to my right. So when your case is called, if you'll please come on up to that podium, clerk will swear you in. And the way I'll proceed with each case is I'm first gonna hear from the city, take testimony and evidence on the case from the city.

And once city has concluded its presentation, I will then come back to you, and it will be your opportunity to tell me about the case from your point of view. If you have any questions for the city's witnesses, you're entitled to ask those questions. If you brought any additional documents that you would like me to consider that are relevant to your case, that would be the time to produce those. Once I've seen and heard everything this morning about the matter, in all likelihood, I will enter an order that resolves the case. Sometimes cases get continued for a variety of reasons, but we will do our best to get everything resolved this morning.

So let's see some housekeeping. The agenda talks about March twenty five minutes. Those have not been completed, So they've not been reviewed and we'll push those out to the July 15 agenda. Are there any late abatements or postponements on our agenda this morning?

Yes. Special magistrate, we do have abatements and postponements. I will begin with the building violations starting with item number five, investigator James Laponza, case number 32387, respondent Paris Investment Co, Inc, respondent address 1476 Southeast Village Green Drive as a postponement. Item number six, investigator James Laponza, case number 32386, respondent Frank Lombardi and Diane Lombardi, respondent address 1550 Southeast Faculty Court is an abatement. Item number seven, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32356, respondent Wilfredo Lazaro Perez, respondent address 1942 Southwest Cameo Boulevard is a postponement.

Item number eight, investigator Jennifer Vanadter. Case number 32379, respondent two six zero zero Brigantine Property LLC. Respondent address 2672 Southwest Brigantine Place is a postponement. Item number nine, investigator Jennifer Vanadter. Case number 32402.

Respondent Fountain Business Group LLC. Respondent address 1380 Southwest Import Drive, Suite 202 is an abatement. Item number 11, investigator Jennifer Vanadar. Case number 32381, respondent PSL Business Center Partnership. Respondent address, 584 Northwest University Boulevard, Suite 500 is an abatement. And moving on to our building certification of fine cases. Item number 13, investigator Darren Subrian. Case number 32279. Respondent, AJ Bella Investments LLC. Respondent address, 2082 Northwest Commerce Lakes Drive is a postponement.

Item number 14, investigator Darren Subrian. Case number, 32322. Respondent, Jorge Perdoma Fernandez. Respondent address, 643 Southeast Preston Lane is a postponement. Item number 24, investigator Jennifer Venator. Case number, 32036. Respondent, Midway Commerce Venture LLC. Respondent address, 6913 Northwest LTC Parkway is an abatement. And item number 27, investigator Jennifer Vennatter. Case number, 32293. Respondent, Jonathan Marillo senior and Elaci Perez. Respondent address 2491 Southwest Etura Avenue is an abatement.

All right. I think you just wiped out about half the agenda this morning. So good good work on that. And with those abatements and post opponents noted, the agenda is approved. So let's go ahead and move on to the cases that folks are present except we're going to do Ms. Rojas first. So if you want to take

care of

those. Yes.

Yes. So we are going to be moving on to item 10 for partial release requests presented by Evelyn from lean services.

Good morning. My name is Evelyn Ross. I'm with the City of Port Tennessee Link Services Department. I will be presenting partial releases. This is a request for release from a partial of property only and will not affect the spreading and cross attaching liens.

Address 513 Northwest Enterprise Drive, Section 3713 of the code provides that the special magistrate may partially release a nonoffending property from a lien on an offending property. In this case, the nonoffending property consists of 0.92 acres located on South U. S. 1 and the offending property is 513 Northwest Enterprise Drive, which has one building lean on it. Both properties are owned by the company called IVAS LP and an application for a partial release has been received so that we can so they could sell the non offending property and convey clear title.

The lien will remain on the offending property until the violations have been corrected and the fines have been paid. If the partial release is approved, the order will include a provision and administrative and hard costs attributed to the offending property and must be paid by the applicant before the partial release is recorded. Address 513 Northwest Enterprise Drive, Section 3713 of the code provides that the special measure may partially release a non offending property from a lien on an offending property. In case the nonoffending property consists of 0.92 acres located on South U. S.

1 Highway and the offending property is 517 Northwest Enterprise Drive, which has three building lanes on it. Both properties are owned by a company called IVUS LP. And the application for a partial release has been received so they can sell the nonoffending property and convey clear title. The liens will remain on the offending property until the violations have been corrected and the fines have been paid. If the partial release is approved, the order will include a provision that administrative and hard costs attributed to the offending property must be paid by the applicant before the partial release is recorded.

Agenda items 3,031 have been agreed upon prior to this hearing and require a special magistrate signature. This concludes my orders for today.

Thank you, miss Ross. I will, grant those partial releases of lien and sign the appropriate orders.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. Moving on. I guess we can move on to the cases where we have folks who are present this morning.

We'll begin with our building violation cases with the violators present, starting with item number 10 for investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32385. Respondent, Rosario Gamboa. Respondent address, 4267 Southwest James Street. And just before we begin special magistrate, would also like to add that our June hearing has been canceled. So our dates that we're encouraging are for July.

Our July hearing would be July 15 will be the next one.

So I did add

a note on that.

Got it. I see that. Okay. Very good.

This case concerns the property at 4267 Southwest James Street, Port Saint Lucie, Florida. On 02/17/2026, an inspection was performed and photos taken showing the following violation. Site built shed, no permit, violation of Florida building code one zero five point one, and city code of ordinance one five zero point one zero five point one. Notice of hearing was sent on 04/20/2026. On 04/30/2026, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received.

I I request that respondent Rosario Gamboa be ordered to comply with the cited provision of the City Of Port St. Lucie code by 07/15/2026, and if not in compliance by that date, that 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 a $195 in conducting the investigation, which sum is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien unless compliance is achieved by the compliance date. This is just a small little site built shed that's built on the backside of the property next to the fence line. This is from the back view of the property here.

I have some historical images here from satellite imagery.

Okay.

So let me get down here. These are a couple photos that we had received from the complainant here. The previous ones were ones when I was out there. So this was in 2017. There's no shed there. And then it looks like around '20 I I've got it up here. You start to see it around 2019. And then it looks like it has some alterations around 2021 here where the roof is removed, and then it's replaced shortly after.

Okay. And this this was a complaint driven case, you said?

Correct, sir.

Thank you. Okay. Anything else Citi needs

to put into the record at the at

this time? Good morning, sir. Let me get you sworn in, and I'll be happy to hear from you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Please raise your right hand.

I'm sorry?

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?

Yes, ma'am.

And please state your name for the record.

It's gonna be Miguel Thank you. Ramirez.

Alright. You can put your hand down, sir. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. If you have any questions for the city, you may ask. Otherwise, you're free to tell me about what's going on

with the Yes. On the shed behalf, I guess they came in when my wife was there. We did build the shed. We didn't get the permit for I I called the city a few times to see what we do with it. Do I tear it down?

Get it out? But I I got no response on their behalf. I mean, I'm willing to to take it down. But running around to dialysis and being busy, like today, I had to cut my treatment short to be here. But my question was, I called a few times to see, but they never contacted me back on the behalf of what do I do with the shed. I have another complaint on the behalf of having a car in front of my

Well, me let's stop before we get there. Let let me let the city answer your question about

Okay.

What what to do. I mean, I think I know. But

Okay. Well, we do have a a note in here in the case where he did call and speak with office staff on the seventh of this month regarding the shed. It was explained that the shed had been there for twenty years and by the previous owner. However, imagery shows a little bit different. There is the option to either get a permit or remove it.

That's what I thought. I mean, either you have to take it out or you have to get it after the fact. It would have to be inspected and and and all of that. So Well, if you could

give me a little bit of time because I only have one hand. I I mean, I'll knock it down. That'd be no problem.

How much time are you asking for, sir?

Whatever time you could give me because I'm on dialysis and three times a week, and if I could get some help with the city, that would be great also.

I would just like to add that

Well, the city is recommending a July 15 compliance date. So that's already that's two months from now. It seems to me I would think that would be sufficient time even with your personal circumstances.

That would be fine.

Two months, July 15. That seems reasonable to me as well. Is there anything else that you'd like to tell me, sir, before I

Yes. I have another notice here on the behalf of I gave my son one of my cars, and he didn't put a registration on

you because he went to

the Air Force.

Yeah. That matter is not before me this morning.

Okay.

Might be before me next week. I'm not sure. Did is there a hearing date on the paperwork that you No, sir. Okay. I know that's going to be a different case with a different code officer because it's a different set of circumstances.

Maybe after the hearing, if somebody can take a look at that, tell them.

Yes, sir. If you just check with Barbie in the back, she can direct you to neighborhood services to have that violation address.

They'll be able to talk to you about that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So in this case, then I will find proper notice. I will find that the property remains in violation as cited. I'll accept the city's recommendations. In this case, compliance date of 07/15/2026 is set.

Compliance is not achieved by July 15, though then daily fines of $25 per day will begin to accrue up to a maximum accrual of $2,500 So you want to make sure you get that thing done so that we don't have to worry about any fines. Dollars 195 in administrative costs will be assessed if compliance is not achieved by July 15. And I will sign that order. You'll get a copy of it. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate you

being here. Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Sir, if you do also plan on removing the shed, just remember to contact our office so that we can conduct a site visit so that we can close that out.

Can I have the number?

You can get it from Barbie also.

Okay. Thank you.

No problem. That concludes our present cases for building violations. We're going to move on to building certification of fine cases where violators are present. We will begin with item number 20, investigator James Laponza, case number 32211, respondent Gabriela Calderon and Miguel Perez. Respondent address, 873 Southwest Hamberlin Avenue.

Good morning. Good morning.

I'm James Lefonza, and I've been sworn in. This case concerns the property at 873 Southwest Hamberlin Avenue or Saint Lucie, Florida. On 07/11/2025, an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation. City ordinance one five zero point one zero five point one and Florida billing code one zero five point one. Attached carport with electric.

No permit. On 10/25/2025, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received. On 11/17/2025, the respondent entered into a joint stipulation agreement admitting the violation exists and agreed to obtain compliance by 02/24/2026. A review of the billing department records indicate compliance has not been obtained. I request the respondent, Gabriela Calderon and Miguel Perez, 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 sum is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. I do wanna point out that they have applied for a permit.

Okay.

And at the moment, it's in it's in failed status in plan re or in zoning due to a survey issue. So I'll I'll let them explain what's going on.

Okay. Anything else you need to put into the record? Not right now. Let me get you folks sworn in, and 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 names for the record.

Miguel Perez.

Gabriela Calderon. Thank you.

Miss Calderon or miss Whichever one of you would like to take the microphone, the floor is yours for questions or testimony.

Yes. So I think this is our third time applying for the permit. The first time, we had an issue where when we bought the property, it wasn't properly transferred over to us. So we had to resend in our something that the eight people gave us, send it to our contractor. He put that in. Second time, I think it was that it wasn't placed in the right place, and the city wasn't gonna change it for us. So they had canceled it again. And this time, we're just waiting for our contractor told us that it has to do with a the the zoning or the survey issue. So I'm right. Yesterday, tried calling the people that did the survey for the property.

They only work from till 03:00. So I'm gonna call them today and see if they can come back out and get the property surveyed to get an up to date survey for that. Okay.

And if I can interject, the zoning is looking for dimensions and setbacks on that survey. I'm gonna I'm gonna give you the survey so you can see.

Okay.

That's probably kind of mentioned setback.

The city would would recommend a sixty day extension so they can try to get this taken

care I have certainly have no objection to that. Sixty in your experience, sixty days reasonable if assuming good faithful progress.

They have all of their plans and everything that are stamped and sealed by an architect. Everything seems to be in order. It just needs to get through the zoning process.

So sixty more days is what the city is recommending. Do you agree with with that recommendation? I I have no objection to that either, so I'll be happy to sign that order. Is there anything else anybody needs to put into the record before I

No. Just that that date would be July 15.

July 15. So I will find proper notice. The respondents are present at this morning's hearing. Property remains in violation, but this clearly is in process and is moving forward. We will extend the compliance date out to July 15. And by then, it sounds like this should all be buttoned up. If it needs to come back, city can renotice it if necessary, but hopefully that won't happen. So all right. I'll sign that order. Good luck to you both. Thank you Thank very

you.

Have a good one.

You're welcome.

Next we'll have item number 25, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32266, respondent Lincoln Antonio Valeriano and Meti Valeriano. Respondent address, 2326 Southwest Godela Terrace. And we do have a translator as well. A representative of the building department, Mary Ellen Moore, will be translating on behalf of Mr. Valeriano.

Okay.

Go ahead and whenever you're ready.

This case concerns the property at 2326 Southwest Godela Terrace, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On 09/02/2025, an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation, city ordinance one five zero point one zero five point one and Florida building code one zero five point one residential remodel with electric plumbing and air conditioning, no permit. On 11/21/2025, proper service was achieved by certified mail return receipt received. On 12/01/2025, respondent entered into a joint stipulation agreement admitting the violation exists and agreed to, excuse me, obtain compliance by 03/24/2026.

A review of the building department records indicates compliance has not been obtained. I request that respondent Lincoln Antonio Valeriano and Mate Valeriano 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 sum is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien. So this was actually a garage conversion here, and we have this little bit of an addition that's built back here where he had relocated his washer and dryer. It's extra clean out here for the sewage out front.

This is a before picture from 2024, and this shows that there's no addition on the back end here back in 2023. And then now you see the additional structure there in 2025. He has applied for a permit. It is, in plan review failed status, and I believe that we had postponed this last time so that he could try to get those corrections taken care of. And records don't show that we have any new submissions as of today.

Okay.

Alright. Anything else the city needs to put into the record at all?

Not at this time, sir.

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

Please raise your right hand. Do 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 names for the record.

Lincoln Valeriano.

Mariela Moore.

Good morning. You're free to ask any questions you may have or to tell me about the case.

He

has no questions. He has an issue with his engineer. Alright. His architect went on vacation to Puerto Rico, had a very bad accident. That's why he has not been able to get the plans revised to submit to plan review.

Alright. She's been out of the the architect's been out of the hospital for a week. She's getting his plans revised. He he should have them this week.

Okay. If I heard correctly, this was a this was a stipulated agreement?

Yes. So he he did sign a joint stipulation back in December.

Okay. So it's not appropriate for me to step in and change your agreement. If the city wants to agree to amend the agreement, that's fine. I I would I would not object to that, but I it's not it's not appropriate for me to step in by myself and change your agreement, which means I will certify the fine this morning short of someone telling me that you're gonna amend your agreement.

Yeah. The city will have no issue with with postponing it to well, based on the circumstances. I did review the the reason why he has failed plan review, and it looks like he's he applied for both the the garage conversion. And then the last time I had met with him at the property, he had mentioned about building an addition on the opposite end of the house. And so it looks like the plans that were submitted have both of those projects listed on the plans, and those have to be separated out towards to just for that permit. So his garage conversion can only show the garage conversion. His addition can only show his addition. But as of right now, his plans have a combination of both projects, So and he needs to have those separated

if the city is amenable to revising the agreement, would it make sense to continue this hearing to July 15 and give you guys a chance to sit down and figure out how you're going to amend it and do it that way? That seems to me to make the most sense. What I am proposing is that we don't do anything with this case this morning, continue it to July 15 and give you guys a chance to sit down and amend your agreement.

Okay. I understand everything, but

You understand? Any questions?

No. Don't know what's

Anything else from the city?

No, sir.

All right. Then for the record, there is proper notice for today's hearing, but we're going to continue this to July 15 if need be. If the agreement is amended and we don't have to be back on July 15, so be it, but that will be the next hearing date if necessary. Right. Good luck to you, sir. Thank

you Thank very you.

Thank Take care, Lincoln. Have a good weekend.

Next, we'll have item number 28, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 3200229, respondent, Kadasar Investments LLC, respondent address 451 Southwest Bethany Drive, Suite 100.

Good morning. Good morning.

This case concerns the property at 451 Southwest Bethany Drive, Suite 100, Fort St. Lucie, Florida. On 07/28/2025, an inspection was done and photos taken showing the following violation. City ordinance one five zero point one zero five point one and Florida building code one zero five point one. Commercial alteration with plumbing, no permit.

On 11/06/2025, proper service was achieved by posting property with a notice of hearing. On 01/28/2026, respondent entered into a joint stipulation agreement admitting the violation exists and agreed to obtain compliance by 04/21/2026. A review of the building department records indicates compliance has not been obtained. I request the respondent Adelante Investments LLC be ordered to and required to pay a fine 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 an investigation, which sum is to be in addition to the daily fine and included in the lien.

This appears this was based on a business tax inspection, and I had noted that there had been some changes to the floor plan. It looks like the space used to be much bigger, and now it's been divided up into two different tenants, and there's been some alterations creating additional office spaces. So there was added office space here, which was one big large room divided into two. This used to be a reception area, and now the walls have been filled in here. We have a

little

added coffee break space with a sink and some small appliances there. And this space has also been divided up into two rooms. It used to house like a big CAT scan machine here. So there's one client attendant spot here and then like kind of looks like a waiting room over in the next room here. Just another little look at the bar area here.

I do have some little markups here that kind of show you where the walls were filled in when you first enter in here and some division of this office area here. And then this is where the big MRI CAT scan type machine was here, was divided up. And this would have been all one tenant at one point in time, but there's a door here which is closed off to a separate business. This one, they do have planning and zoning approval. They got it back in March.

They did apply for a permit, which is currently in plan review failed status. They applied for it back in April, and there's not been any new submissions.

What did the stipulated agreement contemplate would be the situation on April 21, that everything would be done and

They should have had a a at least an issued building permit.

Okay. And where we are today, that has been applied for, but it's

It's in failed status, and there's no no submissions. Okay. Mhmm.

Anything else from the city?

Not at this time.

Good morning, sir. Let me get you sworn in, 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? And please state your name for the record.

Jose Pena.

Thank

you. Yes, sir. The floor is yours.

Hi. My name is Jose Pena. I'm the general contractor that has been calling from to resolve this this issue.

Okay.

I from my knowledge, the the the owner get the property with with this all kind of violation. Once that he get the violation from the city, they start working on the on fixing this. I submit the permits on March. We get a lot of reviewers because we just made the plans for one unit, And then the plant reviewer, he wanted both units and get the whole floor of the building. We are working on the in order to create the new designs to resubmit it to the city.

Okay. So this case is in a similar place as the case that I heard right before, and there's stipulated agreement that required certain things. It's inappropriate in my opinion for me to step in unilaterally and change your agreement to give additional time. So what's the city's position on that? Are you looking to have the fine certified? Are you looking to renegotiate this agreement and extend the time out or you tell me?

I do realize that there was a little bit of a delay in getting this brought into compliance because when this originally started, it was under a different owner. This was back in November 2025. We weren't notified until the end of twenty twenty five that the ownership had actually changed, and so notice was resent out to that new ownership once property appraiser was updated. And then they did begin starting on the process in January of this year. They had architects out.

And then In March, I believe maybe it was you that I sent it to. Property owner had asked that we send the notice and a copy of the floor plan and the commercial interior process to the contractor, which I did forward over to them. That was the beginning of March. By the twenty third, he had it in for the planning and zoning approval, he's been working on it rather quickly based on the timeline that I have written down here. I don't see any reason why we can't give it out to the next hearing in order for him to get those corrections since it was just I mean, they did just put into it beginning of April, and I'm sure that there are multiple comments on pretty much every section that they have to address.

Okay. Well, I mean, it seems to me I'd be happy to continue this hearing to July 15 to give you an opportunity to sit down and renegotiate your agreement for an extension of time. If that's what both of you would like to do, I have no problem doing that. Okay. And anything else Citi needs to put into the record?

No, sir.

All right. Then I will find proper notice. I will for today's hearing and we will continue this to July 15 to give the parties an opportunity to sit down and look at the stipulated agreement and renegotiate that. All right. Very good. Good luck, sir. Thank you.

That concludes our introduction of cases with parties present.

Okay. Let's see. So I guess we need to get put into the record how the city got notice for the remaining cases where, respondents did not appear.

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, unclaimed. Ten 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 ten 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 record of the city of Port St. Lucie's building department.

Okay. With that process being applied to each of the remaining cases, I will find proper notice for them. You can go ahead and put the remaining cases into the record at this time.

All right. We will move on to introduction of cases without parties present. I will have our permitting manager, Beth Berentz, read in an excerpt, and then we'll begin with our building violation cases.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning.

Okay. So this is for violation hearing, 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 reinspection it was confirmed that compliance was not achieved. A formal notice of hearing was issued for today's hearing and the respondents has failed to appear.

The city requests that these cases be found in violation of their respective listed code sections and be given until July 15 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. For cases where it was certification of fine hearing, Violet does not present.

I'm sorry. Before you move on to certification of fine, I'm gonna read our Oh,

I'm sorry.

Go ahead. Case list. For building violations, we have item number one, investigator James Laponza. Case number 32362, respondent Gateway twenty six LLC. Respondent address 2833 Southwest Brighton Street. Item number two, investigator James Laponza, case number 32370, respondent RealSub LLC, respondent address 3241 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard. Item number three, investigator James Laponza. Case number 32378. Respondent, Tanya Rosa Gonzales Borrego.

Respondent, address 392 Southwest Butler Avenue. Item number four, investigator James Laponza. Case number 32375. Respondent, QSR LLC. Respondent address, 191 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard. And item number 12, investigator Jennifer Venator. Case number 32380. Respondent, Fox and Hound Real Estate LLC. Respondent address, 1631 Southwest Pancost Street. Now we'll move on to our building certification of fine cases.

So for certification of fine cases where the violators were not present regarding the following cases entered into public record, a violation hearing was held and the date of compliance was issued by the special magistrate. Upon reinspection by a building compliance coordinator, it was determined that the compliance had 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 respondents has failed to appear. The city requests that the fines be certified and administrative costs be assessed and awarded to the city.

To begin, we'll start with item number 15. Investigator Darren Subrian. Case number 32316. Respondent, Fast Food Enterprises number two. Respondent address, 1545 Northwest St. Lucie West Boulevard. Item number 16, investigator Darren Subrian. Case number 32136. Respondent Miguel Garcia and Maria Garcia. Respondent address, 531 Southeast Brookside Terrace. Item number 17, investigator Darren Subrian. Case number 31888, respondent Jimmy W. Castro Uddesal. Respondent address, 518 Southwest Esther Avenue. Item number 18, investigator Darren Subrian.

Case number 32327. Respondent, Southeast Hilmore LLC. Respondent address, 1900 Southeast Hilmore Drive. Item number 19, investigator James Laponza, case number 32286, respondent Diane D. Lynn and William J. Darby. Respondent address, 143 Southwest Milburn Circle. Item number 21, investigator James Laponza, case number 32326, respondent Gabriel Ortiz and Melissa Ortiz, respondent address, 998 Southwest Par Drive. Item number 22, investigator James Laponza. Case number 32339.

Respondent Gatlin Point eighteen LLC. Respondent address, 1224 Southwest Gatlin Boulevard 104. Item number 23, investigator Jennifer Venator. Case number 31630. Respondent, Bree Throne, Eastport, excuse me, Eastport Plaza LLC. Respondent address, 9168 South US Highway 1. Item number 26, investigator Jennifer Vanadar. Case number 32282. Respondent five hundred Stadium Property LLC. Respondent address 500 Northwest Peacock Boulevard, Unit 107.

And item number 29, investigator Jennifer Venator, case number 32350, respondent Eleonne, Inbert Hernandez and Zuleka Alvarado Marrero, respondent address 1963 Southwest Import Drive. That concludes our introduction of cases without parties present.

All right. With that testimony in the record, I will sign the appropriate orders for those matters. Let's see. Is there any public to be heard? Doesn't look like it.

Stanley? Anything you have to say? Well, Stanley, and his, student Avery Detour from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania appreciate, the city allowing him to, assist me this morning. And, unless there's anything else for the good of the order, it is 09:55 in the morning and we are adjourned.